Judgment This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Vigilance P.S case no.29 of 2000 registered under Sections409, 467,468, 469,471, 477A, 109, 201 read with Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. The facts leading to this case are that in the year 1987, one R.M. Tigga and others being occupancy raiyats of the land filed an application under Section 49(2) of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi for according permission to them to transfer the lands, bearing plot nos. 636, 637 and 638 appertaining to khata no.102, measuring an area of .71 acres situated at Mauza Hinoo to Mahavir Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti, Dhurwa, Ranchi, a registered Cooperative Society. On the said application, a case was registered as land Permission Case No.9 of 1987-88. Similarly, Hardugan Munda and 9 others also filed an application for according permission to transfer the lands, bearing plot nos. 635, 647 and 650, appertaining to khata no.57 and also plot no.648,, appertaining to khata no.174, measuring total area 1.67 acres to the said Co-operative Society. On that application, Land Permission Case No.10 of 1987-88 was registered. On filing of such application a report was called for from the Concerned Circle Officer including the petitioner with respect to valuation and utility of the land. Pursuant to that, a report was submitted by the petitioner putting therein the valuation of the land with a recommendation for according permission to transfer the land under Section 49 of the Act. However, the then D.C, Ranchi refused to grant permission to transfer the aforesaid lands to the Co-operative Society as according to him, the purpose for which the land is sought to be transferred to Co-operative Society for constructing building, cannot be said to be reasonable and sufficient purpose. However, the said order was challenged before the Commissioner, Ranchi by way of appeal being Misc. Revenue Appeal No.307 of 1987. While hearing the said appeal, the following question was formulated: “whether or not the sale of the land to the Housing Co-operative Society for the purpose of building/houses, can be deemed to be a reasonable cause.” 3. However, the said order was challenged before the Commissioner, Ranchi by way of appeal being Misc. Revenue Appeal No.307 of 1987. While hearing the said appeal, the following question was formulated: “whether or not the sale of the land to the Housing Co-operative Society for the purpose of building/houses, can be deemed to be a reasonable cause.” 3. While dealing with the issue, learned Commissioner did observe that though certain purposes have been specified in the Act under which permission can be granted for transfer but there could be other purposes also not mentioned in the Act under which Deputy Commissioner can grant permission provided he finds the purpose to be reasonable and sufficient purposes. Therefore, the case was remanded, vide its order dated 14.12.1987 to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranch to consider the case afresh as to whether or not construction of the houses/building is a reasonable activity taking into account that in the past there have been several instances of according permission for transferring the land to the Co-operative Societies for the construction of the building and that in the area, several colonies have come up and also the fact that whether sufficient land would be left with the transferors and that the rate negotiated is reasonable and also to ensure genuineness of the claim of the Co-operative Society of having land for the purpose of constructing building. Meanwhile, raiyats filed an application for having fresh report regarding valuation of the land as the matter had remained pending for last three years and during three years, valuation of the land had been escalated. On such application a fresh report was called for which was submitted by the then Circle Officer, Naresh Kumar, vide its letter no.150(ii) dated 30.1.1991 whereby valuation of the land was assessed as Rs.5000/- per decimal. 4. It further appears that raiyats also filed an application stating therein that the lands which are being sought to be transferred are not cultivable, rather it is a 'tand' land and as such, they are not getting benefit out of it and hence, they want to dispose it of so that money could be utilized for constructing/repairing of their houses. It further appears that raiyats also filed an application stating therein that the lands which are being sought to be transferred are not cultivable, rather it is a 'tand' land and as such, they are not getting benefit out of it and hence, they want to dispose it of so that money could be utilized for constructing/repairing of their houses. Upon which matter was taken up for hearing by the then Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, who vide its order dated 2.2.1992 granted permission to the raiyats to transfer the land to the said Co-operative Society taking into account the fact that the land being 'tand' land is not cultivable and even after transfer of the land to the registered Co-operative Society, the raiyats would be left with the adequate agricultural land and that raiyats have also taken a considerable amount as an advance and that earlier permission has been granted in number of cases where lands were sought to be transferred to the Co-operative Society for the purpose of constructing building. On such fact, the D.C, Ranchi on finding that such transfer would be for reasonable and sufficient purposes granted permission to transfer the land subject to condition that the land would be sold at the rate of Rs.5000/- per decimal instead of Rs.4000/- per decimal which had been valued by petitioner and that transferor would be using the land only for the purpose for which permission has been given and that none of the members of the Co-operative Society will be having more than 7decimals of the land and that if the building is not constructed over the land within three years, raiyats would be entitled to have possession back of those lands and last not the least, that the payment be made by having NSS in the name of the raiyats and cash be deposited in the account of the raiyats. 