Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs R.N.Sharma on 21 August, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
1 CRA-1061-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 21st OF AUGUST, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1061 of 2014
STATE OF M.P. THROUGH SPE (LOKAYUKT)
Versus
R.N. SHARMA AND OTHERS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Sushil Chandra Chaturvedi, Special Public Prosecutor for
appellant-Lokayukt.
Respondents No. 1 and 3 died./Status abated.
Shri Upendra Yadav, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
Shri Sooraj Bhan Lodhi, Advocate for respondents No. 3 and 5.
Shri Rajiv Budholiay, Advocate for respondent No. 6.
Shri V.D. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 7.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 06.08.2025
Delivered on : 21.08.2025
JUDGMENT
Appellant has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 378 of
Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "CrPC") being aggrieved by the
impugned judgment dated 25.03.2014 passed by Special Judge
(Prevention of Corruption Act), Shivpuri (M.P.) in Special Sessions Trial
No.01/2008, whereby respondents No. 3 to 6 have been acquitted from
charges under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention
of Corruption Act (in short "P.C. Act") and under Sections 420, 409, 467,
468, 471, 474 and 120-B of IPC and acquittal of respondent No. 2 under
Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of P.C. Act and also
2 CRA-1061-2014
enhancement of sentence regarding respondents No. 1, 2 and 7 with
adequate jail sentence under Section 409 of IPC.
2. During pendency of this criminal appeal, respondent No. 1 - R.N.
Sharma has died on 12.11.2024 and respondent No. 3 - Rajendra Prasad
Saxena has died on 21.04.2021, therefore, this criminal appeal stands
abated in respect of respondents No. 1 and 3.
3. Briefly stated facts of the prosecution are that Arvind Khare,
Inspector, Special Police Establishment (Lokayukt), Gwalior came to
know through reliable sources that land admeasuring 201.80 hectares
situated nearby village Kalothara, Tahsil Karera, District Shivpuri was
acquired by the Collector, Shivpuri on 30.03.1996 for ITBP, Police and
compensation amount of 80% was duly distributed. At that time,
absconding accused Umakant Singh Jadon and Yogendra Singh Jadon had
entered into agreement with a condition that they will provide huge
compensation to them and on the basis of said agreement, Umakant Singh
Jadon prepared 71 claim cases, which has been rejected by the then Land
Acquisition Officer, Shivpuri on 18.12.1996 on the ground that power of
attorney of 71 land owners has been forgedly prepared with malafide
intention to cheat them. On 01.05.2000, Court of Additional District
Judge, Shivpuri passed an order to enhance the amount of compensation
for three persons, which has been later on stayed by the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh Bench Gwalior. Even then, the then Dy. Collector
respondent No. 1 - R.N. Sharma has paid an amount of Rs.23,70,367/- for
five persons namely Ramjilal, Ishwariya, Vanshi, Savitri and Laksho to
broker Umakant Singh and Yogendra Singh. On the basis of aforesaid,
FIR (Ex.P-1) has been lodged at Crime No.84/2002 on 30.03.2002.
4. Brief facts of case of prosecution are further that during
3 CRA-1061-2014
investigation, statements of some farmers have been recorded and record
has been seized and on the basis of aforesaid, it has been revealed that
absconding co-accused and present co-accused Manish Verma in collision
with Dy. Collector L.S. Ken, co-accused R.N. Sharma and other co-
accused persons for obtaining compensation amount illegally got
executed agreement and power of attorney from some farmers with
malafide intention and Mahendra Singh Jadon got opened the account at
Shivpuri by stating false address and got cheques of compensation
amount of farmers in his name the then Land Acquisition Officer R.N.
Sharma and co-accused L.S. Ken have paid compensation amount of
Rs.17,23,568/- from January, 1996 to July, 1996 to the absconding co-
accused persons.
5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed
before the competent Court. The Trial Court has framed charges under
Sections 409, 418, 420, 467, 468, 477(a) and 120-B of IPC and Section
13(1)(d) and 13(2) of P.C. Act against respondent No. 1 - R.N. Sharma
(died) and charges under Sections 409, 420, 468, 120-B of IPC along with
Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of P.C. Act against co-accused
L.S. Ken and framed charges under Section 420/120-B against co-
accused Gayajeet Babar and Mahesh Kumar and charges under Section
120-B of IPC against co-accused Surendra Upadhyay and charges under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 474, 201 and 120-B of IPC against accused
Manish Verma.
