STATE OF H.P. Vs. ASHOK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State is in appeal against the judgment dated 28.3.2003 of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Arki, District Solan, H.P. in Criminal Case No. 83/2 of 1997, titled State of H.P. v. Ashok Kumar and Anr. whereby the Respondents herein who were accused before the learned Court below and shall hereinafter be referred to as such and denoted as A1 and A2, respectively, were tried for the offences under Sections 167, 193, 120B and 420 IPC and were ultimately acquitted.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the case of the prosecution was that during the year 1996 A1 Ashok Kumar was posted as Patwari in Patwar Circle Mangal, Tehsil Arki. On or about 26.7.1996 he along with A2 Rajender Kumar and discharged co -accused Gulshan Kumar and Jitender Kumar conspired to prepare incorrect copy of Jamabandi for the year 1991 -92 in respect of Khewat No. 14 of Mauza Scor wrongly showing the names of the aforesaid accused Gulshan Kumar, Jitender Kumar and Rajender Kumar as co -owners in the column of ownership along with other co -owners, whereas, actually they were not co -owners. It was further alleged that A1 Ashok Kumar had issued an agriculturist certificate dated 31.7.1996 in favour of the aforesaid accused showing them as agriculturist in Mauza Scor. Thereafter, on the basis of the said agriculturist certificate, the aforesaid accused got executed a sale deed dated 17.8.1996 in their favour at Nalagarh pertaining to the land bearing Khata/Khatauni No. 25/26, Khasra No. 243, measuring 1 bigha 3 biswa, situate at Mauza Chuhu, Tehsil Nalagarh from Sub Registrar, Nalagarh. This fact was detected when Tehsildar, Nalagarh enquired from the office of Tehsildar, Arki about the genuineness of the agriculturist certificate in question. On receipt of letter from Tehsildar, Nalagarh, his counterpart at Arki verified the record and found that the certificate was not genuine and he informed SDO (Civil), Nalagarh about the same who in turn informed the Deputy Commissioner, Solan who made complaint Ext. PW10/A to the Superintendent of Police, Solan for registration of a case against the accused. Consequently, FIR was registered.

(3.) DURING trial the prosecution examined as many as 32 witnesses. On close of the prosecution evidence the accused were examined by the learned trial Court under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure wherein their case was that of total denial. Though initially they stated that they intended to lead evidence yet lateron they stated that no such evidence was to be led by them in their defence. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court proceeded to acquit both the accused, as already noticed.