Custodial interrogation may be necessary to reveal the nexus between the accused and intermediaries, as well as the extent of tax evasion, and Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act does not require prior approval of the Government when the act of a public servant constitutes an offence.

JUDGMENT

Jaishree Thakur, J. - This order of mine shall dispose of two Crl. Misc. Petitions bearing No.41913 of 2020 and 37721 of 2020 arising out of FIR No.9 dated 21.08.2020 registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC and Sections 7, 7(A) and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Phase 1, Mohali. The facts are being enumerated from CRM-M No.41913 of 2020.

2. In brief the facts are that an FIR came to be registered based on the information received by the Vigilance Bureau that Som Nath owner of Sadhu Transport had been indulging in tax evasion in connivance with the officials of the Excise and Taxation Department, Punjab. It was alleged that the tax was being evaded by ensuring that there was no checking or verification of the documents or goods, while being transported to and from the State of Punjab. The goods loaded in the vehicles were brought to Punjab and sent through escape routes in connivance with the officials of the Excise and Taxation Department and in lieu of that, Som Nath was paying huge bribe and thereby causing loss to the State Exchequer by evasion of tax. The bribe was being paid monthly. The information supplied was that one Shiv Kumar clerk of SomNath and Pawan Kumar (who was working as a driver with one of ETOs) were helping Som Nath and doing the work of distributing bribe amount to the officials. The mobile numbers of these persons were pin-pointed and on obtaining permission from the competent authority, these phones were put under the surveillance and their call details were recorded. From the conversation recorded, names of certain officials/officers came forth as also the details of amount to be paid to them. The Vigilance Department pursued the call details for a year and thereafter got the FIR registered against the petitioners herein and others persons under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC and Sections 7, 7(A) and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018. Apprehending their arrests, the petitioners preferred applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, which petitions were dismissed, leading to the filing of the instant petition in the High Court.

3. Mr. Gagandeep Singh Sirphikhi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in CRM-M No.41913 of 2020 would contend that he has been falsely implicated in the said matter and was not named in the said FIR and there is no allegation made therein regarding the demand and acceptance of any money by the petitioner. It is also argued that the call details were made available with the respondent-State as far back as 15.03.2020, however, he has been nominated as an accused under the said FIR in August, 2020. It is also argued that there is no direct evidence available with the State regarding any demand having been made by the petitioner, which could be termed as 'illegal gratification'.

4. Mr. Amit Jhanji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in CRM-M No.37721 of 2020 would contend that registration of the FIR itself is not sustainable, he was never posted as an ETO in the Mobile Wing at Amritsar nor has he been nominated in the said FIR. It is submitted that he has been implicated merely on account of a disclosure statement of Shiv Kumar munshi of Som Nath and on the basis that a register was seized in which details of amounts paid to the officials/officers were maintained. He would further argue that the judgments rendered by the Delhi High Court in L.K. Advani Vs. CBI, (1997) 4 RCR(Cri) 26 and the judgment rendered in CBI vs V.C. Shukla, (1988) 3 SCC 410 have clearly held that for such entries to be made admissible under Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, it must be shown that the entries are in books of accounts, books are being regularly maintained in the course of business and the entries alone are not sufficient enough to charge any person with liability.

5. It is also argued that there is non-compliance of Section 17A of