9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 402 - HC - Indian LawsCriminal Conspiracy - mutation of excess land - allegations against the petitioners are of mutating more land than the area of the plot which has also been admitted - HELD THAT - The Court has gone through the contents of the discharge petitions as well as the impugned order and finds that the allegations against the petitioners who happened to be Circle Officers are there of mutating more lands of the plots in question. A large number of innocent public have been cheated by M/s Sanjeevani Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. in conspiring with the others including the petitioners which has been revealed in the charge sheet. In the charge sheet the action of the petitioners have been discussed elaborately in all the cases and the learned counsel for the petitioners have also admitted in their argument that they have done excess mutation of the plot in question. The question remains that as to whether in absence of their connivance along with M/s Sanjeevani Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. the said mutation can be done or not? It appears that Circle Inspectors have also been charge sheeted which suggest that all were in connivance of such excess mutation of the plot in question. The discharge petition was the subject matter before the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF T. NADU TR. INSP. OF POLICE AND STATE REP. BY DEPUTY SUPDT. OF POLICE VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION VERSUS N. SURESH RAJAN ORS. AND K. PONMUDI ORS. 2014 (1) TMI 553 - SUPREME COURT , wherein it was held that if the court thinks that the accused might have committed the offence on the basis of the materials on record on its probative value, it can frame the charge; though for conviction, the court has to come to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence. The law does not permit a mini trial at this stage. The settled law does not permit a mini trial at the stage of discharge and facts are there that can be only subject matter of trial. The purpose of framing charge is to intimate the accused about clear unambiguous and precise nature of acquisition and the accused is called upon to meet the course of trial. The High Court is not required to scrutinize the evidence and advancing elaborate arguments in that count as the High Court is not exercising its power at the appellate stage and only the said argument is being heard in a criminal revision petition - under section 13(1)(d)(i) of the P.C.Act obtaining any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means by a public servant itself would amount to criminal misconduct. On the same reasoning under section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the P.C.Act obtaining a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by abusing his official position as a public servant either for him. In a criminal conspiracy the intention to do a criminal act is itself a crime unlike other offences which require not only the intention to do a criminal act but also in addition something committed in execution of the intention. The essence of conspiracy being bare agreement between the conspirators, the same has to be proved in the manner allowed by law. While accepting the proof of conspiracy reality of the situation has to be taken into account. Conspiracy as a whole is brought about in secrecy and the proof of the same, by adduction of evidence direct, is really an impossible feat in most of the cases, though in the rarest of rare occasion, the possibility of obtaining such evidence is there and in view of that the conspiracy may be proved in most of the cases, by process of inference or induction from relevant proved facts and circumstances which can be only by way of trial and not at the time of framing of charge and in that view of the matter, the discharge petitions cannot be allowed. he Court finds that there are allegations against the petitioners of mutating more land than the area of the plot which has also been admitted in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners which cannot be ruled out at this stage that the petitioners were not in connivance with the said M/s Sanjeevani Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. The poor people have been cheated by the said M/s Sanjeevani Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and the connivance of these petitioners cannot be ruled out considering that in two of the cases one of the petitioner has refused the mutation on the ground that the land is excess meaning thereby that they were knowing about the area of the land and inspite of that they have mutated the excess land. Revision dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the discharge orders in multiple criminal revision petitions. 2. Allegations of cheating and conspiracy by Sanjeevni Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and others. 3. Role of Circle Officers in the alleged excess mutation of land. 4. Application of legal principles for discharge under Sections 227 and 239 of the Cr.P.C. Summary: 1. Validity of the Discharge Orders: The petitioners sought to set aside discharge orders related to various FIRs and cases investigated by the CBI. The High Court heard these criminal revision petitions together due to their common origin and issues. 2. Allegations of Cheating and Conspiracy: The FIRs alleged that Sanjeevni Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and its directors, along with other accused, including Circle Officers, conspired to cheat multiple informants by promising land and shops, taking money, and then failing to deliver the promised properties. The company issued dishonored cheques when refund requests were made, leading to allegations of cheating under sections 406, 420, and 120B of the IPC and Section 138 of the NI Act. 3. Role of Circle Officers: The petitioners, who were Circle Officers, were accused of mutating more land than authorized, in connivance with Sanjeevni Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. They allegedly mutated excess land beyond the permissible limit without proper verification, suggesting a conspiracy. The petitioners argued that they followed the procedure under the Bihar Tenants Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973, and there was no evidence of taking bribes or connivance. 4. Application of Legal Principles for Discharge: The court emphasized that at the stage of considering discharge petitions, it must proceed on the assumption that the prosecution's materials are true. The court must evaluate whether the facts disclose the existence of the ingredients constituting the alleged offense. The court cited various judgments, including *State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan* and *Sajjan Kumar v. CBI*, to highlight that a detailed evaluation of evidence is not required at this stage. Conclusion: The court found that the allegations against the petitioners, including excess mutation of land and connivance with Sanjeevni Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., were substantiated in the charge sheet. The court held that the learned trial court rightly rejected the discharge petitions, and the petitioners' arguments were matters for trial. The court dismissed all the criminal revision petitions, emphasizing the need for stern action against corruption and the importance of public awareness. Disposition: Cr. Revision No. 238 of 2020, Cr. Revision No. 239 of 2020, Cr. Revision No. 240 of 2020, Cr. Revision No. 253 of 2020, Cr. Revision No. 255 of 2020, and Cr. Revision No. 298 of 2020 are dismissed.
|
