Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Central Bureau of Investigation, submits that in the instant case, the order taking cognizance and the order issuing summons cannot be quashed. He submits that the investigation revealed that the petitioner was one of the directors of Jagarnath Life Care Pvt. Ltd. He submitted that two building construction plans vide BC No.269/08 on 01.02.2008 and BC No. 531/08 on 03.04.2008 were submitted with the Ranchi Regional Development Authority, requesting to sanction the plan in respect of same building. This fact came to light when the registers were seized from the office of the Ranchi Regional Development Authority. It is submitted that both the building plans were filed under the signature of the petitioner. Counsel further submits that the plan, which was submitted and was numbered as BC No.531/08, was filed mentioning a wrong plot number, i.e., R.S. Plot No.568, at a stage when his earlier application being BC No.269/08 was still pending. He submits that one Satyadeo Prasad, who is an officer of Ranchi Regional Development Authority, raised objection and only on raising of objection, the new plan (subsequent one being B.C. No. 531/08) was filed, giving a wrong plot number. Further, it revealed that the file of BC No.269/08 went missing from the office of the Ranchi Regional Development Authority, but, the building construction case register clearly shows that the petitioner was the applicant of the said plan, as the register also bears his signature. It is submitted that knowing fully well that by giving the actual plot number in BC No. 269/08, the plan would not have been sanctioned, the petitioner and others conspired and filed a second plan, giving a different plot number. He submits that thereafter, the file of the second plan also went missing from the Office of the Authority, which clearly suggests foul play. He submits that in fact plot No.568 did not belong to the petitioner, but, by showing plot No.568, the plan was sanctioned. The petitioner was owner of plot No.564, which is a "public open space"

and if that plot number, which belonged to the petitioner, was projected in the plan, the plan would not have been sanctioned, for that reason, in the subsequent application, wrong plot number, which even did not belong to the petitioner, was reflected deceitfully. With the connivance of some officers, the plan was got sanctioned. He submits that this entire fact clearly suggests that there is a criminal conspiracy and tampering of record with ulterior motive. He submits that this is a criminal offence. Counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation, lastly refers to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujrat versus Afroz Mohammad Hasanfatta reported in (2019) 20 SCC 539.

It is the case of the prosecution that when a query was raised in this regard, a new building plan was submitted and a separate plot number was mentioned in that application. The different plot number was '568' which was mentioned. In fact, the said plot did not belong to the petitioner. By putting the said wrong plot number, the petitioner got his entire land out of ambit of "Public Open Space" and got the plan sanctioned. This act, prima facie, is a deceitful act, as it is the case of the prosecution that if correct plot number would have been given, the building plan would not have been sanctioned. This act, prima facie, can come within the definition of cheating as defined in Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code, punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. It is the case of the prosecution that files of both the applications filed by the petitioner for sanctioning the building plan, went missing from the office of the Ranchi Regional Development Authority. This also suggests foul play, involving some Public Servants also.