Naveen Kumar v. State Thr. C.B.I

+ % INTHEHIGHCOURTOF DELHIAT NEWDELHI PFTTTTON (CJRTMTNALl NO. 871 OF 2010 •Reserved, on.; September,201Q., Date of Decision :gjJ'^teemher, 2010., NAVEENKUMAR . TC Through Mr. SanjayMannandMr. R.K. Pillai, Advocates., VERSUS ^ STATETHR CENTRALBUREAUOF INVESTIGATION...Respondent Through Mr.VikasPahwa,StandingCounsel with Ms. Suchiti Chandra, Advocate. CORAM: . HON'BLEMR.JUSTICESANJrVKHANNA

¶1WhetherReportersoflocalpapersmaybe allowed to see the judgment?

2.Tobe referred to the Reporteror not ?

¶3Whetherthejudgmentshouldbe reported in the Digest ? S AN.TTV KHANNA, J.: For detailedordersee WritPetition(Crl)7650/2010titledVirender SinghversusCentralBureauofInvestigationpronouncedtoday. vJi NOVEMBER 2010. F (SANJiVKHANNA) • JUDGE Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. W.P(CR1M1NAI.)N0S,765/2010&.B71/2010 ' ' ^ . , ,1..HEH.3HCOUKTOFl>EOaAXNBWDEMI •. _ 3«sna3mfflm^ 3 ^, • • .iF'esci-vedoia: , • , SSeofDecision:i?3ia^6niJ2St-^--- . • .•...., Petitioner • . • VlRENDl®.SINGH_ " • picihar&aLuthra,Sr;Adyocatc , ; :; , : v^ShMrrAEUragAhluwalia, . A.cb/ocate.' , • • • • ^RSUS GEN-rilAJ.BUREAUOF^NVKSTIGA:!^^^^^pahwa:^di^ounscl' , vife;MS. SuchvtiChaB,dra., , . _ Advocatc. • AJ^B' • • • • ~ • •• i.F.TmON(CBlMINAlAMlAaJ3Fm^^ .. , • . " ' . • • ... Pctitioacr NaVKKN KUMAR • .jAr SanjayMaun and Mr. K.K- • • ' . • ]^]lai,AdA'Ocates.' ' •/ VERSUS STATE-rH?-.CliNTM-BURliAUOl''^ JShMs-Suchitiaaadra.^ ' ; , Advocatc. , - ^ 'SSSfkMR. JUSTICE . Wlie-tkerReporters01localpapersmay bc ^ • " allowedto secthe jvidgmctit? .,• 7to br-^cfcrrcdtothoReporteror nOL r _ ' s/vVbcthcrthcjudgmciitsliouidDcrcpoucu^/,.£g, in the Digest? • _ ; . ^ •. •. : V v.e.dc.Siugh and his son Na.ecn Kumav have filed the present ..UO.S the,o.de.da.ed .3-^.cce.he..>0. passedhy • .,e CBI ch.ec.n..hat <.a.ses he .a.ed>sa...both ot 0/467/'-^"^'' of the Indian I'enal Code, i36o. •iiicm under Section i2Ox</4^9/407/-.-.—^ • . • • ^ » + % .W.p (CRIMMAUNOS. 765/2010&'871/2U10 r ' • I- (herem^iaorreferred to as IPG, for si,on) and SeetioB 13C2) read «th .. Seenon'.3(t)(e) of rhe Preventxo.of CorrupdonAet, r9S8 (hereinafter•^ •referredto as PCAet.1988.for short).Substantivechargeshave alsobeen • directedto befrarnedagainstthe petil.ouer-V.renderSinghunderSeetron •^, read ™th section.3W(e) of fee.PCA.t,tg88and againstNaveen ". i,arunder Sectionro, IPC read «id. Section«(.)-dw>th Seetron .• l,{l)(c)of'ieSCAct.1988andSection419/467/471IPG. . .. ;, The eJlegatiC.agamstthe petrdoner-V.renderSingh ,n the charge .^ sheetrs:thatdur.ngthedaee.penodi«J^y,i98.tol..'M,..aooohehad,., . .equtadandwasfoundtobednpossessionofassetedisproport,onafetoh... •taownsoureesof.neorneto the cKtentoV ,,6.,68,.98/;-rhechar^ . ,etsoutthecareerpr.fleofyirenderSingh,who was,nduetedandjomed • IndianAdnunistrativeServices-(IAS)mJuly.'I969:xhechargesheetset. ont details.offtc incomeearnedbyVuenderSingh,his wifeGeetaSmgh., MssonNa.eentomara.wellastheassetsownedbythemtoarrn.eatfe .^dconehision/finmng.It,iS,allegedin the charge sheet.that Naveen... ]&marhad ac«elyparticipatedand abettedVrrenderffinghin acquisition •'of assets:which were found disproportionateto the Imown Sources of, . income.Specificmstanceshavebeendiscussedlaterou. • • T -a. T hp>,or-p-ftilp'petitionersthat the PC Actj•

¶3In brief,it is submitieaOii bendu o. pei , ^ . ^88.c^me'.intoforcevritheffectfrom9«"September.1988andconsequent^ ::"heretothe Prevention,ofCorruptionAct. r947(PCAct.r947for short)was; repealed.Accordmglyfee' chcck periOd,between July. X98a to r.* May, «iodpartlyincludesperiodpriorto enforcememofthe FC Act..988wrth effectfrom 9"> ,SeDtcmber..i988 during.fhe periodwhen the PC Act, 1947 ' «asm force:nwas submittedthati.r the period^priorto 9-September,- • i588, provisions:of.Section i3(i)(e) of the PC Ac, ,1988 read with u , w.P(CRm'llNAL)l^OS. 765/2010&87V2010 , ^ ^ ^ ExplaB.at;oB^cannotbe appfed as .it wodd amouot ta violation of tiae . eonstfedonal.igh^nde.Article .oW of the Constitutionof Indra. Mxanec1s placed™on Jaga"M..SesM^«rs«sStat.^Ta^, , •i • ' • • p.,.pr Act '1088 slioiilelnot "be, Nadu. (moZlJi^CCJm^It was a-rgueQ,a.a fC Act. x, grven retrospectiveeffectas tlae Explanationto-Section13W(e)oflie PC; , . Lt..1988hasbrought^ontandcreatesanewoffencewaicUishotstoilax . 'orthesameoffenceas was definedandcoveredbySectionsCDCOofthePC, . Act, 1947- , ^ ' • ' . Article20(1)oftheConstituti'onofIndia,reads: , •. . . • . "..oflU-Ionersonshallheconvicted0f any offence • . , .Sir violationofthelawin forceat the ^ • • tliecomniissionoftheactchitrgeclasanoaence, i<m . • to apenaltygreaterthan mat^ch. : . ."mighthavebeen inflicteduiiaertte law m-oicc at , • . tlietimeoitliecormiiissioiioi.uiGOifence. • •5. Interpretingthe said Ariclein'KaoShiv BahtidM, ««-s«sTfeSmm'of.VinAhyaPradesh, " .has bcen^heMdiat diis Articlern broaddrnport,prohibitsconvictionand, ' sentence under cx-pct.facto laws.. No one should be punned for • something;whicliwas la^dwhen it was done or omitted.This wouldbe highlyinequitable,unjustand contraryto the universalnotion.of•fairness.; ..ndjustice,in the afcreaaidcase,theSupremeCourtnoticedthedifference- .• hi languageof Article2p(l):of the Con^tutionofIndiaand.Sections9(3) •and 10 of.Article1of the AmericanConstitutionand it was held,thatthe Article20(1)IftheIndianConstitutionprohibitsconvictionofa.personor ; his subieetionto asentehceunder ex postfacto laws. Accordmgly.it was . observed:- , • V ^ Obtamed'at ^0 time of the . "P,(GR.M:NA1,)N0S. 765/2010«=S71/20i(l •4 • .. : . • , •'comn>issi6nof,thc^ffeme^^^-^ : rts£ts^:^ifM&s.s^ ••- . involved. • ^ ..•, -. Tg^^pv^asissupplied}' . ,a,™v.. «.««. .... «" " effectof Scction513) 01 • • • , • . • ., Oil 11^'' March, 1947 . raisedwas a<^tti5ePGAct,l947° ^therefore;SectK>.5(3)ofthePCAct,.9«ca"notl,ebasi.forconvrcnon y :^,.Hn.W=on.ae.a.cn.sse.and.c..eac,uireaprior.