MENON EKKA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Kumar Binod had filed a complaint, vide Complaint Case No. 2 of 2008 before the Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi against Hah Narayan Rai and Anosh Ekka, former Ministers alleging therein that both of them have amassed properties disproportionate to their known source of income. The Special Judge on receiving the complaint sent it before the Vigilance Police Station for its institution and investigation. Accordingly, Vigilance P.S. Case No. 26 of 2008 was registered. On completion of investigation, Vigilance submitted charge -sheet against both of them. Thereupon this court passed an order in W.P. (PIL) No. 4700 of 2008 on 4.8.2008 directing the C.B.I. to take further investigation in the matter. The C.B.I. having registered the case under Sections 406, 409, 420, 423, 424, 465, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 11/13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as R.C. No. 4(A)/2010/AHD -R took up the matter for further investigation.

(2.) THE C.B.I. having completed investigation submitted charge -sheet on 27.1.2012 against the named accused persons Anosh Ekka and also against Menon Ekka @ Menon Ujjana Ekka (wife of Anosh Ekka -petitioner in Cr. M.P. No. 1680 of 2012) as well as Jaykant Bara, cousin of Smt. Memon Ekka as also against Ibrahim Ekka (petitioners No. 1 and 2 in Cr. M.P. No. 2206 of 2012) alleging therein that Anosh Ekka has acquired assets worth Rs. 57.01 crore including the landed property and a Majestic Bungalow disproportionate to his known source of income. Anosh Ekka after becoming a Minister floated a construction company, namely, M/s. Ekka Construction Pvt. Ltd. to which Smt. Menon Ekka wife of Anosh Ekka and Sri Jaykant Bara, cousin of Smt. Menon Ekka were Directors. Anosh Ekka has acquired most of his assets either in his name or in the name of his wife, brother and even other relatives and associates. M/s. Ekka Construction. Pvt. Ltd. got huge works order from the Rural Development Department which was under the control of Anosh Ekka and Rural Works Department which was under the control of other accused Hari Narayan Rai. The income declared by M/s. Ekka Construction Pvt. Ltd. does not match the assets found in his name, The income tax return and audit report of this company showed huge amount as trade liability. An effort had been made by the accused to adjust huge asset against this liability but the claim of liability was found to be bogus. During investigation it was found that Anosh Ekka had acquired land situated at Fatehpur Dehri, New Delhi and a house in the name of Dipak Lakra for which the money was transferred from the account of M/s. Ekka Construction Pvt. Ltd. N.S.Cs. and K.V.Ps. of substantial amount had been purchased in the name of the petitioner and others. That apart, huge investments were made by Anosh Ekka in the post office in the name of Smt. Memon Ekka and Jaykant Bara which had been deposited as security with the Executive Engineer of Rural Works Department and Rural Development Department on behalf of M/s. Ekka Construction Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Ekka Construction Pvt. Ltd. has mentioned in its income tax return to have received huge amount as shareholders' money. However, such claim has not been found acceptable in absence of documentation. Smt. Menon Ekka in her income tax return for the year 2007 -08 had declared income of Rs. 1,31,90,261/ - which was abnormally high compared to the previous year income. Out of it, a sum of Rs. 1,05,83,761/ - had been declared as income from other sources but such claim could not be substantiated from the documents. Thus, it has been alleged that Smt. Menon Ekka facilitated concealment of ill -gotten income of her husband by lending her name to properties acquired by him which were far beyond her legitimate income.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that on the allegation that Anosh Ekka had made investments in the name of his wife and other relatives, the petitioners of both the cases are being prosecuted with the aid of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code by branding them as abettor but there has been absolutely no material to show that the petitioners had instigated her husband in generation of ill -gotten money and in absence of this fact, no case of abetment is made out against the petitioners.