TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1245X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the time, when offence was alleged to have been committed? HELD THAT:- The evidence of two prosecution witnesses out of one is hostile, is not wholly reliable to prove the guilt against accused No.9 to connect him that he obtained income tax returns from accused No.2 directly. As the crucial link is missing then how the income tax officer, who is responsible for verification and process of Income tax returns came in the possession of those unauthenticate accepted Income tax returns. When the assignment of acceptance of income tax returns was not with accused No.9. So in these circumstances, there is no satisfactory evidence on record to prove the charges against accused No.9 for the offence punishable under Section 120 B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 r/w 120 B of IPC. The prosecution has satisfactorily proved the circumstances by satisfactory evidence that the TDS certificates on the basis of which ITR forms and documents were prepared by accused No.1 are forged one. Further though we assume that TDS certificates are genuine one but the proprietor of firms cited in the TDS Certificates are the fictitious persons. The role played by accused No.1 is that accused No.1 has prepared f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cquitted. At this stage, it is required to take pause and proposed to give hearing against accused on the point of sentence. In the instant case, accused No.1 being the chartered accountant with the aid and assistance of accused No.2 committed the offence in league with accused No.3, 4, 6 to 8 as an instrumental and thereby cheated to the Income Tax Department. It is also to be mentioned that accused No.3, 4, and 6 to 8 having minimal beneficiary of the fraud amount, but the fact remains that the entire conspiracy hatched by accused No.1 and accused No.2 and they are the ultimate beneficiary of crime proceeds. The substantive sentences of accused be run concurrently. - CBI SPECIAL CASE NO.89 OF 2000 (C.N.R.NO.MHCC020000132000) - - - Dated:- 20-12-2019 - S.U. WADGAONKAR SPECIAL JUDGE (CBI) (C.R.No.47) Ld. PP Mr. J.K. Sharma for CBI, EOW. Ld. Advocate Mr. Bhanushali for accused No.1 to 3 Ld. Advocate Mr. Naik for accused No. 4. Ld. Adv Ms. Manjula Rao for accused No.6 and 9. Ld. Advocate Mr. Lingalod for accused No.7. Ld. Adv Mr. Ghag for accused No.8. JUDGMENT Accused No.1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are charged and tried for the offence punishable unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itnesses, collected documents and it is transpired that accused No.1, who is a practicing Chartered Accountant, accused No.2 Hoor Jhurani, who is Assistant of accused No.1 and accused No.3 to 9 during the period 1996 to 1998 entered into criminal conspiracy at Mumbai with the object of committing illegal acts dishonestly and fraudulently. In pursuance of the same, they submitted Income Tax Returns enclosing false and forged TDS Certificates and later on, processed by the Income Tax authorities and un authorisedly claimed, obtained and misappropriated income tax refunds to the tune of ₹ 4,25,894/ and thereby caused pecuniary loss to the Government. In pursuance of said criminal conspiracy accused No.2 Hoor Jhurani introduced Bank A/c in various banks in the name of accused and obtained cheque book of the same to utilize income tax refunds. Accused No.9 Sharad Kumar Gambhir had criminal conspiracy with accused No.1 to 8 and by abusing his official position as a public servant, while functioning as a Tax Assistant in the office of ITO, Ward 12(5), he dishonestly accepted income tax returns of accused No.6, accused No.7 and accused No.8 directly from accused No.2 Hoor Jhurani ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heating, forged document used as a genuine documents, thereby committed offence of criminal conspiracy ? Proved Against Accused No. 1 to 4 6 to 8 2 Whether prosecution proves that during the period 1996 to 1998 at Mumbai, accused No.1 to 4, 6 to 9 alongwith deceased accused No.5 cheated Income Tax Department by dishonestly inducing it to issue income tax refund in favour of accused No.3, 5 to 8 on the strength of forged and fabricated documents ? Proved Against Accused No. 1 to 4 6 to 8 3 Whether prosecution proves that during the period 1996 to 1998 at Mumbai, pursuant to the criminal conspiracy accused forged TDS certificates, Balance Sheets purported to be a valuable security, thereby committed the forgery of valuable security ? Proved Against Accused No. 1 to 4 6 to 8 4 Whether prosecution proves that during the period 1996 to 1998 at Mumbai, pursuant to the criminal conspiracy accused forged the TDS Certificates and Balance Sheets intending that it shall be used for the purpose o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the material pertaining to the enquiry made by Income Tax Vigilance Cell and not investigating officer in the present case. On the basis of report of Vigilance Cell, PW 41 accorded sanction, which is illegal and not valid. Furthermore, he submits that PW 41 is not the competent