AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Surinder Singh, J.
Cr. MP(M) No. 836 of 2009.
Leave to appeal granted. Application stands disposed of.
Cr. Appeal No. 318 of 2009.
In Sessions Trial No. 15-S/7 of 2008, the respondent an IPS Officer of 1974 batch (HR-74), was charge-sheeted, tried and acquitted for the offences punishable u/s 420 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, by the learned Special Judge vide his detailed judgment dated 23.3.2009, on the challan filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Anti Corruption Unit-I New Delhi. Feeling aggrieved, CBI filed the present appeal challenging his acquittal. In the State of Haryana to its scheduled caste members, the rural evacuee land, used to be sold in restricted auctions to such persons possessing less than five acres of land so as to complete his maximum five standard acres. A successful bidder was also required to deposit 12.5% of the bid amount towards the earnest money on the fall of hammer while the balance in 15 half yearly interest-free instalments.
Under the aforesaid scheme, three plots measuring (i) 36 kanals 12 marlas, (ii) 40 kanals and (iii) 71 kanals 7 marlas, were put to the restricted auction on 1.4.1982 by the then Naib Tehsildar, Gurgaon.
(ii) In short, it is alleged that during the year 1982-84 the respondent, hereinafter to be referred as ''the accused'' while working as Superintendent of Police, Gurgaon dishonestly and fraudulently, got 20 acres of land situated in village Bidhwaka, purchased, in the name of one Joginder Singh son of Chanan Singh, resident of village Gurgaon, a non-existent person, through PW 5 Duli Chand, the then Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI), working under him, in the restricted auction meant for the members of the Scheduled Caste belonging to Haryana, possessing less than five standard acres of land, with a view to acquire the same in his name after ten years from the date of such purchase.
(iii) Further, in the year 1987, the accused while working as Deputy Director Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPR & D), New Delhi entered into a criminal conspiracy with S/Shri Bhim Singh, Nambardar of village Namauth, District Gurgaon and Pawan Sher Singh, resident of village Johlaka, District Gurgaon, fraudulently got this land in his name by way of lease executing a document on 11.5.1994 between him and said Shri Joginder Singh for a period of 90 years. The deed aforesaid was got registered with the Sub Registrar, Sohna on 19.5.1994 in the presence of Bhim Singh and Pawan Sher Singh aforesaid.
(iv) The investigation of the case revealed that when the accused was posted as S.P. Gurgaon and PW 5 Duli Chand, ASI working under him, on the instructions of the accused had participated in the auction of the above three plots in the name of Joginder Singh aforesaid and was a successful bidder. Thus sales of plots No. (ii) and (iii) aforesaid were confirmed by the Additional Settlement Officer on 9.7.1982, but the sale of plot No. (i) aforesaid could not be confirmed being less than the reserved price. Therefore, again on 4.2.1983 he gave highest bid, but still it fell short of revenue price and third time it was auctioned on 28.4.1983. The highest bid was again offered by Duli Chand ASI appearing for Joginder Singh, ultimately it was confirmed on 28.7.1983.
(v) The investigation also revealed that the entire correspondence regarding payment of half yearly instalments, and for possession warrants of the land were addressed by the Tehsildar (Sales), Gurgaon in the name of Shri Joginder Singh, though PW 5 Duli Chand, posted in Gurgaon, yet later he was transferred to Faridabad. Thereafter all the correspondence was sent to the office of SSP, Faridabad, but however, there was no direct correspondence with Joginder Singh on his given address.
(vi) Further the possession warrants of the above plots were also received by Duli Chand aforesaid on 2.6.1983 on behalf of Shri Joginder Singh, but the possession of the plots was not taken either by Joginder Singh or said Duli Chand, as the possession warrants allegedly got misplaced. Thereafter someone in the name of Joginder Singh is alleged to have applied vide three written requests one of which is Ext. PW 6/B for duplicate warrants of possession which was allowed by the Tehsildar concerned on 8.2.1985 and duplicate warrants issued on 16.4.1985, were allegedly received by one Devinder Singh Verma, the then Sub Inspector of CID, Haryana, who was posted as Reader to the accused. It is also the case of the prosecution that whenever the letters were issued in the name of Joginder Singh aforesaid from the office of Tehsildar (Sales) through Duli Chand ASI, posted in the office of SSP.
