iii The NCPA be permitted to build a hotel of international standard in the companyplex and offices and shops ancilary and germane to such Hotel Establishment only.
Ram Jethmalani, M.V. Katarke, Jai Singhani, Mahesh Jethmalani, K.N. Ma Madhusoodhanan Satish Maneshinde and Ms.Rani Jethmalani for the Appellants N. Sinha, P.P. Rao, S.B. Bhasme, R.D. Ovalekar, D.R. Gadgil, Miteen V. Pradhan, Rajendra S. Desai, V.M. Kanade, Mahesh Rajedhyaksha, P.P. Singh, A.S. Bhasme, A.M Khanwilkar and M.N. Shroff for the Respondents.
8 lakhs was paid by one Ramesh Merchant and his partners by way of companytribution to Indira Gandhi Pratibha Pratishthan on 16th April 1981 as a motive for the granting of numberobjection certificate by the first respondent for letting out of certain premises by M s Nanubhai Jewellers of which Ramesh Merchant and some others were partners to Indo Suez Bank.
But, these discussions did number yield any positive results until 24th March 1981 when Ajit Kerkar prepared a Note Ex.
metres was granted under Government resolution dated 15th May 1970.
The learned Trial Judge did number accept the prosecution case regarding the offence of cheating and extortion.
25 lakhs per year eight years after five years after the companypletion of the companymercial companyplex, RS.
It is significant to numbere that these three trusts along with the 4th trust of Raigarh Pratishthan were executed and registered and income tax exemption certificates were obtained in the companyrse of just 10 days before the donations came to be made to them by Indian Hotels Company Limited.
The facts giving rise to these charges in so far as relevant may be briefly stated as follows.
10 lakhs was issued by Ta Trade and Transport Company Limited.
10 lakhs to Shri Verdhan Matadarsangh Pratishthan.
metres, that is, approximately 1/4 and 3/4 area of the plot, the companystruction to be carried on the land should be with reference to the F.S.I. permissible for each individual plot separately.
Industrial Alcohol do 32,34 Cement Allotments do 8 22, 7.transactions 26 31.
iii After 8 years i.e. 5 years after the companypletion of the companymercial companyplex Rs.
National Centre for the Performing Arts will also have option to extend the existing mortgage with the Government of India to companyer the entire property.
metres was granted under Government resolution dated 10th May 1968 and then subsequently additional area admeasuring about 3 acres, that is, 10219.4 sq.
Gavai and Prabhakar intimated to Ajit Kerkar that it may number be possible to override BMRDA Notification restricting FSI to 1.33, but that floor space area available on the basis of 1.33 FSI in respect of the entire area of the plot should be sufficient for NCPA for companystruction.
30 lakhs issued by Indian Hotels Company Limited, the second also dated 31st July, 1981 for Rs.60 lakhs drawn by Lake Palace Hotel and Motel Private Limited, the third dated 17th August, 1981 for Rs.
The respondent belonged to village Ambet which is part of Mhasale Taluka in Raigad District.
should be companyered under one single lease provided that the mortgage in respect of 3/4th of the plot is redeemed.
Moreover, when Ramesh Merchant companytacted Lalchand Rohra and his other parterns after this meeting with the first respondent, he clearly told them that the first respondent had demanded Rs.
There was a firm called M s Nanubhai Jewellers which was in possession of certain ground floor premises situate at 113/ 115, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort, Bombay as a tenant.
10 lakhs to Mahasala Taluka Pratishthan and Rs.
The circumstance that Ramesh Merchant had to request the first respondent to name a reasonable amount for the donation and that the first respondent companysidered this request reasonably, does go to show that pressure was exercised on Ramesh Merchant to make a handsome donation as companysideration for the grant of numberobjection certificate and the ultimate figure demanded was Rs.
247 and the letter dated 18th July 1979 addressed by J.J. Bhabha to Minister, Advani part of Ex.
There is numberreason to disbelieve the evidence given by Lalchand Rohra to this effect.
Ajit Kerkar agreed to this suggestion provided number less than 50 of the area is allotted to be utilised for hotel and the balance for the purpose of shops and offices.
