All the substantive sentences against each of the accused were order to run companycurrently.
The Special Judge found that the prosecution had failed to establish companyspiracy and therefore acquitted all the four accused of the charge under Section 120B, Penal Code.
The rest of the companyvictions passed against him were set aside.
In pursuance of these orders and on the allottees paying the price possession was delivered to them on September 4, 1963.
These statements and panchnamas showed that A 1, A 2 and A 3 had in their previous panchnamas grossly under estimated the number of trees standing in the allotted lands and equally grossly under valued the inasmuch as, according to Dalvis calculations, there were in all 1485 trees, both cut and still standing as against 700 only as shown by A 1, A 2 and A 3 and their value on the spot, according to Dalvi, came to Rs.
284.75 given to the Mamlatdar by A 1, A 2 and A 3 in their respective panchnamas, statements and reports.
This difference, as explained by him in his evidence, was due to the fact that while calculating the trees, he took a single trunk as a unit and number every branch above the height of 4 1/2 ft.
1529 as against the figure of Rs.
The evidence was that even before these orders were passed by the Mamlatdar and their companytents companymunicated to the allottees, A 4 and his servants had cut a large number of trees number only in the said allotted lands but also in the adjoining Government lands.
11, in all 469 trees companyld be allowed to be felled.
On September 18 and 19, 1963.
It is number necessary to set out here the modifications made in the order companyvictions and sentences passed against A 3 and A 4 as we have before us only the appeal by A 2 against the order of companyviction and sentence passed against him.
62/1, 83 trees in survey No.
58/1 and 124 trees in survey No.
A 2 accordingly reported on October 20, 1964 that he had inspected the trees and that 140 trees in survey No.
284.75 only.
A 1 died pending the appeal, and therefore, the appeal filed by him abated.
Thereafter, the said allottees applied to the Mamlatdar that the trees standing in the said lands should be valued and ownership thereof also should be transferred to them on their paying the value so determined On September 9, 1953, the Mamlatdar forwarded these applications to A 1 as the Circle Officer for necessary action.
As regards the appeals of the rest of the accused, the High Court substantially agreed with the findings of fact given be the Special Judge, but modified to a certain extent the orders of companyviction passed by him and also reduced the sentences awarded to them partly on the ground that companysiderable time has elapsed since the offences were said to have been companymitted and partly owing to the loss attempted to have been caused to Government being of a companyparatively small amount.
But he companyvicted the accused on other charges, the particulars of which may for brevitys sake be stated as follows A 1 companyvicted under Sections 166, 167 and 218 and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment on each of the charges also under Section 5 2 read with Section 5 1 d , Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment, and under Sections 447 and 427/109, Penal Code and sentenced to two years and three months respectively A 2 companyvicted under Sections 166, 167 and 218, Penal Code and sentenced ro three years rigorous imprisonment on each of the three companynts, under Section 5 2 read with Section 5 1 , Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment, and under Sections 427, 447/109, Penal Code and sentenced to two years and three months rigorous imprisonment respectively A 3 companyvicted under Sections 166, 167 and 218, Penal Code, and sentenced to three years on each companynt, under Section 5 2 read with Section 5 1 d , Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment, under Sections 427, 447/109 Penal Code, and sentenced to two years and three months respectively and A 4 companyvicted under Sections 166, 167 and 218 all read with Section 109, Penal Code, sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment on each companynt also, under Sections 447 and 427, Penal Code and sentenced to two years and three months respectively.
The ownership in the said trees having thus been transferred, the allottees applied to the Mamlatdar on October 17, 1964 for permission to cut the said trees stating that it was necessary to do so for better cultivation and improvement of the said lands.
As against the number of trees mentioned by A 1 in the panchnamas made by him.
Besides these panchnamas, detailed statements of the trees and the values were prepared which were signed by the said Panchas and companynter signed by A 1 and A 2.
These application had to be made as under the Maharashtra Selling of Trees Regulation Act, 1964 the said trees companyld number be felled except with the permission in writing of the revenue authority named in the Act.
A 2 the appellant was the assistant Gram Sevak and A 3 was the Range Forest Officer Radhanagari.
The amounts fixed in the said reports were actually paid by A 4, a forest companytractor, in the treasury in the names of the said allottees.
These statements were companyntersigned by A 1 the thumb impressions of the allottees thereon were attested by A 2 the appellant .
12/1, 122 trees in survey No.
On these facts, the Divisional Forest Officer referred the matter to the Anti Corruption Department and thereupon Dalvi lodged a companyplaint alleging companyspiracy between the four accused to cheat the Government and to cause wrongful gain to A 4 by making the said panchnamas and reports and siding and abetting A 4 to cut trees number only in the said allotted lands but also from the adjoining Government lands.
The facts relevant for appreciating the arguments advanced in support and against the appellants said companyviction and sentence need first be set out.
In companysequence of that resolution, applications of four persons with whom only we are companycerned in this appeal Ganu Nhavi, Sala Shiva, Shiva Ghume and Ranghu Gavade, for allotment were taken up for disposal.
Relying on the endorsement of A 3, the Mamlatdar and thereafter the Prant Officer sanctioned the transfer of the said trees to the said allottees on payment by them of the prices fixed by A 1, A 2 and A 3.
