Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
Prashant Kumar Agarwal, J.
Hari Shankar Bhardwaj - Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan and others - Respondents
SB Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2031 of 2013
Decided On : 05-01-2016
Indian Penal Code , 1860 - Sections 166, 167, 218, 465, 471, 120-B , 77 and 466 – Criminal Procedure Code , 1973 - Section 482 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 151 - Order 41 - Rule 5 - Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 - Section 55 - Rajasthan Revenue Courts Mannual, 1956 - Rule 63 - Judges Act, 1985 - Section 2 - Section 3 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13,2 - Agriculture land comprising Khasra total area 77 bigha and 15 biswa initially stood in name of co-accused in revenue records, but by way of order passed in Mutation Proceedings same was ordered to be mutated in name of complainant and some other persons by concerned Gram Panchayat and thereafter in revenue record name of complainant and other persons was entered as khatedar-tenant – Held , Present case, prima facie it is made out that petitioner entered into criminal conspiracy with co-accused and with a malafide intention and to provide undue advantage to co-accused passed order without following rather ignoring established procedure of law and violating relevant provisions and as a result of order in question co-accused was succeeded to get mutation of land in dispute in his favour - For an offence to be made out well settled legal position is that for such an offence it is very hard to collect direct evidence and same can be shown to have been committed on basis of circumstantial evidence also - In present case, manner in which order has been passed prima facie shows criminal conspiracy on part of petitioner and co-accused - Although, as Judges Act criminal proceedings cannot be entertained against a Judge for any act committed by him in course of acting in discharge of his judicial function but at same time thereof empowers State Government to take such action by way of criminal proceedings against such a Judge - Thus, it is clear that a Judge is not absolutely immune from criminal proceedings even for his act done in discharge of his judicial function - Division Bench of M.P.High Court by way of order passed in aforesaid case has held that of Judges Act neither creates any legal bar against investigation into allegations levelled against a Judge nor contemplates sanction of any authority therefor - It was held that provisions of said Act do not operate as legal bar to investigate into allegations against a Judge for any act done by him in discharge of his judicial function - Petition is dismissed
Prashant Kumar Agarwal, J.
The accused-petitioner has filed this Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash FIR No. 203/2013 registered at Police Station Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jaipur for the offence under Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") and for offences under Sections 166, 167, 218, 465, 471 read with Section 120-B IPC to his extent.
2. Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this petition may be stated as below:-
(1) Agriculture land comprising Khasra Nos. 3392, 3398, 3399, 3400, 3401 and 3405 total area 77 bigha and 15 biswa initially stood in the name of co-accused-Shri Ranveer Singh in the revenue records, but by way of order dated 24.11.1960 passed in Mutation Proceedings No.16 of the year 1960, the same was ordered to be mutated in the name of complainant-Shri Nanag Ram and some other persons by the concerned Gram Panchayat and thereafter in the revenue record name of the complainant and other persons was entered as khatedar-tenant.
(2) Co-accused-Shri Ranveer Singh challenged the order dated 24.11.1960 by way of Appeal No.17/2001 before SDO Amer, Headquarter Jaipur, but the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 12.04.2009 on the ground that the appeal is barred by limitation.
(3) The order dated 12.04.2009 passed by SDO Amer was further challenged by co-accused-Shri Ranveer Singh in Second Appeal No.71/2002 before the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur and the second appellate Court vide order dated 22.10.2009 partly allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 12.04.2002 and the matter was remanded back to SDO Amer with a direction to re-consider the matter and to pass a fresh order after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties.
(4) The aforesaid order of Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur was challenged by the co-accused-Shri Ranveer Singh as well as by complainant-Shri Nanag Ram and others by two separate revision petitions filed before the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer. Co-accused-Shri Ranveer Singh filed Revision Petition No. 1174/2010 whereas Nanag Ram and others filed Revision Petition No.280/2010. As both the aforesaid revision petitions were filed against the same order of Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur, they were connected and listed together before the Single Bench of the Board of Revenue from time to time till 5.7.2012 as per Section 55 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and the practice prevailing in the Board.
(5) On 5.7.2012, both the aforesaid Revision Petitions were listed before the petitioner as Member of the Board of Revenue in Court No.4 along with other cases and whereas Revision Petition No.280/2010 was listed at S.No.44 of the daily cause list, Revision Petition No.1174/2010 was listed at S.No.45. These petitions were listed in the category of orders on applications.
(6) On 5.7.2012, although the aforesaid Revision Petition No.1174/2010 filed by the co-accused-Shri Ranveer Singh was not listed for final hearing or final disposal, but even then, the petitioner as Member of the Board finally heard counsel for the co-accused-Shri Ranveer Singh in absence of counsel for the complainant-Shri Nanag Ram and others and judgment/order was reserved whereas the Revision Petition No.280/2010 was adjourned for 26.7.2010. It is to be noted that in the order-sheet of Petition No.1174/2010, it was recorded that counsel for the complainant and others did not appear before the Court despite they were called upon to appear before it whereas in the other petition presence of the counsel for the complainant and others was marked.
(7) On 17.7.2012 final judgement was passed and pronounced by the petitioner as Member of the Board of Revenue in Revision Petition No.1174/2010 without listing it in the daily cause list in the category of pronouncement of judgment/order as required under Rule 63 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts Mannual, 1956.
(8) On 5.7.2012 itself at 3.30 p.m. c
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
