TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 2099
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act of 1988). The FIR was lodged mainly against the appellant Shishir Kumar, the then Assistant Manager, Zila Parishad, Vaishali, Govt. of Bihar and relatives for amassing assets disproportionate to the known sources of income. The disproportionate asset was calculated to the tune of Rs. 1,01,66,405/- in the FIR registered by Economic Offence Unit (EOU), Patna, Bihar. 3. As per the Inventory-cum-Seizure list prepared by the EOU, Patna during the course of search operation at the residence of the appellant Shishir Kumar on 14.08.2013, documents relating to various immovable properties worth Rs. 2,27,98,542/- were recovered. Those properties were acquired by the main accused Shishir Kumar in his own name as well as in the name of his wife Smt. Vinita Kumari, son Bhanu Sinha, daughter Smt. Pragya Kumari, father Nand Kishore Singh, brother Prabhat Keshav and mother-in-law Smt. Prem Prabha. It was then recorded that immovable properties worth Rs. 1,70,41,120/- were acquired by the main accused Shishir Kumar in different names of his family members and he was also having movable properties amounting to Rs. 34,91....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... respondents attached the properties belonging to his wife, son and daughter though they were having source to acquire it but ignoring the aforesaid, attachment of the properties of his wife, son and daughter was made in an illegal manner. The arguments aforesaid were made in reference to the appellants Smt. Vinita Kumari, Bhanu Sinha and Smt. Pragya Kumari. Appeal by Nand Kishore Singh 9. Learned counsel for the appellant Nand Kishore Singh submitted that two immovable properties belonging to the appellant have been attached though it had no connection with the alleged commission of crime by his son. The appellant served as a teacher and was getting salary. Apart from his service, the appellant was even involved in generating income from agriculture having 10 Bighas of land. He was an income-tax payee and in view of the above, he purchased two properties in the year 2007 and onwards utilizing the money because even after retirement of the appellant in 1986, he was getting regular pension and otherwise having agriculture income. The two immovable properties were wrongly taken to be part of the disproportionate assets in the hands of the appellant's son Shishir Kumar. Appeal by P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. (At the time of acquisition 1. 1997 1 41,500/- 2. 1998 1 29,699/- 3. 1999 1 2,09,110/- 4. 2001 1 7,390/- 5. 2003 3 5,61,267/- 6. 2004 1 88,380/- 7. 2006 2 14,83,700/- 8. 2007 4 9,20,613/- 9. 2008 6 16,12,021/- 10. 2009 2 8,55,172/- 11. 2010 2 1,22,62,736/- 12. 2011 8 88,21,069/- 13. 2012 1 7,00,000/- Total 33 2,75,92,305/- 16. It is no doubt that initially the disproportionate asset was assessed to a sum of Rs. 1,01,66,405/- but as per the inventory-cum-seizure list prepared during the course of search operation, documents relating to various immovable properties worth Rs. 2,27,98,542/- were recovered. Those properties were acquired by the main accused Shishir Kumar in his own name as well as in the name of his other family members i.e. wife Smt. Vinita Kumari, son Bhanu Sinha, daughter Smt. Pragya Kumari, father Nand Kishore Singh, brother Prabhat Keshav and mother-in-law Prem Prabha. 17. It came on record that immovable properties worth Rs. 1,70,41,120.65 were acquired by the main accused Shishir Kumar in his own name and in the name of his family members. The movable property amounting to Rs. 34,91,114.35 was al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he name of Nand Kishore Sinha, father of Shishir Kumar vide sale deed no. 350 dated 17.01.2007 having area of 2.70 Decimal (1144 Sq. feet) situated in Sahzadpur, Anderquila, Hajipur. Property transferred in the name of Prabhat Keshav by his father vide sale deed No. 6250 dated 12.11.2007 having area of 0.94 Decimal (out of total area of 2.7 D) situated in Sahzadpur, Anderquila, Hajipur. 5. Property acquired in the name of Nand Kishore Sinha, father of Shishir Kumar vide sale deed no. 5500 dated 11.09.2000 having area of 17 Decimal situated in Basauli, Hajipur. Property transferred in the name of Prabhat Keshav by his father vide sale deed No. 6251 dated 12.11.2007 having area of 17 Decimal situated in Basauli, Hajipur. 6. Property acquired in the name of Prabhat Keshav, brother of Shishir Kumar vide sale deed no. 5285 dated 09.09.2008 having area of 12 Decimal (2 Kattha & 15 dhur) situated in Fatehpur Ekara, Thana & Anchal-Hajipur, Distt. Vaishali. Property transferred the name of Bhanu Sinha vide sale deed No. 5782 dated 03.09.2016 having area of 12 Decimal (2 Kattha & 15 dhur) situated in Fatehpur Ekara, Thana &Anchal- Distt. Vaishali. Hajipur, 7. Property acquired in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellant on his own assumption taken the check period from the year 2009 till 2013. It seems to be based on some erroneous presumption and contrary to record. The properties attached by the respondents were acquired during the check period of 1980-2013. Thus, there is no illegality in the attachment of the properties acquired during the check period. Issue No.4 24. Learned counsel has questioned the attachment of the properties belonging to the main accused's wife Smt. Vinita Kumari, son Bhanu Sinha, daughter Smt. Pragya Kumari who said to have disclosed the source to acquire the properties yet attachment of their properties has been made. 25. We have referred a table to indicate transfer of the properties from time to time from one person to another and apart from the aforesaid, even the person who initially acquired the property. Apart from the aforesaid, the respondents have disclosed the facts pertaining to each appellant which include the main accused's wife Smt. Vinita Kumari, son Bhanu Sinha and daughter Smt. Pragya Kumari. 