State of Himachal Pradesh vs Vipin Kumar

Surjit Singh, Judge

State has appealed against the judgment dated 8th December, 2010, of learned Special Judge, Chamba, whereby respondent Vipin Kumar, who having been charged and tried alongwith deceased Ramesh Chaudhary, for offences, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, has been acquitted of the said charge.

A case was registered, vide FIR Ex. PW-14/A, against the present respondent Vipin Kumar as also deceased Ramesh Chaudhary, Naib Tehsildar-cum- Manager, Evacuee Property, on the basis of a report received from Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Dharamshala. As per FIR, evacuee property, measuring 21 bighas 10 biswas, with approximate value of `60,000/- , had been sold just for `15,000/- , by deceased Ramesh Chaudhary to respondent Vipin Kumar. So, the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance desired registration of a case against deceased Ramesh Chaudhary, Naib Tehsildar.

During the course of investigation the case, present respondent Vipin Kumar had also been found to be involved in the commission of the crime. Investigation revealed that deceased Ramesh Chaudhary, Naib Tehsildar-cum-Manager, had not deposited the sale amount of `15,000/- in the Government treasury, though he had issued sale certificate Ex. PW-2/D in favour of respondent Vipin Kumar. It was also found that there was no entry, regarding the deposit/payment of the amount of `15,000/- by respondent Vipin Kumar, in the treasury record.

Respondent Vipin Kumar and deceased Ramesh Chaudhary were challaned, on completion of the investigation and the learned Special Judge, after complying with the requirement of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hearing both the sides and examining the record, felt that a prima facie case, under the aforesaid provisions of the Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act, was made out against respondent Vipin Kumar and deceased Ramesh Chaudhary. They were charged accordingly. On their pleading not guilty, they were put on trial.

Prosecution examined a number of witnesses, besides proving certain documents. Evidence adduced by the prosecution is to the effect that sale certificate Ex. PW-2/D was issued, in respect of 21 bighas 10 biswas evacuee property, in favour of respondent Vipin Kumar by deceased Ramesh Chaudhary, after receiving a sum of `15,000/- and that he did not account for the aforesaid amount of `15,000/- . Also, there is evidence, indicating that the market value of the property referred to in Ex. PW-2/D was much higher than the amount of `15,000/- , for which it was sold. However, evidence adduced during the course of trial did not indicate that there was any conspiracy between deceased Ramesh Chaudhary and the present respondent. Consequently, trial Court acquitted the respondent. Ramesh Chaudhary had died, by the time the judgment was rendered by the trial Court and so the case as against him stood abated.

We have heard learned Assistant Advocate General as also Learned Counsel representing the respondent and gone through the record.

Learned Assistant Advocate General submits that there were instructions from the higher authorities, issued vide letter Ex. PW-3/A, to the effect that without permission of the Central Government, no evacuee property could have been sold and that though these instructions were issued in the year 1994 and were still prevalent, deceased Ramesh Chaudhary sold the land, in question, to respondent Vipin Kumar, without obtaining requisite permission. There is absolutely no evidence, indicating if respondent Vipin Kumar was in the know of the instructions, which were issued vide letter Ex. PW-3/B, in the year 1994, when he purchased the property.

It is prosecution''s own case that respondent Vipin Kumar paid the sale consideration, as mentioned in Ex. PW-2/D. Not only this, to one of the witnesses of the prosecution, namely PW-9 Santosh Kumar, who was cross-examined by the prosecution, with the leave of the Court, it was suggested by the learned Public Prosecutor that he had paid a sum of `60,000/- , which is higher than the market value of the property, in question, to deceased Ramesh Chaudhary, Naib Tehsildar, but the latter entered an amount of `15,000/- only in sale certificate Ex. PW-2/D.

Also, we do not find any evidence on record, indicating that respondent Vipin Kumar conspired with deceased Ramesh Chaudhary to purchase the property.

In view of the abovestated position, we see no merit in the present appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. However, looking to the facts and the circumstances of the case, particularly instructions, contained in letter dated 8th July, 1994, Ex. PW-3/B, competent authorities may take appropriate steps for cancellation of the sale of land made in favour of respondent Vipin Kumar, vide sale document Ex. PW-2/D. Appeal stands disposed of.