9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 614 - HC - Indian LawsCriminal misconduct - Benefit of encashment - income earned through special bearer bonds accounted or not - It is argued that no benefit of encashment was ever availed by petitioners or any of his family members nor were any properties purchased from encashment of the said bonds by the petitioners - whether a case is made out for trial on the basis of the documents presented? - HELD THAT - What element of the monies came into the account of the accused i.e. the father and the son respectively, or whether the latter was a beneficiary of the alleged transactions through or by his father, remains unexplained. Simply because for a large part of the period of investigation, the son was a minor, would not by itself be a reason to disregard the fact that at least for seven years of the investigation period he was a major. In the circumstances, there appears to be material for the trial to be conducted. Section 3(2) of the Special Bearer Bonds Act makes the benefits of the said Act inapplicable to the PC Act or similar offences. The prosecution seeks to rely upon documents, upon statements of witness viz. Anit Mehta, Ashok Grover, Ramnivas, Sushil Salhotra, Vijay Kumar Lalla and Surender Malik - According to the CBI, some income tax related orders relied upon by the petitioners, are of a date after the filing the chargesheet, therefore they would be of no relevance. What is to be seen at this stage is whether there is a strong suspicion that the accused has committed the offence. The Court finds no reason to interfere with the order on charge and the framing of charge - petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the assets and income of the accused. 2. Application of the Special Bearer Bonds (Immunities and Exemptions) Act, 1981. 3. Allegations of disproportionate assets. 4. Abetment and conspiracy charges against the son, Puneet Sabharwal. 5. Relevance of income tax returns and assessment orders. 6. Validity of the charges framed by the Trial Court. Detailed Analysis: Legitimacy of the Assets and Income of the Accused: The petitioners challenged the charges framed under Section 13(2) read with Section 13 (1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018, arguing that there was no direct substantive evidence against R.C. Sabharwal, a public servant, whose assets were claimed to be proven through settled income tax returns. The petitioners relied on precedents such as DSP Chennai vs K Insbasagaran and State of Andhra Pradesh vs J. Satyanarayan to assert that benami transactions must be proven with specific evidence, which was lacking in this case. Application of the Special Bearer Bonds (Immunities and Exemptions) Act, 1981: The petitioners argued that the monies in various Trusts should not be scrutinized under the Special Bearer Bonds (Immunities and Exemptions) Act, 1981. However, the prosecution contended that the protection under Section 3 of the Act does not apply to monies derived through illegitimate means or relating to offences under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court noted that the Act's protection is not absolute concerning illegitimate income. Allegations of Disproportionate Assets: The case against R.C. Sabharwal involved possession of assets worth ?3,10,58,324/- during the check period from 20.08.1968 to 23.08.1995, with disproportionate assets amounting to ?2,05,63,641/-. The assets included properties, land, a petrol pump, and various bank accounts. The prosecution argued that the unexplained amount was 166% of the known sources of income, warranting a trial. Abetment and Conspiracy Charges Against the Son, Puneet Sabharwal: The petitioners contended that Puneet Sabharwal could not be implicated as he was a minor for a significant part of the check period. However, the court noted that Puneet attained majority in 1988, and there were allegations supported by witness statements that he abetted his father in procuring illicit monies. The prosecution's case suggested that Puneet was a beneficiary of dubious sources of income, justifying the need for a trial. Relevance of Income Tax Returns and Assessment Orders: The petitioners argued that income tax returns and assessment orders validated the legitimacy of the assets. However, the court referenced the Supreme Court's rulings in State of Karnataka v. J. Jayalalitha and Vishwanath Chaturvedi v. Union of India, which held that income tax assessments do not conclusively prove the lawfulness of the income sources. The court emphasized that the legitimacy of the income is subject to investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Validity of the Charges Framed by the Trial Court: The court reviewed the material presented, including witness statements and documents, and concluded that there was a strong suspicion of the accused's involvement in the alleged offences. The court found no reason to interfere with the order on charge dated 21.02.2006 and the framing of charge dated 28.02.2006, thus dismissing the petitions. Conclusion: The court upheld the charges framed against R.C. Sabharwal and Puneet Sabharwal, emphasizing that the legitimacy of the assets and income must be examined in a trial. The petitions were dismissed, affirming the need for a thorough investigation and trial to ascertain the allegations of disproportionate assets and abetment.
|