authority having power to remove the public servant accused No.9 at the time of commission of offence. The sanction was accorded in the year 2000. At that time accused was under his control. The competent authority is not working at any point of time or during the relevant period as competent authority of the office of ITO, Ward No.12(5), Income Tax Department, Mumbai. So she claimed that the sanction is invalid and illegal one. The prosecution placed reliance on the evidence of PW 41 Navin Chandra Tiwari at Exh.485 to prove the valid sanction. He testified that in the year 2000 he was posted as a Commissioner of Income Tax Department representative as Income Tax Appellant Tribunal, Mumbai. The work was assigned to him to represent the Income Tax Department in appeal cases. The CBI had made communication to the office of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai regarding misuse of official position by accuse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as received investigation papers made by CBI in the present case and on the basis of it he has accorded sanction in question. So in this scenario the clear cut admission of PW41 that he has accorded sanction on the basis of departmental enquiry made by Income Tax Department, Vigilance Cell, he accorded sanction. So there is contravention material requirement to constitute the grant of valid sanction. According sanction to launch prosecution against accused No.9 under Section 19 of PC Act for the offence under PC Act is invalid. 10. In nutshell, it is the allegation against accused that they conspired to cheat the Income Tax Department and in collusion with each other during the relevant period accused No.1 prepared income tax returns with the assistance of accused No.2 in the name of accused No.3, 6 to 8 and one Shri Haresh Dhameja and submitted to the Income Tax office in Ward No.12(5), Income Tax Office, Mumbai. Accused No.4 prepared forged TDS certificate and he is one of the beneficiary of crime proceeds. Further, the basic claim of income tax refunds was based on TDS Certificate alleged to be issued by deductor concerned firms. In the present case, the almost all TDS certif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence it is usual to see if it is corroborated either by direct evidence or circumstantial evidence. At the same time in the cases where reasons for the opinion are convincing and there is no reliable evidence throwing a doubt. The uncorroborated testimony of an handwriting expert may be accepted. However, in the present case Court is not relied solely the evidence of handwriting expert. Reliance of handwriting expert is placed for the corroboration of primary evidence. So submissions advanced on behalf of accused to disbelieve the evidence led by handwriting expert is not assist to them. 14. One of the submissions advanced on behalf of accused No. 1 to 3 is that the investigating officer during investigation cannot obtain handwriting sample or signature from a person accused was having committed an offence and pursuant to section 4 and 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920. In support of his submission he placed reliance in the case of Sapan Haldar Anr., Vs. State in Cri. A 884/2001 decided by Hon ble Delhi High Court on 25.05.2012. There is a reference of Sec. 4, which indicates police is empower to take measurements of a person, who has been arrested in con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aimed by accused No.3. Further prosecution placed reliance on the evidence of PW 9, who is the employee of Canara Bank. It is to be noted that he proved the statement of account of accused No.3 for the period 01.03.1997 to 02.09.1999, which indicates that the refund cheque for ₹ 59,864/ arising out of ITR Exh.163 (Colly.) is credited in the account of accused No.3. 17. Further PW 14 proved the factum that accused No.3 filed Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 1997 1998 (Exh.162) prepared by accused No.1 Chaturvedi Chartered Account, wherein refund is claimed, thereby Income Tax Department allowed the refund of ₹ 53,846/ and same was paid by cheque. Alongwith this ITR the Statement of Income, Balance Sheet, Income and Expenditure Account was attached. Further TDS Certificate in Form No.16A is issued in favour of M/s Mangalam Transport, to whom payment made by the deductor firm Speedy Transport, Ballard Estate, Mumbai, which was responsible for the deduction of tax. Thus, certificate indicates that TDS of ₹ 2,300/ was deducted. Another 3 TDS Certificates are issued in favour of Mota Transport Carriers, Mumbai, to whom payment made by the deductor firm M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Transport Co., Mumbai, to whom payment made by the deductor firm Speedy Transport, Ballard Estate, Mumbai, which was responsible for the deduction of tax. Thus, certificate indicates that TDS of ₹ 12,406/ , ₹ 7,139/ , ₹ 17,014/ respectively was deducted. It is to be noted that prosecution has placed the evidence of PW 28 Krishnashankar Trivedi, who is connected with the deductor firm Speedy Transport. The witness specifically narrated that the deductor firm has not issued