Back
2024 Supreme(Cal) 1310
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.
Ashok Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
The Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. - Opposite Parties
CRR No. 459 of 2020
Decided On : 22-05-2024
For the Petitioner: Mr. Milon Mukherjee, Ld. Sr. Adv., Mr. Biswajit Manna.
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Atarup Banerjee, Ms. Sarda Sha, Mr. Amajit De.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that further investigation requires new evidence and cannot be based on prior findings without substantial justification.
Headnote:
Investigation - Disproportionate Assets - Cr.P.C. Sections 173, 173(8) - The court discussed the provisions of Cr.P.C. regarding the acceptance of final reports and the authority to order further investigations, emphasizing that fresh evidence can justify further inquiry even after a closure report.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a public servant, faced allegations of possessing disproportionate assets. After a lengthy investigation, the CBI submitted a closure report stating insufficient evidence. However, the CVC later recommended further investigation, which the court initially allowed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order for further investigation was not justified as it lacked new evidence and was based on vague grounds. The initial investigation had already concluded without sufficient evidence against the petitioner.
Issues: Whether the court's order permitting further investigation was justified given the lack of new evidence and the previous closure report.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that further investigation can only be ordered if new material comes to light, and the previous closure report must be respected unless compelling reasons exist to revisit the case.
Result: The order permitting further investigation was quashed.
JUDGMENT :
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.
1. The present revisional application has been preferred against an Order dated 27.06.2019 passed by the Learned Judge, 3rd Special (C.B.I. Designated) Court, in RC 36/A/10 Bankshall Court, Calcutta in connection with RC 0102010A0036 dated 25.11.2010 thereby granting liberty to the prosecution to conduct further investigation.
2. The petitioner’s case is that he is a member of Indian Revenue Services, (1993 batch) and is presently posted as the Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai, Tamil Nadu.
3. That RC 0102010A0036 dated 25.11.2010 had been registered for investigation on the basis of a source information alleging that the petitioner while functioning as the Additional Commissioner, Range IX, Income Tax Department, Kolkata during the period 2001 to 2009 has acquired huge assets and other pecuniary resources grossly disproportionate to his known sources of income. A preliminary enquiry was conducted wherein it has been alleged that the petitioner being a public servant by abusing his official position earned huge amount and the same were deposited in bank accounts opened in the name of certain nonexistent/non functional companies/firm registered at Mumbai/Hazaribag and in the name of his family members, all maintained with Andhra Bank, Hazaribag. It has also been alleged that vast plots of lands were allegedly purchased in the name of the father of the petitioner and his other family members.
4. It has also been alleged that although the companies/firms were registered at Mumbai/Hazaribag addresses, but the bank accounts were opened in the name of the companies/firms at Hazaribag.
5. It has been further alleged that several acres of land have been acquired in the name of the father and brother of the petitioner at his native place at Dipugarha, Hazaribag and its adjacent areas out of the ill gotten money of the petitioner.
6. After completion of their investigation for more than three years, the Investigating Agency submitted its Final Report/Closure Report being No. 5/2013 dated 29.12.2013. In the said Final Report the Investigating Agency prayed for discharge of the accused persons as the available evidence was not sufficient to substantiate the allegations in the First Information Report against the petitioner and his co-accused persons being his father and brother.
7. In the report the Investigating Agency submitted that investigation has not yielded direct and conclusive evidence to prove the allegation of possession and disproportionate assets by the petitioner in the name of Benami Holders as alleged in the First Information Report, in a Court of Law. As such, the Investigating Agency was of the opinion that prosecution may not be recommended against the petitioner as well as also the private accused persons in absence of evidence.
8. However, the investigation alleged to have revealed oral and circumstantial evidence to sustain the charge of possession of disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.9,52,312/- (14.58% of income from unknown sources) in the departmental proceeding. Accordingly, the Income Tax Department was requested to take necessary action in that regard and also regarding other incidental matters, which may be found relevant for the Income Tax Department during investigation in respect of the accused persons and their fictitious companies and trusts.
9. On 13.01.2014, a copy of the report in final form was placed before the Court of the Learned Special Judge. The Learned Special Judge upon receipt of such report was pleased to direct the Investigating Officer to personally appear along with the case diary before the Court.
10. Thereafter on 12.03.2014 the FRT was taken up for consideration in presence of the Investigating Officer. The Learned Judge upon perusal of the record/case diary and the report, was pleased to accept the report of the Investigating Agency and discharge the accused person from the case. The Learned Judge further directed the Investigating Agency to return the
