By the Court.—These two Criminal Revisions have been filed for setting aside the orders dated 28th June, 2010 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI), Ghaziabad in Criminal Case No. 235 of 2010 (CBI v. Ram Shanker Singh and others) taking cognizance of the offences under Section 120-B read with Sections 201, 420, 477-A of Indian Penal Code and Section 65 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 after rejecting the objections filed by the Revisionists. The Revisionists have also sought the quashing of the orders dated 28th July, 2010/3rd September, 2010 by which bailable warrants have been issued against the Revisionists as they did not appear before the Court despite service of summons.

2. It is pursuant to the directions issued by the Division Bench of the High Court on 4th October, 2005 in Writ Petition No. 48287 of 2005 Deepak Sharma v. State of U.P. and others, 2005(4) ESC 2333 (All)(DB) connected with Writ Petition No. 50418 of 2005 filed by (Manav Sewa Samiti and others) that the CBI initiated the investigation. The dispute in the two writ petitions referred to above was in connection with the advertisement issued by ‘New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the “NOIDA”) inviting applications for allotment of residential plots for the General Category applicants and for the Prescribed Reserved Category applicants in the ‘’Residential Plots Scheme 2004(1)’ (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme). While Writ Petition No. 48287 of 2005 was filed by Deepak Sharma for a direction upon NOIDA to execute the lease deed in his favour on the basis of the draw of lots held on 2nd July, 2005 and for quashing the order dated 4th July, 2005 by which the draw of lots held on 2nd July, 2005 was cancelled, Writ Petition No. 50418 of 2005 was filed by Manav Seva Samiti and 26 others for prohibiting NOIDA from approving the draw of lots held on 2nd July, 2005 and for causing an investigation to be done by a suitable agency to determine the liability of individual officers and for holding a fresh draw of lots.

3. We, therefore, consider it appropriate to reproduce the observations and directions issued by the Division Bench in the aforesaid writ petition on 4th October, 2005 which are :

“For all the reasons stated above we are of the clear opinion that the assignment of work to UPDESCO was a mala fide exercise of power by the Chairman-cum-Executive Officer, NOIDA. This sole illegality is grave enough to cancel the draw of lots.

At this stage we would like to comment on the conduct of the Officials of NOIDA in the context of the records produced before us. By the order dated 11th July 2005 we had directed NOIDA to produce the relevant records including the records relating to correspondence with the agencies responsible for draw of lots and the list of successful allotees. On 19th July 2005 certain records were produced by NOIDA including the file titled “Allotment of Residential Plots Scheme 2003(1)” and the papers containing the list of successful allotees. A perusal of the aforesaid file shows that the note sheets from pages 1 to 57 relate to the 2003(1) Scheme and the documents from page No. 1 to 275 also relate to 2003(1) Scheme. The file also reveals that the note sheets from page No. 59 to 103 relate to the Scheme in dispute namely 2004(1) Scheme and the papers from page No. 276 to 421 also relate to the Scheme 2004(1). We are surprised that the file relating to Residential Plot Scheme 2003(1) should contain note sheets and papers relating to the 2004(1) Scheme and our suspicion came true when the counter-affidavit was filed by NOIDA in the Second Petition. In this counter-affidavit there are note sheets containing page Nos. 27 to 36 relating to 2004(1) Scheme which have been annexed as Annexure CA-3. Similarly Annexure CA-4 contains note sheets from pages 37 to 39. It is, therefore, clear that even though these note sheets relate to 2004(1) Scheme they were not produced by NOIDA on 19th J