# NEERA YADAV v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATON

- **Citation:** [2017] 8 S.C.R. 498
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2016-03-14
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 253 of 2017
- **Bench:** Kurian Joseph, R. Banumathi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/neera-yadav-v-central-bureau-of-investigaton-32183
- **Pages:** 39

## Headnote

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - s.13(2) rlw. s.JJ(l)(d)
- Criminal misconduct by a public servant - Prosecution case that
C appellant-the then Chairperson and Chief Executive Officer of
NOJDA (New Okhla Industrial Development Authority) had abused
her position while committing grave irregularities in the matters of
allotments and conversions of land in NO/DA :... Held: The
prosecution has successfully proved that the appellant abused her
position as a public servant to benefit herself and her kith and kin
D - She not only made a mockery of rules and regulations of NO/DA,
but also abused her position by completely neglecting her duties -
Appellant herself bypassed the Rules and Regulations of NO/DA
by submitting ante-dated, half-filled applications for seeking
allotment of plots and by not paying the total amount payable in
E .lieu of the allotment - Evidence on record shows revision of layout
plan was carried out under the direction of the appellant to enhance
the area of her plot without following the norms of consulting the
Engineering Department, which was mandatory as per rules - The
said change layout plan not only benefited the appellant in manifold
ways but also caused huge financial loss to NO/DA - That apart,
F
appellant also secured allotment of two shops for her two daughters
and then obtained residential plots in the name of her two major,
dependent daughters, by completely defying the rules and
regulations - The daughters of the appellant were not even engaged
in filing their applications as their signatures were missing from
G applications made on their behalf. seeking allotment, conversion
etc. - Thus, appellant is guilty of obtaining valuable thing for herself
and her daughters by abusing her position as a public servant.
Sentence/Sentencing - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -
s.13(2) rlw. s.J3(l)(d) - Prosecution case that appellant committed
the offence of criminal misconduct by abusing her position as public
H
498
NEERA YADAV v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATON
499
servant, being CCEO of NO/DA in the matter of allotment of shops A
as well as plots in the names of her daughters who were dependent
on her and as well as in the matter of allotment of resid,ential plot in
her favour after closure of scheme and getting it converted with a
larger plot in the most developed sector of NO/DA - High Court
affirmed the conviction of appellant u/s.13(2) rlw. s.13(J)(d) of the
B
Act and sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for period
of three years and fine of Rs.1,00,0001- - Held: The occurrence
, was of the year 1994 - Appellant undergoing sentence from
14.03.2016 - Husband of appellant filed affidavit stating that the
appellant surrendered her plot with building constructed in
December, 2013 and physically handed over the plot along with C
construction to NO/DA authority - Appellant further submitted that ·
she will not make any claim for refund -1,n instant case, the sentence
of imprisonment of three years imposed on the appellant reduced to
two years.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 427 - Appellant D
convicted in two different cases - One for abusing the ofjlcial
position in getting the plots to herself and her daughters and making
irregular changes in the site plan and the other for abusing her
position as CCEO, NO/DA by conspiring with another person in
allotting plot to him - In the first case, appellant convicted u/s.13(2)
rlw. s.13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and sentenced to R.I.Jor three years
E
and fine of Rs.1,00,0001- with default clause - lri the second case;
convicted u!s.1208 and s.13(2) r!w. s.13(J)(d) of the P.C. Act and
sentenced to R.l. for three years with a fine of Rs.50,0001- and
similar imprisonment for conviction uls.1208 !PC ~ Appellant
pleaded that the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon her in the
F
two cases may be ordered to run concurrently - Held: The sentencing
Court has the discretion to direct concurrency - The investiture of
such discretion presupposes that it will

## Text

_Characters 0–39,998 of 93,301. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39998 for what follows._

A
[2017] 8 S.C.R. 498
NEERA YADAV
v.
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATON
(Criminal Appeal No. 253 of 2017)
B
AUGUSTOZ,2017
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.j
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - s.13(2) rlw. s.JJ(l)(d)
- Criminal misconduct by a public servant - Prosecution case that
C appellant-the then Chairperson and Chief Executive Officer of
NOJDA (New Okhla Industrial Development Authority) had abused
her position while committing grave irregularities in the matters of
allotments and conversions of land in NO/DA :... Held: The
prosecution has successfully proved that the appellant abused her
position as a public servant to benefit herself and her kith and kin
D - She not only made a mockery of rules and regulations of NO/DA,
but also abused her position by completely neglecting her duties -
Appellant herself bypassed the Rules and Regulations of NO/DA
by submitting ante-dated, half-filled applications for seeking
allotment of plots and by not paying the total amount payable in
E .lieu of the allotment - Evidence on record shows revision of layout
plan was carried out under the direction of the appellant to enhance
the area of her plot without following the norms of consulting the
Engineering Department, which was mandatory as per rules - The
said change layout plan not only benefited the appellant in manifold
ways but also caused huge financial loss to NO/DA - That apart,
F
appellant also secured allotment of two shops for her two daughters
and then obtained residential plots in the name of her two major,
dependent daughters, by completely defying the rules and
regulations - The daughters of the appellant were not even engaged
in filing their applications as their signatures were missing from
G applications made on their behalf. seeking allotment, conversion
etc. - Thus, appellant is guilty of obtaining valuable thing for herself
and her daughters by abusing her position as a public servant.