6. All the accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded complete
innocence. Prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses, while defence
also examined some of the witnesses.
7. The Trial Court after appreciation of evidence convicted the
4 CRA-1061-2014
accused L.S. Ken and R.N. Sharma for offence under Section 409 (2
count) of IPC and sentenced 2 years RI with fine of Rs.10,000/-. Accused
R.N. Sharma has also been punished for offence under Section 13(1)(d)
and 13(2) of P.C. Act and sentenced one year RI with fine of Rs.5,000/-,
accused Manish Verma has been convicted for offence under Section 420
of IPC and sentenced 2 years RI with fine of Rs.10,000/-, other co-
accused persons have been acquitted from all the charges. Being
aggrieved by the aforesaid, appellant/State has preferred this criminal
appeal.
8. Appellant has preferred this criminal appeal on the ground that the
Trial Court has not duly appreciated the evidence available on record in a
proper manner. L.S. Ken was transferred to Chhattisgarh State, therefore,
no prosecution sanction is required regarding L.S. Ken. He placed
reliance upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prakash
Singh Badal and another Vs. State of Punjab and others reported in
(2007) 1 SCC 01. Rajendra Saxena was posted as a Clerk in the office of
Land Acquisition Officer, Shivpuri and right down the order-sheet as well
as arol patrak. He was found involved with criminal conspiracy with
other co-accused persons. Accused Gayajeet Babar also kept the Award
passed by the Commissioner illegally in his possession for the period of 4
days and during the said period, application has been filed for payment of
compensation amount before L.S. Ken, therefore, Gayajeet Babar,
Mahesh Bhargav, Surendra Upadhyay also actively participated in this
offence with co-accused persons with criminal conspiracy and misused
their position. The offence for corruption is a very dangerous offence
which is widely effected the society, hence, he prays that the respondents
No. 3 to 6 be convicted for the aforesaid offence and adequate
5 CRA-1061-2014
punishment be Awarded to the accused No. 1, 2 and 7.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7
opposed the prayer and prayed for its rejection with submission that no
evidence has been found against them in regard with aforesaid offence,
therefore, they do not deserve any punishment for the aforesaid offences.
10. Both the parties heard and perused the entire record with due care.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that in view of Section
16 of the Land Acquisition Act, no third party right could be confirmed
and all the documents of power of attorney contained that land owners are
in occupancy, ownership and possession of the land in question as
drafted, sealed and signed by respondent No. 7, thus, reflecting active
involvement and conspiracy aimed pecuniary gains of all the accused
persons. He placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Rajasthan Housing Board Vs. New Pink City Nirman
Sahkari Samiti Ltd. and another reported in (2015) 7 SCC 601.
12. So far as criminal conspiracy is concerned, Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Edmund S. Lyngdoh Vs. State of Meghalaya reported in
(2016) 15 SCC 572 has held as under:-
"33. To bring home the guilt of the criminal
conspiracy, prosecution should prove ; (i) that the
accused agreed to do or caused to be done an act that
was illegal or was to be done by illegal means; (ii) that
some overt act was done by one of the accused in
pursuance of the agreement. The essence of conspiracy
is that there should be an agreement between persons
to do one or other of the acts constituting the act under
Section 120B IPC........"
13. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Muhammad Jan Vs. Emperor
reported in AIR 1927 Lahore 746 observed that to convict a middle man,
6 CRA-1061-2014
who induced or cheated to a complainant under Section 420 of IPC, it is
necessary for prosecution to establish that he acted dishonestly and
fraudulently in the transaction but in the instant case, only Roshan Lal
(PW-6), Ramsevak (PW-7), Chhita Jatav (PW-8), Sheela Devi Sahu (PW-
21), Balveer (PW-22) and Rambabu (PW-23) have been examined by the
prosecution as farmers/claimants for the land acquisition proceedings,
other 65 beneficiary farmers were not examined before the Trial Court,
therefore, adverse inference can be drawn against prosecution for not
examination of the material witnesses before the Trial Court.
14. Allegations have also been levelled against respondents No. 1 to
7/accused persons for commitment of offence under Sections 467, 468
r/w 120-B of IPC, but the Trial Court has acquitted the respondents from
all the charges.
15. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that respondent has
contracted the beneficiary land owners on the pretext that they would
provide them enhanced compensation and employment to one of their
child and thus all the power of attorney contains a condition of
"instituting proceedings of land acquisition on their behalf" but no
proceedings have been initiated on their behalf before any forum. Thus,
creation of these documents shows ill will and malafide intention to cause
loss to the state and defraud the land owners being acted upon, therefore,
respondents/accused persons deserve to be convicted under all these
charges.
