Delhi District Court
State vs . Jai Pal Singh, on 5 January, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MS. SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL,
SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI CORRUPTION BRANCH, DELHI
CC No. 138/2008
Unique Case ID Number 02401R0566402005
State Vs. Jai Pal Singh,
S/o Late Sh. Karam Singh,
R/o E/42A, G.T.B. Enclave,
Dilshad Garden, Delhi110093.
F.I.R. No. : 04/05
Under Section : 13 (i) (d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
Police Station : Anti Corruption Branch.
Date of filing of Charge sheet : 02.07.2005
Date on which Judgment was reserved : 21.12.2011
Date of Judgment : 05.01.2012
JUDGMENT
Jaswant Rai Aggarwal, Advocate addressed a complaint dated 10.03.04 to the Divisional Commissioner, Government of NCT, Delhi alleging: a) Charging of deficient stamp duty on perpetual lease of DDA's property by the SDM(HQ)/Central/SDM(Elections); b) Exercising of powers of Collector of Stamps by the F.I.R. No. 04/05 State Vs. Jai Pal Singh 1/15 SDM(HQ)/Central/SDM(Elections) although he has not been vested with such revenue powers of Collector of Stamps. The Complainant (PW8) vide his letter dated 12.05.04 submitted that:
a) Sh. J. P. Singh, SDM(HQ)/Central/SDM(Elections), had stamped the following instruments, whereon charging deficient stamp duties and that too without having any revenue powers of Collector of Stamps;
i) Commercial Plot No. C2, District Centre, Saket;
ii) Commercial Plot No. 17, Manglam Place, District Centre, Rohini.
b) The SubRegistrar however referred the case of deficient amount towards Commercial Plot No. C2, District Centre, Saket and the same was later on deposited by the lessee as per the directions of the COS, Hauz Khas, Delhi.
2. On the basis of the abovesaid allegations, a preliminary inquiry was conducted by Sh. N. R. Sharma, SDM (Daryaganj), Central. It was found that Sh. J. P. Singh, Adhoc DANICS Officer joined Central District as SDM (Elections) on 19.06.01 and worked as SDM (Daryaganj), during the period from 04.07.03 to 07.10.03. From 07.10.03 he was only SDM (Elections) till his suspension on 17.09.04 and thus was not designated as Collector of Stamps, by virtue of notification order dated 10.03.98 of the Finance Department, GNCT of Delhi. It was found F.I.R. No. 04/05 State Vs. Jai Pal Singh 2/15 that Sh. J. P. Singh while posted in the Central District as SDM (Elections) during the period from 19.06.01 to 17.09.04 by abusing his official position as a public servant had adjudicated the commercial property No. 17, Manglam Place, District Centre, Rohini, Delhi as SDM (Daryaganj)/Collector of Stamps on 09.09.03 whereas he was not competent to adjudicate DDA property irrespective of its location and thereby caused evasion/loss of government exchequer in the shape of duty to the tune of Rs. 13,62,430/ which was yet to be recovered from the owner of the said property. He also in the same capacity by abusing his official position as a public servant had adjudicated another commercial property No. C2, District Centre, Saket, Delhi on 22.02.04 as Collector of Stamps whereas he was not notified as Collector of Stamps and thereby caused evasion/loss of government exchequer in the shape of duty to the tune of Rs.32,89,531/ which was subsequently recovered from the owner of the said property.
3. On the above facts which disclosed commission of offence FIR No. 04/05 was registered and chargesheet against the accused was filed in Court.
4. The accused was accordingly charged under Section 13 (i)(d) punishable under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 that (i) during the period between 19.06.01 to 17.09.04 while posted F.I.R. No. 04/05 State Vs. Jai Pal Singh 3/15 as SDM (Election) and as such being a public servant he committed criminal misconduct by abusing his official position as public servant, not being competent to adjudicate DDA properties as Collector of Stamps adjudicated property No. 17 Manglam Place, District Centre, Rohini, Delhi on 09.09.03 and property No. C2, District Centre, Saket on 22.02.04 and thereby caused evasion/loss of government exchequer in the shape of duty to the tune of Rs. 13,62,430/ and Rs. 32,79,521/ respectively (amount of Rs. 32,79,521/ was recovered subsequently from the owner) and obtained pecuniary advantage for himself or for others i.e. owners of the properties.
5. In order to bring home the charges prosecution examined 19 witnesses before the Statement of the accused was recorded Under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
6. In the statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. the accused stated that in his long career of 40 years he maintained high standard of integrity and performed his duty with due care and diligence. He stated that documents of many other properties had also been deficiently stamped by other SDMs but no action was initiated against them and out of sheer discrimination he was prosecuted post retirement. He further stated that he acted bonafide and and in good faith and the evaluation of stamp duty was done by his office staff.
F.I.R. No. 04/05 State Vs. Jai Pal Singh 4/15
7. Sh. B. S. Kain, Ld. Addl. PP represented the State and the accused Jai Pal Singh was represented by Ch. Ram Kishan, Advocate.
8. I heard the arguments and perused the record.
9. The prosecution examined Sh. S. K. Hari as PW1 the then SDM, Chanakyapuri, Delhi who deposed that he was having exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate the properties pertaining to DDA for the purpose of stamp duty and provided a list of 19 properties documents of which had been deficiently stamped. PW1 proved the list as Ex.PW1/A. PW1 further deposed that notices under Section 40 of the Stamp Act were issued to some of the parties to make good the deficient stamp duty. PW 1 further deposed that in some cases the deficient stamp duty was deposited. Sh. N. R. Sharma (PW2) SDM Daryaganj made enquiries of the complaint of Jaswant Rai Aggarwal, Advocate and concluded that property No. 17, Manglam Palace, District Centre, Rohini and property No. C2, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi had been deficiently stamped. ACP Rajinder Singh Manku (PW3) got the FIR registered vide Ex.PW3/B. Sh. Laxman Singh Rawat, U.D.C. (PW4) calculated the stamp duty in respect of the properties under question. Sh. Jai Narain (PW5) the then Sub Registrar, New Delhi, deposed he did not check whether the document/documents had been sufficiently stamped before registration of the perpetual lease of the property in question.
F.I.R. No. 04/05 State Vs. Jai Pal Singh 5/15 Sh. Ramesh Lal Dogra (PW6) during investigation handed over the documents Ex.PW2/B1 to B8 seized vide memo Ex.PW2/A. Sh. Ganishi Lal (PW7) proved the arrest and personal search memos vide Ex.PW7/A Ex.PW7/B respectively. Sh. Jaswant Rai Aggarwal (PW8) proved the complaint made to the DC, Delhi Ex.PW8/E. Sh. Parveen Kumar Khanna (PW9) deposed that when he was posted as SDM (HQ) he was also working as SDM (Election). Sh. S. N. Pandey (PW10) partly investigated the case and seized documents Ex.PW2/B1 to Ex.PW2/B8 vide memo Ex.PW2/A. Sh. Sanjeev Kumar (PW11) the then Deputy Commissioner, vide his letter dated 04.05.2005 Ex.PW11/A furnished the details of commercial properties wherein deficient stamp duty had been charged. Inspector Ajay Tomar (PW12) registered the present case and proved the copy of the FIR Ex.PW10/B. Sh. Joshi Ram (PW13) turned hostile. Ms. Saroj Arora (PW14) produced photocopy of documents collectively marked as PW14/1 seized vide Ex.PW14/A. Sh. Sanjay Mehindiratta, Assistant Accounts Officer (PW15) deposed that the accused was working as SDM (Elections) & SDM (HQ) and used to look after the work of other divisions when other SDMs were on leave. ACP Satish Sharma, (PW17) seized the copy of guidelines for stamping of conveyance deed from Sh. S. K. Hari through seizure memo Ex.PW1/B and seized the copy of register Mark PW14/1 through seizure memo F.I.R. No. 04/05 State Vs. Jai Pal Singh 6/15 Ex.PW14/A. Sh. Ramesh Tiwari (PW19) proved the sanction order Ex.PW19/A.
