SHIV KUMAR SHARMA versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [2022] 13 S.C.R. 403 · Decided: 28-07-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
403
SHIV KUMAR SHARMA
v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
(Criminal Appeal No. 1050 of 2022)
JULY 28, 2022
[B. R. GAVAI AND
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.]
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.13(1)(d)(ii), 15 –
Penal Code, 1860 – s.477A – Complaint made regarding
malpractices in the construction of rooms and varandha in Primary
Schools – As per the prosecution, the appellant manipulated the
record and after the complaint was made, the amount was reduced
by the appellant in the Measurement Book and also with regard to
the construction work – Appellant convicted u/s.13(1)(d)(ii) r/w s.15
and u/s.477A, IPC – On appeal, held: For an offence punishable
u/ss.13(1)(d)(ii) r/w s.15, it is necessary to establish that a public
servant has attempted to obtain for himself or for any other person
any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage – In the present case,
no such material has come on record – Further, the vital aspects
that the appellant did not have any role to play in either the
sanctioning of the money or making of payment, have been totally
ignored by both the Courts – The evidence that in the investigation,
the IO had not found any criminal intent has also been ignored –
Conviction u/s. 13(1)(d)(ii) r/w s.15 unsustainable – Further, even
the conviction u/s.477A, IPC is not sustainable as no material has
been placed on record to establish that the making of false entry or
omission or alternation of such entries has been done willfully with
an intent to defraud, as required for conviction u/s.477A, IPC –
Order of conviction and sentence passed by Special Judge and
confirmed by the High Court set aside – Appellant acquitted of all
the charges.
Criminal Law – Concurrent findings of fact – Held: Cannot
be interfered with unless shown to be perverse.
[2022] 13 S.C.R. 403
403
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
404
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 13 S.C.R.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 For an offence punishable under Section
13(1)(d)(ii) read with Section 15 of the PC Act, it is necessary to
establish that a public servant has attempted to obtain for himself
or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage.
In the present case, no such material has come on record. On
the contrary, the evidence of PW14, the Investigating Officer
would clearly show that the payment of the construction material
was directly made to the Gram Sewak by the Panchayat Samiti. It
would further reveal that the bill of the material was also directly
sent to Gram Sewak by the Panchayat Samiti. There was no
verification done by the appellant. It is clearly admitted that the
appellant was not aware of the amount paid to the Gram Sewak
with respect to the construction material. It is further admitted
that at the relevant time, there were around 100 to 125 panchayat
works going on under the supervision of the present appellant.
It is further admitted that there was no material placed on record
to show that the corrections in Ex-article-2 from Ex-P-22 to Ex-
27 was made by the appellant after the complaint. PW14 further
admits that the amount paid by the Panchayat Samiti was as per
the amount corrected by the appellant. It is further admitted that
there was no evidence to show that the accused Bhagwan Sahai
and the appellant had made corrections together. He further
admits that ShivKumar Sharma, that is the present appellant, had
made a complaint to the District Magistrate about the irregularity
in the construction work by Bhagwan Sahai, Gram Sewak. These
vital aspects that the appellant did not have any role to play in
either the sanctioning of the money or making of payment, have
been totally ignored by both the Courts. The evidence that in the
investigation, the Investigating Officer had not found any criminal
intent has also been ignored. In that view of the matter, the
conviction under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) read with Section 15 of the
PC Act is totally unsustainable. [Paras 11-13][409-C-E; 409-G;
410-A-B]
1.2 For a conviction under Section 477A of the IPC, it is
necessary for the prosecution to establish that the making of false
entry or omission or alternation of such entries has been done
willfully with an intent to defraud. No such material has been
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
405
placed on record by the prosecution. On the contrary, the evidence
of PW8 who was appointed as an Inquiry Officer, would show that
the allegations made against the appellant were not sustainable.
His deposition would clearly show that the measurements
recorded by the appellan

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.