STATE OF H.P. Vs. KHOOB RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) STATE has appealed against the judgment, dated 2nd January, 2004, whereby respondents Khoob Ram and Subash Bhalla, who were charged with and tried for offences, under Sections 468, 471, 420, read with Section 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted by the trial Magistrate.

(2.) CASE of the prosecution, as per evidence adduced during trial, is like this. Respondent Khoob Ram was posted as Patwari in Mauza Sirigarh, Tehsil Ani, District Kullu, in the year 1966. Respondent Subash Bhalla is a resident of Chanigarh. This respondent No.2 Subash Bhalla wanted to purchase land in Solan District of Himachal Pradesh. However, he is not an agriculturist, within the meaning of Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, and, therefore, cannot purchase any land in the State of Himachal Pradesh, unless he obtains permission from the Government. With a view to purchasing a big chunk of land to execute his plans, as a builder, in the area of Solan District, he entered into a conspiracy with respondent No.1 Khoob Ram. As per the plan, Khoob Ram was to issue a copy of Jamabandi, containing false entries, showing respondent No.2 Subash Bhalla as owner of land in Mauza Sirigarh, Tehsil Ani. Accordingly, respondent No.1 issued copy of Jamabandi, pertaining to Khasra No.838, mentioning therein that respondent No.2 Subash Bhalla had got in succession land, comprised in the said Khasra number, on the basis of Will of Ram Chand, recorded as owner in the relevant column. The said copy is Ex. PW -7/A. It is alleged that by using this Ex. PW -7/A, respondent No.2 Subash Bhalla purchased land in Solan District, near Barog, vide sale deeds, Exts. PW -6/B, dated 29th November, 1986, PW -6/C, dated 22nd May, 1989, and PW -12/A, dated 20th February, 1991. These facts came to light when Deputy Commissioner, Solan, was holding some inquiry, under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, against respondent No.2 Subash Bhalla. He wrote to Deputy Commissioner, Kullu, to look into the matter. Deputy Commissioner, Kullu, asked Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), to hold an inquiry. The said Officer gave the report that there was a conspiracy between the two respondents and in furtherance of that conspiracy, copy of Jamabandi Ex. PW -7/A for the year 1968 -69 had been issued by respondent No.1.

(3.) SEVENTEEN witnesses were examined by the prosecution to bring the charge home to the respondents. Respondents, in their statements, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, denied that there was any conspiracy. Respondent No.1 Khoob Ram denied that copy of jamabandi Ex. PW -7/A had been issued by him, even though the report of the handwriting expert, PW -17 Dr. B.A. Vaid, was to the effect that the writing on Ex. PW -7/A was similar to the admitted and specimen writings of the said respondent.