______________________________________________________

JUDGMENT

1. This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.02.2018 passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), 1988, Ujjain (M.P.). By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity, 'PC Act', 1988) read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, 'IPC', 1860) on three counts. The conviction relates to irregularities committed in relation to the missing of 110 transit passbooks, the failure to execute auction agreements in respect of 26 mines, and excess payments made towards advertisement charges.

FACTS IN BRIEF

2. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the Collector, Ujjain (M.P.) directed an inquiry into the matter, and in pursuance thereof, a Committee was constituted, which was headed by Mr. Aditya Nagar (PW/17). The said Inquiry Officer (PW/17) found that the present appellant, along with other co-accused persons, was responsible for the irregularities committed in the discharge of official duties as a 'public servant'. On the basis of the said inquiry, Mr. Ashok Neem (PW/1), the then Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Ujjain (M.P.), lodged a complaint at Police Station Madhav Nagar, Ujjain (M.P.), and accordingly, Crime No. 436/2005 was registered under Sections 406, 409, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC, 1860.

3. Thereafter, the Superintendent of Police, Ujjain directed the matter to the Economic Offence Wing (EOW), Bhopal (M.P.), where the case was re-registered as Crime No. 22 of 2006 by adding Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act, and the matter was investigated. Accordingly, after obtaining prior sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act, the chargesheet was submitted against the appellant and other co-accused persons.

4. The appellant was posted as Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Janpad Panchayat, Ujjain from 17.09.2002 to 14.10.2003. The prosecution has alleged that during her tenure, 110 transit passbooks were irregularly dealt with, the auction duties in respect of 26 mines were not recorded from time to time, auction agreements were not executed, and advertisement bills were paid in excess of the prescribed bills.

5. The charges under Sections 409, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC were dropped by the learned trial court itself, and ultimately, the charges were framed only under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section13(2) of the PC Act and Section 120-B of the IPC.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

6. It is argued by the learned senior counsel for the appellant that the prosecution has failed to prove dishonest intention, wrongful gain, or any pecuniary advantage against the appellant. It is argued that she was not the custodian of the transit passbooks and that the relevant office records were handled by one Mr. Babulal Sharma (Accused No. 5) and one Mr. Anant Singh Bains (Accused No. 6). It is further contended that the auction defaults had not matured for any coercive action during the relevant period and that the relevant expenditure was made only by the order of superior authorities. It is also stated that the departmental enquiry ended in a clean chit, and the sanction was not validly proved by the prosecution.

7. The senior counsel contended that the trial court acquitted the co- accused Accountant Mr. Anant Singh Bains (Accused No. 6) but did not adjudicate upon the culpability of the Accountant Mr. Babulal Sharma (Accused No. 5), as he expired during the pendency of the trial on 21.04.2016. The conviction has been restricted only to the Chief Executive Officer, namely Mr. D.D. Tripathi (Accused No. 3), and the present appellant, who served as CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Ujjain, during the relevant period. Mr.