Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1546 (JHR)

Sahdeo Mehra v. Union of India through C. B. I

2016-11-17

ANANT BIJAY SINGH

body2016
ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the C.B.I. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with R.C. Case No. 07(S) of 2013EOWR for the offence registered under Sections 420 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. The case of the prosecution as unfolded in the written report of one Rajiv Ranjan, Superintendent of Police, C.B.I, EOW, Ranchi alleging inter alia that pursuant to Notification No. 6/CBI605/2012157 dated 15th January, 2013 issued by the Govt. of Jharkhand under section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act 25 of 1946) and corresponding Notification No. 228/53/2012AVDII dated 12.07.2013 issued by the Govt. of India under section 5, r/w section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, FIR No. 120/2012 dated 12.04.2012, under section 120B, 406, 420 I.P.C and section 138 of N.I Act of PS Lower Bazar, District Ranchi, Jharkhand registered against the accused persons namely Smt. Anamika Nandi, S. Nandi, Arvind Singh, Shyam Kishroe Gupta and Abdul Wahab, all of Sanjeevani Buildcon, Ranchi is reregistered and taken up for investigation by the C.B.I. 4. It is alleged that the above named accused persons in conspiracy with each other committed criminal breach of trust and also cheated the complainant Shri Umashankar Prasad Shrivastava to the tune of Rs. 6,85,000/-on the false pretest of sale of 1350 sqft house and one 120 sqft shop in the Aishwarya Residency, PhaseII of M/s Sanjeevani Buildcon. Subsequently, when the complainant realized that the accused persons cheated him, he pursued for refund of booking amount. Upon this the accused persons gave him five cheques total amounting of Rs. 6,85,000/-which was dishonoured, hence this case. 5. Police after completion of investigation submitted final form in this case, which reveals that the petitioner being District Sub-Registrar, Ranchi executed 57 sale deeds covering a total area of 245.97 Decimals lands belonging to plot no. 841, khata no. 155, Thana No. 228, Mauza Pundag against the maximum 50 decimal lands. He also accepted Rupees five lakhs as bribe from Shri Shyam Kishore Gupta for extending such favour. Apart from this, he accepted a bribe of Rs. 500/on the execution of each sale deed made by M/s Sanjeevani Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Shri Mehra received a new Sx4 vehicle amounting to Rs. He also accepted Rupees five lakhs as bribe from Shri Shyam Kishore Gupta for extending such favour. Apart from this, he accepted a bribe of Rs. 500/on the execution of each sale deed made by M/s Sanjeevani Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Shri Mehra received a new Sx4 vehicle amounting to Rs. 8,06,163/-as quid proquo from M/s Sanjeevani Buildcon Pvt. Ltd through its director and co-accused Shyam Kishroe Gupta. It also reveals that the petitioner was required to give information about the sale deed executed by M/s Sanjeevani Buildcon Pvt. Ltd to the Circle Officer, Ratu/Nagri. But, he deliberately did not pass on the said information for pecuniary gains resulting in illegal mutation of excess land. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has committed no offence as alleged in the F.I.R. It is further submitted that during the period i.e. from 29.05.2007 to 27.01.2012 the petitioner was posted as Sub-Registrar, Ranchi and in course of his duty, he had registered several documents/deeds as per the provision of Registration Act, 1908. The allegation against the petitioner that he had registered sale deeds measuring 245.97 decimals of land at the behest of a persons who did not have authority to sell more than 50 decimals of land is completely baseless and unfounded. In this context, it is stated and submitted that admittedly the power of attorney executed in favour of Arvind Kumar Singh, was a registered general power of attorney as contra distinguished from a special or specific power of attorney. In the case of general power of attorney, the registering authority in terms of Rule 85(2) of the Registration Rules is not required to make any endorsement after executing a deed based upon the said power of attorney and thus there is no scope under the extant laws for the registrar to make any kind of enquiry before registering a document on the basis of a general power of attorney. Thus, if the power of attorney holder has misutilised the same by selling lands more than the area for which he was authorized, no fault can be attributed to the petitioner who was the sub-registrar. It is further submitted that the allegation of receipt of illegal gratification of Rs. Thus, if the power of attorney holder has misutilised the same by selling lands more than the area for which he was authorized, no fault can be attributed to the petitioner who was the sub-registrar. It is further submitted that the allegation of receipt of illegal gratification of Rs. 5,00,000/-and a car is based on the statement purportedly statements of Praveen Kumar, Rishab Suman and Rakesh Kumar Singh @ Rinku purportedly recorded in terms of section 164 Cr.PC. From perusal of the said statements, it would be apparent that the witnesses are tutored and were compelled to make statements against the petitioner only for the purpose of implicating the petitioner as no other material was forthcoming in course of investigation qua the petitioner. The statements even if taken on the face value cannot be said to be admissible in evidence as also substantiate and/or corroborate the allegations against the petitioner. No recovery of money has been made from the petitioner. The income of the petitioner has also been not found disproportionate to the known sources. The allegations contained in the statements made under section 164 of the Cr.P.C are vague. It is further submitted that the witnesses have been tutored to say that one Sx4 Car, which is registered in the name of Mr. Praveen Kumar, has been given as bribe by M/s Sanjeevani Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. to the petitioner, which is absolutely false and frivolous. It is further submitted that as per registration under the Motor Vehicle Act, the owner of the vehicle is Mr. Praveen Kumar and not the petitioner. It is further submitted that had the deceased wife and son of the petitioner not died in the accident of the car which is said to have been a part of the illegal gratification received by the petitioner, there was no other material which would have otherwise connect the petitioner to the said car but unfortunately the prosecution is using the sad demise of the petitioner's son and wife as an circumstances to show his involvement. 7. A supplementary affidavit dated 12.10.2015 has also been filed on behalf of the petitioner stating therein that after 25.02.2009 the said Rakesh Kumar Singh alias Rinku did not execute any deed in favour of Sanjeevani Buildcon Private Limited. In last two deeds executed viz. Sale Deed Nos. 2449 and 2450 both dated 25.02.2009 contained plot no. 7. A supplementary affidavit dated 12.10.2015 has also been filed on behalf of the petitioner stating therein that after 25.02.2009 the said Rakesh Kumar Singh alias Rinku did not execute any deed in favour of Sanjeevani Buildcon Private Limited. In last two deeds executed viz. Sale Deed Nos. 2449 and 2450 both dated 25.02.2009 contained plot no. 4938 was wrongly mentioned as plot no. 4937. The said Rakesh Kumar Singh alias Rinku had executed the sale deed by virtue of a registered power of attorney executed by the purported raiyats namely Most. Manwa Devi and Ganesh Mahto bearing no. IV 245 dated 12.02.2009. The said power of attorney was executed for dealing and transferring land situated in plot no. 4938, Pundag, district Ranchi. Accordingly, the sale deed nos. 2449 and 2450 dated 25.02.09 were also executed in respect of plot no. 4938, Pundag, Ranchi. It is further submitted that during investigation the petitioner cooperated in the investigation. It is further submitted that investigation in this case is complete and final form has been submitted and cognizance has been taken and Trial will take some time. Considering all these facts, the petitioner deserves privilege of anticipatory bail. 8. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for the C.B.I opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and filed counter affidavit and referring to the various paras of the counter affidavit, counsel for the C.B.I has submitted that C.B.I has collected evidence against the petitioner to prove that he has entered into criminal conspiracy with other accused persons by misusing his official position as public servant, dishonestly and fraudulently obtained illegal gratification. The petitioner has favourably disposed of in registering the sale deeds executed by M/s Sanjeevani Buildcon Pvt. Ltd, Ranchi during the relevant period. It has also come in evidence that the petitioner accepted illegal gratification as quidproquo for the purpose of registering the lands beyond the permissible area mentioned in power of attorney. Referring to evidence of Praveen Kumar recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C learned counsel for the C.B.I has submitted that this witness has he and one Shyam Kishroe Gupta is his friend. Mr. Shyam Kishore Gupta was working as director in the Sanjeevani Buildcon and he used to drive his vehicle. On 21.11.2010 Shyam Kishroe Gupta took him to Premsons Motors where he saw that one Sahdeo Mehra (petitioner) along with his son and wife were present there. Mr. Shyam Kishore Gupta was working as director in the Sanjeevani Buildcon and he used to drive his vehicle. On 21.11.2010 Shyam Kishroe Gupta took him to Premsons Motors where he saw that one Sahdeo Mehra (petitioner) along with his son and wife were present there. Sahdeo Mehra told him that the one vehicle is being purchased in his name and later on it will be transferred in his (petitioner's) name. This witnesses has protested but it gone invain. Referring to evidence of one Rishav Suman learned standing counsel for the C.B.I has submitted that this petitioner has stated that on 21.11.2010 the petitioner along with his family came in the registry office, Ranchi. The petitioner choose one SX4 vehicle and Shyam Kishore Gupta deposited Rs. 5,067,36/- and the vehicle was purchased in the name of Praveen Kumar. Referring to evidence of Rakesh Kumar Singh alias Rinku, learned standing counsel for the C.B.I has stated that in the year, 2008, he went to the office of Sanjeevani Buildcon, Church Complex to sell a piece of plot no. 49/37, Khata No. 228, Thana No. 224 total area 0.77 decimals where he found that this petitioner being a Registrar, Registry Office Ranchi in absence of purchaser used to accept registry and some time being invalid power of attorney, registry was