Case Title – Vipin Sahni and anr. vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Case No. – Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2772 of 2023
Dated on – 8th April, 2024
Quorum – Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar
Facts of the Case –
Vipin Sahni and his wife founded the Sunshine Educational and Development Society in NOIDA, Uttar Pradesh, in 2004. In 2006, the Society leased 4.90 acres of land in Greater NOIDA from the Greater NOIDA Industrial Development Authority for 90 years to establish educational institutions. On January 22, 2007, the Society applied for AICTE approval to set up the ‘Business School of Delhi’ on one acre of this land, disclosing an outstanding loan of over ₹3 crore from Corporation Bank and stating that the land was mortgaged. AICTE granted approval on August 17, 2007. Subsequently, in October 2007, the Society submitted two more AICTE applications: one on October 27 for the ‘Business School for Women’ and another on October 28 for the ‘International Business School of Delhi’. These applications did not disclose the mortgage, marking ‘No’ to the mortgage question. Following an anonymous complaint, the Chief Vigilance Commissioner referred the matter to the CBI. The local police initially found no grounds to register an FIR, but the CBI registered an FIR on November 30, 2011, against the appellants under Sections 420 and 120B of IPC, 1860, and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The CBI filed a charge sheet against the appellants, excluding AICTE officials. The appellants’ application to quash the proceedings was initially successful in the High Court but later set aside by the Supreme Court, directing the trial court to consider the merits at the stage of framing charges. The trial court discharged the appellants under Section 239 of Cr.P.C, 1973, but the High Court reversed this discharge, leading to the present appeal in the Supreme Court.
Legal Provisions –
- Section 120B of IPC, 1860
- Section 420 of IPC, 1860
- Section 482 of CrPC, 1973
Contentions of the Appellant –
The appellants contended that the charges of deceit and conspiracy under Sections 420 and 120B of the IPC, 1860 were baseless. They argued that they had disclosed the mortgage in their initial application for the ‘Business School of Delhi,’ approved by AICTE, indicating no intent to deceive. The omission of mortgage details in subsequent applications was an inadvertent error, not a deliberate concealment. They emphasized that the CBI failed to prove any collusion or conspiracy with AICTE officials, as no officials were named in the charge sheet. The appellants also noted the initial police investigation found no grounds for an FIR, implying a lack of substantive evidence. They highlighted their discharge by the trial court under Section 239 of Cr.P.C, 1973, asserting it was based on a thorough evaluation of evidence and facts. They argued that the High Court’s reversal of this discharge was unjustified, seeking reinstatement of the trial court’s order.
Contentions of the Respondent –
The respondent, represented by the CBI, contended that the appellants deliberately concealed material facts about the mortgage of land from AICTE in their applications for educational institution approvals. This concealment, they argued, constituted offenses under Sections 420 (cheating) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC. The CBI asserted that while the appellants disclosed the mortgage in their initial application, their subsequent omission of this crucial information in later applications was intentional, aimed at misleading AICTE regarding their financial status. This pattern, the CBI argued, indicated a deliberate attempt to deceive. They also claimed that the trial court’s discharge order was premature, as it failed to adequately consider the evidence which established a prima facie case. The CBI sought reversal of the trial court’s order, urging the High Court to uphold the charges, asserting that the appellants’ acts of omission and concealment warranted prosecution under Sections 420 and 120B IPC.
Court Analysis and Judgement –
The Court scrutinized the evidence presented during the investigation and considered the sequence of events regarding the disclosure of the mortgage in various applications to the AICTE. The Court observed that while the appellants initially disclosed the mortgage in their first application, subsequent applications omitted this crucial information. the Court noted that the consistent omission across multiple applications indicated a pattern of deliberate concealment. The Court further examined the legal aspects of Sections 420 (cheating) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC, 1860 invoked by the respondent. It emphasized that for an offense under Section 420 IPC,1860 to be established, there must be a deliberate act of deception leading to wrongful gain or loss to another party. Regarding Section 120B IPC,1860, the Court considered whether there was sufficient evidence to establish a criminal conspiracy between the appellants to deceive the AICTE. the Court concluded that the evidence on record did not establish a prima facie case against the appellants under Sections 420 and 120B of IPC,1860. The Court noted that while there was an omission of material information, there was no clear evidence demonstrating an intent to deceive or defraud the AICTE. The Court also highlighted that the discharge order by the trial court was based on a proper evaluation of the evidence and did not warrant interference. Therefore, the Court upheld the trial court’s order discharging the appellants and dismissed the appeal filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed By- Anurag Das
