TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 614X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itness viz. Anit Mehta, Ashok Grover, Ramnivas, Sushil Salhotra, Vijay Kumar Lalla and Surender Malik - According to the CBI, some income tax related orders relied upon by the petitioners, are of a date after the filing the chargesheet, therefore they would be of no relevance. What is to be seen at this stage is whether there is a strong suspicion that the accused has committed the offence. The Court finds no reason to interfere with the order on charge and the framing of charge - petition dismissed. - W.P.(CRL) 200/2010 & Crl. M.A. Nos. 11012/2014 & 5169/2016 WITH W.P.(CRL) 339/2010 & Crl. M.A. Nos. 2641 & 7806/2010, CRL. M.A. Nos. 11013/2014, 5175/2016, 17046/2016 - - - Dated:- 1-12-2020 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI Mr. Salman Khurshid, Senior Advocate with Mr. Khowaja Siddiqui, Mr. Ashwini Kumar, Mr. Arup Sinha, Mr. Raghav Kakar, Mr. Zafar Khurshid and Ms. Sanchita Ain, Advocates for petitioners. Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI with Mr. Prateek Kumar, Advocate. NAJMI WAZIRI, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenges the order on charge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hether a case is made out for trial on the basis of the documents presented. The learned Trial Court having considered the chargesheet, statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and other documents opined that there is grave suspicion arose from the material placed before the Court of the involvement of petitioner R.C. Sabharwal and Puneet Sabharwal for the offences of which they have been charged under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. The case against R.C.Sabharwal is that he was found in possession of the total assets worth ₹ 3,10,58,324/- for the check period beginning from 20.08.1968 till 23.08.1995. The assets which were disproportionate to his known sources of the income were ₹ 2,05,63,641/-. His wife's salary during the said period was ₹ 8,72,249.42. He himself earned a salary of ₹ 10,00,042/- for the period in question. As per the chargesheet, the unexplained amount was 166% of the known sources of income. The learned Trial Court had considered the following aspects apropos the charge of disproportionate a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... um of ₹ 42,43,505/- from Morni Davi Brij Lal Trust. During investigation it is also revealed that firm M/s PUS Properties was started by Smt. R. Mehta and accused Puneet Sabharwal who resigned and replaced by Shri Sumeet Sabharwal, Shakuntia Sahni and Sushma Suri and they earned income of ₹ 87,593/-. Accused R.C. Sabharwal had rental income of ₹ 13,31,448/- from house No. 7, Masjid Moth, New Delhi and ₹ 8310/- from insurance policies and accused R.C. Sabharwal and his wife earned ₹ 1,98,972/- towards interest. It is also alleged that accused earned rental income of ₹ 62,890/- from BPC Pump at Garh Muktheshwar. Thus total income of accused R.C. Sabharwal and his family was ₹ 1,23,18,091/-. 4. According to case of prosecution check period in this case has been taken from the date when accused R.C. Sabharwal joined as Architecture Assistant in NDMC i.e. 20.08.1969 to the date of search i.e. 23.08.95. The total expenditure of accused during the check period comes out to ₹ 8,23,108/-. 5. It is alleged that during investigation it was revealed that accused R.C. Sabharwal invested huge amount for acquiring movable properties an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the monies which came into the accounts of the various Trusts such as Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust could not be looked into under the scheme of Special Bearer Bonds issued under The Special Bearer Bonds (Immunities and Exemptions) Act, 1981. However, according to the prosecution, the unaccounted for income is 166% of the known sources of income. The amounts, according to Charge No. 1, is that the petitioner R.C. Sabharwal was found in possession of assets to the tune of ₹ 3,10,58,324/- as against his income and that of his family members' income, to the tune of ₹ 1,23,18,091/- and expenditure of ₹ 18,23,108/- and that he was found in possession of total assets to the tune of ₹ 2,05,63,341/-, which were disproportionate to his known sources of income. 6. The learned counsel for the CBI contends that the protection under section 3 of the Special Bearer Bonds (Immunities and Exemptions) Act, 1981 ( the Act for short) is not absolute apropos monies which may have been derived through illegitimate means or relating to any offence under Chapter IX and XVII of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (P.C. Act) or any offence which is tenable und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit, the source and nature of which was not satisfactorily explained, and the business income estimated by him under Section 13 of the Income Tax Act, 1922, after rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee as unreliable. It was propounded as well that where there was unexplained cash credit, it was open to the Income Tax Officer to hold that it is the income of the assessee and no further burden lies on the Income Tax Officer to show that that income is from any particular source and that it was for the assessee to prove that even if the cash credit represented income, it was an income from a source which had already been taxed. 190. The decision is to convey that though the IT returns and the orders passed in the IT proceedings in the instant case recorded the income of the accused concerned as disclosed in their returns, in view of the charge levelled against them, such returns and the orders in the IT proceedings would not by themselves establish that such income had been from lawful source as contemplated in the Explanation to Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, 1988 and that independent evidence would be required to account for the same. 191. Though considerable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o separate income to amass such huge property. It was underlined that the property in the name of the income tax assessee itself cannot be a ground to hold that it actually belongs to such an assessee and that if this proposition was accepted, it would lead to disastrous consequences. This Court reflected that in such an eventuality it will give opportunities to the corrupt public servant to amass property in the name of known person, pay income tax on their behalf and then be out from the mischief of law. 543. While observing that mere declaration of property in the income tax returns does not ipso facto connote that the same had been acquired from the known lawful sources of income, the trial court held the view that the prosecution could successfully establish that the respondents and their firms/companies, who posed to be income tax assessees, had no independent or real source of income and that it was the finance of A-1 that was really in circulation and thus it could prove beyond reasonable doubt that the only source of money, the acquisition of large assets was that of hers . 9. The CBI further contends that (i) merits of the matter would best be tested in a tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o do that thing; or (Secondly) -Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or (Thirdly) - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1.- A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Illustration A, a public officer, is authorized by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z. B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, wilfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C. Explanation 2.- Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act. 11. The petitioner insists ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cial Bearer Bonds Act makes the benefits of the said Act inapplicable to the PC Act or similar offences. The prosecution seeks to rely upon documents, upon statements of witness viz. Anit Mehta, Ashok Grover, Ramnivas, Sushil Salhotra, Vijay Kumar Lalla and Surender Malik. Reliance is also placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs Jayalalitha (2017) 6 SCC 263 to contend that income tax assessment orders are apropos tax liability on income, they do not necessarily attest to the lawfulness of the sources of the income. The latter is the subject matter of the investigation. According to the CBI, some income tax related orders relied upon by the petitioners, are of a date after the filing the chargesheet, therefore they would be of no relevance. What is to be seen at this stage is whether there is a strong suspicion that the accused has committed the offence. From the preceding discussion, an answer emanates in the affirmative. 15. In view of the above, the Court finds no reason to interfere with the order on charge dated 21.02.2006 and the framing of charge dated 28.02.2006. 16. The petitions are without merits and stand dismissed alongwith p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
