STATE Vs. BANSHIDHAR JOSHI AND ANOTHER
LAWS(UTN)-2012-9-195
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on September 25,2012

STATE Appellant
VERSUS
Banshidhar Joshi And Another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Having considered the order dated 24.08.2012 passed by Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Nainital, this Court finds that the basis of finding of learned Judge is that there is no direct evidence of taking or giving bribe by the accused persons Banshidhar Joshi and Dhirendra Rohtagi for sanction of subsidy to the tune of Rs. 3,45,722/- to Sushil Kumar Sharma, Oil Mill Owner.
(2.) The facts appears to be that both these accused persons granted said subsidy to Sushil Kumar Sharma on the basis that transportation of the goods to the oil factory was in accordance with Transport Subsidy Scheme launched by Government, so expenses incurred by oil mill owner in such transportation were returned to Sushil Kumar Sharma. The period of transportation was reckoned from 01.04.1986 to 30.06.1987 and the claim of the oil mill owner to return the money was sanctioned by accused persons with mala fide. Nonetheless, the absence of direct evidence regarding taking and giving of bribe by accused persons, the same can be unveiled if after levelling of charge, prosecution is rendering opportunity to adduce the evidence to the effect wherefor chargesheet has been submitted but the learned Judge has not rendered any opportunity to the prosecution to adduce evidence regarding corruption allegedly done by the accused persons causing loss to State Exchequer to the tune of Rs. 3,45,722/-.
(3.) In this regard Section 4 (3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read as under: "4. (3) When trying any case, a special Judge may also try any offence, other than an offence specified in Section 3, with which the accused may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), be charged at the same trial. " ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.