-
8/9/2019 Justice AB Palkar Commission of Inquiry Report Volume III
1/232
Reportof
One Man Commission
Justice A.B.Palkar(Former Judge, Bombay High Court)
Appointed
By
Government of Maharashtra
As per order No.POS-1205/Beed/61/C.R.22/05/ FFC-2
dated 1st October 2005 for revalidation of 355(354,
354A) freedom fighters pension cases from Beed
district in pursuance of the order passed by the
Honble Supreme Court on 2nd August 2005 in Civil
Appeal No. 5162 to 5167 of 2005 arising out of SLP
No. 11344 and 11348 of 2004 in the matter of
Shri Bhaurao Dagadu Paralkar & Others
V/sState of Maharashtra.
(VOLUME III-A)
2007
-
8/9/2019 Justice AB Palkar Commission of Inquiry Report Volume III
2/232
- 488 -
I N D E X
Part Subject
VOLUME I
Page No
I. INTRODUCTION 2-3
II. BRIEF HISTORY 4-7
III. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE COMMISSION 8-13
IV. GOA LIBERATION MOVEMENT 14-15
V. CASES IN WHICH CLAIM IS BASED EITHER ONCONVICTION OR OTHERWISE DETENTION INCUSTODY FOR SOME PERIOD BY THE
RESPONDENT
16-31
VI. CASES RECOMMENDED BY ZILLA GAURAVSAMMITI OR CASES IN WHICH THE CLAIM ISSANCTIONED BY THE HIGH POWER
COMMITTEE PRIOR TO ISSUE OFGOVERNMENT RESOLUTION DATED 4.7.1995
32-40
VII. GENERAL REASONS IN CASES OFUNDERGROUND FREEDOM FIGHTERS
41-54
VIII. GENERAL REASONS IN CASES BASED ONWARRANTS OF ARREST
55-71
IX. CASES IN WHICH CLAIM IS BASED ONARREST WARRANTS AND ALSO ON THEGROUND THAT THE PERSON WAS WORKING
UNDERGROUND IN HYDERABAD FREEDOMMOVEMENT
72-140
X. CASES IN WHICH DATE OF BIRTH ISDISPUTED
VOLUME II
141-215
XI. CASES IN WHICH FILES WERE NOT MADEAVAILABLE TO THE COMMISSION
217
XII. CASES IN WHICH THE CLAIMANT AS WELL ASHIS OR HER SPOUCE IS REPORTED DEAD AND
HENCE CLOSED BY THE COMMISSION
218
XIII. PARTICULAR CASES OF UNDERGROUNDFREEDOM FIGHTERS
VOLUME III-A & B
219-487
XIV. PARTICULAR CASES OF FREEDOM FIGHTERSCLAIM BASED ON ARREST WARRANT
489-838
XV. CONCLUDING REMARKS OF THECOMMISSION
839-848
XVI. ANNEXURES (KEPT SEPARATELY) 849-862
XVII. LIST OF ALL 355 CASES (354, 354A) 863-872
-
8/9/2019 Justice AB Palkar Commission of Inquiry Report Volume III
3/232
- 489 -
PART XIV
CASES OF FREEDOM FIGHTERS
AGAINST WHOM WARRANT IS ISSUED
Sr. No. Case
File No.
Name of the Freedom Fighter Page
No.
1. 3 Anna Rakhmaji Sanap
2. 8 Draupadi Raoraheb Ghuge
3. 10 Uttam Kahnuji Shinde
4. 11 Raghunath Mahadeorao Nagargoje
5. 12 Parasram Raghu Dongre
6. 14 Dyanoba Pandurang Sanap
7. 15 Shankar Sambhaji Jagtap
8. 17 Babu Namdeo Sanap
9. 19 Subhadrabai Anna Binawade
10. 20 Namdeo Pandu Adsul
11. 21 Sunder Nivrutti Sanap12. 23 Laxman Deorao Adsul
13. 25 Radhabai Saheb Nagargoje
14. 27 Shankar Padaji Rakh
15. 29 Ramkisan Shahu Adsul
16. 31 Yamunabai Gyandeo Adsul
17. 32 Mathurabai Buaji Gayakwad
18. 42 Bhagwan Ambadas Nagargoje
19. 44 Dagadu Shripati Jogdande
20. 51 Uttam Dada Sanap
21. 52 Shamrao Yashwant Kanthale
22. 53 Baburao Yashwant Kanthale
23. 54 Trimbak keru Bade
24. 56 Dhanaji Ranu Mane
25. 57 Keshv Babu Bangar
26. 58 Padminibai Narharibai Arsul
27. 60 Sahebrao Eknath Kadam
28. 61 Bhagirathibai Maruti Sanap (deceased)Represented by Marutibau Sanap
29. 63 Bhanudas Gopalrao Sanap
30. 67 Dhanaji Namdeo Salve
31. 72 Sindhubai Dynanoba Tandale
32. 85 Somnath Vishune Shirsat
33. 91 Maruti Tukaram Bangar34. 92 Ashruba Dajiba Wanve
35. 93 Digambar Someshwar Mule (deceased)Represented by Parvatibai Digambar Mule
36. 94 Rambhau Ganpati Raut
37. 95 Bhujanga Ashruba Bawane
38. 96 Sahebrao Tatya Sanap
39. 97 Vitthal Madhavrao Nagargoje
-
8/9/2019 Justice AB Palkar Commission of Inquiry Report Volume III
4/232
- 490 -
40. 102 Saheba Mahade Nagargoje
41. 123 Rakhmaji Genu Mane
42. 124 Bajirao Bapurao Shinde
43. 126 Ashruba Dhondiba Mhatre
44. 127 Ashruba Tatyaba Dubale
45. 128 Shivaji Limbaji Doiphode
46. 133 Tanaji Bapu Sanap47. 147 Kashinath Sakhaaram Kadpe
48. 151 Sunderabai Bhagawan Rakh
49. 152 Bhagwan Shivram Sanap
50. 153 Mahedeo Tukaram Sanap
51. 154 Prayagbai Nivrutti Asul
52. 156 Kisan Gunaji Wanve
53. 160 Jijaba Dashrath Khote
54. 162 Kashinath Ganpati Aaghav (deceased)Represented by Samindrabai Kashinath
Aaghav
55. 163 Trambak Nathu Khedkar56. 169 Namdeo Digambar Bangar
57. 171 Vikram Rangnath Tandale
58. 172 Deoram Dhondiba Kashid
59. 174 Indirabai Bhaurao Rakh
60. 175 Prabhakar Dattoba Rakh
61. 176 Anna Paraji Khatal
62. 178 Pandurang Haribahu Ware
63. 180 Vishwanath Anand Raut
64. 181 Kisan Nana Nagargoje
65. 182 Ashruba Bapuji Khatal
66. 185 Sopan Bapu Gharat
67. 186 Nivrutti Ganapati Nagargoje
68. 187 Raghunath Ganpati Bangar
69. 188 Prayagbai Dynanoba Tambe (deceasedDynanoba Bajirao Tambe)
70. 193 Vitthal Pandurang Payal
71. 194 Samatabai Bhagawan Rakh
72. 196 Ravsaheb Narayan Kokate (deceased)Represented by Lochanabai Raosaheb Kokate
73. 198 Padmabai Gena Rakh
74. 199 Arjun Gundoba Tambe
75. 202 Sanjay Dhondiba Mane
76. 204 Raghunath Eknath Shinde77. 206 Dnyoba Dagadu Aagam
78. 209 Bayaji Tukaram Rakh
79. 210 Ramrao Madhavrao Nagargoje
80. 211 Uttam Sonba Pandit
81. 212 Babasaheb Govind Wanve
82. 215 Narhari Dinanath Pathak
83. 220 Tulshram Gahininath Bangar
84. 223 Aabasaheb Girarao Shinde
-
8/9/2019 Justice AB Palkar Commission of Inquiry Report Volume III
5/232
- 491 -
85. 224 Lahanu Bhau Rakh
86. 225 Baba Tukaram Arsul
87. 226 Ashruba Anna Sanap (deceased) Representedby Sunderabai Ashruba Sanap
88. 227 Rajaram Govind Arsul
89. 228 Manmath Genba Gobre
90. 229 Laxman Anayaba Nagargoje91. 230 Jalinder Dadarao Rakh (deceased)
Represented by Gangubai Jalinder Rakh
92. 233 Keshav Kisan Nagargoje
93. 236 Bhau Tukaram Arsul
94. 237 Vishwanath Bhagawan Rakh
95. 239 Gahininath Deorao Rakh
96. 241 Haribhau Bhaguji Zambre
97. 242 Kondiba Tukaram Khade
98. 243 Lochanabau Ashrubai Rakh
99. 244 Dadarao Bapurao Arsul
100. 245 Nivrutti Bhanudas Arsul101. 246 Sitaram Natha Gaikwad
102. 248 Shama Govind Kadam
103. 249 Narhari Aaba More
104. 250 Shankar Kisan Kakde (deceased) Representedby Lakhpati Shankar Kakde
105. 251 Gopinath Ganpati Shinde (deceased)Represented by Shewantabai GopinathShinde
106. 253 Deorao Kisan Lad
107. 256 Sheubai Dnyoba Rakh
108. 263 LImbaji Aaba Bangar
109. 264 Ganpat Eknath Mandwe110. 266 Narayan Aabaji Gurav
111. 267 Bhagubai Aapparao Jaybhaye
112. 268 Gahinath Mada Rakh
113. 269 Babasaheb Ashruba Rakh
114. 270 Namdeo Madhav Gaikwad
115. 271 Kacharu Kisan Bhandare
116. 273 Sarjerao Madhavrao Bangar
117. 274 Manohar Genaji Bangar
118. 276 Ashruba Vithoba Bawane
119. 278 Gyandeo Ravji Rakh
120. 279 Manikrao Devji Rakh (deceased) Representedby Wanchabai Manikrao Rakh
121. 280 Ganpatrao Madhavrao Baglane (deceased)Represented by Muktabai Ganpatrao Baglane
122. 281 Sahebrao Pandurang Sanap
123. 282 Bhaguji Maruti Tandale
124. 284 Sona Ranga Waghamare
125. 285 Maruti Dada Wanve
126. 287 Mahadeo Yashwanta Adangale
-
8/9/2019 Justice AB Palkar Commission of Inquiry Report Volume III
6/232
- 492 -
127. 289 Shahurao Aabaji Rakh
128. 290 Nana Hari Suravse
129. 292 Ramdas Sona Bawne
130. 301 Dasrao Manikrao Bhakre
131. 303 Ramkisan Buwasaheb Nagargoje
132. 306 deceased Rama Waman Wanve (deceased)
Represented by Prayagbai Rama Wanve133. 307 Laxman Ganpati Chaure
134. 309 Raosaheb Ramrao Bangar
135. 311 Mahadeo Rakhmaji Gopalghare
136. 314 Vitthal Ashruba Sonawane
137. 315 Sopan Chatrubhuj Gaikwad
138. 316 Sarjerao Sahebrao Bawane
139. 318 Sukhadeo Dhondiba Arsul
140. 322 Pandurang Maruti Khade
141. 325 Sukhadeo Megha Funde
142. 326 Ramrao Ashruba Bangar
143. 333 Krishnanath Someshwar Mule144. 339 Mahadeo Aabaji Naiknavare
145. 341 Babasaheb Chatrubhuj Gaikwad
146. 342 Bhaurao Sitaram Kapale
147. 343 Sarubai Bansilal Bhutada (deceased BansilalBhaurao Bhutada)
148. 345 Shantabai Bhaginath Gaikwad (deceasedBhaginath Vitthal Gaikwad)
149. 348 Sukhdeo Daula Shinde
150. 353 Sunderabai Sonabai Panchan (deceasedSonaba Tukaram Panchal)
-
8/9/2019 Justice AB Palkar Commission of Inquiry Report Volume III
7/232
- 493 -
Case File No. 3. (Respondent No.3)
Shri Anna Rakhamaji Sanap
He had applied for grant of freedom fighter's pension on 2.9.1994.
