IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, JJ.
Central Bureau Of Investigation - Appellant
Versus
Prem Bhutani & Anr. - Respondents
CRL.REV.P. 406/2019
Decided On : 04-04-2022
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 397, 401, 227 and 228 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120B , 419, 420, 468 and 471 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) - Cooperative Society - Fake and Fabricated Documents - Land Allotted - A Society Om CGHS was registered - Society, thereafter, applied for allotment of land from DDA - Society was given option to either choose between Dhirpur and Dwarka area for allotment of land and after paying 35% of land cost - A divisional bench directed petitioner for investigation into allotment of over 90 societies, including Om Cooperative Group Housing Society, with direction to investigate on aspect - Enquiry also revealed that official of Registrar of Cooperative Societies had abused their official position as public servants in conspiracy with private persons by accepting fake and fabricated documents to have land allotted to Om CGHS at a lower price than prevailing market price - Petitioner filed a chargesheet against 17 accused, in case against Om CGHS, including present respondents.
Finding of Court:
It is accurate to say that criminal conspiracy alleged in instant case by petitioner was indeed a two-fold and two-part criminal conspiracy - First of dual objective was revival of Om CGHS, second being receiving allotment from DDA at a lower than prevailing market price - Although respondents were not members of Society, they played a vital role in obtaining funds based on which DDA allotment was concluded, which was second phase of conspiracy - Without arrangement of funds from members as well as non-members, Society would not have been able to secure land allotment from DDA - Therefore, appreciating evidence on its face value, it can be reasonably said that there was a meeting of mind between respondents and other accused, since, from March 2003 till September 2003 they were in correspondence with each other for fulfilling objective of their criminal conspiracy - Keeping in view abovementioned principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as various High Courts and all other facts and circumstances, this Court finds that there was an error on part of learned Special Judge in discharging present respondents despite have prima facie material on record for framing charges against them.
Result: Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT
Chandra Dhari Singh, J. - The instant Revision Petition has been preferred by the Revisionist/Petitioner (hereinafter "petitioner") under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter "Cr.P.C") seeking setting aside of Order dated 23rd October, 2018 passed by learned Special Judge, CBI-01, PC Act, North West, Rohini, Delhi qua the discharge of the respondents of offences under Sections 120B read with Section 419/420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(hereinafter "IPC") read with Section 13(2) and 13(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter "PC Act") and substantive offences thereof.
BRIEF BACKGROUND
2. Brief facts of the case are as laid down under:
a. A Society namely, Om Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited (hereinafter "Om CGHS/the Society") was registered on 5th November, 1982, vide registration No. 480 (GH) having its registered office at 2/827, First Floor, Part-I, Sarai Julena, Okhla Road, Delhi. On 22nd April, 1988, the said Society was put under liquidation.
b. On 22nd April, 1988, Mr. Kalidass Khanna, the then president of the Society, applied for the cancellation of liquidation and revival of the Society, however, the same was rejected.
c. Thereafter, on 21st November, 2002, another application was made for revival of the Society and vide Order dated 10th January, 2003 the Society was revived by Mr. Narayan Diwakar, the then Registrar Cooperative Societies, (hereinafter "RCS"), also the Accused No. 1 in the Chargesheet.
d. The Society, thereafter, applied for allotment of land from the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter "DDA") and submitted a list of 115 members for the same and on the basis of the list, the case of the Society was processed by the DDA for allotment.
e. As per the first Offer-Cum-Demand Letter dated 3rd February, 2003, the Society was given the option to either choose between Dhirpur and Dwarka area for allotment of land and after paying 35% of the land cost on the basis of provisional pre-determined rate.
f. A savings account, bearing No. 35150, was opened at the Corporation Bank in the name of the Society by Mr. Prem Bhutani/respondent no. 1, Accused No. 10, with Mr. Yashpal, Accused No. 12, as his co-sharer for making the payment in the name of the Society and a pay order of Rs. 1,11,02,400/- and of Rs. 4,00,000/- was issued favouring DDA.
g. DDA issued Offer Letter dated 3rd February, 2003 and Allotment Letter dated 31st December, 2003 as well as the Possession Letters dated 9th September, 2004 and 11th October, 2004 and the Society was allotted and given possession of a plot of land measuring 6501.52 sq. meters at Plot No. 12, Sector-19, Dwarka, New Delhi by DDA on 15th October, 2004.
h. A divisional bench of this Court vide Orders dated 9th January, 2006 and 13th February, 2006 in Writ Petition (C) No. 10066/2004 and CMS 15847/2005, directed the petitioner for investigation into allotment of over 90 societies, including Om Cooperative Group Housing Society, with direction to investigate on the aspect of "unholy alliance and connivance between builder mafia and the officers working in the Office of Registrar Co-operative Societies, DDA and the Societies and fraudulent revival of defunct societies." Pursuant to the Order and directions, a preliminary inquiry No. PE SIJ 2006 E 0001 dated 9th March, 2006 was registered in CBI EOU-VI to enquire the matter relating to Om CGHS.
i. The enquiry also revealed that official of Registrar of Cooperative Societies (hereinafter "RCS") had abused their official position as public servants in conspiracy with private persons by accepting fake and fabricated documents to have land allotted to the Om CGHS at a lower price than the prevailing market price.
j. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a chargesheet against 17 accused, in the case against Om CGHS, including the present respondents.
k. On 23rd October, 2018 the learned Special Judge- CBI-01, PC Act, North West, Rohini, Delhi framed charg
Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander
Dilawar Balu Kurane vs. State of Maharashtra
Dinesh Tiwari vs. State of U.P.
Marlin Burn Ltd. vs. R.N. Banerjee
State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Singh
State of Maharashtra & Others vs. Som Nath Thapa & Others
Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad vs. Dilip Nathumal Chordia
Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979) 3 SCC 4 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 609
Point of law: As per the requirement of Section 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C., the learned Judge shall consider whether “sufficient grounds” exist or not and such consideration shall be supported by mat....
Investigation into offence and elaborate appreciation of evidence is not required, and is rather discouraged, at stage of framing of charges and only material prima facie establishing a case against ....
Participation in a conspiracy includes subsequent involvement in acts that further the conspiracy's objectives; the court relies on prima facie evidence when framing charges.
A strong suspicion founded on material, which can be translated into evidence at trial, is sufficient to maintain an order on charge.
In its revisional jurisdiction will not proceed into the enquiry of the records, documents and other evidence in consideration before the learned Special Judge, but shall constrain itself to the find....
Conspiracy consists in the agreement of two or more persons to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means. It is an indictable offence at common law. The essence of the offence of co....
Point of Law : Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that at stage of framing of charge, trial court is not to examine and assess in detail material produced by prosecution nor to consider sufficiency o....
At the stage of framing charges, the court is required to evaluate whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed, without delving into the probative value of the materia....
At the stage of framing charges, the court is required to evaluate the material on record to determine whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed, and not whether a g....
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.