GOMDA Vs. RAMESHWAR DAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition u/S. 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 5.11.93 whereby the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (Mobile) Atru, Distt. Baran, declined to take cognizance of the offences u/Sections 420, 423, 471 and 120-B IPC against the present respondents Nos. 1 and 2, who happened to be the Inspector Land Records and Patwari respectively, on the ground that no sanction for their prosecution as required u/S. 197 Cr.P.C. had been obtained from the State Govt. It may be mentioned that by his said impugned order the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the aforesaid offences against seven other accused. The grievance of the complainant-petitioner was that the petitioner and other persons entered into a criminal conspiracy to deprive the petitioner of his interest in the land and in the prosecution of such criminal conspiracy they manipulated the record of rights by making false entries of the death of the death of the petitioner's father Narain.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order and other materials, placed on the record of the lower court. It is not in dispute that at the relevant time Rameshwar Dayal and Purshottam Srivastava, respondents, stood posted as Inspector Land Records and Patwari of the village concerned. It is also not in dispute that certain entries in record of rights, maintained as per provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, were made in respect of Khasra No. 386, admeasuring 10 biswas, on which Narain was recorded as a tenant. It also appears that mutation case No. 410 dated 17.1.83 had been opened in respect of transfer of possession over Khasra No. 386 aforesaid wherein Narain was shown as having died and the land belonging to aforesaid Narain was mutated in the names of Jagdish Singh and six others, who have been summoned as accused in the present case. Under such circumstances the learned Magistrate had sufficient evidence before him to take cognizance of the offences u/Sections 420, 471 r/w Section 120-B IPC in the case.

(3.) IT is not disputed that neither the Inspector Land Records nor the Patwari is a public servant to be appointed by the State Government. Since the State Govt. does not happen to be the appointing authority of either of the two respondents, a sanction of the State Government for their prosecution was not necessary.