However, the application is not seen in the file. His claim was based on
warrant of the arrest issued in file No. 7/1357 F Outward No. 407 dated 02
Bahman 1357 Fasli (2.12.1947).
He produced Xerox copy of warrant which is not signed as true copy
by anybody. By letter dated 15.4.1998, he informed the collector Beed that
when he filed application there was no Zilla Gaurav Samiti in existence.
However since now there is Zilla Gaurav Samiti formed the file be placed
before Zilla Gaurav Samiti for consideration. The district superintendent of
police had already sent verification report regarding the arrest warrant to the
Collector.
The case was placed for consideration of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti in
meeting dated 30.1.1998. Zilla Gaurav Samiti referred to the warrant and
verification report sent by Police Sub Inspector (crime) Aurangabad that there
is no mention regarding the said warrant in the record.
The said warrant was sent for verification to the superintendent of
police district Beed who informed that name of Appa Rakhamaji Wanjara
resident of Wadzari is mentioned in the warrant. However, it is not known
whether the warrant was executed or not but the warrant appears to be
connected with Hyderabad Freedom Movement. The Zilla Gaurav Samiti was
not in a position to take any decision regarding recommendation and
forwarded the matter for taking decision at Higher Level. However below the
entire minutes of Zilla Gaurav Samiti stating that decision be taken at Higher
Level there is erasure and addition. The earlier comment that Zilla Gaurav
Samiti can not give recommendation is changed and the words "can not give"
(deu shakat nahi) are scored out and it is stated that there is recommendation
(Abhipraya aahe). However, the sentence "that decision be taken at HigherLevel by Government is not deleted". In his own hand writing in different ink
the Chairman has added one sentence that the case is fit for sanction.
In the affidavit filed in support by one Uttam Dhondiba Sanap there is
no reference to the arrest warrant issued against him. Similar is the affidavit of
Rambhau Laxman Sanap.
-
8/9/2019 Justice AB Palkar Commission of Inquiry Report Volume III
8/232
- 494 -
When the matter was placed for consideration of High Power
Committee, note was put up that he has produced warrant from Ambajogai
Police Station and the warrant is verified by the Tahasildar Patoda. He
reported that original record was not available and verification is done from
Xerox copy which contains his name and the warrant is in connection with
Hyderabad Freedom Movement. However, below that the under secretary
mentioned that there is no name in the warrant. There is no proper verification
report.
It is thus clear that the High Power Committee was made aware of the
fact that the original record was not available. There can be no verification
from the Xerox copy itself. Verification was not from the original record
which was admittedly not available.
The warrant bearing Outward No. 407 dated 2 Bahman 1357 F i.e.
2.12.1997 relied upon by him is not found to be reliable by the Commission.
The so called original warrant was alleged to be in the file of Ambajogai
Police Station.
The Commission found the signatures on this warrant was entirely
different from the signatures of the same Tahasildar on undisputed
correspondence/office notes signed by him and the signature does not tally
either with the signatures on warrants received from the court of Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Gevrai, or warrants contained in the file received from
the Collector pertaining to Tahasil Office Patoda and even the signatures on
the other warrants received from Ambajogai Police Station do not tally. The
Commission has already stated in detail the reasons in a separate part on
warrant cases and has also referred to the report of handwriting expert to that
effect as stated above.
Thus the respondent, having relied on document alleged as arrest
warrant which is false and forged, is not entitled to Sanmanpatra and allied
benefits and in fact having produced such a document the entire proceedings
are vitiated. The Commission therefore recommends that the Sanmanpatra and
allied benefits granted to him be cancelled.
-
8/9/2019 Justice AB Palkar Commission of Inquiry Report Volume III
9/232
- 495 -
Case File No.8 (Respondent No.8)
Raosaheb Vishwanath Ghuge deceased represented by wife Dropadibai.
In his application dated 17th September 1990 he accounted for the
activities performed against Nizam Government and in affidavit he disclosed
that arrest warrant was issued against him and to substantiate the said fact he
has placed on record Xerox copy of the warrant bearing file No.21/1 outward
No.617 dated 17 Thir 1357 Fasli equivalent to 17th
May 1948. The said Xerox
copy is copy of one copy alleged to be certified copy by endorsing thereon to
the effect verified that this Xerox copy is true copy of original copy issued
by Gevrai Court on 10th
November 1989.
In reply to the letter dated 1st
May 1998 of the Collector Beed. The
Civil Judge Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class Court, Gevrai
informed on 10th
August 1998 that the warrant Nos. 201, 202, 203, 204, 205
and 617 of 1357 Fasli are not available i.e. original record of the same was not
available. The Patoda Tahasildar issued the original warrant. The same be
verified from that office.
In reply to the correspondence from Desk Officer, General
Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, the Tahasildar Patoda by
his letter dated 8th
January 1993 informed that from the record available in his
office, the warrant appears to have been issued against the person mentioned
in the warrant. It was in force for the period of nine months from the date of its
issue.
The Collector, Beed vide his letter dated 7th
November 1998 addressed
to the Deputy Secretary, General Administration Department informed that in
the verification report dated 10th
August 1998 sent by the Civil Judge Junior
Division Gevrai, stated that the name of Raosaheb Vishvanath Ghuge does not
find place in the warrant and further opined that it is not a fit case for grant of
pension.
-
8/9/2019 Justice AB Palkar Commission of Inquiry Report Volume III
10/232
- 496 -
However, the High Power Committee granted application stating that
19 persons from Osmanabad district whose name appeared in the same
warrant have been given pension on the basis of the warrant and therefore the
applicants claim is granted.
Mr. Jadhav, Ld. Advocate pointed out that the document placed on
record is not a warrant and what is produced is not a certified copy.
The case depends entirely on the reliability of warrant in file No.21/1
Outward No.617 dated 17 Thir 1357 Fasli (07.05.1948). The alleged original
warrant is in the file received from the Judicial Magistrate First Class Court,
Gevrai. The signature on this warrant is only like initial and is entirely
different from the signature found on the undisputed correspondence/office
notes signed by the same person i.e. Tahasildar, Patoda and it also is not at all
tallying with the signature on warrants in the file of police station Ambajogai,
the warrants contained in file of Tahasildar Patoda and other warrants received
from the Judicial Magistrate First Class Court, Gevrai.
This apparent to the naked eye and is confirmed by the expert opinion.
The general observations made in separate part of this report on warrant cases
apply Mutatis Mutandis to this case.
Thus the warrant not being reliable he is not entitled and has failed to
prove his entitlement to the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits which deserve to
be and be cancelled forthwith and the Commission recommends accordingly.
-
8/9/2019 Justice AB Palkar Commission of Inquiry Report Volume III
11/232
- 497 -
Case File No. 10 (Respondent No. 10)
Uttam Kanhuji Shinde.