the TDS Certificate Exh 163 (colly.). The signature purportedly did by the connected persons of the said firm is not of himself or any connected person of the firm. On the strength of TDS certificate the ITR form was submitted and refund is claimed by accused No.3. Further prosecution placed reliance on the evidence of PW 10, who is the employee of Saraswati Co Operative Bank, who proved the Account opening Form of accused Soares R. John on which his photograph is affixed. Apparently, the photograph at the relevant time is similar to the features of accused No.8 at present. Income Tax Refund amount of ₹ 38,518/ is credited in his account (deposit slip Exh. 147). Further out of that amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Alongwith this ITR the Statement of Income, Balance Sheet, Income and Expenditure Account was attached. Further TDS Certificate (Exh.188) in Form No.16A is issued in favour of Bhanu Container Carrier, Mumbai, to whom payment made by the deductor firm Bhadra Brothers, Mumbai, which was responsible for the deduction of tax. Thus, certificate indicates that TDS of ₹ 5,559/ was deducted towards the contract price paid to the said Transport firm. Further TDS Certificate (Exh. 192) in Form No.16A is issued in favour of Bhanu Container Carrier, Mumbai, to whom payment made by the deductor firm Shivji Kanji Co., Mumbai, which was responsible for the deduction of tax. Thus, certificate indicates that TDS of ₹ 30,792/was deducted towards the contract price paid to the said Transport firm. Further 3 TDS Certificates (Exh.199 Colly.) in Form No.16A is issued in favour of M/s MTC Transport Co., Mumbai, to whom payment made by the deductor firm Transworld Shipping Services, Mumbai, which was responsible for the deduction of tax. Thus, certificate indicates that TDS of ₹ 6,726/ , ₹ 7,209/ and ₹ 6,994/ was deducted towards the contract price paid to the said Tran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same person (i.e. accused No.1). Further he proved the factum that the specimen signature S 508 to S 511 (related to accused No.7) are compared with signature on cheque drawn by accused No.7 (Exh.155). Those signatures are written by same person (accused No.7). 23. In regard to assessee Haresh Dhameja, prosecution witness PW24 Indrajit Rey proved the factum that Haresh Dhameja filed Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 1997 1998 (Exh.198 Colly.) prepared by accused No.1 Chaturvedi Chartered Accountant, wherein refund is claimed, thereby Income Tax Department allowed the refund of ₹ 35,937/ and same was paid by cheque. Alongwith this ITR the Statement of Income, Balance Sheet, Income and Expenditure Account was attached. Further with ITR form 4 TDS Certificates were attached. It is to be noted that the alleged balance sheet indicate that assessee Dharmeja is the proprietor of Nishant Transport Corporation. Further prosecution placed reliance on the evidence of PW 4 S. Ramlingam, who is the employee of Andhra Bank. It is to be noted that he proved the statement of account of Dhameja for the period 01.01.1998 to 31.03.1998, which indicates that the refund cheque for & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed by accused No.2 Hoor Jhurani. He is not the beneficiary of amount. There is no role of accused No.4 in criminal conspiracy in regard to obtain income tax returns fraudulently through him. 26. It is to be noted that the import of arguments advanced on behalf of accused No.4 indicates that he prepared the TDS certificates but at the behest of accused No.1 and 2. It is to be noted that the prosecution has independently proved the factum that the TDS certificates, which were relied and attached to the Income Tax Return form of accused No.3 pertaining to the certificate issued by deductor M/s Link International was prepared by accused No.4 Chokkalingam. This factum is proved through the evidence of handwriting expert Exh. 9. Same was referred by this Court in Para No.17 of the judgment. Furthermore, two cheques Exh. 156 and 157 worth ₹ 30,000/ each were drawn on accused No.7 in favour of accused No.4 and same were credited in the account of accused No.4. This satisfactory evidence does not wipe up by the accused by leading probable circumstance. So this factum proves that the accused No.4 has requisite knowledge of the main object to cheat Income Tax Office by claiming ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is no explanation pertaining to this factum. Bear omnibus statement that he has not made bank transaction is not sufficient. So this factum proves that the he is having necessary requisite knowledge of the criminal conspiracy of the main object for the purpose of cheating the Income Tax office by availing income tax refund amount on the basis of forged documents. 29. On behalf of accused No.8, it is submitted that his date of birth is 25th October, 1978. In the year 1997 just he completed age of 18 years. Due to the financial crises of family, he compelled to do service. Accordingly, he was doing service with DW 1 Virochan Bapu Prabhudesai. According to him, the evidence of DW 1 satisfactorily proved that accused No.1 Devendra Chaturvedi was frequently visiting to his office, wherein accused was working. At the instance of Devendra Chaturvedi and claiming there are future benefits if the income tax returns were filed. So he signed blank income tax returns and handed over to Devendra Chaturvedi. Devendra Chaturvedi took handloan from PW 30 Rajan Desai of ₹ 40,000/ through DW 1 Virochan Bapu Prabhudesai. In December 1997 accused No.1 made phone call to Rajan Desai an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 37,000/ is paid to PW 30. So simplicitor explanation that accused no.1 handed over blank cheque and which is used for the payment of loan amount is highly improbable. It is to be noted that DW 1 being the expert, no explanation is forthcoming, how the income tax refund was credited to the account of accused No.8 and by what mode the cheque of accused No.8 was in the possession of accused No.1, through which the amount of ₹ 37,000/was paid to Rajan Desai. So this factum clear cut indicates that the contention and evidence led on behalf of accused No.8 are not wholly reliable. 32. Ld. advocate for the accused No.6 submits that there is no evidence on record to prove that accused No.6 was acquainted with accused No.1, 2 and 9. Accused was not residing in the jurisdiction of Ward No.12 (5) of Income Tax Department, Mumbai. PW 2 Viraf Irani, who proved the alleged TDS Certificate Exh. 332 alleged to have been used by accused No.6. According to him the evidence of the witness does not prove the involvement of accused No.6. Furthermore, she submits that there is no satisfactory evidence on record to show that alleged transaction took place pertaining to the saving account of acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the domain of public documents. Furthermore, those documents are kept by Income Tax office or bank in their regular course of business, so the officers of bank of Income Tax officer are competent witnesses to prove those documents. It is to be noted that income tax returns and connected document filed with it came within the purview of public documents, as under Section 143 of Income Tax Act, the concerned Income tax officer process it and pass order on it. Furthermore, the bank transaction documents regularly kept in the course of business and those are maintained in the bank are relevant documents. Consequently, the incharge of those offices, though they were not working at the relevant time, but they were working when evidence is came to be recorded. So they are the competent witnesses, to prove the contents of documents. Accordingly, they have proved the respective documents. 35. Ld. advocate for accused No. 1 to 3 Shri Bhanushali placed reliance in the case of Madholal Sindhu Vs. Asian Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors., AIR 1954 BOMBAY 305 (Vol.41, C.N. 87) ; Mr. D Mr. S. in M.P. No.7 of 1961 ; Sait Tarajee Khimchand and Ors. Vs. Yelamarti Satyam @ Satteyya and Ors., (197 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 37. It is to be noted that when accused No.3 is claiming to be a proprietor of transport firm and the deductor firm issued TDS certificate out of the contract price pertaining to the transportation. The TDS certificates itself indicates that actual payment was made to the said firm in lacs of rupees by way of cheque. So in these circumstances, if it is really accused No.3 is the proprietor of said firm, then he ought to have place the Bank Account of the transport firm, as according to the TDS certificate amount in lacs is credited in the account of said firm towards contract price of transport. Further when transport firm is running by the proprietor he has to obtain the permit and licenses from the public authority. If really he was running the said firm, then he ought to have place the same certificates e.g. certificates issued under Bombay Shops and Establishments Act. The burden to prove the said factum is upon accused No.3, as Sec. 106 of Evidence Act contemplates that if a fact is specifically within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. On the contrary, the statement of bank of accused No.3 indicates that for the sole purpose of encashm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted by accused No.1 with the assistance of accused No.2. It is obligatory on him to obtain invoice, cash book, bank account, vouchers, driver s salary details from accused persons being assessee. No evidence is forthcoming on behalf of him because same is within his exclusive knowledge that he had verified these documents. In reality, if he has verified those documents and on the basis of it he prepared the ITR form alongwith balance sheet and statement, then atleast one of the accused s bank statement would come on record to show that they have received contract price towards transportation from their deductor, which is in lacs. Furthermore, no documents are forthcoming on record, which is required to be verified by accused No.1 Chartered Accountant while preparation of balance sheet. The false information in Income Tax Returns and documents attached to with it can be inferred from one of the circumstances that the address of the accused, of whom accused