SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(MP) 63

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (JABALPUR BENCH)
ATUL SREEDHARAN, JAGDISH PRASAD GUPTA, JJ.
State of M.P. and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Shivendra Singh and Ors. - Respondents
Cr. R. No. 2187 of 2018 and M.Cr.C. No. 5937 of 2020
Decided On : 17-03-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Satyam Agrawal and Manoj Sharma, Learned Counsels
For the Respondents:Anil Khare, Senior Advocate, Priyank Agrawal, Advocate and Satyam Agrawal, Learned Counsel

The judgment emphasized the importance of providing reasoning in judicial orders and the impact of such orders on the investigating agency and accused persons.

Headnote:

Prevention of Corruption Act - Closure Report - Sections 13(1)(d), 13(2), 109, 120-B of IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the rejection of the closure report filed under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Sections 109 and 120-B of the IPC. The court emphasized the need for sanction for prosecution by the competent authority and the power of the Magistrate or Special Judge to direct further investigation or to take cognizance based on the material produced before them. The judgment also highlighted the importance of providing reasoning in judicial orders and the impact of such orders on the investigating agency and accused persons.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved allegations of misconduct and corruption against government servants and private individuals related to land allotment and development. The closure report filed by the Special Police (Lokayukt) was rejected by the Special Judge, directing the material to be placed before the sanctioning authority for obtaining sanction for prosecution.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the rejection of the closure report and the direction to place the material before the sanctioning authority were within the jurisdiction of the Special Judge. However, the court held that the impugned order was passed mechanically and without proper application of mind, and lacked essential reasoning. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the Special Judge to pass a speaking order, indicating the facts and material available on record with regard to the rejection of the closure report.

Issues: The main issues were the jurisdiction of the Special Judge to reject the closure report and direct the material to be placed before the sanctioning authority, and the adequacy of reasoning in the impugned order.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for sanction for prosecution by the competent authority and the power of the Magistrate or Special Judge to direct further investigation or to take cognizance based on the material produced before them. The judgment also highlighted the importance of providing reasoning in judicial orders and the impact of such orders on the investigating agency and accused persons.

Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the Special Judge was directed to pass a speaking order, indicating the facts and material available on record with regard to the rejection of the closure report.

ORDER :

JAGDISH PRASAD GUPTA, J.

1. This order shall govern the disposal of both the aforesaid cases which have been filed challenging the common order dated 19.1.2018 passed by the Special Judge, Lokayukta Jabalpur in Crime No. 115/2011 whereby the closure report filed by the Special Police (Lokayukt) in respect of the accused persons under Sections 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Sections 109 and 120-B of the IPC has been disallowed directing the Lokayukta police to place all the original documents/records and the material collected during the investigation before the Sanctioning authority for obtaining sanction for prosecution against the concerned governments employees/accused persons.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondents namely Shivendra Singh, G.N. Singh, Tarun Kumar Anand, Shyam Mandal, S.C. Jain and Vishal Pachori (now dead) were posted at Jabalpur Development Authority, Jabalpur and were discharging their duties in their respective capacity and respondent S.K. Mahawar was posted at Town and Country Planning, District Jabalpur and was discharging his duty as Joint Director. Respondents Shankar Manchani (Also petitioner in M.Cr.C. No. 5937/2020) and Manoj Kumar are the private party and were discharging their duties as Directors of M/s. Oasis Build Mart Private Ltd. and against them the allegations are that the Special Police (Lokayukt) made a search in the office and house of G.N. Singh, the then Executive Engineer/Land Acquisition officer posted in Jabalpur Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the "JDA"), Jabalpur with regard to disproportionate assets and on the basis of the documents seized during the search and investigation, a preliminary inquiry was conducted and prima facie it was revealed that in the auction of the land of Jabalpur Development Authority, a company, namely, M/s. Oasis Build Mart Private Ltd. Participated and tender of the company was accepted, about which, it is alleged that the company was allowed to participate in the proceeding of the auction despite of having no eligibility and the land was allotted to the company contrary to the rules and thereby terms of the contract were not followed and twisted to facilitate the company and extra land was also given without following the prescribed procedure with a view to provide undue benefit to the company. Apart from it, a land comprising service road was also made a part of the plot thereby increasing the area of the said plot, on which, the development was to be made and the documents requiring registration were not got registered and the company was wrongly provided aforesaid documents to avoid registration fees and M/s. Oasis Build Mart Private Ltd. inducted Shankar Manchani (Petitioner in M.Cr.C. No. 5937/2020) as a Director of the company without paying transfer fees and stamp duty. Accordingly, all the aforesaid officers of Jabalpur Development Authority and the Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur and Directors of M/s. Oasis Build Mart Private Ltd. caused loss to the exchequer with the connivance of each other by misusing their position as government servants or Directors of the company concerned and the purchase money was not recovered in terms of the contract and too-much extra time was given to pay the consideration of the plot and thereby caused loss of interest to the J.D.A. and the Municipal Corporation.

3. Thereafter, a criminal case was registered and during investigation, first investigator was of the opinion that there is sufficient material to file charge sheet against the respondents/accused persons with regard to commission of the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 109 and 120-B of IPC. Contrary to it, in further investigation, second Investigating Officer was of the opinion that there is no material to file charge sheet against the accused persons for commission of the afores

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top