SURESH KUMAR, KANUNGO Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The epitome of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that, in the wake of reference, the Land Acquisition Collector referred the matter to the Land Acquisition Court for determination of the adequate market price and apportionment of compensation between the person interested of the acquired land, as contemplated under sections 18 & 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Consequently, LAC Case No.253 of 2006 titled as "Ishwar Singh Vs. State of Haryana" was slated for evidence. The claimants Ishwar Singh and others had earlier produced jamabandis for the years 1989-90 (Ex.P5) & 1994-95 (Ex.P6), in which, in Column No.9, Risala son of Churia was recorded as a tenant (gairmaurusi) on payment of rent (lagan) of Rs. 350/- of the land in dispute.

(2.) On the contrary, the respondents (therein) examined petitioner Suresh Kumar, Kanungo as a witness, who has intentionally produced the already prepared fake jamabandis (against the original record) for the years 1994-95 (Ex.R2) and 1989-90 (Ex.R3) regarding the same very land. In subsequent jamabandis produced by the petitioner, the entry of tenant (gairmaurusi) against the payment of rent (lagan) of Rs. 350/- was missing in column No.9. In order to verify the correctness, genuineness or otherwise of subsequent produced jamabandis (Ex.R2) & (Ex.R3), the Court summoned Parmod Kumar, Patwari as a Court witness, who brought the original record and made the statement that in the jamabandis for the years 1989-90 & 1994-95, Risala son of Churia was recorded in possession as a tenant (gairmaurusi) and there was an entry in column No.9 regarding the payment of rent (lagan) of Rs. 350/- as well.

(3.) Therefore, the Court concluded that the petitioner (Kanungo), being a public servant, prepared the fake/false jamabandis, outside the Court, intentionally omitted the entry of tenant (gairmaurusi) in column No.9 and subsequently produced the forged documents in Court as genuine, in order to deprive the tenant (gairmaurusi) (person interested) from his legitimate right of compensation in the acquired land. In the background of these allegations and on the basis of letter of Additional District Judge, the present case was registered against the petitioner-accused, by way of FIR No.476 dated 1.6.2010 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 466, 471 and 167 IPC by the police of Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal, in the manner indicated here-in-above.