&.\~^^ 'aynaaoosaE 'i¥N33aiyo .HO.SCDS SHI do W.^Li s/n waaa? •qjBSs^q.q.eqqo yo a^Bq® : ffl'iaaMOjg.ay •sasya& •(•S'3) 3sna •1-q.sTa 'Bpuap.iy •g'jj 'jsdisjnq-g 3:0 q.uap-?s»y •BOT:Aj3g - aotqsdnooo 'BJSS^ ^.s psS? ta8pu8qcq;ag ^BB.I^ BSjna T-ttfg 0/g <uBpuBqoT[ag T;&^~ aeaoy s 7 ^ ^ .•-^ ^^••-t.^ ^l^^ Mmaadv &1 So02/c*--7?'? ' ' * 'ON TBa3dV.l3 - masnia w Hs¥ssi£j»HH3so saioo HOIH aT:a,.KSOH SHA t.il HI6H CQWT CTLCHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR Roman Lal Belchandon Vs. State ^of Chhatf-isgarh Post for Order : 3. . .2006 Sd-/ Mip Raosaheb Desi Judg p^e^^ HI6H C.OURT OF CHHATTISS^RH AT BILASPUR t*/ v Cr.Apoeal NQ.623/20® Before : Hon'bte Shri bilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Roman Lal Belchandan V3. State of Chha+tisgarh Presenl".- , f Shri T.K.Tiwari, learned Counsel for the appeliant. Shri Ashish ShukSa, learned ©ovt,Advocate for theState. JUDSMENT (Delivered on 01..08.2006) This appeai 'is directeef against the judgment dated 29 July 2005 de!ivered by Shri A.R.Dhruv> Special Judge <md Additional Sessions Judge, Dyr*g in Sessions co.se Number-42/2002 whereby the cypellant was convicted under Sections 418 and 466 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years dnd a fine of Rs.2,000/- for each offence. Fine amount awarded by the learned tria! Court has been deposited by the appeilant. 2. It is not disputed that during Bandobast of the year 1985 the q'pellant-Romon Lal Belchandan was the Revenue Inspector for Tahsil Dondibhar, District Durg. Co-accused P.Y.Swami, since acquitted, was the Assistant Sjperin-tendent, Land Records at the relevant time. Co- accused Prakash Chand Jain has died. 3. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that one fiobruram filed a written complaint before the Scheduled Castes Welfare Cell, Durg on 3.10.1997 that his father Aghnurom owned 2.40 acres of agricul-hjra! land bearing . No.273 in Dondilohar. During Bandobast^ '-So^ i.e. in 1985-86 Kh.No. 273 of the aforescid land was changed as Kh.No.720 area 2.40 acres. The appellant-Revenue Inspector in order to cause wrongful gain to co-accused Prakash Chand Jain and wrongfu! !oss to ©obruromcommifted forger^' by adding 1.50 acres of lond out of the above Kh.NoJSO to the land bearing Kh.No.713 belongmg to Prakash Chand Jain. 4. During inyestigatiori, it was found that ©obruram was the erstwhile owner of tiie aforesaid Sand Kh.No.273 area 2.40 acres and had mortgaged it witii Sangilal Bafna who deceitful'y got the land tronsferred in the narae of Anjorsing and Started cultivating the land. Sangilal Bafna and Anjorsing have died. Sobruram and Premsingh are tribals and betonq to Schedulad Tribe. Land Kh.No.273 area 2.40 acres got recorded in the name of Premsing, son of Anjorsing. Sobruram init'ated proceedings before the Revenue Court in Balod. In the year- 1985-86 Sobrurara became the owner of the aforesaid land. In the meanwhile, Bandobast took place. Tlie appellcuit-Revenue Inspector Roman Lal Betchondan in collusion with P.Y.Swami, Assistant Superintendent, Land Records hatched a crirainat conspirocy and in order to cause wrongful gain to Prokash Chond Jain trcnsferred an area of 0.70 hectares out of Kh, No. 720 to Kh.No.713 which stood in the nanse of Prakash Chond Jain. The remaining 0.36 hectares !and m Kh.No.720 remained in the name of Premsingh. After completion of investigation, the (^peStmt was prosecuted under Sections 420, 467, 471 of the I.P.C. and afs&.under Section 3 (1) (iv) and 3(1) (v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrecities) Act. 1989 Oiereinafter referred to as the Act). 5. The appeilant abjured the guilt, plecded innocence and examined S.&.M. Abhay- Kumar Mi^iru in defence wrfio depoad 1+iat in the Departmental Enquiry conducted by him for the aforesaid appeltant-Roman Lal Belchandan was exonerated from it was found •ttiat during Bandobast the appellant performed his duties, as per ruks. The prosecution witnesses. Relying upon •fne evidence Sed by the irosecution, the Trie! Court convicted and sentenced the appeltant as the charges had du!y examined 17 4T Bfe4t.