Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

and 5719 of 2010. The said documents were executed by the said Mary, who knew very well and was aware of the sale in favour of the appellant. As a matter of fact, appellant was paying the land tax in respect of his property and the said Mary with the connivance of the Village Officer and Sub Registry, in the sale deed executed in favour of Mundakkal Fed Mathew and his wife described the property as falling in Hosdurg Village instead of Balla Village. Later, another document was also executed as correction deed to correct the Village as Balla. Said malpractice was done by the registering authorities and the Village authorities by receiving bribe, etc. When came to know about the fabrication of such false document and the commission of the criminal offence a complaint was filed as C.M.P.No.2132 of 2011. The complaint filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg was numbered as C.M.P.No.2132 of 2011 and the same was forwarded by the said court to the 3rd respondent and a crime case was registered as Crime No.375 of 2011. From all these fabrication and forgery, etc., respondents 4 and 5 misused their official position and the same was done by the Sub Registrar, Village Officer, etc. with the bad intention of defrauding the petitioner. If the local Police or their higher official is conducting the investigation, there will not be a further inroad, except delaying the matter. As office based investigation is necessary for the purpose of the forgery, registration of the document, etc. entrusting the investigation with independent wring of the Police, including both the Vigilance Director and at least Crime Branch is necessary.

4. The Accused 1 and 2 have used their official position for the purpose of satisfying the 3"' Counter Petitioner who was also a government employee and all of them worked for the purpose of making undue gain and to cause loss to me. The offence committed by them attracts the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The registration of the document and the acceptance of tax and issuance of tax receipt are all made by misusing official position by acceptance of brave and accordingly all of them are liable to be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Creation of a series of documents and registration of such documents made with a view to make unlawful gain and cause loss to me by all the Counter Petitioners amounts the commission of the offence under Section 420, 465, 468, 47! and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, etc. I am enclosing Photostat copies of all the relevant document the list of which is given hereunder. Hence it is requested that investigation may be conducted in the matter as official position was misused and forged documents were created by all the Counter Petitioners for the purpose of causing loss to me. The same was done willfully and intentionally and the registration and issuance of tax receipt clearly shows that all the Counter Petitioners have acted jointly for the purpose of commission of the offence. So immediate investigation may be conducted and all Counter Petitioners may be brought under law.

(C) Writ court ought to have found that as regards respondents 4 and 5, though by Ext.P-6 judgment, there was a direction and that action is being taken, and the facts stated in the said Writ Petition and the present Writ Petition disclosed the foul play and misuse of position committed by respondents 4 and 5, the finding that there are no averment to justify this Court, the grant of relief is also not correct, since it is a matter to be subjected to detail investigation by the police and the departments concerned.

(D) Appellant further contended that it is for the Government to take into account all such facts and also to collect materials for initiating action against respondents 4 and 5 since they are Government officials. There is no denial of the fact that respondents 4 and 5 have deliberately or unwillingly acted or their official position were misused. It is a matter which is to be further investigated and in such cases holding on too many technicalities by stretching the liability upon the Petitioner to provided full evidence is not applicable in a case of this nature. The document WA.No.33 OF 2016 ..19..