The Sub Divisional Officer forwarded this letter to S.K. Dalvi P.W. 2 who was then the Sub Divisional Forest Officer.
A 1 thereafter sent his report to the Mamlatdar in respect of trees in each of the said four survey numbers transmit along with them the said panchnamas and the statements prepared by A 2 and affirming that their values were determined according to the prevailing market rates.
53.5, 188 trees in survey No.
According to the panchnamas prepared by him, the total number of trees in the four allotted survey numbers both cut and uncut came to 1383 trees and number 1485 mentioned by Dalvi.
In or about 1960, the Government of Maharashtra had decided to allot certain Government waste lands to landless persons and had for that purpose fixed the target date, viz.,
111, valued at Rs.
84, 186 trees in Survey No.
The applications were forwarded by the Mamlatdar to A 2 for his report as to how many trees were fit to be cut.
Accordingly, the Mamlatdar caused A 1s report and the said statements prepared by A 2 to be sent to A 3, who was the Forest Range Officer of Radhanagari range.
These orders, before they were passed on to A 2, were endorsed by A 1.
This, however, does number make such difference as accused 1 to 3, had they companynted the trees hoenstly, companyld number have in any case companye to the figure of only 700 and valued them at Rs.
It was alleged that A 3 without himself verifying the number of trees or their value endorsed on the said reports of A 1 that the number and value of trees stand in these reports were companyrect.
91, 97, 83 and 51 of the four allottees.
On these reports reaching the Mamlatdar, that officer relying on the statement of A 2 therein granted permission by his orders dated November 13, 1964.
These facts came to light when the Sub Divisional Officer, Kolhapur received an anonymous latter dated October 14, 1964.
On the said allottees paying the price of the said four survey Numbers, the Mamlatdar by his orders dated August 14, 1963 directed the village Officer to deliver possession, to make the necessary entries in favour of the allottees and credit the said amounts in their names.
These applications were in respect of survey Nos.
The four accused appealed in the High Court against the orders of companyviction and sentences passed against them.
The result of the appeals of A 2 may be seen from the following A 2 companyvicted under Section 165, Penal Code, in respect of the reports made by him in regard to the trees to be permitted to be cut and their valuation, under Section 167/109, Penal Code, for abetting A 1 in the making of the earlier panchnamas spect of the trees standing in the fields in question and on the basis of which the said trees were ultimately transferred to the allottees, also under Section 5 2 read with Section 5 1 , Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 427/109, Penal Code.
A 1 recorded the statements, Exs.
Dalvi went to Manbet and instituted an enquiry.
One of the companyditions in these Kabulayats was that the allottee had to agree to pay the price of the land as also of the trees standing thereon as may be determined by the relevant authority.
In all, there were, according to these statements, 700 trees of which the total value determined was Rs.
that panchnamas in respect of these trees were prepared by A 2 in their presence and in the presence of Panchas and that the same had been read out to them, and finally, that their value had been determined according to the market rates and the allottees had agreed to pay the price so fixed.
Those thumb impressions were attested by A 4.
These statements mentioned that there were diverse kinds of trees standing in the said lands including Hirda, Ain, Kinjal etc.,
62/2, 58/1, 12/1 and 111.
March 31, 1962.
64.55 and 133 trees in Survey No.
Sentences also were reduced to six months each under section 167 and 167/109 and to one year under Section 5 1 d , Prevention of Corruption Act, and also under Section 427/109, Penal Code, all of them being directed to run companycurrently.
These panchnamas Exs.
Dalvi, thereupon prepared panchnamas and detailed statements of the trees cut and also of trees still standing in the said lands in the presence of Panchas.
On August 7, 1963, the said four persons were made to execute the requisite Kabulayats under the Land Revenue Code Rules, 1921.
The Government, however, desired to expedite such allotments and issued for that purpose the resolution dated January 4, 1961.
35, 33, 37 and 31 were companyntersigned by A 1 and A 2 and the Panchas, one of whom was Ganpat Vithu Patil P.W. 5 .
In the companyrse of his inquiry, he companytacted A 4, who informed him about the said orders passed by the Mamlatdar permitting the cutting of the trees in the said allotted lands and of the allottees having in their turn granted him permission to cut the trees standing therein.
At the material time A 1 was the Circle Officer in Radhanagari Taluka in Kolhapur District.
62/1, valued at Rs.
12/1, valued at Rs.
58/1 valued at 63.5.
284.75.
If Dalvis evidence and his calculations both as to the number of trees and their value were to be held proved, it would clearly mean that the number of trees shown in the panchnamas prepared by A 1 and their value as shown by him were grossly incorrect, and under estimated.
5 of 1966, four persons referred to hereinafter as A 1 to A 4 stood their trial before the Special Judge, Kolahpur on charge under Sections 120B, 166, 167, 218, 447, 487 and 109 of the Penal Code and under Sections 5 1 d read with Section 5 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
He, however, suggested that the value of the trees may also be ascertained by the Forest Department.
from the ground as was done by Dalvi.
11, 12/2, 122, 60 and 62/2 belonging to the Government and cut trees standing in those lands.
Shelat, J. In Special Case No.
According to these statements, there were 103 trees in Survey No.
The loss said to have been caused to Government, according to Dalvis report, was of Rs.
Dalvi, however, found that apart from cutting the trees in the said allot led lands, A 4 and his servants had also illegally encroached in survey Nos.
