R.R. Prasad, J. - Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the CBI.

2. This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings of R.C. Case No. RC 04(A) of 2010 AHD (R) as also the order dated 11/12/2012, whereby and where under cognisance of the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 193 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has been taken against the petitioner.

3. A complaint case bearing Complaint Case No. 02/2008, was lodged by the complainant before the Court of Vigilance alleging therein that two Ministers Mr. Hari Narayan Rai and Mr. Anosh Ekka have acquired huge properties by abusing their official position. The said complaint when was sent before the vigilance police station for its institution and registration, it was registered as Vigilance P.S. Case No. 26 of 2008. While the matter was being investigated by the Vigilance, an order was passed on 04/08/2010 by this Court in WP (PIL) Nos. 4700 of 2008 and 2252 of 2009, whereby the CBI was directed to take over the investigation of the said case. Accordingly, the CBI took over the investigation of the case. During investigation, it was found that Anosh Ekka has also acquired properties in the name of his wife Mrs. Menon Ekka, who had filed an application before the D.C.L.R for seeking permission in terms of Section 46 of the CNT Act to purchase the land situated within Ormajhi Police Station. At the same time, the seller had also submitted application for having permission to sell that piece of land. Both the applications accompanied respective affidavits of the seller as well as purchaser stating therein that they do have landed property in the area situated within Ormajhi police station. It also accompanied a check slip wherein one of the columns seeking information as to whether purchaser does have land, was kept blank. On receiving the said applications the DCLR asked the Circle Officer, the petitioner to submit report. The Circle Officer called for a report from the Karamchari, who submitted that the purchaser does have land in the area situated within Ormajhi police station. The Circle Inspector by making the same endorsement submitted the report to the Circle Officer, the petitioner who by putting his signature submitted its report to DCLR. Accordingly, DCLR granted permission to the seller for selling land to Mrs.Menon Ekka though Mrs Menon Ekka, in fact, had had no land in the area situated within Ormajhi police station. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the Karamchari, Circle Inspector, Circle Officer as well as the other authorities for commission of the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code and also under the Prevention of Corruption Act, alleging therein that the petitioner by abusing his official position put the purchaser in advantageous position and, thereby, committed offence punishable under Section 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and also under Sections 120B, 193 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. On submission of the charge sheet, when cognisance of the offences was taken by the court, it was challenged before this Court.

5. Mr. R. Krihsna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being the Circle Officer, had simply put his signature over the report submitted by the Karamchari, which was endorsed by the Circle Inspector for forwarding it to D.C.L.R, a competent officer to pass order in terms of the provision as contained in Section 46 (1) of the C.N.T. Act, and, thereby, he did not commit any offence either under the Prevention of Corruption Act or under the Indian Penal Code and, hence, the Court committed illegality in taking cognisance of the offence. In this regard, it was submitted that to constitute an offence two components necessarily used to be there actus reus and mens rea. Here, since the petitioner had forwarded the report he can be said to have done the actus reus but while submitting the report he could not have any mens rea as the petitioner was having no knowledge of the fact that the purchaser was not having any land in the area situated within Ormajhi police station.

6. Here in the instant case the prosecution has not come forward with a case that the petitioner, in spite of having knowledge of the fact that the purchaser was not having any land in the area within Ormajhi police station, still he forwarded that report containing wrong fact that the purchaser was having land in that area. In absence of it, the petitioner cannot be said to have committed any offence either of the I.P.C or under the Prevention of Corruption Act, particularly when the prosecution has not come forward with a case that the petitioner did it to have have undue pecuniary advantage. Under the circumstances, no criminal offence is made out. In this regard, the learned counsel has referred to a case of "C.K. Jaffer Sharief v. State through CBI [(2013) 1 SCC 205] [LQ/SC/2012/1002] ."

7. Further it was submitted that if the petitioner by putting signature forwarded the report which contained incorrect fact, he cannot be held liable for any criminal offence though the petitioner may be liable administratively for such lapses.

8. As against this, Mr. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the CBI by placing reliance heavily on the check list, submits that necessary column, i.e. column no. 19 seeking information as to whether purchaser do have any land situated in Ormajhi police station, was kept blank wherein no information had been given that the purchaser was having any land or not within that police station. Still, this petitioner being the Circle Officer, forwarded the report submitted by the Karamchari and endorsed by the Circle Inspector before the D.C.L.R by putting his signature and, thereby, it can be presumed that the petitioner was having knowledge of the fact that the purchaser was having no land within Ormajhi Police Station and, hence, order taking cognisance never warrants to be quashed.

9. From the submission advanced on behalf of the parties, it does appear that the petitioner, Circle Officer is being prosecuted for the reason that he had put his signature over the report submitted by the Karamchari, which was endorsed by the Circle Inspector for forwarding it to D.C.L.R, a competent officer to pass order after reporting therein that Mrs. Menon Ekka is the resident of the area situated within the police station where the land situates.

10. On the other hand, the stand of the C.B.I is that despite the petitioner having knowledge that Mrs. Menon Ekka was never the resident of the area falling within the police station, still the petitioner forwarded the report of Karamchari and Circle Inspector falsely reporting therein that Mrs. Menon Ekka does have land in that area falling within Ormajhi Police station but the C.B.I failed to show that the petitioner was having knowledge of the said fact. However, plea has been taken that relevant column seeking information as to whether the purchaser does have land in the said police station was kept blank it be presumed that the petitioner was having knowledge that the purchaser does not have land within the area of Ormajhi police station which is not acceptable in view of the fact that the report was submitted that the purchaser does have land in that area and that affidavit was also there to that effect. Thus, even if the petitioner had forwarded a wrong report, he cannot be liable to be prosecuted criminally though he may be liable to be proceeded with the departmental proceeding for administrative lapses as no evidence is there that the petitioner did it with dishonest intention to have undue pecuniary advantage. If that factum is absent, the petitioner is not liable to be prosecuted in view of the decision rendered in a case of C.K. Jaffer Sharief v. State through C.B.I (supra) wherein it has been observed in paragraph 17 that ".... If in the process, the rules or norms applicable were violated or the decision taken shows an extravagant display of redundancy it is the conduct and action of the appellant which may have been improper or contrary to departmental norms. But to say that the same was actuated by a dishonest intention to obtain an undue pecuniary advantage will not be correct. However, it has been said that the dishonest intention is the gist of the offence under Section 13(1)(d) is implicit in the words used i.e. corrupt or illegal means and abuse of position as public servant."

11. Similar view has been taken in a case of M. Narayanan Nambiar v. State of Kerala (AIR 1963 SC 1116 [LQ/SC/1962/409] ).

12. It be stated that if the petitioner would have recommended and forwarded with a knowledge that the purchaser was not having any land in that area, he would have certainly liable to be prosecuted with the criminal offence as in that event both the ingredients of a crime actus reus and mens rea would have been completed. Here, only actus reus seems to be there on the part of the petitioner but nothing is there to show that he was having mens rea also.

13. Under the circumstances, no offence whatsoever is made out under which cognisance has been taken. Accordingly, the order dated 11.12.2012 taking cognisance is hereby quashed.

14. In the result, this application stands allowed.