The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Special Judge had jurisdiction to try the offence of abetment under the Prevention of Corruption Act, even if no public servant was involved. The court also emphasized the need for the trial judge to decide on discharge/charge within a reasonable time due to the prolonged detention of the applicants.

Heard Sri Dilip Kumar, learned Counsel for the applicants and Sri Mahendra Singh Special Counsel for the State, Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned A. G. A. for the State. Common question of fact and law is involved in all the four applications, they are decided together by a common judgment. The leading case is Criminal Misc. Application No. 15856 of 2005.

2. The instant applications have been filed with a prayer for quashing the charge-sheet No. 9 of 2005 dated 3-10-2005 arising out of case crime No. 169 of 2005, charge-sheet No. 157 of 2005 arising out of case crime No. 154 of 2005, charge-sheet No. 10 of 2005 arising out of case crime No. 179 of 2005 and charge-sheet No. 8 of 2005 arising out of case crime No. 152 of 2005, Police Station Kasna, District Gautam Budh Nagar.

3. During the course of arguments, an amendment application was filed alongwith supplementary affidavit in support thereof for addition of following prayer:

"it is further prayed that the order dated 9-10-2005 passed by the Special Judge/sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar, registering the case, after taking cognizance on the charge-sheet, may be set aside and consequential relief to the applicants may kindly be grant".

4. Amendment application was allowed and the learned Counsel for the applicants was permitted to incorporate the amendment vide order dated 25-4-2006.

5. Factual submission on behalf of the applicant is that grand-father of Moti Lal Goyal, Raghunath Sahai was in actual physical possession of entire area of land alleged to belong to the State in the capacity of holder of Patta of Dawami Istakarari since before advent of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act. After Act No. 1 of 1950. He became a Sirdar and thereafter acquired Bhoomdhari rights. It is submitted that the entries in the revenue record up till 1371 Fasli is continuous. When consolidation operation commenced sometime in the year 1971, name of Raghunath Sahai afroresaid was omitted due to certain clerical error and the land was shown to be entered as banzer. This irregularity continued as Sri Raghunath Sahai died. It was detected for the first time in the year 1995 by the applicant Lajja Ram son of

Raghunath Sahai. On legal advice, a regular suit No. 71 of 1995 was instituted under Section 229-B of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act impleading the State of U. P. as well as Gaon Sabha as opposite parties. During the intervening period, the plots in dispute were acquired by Greater Noida. An impleadment application dated 12-9-1995 was moved and Greater Noida was also impleaded as one of the contesting respondents in the aforesaid suit under the order of the S. D. O. The suit was finally decreed on 1-6-1996 and the applicants were declared Bhoomidhar having transferable rights of Gata Nos. 519, 520. The District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar wrote a letter to the State of U. P. on 23-11-2002 for cancellation of the acquisition order dated 7-12-1995 relating to the plot Nos. 519, 520, 578 of village Haldauna as Lajja Ram was declared Bhoomidhar over the said plots. The recommendation was also made to rectify the mistake in the revenue record. The State of U. P. directed the District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar by means of the letter dated 12-9-2002 to make an inquiry, consequent thereon the S. D. O. Gautam Budh Nagar was required to submit a report in the matter relating to acquisition of Bhoomdhari plots of applicant Lajja Ram. It is further submitted by the Counsel for the applicants that an ex parte inquiry was made and the report was submitted on 30-9-2002 with the recommendation to cancel the acquisition order in favour of Greater Noida. It was at this stage, the S. D. O. Rakesh Kumar Singh passed an order on 2-6-2005 exercising power under Sections 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act cancelling the entries in favour of Sri Raghunath Sahai in the relevant Khatauni. According to the contention of the Counsel for the applicants, this was done without any notice to the applicants. The S. D.