Sentence/Sentencing - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -
s.13(2) rlw. s.J3(l)(d) - Prosecution case that appellant committed
the offence of criminal misconduct by abusing her position as public
H
498
NEERA YADAV v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATON
499
servant, being CCEO of NO/DA in the matter of allotment of shops A
as well as plots in the names of her daughters who were dependent
on her and as well as in the matter of allotment of resid,ential plot in
her favour after closure of scheme and getting it converted with a
larger plot in the most developed sector of NO/DA - High Court
affirmed the conviction of appellant u/s.13(2) rlw. s.13(J)(d) of the
B
Act and sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for period
of three years and fine of Rs.1,00,0001- - Held: The occurrence
, was of the year 1994 - Appellant undergoing sentence from
14.03.2016 - Husband of appellant filed affidavit stating that the
appellant surrendered her plot with building constructed in
December, 2013 and physically handed over the plot along with C
construction to NO/DA authority - Appellant further submitted that ·
she will not make any claim for refund -1,n instant case, the sentence
of imprisonment of three years imposed on the appellant reduced to
two years.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 427 - Appellant D
convicted in two different cases - One for abusing the ofjlcial
position in getting the plots to herself and her daughters and making
irregular changes in the site plan and the other for abusing her
position as CCEO, NO/DA by conspiring with another person in
allotting plot to him - In the first case, appellant convicted u/s.13(2)
rlw. s.13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and sentenced to R.I.Jor three years
E
and fine of Rs.1,00,0001- with default clause - lri the second case;
convicted u!s.1208 and s.13(2) r!w. s.13(J)(d) of the P.C. Act and
sentenced to R.l. for three years with a fine of Rs.50,0001- and
similar imprisonment for conviction uls.1208 !PC ~ Appellant
pleaded that the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon her in the
F
two cases may be ordered to run concurrently - Held: The sentencing
Court has the discretion to direct concurrency - The investiture of
such discretion presupposes that it will be exercised on sound
principles and not on whims~ In the Cr.P.C., there are no guidelines
or specific provisions to suggest under what circumstances the
various sentences of imprisonment shall be directed to run
G
concurrently or consecutively - Instant case is one covered uls.427
Cr.P. C. - In facts and circumstances of the case, it is not justifiable
to direct concurrency of sentence - Any unprincipled exercise of
judicial discretion and casual direction regarding concurrency would
H
500
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2017] 8 S.C.R.
A go against the express provisions of the PC Act and the Cr.PC. -
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -ss.13(l)(d), 13(2).
B
Prevention of Corruption - Kinds of corruption - Nepotism -
Deprecated by the Court.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The prosecution has successfully proved that
the appellant abused her position as a public servant to benefit
herself and her kith and kin. She not only made a mockery of
rules and regulations of NOIDA, but also misused her position
by completely neglecting her duties. Being a Chairman-cum-CEO
C of NOIDA she was expected to ensure that the allotment of plots
in NOIDA are effected in strict compliance with the Rules and
Regulations of NOIDA. However, the appellant herself bypassed
the Rules and Regulations of NOIDA by submitting ante dated,
half-filled applications for seeking allotment of plots and by not
D paying the total amount payable in lieu of the allotment. There is
no justification as to why the defective application of the appellant
seeking allotment of a residential plot was acted upon and same
was allotted to her, especially when the appellant had not even
adhered to the requisite mode of payment through a demand draft/
Pay order and had instead made deficient payment through cheque.
E
Also there is no justification as to how deficient lease rent paid
by the appellant in lieu of her allotment was accepted against the
full payment requisite in the Rules. (Para 4511524-B-El
1.2 The prosecution has clearly proved that the application
of the appellant was not included in the list of applications which
F
were sent to the Bank along with the demand drafts after the cutoff date. In fact it is proved that her cheque was sent for collection
after seven days on 28.03.1994. These facts point at the sole
inference that the ante-dated application of the appellant was filed
only after the dosure of the scheme, thereby indicating that the
G appellant put herself above the Rules and Regulations of NOIDA.
