N.M. Neelakanta Kas Officer vs State

Subhash B. Adi

Petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in respect of Crime No. 267/2011 registered by Ulsoorgate Police, Bangalore City, for the offences punishable under Sections 219 and 420 of IPC. The complaint arises in pursuance of the order passed by this Court. The Aircraft Employees House Building Cooperative Society Limited have filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 13593/2007 interalia seeking a direction to the Government to handover possession of Sy. No. 112 measuring 4 acres 13 juntas for the purpose of house building as the said land was acquired for the benefit of the Society. In the said writ petition, the second respondent was the Special Land Acquisition Officer. At that relevant point of time, the accused herein was working as Special Land Acquisition Officer between July 2007 and January 2011. Me had filed the counter to the writ petition. In the counter, it was stated as under:

the 2nd respondent has taken steps to hand over the lands to the petitioner - Society.

Based on the said statement in the counter, this Court disposed of the writ petition by issuing direction as under:

I dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner''s representations for handing over the possession of the lands in question in accordance with law and within an outer limit of three months from today.

Since the possession of the land was not handed over, the petitioner thereafter filed a contempt petition in C.C.C. No. 286/2011. The then Special Land Acquisition Officer against whom the contempt was filed, filed a counter interalia stating that the earlier Land Acquisition Officer did not take steps and in view of the same, the disciplinary action has been initiated against him and the criminal prosecution is also ordered. It is thereafter a complaint was filed on 5.9.2011 based on the letter dated 12.8.2011 interalia alleging that, the petitioner has given a wrong information to this Court and has acted irresponsibly by making a statement that, steps would be taken to hand over possession to the Aircraft Employees'' House Building Cooperative Society Limited, even though the land was de-notified by notification. FIR has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 219 and 420 of IPC.

Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Counsel submits that, the preliminary notification was issued on 20th September 1988, final notification was issued on 13th September 1989 and on 2.9.1990, notification u/s 48 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued denotifying the land from the acquisition, however, without noticing the same, another notification was issued on 13.8.2003 u/s 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act and thereafter the said notification u/s 16(2) was withdrawn on 25.8.2005. Though as on the date of statement made before this Court, there was no notification u/s 16(2). of the Land Acquisition Act, however, the petitioner had made a statement that the steps would be taken to hand over the possession of the acquired land. But the petitioner had not handed over the possession to the beneficiaries, but by mistake, he had made a statement without verifying the records. Though he was in office of L.A.O. till June 2011, he had not handed over the possession. Merely because there is an incorrect statement made before this Court by relying on the notification u/s 18(2). which was in the record, that by itself will not constitute an offence u/s 219 of IPC nor there is any material to allege the offence punishable u/s 420 of IPC He read the provisions of Section 219 of IPC. which reads thus:

Public servant in judicial proceeding corruptly making report, etc., contrary to law:

Whoever, being a public servant corruptly or maliciously makes or pronounces in any stage of a judicial proceeding, any report, order, verdict, or decision which he knows to be contrary to law shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years or with fine, or with both.

No doubt, there is a lapse on the pert of the petitioner in not placing the correct information before this Court, but consequent upon the said statement, he had not acted nor has he taken steps to handover possession and it might have happened so, because there was also a notification u/s 16(2), which was withdrawn, However, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to investigate the mater, when the petitioner is working in one of the responsible posts, his presence can be procured at any time and there is no chance of tampering the evidence, as the records are already there before the Investigating Officer and the relevant evidence is by way of documentary evidence. Having regard to the circumstances, I find that the petitioner could be granted anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. In the event, of arrest of the petitioner by the Ulsoorgate Police. Bangalore City, in Crime No. 267/2011, the Police shall interrogate him and after interrogation, the petitioner shall be released on bail subject to following conditions:

i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25.000/- with two sureties for the likesum amount to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Police:

ii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witness and evidence.

iii) Petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Police regularly as and when he is required for investigation.

This order of anticipatory bail shall remain in force for a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In the meanwhile, petitioner shall seek regular bail.