Rana Awadhesh Kumar vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, J.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance.

This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 52 of 2002 [Special (Vigilance) Case No. 60 of 2002] including the order dated 30/11/2010, whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 109, 201, 423, 424, 477 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, has been taken against the petitioner.

Before adverting to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, case of the prosecution needs to be taken notice of. When it came to light that in a proceeding initiated under Section 4(H) of Bihar Land Reforms Act, pertaining to the land measuring an areas of 38 acres, the then D.C.L.R., Ranchi, himself took decision in the matter without referring to the matter before the State Government some foul play was suspected to have taken place and, therefore, the matter was ordered to be inquired into and, accordingly, it was inquired into by the Police Inspector, Vigilance Bureau, Ranchi. During inquiry, it was found that the land appertaining to Khata No. 87, Plot Nos. 4, 5 and 6, measuring an area of 48.66 acres, situated at village Bargaon, Namkom, was recorded as Gairmazurwa Malik land. In spite of that the ex-landlord Hari Charan Sahu, settled 25 acres of land, out of 48.66 acres, in the year 1948 to Smt. Bhagwati Devi and further 16 acres of the land to Durga Pd. Agarwal. In the year 1956, Smt. Bhagwati Devi sold 2 acres of the land, out of 25 acres, to Thakur Jagdish Narayan Singh by way of registered sale deed. After the death of Smt. Bhagwati Devi, her two sons Dwarika Nandan Modi and Devki Nandan Modi sold the rest 23 acres of the land by way of registered sale deed to Smt. Laxmi Devi, Urmila Devi and Sudama Devi, who were the daughters-in-law of the then landlord Hari Charan Sahu. Similarly, Durga Pd. Agarwal sold 16 acres of the land in the year 1959 to Smt. Simalo Devi, the wife of the ex-landlord Hari Charan Sahu by virtue of registered sale deed.

On the basis of the said sale deed, all those purchasers got their names mutated against the land sold to them. But, subsequently, in the year 1975-76, the then Circle Officer initiated a proceeding under Section 4(H) of Bihar Land Reforms Act, and stopped issuing rent receipt to the purchasers. Thereupon, an application was filed for issuance of rent receipt. Upon such application, the then Circle Officer registered Misc. cases in the year 1979-80, wherein it was recorded that earlier it had been settled to the military temporarily and then it was under the use of the public but that land was settled by the ex-landlord in the year 1948 to Kith and Kins, which settlement apparently appears to be illegal. On making such comments, the matter was referred to DCLR, Ranchi for initiating the proceeding. Upon initiating the proceeding the then DCLR, Ranchi, asked the then Circle Officer, Namkom, to submit enquiry report. Accordingly, the then Circle Officer Dinesh Kumar submitted its report on 14/11/1990. Upon such report, the then DCLR Subodh Kumar Gupta vide its order dated 27/12/1990, sent the matter before S.D.O., the petitioner after making recommendation for dropping of the said proceeding initiated under Section 4(H) of Bihar Land Reforms Act. The then SDO also agreed with the recommendation made by the then DCLR, Accordingly, he referred the matter before the Additional Collector, Ranchi, who dropped the proceeding by holding therein that no case is made out for reopening of the proceeding under Section 4(H) of Bihar Land Reforms Act and the case was closed. In spite of the case being closed, the record was never sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, rather it was sent back again to the office of LRDC, Ranchi. Subsequently, it appears that again a proceeding under Section 4(H) of Bihar Land Reforms Act, over the same land, was initiated by the then Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. Against initiation of the proceeding, one Laxmi Devi and others approached to this Court and filed a writ application, which application was disposed of by directing the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi to take final decision over the matter. Accordingly, the then Deputy Commissioner, passed a final order on 17/11/1993. Against that order, an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner, Ranchi. The Commissioner affirmed the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi on 16/03/1994. Against that order, again a writ application was filed vide CWJC No. 3007 of 1997 (R), which was allowed and the orders passed by the then Deputy Commissioner and also the Commissioner, Ranchi, were set aside by order dated 20/02/2003. Being aggrieved with that order, the State preferred L.P.A. bearing L.P.A. No. 64/2010, which was dismissed on 25/01/2011, but before that the Vigilance lodged the case alleging therein that all the accused persons including the petitioner, who at the relevant point of time was posted as S.D.O., in connivance with the land holders did commit illegality whereby the State was put to a great loss. Upon completion of the investigation when the charge sheet was submitted, cognizance of the offences as aforesaid was taken against the petitioner, which is under challenge.

Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner at the relevant point of time was posted as S.D.O, who, upon receiving the order of D.C.L.R Subodh Kumar Gupta making recommendation for dropping of the said proceeding initiated under Section 4(H) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, passed an order that the recommendation made by the L.R.D.C is in accordance with the decision of the Hon''ble Court and, hence, he referred the matter before the Additional Collector for passing necessary orders and, thereby, the petitioner did not commit any illegality much less any criminal offence and, thereby, the prosecution of the petitioner is quite bad.

As against this, Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel for the Vigilance submits that the petitioner is the person, who at the relevant point of time was posted as S.D.O, who, upon receiving the order of the DCLR, passed an order that the recommendation made by the D.C.L.R is in accordance with the decision of the Hon''ble Court though the inquiry report upon which the recommendation was made for dropping of the proceeding was not correct as the then Circle Inspector had purposely suppressed the fact that there had been a play ground and one temple situated over the land in question.

Accepting the version of the vigilance as has been disclosed in the first information report and also before this Court, to be true it is to be considered as to whether any offence of forgery or misappropriation is made out or not?

First of all it be noted that when a final order was passed by the competent authority under Section 4(H) of the Act, that order was challenged before this Court. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner as well as by the Appellate authority were set aside. When the State preferred L.P.A., it was also dismissed. Thus, it is quite obvious that dropping of the proceeding initiated under Section 4(H) of the Act by the authority was never wrong and as such any prosecution, on that ground, is quite illegal.

Further, keeping in view the provision as contained in Section 470 of the Indian Penal Code, it be stated that the condition precedent for an offence under Section 467 and 471 is forgery. The condition precedent for forgery is making a false document (or for false electronic record or part thereof). It has never been the case of the prosecution that the petitioner did make a false document and, thereby, question of committing offence under Section 467, 468, 471 does not arise.

Further, in view of the provision as contained in Section 415 I.P.C., the petitioner, on the allegation made against the petitioner, cannot be said to have committed offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

Going further in the matter, one can hardly conceive as to how offence under Sections 423 and 424 of the Indian Penal Code is made out when there has been no case of dishonest or fraudulent execution of deed of transfer containing false statement of consideration nor it is the case of dishonest or fraudulent removal of concealment of the property.

Further, in the facts and circumstances, in absence of any factual fact constituting offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the petitioner cannot be said to have committed offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 52 of 2002 [Special (Vigilance) P.S. Case No. 60 of 2002], including the order dated 30/11/2010, taking cognizance, is hereby quashed, so far the petitioner is concerned.

In the result, this application is allowed.