The court emphasized that the charge sheet against the petitioner was not sustainable in the absence of any allegation that he had committed an offence punishable under the relevant provisions.

JUDGMENT :

Hemant Chandangoudar, J.

1. The second respondent lodged a complaint before the Jurisdictional Police alleging that the petitioner by giving false information to his higher officer got sanctioned/granted the land to an extent of 4 Acres 38 Guntas in Survey No. 109 of Biderekere Village in the name of his wife by misusing his power and there by cheated the Government.

2. The Police after investigation filed the charge sheet against the petitioner for offence punishable under Sec. 192(A) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and under Sec. 420 of IPC. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Sec. 239 of Cr.P.C. to discharge him for the alleged offences. The learned Magistrate dismissed the application against which the petitioner filed the Criminal revision petition under Sec. 397 r/w sec. 401 of Cr.P.C. before the jurisdictional Revision Court. The Revision Court dismissed the criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner by confirming the order passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Sira in C.C. No. 361/2014. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the allegation made in the complaint does not disclose the commission of the alleged offence under Sec. 420 of IPC and Sec. 192(A) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. He further submits that the petitioner conducted the spot inspection in pursuance of the memorandum dtd. 13/10/2003 issued by the Tahasildar concerned permitting the wife of the petitioner to submit an application for regularization of unauthorized cultivation of the land in Form No. 53. Hence, he submits that the petitioner is entitled for discharge in the impugned proceedings.

4. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that on the basis of the false information submitted by the petitioner, the land was granted in favour of the wife of the petitioner. Hence, charge sheet filed against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sec. 420 of IPC is legal and the same does not warrant any interference.

5. I have examined the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

6. Perusal of the memorandum dtd. 13/10/2003 issued by the Tahasildar concerned indicates that the Tahasildar concerned permitted the petitioner's wife to submit the application for regularization of un-authorized cultivation. It is thereafter, the petitioner when was working as revenue inspector conducted inspection and submitted a report with the regularization Committee stating that the wife of the petitioner is cultivating the land in question. Thereafter the Committee constituted for Regularization of unauthorized cultivation granted the land in question.

7. Thereafter the Assistant Commissioner suo-moto cancelled the grant made in favour of the wife of the petitioner. It is only after cancellation of the grant made in favour of the wife of the petitioner, the Tahasildar concerned lodged FIR against the petitioner for the alleged offence. The report was submitted by the petitioner in the capacity of the revenue inspector pursuant to the permission granted by the Tahasildar to the wife of the petitioner to submit an application for regularization of unauthorized occupation. The Committee which is vested with power granted the land in favour of the petitioner's wife, which subsequently was cancelled. There is no allegation in the FIR from the inception that the petitioner had an dishonest intention to cheat the Government so as to attract offence punishable under Sec. 420 of IPC.

8. The grant in favour of the wife of the petitioner having been cancelled, the charge sheet filed against for the offence punishable under Sec. 192-A of KLR Act, since the said offence can be invoked only when a person has encroached over Government land.

9. Petitioner in the capacity of revenue inspector has submitted a report in pursuance of the permission granted by the Tahasil