CHANDRA KISHORE JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Revision No. 1980 of 1970 has been filed by the accused-petitioner under Sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'). Criminal Misc. No. 141 of 1975 had been originally filed as Criminal Revision No. 2170 of 1970 under Sections 435 and 439 of the Code; but it has since been converted into a criminal miscellaneous application under Section 561-A of the Code. As common questions of law are involved in the two applications, they have been heard together and this judgment will govern them both. The five petitioners in the two cases are accused in Q. R. Case No. 1021 of 1963/ Trial No. 759 of 1970, pending in the court of a Munsif-Magistrate at Monghyr for inquiry under Chapter XVIII of the Code in the following circumstances.

(2.) On the 3rd July, 1963, one Shree S. P. Sinha, Deputy Collector Incharge Land Reforms and Development (hereinafter referred to as the "D. C. L. R.") lodged a first information report before the Officer-in-charge, Town Police-Station, Monghyr stating, inter alia, that one Nathun Sah of village Abhaipur, within Surajgarha Police Station, in the district of Monghyr, had filed a petition on the 18th April, 1960 in Compensation Case No. 537 of 1955-56 in which the said Nathun Sah falsely claimed and later obtained compensation from Government in respect of Tauzi Nos. 4498/2 and 4169 under Tarapur and Sheikhpura Ariari Anchals. The said Nathun Sah had obtained ad interim compensation from the State Government to the tune of Rs. 25,272.76 paise between the 19th April, I960 and 1st May, 1961 in collusion with several persons named in the first information report. The name of Chandra Kishore Jha (petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 1980 of 1970) has been mentioned against serial No. 7. So far as the petitioners in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 141 of 1975 are concerned they have been mentioned, respectively, against serial Nos. 6, 10, 5 and 8.

(3.) From the said first information report it appears that the allegation against petitioner Chandra Kishore Jha was that he, as the Head Clerk of the office of the D. C. L. R., passed the calculation chart prepared by the compensation clerk, although he had full knowledge that Nathun San and others were entitled to compensation only in respect of tauzi No. 4498/2, and not in respect of tauzi No. 4169. The allegation against petitioner Sheolal Prasad was that, as compensation clerk of Tarapur Anchal, he submitted a false and collusive verification report, under letter No. 1262, dated the 23rd September, 1959, letter No. 1338, dated the 5th October, 1959 and letter No. 964, dated the 12th April, 1960, in respect of tauzi No. 4498/2 in order to help the aforesaid Nathun Sah in haying the maximum amount of compensation. Against petitioner Ambika Prasad Sinha it was alleged that as Karamchari of Halka No. 12 of Surajgarha Anchal, he submitted a collusive report, dated the 24th June, 1960, without any order from the Anchal Adhikari, and in the said report he supported Nathun Sah's claim to compensation although he had no connection with Surajgarha Anchal. Against petitioner Mohammad Alam it was alleged that, as compensation clerk, Sheikh-pura Ariari Anchal, he submitted false and collusive report of verification, vide letter No. 1831. dated the 25th July, 1960, so that the said Nathun Sah might get the maximum amount of compensation. Against him it was further alleged that he intentionally and in pursuance of a conspiracy showed collectible demand of the share of Shree Nandkishore Goenka in Tauzi No. 4069 "after interpolating Tauzi No. 4069 to 4169 for facilitating false payment to Nathun Sah in respect of Tauzi No. 4169." Against petitioner Shyam Charan Prasad it was mentioned that he, as compensation clerk in the office of the D. C. L. R., Sadar, deliberately suppressed the fact that the Additional Collector had ordered in Misc. Case No. 57 of 1959-60 that Nathun Sah be paid compensation only in respect of Tauzi No. 4498/2, which order was within his knowledge, and he prepared the calculation chart in spite of the said order. In the first information report certain other persons have also been named as accused but they are not petitioners before this Court, It has been stated that these accused persons, in conspiracy with one another, committed offences punishable under Sections 209, 420, 464, 466, 468 and 471, read with Sections 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.