http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 7

CASE NO.:

Appeal (crl.) 1188 of 2001

PETITIONER:

PRITISH

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/11/2001

BENCH:

K.T. Thomas, S.N. Phukan & Y.K. Sabharwal

JUDGMENT:

THOMAS, J.

Leave granted.

Appellant who scored substantially in a land

acquisition proceeding is now facing rough weather as he is

arraigned in a criminal proceeding on account of certain

documents he produced as evidence. The court which granted

a quantum leap in awarding compensation to the land owners

later found that they had used forged documents for

inveigling such a bumper gain as compensation and hence the

court ordered some of the claimants to face prosecution

proceedings in a criminal court. The only point now

convassed by the appellant is that the court should have

heard the appellant before ordering such prosecution. The

said plea raised by the appellant before the High Court was

repelled as per the impugned judgment. Hence this appeal

by special leave.

An area of 3.9 acres of land was acquired by the State

Government for construction of a canal under Arunwati

Project in 1985. The land acquisition officer awarded a

total of Rs.24,000/- as compensation for the entire land.

As the owners were not satisfied with the said award they

moved for a reference under Section 18 of the Land

Acquisition Act. The reference court (which is a civil

court) on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties made

a big leap by enhancing the compensation amount from Rupees

twenty four thousand to Rupees ten lakhs thirty thousand,

besides the other benefits such as solatium, additional

compensation and interest as provided in Section 23 of the

Land Acquisition Act. The reference court passed the award

granting the said enhancement on 23.4.1993. Appellant was

one of the beneficiaries of the said award and the

enhancement was made on the basis of the evidence adduced

by the parties including the appellant. Though the

claimants expressed dissatisfaction even with such

enhancement and moved the High Court for further

enhancement the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by

them in 1993.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 7

In 1995, some persons of the locality brought to the

notice of the reference court that the claimants had

wangled a whopping enhancement after playing chicanery on

the court by producing forged copies of sale deeds for

supporting their claim for enhancement. The documents

marked by the reference court as Exts.31, 32 and 35 were

fabricated copies of sale deeds in which the extent of the

lands sold had been shown as far less than the real area

transferred as per the instruments of sale, according to

those persons.

The reference court conducted an inquiry on being told

by the aforesaid applicants that the above mentioned

documents are forged. The court got down the relevant

records from the Sub-Registry for the purpose of examining

the correctness of the aforesaid three documents and found

that they were fabricated copies of the original sale

deeds. The said court further found that appellant and one

Rajkumar Anandrao Gulhane have committed offences affecting

the administration of justice by using forged documents.

The court then passed the following order:

Therefore, it is expedient in the ends of

justice on my part to file the complaint in

writing against them before Judicial

Magistrate of First Class having

jurisdiction to take appropriate and proper

criminal action against them, as it appears

that they have not only cheated the public

at large and government but have misguided

or tried to misguide my learned predecessor

by preparing and producing false documentary

evidence as well as by giving false oral

evidence just to have a wrongful gain.

The persons who moved the court for taking action

under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for

short the Code) by bringing the above fa