AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.S. Garg, J.
Heard. This order shall dispose of M.Cr.C. Nos. 2117/2001 and 2279/2001.
Anticipating arrest in connection with crime no. 37/2001 of police station, Special Police Establishment. Lokayukt, Raipur for an offence punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B of I.P.C., the applicants have filed the present applications u/s 438 Cr.P.C.
Case diary perused.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in accordance with the directions of the civil court particular land parcels were to be returned back to the original owners but during the pendency of the proceedings some of the land owners transferred the properties in favour of the third parties and thereafter those third parties made applications for mutation of their names. According to him, finding the cases to be undisputed or in accordance with the directions of the Revenue Officers, these applicants made mutation of the names of the purchasers. He submits that the applicants who are Revenue Inspector and Patwari did not play any fraud nor misconducted themselves in discharge of their official duties.
Opposing the application, learned counsel for the State submits that instead of returning the possession of the property to the original owners, the applicants mutated the names of the third parties who had no right over the property. According to him, the applicants committed misconduct.
From the records, it does not appear that these applicants were required to return back the possession of tie properly to the original owners. The possession of the property could only be returned after quashment of the notification issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act by the competent authority who had taken the possession of the property. The allegations against the applicants are that they hand mutated the names of third parties. The defences raised by the applicants that in accordance with law or in accordance with sale deeds or in accordance with the directions of the Revenue Officers, they had corrected the revenue records, could not be said to be absolutely bad or a created defence.
Taking into consideration the nature of the allegations and the character of evidence so far collected by the prosecution, I consider present to be fit cases for granting orders u/s 438 Cr.P.C.
Both the petitions are allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the present applicants, on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the police officer arresting them, they shall immediately be released on bail by the said officer for their appearance before the police for the purposes of interrogation and before the Court or as and where so directed.
If the prosecution agency collects evidence that the records were corrected by these two officers without availability of the sale deeds or the no-objections from the original owners or without any order by the competent revenue officer then the State would be entitled to make an application for cancellation of this order.
C.C. today