P&H HC Acquits Four Officials After Former Owners Returned Compensation For Land They Had Sold, Finding No Proof Of Fraud

Ashok Kumar and Promila sold the land in question to BHEL Employees Cooperative House Building Society, and mutations recording the sale were sanctioned.

After the land was acquired, compensation was nevertheless paid to the former owners through their power-of-attorney holder. The recipients later refunded the amount, which was then paid to the Society.

The prosecution alleged that the appellants, public officials, had colluded to prepare the compensation documents in the former owners’ names, thereby committing offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The Special Judge convicted all four appellants and imposed concurrent sentences of three years’ rigorous imprisonment for each offence.

They appealed against conviction and sentence.

The Court considered Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, requiring proof of the elements of the charged offences, including the requisite dishonest or fraudulent intent for the alleged cheating and forgery.

It applied Section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which identifies forms of criminal misconduct, including obtaining a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for oneself or another by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing public position; Section 13(2) provides the punishment.

The Court also referred to Section 13A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which permits correction of specified errors in an award and provides for recovery of excess amounts paid as a result of correction.

The Court found that none of the prosecution witnesses testified to any agreement, transaction, dishonest intention, illegal gratification or other extraneous consideration linking the appellants to the payment made to the former owners.

It considered the evidence consistent with an administrative error: officials failed to note the sale and prepared compensation documents in the former owners’ names. The recipients refunded the money, the Society ultimately received compensation, and the Court found no resulting loss to the Society or the public office.

On that record, the Court held that the prosecution had not established the requisite mens rea for cheating or forgery, or the obtaining of a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage necessary to sustain the corruption charge; any lapse could instead have attracted departmental action for negligence.

As to Bijender Singh, the evidence showed he had not dealt with or signed the relevant documents, and the Court found no act of commission or omission attributable to him.

It allowed all four appeals, set aside the convictions and sentences, and acquitted all appellants of the charges.