Vijay Bishnoi JUDGMENT
Vijay Bishnoi, J.
1. This anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC is preferred by the petitioner apprehending her arrest in connection with FIR No. 306/2017 lodged at Police Station, A.C.B. C.P.S. Jaipur for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(C) (D) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Earlier the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner has been rejected by the Special Judge, Sessions Judge (Anti Corruption Act), Jodhpur vide order dated 12.01.2018.
3. In the above referred FIR, it is alleged that the petitioner while holding the charge of District Supply Officer (I), Jodhpur (for short 'the DSO (I)' hereinafter) illegally demanded 35020 quintals of wheat for the purpose of distributing it to the privileged families under the National Food Security Act by falsely showing number of 33000 families increased in Jodhpur urban area. It is alleged that after receiving 35020 quintals of wheat, the petitioner sold the same to one Swaroop Singh Rajpurohit, owner of flour mill by making forged bills and as such she earned crores of rupees for herself and other accused-persons by illegal means. It is further alleged that 35020 quintals of wheat was misappropriated by the petitioner and other accused-persons and as such the State Government is put to the loss of crores of rupees.
4. Mr. M.S. Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by his associates has argued that as a matter of fact the allegations levelled against the petitioner are patently false as no misappropriation of wheat at all took place.
5. It is contended that as a matter of fact the erstwhile DSO(I), Mr. Mahaveer Singh Rajpurohit had failed to distribute the allotted wheat to the needy families in the month of August, 2015 and deliberately surrendered 35016 quintals of wheat, however, when complaints regarding non-distribution of wheat to the needy families were made by the public at large and by the public representatives, he was transferred and the petitioner was given additional charge of the post of DSO(I) in January, 2016. Thereafter, District Collector, Jodhpur instructed her to distribute the wheat amongst the needy families properly. She found that around 35000 quintals wheat remain undistributed in the previous months and were surrendered, then she wrote a letter to the Additional Food Commissioner for releasing the surrendered wheat and after receiving it, the same was reallotted to the wholesalers for the purpose of distribution amongst the needy families.
6. It is argued that after allocation of the wheat to the wholesalers, the role of the District Supply Officer comes to an end and the responsibility of proper distribution of the allocated wheat is upon the inspectors.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that after allocation of the wheat to the wholesalers, if it is found that the allocated wheat has not been distributed amongst the needy families or has not reached out to them, then also the District Supply Officer cannot be held responsible for that. Mr. Singhvi has forcefully argued that the petitioner has acted in the interest of public at large but false allegation of misappropriation of 35020 quintals of wheat has been levelled against her without any basis.
8. He has also argued that as a matter of fact the allegation contained in the FIR to the effect that there was no addition of 33000 new beneficiary families, which are entitled to get the wheat under the National Food Scheme Act, is also baseless. It is contended that as a matter of fact the number of families increased during the period before........