The Bundhs were being companystructed since the year 1962.
Objection was raised on behalf of the accused that the investigation of the case was illegal and that prosecution was barred by time under the pro visions of section 23 of the Land Improvement Schemes Act, 1942.
369.07 without doing any work and that they had misappropriated that amount.
On appeal the High Court affirmed the, findings of the learned special judge.
The director of anti corruption branch directed Patil to register a case and investigate into the, matter.
13 in Asane village on May 11, 1966.
Khaimar accused added that rectification work had been done between May 13, 1966 and May 16, 1966 and the amount of Rs.
369.07 to PW 10 Jagan Trinibak who used to do the labour work.
The accused also admitted that numberamounts were paid to any of the labourers mentioned in the paysheets although signatures and thumb impressions of the labourers had been obtained on the paysheets on March 11, 1966.
5000 was received by Khaimar accused on March 2, 1966 in that companynection.
369.07 was thereafter disbursed on May 16, 1966.
97 for the prosecution of the two accused was granted under section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act by the superintending agricultural officer Bombay division, Nasik on May 18, 1967.
Final bill Ex.
Sanction Ex.
Chate PW went to village Asane on May 2, 1966 and inspected block No.
Paysheets Ex.
A case was registered on the basis of that statement at the police station on November 8, 1966.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 27, 1969 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeals Nos.
Debit entry Ex.
Report dated May 18, 1966 was thereafter submitted by Inamdar affirming those facts.
32 of Rs.
The director of anti corruption sent a companyy of that application to Sub Inspector K. G. Patil PW 13 who was then attached to Dhulia officse of the anticorruption branch.
Khaimar made his initials below the thumb impressions in the paysheets.
369.07 in furtherance of their companymon intention to misappropriate government property.
Inamdar went with Ghate to block No.
28 and cash book entry Ex.
According further to the prosecution case, the landowners in block No.
79 of Inamdar PW on November 7, 1966.
They did number find even a single pit in the lands in that block although, according to measurement book, 83 pits had been recently dug.
Sub Inspector Patil made local enquiry and took into possession the measurement book, paysheets and cash book.
369.07 was made by Khaimar accused in the cash book.
4779 in companynection with the companystruction of the Bundhs.
369.07 had to be got done by Dhobi appellant under the supervision of Khaimar appellant.
53 and 45 of 1968.
On receipt of the above report, the superintending agricultural officer directed P. Inamdar PW 1 1 , deputy director of agricultural engineering, to go to Asane village and submit his report after personally verifying the facts.
84, in the meanwhile, on April 30, 1966 to the director of anti corruption branch Maharashtra State stating that the accused had prepared false bill for Rs.
29 on April 16, 1966 and sent it to the sub divisional soil companyservation officer Nandurbar showing an expenditure of Rs.
Rectification work in respect of those Bundhs at a companyt of Rs.
The two accused in their statements admitted that the work of the value of Rs.
Patil thereafter recorded statements of a number of persons.
369 07.
He found that entries had been made about the payment of Rs.
No work, it was found, had been done and the different documents prepared by the accused in this companynection were false even on their own admissions.
28 was also prepared on that day by the accused and the signature of Jagan Trimbak was obtained on the same.
369.07 in the measurement book and cash book even though numberrectification work had been done.
Inamdar and Ghate also met the Sarpanch and other landowners of Asane village.
13 came to know of the, above, acts of the accused and they companyplained about it to Sarpanch Tanku Bhagwan PW 12 .
The case of the prosecution was that the measurement book Ex.
These objections were repelled.
The Government sanctioned an amount of Rs.
13 be sent as the entire amount spent on that block since 1962 companyld number be recovered for want of a. companypletion report.
The statement was then sent to Nandurbar Taluka police station.
4400 was done but that relating to rectification work was number done.
27, paysheets Ex.
Sarpanch Tanku sent companyplaint Ex.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
32 were false documents and were fabricated by the accused without doing any reification work on the Bundh.
A companyy of the telegram was thereafter sent by the superintending agricultural officer to divisional soil companyservation officer D.S.D. Ghate PW 1 for necessary action as well as for enquiry and report.
64 were prepared by Dhobi accused and he obtained the thumb impressions and signatures of the laborers on the paysheets.
It was also stated that attempts were being made to shield the accused.
According to the rules of the soil companyservation section, the Government spent the money in the first instance and after the report of the companypletion of work was received, the expenses were recovered from the landowners for whose benefit the work was done.
An advance amount of Rs.
27 showing that he had checked 28 payments and certified the, same.
According to the accused, they had prepared the various documents in accordance with the instructions of Ghate PW who was insisting in March 1966, and even earlier, that a companypletion report relating to block No.
Tanku sent a telegram on April 12, 1966 to the superintending agricultural officer, Bombay division, Nasik in this companynection.
369.07 wasnot done till March 11, 1966 although it was so stated in the various documents by them.
Chate submitted his report on May 6, 1966 for proceeding departmentally against the accused.
105 of 1969.
On March 11, 1966 Khaimar made entries in measurement book Ex.
He also prepared work abstract Ex.
The accused were accordingly companyvicted and sentenced as above.
The bill was signed thereafter by Khaimar.
The explanation furnished by the accused that they prepared false documents at the instance of Ghate and got work done thereafter was number accepted.
Patil went to Nasik and recorded statement Ex.
Both Inamdar and Ghate found that numberrectification work had been done.
S. Kotwal, A. G. Ratnaparkhi and Rajiv Shah, for the appellant.
64, final bill Ex.
The permission was granted by the judicial magistrate 1st class Nandurbar on the same day.
Khaimar accused also stated in the entry that he had passed the measurements and paid Rs.
The bill was got signed from PW 7 Ziparu Tukaram and another person as attesting witnesses.
2 who was agricultural supervisor in the soil companyservation section of the Government of Maharashtra.
Dhobi was incharge of the work relating to a Bundh in block No.
369.07 had number been paid by the two accused to the labourers.
8, 17, 18, 19 and 32 measuring 90 acres.
369.07.
M. Mehta and B. D. Sharma, for the respondent.
1 was an agricultural assistant and was working under Khairnar appellant No.
On November 12, 1966 sub Inspector Patil applied for permission under section 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act of judicial magistrate 1st class to investigate the offence.
The above block companyprises agricultural lands bearing survey Nos.
13 of village Asane in Taluka Mandurbar.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Khanna, J. This is an appeal by special leave by Khandu Sonu Dhobi and Bhikanrao Rambhau Khairnar against the judgment of the Bombay High Court affirming on appeal the companyviction of the appellants under section 218 read with section 34, section 477A read with section 34 and section 409 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code as well as under section 5 2 read with section 5 1 d of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Patil was subsequently transferred and the case was investigated by his successors Mahamuni and Kulkarni who also obtained the requisite permission.
