Noor Mohammad vs State of Uttarakhand and Another

Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.—This revision has been directed against the judgment and order dated 8.8.2003 passed by Sri Kanwar Sain, Additional District and Sessions Judge/Ist FTC, Haridwar wherein allowing the revision partly, cognizance order of the Magistrate court dated 22.11.2001 was struck down against the accused Sri Sompal Singh.

In brief the facts are that a criminal complaint was filed by one Sri Noor Mohammad against three accused persons, i.e. Sompal Singh, Bundu and Naushad for the offence of Section 120B, 167, 193, 467, 468, 471 and 420 I.P.C. pertaining to P.S. Jhabrera, District Haridwar. In that criminal complaint No. 989/2001, after recording the statements of the witnesses u/s 200 and 202 Code of Criminal Procedure, nay the documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate passed the order of cognizance as above. Feeling aggrieved, all the three accused persons filed the revision No. 540 of 2002 in the court of Sessions Judge, who made over the same to the court of Additional Sessions Judge/ Ist FTC, Haridwar, as named above.

The learned Addl. Sessions Judge vide his order dated 8.8.2003 exonerated the accused Sompal Singh while sustaining the order of cognizance for rest of the two accused persons.

The complainant has challenged the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

It transpires that their existed some land dispute between the complainant Noor Mohammad on the one hand and Bundu and Naushad on the other. This litigation between the duo went up to the High Court, at that time Hon''ble High Court passed the order on dated 10.4.2000 mandating the status quo, as regards possession over certain agricultural land between the parties. At that relevant date, Mr. Noor Mohammad was in possession. So in order to avert the affect of order of the Hon''ble High Court, the accused persons Bundu and Naushad hatched a conspiracy with the connivance of Sri Sompal Singh, who was an official in the Consolidation Office having the jurisdiction over that agricultural land. Sri Sompal Singh prepared a forged deed of transfer of possession in compliance of the order dated 23.3.2000 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (DDC) and then after order dated 8.4.2000 passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer (ACO). This transfer deed was prepared on 10.4.2000 knowing the news that these orders of DDC and ACO have been stayed by Hon''ble Allahabad High Court on 10.4.2000, because when the order was passed and flashed by Hon''ble Allahabad High Court, then Bundu and Naushad immediately got the information through their lawyer. In complaint, u/s 200 Code of Criminal Procedure, Sri Noor Mohammad produced a certified copy of a register of concerned consolidation office that Sri Sompal Singh was deputed and performed his official duty in the elections in another village Salhapur (Jhabrera) which the date of this delivery of possession, which was forgedly prepared on the same day by this accused Sompal Singh in another village, i.e. named Akbarpur Ojha. This deed was prima facie forged, for all the more reason that accused Sompal has shown the presence of the police force at the time of delivery of possession of the land in question and this police force was taken by him from the police station Jhabrera while in the general diary of the police station concerned, there is nothing to show that the police force was sent in order to execute the orders of DDC or the ACO.

Learned Additional Sessions Judge has absolved the accused Sri Sompal on the ground that he was executing the orders of his superiors, so no criminal proceedings could have been launched against him.

After having heard the arguments and gone through the records of the court below, it is apparent that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge order is per se misconceived and passed on the wrong perception and altogether on the grounds which are beyond the record.

That apart, the order of cognizance, after recording the evidence u/s 200 and 202 Code of Criminal Procedure and perusing the documentary evidence available on the record, is based on the prima facie involvement of the accused Sompal Singh. At this stage, the complainant need not to prove conclusively, the involvement of the accused.

Learned Counsel on behalf of Sri Sompal Singh has drew the attention of the court towards Section 197 Code of Criminal Procedure wherein it has been provided that for prosecution of the public servants, previous sanction is needed. Law is well developed on this score. When the public servant does such an act, which does not have any nexus with his official duty, then no sanction at all is needed for his prosecution and it appears that prima facie, Sri Sompal Singh has remained involved in preparing the forged transfer deed of possession in order to avert the Hon''ble High Court''s orders, which by no stretch of imagination can be attributed to be a part of his official duty.

As discussed above, this revision has force and is accordingly allowed. The judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 8.8.2003 is set aside so far as exonerating the accused Sompal Singh. In this regard, the order of the trial court dated 22.12.2001 is sustained.

Let the entire record be sent along with the copy of this judgment to the trial court for proceeding ahead according to law.