Back
2012 Supreme(Jhk) 1613
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
R.R. PRASAD, J.
Jag Narain Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand through S.P. Vigilance - Opp. party
Cr. M.P. No. 788 of 2012
Decided On : November 7, 2012
Sujit Narayan Prasad, for the petitioner
Shailesh, for the vigilance
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the absence of essential elements constituting the offences under the relevant legal provisions led to the quashing of the criminal proceeding.
Headnote:
Vigilance - Quashing of Criminal Proceeding - Indian Penal Code, Sections 423, 424, 467, 468, 469, 471, 477-A, 409, 120(B), 109 - Prevention of Corruption Act, Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash the criminal proceeding against them, which included charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The case arose from allegations related to the transfer of land in violation of the Urban Land Ceiling Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had not committed any offence under the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. It concluded that the allegations did not constitute any offence against the petitioner, and therefore, quashed the entire criminal proceeding.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged violations of the Urban Land Ceiling Act and the charges brought against the petitioner under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of evidence to support the allegations and the absence of essential elements constituting the offences under the relevant legal provisions.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application and quashed the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner.
By the Court-Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the vigilance.
This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 28 of 2000 (Special Case No. 15 of 2000) including the order dated 26.11.2009 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 423, 424, 467, 468, 469, 471, 477-A, 409, 120(B) and 109 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(l)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act has been taken against the petitioner and others.
3. The case of the prosecution as has been made out in the F.I.R is that the land appertaining to plot Nos. 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28 of khata No. 37 measuring an area of 9.34 acres situated at mauza Gari within the urban area of Ranchi was recorded in the name of Tulsidas Kanodia against whom when a proceeding under the Ceiling Act was initiated. he filed statement under Section 6 of the Ceiling Act making declaration of the vacant land which he was holding. In spite of that he through holder of power of attorney got 10 kathas of land of plot No. 28 sold to Durga Devi Kanodia on 2.7.1982 who, Subsequently on 9.12.1985 transferred the said land to Smt. Saroj Devi. Smt. Shashila Devi and Smt. Chanda Devi. When they filed application for mutating their names, this petitioner being Circle Officer, Ranchi, on the basis of the report of the halka karwnchari passed an order on 16.6.1986 mutating their names against the land transferred in their favour. On such allegation, a case was lodged against this petitioner and others on the premise that after coming into force of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') with effect from 1.4.1976, any person holding excess land than the ceiling limit was not entitled to transfer the land. In spite of that the petitioner in connivance with each other passed an order for mutating the land.
4. On such allegation, a case was registered as Vigilance P.S. Case No. 28 of 2000 under Sections 423, 424, 467, 468, 469, 471, 477-A, 409, 120(B) and 109 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted upon which cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 423, 424, 467, 468, 469, 471, 477-A, 409, 120(B) and 109 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(l)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was taken against the petitioner and others, vide order dated 26.11.2009 which is under challenge.
6. Earlier when the matter was taken up, submissions were made on behalf of the petitioner and also learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance which has been recorded under order dated 3.10.2012 which reads as follows :
"Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the land falling within the urban area cannot be transferred in between the date of notification issued under Section 10(1) of the Act and the date of declaration to be made under Section 10(4) of the Act and, therefore, if the land would be transferred in between the two dates then only it can be said that the provision of the Act. 1976 has been violated. Here in the instant case, the date of the notification issued under Section 10(1) is 24.10.1986 whereas the land is said to have been transferred on 2.7.1982 and 9.12.1985 which is prior to 24.10.1986 and as such there is no violation of the provision either of Section 10(1) of the Act or even of Section 5(3) of the Act as the petitioner is never supposed to file statement under Section 6(1) of the Act.
Under the circumstances, the petitioner cannot be said to have done anything wrong under the provision of Urban Land Ceiling Act still prosecution has been launched against this petitioner.
However, Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance submits that as soon as provisions of t
