Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 60 (CHH)

BHARAT LAL v. CENTRAL BUREAU INVESTIGATION

2006-02-01

D.R.DESHMUKH

body2006
ORDER 1. This Criminal Revision is directed against an order dated 12.08.2005 passed by Shri Shiv Mangal Pandey Special Judge CBI, Raipur in Special Criminal Case No.55/2004 whereby charges under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) were framed against petitioner No.1 and under Section 13(2), 13(l)(e) of the Act read with Section 109 I.P.C. were framed against petitioner No.2. 2, Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners has during arguments at the very outset submitted that in this revision he would confine the challenge to the impugned order dated 12.08.2005 only so far as it relates to framing of charge against the petitioner No.2 and that he would not assail the charge under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Act framed against the petitioner no.1-Bharat Lai, by the Special Court. 3. Brief facts are that the respondent filed a charge-sheet against the petitioners in the Court of Special Judge CBI, Raipur (Special Criminal Case No.55/2004) alleging that the petitioner No.1 while functioning as Deputy General Manager at Bhilai Steel Plant during the period 1991 to February 2002 committed criminal misconduct inasmuch as he was found in possession of disproportionate assets beyond the known sources of his income to the tune of Rs.23,25,252/- through dubious means and for which he could not render any satisfactory explanation. It was also found during investigation that the petitioner No.2, wife of the petitioner No.1, abetted the commission of offence under the Act by the petitioner No.1 by submitting false returns of income during the period 1994-95 to "2002-03 showing false income from Beauty Parlor, trading of sarees, tuition and income from interest on bank deposits. It was also found that a bogus Will deed was got executed from Ramdhani Sahu, father of petitioner No.1, on 24.1.2002 in favour of the petitioner No.2 to explain the huge quantity of gold in possession of the petitioners. The aforesaid stamp on which the said Will was got executed was sold by stamp Vendor Shri Sanjay Kumar Sharma to United Western Bank, M.G.Road, Raipur. One Advocate Shri Ravi Shankar Singh had purchased the aforesaid stamp from Sanjay Kumar Sharma on 21.2.2002 on which the aforesaid Will was drafted by Ravi Shanker Singh and got executed on 24.1.2002. The aforesaid stamp on which the said Will was got executed was sold by stamp Vendor Shri Sanjay Kumar Sharma to United Western Bank, M.G.Road, Raipur. One Advocate Shri Ravi Shankar Singh had purchased the aforesaid stamp from Sanjay Kumar Sharma on 21.2.2002 on which the aforesaid Will was drafted by Ravi Shanker Singh and got executed on 24.1.2002. This was done to shield the petitioner No.1 and to explain the huge quantity of gold ornaments in possession of the petitioners. During investigation, petitioner No.2 could not furnish any Diploma or Certificate for Beauty Parlor Course. She also could not furnish any details relating to sale and purchase of sarees or relating to income from interest or tuition fees. She also could not furnish any explanation or details about the interest on bank deposits. On this basis, the Special Judge CBI framed charges against the petitioners as aforesaid in paragraph 1. 4. Since the learned counsel for the petitioners did not assail the charge under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Act framed against petitioner No.1 in this Criminal Revision, the only question that requires consideration is whether the documents filed along with charge sheet established a prima facie case under Section 13(2), 13(1)(e) of the Act read with Section 109 I.P.C. against the petitioner no.2. 5. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that even if the contention of the CBI was accepted that the Will deed dated 24.1.2002 was got executed to explain the possession of gold ornaments, it could not amount to abetment of an offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act since the execution of the Will deed dated 24.1.2002 was an act which was subsequent to the commission of offence, if any. He placed reliance on D.S.P, Chennai Vs. K. Inbasagaran and Goura Venkata Reddy Vs. State of A.P. On the other hand, Shri Shailendra Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the CBI has supported the impugned order by referring to the statements of Stamp Vendor Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Advocate Ravi Shanker Singh, Smt. Mridul Mallik and Smt. Chanda Jaiswal. He placed reliance on D.S.P, Chennai Vs. K. Inbasagaran and Goura Venkata Reddy Vs. State of A.P. On the other hand, Shri Shailendra Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the CBI has supported the impugned order by referring to the statements of Stamp Vendor Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Advocate Ravi Shanker Singh, Smt. Mridul Mallik and Smt. Chanda Jaiswal. He contended that since no satisfactory explanation whatsoever or documentation was furnished by the petitioner No.2 to justify the alleged saurce of her income from Beauty Parlar, business of sarees, income from interest or tuition fees, it was prima facie clear that a case under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) read with Section 109 IPC was, made out against petitioner No.2. He placed reliance on P.Nallammal and Another Vs. State Represented by Inspector of Police. 