Raj Kumar Agarwal V. The Union of India through the C.B.I

W.P.(Cr.)/279/2023

AI Insights

The case revolves around allegations of bribery related to the election of Rajya Sabha members in Jharkhand, where a significant amount of money was allegedly used to influence votes. The petitioner, Raj Kumar Agarwal, was accused of providing illegal gratification to Smt. Sita Soren, an MLA, for her support in the election. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) took over the initial FIR lodged by the Income Tax Department after a raid seized Rs.2.15 crores. The CBI filed a charge-sheet against Agarwal and others, alleging a conspiracy to bribe for electoral support. However, the Income Tax Authority later found insufficient evidence to link the money to Agarwal or Sita Soren, leading to the quashing of the proceedings by the High Court.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 800422 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 21-08-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: J. Sekar @ Sekar Reddy Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, Radheshyam Kejriwal Vs. State of West Bengal and Anr., Ashoo Surendranath Tewari Vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI and Anr., Videocon Industries Limited and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., State of Karnataka Vs. J. Jayalalitha, Puneet Sabharwal Vs. CBI with R.C. Sabharwal Vs. CBI
• Laws Referred To: Indian Penal Code, Prevention of Corruption Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ANIL KUMAR; CHANDANA KUMARI
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJENDRA KRISHNA; AMIT SINHA; KRISHANU RAY
• Keywords: Horse Trading; Illegal gratification; Money Power; Quashing of criminal proceedings; Election manipulation
• Section: 13(2); 34; 13(1)(d); 120B; 188; 171-F; 171E

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W .P .(Cr.) No.279 of 2023 Raj Kumar Agarwal @ Raj Kumar Agrawal, aged about 61 years, son of Late Prabhu Dayal Agarwal, resident of Bunglow No.4, CH Area (North), P .O & P .S Bistupur, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum (Jharkhand) …… Petitioner Versus The Union of India through the C.B.I …... Respondent --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Advocate Mr. Amit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Krishanu Ray, Advocate For the U.O.I : Mr. Anil Kumar, A.S.G.I Ms. Chandana Kumari, A.C to A.S.G.I --------- 14/Dated: 21 st August, 2024 1. The present criminal writ petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings in connection with RC Case No.02(S)/2012-AHD-R dated 19.04.2012, so far it relates to the petitioner, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 171(F)/ 188 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, including the order taking cognizance dated 7.06.2013 (Annexure – 4), whereby and whereunder cognizance of offence punishable under Sections 120B & 171E of the I.P .C. read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1) (d) of the PC Act has been taken against the petitioner and also for quashing all other consequential orders, so far it relates to the petitioner, pending in the court of learned Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi. 2. From the arguments and pleadings of the parties, it appears that the Income Tax Authority had received an - 1 - W.P.(Cr.) No.279 of 2023 information that huge amount of money is being brought in the State of Jharkhand to be utilized for manipulating the election of Rajya Sabha. The authority has proceeded at the spot along with the police party and the money amounting to Rs.2.15 crores has been seized and accordingly, an F .I.R has been lodged by the police being Namkum P .S. Case No.58 of 2012 dated 30.03.2012. The contents of the F .I.R reads as under :- \"म\u0002र\u0004 न\u0004म अ० नन० र\u0004जद\u0002व न \u000eह न\u0010त\u0004-श\u0013 न\u0014लट न \u000eह ह\u0017। म\u0019 वत\u001aम\u0004न म\u001b न\u0004मक म थ\u0004न\u0004, नजल\u0004-र च\u0013 म\u001b थ\u0004न\u0004 पभ\u0004र\u0013 क \u0002 \u0010द \u0010र \u0010दसथ\u0004न\u0010त ह%। आज नदन\u0004\u000eक 30.03.2012 क' 11:30 \u0014ज\u0002 नदन म\u001b न\u0004मक म थ\u0004न\u0004 \u0010र अ\u0010न\u0004 सय\u000e क\u0004 \u0014य\u0004न दज\u001a करत\u0004 ह% नक आज नदन\u0004\u000eक 30.03.2012 क' 00:30 \u0014ज\u0002 वर\u0013य \u0010 नल अध\u0013कक मह'दय र\u0004%च\u0013 \u0002 ननद,श प\u0004प हआ नक आज र\u0004ज भ\u0004 क\u0004 च न\u0004व ह\u0002त मतद\u0004न क\u0013 नतनथ ह\u0017। आयकर नवभ\u0004ग क' ग प 2चन\u0004 नमल\u0013 ह\u0017 नक जमश\u0002द\u0010 र क\u0013 ओर \u0002 क\u0004फ\u0013 म\u0004त\u0004 म\u001b र\u0010य\u0004 नवध\u0004यक'\u000e (मतद\u0004त\u0004ओ) क' खर\u0013द फर'ख करन\u0002 क \u0002 इर\u0004द\u0002 \u0002 नक \u0013 व\u0004हन द\u0004र\u0004 आन\u0002 क\u0013 \u000eभ\u0004वन\u0004 ह\u0017। आयकर नवभ\u0004ग र\u0004%च\u0013 क \u0002 \u0010द\u0004नधक\u0004र\u0013 छ\u0004\u0010\u0004म\u0004र\u0013 ह\u0002त आए ह\u0019। नजन\u001b हय'ग करन\u0002 क\u0004 ननद,श नदय\u0002। इ आशय क\u0004 नह\u0004 थ\u0004न\u0004 द\u0017ननक\u0013 म\u001b दज\u001a नकय\u0004। कर\u0013\u0014 00:45 \u0014ज\u0002 आयकर नवभ\u0004ग क \u0002 \u0010द\u0004नधक\u0004र\u0013 इन\u0010\u0002कर श\u0013 आल'क श\u0013व\u0004सव एव\u000e श\u0013 नवजय छ\u0004\u0010\u0004म\u0004र\u0013 ह\u0002त न\u0004मक म थ\u0004न\u0004 \u0010ह%च\u0002 तथ\u0004 छ\u0004\u0010\u0004म\u0004र\u0013 म\u001b हय'ग करन\u0002 क\u0004 अन र'ध नकय\u0002। उनक \u0002 अन र'ध \u0010र म\u0019 थ\u0004न\u0004 पभ\u0004र\u0013 अ० नन० र\u0004जद\u0002व न \u000eह \u0004थ ० अ० नन० अरन\u0014न क म\u0004र एव\u000e थ\u0004न\u0004 शस \u0014ल क \u0002 हव० ग'म\u0004 \u0014\u0004नर।, \u0010 ० 2164 अननल क म\u0004र शम\u0004\u001a, \u0010 ० 2406 हररशन भगत, \u0010 ० 2809, श\u0013ल क \u0002 रक \u0002 ट\u0004, अ\u000eगरकक 3321 म क \u0002 श क ० न \u000eह तथ\u0004 \u0010 ० 2560 ज\u0013त य\u0004दव एव\u000e च\u0004० \u0010 ० र\u0004म क म\u0004र ग प\u0004 क \u0002 \u0004थ रक\u0004र\u0013 ग\u0004ड\u0013 \u0002 च\u0002नक \u000e ग ह\u0002त न\u0004मक म थ\u0004न\u0004 \u0002 पसथ\u0004न नकय\u0002 । कर\u0013\u0014 01:10 \u0014ज\u0002 न\u0004मक म थ\u0004न\u0004 अनग\u001aत ग\u0004म-र\u0004म\u0010 र ससथत र\u0004%च\u0013 ट\u0004ट\u0004 NH 33 र'ड \u0010र रर \u000eग र'ड \u0010र \u0010\u0004 जमश\u0002द\u0010 र क\u0013 ओर \u0002 आन\u0002व\u0004ल\u0013 व\u0004हन'\u000e क\u0013 च\u0002नक \u000e ग आयकर नवभ\u0004ग क \u0002 उ\u0010र'क \u0010द\u0004नधक\u0004ररय'\u000e क \u0002 \u0004थ प\u0004र \u000eभ नकय\u0002। कर\u0013\u0014 06:30 \u0014ज\u0002 \u0014ह म\u001b ट\u0004ट\u0004 जमश\u0002द\u0010 र क\u0013 ओर \u0002 एक एनन'व\u0004 ग\u0004ड\u0013 न\u000e०- JH05AC-2185 आय\u0013 नज \u0002 र'ककर च\u0002क नकय\u0004 ज\u0004न\u0002 लग\u0004 त' ग\u0004ड\u0013 \u0010र व\u0004र वसकय'\u000e न\u0002 ज\u0004%च दल \u0002 आ\u0010नN जत\u0004य\u0002। नकन उनक \u0002 आ\u0010नN क' दरनकन\u0004र करत\u0002 हए उ म\u001b व\u0004र वसकय'\u000e क\u0004 न\u0004म \u0010त\u0004 \u00102छन\u0002 \u0010र वह अ\u0010न\u0004 न\u0004म ध\u0004\u000eश नत\u0010\u0004ठ\u0013 न\u0010त\u0004- स० चनमनP नत\u0010\u0004ठ\u0013, \u0004०- र\u0004मद\u0004 भट\u0004 थ\u0004न\u0004 न\u0014षट \u0010 र, नजल\u0004-जमश\u0002द\u0010 र \u0014त\u0004य\u0002 तथ\u0004 अ\u0010न\u0002 आ\u0010 क' श\u0004ह स\u000eज एण \u0010\u0004वर ल\u0003ल\u0004ट\u0006ड ज\u0004श\u0006दप र क\u000f सह\u000fयक \u0004\u0013न\u0006जर बत\u000fय\u0006। ग\u000fड\u0019 क\u0004 च\u0004लक अ\u0010न\u0004 न\u0004म ननक र\u0004म न\u0010त\u0004-र\u0004घ' र\u0004म, \u0004०-चV\u0010\u0004रP थ\u0004न\u0004, चV\u0010\u0004रP, नजल\u0004- हज\u0004र\u0013\u0014\u0004ग \u0014त\u0004य\u0002। ततश\u0004त ज\u0004%च दल म\u001b श\u0004नमल ०अ०नन० अरनवन क म\u0004र एव\u000e हव० ग'म\u0004 ब\u000fनर\u000f क \u0006 स\u0004क आयकर क \u0006 पद\u000fल क\u000fररय न\u0006 उक इन\"व\u000f ग\u000fड\u0019 क\u000f लवल वत त\u0003\u000fश\u0019 नलय\u0004 गय\u0004 त' ग\u0004ड\u0013 क \u0002 नडक\u0013 म\u001b द' \u0014\u0017ग तथ\u0004 एक थ\u0017ल\u0004 म\u001b रख\u0004 हआ भ\u0004र\u0013 म\u0004त\u0004 म\u0002 र\u0010य\u0004 \u0010\u0004य\u0004 गय\u0004, नज \u0002 आयकर नवभ\u0004ग क \u0002 \u0010द\u0004नधक\u0004ररय'\u000e न\u0002 कब\u0002 म\u001b ल\u0002कर नवनधवत जप\u0013 2च\u0013 \u0014न\u0004कर जप कर नलय\u0002। नगनत\u0013 करन\u0002 \u0010र रकम द' कर'ड 15 ल\u0004ख र\u0010य\u0004 \u0010\u0004य\u0004 गय\u0004। जप रकम क' तथ\u0004 ग\u0004ड\u0013 म\u001b व\u0004र ध\u0004\u000eश नत\u0010\u0004ठ\u0013 तथ\u0004 च\u0004लक ननक र\u0004म क' ग\u0004ड\u0013 क \u0002 - 2 - W.P.(Cr.) No.279 of 2023 \u0004थ जप रकम क' ल\u0002कर अ\u0010न\u0002 \u0004थ ल\u0002कर \u00102छत\u0004छ क \u0002 नलय\u0002 थ\u0004न\u0004 ल\u0002 आय\u0002 जह'\u000e \u0010र आयकर क \u0002 \u0010द\u0004नधक\u0004र\u0013 एव\u000e \u0010 नल \u0010द\u0004नधक\u0004र\u0013 क \u0002 द\u0004र\u0004 गहन \u00102छत\u0004छ क\u0013 गई। \u00102छत\u0004छ क \u0002 कम म\u001b ध\u0004\u000eश नत\u0010\u0004ठ\u0013 द\u0004र\u0004 \u0014त\u0004य\u0004 गय\u0004 नक यह रकम (नगद र\u0010य\u0004) श\u0004ह स\u000eज एण \u0010\u0004वर नलनमट\u0002ड जमश\u0002द\u0010 र क \u0002 ड\u0004यर \u0002कर Vनमत श\u0004ह द\u0004र\u0004 नदय\u0004 गय\u0004 ह\u0017। इ नगद र\u0010य\u0004 क' फ'ड\u001a आई कVन शV रम क क \u0002 र'ड र\u0004%च\u0013 म\u001b \u0010ह\u000eच\u0004न\u0002 ज\u0004 रह\u0002 थ\u0002। \u00102छत\u0004छ क \u0002 \u0014\u0004द आयकर नवभ\u0004ग क \u0002 \u0010द\u0004नधक\u0004र\u0013 श\u0013 व\u0013० आर० 'नभद ड\u0013०ड\u0013 आई० ट\u0013० (In) र च\u0013 न\u0002 एक नलसखत 2चन\u0004 द\u0002कर ग\u0004ड\u0013 म\u001b व\u0004र वसक ध\u0004\u000eश नत\u0010\u0004ठ\u0013 एव\u000e ननक र\u0004म \u0010र अगतर क\u0004र \u001aव\u0004ई ह\u0002त जप\u0013 2च\u0013 क\u0013 एक छ\u0004य\u0004 त\u0004न\u0010त पनत \u0010 द\u001a नकय\u0002। जप\u0013 2च\u0013 क \u0002 अन \u0004र जप रकम एव\u000e अन \u0004म\u0004न अ\u0010न\u0002 \u0004थ ल\u0002 गय\u0002। ठ\u0013क च न\u0004व क \u0002 नदन उतन\u0013 भ\u0004र\u0013 म\u0004त\u0004 म\u001b र\u0010य'\u000e क' \u0010ररवहन करन\u0004 उ \u0014\u0004त क' न द करत\u0004 ह\u0017 नक र\u0010य'\u000e क\u0004 द र\u0010य'ग र\u0004ज भ। च न\u0004व म\u001b सत\u000eत एव\u000e ननषक मतद\u0004न क' पभ\u0004नवत करन\u0002, नक \u0013 उम\u0013दव\u0004र नवश\u0002ष क' ल\u0004भ \u0010ह%च\u0004न\u0002 ह\u0002त मतद\u0004त\u0004ओ\u000e क' खर\u0013द फर'ख करन\u0002 क \u0002 उद\u0002श \u0002 नकय\u0004 ज\u0004 रह\u0004 थ\u0004। अतe म\u0019 ध\u0004\u000eश नत\u0010\u0004ठ\u0013, न\u0010त\u0004-स० चन मनP नत\u0010\u0004ठ\u0013 \u0004०- र\u0004म द\u0004 भट\u0004, न\u0014षट \u0010 र जमश\u0002द\u0010 र, ननक र\u0004म न\u0010त\u0004-र\u0004घ' र\u0004म, V०-चV\u0010\u0004रP, थ\u0004न\u0004-चV\u0010\u0004रP. नजल\u0004-हज\u0004र\u0013\u0014\u0004ग एव\u000e Vनमत श\u0004ह, श\u0004ह स\u000eज एव\u000e \u0010\u0004वर नलनमट\u0002ड क \u0002 ड\u0004यर \u0002कर एव\u000e अन अज\u0004त क' ध\u0004र\u0004 188/171(F) भ\u0004० द० नव० क \u0002 अनग\u001aत आर'न\u0010त करत\u0004 ह%। आयकर \u0010द\u0004नधक\u0004र\u0013 द\u0004र\u0004 नदय\u0004 गय\u0004 नलसखत पनतव\u0002दन एव\u000e जप\u0013 2च\u0013 क\u0013 त\u0004न\u0010त पनत \u0004थ \u000eलग ह\u0017। र\u0004मद\u0002व न \u000eह 30.03.2012 थ\u0004न\u0004 पभ\u0004र\u0013 न\u0004मक म थ\u0004न\u0004\" 3. It further appears that thereafter, the matter has been further litigated and ultimately, by the order of this High Court, the matter has been referred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (For short C.B.I) and the C.B.I has lodged an F .I.R which has been numbered as RC Case No.02(S)/2012-AHD-R. The contents of the F .I.R, lodged by the C.B.I, reads as under :- “Based on information received from Shri V .R. Sonbhadra, Dy. Director (Investigation), Income Tax Department, Ranchi, Shri Ram Dev Singh, Officer- in- Charge of Namkum Police Station registered Namkum PS Case No. 58/12 dated 30.03.2012 under Section 171(F), 188 r/w 34 of IPC. Copy of the FIR with enclosures is attached. Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi on 05.04.2012 WP(PIL) No. 1801 and 1802 inter-allia passed order \"since it is a grave case of involvement of money power, horse trading and influence relating to process of election of Council of States, wherein - 3 - W.P.(Cr.) No.279 of 2023 voters are Members of Legislative Assembly, we deem it proper to direct Election Commission to hand over the matter to the Central Bureau of Investigation so far as criminality of any of the persons is involved.\" In compliance with the order aforesaid of Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court, the Principal Secretary to the Election Commission of India vide letter no. 318/CS-JKD/2012-CC&BE dated 09.04.2012 requested the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, New Delhi for entrusting the matters relating to the Election of Rajya Sabha to CBI for thorough investigation for bringing culprits to book so that pristine purity of the House of Elders is not tarnished by entry of those who have secured election by unfair mean of bribery of voters. Copy of the letter aforesaid is enclosed. In compliance of the orders aforesaid investigation of Namkum PS Case 58/12 is taken over as RC2(S)/2012-AHD-R for further investigation. Investigation of this case is entrusted to Shri A.K.Jha, Dy. Superintendent of Police, CBI, AHD, Ranchi. Senior Superintendent of Police CBI, AHD, Ranchi” 4. On above basis, the investigation has proceeded and finally C.B.I filed the charge-sheet. For the purpose of present case, the relevant portion of the charge-sheet is being quoted here-in-below :- “Evidence on quid pro :- Investigation further disclosed that Smt. Sita Soren had directed her two Assistants S/Shri Vikash Kumar and Jaykant Kumar to call on Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal in Hotel Radission Blu, Ranchi on 18th March 2012. Both Shri Jaykant and Vikash called on the R.K.Agarwal in Hotel Radission Blu, Ranchi. On being asked Shri Vikash connected Shri R.K. Agarwal to Smt. Sita Soren through his cell phone. Shri Agarwal then asked Smt. Sita Soren to direct Shri Vikash to receive Rs. 30 lacs from him. Smt. Sita Soren then asked Shri Agarwal to pay Rs. 50 lacs as advance for proposing his nomination and asked Vikash not to receive the payment of Rs. 30 lacs. - 4 - W.P.(Cr.) No.279 of 2023 In the evening of 18th March 2012 as disclosed by Shri Badal Chandra Mahto, Smt. Sita Soren asked him to receive Air bag at the residence of Shri Nalin Soren. Shri Jaykant and Shri Vikash both were also present out side the residence of Shri Nalin Soren when the Air bag was delivered and received. Both Shri Jaykant and Vikash claimed to have seen Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal at the residence of Shri Nalin Soren during the period of transaction. Most of the MLA of JMM other then Shri Hemant Soren were also present there. Smt. Sita Soren in the Airport Road, Ranchi delivered the said Air bag, on the way back to the residence to Shri Rajendra Mandal. Investigation further disclosed that Smt. Sita Soren again received Rs. 1 Crore from Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal in the evening of 29th March 2012 at Hotel Radissión Blu, Ranchi. Shri Badal Chandra Mahto the driver of Smt. Sita Soren received the Air bag and brought it to her residence. The said bag in the morning on 30th March 2012 was taken by Shri Badnaran Majhi on a vehicle of IOCL from the residence of Smt. Sita Soren to Jamshedpur. The another driver Shri Pramod Kumar Pandey @ Mantu Pandey was asked Smt. Sita Soren to keep the bag on the vehicle of IOCL in the middle berth of the vehicle as it contained money. The witnesses S/Shri Jaykant Kumar, Vikash Kumar, Pramod Kumar Pandey @ Mantu Pandey and Vikash Pandey @ Santi Pandey also disclosed that they had seen Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal at the residence of Smt. Sita Soren on several occassions after the election was countermanded. Shri Agarwal had requested them after disclosing the purpose that he wanted their assistance in getting Rs. 1.5 Crores back from Smt. Sita Soren as she did not vote in his favour. Smt. Sita Soren refused audience to Shri Agarwal and asked the aforesaid witnesses not to entertain him in future. Investigation disclosed that during the period Smt. Sita Soren was using Mobile Number 9334386072 and 9973822575 and Shri Rajendra Mandal was using the Mobile Number 9431370291 and 9162759420. Analysis of call details disclosed frequent interaction between accused Sita Soren, MLA and accused Rajendra Mandal during the period of alleged transaction. Investigation further disclosed that accused Sita - 5 - W.P.(Cr.) No.279 of 2023 Soren, MLA, after the election, had made following payments for school fee of her daughter Ms. Vijay Shree Duga Soren to Taurian World School, Ranchi. The details are as under:- Sl No Academic year Total fees Mode of Payment Instalment of fee Receipt No. & dated 1 2012-13 Rs.2,32,592.00 Cash Rs.44352/- Rs,188240/- 816 dt. 17.04.12 817 dt. 17.04.12 Investigation disclosed that accused Badnaran Majhi father of accused Sita Soren had made the following payments for the school fees of Miss Jay Shree Soren daughter of accused Sita Soren to M/s Singapore International School, Mumbai. The details are as under:- Sl. No Date Amount (in Rs.) Particulars of Instruments Account Number 1 18/09/12 500000 Cheque No.537301 A/c No.11062802096 of SBI Forest Park Branch, Bhubneshwar of Shri B. N. Majhi 2 09/11/12 400000 Cheque No.537308 In addition to the aforesaid payments, investigation also disclosed following payments to the school for misc. expenses from the Account No. 550120110000057 