Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
2.2 On 08.07.1997, Raj Sarogi (A-1) and Manju Sarogi (A-2) submitted proposed plan with MCD (Headquarter) for construction of 3-1/2 storey building at site E-23, Poorvi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. The said proposed plan was duly signed by A-1 and A-2 as well as A.K Ganjoo (A-8), Architect alongwith existing building plan. In continuation to the above submission of building plan, Raj Sarogi (A-1) submitted one application on 13.08.1997 with Executive Engineer ( Building), MCD requesting for reducing the building plan from 3-1/2 storey to 2-1/2 storey. He also submitted fresh building plan for construction of 2-1/2 storey. The change in the building plan was done as there were certain clarifications yet to be clarified in respect of MPD-2021 for allowing 3-1/2 storey. Accordingly, in response to the application of Raj Sarogi (A-1), Shri M.R Mittal, A.E ( Building) HQ MCD Town Hall, sent one letter to Raj Sarogi (A-1) and Manju Sarogi (A-2) for rectifying certain errors/omissions. The copy of the notice was also sent to A-8, the Architect. Thereafter, plan in respect of 2-1/2 storey submitted by Raj Sarogi (A-1) was dealt in File No. 749/B/HQ/97 and was approved on 25.11.1997. The approved plan was sent to the owner of Property No. E-23, Poorvi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, vide letter No. 749/B/HQ/97/SW/176 dated 25.11.1997.
5.1 Further, D.K. Gupta (A-7), AE ( Building) too deliberately overlooked the omissions, despite the fact that he was supposed to inspect the building at various stages. As per the Instructions of 1988, A-7 was required to intimate the Executive Engineer (Co-ordination), MCD, HQ about the construction of the building so that the Committee constituted by the Commissioner, MCD may inspect the building at various stage of construction. Further, A-7 did not take any approval of ADC/ZAC before issuance of C and D forms. As the investigation revealed that the building was being constructed in violation of building bye-laws and deviations from sanctioned building plan, both A-4 and A-7 were required to book, seal and demolish the unauthorised construction. The said accused persons deliberately did not act due to their dishonest intention to give undue favour to owners/builders. Further, form D has been issued on 14.08.1998 by both the accused persons within 7 days of issue of Form-C. It is, thus, established that at the time of issue of Form-D, the building was under construction, but the same was issued. Both A-4 and A-7 got issued Form D to the owner by abusing their official position in pursuance of criminal conspiracy with the owners and others.
Arguments of CBI
38. Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor for the CBI argued that the present FIR was registered on the basis of the source information regarding unauthorised construction carried out at Property No. E-23, Poorvi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. J.K. Malhan (A-3) was builder and proprietor of M/s J.M Construction Pvt Ltd and A.K Ganjoo (A-8) was the Architect. Raj Sarogi (A-1) and Manju Sarogi (A-2) were the owners of the aforesaid property wherein extensive unauthorised construction was carried out during the period 1998-2000. The said unauthorised construction was carried out in conspiracy with the MCD officials with the object of causing pecuniary advantage to the accused persons. The factum of unauthorised construction and it being against the building sanction plan issued by the MCD stands proved through the report of Technical Committee of the MCD (D-37 & D-38). The said committee was constituted at the request of CBI during the investigation of the case. The said report clearly brings forth the extensive unauthorised construction carried out at the premises and the same being not compoundable. As far as A-8 is concerned, he was the architect. As per the obligation and undertaking given by him at the time of sanction building plan, he was supposed to supervise the entire construction and ensure that it is as per the sanctioned building plan. His undertaking which put the onus upon him of supervision is part of document D-2.
38.2 It is further argued by Ld. Sr. PP for CBI that another crucial circumstantial evidence for proving the criminal conspiracy between the MCD officials and the private persons named is the false demolition report Ex.PW-28/10 filed by A-5, J.E Building. The contents of the said demolition report have been proved to be false. Rather, it shows that only cosmetic demolition was carried out which again raises a finger of suspicion against all the accused persons. Apart from the said documents, the reliance is also placed upon the testimony of Shanker Lal (PW-20) S/o Jhabar Ram, Civil Contractor and Shanker (PW-21) S/o Palku Singh who worked as Chowkidar at the premises in question. They both deposed that MCD officials used to visit during the time when the construction was going on. The sealing order of D.C, South Zone, MCD, too was not executed by A-4, which again shows collusion between the accused persons. Thus, it is apparent that MCD officials named in the present case who worked either as Junior Engineer or Assistant Engineer in the Building Department, South Zone , MCD failed to discharge their duty of stopping unauthorised construction or take necessary against them due to ulterior motives. Hence, their case stands proved against the accused no.1,2,3 and 8 for the offence of criminal conspiracy.