Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ramkaran on 21 April, 2025
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18594
1 MCRC-14881-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 21st OF APRIL, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 14881 of 2015
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
RAMKARAN AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Madhur Shukla - Government Advocate for the petitioner/State.
Shri Shobit Aditya - Advocate for the respondent No.1, 5, 6 & 7
Shri Utsarg Agrawal - Advocate for respondents No.2, 3 & 4.
Shri Vikalp Soni - Advocate for the respondent No.8.
ORDER
Per: Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh
Heard on admission.
This application under section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure has been filed by the State of M.P. through Economic Offence
Wing (E.O.W.) against judgment dated 27.12.2014 passed the Special Judge
(PC Act), Rewa in Special Case No.01/2008 whereby the
respondents/accused persons have been acquitted of the charges under
sections 120-B, 467, 468, 420 & 201 of the Indian Penal Code and
respondents/accused No.1 to 4 from charges under section 13(1)(d) read with
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18594
2 MCRC-14881-2015
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 05.9.2000 one Shri Dilip
Singh (Ex-counsellor of Janta Dal) and one Shri Rajendra Singh had made a
complaint to Dr.I.M.P. Verma (Member of Legislative Assembly) that one
Rameshwar Prasad Dwivedi s/o Dwarka Prasad Dwivedi was removed from
service on account of financial irregularities. Said Rameshwar Prasad
Dwivedi in collusion with revenue authorities and employees of revenue
Department managed to get the name of his grandfather (Ram Niranjan)
entered in the settlement revenue record of years 1923-24 or 1958-59 and
obtained copies of forged documents and thereby illegally obtained 'patta' of
government lands. In this way 35 acres of land of village Rathara and 08
acres of land of village Anantpur were grabbed and thereby he got
possession of lands of villages Chairaiya, Tatihara, Nounkala, Paati Mishran,
Hata, Lodi, Masurihakh, Sagrakala, Sagrakhurd, Aaha Bhati Muhaitha of
Tahsil Hanumana.
3. On the basis of such complaint made by Shri Rajendra Singh, the
then Deputy Collector made an enquiry and found the allegations levelled
therein to be true, therefore, directed the Economic Offences Wing, Bhopal
to enquire into matter. Consequently, a Complaint Case No.46/2000 was
registered and enquiry report was submitted. On the basis of said report the
EOW, Police Station, Bhopal registered Crime No.17/01 against the accused
persons for offences under sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 & 471 of Indian
Penal Code and sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18594
3 MCRC-14881-2015
4. Thus, the allegations against the accused persons in the present
case is that they forged the documents for false mutation in respect of
government lands in favour of accused-Ramesh Prasad Dwivedi & Rajkaran
in village Sagrakhurd. Likewise, the government lands of village Singati
were recorded in favour of accused-Chameli Devi by referring forged orders
of Revenue Cases No.54/A6A/94-95 and 76/A-74/99-2000 in collusion with
accused-Ramkaran (Patwari) and accused-Satish Neeraj (Naib Tahsildar,
Hanumana) who passed orders for want of jurisdiction to the decide the case
on account of lands involving pond, n a l a a n d bheeta. Similarly, the
government lands bearing Kh.Nos.227/3 & 227/4 of village Sagrakhurd were
recorded in favour of deceased accused-Jagdish and Baikunthnath by
preparing forged documents. Likewise, government lands bearing
Kh.No.187/1 of village Sagrakhurd mutated in favour deceased accused-
Umakant by forging documents on the basis of Revenue Case No.28/A-6-
A/96-97. In the same manner government lands bearing Kh.No.442, 443,
455, 499, 500 & 539 of village Singti was recorded in favour of deceased
accused-Padmaksh Prasad.
5. In essence, the allegations against accused persons is that they in
collusion with each other by misusing their official capacity conspired to
forge the revenue records by giving reference of false cases prepared by
them and illegally conferred benefit of mutation of government lands of
certain villages in favour of ineligible persons for personal financial gains.
Therefore, they have been implicated in the aforesaid crime for the offences
levelled against them. After registration of Crime the concerned Police
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18594
4 MCRC-14881-2015
authorities made investigation and filed charge-sheet in the competent Court.
Thereafter, all the accused persons abjured their guilt and hence, they were
subjected to trial before Special Judge (PC Act), Rewa.
