Ranjit Kumar Lal Vs. The State of Jharkhand Through the Superintendent of Police Cbi Ranchi - Court Judgment

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 7287 of 2017 ---- Ranjit Kumar Lal @ Ranjeet Kumar Lal son of late Bindeshwari Prasad, resident of Mohalla New Sehdev Nagar, P.O. Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeonagar, District Ranchi-834005 (Jharkhand). … Petitioner -versus- The State of Jharkhand through The Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Ranchi … Opposite Party ---- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN ---- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate For the Opp. Party (CBI): Mr. Kailash Prasad Deo, Advocate ---- ORDER

RESERVED ON1212.2017 PRONOUNCED ON1812.2017 The petitioner is an accused for allegedly committing an offence punishable under Sections 120B, 511 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 7, 12 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

2. The allegations in the first information report is that one Tapas Kumar Dutta, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi entered into a criminal conspiracy with other Income Tax Officers and other persons and thereafter transferred the Income Tax Files of several assesses from Kolkata to Ranchi and Hazaribagh. Further, as a part of the said conspiracy, re- assessment was done in respect of the said companies, whose files were transferred and thereafter huge tax benefits have been given to the said assesses. It is alleged that the said benefits were given to the assesses for which those assesses have paid huge amount by way of bribe.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, FIR was lodged against said Tapas Kumar Dutta and all the other named accused persons including this petitioner.

4. After completion of investigation, chargesheet has been filed in this case, which has been brought on record. 2 5. This petitioner is an Income Tax Officer. The allegation against this petitioner is that in respect of one company, in the name and style of M/s. Finlick Distributors Pvt. Ltd., this petitioner issued notice to the said assessee and concluded the reassessment proceedings. It is alleged that the petitioner being the Income Tax Officer, abused his official position and passed an order reducing the demand of Rs.92,41,970/- to Rs.93,350/-.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an Income Tax Officer and has only passed the re-assessment order after issuing notice to the Company. He submits that from perusal of the chargesheet, which deals with the investigation in relation to M/s. Finlick Distributors Pvt. Ltd., it would be quite clear that the investigating agency has found that this petitioner, on the directions of the principal accused Tapas Kumar Dutta, issued notice of hearing. It is also clear that it is Tapas Kumar Dutta, who by abusing his official position, has set aside the original assessment order. He submits that after setting aside the assessment order, the matter was remanded for fresh decision and the petitioner being the Income Tax Officer, took into consideration the observations and direction made in the order passed by Tapas Kumar Dutta and thereafter passed the reassessment order. He submits that there is no illegality in the action of the petitioner as because being a quasi judicial authority, he has applied his mind and passed an order. He submits that the order, even if it is wrong, cannot be said to have been passed with a malafide intention after taking bribe. He submits that until and unless the Central Bureau of Investigation, in their chargesheet, comes with a proof that there was a quid pro quo, this petitioner cannot be charged for committing any criminal offence. He submits that no cash, valuables to connect with bribe has been recovered from the possession of this petitioner as in the case of Tapas Kumar Dutta from whom huge cash, 3 gold etc. were recovered. It is submitted that the petitioner has been arrested and is in custody since 07.09.2017. So far as the allegation of telephonic conversation between the petitioner, Shri Tapas Kumar Dutta and some representatives of the beneficiary company is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner was giving a hearing of reassessment, the mobile number of the concerned assessee was mentioned in the respective file for which the assessee was noticed through calling them by phone. He submits that this cannot be even a prima facie proof to implicate that the petitioner had accepted bribe, when, in fact, it is an admitted case that there is no material in the chargesheet to suggest that any ill-gotten cash, gold or valuables were recovered from the petitioner. He submits that in fact, the petitioner was arrested just a day before filing of the chargesheet and since he has co-operated in the entire investigation and chargesheet has already been filed in this case, there is no necessity of custodial trial in this case. He lastly submits that the petitioner has already superannuated on 30.11.2017 from service.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation, submits that the petitioner is a part of a very big conspiracy, where benefits have been given to different companies after re-assessing their original assessment order in a pre-planned manner. He submits that a huge loss has been caused to the State Exchequer where the demands have been slashed to a very negligible amount, and in some cases to NIL amount, by the Income Tax Officers at the behest of Tapas Kumar Dutta. He submits that the Central Bureau of Investigation, during investigation in respect of the companies mentioned in the First Information Report, is of the view that there are probabilities that similar type of benefits may have been provided by the Income Tax Officers to other companies, as such they are investigating that 4 aspect also. He submits that pursuant to the last order passed by this Court, Central Bureau of Investigation has handed over in a sealed cover the information which was sought for, wherein they have mentioned the number of cases in respect of each of the officials, over and above the companies mentioned in the First Information Report, the officers have reassessed after transfer of file from Kolkata. In the report it is mentioned that the petitioner may be involved in 11 other reassessments, detail references whereof are not there in the report. He cannot deny the fact that nothing like gold, cash or other valuables have been recovered from the petitioner to suggest quid pro quo, but submits that in future something may surface. He submits that Call Details Record were gathered by the Central Bureau of Investigation, which shows evidence of telephonic conversation in between the petitioner, Tapas Kumar Dutta and some representatives of the beneficiary company. He also admits that it is only in respect of one company the petitioner has passed the order of re-assessment, so far as the present FIR is concerned.

