1

aba107.21.O.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.107 OF 2021

(Rajesh s/o Vasantrao Bokade Vs. State of Maharashtra thr. PSO PS Dahihanda,

District Akola)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram,

appearances, Court'

s orders of directions

Court'

s or Judge'

s orders.

and Registrar’s Orders.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. U.P. Dable, Advocate for Applicant.

Mr. N.R. Rode, APP for Non-Applicant/State.

CORAM: ROHIT B. DEO, J.

DATE: 24

th

FEBRUARY, 2021.

The applicant is apprehending arrest in Crime

36/2021 registered with Police Station Dahihanda, District

Akola for offences punishable under Sections 420, 466, 467,

471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2.

The crime is registered on the basis of report

dated 23.01.2021 lodged by Mr. Anil Goenka.

The informant alleges that his deceased grand-father was

the owner of field survey 22/3, present gat 34 admeasuring

4.32 HR situated in mouza Dhamna (Bd), Tahsil Akot,

District Akola. The name of the deceased grand-father was

duly mutated in the 7/12 extract. Since the father of the

informant also expired, the informant is the owner and in

possession of the agricultural field. The allegation is that the

applicant, who was then working as the Talathi joined

hands with co-accused and took a false entry in the 7/12

2

aba107.21.O.odt

extract purporting to extinguish the ownership of the

deceased grand-father of the informant and to confer the

ownership on co-accused Narayan Tade under the

provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary

Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 (‘Act’).

3.

I have perused the material on record which is

culled out in the reply of the prosecution filed before the

learned Sessions Judge who rejected the pre-arrest

protection and the material which is taken into

consideration by the learned Sessions Judge.

4.

The material which is taken into consideration

unequivocally and clinchingly implicates the applicant in the

crime. It is not in dispute that the land was/is owned by the

deceased grand-father of the informant. The applicant, who

was working as the Talathi, purported to exercise the power

under the Act, which he did not possess. It appears that the

mutation entry was taken in a surreptitious and clandestine

manner without making any attempt to comply with the

provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and

without issuing any notice to the person who is recorded as

the owner, or then to the legal heirs.

5.

Pertinently, the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of

Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act,

1950 is not in force. The fraud is perpetrated brazenly,

albeit crudely. I have perused the explanation given by the

3

aba107.21.O.odt

applicant in the statement dated 17.03.2020. The said

statement is apparently recorded in departmental

proceedings. A stand is taken that the mutation entry in

question i.e. mutation entry 793 is recorded on 05.12.2014

and therefore, the applicant has not taken the entry.

Prima facie, the stand is blatantly false. The mutation entry

713 is recorded on 18.03.2014 when the applicant was

working as the Talathi. The mutation entry bears the

signature of the applicant.

6.

The prosecution suspects that the fraud

unearthed is likely to be one of the many instances.

That apart, custodial interrogation is imperative lest the

investigation is rendered directionless. Considering the

brazenness with which the official record is tampered with

and false entry taken, which purports to extinguish the

ownership of the rightful owner, in purported exercise of

power under a statute which is not in force, no case is made

out for exercise of discretion.

7.

The learned counsel