Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3058 (ALL)

GAYA PRASAD v. STATE OF U. P.

2016-09-07

PRABHAT CHANDRA TRIPATHI

body2016
Hon'ble Prabhat Chandra Tripathi,J. Case called out. Sri Ram Autar Verma, learned counsel for the revisionist and Ms. Anita Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. are present. The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 09.02.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Room No.2, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Appeal No.96 of 2011 (Gaya Prasad Vs. State of U.P.) relating to Criminal Case No.5229 of 2006 (State Vs. Gaya Prasad and another) in Case Crime No.37/99, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Kanpur Nagar, whereby the judgment and order dated 15.07.2011 passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Case No.5229 of 2006 (State Vs. Gaya Prasad and another) in Case Crime No.37/99, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Kanpur Nagar has been affirmed. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record. Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that there were no sufficient documentary evidence to convict the revisionist Gaya Prasad. Only photostat copy of the alleged orders were submitted by the revisionist to his counsel. Revisionist is an illiterate person who could not understand intricacies of legal proceedings, thus, a lenient view would have been taken by the learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar as well as the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Room No.2, Kanpur Nagar while deciding this criminal case. The prosecution case in brief is as follows: One case no.77/88, under Section 229 B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (Gaya Prasad Vs. K.D.A. and Janhit Cooperative Housing Society Limited) was pending before the court of the learned City Magistrate (IV), Kanpur Nagar in which accused persons by committing forgery have filed fabricated order/judgment with regard to the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.3081 of 1986, dated 07.10.1996 of the Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad and thereby deleting the name of real land owner procured the name of accused Gaya Prasad to be registered there whereas accused person Gaya Prasad has preferred a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.3341 of 1996 before the Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad which was dismissed on date 12.07.1996. Writ Petition No.3081 of 1986, dated 07.10.1996 of the Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad and thereby deleting the name of real land owner procured the name of accused Gaya Prasad to be registered there whereas accused person Gaya Prasad has preferred a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.3341 of 1996 before the Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad which was dismissed on date 12.07.1996. A review petition was presented through Sri R.C. Sharma, Advocate and Sri Ram Autar Verma, Advocate against the order/judgment dated 12.07.1996 which was pending before the Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad at the time of preparing/procuring of that relevant fabricated and forged judgment. An enquiry was conducted by the learned Additional Superintendent of Police/Zonal Officer, Sri Akhileshwar Ram Mishra (Prosecution Witness-2) in compliance with the order dated 03.12.1997 of Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad. Thereafter, a case was registered in Crime No.37 of 1999, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. against the accused persons in Police Station Kotwali and the investigation was initiated by the Police of Police Station Kotwali, District Kanpur Nagar. A charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons, namely, Gaya Prasad, Smt. Bittan Devi and Krishna Kumar Verma. Since co-accused Krishna Kumar Verma was absconding, his case was separated by the court concerned by it's order dated 25.01.2007. Hence, it was ordered by the trial court of the learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar in it's impugned judgment and order dated 15.07.2011 that this judgment pertains only to the accused persons, namely, Gaya Prasad and Smt. Bittan Devi. Charges were framed against the accused persons Gaya Prasad and Smt. Bittan Devi under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. While adducing oral evidence, the prosecution produced P.W.1, Mahendra Kumar Sharma, P.W.2, Akhileshwar Ram Mishra (informant), P.W.3, Pradeep Kumar, S.D.M., Pratapgarh, P.W.4, Ashok Kumar, P.W.5, Babu Ram Pal and P.W.6, Sub-Inspector, Jay Pal Singh, Investigating Officer of the case. In it's support several documentary evidence were also produced by the prosecution, details of which have been mentioned in the impugned judgment and order dated 15.07.2011 of the learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar. In it's support several documentary evidence were also produced by the prosecution, details of which have been mentioned in the impugned judgment and order dated 15.07.2011 of the learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar. Statements of the accused persons Gaya Prasad and Smt. Bittan Devi were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which accused person Gaya Prasad stated that he is an illiterate person, he has been falsely implicated by his counsel, Sri Babu Ram Pal, Advocate whereas accused person Smt. Bittan Devi has stated that neither she is a party to the proceedings nor she has put any signatures. She has engaged Sri Babu Ram Pal, Advocate as her counsel. No evidence was adduced in defence. Accused revisionist Gaya Prasad has instituted a case through his mother and natural guardian Smt. Bittan Devi (co-accused) as Case