TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 547
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it has affirmed the order passed by the learned Special Magistrate (CBI) Raipur, by which the learned Magistrate, vide order dated 05.12.2012, in Criminal Case No. 1125/2011, has rejected the application filed by the petitioner for supply of copies of certain documents and also seeks a direction to the Special Magistrate (CBI) and respondent/prosecution to provide the documents sought by the petitioner in its application dated 05.12.2012 (Annexure P/5). 4. The petitioner, in WP(Cr) No. 201/2017 seeks for the following relief(s): "i. To quash the charge sheet filed by the respondents against the petitioner and the criminal proceedings initiated against him (Annexure P/1). ii. To kindly make any other order that may deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including the awarding of the cost of the petition." 5. The facts, as projected by the petitioner (in WP Cr No. 201/2017) are that the petitioner is a businessman of Raipur city and the brother of the petitioner, namely B.L. Agrawal is a senior IAS officer of 1988 batch. According to the prosecution, on 04.02.2010 and 06.02.2010, the Income Tax Department (for short, the ITD) Raipur, conducted search at ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner B.L. Agrawal with the provision of locker operation on 'either or survivor' basis. In the Bank records, the signatures of Rameshwar Das Goel were in Hindi and Rameshwar Das Goel expired on 07.12.2005. It was further alleged that on 03.07.2009, the Locker was operated and the operator signed the locker visitors Register as R.D. Goel and locker rent of Rs. 1935/- was paid. It was alleged that Rameshwar Das Goel was already dead on that date and no intimation with regard to the death of Rameshwar Das Goel was sent to the Bank and in fact, the brother of the petitioner operated the locker by signing R.D. Goel. It was further alleged that previously the locker was operated on 17.07.2004, 18.12.2006 and 21.04.2007 by the brother of the petitioner and in fact R.D. Goel never operated the locker. Further allegation in the FIR was that to shield the brother of the petitioner, who is an IAS officer of 1988 Batch from becoming liable for criminal, departmental and IT proceedings, this conspiracy was hatched. 7. Mr. Chirag Madan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the instant case was registered against the petitioner and other co-accused for the sole reason that no advance t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was added by Antony Samy. The further allegations are that on 09.02.2010 and thereafter the petitioner inserted his signature in the Locker Visitor Register on the original entry dated 03.07.2009 and entry dated 13.01.2010, and the same was done in order to shield the brother of the petitioner from the penal provisions of IT Act and other laws. 9. Mr. Madan submits that the respondent No. 1 is not an expert body to determine whether a document was forged or was made ante-dated, and for arriving on such an opinion the respondent No. I should have waited for the report of some expert body (that documents were later sent for forensic examination). The respondent No. 1 on its own whims and assumptions proceeded with the investigation and without waiting for the report, concluded that the petitioner along with his brother and one officer of Bank hatched a criminal conspiracy to shift the ownership of bank locker. It is further alleged that Antony Samy has admitted in his statement recorded during preliminary enquiry that he had received the antedated applications and had kept them on the bank records and had also allowed the petitioner to insert his signatures on the relevant bank rec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Shri Rameshwar Das Goel and the brother of the petitioner i.e. Shri B.L. Agrawal. Shri Rameshwar Das Goel expired on 07.12.2005. It is submitted that the locker was opened on either or survivor basis and even if the information with regard to the death of Shri R.D. Goel was not given to the Bank it would not make any difference as the locker could have been legally operated by the brother of the petitioner on his own even after the death of Shri Goel. However, it is specifically submitted that oral information regarding the death of Mr. Goel was given to the Bank officials. It is submitted that undisputedly, the locker was operated only for three times prior to the search i.e., on 17.07.2004, 18.12.2006, 21.04.2007 by the brother of the petitioner and on 03.07.2009 and 13.01.2010 by the petitioner after the bank transferred the ownership of the said locker in his name. Initially the locker rent was paid by the brother of the petitioner till 20.06.2009 and thereafter as the brother of the petitioner was not interested in continuing with the locker, the petitioner requested his brother to transfer the locker in his name and accordingly application in that regard was filed which was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t all. It is further submitted that the entire case of the prosecution revolves around the income tax proceedings regarding the amount found in the bank locker wherein the IT authorities have already exonerated the petitioner as well as his brother by holding that the amount in issue belongs to Smt. Mamta Agrawal, and regarding forging of bank records the FSL, report has clearly ruled out any tampering with the bank records and therefore the entire prosecution case falls and nothing survives in the case. The CBI has registered the case against the petitioner only on a mere assumption that the amount found in the bank locker might belong to the brother of the petitioner as he was the owner of the same at some point of time, and also has anticipated that the petitioner and his