NARESH KUMAR KEJRIWAL Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the CBI. This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 10.9.2013 passed in R.C. Case No. 01(A) of 2011-R whereby and whereunder, cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has been taken against the petitioner.

(2.) It appears that the CBI when found the assets of Dr. Pradeep Kumar, the then Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand, disproportionate to his income, a case was registered as R.C. Case No. -01(A) of 2011-R against Dr. Pradeep Kumar. In course of investigation, when it was found that this petitioner, a Tax Consultant had advised two firms namely Hindustan Credit Corporation and Pathak Telecom Private Limited to transfer a sum of Rs. 5.95 Lakhs and Rs. 20 Lakhs respectively from their cash-credit accounts to the accounts of Nandlal HUF the petitioner was made accused but that amount of Rs. 25.95 Lakhs has never been accounted for as an income of Dr. Pradeep Kumar against whom a case has been registered under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Still charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner upon which cognizance of the offence as aforesaid was taken vide order dated 10.9.2013. Being aggrieved with that order, this petitioner has preferred this application.

(3.) Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the Pathak Telecom Private Limited had transferred from its cash-credit account a sum of Rs. 20 Lakhs to the accounts of Nandlal HUF and similarly a sum of Rs. 5.95 Lakhs is said to have been transferred from the Cash Credit Account of Hindustan Credit Corporation to Nandlal HUF, which had been done at the advice given by the petitioner but those amounts of Rs. 25.95 Lakhs has never been accounted for as an income of Dr. Pradeep Kumar against whom a case has been registered under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for having assets disproportionate to his income and, therefore, even if, the case of the CBI is accepted to be true that this petitioner being a Tax Consultant of Dr. Pradeep Kumar had advised those two companies and also Nandlal HUF to give and take loan, the petitioner cannot be said to have abetted Dr. Pradeep Kumar in any manner, in view of the decision rendered in a case of Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad v. K. Narayana Rao, 2012 9 SCC 512] and, therefore, the prosecution of this petitioner under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act with an aid of Section 109 Cr.P.C. is quite bad.