Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Union Territory Of Jammu And Kashmir ... vs Shanti Swroop Gupta S/O Karam Chand on 9 October, 2023
Author: Mohan Lal
Bench: Mohan Lal
S. No. 1
Supp Cause List
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CrlA(AS) No. 11/2023
Reserved on : 23.05.2023
Pronounced on: 09.10.2023
Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir Through ...Appellant(s)
Senior Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption
Bureau Jammu.
Through:- Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG.
Vs.
1. Shanti Swroop Gupta s/o Karam Chand ...Respondent(s)
Gupta R/O H. No. 165, Sector 7 Channi
Himmat Jammu, (the then Tehsildar Jammu)
(Now Expired);
2. Farooq Iqbal Qazi S/O Mohd Assadullah
Qazi R/O 797 Mohalla Ustad Jammu (the
then Patwari Halqa Deeli Jammu);
3. Baldev Singh @ Papa S/O Nanak Chand R/O
Apna Vihar Kunjwani Jammu.
Through: Sh. Jagpaul Singh Advocate for R-2.
Sh. Rajnish Raina Advocate for R-3.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN LAL, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. Instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal is directed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 28.02.2022 rendered by the court of Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge (Anti-Corruption) Jammu in FIR No. 28/2006 bearing file No. 07/Challan/02/Challan titled State through Police Station Vigilance Organization Jammu (VOJ) Versus Shanti Swroop & Ors, whereby, respondents have been acquitted for commission of offences punishable under sections 5(2) r/w 5(1) (d) P.C. Act 2006 r/w sections 420,465,468, 471, 120-B, RPC.
2. Aggrieved of and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment, appellant has questioned it's legality, propriety and correctness, has sought it's setting aside/quashment, and has further sought the conviction of respondents on the following grounds:-
(i) that the judgment impugned is contrary to law, against facts of the case and has been passed in a mechanical manner without appreciating the circumstantial and other evidence available on record;2 Crl A(AS) No. 11/2023
(ii) that from the search of residential premises of R-1 Shanti Swroop Gupta (now dead) original order No. 139/REH dated 28.01.2005 signed and issued by him as the then Tehsildar Jammu relating to illegal allotment of State Land measuring 219 kanals and 1 marla in favour of 7 displaced persons alongwith photocopies of the applications of 7 displaced persons in whose favour the aforesaid State Land has been fraudulently allotted have been seized;
(iii)that incriminating document viz; photocopy of fraudulent allotment order No. 139/REH dated 28.01.2005 alongwith photocopies of irrevocable power of attorneys executed by the allottees namely Amrik Singh, Harmeet Singh & Doulat Ram in the name of R-3 Baldev Singh, coupled with original affidavits sworn by the allottees Janak Singh, Prema Devi (w/o late Sh. Munshi Ram) & Madan Lal showing receipt of amount by them and surrendering the land taken by them alongwith original unsigned affidavits in the names of Ram Chand (S/O Beli Ram) Meena Wanti (w/o late Mani Ram), Doulat Ram, Swroop Singh showing receipt of payment by them have been seized and proved before the trial court;
(iv) that the investigation revealed that under a well knit conspiracy accused Baldev Singh (R-3) a real estate dealer dishonestly managed to obtained applications from aforesaid 7 displaced persons namely, Meena Wati, Swroop Singh, Janak Singh, Doulat Ram, Raj Singh, Amlook Singh & Harmeet Singh in the name of the then State Revenue Minister for allotment of deficient land in their favour as displaced persons through one of his contact man late Tika Ram (the then Girdawar Tehsil Office Jammu) who was residing in the neighborhood of above said displaced persons, the displaced persons were made to believe that deficient land allotted in their favour will be made good by allotting them additional quota of land due to them as per Cabinet Order No. 578-C of 1954 under which the State Land was allotted to displaced persons of 1947-1965 from PoK, R-3 accused Baldev Singh Subsequently got the applications endorsed by the then Revenue Minister in the name of Deputy Commissioner Jammu for action under rules, the said application as a part of criminal conspiracy were processed by R-1 (accused Tehsildar) Shanti Swroop who thereafter marked the said applications to R-2 Patwari Farooq Iqbal Qazi for report who made a false and fabricated report that the aforesaid 7 displaced persons were in illegal possession of state land under Khasra No.. 61, 62, 1116/4, 1117/4 min of patwar Halqa Deeli & were entitled to the allotment of additional land which was deficient to them which during investigation has been found untrue and contrary to the concerned revenue records, R-1 despite possessing the knowledge that report submitted by accused Patwari (R-2) was manipulated issued letter No. 134-REH dated 25.01.2005 in the name of Provincial Rehabilitation Officer (PRO) Jammu recommending therein the allotment of deficient land in favour of aforesaid 7 displaced persons under the pretext that they were not having the quantum of land as per the scale approved by the Govt., R-1 accused Shanti Swroop was retiring from service on 31.01.2005 as such he in order to achieve the object of conspiracy issued an illegal order No. 139-
REH dated 28.01.2005 on the basis of baseless and fabricated 3 Crl A(AS) No. 11/2023 report furnished by R-2 accused Patwari, as pre Govt. Circular No. R-REH/64/40/III dated 02.012.1985 issued by state revenue department R-1 accused Tehsildar Jammu was not legally competent to allot deficient land to aforesaid displaced persons as the powers for same were vested upon Provincial Rehabilitation Officer (PRO) Jammu, so accused public servants R-1 & R-2 were found to have abused their official positions and by acting in league with R-3 accused Baldev Singh under a conspired plan resorted to falsification of public record to effect the allotment of state land in question to the displaced person with an ultimate object to confer undue benefit upon themselves;
(v) that the Roaznamcha waqyati of Patwar Halqa Deeli seized during investigation and placed on record reveal that there was no entry in the said Roaznamch on relevant dates to suggest that R-2 accused Patwari had visited the spot at Deeli for spot verification of land shown in possession of displaced persons;
(vi) that the mutation register of Patwar Halqa Deeli duly seized and placed on record before the trial court in original reveals that though fraudulent allotment order bearing Tehsildar Jammu office order No. 139/REH was issued on 28.01.2005 but the mutation in respect of said displaced persons have been found already recorded on 27.01.2005 by R-2 accused Patwari on mutation register one day prior to the issuance of allotment order showing thereby that there has been prior meeting of minds/nexus between accused public servants and R-3 Baldev Singh;
(vii) that after the attestation of fraudulent mutation by R-1 accused Tehsildar on 31.01.2005, R-3 Baldev Singh obtained General Power of Attorney from said 7 displaced persons and sold land measuring 207 kanals to the persons viz;
(a) 72 kanals 12 marlas of land has been found sold to one Abhijeet Singh S/O Randhir Singh Jamwal R/O Gurah Chabalian Bakshi Nagar Jammu @ 12000/- per kanal [total sale consideration has been found as Rs.8,67,200/-],
(b) 75 kanals land has been sold to Abhijeet Singh S/O Randhir Singh Jamwal R/O Gurah Chabalian Bakshi Nagar Jammu for sale consideration of rupees nine lakh;
(c) 43 kanals 8 marlas of land has been found sold to one Sham Sunder/Parmanand R/O H. No. 122 Mohalla Malhotrian @ 12000/- per kanal [total sale consideration of Rs. 8,44,800/-] ,
(d) 43 kanals 8 marlas of land has been found sold to one Kanta Gupta w/o Kuldeep Raj R/O Shastri Nagar Jammu @ 12000/- per kanal [total sale consideration of Rs.1,92,000/-].
(viii)that the statement of eye witness PW-18 Om Parkash (Ex-Nazir of Tehsil Office Jammu) reveals that accused public servants and Baldev Singh have conspired to allot land measuring 219 kanals 1 marla at Deeli to 7 displaced persons by resorting to manipulation of records for its subsequent sales to private persons for their pecuniary gains;
(ix) that the seized questioned documents viz; orders of allotment, fabricated report of Patwari Deeli, instrument of mutation signed by accused Tehildar and Patwari were sent to FSL Jammu for comparison and expert opinion, a positive opinion has been 4 Crl A(AS) No. 11/2023 received which establishes that the fraudulent allotment order and other connecting documents were in the handwriting and signatures of accused Tehsildar & Patwari which the trial court has not appreciated and has given benefit to the accused persons on the basis of assumptions and presumptions totally ignoring the evidence of PWs Anil Mangotra Tehsildar, Malook Singh & others;
(x) that the Trial Court has not scrutinized the evidence on record in it's right perspective, has considered the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in bits and fragments instead of weighing it in toto and has acquitted the accused persons on the grounds contrary to evidence brought on record;
(xi) that the Trial Court has not scrutinized the evidence of PWs Vidya Devi, Ramesh, Som Nath, Sampuran Singh, Randhir Singh, Shamsher Lal and others which prove the conspiracy and nexus among accused public servants and accused beneficiary Baldev Singh;
(xii) that PW Randhir Singh too has proved that R-3 Baldev Singh is the person who sold land measuring 149 kanals to him and managed registry of the said land purchased by him in the court of law in favour of his both sons, accused Baldev Singh has been identified by various prosecution witnesses in the court, many incriminating documents have been seized from the house of the said accused, but the trial court has not appreciated this fact in its right perspective and has acquitted the accused on the basis of reasoning contrary to the weight of prosecution evidence.
3. Respondent No.1 has died during the pendency of trial and has been dropped from the array of accused vide order of the trial court dated 24.12.2019, whereas, respondents 2&3 have contested the appeal. Appellant has filed an application for seeking condonation of delay of 117 days in filing the acquittal appeal. Vide orders of this court dated 28.03.2023 & 11.04.2023 the delay in filing appeal was condoned and the appeal was admitted for hearing.
