Punjab-Haryana High Court
Om Parkash Soni vs State Of Punjab on 13 October, 2023
Author: Vikas Bahl
Bench: Vikas Bahl
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:133952
CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 1 2023:PHHC:133952
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
***
CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M)
Date of decision : 13.10.2023
Om Parkash Soni
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr. R.S.Rai, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Isha Goyal, Advocate,
Mr. R.P. Saini, Advocate,
Ms. Shivani Saini, Advocate,
Mr. Faraz Kohli, Advocate, and
Mr. Anurag Arora, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.Ferry Sofat, Addl.A.G. Punjab.
VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)
1. This is the first petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR no.20 dated 09.07.2023 registered under Sections 13(1)(b) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Range Amritsar, District Amritsar. FACTUAL BACKGROUND:-
2. Brief facts of the case are that FIR No.20 dated 09.07.2023 (Annexure P-1) was registered on the complaint of Varender Singh Sandhu, PPS under Section 13 (1)(b) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 as amended by the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act 2018, against the present petitioner on the allegations that upon investigation of Vigilance Enquiry no. 8 dated 10.10.2022 against 1 of 37 ::: Downloaded on - 18-10-2023 21:55:38 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:133952 CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 2 2023:PHHC:133952 the petitioner, who was the former Deputy Chief Minister of Punjab, it was found that the income of the petitioner, his wife-Suman Soni and son- Raghav Soni for the check period starting from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2022 was assessed as Rs. 4,52,18,771/- and the expenditure of the petitioner during the said period was assessed as Rs.12,48,42,692/- and thus, the present petitioner had spent an amount of Rs. 7,96,23,921/- more than his known sources of income and the same was found to be 176.8% of his income. The case was registered against the petitioner and it was stated in the said FIR that the role of the wife of the petitioner and his son would be considered during the course of investigation. The petitioner was arrested on 09.07.2023. The challan/ final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. had been prepared on 29.08.2023 and presented in the Court on 31.08.2023. As per the challan/report under Section 173 Cr.P.C, which has been annexed as Annexure P-3 along with the present petition, the details of the income of the petitioner, his wife and son for the check period from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2022, under the heading "income chart" and the total amount of income of the petitioner, his wife and his son has been stated to be Rs.4,82,87,517/- The total expenditure incurred by the petitioner, his wife and his son for the said check period has also been detailed in the "expenditure chart" given in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and as per the said "expenditure chart", the total amount of expenditure comes to Rs.14,91,86,253/- and thus, as per the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., the petitioner had spent an amount of Rs.10,08,98,735.78/- more than his income (208.95% more than the income). The petitioner had applied for the concession of regular bail before the Court of Additional Session Judge, Fast Track Court, Amritsar on 12.09.2023 and the same was dismissed by the said Court vide order dated 21.09.2023 and thereafter the present 2 of 37 ::: Downloaded on - 18-10-2023 21:55:39 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:133952 CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 3 2023:PHHC:133952 petition has been filed.
ARGUMENTS OF LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER:-
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was arrested by the Vigilance Bureau on 09.07.2023 and the investigation in the present case is over and the challan/final report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. was prepared on 29.08.2023 and has been presented in the Court on 31.08.2023. It is further submitted that the entire case is based on documentary evidence and the said documents are already in the custody of the Investigating Agency and that the witnesses sought to be produced in the present case are primarily Government officials/bank officials/Chartered Accountant. It is contended that there are 49 prosecution witnesses and since, the charges have not been framed as yet thus, the conclusion of trial is likely to take time.
4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further pointed out that in the present case, a preliminary inquiry by the Vigilance Bureau was initiated against the petitioner vide Vigilance Enquiry No.8 dated 10.10.2022 and in the said vigilance inquiry, the petitioner had duly cooperated continuously for a period of eight months and the petitioner had appeared before the Investigating Officer as and when he was called and had provided the documents which were sought from him and had thus, fully cooperated with the Investigating Agency. It is stated that the petitioner is 66 years of age (wrongly mentioned as 64 in para 10 of the petition) and has several medical ailments and a pace maker was implanted in his body in the year 2019 as he was diagnosed with Cerebrovascular accident (CVA) (Stroke/paralysis) and thereafter, even in the year 2021, another pace maker was implanted in the body of the petitioner and all the 3 of 37 ::: Downloaded on - 18-10-2023 21:55:39 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:133952 CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 4 2023:PHHC:133952 surgeries of the petitioner were performed at Lilawati Hospital, Mumbai. It is also argued that the petitioner is also suffering from Diabetes Mellitus, Hypothyroidism and Hypertension on account of which he is required to take 25 tablets every day. It is argued that the ill health of the petitioner is further apparent from the fact that on 10.07.2023, when the petitioner was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar and was remanded to custody, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar was pleased to direct the Superintendent, Central Jail, Amritsar to provide medical assistance as per the Jail Rules and thereafter, as per the direction of the Jail Superintendent, the petitioner was kept in Jail Hospital under medical supervision and was subsequently, shifted to Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar on account of his deteriorating health and that recently, a Medical Board was constituted on 14.09.2023 and the said Medical Board was of the view that the petitioner needs placement of a third pacemaker in the left ventricle with CTVS backup. On the basis of the said report, the Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar had referred the petitioner to PGI Chandigarh for further management and in support of the same, reference has been made to the documents annexed as Annexure P-7 (at Page 171 of the paper book). It is argued that while being taken to PGI Chandigarh, the health of the petitioner deteriorated and thus he was taken back to Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar where he is presently admitted. Reference has also been made to the documents (Annexure P-6 and P-7) with respect to the medical condition of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other case and reference has been made to page 60 of the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. to show that even as per the said report, the petitioner has deep roots in society as he was Mayor of Municipal Corporation, Amritsar from the year 1991 to 1996 and thereafter, remained 4 of 37 ::: Downloaded on - 18-10-2023 21:55:39 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:133952 CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 5 2023:PHHC:133952 as MLA from the Vidhan Sabha, Halqa Amritsar (West) for the period commencing from 1997 to 2002, 2002 to 2007, 2007 to 2012 and MLA from Vidhan Sabha, Halqa Amritsar (Central) for the period 2012 to 2017, 2017 to 2022 and further remained as Cabinet Minister, Punjab from April 2018 to September 2021 and from September 2021 to March 2022 served as Deputy Chief Minister, Punjab and thus, the question of the petitioner fleeing from the country would not arise.
5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that several items of expenditure which have neither been incurred by the petitioner nor by his son or his wife, have been wrongly included in the expenditure incurred by the petitioner, his wife and his son and on the said account, an amount of Rs.6,19,83,751/- has been wrongly added under the heading of expenditure and reference in this regard has been made to a detailed chart which has been reproduced in para 17 (page 18) of the petition and by making reference to the said detailed chart, it has been argued that the expenditure which has been wrongly included by the Investigating Agency is proved from the documents which have been annexed along with the present petition and specific reference of the same has been made in the said chart which contains 13 points highlighting the expenditure which has been wrongly included by the Investigating Agency. It is pointed out that in the expenditure chart, which has been reproduced in paragraph 17, 4 mistakes have occurred inasmuch as under point No.3, the amount under the heading "Amount of Variation" has been wrongly mentioned as Rs.3,98,317/- whereas the same should have been Rs.2,98,737/- and under point No.8, in the fourth column, instead of an amount of Rs.30,00,000/-, same is required to be mentioned as Rs.1,16,04,268/- although the amount which is sought to be deducted has 5 of 37 ::: Downloaded on - 18-10-2023 21:55:39 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:133952 CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 6 2023:PHHC:133952 been correctly mentioned and the benefit of Rs.41,852/- being claimed under point No.10 is not being claimed. It is also submitted that on account of the above, total amount has been wrongly stated to be Rs.6,21,25,183/- whereas the same should be Rs.6,19,83,751/- The corrected chart is handed over to the Court and the same is taken on record as Mark "B" and a copy of the same has been given to the learned State counsel. It has also been pointed out by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that point Nos.15 to 19 have not been properly stated in the income chart and the same have been stated properly in the Chart Mark 'B' and for the purposes of arguments on behalf of the petitioner, point Nos.15 to 19 be taken into consideration from Mark 'B' and the amount of benefit claimed under point No.1 in the income chart be read as Rs.63,81,925/- (Mark 'B') and not Rs.65,31,925/- (as in para 16 of the petition) and the total income received be taken as Rs.4,57,28,135/- (Mark 'B') instead of Rs.4,59,88,135/- (as per para 16 of the petition).
