Jharkhand High Court
Sanjeet Rajan And Sujeet Ranjan vs State Of Jharkhand on 20 June, 2003
Equivalent citations: [2003(3)JCR236(JHR)], 2004 CRI. L. J. 1043, 2004 AIR - JHAR. H. C. R. 474, (2003) 3 JCR 236 (JHA), (2003) 2 EASTCRIC 641, (2006) 3 JLJR 355
Author: Vishnudeo Narayan
Bench: Vishnudeo Narayan
JUDGMENT Vishnudeo Narayan, J.
1.Both the revisions aforesaid have been preferred by the petitioners, namely, Sanjeet Ranjan and Sujeet Ranjan respectively against the impugned order dated 25.1.2003 passed in RC 4(A) of 2000 by Sri S.C. Singh, Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi whereby the petitions separately filed by both the petitioners under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharging them from the said case were rejected.
2. The facts giving rise to these revisions are as follows :
R.C. 4(A) of 2000 was instituted against Dr. Nalini Rajan Prasad Sinha (in short Dr. Sinha) under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on the basis of the FIR cf informant B.C. Mahto, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, A.H.D. Ranchi. It is alleged in the FIR that Dr. Sinha has retired as Manager, Pig Breeding Farm, Hotwar/ Kanke, Ranchi under Animal Husbandry Department, Government of Bihar on 31.1.1995 and by functioning as such as well as in different capacities in the Animal Husbandry Department, Government of Bihar, in different places during the check period between 1.4.1984 and 31.3.1995 amassed huge assets both movable and immovable by corrupt and illegal means which are disproportionate to his known sources of income. It is alleged that Dr. Sinha aforesaid owns immoveable properties in the form of house/plots in his name and also in the name of his family members which were acquired during the said check period at Ranchi, Patna and New Delhi which are worth Rs. 24.02,125.00. It is also alleged that he has acquired huge movable properties in the form of bank deposits, fixed deposits, shares, cash, N.S. Cs, Mutual Fund Deposits besides motor vehicles in his name and in the name of his family members worth Rs. 45,26,310.05 approximately. Thus, the total assets of Dr. Sinha during the aforesaid period has been found to be Rs. 69,28,435.00. The case of the prosecution further is that Dr. Sinha has received income in the form of salary and other emoluments during his service period between April, 1984 and March, 1995 amounting to Rs. 10,48,187.00 approximately and his wife Nirmal Sinha and his two sons, namely, Sanjeet and Sujeet (who are the petitioners here) are also reported earning members of the family and the income of the wife as well as his two sons have been assessed as Rs. 6,58,813.00 and Rs. 7.50,000.00 respectively. Assuming the income to be true a total sum of his income and that of his wife and two sons during the check period comes to Rs. 24,57,000.00. It is also alleged that these disproportionate assets acquired by Dr. Sinha during the check period after deducting his and his wife's and two sons income from salary as well as other sources come to Rs. 44,71,435.00 even without considering expenditure on household and other items. Further case of the prosecution is that the standard of living of Dr. Sinha and his family members are very high and lavish and many of his family members were dependant on him and Dr. Sinha had incurred huge expenditure on his maintenance and that of his family members, education of children and their marriage and other day-to-day household items which is to the tune of Rs. 45,80.000.00 and, thus, the total disproportionate assets acquired and expenditure made during the check period by Dr. Sinha after deducting his total income from salary as well as from other sources comes to Rs. 90,51,435.05 which is not likely to be satisfactorily accounted for. In course of investigation it transpired that the wife and two sons of Dr. Sinha held a substantial portion of assets in their names in the commission of the offence of criminal mis-conduct by Dr. Sinha as per annexure-B of the charge sheet under Section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Act and they did not have any adequate independent income of their own and charge sheet under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act has been submitted against Dr. Sinha whereas both the petitioners were prosecuted for the offence under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Act.
Annexure-B of the charge sheet gives the summary of the moveable assets held by petitioner Sujeet Ranjan which is quoted below :
Sl. No. Description Amount (in Rs.)
1. Bank Balance at the clo- sing of the check period 1.34.077.85
2. Investments made in shares mutual funds enquiry bonds etc. 45.400.00
3. Investments made In UTI MEP 94 5,000.00
4. Investments made in UTI Master Plus 10,000.00
5. Investments made in ULIP 30,000.00
6. Investments made in US-64 3.996.00
7. Investments made in SB! Magnum multiplier plus 10,000.00
8. Investments made In SBI Equity Shares 5,000.00
9. Investments made in Gold Bond 1993 16.34.670.00
10. Ivestments In PNB RD Account Rs. 8.500.00 8,500.00 Total 18,86,643.85 The summary of moveable assets held by petitioner Sanjeet Ranjan is quoted below :
Sl. No. Description Amount (in Rs.)
1.
Bank Balance at the closing of the check period 2,23,384.85
2. Investments made in UTI MEP 94 5.000.00
3. Investments made in ULIP 30,000.00
4. Investments made in SBI Magnum multiplier plus 10,000.00 Total 2,68,384.85 The entire immovable and movable assets held by Dr. Sinha and his family members in their names at the end of the check period found in the course of investigation is quoted below :
Sl. No. Name Imovable assets (in Rs.) Bank Balance (in Rs.) Other movable assets (in Rs.) Value of gold bonds (in Rs.) Total (in Hs.)
1. Dr. NRP Sinha 17.17,014.25 1.65.336.69 6.33,686.00 0.00 25,16,036.94
2. Nirnial Sinha 2.88.930.00 41.373.00 1.02.216.00 0.00 4,32,519.00
3. Sujeet Ranjan 0.00 1,34.077.85 1,17.896.00 16.34,670.00 18,86,643.85
4. Sanjeet Ranjan 0.00 2,23.384.85 45.000.00 0.00 2,68.384.85 Grand Total 20,05,944.25 5,64,172.39 8,98,798.00 16,34,670.00 51,03,584.64
3. The learned Court below appears to have meticulously considered the materials on the record and relying upon the ratio of the case of P. Nallammal v. State, 1999 SCC (Cri) 1133, found sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioners presuming that the petitioners have committed the offence and rejected the petitions of the petitioners and ordered to frame charge against them.
4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner Sanjeet Ranjan that the learned Court below has not considered the materials on the record in proper prospective and has erred in coming to the finding that there is sufficient materials on the record to make out a prima facie case against this petitioner under Section 109 IPC read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Act. It has been submitted that after graduating in the year 1986 this petitioner was working as an agent of Post Office and used to earn commission on N.S.C. and K.V.P. and has also part, time job as Area Sales Representative in M/s Agrovate Sales and Service and used to earn Rs. 18,000.00 per annum from M/s Agrovate Sales and Service and the CBI has admitted and stated in the charge sheet that this petitioner had an income of Rs. 55,535.00 as commission from G.P.O.. Ranchi during the check period. It has also been contended that this petitioner is an income tax assessee from the accounting year 1984-85 and he has submitted his income tax return which was accepted by the income tax authorities and he had an income of Rs. 1,22,420.00 from the year 1984-85 to 1991 from his business and salary and during the check period according to the income tax returns the petitioner had an income of Rs. 3,30,000.00 on which income tax was paid by him. Elucidating further it has been said that the income tax returns are authentic documents and it cannot be said that they were prepared in anticipation that the petitioner would have to face such charges later on in the year 2002. It has also been contended that if the facts emerging from the income tax returns are taken on their face value it cannot be said that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. It has also been contended that during the check period the income of this petitioner comes to Rs. 4,73,940.00 being the income reflected in his income tax returns as also the salary and perks received which is more than adequate to explain the closing balance in Bank and the assets set out in the charge sheet and, therefore, it cannot be said that the assets of this petitioner has been handed over to him by his father co-accused Dr. Sinha and as such no case under Section 109 IPC is made out against him.
