1978 (11) TMI 151 - SUPREME COURT

Whether or not the courts below were legally justified in discharging the respondents?

Held that:- The High Court correctly pointed out that the records before the Trial Judge show that the Collector Vijayasekharan had valued the land at the rate of ₹ 1.70 lakhs per acre as far back 1: as 3-2-1970 and if two years later the valuation was raised to ₹ 2 lakhs it cannot be said that the land was in any way over-valued. Lastly, there does not appear to be any legal evidence to show any; meeting of mind between respondents No. 1 and 2 at any time. Although the Collector at the time of the acquisition was a distant relation of respondent No. 1 he had himself slashed down the rate of compensation recommended by the Revenue officer from ₹ 2,10,000 to ₹ 2,00,000 and it was never suggested by the prosecution that the Collector was in any way a party to the aforesaid conspiracy.

For these reasons, therefore, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court that there was no sufficient ground for trying the accused in the instant case. Moreover, this Court could be most reluctant to interfere with concurrent findings of the two courts in the absence of any special circumstances. For the reasons given above, the judgement of the High Court is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed.