Dismissed

S. Suresh v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC4 Nov 2024CRLRC/588/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused No.6 challenged dismissal of his discharge petition in a disproportionate assets CBI case alleging he abetted the public servant by constructing a godown with funds routed through companies of A-7. The High Court found a prima facie case on the charge-sheet material and dismissed the revision.

What the court decided

AI extract

S. Suresh Vs The State of Telangana — Corruption | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR T+IE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MOI?AY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO:5 88 0F 2022

¶6

crr'Revision case Urder section 3g7 & 4010f cr.p.c. against the order dated 22-04-2022 in crr-M.p.No. 743 0t zoi't i" i.i.ru". 11 0t 20060n the file of the Court of the I, Additionat Special .lrfi i"i Cil Cases, Hyderabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

HlG, S. Suresh, Door No.BS/o Late S. Somaraiu. Aoed 5? ygrr.., Occ.Retd.pvt.Employee R/o 296, Ramachandrafurami, eHrL,Hyaera-oaa^{'iv\v r Y' L"'P}

¶9

AND

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

The State of Telanoana reo. by Special public prosecutor for CBl, Hiqh Court. Hyderabad ! uv"v '| '|.,rs(' ...RESPoNDENT

¶12

lA NO:2 oF 2022

¶13

Petition under Section 4g2 of Cr p C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in. support of the'p"t1iio-n, *," Hig;i ilrrt'rri u" pleased to stay of ail oroceedings' incruding ,rii"rrrn"" ot the petitioner/A6 in c c No^'r 1 of 2006 on the fire 6r *,e rtt ,{oJi-6i""i"r Judge for cBr cases, Hyderabad, pending disposat or tne aoove'crii]nrid"ririon .rr".

¶14

lA NO: 1 oF 2024

¶15

Petition under Section 4g2 of Cr.p.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support oi ['. -p"t,{tio-n, tne Hilh ii,t'rrv u" pleased to extend the stav earlier gianted ,io" oiJ.i dated 17103t2023 in Criminal Revision case No.5BB of 2022 tiil-disposar oittu cririnrr Revision case No.588 of 2022

¶16

lA NO:2 oF 2024

¶17

Petition under section 52g of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in.. support of the p"iition, the High court mav be pleased to extend the srav eartier gianted ,ioe iJer. a^t"a1z.oit,.ziiiin drilirrr Revision case No. sBB oi 2022 p""ai"g iirprlri".r *," criminar Revision case No. 588 of 2022 .

¶18

Gounsel for the^{Petitiorrers:SRl. K. R. K. V. PRASAD}

¶19

Counsel for the Resporrdent:^{SRI SRINIVAS KAPATIA,} SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR^{FOR (;;BI}

¶20

The Court made the fctllowing ORDER:

¶21

)

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVTSION CASE N0.588 0F 2022

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

The present Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner/accused No.6, seeking to set-aside the order dated 22.O4.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.743 of 2O2l rn C.C.No. II of 2006, on the file of the learned III Additionat Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad (for short, the trial Court), registered for the offences punishable under Sections 46g, 47I and. 109 of IPC r/w Section l3(2) rlw i3(t)(e) of prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶25

Heard Mr.K.R.K.V.prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.6 and Mr. Srinivas Kapatia, learned Special Public Prosecutor for Central Bureau of Investigation appearing ori behalf of respondent-State. perused the record.

¶26

The brief facts of the case are that the revision petitioner is arrayed as ,46 in C.C.No.11 of 2006 for the offence punishable under Section 109 of the Indian penal Code and l3(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Cormption Act, 19gg. The specific allegation is that A,1 was found in possession of

¶27

2-21

¶28

EW,J Crl.R.'i.^{'0. ;88of 2022}

¶29

assets wortl,^{1s,.2,56,97,7821-in the form of movaoleand} immovable l)roperties^{during thecheck p<:riorl from} 01.04.198!r^{to ,''L-O3.2OO3 while workingas public rservant'} which are^{,lis c r} oportionate^{to his knownsources of income to} the extent c,f Fl;.2,01,1O,2861-^{and the accused No;'2 to 9} abated Al^t c^{acquire most of the said properttes in their}

¶30

narne s.

