Ujaggar Singh v. State Of Pb.
!
!"#$# %& '('$ ) *
+ & ,- +.
/
! "
#
$$$ / * .
&
' ()* +,- .
+//0 .-1 .-, .1+ +2345)6 +7&+'& ' +7&2' 6 +/,,& 8 +/,, 8' 5
9+//7
* !4 !:: !
!
73 ++ +//,
!
! 7-33;4
< .21+;4 /1 333;4 233;4
=
! !
!
>! 9
!9 ?+4@
?74 6 ?4. @ !
?+745
?+045
?+,46
?+/4
?423A
?4225 ?427A
?2.4
4
> !9
B
!
>!
) ! 7+7 6 6! !
6 #! 9 9 9 9
)
>! !9
"?+45
"?24 "?745
) !
( # !9 !
) ?+4@
?74 6 ?.4 @ ! 7-33;4 ! #! 9 # ! !9
) 4>! ?+045
?+,46
?4+/
?274A
?2.4 "?+45 # ! !9
B ! @9 9 +//.& 8 +//.
' !4 7-33;4
!
! .21+;4! /1 333;4 ?04
"= 9 > 9! 7,+3;4 !
6 ! > !!0C ! /22;4 !
95 B" ! 9= !B !
233;4
>
D
&'
!::! 7-33;4
&'
?+4@
?74 6 ?.4@ ! 9
9 !!
!
(
9 9
&'
?74 6
! 9
& '
! ! 4>! ?++4
9 9 #!
9 @
& '
0C ! B )
0C !!9 9
0C & '
) 9! > 6
9
9!
& '
!
233;4
D !
!
@!
B ! 9
!
0
@
!:: 7-33;4 # ! !9
"?+45 ! !
) > !9
?+745
?+045
?+,46
!"
#
$
%
&
?234A
'
?274A
#
% ((
?2.4
%
&
#
((
%
&
"?+45
(
#
%
&
%
$ %
&
)
%
! B +//. +7 +/,, +/,, ! B
1 4
! B E ! 9
9
))
! 9! B
!
! 9 ! !
.21+;4 > 9!
! 0C !! B +//7
B +//0 > ) 0C ! !
9 )
! B 9
44 > 6 !
9
=
!
.21+;4
233;4
B
,+3;4
F> +1;
2
-+3;4 .70;4 710;4 )
;
B ! % ! 9 ) 9
! B ! 9 9 9 ?4++
9 9 G)
(
Section 13(1)(c) of the 1988 Act is reproduced below: "13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant.-(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,- xx xx xx (c) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any other person to do so; or xx xx xx To constitute a criminal misconduct of public servant under Section 13(1)(c) of the 1988 Act, it is required to prove that there is dishonest or fraudulent intention. With this intention the property entrusted or under the control of the public servant was misappropriated or converted for his own use or permitting some other person to do so.
The Supreme Court in C. Chenga Reddy and others v. State of A.P., (1996) 10 SCC 193, held:
"22.. On a careful consideration of the material on the record, we are of the opinion that though the prosecution has established that the appellants have committed not only codal violations but also irregularities by ignoring various circulars and departmental orders issued from time to time in the matter of allotment of work of jungle clearance on nomination basis and have committed departmental lapse yet, none of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are of any conclusive nature and all the circumstances put together do not lead to the irresistible conclusion that the said circumstances are compatible only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the appellants and wholly incompatible with their innocence. In Abdulla Mohd. Pagarkar v.
State (Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu), (1980) 3 SCC 110, under somewhat similar circumstances this Court opined that mere disregard of relevant provisions of the Financial Code as well as ordinary norms of procedural behaviour of government officials and contractors, without conclusively establishing, beyond a reasonable doubt, the guilt of the officials and contractors concerned, may give rise to a strong suspicion but that cannot be held to establish the guilt of the accused.
proof in relation to a criminal charge was not proper...."
) that dis-regard of the provisions of the financial code or the procedure laid down by the Government made a strong suspicion but the guilt cannot be established solely on this basis. 9
+7&+'& ' +/,, !
!
)!
!
E ! !
3AVNEESH JHINGAN 4
31st August, 2022.
( ?
; B H ?
H