Bombay High Court
The State Of Mah And Ors vs Sambhappa Trimbakappa Girwalkar And ... on 13 August, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:21898
{1} CRI APPEAL 506 OF 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 506 OF 2006
. The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Shivajinagar,
Latur, Dist.Latur. ....Appellant
Versus
1. Sambhappa Trimbakappa Girwalkar
Age: 72 years, Occu. : Advocate,
R/o. Shivchaya, Opp. To Panchayat Samiti,
Latur.
2. Shantveer Gangadhar Chaudhari
Age: 52 years, Occu.: Advocate,
R/o. Basveshwar Colony, Ausa Road,
Latur. .....Respondents
.....
APP for Appellant State : Mrs.D.S.Jape
Advocate for Respondents : Mr.Ajinkya Joshi h/f. Mr.S.V.Natu
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 07 AUGUST, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 13 AUGUST, 2025
JUDGMENT :
-
1. In this appeal, there is challenge by the State to the Judgment
and order of acquittal dated 15-04-2006 passed by learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Latur in R.C.C. No.232 of 2000.
{2} CRI APPEAL 506 OF 2006
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
2. In nutshell, present respondents (original accused) were
chargesheeted by Shivajinagar Police Station, Latur, alleging that they
have committed offence under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 511 read
with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as they indulged in cheating
the State Government by filing application under Section 28-A of the
Land Acquisition Act ((hereinafter referred as "the Act") on behalf of
one Ibrahim Rahim Pathan in spite of said person filing Reference
under Section 18 of the Act and having already stood beneficiary of
the compensation. Allegations are that both accused manufactured
documents and asserted claim for compensation even when they had
knowledge about said Ibrahim had received compensation as per law.
3. On receipt of complaint from PW1 Sanjay Anantrao Adhav,
Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO), investigation was carried
out and on its completion, both accused were chargesheeted and
tried before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur. During trial,
prosecution adduced evidence of in all five witnesses and relied on
documentary evidence. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate appreciated
the above evidence and ultimately reached to a finding that
prosecution failed to bring home any of the charges and finally
acquitted accused by judgment and order dated 15-04-2006.
{3} CRI APPEAL 506 OF 2006
Feeling aggrieved by the same, appellant State preferred
present appeal.
SUBMISSIONS
On behalf of appellant State :
4. On behalf of State, learned APP pointed out that the
Government of Maharashtra acquired lands of village Uti for Tavarja
Project i.e. by invoking provisions under Section 4 of the Act i.e. of
issuing notification then acquiring lands of several persons and
awarding compensation by the SLAO. Learned APP pointed out that
persons aggrieved by the quantum of compensation had also
preferred land references under Section 18 of the Act including
Ibrahim Rahim, who was also a resident of same village. His LAR
number was 74 of 1980 and in the same award was also passed.
5. Learned APP further pointed out that while scrutinizing the
process of disbursement of award, PW1 Adhav, who was acting was
SLAO, realized that respondents accused, who are lawyers, concealed
the fact of receipt of award under Section 18 of the Act and
moreover, filed proceedings under Section 28-A of the Act. This was
according to PW1 Adhav fraud tried to be played on the State
Government by manufacturing documents and moreover, without
consent and knowledge of Ibrahim Pathan.
{4} CRI APPEAL 506 OF 2006
6. Learned APP further submitted that on receipt of complaint
from PW1 Adhav, investigating machinery carried out thorough
investigation, which revealed commission of above offence and
therefore, both respondents were chargesheeted and tried. She
pointed out that, there was both oral as well as documentary
evidence on behalf prosecution, however, same has been improperly
appreciated and learned trial Court has erred in acquitting accused.
On behalf of respondents - accused :
7. In answered to above, learned counsel representing accused
respondents supported the judgment and order of acquittal and
prayed to dismiss the appeal.
SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF EVIDENCE IN TRIAL COURT
8. PW1 Sanjay Anantrao Adhav is Complainant. He in his
evidence at exh.35 deposed that, he scrutinized LAR No.402 of 1979
which was decided on 27-02-1986 and realized that Advocate
Chaudhary and Advocate Girvalkar had filed application under
Section 28-A contending that reference under Section18 has not been
filed. He further deposed that, it was noticed that in fact Ibrahim
Rahim on whose behalf both above accused acted and initiated
{5} CRI APPEAL 506 OF 2006
proceedings, had already filed claim for enhancement and it was
already decreed on 31-01-1987 and even decree was passed. In spite
of knowledge to that extent, above named accused Advocates filed
fresh claim under Section 28-A of the ACt for again availing the
benefits of compensation in Ibrahim Rahim's name, who had already
died, and therefore, he lodged report.
