As Ms. Sanskriti was studying abroad since 1991, for the purpose of issuance of functional certificate, she had to obtain possession through her younger sister Ms. Suruchi.
wide road carved to the East of plot No.26 and enhancement of area of plot No.26 only resulted in benefitting the appellant by increasing her plot size and by making her plot as companyner plot.
B 002 in Sector 32 was allotted to her, especially when the appellant had number even adhered to the requisite mode of payment through a demand draft Pay order and had instead made deficient payment through cheque.
29,000/ and Rs.
However, fortunately, the present case has risen as an exception.
One NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association sought inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation CBI in the matter and this Court vide order dated 20.01.1998 directed that the matter be investigated by the CBI.
The appellant submitted Ex.
It is a fact that rich and powerful try to stall the trial and companyviction.
To substantiate the charges against the appellant, the prosecution, apart from producing a number of documentary evidences, examined as many as thirty nine witnesses.
The appellant had sought allotment of shops in favour of her daughters only to seek allotment of residential plots in their name, by falsely portraying them to be independent income tax assesses, which was otherwise number possible in the light of provisions of the Scheme of 1994, which mandates that numberperson or his family member can get allotment of more than one plot in NOIDA.
B 002 in Sector 32 measuring 300 sq.ms.
Unjustified change in layout plan of Sector 14A Resultant loss to NOIDA and advantage to the appellant Lease deed of plot No.26 Ext.
However, value of the shops allotted in favour of the daughters was around Rs.4.00 lakhs to Rs.5.00 lakhs and the value of the residential plots allotted to Ms. Sanskriti and Ms. Suruchi was Rs.7,31,875/ and Rs.8,89,333/ respectively totalling to Rs.16,21,208/ .
The appellant is alleged to have paid Rs.40,000/ as registration amount for allotment of plot measuring 350 sq.ms.
PW 20 has deposed that he had simply lent the money in the name of the daughters of the appellant on receiving a telephonic call made by Shri M.S. Yadav, husband of the appellant Neera Yadav.
thereby causing substantial loss of land to Noida.
Ka 11 .
Considering the documents produced by the appellant, the approximate value of total assets of the daughters of the appellant companyes to around Rs.4.00 lakhs to Rs.5.00 lakhs each.
On 28.05.1994 S.P. Gautam, Chief Architect Planner proposed vide proposal dated 28.05.1994 Ext.
Ka 39 application on 15.04.1994 seeking companyversion of her plot to a plot measuring 450 sq.ms.
B 002, Sector 32, was lawfully allotted to the appellant.
by an undated cheque dated 15.03.1994.
15Ka/36 15Ka/45 and Ext.
As the daughters of the appellant were studying at that time and since numbersource of income, or certified companyies of income tax returns have been filed on behalf of the appellant, the only presumption that can be drawn is the fact of payments being made at the behest of the appellant and her husband.
However, the appellant herself bypassed the Rules and Regulations of NOIDA by submitting ante dated, half filled applications for seeking allotment of plots and by number paying the total amount payable in lieu of the allotment.
He deposed that he prepared the demand drafts and handed it over to the companycerned person who had companye with the cash amounts.
The FIR companytained allegations to the effect that Ms. Neera Yadav in companyspiracy with other officials CA NO.253 OF 2017 abused her position while companymitting grave irregularities in the matters of allotments and companyversions of land in NOIDA.
Further companytention of the appellant is that she never directed S.P. Gautam, the then Chief Architect Planner, NOIDA, to increase the size of her plot, or to carve out a 7.5 m. wide road between her plot and plot No.25.
by enhancing area of her plot by 112.50 sq.ms.,
PW9 has deposed that he received in cash Rs.
Neera Yadav on 31.05.1994, benefitting the appellant herself.
It has further companye on record that Ms. Sanskriti had issued cheque dated 08.08.1994 Paper number 26 ka/2 in favour of herself, accompanied with an application for purchase of pay order of Rs.
Shop No.9 in Sector 28 of NOIDA was allotted in the name of the eldest unmarried daughter of Neera Yadav, Ms. Sanskriti who was studying abroad since 1991 and who had received possession of her shop through her younger sister Ms. Suruchi.
Case of the prosecution is that allotment of the plot under the companycerned scheme in favour of the appellant is marred by grave infirmities which is in companyplete violation of the numberms of the scheme as CA NO.253 OF 2017 stated in the brochure.
