ROSHAN SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant stands convicted under section 5(2) of prevention of corruption act read with section 468 of the penal code this conviction arose out of two 1st information reports having been registered with the police authorities. As both the offences were commuted within a period of one year the charges were consolidated and single punishment came to be awarded. Now two appeals have been preferred.

(2.) THE prosecution case was that to those persons who become refugees from Chamb sector some reliefs were to be provided by the government of Jammu and Kashmir. The Government had issued an order to the effect that civil and army employees who are owners of two or more acres of land and became refugees and fell within the definition of term "Chamb refugees" would be entitled to allotment of land and also to cash relief. This relief was to be granted by the rehabilitation department. There was a further stipulation that this relief was to be granted to only those chamb refugees who were agriculturists.

(3.) THE prosecution story is that one Roshan LaL S/o Isher Dass resident of Neetar pal and Devi Dayal resident of Village Chalkla, preferred applications before the relief & rehabilitation officer. They were seeking allotment of land and also for the grant of cash reliefs. These applications came to be rejected. This was on the ground that these two persons were found to be non agriculturists. After this rejection the appellant said to have forged revenue record. It is stated that fraud tagurat (Sic) was forged in favour of Roshan Lal and Devi Dayal. On the basis of these forged documents the aforementioned two persons made applications for seeking relief from the rehabilitation department. It is alleged that orders were in fact passed on the basis of forged revenue record in favour of Roshan Lal and Devi Dayal. They were treated as agriculturists. It is alleged that not only there was a proposal to make allotments of land but sanction was also accorded for giving cash relief the prosecution case was tha the appellant redividced illegal gratification to the extent of Rs. 300/ - from Roshan Lal and rs. 10/ - (Sic) it was on account of this factor fraud tagurat of 1986 was prepared by the patwari by the name of Harbans Lal. This patwari had stated that these entries were forged but were not in his handwriting. At the same time of trial the admitted handwriting and questioned writing were sent to hand writing expert namely R.L.Dhar this expert has given an opinion that two writings were of the same person.