Bijender Singh Patwari vs State Of Haryana

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh
1. Criminal Appeal No. S-1321-SB of 2005
Joginder Singh
... Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Haryana
... Respondent(s)
2. Criminal Appeal No. S-1404-SB of 2005
Jaipal Singh Saini
... Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Haryana
... Respondent(s)
3. Criminal Appeal No. S-1430-SB of 2005
Nar Singh Dass
... Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Haryana
... Respondent(s)
AND
4. Criminal Appeal No. S-1441-SB of 2005
Bijender Singh
... Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Haryana
... Respondent(s)
RESERVED ON: 12.10.2026
PRONOUNCED ON: 30.10.2026
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh.
Present: Mr. A.P.S. Nain, Advocate
for the appellant [In CRA-S-1321-SB-2005].
Mr. Omesh Garg and Mr. Harsh Kinra, Advocates
for the appellant [In CRA-S-1404-SB-2005].
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ
2026.11.02 16:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

Criminal Appeal No. S-1321-SB of 2005 2
And Other Connected Cases
Mr. Shailendra Jain, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Shubham Verma, Ms. Ruchi Jain and
Mr. Munish Sharma, Advocates, for the appellant
[In CRA-S-1430-SB-2005].
Mr. Deepender Singh, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Nipun Gupta and Mr. Meyank Sarpal, Advocates
for the appellant [In CRA-S-1441-SB-2005].
Ms. Deepali Verma, Assistant Advocate General,
Haryana, for the respondent.
Surya Partap Singh, J.
1. These are four appeals against conviction arising out of the same
judgment.
2. The appellants, in all the above-mentioned four appeals, are
aggrieved of the judgment of conviction dated 01.08.2005, hereinafter being
referred to as ‘impugned judgment’, passed by the court of learned Special
Judge, (designated under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988), Faridabad,
hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’.
3. The above-mentioned verdict came into being in a trial arising
out of FIR No. 1 dated 08.01.2000, Police Station State Vigilance Bureau
(Haryana), Gurgaon, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections
210, 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of ‘the Indian Penal Code, 1860’
(IPC) and Section 13 of ‘the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).
4. Once the appellants were held guilty and convicted for the
commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B
of IPC and Section 13(2) of PC Act, by virtue of order dated 02.08.2005 on
the point of quantum of sentence, hereinafter being referred to as ‘impugned
order’, following sentence were awarded to them:-
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ
2026.11.02 16:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

Criminal Appeal No. S-1321-SB of 2005 3
And Other Connected Cases
Name of
Convict
Offence
under
Section
Sentence
Jaipal Singh
Saini, Naib
Tehsildar
420 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a
period of three years and to pay
a fine of ₹5,000/-. In default
thereof to further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a
period of nine months.
467 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a
period of three years and to pay
a fine of ₹10,000/-. I n default
thereof to further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a
period of nine months.
468 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a
period of three years and to pay
a fine of ₹3,000/-. In default
thereof to further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a
period of nine months.
471 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a
period of three years and to pay
a fine of ₹3,000/-. I n default
thereof to further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a
period of nine months.
120B of
IPC
Rigorous imprisonment for a
period of three years and to pay
a fine of ₹3,000/-. I n default
thereof to further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a
period of nine months.
13(2) of PC
Act
Rigorous imprisonment for a
period of three years and to pay
a fine of ₹5,000/-. I n default
thereof to further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a
period of nine months.
Jogender
Singh,
Kanungo
420 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a
period of three years and to pay
a fine of ₹3,000/-. I n default
thereof to further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a
period of nine months.
467 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a
period of three years and to pay
a fine of ₹3,000/- . In default
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ
2026.11.02 16:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

Criminal Appeal No. S-1321-SB of 2005 4
And Other Connected Cases
Name of
Convict
Offence
under
Section
Sentence
thereof to further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a
period of nine months.
468 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a
period of three years and to pay
a fine of ₹2,000/-. I n default
thereof to further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a
period of nine months.
471 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a
period of three years and to pay
a fine of ₹2,000/-. I n default
thereof to further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a
period of nine months.
120B of
IPC
Rigorous imprisonment for a
period of three years and to pay
a fine of ₹2,000/-. I n default
thereof to further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a
period of nine months.
13(2) of PC
Act
Rigorous imprisonment for a
period of three years and to pay
a fine of ₹3,000/-. I n default
thereof to further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a
period of nine months.
Narsingh
Dass, Ex
Kanungo
420 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a
period of three years and to pay
a fine of ₹3,000/-. I n default
thereof to further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a
period of nine months.
467 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a
period of three years and to pay
a fine of ₹3,000/-. I n default
thereof to further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a
period of nine months.
468 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a
period of three years and to pay
a fine of ₹2,000/-. I n default
thereof to further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a
period of nine months.
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ
2026.11.02 16:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

