2017 Supreme(SC) 709

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KURIAN JOSEPH, R. BANUMATHI, JJ.
RAJIV KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. – Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 251 OF 2017
With
NEERA YADAV – Appellant
Versus
C.B.I. – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 252 OF 2017
Decided On : 02-08-2017

MAIN POINT
Appellants have rightly been convicted under section 13 of P.C. Act and section 120-B, IPC.

Headnote:(a) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) – Criminal misconduct – Residential Plots Scheme, 1994 (III). Clauses 3, 7 and 12 – Conversion of residential plots in NOIDA – Rules mandating conversion only once that too from cancelled or surrendered plots – Instantly appellants effecting two conversions and none of the plots so used being cancelled or surrendered – Appellants held liable for criminal misconduct. (Para 17, 19, 21)

       (b) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) – No alteration in size and position of plots from 1984 to 1993 – Five alterations between 10.01.1994 to 08.11.1995 – Alterations in size as well position in plot no. 27 to suit appellant Rajiv Kumar – No justification – Dishonest intention of appellants to gratify their private interest instead of public interest established – Abuse of power. (Para 31, 32)

       (2011) 6 SCC 508 – Relied upon

       © Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) – Criminal misconduct – Residential Plots Scheme, 1994 (III). Clauses 3, 7 and 12 – Two conversions effected on the same day – Undue haste – Presumption of mala fide. (Para 34)

       (2011) 6 SCC 508 – Relied upon

       (d) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) – After three months of lease, additional area allotted within two days of application – Abuse of power. (Para 35)

       (e) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) and Residential Plots Scheme, 1994 (III).Clause 6 – Appellant converting to prime sector but not paying additional premium amount – Also, although availing two conversions, not paying any conversion charge and ‘location benefit charge’ – Also getting allotted additional area but not paying enhanced premium therefor – Abuse of power. (Para 39, 40, 41)

       (f) Indian Penal Code, 860 – Section 120-B – Appellant Rajiv Kumar abusing his power to gain huge pecuniary benefit – Appellant Neera Yadav playing a specific role in appellant Rajiv Kumar obtaining plot in most developed sector at less premium by conversion of ‘guest house’ plot to residential plot against the Rules – Courts below concurrently holding appellants guilty u/s 120-B – No reason warranting interference. (Para 47, 48)

       (1977) 4 SCC 540; (1993) 3 SCC 609; (1996) 4 SCC 659; (2003) 3 SCC 641 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       At the instance of ‘NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association’ CBI enquiry was directed by the Supreme Court into land allotment scams worth crores of rupees, owing to abuse of position and power by the officials entrusted with the management and control of NOIDA.

       Consequently, the CBI registered an F.I.R. against Ms. Neera Yadav who was serving as Chairperson and Chief Executive Officer (CCEO) of NOIDA, during the relevant period and some other high officials of NOIDA.

       Appellant Rajiv Kumar served as Deputy Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA for the period 14.06.1994 to 29.12.1995. On the application of appellant Rajiv Kumar, Plot No. B-86 of 450 sq.ms. In Sector-51 was allotted to him. Appellant Rajiv Kumar requested for conversion of his plot, even by smaller size in Sector-14A. Accordingly, his allotment was converted to plot No.A-36 in Sector-44. Notably, contrary to the rules, he again got his allotment converted to plot No.27 of 300 sq.ms. In the most prestigious Sector-14A on Delhi border, which was reserved for Government Guest House, to residential with approval of appellant Neera Yadav. After execution of lease deed, on application of wife of appellant Rajiv Kumar for extension of width by 3.5 mts., which was reported to have been found in excess from plot No.28, proposal for its allotment to appellant Rajiv Kumar by way of enhancement was approved by appellant Smt. Neera Yadav and the same was allotted to Rajiv Kumar and thus the area of plot No.27 allotted to him was enhanced by 105 sq.ms., totalling to 405.00 sq.ms.

       The Special Judge CBI, Ghaziabad convicted the appellants under Section 120-B IPC read with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d). For conviction under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, appellant Rajiv Kumar was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and fine of Rs.50,000/-with default clause. For conviction under Section 120-B IPC, the trial court sentenced each of the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and fine of Rs.50,000/-was imposed on each of the appellants.

       On appeal, the conviction and sentence of imprisonment and fine imposed on each of the accused were affirmed by the High Court.

       Finding of the Court:

       Convictions do not warrant interference.

       Result: Appeals partly allowed.