(Para 461(524-Fl
1.3 It is also proved by the prosecution that the appellant
effortlessly got her smaller plot converted to a bigger plot in
another sector, measuring 450 sq.m. and thereafter, enhanced
H the area of the plot by 37% by illegal means and by abusing her
NEERA YADAV v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATON
501
position leading to a total area of 562.50 sq.m. Evidence on record A
shows that revision of layout plan of one Sector was carried under
the direction of the appellant and that too without following the
norms of consulting the Engineering Department of NOIDA,
which was mandatory as per the rules. The said change in t~e
layout plan not only benefitted the appellant in manifold ways but B
also caused huge financial loss to NOIDA, as an unnumbered
plot was considerably reduced in size and deformed in shape,
thereby rendering it completely useless for NOIDA.[Para
471(524-G-H; 525-A-BJ
1.4 Apart from the above mentioned instances of abuse of
position, the appellant also secured allotment of two shops for
C
her two daughters and then obtained residential plots in the name
of her two major, dependent daughters, by completely defying
the rules and regulations. The appellant managed to seek
allotment of shops in the favour of her daughters by herself
preferring defective applications on their behalf and making D
payments in lieu of the same, with the sole objective of securing
a residential plot in lieu of the shops. The prosecution was
successful in proving that the daughters of the appellant were
dependant on the appellant and that they had purchased the shops
and residential plots only out of the money contributed by the
appellant and her husband. This amounts to grave violation of E
Rules of NOIDA and being a CCEO of NOIDA, the appellant is
guilty of obtaining valuable thing for herself and her daughters
by abusing her position as a public servant. The daughters of the
appellant were not even engaged in filing their applications as
their signatures are missing from applications made on their
F
behalf, seeking allotment, conversion etc. (Para 4811525-C-El
1.5 The appellant acted in breach of rules and regulations
of NOIDA, causing financial losses to NOIDA and valuable things
were obtained by the appellant and her daughters. The fact that
the appellant acted in flagrant violation of the rules, by giving a
G
complete go-by to the public interest to promote her individual
interest, shows that she abused her position to gain undue
advantage to herself and to cause loss to NOIDA. An attitude to
abuse the official position to gain advantage to herself and this
misuse of position erodes collective faith of the people in the
H
502
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 8 S.C.R.
A system. Corruption paralyses the functioning of the key areas of
the State administration. [Para 491[525-F-GJ
1.6 A particular kind of corruption that has become more
rampant of late is nepotism to promote the interests of those
near and dear to them. Nepotism is in a sense a greater evil
B since it involves dispersal of favours by patrons amongst their
arm coterie, depriving others of a career or office they deserve
more. The practice of promoting the interest of few individuals
to the detriment of many others is wholly reprehensible and
deserves to be condemned. [Para 50)[525-H; 526-A-BI
c
1. 7 Upon consideration of the evidence on record, it is clear
that the concurrent findings recorded by the trial court as well as
by the High Court are based upon proper appraisal of facts and
evidence and the concurrent findings do not suffer from any error
warranting interference. [Para 581 [529-G-HI
D
2.1 Section 427 Cr.P.C. deals with sentence passed on an
offender who is already sentenced for another offence. The power
conferred on the Court under Section 427 to order concurrent
sentence is discretionary. The salutary principle adopted by the
Court is the totality of the sentences. The maximum sentence
awarded in one case against the same accused is relevant
E consideration while giving concurrent sentence in another case.
The policy of the legislature is that normally the sentencing should
be done consecutively. Only in appropriate cases, considering
the facts of the case, the Court can make the sentence
concurrently with an earlier sentence imposed. A person
F
sentenced to imprisonment must, for the purpose of Section 427
Cr.P.C., be deemed to be undergoing that sentence from the very
moment the sentence is passed. The accused may be on bail or
in custody in the earlier case at the time of passing of the
subsequent sentence. [Para 651[532-F-H; 533-AI
G
2.2 The sentencing Court has the discretion to direct
H
concurrency. The investiture of such discretion, presupposes
that it will be exercised on sound principles and not on whims.
In the Criminal Procedure Code, there are no guidelines or
specific provisions to suggest under what circumstances the
various sentences of imprisonment shall be directed to run
NEERA YADAV v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATON
503
concurrently or consecutively. There is no strait jacket formula A·
for the Court to follow in the matter of issue or refusal of .a
direction within the contemplation of Section 427(1) Cr.P.C.
Whether or not a direction ought to be issued in a given case
would depend upon the nature of the offence or offences
committed. [Para 66)(533-B-C)
3. This instant case is covered under Section 427 Cr.P.C.
The appellant has been convicted in two different cases, one· of
abusing the official position in getting the plots allotted to herself
and her daughters and other irregularities in making changes in
B
the site plan and another one in abusing her position as CEO,
Noida conspired with another person in allotting plot to him.
C
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and
considering the nature of allegations, it is not justifiable to direct
concurrency of sentence. Any unprincipled exercise of judicial
discretion and casual direction made regarding concurrency would
go against the express provisions of the Prevention of Corruption D
Act, 1988 and the Criminal Procedure Code. [Para 6911535-E-Fl
NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association v. NOIDA and Others
(2007) 10 SCC 395: NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association
v. NOIDA- and Others (2011) 6 SCC 526; NOIDA
Entrepreneurs Association (Registered) v. New Okhla
Industrial Development Authority and Others (2011) 6
SCC 527; NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association v. NOIDA
and Others (2011) 6 SCC 508 : [2011) 8 SCR 25;
Mano} Narula v. Union of India (2014) 9 SCC 1 :
[2014] 9 SCR 965; Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal
& Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 4 SCC 642 :
· [2013] 4 SCR 767; Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan
Singh and Another (2012) 3 SCC 64 : [2012) 3 SCR 52;
K.C. Sareen v. C.B.J.. Chandigarh (2001) 6 SCC 584 :
[2001) 1 Suppl. SCR 224; Subramanian Swamy v.
