Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1737 (RAJ)

Gopal Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

2018-08-16

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2018
JUDGMENT Vijay Bishnoi, J. - These criminal revision petitions have been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved with the order dated 08.03.2018 passed by the Sessions Judge, Special Court, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter to be referred as 'the trial court') in Sessions Case No.95/2013, whereby the trial court has ordered for framing of charges against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(D) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the PC Act') and Sections 420 and 120-B of IPC. 2. Brief facts of both the cases are that an FIR was registered at Anti Corruption Bureau, Sri Ganganagar with the allegations that Ms. Krishna Bhatiya (petitioner in SB CRLR No.659/2018) was the Chairperson of Municipal Board, Suratgarh whereas Mr. Madan Singh Budhaniya was the Executive Officer of the Municipal Board, Suratgarh from 07.04.2001 to 21.06.2004. It was alleged that certain commercial shops were put to auction by Agriculture Marketing Committee, Suratgarh in the years 1993, 1995 and 1997. The successful bidders for those shops i.e. petitioner Nos.1 to 7 viz. Gopal Sharma, Mohd. Shakeel, Mohd. Saleem, Sampatlal, Ashok Kumar, Smt. Saroj Rani and Jawaharlal Chugh respectively (petitioner Nos.1 to 7 in SB CRLR No.465/2018) deposited 1/4 amount of auctioned shops on the day of auction, however, 3/4 amount of auctioned shops did not deposit by them, though, the period for depositing the same had expired. Later on, the area of Agriculture Marketing Committee, Suratgarh was transferred to the Municipal Board, Suratgarh by way of notification issued by the Government and from the date of that transfer, the Municipal Board Land Disposal Rules, 1974 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Rules of 1974') were made applicable. It was alleged that petitioner-Ms. Krishna Bhatiya, Chairperson of Municipal Board, Suratgarh and Mr. Madan Singh Budhaniya, Executive Officer of Municipal Board, Surgatgarh hatched a conspiracy with the accused person viz. It was alleged that petitioner-Ms. Krishna Bhatiya, Chairperson of Municipal Board, Suratgarh and Mr. Madan Singh Budhaniya, Executive Officer of Municipal Board, Surgatgarh hatched a conspiracy with the accused person viz. Petitioner No.1-Gopal Sharma and others and after receiving applications from them allowed them to deposit 3/4 remaining amount of allotted shops along with interest in the year 2002 while invoking the provisions of Rajasthan Colonisation (Sale and Allotment of Land in Mandis in the Bhakra and Indira Gandhi Canal Projects Colony Areas) Conditions, 1973, though, the said conditions were not in force in the year 2002 because at that relevant time the Rules of 1974 were in force and as per those rules without prior consent of the State Government, no such money could be deposited. It is further alleged that after depositing all 3/4 remaining amount along with interest Mr. Madan Singh Budhaniya, Executive Officer of Municipal Board, Suratgarh executed lease-deeds in favour of petitioner No.1-Gopal Sharma and others in illegal manner. 3. Similarly it was alleged that Hiralal and Smt. Sushila Devi (petitioner Nos.8 and 9 respectively in SB CRLR No.465/2018) with connivance of petitioner-Ms. Krishna Bhatiya, Chairperson of Municipal Board, Surathgarh and Mr. Madan Singh Budhaniya, Executive Officer of Municipal Board, Suratgarh hatched a conspiracy and purchased a strip of land in Suratgarh City without there being any resolution of Municipal Board, Suratgarh, which was mandatory as per law. It was also alleged in the complaint that due to above action of petitioner-Ms. Krishna Bhatiya and Mr. Madan Singh Budhaniya along with other petitioners, the Municipal Board, Suratgarh suffered huge loss of lacs of rupees, as if the shops in question and the strip of land in question were sold out in the year 2002, as per the provisions of Rules of 1974, the higher price for the same would have been received. 4. The police, after thorough investigation into the allegations levelled in the complaint, filed charge-sheet against the petitioners under the various provisions of PC Act as well s of IPC. 5. After taking cognizance against the petitioners the trial court having heard counsel for the parties has framed charges against the petitioners vide impugned order. 6. 4. The police, after thorough investigation into the allegations levelled in the complaint, filed charge-sheet against the petitioners under the various provisions of PC Act as well s of IPC. 5. After taking cognizance against the petitioners the trial court having heard counsel for the parties has framed charges against the petitioners vide impugned order. 