Goverdhan Singh @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors.

This criminal writ petition has been field on behalf of the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 29.8.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge,

Prevention of Corruption Act, Bikaner (for short ‘the trial court’) whereby, the complaint filed by the petitioner against the respondent Nos.3

and 4 has been dismissed.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a complaint on 24.12.2010 to the Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur alleging that the

respondent Nos.3 and 4, while working as District Collectors, Bikaner, have illegally paid the electricity bills of their residential houses from the

government fund. It is alleged in the complaint that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 were supposed to pay the electricity bills of their residential houses

from their own money but they had illegally paid the said electricity bills of their residential houses from the government fund.

On the complaint filed by the petitioner, a preliminary enquiry was conducted wherein, it is concluded that though the electricity bills of the residential

houses of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 were deposited from the government fund but later on when it was revealed that the same has wrongly been

paid from the government fund, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 had immediately deposited the said amount in the government treasury. It is also

concluded that as a matter of fact, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 had no intention to pay the electricity bills of their residential houses from the

government fund but as the concerned clerk did not mention in the vouchers that the amount of the electricity bills is of their residential houses, the

respondent Nos.3 and 4 had singed those vouchers without knowing that the amount mentioned in those vouchers is of electricity bills of their

residential houses.

During the pendency of the said preliminary enquiry, the petitioner filed a complaint in the trial court levelling similar allegations as mentioned in the

complaint filed before the Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur on 24.12.2010. The trial court was also informed that the complaint filed

by the petitioner before the Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur is under investigation and, therefore, the trial court directed the Anti

Corruption Bureau to submit the report of the preliminary enquiry before it. The Anti Corruption Bureau submitted preliminary enquiry report No.76/11

before the trial court on 24.7.2012 and the said court after taking into consideration the allegations of the preliminary enquiry report has observed that

prima facie no case is made out against the respondent Nos.3 and 4 because evidence of this effect is not available to conclude that the respondent

Nos.3 and 4 had misused their official position or had deliberately paid the electricity bills of their residential houses from the government fund. The

trial court has also noticed the fact that as soon as the respondent Nos.3 and 4 came to know about the fact that the electricity bills of their residential

houses had wrongly been paid from the government fund, they deposited the money in the government treasury immediately.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that simply because the respondent Nos.3 and 4 had deposited the amount which had wrongly been

paid from the government fund in the government treasury, they cannot be absolved from the criminal liability and the trial court is not justified in

rejecting the complaint filed by the petitioner.

It is argued that once from the allegations levelled in the complaint, a case of commission of cognizable offence is made out, then the court should

have ordered for registration of an FIR against the respondent Nos.3 and 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, prayed that the impugned order be set aside and a direction be issued to register an FIR against the

respondent Nos.3 and 4 under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act as well as Indian Penal Code.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the impugned order as well as the material available on record.

It is true that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 while working as District Collectors, Bikaner had deposited the electricity bills of their residential houses out

of the government fund but there is no evidence to suggest that while doing so, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 had misused their official position or

deliberately made payment of electricity bills of their residential houses out of the government fund. The evidence to this effect is available on record

that the vouchers, which were signed by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 for the purpose of payment of electricity bills of their residential houses do not

disclose the fact that the amount written in the vouchers was of the electricity bills of their residential houses. This fact also cannot be ignored that at

the residence of the District Collector, Bikaner, two electricity connections were installed, one for the office and another for the residence and looking

to this fact, it cannot be ruled out that when there is no mention in the vouchers about the nature of the electricity connections, for which, the bills

were generated, there is all possibility that due to some bonafide mistake, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 had signed those vouchers which were resulted

in clearing of the electricity bills of the residential houses from the government fund. Otherwise also, when the fact came into the knowledge of the

respondent Nos.3 and 4 that the electricity bills of their residential house were deposited from the government fund, the amount of those bills was

immediately deposited in the government treasury.

It is true that simply because the respondent Nos.3 and 4 had deposited the said amount in the government treasury will not result in absolving them

from the liability but in the absence of any evidence of ill will or deliberate attempt on the part of the respondent Nos.3 and 4, it cannot be concluded

that they have committed any offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act or the Indian Penal Code.

Moreover, the incident for which the petitioner has filed complaint was of the year 2010 and the said complaint of the petitioner was dismissed way

back in the year 2012 i.e. on 29.8.2012 but the petitioner had approached this Court only in April 2015 i.e. almost after 2½ years. It is also to be

noticed that the matter is pending before this Court since 2015 but no attempt was ever made on behalf of the petitioner to argue the matter and the

same was adjourned on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner from last about more than three years.

In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in this criminal writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.