Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Paramhansh Yadav on 21 January, 2020
Author: Gautam Chowdhary
Bench: Gautam Chowdhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 51 Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 2298 of 2014 Appellant :- State of U.P. Respondent :- Paramhansh Yadav Counsel for Appellant :- G.A. Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.
Heard the learned A.G.A. for the State, the learned counsel for the accused respondent and perused the record.
This Government appeal is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 1.2.2014 passed by the Special Judge Prevention of Corruption Act, Varanasi in Special S.T. No. 123 of 1997 arising out of case crime no. 50 of 1992 under sections 465,467,471,409,120-B I.P.C. and section 13(1)C and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act P.S. Kotwali district Ballia.
The prosecution story as reflected from the record appears to be that as a measure of flood relief programme for the year 1988-89 in district Ballia, some relief was given to the persons of flood affected area by the Government and certain amount were given to them. It so happened that as per the allegation Rs. 30,000/- was misappropriated by the accused-respondent and no distribution, whatsoever, was made after obtaining forged signature of the beneficiaries.
The matter was investigated and after obtaining proper sanction from the authority concerned the matter was tried by moving complaint under the aforesaid sections of the Indian Penal Code as well as the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Accordingly, the charge was framed and the accused-respondent was heard on the point of charge, he denied the charge and opted for trial. Consequently, prosecution was required to adduce the testimony.
The prosecution in all produced as many as 13 witnesses i.e. Lalmuni P.W. 1, Ram Vilas P.W. 2, Phool Chand P.W. 3 Ratan P.W. 4, Ram Murat P.W. 5, Tribhuwan P.W. 6, Phaujdar Yadav P.W. 7 Biggan P.W. 8, Paramhans P.W. 9 and Shivmurti Singh P.W. 10, Ramesh Pratap Singh, Retired Deputy S.P. P.W. 11, Bailtullah Ansari P.W. 12 and Ramdhani Singh Yadav P.W. 13.
The prosecution evidence was closed. The statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused was recorded. The appellant claimed the impunity from the charge. No evidence, whatsoever, was led by the defence.
The trial court after vetting the testimony on the record considering the entirety of the case on its merit passed order of acquittal, acquitting the appellant of the aforesaid charges vide its judgment and order dated 1.2.2014. Consequently, this appeal by the Government.
Sri Nafis Ahmad, learned A.G.A. vehemently contended that in this case as many as 13 prosecution witnesses were produced in support of the charge, but for one reason or the other they sided with the accused-respondent. It appears that truth has been deliberately suppressed by them whereas fact is that the signatures obtained by the accused-respondent on the relevant document were forged and on examination and analysis of these signatures, this fact was verified and established that the signatures obtained were forged. However, the witnesses did not come out with true version. It appears that they have been won over and sided with the accused-respondent by stating that they have received the amount, but that alone would not exonerate the evil design/act of the accused-respondent being held guilty.
We have considered extensively the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses numbering 13 in all and upon careful perusal of the same, the core and central theme that emerges out of testimony virtually establishes fact that the beneficiaries received money that was meant to be distributed to them because of inundated flood in district Ballia. To secure conviction for embezzlement, the provisions of law are required to be proved squarely and the case should have been proved out and out within the four corners of the provisions of law which in view of the testimony of the beneficiaries, does not inspire confidence. We have no hesitation in holding that the fact of embezzlement has not been properly proved and established. Consequently, the judgment of acquittal dated 1.2.2014 passed by the Special Judge Anti Corruption, Varanasi in Special S.T. No. 123 of 1997 arising out of case crime no. 50 of 1992 under sections 465,467,471,409,120-B I.P.C. and section 13(1)C and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act P.S. Kotwali district Ballia is just and consistent, it requires no interference at this stage.
Leave to appeal is refused.
Consequently, this appeal is dismissed.
Order Date :- 21.1.2020 N.A.