# Pramod Chandra Gupta v. The State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 12 ILRA 627
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-12-09
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 1294 of of 2020
- **Bench:** Suneet Kumar, Syed Waiz Mian
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pramod-chandra-gupta-v-the-state-of-u-p-anr-47959
- **Pages:** 22

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Constitution of India,
1950- Article 226 - Indian Penal Code,
1860-Sections 420, 467,468, 471, 120-B -
Prevention
of
Corruption
Act,1988
-
Section 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) r/w Section
13(1)(2)
of
PC
Act-Challenge
toSupplementary charge sheet filed by CBI
against
the
discharged
accused-CBI
committed no illegality in charge sheeting
the discharged accused as discharge of an
accused u/s 227 does not tantamount to
acquittal-The
court
can
consider
the
offence again as it would not tantamount
to review of the discharge order-This does
not prejudice the accused, rather, it is the
mandate of law i.e. no accused can escape
trial-Once a report u/s 173(2)/173(8) of
the code submitted, it can only be closed,
proceeded further or case closed by the
court of competent jurisdiction-The U.P.
Police had filed the charge sheet at
Meerut being designated Anti Corruption
Court having jurisdiction over district
Mathura-But on the case being transferred
to CBI, the CBI filed the supplementary
report
before
the
designated
Anti
Corruption CBI Court at Ghaziabad-In
exercise of powers u/s 186 of Code, High
Court can transfer the trial from Special
Judge Meerut to CBI Court at Ghaziabad ,
having jurisdiction-CBI in the present case
has
charge-sheeted
public
servants,
private
persons
and
companies
for
offences under PC Act, IPC, including,
conspiracy-The
conspiracy
to
commit
offence punishable under the PC Act itself
is an offence to be tried only by a Special
Judge-It is not necessary that in every
offence under the PC Act, a public servant
must
be
an
accused-
The
transfer
application is allowed. (Para 1 to 102)

B. In the present case, the investigation of
the case was transferred to CBI at the
stage of pendency of investigation against
some other persons-The U.P. Police had
not
concluded
and
closed
the
investigation-In the meantime, the earlier
charge sheeted accused by the U.P. Police
came to be discharged by the trial court
for some of the offences under the IPC
and the PC Act-The charges, thereafter,
was framed by the trial court on other
counts-The CBI upon concluding the
investigation
submitted
supplementary
charge sheet against 31 persons, including
the petitioners, for the some offences
already discharged by the trial court.
(Para 67 to 70)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,975 of 73,065. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39975 for what follows._

12 All. Pramod Chandra Gupta Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
627
----------
(2022) 12 ILRA 627
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE SYED WAIZ MIAN, J.

Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 1294 of of 2020
with
Crl. Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 622 of 2022, 7160
of 2022, 5148 of 2021, 8758 of 2022 & Transfer
Application (Criminal) No. 239 of 2020

Pramod Chandra Gupta ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shiv Sagar Singh, Sri Manish Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Gyan Prakash (Senior Adv.), Sri Sanjay
Kumar Yadav

A. Criminal Law - Constitution of India,
1950- Article 226 - Indian Penal Code,
1860-Sections 420, 467,468, 471, 120-B -
Prevention
of
Corruption
Act,1988
-
Section 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) r/w Section
13(1)(2)
of
PC
Act-Challenge
toSupplementary charge sheet filed by CBI
against
the
discharged
accused-CBI
committed no illegality in charge sheeting
the discharged accused as discharge of an
accused u/s 227 does not tantamount to
acquittal-The
court
can
consider
the
offence again as it would not tantamount
to review of the discharge order-This does
not prejudice the accused, rather, it is the
mandate of law i.e. no accused can escape
trial-Once a report u/s 173(2)/173(8) of
the code submitted, it can only be closed,
proceeded further or case closed by the
court of competent jurisdiction-The U.P.
Police had filed the charge sheet at
Meerut being designated Anti Corruption
Court having jurisdiction over district
Mathura-But on the case being transferred
to CBI, the CBI filed the supplementary
report
before
the
designated
Anti
Corruption CBI Court at Ghaziabad-In
exercise of powers u/s 186 of Code, High
Court can transfer the trial from Special
Judge Meerut to CBI Court at Ghaziabad ,
having jurisdiction-CBI in the present case
has
charge-sheeted
public
servants,
private
persons
and
companies
for
offences under PC Act, IPC, including,
conspiracy-The
conspiracy
to
commit
offence punishable under the PC Act itself
is an offence to be tried only by a Special
Judge-It is not necessary that in every
offence under the PC Act, a public servant
must
be
an
accused-
The
transfer
application is allowed. (Para 1 to 102)

B. In the present case, the investigation of
the case was transferred to CBI at the
stage of pendency of investigation against
some other persons-The U.P. Police had
not
concluded
and
closed
the
investigation-In the meantime, the earlier
charge sheeted accused by the U.P. Police
came to be discharged by the trial court
for some of the offences under the IPC
and the PC Act-The charges, thereafter,
was framed by the trial court on other
counts-The CBI upon concluding the
investigation
submitted
supplementary
charge sheet against 31 persons, including
the petitioners, for the some offences
already discharged by the trial court.
(Para 67 to 70)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
1. T.T. Antony Vs St. of Ker. & ors.(2006) 1 SCC
181

2. Pradeep Ram Vs St. of Jharkhand & anr.
(2019) AIR SC 3193

3. Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya & ors. Vs St of
Guj. &anr. (2019) 17 SCC

4. Common Cause Vs U.O.I. (1996) 6 SCC 775

5. Vinay Tyagi Vs Irshad Ali @ Deepak &ors.
(2013) 5 SCC 762
628 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
6. Ratilal Bhanji Mithani Vs St. of Mah.(1979)
AIR SC 94

7. Md. Safi Vs St. of W.B. (1966) AIR SC 69

8. St. of Bih. Vs J.A.C. Saldanha &ors. (1980)
1 SCC 554

9. P. Vishwanathan Vs Dr. A. K. Burman (2002)
SCC OnLine Cal 805

10. Vishanu Maurya Vs St. of Raj. (1990) CrLJ
1750 Raj.

11. Hemant Dhasmana Vs C.B.I.(2001) 7 SCC
536

12. U.O.I. Vs Prakash P. Hinduja (2003) 6 SCC 195

13. Vineet Narain & ors. Vs U.O.I. (1998) 1 SCC

14. H.N. Rishbud Vs St. of Delhi (1955) SCR
1150

15. Prabhu Vs Emperor (1944) AIR SC 73

16. Lumbhardar Zutshi Vs The King (1950) AIR
PC 26

17. Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya & ors. Vs state
of Gujarat

18. Luckose Zachariah @ Zak Nedumchira Luke
& ors. Vs Joseph Joseph & ors. (2022) SCC
OnLine SC 241

19. St. of M.P. Vs Sambhu Dayal Nagar (2007) 1
SCC Cri. 1

20. Romila Thapar Vs U.O.I. (2018) 10 SCC 753

21. St. thru CBI New Delhi Vs Jitender Kumar
Singh (2014) 11 SCC 724

22. Ajay Aggarwal Vs U.O.I. (1993) 3 SCC 609

23. Pooja Pal Vs U.O.I. (2016) 3 SCC 135

(Delivered by Hon'ble Suneet Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Shri Manish Gupta, assisted
by Shri Abhishek Tripathi, Shri Shiv Sagar
Singh, learned counsels for the petitioners,
Shri
Gyan
Prakash,
learned
Senior
Advocate, assisted by Shri Sanjay Yadav,
learned counsel for C.B.I, Ms. Manju
Thakur, learned A.G.A. for the State and
Shri Jitendra Prasad Mishra, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of Directorate
of Enforcement.

2.

Reliefs
pressed
by
the
petitioners/CBI:

(i) Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.
1294 of 2020

(a) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing
the
FIR
bearing
no.
RC1202019A0008
dated
24.12.2019
registered
by
Central
Bureau
of
Investigation, Ghaziabad, U/s 420, 467,
468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 13(1)(c),
13(1)(d) read with Section 13(1)(2) of PC
Act, 1988 in pursuance of the Gazette
Notification bearing no. 228/35/2018-AVDII dated 24.10.2019 issued by DOPT,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance
and Pensions, Government of India for
further investigation being violative of
Article 14, 20 and 21 of the Constitution of
India.

(ii) Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.
622 of 2022

(a) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari for
setting aside and/or to quash the FIR
bearing
no.
RC1202019A0008
dated
24.12.2019 registered by Central Bureau of
Investigation, U/s 120-B, 420, 467, 468,
471 IPC r/w Section 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) and
Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988, in pursuance of the Gazette
Notification bearing no. 228/35/2018-AVD-
12 All. Pramod Chandra Gupta Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
629
II dated 24.10.2019 issued by DOPT,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance
and Pensions, Government of India for
further
investigation
having
identical
allegations in FIR bearing no. 421/2018
dated 03.06.2018 registered by P.S. Kasna,
Gautam Budh Nagar, u/s 120-B, 420, 467,
468, 471 IPC r/w Section 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d)
and Section 13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 in which cognizance
was taken, charges were framed and trial
was going on before the Ld. Trial Court,
Anti
Corruption,
Meerut
in
which
cognizance was taken, charges were framed
and trial was going on before the Ld. Trial
Court, Anti Corruption, Meerut as the said
second FIR is not maintainable on identical
allegations in the eyes of law in which
cognizance is taken, charges are framed as
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in "T.T. Antony vs. State of
Kerala and others" (2001) 6 SCC 181
dated 12.07.2001 and "Arnab Manoranjan
Goswami vs. State of Maharashtra" (2021)
2 SCC 427 dated 27.11.2020; and/or

