Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

• Ex.P5 makes it clear that the layout Map was modified by the administrator of the Gram Panchayath on 2/12/1993 during which period the Accused No.2 was not at all in service. This prima facie material point to the fact that there is no lot of truth in the complaint, which fact has not been noticed by the Hon'ble Court below, which lead to miscarriage of justice.

• It is clear from Ex.P-3- the conversion order that the father of accused No:1 being the owner of the land, got the

- 11 -

land converted under the order dt. 24/1/1987. The layout map was got modified by the father of the petitioner only on 2/12/1993. The father of petitioner died on 12-07 2001. This fact has been admitted by the complainant and his witnesses. The petitioner has not played any roll in the process of conversion or modification of the sanctioned lay out map. Therefore the complaint against him is not at all maintainable.

- 13 -

Therefore the court below ought to have discharged the petitioner/accused No:1.

• Assuming that the accused No:2 has modified the layout map, it was done during the course of his official duty in the capacity as a public servant. Under such circumstances the sanction to prosecute him is required to be obtained. No such sanction is obtained. Therefore the complaint is contrary to the provisions of section 197 of Cr.P.C.