Pillai v. State through Central Bureau of Investigation

1. Whether Reporters oflocal papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. Tobe referred to the Reporteror not ?

3. Whether the judgment shouldbe reported in the Digest ? S AN.TTV KHANNA, J.: For detailed order see Writ Petition (Crl) 765 0/2010 titled Virender Singh versus CentralBureau ofInvestigation pronouncedtoday. vJi NOVEMBER 2010. F (SANJiV KHANNA) • JUDGE 2010:DHC:13266 W.P(CR1M1NAI.)N0S, 765/2010 &.B71/2010 ' ' ^.,,1..HEH.3H COUKTOFl>EOaAXNBWDEMI •. _ 3«sna3mfflm^ 3 ^, • •.iF'esci-vedoia:, •, SSe ofDecision:i?3ia^6niJ2St-^---. •.•...., Petitioner •. • VlRENDl®. SINGH _ „ • picihar&a Luthra, Sr; Adyocatc,;:;,: v^ShMrrAEUragAhluwalia,. A.cb/ocate.', • • • • ^RSUS GEN-rilAJ.BUREAUOF^NVKSTIGA:!^^^^ ^pahwa:^di^ounscl ', vife; MS. Suchvti ChaB,dra.,,. _ Advocatc. • AJ^B' • • • • ~ • •• i.F.TmON (CBlMINAlAMlAaJ3Fm^^.., •. " '. • •... Pctitioacr NaVKKN KUMAR •.jAr Sanjay Maun and Mr. K.K- • • '. • ]^]lai,AdA'Ocates. ' ' •/ VERSUS STATE-rH?-.CliNTM- BURliAUO l ' ' ^ JShMs-Suchitiaaadra.^ ';, Advocatc., - ^ 'SSSfkMR. JUSTICE. Wlie-tker Reporters 01local papers may bc ^ • " allowed to sec the jvidgmctit?.,• 7to br-^cfcrrcdtothoReporter ornOL r _ ' s/vVbcthcrthcjudgmciitsliouidDcrcpoucu^ /,.£g, in the Digest? • _;. ^ •. •.: V v.e.dc. Siugh and his son Na.ecn Kumav have filed the present..UO.S the,o.de. da.ed.3-^.cce.he..>0. passed hy •.,e CBI ch.ec.n..hat <.a.ses he.a.ed>sa... both ot 0/467/'-^"^'' of the Indian I'enal Code, i36o. •iiicm under Section i2Ox</4^9/407/-.-.—^ •. • • ^ » + %.W.p (CRIMMAU NOS. 765/2010 &'871/2U10 r ' • I- (herem^iaor referred to as IPG, for si,on) and SeetioB 13C[2]) read «th.. Seenon'.3(t)(e) of rhe Preventxo. of Corrupdon Aet, r9S[8] (hereinafter •^ •referred to as PCAet.1988. for short). Substantive charges have also been • directed to befrarned againstthe petil.ouer-V.render Singh under Seetron •^, read ™th section.3W(e) of fee.PCA.t,tg88 and against Naveen „. i,ar under Section ro, IPC read «id. Section «(.) -dw>th Seetron.• l,{l)(c) of'ieSCAct. 1988 andSection419/467/471IPG....;, The eJlegatiC. agamst the petrdoner-V.render Singh,n the charge.^ sheetrs:thatdur.ngthedaee.penodi«J^y,i98.tol..'M,..aooohehad,.,..equtadandwasfoundtobednpossessionofassetedisproport,onafetoh... •taown sourees of.neorneto the cKtent oV,,6.,68,.98/;-rhechar^.,ets outthecareer pr.fleofyirender Singh, who was,ndueted andjomed • Indian Adnunistrative Services-(IAS) mJuly.'I969:xhe charge sheet set. ont details.offtc income earnedbyVuender Singh, his wifeGeeta Smgh., MssonNa.eentomara.wellastheassetsownedbythemtoarrn.eatfe.^dconehision/finmng. It,iS,alleged in the charge sheet.that Naveen... ]&marhad ac«ely participatedand abettedVrrender ffingh in acquisition •'of assets: which were found disproportionate to the Imown Sources of,. income. Specificmstanceshavebeendiscussedlaterou. • • T -a. T hp>,or-p-f tilp'petitioners that the PC Actj •

3. In brief, it is submitiea Oii bendu o. pei, ^. ^88.c^me'.intoforcevritheffectfrom9«"September.1988andconsequent^::"heretothe Prevention,ofCorruptionAct. r947(PCAct.r947for short) was; repealed. Accordmgly fee' chcck periOd,between July. X98a to r.* May, «iodpartlyincludesperiodpriorto enforcememofthe FCAct..988 wrth effect from 9">,SeDtcmber..i988 during.fhe periodwhen the PC Act, 1947 ' «asm force: nwas submitted that i.r the period^prior to 9-September,- • i588, provisions: of.Section i3(i)(e) of the PC Ac,,1988 read with u, w.P(CRm'llNAL)l^OS. 765/2010 &87V2010, 3 ^ ^ ^ ExplaB.at;oB^cannot be appfed as.it wodd amouot ta violation of tiae. eonstfedonal.igh^nde. Article.oW of the Constitution of Indra. Mxanec1s placed ™on Jaga„ M..SesM^ «rs«s Stat. ^Ta^,, •i • ' • • p.,.pr Act '1088 slioiilel not "be, Nadu. (moZlJi^CCJm^ It was a-rgueQ,a.a fC Act. x, grven retrospective effect as tlae Explanation to-Section 13W(e) oflie PC;,. Lt..1988hasbrought^ontandcreatesanewoffencewaicUishotstoilax. 'orthesameoffenceas was defined andcoveredbySectionsCDCOofthePC,. Act, 1947-, ^ ' • '. Article 20(1) oftheConstituti'on ofIndia, reads:, •... •. "..oflU-Io nersonshallhe convicted 0f any offence •.,.Sirviolation ofthe law in force at the ^ • • tliecomniissionoftheactchitrgeclasanoaence, i<m. • to apenalty greater than mat^ch.:.."mighthave been inflicted uiiaer tte law m-oicc at, •. tlietimeoitliecormiiissioiioi. uiGOifence. • •5. Interpreting the said Aricle in'Kao Shiv BahtidM, ««-s«s Tfe Smm'of.VinAhya Pradesh, ".has bcen^heM diat diis Article rn broaddrnport, prohibits conviction and, ' sentence under cx-pct. facto laws.. No one should be punned for • something; whicli was la^d when it was done or omitted. This would be highly inequitable, unjust and contraryto the universal notion.of•fairness.;..ndjustice,inthe afcreaaid case, theSupremeCourtnoticedthedifference-.• hilanguage ofArticle 2p(l):ofthe Con^tution ofIndia and.Sections 9(3) •and 10 of.Article 1ofthe American Constitution and it was held,that the Article 20(1)IftheIndianConstitution prohibits convictionofa.person or; his subieetion to asentehce under ex post facto laws. Accordmgly. it was. observed:-, • V ^ Obtamed' at ^0 time of the. „P,(GR.M:NA[1],) N0S. 765/2010 «=S71/20i(l •4 •..:. •, •'comn>issi6nof,thc^ffeme^^^-^: rts£ts^:^ifM&s.s^ ••-. involved. • ^..•, -. Tg^^pv^asis supplied}'.,a,™ v.. «.««..... «" " effect of Scction 513) 01 • • •, •. •., Oil 11^'' March, 1947. raised was a<^tti5ePGAct,l947° ^therefore;SectK>.5(3)ofthePCAct,.9«ca„notl,ebasi.forconvrcnon y:^,.Hn.W=on.ae.a.cn.sse.and.c..eac,uireaprior.^ • • J.v,p-pp A'-t ^lo/i? as origirialiy cnacied and,..Sectio^l 5(i)> X^) ^: erforccdwitheffectfromll<-March.1947; readas under-, '.',•. -c Amislic sen.-ant is said to conimit the:::^.