SYED ASADULLAH KAZMI Vs. ADDITIONAL MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under section 340(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (for short the Code) on behalf of Smt. Khatoon Jannat Bibi, the respondent No.2 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4109 of 1985, Syed Asadullah Kazmi v. Additional Distt Magistrate D.D.C. Allahabad, (for short the petition) for recording a finding that it is expedient in the interest of Justice that an enquiry be made against the petitioner as he has committed the offence under section 209/ 192/ 196/ 193/ 199 IPC by filing false affidavit and concealing material facts in the petition.

(2.) Facts of the case so far as they are material lie in a narrow compass and they are these. The petition was filed against order dated 20-3-85 passed by Additional Collector! Dy. Director of Consolidation Allahabad rejecting an application dated 16-3-85 (Annexure 1 to the petition) filed by petitioner alleging therein that Sri L.B. Tewari was appointed as Additional Collector of the Allahabad District by the State Government to exercise the powers of the Additional Collector as provided under the U.P. Land Revenue Act 1901 and has nothing to do with the exercise of powers and duties of the Director or Deputy Director of Consolidation in view of the provisions of section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the Act). In para 8 of the petition it was averred that the Deputy Director of Consolidation means a person who is for the time being Collector of the District, in para 12 it was averred that in view of section 2 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Amendment Act, the Collector of a District acting as Director of the Consolidation is a persons designata and such power cannot be delegated to the Additional Collector. The petition came up for admission before me. Shri N.P. Misra, the then Chief Standing Counsel, was directed to file a counter affidavit indicating as, to whether Sri L.B. Tiwari, Additional TCollector Allahabad has been conferred the power of Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide revisions under section 48 of the Act. Counter affidavit was filed but on 23-4-85 Sri S.N. Singh Advocate made a statement on behalf of Km. Sadhana Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner that he does not want to press the writ petition and the petition was dismissed as not pressed. After dismissal of the petition, the present application has been filed by respondent No.2.

(3.) Arguments were advanced at considerable length on behalf of both the parties and after hearing counsel for the parties, first point for determination is as to whether the petitioner has committed an offence under sections 192/193/196/199/209 IPC by filing false affidavit regarding powers conferred on Sri L.B. Tiwari, Additional Collector Allahabad and the next point is that is it expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made as provided under section 340(1) of the Code.