VILAS JADHAV, S/O KISHAN JADHAV Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH THROUGH P S SUKMA, DISTRICT SUKMA, CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 27.10.2017 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, South Bastar Dantewada in Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2015 arising out of the judgment dated 15.10.2015 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sukma in Criminal Case No.132 of 2012. The Appellate Court has affirmed the conviction of the Applicants under Sections 420/34, 467/34 and 468/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 6 years, 6 years and 6 years awarded thereunder, but has reduced the amount of fine to Rs.10,000/- for each of the aforesaid offences with default stipulations. The Appellate Court has acquitted the Applicants of the charge framed under Section 409/115 Part II of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that at the relevant time between 4.3.2005 and 29.5.2005, Applicant No.1/accused Vilas Jadhav was posted as a Sub-Engineer in the Irrigation Department at Sukma and Applicant No.2/accused M.K. Ruggi was posted there as an Assistant Engineer. Other co-accused P.R. Thakur, who died during pendency of the trial, was also posted there as a Sub-Engineer. On 13.4.2006, Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Chhindgarh, District Dantewada lodged a written report (Ex.P30) in Police Station Sukma alleging that in 2004-2005, in Block Chhindgarh, under the Drought Relief Scheme from (i) Dhabanpal to Paikpara and from (ii) Gudra to Gumtapara approach roads were got constructed under the supervision of Applicant No.1, Vilas Jadhav. Allegedly, in the measurement book, 12321.39 cubic metres excess work of earth was shown to be done relating to the approach roads from Dhabanpal to Paikpara due to which the Government sustained a loss of Rs.3,35,512/-. Regarding the approach road from Gudra to Gumtapara also, 881.42 cubic metres additional measurement for Rs.24,005/- was shown in the measurement book. Earth work of 12272.10 cubic metres was shown to be done in excess due to which loss of Rs.3,34,173/- was suffered by the Government. Against deceased accused P.R. Thakur, it was alleged that he, in construction of a pond in Village Kodrikusum and in construction of approach road from Ratinaikras to Hikmiras, committed irregularities by making false measurements and thereby caused losses of Rs.1,94,760/- and Rs.2,35,748/- to the Government. As regards construction of approach road from Reddipal to Chhurragatta also, excess measurement relating to earth work was shown by deceased accused P.R. Thakur which resulted into a loss to the Government to the tune of Rs.3,31,496/-. Since Applicant No.2, M.K. Ruggi was posted as a Sub-Divisional Officer and in that capacity he verified the works done by Sub-Engineers Vilas Jadhav (accused/Applicant No.1) and P.R. Thakur (deceased accused), he has also been implicated as an accused in the case. On the basis of the written report (Ex.P30), First Information Report was registered and on completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sukma. Charges were framed under Sections 409/34, 420/34, 467/34 and 468/34 of the Indian Penal Code against all the three accused persons by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dantewada. The prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses in support of its case. In their statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused persons denied the guilt and pleaded innocence. No witness has been examined in their defence.

(3.) Vide judgment dated 15.10.2015, the Trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sukma convicted and sentenced the Applicants/accused for offences punishable under Sections 409/115 Part II, 420/34, 467/34 and 468/34 of the Indian Penal Code. As stated in the first paragraph of this order, vide impugned judgment dated 27.10.2017, the Appellate Court/1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dantewada acquitted the Applicants/accused of the charge framed under Section 409/115 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, affirmed their conviction and jail sentence for the offences under Sections 420/34, 467/34 and 468/34 of the Indian Penal Code, but reduced their sentence of fine. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the instant revision has been preferred by the Applicants/accused.