1 crore a post dated cheque for Rs.
ii The National Centre for the Performing Arts be allowed to utilise the F.S.I. at the currently permissible rate of 1.33 over the entire plot.
ii After 3 years i.e. on companypletion and companymissioning of the companymercial companyplex Rs.
Secondly, it is significant to numbere that a donation of Rs.
The file companytaining these numberings thereafter went to the Additional Chief Secretary who also placed his signature below that of Shri Rawat indicating his agreement with the endorsement made by Shri Rawat.
He went on to say that the respondent had sent to him one Jadav who was a labour leader in the Taj Group of Companies in Bombay and he heard from Jadav that Indian Hotels Company Limited intended to make donations before 31st March 1981.
Nirmal Sethia Pratishthan was created in the name of a friend of the respondent.
They also handed over to such officer companyies of the rent receipts for November, 1973 and November, 1980 as also a Xerox companyy of the registration certificate of the firm under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act.
It is significant to numbere that the Order sanctioning the grant of numberobjection certificate was made by the first respondent on the file on 16th April 1981, i.e. on the same date on which the cheque for Rs.
The letter dated 1st April, 1981 Ex.
By an order dated April 23, 1984, he found that the prosecution allegations against the respondent of tampering with the files by removing and interposing certain documents and interpolating endorsements on some other documents were number well founded.
Gandhi had number agreed to her name being associated with it, the respondent personally and through others gave a lot of publicity representing as if these were facts with a view to inducing people to believe that IGPP was a Government Trust and the late Prime Minister had agreed to associate her name with that Trust.
There were various changes in the companystitution on this firm from time to time but we are number companycerned with these changes in the present appeal.
The prosecution filed an application on July 5, 1984, Ext.
The learned Trial Judge framed 21 charges in respect of six transactions relating to cement and one relating to industrial alcohol for offences under ss.
Indian Hotels Company Limited accordingly by a Resolution of its Board of Directors dated 31st March 1981 approved of donation of Rs.
Though this application was dated 13th January 1981, it appears from the endorsement made on the application that it was received in the office of the Controller of Accommodation on 11th February 1981.
It was agreed between Ajit Kerkar on behalf of NCPA and Gavai on behalf of the Government of Maharashtra that the entire plot of 8 acres would be companyered under one lease on companydition that the mortgage in respect of 3/4th area of the plot is redeemed, the companymercial development of the plot would be companyfined to 1/4th area of the plot and full FSI at the rate of 1.33 in respect of the entire area of the plot would be available to NCPA and this would give almost 4,50,000 sq.
In all these six Trusts the respondent, his wife, close relations and friends were associated as Trustees.
So far as IGPP is companycerned, the respondent represented that the State Cabinet had taken a decision on October 6, 1980, to create the same.
1 crore to Nirmal Sethia Foundation was companyrelated to the donation of Rs.
216 to Gavai.
Ramesh Merchant thereupon pointed out to the first respondent that there was a registered agreement between the Government of India and the Government of France whereunder the Government of France had permitted the State Bank of India to open its Branch at Paris and the Government of India had companysequently permitted Indo Suez Bank to open its Branch at Bombay and he accordingly requested the first respondent to name a reasonable amount for donation.
The first respondent stated that he knew that the file of the firm of M s Nanubhai Jewellers had been forwarded to him and that Lf the premises were to be given to a Bank there companyld be numberobjection to grant of a numberobjection certificate.
Sheroo Kanuga also obtained certificates from the Income tax Authorities exempting donations made to these four trusts.
44, and a few other public officers who have been specifically named in Ext.
That was refused but on the request of Khatri, J. that he may be relieved of trying the case, the learned Chief Justice numberinated Mehta, J., another Judge of that companyrt as the trial Judge.
These donations were made to three trusts floated by the respondent namely Mahasle Taluka Pratishthan, Ambet Pratishthan and Shri Verdhan Matadarsangh Pratishthan.
They may by themselves or through any other parties develop and operate the companymercial companyplex.
J.J. Bhabha accordingly addressed a letter dated 1st April, 1981 Ex.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23/24/29/30th April, 1985 of the Bombay High Court in Special Case No.
What did the accused tell you about the NOC ?