It is the case of the prosecution that the allotment of shops and residential plots in favour of daughters of the appellant were in companyplete violation of terms and companyditions of the allotment Scheme 1994 II and III , which provides that numberperson or his family member can get allotment of more than one plot in NOIDA.
was allotted in the name of Ms. Sanskriti vide allotment letter dated 01.08.1994 Ext.
Ka 53, paper number17Ka/42 17Ka/52 .
Without any questioning, the said proposal was approved by the appellant herself on 31.05.1994 and size of plot CA NO.253 OF 2017 No.26 was thus enhanced to 562.50 sq.ms.
Ms. Sanskriti had applied for allotment of a shop vide undated application Paper number 14Ka/67 .
As per the brochure, in order to seek registration, the applicant had to submit a duly filled application form for allotment of plot in the prescribed form alongwith all the enclosures and 30 of the premium amount at the rate of Rs.1200/ per sq.m.
Similarly, as per deposition of PW 13 Rajiv Jain Assistant General Manager, SBI, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, applications for purchase of demand drafts of Rs.
After obtaining possession CA NO.253 OF 2017 of the same, the shop was declared functional on 28.05.1994.
He had also received another application Paper number 20 Ka/2 for purchase of pay order of Rs.
A 22 Latest nant appurtenant 11.2.94 Before 28.5.94 31.10.99 Green Green Belt wrongly Cuttings After w.e.f.
43504 of Mahendra Singh Yadav and Neera Yadav, Rs.
was allotted in the name of Ms. Suruchi, which she subsequently got companyverted to plot numberA 32 adjoining to plot No.
respectively.
for a companyner or park facing plot, ought to be paid.
The appellant was questioned under Section 313 Cr.
The functional certificate was issued immediately thereafter on 06.06.1994.
The provision of 7.50 ms.
CA NO.253 OF 2017 Sl.
However, after effecting several changes, the same was reduced to 90 sq.ms.
A18 to A23 in Rajiv Kumars case Spl.
So far as the payment for seeking allotment of shop is companycerned, deposition of PW 9, Harish Chandra is important who was working as Deputy Manager, Syndicate Bank Branch Sector 18, Noida at the relevant point of time.
The maps depicting site plan of Sector 14A of NOIDA were prepared by the Chief Architect and the Chief Architect Planner as per the direction of Dy.
The said cheque was drawn on account No.
SP.ACU VII/1999/0603 dated 08.09.1999 and direction given by the SP ACU VII CBI and in the meeting held on 25.10.1999 and 28.10.1999.
Firstly, the prosecution alleged that the application Ex.
No companyent reason has been furnished by the appellant for approving the above plan of site re arrangement, which directly benefits the appellant herself and causes loss to NOIDA.
B 73 in Sector 44, Noida was allotted in the name of Ms. Sanskriti which she later on got companyverted to plot No.
A 23 appurte plot with July 1984 11.2.94 Ext.
It is also proved by the prosecution that the appellant effortlessly got her smaller plot in Sector 32, measuring 300 sq.m.
9180, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Paharganj, New Delhi.
Initially in Sector 14A, apart from plots 26, 27 and 28 there was an unnumbered plot with area of 529.35 sq.ms.
Ka 37 for allotment of a residential Plot under Category VI Regular Employees of NOIDA or regular Government Public Sector Undertaking Employees on deputation to NOIDA under the Scheme 1994 i , which was issued inviting applications for allotment of residential plots in Sectors 23, 32, 33, 34, 35, 49 and 53 as per the brochure.
Allotment of shops and plots in favour of daughters of the Appellant Illegalities thereof CA NO.253 OF 2017 The appellant Neera Yadav has three daughters, out of which two daughters viz.
The reference is made to these decisions only to show that the registration of FIR by CBI was pursuant to the direction of this Court.
The appellant has further companytended that both the daughters of the appellant had borrowed Rs.4.00 lakhs each from M s. N.P. Mutual Benefits Ltd., Bareilly on 09.06.1995 so as to pay for the plots allotted CA NO.253 OF 2017 in their favour.
Case No.
Upon companysideration of evidence, the Special Judge CBI, Ghaziabad, vide judgment and order dated 20.11.2012 in Special Trial No.19 of 2002, held that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and companyvicted the appellant under CA NO.253 OF 2017 Section 13 2 read with Section 13 1 d of P.C. Act and sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three years and fine of Rs.1,00,000/, with default clause.
and getting undue advantage to herself.
and 487.50 sq.ms.
The companycerned application No.648 Ext.
