Tara Ram vs State Of Rajasthan
2024 Latest Caselaw 7998 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Tara Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 12 September, 2024

Author: Birendra Kumar

Bench: Birendra Kumar

[2024:RJ-JD:37154]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                       AT JODHPUR
          S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 731/2021

Tara Ram S/o Shri Gula Ram, Aged About 60 Years, The Then
Land Revenue Inspector, Pokaran, R/o Village Rawatpura, Police
Station Falsund, District Jaisalmer.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Anti Corruption Bureau.
                                                                 ----Respondent
                            Connected With
          S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 739/2021
Himmata Ram S/o Sh. Chuna Ram, Aged About 68 Years, The
Then Patwari-I, Pokaran, R/o Village Gomat, P.s. Pokaran, Dist.
Jaisalmer.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Anti Corruption Bureau.
                                                                 ----Respondent
          S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 741/2021
Ghewar Ram S/o Sh. Magna Ram, Aged About 60 Years, The
Then Patwari-Ii, Pokaran, R/o Village Medwa, P.s. Pokaran, Dist.
Jaisalmer.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Anti Corruption Bureau.
                                                                 ----Respondent
          S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 751/2021
Kaluram S/o Sh. Bhuralal, Aged About 57 Years, B/c Soni, R/o
Sunaron Ki Gali, Pokran, Dist. Jaisalmer (Raj.).
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp




                     (Downloaded on 12/09/2024 at 08:52:10 PM)
 [2024:RJ-JD:37154]                  (2 of 14)




For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Vineet Jain, Sr. Advocate assisted
                                by Mr. Vishal Sharma &
                                Mr. Harshwardhan Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Prem Singh Panwar, PP
                                Mr. Urja Ram Kalbi, PP



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

Judgment

Judgment Reserved on : 27 & 30.8.2024 Judgment Pronounced on : 12.9.2024

1. The petitioners herein i.e. Tara Ram, Ghewar Ram, Kaulram

and Himmata Ram are accused in FIR No.368/2001 registered

with Police Station, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jaipur (Outpost ACB,

Jaisalmer) for the offence under Sections 467, 471, 477A, 120-B

IPC and Section 13(1)(d), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988. They are aggrieved by common order dated 23.7.2021

passed by learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act)

No.1, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.01/2015 (State Vs. Tara Ram &

Ors.) arising out of the aforesaid FIR, whereby the learned

trial Judge has decided to frame charges against them. Against

Kalu Ram charges have been framed for offence under Sections

420, 467 and 120-B IPC, whereas against other petitioners,

charges have been framed for offence under Sections 420, 467,

120-B IPC as well as under Section 13(1)(d)/13(2) of Prevention

of Corruption Act.

2. Heard the parties at length and perused the records.

 [2024:RJ-JD:37154]                     (3 of 14)



3.    The    prosecution       case      is   that     in    the     year   1994, the

Government of Rajasthan invited applications for allotment of land

in Canal area in Tehsil Pokhran. The land was to be allotted under

the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government

Land in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975.

10399 applications were received and were forwarded to the

Tehsildar, Pokhran for verification. For allotment of land, there are

certain qualifications and disqualifications mentioned in Rule 2(xiii)

of the aforesaid Rules of 1975. The applicant must be "Landless

person" under Rule 2(xiii). It is alleged that Tehsildar, Pokhran in

conspiracy with the applicants issued eligibility certificates to those

persons who were in fact not eligible and for the purpose

Tehsildar obtained Rs.2000/- per person. According to FIR

Tehsildar Mana Ram Patel and Manvendra Kumar were indulged in

issuing certificates besides other public servants. In the FIR,

besides the aforesaid Tehsildars certain beneficiaries were also

made accused, however, after investigation Mana Ram Patel and

Manvendra Kumar were not charge-sheeted, rather charge-sheet

was submitted against the petitioners and some others.

4. Rule 2 (xiii) of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and

Sale of Government Land in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area)

Rules, 1975, which defines "Landless person" is reproduced

below :-

Rule 2 (xiii) "Landless Person" means a person who,-

(i) Is a resident of Rajasthan; and

(ii) has been by profession a bona fide agriculturist or a bona fide agricultural labourer,

[2024:RJ-JD:37154] (4 of 14)

having agriculture as the primary source of his income and who either does not hold any land anywhere in India or holds less than 25 bighas, but it does not include temporary cultivation lease holder:

Provided that a person holding continuously since before the 1st day of April, 1955 only barani land in a village may surrender that land in favour of Government free of cost and on acceptance of such surrender, he will also be treated as a landless person of that village. In case he is not allotted any command land within a year of such surrender, he can revoke the surrender of the land made by him:

Provided further that a released 'Sagri' as certified by the Sub-Divisional Officer will also be treated as landless person of that village.

