Mere Presence at the Scene Is Insufficient to Prove Common Intention Under Section 34 IPC: Kerala High Court Acquits Two Co-Accused in Murder Case Execution of Will Must Satisfy Legal Mandates; Suspicious Circumstances Cannot Be Ignored: Chhattisgarh High Court Anticipatory Bail Barred Under SC/ST Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Petitions Citing Section 14A Jurisdictional Restrictions Section 143A Imposes a Substantive Obligation and Cannot be Applied Retrospectively: Rajasthan High Court Unregistered Sale Agreements Cannot Be Basis for Specific Performance or Injunction: Madras High Court Upholds First Appellate Court’s Decision” Denial of Subsistence Allowance During Suspension Violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution: Punjab and Haryana High Court Framing of Charges Requires Prima Facie Evidence, Not Mere Suspicion: Kerala High Court Discharges Bank Customer in Fraud Case Voluntary Confessions of Co-Accused Cannot Sustain Prosecution: Karnataka High Court Quashes NDPS Case Against Accused Magistrate Cannot Take Cognizance Under MMDR Act Without Complaint by Authorized Officer: Gujarat High Court Quashes FIR in Illegal Mining Case NDPS | Bail is the Rule, Jail is the Exception: Himachal Pradesh High Court Delhi High Court Reduces Compensation in Motor Accident Case: Functional Disability Reassessed Public Interest and Commercial Morality Must Guide Stay of Winding-Up Proceedings Under Section 466 of the Companies Act: Bombay High Court Non-Compliance with Section 82 Cr.P.C. Renders Proclamation Proceedings Null and Void: P&H High Court Delhi High Court Declines Mandamus to Speaker for Special Assembly Session to Table CAG Reports Doctors Cannot Be Expected to Investigate Victim's Age in the Absence of Prima Facie Doubt: Kerala High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Bombay HC Grants Bail to Drunk Driving Accused; Orders Public Awareness Campaign as a Condition Burden of Proof in Declaratory Suits Lies Squarely on the Plaintiffs: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Church Property Dispute Rajasthan High Court Puts Mass Transfer Orders of Panchayat Officials on Hold Physical Disabilities Cannot Be Ignored Based on Employment Continuity: Kerala High Court Awards ₹9.62 Lakh to Teacher Suffering Permanent Disability Local Commissioner Appointment is Not a Right, But a Discretionary Power of the Court: P&H HC Allegations of Fraud Insufficient to Bar Arbitration in Trademark Dispute: Madras High Court Section 138 N.I. Act | Failure to Prove Legally Enforceable Debt Leads to Acquittal in Cheque Dishonour Case: Karnataka High Court

Income tax returns not a foolproof defence against a charge of acquisition of assets disproportionate under the PC – SC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


October 08, 2021

The first respondent is a Civil Servant of the Indian Revenue Services. She is presently working as Commissioner of Income Tax (Audit) at Hyderabad. The second respondent is the spouse of the first respondent, and was also a Civil servant. They are alleged to have acquired assets/pecuniary advantage to the extent of Rs 5,95,58,322. Disproportionate Assets1 during the check period were computed at Rs 1,10,81,692, which is 22.86 per cent of the total income earned by them. On the basis of the FIR dated 20 September 2017, the CBI ACB Chennai registered a case2 against the respondents for offences punishable under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the PC Act and Section 109 of the IPC.  the respondents filed a writ petition before the Telangana High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of the FIR. the Telangana High Court allowed the respondents’ writ petition by its impugned judgement dated 11 February 2020 and quashed the FIR, and set aside all proceedings initiated pursuant to it. Appellants moved to Apex Court against this quashing. Two questions has been arose to decide: (i) whether the CBI is mandatorily required to conduct a Preliminary Enquiry before the registration of an FIR in every case involving claims of alleged corruption against public servants;  and (ii) whether the judgment of the High Court to quash the FIR can be sustained in the present case. Both questions has been answered in “NO”. Held that A Preliminary Enquiry is not mandatory when the information received discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. Even when it is conducted, the scope of a Preliminary Enquiry is not to ascertain the veracity of the information, but only whether it reveals the commission. Even as per CBI Manual a Preliminary Enquiry is not mandatory in all cases which involve allegations of corruption. When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a offence or not and a court cannot conduct a mini-trial at the stage of framing of charges and income tax returns and the assessments orders passed thereon, would not constitute a foolproof defence against a charge of acquisition of assets disproportionate to the known lawful sources of income as contemplated under the PC Act. FIR quashing order has been set aside and appeal allowed. 

Central Bureau of Investigation (CB) and Anr.

Versus   

Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi@ T. H. Vijayalakshmi and Anr.  

View Judgement

Similar News