1 2025:CGHC:44343 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Reserved for judgment on 28/08/2025 Pronouncement for judgment on 01/09/2025 CRA No.2013 of 2000 Ved Prakash Sinha, son of Shri B. L. Sinha, Sub Engineer, Raipur Development Authority, Raipur --- Appellant versus State Of M.P., through S.P.E., Lokayukt Office, Bhopal, Unit Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent CRA No.1951 of 2000 Ramesh Jhabak, son of Tarachand Jhabak, aged 30 years, Resident of 17, Panchsheel Nagar, Raipur (M.P.), (Now C.G.) ---Appellant (On Bail) Versus State of Madhya Pradesh (Now C.G.) --- Respondent CRA No.1965 of 2000 P.L.Gajbhiye, S/o Shri D.R. Gajbhiye, Aged About 50 Years, Chief Executive Officer (Suspension), Raipur Development Authority, Raipur, R/o Katora Talab, Raipur, District Raipur (M.P.), (now C.G.) ---Appellant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Special Police Establishment (Lokayukt), Raipur, District Raipur (M.P.), (now C.G.) --- Respondent SATISH TUMANE Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE Date: 2025.09.01 16:58:43 +0530 2 CRA No.1995 of 2000 H. S. Gupta, S/o Late Mahaveer Gupta, Aged 45 Years, Assistant Engineer, Raipur Development Authority, Raipur (M.P.) (now C.G.) ---Appellant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Special Police Establishment, Lok Ayukta, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ----Respondent ACQA No.103 of 2011 State Of Madhya Pradesh (Now C.G.) ---Appellant Versus R.S. Dixit S/o Shri H. S. Dixit, Assistant Revenue Officer, Raipur R. D. A. Raipur R/o Women Polytechnic Infront Of Bairan Bazar, P. O. Road Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent (Cause-title is taken from CIS) In Criminal Appeal No.2013/2000 For Appellant : Mr. Samrath Singh Marhas, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Mr. Ratan Pusty, Govt. Advocate appears along with Mr. Ruhul Ameen, Panel Lawyer. In Criminal Appeal No.1951/2000 For Appellant : Mr. Sudeep Johri appears along with Mr. Syed Ishhadil Ali, Advocates For Respondent/ State : Mr. Ratan Pusty, Govt. Advocate appears along with Mr. Ruhul Ameen, Panel Lawyer. In Criminal Appeal No.1965/2000 For Appellant : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui appears along with Mr. Waquar Naiyer, Advocates. For Respondent/ State : Mr. Ratan Pusty, Govt. Advocate appears along with Mr. Ruhul Ameen, Panel Lawyer. 3 In Criminal Appeal No.1995/2000 For Appellant : Mr. B.P. Sharma appears along with Mr. M.L. Saket, Advocates. For Respondent/ State : Mr. Ratan Pusty, Govt. Advocate appears along with Mr. Ruhul Ameen, Panel Lawyer. In Acquittal Appeal No.103/2011 For Appellant / State : Mr. Ratan Pusty, Govt. Advocate appears along with Mr. Ruhul Ameen, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent : Mr. Rohishek Verma and Mr. Udit Khatri, Advocates appear on behalf of Mr. Aforz Khan, Advocate. Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal CAV Judgment (1) Since all these appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 26.07.2000 passed by the Special Judge authorized under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Special Criminal Case No.08/1997, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. (2) In Criminal Appeal No.2013/2000, the Appellant-Ved Prakash Sinha has been convicted and sentenced as under :- Conviction Sentence Under Section 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 RI for two years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, he has to undergo additional RI for three months. Under Section 120-B of IPC RI for two years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, he has to undergo additional RI for three months. In Criminal Appeal No.1951/2000, the Appellant-Ramesh Jhabak has been convicted and sentenced as under :- Conviction Sentence Under Section 120-B of IPC RI for two years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, he has to 4 undergo additional RI for three months. In Criminal Appeal No.1965/2000, the Appellant-P.L. Gajbhiye has been convicted and sentenced as under :- Conviction Sentence Under Section 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 RI for two years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, he has to undergo additional RI for three months. Under Section 120-B of IPC RI for two years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, he has to undergo additional RI for three months. In Criminal Appeal No.1995/2000, the Appellant-H.S. Gupta has been convicted and sentenced as under :- Conviction Sentence Under Section 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 RI for two years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, he has to undergo additional RI for three months. Under Section 120-B of IPC RI for two years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, he has to undergo additional RI for three months. While in Acquittal Appeal No.103/2011, the State of Chhattisgarh has questioned the impugned judgment, whereby, the respondent- R.S.Dixit has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1988’) read with Section 120-B of IPC. (3) Before proceeding with the matter, it is to be noted that the appeal, being Criminal Appeal No.2073 of 2000 (Narsingh Mandal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh), preferred by the Chairman of RDA, namely, 5 Narsingh Mandal, has already been held to be dismissed as abated vide order dated 25.08.2012, owing to his demise during the pendency of the appeal. (4) The facts, which are essential for adjudication of these appeals are, that one Amar Singh lodged a complaint before the Special Police Establishment (Lokayukta) alleging, inter alia, that the employees of the Raipur Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as, ‘RDA’), namely, Narsingh Mandal, R.S. Dixit, Prakash Komre, Punit Das, Ved Prakash Sinha, P.L. Gajbhiye and H.S. Gupta have allotted two plots, i.e., Plot No.E-1 and E-15 to the appellant-Ramesh Jhabak in connivance with him without following the procedures and even in absence of auction proceedings being carried out. Acting upon his complaint, an enquiry was conducted and prima facie, it was found that the said employees of the RDA while abusing the position of theirs, have allegedly provided the benefits to the appellant-Ramesh Jhabak, owing to which, the RDA has suffered loss to the tune of Rs.7,83,708/- (Rs.Seven Lacs eighty three thousand seven hundred and eight only) and the said appellants, except the appellant-Ramesh Jhabak, and others, namely, R.S. Dixit (Revenue Inspector), Prakash Komre (since deceased-Draftsman) and Punit Das (since deceased- Patwari) have, thus, been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) and Section 13(2) of the Act, 1988 read with Section 120-B of IPC, while the appellant-Ramesh Jhabak under Section 120-B of IPC. 4.1 It is alleged by the prosecution that the appellant-Ramesh Jhabak vide his letter (Ex.D-13) while addressing to the then Chief Minister, has demanded for allotment of Plot No.3 admeasuring 4000 square feet 6 situated at Khasra No.174 of Indira Gandhi Commercial Complex under the scheme, known as “Devendra Nagar Scheme” floated by the RDA. After receiving the said letter, the then Chief Minister instructed the Chairman of the RDA to initiate the allotment proceedings in accordance with law. It is alleged further that said Ramesh Jhabak, thereafter, moved an application vide Ex.D-14 in this regard while addressing the name of Narsingh Mandal (since deceased), the Chairman of the RDA, who in turn, has directed the Chief Executive Officer-P.L. Gajbhiye, the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1965/2000, on 02.01.1996 to proceed forthwith in accordance with the direction issued by the then Chief Minister. 4.2 It is alleged further that instead of providing the alleged plot, as claimed by him (Ramesh Jhabak), two different plots, i.e. Plot No.E-1 and E-15 situated at Commercial Complex, were allotted to him vide order dated 13.02.1996 @ Rs.301/- per square feet with a direction to get the lease deed executed within the period of 15 days, with a further direction to collect the corner fee, as those are the corners plots and, the lease agreements to this effect were executed on 14.02.1996 vide Ex.D-8 and Ex.D-9 with regard to 795 square feet each, though specific area was not directed to be allotted to him and, the possession of it was thereupon delivered on 16.02.1996. Further prosecution story is that after the allotment of the alleged plots as such, said Ramesh Jhabak has applied for the allotment of the additional area of those plots on 22.02.1996, but the same was rejected. (5) The charges so framed have been denied by the appellants and claimed to be tried. 7 (6) The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that the order of sanction to prosecute the appellants, except the appellants-Narsingh Mandal (since deceased) and Ramesh Jhabak, was duly passed vide Ex.P-11 and, held further that the appellants (P. L. Gajbhiye, H. S. Gupta and Ved Prakash Sinha) and the Chairman of the RDA, namely, Narsingh Mandal have allotted the alleged two plots to the appellant-Ramesh Jhabak by adopting illegal means and that by abusing their positions as “Public Servants”, which substantially caused damage to the RDA and, in consequence, they have been convicted and sentenced as mentioned hereinabove. (7) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos.2013/2000, 1965/2000 and 1995/2000 (except the appellant- Ramesh Jhabak in Criminal Appeal No.1951/2000), submits that the finding recorded by the trial Court holding that the alleged order of sanction to prosecute the appellants has duly been proved, is apparently contrary to law and, erred further in holding that they have allotted the alleged plots to the appellant-Ramesh Jhabak, by adopting illegal means while abusing their positions. It is alleged further that the alleged order of sanction to prosecute the said appellants was passed on the basis of Collector’s guidelines, which was, however, turned down by this Court, coupled with non-examination of Mr. Bariya, the Additional Secretary, the Department of Law and Legislative Affairs, who passed the said sanction order, therefore, the judgment under appeals deserves to be quashed. Further of their contention is that the appellants-H.S. Gupta and Ved Prakash Sinha, who were performing their duties as Assistant Engineer and Sub-Engineer, respectively 8 have just obeyed the directions issued by their superiors, therefore, it cannot be said that they are in any manner involved in commission of the alleged crime. It is contended further that the alleged allotments were made in pursuance to the direction of the then Chief Minister, therefore, it cannot be said that by adopting illegal means or by abusing their positions as “Public Servants”, have given any kind of undue advantage to the appellant-Ramesh Jhabak, so as to hold that they have committed the alleged offence under Sections 13 (1)(d) and Section 13(2) of the Act, 1988 read with Section 120-B of IPC. (8) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Ramesh Jhabak in Criminal Appeal No.1951/2000, submits that the finding of the trial Court holding that the appellant is guilty for the offence punishable under Section 120-B of IPC, even in absence of any evidence to this effect, is apparently contrary to law and deserves to be set-aside. (9) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State has supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence as passed by the trial Court, except the finding, whereby, the respondent-R.S. Dixit has been acquitted for the commission of the alleged crime, as the trial Court erred in holding that he is not involved in the commission of the alleged crime, though based upon the same facts and evidence led, other employees of the RDA were held guilty, while learned counsel appearing for the respondent-R.S. Dixit has supported the impugned judgment of his acquittal. (10) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. (11) From perusal of the record, it appears that an order of sanction to prosecute (Ex.P-11) the appellants, namely, P.L.Gajbhiye, H.S. Gupta, 9 Ved Prakash Sinha and, the respondents-R.S. Dixit, Prakash Komre (since deceased) and Punit Das (since deceased), was passed by Mr. Bariya, the Additional Secretary, Department of Law and Legislative Affairs, who, however, has not entered into the witness box in order to prove the same and, instead, was found to be proved by the Clerk of the said department, namely, Pramod Shrivastava with the original record. True it is, that he (Mr. Bariya) was not examined, but merely on this ground, it cannot be said that the alleged order of sanction to prosecute (Ex.P-11) was not duly proved, particularly when it was proved by the Clerk of the said department with the original of the concerned record, and, a bare perusal of the alleged sanction order (Ex.P-11) would show that the same was issued with due application of mind by the sanctioning authority. (12) The aforesaid observation is fortified by the principles laid down by the Bombay High Court in the matter of ‘Vishwanath Karnuji Londhe versus State of Maharashtra’ reported in 1994 SCC Online Bom 312, wherein while dealing a similar issue, it was held by placing reliance upon the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of ‘Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed versus State of Andhra Pradesh” reported in (1979) 4 SCC 172 : A.I.R. 1979 SC 677, at para 8 as under :- “8. Shri Gaikwad initially attacked the sanction as the sanctioning officer Shri S.N. Mardikar the then District and Sessions Judge, Yavatmal, was not examined. It will be seen that the sanction order has been admitted by the defence. The sanction order has come on the record thus through a concession. The argument of the learned counsel is that even if there is a well-written sanction order, if the sanctioning authority is not examined then the sanction is rendered bad. In 10 support of his contention Shri Gaikwad has relied upon a reported decision Jagawuth Maruti Tekade v. State of Maharashtra [1991 Mh. L.J. 976] and more particularly on the following observations: ".... Court will have to take judicial notice of the fact that in the Government set-up the orders are often times drafted out by a department and put up to an authority for signature and therefore it would be extremely dangerous to conclude even if the sanction order is correctly or perfectly drafted, that the authority who signed it must have applied his mind in the absence of his deposing before the Court that he had in fact done so." Shri Gaikwad, therefore contend that non-examination of Shri Mardikar the sanctioning authority, was fatal to the sanction. As a matter of fact, this authority which is by a Single Bench (Saldanha. J.) of this very Court is ordinarily binding on me. However, it is obvious from the judgment that the decision in Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of Andhra Pradesh [(1979) 4 SCC 172: A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 677] was not brought to the notice of the Court. If the judgment in Jagannath Maruti Tekade case (vide supra), is considered, it will have to be held that in all the sanction cases the examination of the sanctioning authority is sine qua non before the sanction is acted upon. The absence of such evidence would be fatal because there would be no other way in which the application of mind to the sanction could be proved before the Court of law. In the case of Mohd. Ibqal Ahmed, this is what the Supreme Court has held: "It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that a valid sanction has been granted by the sanctioning authority after it was satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out constituting the offence. This should be done in two ways, either: (1) by producing the original sanction which itself contains the facts constituting the offence and the grounds of satisfaction and (2) by adducing evidence aliunde to show the 11 facts placed before the sanctioning authority and the satisfaction arrived at by it. Any case instituted without a proper sanction must fail because this being a manifest defect in the prosecution, the entire proceedings are rendered void ab initio...". In view of the fact that the sanction order in the present case does show a clear-cut application of mind it will be open for this Court to accept the said sanction order. One look at the sanction order will show that the facts constituting the offences have been properly written out there and the authority who was none else but a District and Session Judge himself has chosen lo grant the sanction. That by itself is sufficient to hold that the sanction was given with an adequate application of mind. If the law laid down in Jagannath Tekade case (vide supra), is to be followed, then it will have to be held that the moment sanctioning authority is not examined, the sanction becomes defective. Now such is really not the case. In the aforementioned case of Mohd. lipid, the Supreme Court has clearly held that the sanction order itself can provide the clue to hold as to whether the sanction was given after the application of mind or not. In Jagnnath Maruti Tekade. (vide supra) the case of Mohd. lipid Ahmed (vide supra) has not been referred to, at all or at least it does not seem that this was so cited or brought to the notice of the court. In view of the clear pronouncement of law by the Apex Court that the sanction order itself can be read and If the sanction order is self- contained and its language can show that there was an application of mind by the sanctioning authority, it is a good sanction. The contrary view expressed in Jagannath Maruti Tekade v. State of Maharashtra (vide supra), will have to be ignored as Jagannath Tekade case is decided per incuriam of the aforementioned judgment…..” (13) Now, perusal of the record would show further that the Appellant- Ramesh Jhabhak vide his letter (Ex.D-13) has made a request to the then Chief Minister of the State for allotment of Plot No.3 admeasuring 12 4000 square feet, which was situated at Khasra No.174 of Indira Gandhi Vyavasayik Parisar under the “Devendra Nagar Scheme”. After receiving the said letter, the then Chief Minister instructed the Chairman of the RDA to proceed forthwith in accordance with law for allotment of the plot as claimed by him. It appears further that a similar prayer was made by him under the application (Ex.D-14) while addressing the name of appellant-Narsingh Mandal (since deceased), who was the Chairman of the RDA. (14) The aforesaid applications (Ex. D-13 and D-14) submitted by him, were placed before the Chairman of the RDA by P.L. Gajbhiye, the Chief Executive Officer of the RDA, on 04.01.1996 for its consideration, as evidenced by the note-sheet, marked as Ex.D-1. It, however, appears that the Chairman of the RDA, namely, Narsingh Mandal (since deceased) vide his order dated 13.02.1996 (Ex.D-1) has directed for allotment of the two plots, i.e., Plot No.E-1 and E-15 @ Rs.301/- per square feet, which are distinct from the plot as was claimed by him (Ramesh Jhabhak) vide his letter (Ex.D-13) and, the application (Ex.D-14). The total area of Plot No.E-1 is 2537.50 square feet, while 1493.75 square feet is of Plot No.E-15, total admeasuring 4031.25 square feet, but at the time of execution of lease agreements (Ex.D-8 and Ex.D-9) on 14.02.1996, for a period of 30 years, commencing with effect from 14.02.1996 upto 31.01.2026, the area of the alleged plots was shown to be 795 square feet each, though no specific portion as such was directed and, the possession of it was delivered to said Ramesh Jhabhak on 16.02.1996 as evidenced by the possession certificate, marked as Ex.D-12. 13 (15) What is, therefore, reflected from the record that the said appellant- Ramesh Jhabak had applied for the allotment of Plot No.3 ad- measuring 4000 square feet, situated at Indira Gandhi Vyavasayik Parisar, but instead, he was provided two different plots, i.e., Plot No.E-1 and E-15, which are found to be situated at the Commercial Complex, i.e., distinct from Plot No.3, as was claimed by him. That apart, I do not find any application made by him for allotment of the alleged two plots, nor before allotting the same as such, any procedure was followed. (16) It is to be noted here at this juncture that the Chief Executive Officer of the RDA vide Ex.D-12 intimated the Superintendent of Police of Special Police Establishment (Lokayukt), that the allotment of the plots situated at the Commercial Complex is to be made by inviting tender or by way of adopting the auction proceedings and, the Chairman of the RDA is to be authorized by the Board of Directors for allotment of the said plots. It, however, appears from a bare perusal of the meeting of the Board of Directors, held on 16.02.1996 vide Ex.D-2, that the same was convened after the allotment of the alleged plots by the Chairman of the RDA–Narsingh Mandal on 13.02.1996 and even after the execution of the lease agreements to this effect made vide Ex.D-8 and Ex.D-9. It, thus, appears that the Chairman of the RDA was not authorized by the Board of Directors at that particular time to allot the alleged plots, yet the same was made as such. (17) It is to be seen further at this juncture the instructions (Ex.P-12-A) issued by the Housing and Environment Department of the State Government on 17.05.1988, which lays down that all lands and buildings, except those meant for the residential and public purposes, 14 shall be disposed of only by the public auction and, it lays down further that in no case, there should be any deviation from it. (18) It appears further from a bare perusal of the alleged letter (Ex.D-12) made by the Chief Executive Officer to the Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment (Lokayukt) on 25.05.1996 that no publication was made prior to allotment of those plots, i.e., Plot No.E-1 and E-15. The alleged two plots have, thus, been allotted to him (Ramesh Jhabhak), even in absence of any application made by him to this effect, or even by following the procedure prescribed for it. (19) What is, therefore, reflected from the aforesaid materials that the entire allotment in respect of those plots have, thus, been made not only in utter violation of the procedure prescribed under the said Policy (Ex.P- 12-A), but has been made even in absence of any application made to this effect by the appellant-Ramesh Jhabak, nor the Chairman of the RDA was even authorized at that particular time for the allotment of those plots, i.e. Plot No.E-1 and E-15. Said Narsingh Mandal (since deceased), who was the Chairman of the RDA, has, thus, exceeded his jurisdiction while abusing his position as a public servant in order to give undue advantage to the appellant-Ramesh Jhabak in connivance with him and, since the alleged plots were obtained by him (Ramesh Jhabak) with the conspiracy of said Narsingh Mandal, therefore, he (Ramesh Jhabak) has rightly been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 120-B of IPC, and I do not find any infirmity in it, so as to call for any interference in the impugned judgment passed against him. 15 (20) In so far as the appellants-H.S. Gupta (In Criminal Appeal No.1995/2000), Ved Prakash Sinha (In Criminal Appeal No.2013/2000) and P.L. Gajbhiye (In Criminal Appeal No.1965/2000), are concerned, it appears that they have acted and delivered the possession of the alleged plots to the appellant-Ramesh Jhabak as per the directions issued by the Chairman of the RDA, therefore, it cannot be said that they have acted in any manner in order to provide undue advantage to the said appellant-Ramesh Jhabak, attracting the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act, 1988 or have acted in connivance with him, so as to hold them guilty for the offence punishable under Section 120-B of IPC, as held by the trial Court in this aspect. The finding of the trial Court, attributing them for the commission of the offence under Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Act, 1988, read with Section 120-B of IPC is, thus, liable to be and is hereby set aside and the appeals preferred by them, are allowed and, based upon such an observation, I do not find any substance in Acquittal Appeal No.103/2011 preferred by the State against R. S. Dixit, so as to call for any interference in the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court acquitting him (R.S. Dixit) for the commission of the alleged crime. (21) Consequently, (I) Criminal Appeal No.2013 of 2000 (Ved Prakash Sinha vs. State), Criminal Appeal No.1965 of 2000 (P. L. Gajbhiye vs. State) and Criminal Appeal No.1995 of 2000 (H.S. Gupta vs. State) are allowed; (II) Criminal Appeal No.1951 of 2000 (Ramesh Jhabak vs. State) is dismissed and conviction and sentence as awarded by the trial Court is, thus, affirmed and, (III) Acquittal Appeal No.103 of 2011 (State vs. R.S. Dixit) is dismissed. 16 (22) As the Appellants, namely Ved Prakash Sinha (In Criminal Appeal No.2013 of 2000), P. L. Gajbhiye (In Criminal Appeal No.1965 of 2000) and H.S. Gupta (In Criminal Appeal No.1995 of 2000) are already on bail, their bail bonds and surety bonds stand discharged. As the appellant (Ramesh Jhabak), whose appeal (Criminal Appeal No.1951 of 2000) has already been dismissed, is on bail, his bail bond and surety bond stands cancelled and he shall be taken into custody forthwith and sent to jail for serving remaining part of the sentence, after adjusting the period, during which, he remained in jail prior to grant of bail by erstwhile High Court vide order dated 04.08.2000. Registry is directed to remit the record to the concerned trial Court forthwith along with the copy of this order for necessary compliance and report. SD/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Tumane