6. In these criminal revision petitions, the petitioners have assailed the impugned order passed by the trial court, whereby the charges have been framed against them for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(D) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act and Sections 420 and 120-B IPC. 7. Mr. Mahesh Bora, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Nishant Bora appearing for the petitioners has argued that the trial court has grossly erred in passing the impugned order as there is no iota of evidence available on record against the petitioners to frame charges for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(D) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act and Sections 420 and 120-B IPC. It is also argued that as a matter of fact whatever illegality and irregularity was done by Mr. Madan Singh Budhaniya, the then Executive Officer of Municipal Board, Suratgarh, there is no material available on record that the petitioners have hatched a conspiracy with him and committed any offence. 8. It is also argued that so far as petitioner No.l-Gopal Sharma and others are concerned, they have deposited money with the Municipal Board, Suratgarh as per the demand raised by it and looking to this fact, it is clear that they have not committed any offence. 9. In relation to petitioner-Ms. Krishna Bhatiya, it is submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioners that she being Chairperson of Municipal Board, Suratgarh at that relevant time, cannot be held responsible for misdeeds committed by Mr. Madan Singh Budhaniya, Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Suratgarh. It is contended that Mr. 9. In relation to petitioner-Ms. Krishna Bhatiya, it is submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioners that she being Chairperson of Municipal Board, Suratgarh at that relevant time, cannot be held responsible for misdeeds committed by Mr. Madan Singh Budhaniya, Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Suratgarh. It is contended that Mr. Madan Singh Budhaniya, the then Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Suratgarh, has prepared a note-sheet, wherein it is written that the allottees of the shops in question, in whose favour auction proceedings were completed way back in the years 1993, 1995 and 1997, have approached for depositing remaining 3/4 of amount along with interest and with the deposit of the said amount, the Municipal Board, Suratgarh would earn huge income and, therefore, it is appropriate to allow them to deposit 3/4 amount along with interest and petitioner-Ms. Krishna Bhatiya relying on the said note-sheet put her signature for approval. It is submitted that whatever action done by petitioner Ms. Krishna Bhatiya, Chairperson of Municipal Board, Suratgarh was a bonafide act and in the light of above fact, it cannot be said that she hatched a conspiracy with Mr. Madan Singh Budhaniya, the then Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Suratgarh or other petitioners and committed any offence. 10. It is also argued by Mr. Bora, learned senior counsel for the petitioners that so far as petitioner No.8-Hiralal and petitioner No.9-Ms. Sushila Devi are concerned, they had applied for allotment of strip of land with the Municipal Board, Suratgarh, which had accepted their proposals and raised demand, which they have deposited and then the strips of land were allotted to them and in the light of above facts, it cannot be said that petitioner No.8-Hiralal and petitioner No.9-Ms. Sushila Devi have committed any offence. It is submitted that if the approval of the Municipal Board, Suratgarh for allotting the strip land was not obtained by Mr. Madan Singh Budhaniya, Executive Officer of Municipal Board, Suratgarh, then petitioner No.8-Hiralal and petitioner No.9-Ms. Sushila Devi cannot be held liable for that irregularity as they have deposited the money bonafidely. 11. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has also argued that the main accused of case Mr. Madan Singh Budhaniya, Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Suratgarh had expired prior to framing of charges and on account of death of main accused, the proceedings against the petitioners cannot be continued. 12. 11. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has also argued that the main accused of case Mr. Madan Singh Budhaniya, Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Suratgarh had expired prior to framing of charges and on account of death of main accused, the proceedings against the petitioners cannot be continued. 12. On the strength of the above arguments, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has prayed that the impugned order passed by the trial court is illegal and, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside and the petitioners are entitled to be discharged. 13. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the revision petitions and argued that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Agency had collected sufficient material and on the basis of which the charges for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(D) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act and Sections 42o and 120-B IPC have rightly been framed by the trial court. It is submitted that it is an admitted position that the shops auctioned, in favour of petitioner Nos.1 to 7 viz Gopal Sharma, Mohd. Shakeel, Mohd. Saleem, Sampatlal, Ashok Kumar, Smt. Saroj Rani and Jawaharlala Chugh respectively, have automatically been cancelled due to non-deposit of 3/4 of remaining auction amount within prescribed time, however, the said petitioners in connivance with the petitioner-Ms. Krishna Bhatiya, Chairperson of Municipal Board, Suratgarh and Mr. Madan Singh Budhaniya, Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Suratgarh applied for depositing of 3/4 amount in the year 2002 and illegally deposited the said amount and caused huge loss to the Municipal Board, Suratgarh and the public exchequer. 14. It is argued by learned Public Prosecutor that enough material is available on record to suggest that the petitioner Nos.1 to 7 viz. Gopal Sharma, Mohd. Shakeel, Mohd. Saleem, Sampatlal, Ashok Kumar, Smt. Saroj Rani and Jawaharlala Chugh respectively have entered into a conspiracy with petitioner-Ms. Krishna Bhatiya, Chairperson of Municipal Board, Suratgarh and Mr. Madan Singh Budhaniya, Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Suratgarh and committed offences as alleged in the charge-sheet. It is argued that petitioner No.8-Hiralal and petitioner No.9-Ms. Sushila Devi have also entered into a conspiracy with the petitioner-Ms. Krishna Bhatiya, Chairperson of Municipal Board, Suratgarh and Mr. Madan Singh Budhaniya, Executive Officer of Municipal Board, Suratgarh and illegally purchased the strip of land at a nominal price without approval from the Municipal Board, Suratgarh. 15. It is argued that petitioner No.8-Hiralal and petitioner No.9-Ms. Sushila Devi have also entered into a conspiracy with the petitioner-Ms. Krishna Bhatiya, Chairperson of Municipal Board, Suratgarh and Mr. Madan Singh Budhaniya, Executive Officer of Municipal Board, Suratgarh and illegally purchased the strip of land at a nominal price without approval from the Municipal Board, Suratgarh. 15. Learned Public Prosecutor has also argued that the prosecution sanction was already granted against Mr. Madan Singh Budhaniya, the then Executive Officer of Municipal Board, Suratgarh by the competent authority and thereafter charge-sheet was filed against him and the trial court took cognizance against him and the other petitioners in the year 2011. It is submitted that though before framing of charges Mr. Madan Singh Budhaniya, Executive Officer of Municipal Board, Suratgarh had expired but with the death of him, the case against the petitioners cannot be said to be come to an end, as the trial court is fully competent to try the petitioners for the alleged offences as per the provisions of PC Act. 16. Learned Public Prosecutor has, therefore, argued that these criminal revision petitions are bereft of any merit and the same are liable to be rejected. 17. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the charge-sheet as well as the impugned order. 18. First of all, I would like to deal with the arguments of learned senior counsel for the petitioners that with death of Mr. Madan Singh Budhaniya, the then Executive Officer of Municipal Board, Suratgarh and a public servant, the proceedings against the petitioners, who are not public servants, cannot be continued before the trial court. The trial court has taken into consideration this argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners and after relying on the decision passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in State through CBI New Delhi v. Jitender Kumar Singh reported in 2014(1) WLC (SC) Cri. 447 has held that even if the sole public servant expires, the proceedings against the other accused persons cannot come to an end by virtue of Subsection (3) of Section 4 of PC Act. I am perfectly in agreement with the trial court that even if the sole public servant is expired, the proceedings against the private person can be continued before the Special Judge. 19. I am perfectly in agreement with the trial court that even if the sole public servant is expired, the proceedings against the private person can be continued before the Special Judge. 19. It is noticed that as per Sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the PC Act, the Special Judge is also exercising his powers to try any offence other than any offence specified in Subsection (3) of Section 4 of the PC Act and, therefore, it cannot be said that the Special Judge cannot proceed against private persons even if the sole public servant dies. 20. In the instant case, the sole public servant Mr. Madan Singh Budhaniya, the then Executive Officer of Municipal Board, Suratgarh, expired after taking cognizance against him and the other petitioners by the trial court. 