16. Although Roshan Lal (PW-6) deposed before the Trial Court that
his uncle Ishwariya did not execute the power of attorney before him and
Umakant along with Manish Verma, Yogendra and Mahendra came their
village in connection with compensation amount and they said that they
7 CRA-1061-2014
will provide employment for one person and also provide them enhanced
compensation. Ramsevak (PW-7) deposed that Manish Verma paid him
Rs.1500/- and also paid Rs.1500/- to his uncle Vrindavan. Apart from the
above, they did not get any amount of compensation, at that time, Manish
Verma obtained their signatures on power of attorney (Ex. P-7) and (Ex.
P-8) on the pretext of getting employment and payment of enhanced
compensation. Chhita Jatav (PW-8) also deposed that Manish Verma
along with Ravindra and other persons came their village and told them
that you should go to Karera, we will provide you compensation with a
service of one person, later on, obtained his signature in a paper and
amount of Rs.500/- has been deposited in their bank account. Apart from
the above, they did not get any other amount.
17. Majboot Singh (PW-19) also deposed that in the year 1995-96 his
agricultural land had been acquired by the ITBP and he had to get
compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-, but Government had given only Rs.2.5
lacs to him and rest of the amount was not paid to him. Advocate Manish,
Umakant and Mahendra came there from Gwalior and Notary has been
executed on the pretext of payment of amount for enhancement of
compensation amount. Similarly has been deposed by Sheela Devi Sahu
(PW-21), Balveer (PW-22), Rambabu Jatav (PW-23), but Roshanlal (PW-
6) in Para 2 of his cross-examination categorically admits that he stated
before the police that Manish Verma Advocate came there, but same has
not been found in his police statement (Ex. D-6). Similar contradictions
and omissions have been found in the statement of Ramsevak (PW-7)
with his police statement (Ex. P-7), Chhita Jatav (PW-8) with his police
statement (Ex. D-10), Sheela Devi Sahu (PW-21) with her police
statement (Ex. D-34), Balveer (PW-22) with his police statement (Ex. D-
8 CRA-1061-2014
35 and D-36), Rambabu Jatav (PW-23) with his police statement (Ex. D-
38). Apart from the above, all these witnesses did not depose that they
knew Manish Verma prior to the incident. No Test Identification Parade
has been conducted during the investigation and even before the Trial
Court, therefore, looking to the material contradictions and omissions in
the statements of aforesaid witnesses with their police statements, their
credibility and truthfulness appears to be very doubtful.
18. Respondents/accused persons in their accused statement denied to
sign these power of attorney, affidavits and other documents. Prosecution
did not examine any handwriting expert to prove the fact that signature
shown in the aforesaid document was done by the respondents/accused
persons, therefore, in absence of material expert evidence, prosecution
has failed to prove that all these documents were executed and signed by
the respondents/accused persons. It is also noteworthy that all these
power of attorney have never been cancelled. There is no evidence of any
handwriting expert regarding the fakeness and fabrication of all these
documents, therefore, prosecution has failed to prove that
respondents/accused persons have acted dishonestly and fraudulently in
the aforesaid transaction.
19. It is further to be remembered that all these power of attorney are
duly registered documents and same are never cancelled and in whose
favour, the power of attorney was executed, all those persons are still
absconding and no finding for fraudulently execution of documents has
been recorded against them. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon
the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan Housing Board
(Supra), but that case is based on the provisions of Rajasthan Land
Acquisition Act, but that State law is not applicable in the instant case.
9 CRA-1061-2014
20. The Supreme Court in the case of N. Raghavender Vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh, CBI reported in (2021) 18 SCC 70, dealing with the
applicability of Section 405 of the IPC has observed as under:-
"46. The entrustment of public property and
dishonest misappropriation or use thereof in the manner
illustrated under Section 405 are a sine qua non for
making an offence punishable under Section 409 IPC.
The expression "criminal breach of trust" is defined
under Section 405 IPC which provides, inter alia, that
whoever being in any manner entrusted with property or
with any dominion over a property, dishonestly
misappropriates or converts to his own use that
property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property
contrary to law, or in violation of any law prescribing
the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or
contravenes any legal contract, express or implied, etc.
shall be held to have committed criminal breach of trust.
