1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R Kulwant Singh Punia Vs. State of Rajasthan (1) S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION NO.588/2004 Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (2) S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION NO.551/2004 Manohar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (3) S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION NO.154/2005 against the order dt.13.7.04 passed by the Sessions Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Bikaner in Sessions Case No.17/2003. Date of Judgment: Aug.12, 2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DEO NARAYAN THANVI Mr.J.S.Choudhary) Mr.Mridul Jain ) Mr.S.S.Dhillon ) for appellants. Mr.L.R.Upadhyaya, Public Prosecutor. BY THE COURT : 1. These are the three revision petitions, directed against the order dt.13.7.04 of the learned Sessions Judge, Prevention of 2 Corruption Act, Bikaner, whereby he framed charges against the petitioners Kulwant Singh, Jarnail Singh and Manohar Singh for the offences u/ss.13(1)(d) r/w Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, hereinafter referred-to as “the Act” and also u/ss.471 and 477A r/w 120-B IPC. 2. The charge against the accused petitioners was that on 24.12.96, Kulwant Singh was holding the charge of the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division Suratgarh, Jarnail Singh was Assistant Engineer and Manohar Singh was Junior Engineer at the relevant time. They all the three made a criminal conspiracy with the agriculturists of Chak 10-STB and submitted wrong survey report about 110 bighas of land belonging to 18 agriculturists by showing the said land to be declared as command area. According to the allegation, the said 110 bighas of land was above the `Khala Naka' level and there was no chance of water being flown on account of its natural flow. The land was declared by the Government from uncommand to command area and the difference price of Rs.67620/- with regard to 35 bighas of land, allotted after 1955 to agriculturists Mani Ram, Bhani Ram, Norang Ram, Parma Ram, Heeralal and Jaimal Singh, was not deposited in the Government revenue. In this regard, the F.I.R. was registered at Anti Corruption Bureau being No.227/98. 3 3. After investigation, Mahaveer Prasad, Circle Inspector, Anti Corruption Bureau, Hanumangarh, Camp Jaipur, submitted a report to the Secretary, Lokayukta that in the said F.I.R., no criminal offence was made out against the petitioners and also against some of the engineers but it was a mere procedural violation of the rules for which the departmental enquiry was proposed. This report of the Circle Inspector is at page 100 of the record submitted with the revision petition. 4. There is also technical report, submitted by the Chairman of the Indira Gandhi Nahar Project, Jaipur, which is at page 104. In this report, three points have been discussed, firstly with regard to the conversion of 110 bighas of land from uncommand to command in which it is clearly stated that by order dt.12.1.96 of the Irrigation Department, this land was converted into command from uncommand, for which no officer is liable. With regard to second question, it was stated that J.En. Manohar Singh and A.En.Jarnail Singh submitted wrong report. During investigation, it was revealed that the actual level of the land is 2 to 4 ft. higher than the corner of the `Khala', therefore, there is no possibility of the water being flown at its natural flow. According to this technical report, this important survey could have been conducted to double level so that there may not be chance of any mistake. Since, the J.En. did not adopt even the 4 single survey in accordance with the procedure, the Asstt.Engineer and Junior Engineer viz; petitioners Jarnail Singh and Manoher Singh respectively, are responsible. Lastly, with regard to the loss of the revenue, it has been reported that inspite of non-deposit of the difference revenue of 67,620/-, the water was supplied to the agriculturists by Kulwant Singh, Ex.En. and thereby he put the State Govt. to loss. 5. Upon this technical report, when the matter was investigated by the police, it was revealed from the revenue record, particularly the Girdawri, that no loss was caused by them because of the raising of the water level from 3.26 qucik to 3.40 qucik, which was divided into two distributaries. It was also reported that in cases Nos.42/351, 41/350 and 38/349, 18 bighas of land was rechecked by a team from all the four corners and it was found that it was above the F.S.L. and the `Khala' was also not found dug. Therefore, no water was discharged and thereby no loss was caused to the agriculturists. 6. As regards non- deposit of the difference amount of Rs.67,620/-, it has been reported by the investigating officer that it was the duty of the Irrigation authorities to communicate the information of the conversion of land from uncommand to command to revenue authorities, who were responsible to 5 recover the same. From the perusal of this technical report and the report of the investigating officer, I fail to understand that how the prosecution has been sanctioned against the present petitioners. When the Government has converted the land from uncommand to the command area and the difference price has not been deposited by the agriculturists, then it was the duty of the revenue authorities to collect the same as arrears of the land revenue by virtue of sub-rule (11) of Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Govt. Land in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975. Under sub-rule (10) of Rule 17 of the said Rules, the Colonisation Tehsildar shall prepare a demand statement in respect of instalments, which have become due and shall proceed to effect recovery of the same. Even, there is a provision for adjustment of the price through instalments under the various clauses of Rule 17 of the said Rules. Of-course, the investigating officer has reported that this information of conversion was not given to the revenue authorities but this was the duty of the head of the department, whose supervisory negligence is existing when a Govt. order is issued for its compliance, though he has been left out by the police and the Secretariat but junior officers have been held liable for this act. Normally, when a paper reaches to the office of the head of the department, it is processed through the clerk concerned, I failed to understand, how for this lapse or 6 negligence, the accused Engineers are responsible. 7. It has been reported by the investigating officer that in 18 bighas of land, the level was higher but it was not irrigated and the agriculturists are using the water from some other land, whereby no loss has been caused to the other agriculturists. 8. Even, there is not a single iota of evidence that the present petitioners received any illegal gratification for the purpose of conversion of land or for giving wrong report or for preventing the agriculturists from depositing the State revenue. It is also not proved that they accepted illegal gratification for distribution of water from the channels. The prosecution has not been able to establish from challan papers that petitioners forged and used the Govt. record as genuine so as to constitute the offence u/ss.471 or 477A IPC or that of any conspiracy. Even from the report of the investigating officer and the technical report, there was even no ground to file chargesheet, least to say about framing charges on the basis of sufficient grounds. As a result, all the petitioners deserves to be discharged by virtue of Sec.227 CrPC. 9. Consequently, all the revision petitions are allowed and the order dt.13.7.04 of the learned Sessions Judge, Prevention of 7 Corruption Act, Bikaner framing charges against the petitioners Kulwant Singh, Jarnail Singh and Manohar Singh u/ss.13(1)(d) r/w Sec.13(2) of the Act and also u/ss.471 and 477A r/w 120-B IPC, is set aside and they are discharged from the charges, levelled. They are on bail, their bail bonds stand cancelled. (DEO NARAYAN THANVI), J. RANKAWAT JK, PS