6. With respect to point No.1 of the above expenditure chart, it is argued that in the column of the amount deposited on completion of the check period by the petitioner in the Punjab National Bank, Amritsar, has been shown to be Rs.1,90,711/-, as per the challan whereas the said figure is Rs.1,26,744/- and in support of the same, bank statement has been annexed as Annexure P-54 and thus, an amount of Rs.63,967/- deserves to be deducted from the total expenditure. With respect to point No.2 of the expenditure chart, it has been argued that regarding the sale deed dated 12.06.2019 for buying plot measuring 11 kanals 11 marlas and 3 sarsai at village Sichander, District Amritsar, no amount has been paid by the petitioner and the payment has been made by Shyam Soni and Vikas Soni and yet, as per the challan, the payments of Rs.53,61,100/- and 6 of 37 ::: Downloaded on - 18-10-2023 21:55:39 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:133952 CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 7 2023:PHHC:133952 Rs.80,41,650/- have been shown to be the expenditure incurred by the petitioner. It is stated that the fact that Shyam Soni and Vikas Soni had paid the entire amount is apparent from a conjoint reading of Annexures P-55 to P-58 in which reference has been made to the cheques/bank statements and property documents.
7. With respect to point No.3, it is submitted that an amount of Rs.2,98,737/- has been included in the expenditure of the petitioner and his son although, the entire sum was paid by the nephew of the petitioner from his known sources of income and for proving the same, reference has been made to bank statements (Annexure P-59)
8. With respect to point No.4 it is submitted that the amount of Rs.4,29,18,213/- has been taken to be the expenses incurred by the petitioner and his son for the construction of the bungalow situated at D.R. Enclave, Village Heir Ajnala Road, Amritsar. It is argued that as is apparent from Annexure P-61 (at page 524 of the paper book) and also the documents (Annexures P-60 and P-62), the entire expenditure up to 31.03.2022 which is the last date of the check period, on the construction of the said house was Rs.2,24,67,896/- and the rest of the amount has been spent after the said check period and thus, the rest of the amount stated to be expenditure on the construction has been wrongly included in the expenditure for the check period. It is argued that another mistake has been committed by the Investigating Agency in arriving at the figure of Rs.4,29,18,213/- inasmuch as the petitioner and his son have incurred an expense of only Rs.1,02,53,163/- during the check period as expense for the construction of the said house and the remaining expenses have been incurred by Vikas Soni and Shyam Soni and Ashok Soni and reference in this regard is made to Annexures P-60 to P-62. It is further submitted that 7 of 37 ::: Downloaded on - 18-10-2023 21:55:39 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:133952 CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 8 2023:PHHC:133952 the said argument stands fortified from the fact that even the valuation which has been relied upon by the State in the present case is dated 01.02.2023 which is after a period of more than 10 months after the last date of the check period i.e., 31.03.2022 and thus, excessive amount of Rs.3,26,65,050/- has been shown as expense of the petitioner and his son which deserves to be excluded. Under points 7, 8 & 9, it is argued that an amount of Rs.15,37,568/-, Rs.58,02,134/- and Rs.38,52,737/- respectively have been wrongly shown to be the expenditure incurred by Raghav Soni, son of the petitioner on CLU, construction of Hotel and buying furniture for the said hotel situated at 368-A, Tung Bala, Urban Green Avenue, Amritsar as the said premises have been leased out to M/s Golden Alliance Hospitality Private Limited vide registered lease deed dated 01.02.2021 (Annexure P-63) and as per the terms of the said lease deed, the entire expenditure of CLU, Map Approval, costs of construction etc. was to be incurred by the said lessee company and thus, the amounts under the three points deserve to be excluded.
9. Under point No.11, it is submitted that the amount deposited as tax by Suman Soni wife of the petitioner has been wrongly calculated and an amount of Rs.1,71,000/- has been counted in excess and for the said purpose, reliance has been placed upon Annexure P-71. It is further argued that under points 12 & 13, it is stated that excess expenditure of an amount of Rs.18,51,918/- and Rs.23,37,890/- respectively, has been calculated by the Investigating Agency with respect to Vidhan Sabha Elections, 2017 and 2022 respectively as in the same, the amount of donation received by the petitioner, which fact has been duly verified and approved by the Election Commission of India, has not been taken into consideration and for the said purpose, reference has been made to Annexures P-72 to P-77. It is 8 of 37 ::: Downloaded on - 18-10-2023 21:55:39 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:133952 CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 9 2023:PHHC:133952 submitted that the said amount also deserves to be excluded.
10. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further highlighted that there are several items of income which were duly earned by the petitioner, his son and his wife which have been illegally excluded or have not been taken into consideration by the Investigating Agency and the detailed chart (Mark 'B') showing that an income of Rs.4,57,28,135/- which should have been taken into consideration by the Investigating Agency, has not been taken into account by the Investigating Agency. In the said chart, 20 points have been highlighted showing various amounts of income stated to have been earned by the petitioner, his son and his wife during the 'check period' which have not been taken into consideration by the Investigating Agency and in support of the same, documents including bank statement, Income Tax Returns, copy of ledger account, Form-26AS, GST Registration Certificate etc. have been annexed to prove the said points.
11. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that with respect to point No.1 of the Income Chart, total amount which has been credited to the account of the petitioner on account of salary and allowance received from the Punjab Government Treasury for the 'check period' which includes taxable as well as tax free allowances is Rs.1,24,46,718/- whereas the Investigating Agency has only taken into consideration two amounts of Rs.20,62,053/- and Rs.40,02,740/- being salary received as MLA and Minister respectively and thus, an amount of Rs.63,81,925/- has been wrongly excluded, as Investigating Agency has only taken into consideration the salary figure without matching the same with the statements reflected in the bank accounts which were made available by the petitioner and the respective banks to the Investigating Agency. Reliance has been placed upon Annexures P-8 to P-14 in support 9 of 37 ::: Downloaded on - 18-10-2023 21:55:39 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:133952 CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 10 2023:PHHC:133952 of the said arguments.
12. With respect to point No.3, it is argued that an amount of Rs.16,29,080/- has wrongly not been taken into consideration with respect to the amount received back from Dream Technical Company by Raghav Soni son of the petitioner inasmuch as only an amount of Rs.99,66,755/- have been credited into the said account instead of total amount of Rs.1,15,95,835/- (Rs.77,95,835/- + Rs.38,00,000/-) which facts are apparent from Annexures P-15 to P-22.
13. Under Point No.4, it is argued that an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- has wrongly not been taken into consideration although, the said amount was duly received by the petitioner as advance from M/s Soni Brothers Agricultural Commission Agents, during the check period through proper banking channel and was duly accounted for in the books of accounts and in support of the said entry, bank statement (Annexure P-23) and a copy of the ledger account (Annexure P-24) has been referred to by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that under points No.5 and 6, an amount of Rs.43,66,000/- and Rs.14,50,000/- have wrongly not been taken into consideration by the Investigating Agency as the said amounts were received as gifts/friendly unsecured loans by the petitioner and the same were given through proper banking channels and were duly paid out of the declared sources of income of the persons who had given the gifts and with respect to the same, reference has been made to documents (Annexures P- 25 to P-27).
14. Under Point No.7, it has been highlighted that an amount of Rs.11,34,000/- received by the wife of the petitioner from M/s Sai Logistical Parts as Rent has not been taken into consideration in spite of the fact that the same is duly reflected in the bank statements and regarding the 10 of 37 ::: Downloaded on - 18-10-2023 21:55:39 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:133952 CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 11 2023:PHHC:133952 same, GST Registration Certificate has also been produced in addition to the ledger account of M/s Sai Logistical Parts and reference in the said regard is made to Annexures P-28 to P-30. It is argued that as per the stand of the State, same has not been included on account of the fact that Suman Soni, wife of the petitioner is not owner of the premises in question whereas the present petitioner is the owner and the non-inclusion of the said income on the said ground is absolutely illegal inasmuch as the income and expenditure of the petitioner, his wife Suman Soni and of his son Raghav Soni have been taken into consideration by the Investigating Agency during the "check period" and since, at any rate, the petitioner is the owner of the premise in question thus, to exclude the said income is absolutely illegal and against law.
15. Similarly, with respect to point Nos.8 to 14 and 20, specific reference has been made to the detailed income chart highlighting the fact that amount mentioned in the column under the heading "Amount of variation", has not been taken into consideration in spite of the said transactions being duly supported by the bank statements, ledger accounts etc., which have been duly been annexed with the present petition.