10. In this backdrop, the Ld. Defence Counsel argued that cognizance of the offence against the accused under Section 13 (i) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is void abinitio as the chargesheet was filed on 02.07.05 and the sanction for prosecution obtained on 10.01.07 was filed in Court on 08.02.07. It is argued that sanction for prosecution was necessary even if the public servant had ceased to be so on the date of taking cognizance.
The Ld. Defence Counsel further argued that the accused was prosecuted with a malafide intention. Even though a list of 19 undervalued properties by other SDMs was provided during investigation no action was taken against them. It is further argued that if the documents had been deficiently stamped they were required to be impounded but instead the documents were registered by the concerned SubRegistrar. The Ld. Defence Counsel further argued that the whole case of the prosecution is based on the allegations that documents were deficiently evaluated by the accused and he caused loss to the government exchequer and obtained pecuniary advantage for himself from the owners of the property but the documents so evaluated have not been produced in Court as a result of which the case of the prosecution F.I.R. No. 04/05 State Vs. Jai Pal Singh 7/15 falls to the ground.
11. I have thoughtfully considered the rival contentions of Ld. APP and the Ld. Defence Counsel.
12. It is true that the cognizance against the accused for offence under Section 13 (i) (d) punishable under Section 13 (2) was taken on 19.06.06 whereas the sanction for prosecution was obtained on 10.01.07 and the same filed on record on 08.02.07.
In 2004 Crl. L.J. 3892, M. China Gopala Krishna Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh it has been held that:
"Sanction for prosecution is necessary but it is required only in a case of those public servant who were in office both on the date of commission of offence and on date when court is asked to take cognizance. Accused officer retiring from service long prior to date of taking cognizance of offence by court, sanction is not necessary."
13. Applying the abovesaid principle of law, it is clear that no sanction for prosecution of the accused was required under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The cognizance of the offence against the accused was taken against him after he retired and he ceased to be a public servant.
F.I.R. No. 04/05 State Vs. Jai Pal Singh 8/15
14. The next question which requires determination is whether the accused had charged deficient stamp duties in the two properties under question to the extent of the amount so calculated and whether the accused had no revenue power of Collector of Stamps conferred upon him to charge the stamp duties and further that he had no jurisdictional power for charging the stamp duties in the said cases.
15. By virtue of notification order dated 10.03.98 of the Finance Department, GNCT of Delhi 42 officers were appointed as Collector of Stamps in the whole of Delhi which has been proved as Ex.PW2/B4.
16. On 14.06.03 a meeting of all Deputy Commissioners/Collector of Stamps (New Delhi) and SubRegistrars was held under the Chairmanship of the Divisional Commissioner, Delhi wherein it was recorded that:
"It was also brought to the notice that all Collector of Stamps are adjudicating documents / instruments in respect of DDA properties and also all SubRegistrars are accepting such documents for registration. It was made clear that the Collector of Stamps, New Delhi should exclusively adjudicate the documents pertaining to DDA and SubRegistrar, New Delhi should register these documents after payment of proper stamp duty".
F.I.R. No. 04/05 State Vs. Jai Pal Singh 9/15
17. The minutes of the meeting were forwarded for information and necessary action to all Deputy Commissioners, GNCT of Delhi, Collector of Stamps, all SubRegistrars, PA to Divisional Commissioner, Delhi, Stamp Branch (HQ), Registration Branch (HQ) vide No. F.1(35)/Regn./Div.Commr./2002/229 to 278 dated 14.07.03 by the then SDM(HQ1) which is Ex.PW2/B5.
