2023 (3) TMI 1025 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of anticipatory Bail - possession of properties disproportionate to the known sources of income - petitioner submits that neither proper inquiry was conducted by informant nor by proper authority to trace out the actual income and expenditure of petitioner and his wife namely Prabha Kumari and without proper enquiry present case has been lodged - HELD THAT - In the instant case every single amount received by the appellant has been proved on record through the testimony of the witnesses and is also supported by contemporaneous documents and intimations to the Government. It is not the case that the receipts so projected were bogus or was part of a calculated device. The fact that these amounts were actually received from the sources so named is not in dispute. Furthermore these amounts are well reflected in the income tax returns filed by the appellant. In similar circumstances the acquisitions being reflected in income tax returns weighed with this Court in granting relief to the public servant. In M. KRISHNA REDDY VERSUS STATE DEUPTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE HYDERABAD 1992 (7) TMI 333 - SUPREME COURT it was held that on the face of these unassailable documents i.e. the wealth tax and income tax returns we hold that the appellant is entitled to have a deduction of Rs.56, 240 from the disproportionate assets of Rs.2, 37, 842. In the present case the documents which have been relied upon by the respondents cannot form the basis of quashing the FIR. The value and weight to be ascribed to the documents of two Judge Benches of this Court in order to support their submissions. There is no clash between the decisions in KEDARI LAL VERSUS STATE OF M.P. AND ORS 2015 (3) TMI 1426 - SUPREME COURT and STATE OF KARNATAKA VERSUS SELVI J. JAYALALITHA AND ORS. AND K. ANBAZHAGAN VERSUS SELVI J. JAYALALITHA AND ORS. ETC. AND INDO DOHA CHEMICALS PHARMACEUTICALS AND ORS. ETC 2017 (2) TMI 926 - SUPREME COURT for two reasons (I) the judgment in J. Jayalalitha notes that a document like the Income Tax Return by itself would not be definitive evidence in providing if the source of one s income was lawful since the Income Tax Department is not responsible for investigating that while the facts in the judgment in Kedari Lal were such that the source of income was not in question at all and hence the Income Tax Returns were relied upon conclusively; and (ii) in any case the decision in Kedari Lal was delivered while considering a criminal appeal challenging a conviction under the PC Act while the present matter is at the stage of quashing of an FIR. In the present case the appellant is challenging the very-source of the respondents income. Hence at the stage of quashing of an FIR where the Court only has to ascertain whether the FIR prima facie makes out the commission of a cognizable offence reliance on the documents produced by the respondents to quash the FIR would be contrary to fundamental principles of law. The High Court has gone far beyond the ambit of its jurisdiction by virtually conducting a trial in an effort to absolve the respondents. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made on behalf of parties and the fact that petitioner has acquired assets disproportionate to his sources of income by misusing his official positions and adopting illegal and corrupt means and the fact that the further investigation is still going on the petitioner cannot be privileged with grant of anticipatory bail - the prayer of anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the inquiry and investigation conducted.
2. Jurisdiction of the police inspector to investigate.
3. Allegation of amassing disproportionate assets.
4. Consideration of Income Tax Returns and other documents as evidence.
5. Grant of anticipatory bail.

Summary:

1. Validity of the inquiry and investigation conducted:
The petitioner contended that the inquiry into the alleged amassing of disproportionate assets was not conducted properly by the informant or the proper authority. The petitioner argued that the prosecution ignored the actual income and expenditure of the petitioner and his wife, leading to false allegations.

2. Jurisdiction of the police inspector to investigate:
The petitioner argued that under Section 17(C) read with the proviso of Section 17(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, a police inspector does not have jurisdiction to investigate a government servant and Class-I officer without the approval of the State Government. The petitioner claimed that the investigation was unauthorized.

3. Allegation of amassing disproportionate assets:
The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, an Executive Engineer, misused his official position to amass assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. The prosecution calculated the petitioner's expected income and compared it to the value of his assets, finding a significant discrepancy. The petitioner countered by providing detailed calculations of his income from salary, investments, and other sources, arguing that his total savings were more than the cost of his properties.

4. Consideration of Income Tax Returns and other documents as evidence:
The petitioner cited previous judgments to argue that Income Tax Returns and other financial documents should be considered sufficient evidence to account for his assets. However, the prosecution and the court relied on judgments stating that such documents alone cannot conclusively prove the lawfulness of the income sources and that the burden of proof lies on the accused to satisfactorily account for the assets.

5. Grant of anticipatory bail:
The court noted that the petitioner had acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income by misusing his official position and adopting illegal means. Given that the investigation was ongoing and there was a risk of tampering with evidence, the court rejected the petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail. The application was accordingly dismissed.