Point of Law: Taxation - De-freezing of accounts - Illegal gratification/kickbacks in bank account - Amount which does not relate to impugned transaction alongwith interest accrued thereon be directed to be released to income-tax authorities and in respect of further amount of tax liability, petitioner is willing to furnish an affidavit that in case petitioners are convicted and amount liable to confiscation, same will be deposited by petitioners.

JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 17th May 2021 passed by the learned Special Judge, P.C. Act, CBI-03 in RC 6(A)/2006(CC/R.No.82/2019) titled as “CBI Vs. FGUP VO TECHNOPROMEPORT”, “State Vs. C.P. Jain etc.” and “Ravina & Associates Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. CBI & Anr.” whereby the two applications; one filed by the petitioners under Sections 451/457 CrPC and the other filed by the Income Tax Authorities under Section 226(4) of the Income Tax Act 1961 were dismissed, the petitioners prefer the present petition.

2. A brief factual narration resulting in filing of the two applications is that the above-noted FIR was lodged on 6th March 2006 by the CBI on a reliable information that certain officials of the National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. (NTPC) entered into a criminal conspiracy with the GRUP VO TECHNOPROMEXPORT RUSSIA (in short, “M/s. T.P.E. Russia”) and its associate companies in the years 2002 to 2005, in pursuance whereto, in the year 2005 an amount of US$ 20 million was paid/received against illegal gratification/kickbacks in the bank account of the petitioner M/s. Ravina & Associates Pvt. Ltd. (in short “RAPL”) in U.K. Pursuant to the Letters Rogatory issued, an order was issued freezing the accounts of the two petitioners i.e. RAPL and Ravina Khurana. Initially, the CBI filed a closure report. However, the same was not accepted by the learned trial court, which directed further investigation. Pursuant to the further investigation conducted, CBI filed a charge sheet against M/s. T.P.E. Moscow Russia, Mr. Sergei Mukhin, Mr. Alexander V. Schegolev representative Director of M/s. T.P.E. and the petitioners herein under Section 420 read with 120B IPC. No officer of the NTPC was found involved and no charge sheet for offence punishable under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act was filed. No cognizance on the report filed by the CBI after carrying out further investigation has been taken by the learned Special Judge which has directed the CBI to conduct further investigation, which order of the learned Special Judge has been challenged by the CBI before this Court as the case of CBI is that it has carried out the investigation.

3. According to the CBI, investigation revealed that M/s. TPE Russia on receiving the funds from NTPC, paid illegal gratifications to petitioner No. 1 RAPL which have been detailed in the additional affidavit filed by the CBI, as under:-

4. An application was filed under Section 226(4) of the Income Tax Act by the Income Tax Department for recovery of the tax demand due towards the two petitioners and according to the Income Tax Department, the total outstanding dues against the two petitioners were as under:-

Note: The above tax outstanding does not include interest u/s 220(2)”

5. Thus, according to the Income Tax Depa