(vii) Faridabad for the overdue half yearly installments, those were not responded to. Ultimately on 19.9.1996 a letter through registered AD was sent directly to Joginder Singh on his address, i.e., Kothi No. 5, Sector 2-A, Chandigarh which was received by "N. Rai", mother of the accused.
(viii) During the investigation of the case above Devinder Singh Verma stated that relative of Smt. N. Rai by the name of Joginder Singh had signed the said sale certificates and he also repeatedly approached him to get the sale certificates from the office of Tehsildar (Sales). The investigation also revealed that the witnesses as well as the electoral roll of village Gurgaon proved that there was no such person by the name of Joginder Singh son of Chanan Singh, who had ever lived in village Gurgaon.
(ix) Further the lease deed dated 11.5.1994 qua the said plots inter se Joginder Singh and the accused was got registered with the Sub Registrar, Sohna on 19.5.1994 in the presence of witnesses Bhim Singh, Nambardar, village Nimauth and Pawan Sher Singh of village Johlaka, District Gurgaon, at the request of accused and they had denied that Joginder Singh had ever signed the aforesaid lease deed.
(x) It is also the case of the prosecution that Joginder Singh son of Chanan Singh resident of village Faridkot (Punjab) had been residing in House No. 5, Sector 2-A, Chandigarh, who had died in the accident on 19.5.1992, thus he could not have executed the sale deed in the year 1994.
(xi) The investigation further revealed that in the Annual Property Return (APR) for the year 1991-92 submitted by the accused in the office of DGP, Haryana vide letter dated 21.9.1999, had shown the possession of 20 acres of land on lease, which could not have been leased out in the year 1991-92, as per condition of the sale that too even before the execution of lease deed on 19.5.1994.
Conclusion of the investigation,
(xii) The result of the investigation of the CBI was that the above facts disclosed the commission of the above offences against the accused by abusing his official position as a public servant to obtain undue pecuniary advantage for himself, acquisition of the above property in the name of a non-existent person and subsequently transferring the same in his own name by way of a lease for a period of 90 years.
(xiii) The accused himself belonged to the Scheduled Caste community, but he could not have acquired these plots because of the fact that his wife Smt. Radhika Rai had already acquired 80 kanals of land equivalent to 5 standard acres in village Hasanpur, District Faridabad during December, 1981, in a restricted auction.
(xiv) Thus the sanction for prosecution was obtained against the accused and the challan was presented for his trial in the Court of Special Judge, Ambala.
Proceedings in Trial.
The accused was accordingly charge-sheeted for the offences aforesaid and the trial had commenced at Ambala. During trial at Ambala an application was moved by the CBI for cancellation of the bail of the accused precisely on the ground that he being the Additional Director General of Police (ADGP), Haryana, is trying to influence and intimidate the witnesses, as a result of which, out of 11 witnesses examined till then five witnesses, namely Duli Chand, Seema Singh, Zile Singh, Yogi Ram and Yashwinder Kataria, had turned hostile. But the application was dismissed. Thereafter CBI filed petition in the Supreme Court for the transfer of the case out of Haryana State, which was registered as Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 156 of 2008. Vide order dated 3.9.2008 on the concession of the learned Counsel for the parties, the case was transferred to the learned Special Court at Shimla. The learned Special Judge was directed to dispose of the case at an early date preferably within six months from the date of receipt of the record. In compliance of the said order the remaining witnesses were examined by the learned Special Judge, Shimla and the accused was also examined u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he admitted the following circumstances which were appearing against him:--
(i) Dev Raj, was a Head Clerk/Sub Inspector and PW 5 Duli Chand, ASI, working in the office of SSP, Gurgaon;
(ii) As per bio-data form Ext. PW 2/A, permanent address during the year 1991 to 1997 of the accused was House No. 5, Sector 2-A, Chandigarh and the address of his next kin Mrs. Radhika Rai, House No. 2163, Sector 35, Chandigarh;
(iii) He did not acquire any property in the year 1996-97, but however admitted having submitted the Annual Property Return (APR) for the year 1996 on 16.1.1997;
(iv) Admitted lease-deed Ext. PX (mark Ext. PW 6/E) with Joginder Singh and also having signed by both of them, while he was posted as Deputy Director BPR & D in the month of September, 1992; and
(v) He also admitted that the property situated in Sector 2-A was transferred on 8.9.61 in the name of his father Shri Yashwant Rai, who was Deputy Minister, Local Government Punjab, Chandigarh and after his death his property was transferred in the name of his legal heirs vide Ext. PW 13/B. He did not dispute the sale certificate Ext. PW 14/C in the name of his wife, which was issued by the Tehsildar, Faridabad qua the land measuring 80 kanals on 8.12.1981.
