Delhi District Court
State vs . Lal Mani Etc. on 17 February, 2016
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. HEMANI MALHOTRA / SPL. JUDGE/PC
ACT/ACB/DELHI
CC No. 18/2014
State Vs. Lal Mani etc.
FIR No. 29/2001 (supplementary charge sheet)
PS Anti Corruption Branch
State Vs. Lal Mani & Ors.
Order on charge:
1.Vide this order I intend to decide the proposition whether sufficient material has been placed on record by the prosecution warranting framing of charges against accused persons U/ss 13(1)(d) POC Act & Sections 420/468/471/120B IPC.
2. Succinctly stated the case of the prosecution is that the prosecution had initially filed a chargesheet on 24.3.2006 against accused (i) Kundan Lal, Joint Director (JJ Slum, MCD)/Head of Lock Committee, (ii) Rajinder Khurana/Field Inspector, MCD Survey, (iii) Ram Charan Kamal/Member of Lock Committee, (iv) Laxmi Narain/LDC, (v) Shankar Sahani/Field Inspector/ Member of Lock Committee, (vi) Kishan Lal Taneja/MCD SociologistIncharge of Field Investigator, (vii) K.L. Maggo/Slum Wing (MCD), (viii) Raj Bala Sharma/Field Inspector(MCD), (ix) Ashok Kumar Chibbar/ MCD Slum, (x) Kamlesh Gupta/Field Inspector(MCD), (xi) R.K. Sharma/Field Inspector(DDA), (xii) Jagdish Chand/Field Inspector (DDA), (xiii) Satender Pal/Field Inspector(DDA), (xiv)Darshan Lal/Property Dealer (since expired) and (xv) R.S. Sandhu/Property Dealer U/s 13(1)(d) POC 1Act r/w Sections 420/458/471/120B IPC. As per the allegations in the said chargesheet, there was a proposal of Order on charge in case FIR No. 29/2001 (supplementary charge sheet) PS ACBState Vs. Lal Mani & Ors. Page 1 of 9 2 relocation of the jhuggi cluster of Yamuna Pushta comprising of GautampuriI, Players Building by Delhi Government to Bhalswa Resettlement Colony. Pursuant to which, a joint survey of JJ Cluster by officials of Slums & JJ Department (MCD) and DDA officials (Land Owing Agency) was conducted with respect to 1340, JJ Dwellers at Gautampuri I, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. During the survey, jhuggies of 28 JJ Dwellers were found locked as per the survey list which was signed by all the concerned Field Inspectors. During the survey, accused R.K. Khurana, Raj Bala Sharma, Kamlesh Gupta were the Field Inspectors/MCD and accused Jagdish Chand, R.K. Sharma, Satender Pal Singh were the Field Inspectors/DDA (Land Owing Agency) who included the names of 28 fictitious Jhuggi Jhopari (JJ) dwellers under the supervision of accused K.L. Maggo and accused A.K. Chibbar (Senior Investigators) who used to remain physically present on the site of survey under the overall supervision of accused K.L. Taneja (Sociologist). In pursuant to this survey, accused Kundan Lal (Joint Director of JJ Department MCD) to provide undue benefit to the property dealers namely accused R.S. Sandhu and Darshan Lal (now deceased) got approval for allotment of 28 alternative plots at Bhalswa Resettlement Colony from DC (Slum & JJ Department) to fictitious 28 JJ dwellers of Gautampuri on the basis of requisite documents forged by accused R.S. Sandhu for consideration of huge amounts.
3. Further, accused Ram Charan Kamal and Shankar Sahani (Field Inspectors) in the absence of S.R. Bhatnagar (Chairman of Lock Committee) processed the forged ration cards of 13 out of 28 fictitious Jhuggi dwellers who appeared before them along with forged ration cards on 31.1.2001. During investigation, it was revealed that none of the Order on charge in case FIR No. 29/2001 (supplementary charge sheet) PS ACBState Vs. Lal Mani & Ors. Page 2 of 9 3 absentee JJ dwellers had furnished affidavits along with photographs attested by SDM/First Class Magistrate which was one of the requisites of the codal formalities of functioning of Lock Committee. The Lock Committee recommended the case of 13 out of 28 JJ Dwellers after satisfying themselves as regards the correctness of documents to accused Kundan Lal who also personally verified the forged ration cards and physical presence of the said fictitious JJ dwellers and recommended the allotment of alternative plots to them on 31.1.2001 though none of them submitted the requisite affidavits along with photographs attested by SDM/First Class Magistrate. Accused Kundan Lal then marked these to LDC Laxmi Narain for processing. The aforesaid accused officials of MCD (Slum Wing) and DDA Officials (Land Owning Agency) thus misused their official position and helped the aforesaid property dealers in allotting 28 plots in lieu of jhuggis on the basis of forged ration cards/Icards and bogus survey in respect of the said non existing JJ Dwellers resulting into unlawful pecuniary gain of Rs.10.92 lacs to them. Since during investigation, some forged documents (ration cards of different names, blank ration cards, ration cards cover and Delhi Administration I/Cards) were also recovered during the house search of property dealers namely accused Bharat Bhushan Sehgal and Lal Mani which did not pertain to the JJ Dwellers of GautampuriI and inveseigation regarding the remaining plots was in progress, a mention was made that the supplementary chargesheet against accused Bharat Bhushan Sehgal and Lal Mani shall be filed subsequently ( as per provisions of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.).
4. Accordingly, supplementary chargesheet qua accused Lal Mani and Bharat Bhushan in that very FIR No. 29/01, PS Anti Corruption Branch Order on charge in case FIR No. 29/2001 (supplementary charge sheet) PS ACBState Vs. Lal Mani & Ors. Page 3 of 9 4 u/ss 420/468/471/12B IPC and 13(1)(d) of POC Act was filed on 29.11.2014. As per the allegations in the supplementary chargesheet, when Insp. O.P. Arora had conducted the house search of accused Bharat Bhushan on 27.06.2001, he recovered ration card and identity card of one Darshan (wrongly mentioned as accused Darshan) which was subsequently found to be forged. Further, the names of accused Bharat Bhushan and Lal Mani figured in the disclosure statements of accused Rajender Khurana/Field Inspector of Slum & JJ Department/ MCD, accused Laxmi Narain/UDC of Slum & JJ Department/MCD, accused Darshan Lal s/o Munshi Ram and accused Kundan Lal, Joint Director/Slum Wing/MCD, I.P. Estate. As per the allegations, accused Rajender Khurana in his disclosure statement disclosed that he and other Field Inspectors and senior officers were involved in unlawful conduct in the allotment of plots in JJ clusters to various persons in consideration of money and they never verified the genuineness of ration cards, Icards and other documents. He also disclosed the names of the private persons who used to get favours and accused Lal Mani was one of them. Accused Laxmi Narain, UDC of Slum & JJ Deptt./MCD in his disclosure statement disclosed that his duties were to issue demolition slips after checking/verifying ration card, Icard and other documents produced by jhuggi dwellers but he never checked/verified the ration card, Icards and other documents. He disclosed that in Lock Committee cases, he over looked the normal procedure and other ration cards which were not having photographs and signatures of head of the family and it was done to get monetary favours from accused Bharat Bhushan. Accused Darshan Lal in his disclosure statement stated that he was a property dealer for the last 5/6 years and was working with 1112 accomplices including accused Bharat Bhushan and Lal Mani. He Order on charge in case FIR No. 29/2001 (supplementary charge sheet) PS ACBState Vs. Lal Mani & Ors. Page 4 of 9 5 disclosed that whenever he came to know about the removal of any jhuggi jhopari cluster, he along with his accomplice visited the spot and purchased ration cards etc. from the jhuggi dwellers for Rs.5,000/ to Rs. 10,000/ and on the basis of ration cards, they got the plots alloted and after allotment, they used to sell the plots on higher prices. Lastly, accused Kundan Lal, Joint Director, Slum Wing/MCD in his disclosure statement disclosed that he knew accused R.S. Sandhu, property dealer. R.S. Sandhu along with accused Darshan Lal, property dealer used to come in his office and residence. He hatched the conspiracy with R.S. Sandhu and Darshan Lal regarding allotment of 200 plots in lieu of jhuggis. He got Rs.5,000/ for each plot. R.S. Sandhu and Darshan Lal introduced him to accused Bharat Bhushan and Lal Mani. He allotted 3 fictitious plots to accused Lal Mani and one fictitious plot to accused Bharat Bhushan. It is also the case of the prosecution as per the supplementary chargesheet that accused Bharat Bhushan also in his disclosure statement admitted his complicity and disclosed that his restaurant was running in loss and he purchased a plot in Bhalswa from accused Darshan Lal on cheaper price to make money. Later on, a case was registered as it was found that the documents of the said plot were forged.
