1( 2018:HHC:1237 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 237 of 2009 Reserved on: 08.07.2025 Date of Decision: 28.07.2025. Surinder Pal ...Appellant Versus State of H.P. ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate For the Respondent-State: Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.07.2009, passed by learned Special Judge (Sessions Judge), Una, HP (learned Trial Court) vide which the appellant (accused No.4 before the learned Trial Court) was convicted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 218, 420 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2( 2018:HHC:1237 ) Code (IPC) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, pay a fine of ₹1,000/- for the commission of aforesaid offences and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month on each count. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.) 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a challan before the learned Trial Court against the accused and other persons for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 218, and 420 of Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 (PC Act). It was asserted that Rajmani Tripathi (since deceased) was posted as Deputy Commissioner, Una in 1986. He had adopted one daughter, who was married to Sham Sunder Sharma in November 1989. The accused Rajmani purchased the land in the name of his daughter from Joginder Singh for a price much less than the market value. Joginder Singh filed an application for the exchange of his land for government land. The accused Rajmani Tripathi forwarded the application to Naib Tehsildar, Haroli, bypassing the S.D.M. and the Tehsildar. Durga Dutt (accused No.2) was working as Naib Tehsildar. Mansa Ram 3( 2018:HHC:1237 ) (accused No.3) was working as a Field Kanungo, and Surinder Pal (accused No.4/appellant) was working as a Patwari. All the accused manipulated a report (Ext.PW26/B) to favour Joginder Singh and compensate him for the loss caused in the sale deed executed in favour of Rajmani Tripathi’s daughter. Surinder Pal (Accused No.4) assessed the value of the government land as 62¼ Annas and the land of Joginder Singh as 124¾ Annas. This exchange was sanctioned by the accused Rajmani Tripathi, even though the government had banned the exchange of land. Subsequently, the villagers objected to the exchange because they had grazing rights on the government land. The exchange was set aside by the Financial Commissioner. The matter was reported to the police, and FIR (Ext.PW36/A) was registered. It was found that trees worth ₹1,50,418/- existed on the government land. The trees worth ₹32,540/- existed on the land of Joginder Singh. The land of Joginder Singh was of inferior quality and was located far away from the main village, whereas the land of the government was located adjacent to the road. The accused Surinder Pal had caused a loss to the government and a gain to Joginder Singh by preparing a wrong report. The documents were collected. Statements of witnesses were recorded, and after completion 4( 2018:HHC:1237 ) of the investigation and obtaining the prosecution sanction, the charge sheet was filed before the learned Trial Court. 3. The learned Trial Court charged the accused with the commission of offences punishable under Section 218 and 420 read with Section 120 B of IPC and Section 13(2) of P.C. Act, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution examined 49 witnesses to prove its case. Jagat Ram (PW1) counted the trees on the government land and estimated their value. Vinod Kumar Patwari (PW2) produced the record. Ranvir Singh (PW3) applied for the cancellation of the allotments. Jagiri Lal (PW-4) protested the exchange of the land in favour of Rajmani. Hari Dass Patwari (PW-5) put up a note regarding the exchange of land. Sher Singh (PW-6) demarcated the land. Ashok Kumar (PW-7) proved the handwriting and signatures of Rajmani Tripathi. Dev Raj (PW-8) produced the receipt register., Sanjay Kumar (PW-9) produced the tour programme of DD Sharma. Baldev Chand (PW-10) dispatched the application of Joginder Singh. Ashok Kumar (PW-11) brought the summoned record. Joginder Lal (PW-12) produced the Notification regarding the exchange of land. Onkar Singh (PW-13) produced the copies of registered deeds. Hari Dass (PW-14) produced the dispatch register. 