Delhi District Court
Gulshan Kumar Batra vs . State on 6 October, 2012
Gulshan Kumar Batra Vs. State
CR No: 32/12
IN THE COURT OF VIKAS DHULL, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04,
DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
CR NO: 32/12
Gulshan Kumar Batra
S/o Late Sh. Satram Das
R/o C-8/6, Second Floor
Mianwali Nagar, New Delhi ... Petitioner
Versus
State ... Respondent
(Govt.of NCT of Delhi)
Date of institution of revision : 08.08.2012
Date on which order reserved : 04.10.2012
Date on which order pronounced : 06.10.2012
ORDER
1. This revision petition has been filed by the accused/petitioner U/s 397Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) aggrieved by the order dated 24.05.2012 passed by Ld. Trial Court (hereinafter referred to as the impugned order) whereby order was passed for framing of charge against petitioner/accused u/s 218/219/120(b)Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC).
2. The brief facts which are relevant for deciding the present revision petition are that petitioner had joined his duty as Tehsildar, Najafgarh CR No: 32/12 1/8 Gulshan Kumar Batra Vs. State CR No: 32/12 on 17.09.96. The allegations against the petitioner are that while serving as Tehsildar, Najafgarh he had sanctioned the mutation in respect of land belonging to Sh Rakesh Chopra S/o Sh S.P.Chopra situated in the revenue estate of village Paprawat, New Delhi vide order dated 02.10.1996 in favour of Sh. Sunder singh S/o Sh. Sardar Singh on the basis of fake documents and without following the prescribed procedure as laid down in the Delhi Land Revenue Act and Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. It is alleged against the petitioner that order dated 02.10.1996 sanctioning mutation in favour of Sh Sunder Singh was passed on gazetted holiday with the objective of by-passing the order dated 03.10.1996 passed by ADM, Revenue. The order of ADM, Revenue dated 03.10.1996 did not permit mutation of properties in Delhi on the basis of sale deed registered outside Delhi. It is further the case of the prosecution that since Sh Sunder Singh had got his sale deed registered in Bombay and had applied for mutation on 17.10.1996, therefore petitioner in conspiracy with the other persons had endorsed on the application, the date of receipt of the application as 17.09.1996 and had consequently passed mutation order on 02.10.1996 just to circumvent order of ADM, Revenue dated 03.10.1996 which did not permit the sanctioning of mutation on the basis of sale deed registered outside.
3. It is further the case of the prosecution that when the original owner/bhoomidar Sh. Rakesh Chopra came to know about the sanctioning of mutation in favour of Sh. Sunder Singh then he had preferred an appeal before the Collector, S/W District and the Collector, S/W District vide its order dated 31.03.1997 had set aside CR No: 32/12 2/8 Gulshan Kumar Batra Vs. State CR No: 32/12 the mutation sanctioned by the petitioner and had further directed action against erring officials including petitioner for their serious misconduct in passing the mutation order dated 02.10.1996 in the back date after tempering the records. Based on the directions of Ld. Collector, S/W District, complaint was made by the SDM, Najafgarh on 16.02.2006 to the SHO P.S Najafgarh against petitioner and other persons. Thereafter FIR no. 145/06 P.S Najafgarh was registered and the matter was taken up for investigation. After completion of investigation and after obtaining sanction U/s 197 Cr.P.C vide order dated 11.12.2009, petitioner alongwith co-accused Kishan Gaur was chargesheeted for the offence U/s 420/468/471/120-B IPC.
4. Ld. Trial Court heard on the point of charge and on the basis of material collected by police during the course of investigation, the Ld. Trial Court was convinced that charge for the offence U/s 420/468/471IPC is not made out against the petitioner and accordingly petitioner was discharged for these offences vide impugned order. However, ld. trial court found sufficient material on record to frame charge against accused/petitioner U/s 219/218/120(b)IPC vide the impugned order and charge was framed accordingly against the petitioner/accused. The petitioner being aggrieved by the framing of charge U/s 218/219/120(b) IPC has preferred the present revision petition.
5. I have heard the counsel for petitioner Sh. S.K. Grover and Ld. APP for state. I have also summoned the trial court record and have carefully perused the same.
6. The counsel for revisionist/petitioner has contended that no malafide CR No: 32/12 3/8 Gulshan Kumar Batra Vs. State CR No: 32/12 can be attributed to the petitioner in passing the mutation order dated 03.10.1996 as the same was passed based upon the registered sale deed executed in Bombay. It was further submitted by him that application for mutation was received on 17.09.1996 by the petitioner, although date typed in the application was that of 17.10.1996. It was further submitted by him that following prescribed rules, 15 days notice was issued to the respondent and since 15 days time expired on 02.10.1996, therefore date on summons was mentioned as 02.10.1996 but when the petitioner realized that 02.10.1996 was gazetted holiday, date was changed to 03.10.1996. It is further submitted by him that parties had appeared on 03.10.1996 and even the mutation order was passed on 03.10.1996. It was further submitted by him that petitioner was not having knowledge about passing of order on 03.10.1996 by ADM, Revenue which did not permit sanctioning of mutation on the basis of sale deed registered outside Delhi. It was further contended that no documents has been filed by the prosecution on record to show that petitioner's office had indeed received order dated 03.10.1996 of ADM, Revenue prior to sanctioning of mutation on 03.10.1996. It was further submitted by counsel for petitioner that sanctioning of mutation does not confer any title and therefore no loss was caused to the Bhoomidar Rakesh Chopra and Section 218 IPC is not attracted. It was further submitted by him that Section 219IPC is also not attracted as there is no material on record to show that petitioner has passed the mutation order maliciously or corruptly. Accordingly it is prayed that impugned order be set aside and petitioner be discharged for the offences U/s CR No: 32/12 4/8 Gulshan Kumar Batra Vs. State CR No: 32/12 218/219/120(b)IPC.
