- (1.) This is an application in revision filed by Guman Singh against an order of the Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Rajasthan, Jaipur, dated 31st October, 1975, by which objections raised by the petitioner to the taking of cognizance of an offence punishable under section 165, I.P.C. against him were overruled and it was ordered that a charge for the aforesaid offence may be framed against him on the basis of the three allegations mentioned in the charge-sheet by the C.B.I.
(2.) The relevant facts giving rise to this revision-petition may be briefly stated as follows The petitioner was posted as Superintend at of Police, Sirohi, during the period between July (sic) and August 1969. Thereafter he was appointed on the post of the Deputy Inspector General of Police at Kota, where he worked on the said post during the period between 31.1.1970 and 14.4.1972 It is alleged that being (sic) public servant he obtained a plot of land situated at Mount Abu in the year 1965 (sic) Rs. 99/, from the Ex-Maharaja of Sirohi in the name of his son Dhanpat Singh while knowing it well that the market value of the plot was between Rs. 15000/, and Rs. 20000/. It was further alleged that in the year 1966 he (sic) 129 1/2 Bighas of land at Gulab Ganj from Shri Ram Singh, brother of Ex Maharaja of Sirohi for Rs. 8000/-, on 28.9.1966 in the name of his grand-daughter Kumari Chandra Kanta. While purchasing this land he knew it well that the market value there of was about Rs. 20,000/-, on the date of the sale, (Sic) 31.3.71 be again purchased 9 Bighas of land in the name of his son Dhanpat Singh for a consideration, i.e. Rs. 9000/-, which he knew to be inadequate, from the Ex Maharaja of Kota. The market price of this land was more than Rs. 2000/-. per Bigha. An inquiry into these transfers was made which revealed that the Ex-Maharaja of Sirohi and his brother Ram Singh and the Ex-Maharaja of Kota, from whom the lands were purchased by the petitioner for consideration which he knew to be inadequate were concerned in proceedings or business transacted or about to be transacted by the petitioner is the capacity of a public servant and were having connections with the official functions of the petitioner or were interested in or related to the persons concerned in the proceedings or business transacted or about to be transacted by the petitioner in the following manner:- (1) On 20.3.66 one Sohan Singh cut leaves from a Date tree which was personal property of the Ex-ruler of Sirohi. A case was got registered against Sohan Singh at Police Station, Mount Abu under sections 379, 447, 511, I.P.C. by the employees of Maharaja. The Circle Officer of Mount Abu was of the view that the case should be dropped against Sohan Singh if better evidence was not available. On 30.9.1966 Guman Singh petitioner sent a memo to the Circle Officer, Mount Abu that the case was made out against Sohan Singh and that further action should be taken in the matter after consultation with the Private Secretary to the Ex-Maharaja of Sirohi. In pursuance of the directions of the petitioner, a charge-sheet was filed against Sohan Singh in court on 8.12.1966; (2) One Bheru Singh son of Sadhu Singh of Mount Abu purchased a plot of land from Amritji. vide registered sale-deed. He constructed a house on it in the year 1966 and leased it out to Shri Kalu Ram Burble. Kalu Ram. however, committed default in the payment of rent to Bheru Singh and put forward a claim that the land belonged to Maharaja of Sirohi. Bheru Singh there upon approached the police at Mount Abu The Station House Officer advised him to go to Guman Singh, petitioner, as the latter was a friend of Ex His Highness of Sirohi. There upon Guman Singh advised him to obtain a patta from the Maharaja of Sirohi. Then Bheru Singh paid a sum of Rs. 2000/, to the son of Maharaja of Sirohi and obtained a patta for that land; (3) In the year 1968 Maharaj Kumar Raghubir Singh of Sirohi illegally evicted several tenants from his land with the active help of Guman Singh, petitioner, and succeeded in obtaining signatures of tenants on certain false documents. One of these tenants was Lila Kalvi. who was forcibly taken to the palace of the Maharaja of Sirohi where Maharaj Kumar Raghubir Singh along with Guman Singh petitioner, Superintendent of police, compelled Lila Kalvi to sell the land Lila refused to sell the land to Maharaj Kumar. There upon be was beaten and taken to jungle where his thumb impression was obtained on some documents; (4) Shri Nihal Chand of Abu Road was compelled by Maharaj Kumar of Sirohi and Guman Singh, petitioner, Superintendent of Police to relinquish his claim to 86 Bighas of land and to sign a deed of relinquishment. Under (Sic) he was made to put his signatures on a stamp paper and there by be was dispossessed from his land with the active help of the petitioner; (5) Guman Singh purchased land from Ex-Maharaja of Kota who was likely to be involved in official dealings with the petitioner. The C.B.I. after making the usual investigation into the case filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner in the court of the Special Judge for C.B.I. cases. Rajasthan, Jaipur, under section 165, I.P.C. The petitioner appeared before the learned Special Judge for C.B.I. cases, Rajasthan, Jaipur and raised certain objections to the taking of cognizance of the aforesaid offences against him on the following grounds:- (1) that the Special Judge is not empowered to take cognizance of the offence punishable under S. 165, I.P.C. after the expiry of 3 years because the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years; (2) that the offence is alleged to be committed by the petitioner in the position of his official duty as a public servant. Hence the case squarely falls within the purview of section 197, new Criminal Procedure Code and the petitioner cannot be prosecuted without obtaining necessary sanction to prosecute him; (3) that the C.B.I. was not authorised to make investigation into this case as no prior general or special sanction was obtained for such investigation from the State Government of Rajasthan under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 The learned Special Judge, upon considering the report of the C.B.I. and the documents sent with it under S. 173, Cr P.C. and after making examination of the petitioner and after giving the prosecution and the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, overruled all the referred to above objections and came to a conclusion that there was ground for presuming that the petitioner had committed an offence under S. 165, I.P.C. which he was competent to try and which, in his opinion, could be adequately punished by him. He, there, passed the impugned order directing that a charge for the aforesaid offence be framed against the accused-petitioner. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner has come-up in revision to this Court as stated above.
(3.) I have carefully gone through the record and heard Mr. S.R. Singbi appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. R.S. Parihar counsel for the C.B.I. A preliminary objection to the maintainability of this revision petition was raised by Mr. Parihar learned counsel for the C.B.I. The objection is that the order of the Special Judge is an interlocutory one within the meaning of sub-section (2) of S. 397, new Cr P.C. and that no revision can be entertained against such interlocutory order. Mr. S.R. Singbi appearing on behalf of the petitioner, on the other hand, contended that the impugned order passed by the Special Judge was without jurisdiction and was a (sic) in the eye of law which can be interfere with in revision irrespective of the fact whether it was or was not of interlocutory nature. In support of his above contention be placed reliance on Bhima Naik VS. State, 1975 CrLJ 1923 and Deena Nath Acharya vs. Daitari Charan Patra and others,1975 CLT 656.;