RAM LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide this judgment, the above mentioned six appeals, would be disposed of as the appellant(s) have challenged their conviction and sentence passed under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code(for short 'IPC.') and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act) passed by the Special Judge vide judgment/order dated 24.8.2009.

(2.) Prosecution story, in brief, is that vide order dated 24.6.1997, the Additional Director Consolidation had ordered that the Bachat land be partitioned amongst proprietors of the village. On the basis of the said order, the appellants-Chhinder Pal, Darshan Singh, Sukhwinder Singh, Ram Lal and Bhupinder Pal Singh entered mutation Nos. 1224, 1225, 1235 in favour of the proprietors of the village in connivance with Darbara Singh, Ajmer Singh (since deceased) Bachan Singh Mohan Singh, Gurnam Singh and Dara Singh. Learned Special Judge, vide impugned judgment dated 24.8.2009, acquitted accused-Surmukh Singh, Karnail Singh and Bhajan Singh of the charges framed against them as they were held to be bona fide vendees. However, all the remaining accused were convicted of the charges framed against them.

(3.) Learned senior counsel for the appellant(s) have submitted that the order dated 24.6.1997 was passed by Gyatri Jain, Additional Director Consolidation Punjab. The FIR in question was also registered against her. Gyatri Jain preferred Crl.Misc.No.6757- M of 2003 in this Hon'ble Court and the FIR in question qua her was quashed vide order dated 20.9.2004 (Annexure A2). AppellantsChhinder Pal, Darshan Singh, Sukhwinder Singh, Ram Lal and Bhupinder Pal had merely sanctioned the mutations on the basis of the order passed by the Additional Director Consolidation. Since the FIR in question had been quashed qua Gyatri Jain, Additional Director Consolidation, who had passed the order in question,the appellants were also liable to be acquitted of the charges framed against them. In fact, the said appellants had been directed by their higher officials to implement the order dated 24.6.1997. So far as the order passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 16039 of 1997 is concerned, whereby operation of the order dated 24.6.1997 was stayed, vide order dated 23.10.1997, the same was informed to the appellant(s) in December,1997. The mutations in question has been sanctioned much before the said date.