HANSRAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Petitioner Hans Ram. Chairman of the Central Jo-operative Batik, Sawai Madhopur got collected some money for being presented to the Chief Minister towards "Chief Minister's Relief Fund". A complaint was lodged against unauthorized collection and Shri Brijendra Singh presented it to the Collector, Sawai Madhopur for inquiry, who transmitted it to the Additional Collector, Sawai Madhopur Learned Additional Collector, Sawai Madhopur, reached the contusion that the mode of collecting money was unauthorized. There were also certain erasures in the account-books of the Multi purpose Co operative Secret, Wajinpura. On the basis of that report the then Collector, Sawai Madhopur, lodged a first information report with the Police Station, Gangapur City. The police registered a case (No. 210 on December 3, 1976 against the petitioner u/s 420 and 468, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that he in fact wanted to collect an amount of Rs. 5,000/- for being presented to the then Chief Minister Hon'ble Shri Barkatullah Khan. However, an amount of 2,200/- only could be collected and as such he paid Rs. 5,001/- out of his own pocket and got the amount of Rs. 2,200/- deposited in Wajirpura Co-operative Society. The case of the 'state is that in fact no amount had been deposited with the Society and only paper entries had been made It ha been urged by learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the State, that though an amount of Rs. 2,200/- was shown as deposited in the accounts in between April 22, 1973 to April 26, 1973, as amount of Rs. 2,000/-was shown as debited on April 25, 1975 towards the account of Ramoliram and Rs. 260/- were shown debited towards the account of Ramoliram. No account has however, been submitted in respect of these sums. It has also been argued that the Auditors found certain interpolations in the record.

(3.) No doubt, the petitioner is a member of the Legislative Assembly. No the question arises whether the rest information report was lodged with the intention to implicate a political rival in a false case for the purpose of disgracing him or with the mention to digit acing his public image. Earned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently urged that the first information repair was lodged at the time when the Congress Government was in power and the petitioner is alleged to be a member of that party and as such the question of foisting a false case for political vendetta does not arise.