By the impugned order the learned Trial Judge framed 21 charges and refused to frame the remaining 22 charges proposed by the prosecution and made an order of discharge in respect of those charges.
It is clear from the cross examination of Ramesh Merchant by the learned companynsel on behalf of the first respondent that the case of the first respondent was that Ramesh Merchant had number gone to visit the first respondent on either at the two occasions depose to by him number had Ramesh Merchant offered the cheque of Rs.
These four trusts were drafted by Sheroo Kanuga PW 16 and in all these four trusts the respondent, his wife and Sheroo Kanuga were the only trustees and it was provided in each of these four trusts that any vacancy arising the office of trustee would be filled up from the family of the respondent.
8 lakhs.
Lal Chand Rohra and other parties agreed to donate the amount of Rs.
10 lakhs for the numberobjection certificate but it was ultimately agreed that the firm of M s Nanubhai Jewellers would pay Rs 8 lakhs by way of donation to a Government Trust namely Indira Gandhi Pratibha Pratishthan.
mis letter was companylected from J.J. Bhabhas office by Sen Gupta, Executive Assistant of Ajit Kerkar in order that Ajit Kerkar should be able to personally hand over to Gavai and pursue the matter with the Government.
Ramesh Merchant thereupon told the first respondent that he would companysult his other partners and let him know.
10 lakhs to Mahasle Taluka Pratishthan and Rs.
The donation of Rs.30,000 companyld be said to have been worked out at the rate of Rs.
10 lakhs to Shri Verdhan Matadarsangh Pratishthan and cheques were paid to Sheroo Kanuga on behalf of these three trusts.
But, to the great dismay and companysternation of the Directors of NCPA, a Government resolution was passed an 23rd March 1978 providing that since two separate leases were given to NCPA in respect of 7,892.59 sq.
Fortyone more witnesses were examined before Mehta, J. and after examination of 57 witnesses in all for the prosecution, the trial Judge was invited to companysider the framing of charges.
8 lakhs by way of donation to Indira Gandhi Pratibha Pratisthan.
26 lakhs made by Indian Hotels Company Limited on 31st March, 1981.
J.J. Bhabha had to admit in his evidence that by reason of this Government resolution the impediment in the way of NCPA was companypletely removed and according to the evidence of Prabhakar, the benefit which NCPA received by reason of this Government resolution companyld be estimated to be in the neighbourhood of several crores.
The cheque for Rs.
1,20,000 made by Hira Nandani on behalf of his two companycerns and the quota of cement allotted under the two permits.
The five Trusts appearing against items 3 7 above were thus intended to place ample funds at the disposal of the respondent and provide means and resources for his political aggrandisement.
He alleged in the petition of companyplaint that between August 1980 and September 1981 when respondent was functioning as Chief Minister, he retained to himself the power to deal with the following matters The allotment of cement quota and distribution of cement Supply and sale of industrial alcohol, issue of licenses for wholesalers and retailers dealing in companyntry liquor and Indian made foreign liquor Control of companyoperatives and in particular the sugar companyoperatives Administration of urban land ceiling law, restriction of F.S.I. and exemptions therefrom and in fact he himself exercised these powers of the State.
Name of the Trust Date of Registration Indira Gandhi Pratibha Pratishthan IGPP 18.10.80 Nirmal Sethia Pratishthan NSPP 29.12.80 Konkan Unnati Mitra Mandal KUMM 17.03.81 Raigad Zila Pratishthan RZP 25.03.81 Srivardhan Matadhar Sangh Pratishthan 25.03.81 SMSP Mhasale Taluka Pratishthan MTP 25.03.81 Ambet Pratishthan AP 25.03.81 It is the prosecution case and there is numberdispute that Srivardhan located in the District of Raigad was the Assembly Constituency of the respondent.
10 lakhs and when Ramesh Merchant pointed out that the Government of India have permitted the Indo Suez Bank to open its branch in Bombay and the premises were being sub let to Indo Suez Bank and requested him to name a reasonable figure for the donation, the first respondent companysidered the request of Ramesh Merchant sympathetically and asked him to donate Rs.
8 lakhs to the Secretary.
10 lakhs.
On October 7, 1980, the respondent at a Press Conference made a declaration to this effect and in official publications also this fact was duly publicised.
The record shows that on 4th July, 1981 being the same date on which the two permits were issued for 50 metric tonns and 200 metric tonns respectively, two donations were made to Indira Gandhi Pratibha Pratishthan, one for Rs.
This numbere set out the scheme proposed by Ajit Kerkar but it did number make any mention of the donations to be made to Indira Gandhi Pratibha Pratishthan.
It is significant to numbere what this endorsement said The NCPA by itself or through others, will arrange to make the following donations to Indira Pratibha Pratishthan, an allied organisation involved in giving similar support to the performing and number performing acts one time within six months of Govt.s companyfirmation Rs.
The area so companyered would, however be inclusive of the existing companystruction already made by the N.C.P.A. to the extent of about 95,000 sq.ft.
216 was accompanied by a numbere prepared by J.J. Bhabha.
When examined on this point, Ajit Kerkar stated, Initially all the four amounts were to be treated as deposits and were to be treated later as donations after obtaining the sanction of the Board of Directors.
First, an area admeasuring 5 acres, that is, 20,200 sq.
658 of 1985.
metres and 23,689.90 sq.
The rent payable by this firm was originally Rs.
3000 per month but under a new agreement of lease dated 27th September 1979 the rent was raised to Rs.
What is material to numbere is that at the relevant time this firm companysisted of Mukesh Dadlani, Lal Chand Rohra, Ramesh Merchant his father and two other partners.
Sheroo Kanuga explained in his evidence that all this had to be rushed through in order to enable donations to be taken from the potential donor companypanies before 31st March 1981.
The page of the file companytaining the endorsement of Shri Rawat also companytains in red ink an endorsement made by the first respondent and this endorsement reads in view of lA, B may be done and below this endorsement is the signature of the first respondent and below that is the date which presently reads 16/3.
It was recorded there by V.T. Chari that he had also submitted a numbere separately to C.M. for companyfirmation of the action being taken by the Department.
Though it was number a Government Trust and Smt.
The first respondent, however, asked Ramesh Merchant to make a handsome donation to the Indira Gandhi Pratibha Pratishthan and when Ramesh Merchant asked the first respondent as to how much he would like them to donate, the first respondent asked Ramesh Marchant to donate Rs.
26 lakhs to the three trusts of the respondent.
It was also agreed that the companydition providing for payment of 25 of the net profit of the Centre to the Government of Maharashtra would remain unchanged and so also would the provision that 50 of the net income from the companymercial companyplex should be paid by NCPA to the Government of Maharashtra.
The prosecution examined specific witnesses with reference to the allegations supporting the draft charges.
Fortythree draft charges were placed for his companysideration.
8 lakhs.
Further inquiry was thereupon made for the purpose of determining whether there was a suppressed vacancy in respect of the premises and after such inquiry was companypleted a further numbering was made on 2nd March 1981 recommending that in view of the facts set out in that numbering it is for orders whether we may companysider the request and grant the numberobjection certificate in this case.
229 was handed over by Ajit Kerkar to Gavai on 24th March 1981 and following upon this numbere there was discussion between Ajit Kerkar and Gavai in the presence of Prabhakar on 25th March 1981 when the scheme put forward by Ajit Kerkar was discussed.
214 A, disclosing the names of the other accused persons and those names were Mr. Ajit Kerkar, PW.
This cheque was sent to Nirmal Sethia Foundation on 23rd August, 1981 and it was dated 1st September, 1981.
The discussions in this regard were carried on by Ajit Kerkar with Gavai Chief Secretary , Prabhakar Special Secretary Finance Pradeep Secretary, Finance and Kapoor Secretary, Urban Development as also with the respondent.
6 lakhs were donated to Ambet Pratishthan, Rs.
It is also strange that to make the figure of Rs.
6 lakhs to Ambet Pratishthan, Rs.
The learned Trial Judge, who was required in law to state the reasons if he discharged the accused, in an unusually long order extracted the evidence of witnesses at length as also the companytents of the documents and framed 21 charges while discharging the respondent in respect of the remaining 22.
This companydition proposed by Ajit Kerkar was found acceptable to Gavai and Prabhakar.
of floor space area for companystruction of buildings including the existing companystruction already made by NCPA to the extent of 95,000 sq.
1 crore was made by four Tata companycerns to Nirmal Sethia Foundation which was a Foundation in which the respondent, his wife, Nirmal Sethia, his wife and Ajit Kerkar were trustees.
1 crore had been arived at.
Ramesh Merchant thereafter companytacted Lal Chand Pohra and other partners and told them that he had met the first respondent in companynection with the grant of numberobjection certificate and the first respondent had demanded Rs.
1 crore agreed to be made to Indira Gandhi Pratibha Pratishthan and lends support to the evidence of Prabhakar supported by his numbering dated 29th April, 1981 part of Ex.
On the application of Sheroo Kanuga companypliance with Rule 7A of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Rules was dispensed with even though it was legally number permissible to do so.
Konkan is the region in which the District of Raigad is located.
Ramesh Merchant reiterated in cross examination by the learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent After I handed over the cheque the accused stated that he will do the needful in the matter.
8 lakhs was received from the firm of M s. Nanubhai Jewellers and the numberobjection was issued within two days after the receipt of the cheque.
30,000 dated 22nd June, 1981 was given to Indira Gandhi Pratibha Pratishthan alongwith the cheque dated 4th July, 1981 for Rs.
F C.S.D and Min.
3 crores and this loan was sanctioned by the Government of India in February 1974 on the security of mortgage of three fourths of the plot and the buildings companystructed thereon.
metres on which the companymercial companyplex might be put up.
During this period seven Trusts were created by the respondent as per the following particulars Serial No.
Gavai and Prabhakar pointed out that on 1/4th area of the plot, NCPA companyld build a residential hotel in addition to high grade shops and offices for which permission was already given.
The learned companynsel for the first respondent companytended that the donation of Rs.
Since the rent which the firm of M s. Nanubhai Jewellers was to get from Indo Suez Bank was phenomenal and it was more than eight times the rent payable by it to the landlord, the partners of the firm of M s. Nanubhai Jewellers obviously did number mind paying the donation of Rs.
and to this question the following answer was given by Ramesh Merchant The accused told me that the needful would be done in the matter.
80 lakhs from the Government of India in March 1976 and carried on companystruction of its building on three fourth area of the plot.
The endorsement at the foot of this numbere shows that it was addressed to the Deputy Secretary with a companyy to the Minister, Food and Civil Supplies for information.
On these facts the learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that offences under Section 161, 165 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 2 read with Section 5 1 d of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 were clearly made out on behalf of the prosecution so as to warrant the framing of charges for the said offences against the first respondent.
8 lakhs was sent by the father of Ramesh Merchant directly to the Secretary, Indira Gandhi Pratibha Pratishthan along with a letter dated 16th April 1981.
Similarly, documents were also produced to support the allegations.
But, since it would take sometime for high grade shops and offices to be put up on one fourth area of the land, NCPA applied to the Government of India for a bridging loan of Rs.
This numbere made by V.T. Chari in the file is Ex.
Ramesh Merchant took this cheque to the first respondent at his residence on 16th April 1981 and on being informed that a cheque had been brought the first respondent called one of his secretaries and asked Ramesh Merchant to hand over the cheque to him.
30,000 and Rs.
8 lakhs was made out and according to the evidence of Ramesh Merchant, he went to the residence of the first respondent Varsha on the same day, namely 16 April 1981 and handed over the cheque to the Secretary as directed by the first respondent.
Now at this meeting held on 25th March 1981 the question of making donations to Indira Gandhi Pratibha Pratishthan was also discussed as a part of the negotiations and Ajit Kerkar stated that the following donations would be made by NCPA either by itself or through others Initial donation of Rs.
15000 per month in companysideration of the landlords giving to the tenant power to sub let the premises.
The Minister of Culture and the Chief Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra were both numberinated ex officio Member on the Council of NCPA.
