Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 727 (JK)

State through Commissioner Vigilance v. Mohan Lal

2017-08-24

ALOK ARADHE, B.S.WALIA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Alok Aradhe, J. This criminal acquittal appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 31.01.2004 passed by learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Jammu in the case titled State v. Khazan Chand and other by virtue of which respondents namely Chain Singh, Keshav Chand, Ghulam Nabi Malik, Vijay Kumar, Fazal ud-Din and Uttam Chand, Khazan Chand, Krishan Singh and Jagat Singh have been acquitted for offences under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 read with Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B RPC. 2. This Court by a detailed judgment passed today in Cr. Appeal No.5-A/2004 which was heard analogously with this appeal has stated the prosecution case in detail, therefore, for the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition, we need not refer to the prosecution case. 3. It is pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of this appeal, respondent No.1, Khazan Chand, Krishan Singh and Jagat Singh have expired. The appeal therefore survives in respect of the remaining respondents namely Uttam Chand, Fazal ud-Din, Vijay Kumar, Ghulam Nabi Malik, Keshav Chand and Chain Singh. 4. Learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that the Trial court grossly erred in acquitting the respondents and has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its correct perspective which has resulted in erroneous findings and the consequent judgment. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents has supported the judgment passed by the Trial Court. 5. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The Trial Court in page 213 of its judgment has recorded the finding that deceased Krishan Singh had neither passed any wrong order nor the compensation was paid to the beneficiary as a consequence of the said order. Therefore, the question of respondent No.2, namely, Uttam Chand having entered into any conspiracy to commit illegal act with Mohan Lal, Vijay Kumar, Ghulam Nabi Malik, Chain Singh, Ravail Singh, Rashpal Singh and Jagat Singh does not arise. Accordingly, the respondent No.2 namely Uttam Chand has been acquitted in respect of the offence alleged against him. 6. Therefore, the question of respondent No.2, namely, Uttam Chand having entered into any conspiracy to commit illegal act with Mohan Lal, Vijay Kumar, Ghulam Nabi Malik, Chain Singh, Ravail Singh, Rashpal Singh and Jagat Singh does not arise. Accordingly, the respondent No.2 namely Uttam Chand has been acquitted in respect of the offence alleged against him. 6. In case of respondent No.4, Fazal ud-Din, the Trial Court has held that charge against the aforesaid respondent is groundless as no compensation in respect of the said land has been paid to any of the beneficiaries namely Rashpal Singh and Ravail Singh in respect of land admeasuring 81 kanals and 4 marlas of survey No.1035. Therefore, the trial court has acquitted the aforesaid respondent. In respect of respondent No.5, Vijay Kumar, the Trial Court has held that in respect of land admeasuring 81 kanals and 4 marlas compensation has not been paid to the beneficiaries namely Rashpal Singh and Ravail Singh and therefore, there is no material on record that respondent No.5, Vijay Kumar was instrumental in defrauding the State and therefore he deserves to be acquitted. 7. In respect of respondent No.6, namely, Ghulam Nabi Malik, the Trial Court on the basis of the evidence of the handwriting expert namely Dr. B Lal has held that it is not proved that respondent No.6, namely, Ghulam Nabi Malik has made entry in the revenue records in Urdu with regard to names of beneficiaries namely Rashpal Singh and Ravail Singh. Therefore the prosecution has not succeeded in establishing that the aforesaid respondent was involved in commission of offence. So far as respondent No.7 Keshav Chand is concerned, the Trial Court has held that in order to prove the fact that insertion in the Cheque of the word ‘Addl’ was made by the aforesaid respondent, it has examined two witnesses namely Dharam Pal and Chanju Singh who have not stated in their evidence that Keshav Chand had made the aforesaid interpolation in the Cheque. The Trial Court has further held that from the evidence of handwriting expert namely R L Dhar, the fact that interpolation was made by Keshav Chand is not conclusively established and his testimony cannot be accepted in the absence of any corroboration. Accordingly, he has been acquitted of the offence alleged against him. 8. The Trial Court has further held that from the evidence of handwriting expert namely R L Dhar, the fact that interpolation was made by Keshav Chand is not conclusively established and his testimony cannot be accepted in the absence of any corroboration. Accordingly, he has been acquitted of the offence alleged against him. 8. So far as respondent No.8, Chain Singh is concerned, the Trial Court has held that no compensation has been paid to aforesaid respondent and it is not the case of the prosecution that aforesaid respondent is not the owner of land bearing survey No.1033 and therefore, he is not entitled to compensation. Accordingly, the aforesaid respondent has been acquitted in respect of the offence alleged against him. 9. The Trial Court has recorded the findings, which are based on meticulous appreciation of evidence available on record. It is well settled in law that this Court while hearing an acquittal appeal can re-appreciate the evidence, however, it should not interfere with the order of acquittal if the view taken by the Trial Court is a reasonable view of the evidence on record and the findings recorded by the Trial Court are not manifestly erroneous, contrary to the evidence on record or perverse. (See Ram Swaroop and others Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 13 SCC 134, Vijay Kumar v. State by Inspector General, (2009) 12 SCC 629 and Upendra Pradhan vs. State of Orissa (2015) 11 SCC 124 . 10. From a perusal of the judgment of the Trial Court, we find that the findings recorded by the trial Court can neither be termed as perverse, contrary to the evidence or erroneous, therefore, no case for interference in this acquittal appeal is made out. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.