5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner Sujeet Ranjan that the learned Court below did not meticulously consider the materials on the record and has gravely erred in coming to the finding that there is sufficient materials on the record for proceeding against this petitioner and that a prima facie case is made cut against him under Section 109 IPC read with Section 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Act. It has been submitted that this petitioner was economically independent as he was earning since 1984-85 and he joined service in the year 1992 with M/s Care International and prior to that while he was under graduate student he was working as a commission agent and earned commission and thereafter having obtained graduation degree in 1984-86 he has worked as Sales Representative for M/s Agrovate Sales and Service from 1989-90 to 91-92 and thereafter in the early part of 1992 he has joined M/s Care International Relief & Development Organization. It has also been submitted that in between 1984-85 to 1991-92 i.e. prior to.joining M/s Care International this petitioner had an income of Rs. 1,52,210.00 from business, salary and interest and had paid income tax of Rs. 1,609.00 and after joining M/s Care International he had an income of Rs. 2,81,110.00 and had paid income tax of Rs. 4,417.00 and he is filing income tax returns since the accounting year 1984-85 and a!l the investment made by him is from his own earning and the income tax return filed by him since 1984-85 have been accepted by the income tax authorities and the CBI has not properly appreciated the income tax returns and has wrongly submitted charge sheet against him. It has also been submitted that in between 1984-85 to 1991-92 the petitioner had shown his income amounting to Rs 1,52,210.00 from business, salary and interest and after joining M/s Care International the petitioner had shown an income of Rs. 2,81,110.00 as per his income tax returns and the income tax returns filed by the petitioner are authentic documents and it cannot be said that those income tax returns have been prepared in anticipation that in future the petitioner may face any criminal charge. It has also, been submitted that after joining M/s Care International he had opened bank accounts with PNB, Ar-gora, Ranchi and SBI, Jamshedpur and prior to that he has an account in Central Bank, Ranchi in which he has deposited his savings from business and part time salary and it is manifest from the said facts that the income occurring to the petitioner during the check period stands at Rs. 4,51,820.00 being the income reflected in his income tax returns as also the salary and perks received which is more than adequate to explain the closing balance of Rs 2,51,173.00 in the banks and moveable assets as set out in the charge sheet. It has also been submitted that there is no material at all on the record to show that the self-earned property of the petitioner was purchased from the money of his father Dr. Sinha. It has further been submitted that the Government of India has promulgated an ordinance in the year, 1993 known as Gold Bond (Immunities and Exemption) Ordinance, 1993 to mobilize the idle golds from the residents of India and the gold ornaments of his mother was invested in the said Gold Bond Scheme and the said gold is the stridhan property of his mother which she has received as gift at the time of her marriage in the year 1963 and the Gold Bonds are in the name of his mother as well as co-accused Sanjeet Ranjan and also in his name jointly with his mother and the CBI has wrongly included the said Gold Bond as his assets and moreover there are immunities under the Ordinance in respect of the Gold Bonds and, therefore, no charge can be framed for the offence of abetment against this petitioner in respect thereof and mere lending of his name in the joint account with his mother in respect of the Gold Bonds can never amount to an act of aiding and abetting Dr. Sinha either under Section 109 IPC or any other law much less with knowledge that they were acquired as alleged from ill gotten money. It has also been submitted that there is no material at all on the record that this petitioner had ever prevailed upon his father to misuse or abuse his office to amass money or assured his father to help him in accounting for the same. Lastly, It has been contended that the income shown by this petitioner in the income tax returns since 1984-85 if properly construed, no offence at all is made out against this petitioner and miscarriage of justice has been caused in this case by proceeding against him without any material at all on the record. In support of his contention reliance has been placed upon the case of State of M.P. v. Mohan Lal Soni, 2000 (6) SCC 338 : 2000 (3) East Cr C 945 (SC), in which it has been held by the Apex Court that in the normal course the documents in question in present case could not have been prepared in anticipation that the respondent would have to face such charges on a future date. The documents being the orders of assessment or returns filed with the income tax authorities on their face value supported the case of the respondent. There was no bar to consider the material on record in the case on hand, which was collected during the course of investigation and produced before the Court.
