DHAMENDRA DEO MISHRA Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri P. P. Srivastava, Senior Advocate and Sri G. S. Hajela learned Standing Counsel for the CBI.

(2.) In this case a counter-affidavit was filed by earlier standing counsel of CBI Sri Giridhar Nath, which is on record. However, this petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. has been filed annexing the documents and the orders of the learned Court below and as such this Court is to see whether the chargesheet filed by the CBI in the Court of the Magistrate was proper or not and hence for that purpose no counter affidavit was required at all.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that the applicant-petitioner, while he was posted as Vice Chairman, Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as 'G.D.A.') in pursuance of the resolution dated 22-4-1983 put an application personally to Sri S. K. Goswami, I.A.S. Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, the then Chairman G.D.A. for allotment of a plot in Surya Nagar/Chandra Nagar colony in pursuance of the resolution dated 22-4-83, by means of which the G.D.A. agreed to a proposal that certain plots of uneven sizes, for which there was no public demand, can be allotted to the employees of the G.D.A. as well as the employees on deputation with G.D.A. subject to the conditions that such employee should not have own plot building at Ghaziabad nor they should have allotted any plot as per scheme floated prior to the scheme 1972 at Ghaziabad and that the plot should be allotted only to the employees, who do not possess any plot either at Delhi or any city of Uttar Pradesh in his own name or in the name of his dependents. Regarding compliance of the above conditions the employee was to file an affidavit to the same effect. It is further alleged that on the application of the petitioner the then Chairman passed an order for allotment, subject to the availability of the plot, in pursuance of which a corner plot of 90-60 size bearing No. E-8 Chandra Nagar was got allotted to Smt. Kamla Mishra, wife of the petitioner. Thereafter, on the allegation of the prosecution that the resolution was regarding the uneven plots but the plot which was got allotted to the wife of the petitioner, was a corner plot and the same was not covered with the resolution dated 22-4-83, a case RC No. 3 (A/88 ACU (VI) under Section 420, IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered in which the CBI filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner for committing offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471, IPC before the Court of Special Magistrate, (CBI) with the allegations that the petitioner had committed gross misuse of his position as Vice-Chairman and got allotted the plot in the name of his wife. It was further alleged that the petitioner was not entitled for allotment as his wife and son were having a big house at Sarojini Naidu Marg, Lucknow and in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the application for allotment, cutting and scoring was made afterwards and thereby he committed forgery as well.