(iii) Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.
7160 of 2022

(a) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of Certiorari for
setting aside and/or to quash the ECIR
bearing
no.
ECIR/03/LKZO/2020/242
registered
by
the
Directorate
of
Enforcement arising out of the FIR bearing
no. RC1202019A0008 dated 24.12.2019
registered
by
Central
Bureau
of
Investigation, U/s 120-B, 420, 467, 468,
471 IPC r/w Section 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) and
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988; and

(b) Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of Certiorari for setting aside
and/or to quash Summon dated 29.04.2022
bearing No. PMLA/ SUMMON/ LKZO/
2022/516 issued by the office of Directorate
of Enforcement to the Applicant/petitioner in
the aforesaid ECIR bearing no. ECIR/ 03/
LKZO
/2020/242
registered
by
the
Directorate of Enforcement arising out of the
FIR bearing no. RC1202019A0008 dated
24.12.2019 registered by Central Bureau of
Investigation, U/s 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471
IPC r/w Section 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) and 13(2)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988;
and

(c) Issue an order or direction in
the nature of mandamus summoning all the
record of the instant ECIR bearing no.
ECIR/03/LKZO/2020/242 registered by the
Directorate of Enforcement arising out of
the FIR bearing no. RC1202019A0008
dated 24.12.2019 registered by Central
Bureau of Investigation, U/s 120-B, 420,
467, 468, 471 IPC r/w Section 13(1)(c),
13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.

(d) Issue an order or direction in
the nature of mandamus directing the
Respondent ED not to proceed further and
take any coercive action against the
Petitioner/still the final adjudication of the
instant Writ Petition.

(iv) Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.
10995 of 2021

(a) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
quashing the impugned notification bearing
No. U.O.-31/6-PO-9-18-167G/2009-Nyay2 dated 24.07.2018, issue by Under
Secretary, Department of Home Affairs,
Government of U.P.;

(v) Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.
8758 of 2022

(a) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of Certiorari for
630 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
quashing the proceedings of ECIR bearing
no. ECIR/03/LKZO/2020/242 registered by
the Directorate of Enforcement;

(b) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of Certiorari
quashing the Summons dated 29.04.2022
bearing
No.
PMLA/
SUMMON/
LKZO/2022/511, 512 issued by the Office
of Directorate of Enforcement to the
Petitioners in the aforesaid ECIR bearing
no. ECIR/03/LKZO/2020 registered by the
Directorate of Enforcement; and

(c) Issue an order or direction
prohibiting the respondents to proceed any
further in pursuance to the ECIR bearing no.
ECIR/03/LKZO/2020
and
further
to
command them not to take any coercive
measure in pursuance thereof in the nature of
mandamus directing the Respondent E.D. not
to proceed further and take any coercive
action against the Petitioners/till the final
adjudication of the instant Writ Petition.

(vi)
Criminal
Misc.
Transfer
Application No. 239 of 2020

CBI has sought transfer of the trial
from court at Meerut to the CBI court at
Ghaziabad:

"It is, therefore, most humbly
prayed
that
the
Hon'ble
Court
may
graciously be pleased to allow this transfer
application and transfer the Session Trial of
all 5 court cases No. (CC No. 160/2018,
24/2019, 45/2019, 70/2019 and 84/2019) in
Case Crime No. 421 of 2018, under Sections
120-B, 420, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC and
Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act,
registered with Police Station Kasna, District
Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh to
Hon'ble Court of Special Judge, Anti
Corruption, Ghaziabad and till the matter not
transferred to Hon'ble Court of Special
Judge, CBI Anti Corruption, Ghaziabad trial
proceeding in all related matters i.e. may be
kept in abeyance in the interest of justice/or
pass such other and further order which this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under
circumstances of the case, otherwise the
applicant shall suffer irreparable loss injury."

3. The afore-noted writ petitions arise
from the same incident and facts, accordingly,
on consent of the parties, are being heard and
decided together by a common judgment and
order.

4. The writ petitions (7160/2022 and
8758/2022) filed against the FIR lodged by
the Enforcement Directorate for money
laundering by reproducing the FIR lodged by
the U.P. Police and CBI, is dependant on the
fate and outcome of other writ petitions.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has
submitted that nothing more is required to be
stated in respect of the above noted writ
petitions.

5. The facts, inter se, parties are not in
dispute.

6. Briefly, the writ petitions, inter alia,
raise challenge to (i) the notification issued
by the Government of Uttar Pradesh
transferring the investigation to Central
Bureau of Investigation1; (ii) FIR lodged by
the CBI pursuant to the notification of the
State Government/DOPT; (iii) FIR lodged by
the Directorate of Enforcement consequent to
the FIR/report filed by the CBI; (iv) petition
filed by the CBI seeking transfer of the trial
from the court of Special Judge, Anti
Corruption, Meerut, to Special Judge, Anti
Corruption, CBI at Ghaziabad.

