Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(MP) 8592
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, J.
Meera Agrawal v. State of M. P.
Criminal Appeal | Appeal No. 1742(A - 21(1) / 2017-18
The High Court confirmed that appeals against the Commissioner's decisions under MPLRC cannot lie to the High Court, establishing jurisdictional limits under S.195 and S.341 of Cr.P.C.
Headnote:This criminal appeal, under S.341 of Cr.P.C., challenges the rejection of an application under S.195 for prosecuting public servants for corrupt practices. The court defined the maintainability of the appeal based on statutory provisions, ultimately dismissing the appeal as not maintainable. The legislature, through S.341, stipulates the appellate hierarchy, confirming the lower court's authority. The court highlights that no provision allows an appeal to the High Court against Commissioner decisions under MPLRC, thus determining that the appeal cannot be entertained and is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant disputes order of commissioner on grounds of corruption. (Para 1 , 4) |
| 2. arguments presented on maintainability under s.341 and s.195. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's interpretation of appeal procedures regarding hierarchy and jurisdiction. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. court finds appeal not maintainable as per relevant statutes. (Para 12) |
| 5. final verdict: appeal dismissed for lack of maintainability. (Para 13) |
1. This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 08.03.2019 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Sagar Divisional Sagar in Appeal No. 1742(A - 21(1) / 2017-18 whereby the Commissioner rejected the application under S.195 of Cr.P.C. filed by the appellant.
2. Vide document No. 2558/2020 dated 27.02.2020, the learned counsel for the appellant filed his submission regarding jurisdiction of this Court to hear Appeal under S.341 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, same is taken on record.
3. Heard on the question of maintainability.
4. Before the rival contentions of the parties are taken up for consideration, it would be necessary to give a brief resume of facts. It appears from the case that the appellant preferred a second appeal before the Court of Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar, against the order passed by the Collector, Panna as well as SDO, Panna, in respect of conversion of land under the MP Grant of Freehold Right in respect of Land on Lease situated in Urban Areas Rules, 2010. In said proceeding, the appellant filed an application under S.195 r/w S.340, Cr.P.C. stating that respondent No.1 herein (Ashok Ohari) was posted as Nazul officer / SDO and passed the order dated 10.08.2015 in corrupt manner, his act is covered under S.218 and S.219, IPC. She further mentioned that respondent No.2 herein (J.S. Baghel) was also posted for a certain period of time as Nazul Officer / SDO and manipulated the order sheets dated 08.09.2017, 22.09.2017 and 29.09.2017 by mentioning forge dates of hearing and appearance of the appellant, which come under the offence of S.420, S.218, S.219, S.466, S.467, S.468, S.471 and S.120 - B, IPC. The appellant also alleged against respondent No.3 (Namita Mandal) saying that she was Reader at the relevant point of time and involved in the conspiracy of fabricating the order sheets. Vide order dated 06.03.2019, the Commissioner has rejected the application, hence, this appeal has been preferred.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that on a conjoint reading of the provision of S.341 and S.195(4), Cr.P.C., this appeal is maintainable before this Court. He farther submits that under the MPLRC , S.44 provides the remedy of appeal and according to it, no appeal can be made before Revenue Board against the order passed by the Commissioner in Second Appeal, hence, the present appeal may be entertained by this High Court.
6. On the other hand, learned PL for the respondent / State opposes the appeal and submits that the Court of Commissioner is sub-ordinate to the Board of Revenue and in view of the provision of S.341 and S.195(4), Cr.P.C, appeal would not lie before this High Court. Apart from that, the appellant alleged against the Presiding Officers and Reader themselves, saying that they have manipulated the order - sheets of Court proceeding whereas they are the persons who have rights to prepare the order sheets as the same are Court documents. S.195(1)(b)(ii), Cr.P.C. only attracts when any false evidence is given in the case. The order sheets are not the part of evidence, therefore, this appeal is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.
7. Heard the arguments and perused the case.
8. Since the issue is with regard to the maintainability of the present appeal filed under S.341 of Cr.P.C, it would be necessary to examine straightway the provisions contained therein. A plain reading of S.341, Cr.P.C. would indicate that it provides the procedure of appeal in terms of hierarchy of Court mentioned in S.195, Cr.P.C. Therefore, S.341, Cr.P.C.