He applied for pension as freedom fighter on 23rd
November 1990 and
in his affidavits he has stated that arrest warrant was issued by Tahasildar
against him.
He produced Xerox copy of warrant which is a true copy bearing the
endorsement that it is a true Xerox copy of copy issued by Civil Court Ashti.
The name of the freedom fighter appears in this warrant in confidential File
No. 21/1357 F outward No.201 dated 10 Isfandar 1357 Fasli (equivalent to
10th
January 1948). This warrant contained names of more than hundred
persons.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 31st
December 1998
stated that since original warrant was not available with the authority the copy
produced cannot be relied upon and no positive recommendation can be given.
The Additional Collector vide letter dated 20th
March 1999 reiterated
the same facts and stated that the case is not fit for grant of pension.
However, the High Power Committee accepted the warrant as genuine
and sanctioned pension.
Before the Mane Committee, he stated that warrant was issued against
him. Although he stated he will produce the certified copy he never produced.
The case depends on the reliability of warrant in file No.21 Outward
No. 201 dated 10 Isfandar 1357 Fasli (10.1.1948). The alleged original
warrant is in the file received from the Gevrai Court. The signature on this
warrant is only like initial and is entirely different from the signatures found
on the undisputed correspondence/ office notes signed by the same Tahasildar
and also is not at all tallying with signature on the warrants contained in the
file of police station Ambajogai and on the warrants contained in file of
Tahasildar Patoda. It does not tally even with other warrants in the same file
received from Gevrai Court. This is apparent to the naked eye and is
confirmed by the expert opinion. Thus the warrant not being genuine he is
not entitled to the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits which deserve to be and
should be cancelled forthwith and the Commission recommends accordingly.
-
8/9/2019 Justice AB Palkar Commission of Inquiry Report Volume III
12/232
- 498 -
Case File No. 11 (Respondent No.11)
Raghunath Mahadev Nagargoje
It is a case depending on warrant issued against him in file No. -
Outward No. 217 dated 2 Bahman 1357 Fasli i.e. 2
nd
December 1947 A.D.
He applied for grant of pension in the year 1986. He stated in his
application that he gave slogans as Vande Mataram Mahatma Gandhi Ki
Jai, Nizam Murdabad and cut shindi trees and also opposed recovery of levy
etc. He has relied on warrant issued against him as described above and
produced Xerox copy of copy claimed to be certified copy. It is signed as true
copy by the Land Records Inspector. The Marathi translation describes it as
warrant dated 2 Bahman 1357 Fasli i.e. 2nd
December 1947. The warrant
contained names of 29 persons. It is in the form of letter addressed to P.S.I.
Patoda by the Tahasildar. Two Xerox copies are filed and in translation of one
of the copy, it is added at the end that Raosaheb Narayan Kokate resident of
Daskheda and Vayaji Tarku named from amongst the 29 persons has been
granted pension which note appears to have been added as the same is not in
thecopy of which Xerox is taken.
For verification of this warrant District Collector Beed addressed a
letter to Tahasildar Patoda on 3rd November 1997 and attached a list inquiring
file number and outward number of the warrant and whether copy has been
issued from the office of Tahasildar and whether the names mentioned in the
list are there in the warrant/letter.
In his verification report the Tahasildar communicated file number nil
and outward No.218 stating that the original record has already been submitted
to the Collectors office and he has verified the names from the copy sent to
him as the original record was not with him. This list of-course contains only
five names including Raghunath Mahadevrao Nagargoje
Applicant had filed writ petition No.3332/94 in the High Court as his
application was pending since 1986. The High Court directed to decide the
application expeditiously.
It appears that after the directions of the High Court his application
was rejected. Thereafter he filed another writ petition No.4405/96. In view of
-
8/9/2019 Justice AB Palkar Commission of Inquiry Report Volume III
13/232
- 499 -
rejection of his claim and order was passed in two petitions namely 4405 and
4408/96, which were heard along with petition No.3036/95. Decision
rejecting the claim of the freedom fighter was set aside and the matter was
remanded for decision after giving fresh opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner freedom fighters.
After the decision of the High Court, in the meeting held on 30th
November 1998 the Zilla Gaurav Samiti noted that he has filed his own
affidavit and copy of warrant issued by Tahasildar Patoda. The original record
was not available, and the earlier remarks of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti are on
record that in the absence of original record the copy of warrant cannot be
relied upon. Further it is stated that Zilla Gaurav Samitis recommendation
is in the negative and the word in Marathi Nahi is scored out and written as
positive ahe. However, the word in negative is one which logicallyfollows the earlier sentence that in the absence of original record the copy
cannot be accepted to be correct. After this one sentence is added in totally
different hand writing and different pen at different time mentioning that on
the basis of said warrant one Raosaheb Kokate was getting pension and
therefore applicant should also be granted pension. However, one member
Mr. P.V.Joshi made an endorsement that original record is not available.
In the meantime the Collector had written to the Government on 5th
February 1998 that the warrant cannot be verified in the absence of original
record and therefore the Zilla Gaurav Samiti has not given positive
recommendation the case is not fit for sanction of pension.
Thereafter in the note put up before the High Power Committee it is
stated that original record is not traceable but the copy appears to be certified
In the reply filed in the High Court in Para 9 it was stated by the Government
that mere filing affidavits of two renowned freedom fighters is not sufficient
to decide the claim. The petitioner has not produced any reliable document to
show that he took part in the freedom movement and accordingly the High
Power Committee rejected his claim.
Thereafter the applicant gave application on 12th
September 1999 to
the then Member Secretary of High Power Committee Advocate Rajabhau
Zarkar and he made a note on it on 12th
September to reconsider the case and
-
8/9/2019 Justice AB Palkar Commission of Inquiry Report Volume III
14/232
- 500 -
put up the case with recommendation. Thereafter in view of the endorsement
of the member secretary on the application of freedom fighter, it was further
stated that the copy of warrant filed by the freedom fighter was got verified
through Collector Beed. The said warrant has not been verified from the
original record. However his name appears in the copy and he had filedpetition in the High Court and therefore the request be granted.
Further note is made by the Under Secretary that according to the
endorsement of the member secretary on the application, case is reconsidered.
In the second Para, it is stated that his request was earlier rejected,
however that was not informed to the freedom fighters. The person claims to
have taken part in Hyderabad Mukti Sangram and in support has produced
copy of warrant. The District Collector has got it verified from Patoda
Tahasildar and has stated that the warrant, copy filed by the applicant for the
second time is copy of record which is not available in the Tahasildar office
and that copy is also not issued on the basis of original record. However his
name appears in the copy and contents are regarding freedom movement and
on the basis of similar copy one Kokate is granted pension. Therefore in the
present case also pension be sanctioned. Thereafter again a note is made that
by Under Secretary that the warrant is not verified and request be rejected but
the Member Secretary made further note and it was sanctioned.
He appeared before the Mane Committee and filed 12 documents and
asked for time for filing the certified copy of warrant within fifteen days.
Thereafter again he appears after fifteen days and filed only Xerox copy and
Marathi translation. His statement was recorded in which he stated that he has
no evidence to show that he was absconding and he does not want to file any
other document than the certified copy of warrant, which he never filed.
It is clear from the above stated fact that his claim was rejected by the
Government even after remand of the matter by the High Court but before
intimation of the same was sent to him he approached the Member Secretary
and the Member Secretary directed to re-examine the matter. No fresh
evidence was produced. The Zilla Gaurav Samiti had also taken a decision not
to recommend, which was later on changed in the hand writing of the
-
8/9/2019 Justice AB Palkar Commission of Inquiry Report Volume III
15/232
- 501 -
Chairman Shri Babasaheb Bangar ignoring the objection of Shri P.V.Joshi that
since the original record is not available there is no proper verification.
The verification report of the Tahasildar was pertaining to warrant
Outward No. 218 File No. Nil , whereas Raghunath Nagargoje had produced a
copy of warrant Outward No. 217 dated 2 Bahman 1357 Fasli ( 2.12.1947).
The verification was from the copy and not from the original record and that
also as pointed out above, in respect of warrant Outward No.217 and not in
respect of the one of which copy was relied upon by the respondent. There
was no valid reason to review the earlier decision taken by the High Power
Committee.
The Commission has already discussed in respect of the warrant of
which copy is produced in the detail reasons in the part of general reasons of
warrant cases. The signature on this warrant is found to be entirely different
from the signatures on the undisputed office notes and corrospondence signed
by the same Tahasildar that the signatures on the warrants received from the
Police Station Ambajogai and warrants received from the Court of Judicial
Magistrate First Class Gevrai and even with other warrants contained in the
file of Tahasildar Patoda and in view of the suspicion felt, the Commission
had referred the documents to Government handwriting expert and has
discussed about the report of expert in the general reasons part and found that
the warrant is not genuine.
The case depends on the reliability of the warrant which is found to be
forged. Thus he was not entitled to Sanmanpatra and allied benefits on the
basis of documents produced and the same deserve to be and be cancelled
forthwith and the Commission recommends accordingly.
-
8/9/2019 Justice AB Palkar Commission of Inquiry Report Volume III
16/232
- 502 -
CASE FILE NO. 12 (RESPONDENT NO.12)Parasaram Raghu Dongre
He filed application for grant of pension on 12th
September 1991 and
along with it stated in column no.3 that he took part in the freedom movement
and was involved in the incidents of burning office of police patil and patwariand burning karodgiri naka and cutting shindi trees etc.
