RAJIV KUMAR versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.

Citation: [2017] 9 S.C.R. 594 · Decided: 02-08-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2017] 9 S.C.R. 594 
RAJIV KUMAR 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 251 of 2017) 
AUGUST 02, 2017 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.f 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - s.13(2) rlw. s.13(l)(d) 
- Criminal misconduct by public servants - Prosecution case that 
C appellants (the then Depu~y Chief Executive Officer, NOJDA and 
the then Chairperson and Chief Executive Officer (CCEO) of NOJDA 
respectively) entered into a criminal conspiracy, abusing their 
position as public servants, with an object of procuring pecuniary 
advantage to appellant-the then Deputy CEO by allotting him a 
plot reserved/or Government Guest House after conversion contrarr 
D 
to the rules - Held: The evidence and materials on record amp(v 
show that there:~Nas a prior concert of mind1· of the appellants in 
conversion of the "guest house" into "residential" and allotting. 
the same to appellant by.flouting the rules and the circular - Jn the 
entire sequence of events, starting from applying for allotment of a 
E 
residential plot under the scheme and securing an allotment in a 
developed sector by undergoing two conversions, undue haste was 
shown in conversions which is quite evident/ram materials on record 
- Undue haste only leads to an adverse inference - The act of the 
appellants: (i) double conversion of the plot in violation of the rules 
and circular; (ii) conversion of "guest house" to "residential" and 
F 
allotting the same to appellant-the then Deputy CEO; (iii) conversion 
of an allotted plot to the developed sector at a lower rate; and (iv) 
after getting the allotment of a smaller plot, getting allotment of 
additional area, frequent alteration of the plots with the dishonest 
intention of the appell~_nts gaining pecuniary advantage to 
G themselves in altering the plots to their own advantage establishes 
prior concert of the appellants in manipulating the maps/record~ to 
suit their convenience - These facts man(fest abuse o.lposition by 
·~ appellant-the then Deputy CEO in obtaining valuable thing and 
pecuniary advantage for himself - Co-accused appe!lant-CCEO is 
associated in each and every aspect of these events which clearly 
H bring home the charge o.f conspiracy o.f both the accused. 
594 
RAJIV KUMAR v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. 
595 
Sentence/Sentencing - Prosecution case that appellants (the 
A 
then Deputy Chief Executive Officer, NO/DA and the then 
Chairperson and Chief" Executive, ()[ficer (CCEO) of NO/DA 
respectively) entered into a criminal conspiracy, abusing their 
position as public servants, with the object ofprocuring pecuniary 
advantage to appellant-the then Deputy CEO by allotting him a B 
plot reserved for Government Guest House afier conversion contrary 
to the rules - High Court upheld conviction of appellants u/s.120-
B /PC and s.13(2) rlw. s.13(J)(d) of P. C. Act, 1988 alongwith 
sentence of imprisonment for 3 years - High' Court confirmed the 
conviction and sentence - Held: Wife of the appellant-then Deputy 
CEO filed an affidavit stating that the allotment was cancelled ·by C • . , 
NO/DA and that the amount deposited against the allotment of the 
plot has not been refunded so far - She further averred that the 
appellant-then Deputy CEO and his family are not interested in 
getting the aforesaid plot and have unconditionally surrendered 
the said plot_ - In the facts and circumstances of the present case D 
and considering that the occurrence was of the year 1994 about 23 
years ago and that the appellant-then Deputy CEO had ofjered to 
surrender the plot and forgo refund and the fact that on account of 
conviction, his service and retiral benefits are in jeopardy, sentence 
o.l imprisonment imposed on him is reduced to 2 years' and that o.l 
appellant-the then CCEO of NO/DA is also to be reduced -
E 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988- s.13(2) rlw. s.13(1)(d) - Penal 
Code, 1860 - s.120B. 
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 For convicting the appellants under Section 
120-B IPC and under Section 13(l)(d)(ii), there must be evidence 
F 
on record that the accused obtained for himself or any other . 
person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. The act of the 
appellants: (i) double conversion of the plot ih violation of the 
rules and circular; (ii) conversion of "guest house" to 
"residential" and allotting the same to appellant-the then Deputy . G 
Chief Executive Officer; (iii) conversion of plot No.B-86 in Sector-
51 to the developed Sector-14
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.