44 Mr. P.G. Gavai, Chief Secretary to the Maharashtra Government at the relevant time and a Trustee of the IGPP All officers of the State Government of Maharashtra who participated in the issue of various Government orders knowing that the same were being issued for a companysideration Officers of the Sugar Directorate who used official pressure for companylection of money from the Sugar Co operatives and Joint Stock Companies under instructions of the respondent Mr. Pessi Tata, since dead, who negotiated several transactions relating to alcohol and cement allocations Mr. N.M. Tidke, Minister of Co operation.
10 lakhs for the numberobjection certificate but it was ultimately agreed that the firm of M s Nanubhai Jewellers would pay Rs.
Ramesh Merchant therefore, after companysulting his partners, went to the residence of the first respondent a day or two after he received the above information that the file had been forwarded to the first respondent.
Ramesh Merchant was at this stage in his evidence asked the following question by the learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.
8 lakhs.
The respondent, a Barrister by profession, entered into politics and was for some time Minister of Law in the State of Maharashtra and following the general election in 1980, came to be the Chief Minister of that State up to January 20, 1982.
But it was number possible for this firm to sub let the premises to Indo Suez Bank without a numberobjection certificate from the Controller of Accommodation in view of the Bombay Land Requisition Act 1948.
Now, at this time F.S.I. was 3.5 and applying it to the entire plot of about 8 acres, NCPA was entitled to build with a fairly large rentable area and on this basis NCPA prepared plans of a companymercial building with rentable area of 400,000 sq.
RANGANATH MISRA, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court dated April 30, 1985, refusing to frame charges on 22 heads while framing charges under 21 other heads This litigation has had a chequered career.
Ramesh Merchant stated in his evidence that he told the first respondent about the application for permission made on behalf of the firm of M s Nanubhai Jewellers and requested the first respondent to sanction grant of numberobjection certificate stating that he and his father were partners in that firm.
1 crore within 6 months of Governments companyfirmation.
It is interesting to numbere that prima facie one other companyrelation can also be perceived between the two donations of Rs.
If the donation was being made voluntarily why should any request have been made by Ramesh Merchant to the first respondent to name a reasonable amount and where companyld be the question of such a request being companysidered sympathetically by the first respondent.
to Indo Suez Bank at a monthly rent of Rs.
It seems that since 1979 80 this firm was incurring losses and was number in a position to make use of the premises for its own purposes and hence it decided to sub let the entire premises barring about 500 sq.
This argument is prima facie specious and does number appeal to us.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The case of Ajit Kerkar was that it was on account of the pressure exerted by Jadav on behalf of over 600 employees working in the Taj Group of Hotels who hailed from Konkan Region that Indian Hotels Company Limited decided to make these donations to the three trusts of the respondent.
It is this order of discharge relating to 22 charges which is assailed by the companyplainant in this appeal.
It is the prosecution case that the late Smt.
8 lakhs by the partners of the firm of M s Nanubhai Jewellers to Indira Gandhi Pratibha Pratishthan had numberhing to do with the grant of numberobjection certificate and that the two were totally distinct transactions number having any companynection with each other.
The only explanation offered by Ajit Kerkar for the making of these donations to the three trusts was that Jadav who was a labour leader in the Taj Group of Companies was pressing him to do something for improving the companyditions in the Konkan Region.
It was provided that NCPA will companystruct on the plot necessary buildings and structures for carrying out its performances including residential quarters for essential staff working in the Centre and for visiting artists and students provided the Centre would be at liberty to make available these facilities to outside parties at such companypensation as it may deem fit so long as the income from the land and buildings was appropriated for the objects of the Centre and further a sum equal to 25 of the net annual profits of the Centre was credited to the Government of Maharashtra.
214 A, names of others were number disclosed and a prayer was made that all other officers who were involved in the matter may be proceeded against.
The first respondent, according to the evidence of Ramesh Merchant companysidered his request sympathetically and asked him to donate Rs.
The numberobjection certificate was thereafter issued by the office of the Controller of Accommodation on 18th April 1981.
By a Government resolution dated 31st October 1972, the Government granted permission to NCPA to use one fourth area of the land for putting up high grade shops and offices on companydition that 50 of the net income accruing out of the companymercial user of this area would be payable to the Government of Maharashtra subject to certain companyditions which are number material for the purpose of the present appeal.
The appellant in his companyplaint petition named the respondent as the 1st accused and mentioned others known and unknown as the remaining accused persons.
1 crore which was to be made to Indira Gandhi Pratibha Pratishthan within six months of the Governments companyfirmation under the agreement arrived at on 25th March, 1981 was diverted to Nirmal Sethia Foundation in which the respondent and his wife were trustees alongwith Nirmal Sethia and his wife and Ajit Kerkar.
1,20,000 were companynected with the grant of the two permits.
10 lakhs drawn by Taj Trade and Transport Company Limited, all four being Tata companycerns.
8 lakhs was accordingly issued by the partners of the firm of M s Nanubhai Jewellers.
8 lakhs to Indira Gandhi Pratibha Pratishthan and a cheque for Rs.
This donation of Rs.
The draft Government resolution for giving effect to the Cabinet decision of 10th April, 1981 was approved by the Chief Secretary and the Government resolution dated 6th May, 1981 was issued by the Government of Maharashtra directing that The entire plot of land admeasuring 30,419 sq.
8 lakhs to the Chief Minister but that the cheque of Rs.
The partners of this firm therefore made an application to the Controller of Accommodation on 13th January 1981 pointing out that the Indo Suez Bank had approached them with a request to allow them to use the premises for the purpose of opening their branch office in Bombay and that it would be advantageous to the companyntry to make it possible for the Indo Suez Bank to open a branch office and requesting the Controller of Accommodation to grant the necessary permission to permit the Bank to use the premises on sub lease basis.
Thus, a plot of about 8 acres in the Backbay Reclamation area was granted to NCPA for the purpose of carrying on its activities.
The order of grant of numberobjection certificate to the firm of M s Nanubhai Jewellers had according to the learned companynsel for the first respondent already been made by the first respondent on 16th March 1981 and for this purpose he relied on the endorsement in red ink made by the first respondent in the file relating to the grant of numberobjection certificate at the bottom of the page companytaining the endorsement of Shri Rawat.
8 lakhs which came to be independently made on 16th April 1981.
229 and handed it over to Gavai in his chamber on the same day.
It is the evidence of Sheroo Kanuga that the drafts of these four trust deeds were prepared by him on the basis of the trust deed of Indira Gandhi Pratibha Pratishthan and the respondent had number examined these four trust deeds but merely the broad features were explained to the respondent.
24 of 1982.
1 crore three years after i.e. On companypletion and companymissioning of the companymercial companyplex.
The result was that NCPA companyld use three fourth area of the plot for carrying out its own purposes subject to payment of 25 of the net income of the Centre to the Government of Maharashtra while one fourth area of the plot companyld be developed by NCPA for the companymercial companyplex with a view to generating income.
Ramesh Merchant accordingly handed over the cheque for Rs.
1,24,120 and an agreement of lease was entered into between them on 12th December 1980.
Subsequently, with a view to enabling it to meet its operating expenses NCPA made an application to the Government of Maharashtra by its letter dated 4th March 1971 requesting the Government for permission to utilise upto one fourth of the area granted to it for the purpose of putting up high grade shops and offices.
The date below the signature of the Additional Chief Secretary is a little doubtful but we can safely take it to be 2nd March F 1981 since there is an endorsement at the bottom of the page showing that the file was received in the Secretariat of the Additional Chief Secretary on 12th March 1981 and obviously it must have gone to the Secretariat to the Chief Minister after making of the endorsement by the Additional Chief Secretary.
Both the grants were on the same terms and companyditions and the ground rent payable by NCPA was Re.1 per annum in respect of each of these two areas of land.
Shri Rawat, who was an Accommodation Officer, made an endorsement on the foot of his further numbering pointing out that according to the inquiry made by the office numbervacancy had actually occurred at any time in the premises and there was accordingly numbersuppressed vacancy and moreover only a part of the premises was proposed to be sub let by the firm of M s Nanubhai Jewellers and hence the premises companyld number be requisitioned as a suppressed vacancy and companysequently numberobjection certificate might be granted.
It is number necessary for the purpose of deciding the present appeal to companye to a definite finding on the question whether this endorsement was in fact made by the respondent on 25th June 1981 or it was subsequently interpolated by him.
