IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA 1. Cr.Revision No.42 of 2009 2. Cr.Revision No.43 of 2009 Judgement reserved on: 24.8.2009 Date of decision: 26.8.2009 1. Cr. Revision No.42 of 2009 Atma Ram Chatran …..Petitioner Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. 2. Cr. Revision No.43 of 2009 Sohan Lal Gupta …..Petitioner Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner(s) : Mr. G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. B.C. Verma, Advocate. (in both the petitions) For the Respondent : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Additional Advocate General. ( in both the petitions) Kuldip Singh, Judge. This judgment shall dispose of Cr. Revision No.42 of 2009 and Cr. Revision No.43 of 2009 which have been filed by Atma Ram Chatran and Sohan Lal Gupta respectively against the Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes …2… order of framing of charge by learned Sessions Judge(F), Shimla in Case No.. 89-S/7 of 2003, State vs. Gian Chand Sharma. Cr. Revision No.42 of 2009 2. The prosecution case in brief is that a letter dated 31.7.1999 was received from the office of Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Shimla alongwith letter dated 29.6.1999 from Special Secretary-cum-Director (Vigilance) to the Govt. of H.P. for registration of case on the complaint of one Kanwaljeet Singh Duggal and on that basis FIR No.7/99 dated 2.8.1999 was registered at Police Station, Anti Corruption Zone, Shimla. It was found during investigation that Maulvi Sayed Abdullah was in possession of land comprised in khasra No.591 measuring 79690 Sq. feet Bazar Ward Bara Shimla having a house there on. Mohammad Sayed Abdulla left India and had gone to Pakistan during partition and the property left by him was declared as evacuee property. Kartar Singh Duggal had purchased land comprised in khasra No 591/1, measuring 2534 Sq, yards in public auction. The sale certificate was issued in favour of Kanwaljeet Singh Duggal grand son of Kartar Singh Duggal by the rehabilitation Department on 2.9.1987 of land measuring 2534 Sq. yards. 3. The allegations against Atma Ram Chatran etc. are that Raghubir Singh Patwari Settlement ( since died) on 1.11.1993 made a note on the basis of alleged Will of Mohammad Sayed Abudlla in favour of Bhagat Ram regarding land comprised in …3… Khasra No.591/1 measuring 24415 Sq. feet. On 4.11.1993 the then Kanungo Hukam Chand allegedly verified the Will and on 16.11.1993 the then Naib Tehsildar Atma Ram Chatran attested mutation in favour of . Bhagat Ram on the basis of alleged Will. It has come in investigation that Bhagat Ram had died on 26.9.1983. The prosecution case is that Atma Ram Chatran and Hukam Chand Kanungo had committed an offence punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Sections 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.. Cr. Revision No.43 of 2009 4. The prosecution case is that in the year 1989 the revenue record of Shimla Bazar Ward was transferred to Settlement Department for the purpose of settlement. On 3.3.1989 Ved Parkash the then Patwari Settlement Circle, Shimla entered mutation regarding khasra No.591 on original copy of khasra paimaysh register 1907 on the basis of Will No.15 dated 5.2.1981 of Bhagat Ram in favour of Udhami Ram, Smt. Parvati Devi, Smt. Budhi Devi in equal shares which was verified by the then Kanungo Inder Singh and was attested by the then Naib Tehsildar Sohan Lal Gupta on 4.4.1989 without proper verification. As per khasra paimaysh register 1907 Bazar Ward Shimla, khasra No.591 was in possession of Maulvi Sayed Abdullah. The khasra No.591 measuring 79680 Sq. feet was evacuee property. This was overlooked intentionally in order to give benefit to Udhami Ram. Bhagat Ram himself was not in …4… possession of khasra No.591. Sohan Lal Gupta the then Naib Tehsildar in connivance with Inder Singh the then Kanungo and Ved Parkash the then Settlement Patwari and Udhami Ram gave Udhami Ram undue benefit by attesting illegal mutation of evacuee property on the basis of false Will. The offence punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Sections 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 is made out against Sohan Lal Gupta and other officials. 5. It is also the case of the prosecution that on the basis of settlement deed dated 7.3.1984, Sohan Lal Gupta the then Naib Tehsildar had attested mutation regarding khasra No.591 in favour of Udhami Ram whereas khasra No.591 was evacuee property and no mutation could have been attested in favour of Udhami Ram. Sohan Lal Gupta in connivance with other officials and Udhami Ram on the basis of false settlement deed had attested mutation of evacuee property in favour of Udhami Ram, therefore Sohan Lal Gupta and other officials have committed an offence punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Sections 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and Udhami Ram has committed an offence punishable Sections 420, 468, 471, 120-B IPC. 6. The learned Sessions Judge (F) on 30.6.2008 has framed charge against Atma Ram Chatran under Sections 120-B, 420,468, 471 IPC, Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of …5… Corruption Act 1947 and Sections 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and similar charge against Sohan Lal Gupta. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the framing of the charge against the petitioners on the grounds that there is no conspiracy between the petitioner and other co- accused impleaded in the case. The petitioners did not work in any capacity with the other co-accused. The petitioner Sohan Lal Gupta worked as Naib Tehsildar (Settlement), Shimla from 1989 to 1992. Ved Parkash Patwari and Inder Singh Kanungo worked with him. 8. The dispute raised by the prosecution is of a civil nature. It has been submitted that day in and day out mutations and other revenue records are prepared and questioned in civil courts and are set aside on proof but that does not mean that the officials who prepared the revenue records and attested mutations are liable for prosecution. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on the basis of material on record no case is made out for framing the charge against petitioners and has prayed for quashing of the charge framed against the petitioners. 9. The learned Addl. Advocate General has opposed both the petitions and has submitted that on the basis of material collected during investigation a case is made out against the petitioners for framing the charge and no fault can be found with the order dated 30.6.2008 of learned Sessions Judge framing the …6… charge against the petitioners. He has submitted that the prosecution has led and closed the evidence on 20.8.2009 and now next date of hearing in the case is fixed for recording the statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The prosecution is hopeful that the learned sessions Judge will decide the case on merits very shortly. 10. Heard and perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted orally that no case is made out for framing of charge against the petitioners but in support of his submissions he has not pointed out any material collected during investigation during the course of his arguments. There are allegations against the petitioners for preparing false documents so as to give undue benefit to the beneficiaries. It is the positive case of the prosecution that both the petitioners were posted as Naib Tehsildars at the relevant time and they have prepared false documents in connivance with other officials and beneficiaries so as to give benefit to the beneficiaries. There is enough material on record to frame charge against the petitioners for which they have been charged. In any case, the prosecution has closed the evidence on 20.8.2009 and now next date of hearing in the Court below has been fixed on 19.9.2009 for recording the statements of accused and it is expected that the learned Sessions Judge will decide the entire case very shortly. 11. There is no merit in the petitions which are accordingly dismissed. The observations made in the petitions …7… are for disposal of the petitions and shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. The record called from the Court below be returned immediately, so as to reach before the next date fixed in the court below. ( Kuldip Singh) Judge August 26, 2009 (sks) …8… IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 43 of 2009. Judgment reserved on :24.8.2009 Date of decision: 26.8.2009 Sohan Lal Gupta …..Petitioner Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. B.C. Verma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Additional Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge For judgment see judgment of today rendered in Cr. Revision No.42 of 2009 titled Atma Ram Chatran vs. State of H.P. ( Kuldip Singh) Judge August 26, 2009 (sks)