RAJESH SHARMA Vs. AATIK AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant Rajesh Sharma filed a complaint under Sections 420, 467, 468, 418, 177, 219/34 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pendra Road, on the following allegations against the non-applicant Nos. 1 to 6 and one M. R. Gayakwad, Naib-Tahsildar, Raigarh. It was alleged by the applicant that in village Sarbahara, Police Station Gorela, Tahsil Pendra Road, District Bilaspur, he possessed 2. 94 acres of land. It belonged to his ancestors. There is a mango grove and old house on the land in question. Purushottam Datt Sharma son of Murlidhar was one of his ancestors who used to live in Village Sarbahara and was in possession of the aforesaid land. He was murdered 24 to 25 years prior to filing of the complaint and, thereafter, the property was managed by Teevramedh Sharma who was looking after it while he was residing at Narsinghpur. It was stated that after the death of Purushottam Datt Sharma, the properly was recorded in the name of the heirs of his brothers Shridhar Sharma and Mahendra Datt Sharma. The applicant was the heir of Shridhar Sharma who was his grant father and the father of Teevramedh Sharma. Teevramedh Sharma died in the year 1981. After his death, the applicant and the brother of the applicant's father used to manage the property. But, after the first month of 1995, nobody went to Village Sarbahara from Narsinghpur to look after the property. It is alleged that in the year 1996, the Tahsildar, Pendra Road, found the land in question lying vacant and unused. Consequently, he started the proceedings for confiscation of the same as it did not seem to belong to any one. However, it was alleged that the non-applicant No. 1, Aatik Ahmed, in order to grab the property in question, stated that this property was sold to him by Teevramedh Sharma, the father of the applicant, for a consideration of Rs. 15,000/ (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) thirty years back. However, Teevramedh Sharma died 25 years back on account of the fact that he was murdered and, therefore, the non-applicant No. 1, Aatik Ahmed could not get the property in question registered in his favour. It was alleged that the claim of the non-applicant No. 1, Aatik Ahmed regarding the ownership of the property in question was false and in order to prove his case, the non-applicant No. 1 used the good offices of Shivmangal Patel for making forged receipt and Thandaram for making a false report. It was alleged that the non-applicant No. 1 conspired with the other non-applicants Juber Ahmed, Abdul Gafoor and Babulal Gond and also with the Naib-Tahsildar M. R. Gayakwad for depriving the applicant of the property in questions. Paragraph 11 of the complaint lays down that all the accused persons including Naib-Tahsildar M. R. Gayakwad had committed offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 418, 177, 219 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE Trial Court, after recording the evidence of the applicant, Thakur Rajkiran Singh and Sushil Kumar Rai held that the Naib-Tahsildar M. R. Gayakwad could not be held to be guilty because he was exercising his power as a presiding officer of a Revenue Court; and whatever he did was in discharge of the duty as a judicial officer and, therefore, he would not be held to be liable for any offence in the eyes of law. The order of the Naib-Tahsildar was appealable and, therefore, there was no question of any malafide intention on the part of the Naib-Tahsildar which could be culpable or punishable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the Naib-Tahsildar M. R. Gayakwad was acquitted. So far as the other accused persons were concerned, they were found prima facie liable under Sections 420, 468, 177, 193, 219/34 of the Indian Penal Code and a complaint against the non- applicants was registered.

(3.) IN revision, filed by the non-applicant Nos. 1 to 6, it was held by the Revisional Court that the non- applicants/accused persons cannot be prosecuted for the reason there was no compliance of Section 195 read with Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was held by the Revisional Court that the offence in question related to giving false evidence and producing forged documents before the Naib-Tahsildar and, therefore, as a Court of law, the Naib-Tahsildar could file a report regarding the offences after following the procedure under Section 340 read with Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This was not done and, therefore, the Trial Magistrate was not competent to register the complaint against the non-applicants/accused persons. Accordingly, the revision filed by the non-applicant Nos. 1 to 6 before the Revisional Court was allowed.