4. Ld. Sr. AAG while reasserting the stand taken by her in the memo of acquittal appeal, has further articulated arguments, that the prosecution witnesses clearly prove that accused persons acting in conspiracy with each other managed the allotment of land to 7 displaced persons and A-1 Tehsildar had no authority to issue allotment order. It is argued, that after the issuance of allotment order accused persons sold the land to different persons through attorney holder R-3, R-2 entered the mutation on 27.01.2005 whereas allotment order was issued on 28.01.2005 which means that he knew it well that allotment order was being issued, moreso, Roznamcha waqyati clearly shows that Patwari (A-2) did not visit the spot and submitted false report, the applications did not bear any endorsement 5 Crl A(AS) No. 11/2023 by DC and were straightway taken to the Tehsildar, Tika Ram (the then Girdawar Tehsil Office Jammu) collected the applications and gave the same to Baldev Singh who presented the same to Minister. Prayer has been made for setting aside of the impugned judgment and the conviction of the respondents/accused.
5. Ld. Counsel for respondent No.2 has argued, that the deficiency of land of displaced persons and their rights vis-à-vis the said land have not been disputed and no link has been established between R-1, R-2 & R-3, if R-1 was part of conspiracy then the Revenue Minister and DC should have also been arrayed as conspirators, there is no explanation why applications were presented to Revenue Minister, sent to DC and then the Tehsildar if the same were required to be presented to the Tehsildar in the first instance. It is argued, that the prosecution has picked the lower officials just to complete the formality, PW-1 Anwar Sadotra (Patwari Halqa Deeli) has stated that the Nishandehi is a routine function and the same may not be entered in the Roznamcha, moreso, he did not notice the missing pages which means that record was complete when he took charge from R-2 Farooq Ahmed Patwari and the missing pages were removed deliberately to save the DC and Minister. It is moreso argued, that no report as to missing of pages was lodged, moreover he took the charge from Rajinder Patwari who is neither an accused nor witness in the case, R-2 gave charge to Rajinder Kumar Patwari 4 years before the FIR, PW-1 Anwar Sadotra could not be a witness to the signatures of R-2 as he did not remain posted with him, moreso, he has stated that accused did not enter any mutation in his presence so PW-1 Anwar Sadotra is not even hearsay witness in regard to alleged criminal acts against accused Farooq as accused Farooq was succeeded by Rajinder Patwari. It is stated, that PW-5 Vinod Kumar Sathoo is witness to the preliminary enquiry and his evidence is relevant only to see if FIR was lodged and cannot be read against the accused, the role of accused No.2 Farooq is only that he presented a factual report, insufficiency of land with the allottees is not disputed and their possession was found on spot, accused No.2 Farooq has entered the mutation by the order of Tehsildar, the allotment order has not been challenged, report of accused No.2 Farooq could be proved by Rajinder Patwari or by some other person who worked with him and not by PW-38 Anil Magotra ( the then Naib Tehsildar Arnia) who has stated that Farooq had not worked with 6 Crl A(AS) No. 11/2023 him, neither the report nor mutation and khasra girdawari entries have been proved, documents marked as AM-1 to AM-5 are photocopies and have not been proved. It is argued, that PW-36 Farhat Amin Kar (I/C Assistant Officer Documents Division FSL Srinagar) has stated that he has found similarities in four out of 26 alphabets, documents received by him were not sealed and were in an open cover, with regard to Urdu writing also he has stated that few words are similar, the entry of mutation before the order is not proved by the witnesses examined including PW-36 Farhat Amin Kar from FSL. It is asserted, that prosecution has failed to examine I/O PW-39 Ashok Kumar Chib (the then Dy. SP Crime Branch Jammu) whereas another I/O PW-40 Vijay Mohan Sadhu has died during the pendency of trial without tendering his evidence, for the non-examination of the I/O's prosecution case has landed in lurch, there is no evidence that the applications did not reach the Office of DC and if Revenue Minister was not liable, his statement as prosecution witness should have been recorded by the prosecution.
6. Ld. Counsel for R-3 has articulated arguments, that R-3 has no role in the functioning of R-1 & R-2 who were the public servants at the relevant time of occurrence when the allotment of land was done by revenue officials therefore R-3 cannot be said to have been conspired with them, the power of attorneys have not been proved, there is no evidence to connect R-3 with conspiracy of allotment of land, mere visiting the office of Tehsildar by R-3 as stated by PW-18 Om Parkash Sharma (Ex-Nazir Tehsil Office Jammu) is not an offence. It is argued, that prosecution evidence does not establish role of R-3 before issuance of allotment order, the applications are stated to have been collected by one Tika Ram Girdawar marked by Revenue Minister to DC who appears to have marked the same to Tehsildar, therefore, R-3 has not performed any act in the said process, ingredients of offence of conspiracy and other offences have not been established against R-3. It is moreso argued, that when the alleged selling of the property occurred, the allotment for the said land was already complete, the execution of sale deeds was not fraudulent act otherwise purchasers should have been the accused alongwith Tika Ram, Revenue Minister and DC if the allotment was wrong, R-3 is not responsible for fabrication of any record as he was not in a position of any authority for that, the School where order was allegedly prepared did not belong to R-3, 7 Crl A(AS) No. 11/2023 if PW-1 Anwar Sadotra Patwari has stated that he did not see the record at the time of taking over charge, no criminal liability can be attributed to R-2 & R-3, PW-5 Vinod Kumar has deposed that applications regarding deficiency of land were not presented by R-3 which clearly shows that R-3 is not involved in any conspiracy, PWs 19, 20, 24 Harmeet Singh, Raj Singh & Vidya Devi who are the displaced persons even do not support the prosecution case and rather support the accused persons.
7. I have heard Ld. Sr. AAG for appellant and Ld. Counsel for respondents 2&3. I have perused the impugned judgment in depth and have also scanned the record of the trial court. The case of prosecution has been tried to be proved by the circumstantial evidence of as many as 29 witnesses.
8. To prove the case against respondents/accused appellant/prosecution has led oral evidence of as many as 29 witness's alongwith documentary evidence. The prosecution has examined as many as 29 witnesses out of listed 41 in the charge sheet. The prosecution examined oral witnesses as under:-
PW Name Role
1 Anwar Sadotra (Patwari Halqa Deeli To prove insertions in
Jammu) revenue records.
2 Fazal Din (Naib Tehsildar Settlement To prove production of
Digiana) revenue record.
4 Bihari Lal 29/SVO (the then Inspr. VOJ, To prove house
now Dy.SP) search/inventory/ seizure
memo.
5 Vinod Kumar Sathoo (the then Inspr. -do-
VOJ, now Dy.SP IRP 15th Bn. )
6 Kumar Jatinder Sharma (A.E PWD R&B -do-
City Sub-Division 2 Jammu)
7 V.K. Gupta (AE, PHE Mechanical -do-
Division Narwal Jammu)
8 Kewal Krishan (AEE PHE Mechanical -do-
Division Jammu)
9 Ravail Singh Choudhary (the then Inspr. -do-
VOJ, now Dy.SP)
11 Sunil Kumar Tagotra (A.E PWD R&B -do-
8 Crl A(AS) No. 11/2023
Lok Nirman Bhawan Jammu)
14 Ajay Sharma (AEE, PHE Procurement -do-
Division Jammu)
16 Mohd Hanief HC No. 78/SVO,VOJ -do-
18 Om Parkash (Ex-Nazir Tehsil Office To prove that fraudulent Jammu) documents were prepared by accused persons in a private School building.
19 Harmeet Singh To prove that accused obtained application from him fraudulently.
20 Raj Singh -do-
21 Doulat Ram -do-
23 Sardar Amlook Singh -do-
24 Mst. Darya Devi Circumstantial witness 25 Ramesh Chander Circumstantial witness 28 Soom Nath Circumstantial witness 29 Sampooran Lal Circumstantial witness 30 Shamsher Lal Circumstantial witness 31 Mohd Iqbal (the then Naib Tehsildar To prove specimen EMIC Satwari Jammu) signature/hand writing of accused.
32 Surinder Lal Bhagat (the then Naib -do-
Tehsildar EMIC Muthi Jammu) 33 Raman Singh (WBN Tehsil Office To prove production and Jammu) seizure of record.
34 Mrs. Harwinder Kour (the then Dy. PRO To prove that order of in Jammu on 08.07.2006) Tehsildar was not received in her office 35 Randhir Singh To prove that he purchased land from accused Baldev Singh (Attorney holder).
36 Farhat Amin Kar (I/C Asstt. Officer To prove FSL report.
Documents Division FSL Srinagar) 37 Bunny Singh SgCt. 98/SVO, VOJ To prove seizure memos. 38 Anil Magotra (the then Naib Tehsildar To prove identification of Arnia) signatures of accused persons.
9 Crl A(AS) No. 11/202341 Danish Rana, IPS, SSP, now DIG VOJ Preparation of Challan.
9. Before coming to the conclusion whether prosecution has successfully substantiated charges against respondents/accused beyond hilt, for the sake of convenience, I find it pertinent to give a brief resume of the depositions of the prosecution witnesses already reproduced by the trial court. Relevant portions of the depositions of the prosecution witnesses are summarized as under:-
10. Brief Resume Of Depositions Of Prosecution Witnesses:-
PW-1 Anwar Sadhotra Girdawar (the then Patwari Halqa Deeli Jammu, witness to prove insertions in revenue records) has stated that he was posted as Patwari Deeli from August 2006 to January 2009. He presented two registers mutation and one Roznamcha to VOJ who seized the same. His signature on seizure memo dated 01.12.2006 is correct. Seizure memo dated 01.03.07 also bears his signature, and is correct. EXT-P1 and EXT- P1/1 are marked on them. He has seen the seized mutation registers. Marks AS and AS1 are put on them. He has seen the register Mark AS. Pages No. 1388547, 1388549 and 1388550 are missing. All entries in the said registers are in the hand writing of accused Farooq Iqbal. He was Patwari at Deeli prior to him. Similarly, pages No. 01388579, 0628800 and 0628701 to 0628798 are missing in mark AS/1. The mutation entries in that register also are in the hand writing of Farooq Iqbal. Page No.1 has been inserted in Mark AS1. That is not the original page of that register. Mark AS2 is put on Roznamcha Waqyati. Patwari enters the important happenings of the day in that register. The movement of Patwari to Deeli is not mentioned on page no. 131 Roznamcha Waqyati AS/2 as the small events are not entered in that. There is no mention in AS2 that Patwari went for demarcation of land of displaced persons. Demarcation on the spot is a routine thing which is not entered in the Roznamcha. He presented a written report to VOJ. He also presented a list of State land to VOJ which was seized. EXTP1/2 is marked on the said seizure. Report dated 04.12.06 is in his hand writing and signature, and correct and EXTP1/3 is marked on that. The list of State land is also in his hand writing, signature and is correct and is exhibited as EXTP1/4. In cross-examination by counsel for accused no. 3, has stated, that he did not notice the missing pages when he took charge as Patwari Deeli. He also saw the serial numbers of mutations. Those were in sequence. He came to know about the missing pages only when he was called by VOJ. He did not lodge any complaint in this regard. In cross- examination by counsel for accused no. 1, has stated, that the seized mutation registers pertain to the Patwari only. Patwari prepares that record. Tehsildar does not have a role in that. In cross-examination by counsel for accused No.2, has stated, that he took charge from Rajinder Kumar Patwari. They check the record at the time of handing over and taking over. He did not see any interpolation in the record. There was no note in the record about the missing of pages. He cannot say who removed the missing pages. He cannot say who made the interpolation if there was any. He has not remained posted with Farooq Iqbal at Deeli. He did not enter mutation in his presence. Rajinder Kumar was posted there after Farooq Iqbal. Rajinder Kumar did not tell him that entries were made by Farooq. Since, 10 Crl A(AS) No. 11/2023 the mutations are of his period, he can say those were made by him. The record was in his custody when the missing of pages came to be known. Nobody mentioned before taking of charge by him that some pages were missing.
