Abdul Rashid Khan vs State
2022 Latest Caselaw 5546 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 165/1985

Abdul Rashid Khan Son of Hafij Abdul Khan, aged about 60
years, Musalman, resident of Tonk, (Died) Now Represented By
Miss. Shafiquinissa daughter of Abdul Rashid Khan, resident of
Tonk, Rajasthan.
                                                                   ----Appellant
                                    Versus
The State of Rajasthan
                                                                 ----Respondent

For Appellant(s)          :     Mr. Nitin Jain, Adv.
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mahala, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order

ORDER RESERVED ON :: 25.07.2022

ORDER PRONOUNCED ON :: 05.08.2022

Appellant has filed the appeal challenging the judgment &

order dated 15.03.1985 passed by Special Judge, ACD Cases,

Jaipur in Special Criminal Case No.60/1977, whereby appellant

was convicted and sentenced for the offence(s) punishable under

Sections 465, 120-B IPC and Section 5 (1)(d)(2) Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1947 as follows:-

u/s 465 IPC - Six months rigorous imprisonment.

U/s 120B IPC - Six months rigorous imprisonment.

U/s 5 (1)(d)(2) Prevention of Corruption Act - Sentenced to one

year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.200/-;

in default of payment thereof, to further undergo

one month rigorous imprisonment.

Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2 of 4) [CRLA-165/1985]

Prosecution story, in brief, is that Collector, Tonk sent a copy

of order passed by him in a revenue suit for initiating the criminal

proceedings against Ratanlal Patwari, Abdul Rashid Khan Girdavar

(appellant) and Guljarilal. In report Collector stated that these

persons had conspired to make a false mutation about a piece of

land measuring 49 bighas 8 biswas Khasra No.236/576 and

278/578. The above mentioned land was in the name of Abdul

Rauf and he had no son but after his death the mutation was

entered in the name of Sharif Khan. After some years, again

mutation of said land was mutated in the name of Chhoteylal,

younger brother of Ratanlal Patwari and minor sons of Abdul

Rashid Khan.

After completion of investigation and necessary formalities,

challan was presented against the appellant and co-accused

Ratanlal.

Charges were framed against the appellant and co-accused

under Sections 465, 120B IPC and Section 5 (1) (d) read with

Section 5 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act.

During pendency of appeal, appellant was died and legal

representatives of the appellant Abdul Rashid Khan was allowed to

pursue the appeal vide order dated 01.04.2019 and amended

cause title was taken on record.

In order to prove its case, during trial, prosecution examined

18 witnesses. Appellant was examined under Section 313 Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 prayed that he was innocent and had

been falsely involved in the case. Appellant had not examined any

witness in his defence.

Trial court vide judgment and order dated 15.03.1985,

ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant under

(3 of 4) [CRLA-165/1985]

Sections 465, 120B IPC and Section 5 (1)(d) read with Section 5

(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Hence, the present appeal

by the appellant.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the trial

court had erred in ordering the conviction and sentence of the

appellant and also submitted that trial court had not read the

prosecution evidence in right perspective. Learned counsel for the

appellant also submitted that there was no complaint lodged by

the deceased of Abdul Rauf and collector had no power to lodge

the FIR. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that

collector could initiate inquiry under Section 195 Cr.P.C. and then

proceed. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that

evidence of prosecution is wholly inconsistent. There is no

evidence on record that appellant had created false documents for

the mutation. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted

that after investigation, no offence was found against Guljarilal.

Allegation against the appellant is that appellant had only

compared the entries of the mutation. The entries of the mutation

was done by Guljarilal. Learned counsel for the appellant also

submitted that evidence of Abdul Wahab is not helpful or relevant

in this case. Evidence of PW-2 K.L. Kochar did not help the

prosecution case. Only on the basis of comparison no offence is

proved against the appellant. So, the appellant be acquitted.

Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon

the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Perumal

Vs. Janaki reported in (2014) 5 SCC 377.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the arguments

advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that

prosecution has proved the case beyond the reasonable doubt

(4 of 4) [CRLA-165/1985]

because it is an admitted position that deceased Abdul Rauf had

no son and appellant & co-accused had created a forged

documents for the mutation in the name of Sharif Khan and

further appellant mutated that part of the land in the name of his

minor son. So, trial court rightly convicted the appellant, so, the

appeal is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.

After perusing the judgment of learned trial court and

considering the oral and documentary evidence, I do not see any

legal or other grounds to interfere with the findings of the Court

below. Therefore, learned trial court had not committed any

illegality and infirmity in convicting the appellant accused.

In my considered opinion that the judgment and order of the

learned trial court does not suffer from infirmity and illegality. The

appeal devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Jatin/01

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)