VIJAY MEHTA & ANR. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these bail petitions preferred by Vijay Mehta and Rajeev Mishra, under section 438 Cr.RC. relate to FIR No. 140/2000 registered at Police Station, Bani Park, Jaipur under sections 406, 418, 423, 465, 467, 469 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, therefore I propose to dispose of the instant bail petitions by a common order.

(2.) Learned Senior Counsel Shri S.R. Bajwa, canvassed that the only non-bailable offence in the instant case is under section 406 Penal Code and it is not exfacie made out even if the face value of the entire facts is accepted. It is contended that Vijay Mehta is authorised seller and Rajeev Mishra is bonafide purchaser of the property in question and the complainant is also accomplice in the matter. During the course of arguments I was taken through the various documents and attempt was made to establish that this is a fit case in which the provisions under section 438 Cr.PC. are attracted and the petitioners should be enlarged on anticipatory bail. Reliance was placed by both the sides on a Constitution Bench decision in case of Gurbaksh Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1980 (2) SCC 565 ).

(3.) Elaborating the arguments Mr Bajwa urged tat three criminal complaints were lodged Garg against the complainant and others and it does not lie in the mouth of the complainant to say before the investigating agency that no authority vested with the petitioner Vijay Mehta to parcel the land of the firm into plots and then to sell them off. The complainant has tried to project that the selling of the plots took place without his knowledge. The power of attorney of which description has been given clearly betrays that the petitioner Vijay Mehta had authority to sell off the immovable property including the land of the firm, at the same time the said document also makes a strong reflection on the fact that the complainant had complete knowledge about the development in question. It was further contended that by way of letter dated March 17, 1999 the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board had brought to the notice of the firm that the Board could not grant consent any more to the firm to operate the Ice Factory located on its land as the same was within the residential area. Subsequent to the receipt of the said letter, there were parleys between the partners of the firm as to what should be done with the land of the partnership firm. Heavy amount had been invested by all the partners in the partnership firm. Thereafter after the information given by the Board, the partners were anxious qua the business enterprise of the firm. It was then suggested by Sukhanis that the piece of land belonging to M/s. Agarwal Ice Factory, the partnership firm should be sold off after parcelling the same into plots and for that purpose the petitioner Vijay Mehta was deputed for the job. In this respect an application under Rule 5 Sub Rule (2) of the Land Conversion Rules was filed before the Minister concerned, at the instance of one of the partners Shri Rajkumar Bhatia. It was further contended that the complainant received Rs. 5,00,000.00 (rupees Five lacs by way of cash on July 13, 2000 from the firm as his share in the sale proceeds of the plots of the partnership firm and other two partners Smt. Kamla Sukhani arid Ramesh Sukhani also received Rupees Ten lacs. The complainant also received Rupess Five lacs by way of cash on July 13, 2000 from the firm as his share, goes a long way to discredit the veracity of the allegations.