Criminal Appeal No. S-1321-SB of 2005 5
And Other Connected Cases
Name of
Convict
Offence
under
Section
Sentence
471 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a
period of three years and to pay
a fine of ₹2,000/-. I n default
thereof to further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a
period of nine months.
120B of
IPC
Rigorous imprisonment for a
period of three years and to pay
a fine of ₹2,000/-. In default
thereof to further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a
period of nine months.
13(2) of PC
Act
Rigorous imprisonment for a
period of three years and to pay
a fine of ₹3,000/-. In default
thereof to further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a
period of nine months.
Bijender
Singh
Patwari
420 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a
period of three years and to pay
a fine of ₹1,000/-. In default
thereof to further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a
period of nine months.
467 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a
period of three years and to pay
a fine of ₹1,000/-. In default
thereof to further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a
period of nine months.
468 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a
period of three years and to pay
a fine of ₹1,000/-. In default
thereof to further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a
period of nine months.
471 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a
period of three years and to pay
a fine of ₹1,000/-. I n default
thereof to further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a
period of nine months.
120B of
IPC
Rigorous imprisonment for a
period of three years and to pay
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ
2026.11.02 16:45
a fine of ₹1,000/-. In default
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

Criminal Appeal No. S-1321-SB of 2005 6
And Other Connected Cases
Name of
Convict
Offence
under
Section
Sentence
thereof to further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a
period of nine months.
13(2) of PC
Act
Rigorous imprisonment for a
period of three years and to pay
a fine of ₹1,000/-. In default
thereof to further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a
period of nine months.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
5. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from the record are that the FIR
of this case came into being pursuant to an inquiry report with regard to
allegations of payment of compensation to ineligible persons. In the inquiry, it
was found that ‘Ashok Kumar’ son of ‘Kishan Dass’ and ‘Ms. Promila’ wife
of ‘Ashok Kumar’ were owners of a piece of land ad measuring 8 kanals & 6
marlas situated in village ‘Mewla Maharajpur’, hereinafter being referred to as
‘land in question’ only. The above-mentioned land was sold by ‘Ashok
Kumar’ and ‘Ms. Promila’ to the ‘BHEL Employees Cooperative House
Building Society Limited’ and with regard to above-mentioned sale, mutation
Nos. 5881, 5882 & 5883 were sanctioned. Thus, on acquisition of above-
mentioned land, by the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estates, Faridabad,
the above said owners, namely ‘Ashok Kumar’ and ‘Ms.Promila’ were not
entitled to receive the compensation.
6. According to prosecution case, during the course of inquiry, it
was found that in collusion with the appellants/convicts, hereinafter being
referred to as ‘appellant’ only, compensation for the acquisition of above-
mentioned land was paid to ‘Ashok Kumar’ and ‘Ms.Promila’ and thus, with
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ
2026.11.02 16:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

Criminal Appeal No. S-1321-SB of 2005 7
And Other Connected Cases
Land Acquisition Officer, Faridabad a cheating had taken place.
7. It was a case of the prosecution that pursuant to above-mentioned
FIR investigation of the case was conducted and during the course of
investigation the entire evidence with regard to involvement of appellants in
the commission of offence was collected and thereafter, final report under
Section 173 Cr.P.C. for the commission of offence punishable under Sections
210, 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC and Section 13 of PC Act
was filed which led to above said trial.
8. To discharge its burden, of proving charges against the
appellants, the prosecution, in the instant case, had relied upon oral and
documentary evidence, both. The documents proved, and marked with
exhibits, by the prosecution, were:-
Ex.PA - Power of Attorney executed by vendors in
favour of ‘Vinod Kumar Kaushik’
Ex.PB - Affidavit sworn by ‘Vinod Kumar Kaushik’
Ex.PC - Copy of notice issued to ‘Ashok Kumar’ and
‘Ms. Promila’ by the office of Land Acquisition
Officer, Faridabad
Ex.PD - Copy of letter sent by ‘Ashok Kumar’ and ‘Ms.
Promila’ to ‘Vinod Kumar Kaushik’
Ex.PE - Copy of statement of account of ‘Ashok Kumar’
and ‘Ms. Promila’
Ex.PF - Copy of statement of account showing amount
deposited in the account of ‘Ashok Kumar’ and
‘Ms. Promila’
Ex.PG - Copy of C.C. Form
Ex.PH - Copy of award statement
Ex.PJ - Copy of Mutation No. 5881
Ex.PK - Copy of Mutation No. 5882
Ex.PL - Copy of Mutation No. 5883
Ex.PM - Copy of memo of Kabja Vasool
Ex.PN - Copy of Sale Deed No. 6169
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ
2026.11.02 16:45
Ex.PN/1 - Copy of Sale Deed No. 6213
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

