JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Applicant is seeking anticipatory bail under S. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in a private complaint case No. 40/2003, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vijaypur, district Sheopure, for the offences under Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code. Earlier M.Cr.C. No. 2795/03 was disposed of with a direction to the applicant to appear before the trial Court and to furnish bail, as he was summoned through bailable warrant.
(2.)The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the offence un- under S. 467, I.P.C. though is triable by Magistrate First Class but is a non-cognizable and non-bailable offence and punishment of imprisonment of life or imprisonment of ten years and fine has been prescribed, therefore, the Magistrate First Class is not having jurisdiction to grant the bail in cases where sentence of imprisonment for life has been prescribed for a particular offence and if the applicant will appear even after issue of bailable warrant, he shall be arrested and shall be committed to prison. Additional Sessions Judge, Sabalgarh has already rejected his anticipatory bail application.
(3.)It is further contended that the applicant is a Patwari and respondent No. 2-complainant has filed a private complaint against this applicant along with two others on the ground that the land bearing Survey No. 104, admeasuring 5 bighas and 14 biswas, situated at Patwari Halka No. 20, village Barakalan, Tehsil Vijaypur, District Sheopure has been recorded as a Government land reserved for Government pond. Every year Government is auctioning this land and from 1997 complainant is taking the land in auction and cultivating but in the meantime the applicant and Naib Tehsildar in connivance have granted Patta over this land to Adjuddibai w/o Ramratan. The Naib Tehsildar was not having any right to allot the Patta of the said land, as he was functioning as In-charge Tehsildar on that day. He has allotted this land with the connivance of the applicant who is Patwari and the applicant has not supplied copy of the Patta or the allotment letter or the entries made in the revenue record to respondent No. 2, therefore, they have committed offence of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property causing wrongful loss to the State and it is a case of forgery of valuable security for the purpose of cheating.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.