The Special Criminal Revision concerning a petition to set aside a trial court order refusing discharge was dismissed. The court held that the petitioner's alleged manipulation of official records to grab government land attracted criminality.
The Criminal Revision challenging the refusal to discharge the petitioner was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CORAM : HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.PUJAHARI
CRLREV No.769 of 2018
Artatran Mallick … Petitioner - Versus - Republic of India (CBI) … Opp. Party
O R D E R
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the CBI.
3. This Criminal Revision has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to set aside the order dated 26.04.2018, passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI-II, Bhubaneswar in T.R. No.4/2013, refusing to discharge the petitioner in the aforesaid case where he has been sent up for trial for alleged commission of offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 466, 467, 468 and 417 of I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and quash the prosecution against him as the same is unsustainable in law.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner while discharging his official duty as Assistant Settlement Officer during the settlement operation prepared a Yadast taking note of the materials produced before him but, when
2
it was found that the said Yadast has been prepared to be not in accordance with law, the petitioner along with others have been framed in a criminal case by the C.B.I. for the alleged commission of the aforesaid offences. Since the petitioner while discharging his quasi judicial duty has prepared a Yadast even if the decision taken thereon was wrong, the same does not expose him to any criminal prosecution and, therefore, the trial court should have taking note of the same, allow the prayer of the petitioner to discharge him from the aforesaid case. Since the trial court being oblivious to the same rejected the prayer of the petitioner, this Court taking note of the aforesaid facts and circumstances may set aside the impugned order and quash the proceeding against the petitioner.
5. However, Mr.S.Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the CBI submits that it is not within the domain of discharge of official duty of public servant to manipulate the record to do favour and claim protection from prosecution for such criminal act committed. Since the petitioner along with others substituted the earlier record in preparation of Yadast, such contention of the petitioner is without any substance. For a bona fide exercise of the jurisdiction, a person can claim such protection but,
3
in this case, as the materials on record would go to show that there was no bonafide exercise of jurisdiction rather manipulating records, efforts were made by the petitioner and others to grab the valuable Government land by recording the same in the name of co-accused, the contention of the learned counsel challenging the order impugned, is devoid of merit, more so when taking note of the fact that the State Government under whom the petitioner was employed, has granted sanction for his prosecution and as such, the Criminal Revision is liable to be dismissed.
6. It appears from the materials on record that the petitioner while working as Assistant Settlement Officer along with other co-accused persons entered into conspiracy to grab the land by fraudulent means. The petitioner along with others illegally prepared the Yadast i.e. final Record of Rights abusing his official position and also showed undue favour to the accused Subash Chandra Samantray by illegally recording the government land in his favour. The documents seized from the house of Subash Chandra Samantray during the course of investigation in the instant case prima facie shows that he is a land grabber. The Yadast No.8081-8504 has been prepared in the Settlement Camp,
4
Bhubaneswar in favour of one Bichitrananda Harichandan in response to the application No.MPR1972 which was submitted by the accused Subash Chandra Samantaray and the said Yadast has been finalized by the present accused on 20.4.2007, again his successor prepared one Yadast in response to same application i.e. MPR-1972 in the name of said Subash Chandra Samantaray replacing the Yadast No.8081 on 5.2.2008. Therefore, all of them were hand-in-glove for manipulation of such record. Further more, the materials on record would go to show that Yadast No.8081/8504 has been created with forged document, so also Yadast No.4106 has been prepared illegally in the name of Subash Chandra Samantaray. The petitioner appears to have prepared the Yadast Nos.2593, 3535, 4016 also in illegal manner and appears to have antedated the orders. The entire exercise of the petitioner along with others was done to grab the Government land recording the same in the name of the person who was not eligible. The manipulation of the record does not come within the bonafide exercise of power. Therefore, the aforesaid act of the petitioner attracts the criminality and taking note of the same, the employer of the petitioner has also accorded the sanction for prosecution against the petitioner. In
5
such view of the matter, the trial court having found that prosecutable evidence are there against the petitioner, when refused to allow the prayer of the petitioner, the same cannot be said to be illegal, arbitrary or contrary to law.
7. Hence, this CRLREV filed challenging the impugned order being devoid of merit stands dismissed.
………………….. S.Pujahari, J.
RKS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a criminal revision filed by a petitioner to set aside an order refusing discharge in a corruption andabet case, regarding manipulation of official records, merits allowing.
Whether the refusal of the Special Judge to discharge the petitioner attracts illegality, arbitrariness, or contrary to law.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Artatran Mallick
Republic of India (CBI)
S. Pujahari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