In the affidavit filed on 19th
September 1991 he has stated similar facts
and has also added that warrant was issued against him and produced a Xerox
copy of warrant in file No. 21/1 Ourward No. 617 17 Thir 1357 i.e. 7.5.1948.
It is apparent that it is a Xerox copy of true copy signed by Assistant
Superintendent Civil Court Gevrai. However, this copy is produced after it is
signed by the Nazir cum COC of Patoda Court on 19th
September 1990
whereon the endorsement is, verified that the Xerox copy is true copy oforiginal copy issued by Gevrai Court on 10
thNovember 1989.
In its meeting held on 11th
November 1998 the Zilla Gaurav Samiti
referred to the petition filed by him in the High Court and to the fact that when
notice was issued to him for producing evidence as per the requirement of new
Government Resolution dated 4th
July 1995, he did not produce any evidence
hence his case cannot be recommended.
The Collector also wrote to the Deputy Secretary, General
Administration Department on 18th November 1998 that the case is not fit for
grant of pension.
Thereafter the High Power Committee made endorsement with
reference to the report of the District Collector dated 18th
November 1998
stating that the report of the Collector is incomplete and further report be
called from the Collector. The Collector again wrote to the Government on
27th January 1999 with reference to the writ petition filed by him that the
original record is not available in the Tahasildar office and therefore the
warrant cannot be verified and notice was given to the freedom fighter to
produce documents but he also did not produce any documents and the matter
further placed before the Zilla Gaurav Samiti. However, the minutes of the
meeting dated 18th
November 1998 of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti and the letter
dated 18th
November 1998 do not tally. The Collector also made endorsement
-
8/9/2019 Justice AB Palkar Commission of Inquiry Report Volume III
17/232
- 503 -
that the time limit given by the Court is over and decision be taken by
Government at higher level.
Thereafter the High Power Committee after referring to his High Court
petition stated that original record of the warrant was not available and
therefore Zilla Gaurav Samiti had not recommended his case. It is further
stated that the warrant was earlier verified by the Tahasildar in another case
and the Xerox copy of that verification is attached to the file. From the report
of the Tahasildar dated 18th
January 1993 the copy appears to be correct and in
the names verified by him from the warrant copy, the name of the applicant
appears and therefore the case is fit for grant of pension. Relying on the copy
of warrant about which detailed statement is made earlier and treating it as
copy issued by the Gevrai Court the Member Secretary Rajabhau Zarkar made
endorsement that it is a fit case for grant of pension and subsequently pension
has been granted. In the affidavit filed after issue of notice he has further
asserted some more incidents. However, since the case is of warrant it is not
necessary to go into the details.
The case depends entirely on the reliability of warrant in file No.21/1
Outward No.617 dated 17 Thir 1357 Fasli (07.05.1948). The alleged original
warrant is in the file received from the Gevrai Court. The signatures on this
warrant is only like initial and is entirely different from the signature found on
the undisputed correspondence/ office notes signed by the same person i.e.
Tahasildar, Patoda and it also is not at all tallying with the signature on
warrants in the file of police station Ambejogai, the warrants contained in file
of Tahasildar Patoda and other warrants received from Judicial Magistrate
First Class Court, Gevrai.
This apparent to the naked eye and is confirmed by the expert opinion.
The general observations made in separate part of this report on warrant cases
apply Mutatis Mutandis to this case.
Thus the warrant not being reliable he is not entitled and has failed toprove his entitlement to the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits which deserve to
be and should be cancelled forthwith and the Commission recommends
accordingly.
-
8/9/2019 Justice AB Palkar Commission of Inquiry Report Volume III
18/232
- 504 -
CASE FILE NO. 14 (RESPONDENT NO.14)
Gyanoba Pandurang Sanap
Gyanoba Pandurang Sanap filed application for grant of pension on
13th
July 1990, wherein he stated that he took part in the freedom movement
by obstructing recovery of levy, burning Government building, cutting Sindhitrees. Same facts are stated in the supporting affidavit. He produced Xerox
copy of warrant which is a true copy of a copy signed by Senior Police
Inspector Ambejogai. This true copy is signed by Special Executive
Magistrate. The warrant is bearing outward No.214 file No.21/2 of 1357 Fasli
(equivalent to the year 1947) dated Nil.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting held on 16th December,1997
stated that original warrant was not available with the Police Station and the
copy does not appear to have been issued on payment of fees but the contents
of the warrant appear to be in respect of the freedom movement against
Government of Nizam, there is name of the person similar to the name of
applicant, but in the absence of original warrant the copy cannot be relied
upon but still the Zilla Gaurav Samiti was satisfied that he had taken part in
the freedom movement and recommended his case . One of the Member
P.V.Joshi in his note stated that the warrant is not verified.
Thereafter the Additional Collector wrote to the Deputy Secretary on
15th July 1998 that he does not comply with the Government Resolution dated
4th July 1995 and this case is not fit for sanction.
The copy of warrant filed by him was sent for verification to the Police
Station Ambejogai with a list of 60 names inquiring whether the names were
included in the warrant. The Police Sub Inspector reported that he has verified
60 names from the list. This report was sent on 3rd October 1997, however,
the original warrant was not available with the police station and the copy is
not issued in regular course by charging fees for certified copy. The contents
of the warrant are about the work against Nizam and it appears to be
connected with freedom movement. In the verification report the police
inspector has referred only to 27 names in copy of warrant, which are similar
to the names in the list of 60 persons which includes the name of Gyanoba
Pandurang r/o Vadzari.
-
8/9/2019 Justice AB Palkar Commission of Inquiry Report Volume III
19/232
- 505 -
Before the High Power Committee in the note put up, it is stated that
from warrant (copy) produced by the freedom fighter it appears that the
original warrant is available with Ambejogai police station. However the Zilla
Gaurav Samiti recommended his case for grant of pension and High Power
Committee sanctioned the pension.
In his statement before Mane Committee he stated that he was required
to stay away from his house for three months whereas the affidavit filed after
issuance of Notice before this Commission he made further improvement by
stating that he was required to live away from house for thirteen months.
The case depends entirely on the reliability of warrant in file
No.21/2/57 F Outward No. 214. The alleged original warrant is in the file
received from the Ambajogai Police Station. The signature on this warrant is
entirely different from the signatures found on the undisputed
correspondence/office notes signed by the same person i.e. Tahasildar of
Patoda and it also is not at all tallying with signature on the warrants received
from the Judicial Magistrate First Class Court Gevrai, warrant contained in file
of Tahasildar Patoda and other warrants received from Ambajogai Police
Station.
This is apparent to the naked eye and is confirmed by the expert
opinion. The general observations made in separate part of this report onwarrant cases apply Mutatis Mutandis to this case.
The report dated 3.10.1997 of Police Inspector, Ambajogai to the
effect that out of 60 names given in the list names of only 27 persons are and
rest 33 are not in the copy of warrant sent to him further strengthen doubt
about genuineness of the warrant.
Thus the warrant not being reliable he is not entitled to the
Sanmanpatra and allied benefits which deserve to be and should be cancelled
forthwith and the Commission recommends accordingly.
-
8/9/2019 Justice AB Palkar Commission of Inquiry Report Volume III
20/232
- 506 -
CASE FILE NO. 15 (RESPONDENT NO.15)
Shri Shankar Shambhaji Jagtap
He applied on 2.7.1990 for grant of pension on the basis of warrant
issued against him in file No.21/2 1357 Fasli outward No.214 dated Nil
(equivalent to 1947) Similar to the earlier file of Shri Dyanoba Pandurang
Sanap, he produced Xerox copy of warrant signed as true copy by Senior
Police Inspector Ambajogai. Special Executive Magistrate signed the true
copy. The English translation shows his name in the warrant.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting held on 16th December 1997
recommended his case although it was observed that the original warrant is not
available and the copy issued by Police Sub-Inspector is not certified copy
issued after charging fees but similar name appears in the copy. The Zilla
Gaurav Samiti observed that in the absence of original record copy cannot be
accepted as genuine; however, Samiti is convinced that he has worked in the
Hyderabad Freedom Movement against the Government of Nizam so
recommended his case. One member P.V.Joshi recorded objection.
Thereafter the Additional Collector, Beed, wrote to the Deputy
Secretary on 15th July 1998 that the case is not fit for grant of pension.
The High Power Committee referred to the verification report
submitted by Police Sub Inspector Ambajogai and this was after the Collector
referred the matter to him with a list of 60 persons. The verification is done
from the Xerox copy without there being original record available. The High
Power Committee in the note stated that original record was available with the
Police Station and therefore accepted the recommendation of the Zilla Gaurav
Samiti.
In his statement before the Mane Committee he stated that he stayed
away from his house for six months and he will produce the certified copy
within 15 days but the same is not produced till this date.
-
8/9/2019 Justice AB Palkar Commission of Inquiry Report Volume III
21/232
- 507 -
In his affidavit filed before this Commission he stated that for 13
months he was required to live away from his house. It is clear improvement
made by stating period of 13 months.
The case depends entirely on the reliability of warrant in file
No.21/2/57 F Outward No. 214. The alleged original warrant is in the file
received from the Ambajogai Police Station. The signature on this warrant is
entirely different from the signatures found on the undisputed
correspondence/office notes signed by the same person i.e. Tahasildar of
Patoda and it also is not at all tallying with signature on the warrants received
from the Judicial Magistrate First Class Court Gevrai, warrant contained in file
of Tahasildar Patoda and other warrants received from Ambajogai Police
Station.
This is apparent to the naked eye and is confirmed by the expert
opinion. The general observations made in separate part of this report on
warrant cases apply Mutatis Mutandis to this case.
The report dated 3.10.1997 of Police Inspector, Ambajogai to the
effect that out of 60 names given in the list names of only 27 persons are and
rest 33 are not in the copy of warrant sent to him further strengthen doubt
about genuineness of the warrant.
Thus the warrant not being reliable he is not entitled to the Sanmanpatra and
allied benefits which deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith and the
Commission recommends accordingly.
-
8/9/2019 Justice AB Palkar Commission of Inquiry Report Volume III
22/232
- 508 -
CASE FILE NO. 17 (RESPONDENT NO.17)
Shri Babu Namdev Sanap
He applied for pension on 19th
March 1986. He has not stated
anything in his application. His case is based on warrant bearing No. 21/1357
Fasli outward 270 dated 15 Bahman 1357 Fasli i.e. 15th
December 1947. He
has produced a Xerox copy of the warrant issued by Tahasildar, Patoda and
addressed to the Sub-Inspectors, Patoda and Manor. Xerox copy of warrant
produced by him is copy of another copy claimed to be certified copy and
Xerox copy produced is attested by Executive Magistrate.
The District Collector called for verification report from the Tahasildar
by attaching a list of 45 persons. In the report dated 12th November 1997
the Tahasildar has stated that the original record has been submitted to the
Collector office and out of the list of 45 persons received, the warrant copy
shows names of 25 persons. The remaining 20 names are not there even in the
copy. However, he further stated that the name of Babu Namdeo and others
appears to be there in the Xerox copy but since the original record is into
available, it cannot be verified.
In its meeting dated 31st December 1997 the Zilla Gaurav Samiti
stated that the Tahasildar Patoda had informed that original warrant is issued
from his office but the original record is not available and in the absence of
original record the copy cannot be verified. However, Zilla Gaurav Samiti
stated further that since the Respondent worked in the freedom movement
against Nizam, the Zilla Gaurav Samiti is convinced about his role and
recommended grant of pension.
The Collector had written letter to the Deputy Secretary on 15th July
1998 giving reference to the provisions of Government Resolution dated 4th
July 1995 and reported noncompliance stating that the claim of pension can
not be sanctioned and decision may be taken by the Government.
Thereafter the High Power Committee stated in the note that the
warrant has been verified by the District Collector from Police Station
-
8/9/2019 Justice AB Palkar Commission of Inquiry Report Volume III
23/232
- 509 -
Ambajogai but the original is not available, however, the warrant was in
respect of activities against Nizam Government and the Zilla Gaurav Samiti is
convinced and recommended grant of pension.
The Member Secretary, of High Power Committee, however made an
endorsement that detailed report about the warrant be called. Thereafter in the
further note it is stated that the file was sent by the District Collector Beed
with report of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti. The applicant has produced copy of
warrant, which got verified from the original record by the Police Station
Ambajogai stating that original is available at Police Station Ambajogai which
contains name of the applicant and Zilla Gaurav Samiti is convinced about this
and has recommended the case for sanction. The said report of Police Station
Ambajogai is not in the file.
The freedom fighter was called by Mane Committee. He could neither
hear nor speak because of his old age and stated that his claim be considered
according to law.
In the affidavit filed before this Commission he has stated that he has
already filed necessary documents and he does not want to file any other
document.
The case depends entirely on the reliability of warrant in file No.21/57
Outward No. 270 dated 15 Bahman 1357 Fasli (15.12.1947). The alleged
original warrant is in the file received from the Collector Beed pertaining to
Patoda Tahasil. The signature on this warrant is entirely different from the
signatures found on the undisputed correspondence/office notes signed by the
same person i.e. Tahasildar of Patoda and it also is not at all tallying with
signature on the warrants contained in the file of police station Ambajogai,
Judicial Magistrate First Class Court, Gevrai and other the warrants containedin file of Tahasildar Patoda.
This is apparent to the naked eye and is confirmed by the expert
opinion. The general observations made in the separate part of this report on
warrant cases apply Mutatis Mutandis to this case.
-
8/9/2019 Justice AB Palkar Commission of Inquiry Report Volume III
24/232
- 510 -
The report dated 12.11.1997 of Tahasildar Patoda addressed to the
Collector Beed to the effect that out of 45 names given in the list name of 25
persons only are in the copy of warrant and other 20 names are not found
therein further strengthens doubt about genuineness of the warrant.
Thus the warrant not being genuine he is not entitled to the
Sanmanpatra and allied benefits which deserve to be and should be cancelled
forthwith and the Commission recommends accordingly.
-
8/9/2019 Justice AB Palkar Commission of Inquiry Report Volume III
25/232
- 511 -
CASE FILE NO. 19 (RESPONDENT NO.19)
Smt. Subhadrabai Anna Binvade
The application for grant of pension was filed by Subhadrabai. She
claimed pension on the ground that her husband took part in the freedom
movement against the Nizam Government and an arrest warrant bearing File
No. 21/1357 outward No. 270 dated 15 Behman 1357 Fasli i.e. 15th December
1947 was issued by Tahasildar Patoda against Anna Dhondiba Binvade. Along
with her application she filed her own affidavit and affidavits of Dyanoba
Pandurang Binvade and Mahadev Genaji Bangar.
She produced Xerox copy of the aforesaid warrant and its Marathi
translation. The Xerox is a true copy of copy issued to one Sampatmal
Narayan Das of Patoda. About nine persons had filed application to the then
Member Secretary, Kevalchand Jain as their applications were pending for
quite long time and therefore the files of all those persons were clubbed
together and at present this file is kept with file No.61 of Bhagirathibai Maruti
Sanap.
As the application was pending for quiet long time she filed along with
Bhagirathibai petition No.3433/94 and directions were given for deciding her
case within four months.
Thereafter the matter was considered by the Zilla Gaurav Samiti.
During pendency of the petition the warrant was got verified from the
Tahasildar Patoda and in the meeting dated 3rd April 1995 the Zilla Gaurav
Samiti unanimously rejected her claim and the High Power Committee also
rejected her claim. A note was put up on the file that the claim be rejected as
she has not filed necessary documents.
Thereafter the Member Secretary, Advocate Rajabhau Zarkar made a
note in the file that after going through all the documents inquiry be made
through the District Collector, Beed and the applicant be informed by notice to
produce necessary documents and thereafter the matter be kept before the
High Power Committee, after placing it before the Zilla Gaurav Samitee.
-
8/9/2019 Justice AB Palkar Commission of Inquiry Report Volume III
26/232
- 512 -
Thereafter the High Power Committee also rejected her claim on the ground
that the Xerox copy of warrant could not verified as original was not available
in the office of Tahasildar Patoda as per the report submitted by the Collector.
Thereafter when she was informed about the rejection of her claim she filed
copy of warrant alleged to be issued by the Collector office in which it was
stated that name of her husband appeared in the warrant and therefore the
High power Committee granted pension to her.
On 25th September 1999 she filed copy purported to be certified by the
office of District Collector. The copy was certified by Record Keeper of
Collector Office and it was stated that the name of her husband was included
in the warrant and some of the persons whose names were in the warrant, were
already sanctioned pension by the Government and, therefore, note was placedbefore the High Power Committee for sanction of the pension to her and the
pension was sanctioned.
The Xerox copy of warrant on the basis of which pension was granted
is only a true copy certified by the Record Keeper of the Collector office.
She appeared before the Mane Committee and reiterated the facts,
which are already noted above. She has also filed affidavit before this
Commission wherein the facts stated are the same.
The case depends entirely on the reliability of warrant in file No.21/57
Outward No. 270 dated 15 Bahman 1357 Fasli (15.12.1947). The alleged
original warrant is in the file received from the Collector Beed pertaining to
Patoda Tahasil. The signature on this warrant is entirely different from the
signatures found on the undisputed correspondence/office notes signed by the
same person i.e. Tahasildar of Patoda and it also is not at all tallying with
signature on the warrants contained in the file of police station Ambajogai,Judicial Magistrate First Class Court, Gevrai and other the warrants contained
in file of Tahasildar Patoda.
This is apparent to the naked eye and is confirmed by the expert
opinion. The general observations made in the separate part of this report on
warrant cases apply Mutatis Mutandis to this case.
-
8/9/2019 Justice AB Palkar Commission of Inquiry Report Volume III
27/232
- 513 -
The report dated 12.11.1997 of Tahasildar Patoda addressed to the
Collector Beed to the effect that out of 45 names given in the list name of 25
persons only are in the copy of warrant and other 20 names are not found
therein further strengthens doubt about genuineness of the warrant.
Thus the warrant not being genuine he is not entitled to the
Sanmanpatra and allied benefits which deserve to be and should be cancelled
forthwith and the Commission recommends accordingly.
-
8/9/2019 Justice AB Palkar Commission of Inquiry Report Volume III
28/232
- 514 -
CASE FILE NO. 20 (RESPONDENT NO.20)
Shri Namdev Pandurang Adsul
His claim is based on warrant bearing file No. 7/1357 Fasli outward
No.407 2 Behman 1357 Fasli (i.e. 2nd December 1947) issued by Tahasildar
Patoda. The warrant was addressed to all Sub Inspectors and Courts in Beed
district. For verification of the warrant, the District Collector addressed letter
dated 3rd November 1997.
