[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Zunzar Suresh Pawar And Another vs Union Of India on 5 February, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:4958
{1} REVN 195 OF 2025 +
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 195 OF 2025
1. Zunzar Suresh Pawar
Age : 45 years, Occu. : Service,
R/o.At Post Gangapurgaon, Near Bus Stop,
Ambedkar Chowk, Tq. and District : Nashik.
2. Uday Narayan Kulkarni
Age: 58 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o. : 6-A, Bharat Nagar,
Near Tulshiram Nagar,
Devpur, Dhule. ....Applicants
(Original Accused)
Versus
. Union Of India
Through Investigating Officer,
CBI, ACB, Pune. .....Respondent
.....
Shri Jagdish V .Deshpande, Advocate for Applicants
Shri Sachin Subhash Panale, Special Public Prosecutor - CBI
.....
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 230 OF 2025
1. Nirmal Kumar Biswal
Age : 45 years, Occu. : Business,
R/o.Village Tarpur, Dist.: Jagatsingpur,
State - Oddisha, At Present r/o. -
Tirupati Supreme Inclave, Jalan Nagar,
Paithan Road, Chh. Sambhajinagar.
2. Nandkumar Gopalrao Kulkarni
Age: 53 years, Occu.: Tax Consultant,
R/o. :Flat No.101, Bhartiya Apartment,
Jai Vishwabharti Colony,
Chh. Sambhajinagar. ....Applicants
(Original Accused)
{2} REVN 195 OF 2025 +
Versus
. Union Of India
Through Investigating Officer,
CBI, ACB, Pune. .....Respondent
.....
Shri Jagdish V .Deshpande, Advocate for Applicants
Shri Sachin Subhash Panale, Special Public Prosecutor - CBI
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 29 JANUARY 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 05 FEBRUARY 2026
JUDGMENT :
1. Revision petitioners, who are arraigned as accused in Crime
No.RC Pune/2017/A/00013, which came to be registered at the
instance of CBI, are hereby challenging common order dated
11-04-2025 passed by learned Special Judge (CBI), Aurangabad on
application Exhibits 20 and 21 pressed into service by the accused
seeking discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. (Cr.P.C.)
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
2. Above crime came to be registered on the premise that, in all
four accused (present petitioners) had entered into a conspiracy for
finalizing tax liability of a coaching classes namely M/s. Gurukul
Coaching Classes run by accused no.3 - Nirmal Kumar Biswal, for the
{3} REVN 195 OF 2025 +
years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 by deliberately showing less
income than the actual earned i.e. by suppressing and manipulating
record during an Income Tax Survey conducted on 24-02-2015. It is
a specific allegation that in doing so, accused nos.1 and 2, who were
Income Tax Officers of Ward Nos.3(2) and 3(1) respectively at the
relevant time, by conniving with accused no.4, N.G.Kulkarni, a Tax
Consultant, helped accused no.3, Nirmal Kumar Biswal, in evasion of
tax liability thereby causing wrongful loss to the Government and
causing wrongful gain to Gurukul Coaching classes of which accused
no.3 was one the partners. There are allegations that revision
petitioner no.1 Zunzar Pawar has received kickback to the tune of
Rs.20,00,000/-. It is further specifically alleged that the revision
petitioner no.1 Zunzar Pawar was not at all authorized to conduct
any survey but he deliberately participated in the Survey to favour
accused no.3.
SUBMISSIONS
On Behalf of Revision Petitioners/Accused :
3. Pointing to the above accusations, Shri Deshpande, learned
counsel for the applicants would contend that, above accusations are
misconceived and misplaced and without any foundation. He would
{4} REVN 195 OF 2025 +
strenuously submit that, at the outset, there was no material to
indicate any conspiracy being hatched by present revision petitioners.
He further pointed out that, in the Income Tax Survey, certain minor
irregularities were detected and on it being pointed out, income tax
to that extent was also duly paid and accepted and therefore, it is his
fundamental submission that the very foundation of causing loss to
the Government by evading tax itself gets knocked off at the bottom.
4. He further pointed out that, merely because accused no.1
Zunzar Pawar was present at the time of alleged Income Tax Survey,
it would not itself be sufficient to attribute allegation that he was also
involved in helping accused no.3 to the above alleged evasion of tax.
According to him, it is usual practice to conduct survey by a team
constituting Income Tax Officials and therefore also merely because
accused no.1 was not incharge of that particular Ward in which the
classes were being run, itself would not be sufficient to level
allegation that he initially was party to the conspiracy and further
received illegal gratification.
5. According to him, the primary source of information is said to
be Income Tax Survey under 133A of the Income Tax Act, which was
{5} REVN 195 OF 2025 +
a routine exercise, and by no stretch of imagination, it would be said
to be an Assessment of Income Tax so as to level above accusations
that too after two years of alleged Survey. According to him, accused
no.2 - Uday Kulkarni, who was said to be authorized to conduct
Survey, had even duly prepared the report within 48 hours after the
conclusion of the survey and mere act of tendering the report was by
accused no.1 - Zunzar Pawar and his such act cannot be construed to
that of conspirator.
6. Learned counsel further took this court through statement of
witness namely Vaibhav Dhere and would point out that this witness
had stated that the assessee i.e. coaching classes has accepted
undisclosed income and duly paid tax with interest thereupon and
even income tax returns were also duly filed. Thus according to him,
accusations of evasion of tax or suppression of actual income are
misconceived. He also, on this issue, pointed to the statement of one
Jivan Bachhav and would submit that from his statement it is clear
that there is no loss to the Government as is alleged by the
complainant.
7. He further submitted that in view of essential ingredients for
{6} REVN 195 OF 2025 +
offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
there is absolutely no material in the entire chargesheet and on the
contrary, in the statement of one Dipak Giri recorded on 23-02-2018,
it is no were stated that there was suppression of actual income of
the coaching classes for the above financial years.
8. He further pointed out that, accusation that accused no.3 -
Nirmal Kumar Biswal paid Rs.20,00,000/- to accused no.1 - Zunzar
Pawar through accused no.4 - N.G.Kulkarni, who allegedly acted as a
conduit is also utterly misplaced as there is no incriminating material
in such direction. According to him, statements of witnesses cannot
be made basis of levelling above allegation and more particularly,
according to him, there is no material whatsoever showing demand
or acceptance of bribe so as to attract the provisions of Prevention of
Corruption Act.
9. Criticizing the impugned judgment, learned Counsel for the
revision petitioners pointed out that all above aspects are ignored by
the learned trial court. That, simplicitor statements which has no
evidential value in the eyes of law are directly relied. That, none of
statements of witnesses bear the signatures of revisionists.
{7} REVN 195 OF 2025 +
10. He would further point out that even learned trial court failed
to consider that there was invalid sanction. Lastly, there being little,
weak or no evidence to make revision petitioners to face charge or
face trial, learned counsel seeks indulgence in the impugned
judgment by allowing the revision.
He relies on the decision of Hon'ble Apex court in the case
Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat and Another,
(2019) 16 SCC 547, Kanchan Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2022 AIR (SC)
4288 and Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. and Others, 2023 (9) SCC
695.
On Behalf of Respondent -CBI :
11. Shri Panale, learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent -
CBI, who filed written submissions would justify the order of the trial
court and he too apprised this court about the factual background
since conducting Income Tax Survey by Income Tax Authorities till
detection of alleged evasion of tax and accused persons to be
committing above offence by hatching a conspiracy. According to
him, learned trial court has correctly dealt with law while dealing
with application for discharge and urges to reject the application.
{8} REVN 195 OF 2025 +
In support of his submissions, learned Special Public
Prosecutor - CBI relied on Judgment and order of this Court in the
case of Vijaykumar Dnyandev Raut v. The State of Maharashtra and
others, passed on 20-11-2025 in Criminal Revision Application
No.205 of 2025.
Law on Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. :
12. It would be just and proper to spell out settled legal position
while considering discharge application under Sections 227 and 228
of the Cr.P.C.