PW-2 Fazal Din, Naib Tehsildar Settlement Digiana (witness to prove production of revenue record) has deposed, that he was posted as Naib Tehsildar Digiana in December 2006. Halqa Deeli falls in the territorial jurisdiction of Naib Tehsildar Digiana. Anwar Sadhotra was Patwari Halqa Deeli those days. He attested two reports ExtP1/3 and ExtP1/4 of Patwari Anwar Sadhotra. He has seen the reports. The same bear his attestation. Two mutation registers were seized by Vigilance officials in his presence through seizure memo ExtP1. He identifies his signature on seizure memo, contents whereof are correct. Mutation registers so seized (Mark AS and Mark AS/1) have also been seen by him. There was no question in cross- examination.
PW-4 Bihari Lal 29/SVO, the then Inspector VOJ, now Dy.SP (witness to prove house search/inventory/seizure memo) has stated that he was posted in VOJ on 28.11.2006. On that day, SSP VOJ constituted a team for conducting search in which he was one of the members. The team was headed by Sohan Lal Koul. Two independent witnesses namely Sunil Tagotra and Anoop Verma AEE were also present in the office of SSP where from the team proceeded to the house of accused no. 1 at Mastgarh Jammu. Search warrant was shown to the accused no. 1. Independent witnesses conducted the search of team members. Search proceedings started. Every room was searched. Inventory of items found was made. Some land allotment orders and applications were traced during the search, which were seized separately. A copy of inventory was given to the accused. Independent witnesses searched their persons again, after the search. Thereafter, they left the place. He has seen the inventory comprising six pages. He signed every page of the inventory. Contents are correct. Same is exhibited as EXT.P4/1.Seizure memo dated 28.11.2006 also bears his signature. Its contents are correct. That is exhibited as EXT- P4/2. The record seized through that seizure memo has been seen by him, in the Court which is marked as Mark BL. In cross-examination by defence counsel, has stated that the record Mark-BL was recovered from an attaché case in the ground floor of the room of accused no. 1. Recovered items were entered in the inventory list. There is no mention of the inventory and the seizure memo of the record Mark-BL in the seizure memo EXT-P4/2. There is no mention of the exact place/room in the inventory list from where the seized record was recovered. PW-5 Vinod Kumar Sathoo, the then Inspector VOJ, now Dy. SP, IRP 15th Bn. (witness to prove house search/inventory/seizure memo) in examination-in-chief has deposed, that a joint surprise check was entrusted in his name as per order of SSP VOJ vide no. 28/SPO/JMU dated 28082006. Mohan Lal Thakur Inspector was also associated with him. JSC entrustment order dated 28082006 is correct and is marked as MarkP5. The allegations were made by Rachpal Singh s/o. Sucha Singh that he was in cultivation of State land in khasra nos. 61, 62 at Deeli, some people were in connivance with revenue department were threatening to vacate the land, police helped a little. But they got the land vacated and occupied that forcibly in November 2005. He alongwith Mohan Lal Thakur left for Patwar Halqa Deeli. Dev Raj Sharma Naib Tehsildar settlement was associated with JSC. Photostat documents regarding Parat Patwar 2939 to 11 Crl A(AS) No. 11/2023 2940, Roznamcha Waqyati, Register Girdawari from the years 2000 to 2004, register cancellation Jamabandi Deeli, letter no.1970/OQ of Tehsildar Jammu, letter no. 357 alongwith Government Order of PRO Jammu, were obtained from the offices of Patwar Halqa Deeli, Tehsildar Jammu and PRO Jammu. Apart from that Patwari Farooq Iqbal the then Patwari Deeli, presented the original and photostat copy of Parat Patwar, allotment order and report etc. That was found that Baldev Singh got the applications marked from Revenue Minister in the name of DC after managing the said applications from Meenawati and others total seven persons. Applicants were shown as Refugees of 1947 with respect to whom a mention as to insufficient land was made. The then Tehsildar marked the applications for report by Patwari Deeli without the approval of Deputy Commissioner. Patwari Farooq Iqbal reported on 25.01.2005 that all the said seven persons were 1947 Refugees and had been allotted insufficient land in khasras no. 61, 62, 11, 16/4 again said 1116/4, 1117/4 total 219 kanals 1 marla State land were in their possession. On this report the then Tehsildar Jammu directed the then Patwari Deeli that mutations should be entered in their names and presented to him. Also a letter vide no. 34/REH dated 25012005 was written to PRO Jammu whereby a request for allotment of said land in favour of said seven persons was made. The documents summoned by him are present on the file. He presented a report to his officers wherein he requested for lodging of FIR against the then Tehsildar Shanti Saroop Gupta, Patwari Farooq Iqbal Qazi and Baldev Singh of R. S. Pura. He has seen the report dated 21.11.2006 present on the file, he identifies his signature on that, contents are correct and is marked as EXTP5. Later the JSC file which was handed over to constable Mushtaq Ahmed 103 SVO at the time of submission of report, was seized by Dy. SP Vijay Sadhu in FIR No. 28/2006. He identifies his signature on the seizure memo which is marked as EXTP5/1. Vijay Mohan Sadhu Dy.SP seized the JSC file which was deposited with Mushtaq Ahmed Constable at the time of report in his presence. He has seen the documents as were seized by virtue of said seizure memo present on the file. In cross-examination by counsel for accused no. 3 has stated that the complaint was handed over to him by the then SSP VOJ. He has neither seen that complaint in the Court nor entrustment order Mark5. Power of attorney in the name of Baldev Singh obtained by him was a photocopy. He did not get the original thereof. Photostat was obtained from the accused Baldev Singh. He has neither mentioned about the obtaining from Baldev Singh in his report nor has prepared any documents with respect to its seizure. The application on the basis of which the allotment of land was found to be less or more was not given by Baldev Singh. He requested the senior officers for lodging of FIR after forming opinion on the basis of documents photocopy of power of attorney, application etc, and inquiry conducted. He cannot say if the IO seized the original power of attorney. In cross-examination by counsel for accused no. 1 has stated that JSC was conducted for the reason that the land grabber had been helped by Revenue Officers, whereas, Tehsildar did not have the power to allot the land. Halqa Deeli falls in the jurisdiction of Tehsildar settlement and not in the jurisdiction of Tehsildar Jammu. It was mentioned in letter No. 357/PRO that Patwar Halqa Deeli falls in the jurisdiction of Tehsildar settlement, however, he does not know under which order or circular Patwar Halqa Deeli does not fall in the jurisdiction of Tehsildar Territorial Jammu. In cross-examination by counsel for accused no. 2, has stated, that JSC is done as per circular of GAD. However, there is no procedure for that in the P.C. Act. This is correct that 12 Crl A(AS) No. 11/2023 nothing can be seized in JSC. He deposited the record taken by him in the JSC in FIR section. Record can be seized only after the registration of FIR. FIR in this case was registered after the JSC report. He does not remember the names of DC and Revenue Minister who referred the application to DC. He did not recommend the lodging of FIR against the Revenue Minister and the DC. He did not record any statement during JSC. During JSC nobody told him that the report by Farooq Iqbal Qazi was wrong. During the JSC he did not receive any order by a Court or Judicial Authority against the allotment. Allotment order was in existence at the time of JSC. PW-6 Kumar Jitendra Sharma, A.E PWD R&B City Sub-Division 2 Jammu (witness to prove house search/inventory/seizure memo) in examination-in-chief has deposed, that he was posted as AE, R&B Division City Jammu on 281106. He received a phone call from his officer who told him to go to VOJ. V. K. Gupta AE, PHE was also present there. They went to the office of SSP. SSP introduced him to Dy. SP Sadhu. He showed the search warrant of accused Baldev Singh. Apart from Sadhu, four more police officials went with him and the other witness to Apna Vihar and reached there at around 10. They searched the VOJ officials after getting down the vehicle. They went inside the house. Accused Baldev Singh met there. He was shown the search warrant. Search of his house was conducted. Some documents were recovered from bed box in the bedroom of accused which were seized. Those were total 21 items. He has seen the seizure memo comprising five pages. He identifies his signatures on every page, contents are correct and is exhibited as EXTP6/1. He has seen the seized record and MarkKJS/1 is put on the index of record. His statement was recorded on the spot. Note:- No questions have been asked in cross- examination by counsel for accused No.1&2. In cross-examination by counsel for accused no. 3, has stated that he did not participate in any search prior to the present case. He does not remember if anybody else apart from them was called or not. Dy. SP did not tell the details of case at VOJ office, however, it was told that search was to be conducted in a corruption case. There are other houses also around the house of accused no. 3. Dy. SP did not call any of them on the spot. He did not read the seized documents. Those comprised property statements and power of attorneys etc. He did not sign the seized documents. He read the seizure memo which was written in English.
