Full Judgment
1. Heard Mr. G.S. Chaturvedi, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Uma Nath Pandey for the revisionist and Mr. Anurag Khanna for the respondent no.2 and the learned AGA for the respondent no.1 and perused the record.
2. This is a revision against the order dated 7.9.2010 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI) Ghaziabad in criminal case no. 3101 of 2010, CBI vs. Ved Ram Sharma, whereby the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under section 420 IPC on the charge sheet filed by the CBI and issued a process against the revisionist.
3. It appears that the revisionist is the Chairman of Akash Educational Society (in short 'the society') registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is also alleged that the society intended to establish R.V. Northland Institute of Technology, Gautam Budh Nagar and applied for approval of the All India Council for Technical Education (in short 'the AICTE'). It is also alleged that the AICTE required the society to furnish an undertaking that the land and building owned by the society was not mortgaged nor they were under any lien or charge or any other kind of encumbrance and shall also not be subjected to such charge in future. Accordingly the revisionist furnished a written undertaking to that effect, which was subsequently found false. According to the charge sheet, the society had furnished the information that it was the owner of 8.8203 acre land, but on inquiry the society was found owner of only 3.7368 acre land and remaining 5.0838 acre land had been acquired by the State Government. The revisionist, knowing about the acquisition of the said land, furnished the aforesaid undertaking with the intent to defraud the AICTE and obtained the desired permission.
4. The learned Magistrate while taking cognizance of the offence, perused the entire material on record and arrived at the conclusion that a prima facie case under section 420 IPC was made out against the revisionist and accordingly took cognizance of the said offence.
5. Mr. G.S. Chaturvedi submitted that the property of the society was neither mortgaged nor was subjected to any lien or charge or other kind of encumbrance, therefore, the undertaking was correct. It was next submitted that the AICTE had merely required the revisionist to indicate as to whether land and building of the society had been mortgaged or were subjected to any other lien, charge or encumbrance or not. Therefore, the undertaking was furnished according to the wishes of the AICTE. Mr. Chaturvedi further submitted that the revisionist was nowhere required to indicate as to whether the land had been acquired or not, therefore, there was no question of any concealment in this regard. It was also submitted that the society has already filed writ petition no.17029/2008 in this Court against the acquisition proceedings and this Court vide the order dated 1.4.2008, directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the land. In this view of the matter the acquisition proceeding has not become final therefore, the title of the society is intact. As such there was no deliberate concealment on the part of the revisionist.
6. Mr. Anurag Khanna, on the other hand, submitted that the interim order regarding the status quo itself indicates that neither the society nor the revisionist could use the land for the institute and whatever position of the land was on spot, it was to be kept as it is without any change. Therefore, the interim order is of no help to the revisionist. It was further submitted that when the society was required to inform regarding mortgage, charge, lien or any other encumbrance in respect of the land and building of the society, it was incumbent upon the revisionist to disclose that the land of the society had already been acquired and the matter was sub-judice before the High Court but he deliberately concealed this fact with the object of securing permission of the AICTE. Had he disclosed the aforesaid fact, the AICTE would not have granted the permission.
7. Mr. Anurag Khanna relied on S.P. Gupta vs. Ashutosh Gupta, (2010) 6 SCC 562 in support of his submission. In that case the petitioner had given assurance that the property in question was free from all encumbrances and the accused no.1 was sole owner but later on the assurance was found false. The Apex Court held that a prima facie case for holding the trial was made out. In my opinion, the verdict of the Apex Court in the said case supports the submission of Mr. Anurag Khanna.
8. At the stage of taking cognizance of an offence or framing of a charge against the accused, the trial court is not required to make an inquiry for finding out truth in the allegations made against the accused. At that stage, the defence evidence or version can not be looked into. Whatever materials are collected during the investigation and placed in support of the charge sheet, are the only relevant material on which basis the Magistrate is required under law to take cognizance of the offence. If those materials make out a prima facie case regarding commission of an offence, the Magistrate has jurisdiction to take cognizance and issue process to the accused. In the present case, the learned Magistrate has passed a well reasoned order, while taking the cognizance and arrived at the conclusion that a prima facie case under section 420 IPC was made out against the revisionist as there were sufficient materials on record against the revisionist, therefore, the impugned order being based on evidence on record, can not be upset in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
9. It may also be mentioned that the revisionist has still an option to seek his discharge in the court concerned at the appropriate stage.
10. In view of the reasons stated above, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error in the impugned order, which seems to be perfectly correct. The revision is therefore, dismissed.
11. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the complicity of the revisionist, it is provided that if the revisionist Ved Ram Sharma appears in the court concerned and applies for bail, his bail prayer in the aforesaid case shall be considered and dispose of by both the courts below on the same day.