In application for grant of pension dated 2nd April 1990 he stated that
he worked underground and has filed copy of warrant. The copy filed by him
is a Xerox copy signed by Principal Arts College, Patoda. The Xerox copy
itself is a copy of true copy issued by Senior Police Inspector Ambajogai. Theverification was got done by the Collector through Police Superintendent
District , Beed and in his report to the Collector, Beed dated 3rd November
1997 Superintendent of Police informed that on verification of the warrant the
names mentioned in his report were found to have been in it which includes
the name of Namdev Pandurang Adsul. It is obvious from this report that the
verification was done from the copy itself, as even according to
Superintendent of Police the original record was not available with the police
station.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 16th December 1997
stated that applicants name is in the warrant, the original record is not
available but the copy is as per the original record, it is not known, whether
fees was paid for obtaining copy, the warrant is connected with freedom
movement of Hyderabad movement and in the absence of original record the
copy cannot be relied upon, however, the Zilla Gaurav Samiti is satisfied
about the role of the applicant in the freedom movement and recommended
grant of pension. The Member Secretary, Additional Collector and one
Member Pandurang Waman Joshi differed, as the warrant was not verified.
Thereafter on 15th July 1998 the Additional Collector wrote to the
Deputy Secretary, GAD that since the original record is not available the copy
cannot be verified. There is also note that it is also not clear whether any fees
-
8/9/2019 Justice AB Palkar Commission of Inquiry Report Volume III
29/232
- 515 -
was paid for securing the copy. The freedom fighter does not comply with the
provisions of 4th July 1995 Government Resolution and the case is not fit for
recommendation.
The matter was placed before the High Power Committee. The High
Power Committee referred to the copy of warrant and stated that the warrant is
verified through the Superintendent of Police, by the Collector, although
original record is not available, copy is as per the original record. There is no
entry in the Station diary but entry is there in the outward register and name of
the freedom fighter in the warrant. Taking into consideration the report of the
Superintendent of Police and recommendation of Zilla Gaurav Samiti the case
is approved for grant of pension. One member however stated that there is no
verification of warrant dated 25th January 1999.
He was called before the Mane Committee where he stated that he
attended the meeting of Wamanrao Vaze and cut shindi trees and he will
produce certified copy of warrant, which he never produced. He however
produced Xerox copy attested by Head Master of Hutatma Vidyalaya. The
Xerox is itself taken from true copy signed by Police Sub Inspector
Ambajogai.
In the affidavit filed before this Commission he has made reference to
the same copy of warrant.
The case depends entirely on the reliability of warrant in file
No.7/1357 F Outward No. 407 dated 2 Behman 1357 F (2.12.1947). The
alleged original warrant is in the file received from the Ambajogai Police
Station. The signature on this warrant is entirely different from the signatures
found on the undisputed correspondence/office notes signed by the same
Tahasildar of Patoda and it also is not at all tallying with signature on thewarrants received from the Judicial Magistrate First Class Court Gevrai and
warrant contained in file of Tahasildar Patoda.
It does not tally even with other warrants received from Ambajogai
Police Station. This is apparent to the naked eye and is confirmed by expert
-
8/9/2019 Justice AB Palkar Commission of Inquiry Report Volume III
30/232
- 516 -
opinion. The general observations made in the separate part on warrant cases
of this report apply Mutatis Mutandis to this case.
Thus the warrant not being reliable he is not entitled to the
Sanmanpatra and allied benefits which deserve to be and should be cancelled
forthwith and the Commission recommends accordingly.
-
8/9/2019 Justice AB Palkar Commission of Inquiry Report Volume III
31/232
- 517 -
CASE FILE NO. 21 (RESPONDENT NO.21)
Shri Sundar Nivruti Sanap
In the application filed on 2nd March 1987 Respondent claimed
pension on the basis of warrant in file No. 21 1357 Fasli Outward No. 270 15
Behman 1357 (equivalent to 15th December 1947) issued by Tahasildar
Patoda. This warrant was addressed to Police Stations, Patoda and Manor.
The Xerox copy of warrant produced by him is itself a copy of one copy
issued to Sampadlal Narayan Das of Patoda. He has stated that he took part in
freedom movement and worked along with Shamrao Aba Khatal and Sahebrao
Ganapati Sanap at Vadzari and filed affidavits of Shamrao Aba Khatal and
Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap.
The District Collector wrote letter dated 27th August 1997 to the
Tahasildar Patoda for verification of warrant and in reply the Tahasildar stated
on 12th November 1997 that the original record is submitted to the Collector
office. He has received list of 45 persons and out of them names of 25 persons
are in the warrant (copy) the original record is not available and the
verification was done on the basis of Xerox copy received...
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting held on 12th August 1998
stated that Tahasildar has given verification report of the warrant stating that
his name is included in the warrant but original record is not available and
copy cannot be relied upon and therefore the Zilla Gaurav Samiti cannot give
positive recommendation... However, after this the Chairman Babasaheb
Ganapati Bangar in his own hand wrote in black ink that copy of warrant was
in connection with freedom movement and many persons are granted pension
on the basis of copy of said warrant. However one Member P.V.Joshi made
remarks that it is improper.
The Additional Collector, Beed had written letter to the Deputy
Secretary on 18th August 1998 that the original record was not available still
the Zilla Gaurav Samiti has recommended his case. However in the absence
of original record case is not fit for grant of pension.
-
8/9/2019 Justice AB Palkar Commission of Inquiry Report Volume III
32/232
- 518 -
Before the High Power Committee note was put up that the copy of
warrant is produced but the District Collector has informed that original is not
available and no positive opinion can be given therefore the case should not be
sanctioned.
After which the Member Secretary, Rajabhau Zarkar, Advocate made
a remark on 31st October 1999 that the original warrant is sent to the
Tahasildar by District Collector and after the inquiry report the decision can be
taken.
After this the matter was again placed before the High Power
Committee with reference to the report of the Collector regarding verification
of the warrant.
The High Power Committee made reference to the petition filed in the
High Court and stated that original record was not available as informed by
the District Collector. However, copy of warrant is obtained on payment of
fees as mentioned in the Xerox produced by the concerned freedom fighter
and name of the Respondent appears in the warrant which is in connection
with the Hyderabad Movement and Zilla Gaurav Samiti has recommended for
pension. Thereafter the Member Secretary, Advocate, Rajabhau Zharkar
made endorsement on 9th July 1999 that the Xerox copy of warrant is certified
copy and there is report of the Tahasildar, therefore pension be sanctioned and
the pension was sanctioned.
He appeared before the Mane committee and his statement was
recorded. He stated that he stayed at Domri camp for nine months and was
underground and therefore warrant was issued against him. He was also
declared to be absconding by the Court. He has put thumb impression on the
application dated 2nd March 1991 and the said form was given to him bySahebrao Ganapati Sanap and was filed on his behalf by Sahebrao. He is not
aware what documents are filed with the application. He filed affidavit on
15th September 1997. He has not filed affidavit of any other freedom fighter.
In response to notice issued by this Commission he filed detailed
affidavit wherein he has not quoted anything worth noting.
-
8/9/2019 Justice AB Palkar Commission of Inquiry Report Volume III
33/232
- 519 -
The case depends entirely on the reliability of warrant in file No.21/57
Outward No. 270 dated 15 Bahman 1357 Fasli (15.12.1947). The alleged
original warrant is in the file received from the Collector Beed pertaining to
Patoda Tahasil. The signature on this warrant is entirely different from the
signatures found on the undisputed correspondence/office notes signed by the
same person i.e. Tahasildar of Patoda and it also is not at all tallying with
signature on the warrants contained in the file of police station Ambajogai,
Judicial Magistrate First Class Court, Gevrai and other the warrants contained
in file of Tahasildar Patoda.
This is apparent to the naked eye and is confirmed by the expert
opinion. The general observations made in the separate part of this report on
warrant cases apply Mutatis Mutandis to this case.
The report dated 12.11.1997 of Tahasildar Patoda addressed to the
Collector Beed to the effect that out of 45 names given in the list name of 25
persons only are in the copy of warrant and other 20 names are not found
therein further strengthens doubt about genuineness of the warrant.
Thus the warrant not being genuine he is not entitled to the
Sanmanpatra and allied benefits which deserve to be and should be cancelled
forthwith and the Commission recommends accordingly.
-
8/9/2019 Justice AB Palkar Commission of Inquiry Report Volume III
34/232
- 520 -
CASE FILE NO. 23 (RESPONDENT NO.23)
Shri Laxman Devrao Adsul
Laxman Devrao Adsul applied for pension on 2nd
April 1990 and
produced along with application Xerox copy of warrant issued by Tahasildar
Patoda in file No. 7/1357 Fasli outward No. 407 dated 2 Behman 1357 Fasli
that is 2nd
December. 1947. The copy filed is signed as true copy by the
Principal Arts College and the Xerox copy is true copy of copy issued by
Police Sub Inspector, Ambajogai.
In the meeting held on 16th December 1997 the Zilla Gaurav Samiti
observed that the copy of warrant issued cannot be relied upon in the absence
of availability, of report of verification from original, however, the Zilla
Gaurav Samiti is convinced that he had worked in the Hyderabad Freedom
Movement and therefore the Zilla Gaurav Samiti recommended his case,
wherein one of the Member Shri P.V.Joshi objected and remarked that original
warrant is not verified.