16. With respect to point Nos.15 to 19 of the income chart, it has been submitted that the account statement of the account of Raghav Soni in Axis Bank, which has already been produced on record and marked as Mark "A" and a copy of which had been handed over to the learned State counsel on 12.10.2023, would show that an amount of Rs.1,41,40,000/- has been received by Raghav Soni from Sabrina Soni through bank transactions during the "check period" and specific reference in this regard has been made to the entries dated 18.05.2016, 17.06.2016, 26.10.2016, 21.01.2017, 25.01.2017, 17.11.2017, 22.08.2019, 16.01.2020, 05.03.2020, 15.07.2020, 11 of 37 ::: Downloaded on - 18-10-2023 21:55:39 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:133952 CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 12 2023:PHHC:133952 24.11.2020, 16.12.2021, 25.12.2021 and 02.01.2022. It is submitted that Sabrina Soni has her own sources of income and she is a Director in two companies. It is submitted that as per the challan, the difference in the expenditure and the income, was Rs.10,08,98,735.78 which was alleged to be unexplained whereas the petitioner has, as per the chart Mark 'B', proved that an amount of Rs.10,77,11,886/- has been wrongly included in the expenditure/wrongly not included in the income and thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner has disproportionate income/assets.
17. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has referred to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 31.05.2022 passed in Special Leave to Appeal no.5273/2022 titled as "State of Chhattisgarh vs. Gurjinder Pal Singh" in which the State had filed SLP against the grant of regular bail by the High Court in a case of disproportion assets registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The High Court while granting bail had observed that the said petition was nothing but an unwarranted exercise on behalf of the petitioner-State (therein) and that in a case of disproportionate assets, most of the evidence is based on documents and therefore, there is no question of tampering such evidence in spite of the accused therein being a senior police official and accordingly, the said petition filed by the State was dismissed.
18. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is a matter of settled law that in case the difference between the known source of income and the expenditure is upto 10%, then the person cannot be held guilty for having disproportionate income and for the said proposition, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Krishnanand Agnihotri vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported as (1977)1 SCC 816. Relevant portion of Krishnanand 12 of 37 ::: Downloaded on - 18-10-2023 21:55:39 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:133952 CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 13 2023:PHHC:133952 Agnihotri's case (supra) which has been highlighted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"33. It will, therefore, be seen that as against an aggregate surplus income of Rs. 44,383.59 which was available to the appellant during the period in question, the appellant possessed total assets worth Rs. 55,732.25. The assets possessed by the appellant were thus in excess of the surplus income available to him. but since the excess is comparatively small - it is less than ten per cent of the total income of Rs. 1,27,715.43 - we do not think it would be right to hold that the assets found in the possession of the appellant were disproportionate to his known sources of income so as to justify the raising of the presumption under Sub- section (3) of Section 5. We are of the view that, on the facts of the present case the High Court as well as the Special Judge were in error in raising the presumption contained in Sub-section (3) of Section 5 and convicting the appellant on the basis of such presumption."
19. On the basis of the said submissions, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present petition for grant of regular bail be allowed and has prayed that the petitioner be released on regular bail. ARGUMENTS OF LEARNED STATE COUNSEL:-
20. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition for regular bail and has submitted that with respect to the medical condition of the petitioner, the petitioner has been admitted in Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar while in judicial custody and has been provided with all the required medical facilities in accordance with the rules and procedure, and thus, there is no justification for grant of regular bail to the petitioner on account of his medical condition. It is further submitted that the investigating agency has carried out thorough investigation and after thorough investigation, a detailed challan under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has been presented and as per the said challan, the expenditure incurred by the petitioner, his wife and his son during the check period from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2022 was Rs.14,91,86,253/- whereas the income of the said three persons during the check period from their known sources was 13 of 37 ::: Downloaded on - 18-10-2023 21:55:39 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:133952 CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 14 2023:PHHC:133952 Rs.4,82,87,517/- and thus, their expenditure was in excess of their known sources of income to the extent of Rs.10,08,98,735.78/-.
21. With respect to point no.1 of the income chart (Mark 'B'), it has been stated that a total amount of Rs.1,24,46,718/- cannot be considered as salary amount of the petitioner as the amount which has been received by the petitioner as salary in the capacity of MLA was Rs.20,62,053/- and Rs.40,02,740/- being a cabinet minister/Deputy Chief Minister during his tenure and as per the information provided by the Joint Secretary, Accounts Branch, payment of the travel allowances, petrol expenses and medical reimbursement are made to the concerned member on the presentation of the original bills of expenditure and clarification with respect to all the expenses/allowances has been sought from the Account Branch, Civil Secretariat, Punjab from where the petitioner was withdrawing salary during his tenure of Cabinet Minister. It is stated that since the allowances are in fact reimbursement of the actual amount spent, thus, the said amount cannot be included in the total salary. With respect to point no.2, it is argued that the amount of Rs.8,75,000/- cannot be added in the income of the petitioner as the installment of Rs.35,00,000/- was disbursed in the check period for the construction of the house and since the loan was taken jointly by the petitioner, his son and his nephew Vikas Soni, thus, the share of Vikas Soni to the extent of 1/4th in the aforesaid installment cannot be included as he is not a family member.
22. With respect to point No.2 of the expenditure chart (Mark 'B'), it has been stated that the investigating agency has taken into consideration the amount of Rs.53,61,100/- and Rs.80,41,650/- with respect to the purchase of land measuring 11 kanal 11 marla and 3 sarsayian at village Sichander, District Amritsar as 20% share of the said property belongs to 14 of 37 ::: Downloaded on - 18-10-2023 21:55:39 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:133952 CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 15 2023:PHHC:133952 the petitioner and 30% share belongs to his wife Suman Soni and thus, 50% of the value of the said sale deed has been taken into consideration by the investigating agency while calculating the expenditure of the petitioner and his wife and his son, which has been done in accordance with law. It is, however, not disputed that the total amount of the sale consideration with respect to the purchase has been paid from the bank accounts of Shyam Soni and Vikas Soni (Annexures P/55-P/58). With respect to point nos.5 and 6 of the expenditure chart, it is submitted by learned State counsel that the amounts of Rs.15,46,539/- and Rs.30,02,055/-, being 3/4th share of the salary of the petitioner, have been rightly calculated as personal expenditure of the petitioner as per settled norms and it is a matter of common knowledge that a person would spend 3/4th of his income on his personal expenses.
23. On a pointed query raised by this Court with respect to the other points, learned State counsel has fairly submitted that although, certain objections have been raised in the reply dated 11.10.2023 but on the basis of the chart and the documents submitted along with the petition which have been verified, point nos.3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 20 of the income chart and point nos.1, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13 of the expenditure chart cannot be disputed and with respect to point nos.5, 6, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 of the income chart and point Nos.2 and 3 of the expenditure chart, it is submitted that although the bank transactions and other documents in support of the said entries have been produced and the same are not being disputed but the bonafide of the said transactions is disputed inasmuch as under certain points, gifts have been received by the petitioner from relatives and friends, which are questionable transactions. ARGUMENTS OF LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE 15 of 37 ::: Downloaded on - 18-10-2023 21:55:39 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:133952 CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 16 2023:PHHC:133952 PETITIONER IN REBUTTAL:-
24. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal, has submitted that with respect to point no.1 of the income chart and point nos.5 and 6 of the expenditure chart, the investigating agency on one hand has excluded the amount received by the petitioner on account of allowances etc. on the ground that they are actual expenses but on the other hand, have sought to deduct 3/4th share as spent on personal expenditure. It is submitted that in case the investigating agency wishes to proceed on the premise that travel allowances etc. have been utilized by the petitioner for the purpose for which they were given, then in that situation substantial expenses of the petitioner had already been met and thus, the question of deducting 3/4th share on account of personal expenditure is not called for. It is stated that the facilities which are available to an MLA/Minister would not require them to entail high personal expenditure from their own pocket and thus, the principle which is propounded by the State Counsel might be applicable to a person carrying on private business but would not be applicable to the petitioner. With respect to point no.2 of the expenditure chart, it is reiterated that the sale consideration had been actually paid by Shyam Soni and Vikas Soni regarding which, there are bank transactions and even in the sale deed, there is a reference to the cheque amount which has been debited from the account of Shyam Soni and Vikas Soni and thus, the amounts of Rs.