of M/s Ayo Kamakhya Fuels maintained at Bank of India, Baripada branch of odisha. The details are as under:- 1 14/12/12 NEFT/Singapore International - 109540 45000 2 24/11/12 NEFT/Singapore International - 109531 50000 3 13/08/12 NEFT/Singapore International - 109472 100000 4 04/08/12 NEFT/Singapore International - 109473 66000 Total 261000 Investigation revealed that Smt. Diggi Murmu sister of accused Sita Soren has been operating the aforesaid bank account of M/s Ayo Kamakhya Fuels, Baripada, Odisha. Investigation further disclosed that accused Badnaran Majhi father of accused Sita Soren had made the following payments for school fees of the third daughter of accused Sita Soren, Miss Raj Shree Soren to Jain International School, Bangalore. Details are as under:- Sl No. Date Amount Mode of payment Remark 1 19/10/12 Rs.2.5 Lacs RTGS No.SBI NH 12262333682 A/c No.11062802096 of SBI Forest Park - 6 - W.P.(Cr.) No.279 of 2023 Branch, Bhubaneshwar of Shri B. N. Manjhi. 5. The court below on the basis of the charge-sheet, submitted by the C.B.I., taken the cognizance and finally charge has been framed. The contents of the charge is as follows :- “I, Sri R. K. Choudhary, Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi do hereby charge you Raj Kumar Agrawal, S/o Late Prabhu Dayal Agrawal R/o Shanti Kunj, Bunglow No.4, Circuit House Area, Distt- East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, as follows: Firstly that you alongwith Smt. Sita Soren, Badnaran Manjhi and Rajendra Mandal (absconders) during the period from 12th March/2012 to 30th March/2012 at Ranchi and other places, when the election process for the two Rajya Sabha Seat was in process amongst yourself entered into a criminal conspiracy and agreed with each other to do illegal acts and caused to be done illegally and by willful commissions and omissions in the execution of the said criminal conspiracy Raj Kumar Agrwal, one of the candidates in the election for two Rajya Sabha Seats, by corrupt and illegal means offered illegal gratification of Rs. 1.50 crores to Smt. Sita Soren, MLA for proposing him as a candidate for Rajya Sabha Election and for casting her vote in his support in the said election and she agreed to accept the offer of money and in pursuance of said criminal conspiracy you (Shri Raj Kumar Agrawal) gave Rs.50 lacs gratification as advance to Smt. Sita Soren, MLA and she received the same for proposing you (Raj Kumar Agrawal) nomination in the election for the Rajya Sabha and later on before election you (R K Agrawal) gave Rs.1 crore to Smt. Sita Soren, MLA with object of inducing her to exercise her electoral right in his favour in the election of Rajya Sabha to be held on 30 March/2012 and Smt. Sita Soren being public servant accepted the above amounts of illegal gratification. Accused Badnaran Majhi and Rajendra Mandal in furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy received the above money of illegal gratification and thereby you and Smt.Sita Soren, Badnaran Manjhi and - 7 - W.P.(Cr.) No.279 of 2023 Rajendra Mandal (absconders) committed the offence relating to election and of criminal misconduct punishable u/s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 r/w 1208 IPC and within the cognizance of this court. Secondly that you alongwith Smt. Sita Soren, Badnaran Manjhi and Rajendra Mandal during the period from March/2012 to 30.3.2012 at Ranchi amongst yourself entered into a criminal conspiracy and agreed with each other to do illegal acts or caused acts to be done illegally by willful commissions and omissions, facilitated the commission of offence in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy while the election process was in progress for the seats of Rajya Sabha, You (Raj Kumar Agrawal), one of the candidates in the election for Rajya Sabha by corrupt and illegal means offered illegal gratification of Rs.1.50 crores to Smt. Sita Soren, MLA for proposing you (Raj Kumar Agrawal) as a candidate for election of Rajya Sabha and for casting vote in his support in the election and in execution of the said criminal conspiracy you (Raj Kumar Agrawal), a candidate gave Rs.50 lakhs illegal gratification as advance to Smt. Sita Soren, MLA for proposing his nomination for Rajya Sabha and Rs.1 crore with the object of inducing her to exercise her electoral right in his favour in the election of Rajya Sabha, 2012 and Smt. Sita Soren, MLA being a public servant accepted the said amounts. Accused Badnaran Manjhi and Rajendra Mandal in the execution of the said conspiracy also received the said amount. In this way committed an offence related to election punishable u/s. 171E of IPC and within the cognizance of this court. And I do hereby direct that you all aforesaid be tried on the said charges by this court. Charges read over and explained to accused in Hindi to which he pleader not guilty and claimed trial. Sd/- SPECIAL JUDGE/CBI/RANCHI” 6. Thus, there are two facts before this Court :– (i) Recovery of Rs.2.15 crores which is the basis of the lodging of the F .I.R, (ii) Transaction of money of Rs.1.5 crores, which - 8 - W.P.(Cr.) No.279 of 2023 has been paid to one of the co-accused, for getting support in the election of Rajya Sabha. On the last date of hearing, two issues were raised before this Court, which are as follows :- (i) Whether in view of the judgment of the Appellate Authority passed in Appeal No.250/ JSR/2013-14 dated 22.02.2016, the present criminal trial can proceed any further or not? (ii) whether at present stage of trial, interference of the writ court is warranted or not? 