Delhi District Court
State vs . Sardar Singh Etc. on 22 October, 2008
State Vs. Sardar Singh Etc.
FIR No. 415/2001.
IN THE COURT OF SHRI MAHESH CHANDER GUPTA
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : ROHINI: DELHI.
State Vs. Sardar Singh Etc.
FIR No. 415/2001.
PS Alipur (Crime Branch)
U/s 419/420/467/468/471/120B IPC.
ORDER ON CHARGE :-
Accused Sardar Singh S/o Sh. Mohar Singh, Jeet Singh S/o Sh.
Ranga Singh, Jodha Singh S/o Sh. Tahil Singh, Joga Singh S/o Sh. Jalla
Singh, Balwant Singh S/o Sh. Jagat Singh and Gurbachan Singh S/o Sh.
Hazoor Singh have been challaned by the police of PS Alipur (Crime Branch)
and sent up for trial for the offences under section 419/420/467/468/471/120B
IPC.
2. Vide order dated 30.03.2002, Ld. Predecessor Court had
summoned the accused Ishwar Singh S/o Sh. Mohar Singh, Ranjeet Singh S/o
Sh. Santa Singh, Amarjeet Singh S/o Sh. Sardar Singh, Kapoor Singh S/o Sh.
Sardar Singh and Kashmir Singh S/o Sh. Darshan Singh for the offences
under section 419/420/467/468/471 IPC.
3. During the proceeding accused Sardar Singh S/o Sh. Mohar
Singh expired and case against him was ordered to be abated by the Ld.
Predecessor Court vide order dated 19.11.2004.
4. Ld. APP stated on the lines of the charge sheet, supplementary
Page No. 1
State Vs. Sardar Singh Etc.
FIR No. 415/2001.
charge sheet filed u/s 173 CrPC and the statements and documents sent
alongwith them.
5. In brief the relevant facts of the case are that the present case
was registered on the complaint of Sh. Bachan Singh S/o Late Sh. Sahib
Singh alleging that Sh. Sahib Singh S/o Late Sh. Deva Singh, the father of the
applicant Bachan Singh died on 12.12.1994 leaving behind his two sons
Hukum Singh and Bachan Singh, the applicant, at Punjab. The father of
applicant Late Sh. Sahib Singh was allotted a land bearing Khasras No. 307(4-
3), 310(6-2), 311 (8-18), 312 (4-1), 328 min (6-12), 330 (4-5), 336 (4-3), 337
min (2-2), 973 (4-16) total 52 Bigha 11 Biswas in the Revenue Estate of village
Jhangola No. 2, Alipur, Delhi by the Ministry of Rehabilitation, Department of
Deputy Custodian CR-Cum-Assistant Settlement Commissioner. On dated
10.07.2001, when the applicant went to the Patwari of the concerned area for taking NAKAL JAMABADNI for the purpose of mutation, the applicant came to know about the fraud committed by Sardar Singh S/o Sh. Mohar Singh who is also a resident of village Jhangola, Alipur Block, Delhi in collusion with the officers of Custodian Department. Accused Sardar Singh who is the son of Late Sh. Mohar Singh fraudulently by impersonating his parentage as the son of Late Sh. Sahib Singh has given a false statement that Sh. Sahib Singh died in the year 1955 and shows himself as the only legal heirs of Late Sh. Sahib Singh while Sh. Sahib Singh, the father of the applicant died in the year 1994 leaving behind his two sons namely Hukum Singh and Bachan Singh, the applicant, with a malafide intention to grab the land allotted to the father of the Page No. 2 State Vs. Sardar Singh Etc. FIR No. 415/2001.
applicant deposited the money and got the abovesaid land transferred in his name by changing his parentage in collusion with some officials as well as other persons who had given the wrong statement in his favour which is very surprising. The accused Sardar Singh S/o Sh. Mohar Singh also got issued a Sanad of the aforesaid land in his name showing the wrong parentage by filing a false affidavit and false statements and given an undertaking that if any thing wrong found in his statement, the Sanad may be cancelled. It is came to knowledge of applicant that on the basis of the said Sanad, accused Sardar Singh S/o Sh. Mohar Singh fraudulently transferred the said land in the name of his son and other relatives illegally while he has no right, title or interest in the said land. During investigation, it was found that 36 members of Sukhchain Cooperative Society of Village Jhangola were temporarily allotted 1500 Bighas, 7 Biswas of agricultural land jointly. Sahib Singh S/o Sh. Deva Singh who is the father of the complainant, Bachan Singh, was also the member of this society. After the allotment of the land Sahib Singh alongwith his two sons namely Hukum Singh and Bachan Singh shifted to Rajasthan. The land measuring 52 Bighas and 11 Biswas in the Revenue Estate of Village Jhangola was given to Mohar Singh S/o Sh. Bali Singh of village Jhangola for cultivation. Mohar Singh was paying the half value of the income from the crops from the said land. After the death of Mohar Singh his sons Sardar Singh, Santa Singh, Darshan Singh and Ishwar Singh were cultivating the land and they were giving the share of income to Sahib Singh. After the death of Sahib Singh on 12.12.1994, they stopped paying their share of the income. The brothers of Sardar Singh have stated that Sardar Singh is the Page No. 3 State Vs. Sardar Singh Etc. FIR No. 415/2001.