Director, Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.
(2014) 8 SCC 682 : (2014) 6 SCR 873; Nagaraja Rao
v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2015) 4 Sec 302:
[2015] 12 SCR 424; V K. Bansal v. State of Haryana
(2013) 7 SCC 211 : [20131 7 SCR 617; Mohd. Akhtar
Hussain v. Asst. Collector, Customs (1988) 4 SCC 183
E
F
G
H
504
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 8 S.C.R.
A
: [1988) 2 Suppl. SCR 747; Benson v. State of Kera/a
(2016) 10 SCC 307 : (2016) 8 SCR 166; V.K. Bansal
v. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 211 : [2013) 7
SCR 617 - referred to.
K. Prabhakaran v. P Jayarajan (2005} 1 SCC 754 :
B
[20051 1 SCR 296 - relied on.
c
D
E
F
Case Law Reference
(2007) 10 sec 395
referred to
Para5
(2011) 6 sec 526
referred to
Para 5
(2011) 6 sec 527
referred to
Para 5
[2011) 8 SCR 25
referred to
Para5
[2014) 9 SCR 965
referred to
Para 51
[20131 4 SCR 767
referred to
Para 51
[20121 3 SCR 52
referred to
Para 52
[2001) 1 Suppl. SCR 224
referred to
Para 53
(2014( 6 SCR 873
referred to
Para 54
[20151 12 SCR 424
referred to
Para 60
[2013) 7 SCR 617
referred to
Para 60
[20051 1 SCR 296
relied on
Para 63
[1988) 2 Suppl. SCR 747
referred to
Para 67
[20161 8 SCR 166
referred to
Para 68
[201317 SCR617
referred to
Para 68
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
253 of2017.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.02.2016 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 4837 of2012.
K. V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv., P. V. Dinesh, Sindhu T.P., Ms. Arushi
Singh, Ravi Raghunath, Bineesh K., Rajendra Beniwal, Abhishek A trey,
G Advs .. for the Appellant.
H
Ranjit Kumar, SG, Ms. Binu Tamta, Rajesh Ranjan, Ms. Kiran
Bhardwaj, Sarthak S., Shouryendu Ray, Mukesh Kumar Maroria,Abhisth
Kumar, Advs. for the Respondents.
NEERA YADAV v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATON
505
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A
R. BANUMATHI, J. I. This appe(ll arises out of the judgment
dated 24.02.2016 passed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in
Criminal Appeal No.4837 of2012, affirming the conviction of appeilantNeera Yadav, the then Chairperson and Chief Executive Officer (CCEO)
ofNOIDA(New Okhla Industrial Development Authority) under Section
B
13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention ofCorruptionAct, 1988
(for short 'P.C. Act') and sentencing her to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of three years and fine ofRs.1,00,000/- and in
case of default in payment of fine with simple imprisonment for an
additional period of four months.
2. It is a harsh reality that corruption has become all-pervasive in
the present system of bureaucracy. It is a fact that rich and powerful try
to stall the trial and conviction. However, fortunately, the present case
ha' 1·i sen as an exception.
'
c
3. It is a well known fact that New Okhla Industrial Development D
Authority (N.0.1.D.A.) U.P. (hereinafter referred to as "NOIDA") was
established in the year 1976 with the responsibility of developing and
managing Asia's largest Integrated Industrial Township for the industrial
growth of the area, under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development
Act, 1976 in the National Capital Region. Administration of NOIDA
E
was entrusted to high level public officials so as to develop a planned,
integrated, modem Industrial City, well connected to Delhi through a
network of roads, national highways and the ultra -modem DND flyover,
offering inter - road linkages to all parts of the country. Spread over
20,316 hectares, with many sectors fully developed, NOIDA offers a
pollution free, high standard ofliving and is highly supportive ofindustrial
F
environment with its unique infrastructure providing numerous, matchless
facilities. However, the project got marred by land allotment scams worth
several crores of rnpees, owing to abuse of position and power by the
officials entrusted with the management and control ofNOTDA itself.
In this connection, several complaints surfaced alleging irregularities in
G
allotments and conversions ofland in 'NOIDA'. Explanation was sought
in this regard by the then Principal Secretary (Heavy Industries) of the
Government ofU.P. from Appellant Neera Yadav, the then Chairpersoncum-Chief Executive Officer (CCEO) ofNOIDA. But, a final decision
H
506
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017) 8 S.C.R.
A was taken not to initiate any departmental inquiry in the matter against
the officials concerned.