26. The source to acquire the property by Smt. Vinita Kumari is in reference to unsecured loans/gifts to her as well as the main accused Shishir K....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se the source to purchase the property by himself. 28. Analysis of the property purchased vide sale deed no. 5782 dated 03.09.2016 further revealed that this property had been purchased in the year 2008 vide Sale deed no. 5285 dated 09.09.2008 in the name of Prabhat Keshav despite having meagre income of Rs. 30,000/- per month from stationary shop and STD Booth, as stated by him during his statement recorded under section 50(3) of PMLA on 30.06.2022. This shows that his income was not coherent with the acquisition of the immovable properties in his name. Hence, it can be concluded from the above that initially, this property has been acquired in the name of Prabhat Keshav by Shishir Kumar which was later transferred to Bhanu Sinha. Further, Prabhat Keshav and his family also used to live along with Shishir Kumar and his family during that period. Hence, it is evident from the above that the property was acquired in the name of Prabhat Keshav out of proceeds of crime generated by Shishir Kumar which was later transferred to Bhanu Sinha in an attempt to conceal the actual source of acquisition of the property. 29. The properties of Pragya Kumari have also been attached. In the inve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... actually purchased by Shishir Kumar and Vinita Kumari in her name through their unaccounted money. 33. From the above, it appears that all the properties acquired in the name of Pragya Kumari have not been purchased by her as she was having no independent source of income. All the properties in her name were either purchased by her relatives or purchased through the alleged gifts received from them, especially during the period 2008- 2011. Further, there is no evidence produced in investigation with regard to the alleged gifts provided by Nand Kishore Sinha, Prabhat Keshav and his wife Anjali Pandey, Ravi Sundaram and his wife Renu Sharma and by others alleged to have given to Pragya Kumari except notarized affidavit, which is not a valid document and can be made postdated. 34. In the light of the above analysis, it is evident that the appellants could not satisfy the source of income. It is now understood how Vinita Kumari had supported her son and daughter for purchase of the properties when she herself was not having source of income. The position of fact was similar for father Nand Kishore Singh and brother Prabhat Keshav. However, their matters would be dealt with separatel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the properties were found with the main accused during search operation on 14.08.2013. The appellant Nand Kishore Singh was a Government teacher and superannuated in the year 1986. The main accused Shishir Kumar and his family members said to have received gifts/financial assistance to the tune of Rs. 27 lakhs from appellant Nand Kishore Singh to justify the purchase of immovable properties by them though appellant Nand Kishore Singh himself was not having adequate source for it. His statement under Section 50(3) of the Act of 2002 was recorded. He had stated to have provided financial assistance to the main accused and Smt. Vinita Kumari apart from Pragya Kumari for the purchase of immovable properties but he was not knowing when and how much amount was given to them. The appellant could not submit any evidence to prove the source and the financial assistance to the persons named above. The said appellant acquired/entered into agreement for various immovable properties worth of Rs. 16 lakhs. 39. On scrutiny of the bank account, it was revealed that a transaction of Rs. 15 lakhs took place on 06.04.2010 in the name of Smt. Vinita Kumari which was approximately one month after the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecorded on 30.06.2022 stated that his monthly income was of Rs. 30,000/- and thereby his yearly income was Rs. 3,60,000/-. As against the aforesaid, he had acquired or entered into agreement for the properties worth of Rs. 40,44,181/- in a span of four years. 44. On the analysis of the bank account maintained with Union Bank of India, there was cash deposits of Rs. 26.5 lakhs during the period of 2007-2011. No substantial deposit was observed in his bank account after the year 2011 which indicates that this account was utilized for putting cash and for acquisition of immovable property during the year 2010-2011. It was thus found that Shishir Kumar has utilized bank accounts of his family members and relatives, including his brother Prabhat Keshav for the purpose of purchase of the properties. It has come on record that Prabhat Keshav had incorporated a brick factory in the year 2008 and the initial cost for its incorporation was around Rs. 4-5 Lakhs for which the source was his savings and further claimed to have received an amount of Rs. 6-7 Lakhs from his father, 13-15 lakhs from his father-in-law Rs. 4-5 lakhs from his brother-in-law and Rs. 2 Lakhs from his brother. However, ....