The High Court dismissed the State's criminal leave to appeal against an acquittal where the trial court found no evidence of loss to the State or conspiracy to commit offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act during the sanctioning of extra work.
Criminal leave to appeal being bereft of any force is hereby dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Crml Leave To Appeal No. 568/2017
State Of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. O.P. Rathi, P.P. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sheetal Kumbhat
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Order
11/10/2018
This criminal leave to appeal has been filed on behalf of the State being aggrieved with the judgment dated 28.01.2017 passed by the Special Judge, Sessions Court (Prevention of Corruption Act Cases), Udaipur (for short ‘the trial court’) in Criminal Regular Case No.21/2005 whereby, the trial court has acquitted the accused respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(D)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) read with Section 120-B IPC.
The trial court has taken into consideration the fact that almost all the prosecution witnesses have admitted that the extra work sanctioned by the respondent No.1 – Purushottam Lal, the then Chief Engineer of the Mahi Project, Banswara was within his
(2 of 2)
[CRLLA-568/2017]
competence. The trial court has also taken into consideration the fact that none of the prosecution witness is able to prove that by sanctioning of extra work, the State Government was put to loss. The trial court has also taken into consideration the documentary evidence letters written by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Rajasthan, Jaipur to the Director General of the Anti Corruption Bureau, Rajasthan and by various higher authorities of the State Government such as Chief Secretary, Deputy Secretary etc. with a prayer to drop the criminal proceedings against respondent No.1 - Purushottam Lal, Chief Engineer by ascertaining that he has not committed any illegality in sanctioning extra work to the contractor respondent No.2 – Kamal Baghwani. The trial court has also observed that there is no evidence against the respondent No.2 – Kamal Baghwani to the effect that he conspired with the respondent No.1 - Purushottam Lal for commission of offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(D)/13(2) of the Act of 1988 read with Section 120-B IPC.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, after carefully scrutinizing the record of the case and the documentary evidence produced on behalf of the respondents, I am of the opinion that no case for grant of leave to file appeal is made out.
Hence, this leave to appeal being bereft of any force is hereby dismissed.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
Taruna
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a criminal leave to appeal lies when the trial court acquitted the accused sanctioning extra work where no proof of loss to the State was established.
Whether documentary evidence and admissions by prosecution witnesses regarding lack of illegality in sanctioning extra work preclude a case for grant of leave to appeal.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
State Of Rajasthan
Purshotm Lal Son Of Ram Niwas Rungta
Kamal Baghwani
VIJAY BISHNOI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
