1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3566 of 2008 (Dangal Vs. State) ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:25/8/2009 ... P.C.: 1. Since respondent no.2 has retired from service on 31.1.2007 and on 15.1.2008, in identical matter, Mr.Chaudhari, Counsel, appearing for the applicant Sau.Sumati therein (Cri.application No.3229/2007), informed the Court to take appropriate steps and respondent no.2 was accordingly deleted, I do not see any reason for continuing name of respondent no.2 in the present proceedings. The petitioner shall implead the authority holding the papers and charge of the matter. Request allowed accordingly. 2. Heard learned Counsel extensively. 2 3. The order below Exhs. 224, 228, 229 and 230 in RCC No.484/2007 dt.4.9.2008 recorded by the learned 5th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhule, is subject of decision in the present application. 4. It is contended by the learned Counsel that the FIR vide Crime No. 13/2006,registered at Songir Police Station for the offense punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420 read with 34 of IPC is bad in law as the actions of the Sarpanch of the village were in good faith, there should have been a sanction in terms of Section 181(2) of the Village Panchayats Act, 1958. The liability, if it is to be fixed, three months prior notice is to be issued. The action as indicated under Section 178 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, is not followed and hence quashment. 5. It is a matter of record that in­depth inquiry was conducted as to allotment of the plots in village ( Gaothan) by the respective Sarpanch and the Village 3 Development Officer. Since the property belonged to the Government/ Gram Panchayat, it was pre­requisite to seek prior permission in terms of Sections 51 and 55 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, however, there is nothing to this effect, to demonstrate that the distribution of plots to the villagers was in terms of such legal procedure. Since distribution itself was illegal, though the Counsel informs that the land still stands in the name of the Gram Panchayats, though the allottees are only occupiers, but, that by itself will not exonerate the accused/applicants herein from meeting the criminal liability. At the prima facie stage, I find that there was sufficient material which led to filing prosecution; commencing from Crime No.13/2006. No infirmity. No interference required. Criminal Application rejected. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... agp/3566­08crapl