Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2393 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Babulal

2011-11-09

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present revision petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner State being aggrieved of the order dated 18.3.2002 passed. by the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act Cases), Jodhpur discharging the respondents from the offences under Section 7 read with 13(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution story are that the then Additional S.P., ACB, Ajmer conducted the search of Sales Tax Outpost Mawal, District Sirohi and it is said that certain currency notes to taling in all Rs. 3,840/- were found at the said outpost where the respondent No. 1 Babu Lal was working as U.D.C. and respondent No. 2 Kundan Singh was working as L.D.C. It is said that the Additional S.P. concluded that the respondents had taken illegal gratification from the truck owners in lieu of the receipts and thus, the respondents had committed the offences under Section 7 read with 13(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Accordingly, the F.I.R. No. 246/1999 was registered and investigation commenced. At the conclusion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the respondents for the offences mentioned above. The learned Special Judge by the impugned order whilst considering the question of charges proceeded to discharge the respondents from the offences proposed by the prosecution. 4. Hence, the State has approached this Court by way of this revision praying that the order of discharge be set aside and the respondents be tried for the offences for which charge-sheet has been filed against them. 5. Learned P.P. submits that the respondents were working as clerks in the sales tax department and keeping of unauthorised and unaccounted for cash is an act which by itself discloses commission of cognizable offence. The act amounts to criminal misconduct and the respondents should be tried for the same. 6. Per contra, learned counsels for the respondents submit that in this case the charge against the respondents is of possession unaccounted for cash. Even if the prosecution case is accepted to be true at its highest, then too, the respondents could at best have been tried for the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for possessing disproportionate assets but there is no such charge against the respondents. Even if the prosecution case is accepted to be true at its highest, then too, the respondents could at best have been tried for the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for possessing disproportionate assets but there is no such charge against the respondents. It is further submitted that there is no provision in law whereby mere possession of currency notes can be said to be a criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is further submitted that the order of the learned trial judge is justified and well reasoned order and prima-facie it does not suffer from any illegality. It is further submitted that none of the so-called truck drivers or vehicle owners have been examined by the prosecution to show that the respondents have taken illegal gratification from such truck drivers. it is further submitted that the department had issued circular regarding keeping details of currency notes with the employee wherein it has been made obligatory for the employees posted at sales tax outpost to make an entry of the currency notes possessed by them in the Register specified for this purpose. The circular was issued on 26.4.2000 whereas the search has been made by the Addl. S.P. on 14.10.1999. Therefore, the circular obviously could not apply to the search or the surprise checking made in this case. It is further submitted that even if the circular is to be considered as a binding rule of law, then also, a mere contravention of the circular could not make the respondents liable for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 7. I have given by thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the impugned order as well as the record of the case. 8. From a perusal of the record and the order Impugned, this Court is of the opinion that in this case, the admitted story of the prosecution is that certain unaccounted for currency notes were found from the outpost where the respondents were posted. 8. From a perusal of the record and the order Impugned, this Court is of the opinion that in this case, the admitted story of the prosecution is that certain unaccounted for currency notes were found from the outpost where the respondents were posted. Even if the possession of the currency notes is held to be illegal, then also, the respondents could have been prosecuted for offence of possession of disproportionate assets but for the purpose of making them liable for criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution had to bring out the material to the effect that the possession of the currency as such was punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act except by way of Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, or else, they had to take evidence of the truck drivers from whom the respondents had allegedly taken the said currency Neither of the said situation exists in the present case. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, there exists no material on the record of the case by which the respondents can be prosecuted for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 9. There is no evidence to the effect that the respondents demanded any bribe from anybody because no person has been examined during the course of investigation. Thus, the charge under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is also not supported by any evidence. 10. Thus, the order impugned is absolutely just, legal and based on proper appreciation of the record and does not call for interference of this Court. 11. Resultantly, this revision petition, being bereft of any force, is hereby dismissed.Revision petition dismissed. *******