Court convicts former MCD engineer in 2006 case registered by CBI
NEW DELHI: A court here has convicted a former assistant engineer of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) under IPC section 217 (public servant disobeying law with intent to save a person from punishment or property from forfeiture).
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Nishant Garg was hearing allegations against accused Vijay Kumar Jain, against whom the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had registered a case.
According to the prosecution, the owners of 15 properties in the west Punjabi Bagh area were booked by the civic body for unauthorised construction in July 2004 but Jain, the then assistant engineer of the MCD, retained the files to prevent action
against the properties.
In an order dated August 7, the court said, “It can be concluded that accused V K Jain intentionally retained the subject 15 files with him”, despite knowing that orders were passed for issuing demolition notices regarding 12 properties and that demolition orders were passed for the three
remaining properties.
It said Jain retained the files to prevent action being taken against these properties, despite being aware of the Delhi High Court’s direction on April 11, 2005, where it had asked the MCD to take action in accordance with law against the properties and file a compliance report
within four months.
“The prosecution has led sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused is held guilty for the commission of the offence under section 217 of the IPC and is convicted for the said offence,” the court said.
The matter has been posted for hearing the arguments on sentencing on Monday.
The magistrate rejected the defence’s argument that the CBI, despite being aware that, at most, it was a case of misconduct, deliberately lodged an FIR for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act to bypass the requirement of obtaining permission from the magistrate to investigate a non-cognisable offence.
“I am not in agreement with the contention of the defence counsel. Perusal of the preliminary enquiry report reveals that it specifically mentions that accused Jain has committed criminal misconduct and abused his position as a public servant to cause favour to the owners of 15 properties,” he said.
The magistrate said along with Jain, other MCD officials and the 15 property owners were also made accused in the FIR.
“Hence, it cannot be said that the FIR was intentionally registered by the investigating agency under the stringent provisions of the PC Act,” the magistrate said.
The CBI had registered the FIR under PC Act provisions regarding criminal misconduct by a public servant and under the penal provision for criminal conspiracy against Jain and others. The court had, however, framed charge against Jain under IPC section 217 in July 2018.