done. It is further submitted that Shri Praveen Kumar, owner of S X 4 Vehicle on paper, has revealed that the S X 4 vehicle amounting to Rs. 8,06,163/-was purchased by Shri Shyam Kishore from M/s Premsons Motor Udyog Ltd, Ranchi and subsequently it was given to the petitioner. It has also come in evidence that the petitioner received a bribe of Rs. 5,00,000/-from co-accused Shyam Kishore Gupta for executing the sale deed beyond the area mentioned in power of attorney deed No. 337. That apart, the petitioner has also accepted a bribe of Rs. 5,00/each for executing the sale deed on behalf of M/s Sanjeevani Buildcon Pvt. Ltd as revealed by witnesses Ranjit Manjhi and Amitesh Kumar. It is further submitted that C.B.I after collecting evidence both oral and documentary submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner and others u/s 120B, 420 I.P.C and under section 13(2), r/w 13(1) (d) of PC Act, 1988. It is further submitted that Shri Anirudh Mistri was not competent to send any report to other office. It is further submitted that C.B.I after collecting evidence both oral and documentary submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner and others u/s 120B, 420 I.P.C and under section 13(2), r/w 13(1) (d) of PC Act, 1988. It is further submitted that Shri Anirudh Mistri was not competent to send any report to other office. It was the duty of the petitioner to send such report to the Circle Office. The petitioner with malafide intention did not send it for ulterior motive resulting in illegal mutation of excess land. The principal secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand vide its communication dated 31.10.2013 has reminded to the registrars to send information about the sale deeds executed to send information about the sale deeds executed to the concerned Circle Office. It is further submitted that charge-sheets have been submitted against the petitioner including others when their involvement surfaced during the investigation. It is further submitted that Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh @ Rinku interalia disclosed in his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C that he handed over a bribe of Rs. 5,00,000/-to the petitioner Shahdeo Mehra at his residence, which was provided by coaccused Shyam Kishroe Gupta. The petitioner obtained illegal gratification of Rs. 5,00,000/-for executing the sale deed far in excess of the area mentioned in the power of attorney deed no. 337. After his examination before the I.O, he volunteered for giving his statement before the Court. Accordingly, his statement under section 164 Cr.PC has been recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class. His statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C has been cited as D79 of the charge-sheet. It is further submitted that statement of witnesses namely, Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh @ Rinku, Praveen Kumar and Rishav Suman were also recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that common evidences of quidproquo against the petitioner have been collected in most of the cases. That being the reason, the petitioner has been charge-sheeted in the instant solitary case to avoid double jeopardy. The petitioner has been dealt with departmentally in other cases. It is further submitted that documents pertaining to the SX4 vehicle were collected from Gola Police Statioin and M/s Premsons Motor Udyog Ltd, Ranchi investigation has disclosed that one SX4 vehicle costing Rs. The petitioner has been dealt with departmentally in other cases. It is further submitted that documents pertaining to the SX4 vehicle were collected from Gola Police Statioin and M/s Premsons Motor Udyog Ltd, Ranchi investigation has disclosed that one SX4 vehicle costing Rs. 8,06,163/-had been given as bribe by M/s Sanjeevani Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. On 21.11.2010 through its director Shri Shyam Kishroe Gupta to Shri Sahdeo Mehra (petitioner) the then District SubRegistrar, Ranchi. The vehicle was purchased by Shyam Kishore Gupta in the name of his driver Shri Praveen Kumar from M/s Premsons Motor Udyog Ltd, Ranchi. Shri Sahdeo Mehra was also present at that time. The SX4 vehicle bearing no. JH011AJ5488 met with an accident on 03.01.2011 in which smt. Kiran Mehra, Shri Nishant Mehra, wife and son of the petitioner along with the driver Shri Narayan Yadav died. So, the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail. 9. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the C.B.I and after close scrutiny of the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, I find that there is considerable force in the submission of learned counsel for the C.B.I that the witnesses namely, Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh @ Rinku, Praveen Kumar and Rishav Suman examined under section 164 Cr.P.C have supported the case of prosecution. Prima facie, it appears that the C.B.I has been able to establish the evidence as quidproquo as the petitioner misused his official position, so taking all these facts, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the court below within two weeks from the date of this order and pray for regular bail, if so advised, which shall be considered by the court below without being prejudiced by this order. 10. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned court and a copy of this order be handed over to the learned standing counsel for the C.B.I.