We are of the view that the Appellant’s wife’s income
must be considered as well while calculating the total
income and assets. Both the Appellant and his wife
have filed the relevant income tax returns in order to
show their respective incomes and assets. The
Respondents in their Counter-Affidavit have not
denied these income tax returns or alleged them to be
forged or fabricated. Therefore, when a public servant
is submitting his income tax returns, they should be
presumed to be true and correct. If you duly consider
the income tax returns of the Appellant and his wife
for the check period of the year 1996-2020, the total
income is coming up to be Rs.1,21,06,268/-(Rupees
One Crore Twenty One Lakh Six Thousand Two
Hundred Sixty Eight only) which is in fact more than
the assets amounting to Rs.1,16,02,669/- (Rupees
One Crore Sixteen Lakh Two Thousand Six Hundred
Sixty Nine only) which is said to be the
disproportionate assets in question under the present
FIR. {Para 9}
10. Further, we have considered that the check period is
from the year 1996 to 2020, which is almost twenty
five years. It must be taken into account that over
such a long period of time, there is inflation and a
natural progression in the changing economy that
affects the value of assets such as property. This can
understandably lead to discrepancies in declaring the
value of assets over the years. Therefore, there should
be a more dynamic approach while considering an
individual’s income and assets over the span of two
decades, such as in the present case. The notion that
the declared value of an asset such as property or gold
will remain static is flawed. This has to be considered
while examining an individual’s assets and income
while making a determination regarding
disproportionate assets. Such an examination needs
to reflect such adjustments and changes as is natural
with the progression of time.
11. We find it pertinent to note that in cases such as these
where disproportionate assets are being dealt with,
the amounts under scrutiny cannot be looked at in
the same manner as one would do a Bank statement
or daily ledger of income and expenditure. The
scrutiny process cannot be as mechanical as that
when you are examining declared assets and the
income of an individual over such a long period of
time. There has to be a certain margin that is given
while making such an assessment as there are
invariably economical fluctuations that would have
taken place, especially over the course of nearly
twenty-five years. It is crucial to have a nuanced
appreciation of how time and economic conditions
affect asset value in such cases.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.5009 OF 2024
[ARISING FROM SLP (Crl.) No. 10101/2024]
NIRANKAR NATH PANDEY Vs STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
Dated: DECEMBER 04, 2024.
1. Leave granted.
2. The Appeal before us is against the order of the High
Court of Allahabad dated 11.01.2024 whereby the
High Court has refused to quash the FIR lodged
against the Appellant.
3. The factual background of the present case is that FIR
No.0002 of 2023 dated 17.10.2023 was registered as
Case Crime No.0002 of 2023 against the Appellant
under Section 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988(Hereinafter, PC
Act). The Appellant filed Criminal Miscellaneous Writ
Petition No.18777 of 2023 before the High Court for
quashing of the said FIR. The High Court vide order
dated 11.01.2024 dismissed the Appellant’s Writ
Petition. Aggrieved by this, the Appellant is before us.
4. Prior to the present FIR, another FIR was lodged in the
year 2018, bearing Case Crime No.476 of 2018 for
offences under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 13(1)(d)
and 13(2) of the PC Act in Police Station Kotwali,
District Fatehpur, U.P against some officials of the
Excise Department, U.P., wherein the present
Appellant was implicated and he was subsequently
enlarged on bail. This Case Crime No.476 of 2018 is
pending before the Trial Court.
5. Due to the earlier FIR, a notice dated 25.08.2020 was
issued to the Appellant by the Department of Vigilance
Establishment, U.P. whereby the Appellant was
directed to submit the Statement of Declaration of
Assets and other income details. Pursuant to this
notice, the Appellant submitted all such details before
the Uttar Pradesh Vigilance Department.
6. The Appellant was working as Assistant Excise
Commissioner when the Uttar Pradesh Vigilance
Establishment initiated an inquiry against him. This
open inquiry disclosed the Appellant’s income from
known and legitimate sources during the period of
checking as Rs.94,28,605/- (Rupees Ninety Four Lakh
Twenty Eight Thousand Six Hundred Five only). For
the same period, the Appellant was found to have
amassed assets including living expenses worth
Rs.1,16,02,669/- (Rupees One Crore Sixteen Lakh
Two Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Nine only). The
Appellant is said to have amassed assets including
expenses of around Rs.21,74,064/- (Twenty One Lakh
Seventy Four Thousand Sixty Four only) more than
his known income. This is said to be the
disproportionate assets in question. The Inquiry
Report was forwarded to the Government on
20.03.2023 by the Joint Director, Uttar Pradesh
Vigilance Establishment and directions were issued
vide Demi-Government Letter dated 20.04.2023
issued by the Vigilance Department, Government of
U.P. for institution of criminal proceedings against the
Appellant. Consequent to this, the present FIR was
registered against the Appellant based on the
complaint of Inspector, Uttar Pradesh Vigilance
Establishment Sector, Ayodhya.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the relevant material.
