Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prem Prakash Mehta vs State Of Haryana on 10 September, 2014
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
Crl. Appeal No. 558-SB of 2004 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Appeal No. 558-SB of 2004
Date of decision : 10.09.2014
Dr. Prem Prakash Mehta
....Appellant
versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. C.S. Bakhshi, Addl. AG., Haryana.
****
RITU BAHRI , J.
This appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction dated 14.02.2004 and order of sentence dated 19.02.2004 passed by the Special Judge, Sirsa, whereby accused-appellant Dr. Prem Prakash Mehta has been convicted under Section 13 (1) (d) (i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1½ years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.
Mr. Munish Ram, Animal Husbandry Department, Sirsa, made a complaint to the Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana, Vigilance Department, against Dr. Ram Kumar Gupta, SDO, Sirsa with regard to his corrupt and dictatorial behaviour. The said complaint was forwarded to the AJAY PRASHER Superintendent of Police, State Vigilance Bureau, Hisar Division, Hisar for 2015.03.03 09:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No. 558-SB of 2004 2 enquiry. Thereafter, Inspector Abhey Ram, SVB, Sirsa and Inspector Ram Dhan, conducted an enquiry into the matter and found that Dr. Prem Prakash Mehta (appellant), Animal Husbandry, Sirsa was residing in a Government quarter, but he claimed bogus house rent. As per the orders of the Director, Department of Animal Husbandry, Chandigarh, he had deposited Rs.7075/- on account of house rent along with interest amounting to Rs.3366/-. Thereby, he has temporarily embezzled a sum of Rs.7075/-. The enquiry officers further found that Dr. R.K. Gupta, who was posted as SDI, Department of Animal Husbandry, Dabwali, never resided on rent in the house of Chiman Lal Singla during his posting as SDO at Dabwali, but he had withdrawn a sum of Rs.12,450/- as house rent without producing any receipt in that regard. He himself was a Drawing and Disbursing Authority at that time. During enquiry, it was also found that Chiman Lal had submitted a false affidavit stating that Dr. R.K. Gupta was residing in his house on rent. In this background, FIR No.5 dated 07.04.1999, under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471, 120-B, 199, 218 IPC and Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered against all the accused at Police Station, SVB, Hisar. After completion of investigation, challan against all the accused was prepared and presented in the Court.
After presentation of the challan, accused Chiman Lal was charge sheeted under Section 120-B IPC, whereas accused Dr. R.K. Gupta and Dr. Prem Prakash Mehta-appellant were charged sheeted for commission of offence under Section 13 (1) (d) (i) of Prevention of Corruption Act, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined Prem Chand (PW-1), Dr. R.K. Kathuria, Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry, AJAY PRASHER 2015.03.03 09:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No. 558-SB of 2004 3 Panchkula (PW-2), Rattan Singh, V.L.D.A. Veterinary Hospital, Odhan (PW-3), Narinder Kumar, Sweeper in Vetrinary Department at Meerpur (PW-4), Lachhman Singh, Assistant office of Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry, Sirsa (PW-5), Dr. Shivaditta (PW-6), Rameshwar Dass, VLDA, Dabwali (PW-7) and Rattan Singh, DSP (PW-8). Thereafter, the evidence of the prosecution was closed.
After closure of the prosecution evidence, statements of accused-appellant, along with other accused, was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,, wherein entire incriminating evidence was put to them. However, they denied the same and pleaded innocence. In defence, appellant-accused examined Dr. Om Prakash Mehta, Distt. Dairy Development Officer, Kanganpur (DW-1), Pawan Kumar (DW-2), Surender Singh (DW-3) and Dr. Jora Ram, SDO, Animal Husbandry, Sirsa (DW-4) and thereafter, closed their evidence.
Trial Court, after going through the entire evidence led by the parties, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant in the aforesaid terms. Hence, this appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the deposition of Dr. Jora Ram, SDO, Animal Husbandry, Sirsa (DW-4), who has deposed that Dr. P.P. Mehta (appellant) was not the Drawing and Disbursing Officer (DDO) and rather, it was the S.D.O., Animan Husbandry, who was DDO during the period from 01.08.1989 to 30.11.1992. As per the record, Dr. P.P. Mehta never gave any application or rent receipt to claim House Rent Allowance (HRA). Dr. P.P. Mehta-appellant has given a representation to the Director, Animal Husbandry against adverse entry in his ACR for the year 1994-95. As per the report (Ex.DW4/A) of the Deputy Director on his AJAY PRASHER 2015.03.03 09:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No. 558-SB of 2004 4 representation, there was clerical mistake on the part of the office of Drawing and Disbursing Officer, Sirsa because of which, P.P. Mehta was given the House Rent Allowance. When this mistake came into notice, he deposited the amount as per the order dated 22.09.1994 passed by the Director, Animal Husbandry. This information was sent to him vide letter Ex.DW4/B and the amount was deposited by Dr. P.P. Mehta-appellant vide receipt (Ex.DW4/C). Thereafter, pursuant to the letter (Ex.DW4/D) received from the Director, Animal Husbandry, interest amounting to Rs.3366-54 P. was recovered from the appellant vide receipt, Ex.DW4/E. Finally, vide letter dated 20.01.1997 (Ex.DW4/F) sent by the Director, the matter had been settled vide letter Ex.DW4/G and no action was recommended against P.P. Mehta-appellant on account of wrong House Rent Allowance. There was no adverse entry in his ACRs throughout his whole career.
The trial Court has not considered the evidence and deposition of Dr. Jora Ram (DW-4) and has proceeded to convict the appellant on the basis of the fact that he had drawn House Rent Allowance amounting to Rs.7075/- from August, 1989 to November, 1992 in spite of the fact that he was residing in a Government quarter. Dr. Jora Ram (DW-4) had categorically deposed that P.P. Mehta-appellant was not the Drawing and Disbursing Officer at that time. Hence, he was not, in any way, responsible for wrong sanctioning of House Rent Allowance to himself. He had not made any application for grant of House Rent Allowance. Once, he was not responsible for the accounts of the department, he cannot be held liable for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Moreover, there was no adverse entry in his ACRs in this regard. It was merely a clerical AJAY PRASHER 2015.03.03 09:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No. 558-SB of 2004 5 mistake, which was later on corrected and the appellant had deposited whole of the amount along with interest.
In view of the documentary evidence from the department that the House Rent Allowance was given to the appellant due to clerical mistake and the appellant was not even the Drawing and Disbursing Officer, the judgment of conviction is liable to be set aside.
In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case against the accused-appellant by leading any cogent evidence.
Resultantly, this appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment of conviction is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him.
(RITU BAHRI) JUDGE 10.09.2014 ajp AJAY PRASHER 2015.03.03 09:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh