STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusRAKESH MISHRA

                    [2015] 3 S.C.R. 765


                STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                          A
                           v.
                     RAKESH MISHRA
             (Criminal Appeal No. 498 of 2015 etc.)
                       MARCH 23, 2015.                           B
 [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.]


     Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- s.397 rlw s.401 - c
Criminal Revision - Against the framing of charges ulss.
13(2) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act rlw s. 1208
/PC- Order of framing of charges set aside by High Court-
He/d: There is sufficient material to make out - prima facie
case against the accused persons - Prevention of Corruption D
Act, 1988- ss.13(2) and 13(1)(d) - Penal Code, 1860 - s.
1208.

     Delay - In disposed of cases - Held: Delay in justice
delivery system not only renders justice ineffective, but also   E
leads to erosion of evidence.

     Allowing the appeals, the Court

     HELD: 1. Only charge-sheet along with the F
accompanying material is to be considered at the stage
of framing of charges, so as to satisfy whether a prima
facie case is made out. It has to be the subjective
satisfaction of the Court framing charges. In the present
case, the High Court has only examined the material G
before it against the prevailing law to reach its
conclusions. [Para 7] [770-D-E]

     2. The revised building plan, which was sanctioned
in the guise of the revision of sanction of th~ building         H
                           765
766         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2015] 3 S.C.R.


A permission, was a complete departure from the original
  plan. When such 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 was
B merely 7 days after the revision of building permission.
  Although, 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
C compliances within 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
D of the Club. Thus, there exists sufficient material to make
  out a prima facie case againstthe accused. [Paras 10, 11
  and 13] [771-8-C, E-H; 772-C]

       3. Such extended litigation at the pre-trial stage itself,
E is disappointing. The delay in justice delivery system not
  only renders justice ineffective but also ill-founded as it
  leads to erosion of evidence. [Para 14] [772-D-E]

         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal
F     Appeal No. 498 of 2015 etc.

          From the Judgment and Order dated 18.05.2007 of the
      High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in Criminal Revision
      No. 636 of 2007.
G                                 WITH
          Criminal Appeal No. 499 of2015.

     Arvind Varma, Deepika Shari, C. D. Singh for the
H Appellant.
           STATE OF M. P. v. RAKESH MISHRA                      767



    Sum it kumar Sharma, Niraj Sharma, Brajesh Kumar for A
the Respondent.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

    PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J. 1. Leave granted in both            B
the matters.

     2. These appeals arise out of the judgment and order
dated 18th May, 2007 passed by the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh (Indore Bench), disposing of Criminal Revision C
Petition Nos.636/2007, 610/2007 and 566/2007 which were
filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973. By the impugnedjudgmentthe High
Court of Madhya Pradesh has allowed the three revision
petitions, setting aside the orders of the FirstAdditional Judge/o
Special Judge, Indore, for framing charges against three
accused persons, namely, Rakesh Mishra, Gyanendra Singh
Jadon and Sajid Dhanani. It may be noted that the State has
assailed the impugned judgment only against Rakesh Mishra
and GS. Jadon.                                                    E

     3. The brief facts of the case are that Sajid Dhanani is the
Managing Director of the Sayaji Hotel situated at Scheme
No.54, Near Meghdut Gardan, Vijay Nagar, Indore. Gyanendra
Singh Jadon was working at the relevant time as Building F
Officer posted at Municipal Corporation, Indore and Rakesh
Mishra was working as Sub-Engineer, Municipal Corporation,
Indore. It is alleged that these three accused hatched a criminal
conspiracy in which G.S. Jadon and Rakesh Mishra illegally
granted a Building Certificate and a Completion Certificate to G
Sayaji Hotel in Indore. Allegedly, as illegal gratification, Sayaji
Hotel provided free lifetime honorary membership to G.S.
Jadon and his family members in the Sayaji Club. The original
Building Permission was given to the applicant Shajid Dhanani H
768       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 3 S.C.R.



A for construction of multi-storied hotel and adjoining club by the
  then Building Officer Shri J.M. Avasiya vide letter dated 23-
   12-1993. This permission was to remain valid for one year
  and the letter granting permission mentioned that, if required,
  renewal application must be made before 22-11-1994. G.S.
B Jadon became the Building Officer in 1994 and a revised plan
  was submitted to him in the capacity of Building Officer, which
  was approved vide letter 12-01-1995 along with the renewal
  of building permission. Also the completion certificate of the
C Club adjoining the Hotel was granted on 19-01-1995. On 18-
  01-1998 an FIR was lodged at the Police Station - S.P.E.,
  Lokayukta Office, Bhopal, against G.S. Jadon alleging
  irregularities by the accused persons in giving clearances for
  development of Sayaji Hotel and the said Club. After
o investigation the police filed charge-sheet against the three
  accused persons. The First Additional Sessions Judge/
  Special Judge, Indore, after perusing the charge-sheet and
  accompanying documents ordered framing of charges against
  the three accused for the offences under Sections 13(2) and
E 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section
  120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1960. The three accused
  moved to the High Court by filing revision petitions against the
  order of the Addi. Sessions Judge framin·g charges. The High
  Court allowed the Revision Petitions and set aside the order
F of framing charges passed by the Addi. Sessions Judge,
  Indore.