PW-7 V. K. Gupta, AE PHE Mechanical Division Narwal Jammu (witness to prove house search/inventory/seizure memo) in examination-in-chief has stated that he was posted as AEE, PHE (Mechanical) Narwal Jammu. He received a message from ExEn on 27.11.2006 that he was to go to the office of Vigilance. He went to the office of Vigilance at 8 in the morning on 28.11.06. He met SSP. He was introduced with Vijay Mohan Sadhu. He told that search warrant from Special Judge (Anti-Corruption) had been received and that house of Baldev Singh at Apna Vihar was to be searched. He went with Dy.SP to the spot. Two Inspectors, two constables, and Jitendra Sharma AE were also with them. They reached the house of Baldev Singh at around quarter to 10. They conducted search of Vigilance team. They showed the search warrant to the inmates of house. Team recovered some documents from the bedroom and seized them. Those documents comprised sale deeds, affidavits and power of attorneys. Some of them were original and some were photocopies. After seizing the documents, police prepared a list and took his and other AE's signatures on the back side of seized documents. Proceedings continued till 4. Then, 13 Crl A(AS) No. 11/2023 they returned to Vigilance office. He identifies his signature on seizure memo EXTP6. He has heard the contents. He has seen the seized documents in the Court and identifies his signature on the back side of list which is marked as ExTP5. In cross-examination by counsel for the accused No.3 Baldev Singh has deposed, that the warrant was in the name of SSP who did not go with them for search. SSP endorsed the warrant in the name of Dy. SP Vijay Mohan Sadhu. The warrant has not been shown to him on today. He did not know Baldev Singh earlier or afterwards. There were streets in front eastward and southward and house on fourth side of the house in question. There was a Nullah on the left side of house. There is a Mohalla around the house in question. People were not moving. He cannot say if the houses were inhabited or not. He cannot tell number of the people residing in that house. However, family lived there. Members of family were moving there. Search of all the rooms was done. He cannot tell which room was in possession of whom. He cannot tell who was the owner of that house. He cannot say what were those documents. He did not read the sale deeds, affidavits and power of attorneys. Team did not tell him why they were to go there. Since the Vigilance team said that they wanted the seized documents, he put the signature. Incriminating documents mentioned in his statement under section 161 Cr.p.c, mean the documents required by Vigilance. After reaching the office, only his statement was recorded.
PW-8 Kewal Krishan, AEE, PHE Mechanical Division Jammu (witness to prove house search/inventory/seizure memo) in examination-in-chief has deposed, that he was posted as AEE, PHE Dhounthali on 28.11.2006. When he reached his office at 10 on that day, his officer told to go to Vigilance Office. Dy.SP Chib met him there. He told that search warrant had been issued by the Court and search at house of accused Iqbal Qazi was to be conducted. Vigilance team was comprised of Dy. SP, two Inspectors, one head constable, two lady constables, a Gypsy driver. Apart from them, he and Ajay Sharma AEE also went to the spot. They reached Ustad Mohalla at quarter to 11 in the morning. Accused Iqbal Qazi was at his house. Dy. SP showed him the search warrant. Before entry into the house of Iqbal Qazi he and Ajay Sharma conducted the search of members of Vigilance team. One certificate was written in this regard. Then the search of house of Iqbal Qazi was conducted. A list of items recovered from different rooms was prepared, which was later given the shape of complete report. In the items recovered there were documents also which were seized separately. Other seized items were kept on supardnama of Iqbal Qazi. Thereafter, no damage certificate was prepared. Three documents were prepared there. He and Ajay Sharma signed the seizures. He identifies his signature on seizure of documents, its contents are correct and it is marked as Extp8/1. He has seen the documents mentioned in the above referred seizure today. He identifies them. MarksA to I are put on them. He identifies his signature on the list of items recovered comprising 8 pages present on the file which is correct and marked as ExtP8/2. He also identifies his signature on search of team members, contents are correct and is marked as ExtP8/3s. He identifies his signature on no damage certificate, contents are correct and is marked as ExtP8/4. Search of team members was conducted again, and after the search a document was prepared in this regard, contents of which are correct and the same is marked as ExtP8/5. He has seen the photocopy of search warrant which was shown to him by the Vigilance people present on the record which is correct. In cross-examination by counsel for the 14 Crl A(AS) No. 11/2023 accused No. 2, has stated that he does not know Urdu. Out of the documents seized, four were in Urdu and pertain to Deeli. He does not know which accused was involved in those. He says that the documents were of Deeli as those bore the stamp of Deeli. Documents were not read over to him. Accused was not taken to police station. Seizure documents were prepared by Ashok Chib on the spot. There is no question in cross- examination by counsel for the other accused.
PW-9 Ravail Singh Choudhary, Inspr. VOJ, now Dy.SP (witness to prove house search/inventory/seizure memo) in examination-in-chief has deposed, that he was posted in VOJ in November 2006. He was appointed as team member for search of the house of accused No. 2 Farooq Ahmed. Team also included Ashok Kumar Chib, Kamaljeet Singh, two independent witnesses and one more Vigilance official Ashok Kumar. They went to the house of accused No. 2 at Mohalla Ustad Jammu. Accused and his family members were at home. He recognizes the accused no. 2 present in the Court room. Their search was conducted by independent witnesses. Before the search of house, team incharge Ashok Kumar Chib showed the search warrant to accused no.2. Thereafter, they started the search room wise. Floor wise inventory of items recovered was made. Signatures of accused no. 2 and team members were taken on the inventory. Documents recovered were seized. Other items were kept on supardnama of accused no
2. He put signature on the seizure memo. When search ended, their search was again conducted by independent witnesses. He identifies his signature on every page of inventory ExtP8/2 comprising 8 pages, present on the file which is in his hand writing, contents are correct and he identifies his signature on seizure memo ExtP8/1. He has seen the documents MarksA to I. Those are the same as were seized by virtue of that seizure memo.
He has seen the order by virtue of which he was appointed as member of the team. In cross-examination by accused no. 2, has deposed, that he saw the warrant, but he did not know which Court issued the warrant. They left for house search at around 11 in the morning. Independent witnesses conducted their search outside the house of accused no. 2. Accused no. 2 was present there. Document relating to their search was prepared. He does not know if the signature of accused was taken on that or not. He does not remember whether the documents were lying in open or some Almirah or under lock. He also does not remember if some person from Mohalla went there at the time of search or not. A relative of accused namely Shafqat was present there. His signature was not taken on any document. PW-11 Sunil KumarTagotra, AE, PWD R&B Lok Nirman Bhawan Jammu (witness to prove house search/inventory/seizure memo) in examination- in-chief has stated, that he visited the office of SSP VOJ on 28.11.2006 on the direction of his officer. Anoop Verma was already there alongwith some officer of VOJ. There was a search warrant issued by Court on 27-11- 2006. He was asked to accompany the team of VOJ officials as a witness for house search of accused No. 1 at Mast Garh. They reached his house at 9 am. One Dy. SP, a lady constable, two Inspectors and two constables alongwith him reached there. They knocked the outer door of accused No.1. He opened the door and they entered inside the house. The warrant was shown to him. Accused No.2 cooperated with the team and the search was conducted. Accused No.1 conducted personal search of team members. The Lady official were searched by the wife of accused No.1. Room wise search of accused No.1 was conducted and inventory was prepared in 15 Crl A(AS) No. 11/2023 presence of accused No.1. All the items recovered during search were returned to accused No.1 except for some revenue documents for which a separate inventory was made and the same were seized. The search continued for 4½ hours. Thereafter, no damage certificate was prepared. They returned back. Personal search memo of VOJ officials conducted by accused No.1 bears his signatures, contents are correct, and it is exhibited as ExtP/11. Inventory ExtP/1, seizure memo ExtP4/2 have been seen by him which bear his signatures. Contents of those documents are correct. Seized record file Mark-BL has been shown to him. All those documents were recovered during the house search of accused No.1, and bear his initials which he identifies. In cross-examination by counsel for accused No. 1, has stated that he does not know whether accused No.1 resides at Trikuta Nagar also or not. They conducted the search of house No. 332/EP at Mast Garh, Jammu which was stated to be that of accused no.1. He did not go into the detail of ownership of said house. They returned from the house of accused No. 1 after conducting the search at about quarter to 1. They went to VOJ office and then left for home. He was not told to sign any document in the office of VOJ.
PW -14 Ajay Sharma, AEE, PHE Procurement Division Jammu (witness to prove house search/inventory/seizure memo) in examination-in-chief has deposed, that he alongwith Ashok Singh Chib Dy. SP, Ravail Singh Inspector and others including another AEE of PHE went with a search warrant to the house of accused No. 1. Wife of the accused opened the door. Search warrant was shown to her. He conducted the frisking of the team members who went inside and conducted the search and prepared the list of articles recovered room wise. Some documents were seized on the spot. Those documents comprised property statements of the accused, receipt of PHE and revenue documents. Accused was present at home and obtained no damage certificate. After the search, he again conducted the frisking of team members. He identifies his signatures on seizure memo ExtP8/1, inventory ExtP8/2, personal search memo ExtP8/3, personal search memo ExtP 8/5 and no damage certificate ExtP8/4. Contents are correct. ExtP8/3 is regarding the frisking before the search and Ext P8/5 is regarding the frisking after the search. He has seen the documents present on the file as were seized by virtue of seizure memo ExtP8/1. Marks A to I have already been put on them. There was no question in cross- examination by the counsels for the accused No. 1 to 3. PW-16 Mohammad Hanief, HC No.78/SVO, VOJ (witness to prove house search/inventory/seizure memo) in examination-in-chief has deposed, that he was posted in VOJ on 28.11.2006. A team was formed by SSP with Ashok Kumar Chib Dy. SP as Incharge. A search warrant of the house of Farooq Iqbal Qazi bearing No. 797 Ustad Mohalla Jammu was shown. The team also included Ravail Choudhary and Kamaljeet Singh Inspector, Ashok Kumar Sgct, Driver and independent witnesses Kewal Krishan AEE and Ajay Sharma AE of PHE. Independent witnesses conducted the search of team members. Memo was prepared in this regard. They were sent inside. List of the items found inside was prepared. Important documents were seized and list of others was prepared. Receipt with respect to important documents was issued. The remaining items were kept on supurdnama of house owner. He has seen the inventory Ext P8/2 present on the file, he identifies the signature on that, documents seized were eight pages, and are copies etc., he identifies his signature on the seizure memo ExtP8/1, contents are correct. He has seen the copies seized, present on the file. His 16 Crl A(AS) No. 11/2023 statement was recorded. In cross-examination by counsel for accused No. 2, has deposed that the team left Vigilance office at around 11/10:30 in the morning. Independent witnesses reached their office in the morning and then went with them. Independent witnesses conducted their search at the house of Farooq, before entering the house. Search of independent witnesses was not conducted. Copies with respect to land at Deeli were seized. However, he does not remember the khasra no. and dates of copies. No one else except their team, independent witnesses and Farooq was present. Signature of Farooq was also obtained on search memo. He also put his signature on that. He has not seen the search memo in the court. There was no question in cross-examination by counsels for the other accused.
