BAISHNAB CHARAN SENAPATI Vs. REPUBLIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this application under Section 401 Cr.P.C., the accusedpetitioners have sought to challenge an order dated 06.12.2010 passed in T.R. No.11 of 2009, whereby, the learned Special Judge (C.B.I), Bhubaneswar has been pleased to reject a petition filed by the accused petitioners under Section 227 Cr.P.C. for discharge.

(2.) MR . B.M. Pattnaik, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the accused -petitioners submitted that on 31.01.2005, R.C. No.3(A) of 2005 came to be registered against the accused -petitioner No.2 (Sudhiranjan Senapati) and some other officials of the Income Tax Department under Section 120(B)/420 I.P.C. and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In course of investigation, certain documents were seized from the possession of the accused -petitioner No.1 (Baishnab Charan Senapati) and on 05.04.2005 R.C. No.18 (A) of 2005 i.e. the present case came to be registered against both the accused -petitioners. It appears that insofar as R.C. No.3(A) of 2005 is concerned, the investigation into the said case concluded with submission of a Final Report on the ground of insufficient evidence and, accordingly, directions were issued therein to return the seized property to the persons entitled to the possession thereof. Alleging inaction on the part of the I.O. in releasing such property, Criminal Revision Case No.399 of 2007 came to be filed by the accused -petitioner No.1 before this Court. The Investigating Officer filed an affidavit in the aforesaid Criminal Revision submitting that the seized items in R.C. No.3(A) of 2005 had been taken away by the I.O. and seized in R.C. No.18(A) of 2005 and insofar as the present R.C. Case No.18(A) of 2005 is concerned, the I.O. submitted the charge sheet on 30.04.2009.

(3.) MR . S.K. Padhi, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the C.B.I., on the other hand, placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rameshchandra Nandlal Parikh vs. State of Gujarat and Another, 2006 1 SCC 732 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in case the F.I.R.s are not in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offence, there is no prohibition in accepting the second F.I.R. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Babubhai Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors., 2010 AIR(SCW) 5126, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the version of the second F.I.R. is different and they are in respect of the two different incidents/crimes, the second FIR is permissible. It is asserted on behalf of the C.B.I. that the scope of investigation for an offence under Section 13(1)(e), under Section 13(1)(d) or under Section 7 of the P.C. Act are altogether different. In the case of an offence under Section 13(1)(e), the investigation is normally elaborate and prolonged in order to establish a charge of an accused having disproportionate assets and charge sheet is only submitted once it is finally determined that the accused is found in possess of disproportionate assets to his known source of income. In such an offence the accused can prove in course of the trial that the prosecution has not taken into account all known sources of income while considering the total assets.