RAMANUJ VERMA Vs. SHRI GIRJA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks quashment of order dated 10th January, 2002, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Satna, on the petitioner's Criminal Revision No. 4/2001, wherein, petitioner's challenge to order dated 5th October, 2000, passed by Shri S.K. Joshi, J.M.F.C. Satna, in Criminal Case No. 44/2000, stood disallowed and rejected. As per photocopy of complaint filed by the non -applicant against this petitioner and there others for offences punishable U/s. 420, 467 and 468 of the I.P.C., which is registered as Criminal Case No. 44/2000, in the Court of J.M.F.C. Satna, the non -applicant is the title holder and in possession of agricultural land bearing Survey No. 793/1/23 area 0.99 acres, situated at village Delora. This petitioner is posted as Record Keeper in District Revenue Record Room. Satna, Pannaman Garg (co -accused) is posted as Record Keeper in Tehsil Raghuraj Nagar Revenue Record Room and Radheshyam (co -accused) was posted as Patwari at the relevant time i.e. 1984 -85 to 1993 -94, in Patwari Halka, Delora. On obtaining the certified copy of revenue record of aforesaid agricultural land, it could be known by the non -applicant that on the basis of order dated 22.2.1999, passed by Tehsildar in Case No. 38 -A -GA/98 -99, the name of Badri Prasad (another co -accused) is recorded in Khasra, showing his possession. It was also learnt by the non -applicant that the possession of co -accused Badri Prasad was recorded in Khasra on the basis of entries of 1984 - 95 to 1988 -89 so also of 1989 -92, 93 -94, which persuaded the Tehsildar to pass an order on 22.2.1999 to record the possession of Badri Prasad on disputed land. In the true copy of Khasra entry of aforesaid disputed agricultural land, which was supplied to non -applicant on 11.2.1993 by co -accused Raheshyam, the present Patwari, the possession of non -applicant is found recorded and hence it could be noted that all the four accused persons forged the revenue record in recording possession of Badri Prasad over the aforesaid agricultural land with an intent to prove the interest of Badri Prasad over it, which falls in the category of an offence.

(2.) ON the basis of enquiry conducted by C.J.M. Satna, in respect of complaint of non -applicant, cognizance of offences punishable U/s.465 and 468 of the I.P.C. was taken against present Patwari Radheshyam only on 27.9.1999. Then the non -applicant challenged this order in Criminal Revision No. 152/99, wherein, it was directed by learned Sessions Judge, Satna, on 7.4.2000 that cognizance of aforesaid offences be taken against the present petitioner Ramanuj Verma, Badri Prasad and Pannaman. Thereafter, this petitioner moved an application under Section 197 of the Cr. PC, with a view to resist the aforesaid prosecution, which stood disallowed by Second A.S.J. Satna, on 5.10.2000, and hence the petitioner has approached this Court seeking exercise of inherent powers. On a consideration of aforesaid facts, it is noted that the sanction is not at all required to prosecute the present petitioner because, while dictating the test for applicability of Section 197 of the Cr. PC, it is dictated by their Lordships of Supreme Court in Pukhraj Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in : A.I.R. 1973 SC 2591, that the protection provided under Section 197 of the Cr. PC is available in that case only where on being challenged, a person may reasonably claim the alleged act to have been done in virtue of his office, means in performance of his public duty. Since the Record Keeper is not authorized to make any entry in Khasra, the petitioner who was a Record Keeper of District Revenue Record Room, at the relevant time, cannot reasonably claim that the alleged forged entries in Khasra, are made by him in performance of his public duty and hence the umbrella against the prosecution provided U/s. 197 of the Cr. PC, is not available to the petitioner. Thus, this petition does not merit, which is accordingly disallowed and rejected at the stage of motion.