PW-18 Om Parkash Sharma, Ex-Nazir Tehsil Office Jammu (witness to prove that fraudulent documents were prepared by accused persons in a private School building) in examination-in-chief has deposed, that he retired as senior Assistant from Tehsil Office Jammu on 31.10.2004. Later, Tehsildar called him and said that he did not have a clerk, and told him to work, and he continued to work till 31 January 2005. Baldev Singh and 1/2 more went there. Tehsildar told him to put dispatch number on the letter and handover the same to Baldev Singh. He did that. He has seen the letter dated 25-01- 2005 present on the file. Dispatch number and date on that are under his hand. Signature of Tehsildar Shanti Saroop is present on that. His initial is present below the signature of Tehsildar. EXTP6 is put on the dispatch number and date on the letter, and EXTP6/1 is put on the initials of the witness. He cannot say where the letter was written. However, that was with respect to an allotment. On being told by Tehsildar, he put dispatch number on the allotment letter no.139/REH dated 28.01.2005 issued by Tehsildar Shanti Saroop Gupta. He has seen the order present on the record. He identifies dispatch number and date under his hand on that. He also identifies the signatures of Tehsildar Shanti Saroop, EXTP6/2 is put on the dispatch number and date. That order was with respect to allotment for the refugees. Tehsildar Shanti Saroop summoned the record at Model Academy which belonged to his father. He took cancellation and dispatch register there and came back to the office. When he went to the Academy, Tehsildar, Patwari and Baldev Singh were present there. Others were also there. But he did not know them. Later, Vigilance made enquiry from him. In cross-examination by counsel for accused No.1, has deposed, that he handed over the charge of Relief and Rehabilitation section to Yash Paul after the lodging of this case. At the time of retirement, he did not hand over the charge to any one as there was no clerk and nobody was willing to take the charge. He does not remember if there was any order in the name of anyone with respect to charge or not at the time of his retirement. He told Tehsildar that no one was taking charge from him. He handed over the charge of cash and the cash register to Yash Paul on 3rd day after his retirement. There was no charge with him in writing after the retirement. He did not receive any salary or money for the work done by him after the retirement on the asking of Tehsildar. DC did not issue any order that he should keep working in the office till the arrival of other clerk. Nor he said so verbally. He does not remember if he put dispatch number on any other letter apart from the above said letters or not. He does not know whether the allotment was done rightly or wrongly. The letters which were dispatched to PRO were so dispatched through him. Tehsildar Jammu was having the powers of Custodian Jammu also. He worked in Model 17 Crl A(AS) No. 11/2023 Academy after the retirement and got a salary of Rs. 5000/per month. He knew that signing of a Government Document after the retirement was an offence, however, he kept working. It is wrong that Vigilance told him that he was also an accused either he should record statement against Tehsildar or they would array him as an accused. In cross-examination by counsel for accused No.2, has deposed, that he does not remember the date when he took the record to Model Academy. The Patwari who was present there on that day was Farooq. He recognizes him by face as he visited Tehsil office. Other Patwaris also visited the Tehsil. He did not tell the name of Patwari in his statement u/s 161 Cr.p.c. In cross-examination by counsel for accused No. 3, has stated that Vigilance recorded his statement in their office in 2006. However, he does not remember accurately. He did not dispatch any other letter except the above said letters after his retirement. However, he used to prepare statements etc. Vigilance did not get the accused identified from him. He knows accused Baldev Singh as he used to visit the Tehsildar. At the time of retirement, the record in his charge remained with him. Accused Baldev Singh never got any work done by him.
PW-19 Harmeet Singh (witness to prove that accused obtained application from him fraudulently) in examination-in-chief has deposed, that his paternal grandmother Bhagwan Dai migrated from POK in 1947. 12 kanals land was allotted to her at Lala Chak. Their allotment was short. Later, more land was allotted at Deeli. He knows the accused Baldev Singh. He gave power of attorney for the land at Deeli to Baldev Singh in which that was written that he could sell the land. He executed the power of attorney after receiving Rs. 2.5 lacs from him. Thereafter, he did not have any concern with the land. The witness was declared hostile. In cross-examination by CPO, has deposed that he knows Tikka Ram who was a Girdawar and his neighbour. It is correct that the process for allotment of land was done by Tikka Ram. This is wrong that he did not get the agreed amount with respect to land for which he executed power of attorney in the name of Baldev Singh. In cross-examination by counsel for the accused, has stated that he has not seen the above referred power of attorney in the court. Nor he issued any receipt.
PW-20 Raj Singh (witness to prove that accused obtained application from him fraudulently) in examination-in-chief has deposed, that his ancestors lived in Batala Pakistan. They settled in Akhnoor in 1947. Accused Baldev Singh took L Form from him and said that he would get the land allotted in his name. Later, he returned the Form and said that they had not allotted any land in his name. The witness was declared hostile. In cross-examination by CPO, has stated that it is correct that the land allotted to his father was deficient by 27 kanals. It is wrong that he told Girdawar Tikka Ram to make good the deficiency of land. It is also wrong that he gave a power of attorney to the accused Baldev Singh which was registered in the court. It is also wrong that he gave Rs.50,000/ to accused Baldev Singh through Tikka Ram Girdawar. He did not record any such statement before the Vigilance. There is no question in cross-examination by counsels for the accused.
PW-21 Doulat Ram (witness to prove that accused obtained application from him fraudulently) in examination-in-chief has deposed, his parents lived in Pakistan and reached here in 1947. 13 kanals land was allotted to his father and there was a shortage of about 24/25 kanals. Patwari Tikka Ram fully knew about the shortage. He informed that applications were being lodged 18 Crl A(AS) No. 11/2023 to make good the deficiency. He took the application and Form from him and later told that he had been allotted the land at Deeli. He also told that he could give the attorney if he wanted to sell the land. He obtained Rs. 50,000/. He was never in possession of the land. He gave the attorney to the accused Baldev Raj present in the court room. He has seen the photo copy of attorney present on the file. His signature is present on that. MarkDR is put on that. In cross-examination by counsel for the accused, has deposed, that he is not educated. He does not understand English. He does not have the copy of attorney given by him to Baldev Singh. Contents of the attorney were not read over to him. Tikka Ram Patwari told him to put signature on the attorney. The khasra no. of the land allotted to him was 62, which was 24 kanals 14 marlas. The Judge did not ask khasra number from him when the attorney was registered in the court. He neither asked about the land nor about the purpose of attorney. One of the witnesses of attorney was Tikka Ram. He does not know the name of the other. The attorney was registered in 2005. However, he does not remember the month and day. He does not have any documents with respect to allotment of land. PW-23 Sardar Amlook Singh (witness to prove that accused obtained application from him fraudulently) in examination-in-chief has deposed, that he is a 1947 Refugee having migrated from Tehsil Bagh District Poonch to Jammu. The name of his mother was Parvati. Land was allotted to his mother at Gadigarh and Lala Chak. He does not know whether any land was allotted at Deeli also or not. Land was allotted at Treva R.S Pura also. But that could not be obtained due to incorrect name. He told Patwari Tikka Ram who was his neighbour to make good the deficiency. Tikka Ram was posted at Phallan Mandal those days. He told to give him some money and that he would prepare the documents. He took his signatures on some blank paper in 2003/2004. He approached Tikka Ram on many occasions who told after 6/7 months that he had kept the papers in a suit case and that was lost. He gave some power of attorney with respect to land at Deeli to the accused Baldev Singh. He did not go to the Court for registration in this regard. Nor he went with application to Revenue Minister. He does not know who presented the application on his behalf to the Minister. Now, that application present on the record has been shown to him. He identifies the signature on that. However he does not know about its contents. EXTP23 is put on that to the extent of signature. He never went to Deeli. However, Patwari told that some land had been allotted in his name. But he never got that land. The statement was deferred for the purpose of presentation of original power of attorney. On further examination by CPO, the witness states that he identifies his signature on the General power of attorney comprising six pages. He went to the court, with Baldev and two others whose names are not known to him. However, he does not know about the contents. EXTP23/1 to EXTP23/7 are marked on them, to the extent of signatures. In cross-examination by counsel for the accused no.3, has stated, that it is correct that the document EXTP23/1 to EXTP 23/7 is irrevocable power of attorney with regard to his land 24 kanals in khasra No. 61 situated at Deeli. This is correct that he appointed Baldev Singh as attorney on the basis of said documents and gave all the powers to him. He has heard the contents of document which are correct. He went with Baldev Singh and two others, to the Court, and got that document registered which is correct. He took money from Baldev Singh with respect to above said land. No give and take with respect to said land is pending with Baldev Singh. Baldev Singh did not take his signature on 19 Crl A(AS) No. 11/2023 the application Exhibit P23 which was to be presented to the Minister. Baldev Singh was not present on the spot. In cross-examination by the counsel for accused No. 1, has stated that it is correct that his mother was allotted land at Lala Chak and Gadigarh. He does not know whether any other land was allotted to him or his mother. He is illiterate. So, he does not know power of attorney. There was no cross-examination by accused No.2.On examination by court, he states that he took money from Patwari Tikka Ram in 2003 or 2004. Land was allotted in his favour, as was told by Tikka Ram, however, he did not get the possession.
