IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No. 115 of 2004 Date of Decision : 25.2.2011. State of Himachal Pradesh …Appellant. Versus Budh Ram and another . …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh , Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? For the appellant : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. A.G. with Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. A.G. For the respondents : Mr. Dibender Ghosh, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) The State has come in appeal against the judgment dated 23.12.2003 passed by learned Special Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan in Corruption Case No. 5-CC/7 of 2002 acquitting the respondents for offence punishable under Sections 420/120-B read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ( for short ‘Act’). 2. The brief facts of the case are that PW-21 and 13 others submitted a complaint Ex.PW-22/A to Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) alleging therein that in the year 1971-72, the Public Works Department had constructed motorable road from Badripur to Majra. The lands of the complainants were acquired. The Land ______________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? 2 Acquisition Officer, Solan while paying compensation has done lot of bungling. The compensation amount was paid to them by Land Acquisition Officer through Budh Ram at their Village Ajiwala, less payment was made to illiterate complainants but their signatures and thumb impressions were obtained against higher amounts. They were told that the remaining amount would be paid to them lateron. A request was made to enquire into the matter. 3. On the basis of complaint Ex.PW-22/A, FIR Ex.PW-23/A was registered and on completion of investigation challan was submitted in the court. The respondent No.1 was power of attorney holder of many owners in the land acquisition proceedings and respondent No.2 was the Land Acquisition Officer. After complying Section 207 Cr.P.C., respondent No.1 was charged under Section 420 read with Section 120-B IPC and respondent No.2 under Sections 420/120-B IPC and Section 13(2) of the Act. The respondents pleaded not guilty and they claimed trial. The prosecution has examined 23 witnesses and produced several documents. The statements of respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the prosecution case but led no evidence in defence. The learned Special Judge acquitted the respondents, hence State has come in appeal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we have also gone through the record. The prosecution has examined PW-1 Ram Saran, PW-2 Laiq Ram, PW-3 Roop Chand, PW-4 Geeta Ram, PW-6 Ram Swarup, PW-7 Dalbir Singh, PW-8 Shanti Prashad, 3 PW-9 Akbar Ali, PW-10 Sita Ram, PW-11 Gurdiyal Singh, PW-12 Joginder Singh and PW-20 Dharamvir Singh, who claimed that their lands were acquired for construction of Badripur-Jamniwala road. 5. PW-1 has stated that he has received the entire amount of compensation during 1994 only through cheque amounting to ` 52,145/-. PW-2 Laiq Ram has stated that he had received the payment only once through cheque about 8-9 years ago and a sum of ` 12,000/- was paid to him. In cross-examination, he has stated that Land Acquisition Officer had given him a cheque of ` 12,329/- at the Rest House about enhanced compensation. Budh Ram paid him that amount of cheque at his house. PW-3 Roop Chand has stated that he had received ` 7,949/-. PW-4 Geeta Ram has stated that he had received ` 2376/-. PW-6 Ram Swarup has stated that he had received ` 11,248/-. PW-7 Dalbir Singh has stated that he had received the full and final payment. He had not made any complaint to the police. PW-8 Shanti Prashad has stated that he had received ` 13,017/- paid by Land Acquisition Collector. PW-9 Akbar Ali has stated that he had received entire compensation only once which was less than ` 2200/-. PW-10 Sita Ram has stated that he had received only ` 1600/-, his signatures were taken on blank C.C. form. He identified his signatures at points D-1 to D-3. PW-11 Gurdiyal Singh has stated that he had received ` 1000/- towards compensation last year. He identified his signatures on CC form at points E-1 to E-3. The column of amount was blank at the time when his signatures were taken. PW-12 Joginder Singh has stated that he had received the entire payment. PW-20 Dharamvir Singh has stated that he and his sisters have 4 received only ` 4500/- on account of acquisition of land which in fact was received by his elder brother and the remaining amount remained to be paid was ` 26,000/- in all of his brothers and sisters. 6. PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-6, PW-8, and PW-12 did not support the prosecution, they were declared hostile and were allowed to be cross-examined. The Public Prosecutor cross-examined them but nothing could be extracted in their cross-examination favourable to the prosecution. PW-1 has stated that he has received entire amount of compensation amounting to ` 52,145/-. This witness was not declared hostile. PW-7 and PW-9 have stated that they have received the payment but they were not declared hostile. 7. PW-10 has stated that he has received only ` 1600/- and his signatures were obtained on CC form and column of amount was blank. The CC form in question was admitted by respondent No.1 before learned Special Judge. The serial No.50 of CC form indicates that an amount of ` 7128/- was paid to PW-10. He has admitted his signatures at points D-1 to D-3 on CC form which is in triplicate. The said CC form from serial No. 51 to 55 also indicates payments to other persons Roshan Lal, Sukh Ram, Joginder Singh, Gian Singh, sons and Smt. Jai Kaur daughter of Batna. None of them have been examined by the prosecution. It is not believable that Roshan Lal etc. also signed on blank CC form. PW-10 has also not explained the reasons why he signed at points D-1 to D-3 on CC form when CC form was blank. The prosecution has thus failed to prove that PW-10 has received only ` 1600/- when PW-10 allegedly signed CC form at points D-1 to D-3 and he received remaining amount ` 1600/- in February, 2003. It is 5 clear from CC form that PW-10 has in fact had received ` 7128/- and thereafter he put his signatures in token of having received ` 7128/-. 8. PW-11 Gurdiyal Singh has stated that he had earlier received ` 500/- which was recovered from him at Paonta Court. He had received ` 1000/- against compensation. He identified his signatures on CC form at points E-1 to E-3. According to him, the column of amount was blank at the time when he put his signatures. The CC form indicates that at serial No. 32, PW-11 has received ` 4,279/-. The CC form also indicates that from serial No. 33 to 37 Gurdas Ram, Kanshi Ram, Pritu, Ram Gopal and Om Parkash have also received amounts and have signed or thumb marked on the same page of CC form where Gurdiyal has put his signatures. The prosecution has not examined Gurdas etc. to show that they had also signed or thumb marked CC form when it was blank. In these circumstances, the sole testimony of PW-11 that he signed CC form at points E-1 to E-3 when it was blank and he had only received ` 1000/- is not believable. The entry against Gurdiyal in CC form clearly reveals that he had received ` 4279/-. The prosecution has thus failed to prove that due amount of compensation was not paid to PW-11. 9. PW-20 Dharamvir Singh has stated that they are in all eight brothers and two sisters and they have received only ` 4500/- on account of acquisition of their land. The CC form Ex.PW-18/A from serial No. 51 to 59 indicates payments of ` 2898/- each to three sons, ` 2897/- each to two sons, ` 2896/- each to two sons, ` 586/- to one daughter , ` 585/- to another daughter and ` 2659/- to the widow of Jyoti Ram. The name of PW-20 Dharamvir Singh is not recorded in 6 CC form Ex.PW-18/A. PW-20 has stated that amount of ` 4500/- was received by his elder brother but without disclosing the name of said elder brother. The CC form Ex.PW-18/A indicates payment of ` 24,110/- in all to the heirs of Jyoti Ram. PW-20 has not stated that his brothers, sisters and mother have not signed or thumb marked CC form in token of having received payments. The brother of PW-20, who allegedly received ` 4500/-, has not been examined. The evidence led by the prosecution in this context is weak and not believable that Dharamvir and his brothers have received only ` 4500/- on account of compensation. 10. The persons interested/owners who appeared as prosecution witnesses in their statements have not stated what was the total amount of compensation awarded to them. Some of the witnesses have disclosed the amount they have actually allegedly received on account of compensation. It was incumbent on the prosecution to prove what was the actual amount of compensation awarded to the owners of the land and only thereafter it could be considered whether they were paid the amount as per their entitlement. The respondents have denied the prosecution case. The learned Special Judge has taken a possible view from the evidence on record. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove that less amount of compensation was paid to the owners of the land by the respondents on account of compensation which was payable to the owners and obtained the signatures and thumb marks against higher amounts. There is no merit in the appeal. 7 11. The result of the above discussion, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds are discharged. (Surjit Singh), Judge. (Kuldip Singh), Judge. February 25, 2011 (GR)