Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 467 (ALL)

Gyan Singh v. State of U. P.

2013-02-07

VISHNU CHANDRA GUPTA

body2013
Visnhu Chandra Gupta, J.;— (1) In this petition u/s 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.), the petitioner has prayed to quash the chargesheet no. 66/2012 as well as summoning order dated 07.07.2012 arising out of case Crime No. 101/2012, under sections 419, 420 I.P.C., Police Station - Kaiserbagh, District Lucknow and proceeding of Criminal Case No. 918/2012, (State Vs. Gyan Singh) pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow. (2) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. I have also gone through the case diary of this case. (3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted in this case that the petitioner being an advocate only verified the affidavit of those who are claiming themselves to be the claimants of amount of compensation in respect of their acquired land. As such he cannot be held responsible because he did it bonafidely. It was further submitted that in view of notification dated 18 March, 2002 (Annexure - 4 to the petition) issued by Director Land Acquisition, that the duty to identify the correct persons is of the Lekhpal of the village or person equal in rank in government service before making payment of compensation to the farmers and in case any irregularity is found, the whole responsibility would be of Land Acquisition Officer. (4) Learned A.G.A. refuted the allegation and submitted that petitioner is not only identified a fake person but also got the re-payment voucher from the office and withdraw the amount under the same after opening the fake account. (5) To decided this petition, the brief facts of the case required to be considered by this Court. (6) The First Information Report has been lodged by Rakesh Kumar Srivastava Amin of the office of ADM (LA), that in connection with acquisition of land for Telibag Brindaban Yozna No. 2, U.P. Avas Vikash Parisad (for short 'Parisad') acquired land of Sri Prem Kumar Singh & his two brothers. After acquisition of land the compensation was settled and was payable equally to three brothers, namely, Prem Kumar Singh, Pradeep Kumar Singh and Pramod Kumar Singh, all sons of Ram Singh. These persons were also recorded tenure holder of Khata No. 163. (7) On 31.07.2003 Pradeep Kumar Singh moved an application alongwith affidavit dated 6th August, 2003 dully identified by Gyan Singh, Advocate, Collectrate Compound Gate No. 5 for withdrawal. A voucher of Rs. These persons were also recorded tenure holder of Khata No. 163. (7) On 31.07.2003 Pradeep Kumar Singh moved an application alongwith affidavit dated 6th August, 2003 dully identified by Gyan Singh, Advocate, Collectrate Compound Gate No. 5 for withdrawal. A voucher of Rs. 82024/- was issued on 20.11.2003. Similarly on the application dated 17.12.2003 alongwith affidavit dated 19.12.2003 of Pramod Kumar Singh and Prem Kumar Singh, also identified by aforesaid Gyan Singh, voucher of Rs. 82,024/- each were issued on 26.12.2003. (8) Thereafter, on 3rd of January, 2009 Prem Kumar Singh, Pramod Kumar Singh and Pradeep Kumar Singh gave an affidavit that they have not yet received the payment of compensation of their acquired land and the compensation has been lifted by some unknown persons. On these allegations the first information report was lodged against unknown person. (9) The investigation was carried out. The Investigating Officer make necessary inquiries and found that aforesaid Gyan Sing not only identified Pradeep Kumar, Pramod Kumar and Prem Kumar but vouchers prepared in their names were also received by Gyan Singh from the office after making his signatures on behalf of claimants. The investigation report further reveals that the vouchers were deposited by Gyan Singh after opening one bank account in Allahabad Bank and other in Punjab National Bank in which he become the joint account holder. The joint account holder Prem Singh and Pradeep Kumar Singh said to have filed their identity proof in the form of driving license. Both these licenses were having the same number and issued by same authority. It is also found during investigation that amount of vouchers prepared in the name of Prem Kumar Singh, Pramod Kumar Singh and Pradeep Kumar Singh was withdrawn by petitioner Gyan Singh from bank accounts. (10) From perusal of the record it reveals that petitioner admitted the facts in para 7 of affidavit filed in support of petition "that the petitioner has only verified the affidavit and he does not verified to any person who has taken compensation of land". (11) This court noticed a very important fact in the affidavit of Gyan Singh. Gyan Singh petitioner while disclosing his name, parentage and address also mentioned that "he is by Hindu Religion, doing business work and qualified upto intermediate". (11) This court noticed a very important fact in the affidavit of Gyan Singh. Gyan Singh petitioner while disclosing his name, parentage and address also mentioned that "he is by Hindu Religion, doing business work and qualified upto intermediate". Though, this part of statement made in the affidavit was not affirmed on oath in the verification clause but this shows that Gyan Singh also disowned to be an advocate. (12) Considering the aforesaid facts, at this stage, it cannot be said that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. It appears from record that he virtually he prepared fake document, opened bank accounts on that basis and withdrawn the amount with specific criminal intent to misappropriate the same which actually belongs to three real claimants and thereby defrauded the real claimants entitled for compensation as well as to the department, for illegal gain to himself. (13) It is true that in view of the notification dated 18.3.2002 the responsibilities to ascertain the identity of persons entitled for compensation was on Lekhpal of the area or any other equivalent government servant and ultimate responsibility to ensure that amount of compensation should be given to real persons was of Land Acquisition Officer, but, at the same time, the petitioner cannot take advantage of its own misdeed and illegal acts done by him. (14) The petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. ______________