IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1330 of 2004 Date of Decision : January 08, 2010 Subhash Chand ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Vikram Chaudhari, Advocate with Mr. D.S.Adhlakha, Advocate Mr. Manmohan Sikka, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) Vide judgment dated 18.12.1999, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhri convicted the petitioner for offences under Sections 167/201/418/471 IPC. Vide order dated 21.12.1999, the trial Court sentenced him to undergo RI for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- on each of the counts under Sections 167, 201 and 418 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo further RI for one month. For the offence under Section 471 IPC, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year and six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1500/-. In default of fine, he was to undergo RI for 1½ months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The petitioner challenged his conviction and sentences by filing an appeal, which was partly accepted by learned Additional Crl. Revision No. 1330 of 2004 -2- Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar on 2.7.2004 by acquitting him of the offences under Sections 167 and 418 IPC. However, his conviction and sentences for offences under Sections 201 and 471 IPC were maintained. He is now before this Court by way of revision wherein he has challenged his conviction and sentences for offences under Sections 201 and 471 IPC. The case was registered on the basis of a complaint made by the Naib Tehsildar, Jagadhri. It was alleged therein that the petitioner while working as Patwari of Halqa Bhambholi, sanctioned mutation No. 917 relating to inheritance of deceased Dhallu Ram in favour of Jai Pal on the basis of an unregistered Will. Lateron, he got mutation No.942 sanctioned in favour of all the natural heirs of deceased Dhallu Ram, cancelling mutation No.917 by keeping it away from Parat Patwar register of mutations. In this way, he sanctioned two mutations of one owner by tampering with the official record and cheating the authorities. Even while handing over the charge at the time of his transfer from Bhambholi, the petitioner did not hand over the Roznamcha Vakyati for the years 1965-66 and 1985-86 besides field book Bandobast and Ishtemal Mauza Bhambholi as well as the field book of village Milk Majra whereas the record of the village Bhambholi was still lying with him. On the basis of the aforementioned complaint, FIR No. 121 dated 17.8.1995 was registered at Police Station Chhapper under Crl. Revision No. 1330 of 2004 -3- Sections 167/418/470/201 IPC. During the investigation of the case, the record pertaining to mutations No.917 and 942 and also jamabandi for the year 1990-91 were taken into possession by the police. The statements of the witnesses were recorded and the accused was arrested. On completion of the investigation, final report was submitted against the petitioner in the Court. The petitioner was, thereafter, charged for having committed offences under Sections 167/201/471 and 418 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution had examined PW1 Sukhdev, Patwari, PW2 Ashok Kumar, Tehsildar, PW3 Dharambir, PW4 Gian Chand, Kanungo, PW5 ASI Rajpal and PW6 Iqbal, Naib Tehsildar. The recovery memo Ex.PW3/1, mutation No.917 Ex.P1, mutation No.942 Ex.P2, jamabandi for the year 1991-92 Ex.P3 and FIR Ex.PW4/1 were also placed on record. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioner denied the incriminating material produced against him by the prosecution. He pleaded false implication. Initially, he opted to lead evidence in defence but lateron no defence evidence was produced. The trial Court believed the prosecution version and convicted and sentenced the petitioner, as mentioned above. The lower appellate Court, however, acquitted the petitioner of offences under Sections 167 and 418 IPC on the ground that there was not an iota of evidence to prove that the petitioner as a public servant caused any Crl. Revision No. 1330 of 2004 -4- wrongful loss or cheated the natural legal heirs of deceased Dhallu Ram as none of them was examined as a prosecution witness. The enquiry was initiated against the petitioner at the instance of one Megha Rani, who neither resided in village Bhambholi nor joined the enquiry so as to establish the malafides on the part of the petitioner for causing wrongful loss to the authorities and cheating the natural legal heirs of deceased Dhallu Ram while sanctioning mutation No. 917. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and, with the assistance rendered by them, examined the evidence. The posting of the petitioner as a Patwari of village Bhambholi at the time of sanctioning of mutations Ex.P1 and Ex.P2, stands proved from the testimonies of PW1 Sukhdev, Patwari and PW2 Ashok Kumar, Tehsildar. While being posted as Patwari, the petitioner not only removed mutation No.917 Ex.P1 from the Parat Patwar but also knowingly, did not make entry of the said mutation in the jamabandi for the year 1990-91 or in the earlier jamabandi so as to make the record upto date. The mutation Ex.P1 was lateron traced out not from Parat Patwar but from Parat Sarkar(record of mutation kept at Tehsil headquarter) as depicted by endorsement in red ink thereon. The petitioner knew that mutation Ex.P1 was a forged document and he concealed the said fact from the revenue record by not making any entry in the jamabandi. He used the forged mutation as genuine by not getting it cancelled from higher revenue authorities Crl. Revision No. 1330 of 2004 -5- before entering and sanctioning of mutation No.942 Ex.P2 in the name of legal heirs of deceased Dhallu Ram. The petitioner had deliberately and intentionally got sanctioned mutation Ex.P1 on the basis of unregistered Will in favour of tenant Jai Pal, besides concealing it from the higher revenue authorities. Protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was not available to the petitioner as he did not perform his official duties in a bonafide manner. Moreover, the FIR was registered on the basis of an enquiry followed by the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Jagadhri directing PW2 Ashok Kumar, Tehsildar to get the criminal case registered against the petitioner. The action of the competent authority in directing the registration of FIR amounted to deemed according of sanction for prosecution. In view of the above, the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 201 and 471 IPC is well merited. The petitioner has been facing the agony of criminal prosecution since the year 1995. When he was heard by the learned trial Court on the question of sentence, he had stated that he had four children and was sole bread winner in the family. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the view that sentence of imprisonment for one year and six months for the offence under Section 471 IPC is on the excessive side Crl. Revision No. 1330 of 2004 -6- and needs to be reduced to one year. Resultantly, the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 201 and 471 IPC is maintained. His sentence of imprisonment and fine, alongwith its default clause, for the offence under Section 201 IPC is maintained. However, sentence of rigorous imprisonment of one year and six months for the offence under Section 471 IPC is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. The amount of fine, alongwith its default clause for the offence under Section 471 IPC is also maintained. Substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. The revision is, accordingly, disposed of. ( T.P.S. MANN ) January 08, 2010 JUDGE ajay-1