MAI SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - All these seven revisions arise out of similar facts and the question involved in them is also common, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order. The police had instituted seven different challans against the present petitioner in all these cases and some others on the allega-tions that one Surendra Singh was the B. D. O. , Srikaranpur. During his absence on leave from 30. 11. 66 to 9. 12. 66, Shri Trilochan Singh, Animal Husbandary Extension Officer (A. H. EO.) was discharging the functions of the B. D. O. The case of the prosecution is that during this term certain faked applications for grant of loan for fertilisers were made in the names of various persons and the different officers at different levels conspired in making false identifications of those applicants, verifying their identities, making wrong entries about their holdings and no dues and some other persons gave securities for them. The petitioner Mal Singh was the Sarpanch of the Panchayat at that time and it is alleged that he verified the claims of all those faked applicants. The other co-accused persons were the various, Patwaries, clerks in the Panchayat Samiti etc. who made false reports and the persons who stood surities for the so called applicants as also Shri Trilochansingh the person who was officiating as a BDO. and who had ultimately granted the permits on the basis of those reports. After trial, the learned Munsif and Judl. Magistrate, Srikaranpur convicted the accused persons u/s 408 and 120-B IPC. and sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment and fines. The accused persons filed a number of appeals, some jointly and some separately before the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar and the learned Sessions Judge, by his different orders in the various appeals, acquitted all the accused persons of offences u/ss 408 and 120-B I. PC. holding that the fertilisers were not proved to have been obtained from the Co-operative Society on the basis of the alleged permits and there also did not appear any conspiracy to have been established in his respect. He, however, observed that it was proved that the present petitioner Mal Singh in all these cases appeared to have falsely verified the applications for grant of loan of fertilisers but no charge u/s 471 I. P. C. had been framed against him and, therefore, while acquitting him of the offences u/s 408 and 120-B I. P. C, the learned Sessions Judge directed the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence u/s 471 I P. C. against the accused petitioner Mal Singh and try him for that offence. It is against these orders in all these appeals that the present petitioner has come up in revisions.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the record of these cases.