KUTUBUDEEN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are the two appeals filed by the above four accused appellants against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Anti Corruption Act Cases, Bikaner dated 5. 12. 2000 whereby he has convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as under: u/s. 420 r/w 120 IPc : One year's R. I. & a fine of Rs. 1000/- u/s. 467 IPc : One year's R. I. & a fine of Rs. 1000/- u/s. 468 IPc : One year's R. I. & a fine of Rs. 1000/- u/s. 471 IPc : One year's R. I. & a fine of Rs. 1000/- u/s. 13 (1) (d) r/w S. 13 (2), P. C. Act. : One year's R. I. & a fine of Rs. 1000/- All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently and in default of payment of each amount of fine, accused appellants were further required to undergo three months' R. I. on each count.

(2.) FACTS leading to these appeals are that on 4. 4. 1992 when the trap in the house of accused appellant Moola Ram, RAS, was conducted by the A. C. D. Department in Case No. 45/92 then certain documents relating to the lottery register for the year 1991 of villages Ramda, Pugal, Jhudkiya and Jodhasar and one register of Advisory Committee of Pugal and certain files relating to allotment of land in the canal area were seized. From this record, it was revealed that on 24. 9. 90, the Advisory Committee made certain recommendations for allotment of land. The Advisory Committee was constituted under the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Govt. Land in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975, hereinafter referred to as "the Rules". It was found that the appellants received from 30. 9. 88 to 31. 10. 88 were to be considered for allotment as per Rule 11 of the Rules. Allotments were also made in pursuance to the recommendations of the Advisory Committee and necessary entries were made by Pratap Singh in the said registered after opening lotteries. It was further revealed that in the said register of advisory committee, 138 persons from Pugal, 2 persons from Jhudkiya, 80 persons from Ramda and 82 persons from Jodhasar were eligible for allotment but in the lottery register, more persons were found to have been allotted the land whose applications were neither placed before the Advisory Committee nor their applications were received prior to 31. 10. 88. In all, 61 allotments were made by making forged entries. Upon this, the FIR No. 114/93 was registered on 6. 8. 93. During investigation, it was also found that the forged entries were made in the lottery register without there being any entry in the register of advisory committee as well as in the inward register of the applications. The photos were attested after later data of applications, but they were shown to have been berified on the same day on 24. 9. 90 when allotments were made by Naib Tehsildar Kutubudeen. Moola Ram was Assistant Colonisation Commissioner during the relevant period. Thus, it was revealed that forged certificates relating to photos and stamps were entered in the order sheets whereby the loss was caused to the State Exchequer and accordingly, six persons were charge-sheeted including the four appellants as well as Phusa Ram and Mohd. Yunus, after obtaining necessary sanction from the State Government. After hearing the arguments on charges, Mohd. Yunus and Phusa Ram were discharged and rest of the four accused i. e. present appellants were charged under Sections 420 read with 120-B, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and also under Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ``the Act'), to which they pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined 23 witnesses. Statements of the accused were recorded u/sec. 313 Cr. P. C. They led no defence. After hearing the arguments, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as above.

(3.) NEXT comes the register of the advisory committee, which is Article 3. It is true that the names of the excess 61 allottees including the 17 agriculturists, PW. 1 to PW. 17, who have been examined by the Court, are not there in the register of the advisory committee but their names are available in the lottery register, Articles 30 to 33, which is of the same date i. e. 24. 9. 90. This register has been marked exhibit from the testimony of PW. 1 Om Prakash but these entries have been proved by Pratap Singh (PW. 20 ). He has said that the applications of above 17 agriculturists were not placed before him, but he has stated that this register pertains to Pugal and the registers of Khajuwala and Chhatargarh were not placed before him. In examination in chief, he has stated that he went to Pugal under the order of Moola Ram, Asstt. Colonisation Commissioner. According to him, the formalities of photos, stamps et. on files, Article 20 to 29, Article 7 and Article 16 show that report of the Patwari, photos and its stamps have been affixed after filing of applications. In the cross examination, he has stated that if there are certain deficiencies in files like photo, certificate of bonafide resident etc. , then order for issuing allotment is made but the same is handed over to the agriculturists later on. In the last, he stated that he did not notice any illegality in these allotments. The members of the advisory committee, who have been examined, are Shiv Lal (PW. 18) and Shiv Kumar (PW. 19) but they are hostile witnesses, as they have stated that they received certain files later-on in a bundle and made allotments.