Deepak Surana vs State Of M.P

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 128 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 8816 of 2011)

Deepak Surana and Ors. …. Appellants

Versus

State of Madhya Pradesh …. Respondent

ORDER

Uday U. Lalit, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated

01.10.2011 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh,

Jabalpur in Criminal Revision No.649 of 2008. The High Court

was pleased to set aside the order passed by the Special Court

discharging the present appellants of the charges leveled

against them.

3. Land admeasuring about 22.56 acres, situated at

Mumbai-Agra Road in Indore belonging to one Smt. Sohan Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Suman Wadhwa Date: 2016.02.16 15:29:47 IST Reason:

Kumari Sankhla and her son was subject matter of acquisition

by the Indore Town Improvement Trust (subsequently, Indore 2

Development Authority). The challenge in that behalf was

pending in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Petition

No.1181 of 1988, during which pendency, a proposal was

initiated by the then Additional Secretary in the Department of

Housing on behalf of the State Government to release 7 acres

of land to the land owners on no profit no loss basis. In view of

such proposal, the aforesaid Writ Petition was disposed of by

the High Court vide order dated 13.05.1996 directing Indore

Development Authority to take appropriate decision in

accordance with law.

4. Soon thereafter, four agreements for sale of certain

parcels from the aforesaid land, admeasuring 5.50 acres in all,

were said to have been executed. Though the intending

purchasers in said four agreements were stated to be the

appellants herein, the agreements in question were not signed

by the appellants. The agreements were signed only by the

prospective vendors namely, the aforesaid owners of the land.

5. Despite the aforesaid disposal of the Writ Petition by order

dated 13.05.1996, since nothing was done in the matter, the

land owners filed Writ Petition No.1437 of 1996 in the High

Court submitting inter-alia that Indore Development Authority

was avoiding implementation of the direction issued by the 3

State Government. While this matter was so pending, a Public

Interest Litigation being Writ Petition No. 511 of 1997 was filed

challenging the decision of the State Government to release a

portion of the land. This Writ Petition prayed for direction that

the lands from the scheme of Indore Development Authority

should not be permitted to be released. The High Court had

issued notice in the matter and granted ex parte stay as

prayed for.

6. Around this time, an FIR came to be lodged by Special

Police Establishment, Lokayukta after conducting preliminary

investigation. The basic allegations in this FIR dated

31.03.1998 were to the effect that a conspiracy was hatched

between certain public servants including the then Ministers,

Additional Secretary and the owners of the land. The object of

that conspiracy was stated to be conferring undue advantage

upon the owners of the land. The FIR alleged commission of

offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2),

Section 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with

Section 120B of the IPC. It is relevant to note that the names of

the appellants do not find any mention in this FIR.

7. After due investigation, Special Police Establishment,

Lokayukta filed charge sheet in Special Case No.9 of 1998 4

arising from the aforesaid FIR in the Court of Special Judge,

Bhopal against 18 accused persons. The appellants were

arrayed as accused in this charge sheet.

8. The Special Judge, Bhopal after considering the entire

material on record came to the conclusion that there was no

material to proceed against the appellants and therefore he

discharged the appellants of the charges leveled against them.

He, however, framed charges against rest of the accused

persons including the public servants and the owners of the

land. It was observed by the Special Judge that names of the

appellants were neither mentioned in the FIR nor in the original

complaint, that the agreements relied upon by the prosecution

were unilateral in the sense that they did not bear the

signatures of the appellants and that there was no mention

how the alleged consideration was transferred. The Special

Judge thus found that no case was made out by the prosecution

to frame appropriate charges against the appellants and he

thus vide his order dated 15.01.2008 discharged the

appellants.

9. The aforesaid order of the Special Judge was challenged

by the State in Criminal Revision No.649 of 2008. By the

judgment and order under appeal, the High Court allowed the 5

said Revision. It was observed that merely because the

agreement of sale did not bear the signatures of the appellants

it would not mean that the agreements could not be relied

upon. Certain material furnished by the appellants in support

of their case was not taken into account by the High Court on

the ground that the material furnished by the accused could

not be considered at the stage of framing of charge.

10. This appeal challenges the correctness of the decision of

the High Court. We have heard Mr. K. K. Venugopal, learned

Senior Advocate in support of the appeal and Mr. Naveen

Sharma, learned Advocate for the respondent-State. We have

gone through the entire record and considered rival

submissions.

11. In the present case, the agreements relied upon by the

prosecution do not bear the signatures of the appellants. It is

undoubtedly true that in Aloka Bose v. Parmatma Devi1, it

has been observed that an agreement of sale signed by the

vendor alone is enforceable by the purchaser named in the

agreement. But the question here is whether the appellants

could be said to be involved in the conspiracy. The agreements

in question were not even recovered from the custody of the 1

AIR 2009 SC 1527 6

appellants and were recovered from the vendors themselves.

The agreements being unilateral and not bearing the

signatures of the appellants, mere execution of such

agreements cannot be considered as a relevant circumstance

against the appellants. There is nothing on record to indicate

that the consideration mentioned in the agreement could be

traced to the appellants, nor is there any statement by any of

the witnesses suggesting even proximity or meeting of minds

between the appellants and any of the other accused. In the

circumstances, the view that weighed with the Special Judge

was quite correct. The High Court was not justified in setting

aside the order passed by the Special Judge. In our considered

view, the material on record completely falls short of and

cannot justify framing of charges against the appellants.

12. We, therefore, set aside the decision taken by the High

Court in the judgment under appeal and restore the order

dated 15.1.2008 passed by the Special Judge in Special Case

No. 9/98. The appeal is thus allowed.

…..………………………………J. (V. Gopala Gowda)

……………………………..……J. (Uday Umesh Lalit) New Delhi, February 08, 2016 ITEM NO.41 COURT NO.10 SECTION IIA

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Crl.A.No. …...../2016 @ Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 8816/2011

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 01/10/2011 in CRLR No. 649/2008 passed by the High Court of M.P at Jabalpur)

DEEPAK SURANA AND ORS Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF M.P Respondent(s)

(with appln. (s) for stay and office report)(With office Report)

Date : 08/02/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT

For Petitioner(s) Mr. K.K.Venugopal,Sr.Adv.

Mr. Puneet Jain,Adv.

Mr. Manoj Shrimal,Adv.

Ms. Christi Jain,Adv.

Mr. Abhinav Gupta,Adv.

Ms. Ankita Gupta,Adv.

Ms. Pratibha Jain,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Naveen Sharma,Adv.

Mr. Mishra Saurabh,Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Leave granted.

The judgment of the High Court is set aside and the

order dated 15.1.2008 passed by the Special Judge in

Special Case No.9/98 is restored. The appeal is thus

allowed.

(SUMAN WADHWA) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA) AR-cum-PS COURT MASTER Signed order is placed on the file.