Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.41229 of 2012 ====================================================== Subodh Nath Thakur (the then District Magistrate, Kishanganj) S/O Late Rama Nath Thakur, resident of House No. 7, Asha Shree Garden Morahabadi, P.S- Morahabadi, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. .... .... Petitioner. Versus The State Of Bihar(through the Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Patna) .... .... Opposite Party. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 2 05-12-2012 Heard learned senior counsels for the petitioner and the Vigilance. The petitioner being the then District Magistrate, Kishanganj is apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and [STATUTE] . It is alleged that between 1998 to 2000, 44 entrepreneurs were leased five acres of land each for 99 years for the tea cultivation industry in Thakurganj and Pothia Blocks of Kishanganj District by wrongly interpreting the State Industrial Policy, 1995 whereby 13.94 acres of Gair Mazrua Aam lands were settled when more than one unit of five acres were given to same family. It is further alleged Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41229 of 2012 (2) dt.05-12-2012 2 / 6 2 that big entrepreneurs are commercially using Bhudan lands. Jungle Jhar lands were leased out without permission of the Forest Department and salami was not realized. The settled lands in favour of tribal were also leased out without its cancellation. Moreover, the whole process was done with undue haste when lease agreement was made in derogation to Khas Mahal Manual causing loss of Crores of rupees to the Government. It is submitted by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that for accelerating the industrial weather of the State, the Government of Bihar brought Industrial Policy, 1995 which stipulates the allotment of 5 acres of land to each entrepreneur for 90 years with option of renewal when the rent was revisable after every 20 years. In pursuance to the industrial policy, the Circle Officer was to recommend the application which was forwarded by the DCLR and SDO when the lands were leased out by the Collector on the basis of pre- determined rate of rent fixed by the State Government. It is submitted that all the 44 units of leased out lands are not Gair Mazarua Aam or Khas or the forest lands. So far as the question of leasing out of settled lands of the scheduled tribes is Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41229 of 2012 (2) dt.05-12-2012 3 / 6 3 concerned, such settlees never occupied the land or the rent was ever realized in lieu of such settlement. Moreover, the scheduled castes migrated from the area in question and the lease to entrepreneurs was made after inviting objections through general notice when no objection was made from any quarter. Moreover, the lands were barren when the commercial rent was realized by executing a lease to entrepreneurs on charging of the registration fee of Rupees One Lakh each and there was no provision of salami in the policy in question, hence, no revenue loss was caused to the Government and the petitioner can only be blamed for illegality, if any, with regard to the area which has been leased out and not any other area on which tea cultivation is going on. It is further submitted that the then Collector, Kishanganj, vide order dated 25.04.2003, cancelled the lease of entrepreneurs on the ground that industrial policies were wrongly interpreted, Gair Mazarua Aam lands were settled by the Collector which can only be settled by the Government when the Industrial Policy, 1995 includes tea cultivation, processing and packaging as one thrust of industry rather only the tea cultivation. The said order of Collector was challenged before this Hon’ble Court Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41229 of 2012 (2) dt.05-12-2012 4 / 6 4 vide CWJC No. 5123 of 2003 when this Court vide order dated 30.06.2010, as contained in Annexure-6, to the present application remanded the matter to Industrial Development Commissioner on the ground of passing of the order by Collector in violation of principles of natural justice and the order of Collector and it’s consequential notice as contained in Annexures- 5 and 6 series of the said writ application were kept in abeyance when by order dated 15.03.2011, the Principal Secretary, Industry Department, Government of Bihar, held that cancellation of lease was not in the industrial interest of the state and forwarded the matter to the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms to decide the issue of lease which is in domain of Revenue Department. The Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, constituted a three member inquiry committee which submitted initial report on 10.06.2011 and supplementary report on 30.06.2011, on the basis of which the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, on 10.08.2011 again cancelled the lease and consequent notice was issued by Collector on 26.08.2011 when the entrepreneurs challenged the orders of Principal Secretary, Industry, Revenue and Land Reforms and the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41229 of 2012 (2) dt.05-12-2012 5 / 6 5 consequent notice issued by Collector in C.W.J.C. No. 16303 of 2011 when the State prays for adjournment to file counter affidavit when the order dated 09.10.2011 passed by the Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms as well as consequential order of the Collector dated 20.8.2011 were stayed when it is not disputed that the said stay order is still operative, hence it is submitted that when the State Government failed to cancel the lease and to proceed against the District Magistrates departmentally, then maliciously the present FIR has been lodged on 25.06.2012 after about two decades of the registration of lease which can only be cancelled by competen

Applicable IPC Section: 409

Statute Text:
Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. Criminal breach of trust by public servant or by banker, merchant or agent, etc. Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.