SHIV KUMAR SHARMAversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

                        [2022] 13 S.C.R. 403                             403


                     SHIV KUMAR SHARMA                                   A
                                  v.
                     STATE OF RAJASTHAN
                 (Criminal Appeal No. 1050 of 2022)
                                                                         B
                           JULY 28, 2022
                  [B. R. GAVAI AND
         PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.]
      Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.13(1)(d)(ii), 15 –         C
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    D
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         E
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       F
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       G
the charges.
      Criminal Law – Concurrent findings of fact – Held: Cannot
be interfered with unless shown to be perverse.

                                                                         H
                                 403
404            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2022] 13 S.C.R.


A           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.
B     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
C     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.
D     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
E     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
F     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
G     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
H
      SHIV KUMAR SHARMA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                            405


placed on record by the prosecution. On the contrary, the evidence       A
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 appellant were found to be correct by the Inquiry
Officer. He clearly admits that he did not find any irregularity in
                                                                         B
the work of village Mankot. He further admits that if any mistake
was done in the total of Measurement Book at the time of
preparing the bill, the mistake could be corrected by the accounts
branch. He further admitted that in so far as Surjanpur is
concerned, no person was appointed as a watchman or a
supervisor. He admits that in the absence of a watchman, it is           C
possible that the material lying at the site could be taken by
anybody. He admits that even the patties were not found on the
spot and has noted about the same in the report. He further admits
that if the cost of patties of Rs. 6914/- were included in the
valuation of Rs. 40,677/- then the valuation comes to Rs.47,181/
                                                                         D
-. Further, it could clearly be seen that the appellant had no role
whatsoever in either approving the payment or making the
payment. The evidence of PW8 would clearly show that at the
most, the act of the appellant could be termed as irregular.
However, there was nothing on record to show that such
irregularities were committed willfully with an intent to defraud.       E
In that view of the matter, even the conviction in so far as Section
477A of the IPC is concerned, is not sustainable in law. It is settled
law that concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless
shown to be perverse. In the present case, both the Trial Court
and the High Court failed to take into consideration the relevant
                                                                         F
and vital admissions in the evidence of PW8. and PW 14. The
said admissions were vital. Basing the order of conviction by
ignoring the said vital admissions would bring the impugned
judgments in the realm of perversity. The order of conviction
and sentence as recorded by the Special Judge, Prevention of
Corruption Act No.1, Jaipur and confirmed by the High Court              G
are quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all the
charges. The bail bonds stand discharged. [Paras 14-19, 25,
26][410-C-D; 411-C-H; 414-E-F]
      Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar v. State of Maharashtra
      (2009) 11 SCC 141 : [2009] 3 SCR 1122; Ashoksinh                   H
406            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 13 S.C.R.


A           Jayendrasinh v. State of Gujarat (2019) 6 SCC 535 :
            [2019]7 SCR 309 – relied on.
                                  Case Law Reference
      [2009] 3 SCR 1122                     relied on              Para 22
B     [2019] 7 SCR 309                      relied on              Para 24
            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
      1050 of 2022.
             From the Judgment and Order dated 06.01.2017 of the High Court
      of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in S.B. Misc. Criminal
C     Appeal No. 800 of 2013.
            Ritesh Agrawal, Ms. Arpana Kumari, Advs. for the Appellant.
            Dr. Manish Singhvi, AAG, Anish Roy, Milind Kumar, Advs. for
      the Respondent.
D           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            B. R. GAVAI, J.
            1. Leave granted.
             2. The appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 06.01.2017
E     passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature for
      Rajasthan at Jaipur thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant/
      accused, which was in turn filed thereby challenging the judgment and
      order dated 24.10.2013 passed by the learned Special Judge, Prevention
      of Corruption Act No. 1, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as “the Special
      Judge”), convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Section
F     13(1)(d)(ii) read with Section 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
      1988 (‘PC Act’ for short) and under Section 477A of Indian Penal Code,
      1860 (“IPC” for short) and sentencing him to suffer rigorous
      imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 5000/- each for both the
      offences.
G           3. The Special Judge, vide order dated 03.06.2004, framed the
      following charges against the appellant:
            “Firstly in the year 1994, on 25.04.1994 and around the same
            time, while working as public servant, you had conspired with the
            co-accused Bhagwan Sahai and in furtherance of that criminal
H           conspiracy, you had received an advance of Rs. 15,000/- out of
      SHIV KUMAR SHARMA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                                407
                   [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

      the approved amount of Rs. 91,500/- with regard to construction        A
      of rooms and varandha in the Primary School, Mankot and
      Bhagwan Sahai had submitted the work of Rs. 14,508/- in three
      muster rolls and the voucher of construction material of Rs. 18,994/
      - thereby informed the expenditure as Rs. 33,502/- which was
      accepted at page No. 71 and 72 of M.B. No. 51 and mentioned
                                                                             B
      as Rs. 34,580.13 by Shiv Kumar Sharma but later on, on complaint,
      the said amount of Rs. 34,580/- was modified to Rs. 25,911/-.
             In the same manner, in furtherance of the aforesaid criminal
      conspiracy, an advance of Rs. 28,000/- was received out of the
      approved amount of Rs. 80,000/- for construction of rooms and
      varandha in Primary School Surjanpur and Sh. Bhagwan Sahai             C
      had shown the expenditure of Rs. 61,843.40 including the expenses
      of 7 muster rolls amounting to Rs. 36,552/- and the voucher of
      construction amounting to Rs. 25,291.40. The said amount was
      entered by Sh. Shiv Kumar Sharma at page No. 71-72 of M.B.
      No. 51 as Rs. 68,776/- but on complaint, the said amount of Rs.        D
      68,776/- was reduced to 45,582/- by cutting. In the enquiry, only
      work worth Rs. 28,264.42 was found at Surjanpur and work worth
      Rs. 25,911/- was found at Mankot and thus, you have shown the
      excess expenditure of labour and construction which was excess
      of Rs. 7,698/- at Mankot and Rs. 16,644/- at Surjanpur, totalling
      Rs. 22,353/- for which the excess payment was made and wrongful        E
      loss was caused to the State Government and wrongful gain was
      received by you. You also created false record by cutting in the
      records. The said act of you being the public servant is a criminal
      offence. Thus, you have committed a punishable offence under
      section 417, 477A read with section 120B IPC and offence under         F
      section 13(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for
      which I have taken cognizance.”
      4. It appears that a complaint was made to the authorities regarding
malpractices in the construction of rooms and varandha in Primary
School, Mankot and Surjanpur. It was the prosecution case that, in the       G
Measurement Book with regard to Mankot, the amount was reduced
from Rs. 34,580/- to Rs. 25,911/- by the appellant after the complaint
was made. With regard to the construction work at Surjanpur, after the
complaint was made, the amount was reduced to Rs.45,582/- from
Rs.68,776/-.
                                                                             H
408             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 13 S.C.R.


A            5. After the receipt of the complaint, Mr. Mahesh Prasad Mathur
      was appointed as an Inquiry Officer. After completion of inquiry, he
      submitted an inquiry report. On the basis of the inquiry report, the crime
      came to be registered. The chargesheet was filed. The appellant pleaded
      not guilty and claimed to be tried. The learned Special Judge, at the
      conclusion of the trial, convicted the appellant as aforesaid. The appellant
B
      filed an appeal before the High Court and the High Court confirmed the
      order of the learned Special Judge. Hence the present appeal.
             6. Mr. Ritesh Agrawal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
      of the appellant submits that both the High Court and the learned Trial
      Court have grossly erred in not giving due weightage to the evidence of
C     PW-8 Mr. Mahesh Prasad Mathur as well as PW14-Jai Bhagwan, the
      Investigating Officer.
             7. The learned counsel further submits that there is no material to
      show that the appellant either had made any demand or by abusing his
      position as a public servant, had obtained for himself or any other person
D     any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. It is submitted that in the
      absence of any material to show that the appellant attempted to obtain
      for himself or any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage,
      the conviction under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) read with Section 15 of the PC
      Act was not tenable. He further submits that for an offence punishable
E     under Section 477A of the IPC, the prosecution is required to establish
      that the alleged act was willful with an intent to defraud. It is his
      submission that no such evidence has come up on record.
             8. Learned counsel therefore, submits that the concurrent orders
      of conviction are liable to be set aside and the accused is entitled to be
F     acquitted.
             9. Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned Additional Advocate General for
      the State of Rajasthan vehemently opposes the appeal. He submits that
      the scope of interference in concurrent findings of fact is very limited.
      He submits that the learned Trial Court and the High Court, upon correct
G     appreciation of evidence, have found that the appellant had manipulated
      the record with dishonest intention. He submitted that only after the
      complaint was made to the higher authorities, the appellant, in order to
      save his skin, had manipulated the record and as such, the case clearly
      falls under Section 477A of the IPC.

H
      SHIV KUMAR SHARMA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                                  409
                   [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

      10. No doubt that the scope of interference in the concurrent            A
findings of the fact is very limited. Unless the findings are found to be
perverse or impossible, the Court would refrain from interfering with the
concurrent findings of fact. However, it is settled that when the findings
recorded by the courts below are found to be recorded by ignoring the
material evidence or the appreciation of evidence is manifestly erroneous,
                                                                               B
they would not come in the way of this Court in interfering with the
same.
       11. 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        C
come on record. On the contrary, the evidence of PW14-Jai Bhagwan,
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            D
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         E
Ex-article-2 from Ex-P-22 to Ex-27 was made by the appellant after the
complaint. It will be relevant to refer to the following part of deposition
of PW14-Jai Bhagwan, the I.O.:
      “I had not found any criminal charges against Shiv Kumar in my
      investigation report sent to the Headquarter and had only                F
      recommended for Departmental Enquiry. However, on the decision
      of the higher officials, charge sheet was filed.”
      12. 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           G
Sahai and the appellant had made corrections together. He further admits
that Shiv Kumar 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.
                                                                               H
410             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 13 S.C.R.


A            13. 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
B
      unsustainable.
             14. That leaves us with conviction under Section 477A of the
      IPC. 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.
C     No such material has been placed on record by the prosecution. On the
      contrary, the evidence of PW8-Mahesh Prasad Mathur, who was
      appointed as an Inquiry Officer, would show that the allegations made
      against the appellant were not sustainable. It will be relevant to refer to
      the deposition of PW8-Mahesh Prasad Mathur, which reads thus:
D            “When I went on the spot to conduct enquiry then M.B. of Mankot
             and Surjpur was given to me. On the basis of which on dated 4.10
             and 19.10.94 I had conducted enquiry after visiting the spot. On
             the instructions of C.O. I had prepared the difference detail on
             17.2.95. At page No. 71,72 of the MB No. 51 (Article-2) the
E            measurement have been recorded by the Jr. Eng. That was found
             correct upon my examination. Against this work of Rs. 25911/-
             payment of Rs. 13422/- was made as labour charges, which is
             entered in the MB from X to Y. I did not find any irregularity in
             the work of village Mankot. In case by mistake if any mistake is
             done in the total of MB, then at the time of preparing bill on the
F            basis of MB, this mistake can be corrected by the account branch.
             I had gone there three months after ending of the famine relief
             works. At that place (Surjanpur) for the supervision of the material
             of work, there was no person appointed. On the spot there was
             not watchman, in the absence of which if anyone would take the
G            material lying there, I cannot say. The Patties which have been
             shown in the MB, the same were not found on the spot, therefore,
             I had noted about it in the Report. It is the responsibility of the
             Gram Sewak to get conducted the construction work. If the costs
             of Patties of Rs. 6914/- would be included in my evaluation of Rs.
             40267/-, then the valuation amount becomes Rs. 47181/-.
H
      SHIV KUMAR SHARMA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                                   411
                   [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

