Ashok Kumar vs State of Haryana

M.L. Singhal, J.

This is Crl. Misc. No. 27518 of 1998 whereby Ashok Kumar and Manjit Singhpetitioners have prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to them in case FIR No. 160 dated 24.10.1997 registered under sections 409/420/467/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code and Ss. 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act at Police Station, Guhla.

The prosecution case in brief is that Government sanctioned a sum of Rs. 2,17,75,000/ for distribution amongst flood victims of 103 villages of Tehsil Guhla. Disbursement was made through cheques to the flood victims varying Rs. 2,000/ each to Rs. 4,000/ each. Disbursement was made to about 400 flood victims in villages namely Tatiana, Peedal and Kasaur. According to the complaint made to the Deputy Commissioner, the allegation against Ashok Kumarpetitioner No. 1 (who was patwari) was that he by wrongly entering in the survey list of damaged tubewells the names of Sri Krishan son of Shri Keeru and Jaila Ram son of Sadhu got the compensation amount distributed under No. 170 and 171 of APR whereas both the above persons were not the owners of land in village Peedal and Ashok Kumar Patwari embezzled the govt. money by getting compensation amount paid to wrong persons. Perusal of the record revealed that according to the survey list Sri Krishan son of Keeru and Jaila Ram had been given compensation amount by getting them enlisted at 170 and 171. Sh. Ashok Kumar, Patwari took the stand that both those persons were agriculturists of village Peedal according to the revenue record and produced copy of khasra girdawari in support of his submission. Perusal of the record revealed that Sri Krishan son of Keeru whose name was registered at Sr.No. 171 of APR was in possession of land Khasra bearing No. 116/9, 10, 11, 12, 13 as Pattedar and similarly the name of the Jaila Ram son of Sadhu Ram which was registered at No. 171 was in possession of land bearing Khasra No. 116/3, 4, 7, 8 as pettedar agriculturist. Ashok Kumari Patwari produced Mohinder Singh son of Rangi Ram owner of the land which was being cultivated by Krishan and Jaila on Patta. Mohinder Singh stated that tubewells were existing in their land which was being cultivated by Krishan and Jaila on patta and there was an agreement between them that tubewells were to be handed over back in the same position, these had been taken.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the landowners themselves admitted that the pattedars had rightly obtained compensation amount and they had no objection, it was improper to say that Ashok Kumar had emezzled the govt. money by getting compensation amount received in the names of wrong persons. Another allegation against Ashok Kumar Patwari was that he was shown to have handed over the cheques to Shri Indraj at Sr. Nos. 60, 106, Shri Mammu Ram at Sr.No. 155 and 158, Shri Subhash son of Bhuria at Sr.No. 48 of APR of Village Peedal. In the enquiry, Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Guhla found that these persons had not received the cheques. Similarly, regarding the persons at Sr. No. 140, 244, 214, 211, 153, 106, 139 and 149 who were shown to have received the cheques, it was found by the SDM, Guhla that these persons had not been handed over the cheques. The amount was embezzled by giving the cheques to some other persons in place of those persons. According to Ashok Kumar Patwari, Shri Rajinder Kumar of village Peedal was present before the cheques were distributed and Tehsildar himself distributed the cheques in village in open gathering of the village on the identification of Sarpanch, Lambardar and Deputy Sarpanch of the village. Shri Gian Parkash the then Tehsildar, Guhla also stated in his statement that those cheques were distributed in the presence of general public after identification by Sarpanch, Deputy Sarpanch and Lambardar. Sarpanch, Deputy Sarpanch and Lambardar admitted in their statements that cheques had been distributed in their presence on their identification. It was found that the cheques had been distributed by Sh. Gian Parkash Tehsildar, Guhla on the identification of Sarpanch, Deputy Sarpanch and Lambardar. Another allegation against Ashok Kumar Patwari was that he had not prepared the list of damaged tubewells according to the Govt. instructions, whereas according to the instructions verification by atleast two out of the Sarpanch of village, Deputy Sarpanch, Panches and Lambardar was must. On the survey list, he got verification done only from Deputy Chairman, Blaock Samiti, Cheeka. He thus embezzled govt. money by preparing documents in disregard of the instructions. On the perusal of the survey list, it was found that thumb impressions/signatures of Mohinder Singh, Deputy Sarpanch were existing. It was thus clear that the vetification was got done from two respectables people of the village which was in accord with the Govt. instructions. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that SDO (Civil), Kaithal did not find any of the allegations proved against Ashok Kumarpetitioner No. 1.

Manjit Singhpetitioner No. 2 was also posted as Patwari. Manbir Singh was also posted as Patwari. Bodh Raj was posted as Kanungo. Sh. Gian Parkash was posted as Tehsildar. A sum of Rs. 2,17,75,000/ was sanctioned for distribution amongst many flood victims at Guhla. According to the prosecution, they in connivance with each other misappropriated huge amount and instead of distributing it to the flood victims, distributed it to wrong persons on receipt of some consideration. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the amount was not distributed in cash but each claimant was issued cheque of the amount varying Rs. 2,000/ to Rs. 4,000/. It was submitted that possibility of embezzling the amount could not be there. It was submitted that in village Tatiana compensation was distributed to 150 persons through cheques. It was found that 60 persons out of 150 were not deserving. Those 60 persons were handed over the cheques in the presence of two Lambardars, Sarpanch of the village and other panches of the village, besides huge gathering of general public. Aforesaid respectables also put their signatures on relevant papers. Regarding village Kasaur, the allegation was that 8 persons who had been given comepnsation cheques did not belong to village Kasaur and were residents of village Agondh. These persons were although residents of village Agondh but they were in possession of the land situated in village Kasaur. They had suffered losses regarding the land they had taken on lease/theka in village Kasaur and the compensation was awarded in respect of the land. Before the Enquiry Officer, the owners of the land also placed on record, affidavits to the effect that the claimants were in possession of their land and they had no objection to their receiving compensation and further no graft had been paid to any official for obtaining cheques of compensation. The second allegation levelled regarding village Kasaur was that 20 persons who had been granted compensation for the collapse of their tubewells did not own any land. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that all the 20 persons were having in their names tubewells connections of electricity and Haryana State Electricity Board had issued passbooks meant for agriculture relating tubewell consumers to these persons.

Learned AAG on the other submitted that statements of various witnesses were recorded during enquiry which are to the effect that all of them including the petitioners forged the record and misappropriated the amount.

Learned counsel for the petitions submitted that Bodh Raj was allowed anticipatory bail by Hon''ble Mr. Justice S.C. Malte vide order dated 24.9.1998 in Crl. Misc. No. 23527M of 1998.

Payment was made through cheques and on identification. Case was registered in October 1997. Investigation in such cases is sometime a long drawn process. At the moment I feel that anticipatory bail should be allowed to the petitioners. So, it is ordered that in the event of their arrest, the Investigating Officer will call upon them to furnish bail. They shall join investigation. They shall keep joining investigation as per the direction of the Investigating Officer in writing. If during the course of investigation, Investigating Officer feels that their custody is necessary, he will apply to the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Kaithal, who will look to the pros and cons of the case and then decide whether custody of the accused is necessary and if he finds that the custody of the accused is necessary, anticipatory bail allowed to the petitioners shall be deemed to have been cancelled then.