PUNEET SABHARWAL AND ORS. Vs. CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenges the order on charge as well as the charges framed under Section 13(2) read with Section 13 (l)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 (PC Act) in RC No. 74(A)/95/DLI. The petitioners contend that there is no direct substantive evidence against R.C. Sabharwal, the father/ public servant. His assets stand duly proven through settled income tax returns. The ITRs of various entities and individuals linked to the petitioners would show taxes paid on all the income and the assessment stands completed. These tax returns filed much prior to the registration of the case, and money belonging to other accused cannot be fastened on the accused. Reliance is placed upon DSP Chennai vs K Insbasagaran (2006) 1 SCC 420 and State of Andhra Pradesh vs J. Satyanarayan JT 2000 (10) SC 430. Further reliance is placed upon Gapadibai vs State of Madhya Pradesh (1980) 2 SCC 327 to assert that in order to prove benami transactions evidence must be led to show that (i) accused paid consideration; (ii) he had custody of the sale deed; (iii) he was in possession of the property; and (iv) the motive of the transaction. It is argued that there was no material to show that the properties of various entities such as M/s Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust, M/s PUS Properties, M/s Sahil Properties and M/s Morni Merchants Ltd. were benami properties of the petitioners, or that consideration was paid for the said properties. It is argued that the CBI failed to take into account income of M/s Morni Merchants Ltd which had earned Rs.30.84 lacs through special bearer bonds. It is argued that no benefit of encashment was ever availed by petitioners or any of his family members nor were any properties purchased from encashment of the said bonds by the petitioners. The value of property bearing no. 513, Hemkunt Tower, Nehru Place by Smt. Sushma Suri to Smt. Savitri Devi on 01.03.1995, much prior to the end of the check period/investigation period, was not taken into account. It is argued that there is an over-valuation of Rs.74.50 lacs regarding the New Friends Colony property. If the aforesaid amounts are deducted from the alleged disproportionate assets there will clearly be no case for the prosecution. Furthermore, no link or substantial evidence is shown, of the petitioners having come into possession of any monies by indulging in any criminal misconduct.

(2.) What is to be seen at this stage is whether a case is made out for trial on the basis of the documents presented. The learned Trial Court having considered the chargesheet, statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and other documents opined that there is grave suspicion arose from the material placed before the Court of the involvement of petitioner R.C. Sabharwal and Puneet Sabharwal for the offences of which they have been charged under Sections 13(l)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

(3.) The case against R.C. Sabharwal is that he was found in possession of the total assets worth Rs.3,10,58,324/- for the check period beginning from 20.08.1968 till 23.08.1995. The assets which were disproportionate to his known sources of the income were Rs.2,05,63,641/-. His wife's salary during the said period was Rs.8,72,249.42. He himself earned a salary of Rs. 10,00,042/- for the period in question. As per the chargesheet, the unexplained amount was 166% of the known sources of income. The learned Trial Court had considered the following aspects apropos the charge of disproportionate assets: