9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 1659X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich also forms the basis of the charge sheet and the explanation thus accorded by the accused does not provide satisfactory answer for the charge of disproportionate assets. In that regard the High Court has proceeded at a tangent and has on that basis also arrived at the conclusion that the sanction for prosecution is not proper. Further it is noticed that the High Court has recorded that the statement of the accused made to the police during investigation is not admissible and the procedure adopted during investigation is found to be defective. Such conclusion would arise for consideration only during trial and if the statement made is retracted and there is no other material or evidence on record to establish the charge. Hence the very manner in which the High Court has proceeded to consider the matter is erroneous and the conclusion reached is unsustainable. Appeal allowed. - Criminal Appeal Nos. 1489-1490 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) Nos.8968-8969 of 2019 (Arising out of Diary No.23350/2017) - - - Dated:- 25-9-2019 - A.S. Bopanna And R. Banumathi, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR. For the Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, AOR, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 21/2010, the High Court had clubbed and considered the same and disposed of through the common order dated 14.12.2015 by which the Revision Application of the accused No. 2 was allowed while the Revision Application of the appellant herein assailing the discharge of accused No. 1 was dismissed. It is in that light the appellant herein CBI has instituted these appeals assailing the said common order dated 14.12.2015. 6. Heard Shri K.M. Natraj, learned Additional Solicitor General, for the appellant and Ms. Sonia Mathur, learned Senior Advocate, for the private respondents as also Shri Nishant Katneshwarkar, learned standing counsel for the State of Maharashtra and perused the appeal papers. 7. The learned Additional Solicitor General at the outset would point out that the High Court though had taken up both the Revision Applications and disposed of the same through the common order and in the operative portion has allowed the application of accused No. 2 and dismissed the Revision Application of the appellant herein, the order impugned does not indicate any reasons for consideration and disposal of the Revision Application whereby the appellants had challenged the disch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the charge to be not justified. The learned senior counsel has further sought to refer to the details of the income during the check period as also the assets of each of the accused to contend that the charge is not justified and in that circumstance if the provisions in Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act is kept in view the charge was without basis. It is also the contention of the learned senior counsel that the sanction order is without application of mind and is non est since such sanction order has also been granted in the background of clubbing the income of two public servants who had independent source of income and were assessed to tax independently. Hence the learned senior counsel sought to sustain the order passed by the High Court which is impugned herein. 9. In the background of contention as urged, a perusal of the order would indicate that the High Court has not separately considered the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the Special Court, one while rejecting the discharge application of the accused No. 2 and the other while allowing the discharge application of accused No. 1. However, a perfunctory consideration has been made by raising the question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment recorded in the course of investigation. The details indicated in the charge sheet after making reference to the income and expenditure is as hereunder: A) The value of the assets of the beginning of the check period as per Statement A 1,30,000/- B) The value of the assets at the end of the check period as per Statement B 1,34,45,426/- C) The total assets found during the check period (BA) 1,33,15.426/- D) The total income found during the check period as per Statement C 51,02,106/- E) The total expenditure during check period as per Statement D 24,75,874/- F) Likely saving during check period (DE) 26,26,232/- G) The Disproportionate assets (CF) Viz 209.50% 1,06,89,194/- 12. Even if it is accepted that the above statement is on clubbing the income and assets of the husband and wife who have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the High Court is not that the charge is not sustainable for the reasons recorded by it. In fact, neither there is any reasons recorded nor application of mind to that aspect. Insofar as the question raised and considered by the High Court, no credence whatsoever has been given to the case of the prosecution that the statement of the accused has been recorded which also forms the basis of the charge sheet and the explanation thus accorded by the accused does not provide satisfactory answer for the charge of disproportionate assets. In that regard the High Court has proceeded at a tangent and has on that basis also arrived at the conclusion that the sanction for prosecution is not proper. 15. Further it is noticed that the High Court has recorded that the statement of the accused made to the police during investigation is not admissible and the procedure adopted during investigation is found to be defective. Such conclusion would arise for consideration only during trial and if the statement made is retracted and there is no other material or evidence on record to establish the charge. Hence the very manner in which the High Court has proceeded to consider the matter is erro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
