2009 (2) TMI 817 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the FIR against the petitioner.
2. Judicial propriety in issuing notices and handling objections.
3. Allegations of conspiracy and demand for bribe.
4. Exercise of revisionary jurisdiction by the High Court.

Summary:

1. Validity of the FIR against the petitioner:
The petitioner argued that the FIR was against Mr. A.K. Shukla and did not mention the petitioner's name. The complainant (auction purchaser) had not requested any action against the petitioner. However, the court noted that the FIR mentioned the petitioner as an associate of Mr. Shukla in demanding a bribe.

2. Judicial propriety in issuing notices and handling objections:
The petitioner contended that he was duty-bound to issue notice to the complainant upon receiving objections from the guarantor, Sh. Subhash Chand Sharma, as per Rule 63 of the IInd Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the Income Tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules, 1962. The petitioner claimed he acted within the judicial parameters and principles of natural justice. However, the court found that the petitioner entertained objections without the mandatory deposit, which was against Rule 60 of the Income Tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules, 1962.

3. Allegations of conspiracy and demand for bribe:
The CBI alleged that the petitioner conspired with Mr. Shukla to demand a bribe from the auction purchaser, Dr. I.S. Yadav. The investigation revealed that the petitioner had asked the complainant to contact Mr. Shukla, indicating a conspiracy. The court noted that the petitioner's actions, such as summoning the auction purchaser on a non-listed date and entertaining objections without the mandatory deposit, raised grave suspicion of malafide intent.

4. Exercise of revisionary jurisdiction by the High Court:
The court emphasized that revisionary jurisdiction u/s 397 read with section 401 of Cr.P.C. is to correct miscarriages of justice arising from procedural irregularities or legal misconceptions. The court cited the principles laid down by the Apex Court, stating that charges should be framed if the material on record discloses grave suspicion against the accused. The court found no material irregularity or impropriety in the order of the Special Judge, who had rightly framed charges based on the evidence and circumstances.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the order dated 17.01.2009 by the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi, in CC No. 19/08, RC No. AC1/2004/A0003 CBI, finding no grounds for interference.