Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH ATSHIMLA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge.
Cr. Appeal No. 595 of 2001 a/w Cr. Appeals No. 597 & 613 of 2001
Decided on : 8.03.2013
Balak Ram Negi Versus State of H.P. & Connected Matter
The court held that the boundaries of evacuee property No. 189/4, Central Hotel Main Building, were wrongly described by including unsold area in the sale certificate, Ex. PW-11/F, and to this extent the findings returned by the learned Special Judge are borne out of evidence on record. The court further held that there is no legally admissible evidence to fasten guilt against A-2 to A-4, namely Bhau Singh, Kahana Singh and Balak Ram Negi, respectively, on these counts and the findings returned by the learned Special Judge in this regard cannot be sustained.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves allegations of criminal conspiracy, cheating, and abuse of official position by public servants in connection with the sale and disposal of evacuee property in Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. The prosecution alleged that the accused, including revenue officials and others, manipulated records, entered false entries, and facilitated illegal sale deeds to grab government property. The accused denied the allegations and claimed innocence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the boundaries of the evacuee property in question were wrongly described in the sale certificate, including unsold areas. However, the court held that there was no legally admissible evidence to establish the guilt of the accused, namely Bhau Singh, Kahana Singh, and Balak Ram Negi, in relation to the alleged illegal acts and criminal conspiracy. The court concluded that the findings of the trial court on these counts could not be sustained.
Issues: 1. Whether the boundaries of the evacuee property were wrongly described in the sale certificate? 2. Whether the accused, including revenue officials, were involved in a criminal conspiracy to manipulate records and facilitate illegal sale deeds? 3. Whether there was sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the accused in relation to the alleged illegal acts and criminal conspiracy?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle that a criminal conviction must be based on legally admissible evidence and that the prosecution bears the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found that the report of the handwriting expert, which was used to link the accused to the incriminating documents, was not admissible in evidence as it was obtained during the investigation stage and not in the context of a pending proceeding before the court. The court also noted the lack of other evidence to establish the authorship of the documents by the accused. Therefore, the court concluded that the findings of the trial court on the counts related to the accused's involvement in illegal acts and criminal conspiracy could not be sustained.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals filed by the accused, Bhau Singh, Kahana Singh, and Balak Ram Negi, and acquitted them of the charges against them. The court modified the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence accordingly.
V.K. Sharma, J. As all the above titled three appeals arise out of a single judgment/order dated 24.9.2001/12.10.2001, rendered by the learned Special Judge (Forest), Shimla, Himachal Pradesh in Corruption Case No. 18-S/7 of 93/89, titled State of Himachal Pradesh Versus Smt. Shakuntla Kochhar and others, these are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. As many as ten accused, namely, M.L. Kochhar, B.L. Kochhar, Adarsh Mohan, Smt. Shakuntla Kochhar (A-1); Bhau Singh (A-2); Kahana Singh (A-3); Balak Ram Negi (A-4); J.K. Sharma, Prith Pal Singh and Gian Chand Sharma (A-5), were charge sheeted for commission of offences under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420, 218, 167, 447 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’), Section 81 of the Indian Registration Act (for short ‘Registration Act’) and Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (‘PC Act’). However, consequent upon death of accused M.L. Kochhar, B.L. Kochhar, Adarsh Mohan and Prith Pal Singh during pendency of the trial, the case against them stood abated. The proceedings against accused J.K. Sharma stood quashed, pursuant to the judgment dated 21 .6.1994, passed by this court in Cr. M.P(M) No. 925 of 1992. Hence, his name was deleted from the array of the accused.
3. For the sake of convenience the accused before the learned Trial Court, including the appellants (convicts), shall hereinafter be referred to as such and denoted as A-1, A-2 so on and so forth, respectively.
4.A-1, Smt. Shakuntla Kochhar, who is stated to have since died, was convicted for the offences under Sections 120-B, 468, 471 and 420 IPC and was released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and ordered to pay compensation of ! 15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand only), to the State under Section 5 of the said Act. It appears that she did not lay challenge against the impugned judgment of conviction/order of sentence dated 24.09.2001/1 2.10.2001.
5.A-2 to A-4, namely, Bhau Singh Chauhan, Kahana Singh and Balak Ram Negi, were convicted under Sections 120-B, 218, 468, 471 and 420 IPC and Section 5(2) of the PC Act and sentenced as under:-
“(i) rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
(ii) imprisonment for one year under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code;
(iii) rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code;
(iv) rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of six months offence under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code;
(v) rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months offence under Section 471 IPC; and
(vi) rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months offence under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947"
6.However, A-5, Gian Chand Sharma was acquitted.
7.Criminal Appeals No. 595 of 2001, 597 of 2001 and 613 of 2001 have been preferred by A-4, Balak Ram Negi, A-3, Kahana Singh and A-2, Bhau Singh Chauhan, respectively.
8.The factual matrix as emerges out of the record and as noticed by the learned Special Judge (Forest), is as follows:
9. PW-25 Shri Kundan Lal Ahuja made a complaint, Ext. PW1/A, dated 19.7.1985, to the Superintendent of Police, on the basis of which First Information Report, Ext. PW1/C, came to be registered in Police, Station South Zone Shimla and investigation ensued. It was found
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
