TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 1186
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....88 (for short, "the PC Act"). As per the impugned judgment dated 31.01.2017, the High Court set aside the framing of charge under the aforementioned sections of the said enactments and discharged the respondent under Section 239 of the Cr. P.C. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-State and the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. The facts in brief necessary for the disposal of this Appeal are as follows: - On 25.11.2019, FIR No.56/2009 came to be registered against Sh. Anil Kumar Sethi, the husband of the respondent, under Section 13(1)(e) punishable under Section 13(2) of the PC Act. In the course of the inquiry, it was found that he is a public servant working as Assistant Engineer, Rural Works Sub-Division, Kakatpur, District Puri and was in possession of disproportionate assets to his known source of income to the tune of Rs. 40,54,561/-. He was unable to account for such resources for the disproportionate income and therefore, found him liable to be prosecuted under the aforesaid sections of the PC Act. During the course of investigation, it was found that the said Anil Kumar Sethi entered in service as Stipendiary Engineer in the year 1993 i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that an offence under Section 13(1)(e) punishable under Section 13(2) of the PC Act, could be abetted by a non-public servant and in such eventuality the only mode of prosecution qua that offender is only through the trial as envisaged under the provisions of the PC Act. It is paradoxical that to drive home the rival stands on the framing of charge under Section 109, IPC both the parties are relying on the decision of this Court in P. Nallammal and Anr. v. State ( 1999 ) 6 SCC 559 ; 1999 INSC 314. While the appellant relies on the same to support the contention that offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act could be abetted by a non-public servant and the only mode of prosecuting such an offender is through trial as envisaged in the PC Act, the respondent would rely on the very self-same decision to contend that merely because some of the disproportionate assets stand in the name of non-public servant, without any element of abetment, the couple could not be asked to face the trial along with the public servant on the ground of their relationship. In short, going by the respondent, there is no material to support the charge under Section 109, for abetting the husband Sri Anil Ku....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... lady having her own source of income and, therefore, could not be held liable for the alleged acquisition of disproportionate assets by her husband. Furthermore, it is contended that the respondent is an income tax assessee since 2000-2001 and has been filing Income Tax Returns regularly. According to her, she is doing dairy farming and also earning money by tuition and she is a M.A. degree holder from Utkal University, Bhubaneswar and also had completed a course in data entry and started data entry business since 2003-2004. It is also her case that she purchased the land at Bhubaneswar after borrowing Rs.2.5 lakhs from her father. In short, it is the contention made on behalf of the respondent that the Investigating Officer had not conducted investigation to find out the source of income of the respondent as well as to obtain the Income Tax Returns filed by her. 9. Before considering the rival contentions on merits in order to consider the sustainability or otherwise of the impugned judgment, we think it only appropriate to consider certain relevant position of law in relation to certain aspects involved in the case on hand. We will firstly consider the scope of Section 239, Cr.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CC 142; 1994 INSC 201. This Court on the question of quashing of charge by the High Court made the following pertinent observations: - "7...To put it differently, once charges are framed under Section 240 CrPC the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction would not be justified in relying upon documents other than those referred to in Sections 239 and 240 CrPC; nor would it be justified in invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the same except in those rare cases where forensic exigencies and formidable compulsions justify such a course. We hasten to add even in such exceptional cases the High Court can look into only those documents which are unimpeachable and can be legally translated into relevant evidence. 8. Apart from the infirmity in the approach of the High Court in dealing with the matter which we have already noticed, we further find that instead of adverting to and confining its attention to the documents referred to in Sections 239 and 240 CrPC the High Court has dealt with the rival contentions of the parties raised through their respective affidavits at length and on a threadbare discussion thereof passed the impugned order. The course....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome Tax Returns for the assessment years from 2008-2009 to 2016- 2017, produced by the learned counsel for the respondent before the High Court, the High Court observed and held that it could be inferred that the investigating agency had deliberately withheld the material documents like returns of the appellant and mechanically submitted the chargesheet against her. A perusal of the impugned judgment would reveal the nature of the exercise undertaken for passing the impugned judgment. In fact, the aforesaid observation was made after going through the documents filed by the respondent before the High Court. In this context, it is also to be noted that the High Court has also referred to the contentions of the respondent, including the one that for purchasing land at Bhubaneswar, she had borrowed an amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs from her father. After such exercise, it was held by the High Court that there is no clinching material showing that the appellant abetted her husband or made any conspiracy or instigated him in the alleged acquisition of disproportionate assets. This observation itself would go against the very scope of Section 239, Cr. P.C. as at the stage of consideration of a p....