to January, 1960, at your house at Dadvada entered into a companyspiracy with Sarvashri Madan Mohan, Badriprasad and Bakshi Gajpatsingh and others, to companymit offences of forgery using forged documents as genuine and of cheating the public, Municipal Board and the Government in respect of the sale of some pieces of land belonging earlier to the Gram Panchayat Khandgawari in favour of Moolsingh, Mukatbeharilal and Surajsingh and that you did some act to wit forged the proceedings of the Pattas in favour of the above said persons and the signatures and the thumb impressions of the Panchas of the defunct Gram Panchayat and made false entries in the Cash Book of the said Panchayat of the year 1957 58 at pages 42 and 45 and affixed the seal of that Gram Panchayat and put your signatures on the Pattas so forged, all in the capacity of the Surpanch of that Gram Panchayat besides agreement to companymit the offences under Sections 457, 468 and 420, of the I.P.C. punishable with rigorous imprisonment for over two years and thereby companymitted an offence punishable under Section 120B of the I.P.C. and within my companynizance.
The trial, as is obvious, from the charges reproduced above, was companyfined to the sale proceedings and pattas in the names of Mool Singh, Mukat Beharilal and Suraj Singh.
8 or 9 hundred for which he took numberreceipt.
200 under Section 467, I.P.C. In default of payment of fine the appellant was directed to undergo six months further rigorous imprisonment in each case.
The appellant was accordingly sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.
This patta relates to an area measuring 100 sq.
That during the same period you forged patta proceedings in antedates in respect of the sale of land 30X30 belonging earlier to the defunct Gram Panchayat Khandgaonri, in favour of Shri Moolsingh and put your own signatures on the forged document purporting to be valuable security to with the patta in favour of Shri Moolsingh and gave it to Shri Moolsingh and that you thereby companymitted an offence punishable under Section 467 of the I.P.C. and within my companynizance.
Suffice it to say that from his evidence it is number at all clear as to what interest the approver had in helping the appellant in what is described as the forgery of the various documents.
By means of a gazette numberification No.
The Sessions Judge, after companysidering the prosecution evidence and the evidence of the defence witnesses, produced by the appellant, upheld the prosecution case against the appellant holding that he and the approver, Bhanwarlal, had joined hands in forging the sale proceedings and pattas mentioned in the charges and also in forging thereon the signatures of the other Panchas.
In the months of April and May, 1958 the appellant officiated for the Sarpanch because the latter Gangaram was busy in companynection with his daughters marriage.
Both the substantive sentences were directed to be companycurrent.
Sd H.D. GATTANI J. The appellants grievance before us is that number consideration of his application dated April 7, 1970 has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice.
The approver also started teaching the appellants children as a private tutor without charging anything.
Bhanwarlal P.W. 1 , who was also stated to have been a party to this companyspiracy was granted pardon and having become an approver appeared as a witness in support of the prosecution.
P.C. This application, according to the appellant, was filed on May 1, 1970 but it was neither listed number heard in companyrt.
30/ with an additional sum of Rs.
On this finding the offence of companyspiracy under Section 120B was held proved against the appellant.
He was also held guilty of the offence under Section 467, I.P.C. Charges under the other sections were held number proved.
We number turn to Mool Singhs patta Ex.
The approver gave to the appellant a companytract for filling up the foundation for a house and also paid him about Rs.
Sd G.K. Sharma Dy.
The other accused persons Bakshi Gajpat Singh, Madan Mohan and Badri Prasad were acquitted.
According to the approver he had prepared about 200 pattas and order sheets in about eight or ten days time.
I have decided the case on 17 4 70 and there is therefore numberquestion of saying anything on the merits number.
According to the prosecution version during the months of November, 1959 to January, 1960, long after the village panchayat had ceased to exist, the appellant entered into a companyspiracy with the other accused persons tried along with him in the sessions companyrt and Bhanwarlal son of Bapulal who became an approver and appeared as P.W. 1 in the case to cheat the members of the public, the Municipal Council, Kota and the Government.
P 19 on March 18, 1961 to the Collector, Kota, long after the charge of the Panchayat had been taken over by the Municipal Council.
P.C. The material part of Annexure D reads That in the above numbered appeal prosecution examined Ganga Ram P.W. 3 as a witness.
200/ on each companynt.
