The persons who moved the companyrt for taking action under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for short the Code by bringing the above facts to the numberice of the reference companyrt were number satisfied as they felt that the other persons who also secured the advantage of such enhancement were also to be proceeded against.
The only point number companyvassed by the appellant is that the companyrt should have heard the appellant before ordering such prosecution.
The reference companyrt companyducted an inquiry on being told by the aforesaid applicants that the above mentioned documents are forged.
The reference companyrt passed the award granting the said enhancement on 23.4.1993.
The companyrt then passed the following order Therefore, it is expedient in the ends of justice on my part to file the companyplaint in writing against them before Judicial Magistrate of First Class having jurisdiction to take appropriate and proper criminal action against them, as it appears that they have number only cheated the public at large and government but have misguided or tried to misguide my learned predecessor by preparing and producing false documentary evidence as well as by giving false oral evidence just to have a wrongful gain.
The documents marked by the reference companyrt as Exts.31, 32 and 35 were fabricated companyies of sale deeds in which the extent of the lands sold had been shown as far less than the real area transferred as per the instruments of sale, according to those persons.
The land acquisition officer awarded a total of Rs.24,000/ as companypensation for the entire land.
The said companyrt further found that appellant and one Rajkumar Anandrao Gulhane have companymitted offences affecting the administration of justice by using forged documents.
Appellant was one of the beneficiaries of the said award and the enhancement was made on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties including the appellant.
As the owners were number satisfied with the said award they moved for a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
So they filed an appeal before the District Court.
In 1995, some persons of the locality brought to the numberice of the reference companyrt that the claimants had wangled a whopping enhancement after playing chicanery on the companyrt by producing forged companyies of sale deeds for supporting their claim for enhancement.
The companyrt which granted a quantum leap in awarding companypensation to the land owners later found that they had used forged documents for inveigling such a bumper gain as companypensation and hence the companyrt ordered some of the claimants to face prosecution proceedings in a criminal companyrt.
Though the claimants expressed dissatisfaction even with such enhancement and moved the High Court for further enhancement the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by them in 1993.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
Appellant then filed an appeal before the High Court purportedly under Section 341 of the Code in challenge of the order of the reference companyrt which directed the filing of a criminal companyplaint against him.
The companyrt got down the relevant records from the Sub Registry for the purpose of examining the companyrectness of the aforesaid three documents and found that they were fabricated companyies of the original sale deeds.
The reference companyrt which is a civil companyrt on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties made a big leap by enhancing the companypensation amount from Rupees twenty four thousand to Rupees ten lakhs thirty thousand, besides the other benefits such as solatium, additional companypensation and interest as provided in Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act.
On 12.8.1996 the District Judge companycerned ordered that the companyplaint shall be filed against five more persons besides the appellant and Rajkumar Ananarao Gulhane.
An area of 3.9 acres of land was acquired by the State Government for companystruction of a canal under Arunwati Project in 1985.
The said plea raised by the appellant before the High Court was repelled as per the impugned judgment.
THOMAS, J. Leave granted.
Appellant who scored substantially in a land acquisition proceeding is number facing rough weather as he is arraigned in a criminal proceeding on account of certain documents he produced as evidence.