Thereafter the Collector wrote letter to the Deputy Secretary on the
15th July 1998 that the case is not fit for grant of pension as applicant does not
comply with the provisions of Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995
and warrant is also not verified from the original record. Thereafter the High
Power Committee granted application on 4th October 1999.
He appeared before the Mane Committee and did make a statement on
oath that he attended meeting in which there was firing and he ran away and
had hidden in some place and his age at that time may be of 15 or 16 years.
After issuance of notice by the Commission he filed application for
calling the record from Tahasildar Patoda and also filed a detailed affidavit.
The case depends entirely on the reliability of warrant in file
No.7/1357 F Outward No. 407 dated 2 Behman 1357 F (2.12.1947). The
alleged original warrant is in the file received from the Ambajogai Police
Station. The signature on this warrant is entirely different from the signatures
found on the undisputed correspondence/office notes signed by the same
-
8/9/2019 Justice AB Palkar Commission of Inquiry Report Volume III
35/232
- 521 -
Tahasildar of Patoda and it also is not at all tallying with signature on the
warrants received from the Judicial Magistrate First Class Court Gevrai and
warrant contained in file of Tahasildar Patoda.
It does not tally even with other warrants received from Ambajogai
Police Station. This is apparent to the naked eye and is confirmed by expert
opinion. The general observations made in the separate part on warrant cases
of this report apply Mutatis Mutandis to this case.
Thus the warrant not being reliable he is not entitled to the
Sanmanpatra and allied benefits which deserve to be and be cancelled
forthwith and the Commission recommends accordingly.
-
8/9/2019 Justice AB Palkar Commission of Inquiry Report Volume III
36/232
- 522 -
CASE FILE NO. 25 (RESPONDENT NO.25) (Warrant)
Smt. Radhabai Saheba Nagargoje
Saheba Aba Nagargoje deceased represented by wife Radhabai, filed
application for grant of pension on 17th
July 1989, on the basis of arrest
warrant which was issued as he was underground freedom fighter. Warrant
was issued by the Tahasildar Patoda in file No.121 outward No.217 2 Bahman
1357 Fasli that is 2nd
December 1947. Xerox copy of warrant produced by
him is not a certified copy. It is true copy of certified copy attested by
Executive Magistrate who had obviously no occasion to see either the original
or even the certified copy of which it is Xerox copy.
He had filed Petition No.4408/96 in the High Court wherein directions
were given to decide his application in particular period of time.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 30th
November 1998
stated that the applicant Saheba Aba Nagargoje has filed copy of warrant
issued from the office of Tahasildar Patoda. However the original record is not
available as informed by Tahasildar Patoda. In the absence of original record
the warrant copy cannot be relied upon and Zilla Gaurav Samiti initially
refused to recommend his case. However there is addition to the note in hand
writing of the President Babasaheb Bangar that one person named in that
warrant Raosaheb Kokate is getting pension and therefore pension be
sanctioned to the Saheba Aba Nagagoje. One of the Member Mr. P.V.Joshi
made endorsement that original record of warrant was not available as stated
in the report of Tahasildar and copy cannot be relied upon.
The High Power Committee recommended his case on 2nd
July 1999 in
view of the note that the warrant was got verified by the District Collector,
Beed from Tahasildar Patoda. The Tahasildar mentioned in his report that acopy was issued according to rules on payment of fees as per the original
record but the original record has been sent to the District Collectors office
and the name of the applicant is in that warrant. This obviously was stated on
the basis of Xerox copy by the Tahasildar as original record was not in his
office.
-
8/9/2019 Justice AB Palkar Commission of Inquiry Report Volume III
37/232
- 523 -
Before the High Power Committee, Member Secretary made a note
that the claim was earlier rejected but since the name appeared in the warrant
as per the report of the Tahasildar the same be sanctioned.
Radhabai filed affidavit before this Commission that she has no
personal knowledge and she had also stated accordingly before the Mane
Committee.
The case depends on the reliability of warrant in file no. Nil Outward
No. 217 dated 2 Bahman 1357 Fasli (2.12.1947). The alleged original warrant
is in the file received from the Tahasildar Patoda deposited with the Collector
office Beed. The signature on this warrant is entirely different from the
signature found on the undisputed correspondence and office notes signed by
the same Tahasildar in the same file and it does not at all tallying with the
signature on warrants in the file of police station Ambajogai and Judicial
Magistrate First Class Court Gevrai received by the Commission. The
signatures also do not tally with the signatures on the other warrants in the
same file of Tahasildar, Patoda. The signature can be compared by any body
even if he not connected with Urdu.
The report of Tahasildar regarding warrant verification states that the
Xerox copy of the warrant sent to him in file no. Nil Outward No. 218 dated
12 Bahman 1357 Fasli (12th December 1947) contains names of 43 persons.
He has produced Xerox copies of two different warrants:-
(i) In File No. Nil Outward No. 217 dated 2nd
Bahman 1357 Fasli (
2.12.1947) containing 29 names
(ii) In File No. 10/11 Outward No. 100 dated 14th
Bahman 1357
Fasli (14.12.1947) containing 37 names.
This would mean that two different warrants were allegedly issued
against him and the Xerox copy of verification report of warrant relied upon
was in respect of a different warrant bearing Outward No.218 dated 12
Bahman 1357 Fasli (12.12.1947).
-
8/9/2019 Justice AB Palkar Commission of Inquiry Report Volume III
38/232
- 524 -
Thus the reliance placed by the President, Zilla Gaurav Samiti in his
note was totally baseless and unfounded and unconnected even with the copies
produced by him.
The Commission has found the position of signatures on the warrants
received from three different sources and even on other warrants received
from source as stated in the part of general reasons and the suspicion felt on
naked eye examination is confirmed by the opinion of the handwriting expert.
When the so called original warrants received from all three different
sources are found to be unreliable and even forged, there is no question of
relying on copy when verification report is of different warrant and he is also
not sure which is the copy of warrant issued against him.
The reasons stated in the general reasons part are required to be
considered and in addition above facts create further suspicion in the
reliability as to whether in fact warrant of arrest was issued against him at all.
The Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to him deserved to be and
be cancelled forthwith.
-
8/9/2019 Justice AB Palkar Commission of Inquiry Report Volume III
39/232
- 525 -
CASE FILE NO. 27 (RESPONDENT NO.27)
Shri Shankar Padaji Rakh
He applied for grant of pension on the basis of arrest warrant alleged to
have been issued by the Tahasildar Patoda in file no.205 of 1357 Fasli outward
No. 209 dated 24 Isfander 1357 i.e. 24th
January 1948. He has produced a true
copy of warrant issued by Assistant Superintendent of the Court of Civil Judge
Jr.Dn., Gevrai. In the affidavit filed in support of the application he has stated
to have worked in the Hyderabad Freedom Movement as congress worker and
he was involved in the activities of attack on police out post, burning of
Karodgiri Naka etc.
He was issued a notice on 29th
January 1996 to comply with the
requirements of shortcoming in his application.
Thereafter he filed affidavit on 27th
August 1997 stating that he worked
as underground freedom fighter under Wamanrao Vaze, Ramling Swami,
Raosaheb Patwardhan, Narharirao Vakil, Ashti Suwalal Marwadi, Kishan
Dasrath Bangar and others. He has, however not stated that he was required to
live away from house or beaten by the police in any incident.
He has filed affidavits of Bhimrao Umaji Bangar and Gyanoba Jijaba
Bangar, however, it is not stated in their affidavits that they were convicted
and sentenced.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting held on 29th June 1999 stated
that warrants No. 201, 202, 203, 204, 205 and 617 of 1357 Fasli were not
available in the record. The Tahasildar Patoda has also informed that the
original record is not available and in the absence of availability of original
record the copy of warrant cannot be relied upon. However, the Zilla Gaurav
Samiti is satisfied that he had taken part in the Hyderabad Freedom Movement
against Nizam and therefore pension be granted to him and the High Power
Committee made a reference to warrant No.205 of which copy was not on
record and stated that recommendation of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti is accepted.
However, one of the Members mentioned that in the verification list name of
-
8/9/2019 Justice AB Palkar Commission of Inquiry Report Volume III
40/232
- 526 -
the applicant does not appear. Pension was sanctioned by the High Power
Committee on 7th
February 2000.
In the statement before Mane Committee he has stated on oath that he
has not applied for grant of pension and at the time of Hyderabad Movement
he was aged 16 and was moving with a tri-colour flag along with many of the
members, no arrest warrant issued against him, he was not in the jail, he
stayed at different placed for six to seven months. He could not produce any
document before Mane Committee.
He filed affidavit before this commission stating in subsistence that his
pension has been sanctioned after due verification of the record and
documents produced therein.
The original warrant bearing file No. --- Outward No. 205 dated 24
Isfander 1357 Fasli (24.1.1948) is in the warrants received from the Judicial
Magistrate First Class Court, Gevrai. The signature on this warrant is only like
initial and is entirely different from the signature found on undisputed
correspondence/office notes signed by the same person i.e. Tahasildar Patoda
and also is not at all tallying with the signature on warrants in the file of police
station Ambajogai, Patoda Tahasil and even other warrants received from
Judicial Magistrate First Class Court, Gevrai.
This is apparent to the naked eye and is confirmed by the expert
opinion. The general observations made in separate part of this report on
warrant cases apply Mutatis Mutandis to this case.