„>ffcncc mrseond„.t i. the a-seharge of. •, 1 his duty-... • if he hahitually accep'ts or obtains or... • +. nt+pmiVfo. to ohtam from any • agrees ^ •accept^- other person,•any. • of theIndian Penal Code, 01- • • • if he-habitually acccpte.or obta^^^w agrees to vduabf^tog wthouL ',. for rcbD^ileratton whicthe knows: SaS"pr"ceeLgor ', be transacted by mm, f „ of a-ry -oirblic •HSiiH to the persob. so conceine-J.,. o. he dishoiiestiy or, fpidulcntly.. nrisapKopnates. or' otiaerw.se co.Tverp;for hrs -own •W,P(CRiMI,^At)NOS,765/2010 S.8H/201(. ' ^'5 • ••,,; •. J persori so to ao,, oi. if he bv corrupt or fflogai inoaas or l5y..gsSoSSyW v.; • valuable tbing or peramarj'-S,-,,. •.., •s/vimbotii..; •, • • •. • In ary trial of an,offence panislrable • ••;. und.r1ub-3;ction;(2);,: persDE or any P-,amiot, •., •• •• • property •QispiQpoiL.oi.a^e,^, incime «ray be:proved ana..-•.drall presmiie/umess...,•,,, •• the accused person;IS gnuiy,. •' ' teXe shS not DC invalid by reason •- ••..- -•. ••.'• The suoreme court rn»«'s case (supra) ha. held PC Act^«47 iid-thave retrospective opera.on, butwas upabl.to; •agree-that:taking.nto consideration pe^,arary.resources or-property r„,:^.ess.n oftheaccusedoranyotberpersononMsbehalfbefore-.ePC •...•,..wasenacreawas.nanyway,grvrng.tKePC^AC.,.^a.,etrospeet,vcoperation.Itwas observed thatastatute-cannotbesardto-e •' - \,:,-3art of ^icreamsites ofits action IS drawn f^^^ retrospective bec^l-uoe. a pal - •', ^!;.sino- nhas beenheldinsajjanSingh(supra) as ' time antececeni lO alo pc.oSuT.f,-under-; - 5oolong 3tfee words oftfic section and giving tem^eir plain ^ 'il impossible to say tlrai the Kl'lXnTStptiSr^a^^^^^!J'o°,e°Sn,,:::^Sr:n;ShS^s:Jo;hii:bbhalf. toaccept ••^ •" V- ••: •_: fi-nt'cucia pecuniary- resources •o;,,.. •.,' 'the eomentioii L; ^;; • •• properly ^.••••• • •: ^ ^•••dateGtcQmmencem^u^_^^^^,^,. ^.-: „.,,of acco:a3at in apply tlic receip^^ •.: •.. - • -• proper. ^ ^;..• •.. •. • acciascdliimsell.....; • ^ ^. ' „•••'•'" ' • • ••" •; •,6.; Mention ', ',•' ^. ••• meaningless,. •-iiooo i Qp^rty is itself, a.' • • •; ••' CVC17 P=c}™f'i[7] —:,.^itoce oar mronie ^ cesooices.or.. in terns to say LijaL.tbt,,....' • • property can-be is wliol^^^;,, sources of inco.™^^.. •.' •. misconccived. ^/i-nic. g^yeg sources 01. • • •.: - -. •. • • •.income aicn c...c. _ ^ articular pome of, • •.-,unde.Rtandmsaposrt,o^^^^^^.....;,:•. timethe, tetog.made to,. •, •, • • •.• -regardea aS-assc-s d ^..... •. •:, •• ^sec whether.the know ^: ' ': WSS=Ssiss£^....'.tie contention whetiierSectMn. 5(0) -.:..dt..con.nt.n.as..e.ea.^^^^^^^,: • •phees i.n the hands -oftheprosecution anew.mode oi. ptov,n„.. •.places---.,. 1- -1 •• r tinO-reusedv/ere already • •• •• •• • •'• •, V-. q,^-pT A-t 1QA[7] with which the-'-Luseo - -...under Section 5Ci)0T^b,e PC A.l,.j,/...;....charged, itwas accordmglyobserved..,, •..,.. V '•,•• ••. ••• - •• "13« • • • • ^ ^ • ••: •. '.. •..• •::...:. SglSSSrpS - d.e..^ ^. W:P(CR!ivnNAL)NOS. 765/2010 &871/2010 \ -. "acqmsition of\,pecumary •res.oiirccs.. • •. ^ i-bouda itwas notinviolatioii of alaw m _ • " ^ ' •• tin-'.eVi the commission of sucli act oi:-acqiiibiLio,a., '..:thi[3] argaracQt were correct a'conviction o.- ^. •-.ITdel- the "presnmption.'raiseQ miQCi bCs). _ ^ respect of neciiniary resoiirces. or propert^^ ac^ured- • -• • •• £Se"the Prevention.f'M.,, • •'^breach offundamental righ-te unaerAa 2(^^^ • „..;Constitution and so itwoaid be piopei for u.,,^ - • - • to constme-S. sCs) a way so ncA.o: •,.. •'• possession of pecumary resources,. ••;,•. 'iccfuired,before the.Actfor tnepurpose aCtn^L ^ ^. •, • •• The basis oLtiie„s:SiimenL.ll^^. • •• • • S^eatesVi^iiidofo^^. • •• •' •. •• ^-ry-is.homier jmscy^ y^,- ••' • -SStacc'foZSe^ ••. ' 'criphnaLmisccmducLajiJi^ ^,.. •^raccuscdpersmifL.aii^^ y. (emphasis supplica;. •,;, - •• g; •: Loaraodgou=jsc]for:mcpentionertas'submittedthatSecto s(3) of., the PCAtt. 1947 as origkially enacted was ddotedvide/the Anti Comption • Laws (Ameiidmo:at) Act..i964 and substitoted by anc«. sA'section.;The, -• origitfai ciatisc gO) of iKe PC Aet; 1947 «as modified and re-enacted as Section 5(:i)(e) of tie PCAct;1947aridia fmscoiincctior, my.atlentionwas •• drawn to ae;effecf=f enactment.of.SectK,n sdKo) oftheJC A=t.4947 as a result of tile Anti Corruption Laws (Ajnenament) Aci, ^9^4 W • •Mc.Jwa.nJ^t.ersMs Kaliflr. JCoiL SabramamaMy? £i92Z[1]:asec524. In the said case, the residentialpteraises ofthe accused ' ••wercscardred on 17'^ May,1964andalotofassetsweredetceted, Whrlcthe. matter v..s, still pdndmg, mvestigatpn-he PC Ac, 1,47underwent.:..nendn^enr on 18- Dece.^3e, 1964 enactment of Anti Corruption ^taws (Amendment} Act,i964^vhich resulted in insertion ofclanac (e) to.Section 5(1). whicn became anew offencepnmshaWounder Scctron5(2) of tee PCAct. l947.Ahe Supreme Court has in paragraph 3'of,the judgment • W..P(CRlfvilNAi.rNOS, 765/2010 &.S71/2010 8 • - •.. •. observedthattheHigi. on.anappe.1fledbytheaecu.edhadcometo'^;T? the^coBolt®onthat^o{fcnoesuDdorScctioa5(i)W\(War.a^ ^,,.9^.7<ve.e.otvo.deo.t.Hewa.ac«i«ed«„de.the.^ question arose.^eti.er accused couldbe co^vfedunder ^,he.PC Act..947, w^ueh. eau.e.nto force o..8-Dcce..ber..964. The,,; ^..SaprerBC,court heldthatfee accusedcouldnot Ueeonvrctedunder Soctron ^. 5(l)(e) of PC Act, 1947 in the absence 01 atsy e«aenc>. 0.1-^i-oia.,. that^the, appecam had acquired or was found to be m, possession of ' • pecumary sources of proper^^drsprepornonatc to h,s;l.no«n,sourccs of ^ ^,„comc after cormng into force of 4e Anti Corruption (Amendmenl).. •.....,,tt96.«Ureffecrfromr[8].^Dcecnrber,r964iB™wo£Article.oWof«ae,: ConstrtutiontAs.notrcedab<,ve.feesearchwasconductcd.ntheprenr.ses:of., ACaccused on r/^May. X964i.c.beforetheAnt. corruption(Anrcndnrcnfl, • ^ •;Act.l964,^-®: enforced. The.Supreme Court in the case of-Kah'irJKo.I _., •sanmriB«damSa;muma^ y.,: • ' «^o 'So when there^vras no law in force ac. •.. •• the tuiUen the accused was;. soprcle Court.dfst.gurshedthc a^isron i,n the case of•. cupra, as ongmaily Section• 56) of the PC-Act, W ^vas naerey •...escribing-a role of.acneefor the purpose of provingthe offence^^ t •;,i.inalinisconductasdefincdunderScction5(x)ofthePCAct.i947. ne, ^ \V.P (ClllMVN^Al.;);NOS•. 765/2010 &8Jl/20i0 - ^ ^ ' ^. ong-nd section 5(3) ofthe PC Act,.947 constitute an offence m ' • ' itself.,-'. •.-••••. • • •;; '•« n.ay be relevant tonotice here the,Ies.slati.e l.i.to.y a.d •, •_, ': enactmenterftheAntiCorv^tionXaw.(An.enan,enO,Aet..t967.«chwas,.,^ Heemedlc^eome mo-force w,theffectfro™5'''Mayr^^..saidi967 Act reads as iinder;- _.• •• •.: relatio« to- certain jpendmg ^. Notwitb.standing- • •; • • ra) ' SijbstitutioB of inevv provisions. • • " ^ pfQp.. c-the Prcvcmion of CorruuLion I SCCnpn v-iJ 01 wC^.,Lau. „i.'Uo to/iVAft-)bv • • • •• •, •Art 1947 (bercmgifterrsfeiTCQ-iOc^l^t. 1947-.-;-^. • <v. ^2XcV of tlie Ariti-Corriiption[4]._L<.ws^ •; ••• ••^endmk) Act, i96^^;;•.• •. • the1964-Aot), aiid_^. • •. •- „ •/. • •. •• ohai] ^-e deemed alv^ays' to uaye applied to aaa )..... • • •••^cWion to trials of offences puiiisiiablc.iJ^^^^^. ^., • •• •• • • on (2) of Sec. 5 of:the 1947 v Coi'rt iimnediately before.sucb commcnccrneBl •... • •as4nosuchncwpro^nsiorishadDecn.siibsLita.ecfoi.. •. the sa.id sub-section (oJ-... •. • • •.. •. The accraed per-son in any trial, to and in, •. relation t-i wmela sub-section (i) applies maj 4ie • ^ • ^>i;a.i-oKr die commcnccment o^ uic...: •. •; td:nS^siei demand bemg ^ade.the,,, •., • St;a'Soeeedmd>thetrial: • • • (a) Vor the removal ofdoubt itis hereby provided, • ', •. an appeal or application;for. •, cpmmencemejit of das A^t, oi....'.. /•WP(CR1M1-NAL).NOS.765/2010 &871/2010,..!« any such; trial,;i. 6^ ^ ^,W> '''.•' coriirocticemeiit - '.,• •..:. • •. •. Shail remandthe case for trial in conformvtywith:... •.the provisions oftills sectiou...• ' •' ••• rcjcctcd. Appeal before the Supreme Court-ws -dismissed m die deas^ •,,;•,9CC sQ-i. Observing as under;-,..,..• • '^^rnde 20(1) deals with ex post factc)^^^ • • •. - ^ sp.s^i^^ • • thccouvicuohofapersouo.^ ': •; • • •.Coun -joiiited out Liiat • •, • •.. •"oT-iped at the time of the commissioii o-;.,. •. • Cofenccorbyacourteaf^^^^^^^.. • ' •':• • • ISr^s^^'ssg:,.. • • diserimiD,atjoii or,ihe «oU.>on » •. /;-••:..fciidamentalrightmayberavolved.,.,.. W.P (CRlMi'KAlO.NOS,. 76:./20l0 &87.1/2010 ! I 'xnus-the•appellant diifcrer... ^ of-fencc that wa?, comraission-.01 a.c was nTforce and ilS2iSS:€s;£ffs time. • • ^'WKe-e.an •Act is repealed '.• • cl eBaitDionl.... manif.® no'.ntentioB iW ^ •,• n-c'Hisinal Act ^AaVlcontmue-repealed,,., • • was that,.. •; • second Act revived the iixstaDiniiio. _" ^;. ^\ -riicrccanbe-no object^B^^wi^^^ ••,•, procedure winch was " of ' the • ' offence was section ^ as it.'.amendment IS tb.at sub-sec^-^^^ • -.. • stood beiore to have always •••..-siiaii appiy "'""T;. ^x.,,,c.F^,-,.cs It may be ifby • ', • • applied-in relation 10 ' •, •. ••• this deeming ^lOvioiOi. • \ ^ome •. '•.into op='f.*°°- "f.:3,0 rtore than rcitciating the.. out, wnai is -'.-^^-Qmersl Clauses Act. Mr Effect otSeenon 6^^^^ ^ ^•. SS;aiu^ ^ bfcSteS • • •.• •• created. It is ^unnecessary."in' certain,• fS-SeSe ':•', ^:. • „voccduve;is reived '. „, -.SltSSlSSe^-^uitin^eerea.^^^^..• •-new oftcnee;;,, •., •• Sec.on r5(t)(e) ofthe.PC'Act, t.8. an. 5«(e) ofthePCAct, t,47.eiacnecal and pan mater,a (exceptto.two chan.csor aad.t,o.snot.ce be,c^.-i.:^ere.orc, not possible to acceptthe cootcn.on.hat~..ifferencc if:the eheCperiod overlaps the PCA.t„t,47 and ^^ ^:,S[8]:Xt«notpossihletoacceptthecontention,thatthechecKper,od ^ ~ > u'y \. -/• • •^65/2010 & 8.71/^OiO ^ _•• •.', • n ^ in.auctionispriorto S=pt»^e,:,.988and.therefore,th.PCMt..•H ^ ••.;<;««..ei.,,.ve..=tro.pec.ve efiec. v,ew, of the•a.fKor.a.ve. ^.. •'• SirtaJi's caso (supra). A.V proiionm-erP,cnlofth=SirprcmcLmiu.m.><3®a«^.a.... ••.o.eeaa.ove.-^.. supreme «... t.e ca.e « •. • ^^.atogether. _ aafe.e.taspe.i.e.en.et.e.ofa.ewofece«tb.int.o» ' -..;..• • 5WCe)ofPCAct;.947/rhetwo:ehang../additionsinSect.onx3WWoffl'e,. '.• i>CAct.l98&aremeKxplanatioi^andremovalofthedausegrv.ngdisaeUon., \othe Courtsto awardpunistarxntofteislian oneyearfor reasoirsto^te. • * recorded in writmg. • •..;., •.. learned counsel fot 'iie'petitioner,, however,., relies..pan the,,;.oianatioo to section x3W(e) ofthe PC Aet, 1988 and s^rmts that Are •.:. explanation creates ane. offence and, therefore, the ratio In.the case. SOrtion,l3(i)(e) of the PC Act.-xgSB Including explanation thereto; 15tcad as under ^ -CrimiMl niisco«ifert by '.a. p»*- ^^?5TSicservant isWdto committhe offence of criminal miscondnct,- is in possession (e) ifhe a.^any pej:-n incomei;xFianation.For Ae^ "knovvn sou.ces oi.ncoi. reccipt nas.been from any lavrful soiuc- -a ^ Qvigions of any' public servant. •,.,. 765/2010 &8/1,2'w 10 I-' • •'•,[6] Th= uKpla:.ation to SecnonasaXe) defines •.' ' „ of.nco..e- and states th.t a>i. expressto m^^^^. fro,.. a.v lawful soutce and also requnes thatthe receipt shouldha«been,: •,ntin.ated by the pubile servant.naecortocemth any.pto^ions of; •• •.nJesot orders.AS.otieed above, this e,ptoatfon«as not hereinthe PC: •Aet;t947.Notietns.thisiactmJasa«.*Scshadri(snpr^ • ' Courthas observed asunder;-.. • • • •• '• 'V, ^ barr^ reading of SccdoD 30(2) of'^^^^988,..^;s«;^Satany£:tdoneoranyaefioBtaKen^ ••• ry,ru-rtcd to have been done or taken uudei oi^ m. • piSnaBceof-iherepeaiedAi^t^^^^^^^:. •Lot lucousisterit ^ath the provisious of ^-C'T-'-^d to have been done, or i.akcn-mu. ^. Pircuc^nr-o of the corresponding proAasions oi 'Ja.. ^ does not substitute Section 13 m oi - • • r'n;; cof die 19^7 Act/Section 30(2) is apphcable. ^, •• • ' •• • XAntli>-:t oreiudiGC to the application of SecQOii 6m.