37.50/ each with an additional sum of Rs.
In fact, according to the trial companyrt, it was the appellant who had dragged Bhanwarlal into the companyspiracy and their activities were motivated by a desire to cheat the Municipal Council, Kota, the members of the public and the Government of Rajasthan by making them part with possession of their valuable land in village Khand Gawadi for numberinal price.
P 9 and P respectively.
The modus operandi for carrying out the object of this companyspiracy was to persuade such members of the public as were amenable to their persuasion to part with money for purchasing residential plots in village Khand Gawadi and in furtherance of this companyspiracy they forged sale proceedings and pattas by antedating them and forging signatures of the other Panchas on such pattas and sale proceedings.
On appeal the High Court affirmed the appellants companyviction on both these companynts but reduced his sentence to rigorous imprisonment for 15 months and a fine of Rs.
The two plots measuring about 100 sq.
The appellant introduced the approver to Mehta and Madan Mohan and asked them to companyplete the Panchayat records according to his directions.
On objection being raised the appellant promised to give to P.W. 1 some more land elsewhere.
and the companysideration is stated to be Rs.
The charge under Section 467, as already observed, is companyfined to four pattas issued in favour of Suraj Singh, Mool Singh and Mukat Behari.
The Municipal Council took over charge from the Gram Panchayat of this village on January 7, 1959.
He gave to the appellant an application for that purpose and also paid Rs.
His evidence, therefore, seems, prima facie, to be unimpressive and hardly trustworthy.
Before dealing with the evidence on the offence under Section 467 it may be recalled that the present case was initiated at the instance of Ganga Ram, ex Sarpanch, P.W. 3 and some others when they presented a companyplaint Ex.
The sentences of imprisonment were directed to be companycurrent.
It is unnecessary to go into the remaining evidence of the approver at this stage.
The following order dated May 18, 1970 as translated into English was recorded by the learned Judge in Hindi Perused the applications dated 7 4 70 and 30 4 70 presented on behalf of the appellant.
And then he showed him a plot measuring only 3035.
P5 and P6 and one patta each in favour of Mool Singh and Mukat Behari are Exs.
Two pattas issued in favour of Suraj Singh are Exs.
The appellant himself affixed his signatures as Sarpanch and put the seal of the village Panchayat on the forged documents.
each were allotted to Suraj Singh for a companysideration of Rs.
Inspite of repeated requests the appellant did number show him the plot on certain pretexts for about four or five months.
40/ towards the price of the land and the appellant gave him a patta for a piece of land measuring 3045 without showing him its exact location.
P 5 and P 6, both dated May 5, 1958.
That during the same period, you forged Patta proceedings in antedates in respect of the sale of land 3035 belonging earlier to the defunct Gram Panchayat Kandgaohri in favour of Shri Surajsingh and put your own signatures on the forged document purporting to be valuable security to wit, the patta in favour of Surajsingh and gave it to Shri Surajsingh and that you thereby companymitted an offence punishable under Section 467, of the I.P.C. and within my companynizance.
Registrar On April 30, 1970 an application was presented on behalf of the appellant in the High Court under Section 561 A, Cr.
He was introduced to the appellant through one Kanhaiyalal.
It was due to this intimacy that the appellant is said to have asked the approver to help him in companypleting the proceedings of some incomplete patta cases of the Gram Panchayat.
It appears that the approver and the appellant had by then become quite intimate.
Bhanwar Lal, approver, who ultimately agreed to do this work went to the appellants house where he found one Mehta, Secretary of the Mandi Committee, Madan Mohan Vijay and Badri Prasad.
200 under Section 120B and to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.
11288/F.1 a 48L 59/A/55 dated 16 10 58 the Rajasthan Government extended the limits of the municipal companyncil, Kota, amongst other villages, to Khand Gawadi also.
Village Khand Gawadi had before October, 1958 a panchayat of which Gangaram P.W. 3 was the Sarpanch and the appellant its Up Sarpanch.
That during the same period, you forged patta proceedings in antedates in respect of the sale of land 50X50 belonging earlier to the defunct Gram Panchayat Khandgaonri in favour of Mukat Behari and put your signatures on the forged document purporting to be a valuable security to wit the patta in favour of Mukat Beharilal and gave it to Shri Mukat Behari and that you thereby companymitted an offence punishable under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code and within my companynizance.
