T BALA GOUD Vs. GOVT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against a direction given under Section 340 Cr.P.C by the learned Chairman, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Nizamabad, while disposing of L.R.A,No.9 of 1985.

(2.) The facts of the case are as follows :- The appellant filed a declaration on 9.4.1975 under section 8 of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, hereinafter referred to as "the Act". In the declaration he has shown himself, his two wives, two daughters and one son as his family members. He claimed that his son was major aged 18 years. The Tahsildar, Yellareddy submitted his verification, report. The Land Reforms Tribunal by its order upheld the contention of the applicant that his son was a major on the notified date and accordingly decided the standard holding. Against the orders of the primary Tribunal, the declarant and his daughter preferred L.R.A.No.60 of 1977 to the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Nizamabad. The Appellate Tribunal negatived the claim of the daughter of the declarant on the basis of illatom adoption, but it further held that the major son of the appellant is entitled to one standard holding. Against the orders of the Tribunal, the declarant filed C.R.P.No.4293 of 1977 and the High Court marely directed exclusion of pote-Kharab land. While things stood thus, a local Congress-1 worker sent a representation to the Government stating that the son of the declarant, Subhash, was only a minor on the date of notification, i.e., 1-1-75 and he was wrongly and fraudulently shown as major by the declarant to avoid the ceiling laws. The Government directed the District Collector, Nizamabad, to enquire into the matter to take suitable action as per rules. An enquiry was made about the date of birth of the son of the declarant and the concerned authority was satisfied that the date of birth of the declarant's son Subhash, as given was false and a false date of birth certificate was produced before the Primary Tribunal. The authorised Officer thereupon filed an application before the Tribunal to revise the decision and determine the ceiling of the declarant on the basis that the declarant's son Subhash was only a minor on the notified date. The Primary Tribunal, after giving an opportunity to the authorised officer and to the declarant to adduce their evidence and after hearing the parties, reviewed its earlier orders dt. 29-10-75 and declared that the son of the declarant Subhash was minor on the notified date and determined that the declarant is in excess of 1.1610 standard holdings and directed him to surrender the excess land. Aggrieved by the said order, the declarant preferred L.R.A No.9 of 1985. The learned Chairman, after consideration of the entire material on record, reached the conclusion that Subhash the son of the declarant was only a minor on the notified date and that the declarant had given false declaration which is punishable under Section 24 of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1975. The learned Chairman also held that the declarant has filed in his review petition before the Land Reforms Tribunal a certificate said to have been issued by the Registrar of Osmania University' marked as Ex. A. 36. But the letter of the Controller of Examinations, Osmania Univeisity, addressed to the District Collector, marked as Ex. A. 37, shows that the said certificate is not a genuine one. Therefore the learned Chairman held that the declarant has committed an offence punishable under Section 196 I.P.C and is liable for prosecution. Accordingly, he directed a complalt to be filed under Sec.340 Cr.P.C, in writing before the Judicai First Class Magistrate, Nizamabad. It is this direction that is challenged in this appeal filed under Section 341 Cr.P.C,

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no material to show that prima facie and offence under section 196 I.P.C. is made out. To appreciate this contention it is necessary to refer to various documents filed by the declarant from the beginning. As already mentioned in the declaration from the declarant showed his son's age as 18 years and sent the same to the Tahsildar. He enclosed the date of birth certificate Ex D-1 issued by the Central Primary School, Lingampet, showing the date of birth as 6-12-1956 on the basis of which the primary Tribunal held that Subhash Gowd was a major. The appeal and further revisions were dismissed. After the enquiry as mentioned above, the date of birth as given was found to be incorrect. The Authorised Officer filed a review petition along with several other documents and out of them three are date of birth certificates pertaining to Subhash Gowd apart from Ex.D-1. One was issued by Allen Primary School Ramkote and there in the date of birth of Subhash was entered as 9-1-60 and the same is marked as Ex.A-5. Another birth certificate issued by Daffodil High School, Hyderabad, in which the date of birth is mentioned as 26-1-62. According to these dates of birth he would be a minor. Before the Collector, who was holding the enquiry, the declarant filed Matric Certificate Ex D-3 said to have been issued by the Osmania University, showing the date of birth of Subhash as 6-12-56. Ex.D-3 is a Xerox copy of the certificate. The Collector also, by then issued a show-cause notice why prosecution should not be launched for filing a false declaration and the declarant submitted his explanation. The original of Ex.D-3, viz., Ex A-36, was filed by the Authorised Officer before the Collector. The District Collector wrote a letter to the Controller of Examination, Osmania University, who by his letter Ex.A-37 dated 7-6-85 replied stating that the duplicate certificate forwarded by the Collector i.e.. Ex D-3, was verified with the office record and found to be not genuine and the date of birth of Subhash as entered in the office records was 26-1-60. In the review petition all these records were placed before the Land Reforms Tribunal and they are marked as Exs.A-1 to A-37. In view of the letter of the Controller of Examinations, Osmania University, Ex. A-37, the Xerox copy Ex.D-3 which was filed and sought to be relied upon by the declarant in the review petition, is found to be false and on that basis the Appellate Tribunal has ordered prosecution under section 340 Cr.P.C.