STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. GOVIND RAM BAGDIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for leave to appeal has been filed in respect of a judgment of acquittal delivered by the Special Court created under Anti-Corruption Act, Bikaner. The respondents Govind Ram Bagdiya (Administrator, Municipal Board, Ganganagar), D. R. Kalla, Assistant Engineer, Charan Singh, Draughtsman and Mahaveer Prashad, LDC, Municipal Board, Ganganagar were charged for the offences punishable under Section 13 of the Anti-Corruption Act and Section 420 of the IPC. Pawan Kumar and Smt. Neelam were charged under Section 13 of the Anti-Corruption Act and Sections 109, 120 and 120-B of the IPC. The trial resulted in acquittal. Pawan Kumar and Smt. Neelam have their houses situate in the township of Ganganagar and both applied for allotment of land adjoining their respective houses. Ultimately land measuring 25 x 36 sq. ft. was allotted to each one of them as strip of land. Certain persons of the locality lodged a complaint and ultimately a case was registered which resulted into challan of the said six accused persons. The prosecution case was to the effect that the land which was allotted to Pawan Kumar and Smt. Neelam was not a strip of land but the same was as good as a independent piece of land and was wrongly treated as a strip of land. The land was allotted for a sum of Rs. 1,25,415.00 at the rate of Rs. 1500% per square yard. The prosecution case was that the prevalent rate in the area was between Rs. 2000.00 to Rs. 2380.00 per square yard and hence it was a case in which there was a wrongful loss to Municipal Board, Ganganagar and wrongful gain to the accused persons.

(2.) I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor and I find no merit in this petition. It is not in dispute that the land which can be described as strip of land has to be less than 100 square yards. It is also admitted that in the instant case the allotted area was not more than 100 square yards. It is also admitted that the land was allotted to Pawan Kumar and Smt. Neelam at the rate which was determined by the 'Nazool Committee', which is entitled to fix the rate in such matters. The witnesses have admitted that the 'Nazool Committee' which was constituted to deal with such matters had fixed the rate at which the land was allotted to the said accused persons. PW-2 Srichand Bishnoi, who was the Assistant Town Planner has deposed that when the doors and windows of a particular house open on such adjoining land the same cannot be allotted to a third party and has to be allotted to the owner of the house whose windows and doors open in such land. The witness admitted that in this case the letter Ex. D/2 was issued from their department. PW-3 Prem Chug is also a departmental witness who has stated that he is conversant with such cases and the land was allotted validly at the rate fixed by the 'Nazool Committee'. He has further stated to the effect that such land cannot be given to a third person because it cannot be put to any independent use. He has also stated that after due permission from the District Collector, the allotment was made. The witness has admitted that the land in question could not be used by anybody other than Pawan Kumar and Smt. Neelam. PW-4 Sudesh Kumar Dhavan, Accounts Officer, initially, stated that it was an independent piece of land and was not a strip of land. However, in cross-examination he had to admit that he had never seen the land in question. He further admitted that the allotment was made after the permission was granted by the District Collector. He has admitted that the permission letters bears his signatures as well. According to the witness after the permission by the District Collector, the matter came to him and he duly signed that, PW-5 Jagdish Prashad, Municipal Commissioner, in his examination-in-chief itself has described the land as strip of land. In cross-examination he has admitted that as per the rules such piece of land which is treated as strip of land has to be allotted to the owner of the adjoining house. PW-6 Pradhumna Singh, the Legal Assistant has stated that the allotment was made as per the rate determined by the concerned 'Nazool Committee'. He has admitted that the site was seen by him and the land in question was in the category of a strip of land. The Investigating Officer PW-8 Ved Prakash has admitted that the land allotted to Pawan Kumar and Smt. Neelam was strip of land as the same was less than 100 square yards. He has clearly admitted that after the sanction of the Town Planner as well as the permission of the District Collector, the allotments were made. In this way, all the departmental witnesses have deposed directly in favour of the accused persons. PW-9 Uma Shankar and PW-10 Om Prakash as well as PW-11 Laxmi Narain are the persons who initially raised objections in respect of the allotment in question. They have not been able to help the prosecution in any manner. PW-10 Om Prakash specifically admits that the doors and windows of Pawan Kumar and Smt. Neelam open on the land in question.

(3.) It, therefore, is a case of zero evidence so far as the prosecution is concerned. There is no material to infer that any personal gain was obtained by any of the accused persons. Nor it was a case of wrongful loss to the Municipal Board. There was no evidence of any conspiracy amongst the accused persons. The learned trial Court has relied on the following citations. (i) P. D. Paliwal v. State of Rajasthan, 1994 Cri LR (Raj) 372 (ii) Mohan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2000 Cri LR (Raj) 388.