Corruption – Disproportionate Assets – Prosecution had not deposed about the check period of the accused in which disproportion assets was acquired by him by illegal means – Acquittal upheld

Mr. Harnaresh Singh Gill, J.:- The State has filed the present application under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 30.01.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot.

2. Vide impugned judgment, the trial Court acquitted the respondent-accused of the charges under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. According to the prosecution, on 2.7.2014, complainant Amarjit Singh moved an application to the SSP Faridkot, for taking action against the accused-respondent with the allegations that the accused-respondent had got a false FIR lodged against the complainant and his family members. While the accused-respondent was posted at Security Branch, Moga, he used to prepare forged passport, after declaring himself as dead person and after declaring his (complainant’s) daughter as widow, he would send his children to America along with his daughter on return ticket. Mehakmeet Kaur and Harmandeep Sandhu, both children of the accused-respondent, returned from America in the year 2009. The accused-respondent got admitted his daughter Mehakmeet Kaur and son Harmandeep Sandhu, after changing their mother’s name from the School at Dabwali to Saint Marry School, Faridkot on 20.07.2009. Accused respondent wrongly got entered the mother’s name of the children as Mandeep Kaur, whereas their mother’s name was Sarabjit Kaur. Accused-respondent, while being posted at Security Branch, Moga had earned lacs of rupees by preparing forged passports. The complainant had obtained record under the RTI Act, which disclosed that FIR Nos. 135, 138, 127, 133 and 53, were registered against the accused. Accused respondent also purchased land measuring 56 kanals and 19 marlas in the name of his wife Sarabjit Kaur, where in the documents, the name of Mandeep Kaur was not mentioned as his wife. Accused-respondent had also purchased three plots in the name of his friend Goldy. Earlier, an FIR No. 134 was registered against the accused wherein he was called at CIA Staff, Faridkot. The complainant had handed over to the police the copies of jamabandi and forged papers, prepared by the accused-respondent. Upon this, the accused-respondent got FIR No. 204 dated 25.07.2009 registered against the complainant, his wife Balvir Kaur and their daughters Mandeep Kaur and Manpreet Kaur. Accused-respondent got prepared forged passports in the names of Mehakmeet Kaur and Harmandeep Singh, wherein he had declared his daughter Mandeep Kaur as his wife Sarabjit Kaur. The accused-respondent had obtained birth certificates of his daughters from Municipal Corporation, Moga, under Registration Nos.717 and 1826, whereas an inquiry from the Municipal Corporation, revealed that the said registration numbers pertained to the birth certificates of Sirpa Agarwal, resident of Dharamkot and Balwinder Singh, resident of Moga, respectively. The accused-respondent sent his both children to America in the year 2008 on fake passports.

4. Having heard learned State counsel and on going through the impugned judgment of acquittal, this Court finds that despite having examined as many as 27 witnesses, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused. The learned trial Court framed the following four points for determination:-

1. Whether the prosecution has proved that the sanction for prosecution, is legal, correct and proper?

2. Whether the accused Jaswinder Pal Singh has cheated complainant by preparing forged documents for sending his son and daughter abroad?

3. Whether the accused forged birth certificates of his children purported to be a valuable security for the purpose of cheating?

4. Whether the accused being a government servant committed misconduct by abusing his position as a public servant and purchased property and cannot satisfactorily account of the pecuniary resources and has commited an offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of