5. Further, during investigation, authenticity of the ration cards recovered from accused Lal Mani and Bharat Bhushan was verified from the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board, as per which the ration cards recovered from the accused Bharat Bhushan and Lal Mani were found not to be genuine. Therefore, specimen singatures and handwriting of accused Lal Mani and Bharat Bhushan were obtained and sent to FSL for comparison. Since the FSL Rohini Authorities transferred the exhibits to Order on charge in case FIR No. 29/2001 (supplementary charge sheet) PS ACBState Vs. Lal Mani & Ors. Page 5 of 9 6 Truth Lab, Delhi for examination, result was obtained from Chairman, Truth Labs. As per the opinion of the handwriting expert, some of the ration cards recovered from the residence of accused Lal Mani were in the handwriting of accused Lal Mani, qua the remaining ration cards recovered from his house, no opinion could be given. So far as ration card and I/D card of one Darshan s/o Hem Chand (wrongly mentioned as accused Darshan), recovered from the residence of accused Bharat Bhushan is concerned, again no opinion could be given as all the characteristics as found in the questioned writings are not accounted for in standard writings.
6. During the course of arguments, it was conceded by the IO Inspector Vinay Malik that the main chargesheet filed against the accused persons No. (i) to (xiii) mentioned aforesaid was regarding their roles in the allotment of plots to 28 fictitious JJ dwellers of GautampuriI only. It was also conceded by the IO that no investigation had been carried out regarding the roles of accused Nos. (i) to (xiii) in the allotment of plots at Bhalsawa Resettlement Colony from the JJ Clusters of Bapu Park, Kotla Mubarakpur, JJ Camp Gautam Nagar, Minto Road DDU Marg, Rani Jhansi Road and Lakhi Park Jahangirpuri, whereas the forged ration cards and I/D cards allegedly recovered from the house search of accused Lal Mani and Bharat Bhushan were with respect to JJ Dwellers of Bapu Park Kotla Mubarakpur, Gautam Nagar camp, Minto Road DDU Marg, Rani Jhansi Road and Jahangirpuri. The investigation thus carried out qua accused Lal Mani and Bharat Bhushan failed to connect the accused Nos.
(i) to (xiii) of the main chargesheet to the accused Lal Mani and Bharat Bhushan. The bare perusal of the supplementary chargesheet also reveals that there is not even a whisper regarding the allotment of any Order on charge in case FIR No. 29/2001 (supplementary charge sheet) PS ACBState Vs. Lal Mani & Ors. Page 6 of 9 7 plots or details thereof by the accused in the main chargesheet to the accused Lal Mani and Bharat Bhushan. Hence, mere recovery of forged ration cards and I/D cards coupled with the disclosure statements of accused Rajender Khurana/Field Inspector of Slum & JJ Deptt/MCD, accused Laxmi Narain/UDC of Slum & JJ Deptt/MCD, accused Darshan Lal s/o Munshi Ram and accused Kundan Lal/Joint Director, Slum Wing/MCD, I.P. Estate implicating the accused Lal Mani and Bharat Bhushan, to my mind are of no consequence and not at all enough to implicate accused Lal Mani and Bharat Bhushan .
