Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: dishonest intention in Rajiv Kumar vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 2 August, 2017Matching Fragments
• There was no prior meeting of minds nor did exist there any conspiracy between the appellant-Rajiv Kumar and the appellant-Neera Yadav and that the contradictory versions of CA NO.251 OF 2017 WITH CA NO.252 OF 2017 prosecution witnesses have failed to bring home the charge of conspiracy.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant Neera Yadav also contended that the courts below have wrongly arrived at the conclusion that the appellants with dishonest intention entered into criminal conspiracy with each other and committed illegal acts as well as acts by illegal means in conversion of plot No.27 from guest house to residential and allotting the same to the appellant Rajiv Kumar in most developed area. It was further contended that the appellant Neera Yadav, being the CCEO of NOIDA was duty bound to approve the genuine proposals or resolutions brought before her in discharge of ordinary course of her official work and the orders of conversion and allotment of additional plot of 105 sq.ms. were passed in discharge of regular official work and for doing so she may not be held guilty for committing any criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC or for committing any offence of criminal misconduct under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act.
(d)(i) of P.C. Act obtaining any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means by a public servant in itself would amount to criminal misconduct. On the same reasoning under Section 13(1)
(d)(ii) of P.C. Act “obtaining a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage” by abusing his official position as a public servant, either for himself or for any other person would amount to criminal misconduct.
11. Allotment of Plot contrary to the Scheme and Dishonest Intention of the Appellants: Appellant Rajiv Kumar was working as Deputy Chief Executive Officer (Dy. CEO) in NOIDA w.e.f. 14.06.1994. He applied for allotment of residential plots under Residential Plots Scheme No. III of 1994 which dealt with allotment of residential plots to various category of persons specified therein, in CA NO.251 OF 2017 WITH CA NO.252 OF 2017 Sectors 41, 49, 51 and 53 only. Appellant Rajiv Kumar had applied on 16.08.1994 (Ex. Ka-13) under Category-VI, as a regular employee of NOIDA, for the larger size plot, “Plot Code-06” measuring 450 sq.ms., for which he had paid registration amount of Rs.50,000/-. Notably, the appellant had made a conscious decision of seeking allotment of a residential plot in Sectors 41, 49, 51 and 53. The lottery was drawn on 21.09.1994 and vide allotment order dated 27.09.1994 (Ex. Ka-29) plot No.B-86 in Sector-51 measuring 450 sq.ms. was allotted to the appellant. The appellant was thus allotted a plot in Sector-51 exactly of the same description as sought for by him.
22. Conversion of guest house to residential plot and obtaining valuable thing by abusing position: It is the case of the prosecution that plot No.27 in Sector-14A, which was allotted to the appellant Rajiv Kumar and his wife was originally earmarked as CA NO.251 OF 2017 WITH CA NO.252 OF 2017 “guest house” and not a “residential plot” and that the appellants, as per their requirement, conveniently converted the “guest house” to “residential plot” and allotted the same to the appellant Rajiv Kumar. The prosecution showed that such conversion was completely illegal as the same is not envisaged in the rules of NOIDA. However, the appellants have contended that plot No.27 was never a guest house and it was only plot No.28 which was reserved for the guest house. In the alternative, the appellants have also contended that even if plot No.27 was a guest house, conversion of the same to a residential plot will not amount to change of user of land and thus, no dishonest intention could be attributed to the appellants.
23. As discussed earlier, on 21.09.1994, plot No. B-86 in Sector-51 was allotted to the appellant. Instead of accepting the said plot No. A-36 in Sector-44 and paying conversion charges, the appellant Rajiv Kumar moved an application on 27.09.1994 for conversion of his plot to a smaller plot in Sector-14A. Being Deputy CEO of NOIDA, appellant must have been well aware of allotment of plot No. B-86 in Sector-51 in the draw of lots. Knowing fully well that he was allotted plot No.86 in Sector-51, on the very same day of draw of lots i.e. on 21.09.1994, the appellant instructed PW-17 Rekha Devyani to alter CA NO.251 OF 2017 WITH CA NO.252 OF 2017 the user of plot No.27 in Sector-14A from “guest house” to “residential”. On 21.09.1994, on the direction of the appellant, Ex. Ka-17 note was put up by PW-17 Rekha Devyani for conversion of plot No.27 from guest house to residential plot and the same was approved by the co-accused Neera Yadav on 24.09.1994. Plot No.27 in Sector-14A was dishonestly converted to a residential plot and on 17.10.1994, plot No.27 measuring 300 sq.m. was allotted to appellant Rajiv Kumar and lease deed of plot No.27 was executed in favour of appellant Rajiv Kumar and his wife Smt. Neeva Kumar on 27.07.1995. At first, the appellant deliberately converted the character of plot No.27 from guest house to residential and also reduced the areas of the plot to 300 sq.ms. and then he applied for allotment (Ex. Ka-32) of a small plot only in Sector-14A. This clearly manifests appellant’s dishonest intention in seeking allotment of a plot in a developed Sector i.e. in Sector-14A, at less price of Rs.1200/- per sq.m. against higher premium of Rs. 4500/- per sq.m. in that Sector and also establishes lack of bona fide on the part of appellant.