On this finding the offence of companyspiracy under s. 120B was held proved against the appellant.
By means of a gazette numberification No.
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.
The Municipal Council took over charge from the Gram Panchayat of this village on January 7, 1959.
P 9 and P 12 respectively.
The appellant was accordingly sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.
200 on each companynt.
P 5 and P 6, both dated May 5, 1958.
The other accused persons Bakshi Gajpat Singh, Madan Mohan and Badri Prasad were acquitted.
In the months of April and May, 19S8 the appellant officiated for the Sarpanch because the latter Gangaram was busy in companynection with his daughters marriage.
The sentences of imprisonment were directed to be companycurrent.
Inspite of repeated requests the appellant did number show him the plot on certain pretexts for about four or five months.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 17, 1970 of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur in S. Cr.
The two plots measuring about 100 sq.
200 under s. 467, I.P.C. In default of payment of fine the appellant was directed to undergo six months further rigorous imprisonment in each case.
P5 and P6 and one patta each in favour of Mool Singh and Mukat Behari are Exs.
He was also held guilty of the offence under s. 467, I.P.C. Charges under the other sections were held number proved.
Nuruddin Ahmad F. S. Dave and Subhag Mal Jain, for the appellant.
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.
It appears that the approver and the appellant had by then become quite intimate.
He was introduced to the appellant through one Kanhaiyalal.
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.
Both the substantive sentences were directed to be companycurrent.
Suffice it to say that from his evidence it is number at all clear as to what interest the approver bad in helping the appel lant in what is described as the forgery of the various documents.
This patta relates to an area measuring 100 sq.
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.
On objection being raised the appellant promised to give to P.W. 1 some more land elsewhere.
Registrar On April 30, 1970 an application was presented on behalf of the appellant in the High Court under s. 561 A. Cr.
P.C. This application, according to the appellant, was filed on May 1, 1970 but it was neither listed number heard in companyrt.
That during the same period, you forged patta proceedings in antedates in respect of the sale of land 50X 50 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.
8 or 9 hundred for which he took numberreceipt.
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 P.C. and within my companynizance.
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.
200 under s. 120B and to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.
As far as I remember Shri Chiranjilal Agarwal did mention during the companyrse of the arguments on 7 4 70 that he wanted to present an application.
The appellant himself affixed his signatures as Sarpanch and put the seal of the village Panchayat on the forged documents.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
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.
46 9 I have, decided the case on 17 4 70 and there is therefore numberquestion of saying anything on the merits number.
The appellant introduced the, approver to Mehta and Madan Mohan and asked them to companyplete the Panchayat records according to his directions.
105 of 1970.
467 and 120B, P.C. He,, along with three others, had been companymitted for trial in the companyrt of Sessions Judge, Kota on ten charges for offences under ss.
Baldev Mehta, for the respondent.
283 of 1967.
30 with an additional sum of Rs.
It is unnecessary to go into the remaining evidence of the approver at this stage.
P 11 were identified by him.
That during the same period, you forged Patta proceedings in antedates in respect of the sale of land 30X35 belonging earlier to the defunct Gram Panchayat Kandgaonri 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 P.C. and within my companynizance.
and the companysideration is stated to be Rs.
And then he showed him a plot measuring on 30X35.
The approver gave to the appellant a companytract for filling up the foundation for a house and also paid him about Rs.
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.
According to the approver he had prepared about 200 pattas and order sheets, in about eight or ten days time.
The charge under s. 467, as already observed, is companyfined to four pattas issued in favour of Suraj Singh, Mool Singh and Mukat Behari.
Sd G. K. Sharma Dy.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DUA, J. In this appeal by special leave from the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court Ram Narain, appellant, challenges his companyviction for the offences under ss.
Appeal No.
His evidence, therefore, seems, prima facie, to be unimpressive and hardly trustworthy.
Village Khand Gawadi had before October, 1958 a panchayat of which Gangaram P.W. 3 was the Sarpanch and the appellant its Up Sarpanch.
The approver also started teaching the appellants children as a private tutor without ,charging anything.
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.
each were allotted to Suraj Singh for a companysideration of Rs.
Two pattas issued in favour of Suraj Singh are Exs.
40 towards the price of the land and the appellant gave him a patta for a piece of land measuring 30X45 without showing him its exact location.
37.50 each with an additional sum of Rs.
We number turn to Mool Singhs patta Ex.
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 Drice.
On appeal the High Court affirmed the appellants companyviction on both these companynts but reduced his sentence to rigorous imprison ment for 15 months and a fine of Rs.
Sd H. D. GATTANI J. The appellants grievance before us is that number companysideration,, of his application dated April 7, 1970 has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice.
He gave to the appellant an application for that purpose and also paid Rs.
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 ante dating them and forging signatures of the other Panchas on such pattas and sale proceedings.
1128 8/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.
