DEEPAK KUMAR V. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Cr.Rev./1570/2019

AI Insights

This case involves a criminal revision application filed by Deepak Kumar against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge - IV - cum - Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad, which had rejected his discharge petition in a corruption case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner argued that not all police papers were provided to him, which prejudiced his case, and that the assets and income of his wife were not considered, which could explain his financial status within permissible limits. The opposite party countered by highlighting inconsistencies in the petitioner's wife's employment and the authenticity of property sale documents. Ultimately, the petitioner decided to withdraw the application, seeking to avoid any prejudicial observations that could affect the trial.

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 737724 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 13-02-2020
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ROHIT SINHA
• Assessee Lawyers: INDRAJIT SINHA; PRADIPTO MITRA
• Keywords: Assets; Corruption; Criminal Revision; Discharge Petition; Income Tax; Investigation
• Section: 13(2); 13(1)(e)

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No.1570 of 2019 Deepak Kumar, aged about 47 years, son of Sri Gopi Chand Prasad, resident of Qr. No. III/2, Head Post Office, Campus, Giridih Chowk, Giridih, P.S. Giridih, District Giridih (Jharkhand), permanent resident of village & P.O. Bariswan via Shahpur Patti, P.O. & P.S. Shahpur, District Bhojpur (Bihar) … … Petitioner Versus The Union of India, through Central Bureau of Investigation … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Adv. : Mr. Pradipto Mitra, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Rohit Sinha, Adv. --- 05/13.02.2020 Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner along with Mr. Pradipto Mitra, Advocate. 2. Heard Mr. Rohit Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party. 3. This criminal revision application has been filed for the following relief: “That by way of this revision application, the petitioner is challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 20.11.2019 passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge – IV – cum – Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad, in R.C. Case No. 13 (A) of 2014-D, whereby the petition for discharge filed by the petitioner has been rejected holding that there are enough materials in the case diary to frame charges against the petitioner under Section 13(2) read with section 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, now the case is pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge – IV – cum – Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad.” 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a supplementary affidavit has been filed in the instant case mentioning therein that the petitioner had given certain documents to the Investigating Officer, but those were not 2 handed over to the petitioner by way of police papers. He has referred to certain letters and the postal receipts. He further submits that a petition to that effect was also filed before the learned court below on 16.07.2018 for seeking a direction upon the Investigating Officer to supply certain documents which were mentioned in the said petition. Learned counsel also submits that a petition for discharge mentioning about certain documents which were filed, is also on record. The learned counsel submits that it appears that the entire police papers were not given to the petitioner and accordingly the petitioner has been prejudiced and, therefore, the impugned order is fit to be set aside. The learned counsel submits that the Investigating Officer has not taken into consideration the actual asset which was available with the petitioner on the date commencing the check period and further has not taken into consideration the income of the wife as his wife is also an income tax assesse and also one of the property which was sold by the petitioner. He submits that if these properties were taken into consideration, there were enough proof to properly explain the income and expenditure of the petitioner which was within the permissible limits. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party on the other hand submits that so far as the income of the wife is concerned, the income tax return for the assessment year 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 were filed only on 23rd September, 2014 showing her income from salary received from beauty parlour and also certain interest income. He submits that the proceedings against the petitioner initially started on 05.08.2014 when certain documents were seized in connection with another case in which the petitioner is accused. He submits that the filing of the returns on behalf of the wife was itself after thought. The learned counsel submits that during the course of investigation, it has come in the case diary 3 that upon enquiry from the wife and the neighborhood, no trace of her being employed in a beauty parlour was found. He also submits that it has also come during investigation that the Sarpanch has not supported the sale of the property in presence of Sarpanch and he has also stated that the document does not bear the signature of the purchaser of the said land. He submits that impugned order does not call for any interference. 6. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he wants to withdraw this revision application. He submits that the documents, which have been collected during investigation could help him at the stage of trial and any observations made by this Court may prejudice his case. 7. Considering the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, he is permitted to withdraw this revision application. It is made clear that withdrawal of this revision will not prejudice the case of either parties before the learned court below and it will be open to the parties to raise all points before the learned court below which are available to them under law. 8. Pending Interlocutory applications, if any, are dismissed as not pressed. 9. Let this order be communicated to the learned court below through FAX. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Saurav/ "