owner of this land and in future they should not come for their share. Sahib Singh S/o Sh. Deva Singh was a Nehang Sikh whodid not stay at his house and looked after his land. All the members of the society were non-claimants and their share of land were transferred on their name on payment of the price of the land @ Rs. 450/- per standard acres. Sh. Sahib Singh S/o Sh. Deva Singh along with other 14 members did not make the payment towards the cost of the land and therefore, the membership of Sahib Singh alongwith others were withdrawn by Sh. Des Raj Singh, the then Settlement Officer / Managing Officer (R), vide order dated 2nd May, 1960. Sahib Singh did not receive any intimation regarding cancellation of the allotment. In the meanwhile Sardar Singh S/o Sh. Mohar Singh by impersonating as the son of Sahib Singh filed an appeal u/s 22 of the Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954, against the order of the Settlement Officer cum Managing Officer (R) New Delhi, dated 02.05.1960. Sh. Ram Prasad, the then Asstt. Settlement Commissioner (R) New Delhi on the basis of the statement of Raja Singh, Mohar Singh, Gurbachan Singh, Atma Singh and Uttam Singh and without any documentary proof vide order dated 19.09.1960 accepted that Sardar Singh is the only son as sole legal heir of Sahib Singh. As Sardar Singh is prepared to deposit 1/10th value of land today, his appeal is accepted and the order of the Managing Officer is set aside. Hukum Singh S/o Sh. Kahan Singh, R/o Village Jhangola, Delhi vide his complaint dated 08.12.1960 alleged the illegal allotment of the agriculture land including to Sardar Singh S/o Sh. Mohar Singh where as the real owner is Sahib Singh S/o Sh. Deva Singh. Accused Sardar Singh deposited the requisite dues in respect of the said land. He Page No. 4 State Vs. Sardar Singh Etc. FIR No. 415/2001.
submitted various applications and affidavit showing him the son of Sahib Singh for issue of Sanad in his favour. The Sanad dated 02.12.1997 in respect of the land bearing Khasras No. 307(4-3), 310(6-2), 311 (8-18), 312 (4-1), 328 min (6-12), 330 (4-5), 336 (4-3), 337 min (2-2), 973 (4-16) total 52 Bigha 11 Biswas in the Revenue Estate of village Jhangola No. 2, was issued in the name of Sahib Singh S/o Sh. Deva Singh of village Jhangola by Sh. Pyare Lal, the then Managing Officer, Land & Building Department (EP Cell) Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi, the Right, Title and Interest of the said property was transferred to Sardar Singh S/o Sh. Sahib Singh. Sh. Pyare Lal, the then Managing Officer, Land & Building Department (EP Cell) Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi did not see / obtain any documentary evidence of the identity of Sardar Singh S/o Sh. Mohar Singh. In case he has seen it, he would have not issued the Sanad to accused Sardar Singh. He had relied on the order dated 19.09.1960 of Sh. Ram Prasad, the then Asstt. Settlement Commissioner (R) New Delhi. Accused Sardar Singh sold the said land to the following persons on the basis of the sale deed so that the said land, which he has obtained on the basis of cheating impersonation and forged documents cannot be taken back.
(i) Sale deed dated 05.11.1999 in favour of Ishwar Singh S/o Sh. Mohar Singh, Village Jhangola, 4 Bighas 16 Biswas in Khasra No. 309 (4-16) of Rs.50,000/- registration No. 6564 additional Book No. 1, volume no. 867 pages 117 to 120 on 12.11.1999.
(ii)Sale deed dated 5th November, 1999 in favour of Renjeet Singh S/o Sh.
Santa Singh Village Jhangola, (4-16) Kashra No. 312 (2-2), 309 min (0-14), Page No. 5 State Vs. Sardar Singh Etc. FIR No. 415/2001.
311 min (2-0) for Rs. 50,000/- registration No. 6562 additional Book No. 1, volume no. 867 pages 111 to 114 on 12.11.1999.
(iii) Sale deed dated 5th November, 1999 in favour of Amarjeet Singh S/o Sh. Sardar Singh, 11 Bighas 16 Biswas out of Khasra No. 328 (3-12), 311 (4-
12), 312 (3-2) for Rs. 1.20 lacs, registration No. 6560 additional Book No. 1, volume no. 867 pages 97 to 103 on 12.11.1999.
(iv) Sale deed dated 5th November, 1999 in favour of Kapoor Singh S/o Sh. Sardar Singh Village Jhangola of land measuring 11 Bighas 5 Biswas in Khasra No. 328 (0-15), 330 (4-15), 336 (4-3).337 min (2-2), for Rs. 1.20 lacs, registration No. 6561 additional Book No. 1, volume no. 867 pages 104 to 110 on 12.11.1999.
