1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
J U D G M E N T
Ram Narain Vs. State of Rajasthan
(1) S.B.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1151/2004
Tarkesh Telang Vs. State of Rajasthan
(2) S.B.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1192/2004
against the judgment dt.23.11.04 passed by
the Special Judge, P.C.Act Cases, Udaipur,
in Special Case No.107/97.
Date of Judgment: Aug.20, 2008
P R E S E N T
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DEO NARAYAN THANVI
Mr.Mahesh Boda )
Mr.Anil Kumar Singh) for appellants.
Mr.O.P.Rathi, Public Prosecutor.
BY THE COURT :
2
1. These are the two appeals arising out of the common
judgment passed by the learned Special Judge, Prevention of
Corruption Act Cases, Udaipur dated 23.11.2004, whereby he
convicted & sentenced both the accused appellants Ram Narain
and Tarkesh Telang under various offences as under:
U/Sec.120B IPC : One year’s imprisonment & a fine of
Rs.25,000/- and in default, to further
undergo three months’ S.I.
U/Sec.468 IPC : One year’s imprisonment & a fine of
Rs.25,000/- and in default, to further
undergo three months’ S.I.
U/Sec.201 IPC : One year’s imprisonment & a fine of
Rs.25,000/- and in default, to further
undergo three months’ S.I.
U/Sec.13(1)(d) One year's imprisonment & a fine of r/w Sec.13(2) of : Rs.25,000/- and in default, to further P.C.Act undergo three months' S.I.
All the substantive sentences were ordered to run
concurrently.
2. Facts leading to this appeal are that Bahadur Singh,
Addl.S.P., ACB, Kota received information that Mahesh Chand
Saraswat, A.En., Tarkesh Telang, Jr.Accountant and Ram Narain,
LDC, with a criminal conspiracy, made forged entries in the
muster roll with regard to distribution of the wheat price for
famine relief work at Irrigation Sub Division of Rawatbhata in the
3
year 1987. The case was registered at Police Station, ACB, Jaipur
and after investigation, the challan was filed against the above
two accused appellants as also Mahesh Chand Saraswat, A.En.,
who is absconding in this case and standing warrant has been
issued against him, under ss.120B, 468 & 201 IPC and Sec.13(1)
(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,
hereinafter referred-to as “the Act”. After hearing the arguments
on charges, all the three were charged accordingly, to which
they pleaded guilty and claimed trial. During trial, accused
Mahesh Chand Saraswat absconded and the standing warrant
was issued against him on 22.9.2000. As against the remaining
two accused, the prosecution examined 35 witnesses. The
statements of the accused were recorded u/s.313 CrPC. They led
no defence and after hearing the arguments, the learned trial
Judge convicted and sentenced both the accused appellants as
above.
3. At the outset, both the learned counsel Mr.Mahesh Boda
and A.K.Singh appearing for the accused appellants have
submitted that there is no iota of evidence against both of them
but the trial Court without assigning any reasons, convicted and
sentenced accused appellants, which is per se against law and
facts. According to them, the story is based on fabrication of the
muster rolls on the basis of which the payments were made but
4
the muster rolls were prepared by Mahesh Chand Saraswat,
A.En., about whom all the witnesses have said but he is
absconding and both the accused appellants have been falsely
implicated without there being any iota of evidence against
them. It has been further submitted that while reproducing the
evidence, the learned trial Judge in the concluding para came to
the conclusion that both the accused appellants hatched
conspiracy with Mahesh Chand Saraswat, A.En., and they are
guilty. This finding of the trial Court is perverse and without
application of mind.
4. On the contrary, learned Public Prosecutor has supported
the judgment of the trial Court.
5. Upon re-appraisal of the evidence, the contention of the
learned counsel for the appellants finds favour from the available
record of the case. Having discussed the evidence of PW 1 to PW
35 from para No.7 to para No.46 of the judgment, the trial Court
came to the conclusion in para 48 that the accused appellants
Ram Narain and Tarkesh conspired with the accused Mahesh
Chand in making forged entries in the muster rolls and obtained
illegal gratification by putting loss to the State exchequer and
thereafter sentenced them. Per se, the judgment of the trial
Court is not reasoned. If the evidence is looked into, the main
5
investigating Officer is Shiv Ratan Bohra (PW 4), who was
Dy.S.P. and investigated the case and seized certain documents.