6. The prosecution examined Dr.I.M.P. Verma as PW.2, Dilip Singh
(PW.3), Rajesh Kumar Pandey as PW.8, B.R.Bagri as PW.14 and Tahsildar
Hanumana Shri Kailash Chand Saxena as PW.21. The prosecution exhibited
various revenue documents in support of prosecution story.
7. The trial Court framed issue No.1 whether the accused persons
forged the documents of years between 1996-99 in respect of various
government lands of different villages of Tahsil Hanumana with a view of
defraud government and public at large and conspired to treat the same to be
true documents. The Issue No.2 relates to whether accused initiated
proceeding with intention to record government land of pond, Bheeta and
Nala in favour of accused persons (Rameshwar Dwivedi, Rajkaran, Chameili
Devi, Jagdish, Baikunthnath, Umakant & Padmaksh). Issue No.3 is whether
accused persons hatched criminal conspiracy for changing revenue entries
regarding lands with a view to commit fraud with government and public.
Issue No.4 framed is regarding whether the accused persons despite having
knowledge that documents have been forged by hatching criminal conspiracy
used the same with intention to treat them as genuine. Issue No.5 framed
relates to whether accused persons in criminal conspiracy have misplaced
concerned cases for giving 22.10 acres of government lands to ineligible
persons in settlement. Issue No.6 framed is whether accused-Shivcharan
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18594
5 MCRC-14881-2015
Verma being posted as record keeper of District Recordroom has destroyed
evidence by misplacing the cases after supplying copies of revenue records
with intention of forging the revenue records. Issue No.7 is regarding
whether accused-Satish Neeraj despite not having jurisdiction illegally
passed order inCase No.54/A-6-A/1994-95. Issue No.8 is whether the
accused persons, namely, Ramkaran, Jailal, Satish Neeraj & Shivcharan
Verma being public servant misused their posts and misconducted with
intention to confer benefit to accused persons.
8. Learned trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence available on record passed the impugned judgment and acquitted
the respondents/accused persons.
9. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment the State of Madhya
Pradesh has preferred instant leave to appeal on the grounds that finding of
learned Special Judge are perverse and contrary to facts and law. The trial
Court has not properly appreciated the material available on record.
Prosecution witnesses, namely, Kashi Prasad Dubey has supported the
prosecution story but the trial Court has given weightage to small
contradictions and omissions. The trial Court erred in disbelieving the
statement of Prosecution Witness No.2 made in paragraphs of 8, 10 & 14 of
his version. The statements of PW.4 & 5 have not been properly appreciated
by the trial Court. It ought to have discarded the evidence of Dilip Singh
(PW.3) who stated that there was forging of revenue documents, namely,
Khasra, Khatoni, Intkhab, Bandobast and Bhu Adhikar. The trial Court erred
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18594
6 MCRC-14881-2015
in believing the statements of defence witnesses as gospel truth.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that trial Court
erred in acquitting the accused persons inasmuch as there is sufficient
material on record to hold them guilty for offences in question as they in
collusion with each other just to give illegal benefit of government lands
recorded in the names of ineligible persons conspired and prepared forged
documents and passed orders referring to illegal revenue orders thereby
committed misuse of their official capacity for some personal financial gains.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/accused
persons have supported the impugned judgment and submitted that there is
no direct evidence connecting the accused persons with the alleged crime
and there are various material contradictions and omissions in the material
available on record.
12. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the record
of the trial Court. In paragraph 16 of the judgment the trial Court took note
of the aspect that Defence has examined complainant PW.2 & PW.3. The
complainant admitted that before making complaint they have not seen the
original revenue record. He stated Dilip Singh and Rajendra Singh had
shown him copies of Khasra and Khatoni. Whereas, PW.3 (Dilip Singh)
stated that local persons had seen photocopies through local residents. They
admitted they themselves not seen the settlement record of 1923-24 and
Khatoni of 1958-59. In para 17 it is mentioned that complaint (Exhibit-P/6)
does not enclose any important document of settlement of 1923-24 and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18594
7 MCRC-14881-2015
Khatoni of 1958-59. PW-3 (Dilip Singh) has not specifically stated in
statement in the case diary or before Court as to which accused person in
collusion which employee or officer and recorded false entries. This witness
admitted that despite allegation of forging of documents he has not tried to
see the original record. Dilip Singh stated in his statements accused persons
were found guilty of forging revenue documents of villages Rathara and
Saman by use of ink-remover and tearing of paper/record in collusion with
employees, Patwari, Tahsildar. The Court observed that present case is not
related with said villages but pertain to villages Singti, Tatehara and
Sagrakhurd. In paragraph 19 observation has been made regarding political
rivalry between complainant and accused party. In para 21 trial Court
observed that Prosecution Witness in cross-examination admitted that he had
not gone through the record. Thus, he has not enquired into the complaint
deeply but in a cursory way. He prepared report on the basis of reports of
Additional Collector and Tahsildar, Hanumana. In para 23 it is mentioned
that Inquiry Officer -Br.Bagri (PW.14) has based his report on the report of
Shri Kailash Chandra Saxena (PW.21). In para 24 trial Court took note of
aspect that PW.21 has found certain revenue cases to be false on the ground
that entry to that effect are not in the register or the same are not in the
record room. Merely not availability of the case in record room itself does
not lead to conclusion that case has been prepared falsely or same is a forged
case. In para 25 it is mentioned that Inquiry Officer has not collected any
information from the officers who have passed the orders. PW.21 did not
make any enquiry from the officers/employees who were posted at the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18594
8 MCRC-14881-2015
relevant time when entries were made on the basis of false cases. PW.21 has
submitted report without making exhaustive enquiry. On the basis of PW.14-
B.R.Bagri crime No.17/2001 has been registered. In para 32 the trial Court
stated that on examination of Prosecution Witnesses, Kailash Chandra
Saxena and Vinod Kumar have stated which totally counters the prosecution
story. On one hand prosecution is claiming that false cases were in existence
at the time of issuance of copies of document therein and on the other in
condition of issuance of copies they are challenging the existence of such
cases both the aspects are contrary. The trial Court also observed since the
prosecution has not declared these two witnesses as hostile, therefore, their
statements against prosecution story will prove fatal to the prosecution case.
13. In paragraph 36 the Defence produced Exhibit-D/3 which is an
order of Board of Revenue bearing Case No.2471-Do/2002 dated 28.4.2003
wherefrom it is clear that orders were passed in respect of Kh.No.104, 107 &
108 in favour of accused persons, namely, Rameshwar Prasad and Rajkaran
and order of SDO, Hanumana dated 16.5.2002 was set aside. Therefore,
allegation of prosecution that with a view to grab the government land false
cases have been prepared wherein orders have been passed contrary to law is
absolutely without any legal basis.
14. In paragraph 37 the trial Court took note of aspect that
prosecution has alleged case No.54/A-6-A/1994-95 and taken defence that it
has been done with a view to grab the government land and, therefore,
accused-Satish Neeraj despite not having jurisdiction passed an order. But on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18594
9 MCRC-14881-2015
the contrary prosecution itself has filed order relating to aforesaid case as
Exhibit-P/39 and list of documents filed therein as Exhibit-P/40. However,
one Deviknandan Pandey filed revision before Additional Collector, Rewa
u/s 50 of MPLRC wherein vide order dated 09.1.2009 (Exhibit-P/19) the
revision was dismissed and upheld order passed in aforesaid case
No.54/A6A/1994-95. Thus, it is clear that accused-Satish Neeraj has
complete jurisdiction to pass order. Accordingly, prosecution cannot take
defence that accused-Satish Neeraj had passed order without any
jurisdiction.
15. In para 38 the Defence has filed order dated 22.3.2012 passed by
Board of Revenue in Revision No.109/Do/11. By this order the revision filed
by accused-Rajkaran Pandey has been allowed and order of Tahsildar dated
29.8.1998 passed in Case No.30-A6A/1996-97 has been affirmed wherefrom
it is clear that it is in respect of certain lands of village Singti which also
include Survey No.499, of which, title of accused-Rajkaran Pandey has been
found to be proved. Hence, it cannot be said Case No.30/A-6-A/1996-97 is
false.
16. In paragraph 39 it is mentioned that by preparing false cases
being Cases No.8/A-6A/1995-96 and 28/A-6-A/1996-97 government lands
have been mutated in favour of accused persons, namely, Umakant, Jagdish
and Baikunthnath. Exhibit-D/8 is the order passed in Case No.28/A-6-
A/1996-97 and order-sheet (Exhibits-D/27) have been produced as evidence.