(v) Sale deed dated 5th November, 1999 in the name of Kashmir Singh S/o Sh. Darshan Singh measuring 4 Bighas 16 Biswas out of Khasra No. 310 (3-7), 307 min (1-09) for Rs. 50,000/-, registration No. 6569 additional Book No. 1, volume no. 867 pages 146 to 149 on 05.11.1999.
All the said persons namely Ishwar Singh, Ranjeet Singh, Amarjeet Singh, Kapoor Singh and Kashmir Singh to whom the lands have been sold are his real relatives. Ishwar Singh is his brother, Ranjeet Singh is the son of his brother Santa Singh, Amarjeet Singh and Kapoor Singh are his real sons and Kashmir Singh is the son of his brother named Darshan Singh. He has also sold 4 Bighas 16 Biswas to Kehar Singh S/o Sh. Chandgi Ram R/o Naya Bhas alias Ishwar Dutt Nagar.
During investigation it is found that accused Sardar Singh is the son of Mohar Singh as per the following admitted documents. Page No. 6
State Vs. Sardar Singh Etc. FIR No. 415/2001.
a. Voter List. b. Election Card. c. Electricity Bill. d. Gun Licence of Sardar Singh. e. Receipt of Purchase of Gun. f. Ration Card. g. Bank Account in State Bank of India, Palla.
Accused Sardar Singh in his statement dated 12.09.1960 before Sh. Ram Prasad, the then Settlement Commissioner (R) has stated that he is 24 years old and his father died 4/5 years back i.e. when accused Sardar Singh was about 20 years old. The record of Gun Licence in the name of accused Sardar Singh S/o Sh. Mohar Singh disclosed that his date of birth is 06.04.1944 i.e. on 12.09.1960 he was 16 years 5 months and 6 days old. Notice dated 16.06.1959 from Sh. J.N. Razdah, Land Allotment Officer, Delhi was sent to Sahib Singh S/o Sh. Deva Singh, Jhangola, Delhi for appearing on 27.06.1959. This notice was sent through Laxmi Narain Process Server. There is report on this notice which shows that on 21.06.1959, Sahib Singh S/o Sh. Deva Singh was alive and was not living in Jhangola and was living in Rajasthan. This shows that Sahib Singh was not died in the year 1954/55/56. Sahib Singh S/o Sh. Deva Singh has actually died on 12.12.1994, the death certificate of Sahib Singh has been collected from Registrar Death, Firozpur. Statement of Bachan Singh, Chowkidar who has reported the death of Sahib Singh which took place at Alayana, has been recorded u/s 161 CrPC.
During investigation, it is also found that Jeet Singh S/o Sh. Ranga Singh, R/o Village Jhangola - II, Joga Singh S/o Sh. Jalla Singh, R/o Village Jhangola - II, and Jodha Singh S/o Sh. Tahil Singh, R/o Village Jhangola - II are the witnesses of the said sale deeds. Accused Balwant Page No. 7 State Vs. Sardar Singh Etc. FIR No. 415/2001.
Singh S/o Sh. Jagat Singh R/o Village Jhangola - II, in his statement dated 10.09.1997 before the Managing Officer, Vikas Sadan has stated that Sardar Singh is the son of Sahib Singh. Accused Balwant Singh has concealed the true facts that Sardar Singh is the son of Mohar Singh, thus Balwant Singh is also an accused in this case. He has been arrested and is on court bail. During investigation, it is also found that Gurbachan Singh S/o Sh. Hazoor Singh R/o Village Jhangola - II, has stated that the father's name of Sardar Singh is Mohar Singh, but he has signed the statement dated 19.09.1960, in which it is stated that father's name of Sardar Singh is Sahib Singh.
6. Sh. Vijay Sharma, Ld. counsel for accused Jodha Singh S/o Sh. Tahil Singh filed the written arguments on charge and stated on the lines of the written arguments so filed and further stated that the said accused has been falsely implicated in this case and he did not receive any money nor induced anyone and has nothing to do with the offences alleged.
7. Sh. Kapil Yadav, Ld. Counsel for accused Gurbachan Singh S/o Sh. Hazoor Singh filed the written arguments on charge and stated on the lines of the written arguments so filed and further stated that the said accused has been falsely implicated in this case and he did not receive any money nor induced anyone and has nothing to do with the offences alleged.
8. Sh. Vivek Sood, Ld. Counsel for accused Jeet Singh S/o Sh. Ranga Singh, Joga Singh S/o Sh. Jalla Singh, Balwant Singh S/o Sh. Jagat Page No. 8 State Vs. Sardar Singh Etc. FIR No. 415/2001.
