Latest news with #NeenaBansalKrishna
Hindustan Times
20 hours ago
- Business
- Hindustan Times
Delhi HC refuses relief to man given 182-yr term for defrauding 344 homebuyers
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant relief to a 75-year-old former director of a property firm facing an extraordinary 182-year prison sentence for defrauding 344 homebuyers, upholding the authority of a consumer forum to impose multiple consecutive jail terms in a landmark case. In a verdict delivered on May 30 and released Monday, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed the plea of Rajender Mittal, a director of Tirupati Builders Pvt Ltd, who had sought modification of the sentence imposed by a district consumer court. The court in 1995 had convicted Mittal for failing to refund booking amounts collected from buyers promised plots in a proposed residential colony—Tirupati Township—on Delhi's Baghpat Road. The Tirupati Township Plot Holders Association, representing over 300 homebuyers, accused Mittal and his co-director Rakesh Kumar Sharma of collecting ₹90.79 lakh for plots that were never delivered. On March 13, 1995, the district consumer forum ruled in the buyers' favour, directing the directors to refund the money with 18% annual interest, along with ₹20,000 in compensation and ₹500 in litigation costs to each complainant. The Supreme Court upheld the order in July 2011. The two directors, however, failed to comply with the refund order. In February 1998, the consumer forum invoked Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which allows imprisonment for up to three years for non-compliance with forum orders. The forum sentenced Mittal and Sharma to one year of simple imprisonment in 20 complaints and six months in each of the remaining 324. Crucially, it directed the sentences to run consecutively—resulting in a combined term of 182 years. The sentence was suspended for three months to give the duo a final chance to comply. In 2003, the Delhi state consumer commission upheld this decision. Praying for his immediate release from prison, Mittal on December 1, 2020, challenged the sentence in the high court, arguing that since all complaints stemmed from the same transaction and were decided through a common order, the punishments should run concurrently. That would have limited his prison term to one year. He called the forum's decision 'excessive, arbitrary and illegal,' citing that the forum could not go beyond the maximum three-year sentence outlined in the Consumer Protection Act. Mittal also pointed to his incarceration in a separate criminal case. Arrested in 2016 after being declared a proclaimed offender, he was convicted in 2019 for cheating, criminal conspiracy, and criminal breach of trust. He was sentenced to five years for cheating, three years for breach of trust, and two years for conspiracy, with sentences running concurrently. He claimed to have already served over seven years in that case. But the high court was unmoved. Representing the Centre, advocate Udit Vaghela argued that the 1995 consumer forum order had attained finality after the Supreme Court's 2011 ruling and could not be reopened. Justice Krishna rejected Mittal's petition, ruling that the sentences were lawful and enforceable under Section 27, and since they were imposed for default of compliance rather than for criminal wrongdoing, they could not be made to run concurrently. She underlined that the punishment was not punitive, but a civil measure aimed at compelling compliance with the forum's directions. 'These sentences being for default of fine, cannot under the law be directed to run concurrently as it is not punitive in nature but only intended to ensure compliance,' held the judge, emphasising that no direction as sought by the petitioner could be issued under such circumstances. However, the court left a narrow window open: Mittal, the court said, was free to approach the district forum afresh on grounds of financial incapacity and seek a modified sentence there.
The Hindu
28-04-2025
- The Hindu
Delhi HC sends 3 CBI officials to agency custody in corruption case
The Delhi High Court has remanded three CBI officials to the custody of their own agency in a corruption case, observing that the situation 'shakes the edifice of the machinery' whose primary duty is to bring wrongdoers to justice. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, in an April 25 order, said, 'It is one of the unique cases of rampant corruption in CBI, ED and such other departments, which shakes the entire edifice of our executive and the investigating machinery which have the primary duty of investigations in crime and bring the culprits to face the penalty corruption'. The court noted that the complainant has pointed out that this is not an isolated incident of corruption by a government official. Instead, it points to a larger conspiracy involving officials across multiple departments, 'who have in a nexus and take bribes for giving undue advantage to the approaching party or even to impact and interfere in the fair investigations and the functioning of these government departments'. 'It is therefore evident that in certain situations, as in the present case, which is to unearth the larger conspiracy, the custodial interrogation at the initial stage of investigation to unearth the material facts cannot be denied. Considering the gravity and the magnitude of the alleged conspiracy, two days' police custody/remand of the three respondents is granted to CBI,' the court said. The court's direction came on the CBI's plea against a trial court order refusing custody of the three accused officials to the agency. The complainant in the case alleged, the accused CBI officials initially demanded a bribe of ₹50 lakh to 'settle' two cases against him, later reducing the demand to ₹35 lakh. Additionally, a Finance Ministry official allegedly sought ₹50,000 to influence Enforcement Directorate (ED) officers in another matter related to him. An FIR was registered on the complainant's complaint on April 9, 2024. Pursuant to which, a trap was laid by the police, during which one of the CBI officials was caught red-handed accepting ₹3.5 lakh bribe from the complainant and on behalf of the second accused CBI official, the ministry official allegedly accepted ₹50,000 through GooglePay. On April 10, the trial court remanded the accused persons in judicial custody and on April 15 denied the CBI's plea for their custody. The CBI sought a 10-day remand of the accused on the ground that the case related to senior CBI officials trying to manage the investigations of the agency and if the same was not thoroughly investigated, it would have far-reaching consequences. While granting CBI custody, the court said investigation was still at infancy and to unearth the larger conspiracy, the interrogation of the three accused was imperative.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
28-04-2025
- Politics
- Business Standard
'Unique corruption in CBI, ED': Delhi HC sends CBI officials to custody
In an unusual development, the Delhi High Court has remanded three CBI officials to the custody their own probe agency in a corruption case and said it "shakes the edifice of the machinery" whose primary duty was to bring the culprits to book. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, in an order on April 25, said, "It is one of the unique cases of rampant corruption in CBI, ED and such other departments, which shakes the entire edifice of our executive and the investigating machinery which have the primary duty of investigations in crime and bring the culprits to face the penalty corruption." The complaint showed it was not a stand alone case of corruption by the government officials but reflected a "large conspiracy" amongst the officials of various departments who took bribes to give undue advantage or impact and interfere in investigations and the functioning of these departments. "It is, therefore evident that in certain situations as in the present case which is to unearth the larger conspiracy, the custodial interrogation at the initial stage of investigation to unearth the material facts cannot be denied. Considering the gravity and the magnitude of the alleged conspiracy, two days police custody/remand of the three respondents is granted to CBI," the court said. The order came on a CBI plea against a trial court order refusing custody of the three accused officials to the agency. The complainant alleged the accused CBI officials demanded Rs 50 lakh as bribe from him to "settle" two cases involving him, which was subsequently reduced to Rs 35 lakh. He further claimed another official in the Finance Ministry demanded illegal gratification of Rs 50,000 for influencing ED officers in another case. While one of the CBI officials was caught red-handed accepting Rs 3.5 lakh bribe from the complainant on behalf of the other official, the ministry official allegedly accepted Rs 50,000 through GooglePay. On April 10, the trial court remanded the accused persons to judicial custody and on April 15 denied the CBI's plea for their custody. CBI sought a 10-day remand of the accused on the ground that the case related to senior CBI officials trying to manage the investigations of the agency and if the same was not thoroughly investigated, it would have far-reaching consequences. The court order said investigation was still at infancy and to unearth the larger conspiracy, the interrogation of the three accused was imperative. To say the interrogation intended to extract a confessional statement was not correct and those accused of grave offences could not be permitted to take the administration of justice for a ride, it added. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Time of India