Explanation- For the purpose of this proviso "Sagri" means the bonded labourer as defined in the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 (Central Act 19 of 1976).]

Provided further that the following categories of persons shall not be deemed to be landless persons, namely:-

(a) an employee other than a casual or work charged employee of the Government or of a commercial or industrial establishment or concern, his wife and children dependent on him.

(b) a person who has sold or otherwise transferred the whole or part of the land held by, or allotted to him other than land transferred to or acquired by the Government or statutory bodies and thereby reduces the size of his holding to become landless person."

5. Out of the aforesaid four petitioners only petitioner-Kalu Ram

is the beneficiary and other two petitioners, namely, petitioner

Himmata Ram and Ghewar Ram were the Patwaries (public

servant) at the time of incident and petitioner-Tara Ram was the

Land Revenue Inspector.

6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that

against petitioner-Kalu Ram offences whereunder charges have

been framed are not made out on acceptance of entire prosecution

[2024:RJ-JD:37154] (5 of 14)

case as it is. There is no case against Kalu Ram that he

dishonestly induced any person to deliver any property or to

make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable

security, or anything which is signed or sealed and which is

capable of being converted into a valuable security. Likewise,

offence under Section 467 IPC is not made out as there is no

allegation against the petitioner that he created any false

document as defined under Section 464 IPC. In the absence of

ingredients of substantive offence charge for conspiracy would

automatically fail.

7. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the

record would show that the petitioner-Kalu had applied for

allotment of land on 13.3.1990. Application of the petitioner is on

the record. The Tehsildar and Patwari reported that the petitioner

was an agriculturist and agricultural labour. This report was

submitted on 10.1.1992. Thereafter allotment order was issued

on 17.9.1993 but the petitioner did not take possession of the

land allotted to him for the reason that after a year or two, of the

filing of application for allotment of land under the Scheme,

petitioner entered into a business of jewellery and within years the

business flourished and the petitioner also got his firm registered

with the Rajasthan Sales Tax Department vide Regn.No. RST-

1508/08822/Jaisalmer dated 01.6.1997. The inquiry relating to

grant of false certificate of eligibility was conducted thereafter and

the Authorities took a view that since the petitioner was a

businessman, as such, was disqualified for allotment of land and

[2024:RJ-JD:37154] (6 of 14)

the co-accused had wrongly submitted report to show favour to

the petitioner.

8. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the

chronology of events would show that on the date of application

the petitioner was not a businessman and after engaging in the

business the petitioner never attempted to get allotment of land

under the Scheme. The charge-sheet would reveal that though the

petitioner and some other beneficiaries were not eligible for

allotment of land, Tehsildar Mana Ram Patel and Manvendra

Kumar for extraneous consideration abused their position and

issued false certificate.

It is worth to mention that the Competent Authority did not

grant sanction to prosecute Mana Ram Patel and Manvendra

Kumar. In Para-3 of charge-sheet, it is stated that Bishambar Lal,

Tehsildar Pokhran had enquired on the application of petitioner-

Kalu Ram. Besides Bishambar Lal, Patwari Kanvraj Singh,

Pokhran-Ist and Ghewar Ram had also submitted a report that the

main occupation of petitioner was farming and working as

agricultural labour, whereas in fact the petitioner was a Jeweller

and a rich person having commercial electric connection and was

paying income-tax.

It is worth to mention here that no sanction was granted to

prosecute Bishamber Lal Tehsildar and by the impugned order, the

learned trial Judge has discharged co-accused Kanvraj Singh.

9. Though, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the

prayer of the petitioner on the ground that a roving inquiry on the

[2024:RJ-JD:37154] (7 of 14)

prosecution material is not permissible at this stage nor its

evidentiary value can be examined. Only for non-grant of sanction

to some other co-accused, the petitioner who is not a public

servant, cannot be absolved of responsibility.

10. No doubt law is trite that at the stage of charge the

prosecution material is to be looked into as it is. Nothing is to be

added nor subtracted nor the defence version can be looked into.

If on a bare perusal of prosecution material the charge appears to

be groundless the accused would be discharged, otherwise the

trial would proceed. There is nothing on record that on the date of

application the petitioner had submitted any wrong information.

Moreover, as soon as the petitioner and his family members got

engaged in business after years of making of the application, the

petitioner acted with fairness and did not took possession over the

allotted land nor pursued the matter anymore after filing of the

application. The Enquiry Report submitted by the public servants

is not signed by the petitioner, therefore, it is evident that the

petitioner was not a party to any report. The petitioner was

allotted Chak No.1 JDM, Murabba No.139/12 under the Scheme

but the petitioner never took possession of the same, which would

be evident from the revenue record (Girdawari). When the

petitioner declined, the said Chak/Murabba was allotted to one

Nakhat Singh S/o. Anoop Singh.

