IMPORTANT POINT
Acquisition of assets disproportionate to known sources of income – Probative value of Orders of Income Tax Authorities, including Order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and subsequent Assessment Orders, are not conclusive proof which can be relied upon for discharge of accused persons – Scope of adjudication in both proceedings are markedly different.

JUDGMENT :

K.V. Viswanathan, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeals call in question the correctness of the judgment of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi dated 01.12.2020 in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 200 of 2010 and Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 339 of 2010. These proceedings in the High Court, in turn, challenged the Order on charge dated 21.02.2006, as well as the charges framed on 28.02.2006, by the Special Judge, Delhi. While the charge against the appellant Puneet Sabharwal was under Section 109 IPC read with Section 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the charge against appellant R.C. Sabharwal was under Section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In substance, the charge was that appellant R.C. Sabharwal owned assets disproportionate to known sources of income and the appellant Puneet Sabharwal, son of R.C. Sabharwal, has abetted him in the commission of the said offence. The High Court, by the impugned order, dismissed the petitions. Aggrieved, the appellants are before us.

Brief Facts:

3. On 23.08.1995, based on source information, the Anti- Corruption Bureau, New Delhi, District New Delhi registered a First Information Report in Crime No.RC-74(A)/95-DLI.

4. On 28.08.1995, a charge-sheet was filed against both the appellants. In substance, the allegations, as set out in the charge-sheet, were as follows:

(i) That the appellant R.C. Sabharwal was Additional Chief Architect in New Delhi Municipal Corporation;

(ii) That while being posted in various capacities from the year 1968 onwards, he had amassed huge assets which are disproportionate to his known sources of income;

(iii) That the assets were acquired by R.C. Sabharwal either in his name or in the name of his family members. Details of the assets were set out.

(iv) The check period was taken from the date when the appellant R.C. Sabharwal joined as an Assistant Architect in NDMC i.e. 20.08.1968 to the date of the search i.e. 23.08.1995.

(v) That the total income of the appellant R.C. Sabharwal from salary was Rs. 10,00,042/-. Detailed breakup of salary for the years was given. The income from the salary of his spouse was Rs. 8,72,249.42

(vi) Apart from the above salaried income, income accruing to the accused R.C. Sabharwal from several enterprises, companies and trusts was also set out. Rental income was also mentioned as well as income from insurance policies and income arising out of interest. After computing all the income, it was mentioned that the total income was of Rs. 1,23,18,091/-

(vii) Expenditure was provided to the extent of Rs. 18,23,108/-. Movable assets to the tune of Rs. 4,25,450/- was mentioned. It was also alleged that there were bank balances in the name of appellant R.C. Sabharwal and in the name of his family members to the tune of Rs. 82,63,417/-.

(viii) As far as the immovable assets are concerned, a set of twenty-four properties were set out which were in all valued at Rs. 2,27,94,907/-.

(ix) That the appellant R.C. Sabharwal could not satisfactorily account for the assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.

(x) That the appellant R.C. Sabharwal was a party to the criminal conspiracy with his son, being appellant Puneet Sabharwal, who had received Rs. 79 lakhs through encashment of Special Bearer Bonds and he facilitated commission of the offence as a conspirator.

(xi) That in furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy, assets were acquired by R.C. Sabharwal in the name of M/s Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust, M/s Morni Merchants and other firms in which the sole beneficiary was appellant Puneet Sabharwal, his son. It was further alleged that appellant R.C. Sabharwal dealt with all the financial matters of the said trusts/firms.

(xii) It was concluded that a criminal case was made out against appellant R.C. Sabharwal and Puneet Sabharwal for offence punishable under 120-B IPC r/w 5(2) r/w 5(1)(e) of PC Act, 1947 corresponding to 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of PC Act, 1988.

(xiii) Further, it w