7. In a case titled as P.Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala and Another while discussing the scope Section 227 of the Code , Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed many celebrated judgments such as State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh (1977) 4 SCC 39, Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979) 3 SCC 4, Soma Chakaravarty Vs. State through CBI (2007) 5 SCC 403 and observed that :
" Before considering the merits of the claim of both the parties, it is useful to refer Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, which reads as under: "227.Discharge - If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reason for so doing." 10) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only , as distinguished from grave suspicion, the Trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal. Further, the words "not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused" clearly show that the Judge is not a mere Post Office to frame the charge at the behest of the prosecution, but has to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. In assessing this fact, it is not necessary for the Court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing the balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really the function of the court, after the trial starts. At the stage of Section 227, the Judge Order on charge in case FIR No. 29/2001 (supplementary charge sheet) PS ACBState Vs. Lal Mani & Ors. Page 7 of 9 8 has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In other words, the sufficiency of ground would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before the Court which exfacie disclose that there are circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against him."
In Akashdeep Vs. State, Crl. Rev. Petition 192/2009 dated 7.7.2009, it has been observed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court that:
" The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the fact of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however, if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not vague suspicion against the accused , he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused.
That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code, the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced court can not act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution , but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
8. Further in Rakesh Kumar Gupta Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2010 (1) JCC 433 it has been observed by Hon'ble High Court that " In the old Code, there was no provision similar to Section 227. Section 227 was incorporated in the Code with a view to save the accused from prolonged harassment which is a necessary concomitant of a protracted criminal trial. It is calculated to eliminate harassment to accused person when the evidential materials gathered after investigation fall short of minimum legal requirements. If the evidence even if fully accepted can not show that the accused committed the offence, the accused deserves to be discharged.
Although the learned ASJ has correctly observed that one is not required to delve deeply into the merits and evidence of the matter, at this stage, however, the same does not imply that the court must simply act as a post office or rely upon the prosecution. In my considered opinion, the learned ASJ failed to read the FIR and the material on record in the right perspective in as much as mere naming of a person in the supplementary statement does not make him prima facie guilty of the offence.
Thus criminal proceedings should not be set into motion as a matter of Order on charge in case FIR No. 29/2001 (supplementary charge sheet) PS ACBState Vs. Lal Mani & Ors. Page 8 of 9 9 routine. Courts ought not to forget that criminal trial not only exposes the person to a depleted reputation in the society but is also cumbersome, long drawn out and ruinous in terms of time and money. Litigation should not be used as a tool of harassment against another and a person should not unnecessarily be made to go through the rigors of trial.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion , I find that no material which can be considered sufficient to proceed against the accused persons has been placed on record, nor has been shown to me by the Learned Addl. PP for the State. As alleged recovery of forged and bogus ration cards from the house search of accused Lal Mani and Bharat Bhushan during investigation of FIR No.29/2001 was only incidental and collateral and was not connected with the allotment 28 alternative plots which was subject matter of FIR No.29/01, the accused persons namely Lal Mani and Bharat Bhuishan are discharged. It is however, very unfortunate that despite reserving the option to file supplementary chargesheet, the Investigating Officer and his Superiors failed to enlarge the scope of investigation beyond the allotment of 28 alternative plots to undeserving and bogus persons which was the subject matter of the complaint submitted by complainant Vijay which became the basis for registration of FIR No.29/2001 at PS Anti Corruption Branch of Delhi.
ANNOUNCED AND SIGNED IN OPEN COURT ON: 17/02/2016 (HEMANI MALHOTRA) SPL. JUDGE/POC ACT/ACB/DELHI Order on charge in case FIR No. 29/2001 (supplementary charge sheet) PS ACBState Vs. Lal Mani & Ors. Page 9 of 9