KANTILAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred this misc. petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 for quashing the FIR No.133/09, 134/09, 135/09, 136/09, 138/09, 139/09 dated 15.06.09 lodged at Police Station CPS ACB Jaipur for offence under sections 13(1)(D), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 409, 420, 1120-B of IPC and its entire subsequent investigation.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out apparently from the record that the basis of the present FIR was the audit of PHED Division Sanchore, which was conducted by the Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer, PHED, Jaipur and report No.F-3576 was prepared. The audit was done for the period from March 2002 to August 2007. After completion of the said audit, there were six audit objections which were pointed out by the Audit Team. On the basis of those six objections, six separate FIRs were lodged by the Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur being FIRs No.133/09, 134/09, 135/09, 136/09, 138/09, 139/09. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out six objections, which was taken and pointed out in the audit report No.F-3756, but the same were subsequently dropped in the compliance report, which was sent by the Department to the FA&CAO, PHED, Jaipur. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also stated that since the basis of the present FIR was six different audit objections and after proper consideration the same were dropped by the Department itself, therefore, the lodging of the subsequent proceedings was illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar, reported in (1996) 9 SCC 1, whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that if the identical charge is not proved in a departmental proceeding, in view of admitted discrepancies, nothing is left to proceed with the criminal proceeding.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor denied the aforesaid submissions and stated that the audit report was one of the basis of lodging the FIR, but in fact on an independent assessment and independent preliminary inquiries, the offence was made out against the present petitioner, apart from the audit report itself. Learned Public Prosecutor also argued that once the deficit amount was submitted by the parties concerned, then the same became the sole reason of withdrawal of audit objections.