VED PARKASH GUPTA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this order, I dispose of Crl. Revisions No. 636 (Ved Parkash v. State of Punjab), 641 (Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab), 665 (Gopal Krishan v. State of Punjab), 666 (Amar Singh v. State of Punjab) and 712 (Madan Lal v. State of Punjab) all of 1998, as these revisions have arisen from the order dated 19.3.1998, passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barnala, vide which the learned Magistrate decided to frame charges against the petitioners and others under Sections 120 -B, 406, 420 I.P.C.

(2.) BEFORE I proceed further into the matter, I would like to give in brief the designation of each of the petitioner. Madan Lal was officiating as Office Kanungo; Amar Singh was also officiating as Kanungo; Harbhajan Singh was discharging the duites of Tehsildar; Gopal Krishan was officiating as Patwari Halka and Ved Parkash was discharging the duties of Tehsildar cum Sub Registrar, at the relevant time.

(3.) THE case was initiated on the basis of a letter dated 12.2.1996 issued under the signatures of Addl. Secretary, Revenue Department, Govt. of Punjab and it was addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur. According to the case of the prosecution, some land owned by the Provincial Government was in possession of Dera Dharamshala being Maufidar. Dheeraj Dass, Chela, who was managing the land executed certain lease deeds for a period of 99 years leasing away the land in favour of various persons. These lease deeds were registered and the mutations were entered and sanctioned in favour of the lessees. Dheeraj Dass, aforesaid, executed the first lease deed pertaining to land measuring 31 kanals for Rs. 42, 625/ -, for a period of 99 years; he executed a second lease deed dated 3.2.1981 of the land measuring 15 kanals for a consideration of Rs. 21,037/ -. The tenure of this lease was also for 99 years and the third lease deed dated 1.6.1981 was for an area of 56 kanals, for a sum of Rs. 40,000/ -. According to the allegations of the prosecution further, Ram Murti, Madan Lal and Gopal Krishan entered the mutations on the basis of these lease deeds after six years of the execution of the lease deed dated 1.6.1981. Amar Singh, petitioner entered the mutation and accused Harbhajan Singh sanctioned the mutation although dheeraj Dass was not having any right, title or interest to lease away the land owned by the Provincial Govt. an d to hand over the possession of the same in favour of the lessees as Dheeraj Dass was Maufidar. The case of the prosecution further is that the Sub Registrar who registered the said deeds had no authority to register these documents. Mutations on the basis of these lease deeds were illegally prepared, entered and sanctioned. The petitioner allegeldly hatched a conspiracy with Dheeraj Dass and the lessees. The learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that "All these facts prima facie shows that air the accused agreed to do an illegal act i.e. to lease away the land of Provincial Govt. recorded in possession of Dera as Maufidar by illegal means and in this way they committed criminal consipiracy. They dishonestly inducted the delivery of property in favour of lessees and thereby cheated the Provincial Govt. as well as Dera. Accused Dheeraj Dass being entrusted with the possession of this land being Manager of Dera executed lease deeds in favour of various persons and delivered possession to them and committed an offence of criminal breach of trust in conspiracy with the other accused."