It is fairly settled position that, at such stage, Court dealing
with such application is merely expected to determine existence of
prima facie material for proceeding to frame charge and make
accused persons face trial. Material in chargesheet is expected to be
sifted with limited intention to find out whether there are sufficient
material to proceed against accused. Neither in-depth analysis nor
meticulous analysis of evidence is expected at such stage. Thus, to
put in simple words, the purport is to ascertain whether there is
prima facie material suggesting existence of essential ingredients for
the offences, which are alleged to be committed.
Above position has been time and again reiterated since the
{9} REVN 195 OF 2025 +
cases of State of Bihar v/s Ramesh Singh (1977) 4 SCC 39; Union of
India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Another (1979) 3 SCC 4 , and a
decade back in the cases of Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of
Investigation (2010) 9 SCC 368; Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander
and another (2012) 9 SCC 460; State of Tamil Nadu (By Inspector of
Police Vigilance and Anti-Corruption) v. N.Suresh Rajan and Others.
(2014) 11 SCC 709; Asim Shariff v. National Investigation Agency
(2019) 7 SCC 148; and Ram Prakash Chadha v. State of Uttar
Pradesh (2024) 10 SCC 651.
Law on Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. :
13. This Court is called upon to exercise revisional powers invested
upon it under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. Therefore, it would be also appropriate to spell-
out judicial precedent on the point of scope and object of revision
under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
While exercising powers under section 397 of Cr.P.C., this court
is merely expected to test the legality, propriety or illegality in the
findings recorded by learned trial court. Such powers are to be
exercised to prevent miscarriage of justice and when there are
clearing errors on the face of order or there is failure and non
{10} REVN 195 OF 2025 +
compliance of law. Re-appreciation is to be avoided unless findings
are patently perverse and as such, is the narrow scope of revisional
court. Law regarding the scope of revision is elucidated in catena of
judgments. Though there are catena of judgments, the landmark
judgment of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and another (2012) 9
SCC 460 is relied and the relevant observations therein are borrowed
and quoted as under :
"12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the
power to call for and examine the records of an inferior
court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality
and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case.
The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect
or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well -
founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court
to scrutinise the orders, which upon the face of it bears a
token of careful consideration and appear to be in
accordance with law. If one looks into the various
judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional
jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under
challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance
with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based
on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial
discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are
not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each
case would have to be determined on its own merits."
{11} REVN 195 OF 2025 +
14. Therefore, here, the limited scope for this Court, while
exercising revisional powers, is to ascertain whether there is patent
error, illegality or perversity in the impugned order. It is to be merely
seen that material is correctly appreciated or not in the light of
requirement of prayers for discharge. Sufficiency of material to
frame charge is the linchpin. No indepth analysis, evaluation or re-
appreciation of the material in the form of chargesheet is expected to
be done.
Analysis
15. In the instant case, present revision petitioners are apparently
arraigned as accused nos.1 to 4. Sum and substance of the
accusations is that, Coaching Classes namely Gurukul Coaching
Classes, which are allegedly run in partnership by accused no.3 -
Nirmal Kumar Biswal is located at Sagar Trade Center, Jalna Road,
Akashwani, Aurangabad. That, revision petitioner no.1 - Zunzar
Pawar was infact having jurisdiction of Ward No.3(2) of Aurangabad,
whereas revision petitioner no.2 - Uday Kulkarni also an Income Tax
officer, had domain over Ward No.3(1) of Aurangabad. Accused no.3
is the partner of Gurukul Coaching Classes and accused no.4 is Tax
Consultant engaged by Gurukul Coaching Classes.
{12} REVN 195 OF 2025 +
Complainant CBI official alleges that, while Income Tax
Survey was done and visit to the Gurukul Coaching Classes were
paid, after going through the assessment record, it emerged that for
the year 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 less income was reflected than
that was actually earned during such period and accordingly, so
much tax was only paid which amounts to evasion of tax. While
doing so, it is alleged that there was suppression of material apart
from manipulating the record. There are further allegations that
present revision petitioner no.1 Zunzar Pawar had no authority to be
party to the survey but he participated and moreover, enquiry
revealed that through accused no.4, a Tax Consultant, accused no.1
obtained bribe of Rs.20,00,000/-. This is the sum and substance of
the accusations on behalf of the complainant CBI.