Criminal Appeal No. S-1321-SB of 2005 8
And Other Connected Cases
Ex.PN/2 - Copy of Sale Deed No. 6473
Ex.PP - Complaint, received in the State Vigilance
Bureau (Haryana), Chandigarh
Ex.PP/1 - Copy of First Information Report
Ex.PP/2 - Endorsement recorded on the information
received.
Ex.PP/3 - Copy of letter, vide endorsement dated
17.12.1999 by the Superintendent of Police,
State Vigilance Bureau, Gurgaon, received by
DSP, State Vigilance Bureau, Gurgaon
Ex.PQ - Sanction Order issued by the Director, Urban
Estate, Haryana for prosecution of the
appellants.
Ex.PR - Inquiry Report submitted by Inspector, State
Vigilance Bureau, Gurgaon
Ex.PS - General Power of Attorney executed by ‘Vinod
Kumar Kaushal’ in favour of ‘Subhash Chand
9. To provide support and corrFoboration to the above-mentioned
documentary evidence, as many as 14 witnesses were examined by the
prosecution. They were:-
PW-1 - M.L.Mehta, Member of Employees Cooperative
House Building Society
PW-2 - Vinod Kumar Kaushik, the power of attorney
holder of the former owner of the
PW-3 - Sham Charan, Section Officer, Office of Land
Acquisition Collector, Faridabad
PW-4 - Raghunath Singh, Kanungo, Office of Land
Acquisition Collector, Faridabad
PW-5 - Dalbir Singh, Patwari
PW-6 - Bhisham Singh, Patwari, Office of Land
Acquisition Collector, Faridabad
PW-7 - Inspector Bharat Singh, State Vigilance Bureau
(H), Faridabad
PW-8 - Partap Singh, Registration Clerk, office of Sub
Registrar, Faridabad
PW-9 - Mangal Ram, Retired DRO
PW-10 - DSP Hukam Singh, CID Crime Unit, Hisar
PW-11 - DSP Maharaj Singh, IRB, Bhondsi
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ
2026.11.02 16:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

Criminal Appeal No. S-1321-SB of 2005 9
And Other Connected Cases
PW-12 - N.C.Wadhwa, IAS
PW-13 - DSP Man Singh Sehrawat, DSP Head Quarter,
Sirsa
PW-14 - Subhash Chand
10. Once the prosecution evidence had been recorded, the learned
trial Court completed all the formalities, enshrined under Section 313 Cr.PC.,
and thereafter, an opportunity to lead defence evidence was afforded to the
appellants. In their defence the appellants had examined ‘Narender Singh’,
Patwari as DW-1.
11. The documents proved, and marked with exhibits, by the
accused, in their defence, were:-
Ex.DA - Statement of Mangal Ram, Retired DRO,
recorded by the police under Section 161
Cr.P.C.
Ex.D2 - Form-‘CC’ dated 01.10.2003 in the name of
BHEL Employees Cooperative House Building
Society
Ex.D3 - Application dated 30.09.2003 written by the
Secretary, BHEL Employees Cooperative
House Building Society
Ex.D4 - Resolution dated 02.09.2003 passed by the
above-mentioned Society
Ex.D5 - Affidavit of ‘Tilak Raj’, Secretary of the above-
mentioned Society
12. When the stage of recording the evidence was over, the learned
trial Court gave opportunity to the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned
counsel for the appellants, to address arguments. Thereafter, a judgment of
conviction was pronounced against the appellants. Accordingly, the sentences,
detailed hereinabove, were awarded to the appellants.
13. Heard.
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ
2026.11.02 16:45 14. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants that
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

Criminal Appeal No. S-1321-SB of 2005 10
And Other Connected Cases
instant case is a case wherein without any illegal act attributed to the
appellants, they were held guilty and convicted accordingly. According to
learned counsel for the appellants, merely, on the basis of whims and fancies,
an imaginary story set-out by the prosecution was believed by the learned
trial Court, and that the impugned judgment of conviction of appellants was
passed, merely, on the basis of assumptions and presumptions only. As per
learned counsel for the appellants there was no evidence on record to show
that any act with malafide intention was committed by any of the appellants,
but the learned trial Court, on the basis of conjectures and surmises, believed
the prosecution case, and convicted the appellants, who were public servants.
15. The learned counsel for the appellants have further contended
that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate this cardinal principle of
criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution was supposed to prove charges
beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt, and that in the case in hand the
allegations contained in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. were not proved
even prima facie . The learned counsel for the appellants have contended that
in order to bring home guilt of the appellants in the instant case their active
participation with malafide intentions should have been proved before the
learned trial Court, and that there was no evidence to that effect. According to
learned counsel for the appellants, so much so one of the appellants, namely
‘Bijender Singh’ (appellant in CRA-S-1441-SB-2005) was not even signatory
of any document pertaining to payment of compensation to ‘Ashok Kumar’
and ‘Ms. Promila’, but the above-named appellant, despite having no role,
whatsoever, in the transaction, was convicted by the learned trial Court.
16. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ
2026.11.02 16:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

Criminal Appeal No. S-1321-SB of 2005 11
And Other Connected Cases
appellants that in the present case no loss, whatsoever, to anybody was caused,
and that in fact the wrong payment of compensation to ‘Ashok Kumar’ and
‘Ms.Promila’ (through their power of attorney holder) was returned by them
and thus, Land Acquisition Collector or any other authority suffered no loss,
whatsoever. It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel for the
appellants that in the instant case if compensation was wrongly paid by the
officials of the Land Acquisition Collector to ‘Ashok Kumar’ and
‘Ms.Promila’, only the person, who was deprived of that compensation, i.e.
vendee of the property, could have been the aggrieved party, but the vendee
never approached any forum with any grievance. As per learned counsel for
the appellants the above-mentioned inaction on the part of the vendee, in
itself, proved that no loss was caused to anybody else.
17. According to learned counsel for the appellants the only
allegation in the instant case was that despite sanction of mutation pertaining
to land in question in favour of vendee, the compensation was paid to the
vendors. With regard to above, the learned counsel for the appellants, while
referring to the contents of Section 13A of ‘the Land Acquisition Act, 1894’
has contended that provision for the correction of such types of mistakes has
been introduced by the legislature, by virtue of above-mentioned section, and
that the instant case is squarely covered by the provisions of Section 13A of
the Land Acquisition Act.
18. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the appellants have
also contended that in the present case the appellants have been convicted for
the commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 &
120-B of IPC, but in the absence of any loss caused to anybody else a charge
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ
2026.11.02 16:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

Criminal Appeal No. S-1321-SB of 2005 12
And Other Connected Cases
for cheating could not have survived and if the charge of cheating was not
there, charges for forgery could not have been proved.
19. With regard to charge for the commission of offence punishable
under Section 13(2) of PC Act, the learned counsel for the appellants have
contended that with regard to above-mentioned charge some wrongful gain
should have been proved, but in the instant case no such evidence was led by
the prosecution to show that any of the appellants had received any money for
the above-mentioned act. As per learned counsel for the appellants in the
absence of any payment of money, charge for the commission of offence
punishable under Section 13(2) of PC Act, too, was not proved. In view of
above-mentioned contentions the learned counsel for the appellants have
argued that an erroneous conclusion was drawn by the learned trial Court,
when without any legal basis it was held that charge for the commission of
offence punishable under Section 13(2) of PC Act stood proved against them.
20. In view of above, the learned counsel for the appellants have
contended that the impugned judgment of conviction is not sustainable and
deserves to be set-aside.
21. The learned counsel for the respondent/State has controverted the
above-mentioned arguments. It has been contended by the learned counsel for
the respondent/State that in the instant case the only fact which was supposed
to be proved by the prosecution was that by preparing false documents, the
payment of money was made to wrong persons. According to learned counsel
for the respondent/State the above-mentioned allegations were duly proved by
the prosecution with the help of documentary evidence, duly proved and
supported by official witnesses. According to learned counsel for the
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ
2026.11.02 16:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

