Point of Law: The words ‘not sufficient ground for proceeding against accused’ clearly show that Judge is not a mere post office to frame charge at behest of prosecution, but has to exercise his judicial mind to facts of case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by prosecution. In assessing this fact, it is not necessary for court to enter into pros and cons of matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really his function after trial starts.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party.

3. The present revision application was originally filed against the order dated 16.03.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi in Cr. Misc. Application No.758 of 2018 and 280 of 2019, whereby two petitions for discharge, praying for the same relief, have been rejected in connection with R.C. Case No.03(A)17/D dated 10.07.2017. The alleged offence against the petitioner is under Sections 120(B), 511 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 7, 12 and 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(d) and 15 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

4. During the pendency of this petition, one interlocutory application was filed by the petitioner being I.A. No.7123 of 2019 challenging the framing of charge against the petitioner by the learned court below vide order dated 26.04.2019. I.A. No 7213 of 2019 was allowed by a coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 01.08.2019. The charge has been framed for the offence punishable under Section 120(B) of Indian Penal Code read with Sections 7, 12 and 13 (2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also under Section 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. This Court also finds from the order-sheet of the present case that while allowing the aforesaid I.A. No.7123 of 2019 and directing it to form part of the main application of the present case. It is important to note that it has been recorded in order dated 26.06.2019, that one witness was already examined and accordingly the trial has commenced.

6. Arguments of the petitioner

a. Materials on record as have been placed by CBI and supplied to the petitioner as Police Papers, do not in any manner disclose any link /attachment / nexus / connection either directly, indirectly or in any circumstantial manner that the transfer of PAN from Kolkata to Ranchi / Hazaribagh was done by the petitioner in a preplanned manner and in conspiracy with the principal accused person namely, Tapas Kumar Dutta, the then Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and that there is conspiracy in setting aside the assessment orders passed under Kolkata Jurisdiction and / or other co-accused in the case. Neither any material has been brought on record nor any allegation has been made by the CBI that the transfer of PAN was done in criminal conspiracy with the other accused persons and for this reason having regard to the number of officials involved in the process of transfer of PAN, the CBI has not made the officials at Kolkata or, for that matter, many of the officials posted at Hazaribagh / Ranchi as 'accused' persons. Therefore, ‘PAN transfer' which is legally permissible, cannot be considered an act of illegality or conspiracy, by the petitioner, as alleged.

b. The application for transfer of PAN was filed with PCIT-Kolkata and only after getting an NOC from ITO Kolkata, necessary report from DCIT -Range Kolkata and further report / NOC from transferee jurisdiction, PAN was transferred. The statement of Pradeep Kumar Mondal (P.W. 21) also indicates that transfer of PAN ought to have been objected by the ITO or the concerned PCIT at Kolkata and, that having not been done in this case, no criminality or malafide can be alleged to the transfer of PAN solely on the assumption that a 'No Objection' was issued from Hazaribagh. Such inference is completely inappropriate, mainly for being devoid of any legal and actual foundation.

c. Investigation has established that during the period of Tapas Dutta many companies had got their PAN transferred from Kolkata to Ranchi / Hazaribagh and despite this the officials at Kolkata to Ranchi / Hazaribagh had not objected to such purported large scale transfer of PAN which makes it clear that the officials of Kolkata cannot be said to be hand in glove with the accused persons and if that be so, then the question of criminally conspir