Foundational seizure allegation missing, so cognizance for forgery, cheating and misappropriation under IPC was set aside.

Cognizance for forgery, cheating and misappropriation under Sections 467, 468, 469, 471 and 420 IPC could not be sustained where the case diary did not support the prosecution's allegation that the Income Tax Department had seized the 42 departmental files in question. Without proof of such seizure, the foundational factual basis for the alleged offences was absent, and the cognizance order was set aside for those IPC offences. The challenge under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was not examined on merits because it was not pressed at that stage.

---

---

Issues: Whether cognizance taken for offences of forgery, misappropriation and cheating under Sections 467, 468, 469, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code could be sustained when the alleged seizure of departmental files by the Income Tax Authority was not borne out from the case diary.

Analysis: The material placed before the Court, including the case diary, showed that the Income Tax Department had not seized the 42 departmental files alleged by the prosecution. In the absence of seizure of such files, the foundational allegation giving rise to the alleged offences of forgery and misappropriation did not survive. The challenge relating to Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was not examined on merits, as that issue was not pressed at that stage.

Conclusion: The cognizance order was set aside insofar as it related to the offences under Sections 467, 468, 469, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

---