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. 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 t