Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Trial Judge came to the conclusion that direct evidence against the appellants to establish the offences is difficult to procure after such a long delay (Page 35 of impugned judgment) and hence based his conclusions on various circumstances to opine that the guilt of the appellant stands proved beyond any pale of doubt. The circumstances so relied upon, inked at page 21 and 22 of the impugned judgment, are:-

(i)Two days prior to opening of Group Housing scheme, acceptance of form from another accused appellant Ashok Chaturvedi, (ii) One day prior to the opening of the scheme reservation of land for him (iii) reducing price of plot upto Rs. 400/= Sq. meter for giving benefit to him(iv) no reason existed for reduction of price of plot (v) joint resolution to allot plot to Ashok Chaturvedi one day prior and allotment on the same day on which scheme was opened (vi) None mention of reduced price either in the new advertisements on 19.10.94 and 21.10.94 or in the brochure (vii) Tendering of reservation money by co accused without any reason along with submission of allotment Form( viii) direct acceptance of application from Ashok Chaturvedi written on his letter head by present appellant Smt. Neera Yadav which was addressed to her and which was not on the designed proforma ( ix) In the revised scheme, amalgamation of two units of same group as one (x) Benefit of revised scheme only to Flex Engineering Co. (xi) Natural presumption of appellant Smt. Neera Yadav being CEO having knowledge of all advertisements, applications and eligibility of applicants ( xii) Queer joint resolution favouring Ashok Chaturvedi and non - disclosure about it's existence and preparation ( xiii) allotment in haste when number of plots were neither restricted nor the scheme was first come first serve.