11. On a bare perusal of the prosecution material it is evident

that the petitioner never made any false statement in the

application filed in the year 1990 as there is no evidence that in

[2024:RJ-JD:37154] (8 of 14)

the year 1990 the petitioner had a flourishing business. Since

petitioner was wholly engaged in the business, he did not took

any interest in allotment and non-allotment of the same, rather he

never took possession of allotted land and the same in turn was

allotted to some other person, therefore, criminal prosecution of

the petitioner-Kalu Ram is groundless, hence the impugned order

to the extent of petitioner-Kalu Ram stands hereby set aside and

Kalu Ram is discharged of the charges levelled as well as the case

concerned.

12. Other petitioners i.e. Tara Ram, Ghewar Ram and Himmata

Ram are public servants. The allegation against these petitioners

and the Tehsildars concerned is that they wrongly and collectively

submitted false report making the disqualified applicants as

qualified one. This was done for extraneous consideration by

abusing their post and position.

13. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the

petitioners were only concerned with submitting report on the

basis of revenue records. Learned counsel has referred to Rule 22

to Rule 169 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records)

Rules, 1957 and submits that duty of Patwaries is to submit report

on the basis of revenue records and physical verification of the

crops standing in field; measurement of land etc. They are not

concerned with making enquiry in respect of other occupations of

the applicants or their jobs. It was the business of the Tehsildars

to enquire and submit such report. So far as the note regarding

revenue record and availability of particular area of land is

[2024:RJ-JD:37154] (9 of 14)

concerned, none of the petitioners have committed any error.

Rather the petitioners were wrongly clubbed with the Tehsildars

that they did not inform about other business and income of the

beneficiary. The Tehsildars have already been refused sanction to

be prosecuted, though, they were charge-sheeted, hence parity

should be maintained in the mattes of the petitioners who are also

public servants and deserves protection under the law.

14. Learned senior counsel for these petitioners submits that the

learned trial Judge has also taken note of the fact that the report

regarding other engagements of applicants were to be submitted

by the Tehsildars and not by the Patwaries and taking this view in

consideration, the learned trial Judge discharged the Patwari

Bheeka Ram and Patwari Kanvraj Singh.

15. A perusal of the charge-sheet would reveal that co-accused

Bishambar Lal Tehsildar had submitted his enquiry report dated

15.7.1992 showing that applicant Vallabh Das was a labourer. Mr.

Kanvraj Singh Patwari had also submitted the said report, whereas

Vallabh Das was a renowned businessman of grains.

It is worth to notice that no sanction to prosecute Vallabh

Das was granted and Kanvraj Singh Patwari was discharged by the

trial Judge. Identical allegation is against Bishamber Lal and

Kanvraj Singh in the matter of grant of certificate to beneficiary

Mohan Lal. In the matter of petitioner-Kalu Ram Patwari Kanvraj

Singh and Ghewar Ram had submitted report that the main

profession of Kalu Ram was of labour. Since Kanvraj Singh was

[2024:RJ-JD:37154] (10 of 14)

discharged by the trial Judge, the petitioner Ghewar Ram claims

parity of treatment.

16. In the matter of applicant Shanti Lal, a Committee of

petitioners Himmata Ram, Ghewar Ram and Tara Ram had

submitted report that the applicant was a farmer. At the time

father of applicant who was a Headmaster of school, had already

retired on 30.4.1994. Evidently the report was submitted on

22.12.1997 when father of Shanti Lal was already retired Teacher

and allotment of land was made in the year 2001. Evidently the

job of father was not a disqualification under the above-referred

Rules, therefore, these petitioners were dragged in the matter on

surmises and conjectures.

The allegation against petitioners Himmata Ram and Ghewar

Ram is that they had submitted a report that applicant Bhanwar

Lal was an agricultural labour, whereas Bhanwar Lal had a medical

shop since 01.01.1965.

17. As noticed above, it was not the business of Patwaries under

the Rules cited above nor they were assigned any duty by any

superior authority to find out other occupation of the applicants,

rather it was duty of Tehsildars, who were not sanctioned to be

prosecuted. Moreover, the trial Judge while discharging the

above-referred Patwaries has also observed that the Patwaries

were not expected to submit report regarding other engagements

of the applicant. In the matter of Jyoti Prasad report was

submitted by petitioners Himmata Ram, Ghewar Ram and Bheeka

Ram. The Patwaries had reported that there is no land in the name

[2024:RJ-JD:37154] (11 of 14)

of mother of applicant Jyoti Prasad. After allotment of land to

Jyoti Prasad under the Scheme it surfaced that his grand-mother

Ayodhya Devi had 55 Bighas of land in Patwar Mandal Loharkee.