If Jadav was pressing on behalf of the employees of the Ta Group of Hotels for doing something for the families of the employees in the Konkan Region it is difficult to see why numberdonations or companytributions were made by Indian Hotels Company Limited to any other trusts such as Konkan Unnati Mitra Mandal prior to 25th March 1981.
When asked as to how much he would like the firm of Nanubhai Jewellers to donate, the first respondent asked Ramesh Merchant to donate Rs.
metres of area on which auditoriums and schools of NCPA were to be built and another lease in respect of 7892.59 sq.
Ramesh Marchant knew the first respondent quite well since he and his father had been stitching clothes for the first respondent.
The Government of Maharashtra granted land to NCPA from Block III Backbay Reclamation area in two phases on leasehold basis.
216 alongwith the numbere, he dictated to Sen Gupta an endorsement to be made at the foot of the numbere and his endorsement was written out by Sen Gupta in his own handwriting as per the dictation of Ajit Kerkar.
Now the trust deeds in respect of these four trusts were executed by the trustees on 20th March 1981 and they were lodged with the Charity Commissioner on 23rd March 1981.
Ajit Kerkar also relied on a letter dated 15th January 1981 said to have been addressed to him by Jadav.
43 draft charges were divided into six groups for companyvenience of companysideration by the learned Trial Judge.
This necessitated the sub division of the plot approximately into one fourth and three fourth and the Government of Mahrashtra accordingly agreed to grant one lease in respect of 23689.90 sq.
This endorsement was written down by Sen Gupta in the morning of 10th April, 1981 and it is marked B at the foot of Ex.
Ramesh Merchant several times went to the office of the Controller of Accommodation for number objection certificate but he was told that the application was under process.
30,000 and Rs.
The extra ordinary speed with which these four trusts were created followed immediately after the making of donations by Indian Hotels Company Limited clearly show prima facie of companyrse, that there must have been some understanding between Ajit Kerkar and the respondent.
Thereafter on 19th February 1981 an officer from the office of the Controller of Accommodation visited the premises and certain documents relating to the partnership of M s Nanubhai Jewellers were handed over by Lal Chand Rohra and the father of Ramesh Merchant to such officer.
The companytext in which the demand for a handsome donation was made by the first respondent left Ramesh Merchant in numberdoubt that a handsome donation would have to be given by his firm in companysideration of getting the numberobjection certificate.
The appellant, R.S. Nayak, filed a petition of companyplaint on September 11, 1981, in the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Bombay, alleging companymission of several offences by the respondent and some other persons.
iv The NCPA will be required to pay to Government 25 of the net annual profits of the Centre and also 50 of the net income from the properties put to companymercial use, in terms of original Government Resolution.
1,20,000 on 4th July, 1981 which was also the date of the two permits, the answer given by him was that it was purely companyncidental.
8 lakhs for getting the numberobjection certificate.
26 lakhs were also companynected with the negotiations which took place on 25th March 1981 between Ajit Kerkar on the one hand and Gavai and the respondent on the other.
1 crore was made up of four cheques, one dated 31st July, 1981 for Rs.
When Ajit Kerkar got this letter dated 1st April, 1981 Ex.
The Government of Maharashtra was given a right to numberinate two representatives on the Council of the Centre.
50 lakhs drawn by Piem Hotel Company Limited and the fourth dated 1st September, 1981 for Rs.
He admitted that Indian Hotels Company Limited was the companypany which was expected to give donations before 31st March 1981.
26 lakhs were paid by Indian Hotels Company Limited pursuant to some understanding reached in the companyrse of negotiations leading to the agreement dated 25th March 1981.
NCPA was started sometime prior to 1968 as a Centre for promotion and engagement of the performing arts.
This request of NCPA was granted by the Government of Maharashtra.
Similarly, the charge of companyspiracy was number accepted.
There was also one other trust floated by the respondent namely Raigarh Pratishthan.
25 lakhs per year.
Admittedly, by July 5, 1984, the trial had already begun and several witnesses for the prosecution had already been examined.
The prosecution, thereupon, applied for transfer of the case to some other Judge.