^ • • J.v,p-pp A'-t^lo/i? as origirialiycnacied and , ..Sectio^l 5(i)> X^) ^ : erforccdwitheffectfromll<-March.1947;readas under- , ' .' ,• . -c Amislicsen.-antis said to conimitthe : ::^ .">ffcncc mrseond".ti. the a-sehargeof . • , his duty-. . . • if he hahitually accep'ts or obtains or .. . • +. nt+pmiVfo. to ohtam from any • agrees ^ •accept^- other person,•any . • oftheIndianPenalCode, 01- • • • if he-habituallyacccpte.orobta^^^w agreesto vduabf^tog wthouL' , . for rcbD^ilerattonwhictheknows: SaS"pr"ceeLgor ' , be transactedby mm, f " of a-ry -oirblic •HSiiH to the persob.so conceine-J.,.o. he dishoiiestiy or, fpidulcntly . . nrisapKopnates.or'otiaerw.seco.Tverp;forhrs -own •W,P(CRiMI,^At)NOS,765/2010S.8H/201(. ' ^'5 • •• , , ; •. J persori so to ao,, oi. if he bv corruptor fflogaiinoaas or l5y ..gsSoSSyW v.; • valuabletbingorperamarj'-S,- , ,. • . . , •s/vimbotii. . ; • , • • •. • In ary trial of an,offencepanislrable • ••; . und.r1ub-3;ction;(2) ; , : persDE or any P- ,amiot , • . , • • • property•QispiQpoiL.oi.a^e,^, incime«raybe:proved ana . .-• .drall presmiie/umess .. .,•,, , •• the accusedperson;ISgnuiy , . •' ' teXe shS not DC invalidby reason •- •• ..- -• . • .'• The suoremecourtrn»«'s case (supra)ha. held PC Act^«47iid-t have retrospectiveopera.on,butwas upabl.to; •agree-that:taking .nto considerationpe^,arary.resourcesor-propertyr" , :^.ess.nofthe accusedor anyotberpersononMs behalfbefore-.ePC •...•,..wasenacreawas.nanyway,grvrng.tKePC^AC.,.^a .,etrospeet,vcoperation.Itwas observedthatastatute-cannotbe sardto-e •' - \, :,-3artof ^icreamsitesofits actionIS drawnf^^^ retrospectivebec^l-uoe.a pal - •' , ^!;.sino-nhas beenheldinsajjanSingh(supra)as ' time antececeni lO alo pc.oSuT.f,-- under-; - 5oolong3tfee words oftficsectionand givingtem^eirplain ^ 'il impossibleto say tlrai the Kl'lXnTStptiSr^a^^^^^!J'o°,e°Sn ,,:::^Sr:n;ShS^s:Jo;hii:bbhalf.to accept ••^ •" V- •• : •_: fi-nt'cucia pecuniary-resources•o; , , .. • . ,' 'the eomentioii L; ^ ; ; • •• properly ^ .••••• • •: ^ ^•••dateGtcQmmencem^u^_^^^^ ,^ , . ^ .- : " .,,of acco:a3atin apply tlic receip^^ • . : •.. - • -• proper. ^ ^ ; ..• •. . • . • acciascdliimsell.....; • ^ ^ . ' "•••'•'" ' • • ••" •; • ,6.; Mention ' , ' ,•' ^. •• meaningless,.•-iiooo i Qp^rty is itself,a .' • • • ; ••' CVC17 P=c}™f'i7 — : , .^itoceoar mronie^ cesooices.or .. in terns to say LijaL.tbt , ,. .. .' • • property can-be is wliol^^^ ; , , sources of inco.™^^ . . • .' •. misconccived. ^/i-nic . g^yeg sources 01. • • •. : - - . • . • • • .income aicn c...c. _ ^ articularpome of, • • .- ,unde.Rtandmsaposrt,o^^^^^^ . .... ; , :• . timethe , tetog .made to , . • , • , • • • .• -regardeaaS-assc-s d ^ .... . • . •:, •• ^secwhether.theknow^ : ' ': WSS=Ssiss£^ ... .' .tie contentionwhetiierSectMn.5(0) - . : . .dt..con.nt.n.as..e.ea.^^^^^^^ , : • •phees i.n the hands -oftheprosecutionanew .mode oi. ptov,n" . . • .places--- . , . 1- -1 •• r tinO-reusedv/erealready • •• •• •• • •'• • , V- . q,^-pT A-t 1QA7withwhichthe-'-Luseo - -. . . underSection5Ci)0T^b,ePCA.l,.j,/. . . ; .. . .charged,itwas accordmglyobserved. ., , •. . , . . V '•,•• ••. ••• - •• "13« ••••^^• ••: • . ' .. •..• •: :...:. SglSSSrpS - d.e. .^ ^ . W:P(CR!ivnNAL)NOS.765/2010&871/2010 \ - . "acqmsition of\,pecumary•res.oiirccs .. • • . ^ i-boudait was notinviolatioiiof alaw m _ • " ^ ' •• tin-'.eVithe commissionofsucli act oi:-acqiiibiLio,a. , ' . . :thi3 argaracQtwere correcta'convictiono.- ^ . •- .ITdel-the "presnmption.'raiseQmiQCi bCs). _ ^ respectof neciiniaryresoiirces.or propert^^ac^ured- • -• • •• £Se"thePrevention.f'M . ,, • •'^breach offundamentalrigh-teunaerAa 2(^^^ • " . . ;Constitutionand so itwoaidbe piopei for u., ,^ - • - • to constme-S. sCs) a way so ncA .o : • , . . •'• possession of pecumary resources , . ••; ,•. 'iccfuired,beforethe.Actfor tnepurposeaCtn^L^ ^ . • , • •• The basis oLtiie"s:SiimenL.ll^^ . • • • • S^eatesVi^iiidofo^^ . • •• •' •. •• ^-ry-is .homierjmscy^ y^,- ••' • -SStacc'foZSe^ •• . ' 'criphnaLmisccmducLajiJi^ ^ , . . •^raccuscdpersmifL.aii^^ y. (emphasissupplica; . •, ; , - •• g; •: Loaraodgou=jsc]for:mcpentionertas'submittedthatSectos(3) of ., the PCAtt. 1947as origkiallyenactedwas ddotedvide/theAntiComption • Laws (Ameiidmo:at)Act..i964and substitotedby anc«. sA'section.;The, -• origitfaiciatiscgO) of iKe PC Aet; 1947«as modified and re-enactedas Section5(:i)(e)of tie PCAct;1947aridiafmscoiincctior,my.atlentionwas •• drawnto ae;effecf=fenactment.of.SectK,nsdKo)oftheJC A=t.4947as a result of tile Anti CorruptionLaws (Ajnenament)Aci, ^9^4 W • •Mc.Jwa.nJ^t.ersMsKaliflr.JCoiLSabramamaMy? £i92Z1:asec524. In thesaid case,the residentialpteraisesofthe accused ' ••wercscardred on 17'^May,1964andalotofassetsweredetceted,Whrlcthe. matter v..s, still pdndmg, mvestigatpn-hePC Ac, 1,47underwent . :..nendn^enron 18-Dece.^3e,1964 enactmentof Anti Corruption ^taws (Amendment}Act,i964^vhichresultedin insertionof clanac (e) to .Section5(1).whicnbecameanew offencepnmshaWounderScctron5(2) of tee PC Act. l947.AheSupremeCourthas in paragraph3'of,thejudgment • W..P(CRlfvilNAi.rNOS,765/2010&.S71/2010 8 • - • . . • . observedthattheHigi. on.anappe.1fledbytheaecu.edhadcometo'^;T? the^coBolt®onthat^o{fcnoesuDdorScctioa5(i)W\(War.a^ ^,,.9^.7<ve.e.otvo.deo.t.Hewa.ac«i«ed«"de.the.^ questionarose.^eti.eraccusedcouldbe co^vfedunder ^ ,he.PC Act. .947, w^ueh.eau.e .nto force o. .8-Dcce..ber..964. The, , ; ^ ..SaprerBC,courtheldthatfee accusedcouldnot Ue eonvrctedunderSoctron^ . 5(l)(e)of PC Act, 1947in the absence 01 atsy e«aenc>.0.1-^i-oia . ,. that^the,appecam had acquired or was found to be m, possession of ' • pecumarysources of proper^^drsprepornonatcto h,s;l.no«n,sourccsof ^ ^ ,"comc after cormng into force of 4e Anti Corruption (Amendmenl).. •.. . .. ,,tt96.