Pursuing Accountability in Construction Certification Fraud

Real Estate and Property Law RERA REAT Real Estate Regulatory Authority Law

Posted by Aditya Pratap Law Offices on 19 Jul 24

---

In a case of construction fraud, the applicants who were represented by Aditya Pratap Law Offices, bought an application regarding the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988, and various provisions of the India Penal Code. The case raised significant questions about the balance between protecting the rights of the suspect and ensuring compliance with legal obligations. 

A Petition was being filed related to the violation of fundamental rights of the constituent members of the Society, whereby blatant violations of law have taken place in the matter of the construction of an additional skyscraper within the larger layout. The case originated when a false drainage completion certificate was issued by suspect No. 6, in conspiracy with suspect Nos. 1 and 2. The charges against the suspect include of Sec. 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 read with Sec. 177 (Furnishing false information), 197 (Issuing or signing false certificate), 406 (Punishment of criminal breach of trust), 409 (criminal breach of trust by Public Servant), and 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code.

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND ARGUMENTS

The applicant in the Hon’ble Court claimed that nothing regarding the drainage system had been constructed. The applicant also contended that this led to the grant of an illegal occupancy certificate which made the building fit for occupation. This also attracted the commission of a cognizable offense of cheating to obtain an occupancy certificate which is a valuable security under section 30 of the I.P.C.

According to the applicant, he lodged a report with the Additional Commissioner of Police, Maharashtra State Anti­Corruption Bureau, and a notice to the Director of General of Anti­Corruption Bureau as per provisions of Sec. 154 (3) of the Cr.P.C. where no action was taken. The applicant did show documents in support of his contentions but to establish the violation of offence under Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the counsel of the applicant contented a pecuniary benefit has been conferred upon the developer by corrupt or illegal means. The Ld. Counsel Advocate Aditya Pratap  contended that the said building was immediately let out to the Life Insurance Company and thereby earned benefits therefrom through the occupation certificate which was false in itself. 

COURT’S DECISION

The above documents and arguments proved that the offence has been committed and thus it was necessary thorough investigation to find out who has committed this offence and how. It was further held by the court that it is for the investigating agency to find out all these things and issuance of direction in this respect would somewhat usurp the powers of the investigating agency because the report and notice in the respective agencies did not lead to any action. This was held because of the fashion of the application and the way Advocate Aditya Pratap made the arguments, the applicant wanted directions to be given to the concerned agency. The court issued a direction to the Additional Commissioner of Police, Anti­Corruption Bureau, Worli, Mumbai, to investigate. The direction issued by the court underscores the importance of investigating allegations of corruption and fraudulent practices under relevant statutes, ensuring accountability and legal compliance in building certification processes.

This direction also shows that the agencies made under the law for public security and justice need to follow through with an issue and they cannot not take any action. This symbolized the court’s power to order the functioning agencies to do their part of the job efficiently.