TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 2828
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as the said Act). And charge against the petitioner was framed for the offences punishable under Section 109 of the IPC read with Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (e) of the said Act. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the learned Trial Court has wrongly interpreted the scope of said Act which is comprehensive and self-contained in which punishments are specifically provided for abatement of certain offences, without relying on the provisions of the IPC. Such provisions are qualified in Sections 10 and 12 of the Act which make punishable only abatement of offences under Sections 7, 8, 9 and 11 of the Act. There is no provision whatsoever in the Act for punishment of any offence under any other provision in general and Section 13(1)(e) in particular. The learned Judge has erred in interpreting the scope of Section 109 of the IPC and Section 13(1)(e)and 13(2) of the Act. 4. Learned counsel further submitted that in the present case, even assuming without admitting, that her husband Shri Anand Kumar Singhal had taken illegal gratification out of which subsequently other assets were acqu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntral Government so as to enable the latter to invoke the provisions of the Delhi Act. For the said purpose, it is necessary to bear in mind the relevant provisions of the Delhi Act. xxxxxxxxx 18. Section 6 is very important which requires consent of State Government for exercising powers and jurisdiction under the Act by Special Police Establishment to any area in a State not being Union Territory or Railway. The said section, therefore, may be quoted in extenso; '6. Consent of the State Government to exercise powers and jurisdiction:- Nothing contained in Sec. 5 shall be deemed to enable any member of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to exercise powers and jurisdiction in any area in a State, not being a Union Territory or railway area without the consent of the Government of that State.' 19. Plain reading of the above provisions goes to show that for exercise of jurisdiction by the CBI in a State (other than Union Territory or Railway Area), consent of the State Government is necessary. In other words, before the provisions of the Delhi Act are invoked to exercise power and jurisdiction by Special Police Establishment in any State, the following conditions must be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed by Section 6 of the Special Police Act on the powers of the Union, cannot be read as restriction on the powers of the Constitutional Courts. Therefore, exercise of power of judicial review by the High Court, in our opinion, would not amount to infringement of either the doctrine of separation of power or the federal structure. 69. In the final analysis, our answer to the question referred is that a direction by the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to the CBI to investigate a cognizable offence alleged to have been committed within the territory of a State without the consent of that State will neither impinge upon the federal structure of the Constitution nor violate the doctrine of separation of power and shall be valid in law. Being the protectors of civil liberties of the citizens, this Court and the High Courts have not only the power and jurisdiction but also an obligation to protect the fundamental rights, guaranteed by Part III in general and under Article 21 of the Constitution in particular, zealously and vigilantly". 8. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was having her own business. She was independent, s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... known source of income, is liable to be dropped. The review petition, so far as Smt. Dimple Yadav is concerned, is, accordingly, allowed and the investigation conducted by the CBI against her should, therefore, be dropped". 9. As regards the provisions under Section 107 to 112 of the said Act, these are applicable on the public servant, whereas the petitioner is not a public servant. Therefore, the learned Trial Court has rightly framed charge under Section 109 of the IPC against her. 10. The fact remains that the charge-sheet against the petitioner being accused No.2 filed under Section 109 of IPC read with Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Act. It is alleged that petitioner in conspiracy with her husband acquired property in Dehradoon, impersonating as Resham Manocha. As per her income-tax returns, the petitioner had total income during the check period of Rs.84,84,210/- from her business of dry cleaning run in the name and style of Royal Dry Cleaners, whereas total expenditure in the business was of Rs.50,38,712/- and had likely savings of Rs.34,45,498/-. However, she acquired assets to the tune of Rs.74,77,827/- during the check period. Thus, the assets acquired were d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t abets any offence committed by the public servant, such non-public servant shall also be liable to be tried along with the public servant. 15. In case of Akhilesh Yadav (supra) the issue before the Supreme Court was whether the investigation launched against Smt.Dimple Yadav on issue of amassing wealth beyond her known sources of income was liable to be dropped. Whereas, in the instant case, the investigation was over and charge sheet has been filed, accordingly, charge has been framed. Thus, said benefit is not available to the petitioner. 16. The learned Trial Court after taking into account the materials available before it, directed for framing of charges against the petitioner. The details and particulars regarding the respective role of the accused have been drawn in the charge-sheet which makes the case against the petitioner triable. By no stretch of imagination can it be said that the materials available against the petitioner, taken to be ex facie true, do not constitute the offences alleged. It is admitted that out of 35 witnesses, 22 prosecution witnesses have already been examined. Thus, the trial is at the advance stage. 17. It is settled law that at the time of ....