VISHNU RAJORIA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revisions have been filed challenging the order dated 27-9-1995 passed by Special Judge, Bhopal, in Special Criminal Case No. 3 of 1994 whereby charge under section 5 (1) (d) read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act has been framed against Vishnu Rajoria, (petitioner of Criminal Revision No. 798 of 1995) and whereby accused Mukteshwar Singh (respondent in Criminal Revision No. 954 of 1995) has been discharged. State has challenged the order of discharge of non-applicant Mukteshwar Singh in Criminal Revision No. 954 of 1995. Both the revisions involve similar questions and arise out of the common order, therefore, have been eard as connected matters and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) S. P. E. Lokayukt, Bhopal, filed charge sheet against three accused persons on the allegation of their having committed offence under section 5 (1) (d) of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. At the relevant time (in the year 1988) accused vishnu Rajoria was State Minister of Housing Environment, accused Memoona Sultan was Chairman of M. P. Housing Board and accused Mukteshwar Singh was commissioner of M. P. Housing Board. In the year 1982 M. P. Housing Board had allotted seven plots situated in Sanjay Upvan, Khajrani, Indore to various persons. Out of these plots, Plot No. B-1 was allotted to Dr. K. C. Sharma and Plot No. B-2 was allotted to the then Member of Rajya Sabha Mr. Ajit Jogi. It is said that Ajit Jogi had encroached over some portion of the plot belonging to Dr. K. C. Sharma against which dr. Sharma had instituted the legal proceedings against him for removing the encroachment. When he could not succeed by the proceedings under ordinary law, he filed a Writ Petition ( M. P. No. 230 of 1987) in the Indore Bench of High Court. M. P. Housing Board was also a party in the petition. Ajit Jogi approached the Housing minister Mr. Vishnu Rajoria with a request that house No. 13-A situated At Ravishanker nagar, Indore, be allotted to Dr. K. C. Sharma for getting the dispute resolved and obtaining the undisputed possession of the land. Vishnu Rajoria passed an order on 8-3-1988 directing that an alternative plot be given to Dr. Sharma and to remove the encroachment from the plot of Mr. Ajit Jogi, observing further that all the proceedings be executed and informed to him by 21-3-1988. Another similar order was also passed on 15-4-1988. In compliance of the aforesaid orders Memoona Sultan passed an order allotting designated House No. 13-A situated on Main Road, Ravi Shanker Shukla nagar, Indore to Dr. K. C. Sharma. On 10-5-1988 in 79th meeting of Housing Board in which all the three accused were present, against the policy of the Board it was resolved and decided that in calculating the cost of the house capitalised interest at the rate of 12% be not charged from Dr. K. C. Sharma and supervision charges be charged only at the rate of 2% instead of 12% from him. Thus, the house having market value of about Rs. 10,00,000/- and valuation according to calculation by the Board around rs. 4,38,360/- was given to Dr. K. C. Sharma for Rs. 2,83,040/- only. Thus, Dr. K. C. Sharma obtained pecuniary advantage to the tune of Rs. 1,55,320/- and Ajit Jogi also obtained the benefit of getting undisputed land. It is said that M. P. Housing Board suffered a loss of Rs. 1,55,320/- by the acts of accused persons, who obtained the aforesaid pecuniary advantage for Dr. K. C. Sharma and Ajit Jogi. It is also alleged that under the policy of Housing Board a designated plot could not have been allotted to Dr. K. C. Sharma but the accused persons had abused their position as public servant for allotment of the aforesaid house at very low cost.

(3.) LEARNED Special Judge finding a prima-facie case for making out the offence under section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, against accused memoona Sultan and Vishnu Rajoria framed the charges against them, however, finding that accused Mukteshwar Singh had made a dissenting note in the past about reduction of the capitalised interest, held him entitled to be discharged.