STATE OF H P Vs. GULAM RASUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Additional Advocate General and learned counsel appearing for the respondent. It is undisputed before us that the first accused Ramesh Chaudhary, who was the prime accused before the learned Special Judge, Chamba is since dead.

(2.) The case against the respondents was registered at Police Station SV and ACB Chamba under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC and Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act on the allegations that the deceased accused was posted as Naib Tehsildar (Sales) cum Managing Officer, Kangra and in this capacity he sold evacuee property which was in the ownership of the Central Government and in possession of the Custodian Department through some of the non-occupancy tenants vide registered sale deed No. 160(1) dated 22.8.1997 and subsequently mutation was attested in favour of the second accused vide mutation No. 137 dated 1.10.1997 by the revenue department.

(3.) As we have noted that prime accused Ramesh Chaudhary died during the pendency of the proceedings before the learned trial Court and the point for consideration was as to whether the second accused was privy and party to the fraud purportedly committed by the first accused. The State relied upon the evidence of 17 witnesses in support of its case. The learned trial Court, on the evidence on record, holds that though the land in question was purchased by the surviving accused Gulam Rasul and sales certificate was issued by the first accused Ramesh Chaudhary, but there was no evidence that Gulam Rasul was in the knowledge of any defect that the property in question could not have been sold.