6. Refuting the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners it has been submitted by the learned Spl. APP that in this case charge sheet has been submitted against Dr. N.R.P. Sinha under Section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Act, 1988 and also against his wife Nirmal Sinha and his two sons, who are the petitioners in this case, for the offence under Section 109, IPC read with Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Act as it has been revealed in the investigation that a substantial portion of assets disproportionate to the known sources of income of Dr. Sinha were found in possession of his wife and these two petitioners and those assets are disproportionate to the known sources of income of both the petitioners as both the petitioners did not have any adequate independent income of their own during the check period for the acquisition of their assets found with them. It has been contended that petitioner Sujeet Ranjan was born on 5.3.1967 and in the year 1984-85 he was a mere student and he was having no source of income and thus his statement that he was an earning hand from the year 1984-85 is absolutely false and incorrect and only with a view to make his father's ill gotten money to a white money he had started filing his income tax return from the year 1984-85 itself. It has also been submitted that this petitioner claims to be working as Sales Representative of M/s Agrovate Sales and Service from 1st April, 1990 and he was getting salary of Rs. 1.500.00 per month as per the certificate dated 8.4.1991 produced by him and thereafter he produced another certificate dated 2.4.1999 of the said Company which shows that he was Sales Representative in the said Company from 1.4.1989 on the monthly salary of Rs. 1,500.00 and both the certificate aforesaid are in conflict with each other regarding the period of this petitioner employed in the said M/s Agrovate Sales and Service on the monthly salary of Rs. 1,500.00 and therefore both the certificates are fictious and have been manufactured only for the purpose of meeting explanation and thereafter this petitioner joined M/s Care India as Field Officer on 2.9.1992 and he received up to the date of settlement an amount of Rs. 1,24,199.00 only and that itself goes to prove that income tax return filed by this petitioner is incorrect and without any basis and has been made only to meet the explanation which goes to show that this petitioner was abetting the prime accused of this case i.e., Dr. Sinha. It has further been contended that this petitioner was admittedly a student in the year 1984-85 and he was not having any source of income but in order to make white money of his father's ill gotten wealth he started filing his income tax return from the year 1984-85 itself and the entire investment shown by this petitioner in his return is fictious and he had created assets from the ill gotten money of his father only with a view to help him out from the acquisition of disproportionate income. It has further been contended that this petitioner did his graduation in the year 1986-87 and thereafter has obtained Post Graduate Degree in Rural Management from XISS, Ranchi during 1991-93 session and thereafter he had joined M/s Care International on 2.9.1992 and therefore there is no question regarding him earning money from the year 1984-85. It has also been submitted that Gold Bonds stand in the name of both the petitioners along with their mother and it is true that there is certain immunities with the Gold Bond as per the provisions of the Ordinance but Section 4(2) of the said Ordinance is very specific and it provides that nothing in Sub-section (1) shall apply in relation to prosecution for any offence punishable under the P.C. Act, 1988 and therefore the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the said Gold Bonds has been wrongly taken into consideration showing the disproportionate income of the petitioners is incorrect and devoid of any substance and furthermore, whether the gold covered under the Gold Bond aforesaid is stridhan property of the mother of the petitioners is a question of fact which can be determined only on the basis of the evidence on the record.
7. Refuting the contention made on behalf of petitioner Sanjeet Ranjan it has been submitted that this petitioner was born on 6.6.1968 and in the accounting year 1984-85 he was a lad of 16 years only and a minor and he was a mere student in the year 1984-85 and he was having no source of income and thus the contention in respect of him that he was an earning hand from the year 1984 is absolutely false and incorrect and only with a view to make his father's ill gotten black money to a white money he has started filing his income tax return from the year 1984-85 itself. This petitioner did his graduation in the year 1987-88 and thereafter obtained M.B.A. Degree from B.I.T., Mesra, Ranchi during 1996-98. It has also been submitted that he has shown a sum of Rs. 1,13,598.00 in his income tax return as income from commission received from G.P.O., Ranchi and this is an inflated figure whereas he has only received Rs. 53,435.00 as commission for working as an agent from G.P.O., Ranchi during the check period. In this connection statement of Ramashish Choudhary, Postal Assistant in the S.B. Department of G.P.O., Ranchi has been referred to in which he has stated that Sanjeet Ranjan is an agent having Agency Code No. 50 of 1990-91 and he has received Rs. 3,940.00, Rs. 5,405.00, Rs. 29,440.00 and Rs. 14,650.00, total being Rs. 53,435.00 as commission for working as such for the financial year 1991 -92, 92-93, 93-94 and 94-95 respectively whereas in his return he has wrongly shown inflated figure as Rs. 1,34,595,00 to have received by him as commission from the G.P.O. and in this view of the matter the income tax return of this petitioner is a fraudulent document. It has also been submitted that this petitioner started working as agent since 1990-91 and this clearly rules out that he has any income prior to that and he has wrongly set up to be working with M/s Agrovet Sales and Services on a monthly income of Rs. 1,500.00 only as well as earning from tuition and earning commission of supply of building materials for which there is no document produced by him in course of investigation and, as such, the income tax returns filed by him since 1984-85 is a fraudulent document only to make which money of his father's ill gotten money. Lastly it has been contended that the learned Court below has meticulously considered the materials on the record for coming to the finding that a primafacie case is made out against both the petitioners for proceeding against them in this case. In support of his contention reliance has been placed upon the case of State v. S. Bangarappa, 2001 SCC (Cri) 152 and P. Nallmmal v. State, 1999 SCC (Cri) 1133.
