Crl.Misc. No.A. 348-MA of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No.A. 348-MA of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: JULY 21, 2010 Union Territory, Chandigarh .....APPLICANT Versus Khazan Chand and another ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL --- Present: Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Addl. Public Prosecutor U.T. Chandigarh, for the applicant. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. Crl.Misc.No.15142 of 2010 This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 69 days in filing the appeal with application for grant of leave to file an appeal. After hearing the counsel for the applicant and for the reasons stated in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, delay of 69 days in filing the appeal as well as the above-said application is condoned. Application is disposed of. Crl.Misc.No.348-MA of 2010 The Union Territory, Chandigarh has filed the instant application under Section 378(3) Cr. P.C. seeking leave to file an appeal against the judgment dated 10.8.2009 passed by Special Judge, Chandigarh, whereby the respondents accused have been acquitted from the Crl.Misc. No.A. 348-MA of 2010 (O&M) -2- charges framed against them under Sections 466,467,468,471,420,120-B IPC and under Section 13(1)(d) 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In the present case, one Attar Singh Khalsa made a complaint to the authorities that ownership of dwelling unit No.4538, Maloya Colony, Chandigarh was changed from Hans Raj son of Shri Tulsi Ram to Khazan Chand son of Shri Bodh Raj by tampering the record. On enquiry, it was found that the said dwelling unit was originally allotted to Hans Raj and later on the allotment has been changed in the name of Khazan Chand by tampering the record of Estate Office, Chandigarh by accused Kulbir Singh Gill and Bishamber Dass Dogra. On the basis of the said report, the FIR was registered against Khazan Chand, Bishamber Dass Dogra and Kulbir Singh Gill. After investigation, the challan was filed against the accused and they were charged under Sections 466,467,468,471,420,120-B IPC and under Section 13(1)(d) 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses. After closure of the prosecution evidence, statements of all the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they denied all the incriminating evidence put against them. Accused Khazan Chand pleaded that he had moved an application to the Chandigarh Housing Board, which was forwarded to the Estate Officer and after the survey, he was found in possession of a `Jhuggi' and, therefore, he was allotted the dwelling unit in place of Hans Raj and Hans Raj never resided in the said Jhuggi in the Colony. Accused Bishamber Dass Dogra, who was working as Inspector, Crl.Misc. No.A. 348-MA of 2010 (O&M) -3- pleaded that on receipt of the application of Khazan Chand from the Estate Officer, the facts were verified from the neighbourers and Pradhan and on verification, Khazan Chand was found residing in a Jhuggi. Accused Kulbir Singh Gill pleaded that he had marked the application of Khazan Chand to accused Bishamber Dass Dogra, Inspector and on receipt of his report, he recommended the name of Khazan Chand. It has been specifically pleaded that they did not tamper any record. However, in defence all the accused did not lead any evidence. After appreciating the entire evidence led by both the parties, the trial Court came to the conclusion that Hans Raj, to whom initially the dwelling unit was allotted, was actually not residing in the Gawala Colony. Rather, Khazan Chand was residing in the said Colony and he was entitled for allotment of the said unit. Therefore, he moved an application dated 20.4.1989 (Ex.PH) for correction in the record and to make allotment of the said unit in his name. On the said application, a note was prepared which was approved by the Development Officer. The said application was forwarded to the Estate Officer, who in turn marked it to accused Bishamber Dass Dogra. After verifying the facts, accused Bishamber Dass Dogra made the report (Ex.PH/3) to the effect that it was actually Khazan Chand, who was residing in the Colony and on the basis of the said report, accused Kulbir Singh Gill, who was working as Estate Officer, wrote the letter dated 24.7.1989 (Ex.PG) informing the Chandigarh Housing Board for allotment of the dwelling unit in the name of Khazan Chand, and consequently changes were made in the allotment letter. It is pertinent to mention that at no point of time Hans Raj, who was the most effected person, did raise any grouse against the changes effected in the allotment letter from his name to Crl.Misc. No.A. 348-MA of 2010 (O&M) -4- the name of Khazan Chand. After considering the evidence available on the record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the changes were effected in the records after following the procedure and it cannot be said that all the accused agreed to do an illegal act and actually did the same or tampered the records relating to allotment of tenement No.4538 in Maloya Colony, Chandigarh. After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and going through the impugned judgment, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the said finding of fact recorded by the trial Court on the basis of the documentary evidence led by the prosecution. Therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid finding and the facts enumerated above, we are not inclined to grant leave to file an appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal. In our opinion, from the evidence available on the record, no other conclusion, as framed by the trial Court, can be arrived at. Hence, the application is dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE July 21, 2010 ( MOHINDER PAL ) vkg JUDGE