GOVERDHAN SINGH DEWANGAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals have been preferred against judgment dated 03-07- 2013 passed in Special Criminal Case (CBI) No.51/04 by the Special Judge (C.B.I.), Raipur C.G.

(2.) By the impugned judgment appellants Goverdhan Singh Dewangan and I.R. Dehari have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:-

(3.) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is this, that in compliance of the order of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in WPC No.202/1995 dated 07-01-2008 CBI Bhopal Branch lodged the FIR Ex.-P/17 and investigated the case regarding felling of trees standing on Government lands. Name of appellant Hastimal Surana (appellant in CRA No.679 of 2013) appeared in the investigation. It was found that appellant Hastimal Surana had made purchase of land bearing Khasra No.265 measuring 2.80 acres situated at Village Chittaloor from one Chandan Singh in the year 1991. Similarly, he had purchased another land bearing Khasra No.1183/2 measuring 0.97 acres from one Dheerpal by registered sale deed dated 11-01-1991. The mutation entries were accordingly made in the revenue records in favour of appellant Hastimal Surana. During investigation it was discovered that lands purchased by appellant Hastimal Surana were originally recorded in the name of State Government and the vendors of appellant Hastimal Surana, namely, Chandan Singh and Dheerpal were encroachers of the State land, who got benefit of settlement in their favour and the title of such land was untransferrable. Appellant Hastimal Surana filed application before the Collector Dantewada for grant of permission to fell the trees standing on the land bearing Khasra No.265/2 in Village Chittaloor and Khasra No.1183/2 in Village Balud. On the basis of which two revenue cases were registered. A report Ex.-D/6 was submitted by appellant I.R. Dehari (appellant in CRA No.645 of 2013) along with report of Tahsildar Ex.-P/29 and report of Patwari vide Ex.-P/60, in these reports it was specifically mentioned that the land in question on which the trees were standing neither Forest nor Government land. On that basis the then Additional Collector passed the order dated 12-01-1992 granting permission for felling of trees standing in the land in Gram Chittaloor. It is alleged that appellant Tripati (Tripti) Jhadi (appellant in CRA No.659 of 2013) had played a role in submitting false report that the land did not belong to Government or Forest department. In another revenue case again appellant I.R. Dehari, the then S.D.O. (Revenue) submitted report dated 28-11-1994 vide Ex.-P/52 in favour of appellant Hastimal Surana, on the basis of which the Additional Collector Dantewada passed order dated 11-01-1995 Ex.-P/54 granting permission for felling trees present on the land bearing Khasra No.1183/2 situated at village Balud. It is alleged that appellant Tripati (Tripti) Jhadi again had submitted a report Ex.-P/7 mentioning that the land did not belong to Forest Department or Government, which was a false report. Consequent to these, orders were passed granting permission for felling, the trees standing on the lands in question were felled and sold to the forest department and the proceeds amount were received by appellant Hastimal Surana from the Forest department.