High Court
Legal Reasoning
{1} CRI APPEAL 506 OF 2006IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 506 OF 2006.The State of MaharashtraThrough Police Station Officer,Police Station Shivajinagar,Latur, Dist.Latur.….Appellant Versus1.Sambhappa Trimbakappa GirwalkarAge: 72 years, Occu. : Advocate,R/o. Shivchaya, Opp. To Panchayat Samiti, Latur.2.Shantveer Gangadhar ChaudhariAge: 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 Judgmentand order of acquittal dated 15-04-2006 passed by learned ChiefJudicial Magistrate, Latur in R.C.C. No.232 of 2000. {2} CRI APPEAL 506 OF 2006BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE2.In nutshell, present respondents (original accused) werechargesheeted by Shivajinagar Police Station, Latur, alleging that theyhave committed offence under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 511 readwith 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as they indulged in cheatingthe State Government by filing application under Section 28-A of theLand Acquisition Act ((hereinafter referred as “the Act”) on behalf ofone Ibrahim Rahim Pathan in spite of said person filing Referenceunder Section 18 of the Act and having already stood beneficiary ofthe compensation. Allegations are that both accused manufactureddocuments and asserted claim for compensation even when they hadknowledge 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 carriedout and on its completion, both accused were chargesheeted andtried before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur. During trial,prosecution adduced evidence of in all five witnesses and relied ondocumentary evidence. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate appreciatedthe above evidence and ultimately reached to a finding thatprosecution failed to bring home any of the charges and finallyacquitted accused by judgment and order dated 15-04-2006. {3} CRI APPEAL 506 OF 2006Feeling aggrieved by the same, appellant State preferredpresent appeal.SUBMISSIONSOn behalf of appellant State :4. On behalf of State, learned APP pointed out that theGovernment of Maharashtra acquired lands of village Uti for TavarjaProject i.e. by invoking provisions under Section 4 of the Act i.e. ofissuing notification then acquiring lands of several persons andawarding compensation by the SLAO. Learned APP pointed out thatpersons aggrieved by the quantum of compensation had alsopreferred land references under Section 18 of the Act includingIbrahim Rahim, who was also a resident of same village. His LARnumber was 74 of 1980 and in the same award was also passed. 5.Learned APP further pointed out that while scrutinizing theprocess of disbursement of award, PW1 Adhav, who was acting wasSLAO, realized that respondents accused, who are lawyers, concealedthe fact of receipt of award under Section 18 of the Act andmoreover, filed proceedings under Section 28-A of the Act. This wasaccording to PW1 Adhav fraud tried to be played on the StateGovernment by manufacturing documents and moreover, withoutconsent and knowledge of Ibrahim Pathan. {4} CRI APPEAL 506 OF 20066.Learned APP further submitted that on receipt of complaintfrom PW1 Adhav, investigating machinery carried out thoroughinvestigation, which revealed commission of above offence andtherefore, both respondents were chargesheeted and tried. Shepointed out that, there was both oral as well as documentaryevidence on behalf prosecution, however, same has been improperlyappreciated and learned trial Court has erred in acquitting accused. On behalf of respondents - accused :7.In answered to above, learned counsel representing accusedrespondents supported the judgment and order of acquittal andprayed to dismiss the appeal. SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF EVIDENCE IN TRIAL COURT8. PW1 Sanjay Anantrao Adhav is Complainant. He in hisevidence at exh.35 deposed that, he scrutinized LAR No.402 of 1979which was decided on 27-02-1986 and realized that AdvocateChaudhary and Advocate Girvalkar had filed application underSection 28-A contending that reference under Section18 has not beenfiled. He further deposed that, it was noticed that in fact IbrahimRahim on whose behalf both above accused acted and initiated {5} CRI APPEAL 506 OF 2006proceedings, had already filed claim for enhancement and it wasalready decreed on 31-01-1987 and even decree was passed. In spiteof knowledge to that extent, above named accused Advocates filedfresh claim under Section 28-A of the ACt for again availing thebenefits of compensation in Ibrahim Rahim’s name, who had alreadydied, 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 wereacquired by the State Government, but as less compensation waspaid, he filed claim for enhancement. He deposed that his uncleIbrahim Rahim, who is now dead, had also sought compensationthrough Advocates namely Inamdar and Manale. That, AdvocatesGirvalkar and Chaudhari (accused herein) were never engaged andno application under Section 28-A was authorized to be filed.However, in examination-in-chief itself, he stated he does not knowhow above two accused filed application for enhancement. 10.PW3 Ajam Rasulsab Pathan, a resident of same village Uti, alsodeposed about his land being acquired along with land of IbrahimRahim, who was his uncle and that he and his uncle filed claim for {6} CRI APPEAL 506 OF 2006enhancement of compensation through Advocate Inamdar andAdvocate Manale and that accused Advocates were not engaged forfurther enhancement. He too denied signatures over exhibits 38 and39 and is unable to state how said application reflects his name andfinally denied engaging accused. 11.PW4 Umrao Bashu Pathan, whose land was acquired for thesame project, also stated that he knew Ibrahim Rahim. That, he hadengaged Advocate Surayawanshi and Advocate Shinde for seekingenhancement. He denied having engaged accused for enhancementand denied giving thumb impression or signature over Vakalatnamaexhibits 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. ExceptPW1 Adhav / informant, rest all witnesses seem to be also landowners of the lands, which were acquired and they haveunanimously admitted about engaging respective Advocates of theirchoice for seeking enhanced compensation and have in unison {7} CRI APPEAL 506 OF 2006denied engaging accused for further compensation. They have alsodeposed about Ibrahim Rahim to be already dead. PW2 Rajjak andPW3 Ajam seem to be very nephew of the Ibrahim Rahim and theytoo have denied engaging accused. Therefore, the only evidence thatis required to be put to scrutiny to ascertain whether prosecution hasmade 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 withthe cross-examination faced by him, which for ready reference isreproduced as under: “Application U/Sec. 28-A was filed on 11-4-1986 whereasJudgment 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 saythat a person is competent to file application U/Sec. 28-A ofL.A.Act when his claim filed U/Sec. 18 is pending in thecompetent Court. The L.A.O. has to conduct scrutiny of theapplication filed U/Sec. 28-A. The L.A.O. is competent todismiss the application if it is not tenable. The Dept. came toknow about filing application U/Sec. 28-A by Ibrahim Rahim on11-4-86. Claim U/Sec.18 is to be filed before L.A.O. and then itis forwarded to Civil Court. Register of claim filed U/Sec. 18 ismaintained. The L.A.O. office is represented by
Legal Reasoning
{8} CRI APPEAL 506 OF 2006Asstt.Govt.Pleader in the Court. The Dept. is havingcommunication of facts with D.G.P. Information about decisionin L.A.R. and execution filed on that decision is given toL.A.Office. The application U/Sec. 28-A is/decided after scrutinyof all documents. It is true that Ibrahim has received enhancedcompensation as per decree in L.A.R. 74/80 on 18-9-87. Thatpayment was sent by L.A.0.Office. Before making payment,U/Sec. 28-A the L.A.O. has to ascertain the identity of claimantthrough Talathi or any other competent person. I was notknowing whether appeal was pending against the Judgmentand decree passed in L.A.R.No. 402/79. I presumed thatIbrahim Rahim might have given information to Adv.Girvalkarand Chaudhari about reference filed U/Sec. 18. Not true to saythat my presumption is false. I do not know that many peoplefiled application U/Sec.28-A, though they have filed claimunder Section 18 of L.A.Act. I do not know whether manypeople were filed double applications U/Sec. 28-A. It is true thatmany people filed application U/Sec. 28-A after decision ofL.A.R. No. 402/79. Petition U/Sec. 28-A filed by Ibrahim Rahimwas kept before Lok-Nyayalaya held on 31-1-99. At that timeChandele was L.A.O. It is true that Girvalkar Advocate had filedsome representation before Collector in respect of PetitionU/Sec. 28-A, prior to and after to Lok-nyayalaya. Not true to saythat due to frequent representation by Shri Girvalkar, the thenCollector