¶31

The sp,ec:ific allegation^{against the petitionet'/A('is that} in respect ci 1)roperty^{shown at S'No'27 infitat::ment-B} (Assets at th: end of^{check period), which is a trr''o storied} godown orr Plot admeasuring^{7300 sq' ft' and this rroperty} valued at Rs, 12,50,000/-;^{that A6 allowed his broth':r A1 to} construct tir,-'^{,;aid two storied godown in his na ne' The} allegation is, tri,:d^{to be substantiatedthrough the t wo cash} flowstaterrletttsfiledasAnnexure-XllandAnne:'rure-XIII showing the' rrovement^{of cash from A1 to A6 throurlh A7 of} M/s. Libold^{()roupof Companies.}

¶32

It is s,,te.te,d that^{the petitionerfiled Crl.MP Nc'743 of} 2027 in C.O.l'lo.7l of 2006^{under Section239 Cr.P.rlwith a} prayer to di:;:t'arge the^{petitionerof all charge:; reising an} \

¶33

3-21

¶34

Et r,J Crl.R.C.No.588 of 2022

¶35

¶36

important ground of no prima-facie evidence and that the allegations a-re based on only surmises and conjunctures as the propert5r which belongs to the petitioner/A6 cannot be shown as that of A1, further, the trial Court vide order dated 22.O4.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.Z43 of 2O2t in C.C.No.11 of 2006 dismissed the said petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present Revision is filed seeking to set_aside the impugned dismissal order.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner/A6 contended that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is in violation of the basic principles relating to disproportionate assets cases covering the check period vis-a-vis the law on benami properties. He further contended that A I , who is a public servant is the principal accused in C.C.No. l1 of 2006 against whom an allegation of possession of disproportionate assets was leveled under Section 13(2) r/w 13(l)(e) of prevention of Cormption Act, 1988, the allegation against the petitioner/A6 is about abetting A-1 in acquiring the asset shown at Serial No.27, which consists of a plot and two-storied godown. He further contended that the plot on which the two storied godown was constructed, was acquired by the petitioner/A_6

¶38

¶39

4-21

¶40

EV4J 0'1.R. C.No.;88^{of 2022}

¶41

]n 1987 i.:.,^{luch before commencement of check period'} therefore,^{tlr<' cluestion of abetting Ai(publicser'/ant)to} commit tl.e^{o iJence punishableunder the Pl:'lver ltion of} Corruption .:t,^{1988 does not arise' He furrher coetended} that the 13c,d^{tl ,r'n was constructed during} 'Iune '^{996 to} September, l,'9'7^{from his own accruals and from borrowings} from Liborci^{Oroup of Companies'The Libord Fir:alce Ltd is} an RBI registered^{Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC)} ar.rd a Listetl^{r] rrmpanyon the Bombay Stock Ex<:har rge with} moretharrlii,sOOshareholders'ThepetitionerT'A6'availed loan of Rs 5.0C^{lakhs andRs.9.O0lakhs from the sai'l Group} of Comparri<:r; viz.,^{Dangi Financial &Man'agement} Consultalcl' t\rr,.^{Ltd and Libord Finance Ltd respecti'''ely The} ledgeraccorr]ltshowstherepaymentofloanwitlrinLerestin several instztllments^{by thePetitioner/A6'Thrrs' the} ownership^,>1 Jre^{petitioner/A6 in respect ol the p Lot since} 1980isuIrci'sp,rrtedandaJterlOyearsitwas<leve:lopr:dintoa godown aerl tre^{petitioner/A6 had been in possesr';ion and} enjoyment r1'^{1-re subject property and Municipzil Tax of all} these years v'as^{paid by the petitioner/A-6 herein'}

