Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rishi Parkash vs State Of Haryana on 28 November, 2013
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Crl. Appeal No. 513-SB of 2004 (O&M) -1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Crl. Appeal No. 513-SB of 2004 (O&M)
Date of decision: 28.11.2013
Rishi Parkash ......Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. Pawan Sharma, Advocate for
Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana.
****
SABINA, J.
Appellant along with his co-accused had faced trial under Section 13(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('Act' for short) and Section 467, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short) in FIR No. 2 Dated 17.4.1997, registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Ambala.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that enquiry was conducted qua embezzlement of ` 2,04,500/-. The said amount had been sanctioned by the government for distribution to the flood effected persons. However, the appellant and his co-accused had misappropriated the funds in connivance with each other. During investigation, it transpired that two cheques in the sum of ` 5,000/- each in the name of Shri Kishan wre issued by the appellant and a cheque in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- was wrongly issued to accused Jai Devi. Further appellant issued cheques in the name of officials Man Singh, Peon, Dayal Chand, Peon, Jagir Singh, Patwari (two cheques), Roshan Lal, Patwari and Jaswant Singh Gurpreet 2013.12.03 15:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Crl. Appeal No. 513-SB of 2004 (O&M) -2- Singh Patwari in their personal accounts. Appellant instead of issuing the cheques in the names of flood effected persons, had prepared cheques in the sum of ` 5,84,500/- and ` 2,00,000/- in his account and, consequently, had caused loss to the government.
After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellant.
Charge was framed against the appellant under Section 13(1)(c) of the Act and Section 467, 471 IPC.
Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined 23 witnesses.
Appellant when examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, after the close of prosecution evidence, prayed that he was innocent and has been falsely involved in this case.
Accused examined three witnesses in their defence. Trial Court vide judgment dated 16.2.2004 ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 13(1)(c) of the Act and Section 467, 471 IPC whereas the other co-accused of the appellant were acquitted of the charges framed against them. Vide order dated 16.2.2004 appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of ` 3,000/- qua commission of offence punishable under Section 13 (1)(c) of the Act. Appellant was further setenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of ` 3,000/- each qua commission of offence punishable under Section 467, 471 IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in the departmental proceedings, appellant was not found guilty of the Singh Gurpreet 2013.12.03 15:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Crl. Appeal No. 513-SB of 2004 (O&M) -3- offence alleged to have been committed by the appellant. Hence, appellant was liable to be acquitted. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on 'Lokesh Kumar Jain versus State of Rajasthan' 2013(3) RCR (Criminal) wherein it was held as under by the Apex Court:-
"Havng regard to the aforesaid fact, this Court held that if the charges which is identical could not be established in a departmental proceedings, one wonders what is there further to proceed against the accused in criminal proceedings where standard of proof required to establish the guilt is far higher than the standard of proof required to establish the guilt in the departmental proceedings."
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the appeal and has submitted that prosecution had been successful in proving its case and the Trial Court had rightly ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 13(1)(c) of the Act and Section 467, 471 IPC.
In the present case, prosecution has examined 23 witnesses to prove its case. DW-2 V. Raja Shekhar deposed that he had conducted departmental enquiry against the appellant and had submitted his report Ex.DY.
Co-accused Jai Devi, Sushil Kumar and Karam Chand were acquitted by the Trial Court. So far as PW-7 Mani Ram, PW-12 Gurdev Singh and PW-17 Dayal Chand are concerned, they have not supported the prosecution case. These are the persons in whose accounts money was allegedly deposited by the appellant. PW-15 Jagir Singh also deposed that amount deposited in his account was withdrawn and disbursed to effected persons. This Singh Gurpreet 2013.12.03 15:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Crl. Appeal No. 513-SB of 2004 (O&M) -4- witness has not specified the remaining amount returned by him to the appellant. Thus, prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. In this situation Ex. DY also gains significance.
A perusal of Ex. DY reveals that enquiry officer DW-2 had found that at the time of distribution of the funds qua natural calamities, appellant had shown lack of leadership, lack of proper control and lack of proper monitoring. It was further held that in view of the enquiry, it was difficult to hold the appellant responsible/accountable for the loss. Although, as per the said enquiry report, it was advised that appellant should not be again given the charge to deal with the natural calamities like floods and emergency situation but it is evident from the departmental proceedings that the appellant was not found guilty of the charges levelled against him. Rather during the department proceedings, it transpired that the appellant had shown lack of leadership, lack of proper control and lack of proper monitoring. A perusal of the enquiry report Ex. DY further reveals that the enquiry officer held that appellant did not know the flood effected persons personally and they were identified by the Sarpanch, Chowkidar or Lambardar of the village. Further, it was held that in case any person had been paid the amount twice, the same could be got recovered by the current Tehsildar. In view of the enquiry report in departmental proceedings, appellant cannot be held guilty of commission of offence of forgery or under the Act.
In view of the fact that the appellant was not found guilty in the departmental proceedings, the appellant is liable to be aquitted of the charges framed gainst him by giving him benefit of doubt.
Singh Gurpreet2013.12.03 15:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Crl. Appeal No. 513-SB of 2004 (O&M) -5-
Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment/order dated 16.2.2004 of conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside. Consequently, appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him by giving him benefit of doubt.
(SABINA) JUDGE November 28, 2013 Gurpreet Singh Gurpreet 2013.12.03 15:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh