Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.13(1)(e), 13(2) – A-1, a public servant was accused of accumulating assets disproportionate to his known sources of income in collusion with other accused – Respondent accused of abetting and/or conspiring with A-1 – According to the prosecution, A-1 acquired a flat, through a company – Respondent was alleged to be close associate and financer of A-1 and his family – Chargesheet against the respondent quashed by High Court – On appeal, held: Role attributed to the respondent is that he helped in the execution of the sale deed of the property which was seized from his house and that his employee witnessed the sale deed – The fact that the sale deed was in the respondent’s residence cannot satisfy the ingredient of any of the offences alleged against him – An allegation of the existence of signatures of respondent’s employee, as a witness to the sale deed cannot amount to his aiding or abetting A-1 to acquire disproportionate assets – FIR in the present case names only A-1 and A-2 (A-1’s wife) as the accused – Respondent’s name was included in the present case, although the sale deed was seized during a search conducted in relation to another FIR (in an earlier case wherein respondent was co-accused) and not in relation to the present case – The earlier case is irrelevant to the present case – Further, respondent was not a public officer or public servant – Therefore, he cannot be charged with committing an offence u/s.13(1)(e) r/w s.13(2) – There is no allegation against the respondent that he received any benefit or that he held the property in his name for the benefit of A-1 – The property which the Company purchased was in its name – Money trail for the property bought under the sale deed, does not show respondent’s involvement – There is no material prima facie supporting an inference that the respondent was either a conspirator or had abetted the commission of the offences alleged against A-1 – Alleged offences u/ss.120-B, 109, IPC against the respondent not made out from the chargesheet – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.120B, 109 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.397, 401, 226-228, 239, 161.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.13(1)(e), 13(2) – Penal Code, 1860 – s.120B – Criminal misconduct by public servant – Conspiracy – Standard of suspicion – Held: Material to implicate someone as a conspirator acting in concert with a public servant, alleged to have committed misconduct under the PCA or amassed assets disproportionate to a public servant’s known sources of income, has to be on firm ground.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The respondent is accused of abetting and/or conspiring with the principal accused, a public servant (A-1), so as to permit him to accumulate assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. A-1 was a senior official of the Central Government, working in the income tax department. According to the prosecution, he acquired the flat, through the company (M/s. Raviteja Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd.). Two other accused, who facilitated the acquisition, turned approver; they also deposed during the trail. The role attributed to the respondent is that he helped in the execution of the sale deed of the property, and kept custody of the title deed to it. The document was in fact seized from his house. The seizure took place over a year before the present case was initiated; in fact, the CBI had initiated another criminal proceeding, in which A- 1 too was implicated. In that case, the CBI had seized ` 50 lakhs from him. In the present case, the recovery from respondent’s custody of the sale deed of the property, owned by the Company led to initiation of separate proceeding; inter alia, respondent was charged with criminal conspiracy, defined under Section 120A, IPC and punishable under Section 120B IPC and abetment, defined by Section 107 IPC and punishable under Section 109 IPC. [Para 22][838-D-G; 839-A]
1.2 Section 13 (1) (e) and Section 13 (2) of the PCA, are relevant because the respondent was sought to be charged under those provisions. The respondent, was not a public officer or public servant. He cannot therefore, be charged with committing an offence under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the PCA. There is no allegation against respondent, that he received any monetary or other benefit, or that he held the property in his name for the benefit of A-1. This assumes significance, because the property which the Company purchased, was in its name. There is no evidence against the respondent linking him to the transaction relating to the execution of the sale deed, or alleging that he had an agreement with A-1 and others to commit an illegal act. Further, there is no allegation of a legal act being done in an illegal manner. Therefore, the alleged offence under Section 120B IPC against the respondent is also not made out from the charge-sheet. The chargesheet further does not contain any allegation which can amount to an offence under Section 109 IPC. The prosecution has not suggested that he abetted A-1 to acquire disproportionate assets in any manner; the only allegation is that the title deeds to the flat, which is in the name of the Company was seized from his custody and that he had instructed his employee to witness the document. An allegation of the existence of signatures of the respondent’s employee, as a witness to the sale deed cannot amount to his aiding or abetting A-1 to acquire disproportionate assets. Witnessing a sale deed is a formal requirement. Likewise, the fact that the sale deed was in the respondent’s residence cannot satisfy the ingredient of any of the offences alleged against him. The statements of the approvers, A-3 and A-4, who were tendered pardon by the Court, do not reveal any involvement by respondent in commission of the alleged offence. During the pendency of the present proceedings the recording of depositions of 74 witnesses was completed. Those were part of this Court’s record; they do not show any incriminating material as far as respondent is concerned. Furthermore, crucially, the money trail for the property bought under the sale deed, does not show the respondent’s involvement. It may implicate A-3 and A-4, however, the Court has granted a pardon to them, for which they have turned approvers. The money trail for the purchase of flat, under the chargesheet - which is also discussed in the impugned judgment, is that (a) the property was purchased by M/s. Raviteja Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. through sources alleged arranged by A-1 through his friend A-7; (b) A-1 had official dealings with two companies M/s. A.S. Shipping Agencies and M/s. Aban Offshore Ltd., Chennai; (c) At A-1’s reference, a company (in which A-7 is a director (M/s. Tidal Data Solutions, Bangalore)) had supplied data storage servers to the said two companies (M/s. A.S. Shipping Agencies and M/s. Aban Offshore Ltd.); (d) The latter two companies [M/s. A.S. Shipping Agencies and M/s. Aban Offshore Ltd.] had made a payment of about ` 1 crore in excess (over and above the invoice amount) to A-7; (e) A-7 had collected the payments through cheques and deposited them in current accounts of A-6’s companies (Utkarsh lnfotech Pvt. Ltd., and Utkarsh Staffings Pvt. Ltd.); (f) On A-7’s direction, A-6’s companies transferred `94,82,300/- to the account of M/s. Raviteja Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd, of which `80,00,000/- was used by the Company (represented by approver A-4 to purchase the property at the directions of A-1. Two demand drafts of `50 lakhs and `30 lakhs were drawn by A-4. [Paras 22-25][839-A; 840-C-H; 841-A-E]
1.3 It is clear that in terms of both the chargesheet and the final report, respondent is not involved with the money trail or the transaction for the purchase of the property which was acquired by A-1, according to the prosecution. It is a fact that not only is the investigation complete, depositions of prosecution witnesses too have been recorded. There cannot be any question of introducing any further evidence. CBI cannot deny that the respondent’s name was included in the present case, although the sale deed was seized during a search conducted in relation to another FIR (the earlier case- CC No. 3/2013 wherein respondent was a co-accused and according to the prosecution his vehicle was intercepted when he had attempted to help A-1 in transporting a bribe amount of `50 lakhs received by A-1 to a safe place)- and not in relation to the present case, which relates to the disproportionate assets case. The FIR in the present case names only A-1 and A-2 as the accused. The sale deed had already been seized from respondent’s house by then. The CBI had urged that the allegations against respondent in the earlier case can be used against him in the present case although the final report in the present case does not make any reference to them. The final report in the present case was filed after the registration of FIR in CC No. 3/2013 and after the seizure of the sale deed from respondent’s house. The final report makes a mention of the FIR dated 29.08.2011. There is, however, no allegation against respondent in the chargesheet in the present case [CC No. 5/2015] on the basis of or adopting the allegations against him in CC No. 3/2013. Thus, the two cases are separate. The allegations against respondent in CC No. 3/2013 does not relate to disproportionate assets. Therefore, CC No. 3/2013 is irrelevant to the present case. [Paras 9, 26-28][841-E-H; 829-E-F; 842-A-C, F]
State of J&K v. Sudershan Chakkar 1995) 4 SCC 181 : [1995] 1 Suppl. SCR 294 – relied on.
1.4 The material to implicate someone as a conspirator acting in concert with a public servant, alleged to have committed misconduct, under the PCA, or amassed assets disproportionate to a public servant’s known sources of income, thus, has to be on firm ground. In the present case, only two circumstances - the custody of the sale deed (of the property allegedly belonging to A-1) and the fact that it was witnessed by respondent’s employee - are alleged against the respondent. These are wholly insufficient to raise a reasonable suspicion, or make out a prima case against him, for conspiracy. As far as the respondent is concerned, the initial burden of showing that a conspiracy existed, cannot even be alleged against him, given the nature of the material presented along with the charge sheet. An entire overview of the material produced before the trial court, with the charge sheet and final report, as well as deposition of the 74 witnesses who were examined during the trial, does not support CBI’s allegation of the respondent. He did not directly or indirectly finance the transaction by which property was sold to M/s Raviteja Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd, which, according to that prosecution, was in fact by A-1. The respondent also is not alleged to have facilitated the flow of money to fund acquisition of the flat. The material put against him is that the sale deed was seized, prior to the present case.The other circumstance put against him is that his employee witnessed the sale deed. The respondent is concededly neither the owner, nor has any links with M/s Raviteja Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. There is no material which can prima facie support an inference that respondent was either a conspirator or had abetted the commission of the offences alleged against the accused A-1. [Paras 29, 30, 32][843-D-F; 844-B-H; 845-A-C]
Deepak Surana vs. State of M.P Decision of Supreme Court dtd. 08.02.2016 in Criminal Appeal No. 128 of 2016; Central Bureau of Investigation v. K. Narayana Rao (2012) 9 SCC 512 : [2012] 9 SCR 54; P. Nallammal v. State (1999) 6 SCC 559 : [1999] 1 Suppl. SCR 135 – relied on.
Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. State of West Bengal (1973) 3 SCC 753: [1973] 2 SCR 66
State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh (1977) 4 SCC 39 : [1978]
1 SCR 257; Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Ors 1979 (3) SCC 4 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.