       4.At this stage it would be appropriate to refer to order of
  the Addi. Sessions Judge which framed the charges. The
G charges framed against G.S. Jadon are that as the Building
  Officer (a public servant), he cleared and issued the revised
  building plan of the Sayaji Hotel without sanction, approval and
  clearance from High Rise Committee in violation of Rule 12 of
H Bhumi Vikas Niyam, 1984 and also without electricity, water
            STATE OF M. P. v. RAKESH MISHRA                      769
              [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]

supply and sewage clearance to the said project. Further, the A
charge against GS. Jadon is for issuing completion certificate
without necessary electricity, water, sewage and fire fighting
clearances thereby causing illegal gains to Sajid Dhanani,
proprietor of Sayaji Hotel. It is also alleged that he did not inform
about the completion certificate to the Property Tax Department B
of Indore Municipal Corporation leading to evasion of tax by
the Hotel amounting to Rs.5,49,000/-. The order further
charged GS. Jadon for accepting free lifetime membership in
the dub of the Sayaji Hotel for himself and five family members. C
This constituted the illegal gratification to him.

     5. As against Rakesh Mishra, the charge was of criminal
conspiracy, for the reason that he was the Sub-Engineer at
the relevant time in the Building Permission Branch and he D
made certain notings in the Note Sheet favouring Sajid
Dhanani. The charges against Sajid Dhanani were that in the
capacity of applicant for revision of the building plan and
issuance completion certificate, he was charged for criminal
conspiracy for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act E
by providing illegal gratification to GS. Jadon and evading
property tax.

     6. The High Court allowed the revision petitions on the
findings that the original building permission was granted by F
J.M. Awasiya and it was granted after approval from High
Rise Building Committee vide letter dated 09-12-1993. The
accused had merely granted a revision of the building plan
which did not require any fresh approval from the High Rise
Building Committee. Also, the High Court found that the G
approval of Fire Department had been taken vide letter dated
18.10.1994. It was only later, that vide letter dated 19.10.1997
the fire authorities withdrew their Noc: The High Court found
that the Completion Certificate was also granted while the Fire
                                                                   H.
770          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2015] 3 S.C.R.


A     NOC was in force and it was in conformity with Rule 31 of
      Madhya Pradesh Bhumi Vikas Niyam, 1984. The High Court
      concluded that the Building Officer was under no obligation to
      inform the property tax department of the Indore Municipal
      Corporation aboutthe completion certificate. In fact, in regard
B     to property tax evasion, the alleged amount of Rs.5,49,000
      was paid by Hotel Sayaji when it was demanded by the
      department.

           7. The major argument advanced by the State of Madhya
C     Pradesh before us has been that the High Court traversed
      beyond the permissible limit while deciding the legality of order
      framing charges, being a pre-trial stage. Various authorities
      have been cited before us to prove that point. Aowever, it would
      suffice to say that the law on this point is crystal clear that only
0
      charge-sheet along with the accompanying material is to be
      considered at the stage of framing of charges, so as to satisfy
      whether a prima facie case is made out. It has to be the
      subjective satisfaction of the Court framing charges. In our
E     opinion, the High Court has only examined the material before
      it against the prevailing law to reach its conclusions. Thus, the
      impugned judgment may not be assailable on this ground.

       8. However, the question that arises is whether the material
F 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
G 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
H any act/omission done prior to or after this. period. It is
           STATE OF M. P. v. RAKESH MISHRA                     771
             [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.)

contended that building permission was granted to Sayaji Hotel A
prior to his appointment as the Building Officer. It has been
further contended thatthe revision jurisdiction of the High Court
also includes the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of
Cr.PC ..
                                                                  B
     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, was a complete departure from the
original plan. We do not have detailed building plans of the
original and revised building permission. However, from the C
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
                                                                  0
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 E
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 F
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 7 days of building permission, especially when the G
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.
                                                                 H
772          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 3 S.C.R.



A          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.
B
           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
C     are allowed, the order passed by the High Court is set aside
      and the order of the Addi. Sessions Judge framing charges is
      restored.

           14. We may, however, express our disappointment of such
D   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.
E
      Kalpana K. Tripathy                               Appeals allowed.




F




G




H