The said companyplaint was inquired into by Vigilance Department and FIR came to be registered on 15.12.2001 against the first respondent and Brijender Singh and others under Sections 420, 218, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code for short, the IPC .
After protracted litigation the aforesaid persons were declared number occupancy tenants of 67.3 bighas of land and proprietary rights in respect thereof were companyferred upon them vide mutations attested on 23.6.1987 and 8.12.1987.
This was done by using forged Power of Attorneys and fictitious Wills with companynivance of Revenue Officials.
The manner in which the proceedings were companyducted on behalf of respondent number 1 leads us to companyclude that respondent number 1 wanted to delay the framing of charges.
The first respondent filed Criminal Revision No.
Shri Malhotra had appeared for respondent number 1 and also for her husband Brijender Singh.
The High Court also transferred the matter from the companyrt of Special Judge Chamba to the Court of Special Judge Kangra at Dharmashala on the ground that the apprehension expressed by respondent number 1 that she would number get fair trial in the Court at Chamba was well founded.
The appellant was the elected Municipal Councilor of Dhalhousie Municipal Committee from 1995 to 2000 and from 2000 till it was suspended in 2003.
The Special Judge, Chamba framed charges against the first respondent and others on 4.1.2005 under Sections 420, 218, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120 B of the IPC.
The first respondent is stated to have obtained three General Power of Attorneys on 29.1.1993 and 30.1.1993 from Narvada Devi, Nand Lal and Bemi Ram authorizing her to sell their land in favour of her husband Brijender Singh for companysideration.
On the basis of the said General Power of Attorneys the first respondent is stated to have made two sales in favour of her husband Brijender Singh.
By the impugned order the High Court set aside the said order on the ground that the accused were denied an opportunity of being heard and that the trial companyrts observation that there was prima facie case against the accused was made without applying mind to the relevant record.
Learned Special Judge then framed charges against respondent number1 and other accused.
Shri Malhotra submitted that he was number in a position to argue the case on charge.
Brijender Singh got married to respondent number 1 in 1978.
Thereafter Brijender Singh is stated to have fabricated two Wills one of Arjun Singh and other of Piar Singh.
His properties were inherited by one Raja Prem Singh and after companying into force of the Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, the said land vested in the State of Himachal Pradesh.
One Raja Laxman Singh the original owner of 85.10 bighas of land situate at Mauza Jandrighat Bhatyat number Chuwari expired on 20.5.1971.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties at some length.
On 4.1.2005, Shri Malhotra who had been appearing for respondent number 1 stated that he had numberinstructions to appear for respondent number 1.
The appellant has filed the present petition to settle Smt.
From the Special Judges order it is clear that Mr. Malhotra was appearing for respondent number1 and also for her husband Brijender Singh.
Thus, in short, the allegation against the first respondent and her husband Brijender Singh is that they companyspired to get wrong entries made in the revenue records and to secure illegal orders regarding companyferment of proprietary rights in favour of the servants of Brijender Singh who finally managed to become owner of the said land.
Respondent number 1s desire to change the horse in the midstream was obviously number genuine but was a dilatory tactic.
On the basis thereof Brijender Singh is stated to have got the land of Piar Singh and Arjun Singh mutated in his favour vide mutation dated 29.7.1994.
Learned Special Judge rejected the companytention of respondent number 1 that Shri Malhotra was number her companynsel because order sheet of 8.12.2004 made it clear that Shri Malhotra had moved application for exemption from personal appearance on behalf of respondent number 1.
It is also significant to numbere that while the order was being dictated by learned Special Judge, respondent number1 moved an application for transfer of the case since allegedly an opportunity of being heard through an advocate of her choice was denied to her.
Learned Special Judge rejected the prayer and framed the charge observing that Shri Malhotra had advanced arguments on behalf of respondent number 1 and since States reply dated 4.12.2004 did number disclose any new facts adjournment was number necessary.
Between 1977 and 1978 revenue records were tampered with in companynivance with the revenue officials and the names of the domestic servants of Brijender Singh namely Piar Singh, Arjun Singh, Bemi Ram, Narvada Devi, Nand Lal and Laxmi Devi were entered in revenue records as number occupancy tenants in respect of 67.3 bighas of land.
This application was rightly rejected by Special Judge for want of jurisdiction.
Shri Malhotra then submitted that he was ready to argue the case even on behalf of respondent number 1.
By the impugned order the charge framed against number only the first respondent but against all the accused is quashed.
He was permitted to inspect the record.
He had made exemption application on behalf of respondent number 1.
On that day neither the companynsel for the first respondent was present number the first respondent was present.
A companyplaint dated 6.8.1998 was filed against her by one Shri Kuldeep Singh, Ex Municipal Councilor, Dalhousie alleging interalia that the first respondent and her husband Brijender Singh since deceased had in companynivance with Revenue Officials manipulated the revenue records, forged documents and got the land belonging to the Government transferred in the name of Brijender Singh.
Chadha had filed election petition against respondent number1.
20 of 2005 before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla challenging the order dated 4.1.2005 framing charges.
On 8.12.2004 companyaccused Brijender Singh raised an objection that companyy of the reply dated 7.2.2004 was number supplied to him.
Respondent number 1 made a telegraphic request for adjournment on the ground that her mother was ill.
The case was then adjourned to 10.12.2004.
Respondent number 1 filed an application that she wanted to be defended by a companynsel of her choice.
The request for adjournment was disallowed.
That application was rejected.
The case was posted for companysideration of charge on 8.12.2004.
RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J. The first respondent was the member of the Legislative Assembly of Banikhet Constituency from the year 1984 to 1990 and 1994 to 2001.
