ROSHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY his impugned judgment and order dated October 15, 1992 the learned Sessions Judge. Byana, Distt - Bharatpur has confirmed the conviction of sentence of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 420 and 467 I.P.C. on the basis of following facts - -The petitioner was the recorded tenant of Khasra Plot Nos. 1332 admeasuring 3 bighas. 17 Biswas and 1333 admeasuring 4 Bighas 19 Biswas situate at Weir. Hadain Patti. Distt -Bharatpur. It was alleged that the petitioner had mortgaged the said land, alongwith some other lands with the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur at Bharatpur on 13.11.1969 to secure a loan of Rs. 7,000/ -. However, on 26.5.1971 the petitioner sold the aforesaid land to PW -3 Jagdish Prasad for a consideration of Rs. 10,500/ -and also delivered the possession thereof to the purchaser. It appears that the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur had unsuccessfully proceeded against the petitioner in the year 1972 -73 for recovery of its loan. In the year 1976 PW -3 Jagdish Prasad filed a report with Police Station. Weir alleging therein that the petitioner had concealed the fact of his having mortgaged the land to the Bank before selling the same to him. On the basis of the report of PW -3 Jagdish Prasad a case under Section 420 IPC was registered against the petitioner and one Ratan Lal Patwari (since deceased). Both were charge - sheeted. Since Ratan Lal Patwari died during the pendency of the case, the learned Magistrate tried the present petitioner for the offences under Sections 420 and 467, found him guilty of the same and convicted and sentenced him there -fore in manner stated above.

(2.) THE main contention of Mr. Dinesh Kala, the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the suit brought by the Bank against the petitioner had failed on the ground that no mortgage was proved to have been executed by the petitioner in favour of the Bank. It was further submitted that in order to secure the loan taken by the petitioner from the Bank other agricultural holdings had been mortgaged by the petitioner with the Bank and therefore, under these circumstances no dishonest or fraudulent intention in selling the land to PW -3 Jagdish Prasad can be attributed to the petitioner and he cannot be said to have committed the offence under Sections 420 IPC. The learned Counsel further submitted that since the petitioner had not induced PW -3 Jagdish Prasad to alter, amend or modify any valuable security he cannot be said to have committed offence under Section 467 either.

(3.) ORDINARILY , this Court is exercise of its revisionary powers Under Section 397 Cr.P.C. does not interfere with the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Courts below unless, of course, it is observed by this Court that such a finding is not based on legal evidence or that the inferences drawn from the legal evidence, brought on the record of the case, do not flow from such evidence.