9. PW2 Rajjak Maheboob Pathan, resident of the village Uti,
deposed at exh.46 that, his lands in Gut No.18, 19, 28 and 32 were
acquired by the State Government, but as less compensation was
paid, he filed claim for enhancement. He deposed that his uncle
Ibrahim Rahim, who is now dead, had also sought compensation
through Advocates namely Inamdar and Manale. That, Advocates
Girvalkar and Chaudhari (accused herein) were never engaged and
no application under Section 28-A was authorized to be filed.
However, in examination-in-chief itself, he stated he does not know
how above two accused filed application for enhancement.
10. PW3 Ajam Rasulsab Pathan, a resident of same village Uti, also
deposed about his land being acquired along with land of Ibrahim
Rahim, who was his uncle and that he and his uncle filed claim for
{6} CRI APPEAL 506 OF 2006
enhancement of compensation through Advocate Inamdar and
Advocate Manale and that accused Advocates were not engaged for
further enhancement. He too denied signatures over exhibits 38 and
39 and is unable to state how said application reflects his name and
finally denied engaging accused.
11. PW4 Umrao Bashu Pathan, whose land was acquired for the
same project, also stated that he knew Ibrahim Rahim. That, he had
engaged Advocate Surayawanshi and Advocate Shinde for seeking
enhancement. He denied having engaged accused for enhancement
and denied giving thumb impression or signature over Vakalatnama
exhibits 38 and 39.
12. PW5 Ramesh Kallappa Kantewar is the Investigating Officer,
who carried out investigation and filed chargesheet.
13. All above witnesses are cross-examined by accused. Except
PW1 Adhav / informant, rest all witnesses seem to be also land
owners of the lands, which were acquired and they have
unanimously admitted about engaging respective Advocates of their
choice for seeking enhanced compensation and have in unison
{7} CRI APPEAL 506 OF 2006
denied engaging accused for further compensation. They have also
deposed about Ibrahim Rahim to be already dead. PW2 Rajjak and
PW3 Ajam seem to be very nephew of the Ibrahim Rahim and they
too have denied engaging accused. Therefore, the only evidence that
is required to be put to scrutiny to ascertain whether prosecution has
made out a case is that of PW1 Adhav.
14. This Court has already extracted the substance of examination-
in-chief of PW1 Adhav. Now, it would be desirable to also deal with
the cross-examination faced by him, which for ready reference is
reproduced as under:
"Application U/Sec. 28-A was filed on 11-4-1986 whereas
Judgment in L.A.R.No. 74/80 was delivered on 31-1-1987. S.T.
Manale was advocate of Ibrahim Rahim in L.A.R.No. 74/80.
L.A.R. No. 402/79 was decided on 27-2-86. It is not true to say
that a person is competent to file application U/Sec. 28-A of
L.A.Act when his claim filed U/Sec. 18 is pending in the
competent Court. The L.A.O. has to conduct scrutiny of the
application filed U/Sec. 28-A. The L.A.O. is competent to
dismiss the application if it is not tenable. The Dept. came to
know about filing application U/Sec. 28-A by Ibrahim Rahim on
11-4-86. Claim U/Sec.18 is to be filed before L.A.O. and then it
is forwarded to Civil Court. Register of claim filed U/Sec. 18 is
maintained. The L.A.O. office is represented by
{8} CRI APPEAL 506 OF 2006
Asstt.Govt.Pleader in the Court. The Dept. is having
communication of facts with D.G.P. Information about decision
in L.A.R. and execution filed on that decision is given to
L.A.Office. The application U/Sec. 28-A is/decided after scrutiny
of all documents. It is true that Ibrahim has received enhanced
compensation as per decree in L.A.R. 74/80 on 18-9-87. That
payment was sent by L.A.0.Office. Before making payment,
U/Sec. 28-A the L.A.O. has to ascertain the identity of claimant
through Talathi or any other competent person. I was not
knowing whether appeal was pending against the Judgment
and decree passed in L.A.R.No. 402/79. I presumed that
Ibrahim Rahim might have given information to Adv.Girvalkar
and Chaudhari about reference filed U/Sec. 18. Not true to say
that my presumption is false. I do not know that many people
filed application U/Sec.28-A, though they have filed claim
under Section 18 of L.A.Act. I do not know whether many
people were filed double applications U/Sec. 28-A. It is true that
many people filed application U/Sec. 28-A after decision of
L.A.R. No. 402/79. Petition U/Sec. 28-A filed by Ibrahim Rahim
was kept before Lok-Nyayalaya held on 31-1-99. At that time
Chandele was L.A.O. It is true that Girvalkar Advocate had filed
some representation before Collector in respect of Petition
U/Sec. 28-A, prior to and after to Lok-nyayalaya. Not true to say
that due to frequent representation by Shri Girvalkar, the then
Collector Shri Shukla was annoyed. Not true to say that to take
revenge of Shri Girvalkar he instigated me to file false case. Not
true to say that other L.A.O. were not ready to take action
against Girvalkar so I was specially appointed as L.A.O. Not true
to say that to defame Girvalkar, the Dept. has published news in
the newspaper. Not true to say that only to harass and to
{9} CRI APPEAL 506 OF 2006
defame Shri Girvalkar I filed false case. A letter dated 8-6-99 I
issued a letter to Collector to demanding funds. I do not know
whether in reply to that letter, Collector issued letter dated 17-
6-99. Not true to say that I have no authority or locus standi to
file complaint against accused. Not true to say that I have filed
false complaint. Not true to say that accused ware not having
intention to cheat Govt. Not true to say that accused acted
bonafidely and in good faith."
