Back
2023 Supreme(Bom) 862
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
G.A.Sanap, J.
Rupa Deepak Dhande – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Application (Apl) No. 91 of 2022
Decided On : 22-02-2023
R.P.Joshi, Advocate, Mugdha Chandurkar, Advocate, D.D.Vaidya, Advocate, A.D.Bhate, Advocate, A.S.Mardikar, Advocate, A.R.Deshpande, Advocate, Z.Z.Haq, Advocate
The court emphasized the need for strong evidence, beyond mere probability, to invoke Sec. 319 of the Cr.P.C. and add a person as an accused, and held that the evidence against Mrs. Rupa Dhande was not sufficient to establish her complicity in the crime.
Headnote:
Sec. 319 - Criminal Procedure - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sec. 7, 8, 15, 13(1)(d) - Indian Penal Code, Sec. 120-B - The court allowed the application to add Mrs. Rupa Dhande and Shri Satish Dinanath Jalgaonkar as accused in Special Case ACB No. 04 of 2014 by invoking Sec. 319 of the Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the demand of illegal gratification by accused No.1 from the informant, leading to the filing of a charge-sheet against accused Nos. 1 and 2. Subsequently, an application was made to add Mrs. Rupa Dhande and Shri Satish Dinanath Jalgaonkar as accused in the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence, including the recorded conversation between the informant and Mrs. Rupa Dhande, was not sufficient to establish her complicity in the crime or to invoke Sec. 319 of the Cr.P.C. to add her as an accused.
Issues: The main issue was whether there was prima facie evidence to add Mrs. Rupa Dhande as an accused in the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the evidence, including the recorded conversation, did not establish Mrs. Rupa Dhande's involvement or abetment in the demand of illegal gratification, and therefore, the application to add her as an accused was not justifiable.
Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the order to add Mrs. Rupa Dhande as an accused and dismissed the application made by the accused No.2. The criminal application was allowed and the impugned order was set aside.
JUDGMENT
G.A.SANAP,J. - Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned Advocates for the parties.
3. In this application, made under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the challenge is to the order dtd. 6/1/2022, passed by the learned Special Judge, Khamgaon, District Buldhana, whereby the learned Judge allowed the application at Exh. 108 made by the accused No.2 to add this applicant-Mrs Rupa Dhande and one Shri Satish Dinanath Jalgaonkar as an accused in Special Case ACB No. 04 of 2014 by invoking the provisions of Sec. 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Cr.P.C. ").
4. The facts relevant for deciding this application may be stated as follows:
Non-applicant No.2 - Harshwardhan Nanoti is the accused No.1 (hereinafter referred as 'accused No.1 ') and the non-applicant No. 4 - Rajendrakumar Jaiswal is the accused No.2 (hereinafter referred as 'accused No.-2 ') in the Special case ACB No. 04 of 2014. They are being charged and prosecuted for commission of an offence under Ss. 7, 8, 15 read with Sec. 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sec. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was registered on the basis of the report lodged by the informant- Dr. Sadanand Madhukar Ingle, who is the non-applicant No.5, with the Central Bureau of Investigation. Informant is a Doctor by profession and resident of Khamgaon. On 10/9/2013, at about 12:00 p.m. a team of Income Tax Officers, Income Tax Office, Khamgaon and Akola consisting of Shri Mistri, Joint Commissioner, Shri Nanoti, ITO, Khamgaon, Mrs Rupa Dhande, ITO, Akola, Smt. Jog, ITO, Akola, Shri Khandagale, Income Tax Inspector, Khamgaon, Shri Pankaj Kumar Inspector, Income Tax, Akola and Shri Sadiq had conducted survey of the hospital and residence of the informant at Khamgaon. At the time of survey the officers of the raiding team found the cash of Rs.8.00 lacs in his residence. The officers returned the said amount of Rs.8.00 lacs to the informant. However, the officers unauthorizedly carried the records related to his hospital and property documents without preparing panchanama.
5. The informant stated before income tax officer Shri Nanoti that he has been regularly paying the admissible tax. He showed him the available record. It is stated that accused No.1-Shri Nanoti told the informant that the documents found from his residence revealed that the amount of Rs.8.009 crores was unaccounted money and on the said money he is liable to pay income tax of Rs.3.00 crores. The informant pleaded before accused No.1- Shri Nanoti for help. It is the case of the informant that the accused No.1 told him that on disclosed income he was required to pay a tax of Rs.3.00 crores. The accused No.1 proposed to settle the matter by paying him Rs.1.00 crore. It is stated that in order to do this favour accused No.1-Shri Nanoti demanded amount of Rs.75.00 lacs, as illegal gratification, for himself and other officers of income tax office namely Shri Mistri, Joint Commissioner, Shri Nanoti, ITO, Khamgaon, Mrs Rupa Dhande, ITO, Akola, Smt. Jog, ITO, Akola, Shri Khandagale, Income Tax Inspector, Khamgaon, Shri Pankaj Kumar Inspector, Income Tax, Akola and Shri Sadiq. Accused No.1 threatened the informant that if he is not agreeable to this settlement then his office, hospital and property would be seized and he would be required to face the criminal prosecution. At that time, he did not answer accused No.1- Shri Nanoti.
6. It is further stated that on receipt of summons from income tax office, Khamgaon he went there on 12/9/2013 at about 11:30 a.m. and at that time the accused No.1 demanded illegal gratification of Rs.75.00 lacs for himself and above named officers. The informant did not want to pay the amount. Therefore, he approached the Superintendent of Police, CBI/ACB, Nagpur. On the basis of his report, the FIR came to be registered. The telephonic conversation between the accused No.1 and the informant
