The main legal point established in the judgment is that certain actions, such as making recommendations, may not constitute offenses under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the vigilance.

2. This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Vigilance P.S case no.29 of 2000 registered under Sections 409, 467, 468, 469, 471, 477A, 109, 201 read with Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act including order dated 25.02.2010 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offence has been taken against the petitioner.

3. The facts leading to this case are that in the year 1987, one R. M. Tigga and others being occupancy raiyats of the land filed an application under Section 49(2) of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi for according permission to them to transfer the lands, bearing plot nos. 636, 637 and 638 appertaining to khata no.102, measuring an area of .71 acres situated at Mauza Hinoo to Mahavir Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti, Dhurwa, Ranchi, a registered Cooperative Society. On the said application, a case was registered as Land Permission Case No.9 of 1987-88. Similarly, Hardugan Munda and 9 others also filed an application for according permission to transfer the lands, bearing plot nos. 635, 647 and 650, appertaining to khata no.57 and also plot no.648, appertaining to khata no.174, measuring total area 1.67 acres to the said Cooperative Society. On that application, Land Permission Case No.10 of 1987-88 was registered. On filing of such application a report was called for from the Concerned Circle Officer with respect to valuation and utility of the land. Pursuant to that, a report was submitted by the Circle Officer Naresh Kumar as well as Jagnarain Singh putting therein the valuation of the land with a recommendation for according permission to transfer the land under Section 49 of the Act. However, the then D.C, Ranchi refused to grant permission to transfer the aforesaid lands to the Co-operative Society as according to him, the purpose for which the land is sought to be transferred to Cooperative Society for constructing building, cannot be said to be reasonable and sufficient purpose. However, the said order was challenged before the Commissioner, Ranchi by way of appeal being Misc. Revenue Appeal No.307 of 1987. While hearing the said appeal, the following question was formulated:

“whether or not the sale of the land to the Housing Cooperative Society for the purpose of building/houses, can be deemed to be a reasonable cause.”

4. While dealing with the issue, learned Commissioner did observe that though certain purposes have been specified in the Act under which permission can be granted for transfer but there could be other purposes also not mentioned in the Act under which Deputy Commissioner can grant permission provided he finds the purpose to be reasonable and sufficient purposes. Therefore, the case was remanded, vide its order dated 14.12.1987 to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi to consider the case afresh as to whether or not construction of the houses/building is a reasonable activity taking into account that in the past there have been several instances of according permission for transferring the land to the Co-operative Societies for the construction of the building and that in the area, several colonies have come up and also the fact that whether sufficient land would be left with the transferors and that the rate negotiated is reasonable and also to ensure genuineness of the claim of the Cooperative Society of having land for the purpose of constructing building.

5. Meanwhile, raiyats filed an application for having fresh report regarding valuation of the land as the matter had remained pending for last three years and during three years, valuation of the land had been escalated. On such application a fresh report was called for, which was submitted by the petitioner, vide its letter no. 150(ii) d