brother have forged the bank records and transferred the bank locker in the name of petitioner. The forensic report rules out any possibility regarding the forgery or manipulation of the bank documents and therefore the sole ground on which the charge sheet has been filed doesn't exist anymore and therefore the criminal case registered against the petitioner is nothing but sheer abuse of law. There is no ev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Cr.M.P No. 587/2013 is concerned, here, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 11.06.2013 passed by the Special Judge, (CBI) Raipur, in Criminal Revision No. 6/2013 by which the learned Special Judge has affirmed the order dated 05.12.2012 passed in Criminal Case No. 1125/2011 by the learned Special Magistrate CBI, Raipur, rejecting the application of the petitioner by which the petitioner had sought for copies of certain documents seized by the respondent/CBI. 14. Mr. Madan submits that the some important documents were not supplied to the petitioner either by the learned Special Magistrate (CBI) or by the prosecution, therefore, on 05.12.2012 the petitioner filed an application before the learned Special Magistrate for supplying a copy of the following documents: a) Complaint of Akash Dewangan, Assistant Director Income Tax numbered ADIT(Inv) Rpr/BLA/2010 dated 10.02 2010 b) Preliminary investigation report of CBI; CBI conducted the preliminary investigation on the complaint of Akash Dewangan c) Report of handwriting expert (GFQD) 15. Mr. Madan submits that on 05.12.2012, when the case came up for hearing, the respondent/CBI opposed to provide the documents t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hout obtaining order from Central Government as provided in Section 5 and without obtaining permission of State Government in Section 6 initiated criminal proceedings against the petitioner. 17. When cognizance on final report by Special Magistrate (CBI) was awaited, the petitioner on 03.07.2012 filed an application before Special Magistrate (CB1) Raipur to put an end on the proceedings in criminal case No. 1125/11 and to close the case on the ground that the respondent had no jurisdiction to investigate the case and the charge sheet filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was bad and illegal as the CBI had acted without jurisdiction for want of permission to investigate the case as required under the provisions of Section 5 and 6 of the Act of 1946, as such, the present Cr.M.P. deserves to be allowed. 18. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Arvind Kejriwal and Another v. State NCT of Delhi {2020 SCC OnLine Del 1362}, Central Bureau of Investigation v. INX Media Pvt. Ltd. and Others {2021 SCC OnLine Del 4932}, Criminal Trials Guidelines regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies, In Re v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others {(2021) 10 SCC 598}, Dharambir v Central Bur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vice Charges be levied for each addition/deletion. 21. On 21.6 2000, the locker in question was allotted in the joint name of B.L. Agarwal and R.D. Goel. A Memorandum of Letting was signed by both these persons. The locker was to be operated by "either or survivor R.D. Goel expired on 07.12.2005 at Nagpur which was not intimated to the Bank by B.L. Agrawal and the locker was continuously operated by B.L. Agarwal. The rent of the locker was paid from time to time. The last advance rent was paid in July-2009, for the period 21.6.2009 to 20.6.2012. The rent receipt was issued in the name of R.D. Goel by Padmakar Joshi, the then Incharge Locker Operation, Bank of Baroda, Main Branch Raipur, The entry to this effect has been made in the safe ledger. The locker was operated by B.L. Agarwal on 17.7.2004, 18.12.2006 and 21.4.2007. The locker has been shown to be operated on 03.7.2009 by R.D. Goel and the petitioner. The locker attendance register bears the name of these persons against locker operating persons. It is established that on 21.4.2007, B.L. Agarwal, while operating the locker put his signature and then cut it and put another signature. The signature made on 18.12.2006 was enti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nuineness that petitioner visited Bank of Baroda on 01.2.2010 to hand over the application and also to ascertain whether he had actually operated the locker on 13.01.2010 (as shown in the documents of bank) the Close Circuit Television (CCTV) footage was checked and it was found that no Close Circuit Television (CCTV) footage for the period 31.01.2010 to 08.02.2010 was available. Petitioner was not seen in the CCTV footage neither entering the locker room nor coming out of the locker room on 13.01.2010 at the time shown in the entry of the Locker Attendance Register. The IT officials operated the questioned locker on 10.02.2010 and found an amount of Rs. 15 Lakh kept in the locker and seized the same. 22. Mr. Gopa Kumar further submits that Padmakar Joshi, the then Manager (who was Incharge of locker operations) during the period December 2006 to October 2009, has stated that on 02.7.2009, some body had enquired about the rent of the locker. The rent was due w.e.f June 2009 and on the request of that visitor he filled the rent voucher and handed over the rent voucher to the visitor for depositing the rent at the cash counter. However. he could not remember as to who had visited th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ger had concluded in his report that Antony Samy had altered documents of the Bank in contravention of systems and procedure of the Bank. R.C. Verma Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda, Bhopal also inquired into the case of locker of B.L. Agarwal. He also concluded in his report that Antony Samy had facilitated the other accused persons. Thereafter, a