Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagtar Singh And Another vs Cbi And Others on 22 November, 2012
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
CRM No. M-4229 of 2012 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: 22.11.2012
1. CRM No. M-4229 of 2012 (O&M)
Jagtar Singh and another ...Petitioners
Versus
CBI and others ...Respondents
2. CRR No. 2183 of 2010 (O&M)
Jagtar Singh and another ...Petitioners
Versus
CBI ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr. R.S. Rai, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate
for CBI
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest
RITU BAHRI, J.
This revision petition is directed against order dated 12.06.2010 passed by Special Judge CBI, Patiala (P-7) in FIR No. RCCHG2009A0017 dated 09.06.2009 under Section 120-B, 418, 420 IPC Section 13(1) (d) read with 13(2) P.C. Act, 1988 registered at Police Station CBI/ACB, Chandigarh whereby the petitioners have been CRM No. M-4229 of 2012 (O&M) -2- charge-sheeted under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
The complaint was made by S.P. Gupta, Assistant Director of Income Tax (inv) (HQ) O/o the Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Ludhiana, to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CBI, Sector 30-A, Chandigarh. On 24.02.2009, a search was conducted by the Income Tax Department at the residence of Sh Jagtar Singh- petitioner No.1 441-R, Model Town, Ludhiana. He complained of his problem and Sh. O.P. Suman, Inspector, Income-Tax posted with ADIT (Inv)-II Ludhiana was directed to accompany with the petitioner along with Balwinder Singh who was present at the time of search for immediate medical aid. They left for the Doctor at about 10:00 am and returned around 12:00 noon. It was noticed that Sh. Jagtar Singh had a locker No. 150 in Kotak Mahindra Bank, Feroze Gandhi Market Ludhiana and it was found empty on the operation on 06.03.2009. On enquiry, it is found that the said locker had already been operated when they had gone for medical aid. Subsequently, a search was conducted on 01.04.2009, at the residence Sh. Jagtar Singh and Balwinder Singh. Balwinder Singh made the statement that the locker was operated by Jagtar Singh and it was in the knowledge of Sh. O.P.Suman, Inspector.
After completion of investigation, charge-sheet under Section 120-B, 423, 420, IPC 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of CRM No. M-4229 of 2012 (O&M) -3- Prevention of Corruption Act. Special Judge, CBI has framed charges under Section 120-B, 418, 420B IPC and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act against the petitioners.
The petitioners are seeking quashing of charge-sheet on the ground that Income Tax Department has filed the complaint under Section 177, 181, 193, 34 IPC and Section 277 of the Income Tax Act (P-3) and the petitiones have been summoned to face the trial. It is alleged that petitioner No.1 was having locker No. 150, which was operated by him on 23.01.2009, 29.01.2009 and 24.02.2009. On the date of search on 24.02.2009, petitioner No.1 had given false statement that he had only one locker jointly with his wife Smt. Jaspal Kaur at OBC Miller Ganj Ludhiana and denied maintaining of any other locker by him or his family member. The present FIR is out come of the same incident and once the Income Tax Department has initiated the proceedings then the petitioners should not be compelled to face criminal trial arising out of the same incident and same set of facts. Income Tax Authority had seized Rs. 50 lacs during the search and the petitioners had filed CWP No. 9465 of 2009 in this Court seeking quashing of order dated 16.06.2009. This Court vide order dated 14.09.2009 (P-5) had given direction that the Income Tax Department should finalize the assessment within six months. It was also directed that if the petitioners file an application for release of the seized CRM No. M-4229 of 2012 (O&M) -4- amount by furnishing bank guarantee, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law. During the pendency of this petition, assessment order has been passed (P-7) (colly.) and the petitioners have deposited the amount with the Income Tax Department.
