TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 639
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2002 pending in the court of Sessions Judge, Lucknow. Facts of the case, in brief, are that in pursuance to a trap instituted by the CBI, the applicant, who was working on the post of Chief Regional Manager, IRCTC at Regional Office, Lucknow, was implicated in F.I.R. No. RC0062009A0033 lodged on 30th October, 2009 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'P.C. Act'). Charge sheet in the aforesaid case was filed on 27.09.2010 and the trial of the aforesaid case was conducted in the court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption, West, Lucknow. In relation to the aforesaid case, CBI conducted search in the residential and office premises of the applicant and with the allegation that applicant, by misus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat applicant acquired disproportionate assets by misusing his official position, F.I.R. No. RC00620100010 was lodged on 24th February, 2010 under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act. Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that in the said case, without considering the reply of the applicant, only on the basis of presumption, charge sheet was filed on 13th November, 2010 with the allegation that applicant was found in the possession of moveable and immoveable assets to the tune of Rs. 2,13,81,313/- and the income was computed to the tune of Rs. 1,51,24,983/- in the check period. He also submitted that trial of the aforesaid case is pending and the applicant is on bail in the said case also. Learned counsel fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....submitted that during the course of investigation under the provisions of PML Act, statement of only 12 persons were recorded from the list given by the applicant. Investigating Officer has wrongly discarded the documentary evidence provided by the applicant. He also submitted that the claim of the applicant was rejected without giving any finding in relation to the genuineness of the agreement of sale, pursuance to which an amount of Rs. 25 lacs, was paid to the applicant by one Ajay Raj Tripathi. It has next been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that complaint was filed on 31.03.2017, which was registered in the court of Special Judge (Anti Corruption) as Complaint No. 8 of 2017, in which, summoning order was passed on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pplicant, who was holding the post of Chief Regional Manager, IRCTC at Regional Office, Lucknow, a complaint of demand of bribe was received by the CBI, in pursuance to which, the trap was laid against him on 30.10.2009, in which, he was caught red handed with the bribe money of Rs. 70,000/- and F.I.R. No. RC0062009A0033 dated 30.10.2009 (supra) was lodged against the applicant. Thereafter, during the course of investigation, search was conducted in the residential as well as office premises of the applicant and as it was found that applicant was having disproportionate assets, another F.I.R. was lodged on 24.02.2020 as F.I.R. No. RC0062010A0010 (supra). He further submitted that case was also registered under the provisions of PML Act as E....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment of witnesses recorded under Section 50 of the PML Act. It has, thus, been submitted that the present application is not liable to be entertained. In support of his argument, learned A.S.G. relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Hasan Ali, 2011 (10) SCC 235. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. As the applicant, who was working on the post of Chief Regional Manager, IRCTC at Lucknow, was trapped red handed by the CBI on 30.10.2009 while receiving Rs. 70,000/- as bribe money, on account of which, F.I.R. No. RC0062009A0033 under Section 7 of the P.C. Act was registered against him. During the course of investigation, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gorically denied that any advance was given to the applicant. After investigation, evidence in relation to money laundering was also found against the applicant and the Proceed of Crime was found to be Rs. 1,38,63,445/-. Thereafter, provisional attachment order of property was passed on 30.09.2016, which was confirmed by the competent authority under Section 5 of the PML Act. After investigation, a complaint was filed on 31st March, 2017 before the Special Judge, which was registered as Complaint Case No. 8 of 2017 under Section 3/4 of PML Act. Summoning order was passed on 4th April, 2017, but since applicant failed to appear before the trial court, non-bailable warrant was issued on 17th March, 2018. The ratio of judgments cited by the l....