9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 1264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade in the present petition whereby the petitioner has sought an alternative prayer seeking directions to the learned Special Judge, CBI to decide the application under Section 226(4) of the Income Tax Act 1961, filed by Respondent No.2 forthwith. In as much as the prayer made by the respondent no.2 in relation to an application filed by the Income Tax Department under Section 226 (4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 23.08.2012 pending before the learned trial Court, whereby vide order dated 28.02.2015, it had been observed by the learned Special Judge, CBI-01 to the effect: "In the considered opinion of this court, it would be appropriate that the application, moved by the income tax department, is decided only after the decision in the closure report of the CBI." with the matter having been adjourned also by the learned trial Court for orders on the closure report for the date 10.03.2021. Vide order dated 08.04.2015, the learned Special Judge, CBI-01 had renotified the matter for passing of orders on the closure report to the date 18.04.2015 with it having also been observed vide the said order qua the application under Section 226 (4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee on infrastructure, Government of India, as these senior officers and the politicians appear to have high connections and appear to have a big say in the functioning o fthe Government of India. It is clear that the CBI had intentionally and deliberately not investigated the matter properly, only to save the senior officers of NTPC and the members of the Cabinet Committee on infrastructure, Government of India. 7. Perusal of the record further shows that despite clear orders on 18.04.2015, the relevant files from the concerned Ministry and Cabinet Committees on infrastructure, Government of India have not been placed on record, with the present charge sheet, for perusal of this court. 8. In these circumstances, this court is not inclined to accept the present charge sheet. The same' be, therefore, returned back to the CBI, alongwith all the documents, for further investigations, as per the "directions issued by this court vide orders dated 18.04.2015. 9. It. is further directed that the Director, CBI, shall supervise the further investigations of this matter himself and shall assign the further investigation of the matter to an officer not below the rank of a Joint Dir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not investigating the matter properly and is concealing the relevant files from this court, to shield the real culprits, for the reasons best known to it. Perusal of the record further shows that on 23.12.2016, DLA Shri S.K.Bhatt had appeared before the court and he requested for adjournment and grant of some more time to file the complete report, u/s 173 Cr.P.C., after compliance of orders dated 18.04.2015 & 23.09.2016, on the ground that the Director CSI was busy in some other serious matter and therefore, the further investigations could not be concluded in compliance of the order dated 23.09.2016. It appears that DLA Sh. S.K.Bhatt had made a false statement before this court, only to seek adjournment and to take time from the court. Even in the application, moved before the court today, by 1.0. Inspector Shitanshu Sharma, nothing has been mentioned about the further investigations and filing of thf9 report u/s 173 Cr.P.C., in compliance of the orders dated 18.04.2015 & 23.09.2016. In the circumstances, a show cause notice be issued to the concerned IO, as well as SP and the Director CBI, with the direction to appear before this court, in person, and to show cause as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch, Delhi in the name of the Court of the Special Judge and once the money is received, the Special Judge would then be at liberty to deal with that in anyway which it would think appropriate after taking into consideration the rival claims of the petitioner, CBI and the Income Tax Department and that the entire exercise should be completed as expeditiously as possible. During the course of submissions that have been made on behalf of the petitioners, reliance is sought to be placed on the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal Vs. Mohan Singh and Others (1975) 3 SCC 706 with observations made therein to the effect: "The question as to the scope and ambit of the inherent power of the High Court under Section 561A vis-a-vis an earlier Order made by it was, therefore, not concluded by this decision and the matter was res Integra so far as this Court is concerned. Mr. Mukherjee cited in support of this contention three decisions, namely, Raj Narain v. The State , Lai Singh v. The State. and Ram Vallabh v. State of Bihar . It is, however, not necessary for us to examine the true effect of these observations as they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eded to consider the subsequent application of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 for the of deciding whether it should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561 A. This the High Court was perfectly entitled to do and we do not see any jurisdictional infirmity in the Order of the High Court. Even on the merits, we find that the Order of the High Court was justified as no prima facie case appears to have been made out against respondents Nos. 1 and 2." which Section 561A of the Cr.PC, 1973 apparently is the precursor to present Section 482 of the Cr.PC, 1973. In the circumstances, despite the opposition on behalf of the CBI, it is considered appropriate to direct the learned Special Judge, CBI-01 seized of the proceedings in relation to RC No.06(A)/2006 (bearing new No.CC/R82/2019) to dispose of the application filed by the Income Tax Authority dated 23.08.2021, under Section 226 (4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the date 26.04.2021. A submission has been made on behalf of the CBI with reference to the aspect of the TCR in the matter having been requisitioned by this Court in an appeal preferred by the CBI assailing the orders dated 18.04.2015 and 23.09.2016 of the learned Spec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
