Dismissed

Ghanaram Mahilane v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC14 Nov 2017CRR/780/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the appeal against an order framing charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC. The court held that deleting a living person's name from land records created a prima facie case of corruption and falsehood, warranting trial.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed; stay application (IA No.01/17) dismissed.

Ghanaram Mahilane Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Corruption | Chhattisgarh HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Revision No.780 of 2017

¶4

Ghanaram Mahilane S/o Late Shri Madaru Mahilange, Aged About 60 Years R/o The Than Nayab Tehsildar Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶5

---- Revisioner/Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Criminal Investigation / Anti Corruption Bureau Raipur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

---- Non Revisioner/Respondent

¶9

For Revisioner/applicant : Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Advocate For respondent/State : Shri Anil Pandey, Govt. Advocate

¶10

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma Order On Board

¶11

14.11.2017

¶12

1 . This revision has been preferred against the orders dated 20.7.2017 and 19.7.2017 passed by Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'), JanjgirChampa wherein the said Court rejected the application filed by the revisioner for getting report dated 16.01.2013 filed by the Anti Corruption Bureau and framed charges against the revisioner under Sections 420, 120B, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 7 & 13(1)(D) read with Section 13(2) of the Act.

¶13

2 . Order dated 20.7.2017 reveals that report dated 16.01.2013 of the said bureau has not been filed with final report. As the said report was not the part of the final report, the trial Court was not in a position to deliver the copy of the same. The revisioner can invoke the provision of Right to Information Act for getting the copy of report

¶14

¶15

dated 16.01.2013. With this observation, revision against order dated 20.7.2017 is disposed of.

¶16

3 . So far as the framing of charges against the revisioner is concerned, the revisioner was posted as Naib Tahsildar at Akalthara, Distt. Janjgir-Champa where land bearing survey No.227 area No.2.860 acres was recorded in the name of one Kamta Prasad Kurre, who is a living person, but the said Tahsildar deleted his name from the record of rights showing him as dead and recorded the name of one Shakila Bai and made her the owner of the said land.

¶17

4 . Sanction was granted by the State Government for prosecution of the revisioner under Sections 7 & 13(2) of the Anti Corruption Bureau, 1988 and on the basis of the said sanction Special Court took cognizance against the revisioner and the cognizance cannot be faulted with.

¶18

5 . Learned counsel for the revisioner submits that Naib Tahsildar is the revenue Court and the order is passed by him on the report of Patwari and therefore no offence is made out.

¶19

6 . In view of this Court, when Kamta Prasad Kurre is a living person and his name is deleted from the record of rights by the revisioner and recorded the name of some Shakeela Bai, it is a prima facie case of preparation of false documents. It was the duty of the revisioner to enquire whether any person has died or not before deleting his name from the record. But from the statement recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC of Kamta Prasad Kurre, Anirudh KUmar, Ganesh Ram Kurre, Sukhdev Prasad Kurre, Jyotish

¶20

¶21

Kunar Sarway, CS Dhurve and Nand Kishore Pandey, it appears that name of a living person namely Kampta Prasad Kurre is deleted from the record of rights upon conspiracy amongst the revisioner, Patwari and the said lady and the documents have been used as genuine, hence, there is prima facie evidence against the revisioner to proceed with the case.

¶22

7 . At the time of framing of charges, merit of the case is not required to be discussed. If there is suspicion about the commission of offence charges can be framed, marshallings of evidence is done only after completion of trial. At the stage of framing of charges the court is not concerned with the proof. It is a matter of forming opinion whether there is strong suspicion that the accused committed the offence.

¶23

8 . When there is prima facie evidence of making false record, it can be presumed that same is done by the revisioner, who is a public servant, for some reward and that is why the trial court framed charges under Section 7 and 13(2) of the Act. It is not a case where charges have been framed even when there is no ground to proceed or the charges are groundless.

¶24

9 . The revision has no force and the same is dismissed at the motion stage itself. Consequently, IA No.01/17 for grant of stay stands dismissed.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

(Ram Prasanna Sharma)

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

Bini

Ghanaram Mahilane v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghanaram Mahilane v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neel Kamal Rajar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ajeet Kumar Gautam Vs Smt. Neetu Gautam

Surendra Raj Vs Devkunwar

Madhurima Shukla Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Dayalu Bhaskar Vs Smt. Parmeshwari

Ram Lal Kariyare Vs Smt. Ghasin Bai Kariyare and Oth.