Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 468, 471 in Kiran Borkar, Hyderabad., vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp., on 4 November, 2022Matching Fragments
3. The petitioners filed petitions under Section 239 of Cr.P.C before the Court below to discharge the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 468, 471 & 120 (B) I.P.C r/w Sections 13 (1) (d) clause II & III of P.C.Act, 1988.
4. The petitioners are the accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 in the charge sheet laid by the respondents alleging that accused Nos.1 and 2 registered the park land measuring 600 yards showing it as house bearing Nos.1-8-450/1/A/160 and 1-8-450/1/A/159 (issued by MCH to their houses admeasuring 300 sq.yards each) in favour of R.Satya Kumar (A-6) and M.F.Peter (A-7) vide sale deeds No.1352/96 and 1351/96 dated 12.06.1996. On 16.10.1998, the petitioners have also executed a Rectification Sale Deed in Vallabhanagar Registration Office, Ranga Reddy District in respect of the property which was earlier registered by them as houses and in rectification deeds, it is described as open plots bearing Nos.S1 & S2 by mis-using the G.O.Ms.No.522 dated 20.07.1988.
7. Petitioners contend that they produced lot of material before the Court below, more particularly, averments in the writ petitions, which was dismissed, later restored and remanded by the Supreme Court in the appeal and if these documents have been considered, the court would have allowed these applications discharging the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 468, 471 & 120 (B) I.P.C. r/w Sections 13 (1) (d) clause II & III of the Act.
8. The 2nd respondent filed counter affidavit alleging that the employees of Indian Airlines formed an association "Indian Aircraft Technicians Association" i.e., I.A.T.A which is registered. The registered Association approached the State Government for allotment of site for residential houses to its members. The State Government acquired open land admeasuring Ac.12.24 gts in Begumpet Village, Hyderabad in Sy.No.194/11part under the (2005) 1 SCC 568 (2012 12 SCC 406 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 10.06.1975 for the purpose of construction of houses for the staff of Indian Airlines. Initially 168 plots/houses were envisaged, however on technical grounds, the HUDA sanctioned 159 plots/houses i.e., Type 'A' 50 and Type 'B' 109 respectively. The HUDA, in the year 1980 sanctioned the layout by G.O.Rt.No.4 (H) M.A & U.D. dated 20.02.1986 and the State Government accorded permission to A.P.H.B to take up construction of 159 houses. Accordingly approved the layout vide L.P.No.2/85 of LPD-1/HUDA in file No.8789/PD/HUDA/84 with open space of 600 sq.yards for park and the A.P.H.B. vide Lr.No.Paigah/TCH/REGARU/81-82 dated 08.09.1994 submitted blue prints to Special Officer, MCH for permission for construction of proposed 159 houses. The accused in the above CC colluded and tampered the official records and without any authority, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 fraudulently sold the land and executed registered sale deeds in respect of the property belonging to Government admeasuring 600 sq.yards earmarked for children park in favour of accused Nos.6 and 7 who are not the beneficiaries vide registered document Nos.1351 of 1996 and 1352 of 1996, each 300 sq.yards by showing fictitious House numbers i.e., H.No.1-8-450/1/A/159 and 1-8-450/A/160 and later rectifying them into plots S1 and S2. The accused No.1 later obtained permission from MCH for construction of multistoried commercial complex in the land earmarked for the park by false representation and forgery. These illegal acts of the petitioners/A1 and A2 would constitute offences punishable under Sections 408, 468, 471 IPC, whereas the Accused No.5 colluded with other accused and committed the breach of trust, forgery, criminal conspiracy and abuse/misuse of powers by the Government servants and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 120 (B) I.P.C. r/w Sections 13 (1) (d) clause II & III of the Act.
12. Therefore, the law of the land is clearly applicable to the present facts of the case and thereby came to a conclusion that there is a prima facie case to proceed against these petitioners to constitute an offence punishable under Sections 408, 468, 471 & 120 (B) I.P.C. r/w Sections 13 (1) (d) clause II & III of the Act, requested to dismiss the petition.
13. During hearing, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Sri Mahmood Ali, contended that the dispute with regard to sale of the property is subject matter of W.P.No.25738 of 1997 and Civil Appeal No.9583 of 2003. In fact the writ petition was dismissed for default and was restored by this Court and now it is pending. Further, when the dispute with regard to the property is the subject matter of writ petition in Civil Appeal and when W.P.Nos.12538 of 1997 and 25738 of 1997 are pending, the trial Court ought to have discharged these petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 468, 471 & 120 (B) I.P.C. r/w Sections 13 (1) (d) clause II & III of the Act in C.C.No.23 of 2010. The Enquiry Officer, IV Additional Chief Judge-cum-Principal Session Judge for SPE and ACB cases, City Civil Court at Hyderabad appointed by this Court in writ petitions also filed a report observing that there is absolutely no material on record to show that the site in dispute is retained for park. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while disposing of Civil Appeal Nos.9582/2003 and 9583/2003 filed by these petitioners/accused 1 and 2 challenging the judgment dated 16.10.2001 passed by this Court in W.P.No.12538/1999 and W.P.No.25738/1997 remanded the matter to this Court for reconsideration of the documents brought on record before the Court. Later, the appeals were dismissed and also restored and as on today these writ petitions are pending before this Court. Even otherwise allegations made in the charge sheet on its face value would not constitute offences punishable under Sections 408, 468, 471 & 120 (B) I.P.C. r/w Sections 13 (1) (d) clause II & III of the Act. Therefore, the petitioners are liable to be discharged for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 468, 471 & 120 (B) I.P.C. r/w Sections 13 (1) (d) clause II & III of the Act. The Court below instead of discharging the petitioners based on material on record erroneously concluded that the material filed along with the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C alone shall be taken into consideration and thereby dismissed the applications erroneously.
14. Per contra, the counsel for the respondents contended that the voluminous material to establish that the properties sold by petitioners/accused 1 and 2 in favour of accused No.6 and 7 cannot be taken into account as the site is reserved for public purpose i.e., park, and the sale of the same by the petitioners would constitute an offence punishable under Sections 408, 468, 471 & 120 (B) I.P.C. r/w Sections 13 (1) (d) clause II & III of the Act. The petitioners shown the property initially as House No.1- 8-450/1/A/159 and 1-8-450/1/A/160 and later executed rectification deeds and shown them as open plots bearing Nos.S1 and S2 and obtained permission from the Municipal Corporation for construction of multistoried buildings in the property. Therefore, the act of the petitioners 1 and 2 would constitute an offence punishable under Sections 408, 468, 471 of IPC and the act of accused No.5 would constitute an offence punishable under Sections 120 (B) I.P.C. r/w Sections 13 (1) (d) clause II & III of the Act, as they committed the said Act by taking advantage of their official position, and prayed to confirm the order passed by the Court below and dismiss these two revision petitions.