T.N.B.RAO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these applications, petitioners challenged the order dated 16.04.1998 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No. 815 of 1997, whereby he took cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 420 & 427 of the I.P.C. It is alleged that the petitioners damaged the land of Late Jodha Mahto before its acquisition. It is further alleged that accused no. 1 had assured the heirs of Late Jodha Mahto that they will be provided employment and compensation by M/s B.C.C.L. It is further alleged that later on M/s B.C.C.L. refused to provide employment. It is also stated that the accused persons in league with one Ramchandra Rawani provided employment to the son of Shyam Sunder Rawani. Accordingly, it is alleged that accused persons committed offences under Sections 420, 120B, 464 & 427 of the I.P.C. It appears that after considering the materials collected during the inquiry the learned court below vide order dated 16.04.1998 took cognizance of the offences under Sections 420 and 427 of the I.P.C. and issued process against petitioners. Aforesaid order impugned in this case.

(2.) SRI A.K. Mehta, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that even if the allegations made in the complaint petition are taken to be true on their face value then also no offences under Sections 420 & 427 of the I.P.C. are made out. Sri Mehta further submits that there is no material to show that petitioners induced complainant or any of his witnesses for transfer of land on the promise for providing employment. It is submitted that in the absence of any agreement or inducement, no offence under Section 420 of the I.P.C. is made out. He further submits that there is no material to show that the petitioners damaged any property. Thus, prosecution of petitioners under Section 427 of I.P.C. on vague allegation is not warranted. Accordingly, he submits that the impugned order cannot be sustained.

(3.) HAVING heard the submissions, I have gone through the record of the case. In the complaint petition, it is alleged that accused persons had damaged the land of Late Jodha Mahto. The complainant in his statement on oath has not supported aforesaid allegation made in the complaint petition, as he had not stated that the petitioners damaged lands of Late Jodha Mahto. The description of the land of Late Jodha Mahto not mentioned in the complaint petition. Under the aforesaid circumstance, only a vague allegation made against petitioners. Thus, from aforesaid vague allegation, it cannot be presumed that the petitioners had committed offence under Section 427 of the I.P.C.