Singh, Ishwar Singh S/o Sh. Mohar Singh, Ranjeet Singh S/o Sh. Santa Singh, Amarjeet Singh S/o Sh. Sardar Singh, Kapoor Singh S/o Sh. Sardar Singh and Kashmir Singh S/o Sh. Darshan Singh, filed the detailed written arguments on charge and stated on the lines of the written arguments so filed and further stated that no offence of cheating or forgery is made out even against the main accused Sardar Singh (now deceased), nor any offence of cheating or forgery can be attributed to other accused who are alleged to be the conspirators of the main accused Sardar Singh. There is no allegation nor any iota of iota of material in the complaint / FIR or in the charge sheet to the effect that any of the accused persons conspired with main accused Sardar Singh in the year 1960 or any other point of time, when accused Sardar Singh is alleged to have made a false statement that he was the son of Sahib Singh. Even hypothetically assuming for the sake of arguments that accused Sardar Singh had made false statement in the year 1960, no offence of conspiracy is made out against the other accused persons because there is no such allegation nor iota of material in the case set up by the prosecution, as on 19.09.1960, when accused Sardar Singh is alleged to have succeeded in his appeal, whereby he was accepted as son of Sh. Sahib Singh by a judicial order passed in his appeal u/s 22 of the Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954, most of the other accused were not even born or were small children, hence, there is no question of their being conspirators with accused Sardar Singh S/o Sh. Mohar Singh. As on 19.09.1960, the age of accused Jeet Singh was 7 months, age of accused Joga Singh was 3 years, age of accused Ishwar Singh was 6 years, age of accused Balwant Singh was 32 years and accused Page No. 9 State Vs. Sardar Singh Etc. FIR No. 415/2001.
Ranjeet Singh, Amarjeet Singh, Kapoor Singh and Kashmir Singh were not yet born by 19.09.1960. The copies of the relevant documents; Driving Licence of accused Jeet Singh and Voter Identity Card of accused Ishwar Singh, Rajeet Singh, Amarjeet Singh, Kapoor Singh and Kashmir Singh have been enclosed. Since the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner dated 19.09.1960, in appeal filed by accused Sardar Singh u/s 22 of the Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954, is a judicial order u/s 22 (3) r/w section 26 (2), the police has no jurisdiction to unsettle or question the said judicial order. The said judicial order can only be set aside in appeal or revision by a higher Judicial Forum. Hence, the entire prosecution initiated by the police in the present case amounts to usurpation of judicial powers. Even hypothetically assuming for the sake of arguments that the said judicial order is incorrect, it can be set aside only in accordance with law provisions in the Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954 and the police cannot sit in appeal over the same. The Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954, is a special law, governing the entire field of allotment of land, adjudication, appeals and cancellation of allotment of land etc. It is a self contained Act, which contains exhaustive remedies against the various orders that may be passed under the Act. For instance, Sections 22, 23, 24 and 25 of the Act provide for the remedies of appeal, revision and review against the various orders that may be passed under the Act. Section 36 of the Act even bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any matter which any officer is empowered under the Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954, to determine. Hence, the police has by-passed the aforesaid provisions of law and the entire Page No. 10 State Vs. Sardar Singh Etc. FIR No. 415/2001.
prosecution is therefore bad in law. Section 27 of the Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954, provides for finality to the orders passed under the Act. Hence, the judicial order dated 19.09.1960 passed in the appeal filed under Section 22 of the Act, by accused Sardar Singh, has attained finality in law as it was not challenged under the Act, though remedies provided therein. Section 35 of the Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954, provides that if any person furnishes any untrue information, it shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year etc. and no Court shall take cognizance of the offence, except upon a complaint in writing made by an officer authorized by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The present prosecution initiated by the police is a dishonest devise to circumvent the bar provided u/s 35 of the Act.
As per the Sanad granted by the President of India, accused Sardar Singh has been recognized by law, to be the owner of the land in question. Sanad is a document of title, granted to accused Sardar Singh by the Supreme Sovereign Authority of the Indian Republic, namely the President of India. Moreover, the Sanad itself stipulates that it can be cancelled if the Central Government at any time is satisfied and records a decision in writing that the transferee or the predecessors-in-interest had obtained the allotment of the property by fraud or misrepresentation and the decision of the Central Government shall be final. Hence, the police by initiating the prosecution in the present case has usurped the powers of the Judiciary as well as the Central Government, as stipulated in the Sanad, which is impermissible in law. So far as the accused Jeet Singh and Joga Singh are concerned, the only Page No. 11 State Vs. Sardar Singh Etc. FIR No. 415/2001.