So far as the charge against the accused about the conspiracy
with Mahesh Chand and making forged entries in the muster rolls
by showing Beldars as vehicle drivers and destroying that record
thereby putting loss to the State exchequer amounting to
Rs.1,61,350/- is concerned, the most important evidence in the
case is of Padam Singh (PW 3), who was Executive Engineer of
the Irrigation Department at Ranapratap Sagar Rawatbhata from
July, 1986 to May, 1988. He has stated in his evidence that at
the lowest level, the famine relief work was to be looked into by
Mate, who used to mark attendance of the labourers, thereafter
in sequence by Mistri and Junior Engineer, who used to make
entry in the muster roll by verifying the attendance. After his
verification, the Asstt.Engineer used to send the requisition and
on that basis, they used to sanction the payment i.e. half by
cash and half with the supply of foodgrains. From the evidence of
this material witness, it reveals that muster rolls were being
prepared from Mate to the Assistant Engineer and the last
authority of issuing the requisition on verification was A.En.
Mahesh Chand Saraswat, who is absconding in this case. There
was neither any role of the store keeper Ram Narain nor of
Accountant Tarkesh in making forged entries. This witness has
further said that the muster roll Ex.P.4 to 30 were ofcourse
6
issued by Ram Narain and on some of the muster rolls, there is
signature of recipient Asstt. Engineer Mahesh Chand. In the last,
he has stated that on the basis of the muster roll, A.En. used to
prepare the bill in the form of impressed cash amount, which
was being checked by the Jr.Accountant and his Assistant and
thereafter he used to issue the order of payment. According to
him, the bills Ex.P.31 to 34 and 40 to 44 are signed by him and
Mahesh Chand Asstt.Engineer and the requisition for issue of
check on the basis of muster roll Ex.P.35 to 39 are signed by
Mahesh Chand Saraswat, A.En. And Tarkesh Telang. When this
witness was cross examined, he has specifically stated that there
was no cutting in the impressed cash amount and there was no
endorsement of the Accounts Section of the Divisional Office.
From his evidence, it is clear that there was no role of the
present accused appellants in preparing the muster rolls and
there was no cutting in it.
6. Heeralal Dhakad (PW 5), who was Manager of the
Eklingpura Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti, has stated that
whatever foodgrains was supplied in pursuance to the muster
roll, was not to the truck drivers. Askaran Singh (PW 7), who
was typist of the Irrigation Department has only identified the
signature of Mahesh Chand Saraswat on Ex.P.6. According to
him, the payment was to be made through Assistant Engineer
7
Mahesh Chand, who used to mark attendance. According to him,
Tarkesh was not posted in his office but he was in the Divisional
Office. PW 21 Modulal, who was Technician at the relevant time,
has stated that Mahesh Chand used to check the work at the site
for the payment but he does not know under what procedure, he
used to do the work. Mohan Lal (PW 23) is the Manager of the
Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti Jawahar Nagar, Chittorgarh, who
has said about the supply of the wheat to the labourers in
pursuance to the muster rolls being prepared by the Overseer.
He does not know Tarkesh Telang and Ram Narain Meena.
Prakash Chand (PW 26) has also said that the payment was used
to be made on the basis of the muster roll and he does not know
any one of the accused. Manoj Kumar Rajvanshi (PW 33) who
was Store Assistant at the relevant time, has said that the
payment to the labourers was made on the basis of the muster
rolls being prepared by the J.En. and later, on verification before
the A.En. According to him, the duty of the Asstt.Engineer
Mahesh Chand was to prepare the bill and send the same for
payment to the Divisional Office. This witness has not said
anything about the role of accused appellants except about
Mahesh Chand Saraswat. According to him, the role of Ram
Narain Meena Store Keeper was to issue muster roll and the role
of Jr.Accountant was to check the entries of the bills. Ghasilal
(PW 34), who was also employee, has said nothing about
8
present two accused appellants. Rest of the witnesses are formal
witnesses, who are labourers and vehicle drivers and they have
not blamed these two accused appellants.
7. From the above evidence, it appears that not a single
witness has said that any forged entry was made by the present
accused appellants in the muster roll in conspiracy with the
accused Mahesh Chand, who is absconding and they received
any benefit from him. The conclusion of guilt arrived at by the
trial Court is totally unfounded from the evidence on record,
which cannot be sustained. Whatever witnesses have been
examined by the prosecution, they implicate the role of Mahesh
Chand Saraswat, who is absconding, in preparing the muster
rolls and bills in accordance with the muster rolls. In view of the
zero evidence against the accused appellants, they cannot be
convicted for the offences charged.
8. Consequently, this appeal is allowed and the judgment
dt.23.11.2004 passed by the Special Judge, Prevention of
Corruption Act Cases, Udaipur convicting accused appellants
Ram Narain and Tarkesh Telang for the offences u/ss.120B, 468
and 201 IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with Sec.13(2) of the Act
is set aside. They are on bail, their bail bonds stand cancelled.
9
(DEO NARAYAN THANVI), J.
RANKAWAT JK, PS