PW-24 Darya Devi (circumstantial witness) in examination-in-chief has deposed that the land is situated near Balol Kunjwani. Her husband had cleared bushes in the land and prepared the land. They did not sell that land despite 2/3 persons approaching the husband. That land is not with her. Patwari and Girdawar have got that delivered to someone. However, they have not given any document to anyone. There is no question in cross- examination by the accused No. 1. In cross-examination by counsel for accused No. 3, she has stated that their land was 3/4 kanals. She does not know the khasra number. She does not know who was the Patwari. PW-25 Romesh Chander (circumstantial witness) in examination-in-chief has deposed that his father had 4 kanals land at Balol. That was made cultivable in 1976. Father died in 1982. That was state land in possession of his father. Girdawari was in the name of his father. He cultivated that land after the death of his father. The land remained under his cultivation till 2001/2002. Thereafter, one Thoru Ram approached him and asked for land being given to him for cultivation. Since he was busy with his work and could not cultivate the land he gave the same to a person P. P. Singh on the asking of Thoru Ram. He went to take the land back after 3/4 years, but P. P. Singh refused to deliver the same back and said that the land belonged to him. He went to the concerned Patwari after that who told that the land was entered in the name of P. P. Singh. Thereafter, he went to the Vigilance office in 2005/2006. His statement was recorded there in 2007. He has not received the land back till date. There is no question in cross- examination by counsels for the accused.
PW-28 Som Nath (circumstantial witness) in examination-in-chief has deposed that he had 2½ kanals land near Langer Deeli which was state land. He gave the power of attorney of that land to Yog Raj s/o Sant Ram r/o Kunjwani for taking care of the land and said that he would take the land back after retirement. Yog Raj agreed for that. He went to Yog Raj after retirement who told that he had sold the land to such people who are forcibly land grabbing people. He presented a complaint to IGP Jammu. Concerned SHO did not do anything despite instructions. In cross- examination by counsel for accused, has deposed, that he does not know the person to whom the land was sold by Yog Raj. He also does not know who occupied his land. He did not go to his land again when SHO had not taken action.
PW-29 Sampooran Lal (circumstantial witness) in examination-in-chief has deposed, that his father was a resident of west Pakistan. No land was allotted to him or the father, after partition. He brought the state land at Deeli which was with Numberdar under his cultivation. Ghulam Fareed went to his house in 2006 and gave Rs.10,000/ to him and said that the land under his cultivation had been sold and further that he should take the money. He refused to take the money. Thereafter, he went to Police 20 Crl A(AS) No. 11/2023 Station, but they did not do anything. The girdwari of that land was in his name. Later, he obtained a copy of the girdawari and found that was entered in the name of Dewan Chand s/o Lachman r/o Langer. No person with the said name resides at langer. He went to the land. Buldozer was working there. He came to know that the land had been purchased by Baldev Singh accused present in the court room. No land was ever allotted to him by the Government. In cross-examination by counsels for the accused, has stated that he came to know from Ghulam Fareed that land had been purchased by Baldev Singh. That was in khasra No. 62. No such record has been shown to him on today, as is in his favour. That land was never allotted to him. Nor he has any documents.
PW-30 Shamsher Lal (circumstantial witness) in examination-in-chief has deposed has deposed, that his father had 4 kanals of state land at Balol. That was made cultivable by cleaning the forest. His father cultivated the land who died in 1987. After the death of his father, he gave the land to his maternal uncle Munnu Ram for cultivation. Maternal uncle also died in 2002. After the death of maternal uncle his cousin Sampooran took care of the land. He came to know in 2004 that somebody had occupied that land. Thereafter, Tehsildar and Patwari acting in collaboration transferred the land in the name of Yog Raj. In cross-examination by counsel for accused No. 2, has deposed, that he does not know who were the Patwari and Tehsildar at that time. There is no question in cross-examination by counsel for the other accused.
PW-31 Mohammad Iqbal, the then Naib Tehsildar EMIC Satwari Jammu (witness to prove specimen signature/ hand writing of accused) in examination- in-chief has deposed, that he was posted as Naib Tehsildar Satwari in 2008. He went to VOJ on 28.02.2008. IO took specimens of signatures and hand writing of Patwari Farooq Iqbal. Patwari who is the accused present in Court room gave his specimen signatures willingly and he attested the two specimens. He identifies his signatures and official seal on the specimen signatures S11 to S16 and specimen handwriting S17 to S26 present on the file. EXTP31 is marked on specimen signatures S- 11 to S16, and EXT P31/I is marked on hand writing specimen S17 to S26. In examination by Court, has stated, that he did not seal the specimen of hand writing and signature. Nor those were sealed in his presence. Accused Farooq Iqbal did not give in writing that he offered his specimen willingly. He did not write any application to FSL for examination of the specimens. Vigilance called him verbally and not in writing for obtaining of specimen of accused. Tehsildar directed him verbally to go VOJ. The typed words on EXTP31 and EXTP31/I that the accused Farooq Iqbal gave the specimen willingly were typed before his arrival. Date is mentioned under some of his signatures on attestation and not on others. Opportunity was given to Farooq Iqbal for cross-examination, but he did not ask any question. PW-32 Surinder Lal Bhagat, the then Naib Tehsildar EMIC Muthi Jammu(witness to prove specimen signature/ hand writing of accused) in examination-in-chief has deposed, that he was posted as Naib Tehsildar Muthi in February 2008. On 28.02.2008, he got a message from the PA to DC that he was required in the VOJ. He went there and approached Mr. Sadhu. Specimen of writing and signatures of accused No.1 were taken in his presence and he attested the same. He has seen those specimen signatures and writing, he identifies his signatures on the said writings and signatures, same are marked as Mark1 to Mark10. In cross-examination 21 Crl A(AS) No. 11/2023 by defence counsel, has deposed, that he did not get any written order from Deputy Commissioner for going to the VOJ. There was an oral communication conveyed by his PA. He did not report back to DC after completing the assignment.
PW-33 Raman Singh, WBN Tehsil Office Jammu (witness to prove production and seizure of record) in examination-in-chief deposed, that he was posted in Tehsil Office Jammu on 26.03.08. He furnished the posting order, joining report of the then Tehsildar i.e. the accused present in the Court room and his specimen signatures sent to treasury to the Vigilance department. Those were seized. He identifies his signature on the seizure memo. Contents are correct. EXTP33/1 is marked on that. Marks 1 to 6 are put on the seized documents comprising 6 pages. He worked with the accused for 1½/2 years. He knows his signature. Signatures of accused are present on marks 2 to 4.In cross-examination by counsel for accused no. 1, has stated that the specimen signatures of accused given by him to Vigilance people are original. There is no question in cross-examination by other accused.
PW-34 Harvinder Kour, the then PRO in Jammu on 08.07.2006 (witness to prove that order of Tehsildar was not received in her office) in examination- in-chief has stated, that she was posted as Deputy PRO in Jammu in 20.06.07/08. Vigilance sought some information twice. They provided some letters. Letter No. 357/06/ 07 dated 11.10.2006 is under her signature, contents are correct and the same is marked as Ext P8. She has seen the record annexed with the letter. Marks HK/01 to HK/16 are put on them. Letter No. 557/06/07 dated 20th February 2007 also bears her signature, contents are correct which is exhibited as Ext P8/1. Letter No. 134 and order no. 139 issued by the then Tehsildar Jammu was not received in her tenure. In this regard, attested record Marks HK/12 to HK/16 was presented by them in this court. As per their circular no.64 dated 02.12.85, Tehsildar Jammu was not competent to issue the allotment. Vigilance recorded her statement. In cross-examination by counsel for accused no. 2, has stated that the opinion as to circular is not her personal. She has not made such decision as to rights of allotment. The letters issued by Tehsildar were not received in her office. She cannot tell if the letters were issued from the office of Tehsildar or not. It also happens that sometimes the officer signs the letters but the lower staff does not dispatch that. She does not know if any other Tehsildar has done the allotment or not. The letters of Vigilance replied by her were received in the name of PRO and not in her name. PRO might have marked the letter to her. She has not seen that endorsement in the court, which could be in the office, so she cannot say when the letters were endorsed. There is no further question.
PW-35 Randhir Singh (witness to prove that he purchased land from accused Baldev Singh) in examination-in-chief has deposed, that he purchased 75 kanals and 72.12 kanals land at Deeli in the names of his sons Abhijeet Singh and Abhishek Singh @ Rs.12000/ per kanal in 2005 through Tikka Ram. Since the power of attorney was in the name of Baldev Singh, he got the registry done. That land was purchased by his sons by virtue of 3 sale deeds each. Vigilance called him on 17.05.2007 and obtained the copies of all six sale deeds from him. In this regard a seizure memo was prepared. His signature is present on the seizure memo. Contents are correct. EXT- P35 is marked on that. He has seen the copies of seized six sale deeds. Those are the same. MarkRS (total 6) is put on that. In cross-examination 22 Crl A(AS) No. 11/2023 by counsel for the accused Baldev Singh, has deposed, that the original of sale deeds are with him, but the same are not traceable for the reason of movement of domestic items. Their tracing is impossible. He paid the sale consideration to owner who had sold the land through Power of attorney. He did not know the accused Baldev Singh otherwise. Girdawar Tikka Ram told about the Baldev Singh that he sells and purchases the land. He had not seen Baldev Singh selling and purchasing land earlier. He did not pay any commission to Baldev Singh. Tikka Ram is dead. There is no question in cross-examination by counsel for other accused. PW-36 Farhat Amin Kar I/C Asstt. Officer Documentation Division FSL Srinagar (witness to prove FSL Report) in his examination-in-chief has stated, that the documents of the case were received at FSL Jammu in April 2008. Those were referred to FSL Srinagar by Deputy Director FSL Jammu. He examined the documents with the help of scientific aids thoroughly and gave his opinion in the shape of report No. FSL/913- Doc/Sgr. dated 09.07.2008, contents of the report are correct and it bears his signatures, and is exhibited as EXTP36. The report is countersigned by Altaf Ahmed the then scientific officer FSL Srinagar. He has seen all the questioned, admitted and specimen documents today in the court. Those are the same as were examined by him. In cross-examination by defence counsel, has stated that the documents were not sealed and were open when he got the same. He found 100% similarity in the questioned and standard signatures. Admitted signatures were on the register intkal and three other leaves. Those leaves were also official documents. He could see by eyes that questioned signatures Q13 and Q8A are dissimilar to the extent that Q- 8A is in long form and Q13 is in short form in under scoring. It is true that an individual cannot execute two signatures exactly alike and there are bound to be natural variations. He has neither mentioned the natural variations between the signatures in the report, nor has evaluated the same. He gave the opinion about similarities of the signature on the basis of four numbers of similarities between the question and standard signatures indicated by him in EXTP36. The report does not mention the number of dissimilarities between two sets of signatures. He has seen the signatures of Magistrate on the specimen documents containing signatures. It must have taken him 15 days to examine the documents. He used to prepare the side notes on each day when he examined the documents. EXTP36 has been made on the basis of those side notes. The side notes are in the custody of office. He did not tell any person about the existence of side notes and preparation of report on the basis thereof. The report was made 15 days after he had finally examined the documents. Report was sent by Director FSL Jammu to Vigilance organization on 10th of July. He mentioned in the report that he had found similarities only for few words of Urdu language detail whereof is given at page No. 3 of EXTP36 though there are large number of Urdu words in the questioned report with specimen documents. No further question was asked.
