Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2051 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Vijay Pal Singh

2017-09-13

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2017
JUDGMENT : SANDEEP MEHTA, J. 1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the State of Rajasthan seeking to challenge the judgment dated 26.8.2011 passed by the learned Special Judge, Sessions Court (Prevention of Corruption Act Cases), Jodhpur in Cr. Case No.35/2004 whereby the respondents No.1 to 4 were acquitted from the charges under Section 13(1)(D) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the respondent No.5 was acquitted from charge under Section 120B I.P.C. 2. Facts in brief are that the complainant Bhagwana Ram lodged a complaint with the Anti Corruption Bureau alleging that irregularities were committed in the construction of wells undertaken in the Jeevandhara Scheme under the auspices of the Panchayat Samiti Sanchore. Based on this complaint, a preliminary enquiry was conducted and it was found that without the disputed well being constructed in the field of the beneficiary Rama, the J.En. Sita Ram and Gramsevak Ram Singh issued a work verification certificate and on the basis thereof, payment of Rs. 21,360/- was fraudulently facilitated to the beneficiaries. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against Vijay Pal Singh, the then BDO Panchayat Samiti Sanchore, Tej Singh LDC Panchayat Samiti Sanchore, Sita Ram J.En. Panchayat Samiti Sanchore, Ram Singh the Gramsevak, Rama S/o Sanwta the beneficiary and Teja Ram Bishnoi. The trial court discharged Teja Ram Bishnoi by order dated 24.8.2009. Charges were framed against the accused persons in the above terms, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 4 witnesses in support of its case. The accused upon being examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 denied the prosecution allegations and claimed that they had been falsely implicated for political and other oblique motives. The trial court while concluding the matter vide the impugned judgment dated 26.8.2011 held that the payment which was made to Rama the beneficiary was for the first and second installments for construction of the well under the Jeevandhara Scheme. The payment so made to Rama was held to be justified because the well had been constructed partially. The final installment was payable on completion of the construction which was never visualised. Physical verification of the disputed well was not carried out in keeping with the norms prescribed under the Jeevandhara Scheme. With these conclusions, the learned trial Judge proceeded to acquit the accused respondents from charges and hence, this appeal. 3. The final installment was payable on completion of the construction which was never visualised. Physical verification of the disputed well was not carried out in keeping with the norms prescribed under the Jeevandhara Scheme. With these conclusions, the learned trial Judge proceeded to acquit the accused respondents from charges and hence, this appeal. 3. Imploring the court to convert the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court in favour of the accused to one of conviction, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently urged that the accused persons fraudulently conspired and issued a fictitious verification report owing to which a huge amount to the tune of Rs. 21360/- was un-justifiedly released to the beneficiary Rama. He thus urged that the impugned judgment is bad in facts and law and should be set aside and the respondents accused be held guilty and convicted for the charges. 4. Shri O.P. Joshi learned counsel representing the respondents relied upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of A. Sivaprakash v. State of Kerala reported in 2016 Cr.L.R. (SC) 467 and urged that the said judgment applies to the case at hand on all fours. Since only part payment was made to the beneficiary, no violation of the prescribed conditions of the scheme is prima-facie disclosed so as to justify prosecution of the respondents. He thus urged that the appeal is liable to be dismissed and the impugned judgment should be upheld. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel representing the respondents and have gone through the impugned judgment as well as the record. 6. As spelt out from the record, the disputed work under the Jeevandhara Scheme was commenced way-back in the year 1995 and the complaint came to be filed somewhere in the year 2002. As per the admitted case of prosecution, two installments towards part construction of the well were paid under the Jeevandhara Scheme to the beneficiary Rama. The third installment was to ripen upon the construction being completed and with issuance of the final utilization certificate. However, the third installment which was to accrue on the completion of construction was never released to the beneficiary as per the admitted prosecution case. Consequently, it is clear that the accused persons did not act contrary to the procedure prescribed under the Jeevandhara Scheme. However, the third installment which was to accrue on the completion of construction was never released to the beneficiary as per the admitted prosecution case. Consequently, it is clear that the accused persons did not act contrary to the procedure prescribed under the Jeevandhara Scheme. The situation at hand is squarely covered by the observations made in the Supreme Court decision relied upon by Shri O.P. Joshi learned counsel representing the respondents. While entertaining an appeal against acquittal, this Court has to examine whether any miscarriage of justice has occasioned by the acquittal of the accused persons. When two views are possible, no interference can be made in a judgment of acquittal. 7. After having conducted thorough and minute reappraisal of the impugned judgment and the evidence available on record, I am of the firm opinion that the judgment of acquittal dated 26.8.2011 passed by the trial court does not suffer from any shortcoming either factual or legal so as to warrant interference. 8. Having held that the trial court was perfectly justified in acquitting the respondents of the charges, I am of the firm opinion that the instant appeal against acquittal is devoid of merit and is hence rejected.