JUDGMENT : 1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 30.06.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge (Sessions Court), Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Udaipur in Special Criminal Sessions Case No.9/2002, whereby the accused-appellant was convicted for the offences under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1988’) and Section 420 IPC; for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act of 1988, the accused-appellant was sentenced to undergo three years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of which, he was to undergo further one month’s imprisonment and; for the offence under Section 420 IPC, the accused-appellant was sentenced to undergo three years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of which, he was to undergo further one month’s imprisonment. 2. The bone of contention in the present case, as per the prosecution, is that the accused-appellant (posted then as Tracer in Urban Improvement Trust, Bhilwara) had submitted a false affidavit before the UIT, Bhilwara that neither he nor any of his family members had any land or residential house in the area concerned; as per the prosecution, the said false affidavit was submitted only with a view to obtain, by way of allotment, an additional plot of land (Plot No.3-C-3 measuring 25 x 49 sq.ft. in R.C. Vyas Colony, Bhilwara), that too, at a concessional rate, thereby causing a loss to the public exchequer (UIT, Bhilwara), to the tune of Rs.58,717.77, as the said plot was allotted to the appellant on the basis of the said false affidavit. 2.1 Further, as per the prosecution, a plot No.1-S-5, R.C. Vyas Colony, Bhilwara (i.e. in the same locality) was already allotted in favour of Smt. Laxmi Devi (wife of the accused-appellant) in the year 1985 by the UIT, which as per the version of the accused-appellant, was sold to one Smt. Shobha Rani d/o Shri Barfi Lal, but the said plot, in fact was not sold, thereby clearly disentitling the accused-appellant for allotment of second plot of land. 3. 3. As per the prosecution case, the aforementioned factual matrix was the outcome of an enquiry conducted into complaint No.10/1998, and on the basis of the said outcome, an FIR No.142/1998 was registered at Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur for the offences under Section 13(1)(d)(2) of the Act of 1988 and Sections 420 & 120-B IPC against four persons, including the present accused-appellant, and upon investigation, a charge-sheet was filed only against the present accused-appellant for the said offences, before the learned court below. Upon the charges being framed, the same were denied by the accused-appellant, and thus, he was made to stand the trial, and the trial accordingly commenced. 4. After conclusion of the trial, however, the accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced by the learned trial court vide the impugned judgment dated 30.06.2007, as mentioned above. 5. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that PW-1 Ratan Lal Tukliya, PW-2 Ram Krishan Bhuria, PW-3 Anil Chaturvedi and PW-4 Arvind Pareek, who were then working as Deputy Town Planner, Chief Legal Assistant, LDC and Building Inspector, respectively in the UIT, have admitted in his cross-examination that the fact of selling the plot No.1-S-5 by Smt. Laxmi Devi (wife of the accused) to Smt. Shobha Rani was disclosed to the said witness, also on the basis of the record; they have further deposed that the accused-appellant had not caused any financial loss to the UIT, nor had he derived any undue benefit out of the transaction in question. 5.1 Learned counsel also submits so far as PW-5 Amar Nath Tandon, PW-6 Suresh Kumar, PW-8 Gopal Lal Regar and PW-9 C.P. Vyas are concerned, their testimony, being the formal witnesses, have no effect on the case against the appellant. 5.2 Learned counsel thus submits that the learned trial court, before passing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence has not taken into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and has also not duly appreciated the evidence placed on record before it; hence, as per learned counsel, the impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eye of law, and accordingly deserves to be quashed and set aside by this Court. 6. 6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor, while supporting the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court, submits that the prosecution has clearly established before the learned trial court, by placing sufficient evidence on record before it, that the accused-appellant, with a motive to derive the undue benefit, in the form of second allotment (that too at a concessional rate), has furnished a false affidavit before the UIT, despite the fact being in his knowledge, that his wife had already been allotted a plot of land earlier. 6.1 Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the accused-appellant could not prove the factum of selling of the earlier plot in the name of his wife to Smt. Shobha Rani, prior to the allotment of the plot in question. 6.2 Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that the act of the accused-appellant was clearly unbecoming of his being a public servant, despite knowing well the fact that second allotment, if sought, when on an earlier occasion, a plot of land had already been allotted to him or any of the members of his family and existed in favour of any of them, at the relevant time, would not be permissible under the law. 6.3 Learned Public Prosecutor thus submits that the learned trial court has committed no error in passing the impugned judgment of conviction, as the same has been passed after taking into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, while duly appreciating the evidence placed on record before it. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that on earlier occasions also, the wife of the accused-appellant was allotted plots of land, which were surrendered by her in favour of the UIT after completing due formalities. 8. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that on earlier occasions also, the wife of the accused-appellant was allotted plots of land, which were surrendered by her in favour of the UIT after completing due formalities. 8. This Court also finds from the record that the crucial prosecution witnesses have clearly admitted in their deposition before the learned trial court that the accused-appellant by obtaining the allotment in question, the accused-appellant has not caused any financial loss to the public exchequer (UIT), nor had he committed any such act, so as to derive any undue benefit out of the transaction in question; but the said crucial testimony, essential to hold the accused-appellant guilty for the offences in question, particularly, under the Act of 1988, had not been considered by the learned trial court, in the right perspective. 9. So far as the charge under Section 420 IPC is concerned, this Court finds from the record, that the evidence on record clearly shows that the accused-appellant got the allotment in question after due and necessary enquiry by the UIT officials/officers, to ascertain whether the accused-appellant or any of his family members had been allotted earlier a plot of land and the same was still existing in their name, or not. Thus, the essential ingredients constituting the offence under Section 420 IPC are clearly missing in the present case. 10. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations, this Court finds that the accused-appellant’s conviction and sentence is not sustainable in the eye of law. 11. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.06.2007 passed by the learned trial court is quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him in the present case. The appellant is on bail in pursuance of the order dated 25.07.2007 passed by this Hon’ble Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Application for Bail/Suspension of Sentence No.836/2007. He need not surrender; his bail bonds stand discharged. All pending applications stand disposed of. The record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.