9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (2) TMI 1371 - HC - Indian LawsTransfer from cash-credit account to the accounts of Nandlal HUF - amount never accounted for as an income of Dr. Pradeep Kumar against whom a case has been registered under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - HELD THAT - The matter be placed on 21.02.2014 so that on that day, the materials which had been collected against the petitioner would be produced - Till then, interim order passed on 20.09.2013 shall continue.
Issues: Alleged abetment in a corruption case under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
In this judgment by the High Court of Jharkhand, the court analyzed the case where the petitioner, a tax consultant, was accused of abetting the main accused, Dr. Pradeep Kumar, in obtaining income from unknown sources. The petitioner had allegedly advised two companies to transfer funds to Nandlal HUF, but the prosecution argued that these transactions were not reflected in Dr. Pradeep Kumar's income. The court referenced a previous case law to determine if the petitioner's actions constituted abetment under Section 13(1)(e) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court noted that mere advice on loan transactions may not amount to abetment as claimed by the prosecution. The court observed that apart from advising on the loan transactions, the petitioner did not seem to have played any other role in abetting Dr. Pradeep Kumar. The defense argued that the prosecution's case against the petitioner was weak and lacked substantial evidence beyond the advice given for the loans. The defense contended that the petitioner's actions did not directly contribute to the alleged corruption by Dr. Pradeep Kumar. The court considered the submissions from both sides to assess the strength of the prosecution's case against the petitioner. The counsel representing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) requested more time to produce additional materials collected against the petitioner before the court. The court agreed to the request and scheduled the next hearing for a later date to allow the CBI to present the evidence. The court decided to maintain the interim order issued earlier until the next hearing, indicating a cautious approach to the case. The judgment highlighted the importance of substantial evidence and legal standards in prosecuting cases related to corruption and abetment under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
|
