Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
Dilip Kumar Das - Appellants
Vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation (ACB) - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 186 of 2014
Decided On : 23-09-2015
Criminal Procedure Code - Section 161 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13 - statements of two witnesses – Jurisdiction – Bank - By the impugned order, the Special Judge, CBI has rejected the application filed for discharge holding that the document filed by the accused person cannot be taken into consideration as document cannot be considered at the stage of framing charges and applicant is not entitled to be discharged. Feeling dissatisfied with the order rejecting his application for discharge, the instant revision has been filed by the applicant stating that the order passed by the Special Judge, CBI deserves to be set aside being perverse and contrary to law settled in this regard - would rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of and others and laid great emphasis on paragraph to highlight his plea that in rare and exceptional cases material cannot be looked into by the Court at the time of framing of charge particularly, in case of Section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 where the accused is entitled to explain the possession of the alleged disproportionate property to his known source of income – Held, While passing the order of discharge, the fact that the accused other than the two Ministers have been assessed to income tax and paid income tax cannot be relied upon to discharge the accused persons particularly in view of the allegation made by the prosecution that there was no separate income to amass such huge properties - Property in the name of an income tax itself cannot be a ground to hold that it actually belongs to such an. In case this proposition is accepted, in our opinion, it will lead to disastrous consequences. It will give opportunity to the corrupt public servants to amass property in the name of known persons, pay income tax on their behalf and then be out from the mischief of law - Thus, the crystallized judicial view as on day is that at the stage of framing charge, the trial Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, and the accused is competent to make his submissions only on the material supplied by the prosecution, he is not entitled to produce any document in his and rely upon the same and the trial Court is not bound to consider those documents at time of considering the question of framing charge - Turning back to the facts of the case, if the findings of the learned Special Judge are examined with reference to the law laid down by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in aforesaid cases it is quite vivid that the Special Judge has declined to consider the documents filed by the applicant holding that the documents are material which cannot be looked into at the stage of consideration of charge, as such, the order of the Special Judge declining to consider – Appeal dismissed
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) charge-sheeted the applicant for offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 alleging possession of property disproportionate to his known source of income. By order dated 29-1-2013, the Special Judge, CBI, Raipur rejected his application for production of documents. The order rejecting the said application was challenged in Criminal Revision No. 112/2013 before this Court and this Court by order dated 15-2-2013 allowed the revision and directed the non-applicant CBI to produce the documents seized and the statements recorded during investigation as mentioned in the charge-sheet and further directed the Special Judge, CBI to take into consideration those documents and statements along with material filed with the charge-sheet. Thereafter, charges were framed by the Special Judge, CBI by order dated 18-2-2013 which was again challenged by the applicant in Criminal Revision No. 312/2013 before this Court and this Court disposed of that revision directing the non-applicant CBI to comply its earlier order dated 15-2-2013 passed in Criminal Revision No. 112/2013 and produce the documents as early as possible and also directed to consider alteration or addition or discharge of the applicant in the light of the entire material produced before it. Thereafter, the Special Judge, CBI has passed the impugned order dated 30-1-2014 in which statement of the CBI has been recorded that there is no such document available with the CBI relating to HUF, therefore, no such document could be supplied to the applicant. The aforesaid statement was recorded on 22-1-2014. However, the CBI supplied the statements of two witnesses namely Smt. Mamta Das and Dilip Kumar Das recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC.
2. By the impugned order, the Special Judge, CBI has rejected the application filed for discharge, dated 22-1-2014 holding that the document filed by the accused person cannot be taken into consideration, as defence document cannot be considered at the stage of framing charges and the applicant is not entitled to be discharged. Feeling dissatisfied with the order rejecting his application for discharge, the instant revision has been filed by the applicant stating that the order passed by the Special Judge, CBI deserves to be set aside being perverse and contrary to the law settled in this regard.
3. Mr. Maneesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, would vehemently submit that despite the order of this Court dated 15-2-2013, the CBI did not disclose the fact that they had no such document in their possession and continued with the prosecution, and only on 22-1-2014, they made such a statement before the Court and they have only supplied two documents viz., statements of Smt. Mamta Das & Dilip Kumar Das recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC and made statement that they did not have any other document in their possession seized particularly, HUF documents which goes to show that the CBI is not acting fairly while prosecuting the applicant. He would further submit that the applicant is facing prosecution for the offence under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and, therefore, liberty is required to be given to the applicant at the stage of framing charge and document filed by the applicant in defence explaining alleged disproportionate property to his known source of income, is required to be considered at the stage of framing charge. Therefore, the Special Court has committed illegality in holding that defence documents filed by the applicant relating to income of HUF and income of wife of the applicant, particularly income tax return cannot be considered at the time of framing charge, over looking the fact that it is the case of prosecution of the applicant under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which is distinc
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
