Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State vs Budhilal on 12 May, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1014/2002
State
----Petitioner
Versus
Budhilal
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar, P.P.
For Respondent(s) : None present.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
12/05/2022
1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with
Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment
dated 06.09.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, Sessions
Court (A.C.D. Cases), Udaipur in Criminal Special Case No.
31/2002 with the following prayer:-
"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this petition may kindly
be allowed, and impugned judgement dated6-9-2002 may
kindly be quashed and set asdie and the case may kindly be
remanded back for its trial."
2. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by learned
Public Prosecutor for the revisionist-State are that the D.S.P. Anti
Corruption Bureau, Banswara inspected the bus of Banswara
RSRTC Depot bearing No. RJ-27/P-2467 which was on the
Kushalgarh-Banswara route on 21.04.2000. And that there were
found to be 23 ticket-carrying passengers on board the bus. And
that the bus conductor, i.e. the respondent, when searched by the
(Downloaded on 17/05/2022 at 08:26:33 PM)
(2 of 4) [CRLR-1014/2002]
officials was found to be in possession of Rs. 1,608/- although the
tally of the bill, bearing no. 9199993, from Banswara to
Kushalgarh, stated there to be 42 passengers and the amount for
the same was shown as Rs. 410/-, and the tally of the 'in the way'
bill, bearing no. 919994 for an entry of 23 passengers was shown
as Rs. 298/- which therefore comes to a total sum of Rs. 708/-
And that an excess of Rs. 900/- was found with the respondent-
conductor, the possession of which could not be explained by him.
And that therefore, a case was registered against him under
Section 13 (1) (d) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
(as it stood then) and an F.I.R. bearing No. 185/2000 was lodged
on 23.05.2000, and the investigation was started, subsequently a
charge-sheet was filed and upon trial, the learned Court below
discharged the respondent-conductor/accused for the above
mentioned offences, vide the judgment dated 06.09.2002.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor for the revisionist-State submits
that the learned court below has not taken into due consideration
the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and thus, gravely
erred in passing the impugned judgment.
3.1 Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the learned
Court below ignored the fact that the recovery of the excess
amount of Rs. 900/- was not justified or explained by the
respondent-conductor, and that the motbirs, Surendra Nath and
Narayan Lal, corroborated the version of the prosecution. And
that, the accused-respondent was not entitled to be discharged
from the above mentioned offences, since a prima facie case was
made out against him.
(Downloaded on 17/05/2022 at 08:26:33 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLR-1014/2002]
3.2 Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that since the
respondent-conductor was unable to explain the possession of the
amount of Rs.900/- which was excess to the total tally of the bus
fare on the concerned route on the day of the search conducted by
the A.C.B. authorities, it was safe to make a presumption under
the provisions of law contained in the Act of 1988, as it stood
then.
4. None present for the respondent party, the bus conductor,
Budhilal, despite service.
5. Heard learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the
revisionist-State and perused the record of the case.
6. The learned Court below has discharged the accused-
respondent after recording reasons grounded on facts and logic;
firstly that there was no evidence placed on record before it to
suggest that the recovery of Rs. 900/- made from the person of
the respondent-conductor was by way of demand of illegal
gratification made by him nor were any of the passengers on the
bus at the time of the search in question, traveling without tickets
nor did any of them testify to the effect that they were
overcharged. And that secondly, the investigating officer had no
authority to conduct a search of the respondent-conductor as it
was without any basis / allegation, and that although the
investigating officer had placed before the learned Court below the
department order / notification / circular dated 05.05.2000 issued
by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (R.S.R.T.C.)
wherein it has been stated that a bus conductor, who is on duty on
a bus route which is between 0 - 200 kms. then he may carry
with him an amount of upto Rs. 200/- for personal reasons, and if
(Downloaded on 17/05/2022 at 08:26:33 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLR-1014/2002]
over 200 kms. then he may carry with him an amount of Rs. 500/-
for personal reasons, and that if a bus conductor is not complying
with the said rules, then the appropriate recourse would be to
institute a department enquiry / proceeding against him, but not
proceed against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.
7. This Court, in light of the above made observations,
observes that the impugned order passed by the learned Court
below has laid out detailed reasoning before discharging the
accused-respondent for the offence under Sections 13 (1) (d) (e)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as it stood then) and is
therefore a speaking order.
8. This Court, therefore, dismisses the revision petition. All
pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned
court below be sent back forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
63-Skant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
