Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 968 (HP)

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. RAM KRISHAN

2013-11-20

RAJIV SHARMA, SANJAY KAROL

body2013
JUDGEMENT SANJAY KAROL, J.- 1. STATE has appealed against the judgment dated 08.12.2010 of learned Special Judge, Chamba Division, Chamba, passed in Corruption Case No. 2 of 2010, titled State of H.P. versus Ramesh Chaudhary & Anr., challenging the acquittal of respondent Ram Krishan (hereinafter referred to as the accused), who along with deceased Ramesh Chaudhary stand charged for having committed offences, punishable under the provisions of Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. AS per the prosecution, an FIR No.3 of 2003 dated 06.01.2003 (Ex.PW. 12/A) under the provisions of Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, was registered at Police Station SV and ACB Chamba, H.P., against accused Ramesh Chaudhary and Ram Krishan. Deceased Ramesh Chaudhary, who was appointed as Naib Tehsildar (Sales)-cum-Managing Officer, Kangra (land claims) sold land comprising Khata Khatauni No. 42/45 min Khasra Nos. 30 and 178, measuring 7 bighas 2 biswas situated in Mohal Hatli, Tehsil Chowari District Chamba, to Ram Krishan. Sale certificate (Ex.PW.2/A) was issued on the basis of which mutation No.134 dated 10.06.1996 (Ex.PW.10/A) was attested in favour of Ram Krishan. This was so done illegally without any authority or sanction. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record, we are of the considered view that no case for interference is made out in the present appeal. It cannot be said that the judgment rendered by the Court below is either illegal or erroneous. Evidence has been examined in totality and correctly appreciated. 3. MR. Anuj Nag, learned counsel has invited our attention to the judgment dated 05.12.2011 rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 71 of 2011 titled as State of Himachal Pradesh Versus Vipin Kumar, where in similar circumstances appeal filed by the State stands dismissed. 4. PROSECUTION case primarily rests upon the testimonies of Ashok Kumar (PW.1), Ajay Sharma (PW.2), Wangal, Patwari (PW.5) and Inspector Prakash Chand (PW.13). Now significantly, Ashok Kumar, who was posted as a Patwari, states that he recorded entries in the jamabandi/Roznamcha and carried out mutation in the name of Ram Krishan on the basis of sale certificate. Ajay Sharma (PW.2) handed over copy of the sale deed (Ex.PW.2/A). It has come on record through testimony of Sh. Now significantly, Ashok Kumar, who was posted as a Patwari, states that he recorded entries in the jamabandi/Roznamcha and carried out mutation in the name of Ram Krishan on the basis of sale certificate. Ajay Sharma (PW.2) handed over copy of the sale deed (Ex.PW.2/A). It has come on record through testimony of Sh. Daljit Kumar (PW.4) that property was sold to accused Ram Krishan for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand only). None of these witnesses stated that sale consideration was not paid by the purchaser. They also do not depose anything, which would even remotely suggest that accused committed the crime charged for. To similar effect is the testimony of Wangal (PW.5), who as Patwari issued relevant revenue documents. 5. INSPECTOR Prakash Chand (PW.13) states that land was sold by Ramesh Chaudhary, without any authority, in violation of the rules and that too at a lower price. Now the question, which arises for consideration is as to whether the present respondent was aware of these facts or not. None of the prosecution witnesses has disclosed or narrated to this effect. 6. NONE of the material prosecution witnesses has deposed that the two accused persons conspired to sell Government land at a lesser price. In fact, there is no evidence on record to even remotely suggest that accused Ram Krishan even knew Ramesh Chaudhary personally. Ramesh Chaudhary was posted as Naib Tehsildar (Sales) cum Managing Officer, Kangra. He sold land in question to Ram Krishan for a valuable consideration. Now there is also no material on record to establish that the said sale consideration was disproportionately lower than the market price. In fact, prosecution has not led any evidence to establish correct market price of the land in question. There is also nothing on record to show that present respondent was aware that without permission of the Central Government no evacuee property could have been sold. 7. THUS, it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence so as to prove the charged offence, in view of the settled principles of law. 8. FOR all the aforesaid reasons, we find no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the trial Court. The Court has fully appreciated the evidence placed on record by the parties. 8. FOR all the aforesaid reasons, we find no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the trial Court. The Court has fully appreciated the evidence placed on record by the parties. The accused has had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Mohammed Ankoos and others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (2010) 1 SCC 94 , it cannot be said that the Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice. No ground for interference is called for. The present appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. 9. HOWEVER, looking to the facts and circumstances, we clarify that it shall be open to the authorities to take appropriate steps, in accordance with law, for cancellation of the sale deed, if so warranted. Appeal stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.