Central Bureau Of Investigation vs K.M.Sharan

3. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as under:-

4. During the investigation of the subsequent case emanating from FIR No. RC.AC.3/2003 A0003, A.M. Sharan claimed that the cash of about Rs.36 lacs recovered from his residence belonged to his father, the respondent herein.

each were found inside a VIP sky bag, kept inside box type double bed of master bedroom at 1st floor. The remaining cash aggregating to Rs.3,14,970/- was found/recovered from different steel almirahs, in the said house.

18. During investigation Shri Anand Mohan Sharan claimed that the amount of Rs.36 lakhs recovered from his residence belonged to his father. On his part, Shri K.M. Sharan, father of accused took the plea that the amount recovered from the residence of his son was received as sale proceeds of two properties - (a) Plot No. 908, MIE, Bahadurgarh and (b) House No. C-2/388, Janak Puri, New Delhi. He contended that cash of Rs.4 lakhs and Rs.10 lakhs respectively were received by him on 4.2.2003 and 6.3.2003 from Shri Vijay Gulati at Bahadurgarh Plot and an amount of Rs.22 lakhs was received on 20.3.2003 from Shri Harmanjeet Singh and Shri Anoop Singh as advance for sale of Janakpuri House against a total consideration of Rs.50 lakhs. He has also claimed that since he had to proceed to Jaisalmer on 8.3.2003, he kept the amount of Rs.14 lakhs received for Bahadurgarh plot with his son Shri Anand Mohan Sharan. Further, he also contended that he had fractured his leg at Jaisalmer and had returned to Delhi on 12.3.2003.

The plea of Shri K. M. Sharan that Rs.36 lacs was kept by him at his son's house for safe keeping becomes untenable due to recovery of substantial amount of cash from his own house too, subsequently.

(ii) That Shri Krishan Mohan Sharan was required to give his consent for lie detector test in the context of his claim regarding Rs.36 lakhs seized from the residence of Shri Anand Mohan Sharan. However, Shri Krishan Mohan Sharan expressed his unwillingness in writing citing medical reasons. On the basis of Medical advice of Dr. S.S. Bansal, Director, Metro Heart Institute, Faridabad in whose hospital he was earlier admitted after the arrest of Shri Anand Mohan Sharan in RC AC3/2003 A002. Incidently, Shri K. M. Sharan was treated by Dr. S.S. Bansal as a `complimentary' patient during that time and no payment was charged.

(iv) That, Shri Anoop Singh who purportedly financed Rs.12 lakhs out of Rs.22 lakhs for purchase of Janakpuri property, while disclosing the source of this amount he claimed that he and his family members received money amounting to Rs.10,60,000/- in 28 separate installments from August 2002 to March 2003 from his relatives settled in USA through Western Union Money Transfer. It defies commonsense and reasonable prudence that this money never entered banking channels from August 2002 to March 2003 and was kept in the house by Shri Anoop Singh, and was finally allegedly paid in cash to Shri K.M. Sharan.

(ix) That Shri Vijay Gulati of M/s. Sunrex Fabrics made false and manipulated entries in the books of accounts of M/s. Gulati & Co. and in the Account Book of M/s. Sunrex and Co. to show availability of Rs.14 lakhs in cash purportedly paid to Shri K. M. Sharan. These manipulated entries according to Shri Vijay Gulati were made at the behest of Shri K. M. Sharan after the aforementioned recovery of Rs.36 lacs, to legitimate existence of Rs.14 lacs. In order to show receipt/generation of Rs.14 lakhs in Account Books of M/s. Gulati and Co., Shri Vijay Gulati had also prepared false cash memos showing receipt/generation of sales worth Rs.14 lacs by M/s. Gulati & Co. and thereafter, the amount was shown transferred to the account of M/s Sunrex & Co. However, the Ledger Book of M/s Sunrex & Co., which indicates total transaction of the company does not show receipts/generation of sales worth Rs.14 lacs during the period 18.1.2003 to 3.3.2003. Further whereas the sale proceeds of M/s Gulati & Co. between August 2000 to January, 2003 (29 months) were worth Rs.1,52,534/- purchased sales shown to have been made between 18th January, 2003 and 3rd March, 2003 (44 days) were for Rs.13,83,106/-. This clearly indicates an inconsistent pattern of purported business/sales of M/s. Gulati & Co. through false cash memos, which were prepared to show false sales.

The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution.

34. Now, the crucial question which arises for our adjudication is whether the case of the respondent falls under any of the categories as enumerated in the celebrated case of Bhajan Lal (supra). On the basis of the material available on record and the allegations levelled against the respondent in the FIR and the charge-sheet, it cannot be concluded that no ingredients of offence under section 120B read with section 193 IPC are present in the instant case.

36. In the impugned judgment, according to the settled legal position, the High Court ought to have critically examined whether the allegations made in the First Information Report and the charge-sheet taken on their face value and accepted in their entirety would prima facie constitute an offence for making out a case against the accused (respondent herein).

42. We accordingly set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court. The appellant CBI would be at liberty to produce the necessary material and evidence before the concerned court to establish the case of the prosecution against the respondent. Similarly, the respondent should be afforded full opportunity to establish his innocence. No further directions are necessary in this appeal.

43. The appeal is accordingly allowed and disposed of.