Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1982 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Siri Ram

2011-04-04

RAJIV SHARMA, SURJIT SINGH

body2011
JUDGMENT Surjit Singh, Judge By this appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, State has challenged the judgment dated 24.6.2003 of learned Special Judge (Forests), Shimla, whereby respondents Siri Ram and others, who were charged with and tried for offences, under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420, 218, 167, 447, 379, 120-B IPC, Sections 33/41-42 of Indian Forest Act and section 5 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, have been acquitted. 2. Case was registered against the present respondents on a written complaint Ext. PW1/B, lodged by Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, with the Inspector General of Police. As per allegation made in Ext. PW1/B, Musabi of village Sabhar, in Jubbal Sub Division, had been tampered with by Rama Nand, deceased Patwari and Salig Ram, deceased Kanungo, in connivance with two private land owners named Jia Lal and Devki Nand. 3. During the course of investigation, it came to light that respondent Siri Ram, in connivance with other respondents, had forged the copy of sale deed Ext. PW56/A, pasted in the book of registration of documents, which was executed by Rama Nand Baltu and also mutation order Ext. PW56/A, by changing the Khasra number of the sold land from 321/254 to Khasra No.40. 4. Trial Court concluded that the allegation of forgery, on account of change in Khasra number, did not stand established, beyond reasonable doubt. 5. We have heard learned Deputy Advocate General as also learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 6. PW-56 K.C. Dutta was the Sub Registrar, to whom sale deed was presented for registration on 28.9.1974. On the same day, Sadhu Ram, named as vendor in the sale deed, swore an affidavit Ext. PW12/A before PW-56 K.C. Dutt, in his capacity as Executive Magistrate, that he had sold Khasra No.40 in favour of Shyam Dutt and that mutation may be entered in his favour. 7. Affidavit Ext. PW12/A, sworn on the very day of registration of the sale deed, suggests that sale deed was in respect of Khasra No.40. It is quite likely that Khasra No.321/254 had been written by mistake in the sale deed. If it was so, correction in the copy of the sale deed, pasted in Registrar’s book, cannot be said to amount to forgery. It is not only the aforesaid affidavit Ext. It is quite likely that Khasra No.321/254 had been written by mistake in the sale deed. If it was so, correction in the copy of the sale deed, pasted in Registrar’s book, cannot be said to amount to forgery. It is not only the aforesaid affidavit Ext. PW12/A that was sworn before PW-56 K.C. Dutta, but also the mutation order attested by PW-56 K.C. Dutta, in his capacity as Revenue Officer (Assistant Collector), which shows that the sale was intended to be made in respect of Khasra No.40. In the mutation order it is specifically mentioned that the order was in respect of Khasra No.40. There is no reference of Khasra No.321/254, either in the entry of mutation made by the Patwari or the mutation order attested by PW-56 K.C. Dutta. 8. It appears that change in Ext. PW56/A, copy of sale deed, pasted in Registrar’s Book, had been made at the time of registration of the document or even before that, on realizing that Khasra number had been wrongly written in the sale deed. Had it not been so, on the very day of registration of the sale deed, vendor Sadhu Ram would not have mentioned the Khasra number of the sold land to be 40, in his affidavit Ext. PW12/A and also in the mutation entry made by the Patwari on 15.11.1974, number of Khasra would not have been 40. 9. It is also the allegation of the prosecution that Sadhu Ram had been conferred proprietary rights in respect of land, bearing Khasra No.40, under Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act and, therefore, he could not have sold it within 10 years of the conferment of proprietary rights. 10. We find no evidence on record in respect of the aforesaid contention. On the contrary, what we find from the record is that in the Jamabandi for the year 1972-73, which formed basis of attestation of mutation, it was Sadhu Ram, who was being recorded as owner in possession. Section 104 came into force w.e.f. 3.10.1975. 10. We find no evidence on record in respect of the aforesaid contention. On the contrary, what we find from the record is that in the Jamabandi for the year 1972-73, which formed basis of attestation of mutation, it was Sadhu Ram, who was being recorded as owner in possession. Section 104 came into force w.e.f. 3.10.1975. Had Sadhu Ram acquired ownership, on account of the provision of Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, mutation could not have been sanctioned in his favour prior to 3.10.1975 and as such, he could not have been shown as owner in the Jamabandi for the year 1972-73, which formed the basis of entering the mutation, in question. In view of above stated position, appeal is dismissed.