1. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.1684 of 2015. 2. Heard Mrs. Ritu Kumar, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner along with Mr. Ravi Kumar Singh, Advocate in Cr.M.P. No.1685 of 2015. 3. Heard Mr. Ravi Kumar Singh, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.1686 of 2015. 4. Heard Mr. Rajiv Nandan Prasad, counsel appearing on behalf of the Central Bureau of Investigation in all the cases. 5. All these cases arise out of R.C. Case No.3(S) of 2014 – (R) dated 28.02.2014 (F.I.R. No.0932014S0003) registered for alleged offence punishable under Section 120B/34, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 202 of Indian Penal Code including the order dated 13.08.2015 whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for offence punishable under Section 120B read with Section 420 of Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Since all these cases arise out of order taking cognizance arising out of the same F.I.R, therefore, they have been tagged and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 6. Counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners in Cr.M.P. No.1684 of 2015 and in Cr.M.P. No.1685 of 2015 were the then Karamchari at the Circle office, Ormanjhi and the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.1686 of 2015 was the then Circle Officer Ormanjhi. 7. The brief facts of this case as per the charge sheet are as follows: (i) Initially one F.I.R being Ormanjhi P.S. Case No.60 of 2012 dated 22.04.2012 was registered on the basis of written report of one Rakesh Kumar, wherein, it was alleged that the accused persons conspired amongst themselves and pursuant to said conspiracy, dishonestly and fraudulently cheated the informant/complainant Rakesh Kumar and nine other buyers by way of illegal sale of plots of land belonging to some other person in lieu of payment in the name of the informant/complainant and nine others However, in compliance of order dated 22.11.2013 passed by a Bench of this Court in W.P.(PIL) No.3718 of 2013 (Sima Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors.), considering the nature of allegation, the investigation of the case was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation and was re-registered as R.C. Case No.3(S) 2014-R dated 28.02.2014 for alleged offence punishable under Sections 120B/34, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 202 of the Indian Penal Code. State of Jharkhand and Ors.), considering the nature of allegation, the investigation of the case was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation and was re-registered as R.C. Case No.3(S) 2014-R dated 28.02.2014 for alleged offence punishable under Sections 120B/34, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 202 of the Indian Penal Code. Charge sheet was submitted by the Central Bureau of Investigation vide charge sheet dated 30.06.2015 and cognizance of offence was taken under Section 120B read with Section 420 of Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by the impugned order against the various accused persons including the petitioners. (ii) From perusal of the charge sheet, it appears that Sri Brajesh Mishra was posted and functioned as Rajasav Karamchari in Circle Office, Ormanjhi during the relevant period. Ashok Kumar Singh was also posted and functioned as Rajasav Karamchari in the Circle Office, Ormanjhi during the relevant period. One Sajay Kumar was posted and functioned as Circle Officer in Circle Office, Ormanjhi during the relevant period. Sri Manoj Kumar was also posted and functioned as Circle Officer in Circle Office, Ormanjhi during the relevant period. (iii) It is alleged that one company namely Sanjeevani Buildcon Pvt. Ltd was engaged in real estate business undertaking contractual work in government and semi- government organizations. It started purchasing and selling different plots in Ranchi and made wide publicity for the purpose. The names of the victims cheated by the accused arising out of transactions of sale/purchase of land, have been given in the charge sheet, which were total nine in numbers and it is alleged that the petitioners had conspired and cheated the victims by abuse of official position with respect to landed property in Mauza Ukrid of Ormanjhi Circle, Ranchi relating to Khata Nos.32, 2, 41 and 104. Khata No.32, Plot No. 154 It is alleged that the aforesaid company through its Directors purchased 88 decimals of land in Mauza Ukrid in Khata No.32, plot no. 154 and they dishonestly and fraudulently sold excess land of 22.73 far above 88 decimals of land during the relevant period. It transpired during investigation that the officials posted in the Circle Office, Ormanjhi issued 22 mutation orders covering a total of 99.83 decimals of land against the above mentioned 88 decimals of land in Khata No.32, plot no.154. 154 and they dishonestly and fraudulently sold excess land of 22.73 far above 88 decimals of land during the relevant period. It transpired during investigation that the officials posted in the Circle Office, Ormanjhi issued 22 mutation orders covering a total of 99.83 decimals of land against the above mentioned 88 decimals of land in Khata No.32, plot no.154. It is alleged that excess mutation of 6.88 decimals of land was done by Shri Ashok Kumar Singh, the then Rajasav Karamchari and Shri Manoj Kumar, the then Circle Officer during the relevant period. Similarly, excess mutation for 4.95 decimals land was done by Shri Brajesh Mishra the then Rajasav karamchari and Shri Sanjay Kumar, the then Circle Officer during the relevant period. Khata No. 41 Plot No. 214 It is further alleged in the charge sheet that the aforesaid Company through its Directors purchased 88 decimals of land in Khata No. 41 plot no. 214 and sold 94.1 decimal against 88 decimals during the relevant period. The company through its Director approached the land owner and obtained power of attorney of the same 88 decimal of land in the name of one Rama Shankar Singh and this time the land was shown purchased in the name of Ram Pratap Verma of the Company, who sold 78.25 decimal of land to different purchasers during the relevant time. In this way the company through its directors sold 172.35 (94.1 + 78.25) decimals of land against 88 decimals of land and cheated various purchasers. The officials in the Circle Office issued 23 mutation orders for total 159.73 decimals against 88 decimals. It is alleged that excess mutation of 68.29 decimals of land was done by Shri Ashok Kumar Singh, the then Rajasav Karamchari and Shri Manoj Kumar, the then Circle Officer during the relevant period in connivance with the co-accused. Khata No.32, Plot No.35/735 It is further alleged that 52 decimals of land in Khata No.32, Plot No.35/735 was purchased by the said company from the land owners Budhua Mahto, Situ Mahto and Litu Mahto. Khata No.32, Plot No.35/735 It is further alleged that 52 decimals of land in Khata No.32, Plot No.35/735 was purchased by the said company from the land owners Budhua Mahto, Situ Mahto and Litu Mahto. Smt. Anamika Nandy, one of the director of the company, issued power of attorney in favour of Shri Arvind Kumar Singh far above 52 decimals of land and said Arvind Kumar Singh, pursuant to criminal conspiracy sold 131.06 decimals land against 52 decimals land during the relevant period and thus, a total of 79.06 decimals land was sold in excess to different purchasers. It has been alleged that excess mutation of 40.04 decimals of land was done by Shri Ashok Kumar Singh, Rajeshav Karamchari and Shri Manoj Kumar, Circle Officer, during the relevant period. Khata No.104, Plot No.23 It is also alleged in the charge sheet, that the aforesaid Company through its Director Smt. Anamika Nandy purchased 66 decimals of land in Khata No.104, plot 23, Ulatu, Ormanjhi from land owner Shri Shiv Prasad Mahto through one Shri Murari Singh. Smt. Anamika Nandy, subsequently sold a total 129.72 decimals of land against 66 decimals of land during the relevant period and thus, she sold an excess of 63 decimals of land to different purchasers and thereby cheated them. Khata No. 2, Plot No. 83 With respect to Khata No. 2 Plot No. 83 (area 164 decimal), it is alleged that as per revenue records, the said property was registered in the name of one Kameshwar Choudhary son of late Niranjan Choudhary through partition suit but other persons executed registered power of attorney in the year 2009 in favour of one Uday Kumar, who in conspiracy with the said company and its Directors and others allotted a portion of the property by booking a flat and collected money in the name of the said company, and the company executed a sale deed but neither possession was given nor mutation was done in favour of the purchaser. However, he was refunded only a portion of the said amount by the aforesaid company. In the charge sheet, it has been alleged that the present petitioners and other accused persons entered into criminal conspiracy with each other and pursuant thereto the present petitioners, by abusing their respective official position, cheated the complainant/victim Renu Srivastava and other purchasers on the false pretext of sale of land. 8. In the charge sheet, it has been alleged that the present petitioners and other accused persons entered into criminal conspiracy with each other and pursuant thereto the present petitioners, by abusing their respective official position, cheated the complainant/victim Renu Srivastava and other purchasers on the false pretext of sale of land. 8. In the charge sheet, the role of Shri Ashok Kumar Singh and Manoj Kumar, the then Rajasava Karamchari and the then, Circle Officer, Ormanjhi respectively has been separately mentioned as under: - a) Ashok Kumar Singh, the then Rajasav Karamchari, Circle Office, Ormanjhi and Manoj Kumar, the then Circle Officer, Circle Office, Ormanjhi have done excess mutation of land measuring 6.88 decimals, dishonestly and fraudulently, in Khata No. 32/154, Ukrid, Ormanjhi, Ranchi. The mutation of 3.44 decimals was already done on 22.11.2009 but Shri Ashok Singh and Manoj Kumar dishonestly and fraudulently have done this mutation again on 05.12.2011. b) In Khata No.41 and Plot No.214, the Company was authorized to get mutation of maximum 88 decimals of land. The Circle Office, Ormanjhi had done 23 mutations of total land measuring 159.33 minus 3.44 decimals against 88 decimals. Shri Ashok Kumar Singh and Shri Manoj Kumar dishonestly and fraudulently did excess mutation of land measuring 67.89 decimals beyond the permissible limit in collusion with other accused. It is also alleged that Shri Ashok Kumar Singh in conspiracy with other accused persons falsely verified the details from Khatiyan and Register-II and made a false recommendation and Shri Manoj Kumar Singh without applying his mind, in conspiracy with the other accused persons, issued illegal mutation order. It is also alleged that they illegally and fraudulently made false entries i.e. addition and subtraction in Register II and other records maintained in the Circle and they were fully aware that maximum of 88 decimals of land could be mutated and this was done without any enquiry or spot verification and the report of the Circle Inspector was also not taken into consideration. c) Further in Khata No.33/35/735, Urkrid, Ormanjhi out of total land of 52 decimals, illegal mutation of land measuring 92.04 decimals was done and thus, Ashok Kumar Singh and Shri Manoj Kumar Singh were instrumental in doing excess mutation of land measuring 40.04 decimals without verifying the records and without enquiry from concerned persons and without visiting the spot, in collusion with other accused and thereby cheated the innocent purchasers of land. 9. So far as Brajesh Mishra is concerned, he was the Rajasav Karamchari along with Sanjay Kumar, the then Circle Officer. They are alleged to have done excess mutation of 4.95 decimals of land relating to Khata No.32, Plot No.154, Ukrid Ormanjhi during the relevant period. It is alleged that proper verification was not done at the spot and the concerned revenue records was not updated. It is also mentioned in the charge sheet that Shri Firoz Akhtar, the then Circle Inspector, did not agree with the recommendation of Sri Brajesh Mishra and had mentioned in the report that land mentioned in Mutation Case No.271R/09-10 cannot be mutated in favour of the purchaser. In spite of adverse report of the Circle Inspector, Shri Sanjay Kumar, the then Circle Officer, in conspiracy with the other accused persons issued illegal mutation orders and thus, it is alleged against Shri Brajesh Mishra that he in connivance with the other officers and other accused persons had done excess mutation of 04.95 decimals of land over and above the actual area of the land without proper enquiry and without verification. 10. There is no dispute that the required prosecution sanction in relation to the accused persons including the petitioners, has already been received. 11. Counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners have submitted as follows: (a) Mutation is a quasi-judicial function and if there was any error in connection with mutation, the same could be agitated in appeal and revision. The counsels have also referred to the provisions of the Bihar Tenant’s Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973, particularly Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 14, 15 and 16 to submit that the mutation in connection with the land is governed by the aforesaid Act and as per the provisions of the aforesaid Act, there is special protection under Section 26 of the aforesaid Act of 1973 also and accordingly no criminal case could have been instituted on account of alleged irregularity/error in mutation. Accordingly, no criminal case could have been instituted for making recommendation for mutation and /or passing order of mutation. The petitioners are protected under the provisions of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 and in view of the specific provision of the said Act of 1985, the entire criminal proceeding is fit to be quashed. It is submitted that the action of the petitioners is totally bona fide, based on registered sale-deeds and no criminality is involved in the case. The counsels have also referred to Sections 77 and 78 of Indian Penal Code to submit that the action of the petitioners is covered by the general exceptions and there is no criminality involved in the present case. (b) The counsels then submit that entries in record-of-rights neither creates nor extinguishes any title of party and therefore, merely because wrongful mutation has been done, the same has not caused any loss to anybody. Accordingly, no offence, as alleged, is made out against the petitioners. The learned counsels have further referred to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1330 of 2019 decided on 31.01.2019 to submit that the mutation of a land in revenue records does not create or extinguish the title over the land nor it has any presumptive value or the title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered, to pay the land revenue in question. The counsels have also referred to another judgment reported in 2003 (4) JCR 665 (Smt. Urmila Prasad Vs. State of Jharkhand) and in particular reference to para 4 thereof, they submit that law is well-settled that the mutation does not create any right and title over the property. It is simply an evidence of possession over the land. (c) The learned counsels have also referred to a judgment passed by this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 2741 of 2012 (Asif Ekram Vs. State of Jharkhand through CBI) disposed of on 14.11.2014 and submit that under similar circumstances, this Court has been pleased to quash the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance and submit that at best, the alleged offence comes within the meaning of ‘irregularity’ calling for departmental proceeding for administrative lapses and that there was neither any dishonest intention nor any pecuniary advantage. Accordingly, they submit that in such circumstances, the entire criminal proceedings are fit to be quashed. Accordingly, they submit that in such circumstances, the entire criminal proceedings are fit to be quashed. They submit that the aforesaid judgment passed by this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 2741 of 2012 was challenged in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 9452 of 2016 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court found no merit in the Special Leave Petitions and dismissed the same with an observation that departmental action against the concerned persons may be initiated in the light of the observation recorded by the High Court. (d) The counsels further submit that there is no allegation of receipt of any bribe money from any person and therefore, the allegation under Prevention of Corruption Act is also not made out. (e) Counsels for the petitioners refer to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhajan Lal and submit that the entire criminal proceedings against the petitioners is an abuse of the process of law and accordingly, the First Information Report including the order taking cognizance is fit to be set-aside. (f) The learned counsel in Cr.M.P No.1684 of 2015, has further submitted that as per the provisions of Section 28 of the Act of 1973, the concerned Officer are Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Anchal Adhikari and the Collector. So far as Rajasva Karamchari is concerned, he is not an authority under the Act and therefore, any action or any recommendation made by the Rajasva Karamchari cannot call for any illegality on the part of Rajasva Karamchari. Thus, the counsel submits that the petitioner being the Rajasva Karamchari is not an authority under the Act, so no criminality can be fastened upon the petitioner and the entire process of mutation is the responsibility of the authorities under the Act. Learned counsel has referred to judgment reported in (2008) 8 SCC 12 (Faqruddin Vs. Tajuddin) and (1997) 1 SCC 734 (State of U.P. Vs. Amar Singh) to submit that mutation proceedings are only revenue proceedings and they do not create any right, title and interest in favour of anybody nor extinguish such right, title and interest. Accordingly, he submits that there is no question of wrongful loss to anybody as mutation itself does not involve determination of any title. Amar Singh) to submit that mutation proceedings are only revenue proceedings and they do not create any right, title and interest in favour of anybody nor extinguish such right, title and interest. Accordingly, he submits that there is no question of wrongful loss to anybody as mutation itself does not involve determination of any title. Counsel has also submitted that the fraud, if any, has been played by the company and its officers at the time of execution of the sale deed and no criminality can be fastened upon the petitioner merely because they have carried out the mutation which in turn is based on the registered sale deeds. 12. Counsel for the petitioner in Cr.M.P No. 1685 of 2015 submits that so far as the petitioner namely, Brajesh Mishra is concerned, he was a halka Karmachari. Counsel submitted that initially recommendations for excess of 04.95 decimals of land was made to which the Circle Inspector had objected, but in spite of such objection, the Circle Officer had passed the order of mutation but the order of mutation never reached the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner did not make any corresponding entry in the revenue records. Subsequently, when applications for mutation were filed, the petitioner made recommendation without knowing the fact that the mutation orders were already passed in connection with 04.95 decimals of land as the order of mutation never reached him. Therefore, the counsel submits that there is absolute bona fide on the part of the petitioner and on the date, he made recommendation for mutation, he was not aware about the order of mutation already passed by the Circle Officer. 13. Counsel for the petitioner in Cr.M.P No. 1686 of 2015 has further submitted that the petitioner himself has rejected a number of mutation petitions and the list of which has been annexed at page 126 of the present petition in connection with the properties in which the aforesaid Company was involved and accordingly, he submits that if a few applications were allowed, the same at best can be said to be by way of bona fide mistake and it cannot be said that any criminality as such is involved calling for the prosecution of the petitioner under the aforesaid Sections of Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption, Act. 14. 14. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Central Bureau of Investigation, on the other hand, opposed the prayer of the petitioners and submits that from the perusal of the charge-sheet submitted after due investigation, it has been found that the petitioners along with other co-accused were not only involved in the illegal mutation as mentioned above, but were also involved in falsification of the records i.e. Register-II etc. The learned counsel for the C.B.I. further submits that the petitioners had recommended and mutated excess area than the actual land in respective Khatas and it was done with full knowledge and connivance with the other co-accused. It is submitted that the mutations were done without actual verification. The learned counsel submits that there is enough material on record to constitute a prima facie case against the petitioners, sanction for prosecution has been received and at this stage, no interference is called for. He submits that it is well-settled that at the stage of cognizance, it is enough if prima facie case is made out against the accused. He further submits that the accused were found involved in criminal conspiracy coupled with falsification of revenue records leading to mutations without any physical verification and mutation in connection with the property exceeding the actual area, thereby cheating the public at large. It has been alleged that the accused made false and illegal entries i.e addition and subtraction in the revenue records i.e Register II during the relevant period. The learned counsel submits that in the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2017) 8 SCC 791 (Rajiv Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.) (para 45), it has been held that transaction of money is not a condition precedent for the purposes of making a person accused under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. He further submits that offence under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code is itself a distinct offence. The counsel submits that there is enough evidence on record for the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged offence and the cognizance of offence has been rightly taken. He also submits that as per the allegations, the petitioners, inspite of knowing fully well the extent of land for which the mutations could have been made conspired with the other accused persons and have committed the offence by cheating various persons. 15. He also submits that as per the allegations, the petitioners, inspite of knowing fully well the extent of land for which the mutations could have been made conspired with the other accused persons and have committed the offence by cheating various persons. 15. After hearing the counsel for the parties and after considering the materials on record, this Court finds that as per the allegations as narrated in charge-sheet and mentioned in the above paragraphs, it has been clearly alleged that the petitioners, during the relevant point of time, were posted as Halka Karmachari (Cr.M.P. No. 1684 of 2015), Halka Karmachari (Cr. M.P. No. 1685 of 2015) and Circle Officer (Cr. M.P. No. 1686 of 2015) in the concerned Circle. There is a clear allegation that the accused persons, in connivance with each other, indulged in falsification of revenue records and also mutation of sale of excess land i.e. much more in area as compared to that of the actual area of the land. Further, it is alleged that the said company and its directors executed sale deeds much in excess of the actual area and got it mutated in favour of the purchasers in connivance with the petitioners. Over and above the aforesaid, the petitioners are alleged to have recommended and mutated excess area than the actual land in respective Khatas without on the spot verification. Further, required sanction for prosecution of the petitioners has already been received. 16. This Court finds that in the case reported in (1999) 5 SCC 253 (State versus Nalini), while considering the ingredients of offence under Section 120B Indian Penal Code, it has been held at para 654 to 665 as follows: - “654. To record conviction under Section 120-B, it is necessary to find the accused guilty of criminal conspiracy as defined in Section 120-A of IPC which reads as under: “120-A. Definition of criminal conspiracy. —When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done, — (1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy: Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof. Explanation.—It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object.” 655. The ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are: (i) an agreement between two or more persons; (ii) the agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either (a) an illegal act; or (b) an act which is not illegal in itself but is done by illegal means. The proviso and the explanation are not relevant for the present discussion. 656. Though the meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing or causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means is a sine qua non of the criminal conspiracy, yet in the very nature of the offence which is shrouded with secrecy no direct evidence of the common intention of the conspirators can normally be produced before the court. Having regard to the nature of the offence, such a meeting of minds of the conspirators has to be inferred from the circumstances proved by the prosecution, if such an inference is possible. 657. In Sardar Sardul Singh Caveeshar v. State of Maharashtra Subba Rao, J. speaking for himself and his learned colleagues, observed: “The essence of conspiracy is, therefore, that there should be an agreement between persons to do one or other of the acts described in the section. The said agreement may be proved by direct evidence or may be inferred from acts and conduct of the parties.” 658. In Shivnarayan Laxminarayan Joshi v. State of Maharashtra S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J., speaking for a two-Judge Bench, observed: (SCC p. 468, para 14) “It is manifest that a conspiracy is always hatched in secrecy and it is impossible to adduce direct evidence of the same. The offence can be only proved largely from the inferences drawn from acts or illegal omission committed by the conspirators in pursuance of a common design which has been amply proved by the prosecution as found as a fact by the High Court.” 659. In Mohd. Usman Mohd. Hussain Maniyar v. State of Maharashtra another two-Judge Bench of this Court pointed out: (SCC Headnote) “For an offence under Section 120-B, the prosecution need not necessarily prove that the perpetrators expressly agreed to do and/or caused to be done the illegal act; the agreement may be proved by necessary implication. In Mohd. Usman Mohd. Hussain Maniyar v. State of Maharashtra another two-Judge Bench of this Court pointed out: (SCC Headnote) “For an offence under Section 120-B, the prosecution need not necessarily prove that the perpetrators expressly agreed to do and/or caused to be done the illegal act; the agreement may be proved by necessary implication. In this case, the fact that the appellants were possessing and selling explosive substances without a valid licence for a pretty long time leads to the inference that they agreed to do and/or caused to be done the said illegal act, for, without such an agreement the act could not have been done for such a long time.” 660. In State of H.P. v. Krishan Lal Pardhan Natarajan, J. observed: (SCC pp. 20-21, para 8) “In the opinion of Special Judge every one of the conspirators must have taken active part in the commission of each and every one of the conspiratorial acts and only then the offence of conspiracy will be made out. Such a view is clearly wrong. The offence of criminal conspiracy consists in a meeting of minds of two or more persons for agreeing to do or causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means, and the performance of an act in terms thereof. If pursuant to the criminal conspiracy the conspirators commit several offences, then all of them will be liable for the offences even if some of them had not actively participated in the commission of the offences.” 661. In State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa Hansaria, J., speaking for a three-Judge Bench of this Court after elaborate discussions of the various judgments of this Court, concluded thus: (SCC Headnote) “To establish a charge of conspiracy knowledge about indulgence in either an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means is necessary. In some cases, intent of unlawful use being made of the goods or services in question may be inferred from the knowledge itself. This apart, the prosecution has not to establish that a particular unlawful use was intended, so long as the goods or service in question could not be put to any lawful use. In some cases, intent of unlawful use being made of the goods or services in question may be inferred from the knowledge itself. This apart, the prosecution has not to establish that a particular unlawful use was intended, so long as the goods or service in question could not be put to any lawful use. Finally, when the ultimate offence consists of a chain of actions, it would not be necessary for the prosecution to establish, to bring home the charge of conspiracy, that each of the conspirators had the knowledge of what the collaborator would do, so long as it is known that the collaborator would put the goods or service to an unlawful use.” 662. From a survey of cases, referred to above, the following position emerges: In reaching the stage of meeting of minds, two or more persons share information about doing an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. This is the first stage where each is said to have knowledge of a plan for committing an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. Among those sharing the information some or all may form an intention to do an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. Those who do form the requisite intention would be parties to the agreement and would be conspirators but those who drop out cannot be roped in as collaborators on the basis of mere knowledge unless they commit acts or omissions from which a guilty common intention can be inferred. It is not necessary that all the conspirators should participate from the inception to the end of the conspiracy; some may join the conspiracy after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them and some others may quit from the conspiracy. All of them cannot but be treated as conspirators. Where in pursuance of the agreement the conspirators commit offences individually or adopt illegal means to do a legal act which has a nexus to the object of conspiracy, all of them will be liable for such offences even if some of them have not actively participated in the commission of those offences. 663. Where in pursuance of the agreement the conspirators commit offences individually or adopt illegal means to do a legal act which has a nexus to the object of conspiracy, all of them will be liable for such offences even if some of them have not actively participated in the commission of those offences. 663. The agreement, sine qua non of conspiracy, may be proved either by direct evidence which is rarely available in such cases or it may be inferred from utterances, writings, acts, omissions and conduct of the parties to the conspiracy which is usually done. In view of Section 10 of the Evidence Act anything said, done or written by those who enlist their support to the object of conspiracy and those who join later or make their exit before completion of the object in furtherance of their common intention will be relevant facts to prove that each one of them can justifiably be treated as a conspirator. 664. Section 10 of the Evidence Act recognises the principle of agency and it reads as follows: “10. Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design.—Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in reference to their common intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it.” 665. To apply this provision, it has to be shown that (1) there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together; and (2) the conspiracy is to commit an offence or an actionable wrong. To apply this provision, it has to be shown that (1) there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together; and (2) the conspiracy is to commit an offence or an actionable wrong. If these two requirements are satisfied then anything said, done or written by any one of such persons after the time when such intention was entertained by any one of them in furtherance of their common intention, is a relevant fact against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring as well as for the purpose of proving the existence of conspiracy and also for the purpose of showing that any such person is a party to it.” 17. In the present case, it is alleged that the petitioners had conspired with the other co-accused for cheating the purchasers, the co-accused executed the sale deeds for excess land and got the same mutated through the petitioners, who were posted in the concerned circle at the relevant point of time. Admittedly there have been mutations for areas of lands much above the actual area. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that no case has been made out by the petitioners for quashing the entire criminal proceedings at the stage of cognizance. 18. So far as the judgment passed by this Court in the case of “Asif Ekram Vs. State of Jharkhand through CBI” in Cr.M.P. No. 2741 of 2012 dated 14.11.2014 is concerned, the said judgment also does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. This Hon’ble Court, in the said judgment, has clearly held that if the petitioner would have recommended and forwarded with the knowledge that the purchaser was not having any land in that area, then certainly, he would be liable for prosecution for criminal offence. In the instant case, as per the allegation, mutations were made in connection with the land for areas much more than the actual area and it is also alleged that mutations were made without actual physical verification. It is alleged that the purchasers had paid money to the person of the said company not only for the purchase of land but also for mutation. It is alleged that the purchasers had paid money to the person of the said company not only for the purchase of land but also for mutation. This Court is conscious of the fact that the order impugned is the order taking cognizance and therefore, no further observation is required to be made except to the extent that, prima facie case for the alleged offence is made out against the petitioners for the purposes of taking cognizance of offence. 19. The arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the petitioners that in absence of any allegation of illegal monetary transactions, no criminal case is made out against the petitioners, is also rejected in view of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Rajiv Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another with Neera Yadav Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation” reported in (2017) 8 SCC 791 (para 45), wherein the basic elements required for constituting an offence of criminal conspiracy have been mentioned and transaction of money is not a condition precedent for constituting an offence of criminal conspiracy and in some cases, indulgence in the illegal act or legal act by illegal means may be inferred from the knowledge itself. Accordingly, at this stage of cognizance, this Court finds that prima facie case for the alleged offence has been made out against the petitioners. Para 45 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted hereinbelow for ready reference: - “45. The essential ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are: (i) an agreement between two or more persons; (ii) the agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either (a) an illegal act; or (b) an act which is not illegal in itself but is done by illegal means. It is, therefore, plain that meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing or causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means is sine qua non of criminal conspiracy. It is extremely difficult to adduce direct evidence to prove conspiracy. Existence of conspiracy and its objective can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the accused. In some cases, indulgence in the illegal act or legal act by illegal means may be inferred from the knowledge itself.” 1. 20. In the same judgment reported in (2017) 8 SCC 791 (Rajiv Kumar Vs. Existence of conspiracy and its objective can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the accused. In some cases, indulgence in the illegal act or legal act by illegal means may be inferred from the knowledge itself.” 1. 20. In the same judgment reported in (2017) 8 SCC 791 (Rajiv Kumar Vs. State of U.P), while dealing with ingredients of Section 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, it has been held in para 10 as under: “10. Section 13 of the PC Act in general lays down that if a public servant, by corrupt or illegal means or otherwise abusing his position as a public servant obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, he would be guilty of “criminal misconduct”. Sub-section (2) of Section 13 speaks of the punishment for such misconduct. Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act lays down the essentials and punishment respectively for the offence of “criminal misconduct” by a public servant. Section 13(1)(d) reads as under: “13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant. —(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct— (d) if he— * * * (i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest; or” A perusal of the above provision makes it clear that if the elements of any of the three sub-clauses are met, the same would be sufficient to constitute an offence of “criminal misconduct” under Section 13(1)(d). Undoubtedly, all the three wings of clause (d) of Section 13(1) are independent, alternative and disjunctive. Thus, under Section 13(1)(d)(i) of the PC Act obtaining any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means by a public servant in itself would amount to criminal misconduct. On the same reasoning under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the PC Act “obtaining a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage” by abusing his official position as a public servant, either for himself or for any other person would amount to criminal misconduct.” 21. On the same reasoning under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the PC Act “obtaining a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage” by abusing his official position as a public servant, either for himself or for any other person would amount to criminal misconduct.” 21. So far as the protection which is claimed by the petitioners under the provisions of Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that mutation proceedings are not judicial proceedings and they are meant mainly for the purposes of passing an order for payment of land revenue and it only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered, to pay the land revenue. It neither creates nor extinguishes any title over the property. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the judgment relied upon by the petitioners, in Civil Appeal No. 1330 of 2019 decided on 31.01.2019 in para 7 and 8 as follows: - “7. The law on the question of mutation in the revenue records pertaining to any land and what is its legal value while deciding the rights of the parties is fairly well settled by a series of decisions of this Court. 8. This Court has consistently held that mutation of a land in the revenue records does not create or extinguish the title over such land nor it has any presumptive value on the title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question. (See Sawarni (Smt.) vs. Inder Kaur, (1996) 6 SCC 223 , Balwant Singh & Anr. Vs. Daulat Singh (dead) by L.Rs. & Ors., (1997) 7 SCC 137 and Narasamma & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., (2009) 5 SCC 591 ).” 22. The provisions of Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 are applicable for those legal proceedings, which results in any definite judgment or a judgment, if not appealed against, would be definite. Vs. Daulat Singh (dead) by L.Rs. & Ors., (1997) 7 SCC 137 and Narasamma & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., (2009) 5 SCC 591 ).” 22. The provisions of Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 are applicable for those legal proceedings, which results in any definite judgment or a judgment, if not appealed against, would be definite. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the mutation of land in revenue records does not create or extinguish the title nor it has any presumptive value on the title and it only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue, the orders passed in the mutation proceedings cannot be termed as definite judgment or a judgment, if not appealed against, would be definite so as to extend any protection to the petitioners under the provisions of Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 and cause any legal impediment in launching the impugned prosecution against the petitioners if otherwise a prima facie criminal case is made out against the petitioners. Further, even assuming the argument of the petitioners to be correct for a moment, this Court is of the considered view that the allegation of falsification of revenue records cannot be said to done in discharge of any judicial function. Considering the ratio of the aforesaid judgment in connection with the nature of mutation proceedings, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners are not entitled to any protection under the provisions of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 and the Circle Officer cannot be said to be a “judge” within the meaning of Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. 