(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 227/228 – Framing of charge –Challenge as to – Offence under Section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Charge was that appellant R.C. Sabharwal owned assets disproportionate to known sources of income and the appellant Puneet Sabharwal, son of R.C. Sabharwal, has abetted him in the commission of the said offence – Contention that order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal categorically held that income arising from properties of various entities were wrongly added to the income of the appellant – Held that probative value of the Orders of the Income Tax Authorities, including the Order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the subsequent Assessment Orders, are not conclusive proof which can be relied upon for discharge of the accused persons -These orders, their findings, and their probative value, are a matter for a full-fledged trial – High Court, in the present case, has rightly not discharged the appellants based on the Orders of the Income Tax Authorities. (Para 32)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 227/228 – Framing of charge – Challenge as to – Offence under Section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Charge was that appellant R.C. Sabharwal owned assets disproportionate to known sources of income and the appellant Puneet Sabharwal, son of R.C. Sabharwal, has abetted him in the commission of the said offence – Submission that where there is exoneration in a civil adjudication, criminal prosecution on the same set of facts and circumstances cannot be allowed to continue repelled- Charges were framed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, while the appellants seek to rely upon findings recorded by authorities under the Income Tax Act – The scope of adjudication in both the proceedings are markedly different and therefore the findings in the latter cannot be a ground for discharge of the Accused Persons in the former – The proceedings under the Income Tax Act and its evidentiary value remains a matter of trial and they cannot be considered as conclusive proof for discharge of an accused person – Appellants have not made out the case to say that the charge is groundless – Appeal liable to be dismissed. (Para 40 and 43)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2024 STPL(Web) 180 SC
[2024 INSC 221]
Puneet Sabharwal Vs. Cbi
Criminal Appeal No. 1682 of 2024 (@ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 2044 of 2021) With Criminal Appeal No. of 2024 (@ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 2685 OF 2021)-Decided on 19-03-2024
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/2024-STPLWeb-180-SC.pdf
