Jharkhand High Court
Mani Lal Mahato vs The Union Of India Through Cbi on 13 March, 2015
Equivalent citations: 2015 (4) AJR 302
Author: R.R. Prasad
Bench: R. R. Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M. P. No. 2791 of 2012
With
Cr. M. P. No. 2843 of 2012
With
Cr. M. P. No. 2751 of 2012
Brajeshwar Mahto, S/o Late Pusal Mahto,
R/o Vill-Kareyadih, PO Patrahatu, PO Silli,
Distt. Ranchi (Cr. M. P. No. 2791 of 2012) .... .... Petitioner
Goverdhan Baitha, S/o Late Ganesh Baitha,
R/o Vill. & PO Naya Sarai, PO Nagri,
Distt. Ranchi (Cr. M. P. No. 2843 of 2012) .... .... Petitioner
Mani Lal Mahato, S/o Late Vishnu Charan Mahato,
R/o Kita, PO Lota, PO Silli,
Distt. Ranchi (Cr. M. P. No. 2751 of 2012) .... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through S.P.,
CBI (AHD Cell), Ranchi (in all cases) .... .... Opp. Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. R. PRASAD
-----
For the Petitioners: Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate
& Indrajit Sinha, Shashank Shekhar, Advocates
For the CBI : M/s Mokhtar Khan & Niranjan Kumar, Advocates
-----
CAV ON 12/12/2014 PRONOUNCED ON 13/03/2015
13.03.2015All these three cases, arising out of the same impugned order, were heard together and are being disposed of by the common order.
These applications have been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings of RC No. 04(A)/2010-AHD-R(C) including the order dated 11.12.2012, passed by the Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 120B, 193, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been taken against the petitioners.
Before adverting to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, the case of the prosecution needs to be taken notice of.
A complaint was lodged alleging therein that Hari Narayan Rai and Enos Ekka, both at one point of time were the Ministers, have amassed huge property disproportionate to their known source of income. 2 The properties, including bungalows and agricultural lands, were acquired in violation of the provisions of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act. The Vigilance on the basis of the said complaint lodged a case. After investigation, Vigilance submitted interim charge-sheet in the case relating to disproportionate assets. However, under the order passed by this Court in W.P. (PIL) Nos. 4700/08 and 2252/09, the CBI took up the investigation of the case relating to the matter concerning illegal transfer of land effected in complete violation of the provisions of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act .
During investigation, it was found that said Enos Ekka had purchased several pieces of lands situated within the police stations of Ormanjhi, Doranda, Sadar Ranchi etc. in the name of his wife-Menon Ekka from the sellers belonging to Scheduled Tribes community but the purchaser Smt. Menon Ekka was never the resident of any of the areas falling within the aforesaid police stations which was in violation of the provisions as contained in Section 46 and 48 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, as one can purchase the land from the sellers belonging to Scheduled Tribes community only when the purchaser happens to be the resident of the area falling within that police station, but the purchaser in order to defeat the provisions of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act connived with the DCLR, Circle Inspector and Karmchari and submitted a false affidavit showing him/her as resident in the area of the same police station in which vended lands situate. An application accompanying the false affidavit was submitted before the DCLR upon which reports were called for from the Karmchari, including the petitioners namely, Mani Lal Mahato and Goverdhan Baitha, who without making verification of the address of the purchaser, submitted report with false statement that the purchaser is the resident of the area of the same police station in which vended lands situate and thereby made recommendation for transferring the lands. So far as petitioner-Brajeshwar Mahto, who at relevant point of time was posted as Karmchari in Legal Cell in the office of the Deputy 3 Collector, is concerned, he submitted report on being asked by the DCLR to the effect that the purchaser is the resident of the area of same police station in which vended land situates, though the purchaser was never the resident of the area of same police station in which vended lands were situating and thus, it was alleged that the purchaser in connivance with the DCLR, Circle Inspector, Karmchari and Circle Officer, including these petitioners, committed offences under which cognizance was taken.