Hence, to attract Section 405 IPC, the following
ingredients must be satisfied:
46.1. Entrusting any person with property or
with any dominion over property.
46.2. That person has dishonestly
misappropriated or converted that property to his
own use.
46.3. Or that person is dishonestly using or
disposing of that property or wilfully suffering any
other person so to do in violation of any direction of
law or a legal contract.'
21. It ought to be noted that the crucial word used in Section 405 IPC
is 'dishonestly' and therefore, it pre-supposes the existence of mens rea. In
other words, mere retention of property entrusted to a person without any
misappropriation cannot fall within the ambit of criminal breach of trust.
Unless there is some actual use by the accused in violation of law or
contract, coupled with dishonest intention, there is no criminal breach of
trust. The second significant expression is 'mis-appropriates' which means
10 CRA-1061-2014
improperly setting apart for ones use and to the exclusion of the owner.
22. It cannot be ignored that these power of attorney have been
executed and action has been done on the basis of power of attorney.
Nothing is available on record to show that these power of attorney are
fake document, therefore, the power of attorney are legal authority given
by the land owners. There is no evidence to show that the respondent had
knowledge of the fact that the power of attorney, affidavits were got
executed by their executant in any fraudulently or dishonest manner.
Therefore, under this circumstance, distribution of compensation amount
to the beneficiary farmers through power of attorney holders in the lack
of proof of dishonest intention would not constitute an offence under
Section 409 of IPC.
23. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hira Lal Panna Lal Mahi Vs.
State of Gujarat (SC), reported in 1969 CAR (SC) 204 in para 6 of the
judgment, observed as under:
"We have gone through the reasoning of the High
Court in this regard. It has acquitted the appellant of the
offence under Section 471, IPC on the specific finding
that on the evidence it is difficult to come to the
conclusion that the appellant knew or even had reason
to believe that the licence in question, Exhibit 48, bore a
forged signature of the officer Mr. Pillania. The High
Court also is of the view that the appellant's guilt or
otherwise under Section 420, IPC will have to be
considered only with reference to the licence Exhibit 48
given to the witness Rajaji. Prima facie, we are inclined
to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant that when once the conviction of the appellant
under Section 471, IPC has been set aside, the High
Court was not justified in convicting him under Section
420, IPC. We have also gone through the evidence of
Rajaji, Exhibit 47 and his evidence does not establish
any false representation having been made by the
11 CRA-1061-2014
appellant. On the other hand it is clear that Rajaji must
have been well aware that he will not get a valid licence
for driving motor vehicles. He has not gone to Pali and
he has also failed in the driving test at Ahmedabad.
Therefore, there is no question of the appellant having
cheated Rajaji so as to be liable under Section 420,
IPC."
24. The High Court of Gujarat relying upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Hira Lal Panna Lal Mahi (Supra) also observed in
the case of Arvind Balashanker Joshi Vs. State of Gujarat reported in
1990 SCC Online Guj 64 held as under:-
"13......Once the accused is acquitted/exonerated
from the charge under Section 468 of the I.P.C., in my
view, he cannot be convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 471 of the I.P.C. When accused-petitioner
cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 471 of the I.P. Code, in view of the observations
made by the Supreme Court in the case of Hira Lal
Panna Lal (supra), he cannot be convicted for the
offence punishable under Section 420 of the I.P.C. As
stated above, when accused is acquitted of the offence
under Section 468 of the I.P.C. he cannot be convicted
for the offence punishable under Section 471 of the
I.P.C.; unless there is direct and independent evidence
irrespective of circumstantial evidence............"
25. In view of the above settled legal position, this Court is of the
considered opinion that respondent - L.S. Ken has rightly been acquitted
for offence under Sections 420, 468, 120-B of IPC and Section 13(1)(d)
read with Section 13(2) of P.C. Act on the similar set of evidence. There
is no direct or indirect evidence in respect of the circumstantial evidence
on record to prove that the respondent was involved in the aforesaid
transaction as a middle man and forged the power of attorney and
affidavit with intention to cheat the beneficiary, therefore, respondent -
12 CRA-1061-2014
L.S. Ken cannot be convicted for offence under Section 409 of IPC.
