Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 987 (JHR)

Janardan Prasad Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2011-11-11

JAYA ROY

body2011
JUDGMENT : Jaya Roy, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Vigilance. 2. The petitioner has filed the instant Cr. Writ application for issuance of an appropriate writ/directions for quashing the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No.28 of 2000 corresponding to Special Case No.15 of 2000 for the offence under Sections 423, 424, 467, 468, 469, 471, 477A, 409, 120B & 109 of the Indian Penal Code r/w Section 13(1) (d) and read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. The petitioner has filed an interlocutory application i.e. I.A. (Criminal )No. 176 of 2011 wherein the petitioner prayed for addition of prayer in the prayer portion for quashing order dated 26.11.2009 passed in Vigilance case no. 28/2000 corresponding to Special Case No. 15/2000 whereby the Special Judge (Vigilance), Ranchi has taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 426/ 424/467/468/471/477A/ 409/120 (B)/109 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 13(i)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 against the petitioner. 4. Considering the fact and circumstances of case, the aforesaid interlocutory application i.e. I.A.(Criminal) No.176 of 2011 is allowed and it is made part of the main Criminal Writ application. 5. The prosecution case in brief is that one Shivaji Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police Cabinet (Vigilance) on or about 12.11.2000 lodged an information before Officer-in-charge of Vigilance Police Station at 6, Circular Road, Bihar, Patna, alleging therein that pursuant to an order dated 31st August, 2000, had conducted a preliminary enquiry with respect to sale and purchase of portion of Plot No.27 and Plot No.28 of Khata No.89 and Plot No.24 land Plot No.25 of Khata No. 125 having a total area of 9.34 acres of Mouza, Gairi in the town of Ranchi, which stood recorded in the name of one Tulsi Das Kanodia, son of Late Bhagirath Kanodia, resident of 41, Baliganj, Circular Road at Kolkata. It is further stated in the F.I.R. that during the course of enquiry, the aforesaid officer had come to know that in relation to the said lands, a proceeding under the provision of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976, was initiated by Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi being a competent authority which was registered as Case No. 371 to 375 of 1975 against aforesaid Tulshidas Kanodia and member of his family, and in the said proceeding, Tulshidas Kanodia and his sons made a declaration that Plot Nos. 26,27, and 28 was a vacant land. In the year 1985, the Kanungo of the office of Urban (Ceiling & Regulation), Ranchi, had made a physical verification and had submitted a report showing plot Nos. 24,25,26,27 and 28 as completely vacant land, having no construction thereon. On the basis of said report of Kanungo an area of 6000 sq.mtrs. being portion of Plot no. 24, 25, 26 were sought to be allocated and notified to the three land holders by the then Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi under Section 10(1) of the Land Ceiling Act 1976 and an area of 31,239.68 sq.mtrs. comprised Plot No. 26,27 and 28 were declared to be the surplus land and notification were issued on 24.10.1986. It was further stated that during the pendency of the aforesaid ceiling case Tulshidas Kanodia in the year 1982 either personally or through his attorney Bal Kishun Sukseia transferred by registered dead, registered at Kolkata on 2.7.1982, in favour of one Smt. Durga Devi Kanodia wife of Mahavir Prasad Kanodia of Uppar Bazar, Ranchi and by another deed to Smt. Usha Devi Narsaria, wife of Jagmohan Narsaria on 2.4.1982 an area of 6 Katha 6 Chhatak of Plot No.27 and by another deed 11 Katha out of Plot No.28 to Sri B.Kumar Jain son of Mohan Lal Jain of Bariyatu, Ranchi on 1.7.1982. The said transferee B.Kumar Jain had subsequently transferred to aforesaid land to Shri Mahesh Prasad, son of Raghuni Mohani Gohar, of Ekangasarai, Nalanda, similar allegation was made also of subsequent transfer dated 8.7.1986 and 1.7.1982 to different purchaser. It is further stated that on the basis of the sale deed mutation had also been allowed by the concerned accused persons, whose name appears at paragraph 3 of the said First Information Report. During enquiry it has found that about 20 Katha 1 Chhatak 1sq.ft. It is further stated that on the basis of the sale deed mutation had also been allowed by the concerned accused persons, whose name appears at paragraph 3 of the said First Information Report. During enquiry it has found that about 20 Katha 1 Chhatak 1sq.ft. Of Plot No.27 was sold to Keshav Prasad on 29.07.1975 by land holder Tulshidas Kanodia. After declaration as a surplus land, the aforesaid purchaser Keshav Prasad filed an objection to the then Deputy Commissioner, B.K. Sinha exercising the power under Section 5(1) of the Ceiling Act passed an order that the aforesaid purchase made on 29.07.1975 should be included in the 6000sq.mtrs.allocated to the land holders and the surplus land 31,239,68sq.mtrs. was to be declared as surplus under Section 10(3) of the Ceiling Act. Ignoring the said order of B.K. Sinha, a letter was submitted before the Deputy Commissioner S.S. Verma, against that area purchased by Keshav Prasad, should be deducted from the surplus area as declared on 31.239.68 sq.mtrs. The Deputy Commissioner S.S. Verma rejected the said proposal. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it has been stated in the First Information Report that ultimately final publication under Section 10(3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling& Regulation) Act, the surplus land of 31,239.68Sq.mtrs. was declared to be surplus land of land holder as such there was no illegality which can be attributed to the petitioner, there was no loss to the State. Only because the petitioner was signatory to the previous report in which it was stated that land purchased by Keshab Prasad be deducted from the surplus land of land holder i.e. 31,239.68 sq.mtrs and final publication under Section 10(3) of the urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act may be made. The Deputy Commissioner S.S. Verma rejected the said proposal as such in any way the petitioner is not involved in any conspiracy in this case and at the face of it the order taking cognizance dated 26.11.2009 against the petitioner of the offence under Section 426/ 424/467/468/471/477A/409/120B/109 of I.P.C. and under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of corruption Act 1988 in Vigilance case No.28 of 2000 corresponding to special case No. 15 of 2000 is liable to be quashed and consequently entire criminal proceeding be quashed. The learned counsel of the petitioner further submits that no where in the First Information Report it is stated that the petitioner is alleged to have any hand in matter of order of mutation passed on basis of the registered Sale deeds. It is further submitted that the petitioner has retired on 31.1.2001 and he has been unnecessarily harassed to appear in this case. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that at para 8 of F.I.R. it has been clearly stated that the B.K. Sinha, the Deputy Commissioner after hearing the objection of Keshab Prasad, that he has purchased the land of Plot No.27 area 20 Katha I Chatak 30 sq.ft. from Tulsidas Kanodia on 29.7.1975 but his name was not entered in register II with respect of the land inspite of the fact that he purchased the land before the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act came in force in Bihar i.e. on 1.4.1976. But Sri B.K. Sinha the Deputy Commissioner ordered that the land purchased by Keshab Prasad be adjusted from 6000 Sq.mtrs. of land of plot no. 24,25, 26 and 27 left to Tulsidas Kanodia and his son. This means that land of Plot no. 27 purchased by Keshab Prasad on 29.7.1975 area 20 Katha 1 Chatak 30 Sq.ft. be deducted from 6000sq.mtrs of land of Plot no.24, 25, 26 and 27 and total area of 31239.68sq.mtrs of Land to be notified under Section 10(3) of the Act. Ignoring the aforesaid order, the petitioner with conspiracy with other officers of District Land Ceiling Office gave a note on the record that the area of the land purchased by Keshab Prasad be deducted from the land declared under Section 10(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act and final notification be published under Section 10(3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act. Accordingly draft was prepared for notification and it was placed before Sri. S.S. Verma who did not agree with the proposal and ordered that from the order of the previous the Deputy Commissioner it is clear that the land purchased by the Keshab Prasad be adjusted from the land 6000sq.mitrs alloted to the Tulshidas Kanodia and his family and accordingly ordered to prepare the notification. S.S. Verma who did not agree with the proposal and ordered that from the order of the previous the Deputy Commissioner it is clear that the land purchased by the Keshab Prasad be adjusted from the land 6000sq.mitrs alloted to the Tulshidas Kanodia and his family and accordingly ordered to prepare the notification. Surprisingly in the mean time Sri.S.S.Verma, the then Deputy Commissioner recommended previously prepared notification by which Tulshidas Kanodia and others got advantage of 20 Katha 1 Chatak and 30 Sq.ft. of land in their favour i.e. it is deducted from 31,239.68sq.mtrs of the land the excess vacant land of land holder. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent further submits that it is clear from the F.I.R. that although by notification dated 16.9.1997 issued by competent authority under Section 10(3) of the Urban Land ( Ceiling & Regulation) Act 1976 taking Plot no. 27 and 28 and part of Plot NO.26 total area of 31239.68Sq.mtrs was declared excess land of land-holder and it was directed to Tulshidas Kanodia to surrender and handover the land to the State of Bihar and the land to be recorded in the name of State of Bihar in Register II, it was found on spot verification that on the above mentioned excess land several building have been constructed when the case was pending before the competent authority as the lands were sold and purchased by registered deeds and accordingly mutation was allowed and possession was given in convince with officers of the department. It is clear from the aforesaid fact that by misusing of power by the public servant the government land has been illegally sold and purchased and given possession absolutely against provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act 1976 on which the illegal constructions were made and the officers of the State illegally got monetary benefit having wrongful gain causing wrongful loss to the State. 9. The facts stated in the F.I.R. it is clear that there are sufficient materials against the petitioner and other accused (named in the FIF) and further even on investigation sufficient materials have come against the present petitioner, I do not find any reason to quash the entire criminal proceeding at the stage against the petitioner. 10. 9. The facts stated in the F.I.R. it is clear that there are sufficient materials against the petitioner and other accused (named in the FIF) and further even on investigation sufficient materials have come against the present petitioner, I do not find any reason to quash the entire criminal proceeding at the stage against the petitioner. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed before me the following reported cases to support his argument which are as follows:- (i) 2003 (2) East.Cr.C.255 (S.C.) Ajai Mitra -Vrs-State of M.P. & others. (ii) 2008(1) J.L.J.R. (S.C.) page-51, All Cargo Movers (1) Pvt. Ltd & orsn Vrs-Dhanesh Badarmal Jain & Anr. (iii) A.I.R. 2008 Supreme Court, Page-3077, Pankaj Kumar – Vrs-State of Maharashtra. (iv) 2010 J.L.J.R, Page-356 (Jhr) Kapildeo Singh – Vrs-State of Jharkhand. I have gone through the reported cases mentioned above and in my opinion that having regard to the nature of the offence and other relevant circumstances of the present case, quashing of the entire proceeding or setting aside the order taking cognizance dated 26.11.2009 will not be in the interest of justice at this stage as the sufficient materials have come against the petitioner in the preliminary enquiry to prove wrongful loss to the State and wrongful gain to the petitioner. Accordingly, I dismiss this criminal writ application. As it is submitted that the petitioner has retired in January, 2001, therefore, for interest of justice, I direct the trial court to conclude the trial within one year from the date of receiving of this order. I further direct that no unnecessary adjournment will be given to any party during the trial. With the aforesaid direction the Criminal writ application is dismissed.