PAWAN KAMRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall govern the disposal of the application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.11/2011 dated 2.12.2011, under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("PC Act") read with Sections 120-B/420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC"), registered at Police Station: ACB Civil Lines, Delhi.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the complainant had filed a complaint dated 23.5.2007 addressed to the Central Vigilance Commissioner alleging that property bearing No.31, G.T. Karnal Road, Near Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi-110033 measuring 5 bighas 14 biswas bearing Khasra No.804/24-26 of Village Sadhara Kalan was acquired by the Government vide award No.107/86-87. It is further alleged by the complainant that the possession of this land was taken by the government officials on 23.9.1986 but it is still in physical possession of private persons, namely, Mr. Rajan Sood and Mr. Rakesh Sood. It is further alleged that on the basis of the aforesaid complaint a formal FIR was registered on 2.12.2011 by the police under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act read with Section 120-B of the IPC. It is further alleged that the police had investigated this case for about 7 years and thereafter, the petitioner was telephonically informed by the investigating agency on 30.8.2018 requiring his presence for the purpose of investigation in the present case. The petitioner joined the investigation on the very next day, i.e. on 31.8.2018, and, thereafter, on 24.9.2018 and further on subsequent dates. It is further alleged that when the petitioner was posted as Tehsildar during the relevant time, he was very well aware of the status of the land that the same has been acquired by LAC, L&B, DDA and a Government award No.107/86-87 was also passed. It is further alleged that the order of the petitioner in the capacity of Tehsildar declaring Mr. Rajan Sood, Mr. Rakesh Sood and Mrs. Raj Kumari Sood as Gair Marushi and Marushi has been passed only to give undue benefit to the beneficiaries in contravention of settled procedure of law.

(3.) Status report stands filed wherein it is stated that the petitioner played the mischievous role by declaring Mr. Rakesh Sood, Mr. Rajan Sood and Mrs. Raj Kumari Sood as Gair Marushi on 10.12.1996 and subsequently, Marushi on 10.4.1997 on the government land. As per office procedure in practice, status of a land should be verified from LAC Branch and the notifications passed by the Revenue Department should be gone through before passing the orders of Gair Marushi and Marushi, respectively, but the petitioner deliberately overlooked the said procedure. It is further stated in the status report that the petitioner did not co-operate at all during his examination. Neither he submitted the documents nor he disclosed any other official involved in the process and he succeeded in concealing the relevant documents relating to the visit report dated 9.12.1996, Gair Marushi order file dated 10.12.1996 and Marushi order file dated 10.4.1997, and gave the benefit of ownership rights despite knowing that the piece of land was not an agricultural land.