SHER SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . - This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated March 9, 1972, of the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, upholding the judgment of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, dated July 30, 1971, whereby the learned Assistant Sessions Judge convicted the petitioner under Sec. 420, IPC., and sentenced him to three years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a line of Rs. 500.00, in default of payment of which, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months. He was also convicted under sections 467 and 471, IPC., and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment under each count.

(2.) The petitioner was tried before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, for offences under sections 420, 467 and 471, IPC. The prosecution case as disclosed at the trial against the accused-petitioner, was that the accused was Patwari, Halka Madera during the period running between 23rd Dec., 1968 to 29th Jan., 1969- From the counter-foils of Revenue Receipts Nos. 57709/01, 57709/02, 57709/29 of Chak 2H (Bada), No. 57711/02 of Chak 7D (Badi), Nos. 57712/10, 57712/03, 57712/04, 57712/06 of Chak 8D (Badi), Nos. 57710/04, 57710/07 57710/08, 57710/11, 57710/19, 57710/20 of Chak 3H (Badi) issued by the accused in the names of the cultivators mentioned therein it was revealed that he mentioned in the third counter foil excess amount than actually due against the cultivators. That he did so fraudulently and dishonestly to induce the cultivators to pay him excess money than due and knowingly used these forged receipts as genuine, obtained the amount mentioned in the third counter-foil and deposited only the amount mentioned in the second counter-foil in the State treasury retaining for himself the difference of the amount mentioned in the two counter-foils. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge placing reliance on the statements of PW 6 Bahadar Ram, Naib-Tehsildar, PW 16 Dwarkanath, Office Kanungo, and PW 17 Bhanwarlal, Tehsil Revenue Accountant, held that the third counter-foil of all the above mentioned receipts bore the signatures of the accused-petitioner. Believing the statements of PW 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 18, the learned Sessions Judge held that the accused-petitioner made representation to the above mentioned witnesses to the effect that the Land Revenue was increased by the State and on the basis of this fraudulent representation he charged excess amount from them as mentioned in the third foils of the receipts. On the evidence on record it was also proved that the excess amount charged by the petitioner from various cultivators was kept by him and only the amount of Revenue payable by them as mentioned in counter-foils Nos. 1 & 2 was deposited by him in the State Treasury. On the basis of the above finding he convicted the accused-petitioner and sentenced him as mentioned above. The accused-petitioner preferred an appeal to the Court of Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, who on re-appreciation of the evidence upheld the conviction of the accused-petitioner under Sections 420, 467 and 471, IPC. and also maintained the sentence awarded by the trial court. The petitioner has now come up in revision.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the relevant portion of the record. The prosecution case has been proved beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt relied upon by the two courts below. The learned counsel has not been able to show anything on the basis of which the veracity of their statements can be doubted. The statement of the cultivators from whom the excess amount was received by the petitioner stand corroborated by the third counter-foil of the receipts produced by them before PW 6 Bahadar Ram and PW 15 Laxman Singh. The two counter-foils of each receipts produced on the record bear the signatures of the accused-petitioner. They are in his hand and difference of amount mentioned in counter-foil No. 2 and counter-foil No. 3 regarding the payment made by the same person speaks volumes about the fraudulent intention of the accused-petitioner. I find no reason to take a different view than that taken by the two courts below. The jurisdiction of this court in exercise of its revisional powers is highly restricted. Reference may be made to Amarchand Agarwala Vs. Shanti Bose and another, AIR 1973 Supreme Court 799.