8. It is pertinent to mention at the very outset that Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 mandates that a Special Judge may take cognizance of an offence without the accused being committed to him for trial and in trying the accused, shall follow the procedure prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the trial of warrant cases by the Magistrate. Chapter XIX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with the trial of warrant cases by Magistrate and Part A of Chapter XIX aforesaid relates with the cases instituted on a police report. Section 239 of the Cr. PC is relevant and it mandates that if upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing. Section 240 of the Cr. PC deals With the framing of charge against the accused which provides that if upon such consideration, examination, if any, and hearing, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under this Chapter which such Magistrate is competent to try and which, in his opinion, could be adequately punished by him, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused. It appears from Sections 239 and 240, Cr PC taken together that upon consideration of the charge sheet and the documents sent with it under Section 173 Cr. PC, the Magistrate is empowered to discharge the accused when the charge against the accused appears to be groundless and if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence the Magistrate shall frame the charge against the accused. Section 227 falls in Chapter XVIII of the Cr PC which relates to trial before a Court of Session which mandates that if the Judge upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing. Here in this case both the petitioners have filed the petitions for discharge under Section 227 of the Cr. PC and the learned Special Judge upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith under Section 173 of the Cr PC along with the charge sheet found sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioners and a prima facie case having been made out against them, their petition for discharge was rejected. The Apex Court in the case of State v. Bangarappa (supra) has observed thus : "At the stage of framing charge the Court should not enter upon a process of evaluating the evidence by deciding its worth or credibility. The limited exercise during that stage is to find out whether the materials offered by the prosecution to be adduced as evidence is sufficient for the Court to proceed further. No doubt the prosecution has to establish that the pecuniary assets acquired by the public servant are disproportionately larger than his known sources of income and then it is for the public servant to account for such excess. The offence becomes complete on the failure of the public servant to account for or explain such excess. It does not mean that the Court could not frame charge until the public servant fails to explain the excess or surplus pointed out to be the wealth or assets of the public servant concerned. This exercise can be completed only in the trial. In the present case the materials which the prosecution enumerated are sufficient to frame the charge for the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Act". Both the petitioners here in this case are the sons of the principal accused Dr. Sinha and they are non-public servants. According to the prosecution case total disproportionate assets acquired by Dr. Sinha during the check period i.e. 1.4.1984 to 31.3.1995 is to the extent of Rs. 90,51,435.05 and he has acquired pecuniary resources and properties in the name of both the petitioners besides his wife to the extent of Rs. 51,03,584.00 knowing or having reason to believe that those assets were acquired by him beyond his known sources of income although most of the assets were reflected in the income tax return filed by the petitioners besides the wife of Dr. Sinha during the period of check aforesaid in order to aid and enable him to account for his unexplained pecuniary resources invested on acquisition of aforesaid assets and both the petitioners in view of the materials on the record were charge sheeted for the offence under Section 109, IPC read with Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Act. In the case of P. Nallammal (supra) a question arose before the Apex Court as to whether a non-public servant is liable to be prosecuted along with public servant for the offence under Section 109, IPC and with Section 13(1)(e) of the Act. Considering the pros and cons of the matter it was observed by the Apex Court in para 10 of the said judgment that Section 3(1)(b) encompasses the offences committed in conspiracy with others or by abetment of "any of the offences" punishable under the PC Act. If such conspiracy or abetment of "any of the offences" punishable under the PC Act can be tried "only" by the Special Judge, it is inconceivable that the abettor or the conspirator can be delinked from the delinquent public servant for the purpose of trial of the offence.
