Shambhu Prasad Singh vs C.B.I.
2010 Latest Caselaw 2225 Del

32
*    IN    THE    HIGH       COURT     OF    DELHI      AT    NEW      DELHI

+    W.P.(CRL) 640/2010

     SHAMBHU PRASAD SINGH                      ..... Petitioner
                  Through Mr.Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Advocate with
                  Mr.Pramod Kr. Dubey, Mr.Sri Singh, Mr. Sajal
                  Dhamija, advocates.

                   versus

     CBI                                           ..... Respondent
                            Through Mr. Vikas Pahwa, advocate.


     CORAM:
     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA


                              ORDER

% 27.04.2010

1. This Petition is directed against the Order dated 26th March, 2010 framing Charge against the petitioner under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Though a number of contentions have been raised in the Petition, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued two contentions. It is pointed out that the check period in the present case, 1st January, 1995 and 9th August, 2002 had breaks during which the petitioner herein was not a public servant. It is stated that these breaks were of about four months, six days and about one month and the learned Trial Court has wrongly taken these breaks as merely 22 days. My attention in this regard is drawn to page 4 of the charge-sheet (page 41 of the paper book). Secondly, it is submitted that the learned Special Judge has held that the onus to prove income earned during these break periods is upon the petitioner.

2. Even if it is presumed for the sake of argument that the breaks during the check period are not merely 22 days but four months, six days and about one month, I do not think the impugned Order requires interference in view of the allegations made in the charge-sheet. The charge-sheet is fairly detailed and has given list of assets, both movable and immovable, in the name of the petitioner and his wife which were acquired during the period 1st January, 1995 till 8th August, 2002. As per the charge sheet the petitioner/his wife are in possession of disproportionate assets worth Rs. 54,24,564/-. It does not appeal to reason that the petitioner could have earned Rs.54,24,564/- during the short breaks of four months, six days and about one month. Further whether or not the petitioner had earned any substantial income or any income during this period is a question of evidence and has to be examined by the trial Court. It has to be examined whether or not the petitioner was working during the said breaks. It may require examination of the income tax returns and other evidence.

3. Learned counsel for the CBI has drawn my attention to page 43 of the paper book (page 6 of the chargesheet) and it is pointed out that the petitioner was in service and had drawn salary upto 14th September, 1995 and thereafter had rejoined service on 15th September, 1995 and it is incorrect to state that there was break in service of four months. Learned counsel further submits that the total break in service was for 24 days, i.e. four days, eighteen days and two days.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the charge should be bifurcated into three charges i.e. when there was a break, a new period had started and a separate charge should have been framed. I do not agree with this contention. Breaks in service as alleged by the petitioner are not substantial and do not materially affect the case of the prosecution. The object of the Charge is to make the petitioner/accused aware of the allegations which he has to meet and contest. To this extent, the impugned Order or charge is clear.

5. The second contention raised by the petitioner also does not affect the merits of the Order dated 26th March, 2010. The question of burden of proof, onus, etc is to be examined at the time of judgment. At this stage, learned Trial Court is only required to take a prima facie view and decide whether there are good grounds to proceed against the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the statements of the mother, wife and other family members have not been taken into consideration. My attention in this connection was drawn to Order dated 3rd October, 2008 (page 75 of the paper book) passed in Crl.M.C. No.1168/2009. This again does not affect the Order dated 26th March, 2010. The allegations in the chargesheet and the prima facie findings recorded in the Order dated 26th March, 2010 passed by the learned Special Judge in the impugned Order do not require interference on this ground.

Petition is accordingly dismissed.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

APRIL    27, 2010.
P