Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 110 (ORI)

SRI NARASINGHA JENA v. STATE OF ORISSA

2002-02-21

L.MOHAPATRA

body2002
JUDGMENT : L. Mohapatra, J. - The petitioner in this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has challenged the order passed by the learned S.D.J.M. (Sadar), Cuttack in G. R. Case No. 196/90 taking cognizance of offence under Sections 465/467/468/471/477-A/420/109/119/120-B/34 of the Penal Code. 2. Case of the prosecution, as far as the present petitioner is concerned, is during his tenure as Land Acquisition Officer, Cuttack he had referred some claims of some fraudulent claimants to the Subordinate Judge; Cuttack, under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for adjudication without applying judicial mind and without verifying records. On such allegations after investigation charge-sheet was submitted and in the charge-sheet, so far as the present petitioner is concerned, the following has been stated : "The Revenue Inspectore have very cunningly forged and manipulated the ledgers and expacia register through some few persons to avoid their complicity as it was (earnt confidentially. As such, the Revenue Inspector of those periods are only responsible for the forgery as those cases only relate to their period. The seized records were sent to Handwriting Expert, Rasulgarh and the forgery has been detected. The witnesses examined in their case are senior Revenue Officials working in different capacities have proved the forgery and falsification of documents. The Govt. officials have concealed said offence of forgery which was their duty to prevent at their initial stage. Rather the Revenue Inspectors, Clerks of Tahasil and L.A.O's office, Addl. Tahasildar, L.A.O. and the Govt. pleaders including the penal lawyers being joined together have defaulted the Govt. by hatching criminal conspiracy with the fraudulent claimants." 3. Shri Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the Land Acquisition Officer the petitioner was only required to refer claim of the claimants to the Civil Court for adjudication. At that point of time he is not required to look into the title of the claimants. Since the claim applications were filed by different persons, as Land Acquisition Officer he had referred the same to the Civil Court for adjudication and has not committed any offence having discharged his official duty. 4. From the statement made in the charge-sheet, it appears that the allegations, so far as the present petitioner is concerned, is that the Revenue Inspectors Clerks of Tahasil and I.A.O.'s office, Addl. 4. From the statement made in the charge-sheet, it appears that the allegations, so far as the present petitioner is concerned, is that the Revenue Inspectors Clerks of Tahasil and I.A.O.'s office, Addl. Tahasildar, Land Acquisition Officer and the then Government pleaders including the penal lawyers joined together and defaulted the Government by hatching criminal conspiracy with the fraudulent claimants. From the aforesaid statement it is clear that the petitioner is implicated in the case by help of Section 120-B of the Penal Code. 5. Now coming to the role of Land Acquisition Officer, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. In the present case, a reference has been made u/s 30 of the Act. The said provision prescribes that when the amount of compensation has been settled u/s 11, if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the Name or any part thereof, or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the Collector may refer such dispute to the decision of the Court. In this connection, it is worthwhile to refer to the decision reported in AIR 1969 Mysore 313 (Basalingappa Gowda and others v. Magamma and another). It has been decided in the said case that once disputes arises with regard to apportionment. Land Acquisition Officer is obliged to make a reference u/s 30 since he has no jurisdiction to enquire into the title and give a binding decision which only a Civil Court could do. Therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer in the event of dispute being raised has no jurisdiction to decide the question of title and is obliged to make a reference to the Civil Court for adjudication. Since the Land Acquisition Officer has no jurisdiction to decide the question of title, it is not necessary for him to refer to the documents to find out the title in respect of any claim. There is nothing on record also to show that there was any meeting of mind between the accused persons to commit such offence. The Apex Court in several decisions had held that to bring home charge u/s 120-B of the Penal Code, there must be a meeting of minds resulting in ultimate decision taken by the conspirators regarding the commission of an offence. The Apex Court in several decisions had held that to bring home charge u/s 120-B of the Penal Code, there must be a meeting of minds resulting in ultimate decision taken by the conspirators regarding the commission of an offence. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court reported in State of Kerala Vs. P. Sugathan and Another. In absence of any such material, I am of the view that the offence u/s 120-B of the Penal Code is not made but against the petitioner. In similar circumstances, one of the co-accused who was working as Tahasildar, Cuttack during the relevant period approached this Court challenging the order taking cognizance in Criminal Revision No. 189/97 and this Court on 22.12.2000 allowed the application and quashed the proceeding so far as the petitioner therein is concerned. In the present case, except the offence u/s 120-B of the Penal Code th'ere is no prima facie materials so far as other offences are concerned relating to the petitioner. As stated earlier, the petitioner has been made an accused with the help of Section 120-B of the Penal Code. Since I have already held that there is no prima facie material to establish offence u/s 120-B of the Penal Code so far as the present petitioner is concerned, the proceeding is liable to be quashed. 6. I, therefore, quash criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No. 196/90 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack so far as it relates to the present petitioner. The Criminal Misc. Case is allowed. Final Result : Allowed