Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2) – Penal Code, 1860 – s.120-B – Criminal misconduct – Criminal conspiracy – Appellant-builder and the officials of the Municipal Corporation conspired to facilitate the appellant in constructing the building in violation of the Rules – Officials granted the permit to the appellant for internal alterations/renovation in the building even though not required – On the strength of the said permit, allegedly issued as a part of the conspiracy, the appellant demolished the existing building and constructed a four-storeyed commercial building in gross violation of the Rules – FIR against the officials of the Municipal Corporation, the appellant and the architect u/s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2) of the PC Act and s.120-B IPC – Filing of charge-sheet and framing of charges – Petition u/s.482 CrPC seeking quashing of the proceedings – Dismissed by the High Court – Interference:
Held: Not called for – From the very beginning, the appellant acted in conspiracy with the Municipal Corporation officials by giving a facade of legitimacy to his fraudulent actions and to establish a pre-emptive defence in case the illegal acts were exposed – Officials of the Municipal Corporation deliberately turned a blind eye to the fact that the appellant had commenced construction of a commercial structure by misusing the permit granted for making renovations and/or internal changes – Moreover, they even entertained the fraudulent application filed by the appellant seeking the regularisation of the patently illegal structure, which could not have been entertained since the construction of a commercial structure was not permissible as it fell within a prohibited zone – Thus, the necessary ingredients of the offences alleged clearly established from the allegations set out – Furthermore, these officials did not challenge the criminal proceedings, which is a tacit acknowledgment of the seriousness and prima facie validity of the allegations – Case of the architect, whose prosecution was quashed by the High Court, stands on an entirely different footing – He was merely discharging his professional obligations and had no prior knowledge of the criminal intent shared by the parties – Concerned authorities under obligation to take suitable action against the illegal construction raised by the appellant, uninfluenced by any extraneous circumstances – Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999. [Paras 13-18]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.