                the cost of patties is written according to BSR. When           A
      MB-51 (Article-2) was received to me, at that time due to mistake
      in total by J. En by cutting the amount of Rs. 59273/- the amount
      47183/- has been marked, whereupon the J. En put his signatures.
      The payment of construction material was made to the Sarpanch
      of the Gram Panchayat, the agency which get conducted the work
                                                                                B
      while the muster roll’s payment is made by the tehsil employees.
      The payment of construction material was made by the
      Panchayat.”
       15. The above deposition would clearly show that the
measurements recorded by the appellant were found to be correct by
the Inquiry Officer. He clearly admits that he did not find any irregularity    C
in the work of village Mankot. He further admits that if any mistake was
done in the total of Measurement Book at the time of preparing the bill,
the mistake could be corrected by the accounts branch.
       16. PW8-Mahesh Prasad Mathur further admitted that in so far
as Surjanpur is concerned, no person was appointed as a watchman or a           D
supervisor. He admits that in the absence of a watchman, it is possible
that the material lying at the site could be taken by anybody. He admits
that even the patties were not found on the spot and has noted about the
same in the report. He further admits that if the cost of patties of
Rs. 6914/- were included in the valuation of Rs. 40,677/- then the valuation    E
comes to Rs.47,181/-.
       17. PW8-Mahesh Prasad Mathur has further admitted that the
payment for the construction material was made directly to the Sarpanch
of the Gram Panchayat by the agency while the muster roll’s payment
was made by the tehsil employees. Payment of the construction material          F
was made by the Panchayat. Thus, it could clearly be seen that the
appellant had no role whatsoever in either approving the payment or
making the payment.
      18. The evidence of PW8-Mahesh Prasad Mathur would clearly
show that at the most, the act of the appellant could be termed as irregular.   G
However, there was nothing on record to show that such irregularities
were committed willfully with an intent to defraud.
       19. In that view of the matter, we find that even the conviction in
so far as Section 477A of the IPC is concerned, is not sustainable in law.
                                                                                H
412               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 13 S.C.R.


A            20. Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned Additional Advocate General for
      the State of Rajasthan has submitted that since the findings of fact are
      concurrent, the Court should be slow in interfering with the same.
             21. It is settled principle of law that concurrent findings of fact
      cannot be interfered with unless shown to be perverse. Concurrency,
B     after all, is no answer to perversity.
             22. This Court in the case of Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs
      State of Maharashtra1 had laid down certain principles when this Court
      is entitled to exercise powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of
      India and interfere with the findings of fact. One of the principles laid
C     down is thus:
               “Where findings of subordinate courts are shown to be perverse
               or based on no evidence or irrelevant evidence or there are
               material irregularities affecting the said findings or where
               the court feels that justice has failed and the findings are
D              likely to result in unduly excessive hardship.”
             23. This Court in the aforesaid case has referred to some of the
      earlier judgments of this Court on the issue. It will be apposite to refer to
      the same, which are as under:
               “29. Again in H.P. Admn. v. Om Prakash [(1972) 1 SCC 249 :
E              1972 SCC (Cri) 88] this Court while considering its power under
               Article 136 of the Constitution of India on the question of
               interference with the findings of fact, observed as follows: (SCC
               p. 256, para 4)
                      “4. In appeals against acquittal by special leave under Article
F              136, this Court has undoubted power to interfere with the findings
               of fact, no distinction being made between judgments of acquittal
               and conviction, though in the case of acquittals it will not ordinarily
               interfere with the appreciation of evidence or on findings of fact
               unless the High Court ‘acts perversely or otherwise improperly’.”
G              30. In Arunachalam v. P.S.R. Sadhanantham [(1979) 2 SCC 297
               : 1979 SCC (Cri) 454] this Court while agreeing with the views
               expressed in the aforementioned decisions of this Court stated
               thus: (SCC p. 300, para 4)

