Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, J.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance. This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 30 of 2000 (Special Case No. 17 of 2000) including the order dated 18.11.2009 passed by the then learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi whereby and whereunder learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi, took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 467/468/469/471/477A/409/120B/109/423/424/201 of the Indian Penal Code and also u/s 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that a piece of land measuring 4.75 acres, appertaining to Khata No. 263, Khasera No. 1656 situated at Mouza Mahilong was recorded as Gairmazurwa Parti Kadim whereas another piece of land measuring 25.60 acres of land, appeartaining to Khata No. 263, Khesara No. 1661 was recorded as Parti Pathal Gairmazurwa Malik land.

3. On 24.07.1959, out of 25.60 acres of land of Khesara No. 1661, 19.86 acres of land, was settled by the then State of Bihar in the name of Dr. S.C. Home. Thereupon, the then DCLR, mutated the land settled to him in his name. Subsequently, DCLR, settled the land measuring 4.75 acres of Gairmazurwa of Khesara No. 1656 to said Dr. S.C. Home. On that basis, the then DCLR, on 18.08.1972 vide Case No. 59-R-8/71-72 opened a rent Schedule.

4. Much thereafter, Ranjeet Home son of late Dr. S.C. Home, settled 7 acres of land of Khata No. 263, Khesara No. 1661 on 21.01.1980 to S.C. Bagchi, whose name was mutated vide Mutation Case No. 38-R-27/80-81.

5. In course of time, S.C. Bagchi, sold that land to Smt. Shiv Dulari Gupta, Smt. Meena Rani Gupta and Smt. Nalini Gupta, whose names was mutated against the land purchased by them vide Mutation Case No. 35-R-27/82-83.

6. Further in the year 1981, the said Ranjeet Homes, sold 17.61 acres of land of Khata No. 263, Khesara No. 1656 to Sri. Subhash Chandra Sharma. Smt. Shobha Devi Sharma and Sri. Shanti Kumar Ram Sisriya.

7. However, when it was detected that Jamabandi has wrongly been opened against the persons named above, the then Circle Officer-Dinesh Kumar instituted a Miscellaneous Case bearing Nos. 76 to 79 of 91-92 whereby the then C.O. made recommendation for cancellation of Jamabandi. The said record was sent to this petitioner, the then DCLR, who, kept the file pending, though was quite aware of the fact that illegal transaction has taken place with respect to land mentioned above. Ultimately when his successor joined, he handed over the file to his successor.

8. On such allegation, the first information report was lodged, which was registered as Vigilance P.S. Case No. 30 of 2000 (Special Case No. 17 of 2000) under Sections 467/468/469/471/477A/409/120B/109/423/424/201 of the Indian Penal Code and also u/s 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

9. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted upon which cognizance of the offences, as aforesaid, was taken vide order dated 18.11.2009, which is under challenge.

10. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that accepting the entire allegation to be true, no offence, under which cognizance has been taken against the petitioner, is made out so far this petitioner is concerned, as the petitioner has simply been alleged to have kept the file, concerning cancellation of Jamabandi pending, but that act never constitute any offence under which cognizance has been taken in absence of any material with respect to act of connivance and that if the petitioner had kept the matter pending, the petitioner could have been proceeded with administrative action but the petitioner is being proceeded with the criminal offence though no offence is made out against the petitioner.

11. As against this, Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance submits that this petitioner was quite aware of the fact that illegal transactions have taken place of the land, which was the government land and, therefore, the petitioner should have acted promptly when the file was forwarded to the petitioner by the then C.O. for cancellation of Jamabandi and this act itself does establish about the culpability of this petitioner.

12. In the circumstances, the question does arise as to whether the allegation made in the first information report, so far it relates to the petitioner, does constitute offence of cheating, forgery and misappropriation or even offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act

13. It be recorded that the petitioner, the then DCLR, has simply been alleged to have kept the file relating to cancellation of Jamabandi pending with him and only when his successor joined, he handed over the file and this act of the petitioner neither constitute any offence of forgery, cheating or misappropriation. So far offence of forgery is concerned, the condition precedent for forgery is making false documents, which, in the instant case, is lacking in this regard, I may refer to a decision rendered in a case of " Md. Ibrahim and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Another, , wherein their Lordships after having regard to the provision contained in Section 470 of the I.P.C. as well as other provisions relating to forgery did observe as follows:-

The condition precedent for an offence under Sections 467 and 471 is forgery. The condition precedent for forgery is making a false document (or false electronic record or part thereof). This case does not relate to any false electronic record. Therefore, the question is whether the first accused, in executing and registering the two sale deeds purporting to sell a property (even if it is assumed that it did not belong to him), can be said to have made and executed false documents, in collusion with the other accused.

14. Even the entire allegation regarding transfer of the land to different persons are accepted, those transactions vide sale deeds, cannot be said to be a false documents in terms of Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code.

15. Thus, when those sale deeds are not forged documents, then question of committing offence under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code does not arise. Moreover, the petitioner has nothing to do with the aforesaid transactions and in such event, no offence of forgery is made out against the petitioner.

16. Going further in the matter, one can hardly conceive as to how offence under Sections 423 and 424 of IPC is made out when there has been no case of dishonest or fraudulent execution of deed of transfer containing false statement of consideration nor it is the case of dishonest or fraudulent removal of concealment of the property.

17. Likewise, in the facts and circumstances of the case, no case either u/s 409 or Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out.

18. Further in the facts and circumstances, in absence of any act constituting offence u/s 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the petitioner cannot be said to have committed offence u/s 13(1)d of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Under the circumstances, entire criminal proceeding of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 30 of 2000 (Special Case No. 17 of 2000) including the order dated 18.11.2009, taking cognizance, is hereby quashed, so far the petitioner is concerned.

In the result, this application stands allowed.