TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2828X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, taken to be ex facie true, do not constitute the offences alleged. It is admitted that out of 35 witnesses, 22 prosecution witnesses have already been examined. Thus, the trial is at the advance stage - It is settled law that at the time of framing of charge, the Court is not expected to hold mini trial and delve deep into the matter for the purposes of appreciating the evidence and the evidence can only be weighed when the entire material will be brought before the Trial Court. The Court was required to see at the time of framing charge whether a strong suspicion exists for commission of the offence. The Trial Court found prima facie case against the petitioner, accordingly framed charges. By the present petition, inherent power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been sought to be invoked. The inherent powers are only meant to be applied ex debito justitiae in order to render real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone, the Court exists or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that the extraordinary powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly and with great care and cauti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns 7, 8, 9 and 11 of the Act. There is no provision whatsoever in the Act for punishment of any offence under any other provision in general and Section 13(1)(e) in particular. The learned Judge has erred in interpreting the scope of Section 109 of the IPC and Section 13(1)(e)and 13(2) of the Act. 4. Learned counsel further submitted that in the present case, even assuming without admitting, that her husband Shri Anand Kumar Singhal had taken illegal gratification out of which subsequently other assets were acquired in his name and in the name of the petitioner and other persons. Thus, only the husband of the petitioner has committed offence under Section 13(2) of the Act. Such acquiring of assets by others is not amounting to abatement by the petitioner. Besides this, there is no provision in Section 13(2) of the Act for punishment of abatement or punishing any other person. He further submitted that there are some assets in the name of the petitioner which cannot be a ground to charge her for the offence of abatement to disproportionate assets earned by her husband. In other words, if her husband had taken gratification and subsequently acquired assets in the name of the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lishment to exercise powers and jurisdiction in any area in a State, not being a Union Territory or railway area without the consent of the Government of that State. 19. Plain reading of the above provisions goes to show that for exercise of jurisdiction by the CBI in a State (other than Union Territory or Railway Area), consent of the State Government is necessary. In other words, before the provisions of the Delhi Act are invoked to exercise power and jurisdiction by Special Police Establishment in any State, the following conditions must be fulfilled; (i) A notification must be issued by the Central Government specifying the offences to be investigated by Delhi Special Police Establishment (Section 3); (ii) An order must be passed by the Central Government extending the powers and jurisdiction of Delhi Special Police Establishment to any State in respect of the offences specified under Section 3 (Section 5); and (iii) Consent of the State Government must be obtained for the exercise of powers by Delhi Special Police Establishment in the State (Section 6) . 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon case of State of West Bengal and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d within the territory of a State without the consent of that State will neither impinge upon the federal structure of the Constitution nor violate the doctrine of separation of power and shall be valid in law. Being the protectors of civil liberties of the citizens, this Court and the High Courts have not only the power and jurisdiction but also an obligation to protect the fundamental rights, guaranteed by Part III in general and under Article 21 of the Constitution in particular, zealously and vigilantly . 8. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was having her own business. She was independent, she had nothing to do with the income of her husband, accordingly, her income had not to be included in the income of her husband. Whereas the learned Trial Court has framed charge against the petitioner also as mentioned above. To strengthen his argument, counsel for the petitioner relied upon case of Akhilesh Yadav vs. Vishwanath Chaturvedi others (2013) 2 SCC 1 whereby the Apex Court has held as under:- 12. As far as Smt. Dimple Yadav is concerned, Mr. Dwivedi submitted that except for the fact that she is the wife of Akhilesh Yadav, who had been a Member of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner being accused No.2 filed under Section 109 of IPC read with Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Act. It is alleged that petitioner in conspiracy with her husband acquired property in Dehradoon, impersonating as Resham Manocha. As per her income-tax returns, the petitioner had total income during the check period of Rs.84,84,210/- from her business of dry cleaning run in the name and style of Royal Dry Cleaners, whereas total expenditure in the business was of Rs.50,38,712/- and had likely savings of Rs.34,45,498/-. However, she acquired assets to the tune of Rs.74,77,827/- during the check period. Thus, the assets acquired were disproportionate to her income to the tune of Rs.40,32,329/- i.e. 47.5%. 11. Moreover, the specimen signatures and photographs of the petitioner as Resham Manocha was submitted in the office of Mussori Dehradoon Development Authority (MDDA) at the time of execution of Agreement between the allottee and MDDA, were verified/attested by her husband, A.K. Singhal, while serving as JDR, Customs, Excise Gold (Control), Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. 12. Reference to details of income and expenses of petitioner as reflected in D-33, that is, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the petitioner. 16. The learned Trial Court after taking into account the materials available before it, directed for framing of charges against the petitioner. The details and particulars regarding the respective role of the accused have been drawn in the charge-sheet which makes the case against the petitioner triable. By no stretch of imagination can it be said that the materials available against the petitioner, taken to be ex facie true, do not constitute the offences alleged. It is admitted that out of 35 witnesses, 22 prosecution witnesses have already been examined. Thus, the trial is at the advance stage. 17. It is settled law that at the time of framing of charge, the Court is not expected to hold mini trial and delve deep into the matter for the purposes of appreciating the evidence and the evidence can only be weighed when the entire material will be brought before the Trial Court. The Court was required to see at the time of framing charge whether a strong suspicion exists for commission of the offence. The Trial Court found prima facie case against the petitioner, accordingly framed charges. 18. By the present petition, inherent power of this Court un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