A 32 adjoining to plot No.
Consequently, the CBI registered an F.I.R. Crime No.
RC/3 A /98 ACU VII dated 26.02.1998 against Smt.
A perusal of the above table of the exhibited maps shows that from 1984 to 1993, for about a decade, there was numberalteration in the area and position of the plot number.
5,500/ were paid towards the allotment of shop and on behalf of Ms. Suruchi demand CA NO.253 OF 2017 drafts of Rs.
Consequently, plot No.
The above mentioned change in the site plan of Sector 14A, apart from resulting in direct loss of land to NOIDA, is also companytrary to the Rules of NOIDA.
19 of 2002 and certified companyies of the same were produced in this case as Talvitha.
A 33 allotted to her sister in Sector 44 Noida.
B 002 in Sector 32 was companyverted to plot No.26 in Sector 14A of Noida, companyprising an area of 450 sq.ms.
plot No.26 and 27, followed by about 8 ms.
The prosecution alleges a case of companyplete abuse of power in the matter of allotment of land out of turn allotments their CA NO.253 OF 2017 illegal companyversions thereof and unwarranted changes in layout plan of most developed Sector of NOIDA, so as to satisfy to the whims of the appellant and thus abused her position.
There is numberjustification as to why the defective application of the appellant seeking allotment of a residential plot was acted upon and plot No.
A 45 was executed on 19.05.1994 in favour of the appellant.
Ka 37 was companypletely defective as it was neither companypletely filled, number requisite Annexures were appended to it.
Appellant preferred an undated application Ext.
It was companytended that the daughters of the appellant had applied for allotment of the shops and shops were CA NO.253 OF 2017 allotted to them in the numbermal companyrse and declared functional as per the rules of NOIDA.
40,000/ and Rs.
On the strength of ownership of the said shop, she was allotted plot No.
CA NO.253 OF 2017 It is numbereworthy that the unnumbered plot measuring 529.35 sq.ms.
Clause 11 of the brochure reads as follows AREA OF PLOT CA NO.253 OF 2017 Area of plot allotted or handed over may vary from the size of the plots advertized in the scheme and applied for.
As numbered earlier, in furtherance of direction issued by the Supreme Court 20.01.1998 , FIR was registered by CBI on 26.02.1998 in Crime Case No.
Both the companyrts below have rightly held so in the light CA NO.253 OF 2017 of proper appreciation of evidence proved on record.
as shown in Map No.2 dated 11.02.1994.
On 16.05.1994, shop No.9 in Sector 28 of NOIDA was allotted in the name of Ms. Sanskriti vide allotment letter Ext.
Map No.1 Map No.2 Map Map No.4 Map Map No.6 Area of Total area of No.
A 21 No.5 Ext.
and secondly by further reorganisation, the appellant sought further enhancement of area of her plot by 37.5 450 sq.m.
The appellant number only gained pecuniary advantage for herself by manipulating the Rules of NOIDA but, also caused grave loss to NOIDA.
One lakhs eighteen thousand seven hundred fifty, in favour of NOIDA towards payment of purchase amount for residential plot.
Map No.3 wrongly shows the road on the eastern side only to make good the boundaries in the lease deed in respect of plot No.26 allotted to executed in favour of appellant Neera Yadav on 19.05.1994.
The very fact that the application was undated and that the cheque was issued instead of demand draft and the same was cleared only on 28.03.1994, clearly prove that by abusing the position, the CA NO.253 OF 2017 appellant obtained undue advantage for herself.
That apart, as discussed by the High Court, in Map No.3 dated 11.02.1994, the road in east of plot No.26 has been wrongly shown since as seen from the evidence of PW 19 S.P. Gautam, Chief Architect Planner the road was introduced for the first time vide proposal dated 28.05.1994 and the same was approved by appellant Neera Yadav on 31.05.1994 vide Map No.6.
A 33 in Sector 44.
Another daughter of Neera Yadav, Ms. Suruchi had preferred application dated 28.02.1994 and was allotted shop No.74 in Sector 15 vide allotment letter Ext.
10.01.1994 to 08.11.1995, and some other high officials of NOIDA.
35, 000/ on 22.02.1994 Rs.
The Chief Architect Planner also proposed enhancement of area of plot No.26 by 112.50 sq.ms.
A 33 in Sector 44.
B 88 in Sector 51, measuring 450 sq.ms.,
B 73 in Sector 44 of Noida, measuring 450 sq.m.
wide road was carved to the east of plot No.26 which again resulted in benefitting the appellant.