¶42

¶43

5-2t

¶44

EryJ Crl.R.C.No.5EB of 2022

¶45

¶46

It is alleged that A1 allegedly made certain credits into the Bank account of M/s.Dangi Financial Management and Financial Consultancy Art. Ltd. and that the petitioner/A6 availed loan from M/s.Libord Group of Companies of A_7, the petitioner/A-6 is prima-lacie considered as abettor to A- 1 alleging that A-1 routed his ill gotten money to petitioner/A_6, to prove the same, the respondent CBI did not place aly evidence in support of the allegation against petitioner/A_6, except the cash flow statements prepared by the Investigating Ofhcer in the form of Annexure_Xll and XIII, as such the said allegation on its face show that there is no link between A1 to 4.6 and the only information is that the comparies of Lalit Kumar Dan$ (A/7) lent loa, to 46 for construction of the two storied godown, which was repaid by 46 to the said company.

¶47

He further contended that to constitute the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(l)(e) of the prevention of Cornrption Act, there should be pima_facr.e evidence that the petitioner/A6 was in possession of the property of A1 or he should have been in possession of the property on behalf of Al and must have kept the property of the A1 in his name, when thge-is no such material available showing pima_facie

¶48

6-21

¶49

EWJ Crl.R.C.No 588^{of 2022}

¶50

case, the^alirr sation^{against petitioner/A6 shouid lall flat to} the grouncl^{ixt([ the impugned order was passednlechanically} without dr:l^,'in E^{deep into the facts of the case q'h ich was} foisted agairrs',^{the petitioner/A6}

¶51

g. In stLpporr of his contention,^{he relied upon the decision} rendered tr1' the^{Hon'ble Supreme Court in M'Krishna Reddg} as Stdte Deprttg^{Superintend'entof Police' Hgderabadtan} ana-lysis^{o1' !it'ctLon 5(1)(c) of the Act, 1947, whichcorr esponds} to Section^{1 3 ( I} )(e)^{of the new Act of 1988 shou'sI hat it is not} the mere^ar:c1u isition^{of propertythat constituter;ar ' offence} under tht: f).-1)^{sisions of the Act but it is th'-- fitilure to} satisfactorⁱ¹ ,' ttr:count^{for suchpossession thatmi rkes the} possession :,lr.rectionable as^{offending thr: lauHence,} possessiort of property or^{resources disproportionale to the} known sourc.^{r; of income of public servant anrl the in ability of} the public^s6 1-r1tt^{to account for it are essentialto r)rove ar} offence. H:tt<:,:, a non-public^{servant (petitionerhereirr) has no} role in th,: tr-.ir of the said^{offence and he czrnnr)tt'e tagged} with the puLli: servant^{for the offenceunderSec:tior.13(1)(e)} of the Pre.uentitn of Corruption^Act,1988.

¶52

' ltos:1^{+ scc+ ;}

¶53

1-2t

¶54

EVta,t Crl.R.C.No.588 of 2022

¶55

¶56

He further contended that the CBI did not examine the financial capacity of the petitioner/A6 herein, who had been working since 1985 holding several executive positions in various private sector companies and was filing Income Tax Returns and the petitioner has financiai capacity to acquire the assets standing in his name and the respondent CBI did not place any material showing that the said properer of petitioner/A6 belongs to A1. The plot acquired by petitioner/ 46 before check period is used for the construction of godown, hence, nothing prevents petitioner/A6 to avail loan from any company individual and the trial Court ought to have discharged the petitioner/A6 herein by relying upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sajjan Kumar Vs. C.B.,P, in terms of the law, when the accused filed the petition for discharge, it is thb bounden duty of the Trial Judge to consider the entire materia_l and see, whether there is prime-facte material to proceed further to frame cha-rges.

