Page 1

1

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.

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.

Page 2

2

3. 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.  

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.

Page 3

3

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  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

Page 4

4

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 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

Page 5

5

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 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.

Page 6

6

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 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.   

1 AIR 2009 SC 1527

Page 7

7

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