Back
2013 Supreme(Del) 1556
High Court of Delhi
SURESH KAIT, J.
A.K. Ganju & Others
Versus
CBI
Crl.M.C. Nos. 2384 of 2011, 3011 of 2011, 3800 of 2011 & Crl. M.A. Nos. 8693 of 2011, 18063 of 2011
Decided On : 22-11-2013
For the Petitioners:Vineet Malhotra, Vishal Gohri, Dhruv Rohtagi, Advocates, Arun Bhardwaj, Senior Advocate with Karn Bhardwaj, K.S. Yadav, Vishal Malhotra, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Ms. Sonia Mathur, Sushil Kumar Dubey, Advocates.
Headnote:
The Delhi High Court quashed the FIR, chargesheet, and order framing charges against the petitioners, who were accused of criminal conspiracy and obtaining pecuniary advantages by public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and unauthorized construction and violations of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (DMC Act).
Fact of the Case:
The case involved allegations of unauthorized construction and violations of the DMC Act in a property in Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. The petitioners included the builder/owner, architect, and MCD officers. The CBI registered an FIR in 2000, and a chargesheet was filed in 2001. The trial court framed charges against the petitioners in 2011.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the CBI lacked jurisdiction to investigate the matter as the offenses under the DMC Act were not notified by the Central Government under Section 3 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (DSPE Act). The Court also held that there was no evidence of any demand, acceptance, or giving of any bribe, which is an essential ingredient of the offense under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Additionally, the Court found that there was no evidence of any active collusion or conspiracy between the petitioners.
Issues: 1. Whether the CBI had jurisdiction to investigate the matter. 2. Whether there was sufficient evidence to establish the offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the DMC Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the CBI lacked jurisdiction to investigate the matter as the offenses under the DMC Act were not notified by the Central Government under Section 3 of the DSPE Act. The Court noted that the DSPE Act is a special statute that governs the powers and functions of the CBI, and that the CBI can only investigate offenses that are specifically notified by the Central Government. 2. The Court also held that there was no evidence of any demand, acceptance, or giving of any bribe, which is an essential ingredient of the offense under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court noted that the prosecution had failed to establish that the accused had obtained any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing their position as public servants. 3. Additionally, the Court found that there was no evidence of any active collusion or conspiracy between the petitioners. The Court noted that the prosecution had failed to establish any meeting of minds or agreement between the petitioners to commit an illegal act or to achieve an illegal purpose.
Final Decision: The Delhi High Court quashed the FIR, chargesheet, and order framing charges against the petitioners. The Court held that the CBI lacked jurisdiction to investigate the matter, that there was no evidence of any demand, acceptance, or giving of any bribe, and that there was no evidence of any active collusion or conspiracy between the petitioners.
Suresh Kait, J.
1. Vide the present petitions, the petitioners are seeking the following reliefs:-
“1. Quash the FIR No. RC DA-I-2000-A-0041 dated 24.08.2000 filed under Sections 120-B IPC read with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Quash the Chargesheet in CC No 44/2011/30.04.2011/2001.
3. Quash the order on charge dated 21.05.2011 and charge framed vide order dated 31.05.2011 and the entire proceedings pending in the court of Shri A.K.Mendiratta, Special Judge (PC Act), CBI-B, Central District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi.”
2. The FIR, chargesheet and impugned orders are same in these petitions, therefore, this Court has decided to dispose of the petitions by this common judgment.
3. As per the chargesheet, Raj Singh Gehlot (builder/owner/purchaser and petitioner in Crl.M.C. No.3800/2011) entered into a criminal conspiracy with B.R. Malhotra, AE, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter to be referred as ‘MCD') and Naresh Kumar Sharma, JE, MCD (petitioner in Crl. M.C. No.3011/2011), who facilitated in issuing the wrong completion certificate, illegal coverage and unauthorized construction in property No.39, Paschimi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. For the aforesaid purpose, Architect A.K. Ganju (petitioner in Crl. M.C. No. 2384/2011) submitted the faulty completion drawings. The said property was further sold off by the builder/petitioner Raj Singh Gehlot with illegally constructed area. Accordingly, RC DA-I-2000-A-0041 was registered on 24.08.2000 by the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter to be referred as ‘CBI').
4. As per the case of the prosecution, plot No.39, Paschimi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi was originally allotted to Sh. B.R. Shourie (since deceased) and his wife Smt.Kamla Shourie by the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter to be referred as ‘DDA') in the year 1968, who sold this property to petitioner Raj Singh Gehlot in the year 1989 vide a separate Sale Agreement and a registered General Power of Attorney (for short ‘GPA') in favour of Smt.Sheela Gehlot for a consideration of Rs.1.05 crores.
5. Further alleged that on 31.07.1989, an application was moved to DDA under the purported signature of Sh.B.R.Shourie for demolishing the old building and constructing a new building of two and a half storey, however, petitioners claimed that the same was submitted for three and a half storeys. Accordingly, a proposed site plan prepared by petitioner A.K. Ganju (approved Architect) was also submitted to DDA. On 24.11.1989, DDA sanctioned the site plan and approved the construction of new building with coverage of 2989.14 square feet on the ground, first and second floor and 989 square feet on the third floor. In December 1989, Vasant Vihar area was de-notified from DDA and handed over to the MCD.
6. It is further case of the prosecution that petitioner Raj Singh Gehlot started construction in the said plot, which was supervised by petitioner A.K. Ganju. In the absence of other evidence, the building was registered by House Tax Department. MCD relied upon for determining the starting date of construction as January, 1991. ‘C' form de-notifying covering of underground civil lines/drains was issued on 18.05.1989 on the recommendations of the then JE Sh. B.S. Yadav, an approver of the competent authority. The completion certificate (CC) was issued on 19.12.1991 by the then ADC which was based upon the NOC report dated 26.11.1991 given by petitioner Naresh Sharma, JE, MCD and B.R. Malhotra, AE, MCD.
7. It is also case of the prosecution that application for issue of completion certificate was submitted on 04.11.1991 and the signature of Sh.B.R. Shourie and Smt. Kamla Shourie had been forged. The completion drawings and stability certificate were issued by petitioner A.K. Ganju along with two photographs of the complete building. It is also alleged that the then JE and AE had inspected the building and on their recommendations, a compoundable fee of