¶57

1 1 . He further contended that it is a well settled legal principle that suspicion however strong shall not take the '^zoto 1s1^{scc 368}

¶58

8-21 EryT CILR.C.No.i88^{of 2022}

¶59

place of e<sup>i(rL(.rlc e and the foundational facts ave rrec by the respondenl^{(l':il in the Charge Sheet clearly show that there is} no pima fo(i(r^{lase of abetment against the petitione: herein} in the alle11e^{C cflenceof possession of disproportic'nat:assets} against tht:^{pr,rtrJic servant viz Al} '^{In supporto1- his; co irtention} he relied up'r:^{the decision renderedby the Hon't'leS:;upreme} Court in tht^{r:ii're of P.Nallammdl t's State represented'bg} Inspector o.f^{Poticd whereindiscusse'1 various} circumstalc es;^{giving illustrations as towhen acase of} abetment unr[,:r^{Section 109 of IPC can be made out for} making oul. art^{offence underSection13(1)(e)of the Pr':vention} of Corrupl.rr,rr^{A.ct, 1988. The circumstancesbrough:out by} the respor^{derLl CBI in the Charge Sheet clearly shou' that the} allegations; ler^{t:led againstthis petitioner cann of be tr'rrmed to} prove any off:r.ce of abetment^{against the petitrone'r in the} alleged offen<',:^{,rgainst A-l and it wouldnot be perm:ssiblein} law to permit t;rosecution^{to linger, limp and continure on the} basis of a nt(irl suspicion^{that in the trial some rlatt'rialmay} be found -o rtrLltlicate the^{accused so as to attrac:t arl offence} under abe trne nt. it is essential that^{there should be irn act or}

¶60

r 1toes1 o scc 5 )' ,

¶61

9-21

¶62

EW,J OLRC.No.SEE of 2022

¶63

offence said to have been committed in consequence of instigation or abetment, as such all the altegations made against petitioner/A-6 are baseless, ald on surmises ald conjectures as if the subject mentioned propert5r belongs to A1 as none of the prosecution witnesses in their statements recorded either under Section 161 or under Secti on 164 Cr.P.C show ary relation to the allegations against petitioner/ A6 herein.

¶64

He further contended that the Hon,ble Supreme iourt laid down guidelines in the matter of proof of a benami property and none of these guidelines have been compiled within the instant case though it is mentioned in Statement D that the property tax payment in respect of S.No.13 in the name of .4-6 is the Benami property of A_1. The burden to provide at least prima-facie evidence to show that this property is a benami property of A_1 is with the respondent CBI but CBI has not placed any such evidence, further, the allegation of dummy bank transaction made in para 17 of the police report is fa_lse as far as this petitioner/A6 is concerned, aS-HY had received the loan repaJment along with interest and A-7 had frled all statutory statements complying to the

¶65

l0-21

¶66

EruJ o'l.R.C.!t'o. i88^{of 2022}

¶67

NBFC^{(Nor -ElankingFinaniial Corporatio:r)nolmsas} mandated b.'IlEll.

¶68

He frrtfr,::^{contended that the trial(lourtt rred in} dismissing^{1Lr: discharge petition filed by thr: petitirrner/A6} herein. In^{r;tr;rPortof his contention, he rr:liecl u]lon the} decision^{ren,Ce rr,d by the Hon'ble Supreme Court irJugdagal} Poddar v Bihi^{Hazaraa, Valliammal(d'ead) Subrarnaniam} as Bg Lrs. Subramanio:ms^{and M.Nagaraiu rt' The tState of} Telanganati,^r.he trial^{Court is not correct in} ':on':lucling^that considering^{t.11,: nature of theallegations :rgairlrstthe} petitionerT A6 ir-r the^{charge sheet have to be pl oved or} disproved o'-Ii''' after^{fu1l-fledgedtrial and that at the time of} considering charges^{and deciding petition unrler Sec:ion239} of Cr.P.C lLe^{rrial Court has to consider the contenr:s of the} Charge Sheet, locuments^{hled along with the charqe sheet} and statem^en ::;^{of witnesses, as except arrernlen' inthe} charge shet:t,^{rLo evidenceof any nature was show:r to the} Court,thrrs.tleconclusionofthetria'lCourtislialrletobe

¶69

4 (1974) 1 SCC 3

¶70

t lzoo+1 z scc :t.t: u C.I.R.C.No 2l'2 ol ))lO

¶71

1t-2t

¶72

EW,J Crl.R.C.No,588 of 2022

¶73

¶74

set-aside. Hence, he seeks to set-aside the impugned order and discharge the petitioner/A6 herein.

