DALJINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 25.2.2008 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Moga, declining sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to prosecute the fifth respondent Gurmeet Singh, Patwari, District Moga in FIR No.193 dated 28.6.2007 registered in Police Station Bagha Purana, District Moga, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. It is urged that in view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab, 2007 1 SCC 1 no sanction is required to prosecute a public servant for the offences committed under the aforesaid sections and especially in the context of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. That may be true but criminal action is hard to divorce from mens rea. It is this core issue that needs to be examined and determined in this case where the challenge laid under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to an impugned order declining prosecution of the Patwari who penned a false revenue entry allegedly at the behest of one Prabh Singh.

(2.) The facts stated briefly are that the petitioner pleads that he entered into an agreement to sell land situate in village Faloor-2, Tehsil Bagha Purana, District Moga to one Gurnam Singh son of Jeet Singh, resident of village Chhannowala. The sale had to be registered till 5.5.2006 before the area Sub Registrar. On 1.5.2006, the petitioner states that he met the 5 th respondent-Patwari then posted at Halqa Faloor-2 to get a Nakal Jamabandi of the land in dispute which document was required to execute the sale deed. The petitioner complained that the 5 th respondent in connivance with said Prabh Singh entered the word "stay" on the Nakal Jamabandi despite of the fact that there was no stay ordered by any Court restraining transfer of land of the petitioner. Prabh Singh was portrayed as a land grabber and the Patwari accused of working in cahoots with him beyond the call of public duty in making the false entry in the Nakal Jamabandi by writing the word 'stay'. The petitioner pleads that the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code can be ascertained by comparing the photo copy with the original Jamabandi. Therefore, report No.368 dated 20.4.2006 on the disputed revenue record was false and engineered. In these circumstances, the Patwari had, according to the petitioner committed the aforesaid offences for which an FIR was lodged in the area Police Station. The petitioner further pleads that he has brought these facts to the notice of the Director Vigilance, Punjab. It is a fact that on his complaint, the Patwari was suspended and departmental proceedings were initiated against him for making false entry in revenue record supplied.

(3.) On notice of motion having been issued, the Deputy Commissioner, Moga has filed a detailed reply giving reasons which compelled him to decline sanction to prosecute the 5 th respondent-Patwari.