«Ureffecrfromr8.^Dcecnrber,r964iB™wo£Article.oWof«ae , : ConstrtutiontAs.notrcedab<,ve.feesearchwasconductcd.ntheprenr.ses:of., AC accusedon r/^May. X964i.c.beforethe Ant.corruption(Anrcndnrcnfl, • ^ •;Act.l964,^-®: enforced.The.SupremeCourt in the case of-Kah'irJKo.I _. , •sanmriB«damSa;muma^ y . , : • ' «^o 'So when there^vrasno law in force ac . •. . •• the tuiUenthe accusedwas ; . soprcleCourt.dfst.gurshedthc a^isron i,n the case of• . cupra, as ongmaily Section• 56) of the PC-Act, W ^vas naerey • . ..escribing-arole of .acneefor the purposeof provingthe offence^^ t • ;,i.inalinisconductasdefincdunderScction5(x)ofthePCAct.i947. ne , ^ \V.P (ClllMVN^Al.;);NOS•.765/2010&8Jl/20i0- ^ ^ ' ^. ong-nd section5(3) ofthe PC Act, .947 constitutean offencem ' • ' itself. ,-' . •.-•••• . • • • ;; '•« n.ay be relevant tonotice here the ,Ies.slati.el.i.to.y a.d • , •_ , ': enactmenterftheAntiCorv^tionXaw.(An.enan,enO,Aet..t967.«chwas , .,^ Heemedlc^eomemo-forcew,theffectfro™5'''Mayr^^ . .saidi967Actreadsas iinder;- _ .• •• •. : relatio« to-certain jpendmg ^ . Notwitb.standing- • • ; • • ra) ' SijbstitutioBof inevv provisions . • • " ^ pfQp.. c-the Prcvcmionof CorruuLion I SCCnpn v-iJ 01 wC^.,Lau . " i.'Uo to/iVAft-)bv • • • •• •, •Art 1947(bercmgifterrsfeiTCQ-iOc^l^t.1947-.-;-^ . • <v. ^2XcV of tlie Ariti-Corriiption4._L<.ws^ • ; ••• ••^endmk) Act, i96^^ ; ;• .• • . • the 1964-Aot),aiid_^ . • • . •- " •/ . • •. •• ohai] ^-e deemed alv^ays'to uaye applied to aaa ). .... • • •••^cWion to trials of offencespuiiisiiablc.iJ^^^^^ . ^ ., • •• •• • • on (2) of Sec. 5 of :the 1947 v Coi'rtiimnediatelybefore.sucbcommcnccrneBl • .. . • •as4nosuchncwpro^nsiorishadDecn.siibsLita.ecfoi. . • . the sa.id sub-section (oJ- ... •. • • •. . •. The accraed per-son in any trial,to and in , • . relationt-i wmelasub-section(i) appliesmaj 4ie • ^ • ^>i;a.i-oKr die commcnccment o^ uic . . .: •. • ; td :nS^sieidemandbemg ^ade.the, , , • . , • St ;a'Soeeedmd>thetrial : • • • (a) Vor the removalofdoubtit is herebyprovided , • ' , • . an appeal or application;for. • , cpmmencemejitof dasA^t, oi .. ..' .. /•WP(CR1M1-NAL).NOS.765/2010&871/2010, . .!« any such; trial,;i. 6^ ^ ^,W> '''.•' coriirocticemeiit - ' . ,• • . . : . • •. • . Shailremandthe casefor trial in conformvtywith : .. . • .the provisionsoftillssectiou. . .• ' •' ••• rcjcctcd.Appealbeforethe SupremeCourt-ws-dismissedmdie deas^ • ,, ;• ,9CC sQ-i.Observingas under;- , . ., ..• • '^^rnde 20(1) deals with ex post factc)^^^ • • •. - ^sp.s^i^^ • • thccouvicuohofapersouo.^ ' : • ; • • • .Coun -joiiitedout Liiat • • , • • . . • "oT-ipedat the time of the commissioiio- ; . , . • . • Cofenccorbyacourteaf^^^^^^^ . . • ' •':• • • ISr^s^^'ssg : , . . • • diserimiD,atjoiior,ihe«oU.>on » • . /;-••: ..fciidamentalrightmayberavolved. ,. , .. W.P (CRlMi'KAlO.NOS,.76:./20l0&87.1/2010 ! I 'xnus-the•appellant diifcrer... ^ of-fencc that wa?, comraission-.01a.c was nTforce and ilS2iSS:€s;£ffs time. • J • • ^'WKe-e .an •Act is repealed ' .• • cl eBaitDionl . . .. manif.® no' .ntentioBiW ^ • ,• n-c'HisinalAct ^AaVlcontmue-repealed , , . , • • was that , .. •; • secondAct revivedtheiixstaDiniiio. _" ^ ;. ^\ -riicrccanbe-noobject^B^^wi^^^ •• ,• , procedurewinch was " of ' the • ' offence was section ^ as it .'.amendmentIS tb.atsub-sec^-^^^ • - . . • stood beiore to have always ••• . .-siiaii appiy "'""T ; . ^x.,,,c.F^,-,.csIt may be ifby • ' , • • applied-inrelation 10 ' • , • . • •• this deeming ^lOvioiOi. • \ ^ome • . '• .into op='f.*°°-"f.:3 ,0 rtore than rcitciatingthe . . - out, wnai is -' .-^^-QmerslClausesAct. Mr EffectotSeenon6^^^^ ^ ^•. SS;aiu^ ^ bfcSteS • • • .• •• created. It is ^unnecessary ."in' certain ,• fS-SeSe ' :•' , ^: . • "voccduve;isreived ' . ", -.SltSSlSSe^-^uitin^eerea.^^^^ ..• •-new oftcnee; ; , , • . , • Sec.onr5(t)(e)of the.PC'Act,t.8.an. 5«(e)ofthePC Act, t,47 .eiacnecaland pan mater,a(exceptto. two chan.csor aad.t,o.snot.ce be,c^.-i.:^ere.orc,not possibleto acceptthe cootcn.on.hat~ ..ifferenccif :the eheC period overlapsthe PC A.t"t,47 and ^^ ^ :,S8:Xt« notpossihleto acceptthecontention,thatthe checKper,od ^ ~ > u'y \ . -/• • •^65/2010 &8.71/^OiO ^ _•• • .', • n ^ in.auctionis priorto S=pt»^e,:,.988 and.therefore,th. PCMt..•H^ • .;<;«« . .ei.,,.ve..=tro.pec.veefiec. v,ew, of the•a.fKor.a.ve. ^ .. •'• SirtaJi's caso (supra).A.V proiionm-erP,cnlofth=SirprcmcLmiu.m.><3®a«^.a ... . ••.o.eeaa.ove.-^.. supreme «... t.e ca.e « •. • ^^ .atogether. _ aafe.e.taspe.i.e.en.et.e.ofa.ewofece«tb.int.o» ' -. .; . .• • 5WCe)ofPCAct;.947/rhetwo:ehang../additionsinSect.onx3WWoffl'e,. ' .• i>CAct.l98&aremeKxplanatioi^andremovalofthedausegrv.ngdisaeUon. , \o the Courtsto awardpunistarxntofteislianoneyearfor reasoirsto^te . • * recorded in writmg. • • . . ;., • . . learned counsel fot 'iie'petitioner,,however,.,relies..pan the , ,;.oianatiooto sectionx3W(e) of the PC Aet, 1988 and s^rmtsthat Are •.: . explanationcreatesane. offenceand, therefore,the ratioIn.thecase . SOrtion,l3(i)(e)of the PC Act.-xgSB Includingexplanationthereto ; 15-tcad as under ^ -CrimiMl niisco«ifert by '.a. p»*- ^^?5TSicservantisWdto committhe offenceof criminalmiscondnct,- is in possession

