Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the grounds taken in the memorandum of Revision Petition, has argued that the respondent No. 1 and 2, with the active connivance with respondent No.3, who was Patwari of the local halqa, had got the mutation attested on the strength of 'oral gift' made by the grandfather of the donee i.e., respondent no.1 in the year 1996, whereas the fact of the matter is that the donor had expired in the year 1995, as such, there was no occasion to act upon the oral gift made by the deceased and that the respondent no.3 has also retained 'parat sarkar' of the mutation at his home instead of his office, which clearly indicates that the respondents were in hand and glove with each other in committing the offences, which had been proved to have been committed by them during the investigation and the charge-sheet had been laid against them.

6. Mr. B.A.Bashir, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.3, argued that the prosecution has also placed on record the statement of PW-Ghulam Qadir Gujri, recorded in terms of Section 164 CrPC, in which he had clearly deposed that infact the mutation had been recorded by him as Office Assistant, as per the directions of Tehsildar Page |5 concerned. He further argued that when one of the prosecution witness namely Ghulam Qadir Gujri, had himself stated that it was he who had recorded mutation under the directions of the then Tehsildar, there can be no question of involvement of respondent No.3 -Patwari in affecting any mutation. He then argued that the prosecution had utterly failed to substantiate as to why PW- Ghulam Qadir Gujri, who was the author of the mutation, and the then Tehsildar, who had attested the mutation, had not been arrayed as accused in the case and had been let-off by making the respondent No.3 a scapegoat in the case. His further argument is that the allegation regarding retaining the 'parat-e-sarkar' at his home by respondent No. 3, as a Government Official, at the most, can be treated as a matter of misconduct as per the Service Conduct Rules but certainly cannot be shown as any criminal offence so as to face prosecution.

12. The appellant-Police registered the case FIR No.43/2009 under Sections 420, 467, 120-B RPC, and necessary investigation was set in motion; that mutation register and 'Parat-e-Patwar' were obtained from respondent No.3 - Patwari concerned and was seized; that statements of witnesses were recorded; that during investigation respondents 1 and 2 were found involved and, as such, were arrested; that subsequently allegations against respondent No.3 -Patwari concerned were also established; that during the enquiry/investigation, respondent No.3 was claimed to have disclosed that he had registered the mutation No. 1355 of 1994 on the basis of an 'oral gift' and the then Tehsildar got the mutation recorded in the 'Parat-e-Sarkar' through a Revenuce Official PW -Ghulam Qadir Gujri; that the respondent no.3 has kept the 'Parat-e- Sarkar' at his home in his own custody instead of consigning the same to the records; that with the intention to grab the property of the complainant, respondents have got the mutation No. 1355 Page |9 registered, clandestinely, in favour of respondent no.2 on the basis of oral gift.