allegation against them is that they were witnesses to the Sale Deeds in the year 1999, whereby the land was sold by accused Sardar Singh to certain purchasers. As per the definition of the word "attested" in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the witness who attests a document, only testifies to the affixation of the signatures by the Executor of the documents and does not in any way testify, depose, confirm the contents of the document attested. Hence the said accused are entitled to be discharged. There is no allegation nor iota of material of any conspiracy against accused Ishwar Singh, Ranjeet Singh, Amarjeet Singh, Kapoor Singh and Kashmir Singh who have purchased the land in 1999 after the Sanad was granted in 1997, they are also entitled to be discharged. Having purchased the land, after Sanad was granted to accused Sardar Singh, the said accused are bonafide purchasers in law. They are no-where conspirators. Moreover, as per the charge sheet, itself accused Sardar Singh had made payment of the dues / consideration for allotment of the land. So far as the accused Balwant Singh is concerned, it is alleged that he had supported accused Sardar Singh to be the son of Sahib Singh. Since Sanad has been granted by the President of India, in favour of Sardar Singh as son of Sahib Singh, accused Balwant Singh cannot be implicated and is also entitled to be discharged. The entire case is badly time- barred as the complaint was filed in 2001 i.e. 41 years after Sardar Singh was accepted as son / legal heir of Sahib Singh on 19.09.1960 and prayed for discharge of the said accused.
Page No. 12
State Vs. Sardar Singh Etc. FIR No. 415/2001.
9. I have heard at length the Ld. APP and Ld. Counsels for accused and have also carefully gone through the entire record and the relevant provisions of law and cases referred to.
10. It is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge the FIR and the material collected by the investigating agency cannot sieved through a cullender of finest, gauzes to test its veracity. A roving inquiry into pros and cons of the case by weighing the evidence is not expected or even warranted at that stage (Reliance placed on Sapna Ahuja Vs. State 1999 V AD(Delhi)
407).
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh 1977 S.C. 2018 has inter-alia observed that at the initial stage, if there is a strong suspicion which leads the court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In case Ramesh Sharma Vs. State 2001 I AD (Delhi) 1041 it was held that there is sufficient precedents to show that at the stage of framing of charge reasonable ground for believing that conviction is possible, is sufficient. Even prima facie case need to be proved.
In case Kanti Bhandra Shah & Anothers Vs. State of West Bengal 2000 I AD (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held if the trial court decides to frame a charge there is no legal requirement that he should pass an order specifying the reasons as to why he opts to do so. Framing of charge Page No. 13 State Vs. Sardar Singh Etc. FIR No. 415/2001.
itself is prima facie order that the trial judge has formed the opinion, upon considering the police report and other documents and after hearing both sides, that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence concerned. A Magistrate to record his reasons for discharging the accused but there is no such requirement if he forms the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused had committed the offence which he is competent to try. In such a situation he is only required to frame a charge in writing against the accused.
In pare-12 of the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed :
"If there is no legal requirement that the trial court should write an order showing the reasons for framing a charge, why should the already burdened trial courts be further burdened with such an extra work. The time has reached to adopt all possible measures to expedite the court procedures and to chalk out measures to avert all roadblocks causing avoidable delays. If a Magistrate is to write detailed orders at different stages merely because the counsel would address arguments at all stages, the snail paced progress of proceedings in trial courts would further be slowed down. We are coming across interlocutory orders of Magistrates and Sessions Judges running into several pages. We can appreciate if such a detailed order has been passed for culminating the proceedings before them. But it is quite unnecessary to write detailed orders at other stages, such as issuing process, remanding the accused to custody, framing of charges, passing over to next stages in the trial. It is a salutary guideline that when order rejecting or granting bail are passed, the Court should avoid expressing one way or other on contentious issues, except in case such as those falling within Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985."Page No. 14
State Vs. Sardar Singh Etc. FIR No. 415/2001.
11. Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides for Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.
It reads as :
195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence._ (1) No Court shall take cognizance_
(a) (i) of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or
(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit such offence, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;
(b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, Sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or
(ii) of any offence described in Section 463, or punishable under Section 471, Section 475 or Section 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii) except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.
(2) Where a complaint has been made by a public servant under clause (a) of sub-section (1) any Page No. 15 State Vs. Sardar Singh Etc. FIR No. 415/2001.
authority to which he is administratively subordinate may order the withdrawal of the complaint and send a copy of such order to the Court; and upon its receipt by the Court, no further proceedings shall be taken on the complaint :
Provided that no such withdrawal shall be ordered if the trial in the Court of first instance has been concluded.
(3) In clause (b) of sub-section (1), the term "Court" means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, and includes a tribunal constituted by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act if declared by that Act to be a Court for the purpose of this section.
(4) For the purpose of clause (b) of sub-section (1), a Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the appealable decrees or sentences of such former Court, or in the case of a Civil Court from whose decrees no appeal ordinarily lies to the principal Court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction within whose local jurisdiction Civil Court is situated :
Provided that :-
(a) where appeals lie to more than one Court, the Appellate Court of inferior jurisdiction shall be the Court to which such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate;
(b) where appeals lie to a civil and also to a Revenue Court, such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Civil or Revenue Court according to the nature of the case or proceeding in connection with which the offence is alleged to have been committed.
12. Undisputably, accused Sardar Singh died during the proceedings and the case against him was ordered to be abated by the Ld. Predecessor Court vide order dated 19.11.2004.