26. This Court also constrained to observe that in this case, the
Investigating Agency has adopted a casual and callous approach. The
resultant effect is that though there is mere a strong suspicion of criminal
breach of trust against the respondent, but such suspicion falls short of a
conclusive proof to hold him guilty of the criminal charge. The best
evidence having been withheld by the prosecution, the benefit of doubt
must be extended to the respondent, for no conviction can be sustained on
the basis of conjectures and surmises. Non-production of the material
evidence regarding fabrication of documents also adversely effects the
reliability of investigation conducted in the instant case.
27. So far as allegation levelled against respondent No. 4/accused
Gayajeet Babar is concerned, charges under Section 420 read with 120B
of IPC have been framed against him, but Investigating Officer Harnam
Singh (PW-37) in para 40 of his cross examination admits that the
accused Gayajeet Babar has been made accused on the basis of that he
has retained the Award passed by the Commissioner for 4 days without
any satisfactory explanation, but it is mere a presumption. Prosecution did
not produce any evidence regarding involvement of the
respondent/accused Gayajeet Babar with other co-accused persons with
malafide, dishonest and fraudulent intention, therefore, in absence of
material evidence, prosecution has failed to prove the aforesaid charges
against respondent No. 4 - Gayajeet Babar.
28. So far as the allegation levelled against respondent No. 5 - Mahesh
Kumar Bhargava is concerned, he has prepared note-sheet and all other
documents relating with accounts in compliance of order issued by higher
officials, but there is no evidence available on record reflecting any active
13 CRA-1061-2014
involvement and conspiracy aimed pecuniary gains to the respondent
Mahesh Kumar Bhargava, therefore, the Trial Court has rightly acquitted
the respondent No. 5 - Mahesh Kumar Bhargava from the charges under
Section 420 read with Section 120-B of IPC.
29. So far as the charges against respondent No. 6 - Suresh Upadhyay
is concerned, he has been involved in the matter only on one ground that
he has opened the Bank account of the absconded accused persons and
identified Umakant, but Investigation Officer Harnam Singh (PW-37) in
Para 37 of his cross-examination admits that Umakant was rightly
identified, but he has written his wrong address, therefore, identify of
Umakant is not disputed and from opening of the account of absconded
co-accused cannot be considered as a conspiracy aimed on pecuniary
gains to the respondent No. 6 - Suresh Upadhyay. Apart from the above,
respondents L.S. Ken and R.N. Sharma have been acquitted from the
charges under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of P.C. Act. Respondent -
R.N. Sharma has died and this appeal against him has been abated,
therefore, there is no need for any elaborate discussion regarding
participation of deceased respondent R.N. Sharma in the instant case.
30. It is noteworthy that at the time of filing the charge-sheet, services
of L.S. Ken has been transferred to Chhattisgarh State, but as per
provisions of Section 19(2) of P.C. Act, no prior sanction for prosecution
has been obtained from concerned State, therefore, in absence of prior
sanction, respondent/accused L.S. Ken has been rightly acquitted from
the charges under Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of P.C. Act.
31. Therefore, considering the evidence available on record as well as
cogent reasons assigned by the Trial Court for acquittal of respondents
No. 2 to 7, this Court is of the considered opinion that neither reasons
14 CRA-1061-2014
assigned by the Trial Court are unreasonable nor perverse nor
unsustainable. Evidence of beneficiary farmers, Roshanlal (PW-6),
Ramsevak (PW-7), Chhita Jatav (PW-8), Majboot Singh (PW-19), Sheela
Devi (PW-21), Balveer (PW-22) and Rambabu (PW-23) have been
scrutinized minutely and from their evidence, prosecution has failed to
prove that respondents No. 2 to 7 hatched criminal conspiracy with other
co-accused persons and had fraudulently and dishonestly misused their
official position as a Government Servant. Prime accused Umakant and
others are still absconding and similarly on the basis of conjectures and
surmises, prosecution utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt against respondents No. 2 to 7, therefore, this Court is of the
considered view that the Trial Court has not committed any illegality in
recording such findings and this Court does not find any scope of
interference therein. Even looking to the evidence of aforesaid witnesses,
findings of acquittal cannot be reversed by this Court and no case is made
out for enhancement of sentence in respect of respondents No. 1, 2 & 7.
32. Thus, considering the aforesaid infirmities in the prosecution case,
this Court find no merits in this appeal, therefore, the judgment of
acquittal dated 25.03.2014 passed by Special Judge (Prevention of
Corruption Act), Shivpuri in Special Sessions Trial No.01/2008 is hereby
affirmed.
33. Accordingly, this criminal appeal under Section 378 of CrPC is
hereby dismissed.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
Abhi