No.25/85, under Section 229 B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 before the court of the learned S.D.O., Kanpur Nagar on date 16.03.1985 claiming the relief that he may be declared bhumidhar with transferable right of the plot no.854/2, ad-measuring 10 Biswa, situated at village Naubasta, Pargana and District Kanpur Nagar and it may also be ordered that his name may be registered as such in the revenue records. This case was contested on behalf of the Janhit Cooperative Housing Society Limited through it's Secretary Sri Mahendra Kumar Sharma, Advocate. The court of the learned Additional City Magistrate (IV), Kanpur Nagar by it's order dated 22.05.1989 has decided the case no.25/85 in favour of accused person Gaya Prasad. Aggrieved by this order Janhit Cooperative Housing Society Limited through it's Secretary, Sri Mahendra Kumar Sharma, Advocate preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Kanpur Division, Kanpur, which was allowed on date 19.12.1989 and the order dated 22.05.1989 was cancelled. Both the above mentioned orders are available on record as Exhibits Ka-3 and Ka-4. Accused person Gaya Prasad preferred Second Appeal No.30/89-90 before the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad which was dismissed on 30.12.1995 and the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad confirmed the earlier order dated 19.12.1989. Against this order of the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad, the accused Gaya Prasad preferred a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.3341 of 1996 before the Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad which was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad by it's order dated 12.07.1996. Against this order of the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad, the accused Gaya Prasad preferred a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.3341 of 1996 before the Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad which was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad by it's order dated 12.07.1996. Against this order of Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad accused person Gaya Prasad presented a review petition on date 17.12.1996 before the Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad which was pending as per enquiry dated 24.10.1997 (Exhibit Ka-6). Photostat copy of the order dated 13.11.1996 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.36524 of 1994 was also available on the file which was presented by the accused person Gaya Prasad claiming the relief that he may not be dispossessed by the anti- social elements from the plot no.854/2, ad-measuring 10 Biswa. Accused person Gaya Prasad during the pendency of this Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.3081 of 1996 (Gaya Prasad Vs. Board of Revenue and others) and the judgment of Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad dated 07.10.1996 and Special Leave Petition No.4100 of 1997 presented by the Janhit Cooperative Housing Society Limited before the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 06.05.1997 for canceling the aforementioned judgment for which obtaining the copy dated 03.06.1997 was available on the file and which was mentioned in the judgment; accused Gaya Prasad presented an application dated 10.06.1997 before the learned Additional City Magistrate (IV), Kanpur Nagar with regard to the plot no.854/2, ad-measuring 10 Biswa for issuing the order of mutation. In Para-4 of application dated 10.06.1997 of accused Gaya Prasad there was mention of order of Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad. Presenting the photostat copies of the judgments of Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad and Hon'ble Supreme Court the learned Additional City Magistrate (IV), Kanpur Nagar without issuing notice to the defendants passed an order regarding registering of the name of accused person Gaya Prasad in revenue records over the disputed plot. This order is Exhibit Ka-8. Affected party i.e. Janhit Cooperative Housing Society Limited made an enquiry by presenting an application dated 29.09.1997 regarding judgment dated 07.10.1996 which was alleged to have been passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.3081 of 1996. On this application dated 29.09.1997 of P.W.1, Mahendra Kumar Sharma, it was found that in Writ Petition No.3081 of 1996, Hon'ble Mr. Affected party i.e. Janhit Cooperative Housing Society Limited made an enquiry by presenting an application dated 29.09.1997 regarding judgment dated 07.10.1996 which was alleged to have been passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.3081 of 1996. On this application dated 29.09.1997 of P.W.1, Mahendra Kumar Sharma, it was found that in Writ Petition No.3081 of 1996, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.P. Srivastava of Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad has not passed any order dated 07.10.1996 and the alleged judgment and order dated 07.10.1996 relating to Writ Petition No.3081 of 1996 which was presented by the accused Gaya Prasad before the learned Additional City Magistrate (IV), Kanpur Nagar is a forged document. It is relevant to mention here that during the enquriy, it was found that actually Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.3081 of 1996 was presented by Dr. Kailash Nath Shukla before the Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad which was pending on date 24.11.1997 at the stage of admission and it related to Group-A Services. A copy of the enquiry details dated 24.11.1997 was available on the file. After finding the alleged impugned judgment dated 07.11.1996 relating to Writ Petition No.3081 of 1996 as a forged and fabricated the then Registrar of Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad by his letter dated 03.12.1997 directed the Government of Uttar Pradesh that an enquiry be conducted by C.B.C.I.D. P.W.1, Mahendra Kumar Sharma, P.W.2, Akhileshwar Ram Mishra (informant), P.W.3, Pradeep Kumar, S.D.M., Pratapgarh, P.W.4, Ashok Kumar, P.W.5, Babu Ram Pal, Advocate have deposed that the judgment and order dated 07.10.1996 alleged to have been passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.3081 of 1996 and the alleged judgment passed in Special Leave Petition No.4100 of 1997 dated 06.05.1997 were forged and fabricated documents. The learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate while conducting the trial has vividly and elaborately discussed the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record. P.W.5, Sri Babu Ram Pal, Advocate was the counsel of accused Gaya Prasad. He has deposed before the trial court that accused Gaya Prasad has handed over him the photocopies of the alleged forged judgment to be presented before the learned Additional City Magistrate (IV), Kanpur Nagar. This fact is also of paramount importance that after the name of accused person Gaya Prasad was registered in the revenue records. He has deposed before the trial court that accused Gaya Prasad has handed over him the photocopies of the alleged forged judgment to be presented before the learned Additional City Magistrate (IV), Kanpur Nagar. This fact is also of paramount importance that after the name of accused person Gaya Prasad was registered in the revenue records. Accused Gaya Prasad has executed a registered agreement to sell regarding a portion ad-measuring 236 square yards of disputed plot no.854/2, ad-measuring 10 Biswa. A copy of this registered agreement to sell is available on record. This is also a strong evidence that when Sri Mahendra Kumar Sharma, Advocate, Secretary of Janhit Cooperative Housing Society Limited presented an application dated 04.10.1997 before the court of the learned Additional City Magistrate (IV), Kanpur Nagar mentioning therein that on the basis of forged and fabricated judgment of registering of name of accused person in revenue records (Exhibit Ka-9) and praying therein to postpone the proceedings of the registration. Accused person presented an objection dated 02.12.1997. This proves the culpability and mens rea of the accused person Gaya Prasad. Undoubtedly, accused Gaya Prasad was the sole beneficiary of all these proceedings. Trial court of the learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar has cited several rulings of Hon'ble Supreme Court in support of the view taken by it and after considering the rival contention has arrived at the conclusion of conviction of the accused revisionist Gaya Prasad and acquittal of co-accused Smt. Bittan Devi, who was the mother and natural guardian of main accused Gaya Prasad. Resultantly, co-accused Smt. Bittan Devi was acquitted of the charges under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. levelled against her after providing her benefit of doubt whereas main accused Gaya Prasad was convicted under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and was awarded sentences along with fine. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 15.07.2011 of the learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar a criminal appeal was preferred by accused Gaya Prasad before the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar ultimately which was decided by the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Kanpur Nagar by it's judgment and order dated 09.02.2012 in criminal appeal no.96 of 2011 (Gaya Prasad Vs. State) relating to criminal case no.5229 of 2006, crime no.37 of 1999, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Kanpur Nagar. State) relating to criminal case no.5229 of 2006, crime no.37 of 1999, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Kanpur Nagar. In this criminal appeal also, the main contention of the counsel before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Kanpur Nagar, was that accused appellant was an illiterate person, who was even unable to read, write or even to put his signature. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Kanpur Nagar while adjudicating upon the matter before him has categorically observed that the accused person Gaya Prasad has left no stone unturned to procure the order of mutation in his favour in revenue records relating to the disputed plot no.854/2, ad-measuring 10 Biswa situated at village Naubasta, District Kanpur Nagar and he knocked each and every door possible and available in the legal proceedings and since the accused person Gaya Prasad was the sole beneficiary of the disputed property, then it is out of imagination that any other person will make any endeavour to benefit him by procuring the forged and fabricated documents. The execution of the registered agreement to sell; by the accused person Gaya Prasad, of a portion of the disputed property i.e. plot no.854/2, ad-measuring 10 Biswa, situated at village Naubasta, after getting his name registered as bhumidhar with transferable right by adopting deceitful means; in favour of Smt. Sushila Devi Verma-seals the fate of this criminal revision. I have perused the impugned orders dated 09.02.2012 and 15.07.2011 of the learned Additional District Judge, Room No.2, Kanpur Nagar and the learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar respectively. The aforementioned impugned judgments and orders do not suffer from any illegality, perversity or impropriety. Resultantly, this criminal revision is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. Dismissed. Let a copy of this Judgment and Order be sent to the learned Sessions Judge (Civil and Sessions Court), Kanpur Nagar for necessary compliance.