ISHWARLAL SHANKARLAL JAIN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

(2.) Petitioner No. 1, a sitting Member of Parliament and petitioner No. 2, son of petitioner No. 1, moved this petition for setting aside criminal complaint lodged against them. We are informed that the police not only took cognizance of the complaint but also finished the investigation. We perused complaint, police papers and affidavit of the Investigating Officer.

(3.) Respondent No. 3 complainant alleged that petitioner No. 1 had no occasion to plant 150000 trees, had no occasion to cut those trees and did not sell the trees in open market. It is his allegation that this entire story was invented for creating an impression that the petitioners earned legitimate income of Rs. 7.00 Crore. He alleged that, amount shown to have been earned was not agriculture income of the petitioners from the sale of teak wood trees. He alleged the actual source was not disclosed to the Income Tax Department. In other words, the complainant suggested that this was black money sought to be laundered. To substantiate these allegations, the complainant is trying to show that the petitioners could not have planted 150000 trees in a small plot of land. He tried to show that the forest department too helped the petitioner No. 1 in his scheme by issuing him fictitious gate passes showing that logs of woods were transported away from forest area etc. According to complainant, these acts amounted to offence punishable independently under the provisions of Indian Penal Code.