NEERA YADAV versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATON

Citation: [2017] 8 S.C.R. 498 · Decided: 02-08-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

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 on

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.