STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. RAJENDRA SINGH RATHOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision by the State Government against the order dated 7-12-1992 passed in Sessions Trial No. 201 of 1992, by the learned Sessions Judge, Sehore, inter alia holding that the order dated 12-4-1991 does not meet the requirements of Section 39 of the M. P. Vinirdishta Bhrashta Acharan Nivaran Adhiniyam (Act No. 35 of 1982), therefore, the prosecution is not entitled to continue against the non-applicant.

(2.) It is not in dispute that on 25-3-1991, D.O. letter No. 170/Reader/91 was sent by the Collector Sehore, along with a copy of the earlier letter dated 3-12-1990, bearing No. 1240/1244/Steno/90, to the Commissioner. On receipt of the letter dated 25-3-1991, the Commissioner, Bhopal, asked for certain informations which were communicated to him telephonically. After considering these two letters and the telephonic instructions, the Commissioner, Bhopal, ordered that a case be registered against the miscreants and the same be investigated in accordance with law. On the back of the letter dated 12-4-1991, there is an endorsement which reads that the Collector should supply copy of the Khasra and registered documents to the office of the Commissioner and should also send the said copies to the Superintendent of Police.

(3.) Under the cover of the letter dated 12-4-1991, the Collector, Sehore, by his letter dated 25-10-1991, bearing No. 1612/steno/91, directed the District Registrar to lodge a complaint in police. In pursuance to the Collector's direction, the District Registrar sent a letter/complaint dated 2-11-1991 to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Sehore, informing him that Rajendra Rathore had committed breach of the provisions of Section 24(a) of the Act in relation to certain agricultural lands bearing survey Nos. 326, 331/1 and 326/7 of village Murli, which is adjoining the borders of the Municipal limits of Sehore Municipality. The said letter dated 2-11-1991 was registered as the first information report. A challan was filed before the trial Court and the non-applicant submitted before the Court that the order dated 12-4-1991 was illegal, it does not show application of mind, so also the Court cannot take cognizance of the matter. The trial Court discharged the accused person.