8.However, the question that arises is whether the material available against the accused persons at this stage makes out a prima facie case that the alleged offence could have been committed by them. The offences charged against the accused are the offences under Section 13(2) and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
9.Learned counsel appearing for the accused persons has argued that G.S. Jadon was in the office of Building Officer from 31.10.1994 to 16.10.1996. He cannot be held liable for any act/omission done prior to or after this period. It is contended that building permission was granted to Sayaji Hotel prior to his appointment as the Building Officer. It has been further contended that the revision jurisdiction of the High Court also includes the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C..
10.It is worth noting here that the revised building plan, which was sanctioned in guise of the revision of sanction of the building permission,JUDGMENTwas a complete departure from the original plan. We do not have detailed building plans of the original and revised building permission. However, from the limited information available with us, it can be fished out that built up area in the original plan was 1810.04 Sq. Mtrs. on Ground Floor, while in the revised plan it was increased to 3476.25 Sq. Mtrs.. Similarly, for the Club the proposed built up area for Ground Floor was decreased from 4759.11 Sq. Mtrs. to 1810.62 Sq. Mtrs..
11.The above are only two illustrations of the changes that were sought to be approved in the revised building plan. It goes without saying that when such dramatic and major changes are made to the plan, the approvals for fire safety devices, electricity, water supply and sewage, granted as per original plan would become irrelevant. Also, the completion certificate which was granted on 19.01.1995 was merely 7 days after the revision of building permission. Although, it may be noted that the completion certificate was only in relation to the Club and not the Hotel, yet it is difficult to fathom as to how even a Club could be completely built, with all compliances within JUDGMENT 7 days of building permission, especially when the revised building plan consisted major changes from initial plan. Further, the accused not only granted the revision without approval of any committee, but also accepted the honorary membership of the Sayaji Club.
12.Having said so, it would be relevant to point out that evasion of property tax being attributed to the Building Officer; we do not find merit in this argument as we do not find any law where the Building Officer is required to inform the property tax department of the Municipal Corporation.
13.Although we do not wish to comment on the merits of the case as this is the pre-trial stage, yet we are of the view that there exists sufficient material to make out a prima facie case against the accused. Therefore, these criminal appeals are allowed, the order passed by the High Court is set aside and the order of the Addl. Sessions Judge framing charges is restored.
14.We may, however,JUDGMENTexpress our disappointment of such extended litigation at the pre-trial stage itself. The delay in justice delivery system not only renders justice ineffective but also ill-founded as it leads to erosion of evidence. In the light of this observation, we request the Trial Court to conduct the trial in the most expeditious manner.
(Pinaki Chandra Ghose) (R.K. Agrawal) New Delhi; March 23, 2015.
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 5279/2007 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 18/05/2007 in CRLR No. 636/2007 passed by the High Court Of M.P. At Indore) STATE OF M.P. Petitioner(s) VERSUS RAKESH MISHRA Respondent(s) WITH SLP(Crl) No. 5828/2007 Date : 23/03/2015 These petitions were called on for pronouncement of judgment today.
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Arvind Varma, Sr. Adv. Ms. Deepika Shori, Adv.
Mr. C. D. Singh, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Niraj Sharma, AOR Mr. Brajesh Kumar, AOR Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose pronounced thereportable judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal.
Leave granted in both the matters.
The appeals are allowed, the order passed by the High Court is set aside and the order of the Addl. Sessions Judge framing charges is restored in terms of the signed reportable judgment.
Court Master Court Master (Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)