JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance. 2. This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 12.07.2010 passed by learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Ranchi, in Special Case No. 17 of 2000 (Vigilance P.S. Case No. 30 of 2000), whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 467/468/469/471/477A/409/120B/109/423/424/201 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(1)d read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been taken against the petitioner. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the land of Khata No. 263, Plot No. 1656, measuring an area of 4.75 Acres, as well as the land of Plot No. 1661, measuring an area of 25.60 Acres, situated at Village Mahilong, Anchal Namkom, District Ranchi was lastly recorded in the records of the revenue in the name of Ram Chandra Rungta @ Ram Chand Rungta and others. In course of time, Jamabandi created in the name of Ram Chandra Rungta @ Ram Chand Rungta and others was cancelled and the matter was reopened by Additional Collector, Ranchi. That order was challenged by the landholder before the petitioner, who happened to be the Commissioner-South Chhotanagpur Division, an Appellate Authority. The order passed by Additional Collector being found to be illegal, was quashed. On account of that, a case was registered against the petitioner and others, which was registered as Vigilance P.S. Case No. 30 of 2000, for commission of the offences under Sections 467/468/469/471/477A/409/120B/109/423/424/201 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(1)d read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner and others. 4. The matter was taken up for investigation. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted upon which, cognizance of the offences, as aforesaid, was taken against the petitioner, vide order dated 12.07.2010, which is under challenge. 5. Mr. 4. The matter was taken up for investigation. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted upon which, cognizance of the offences, as aforesaid, was taken against the petitioner, vide order dated 12.07.2010, which is under challenge. 5. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that whatever order was passed by the petitioner, being the Appellate Authority, in an Appeal, preferred by the landholder that was based on judicial consideration and not on any other consideration and, thereby, even if that order is wrong, he cannot be prosecuted criminally, in absence of any material being there, suggesting that it was based on extraneous consideration on being influenced illegally by the landholder and, thereby, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for the offences under which cognizance has been taken. 6. It was further submitted that assuming the allegation to be true that wrong order has been passed, but passing of a wrong order, never constitute an offence of forgery, as in that event necessary ingredients, constituting offence of forgery, as defined under Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code, would be lacking. 7. Similarly, there does not appear to be any material, constituting offences, either under Sections 409, 120B, 109, 423, 424 or Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. Similarly, the petitioner has never been alleged to have passed order by abusing his position as public servant, for obtaining himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage and thereby, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted even under Section 13(1)d read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 9. Counter affidavit has been filed wherein statement has been made to the effect that the petitioner did restore illegal order relating to Jamabandi vide order dated 04.01.1999, by setting aside the order of cancellation of Jamabandi, though he was quite aware that the order for creation of Jamabandi in the name of Ram Chandra Rungta and others was quite illegal, which would be evident from several letters written by him to his subordinate. 10. Further it has been stated that it is hard to believe that the impugned order was fairly passed, without there being any extraneous consideration, hence it is clear that the petitioner has not exercised quasi judicial power legally, while passing the impugned order. 11. 10. Further it has been stated that it is hard to believe that the impugned order was fairly passed, without there being any extraneous consideration, hence it is clear that the petitioner has not exercised quasi judicial power legally, while passing the impugned order. 11. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it does appear that earlier the land, appertaining to Plots mentioned above, were standing in the name of Ram Chandra Rungta, in whose name, Jamabandi had been opened. Subsequently, that Jamabandi was cancelled and the matter relating to Jamabandi was reopened. That order was challenged before the petitioner-being the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, an Appellate Authority, who set aside the impugned order and, thereby, order passed for creating Jamabandi in the name of Ram Chandra Rungta and others remained intact. Since, the order was set aside, the prosecution was initiated against the petitioner and others on the accusation that wrong order has been passed for giving benefit to landholder. Admittedly, the petitioner, being quasi judicial authority, has passed order, which may be right or wrong, but for passing wrong order, one cannot be prosecuted, in absence of any materials suggesting that order has been passed at the instance of landlord on extraneous consideration, for putting himself or the landholder in advantageous position. 12. Though the petitioner is being prosecuted for passing wrong order, but nothing seems to have been brought on record to establish the act of conspiracy on the part of this petitioner with the land holder. It is true that before passing order, this petitioner entered into correspondence with his subordinate, requesting therein to look into the matter relating to illegal Jamabandi but while, passing order, he never considered the matter relating to opening of Jamabandi in the name of landholder to be bad and as such, any correspondences cannot be said to be the incriminating material, showing connivance of the petitioner with the landholder. 13. In this regard, it be stated that one may form an opinion prima facie, but that, at the time of final adjudication can be altered. Except the aforesaid fact, noting seems to have been brought by the Vigilance against the petitioner. 13. In this regard, it be stated that one may form an opinion prima facie, but that, at the time of final adjudication can be altered. Except the aforesaid fact, noting seems to have been brought by the Vigilance against the petitioner. At the same time, no material has been brought to show that the order was passed for putting himself or landholder in advantageous position and as such, the petitioner, cannot be said to have passed order by corrupt or illegal means and, thereby, any prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, would be bad. 14. Further going into the matter, it does appear that cognizance of the offences has been taken, even of the offences of forgery, but it is beyond my comprehension as to how the offence of forgery is attracted, as act of passing even illegal order, cannot bring it within the parameter of the provision as contained in Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code, defining the offence of forgery, as order even if it is illegal, cannot be said to be false document in terms of Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code and if it is not a false document, then the question of committing offence under Sections 467, 468, 469 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code does not arise. 15. Going further in the matter, one can hardly conceive as to how offence either under Section 423 or 424 of IPC is made out when there has been no case of dishonest or fraudulent execution of deed of transfer containing false statement of consideration nor it is the case of dishonest or fraudulent removal of concealment of the property. 16. Likewise in the facts and circumstances of the case, one cannot be said to have committed offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. 17. Thus, on the face of the allegation, no offence, under which cognizance has been taken, is made out against the petitioner. 18. Under the circumstances, order dated 12.07.2010 passed by learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Ranchi, in Special Case No. 17 of 2000 (Vigilance P.S. Case No. 30 of 2000), taking cognizance under Sections 467/468/469/471/477A/409/120B/109/423/424/ 201 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(1)d read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is hereby quashed, so far this petitioner is concerned. In the result, this application is allowed.