Back
1992 Supreme(HP) 81
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
BHAWANI SINGH,D.P.SOOD
STATE OF H P. - Appellant
Versus
MOHAN LAL AND ELEVEN - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 1985
Decided On : 07/22/1992
For the appellant(s)/petitioner(s):Shri C.L. Sharma, Advocate. None For the respondents.
In quasi-judicial proceedings, the parties who are likely to be affected by the result must be afforded an opportunity to make their stand clear.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - Forgery - Conspiracy - Demarcation of boundaries - Evidence - Admissibility - Weight - Natural justice - Quasi-judicial proceedings - Opportunity of hearing - Public servants - Abuse of position - Pecuniary advantage - Intention - Proof - Acquittal - Confirmation.
Fact of the Case:
The State of Himachal Pradesh challenged the acquittal of twelve accused persons charged with various offenses, including forgery, conspiracy, and abuse of position as public servants. The charges stemmed from allegations that the accused conspired to fell trees from government land under the guise of felling trees from private land, and that they prepared incorrect lists of marked trees and forged documents to facilitate the felling of trees from government land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The court held that the demarcation of boundaries conducted by the police during the investigation was not carried out in accordance with the instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner, and therefore, the reports prepared based on this demarcation were not reliable. The court also found that there was no evidence to connect one of the accused, S.D. Sharma, with the marking of the trees on the allotted government land. The court further held that the evidence was insufficient to establish conspiracy among the accused, legal and proper demarcation of the area, or forgery of documents.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution proved the existence of a conspiracy to fell trees from government land under the guise of felling trees from private land. 2. Whether the accused intentionally prepared incorrect lists of marked trees and forged documents to facilitate the felling of trees from government land. 3. Whether the accused, being public servants, abused their positions to obtain pecuniary advantage for themselves or their co-accused. 4. Whether the accused voluntarily concealed the existence of a design to fell trees from government land with intent to facilitate the commission of the crime. 5. Whether the accused used forged documents knowing them to be such and thereby obtained pecuniary advantage.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The prosecution failed to prove the existence of a conspiracy among the accused to fell trees from government land under the guise of felling trees from private land. 2. The prosecution failed to prove that the accused intentionally prepared incorrect lists of marked trees and forged documents to facilitate the felling of trees from government land. 3. The prosecution failed to prove that the accused, being public servants, abused their positions to obtain pecuniary advantage for themselves or their co-accused. 4. The prosecution failed to prove that the accused voluntarily concealed the existence of a design to fell trees from government land with intent to facilitate the commission of the crime. 5. The prosecution failed to prove that the accused used forged documents knowing them to be such and thereby obtained pecuniary advantage.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the impugned judgment of acquittal.
D. P. Sood, J.—State of Himachal Pradesh has assailed the judgment dated December 31, 1984, of the learned Special Judge, Shimla, recording the acquittal of all the accused persons numbering twelve for the commission of the offences tabulated below: Sr. No. 1 Name of the accused 2 Offence for which charged. 3
1. Mohan Lal
1. Under section 468,1 PC
2. Under section 120-B read with sections 379, 468, 467, 471, 218, 167, 119 and 420, LRC.
3. Under section 120-B, I PC. read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
2. Misru Mal
1. Under section 468, I.PC.
2. Under section 120-B read with sections 379, 218,468,467,471, 167, 119 and 420, IP C.
3. Under section 120-B, I P.C. read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
3. Sher Singh
1. Under sections 468, 467, 471, 167, 218, 119, I P.C.
2. Under section 5 (1) (d) read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
3. Section 120-B read with sections 379, 218,
167. 468, 467, 471, 119 and 420, I.P.C.
4. Section 120-B, I.P.C. read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
4. Hari Dass
1. Under sections 468, 467, 471, 167, 218 and 119 I P.C.
2. Under section 5 (1) (d) read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
3. Under section 120-B read with sections 379,218, 167,468,467, 471, 119 and 420, I. P.C.
4. Under section 120-B read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
5. Satya Dev
1. Under sections 468, 467, 471, 107,218 and 119, I P.C.
2. Under section 5 (1) (d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
3. Under section 120-B read with sections 379, 218, 167,468,467, 471, 119 and 420, I.P.C.
4. Under section 120-B read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
6. Bir Singh
1. Under sections 468, 467, 471, 167,218,119,
2. Under section 5 (1) (d) read with section 5 (i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
3. Under section 120-B read with sections 379, 218, 167, 468, 467, 471, 119 and 420, LP.C.
4. Under section 120-B read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
7. Sukh Ram
1. Under sections 468, 467, 471, 167,218, 119. I.P.C.
2. Under section 5 (1) (d) read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
3. Under section 120-B read with sections 379, 218,167,468,467, 417, 119 and 420, LP.C.
4. Under section 120-B, LP.C. read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
8. Rattan Chand
1. Under section 120-B read with sections 379, 218, 468, 467, 4/1, 167, 119 and 420, I.P.C.
2. Under section 120-B, LP.C, read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
9. Vijay Kumar
1. Under section 120-B read with sections 379, 218, 468, 471, 167, 119 and 420, I.P.C.
2. Under section 120-B, LP.C. read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
10. Mohar Singh
1. Under section 120-B read with sections 379, 218, 468, 467, 471, 167,119 and 420, I.P.C.
2. Under section 120-B of the I.P.C. read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
11. Mast Ram
1. Under section 120-B read with sections i79, 218, 468, 467, 471, 167, 119 and 420, I.P.C.
2. Under section 120-B, I.P.C. read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
2. Two sets of person’s one official and the other non-official, are accused of the commission of the above said offences. Non-official accused hail from Chopal The firm M/s Mohan Lal Misru Mai through their two partners S/Sfari Mohan Lai and Misru Mai submitted an application to the Divisional Forest Officer, Chopal, seeking permission to fell trees belonging to the residents of two Chakst camely, Chak Kanda and Chak Pandrara of Throach forest, Chopal runge in their lands pertaining to Khasra Nos. 69, 71, 68, 4, 10, 23, 24, 31 and 33 in Chak Kanda and Khasra Nos. 2, 3, 107, 193, 212, 42, 3, 5, 6, 14, 76, 117, 132, 423, 36, 37, 86, 97, 98 and 112 of Chak Pandrara respectively No action was taken for some time. The two applicants again appr
