Back
2017 Supreme(Raj) 799
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR BENCH
Pankaj Bhandari, J.
Rajender Singh Solanki – Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 3783, 2592, 3357, 3794 of 2016 and S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 81, 113, 114, 115, 236 of 2017
Decided On : 03-03-2017
For the Petitioner:Mahesh Bora, Senior Advocate with Nishant Bora, Arun Kumar and Arpit Mehta, M.S. Singhvi, Senior Advocate with Kuldeep Mathur, Mr. Ankur Mathur, Hemant Dutt and Mr. Deepak Chandak, Dr. Sachin Acharya with Rakesh Chotia, Advocates.
For the Respondent:S.K. Vyas, Additional Advocate General with V.S. Rajpurohit PP and M.S. Panwar, PP, Ajay Pal Lamba, SP, ACB.
Headnote:
JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - FIR QUASHING - CORRUPTION - FINANCIAL MISAPPROPRIATION - ACT SECTION LISTED - COURT ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION - RATIO DECIDENDI - FINAL DECISION - MAIN LEGAL POINT - CATEGORY - SUB-CATEGORY HEADNOTE : JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - FIR QUASHING - CORRUPTION - FINANCIAL MISAPPROPRIATION - ACT SECTION LISTED - COURT ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION - RATIO DECIDENDI - FINAL DECISION - MAIN LEGAL POINT - CATEGORY - SUB-CATEGORY FACT OF THE CASE : Petitioners, including the Chairman and officers of the Jodhpur Development Authority (JDA), filed separate petitions to quash FIRs alleging offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC Sections. The allegations related to financial irregularities, inflated project costs, and unauthorized transfer of funds. FINDING OF THE COURT : The court observed that the FIRs disclosed cognisable offenses and that the allegations were not absurd or improbable. It noted that the investigation revealed inflated project costs without proper estimates or demand, transfer of funds without legal authority, and addition of agenda items to Board Meeting minutes after the meeting. ISSUES : 1. Whether the FIRs disclosed cognisable offenses and should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.? 2. Whether the petitioners' actions were protected under Section 73 of the JDA Act, which provides immunity for lawful acts done in good faith? 3. Whether the transfer of funds from one project to another without following proper procedures and inviting new tenders was permissible? RATIO DECIDENDI : 1. The court held that the FIRs disclosed cognisable offenses and should not be quashed unless they were manifestly attended with malafide or instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance. It emphasized that the police have a primary duty to investigate offenses. 2. The court clarified that Section 73 of the JDA Act provides immunity only for lawful acts done in good faith and with due care and attention. It held that whether an act was lawful and done in good faith could only be determined after a proper investigation. 3. The court ruled that the transfer of funds from one project to another without following proper procedures and inviting new tenders was not permissible. It emphasized the need for proper planning, estimation, and tendering processes for development projects. FINAL DECISION : The court dismissed the petitions to quash the FIRs, holding that the allegations were not improbable and that the investigation should proceed. It rejected the petitioners' arguments that their actions were protected under Section 73 of the JDA Act or that the transfer of funds was permissible. MAIN LEGAL POINT : The court reiterated the limited scope of quashing FIRs under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and emphasized the importance of proper investigation and adherence to legal procedures in development projects. CATEGORY : Criminal Law SUB-CATEGORY : Corruption and Misappropriation of Public Funds
Pankaj Bhandari, J.
The petitioners have preferred separate misc. petitions for quashing of FIR Nos.108/2016, 109/2016, 110/2016 and 111/2016 lodged at Police Station, CPS ACB, Jaipur for offences under Sections 13(1)(C)(D) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 193, 420, 409 and 120B IPC. As the offences alleged in all the FIRs relate to the Jodhpur Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘the JDA’), its Chairman and officers, the present misc. petitions were heard together and are being disposed by this common order.
2. It is contended by counsel for petitioner-Rajendra Singh Solanki that petitioner-Rajendra Singh Solanki was the Chairman of the JDA. He has been roped in the FIR due to political rivalry. It is also contended that the powers of the Chairman are given under the Jodhpur Development Authority Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act/JDA Act’) and the petitioner has not flouted any of the powers assigned to him under the Act.
3. It is further contended by counsel for the petitioner that the JDA is an autonomous body and is free to decide as to where the development is to be made in accordance with the need of the society. It is also contended that the JDA is competent to transfer any fund from one project to another, as per the requirement. It is further contended that all actions have been done in pursuance of the Board Resolutions and the allegation in the FIR that the Resolutions were added after the Board Meeting is not correct. On this point, it is urged that the minutes of the Board Meeting have been approved in the subsequent Board Meeting, and since the minutes have been approved, it is amply clear that the Resolutions were passed in the Board Meeting.
4. With regard to the financial autonomy, it is contended that the JDA has financial autonomy. The JDA is free to decide as to how much amount is to be spent in a particular development activity. It is also contended that in all the FIRs, the petitioner has been made an accused just because he was the Chairman of the JDA and was appointed during the Congress regime, and after the BJP Government took over, he submitted his resignation, and whatever action has been initiated is because of the political vendetta. The prosecution has been instituted maliciously with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance.
5. With regard to rise in the expenditure for certain development activities, it is contended that on the demand made by the residents, Parshads and MLAs, the JDA approves more fund for development activities, which is done in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Act. It is also contended that from the FIR, it is not revealed as to what monetary loss was caused to the JDA or the State, or what monetary gain was provided to the contractors. It is further contended that the Board initially sanctioned budget of Rs.250 crores, which, it is alleged, was raised. But in fact, only Rs.107 crores was spent. Therefore, the JDA has not even spent the budget initially sanctioned.
6. Counsel for petitioner-K.K. Mathur, in addition to the arguments advanced by counsel for Rajendra Singh Solanki, has argued that petitioner-K.K. Mathur was posted as Director (Technical) and as per the provisions of the Act, he was required to follow the instructions issued by the Board. Non-compliance of the instructions would result into a departmental enquiry, and therefore, whatever was done by him, was in pursuance of the directions given by the Board. It is also contended that the officers have protection under Section 73 of the JDA Act.
7. In support of his submissions, counsel for petitioner- K.K. Mathur has placed reliance on Himmat Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1982 WLN (UC) 518, wherein it was held that if there was no material that overseer was responsible for identifying labourers receiving payments, the overseer could not be held responsible for making payments of the disputed amounts.
8. It is contended that the procedural lacuna woul
