2017 (8) TMI 1578 - SC - Indian Laws

Illegal conversion of plots - conversion of the guest house to residential plot - offence of criminal misconduct Under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act - HELD THAT - Section 13 of the P.C. Act in general lays down that if a public servant, by corrupt or illegal means or otherwise abusing his position as a public servant obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, he would be guilty of 'criminal misconduct'. Sub-section (2) of Section 13 speaks of the punishment for such misconduct. Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of P.C. Act lays down the essentials and punishment respectively for the offence of 'criminal misconduct' by a public servant. Perusal of Section 13(1)(d) makes it clear that if the elements of any of the three sub-clauses are met, the same would be sufficient to constitute an offence of 'criminal misconduct' Under Section 13(1)(d). Undoubtedly, all the three wings of Clause (d) of Section 13(1) are independent, alternative and disjunctive. Thus, Under Section 13(1)(d)(i) of P.C. Act obtaining any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means by a public servant in itself would amount to criminal misconduct. On the same reasoning Under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of P.C. Act obtaining a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by abusing his official position as a public servant, either for himself or for any other person would amount to criminal misconduct. On appreciation of evidence and materials on record, both the trial court and the High Court recorded concurrent findings that the Appellants acted in clear abuse of position, plot No. 27 in the developed Sector-14A was converted from guest house to 'residential' and in violation of the norms and circulars, the same was allotted to the Appellant to gain pecuniary advantage to him (Rajiv Kumar). The concurrent findings recorded by the courts below are well balanced and we do not find any reason warranting interference. The conviction of the Appellants Rajiv Kumar and Neera Yadav is confirmed - The sentence of imprisonment of three years imposed on the Appellants is reduced to two years and the appeals are partly allowed with the only modification in sentence.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Section 120-B IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Legality of the conversion and allotment of plots in NOIDA.
3. Allegations of conspiracy and abuse of position by public servants.
4. Validity of the enhancement of plot area.
5. Sentence of imprisonment and fine imposed on the appellants.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction under Section 120-B IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellants under Section 120-B IPC for criminal conspiracy and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for criminal misconduct. The Court found that the appellants conspired to abuse their positions as public servants to obtain pecuniary advantages and valuable things for themselves, violating the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

2. Legality of the Conversion and Allotment of Plots in NOIDA:
The Court examined the conversion of plot No. B-86 in Sector-51 to plot No. 27 in Sector-14A and found it contrary to the rules. The appellants facilitated the conversion and allotment of plots in violation of NOIDA's policies and circulars. The conversion was done without following due procedure, and the plot initially earmarked for a government guest house was converted to a residential plot to benefit the appellant Rajiv Kumar.

3. Allegations of Conspiracy and Abuse of Position by Public Servants:
The Court found substantial evidence of conspiracy between the appellants. The actions included the double conversion of plots, the illegal conversion of a guest house plot to a residential plot, and the allotment of a highly valuable plot at a lower rate. The Court noted that the appellants acted with dishonest intentions to gain pecuniary advantages, demonstrating a clear abuse of their positions as public servants.

4. Validity of the Enhancement of Plot Area:
The enhancement of the plot area by 105 sq.m. was found to be in grave violation of NOIDA's rules. The Court noted that the enhancement amounted to a 35% increase in the original plot area, which was arbitrary and contrary to the rules. The enhancement was done without any reasonable justification, further demonstrating the appellants' abuse of power.

5. Sentence of Imprisonment and Fine Imposed on the Appellants:
The Court acknowledged the appellants' service records and the long duration since the occurrence of the offense in 1994. Considering these factors and the appellants' willingness to surrender the plot, the Court reduced the sentence of imprisonment from three years to two years. The fine of ?50,000/- imposed on each appellant was upheld.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court confirmed the conviction of the appellants for criminal conspiracy and criminal misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court found that the appellants abused their positions as public servants to obtain valuable things and pecuniary advantages. The sentence of imprisonment was reduced to two years, considering the appellants' service records and the long duration since the offense.