FACTS

7. On 03.06.2018, FIR bearing Case
Crime No. 421 of 2018, under Sections
120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, read with,
12 All. Pramod Chandra Gupta Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
631
Section 13(1)(c),(d) and 13(1)(2) of PC
Act, P.S. Kasna, District Gautam Budh
Nagar, came to be lodged by Yamuna
Expressway
Industrial
Development
Authority2 against 21 nominated and other
unknown persons. It was alleged in the
report that with regard to purchase of
57.1549 hectare land, it transpired from the
enquiry report dated 8.11.2017, submitted
by the General Manager Project, and from
another enquiry report dated 7.5.2018,
submitted by the Chief Executive Officer,
YEIDA/ Chairman/ Commissioner, Meerut
Division, Meerut, that the land of seven
villages of district Mathura, was purchased
by YEIDA for which Rs.85.49 crore was
paid. The inquiry revealed that the then
Chief Executive Officer3, YEIDA, and
other officers conspired in the purchase of
land through their relatives, friends and
other related persons. The purchased land
was subsequently found not fit and
conducive for the purpose for which the
land was purchased by YEIDA. The land
purchased, through relatives and friends of
the officers of YEIDA, was purchased at
exorbitant rates, thereby, causing huge loss
to YEIDA. It was further revealed in the
enquiry that the entire land purchased i.e.
57.1549 hectare is still lying vacant as it
cannot be utilized by YEIDA, being non
contagious i.e. scattered. The report,
thereafter,
details
the
irregularities/illegalities committed by the
accused persons in purchase of land in the
seven villages of Mathura.

8. Thereafter, pursuant to Order No.
1770(2)/P/VI-P-3-2018-15(06)P/2018
dated 26.07.2018, of Government of U.P.
and subsequent Gazette Notification No.
228/35/2018-AVD-II
dated
24.10.2019
issued by Department of Personnel and
Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public
Grievance and Pensions, Govt. of India,
New Delhi4, the Case Crime No. 421/2018,
was transferred to CBI, consequently, a
Regular Case RC1202019A0008 was reregistered
at
CBI/ACB/Ghaziabad
on
24.12.2019, pursuant to which investigation
of Case Crime No. 421/2018, Police
Station Kasna, District Gautam Budh
Nagar, was taken over by CBI for further
investigation. It appears that U.P. Police,
either were not informed/aware that the
investigation has been transferred to CBI
and they proceeded with the investigation.
Pursuant to the FIR initially registered with
UP Police bearing Case Crime No.
421/2018, UP Police had arrested Shri PC
Gupta
on
23.06.2018
and
a
report
(chargesheet) U/s 120-B, 420, 467, 468 &
471 IPC and Section 13(2) of PC Act, was
filed against him before the Special Judge,
Anti Corruption, Court No. 02, Meerut, on
18.09.2018. Role of few more accused
persons surfaced, consequently, four more
supplementary charge sheets were filed by
U.P.
Police
on
different
dates
i.e.
8.03.2019, 22.05.2019, 23.08.2019 and
24.09.2019, against Ranveer Singh, Bajesh
Kumar, Gaurav, Manoj, Anil, Jugesh,
Satender S/o Tursan Pal, Satender S/o
Khem Chand, Sanjeev Kumar, Ramesh
Bansal and Sonia Bansal.

9. Learned Special Judge, Anti
Corruption, Meerut, passed orders on
1.05.2019,
7.06.2019
and
11.02.2021,
respectively, framing charges against the
accused, however, the accused came to be
discharged by the court for offences under
Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section
13(1)(c) and (d) of PC Act. It is, thereafter,
the CBI reproduced and re-registered Case
Crime No. 421 of 2018, bearing No. RS
1202019A0008 dated 24.12.2019, under
the same sections after lapse of sixteen
months from the notification of the State of
U.P. transferring the investigation.
632 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10. After investigation, CBI filed
supplementary report (charge-sheet No. 11
dated 23.12.2021), before the CBI Court at
Ghaziabad, against 31 accused persons,
including, companies under Sections 120B, 420, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(2)
read with 13(1)(d) of PC Act. Accused,
Nidhi Chaturvedi and Pramod Yadav, were
not charge-sheeted for want of evidence
against them. The report notes/records the
background of the events of the crime.

Result of the Investigation

11. Investigation undertaken by CBI
revealed that YEIDA is the nodal agency
responsible for implementing the Yamuna
Expressway Project and allied development
in the region. Major decisions pertaining to
policy matter is taken by the Board of
YEIDA, which, inter alia, consists of the
Principal Secretary to the Government of
Uttar Pradesh and other officers. Day to
day work of the YEIDA is looked after by
the Staff of YEIDA, headed by CEO and
other subordinate officers who work under
his
administrative
control.
CEO
is
authorized by the Board to provide
financial and administrative approval in the
matter of purchase of land from farmers
through
mutual
consent
as
per
the
requirement
of
YEIDA.
Investigation
revealed that PC Gupta was working as
CEO of the Authority during the relevant
period when the land came to be purchased.

12. All the land related matters of
YEIDA, viz- purchase of land through mutual
consent, acquisition, resumption of LMC land,
award to the affected farmers, is looked after
by the Land Department, YEIDA, headed by
Officer on Special Duty5 (Land) and assisted
by Tehsildar, Naib Tehsildars, Lekhpals and
others. Investigation revealed that VP Singh
had worked as OSD, Ranveer Singh and
Suresh Chand Sharma was posted as Tehsildar
in YEIDA, during the relevant period, along
with other staff. All the staff of Land
Department were appointed on deputation.

13. Investigation further revealed that
during the years 2014-16, about 57 hactare of
land was purchased by YEIDA in seven
villages of district Mathura, viz- Madore,
Seupatti Bangar, Seupatti Khadar, Kaulana
Bangar, Kaulana Khadar, Sotipura Bangar and
Nauzhil
Bangar,
for
an
amount
at
Rs.96,33,65,575/- through 180 sale deeds for
the following three purposes:

(1) For the construction of an entryexit ramp near Bajna at the Yamuna
Expressway (8.38 hectare)

(2) For allotment of abaadi plots to
the farmers whose land had been acquired for
the construction of Yamuna Expressway (12
hectare) and

(3) For the future development near
the entry-exit ramp Bajna.

14. Investigation further revealed that
Officers of YEIDA, including, PC Gupta -
CEO, VP Singh- OSD, Suresh Chand Sharma
- Tehsildar, Ranveer Singh - Tehsildar and
other private persons entered into criminal
conspiracy in furtherance of the crime, the
above officers, by abusing their official
position as public servant, dishonestly and
fraudulently got the land purchased from the
farmers for their acquaintance, relatives,
friends and related persons in their names.
Thereafter, within a short span of two/three
months, the same land was got purchased for
YEIDA by the above noted officers on more
than double the rates, thereby, earned wrongful
gain for themselves and caused wrongful loss
to YEIDA.

15. Investigation further revealed that
all the above land (approx 21 hectare) was
12 All. Pramod Chandra Gupta Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
633
purchased by YEIDA from outsiders i.e.
who are not local residents and they
(outsiders) had purchased the same land
from the local farmers on much lower rates,
just two-three months prior, to sell their
land to YEIDA. Investigation revealed that
all these outsiders (person/companies) are
related/associated/allied, to the officials of
YEIDA, namely, PC Gupta- CEO, VP
Singh - OSD, Suresh Chand Sharma,
Tehsildar and Ranveer Singh, Tehsildar.

16. Investigation further revealed that
no detail is available in the file pertaining
to
payment
and
publication
of
the
advertisement in newspapers (related to
purchase of land by YEIDA). It is further
revealed that public notice of one village,
viz., Seupatti Bangar, (against the land of
five villages) was shown published in local
newspaper, which has practically no
circulation.

17. Investigation further revealed that
weekly newspaper ''Manohar Samachar' of
Agra, is not authorised by Directorate of
Advertising and Visual Publication6 for
publication
of
any
Government
advertisement. In written reply, publisher
confirmed that no such advertisement on
behalf of YEIDA was ever published in his
newspaper on 28.12.2013. It has been
further informed by the publisher that he is
authorized to publish his newspaper only
on Sunday, whereas, advertisement has
been shown published on Saturday, in the
files of YEIDA. This establishes that fake
newspaper was manufactured to complete
the official record by the officials of
YEIDA.

18. Further, to hide the purchase and
payment from the Income Tax Department,
the officials of YEIDA kept the sale amount
below Rs.30 lakhs in the sale-deeds to
avoid information to the Income Tax
Department. On scrutiny, it is revealed that
the balance amount towards consideration
of the purchased land was subsequently
released by YEIDA. In other words, to
avoid scrutiny of the exorbitant rates, the
sale consideration of the purchased land
was broken in parts.

19. As per rule, the stamp duty should
have been paid on the total purchase
consideration i.e. 9,07,30,399/-, however,
in this case the stamp duty was paid only
for the amount of Rs. 4,99,18,462/- and rest
of the amount i.e. Rs.4,08,11,937/- was
paid to the farmers as Remaining Amount
(Awshesh Rashi) to by-pass the Revenue,
which is against the provision of the Stamp
Act.

20. Investigation further revealed that
out of 35.7 hectare, approx 27.4565 hectare
land, was purchased from the outsiders i.e.
sixteen
persons/companies,
all
related/associated/allied to the accused
officers of YEIDA, namely, PC Gupta, VP
Singh, Suresh Chand Sharma and Ranveer
Singh. These persons/companies are not the
local residents of the villages of district
Mathura, but, had purchased the land just
two-three months back, from the local land
owners by cheating them and subsequently
sold the same land to YEIDA on more than
double the purchase rates, thereby, making
windfall gain for themselves and causing
wrongful loss to YEIDA.

