9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioners prefer the present petition. 2. A brief factual narration resulting in filing of the two applications is that the above-noted FIR was lodged on 6th March 2006 by the CBI on a reliable information that certain officials of the National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. (NTPC) entered into a criminal conspiracy with the GRUP VO TECHNOPROMEXPORT RUSSIA (in short, 'M/s. T.P.E. Russia') and its associate companies in the years 2002 to 2005, in pursuance whereto, in the year 2005 an amount of US$ 20 million was paid/received against illegal gratification/kickbacks in the bank account of the petitioner M/s. Ravina & Associates Pvt. Ltd. (in short 'RAPL') in U.K. Pursuant to the Letters Rogatory issued, an order was issued freezing the accounts of the two petitioners i.e. RAPL and Ravina Khurana. Initially, the CBI filed a closure report. However, the same was not accepted by the learned trial court, which directed further investigation. Pursuant to the further investigation conducted, CBI filed a charge sheet against M/s. T.P.E. Moscow Russia, Mr. Sergei Mukhin, Mr. Alexander V. Schegolev representative Director of M/s. T.P.E. and the petitioners herein under Section 420 re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ister Bank, London which has been frozen by the order of the Special Court and could not be operated, the Income Tax Department sought recovery of the outstanding tax demand from the amounts lying deposited. 6. The earlier applications filed by the Income Tax Department Authority and the petitioners were dismissed vide order dated 26th November 2009 which order was challenged before this Court and vide order dated 6th August 2012 in Crl.Rev.P.128/2010, this Court disposed of the petition setting aside the order passed by the learned Special Judge, directing the learned Special Judge to pass appropriate orders for bringing back the amount lying in the Natwest Bank, London bearing Account Nos. 1400103368092, 44259816, 1400021000 and 18009336. The learned Special Judge was also directed that while passing the orders to the aforesaid effect, the learned Special Judge shall direct the money to be remitted in the SBI, Tis Hazari Branch in the name of the Court of Special Judge and once the money is received, the Special Judge would be then at liberty to deal with the same in any way if thinks appropriate after taking into consideration the rival claims of the petitioners, CBI and the In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see is not in a position to deposit the demanded income-tax, was also rejected noting that the petitioners have other assets to pay the amount. The petitioners thereafter filed WP(C) 328/2010 and WP(C) 340/2010 respectively seeking stay of recovery of the outstanding demand of Rs. 54,91,15,497 for the assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 in the case of petitioner No.2 or in the alternative the outstanding amounts be recovered from the accounts of petitioners in the NatWest Bank, London. Challenge was also laid to the order dated 7th January, 2010 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax rejecting the application for stay of demand. 11. Vide judgment dated 20th April, 2011, the Division Bench of this Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to the protection or benefit under Section 220(7) of the Income-Tax Act and held that the money in NatWest Bank, London is subject matter of the restraint order passed by the Court of U.K. on the letter of rogatory of the Special Judge, Delhi. The petitioner may not have any right to claim the said money, if it is corruption or bribe money. The said money may be forfeited under the foreign exchange law or Prevention of Corrupti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax Act so as to enable it to recover the tax demand on 20th December 2008 itself. 15. The issue before this Court is that whether the entire amount frozen in London and transferred to India is the case property or alleged proceeds of the crime and may be liable for confiscation in case the petitioner's are convicted and thus cannot be utilized for fulfilling the tax demands due against the petitioners. 16. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners contends that despite the investigation pending since 2006, no cognizance of the offence has been taken, much less, framing of any charge against the petitioner even for the offences punishable under Section 420/120-B IPC. The CBI had filed the closure report and only on the directions of the learned Special Judge, CBI, further investigation was carried out and charge-sheet for offences punishable under Section 420/120-B IPC has been filed on which also no cognizance has been taken as the learned Special Judge has directed further investigation which order has been challenged by the CBI itself, according to which investigation is complete. It is contended that even though this Court will not go into the merits of the allegations ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the outcome of commission of offence by the accused. The Court considered the fact as to how in modern days, commission of white-collar crimes and bank frauds are very much on the increase and banking facilities have been extended to the remotest rural areas and, therefore the expression "property" may not be interpreted in a manner so as to exclude the money in a bank which in turn would have the effect of placing legal hurdles, in the process of investigation into the crimes. According to the learned Judge, such literal interpretation of the expression "property" could not have been the intent of the framers of the Criminal Procedure Code. In para 11 of the said judgment, the learned Judge referred to the object behind investing the police with powers of seizure. It will be appropriate to extract the same in extenso: "It would now be useful to refer to the object behind investing the police with powers of seizure. Seizure and production in court of any property, including those regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence or any other property will have a twofold effect. Production of the above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by a prohibiting order. In the aforesaid case, the learned Judge has also noticed the fact that the judgment of Padmini Jesudurai, J. in Bharat Overseas Bank, [1988 MLW (Cri) 106] was upheld by the Division Bench subsequently. 11. In the case of Gurcharan Singh (Dr) v. State of Punjab, [(1978) 80 Punj LR 514 (DB)] a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court differing with the view taken by the Allahabad High Court in Textile Traders, [AIR 1960 All 405 : 1960 Cri LJ 871] came to hold that the bank account would be "property" and as such would be capable of being seized under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 12. Having considered the divergent views taken by different High Courts with regard to the power of seizure under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and whether the bank account can be held to be "property" within the meaning of the said Section 102(1), we see no justification to give any narrow interpretation to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is well known that corruption in public offices has become so rampant that it has become difficult to cope up with the same. Then again the time consumed by the courts in concluding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