(e) ifhe a.^anypej:-n income-i;xFianation.ForAe^ "knovvn sou.ces oi .ncoi. recciptnas .been from any lavrful soiuc- -a ^ Qvigions of any' public servant. • , . ,. 765/2010&8/1,2'w10 I-' • •'• ,6 Th= uKpla:.ationto SecnonasaXe)defines • .' ' " of .nco..e-and statesth.t a>i. expresstom^^^^ . fro,..a.v lawfulsoutceand alsorequnesthatthe receiptshouldha«been , : • ,ntin.atedby the pubileservant.naecortocemthany.pto^ionsof ; • • .nJesotorders.AS.otieedabove,this e,ptoatfon«asnothereinthe PC : •Aet;t947.Notietns.thisiactmJasa«.*Scshadri(snpr^ • ' Courthas observedasunder;- . . • • • •• '• 'V, ^ barr^ reading of SccdoD 30(2) of'^^^^988 , . .^;s«;^Satany£:tdoneoranyaefioBtaKen^ •• ry,ru-rtcdto have been done or taken uudei oi^ m . • piSnaBceof-iherepeaiedAi^t^^^^^^^ :. •Lot lucousisterit^ath the provisiousof ^-C'T-'-^d to have been done, or i.akcn-mu . ^ . Pircuc^nr-oof the correspondingproAasions oi 'Ja. . ^ does not substituteSection 13 m oi - • • r'n;; cof die 19^7Act/Section30(2)is apphcable . ^, •• • ' •• • XAntli>-:toreiudiGCto the applicationof SecQOii6m .^,c^^^^r-^iaauscsAet,i897^I^ouropinim., . • • ,, , • • • ., . iphcationof Section13'oftl.e1^8^^ LO^^ _ • . • • •Jh^^rio-^of -the nresentcase wou^d offendbeaioub ' • • o^th-GeneralClausesAct, vvhich,interahaprov^. . • . 'tbat'^-npalshahnot (i)affe.ct-theprevio^^^ , • • . ofW e—ot s, ora« .. c-::fFered- •thereunder, or

(n) ax.!cc. a.y^ •••.•- '• •.. • proceedingsor remecio^in res^^ . .. • •• " r3|bts, privdege, oM ... • . o^nishm.ent.Seetion 13. ho1i .tvthe . SSr" ,7. Bcrored.velhnsfortheron thesaidaspect,rt may be relevant-tonote^ •^ the-faetsinthe ease ofJaga.M.Sesfcadri(supra),,vhichhadresulted>n ^ t^e aforesa.dobseryadons.In the sa.dcase,the cheAper.odwas fromn- ./May,..;.03..Apr,r,8.,fe.,priorto enforcementofthe PC Act,r^8 - effectfrom ,.^-Scptonrher,t988.-thechargeswere alsoframedund^r ^ •Section•5Ci)(d)and (e) readwhh Section512) of die1CAc., -94/- 'W-.P(ClllivirNAUNOS.765/2010dc 871/2010 '' . ^ ^ court acq.itt=a:the ^==«ed^de j.dgmctd^d^9^ -b'--990 but the. ,M d.d.ion -.vas reversed and ftc"ffish Court convicted the accused fox . •, offencesta.dc.sect...saXe)of PC Act. .988holding,tater-aha. . . •,,c PC Act. W standsrepealed enact..cntof re AC, .988.Relyrug ^ uponScctioa30®of^cPCA^,.988.,.heffigh;Courtop.u.dtiaa.ti.e. ,," accused..ouldbcdc^edto.avc.ee.ciar,cdfo.offe.ce3undetSect.ou,, ^ .,30)(c);;ead^withSccHon.3(.)rftiaePCA....988.Onf«rth^^ •, {edccusedtodacSup.en.eCourt;thesa^ewa.aiowedobse™gthatt^^^^ . •,Ue.:^doffcacesW=re=o—d.vheurcAc,.947 was,Bopera.ou.K . , held that Secda. 30(.) of thc.PC Ac^ x988 was .ot appHcaWe.On ,• , it was also observedftat the HighXo^had fafledto deal • variousreasonsg.-n.bythetrialcourtin supportoOieorderon ac<,urttal. The cvrdence or, rccord has^beeu discuBsbd by Are Supreme Court rn para^raph-oonwards^aeSuprcnreCouxthasohserved-thatthemghCourt. . - was.rrot^^tin re3ecrrngthe«s. of are trial court relying^ ... : cxplanatianto .Sectiorr.xsWCe)ofthe PC Act. .988 as Ihe.accusedhad not, ,•.• •,,^ •intimated;&c-amount,allegedlyreceivedfrom h« mother-in-lawto the , .. GovGrrsmcnl. ... • • . ' . • • ^ • • ,8. The decrsrouof dre SuprcrnecourtirrJc^g^M-Seshadri(supra) was aonsideredby.theSupremeCourt.inStele SMnie, Infte sardcase,the checkperiodwas'fro»29'^May.1944.vAeqthe accusedw,stnductedrnto .er^cedll tue date of ftc rard.in.hrshouse on aS-- Decenrher.t97t. As • . ^ .Vv,r =c"Hon <l)(e) was' enacted and incorporatedi.n PC.Act. llOLlGCa aDOs^C,- •> ... ,,,,,.th cffectfrom Deceuaber,.964.The HighCourthad ohse^d .^atac,u.srtiorrofweal^sardto be disproportionateto hrS hnownsourccs e.;"c6^neoriorto 1964couldnotbetakenintoaccount.srnceprrprto .964 W.P (CRliyilNAU'NOS.765/2010&S7-i.201u , .. • ... • •• •' • • or offence The Supreme Court • Section5(i}(c)of the PC Act, 1947 ^ ^ ' ,, ; ' .h -•-•^ referrVngto'the decisionin SogjanSmgh:scase- ..,^ •. , allowea tfee appeal .•• (s^r.)-and remandedthe n^atterlaclcto the B:gh Conrt.fte Supreme, ,; - courtwhaeremaud;ngthe.^.terb.ckexpressly.ofervedto ^ and 1=; =f the decision of the Supreme Court mSajjanSingh's case • ., ^•(supra),v^'hichhavebeenquotedabove. - • • ' • ,5.' The repression«taio.^sourcesofincome"was usedin;Sertion,5(3) . , ofthe PC Aet, l947:andalsomSectionsCDW aftcilitwas incorporatedin .1,64 in. PC Art, io47'fThe said expressioiis-incorporatedin Section , h(,)(e).ofth,c EC Act. 1988. albeitwith an explanation,definingthe said hipression.Thequestionrpsedis,whetherintrodu.:ion.fthe explanA^^^- . 'defining'theexpression"knownsourcesof incomc"has resultedin a.new- ^ •' oi=fencc or the cxpianacionis merely ciarifieatoryor proceduralin nature. ; and does notcreateasubstantivenew oftencc-soas to pffcndArticleaoW ^ •' OX the ConstitutionofIndia. . . • ... . -.0, Tiie explanationto Section.l3W(e)ofte PCA.t.1988hasthe effect ' • • of defining thd expression"Imo™:sourccs of income' used .in Section • l3(i)(e)of the ?C Act. 1988.The explanationto Scctionl3(l)(e)of theIC. . Act. 1988-consistsoftwo'paxts.Thefirstpartstatesthatknown,sources-'of • incomemeansinconieMeceivedfrom anyla.rfulsourceandthesecondpart; • - sta^sthatsuch receiptshouldhavebeeninttmatedbythepublicservantm, '• • • accordancev^rh the provisionsoflav., rules and ordersfor-thetimebeing. • , . ••apphcabie. .' . ^ . ' ' • . • 21. Refertmg to the .first part of the expression •%nown sources of; income"inI'f.K.amMkrishnaiahvsStateofA-f-ii-W-Crl l-J-17 2' SupremeCourtobservedas under:- • /=' RlMl'NAbli^OS.765/2010&871/2010 W.P (C Tne emphasisofAs phrase'ImownsOT^ , : • : ^niiotattonof the term;'mcome^.t^ ; , . . v™luiderstood.as meaiv-rig receipt hamo : : • to ose's laboiir,or expertise or prope-^^^ . - fe;estment,aridbeingtetherar.ourc^ • • • v-oid-a regular leyeiiue. Jlheofc CooaAiai • •SacSriSs are mu.ders* ^ Therefore,-it caa be said L^ai, . . receiptmthehand 0^^ ,, • . • -torwo-ald not partake'into the character ot , . . • ;,i"onr" For the Diiblicsen-ant,whatevervetnrahe .Ss'rfM^ervrce,«U be fee primary. •fr-om-Other income which can conceivaoi^.b.. . . ;;C v:n"athe pnblicsen-actv,iribe m , ,, • • :?;cfetiToai:(a)his.property,or(b) ta^ • • • V Worn .windfall,or gams'ofgrau .cxime^oi h-rmoral secrkionsby persons prmrar^^^^^ •• • •••• •••^cthercceiptforthe'']mbwi:30iircc:ofmcou.^ oi - • ^ ; publicservant." • • , • •• : •(See also,State.^fM.P.«««sAmidhmd^oreCh^taizaSAll •• ••• , . • • ' . ' \ .