Criminal Appeal No. S-1321-SB of 2005 13
And Other Connected Cases
respondent/State once payment of compensation to wrong persons was proved
on the basis of documentary evidence, it was the duty of the appellants to
explain under what circumstances, by creation of false documents the above-
mentioned payments were made. As per learned counsel for the
respondent/State such explanation was not forthcoming from the appellants
and, therefore, a right view was taken by the learned trial Court.
22. While defending the impugned verdict it has been contended by
learned counsel for the respondent/State that instant case was an open and shut
case, wherein the payment of compensation to unauthorised persons, who had
already sold the property, was proved by the prosecution. With regard to
above, the learned counsel for the respondent/State has contended that
admittedly with regard to sale of land in question, by ‘Ashok Kumar’ and
‘Ms.Promila’ to ‘BHEL Employees Cooperative House Building Society
Limited’, the mutation was duly sanctioned by the revenue authority, and that
mutation being a public notice there existed a presumption that the appellants
were aware of the fact that ‘Ashok Kumar’ and ‘Ms. Promila’, to whom
compensation was paid, had ceased to be owners of the land in question.
23. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the respondent/State
has also contended that otherwise also, it was part of the duty of the appellants
to consult the revenue record before preparing Form-‘CC’ the basic document
for payment of compensation to the land owners. According to learned
counsel for the respondent/State once the mutation was duly sanctioned in
favour of vendor of the land in question, Form-‘CC’, in the name of vendee
should have been prepared by the appellants, but with malafide intentions and
with an intention to give undue advantage to the vendors of the land in
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ
2026.11.02 16:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

Criminal Appeal No. S-1321-SB of 2005 14
And Other Connected Cases
question (namely, ‘Ashok Kumar’ and ‘Ms. Promila’), Form–‘CC’ was
prepared in their favour (through their power of attorney). As per learned
counsel for the respondent/State the preparation of above-mentioned
document in the name of wrong persons amounted to cheating and forgery of
documents. The learned counsel for the respondent/State has further
contended that the above-mentioned act was committed by the appellants for
illegal gratification and therefore, charge for the commission of offence
punishable under Section 13(2) of PC Act, too, was proved against the
appellants.
24. In view of above, the learned counsel for the respondent/State
has contended that a right view was drawn by the learned trial Court while
convicting the appellants. According to learned counsel for the
respondent/State there is no scope of intervention or indulgence in the
impugned judgment. Thus, it has been contended by the learned counsel for
the respondent/State that all the four appeals are devoid of merits and deserve
dismissal.
25. The record has been perused carefully.
26. In the present case, in order to prove charges against the
appellants, as many as 14 witnesses were examined by the prosecution.
Amongst them PW-1 was only a formal witness who had deposed that in 1992
he was a member of ‘BHEL Employees Cooperative House Building Society’,
and that the Society had purchased the land in question from ‘Ashok Kumar’
and ‘Ms. Promila’, through their power of attorney, namely ‘Subhash
Chander. In his cross-examination, the PW-1 deposed that he had come to
know that for the acquisition of land owned by the society, compensation was
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ
2026.11.02 16:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

Criminal Appeal No. S-1321-SB of 2005 15
And Other Connected Cases
received by the Society from the office of Land Acquisition Collector.
27. The next witness, namely ‘Vinod Kumar Kaushik’ (PW-2) had
deposed that he was Special Power of Attorney of ‘Ashok Kumar’ and
‘Ms.Promila’, both residing in Canada. According to PW-2, on the instructions
of his sister ‘Ms. Promila’ and brother-in-law ‘Ashok Kumar, he had received
two cheques issued towards compensation for the acquisition of land and
deposited the same in the account of ‘Ashok Kumar’ and ‘Ms.Promila’. The
PW-2 further deposed that later on, on receipt of notice from the office of
Land Acquisition Officer, the above-mentioned compensation amount was
refunded to the office of the Land Acquisition Officer.
28. The next witness examined was ‘Sham Charan’, as PW-3. He
had deposed that payment of ₹1,36,235.35 was made to ‘Vinod Kumar’ as
General Power of Attorney of ‘Ashok Kumar’ and ‘Ms. Promila’ vide two
cheques bearing Nos. 6196911 and 6196910, both dated 29.08.1996.
29. The PW-4 ‘Raghunath Singh’, Kanungo, had deposed that in
1994-95 when the land in question was acquired, ‘Ashok Kumar’ and
‘Ms.Promila’ were being shown to be owners in possession of the above-
mentioned land and, therefore, Award (Ex.PH) was issued in their favour.
30. The next witness ‘Dalbir Singh’, Patwari, was examined as PW-
5. The PW-5 had deposed that copy of mutations with regard to sale of land
by ‘Ashok Kumar’ and ‘Ms.Promila’ to ‘BHEL Employees Cooperative
House Building Society Limited’ were handed over by him to the
Investigating Officer.
31. The next witness examined by the prosecution was ‘Bhisham
Singh’, Patwari. He was examined as PW-6. The PW-6 had deposed that copy
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ
2026.11.02 16:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

