STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. SHRI GANESH LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State of Rajasthan has preferred this revision petition under Section 401 read with Section 397 Cr.P.C., 1973 to assail impugned order dated 28.02.2015, passed by Special Judge (A.C.B. Cases), Udaipur (for short, 'learned trial Court') in Sessions Case No. 124/2013. By the order impugned, learned trial Court has discharged accused-respondent for the offence under Section 13(1)(d)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act of 1988').

(2.) The facts, in brief, giving rise to this petition, are that on 23.05.2012 Anti Corruption Bureau made endeavor to trap accused-respondent for allegedly accepting illegal gratification and pursuant thereto government accommodation provided to him is searched. During search, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was recovered from an almirah and when enquired, the accused-respondent failed to tender plausible explanation for the aforesaid amount. Taking cognisance of inconsistent stand of the accused-respondent as to how and in what manner he is in possession of the aforesaid amount, FIR was registered against him for the aforesaid offences. After investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the accused-respondent for offence under Section 13(1)(d)(e) and 13(2) of the Act of 1988. The accused-respondent resisted his prosecution at the threshold and made endeavor to argue on charge. The learned trial Court, after hearing learned Public Prosecutor as well learned counsel for the accused-respondent, discussed entire law on the subject, more particularly, the provisions of the Act of 1988 and found that prima facie there is no evidence on record for constituting aforesaid offences against the accused-respondent. The learned trial Court examined the matter in its entirety on the touchstone of Section 13(1)(d) and (e) of the Act of 1988. Section 13 of the Act of 1988 envisages "criminal misconduct" by a public servant. Section 13(1)(d) and (e) reads as under :

(3.) After hearing learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused-respondent, in my opinion, mere recovery of a sum of Rs. 20,000/- from the house of accused-respondent cannot be categorised as obtaining pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means, nor it is a case of abuse of his position as public servant by the accused-respondent for pecuniary advantage. It is also pertinent to observe here that there is no semblance of proof that respondent being a public servant has obtained pecuniary advantage for any person without any public interest. Therefore, in my opinion the learned trial Court has committed any manifest error in discharging the accused-respondent for offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act of 1988.