Back
2017 Supreme(Raj) 2033
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Deepak Maheshwari, J.
Niranjan Kumar Shrma - Appellant
Vs.
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 685 of 2016
Decided On : 19-07-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Gupta
For the Respondent: Mr. N.S. Dhakad
Demand or request of a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage from a public servant is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Headnote:
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 - SECTION 13(2) R/W SECTION 13(1)(D)(I)(II)(III) - CONVICTION QUASHED - NO EVIDENCE OF DEMAND OR OBTAINING BRIBE - ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT OF OFFENCE NOT PROVED.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, an Excise Inspector, was convicted under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d)(i)(ii)(iii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for allegedly causing wrongful loss to the State Government by making a false entry in the stock register and other relevant records regarding the transfer of rectified spirit from one company to another. However, the accused was acquitted of charges under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that there was no evidence to support the conviction under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d)(i)(ii)(iii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court noted that the accused was acquitted of the charges under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC, which indicated that there was no evidence of cheating or forgery. The Court also noted that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused obtained any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for himself or any other person.
Issues: Whether the accused was guilty of criminal misconduct under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d)(i)(ii)(iii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in the absence of evidence of demand or obtaining bribe.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the essential ingredient of the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is the demand or request of a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage from the public servant. In the absence of such evidence, the offence cannot be established. The Court relied on several Supreme Court judgments to support its conclusion.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal filed by the accused and quashed the judgment of the trial court convicting him under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d)(i)(ii)(iii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Deepak Maheshwari, J.
Heard learned counsel for the accused appellant and also learned public Prosecutor.
2. This appeal has been preferred on behalf of accused-Niranjan Kumar Sharma assailing the judgment dated 30.06.2016 passed by learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Alwar, whereby the accused-appellant has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d)(i)(ii)(iii) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('the Act of 1988').
3. Succinctly stated, facts giving rise to this appeal are that accused-Niranjan Kumar Sharma, on his transfer from the post of Excise Inspector Bhiwadi handed over his charge to Ganga Ram Meena on 26th September, 1996. As per the entry made in stock register of M/s Chachet Pharmaceuticals Ltd. there was stock of 10000 litres of rectified spirit. But on physical verification NIL stock was found. The concern clerk Vijay Prakash informed that Mr. Sharma made an entry on 26th September, 1996 in the concern register showing transfer of the same to M/s. Samrat Bottlers. On making query from M/s Chachet Pharmaceuticals Ltd., they confirmed the fact stating that it was sold to M/s. Samrat Bottlers vide Permit No. 1 dated 26th May, 1995. But M/s. Samrat Bottlers denied this fact stating that because the rates could not be finalized, they didn't receive rectified spirit.
4. On inspection of spirit consignment register of M/s. Samrat Bottlers, no entry was found regarding receipt of rectified spirit. No transit permit was also found in this regard. In this background allegation made against Mr. Niranjan Kumar Sharma is that the amount of Rs. 16,67,000/- required to be imposed on 10000 litres of rectified spirit was very cunningly evaded. Thus, wrongful loss has been caused to the State Government of this amount. Thus, a charge-sheet for the offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC and under Section 13(2) of the Act of 1988 came to be filed against Niranjan Kumar Sharma and co-accused Ram Manohar Soni. The learned trial court proceeded to frame charges for the aforesaid offences, to which the accused denied and claimed trial.
5. After concluding the trial, Ram Manohar Soni was acquitted of the charge under Section 120-B IPC framed against him. Mr. Niranjan Kumar Sharma was also acquitted of the charges under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, but was convicted for the offences under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d)(i)(ii)(iii) of the Act of 1988. He was awarded rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and a fine of Rs. 5000/- was also imposed on him. Sentence for 3 months was awarded in default of payment of fine. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment, this appeal has been filed.
6. Learned counsel appearing for accused-appellant submits that the impugned judgment suffers from self contradictions. The appellant has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. On the contrary, the learned trial court has found that wrongful loss was caused to the State Government by the accused-appellant by making forged entry in the stock register and other relevant record. He also submits that prosecution has totally failed to prove that 10000 litres of rectified spirit was not received by M/s. Samrat Bottlers. Learned trial court has not been able to find answers to the queries posed by itself in the judgment and merely on assumptions and surmises regarding the un-replied queries, liability has been fastened upon the accused-appellant without there being any cogent evidence in this regard.
7. Learned counsel for accused appellant also submits that no duty was leviable on the rectified spirit as per Section 4 of the Rajasthan Excise Act 1950 ('the Act of 1950'), being a raw material for producing liquor. On laying challenge to such demand by M/s. Chachet Pharmaceuticals Ltd. by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5409/1998, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court quashed the notice raising demand in this regard. In this fact situatio
