Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 719 (JHR)

Kiran Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2015-06-26

R.R.PRASAD

body2015
ORDER : This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings of CBI/SPE Dhanbad RC Case No. 13(A)/2005-D including the order dated 14.2.2007, passed by the Special Judge, CBI, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 13(2)/ 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been taken against the petitioner. 2. A first information report was lodged against Dr. Sudarshan Prasad Singh, husband of the petitioner, for amassing huge property disproportionate to his known source of income to the extent of Rs. 20,75,984/-. However, when the matter was taken up for investigation, it was found that said Dr. Sudarshan Prasad Singh had acquired the properties/assets disproportionate to his known source of income to the extent of Rs. 1,41,47,820.89/-. During that course, it was also found that this petitioner, wife of Dr. Sudarshan Prasad Singh, abetted her husband to acquire assets disproportionate to his known source of income. 3. Upon charge-sheet being submitted when cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 13(2) /13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been taken against the petitioner, wife of Dr. Sudarshan Prasad Singh, vide its order dated 14.2.2007, it was challenged before this Court. 4. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner on the premise that some amount said to have been acquired illegally by Dr. Sudarshan Prasad Singh, vide its order dated 14.2.2007, it was challenged before this Court. 4. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner on the premise that some amount said to have been acquired illegally by Dr. Sudarshan Prasad Singh, has been deposited in the account of this petitioner and also in the joint account standing in the name of this petitioner and her son or daughter but even if the said fact is taken to be true, that would not amount an abetment in terms of the provision as contained in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, as no allegation has been levelled against this petitioner that in spite of having knowledge that her husband has acquired ill gotten money, the petitioner allowed her husband to deposit or by taking the said amount, this petitioner did deposit in her account, rather simple allegation, which is there in the charge sheet is that some amount of ill gotten money was deposited in the account of this petitioner, which, in terms of any of the illustrations given under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code or in terms of the illustration given in a case of P. Nallammal & Anr. Vs. State Represented by Inspector of Police, 1999 (3) East Cr.C. 278 (SC) : (1999) 6 SCC 559 , would never amount abetment and thereby, the impugned order is fit to be quashed. 5. As against this, Mr. Mokhtar Khan, learned counsel for the CBI submits that Dr. Sudarshan Prasad Singh, husband of the petitioner, having amassed huge properties/assets to the extent of Rs. 1,41,47,820.89/- which is disproportionate to his known source of income did deposit some of the ill gotten money in his name as well as in the name of his wife (petitioner) during the relevant period i.e. from 1.1.1991 to 30.9.2005 and that during investigation, it has come to light that this petitioner had abetted her husband to have assets disproportionate to his known source of income. 6. 6. Further, it was submitted that this petitioner, who happened to be a simple house wife, has had no source of income still she claimed to have had income from the rent received from Flat No. G-2(102), Kaveri Apartment, Bank More, Dhanbad and from the rent received from R.S. Memorial Seva Sadan Nursing Home which, according to this petitioner, has been given to one Bindeshwar Singh, but when the statement of Bindeshwar Singh was recorded, he divulged that he has nothing to do with the Nursing Home and that it is Dr. Sudarshan Prasad Singh who is running the Nursing Home and takes the income of Nursing Home. He has also stated that over certain documents relating to income tax, his signature has been forged. Likewise the persons, who were the occupants of the said Flat, have divulged that the rent was being given to Dr. Sudarshan Prasad Singh and in this manner, the petitioner, who was having no income, still claimed that she does have income from the aforesaid properties and thereby by misrepresenting the fact, she can be said to have abetted the offence which has been committed by her husband. 7. Thus, the question does arise as to whether this petitioner by making misrepresentation, as has been highlighted on behalf of the CBI, did commit offence to be prosecuted along with her husband, a public servant, for the offence punishable under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 13(2) / 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988? 8. Abetment has been defined under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code which reads as under:- “107. 8. Abetment has been defined under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code which reads 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 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.” For the “First” clause (i.e. instigation) the following Explanation is added to the section: “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.” 10. For the “Thirdly” clause (i.e. intentionally aids) the following Explanation is added: “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. Here in the instant case, as it appears from the submission made on behalf of the CBI on the basis of the materials collected during investigation, this petitioner did claim to have had her own earnings but it was found by the Investigating Agency that the ill gotten earnings were of her husband and thereby she can easily be said to have misrepresented and hence, the case falls within the realm of Explanation-1 as has been given above. 12. Under the circumstances, the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is not liable to be proceeded along with her husband with the aid of Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code is not acceptable. 12. Under the circumstances, the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is not liable to be proceeded along with her husband with the aid of Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code is not acceptable. So far the case referred to on behalf of the petitioner is concerned, similar question fell for consideration as to whether the kith and kins of the then Chief Minister-Smt Jayalalitha, who was found to have amassed wealth disproportionate to her known source of income, are liable to be prosecuted along with the public servant for the offence under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 13(2)/ 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Their Lordships taking into account the provision, as contained in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, came to the conclusion that they are liable to be proceeded with the case along with the main accused. 13. Under the circumstances, I do not find any illegality with the impugned order taking cognizance against the petitioner. Hence, this application stands dismissed. 14. However, any observation made for the purpose of disposal of this case would not be prejudicial to the case of the parties.