CRM-M-20098-2011 (O&M) [ 1 ] :::::::: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-20098-2011 (O&M) Date of Decision:13.10.2011 Kulwant Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. J.S.Brar, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate, for the complainant. Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate, as Amicus Curiae. **** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. This is a petition for grant of pre-arrest bail in a case registered vide FIR No.23 dated 07.05.2011, under Sections 409 and 420 IPC, at Police Station Kotli Surat Mali, Police District Batala, District Gurdaspur. The FIR is registered by Nihal Singh son of Tarlok Singh who has alleged that there is about 500 acres of custodian land in village Kamalpur beyond the barbed wire in Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. The petitioner, who is Patwari of the Circle, told him that he could get 20 acres of Custodian land transferred in his name @ Rs.15,000/- per acre. He gave Rs.3 lac to the petitioner at his house in the presence of Surjan Singh son of Jaswant Singh, resident of village Chandu Wadala which was counted by the Manpreet Singh son of the petitioner and his wife. He has alleged that even after the expiry of one year and 8 months neither the land has been transferred in his name nor the CRM-M-20098-2011 (O&M) [ 2 ] :::::::: money has been returned, but the petitioner had agreed to sell his Alto car bearing registration No.PB-3J-5807 for Rs.1 lac and also agreed to pay Rs.2 lac on or before 25.02.2011 with a condition that if he fails to pay this amount by the said date, then he would mortgage his 8 Kanals of land in the name of the complainant, but now the petitioner made an application in P.S.Kotli Surat Mali that the complainant had stolen his car for which he was made to sit in the police station for 5-6 days although the Patwari/petitioner had agreed to sell his car to him. Faced with these allegations, the petitioner had applied for pre-arrest bail before the learned Court below which was dismissed on 20.06.2011. It is averred in the petition and argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a Patwari serving in Revenue Department, Revenue Circle, Chaura where the custodian land is available. The local MLA, who happens to be a Cabinet Minister, wanted the petitioner to transfer Khasra Girdawari of custodian land in favour of the complainant so that the land could be transferred in his favour under the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 [for short “the Act”], but when the petitioner refused to do it, it annoyed the local MLA. The complainant took away his Alto car for which he had to file a complaint before the police. On account of the pressure exhorted by the local MLA upon the petitioner, he had to sign two blank papers which had been converted in the agreement to sell. At the time of preliminary hearing, the complainant was added as respondent No.2 on the oral request of the petitioner. The Court had found that the complainant is also guilty for seeking an illegal favour from the Patwari/petitioner of transfer of 20 acres of custodian land for which he had paid him illegal gratification of Rs.3 lac. After notice was served upon the complainant, this Court had requested Shri Vivek Suri, Advocate, to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae. Learned counsel for the complainant has filed reply to the show cause notice. The learned Amicus Curiae has argued that the petitioner and the complainant both are liable for prosecution in terms of Sections 7, 12 and 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [for short “P.C. Act”] because the custodian land can be disposed of only in terms of Section 4 of the Act and CRM-M-20098-2011 (O&M) [ 3 ] :::::::: the petitioner had no jurisdiction to transfer the land in favour of the complainant who is neither a Scheduled Caste nor a displaced person. In reply to the show cause notice, the complainant has alleged that he had paid Rs.3 lac to the petitioner as he told him that he can get him 20 acres of land @ Rs.15,000/- per acre which are the expenses to be incurred by him and when he failed to return the money, he not only agreed to sell his Alto car for Rs.1 lac but also offered to pay the remaining amount of Rs.2 lac subsequently. It is also argued that the complainant has the protection of Section 24 of the P.C. Act. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that insofar as the petitioner is concerned, he does not deserve the concession of bail much-less the anticipatory bail in view of the serious allegation of receiving Rs.3 lac as illegal gratification from the complainant in order to transfer or facilitate the transfer of 20 acres of government land in his favour at a meagre rate of Rs.15,000/- per acre, therefore, the present petition is hereby dismissed. Insofar as the complainant is concerned, since he has insisted that he had paid Rs.3 lac to the petitioner for the purpose of allotment of 20 acres of custodian land @ Rs.15,000/- per acre without disclosing anything in his reply about his entitlement and any provision of law, therefore, it is prima facie clear that the money given by him to the petitioner was for procuring a favour which was apparently illegal. In view thereof, the prosecution is directed to look into this matter and register a case against the complainant on the basis of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in accordance with law. October 13, 2011 ( Rakesh Kumar Jain ) vinod* Judge