8. After going through the records and after hearing the parties, I find that the petitioner was an Income Tax Officer and admittedly he has passed the re- assessment order, by which the demand in respect of one of the companies, i.e., M/s. Finlick Distributors Pvt. Ltd. was drastically reduced. The said order was passed in terms of the provisions laid down in the Income Tax Act. The Central Bureau of Investigation has made out a case that this order was passed without considering the relevant legal provisions and contentions raised by the department. Thus, I find that the Central Bureau of Investigation has challenged the legality, propriety and correctness of the said order and has come to a conclusion that the said order was passed after taking bribe. In the Chargesheet filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation, there is nothing to suggest that any ill-gotten money or ill-gotten property or valuables were 5 recovered from the possession of this petitioner. Rather, the Central Bureau of Investigation has very fairly submitted that no such things or material have been recovered from the possession of this petitioner. It admits that cash, gold and other tangible assets were recovered from the principal accused and not from this petitioner. It is also apparent that this petitioner has cooperated with the Central Bureau of Investigation during investigation as in the affidavit filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation, it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner has joined the investigation of the case as and when required, but he did not cooperate as he did not disclose the income pertaining to the crime and the proceeds thereto. To this the petitioner replied that as he did not indulge in any corrupt practices, so it was not possible for him to say about the same. This suggests that the petitioner made himself available as and when he was required to appear before the Central Bureau of Investigation. Further, I find that the petitioner was arrested on 07.09.2017 and the chargesheet was filed on the very next date. This also suggests that during investigation, petitioner cooperated with the Central Bureau of Investigation, otherwise, the Central Bureau of Investigation could have arrested the petitioner much prior to filing of the chargesheet. So far as the contention of the Central Bureau of Investigation that there may be other companies to which the benefit has been given in a similar manner for which they are also investigating, I find that in the affidavit, which has been filed in the sealed cover, it has been mentioned that the petitioner may be involved in 11 other cases, detail references whereof are not there in the affidavit, but those cases of re-assessment are not the subject matter of this FIR, which the Central Bureau of Investigation has already investigated and filed chargesheet. This also suggests that the investigation against the petitioner is absolutely complete so far as the present FIR is 6 concerned. Further, after closure of investigation, there is no scope of presumption.

9. In this case the trial is mainly based on documentary evidence, which is already there in the custody of Central Bureau of Investigation. The maximum punishment that can be awarded to the petitioner is imprisonment for a term of 7 years under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Further, I find that the petitioner has cooperated with the Central Bureau of Investigation during investigation as he made himself available to the Central Bureau of Investigation as and when required and was only taken into custody just a day before the chargesheet was filed. Filing of chargesheet means completion of investigation as there is nothing in the chargesheet that the investigation is kept pending. There is no allegation against the petitioner that he will tamper with the evidence or interfere with the trial if he is released on bail. Further from the chargesheet I find that there are 94 chargesheet witnesses, 91 documents which include several files, transcripts etc. and 32 materials exhibits including electronic evidences, which are to be exhibited in this case, which clearly suggests that the evidence is too voluminous and trial will take considerable time. Thus, keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra versus C.B.I., I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail, but, on the following conditions: - (i) Petitioner will be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi in connection with RC-AC-1-2017A0003 [RC03A)/17(D)]; (ii) He shall remain present before the Trial Court on each and every date of hearing. If they want to remain absent on a particular date for any unavoidable circumstance or reason, the reasons of their 7 absence should be communicated to the Court concerned well in advance; (iii) He will intimate the Court of his present residential address along with documents in proof of the same and he will give an undertaking that without taking permission of the Court, he will not change his place of residence. In case he is forced to change his residence, he will furnish sufficient proof of his new residence and obtain permission from the Trial Court; (iv) Petitioner will deposit his passport, if any, with the Court below; (v) He will not dispute his identity as an accused in this case. (vi) If any of the aforesaid conditions is violated and instance of such violation is brought to the notice of the Court, the Court may take appropriate action including that of cancelling the bail bonds of the petitioner; (vii) Liberty is reserved with Central Bureau of Investigation to make a prayer for modification or recalling of the order if any of the aforesaid conditions is/are violated. With these observations and conditions, this application stands allowed. (Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/Cp-03