53,61,100/- and Rs.80,41,650/-, cannot be stated to be expenditure incurred by the petitioner or his wife or his son. In rebuttal to the plea of learned State counsel to the effect that there are certain transactions which are although proved from the bank statements etc. but the question as to whether the said transactions are bonafide or not, is an issue, it is submitted that once during the "check period", it is proved by virtue of bank 16 of 37 ::: Downloaded on - 18-10-2023 21:55:39 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:133952 CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 17 2023:PHHC:133952 transactions or other genuine documents that the petitioner had received certain sums from a third party or even from a relative, then the said amounts have to be taken into consideration in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner cannot be criminally prosecuted on a plea that the transaction although prima facie proved from the said document, is, as per the stand of the investigating agency, not bonafide, moreso when there is no other evidence as per the report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. to show that the transaction had actually not taken place or was not bona fide. It is stated that even in case point no.2 of the income chart is excluded from the total income and some part of the income as shown in point no.1 is also excluded, then also, the income which has not been taken into consideration and the expenditure which has wrongly been taken into consideration, would still cover the difference which is sought to be projected in the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.
FINDING:-
25. This Court has learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper book.
26. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was arrested on 09.07.2023 and the investigation is complete and the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. which was prepared on 29.08.2023 has been presented in the Court on 31.08.2023 and there are 49 prosecution witnesses and since charges have not been framed, thus, the trial is likely to take time and the petitioner is not involved in any other case. It is the case of the petitioner that the Vigilance Enquiry was initiated on 10.10.2022 and the petitioner had duly cooperated in the same for a period of 8 months and had also provided the record which was sought from him. It is also the case of the petitioner that he is not keeping good health inasmuch as a pace maker was
17 of 37 ::: Downloaded on - 18-10-2023 21:55:39 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:133952 CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 18 2023:PHHC:133952 implanted in his body in the year 2019, as he was diagnosed with a Cerebrovascular accident (CVA) and in the year 2021, another pace maker was implanted in the body of the petitioner and the surgeries for the same were performed at Lilawati Hospital, Mumbai and that the petitioner, apart from the above, is also suffering from Diabetes Mellitus, Hypothyroidism, Hypertension. On 14.09.2023, a medical board was constituted to look into the upgradation of the petitioner's already implanted pacemaker from a renowed institute such as PGIMER and the said medical board had recommended that the petitioner needs placement of third pacemaker in the left ventricle with CTVS backup. Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar, where the petitioner is presently being treated, had prepared a discharge summary on 22.09.2022 (Annexure P-7), the relevant portion of which is reproduced herienbelow:-
"Medical board was constituted in GMDH/GMC Amritsar on 14/9/23 for assessment of patient medical condition. As per the assessment and recommendation of above board, patient needs placement of 3rd xxx pacemaker in the left ventricle with CTVS backup. Hence patient is discharged and referred to PGI Chandigarh for further management."
A perusal of the above would show that Guru Nanak Dev Hospital had referred the petitioner to PGI for further management. It is further the case of the petitioner that while being taken to PGI from Amritsar, his health deteriorated on the way and thus, he was taken back to Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar where he is presently admitted. The factum of admission of the petitioner in Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar on account of ill health, is not disputed. The document and the reports of the doctors/medical opinion annexed as Annexures P-6 and P-7 also prima facie show that the petitioner is not keeping good health. The said aspect is also substantiated by the fact that on 19.07.2023, when the petitioner was 18 of 37 ::: Downloaded on - 18-10-2023 21:55:39 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:133952 CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 19 2023:PHHC:133952 produced before the CJM, Amritsar, the CJM, Amritsar while remanding the petitioner to custody had directed the Superintendent, Central Jail, Amritsar to provide medical assistance to the petitioner as per Jail Rules and the Jail Superintendent had kept the petitioner in the jail hospital under medical supervision and thereafter shifted the petitioner to Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar on account of his deteriorating health. Although, it is the case of the State that proper medical facilities are being provided, it is the plea of the petitioner that his previous operation was conducted at Lilawati Hospital, Mumbai and even for the present medical condition of the petitioner, the petitioner would want further medical treatment from Lilawati Hospital, Mumbai or any other such reputed institute. It is not in dispute that the entire case is based on documents, which form a part of the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C..
27. As per the allegations in the report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., the total expenditure incurred by the petitioner, his son Raghav Soni and his wife Suman Soni for the check period from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2022 was Rs. 14,91,86,253/- and the income of the said person for the said period was Rs.4,82,87,517/- and thus, an amount of Rs.10,08,98,735.78/- was found to be unexplained by the investigating agency. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner had referred to the detailed chart Mark 'B' to highlight the fact that several items of expenditure have been wrongly included as expenditure of the petitioner, his wife and his son. The chart Mark 'B', also refers to the details of the income which although, have been earned by the petitioner, his wife and his son during the "check period" but have not been taken into consideration by the Investigating Agency. Relevant part of the chart Mark 'B' showing the details of the expenditure is reproduced hereinbelow:-
19 of 37 ::: Downloaded on - 18-10-2023 21:55:39 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:133952 CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 20 2023:PHHC:133952 EXPENDITURE CHART XXX XXX XXX SR. DESCRIPTION AMOUNT AMOUNT AS REMARKS AMOUNT ANNEXUR NO. AS PER PER OF ES THE APPLICANT VARIATION CHALLAN
1. Amount Deposited on 1,90,711/- 1,26,744/- As per certified 63,967/- Copy of Bank Completion of Check Bank Statement Statement is Period by Om Parkash annexed as Soni ANNEXURE (Ex. Dy. Chief Minister, P-54.
PB.) in Punjab National Bank (Queens Road) Amritsar Account No.01302010013440.
1. Amount Deposited by 53,61,100/- NIL The entire sum 53,61,100/- Excel Chart of Om Parkash Soni (Ex. has been paid by the cheques Dy. Chief Minister) and 80,41,650/- my nephews from 80,41,650/- paid by with his family their declared Shyam Soni members on Dated sources of Income & Vikas Soni 12.06.2019 for buying as per detail is annexed as plot measuring 11 below- ANNEXURE Kanal 11 Marle and 3 Shyam Soni P-55.
sarsayian situated at Rs. 50,00,000/-
Village Sichander Distt. Vikas Soni Rs. Copy of Bank
Amritsar amounting to 2,18,05,800/- Statement of
Rs. 2,50,00,000/-, for Shyam Soni
Stamp Paper, Rs. The entire record with
13,50,000/- and Rs. of Bank abovemention
5,00,000/- including Statements, ed cheque
Registration Amount. Income Tax entries duly
Returns of the highlighted is
In total Rs. above named annexed as
2,68,50,000/- (20% Shyam Soni & ANNEXURE
share belongs to Om Vikas Soni, were P-56.
Parkash Soni, 30% filed with the
Share belongs to Suman Investigating Copy of Bank
Soni) including all the Agency during Statement of
expenses of the course of the Vikas Soni
Registration and Stamp enquiry with
papers. proceedings prior abovemention
to registration of ed cheque
FIR. entries duly
highlighted is
annexed as
ANNEXURE
P-57.
Copy of the
Purchase
Deed of the
property in
which the
payments
cheques duly
mentioned is
annexed as
ANNEXURE
P-58.
2. Amount of Rs. 2,98,737/- NIL The entire sum 2,98,737/- Copy of Bank
3,98,317/- Deposited by has been paid by Statement of
Om Parkash Soni Ex. my nephew from Vikas Soni
Deputy Chief Minister, his declared with cheque
Raghav Soni (Son) and sources of Income entries duly
his Nephew for as per detail highlighted is
Sanction of Map from below- annexed as
Development Authority Vikas Soni ANNEXURE
for Bunglow situated at 3,98,317/- P-59.
D.R Enclave Village
Heir Ajnala Road,
Amritsar. 3/4th share of
the expense is done by
20 of 37
::: Downloaded on - 18-10-2023 21:55:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:133952 CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 21 2023:PHHC:133952 Om Parkash Soni and his son Raghav Soni.
3. Amount of Rs. 4,29,18,213/- 1,02,53,163/- This is the 3,26,65,050/- Government 5,72,24,284/- according amount that has Approved to technical team is been paid from Valuer's Deposited by Om the bank certificate of Parkash Soni statements of the Valuation of (Ex. Dy. Chief Petitioner and his Cost of Minister), Raghav Soni immediate family Construction (Son) and his Nephew members upto 31st as on 31st for construction of March 2022. March 2022, bunglow situated at D.R Pertinently, the is annexed as Enclave Village Heir Investigating ANNEXURE Ajnala Road, Amritsar. Agency has also P-60.
