Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

25. Six applicants viz. M/s. Flex Industries Ltd., M/s Flex Engineering Ltd., M/s Salora International Ltd., M/s Supreme Industries Ltd., M/s Sahara India Savibgs, & Investments Corporation Ltd. and M/s Mancan: Medical Charitable Trust applied for allotment of land under the scheme mentioned above during July 1994 to Sept. 1994. Two out of aforesaid six applicants fiz M/s. Flex Industries Ltd. and M/s. Supreme Industries Ltd. were fulfilling the eligibility criteria mentioned above but their applications were neither processed not allotment of land was made to any of them b) NOIDA.

28. The investigation further revealed that the revised scheme was to open from 22.10.94 for which the application forms were declared to be available from 22.10.94 but two deficient applications on the letter heads of the respective companies namely M/s Flex Industries Ltd. and M/s Flex Engineering Ltd. were "received by Smt. Neera Yadav on 20.10.94 itself i.e. two days before opening of the said scheme. The said companies had not submitted their applications in the prescribed proforma as mentioned, in the advertisement mentioned above. Even without the said revised eligibility conditions 2nd the rate of land, M/s Flex Engineering Ltd. gave reference of the advertisement dated 19.10.1994 published in Rashtriya Sahara in their application dated 20.10.1994 & requested the Chairman, NOIDA to allot land to them. A similar application was also filed by M/s Flex Industries Ltd. on 20.10.94, A cheque of Rs. 22,00,000/- and another cheque of Rs. 96,000/- was enclosed with the above mentioned letters from the side of M/s Flex Engineering and Flex Industries respectively even though it was not required to be done at that time. The said money was required to be deposited only after the decisions were taken to allot land to the said companies The proposal for allotment of land to both the above industrial units of Noida were prepared by Smt. Neera Yadav herself in 21.10.94 which were finally approved by her on 22.10.9 i.e. on the very day of opening of the scheme.

30. That M/s Flex Industries Ltd. and M/s Flex Engineering Ltd. had already submitted their applications on 25.7.94 in reference to the earlier advertisement dated 9.6.94 for allotment of land @ Rs. 1600/- per sq. mtr. Indicating thereby that they were all willing to purchase the land at the said rate. In spite of the said facts and circumstances the rates of land were reduced from Rs. 1600/- to Rs. 1200/- per sq. mtr. Without any demand from an> quarter or without any justification whatsoever which straightway caused the monetary benefit of Rs. 80 lakhs to M/s Flex Industries Ltd. beside the allotment of lands to them as mentioned above and Rs. 32 lakhs to M/s Flex Engineering Ltd, and corresponding wrongful loss to NOIDA. As such plot No. U-2/XI, NOIDA measuring; 8000 sq. meters to M/s Flex Engineering and A-99/51, NOIDA measuring 20000 sqr. meters to M/s Flex Industries Ltd. were allotted to them.

67. Shri V.P. Srivastava, learned Counsel for Sri Ashok Chaturvedi, tried to place before the Court, various documents in order to show that the allotment made in favour of M/s Flex Industries and Flex Engineering was in accordance with law, and thus, the prosecution against Sri Ashok Chaturvedi is without any basis.

68. Shri G.S. Hajela, learned Counsel appearing for CBI contended that Section 40 IPC shows; that Section 120B is neither independent nor can operate on its own but takes colour from other offences, which, the accused has entered into agreement, to commit. He submitted that a criminal conspiracy to benefit certain individuals and to himself cannot be said to be in discharge of official duties and that no sanction is required against such a public servant, when he is sought to be prosecuted under Act of 1988 read with 120B IPC. In support of his submissions he placed reliance on State of U.P. v. Pava Narain 2000 ACC 123 (para 5.) State of Orissa v. Pevcndra Nath Padhi 2005 (1) Crime 1 (para 8) and (18) and State of Himachal Pradesh v. M.P. Gupta (2004) 2 SCC 349 (para 8.)