STATE OF HARYANA Vs. HARPHOOL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE this order 49 appeals filed by the State of Haryana against the orders of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. Kurukshetra. on August 22, 1983, disposing of 49 appeals are being disposed of. There are four accused. namely Ishwar Chand , who was employed as Reader to Naib Tehsildar, Harphool Singh Sarwan Singh and Des Raj. As per allegations some land was acquired under the utilisation of Land Act, 1949 for which compensation was to be disbursed to several land -owners. Ishwar Chand is alleged to have prepared different vouchers in the names of the three other accused and thus the money was withdrawn. The matter was brought to the notice of the police by one Jita Singh on October 19, 1974, when F.I.R. was registered. His complaint was that he was entitled to compensation for his land acquired, which was not paid to him. It is was during investigation of the case, it transpires that the compensation payable to several land -owners was not actually disbursed to them, but the same was withdrawn in the manner stated above by the accused, aforesaid. As stated above, 49 challans were presented the four accused, aforesaid, under Sections 406, 409, 477, 420 and 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code. After the evidence was recorded, the accused denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence. The Judicial Magistrate acquitted the accused of all the charges except under Section 420 read with Section 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code. Ishwar stand was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. The other three accused, namely Harphool Singh, Sarwan Singh and Des Raj were convicted under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years. On appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the aforesaid persons even of the charges under which they were convicted. In this matter the accused stood acquitted of all the charges. State of Haryana has come up in appeals against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge assailing the acquittal of the accused under Section 420 read with section 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) WE have scanned through the evidence produced in this case. The original land acquisition file, which was most relevant for decision of the case, was not produced having been misplaced. The prosecution thus felt satisfied by producing oral evidence and some documentary evidence, which is in the form of refund vouchers, on the basis of which the three accused, aforesaid, withdrew the amount form treasury. P.W. 1, Rup Lal referred to some of the vouchers. P.W. 2 Joginder Singh. Reader to the Naib Tehsildar also proved some of these vouchers. P.W. 3 Mohanlal, Assistant Treasury Officer, deposed about withdrawal of the mondy on the basis aforesaid vouchers. All other prosecution witnesses were complainants, to whom compensation was due, but they did not receive it, except official witnesses, of which reference is being made. P.W. 23 Chatter Singh is Reader to Naib Tehsildar on whose evidence some reliance was placed at the time of arguments. His oral evidence shows that 78 Bighas and 16 Bighas of land was acquired, compensation of which only amounts to Rs. 716.50, whereas withdrawal was to the extent of Rs. 80,000/ -. He also referred to vouchers Exs. P.W. 15/1 to P.W. 15/56, having been prepared by Ishwar Chand accused. His evidence was shattered during cross -examination, when he had to admit that he had no personal knowledge of the total area of land acquired and that he did not know how many owners of the land of the village were entitled to compensation. He also did not know that the land of Ishpal and his two brothers was to the extent of 78 -Bighas and 16 -Biswas or that the compensation payable to them was Rs. 716.606 only. P.W. 27 is Sher Singh Patwari. His evidence is also general that the Government had acquired the land under the aforesaid Act, which was subsequently leased out. He had handed over the relevant papers to the police. He had prepared some list containing the names of the land -owners of village Khakheri, Ex. P.W. 27/C, proof of which was objected to. His evidence in the absence of the original record, thus, could not be acted upon. P.W. 29 is Bal Mukand, Naib Tehsildar, who was working as Naib Tehsildar at the relevant time. His evidence is also general regarding acquisition of 78 -Bighas 18 -Biswas land and the rate of rent, according to him, was Rs. 3.25 per acre per year for 74 -Bighas land and Rs. 1.05 for the remaining 4 -Bighas 18 -Biswas land. According to him, the total amount of rent summed up was Rs. 716.16. The withdrawal was to the extent of Rs. 76739.28. According to him Ishwar Chand accused used to prepare the vouchers and he initiated the same. P.W. 15 is S. C. Dhaseiwal, Deputy Commissioner, who deposed about vouchers Exs. P.W. 15/1 to P.W. 15/56. He identified the handwriting of Ishwar Chand thereof as Ishwar Chand was working under him.

(3.) IN order to prove the charge against the accused, it was necessary for the prosecution to establish that the three accused Harphool Singh and others were entitled to lesser compensation than the amount withdrawn by them and further that they had dishonestly done so. The prosecution has filed to prove the same beyond reasonable doubt in this case. The original records, as already stated above were not produced. Even otherwise no evidence was produced regarding the extent of land of the three accused, which was acquired and that they were riot entitled to the amount withdrawn by them. Howsoever, strong suspicion may be but the same is not to form basis for conviction.