RAM PRASAD JOSHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a member of Rajasthan Administrative Service. He was appointed as Land Acquisition Officer, at Jaisalmer on April 25, 1974. He continued on that post upto April 16, 1976. During this period he re-opened a number of cases already decided by his predecessor in office and paid an amount of about Rs. 7,00,000/-to various land holders. An F. I. R. (Annexure 2)was lodged before the C. B. I. against Suresh Chandra, K. G. Karnal, K. I. Hansraj Soni and N. K. Tripathi under Sections 120, read with Section 420 I. P. C. , 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and sections 420, 468, 477-A I. P. C. and 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d), prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. In the course of investigation the petitioner was interrogated on February 19, 1977. After investigating the case for about a year the Investigating Agency placed the papers before Honourable the Chief minister of Rajasthan for granting sanction for prosecuting the petitioner and the same was granted on April 13, 1978, as mentioned in para 19 of the writ petition. Now it is feared by the petitioner that he would be prosecuted before a proper court of law and for that purpose unecessary steps as provided in the code of Criminal Procedure for making arrest, searches and other things would be taken. It will perhaps not be out of place to mention here that in the course of investigation the petitioner submitted a number of representations to various authorities, the copies of which have been filed along with the writ petition. But in spite of these representations, the Government considered it advisable to issue sanction to prosecute the petitioner.

(2.) IT is a question of fact whether or not the petitioner is guilty or bad mens rea or had acted in a bona fide manner in re-opening the decided cases and paying an amount of about Rs. 7,00,000/ -. It is neither expedient nor is it possible for this court at this stage to arrive at a definite conclusion one way or the other on the material placed on the record. It will primarily and essentially be within the domain of the trial court to examine and appreciate the evidence gathered by the C. B. I. , and then arrive at the conclusion whether the petitioner has prima facie committed any offence or not or whether or not there are sufficient grounds to proceed against him. The person prosecuted under the law of the land undoubtedly has adequate opportunity to defend himself to show that ingredients which are necessary to make out a case have not been made out and for that the Code of Criminal Procedure which stood the test of time provides sufficient safe-guard. In State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh 1977 Cri LR (SC) 375 : (AIR 1977 SC 2018) the question before their Lordships of the supreme Court, was whether there were sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused and frame a charge against him. Their Lordships, after giving due weight to the arguments advanced, laid down the law as follows:

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner placing reliance on kundan Singh Jhala v. State of Rajasthan: 1976 WLN (UC) 175, and Bhagwat swaroop v. State of Rajasthan: 1977 WLN 496, has vehemently urged that the petitioner while awarding an additional amount of near about Rupees 7,00,000/- was discharging certain statutory functions and as such he cannot be prosecuted even if he has made any irregularity and illegality in discharge of those functions. He further brought to my notice the fact that at one stage of those cases, the matter was referred to the Collector, and the Collector stayed the proceedings but later on the same authority allowed him to make the payment. It will be for the concerned court to decide whether the act of the petitioner in re-opening the cases and paying nearly Rupees 7,00,000 is such which can bear relation to his duty and he can by a reasonable but not a pretended or fanciful claim.