Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 328 (JHR)

Shekh Hafiz v. State of Jharkhand

2016-02-11

R.R.PRASAD

body2016
ORDER : Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State-Vigilance. 2. This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Vigilance P.S. Case no.27 of 2000 (Special Case no.14 of 2000) including the order dated 22.6.2013 whereby and whereunder learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Ranchi has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 423, 424, 109, 120B, 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. 3. Before advertising to the submission advanced on behalf of the parties, case of the prosecution needs to be taken notice of. 4. It is the case of the prosecution that 12.15 acres of land of Mouza-Kamre, appertaining to Khata No.60, Plot Nos. 1051 and 549 was belonging to ex-landlord Kailash Nath Bharti and Baijnath Dayal Bharti who settled the land (Chaparbandi settlement) to Krishna Ballabh Narayan Singh on 16.4.1948. Subsequently, the said Krishna Ballabh Narayan Singh sold the land to Smt. Bameshwari Devi on 7.4.1961 through registered sale deed. Thereafter the land was mutated in her name and Jamabandi was opened in her name by the then Circle Officer. In course of time, the said land was sold to Abdul Hafeez in the year 1988 through registered sale deed. Out of the said land measuring 12.05 acres, a piece of land measuring 4.05 acres of land was sold to Neelanchal Grih Nirman Samiti, Kamre on 16.8.1988. The petitioner being Halka Karmchari recommended for mutation and on recommendation, the Circle Officer, Kanke mutated the name of the said Samiti against the land purchased by the Samiti, vide Mutation Case No.324(R) – 27/90-91 on 28.8.1990, without verifying the factual position that the said land is Gairmajrua Malik land. 5. It has been further alleged that rest of the land was sold to Smt. Geeta Singh whose name was also mutated by the Circle Officer against the land purchased by her, vide Mutation case No. 648(R) of 1990-91 and Jamabandi was opened in her name. Subsequently, when the Secretary of Neelanchal Grih Nirman Samiti sold the land to 18 persons, name of the 18 persons were also mutated, on the recommendation of the petitioner and the Circle Inspector, by the Circle Officer against the land purchased by them in the year 1991 and 1992-93. 6. Subsequently, when the Secretary of Neelanchal Grih Nirman Samiti sold the land to 18 persons, name of the 18 persons were also mutated, on the recommendation of the petitioner and the Circle Inspector, by the Circle Officer against the land purchased by them in the year 1991 and 1992-93. 6. On the said allegation, a case was registered against number of persons including this petitioner on the premise that the land in question was recorded as Gairmajrua Malik land and the nature of it was ‘Parti Patthal’ which was settled by the then ex-landlord to other persons on 16.4.1948, though there was prohibition of transferring of land after 1.1.1946 under the Land Reforms Act, 1950. In spite of that, this petitioner as well as other Circle Officers by misusing the official position mutated the name of the transferees against the land settled by them, though they should have initiated a proceeding under Section 4H of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. 7. On such allegation, a case was registered as Vigilance P.S. case no.27 of 2000 corresponding to Special Case No.14 of 2000. On submission of the charge sheet, cognizance of the offences was taken under Sections 467, 468, 471, 477A, 423, 424, 402, 109, 120B, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, vide order dated 22.06.2013 which is under challenge. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is a case of the prosecution itself that when ex-landlord settled the land, which was recorded as Gairmajrua Malik land to Krishna Ballabh Narayan Singh, his name was mutated by the then Circle Officer. Subsequently said Krishna Ballabh Narayan Singh sold the land to Smt. Bameshwari Devi on 7.4.1961 whose name was mutated against the land purchased by her and the Jamabandi was created and rent receipts were issued. When Smt. Bameshwari Devi sold the land to Abdul Hafeez, he sold the land to the Secretary-Neelanchal Grih Nirman Samiti whose name was mutated by the Circle Officer-Mahendra Prasad Singh on the recommendation of the petitioner as well as Circle Inspector against the land purchased and thereby the petitioner cannot be said to have committed any offence of forgery, misappropriation or cheating. 9. 9. It was further submitted that when the land had been recorded in the name of Bameshwari Devi and even the rent receipt had been issued much before the petitioner did join as Halka Karmchari, how the petitioner can be said to have gone into conspiracy with other accused persons in getting the land mutated and rent receipts issued to Bameshwari Devi. 10. It was further submitted that the petitioner, after noticing that the land had been recorded in the name of erstwhile transferees, got the name of the Society and also the name of the person to whom the Society had sold the land, recommended for mutation and thereby the petitioner cannot be said to have committed any offence under which cognizance has been taken and therefore, the order taking cognizance is fit to be quashed. 11. As against this, Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance submits that it is true that the land in question was recorded in the name of ex-landlord who had every right to transfer or settle the land in favour of anyone but under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, he should have transferred the land only upto 01.01.1946 whereas in the instant case, ex-landlord had initially settled the land on 16.4.1948, which was in violation of the provision of the Bihar Land Reforms Act and therefore, it can be said that the said transfer had been made in order to defeat the provision of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. In spite of that, the then Circle Officer opened Jamabandi in the name of the persons to whom ex-landlord had settled the land. Likewise, the then Circle Officer, Mahendra Prasad Singh, who succeeded to earlier Circle Officer, Sri N.N. Singh opened Jamabandi in the name of Neelanchal Grih Nirman Samiti and also in the name of the persons who had purchased the land from Neelanchal Grih Nirman Samiti on the report submitted by the petitioner and the Circle Inspector, though he should have made recommendation for initiation of a proceeding under Section 4H of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. In such situation, the petitioner can certainly be said to have committed offences under which cognizance has been taken. 12. It be stated that similar plea had been taken in a case of Circle Officer-Mahendra Prasad Singh, who had mutated the land in the name of Neelanchal Grih Nirman Samiti. In such situation, the petitioner can certainly be said to have committed offences under which cognizance has been taken. 12. It be stated that similar plea had been taken in a case of Circle Officer-Mahendra Prasad Singh, who had mutated the land in the name of Neelanchal Grih Nirman Samiti. When the Circle Officer-Mahendra Prasad Singh had come before this Court for quashing of the order taking cognizance, the plea, which was taken on behalf of the Vigilance was not accepted, in the facts and circumstances of the case whereby, this Court come to the conclusion that none of the offences, under which cognizance has been taken gets attracted and thereby, the case of the Circle Officer-Mahendra Prasad was quashed vide Cr.M.P. No.191 of 2008 dated 16.05.2013. 13. On the similar reasoning, the case of this petitioner is also quashed, as accepting the allegations to be true, no offence is made out under which, cognizance of the offence, has been taken. 14. Accordingly, entire criminal proceeding of Vigilance P.S. Case no.27 of 2000 (Special Case no. 14 of 2000) including the order dated 22.6.2013 under which cognizance of the offence has been taken, is hereby quashed so far it relates to petitioner. 15. In the result, this application stand allowed. Application allowed.