The judgment establishes the principle that conviction can be upheld based on the prosecution proving the case beyond reasonable doubt, even in cases involving the creation of false documents.

ORDER

1. Appellant has filed the appeal challenging the judgment & order dated 15.03.1985 passed by Special Judge, ACD Cases, Jaipur in Special Criminal Case No.60/1977, whereby appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence(s) punishable under Sections 465, 120-B IPC and Section 5 (1)(d)(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 as follows:-

U/s 465 IPC

- Six months rigorous imprisonment.

U/s 120B IPC

- Six months rigorous imprisonment.

U/s 5 (1)(d)(2) Prevention of Corruption Act

- Sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.200/-; in default of payment thereof, to further undergo one month rigorous imprisonment.

Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently

2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that Collector, Tonk sent a copy of order passed by him in a revenue suit for initiating the criminal proceedings against Ratanlal Patwari, Abdul Rashid Khan Girdavar (appellant) and Guljarilal. In report Collector stated that these persons had conspired to make a false mutation about a piece of land measuring 49 bighas 8 biswas Khasra No.236/576 and 278/578. The above mentioned land was in the name of Abdul Rauf and he had no son but after his death the mutation was entered in the name of Sharif Khan. After some years, again mutation of said land was mutated in the name of Chhoteylal, younger brother of Ratanlal Patwari and minor sons of Abdul Rashid Khan.

3. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellant and co-accused Ratanlal.

4. Charges were framed against the appellant and co-accused under Sections 465, 120B IPC and Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act.

5. During pendency of appeal, appellant was died and legal representatives of the appellant Abdul Rashid Khan was allowed to pursue the appeal vide order dated 01.04.2019 and amended cause title was taken on record.

6. In order to prove its case, during trial, prosecution examined 18 witnesses. Appellant was examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prayed that he was innocent and had been falsely involved in the case. Appellant had not examined any witness in his defence.

7. Trial court vide judgment and order dated 15.03.1985, ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 465, 120B IPC and Section 5 (1)(d) read with Section 5 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the trial court had erred in ordering the conviction and sentence of the appellant and also submitted that trial court had not read the prosecution evidence in right perspective. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that there was no complaint lodged by the deceased of Abdul Rauf and collector had no power to lodge the FIR. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that collector could initiate inquiry under Section 195 Cr.P.C. and then proceed. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that evidence of prosecution is wholly inconsistent. There is no evidence on record that appellant had created false documents for the mutation. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that after investigation, no offence was found against Guljarilal. Allegation against the appellant is that appellant had only compared the entries of the mutation. The entries of the mutation was done by Guljarilal. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that evidence of Abdul Wahab is not helpful or relevant in this case. Evidence of PW-2 K.L. Kochar did not help the prosecution case. Only on the basis of comparison no offence is proved against the appellant. So, the appellant be acquitted.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Perumal Vs. Janaki reported in (2014) 5 SCC 377.

10. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that pro