ANALYSIS
15. On carefully evaluating above evidence, it is emerging that
here, there is no dispute that lands of village Uti were acquired by
the State Government and award was declared by the SLAO, which
was taken exception to by the land owners including villagers,
deceased Ibrahim Rahim and PW2 Rajjak, PW3 Ajam, PW4 Umrao.
There is also no dispute that references have been filed under Section
18 of the Act. What is now required to be seen is that, as is the case
of prosecution, whether both accused with dishonest intention and in
spite of having knowledge about deceased Ibrahim Rahim beneficiary
of award under Section 18 of the Act, again at his instance,
deliberately to play fraud on the Government, filed proceedings
under Section 28-A of the Act.
16. In such backdrop, if the cross-examination reproduced above is
{10} CRI APPEAL 506 OF 2006
put to scrutiny, here it is emerging that witness PW1 Adhav, who has
set law into motion levelling above allegations, has merely
entertained a doubt. The manner of his admission in cross-
examination, clearly suggests that it was his mere presumption that
to play fraud on the Government, accused persons had asserted claim
for further award, in spite of knowing matter to be decided under
Section 18 of the Act. He has categorically used the word that he
was not knowing whether any appeal is pending against the
judgment and decree passed in LAR No.402 of 1979. He answered
that he merely "Presumed" that Ibrahim Rahim "might" have given
information to accused. He admitted that petition under Section
28-A of the Act at the instance of Ibrahim Rahim was kept before Lok
Adalat held on 31-01-1999. He also admitted that accused Advocate
Girwalkar filed representation before Collector both prior to and post
Lok Adalat. Rest is all denial.
17. Therefore, on complete re-appreciation of evidence, there is
nothing to hold that with dishonest intention from the inception
accused persons, in spite of having knowledge of proceedings
concluded under Section 18 of the Act, to play fraud on the
Government, they manufactured documents and by suppressing
{11} CRI APPEAL 506 OF 2006
previous proceedings, fresh proceedings for further compensation
were sought in the name of a dead person.
18. There is no evidence to suggest that accused persons had
knowledge or in spite of being aware of proceedings under Section
18 of the Act on behalf of deceased Ibrahim Khan had come to an
end and still they filed application under Section 28-A of the Act.
There is no evidence whatsoever with regard to fabrication or
manufacturing of false documents. Required ingredients for
attracting the charges are not available as very Investigating Officer
PW5 Kantewar has apparently not taken care in gathering sufficient
evidence to fortify or substantiate prosecution case.
19. When case was of filing application under Section 28-A of the
Act in spite of reference under Section 18 of the Act being decided,
there is mechanism provided under the Act for the Collectorate
Authorities to independently ascertain maintainability of proceedings
under above Section. No steps are taken by Collectorate Authorities,
rather PW1 Adhav, who is a SLAO, has merely entertained a doubt
and has directly instituted proceedings without there being any
substance in his so called apprehension.
{12} CRI APPEAL 506 OF 2006
20. Resultantly, there is no evidence on behalf of prosecution in
support of the charges. Essential ingredients for bringing home the
charges are patently missing. No fault can thus be found in the order
of acquittal passed by learned trial Court so as to interfere.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order :
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed.
( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE )
JUDGE
SPT
