LexPUNEET SABHARWAL versus CBI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 3 S.C.R. 679 : 2024 INSC 221 Puneet Sabharwal v. CBI (Criminal Appeal No. 1682 of 2024) 19 March 2024 [Vikram Nath and K.V. Viswanathan,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration The charges were framed against the appellants. While the charge against the appellant-P was u/s. 109 IPC r/w. s.13(1) (e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the charge against appellant-R was u/s. 13(1)(e) r/w. s.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In substance, the charge was that appellant-R owned assets disproportionate to known sources of income and the appellant-P son of R has abetted him in the commission of the said offence. The High Court, by the impugned order, dismissed the petitions for quashing criminal proceedings. The question that arises for consideration is whether the courts below were justified in refusing to quash and set aside the order on charge dated 21.02.2006 and the charges as framed on 28.02.2006. Headnotes Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s. 13(1)(e) r/w. s. 13(2) – Penal Code, 1860 – s. 109 – Income Tax Act, 1961 – The appellant-R was exonerated by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by order dated 31.08.2007 – It was contended that in view of the orders made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the reopening proceedings, which were based on the search conducted by the CBI, there is absolutely no ground to proceed with the criminal trial – It was further argued, with respect to the appellant-P, that he was a minor for a large portion of the check period and therefore could not be made an accused – Propriety: Held: In the instant case, the probative value of the Orders of the Income Tax Authorities, including the Order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the subsequent Assessment Orders, are not conclusive proof which can be relied upon for discharge of the 680 [2024] 3 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports accused persons – These orders, their findings, and their probative value, are a matter for a full-fledged trial – In view of the same, the High Court has rightly not discharged the appellants based on the Orders of the Income Tax Authorities – The appellants herein are being prosecuted under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act while they seek to rely on an exoneration under the Income Tax Act – The scope of adjudication in both of these proceedings are vastly different – The authority which conducted the income tax proceedings and the authority conducting the prosecution is completely different (CBI) – The CBI was not and could not have been a party to the income tax proceeding – The charges were framed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, while the appellants seek to rely upon findings recorded by authorities under the Income Tax Act – The scope of adjudication in both the proceedings are markedly different and therefore the findings in the latter cannot be a ground for discharge of the Accused Persons in the former – The proceedings under the Income Tax Act and its evidentiary value remains a matter of trial and they cannot be considered as conclusive proof for discharge of an accused person – As far as the contention about the minority of the appellant-P is concerned, it need not detain the Court since for the last seven years of the check period admittedly he was not minor –Thus, the appellants have not made out a case for interference with the order on charge dated 21.02.2006 and the order of framing charge dated 28.02.2006. [Paras 32, 37, 40, 23, 44] Case Law Cited State of Karnataka v. Selvi J. Jayalalitha & Ors. [2017] 5 SCR 525 : (2017) 6 SCC 263 – relied on. Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal & Anr. [2011] 4 SCR 889 : (2011) 3 SCC 581; Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. CBI & Anr. (2020) 9 SCC 636; J. Sekar v. Directorate of Enforcement [2022] 3 SCR 698 : (2022) 7 SCC 370 – held inapplicable. P. Nallamal v. State (1996) 6 SCC 559; Vishwanath Chaturvedi (3) v. Union of India & Ors. [2007] 3 SCR 448 : (2007) 4 SCC 380; Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr. [2012] 10 SCR 1034 : (2013) 11 SCC 476; State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan [2024] 3 S.C.R. 681 Puneet Sabharwal v. CBI & Ors. [2014] 1 SCR 135 : (2014) 11 SCC 709; CBI & Anr. v. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi & Anr. [2021] 13 SCR 364 : (2021) 18 SCC 135; Onkar Nath Mishra & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. [2007] 13 SCR 716 : (2008) 2 SCC 561; State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy & Ors. [1977] 3 SCR 11
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.