5. Subsequently, that order was challenged by some of the aggrieved persons before the State Government in terms of the provision as contained in Section 49(5) of the Act. After hearing, the Presiding Officer did not find fault with the order of the Deputy Commissioner granting permission as according to him, the order has been passed after taking into consideration several factors mentioned in the order and as such, it was confirmed by holding that transfer for which permission was accorded was for reasonable and sufficient purpose. After hearing, the Presiding Officer did not find fault with the order of the Deputy Commissioner granting permission as according to him, the order has been passed after taking into consideration several factors mentioned in the order and as such, it was confirmed by holding that transfer for which permission was accorded was for reasonable and sufficient purpose. Therefore, the Presiding Officer did not find it fit to interfere with the order. However, rate fixed by the Deputy Commissioner for sale of the land w as enhanced to Rs.6000/-per decimal. 6. However, before the order was confirmed by the Sate Government, Vigilance Bureau, Bihar on getting some complaints regarding illegal transfer of the land belonging to the Scheduled Tribes, constituted a committee for holding enquiry over the matter relating to illegal transfer. The complaint relating to permission granted by the petitioner was enquired into by the then Dy.S.P. Vigilance Bureau, Patna who did find that earlier the permission for transfer of the land to Mahabir Housing Co-operative Society had been refused when the occupancy raiyats had sought permission. However, the order was set aside by the then Commissioner and remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner passing a fresh order after taking into consideration as to whether the purpose for which the land is sought to be transferred to the Co-operative Society would be reasonable and sufficient. That matter was not decided by the then Deputy Commissioners, who were posted at the relevant point of time but it is only Sudhir Prasad the then Deputy Commissioner, who accorded permission to transfer the land, though no such permission could be granted for housing purposes in view of the bar put under Section 49 of the Act, still the then Deputy Commissioner in connived with others had granted permission for transferring the land. 7. On the basis of such enquiry report, Patna Sadar Vigilance P.S. Case no.29 of 2009 was instituted on 13.11.2000 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 109, 201 read with Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 8. After bifurcation of the State, the Vigilance Bureau, Ranchi took up the matter for investigation and ultimately submitted charge sheet on 18.11.2007. 9. Mr. 8. After bifurcation of the State, the Vigilance Bureau, Ranchi took up the matter for investigation and ultimately submitted charge sheet on 18.11.2007. 9. Mr. Sujeet Narayan Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the then Deputy Commissioner who had granted permission had moved to this Court when he was made accused for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding and this Court after taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances quashed the entire criminal proceeding after holding that no offence as alleged is made out against Mr. Sudhir Prasad, vide judgment dated 24.2.2010 passed in W.P(Cr.) No.403 of 2009. 10. Since the case of Mr. Sudhir Prasad has been quashed, the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner also becomes liable to be quashed as the case of the petitioner stands on far better footing. 11. In this respect it was pointed out that though the petitioner had submitted report assessing value of the land, pursuant to the order passed by the then Deputy commissioner, Ranchi but the report submitted by this petitioner had never been acted upon, rather report of the Circle Officer, Naresh Kumar was acted upon and thereby the petitioner can never be said to have connived with other accused in order to have permission in favour of the raiyats to transfer the land and on this fact alone, the entire criminal proceeding is fit to be set aside. That apart, the case is also liable to be quashed in view of the fact that none of the offences alleged against the petitioner is made out which aspect has been dealt with extensively in case of Sudhir Prasad @Sudhir Kumar Prasadvs. State of Jharkhand through Vigilance, Ranchi [W.P.(Cr.) No.403 of 2009]. 12. However, learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance submit that from the first information report, it does appear that when the report was asked for from the petitioner, who at the relevant point of time was posted as Circle Officer he not only submitted the report but also made recommendation for transfer of the land under Section 49 of the Act and thereby there appears to be connivance of this petitioner in the alleged offence. 13. 13. It is true that the report was submitted by the petitioner along with his recommendation but that report of this petitioner has never been acted upon, rather the report of the successor of the petitioner was acted upon which had been submitted upon the request made by the raiyats to have further valuation report. 14. Under the circumstances, the petitioner can never be said to have conspired with other accused to have an order for permission for transferring the land. Furthermore, none of the offences either under Sections 467, 468, 471,477 ever gets attracted keeping in view definition given of the forgery under Section 464. This matter has been dealt with in detailed in a case of Sudhir Prasad @Sudhir Kumar Prasadvs. State of Jharkhand through Vigilance, Ranchi [W.P.(Cr.) No.403 of 2009]. 15. Under the situation, even if it is assumed that the petitioner did submit report regarding valuation with his recommendation, it never assumes in characteristic of making a false document. Further it be recorded that it is beyond any comprehensive as to how an offence under Section 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner when there is no such element for constituting offence either under Section 419 or 420 is there. Similarly, 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 advantage/ valuable things for himself or for any other purpose submitted its report. The aforesaid essential ingredients constituting offence under Section 13(1)(d) is completely lacking and as such, entire criminal proceeding of Vigilance P.S case no.29 of 2000 registered under Sections409, 467,468, 469,471, 477A, 109, 201 read with Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is hereby quashed so far the petitioner is concerned. 16. In the result, this application is allowed.