LALMANI SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20th April, 1989 delivered by Shri R.S. Rusia in Sessions Case No. 69/86 whereby the Appellants were convicted under Section 6 of the M.P. Vinirdisht Bhrasht Aacharan Nivaran Adhiniyam, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam') and under Section 467 I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year for each offence. Sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) It is not disputed that in the year 1983 in District Raigarh, Irrigation Sub-Division, Baramkela, construction of Kinkamani canal was in progress under the relief work. At the relevant time, Appellant Lalmani Singh was the Sub-Divisional Officer, Appellant RA. Reddi was the Sub-Engineer and Appellant Ramesh Chandra Vishnov was the Timekeeper in the above mentioned relief work. It is also not disputed that as per muster roll Ex. R 15, payments for the work done were made to the Headman of the gang undertaking the work.

(3.) Briefly stated the prosecution story is that there was a complaint regarding less payments made to the labourers from 1.1.1983 to 6.1.1983 in the aforesaid relief work. Shri Prabhat Parasar, Additional Collector, Raigarh P.W. 18 enquired into the complaint and found that less wages were paid to the labourers and submitted enquiry report Ex. P.95 mentioning that between the period 1.1.1983 to 6.1.83 labourers Balram (P.W. 4), Motilal (P.W. 5), Bashtabh and Lambodar (P.W. 8) had received less payments. It was also mentioned that in the muster roll, the name of Ramadhar a child aged 6 years, who was the son of Satna (P.W. 6), was falsely mentioned although he had not worked. A report was sent by the Collector to the Police Station Saria, District Raigarh vide Ex. P.96. On the basis of this report, an offence under Section 6(A) and (8) of the Adhiniyam was registered and investigation was conducted. Muster Roll Ex. P. 15 and relevant papers were seized. On examination by the Additional State Examiner of Questioned Documents, it was opined vide Ex. P.51 that the muster roll Ex. P. 15 had been prepared by the Appellants. Sanction to prosecute the Appellants under Section 37 of the Adhiniyam was sought from the State Government vide Ex. P.5. After completion of investigation, the Appellants were prosecuted.