MITHILESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition for issuance of an appropriate order or direction for quashing the order contained in memo No. 546-I dated 30.12.2010, as also the order dated 3.1.2011, whereby, the cognizance has been taken against the Petitioner by the court of Sri B.K. Khan, learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi, in connection with Vigilance Case No. 58 of 2010 corresponding to Special Case No. 75 of 2010, for the offence under Section 7/13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988.

(2.) The Counsel of the Petitioner submits that the prosecution case as per the allegation made by the complainant namely Sadhu Oraon, in brief, is that the land comprises of an area 40 acres and 23 decimals out of which 30 acres of land has been given in possession of Nathu Oraon and thereafter Nathu Oraon and his five sons are cultivating the said lands and the rent is being paid to the Government. For the aforesaid land, a case was initiated in which the decree was passed in favour of the complainant and after the said decree, he had made an application before the concerned Circle Officer, Bero for measurement of the disputed land and giving him possession over the said land. After completing all the formalities and process, the office of the Circle Officer, Bero has referred the matter before the Settlement Officer, Ranchi. Thereafter, complainant has contacted the office of the Settlement Officer with respect to the settlement of the said land and at that occasion, he has complained that Sri Baleshwar Baraik, In-charge Settlement Officer, his office clerk Shri Mithilesh Kumar and peon Maqsood Ansari had demanded a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-by way of illegal gratification for the land getting measured and for handing over the possession of the same. After much persuasion, they have agreed to take a sum of Rs. 50,000/-at the time of passing of the order and the remaining amount will be paid thereafter. But he has said that he does not want to pay any gratification. Hence, he has made complaint before the Vigilance Police Station.

(3.) The Counsel of the Petitioner further submits that he is innocent and has committed no offence as alleged in the FIR. He has further submitted that the Petitioner is a government servant and working as an office clerk in the office of the District Settlement Officer, Ranchi and he has an unblemished career. He has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not co-operated the complainant in his illegal deeds as he was asking for deleting the name of one Birsa Oraon from the deed of record which is the reason for filing the complaint against him by the complainant.