Delhi High Court

Smt. P.M Singh vs Cbi on 24 September, 2013

Author: Sunita Gupta

$~
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                     Crl.M.B.1585/2013 in CRL.A. 987/2013

                                                Date of Decision: 24th September, 2013

     SMT. P.M SINGH                                                       ..... Appellant
                               Through:          Mr. Uday U. Lalit, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
                                                 Pramod Kr. Dubey,
                                                 Ms. Smriti Sinha, Mr. Shri Singh, Mr.
                                                 Suksham Chauhan, Ms. Akansha Singh,
                                                 Mr. Nitin Saluja & Ms. Vasundhara
                                                 Nagrath, Advs.

                                        versus
     CBI                                                           ..... Respondent
                               Through:          Mr. R.V.Sinha, Standing Counsel with
                                                 Mr. A.S.Singh, Adv.

+                     Crl.M.B.1711/2013 in CRL.A. 1076/2013

     NAVINDER KUMAR SHARMA                                            ..... Appellant
                     Through:                             Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. with
                                                          Dr. Sushil Kumar Gupta & Mr.
                                                          Manish Tiwari, Advs.
                               versus

     CBI                                                              ..... Respondent
                                        Through:          Mr. R.V.Sinha, Standing Counsel
                                                          with Mr. A.S.Singh, Adv.

+                     Crl.M.B. 1712/2013 in CRL.A. 1077/2013

     SUBHASH CHANDRA AGGARWAL                                               ..... Appellant

                               Through:          Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. with
                                                 Dr. Sushil Kumar Gupta & Mr. Manish
                                                 Tiwari, Advs.

     Crl.M.B.1585/2013 in CRL.A. 987/2013, Crl.M.B.1711/2013 in CRL.A. 1076/2013,
     Crl.M.B.1712/2013 in CRL.A.1077/2013,                                            Page 1 of 12
                                    versus

          CBI                                                          ..... Respondent
                                   Through:          Mr. R.V.Sinha, Standing Counsel
                                                     with Mr. A.S.Singh, Adv.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA

                                   JUDGMENT

:SUNITA GUPTA, J.

1. Vide this common order, I shall dispose off Crl.M.B.1585/2013 in

Crl.A.987/2013, Crl.M.B.1711/2013 in Crl.A.1076/2013, Crl.M.B.

1712/2013 in Crl.A.No.1077/2013 as the applications have been filed in

respective appeals against a common judgment dated 23.07.2013 and

order on sentence dated 31.07.2013 wherein the appellants were

convicted for offences punishable u/s 120-B IPC read with 418 IPC,

under Section 418 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC and under Section

13(2) read with Section 13(i)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

and sentenced as under:

 All the three appellants were sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default one month simple imprisonment, each, for offence u/s 120-B IPC read with Section 418 IPC and for the offence u/s 418 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC, three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default two months simple imprisonment each;

Crl.M.B.1585/2013 in CRL.A. 987/2013, Crl.M.B.1711/2013 in CRL.A. 1076/2013,

 Appellants Navinder Kumar Sharma and Subhash Chandra Aggarwal were sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default six months simple imprisonment each for offence u/s 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988;

 Appellant P.M.Singh was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default six months simple imprisonment for offence u/s 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

 All the sentences were to run concurrently.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that they were

proceeded against for allegedly entering into a criminal conspiracy with

Tribhuvan Singh, K.L.Bhatia and Prem Lata Bhatia during the period

October, 2002 to March 2003 to get building plans of property No.13,

Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi regularised in violation of terms of

lease deed, Master Plan of Delhi and the building bye-laws, 1999-2003

thereby causing wrongful loss to NDMC. They were also charged for

abusing official position to obtain pecuniary advantage for Prem Lata

Bhatia and K.L.Bhatia in getting the premises regularised.

3. It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant P.M.Singh

that the charges have not been proved by CBI since main accused

K.L.Bhatia died during the proceedings of the case. The trial court has

Crl.M.B.1585/2013 in CRL.A. 987/2013, Crl.M.B.1711/2013 in CRL.A. 1076/2013,

acquitted the Chief Architect Tribhuvan Singh and the alleged

beneficiary Prem Lata Bhatia, hence no case of conspiracy is made out

against the appellant. She was the Chairperson of NDMC and was to be

guided by the technical and administrative advice given by the Chief

Architect who is the administrative and technical head of the

Unauthorised Construction Cell, hence there was no question of any

misconduct or abuse of official authority by the appellant P.M.Singh.

4. The noting file pertaining to the regularisation of the unauthorised

construction of the premises shows the history of the premises and the

circumstances leading to the regularization of the unauthorised

construction. A perusal of this file disproves the charge that any unfair

advantage was given to the beneficiaries by the appellants, or that any

loss whatsoever has been caused to the NDMC.