¾th share of the expense included the
is done by Sh. Om amount that has Ledger
Parkash Soni and his been spent after Accounts of
son Raghav Soni. the completion of the Cost of
the Check Period. Construction
as on 31st
March 2022,
Clearly, the is annexed as
Investigating ANNEXURE
Agency has P-61.
without any
documentary Agreement
evidence assumed with the Main
and presumed that Construction
the entire amount Contractor for
was paid and 3/4th Civil Works is
expenditure has annexed as
been done by the ANNEXURE
Petitioner which P-62.
is completely The Bills of
misplaced and the
incorrect as per Construction
the record. with the
suppliers and
contractors
can be
produced as
and when
required by
this Hon'ble
Court and the
same have not
been annexed
to avoid the
Petition from
being
voluminous.
4. Amount received by 15,46,539/- Denied. Correct Clearly, the
Om Parkash Soni as amount shall be Investigating
MLA from Punjab proved during Agency has
Vidhan Sabha as Salary trial without any
amounting documentary
Rs. 20,74,890/- from evidence assumed
which he had spent 3/4th and presumed that
3/4th expenditure
has been done by
the Applicant
which is
completely
misplaced and
incorrect as per
the record
5. Amount Received by 30,02,055/- Denied. Correct Clearly, the
Om Parkash Soni as amount shall be Investigating
Minister from Punjab proved during Agency has
Vidhan Sabha as Salary trial without any
amounting documentary
Rs. 40,02,740/- from evidence assumed
which he had spent 3/4th and presumed that
3/4th expenditure
has been done by
21 of 37
::: Downloaded on - 18-10-2023 21:55:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:133952 CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 22 2023:PHHC:133952 the Applicant which is completely misplaced and incorrect as per the record
6. Amount of Rs. 15,37,568/- NIL Vide the Lease 15,37,568/- Copy of the 30,00,000/- for CLU of Deed dated Registered House situated at 368- 01.02.2021, Lease Deed A, Tung Bala, Urban Raghav Soni had dated Green Avenue, already leased the 01.02.2021 is Amritsar by Raghav said Land to M/s annexed as Soni from which he had Golden Alliance ANNEXURE spent ½ share. Hospitality Pvt P-63.
Ltd. for the
This is wrong, the Construction of Copy of the
premises has been Hotel. CLU fee
leased out to M/s payment
Golden Alliance The terms of the receipt is
Hospitality Pvt Ltd. and Lease Deed annexed as
the said charges have clearly state that ANNEXURE
been paid by the said the entire expense P-64.
Company. on CLU, Map
Approval, Cost of Bank
Construction, etc. Statement of
is to be incurred the Lessee
by the name Company
Lessee company. from which
the payment
The impugned deposited, is
payment of Rs. annexed as
30,00,000/- has ANNEXURE
been made from P-65.
the Bank Account
of the Lessee Ledger
Company from its Account from
regular bank the books of
account duly the Lessee
accounted in that Company in
company's CA which the said
Audited books of CLU Expense
accounts. duly
accounted for,
is annexed as
ANNEXURE
P-66.
7. Amount of Rs. 58,02,134/- NIL Vide the Lease 58,02,134/- Ledger
1,16,04,268/- spent by Deed dated Account from
Raghav Soni with his 01.02.2021 the books of
Partner for The Raghav Soni had the Lessee
Construction of Hotel already leased the Company in
situated at said Land to M/s which the said
368-A, Tung Bala, Golden Alliance Construction
Urban Green Avenue, Hospitality Pvt Cost duly
Amritsar. From which Ltd. for the accounted for,
he had spent ½ Construction of is annexed as
according to technical Hotel. ANNEXURE
team. P-67.
The terms of the
This is wrong, the Lease Deed Copy of the
premises has been clearly state that Bills, Invoices
leased out to M/s the entire expense of the
Golden Alliance on CLU, Map Suppliers/
Hospitality Pvt Ltd. and Approval, Cost of Contractor is
the said construction Construction, etc. annexed as
charges have been paid is to be incurred ANNEXURE
by the said Company. by the name P-68.
Lessee company.
The impugned
payment of Rs.
1,16,04,268/- has
been made from
the Bank Account
of the Lessee
22 of 37
::: Downloaded on - 18-10-2023 21:55:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:133952 CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 23 2023:PHHC:133952 Company from its regular bank account duly accounted in that company's CA Audited books of accounts.
8. Amount of Rs. 38,52,737/- NIL In terms of the 38,52,737/- CA Attested 1,54,10,948/- spent for Registered Lease Schedule of buying furniture by Deed dt. Fixed Assets Golden Alliance 23.06.2015, the of the Lessee Hospitality, Green Hotel has been Company as Avenue, Amritsar from constructed and on 31st March Hotel Sarovar. From operated by M/s 2022, is which Raghav Soni had Golden Alliance annexed as spent 1/4th Hospitalities Pvt ANNEXURE This is wrong, the Ltd. (Lessee). P-69.
premises has been
leased out to M/s The entire cost of
Golden Alliance Construction,
Hospitality Pvt Ltd. and Electrical Fittings,
the said furniture has Furniture and
been paid by the said Fixtures, Other
Company. Fixed Assets has
been duly paid
and accounted for
in the Books of
Accounts of the
said Lessee
Company.
The Audited
Financial
Statements of the
Lessee Company
show Cost of
Fixed Assets at
Rs.
17,30,92,600/-
including the Cost
of Furniture &
Fixtures at Rs.
2,14,67,300/-
The amount
accounted for the
Furniture in books
of the Lessee
Company is much
more than the cost
estimated by the
Investigating
Agency.
9. Amount deposited as 32,34,800/-
tax by Raghav Soni s/o
Om Parkash Soni to
Income Tax Department
10. Amount deposited as 2,78,500/- 1,07,500/- The amount has 1,71,000/- Reconciliation
tax by Suman Soni w/o been incorrectly Table
Om Parkash Soni to computed by the indicating the
Income Tax Investigating Tax Due and
Department. Agency, as they Tax Deposited
have ignored the actually, is
TDS refunds annexed as
received in ANNEXURE
Account. P-71.
11. As candidate amount 18,76,918/- 25,000/- The amount is the 18,51,918/- Statement of
Spent by Om Parkash total expenditure the Bank A/c
Soni as election as verified and No.
expenses in Vidhan approved by the 91601001420
sabha Elections 2017 Election 8530 is
for Amritsar Central Commission of annexed as
constituency, Amritsar. India, whereas the ANNEXURE
Applicant has P-72.
only deposited
23 of 37
::: Downloaded on - 18-10-2023 21:55:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:133952 CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 24 2023:PHHC:133952 Rs. 25,000/- in Details of the the Election Fund ECI mandated Account, which is record of the duly opened and expenses maintained as a incurred is separate Bank annexed as Account in a ANNEXURE Scheduled Bank, P-73 as per the guidelines of ECI. Details of the ECI mandated The balance of record of the the funds are funds & received and donations collected from the collected is Donors which annexed as record has been ANNEXURE duly verified and P-74.
approved by the ECI.
12. As candidate amount 23,53,890/- 16,000/- The amount is the 23,37,890/- Statement of Spent by Om Parkash total expenditure the Bank A/c Soni as Election as verified and No. expenses in Vidhan approved by the 92101004343 sabha Elections 2022 Election 2294, is for Amritsar Central Commission of annexed as constituency, Amritsar India, whereas the ANNEXURE Applicant has P-75.
only deposited Rs
16,000/- in the Details of the
Election Fund ECI mandated
Account, which is record of the
duly opened and expenses
maintained as a incurred is
separate Bank annexed as
Account in a ANNEXURE
Scheduled Bank, P-76.
as per the
guidelines of ECI. Details of the
ECI mandated
The balance of record of the
the funds are funds 7
received and donations
collected from the collected is
Donors which annexed as
record has been ANNEXURE
duly verified and P-77.
approved by the
ECI.
