SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KURIAN JOSEPH, R. BANUMATHI, JJ
NEERA YADAV – Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATON – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 253 OF 2017
Decided On : 02-08-2017
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Sections 31 and 427—Sentence—A person sentenced to imprisonment must, for purpose of Section 427 Cr.P.C., be deemed to be undergoing that sentence from very moment the sentence is passed—Accused may be on bail or in custody in earlier case at the time of passing of subsequent sentence—Where there are different transactions, different crime numbers and cases have been decided by different judgments, concurrent sentences cannot be awarded under Section 427 Cr.P.C.—There is no strait jacket formula for Court to follow in the matter of issue or refusal of a direction within contemplation of Section 427(1) Cr.P.C.—Depending on special and peculiar facts and circumstances of case, it is for court to make sentence of imprisonment in subsequent trial run concurrently with sentence in previous one—Sentencing Court has discretion to direct concurrency—Investiture of such discretion presupposes that it will be exercised on sound principles and not on whims. (Paras 65 to 68)
(2007) 10 SCC 395; (2011) 6 SCC 526 ; (2011) 6 SCC 527 ; (2014) 9 SCC 1; (2013) 4 SCC 642; (2012) 3 SCC 64; (2001) 6 SCC 584; (2014) 8 SCC 682; (2015) 4 SCC 302 ; (2013) 7 SCC 211; (2015) 2 SCC 501; (2005) 1 SCC 754; (1988) 4 SCC 183; (2016) 10 SCC 307; (2013) 7 SCC 211—Relied.
JUDGMENT
R. BANUMATHI, J.
This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 24.02.2016 passed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.4837 of 2012, affirming the conviction of appellant-Neera Yadav, the then Chairperson and Chief Executive Officer (CCEO) of NOIDA (New Okhla Industrial Development Authority) under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘P.C. Act’) and sentencing her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and fine of Rs.1,00,000/-and in case of default in payment of fine with simple imprisonment for an additional period of four months.
2. It is a harsh reality that corruption has become all-pervasive in the present system of bureaucracy. It is a fact that rich and powerful try to stall the trial and conviction. However, fortunately, the present case has risen as an exception.
3. It is a well known fact that New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (N.O.I.D.A.) U.P. (hereinafter referred to as "NOIDA") was established in the year 1976 with the responsibility of developing and managing Asia’s largest Integrated Industrial Township for the industrial growth of the area, under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 in the National Capital Region. Administration of NOIDA was entrusted to high level public officials so as to develop a planned, integrated, modern Industrial City, well connected to Delhi through a network of roads, national highways and the ultra -modern DND flyover, offering inter -road linkages to all parts of the country. Spread over 20,316 hectares, with many sectors fully developed, NOIDA offers a pollution free, high standard of living and is highly supportive of industrial environment with its unique infrastructure providing numerous, matchless facilities. However, the project got marred by land allotment scams worth several crores of rupees, owing to abuse of position and power by the officials entrusted with the management and control of NOIDA itself. In this connection, several complaints surfaced alleging irregularities in allotments and conversions of land in 'NOIDA'. Explanation was sought in this regard by the then Principal Secretary (Heavy Industries) of the Government of U.P. from Appellant Neera Yadav, the then Chairperson-cum-Chief Executive Officer (CCEO) of NOIDA. But, a final decision was taken not to initiate any departmental inquiry in the matter against the officials concerned.
4. One ‘NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association’ sought inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the matter and this Court vide order dated 20.01.1998 directed that the matter be investigated by the CBI. Consequently, the CBI registered an F.I.R. Crime No. RC/3(A)/98-ACU-VII dated 26.02.1998 against Smt. Neera Yadav who was serving as Chairperson and Chief Executive Officer (CCEO) of NOIDA, during the relevant period viz. 10.01.1994 to 08.11.1995, and some other high officials of NOIDA. The FIR contained allegations to the effect that Ms. Neera Yadav in conspiracy with other officials abused her position while committing grave irregularities in the matters of allotments and conversions of land in NOIDA.
5. In NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association v. NOIDA and Others (2007) 10 SCC 395, this Court has appointed Mr. K.T. Thomas, retired Judge of this Court as the sole member of the Commission to inquire into alleged irregularities in the matter of allotments and conversion of the plots. Subsequently, in NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association v. NOIDA and Others (2011) 6 SCC 526, NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association (Registered) v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and Others (2011) 6 SCC 527 and NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association v. NOIDA and Others (2011) 6 SCC 508, this Court has issued various directions. The reference is made to these decisions only to show that the registration of FIR by CBI was
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.