TÉCNICAS PARA EVALUAR LOS IMPACTOS AMBIENTALES

(Under section 154 of the code of criminal procedure)

1. Distrcit: Bhuj Po.Sta. CID Crime, Rajkot Zone, Rajkot Year 2010

First Information No. 9/10 at 25-9-10.

1) I.P.C. Sections 217, 409, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 2)

3) 4)

3. A) Date and time of commission of an offence

: from date to dt. 3-3-2004 from December 2004 to

B) Offence declared (in Po.sta.) date 24-9-2010 time : 23.00

C) Station Diary Entry (Registration) No... Time 23.05

4. How the information was received written or oral.

5. Scene of offence. Distance and direction of scene of offence Moje Varsamedi, Village Anjar and the office of the District Collector, Bhuj. Name Beat number/O.P./chawky.

B) Address: Bhuj

C) Name of that Po.Sta.of Offence is out of that Po.Sta. area. Disrcit, City State.

6. Complainant, informant:

A) Name: Smt. Parikshita V. Rathod, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gandhinagar Zone.

B) Name of father, husband: Vijaykumar Devantbhai Rathod

D) Nationality: Indian

E) Passport No. Date of issue of passport.

Place/address of office issuing passport Ahmedabad

F) Occupation: Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gandhinagar

G) Address:

7. Full details of name, address of the accused.

(Information with all details of identified/suspect/ unidentified)

1) Pradipkumar Nirankarnath, I.A.S. the then Collector, Bhuj,

2) The Then Town Planner, Bhuj.

8) Reason of giving the information late.

9) If theft is committed, full description of the property stolen.

10) Total value of the stolen property 11) Accidental death number (if any) 12) Details of First Information

Date 25-9-2010

I, Smt. Parikshita V. Rathod, Deputy Superintendent of Police, D. Crime, Gandhinagar zone, age: 41 years residing at D/27 Government Colony, Vastrapur, Gurukul.

My complaint for government is this that I have been discharging duty as a Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.I.D.

Crime Branch, Gandhinagar since 26-2-2008. In my area of operation of Gandhinagar zone there are investigation cells C.I.D. crime of Mahesana, Patan, Palanpur and Sabarkantha. Districts. I have to exercise supervision of these cells. Besides this, I have to make investigation of crimes that may be entrusted to me by the D.G.P., C.I.D. crime and Railways, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar and the preliminary inquiry and also includes legal functions that may be entrusted as per order of the superior officer.

On the basis of the Home Department order no. V.1/PRCH/102010/16 dated 16-8-10 the hon’ble D..P., CID crime had entrusted preliminary inquiry to me on 4-9-2010. The inquiry report thereof was sent to the Deputy Director General of Police Cr. 2 CID crime under this office letter No. Ga/zone/Ja-No.719/10 dated 23-9-2010. On the strength of that the ADGP, Crime has, under his letter No. TRB/PT 13-10-749 dated 25-9-10, authorised me to tile complaint.

Shri Pradipkumar Nirankarnath Sharma, I.A.S. was performing duty as the Collector and District Magistrate, Bhuj from 2-5-03 to 3-7-2006 and during the tenure of his duty applications were made by 1) M/.s Welspun India Ltd., 2) M/s. Welspun Power and Steel Ltd.,. M/s. Welspun Gujarat Style Rohran Co.Ltd., for establishment of their textile industry at Varsamedi village of

Taluka Anjar, District Bhuj for allotment of lands of survey Nos. 890, 652, 692, 665, 667, 670, 671, 668, 680, 684, etc. for industrial purpose. In pursuance thereof meetings of the Bhuj District Land Valuation Committee was held on dt. 19-5-2003, dt. 20-7-2003, dt. 10-8-2004, dt. 10-8-2004, 1-10-2004 and 21- 12-2004 under the chairmanship of Shri Sharma, Collector. As members of that committee the Distrcit Development Officer, Bhuj, the Town Planning Officr, Bhuj and a member secretary the Resident Deputy Collector, Bhuj remained present of that on the agenda sr. no. 54 of the Distrcit Valuation Committee held on 20-7-04, the land admeasuring 20,234 sq. mtrs. of s.No.890 of Varsamedi village of Taluka Anjar, was allotted to Welspun India Co. Ltd. Thus, only one application of Welspun India Co.Ltd. was included in the agenda dated 20-7-04 after determing price, were as on inspecting the orders of allotment of made by the office of the Collector, Bhuj for alloting lands at at Varsamedi village of Taluka Anjar, for industrial purpose to M/s. Welspun India Co.Ltd. and M/s. Welspun Power and Steel Ltd. and Welspun Style and Rohran Ltd. It is found that total 9 orders were made in the meeting of the District Land Valuation Committee dated 30-7-2004, which are of 20234 sq. mtr. out of survey no. 890, 2) 20234 sq, mtrs. out of s. No. 890 4) 234 sq. mtrs. out of s. No. 880 5) 12141 sq. mtrs. out of s. No. 652 6) 20234 sq. mtrs. of land out of s. No. 692 respectively. Thus,