7. On the other hand ld. APP has contended that Ld. Trial court has rightly passed the impugned order based upon the material on record and no interference is required by this court. Accordingly a prayer was made for dismissal of the revision petition.
8. The contention of the counsel for petitioner that mutation order was passed on 03.10.1996 is not supported with the material on record. As per proceedings conducted before the petitioner allegedly on 03.10.1996, statement of Dhan Raj as witness was recorded prior to passing of the mutation order apart from that of Jasbir Singh and Kishan Gaur. However, Dhan Raj in his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C has flatly denied of having appeared before the petitioner on 03.10.1996 to give statement as witness that he is known to Jasbir Singh and Kishan Gaur. Therefore denial by Sh. Dhan Raj of having appeared before the petitioner on 03.10.1996 creates doubts regarding the proceedings being conducted in scrupulous manner.
9. Further there is material on record to show that mutation order was not passed on 03.10.1996 but was passed on 02.10.1996. This fact is drawn out from the summons issued by petitioner for 02.10.1996 which date lateron was tempered to 03.10.1996 which is corroborated by the FSL report. Further the entries in the register no. 02(mutation register) and register No. 0=4(Record Manual Delhi) show that entries with regard to the mutation were done pursuant to the order of petitioner dated 02.10.1996 and date was lateron tempered to 03.10.1996 and change of date from 02.10.1996 to 03.10.1996 is corroborated by the report of FSL dated 12.05.1999.
CR No: 32/12 5/8Gulshan Kumar Batra Vs. State CR No: 32/12 Lastly there is material on record in the form of khatoni which also reflects that mutation order was sanctioned by petitioner on 02.10.1996. Therefore all this material on record prima facie shows that mutation order was passed on 02.10.1996 by the petitioner which happens to be the national holiday.
10.Another material which highlights the fact that mutation order dated 02.10.1996 was allegedly passed in the back date is the fact that date on application of mutation is 17.10.1996 but petitioner has made endorsement on the same as 17.09.1996. The material on record to show that petitioner after having received the application on 17.10.1996 had conducted the proceedings in back date just to circumvent the order of ADM, Revenue dated 03.10.1996 is the entries made in register no. 0=4 pertaining to village Paprawat, Delhi. On careful perusal of the entries in register no. 0=4 of village Paprawat, it is apparent that all the entries have been made in chronological order on the basis of order received of Tehsildar, Najafgarh. The entries of mutation order dated 02.10.1996 is at S.no. 728 whereas five mutation orders dated 24.10.1996 are at S.no. 723-727. It is not believable that mutation order which was allegedly passed on 02.10.1996 will be entered in register no. 0=4 at a later stage then the mutation order dated 24.10.1996, although it was passed prior to 24.10.1996.
11.This prima facie shows that order dated 02.10.1996 was passed after 24.10.1996 and that is why its entry in the register no. 0=4 is after the entries of mutation dated 24.10.1996. Had it been passed prior to 24.10.1996, its entry would have been prior to entries of mutation CR No: 32/12 6/8 Gulshan Kumar Batra Vs. State CR No: 32/12 order dated 24.10.1996.
12. Further as per statement of witnesses recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C who are Revenue Officials, it has come on record that petitioner did not follow the prescribed procedure as laid down under Delhi Land Rules for sanctioning of mutation. The petitioner did not examine Bhoomidar Rakesh Chopra and purchaser Sh Sunder Singh. Although Jasbir Singh had appeared before the petitioner as attorney of Rakesh Chopra but purchaser Sunder Singh had not given any attorney to Sh Kishan Gaur. Therefore how petitioner satisfied himself that Kishan Gaur was appearing for the purchaser casts doubt regarding proceedings being conducted in a lawful manner. Therefore from the trial court record, there is prima facie material on record to show that petitioner had prepared incorrect record regarding mutation dated 02.10.1996 in favour of Sh. Sunder Singh in order to cause loss to the original bhoomidar Sh Rakesh Chopra. Further there is material on record to show that petitioner had passed mutation order dated 02.10.1996 in the backdate and that too on a public holiday maliciously in order to circumvent the order of ADM, Revenue dated 03.10.1996 which did not permit sanction of mutation based upon sale deed executed outside Delhi. The tempering of dates on the summons, register no. 02 and 0=4 further prima facie establishes the fact that mutation order was passed on 02.10.1996, being the national holiday in a malicious manner and the same was lateron tempered and changed to 03.10.1996. Therefore ld. Trial court has rightly framed charge U/s 218/219 R/w section 120(b) IPC against the petitioner, vide the impugned order. There is no merits in the CR No: 32/12 7/8 Gulshan Kumar Batra Vs. State CR No: 32/12 revision petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. Revision file be consigned to record room.
A copy of order be sent to the ld.trial court alongwith TCR.
Announced in the open court (Vikas Dhull)
Dated: 06.10.2012 ASJ-04/Dwarka Courts
New Delhi
CR No: 32/12 8/8