In a recent order of B.P. Singh (Through Pairokar) v/s Central Bureau Of Investigation., passed by the court in CRL.A. No. 852/2024, the appellant, Birender Prasad Singh, sought the suspension of the sentence imposed on him by the Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-21, RACC/New Delhi. The sentence was handed down on 07.09.2024, following his conviction in a case arising from CBI No. 27/2019 related to the fraudulent overvaluation of property. The court, after hearing the arguments of both parties and considering the facts of the case, granted the appellant’s request for suspension of the sentence, pending the disposal of the appeal.
Case Background and Conviction:
The case against the appellant stemmed from his involvement in a fraudulent credit facility transaction. The appellant, a property valuer, was accused of submitting a falsified property valuation report, which led to the approval of a loan of Rs. 3.10 crores under the Corp. Vyapar Overdraft Scheme. This scheme was designed to offer credit to businesses based on collateral security, and the property in question was valued by the appellant at an exaggerated Rs. 4.82 crores. The CBI alleged that the valuation was inflated to facilitate the disbursement of the loan, and that the appellant falsely stated the borrower, Sudhir Kumar Arora, as the exclusive owner of the property at the time the report was submitted.
On 07.09.2024, the trial court convicted the appellant under multiple sections, including Section 120-B and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was sentenced to four years of rigorous imprisonment for the offence of conspiracy and cheating, along with a fine of Rs. 75,000. A similar sentence of four years of rigorous imprisonment was also imposed for the offence under Section 420 IPC.
Appeal and Suspension Request:
Following the conviction, the appellant filed an application for the suspension of his sentence under Section 430 and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, arguing that the trial court’s findings should be reviewed. His counsel, Mr. Siddharth Satija, contended that the allegations against the appellant were based on comparisons with other valuation reports conducted in different years and under different circumstances.
The appellant’s defense highlighted that property valuations can fluctuate over time and are influenced by various market factors, such as inflation or changes in property conditions, which could explain the discrepancies in valuation. Moreover, the appellant’s legal team emphasized that the investigating officers (I.O.) had failed to independently verify the valuation methods used by other experts or consider factors influencing the property’s worth.
In contrast, the prosecution, represented by Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, opposed the suspension of the sentence, citing the appellant’s overvaluation of the property and his unauthorized status as a property valuer. The CBI also pointed to evidence suggesting the appellant had falsely represented the ownership of the property, a key aspect in the fraudulent transaction.
Court’s Decision:
After carefully considering the submissions from both parties and reviewing the record, the court noted that while the trial court had convicted the appellant based on the overvaluation of the property, the CBI had not conducted an independent investigation into the methods used by the appellant or verified the actual market value of the property at the relevant time. The court observed that the expert opinions from other valuers, which were cited to prove the appellant’s false valuation, did not conclusively establish that the appellant had acted fraudulently, particularly since these valuations were conducted years apart.
Furthermore, the court highlighted that similar arguments had led to the suspension of the sentence for the co-convict, Sudhir Kumar Arora, who was the borrower in the case. In light of these considerations and the need for a deeper examination of the facts, the court decided to suspend the appellant's sentence pending the outcome of his appeal.
Conditions for Suspension:
The suspension was granted subject to several conditions. The appellant was required to deposit Rs. 1.5 lakh, representing the fine imposed by the trial court, within six weeks. Additionally, he had to provide a personal bond of Rs. 5 lakh with a surety, furnish a valid phone number for constant contact, and surrender his passport if he possessed one, among other requirements. The appellant was also prohibited from engaging in any unlawful activity that might prejudice the ongoing appeal.
Conclusion:
While the suspension of sentence is a temporary relief for the appellant, the case is far from resolved. The appeal will be further heard, and the merits of the conviction will be examined in greater detail. For now, the appellant’s legal team can take comfort in the fact that the court has agreed to suspend his sentence, but the final outcome will depend on the deeper scrutiny of the evidence and legal arguments presented during the appeal process.
This case underscores the complexities involved in legal matters related to property valuations and financial fraud, where expert opinions, market conditions, and procedural lapses can significantly influence judicial outcomes.
Section 120B., Indian Penal Code - 1860
Section 420., Indian Penal Code - 1860
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 430, BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA - 2023
Section 528, BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA - 2023
BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023