The Commission received in all 29 warrants from the three different
sources i.e. Patoda Tahasil (15 warrants), Ambajogai Police Station (8
warrants) and Judicial Magistrate First Class Court, Gevrai (6 warrants) but
the warrant bearing File No. 205/1357 F Outward No. 209 dated 24 Isfander
1357 Fasli (24.1.1948), copy whereof is produced and relied upon in this case
is not amongst those 29 warrants. When all 29 warrants received are found to
be forged and false by the Commission as discussed in separate part of this
report on warrant cases for reasons given there under how can copy of
-
8/9/2019 Justice AB Palkar Commission of Inquiry Report Volume III
41/232
- 527 -
warrant, original whereof is not in existence can be believed to be genuine and
true.
Thus the warrants not being reliable he is not entitled to the
Sanmanpatra and allied benefits which deserve to be and should be cancelled
forthwith and the Commission recommends accordingly.
-
8/9/2019 Justice AB Palkar Commission of Inquiry Report Volume III
42/232
- 528 -
CASE FILE NO. 29 (RESPONDENT NO.29)
Shri Ramkisan Sahu Adsul
Ramkisan Sahu Adsul applied for pension on 9th
November 1989 on
the basis of warrant issued by the Tahasildar Patoda in file No. 7/1357 Fasli
bearing outward No. 407 dated 2 Behman 1357 Fasli i.e. 2nd
December 1948.
Along with application he produced Xerox copy of warrant signed as true
copy of by the Medical Officer. The translation in English of the said warrant
is also filed wherein his name is mentioned as Ramkisan Sahu, Maratha.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 16th December 1997
stated that original record of the warrant is not available at the police station
but the copy is from the original although it is not known whether any fees
was paid for securing copy. It is further observed that in the absence of
original record the copy cannot be relied upon, but the Zilla Gaurav Samiti is
convinced that he worked in the Hyderabad Freedom Movement and grant of
pension was recommended.
The Additional Collector Beed in his letter dated 15th July 1998 wrote
to the Deputy Secretary that the applicant does not comply with the conditions
of 4th July 1995 Government Resolution and the case is not fit for grant of
pension.
Thereafter the High Power committee sanctioned the pension on 24th
February 2000 in view of the note that the warrant produced by him is
verified, although original record is not available, the copy is issued from the
original record and there is entry in the Station Dairy and the Zilla Gaurav
Samiti has recommended his case.
In his statement before Mane Committee he stated that he had attended
the meeting wherein Vamanrao Vaze was to give lecture. Police came and
therefore he ran away. He had cut two shindi trees and he was hiding in the
house of the Marwadi for about one month. He further stated that he had not
done any activity against Nizam Government except those earlier stated in the
affidavit and warrant was issued against him. He does not know who was
-
8/9/2019 Justice AB Palkar Commission of Inquiry Report Volume III
43/232
- 529 -
head of the Group, in which he was working. Warrant was issued against him
from Ambajogai police station.
After the Commission issued a notice, he filed affidavit. However,
nothing new is stated in the said affidavit and he produced English and
Marathi translation of the warrant.
The case depends entirely on the reliability of warrant in file
No.7/1357 F Outward No. 407 dated 2 Behman 1357 F (2.12.1947). The
alleged original warrant is in the file received from the Ambajogai Police
Station. The signature on this warrant is entirely different from the signatures
found on the undisputed correspondence/office notes signed by the same
Tahasildar of Patoda and it also is not at all tallying with signature on the
warrants received from the Judicial Magistrate First Class Court Gevrai and
warrant contained in file of Tahasildar Patoda.
It does not tally even with other warrants received from Ambajogai
Police Station. This is apparent to the naked eye and is confirmed by expert
opinion. The general observations made in the separate part on warrant cases
of this report apply Mutatis Mutandis to this case.
Thus the warrant not being reliable he is not entitled to the
Sanmanpatra and allied benefits which deserve to be and should be cancelled
forthwith and the Commission recommends accordingly.
-
8/9/2019 Justice AB Palkar Commission of Inquiry Report Volume III
44/232
- 530 -
CASE FILE NO. 31 (RESPONDENT NO. 31)
Ginyandev Shamrao Adsul (deceased) represented by wife Smt.
Yamunabai Ginyandev Adsul
Ginyandev Shamrao Adsul filed application for pension on 9.11.1989
of on the basis of arrest warrant issued by the Tahasildar Patoda in file No.
7/1357 Fasli bearing outward No. 407 dated 2 Bahman 1357 Fasli i.e. 2nd
December 1947 The Xerox copy of warrant is true copy issued by Ambajogai
Police Inspector and the Xerox copy is signed as true copy by the Medical
Officer.
On 12.12.1996 notice was issued to him probably in view of the
Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995.
He again filed similar copy of warrant signed by the Special Executive
Magistrate, as true copy.
He filed one more application on 18.01.1990 in form No.A, claiming
pension on the basis of arrest warrant issued against him and claimed to have
worked as underground freedom fighter and has produced the Xerox copy of
the same warrant which appears to be a Xerox copy of a true copy of copy
issued by Patoda Court.
The warrant was got verified by the District Collector from PoliceStation and in his letter dated 3.11.1997 Police Inspector stated that on
verification, of the Urdu warrant the name similar to that of the applicant
appeared, Ginyandev Shamrao Adsul. He has further stated that original
record is not available with the police station and it is therefore clear that
verification was done on the basis of the copy sent by the Collector.
He filed affidavit on 24.12.1997 stating certain activities done by him
as underground freedom fighter. He has, however, not stated that he had to
leave his house, or/and was beaten by the police.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting held on 18.12.1997 stated that
in the absence of original record the copy of warrant cannot be relied upon,
The Collector, Beed by his letter dated 15.07.1998 wrote to Deputy
Secretary that the applicant has not complied with the requirements of 4th July
1995 Government Resolution and case is not fit for grant of pension.
-
8/9/2019 Justice AB Palkar Commission of Inquiry Report Volume III
45/232
- 531 -
The High Power Committee after accepting that the original record of
the warrant was not available and stated that there was entry in the Outward
Register and his name appears in the warrant (copy) and Zilla Gaurav Samiti
has recommended his case and therefore accepted the recommendation and
sanctioned pension on 4.10.1999.
He was called by Mane Committee on 27.03.2003 by which time he
was no more and his wife appeared and filed Xerox copy of the warrant.
His wife sent application to this Commission for calling original record
from Tahasildar Patoda and also filed affidavit. However, she is not
personally aware of the activities of her deceased husband.
The case depends entirely on the reliability of warrant in file
No.7/1357 F Outward No. 407 dated 2 Behman 1357 F (2.12.1947). Thealleged original warrant is in the file received from the Ambajogai Police
Station. The signature on this warrant is entirely different from the signatures
found on the undisputed correspondence/office notes signed by the same
Tahasildar of Patoda and it also is not at all tallying with signature on the
warrants received from the Judicial Magistrate First Class Court Gevrai and
warrant contained in file of Tahasildar Patoda.
It does not tally even with other warrants received from Ambajogai
Police Station. This is apparent to the naked eye and is confirmed by expert
opinion. The general observations made in the separate part on warrant cases
of this report apply Mutatis Mutandis to this case.
Thus the warrant not being reliable he is not entitled to the
Sanmanpatra and allied benefits which deserve to be and should be cancelled
forthwith and the Commission recommends accordingly.
-
8/9/2019 Justice AB Palkar Commission of Inquiry Report Volume III
46/232
- 532 -
CASE FILE NO. 32 (RESPONDENT NO. 32)
Buvaji Dagadu Gaikwad (deceased) represented by wife Smt. Mathurabai
Boovaji Gaikwad.
Buvaji Dagadu Gaikwad filed application on 3.8.1989 for freedom
fighter pension on the basis of arrest warrant issued by the Tahasildar Patoda
in file No. 21/1 bearing confidential outward No. 617 dated 17 Thir 1357
Fasli i.e. 17th
May 1948.
The application in fact has been filed by his wife after his death.
Although she has filed affidavit obviously she does not know anything
personally about the activities of her husband and the reliance is placed on the
arrest warrant issued by Tahasildar Patoda. The Xerox copy produced is a
copy signed as true copy by Assistant Superintendent of Civil Court, Gevrai.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting held on 8.10.1998 referred to
the fact that the copy is issued from the Civil Court Gevrai and was got
verified from the Civil Court Gevrai and Civil Judge Gevrai. However in his
letter dated 10.8.1998 the Civil Judge stated that original record is not
available and therefore the Zilla Gaurav Samiti stated that the copy produced
cannot be relied upon and as such the Zilla Gaurav Samiti cannot give positive
opinion. After this the Chairman added in his own handwriting that warrant is
verified and it is in connection with Hyderabad freedom movement against
Nizam and pension is recommended. One of the members P.V.Joshi has stated
that this is incorrect and recorded his objection.
The Additional Collector, Beed in his letter addressed to the Section
officer noted the applicant does not comply with the requirement of dated 4th
July 1995 Government Resolution and the case is not fit for grant of pension.
Thereafter the High Power Committee observed that since name of
applicant appears in the warrant, the case is fit for sanction. The High Power
Committee also noted that original record was not available and sanctioned
pension on 29.1.2000.
-
8/9/2019 Justice AB Palkar Commission of Inquiry Report Volume III
47/232
- 533 -
In response to notice issued by the Commission she filed affidavit but
it is not necessary to refer to it as she has no personal knowledge. She
produced Xerox copy of warrant as produced earlier. It is signed by Notary as
true copy which is obviously signed having before given the original.
The case depends entirely on the