21. Investigation further revealed that
out of 56.481 hectare land purchased by
YEIDA, approx 41 hectare land was
purchased by nineteen persons/companies,
who are related/associated/allied to the
officers of YEIDA viz. PC Gupta, VP
Singh, Suresh Chand Sharma and Ranveer
Singh, who had purchased parcel of land
634 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
just two-three months earlier from the local
farmers on much lesser rates and sold the
same land to YEIDA on exorbitant higher
rates.

22. The relatives and acquaintance,
include, nephew, wife, daughter, brother-inlaw, father-in-law, sister's son, servant,
gardener.

23. That apart, land was purchased
through dormant/shell companies, wherein,
life was injected into the companies at the
relevant time to purchase the land. The
shares of these companies were transferred
to the relatives/friends/acquaintance of the
officers of YEIDA, before purchase of the
land.

24. Investigation further revealed that
Khasra (plot) numbers purchased for the
development purpose is not contagious,
therefore, cannot be utilised for any
development purpose, in its present form,
as the Khasra numbers (plots) are scattered
and lying at considerable distance from
each other.

25. Questions for determination:

Having heard the rival contentions, the
questions that arise for consideration is as
to whether (i) FIR lodged by the CBI is
second FIR for the same incident and facts;
(ii) whether further investigation and
consequent supplementary report submitted
by the CBI would vitiate the investigation
for want of permission of the concerned
court; (iii) whether it is a case of double
jeopardy insofar it relates to those accused
who were already discharged for want of
evidence by the trial court for offence
under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC and
Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 19887; (iv) whether CBI
was justified in filing supplementary report
(chargesheet) for the very same offence for
which the accused came to be discharged;
(v)
whether
investigation
by
U.P.
Police/CBI -- irregular/illegal; and (vi)
whether CBI designate court Special Judge,
Anti Corruption at Ghaziabad would have
jurisdiction of trial or the Special Judge,
Anti Corruption, Meerut.

26. Question No. 1 :- (i) whether FIR
lodged by CBI-- a Second FIR. (ii) whether
the notification issued by U.P. Government
and DOPT legal and valid.

27. On bare perusal of the impugned
FIR, it came to be lodged by the CBI
pursuant to the notification of DOPT issued
under Section 5(1) of the DSPE Act. The
FIR was re-registered by the CBI by
reproducing the FIR of Case Crime No.
421 of 2018, lodged by U.P. Police. The
FIR itself in column-12 clearly notes "in
compliance of above said notification, the
FIR of Case Crime No. 421 of 2018 of
Police Station Kasana, District Gautam
Budh Nagar is reproduced below".

28. In this backdrop, the submission
of learned counsel for the petitioner that the
FIR re-registered by CBI by reproducing
the FIR of Case Crime No. 421 of 2018, is
second FIR, for the same incident, arising
from the same facts is incorrect. The events
that have unfolded as noticed herein above,
reflect that it is a case of mere transfer of
the investigation of Crime Case No. 421 of
2018, to a superior investigating agency i.e.
C.B.I. pursuant to the notification issued by
the
Government
of
Uttar
Pradesh.
Accordingly, the dictum laid down in T.T.
Antony vs. State of Kerala and others8,
would not apply. The Court in T.T. Antony
(supra) held that there can be no second
FIR and no fresh investigation on receipt of
12 All. Pramod Chandra Gupta Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
635
every subsequent information in respect of
the same cognizable offence or same
occurrence giving rise to one or more
cognizable offences. Only information
about commission of a cognizable offence,
which is first reduced in the station house
diary by Station Incharge of Police Station
can be registered as FIR under Section 154
Code of Criminal Procedure, 19739. A
subsequent information will be covered by
Section 162 Code.

29. In Pradeep Ram v. State of
Jharkhand and another10, the issue, inter
alia, that fell for consideration was "whether
re-registration
of
F.I.R.
No.RC-
06/2018/NIA/DLI is a second F.I.R. and is not
permissible there being already a FIR No.
02/2016 registered at P.S. Tandwa arising out
of same incident?"

30. The Court was of the opinion that
''FIR, which was re-registered by NIA on
16.02.2018 cannot be held to be second FIR
of the offences rather it was re-registration of
the FIR to give effect to the provisions of the
NIA Act and re-registration of the FIR is only
procedural act to initiate the investigation
and the trial under the NIA Act. The reregistration of the FIR, thus, is neither barred
nor can be held that it is second FIR.'

31. In the given facts at hand, CBI
merely
re-registered
the
Crime
Case
421/2018, lodged by the U.P. Police by
reproducing it as per the CBI Manual. It is
not a case of second FIR being lodged by the
CBI on receipt of a subsequent information.
Neither, it is a case of ''fresh'/''denovo' or
''reinvestigation' by the CBI, which the CBI
otherwise, is not empowered to conduct. The
submission of the counsel for the petitioner
that the impugned FIR is second FIR, lacks
merit, accordingly, rejected.

(ii) Notification whether valid and
legal.

