HC bins graft charge against public servant

Cuttack: Around 17 years after an official was convicted of corruption, the Orissa high court has observed that a public servant cannot be held guilty of having misappropriated govt funds if its use had been improper or resources had been allocated without dishonest intent.
The ruling came in the case of a public servant, who had utilised funds allocated for weavers’ cooperative societies contrary to sanctioned purpose, while he was assistant director of textiles, Bhawanipatna, 25 years ago.
While the case was registered against him in 1999, the special judge (vigilance), Berhampur, convicted him under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for misappropriation of govt funds and sentenced him to two years of imprisonment in 2007. He challenged the trial court order in the high court the same year.
The single-judge bench of Justice Chittaranjan Dash set aside the order on Friday, observing, “In the instant case, the prosecution has failed to produce any material to show that the appellant with dishonest intention abused his position as a public servant.”
Justice Dash said the essence of the offence outlined in Section 13(1)(d) of the Act implies that the presence of a dishonest intention is fundamental to prove the abuse of position or authority of a public servant.
“The appellant’s actions and way of managing the funds might have deviated from accepted standards or regulations within the department, however, it would be inaccurate to claim that these actions were motivated by a dishonest intention to gain an unjust benefit either for himself or for a weavers’ cooperative society,” he also observed.
“The ingredients of offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act are not found. Consequently, the offence under Section 13(2) will not be attracted. Hence, it is irresistible to hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and the appellant as such is entitled to an acquittal,” Justice Dash further ruled.
In the context of the misappropriation case, he said, “An irregularity would refer to a deviation from established procedures, or legal requirements governing the handling or allocation of funds. It can encompass a wide range of actions or omissions that result in the improper use or allocation of resources, but may not necessarily involve intentional wrongdoing or criminal intent.”