Defence of the Accused.
The stand taken by the accused has been that in the year 1992 he was Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIGP) posted in the Bureau of Police Research Development in the Ministry of Home Affairs on deputation for a period of five years. During this posting the Government of India awarded him President''s Police Medal and also sent him for a training course to the United States of America. Thereafter, in the year 1997 he was promoted as Inspector General of Police (IGP) and opted to remain on deputation when he was promoted and posted as Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO) in Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for a period of three years. According to him, at that time, Lt. Governor of Delhi was the Chairman of DDA and Chief Vigilance Commissioner of Government of India monitoring the working of all CVO''s in various Public Undertakings of Government of India. In the year 1998, the C.V.C. had conducted a meeting and asked CVO to conduct raids outside the office premises also. Accordingly on 15.6.1998, he conducted the raids on two properties bearing the address of one City for Institutional Area, New Delhi and second at Patel Nagar, Institutional Area. Both these properties were of Shri Dharamvir Khattar, a builder of Delhi. These properties were taken by him as Institutional Area land at a subsidized rate, but on inspection it was found that these were being run as commercial hotels. Thus, precisely he was made a target and a false case was foisted upon him being ''Balmiki'', a member of Scheduled Caste community and belonging to the political family and was also harassed by said Dharamvir Khattar. However, it is also his case that it was Joginder Singh Balmiki with whom the accused entered in the lease deed and not Joginder Singh ETO, the husband of PW 6. In defence, he tendered the documentary evidence.
Findings of the learned Special Judge.
The learned trial Court, after scanning the evidence, to be brief, came to the conclusion that PW 5 Duli Chand and Devinder Singh Verma, both were subordinate to the accused, who had taken active part in the sale of the land in question in favour of Joginder Singh son of Chanan Singh, resident of Gurgaon and some of the letters were addressed to Duli Chand by the Tehsildar (Sales) in the name of Joginder Singh son of Capt. Chanan Singh, Kothi No. 5, Sector 2-A, Chandigarh, which was owned by the father of the accused, who was also residing in the same building, but said Joginder Singh ETO, son of Chanan Singh aforesaid never took any part in the restricted auction, but, the prosecution failed to prove that the accused had conspired with PW 5 Duli Chand and Devinder Singh Verma as alleged to get the land in favour of Joginder Singh, a non-existent person. The learned Special Judge took adverse inference for not examining material witnesses, namely Sumer Khan Numberdar, Pehlad Chowkidar, Alyas son of Nasru, Ram Nath, Firoz Khan and some other officials of the office of Tehsildar (Sales), rendering the prosecution case a suspect. Further Bhim Singh, Nambardar and Pawan Sher Singh, the witnesses to the lease deed were neither impleaded as accused nor cited as prosecution witnesses. The origin of Annual Property Return (APR) Ext. PW 12/A6 was not duly proved as the original record on the basis of which it was sought to be proved through PW 12 Shri Dharam Pal was not produced, throwing doubt on its genuineness. Further that PW 5 Duli Chand testified that he acted and participated on behalf of Dev Raj (not examined), the then Head Clerk/ sub Inspector in the auction for Joginder Singh. The prosecution also failed to prove that Joginder Singh, Excise and Taxation Officer (ETO) used to reside in Kothi No. 5, Sector 2-A, Chandigarh, was not known to Dev Raj nor related to him in any way and he never manipulated or informed his address as found in the auction record/application. It was also observed that Joginder Singh son of Chanan Singh Balmiki by caste and was resident of Gurgaon, who was identified before the Registrar while registration of lease deed, in the presence of Babu Ram and Firoz Khan. If he was wrongly identified the said persons should have been made accused even they were not examined as prosecution witnesses. The learned Judge also took note of the fact that PW 10 Yogi Ram and PW 11 Yashwinder Kataria though turned hostile, yet stated that Joginder Singh Balmiki aforesaid had been residing in their village, but for the last about 10-15 years his whereabouts were not known,
5-A. Precisely, the case of the accused was that it was Joginder Singh Balmiki, the auction purchaser and the accused had taken the aforesaid plots from him on lease and not from Joginder Singh, E.T.O. the husband of PW 6 Sema Singh, who was a Majhabi Sikh. Thus, in the opinion of the learned trial Court there was no evidence to connect the accused with the offences charged; as such he was acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt.
Submissions before this Court.
Shri Sandeep Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, duly assisted by Shri Vivek Singh Attri, forcefully argued that the accused has admitted the lease from Joginder Singh, who is proved to be a nonexistent person, whereas another Joginder Singh, who was residing at Chandigarh in the property owned by the accused had already expired in the year 1992, therefore, there was no question to execute the lease-deed in his favour in the year 1994. He referred to the correspondence wherein the name of Joginder Singh is shown to have been residing at Chandigarh in the house of the father of the accused in Kothi No. 5, Sector 2-A, Chandigarh. Thus, communication was through PW 5 Duli Chand, ASI, who was subordinate to the accused, which shows the complicity of the accused with his illegal design and connection with the crime. It is also ventilated that the APR prior to. the lease deed showing the said plots in his name as lease property, whereas, lease was executed in the year 1994. It is also argued that the accused grabbed the aforesaid plots with the help of his subordinates by dodging the authorities and flouting the law, whereas he was not eligible for the said property, but manipulated its auction and lease deed even before the expiry of ten years in such a way that nobody could have even suspected him. It is also argued that proved circumstances on record fully connect the accused with the commission of offences charged and the learned trial Court wrongly disbelieved the said evidence. Therefore, there is material to convert the acquittal into conviction.
Contra, Shri Pawan Thakur while referring to the statements of PW 1, Chandgi Ram, PW 5 Duli Chand, PW 10 Yogi Ram, PW 11 Yashwinder Kataria, PW 26 K. Babu and PW 32 Babu Lal countered the above arguments that the case of the prosecution against the accused is not proved in accordance with law. According to him the statements of these witnesses conclusively prove that Joginder Singh Balmiki was in existence and Joginder Singh, husband of PW 6 Seema Singh was another person and a Majhabi Sikh. He had nothing to do with the property in question, though he was residing in the house and admittedly died in the year 1992 as alleged. He further submitted that initially the allotment in the name of Joginder Singh Balmiki was at the instance of Dev Raj who had instructed Duli Chand to bid for him, but Dev Raj was not examined. Further the lease deed executed by said Shri Joginder Singh Balmiki was registered before the Sub Registrar. It was witnessed by Nambardar and another witness referred above. None of them were examined as witnesses and the learned trial Judge rightly drew adverse inference. Further in view of relevant provisions of Registration Act and more particularly Section 60 thereof clearly proves that three lease deeds were presented by Joginder Singh before the Registrar who admitted its execution before the Registrar and having received the consideration amount attach strong presumption about the correctness of registration certificate and the facts mentioned therein and that there is no evidence to rebut it. Further, two views are possible from the evidence on record, therefore, the view in favour of the accused was rightly weighed by the learned trial Court in favour of the accused and there is no perversity in the impugned judgment of acquittal.
Findings By this Court.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and have carefully, cautiously scanned and reappraised the evidence on record.
It is well settled principle of law that suspicion however strong cannot take place the proof to sustain conviction. There must be legal evidence to connect the accused with the commission of offence.
No doubt, prima facie from the evidence, the prosecution has been able to create a strong suspicion regarding the conduct of the accused regarding his complicity with the alleged offences but in view of the above legal principle, the accused cannot be held guilty unless there is clinching evidence against him to prove his guilt. Therefore, I proceed to examine the legality of evidence led and its net conclusion.
PW 1 Chandgi Ram, Superintendent of Rehabilitation Department, stated about the procedure with respect to the conduct of the restricted auction by the Tehsildar (Sales) and its confirmation by the Settlement Officer (Sales). He categorically stated that all the particulars of the bidder are verified and only after verification such a bidder is allowed to participate in the bid of such an auction for evacuee agricultural land as per the Scheme. He further stated that scheduled caste certificate issued by the competent authority, photographs of the applicant and residential address are duly verified prior to allowing such person to participate in the auction. Finally, it is the Settlement Officer or the Additional Settlement Officer (Sales) empowered to reject/accept the sale.