21. In view of the above discussions, the contention of learned senior counsel for the petitioners regarding the power of the trial court to try them after the death of sole public servant is not tenable, however, the same is rejected. 22. It is well settled law that at the time of framing of charge, the court has to weigh the evidence collected by the prosecution against the accused persons to see that prima facie case is made out against the accused persons or not. At the stage of framing of charges, the court is not expected to look into the probative value of the material available on record. Only it is to be considered that whether there are grounds for presuming that the offence has been committed and it is not required to be satisfied that whether on the basis of material available on record the accused person can be convicted or not. The charges can be framed if the material available on record raises strong doubt about the involvement of the accused person. 23. Now looking from that angle, I propose to consider whether sufficient material is available for prima facie satisfaction of the trial court that the accused petitioners might have committed the offences. 24. Admitted facts of the case are that the petitioner Nos.1 to 7 Gopal Sharma, Mohd. Shakeel, Mohd. Saleem, Sampatlal, Ashok Kumar, Smt. Saroj Rani and Jawaharlal Chugh respectively were the successful bidders of commercial shops auctioned by Agriculture Marketing Committee, Suratgarh held in the year 1993, 1995 and 1997. 24. Admitted facts of the case are that the petitioner Nos.1 to 7 Gopal Sharma, Mohd. Shakeel, Mohd. Saleem, Sampatlal, Ashok Kumar, Smt. Saroj Rani and Jawaharlal Chugh respectively were the successful bidders of commercial shops auctioned by Agriculture Marketing Committee, Suratgarh held in the year 1993, 1995 and 1997. After completion of auction proceedings, immediately they deposited 1/4 of auction amount, however, 3/4 of remaining auction amount was not deposited by them within the time limit, prescribed under the law. Thereafter the land of the Agriculture Marketing Committee, Suratgarh was transferred to the Municipal Board, Suratgarh and at this stage, the petitioners moved applications before Mr. Madan Singh Budhaniya, the then Executive Officer of Municipal Board, Suratgarh with the request to allow them to deposit 3/4 remaining amount along with interest. It is also come on record that in the meantime four shops auctioned earlier were cancelled by the orders of the competent authority and as per the law those shops are required to be reauctioned. It is also not in dispute that with the transfer of land to the Municipal Board, Suratgarh, the Rules of 1974 came into force and as per those Rules only the State Government is competent to pass orders for depositing of remaining 3/4 amount, which was admittedly not deposited within time limit. 25. As per the material collected by the police, Mr. Madan Singh Budhaniya, the then Executive Officer of Municipal Board, Suragarh and petitioner-Ms. Krishna Bhatiya, the then Chairperson of Municipal Board, Suratgarh did not obtain any permission from the State Government and they allowed petitioners-Gopal Sharam and others to deposit remaining 3/4 amount and, thereafter, Mr. Madan Singh Budhaniya got the sale-deeds registered in favour of them. 26. Similarly the strip of land were allotted to petitioner No.8- Hiralal and petitioner No.9-Ms. Sushila Devi without getting approval from the Municipal Board, Suratgarh simply on the basis of their applications. 27. The material collected by the police suggests that all petitioner Nos.1 to 9 viz. Gopal Sharma, Mohd. Shakeel, Mohd. Saleem, Sampatlal, Ashok Kumar, Smt. Saroj Rani, Jawaharlala Chugh, Hiralal and Ms. Sushila Devi suddenly moved applications for depositing remaining 3/4 auction amount and for allotment of strip land before Mr. 27. The material collected by the police suggests that all petitioner Nos.1 to 9 viz. Gopal Sharma, Mohd. Shakeel, Mohd. Saleem, Sampatlal, Ashok Kumar, Smt. Saroj Rani, Jawaharlala Chugh, Hiralal and Ms. Sushila Devi suddenly moved applications for depositing remaining 3/4 auction amount and for allotment of strip land before Mr. Madan Singh Budhaniya, the then Executive Officer of Municipal Board, Suratgarh in the year 2002 and this fact itself creates doubts as to how all the petitioners at the same time had approached him. 28. After carefully scrutinizing the charge-sheet, I have no hesitation in holding that prima facie material for framing of charges against the petitioners is available and, therefore, the trial court has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order. 29. Hence, there is no force in these criminal revision petitions and the same are hereby dismissed. 30. It is expected that the trial court may expedite the trial. 31. Stay petitions are also stands dismissed.