P.K. Lohra, J. - (1.) State of Rajasthan has preferred these 16 Leave to Appeals being aggrieved by judgments of Special Judge, Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act) Cases, Pali (for short, 'learned Appellate Court'), whereby the judgments rendered in various criminal cases against accused-respondents by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali (for short, 'learned trial Court') were quashed and set aside facilitating acquittal of the respondents for offence under Sections 420, 406, 467, 471 and 120-B IPC.
(2.) At the threshold, upon conclusion of trial, learned trial Court indicted accused-respondents for the charged offences in all the cases and handed down sentences of different durations. Feeling aggrieved by the judgments of learned trial Court, accusedrespondents preferred appeals before learned appellate Court and the learned appellate Court by the impugned judgments acquitted all of them for the charged offences by extending benefit of doubt. The requisite details about all Leave to Appeals are mentioned as under: JUDGEMENT_29_LAWS(RAJ)4_2018_1.html
(3.) The facts, in general, are identical in all these Leave to Appeals, including the charged offences and accused persons named therein are common but for timings of the commission of alleged offences by them. That apart, prosecution evidence in all the cases is also common to substantiate charges against accused-respondents. Therefore, the facts relevant and germane in respect of Criminal Leave to Appeal No.253/17 may be recapitulated as infra: (i) Inspector, Anti-Corruption Bureau, lodged First Information Report (FIR) No.44/2000 on 11th of February 2000, inter-alia, stating therein that from reliable sources he came to know about wrongful loss of lakhs of rupees caused to the exchequer in deposition of registration charges of vehicles with the District Transport Office, Pali. The report further unfurled that due to connivance of vehicle drivers/their representatives and employees of District Transport Officer, Pali, instead of third leaf of challan, by filling fourth leaf amount was deposited with the Bank for registration of vehicles. The estimated loss to the State Government for the interregnum period from July 1997 to September 1997 is indicated in the report as Rs.14,284 with the specific allegation of defalcation of aforesaid amount by registration clerk and vehicle owner/agent. On the basis of FIR, the then registration clerk Ram Singh of District Transport Office, Pali and registration agents of vehicle owners Bharat Singh and Surendra Singh were charged for offence under Section 13(1)(c) & (d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'PC Act') and Sections 420, 467, 471, 477A and 120-B IPC. The requisite sanction for prosecuting employees of the Transport Department for offence under the P.C. Act was sought but the same was declined, and therefore, finally, after completion of investigation accused-respondents were charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences of IPC before learned trial Court. (ii) The learned trial Court heard arguments on charge and framed charges against respondents for the aforesaid offences. Upon their denial, the accused-respondents were put on trial. In order to prove charges against the accused-respondents, prosecution examined 17 witnesses and exhibited 51 documents. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused-respondents were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court, then, proceeded to hear final arguments and by its judgment dated 1st of October 2013 indicted accused-respondents for offence under Sections 420, 471 and 120-B IPC but acquitted of offence under Sections 467 and 406 IPC by extending the benefit of doubt. The learned trial Court, awarded sentence of 4 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000 and in default sentence of 2 months' simple imprisonment for offence under Section 420 IPC to each of the respondents, and handed down sentence of 5 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000, and in default of payment of fine 4 months' simple imprisonment to each accused-respondents for offence under Sections 471 read with Section 120-B IPC. (iii) Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of learned trial Court, respondents preferred appeal before learned appellate Court and the learned appellate Court by its impugned judgment reversed the judgment of learned trial Court, resulting in acquittal of the respondents for charged offences. The learned appellate Court, in the impugned judgment observed that the learned trial Court has seriously erred in appreciation of evidence and there is no tangible evidence to prove forgery by the respondents. Besides that, while pointing out many loopholes in prosecution evidence and sans any wrongful loss to the exchequer, the learned appellate Court set aside conviction of the respondents by extending them benefit of doubt.;