GUMAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision filed by Guman Singh against an order of the Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Rajasthan, Jaipur, dated 31st October, 1975, by which objections raised by the petitioner to the taking of cognizance of an offence punishable under section 165, I.P.C. against him were overruled and it was ordered that a charge for the aforesaid offence may be framed against him on the basis of the three allegations mentioned in the charge-sheet by the C.B.I.

(2.) The relevant facts giving rise to this revision-petition may be briefly stated as follows The petitioner was posted as Superintend at of Police, Sirohi, during the period between July (sic) and August 1969. Thereafter he was appointed on the post of the Deputy Inspector General of Police at Kota, where he worked on the said post during the period between 31.1.1970 and 14.4.1972 It is alleged that being (sic) public servant he obtained a plot of land situated at Mount Abu in the year 1965 (sic) Rs. 99/, from the Ex-Maharaja of Sirohi in the name of his son Dhanpat Singh while knowing it well that the market value of the plot was between Rs. 15000/, and Rs. 20000/. It was further alleged that in the year 1966 he (sic) 129 1/2 Bighas of land at Gulab Ganj from Shri Ram Singh, brother of Ex Maharaja of Sirohi for Rs. 8000/-, on 28.9.1966 in the name of his grand-daughter Kumari Chandra Kanta. While purchasing this land he knew it well that the market value there of was about Rs. 20,000/-, on the date of the sale, (Sic) 31.3.71 be again purchased 9 Bighas of land in the name of his son Dhanpat Singh for a consideration, i.e. Rs. 9000/-, which he knew to be inadequate, from the Ex Maharaja of Kota. The market price of this land was more than Rs. 2000/-. per Bigha. An inquiry into these transfers was made which revealed that the Ex-Maharaja of Sirohi and his brother Ram Singh and the Ex-Maharaja of Kota, from whom the lands were purchased by the petitioner for consideration which he knew to be inadequate were concerned in proceedings or business transacted or about to be transacted by the petitioner is the capacity of a public servant and were having connections with the official functions of the petitioner or were interested in or related to the persons concerned in the proceedings or business transacted or about to be transacted by the petitioner in the following manner:-

(3.) I have carefully gone through the record and heard Mr. S.R. Singbi appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. R.S. Parihar counsel for the C.B.I. A preliminary objection to the maintainability of this revision petition was raised by Mr. Parihar learned counsel for the C.B.I. The objection is that the order of the Special Judge is an interlocutory one within the meaning of sub-section (2) of S. 397, new Cr P.C. and that no revision can be entertained against such interlocutory order. Mr. S.R. Singbi appearing on behalf of the petitioner, on the other hand, contended that the impugned order passed by the Special Judge was without jurisdiction and was a (sic) in the eye of law which can be interfere with in revision irrespective of the fact whether it was or was not of interlocutory nature. In support of his above contention be placed reliance on Bhima Naik VS. State, 1975 CrLJ 1923 and Deena Nath Acharya vs. Daitari Charan Patra and others,1975 CLT 656.