Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. The learned Solicitor General Mr. Ranjit Kumar submitted that with mala fide intention, appellant abused her position and managed to get plot No.B-002 in Sector-32 after the closure of the Scheme 1994(i) vide her incomplete application. The learned Solicitor General further urged that by abusing her position as Chief Executive Officer, the appellant managed to get the above plot converted to a bigger plot i.e. plot No.A-26, from 450 sq.ms. to 562.50 sq.ms. in a developed Sector-14A, by altering the site plan which was approved by the appellant herself on 31.05.1994. Drawing our attention to the allotments made in favour of appellant’s daughters, the learned Solicitor General further submitted that by abusing her position as CA NO.253 OF 2017 CCEO, the appellant managed to get the shops allotted in the name of her daughters, fraudulently obtaining the functional certificate thereafter based on which allotment of residential plots were made. The learned Solicitor General urged that upon consideration of the evidence and materials on record, the trial court and the High Court rightly convicted the appellant and that the concurrent findings warrant no interference.

19. Clause 3 of the brochure provides that incomplete application without enclosures shall not be registered. Relevant portion of Clause 3 of the brochure is as under:

CA NO.253 OF 2017 “……Incomplete application and applications without enclosures as mentioned above for allotment of specific plot shall not be registered. Therefore, the applicants are requested to submit complete application form in all respect alongwith the required enclosures and requisite amount of registration money for registration.” As per the brochure of the concerned scheme, the documents as indicated thereon must be attached to the application form in order to establish the eligibility of the applicant for obtaining plot in NOIDA.

Legally, no allotment of plot could have been made on such a defective application presented after cut-off date. Since the appellant was the CCEO of NOIDA, she abused her position in ensuring that her application, though incomplete, is processed.

20. As per the brochure, the application must be accompanied with account payee Demand Draft/Pay Order. From the records, it is seen that the appellant had not given the demand draft/pay order; on the other hand, she only gave cheque dated 15.03.1994, (Ex.Ka-8). Though the said cheque is dated 15.03.1994, there is ample evidence to show that the cheque was ante dated. As per the clearing register, the said Cheque No.395207 dated 15.03.1994 was cleared by the Bank only on 28.03.1994. That apart, Ex. Ka-14 to Ex. Ka-24 contains the names, draft numbers and amount paid by each of the applicants. As seen from Ex.Ka-44, Log Book, total amount of all the demand CA NO.253 OF 2017 drafts was only Rs.65,20,200/-. By perusal of Ex.Ka-84, it is seen that Sl. No.163 was cut off and Sl. No.164 Cheque of Neera Yadav was included and consequently altering the total amount as Rs.65,60,200/-. As seen from Ex.Ka-85, the Bank Statement, as on 21.03.1994, only Rs.65,20,200/- alone was received by the bank from NOIDA. This clearly shows that the Cheque (Ex. Ka-8), though dated 15.03.1994 was not presented on 15.03.1994 or on 18.03.1994 and that is why the same was neither included in the Clearing register of instruments sent for clearing on 18.03.1994 nor in the Bank Statement as on 21.03.1994.

21. An appreciation of the evidence on record shows that the list of applications and cheques received by the bank on the cut-off date, did not contain details of the application and cheque given by the Appellant. Thus, it is clear that the defective application and the accompanying cheque were issued beyond cut-off date and records of NOIDA were manipulated with dishonest intention to bring in the application of the appellant within the cut-off date. Various circumstances pointed out by the prosecution, viz. non-mentioning of date on the application; making payment through cheque instead of through A/c payee Demand Draft/Pay Order; and the amount of the CA NO.253 OF 2017 cheque being collected only on 28.03.1994 leads to an inference that the application of the appellant, who was the then CCEO of the NOIDA, was not given before the cut-off date i.e. 15.03.1994. The only possible inference which can be drawn in such circumstances is that though, the appellant had conveniently submitted an ante-dated application after the closure of the scheme, ante-dated 'demand draft' or 'pay order' could not have been obtained, and hence, she submitted Ex. Ka-8 cheque by mentioning a back date. The fact that appellant's cheque (Ex.Ka-8) was sent for collection on 28.03.1994, after seven days of collection of amount of demand drafts in respect of other applications clearly leads to an irresistible conclusion that appellant’s application was only subsequently included in the register. The trial court and the High Court rightly held that the appellant abused her position in ensuring that her incomplete application with ante-dated cheque was processed.