IMPORTANT POINT
For an offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) read with Section 15 of PC Act, it is necessary to establish that a public servant has attempted to obtain for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage.

JUDGMENT :

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 06.01.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant/accused, which was in turn filed thereby challenging the judgment and order dated 24.10.2013 passed by the learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act No. 1, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as “the Special Judge”), convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) read with Section 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘PC Act’ for short) and under Section 477A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC” for short) and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 5000/- each for both the offences.

3. The Special Judge, vide order dated 03.06.2004, framed the following charges against the appellant:

“Firstly in the year 1994, on 25.04.1994 and around the same time, while working as public servant, you had conspired with the coaccused Bhagwan Sahai and in furtherance of that criminal conspiracy, you had received an advance of Rs. 15,000/- out of the approved amount of Rs. 91,500/- with regard to construction of rooms and varandha in the Primary School, Mankot and Bhagwan Sahai had submitted the work of Rs. 14,508/- in three muster rolls and the voucher of construction material of Rs. 18,994/- thereby informed the expenditure as Rs. 33,502/- which was accepted at page No. 71 and 72 of M.B. No. 51 and mentioned as Rs. 34,580.13 by Shiv Kumar Sharma but later on, on complaint, the said amount of Rs. 34,580/- was modified to Rs. 25,911/-.

In the same manner, in furtherance of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy, an advance of Rs. 28,000/- was received out of the approved amount of Rs. 80,000/- for construction of rooms and varandha in Primary School Surjanpur and Sh. Bhagwan Sahai had shown the expenditure of Rs. 61,843.40 including the expenses of 7 muster rolls amounting to Rs. 36,552/- and the voucher of construction amounting to Rs. 25,291.40. The said amount was entered by Sh. Shiv Kumar Sharma at page No. 7172 of M.B. No. 51 as Rs. 68,776/- but on complaint, the said amount of Rs. 68,776/- was reduced to 45,582/- by cutting. In the enquiry, only work worth Rs. 28,264.42 was found at Surjanpur and work worth Rs. 25,911/- was found at Mankot and thus, you have shown the excess expenditure of labour and construction which was excess of Rs. 7,698/- at Mankot and Rs. 16,644/- at Surjanpur, totalling Rs. 22,353/- for which the excess payment was made and wrongful loss was caused to the State Government and wrongful gain was received by you. You also created false record by cutting in the records. The said act of you being the public servant is a criminal offence. Thus, you have committed a punishable offence under section 417, 477A read with section 120B IPC and offence under section 13(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for which I have taken cognizance.”

4. It appears that a complaint was made to the authorities regarding malpractices in the construction of rooms and varandha in Primary School, Mankot and Surjanpur. It was the prosecution case that, in the Measurement Book with regard to Mankot, the amount was reduced from Rs. 34,580/- to Rs. 25,911/- by the appellant after the complaint was made. With regard to the construction work at Surjanpur, after the complaint was made, the amount was reduced to Rs.45,582/- from Rs.68,776/-.

5. After the receipt of the complaint, Mr. Mahesh Prasad Mathur was appointed as an Inquiry Officer. After completion of inquiry, he submitted an inquiry report. On the basis of the inquiry report, the crime came to be registered. The chargesheet was filed. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The learned Special Judge, at the conclusion of the trial, convicted the appellant as aforesaid. The appellant filed an appeal before the High Court and the High Cour