If a non-public servant is also a member of the criminal conspiracy for a public servant to commit any offence under the PC Act, or if such non-public servant has abetted any of the offences which the public servant commits, such non-public servant is also liable to be tried along with the public servant before the Court of a Special Judge having jurisdiction in the matter." The Apex Court further observed in para 12 of the said judgment that " It is true that Section 11 deals with a case of abetment of offences defined under Section 8 and Section 9, and it is also true that Section 12 specifically deals with the case of abetment of offences under Section 7 and 11. But that is no ground to hold that the PC Act does not contemplate abetment of any of the offences specified in Section 13 of the PC Act." Therefore, it has been settled by the ratio of the said case that a non-public servant abetting the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act are liable to be proceeded under Section 109 of the IPC. Petitioner, Sujeet Ranjan was born on 5.3.1967 and the date of birth of petitioner, Sanjeet Ranjan is 6.6.1968 and admittedly they were students prosecuting their studies in the year 1984-85 and thereafter. The materials on the record show that petitioner Sanjeet Ranjan worked as an agent under the National Savings Scheme as per his Agency No. 51 of 1990-91 from which as per the documents on the record he has got lawful income as commission amounting to Rs. 53.435.00. There is also no tangible material to show that he has any other lawful source of income. During the check period it was found that he has an asset of Rs. 2.68 lakhs. Petitioner Sujeet Ranjan as per the documents on the record appears to have Rs 1,24.156.00 from known sources during the check period whereas he has found to have an asset amount to Rs. 18.86,000.00 which includes therein Gold Bond worth Rs. 16,34,000.00. Petitioner Sujeet Ranjan has joined M/s Care International on 2nd September, 1992 and prior to that he claims to have worked as Sales Representative in M/s Agrovate Sales and Service from 1st April, 1990 and later on he claims to work as such from 1st April, 1989 on monthly salary of Rs. 1,500.00. This conflicting stands of petitioner Sujeet Ranjan can well be decided on the basis of the evidence and not at this stage. Both the petitioners prima facie do not appear to have any independent source of income during the early part of the check period as they were student prosecuting their studies. There is nothing on the record to give an inkling of the fact that petitioner Sujeet Ranjan had any income either from tuition or getting commission on the sale of building materials. They are filing their income tax returns since the accounting year 1984-85 but definitely as per the materials on the record they do not appear to have any independent known sources of income. A pertinent question arises at this stage as to what compelled them to file the income tax returns showing their independent income since the account year 1984-85 when they were students prosecuting studies. The answer to their question does not stand shrouded in mystery. The contention of the petitioners is that the CBI has not properly construed and considered the income tax returns filed by them since 1984-85 continuously which from the face of it clearly indicate that the assets with both the petitioners are properly explained and it cannot be said that those income tax returns were brought into existence in anticipation of a case which shall take place against them in future. It is relevant to mention here that as per the statement of prosecution witness Ramashis Choudhary petitioner Sanjeet has only a lawful income of Rs. 53,435.00 and that too after the year 1990. Petitioner Sujeet Ranjan has a lawful income from the year 1992 when he joined M/s Care International. The materials collected in course of investigation further show that petitioner Sanjeet Ranjan has given inflated figure in his income tax returns regarding his income for working as an agent under Agency Code No. 51 of 1990-91. Therefore, the income tax returns though accepted by the income tax authorities have no relevancy at all in this case at this stage. Therefore, the learned Court below has rightly not acted upon those income tax returns. The ratio of the case of State of M.P. (supra) has therefore, no application in this case to support or promote the case of the petitioners. The materials on the record give an inkling of the fact that income of the principal accused i.e., Dr. Sinha got from the unlawful sources has definitely been shown in the income tax returns of both the petitioners only for the purpose of creating some explanation and accounting for the disproportionate income of the principal accused. There is no illegality in taking into consideration of the Gold Bonds worth Rs. 16,34,000.00 in calculating the disproportionate income of the petitioner Sujeet Ranjan for proceeding against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in view of Section 4(2) of the Gold Bond Ordinance, 1993. Therefore, there is sufficient material for proceeding against both the petitioners in abetting the principal accused Dr. Sinha for the purpose of accounting for his disproportionate income beyond known sources and, as such, a prima facie case is definitely made out against both the petitioners. Furthermore, in view of the materials on the record it cannot be said that the charge against both the petitioners is groundless. Therefore, I see no illegality in the impugned order of the learned Special Judge requiring an interference therein.
9. There is no merit in both the revision petitions which are hereby dismissed.