Now the statement of PW 5 Duli Chand, ASI assumes importance. During the year 1981 to July, 1983 he was posted in the office of SSP, Gurgaon and admittedly accused was posted as SSP. He testified that he knew Dev Raj, Head Clerk/Sub Inspector working in his office. His brother Ram Rattan was posted as Naib Tehsildar (Sales), Gurgaon. Ram Rattan used to visit SSP office, Gurgaon to meet his brother Dev Raj. One day Dev Raj told him that Ram Rattan could be helpful in getting some land in auction meant for reserved categories. Since he also belonged to reserve category and had applied for some land to which he got in the year 1982 for a sum of Rs. 19,000/- but could not get its possession because said plot was involved in the civil litigation. Thereafter, he had received the bid money back from the Government. Duli Chand stated that Dev Raj never asked him to appear in auction at the behest of the accused nor the accused gave any chit to him in the name of Joginder Singh for participating in auction for him and on his behalf. This witness was declared hostile. Thus, he was confronted with his statement recorded during the investigation u/s 161 Cr.P.C., but in the cross-examination by the accused he admitted that the particulars of Joginder Singh son of Chanan Singh were given to him by Dev Raj, who remained posted in the office of SSP till his retirement in the year 1983 and must be personally known to him. Thus, trusting him, he participated in the auction on behalf of Joginder Singh son of Chanan Singh, resident of Gurgaon. He also stated that said Joginder Singh used to visit Dev Raj, but he was not personally known to him (PW 5).
PW 10 Yogi Ram is the member of the village Panchayat. He categorically stated that Joginder Singh Baimiki son of Chanan Singh was residing in his village, but for the last 10-15 years he was not known. He was also declared hostile and in the cross-examination by the accused he stated that he had seen Joginder Singh in the year 1981-82 and he had lived in the village for several years. He further stated that the total population of his village in the year 2000-2001 was about 35,000/-.
PW 11 is Yashwinder Kataria again a member Panchayat, residing in the same village since his birth. He deposed that Joginder Singh son of Chanan Singh Balmiki used to reside in the village, but he stated that there were several Joginder Singh residing in that village. He was also declared hostile by the prosecution.
Further PW 26 is K. Babu, Dy. S.P. CBI had partly investigated the case but during his investigation he did not reach any conclusion that the property in question had been sold in public auction to Joginder Singh son of Chanan Singh Baimiki. During investigation even he stated to have recorded the statement of Joginder Singh son of Chanan Singh Baimiki. Since these two statements were contradictory, the learned Public Prosecutor sought permission to re-examine this witness and it was then he stated that he did not record any statement of said Joginder Singh but due to error of memory he stated so. Pertinently, in the cross-examination by the accused he stated that this ambiguity came to light only on pointing out by the learned Public Prosecutor.
Be that as it may. The statement of PW 32 Shri Babu Lal, Naib Tehsildar is very crucial for the prosecution on which the learned Counsel for the accused has also heavily relied. He was Sub Registrar and empowered to register the documents under the Registration Act The sale certificates Ext. PW 32/A-1 to A-3 dated 11.8.1989 were admitted to have been issued by the Tehsildar (Sales), Gurgaon, which were presented for registration by Joginder Singh son of Chanan Singh, Harijan Balmiki, resident of Gurgaon, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. The said sale certificates were witnessed by Sri Ram, Nambardar and Firoz Khan. He admitted the registration of the aforesaid documents by him. He further stated that he personally knew Sri Ram, Nambardar, who identified Joginder Singh aforesaid and Firoz Khan. He also admitted his signatures and seal of the office on the said sale certificates. He also stated in cross-examination that he did not register any sale certificate under any pressure or influence.
