Jharkhand High Court
Devendra Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand Through ... on 20 July, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 2533 of 2017
Devendra Kumar .... .. ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
.. ... ...Opp. Party(s)
...........
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.........
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, Advocate
For the CBI : Mr. Anil Kumar, Addl.SGI
M/s Nitish Parth Sarthi &
Chandana Kumari, AC to ASGI
......
C.A.V. on 12.07.2023 Pronounced on 20.07.2023.
1. Heard, the parties.
2. The instant Cr. M. P. has been filed for quashing of the order dated 19 th
January, 2015 passed by learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge- cum Special Judge,
CBI, Dhanbad, in R.C. Case No.15(A)/ 2012 (D) whereby and whereunder
cognizance of the offences under Sections 120B, 201, 423, 424, 420, 467, 468,
471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act has been
taken.
3. The matter involves land scam in the District- Deoghar, Jharkhand in which
non-transferable land(s) were sold vide registered sale-deeds against specific
provisions of Section 20(1) of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, 1949.
Prosecution case is that petitioner who was posted as Circle Officer,
deliberately issued no-objection certificate to facilitate the said transfer of
land.
4. In this manner, the land measuring 505.08 acres of total 363 land plots
situated in 8 villages/mouzas under Mohanpur Circle, District Deoghar,
Jharkhand was transferred by 25 registered sale deeds during 2009-11. Out of
25 sale certificates, the original related sale certificate registers and
corresponding original Index-II register for the period 1936-38 and other
important land records were kept in District Record Room, Deoghar which
was allegedly stolen in August, 2011 regarding which a separate FIR vide 260
/ 2011 was registered by Deoghar Town Police Station in which Sunil Poddar
and Dhrub Narayan Parihast were convicted by the court of Judicial
Magistrate, Deoghar.
5. The CBI took over investigation in the case on the request of Government
of Jharkhand and after investigation, submitted charge-sheet on 29.09.2014.
Investigation reveals that 54.226 acres of land of different categories being
non-sellable had been sold in connivance with Government officials.
6. In order to check any transfer of non-transferable land, Arun Kumar Singh,
the then DC Deoghar had issued an executive order stipulating that prior to
transfer and registration of any land, verification was necessarily to be carried
out to ascertain if the land was transferable or not. Responsibility in this
respect was entrusted to the Circle Officer concerned, who was required to
submit a no-objection certificate known as Bhu Satyapan Certificate.
7. Petitioner while serving as Circle Officer, issued 'No Objection Certificate'
favouring the accused persons recommending for transfer of non-sellable
raiyati Government land by changing the nature of land from non-sellable to
transferable.
8. The specific case against the petitioner is that he being the Circle
Officer, Deoghar, in pursuance of criminal conspiracy with other accused
persons dishonestly and fraudulently issued undue 'No Objection Certificate'
recommending transfer/ registration of non-sellable land of aggregate area of
5.5 acres of part of plot of land of Plot Nos.300, 301, 302, 304, 761, 762, 769,
763 of Thadhidulampur vide Report No.1642/RA dated 29.12.2010, Report
No.1649/ RA dated 30.12.2010 favouring co-accused, Smt. Devki Devi (A-
14) & ors and Report No.11/ RA dtd. 03.02.2011 favouring Shri Rajeev
Kumar & Ors.
9. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that issuance of 'no
objection certificate' will not per se attract the provisions either for the
offence(s) under the Indian Penal Code or under the P.C. Act, until and unless
there is some material to show that there was dishonest intention on the part
of the petitioner for committing such act.
10. The petitioner was in probation period, in field training and the said
certificate was issued on the recommendation made by the Circle Inspector as
he had no other personal means to verify the veracity of report of the Circle
Inspector.
11. It is further submitted that as per the duty assigned to the petitioner
being the Circle Officer, it was his duty for updating and maintenance of land
records and for issuance of no objection certificate for transfer of the land.
The relevant records were not in a proper state and NOC was prepared by
Halka Karmchari and verified by the Circle Inspector from the relevant
records and on the basis of which, the petitioner issued NOC. As such, on
these materials, prima facie case will not be made out. Neither there is any
allegation or any material to show that the petitioner himself derived any
pecuniary or other advantage in issuing those certificates.
12. Learned ASGI for the CBI has opposed the prayer. It is submitted that
there was manipulation of three Sale Certificates and Two Land Acquisition
case records during the year 2008-11 involving 54.226 acres of land for which
the FIR was initially lodged.
13. At the stage of considering a petition for quashing of cognizance scope of
adjudication is limited to see whether a prima facie case is made out on the
basis of materials collected during investigation. Courts cannot embark on a
'mini trial' at this stage by scrutinizing the evidence as to its probative value.
14. Petitioner inter alia is facing prosecution for offence of criminal
conspiracy. The offence of conspiracy is complete as soon as the parties have
agreed to their unlawful purpose. Under proviso to Section 120-A(2) there
should be some acts apart from mere agreement. The very agreement, league
or concert is the essence of the offence. A criminal conspiracy can be proved
by direct or circumstantial evidence to show that there was agreement between
two or more person to commit the illegal act or a legal act by illegal means.
Contrary to the usual rule that an attempt to commit a crime merge with the
completed offense, conspirators may be tried and punished for both the
conspiracy and the completed crime. Conspiracy is a clandestine activity,
persons generally do not form illegal covenants openly. Execution of even a
part of such act will attract the mischief of the Section 120B.
15. This case in many ways demonstrates the clout and resources of those who
intend to hack and subvert the system to commit their illegal act. Documents
that were kept in the record room were stolen, forged and substituted to change
the nature of land. Every functionary appears to have contributed to bring to
fruition the object of the conspirator. In the chain of events that ultimately
culminated in transfer of land in violation of express provision of the SPT Act,
petitioner admittedly issued no-objection certificate , on the strength of which
sale deeds were executed. Whether such a certificate was issued by default or
design is a question of fact, which can be determined only at trial after the
evidence is led on behalf of the prosecution and the petitioner has an
opportunity to rebut the same.
16. With regard to the argument that there is no material to show that
petitioner derived any pecuniary advantage, this Court is of the view that
definition under Section 13(1)(d) is wide enough to bring within its fold the
act of an accused by which he derives for himself or for any other person any
valuable thing or pecuniary advantage.
It has been held in Chittaranjan Shetty v. State, (2015) 15 SCC 569
22. On a perusal of the abovementioned judgments, it can be concluded that in order to
prove the offence under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Act, it must be established that a
public servant has abused his position in order to obtain for himself or for any other
person, any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, and that, in this context, the "abuse"
of position must involve a dishonest intention.
Act of the petitioner in issuing of no-objection certificate for the transfer of lands which
were non-transferable was done to extend pecuniary advantage to other co-accused
persons and therefore it cannot be acceded to the argument that offence is not made
out under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the PC Act.
There are sufficient materials to make out a prima facie case against the
petitioner. This Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order.
Criminal miscellaneous petition stands dismissed.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Jharkhand High Court,
Ranchi
Dated 20.07.2023/
NAFR/Sandeep
