S.K. Puri And Ors. vs State And Anr. on 26 February, 2004
11. A similar view has been taken by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in judgment rendered in 73/1999-(561 -A), titled Rajesh Sharma v. State and Ors. & 52/2000-(561-A), titled Brij Mohan Sharma v. State and Ors., decided by a common order on 18.3.2002. In this case also, the accused were charged under Section 5 (2) (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, read with Section 120B RPC and Sections 12 and 14 of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Men and Public Servants Declaration of Assets and Other Provisions of the Act, 1983, for possessing assets disproportionate to their known sources of income and further purchased and transferred the property without the permission of the prescribed authority. In the case, the accused had produced the income tax assessment orders and returns of his son, who, as a separate unit, had been paying income tax. But this fact had not been taken into account and the plea was taken by the Advocate appearing for the State that income tax record produced by the accused is irrelevant at the time of framing the charge and the Court had to make up its mind on the basis of the material placed on the record by the prosecution and no fresh documents can be produced and considered. The High Court, while accepting the case of the accused, discharged them of the offences with which they were charged by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, in allowing the petition and quashing the charge sheet along with FIR and held as under: