JITENDRA KUMAR JAIN Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these petitions have arisen out of the same order of framing charges against the petitioners, therefore, they were heard analogously and are being decided by this common order.

(2.) Grievance of the petitioners is that without any basis, without any CRR Nos.752/2017, 765/2017, 919/2017, 974/2017, 1201/2017 and 3093/2017 evidence whether documentary or otherwise, without any application of mind and without appreciating the evidence and in a very casual manner the learned trial Court has framed charges under section 120-B , 420 , 467 / 34 , 468 / 34 , 471 / 34 , 409 / 34 of the IPC and section 13(1)(D) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as " The Act of 1988") vide order dated 23.03.2017 against them. This order is under challenge in all five petitions.

(3.) Undisputed facts of the case are that for the area likely to submerge in the Sardar Sarover Dam, the Narmada Valley Development Authority (NVDA) deployed several officers to carry out the work of survey, assessment, valuation, determination of compensation and other subsequent/consequential works necessary for acquisition of the land, plots, houses etc. Several divisions and sub-divisions were constituted to carry out the work. Villages Mandwara and Chichli were under Sub- division No.7 of Division No.3.