approval was accorded to the application in the agenda (minitues) of the District Land Valuation Committee held on 20- 7-04, whereas, in total order of land allotted to various branches of Welspun company for industrial purpose there was mention of the District Land Valuation Committee, in order to obviate that discrepancy, on seeing the agenda file of the meeting of the District Land Valuation Committee held on 20-7-2004, which is prepared by the Town Planner. On ante page of serial number 53, only one application of Welspun India Company Ltd. for total 20234 sq. mtrs. of land of s.no. 890 of Varsamedi is included, wereas on overleaf on serial no. 53, total; 2 applications of 20234 sq. mtrs. of s.no. 890 of village Varsamedi are included and proposal of Rs. 15/- is sanctioned by the Collector. In fact, in point No. 1(B) of the Government Resolution, Revenue Department, No. JMN-392009/kth/M dated 6-6-2003, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, limit of 2 hectares, 15 lakh is prescribed for the Collector for allotment for industrial purpose. 2 heactares means 20000 sq. mtrs. According to the provision of the abovesaid resolution as the allotment of land more than two hectores is beyound the powers of the Collector, he should send proposal to the Government for determining its price, instead, he determined the price of Rs. 15/- per sq. mtr. in the District Land Valuation Committee and made allotment orders of land at district level. On the basis of the statement of

Shri Kodarbhai Shanabhai Prajapati, Section Officer, Revenue Department it has become clear that where one applicant had made application, after process of the price etc. of land final orders of allotment of land to him are made, and meanwhile, when the same applicant makes demand for any land for new additional land for the same purpose, action has to be taken connecting both the matters. And on doing so, the case in which the are of land exceeds 2 hectors (20000 sq. mtrs) as well as the price of the land exceeds Rs. 15 lakh, in such case also, the Collector has to send the proposal to the government and when the government takes the decision of allotment of that land government has to allot that land. First, in the agenda of the District Land Valuation Committee held on 20-7-2004 disposed of one application of allotment of land admeasuring 20234 bearing s.no. 890, whereas in the agenda fild of the Deputy Twon Planner on sr. no. 53, he, has determind price of Rs. 15/- per sq. mtr. in total 4 applications of 20234 sq.mtrs. of s.no. 89 and accorded approval to allotment of land. In fact, all the four applications are beyound his powers, it was necessary for him to send for sanction of the government. If this applications had been send to the government, because of proper fixation of price by the government, government would not have suffered economic loss. Therefore, in the agenda file of the Town dated 20-7-2004, disposing total 4 applications

each of 2034 sq. mtrs. showing only one applicationof 20234 sq. mtrs. of s.no. 890 in minutes of the District Land Valuation Committee, criminal intention of the Collector to help illegally to Welspun Company becomes clear.

Moreover, out of 12 orders, made by him for allotment of lands to Welspun Company, orders at sr. no.s 5 to 8 are shown in the District Land Valuation Committee dated 20-7-2004 and the procedure of payment of the amount prescribed is stated on the basis of letter dated 21-9-2004 by the company for that In fact, in the agenda of the District Land Valuation Committee dated 1- 10-04, prices of applications of abovesaid serial numbers 5 to 8 have been fixed. Thereupon, instead of initiating process to be carried out with regard to payment after 1-10-2004 by the company, initiated from 21-9-2004, made bogus documents, showed mollified intention of giving economic benefit to Welspun company.

The District Collector had made proposal to the government on 13-8-2004 on the basis no. Land/51/udyog/ws/1400/04 on total 12 applications of Welspun company for getting total 242808 sq. mtrs. of s.no. 890, but showing information regarding the orders of land sanctioned in 1) sr. No. 1222/04 dated 10-8-04, 2) 1223/04 dated 13-8-04 respectively by him prior to that, supressing the fact of the order made by him in the proposal

sent for determining the price of the land allotted to Welspun company on 13-8-04, not bringing to the notice of the government he has indulged in criminal act. In the proposal sent to the government, the government had fixed price of land at Rs. 78 per sq. mtr. on the basis of Govt. Resolution Revenue Department No. JMN/Ihdustries/56040/837/M dated 6-8-05.

Shri Pradipkumar Sharma, the then Collector, Bhuj had misused his office during his duty made orders of allotment of lands of different numbers shown in the statement produced by Mahendrasinh Fatesinh Sodha, Officer of Welspun company in the case of preliminary inquiry, which were beyound the limits of his powers, however, going against the policy and rules, in total 11 cases, not sending proposal to the government which was required to be sent and without taking sanction of the government, gave to the private company, calculating price of Rs. 15/- instead of Rs. 78/- per sq. mtrs. causing monetary loss approximately of total Rs. 1,04,61,622/- stamp duty of Rs. 15,69,240/- in all Rs. 1,20,30,842/- and intentionally committed criminal breach of trust.

In order to make economic gain available to Welspun company, Pradip Sharma, Collector, had secured mobile card No. 99257 99799 in 2004 from the company without paying any consideration, used for his personal work got the bill of total Rs.

224036 upto 2009 paid by the company, misused his poer and secured economic gain. As regards this crime is registered with Rajkot zone police station I.C.R. No. 9/10 under sections 7, 11, 13(1)(B), 13(2) of the prevention of corruption Act. His intention hereby becomes clear to provide monetary benefit to the company securing economic gain from the Welspun company.

Thus, the Welspun company had to pay more money to the government as per law, Pradipkumar Sharma, Collector, saved the company and in collusion with the then Town Planner, Bhuj and the government officer (employee) hatched criminal conspiracy, made bogus documents for company beyound his powers, caused loss of about Rs. 1,20,30,842 to the government, committed criminal breach of trust in respect of property entrusted to him by the government, my complaint is to conduct inquiry against him as per law u/s 267, 409, 465, 468, 471, 120-B of I.P.C.

My witnesses are Prajapati, Sodha who were examined in the aforesaid inquiry and that may be found during investigation.

This is the fact of my complaint.

sd/- illegible Parikshita V. Rathod Before me

sd/- Parikshita V. Rathod

C.I.D. Crime, Gandhiangar, Gandhinagar.

Copy forwarded to

The hon’ble Judicial Magistrate, Bhuj Court, Bhuj

sd/- H.P. Agravat Dy. Suptd. of Police, C.I.D., Crime, Rajkot Zone, Rajkot 13) Details of process after the crime is registered

A) Registered crime and investigation commenced. B) Investigation entrusted to H.P.Agravat, designation “B”

No. Dy. Suptd. of Police.

C) Reasons of non-investigation of crime.

D) Name of Po.Sta. to which investigation of crime is transferred

District City

on reading over the complaint of the complainant, having understood signed and received copy free of charge.

Signature/thumb impression of the sd/- illegible complainant.

14) Signature/thumb impression of informant

sd/- illegible Signature of Po.Sta. Official Name: H.P. Agravat Designation: Dy. Suptd. of Police, C.I.D. Crime, Rajkot 15) Date of the respective honourable court:

dated 25-9-10 time 23.00 hrs.

Jawak No. 579/2010

Office of the Dy. Suptd. of Police, C.I.D. Crime, Rajkot zone, Dt. 25-9-2010

ANNEXURE P-6

From:

Pradip N. Sharma, Plot No. 465/A-2, Sector – 1,

Gandhinagar – 15.

Date 11-12-2010. To

Shri K. P. Gajipara,

Deputy Superintendent of Police and Investigation Officer C.I.D. Crime, Rajkot.

Sub: Inclusion of Shri Narendra Modi, Chief Minister, Gujarat State, also as an accused in the crime as per C.I.D. Crime Rajkot Zone-I Cr. No.9/10 u/s 217, 409, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC.

I have come to know from reliable sources that the crime shown in the above subject is registered against me.

This crime is registered against me with false facts and malice. The explanation of that is as under:

1) This crime is registered against me by malice for simple and straight procedure of the Revenue Department.

2) Generally, for alleged malpractices relating to the Revenue Department, on getting preliminary inquiry through any officer of the Revenue Department, Mamlatdar or the Deputy Collector of this department, if criminal fact is found for getting criminal proceeding initiated, the preliminary inquiry officer of the

Revenue Department gets complaint filed. In this case. Parikshita Rathod of CID Crime has given complaint, which is an action contrary to rule.

3) As per F.I.R. admission of Parikshita Rathod this offence has taken place in Kachchh district, however, preliminary inquiry was entrusted for the offence occurred outside of her area of operation. And she has raised the question that the work of getting F.I.R. registered was entrusted to her and she has expressed suspicion as to whether offence has taken place in this case or not?

4) Parikshita Rathod says that such type of inquiry regarding revenue procedure is completed within a short duration of 5(five) weeks, which manifests unnecessary haste and malice.

5) As directed mandatorily in Sr.No.5 of Appendix-B of chapter-1 of the CID crime manual it is inevitable to take statement of the accused. In this case, my statement is not recorded. And efforts are not made to know true facts and false F.I.R. is registered.

