ORDER 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 entire criminal proceeding of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 35 of 2002 (Corresponding to Special Case No. 41 of 2002) including the order dated 18.11.2009 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 471, 120-B, 109, 201, 423, 434, 477 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act has been taken against the petitioner. 3. The facts giving rise to this case is that ex-landlord A.T. Pepee was the rightful owner of the land measuring 1.50 acres appertaining to Khata No. 191, Plot Nos. 875, 877 and 878 who by way of perpetual deed of lease dated 3.2.1989 settled the land to J.J. Field Niroj Esabul and Jhon Field. After transferring the land he left the country and went to Scotland. In course of time, Niroj Field sold, the land in the year 1947 to R. Bosseyet, Director of Chotanagpur Catholic Society. In the year 1983 said R. Bosseyet transferred the land by way of deed of gift to Society of Jesus Marry Joseph. On the basis of said deed of gift, the petitioner who at the relevant point of time was posted as Circle Officer, Town Anchal, Ranchi mutated the land in the name of Sister Anna Maria Gali, the Convener of the said Society and accordingly Register II was opened. 4. When the land was mutated in the name of transferee, the authority of the State challenged that order before the Appellate Court who reversed the order. Against that order, a Revision application was preferred and the revisional Court by setting aside the order of the appellate Court affirmed the order passed by the Circle Officer. In spite of that a case was registered as Vigilance P.S. Case No. 35 of 2002 on the premise that when a person a foreign national to whom land was settled left the country, the land vests upon the State and in that event, mutation cannot be made against the person who claimed the, land through the person who left the country and also on the premise that relevant records were found missing and some interpolations were found being made in some revenue records. 5. 5. The mater was taken up for investigation. On completion of the investigation the charge-sheet was submitted, upon which cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 471, 120-B, 109, 201, 423, 434, 477 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act has been taken against the petitioner. That order has been challenged. 6. Mr. S.N. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when the land was transferred to sister Anna Maria Gali, by way .of deed of gift, the petitioner passed an order for mutating the land as against her name and thereby, the petitioner did not commit any offence. In spite of that, a case has been registered against the petitioner. Upon which cognizance has been taken and as such the order taking cognizance is fit to be quashed. 7. It was further submitted that as per the allegation the petitioner did mutate the name of the transferee and thereby, he cannot be said to have committed offence of forgery nor he can be said to have committed any offence under which cognizance has been taken. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance submits that during investigation, original record of the Mutation Case Nos. 173, 174, 175, 176 of 1987-88 were found missing and that apart some interpolations were also found to have been made in Volume No. 1 of Register II concerning the land in question and under the circumstances the order taking cognizance can never be said to be illegal. 9. It need not to be recorded. in detail about the manner in which the land was transferred to different persons except the fact that this petitioner who at the relevant point of time was posted as the Circle Officer mutated the name of the persons who acquired the land, in question by way of deed of gift and if the petitioner did mutate the name of the transferee against the land transferred he cannot be said to have committed any offence. One cannot comprehend as to how an offence of forgery is made out when a person in discharge of his duty passed a quasi-judicial order. "The conditions precedent for commission of offence of forgery under Sections 467 and 471 is making a false document (or false electronic record or part thereof). One cannot comprehend as to how an offence of forgery is made out when a person in discharge of his duty passed a quasi-judicial order. "The conditions precedent for commission of offence of forgery under Sections 467 and 471 is making a false document (or false electronic record or part thereof). This case does not relate to making a false document or false electronic record rather it is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner did mutate the name of the transferors against the land purchased by the transferee. In such event one can not be said to have committed offence of forgery." 10. Going further in the matter it be stated that when the petitioner having found that the land has been transferred by way of deed of gift passed an order for mutation in his favour. In such situation, he cannot be said to have committed any offence of cheating as defined in Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 11. Going further in the matter, one can hardly conceive as to how offence under Sections 423 and 424 of the Indian Penal Code is made out when there has been no case or 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. 12. Further in the facts and circumstances, in absence of any factual fact constituting offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the petitioner cannot be said to have committed offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 13. Under the circumstances, entire criminal proceeding of Vigilance Case No. 35 of 2002 (Special Case No. 41 of 2002) including the order taking cognizance dated 18.11.2009, is hereby, quashed, so far the present petitioner is concerned. 14. In the result, this application stands allowed. Application allowed.