TOTAL 6,19,83,751/-
EXPENDITURE NOT
DONE FROM THE
ACCOUNTS OF OP
SONI & FAMILY
MEMBERS THAT
HAS NOT BEEN
CONSIDERED BY
INVESTIGATING
AGENCY
INCOME CHART XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
SR. DESCRIPTION AMOUNT AMOUNT REMARKS AMOUNT ANNEXURES
NO. AS PER AS PER OF
THE APPLICANT VARIATION
CHALLAN
1. Total salary 20,62,053/- 1,24,46,718/- The actual amount 63,81,925/- Copy of the
received as M.L.A. that has been Bank
SALARY received in the Account in
by the Petitioner
1.4.2016 to Bank Account of which the
from 01.04.2016 to 31.3.2017: Rs. the Petitioner amounts have
24 of 37
::: Downloaded on - 18-10-2023 21:55:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:133952 CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 25 2023:PHHC:133952 March 2018 15,96,158/- during the Check been received Period from the from the 1.4.2017 to Punjab Govt. Punjab 31.3.2018: Treasury on Government Salary received by 40,02,740/- Rs. account of the treasury is the Petitioner being 17,30,953/- Salary and annexed as minister from Allowances as ANNEXURE March 2018 to 1.4.2018 to MLA and later as P-8.
31.03.2022 31.3.2019: Minister/ Deputy
15,62,328/- CM has been Copies of the
collated from the Income Tax
1.4.2019 to Bank Statement. Returns of
31.3.2020: This includes both the Petitioner
Rs. the taxable as well from 2016-
10,21,800/- as tax-free 2022
allowances showing his
1.4.2020 to received in the taxable
31.3.2021: Bank. income as
Rs. 8,82,800/- Whereas the Salary is
Investigating annexed as
1.4.2021 to Agency has only ANNEXURE
31.3.2022: presented the P-9 to P-14
Rs. 6,67,100/- Salary figure respectively.
without matching
ALLOWANC the same with the
ES: Statement of Bank
1.4.2019 TO Accounts duly
31.3.2020: made available by
Rs. the petitioner and
10,83,005/- the respective
Bank.
1.4.2020 to
31.3.2021: The allowances
Rs. received by the
15,33,843/- Petitioner as a
MLA and as a
1.4.2021 to Minister are not
31.3.2022: taxable and hence,
Rs. not shown in the
16,02,100/- Income Tax
Returns, However,
TADA they are a clearly
ALLOWANC reflected in the
E: Bank Account of
1.4.2021 to the Petitioner.
31.3.2022:
Rs. 7,66,631/-
1. Loan of Rupees 26,25,000/- 35,00,000/- The construction 8,75,000/-
2,45,00,000/- was expense has been
met with by the
got approved by the
entire family
Petitioner jointly jointly and not
with his son Raghav specifically in the
Soni and nephew ratio of the land
Vikas Soni for ownership shares.
house construction
from Punjab
National Bank,
Branch Cantt.,
Amritsar from
01.04.2016 to
31.03.2022 but
during the check
period, Rupees
35,00,000/- were
found to have been
25 of 37
::: Downloaded on - 18-10-2023 21:55:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:133952 CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 26 2023:PHHC:133952 withdrawn. Amount of ¾ share of Sh.
Om Parkash Soni and his son Raghav Soni.
2. Amount received 99,66,755/- 77,95,835/- While the amount 16,29,080/- Copy of back from Dream (The said mentioned in the Ledger amount is the Challan is Rs. Accounts of Tech. Company by Salary 99,66,755/- Salary Raghav Soni from received by however, on the Payable and 01.04.2016 to Raghav Soni Page 10 of the Interest 31.03.2022 has a Director Challan the details Payable and has been presented (though indicating the The said Company reflected in his still incorrect) cheques ITRs) amount to Rs. issued by the was formed in the 1,05,54,000/-. subject year 2012, wherein, 38,00,000/- Company to Raghav Soni is a (The said The correct figures Raghav Soni, Director. amount was duly tallied with is annexed as given by the amounts ANNEXURE Raghav Soni received in the P-15.
as a loan prior Bank Statement are
to the check as under- Form 26AS
period which of the period
was returned INTEREST from
to Raghav RECIEVED: 01.04.2016 to
Soni during 46,92,000/- 31.03.2022
the check indicating the
period and SALARY total TDS
since it was a RECEIVED: deducted by
loan, the same 24,86,800/- the said
was not shown company, is
in the ITRs of TOTAL annexed as
Raghav Soni AMOUNT: ANNEXURE
but is reflected 71,78,800/- P-16.
in Ledger
Accounts of TDS INCLUDED: Ledger
the Company) 6,17,035/- Accounts of
GRAND TOTAL: the
77,95,835/- Unsecured
Loans
Further, a loan was deposited
returned from the with the said
said company company out
amounting Rs. which the
38,00,000/- amount has
been returned
is annexed as
ANNEXURE
P-17.
Copies of the
ITRs of
Raghav Soni
are annexed
as
ANNEXURE
P-18 to P-22
respectively.
3. Amount received by NOT 9,00,000/- The subject amount 9,00,000/- Bank
the Petitioner as INCLUDED (The said is received during Statement of
BY THE amount was check period the Petitioner
Advance from M/s
INVESTIG given as a through proper duly
Soni Bros., ATING loan by the banking channel highlighting
Agricultural AGENCY Petitioner to and duly accounted the amount
Commission Agents the said for in the Books of received as
Company Accounts. Since, on 4-11-2019
26 of 37
::: Downloaded on - 18-10-2023 21:55:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:133952 CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 27 2023:PHHC:133952 prior to the the Petitioner has is annexed as check period Agricultural ANNEXURE which was Income, it is P-23.
received back normal practice to
during the collect advance Copy of
check period. from the Arhatiya Ledger
Since it was a Account
loan, the same from M/s
was not shown Soni Bros
in the ITRs of confirming
Petitioner but the Advance
is reflected in given to the
Ledger Petitioner is
Accounts of annexed as
the Company) ANNEXURE
P-24.
4. Amount received by NOT 43,66,000/- The subject amount 43,66,000/- Bank
the Petitioner as INCLUDED was received Statement of
BY THE Gift by Sunita during period from the Petitioner
Gifts from his real
INVESTIG Chopra (sister 01.04.2016 to duly
Brother Sh. Ashok ATING of Petitioner): 31.03.2022 through highlighting
Soni and real AGENCY 11.2.2021: Rs. proper banking the gift
Sisters, viz. Smt. 11,50,000/- channel and duly amounts
Sunita Chopra and 22.2.2021: Rs. paid out of the received is
Smt. Anu Puri 8,00,000/- declared source of annexed as
10.3.2021: Rs. income of the ANNEXURE
2,16,600/- relevant persons. P-25.
They are not only
Gift by Anu the siblings of the Copy of the
Puri (Sister of Petitioner but also Affidavits of
Petitioner): persons enjoying the relevant
2.9.2017: Rs. sufficient means of donors is
5,00,000/- income and wealth annexed as
ANNEXURE
Gift by Ashok P-26.
Soni (Brother
of the
Petitioner):
29.5.2019:
Rs. 3,00,000/-
1.11.2019:
Rs. 2,00,000/-
18.5.2020:
Rs. 3,00,000/-
20.4.2021:
Rs. 9,00,000/-
5. Amount received by NOT 14,50,000/- The subject amount 14,50,000/- Bank
the Petitioner as INCLUDED is received during Statement of
BY THE (During the period from the Petitioner
friendly Unsecured
INVESTIG check period, 01.04.2016 to duly
Loans from his ATING Loan of Rs. 31.03.2022 through highlighting
immediate Joint AGENCY 34,50,000/- proper banking the Loan
Family members, was taken by channel and duly amounts
viz. Shyam Soni, the Petitioner paid out of the received is
Vikas Soni. from his declared source of annexed as
nephews income of the ANNEXURE
Vikas Soni relevant persons. P-27.
and Shyma They are not only
Soni, the joint family
however, an members of the
amount of Rs. Petitioner but also
20 lakhs was persons enjoying
returned by sufficient means of
the Petitioner. income and wealth.
Hence, the
balance loan The banking record
of Rs. and ITR's of these
27 of 37
::: Downloaded on - 18-10-2023 21:55:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:133952 CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 28 2023:PHHC:133952 14,50,000/- persons have been has not been duly submitted to considered). Investigating Agency during the course of the enquiry proceedings for their verification and satisfaction.