On submission of the charge-sheet, when cognizance of the offences as aforesaid was taken against the petitioners vide order dated 11.12.2012, it has been challenged.
Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that under the provisions as contained in Section 46 and 48 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act dealing with the conditions/ restrictions on the transfer of land of bhuinhari tenure, Karmcharies have no role to play, rather it is for the Deputy Collector, who is the statutory authority, to give permission or to refuse permission for transfer of land but for administrative convenience a system has been adopted though foreign to the provision of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act of calling for the report from the Circle Inspector as well the Karmchari. Accordingly, when the matter was referred to the petitioners, the petitioners on the basis of the affidavit and also declaration made in the application by the purchaser that she is the resident of the area falling within the police station in which vended lands situate, submitted its report and recommendation was made for transfer of the land in her favour and thereby the petitioners cannot be said to have committed any offence.
Further, it was submitted that so far transfer of land falling within the area of Doranda police station is concerned, transfer of which cannot be said to be illegal, as the purchaser being Minister had occupied the official quarters situated in Doranda police station. In this connection, it was further submitted that the investigating agency has formed its opinion relating to the commission of the offence on the premise that the transfer 4 would be illegal, if it is made to a person not having land within the area of the police station in which vended land situates, but proviso (a) to Section 46 (1) of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act speaks that one should be the resident within the local limits of the area of the police station within which holding situates and under the circumstances, it can easily be said that under wrong assumption of law charge-sheet has been submitted and thereby the order taking cognizance being bad is fit to be set aside.
Further, it was submitted that none of the offences, under which cognizance has been taken, gets attracted, as necessary ingredients constituting those offences are lacking.
In this regard, it was pointed out that the prosecution has never come forward with the case that the petitioners did submit its report on account of having any pecuniary gain or wrongful gain. Thus, it was submitted that for the aforesaid reasons, order taking cognizance is fit to be set aside.
The other counsel appearing in other cases adopted the same arguments which were advanced by Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel.
As against this, Mr. Mokhtar Khan, learned counsel for the CBI, submits that during investigation, it got transpired that Enos Ekka and his wife-Menon Ekka, in whose name lands were purchased, are the residents of Simdega district and not the residents of the area in which vended lands were situating, but the petitioners being Karmcharies submitted false report to the effect that the purchasers are the residents of the same area falling within the police station in which vended land situates and this has been done in connivance with the purchasers and other officers for effecting transfer in favour of the purchasers by defeating the provisions of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, I do find that it is true that under the provisions of the 5 Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act the Karmcharies are not supposed to do any act in the matter relating to transfer of the land but for administrative convenience a system was developed of calling for the report from Karmchari before any order is made by the competent authority relating to transfer of the land and, therefore, when the petitioners were asked to submit reports, it were submitted to the effect that the purchasers are the residents of the same area but the CBI during investigation has found that the purchasers were never the residents within the local limits of the area of police station within which holding (vended plots) situate rather the purchasers are the residents of District Simdega whereas the lands purchased situate in the District of Ranchi. Thus, the reports submitted by the petitioners can be said to be false reports. Further submission is that the CBI submitted charge-sheet on the presumption that the person purchasing the land should have landed property in that area in which vended land situates and only then he can be said to be the resident but the proviso (a) to Section 46 (1) of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act never makes such stipulation. I am not intending to go into the details of it, as any finding, given at this stage, would be prejudicial at the stage of trial but prima facie submission, advanced in this respect on behalf the petitioners, is not acceptable, as the clause 'residence' appearing in proviso (a) to Section 46 (1) of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, is to be read with holding which has been defined under the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act.
Under the circumstances, I do not find any illegality with the impugned order taking cognizance against the petitioners. Hence, all three applications stand dismissed.
Before parting with this order, it be stated that any finding given for the purpose of disposal of these cases shall not be prejudicial to the case of the petitioners.
(R.R. Prasad, J.) AKT