      1
H         (2009) 11 SCC 141
SHIV KUMAR SHARMA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                                 413
             [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

       “4. … The power is plenary in the sense that there are no        A
words in Article 136 itself qualifying that power. But, the very
nature of the power has led the court to set limits to itself within
which to exercise such power. It is now the well-established
practice of this Court to permit the invocation of the power under
Article 136 only in very exceptional circumstances, as when a
                                                                        B
question of law of general public importance arises or a decision
shocks the conscience of the court. But, within the restrictions
imposed by itself, this Court has the undoubted power to interfere
even with findings of fact, making no distinction between
judgments of acquittal and conviction, if the High Court, in arriving
at those findings, has acted ‘perversely or otherwise improperly’.”     C
                                               (emphasis supplied)
31. Again in State of U.P. v. Babul Nath [(1994) 6 SCC 29 : 1994
SCC (Cri) 1585] this Court observed as follows: (SCC p. 33, para
5)
                                                                        D
       “5. At the very outset we may mention that in an appeal
under Article 136 of the Constitution this Court does not normally
reappraise the evidence by itself and go into the question of
credibility of the witnesses and the assessment of the evidence
by the High Court is accepted by the Supreme Court as final
unless, of course, the appreciation of evidence and finding is          E
vitiated by any error of law of procedure or found contrary to the
principles of natural justice, errors of record and misreading of
the evidence, or where the conclusions of the High Court are
manifestly perverse and unsupportable from the evidence on
record.”                                                                F
32. In Pattakkal Kunhikoya v. Thoopiyakkal Koya [(2000) 2
SCC 185] it was held (SCC p. 186c-d) that when an appeal arises
under Article 136 of the Constitution of India,
“[i]t is not the practice of the Supreme Court to reappreciate the
evidence for the purpose of examining whether the finding of fact       G
arrived at by the High Court and the subordinate court is correct
or not. Exception can be taken only in the event of serious
miscarriage of justice or manifest illegality but not otherwise”.
                                               (emphasis supplied)
                                                                        H
414                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2022] 13 S.C.R.


A              33. In Mithilesh Kumari v. Prem Behari Khare [(1989) 2 SCC
               95] this Court has held (SCC p. 99) that where findings of
               subordinate courts are shown to be
               “perverse or based on no evidence or irrelevant evidence or
               there are material irregularities affecting the said findings or
B              where the court feels that justice has failed and the findings
               are likely to result in unduly excessive hardship, the Supreme
               Court could not decline to interfere merely on the ground
               that findings in question are findings of fact”.
                                                            (emphasis supplied)”
C            24. Recently, this Court in the case of Ashoksinh Jayendrasinh
      vs. State of Gujarat2 had also held that when the High Court has failed
      to appreciate the oral evidence in correct perspective, this Court would
      certainly be entitled to re-appreciate the evidence. In the said case also,
      this Court, finding that the conviction was recorded after ignoring the
D     vital evidence, has set aside the order of conviction and acquitted the
      accused.
             25. In the present case, as discussed hereinabove, both the Trial
      Court and the High Court have failed to take into consideration the relevant
      and vital admissions in the evidence of PW8-Mr. Mahesh Prasad Mathur
E     and PW 14-Jai Bhagwan. In our view, the said admissions were vital.
      Basing the order of conviction by ignoring the said vital admissions, in
      our view, would bring the impugned judgments in the realm of perversity.
            26. As such, the appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and
      sentence as recorded by the learned Special Judge, Prevention of
F     Corruption Act No.1, Jaipur and confirmed by the High Court are quashed
      and set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all the charges. The bail
      bonds stand discharged.
               27. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

G     Divya Pandey                                                   Appeal allowed.
      (Assisted by : Roopanshi Virang, LCRA)




      2
          (2019) 6 SCC 535
H