¶75

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for CBI contended that the Petition liled by the petitioner/A6 in RC 09(A)/2O03-CBI-HYD registered by Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti-Corruption Branch, Hyderabad is neither maintainable in Law nor on facts available on record. None of the grounds claimed by the Petitioner/A6 in the petition holds substance in the eyes of law

¶76

It is further contended that the CBI Hyderabad registered a case in RC O9(A) /2OO3 on 2O.O3.2O03 against Shri.S.Ramu, the then Addl. Director of Income Tax, Unit_l (Investigation), Mumbai and Shri. S. Murali Krishna, public Relations Officer, Singareni Colleries. Ltd, Hyderabad under Section 109 of Indiar Penal Code and Section 13(2) r/w l3(1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, after completion of investigation, cha_rge sheet was filed before the learned Special Judge for CBI Cases on 03.01.2006 under Section 7O9, 46a & 477 of IPC and l3(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against Shri S.Ramu (A-1), then Addl.

¶77

l
I
i'

¶78

t2-21 EryJ Crl-R.C.n'o. 588^{of 2022}

¶79

Director^{()f Irr()ome Tax, Unit-1 (Investigar'ion),I'lumbai'} Shri. S. M,rrali^{l{rishna (A-2) brotherof A-1, Miss' S' Suvarna} Rekha^{(A-l))r;i:;r.er of A-1; Smt. S'Suryavathi (A-a) nrother of} A-1, Smt ll. vzuluna^{(A-5) wife of A-2' Shri' S Surr:sh (,4-6)} brother of A-1.^{Shri. Lalit Kumar Dangi (A-7), Shri i/ijayaraj} Jogani (A-8,^{zi-rd Shri. P. Srikanth(A-9). A-7 arrd l-8 were} Chartered Acc:ountalt^{and PrivateFinanciersA-() q':rrkedas} Supervisol^{'rv ri A- 1.}

¶80

It is fr.rrl.h,:r^{contendedthat the avermentsrnacle by the} petitionerT A-:, l.hat^{the propertyat S.No.27 in lltatement-B} (a plot ancl^{'['.i'rr 'storied godown) is the property of A-6' and did} not abet .-1^{js false, hencedenied. Investigat on revealed} that 4.-6, v,rrrnger^{brotherofA- 1, had zLvai ed loan of} Rs. 14.00 lakf,r;^{from M/s Libord Group of Companies, which} belong to^{ilr-.l i.Lalit Kumar Dangi (A-7). He utilizedthe} amount t() co:lstruct^{two-storied godown durinilth e period} from Jun: 9!)6^{toSeptember 1997 at Bahac'urg,uda,LB} Nagar, Hyd,':r'aL,ad.^{The petitionetlA-6and Shri' Lal.t Kumar} Dangi (A-',) ol^{lvt/s Libord Group of CompaniesztbetledShri.} Ramu (A- 1) rn^{commissionof the offence of accrtmttlation of} disproporl^{ir,rL a} te^{assets byaiding him incorrcezrling the} -l

¶81

s,-m. :{i{.:E&a,

¶82

t3-21

¶83

E''Y,J GLR.C.Nq.5E8 of 2022

¶84

¶85

ill-gotten wealth of A- 1 in the form of availing loans for acquiring immovable property viz huge two_storied godown at L.B. Nagar, Bahadurguda, Hyderabad ald the similar modus operandi was also adopted by A-2 to A_5, the other family members of Shri. Ramu (A-l), to conceal the ill_gotten wealth of A-1 to properties with the active assist€rnce of shri Lalit Kumar Dangi (A-7). The same was admitted by co_accused Shri Vijayraj Jogani (A-8) in his voluntar;r confessional statement recorded under section 1OS(l) Cr.p.C before learned Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Secunderabad. Further, statements under Sections 164 Cr.p.C of Shri Mohammed B. Lehery (LW-64), Shri. Harvinder Singh (LW-66), Smt. Manju V.Jogani (LW-58), Shri Uttam Chand Mehta (L.W-57), Smt. Mintu U. Mehta (LW_S9), Shri. Mustafa H. Bakkalla (LW-36), Smt. yasmin M.'Bakkalla (LW_37). Shri S.C. Siddanthi (LW-70), Dr. T. prakash Rao (LW_76), Smt. T. Sudheshna (LW-75) were recorded in the Court of XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, which corroborates the same.

