Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 703 (ORI)

Biman Bihari Patnaik v. State of Orissa

2003-12-12

L.MOHAPATRA

body2003
JUDGMENT L. MOHAPATRA, J. — The petitioner in this application under Section 482, CrPC has challenged the order passed by learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack in G.R. Case No. 196 of 1990 taking cognizance of offences under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 477-A, 420, 109, 119, 120-B/34, IPC. 2. Case of the prosecution so far as the present petition¬er is concerned, is that during his tenure as Land Acquisition Officer, Cuttack he had referred claims of some fraudulent clai¬mants to the Subordinate Judge, Cuttack under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for adjudication without applying judi¬cial 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 follow¬ing has been stated : “The Revenue Inspectors have very cunningly forged and manip¬ulated the ledgers and ekapadia register through some few persons to avoid their complicity as it was learnt 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 cases are senior Revenue Officials working in different capacities have proved the forgery and falsification of documents. The Govt. officials have con¬cealed said offence of forgery which was their duty to prevent at their initial stage. Rather the Revenue Inspectors, Clerks of Tahsil and L.A.O’s office, Addl. Tahsildar, L.A.O. and the then Govt. Pleaders including the panel lawyers being joined together have defaulted the Govt. by hatch¬ing criminal conspiracy with the fraudulent claimants.” 3. Sri Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submit¬ted 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 con¬cerned, is that the Revenue Inspectors, Clerks of Tahsil and L.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 con¬cerned, is that the Revenue Inspectors, Clerks of Tahsil and L.A.O's office, Addl. Tahsildar, Land Acquisition Officer and then Government Pleaders including the panel lawyers joined together and defrauded 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 under Section 30 of the Act. The said provision prescribes that when the amount of compensation has been settled under Section 11, if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the same 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, (Basal¬ingappa Gowda and others v. Nagamma and another). It has been decided in the said case that once dispute arises with regard to apportionment, Land Acquisition Officer is obliged to make a reference under Section 30 since he has no jurisdiction to en¬quire 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 not 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 has held that to bring home charge under Section 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 has held that to bring home charge under Section 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 AIR 2000 SC 3323 (State of the Kerala v. P. Sugathan and another). In the absence of any such material, I am of the view that the offence under Section 120-B of the Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. In similar circum¬stances, one of the co-accused who was also working as Land Acquisition Officer, Cuttack during the relevant period ap¬proached this Court challenging the order taking cognizance in Criminal Misc.Case No. 5368 of 1999 and this Court on 21.2.2002 allowed the application and quashed the proceeding so far as the petitioner therein is concerned. In the present case, except the offence under Section 120-B of the Penal Code there is no prima facie material 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 under Section 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 of 1990 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. Crl. Misc. Case allowed.