THE STATE BY S.P. THROUGH THE SPE CBI versus UTTAMCHAND BOHRA

Citation: [2021] 9 S.C.R. 821 · Decided: 09-12-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.M. JOSEPH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
821
   [2021] 9 S.C.R. 821
821
THE STATE BY S.P. THROUGH THE SPE CBI
v.
UTTAMCHAND BOHRA
(Criminal Appeal No. 1590 of 2021)
DECEMBER 09, 2021
[K. M. JOSEPH AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.13(1)(e), 13(2) –
A-1, a public servant was accused of accumulating assets
disproportionate to his known sources of income in collusion with
other accused – Respondent accused of abetting and/or conspiring
with A-1 – According to the prosecution, A-1 acquired a flat, through
a company – Respondent was alleged to be close associate and
financer of A-1 and his family – Chargesheet against the respondent
quashed by High Court – On appeal, held: Role attributed to the
respondent is that he helped in the execution of the sale deed of the
property which was seized from his house and that his employee
witnessed the sale deed – The fact that the sale deed was in the
respondent’s residence cannot satisfy the ingredient of any of the
offences alleged against him – An allegation of the existence of
signatures of respondent’s employee, as a witness to the sale deed
cannot amount to his aiding or abetting A-1 to acquire
disproportionate assets – FIR in the present case names only A-1
and A-2 (A-1’s wife) as the accused – Respondent’s name was
included in the present case, although the sale deed was seized
during a search conducted in relation to another FIR (in an earlier
case wherein respondent was co-accused) and not in relation to the
present case – The earlier case is irrelevant to the present case –
Further, respondent was not a public officer or public servant –
Therefore, he cannot be charged with committing an offence u/
s.13(1)(e) r/w s.13(2) – There is no allegation against the respondent
that he received any benefit or that he held the property in his name
for the benefit of A-1 – The property which the Company purchased
was in its name – Money trail for the property bought under the
sale deed, does not show respondent’s involvement – There is no
material prima facie supporting an inference that the respondent
was either a conspirator or had abetted the commission of the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
822
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
offences alleged against A-1 – Alleged offences u/ss.120-B, 109,
IPC against the respondent not made out from the chargesheet –
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.120B, 109 – Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 – ss.397, 401, 226-228, 239, 161.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.13(1)(e), 13(2) –
Penal Code, 1860 – s.120B – Criminal misconduct by public servant
– Conspiracy – Standard of suspicion – Held: Material to implicate
someone as a conspirator acting in concert with a public servant,
alleged to have committed misconduct under the PCA or amassed
assets disproportionate to a public servant’s known sources of
income, has to be on firm ground.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The respondent is accused of abetting and/or
conspiring with the principal accused, a public servant (A-1), so
as to permit him to accumulate assets disproportionate to his
known sources of income. A-1 was a senior official of the Central
Government, working in the income tax department. According
to the prosecution, he acquired the flat, through the company
(M/s. Raviteja Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd.). Two other accused, who
facilitated the acquisition, turned approver; they also deposed
during the trail. The role attributed to the respondent is that he
helped in the execution of the sale deed of the property, and
kept custody of the title deed to it. The document was in fact
seized from his house. The seizure took place over a year before
the present case was initiated; in fact, the CBI had initiated
another criminal proceeding, in which A- 1 too was implicated. In
that case, the CBI had seized ` 50 lakhs from him. In the present
case, the recovery from respondent’s custody of the sale deed of
the property, owned by the Company led to initiation of separate
proceeding; inter alia, respondent was charged with criminal
conspiracy, defined under Section 120A, IPC and punishable under
Section 120B IPC and abetment, defined by Section 107 IPC and
punishable under Section 109 IPC. [Para 22][838-D-G; 839-A]
1.2 Section 13 (1) (e) and Section 13 (2) of the PCA, are
relevant because the respondent was sought to be charged under
those provisions. The respondent, was not a public officer or public
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
823
servant. He cannot therefore, be charged with committing an
offence under Section 13(1

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.