¶86

It is further contended that the Investigation revealed that the ill-gotten money from Shri. S. Ramu (A_1) was routed

¶87

14-21

¶88

EVY,J Crt.R C..\o 588 ol2022

¶89

to Shri. S Sur-t:rsh^{(,{-6) (SB A/c No.255 Andhra Ba:rk,Film} Nagar, Hy,lt:ratad) through^{Shri. Lalit Kuma:'Derngi (A-7) of} M/s Libor<l^{r31'or-rpof Compalies (A/c CA 11264, A'lc'10733 of} Karur V5,syzL llalk^{(KVB)Fort Mumbai, CA at Bank cf India,} Stock Exc,harlil3 Branch,^{Fountain Mumbai,C{10215 of} M/s.Dang li.ealcial &^{Management aldI:'inancial} Consultancr' [\r'- Ltd at^KVB).

¶90

Cash dePr:sit/DD into M/sLibord Gro'rpof^ComPanies accounts	Cashflowfrom M/s^LitrordGrouP toShri.S.Suresh^(A-6)
Cash deposito:^{r?s.3.0olakhsin} CA71264orr^t)ri.-.2.96	TransferofRs.3.OO^lakhs^from CA11264 toA-6on^C'5.r-1.96.
	TransferofRs.2.OOlakhs^from CA11264 toA-6 on Ctl.O^.97
	TransferofRs;.2.00lakhs^from CA
	TransferofRs.2.OOlal<hs^from CA ofM/s.Libord Group^{(Bol)to A-6} on14.08.97
	Tra-nsferofRs3:()0akhs^from CA40215to4-6on^()9.01i.06
	TransferofRs.200^lakhs^from CA40215toA-6on^t'.1.0'-].97
Credit of Rti.1(llla-khby^{DD into} AIc4O733on1^'.2)2.2OO2	Cash withdrawalofRs1.0O^lakh fromCA4O733on13.O2.2OO2
CreditofRr;L(X)lakh DD into	CashwithdrawalofRs1.0Olal<h

¶91

l5-2 t

¶92

EtIa,r CrLR.C.No.5E8 of 2022

¶93

¶94

A/c40733on15.O2.2OO2	fromCA 40733on76.02.2002.
Credit ofRs.1.00lakhby DD into A/c4O733on78.O2.2OO2	Cash withdrawalofRs.1.O0la_kh fromCA40733on19.O2.2OO2
Credit ofRs.l.0Olakhby DD into A/c40733 on 21.022OO2	Cash withdrawalofRs.1.OO lal<h fromCA40733on22.O2-2OO2
creditof Rs1,O0,869/- byDDinro A/c4O733orr.2O.O32OO2	Cash withdrawalofRs.l.O0lakh fromCA 40733on21.O3.2OO2
CreditofRs.6O,000/-byDDinto A/c40733on22.O3.2OO2	Cash^qrithdrawalof Rs60,500/_lakh fromCA 40733on23.O3.2OO2.
Credit ofRs.2.OOlakhsbyDDfrom SuvernaRekhato M/sDaogr Financial Management ConsultancyPrivate Ltdon 04.o8.7999.	Cash withdrawalofRs.2.O0 lakh fromCA40215of M/sDangr Financia-lManagementConsultanJy PrivateLtdon14.0g.1999

¶95

It is further contended that from the above mentioned cash flow table it is evident that M/s Libord Group of Companies of Shri. La_lit Kumar Dangi (A_7) received cash deposits and DD deposits. The Demand Drafts were obtained by way of Cheques issued by co-accused from Andhra Balk, Film Nagar Bralch arrd Indian Overseas Bank, SCHO Kothag:dem Branch. The amount so deposited in the account of A-7 companies was routed to Shri. Suresh (,{_6) on subsequent days and the same was elaborately discussed in Annexure-Xll of Chargesheet.^{'-L-- -}

