MAHESH CHANDRA MEHTA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned public prosecutor has submitted the case diary and the record of the final report. Heard. Perused the relevant record. This petition riled under section 482 Cr. P.C. has been preferred against the order dated 19.11.1990, whereby the learned Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mandal took cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under section 182 IPC and issued summons to ensure his attendance.

(2.) It appears that the petitioner-Mahesh Chandra Mehta was posted as Tehsildar, Mandal. He sent a written letter dated 7/11th December, 1989 to the S.H.G., Bagaur alleging that as per report of Patwari Halka, one dry babool tree and nine green trees, which were standing on the pal of Bilanam Talab, khasra no. 250, village Samrathpara, have been cut and contractor Shakur Mohd. has taken away seven trees by cutting and felling them and that three trees were lying on the site. It was further mentioned that those trees were alleged to have been sold to Shakur Mohd. for Rs. 1600/- illegally. On that report, a case under sections 447 and 379 IPC was registered at Police Station, Bagaur. After investigation, it was found that the Government by its notification dated 27.6.1989 had authorised the Gram Panchayats to take the natural produce of such ponds and that in pursuance thereof, Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Mandal by his letter dated 31.8.1989 authorised the Gram Panchayat to manage and take the natural produce of such ponds having an irrigation capacity less than 50 acres. The Gram Panchayat, Tahuka auctioned the dried tress of babool and accepted the highest bid of Shakur Mohd. for an amount of Rs. 1600/- who was taking away those trees. The Investigation Officer submitted a final report holding that the report was lodged due to mis-understanding of facts and that at the most an offence for unlawful removal of trees was made out for which penalty under section 86 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 could be imposed and that such an offence was not cognizable. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 5.11.1990 accepted the final report and held that since the petitioner had filed the report which was false and baseless and, as such, it was expected that necessary action against him will be taken. Thereupon, the S.H.O., Police Station, Bagaur submitted a criminal complaint under section 182 IPC dated 19.11.1990 against the petitioner, on which the learned Magistrate took cognizance. Hence, this petition.

(3.) In my considered opinion, the basic ingredients of offence under section 182 IPC are not made out in this case, even if the contents of the final report are taken to be correct. The petitioner in the capacity of Tehsildar, Mandal on the report of Patwari Halka had submitted the report dated 7/11th December, 1989 to the S.H.O., Police Station, Begaur, wherein it was clearly mentioned that one dry tree of babool and nine green trees had been cut by Shakur Mohd., who allegedly purchased those trees for an amount of Rs. 1600/- This information was not false and was based on the report of Patwari Halka. During the investigation, it transpired that the Government had authorised the Gram Panchayats to manage and take the natural produce in respect of such village ponds, whose irrigation capacity was less than 50 acres. The Bilanam Talab of village Samrathpara admittedly docs not have irrigation capacity of more than 50 acres. Therefore, the Gram Panchayat was authorised to manage and take the natural produce on the peta of that talab