13. That the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, in short referred to as the Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954. Page No. 16
State Vs. Sardar Singh Etc. FIR No. 415/2001.
14. From the material on record, it is clearly indicated that Sahib Singh S/o Sh. Deva Singh, father of the complainant Bachan Singh, who was also the member of Sukhchain Cooperative Society of Village Jhangola was also alloted a land bearing Khasras No. 307(4-3), 310(6-2), 311 (8-18), 312 (4-
1), 328 min (6-12), 330 (4-5), 336 (4-3), 337 min (2-2), 973 (4-16) total 52 Bigha 11 Biswas in the Revenue Estate of village Jhangola No. 2, Alipur, Delhi by the Ministry of Rehabilitation, Department of Deputy Custodian CR-Cum- Assistant Settlement Commissioner.
It is also indicated from the record that Sahib Singh S/o Sh. Deva Singh, the father of complainant Bachan Singh died on 12.12.1994.
It is also indicated from record that Sahib Singh S/o Sh. Deva Singh alongwith other 14 members did not make the payment towards the cost of the land and therefore, the membership of Sahib Singh alongwith others were withdrawn by Sh. Des Raj Singh, the then Settlement Officer / Managing Officer (R), vide order dated 2nd May, 1960.
It is also on record that accused Sardar Singh S/o Sh. Mohar Singh (since deceased) by impersonating as the son of Sahib Singh filed an appeal u/s 22 of the Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954, against the order of the Settlement Officer cum Managing Officer (R) New Delhi, dated 02.05.1960. Sh. Ram Prasad, the then Asstt. Settlement Commissioner (R) New Delhi on the basis of the statements of Raja Singh, Mohar Singh, Gurbachan Singh, Atma Singh and Uttam Singh, vide order dated 19.09.1960 accepted that Sardar Singh is the only son as sole legal heir of Sahib Singh. As Sardar Singh is prepared to deposit 1/10th value of land today, his appeal is Page No. 17 State Vs. Sardar Singh Etc. FIR No. 415/2001.
accepted and the order of the Managing Officer is set aside.
It is also not in dispute that Sanad dated 02.12.1997 in respect of land in question bearing Khasras No. 307(4-3), 310(6-2), 311 (8-18), 312 (4-
1), 328 min (6-12), 330 (4-5), 336 (4-3), 337 min (2-2), 973 (4-16) total 52 Bigha 11 Biswas in the Revenue Estate of village Jhangola No. 2, was issued in the name of Sahib Singh S/o Sh. Deva Singh of village Jhangola by Sh. Pyare Lal, the then Managing Officer, Land & Building Department (EP Cell) Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi.
It is also not in dispute that relying on the order dated 19.09.1960 of Sh. Ram Prasad, the then Assistant Settlement Commissioner (R) New Delhi, the right, title and interest of the said property was transferred to Sardar Singh S/o Sh. Sahib Singh by Sh. Pyare Lal, the then Managing Officer, Land & Building Department (EP Cell) Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi, by issuance of Sanad dated 02.12.1997.
It is also not in dispute that the allotment of the land in question, the withdrawal of membership of Sahib Singh S/o Sh. Deva Singh, disposal of appeal u/s 22 of Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954 and issuance of Sanad dated 02.12.1997 in favour of accused Sardar Singh etc. are the acts which were done by competent Officers by exercising powers under the Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954.
It is not the case of the prosecution that any complaint in writing was made by an officer authorised by the Chief Settlement Commissioner as provided u/s 35 of the Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954, for the commission of the offences under the said Act.
Page No. 18
State Vs. Sardar Singh Etc. FIR No. 415/2001.
It is not in dispute that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under the Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954, except upon a complaint in writing made by an officer authorised by the Chief Settlement Commissioner by general or special order in this behalf, as provided u/s 35 of the Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954.
Further it is also not in dispute that as per Section 195 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as reproduced herein above no court shall take cognizance of the offences detailed therein except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.
Undisputably, the Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954 is a special law governing the entire field of allotment of land, adjudication, appeals and cancellation of allotment of land etc. It is a self contained Act, which contains exhaustive remedies against the various orders that may be passed under the Act. In the said Act, inter-alia, Section 19 provides for Powers to vary or cancel lease or allotment of any property acquired under this Act. Chapter IV Section 22 to 27 provide for appeals, revisions and powers of the Officers under the Act. Section 27 provides for Finality of Orders.
Section 27 of said Act reads as :
"27. Finality of Orders.- Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, every order made by any officer or authority under this Act, including a managing corporation, shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court by way of an appeal or revision or in any original suit, application or execution proceeding.Page No. 19
State Vs. Sardar Singh Etc. FIR No. 415/2001.
Section 33 of the Act provides for certain residuary powers of Central Government.
It reads as :
"33. Certain residuary powers of Central Government :- The Central Government may at any time call for the record of any proceeding under this Act and may pass such order in relation thereto as in its opinion the circumstances of the case require and as is not inconsistent with any of the provisions contained in this Act or the rules made thereunder.
