SWETABH SUMAN Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH both the petitions relate to the different factual matrix, but somehow are connected with the same petitioner/petitioners. So, these are being adjudicated as hereinbelow.

(2.) PUT briefly, the allegations which are the subject matter of Petition No. 70/2013 are that the petitioner Swetabh Suman working in the exalted office of the Income -tax in the capacity of either Deputy Commissioner or Additional Commission, Dehradun abused his office for forcing inasmuch as to the coercing a Chartered Accountant and other related persons, who had some work in his office, to transfer a sizeable funds in favour of one Arvind Society. This society was registered in Bihar and more particularly either in the same village or in the vicinity of the parental village of Mr. Swetabh Suman. The society, in turn, transferred some funds to the joint account of mother and sister of Swetabh Suman. In this regard, statement of Sri Naresh Kumar Gupta recorded on 24.8.2005 is very significant, which discloses each and every fact unfolding the complicity of Mr. Swetabh Suman in managing this high profile crime. The FIR was lodged against him by the CBI at Delhi on 2.8.2005. Search was conducted on 5.8.2005 at Jamshedupur, the place of residence of Swetabh Suman, where he was transferred at some point of time. However, it can significantly be noted that CBI has mentioned the place of occurrence of the offence at Doon, Bodh Gaya, Aurangabad, Noida and other places. The investigation culminated into the submission of chargesheet on 14.9.2009.

(3.) MR . Swetabh Suman challenged the submission of the chargesheet firstly in the High Court, but his petition was disposed of permitting him to approach the Magistrate asking him for his discharge. So, the petitioner moved an application accordingly before the Court of Magistrate and the learned Trial Court rejected his application vide his detailed order dated 1.6.2011. Revision whereagainst was also unsuccessfully challenged as the same was rejected by learned Sessions Judge on 8.11.2012. So, this petition now has been filed.