CASE TITLE- Vipin Sahni and another Vs Central Bureau of Investigation
CASE NUMBER- Criminal Appeal No. of 2024 (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2772 of 2023)
DATED ON- 08.04.2024
QUORUM- Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Kumar
FACTS OF THE CASE
The appellants established Sunshine Educational and Development Society for the purpose of technical education. In 2006, the Society acquired 4.90 acres of land in Greater NOIDA, on a 90-year lease from Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority for setting up educational institutions. Approval was accorded by the AICTE (All India Council for Technical Education) to start the ‘Business School of Delhi’, in an extent of one acre out of the leased land. In the application, the Society disclosed that a loan of ₹5.75 Crore had been availed by it from Corporation Bank and that the outstanding loan stood at above ₹3 Crore. It also disclosed, that a loan/mortgage had been raised against the land. However, in the tabular, against the query – ‘Mortgaged with Bank – Yes/No’, the answer was stated as ‘No’. There was, thus, an apparent contradiction in the application itself. Thereafter, by proceedings the AICTE granted approval for starting the ‘Business School for Women’ in an extent of 0.8 acres out of the said land and also accorded approval to commence the ‘International Business School of Delhi’ in the leased land. But, In the two later applications, the Society failed to mention that the leased land was mortgaged. An anonymous complaint was made to the Chief Vigilance Commissioner alleging that officials of the AICTE had shown undue favour to the Society. The Regional Officer of the CBI at Kanpur addressed letter to the Station-in-charge. However, a crime case was registered and the FIR was registered against the appellants and unnamed officials of the AICTE, alleging that the appellants had obtained approval by deceitful means from the AICTE. Charge sheet was filed by the CBI naming only the appellants as the accused. No official of the AICTE was charged with criminality. The appellants approached the High Court at Allahabad, the court accepted their plea and quashed the said proceedings. The CBI approached this court, and this Court set aside the order. Thereafter, the Trial Court granted bail to the appellants. The appellants moved an application for discharge before the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI Court, Ghaziabad, but the learned Magistrate rejected their plea directed the matter to be listed for framing of charges. The appellants, thereupon, moved before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, and the revision was allowed. The order passed by the learned Magistrate was set aside and the matter was remanded for hearing afresh and the order discharged the appellants from the alleged offence. One and a half years after the passing of this discharge order, the CBI filed a petition before the High Court at Allahabad. The petition was taken and the High Court allowed the same by way of the impugned order, leading to the present appeal.
ISSUE RAISED
No such Issue was raised before the court of law. However, the court decided on whether the appellants/ Vipin Sahni and another conspired in terms of Section 120A IPC on AICTE or not?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Section 120A of Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
The appellant contented that, the first application was followed by scrutiny and verification by the officials of the AICTE, therefore, no wrongdoing has been attributed to the officials of the AICTE. It was only the later application for the ‘Business School for Women’ and the application for the ‘International Business School of Delhi’ that did not state correct information with regard to the outstanding bank loan and the mortgage of the land in connection therewith. Both the later applications mentioned the fact that an institution was already granted approval in 2007 to operate from the same premises and the application for the same did disclose the subsistence of the loan and the encumbrance on the land. It was not even the case of the AICTE that it was under any illusions. The only party who can speak of being ‘dishonestly induced to do or not do something’ is that party itself and when the AICTE made no such complaint, it was not for others to insinuate that the AICTE was dishonestly induced to do something. there is no evidence of the appellants agreeing or conspiring to deliberately furnish false information to the AICTE so as to garner its approval for their colleges. The second application was filed with the same non-disclosure but there is no evidence whatsoever of the appellants resorting to deception in that regard willfully and in connivance with each other. Therefore, the charge also does not withstand judicial scrutiny. Moreover, the limitation period for filing a criminal revision be it before the High Court or the Sessions Court, is 90 days. Long after the expiry of the limitation period of 90 days, the CBI filed a petition before the High Court at Allahabad. This was to get over the hurdle of the limitation for filing of a revision.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
It was contented by the respondent that the appellants, either suppressed material information or projected incorrect information so as to induce the AICTE, by such dishonest means, to grant approval for its educational institutions. Further, as no official of the AICTE has been implicated in the offence, the alleged ‘criminal conspiracy’ would also be attributable to the appellants only. The first application submitted for starting ‘Business School of Delhi’ clearly mentioned the fact that a part of the leased land was to be used for setting up this institution and that a term loan had been raised from the Corporation Bank. It was stated that the government’s leased land of about 5 acres was intended to be used for establishing the college. The AICTE deemed it fit to grant approval to start this institution. This was despite the AICTE’s ‘Approval Process 2006’ providing that the land should have been registered in the name of the applicant’s society/trust on or before the date of submission of the proposal, free from any encumbrances. However, no official of the AICTE has been implicated in any wrongdoing. In case of second application, there was non-disclosure of the mortgage of the land to secure the outstanding bank loan. The society failed to state that a loan/mortgage had been raised against the title of the land and tick-marked ‘No’ instead of ‘Yes’. Similarly, the application for starting the ‘International Business School of Delhi’ contained incorrect information as against the question whether any loan/mortgage had been raised against the title of the land. These are the actions which formed the foundation for the CBI’s case against the appellants. The High Court opined that the appellants had deliberately withheld relevant information so, the High Court set aside the discharge order.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
The Hon’ble Court held that the learned Magistrate was fully justified in exercising power and discharging the appellants from criminal proceedings. The High Court practically concluded that the appellants were guilty of deliberately withholding relevant information so as to secure the approvals by deceitful means. This finding of the High Court was not supported by the admitted facts, which indicate disclosure of the mortgage at the outset when the first application was made and, therefore, there is no possibility of inferring that the appellants conspired to commit an illegal act of suppression so as to secure the approvals. Further, the AICTE itself never claimed that it was dishonestly induced to grant such approvals, whereby any such criminal charge of cheating can be sustained against the appellants. The impugned order passed by the Allahabad High Court got set aside and the order of discharge passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI Court got restored. The court stood the appellants discharged of the alleged offence.
“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- Shreyasi Ghatak