On notice reply has been filed by the CBI taking preliminary objection that once charge sheet is filed then there is complete bar under Section 19(3)(C) that no revision is maintainable against the interlocutory order. On 24.02.2009, a search was conducted by the Income Tax Department at the residence of Sh Jagtar Singh-petitioner No.1 441-R, Model Town, Ludhiana. He complained of his problem and Sh. O.P. Suman, Inspector, Income-Tax posted with ADIT (Inv)-II Ludhiana was directed to accompany with the petitioner along with Balwinder Singh who was present at the time of search for immediate medical aid as per annexure(P-5). The plea of the petitioner that he had operated locker No. 150 in the morning thereafter when he came back at home, he found raiding party, is liable to be rejected. During the search, Rs. 50 lacs was seized from the house of petitioner No.1 along with incriminating documents. From these documents, it was found that he was maintaining a locker in Kotal Mahindra Bank. The said locker was sealed by Smt. C.G. Singh ITO Investigation in the presence of bank officials on 26.02.2009. CRM No. M-4229 of 2012 (O&M) -5- Subsequently, on 06.03.2009, Sh. S.P. Gupta operated locker NO. 150 of petitioner No.1 in the presence of bank officials and the said locker was found empty as is evidence from R-3. The safe deposit locker of petitioner No.1 maintained by Kotak Mahindra Bank proved the siad operation of locker No. 150 by petitioner No.1. The CCTV footage of the bank confirmed that he had operated the locker between 10:55 am to 11:05 am on 24.02.2009. The charge sheet has rightly been framed after going through the above fact.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The first question of consideration entertaining the petition would be whether the charge-sheet issued under the Prevention of Corruption Act can be challenged by way of revision when there complete bar under Section 19(3)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Satya Narain Sharma v. State of Rajasthan 2001 (4) RCR Criminal 377 while examining the provision under Section 19(3) (c) has held as under:
"21. The learned Solicitor General Salve submitted that inherent jurisdiction of a Court could not be exercised if there was a specific provision for redressal of the grievances of the aggrieved party or against an express bar of law engrafted in any other provision. He further submitted that inherent jurisdiction had to be very sparingly exercised only to CRM No. M-4229 of 2012 (O&M) -6- prevent abuse of process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. In support of this submission he relied upon the cases of Madhu Limaye vs. The State of Maharashtra reported in 1977 (4) S.C.C. 551, Janata Deal vs. H.S. Chowdhary & others reported in 1992 (4) S.C.C. 305 and Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India and others reported in 2000 (1) S.C.C. 168.
22. We have heard the parties. Section 19(3)(c) of the said Act reads as follows :
"(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). -
xxx xxx xxx
(c) no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on any other ground and no court shall exercise the powers of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings."
It is thus to be seen that this Section provides:
(a) that no court should stay the proceedings under the Act on any ground and
(b) that no court shall exercise the powers of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings. To be noted that (b) above is identical to Section 397(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code which deals with revisional power of the Court. If Section 19 was only to deal with revisional powers then the portion set out in (b) above, would have been sufficient. The CRM No. M-4229 of 2012 (O&M) -7- legislature has, therefore, by adding the words no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on any other ground clearly indicated that no stay could be granted by use of any power on any ground. This therefore would apply even where a Court is exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
23. There is another reason also why the submission that, Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption would not apply to the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, cannot be accepted. Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code starts with the words Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code. Thus the inherent power can be exercised even if there was a contrary provision in the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not provide that inherent jurisdiction can be exercised notwithstanding any other provision contained in any other enactment. Thus if an enactment contains a specific bar then inherent jurisdiction cannot be exercised to get over that bar. As has been pointed out in the cases of Madhu Limaye vs. The State of Maharashtra reported in 1977 (4) S.C.C. 551, Janata Deal vs. H.S. Chowdhary & others, reported in 1992 (4) S.C.C. 305 and Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India and others reported in 2000 (1) S.C.C. 168, the inherent jurisdiction cannot be resorted to if there was a specific provision or there is an express bar of CRM No. M-4229 of 2012 (O&M) -8- law.
The view of Hon'ble the Supreme Court has been followed in Dharambir Khattar and other v. Central Bureau of Investigation 2010 (6) RCR (Crl.) 1733 and by this Court Kuldipak Ahuja v. Central Bureau of Investigation 2011 (2) RCR (Crl.) 710. While dismissing the revision against the framing of charges against the petitioner, this Court in para 14 has held as under:
"14. Meaning thereby, no Court shall exercise power of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings. It is not a matter of dispute that while interpreting section 11(1) of the Special Courts Act, 1979, a Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in case V.C.Shukla v. CBI (1980) Supp SCC 92, has ruled that an order framing charge against the accused was not a final order, but an interlocutory one and, therefore, no appeal would lie against such order to the Supreme Court."
The second argument of the counsel for the petitioner is also liable to be rejected. The complaint filed by the Income Tax Department alleging that the petitioner No.1 had given a false statement that he had not operated the locker on 24.02.2009 whereas CRM No. M-4229 of 2012 (O&M) -9- as per bank register (R-4), he had done so. The allegations in the FIR are that petitioner No.1 had connived with O.P. Suman and operated locker No. 150 from there he had taken valuable items. This attempt was made to cheat the Income Tax Department. The offence under Section 418, 420 are cognizable offence by the Police and the CBI had made the complaint to that effect.
Without commenting on the merits of case, the Criminal Revision is hereby dismissed being not maintainable. No observation made above would reflect in any manner of the case as the same has been expressed for limited purpose for deciding the question of maintainability.
(RITU BAHRI) JUDGE 22.11. 2012 Atul