AJIT JAIN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners Ajit Jain and Dilip Jain are seeking quashment of the order framing charge dated 22.05.2013 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Court of 1st Special Judgecum-Authorised Officer under M.P. Special Court Act, 2011, Indore and all proceedings pending and arising out of FIR No. 91/2011, dtd.09.08.2011 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case in a nutshell are that in FIR bearing No.91/2011 is filed on 09.08.2011 for offence under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against one M.K. Jain, Superintendent Engineer, RES at Indore (MP). He is the brother of the present petitioners Ajit Jain and Dilip Jain and it would be pertinent to note that the names of the petitioners did not figure in the aforesaid FIR and whereas petitioner No.1 Ajit Jain was the Professor in a Govt. College at Rehli, Distt. Sagar (MP). Petitioner No.2, Dilip Jain was an Assistant Engineer with MPSEB and posted at Makronia, Sagar, MP. However, on investigation the prosecution filed the charge-sheet (challan) bearing No.176/12 against Shri MK Jain as well as the petitioners and since the offences alleged against Shri MK Jain were under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 201 of the IPC; the petitioners were alleged to have committed the offence of abetment under Section 107 of IPC and the prosecution has pressed into service under Section 109 of IPC against them. The main allegations pertain to the fact that the petitioners are brothers and abetted the main accused Shri MK Jain in purchasing the property No.278, Scheme No.54 BG, Vijaynagar, Indore. And that the present petitioners are the benami co-holders of the said property; but, the actual and real owner is Shri MK Jain who purchased the property through ill-gotten wealth, hence the present petition.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently urged the fact that since the petitioners were neither named in the FIR nor was there any allegations of abetment the offence could not apparently be made out against them. Moreover the period assessment under the question is from 01.06.1981 to 09.08.2011 and the charges have been framed by order dated 22.05.2013. Counsel vehemently urged that the property in question was purchased by a registered sale deed dated 26.02.2010 for Rs.60 lacs from one Smt. Mainabai Zindal and Smt. Rina Zindal; whereas proper permission was sought from the Govt. of MP by the main accused Shri MK Jain on 28.02.2010 and is available on record as well as along with the petition. It clearly indicates that the loan was properly sought from the IDBI after due sanction from the State Govt. the letter dated 28.02.2010 from Under Secretary, Govt. of MP clearly indicates that building permission was given by the IDA and in accordance with the Rule 19 of the MP Civil Services Rules, sanction was granted for construction of the house on plot No.278 and all the three brothers were granted sanction to seek a loan; therefore Counsel vehemently urged how could the present petitioners said to have aided and abetted the accused MK Jain to acquire the said property through illegal means. Besides Counsel contended that the loan had been paid by the brothers and also had been sanctioned in the name of all the three brothers on 30.01.2010. Similarly Counsel vehemently urged that Shri Ajit Jain who was a Lecturer and paid income tax had filed his Income Tax Returns to indicate that he earned about Rs.45 lacs per year and the other brother earned Rs. 49 lacs per year. Similarly Counsel for the petitioners have also vehemently urged the fact that the petitioners were holder of agricultural lands amounting to 49.27 acres at Sagar, MP and valued of Rs.100/- lacs and merely casting aspersions and not taking into consideration the documents filed by the petitioners clearly indicated the malafides on behalf of prosecution and to say that amassing disproportionate assets on the ground of suspicion and conjectures could not be sustainable in the eyes of law and the prosecution should not be permitted to abuse the process of law and the entire prosecution is malicious and based on incorrect source of informations which are absolutely false and erroneous. A vexatious complaint has been filed by one Shri Pramod Jain who was a driver of accused MK Jain.