6) There is an allegation in F.I.R. that I had got made applications through Welspun Company for enquiring land for organization of my private textile business. But there is no mention or any clarification in remaining paras of F.I.R.

7) As an Investigation Officer you may see that as per para 1(B) of the Government Resolution, Revenue Department, dated 6-6- 2003 that the Collector has power to given any party even without public auction, the land up to 2 hectors if the value is not above Rs. 15,00,000/-.

8) In this case all conditions of the aforesaid resolution are observed. The Government has also given the land admeasuring 48 acres to this company i.e. Welspun. It is requested to see as to whether the land granted by this Government is as per rules?

9) During preliminary inquiry, Parikshita Rathod recorded statement of Kodarbhai Shantibhai Prajapati, Section Officer and considered this statement the order of the Government. And it is not taken on record that as to whether any Government Resolution supports his statement. Collector has power to grant 2 hectors of land and 2 hectors are considered 5 hectors in F.I.R. conversion of 1 acre is 4047 sq.mtrs. and in this way conversion of 5 acres is 0.235 sq.mtrs. without seeing the table generally being used in the Revenue Department, the Police Officer giving F.I.R. adhered hector based yard stick. The word hector is used w.e.f. 1998 in Government Resolution. Prior to that acre was being used and in Kachchh district the table which is available as per old practice, in that I hector is

considered equal to 5 acres. Allotment of land is made as per acre. It is good, if 20,000 sq. mtrs. are now considered fro 2 hectors, but as per Kachchh district method, land is considered five acres, which becomes 20,235 sq.mtrs. asper metric systems. I have not done any criminal proceeding, but I have done work as per practice, as per method which has been in vagne. As per metric system. I hector is equal to 10 thousand sq.mtrs. and 1 acre equal to 4747 sq.mtrs. is the measurement in metric system, because of that wrong meaning of so called discrepancies is construed and complaint is filed.

10) As mentioned in F.I.R. for land allotment in district. District land Valuation Committee was constituted in which Collector, District Development Officer and Town Planner were members, whereas the Resident Deputy Collector was member secretary. In this F.I.R. my name and designation are shown as an accused whereas names of the District Development Officer and the Resident Deputy Collector are intentionally not written, whereas only the designation of the Town Planner is shown as an accused. This kind of method of writing F.I.R. shows prejudice towards me.

11) As per condition 5 of the above said Resolution the responsibility of determining the price of land is of the Town Planner. Drawing attention towards para-25 of this Resolution I

say that as per condition-8 the District Valuation Committee has to depend only on the opinion of the Town Planner, therefore, no responsibility can be fixed individually on the Collector.

12) In this case, the District Valuation Committee had fixed the rate at Rs. 15 (Fifteen), whereas as shown in F.I.R. as per Resolution of Revenue Department dated 6-8-2005, the rate of land is shown at Rs.78/- (seventy eight). It is shown in F.I.R. that the District Valuation Committee was held on 20-4-2004. How the Government Resolution dated 6-8-2006 can be made applicable to the District Valuation Committee dated 20-7-2004 in this way? In this way, grave serious mistake has been committed in F.I.R. During this time I have time and again shown the rate of Rs. 15/- in the Government. But no interference was made by the Government. Had the Government found these rate less at the relevant time, it could have made interference as per section 211 of the Land Revenue Code.

13) I have to further state that generally as per price determined by every District Land Valuation Committee, Orders regarding land allotted by the Collector are placed before the Government and such orders are sanctioned by the Government or changes are effected if required, but the

decisions to file criminal complaint were never taken. I hope that as Investigation Officer, you would inquire such precedents. Therefore, you could know that in my case, this F.I.R. is registered exceptionally. In my case, the CID Crime inspected such types of files made interpretation capriciously as per their will, though it does not amount offence, the fact of this allotment of land is given criminal form. Against me, it is alleged in this F.I.R. that the orders of allotment of land dated 10-8- 2004 and 13-8-2004 are not intimated to the Government and committed criminal offence. The complainant of this case is not conversant with the procedure of the Revenue Department. In such case, the Collector directly does not write letters to the Revenue Department, but the subordinate in officers perform duties. In whole of India any Collector does not prepare drafts of the letter of such type alleged in F.I.R.

14) In this F.I.R. it is mentioned that Rajkot Zone, CID Crime C.R.No.3/2010 which is registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act. As per allegation leveled therein that someone gives SIM Card only to the District Collector so, the allotment of land is made to such party giving SIM Card. Is that idea understandable? As mentioned in the above said F.I.R. 09/2010 in Rajkot Zone, F.I.R. No.3/2010 it is shown that due to receipt of SIM Card by me, this disputed land is allotted. In F.I.R. 03/2010 which is registered on 31-3-2010, motive of this