16. Perused and sifted the record with above limited purpose to
test availability of sufficiency of material. On undertaking such
exercise, here, chargesheet comprises of statement of Assistant
Commissioner Mr. Anant Tambe, one finds him to be stating that in
preliminary survey dated 24-02-2015, there was no authority with
accused no.1 Zunzar Pawar to be part of the said survey. In spite of
it, he is shown to be signatory to the survey report. The next Officer
{13} REVN 195 OF 2025 +
Mr.Abhijit Haldar, who was Additional Commissioner ranking Officer,
has also put to scrutiny the documents pertaining to Income Tax
Survey and he gave statement that accused no.1 Zunzar Pawar was
not authorized by him to be member of the survey team which
conducted survey of Gurukul Classes on 24-02-2015 and
authorization was only in the favour of Income Tax Officer Uday
Kulkarni as well as one Yashpal. Therefore, according to him also,
accused no.1 Zunzar Pawar has unauthorizedly submitted
preliminary report and he also marks his presence during visit to
premises of Gurukul Classes.
Similarly, Dr.Vaibhav Dhere, who was Deputy Director, after
going through the survey papers and impounded documents, gave
statement that there was mismatch in the amount revealed in said
documents and those which were taken into account at the time of
Survey during which above two officers i.e. revisions petitioners in
Criminal Revision Application Nos.195 of 2025 were present.
Likewise, another Income Tax Officer Mr.Pravin Laxman Pande
categorically stated in the statement that there was no authorization
in the name of accused no.1 Zunzar Pawar to conduct survey of
Gurukul Classes.
Mr.Manoj Govindrao Karalgikar, also is a Income Tax Officer
{14} REVN 195 OF 2025 +
and his statement is to the above extent.
These are the statements of very Income Tax Officials of
various hierarchy.
17. The Chargesheet further contains statements of very Marketing
Executive of said coaching classes namely Prakash Kasare and he
stated that he has handed over production memo cum receipt memo
under his signature, which were said to be handed over to CBI. He
also named both present revision petitioners in Criminal Revision
Application No.195 of 2025 to have visited the Gurukul Coaching
Classes i.e. on 24-02-2015 for conducting survey during which
original fees receipts were put to scrutiny. In his statement he has
stated that deal was settled for Rs.20,00,000/- and accused no.3
Nirmal Kumar Biswal has paid above amount to accused no.1 Zunzar
Pawar, through N.G.Kulkarni, a Tax Consultant. This witness seems
to be apparently staff of very coaching classes, whose premises were
allegedly raided. Likewise are the statements of other staff of the
coaching classes namely Santosh Ramdas Bobade, who was a
Counselor.
Therefore, from above discussion, there is material in the form
of statements of not only Income Tax Officials but also that of
{15} REVN 195 OF 2025 +
independent witnesses, who are none other than Marketing
Executive and Counselor of the Gurukul Coaching Classes which is
run by accused no.3.
18. As regards to revision petitioners in Criminal Revision
Application No.230 of 2025 namely Nirmal Kumar Biswal and
Nandkumar Gopalrao Kuilkarni are concerned, who are partner of
the classes and his Tax Consultant respectively, their roles are also
appearing in the above statements. Consequently, it cannot be said
that there is no incriminating material against them to make them
face charge or trial.
19. I have gone through the citations relied by the learned counsel
for the revision petitioners and there is not dispute about settled legal
position.
20. Precisely, here chargesheet has prima facie material against
revision petitioners. Resultantly, when no patent illegality, irregularity
or perversity at the hands of trial court is brought to the notice of this
Court, this Court refrains from disturbing or upsetting the impugned
order. Hence, both revision applications deserve to be dismissed.
Accordingly, following order is passed :
{16} REVN 195 OF 2025 +
ORDER
Criminal Revision Application Nos.195 of
2025 and 230 of 2025 are dismissed.
( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE )
JUDGE
SPT
