RAM SHANKER SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Criminal Revisions have been filed for setting aside the orders dated 28th June, 2010 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI), Ghaziabad in Criminal Case No. 235 of 2010 CBI v. Ram Shanker Singh and Ors., taking cognizance of the offences under Section 120-B read with Sections 201, 420, 477-A of Indian Penal Code and Section 65 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 after rejecting the objections filed by the Revisionists. The Revisionists have also sought the quashing of the orders dated 28th July, 2010/3rd September, 2010 by which bailable warrants have been issued against the Revisionists as they did not appear before the Court despite service of summons.

(2.) It is pursuant to the directions issued by the Division Bench of the High Court on 4th October, 2005 in Writ Petition No. 48287 of 2005 Deepak Sharma v. State of U.P. and Ors., connected with Writ Petition No. 50418 of 2005 filed by Manav Sewa Samiti and Ors., that the CBI initiated the investigation. The dispute in the two writ petitions referred to above was in connection with the advertisement issued by 'New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the "NOIDA") inviting applications for allotment of residential plots for the General Category applicants and for the Prescribed Reserved Category applicants in the 'Residential Plots Scheme 2004(1)' (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme). While Writ Petition No. 48287 of 2005 was filed by Deepak Sharma for a direction upon NOIDA to execute the lease deed in his favour on the basis of the draw of lots held on 2nd July, 2005 and for quashing the order dated 4th July, 2005 by which the draw of lots held on 2nd July, 2005 was cancelled, Writ Petition No. 50418 of 2005 was filed by Manav Seva Samiti and 26 others for prohibiting NOIDA from approving the draw of lots held on 2nd July, 2005 and for causing an investigation to be done by a suitable agency to determine the liability of individual officers and for holding a fresh draw of lots.

(3.) We, therefore, consider it appropriate to reproduce the observations and directions issued by the Division Bench in the aforesaid writ petition on 4th October, 2005 which are: