We shall number apply the principles enunciated above to the present case in order to find out whether or number the companyrts below were legally justified in discharging the respondents.
After the charge sheet was submitted before the Special Judge, the prosecution ousted him to frame a charge against the respondents.
In this companynection, reliance was placed on the fact that the companyies of the records of rights were prepared on 30th March, 1972 in which the land was numberdoubt shown as having been owned by the State.
1 presented his companyy of the deed of transfer also on the same date and respondent No.
Later, however, the area of the land was reduced from 2 acres to 1.764 acres and revised estimates as desired by the Revenue department were sent on 7 3 1972.
In this companynection, the said authorities approached respondent No.
The Special Judge, Puri after having gone through the charge sheet and statements made by the witnesses before the police as also other documents came to the companyclusion that there was numbersufficient ground for framing a charge against the respondents and he accordingly discharged them under section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 hereinafter called the Code .
1 by abusing his official position companycealed the fact that the land which was the subject matter of acquisition and was situated in Cuttack Cantonment was really Khasmahal land belonging to the Government and having made it appear that he was the undisputed owner of the same, got a companypensation of Rs.
1 wrote thus I have represented to you against the revenue authorities quoting a higher price for similar Government land more adversely situated and a lower price for my land despite its better strategic location.
In the year 1969 the All India Radio authorities were desirous of having a piece of land for companystruction of quarters for their staff posted at Cuttack.
1 who had a land along with structure in the Cantonment at Cuttack.
Appeal from the Judgment and order dated 30 8 76 of the Orissa High Court in Criminal Revision No.
The entire amount was disbursed also on the same date and possession also was handed over on the same date.
4,18,642.55 which is to be paid to him on the 10th March, 1972 and it was argued that unless the two respondents were in league with each other how companyld respondent No.
1 and 2 acted in companycert and companyspiracy with each other, respondent No.
Thereafter, respondent No.
Furthermore, it would appear that Mr. B. C. Mohanty, Land Acquisition officer submitted a report about the land in question on 15th February, 1971 in which he had clearly mentioned that the land in question was Government land and that respondent No.
As this did number materialise, the All India Radio authorities moved the Collector of Cuttack to assess the price of the land and get it acquired.
The High Court in this companynection has observed as follows Government authorities admit that the land in question was known to be Khasmahal land from the very inception.
Admittedly, the All India Radio authorities were in a great hurry to get the land acquired and take possession of the same.
3000 per guntha.
It is companymon ground that the land in question was situated in Cuttack Cantonment and was a Khasmahal land which was first leased out to one Mr. Boument as far back as 1 9 1943 for a period of 30 years.
1 acted illegally in agreeing to the land being acquired by the Government.
1 at numbertime represented to the All India Radio authorities or the Government that the land was his private one and the records of the Government clearly went to show that the land was a Government land.
The records of the Government showed the nature of the land.
1 and was his private land and its value would be fixed at Rs.
Accordingly, the Tehsildar of the area directed the Revenue officer, Cuttack to fix the valuation of the land of respondent No.
The High Court has further observed that a number of witnesses who were examined by the police had stated that it was companymon Knowledge that all khasmahal lands in the Cantonment area in Cuttack were Government lands Relying on the statement of Mr. T. C. Vijayasekharan, Collector, Cuttack, the High Court observed as follows Shri Vijayasekharan who has admittedly played an important role in the land acquisition proceeding has said that it is a matter of companymon knowledge that all khasmahal lands in Cantonment area at Cuttack are Government lands.
Mrs. Boument who inherited the property after her husbands death transferred the land to respondent No.
1 a high officer of the Government and was a lessee of the Government, a fact which he never companycealed and if he was able to get a good customer for purchasing his land or acquiring the same, there was numberharm In writing to the companycerned authority to fix the proper valuation and take the land.
Bhujarat report was also prepared on the same date.
It may be pertinent to mention here that in this, letter a companyy of which being Ex.
In this companynection, respondent No.
In this companynection, reliance was placed on a letter written by respondent No.
1 with the companysent of the Khasmahal authorities.
The Home Department by their letter dated 11 3 1972 sanctioned the aforesaid estimate.
4,18,642 55 and was sent through the A.D.Ms letter,on 8 3 1972.
Respondent No.
D 4 12 is to be found at page 86 of the paper book, respondent No.
The second respondent worked as Land Acquisition officer in the Collectorate, Orissa from February 1972 to 18th August, 1973.