6. Having heard the rival contentions; I have gone through the documents annexed to the petition. In view of P.Nallammal and Another Vs. State Represented by Inspector of Police3, it is now well settled that any person who abets the commission of offence by a public servant under Section l3(1)(e) of the Act is liable to be proceeded against under the Act. 7. Abetment is defined under Section 107 of the Penal Code as under : “107. Abetment of a thing. - A person abets the doing of a thing, who – First- Instigates any person to do that thing; .or . Secondly. - Engages with .one or mare other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, or 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, os said to instigate doing of that thing,” “Explanation 2. - 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, os said to instigate doing of that thing,” “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 therby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.” A plain reading of the above section makes it crystal clear that in order to prosecute a person other than a public servant under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and Section 109 of the I.P.C., it must be shown that such person abetted the amassing of wealth, disproportionate to the known sources of income of the public servant either by instigating such person to do that thing or by intentionally aiding by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. It is also well settled that in order to find out whether a prima facie case exists for framing of charge against such a person under the Act, the documents annexed with the charge sheet presented by the CBI, if believed at its face value should prima facie constitute an offence under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and Section 109 LP.C. 8. Bearing the above settled position of law in mind, it is found that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the execution of Will dated 24.1.2002 was an act subsequent to the commission of offence, if any, by the petitioner No. I cannot be accepted. The raid was conducted by the CBI in the residential premises of the petitioners on 22.2.2002 whereas the Will deed was allegedly got executed on 24.1.2002. The statement of stamp vendor Sanjay Kumar Sharma clearly reveals that the said stamp on which the Will deed was got executed was sold by him to United Western Bank, M.G.Road, Raipur for some agreement and not to the petitioner or his father. It reveals that the writings on the back of the stamp showing it to be purchased by the father of the petitioner No. 1 for executing a Will were not in his hand-writing. It reveals that the writings on the back of the stamp showing it to be purchased by the father of the petitioner No. 1 for executing a Will were not in his hand-writing. The statement of Ravi Shanker Singh, Advocate, clearly shows that on 22.1.2002 he had purchased that non-judicial stamp from San jay Kumar Sharma. It appears that Shri Ravi Shanker Singh had the aforesaid stamp in his possession which was used for executing a Will deed dated 24.1.2002. It prima facie shows that the said Will deed was merely executed to camouflage the Source of the huge amount of gold in possession of the petitioners. 9. The petitioner No.2 in her statement mentioned that she was furnishing a return of income from the year 1994-95 wherein the income from Beauty Parlor, tuition and interest from bank deposits had been mentioned but she had failed to substantiate her statement by any documents or particulars. She also admitted that she had no certificate or diploma for running a Beauty Parlor. So far as the business of Banarasi sarees, she also failed to produce any documents or even to name of ladies to whom she had sold the sarees. The statement of Smt. Mridul Malik also does not show that the petitioner No.2 was running a Beauty Parlor. It shows that she had accompanied the petitioner No.2 to Raipur where the petitioner had made some purchase but had got the bill prepared in her name. This also reflects dubious dealing. Thus, the petitioner No.2 had completely failed to give any justification either oral or documentary for the income alleged to have been earned by her from 1994-95 onwards from Beauty Parlor, saree business, tuition, interest from bank deposits etc. She also mentioned that she did not maintain any record of any moneys lent by her to any person and any interest derived therefrom. In the absence of any explanation whatsoever, oral or documentary, the alleged sources of income shown by the petitioner No.2 from 1994-95 could not be verified for want of any satisfactory explanation. In the absence of any proof furnished by the petitioner No.2, during investigation, a prima facie case existed against the petitioner No.2 for filing false returns of income tax from the year 1994-95 showing income from Beauty Parlor, tuition, interest on deposits or on money lent etc. In the absence of any proof furnished by the petitioner No.2, during investigation, a prima facie case existed against the petitioner No.2 for filing false returns of income tax from the year 1994-95 showing income from Beauty Parlor, tuition, interest on deposits or on money lent etc. The manner in which the Will deed was got executed from Ramdhoni Sahu, the father of petitioner No.1, in favour of the petitioner No.2 also prima facie shows that it is a bogus document. 10. So far as the citations relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners are concerned, they do not apply to the instant case since the facts and circumstances in those cases are clearly distinguishable. 11. From the facts and circumstances mentioned above, it can safely be inferred that the petitioner No.2 intentionally aided the petitioner No.1 in amassing wealth disproportionate to the known sources of income of the petitioner No.1 by filing false returns of income tax from the year 1994-95 showing income from Beauty Parlor, tuition, interest on deposits or on money lent etc and by getting a bogus Will deed executed in her favour from the father of the petitioner No.1 to camouflage the source of huge quantity of gold in their possession, Thereby a prima facie case under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and read with Section 109 I.P.C. was clearly made out against the petitioner No.2. No illegality or manifest error in the impugned order dated 12.08.2005 is thus seen. This Criminal Revision being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed. Revision Rejected.