The amount
reported here is net
figure after
adjusting for any
amounts returned
back by the
Petitioner
6. Amount received by NOT 11,34,000/- Smt. Suman Soni 11,34,000/- Bank
Smt Suman Soni INCLUDED has collected Statement of
BY THE during period from Smt. Suman
(wife of the
INVESTIG 01.04.2016 to Soni duly
Petitioner) from M/s ATING 31.03.2022 Rent highlighting
Sai Logistical Parts AGENCY from M/s Sai the rent
as Rent Logistical Parts on amounts
account of the received is
Land & Building annexed as
belonging to the ANNEXURE
Petitioner that had P-28.
been rented out to Copy of the
the said firm for Ledger
operating its Account
business. from M/s Sai
Logistical
The amount has Parts
been reported in indicating the
the ITR filed by her amounts paid
and received in her to Smt
bank account, both Suman Soni
of which is annexed as
documents were ANNEXURE
made available to P-29.
the Investigating
Agency during the GST
course of the Registration
enquiry certificate of
proceedings. M/s Sai
Logistical
Parts
indicating its
operating
business
address from
the subject
property
taken on rent,
is annexed as
ANNEXURE
P-30.
7. Amount received by NOT 2,22,413/- The subject amount 2,22,413/- Bank
Smt. Suman Soni as INCLUDED has been received Statement of
BY THE during check Smt. Suman
maturity of Life
INVESTIG period as maturity Soni duly
Insurance Policy ATING value in respect of highlighting
AGENCY the Life Insurance the Life
Policy held by her. Insurance
maturity
amount from
28 of 37
::: Downloaded on - 18-10-2023 21:55:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:133952 CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 29 2023:PHHC:133952 Kotak Mahindra received is annexed as ANNEXURE P-31.
8. Amount received by NOT 4,98,525/- In terms of the 4,98,525/- Bank Raghav Soni as INCLUDED Lease Deed dt. Statement of BY THE 23/06/2016, rent Raghav Soni Rent from M/s INVESTIG has been paid by duly Golden Alliance ATING Lessee Company to highlighting Hospitality Pvt Ltd. AGENCY Raghav Soni which the rent has been duly amounts The property was received in his received, is leased by Raghav bank account annexed as during check ANNEXURE Soni in the year period. P-32.
2015 i.e. before the Copy of the
Check period and The amount had Ledger
after the Hotel was been reflected in Account
completed, the rent the ITR filed by from M/s
was received by him and received in Golden
his bank account, Alliance
Raghav Soni which
both of which Hospitalities
is duly shown in his documents were indicating the
ITRs. (which are made available to rent amounts
annexed above) the Investigating paid to
Agency during the Raghav Soni,
course of the is annexed as
enquiry ANNEXURE
proceedings. P-33.
Lease Deed
dt.
23/06/2015,
is annexed as
ANNEXURE
P-34.
9. Amount received by NOT 7,00,000/- During the check 7,00,000/- Bank
Raghav Soni as INCLUDED period Raghav Soni Statement of
BY THE has received back Raghav Soni
return of Capital
INVESTIG the capital invested duly
invested from M/s ATING in the said firm highlighting
Olive International AGENCY prior to the amounts
commencement of received, is
The said M/s Olive check period, i.e. annexed as
International was 1st April 2016 ANNEXURE
P-35.
closed before the
Copy of the
Check Period and Ledger
was not operating Account
during the said from M/s
period. Olive
International
indicating the
amounts paid
to Raghav
Soni, is
annexed as
ANNEXURE
P-36.
10. Amount received by NOT 13,57,442/- The subject amount 13,57,442/- Bank
Raghav Soni as INCLUDED has been received Statement of
BY THE as maturity value Raghav Soni
maturity of Life
INVESTIG during check duly
Insurance Policies. ATING period in respect of highlighting
AGENCY the Life Insurance the LIC
Policies as per maturity
29 of 37
::: Downloaded on - 18-10-2023 21:55:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:133952 CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 30 2023:PHHC:133952 following details- amounts HDFC: 78,750 as received is on 26-5-2017 annexed as ANNEXURE HDFC: 6,64,300 as P-37.
on 03-02-2020 Maturity
Value
RELIANCE: payment
6,14,391 AS ON certificate
29-4-2016 from the
Insurance
Company, is
annexed as
ANNEXURE
P-38.
11. Amount received by NOT 39,20,000/- The subject amount 39,20,000/- Bank
Raghav Soni as INCLUDED is received during Statement of
BY THE check period Raghav Soni
Gifts from Sh
INVESTIG through proper duly
Ashok Soni (brother ATING banking channel highlighting
of Petitioner) AGENCY and duly paid out the gift
of the declared amounts
source of income received is
of Sh Ashok Soni. annexed as
He is not only real ANNEXURE
Uncle of Raghav P-39.
Soni but also a
person enjoying Copy of the
sufficient means of Affidavit of
income and wealth. Sh Ashok
Soni is
annexed as
ANNEXURE
P-40.
12. Amount received by NOT 18,76,000/- The subject amount 18,76,000/- Bank
Raghav Soni as INCLUDED is received during Statement of
BY THE (During the check period Raghav Soni
friendly Unsecured
INVESTIG check period, through proper duly
Loans from his ATING Loan of Rs. banking channel highlighting
immediate Joint AGENCY 38,90,000/- and duly paid out the Loan
Family members, was taken by of the declared amounts
viz. Shyam Soni, Raghav Soni source of income received, is
Vikas Soni, Neha from his joint of the relevant annexed as
Family persons. They are ANNEXURE
Soni
members not only the joint P-41.
Vikas Soni, family members of Copy of the
Neha Soni and Raghav Soni but Affidavits of
Shyma Soni, also persons the relevant
however, an enjoying sufficient persons is
amount of Rs. means of income annexed as
20,14,000/- and wealth. ANNEXURE
was returned P-42.
by Raghav The banking record
Soni. Hence, and ITR's of these
the balance persons have been
loan of Rs. duly submitted to
18,76,000/- the Investigating
has not been Agency during the
considered). course of the
enquiry
proceedings for
their verification
and satisfaction.
The amount
reported here is net
figure after
30 of 37
::: Downloaded on - 18-10-2023 21:55:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:133952 CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 31 2023:PHHC:133952 adjusting for any amounts returned back by Raghav Soni.
13. Amount received by NOT 53,00,000/- The subject amount 53,00,000/- Bank Raghav Soni as INCLUDED is received during Statement of BY THE Loan from check period Raghav Soni friendly Unsecured INVESTIG Sukhbir Kaur: through proper duly Loans from Ms ATING Rs. banking channel highlighting Sukhbir Kaur, S. AGENCY 38,00,000/- and duly paid out the Loan Arjinder Singh and of the declared amounts S. Gurcharan Singh Arjinder source of income received is (Friends of Raghav Singh: of the relevant annexed as 5,00,000/- persons. They are ANNEXURE Soni) friends of Raghav P-43.
Gurcharan Soni and persons Copy of the
Singh: enjoying sufficient Affidavits of
10,00,000/- means of income the relevant
and wealth. persons, is
annexed as
The Affidavits of ANNEXURE
these persons have P-44.
been duly
submitted to the
Investigating
Agency during the
course of the
enquiry
proceedings for
their verification
and satisfaction.
The amount
reported here is net
figure after
adjusting for any
amounts returned
back by Raghav
Soni.
15-19 Amount held by NOT 18.5.2016:- All the said 1,41,40,000/- Bank
Sabrina Soni (wife INCLUDED 1,00,000/- amounts have been Statement of
BY THE transferred by Raghav Soni
of Raghav Soni) in
INVESTIG 17.6.2016:- Sabrina Soni (wife wherein the
her account which ATING 5,00,000/- of Raghav Soni) in said amounts
were transferred to AGENCY her account which have been
the account of 26.10.2016:- were transferred to received has
Raghav Soni during 4,50,000/- the account of been taken
the check period, the Raghav Soni on record by
21.1.2017:- during the check the Hon'ble
details of which
5,00,000/- period through Court as
have been handed Bank transactions Mark A.
over to the Hon'ble 25.1.2017:- and the same are
Court and have been 5,00,000/- from her known
taken on record as sources of income.
Mark A 17.11.2017:-
10,00,000/-
22.8.2019:-
10,00,000/-
16.1.2020:-
1,00,000/-
5.3.2020:-
1,50,000/-
15.7.2020:-
31 of 37
::: Downloaded on - 18-10-2023 21:55:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:133952 CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 32 2023:PHHC:133952 15,00,000/-
24.11.2020:-
34,00,000/-
10.12.2021:-
10,00,000/-
25.12.2021:-
20,00,000/-
2.1.2022:-
19,40,000/-
20 Income Tax Refund NOT 9,77,750/- This amount is 9,77,750/- Bank received by Sh. Om INCLUDED duly credited into Statement of BY THE the Bank Account the Petitioner Parkash Soni INVESTIG of Mr. Om Parkash is annexed as ATING Soni during the ANNEXURE AGENCY check period. The P-53 said is refund of his earlier Income Tax which has been refunded in his account during the Check Period from official sources.
