Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 498 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.)  No.5279 of 2007)

State of Madhya Pradesh  ...Appellant :Versus:

Rakesh Mishra       ...Respondent WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 499 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.)  No.5828 of 2007

State of Madhya Pradesh  ...Appellant :Versus:

Gyanendra Singh Jadon         ...Respondent        

J U D G M E N T

Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.

1. Leave granted in both 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  

Petition  Nos.636/2007,  610/2007  and  566/2007  which  

were filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the

Page 2

2

Code  of  Criminal  Procedure,  1973.  By  the  impugned  

judgment the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has allowed  

the three revision petitions, setting aside the orders of the  

First  Additional  Judge/  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 G.S. Jadon.

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 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 Sayaji Hotel in  

Indore.  Allegedly,  as  illegal  gratification,  Sayaji  Hotel  

provided free lifetime honorary membership to G.S. Jadon

Page 3

3

and his family members in the Sayaji  Club. The original  

Building  Permission  was  given  to  the  applicant  Shajid  

Dhanani  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. 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 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 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

Page 4

4

framing  of  charges  against  the  three  accused  for  the  

offences under Sections 13(2) and 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  

Addl.  Sessions  Judge  framing  charges.  The  High  Court  

allowed the Revision Petitions and set aside the order of  

framing  charges  passed  by  the  Addl.  Sessions  Judge,  

Indore.

4. At this stage it would be appropriate to refer to order  

of the Addl. Sessions Judge which framed the charges. The  

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 Bhumi Vikas Niyam, 1984 and also  

without electricity, water supply and sewage clearance to  

the said project. Further, the charge against G.S. Jadon is  

for  issuing  completion  certificate  without  necessary  

electricity,  water,  sewage  and  fire  fighting  clearances

Page 5

5

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  of  Indore  Municipal  Corporation  leading  to  

evasion of tax by the Hotel amounting to Rs.5,49,000/-.  

The order  further  charged G.S.  Jadon for  accepting free  

lifetime membership  in  the  club  of  the  Sayaji  Hotel  for  

himself  and  five  family  members.  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 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  by  providing  illegal  gratification  to  G.S.  

Jadon and evading property tax.

Page 6

6

6. The High Court allowed the revision petitions on the  

findings that the original building permission was granted  

by 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  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 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  about  the  completion  

certificate. In fact, in regard to property tax evasion, the  

alleged amount of Rs.5,49,000 was paid by Hotel Sayaji  

when it was demanded by the department.

Page 7

7

7. The  major  argument  advanced  by  the  State  of  

Madhya 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. However, it would suffice to say that the law on this  

point is crystal clear that only 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 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  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

Page 8

8

Corruption Act and Section 120B 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  any  act/omission  done  prior  to  or  after  this  

period.  It  is  contended  that  building  permission  was  

granted to Sayaji  Hotel  prior  to  his  appointment  as the  

Building Officer.  It  has  been further  contended that  the  

revision  jurisdiction  of  the  High  Court  also  includes  the  

inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C..

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 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

Page 9

9

the Club the proposed built 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 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  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 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.  

12. Having said so, it would be relevant to point out that

Page 10

10

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.

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 are allowed, the order passed by the High  

Court  is  set  aside  and  the  order  of  the  Addl.  Sessions  

Judge framing charges is restored.  

14. We  may,  however,  express  our  disappointment  of  

such 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.

Page 11

11

….....….……………………J (Pinaki Chandra  Ghose)

….....…..…………………..J (R.K. Agrawal)

New Delhi; March 23, 2015.

Page 12

12

ITEM NO.1B               COURT NO.12               SECTION IIA                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)  No(s).  5279/2007 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 18/05/2007  in CRLR No. 636/2007 passed by the High Court Of M.P. At Indore) STATE OF M.P.                                      Petitioner(s)                                 VERSUS RAKESH MISHRA                                      Respondent(s)

WITH SLP(Crl) No. 5828/2007   Date : 23/03/2015 These petitions were called on for  

pronouncement of judgment today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Arvind Varma, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Deepika Shori, Adv.                    Mr. C. D. Singh, AOR                       For Respondent(s) Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Adv.                    Mr. Niraj Sharma, AOR                                          Mr. Brajesh Kumar, AOR

Hon'ble  Mr.  Justice  Pinaki  Chandra  Ghose  pronounced  the  reportable  judgment  of  the  Bench  comprising  His  Lordship  and  Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal.  

Leave granted in both the matters. The appeals are allowed, the order passed by the High Court is  

set  aside  and  the  order  of  the  Addl.  Sessions  Judge  framing  charges is restored in terms of the signed reportable judgment.

(R.NATARAJAN)        (SNEH LATA SHARMA)  Court Master       Court Master

(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)