Criminal Appeal No. S-1321-SB of 2005 16
And Other Connected Cases
of award statement was supplied by him to the Investigating Officer, and that
the above-mentioned record was prepared by the revenue officials on the basis
of jamabandi supplied by concerned Patwari.
32. ‘Inspector Bharat Singh’, State Vigilance Bureau (H), Faridabad,
was examined as PW-7. He had played a formal role in the investigation of the
case. According to PW-7 during the course of investigation he had arrested
the appellants and recorded the statement of witnesses, namely ‘M.L.Mehta’,
‘Subhash Chand’, ‘Partap Singh’, Patwari and ‘M.R.Bhagvaria’ under Section
161 Cr.P.C.
33. ‘Partap Singh’, Registration Clerk, Office of the Sub Registrar,
Faridabad, who was examined as PW-8, had simply deposed that on
03.01.2003 he had handed over photocopy of the sale deeds pertaining to sale
of land in question to the Investigating Officer.
34. Retired DRO ‘Mangal Ram’ who appeared as PW-9 had deposed
that when he was posted as Land Acquisition Officer, Faridabad, Award No. 9
dated 08.02.1995 was announced by ‘Sh.S.S.Dhankar’, HCS, the then Land
Acquisition Collector, Faridabad. According to PW-9 the award statement and
‘kabja vasool’ report were prepared during his tenure on the basis of revenue
record.
35. Another formal witness examined by the prosecution was PW-
10 ‘DSP Hukam Singh’. He had simply proved that the FIR (Ex.PP/2) of this
case was lodged by him.
36. The next witness ‘DSP Maharaj Singh’ was examined as PW-11.
He had deposed that during the course of investigation of this case he had
recorded the statement of three witnesses, namely ‘Sham Charan’, ‘Bhisham
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ
2026.11.02 16:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

Criminal Appeal No. S-1321-SB of 2005 17
And Other Connected Cases
Singh’ and ‘Dalbir Singh’. According to PW-11 the vigilance inquiry with
regard to allegations contained in the instant case was conducted by ‘Inspector
Man Singh’.
37. PW-12 ‘N.C.Wadhwa’ had deposed that being competent
authority, sanction for the prosecution of appellants was accorded by him.
The next witness, i.e. PW-13 ‘DSP Man Singh Sehrawat’ had deposed that
vigilance inquiry with regard to allegations against the appellants was
conducted by him, and that he had prepared the inquiry report Ex.PR.
38. The last witness examined by the prosecution was ‘Subhash
Chand’. He was examined as PW-14. The PW-14 deposed that former owners
of the land in question, namely ‘Ashok Kumar’ and ‘Ms.Promila’ had
executed ‘Special Power of Attorney’ for the above-mentioned land in favour
of ‘Vinod Kaushak’, and executed ‘General Power of Attorney’ of the same
land. According to PW-14 on the strength of above-mentioned power of
attorney he had sold the land in question to ‘BHEL Employees Cooperative
House Building Society Limited’.
39. As far as the above-mentioned evidence adduced by the
prosecution was concerned, a bare perusal of the same would go to show that
any of the 14 witnesses examined by the prosecution had not uttered even a
single word that with regard to payment of compensation to the former owners
of the land in question, namely ‘Ashok Kumar’ and ‘Ms.Promila’, there was
any kind of deal or transaction between the appellants and the recipients of
above-mentioned compensation. In view of above-mentioned facts and
circumstances of the case the contents of Section 13 of ‘the Prevention of
Corruption Act’ would come into play. Sections 13 of ‘the Prevention of
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ
2026.11.02 16:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

