Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Crl.), 128 of 2016, Judgment Date: Feb 08, 2016

The agreements in question were  not
even recovered from the custody of the appellants and  were  recovered  from
the vendors themselves.  The agreements being  unilateral  and  not  bearing
the signatures of the appellants, mere execution of such  agreements  cannot
be considered as a relevant circumstance against the appellants.   There  is
nothing on record to  indicate  that  the  consideration  mentioned  in  the
agreement could be traced to the appellants, nor is there any  statement  by
any of the witnesses suggesting even proximity or meeting of  minds  between
the appellants and any of the other  accused.   In  the  circumstances,  the
view that weighed with the Special Judge was quite correct.  The High  Court
was not justified in setting aside the order passed by  the  Special  Judge.
In our considered view, the material on record  completely  falls  short  of
and cannot justify framing of charges against the appellants.

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


               CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.       128          of 2016
                 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 8816 of 2011)


Deepak Surana and Ors.                                         …. Appellants

                                   Versus

State of Madhya Pradesh                                        …. Respondent


                                  O R D E R


Uday U. Lalit, J.


Leave granted.



This appeal challenges the judgment and order  dated  01.10.2011  passed  by
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur in Criminal  Revision  No.649  of
2008.  The High Court was pleased to set  aside  the  order  passed  by  the
Special Court discharging the present  appellants  of  the  charges  leveled
against them.




Land admeasuring about 22.56 acres, situated at Mumbai-Agra Road  in  Indore
belonging to one Smt. Sohan Kumari Sankhla and her son  was  subject  matter
of acquisition by the Indore Town Improvement  Trust  (subsequently,  Indore
Development Authority).  The challenge in that behalf  was  pending  in  the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh in  Writ  Petition   No.1181  of  1988,  during
which pendency, a proposal was initiated by the  then  Additional  Secretary
in the Department of Housing on behalf of the State Government to release  7
acres of land to the land owners on no profit no loss  basis.   In  view  of
such proposal, the aforesaid Writ Petition  was  disposed  of  by  the  High
Court vide order dated 13.05.1996 directing Indore Development Authority  to
take appropriate decision in accordance with law.



Soon thereafter, four agreements  for  sale  of  certain  parcels  from  the
aforesaid land, admeasuring 5.50 acres  in  all,  were  said  to  have  been
executed.   Though the intending purchasers in  said  four  agreements  were
stated to be the appellants herein, the  agreements  in  question  were  not
signed  by  the  appellants.   The  agreements  were  signed  only  by   the
prospective vendors namely, the aforesaid owners of the land.

Despite  the  aforesaid  disposal  of  the  Writ  Petition  by  order  dated
13.05.1996, since nothing was done in the  matter,  the  land  owners  filed
Writ Petition No.1437 of 1996 in the High Court submitting  inter-alia  that
Indore Development Authority was avoiding implementation  of  the  direction
issued by the State Government.  While this matter was so pending, a  Public
Interest  Litigation  being  Writ  Petition  No.  511  of  1997  was   filed
challenging the decision of the State Government to  release  a  portion  of
the land.  This Writ Petition prayed for direction that the lands  from  the
scheme of Indore  Development  Authority  should  not  be  permitted  to  be
released.  The High Court had issued notice in the  matter  and  granted  ex
parte stay as prayed for.


Around this time, an FIR came to be lodged by Special Police  Establishment,
Lokayukta   after   conducting   preliminary   investigation.    The   basic
allegations in  this  FIR  dated  31.03.1998  were  to  the  effect  that  a
conspiracy was hatched between certain public servants  including  the  then
Ministers, Additional Secretary and the owners of the land.  The  object  of
that conspiracy was stated to be conferring undue advantage upon the  owners
of the land.  The  FIR  alleged  commission  of  offences  punishable  under
Sections  13(1)(d)  read  with  13(2),  Section  15  of  the  Prevention  of
Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120B of the IPC.  It is  relevant  to
note that the names of the appellants do not find any mention in this FIR.


After due  investigation,  Special  Police  Establishment,  Lokayukta  filed
charge sheet in Special Case No.9 of 1998 arising from the aforesaid FIR  in
the Court of  Special  Judge,  Bhopal  against  18  accused  persons.    The
appellants were arrayed as accused in this charge sheet.



The Special Judge, Bhopal after considering the entire  material  on  record
came to the conclusion that there was no material  to  proceed  against  the
appellants and  therefore  he  discharged  the  appellants  of  the  charges
leveled against them.  He, however,  framed  charges  against  rest  of  the
accused persons including the public servants and the owners  of  the  land.
It was observed by the Special Judge  that  names  of  the  appellants  were
neither mentioned in the  FIR  nor  in  the  original  complaint,  that  the
agreements relied upon by the prosecution were unilateral in the sense  that
they did not bear the signatures of the appellants and  that  there  was  no
mention how the alleged consideration was transferred.   The  Special  Judge
thus  found  that  no  case  was  made  out  by  the  prosecution  to  frame
appropriate charges against the appellants and he thus vide his order  dated
15.01.2008 discharged the appellants.


The aforesaid order of the Special Judge was  challenged  by  the  State  in
Criminal Revision No.649 of 2008.  By the judgment and order  under  appeal,
the High Court allowed the said  Revision.   It  was  observed  that  merely
because the agreement of sale did not bear the signatures of the  appellants
it would not mean that the agreements could not  be  relied  upon.   Certain
material furnished by the appellants in support of their case was not  taken
into account by the High Court on the ground that the material furnished  by
the accused could not be considered at the stage of framing of charge.


This appeal challenges the correctness of the decision of  the  High  Court.
We have heard Mr. K. K. Venugopal, learned Senior  Advocate  in  support  of
the appeal and Mr. Naveen  Sharma,  learned  Advocate  for  the  respondent-
State.  We  have  gone  through  the  entire  record  and  considered  rival
submissions.



In the present case, the agreements relied upon by the  prosecution  do  not
bear the signatures of the appellants.   It  is  undoubtedly  true  that  in
Aloka Bose v. Parmatma Devi[1], it has been observed that  an  agreement  of
sale signed by the vendor alone is enforceable by  the  purchaser  named  in
the agreement. But the question here is  whether  the  appellants  could  be
said to be involved in the conspiracy.  The agreements in question were  not
even recovered from the custody of the appellants and  were  recovered  from
the vendors themselves.  The agreements being  unilateral  and  not  bearing
the signatures of the appellants, mere execution of such  agreements  cannot
be considered as a relevant circumstance against the appellants.   There  is
nothing on record to  indicate  that  the  consideration  mentioned  in  the
agreement could be traced to the appellants, nor is there any  statement  by
any of the witnesses suggesting even proximity or meeting of  minds  between
the appellants and any of the other  accused.   In  the  circumstances,  the
view that weighed with the Special Judge was quite correct.  The High  Court
was not justified in setting aside the order passed by  the  Special  Judge.
In our considered view, the material on record  completely  falls  short  of
and cannot justify framing of charges against the appellants.



We, therefore, set aside the  decision  taken  by  the  High  Court  in  the
judgment under appeal and restore the order dated 15.1.2008  passed  by  the
Special Judge in Special Case No. 9/98.  The appeal is thus allowed.



                                                           …..………………………………J.
                                                           (V. Gopala Gowda)



                                                           ……………………………..……J.
                                                          (Uday Umesh Lalit)

New Delhi,
February 08, 2016
-----------------------
[1]    AIR 2009 SC 1527