¶96

t6-2t

¶97

EW,J Crl.R.C.\t 588 of2022

¶98

lg. It is frrther contended^{that the transactionsbetween} Shri. Suresll^rl-6) routed^{a portion of the ill-6Jottcnl1oney to} Shit & Rarru lfi^{1) through M/s Libord Group o1'Ccmpanies} of Shri. Lirljt l..rmar Dangi^{(A7) and the amcunt trernsferred} by Shri. Srt'e r;.r^(A-6) to^{M/s.Libord Group of Cornpaeies was} immediately ',,'ithdrawn^{as cash and the same wa:r eli'tborately} discussed irr A:rnexure-XIII^{of Charge sheet ia.nd the loan at} M/s Libord^()roup of Companies^{of Shri. Lalit Kr-rm,r Dangi} (A-7) was r,n[., shown to disguise^{the ill-gotten nroney as} genuine s()Ltro() The similar^{modus operandi u'as ad'lptedbY} other co-at:crrsed/A-2 to A-5^{inabetting A 1 rrith the} assistance cf --7.

¶99

It is f'r'-ther contended^{that the learnetl Speciril Judge} rightly orcterr:c that after^{perusal of entire material available} on the 1636rrrl i.e., charge sheet,^{documents, state:nentsof} witnesses thzrt^l,he prima-facie^{case againstthe pt:titi':rner/A-6} for framing c,1' the charges and the^{contentions raised by the} petitioner,'I,.-(r in the Crl.M.P.No.743 12O21^{rvert' tobe} determined on.r, after full-fledged trial.

¶100

t7-21

¶101

EryJ Crl.RC-No-588 ol2022

¶102

¶103

,It is further contended that the judgments of Hon,ble Supreme Court relied upon by the petitioner/A_6 herein, i) Jagd.agal Poddar as. Bibi Hazara, ii) Valtiammal (dead) bg Lrs as. Subramaniam, iiil M. Nagaraju vs. State of Telangana and iv) So:jian Kumar I/s. CBI were not appreciated by the learned Special Judge as the said judgments are in relation to benami transactions and also guidelines given for framing of the charges and in present case, the allegations against the petitioner/A-6 has to be determined only after the full fledged trial. Further, the averment made by the petitioner that non_public servant/petitioner herein cannot be tagged with the pubtic servant for the offence under Section l3(l)(e) of prevention of Cormption Act, 1988 is not correct, hence denied. In supprot of his contention he relied upon the ddcision rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in State Of Kantataka os Selai J. Jagalalltha & Others dated L4.O2.2017 held that:

¶104

"The Trial Court held that eaen priadte indiuiduals coutd be prosecuted. fo" the olJence und.er Section lO9 of IpC. and. ute tind that the Tr:ial Court wa.s right in coming to the conclusion relging on the decisioi o.f No,lloLrrrmo;l (sztprrr), utherein it lu.d-s obser-ued. that aciuisition and possession bg a public seruolnt -a" copabte o.f being Act the Special &tdge had. the pouser b tfo ofJenc* punishing eaen abetment or conspiracg of tie ijTences

¶105

1 8-21

¶106

EW,J Crl.R.C.\i.588 of 2022

¶107

mentionec' in the PC^{Act and} in^{our opinion, the Tridl} Court conectlg held in this matter^{that priaate indiuidurls} can be icrosecuted W the Court^{on the groundthat th.eg} haae abet::ed the act of crtminal^misconduct falling^uru:br Sectiolt .l'tll)(e) of the^{7988Act cornmitted bg the public} seroant.^..' .