^,c^^^^r-^iaauscsAet,i897^ I^ouropinim.,. • •,,, • • •.,. iphcation of Section 13'of tl.e 1^8^^LO^^ _ •. • • •Jh^^rio-^ of -the nresent case wou^d offend beaiou b ' • • o^th-General Clauses Act, vvhich, inter aha prov^.. •. 'tbat'^-npal shah not (i)affe.ct-the previo^^^, • •. ofWe—ot s, or a«.. c-::fFered- •thereunder, or (n) ax.!cc. a.y^ •••.•- '• •.. • proceedings or remecio^ in res^^... • •• " r3|bts, privdege, oM... •. o^nishm.ent. Seetion 13. ho1i.tvthe. SSr",7. Bcrored.velhnsfortheronthesaidaspect,rtmayberelevant-to note^ •^ the-faetsintheease ofJaga.M.Sesfcadri(supra),,vhichhadresulted>n ^ t^e aforesa.d obseryadons. Inthe sa.dcase,the cheAper.odwas from n-./May,..;.03..Apr,r,8.,fe.,priortoenforcementofthePCAct,r^8 - effectfrom,.^-Scptonrher,t988.-thecharges were alsoframedund^r ^ •Section•5Ci)(d) and (e) readwhh Section 512) of die1C Ac., -94/- 'W-.P(ClllivirNAUNOS.765/2010dc871/2010 ''. ^ ^ court acq.itt=a:the ^==«ed^de j.dgmctd^d^9^ -b'--990 but the.,M d.d.ion -.vas reversed and ftc„ffish Court convicted the accused fox. •, offencesta.dc. sect...saXe) of PCAct..988holding, tater-aha... •,,c PCAct. Wstands repealed enact..cntof reAC,.988.Relyrug ^ uponScctioa 30®of^cPCA^,.988.,.he ffigh;Courtop.u.dtiaa.ti.e.,,„ accused..ouldbcdc^edto.avc.ee.ciar,cdfo.offe.ce3undetSect.ou,, ^.,30)(c);;ead^withSccHon.3(.)rftiaePCA....988.Onf«rth^^ •, {edccusedtodacSup.en.eCourt;thesa^ewa.aiowedobse™gthatt^^^^. •,Ue.:^doffcacesW=re=o—d.vheurcAc,.947 was,Bopera.ou.K., held that Secda. 30(.) of thc.PC Ac^ x988 was.ot appHcaWe. On,•, it was also observed ftat the HighXo^ had fafled to deal • variousreasonsg.-n.bythetrialcourtinsupportoOieorderon ac<,urttal. The cvrdence or, rccord has^beeu discuBsbd by Are Supreme Court rn para^raph-oonwards^aeSuprcnreCouxthasohserved-thatthemghCourt.. was.rrot^^t in re3ecrrng the «s. of are trial court relying^...: cxplanatian to.Sectiorr.xsWCe) ofthe PCAct..988 as Ihe.accusedhadnot,,•.• •,,^ •intimated;&c -amount,allegedly received from h« mother-in-law to the,.. GovGrrsmcnl.... • •. '. • • ^ • •,8. The decrsrou ofdre SuprcrnecourtirrJc^g^M-Seshadri(supra) was aonsidered by.the Supreme Court.in Stele SMnie, Infte sardcase,the checkperiod was'fro»29'^May.1944.vAeqthe accusedw,stnductedrnto.er^ce dll tue date of ftc rard.in.hrs house on aS-- Decenrher. t97t. As ••. ^.Vv,r =c"Hon <l)(e) was' enacted and incorporated i.n PC.Act. llOLlGCa aDOs^C,- •>...,,,,,.th cffectfrom Deceuaber,.964.TheHighCourthad ohse^d.^atac,u.srtiorr ofweal^ sardtobe disproportionateto hrS hnown sourccs e.;„c6^ne oriorto1964couldnotbetaken intoaccount.srnceprrprto.964 W.P (CRliyilNAU'NOS. 765/2010 &S7-i.201u,.. •... • •• •' • • or offence The Supreme Court • Section 5(i}(c) of the PC Act, 1947 ^ ^ ',,; '.h -•-•^ referrVng to'the decision in Sogjan Smgh:s case-.., ^ •., allowea tfee appeal.••(s^r.)- and remanded the n^atter laclc to the B:gh Conrt. fte Supreme,,; - courtwhaeremaud;ngthe.^.terb.ckexpressly.ofervedto ^ and 1=; =f the decision of the Supreme Court mSajjan Singh's case •., ^•(supra), v^'hich have been quoted above. - • • ' •,5.' Therepression«taio.^sourcesofincome"wasusedin;Sertion,5(3)., ofthe PCAet, l947:andalso m Section sCDW aftcilitwasincorporatedin.1,64 in. PC Art, io47'fThe said expressioi is-incorporated in Section, h(,)(e).ofth,c ECAct. 1988. albeitwith an explanation,defining the said hipression.Thequestionrpsedis,whetherintrodu.:ion.ftheexplanA^^^ -. 'defining'the expression "known sources of incomc" has resulted in a.new- ^ •' oi=fencc or the cxpianacion is merely ciarifieatory or procedural in nature.; and does notcreateasubstantivenewoftencc-so as to pffcndArticle aoW ^ •' OX the Constitution ofIndia... •.... -.0, Tiie explanationto Section.l3W(e) oftePCA.t. 1988hasthe effect ' • • of defining thd expression "Imo™:sourccs of income' used.in Section • l3(i)(e) of the ?CAct. 1988. The explanation to Scction l3(l)(e) of theIC.. Act. 1988-consists oftwo'paxts. Thefirstpartstates thatknown,sources-'of • income means inconieMeceivedfrom anyla.rful source and thesecondpart; • - sta^sthatsuch receipt shouldhavebeen inttmatedbythe publicservantm, '• • • accordance v^rh the provisions oflav., rules and orders for-the time being. •,. ••apphcabie..'. ^. ' ' •. • 21. Refertmg to the.first part of the expression •%nown sources of; income" inI'f. K.amMkrishnaiahvsStateofA-f- ii-W-Crl l-J-17 2' Supreme Court observed as under:- • /=' RlMl'NAbli^OS. 765/2010 &871/2010 W.P (C Tne emphasis ofAs phrase'ImownsOT^,: •: ^niiotatton of the term;'mcome^.t^;,.. v™ luiderstood.as meaiv-rig receipt hamo:: • to ose's laboiir, or expertise or prope-^^^. fe;estment, aridbeingtetherar.ourc^ • • • v-oid- a regular leyeiiue. Jlheofc CooaAiai • •SacSriSs are mu.ders* ^ Therefore,- it caa be said L^ai,.. receipt mthe hand 0^^,, •. • -torwo-ald not partake' into the character ot,.. •;,i"onr" For the Diiblic sen-ant, whatever vetnra he.Ss'rfM^ervrce, «U be fee primary. •fr-om- Other income which can conceivaoi^. b....;;C v:n„athe pnblic sen-act v,iri be m,,, • •:?;cfet iToai:(a) his.property, or(b) ta^ • • • V Worn.windfall, or gams'of grau.cxime^oi h-rmoral secrkions by persons prmrar^^^^^ •• • •••• •••^cthercceiptforthe'']mbwi:30iircc:ofmcou.^ oi - • ^; public servant." • •, • ••: •(See also, State.^fM.P. «««sAmidhmd^ore Ch^taizaSAll •• •••,. • • '. ' \. 22.: this briBg us to the' second part of the cicplanation. definmg the, expression'"known sonrees ofincome"i|l.intimationhythepablicservant Mn accordance «th any provisions of law. rples or orders apphcabl.to a,.pnblicservant: Section5(3)- di= PCAct,;r947beforeitwas:aniendedand,, Section 5(i.)Ce[3] oftiie PCAcr. 1947 andSection l3Cl)(e),oitne PCAct,,19,08 h^vebeen quoted above. TheIdngnage ofthesubstantive.provisions,in the..-dirce Sections condnnes'to be &e same mou^-Sectron 5(3) More it was •, aniendcd was held to be aprocedure section in the case 'cstipra):,'The Scrtion.5(3);ofthe'PC Ar;t.i947 before its amendment wc.f. ' W.P"(CRIM AU NOS. 765/2010_&871.