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court:- (A) Paragraph – 19 of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J. Sekar @ Sekar Reddy Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 456, reads as under :- “19. As discussed above, looking to the facts of this case, it is clear by a detailed order of acceptance of the closure report of the schedule offence in RC MA1 2016 A0040 and the quashment of two FIRs by the High Court of the schedule offence and of the letter dated 16.5.2019 of I.T. Department and also the observations made by the Adjudicating Authority in the order dated 25.2.2019, the evidence of continuation of offence in ECR CEZO 19/2016 is not sufficient. The Department itself is unable to collect any incriminating material and also not produced before this Court even after a lapse of 5 ½ years to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. From the material collected by the Agency, they themselves are prima facie not satisfied that the offence under PMLA can be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The argument advanced by learned ASG regarding pendency of the appeal against the order of Adjudicating Authority is also of no help because against the order of the Appellate Authority also, remedies are available. Thus, looking to the facts as discussed hereinabove and the ratio of the judgments of - 9 - W.P.(Cr.) No.279 of 2023 this Court in Radheshyam Kejriwal (supra) and Ashoo Surendranath Tewari (supra), the chance to prove the allegations even for the purpose of provisions of PMLA in the Court are bleak. Therefore, we are of the firm opinion that the chances to prove those allegations in the Court are very bleak. It is trite to say, till the allegations are proved, the appellant would be innocent. The High Court by the impugned order has recorded the finding without due consideration of the letter of the I.T. Department and other material in right perspective. Therefore, in our view, these findings of the High Court cannot be sustained.” (emphasis supplied) (B) Paragraphs – 38 & 39 of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radheshyam Kejriwal Vs. State of West Bengal and Anr., reported in (2011) 3 SCC 581, reads as under :- “38. The ratio which can be culled out from these decisions can broadly be stated as follows: (i) Adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution can be launched simultaneously; (ii) Decision in adjudication proceedings is not necessary before initiating criminal prosecution; (iii) Adjudication proceedings and criminal proceedings are independent in nature to each other; (iv) The finding against the person facing prosecution in the adjudication proceedings is not binding on the proceeding for criminal prosecution; (v) Adjudication proceedings by the Enforcement Directorate is not prosecution by a competent court of law to attract the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution or Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; (vi) The finding in the adjudication proceedings in favour of the person facing trial for identical violation will depend upon the nature of finding. If the exoneration in adjudication proceedings is on technical ground and not on merit, prosecution may continue; and (vii) In case of exoneration, however, on merits - 10 - W.P.(Cr.) No.279 of 2023 where the allegation is found to be not sustainable at all and the person held innocent, criminal prosecution on the same set of facts and circumstances cannot be allowed to continue, the underlying principle being the higher standard of proof in criminal cases. 39. In our opinion, therefore, the yardstick would be to judge as to whether the allegation in the adjudication proceedings as well as the proceeding for prosecution is identical and the exoneration of the person concerned in the adjudication proceedings is on merits. In case it is found on merit that there is no contravention of the provisions of the Act in the adjudication proceedings, the trial of the person concerned shall be an abuse of the process of the court.” (emphasis supplied) (C). Paragraph – 8 of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashoo Surendranath Tewari Vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI and Anr., reported in (2020) 9 SCC 636, reads as under :- “8. A number of judgments have held that the standard of proof in a departmental proceeding, being based on preponderance of probability is somewhat lower than the standard of proof in a criminal proceeding where the case has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In P .S. Rajya v. State of Bihar, the question before the Court was posed as follows: (SCC pp. 2-3, para 3) “3. The short question that arises for our consideration in this appeal is whether the respondent is justified in pursuing the prosecution against the appellant under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 notwithstanding the fact that on an identical charge the appellant was exonerated in the departmental proceedings in the light of a report submitted by the Central Vigilance Commission and concurred by the Union Public Service Commission.” (emphasis supplied) (D) Paragraphs – 17 & 19 of the decision rendered by the - 11 - W.P.(Cr.) No.279 of 2023 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Videocon Industries Limited and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported in (2016) 12 SCC 315, reads as under :- “17. Clarifying the position, the majority in Radheshyam Kejriwal case observed that the yardstick would be to judge as to whether the allegation in the adjudication proceedings as well as the proceeding for the prosecution is identical and the exoneration of the person concerned in the adjudication proceedings is on merits. In case it is found on merit that there is no contravention of the provisions of the Act in the adjudication proceedings, the trial of the person concerned shall be an abuse of the process of the court. On the basis of the aforesaid principles, the majority proceeded to analyse the factual matrix and analysed the finding recorded by the adjudicating authority and opined when there is a finding by the Enforcement Directorate in the adjudication proceeding that there is no contravention of any of the provisions of the Act, it would be unjust and an abuse of the process of the court to permit the Enforcement Directorate to continue with the criminal prosecution. 