18. Order dated 08.10.04 No. F.1(6)/Regn./Div.Com/2004/63016400 was issued by ADM, District Centre Ex.PW2/B8 reiterating that no Collector of Stamps will adjudicate the instruments belonging to DDA and the jurisdiction of each Collector of Stamps was also fixed by designation and territory wise. The order reads:
"It was clarified that for the properties pertaining to DDA the Collector of Stamps, Chanakyapuri, District, New Delhi should exclusively adjudicate the stamp duty and SubRegistrar New Delhi should register documents. It has been noticed that the some Collector of Stamps are still adjudicating stamp duty in respect of DDA properties and also some SubRegistrars are accepting such documents for registration."
"It is once again reiterated that no other Collector of Stamps will adjudicate the instruments belonging to DDA."
F.I.R. No. 04/05 State Vs. Jai Pal Singh 10/15 "The jurisdiction of each Collector of Stamps is given below:
S. No. Designation of the Officers Territorial Jurisdiction
1. Deputy Commissioner (North) North District
2. Deputy Commissioner (East) East District
3. Deputy Commissioner (West) West District
4. Deputy Commissioner (South) South District
5. Deputy Commissioner (NorthWest) NorthWest District
6. Deputy Commissioner (NorthEast) NorthEast District
7. Deputy Commissioner (SouthWest) SouthWest District
8. Deputy Commissioner (Central) Central District
9. Deputy Commissioner (New Delhi) New Delhi District
10. Addl. District Magistrate (North) North District
11. Addl. District Magistrate (East) East District
12. Addl. District Magistrate (West) West District
13. Addl. District Magistrate (South) South District
14. Addl. District Magistrate (NorthWest) NorthWest District
15. Addl. District Magistrate (NorthEast) NorthEast District
16. Addl. District Magistrate (SouthWest) SouthWest District
17. Addl. District Magistrate (Central) Central District
18. Addl. District Magistrate (New Delhi) New Delhi District
19. SubDivisional Officer (Kotwali) Kotwali SubDivision
20. SubDivisional Officer (Sadar Bazar) Sadar Bazar SubDivision
21. SubDivisional Officer (Civil Lines) Civil Lines SubDivision
22. SubDivisional Officer (Vivek Vihar) Vivek Vihar SubDivision
23. SubDivisional Officer (Gandhi Nagar) Gandhi Ngr SubDivision
24. SubDivisional Officer (Preet Vihar) Preet Vihar SubDivision
25. SubDivisional Officer (Punjabi Bagh) Punjabi Bagh SubDivision F.I.R. No. 04/05 State Vs. Jai Pal Singh 11/15
26. SubDivisional Officer (Patel Nagar) Patel Nagar SubDivision
27. SubDivisional Officer (Rajouri Garden) Rajouri Gdn. SubDivision
28. SubDivisional Officer (Connaught Place) Connaught Place SubDivision
29. SubDivisional Officer (Chanakya Puri) Chanakya Puri SubDivision and for DDA properties of entire NCT of Delhi
30. SubDivisional Officer (Parliament Street) Parliament Street SubDivision
31. SubDivisional Officer (Kalkaji) Kalkaji SubDivision
32. SubDivisional Officer (Defence Colony) Defence Colony SubDivision
33. SubDivisional Officer (Hauz Khas) Hauz Khas SubDivision
34. SubDivisional Officer (Najafgarh) Najafgarh SubDivision
35. SubDivisional Officer (Vasant Vihar) Vasant Vihar SubDivision
36. SubDivisional Officer (Delhi Cantt.) Delhi Cantt. SubDivision
37. SubDivisional Officer (Saraswati Vihar) Saraswati Vihar SubDivision
38. SubDivisional Officer (Model Town) Model Town SubDivision
39. SubDivisional Officer (Narela) Narela SubDivision
40. SubDivisional Officer (Shahdara) Shahdara SubDivision
41. SubDivisional Officer (Seema Puri) Seema Puri SubDivision
42. SubDivisional Officer (Seelampur) Seelampur SubDivision
43. SubDivisional Officer (Karol Bagh) Karol Bagh SubDivision
44. SubDivisional Officer (Paharganj) Paharganj SubDivision
45. SubDivisional Officer (Daryaganj) Darya Ganj SubDivision In addition to above, ADM (HQ) / SDM [(HQ), Stamp Branch] shall also exercise powers Collector of Stamps in entire National Capital Territory of Delhi."
F.I.R. No. 04/05 State Vs. Jai Pal Singh 12/15
19. It, therefore, follows that the properties pertaining to DDA could only be handled by the Collector of Stamps, Chanakyapuri District, New Delhi and no other Collector of Stamps was empowered to adjudicate the instruments belonging to DDA in terms of order dated 08.10.2004 Ex.PW2/B8.
20. Sh. N. R. Sharma (PW2) proved the photocopies of the posting orders of the accused seized vide Ex.PW2/B1 to B8. Vide order No. F/DC/C/Adm/03/356973 dated 07.10.03 Ex.PW2/B1 the accused was assigned the Election Work. Vide order No. CEO/Admn/106(8)/2000/8555 dated 19.06.01 the accused was appointed as SDM (Election) with the Jt.CEO/DC Central. Vide Ex.PW2/B3 SDM (Elections) Central District was declared SDM (HQ) in respect of Central District in place of Sh. A. S. Dabas who stood transferred. Thus the accused was working as SDM (Elections) on 19.06.01 and was working as SDM (HQ) from 29.06.01 and worked as SDM (Daryaganj) from 04.07.03 to 07.10.03.
21. It is, therefore, clear from the above posting orders that the accused at no point of time was Collector of Stamps, New Delhi. The instruments in respect of DDA properties could exclusively be handled by the Collector of Stamps, New Delhi as the notification dated 18.03.98 stood modified vide order dated 14.07.03 Ex.PW2/B5 and order dated F.I.R. No. 04/05 State Vs. Jai Pal Singh 13/15 08.10.04 Ex.PW/B8. Thus the accused was not competent to adjudicate DDA property irrespective of its location.
22. The next question for determination is whether the prosecution has been able to prove that the accused exercised a power not vested in him and caused evasion/loss of government exchequer in the shape of duty in the two properties under question. It is pertinent to note that the prosecution failed to produce the original lease deeds of the two properties under charge. The prosecution failed to produce any witness to prove that he had seen the original lease deed on which the alleged deficient stamp was evaluated by the accused or with the calculations were made by the accused in his hand writing under his signatures and under the stamp of his office. There is nothing on record to suggest that the documents which were insufficiently stamped were entered in the register pertaining to the office of the accused. The prosecution also failed to prove the enquiry report conducted by Sh. N.R. Sharma (PW2).
According to Sh. N. R. Sharma (PW2) the deficiency of stamp duty was got calculated by him from Sh. Laxman Singh Rawat (PW4) which is Ex.PW4/A but the same is not signed by PW4 and he deposed that " I have not appended any certificate that I made calculation as per prescribed rules."
F.I.R. No. 04/05 State Vs. Jai Pal Singh 14/15
23. As a result of the above discussion, I therefore conclude that there is no direct or circumstantial evidence on record that the lease deed was produced before the accused or that the stamp duty was calculated or stamped by the accused for the two properties under question nor produced any formula or guidelines by way of which calculation of stamp duty was being evaluated during the relevant period. No adverse presumption can be drawn against the accused in absence of reliable positive evidence that the accused acted as Collector of Stamps even though no such power was vested in him. There is no evidence that any loss of any amount was caused to the Government nor any witness to prove the same has been produced. It cannot therefore be held that the accused misused or abused his position by corrupt or illegal means or obtained any pecuniary advantage.
24. As a result of the above, the prosecution has failed to prove its case. The accused deserves acquittal. His bail bond cancelled and surety discharged. Original document, if any, be returned. Endorsement, if any, be cancelled.
Announced in the SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
Open Court on 05.01.2012 SPECIAL JUDGE, DELHI
F.I.R. No. 04/05 State Vs. Jai Pal Singh 15/15