Admittedly, though PWs 5, 10 and 11 had turned hostile to the prosecution, but the statement of PW 32 Babu Ram Sub-Registrar is enough to reject the prosecution case. Otherwise also, the testimonies of hostile witnesses cannot be thrown overboard. The same can be relied upon by either of the parties to the extent it helps to them. However, what is made out from these statements is that Joginder Singh son of Chanan Singh, resident of Gurgaon was a Scheduled Caste and his sub caste was Balmiki and was in existence, but his whereabouts were not known for the last 10-15 years from the date of examination of the witnesses in the Court in the year 2009. Even PW 26 Dy. S.P.K. Babu also stated having recorded his statement, though at the behest of the learned Public Prosecutor he took "U" turn. The matter does not end here but the statement of PW 32 Babu Lal is quite significant and cannot be ignored from its consideration. He testified to have registered the sale certificates aforesaid in favour of Joginder Singh Harijan Balmiki, who was identified by Sri Ram, Nambardar and Firoz Khan. These attesting witnesses were neither examined nor were made the accused alleging that they had wrongly identified the executant Joginder Singh Balmiki. The statement of this witness, more specifically when it has also been relied upon by the accused would bind the prosecution and his attestation when is proved to be in accordance with law, proves the following facts by legal presumption u/s 60 of the Registration Act:
(i) That Joginder Singh Balmiki presented the said documents before the Registrar for registration in person;
(ii) Before the registration, the said Registrar had enquired and satisfied about its execution;
(iii) The identity of Joginder Singh was not disputed; and
(iv) The Registrar had registered the documents and the registration certificate appended to the document issued by him admissible for the purpose of proving that the said sale certificates have been duly registered in the manner provided by the Registration Act and the facts mentioned therein in fact had accrued.
Thus, there is a strong presumption attached to the correctness of the sale certificates aforesaid certified that Joginder Singh Balmiki had appeared before the Sub Registrar and admitted about the registration of the said sale certificates, thus I do not find any other evidence to disbelieve the presumption attached to the registration of the sale certificates, also in the light of the fact that neither Nambardar nor another witness attesting of the sale certificates have been examined nor arrayed as accused. By not producing them in the witness-box, the learned trial Court had rightly drawn adverse inference for withholding the material witnesses, that if examined would have deposed against the prosecution.
Further the statement of PW 1 Chandgi Ram discussed above can also not to be ignored. He also stated that the particulars alongwith photographs of the bidder are duly verified and thereafter he is allowed to participate in the bid. But no such documents were shown the light of the day and there is no allegation that the accused was in league even with the auctioning authorized and managed to manipulate with him.
Further Joginder Singh son of Chanan Singh, who was a Majhabi Sikh and was posted as E.T.O., husband of PW 6 Seema Singh, though used to reside at Chandigarh in the house of the father of the accused, never took part in the restricted auction proceedings of the land in question. Even PW 6 his wife Seema Singh denied his signatures on the application for issuance of duplicate warrants and also on sale certificates aforesaid. Thus, this Joginder Singh son of Chanan Singh ETO, who was a ''Majhabi Sikh'' and appears to have no connection with the plots in question. Therefore, the evidence on record does probablise the defence that both these Joginder Singh were different persons.
Further, the prosecution also relied upon the voter list proved by PW 34 Attar Singh, Naib Tehsildar (Election) that the name of Joginder Singh son of Chanan Singh did not find mentioned as resident of Gurgaon, but this will not prove that no such person was residing in the village, whereas the witnesses, i.e., PWs 10 and 11 stated that Joginder Singh son of Chanan Singh Balmiki was residing in the village, but was not seen for the last about 10-15 years. Therefore, the voter list cannot be relied upon to establish the negative evidence; as such his statement is insignificant. Further, it has also come in evidence that the village is thickly populated having thousands of persons residing in the village. If some witnesses examined by the prosecution did not know about Joginder Singh Balmiki, it will not make any difference when some of them, more specifically Members Panchayat who were known to him stated about the existence of Joginder Singh Balmiki.
Since Dev Raj, Devinder Singh Verma had died, the prosecution was also handicapped to get their support to supply the missing links.
The next piece of evidence on which the prosecution relies upon, is the Annual Property Return Ext. PW 12/A-6, which is only a photocopy with respect to the declaration by the accused showing lessee of the plots in question, but these photocopies cannot be relied upon in absence of the original, when these have not been even prepared in the presence of PW 12 Shri Dharam Pal, who has been examined to prove the copy of the said document.
Therefore, for the aforestated reasons, the conspiracy as alleged inter se PW 5 Duli Chand, Devinder Singh Verma by making them as instrumental by the accused to get the plots aforesaid initially in the name of a non-existent person Joginder Singh and thereafter having transferred it in his name by illegal means stands not proved, according to the settled cannons of law. The findings of acquittal arrived at by the learned trial Court are borne out from the record. The accused could not be linked with the offences charged beyond reasonable doubt, as such, the appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.
The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him at any time during the proceedings of the case. Send down the records.