32. Learned counsel for the petitioner
in the same breath submits that the
notification issued by the Government of
U.P. transferring the investigation to the
CBI and the consequent notification issued
by the DOPT, New Delhi, according
approval is bad in law. On specific query,
learned counsel for the petitioner does not
dispute that the State Government was
competent and within its right to order CBI
investigation in exercise of power under the
DSPE Act. Malafide is not alleged against
the officials or the Government. Further,
petitioners failed to show as to how they
were prejudiced by transfer of the case to
another investigating agency i.e. CBI.
Similarly,
DOPT
was
competent
in
accepting
the
request
of
the
State
Government, consequently, the notification
entrusting investigation to CBI came to be
issued. Mere delay in accepting the request
of the State Government by the DOPT
would not render the notification illegal or
irregular.

33. The State Government having
regard to the involvement of senior
government officials, private persons and
companies in the alleged land scam was
justified in getting the case investigated by
a superior agency. Fair and proper
investigation of the case is in the interest of
the petitioners. The U.P. Police, it will later
be seen, that due to their inept and faulty
investigation, petitioners came to be
discharged of serious offences under the
IPC and PC Act. Fair and unbaised
investigation is the foundation of fair trial,
which is also in the interest of the society.
Learned counsel for the petitioners failed to
show as to how the respective notifications
636 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
issued by the State Government and the
DOPT is bad in law or irregular.

34. Question No. 2 :- Whether
permission of the court was required to be
obtained
by
the
C.B.I.
for
further
investigation.

35. In Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya
and others v. State of Gujarat and
another11, the question before the Court
that had arisen was ''whether, after a
charge-sheet is filed by the police, the
Magistrate has the power to order further
investigation, and if so, upto what stage of
a criminal proceeding'.

36. The Supreme Court answered the
question stating that the power of the
Magistrate would be available at all stages
of the progress of a criminal case before the
trial actually commences.

37. Though there is no specific
requirement in the provisions of Section
173(8) of the Code to conduct ''further
investigation' or file ''supplementary report'
with
the
leave
of
the
Court,
the
investigating agencies have not only
understood but also adopted it as a legal
practice to seek permission of the courts to
conduct ''further investigation' and file
''supplementary report' with the leave of the
court. The requirement of seeking prior
leave of the court to conduct ''further
investigation',
and/or,
to
file
a
''supplementary report' was held to have to
be read into, and is a necessary implication
of the provisions of Section 173(8) of the
Code. (Refer: Vinay Tyagi12 case)

38. It has been a procedure of
proprietary and ordinarily desirable that the
police should inform and has to seek
permission of the court to continue ''further
investigation'
and
file
supplementary
chargesheet. Even otherwise, to seek such
leave of the court would meet the ends of
justice and also provide adequate safeguard
against a suspect/accused.

39. The next question that would
follow is as to when the trial before the
Court of Sessions commences.

40. In Common Cause vs. Union of
India13, Supreme Court upon examining
the provisions of the Code held that before
the Sessions Court trial commences when
charges are framed.

"1. II (i) In cases of trials before the
Sessions Court the trials shall be treated to
have commenced when charges are framed
under Section 228 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 in the cases concerned."

41. The investigating agency/CBI is,
however, not empowered to conduct
''denovo'/''fresh'/''reinvestigation'.
The
power conferred upon the investigating
agency is of ''further investigation'.

42. Supreme Court in Vinay Tyagi Vs.
Irshad Ali alias Deepak and Others14, laid
down as follows:

"No
investigating
agency
is
empowered to conduct a ''fresh', ''de novo'
or ''re-investigation' in relation to the
offence for which it has already filed a
report in terms of Section 173(2) of the
Code. It is only upon the orders of the
higher courts empowered to pass such
orders that aforesaid investigation can be
conducted, in which event the higher courts
will have to pass a specific order with
regard to the fate of the investigation
already conducted and the report so filed
before the court of the learned magistrate."
12 All. Pramod Chandra Gupta Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
637

43. The law as it stands is that the
investigating agency under section 173(8)
of the Code is required to inform and take
permission of the court to conduct further
investigation.

44. Now reverting to the facts brought
on record. U.P. Police continued with the
investigation despite the State Government
had notified to transfer the case to be
investigated by the C.B.I. However, before
C.B.I. could re-register the FIR, the U.P.
Police filed the first charge-sheet on
18.09.2018
(107/18),
thereafter,
four
supplementary charge-sheets came to be
filed on 8.3.2019 (24/19), 24.5.2019
(45/19), 23.8.2019 (70/19) and 24.9.2019
(84/19). The trial court, thereafter, framed
charges against the charge-sheeted accused,
vide orders dated 1.5.2019, 7.6.2019 and
11.2.2019. It is, thereafter, C.B.I. reregistered the Case Crime No. 421 of 2018
on 24.12.2019, as a regular case. In this
backdrop,
it
is
submitted
that
the
investigating agency i.e. C.B.I. could not
have proceeded to investigate the case as
the trial had already commenced. Further,
no permission was sought from the trial
court for further investigation as mandated
in Vinay Tyagi (supra) and subsequently
followed in later pronouncement.

