Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1826 (RAJ)

Kantilal Kant v. State of Rajasthan

2017-08-16

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2017
JUDGMENT : PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J. The petitioner has preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. for quashing the FIR No. 133/09, 134/09, 135/09, 136/09, 138/09, 139/09 dated 15.06.09 lodged at Police Station CPS ACB Jaipur for offence under Sections 13(1)(D), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Secs. 409, 420, 1120-B of IPC and its entire subsequent investigation. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out apparently from the record that the basis of the present FIR was the audit of PHED Division Sanchore, which was conducted by the Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer, PHED, Jaipur and report No. F-3576 was prepared. The audit was done for the period from March 2002 to August 2007. After completion of the said audit, there were six audit objections which were pointed out by the Audit Team. On the basis of those six objections, six separate FIRs were lodged by the Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur being FIRs No. 133/09, 134/09, 135/09, 136/09, 138/09, 139/09. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out six objections, which was taken and pointed out in the audit report No. F-3756, but the same were subsequently dropped in the compliance report, which was sent by the Department to the FA&CAO, PHED, Jaipur. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also stated that since the basis of the present FIR was six different audit objections and after proper consideration the same were dropped by the Department itself, therefore, the lodging of the subsequent proceedings was illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar, reported in (1996) 9 SCC 1 , whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that if the identical charge is not proved in a departmental proceeding, in view of admitted discrepancies, nothing is left to proceed with the criminal proceeding. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor denied the aforesaid submissions and stated that the audit report was one of the basis of lodging the FIR, but in fact on an independent assessment and independent preliminary inquiries, the offence was made out against the present petitioner, apart from the audit report itself. Learned Public Prosecutor also argued that once the deficit amount was submitted by the parties concerned, then the same became the sole reason of withdrawal of audit objections. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor also argued that once the deficit amount was submitted by the parties concerned, then the same became the sole reason of withdrawal of audit objections. 4. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents to get the investigation conducted by an independent higher authority, who shall complete the investigation strictly in accordance with law, while keeping in mind the aforecited precedent law as well as clear indication of record that the audit report was the basis of the lodging of the FIR. Once six different objections themselves have been abandoned, rather revoked, then it was not open for the respondents to proceed with the criminal proceedings under the special law. The investigating authority to be appointed in pursuance of this order shall also consider the fact that the amount mentioned in the audit report and the details given therein exactly tally with the independent so called compliance report. The investigation shall be completed after finding the reason from the department concerned as to why the departmental enquiry was not conducted against the petitioners, and once the objections have been dropped, absolving the petitioners from the allegation, then what was the material available on record to point out the independent forming of prima facie opinion that the alleged offences are made out against the present petitioners. 5. The petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. It is also made clear that the petitioners shall not be arrested in connection with present FIR. However, if the investigating authority to be appointed in pursuance of this order needs to arrest the petitioners, then the petitioners shall be given 15 days notice before making such arrest. The petitioners shall be at liberty to approach this Court again, in case need arises. Petition disposed of.