Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 402 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Prem Chand A

2018-02-01

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2018
JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J —The instant revision is directed against the order dated 2.3.2012 passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) , Jodhpur in Cr. Case No.57/2008 whereby the learned trial court discharged the respondents from the offences under Sections 13(1) (c) (d) , (2) and Sections 419, 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 and 477A read with 120B I.P.C. 2. Facts in brief are that the officials of the Anti Corruption Bureau received a source information regarding fraud and irregularities being committed in the Jay Jayantidevi Memorial Girls Higher Secondary School, Jodhpur. It was alleged that bogus attendance was marked and payment of salary was fraudulently shown disbursed to persons who were not employed in the school for the purpose of getting undue advantage of grant-in-aid scheme offered by the State Government. It was further alleged that for the period between 1992 to 2001, payment of teacher's salary to the tune of Rs.14, 51, 382/- was fraudulently shown to have been disbursed to persons named Shaman Gupta, Shakuntala and Aruna Jain who had never worked in the institution. During the inquiry conducted by the Anti Corruption Bureau officials it was further revealed that the officers of the Education Department connived with the school management and thereby grant-in-aid to the tune of Rs.4, 66, 983/- was fraudulently sanctioned and wrongful loss of this huge amount was caused to the government. After investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 409, 467, 471 I.P.C. and 13(1) (c) (d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. The trial court discharged the accused Premchand and Sudha Rani being the persons in management of the private educational institution, Sriniwas Pareek (District Education Officer) , Rajesh Bissa and Ganpat Raj Jain being the officials/employees of the Education Department from all the offences by the impugned order dated 2.3.2012 which is assailed in the instant revision. 4. Upon notices of the revision being served on the respondents, reports were received that Premchand and Rajesh Bissa have passed away. Thus, the revision was dismissed to their extent on 1.9.2016. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by the Investigating Officer Shri Bhagwat Singh, Retd. Addl. S.P., ACB, Jodhpur vehemently urged that the impugned order is bad in the eye of law. Thus, the revision was dismissed to their extent on 1.9.2016. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by the Investigating Officer Shri Bhagwat Singh, Retd. Addl. S.P., ACB, Jodhpur vehemently urged that the impugned order is bad in the eye of law. He urged that after thorough investigation, it was duly established that grant-in-aid running into lacs of rupees was fraudulently sanctioned by Shri Ganpat Raj Jain, Shri Rajesh Bissa and Shri Sriniwas Pareek being the officials of Education Department, who were acting in connivance with the management of the private educational institution and the grant in aid was fraudulently disbursed to the institution even though the concerned persons never worked as teachers in the school. Learned Public Prosecutor thus implored the Court to set aside the impugned order as being bad in the eye of law and direct trial of the accused for the offences attributed to them. 6. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor and urged that the learned trial court has assigned detailed cogent and wholesome reasons supported by the evidence available on record while discharging the accused from the offences and no illegality is evinced from the impugned order. They thus urged that the revision should be dismissed while affirming the impugned order. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the bar and have gone through the impugned order and the bulky record. 8. The prosecution case is founded on the aspersion that during the initial preliminary inquiry conducted by the Anti Corruption Bureau officials, Shri Ganpat Raj Jain being the DEO Jodhpur stayed disbursal of the grant-in-aid which was suspected to be sanctioned fraudulently. However, subsequently, he sent an intentionally misleading letter to the Assistant Director (Prosecution) for finding out the fate of the inquiry rather than addressing it directly to Anti Corruption Bureau officials. The Assistant Director (Prosecution) , intimated Shri Ganpat Raj Jain that information sought for by him should be procured directly from the Bureau itself. Without seeking the information regarding the fate of the inquiry from the Bureau, the grant-in-aid was resumed which should have been withheld during the pendency of inquiry. The Assistant Director (Prosecution) , intimated Shri Ganpat Raj Jain that information sought for by him should be procured directly from the Bureau itself. Without seeking the information regarding the fate of the inquiry from the Bureau, the grant-in-aid was resumed which should have been withheld during the pendency of inquiry. On going through the impugned order, it is evident that the Investigating Officer did not collect any evidence whatsoever to satisfy the Court as to the identity of the officers of the Education Department, who allegedly connived to get the fraudulent sanction of grant-in-aid to the private institution between the years 1999 to 2001. So far as the aspect of resumption of grant-in-aid is concerned, unquestionably, Shri Ganpat Raj Jain Dy.Director sought information from the Assistant Director (Prosecution) , ACB, Jodhpur regarding fate of the inquiry being conducted by the Bureau and the Assistant Director (Prosecution) responded to the said letter intimating Shri Jain that to his information, no inquiry was pending in relation to F.I.R. No.386/2000 and query may be made directly from the Bureau. Though it is true that the Dy.Director (Education) would have been better advised to seek information directly from the Bureau but merely because the information was sought from the Assistant Director (Prosecution) , who also represents the Bureau itself, no culpability can be attached to the action of Sh.Jain who was posted as Dy.Director (Education) at that time. The Investigating Officer present in the Court, admitted during the course of the arguments that the grand-in-aid was initially stayed by Shri G.R.Jain and disbursed to the private institution after the said letter of the ADP. The whole amount was redeposited with the Education Department. Thus apparently, no actual loss was caused to the government as such. The trial court has assigned detailed cogent and convincing reasons in the impugned order for discharging the accused. 9. Ex-Facie, after thorough examination of the record, I am of the opinion that the impugned order dated 2.3.2012 does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or irregularity whatsoever so as to warrant interference therein. 10. As a consequence of the above discussion, I find no merit in the instant revision, which is hereby rejected. 11. Record be returned to the trial court forthwith.