IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes the importance of proving dishonest intention and specific charges in a criminal trial, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof on the prosecution.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of impugned judgment dated 30.05.2019, the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Bhilwara (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'learned trial Court') convicted the appellant for offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in Sessions Case No. 55/2015 and sentenced him as under :-

2. Succinctly stated, the facts apposite are that a complaint was received by the office of Anti corruption Bureau, Bhilwara to the effect that huge amount of money is being embezzled at Home Guard Training Centre, Bhilwara on the basis of false and fabricated documents by putting attendance of guards without actually conducting the duty. On verification, the complainant was found to be true and accordingly, an inspection was conducted by the Anti Corruption Bureau headed by Goverdhan Singh Dhabai, Additional Superintendent of Police at Home Guard Training Centre, Bhilwara. On inspection of records, it was found that the officers of the Home Guard Training Centre namely Vikram Singh, Personnel Member, Nathu Singh, Dy. Commandant, Jaswant Singh, Platoon Commander had prepared false and fabricated duty bills of persons who actually did not perform any duty and obtained the amount causing financial loss to State Exchequer.

3. The police registered a case being FIR No. 92/2009 for offence under Sections 467, 468, 471, 477A, 120B IPC and Section 13(1)(c)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and investigation commenced. Upon completion of investigation, Anti Corruption Bureau, submitted charge-sheet against accused appellant Jaswant Singh and Shanti lal for offence under Section 13(1)(c)(d), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B IPC before court of Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Bhilwara where charges of the case were framed. The accused denied the charges. Upon denial to all the charges, the learned trial Court put them on trial.

4. The prosecution in support of charges, examined 47 witnesses. Besides ocular evidence, various documents were produced by the prosecution, which were exhibited. In defence, accused-appellant did not produce any evidence.

5. After conclusion of the evidence, learned trial Court heard final arguments and while acquitting the accused Shanti lal, convicted the appellant Jaswant Singh for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act with sentence mentioned above.

6. Mr. B.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the appellant strenuously urged that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate and scrutinize the evidence available on record in correct perspective. Learned counsel contended that initially FIR was lodged against four persons for offence under Sections 467, 468, 471, 477A, 120B IPC and Section 13(1)(c)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act but the police after thorough investigation completely discharged two persons and chargesheeted appellant Jaswant Singh and Shanti lal for offence under Section 13(1)(c)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and 120B IPC and finally convicted only the appellant Jaswant Singh for offence under Sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Thus, when the charges against the appellant as well as co-accused Shanti lal were same and once, the co-accused Shanti lal has been acquitted on the basis of evidence on record, the conviction of appellant is not sustainable on the basis of same set of evidence. It is further argued that FIR was lodged against the appellant as well as co-accused Shanti lal for offence under Section 467, 468, 471, 477A IPC also but the police did not find the said offences proved and chargesheeted the appellant and co-accused Shanti lal