45. The primary police report dated
3.8.2018, filed by the U.P. Police, was
submitted before the court on 20.9.2018,
against one of the accused out of 22
nominated and other unnominated persons.
In the police report (charge-sheet), it has
been
categorically
stated
by
the
Investigating Officer that the investigation
against the other accused is still pending
and
under
progress.
Similarly,
the
subsequent supplementary charge-sheets
submitted by the U.P. Police against other
accused persons, clearly states and records
that the investigation in respect of other
accused persons is pending. Thereafter, the
investigation, pursuant to the notification of
the State Government and the DOPT, came
to be transferred and re-registered by the
C.B.I. In other words, CBI entered into the
shoes of the U.P. Police to conclude the
pending investigation of Case Crime No.
421/2018.

46. In this factual backdrop, the
submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that no permission was sought
from the court, lacks substance and merit. It
is not the case of the petitioners that the
police report submitted by the U.P. Police
tantamounts that the investigation of the
case had concluded and was finally closed,
rather, it is reflected from the charge-sheet
and
the
supplementary
charge-sheets,
submitted by the U.P. Police before the
competent court, that investigation in
respect of other accused was pending and
under progress. The information to the
court through the police report that
investigation is pending and under progress
against
other
accused
is
sufficient
compliance with regard to the ongoing
investigation. Mere transfer of the pending
investigation to the CBI, certainly would
not tantamount to further investigation
being carried out by the CBI after the U.P.
Police having closed the investigation. The
investigation by CBI is continuation of the
very same case crime taken over from U.P.
Police. The mandate of Vinay Tyagi (supra)
is applicable in a case where the
investigating
agency
concludes
the
investigation by submitting police report.
The
embargo
of
informing/taking
permission
of
the
court
for
further
investigation would not apply in a case
where the investigation is under progress
against other accused and yet to be
concluded. The U.P. Police in each of the
638 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
report filed before the court had informed
the court of the pending investigation.

47. Further, there is no prohibition
under the Code to preclude the trial court
from proceeding with the trial against the
accused already charge-sheeted by the U.P.
Police during pendency of the investigation
against other accused persons. The trial
court need not wait until conclusion of the
investigation against other accused. The
trial can proceed against the charge-sheeted
accused on material brought on record by
the prosecution.

48. On perusal of the scheme of the
Code
pertaining
to
investigation,
forwarding of police report, cognizance and
commitment to the Court of Sessions for
trial, there is no prohibition/restriction on
the police to submit report (charge-sheet)
against one or some of the accused, and/or,
to keep the investigation pending against
others. The investigating agency has power
under Section 173(8) of the Code to put
before the court new evidence which comes
across even after filing of the police report
(charge-sheet) or after the court taking
cognisance against some of the accused. On
commitment of the case to the Court of
Sessions, the court can proceed with the
trial by framing charge without waiting for
the outcome of the pending investigation
against other accused. During trial, the
investigating
agency
can
file
supplementary report not only against
whom the investigation was pending but
also against the accused who were earlier
charge-sheeted, provided, further evidence,
oral or documentary, is obtained upon such
investigation [Section 173(8) of the Code].

49. The C.B.I. submitted sole
supplementary charge-sheet on 23.12.2021,
against 31 accused persons, including,
companies, whereas, other two alleged
accused persons noted therein, came to be
discharged as no evidence was found
against
them.
In
other
words,
the
investigation came to be finally concluded
by the C.B.I. which commenced with
lodging of the FIR by the U.P. Police being
Case No. 421 of 2018. The U.P. Police had
categorically informed the trial court, while
filing police reports that the investigation is
under progress against other accused. The
information to the court of the pending
investigation is sufficient compliance of
law.

50. Further, CBI during trial made an
application before the trial court at Meerut
seeking extension of judicial remand to two
accused who were arrested by U.P. Police.
In the application, it was categorically
stated that pursuant to the order of the State
Government and subsequent notification of
the DOPT dated 24.10.2019, the case was
transferred to CBI for further investigation.
It was further stated by the CBI that
investigation is at the initial stage and that
five charge sheets have already been filed
by the U.P. Police. The application came to
be allowed by the court vide order dated
01.01.2020, extending the judicial custody
remand, after noticing in the order that
further investigation is in progress and the
case was transferred to the CBI. In other
words, CBI brought it to the knowledge of
the court that further investigation is
pending and that the CBI require the
custody of the accused for investigation.

51. It is thus evident that it is a case of
further investigation of the case instituted
by the U.P. Police, which finally came to be
concluded by the CBI. It is not a case
where the U.P. Police had concluded the
investigation by forwarding the police
report and thereafter CBI had stepped in.
12 All. Pramod Chandra Gupta Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
639
The mandate of Vinay Tyagi (supra) would
not be applicable. In any case, the trial
court was duly informed by the U.P. Police
through the various police reports that the
investigation against the accused is under
progress.