¶22: this briBg us to the' secondpart of the cicplanation.definmg the, expression'"knownsonreesofincome"i|l.intimationhy thepablicservant Mn accordance«th any provisionsof law. rples or orders apphcabl.toa, .pnblicservant:Section5(3)- di= PC Act,;r947beforeitwas:aniendedand ,, Section5(i.)Ce3oftiiePC Acr. 1947and Sectionl3Cl)(e),oi tne PCAct, ,19,08 h^vebeen quoted above.TheIdngnageof the substantive.provisions,in the. .-dirceSectionscondnnes'tobe &e samemou^-Sectron5(3)Moreit was • , aniendcdwas heldto be aproceduresectionin the case 'cstipra):,'TheScrtion.5(3);of the'PCAr;t.i947beforeits amendmentwc.f. ' W.P"(CRIM AU NOS. 765/2010_&871.(2010 \ Swarm-Vs. sum ME. • , •• • • : Decsrobcr,1964 was mterpieui.^1.- ^ iQ^SC?find itwas observed; •,••,• . •; , : . ^Itistxue^Se^nsM^ ' •; ,' create a new Oiiencc oU ^ •- • • d\ddence, —a • • ' •, , •;• •• completedeparrare^ always.lies ;• . criniinaiju'iispiudenc^ •..^n-'hemoredientsofthe. • . •• onthep^sccmPJ^^-^ . OTieiiCCCi.uU\^eJ,. j'•,/^v.--.iro'e'^Piriiedagainst- • . • . >• • . hto/VahreiErsDCotoi.v^^^ • • • Act. flab ..... . • iastance. iJiai iflc CQa , ... . • -. ••• V . the dischargeofills .. . .... • ..die fact as . Impenfj Baii.<^1.1 Ii." ^ and China. *•• ••Chartcrea Boof ^ v',.wi^-isiict credit--Adth ... •; •• • (ChafldiiiChoi,4fa,icu) _ • • •• tho.se Banks totaUea.up-o^^^^^^^^^ .. . . • • . ^ .91.000. He accountea ^Qi u". ^ • \ . -statingthat he was aii-Oui./ -^ .-had hecn able /"X"ears-, that after. . .' • • .. . .. .. .iEngtodfm-agriodpj^^- • ;. • . Ills retm-n lO incLio.,. •• • • posts for aboryt 20 • . ,• • . •• • • ; " Wustnes, Ai...y ^ .- • • . •India; that he that with h.is liimted;, • .-. . dependants except to "save a go^od; •• . - .-liouseno-idexpenses,^^ • .••.••• • ,• round sum out oi ms saa 3 . ^ to'oV. hrni-^ •' • .- . --were considerable, ^'^.^^.^""^-j.-eadthof the co.mitry,- . . •'. ' •• • •- •'tonghoutthe ijngtn^a^^-^ . • ••. •. •• .. thus-siiabling_.niin'o b,e saved "by • ^ •' •. ' '• wav "ot travelnng a^^jg^tions dmnixg his -. •. • .• .. stayiilgi^th.h^inei^'^^- •••:; • .• " SMierS:e;^^^^^^ . • ,' . • of November 1947- ... , • ' . , . . : : .. • • ^ : •/.. '..•. . . • • . had .held tnar if plausib- -.4^^ .3^^ . . .. . -: . ; oftercaby an accrued . .. : . •••••--. • • of propeity wlucu^-wa * accusedfrom. • . " ' •• charge,the ^ '••possessing incrimmating- •" , crim.in^'-^i.iCsp.o.nsiu- ^t^^ .j.-iJ^Qgp, cases_ bavejno, - *1 W.P (CRIvnWAL)NOS. 765/2010&871/2{)10^ • to ^=^;,tisfacton33^.j£cou]^^ •' • • H ••: . ^ • •. . • •. • • . - • •• , ,aieng£s<dsiwttii2^=^:^^ . H.r.,-niit'imist .2;.Q_to__the oifeBc^._tiie_j2^iiC^^ ,dAds<^Jiseit]ie •, • cast a Vord^Qfi •.8J^QjA&!=^^ ^ hppri71o^on the sanlcasp 6» ;]^e p'ro'Snition"has not led ' of tne case, _is .-^a ^ the,Imomi^miE^' mfiiimc-tff liiww ii« t <m. attern;iOIL_Jwas.^^ ,not...saia^ism&-j^^ -",. that thesalas "VnowTi sources...oi, ' -^mia in«>me' ntmrn bt. cxpjici:ea ,^.vhc instanf-case, only iead c-^naeuce,..o ^ to- .eaiD, tis . •• xo 'show tnat the a^ r during'idie :Itengby,se^ unto ^of be • material, pei-ioa. i/i.e pnine allowancew,as justifiedin.coneluamgL allov/ahce is , iiso .a ^Uice of "it officerconcerned • ordinarilymeantto°°*'^l-'X"t!';n"eidcntalto journeys ••• for his oii^of-pockeW^-JJ^-.^ coi^d perforraedby nuij. 10.- L. o^^-.-. - substantal. , kt possaly be ^.C|^ .0 a y^ ^ source of mcoms. luc . Gi W.P (CRIMl'NA1,)'N0S.765/2010&871/2010 ISSBaS^ii^Sr •^^ aSisS;#ia • • -aaitsaES^ ssasffiasBj* • • • • . .. ., • .SSSSS^g : • 'iiiissill: , •s£i£iiiss S"S5a;;r.e:;;xcesdispropo.t.=B.te • •' Ev.nafterSeaionsO)™s deletedandSection5W(e)™s enacted. ' •fe Sup.=..= court in -e case 'of Smm of MaU^rasMra-y/asudeO'jlawi^ChamiraKaide!ii>ar;li^Sd-S-SCC.Jii.-^as °bse ^ aatthe =Kpiess>OB•l.nown sources,of occurnng,n Sect,onsWC^) • hasadefinitelegalcomiotatiGnwhichinthecontextmuSL.neandiesouiccs 'hiownto the prosecutionand'notsonicef,reliedupon aad.known to tl , ...sed.section s(.)(e),^«as observedhy the SupremeCourt, cast,a wen.n the accucedfor vt uses.iewords ••for whichthe puhlicservant, eaiinotsatisfactorilyaccount^..The onus is on the accisedto account or W.lMCRlM-n-^AUl^OS.'65/2010&871/2010 -0. • a.d. s.drfac.o,:ny..piam the assei.-Accovdingly, in WaWeo'^ ; OiaiidraXai£laliaai-(supra)itwasobservcd:^ • • •• «,]! ,ili6 provisions of Section 5(3) r-ave • . , i-cor n'bi'»ct of jididal/interoretatioE..I'lrst utie . . •. .' -• • • •thp v^en-settled prmciples: see/o.o.lJ. ^uc-mj • •, •• iate-Sajjan Singh v. State of Punjab and . ; •• • V'qtnto-nf UP -^^>0Icgisiaturetliongfllitfib • ••4^',eMe^eVc5c!e.cc»«a^^ ., • rM) Li mate «»e jfossetsjon<rf . •'. ' oP.iceif cTimirialniiscondactby • . due to- • services., . , •• . , • • ' The, terms ^^^.lessiQBS-^P-eyiag• • • • : : • . . " . . N° " • 5;wi^fo?^vraptioD.of guilt m , • . .or.ir^.o^ roneedto mentionijecaon-sW-ve) •• • •. , ^ .\. , SoSn''T£efi;stpartofti.eseettonc^ • •; oa^ac prosecutionand,tne second.oiT^^^^^^^^ . ^ '^1 -11 ill' •• •• tnJ-oHcidth?.tthe biuidmiS-OILSlid^ : •, . •• • • •fo-Vrv^ngdispropca-tioiiateassetsmhis possessioi •• • ' • fo^MYhichhecaimotsatisfectonty.acOT^^^^ . . • ' • foV^'Hcdof an offenceunderSection5(2) read . Sectioii.5(iXs)of the Act unless .' •disproves.all possiblesourcesoimcoax. . • •• W>tCR.MmAIJ^:OS,765;20l0^iS7l/20,0, y • ,• . -• • ,, icg2u.om:a'^i.ii-- •;, ^ -'c the hurclen of . •• and (2) tie erideiM" isadmg essentialto cstaWishtlic ciiarge ,• pvoTOig everylhu^cb.,c ^ . against the •«•, . 'diat •bLLrdeii_ i^ev-i ^ ,-^-F• r,rooflies excKuswely • • . •• iBip'-wlrale'till"I"** '"i", n'y rrfrrminffffences-- . npoo.thS-PtnSW)'''?"',. fart in issuenas is howcvetJflUa •m-thfijasa^^ . . • . ciisctejadbMap^^^^^^ ; • •• / •• ttgtefent.rf Jte 5"te)axe tte uiicler ijcCLiou bC^J --^mn-ces or iDropert^'' . ••• satisfactorJy accouiiL. before it cai]j2rm&-a musLpxQ;<£.thAiQ!lam!J^^^^ ,t ; hk posScssiQsjisiJl• • •• -^f I'urimi1fti c||iiri7*m'iiTii^irr^'^ « ... jmilTBW?' ZjiiJ^o of the_.aKiised,wera ' • I lu iiil iiTi^'ni nfrnirm . casEIoportio^^ . .cstablisiied^jne. • •'. .g ^ tn accouptiQi.,. . -suchj^urSSS^i^^ 3ccQ3iBU2t-M . • . . • Th^ extent,•. • ^_nasne-fi^J=^^ in cossc^m-.-Ol l.mlfc--5crY.ant.,.ji3___W^ • . .^ ..diffixOEmimat^asjs^ • bv the court • • :Dl0balaJjly.That test L.C.. m . •. Woobningwnv.. l^-^ .e ^ni^nssibleburdenon the . ..: ., • court has •; • • •prosecution xo d...bp.o ...^, •' cciallcnowiedgeof. Lome..h«h case, the, flic. accused... .-.t -i-ao be ^ . .• .iSSi" ""-"tie ^ W.P (CRI-MlNAL)>i05.765/2010&871//010 • fntird-'n possession of reiiO-a::css ct propetW . discrODortioiiateto Ms Icnowasourceso> • bis\sa!arY/rhosswilI bematteraspcCMllywimw^ nwl.-^d'oe of reads; . .... . • ' ' -'men any fact is especially the krov\4edge'of any person, jhc buraen oi . ^ " •, • • • pro-nsth..faet.supon , .(Seeobser.atio-asoftheSupremeCourtiuK.Vee.asn,anriV.: U,nonof ' India(li9i}.3ivCC,66itoparagraphs69 to 73) aus.tt>cexpr=ssxou''kuov,usourcesof meoae'^snot synonyrnous •• ,,«fhthewords=for.4uchthe puhlicservantcannoEsatisfactorilyaccount". •' ac two CKpressions.connote and have drffercnt meaning, scope and ".'; requirements,Vvhilethe expression"knov/nsourcesof mcorae lereisto • ' the sourcesknov,nito the prosecution,the expression"forv,hichthe pubhc sen^antcannotsatisfactorilyaccount"refers .0 the onus or hnrdenon the , • .accusedto satisfactorilyexplain and accountfor fhe assets found to be • possessedby the pubhcservant.Thisburdenis on the accused.as ihe said ... • .facts arc withnr his speaal Kno.iedge.Section ro6 of lie Evidence act .: apphes. Read in this hght and bachgrcund. the explanationto Section. r3W(e) IS merelyaproceduralSectionlAidaseeksto definetteexpression• i • • «taov™'sourcesofiDcoine"as sourceshnownto the prosecutionandnotto. :• •the accused.The explanationappliesand relatesto.the mode and manner • of investigationto be conductedby,the prosccuiion,it does awaywiththe • . • requhcment,and necessityof the prosecutionto have an open, wide and • ro!»in,investigationand enquireintothcallegcdsourcesof inconaewhidi . .; .the.accuscdmay have.Kcurtailstiae need and necessityoflieprosecution to go mto the alleged sourccs of income .Aich apiibhcservantmay 01 ; .possiblyhave but are netlegflor have not beendeclared.The undecl.area •.Hcgedsourcesare by their..rynature.areexpectedto he known to die . • ^V.l^(CRIIvii:^'AL)^iGS.765/2010&!:!7i/2')!0 . — . ^ ..0« .. »•» " ^5^ P.oced.raland .ot soAstantiveandit does n«t createanew rfienc, Ihe. ^ , '. • rrniiforcethe existingpositionand • cffectof the cxpianaiioii v.o Ciaiity ^- . , • • . -onn-ps of income" i.e. the .miderstanding-pf the expression Kc...., sou.ces . , .""«:.efers to sources know, to the prosecutionand not sources, . • • known to,theaccused.tt.esecondpart of4e explanationdoes away . the.eedand rcqurrer^enfot the nroseeunon.toconductaa openendedor •.;ow.ng,enquiry-orinvestigation:to find out all alleged/dainaedknown . ,,sourcesof income of au accusedwho is investigatedunder,thePC Act, • ,o88-The'nroseeutioncan rely upon informationtanshcdby flae ' ; ,^,,,ed\othe authoritiesunderlaw. rulesand ordersfor timeberng ,• . appheaUetc apublicservant,'No furtherinvestigationis requiredby the . ; ; . prosecutionto find out:kno..^sources of inconae of die.ac^sedpublic ' /servantAS noticedabove,thefirstpartofthe explanationrefers f- ; .:.ecoivedfro^rrlegai/lr.rfulsources.This first partof.the expressionstates , .the obvious.as is clear from Ae ludgmtntof tile Supreme.Courti, N. , Rmnaiicrisilrncdak(.supra),, • , ^ • •rhus, the obhgationof the accusedpublicservantto satisfactorily • . account'fortiie assets remainsthe same under both PC A.t, 1.947'(after: ; ' .964 amehdment) and. under the'PC Act.r^SS, linaetment of Se^ion; • l,(i)(e) of the PC Act; 1988,,which is replacement,and.parimateriato , ^ ^etions«(e)^ofthePCA.t,r547.>ndiisregardnrakesnod^^^^^^^^^^ requirementof law remainsthe same. Toe pubhcservant/accusedhas to • accountfor to the satisfactionof the Courtthat the assets avaflablewith ' . . • • ./op,ofthe a.ssetsAA/crenot disproportionateto , him or msiesourccs,ioriJUiUiase orint.uiou , , ' • -o '"^1-1oo-.'isip this regard does not undeigo •the kucwn sourccsot his mcome. xhe oi.o.sn. uits i ^ VfP (CRIMINAL)I^OS. 765/'20;!.0&871/2010 ' .• ' SecSon"(.)(e).ofthe PC A., .988, It. .defect.atethatapub.c ,^ "e.va.t.aa..find . dfficultto disCaxgcthe sa-d;onus .n.esshe ha,. ^ Wsou.eeof,ncO=.eandtbesa,d—hasbeen^edtothe. , auth0.it,es:conceroedinaecorfanpewfthto..Butthee.pla.at,o.doesnot, . ^.enacto.c.=atean absoluteprohiB»to curtaa^ ; , • •T • T -v-r tlno assets. Siiuilarly, the ••.public servant,-to.sat,sfactonlyaccouui.0. Lhe assc ., . , " .. - , >"- "- ,.h,r<'ethe lavj on what or vraidlassetstlie . . . explanationdocs not alie. .0. eha."eti.. . , • • .' 1 --rmmt for. Tlie assets can be q-rva-'^tare reauired lo oe >±^0011111 .lu,.,. •accasea/pu.uii'- bu.va,...-,a. •;thosewhid.h^ebeendisclosedand also otherassets ^ • • atsdosedbydaept^lKservantbut daere.se^denceihMthe asset are^ :• possessed:bclongstoorheldbyd.eaccusedp^licse™nt.TheLawonOae ^. 3ardaspccthasnotu"dersoneachangeor,alteredby.introa.chonc^^^^^^^_, . •explanation., ' . . • • • • ,,,^Pro.so-toSeet>on.s(.)PCAc,WSa.eascretiontoC.urts^ : ;:«.rdpun.sh.tcntoflessthanoneyear.-rheprov.so.v",ss.^^^ .. , • . .f-.,,,PC /ct 1988. Butthis aspect,s not requuedlo.be , . notaddressedspecificargumentsintms regard., . . • '.,."oti.edabove, section X3(tXe).ofthe PC Act, x9B8rnal.esa •• .