Back
2017 Supreme(MP) 346
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BENCH
S.K. Gangele, Anurag Shrivastava, JJ.
Mohammad Abbas - Petitioner
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 1252 of 2016
Decided On : 20-01-2017
For the Petitioner: Shri Anil Khare, Shri H.S. Chhabra, Shri Ahadullah Usmani, Shri Priyankush Jain
For the Respondent: Shri Vivek Lakhera
The duty of the court to consider judicially whether material warrants framing of charges and the necessity of evidence to support the charges.
Headnote:
Framing of Charge - Land Exchange - Indian Penal Code, Prevention of Corruption Act - Section 120-B, Section 13(2), Section 418
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition against the trial court's order framing charges under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code for exchange of land. The petitioner claimed that no offense was made out as the order of exchange was still in existence and no evidence of bribery was presented.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that no application for permission to review the order of exchange was filed, and the order of exchange was still valid. It concluded that there was no evidence to frame charges against the petitioner.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the order of exchange, the lack of evidence of bribery, and the necessity of permission for review.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the duty to consider judicially whether material warrants framing of charges and found no evidence to support the charges against the petitioner.
Final Decision: The charge framed against the petitioner was quashed, and the order under revision was set aside, allowing the revision petition.
S.K. Gangele J.
Petitioner has filed this petition against the order dated 20.04.2016 passed by the trial Court, by which the trial Court has framed charge against the petitioner in Special Case No. 08/2015 for commission of offence punishable under Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code on two counts. Against another co-accused Anju Singh Baghel, the Court framed charge punishable under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 418 of Indian Penal Code.
2. The petitioner on 05.02.2008 submitted an application for exchange of land. In the aforesaid application, the petitioner pleaded that he is the owner of a land area 1.90 hectare situate at Sleemanabad, Patwari Halqa No.38, Khasra No.622 and the aforesaid land be exchanged with the Government land situate at Village Hardua Khurd, Tehsil Bahoriband, District Katni, Patwari Halqa No.38, Khasra No. 109 area 0.60 hectare and Khasra No.111, area 0.78 hectare, total area 1.38 hectare. On the aforesaid application, Sub-Divisional Officer registered a case vide Revenue Case No.3/A/25/2007-08 for exchange of land. A report was called and paper publication was made. Gram Panchayat submitted its report. On 17.06.2008 statement of the petitioner was recorded. The Patwari/Revenue Inspector was directed for spot inspection. Naib Tehsildar in his proposal recommended the exchange of the land. The Collector called a report from the Sub-Divisional Officer. He submitted a report on 25.08.2008. Thereafter, the then Collector passed the order on 14.11.2008 in regard to exchange of land.
3. The Collector was transferred and, thereafter, another Collector was posted and he had taken the matter in suomoto review. He noticed certain illegalities, thereafter, vide order dated 26.12.2009 he canceled the order of exchange of land passed by the earlier Collector Smt. Anju Singh Baghel. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed a petition before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue set aside the order dated 26.12.2009 passed by the Collector canceling the order of exchange of land vide order dated 04.03.2011 on the ground that it was necessary for the Collector to take permission from the Board of Revenue in accordance with Section 51 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code before taking the matter in suo-moto review. Because no such permission was taken, hence, the order passed by the Collector was illegal. The Board of Revenue set aside the order passed by the Collector canceling exchange of land. The Board of Revenue further granted a liberty to the administration and the Collector to submit appropriate application for grant of permission for review.
4. The Economic Offence Wing (hereinafter referred as 'EOW') registered an offence against the petitioner and other persons for commission of offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The EOW filed a charge-sheet before the competent court of jurisdiction. The Court had framed the charge against the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Section 120-B of the IPC on two counts.
5. Learned Senior Advocate has contended that the trial Court has committed an error of law in framing of charge against the petitioner because no offence is made out against the petitioner. The order of exchange is still in existence. After passing of the order of the Board of Revenue, the State Administration did not approach the Board of Revenue for permission for review. Hence, it cannot be said that the petitioner had committed any offence. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Advocate that there is no evidence that the petitioner had offered any bribe to the then Collector in regard to exchange of land. The merits of the case of exchange of land could not be considered because the order of exchange of land is still in existence. The petitioner did not receive any gain, neither any loss is caused to the Government.
6. The learned Panel Lawyer