4. One 'NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association' sought inquiry by
the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the matter and this Court
vide order dated 20.01.1998 directed that the matter be investigated by
B the CBI. Consequently, the CBI registered an F.I.R. Crime No. RC/
3(A)/98-ACU-VII dated 26.02.1998 against Smt. Neera Yadav who
was serving as Chairperson and Chief Executive Officer (CCEO) of
NOIDA, during the relevant period viz. 10.01.1994 to 08.11.1995, and
some other high officials ofNOIDA. The FIR contained allegations to
C the effect that Ms. Neera Yadav in conspiracy with other officials abused
her position while committing grave irregularities in the matters of
allotments and conversions ofland in NOIDA.
5. In NO IDA Entrepreneurs Association v. NO IDA and Others
(2007) 10 SCC 395, this Court has appointed Mr. K. T. Thomas, retired
D Judge of this Court as the sole member of the Commission to inquire into
alleged irregularities in the matter of allotments and conversion of the
plots. Subsequently, in NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association v. NO IDA
and Others (2011) 6 SCC 526, NO/DA Entrepreneurs Associatio11
(Registered) v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and
Others (2011) 6 SCC 527 and NO IDA Entrepre11eurs Association v.
E NOJDA and Others (201l) 6 SCC 508, this Court has issued various
directions. The reference is made to these decisions only to show that
the registration of FIR by CBI was pursuant to the direction of this
Court.
6. Appellant-Neera Yadav held the post of Chairman-cum-Chief
F Executive Officer (CCEO) ofNOIDA for the period from 10.01.1994
to 08.11.1995. During her tenure, residential scheme No. 1994(1) was
announced and the date of submission ofapplication was extended up to
15.03.1994. The prosecution alleges a case of complete abuse of power
in the matter of allotment of land; out of turn allotments; their illegal
G conversions thereof; and unwarranted changes in layout plan of most
developed Sector ofNOIDA, so as to satisfy to the whims of the appellant
and thus abused her position.
7. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is as follows:- Smt.
Neera Yadav, while working as CCEO, NOIDA, abused her official
H position in the matter of allotment of plot No.B-002 in Sector-32 measuring
NEERA YADAV v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATON
S07
. [R. BANUMATHI, J .]
300 sq.ms. in the draw oflottery. Within one week, of the allotment; the A
appellant made request for allotment of another plot in any developed
Sector, through conversion. Based on her request, plot-No.B-002 in
Sector-32 was converted to plot No.26 in Sector-l 4A ofNoida, comprising
an area of 4SO sq.ms. Further case of prosecution is that at the direction
ofSmt. Neera Yadav, CCEb NOIDA, the then Chief Architect Planner B
(CAP) Mr. S.P. Gautam ofNOIDA put up a note dated 28.0S.1994 for
revising the layout of the plot nos. 26, 27 and 28 by increasing the sizes
·of the said plots from 4SO to S62.SO sq.ms., S2S sq.ms. and 487 .SO sq.ms. ·
respectively. Thereby the area of plot No.26 was increased by 112.SO
sq.ms. and the same was approved by the appellant Smt. Neera Yadav
on 31.0S.1994, benefittingthe appellant herself. By a further change in . C
the plot, a 7 .SO ms. wide road was carved to the east of plot No.26
which again resulted in benefitting the appellant.
8. Further, the appellant abused her position in getting two plots in
the name of her two daughters Ms. Sanskriti and Ms. Suruchi. Shop
No.9 in Sector-28 of NOIDA was allotted in the name of the eldest D
unmarried daughter of Neera Yadav, Ms. Sanskriti who was studying
abroad since 1991 and who had received possession of her shop through
her younger sister Ms. Suruchi. She requested for issuance of the
functional certificate and the same was issued immediately on the same
date viz. 06,06.1994. On the strength of the ownership of shop No.9 in
E
Sector-28, Ms. Sanskriti had applied for allotment of a residential plot
under the scheme of 1994 (ii) ofNOIDA. Consequently, plot No.B-73
in Sector-44, Noida was allotted in the name of Ms. Sanskriti which she
. later on got converted to plot No.A-33.in Sector-44. Likewise, Ms.
Suruchi, another daughter ofNeera Yadav, was also allotted a shop viz.
shop No.74 in Sector-ls ofNoida and after obtaining possession of the
F
same, the shop was declared to be functional ori 28.0S.1994. On the
strength of ownership of the said shop, Ms. Suruchi also applied for.
allotment ofa residential plot uri.der the scheme ofl 994(iii). Consequently,
·plot No.B-88 in Sector-S 1, comprising of an area of 4SO sq.ms., was
allotted in the name of Ms. Suruchi, which she subsequently got converted
to plotno.A~32 adjoining toplotNo.A-33 (allotted to her sister) in SectorG
44Noida.
9. As noted earlier, in furtherance of direction issued by the
Supreme Court (20.01.1998), FIR was registered by CBI on 26.02.1998
in Crime Case No.RCNo.3(A)/98-ACU~VII inter a,fia against the
H
508
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 8 S.C.R.
A appellant Neera Yadav alleging that she abused her position in the matter
of allotment of plots, conversion of plots in her name and in the name of
her daughters. Sanction was obtained under Section 19(1) of the P.C.