>:Uj 6. Shri T.K.Tiwari, lewned counse! for the appellant argued that there was not even on iota of evidence to show that the appeffont acted malafidely 'n order to cause wrongful gain fo Pnikash Chand Jain. It was atso contended that the conduct of the appellcnt was bona fide and a fair conduct in due performance of his public duty after taking att necessary steps and precautions. The finding recorded by the feamed tna! Judge in paragraph 29 that durmg Sanchbast, fand bearing Kh.No.273 area 2.40 ocres was neither recorded in the name of Gobruram or his fa-ther Aghnuram in Revenue Records nor was in their possession was a!so pointed out. Pamgroph 45 of Ihe Juctgment was also referred white contending that on the aforesatd ground -the leamed triat Judge held l4iat the charge under Section 3 (1) (iv) ond 3(1) (v) of the Act was not estabfished against the appellant. It vws also contended that the defence' evidenee led by the appelSait was wholly ignored by the learned Trial Judge whsch reveated that the conduct of the oppellant was bona fide and 'm due discharge of his public dutie^ Paragraph 6 of the testimony of fiobruram was also pointed out which revealsd •Hiat during &sndobast a proclaraation had been issued -regarding the aforesaid land Kh.No.273 area 2.40 acres and no objection was preferred by Aghrsurow or Sobruram. Parograph 40 of hss tsstiraony showing thfit fn a civil litigation between Prokash Oiand Jain and Sobrurom relating ^, to 1+ie aforesaid !and, a decree was ipassed in favour of Prakash Chand Jain, was a!so referr^d. On the above premises, it was urged -rfiat the conviction dnd sentence awarded by tfie learned tria! Judge was liable to be set aside. On the other hond, Shri Ashish Shukia, learned 6oyt. Advocate argued in sujiport of the impugned judgment. 7. Havlng considered the riyal submissions, I have psrused the record of Special Case .Fiio.42/2002. The testimony of defence witness Abhay Kumar Mishra who was the Enquiry Officer in Departmentcl Enquiry conductsd against the appellant was wholly lost sight of by the learned trnt Judge. It revealed that in the Departmental Enquiry it was found that the appellant had in due discharge of his duties during Bandobast had acted diligently with regard to hnd in diqsute. The testimony of comptainant-Sobrurcsm P.W.l ciearly showed that his father Aghnuram had sold the land Kh.No.273 area 2.40 acres to Sangilat and thereafter Sangila! was in cultivating the possession of the aforesaid land and no land out of the aforesaid Kh.No. was in their possession. It wes also admitted that in the year 1984 to 1986 during the proceedings of Bandobast, the entire proceedings were drown as per rules after issuing prociamation relating to aforesaid land in the yiltage in which no objection was roised by Gobrurmn. In paragraph 4 of his testimony, it is also borne out that in a Civit Litigction between 6obruram and Prokash Chcnd Jain relating to the land Kh.No.273 area 2.40 acres, a decree was passed in fayour of Praka^Chand Jain. The copy of the judgment of the Ciyil Court was not producsd by the prosecution. In paragnyh 48 of the impugned judgment, the • learned trial Judge has held that although ths existence of fflgffs' rea or the fact of deriving any monetary benefit by the appellant out of the transfer of land in the name of Prakash Chand Jcin during Bandobast was not borne out, yst the appellant couid not derive any benefit therefrom or the fact of having been exonerqted in the Departmental Enquiry. The above inference drcwn by the learned tria! Judge was wholly erroneous. Tlie aforesaid facts clearly go to show that the act of Ihe appellant jn transferring the part of the erstwhile .No.273 in the name of Prakash Chand Jain was a bona fide act commiti'ed in due discharge of his public duties and did not fal! within the definition of forgery. The requistte intent eithef?,to prove the guilt of the appeflant under Section 418 I.P.C. or to eause daraage or injury to a person or to support another person's claim or titte essential for constituting an offence under Section 466 I.P.C. is missing in this case. Having -rtius considered the rival submissions and the evidence record, I affl of the considered opinion that the conviction of the appellant under Section 418 and 466 of I.P.C. and the sentence awarded thereunder are liable to be setaside. njuii 9. In the result, the oppeal is atlowed. Conyiction of the oppellant under Sections 418 and 466 of I.P.C. and the sentence awarded thereunder are set oside. The appellant is acquitted. Sd-/' Judge