SANDEEP MEHTA,J. - (1.) The instant appeal has been preferred by the State of Rajasthan seeking to challenge the judgment dated 26.8.2011 passed by the learned Special Judge, Sessions Court (Prevention of Corruption Act Cases), Jodhpur in Cr.Case No.35/2004 whereby the respondents No.1 to 4 were acquitted from the charges under Section 13(1)(D) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the respondent No.5 was acquitted from charge under Section 120B I.P.C.
(2.) Facts in brief are that the complainant Bhagwana Ram lodged a complaint with the Anti Corruption Bureau alleging that irregularities were committed in the construction of wells undertaken in the Jeevandhara Scheme under the auspices of the Panchayat Samiti Sanchore. Based on this complaint, a preliminary enquiry was conducted and it was found that without the disputed well being constructed in the field of the beneficiary Rama, the J.En. Sita Ram and Gramsevak Ram Singh issued a work verification certificate and on the basis thereof, payment of Rs. 21,360/- was fraudulently facilitated to the beneficiaries. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against Vijay Pal Singh, the then BDO Panchayat Samiti Sanchore, Tej Singh LDC Panchayat Samiti Sanchore, Sita Ram J.En. Panchayat Samiti Sanchore, Ram Singh the Gramsevak, Rama S/o Sanwta the beneficiary and Teja Ram Bishnoi. The trial court discharged Teja Ram Bishnoi by order dated 24.8.2009. Charges were framed against the accused persons in the above terms, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 4 witnesses in support of its case. The accused upon being examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 denied the prosecution allegations and claimed that they had been falsely implicated for political and other oblique motives. The trial court while concluding the matter vide the impugned judgment dated 26.8.2011 held that the payment which was made to Rama the beneficiary was for the first and second installments for construction of the well under the Jeevandhara Scheme. The payment so made to Rama was held to be justified because the well had been constructed partially. The final installment was payable on completion of the construction which was never visualised. Physical verification of the disputed well was not carried out in keeping with the norms prescribed under the Jeevandhara Scheme. With these conclusions, the learned trial Judge proceeded to acquit the accused respondents from charges and hence, this appeal.
(3.) Imploring the court to convert the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court in favour of the accused to one of conviction, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently urged that the accused persons fraudulently conspired and issued a fictitious verification report owing to which a huge amount to the tune of Rs. 21360/- was unjustifiedly released to the beneficiary Rama. He thus urged that the impugned judgment is bad in facts and law and should be set aside and the respondents accused be held guilty and convicted for the charges.;