BHAGWATI PRASAD SHARMA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C., is directed against the judgment dated 16-5-2001 passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Shajapur in Special Case No. 03/1999 convicting the appellants as follows:--

(2.) The appellants abjured their guilt and alleged that they have been falsely implicated. During trial, prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses whereas, in defence no evidence was led by the accused persons. The Trial Court after considering the evidence on record held the appellants guilty of the offence as aforesaid. Feeling aggrieved the appellants have filed this appeal.

(3.) Shri Jaisingh, learned Senior Counsel has argued that the appellant No. 1-Bhagwati Prasad Sharma was working as a Sub-Engineer in "Tillar Project". He was transferred from the said project and was relieved of the charge on 2-1-1998. In the circumstances, according to him, when on the date of alleged offence he was not posted at Tillar Dam Project, his implication and conviction for the offence committed much thereafter on 27-3-1998 is not justified. He has further argued that as per the prosecution's witness, Dilip Shinde (P.W. 2), Sub-Divisional Officer of the said project at Aagar, it is clear that the cement was being stored at Central Store out of various stores and the Tools and Plant Store of which charge was not given by the appellant No. 1 till the date of the incident was not being used for storage of cement but was used for storage of other misc. non-consumable articles. In the circumstances, when charge of the Central Store where the cement was used to be stored was already handed over by the appellant No. 1 on 2-1-1998, he could not have been held guilty for the offence as alleged. He submits that Dilip Shinde (P.W. 2), in his deposition has categorically stated that in the department, they keep inward and outward stock register for cement and as per the record, there was no shortage of cement of the department in the godown. Drawing attention to the evidence of Govind Prasad Kala (P.W. 3), he has pointed out that as per his deposition there was no shortage of cement in the central store. In the aforesaid circumstances, according to the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, in the absence of any proof about the entrustment of cement to the appellant No. 1 and in the absence of there being any shortage of cement in the Godown and any allegation of the department that cement was found to be less in any of its Godown as per the stock register, the charge levelled against both the appellants cannot be said to be proved. He argued that when it was not proved by any cogent and reliable evidence that the cement seized from the truck was of the said project of the State Government and that there was any shortage of cement the appellants could not have been convicted merely on account of cement bags of Vikram Cement were seized from a truck.