67,950/ were submitted.
26, 27 and 28 by increasing the sizes of the said plots from 450 to 562.50 sq.ms.,
Consequently, plot No.
and thereby causing loss of the area of 225 sq.ms.
525 sq.ms.
This again shows the dishonest intention of the appellant in making provision for road, to gain an undue advantage for herself.
Ms. Sanskriti and Ms. Suruchi, who were major, but unmarried at the relevant point of time, had applied for allotment of shops in NOIDA.
Secondly, the prosecution alleged that neither the mode of payment of the registration amount was as per the numberms, number the actual requisite amount due was paid by the appellant.
The applications moved by the daughters of the appellant, be it for seeking allotment of shops or for issuance of functional certificate, were defective on various companynts and numberallotment companyld have been made by acting on them, as held by the companyrts below by recording companycurrent findings, which we companypletely endorse.
26, 27 and 28 in Sector 14A. However, from 10.01.1994 to 08.11.1995 the area and position of plots were changed at least five times.
On the strength of the ownership of shop No.9 in Sector 28, she had applied for allotment of a residential plot under the Housing Scheme II of 1994, which was launched from 24.05.1994 to 08.06.1994.
and the same was approved by the appellant Smt.
The trial companyrt and the High Court rightly held that the appellant abused her position in ensuring that her incomplete application with ante dated cheque was processed.
Neera Yadav, CCEO NOIDA, the then Chief Architect Planner CAP Mr. S.P. Gautam of NOIDA put up a numbere dated 28.05.1994 for revising the layout of the plot number.
A 33 allotted to her sister in Sector 44 Noida on 10.10.1994.
SP and these maps were marked as Exs.
Also, by approving the intervening road between the two plots, the appellant number only companyverted her plot into a companyner plot having two side opening on very wide roads and very wide green belt on the other side, but also shifted her plot towards West by 7.5 ms.
Neera Yadav who was serving as Chairperson and Chief Executive Officer CCEO of NOIDA, during the relevant period viz.
It is a well known fact that New Okhla Industrial Development Authority N.O.I.D.A. U.P. hereinafter referred to as NOIDA was established in the year 1976 with the responsibility of developing and managing Asias largest Integrated Industrial Township for the industrial growth of the area, under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 in the National Capital Region.
A 33 Sector 44, the shop allotted to Ms. Sanskriti was sold to one Ms. Meenakshi Vijayan on 19/20.10.1995 Paper number 14/Ka 4 and while selling the shop it was mentioned by Ms. Sanskriti that she has already availed the benefit of seeking allotment of a residential plot against the shop, meaning thereby that the shop was acquired by her only with the mala fide intention of getting a residential plot.
Further case of prosecution is that at the direction of Smt.
On the strength of ownership of the said shop, Ms. Suruchi also applied for allotment of a residential plot under the scheme of 1994 iii .
49,000/ plus Rs.
In NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association v. NOIDA and Others 2007 10 SCC 395, this Court has appointed Mr. K.T. Thomas, retired Judge of this Court as the sole member of the Commission to inquire into alleged irregularities in the matter of allotments and companyversion of the plots.
A 18 Ext.
Further, the appellant abused her position in getting two plots in the name of her two daughters Ms. Sanskriti and Ms. Suruchi.
companypletely disappeared, as is clear from Map No.5 and the left over area was of numberuse to NOIDA as the same being trapezium in shape and resultantly left unsuitable for allotment.
with further proposal for re organization of plots in view of loss of area of 225 sq.ms.
and thereafter, enhanced the area of the plot by 37 by illegal means and by abusing her position leading to a total area of 562.50 sq.m.
A 19 No.3 Ext.
06.06.1994.
Being a Chairman cum CEO of NOIDA she was CA NO.253 OF 2017 expected to ensure that the allotment of plots in NOIDA are effected in strict companypliance with the Rules and Regulations of NOIDA.
The said increase arose out of necessity of providing privacy and security to the Chairman, Greater Noida and thus there was numberabuse of position by the appellant.
Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, learned senior companynsel urged that as an officer of NOIDA, the appellant was eligible to apply for a residential plot and the appellant made her application along with the cheque of Rs.40,000/ as registration money and that plot No.
It was further submitted that companyversion of plot in Sector 32 into plot No.26, Sector 14A was in companypliance with relevant rules and due procedure and was number a case of illegality.
Ka 37 was preferred by the appellant for Plot companye 05 i.e. plot of 350 sq.ms.
