Orissa HC Says Range Officer Must Face PC Act Trial Over ₹4.2 Lakh Quarter Fund After Full Transfer And Unverified Bills Raised Suspicion Of Misuse

The petitioner, a Range Officer, transferred funds allocated for construction of a Forest Guard quarter to a Forester, who transferred the full amount the following day to another co-accused. The construction remained incomplete; a technical inspection assessed the completed work at approximately ₹1.27 lakh against the sanctioned ₹4.20 lakh. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner failed to ensure proper use of the funds and later passed vouchers without verifying completion of the work

The Special Judge discharged him of the IPC offences and the charge under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, but declined to discharge him under Section 13(1)(c). The petitioner challenged that decision in revision

The Court applied Section 13(1)(c), as it stood before the 2018 amendment, which covered a public servant’s dishonest or fraudulent misappropriation or conversion of property entrusted to or under the servant’s control, and also knowingly allowing another person to do so; Section 13(2) prescribed the punishment

Rule 28 of the Orissa Forest Code placed duties on Range Officers to protect property in their charge, oversee works, and ensure economical and proper use of Government funds

At the charge stage, the court need not determine whether the evidence will sustain a conviction; it asks whether the material, if generally accepted, provides sufficient ground to put the accused on trial

The Court also considered the principle that negligence or failure to detect wrongdoing, without proof of knowing permission, does not by itself establish the offence of allowing misappropriation

The Court distinguished the case from one based only on negligent supervision. The prosecution material alleged a specific sequence: the petitioner transferred the full allocation to the Forester; the full amount was transferred the next day to a person described as the Forester’s co-villager and not a contractor; the work remained incomplete; and vouchers were passed later without verification

While the material did not allege that the petitioner personally converted the money or received a benefit, the Court considered that the sequence could give rise to a strong suspicion that he knowingly permitted the co-accused to misappropriate public funds. Whether that inference could ultimately be proved was a matter for trial, not discharge

It directed that, if the petitioner surrendered before the Special Judge by 12 November 2026, the non-bailable warrant would be recalled and he could continue on his previous bail; the trial court was also directed to arrange the cases for joint trial, or, if that was not possible, to list them on the same dates