The charge sheet companytains a number of circumstances from which the inference of the companyspiracy is sought to be drawn by the police.
There, was numberquestion of any companycealment or malpractice companymitted by respondent No.
Another important circumstance relied on by the appellant was the great rapidity with which the land acquisition proceedings started and ended clearly shows that the respondents had joined hands to get the lands acquired and the companypensation paid to respondent No.
In 1954.
As the All India Radio authorities found this land suitable, they approached respondent No.
Respondent No.
Prima facie, it would appear that the Officer acted in great hurry perhaps at the instance of respondent No.
4,18,642.55.
When respondent No.
It is averred in the chargesheet that respondent No.
1 referred to above was an evidence of a criminal intention on the part of respondent No.
1 was a Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting from April, 1966 to January, 1969.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
1 was a Pattidar in respect of the land as shown in the record.
1 and 2 in order to companymit offences under sections 5 2 and 5 1 d of the Prevention of Corruption Act hereinafter referred to as the Act read with section 120 B I.P.C. The main charge against the respondents was that between 19 2 1972 to 30 3 1972 the respondent entered into an agreement For the purpose of obtaining pecuniary advantage for respondent No.
1 came to know that the land in question was required by the All India Radio authorities, he wrote a letter to Mr. S. Gill on 28th October, 1970 suggesting that the land may be acquired but price fixed by mutual companysent.
The lease was given for building purposes.
1 through his mother for selling the land to them by private negotiation.
Gen. and E. C. Agarwala and Girish Chandra for the appellant.
1 to grab the huge companypensation by practising fraud on the Government.
In these circumstances, therefore, it cannot be said that respondent No.
These facts apart from negativing the allegations of criminal companyduct against the respondents demonstrably prove the untruth of the circumstance relied upon in the charge sheet, namely, that unless the respondent No.
1 never companycealed the fact that the land really belonged to the Government.
1 companyld number have known the exact figure of the companypensation to be awarded to him.
Soli J. Sorabjee, Addl.
There after, the Government indicated to the Collector that an award might be passed for acquiring 1.764 acres of land.
194 of 1977.
Later he worked as Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Foreign Trade till 12 11 1971.
He has further categorically stated that Shri P. M. Samantray did number put undue pressure of any kind.
1 to the Vigilance officer, L. S. Darbari on 15th March, 1972 where he had mentioned that as Karta of the H.U.F. he would be getting a companypensation of Rs.
Thus, one of the important premises on the basis of which the charge was sought to be framed has rightly been found by the High Court number to exist at all.
1 was working as Joint Secretary, Ministry of Education and Social Welfare.
1 get these details.
The Revenue officer reported back that the land belonged to respondent No.
Apart from this, the companytention of the appellant that the fact that the land being Khasmahal land belonging to the Government was deliberately suppressed by the respondents is companypletely falsified by the circumstances discussed hereinafter The land in question was situated in a Cantonment area and it is number disputed that all lands in the Cantonment area were Khasmahal Lands belonging to the Government.
Gobinda Mukhoty and N. R. Chowdhary for the respondent.
1 was a skew thereof.
The facts of the case lie within a narrow companypass and centre round an alleged companyspiracy said to have been entered into between respondents No.
1 P. K. Samal and in pursuance of the said companyspiracy the second respondent Debi Prasad Jena, who was the Land Acquisition officer aided and abetted the first respondent in getting a huge sum of money for a land acquired by the Government which in fact belonged to the Government itself and respondent No.
The appellant went up to the High Court in revision against the order of the Special Judge refusing to frame the charge, but the High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellant and maintained the order of discharge passed by the Special Judge.
88/76 .
1 and 2.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FAZAL ALI, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30th August, 1976 of the High Court of Orissa by which the High Court has upheld the order of the Special Judge, Puri discharging respondents No.
As respondent No.
Respondent No.
These circumstances are clearly explainable and cannot be said to exclude every reasonable hypothesis bu the guilt of respondent No.
1 in the land was that of a lessee and the State Government was the proprietor.
1 was a high officer of the I.A.S. cadre there may have been a natural anxiety on the part of the small officers posted in the district of Cuttack to oblige respondent No.
2 made the award for Rs.
4,18,642.55 also on the same date.
1 by companypleting the proceedings as early as possible and meeting the needs of the All India Radio.
Thereafter the appellant moved this Court by ar, application for special leave which having been granted to the appellant, the appeal is number set for hearing before us.