28-04-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
'Unique case of rampant corruption in CBI, ED': Delhi HC sends CBI officials to agency's custody
In an unusual development, the Delhi High Court has remanded three CBI officials to the custody their own probe agency in a corruption case and said it "shakes the edifice of the machinery" whose primary duty was to bring the culprits to book. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, in an order on April 25, said, "It is one of the unique cases of rampant corruption in CBI, ED and such other departments, which shakes the entire edifice of our executive and the investigating machinery which have the primary duty of investigations in crime and bring the culprits to face the penalty corruption." #Pahalgam Terrorist Attack India stares at a 'water bomb' threat as it freezes Indus Treaty India readies short, mid & long-term Indus River plans Shehbaz Sharif calls India's stand "worn-out narrative" The complaint showed it was not a stand alone case of corruption by the government officials but reflected a "large conspiracy" amongst the officials of various departments who took bribes to give undue advantage or impact and interfere in investigations and the functioning of these departments. "It is, therefore evident that in certain situations as in the present case which is to unearth the larger conspiracy, the custodial interrogation at the initial stage of investigation to unearth the material facts cannot be denied. Considering the gravity and the magnitude of the alleged conspiracy, two days police custody/remand of the three respondents is granted to CBI," the court said. The order came on a CBI plea against a trial court order refusing custody of the three accused officials to the agency. The complainant alleged the accused CBI officials demanded Rs 50 lakh as bribe from him to "settle" two cases involving him, which was subsequently reduced to Rs 35 lakh. Live Events He further claimed another official in the Finance Ministry demanded illegal gratification of Rs 50,000 for influencing ED officers in another case. While one of the CBI officials was caught red-handed accepting Rs 3.5 lakh bribe from the complainant on behalf of the other official, the ministry official allegedly accepted Rs 50,000 through GooglePay. On April 10, the trial court remanded the accused persons to judicial custody and on April 15 denied the CBI's plea for their custody. CBI sought a 10-day remand of the accused on the ground that the case related to senior CBI officials trying to manage the investigations of the agency and if the same was not thoroughly investigated, it would have far-reaching consequences. The court order said investigation was still at infancy and to unearth the larger conspiracy, the interrogation of the three accused was imperative. To say the interrogation intended to extract a confessional statement was not correct and those accused of grave offences could not be permitted to take the administration of justice for a ride, it added.
New Indian Express
24-04-2025
- New Indian Express
Deal parole requests with care and compassion, HC tells jail officials
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has said that parole cannot be repeatedly denied on the same grounds once a court has already ruled on the matter. The Court further observed that jail officials must deal with parole requests with greater care and compassion. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, in a recent order, stressed that once a judicial mind has weighed in on the merit of a ground for rejecting or granting parole, jail authorities are expected to follow that view diligently. 'It is hereby directed that while considering the Parole/Furlough Applications, the same ground should not be repeatedly reiterated for rejection of Parole/Furlough Application. Once a judicial mind has been disclosed in any Order about the validity of any ground for Rejection or Non-Rejection of the Parole/Furlough Application, the same should be more judiciously and scrupulously adhered to by the Jail Authorities,' read the order dated April 16. The Court was hearing a petition by a convict seeking four weeks of parole. The petitioner, who is serving a life sentence for rape and murder, has already spent over two decades in prison. He told the court that he had previously been granted parole or furlough several times, and had only once surrendered late, during emergency parole granted in the COVID-19 lockdown, which he said was due to being unaware of the surrender date. The High Court had previously considered this delay in a January 2024 order and had held that it was not a valid reason to deny parole. Yet, in the present case, the jail authorities again rejected his plea on the same ground. Calling this repeated justification 'most glaring', the Court criticised the jail department for its failure to act in time on the parole plea filed in November 2024. The authorities only made a decision after the petitioner filed a writ petition and the High Court issued a notice, a delay the Court called 'arbitrary'. 'Once, the Court has specifically observed that this is not a valid ground for denying Parole, the insistence to persist in making this as a ground of rejection of Parole every time compelling the Petitioner to come to the Court, is neither warranted nor appreciated. The Jail administration must be conscious and aware of the Orders being made by the Court and follow them scrupulously,' the Court remarked. Justice Bansal Krishna also reminded the authorities that the right to life applies even to those behind bars. 'It cannot be overlooked that he has been in jail for more than 20 years; may be for a crime that he has committed but that does not denude him of his basic Right to Life.'
