BRAJESHWAR MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these three cases, arising out of the same impugned order, were heard together and are being disposed of by the common order. These applications have been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings of RC No. 04(A)/2010 -AHD -R(C) including the order dated 11.12.2012, passed by the Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 120B, 193, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been taken against the petitioners.

(2.) BEFORE adverting to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, the case of the prosecution needs to be taken notice of. A complaint was lodged alleging therein that Hari Narayan Rai and Enos Ekka, both at one point of time were the Ministers, have amassed huge property disproportionate to their known source of income. The properties, including bungalows and agricultural lands, were acquired in violation of the provisions of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act. The Vigilance on the basis of the said complaint lodged a case. After investigation, Vigilance submitted interim charge -sheet in the case relating to disproportionate assets. However, under the order passed by this Court in W.P. (PIL) Nos. 4700/08 and 2252/09, the CBI took up the investigation of the case relating to the matter concerning illegal transfer of land effected in complete violation of the provisions of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act .

(3.) DURING investigation, it was found that said Enos Ekka had purchased several pieces of lands situated within the police stations of Ormanjhi, Doranda, Sadar Ranchi etc. in the name of his wife -Menon Ekka from the sellers belonging to Scheduled Tribes community but the purchaser Smt. Menon Ekka was never the resident of any of the areas falling within the aforesaid police stations which was in violation of the provisions as contained in Section 46 and 48 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, as one can purchase the land from the sellers belonging to Scheduled Tribes community only when the purchaser happens to be the resident of the area falling within that police station, but the purchaser in order to defeat the provisions of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act connived with the DCLR, Circle Inspector and Karmchari and submitted a false affidavit showing him/her as resident in the area of the same police station in which vended lands situate. An application accompanying the false affidavit was submitted before the DCLR upon which reports were called for from the Karmchari, including the petitioners namely, Mani Lal Mahato and Goverdhan Baitha, who without making verification of the address of the purchaser, submitted report with false statement that the purchaser is the resident of the area of the same police station in which vended lands situate and thereby made recommendation for transferring the lands. So far as petitioner -Brajeshwar Mahto, who at relevant point of time was posted as Karmchari in Legal Cell in the office of the Deputy Collector, is concerned, he submitted report on being asked by the DCLR to the effect that the purchaser is the resident of the area of same police station in which vended land situates, though the purchaser was never the resident of the area of same police station in which vended lands were situating and thus, it was alleged that the purchaser in connivance with the DCLR, Circle Inspector, Karmchari and Circle Officer, including these petitioners, committed offences under which cognizance was taken. On submission of the charge -sheet, when cognizance of the offences as aforesaid was taken against the petitioners vide order dated 11.12.2012, it has been challenged.