5( 2018:HHC:1237 ) Bhupnesh Chander (PW-15) handed over the letters along with the enclosures to the police. Gurbachan Chand (PW-16) produced the summoned record and the bill. Champa Kumari (PW-17) is the witness to the production of the record. Harnam Singh (PW-18) produced the copies of the appointment and posting order of the Patwari and Field Kanungo. Anil Dutta (PW-19) produced the documents before the police. Gurmail Singh (PW-20) produced the mutation attested on the basis of the sale deed. Joginder Singh (PW-21) proved the procedure for determining the value of the land during consolidation. Malquiat Singh (PW-22) is the witness to the sale deed. Vipin Kumar (PW-23) drafted the sale deed. Harbans Singh (PW-24) did not support the prosecution's case. Santosh Kumari (PW- 25) proved that the daughter of the accused Rajmani, was married to Shyam Sunder. K.K. Sharma (PW-26) made the reports on the application for exchange. B.D. Sharma (PW-27) described the procedure adopted in the office. Subhash Chander Negi(PW-28) granted the prosecution sanction. Satinder Kumar (PW-29) produced the record of the mutation. Vijay Kumar (PW-30) is the witness to the recovery of the documents. N.R Sharma (PW-31) produced the documents and identified the signatures of Deputy Commissioner, Una R.K.Jain. Birbal Vinayak (PW-32) was present at the time of 6( 2018:HHC:1237 ) demarcation and counted the trees standing on the land. L.S. Rohal (PW-33) produced the letter. Ram Aasra (PW-34) is the witness to the recovery of the file. Piara Singh (PW-35) was posted as Naib Sadar Kanungo and proved the prosecution sanction. Chain Singh (PW-36) recorded the formal FIR. Pritam Singh (PW-37) conducted the investigation partly. Bhagwan Singh (PW-38) is the witness to the recovery of the TA bill of Rajmani Tripathi. Ashok Kumar (PW-39) described the sale deed. Baldev Singh (PW-40) did not support the prosecution's case. Gauri Dutt Khachi (PW-41) produced the file regarding the exchange of the land. Pratap Singh (PW42) proved the documents. Shankar Agarwal (PW43) accorded the prosecution sanction against Rajmani Tripathi. Pradeep Kumar (PW-44) conducted the investigation. S.K. Saxena (PW45) examined the documents. Satpal (PW-46) handed over the record. N.C. Sood-(PW-47) was asked to carry out the valuation of the land. Tek Chand Thakur (PW48) conducted an inquiry after a complaint was made by the villagers. Mahinder Singh (PW-49) conducted the investigation. 5. The accused Surinder Pal, in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. admitted that he was posted as Patwari and Rajmani was posted as a Deputy Commissioner. He denied the rest of the prosecution's case. He stated that a 7( 2018:HHC:1237 ) false case was registered against him due to political rivalry. He claimed that he was innocent and was falsely implicated. The statements of H.C. Gopal (DW-1), Balvinder Singh (DW-2), Onkar (DW-3) and F.S. Fernandis (DW-4) were recorded in defence. 6. Learned Trial Court held that the accused, Surinder Pal, assessed the value of the land of Joginder Singh as 124 ¾ Aanas, and the value of the State land is 62 ¼ Aanas. Accused No. 3 reported that government land was free of trees. It was duly proved on record that the trees existed on the spot. The concealment of the trees was done to push through the exchange. Accused No. 1 Rajmani Tripathi sanctioned the exchange despite the ban imposed by the government. All the accused had conspired together. Therefore, they were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused has filed the present appeal, asserting that the learned Trial Court erred in convicting and sentencing the accused. The accused is innocent. There is no evidence against the accused. The ingredients of Section 420 of the IPC were not satisfied. The land was described as Charand (grazing ground), and it was 8( 2018:HHC:1237 ) also asserted that trees existed over the land. This is mutually contradictory, as grazing ground cannot have trees over it. The learned Trial Court wrongly held that the State Government had imposed a ban on exchange. There was no ban on the exchange of the land under the H.P. Village Common Land Vesting and Utilisation Act, 1974 and the ban was imposed regarding nautaur land. The prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the learned Trial Court erred in convicting and sentencing the accused. Hence, it was prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. 8. I have heard Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Divya Raj Singh Thakur, for the appellant Advocate and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State. 9. Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant/accused, submitted that the accused had prepared the document in a bona fide manner. There is no evidence that the valuation put by the accused was incorrect. The trees had grown spontaneously over the land. It is also evident from the fact that trees were not recorded in the jamabandi. The allegations of the prosecution are contradictory. They claimed 9( 2018:HHC:1237 ) that government land was charand, which falsifies the version that trees existed over the land; therefore, he prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. 10. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the accused had made a wrong valuation of the land, showing that the value of the land of Joginder Singh was much higher than the value of the land owned by the State. The land of the State was located in one area, whereas the land of Joginder Singh was scattered. A road passed through the government land, whereas the land of Joginder Singh was located away from the road. The trees were not shown in the report to benefit the accused No.1, Rajmani Tripathi. Therefore, he prayed that the present appeal be dismissed. 11. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 12. As per prosecution and the findings recorded by the learned Court, the accused had made an endorsement in the application for exchange, mentioning the value of the government land as 62¼ Aanas and the value of the land of 10( 2018:HHC:1237 ) Joginder Singh as 124¾ Annas. The prosecution asserted that this valuation was wrong, however, this fact was not proved. 13. Jagat Ram (PW-1) stated that he carried out the counting of trees as per the demarcation given by the revenue staff, and he prepared the list of the trees. He stated in his cross-examination that trees were of spontaneous growth. The value of the trees was entered by him as per the dictation given to him by the Officers as per the schedule. He was not competent to assess the value of the trees. He also admitted that the schedule is regarding the realisation of the damages for forest trees and not for assessing the value. 14. The statement of this witness shows that he had prepared the valuation as per dictation given by some other officer based on the schedule, and he was not competent to prepare such an estimate. Thus, he is not the best person to depose about the value of the land, and no reliance can be placed upon his testimony to determine the value of the trees. 15. Joginder Singh (PW-21) was posted as Naib Tehsildar, Land Acquisition Officer. He mentioned the procedure for determining the value during the consolidation. He stated that the productivity/fertility of the land is considered for assessing the value of the land, but the 11( 2018:HHC:1237 ) exchange of the land is not carried out based on the value. He stated in his cross-examination that he was unable to assess the value of the exchanged land. 16. His testimony also does not establish the value of the land. He could not mention the value of the exchanged land, even as per the record of the consolidation. Therefore, his testimony also does not prove that the valuation made by Surinder Singh was incorrect. 17. Birbal (PW-32) stated that the land was demarcated and trees were counted. The valuation list was handed over to DFO, Una. He stated in his cross-examination that he assessed the value of the trees on the basis of the date available in the DFO office. He could not say that the rates for making the valuation were not as per the government policy. The trees and bushes were of spontaneous growth; the government had not fixed any rate for trees/bushes smaller than a certain size. 18. The testimony of this witness also does not establish the market value of the land. He assessed the trees as per the data available in the office, but was not sure that the rates were not as per the government policy. The data maintained in the office was not produced to determine the 12( 2018:HHC:1237 ) correctness of the assessment made by him; hence, no reliance can be placed upon his testimony. 19. Mr. N.K. Sood (PW-47) has received a reference from the Vigilance for determining the market value of the land. He wrote a letter to the department stating that he could not determine the market value. Hence, his testimony does not establish that the assessment made by the accused was incorrect. 20. This is the complete evidence regarding the valuation. This evidence is based on the assumption that trees existed on the land, and the value of the tree was not considered while making the report. No instructions of the government were brought on record to show that the Patwari is supposed to consult the Forest officials before making a report regarding the valuation. Revenue Department is not competent to determine the value of the trees which is apparent from the fact that prosecution has cited the Officers from the Forest Department to prove the value of the trees existing on the land, therefore, Surinder Pal could not have been expected to visit to the office of DFO and get the valuation of the trees from the Forest Department and annex it to the exchange file. No person had asked him to do so. No 13( 2018:HHC:1237 ) instruction obliged him to do so; therefore, he cannot be faulted for not including the value of the trees in the value of the land. 21. No revenue official stated that the value of the land assessed by the accused Surinder Pal was incorrect. N.C. Sood (PW-47) expressed his inability to determine the value of the land. Joginder Singh (PW-21) outlined the procedure for determining the value of the land during the consolidation, and he also expressed his inability to determine the value of the exchanged land. Thus, there was no evidence at all to show that the value of the land assessed by the accused, Surinder Pal, was incorrect. 22. The learned Trial Court held that the government land had many trees and accused no. 2 to 4 had made a false report regarding the absence of trees. However, the learned Trial Court failed to notice that accused No.4 had not made any report regarding the absence of the trees, and only accused No. 3 had made such a report. 