¶108

The pt:titLoner/A'6 averred that the^{petitioner lras solid} financial cal,liicity to acquire the^{assetsstandir-rgcn his narne'} The respor.tcle'.Tt/CBI did not dispute^{the hnancial capacity of} the petition er /',-6. The investigation^{focusedonJ1' on one} property at fi. \o.27 in Statement-B^{(a plot zLnd Trvrl storied} godown) u,hrch ',r,as purchased from the^{ill-gott-en fun,:ls of A 1} disguised antl routed in the form of loan^{fi'omN47's.Libord} Group of^rl:,rrpanies of Shri. La,lit^{KumarI)anr1i (A-7).} The respcnde:nt/CBl did not entangle arry other^genuine properties of^'-he petitioner I A-6 in the^{charge sht:er. The role} of 4'-6 in abr:1t.irLg A- I through the assistance^{of A' 7 c:rnnot be} ruled out^i1s, :t-ere is sufficient material^{invari:rblvmerking the} petitioner to frrce trial. The way of credits erld^sulrsequent cash with drar,,a1s/Cash transfer show that the^1ll-gotten money of r- 1 vzrls converted to loan with the assistalr:e^{of A-7} compzmies, to^r:amouflage the ill-gotten money as^genuine source

¶109

19-21

¶110

CTLR.C,NT.SSB ,170i

¶111

⁷ -.

¶112

It is further contended that the Respondent/CBl registered the present case in the year 2003 arrd the charges have not been framed till date due to continuous petitions from the accused persons to defer framing of charges arrd the similar modus operandiwas adopted by other co_accused A_2 to A-5 in abetting A- 1, as such any amount of relaxation given to the Petitioner/A-6 herein through this present crimina_l Revision Case will have a cascading effect on the case against other family members/A_ 2 to A_5. The averments made by the petitioner/A-6 are devoid of any merits. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the Revision.

¶113

23' A perusal of charge sheet, documents and the statements of the witnesses recorded by the investigating officer during the course of investigation, the allegation against the petitioner/A6 is specific that he abetted Al and got constructed two storied godown shown at Sl.No.27 of Statement B of the charge sheet with the funds provided by Al which are routed through M/s,Libord Group of Compalies at Lalit Kumar Dangi (A7) and the Investigating officer also filed the cash flow table alnexed to the charge sheet as o:::*r." XII and XIII showing the flow of funds from A1 to

¶114

20-21

¶115

EW,J Crl. R. C'. l'o 5 I I^{of2 022}

¶116

M/s.Liborc.^{(irlup ofCompa-nies arrd also fnmthe} petitioner/A"1 tt A1 through^{M/s.Libord Group of Cornpanies} of Lalit Kumar ttangi^(A7).

¶117

Taking .tto consideration^{of the allegations agerinstthe} petitioner/A,5 irr the^{charge sheet that he has <:ons;tru:ted two} storied god,r'l.r'r.t with^{the funds providedby 'A'1 through} M/s.Libor<l Cirtup of^{Companies of Lalit KumarDzrngi(A7)} and the sirr-I,l has to^{be proved or disprovedon]y alter full-} fledged trial ired it is^{settled law thatzLt thetime of} consideration of charges^{arrd deciding the petitionunder} Section 239^{cn' Or.P.C.,the Court has to consicler.-he ::ontents} of the chzr11e sheet, documents^{filed along 'rvith th:: charge} sheet arl I st etements of witnesses^{recorded bythe} investigatinll ollicer arrd^{atthe stage ofconsider ation of} charges,^<lc ctr :nents^{and defence of the accused s of no} relevance.

¶118

Therelore , on perusal of^{the entire material ava ilable on} record i.e., :lLrrge sheet, documents^{hled along} 'vith^the charge shr:et rrnd the statements of the^{witnessesreclrdedby} the investl g;r1.r nr3 officer during the course of the^{irlvel'rtigation,} ,

¶119

21-21

¶120

EW,J Crl.RC.No.58E of2022

¶121

¶122

this Court is of the considered view that there is prima_facie case against the petitione r / A6 for framing of the charges and the contentions rajsed by the petitioner/A6 in the present application are to be determined only after full fledged trial.

¶123

For the reasons stated supra, this Court is not inclined to set-aside the impugned order dated 22.04.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.743 of 2022 in C.C.No. 17 of 2006 passed by the trial Court and the petitioner/A6 failed to make out valid grounds to discharge him for the offences under Sections 46g, 47I and 109 of tpC r/w Section \3(21 r/w 13(t) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 199g, as such the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed.

¶124