No.1 and 2 filed Income Tax Returns is cited as 39, Maniyar Building, P. D mello Road, Mumbai. According to the accused No.1 to 3 the said address is of the business of Maharashtra Vehicle and Transport Association and perso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... over it. The said proceedings amounts to judicial proceedings, so prosecution is not empower to prosecute under the provisions of Indian Penal Code, when the provision of Income Tax itself provided relief for such irregularities. In support of his submission he placed reliance in the case of Lalji Haridas Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 1964 AIR 1154 , wherein it is held that Proceedings before Income Tax officer for the purpose of Sec. 195(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. are judicial proceedings. It is to be noted that the authorities provided under Income Tax are in the nature of quasi judicial authority. Furthermore, when ingredients of offence punishable under the provision of Indian Penal Code are made out, then there is no bar to try the concerned persons separately without invoking remedies provided under Income Tax Act, so the penal offences and the remedies provided under Income Tax Act are distinct one. So the submission is not assist to him. 44. Ld. advocate for the accused No.1 to 3 submits that this Court in Spl. Case No.106/2004 in the case of CBI, EOW, Mumbai Vs. Dharmesh Bhavsar and Anr. acquitted the accused on 28.04.2010. The said case is arising out of same First Info ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eption to the end of the conspiracy ; some may join the conspiracy after the time when such intention was fist entertained by any one of them and some others may quit from the conspiracy. All of them cannot but be treated as conspirators. Where in pursuance of the agreement the conspirators commit offences individually or adopt illegal means to do a legal act which has a nexus to the object of conspiracy, all of them will be liable for such offences even if some of them have not actively participated in the commission of those offences. 47. Ld. PP for the CBI submits that conspiracy can t be proved by direct evidence and it can be inferred from the proved circumstances. There is ample evidence on record to prove that accused was involved in conspiracy to cheat Income Tax office. 48. In regard to proof of the conspiracy, this Court is guided by the principles laid down in the case of Ram Narain Popli Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SC/0017/ 2003, [Full Bench], wherein Hon ble Apex Court observed as under; 378. As noted above, the essential ingredient of the offence of criminal conspiracy is the agreement to commit an offence. In a case where the agreement is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wari, Income Tax officer who knowingly or unknowingly passed refund order, no explanation is forthcoming about his role by the prosecution. In spite of that accused are not entitled for exoneration due to the lapses committed by investigating officer, otherwise offences are proved by the prosecution against accused. 51. It is to be noted that on behalf of accused No.6, 7 and 8 it is submitted that the statement attached to the ITR form i.e. balance sheet and Profit and Loss Statement required the signature of assessee, but same does not reflect in the present case. Ld. advocate for the accused No.1 submits that it is not requisite to obtain the signature of assessee on balance sheet. According to him in ITR form when assessee put his signature in verification which includes verification of documents attached to it. After going through the minute provisions of Income Tax that too, in the year 1997 it is required to obtain the signature of assessee on audited accounts. This factum supports to the factum that accused No.1 prepared false documents, however though accused No.6, 7 and 8 succeeded to this factum but they cannot be exonerated as they deal with crime proceeds through the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt of Tejpal Bhanushali is kept aside for consideration. 54. It is to be noted that as I have already held that the sanction accorded against accused No.9 under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act is not valid, so accused is to be acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is to be clarified that acquittal under the provisions of PC Act for want of valid sanction is not a embargo to proceed for the offences enumerated under Indian Penal Code, either against public servant or other accused. It is to be considered whether there is a satisfactory evidence on record to prove the offence leveled against accused No.9 under the Indian Penal Code, to prove this factum the prosecution placed reliance on the evidence of PW 36 Subhash Jadhav, who was working in the Income Tax Department. He in his examination in -chief has not supported to the prosecution, so prosecution is permitted to do cross examination. In cross examination he testified that accused No.9 calculated the tax. Furthermore, income tax returns of accused no.6, 7 and 8, which is alleged by prosecution that accused No.9 