Act, 1988 and after completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed
against the appellant.
B
10. To substantiate the charges against the appellant, the
prosecution, apart from producing a number of documentary evidences,
examined as many as thirty nine witnesses. The appellant was questioned
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating evidence and
circumstance and the appellant denied all of them. Upon consideration
ofevidence, the Special Judge CBI, Ghaziabad, vide judgment and order
C dated 20.11.2012 in Special Trial No.19 of2002, held that the prosecution
has proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and
convicted the appellant under Section 13(2) read with Section 13( 1 )( d) of
P. C. Act and sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three
years and fine of Rs.1,00,000/, with default clause. Vide impugned order
D and judgment, the High Court confirmed the conviction of the appellant
and also the sentence ofimprisonment and fine imposed on the appellant.
11. Mr. K. V. Vishwanathan, learned senior counsel urged that as
an officer ofNOIDA, the appellant was eligible to apply for a residential
plot and the appellant made her application along with the cheque of
E Rs.40,000/- as registration money and that plot No.B-002, Sector-32,
was lawfully allotted to the appellant. It was further submitted that
conversion of plot in Sector-32 into plot No.26, Sector-14A was in
compliance with relevant rules and due procedure and was not a case of
illegality.
F
12. Further contention of the appellant is that she never directed
S.P. Gautam, the then Chief Architect Planner, NO IDA, to increase the
size of her plot, or to carve out a 7.5 m. wide road between her plot and
plot No.25. The said increase arose out of necessity of providing privacy
and security to the Chairman, Greater Noida and thus there was no
abuse of position by the appellant. It was contended that the daughters
G of the appellant had applied for allotment of the shops and shops were
allotted to them in the normal course and declared functional as per the
rules ofNOIDA. It was further submitted that at the time of preferring
application for shops and plots, the appellant's daughters were not
dependent upon the appellant and they were major and income tax
H assessees, having independent source of income and were thus eligible
NEERA YADAV v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATON
509
[R. BANUMATHI, J.]
for allotment of concerned shops and plots. It was urged that neither A
there was any violation of rules ofNOIDA, nor any loss was caused to
NO IDA due to allotment/conversion of shops and plots in favour of the
appellant or in favour of her daughters.
13. The learned Solicitor General Mr. Ranjit Kumar submitted
that with ma/a fide intention, appellant abused her position and managed B
to get plot No.B-002 in Sector-32 after the closure.of the Scheme 1994(i)
vide her incomplete application. The learned Solicitor General further
urged that by abusing her position as Chief Executive Officer, the appellant
managed to get the above plot converted to a bigger plot i.e. plot No.A26, from 450 sq.ms. to 562.50 sq.ms. in a developed Sector-14A, by
altering the site plan which was approved by the appellant herself on
C
31.05.1994. Drawing our attention to the allotments made in favour of
appellant's daughters, the learned Solicitor General further submitted
that by abusing her position as CCEO; the appellant managed to get the
shops allotted in the name of her daughters, fraudulently obtaining the
functional certificate thereafter based on which allotment of residential
D
plots were made. The learned Solicitor General urged that upon
consideration of the evidence and materials on record, the trial court and
the High Cpurt rightly convicted the appellant and that the concurrent
findin.gs warrant no interference.
14. We have considered the rival contentions and have also perused
E
the impugned judgment and also the materials on record. ·
15. Section 13 of the P.C.Act in general lays down that ifa public
servant, by corrupt or illegal means or otherwise abusing his position as
a public servant obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable
thing or pecuniary advantage, he would be guilty of 'criminal misconduct'.
Sub-section (2) of Section 13 speaks of the punishment for such
misconduct. Section 13(l)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act
lays down the essentials and punishment respectively for the offence of
'criminal misconduct' by a public servant. Section 13( 1 )( d) reads as
. under:
-,
"13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant._:_
(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal
misconduct,
(d) ifhe,-
F
G
H
510
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 8 S.C.R.
A
(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other
person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
8
(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself
or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage;
or
(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person
aey valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any pubtre
interest; or"
A perusal of the above provision makes it clear that if the elements
of any of the three sub-clauses are met, the same wouW be sufficient to
C constitute an offence of'criminal misconduct' under Section 13(l)(d).
Undoubtedly, all the three wings of clause ( d) of Section 13( 1) are
independent, alternative and disjunctive. Thus, under Section 13( 1 )( d)(i)
obtaining any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal
means by a public servant in itself would amount to criminal misconduct.
D On the same reasoning "obtaining a valuable thing or pecuniary
advantage" by abusing his official position as a public servant, either
for himself or for any other person would amount to criminal misconduct.