5. The file relating to the regularization of the premises was being

considered by the NDMC pursuant to orders passed by a Division Bench

of this Court in RFA No.334/2001 and subsequent orders passed by the

learned Appellate Tribunal, MCD in 2002. The building file of the

premises was not traceable in NDMC, and was subsequently

reconstructed. A detailed note dated 10.01.2003 made by the Junior

Engineer (UC)N, was reviewed by Tribhuvan Singh on 28.01.2003, who

added several queries relating to betterment charges and permissible

height. After being satisfied, he forwarded a one page note dated Crl.M.B.1585/2013 in CRL.A. 987/2013, Crl.M.B.1711/2013 in CRL.A. 1076/2013,

07.02.2003 to appellant, setting out the suggested measures to be taken

in detail. She marked the note `Pls. Discuss'and sent it back to

Tribhuvan Singh. On 13.02.2003, Tribhuvan Singh, in his capacity as

the Chief Architect, affirmed that his technical proposal dated

07.02.2003 was within the limits of ground coverage and FAR and

height provided in the Building Bye laws and therefore sought approval

of the same. He also acknowledged discussing the matter with

appellant on 07.02.2003. Based on this positive affirmation by the Chief

Architect, appellant accorded her assent by way of her signature on

13.02.2003.

6. No loss has been caused to the NDMC, since compounding fees

were charged on the entire covered area of their building except for the

portions that was being sought to be demolished. The interest of the

NDMC were fully taken care of and the appellant P.M.Singh ensured

that compounding proposal was within the limits of ground coverage

and FAR and height provided in the Building Bye laws as assured by the

Chief Architect. Furthermore, the said notesheet clearly states that it is a

conditional order enumerating four conditions and only upon their

fulfilment, will the order dated 13.02.2003 would have come into

operation. Therefore, the allegation of regularizing the unauthorised

construction is ex facie incorrect. Therefore, apart from incorrect

presumptions made by the learned Court, there is no material on record Crl.M.B.1585/2013 in CRL.A. 987/2013, Crl.M.B.1711/2013 in CRL.A. 1076/2013,

to prove that the appellants are guilty under Section 13(1)(d) PC Act of

any misconduct or for having abused official position in any way

whatsoever.

7. The acts of the appellant on the basis of which charges have been

framed were official acts and appellants ought to have been granted the

benefit of Section 384 of NDMC Act, 1994. There are no allegations of

demand or acceptance of any illegal gratification which is the sine qua

non for proving charge under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

P.M.Singh had been appointed as Chairman of NDMC between

01.11.2002 and 30.03.2003, however the condition for regularisation of

the unauthorised construction has not been completed till date, hence

there is no question of any offence having been committed by her. She

has a good prima facie case to succeed in the appeal.

8. It was further submitted that she is a senior citizen aged about 64

years; she had contested the case for about 10 years and has been on bail

throughout the case. She never misused the privilege of bail and never

violated any of the condition of bail throughout the trial; she had an

unblemished record of public service; she also worked as Member

Secretary for Delhi Commission for Women after her retirement in

2009; she has an aged and ailing mother, besides her husband; there is

no apprehension that she will flee or abscond, as such, pending the

appeal, sentence be suspended.

Crl.M.B.1585/2013 in CRL.A. 987/2013, Crl.M.B.1711/2013 in CRL.A. 1076/2013,

9. It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellants, Navinder

Kumar Sharma and Subhash Chandra Aggarwal that after the matter was

decided by the ATMCD and was referred to the Chief Architect for

deciding it afresh, the same was considered in the light of the provisions

of Appendix-Q of the building bye-laws and the file was forwarded to

the Chief Architect for examination and further decision, who approved

the same subject to certain conditions. It is submitted by learned counsel

for the appellants that the appellants have been convicted in the present

case because of misinterpretation of the order of the ATMCD and wrong

approach to the facts and circumstances of the case. It is also submitted

that the learned Special Judge while passing the order of conviction has

neither considered the cross-examination of any of the witnesses nor has

put any questions u/s 313 relating to the facts.

10. It was further submitted that both the appellants were on bail

throughout the trial and never misused the terms and conditions of the

bail. The appellant Subhash Aggarwal has an unblemished career

throughout his service. He is on the verge of retirement. There is no

apprehension of his absconding or fleeing from justice. Similarly

Navinder Kumar Sharma has throughout remained on bail and never

misused the concession of bail; he is 65 years of age and is suffering

from various diseases; he has deep roots in the society; he is not a

previous convict; there are no chances of his absconding or fleeing from Crl.M.B.1585/2013 in CRL.A. 987/2013, Crl.M.B.1711/2013 in CRL.A. 1076/2013,

justice.

11. Reliance was placed on Sudhir Kumar Jain vs. State of Delhi,

2008(1) JCC 564; Angana & Another v. State of Rajasthan, 2009(2)

Scale 241 and Suresh Kumar & Ors vs. State, (2001) 10 SCC 338.

12. The applications were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor for

CBI. Reliance was placed on State of Punjab v. Deepak Mattu, (2007)

11 SCC 319; Anil Ari v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2009 SCC 1564

and Shiv Kumar vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi, 2008 (16) SCALE 27.

13. Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads as

under:

"389. Suspension of sentence pending the appeal; release of appellant on bail.-

(1) Pending any appeal by a convicted person, the Appellate Court may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order that the execution of the sentence or order appealed against be suspended and, also, if he is in confinement, that he be released on bail, or on his own bond.

[Provided that the Appellate Court shall, before releasing on bail or on his own bond a convicted person who is convicted of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years, shall give opportunity to the Public Prosecutor for showing cause in writing against such release:

Provided further that in cases where a convicted person is released on bail it shall be open to the Public Prosecutor to file an application for the cancellation of the bail.

(2) The power conferred by this section on an Appellate Court may be exercised also by the High Court in the case of an appeal by a convicted person to a Court subordinate thereto.

Crl.M.B.1585/2013 in CRL.A. 987/2013, Crl.M.B.1711/2013 in CRL.A. 1076/2013,

(3) Where the convicted person satisfies the Court by which he is convicted that he intends to present an appeal, the Court shall,-

(i) where such person, being on bail, is sentenced to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or

(ii) where the offence of which such person has been convicted is a bailable one, and he is on bail,

order that the convicted person be released on bail, unless there are special reasons for refusing bail, for such period as will afford sufficient time to present the appeal and obtain the orders of the Appellate Court under sub- section (1); and the sentence of imprisonment shall, so long as he is so released on bail, be deemed to be suspended.

(4) When the appellant is ultimately sentenced to imprisonment for a term or to imprisonment for life, the time during which he is so released shall be excluded in computing the term for which he is so sentenced."

14. Deepak Mattu(supra) was a case under the Prevention of

Corruption Act and the respondent was sentenced to 1-1/2 year rigorous

imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-. He preferred an appeal in which an

application was filed by him for suspending conviction u/s 389 of the

Cr.P.C. The application was allowed and conviction of the appellant was

suspended during the pendency of the appeal. State of Punjab preferred

an appeal before Hon'ble Supreme Court and an application was filed for

vacation of stay of conviction granted to the accused with a prayer to recall

the same. Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the order of suspension of

conviction is not to be readily granted.

Crl.M.B.1585/2013 in CRL.A. 987/2013, Crl.M.B.1711/2013 in CRL.A. 1076/2013,

15. Possible delay in disposal of the appeal and that there are arguable

points by itself may not be sufficient to grant suspension of a sentence.

The grounds do not suggest that the respondent was proceeded against by

the State, mala fide or in any bad faith. Relying upon K.C. Sareen vs.CBI,

(2001) 6SCC 584 and State of Maharashtra vs. Gajanan, (2003) 12 SCC

432, the order was set aside. It was rightly submitted by learned counsel

for the appellants that this case is distinguishable inasmuch as in that case

the order of conviction was suspended and in the instant case the

appellants are not seeking stay of the conviction order but they are seeking

suspension of sentence only. Anil Airi(supra) was a case where the

accused was convicted u/s 302 IPC, yet keeping in view his age (70 years),

the sentence was suspended and he was released on bail. Although in Shiv

Kumar's case (supra) which was also a case u/s 7 and 13(2) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the sentence was not suspended and

directions were given to the High Court to dispose of the appeal as early as

practicable. However, in Sudhir Kumar Jain's case (supra) which was

also a case u/s 7 and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the

sentence was suspended by observing that Section 389(3) Cr.P.C

empowers the Trial Court to suspend the sentence of such convicts, who

have been convicted for a period not exceeding three years, for such period

as will afford them sufficient time to present an appeal. Section 389 also

empowers the appellate Court including the High Court to suspend the Crl.M.B.1585/2013 in CRL.A. 987/2013, Crl.M.B.1711/2013 in CRL.A. 1076/2013,

sentence and release the convict on bail during the pendency of the appeal

in case the period of sentence does not exceed three years.

16. Angana & Another (supra) was also a case where the accused

were awarded sentence of four years rigorous imprisonment with fine. The

sentence was suspended and appellants were granted bail. In

Bhagwanram Shinde(supra) and Suresh Kumar(supra), it was held that

when a convicted person is sentenced to a fixed period of sentence and

when he files an appeal under any statutory right, suspension of sentence

can be considered by the appellate court liberally unless there are

exceptional circumstances. No exceptional circumstances were

highlighted, as such, the sentence was suspended and the appellants were

released on bail.

17. In the instant case also, the submissions made by learned counsel

for the appellants on the factual matrix of the case have not been

controverted by learned Public Prosecutor for CBI except placing reliance

on the authorities as referred above. It is the case of the appellants that

they were on bail throughout the trial and never misused the concession of

bail. They have raised arguable points which requires consideration. They

have deep roots in the society; there are no chances of their fleeing from

justice; it is likely to take time for the appeal to be heard. Under the

circumstances, keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances

Crl.M.B.1585/2013 in CRL.A. 987/2013, Crl.M.B.1711/2013 in CRL.A. 1076/2013,

of the case, the sentence of the appellants are ordered to be suspended till

disposal of the appeal, subject to:-

(i) their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court;