(2010 \ Swarm-Vs. sum ME. •, •• • •: Decsrobcr, 1964 was mterpieui.^ 1.- ^ iQ^SC? find itwas observed; •,••,•. •;,:. ^Itistxue^Se^nsM^ ' •;,' create a new Oiiencc oU ^ •- • • d\ddence, —a • • ' •,, •;• •• completedeparrare^ always.lies;•. criniinai ju'iispiudenc^ •..^n-'he moredients ofthe. •. •• onthep^sccmPJ^^-^. OTieiiCC Ci.uU\^eJ,. j'•,/^v.--.iro'e'^Piriied against- •. •. >• •. hto/VahreiErsDCotoi.v^^^ • • • Act. flab...... • iastance. iJiai iflc CQa,.... • -. ••• V. the discharge ofills....... •..die fact as. Impenfj Baii.< ^1.[1] Ii." ^ and China. *•• ••Chartcrea Boof ^ v',.wi^-is iict credit--Adth... •; •• • (ChafldiiiChoi,[4] fa,icu) _ • • •• tho.se Banks totaUea.up-o^^^^^^^^^.... • •. ^.91.000. He accountea ^Qi u". ^ • \. -stating that he was aii-Oui./ -^.-had hecn able /"X"ears-, that after...' • •........iEngtodfm-agriodpj^^- •;. •. Ills retm-n lO i n c L i o.,. •• • • posts for aboryt 20 •.,• ••. •• • •; „ Wustnes, Ai...y ^.- • •. •India; that he that with h.is liimted;, •.-.. dependants except to "save a go^od; ••. -.-liouseno-id expenses,^ ^ •.••.••• •,• round sum out oi ms saa 3. ^ to'oV. hrni-^ •' •.-. --were considerable, ^'^.^^.^""^-j.-eadth of the co.mitry,-.. •'. ' •• • •- •'tonghout the ijngtn^a^^-^. • ••. •. ••.. thus-siiabling_.niin 'o b,e saved "by • ^ •' •. ' '• wav "ot travelnng a^^jg^tions dmnixg his -. •. •.•.. stayiilgi^th.h^inei^'^^- •••:; •.• " SMierS:e;^^^^^^. •,'. • of November 1947-..., • '.,..::.. • • ^: •/.. '..•... • •. had.held tnar if plausib- -.4^^.3^^..... -:.; ofterca by an accrued...:. •••••--. • • of propeity wlucu^-wa * accused from. •. „ ' •• charge, the ^ '••possessing incrimmating- •", crim.in^'-^ i.iCsp.o.nsi u- ^t^^.j.-iJ^Qgp, cases_ bavejno, - *1 W.P (CRIvnWAL) NOS. 765/2010 &871/2{)10^ • to ^=^;,tisfacton33^.j£cou]^^ •' • • H ••:. ^ • •.. • •. • •. - • ••,,aieng£s<dsiwttii2^=^:^^. H.r.,-niit 'imist.2;.Q_to__the oifeBc^._tiie_j2^iiC^^,dAds<^Jiseit]ie•, • cast a Vord^Qfi •.8J^QjA&!=^^ ^ hppri71o^on the sanlc asp 6»;]^e p'ro'Snition "has not led ' of tne case, _is.-^a ^ the, Imomi^miE^' mfiiimc- tff liiww ii« t <m. attern;iOIL_Jwas.^^,not...saia^ism&-j^^ -„,. that thesalas "VnowTi sources...oi, ' -^mia in«>me' ntmrn bt. cxpjici:ea,^.vhc instanf-case, only iead c-^naeuce,..o ^ to-.eaiD, tis. •• xo 'show tnat the a^ r during 'idie:Iteng by, se^ unto ^of be • material, pei-ioa. i/i.e pnine allowance w,as justified in.coneluamg L allov/ahce is, iiso.a ^Uice of "it officer concerned • ordinarily meant to°°*'^l-'X"t!';n„eidcntal to journeys ••• for his oii^of-pockeW^-JJ^-.^ coi^d perforraed by nuij. 10.- L. o^^-.-. - substantal., kt possaly be ^.C|^.0 a y^ ^ source of mcoms. luc. Gi W.P (CRIMl'NA 1,)'N0S. 765/2010 &871/2010 ISSBaS^ii^Sr•^ ^ aSisS;#ia • • -aaitsaES^ ssasffiasBj* • • • •...., •.SSSSS^g: • 'iiiissill:, •s£i£iiiss S"S5a;;r.e:;;xces dispropo.t.=B.te • •' Ev.n after Seaion sO)™s deletedandSection 5W(e)™s enacted. ' •fe Sup.=..= court in -e case 'of Smm of MaU^rasMray/asudeO' jlawi^Chamira Kaide!ii>ar;li^Sd-S-SCC.Jii. -^as °bse ^ aatthe=Kpiess>OB •l.nown sources,of occurnng,nSect,onsWC^) • hasadefinitelegalcomiotatiGnwhichinthecontextmuSL.nean diesouiccs 'hiown to the prosecution and'not sonicef, relied upon aad.known to tl,...sed. section s(.)(e),^«as observed hy the Supreme Court, cast, a wen.nthe accuced for vtuses.ie words ••for which thepuhlicservant, eaiinot satisfactorily account^.. The onus is on the accised to account or W.lMCRlM-n-^AUl^OS.'65/2010 & 871/2010 -0. • a.d. s.drfac.o,:ny..piam the assei.- Accovdingly, in WaWeo' ^; OiaiidraXai£laliaai-(supra)itwasobservcd:^ • • •• «,]!,ili[6] provisions of Section 5(3) r-ave •., i-cor n'bi'»ct of jididal/interoretatioE.. I'lrst utie.. •..' -• • • •thp v^en-settled prmciples: see/o.o.lJ. ^uc-mj • •, •• iate- Sajjan Singh v. State of Punjab and.; •• • V'qtnto-nf UP-^^>0Icgisiature tliongfll itfib • ••4^',eMe^eVc5c!e.cc»«a^^., • rM) Li mate «»e jfossetsjon <rf. •'. ' oP.iceif cTimirial niiscondact by •. due to- • services.,., ••., • • ' The, terms ^^^.lessiQBS-^P-eyiag • • • •:: •.. „.. N° " • 5;wi^fo?^vraptioD. of guilt m, •..or.ir^.o^ roneed to mention ijecaon-sW-ve) •• • •., ^.\., SoSn''T£efi;stpartofti.eseettonc^ • •; oa^ac prosecution and, tne second.oiT^^^^^^^^. ^ '^1 -11 ill' •• •• tnJ-oHcid th?.t the biuidmiS-OILSlid^: •,. •• • • •fo-Vrv^ngdispropca-tioiiate assets mhis possessioi •• • ' • fo^MYhichhe caimotsatisfectonty.acOT^^^^.. • ' • foV^'Hcd of an offence under Section 5(2) read. Sectioii.5(iXs) of the Act unless.' •disproves.all possible sources oimcoax.. • •• W>tCR.MmAIJ^:OS,765;20l0^iS7l/20,0, y •,•. -• •,, icg2u.om:a'^i.i i-- •;, ^ -'c the hurclen of. •• and (2) tie erideiM" isadmg essential to cstaWish tlic ciiarge,• pvoTOig everylhu^ cb.,c ^. against the •«•,. 'diat •bLLrdeii_ i^ev-i ^,-^-F• r,roof lies excKuswely • •. •• iBip'-wl rale'till" I"** '"i", n'y rrf rrmin ffffences--. npoo.thS-PtnSW)'''?"' ',. fart in issue nas is howcvetJflUa •m-thfijasa^^.. •. ciisctejadbMap^^^^^^; • •• /•• ttgtefent. rf Jte 5„te) axe tte uiicler ijcCLiou bC^J --^mn-ces or iDropert^''. ••• satisfactorJy accouiiL. before it cai]j2rm&-a musLpxQ;<£.thAiQ!lam!J^^^^,t; hk posScssiQsjisiJl • • •• -^f I'urimi 1fti c||iiri7*m'iiTii^i rr^'^ «... jmilTBW?' ZjiiJ^o of the_.aKiised,wera ' • I lu iiil iiTi^'ni nfrnirm. casEIoportio^^..cstablisiied^jne. • •'..g ^ tn accouptiQi.,.. -suchj^urSSS^i^^ 3ccQ3iBU2t-M. •.. • Th^ extent,•. • ^_nasne-fi^J=^^ in cossc^m-.-Ol l.mlfc--5crY.ant.,.ji3___W^ ••..^..diffixOEmimat^asjs^ • bv the court • •:Dl0balaJjly. That test L.C.. m. •. Woobningwn v.. l^-^.e ^ni^nssible burden on the...:., • court has •; • • •prosecution xo d...bp.o...^, •' cciallcnowiedge of. Lome..h«h case, the, flic. accused....-.t -i- ao be ^..•.iSSi" ""-"tie ^ W.P (CRI-MlNAL)>i05. 765/2010 &871//0 10 • fntird-'n possession of reiiO-a::css ct propetW. discrODortioiiate to Ms Icnowa sources o> • bis\sa!arY/rhoss wilI bematteraspcCMllywimw^ nwl.-^d'o e of reads;...... • ' ' -'men any fact is especially the krov\4edge'of any person, jhc buraen oi. ^ „ •, • • •• pro-nsth..faet.supon,.(Seeobser.atio-asoftheSupremeCourtiuK.Vee.asn,anri V.: U,nonof ' India (li9i}.3ivCC,66ito paragraphs 69 to 73) aus.tt>cexpr=ssxou''kuov,u sources of meoae'^s not synonyrnous ••,,«fhthewords =for.4uchthe puhlicservantcannoEsatisfactorily account". •' ac two CKpressions.connote and have drffercnt meaning, scope and ".'; requirements, Vvhile the expression "knov/n sources of mcorae lereis to • ' the sources knov,ni to the prosecution, the expression "for v,hich the pubhc sen^ant cannot satisfactorily account" refers.0 the onus or hnrden on the, •.accused to satisfactorily explain and account for fhe assets found to be • possessedbythe pubhc servant. This burden is onthe accused.as ihe said... •.facts arc withnr his speaal Kno.iedge. Section ro[6] of lie Evidence act.: apphes. Read in this hght and bachgrcund. the explanation to Section. r3W(e) IS merely aprocedural SectionlAida seeks to define tte expression• i • • «taov™'sources ofiDcoine" as sources hnown to the prosecution and notto.:• •the accused. The explanation applies and relates to.the mode and manner • of investigation to be conductedby,the prosccuiion, it does awaywith the •. • requhcment,and necessity of the prosecution to have an open, wide and •ro!»in,investigation and enquireinto thcallegcdsources ofinconaewhidi..;.the.accuscd may have. K curtailstiae need and necessityoflieprosecution to go mto the alleged sourccs of income.Aich apiibhc servant may 01;.possiblyhave but are netlegfl orhave notbeen declared. Theundecl.area •.Hcged sources are by their..ry nature.are expected to he known to die. • ^V.l^(CRIIvii:^'AL)^iGS. 765/2010 &!:!7i/2')!0. —. ^..0«.. »•» " ^5^ P.oced.ral and.ot soAstantive andit does n«t create anew rfienc, Ihe. ^, '. • rrniiforce the existing position and • cffect of the cxpianaiioii v.o Ciaiity ^ -., • •. -onn-ps of income" i.e. the.miderstanding -pf the expression Kc...., sou.ces.,.„„«:.efers to sources know, to the prosecution and not sources,. • • known to,the accused. tt.e second part of4e explanation does away. the.eed and rcqurrer^enffot the nroseeunon.toconductaa openendedor •.;ow.ng,enquiry-or investigation: to find out all alleged/dainaed known.,,sources of income of au accused who is investigated under,the PC Act, •,o88- The'nroseeution can rely upon information tanshcd by flae ';,^,,,ed\o the authorities under law. rulesandorders for timeberng,•. appheaUe tc apublic servant,'Nofurther investigation is required bythe.;;. prosecution to find out:kno..^sources of inconae of die.ac^sed public ' /servantAS noticed above, the first part ofthe explanation refers f-;.:.ecoived fro^rr legai/lr.rful sources. This first partof.the expression states,.the obvious.as is clear from Ae ludgmtnt of tile Supreme.Court i, N., Rmnaiicrisilrncdak (.supra),, •, ^ • •rhus, the obhgation of the accused public servant to satisfactorily •. account'for tiie assets remains the same under both PC A.t, 1.947'(after:; '.964 amehdment) and. under the'PC Act.r^SS, linaetment of Se^ion; • l,(i)(e) of the PC Act; 1988,,which is replacement,and.pari materia to, ^ ^etions«(e)^ofthePCA.t,r547.>ndiisregardnrakesnod^^^^^^^^^^ requirement oflaw remains the same. Toe pubhc servant/accused has to • account for to the satisfaction of the Court that the assets avaflable with '.. • •./op,ofthe a.ssets AA/cre not disproportionate to, him or msiesourccs,ioriJUiUiase orint.uiou,, ' • -o '"^1-1oo-.'is ip this regard does not undeigo •the kucwn sourccs ot his mcome. xhe oi.o.s n. uits i ^ VfP (CRIMINAL) I^OS. 765/'20;!.0& 871/2010 '.• ' SecSon „(.)(e).ofthe PC A.,.988, It..defect.ate that apub.c,^ „e.va.t.aa..find. dfficult to disCaxgc the sa-d;onus.n.ess he ha,. ^ Wsou.eeof,ncO=.eandtbesa,d —hasbeen^edtothe., auth0.it,es:conceroedin aecorfanpewfthto.. Butthee.pla.at,o.doesnot,. ^.enacto.c.=ate an absoluteprohiB» to curtaa^;, • •T • T -v-r tlno assets. Siiuilarly, the ••.public servant,-to.sat,sfactonlyaccouui.0. Lhe assc.,., ".. -, >„- „-,.h,r<'e the lavj on what or vraidl assets tlie... explanation docs not alie..0. eha.„e ti..., • •.' 1 --rmmt for. Tlie assets can be q-rva-'^t are reauired lo oe >±^0011111.lu,.,. •accasea/pu.uii'- bu.va,...-,a. •;thosewhid.h^ebeendisclosed andalso other assets ^ • • atsdosedbydaept^lK servant but daere.se^denceihM the asset are^:• possessed:bclongstoorheldbyd.eaccusedp^licse™nt.TheLawonOae ^. 3ardaspccthasnotu„dersoneachangeor,alteredby.introa.chonc^^^^^^^ _,. •explanation., '.. • • • •,,,^Pro.so-toSeet>on.s(.)PCAc,WSa.eascretiontoC.urts^:;:«.rdpun.sh.tcntoflessthanoneyear.-rheprov.so.v„,ss.^^^.., •..f-.,,, PC /ct 1988. But this aspect,s not requuedlo.be,. not addressedspecific arguments intms regard.,.. • '.,.„oti.ed above, section X3(tXe).of the PC Act, x9B8rnal.es a••.^ • aeparturc fro. the pnncrple of.eruninal.urrsprudenee that ^e burden,..a., hes Oh the ur.secntron to prove the ingredients, of.re.offences; •..barged and.nevershif. on th,e accused ro approve the charge fra^, • agarnstbr..Xbus,.e,eg.effe,ofdreS«ronr3(tXe)isthat^ ^, • • •'. ^v=-h that'the accused vras in possession or property., P^seehtion to esraoUsh th... - • '.. disproportionate-to ms too™ «o.,n.o.ucb,. j. W.IMCR1M1^^'Sl)N0S. 765/2010,&S71/20!G^, ^., -:• sources «Cincome' will meaB fee sourcss.'teown^o the prosecutio.rand not Vthc sources kno^rto the atcusBd andv^tM^thctacrwledgeof •in™w:ofAecXpiaaation>e%aownsources.ofincome;mustte •declatedtythep.Hicservant. It.for 6ae,accusedto accou.tsatrsfactody; for ate rnoncy/assets rn bis hands or the property,possessed hy hixn.and „.:.satisfyfee Gourt'that his expiaiatio.rs wordtyofacceptance. Onus-intins regard is upon thc.accused to 'give satisfactory explanation. Therefore,,at. _ • sta^. rhe contention of thepetmoners Virender Singh and Naveen- „th,atfeeyhavesoure sources oftncorn..mch have notheen taken.,.,rrto.consecration while dcerdrng the ouest,on ofdrsproportionat, assets 'has to be rcjcclcd. -. •'.'