PW-37 Bunny Singh SgCt. 98/SVO, VOJ (witness to prove seizure memos) in examination-in-chief has stated, that he was posted as receipt and dispatch clerk on 08032007. Sham Lal orderly went with a letter and receipt register from PRO Office. He presented that letter and register to IO Vijay Mohan Sadhu who seized the same. He identifies his signature on the seizure memo. Contents are correct. EXTP8 is marked on that. He has seen the letter and register present on the record. MarkBS is put on the register.
23 Crl A(AS) No. 11/2023In cross-examination by counsel for the accused, has stated that he had perused the record which was presented.
PW-38 Anil Magotra, the then Naib Tehsildar Arnia (witness to prove identification of signatures of accused persons) in examination-in-chief has deposed, that he was posted as Naib Tehsildar Satwari in 2005 and was having additional charge of Niabat Digiana. He knows accused No. 1 and
2. Shanti Saroop was his Tehsildar for one year and Farooq Iqbal was his Patwari for six months. VOJ inquired about the rehabilitation order and signature and hand writing of accused no.1 and 2. Under Circular No. REH/64/40III dated 02.12.1985 all Tehsildars were ordered not to make any allotment of evacuee land. Deeli is a village under Niabat Digiana. As per record state land is entered in the column of ownership with respect to khasras No.1116/4, 61, 62, and 1117/4 at Deeli. Name of Meena Wanti is entered in the column of cultivation with respect to khasras No. 1116/4 and 1117/4. There is no entry in the names of Saroop Singh s/o Mohan Singh, Amolak Singh s/o Avtar Singh, Janak Singh s/o Prithvi Singh, Raj Singh s/o Mangal Ram and Hukam Chand s/o Doulat Ram in the said numbers. He has seen the copy of report dated 25.01.2005 present on the record as well as the original thereof. That report is in the hand of Farooq Iqbal. He identifies his hand writing. The question whether the contents of the report are correct was rejected for the reason that the witness was not the scribe of the report. He identifies the signature of Farooq Iqbal at the place Q2 on the report. Marks AM1 to AM5 are put on the copies of girdawari for khasras No. 61, 62. Mark AM6 is put on the copies of khasra no.1116/4 and 1117/4. Marking of khasra Girdwari for khasras no. 1116/4 and 1117/4 was objected by defence counsel on account of those being the copies. The writing and signature in column No.14 of register mutation for Deeli is of Farooq Iqbal accused. He identifies them. Q6 and Q7 have already been marked on them. There is signature of accused Shanti Saroop on the back side of said mutation. He identifies that. MarkSA has already been put on that. The question whether there was any deficiency in land allotment as per Form A of Inder Singh, Meena Wanti and Saroop Singh, was not allowed as not relevant for the witness and also for the reason that the witness was not a witness or scribe of the said forms. In cross- examination by defnece counsel, has stated, that he was not approached in his official capacity with respect to girdawaris and mutation. The documents in question were shown to him first time by VOJ. There is no signature or note by himself on the documents. VOJ took that record after his transfer. He does not know who seized the record and when that was seized. He cannot say whether the signature etc. of Shanti Saroop and Farooq Iqbal identified by him are original or forged as he is not an expert for that. No accused signed in his presence nor prepared the document identified by him. In cross-examination by the counsel for accused, has deposed, that he has not seen the original of mark AM6 on today. Nor he can say whether that is photo copy of original or not.
PW-41 Danish Rana IPS, SSP Now DIG VOJ (witness to preparation of Challan) in examination-in-chief has deposed that he was posted as SSP in VOJ in 2009. He presented challan in FIR no. 28/2006 as SSP VOJ after the conclusion of investigation. Investigation was conducted by Dy. SP Vijay Mohan Sadhu. Vijay Mohan Sadhu died 6/7 years back. Government sanction was obtained before the presentation of challan. Offences u/ss. 5(1)(d) r/w 5(2) PC Act, 420/467/468/471/120B RPC were found established against the accused. He identifies his signature on the letter 24 Crl A(AS) No. 11/2023 No.SBO/FIR28/06J4294 dated 22.04.2009 which is marked as MDR. Legal opinion was obtained before the presentation of charge sheet. There is no question in cross-examination by counsels for the accused.
11. The 1 limb of arguments canvassed by Ld. Counsel for appellant is, "that st respondents/accused acting in conspiracy with each other managed the allotment of state land to seven (7) displaced persons while respondent No.1 had no authority to issue allotment order".
Per contra, Ld. Counsel for respondent No.2 has vehemently argued, that the deficiency of land of displaced persons and their rights vis-à-vis have not been disputed, and no link has been established between respondents/accused being part of conspiracy which if proved, then the Revenue Minister and the DC should have also been arrayed as conspirators in regard to the allotment of State land to the displaced persons.
The case of prosecution briefly putforth is, that a joint surprise check conducted by VOJ it was revealed that accused Shanti Swroop Gupta and Farooq Iqbal Qazi in conspiracy with accused Baldev Singh fraudulently made allotment of 219 kanals of land in survey Nos. 61, 62, 116/4 & 1170/4 min in Deeli Jammu in favour of 7 displaced persons namely Meenawati, Saroop Gupta, Janak Singh, Doulat Ram, Raj Singh, Amlook Singh & Harmeet Singh whereby accused No.3 sold portion of the said land after obtaining power of attorney from the displaced persons while accused No.2 submitted false report as to possession of displaced persons and also entered mutation later even before the date of allotment. It is pertinent to mention here, that prosecution has examined displaced persons as PWs 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29 & 30 namely, Harmeet Singh, Raj Singh, Doulat Ram, Sardar Amlook Singh, Mst. Darya Devi, Ramesh Chander, Som Nath, Sampuran Lal & Shamsher Lal. PW-19 Harmeet Singh and PW-20 Raj Singh who have been cited as witnesses by the prosecution to prove that accused had obtained applications from them fraudulently, have turned hostile towards the prosecution and even in cross- examination nothing have been elicited from them to fasten the accused persons with the criminal liability attributed to them. PW-21 Doulat Ram and PW-23 Sardar Amlook Singh are the prosecution witnesses to prove that accused obtained applications from them fraudulently, however in their depositions before the trial court they have not uttered a single incriminating evidence against the accused persons that the accused 25 Crl A(AS) No. 11/2023 persons obtained applications from them fraudulently for allotment of the land to them, moreso, they have gone to the extent of deposing that one Tikka Ram Patwari told them to put signature on the attorney given by them to respondent No.3 Baldev Singh. Be it noted, that PWs 24, 25, 28, 29 & 30 namely, Mst. Darya Devi, Ramesh Chander, Som Nath, Sampuran Lal & Shamsher Lal who are circumstantial witnesses relied by the prosecution, have said nothing against the accused persons. PW-35 Randhir Singh is the witness to prove that he purchased land from accused No.3 Baldev Singh attorney holder, has deposed before the trial court that he purchased land in the name of his sons through Tikka Ram and accused No.3 Baldev Singh attorney holder got the registry done. There is no evidence on record to establish that the alleged endorsement by the Revenue Minister in the name of Deputy Commissioner Jammu was made at the instance of R-3 Baldev Singh. Prosecution could not establish that how the applications reached the Revenue Minster. It was the then Revenue Minister or his PA or some official from the said Ministry who could have disclosed in regard to the presentation of applications by R-3 Baldev Singh for the purpose of endorsement to the Deputy Commissioner Jammu, however, the fact remains that prosecution has not examined any such person as witness. It is noteworthy to mention here, that respondent No.1 has died during the pendency of trial and has been deleted from the array of accused vide order of trial court dated 24.12.2019. The depositions of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses lead to the irresistible conclusion that there is not an iota of incriminating evidence against the accused persons that they hatched criminal conspiracy with each other and managed the allotment of State land to seven displaced persons.
12. The 2 nd argument urged by Ld. Counsel for appellant is, "that R-2 Farooq Iqbal Qazi (the then Patwari Halqa Deeli Jammu) entered the mutation on 27.01.2005 whereas allotment order was issued on 28.01.2005, Roznamcha Waqyati shows that R-2 did not visit the spot and submitted the false report that the seven displaced persons were in illegal possession of State land under Kh. No. 61,62,1116/4,1117/4 min of Patwar Halqa Deeli and were entitled to allotment of additional land which was deficient to them contrary to the record".
