DEEPAK SURANA AND ORS Vs. STATE OF M.P
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Appeal (Crl.), 128 of 2016, Judgment Date: Feb 08, 2016
The agreements in question were not
even recovered from the custody of the 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.
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
O R D E R
Uday U. Lalit, J.
Leave granted.
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.
Land admeasuring about 22.56 acres, situated at Mumbai-Agra Road in Indore
belonging to one Smt. Sohan Kumari Sankhla and her son was subject matter
of acquisition by the Indore Town Improvement Trust (subsequently, Indore
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
After due investigation, Special Police Establishment, Lokayukta filed
charge sheet in Special Case No.9 of 1998 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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 Devi[1], 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 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.
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
-----------------------
[1] AIR 2009 SC 1527