9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (9) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The High Court dismissed his revision. Hence this appeal by special leave. 2. The prosecution case is this: A certain piece of land situate in village Tehkhand (Delhi) was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition Collector made a reference under Sections 30 and 31 of the said Act, The reference was number ed 96 of 1964 in the Court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge Delhi, Shri D.R. Dhameja. Along with the reference the Land Acquisition Collector also sent a cheque for the amount of compensation settled by him to the Court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge. The said court directed payment of Rs. 4726.70 to each of the following persons: (1) Rattan Singh s/o Gopal; (2) Nand Lal s/o Gopal (3) Singh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngh appeared before Shri D.R. Dhameja and claimed payment of the amount due to him. His application brought to light the alleged criminal conspiracy of the accused. Thereupon payment was stopped and four of the vouchers could not be cashed. Jhumman Singh, however, was able to cash the voucher drawn in the name of Singh Raj. The appellant also cashed the voucher for the amount payable to Rattan Singh. It appears from the First Information Report that out of the voucher amount he has appropriated a sum of Rs. 1400/- to himself as his fee. It appears that this amount was deposited in his account in the Punjab National Bank Ltd. Kashmiri Gate. The balance of the voucher amount was deposited in the account of Rattan Singh in the State Bank of In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion, the High Court remarked that the appellant could derive no support from the law laid down in that case. Although the High Court does not expressly say in its order that there is prima facie evidence for the charges against the appellant, it seems to have entertained that view. 8. Counsel for the appellant has canvassed a single point before us. He has urged that there is no evidence to justify the framing of the charges against the appellant. In Raj Pal Singh, 1970CriLJ903 (Supra) this Court has held that a magistrate should not commit an accused to the Court of Session if there is no prima facie evidence or if the evidence is entirely unworthy of credit. It is now to be seen whether there is any prima facie evidence against the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant. Firstly; there is the circumstance that he was engaged only for the purpose of identifying the other accused; secondly; he has appropriated a sum of Rupees 1400/- towards his fees and it is a heavy fee. In our view the circumstance of the appellant being engaged by the accused for their identification is no incriminating evidence for the offence of I conspiracy. Fee is an individual matter. Fees vary from lawyer to lawyer. It does not also seem that the sum of Rs. 1400/- is a heavy fee for the work which the appellant did for the other accused. He had made applications on their behalf-He identified them. He also made himself responsible for refund of the amount in case of wrong payment. He 'deposited a part of the amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
