VSEETHARAMA RAO Vs. GOVERNMENT OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition against the conviction and sentence passed by the' Additional Sessions Judge, Shimoga, in Chikmagalur Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 51-52, confirming the conviction of the accused of an offence under Section 417, I.P.C. but modifying the- sentence passed on she petitioner by the Munsiff-Magistrate of Narasimharajapur in C.C. No. 98 of 50-51.

(2.) The case against the petitioner is that he induced the Government to pass PR order that certain G.I. Pipes belonging to Kallatipura village panchayat might be sold to him at the rate of 0-6-0 per foot and induced them to believe that they were needed by him for being used for agricultural purposes for his lands. That such an order was passed by the Government and that in his applications before different authorities he referred to lands as 'my' land or 'our' lands is not disputed. It is in evidence that the G.I. pipes had been laid for purposes of affording water facilities to the village and that they had become old and that when they were sold in auction the highest bidder was prepared to pay only Rs. 800/- for them. That sale was set aside as the Iron and Steel Controller, Bhadravathi, objected to the sale without his permission. Mysore Iron and Steel Works, Bhadravathi were prepared to purchase the G.I. Pipes at 0-4-9 per foot and this would have fetched a sum of Rs. 1,300/-. The petitioner however gave an offer to purchase the pipes at a rate of 0-6-0 per foot. But it is contended for the prosecution that the Government passed an order that these pipes might be sold to the petitioner in view of his slating that they were to be used for agricultural purposes and that the petitioner instead of using them for agricultural purposes has sold them away. It has to be remembered that the Government when it sanctioned the sale must have thought, like the petitioner, that those pipes could be used for agricultural purposes. It was evidently found later that they were not useful for agricultural purposes as is clear from the evidence of the expert P.W. 8. What is seriously contended is that the accused owns no lands and he deceived the Government by saying that he owns some lands aid that he would use the pipes for agricultural purposes. It is unfortunate that the learned Magistrate did not give sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to prove his case.

(3.) Six witnesses had been cited toy the accused before the learned Magistrate. It is only in respect of two of them, the petitioner did not want any warrant to be issued. But the learned Magistrate was bound to secure the attendance of the other witnesses at any rate, if necessary by coercive steps. As succinctly brought to the notice of the learned Magistrate by the petitioner in his application, the prosecution had taken one and a quarter year to close its case and the petitioner was not even given breathing time to produce his witnesses. The learned Magistrate ought to have taken appropriate steps to secure the attendance of the defence witnesses. On this ground alone the judgment of the Courts below convicting the petitioner cannot stand.