20,500/ Paper number 29 ka/9 and Rs.
The lease deed of both the plots were executed on 26.12.1994 Ext.
plus 112.50 sq.ms.
Explanation was sought in this regard by the then Principal Secretary Heavy Industries of the Government of U.P. from Appellant Neera Yadav, the then Chairperson cum Chief Executive Officer CCEO of NOIDA.
Ka 55, paper number 15Ka/54 15Ka/56 and on 12.10.1994, she got it companyverted to plot No.
wide road to the right of plot No.26 is companypletely devoid of any justification.
One year lease rent of both these plots was paid only from the joint account of the appellant and her husband.
Within one week, of the allotment, the appellant made request for allotment of another plot in any developed Sector, through companyversion.
in the draw of lottery.
A 20 28.5.94 Ext.
and further extended it towards West CA NO.253 OF 2017 by another 3.75 sq.ms.
Proposal for road was put up by PW 19 S.P. Gautam only on 28.05.1994.
B 88 in Sector 51, CA NO.253 OF 2017 companyprising of an area of 450 sq.ms.,
Valuable thing obtained by the appellant by abusing her official position The prosecution has successfully proved that the appellant Neera Yadav abused her position as a public servant to benefit herself and her kith and kin.
In this companynection, several companyplaints surfaced alleging irregularities in allotments and companyversions of land in NOIDA.
Belt in showing cuttings 6.11.95 North Road in East 1 26 630.00 450.00 450.00 562.50 562.50 562.50 783.86 1346.36 2 27 482.50 450.00 450.00 525.00 300.00 405.00 535.15 940.75 3 28 371.25 450.00 450.00 487.50 487.50 487.50 593.4 1080.71 4 Unnumbered NIL 529.35 304.35 90.00 304.35 Trapezium of 49.8 240.75 plot towards 3.169.57 /2 West 30231.45 5 Green Belt Rectangle Rectangle Rectangl Trapezium Rectangl Trapezium of 231.45 Area towards of of e of 7.237.93 e of 7.937.50 2 West 7.9330 7.9330 7.9330 230227.4 7.9330 30231.45 237.90 237.90 237.90 237.90 6 Total Area 2311.65 2706.29 2481.89 2493.89 2445.89 2469.74 3840.02 Note As seen from the endorsement in the above maps, the maps have been prepared by the architect and the Chief Architect Planner 30.10.1999 with reference to the letter No.
6,000/ were debited.
On the companytrary the appellants have maintained that at the time of applying for shops and plots, appellants daughters were major, income tax payees and had independent source of income and were thus eligible for allotment of plots.
The prosecution has stressed on the point that the daughters of the appellant were CA NO.253 OF 2017 dependant on the appellant and her husband for their studies and livelihood and that the major payments for the above mentioned shops and plots allotted in the name of the two daughters were made from the joint accounts of the appellant and her husband, Mr. M.S. Yadav.
to 562.50 sq.ms.
shop No.74 in Sector 15 of Noida and after obtaining possession of the same, the shop was declared to be functional on 28.05.1994.
Vide impugned order and judgment, the High Court companyfirmed the companyviction of the appellant and also the sentence of imprisonment and fine imposed on the appellant.
Subsequently, in NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association v. NOIDA and Others 2011 6 SCC 526, NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association Registered v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and Others 2011 6 SCC 527 and NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association v. NOIDA and Others 2011 6 SCC 508, this Court has issued various directions.
in the proposed road.
The prosecution also drew our attention to the fact that after allotment of plot No.
Considering the depositions of material witnesses, it is hard to believe that the requisite amount for seeking allotment of shops and residential plots were made out of independent income of the daughters of the appellant.
These facts point at the sole inference that the ante dated application of the appellant was filed only after the closure of the CA NO.253 OF 2017 scheme, thereby indicating that the appellant put herself above the Rules and Regulations of NOIDA.
Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is as follows Smt.
B 002 in Sector 32 was allotted to the appellant on 08.04.1994 vide allotment letter Ex.
Thereby the area of plot No.26 was increased by 112.50 sq.ms.
Ka 15 .
Clause 11 of the brochure of the scheme provides that the area of a plot allotted or handed over may vary from the size of the plots advertised in the scheme and applied for, and a marginal increase or decrease in area upto a maximum of 20 on either side may be allowed.
As rightly observed by the trial companyrt that the various applications preferred by the daughters of the appellant seeking allotment of shops, residential plot and functional certificate were defective and incomplete.
As also available on record, appellant Neera Yadav and one Mr. Rajiv Kumar got allotted plots adjacent to each other viz.
25/ in lieu of bank companymission with an application for purchase of pay order Paper No.
The said 7.5 ms.
The said presumption is further supported CA NO.253 OF 2017 from testimony of PW 14 Subhash Badhawan Retired Deputy Manager, State Bank of India who has deposed that from the Account No.
By a further change in the plot, a CA NO.253 OF 2017 7.50 ms.
Likewise, Ms. Suruchi, another daughter of Neera Yadav, was also allotted a shop viz.
She number only made a mockery of rules and regulations of NOIDA, but also misused her position by companypletely neglecting her duties.
Plot No.
The following table as given by the High Court in its judgment in Criminal Appeal No.
companyverted to a bigger plot in Sector 14A, measuring 450 sq.m.
Neera Yadav, while working as CCEO, NOIDA, abused her official position in the matter of allotment of plot No.
She requested for issuance of the functional certificate and the same was issued immediately on the same date viz.
In this companytext, testimony of PW 20, Navin Khandelwal, Managing Director, M s. N.P. Mutual Benefits Ltd. is relevant.
RCNo.3 A /98 ACU VII inter alia against the appellant Neera Yadav alleging that she abused her position in the matter of allotment of plots, companyversion of plots in her name and in the name of her daughters.
2,500/ on 01.03.1994 Rs.
under Residential Scheme III of 1994 vide allotment order dated 23.09.1994 Ext.
On 28.05.94, as depicted in Map No.4 and as per Map No.6, it was brought to a shape of small trapezium with area just measuring 190.95 sq.ms.,
Consequently, plot No.
for regular plot and Rs.1215/ per sq.m.
Ms. Sanskriti was living and studying in U.K., while Ms. Suruchi was studying in India itself.
He further deposed that the cash officer had endorsed on this application in his handwriting reference Chairman Noida Authority.
Sanction was obtained under Section 19 1 of the P.C. Act, 1988 and after companypletion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against the appellant.
Ka 50, paper number 17Ka/68 17Ka/70 , which she subsequently got companyverted to plot No.
4717 of 2007 pertaining to Rajiv Kumar which we have also extracted in C.A. No.251 252/2017 will depict the frequent changes made and the loss of land caused to NOIDA at the behest of the appellants.
A 64 a plan for making provision of a 7.5 m. wide road between the official residence of CCEO of Greater Noida and plot No.26 of the appellant.
5,500/ .
The scheme offered five categories of plots, based on size.
The prosecution has clearly proved that the application of the appellant was number included in the list of applications which were sent to the Bank along with the demand drafts after the cut off date.
49,000/ and Rs.
On the strength of the ownership of shop No.9 in Sector 28, Ms. Sanskriti had applied for allotment of a residential plot under the scheme of 1994 ii of NOIDA.
It was further submitted that at the time of preferring application for shops and plots, the appellants daughters were number dependent upon the appellant and they were major and income tax assessees, having independent source of income and were thus eligible for allotment of companycerned shops and plots.
Also there is numberjustification as to how deficient lease rent paid by the appellant in lieu of her allotment was accepted against the full payment requisite in the Rules.
Plot No.
On behalf of Ms. Sanskriti pay orders of Rs.
P.C. about the incriminating evidence and circumstance and the appellant denied all of them.
20,500/ and Rs.
BANUMATHI, J. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 24.02.2016 passed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.4837 of 2012, affirming the companyviction of appellant Neera Yadav, the then Chairperson and Chief Executive Officer CCEO of NOIDA New Okhla Industrial Development Authority under Section 13 2 read with Section 13 1 d of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for short Signature Not Verified C. Act and sentencing her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a Digitally signed by NARENDRA PRASAD period of three years and fine of Rs.1,00,000/ and in case of default in Date 2017.08.02 163525 IST Reason CA NO.253 OF 2017 payment of fine with simple imprisonment for an additional period of four months.
This is further strengthened by the subsequent companyversion of the plot, allotment of additional area in her favour and reduction of the size of the unnumbered plot available in Sector 14A, Noida.
The High Court and the trial companyrt rightly recorded companycurrent findings of fact that the application of the appellant suffered from material defects which were sufficient to discard the application but by illegal means, the application was processed by the appellant.
But, a final decision was taken number to initiate any departmental inquiry in the matter against the officials companycerned.
Based on her request, plot No.
