TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (2) TMI 817
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ording to which the Bank was entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 72,89,296.76 and the consequential relief of interest and costs. 3. The Recovery Officer-II, DRT, Chandigarh issued a demand notice dated 12.07.2002 for payment of the outstanding amount of RS. 72, 89, 296.76, within fifteen (15) days, failing which the recovery was to be executed under the provisions of the DRT Act, 1993. When payments were not made, SBI, on 25.08.2003 filed a proposal for sale of the equitably mortgaged property. Subsequently, a proclamation of sale through an open auction was issued on 18.12.2003 and it was declared that the auction would take place on 29.01.2004. The reserved price of the property was fixed as Rs. 13 lakhs and Recovery Inspector, Sh. AK Shukla was appointed as the auctioneer. The auction notice was got published in Dainik Bhaskar on 13.01.2004 and in an English Daily also. 4. On 29.01.2004, an auction was conducted by the auctioneer Shri A.K. Shukla at the premises of M/S Ajay Metals and out of the total no. of nine (9) bidders, Dr.I.S. Yadav being the highest bidder, was declared successful with his bid of Rs. 36 lakhs. It is stated that Dr. IS Yadav deposited a demand draft o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....passed on 24.06.2005. Thereafter, a charge-sheet was filed by the Inspector of Police, CBI, ACU-I, New Delhi wherein a prayer was made for taking cognizance of the offence against Sh. AK Shukla (Recovery Inspector) and Sh. Kushal Kumar (Recovery Officer, the petitioner herein) and for summoning them for trial of the offences punishable under section 120B, IPC read with sections 7, 13(2), 13(1)(b) of the PC Act. 7. Since the sanction was not sought/granted under section 197 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner filed a Criminal Writ Petition No. 771/2006, which was, however, dismissed vide order dated 07.11.2008. Aggrieved by the judgment of this Court, the petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition (Crl.) before the Apex Court and which is pending admission before the Apex Court. In the meantime, arguments on charge were heard by the Special Judge, Patiala House Courts and vide order dated 17.01.2009, submissions of the petitioner against the framing of charge were rejected. Vide order dated 02.02.2009, charges were framed against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner has filed this Criminal Misc. Petition before this Court and prayed for setting aside of the order da....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 61. Application to set aside sale of immovable property on ground of non-service of notice or irregularity. Where immovable property has been sold in execution of a certificate, such Income-tax Officer as may be authorized by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner in this behalf, the defaulter, or any person whose interests are affected by the sale, may, at any time within thirty days from the date of the sale, apply to the Tax Recovery Officer to set aside the sale of the immovable property on the ground that notice was not served on the defaulter to pay the arrears as required by this Schedule or on the ground of a material irregularity in publishing or conducting the sale: Provided that- (a) No sale shall be set aside on any such ground unless the Tax Recovery Officer is satisfied that the applicant has sustained substantial injury by reason of the non-service or regularity; and (b) An application made by the defaulter under this rule shall be disallowed unless the applicant deposits the amount recoverable from him in the execution of the certificate. 62. Setting aside sale where defaulter has no saleable interest. At any time within thirty day....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner herein have been duly dealt with by the learned Special Judge and thus no grounds are made out for interference in this revision petition. Learned counsel for the CBI has drawn the attention of this Court to the chargesheet wherein specific findings have been made against the petitioner. The relevant paragraphs read as under: "11. Investigation further disclosed that Shri Kushal Kumar and Shri AK Shukla entered into a criminal conspiracy and in furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy, Shri AK Shukla, after the auction proceedings were over on 29.01.2004, demanded bribe of Rs. 35,000/- for himself and for Shri Kushal Kumar from Dr. IS Yadav......." 12. Investigation disclosed that Sh. Kushal Kumar, the Recovery Officer, while acting in conspiracy with Shri AK Shukla, took up the matter on 09.02.2004 and noted in that the report of Shri AK Shukla on the auction be placed on record. He adjourned the matter to 25.02.2004. On 25.02.2004, Shri Subhash Chand Sharma, the Guarantor/one of the judgment debtors filed an objection against the auction/sale of the said property to Dr. IS Yadav. However, Shri Subhash Chand Sharma did not deposit the mandatory amount with this obje....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Cr.P.C. vest revisionary jurisdiction in the High Court. In the case of Jagannath Choudhary v. Ramayan Singh reported at (2002) 5 SCC 659 the Apex Court while reiterating the established principles with regard to the exercise of revisionary jurisdiction, by this Court, held: "9. Incidentally the object of the revisional jurisdiction as envisaged under Section 401 was to confer upon superior criminal courts a kind of paternal or supervisory jurisdiction, in order to correct miscarriage of justice arising from misconception of law, irregularity of procedure, neglect of proper precautions of (sic or) apparent harshness of treatment which has resulted on the one hand in some injury to the due maintenance of law and order, or on the other hand in some undeserved hardship to individuals. (See in this context the decision of this Court in Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary1.) The main question which the High Court has to consider in an application in revision is whether substantial justice has been done. If however, the same has been an appeal, the applicant would be entitled to demand an adjudication upon all questions of fact or law which he wishes to raise, but in revision the only quest....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e are brought to its notice, call for the records and examine them. This right of the High Court is as much a part of the administration of justice as its duty to hear appeals and revisions and interlocutory applications -- so also its right to exercise its powers of administrative superintendence. Though however, the jurisdictional sweep of the process of the High Court, however, under the provisions of Section 401 is very much circumscribed, as noticed hereinbefore." 13. Furthermore, while dealing with a matter wherein charges framed against the accused by the Trial Court but quashed by (1978) 1 SCC 27 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 21. the High Court in a revision petition before it, the Apex Court observed : "3. ......... The revision power under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner. While exercising such powers the High Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial and the appellate courts are required to do. Revisional powers could be exercised only when it is shown that there is a legal bar against the continuance of the criminal proceedings or the framing of charge or the facts as stated in the first inform....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct him. The learned Special Judge while passing his order, had based his decision upon para 10 of Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Another reported at AIR 1979 SC 366. It would be useful to reproduce the said relied portion of the judgment: "10. Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, the following principles emerge: (1) That the judge while considering the question of framing the charges u/s 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. (2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. (3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the....