TOTAL INCOME 4,57,28,135/-
RECEIVED IN
ACCOUNTS OF
OP SONI &
FAMILY
MEMBERS NOT
CONSIDERED BY
INVESTIGATING
AGENCY
A perusal of the above-reproduced chart would show that as per the case of the petitioner, total expenditure, which has not been incurred by the petitioner, his wife and his son, has been wrongly taken into consideration by the investigating agency amounts to Rs.6,19,83,751/- and similarly the total income, which has not been taken into consideration by the investigating agency of the said three persons during the check period amounts to Rs.4,57,28,135/- and the total of the said two entries add up to Rs.10,77,11,886/- which is more than the amount i.e., Rs.10,08,98,735.78 which was stated to be unexplained as per the report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. It would be relevant to note that point nos. 1,4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13 from the expenditure chart have not been disputed and the total of the said points amounts to Rs.4,82,82,264/-. Similarly, point nos.3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 32 of 37 ::: Downloaded on - 18-10-2023 21:55:39 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:133952 CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 33 2023:PHHC:133952 10, 11 and 20 of the income chart are not disputed and total of said points comes to Rs.74,19,210/- and the total of the above said two figures amounts to Rs.5,57,01,474/-. The said points are not disputed as the petitioner along with the present petition has been able to produce documents including bank statement, details of cheques vide which payments were made, ledger accounts, registered lease deed dated 01.02.2021 etc. in support of the said points and as has been recorded in para 23 of the present order, the State Counsel has fairly stated that although, in the reply, certain objections were raised regarding the said points but after verifying the documents annexed with the petition, the said points are not disputed.
28. With respect to point nos.2 and 3 of the expenditure chart, amounting to Rs.1,37,01,487/- and point nos. 5,6,12,13,14,15,16,17, 18 and 19 of the income chart totaling to Rs.3,10,52,000/- and the total of the said points comes to Rs.4,47,53,487/-, the bank transaction etc. through which the transaction has taken place has not been disputed by the State counsel as has been recorded in para 23 of the present order but it is the argument of the learned State counsel that bonafide of the said transactions is disputed, inasmuch as, under certain points, gifts have been received by the petitioner from relatives and friends which modus operandi has been used to convert money illegally earned. In rebuttal to the plea of learned State counsel to the effect that there are certain transactions which are although proved from the bank statements etc. but the question as to whether the said transactions are bonafide or not, is an issue, it had been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that once during the "check period", it is proved by virtue of bank transactions or other genuine documents that the petitioner had received certain sums from a third party or even from a relative, then the said amounts have to be taken into consideration in favour of the petitioner and 33 of 37 ::: Downloaded on - 18-10-2023 21:55:39 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:133952 CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 34 2023:PHHC:133952 the petitioner cannot be criminally prosecuted on the plea that the transaction although prima facie proved from the said document, is, as per the stand of the investigating agency, not bonafide, moreso when there is no other evidence as per the report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. to show that the transaction had actually not taken place or was not bona fide. The said argument on behalf of the petitioner and the State raises a debatable issue and the same would be finally adjudicated by the trial Court and this Court does not wish to give any affirmative opinion on the same lest the same may prejudice the case of either of the parties in the trial.
29. Points no.1 and 2 of the income chart and point nos.5 and 6 of the expenditure chart are the main entries with respect to which the entire transaction is disputed. It is the case of the State that the total amount of Rs.1,24,46,718/- cannot be taken to be salary, allowances of the petitioner as the petitioner has only received a salary of Rs.20,62,053/- as MLA and Rs.40,02,740/- as a Minister during the "check period" and thus, the benefit of Rs.63,81,925/- which is sought to be taken by the petitioner is not made out. It is further the case of the State that the petitioner has included the allowances in the said total income which would not be permissible inasmuch as the said allowances are in the form of reimbursement for the actual expenses incurred by the petitioner and for which original bills are presented and with respect to point nos.5 and 6 of the expenditure chart, it is the case of the State that the investigating agency had deducted 3/4th salary of the petitioner on account of personal expenditure as per settled practice as a substantial amount of salary of a person is spent on their personal expenditure. Contrary arguments on behalf of the petitioner, as have been noticed hereinabove, are to the effect that with respect to point no.1 of the income chart and point nos.5 and 6 of the expenditure chart, the 34 of 37 ::: Downloaded on - 18-10-2023 21:55:39 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:133952 CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 35 2023:PHHC:133952 investigating agency on one hand has excluded the amount received by the petitioner on account of allowances etc. on the ground that these are actual expenses but on the other hand have sought to deduct 3/4th share of the salary of the petitioner as his personal expenditure. It is submitted that in case the investigating agency wishes to proceed on the premise that the travel allowances etc. have been utilized by the petitioner for the purpose for which they were given, then in that situation substantial expenses of the petitioner had already been met and thus, the question of deducting 3/4th on account of personal expenditure is not called for. It is stated that the facilities which are available to an MLA/Minister would not require them to entail high personal expenditure from their own pocket and thus, the principle which is sought to be propounded by the State Counsel might be applicable to a person carrying on private business but would not be applicable to the petitioner. The said argument also raises a debatable issue and with respect to which, this Court does not wish to give any final opinion and the same would be considered during the course of trial.
30. With respect to point No.2 of the income chart, the arguments of learned State Counsel to the effect that the benefit of Rs.8,75,000/-
cannot be given to the petitioner, as the said amount is 1/4 th share of Vikas Soni from the total installment of Rs.35,00,000/- and since, the said Vikas Soni is the nephew of the petitioner and neither his income nor his expenditure have been taken into consideration, carries weight.
31. From the abovesaid discussion, it comes about that in case the petitioner is able to prove all the points mentioned in Chart 'B' during the course of trial then the petitioner would be able to justify the difference between the income earned and the expenditure incurred by the petitioner, his wife and his son as alleged in the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.
35 of 37 ::: Downloaded on - 18-10-2023 21:55:39 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:133952 CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 36 2023:PHHC:133952 and even in case point nos.1 and 2 of the income chart amounting to Rs.63,81,925/- and Rs.8,75,000/- respectively (total Rs.72,56,925/-) are not taken into consideration then also the petitioner would be able to substantially justify the said difference.
32. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Chhattisgarh's case (supra) has observed as under:-
"Mr. Mukul Rohtgi, learned senior counsel submitted that the respondent is a very high ranking police officer being Additional Director General of Police and has indulged in tampering of evidence. He submits that all these aspects have been ignored by the High Court while granting bail to the respondent.
We find that the present petition is nothing but a totally unwarranted exercise on behalf of the petitioner- State. While considering the application for bail, the status of the applicant is not to be considered. As an ordinary citizen is entitled to his rights under the Constitution, equally a high ranking officer cannot be denied the right under the Constitution. In a case of disproportionate assets, most of the evidence is documentary evidence and therefore, there is no question of tampering such an evidence. Moreover, in any case the High Court has imposed stringent conditions to ensure the interest of the prosecution.
The present Special Leave Petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Pending applications also stand disposed of."
33. The present case is based on documentary evidence and the said documents are with the prosecution and the investigation qua the petitioner is complete and the report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted and thus, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in further incarceration.
34. Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail / surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/ Duty Magistrate and subject to him not being required in any other case and subject to the condition that the petitioner would surrender 36 of 37 ::: Downloaded on - 18-10-2023 21:55:39 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:133952 CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 37 2023:PHHC:133952 his passport before the trial Court.
35. However, it is made clear that in case, any act is done by the petitioner to threaten or influence the complainant or any of the witnesses, then it would be open to the State to move an application for cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner.
36. Nothing stated above shall be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the observations made in the present order which are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail petition. All questions with respect to the admissibility, relevance and genuineness of the documents submitted by both the parties are kept open, to be finally considered and adjudicated upon during the course of trial.
37. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of in view of the abovesaid order.
(VIKAS BAHL)
October 13, 2023 JUDGE
Pawan/Davinder Kumar
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:133952 37 of 37 ::: Downloaded on - 18-10-2023 21:55:39 :::