Illegality in Allotment of Plot No.B-002 Sector 32 and
subsequent conversion to Plot No.26, Sector-14A
E
16. Case of prosecution is that the appellant Neera Yadav sought
allotment of a residential plot in her name vide an undated application,
allegedly ntbved after closure of the concerned scheme, with undated
cheque. Appellant preferred an undated application (Ext. Ka-37) for
allotment of a residential Plot under Category-VI (Regular Employees
F ofNOIDA or regular Government/Public Sector Undertaking Employees
on deputation to NOIDA) under the Scheme l 994(i), which was issued
inviting applications for allotment of residential plots in Sectors 23, 32,
33, 34, 35, 49 and 53 as per the brochure. The scheme offered five
categories of plots, based on size. The concerned application No.648
(Ext. Ka-3 7) was preferred by the appellant for Plot code 05 i.e. plot of
G 350sq.ms.
H
17. As per the brochure, in order to seek registration, the applicant
had tp submit a duly filled application form for allotment of plot in the
prescribed form alongwith all the enclosures; and 30% of the premium
amount at the rate of Rs.1200/- per sq.m. for regular plot and Rs.1215/-
NEERA YADAV v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATON
. 511
[R. BANUMATHI, J.]
per sq.m,for a comer or park facing plot, ought to be paid: The appellant A
· · is alleged to have paid Rs.40,000/- as registration amount for allotment
of plot measuring 350 sq.ms. by an undated cheque dated 15.03.1994.
· 18. Case of the prosecution is that allotment of the plot under the
concerned scheme in favour of the appellant is marred by grave infirmities
which is in complete violation of the norms ofthe·scheme as.stated in
B
the. brochure. Firstly, the prosecution alleged thatthe application (Ex.
Ka-37) was completely defective as it was neither completely filled, nor
requisiteAnnexures were append~4 to it. Secondly, the prosecution alleged
.that neither the mode of payment of the registration amount was as per
the norms, nor the actual requisite amount due was paid by the appellant. c
The application No. 648 (Ex.Ka-37), when tested on the anvil ofthe
norms stated in the brochure of the scheme, it was found defective on
follo~ing counts:-
(i) The application was undated. The date on which the application
was made was not mentioned;
· ·
·
(ii) The application did not bear duly attested passport size
photograph of the applicant;
(iii) The column of husband/father name was left bl'ank;
D
(iv) The Disclosure to the effect that no other person of her family
being her spouse, or daughters, own or, have obtained pfots or,
E
shops in any sector ofNoida was not made;
(v) Signatures ofapplicants were not attested by a gazetted officer.
(vi) The required certificate from personal department ofNoida,
· certifying that she was an employee ofNoida, was not enclosed. ·
(vii) The required notarized affidavit in prescribed form was not
enclosed.
(viii) The application which was mandatorily required to be
accompanied with ale payee crossed' demand draft' or 'pay order'
F
of registration amount did not accompany with any demand draft G
or pay order rather was accompanied by an antedated cheque.
19. Clause 3 of the brochure provides that incomplete application .
without encfosures shall not be registered. Relevant portion of Clause
3 of the brochure is as under:
H
512
A
B
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 8 S.C.R.
" ...... Incomplete application and applications without enclosures
as mentioned above for allotment of specific plot shall not be
registered. Therefore, the applicants are requested to submit
complete application form in all respect alongwith the required
enclosures and requisite amount of registration money for
registration."
As per the brochure of the concerned scheme, the documents as
indicated thereon must be attached to the application form in order to
establish the eligibility of the applicant for obtaining plot in NOIDA.
Legally, no allotment of plot could have been made on such a defective
application presented after cut-off date. Since the appellant was the
C CCEO ofNOIDA, she abused her position in ensuring that her application,
though incomplete, is processed.
20. As per the brochure, the application must be accompanied
with account payee Demand Draft/Pay Order. From the records, it is
seen that the appellant had not given the demand draft/pay order; on the
D other hand, she only gave cheque dated 15.03.1994, (Ex.Ka-8). Though
the said cheque is dated 15.03.1994, there is ample evidence to show
that the cheque was ante dated. As per the clearing register, the said
Cheque No.395207 dated 15.03.1994 was cleared by the Bank only on
28.03.1994. That apart, Ex. Ka-14 to Ex. Ka-24 contains the names,
E draft numbers and amount paid by each of the applicants. As seen from
Ex.Ka-44, Log Book, total amount of all the demand drafts was only
Rs.65,20,200/-. By perusal ofEx.Ka-84, it is seen that SI. No.163 was
cut off and SI. No.164 Cheque of Neera Yadav was included and
consequently altering the total amount as Rs.65,60,200/-. As seen from
Ex.Ka-85, the Bank Statement, as on 21.03.1994, only Rs.65,20,200/-
F alone was received by the bank from NOIDA. This cTearly shows that
the Cheque (Ex. Ka-8), though dated 15.03.1994 was not presented on
15.03.1994 or on 18.03.1994 and that is why the same was neither
included in the Clearing register of instruments sent for clearing on
18.03.1994 nor in the Bank Statement as on 21.03.1994.
G
21. An appreciation of the evidence on record shows that the list
of applications and cheques received by the bank on the cut-off date, did
not contain details of the application and cheque given by the Appellant.
