Ravi Sinha and Dr. Umakant Dhrupati and Shyam Bihari Sinha and Alok Sinha and S.B. Sinha V. Central Bureau of Investigation and Union of India

W.P.(Cr.)/32/2016

AI Insights

The case involves two writ petitions challenging a common order by the C.B.I. court concerning the release of a seized amount of Rs. 2.48 crores linked to the AHD scam. The petitions were filed by Ravi Sinha and Dr. Umakant Dhrupati against the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Union of India, respectively. The main legal contention revolved around the ownership and rightful claim over the seized amount, which was initially seized during a raid related to R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996. The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Income Tax Act, particularly Section 159, which holds the legal representatives of a deceased assessee liable for the tax dues, and Section 226(4), which allows the assessing officer to claim amounts in court custody.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 801074 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 06-09-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: PRASHANT PALLAV; SHIVANI JALUKA
• Assessee Lawyers: INDRAJIT SINHA; R N SAHAY
• Keywords: AHD scam; Income Tax Department; Proceeds of Crime; Quashing order; Seized amount
• Section: 159; 226(4)

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(Cr.) No. 662 of 2015 Ravi Sinha …… Petitioner Versus Central Bureau of Investigation through Superintendent of Police, Animal Husbandry Department, Ranchi and others …… Respondents With W.P.(Cr.) No. 32 of 2016 Dr. Umakant Dhrupati, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-I, (Central), Ranchi …… Petitioner Versus Union of India and others …… Respondents --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate (in W.P.(Cr) No. 662 of 2015) Mr. R.N. Sahay, Sr. S.C. (in W.P.(Cr) No.32 of 2016) For the C.B.I. : Mr. Prashant Pallav, DSGI Ms. Shivani Jaluka, A.C. to DSGI 31/Dated: 06/09/2023 Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. (Cr) No. 662 of 2015, Mr. R.N. Sahay, Sr. S.C. appearing on behalf of petitioner- in W.P. (Cr.). 32 of 2016 and Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned DSGI, appearing on behalf of C.B.I. in both the cases. 2. In both the petitions common order of C.B.I court is under challenge that is why both the writ petitions have been tagged together by the earlier order and being heard with the consent of the parties. 3. In both the petitions prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 28.09.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge-I, C.B.I. (AHD Scam Cases), Ranchi in connection with R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996. Prayer has also been made in W.P.(Cr) No. 662 of 2015 for release of 2.48 crores in favour of the respondent nos. 2 to 4 i.e Income Tax Department. Prayer has also been 2 made in W.P.(Cr) No. 32 of 2016 for release of said amount in favour of Income Tax Department. 4. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.( Cr.) No. 662 of 2015 submits that R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 was lodged by the C.B.I against Shyam Bihari Sinha, the father of the petitioner and other persons which was investigated but chargesheet could not be submitted and the said S.B. Sinha left for his heavenly abode. He submits that in course of investigation a raid was made in the house of S.B. Sinha and Alok Sinha who was elder son of late S.B. Sinha and a sum of Rs. 2.48 crore was seized by the C.B.I. He submits that the said amount has not been decided as to whether the said amount was proceeds of crime or not and inspite of that impugned order has been passed which may be set aside. He submits that in R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 the final judgment has also been delivered and in that judgment there is no discussion of the said amount. 5. Mr. R.N. Sahay, learned counsel for Income Tax Department submits that in fact the petition was filed by the Income Tax Department pursuant to that the said impugned order has been passed by the learned court rejecting the prayer of the Income Tax Department to release the said amount in favour of Income Tax Department. He refers to Section 159 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and submits that in view of said provision made therein legal representative of the assessee is liable to pay the amount. By way of referring sub-section 4 of section 226 of the Income Tax Act he submits that provision is already there that the assessing officer may apply to the Court in whose custody there is money belonging to the Assessee for payment to him of the entire amount of such money. He submits that in view of the said provision this Court may pass appropriate order to hand over the said amount to the Income Tax Department. 6. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel for the C.B.I submits that 3 late Dr. S.B. Sinha was involved in 16 R.C. cases which was arising out of AHD cases. He submits that Misc. (Civil) Petition No. 148 of 1996 was filed in the Court of learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi on 29.08.1996 under Section 3 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1994 for attachment of the properties of accused Shyam Bihari Sinha and his other family members Ravi Sinha and Alok Sinha (both sons), Vikash Sinha (nephew) Smt. Rama Sinha (wife) and Smt. Sudha Sinha (Daughter-in-law) and interim order of attachment was passed on 30.08.1996. He further submits that documents recovered/seized in one case, if found relevant in another case, then they can be utilized in other cases also. The documents recovered/seized during the same search have also been used in other cases. The same set of accused public servants and suppliers were found to be involved in release and receipt of fraudulent payment from different treasuries in different financial years. He further submits that recovery of cash and documents from the premises of late Dr. S.B. Sinha indicate his involvement not only in RC68A/1996-Pat but also in other fodder scam cases. He submits that learned court has rightly passed the impugned order. He submits that the accused persons have not claimed properties any time during trial of the case and after his death it is being agitated. He submits that it is difficult to segregate the proceeds of crime as case numbers were not allocated when the cash accumulated at the premises of late Dr. S.B. Sinha. He further submits that late Dr. S.B. Sinha has not filed any petition before the learned Court for adjudication as has been argued Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner- Ravi Sinha. 7. In view of above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties the Court has gone through the materials on record including impugned order. Looking to the impugned order dated 28.09.2015, it transpires that this order was passed pursuant to the petition dated 12.12.2014 filed on behalf of Income Tax Department. This order has not been passed pursuant to petition 4 filed by the petitioner-Ravi Sinha who is the son of late S.B. Sinha. Thus the point which has been argued by Mr. Indrajit Sinha was required to be agitated before the learned court as for the first time this point is being argument that too in order passed pursuant to petition filed by the Income Tax Department and in view of that this Court finds that the prayer made in W.P.(Cr) No. 662 of 2015 is misconceived one. There is no order pursuant to any petition filed by the petitioner-Ravi Sinha for adjudication of said cash amount. Accordingly, W.P. (Cr) No. 662 2015 is not maintainable and same is hereby rejected. 8. So far the contention of the Income Tax Department is concerned, the statute is with regard to Income Tax is already there. Section 159 of the Income Tax Act is not in dispute. If any amount is due upon any assessee in view of that Section the legal representative are liable to pay for that Income Tax Department is required to proceed in accordance with law in view of that statute. 9. The learned court in order dated 28.09.2015 has found that neither late Dr. S.B. Sinha claimed the seized amount nor any one claimed the seized amount. The question further remains that if nobody has claimed that amount, that has come in several paragraphs of impugned order how the Income Tax Department has come to the conclusion that the said amount is of Mr. Ravi Sinha. In view of that the petition filed by the Income Tax Department, prima facaie also appears to be misconceived one. 10. The learned court has recorded that Government money was defalcated by the accused persons of AHD scam in different official capacity in Animal and Husbandry Department during the period 1991-1996. This disproportionate amount was the illegal income of the accused which was defalcated from the fund of the government and the offence was committed in their official capacity. Dealing with the several Sections of Income Tax Act, the learned Court has found that said money is an amount which was 5 defalcated in AHD scam and no one claims on the said amount. 11. If such a situation is there that nobody has claimed the said amount and no adjudication has been sought to be there on that point the impugned order cannot be said to be illegal or perverse. The Court finds that impugned order has rightly been passed. No interference is required. Accordingly, W.P. (Cr) No. 32 of 2016 is dismissed. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of. 12. So far impugned order is concerned, the petitioners are at liberty to work out their remedies. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Satyarthi/ "