Loharkee evidently was not within the Patwar jurisdiction of these

Patwaries, hence, they cannot be blamed to have submitted any

false report. Moreover, property in the name of grand-mother was

not a disqualification of the applicant under the Rules. Patwari

Bheeka Ram standing on similar footing to the petitioners had

been discharged by the trial Judge. The learned trial Judge while

refusing discharge to the petitioners has recorded that non-

grant of sanction for prosecution to other co-accused would not

absolve the petitioners from their criminal liability.

18. From the discussions made above, it is evident that nothing

is there on the record that any fact was wrongly recorded by the

Patwari which are in their domain of public duty. If fact of other

business or occupation of the beneficiary was not brought

correctly on record, that was duty of Tehsildars and not that of the

Patwaries. Similarly situated co-accused Bheeka Ram and Kanvraj

Singh have been discharged by trial Judge, thus, the petitioners

also deserve to be discharged.

19. While claiming parity the petitioners have relied upon the

judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indira Devi Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Anr., reported in Criminal Appeal No.593 of 2021,

decided on 23.7.2021. The fact of Indira Devi's case (supra) was

that public servants sitting on higher pedestal were not granted

sanction, however, sanction was granted in the matter of

[2024:RJ-JD:37154] (12 of 14)

respondent Yogesh Acharya, a Clerk level employee. The High

Court allowed application of Yogesh Acharya under Section 482 Cr.

P.C., and quashed criminal prosecution against him. The

complainant moved before Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court referred earlier judgments in B. Shah & Ors. Vs.

M.S. Kochar reported in (1979) 4 SCC 177 and State of

Maharashtra Vs. Dr. Budhikota Subbarao reported in (1993)

3 SCC 339, wherein it was held that Section 197 of Cr. P.C., ought

to be read in a liberal sense for grant of protection to the public

servant with respect to actions, which though constitute an

offence, are "directly and reasonably" connected with their official

duties and affirmed the order of the High Court.

20. The present case is identical to Indira Devi's case (supra)

wherein State did not choose to challenge refusal of sanction by

the State to other co-accused, who were similarly situated atleast

to that of the petitioners.

21. The trial Judge while refusing prayer of petitioners Tara Ram

and Ghewar Ram to discharge has distinguished their case to that

of Patwari Kanvraj Singh on the ground that the petitioners

reported in the matter of Chandra Singh that he was an

agricultural labour, whereas the record revealed that Chandra

Singh had sold his 66 Bighas of land of Halka Patwar, Pokhran on

01.07.1971 to his full brother Sang Singh. Further mother of

Chandra Singh Smt. ShreeKanwar had 75 Bighas of land. The

learned trial Judge mis-directed itself and did not consider the

applicant Chandra Singh had sold his land prior to 1975 Rules

[2024:RJ-JD:37154] (13 of 14)

whereunder qualification and dis-qualifications are mentioned.

Moreover, the land standing in the name of mother is not a

disqualification for Chandra Singh to apply and get allotment

under the Scheme as per Rule 2(xiii) of the Rules of 1975.

Similarly, the trial Judge refused to discharge petitioner-Himmata

Ram for the reason that he failed to report that in village

Rajmathai Laxmi Narayan had 43 Bighas of agricultural land.

Village Rajmathai was not within Patwar jurisdiction of Himmata

Ram nor he was expected to inspect record of different places.

The Patwaries and the Tehsildars had jointly submitted

reports in respect of the individual applicants. The petitioners-

Patwaries did not submit any wrong information regarding

availability of land to any of the applicant, rather the Tehsildars

who were expected to report on other occupations and jobs of the

applicants failed to discharge their duty and they did not submit

such report, however, the State has decided to not to prosecute

them and as such no sanction was granted. Evidently the action of

the State is discriminatory one among the equals rather

discriminatory against the Patwaries, who stood on better footing

than the Tehsildars. For this reason also the criminal prosecution

against petitioners-Patwaries is not sustainable.

22. One more thing is evident that during whole of the

investigation, it did not surface that in fact the petitioners had

acted in discharge of their official duty for extraneous

consideration. The prosecution has failed to bring any evidence

that Rs.2000/-, as alleged was paid to any of the accused by the

[2024:RJ-JD:37154] (14 of 14)

beneficiary. Only surmises and conjectures are available which

makes the charge groundless coupled with other facts and

circumstances of this case. Unless demand and acceptance of

bribe is prima facie alleged, offence under the Prevention of

Corruption Act aforesaid would not be attracted, therefore, charge

against these petitioners Tara Ram, Himmata Ram and Ghewar

Ram also appears to be groundless and discriminative to that of

other co-accused referred above, who were either not granted

sanction by State or were discharged by trial Judge by the

impugned order. Hence, the impugned order against these

petitioners also stand set aside. They are discharged from their

criminal liability.

23. All the criminal revision petitions are allowed accordingly.

(BIRENDRA KUMAR), J.

Sanjay

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)