memo was also issued by J.S.I Chandra, Regional Head, Bank of Baroda, Raipur to Antony Samy. In reply to the same, Antony Samy has accepted that he had facilitated the change of ownership of the questioned locker. During investigation both these reports were collected and both the enquiry officers have been examined. Similarly, Hira Lal Verma, Peon, Bank of Baroda had worked as Peon at Bank of Baroda stated that he had entered the name of the petitioner in his writing, in the locker register on the directions of Antony Samy while posted at Bank of Baroda. Hira Lal Verma had offered his statement to be recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C which had been recorded by the learned Magistrate, Raipur This also proves that the substitution of name in the banks records relating to locker no 240-A was not done on 03.07.2009 as claimed by the accused pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ues Thus, Smt Mamta Agarwal had received Rs 3 Lakhs only in cash from the bank against the claim of Rs.15 or 18 Lakhs. In view of these facts, the explanations given by the petitioner regarding the cash deposit in the said locker and ownership of the cash in the locker is incorrect. 25. It is next submitted by Mr. Gopa Kumar that B.L. Agarwal had operated the locker on 21.4.2007. The bundles of currency notes bear dates as 15.03.2007 and 19.03.2007 and the same are very much in proximity with the locker operations dated 21.4.2007 by Shri BL Agarwal. Till the date of 03.07.2009 locker owners had not informed the bank about demise of the co-owner of locker, Rameshwar Das Goel who passed away on 07.12.2005. The bank was never informed about any loss of locker key before 03.07.2009. Moreover on 03.07.2009 locker has been operated with signatures as "RD Goel" in English. In the locker opening documents Rameshwar Das Goel has given his specimen signature in Hindi. Since Rameshwar Das Goel was no more on 03.07.2009, and no key loss/ theft was intimated to bank before 03.07.2009, it is clear that locker has been operated by the only surviving co-owner of the locker i.e. B.L. Agarwal. Thus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n RC/1242010A0009 of 2010 before the Special Court (C.B.I.) so far it related to the petitioner and consequently, the Cr.M.P. also stood disposed of. However, the said order was challenged by the respondent/CBI by filing a Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. 11650 - 011651 / 2025 before the Apex Court. The Apex Court, vide its order dated 05.08.2025 observed as under: "7. On perusal of the impugned order, we find the same to be so cryptic that the same cannot be sustained. The High Court does not appear to have dealt with the documents forming part of the charge-sheet before it returned the finding that no case for subjecting the respondent no.1 to stand trial is made out. 8. We are satisfied that interest of justice would be sufficiently served if the order impugned is set aside and both the writ petition as well as the petition under Section 482, Cr. PC are reconsidered by the High Court. It is ordered accordingly. 9. The petitions filed by the respondent no.1 stand restored on the file of the High Court. 10. Given the lapse of time since registration of the crime, we request the High Court, subject to its convenience, to decide the petitions as early as possible." 30. Acco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he petitioner as he connived with other accused persons and in order to provide a shield to his brother B.L. Agrawal, the petitioner has tried to show that the locker in question belonged to him and the money belonged to Mamta Agrawal, and his brother B.L. Agrawal, had nothing to do either with the locker or the cash found in the locker. The charge sheet has already been filed by the respondent/CBI before the learned Special Judge (CBI) and at this stage, we do not find any extraordinary reason so as to interfere with the trial proceedings. Prima facie, the conduct of the petitioner clearly falls under the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 419, 466 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code. 35.A perusal of the charge sheet goes to show that the FIR was lodged against B.L. Agrawal, the petitioner and Antony Samy for the offences under Sections 120-B read with Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477(A) of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. However, the charge-sheet filed by the CBI reveals that the petitioner alongwith two other co-accused i.e. B.L. Agrawal and Antony Samy, they are alleged to have co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as under: "5. Annexure-P/2 is the letter No. 695/Home/2001 dated 03.02.2001 written by Principal Secretary, Govt. of Chhattisgarh to the Additional Secretary, Govt. of India DOPT, North Block, New Delhi, whereby, it has been informed that "The Govt. of Chhattisgarh here of gives its consent u/s 6 of the DSPS Act 1946." Thus, vide aforesaid letter, consent under Section 6 of the Act 1946 was given by the Govt. of Chhattisgarh to the CBI to register and file criminal case arising from the State of Chhattisgarh. 6. The pleadings of the petition and the documents available on record show that instant crime was registered against the petitioners and other persons on 06.5.2012 at Durg for the offence under Sections 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 7, 12, 13, 13(1)(a) and 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which is well within the purview of aforesaid consent (Annexure-P/2) given by the Govt. of Chhattisgarh, as consent under Section 6 of the Act 1946 was given by the Govt. of Chhattisgarh. So far as, clarificatory notification issued by the Govt. of Chhattisgarh (Annexure-P/4) is concerned, it was issued on 19.7.2012, i.e. after registration of aforesaid F....