YOGENDRA MITTAL Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') on behalf of the petitioner for Setting aside the order dtd. 12/9/2019 (hereinafter referred to as 'impugned order') passed by the court of Special judge CBI (PC Act)-02, Rouse avenue Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred as 'the trial court') passed in CBI V Ulhas Prabhakar Khaire and another bearing Court Case no 312/19 arising out of RC bearing no RC-ACl 2013 A000l registered under Sec. 120-B IPC read with Sec. 7 and 13 (2) and Sec. 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of corruption Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as 'PC Act') whereby the trial court passed an order on charge and also framed charges against the petitioner.

(2.) The facts of the case are that a written complaint dtd. 27/11/2012 was made by Raj Kumar Saha, Inspector, EOW, Delhi Police and was forwarded by. K.K Vyas, Deputy Commissioner of Police, EOW Crime Branch, Delhi vide letter No. 2540/SO-DCP/EOW seeking necessary legal action regarding illegal gratification demanded by and paid to senior Income Tax Officers. FIR bearing no 152/2011 dtd. 29/6/2012 was registered at P.S Moti Nagar, New Delhi, and pursuant to the alleged disclosure statement of Ulhas Prabhakar (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') made in FIR baring no 152/2011, RC- AC1 2013 A0001 dtd. 9/1/2013 was registered by CBI, AC-1, New Delhi under Sec. 120-B IPC and under Sec. 7, 12, 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1) (d) of PC Act.

(3.) The investigation revealed that the accused Khaire and his wife Priyanka dev were engaged in partnership firm under name and style of M/s Stockguru India having registered office at 56/A-l. Liza complex, Rama Road, New Delhi. The firm was accepting deposits from the public at large by offering unrealistic high returns up to 20% per month up to six months on the principal amount followed by a subsequent round of the principal amount to the seventh month on the deposits by prudent and sourced based investments in the share market. The deposits were being collected in cash and interests were paid in cash. The group controlled by the accused was also making payment of commission in cash to various agents who were mobilizing the deposits. M/s Stockguru India was neither deducting TDS on the monthly interest paid to the investors nor on the commission being paid to their agents. The transactions were also not reflected in the regular books of accounts. The books of accounts were also not maintained.