19. Coming to the facts of the case, we find that the Tribunal has arrived at a conclusion that the appellant cannot be held guilty for Section 18(2) read with Section 18(3) of FERA, 1973 and the advice of Reserve Bank of India given in its letters dated 21-1-1992 and 18-2-1994 deserve to be accepted as they are totally in consonance with legal provisions. The High Court, without an assail to the order passed by the Tribunal, has adverted to the same and opined that it does not subscribe to the view expressed by the Tribunal that Sections 18(2) and 18(3) of the Act were not applicable to the transaction in question. The High Court could not have done that. We may note with profit that the High Court after stating that has reproduced para 38(vi) [of Radheshyam Kejriwal] and opined that the findings given by the Tribunal are based on technical grounds and, therefore, the prosecution is liable to continue. As we perceive, the judgment of the Tribunal is on merits, inasmuch as findings have been recorded after analysis of facts and the conclusion has been arrived at that the appellants have not violated the - 12 - W.P.(Cr.) No.279 of 2023 provisions of the Act. In such a situation, it cannot be said that it is a judgment rendered on technical grounds and, therefore, we are compelled to hold that the High Court has totally erred in law.” (emphasis supplied) 8. On the strength of the above judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that once an adjudicating authority has negated the existence of relationship of the transacted money either with the petitioner or with the another person, then the criminal proceeding cannot be proceeded. 9. For this purpose, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the Assessment order dated 31.03.2014, passed by the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Jamshedpur and the appellate order dated 22.02.2016, passed in Appeal No.250/JSR/2013-2014, by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal – 3), Patna. The relevant portion of the order of the Assessing Authority dated 31.03.2014, is quoted here-in-below :- “5.0 Illegal gratification of Rs. 1.50 crore paid to Smt Sita Soren, MLA: 5.1 As already discussed in detail in the earlier paragraphs of this assessment order, the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) has made detailed investigation and filed charge sheet under the orders of the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court related to use of money power in the alleged horse trading in Rajya Sabha Election, 2012 of Jharkhand. 5.2 As per materials available on records with the Department, the C.B.I. has filed charge sheet against the assessee Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal along with other accused in the alleged horse trading and use of money power case during Rajya Sabha Election, 2012 of Jharkhand in the case no. RC02(S)/2012-AHD-R and RC 2(S)/2012-EOW , Ranchi. In the said charge sheet sufficient corroborative evidence has been filed to show - 13 - W.P.(Cr.) No.279 of 2023 that the assessee was involved in providing illegal gratification to Smt. Sita Soren, MLA Jharkhand Mukti Morcha for her support and vote to secure a seat in the Rajya Sabha. 5.3 As per charge-sheet, the assessee has paid a sum of Rs. 1.50 crore to Smt. Sita Soren for her support- Rs. 50.00 lakh for proposing the name of the assessee and Rs. 1.00 crore to vote in favour of the assessee. The C.B.I. has already filed a charge-sheet against the assessee alongwith the main accused Smt. Sita Soren, Shri Badnaran Majhi F/o. Simt. Sita Soren, Shri Rajendra Mandal, Shri Pawan Kumar Dhoot and Shri Sunil Kumar Maheshwari. The Court has taken due cognizance of the said charge sheet. 5.4 On perusal of the investigation report / charge-sheet so filed by the C.B.I., inter alia statement of Shri Vikash Kumar, Shri Jaykant Kumar etc it is held that the assessee has paid a total sum of Rs. 1.50 crore to Smt Sita Soren towards illegal gratification to obtain her support in the Rajya Sabha Election 2012. No explanation to the source of the amount of Rs. 1.50 crore has been submitted by the assessee. 5.5 In the light of the facts mentioned (supra) and in conjunction with the other findings discussed in detail in the foregoing paragraphs of the assessment order inter alia material available on record, the undersigned has no alternative but to construe that the assessee has paid a sum of Rs. 1,50 00,000/- towards illegal gratification Smt Sita Soren, MLAs and the same is hereby added to his total income for the A.Y 2012-13 as undisclosed / unaccounted income from unexplained source.” The relevant portion of the order of the Appellate Authority dated 22.02.2016, is also quoted here-in-below :- “Appellate findings & decision: After considering the AO's findings in the assessment order and the appellant's contention following facts emerges 1. The addition of Rs.1.5 Crore is made on the basis of statement of third party (two persons) before the CBI and criminal proceeding of CBI action is pending before special Judge, CBI Ranchi. Thus, criminal proceeding is subjudice. Appellant is - 14 - W.P.(Cr.) No.279 of 2023 also one of the parties charge-sheeted in this criminal proceedings. 