SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Raj) 302

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
P.K. LOHRA, J.
SH. SHANKARDAS SWAMI - Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Respondent
Criminal Revision Nos. 486, 416 and 633 of 2017
Decided On : 25-01-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. H.S. Sandhu, Advocate, Mr. Kaushal Gautam, Advocate, Mr. N.K. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. L.R. Upadhyay, PP.
For the Complainant :Mr. Rajendra Soni, Advocate.

Headnote:

Anti Corruption Act – Prevention of Corruption Act – Section 13(1)(d), 19, 2(c), 7, 10, 11, 15, 6(1) – Indian Penal Code – Section 120-B, 420, 109, 2 – Criminal Procedure Code 1973 – Section 228, 197, 227 – I.T. Act – Section 271(1)(c) – Fraudulent – Delivery of property – Dishonestly – Cheating – Impugned order – Prosecution – These three revision petitions, under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., are directed against common order dated, passed by Special Judge, Anti Corruption Act Cases, Sri Ganganagar framing charge against all petitioners, therefore, all are heard together and disposed of by a common order – Petitioner Shankardas Swami is a retired Executive Officer of Municipal Board District, petitioner is former Chairperson of Municipal Board and third petitioner, a private individual, is alleged beneficiary of dubious transaction – Learned trial Court, by order impugned, framed charges against them for offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act r/w Section 120-B IPC and Sections 420 or 420 r/w Section 120-B IPC, 477 or 477A r/w Section 120-B IPC, 167 r/w Section 120-B IPC, 193 or 193 r/w Section 120-B IPC, 196 or 196 r/w Section 120-B IPC and 109 IPC – Held, fact situation in instant case is entirely different inasmuch as initially report was submitted by complainant on 10th of February 2008 before Police Station Sadulshahar, which was subsequently sent to Anti Corruption Bureau and it is after registration of FIR by Anti Corruption Bureau, Municipal Board filed a suit for cancellation of Patta and same was cancelled by judgment and decree dated – Therefore, unlike in Bombay case, gravamen of charge, in complaint filed by respondent-complainant, has been done away by any appellate forum rather same has been set at naught by a competent civil Court upon initiation of a litigation by Municipal Board allegedly to camouflage its serious omissions and commissions – Thus, in totality, while agreeing with proposition laid down in M/s. Shastri Sales Corporation (supra), in court opinion, ratio decidendi of said verdict cannot render any assistance to cause of petitioners – Revision Petition is Dismissed

ORDER :

P.K. Lohra, J.

These three revision petitions, under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., are directed against common order dated 28th of January, 2017, passed by Special Judge, Anti Corruption Act Cases, Sri Ganganagar (for short, 'learned trial Court'), framing charge against all the petitioners, therefore, all are heard together and disposed of by a common order.

2. Petitioner Shankardas Swami is a retired Executive Officer of Municipal Board Sadulsahar, District Sri Ganganagar, petitioner Smt. Manisha Khichar is former Chairperson of the Municipal Board and the third petitioner Ramniwas, a private individual, is alleged beneficiary of dubious transaction. The learned trial Court, by the order impugned, framed charges against them for offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act r/w Section 120-B IPC and Sections 420 or 420 r/w Section 120-B IPC, 477 or 477A r/w Section 120-B IPC, 167 r/w Section 120-B IPC, 193 or 193 r/w Section 120-B IPC, 196 or 196 r/w Section 120-B IPC and 109 IPC.

3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to these revision petitions, are that respondent-complainant Madanlal submitted a written report at Police Station Sadulshahar against petitioners Ramniwas Agrawal, Shankardas Swami and one Badri Prasad Suthar, a Clerk of Municipal Board, Sadulshahar, inter-alia, alleging therein that one house with the plot size 50x60 ft., situated in Ward No.5 of Sadulshahar, is recorded in the name of Bhagwan Singh S/o Banta Singh for last so many years as per records of Municipal Board. Report also unfurled that on the plot in question shops and rooms are constructed and the building was let out to one Ramniwas Agarwal, who subsequently purchased the plot and building without any formal documentation. It is also borne out from the report that for the purpose of soliciting requisite entry in the record of Municipal Board, Ramniwas in connivance with Shankardas Swami and Badri Prasad Suthar hatched a conspiracy for entertaining his application dated 25th of October 2004 alongwith affidavit. In the application, Ramniwas averred that a land measuring 60x28 ft is in his possession, which is Nazul land (Government land) and his possession over the land be regularized.

4. The report also disclosed that petitioner Shankardas Swami, as the Executive Officer of Municipal Board, taken the application on record and initiated proceedings for regularization by calling report of the concerned Junior Engineer and Clerk Badri Prasad completed all the formalities, which eventually led to regularization of the land in dispute and execution of lease-deed after charging stamp duty of Rs. 1020. The precise allegation of the complainant was that Ramniwas was already having Plot No.211 measuring 20x45 ft in municipal area, recorded in his name, and therefore, proceedings for regularization was dehors the law. It is also categorically averred in the complaint that wife of Ramniwas was also owner of Plot No. 246A/4 measuring 20x50 ft. With all these allegations, the complainant insinuated petitioner Shankardas Swami for issuing illegal Patta in the name of Ramniwas. With the advent of time, the report was sent to Police Station Sadulshahar through Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar. Upon investigation Sadulshahar police concluded that no offence is made out, and therefore, the application was sent to Anti Corruption Bureau and later on FIR No. 312/08 was registered by the Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur.

5. Although, in the complaint, names of Ramniwas Agarwal, Shankardas Swami and Badri Prasad were mentioned, but the Anti Corruption Bureau after investigation submitted charge-sheet against present petitioners and also against one Ramesh Chandra Gupta, a neighbour of petitioner Ramniwas Agrawal, who submitted application before the Municipal Board which was in fact processed by Badri Prasad Clerk and duly acknowledged by J.En. Purshottam Jain by submitting his report but both of them were charge-sheeted. This sort






































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top