B. L. AGRAWAL Vs. STATE BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been brought under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to quash the order of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Raipur, in Closure Case No.06/2010 vide order dated 05.10.2017.

(2.) Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioner on 19.02.2010 by E.O.W./A.C.B., Raipur. On this basis, that this petitioner had misused his position as public servant and amassed wealth which was disproportionate to the income which he had received from lawful sources. The F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of communication received from Brijesh Gupta, Directorate of Income (Investigation) M.P. and C.G., Bhopal, it was mentioned in the said communication that a company styled as Prime Ispat Ltd. was formed in the year 2004, in which all the brothers of the petitioner and their wives were made Directors. A share capital of about Rs.60 crores was laundered over a period of five years by this company. In the raid conducted by Income Tax Department, 230 Bank passbooks were recovered from the possession of Chartered Accountant of the petitioner, in which huge cash deposits had been made in the name of Benami persons and the said deposits were used for purchasing the share of the company. It was found in the investigation made by Income Tax Department that the said Benami account holder persons were of economically weaker class, therefore, they had no resources to make such deposits and purchase such shares. Further, the documents relating to the business activities and investments of Prime Ispat Ltd. were recovered from the residence of the petitioner which shows this connection. Apart from that, cash of Rs.68.10 crores and jewelery of Rs.70.20 crores were found from the various premises and lockers connected with the petitioner. Cash of Rs.23.73 crores and jewelery of Rs.3.76 crores were found in the residence and lockers of the petitioner. It was also found by Income Tax Departments that huge investment was made in movable assets in the name of petitioner, his family members, his parents, brothers and their wives in mutual funds, fixed deposits, L.I.C. policies, public provident fund and real estate etc. and these investments were not intimated to the Government Department by the petitioner. Similarly, 140 land documents were found showing investment in landed property in and around Raipur, which is estimated worth crores of Rupees. Huge cash deposits were found in the various bank accounts held in the name of petitioner and his relatives to the tune of Rs.12.50 crores including cash deposit of Rs.10.64 crores in the account and the name of petitioner himself. The lifestyle of the petitioner were also taken into consideration by the Income Tax Department. Five keys were found in the premises of the petitioner during raid which were the keys of bank lockers. In one of the lockers held in Bank of Baroda, Raipur, cash Rs.15 lakhs was recovered and seized. The locker was originally held in the name of the petitioner and one another but later on the bank documents were Manipulated and the petitioner was replaced by his brother Pawan Kumar Agrawal, on this basis, the Income Tax Department had made a request to A.C.B./E.O.W. to investigate the case, on the basis of which offences under Section 13(1) E/ Rule 32 of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 3 of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 were registered.

(3.) It is submitted that against the raid conducted by the Income Tax Department, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax Department. In the order of this Appellate Authorities vide annexure P/4, it was held in the Appellate order that the Assessment Officer had committed error in making addition of the cash amount found in the bank lockers and in the account of the brother of the petitioner Mr. Ashok Kumar Agrawal. This means that the petitioner had given satisfactory explanation as is required under Section 69A of Income Tax Act. An appeal was preferred by Income Tax Department before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against the order passed by appellate Authority, in the order of Tribunal, it was held that the additional evidence presented by the petitioner had not been examined on merits by the Assessment Officer, therefore, the matter was remitted back to Assessment Officer directing him to examine the veracity of additional evidence and decide accordingly. The petitioner was then proceeded against departmentally and departmental charges were framed against him. Further, vide order dated 13.03.2012 which is annexed at page 132 of the petition, the State Government has withdrawn all the departmental charges against the petitioner. Therefore, he has been exonerated from the departmental proceeding. It is further submitted that petitioner has been exonerated by the Income Tax Department and this finding is binding which has to be taken into consideration in the criminal case registered against him.