BHUPENDRA KUMAR BASU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision under Section 397 CrPC has been filed for setting aside the order dated 21.12.1994 passed in G.R. Case No. 196 of 1990 pending in the Court of S.D.J.M., Cuttack taking cognizance of offences under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 477 -A, 420, 109, 119, 120 -B/34, IPC.

(2.) FROM the records it appears that on the basis of an information lodged by the Land Acquisition Officer (Civil), Cuttack before the Officer -in -Charge, Lalbag Police station, P.S. Case No. 27(2) of 1990 was registered for commission of the aforesaid offences against the petitioner and several others. It is alleged in the FIR that on 26.3.1994 Ac 405.49 decs of Ian J had been acquired under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (in short, 'the Act') for establishment of Aviation Research Centre at Charbatia. Out of the aforesaid land Ac. 308.86 decs belong to the State Government and Ac 26.63 decs. belong to private persons of different villages. During the year 1977 to 1981 some persons named in the FIR claimed title over the land and filed separate petitions Under Section 30 of the Act in order to get compensation. It is alleged that such claims were made on the basis of forged documents produced by the claimants and no objection was raised by the Government Advocate as a result of which the Court decided to pay compensation to the claimants and compensation was paid. Later on it was inquired and found that the claimants had no right, title and interest over the acquired land and they in connivance with the concerned layers engaged by the Government staff of the Tahsil office and Land Acquisition Section of the Collectorate committed the offence by producing forged documents and received the compensation. The petitioner at the relevant time was working as Government Pleader i.e. from 1977 to 1981. During his tenure in such capacity he had conducted L.A. Case No. 69 of 1978 and F.A. No. 278 of 1979 wherein the then Tahsildar had produced the documents which were exhibited in the Court, such as Ekapadia, Rent Roll and R.O.R. and such documents were marked without objection. The Tahsildar who was examined deposed that both the certified copies are the authenticated documents and therefore it was not felt necessary by the petitioner to call for the originals of the documents. The award was passed on the basis of those documents. In the charge sheet so far as the petitioner is concerned, the following has been mentioned :