Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1479 (JHR)

Prafulla Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2012-09-25

R.R.PRASAD

body2012
Order Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance. 2. This case has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 26 of 2000 (Special Case No. 13 of 2000), including the order dated 20.11.2008, whereby and whereunder, cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 471, 120-B, 109, 201, 423, 424, 477-A of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act has been taken against the petitioner. 3. The case of the prosecution as it appears from the F.I.R. is that certain pieces of land measuring 113.5 acres, appertaining to Khata No. 140, Plot No. 1114, situated at Village-Bargaine, P.S.- Bariyatu, Ranchi though has been recorded as Gairmajurwa khas land, jamabandi was opened with respect to 103.84 acres of land in the name of the twenty persons. Subsequently, Additional Collector cancelled the Jamabandi which was standing in the name of those persons vide its order passed in Misc. Case No. 19 of 1992-93. 4. Further case is that out of the said land measuring 113.5 acres, Krishnanachal Lai Grih Nirman Shahyog Samittee purchased 7.5 acres of land through three sale deeds in the year 1984 from Md. Suleman who claimed his right, title and interest over it through Sada Hukumnama. After purchasing the land, an application was filed before the then S.D.O., Sri P.N. Rai, in the year 1985 for opening Jamabandi in his name, but that prayer was rejected after holding that Jamabandi can be created in the name of the applicant only when the Jamabandi is first created in the name of the vendor. Thereafter on 14.7.1986, the Secretary of the Grih Nirman Shahyog Samittee filed another application before the Circle Officer, Ranchi, wherein, same prayer was made for opening of jamabandi in the name of the society. On such application, Case No. 16 of 1986-87 was registered and the Halqua Karamchari as well as the Circle Officer submitted a report recommending therein for opening a jamabandi in the name of the society. Accordingly, the petitioner who at the time was the. S.D.O., Ranchi, passed an order on 20.10.1986, whereby Jamabandi was ordered to be opened in the name of the society. 5. Accordingly, the petitioner who at the time was the. S.D.O., Ranchi, passed an order on 20.10.1986, whereby Jamabandi was ordered to be opened in the name of the society. 5. Further case of the prosecution is that the petitioner when came to know about the illegality being committed by him by passing an order for opening of Jamabandi in the name of the society, he cancelled the earlier order vide its order dated 27.7.1988, and at the same time, direction was given to the L.R.D.C. to make enquiry in this regard. 6. On such allegation, case was registered as Vigilance P.S. Case No. 26 of 2000 (Special Case No. 13 of 2000) against a number of persons including this petitioner for an offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 471, 120-B, 109, 201, 423, 424, 477-A of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act by the Vigilance. After completion of the offence, when charge-sheet was submitted, cognizance of the offences, as aforesaid was taken which is under challenge, in this application. 7. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that whatever order had been passed, by the petitioner regarding opening of the Jamabandi in the name of the society that order had been passed in ignorance as the relevant records had not been produced before him, but as soon as he came to know that he has passed a wrong order, he not only cancelled his earlier order, but also passed an order directing the L.R.D.C., Ranchi, to make enquiry in the matter and this action itself shows that the petitioner had never involved himself in any kind of the illegality. In spite of that not only the case was registered against the petitioner alongwith others, but even the charge-sheet was submitted, upon which cognizance of the offence was taken and hence, order taking cognizance is fit to be quashed on this ground alone. 8. It was further submitted that taking the entire allegation levelled against the petitioner to be true, the petitioner cannot be said to have committed any offence either of forgery, cheating, misappropriation or even under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and, therefore, the continuance of the proceeding against the petitioner would amount to abuse of the process of law. 9. 9. As against this, Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance submits that if the act of all the accused persons are taken together then one would certainly come to the conclusion that this petitioner, in conspiracy with other accused persons did commit offence, as alleged. 10. It was further submitted that earlier the Secretary of the Samittee had filed an application before the Circle Officer, Kanke, Ranchi for creating Jamabandi in his name, but when an adverse order was passed by the then S.D.O., another application was filed before the Circle Officer, Ranchi, who made recommendation of opening of Jamabandi in the name of the Secretary of the society and on his recommendation, this petitioner passed an order for opening of the Jamabandi though subsequently that order of opening of Jamabandi was cancelled, but the act committed by other accused persons would go to show that this petitioner, in connivance with the other accused persons did commit offences as has been alleged and thereby, the order taking cognizance never warrants to be quashed. 11. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it has been admitted position that this petitioner who at the relevant point of time was the S.D.O. had passed an order for opening of Jamabandi in the name of the society, but subsequently when he came to know that illegality has been done, he cancelled the earlier order and even passed an order, directing the L.R.D.C, to hold enquiry in this respect and this order was passed on 27.7.1988, in spite of that, the petitioner was made accused in a case which was registered in the year 2000, wherein, apart from the aforesaid allegation, nothing has been said against the petitioner, In such a situation, I failed to understand as to how this petitioner did connive with the other accused persons to commit offence, as has been alleged. 12. Furthermore, no offence either under Sections 467, 468, 471, 477 of the Indian Penal Code ever gets attracted, keeping in view the definition given of the forgery under Section 464 of the I.P.C. as the petitioner by passing an order for opening of the Jamabandi in the name of the Secretary of the Society and then passing order for its cancellation cannot be said to have committed offence of forgery. 13. 13. Further, it is beyond my apprehension as to how offence gets attracted under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Again in the face of the allegation, the petitioner can never be said to have committed offence either under Section 423 or 424 of the I.P.C. as the offences under the aforesaid sections concern with the dishonest or fraudulent execution of deed of transfer, containing false statement of the consideration or concealment of the property which has never been the case of the prosecution. 14. Going further in the matter, I do not find any offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act being attracted as the petitioner has never been alleged that he by adopting corrupt practices or illegal means for having pecuniary advantages/valuable things passed order first for opening of Jamabandi and then of cancelling the jamabandi and, therefore, essential ingredients constituting offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is completely lacking. 15. Under the circumstances, entire criminal proceeding of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 26 of 2000 (Special Case No. 13 of 2000), including the order taking cognizance, dated 20.11.2008, is hereby, quashed. 16. In the result, this application stands allowed.