2014 (3) TMI 1192 - HC - Indian Laws

Offence of forgery and misappropriation - HELD THAT - The stand, which has been taken by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that since no file of the Department had been seized by the Income Tax Authority, the question of committing offence of forgery and misappropriation doest not gets attracted. Accordingly, that part of the order dated 16/04/2010, under which cognizance of the offence under Sections 467, 468, 469, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, has been taken, is hereby set aside. So far the cognizance under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, is concerned, I need not to make any comment at this stage in view of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner on earlier occasion that he will not be pressing this issue, rather he will be pressing the same at an appropriate stage. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Allegation of amassing wealth disproportionate to known income, forgery, misappropriation, seizure of department files, cognizance under Prevention of Corruption Act

The judgment delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.R. Prasad pertains to a case where the petitioner, appointed as a Private Secretary to a Minister from an external quota, was alleged to have amassed wealth disproportionate to his known income between 2006 and 2008. Additionally, he was accused of forgery and misappropriation based on the seizure of fixed deposits and department files by the Income Tax Authority. The petitioner argued that since no department files were seized, the charges of forgery and misappropriation were unfounded. The Vigilance, represented by Mr. Shailesh, requested time to verify the submissions and file a counter affidavit.

Upon examination of the original case diary, it was confirmed that the Income Tax Department had not seized any department files. Consequently, the court set aside the part of the order that took cognizance of offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code related to forgery and misappropriation. However, regarding the cognizance under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the court refrained from making any comment at that stage, considering the petitioner's intention to press the issue at a later appropriate stage.

In conclusion, the application was disposed of, with the court ruling in favor of the petitioner regarding the charges of forgery and misappropriation due to the absence of seized department files by the Income Tax Authority. The court refrained from addressing the issue under the Prevention of Corruption Act at that stage, based on the petitioner's decision to press the matter later.