^ • aeparturcfro. the pnncrple of.eruninal.urrsprudeneethat ^e burden , ..a.,hes Oh the ur.secntronto prove the ingredients,of .re .offences ; • ..bargedand.nevershif.on th,e accusedro approvethe chargefra^ , • agarnstbr..Xbus,.e,eg.effe,ofdreS«ronr3(tXe)isthat^ ^ , • • •' . ^v=-h that'theaccused vras in possessionor property ., P^seehtionto esraoUshth... - • ' .. disproportionate-toms too™«o.,n.o.ucb , . j . W.IMCR1M1^^'Sl)N0S.765/2010,&S71/20!G^ , ^ . , - :• sources«Cincome'will meaBfee sourcss.'teown^othe prosecutio.rand not Vthcsourceskno^rtothe atcusBdandv^tM^thctacrwledgeof •in™w:ofAecXpiaaation>e%aownsources.ofincome;mustte •declatedtythep.Hicservant.It.for 6ae,accusedto accou.tsatrsfactody ; for ate rnoncy/assetsrn bis hands or the property,possessedhy hixn.and ". : .satisfyfeeGourt'thathis expiaiatio.rs wordtyof acceptance.Onus-intins regardis upon thc.accusedto 'give satisfactoryexplanation.Therefore,,at. _• sta^. rhe contentionof thepetmonersVirenderSingh and Naveen- "th,atfeeyhavesouresourcesoftncorn..mchhave notheentaken. ,. ,rrto.consecrationwhile dcerdrngthe ouest,onofdrsproportionat,assets 'hasto be rcjcclcd. - . •' .' . ^ • ^8. fc daepres^rcase,learnedtrral courthas exammedthe averments . ",adedp me charge sheet and fee e^ndence:on, recordvAiledecrtogthe, . • quesdo,.whciher.or'not' daarsc shodd be fiW against Ae. two .; •• pe^tioners. "Xhe said order is elaborateand has pornted ont specfic ' . Wance relating-topropertyNO. G-8,Ansa,VfflaFaxrnHouse,Satbarr, : ,^lcbhas notbeen accountedfor. Tic order also.dealsv«4,daernconte • and, assets of Virender Sinf^ and Navcen Kumar. At dte stage of •frannng of charge, onlya:pn..afacre view is to be tahen. At ^rs stage. •, • •• elaboratedisCussronoftheevidence.,prosandconsandevrdcntraryvalneas : isreouiredtobe ascusshd'and consideredat dae tin>eoffinaliudgment ",,otreourred; Tlrs is notastageto holdainto,triah«thrs st.ge,the . .courtisconderned;whetherdrerc rs substantiadnraterralto proceedwhd> ^ ••thb trial and. allow the prosecutionto prove ;flre.case, -flae naatcnal • placedby-^thcproscudon is generaUytrea.das c.rectas.rthas^ot ,een si^ectcd"to cros.-exannnadonand t,st (See, ™ • -i .i I \ ' WJMeRIMmAiJ^OS,765/2010&S71/2010,,• «« cnmmal Uc;«s™Petidon No: 428/2008^ •deaded ouiothSeptember,2010),. •• . ; • •r"arn=a^counse^forthe petffioncvsiivcreferred tdtl» - • v^i<^ were filed before tie-learn.dSpeaa, Court,Ifrs ^ the petitioner V"ender had ,>ver..— • •e.pla.at,on..thregardto the soiree,ofhreome thesehave notheen •^ spec&allvdeah «rth and.ex^ined'.nthe impugnedorder.Beforenre •also,tabulatedchartshavebeenfiled gh;ingexplanationand.pointingout ,.•thatitheCBi has not taken into eonsiderafionsome sonrces of:income., •Referencewas also' made.,to decisionsin Stam K. Ponmudi, " '/MMU/rate.641Ugfi96.W-JP-Lotmar^ verms C.BJ, 20ai.A«a«^oB®&®v.aiii>ersiistr,rlo«o/^ • j.B.,Fa..Ma «ersMs:Stattt?i^O™sa. ^ • • — ,V rRI T3 vQS.Sted&qfHa,-yaTmver!^^Mhajam • versus •^sialds, . • • • • • ' U, • one ^^.fexandery-grsMS(CJ5I,aoo^alRIXMO, ' ' • ' • ' ' . • r-Tt^-ini • -o-ronVwVDLT178'and State-o/' • SlkdkviMtk^.vi^fsus'Stal^e oj Ueihi, - .... ^ Mal^a^•ash^av<^rsusLa^m.l!f<^rsmAm^m, '^ 36 ^Theseconte.monsdo not have any merft,As noticed.above,under •' section. r3(r)(e), theyonns ts upon the .pubhe servant accused to . ^ satisfactorilyaccountfor the assets/sourcesofincome,whichwereusedfoi the purchaseof the assets:inSaJja,^Singh'scase (supra).theSupreme • • rourtreferredto theearlierdedsion.atne caseof (snpraj.andhad^ •observed that the'expression^..sourcesof meonre' mnst have, • '.eferencc to the sources Imown to the prosecution on aliorou^ dnv&tigation.ofacaseaudh.eouldnotbe contendedthatsourcesofmcome . • ^ vmeanssources • ^,- . ' . • w.p (CR1M1"N'AU>108.765/2010&871/2010 ... TtwascoBtendodonbehalfofVtenteStoghft.tlieCBlWM^^ i ... account even,.alary.«paid-to Vironde, SngK fo. app^xi^atcly5..-ths.The.e.^iso^edeputeabouttl^penodand-^ •, amount of salary, which has not been taken mto accountthough il is cancededbytheCBIthatsalaxy&rthech,eckperiodforabouti8years.;.e.' 0,6 n.=nths .has been accounted for .but salary, for ,some penod. . approximately4. monthshashotbeenaccountedfor.It.pointedoutthat .. ^ thetotalsdaryfor thisperiodwouldbe about. 3.43,800/-.Withregard,ta-^• •some oiicr.receiptsand eicpenditure.CBI has.acceptedthatthesecan be: ^ , taken into consideradcm.However; -the total amount.on tiis account.- • indudin,salarv-of. 3,43,8oo/-is . 4,46.240/-.Thereis,asubstantialgap ••betweenthe.-disproportionateassets and the taown sources ofincomeas :pe;thcprosecutioh.caseof about 2;6.,68,.98/-.'This explanationnow •. .iveiVbythenetitioncrVitendclSinghofasmallamountoft4,46.240/->s •merelyadrop in the ocean^Itwas.nbmttedon behalfof the petitioners, " -, .thatfhcProsceution.hasnotactedin,afairandiustmanner.ReferCncewas ,. made to .decisionsof the..SupremeCourtmSiat."/. ., •• ' • ' • r-^ c-r.r -'-q and State i3&rsus Surya • Bhmmi Lai, aaa ^ ^ , . .Caooa^C.22,,Itisthedutyofthe Stateto conduct free andimpartialinvestigation.The purposeofinvestigationis to find out '•whetherany offencehasbeeneommittedandis obyiou,slynottop.un.shor .. • harlssinnocents:In the presentease,.however,allegationsof unfair.nd• . nniust investigaSonagainst dae respendent-CBIdo not appear be • .,notified,.^crtheraidwasconducted,itis allegedthatVi^enderSinghhad tuinednon-eooperative.He was sentapfofon^to ' •proformahad requiredVirenderSinghto g^efoil detailsabouthis assete . •• andsourcesofincome.dndudingassetspurchasedfrom.hismcomebut \,p(CRrvllNAUNOS. 765,2010tSliaiO ' 2S ' • ' / ' ; 9^ p"fo..a.nd orftx.i.Kthesa.dinfor...do..He tookthepleatha. -. ^de.Axt.de.0(3)oftheCo«stit"t.oB,hewaswtxe,.i.ed^»^ , • ..aoues.o.sa.ds.h..thep.efo..a,It.a,s«dh.^ •, / •^at1h..ettetwas«ittentotheMntSe.eW.Ben.ces,.C^r,B^^ . . - "<,tto.thea«.Theplea,shasdes.anddoe..otn.exi:t,aecepta.ee.Thefact •.,. . ofthen.atte..stha^V^^eBder.Singhdidnotfih up theproformaandsendvt . to•the CBI. in these .eircumstances;the CM had to rely upon,the .,. . . :•,",o.n.ationeoHec^d ana'gatheredfron. vanou. departments.n wh,ch, •. ^ •«S>ngh.asposted.du™s;thed.echpenoa.Itwheal.onoted.. .. • •thatit.snowsettledbyaeSupremeCouttthatthesanetioningauthorx^or , the prosecutionis^notrevivedto .ss.eshow causenoticeto the accused ,• • '• • --^rted'(S-'= A3sist€int Coimwdssionerversus • , .^before sanction is giaixLCCl ^ . •: • qpp , aor ' •State Anti . Velliaippi TexiiMs iJjnited, . . .• , . Cor^piio-Bureau.ersu.P. S^^rak^sa^..(2008U4SC<lia).^ • •'varidusdefencesr.,sedl^ythepetrdoner-VirenderSingh ate a'matterof. • t"aUnd.ttostage.thererssufficientnaarerialand evidencetn^ • ,sheet,.and'the documentsffledIn shpporthereofagainstIhe petrt>oner^ • , ^ • •- -uiTDUsnedorderdated . • Some of the aspectshave beenmenuonea.nu...u.-,vi. ^ De^enrber,.00.Itwasnotnecessaryfor'the trialcourtto deal«d, each,, • . . \.a.eve^explanationorthepetaoner.with.regardto Ms ^ -^t th. stage'of frannng of charge as this is a. matter pi expenavLui.e cil aio , . . • e«dence/tri.'and the, explanatidnhas to he estahhshed and proved ,. ,, : . Learnedtr.alcourthas nradespeciereferenceto propertyNo. G-8.Ansa •Villa .arrnHouse:Satban.the.ailegatronis that dais is ahenanr>propers , , • ^ ofVtrendcrSrngh.Papers-t«thregatdtepuredaseoftheproper^.prope.ty .,^ •. etc were recoveredfro^ the premrses-ofVirenderSrngh a,d Naveen , . w.PfCfllMrNADMOS.765/2010&871/2G10 ^ KuHia.somepapersw,re olso recovevedfeo^.locker,whrda ,s alleged • was operatedby HaveenK.n.ar:It rs allegedthatpurchaseofthe proper^ . . tlre'.a.eof .a.saRam.a.dS,.swas a. eye was.a.dV.renderSirrg. was bearing fl.= expenses -for ma,Bta:Bmg,the property. to K- • Veeraswa-miVs. Union of btOia, CblSl)-3^SCj25S. observed : • . . • •. • • • i-]ic view rhM wc have taken &s to ihe ; • nat^'omeofenc^^^^«|te • • ; not be o-f^ence B'at sincetlielegalityof , to ingieaieiiroi die O-.enc •; _ -^^eal' the cbargs-sheet laid great •, wtii ttia'- cooLeiiLiwn i-ic .cannot ' •eniphasis on the expression_ ... satisfactorilyaccount I'; Wrm meanstliat •' • • • • : : ?iff ^ • • taureto mentionthat reqmremert vSu^tiatothecharge-shee^^ Ttiis sBbnnssioa, o«c«t. overlooks tire povrers of eolleet / The ln.-stig^^ J^'^:"Xrcealleged . • material lo ana oiu . course of •appearsto have bserr^^^^^^ the investigacion,h- ^ necessaryhe may ' • may seek his clarified.! ynbvm sources of. . . , . cross cheok .vrth htm ab^ income ana asseu. P stated hy Mr A.D. investigatioii.requ;^-i,^fe accused • . ' • Giri, learned oohcxLOi shouldte taken . sho,r!dnotb^K^^Bda«n^.He.^^^^ 11110 COnuaencen h^ ^ material the state that - ' In^esUgsBing0^"^tr -cconntfor-fljeencess , , accusedand calUrpoiiann^ of the assets over then decidewhetlreiih., ac"^.-.^ o , not. would be .cleva'airgcae;;-The :, the position noi" holding an enquiry • -XnYcstigaiing ^-v.n' public servant or • -g-irst^tne tsulis regarding, fte determining ihe ^ -Lhe - .• •' \ .SSSfStSised.felustcollectsmateriaifrom. W.p (CRIMI^ADMOS.765/2010&871/2010 • all sides and preparesareportwtiichlie files in-the,, . ^ coLirtas cliarge-shejL. • . • . / . 76/rhecaarge-sIieStis notBfegW^^^ • . •. Yf 4nc» officermder Sectica173V-2) 01 ti.e C.t-0 •TS!f^A73(2) comi^.oi . . • • ' policiep(fe ' / • ' fco^Sable offence sl«ir ^ , • aijpearsto^ have been coniuii-iiedauu., u . , : hyv£cp-(e)whetherthe acciisedhasbeen ^refcted, •. • -fftwh»fneiheiiadbeenreleased:oiUlis bonda|-a,if . • ;5 wSe?«th or wiliiout sureties; and g) .70 • ••-• ^ : . offence-and-ttene™^^- • .feat^as-far as 'he is concerriea ^ "' ' •• • The " :• :si=?sass?05i . accsptabieevidence. • •. . . ' ' • , • -o-f t"h- -^nnre-me Court in State, of . fSec also observations oi th., .-upi-..- . , :?'"rr:^.e..o.ed V.e.der bad . . • -i ^ n.i CO 6q oo'^'/- as .against.total sa^ang of s • acquired•assets worLxi • ' . •; ' •• 2 oTT th'^t tVas fig-Qre of s:'65,000/ -is 30,00,000/--It IS ^pointed cia d.at L.,,.. fe . , . -Veorrea.« be operate .be .earnedTrral'C^r. to correcttbe s.d .aritb^cticaVderrcalerror:Tbls a^al/dericalerrotdoc, not.ra.e•, •WP(CRIMIMAUNOS.765/2010&871/2010 ' . • • L'y any, diiferenee to the substantive charge -d the allegations of the ; prosecutionthatthe accused-VirenderSinghis requiredto aecountfor and , ' satisfactorilyexplaili.assets disproportionate,to the teown sonrees of, incometo the extentof 2,62,68,298/-. 33; . Withregardto NaveenKumar,itis allegedthatheis aestrangedson ofViren-derSinghandwas'&angseparately..It i^furthersubmittedthathe ' was not dependent on.Virender.Singh as per the'ser«ee rxdes and, ^ therefore,his,assets cannot be dubbed.. Navccn .Kumar is the son of . ^ Virender Singh and 4us fact .s not.in dispute. As per .the prosecution, Naveen Kumar v/as born on 4'" December,1965 (though tms date was • disputedbeforeme) butitis admitted"thathe was studyingEngineering.till • .1989,and thereafta-did MBAtill1992.:HecompletedIX-Bin1996;.As per ,the prosecutioncase, from the locker., which w-as'operatedby Virender Singh, documentsrelatingto acquisitionof variousimmovable,properties havebeenrecovered.ItisalsoahegedthatlockerNo..1063AllahabadBank, Behfa Enclave Branch in the name of Ranvijay Singh was operatedby . , Naveen Kumar. He had forgedthe signabaresof.RanvijaySmgh,.who had, expired:His allegedthattheforgeryhasbeenestablishedas per-thereport^ 'receivedfrom the GovernmentExaminer of QuestionedDocuments.The ciuestionvActherNavceiilCumar.was dependenton VirenderSinghfor tlie ' ' •,purpose of availing certainhenefits under the semce rules is totally , il-relevantfor the pfosecutionunderdie,PC Act,1947or 1988 and.IPG..Ihe , •; chargesagainstNaveenKumar are thathe had entered-intoconspiracyor , •had aided or abetted commission-ofvarious offcncesby VirenderSingh. ,' , These chargesstand'on theirovm footing,and have nothingto do witlithe questioo.v.Aetheror nct.|<IaveeiiKumar was 'depcndenfoh his-fatheras • I L > •W.P (CRIMINAL)"NOS. 765/2010&871/2010 per servicc rules of the Governmentto avail certainbenefits or for the purposeof declaration.• , 34,• mview of the above,it i. clearthatthere are s«ffieientgroundstp, framechargesagainstboththepetitioners. Thewritpetitionsare accordinglydismissed. - . • Observationsmade above are for the disposal of the presentwrit petitionsand will not be construedas observationson meritsbindingon the trial court. ' c NOVEMBERZZT^OIO