23. The counsels for the petitioners have relied upon Section 26 of Bihar Tenant’s Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 to submit that the mutation proceedings are judicial proceedings. This Court finds that as per Section 26 of Bihar Tenant’s Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973, all inquiries and proceedings under the Act before the Collector, Land Revenue Deputy Collector and Circle officer are deemed to be judicial proceedings for the limited purposes of Sections 193, 196 and 228 of Indian Penal Code dealing with punishment of false evidence, using evidence known to be false and intentional insult or interruptions to judicial proceedings respectively only. Section 26 of Bihar Tenant’s Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 does not give any further protection to the authorities mentioned above. The reliance of learned counsels for the petitioners upon Sections 77 and 78 of Indian Penal Code is also misplaced as the said sections deal with general exception for judges when acting judicially and act done pursuant to judgment or order of court respectively. So far as the plea of the petitioner with reference to Section 25 of the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1973) is concerned, this Court finds that as per Section 25 of the aforesaid Act of 1973, it has been clearly stipulated that while making enquiries and conducting proceeding under this Act, the Collector, the Land Reforms Deputy Collector and the Anchal Adhikari shall have the same powers in the matter of admission of evidence summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oaths, compelling the production of documents and award of costs, as are vested in a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The mutation proceedings cannot be said to be judicial proceedings merely because certain provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable. This Court finds that by virtue of the aforesaid Sections 25 and 26 of the Act of 1973, the authorities have been vested with the power of civil court and the proceeding is said to be judicial proceeding only for the limited purposes as has been mentioned therein. This Court is of the considered view that the mutation proceedings cannot be said to be quasi-judicial proceedings in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment relied upon by the petitioners in Civil Appeal No. 1330 of 2019 decided on 31.01.2019 wherein it has been held that the mutation of a land in revenue records does not create or extinguish the title over the land nor it has any presumptive value or the title and it only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered, to pay the land revenue in question. 24. Another judgment passed by this Court which has been relied upon by the petitioners is reported in 2003 (4) JCR 665 has also held that it is well settled that mutation does not create any right and title in the property. 24. Another judgment passed by this Court which has been relied upon by the petitioners is reported in 2003 (4) JCR 665 has also held that it is well settled that mutation does not create any right and title in the property. There is no dispute about this proposition of law is concerned. 25. So far as the plea that the Rajasva Karamchari is not an authority under the Act is concerned, this Court finds that as per the Section 31 of the aforesaid Act of 1973, the provisions of Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 is in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions contained in any other law for the time being in force. This Court further finds that there are large number of Circulars issued by the Revenue Department and as alleged in the present case, the mutation was done on the basis of recommendations made by the Rajasva Karamchari and thus, this Court is of the considered view that having made recommendation for mutation, it is not open to the concerned petitioners to say that they are not an authority under the Act and they are not responsible for the recommendations, which have been made by them. Section 2 of the aforesaid Act of 1973 defines Anchal Adhikari, Circle Inspector as well as Karamchari. The role of the karamchari is also elaborately provided in the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Rules, 1973 and it appears that it is the karamchari through whom the spot inspection regarding the physical verification of the property is done. Merely because in Section 28 of the aforesaid Act of 1973, the karamchari by designation is not mentioned, the same does not mean that karamchari is not an authority and has no role to play. However, the role of the concerned petitioners who allegedly were posted as Karamchari in the Circle at the relevant point of time is required to be examined by the learned court below at appropriate stage but certainly, at the stage of taking cognizance, such plea of the petitioners cannot be accepted. 26. In view of the allegations made against the petitioners, this Court finds that there is sufficient material to constitute the prima facie criminal case against the petitioners and accordingly, the impugned order taking cognizance does not call for any interference. 27. The present petitions are accordingly dismissed. 28. 26. In view of the allegations made against the petitioners, this Court finds that there is sufficient material to constitute the prima facie criminal case against the petitioners and accordingly, the impugned order taking cognizance does not call for any interference. 27. The present petitions are accordingly dismissed. 28. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 29. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are dismissed as not pressed. 30. It is made clear that this order, which has been passed only at the stage of cognizance of alleged offence, will not prejudice the case of either parties in the proceedings before the learned trial court. 31. The office is directed to immediately communicate this order to the learned court below through ‘FAX’.