Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1065 (RAJ)

Mohan Lal Purohit v. State of Rajasthan

2015-05-13

M.N.BHANDARI

body2015
JUDGMENT : M.N. Bhandari, J. By this petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 29.09.2011 whereby the charge for the offence under section 13(1)(d) read with section 12(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sections 109, 409 & alternatively 409/120B IPC have been farmed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is basically for supervisory negligence of construction of the Chambal Bridge. The design of the bridge was given, in which distance between two pillars was to be maintained at 105 meters. At one pillar, it was kept 135 meters and the next pillar it was kept at the distance of 75 meters only. On account of it, the loss of Rs. 32.80 lacs was sustained by the Government. For supervision of the work, the team was evolved. The petitioner was holding the post of Resident Engineer on deputation with the Rajasthan State Bridge Construction Corporation at Dholpur. There exists no allegation for personal gain or acceptance of bribe or even demand of bribe. Thus, an offence under section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is not made out. The offence under section 109/409 IPC is also not made out because it is not a case where there is breach of trust. In view of the above, the order framing charges may be set aside. A reference of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State, Represented by Inspector of Police v. A. Parthiban [ (2006) 11 SCC 473 ] has been given. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the order and submitted that due to negligence of the petitioner and for his personal gain, the charges have rightly been framed vide impugned order. It may thus, not be interfered. It is more so when due to supervisory negligence for personal gain, heavy loss was caused to the Government. Thus, the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act so also the IPC are made out. 4. I have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the record. 5. The allegation against the petitioner is of negligence in supervision of the work of the construction of Chambal Bridge. The distance between two pillars were to be maintained at 105 meters, but by his negligence, distance between one pillar was kept at 135 meters, causing loss to the Government. 5. The allegation against the petitioner is of negligence in supervision of the work of the construction of Chambal Bridge. The distance between two pillars were to be maintained at 105 meters, but by his negligence, distance between one pillar was kept at 135 meters, causing loss to the Government. It subsequently incurred even an additional amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- for getting the new design. The allegation does not exist for demand or acceptance of bribe or for any benefit. The material does not exist to make out offence under section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. For framing of charges, a prima facie case should exist. The perusal of the impugned order and the material does not show ingredients of section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In the case of State, Represented by Inspector of Police (supra), section 7 & 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act were considered to find out as to when the offence under these provisions would be made out. The judgment aforesaid supports the petitioner. 6. The question comes regarding offence under the IPC. The charges have been framed for the offence under sections 109, 409 alternatively 409/120B IPC. The contractor has not been charged, who had constructed the bridge contrary to the design, though the petitioner was under an obligation to remain vigilant for supervising of the work, but then the offence under section 109 and 409 would not be made out so also 120B IPC. Section 405 IPC was required to be considered by the court below for passing the order. The impugned order does not speak as to how the offence under the aforesaid provisions would be made out. Thus, after considering the entire case, I do not find that the charges framed against the petitioner are based on a prima facie evidence for it. 7. In the background aforesaid and in view of the discussion made above, the impugned order is set aside. The petitioner is discharged from the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with section 12(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sections 109, 409 & alternatively 409/120B IPC. The petition is allowed.