HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 925/2001

Bhagwan Puspani

----Appellant

Versus

State

----Respondent

Connected With

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 926/2001

Bhagwan Puspani

----Appellant

Versus

State

----Respondent

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 927/2001

Bhagwani Puspani

----Appellant

Versus

State

----Respondent

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 928/2001

Bhagwan Puppani

----Appellant

Versus

State

----Respondent

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 929/2001

Bhagwan Puspani

----Appellant

Versus

State

----Respondent

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 930/2001

Bhagwan

----Appellant

Versus

State

----Respondent

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 931/2001

Bhagwan Puspani

----Appellant

Versus

(2 of 8)

[CRLA-925/2001]

State

----Respondent

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 933/2001

Bhagwan Puspani

----Appellant

Versus

State

----Respondent

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 295/2002

State

----Appellant

Versus

Bhagwan Pushpali

----Respondent

For Appellant(s)

:

Mr. Vineet Jain, Sr. Adv. assisted by

Mr. Pravin Vyas & Mr. Rajiv Bishnoi

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Abhishek Purohit, Addl.G.A.

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

29/06/2022

1.

These Criminal Appeals (except SB Criminal Appeal

No.295/2002 preferred by the State against judgment of acquittal

dated 03.11.2001) under Section 374 Cr.P.C. have been preferred

against the judgment dated 08.11.2001, passed by the learned

Sessions Court, Prevention of Corruption Cases, Jodhpur in

Criminal Case No. 124/97 (28/94) whereby the learned Court

acquitted them for the offences under Sections 409, 420, and 471

I.P.C but convicted the present appellant for the offences under

Section 5 (1) (c) (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947

along with Section 477-A I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo 3

years R.I. along with Rs. 1000/- fine in default of payment of

which they were to further undergo 1 month S.I., and 3 years R.I.

respectively. Both sentences were to run concurrently.

(3 of 8)

[CRLA-925/2001]

2.

Mr. Vineet Jain, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Pravin

Vyas & Mr. Rajiv Bishnoi appearing on behalf of the appellant

submits that the above-numbered, first 8 appeals are directed

against the conviction pertaining to one F.I.R. bearing registration

No. 12/1989. The allegations levelled in the F.I.R. were to the

effect that a complaint was received in connection with

misappropriation/embezzlement of materials and amounts in the

stores of I.T.I. Jodhpur and Polytechnic College, Jodhpur. Records/

accounts of the said College were inspected by the A.C.B. Jaipur

and a letter dated 03.12.1987 was issued, whereby an enquiry

team was constituted for the purpose of inspection/audit, which

was carried out from 01.01.1988 till 31.03.1988. The report so

generated by the team stated that an amount of Rs. 4,60,572.49

was misappropriated/embezzled, in cash/material by the

appellant, store-keeper Bhagwan Pushpani (appellant in Criminal

Appeal No. 925/2000) and Surendra Singh, Gurcharan Singh, etc.

and R.D. Jain, Registrar of said Mandal. Subsequently, the said

F.I.R. was lodged for the offences under Sections 120B, 409, 420,

467 and 471 I.P.C. and Section 5 (1) (c) (2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1947.

2.1. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the alleged

letter issued to constitute the team to conduct the

inspection/audit, was authorized to do so only for the period of

1982-83 until 1986-87 i.e. for a period of five years and that the

same is explicitly stated in the audit report, at Ex-P/5. However,

the F.I.R. was instituted during investigation for the period 1978-

79 was taken as a check period i.e. 9 years instead of 5 years and

therefore nine separate charge sheets were filed. He also submits

that the inspection of the period was neither authorized, nor any

(4 of 8)

[CRLA-925/2001]

appropriate inspection of the accounts of the said period has been

carried out. And that therefore, the allegation of embezzlement of

amount is a mere co