STATE OF M. P. Vs. SHIVENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the applicant Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt Organization, against the order dated 19.1.2018 passed by the trial Court / Special Judge, Lokayukt, Jabalpur, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, whereby the prayer for acceptance of the closure report filed after completion of the investigation in connection with Crime No. 137/11 registered against the respondents under Sections 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by the Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt Organization, Jabalpur, has been disallowed and Special Police Establishment Lokayukt has been directed to place all the original documents / records and the material collected during the investigation before the Sanctioning authority for obtaining sanction for prosecution of the respondents no. 1 to 5 who were posted at Jabalpur Development Authority, Jabalpur and discharging their duties in their respective capacity as public servants.

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are that respondents no. 1 to 5 were posted at Jabalpur Development Authority, Jabalpur and were discharging their duties in their respective capacity being public servants and by misusing their power as public servants unduly favoured respondents no. 6 and 7 in connection with granting property of the JDA known as Cafeteria situated at Civic Centre, Marhatal, Jabalpur. It is alleged that earlier this property was given to respondents no. 6 and 7 on rent directly without following procedure of auction for the purpose of getting maximum rent and thereafter they sold this property to respondents no. 6 and 7 directly without inviting tender for getting maximum price of the property and departmental valuation of the property was done below the actual market value to provide undue benefit to respondents no. 6 and 7 and also given permission for change of use of the land and granted permission for division of the property in favour of respondents no. 6 and 7 separately and construction was also allowed without getting lay out and map and in this regard, FIR as crime no. 137/11 was registered by Lokayukt Police Jabalpur and after investigation, investigating officer arrived at the conclusion that no irregularity or illegality has been committed, in other words, no power has been misused and no undue benefit has been provided to respondents no. 6 and 7 as the property was given on rent directly as per prevailing practice in the JDA and the property was sold on real market value at the relevant time and no illegality has been committed by allowing division of the property and by allowing permission for further construction all due formalities were followed. Apart from it, the aforesaid sale was set-aside by a Division Bench of this court in W.P.No.3151/2011 and W.P.No.7111/2011 by common order dated 26.9.2012 and further proceeding for selling the aforesaid property is going on. Therefore, aforesaid officers of the JDA cannot be blamed that they were indulging to provide undue benefit to respondents no. 6 and 7 or was favouring with ulterior motive. Hence, no offence is made out. In the aforesaid background, closure report was filed.

(3.) In the impugned order, learned Special Judge has expressed the view that the aforesaid public servants with the connivance of the private respondents no. 6 and 7 divided the property in two parts to give them on rent separately and also issued no objection certificate to get bank loan and did not determine lease rent as per the lease deed and stamp duty and registration fees were not paid, therefore, the act of respondents no. 1 to 5 appeared to be facilitating respondents no. 6 and 7 to get unduly benefit, therefore, the act of the respondents prima facie appeared to be seriously doubtfulness. Therefore, closure report cannot be accepted and the matter should be placed before the sanctioning authority for granting sanction for the prosecution.