. ^ • ^8. fc daepres^r case, learned trral court has exammed the averments. „,adedp me charge sheet and fee e^ndence:on, record vAiledecrtog the,. • quesdo,.whciher.or' not' daarsc shodd be fiW against Ae.two.; •• pe^tioners. "Xhe said order is elaborate and has pornted ont specfic '. Wance relating-to property NO. G-8,Ansa,VfflaFaxrn House,Satbarr,:,^lcb has notbeen accounted for. Tic order also.deals v«4,dae rnconte • and, assets of Virender Sinf^ and Navcen Kumar. At dte stage of •frannng of charge, only a:pn..a facre view is to be tahen. At ^rs stage. •, • •• elaboratedisCussronoftheevidence.,pros andcons andevrdcntraryvalneas: isreouiredto be ascusshd' and considered at dae tin>e offinaliudgment „,,otreourred; Tlrs isnot astage tohold ainto,triah «thrs st.ge, the..courtisconderned; whether drerc rs substantiad nraterraltoproceedwhd> ^ ••thb trial and. allow the prosecution to prove;flre. case, -flae naatcnal • placedby-^thc proscudon is generaUy trea.d as c.rect as.rthas^ot,een si^ectcd" to cros.-exannnadon and t,st (See, ™ WJMeRIMmAiJ^OS,765/2010 &S71/2010,, • «« cnmmal Uc;«s™ Petidon No: 428/2008 ^ •deaded ouioth September, 2010),. ••.; • •r„arn=a^counse^for the petffioncvsiivc referred tdtl» - • v^i<^ were filed before tie-learn.d Speaa, Court,Ifrs ^ the petitioner V„ender had,>ver.. — • •e.pla.at,on...thregardtothe soiree,ofhreome thesehave notheen •^ spec&allv deah «rth and.ex^ined'.n the impugned order.Before nre •also, tabulated charts have been filed gh;ing explanation and. pointing out,.•thatithe CBi has not taken into eonsiderafion some sonrces of:income., •Reference was also' made.,to decisions in Stam K. Ponmudi, „ '/MMU/rate.641Ugfi96. W-JP- Lotmar^ verms C.BJ, 20ai.A«a«^oB®&®v.aiii>ersiistr,rlo«o/^ • j.B.,Fa..Ma «ersMs:Stattt?i^O™sa. ^ • • —,V rRI T[3] vQS.Sted&qfHa,-yaTmver!^^Mhajam • versus •^sialds,. • • • • • ' U, • one ^^.fexander y-grsMS (CJ5I, aoo^alRIXMO, ' ' • ' • ' '. • r-Tt^-ini • -o- ronVwVDLT 178'and State-o/' • SlkdkviMtk^. vi^fsus' Stal^e oj Ueihi, -.... ^ Mal^a^•ash^av<^rsusLa^m.l!f<^rsmAm^m, '^ 36 ^Theseconte.mons do not have any merft,As noticed.above, under •' section. r3(r)(e), theyonns ts upon the.pubhe servant accused to. ^ satisfactorilyaccountfor theassets/sources ofincome,whichwereusedfoi the purchase ofthe assets: inSaJja,^ Singh's case (supra). theSupreme • • rourtreferredtotheearlierdedsion.atnecaseof (snpraj.andhad ^ •observed that the'expression ^..sources of meonre' mnst have, • '.eferencc to the sources Imown to the prosecution on aliorou^ dnv&tigation.ofacaseaudh.eouldnotbecontendedthatsourcesofmcome. • ^ vmeans sources • ^,-. '. • w.p (CR1M1"N'AU>108. 765/2010 &871/2010... TtwascoBtendodonbehalfofVtenteStoghft.tlieCBlWM^^ i... account even,.alary.« paid-to Vironde, SngK fo. app^xi^atcly[5]..-ths.The.e.^iso^edepute abouttl^penodand-^ •, amount of salary, which has not been taken mto account though il is cancededbytheCBIthatsalaxy&rthech,eckperiodforabouti8years.;.e..' 0,[6] n.=nths.has been accounted for.but salary, for,some penod.. approximately[4].monthshashotbeenaccountedfor.It.pointedoutthat.. ^ thetotalsdaryfor this periodwouldbeabout.3.43,800/-.Withregard,ta-^• •some oiicr.receipts and eicpenditure. CBI has.accepted that these canbe: ^, taken into consideradcm. However; -the total amount.on tiis account.- • indudin,salarv-of.3,43,8oo/-is.4,46.240/-. Thereis,asubstantialgap ••between the.-disproportionate assets and the taown sources ofincome as:pe;thc prosecutioh.case of about 2;6.,68,.98/-. 'This explanation now •..iveiVbythenetitioncrVitendcl Singh ofasmallamountoft[4],46.240/->s •merely adrop in the ocean^Itwas.nbmtted onbehalfofthe petitioners, „ -,.thatfhcProsceution.hasnotactedin,afairandiustmanner.ReferCncewas,. made to.decisions of the..Supreme Court mSiat. „ /.., •• ' • ' • r-^ c-r.r -'-q and State i3&rsus Surya • Bhmmi Lai, aaa ^ ^,..Caooa^C.22,,Itisthedutyofthe Stateto conduct free andimpartial investigation. The purposeofinvestigationistofind out '•whetherany offence hasbeen eommitted andisobyiou,slynotto p.un.shor.. • harlssinnocents: In the present ease,.however, allegations of unfair.nd•. nniust investigaSon against dae respendent-CBI do not appear be •.,notified,.^crtheraidwasconducted,itisallegedthatVi^enderSinghhad tuined non-eooperative. He was sent apfofon^ to ' •proformahad requiredVirender Singhto g^efoil details abouthis assete. •• andsources ofincome.dnduding assets purchasedfrom.his mcomebut \,p(CRrvllNAUNOS.765,2010tSliaiO ' 2S ' • ' / '; 9^ p„fo..a.nd orftx.i.Kthesa.dinfor...do..Hetookthepleatha. -. ^de. Axt.de.0(3) oftheCo«stit„t.oB,he was wtxe,.i.ed^»^, •..aoues.o.sa.ds.h..thep.efo..a,It.a,s«dh.^ •, / •^at1h..ettetwas«ittentotheMntSe.eW.Ben.ces,.C^r,B^^.. - „<,tto.thea«.Theplea,shasdes.anddoe..otn.exi:t,aecepta.ee.Thefact •.,.. ofthen.atte..stha^V^^eBder.Singh didnotfihuptheproformaandsendvt. to•the CBI. in these.eircumstances; the CM had to rely upon,the.,...:•,„,o.n.ation eoHec^d ana'gathered fron. vanou. departments.n wh,ch, •. ^ •«S>ngh.asposted.du™s;thed.echpenoa.Itwheal.onoted.... • •thatit.snowsettledbyaeSupremeCouttthatthesanetioningauthorx^or, the prosecution is^not revivedto.ss.e show cause notice to the accused,• • '• • --^rted '(S-'= A3sist€int Coimwdssioner versus •,.^before sanction is giaixLCCl ^. •: • qpp, aor ' •State Anti. Velliaippi TexiiMs iJjnited,...•,. Cor^piio-Bureau.ersu. P. S^^rak^sa^..