Section 35 of the Act provides for Penalty.
It reads as :
"35. Penalty :- 1. Any person who furnishes in his application for payment of compensation any information which he knows, or has reason to believe to be false or which he does not believe to be true, shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
2. No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act, save upon complaint in writing made by an officer authorised by the Chief Settlement Commissioner by general or special order in this behalf.
Section 36 provides for Bar of jurisdiction.
It reads as :
"36. Bar of Jurisdiction :- Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, no civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any matter which the Central Government or any officer or authority appointed under this Act is empowered by or under this Act to determine, and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act.
It is also on record that accused Sardar Singh S/o Sh. Mohar Page No. 20 State Vs. Sardar Singh Etc. FIR No. 415/2001.
Singh (since deceased) sold the said land in question obtained on the basis of the Sanad dated 02.12.1997 to accused Ishwar Singh, Ranjeet Singh, Amarjeet Singh, Kapoor Singh, Kashmir Singh, his real relatives by the execution of the sale deeds.
It is not in dispute that Sanad dated 02.12.1997, is the very basis on which accused Sardar Singh S/o Mohar Singh (since deceased) had sold the land in question to accused Ishwar Singh, Ranjeet Singh, Amarjeet Singh, Kapoor Singh, Kashmir Singh.
It is not the case of the prosecution that the said Sanad dated 02.12.1997 was ever nullified by the competent authority acting under the Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954, or by the Central Government. In other words the said Sanad dated 02.12.1997 stood in the name of accused Sardar Singh and was valid and operational on the dates 05.11.1999 and 12.11.1999 when he (accused Sardar Singh S/o Sh. Mohar Singh) executed the sale deeds in respect of the land in question in favour of accused Ishwar Singh, Ranjeet Singh, Amarjeet Singh, Kapoor Singh, Kashmir Singh. In the circumstances for the said act of accused Sardar Singh S/o Mohar Singh, other accused Ishwar Singh, Ranjeet Singh, Amarjeet Singh, Kapoor Singh, Kashmir Singh, though may alleged to have criminally conspired with him (Accused Sardar Singh S/o Sh. Mohar Singh) but no cognizance of such alleged offences can be taken by the Court in the absence of a complaint in writing made by an officer authorised by the Chief Settlement Commissioner as provided u/s 35 of the Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954. At the cost of repetition, Sanad dated 02.12.1997, on the basis of which accused Sardar Page No. 21 State Vs. Sardar Singh Etc. FIR No. 415/2001.
Singh S/o Sh. Mohar Singh acted / executed sale deeds in favour of accused Ishwar Singh, Ranjeet Singh, Amarjeet Singh, Kapoor Singh, Kashmir Singh was valid and operational and was not a nullified one. The mere fact that the persons (accused Ishwar Singh, Ranjeet Singh, Amarjeet Singh, Kapoor Singh, Kashmir Singh) in whose favour accused Sardar Singh S/o Sh. Mohar Singh executed sale deeds happen to be real relatives does not change the situation.
On the same analogy, accused Jeet Singh, Joga Singh and Jodha Singh who are the witnesses to the said sale deeds executed by accused Sardar Singh S/o Sh. Mohar Singh in favour of accused Ishwar Singh, Ranjeet Singh, Amarjeet Singh, Kapoor Singh, Kashmir Singh, on the basis of Sanad dated 02.12.1997 which was valid and operational, though may alleged to have criminally conspired with him (accused Sardar Singh) but no cognizance of such alleged offences can be taken by the Court in the absence of a complaint in writing made by an officer authorised by the Chief Settlement Commissioner as provided u/s 35 of the Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954.
15. As discussed herein above, vide order dated 19.09.1960, Sh. Ram Prasad, the then Assistant Settlement Commissioner (R) New Delhi disposed off the appeal u/s 22 of Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954, filed against the Order dated 02.05.1960 of Sh. Desh Raj, the then Settlement cum Managing Officer (R) New Delhi, in which inter-alia accused Gurbachan Singh made the statement. Undisputably, the said order dated 19.09.1960 had Page No. 22 State Vs. Sardar Singh Etc. FIR No. 415/2001.
attained finality. It is not the case of the prosecution that the said order dated 19.09.1960 was ever nullified by the competent authority under the Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954, or by the Central Government. It needs no mention that whatever statement was made by accused Gurbachan Singh was the part of the proceedings which led to the disposal of the appeal u/s 22 of the Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954 by Sh. Ram Prasad, the then Assistant Settlement Commissioner (R) New Delhi vide order dated 19.09.1960. In the circumstances, accused Gurbachan Singh though may alleged to have criminally conspired with accused Sardar Singh S/o Sh. Mohar Singh (since deceased) in making false statement but no cognizance of such alleged offence can be taken by the Court in the absence of a complaint in writing made by an officer authorised by the Chief Settlement Commissioner as provided u/s 35 of the Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954.