23. Learned Trial Court also held that the PWD road passes through the government land, but failed to point out how this affected the value assessed by the accused, Surinder Pal. The learned Trial Court concluded that the accused Nos. 3 14( 2018:HHC:1237 ) and 4 had not even inspected the land in dispute. It was not mentioned in the judgment that they were obliged to do so or had made a report that they had visited the spot. The report of the accused, Surender Pal, mentioned the area and the value of the land. This report could have been prepared based on the official record and did not require any visit to the spot. The learned Trial Court acknowledged this fact by holding that accused Nos. 2 to 4 had not claimed at any stage to carry out the spot inspection, local investigation or the demarcation for the preparation of the field map. 24. Learned Trial Court also held that the government land sought to be exchanged was in the village and accused Nos. 2 to 4 had wrongly indicated it to be of inferior quality when compared with the scattered and far-off land of accused Joginder Singh. All these facts led the learned Trial Court to conclude that the valuation was wrong. This was merely an assumption. The prosecution was required to prove on record that these factors were overlooked/wrongly considered while making the valuation by the accused, Surender Pal. No person deposed such a fact. There is absolutely no evidence to show that the value of 124¾ Aanas of the land of Joginder Singh and 62¼ Annas of the government land was incorrect. No person stated that the method adopted 15( 2018:HHC:1237 ) by accused No.4 was not the correct method. No person stated that if the valuation is made out as per the standard laid down by the Revenue Department, the value would be something different; therefore, the valuation could not have been stated to be wrong simply due to the location or the nature of the land. The statement of Joginder Singh (PW21) shows that the fertility of the land is considered while determining the valuation, even during the consolidation. Thus, the factors like location, compactness, existence of a road noticed by the learned Trial Court were irrelevant to determine the value of the exchanged land. There is no evidence that there was a difference in the fertility of the land owned by Joginder Singh and the State. Hence, the learned Trial Court wrongly concluded that the accused Surender Pal made a wrong report and misled the State by making the report. 25 Further, the case of the prosecution itself is that the exchange was sanctioned by Rajmani, who was arrayed as an accused. Learned Trial Court recorded the findings that all the accused were conspiring together. It is not explained by the learned Trial Court as to who was deceived by the wrong representation made by the accused, Surender Pal. The representation was made to the persons sanctioning the exchange, and if he was aware of the actual value of the land, 16( 2018:HHC:1237 ) he could not have been deceived in any manner by the report made by the accused Surender Pal; hence learned Trial Court erred in holding the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 420 and 218 of the IPC. 26 There is no evidence of any conspiracy. No person deposed that the accused Nos. 1 to 4 had ever met. The learned Trial Court held that accused No.4 was transferred by accused No.1, and this indicated conspiracy. This is too far-fetched. Accused No.1 was posted as a District Collector. It is nobody's case that he had no right to transfer the persons in the Revenue Department; therefore, the mere fact that the transfer was made by accused No.1 cannot lead to any inference of conspiracy. 27. Therefore, the evidence against accused Surender Pal was insufficient to record the conviction, and the learned Trial Court erred in convicting and sentencing the accused. 28 In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed, and the accused Surender Pal is acquitted of the charged offences. The fine amount, if deposited, be refunded to the accused in case no appeal is preferred, and in case of appeal, the same be dealt with as per the orders of the Hon’ble Appellate Court. 17( 2018:HHC:1237 ) 29. In view of the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 481 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the appellant/accused is directed to furnish personal bond in the sum of ₹25000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Registrar(Judicial) of this Court/learned Trial Court, within four weeks, which shall be effective for six months with stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment, or on grant of the leave, the appellant/accused, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 30. The present appeal stands disposed of, and so are the miscellaneous applications, if any. 31. The record of the learned Trial Court be returned with a copy of the judgment. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 28th July, 2025 (veena )