Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2069 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Mahendra Mal Patwa

2011-09-23

NISHA GUPTA

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 1.8.2001 whereby the respondents have been discharged of the offences under Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that a report was lodged by the Dy. S.P., Anti Corruption Bureau that in the year 1994 in Panchayat Sarniti, Aahore, boundary wall was constructed under Famine Relief Work by the contractor and in the muster-roll, names of the labourers have been written twice and thereby extra payment of Rs. 2,721 /- has been distributed and it has also been stated in the F.I.R. that the construction work, according to the measurement book, was shown for a cost of Rs. 2,59,948/- whereas as per the valuation report prepared by the A.En., PW-D., estimated it do the tune of Rs. 2,35,000/- and hence measurement book has been written excessively and Rs. 25,000/- have been incorrectly entered. After investigation, challan was filed against the respondents. The learned trial Court discharged both the accused-respondents from the aforesaid offences. Hence, this revision petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 4. The main contention of the present petitioner is that the order of the trial Court is perverse and illegal. There is ample evidence against the respondents to charge them under the alleged offences and hence charges should be framed against them. 5. A bare perusal of the impugned order and record of the case goes to show that the construction of boundary wall was done under the supervision of contractor and the respondent No. 2 had prepared the measurement book. According to the measurement book, the estimated cost of construction was Rs. 2,59,948/- but the A.En. Shri Mathur prepared a valuation report according to which the cost of construction was estimated as only Rs. 2,35,000/- hence there was a difference of Rs. 25,000/-. At the same time,. the learned trial Court has specifically stated that according to the inspection report of A.En., it has been specifically stated that boundary wall has been plastered on both the sides whereas Mr. Mathur has calculated the cost of only one side of the. plaster and hence learned counsel for the respondents submits that difference of Rs. At the same time,. the learned trial Court has specifically stated that according to the inspection report of A.En., it has been specifically stated that boundary wall has been plastered on both the sides whereas Mr. Mathur has calculated the cost of only one side of the. plaster and hence learned counsel for the respondents submits that difference of Rs. 25,000/- is due to this anomaly, when the boundary wall has been plastered for both the sides, then it should be measured twice and at the same time the boundary wall constructed was of 13" width whereas the A.En. has calculated it as 12" width and hence, there is difference in the calculation. The learned trial Court has also relied upon the valuation prepared by A.En., Aahore, which was further verified by the Executive Engineer, where. the estimated cost has been shown as Rs. 2,78,000/-. Hence, the learned trial Court has rightly arrived at a conclusion that there is no mis-mentioning of the estimated cost, rather valuation report, which has been given by the A.En. and verified by the X.En., has also corroborated the measurement book and the cost of construction, which was stated by the respondent No. 2. There is no allegation against the respondent No. 2 Ahesaan Mohd. that he entered the wrong entries in the measurement book. This is not the allegation of the prosecution that the work was of inferior quality. Hence, the learned trial Court has rightly discharged the respondent No. 2 from the alleged offences. 6. So far as respondent No. 1 is concerned, it is not in dispute that he was working as U.D.C. in the Panchayat Samiti, Aahore. The allegation against him is that he has entered the name of some of labourers in the muster-rolls twice. 7. The learned trial Court has arrived at a conclusion that Govind Singh, Development Officer has stated that entries in the muster-roll are not in the writing of Mahendra Patwa and hence, the respondent No. 1 has been discharged of the offences, whereas looking at the evidence available on the record, it is clear that the Superintending Engineer has specifically stated in his letter dated 1.3.1997 that the respondent No. 1 was written the names in the muster-rolls and that the muster-rolls were issued to him and they were signed by the respondents No. 1. Specific allegations have been attributed that Muster Roll No, 690022 has the same names as are entered in different columns of Muster Roll No. 690023 and same is the position with the Muster Roll No. 690020. The learned trial Court has failed to take note of the statement of Jamnalal, Daulatmal and Chand Babu, who are the employees working in the Panchayat Samiti, have specifically stated that the entries are in the handwriting of Mahendra Patwa and even Govind Singh, Development Officer has specifically stated that muster-rolls were issued to the respondent No. 1 and it was the duty of the respondent No. 1 to enter the attendance of the labourers in the muster-rolls and he specifically alleged that Muster Rolls Nos. 690020 to 690025 were issued to the respondent No. 1 and entries are in his hand-writing and also signed by him. Hence, this evidence is prima facie sufficient to charge the respondent No. 1 for the offence under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 8. In view of the above, this revision petition is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 1.8.2011 is quashed and set aside qua respondent No. 1 and he be charged for the aforesaid offences. The impugned order is sustained qua respondent No. 2.Revision dismissed. *******