Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2021 (12) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2021 (12) TMI 1107 - HC - Indian Laws


Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the order rejecting the discharge petitions.
2. Validity of the charges framed against the petitioner.
3. Allegations of criminal conspiracy and corruption.
4. Applicability of Sections 120(B) of IPC and Sections 7, 12, and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
5. The role of a non-public servant in the alleged criminal conspiracy.
6. Procedural correctness in framing charges.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Order Rejecting the Discharge Petitions:
The court examined whether the discharge petitions were rightly rejected by the lower court. The petitioner argued that there was no material evidence linking him to the alleged conspiracy and that the transfer of PAN was legally permissible. The court, however, found that the materials collected during the investigation prima facie revealed a conspiracy involving the petitioner and other accused persons, which justified the rejection of the discharge petitions.

2. Validity of the Charges Framed Against the Petitioner:
The petitioner challenged the framing of charges, arguing that the actions taken were within the legal framework of the Income Tax Act and did not constitute any criminal offense. The court, however, found sufficient material to frame charges under Section 120(B) of IPC read with Sections 7, 12, and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and Section 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 511 of IPC. The court emphasized that at the stage of framing charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution must be accepted as true.

3. Allegations of Criminal Conspiracy and Corruption:
The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, in conspiracy with other accused persons, including a high-ranking income tax official, manipulated the transfer of PANs and filed revisions under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act to obtain favorable orders, resulting in a significant loss of revenue. The court found prima facie evidence supporting these allegations, including the recovery of substantial cash and gold from the residence of the principal accused, and the dubious nature of the PAN transfers and subsequent orders.

4. Applicability of Sections 120(B) of IPC and Sections 7, 12, and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:
The petitioner contended that as a non-public servant, he could not be charged under these sections. The court, however, held that a non-public servant could indeed be charged with criminal conspiracy to commit offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act if there was prima facie evidence of such conspiracy. The court found sufficient material indicating the petitioner’s involvement in the conspiracy to influence a public servant to obtain favorable orders.

5. The Role of a Non-Public Servant in the Alleged Criminal Conspiracy:
The petitioner argued that he could not be tried for offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act as he was not a public servant. The court rejected this argument, stating that a person could be charged with conspiracy to commit an offense under the Act if there was evidence of an agreement to do an illegal act. The court found prima facie evidence of such an agreement involving the petitioner.

6. Procedural Correctness in Framing Charges:
The petitioner alleged procedural irregularities in the framing of charges, including the lack of specific content in the charges as required under Section 211 of Cr.P.C. The court found that the trial court had applied its judicial mind and that the materials on record justified the framing of charges. The court emphasized that at the stage of framing charges, the court is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal but only whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the lower court’s order rejecting the discharge petitions and framing charges against the petitioner. The court found no illegality, perversity, or material irregularity in the impugned orders and held that there was sufficient material on record to proceed with the trial. The court clarified that its observations would not prejudice the case of the parties before the trial court.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates