DHARAMBIR Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present three criminal revision petitions have been filed under Sections 397,401 and 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C. ") seeking quashing of the order framing Charges dated 23rd September, 2006 passed by Mr. G.P. Mittal, learned Special Judge, CBI, Delhi. Since the impugned order is common to all the three revision petitions which arise out of one charge sheet, all the three petitions are being disposed of by a common order.

(2.) THE details of the Charges mentioned in the Charge Sheet filed by the respondent is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-

(3.) MR . Luthra further submitted that there was lack of any material to frame Charges as in the present case neither the statements made under Section 161 CrP.C. nor documents filed with the charge sheet satisfy at the inception the ingredients of Sections 415/420 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC ") as admittedly application for allotment was made in 1984, the plot was allotted in 1985 and the alleged unauthorized construction/misuse commenced in late 1980s or early 1990s. He further contended that there was no document or other material on record which would even remotely suggest that any unlawful consideration was paid either by society or the petitioner. He stated that even a bald allegation to this effect was not present in the charge sheet. According to Mr. Luthra for substantiating the allegations against the petitioner, prosecution was required to produce material with the charge sheet which would show existence of mens rea of the petitioner at the time when the Society initially applied for allotment of plot in the year 1984. According to him, development of mens rea subsequently cannot indicate that the petitioner had an intention to cheat at the time of making its application to DDA. In this connection he referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in Anil Mahajan v. Bhor Industries Ltd. & Another, reported in (2005) 10 SCC 228, wherein the Hon "ble Supreme Court observed as under:-