processed the same are not inwa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was came in the possession of Income Tax officer Mr. Tiwari, who processed and verified Income Tax Returns, is not forthcoming. Furthermore, if this is so, then prosecution ought to have place evidence on record pertaining to the process or marking the numbers by accused No.9 on Income Tax Returns by availing his specimen signature and obtaining opinion from handwriting expert as it is done by sending number of documents to the handwriting expert. So crucial evidence to show involvement of accused No.9 through documentary evidence is not forthcoming. The evidence of two prosecution witnesses out of one is hostile, is not wholly reliable to prove the guilt against accused No.9 to connect him that he obtained income tax returns from accused No.2 directly. As the crucial link is missing then how the income tax officer, who is responsible for verification and process of Income tax returns came in the possession of those unauthenticate accepted Income tax returns. When the assignment of acceptance of income tax returns was not with accused No.9. So in these circumstances, there is no satisfactory evidence on record to prove the charges against accused No.9 for the offence punishable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... noted that the material contentions are already considered and evaluated by this Court. The minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching to the core of the case. Technical errors committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter, would not permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. So pointed out so called infirmities are came within the purview of minor discrepancies on trivial matters, so same are not assist to the accused. Furthermore, while appreciating the evidence of the witnesses reasoning of this Court is based on documentary evidence. So, on material aspect documentary evidence as well as oral evidence when we read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. 59. On perusal of the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 420, the prosecution has proved that the Income Tax Department complainant parted with his property i.e. refund amount acting on a representation, which was false to the knowledge of accused. The accused had dishonest intention from the outset that the refund amount in the hands of Income Tax office must have passed on them. Thus, there is a satisfactory evidence on record to prove that accused No.1 to 4 and 6 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eficiary of crime proceeds, he acted on the instructions of accused No.1 and 2. He was not having the knowledge of interpretation of the legal terms pertaining to the income tax. So he prayed for leniency. 65. Accused No.2 submits that she was working as a clerk with accused no.1. Her two elders sisters aged 75 years are depend upon her. She only did the work of submission of Income Tax Returns to Income Tax office being the assistant of accused No.1. So she prayed for leniency. 66. Accused No.1 submits that he is the 60 year old. Whatever acts did by him are came within the framework of the work of chartered accountant. He lost his wife as well as sole son in near past. His mother is depend upon him. So he prayed for leniency. 67. Ld. advocate Mr. Bhanushali on behalf of accused No.3 submits that accused No.3 is the sole earning member of his family. His son and wife are depend upon him. Accused No.3 is not the beneficiary of crime proceeds. Ld. advocate for accused No.1 to 3 submits that there is no positive evidence for the quantum of loss as sanction order indicates that there is a loss of ₹ 1.50 lacs. It is to be noted that the allegations against accused No.9, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mprisonment for two (2) years for each offence and pay fine of ₹ 40,000/ (rupees Forty Thousand) for each offence, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for four (4) months for each offence, for the offence punishable under Section 120 B of Indian Penal Code, 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w 120 B of Indian Penal Code. (iii) Accused No.3 Sayaji L. Sangle, accused No.4 G. Chokkalingam, accused No.6 Ajit Meghnath Chachad, accused No.7 Ashok Patel and accused 8 John R. Soares are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six (6) months for each offence for each accused and pay fine of ₹ 8,000/ (rupees Eight Thousand) for each offence for each accused and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one (1) month for each offence for each accused, for the offence punishable under Section 120 B of Indian Penal Code, 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w 120 B of Indian Penal Code. 2) Accused No.9 Sharad Kumar Shrinivas Gambhir is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 13(1) (d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1888 and for the offence punishable under Section 120 B of Indian Penal Code, 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w 120 B of Indian Penal Code. 3) The substanti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
