JASWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of impugned judgment dtd. 30/5/2019, the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Bhilwara (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'learned trial Court') convicted the appellant for offence under Sec. 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in Sessions Case No. 55/2015 and sentenced him as under :-

(2.) Succinctly stated, the facts apposite are that a complaint was received by the office of Anti corruption Bureau, Bhilwara to the effect that huge amount of money is being embezzled at Home Guard Training Centre, Bhilwara on the basis of false and fabricated documents by putting attendance of guards without actually conducting the duty. On verification, the complainant was found to be true and accordingly, an inspection was conducted by the Anti Corruption Bureau headed by Goverdhan Singh Dhabai, Additional Superintendent of Police at Home Guard Training Centre, Bhilwara. On inspection of records, it was found that the officers of the Home Guard Training Centre namely Vikram Singh, Personnel Member, Nathu Singh, Dy. Commandant, Jaswant Singh, Platoon Commander had prepared false and fabricated duty bills of persons who actually did not perform any duty and obtained the amount causing financial loss to State Exchequer. The police registered a case being FIR No. 92/2009 for offence under Ss. 467, 468, 471, 477A, 120B IPC and Sec. 13(1)(c)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and investigation commenced. Upon completion of investigation, Anti Corruption Bureau, submitted charge-sheet against accused appellant Jaswant Singh and Shanti lal for offence under Sec. 13(1)(c)(d), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Sec. 120B IPC before court of Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Bhilwara where charges of the case were framed. The accused denied the charges. Upon denial to all the charges, the learned trial Court put them on trial.

(3.) The prosecution in support of charges, examined 47 witnesses. Besides ocular evidence, various documents were produced by the prosecution, which were exhibited. In defence, accused-appellant did not produce any evidence.