M.A.A.KHAN,J. - (1.) THIS is a petition u/S. 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 5.11.93 whereby the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (Mobile) Atru, Distt. Baran, declined to take cognizance of the offences u/Sections 420, 423, 471 and 120-B IPC against the present respondents Nos. 1 and 2, who happened to be the Inspector Land Records and Patwari respectively, on the ground that no sanction for their prosecution as required u/S. 197 Cr.P.C. had been obtained from the State Govt. It may be mentioned that by his said impugned order the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the aforesaid offences against seven other accused. The grievance of the complainant-petitioner was that the petitioner and other persons entered into a criminal conspiracy to deprive the petitioner of his interest in the land and in the prosecution of such criminal conspiracy they manipulated the record of rights by making false entries of the death of the death of the petitioner's father Narain.
(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order and other materials, placed on the record of the lower court. It is not in dispute that at the relevant time Rameshwar Dayal and Purshottam Srivastava, respondents, stood posted as Inspector Land Records and Patwari of the village concerned. It is also not in dispute that certain entries in record of rights, maintained as per provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, were made in respect of Khasra No. 386, admeasuring 10 biswas, on which Narain was recorded as a tenant. It also appears that mutation case No. 410 dated 17.1.83 had been opened in respect of transfer of possession over Khasra No. 386 aforesaid wherein Narain was shown as having died and the land belonging to aforesaid Narain was mutated in the names of Jagdish Singh and six others, who have been summoned as accused in the present case. Under such circumstances the learned Magistrate had sufficient evidence before him to take cognizance of the offences u/Sections 420, 471 r/w Section 120-B IPC in the case. Mr. S.S. Hassan, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the present respondents had acted upon a report made by Jagdish Singh, Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Asnawar and that being public servants the respondents were required to make entries of the land, in the names of persons, in the record of right as per report of the Gram Panchayat, in discharge of their official duties and, therefore, they cannot be said to have committed any offence. The other limb of the argument of Mr. Hassan is that the respondent could not have been prosecuted without a sanction having been obtained from the State Government for their prosecution.
(3.) IT is not disputed that neither the Inspector Land Records nor the Patwari is a public servant to be appointed by the State Government. Since the State Govt. does not happen to be the appointing authority of either of the two respondents, a sanction of the State Government for their prosecution was not necessary.;