2. The addition of Rs.1.5 Crore is based on the statement of Mr. Vikash and Mr. Jaykant Kumar-private bodyguard and driver of Smt. Sita Soren, MLA. The finding of the AO in the assessment order clearly indicate that no opportunity was given to the appellant while concluding that Rs.1.5 Crore is undisclosed income of the appellant as assessment order did not mention any explanation called for from the appellant and submission thereon. 3. In order to provide opportunity to the appellant, the AO was issued remand directing the AO to grant opportunity to cross examination the persons on whose statement addition of Rs.1.5 Crore was made by the AO. In the remand report, the AO has reported that the issue of cross examination was referred to CBI as statement of the two persons were taken by the CBI Ranchi. However, vide letter dated 13.10.2015, S.P . CBI, Ranchi intimated the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Ranchi, that Shri Vikash Kumar and Sh. Jaykant Kumar are likely to be examined before the Trial Court wherein the appellant Sh. Raj Kumar Agarwal shall get an opportunity to cross examine. The appellant moved the petition before the CBI Trial Court for examination of the witnesses-Sh. Vikash Kumar and Sh. Jaykant Kumar on priority. Vide order dated 07.01.2016, the special Judge, CBI rejected petition of the appellant for early examination of witnesses Sh. Vikash Kumar and Jaykant Kumar. 4. After going through the statement of Sh. Vikash Kumar and Sh. Jaykant Kumar as also the copy of charge-sheet filed, it is found that the AO's finding of Rs.1.50 Crore as unexplained income of the appellant is merely based on the statement of these two persons. Thus, this is a case where statements recorded by other agencies have been used by the AO without conducting any independent enquiries and without giving any opportunity to the appellant for explanation as well - 15 - W.P.(Cr.) No.279 of 2023 as cross-examination. At the time of hearing, AR has mentioned several decisions of ITAT as well as High Court wherein no credence to the third party statement or enquiries by other agencies were given if AO did not conduct any enquiry. One such decision is ITO VS Deepak P Gala (ITAT Mumbai), I.T.A. No. 5920/Mum/2013 dated 27.03.2015. The Hon'ble bench held that the AO was not justified in making the addition on the basis of statements given by the third parties before the Sales Tax Department without conducting any other investigation. Hon'ble bench also referred to coordinate bench decisions on similar issues. Hon'ble bench further noted that the opportunity to cross-examine was not given which is required to be given as per decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Ponkunnan Traders (83 ITR 508 & 102 ITR 366). Hon'ble Kerala High Court had quashed the assessment order for cross- examination not given to the assessee. In the current case also, AO has merely relied on third parties statement before the CBI and did not provide any opportunity for explanation or cross-examination of third parties by the appellant. It is, also a fact that the alleged recipient's (Smt. Sita Soren) case was not taken up for reassessment by the Department. In the beginning of the appellate proceeding. I had given enhancement notice to appellant as these same two persons Vikash & Jaykant Kumar had stated that appellant gave Rs.1.5 Crore each to 17 MLAs. However, AO made additions only in respect of alleged amount given to Smt. Sita Soren only for the reasons best known to the AO. Now, the facts of the case and sustainability of addition hinges on (i) whether third parties statement is binding on appellant and (ii) whether lack of cross-examination vitiates the addition made. On the issue of third parties statement, the law is very clear that third party statement is binding on the person who gave the statement and not on any other person. In the current case, the appellant cannot be bound by the statement of the two persons given before CBI and AO should have conducted further enquired as the onus is on revenue to prove that the statements alongwith other material evidence justify addition in the case of appellant. - 16 - W.P.(Cr.) No.279 of 2023 This has not been done by the AO either in assessment or in the remand proceedings. As regards the lack of cross-examination, the court decisions are again in favour of appellant as the appellant was not even asked for explanation on the issue of addition, leave alone cross-examination. During appellate proceedings, I tried to give opportunity for cross- examination by remanding the matter to the AO. However, this again could not materialize during remand also. Considering the above facts and circumstances as also the fact that the statements of these two persons were not considered sufficient enough for reopening assessment of the alleged recipient Smt Sita Soren for the AY 2012-13, I find that addition of Rs.1.5 Crore is not sustainable and the issue of enhancement was also not required to be pursued for the same reasons. Hence, addition of Rs.1.5 Crore is hereby deleted.” 10. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that so far as recovery of Rs.2.15 crores is concerned, it has been found that the said money is not the money of this petitioner. Further, so far as the transaction of Rs.1.50 crores is concerned, it has also been negated by the Income Tax Authority and the same has been found not to be the income either of this petitioner or of Mrs. Sita Soren. 11. On the basis of the findings recorded by the Income Tax Authority and the ratio of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, quoted here-in-above, submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the transaction of money of Rs.1.5 crores itself has been negated by the Income Tax Authority then the continuation of proceeding is per se illegal. 