Thus, it is clear that the defective application and the accompanying
cheque were issued beyond cut-off date and records of NO IDA were
H manipulated with dishonest intention to bring in the application of the
NEERA YADAV v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATON
513
[R. BANUMATHI, J .]
appellant within the cut-off date. Various circumstances pointed out by A
the prosecution, viz. non-mentioning of date on the application; making
payment through cheque instead of through Ale payee Demand Draft/
Pay Order; and the amount of the cheque being collected only on
28.03.1994 leads to an inference that the application of the appellant,
who was the then CCEO of the NOIDA, was not given before the cutB
off date i.e. 15.03.1994. The only possible inference which can be drawn
in such circumstances is that though, the appellant had conveniently
submitted an ante-dated application after the closure of the scheme,
ante-dated 'demand draft' or 'pay order' could not have been obtained,
and hence, she submitted Ex. Ka-8 cheque by mentioning a back date.
The fact that appellant's cheque (Ex.Ka-8) was sent for collection on
C
28.03.1994, after seven days of collection of amount of demand drafts
in respect of other applications clearly leads to an irresistible conclusion
that appellant's application was only subsequently included in the register.
The trial court and the High Court rightly held that the appellant abused
her position in ensuring that her incomplete application with ante-dated D
cheque was processed.
22. Plot No.B-002 in Sector-32 was allotted to the appellant on
08.04.1994 vide allotment letter Ex. A-78. The appellant submitted
Ex.Ka-39 application on 15.04..1994 seeking conversion of her plot to a
plot measuring 450 sq.ms. in a developed sector. As is seen from Ex.Ka90, the proposal for conversion was put up by G.C. Tiwari on 02.05.1994
E
and PW-35 Stuti Kacker, Officer on Special Duty ofNOIDA, allowed
the conversion of the plot on 06.05.1994. As per the conversion policy
any conversion of plot is required to be done by CEO, NOIDA. Case of
prosecution is that since CEO herself was the applicant for conversion
of the plot, the matter ought to have been placed before the Board;
F
rather than before a subordinate officer like PW-35 Stuti Kacker .
. Allowing of conversion of appellant's plot to plot No.27, Sector-J 4A by
a subordinate officer is in clear violation of the conversion policy.
23. As per the policy of the allotment and also as per the terms of
the brochure, the successful applicant has to deposit 30% of the total
G
premium for allotment of Plot No.26 in Sector-l 4A measuring 450 sq.ms.
The total premium payable works out to Rs.5,40,000/-, 30% of which
comes to Rs.1,62,000/-. By the communication dated 04.05.1994 it is
seen that the appellant was asked to deposit only an amount of
Rs.1,08,000/-, which again is in violation of the terms of the allotment
H
514
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 8 S.C.R.
A and conversion.
24. The very fact that the application was 'undated' and that the_
cheque was issued instead of demand draft and the same was cleared
only on 28.03.1994, clearly prove that by abusing the position, the appellant
obtained undue advantage for herself. This is further strengthened by
B the subsequent conversion of the plot, allotment of additional area in her
favour and reduction of the size of the unnumbered plot available in
Sector-14A, Noida. The High Court and the trial court rightly recorded
concurrent findings of fact that the application of the appellant suffered
from material defects which were sufficient to discard the application;
C but by illegal means, the application was processed by the appellant.
Unjustified change in layout plan of Sector-14A: Resultant
loss to NOIDA and advantage to the appellant:-
25. Lease deed of plot No.26 (Ext. A-45) was executed on
19.05.1994 in favour of the appellant. On28.05.1994 S.P. Gautam, Chief
D -Architect Planner proposed vide proposal dated 28.05.1994 Ext. A-64
a plan for making provision ofa 7.5 m. wide road between the official
residence of CCEO of Greater Noida and plot No.26 of the appellant.
The Chief Architect Planner also proposed enhancement of area of plot
No.26 by 112.50 sq.ms. with further proposal for re-organization of plots
in view ofloss of area of225 sq.ms. in the proposed road. Without any
E questioning, the said proposal was approved by the appellant herself on
31.05.1994 and size of plot No.26 was thus enhanced to 562.50 sq.ms.
No cogent reason has been furnished by the appellant for approving the
above plan of site re-arrangement, which directly benefits the appellant
herself and causes loss to NOIDA. The said 7.5 ms. wide road carved
F to the East of plot No.26 and enhancement of area of plot No.26 only
resulted in benefitting the appellant by increasing her plot size and by
making her plot as comer plot. The maps depicting site plan ofSet:torl 4A of NOIDA were prepared by the Chief Architect and the Chief
Architect Planner as per the direction of Dy. SP and these maps were
marked as Exs. Al 8 to A23 in Raj iv Kumar's case [Sp!. Case No. 19 of
G 2002] and certified copies of the same were produced in this case as
Talvitha.
H
26. The following table as given by the High Court in its judgment
in Criminal Appeal No. 4 717 of 2007 pertaining t9 Raj iv Kumar (which
we have also extracted in C.A. No.251-252/2017) will depict the frequent
NEERA YADAV v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTlGATON
515
.