Narendra Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) BY way of this application, the State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 06.03.2010 passed by Special Judge, Sessions Court, Prevention of Corruption Act, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in Regular Criminal Case No. 7/1998, whereby the learned Trial Court has recorded an order of acquittal of the accused -respondent, Shri Laxmi Narain Maharshi S/o. Shri Vishveshar Dayal, who was charged of the offences under Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1988') and Sections 409 and 477A IPC. The background, in which the accused -respondent was accused of and tried for the aforesaid offences, is that on enquiry, it was found that the accused -respondent was officiating Secretary and Administrator of Gram Panchayat Jaitusar from 01.10.1992 to 18.06.1994 and at that time, for construction of a tank at Bhopatpura, the administrative and financial sanction of Rs. 50,000/ - was granted and administrative and financial sanction of Rs. 45,000/ - was also granted for construction of a "Khurra", but the accused -respondent embezzled/misappropriate the Government money and was involved in corruption also. After due investigation, the police filed the charge sheet against the accused -respondent before the Trial Court under Section 13(1)(c) and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act of 1988 and Section 409 IPC. After following the due procedure, the Trial Court took the cognizance against the accused -respondent of the offences under Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) of the Act of 1988 and Sections 409 and 477A IPC and the trial, thereafter, commenced. During trial, 17 witnesses were examined from prosecution side. Statement of the accused -respondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused -respondent also filed some documents and produced six witnesses in defence. After hearing the arguments of both the sides and examining the evidence on record, learned Trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 06.03.2010, acquitted the accused -respondent and inter alia observed as under:
(2.) SEEKING to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 06.03.2010 passed by the learned Trial Court, it is contended by learned Public prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court is completely arbitrary, illegal, erroneous and against the evidence available on record as well as settled principles of law. Learned Trial Court has committed grave illegality in acquitting the accused -respondent. It is clear from the evidence available on record that the accused -respondent, being a public servant, has embezzled/misappropriated the amount and it is also proved that the accused has withdrawn the excess amount from the bank and when he was asked to deposit the excess amount back, he did not deposit the same, which evidently shows the intention of the accused -respondent that he wanted to embezzle/misappropriate the amount. Learned Trial Court has erred in not properly considering the statements of prosecution witnesses. From the statements of prosecution witnesses, it is proved that construction work was not done completely and material was also not found at the site and the work was not verified by the J.En. Learned Trial Court has also not considered the fact that entries made in the muster roll were also appeared to be fabricated and forged, because in the muster roll present was made up to 31st and payment has been made before 31st. So, learned Public Prosecutor prayed that impugned judgment may be quashed and set aside. After having considered the submissions made by learned Public Prosecutor for the State and examining the impugned judgment as well as the record of the Trial Court, this Court is not inclined to grant leave to appeal in the present case, particularly, when the view taken by learned Trial Court cannot be said to be unjustifiable. In the totality of circumstances, the prosecution case is lacking in relevant evidence, so as to bring home the charge under Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) of the Act of 1988 and Sections 409 and 477A IPC against the accused -respondent beyond reasonable doubt. The view, as taken by the learned Trial Court, remains a plausible view of the matter and the same cannot be said to be perverse, baseless and improper.
(3.) IN the aforesaid view of the matter, this Court is clearly of the opinion that no purpose would be served by granting leave to appeal to the State in this case, because as per the evidence as adduced from the prosecution side, there appears no likelihood of the accused -respondent being convicted for the aforesaid offences. Accordingly, leave to appeal, as prayed for in this case by the State, is declined and the application seeking leave to appeal stands rejected.;