(2008U4SC<lia). ^ • •'varidus defences r.,sed l^ythe petrdoner-Virender Singh ate a'matter of. • t„aUnd.t tostage.thererssufficientnaarerial and evidence tn^ •,sheet,.and'the documents ffledIn shpport hereof against Ihe petrt>oner^ •, ^ • •- -uiTDUsned order dated. • Some of the aspects have been menuonea.nu...u.-,vi. ^ De^enrber,.00. Itwasnotnecessaryfor'the trial courtto deal «d, each,, •.. \.a.eve^ explanation orthepetaoner.with.regard to Ms ^ -^t th. stage'of frannng of charge as this is a. matter pi expenavLui.e cil aio,.. • e«dence/tri.' and the, explanatidn has to he estahhshed and proved,.,,:. Learned tr.al courthas nrade specie reference to property No. G-8. Ansa •Villa.arrn House: Satban.the.ailegatron is that dais is ahenanr> propers,, • ^ ofVtrendcrSrngh.Papers-t«thregatdtepuredaseoftheproper^.prope.ty.,^ •. etc were recovered fro^ the premrses-ofVirender Srngh a,d Naveen,.w.PfCfllMrNADMOS. 765/2010 &871/2G10 ^ KuHia. somepapersw,re olso recovevedfeo^.locker,whrda,s alleged • was operatedbyHaveen K.n.ar: Itrs allegedthat purchase ofthe proper^.. tlre'.a.e of.a.sa Ram.a.d S,.s was a. eye was. a.dV.render Sirrg. was bearing fl.= expenses -for ma,Bta:Bmg,the property. to K- • Veeraswa-mi Vs. Union of btOia, CblSl)-3^SCj25S. observed: •.. • •. • • • i-]ic view rhM wc have taken &s to ihe; • nat^'omeofenc^^^^«|te • •; not be o-f^ence B'at since tlie legality of, to ingieaieiir oi die O-.enc •; _ - ^^eal' the cbargs-sheet laid great •, wtii ttia'- cooLeiiLiwn i-ic.cannot ' •eniphasis on the expression _... satisfactorily account I'; Wrm means tliat •' • • • •:: ?iff^ • • taure to mention that reqmremert vSu^tiato the charge-shee^^ Ttiis sBbnnssioa, o«c«t. overlooks tire povrers of eolleet / The ln.-stig^^ J^'^:"Xrce alleged. • material lo ana oiu. course of •appears to have bserr ^^^^^^ the investigacion, h- ^ necessary he may ' • may seek his clarified.! ynbvm sources of...,. cross cheok.vrth htm ab^ income ana asseu. P stated hy Mr A.D. investigatioii. requ;^-i,^fe accused •. ' • Giri, learned oohcxLOi should te taken. sho,r!dnotb^K^^Bda«n^.He.^^^^ 11110 COnuaence nh^ ^ material the state that - ' In^esUgsBing0^ "^tr -cconntfor-flje encess,, accused and calUrpoii ann^ of the assets over then decide whetlrei ih., ac„^.-.^ o, not. would be.cleva'airg cae;; - T h e:, the position noi" holding an enquiry • -XnYcstigaiing ^-v.n' public servant or • -g-irst^ tne tsulis regarding, fte determining ihe ^ -Lhe -.• •' \.SSSfStSised.felust collects materiaifrom. W.p (CRIMI^ADMOS. 765/2010 &871/2010 • 30 all sides and prepares areport wtiich lie files in- the,,. ^ coLirt as cliarge-shejL. •. •. /. 76/rhecaarge-sIieSt is notBfegW^^^ •. •. Yf 4nc» officer mder Sectica 173V-2) 01 ti.e C.t-0 •TS!f^A73(2) comi^.oi.. • • ' policie p(fe ' / • ' fco^Sable offence sl«ir ^, • aijpears to^ have been coniuii-iied auu., u.,: hyv£cp-(e) whether the acciised has been ^refcted, •. • -fftwh»fneiheiiadbeenreleased:oiUlis bonda|-a, if. •;5 wSe?«th or wiliiout sureties; and g).70 • ••-• ^:. offence-and-ttene™^^- •.feat^ as-far as 'he is concerriea ^ "' ' •• • The ":•:si=?sass?05i. accsptabie evidence. • •... ' ' •, • -o-f t"h- -^nnre-me Court in State, of. fSec also observations oi th.,.-upi-..-.,:?'"rr:^.e..o.ed V.e.der bad... • -i ^ n.i CO 6q oo'^'/- as.against.total sa^ang of s • acquired•assets worLxi • '.•; ' •• 2 oTT th'^t tVas fig-Qre of s:'65,000/ -is 30,00,000/-- It IS ^pointed cia d.at L.,,.. fe.,. -Veorrea. « be operate.be.earned Trral'C^r. to correct tbe s.d.aritb^cticaVderrcal error: Tbls a^al/derical errot doc, not.ra.e•, •WP(CRIMIMAUNOS. 765/2010 &871/2010 '. • • L'y any, diiferenee to the substantive charge -d the allegations of the; prosecution thatthe accused-Virender Singh is requiredto aecountfor and, ' satisfactorily explaili.assets disproportionate, to the teown sonrees of, income to the extent of 2,62,68,298/-. 33;.Withregardto Naveen Kumar,itis allegedthatheis aestrangedson ofViren-der Singh and was'&ang separately.. It i^further submittedthathe ' was not dependent on.Virender.Singh as per the'ser«ee rxdes and, ^ therefore, his,assets cannot be dubbed.. Navccn.Kumar is the son of. ^ Virender Singh and 4us fact.s not.in dispute. As per.the prosecution, Naveen Kumar v/as born on 4'" December, 1965 (though tms date was •disputed beforeme) butitis admitted"thathewas studyingEngineering.till •.1989,and thereafta- did MBAtill 1992.:He completed IX-B in1996;.As per,the prosecution case, from the locker., which w-as' operated by Virender Singh, documents relating to acquisition of various immovable,properties havebeen recovered. Itisalso ahegedthat lockerNo..1063Allahabad Bank, Behfa Enclave Branch in the name of Ranvijay Singh was operated by., Naveen Kumar. He had forged the signabares of.Ranvijay Smgh,.who had, expired: His allegedthat theforgery has been established as per-the report ^ 'received from the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents. The ciuestionvActherNavceiilCumar.was dependent onVirender Singh for tlie ' ' •,purpose of availing certain henefits under the semce rules is totally, il-relevant for the pfosecution under die,PC Act,1947 or 1988 and.IPG..Ihe, •; charges against Naveen Kumar are thathe had entered-into conspiracy or, •had aided or abetted commission-of various offcnces by Virender Singh.,', These charges stand'on their ovm footing, and have nothing to do witli the questioo. v.Aether or nct.|<Iaveeii Kumar was 'depcndenf oh his-father as • L > •W.P (CRIMINAL) "NOS. 765/2010 &871/2010 per servicc rules of the Government to avail certain benefits or for the purpose of declaration. •, 34,• mview ofthe above, it i.clear that there are s«ffieient grounds tp, frame charges against both the petitioners. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. -. • Observations made above are for the disposal of the present writ petitions and will not be construed as observations on merits binding on the trial court. ' c NOVEMBERZZT^OIO