A criminal writ petition was filed against former officials alleging illegal payment of residential electricity bills from government funds. The High Court upheld the trial court's dismissal, noting no evidence of deliberate misuse or ill will, despite the initial error.
The criminal writ petition was dismissed as it had no merit.
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. Criminal Writs No. 18/2015
Goverdhan Singh S/o Shri Bharat Singh Parihar, By Caste Rajput, aged about 36 years, Resident of near Nrasingh Sagar Talab, Sarvodaya Basti, Bikaner (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajak K. Haidar For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.P. Bhardwaj, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order
04/07/2018
This criminal writ petition has been field on behalf of the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 29.8.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Bikaner (for short ‘the trial court’) whereby, the complaint filed by the petitioner against the respondent Nos.3 and 4 has been dismissed.
(2 of 5)
[CRLW-18/2015]
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a complaint on 24.12.2010 to the Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur alleging that the respondent Nos.3 and 4, while working as District Collectors, Bikaner, have illegally paid the electricity bills of their residential houses from the government fund. It is alleged in the complaint that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 were supposed to pay the electricity bills of their residential houses from their own money but they had illegally paid the said electricity bills of their residential houses from the government fund.
On the complaint filed by the petitioner, a preliminary enquiry was conducted wherein, it is concluded that though the electricity bills of the residential houses of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 were deposited from the government fund but later on when it was revealed that the same has wrongly been paid from the government fund, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 had immediately deposited the said amount in the government treasury. It is also concluded that as a matter of fact, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 had no intention to pay the electricity bills of their residential houses from the government fund but as the concerned clerk did not mention in the vouchers that the amount of the electricity bills is of their residential houses, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 had singed those vouchers without knowing that the amount mentioned in those vouchers is of electricity bills of their residential houses.
During the pendency of the said preliminary enquiry, the petitioner filed a complaint in the trial court levelling similar allegations as mentioned in the complaint filed before the Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur on 24.12.2010. The trial
(3 of 5)
[CRLW-18/2015]
court was also informed that the complaint filed by the petitioner before the Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur is under investigation and, therefore, the trial court directed the Anti Corruption Bureau to submit the report of the preliminary enquiry before it. The Anti Corruption Bureau submitted preliminary enquiry report No.76/11 before the trial court on 24.7.2012 and the said court after taking into consideration the allegations of the preliminary enquiry report has observed that prima facie no case is made out against the respondent Nos.3 and 4 because evidence of this effect is not available to conclude that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 had misused their official position or had deliberately paid the electricity bills of their residential houses from the government fund. The trial court has also noticed the fact that as soon as the respondent Nos.3 and 4 came to know about the fact that the electricity bills of their residential houses had wrongly been paid from the government fund, they deposited the money in the government treasury immediately.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that simply because the respondent Nos.3 and 4 had deposited the amount which had wrongly been paid from the government fund in the government treasury, they cannot be absolved from the criminal liability and the trial court is not justified in rejecting the complaint filed by the petitioner.
It is argued that once from the allegations levelled in the complaint, a case of commission of cognizable offence is made out, then the court should have ordered for registration of an FIR against the respondent Nos.3 and 4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, prayed that the impugned order be set aside and a direction be issued to
(4 of 5)
[CRLW-18/2015]
register an FIR against the respondent Nos.3 and 4 under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act as well as Indian Penal Code.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the impugned order as well as the material available on record.
It is true that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 while working as District Collectors, Bikaner had deposited the electricity bills of their residential houses out of the government fund but there is no evidence to suggest that while doing so, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 had misused their official position or deliberately made payment of electricity bills of their residential houses out of the government fund. The evidence to this effect is available on record that the vouchers, which were signed by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 for the purpose of payment of electricity bills of their residential houses do not disclose the fact that the amount written in the vouchers was of the electricity bills of their residential houses. This fact also cannot be ignored that at the residence of the District Collector, Bikaner, two electricity connections were installed, one for the office and another for the residence and looking to this fact, it cannot be ruled out that when there is no mention in the vouchers about the nature of the electricity connections, for which, the bills were generated, there is all possibility that due to some bonafide mistake, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 had signed those vouchers which were resulted in clearing of the electricity bills of the residential houses from the government fund. Otherwise also, when the fact came into the knowledge of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 that the electricity bills of their residential house were deposited from the government fund, the amount of those bills was immediately deposited in the government treasury.
(5 of 5)
[CRLW-18/2015]
It is true that simply because the respondent Nos.3 and 4 had deposited the said amount in the government treasury will not result in absolving them from the liability but in the absence of any evidence of ill will or deliberate attempt on the part of the respondent Nos.3 and 4, it cannot be concluded that they have committed any offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act or the Indian Penal Code.
Moreover, the incident for which the petitioner has filed complaint was of the year 2010 and the said complaint of the petitioner was dismissed way back in the year 2012 i.e. on 29.8.2012 but the petitioner had approached this Court only in April 2015 i.e. almost after 2½ years. It is also to be noticed that the matter is pending before this Court since 2015 but no attempt was ever made on behalf of the petitioner to argue the matter and the same was adjourned on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner from last about more than three years.
In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in this criminal writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
ms rathore
3 issues framed by the court
Whether dismissal of the petition due to lack of evidence of deliberate misuse of office, despite fund recovery, was justified.
Whether the delay in filing the writ petition and invariance of arguments warrants dismissal.
Whether a prima facie case for cognizable offence is made out given the inadvertent payment and subsequent refund.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Goverdhan Singh
Director General of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau
Smt. Sreya Guha
Shikhar Agarwal
Vijay Bishnoi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