Defence filed certified copy of order dated 15/7/2014 of SDO in Appeal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18594
10 MCRC-14881-2015
No.52/A-6-A/2009-10 by which legal heirs of Jagdish Prasad and
Baikunthnath were held as land owners in respect of Kh.No.227/1 & 227/2.
According to prosecution over Survey No.227/1 and 227/2 accused persons
Jagdish and Baikunth in collusion with revenue employees mutated their
names illegally and such mutated lands are Khasrsa No.227/3 & 227/4.
Though order regarding mutation in respect of Kh.No.227/1 to 227/4 has not
been produced but from order of SDO it is clear that over Survey No.227/1
& 227/2 the higher Court has found the mutation to be valid. There is no
document on record showing that order Exhibit-D/8 passed in Case No.28/A-
6-A/1996-97 has been set aside.
17. In para 40 it has been held that there is no evidence that case
No.8/A-6-A/1995-96 is unavailable and order passed therein could have been
challenged, but the same was not done.
18. In para 41 it is observed that though it is alleged that in four
cases illegal orders have been passed but prosecution has not produced any
charge-sheet against such officers showing that they have filed illegal
orders. Order is also alleged to have been passed by Tahsildar, Hanumana
who has not been prosecuted in this case. Therefore, prosecution has failed to
prove that orders passed were forged.
19. In para 42 it has been observed by the trial Court from perusal of
orders it is reflected that government lands on which names of accused
persons, namely, Rameshwar, Chameli, Rajkaran, etc. are found recorded
their annual khatoni of year 1958-59 has been produced and khatoni of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18594
11 MCRC-14881-2015
previous years have also been prodcued which show recording of names of
ancestors of accused persons but no document or entries have been filed by
the prosecution after 1958-59 reflecting any alterations thereupon. Thus,
prosecution has totally failed to prove.
20. In para 3 the prosecution has failed to prove any interpolation,
alteration, or use of ink-remover in revenue records or forging of documents
by tearing of pages.
21. In para 44 the trial Court observed that prosecution has failed to
prove that accused persons, Ramkaran and Jaipal have made entries in
revenue documents in favour of private persons at their whims and facies. In
this regard original revenue records were produced and prosecution
witnesses have admitted that such entries have been made on the basis of
order passed in revenue cases. Thus, prosecution failed to prove illegality
with regard to entries in favour of accused persons, Rameshwar, Chameli,
Rajkaran, Baikunthnath, Jagdish Prasad, Umakant and Padmaksh.
22. Accordingly, the trial Court acquitted all the accused persons
from the chartges 120-B, 467, 468, 420 & 201 of IPC and acquitted accused
persons Ramkaran, Jailal, Satish Neeraj and Shivcharan from offences u/s
13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of PC Act.
23. Accused-Kashinath Dubey was made as an approver under
section 306 & 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vide order dated
24.1.2013 passed by the then Special Judge (SC Act), Rewa but a criminal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18594
12 MCRC-14881-2015
revision was filed against said order before the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh. According to order-sheet dated 17.9.2014 vide order dated
24.1.2015 passed in Criminal Revision No.739/2013 the order of the trial
Court making approver was set aside. On the basis of order passed by High
Court in said criminal revision the learned Special Judge (PC Act) vide order
dated 01.11.2014 dismissed the application under section 306 & 307 of
accused-Kashi Prasad Dubey and directed for conducting separate trial
against accused-Kashi Prasad Dubey.
24. From aforesaid analysis it is found that the trial Court has
considered each and every aspect of the matter and meticulously appreciated
the oral and documentary evidence on record and acquitted the all the
accused persons. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned
judgment. Hence, leave cannot be granted to the State.
25. Because there was no reliable oral and documentary evidence,
therefore, in Special Case No.01/2008 accused persons, namely, Ramkaran,
Jailal Prajapati, Satish Neeraj (Naib Tahsildar), Shivcharan Verma,
Rameshwar Prasad Dwivedi, Smt.Chameli Devi, Rajkaran Pandey,
Baikhunthnath, Umakant, Padmaksh Prasad and Jagdish Prasad were
acquitted by judgment dated 27.12.2014.
26. Accordingly, this application seeking leave to appeal stands
dismissed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18594
13 MCRC-14881-2015
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
RM
