Patna High Court - Orders
Lalan Prasad Singh @ L.P.Singh vs The C.B.I.,Patna on 10 September, 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.28069 of 2008
LALAN PRASAD SINGH (L.P.SINGH)
Versus
THE C.B.I.,PATNA BRANCH, PATNA
-----------
2. 10.9.2008Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.).
The petitioner is an accused for an offence under section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(e) of the said Act, 1947 corresponding to section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(e) of the said Act, 1988 vide R.C.-09(A)/2001-Pat. dated 14th of June, 2001 (Special Case No.2 of 2001).
The allegation against the petitioner in a nutshell is to the effect that while discharging his duties as Inspector, Central Excise & Customs, he is alleged to have possessed or amassed assets to the tune of Rs.12.87 lacs between 1984-1998, which amount is disproportionate to his known sources of income. It is alleged that the petitioner has amassed the aforesaid disproportionate assets, both movable and immovable, by corrupt or illegal means. The alleged disproportionate income of Rs.12.87 lacs approximately could not be explainable in the light of his known sources of income during the relevant period. The case was investigated and upon investigation, materials have come to establish that the petitioner amassed the aforesaid income which is disproportionate to his known sources of income. Upon conclusion of the investigation, chargesheet has been -2- filed on 16.10.2007, as contained in Annexure 10 to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner today.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the Central Bureau of Investigation after registering the above case did not properly and thoroughly investigate the case, did no consider the relevant documents, did not consider the materials or the relevant information collected by the Department of Customs while considering the question of grant of sanction for prosecution and, therefore, the allegation is that the petitioner has amassed a huge assets, which is disproportionate to his known sources of income. The Counsel further submits that the CBI did not take into consideration in its correct perspective the income of the other members of the family of the petitioner, including his wife, who has separate source of income and filed her income tax returns with the Income Tax Department. Therefore, the chargesheet suffers from serious illegality and, accordingly, the petitioner deserves to be allowed anticipatory bail.
The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation, on the other hand, submits that upon investigation it has been found that during the relevant period taking into consideration the total earning of the petitioner during his service period vis-a-vis the possession of the properties movable as well as immovable, his income is found to be not explainable. During the course of investigation neither the petitioner nor his wife had furnished the satisfactory explanation justifying the possession of -3- alleged disproportionate income. The learned counsel submits that as an example the income tax return of the wife of the petitioner reflects the agriculture income in the statement of income whereas in the income tax return during the said assessment year, agriculture income is not shown.
In order to consider the rival submissions of the parties vis- a-vis the materials available on the record, including the chargesheet as well as the memo of evidence in support of the same as also the income tax return of the members of the petitioner's family as disclosed in the income tax return vis-a-vis the known sources of income as disclosed in the FIR, the same needs detailed examination.
Taking into consideration the submission of the parties, it is directed that for a period of three months or surrender of the petitioner, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner. If the petitioner, if so advised, surrenders in the court below and files an application for grant of bail, the same shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by the present order and disposed of on the same day, provided that the notice of filing of such application for bail is given to the C.B.I. or its Counsel at least three days in advance.
This application is disposed of with the above
observations/directions.
PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)