Shri Shukla was annoyed. Not true to say that to takerevenge of Shri Girvalkar he instigated me to file false case. Nottrue to say that other L.A.O. were not ready to take actionagainst Girvalkar so I was specially appointed as L.A.O. Not trueto say that to defame Girvalkar, the Dept. has published news inthe newspaper. Not true to say that only to harass and to {9} CRI APPEAL 506 OF 2006defame Shri Girvalkar I filed false case. A letter dated 8-6-99 Iissued a letter to Collector to demanding funds. I do not knowwhether in reply to that letter, Collector issued letter dated 17-6-99. Not true to say that I have no authority or locus standi tofile complaint against accused. Not true to say that I have filedfalse complaint. Not true to say that accused ware not havingintention to cheat Govt. Not true to say that accused actedbonafidely and in good faith.”ANALYSIS 15.On carefully evaluating above evidence, it is emerging thathere, there is no dispute that lands of village Uti were acquired bythe State Government and award was declared by the SLAO, whichwas 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 Section18 of the Act. What is now required to be seen is that, as is the caseof prosecution, whether both accused with dishonest intention and inspite of having knowledge about deceased Ibrahim Rahim beneficiaryof award under Section 18 of the Act, again at his instance,deliberately to play fraud on the Government, filed proceedingsunder Section 28-A of the Act. 16.In such backdrop, if the cross-examination reproduced above is {10} CRI APPEAL 506 OF 2006put to scrutiny, here it is emerging that witness PW1 Adhav, who hasset law into motion levelling above allegations, has merelyentertained a doubt. The manner of his admission in cross-examination, clearly suggests that it was his mere presumption thatto play fraud on the Government, accused persons had asserted claimfor further award, in spite of knowing matter to be decided underSection 18 of the Act. He has categorically used the word that hewas not knowing whether any appeal is pending against thejudgment and decree passed in LAR No.402 of 1979. He answeredthat he merely “Presumed” that Ibrahim Rahim “might” have giveninformation to accused. He admitted that petition under Section28-A of the Act at the instance of Ibrahim Rahim was kept before LokAdalat held on 31-01-1999. He also admitted that accused AdvocateGirwalkar filed representation before Collector both prior to and postLok Adalat. Rest is all denial. 17.Therefore, on complete re-appreciation of evidence, there isnothing to hold that with dishonest intention from the inceptionaccused persons, in spite of having knowledge of proceedingsconcluded under Section 18 of the Act, to play fraud on theGovernment, they manufactured documents and by suppressing {11} CRI APPEAL 506 OF 2006previous proceedings, fresh proceedings for further compensationwere sought in the name of a dead person. 18.There is no evidence to suggest that accused persons hadknowledge or in spite of being aware of proceedings under Section18 of the Act on behalf of deceased Ibrahim Khan had come to anend and still they filed application under Section 28-A of the Act.There is no evidence whatsoever with regard to fabrication ormanufacturing of false documents. Required ingredients forattracting the charges are not available as very Investigating OfficerPW5 Kantewar has apparently not taken care in gathering sufficientevidence to fortify or substantiate prosecution case. 19.When case was of filing application under Section 28-A of theAct in spite of reference under Section 18 of the Act being decided,there is mechanism provided under the Act for the CollectorateAuthorities to independently ascertain maintainability of proceedingsunder above Section. No steps are taken by Collectorate Authorities,rather PW1 Adhav, who is a SLAO, has merely entertained a doubtand has directly instituted proceedings without there being anysubstance in his so called apprehension. {12} CRI APPEAL 506 OF 200620.Resultantly, there is no evidence on behalf of prosecution insupport of the charges. Essential ingredients for bringing home thecharges are patently missing. No fault can thus be found in the orderof acquittal passed by learned trial Court so as to interfere.Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order : ORDERAppeal is dismissed. ( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE ) JUDGE SPT