12. It has also been submitted that since there is no cogent evidence rather evidence got negated in view of the findings - 17 - W.P.(Cr.) No.279 of 2023 recorded by the Appellate Authority of the Income Tax Department, the continuation of proceeding is itself bad and the stage of proceeding cannot be a ground for denying the relief to the petitioner. 13. On the other hand, learned senior counsel for the respondent - CBI has opposed the prayer and it has been submitted that recovery Rs.2.15 crores is not relevant so far as the present case is concerned. The charge has been framed on the basis of transaction of Rs.1.50 crores made between the petitioner and Mrs. Sita Soren. There is oral evidence to that effect. Merely negation of the reopening of the assessment by the Income Tax Authority will not negate the evidence of transaction, i.e., the bribery given for getting favour in the election process of Rajya Sabha. 14. It has further been submitted by the learned senior counsel for the C.B.I that there was grave suspicion and on that basis charge has already been framed and further, out of 114 witnesses, 85 have already been examined. Thus, the trial has proceeded to a great extent and it is not a case of no evidence rather oral evidence is there. 15. So far as the findings of the Original Authority as well as the Appellate Authority of the Income Tax Department is concerned, it has given the findings after framing of the charge. Further, they have refused to reopen the assessment that does not mean that the money has not been transacted. It has also been submitted that whether the money has been transacted or not is the subject matter of the criminal trial and finding has to be recorded only on the basis of evidence to be produced in the criminal trial. 16. It has further been submitted by the learned senior - 18 - W.P.(Cr.) No.279 of 2023 counsel for the C.B.I by referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. J. Jayalalitha, reported in (2017) 6 SCC 263 that so far as the Income Tax Authorities are concerned, they are supposed to assess the tax liability and they have nothing to do with the criminal liability and the finding recorded by the Appellate Authority relating to the non-inclusion of the income into the actual income of the petitioner will not affect so far as the criminal liability is concerned. 17. It has also been submitted that so far as the judgments, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, those were in the arena of the proceeds of the crime. Once the Income Tax Department has given the finding that there is no proceeds of crime rather the money does not belong to the petitioner then no criminal liability can be fastened upon the petitioner, while in the present case, it is not the proceeds of crime rather it is a transaction of money for the purpose of getting favour in the election process of Rajya Sabha. 18. Learned senior counsel for the C.B.I has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Puneet Sabharwal Vs. CBI with R.C. Sabharwal Vs. CBI, reported in 2024 0 Supreme (SC) 244, and it has been submitted that in the said case, the assets recovered in crores have not been accepted by the Income Tax Department and on that basis quashing has been sought for, but that has been negated stating that the source of income has to be looked into by the criminal court where the trial is pending. Merely the fact that the income has not been accepted as the income of the accused will not vitiate the criminal trial. The trial court has to - 19 - W.P.(Cr.) No.279 of 2023 give its own finding regarding the culpability of the accused/ petitioner for acquiring the assets without known source of income. 19. Finally, it has been submitted by the learned senior counsel for the C.B.I that the findings recorded by the Income Tax Authority cannot be considered at this stage for recording the findings that the petitioner is innocent or no criminal trial can proceed. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner has been distinguished by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Puneet Sabharwal (Supra). 20. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of records and the facts and law, as discussed above, this Court finds that :- (1). The recovery of Rs.2.15 crores is not material so far as present criminal proceeding is concerned. (2). So far as transaction of Rs.1.5 crores between the petitioner and Smt. Sita Soren is concerned, the material collected by the CBI has been considered by the Income Tax Authority after giving due opportunity to the C.B.I and thereafter, finding has been recorded that evidence produced is not sufficient for reopening of the assessment of recipient Smt. Sita Soren as well as of the petitioner. 21. The transaction of money is the main allegation in the criminal trial, which has been negated by an authorized authority in a prescribed proceeding after considering the entire evidence and also after giving opportunity to the C.B.I. 22. In view of above discussion, this Court finds that there is very bleak chance of conviction as the transaction of money - 20 - W.P.(Cr.) No.279 of 2023 itself has been negated. The charge has been framed on 14.02.2014, but the trial is still continuing and as such continuation of trial is nothing but the misuse of the process of the Court. 23. Accordingly, the criminal proceedings in connection with RC Case No.02(S)/2012-AHD-R dated 19.04.2012 including the order taking cognizance dated 7.06.2013 as well as other consequential orders, so far it relates to the petitioner, are hereby, quashed and set aside. 24. With the above observation, the present criminal writ petition stands disposed of. 25. Pending interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Chandan/- - 21 - W.P.(Cr.) No.279 of 2023 "