Criminal Appeal No. S-1321-SB of 2005 18
And Other Connected Cases
Corruption Act’ provides that:-
“(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal
misconduct,-
(a) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to
accept or attempts to obtain from any person for
himself or for any other person any gratification
other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward
such as is mentioned in section 7; or
(b) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to
accept or attempts to obtain for himself or for any
other person, any valuable thing without
consideration or for a consideration which he knows
to be inadequate from any person whom he knows
to have been, or to be, or to be likely to be
concerned in any proceeding or business transacted
or about to be transacted by him, or having any
connection with the official functions of himself or
of any public servant to whom he is subordinate, or
from any person whom he knows to be interested in
or related to the person so concerned; or
(c) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or
otherwise converts for his own use any property
entrusted to him or under his control as a public
servant or allows any other person so to do; or (d) if
he,-
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ
2026.11.02 16:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

Criminal Appeal No. S-1321-SB of 2005 19
And Other Connected Cases
(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for
himself or for any other person any valuable
thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant,
obtains for himself or for any other person
any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(iii) while holding office as a public servant,
obtains for any person any valuable thing or
pecuniary advantage without any public
interest; or
(e) if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or
has, at any time during the period of his office, been
in possession for which the public servant cannot
satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or
property disproportionate to his known sources of
income.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this section,
"known sources of income" means income received
from any lawful source and such receipt has been
intimated in accordance with the provisions of any
law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to
a public servant.
(2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which
shall be not less than one year but which may extend to
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ
2026.11.02 16:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

Criminal Appeal No. S-1321-SB of 2005 20
And Other Connected Cases
seven years and shall also be liable to fine.”
40. If the facts and circumstances of the present case are analysed in
the light of above-mentioned provision of statute, it transpires that there was
not even a bare averment in the depositions of any of the 14 witnesses that the
payment of compensation to ‘Ashok Kumar’ and ‘Ms. Promila’ (through their
power of attorney) was made with dishonest intention or that it amounted to
fraudulent misappropriation. In addition to above, neither there was any
allegation nor any evidence, to prove that such payments were made for any
extraneous consideration.
41. It is also relevant to mention here that not even a single witness
had testified that for the payment of compensation to ‘Ashok Kumar’ and ‘Ms.
Promila’ any illegal gratification was ever paid or assured to the appellants.
42. In the present case if the entire prosecution evidence would have
been considered in its entirety, the only inference which could have been
drawn was that there was a mistake committed by the officials, working in the
office of Land Acquisition Officer, who instead of paying compensation to
the current owners of the land in question, issued cheques in favour of its
former owners. Unless the above-mentioned act of the appellants would have
come within the ambit of Section-13 of ‘the Prevention of Corruption Act’ the
above-mentioned lapse, omission or commission on the part of appellants
would not amount to an off
ence. Rather Section 13A of ‘the Land Acquisition Act’, in itself, provides a
mechanism wherein such a mistake/error can be rectified. Section 13A of ‘the
Land Acquisition Act’ prescribes that:-
“(1) The Collector may, at any time but not later than six
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ
2026.11.02 16:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

Criminal Appeal No. S-1321-SB of 2005 21
And Other Connected Cases
months from the date of the award, or where he has been
required under section 18 to make a reference to the Court,
before the making of such reference, by order, correct any
clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the award or errors
arising therein either on his own motion or on the
application of any person interested or a local authority.
Provided that no correction, which is likely to affect
prejudicially any person, shall be made unless such person
has been given a reasonable opportunity of making a
representation in the matter.
(2) The Collector shall give immediate notice of any
correction made in the award to all the persons interested.
(3) Where any excess amount is proved to have been paid to
any person as a result of the correction made under sub-
section (1), the excess amount so paid shall be liable to be
refunded and in the case of any default or refusal to pay,
the same may be recovered as an arrear of land revenue.”
43. In the instant case it is also relevant to mention here that as per
case of the prosecution, owners of the land in question was ‘BHEL Employees
Cooperative House Building Society Limited’, but there is nothing on record
to prove that the above-mentioned owner of the land in question had ever filed
any complaint against the appellants or former owners of the land in question.
In fact, as per deposition of PW-1, the ‘BHEL Employees Cooperative House
Building Society Limited’ was not deprived of its right to receive
compensation, as on return of money by ‘Ashok Kumar’ and ‘Ms. Promila’,
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ
2026.11.02 16:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