As discussed herein above, at the cost of repetition, that the Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954 is a special law governing the entire field of allotment of land, adjudication, appeals and cancellation of allotment of land etc. It is a self contained Act, which contains exhaustive remedies against the various orders that may be passed under the Act. In the said Act, inter-alia, Section 19 provides for Powers to vary or cancel lease or allotment of any property acquired under this Act. Chapter IV Section 22 to 27 provide for appeals, revisions and powers of the Officers under the Act. Section 27 provides for Finality of Orders.
As discussed herein above, at the cost of repetition, the Sanad dated 02.12.1997 in respect of land in question bearing Khasras No. 307(4-3), Page No. 23 State Vs. Sardar Singh Etc. FIR No. 415/2001.
310(6-2), 311 (8-18), 312 (4-1), 328 min (6-12), 330 (4-5), 336 (4-3), 337 min (2-2), 973 (4-16) total 52 Bigha 11 Biswas in the Revenue Estate of village Jhangola No. 2, was issued in the name of Sahib Singh S/o Sh. Deva Singh of village Jhangola by Sh. Pyare Lal, the then Managing Officer, Land & Building Department (EP Cell) Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi.
At the cost of repetition, it is also not in dispute that relying on the order dated 19.09.1960 of Sh. Ram Prasad, the then Assistant Settlement Commissioner (R) New Delhi the right, title and interest of the said property was transferred to Sardar Singh S/o Sh. Sahib Singh by Sh. Pyare Lal, the then Managing Officer, Land & Building Department (EP Cell) Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi, by issuance of Sanad dated 02.12.1997.
16. The allegations against accused Balwant Singh are that on 10.09.1997 before Sh. Pyare Lal, the then Managing Officer, Land & Building Department (EP Cell) Vikas Sadan, New Delhi has stated that (accused) Sardar Singh is the son of Sahib Singh and he (accused Balwant Singh) has concealed the true facts that (accused) Sardar Singh is the son of Mohar Singh.
Undisputably, the said Sanad dated 02.12.1997 had attained the finality. It is not the case of the prosecution that the Sanad dated 02.12.1997 was ever nullified by the competent authority under the Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954 or by the Central Government. It needs no mention that whatever statement was made by accused Balwant Singh was the part of the proceedings which led to the issuance of Sanad dated 02.12.1997 by Sh. Page No. 24
State Vs. Sardar Singh Etc. FIR No. 415/2001.
Pyare Lal, the then Managing Officer, Land & Building Department (EP Cell) Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi. In the circumstances, accused Balwant Singh though may alleged to have criminally conspired with accused Sardar Singh S/o Sh. Mohar Singh (since deceased) in making false statement but no cognizance of such alleged offence can be taken by the Court in the absence of a complaint in writing made by an officer authorised by the Chief Settlement Commissioner as provided u/s 35 of the Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954.
As discussed herein above, at the cost of repetition, that the Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954 is a special law governing the entire field of allotment of land, adjudication, appeals and cancellation of allotment of land etc. It is a self contained Act, which contains exhaustive remedies against the various orders that may be passed under the Act. In the said Act, inter-alia, Section 19 provides for Powers to vary or cancel lease or allotment of any property acquired under this Act. Chapter IV Section 22 to 27 provide for appeals, revisions and powers of the Officers under the Act. Section 27 provides for Finality of Orders.
In view of above, I do not find sufficient material to proceed against accused Jeet Singh S/o Sh. Ranga Singh, Jodha Singh S/o Sh. Tahil Singh, Joga Singh S/o Sh. Jalla Singh, Balwant Singh S/o Sh. Jagat Singh, Gurbachan Singh S/o Sh. Hazoor Singh, Ishwar Singh S/o Sh. Mohar Singh, Ranjeet Singh S/o Santa Singh, Amarjeet Singh S/o Sh. Sardar Singh, Kapoor Singh S/o Sh. Sardar Singh and Kashmir Singh S/o Sh. Darshan Singh. Accordingly the said accused Jeet Singh S/o Sh. Ranga Singh, Jodha Singh Page No. 25 State Vs. Sardar Singh Etc. FIR No. 415/2001.
S/o Sh. Tahil Singh, Joga Singh S/o Sh. Jalla Singh, Balwant Singh S/o Sh. Jagat Singh, Gurbachan Singh S/o Sh. Hazoor Singh, Ishwar Singh S/o Sh. Mohar Singh, Ranjeet Singh S/o Santa Singh, Amarjeet Singh S/o Sh. Sardar Singh, Kapoor Singh S/o Sh. Sardar Singh and Kashmir Singh S/o Sh. Darshan Singh are discharged for the offences under section 419/420/467/468/471/120B IPC.
A copy of this order be sent to the Ministry of Rehabilitation, Government of India for information and for necessary action, through the Ld. District & Sessions Judge, Delhi.
Announced in the open Court This on the 22nd Day of October, 2008.
(Two spare copies attached) (MAHESH CHANDER GUPTA) ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE ROHINI : DELHI.
Page No. 26