Lakhan Parasar vs State
2022 Latest Caselaw 10030 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 552/2007

Lakhan Parasar

----Appellant Versus State

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rakesh Arora For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singh PP

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

02/08/2022

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 of 6) [CRLA-552/2007]

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. 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

(3 of 6) [CRLA-552/2007]

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.

                                         (4 of 6)                    [CRLA-552/2007]



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

(5 of 6) [CRLA-552/2007]

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

(6 of 6) [CRLA-552/2007]

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.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

210-SKant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)