BHAGWAN PUSPANI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Criminal Appeals (except SB Criminal Appeal No. 295/2002 preferred by the State against judgment of acquittal dtd. 3/11/2001) under Sec. 374 Cr.P.C. have been preferred against the judgment dtd. 8/11/2001, passed by the learned Sessions Court, Prevention of Corruption Cases, Jodhpur in Criminal Case No. 124/97 (28/94) whereby the learned Court acquitted them for the offences under Ss. 409, 420, and 471 I.P.C. but convicted the present appellant for the offences under Sec. 5(1)(c)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 along with Sec. 477-A I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo 3 years R.I. along with Rs.1000.00 fine in default of payment of which they were to further undergo 1 month S.I., and 3 years R.I. respectively. Both sentences were to run concurrently.

(2.) Mr. Vineet Jain, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Pravin Vyas and Mr. Rajiv Bishnoi appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the above-numbered, first 8 appeals are directed against the conviction pertaining to one F.I.R. bearing registration No. 12/1989. The allegations levelled in the F.I.R. were to the effect that a complaint was received in connection with misappropriation/embezzlement of materials and amounts in the stores of I.T.I. Jodhpur and Polytechnic College, Jodhpur. Records/accounts of the said College were inspected by the A.C.B. Jaipur and a letter dtd. 3/12/1987 was issued, whereby an enquiry team was constituted for the purpose of inspection/audit, which was carried out from 1/1/1988 till 31/3/1988. The report so generated by the team stated that an amount of Rs.4,60,572.49 was misappropriated/embezzled, in cash/material by the appellant, store-keeper Bhagwan Pushpani (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 925/2000) and Surendra Singh, Gurcharan Singh, etc. and R.D. Jain, Registrar of said Mandal. Subsequently, the said F.I.R. was lodged for the offences under Ss. 120B, 409, 420, 467 and 471 I.P.C. and Sec. 5(1)(c)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

(3.) On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposes and submits that the learned Court below has rightly passed the impugned judgment after taking into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, and after appreciating the evidence placed on record before it.