Shelat, J. - (1.) In Special Case No. 5 of 1966, four persons (referred to hereinafter as A-1 to A-4) stood their trial before the Special Judge, Kolhapur on charges under Ss. 120 B, 166, 167, 218, 447 and 109 of the Penal Code and under S. 5 (1) (d) read with S. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
(2.) The Special Judge found that the prosecution had failed to establish conspiracy and therefore acquitted all the four accused of the charge under S. 120B, Penal Code. But he convicted the accused on other charges, the particulars of which may for brevity's sake be stated as follows. A-1 convicted under Ss. 166, 167 and 218 and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment on each of the charges; also under S. 5 (2) read with S. 5 (1) (d), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment, and under Sections 447 and 427/109, Penal Code and sentenced to two years and three months respectively; A-2 convicted under Ss. 166, 167 and 218, Penal Code and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment on each of the three counts, under S. 5 (2) read with S. 5 (1), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment, and under Ss. 427, 447/109, Penal Code and sentenced to two years and three months rigorous imprisonment respectively; A-3 convicted under Ss. 166, 167 and 218, Penal Code, and sentenced to three years on each count, under Section 5 (2) read with S. 5 (1) (d). Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment, under Ss. 427, 447/109, Penal Code, and sentenced to two years and three months respectively; and A-4 convicted under Ss. 166, 167 and 218 all read with S. 109, Penal Code, and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment on each count, also under Ss. 447 and 427, Penal Code and sentenced to two years and three months respectively. All the substantive sentences against each of the accused were ordered to run concurrently.
(3.) The four accused appealed In the High Court against the orders of conviction and sentences passed against them. A-1 died pending the appeal, and therefore, the appeal filed by him abated. As regards the appeals of the rest of the accused, the High Court substantially agreed with the findings of fact given by the Special Judge, but modified to a certain extent the orders of conviction passed by him and also reduced the sentences awarded to them partly on the ground that considerable time has elapsed since the offences were said to have been committed and partly owing to the loss attempted to have been caused to Government being of a comparatively small amount. The result of the appeals of A-2 may be seen from the following: A-2 convicted under S. 166, Penal Code, in respect of the reports made by him in regard to the trees to be permitted to be cut and their valuation, under Ss. 167/109, Penal Code, for abetting A-1 in the making of the earlier panchnamas in respect of the trees standing in the fields in question and on the basis of which the said trees were ultimately transferred to the allottees, also under S. 5 (2) read with S. 5 (1), Prevention of Corruption Act and under Ss. 427/109, Penal Code. The rest of the convictions passed against him were set aside. Sentences also were reduced to six months each under Ss. 167 and 167/109 and to one year under S. 5 (2) read with S. 5 (1) (d), Prevention of Corruption Act. and also under Ss. 427/109, Penal Code, all of them being directed to run concurrently. It is not necessary to set out here the modifications made in the order of convictions and sentences passed against A-3 and A-4 as we have before us only the appeal by A-2 against the order of conviction and sentence passed against him.;