Back
2023 Supreme(Guj) 723
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
M.R. MENGDEY, J.
Galabhai Dalabhai Bariya – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat and Others – Respondents
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2969 of 2014
Decided On : 04-08-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : J.V. Dave, Hardik A. Dave.
For the Respondent: Vrunda Shah.
The duty of a Deputy Mamlatdar to verify documents for mutation of entry and the absence of criminal intention in case of negligence.
Headnote:
Duty of Deputy Mamlatdar - Mutation of Entry - IPC 465, 467, 468, 471, 420, 120(B)
Fact of the Case:
The accused, a Deputy Mamlatdar, was charged under various sections of the IPC for mutating an entry in the revenue record based on false documents submitted by another individual.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Deputy Mamlatdar acted in due diligence and performed his duty as per the law. Even if there was negligence, there was no criminal intention on the part of the accused.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused had committed an offence by mutating the entry in question based on false documents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the accused, acting as a Deputy Mamlatdar, was not duty bound to verify the genuineness of the documents as they had already been verified by other government authorities. The failure to verify can at best be termed as negligence, and there was no criminal intention.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application and quashed the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings against the accused.
JUDGMENT :
M.R. MENGDEY, J.
1. The present application has been filed by the applicant-original accused under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing and setting aside the impugned FIR being I.C.R. No. 99 of 2013 registered with Limbdi Police Station, Surendranagar for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code (herein after referred to as the “IPC”).
2. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that at the relevant time, present applicant was working as a Deputy Mamlatdar (Revenue) at Limbdi. The accused no. 1 had made an application for mutating his name in the revenue record qua the land in question. As and when an affidavit was affirmed before the Executive Magistrate, the name of accused no. 1 came to be mutated in the revenue record after following the necessary procedure and the said entry was subsequently certified. It was the duty of present applicant as a Deputy Mamlatdar to mutate the name in the revenue record on the basis of the documents produced in support of the application. It was not duty of the applicant to verify the genuineness of the documents produced on record. Thus, the applicant had diligently performed his duty in mutating the entry in question. It was not the duty of the present applicant to verify as to whether the contents of the application on affidavit were correct or not. Therefore, present applicant cannot be said to have committed any offence. He, therefore, submitted to allow the present application.
3. Learned APP, relying upon affidavit-in-reply filed by one K.D. Solanki, Mamlatdar, Limbdi, submitted that when the documents were presented before the concerned Deputy Mamlatdar, it was already attested and authenticated by the Government Officers. The affidavit, which was submitted before the concerned Deputy Mamlatdar was attested by the Executive Magistrate and the Pedigree Certificate, which was submitted before the Deputy Mamlatdar was also authenticated and attested by the Talati Cum Mantri. On the basis of these documents, the present applicant had made an entry in question. She, therefore, submitted to pass appropriate order in the present application.
4. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the material on record. As per case of prosecution, on 20.05.2005, one Kiritkumar Popatbhai Pathak has stated on affidavit before the Executive Magistrate that Parshottambhai Kalyanjibhai had expired 30 years back leaving behind the only heir Karshan Parshottambhai. Virjibhai Karsanbhai was son of Karshanbhai Parshottambhai. Poptabhai Virjibhai was son of Virjibhai Karshanbhai and the said Kiritkumar Popatbhai Pathak was the son of Popatbhai Virjibhai. It was further stated in the affidavit that the said Kiritkumar Popatbhai Pathak had no other brother or sister and his mother had expired long back. It was, therefore, submitted to enter his name as an heir and legal representative as regard the land bearing Survey No. 126 situated at Village Ghagratiya. Along with the said affidavit, genealogical tree certified by the Talati Cum Mantri was also produced. On the basis of the said affidavit and the relevant documents, Entry No. 809 was mutated in the revenue record on 08.05.2005 by the present applicant. The said entry was also certified on 09.11.2005. The said land was subsequently sold by said Kiritkumar Popatbhai Pathak to one Savjibhai Jivrajbhai Patel by registered sale-deed. The entry in that regard was also recorded in the revenue record. Subsequently, it came to the notice of the revenue authorities that the said Kiritkumar Popatbhai Pathak by tendering false affidavit and false genealogical tree, got entered his name in the revenue record as an heir and legal representative of Parshottambhai Kalayanji Pathak. Therefore, the present FIR came to be lodged, wherein the present applicant was also arraigned as an accused.
5. In present application, K.D. Solanki, Mamlatdar, Limbdi has filed an affidavit
