JUDGMENT: Jaya Roy, JHeard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the Vigilance. 2. Petitioners have filed this Cr. writ application for issuance of appropriate writ/order or direction for quashing the First Information Report (F.I.R) registered vide Vigilance P.S. Case No.29 of 2000 and further pray for quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 19.11.2009 and also for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in Vigilance P.S. Case No. 29 of 2000 (corresponding to Special Case No.16 of 2000) under Sections 420/467/468/471/477(A)/109/120(B) and 201 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 13 (1) (d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the petitioners. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that in course of investigation of land scandal, it has been found that Raiyat Mangal Tigga, Philman Tigga and Silophin Tigga had filed an application under Section 49 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act (hereinafter it shall be referred as “C.N.T.Act”) for according permission in favour of a registered Housing Co-operative Society having Registration No.2/1987 and the said society is called “Mahavir Sahakari Grih Nirman Samittee” (herein after referred as the “Samittee”) for transfer of land of three plots, total area 0.71 acres of Khata No.102 of Mouza Hinoo which was recorded as Misc. Case No. 9/87-88 in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. Likewise, Hardagan Munda and 10 others aboriginals also filed application for according permission in favour of said Samittee for transfer of land of four plots of Mouza-Hinoo which was recorded as Misc. Case No. 10/87-88 in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, after getting report from Dy. Collector, Vidhi Sakha, Ranchi, after due enquiry on 5.6.87 that ‘Samittee’ is inclined to purchase the land for the purpose of construction of house on the waste land, assessed that the market value of the land would be Rs.4000/- per decimal and he recommended to accord permission under Section 49 of C.N.T. Act. The then Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, after analyzing the report and provision of law, rejected the permission in both the case. The raiyats preferred appeal before the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi which was numbered as Appeal No.307 of 1987 but he was pleased to set aside the order and remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. After remand, the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi did not pass any order between 14.12.87 to 30.11.90. Mr. The raiyats preferred appeal before the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi which was numbered as Appeal No.307 of 1987 but he was pleased to set aside the order and remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. After remand, the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi did not pass any order between 14.12.87 to 30.11.90. Mr. Sudhir Prasad, the then Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi by order dated 08.09.1992 accorded permission on payment of Rs.5000/- per decimal to the Tribal Raiyats. After getting permission from Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, the Secretary of the “Samittee”, Sri K.K.Mishra got the land transferred through registered deeds in favour of “Samittee” and thereafter the name of the said “Samittee” was mutated in respect of the said lands. It was found that both lands were contiguous and surrounded by boundary wall. The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society, Ranchi gave information that “Mahavir Sahakari Grih Nirman Samittee” is a registered Society and its registration No. is 2 of 1987 having 22 members. Sri Kamla Kant Mishra was the organizer and first Secretary of the said “Samittee”. A certified copy of blue print was also submitted. Now it has got 28 members and “Samittee” has allotted land to them. After allotment lands were transferred to 28 members and their names were mutated in the year 1994-95. It is further alleged that there is violation of Section 49 of the C.N.T. Act because the aforesaid lands were not given for charitable, religious, education or irrigation purpose. It was given for housing purpose. In this way, the then Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi along with other Government officials misused the official Power and committed forgery and conspiracy and cheated the simple tribal raiyts by getting the lands transferred to the individual member of the ‘Samittee’ and as such, a prima-facie case has been made out. Hence, the instant case has been registered. 4. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners being the purchasers and members of the Co-operative society, do not come under the definition of the “Public Servant”, therefore, they cannot be prosecuted under Sections 13 (1) (d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Section 13 is concerned only with the Criminal misconduct by a public servant. The Section 13 is concerned only with the Criminal misconduct by a public servant. It is also contented that the petitioners are the members of the Co-operative Society and they have purchased the lands in question through the Society, namely, “Mahavir Sahakari Grih Nirman Samittee”. They are neither the persons who had submitted application for permission nor the Government Officials who have accorded permission. Since there is no allegation regarding commission of any offence in the F.I.R. hence no offence under any provision of the Indian Penal Code or under the Prevention of Corruption Act was made out hence, the F.I.R. and the entire criminal proceeding as also the cognizance order dated 19.11.2009 are required to be quashed. 5. Mr. Nilesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance has submitted that the petitioners are members of the Co-operative Society, namely, “Mahabir Sahakari Grih Nirman Samittee”, Dhurwa Ranchi. This Society purchased the lands for the purpose of constructing home as per Section 49 of the C.N.T. Act, 1908 knowing fully that all the land owners were tribals and the purpose for purchase of the said lands was neither charitable, religious, educational nor for any industrial purpose or for which is covered by the General and special order of the Government or competent authority to declare a public purpose. It has come in the investigation that with the connivance of the government officials, the accused petitioners were instrumental in the land scam for the land bearing Khata No.102, Survey plot nos, 636, 637 and 638 having total area of 0.71 acres. Likewise, Khata Nos.174 & 57, Plot nos.635, 647, 648, 649 and 650 having total area of 1.67 acres of Adivasi land of Mouza-Hinoo, which was settled in favour of the “Samittee” in violation of the provisions of Section 49 of the C.N.T. Act, 1908 and thereby, for their wrongful gain, they abetted the offence and furnished ground to the government officials abusing their official positions. Hence, it is clear that the allotment and transfer of Adivasi land to the members of the “Samittee” was made in violation of the provision of section 49 of the C.N.T.Act. 1908. 6. Mr. Hence, it is clear that the allotment and transfer of Adivasi land to the members of the “Samittee” was made in violation of the provision of section 49 of the C.N.T.Act. 1908. 6. Mr. Nilesh Kumar further submits that from the very beginning it was the intention of the members of the “Samittee” to grab the tribal land after framing a Co-operative Society and ultimately became successful and got the land for the construction of house for its 28 members. 7. It is also contended that the petitioners are the immediate beneficiaries. Mr. Nilesh Kumar has also contended that the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in a case of P. Nallammal and another Vs. State represented by Inspector of police, reported in (1999) 6 Supreme Court Cases 559 which is as under:- “10…..If a non-public servant is also a member of the criminal conspiracy for a public servant to commit any offence under the PC Act, or if such non-public servant has abetted any of the offences which the public servant commits, such non-public servant is also liable to be tried along with the public servant before the Court of a Special Judge having jurisdiction in the matter”. 8. In view of the above facts and circumstances and also in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court as mentioned above, the petitioners being the beneficiaries and at least being the abettor of the offences, which the public servants have Committed, I do not find any merit in this application. Accordingly this Cr.writ application is dismissed.