Criminal Appeal No. S-1321-SB of 2005 22
And Other Connected Cases
the same was paid to the above-named Society. Thus, in the case in hand it
was proved that no loss, whatsoever, was caused to the above-mentioned
Society.
44. It is also relevant to mention here that the compensation to
former owners of the land in question was paid by the officials of the Land
Acquisition Officer and once the above-mentioned money was returned by its
recipients, in my considered opinion, even the above-mentioned public office
did not suffer any kind of loss, on account of above-mentioned wrong
payment.
45. Since any of the witnesses examined by the prosecution had not
uttered even a single word that Form-‘CC’, which was the basic document
prepared for payment of compensation to ‘Ashok Kumar’ and ‘Ms. Promila’,
was an outcome of any malafide intentions on the part of the appellants and
no loss, whatsoever, to anybody was caused, in my considered opinion, in the
present case neither there was any element of malafide intentions in preparing
the above said documents nor of cheating as no loss was caused to anybody.
In view of above it is hereby observed that the allegations with regard to
forgery of documents in the absence of mens rea for cheating did not exist.
Thus, in my considered opinion, the prosecution had faltered in proving the
fact that with malafide intentions false documents were prepared to cheat
‘BHEL Employees Cooperative House Building Society Limited’.
46. In my considered opinion, if the entire scenario would have been
considered cojointly with the evidence available on record, it would go to
show that there was an omission on the part of appellants, namely ‘Jaipal
Singh’ and ‘Narsingh Dass’, who could not take note of the fact that the land
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ
2026.11.02 16:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

Criminal Appeal No. S-1321-SB of 2005 23
And Other Connected Cases
in question had already been sold to the ‘BHEL Employees Cooperative
House Building Society Limited’ and prepared vouchers in favour of former
owners of the land in question. For the above-mentioned error committed by
the above-named officials, the departmental action for negligence in
performance of duty could have been initiated, but in the absence of any
demand, payment, enrichment or illegal gratification the charges for which the
appellants had been convicted was not sustainable.
47. In the present case, as already came in the deposition of PW-6,
the appellant No.3–‘Bijender Singh’ had not dealt with the documents
pertaining to payment of compensation. He had neither prepared any
document nor signed the same. However, despite the fact that he had played
no role in the entire process, the appellant No.3–‘Bijender Singh’, too, had
been convicted in the present case. In my opinion for want of any act of
commission or omission, the judgment of conviction qua appellant No.3 is not
sustainable.
48. The learned counsel for the appellants have also contended that
in the present case merely an omission had taken place on the part of the
appellants, namely ‘Jaipal Singh’ and ‘Narsingh Dass’, and that the above-
named officials were not serving the revenue department, as they were
employed by ‘Haryana Urban Development Authority’. As per learned
counsel for the appellants on account of overlooking the record Form–‘CC’
was prepared in the name of former owners of the land, instead of vendee. It
has been further contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that no
loss was caused to the office of Land Acquisition Officer, as compensation,
wrongly paid to ‘Ashok Kumar’ and ‘Ms.Promila’, had already been returned
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ
2026.11.02 16:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

Criminal Appeal No. S-1321-SB of 2005 24
And Other Connected Cases
to Land Acquisition Collector.
49. As a sequel to above-mentioned observations, in my considered
opinion, the learned trial Court committed an error of judgment when, without
any allegation and without any iota of evidence, it observed that allegations
for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471
& 120-B of IPC and Section 13(2) of PC Act had been proved against the
appellants. In my considered opinion, in view of evidence available on record,
the charges against the appellants were not proved and therefore, instead of
judgment of conviction, the judgment of acquittal of the appellants should
have been pronounced.
50. In view of above-mentioned observations, it is hereby held that
all the four appeals have got merit and the ‘impugned judgment’, as well as
‘impugned order’ deserve to be set-aside. Thus, by accepting all the four
appeals, the impugned judgment of conviction and order on the point of
quantum of sentence are hereby set-aside and all the appellants are hereby
acquitted of the charges framed against them.
51. In view of above, all the four appeals are hereby allowed ,
accordingly.
52. A copy of this order be placed on the files of other connected
cases.
(Surya Partap Singh)
Judge
October 30, 2026
“DK”


Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ
2026.11.02 16:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document