8. The Appellant has declared his and his wife’s assets
consequent to notice dated 25.08.2020. It is stated
that the wife of the Appellant is also earning from
teaching yoga, agriculture, and from receiving house
rent. It is submitted that the Appellant’s total income
since 1996 to 2020 is Rs.75,73,676/- (Seventy-Five
Lakh Seventy-Three Thousand Six Hundred Seventy
Six only) and the income of his wife during the
aforesaid period is about Rs.41,67,592/- (Rupees
Forty One Lakh Sixty Seven Thousand Five Hundred
Ninety Two only). These declarations are supported by
the relevant income tax returns. The ornaments of the
Appellant’s wife have been sold for an amount of
Rs.2,16,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Sixteen Thousand
only) and the Appellant received Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh only)from a Life Insurance Policy
4
plus there is an amount of Rs.49,000/- (Rupees Forty
Nine Thousand only)that was given to the Appellant by
his father. Therefore, the total income and assets of
the Appellant and his wife has been submitted to be
Rs.1,21,06,268/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty One
Lakh Six Thousand Two Hundred Sixty Eight only)
during the period of 1996 to June 2020. Further, the
Appellant has explained and submitted documents
regarding the properties owned by him and his wife
and a loan given by the Bank. This has not been
considered by the Uttar Pradesh Vigilance
Department. The present FIR is lodged on the basis of
the Uttar Pradesh Vigilance Establishment prima facie
finding the Appellant guilty. However, if we consider
the declared assets of the Appellant and his wife for
the aforesaid period it comes up to Rs.1,21,06,268/-
(Rupees One Crore Twenty One Lakh Six Thousand
Two Hundred Sixty Eight only). The present FIR states
the disproportionate assets to be Rs.1,16,02,669/-
(Rupees One Crore Sixteen Lakh Two Thousand Six
Hundred Sixty Nine only) for the same period.
9. We are of the view that the Appellant’s wife’s income
must be considered as well while calculating the total
income and assets. Both the Appellant and his wife
have filed the relevant income tax returns in order to
show their respective incomes and assets. The
Respondents in their Counter-Affidavit have not
denied these income tax returns or alleged them to be
forged or fabricated. Therefore, when a public servant
is submitting his income tax returns, they should be
presumed to be true and correct. If you duly consider
the income tax returns of the Appellant and his wife
for the check period of the year 1996-2020, the total
income is coming up to be Rs.1,21,06,268/-(Rupees
One Crore Twenty One Lakh Six Thousand Two
Hundred Sixty Eight only) which is in fact more than
the assets amounting to Rs.1,16,02,669/- (Rupees
One Crore Sixteen Lakh Two Thousand Six Hundred
Sixty Nine only) which is said to be the
disproportionate assets in question under the present
FIR.
10. Further, we have considered that the check period is
from the year 1996 to 2020, which is almost twenty
five years. It must be taken into account that over
such a long period of time, there is inflation and a
natural progression in the changing economy that
affects the value of assets such as property. This can
understandably lead to discrepancies in declaring the
value of assets over the years. Therefore, there should
be a more dynamic approach while considering an
individual’s income and assets over the span of two
decades, such as in the present case. The notion that
the declared value of an asset such as property or gold
will remain static is flawed. This has to be considered
while examining an individual’s assets and income
while making a determination regarding
disproportionate assets. Such an examination needs
to reflect such adjustments and changes as is natural
with the progression of time.
11. We find it pertinent to note that in cases such as these
where disproportionate assets are being dealt with,
the amounts under scrutiny cannot be looked at in
the same manner as one would do a Bank statement
or daily ledger of income and expenditure. The
scrutiny process cannot be as mechanical as that
when you are examining declared assets and the
income of an individual over such a long period of
time. There has to be a certain margin that is given
while making such an assessment as there are
invariably economical fluctuations that would have
taken place, especially over the course of nearly
twenty-five years. It is crucial to have a nuanced
appreciation of how time and economic conditions
affect asset value in such cases.
12. This Court has held in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan
Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 that when allegations made in
the first information report or the complaint, even if
they are taken at their face value do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case against the
accused, powers under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India could be exercised to prevent abuse of the
process of any court. We find that the present FIR in
question and the case against the Appellant is covered
under these findings in Bhajan Lal (supra).
13. In view of the above discussion, we find it appropriate
to quash FIR No, 0002 of 2023 dated 17.10.2023
pending against the Appellant. Consequently, the
appeal is allowed.
14. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.
....................,J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
....................,J.
(PRASANNA B. VARALE)
NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 04, 2024.
Print Page
No comments:
Post a Comment