To prove the insertion/interpolation in the revenue record allegedly made by R-2 Farooq Iqbal Qazi, prosecution has relied upon and examined 26 Crl A(AS) No. 11/2023 PW-1 Anwar Sadotra Girdawar (the then Patwari Halqa Deeli Jammu) as prosecution witnesses. PW-1 Anwar Sadotra in his deposition before the trial court has categorically led evidence in the following manner:-
"that he presented two mutation registers and one Roznamcha to VOJ vide seizure memos dated 01.12.2006 & 01.03.2007 (EXT-P & EXT-P1/1), seized mutation registers are marked as AS & AS-1, register mark AS are mutation registers from where page Nos. 1388547, 1388549 &1388550 are missing, all the entries in the said registers are in the handwriting of accused Farooq Iqbal who was Patwari Halqa prior to him and mutation entries in the register are in the handwriting of Farooq Iqbal. In cross-examination by counsel for R-2 & R-3 the witness has specifically putforth evidence, that he did not notice the missing pages when he took charge as Patwari Deeli from Rajinder Kumar Patwari, moreso, he did not see any interpolation in the record, there was no note in the record about missing of pages, he cannot say who removed the missing pages, he cannot say who made interpolation, Rajinder Kumar Patwari did not tell him that entries were made by Farooq, record was in his custody when missing of pages came to be known, none mentioned before taking of charge by him that some pages were missing."
The evidence led by PW-1 Anwar Sadotra clearly demonstrates that he has remained Patwari Halqa Deeli Jammu w.e.f. August 2006 to January 2009 and when he took charge as Patwari Halqa Deeli Jammu from Rajinder Kumar Patwari he did not notice the missing pages in the mutation registers Mark-AS & AS-1. Furthermore, his evidence makes it manifestly clear, that he neither saw any interpolation in the record nor there was any note appended with the record in regard to the missing pages, moreso, Rajinder Kumar Patwari did not tell him that entries were made by Farooq and no one brought to his notice that some pages were missing from mutation registers record. It is pertinent to mention here, that respondent No.2 Farooq Iqbal Qazi has been charged for commission of offences u/ss 5(2) r/w 5(1) (d) P.C. Act, Svt. 2006 r/w Sections 420,465,468,471,120-B RPC for the allegations, that after hatching a criminal conspiracy with R-1 (now deceased) & R-3 Baldev Singh (Real Estate Dealer) he dishonestly by misusing his official position as Patwari Halqa Deeli Jammu made a false report that big chunk of State land comprised in Kh. Nos. 61/62/1116/4 & 1117/4 total measuring 219 kanals 1 marlas having huge commercial value situated at Deeli Jammu were in respective possession of seven displaced persons and on the basis of the said false report mutations in regard to the aforesaid land were attested in favour of said allottees on 27.01.2005 one 27 Crl A(AS) No. 11/2023 day prior to date of allotment order No. 139 REH dated 28.01.2005. Section 465 RPC deals with punishment for forgery, which is defined in Section 463 of RPC as making of a false document or part of a document with intend to cause damage or injury to public or any person or to support any claim or title, or cause any person to part with property or cause any person to enter into express or implied contract, or commit fraud. Section 468 RPC deals with the provision of forgery for the purpose of cheating i.e. falsification of any record while Section 471 RPC deals with the provision of using as genuine a forged document. PW-1 Anwar Sadotra (Patwari Halqa Deeli Jammu) is the solitary witness examined by the prosecution to prove insertions/interpolation in the revenue records of attestation of mutations who has categorically denied of having seen any interpolation in the said records of mutations as he did not notice the missing pages in the mutation registers Mark-AS & AS-1. It is never the evidence of PW-1 Anwar Sadotra that R-2 made/prepared a false document of mutations with intention to cause damage to public or support any claim or title by any person and used the said document to commit fraud. Therefore, the allegations against R-2 that he committed forgery of the revenue record of mutation registers of Patwar Halqa Deeli Jammu for the propose of cheating and used the forged mutation record as genuine for the purpose of grabbing the big chunk of State land aforesaid conferring pecuniary benefit to himself and to R-3 has not been proved by the prosecution.
13. The 3 rd argument portrayed by Ld. Counsel for appellant is, "that the seized questioned documents viz; order of allotment, fabricated report of Patwari Deeli, instrument of mutation signed by accused Tehsildar and Patwari were sent to FSL Jammu for comparison and expert opinion, and a positive opinion has been received which establishes that fraudulent allotment order and other documents were in the handwriting and signatures of R-1 (Tehsildar) and R-2 (Patwari) which the trial court has ignored on the basis of assumptions and presumptions from the evidence of PW- 38 Anil Magotra (the then Naib Tehsildar Arnia)."
Ld. Counsel for R-2 has vehemently canvassed arguments that PW-36 Farhat Amin Kar (witness to prove FSL Report) has stated to have found similarities in only four (4) out of twenty six (26) alphabets and few words were similar in respect to Urdu writing also and therefore the report is mechanical report. On the contrary, Ld. Counsel for appellant has argued 28 Crl A(AS) No. 11/2023 that R-2 did not visit the spot and submitted false and fabricated report which has been found manipulated by expert witness Farhat Amin Kar therefore, the prosecution has proved that R-2 has committed fabrication of the record.
It is apt to reiterate here, that PW-31 Mohd Iqbal (the then Naib Tehsildar EMIC Satwari Jammu) is witness to prove specimen signatures/hand writings of the accused. He has deposed before the trial court that I/O took the specimen of signatures and handwriting of R-2 Patwari Farooq Iqbal in his presence which are marked as S11 to S16 and S17 to S26 in file exhibit EXTP31 & EXTP31/1. PW-32 Surinder Lal Bhagat (the then Naib Tehsildar EMIC Muthi Jammu) is also witness to prove specimen signatures and hand writings of accused No.2 Farooq Iqbal. He has corroborated the evidence of PW-31 Mohd Iqbal. Moreso, PW-36 Farhat Amin Kar (expert witness to prove the specimen signatures and handwriting of R-1 & R-2) has admitted the correctness of FSL report EXPT36 and has opined that no possible opinion can be given in regard to the questioned English writing marked as Q-11,Q-12, Q-14,Q-16 & Q-17 in comparison to the provided specimen signatures/writings S-1,S-3 & S-4 in regard to respondent accused No.1. However, the expert witness has given opinion in regard to respondent/accused No.2 Farooq Iqbal that his specimen signatures/writings S-11 to S-26 is similar to the questioned document Q-2 Q-5 & Q-6. From the FSL report EXTP-36 it is evident that the specimen signatures/handwritings and questioned documents of R-2 match each other. However, as discussed in para 12 of the judgment, it is never the evidence of PW-1 Anwar Sadotra that R-2 made/prepared a false document of mutations with intention to cause damage to public or support any claim or title by any person and used the said document to commit fraud. Be it noted, that PW-2 Fazal Din (Naib Tehsidar Settlement Digiana), PW-4 Bihari Lal 29/SVO (the then Inspr. VOJ, now Dy.SP), PW-5 Vinod Kumar Sathoo (the then Inspr. VOJ, now Dy.SP IRP 15 th Bn.), PW-6 Kumar Jatinder Sharma (A.E PWD R&B City Sub-Division 2 Jammu), PW-7 V.K. Gupta (AE, PHE Mechanical Division Narwal Jammu), PW-8 Kewal Krishan (AEE PHE Mechanical Division Jammu), PW-9 Ravail Singh Choudhary (the then Inspr. VOJ, now Dy.SP), PW-11 Sunil Kumar Tagotra (A.E PWD R&B Lok Nirman Bhawan Jammu), PW- 14 Ajay Sharma (AEE, PHE Procurement Division Jammu) & PW-16 29 Crl A(AS) No. 11/2023 Mohd Hanief HC No. 78/SVO,VOJ are only formal witnesses to prove the production of revenue record which has not been disputed by the respondent's side. Therefore, the allegations against R-2 that he committed forgery of the revenue record of mutation registers of Patwar Halqa Deeli Jammu for the propose of cheating and used the forged mutation record as genuine for the purpose of grabbing the big chunk of State land aforesaid conferring pecuniary benefit to himself and to R-3 has not been proved by the prosecution.
14. I, on the basis of the aforesaid evidence, hold that there is no legal evidence on record to prove that appellant has succeeded in substantiating charges against respondents 1,2&3. It is pertinent to reiterate here, that R-1 namely Shanti Swroop Gupta has died during the pendency of trial and has been dropped from the array of accused vide trial court's order dated 24.12.2019, therefore, any evidence against R-2 stand rejected/terminated. The direct evidence/the circumstances as relied upon by the prosecution are not strong enough indicating the involvement of R-2 & R-3 in the commission of crime and all the circumstances are not compatible with the possibility of guilt of the accused. The witnesses examined by the prosecution have not been able to putforth in their evidence a ring of truth so as to inspire confidence in this court. Evidence of prosecution witnesses is therefore qualitatively and quantitatively insufficient to bring nexus between respondent 2&3 and commission of the offences indicted against them. This renders the entire story of prosecution as incredible and unbelievable in the manner projected by the prosecution.
15. On proper assessment, evaluation and estimation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the evidence appears to be weak, fragile, lacking in credibility, does not prove connecting link between the respondents/accused and commission of offences. It would be highly dangerous and hazardous to hold the respondents 2&3 guilty of offences alleged against them on the basis of weak, shaky and unacceptable evidence. The whole case of the prosecution, therefore, becomes doubtful. For the foregoing reasons and discussion, I am of the considered view, that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of respondents 2&3 beyond reasonable doubt for commission of offences U/ss 5(2) r/w 5(1) (d) P.C. Act 2006 r/w sections 420,465,468, 471, 120-B, RPC. The criminal acquittal appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed and the same is 30 Crl A(AS) No. 11/2023 dismissed. Resultantly, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 28.02.2022 rendered by the court of Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge (Anti- Corruption) Jammu in file No. 28/2006 bearing file No. 07/Challan/02/Challan titled State through P/S VOJ Vs Shanti Swroop & Ors. is maintained/affirmed. Criminal acquittal appeal is disposed of. Copy of this judgment be forthwith sent to the trial court for information.
(MOHAN LAL) JUDGE JAMMU 09.10.2023 Vijay Whether the judgment is speaking ? Yes/No Whether the judgment is reportable ? Yes/No