We saw how just as recently as on October 25, 2023, the Bombay High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment titled Anil Goel vs Union of India & Anr in Criminal Revision Application No. 183 of 2023 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2023:BHC-AS:34772 in the exercise of its criminal appellate jurisdiction after critically perusing the facts of the case and analyzing all the evidence available before it discharged former Chief Commissioner of Income Tax – Mr. Anil Goel from a corruption case for allegedly occupying a flat without paying rent while being posted in Kerala. We must note that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Ms. Justice Bharati Dangre observed that Goel did not have existing official dealing with the firm from which he allegedly obtained undue benefits thus rejecting the prosecution’s argument that if a business connection is made in future, offence under Section 11 (public servant obtaining undue advantage from person concerned in official dealings) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is made out. The Court observed that Goel had borne all necessary expenses for the flat, including maintenance, electricity and societal charges. The Court also questioned the absence of any notice or demand for rent and pointed out that the service charge was borne by Goel. It must be noted that while setting aside the Special CBI Court’s order, the Bombay High Court discharged Goel allowing his Criminal Revision Application.
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Ms. Justice Bharati Dangare sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “F.I.R.No. RC/18(A)/2015 dated 18/12/2015 is lodged by the CBI, ACB, Cochin for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 12, & 13(2) read with 13(1)(a) & (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, “the P.C.Act”) read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”). A primary charge-sheet was fled against the other accused persons named in the F.I.R. , leaving out the Applicant and even during the course of investigation from 2015 to 2019, he was never arrested. On 31/07/2019, C.B.I. fled the supplementary charge sheet against the Applicant, accusing of committing an offence under Section 11 of the P.C. Act. The allegation levelled against him is that, while functioning as Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCIT) from the period between 01/01/2014 to 31/12/2015, he occupied a flat (guesthouse) belonging to M/s Heera Constructions, without payment of any rent. It is a claim of the C.B.I. that as M/s Heera Constructions fell within the assessment jurisdiction of the Applicant, the act of staying in the flat, without payment of rent, constitutes the offence under Section 11 of the P.C. Act. The investigation had revealed that Heera Constructions had taken the subject flat used by it as guesthouse on lease from another private person. On being taken on lease, the lease rent was paid by it. The Applicant is alleged to have stayed in the Apartment, free of cost, by abusing the official position, as Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram. It is alleged that rent of Rs.4,40,000/- was paid by M/s Heera Constructions Pvt. Ltd. to the owner of the Apartment. The charge-sheet also allege that Mr.Sarath (Accused No.2), the Income Tax Officer (ITO), knowing that M/s Heera Constructions (Heera Builders) has official dealing with Mr. Anil Goel (Applicant), told Shri Ram Pillai Bhadra Kumar, the Chartered Accountant and Income Tax Consultant for M/s Heera Constructions, to arrange a guesthouse and, hence, Apartment No.1 A in Heera Velmont Palace, was taken on lease from the owner of the Apartment. It is alleged that Heera Builders paid rent of Rs.20,000/- per month for the period from February 2014 to January 2015 (12 months) and Rs.25,000/- per month from February 2015 to September 2015 (8 months) i.e. Heera Builders paid total rent of Rs.4.4 lakhs to Mrs. Nanma Jayan for the stay of the Applicant in the flat.”
As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 2 that, “The Applicant fled an application under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”), seeking transfer of the proceedings pending before the Special Judge at Thiruvananthapuram to any Special Court at Mumbai and the Apex Court, by order dated 28/03/2022, transferred the proceedings to the Special Court at Mumbai, with direction that the proceedings shall be decided expeditiously. Subsequent to the transfer of the proceedings, the Applicant moved an application for his release on bail, post filing of the charge-sheet on the ground that he was never arrested during investigation and the same is allowed by the Special Court for C.B.I. at Greater Bombay on 19/09/2022.”
Briefly stated, the Bench envisages in para 3 that, “In CBI Special Case No.751 of 2022, the Applicant moved an application for discharge under Section 227 of the CrPC, by submitting that on a bare perusal of the applicable Section 7 of the PC Act, it is evident that in order to sustain an allegation under Section 11, public servant must accept or obtain or attempt to obtain for himself, or for any other person, “any valuable thing without consideration” or for a consideration, which he knows to be inadequate. It was, therefore, submitted that since the Applicant had borne all the charges i.e. phone bill, electricity bill and society maintenance charges amounting to Rs.50,000/- for the flat/guesthouse for the entire period, when he was deputed in Kerala notwithstanding the fact that he used only one room not more than eight months, in no way it can be alleged that he has received “any valuable thing”. It is also submitted that he was never benefited in any manner and has unjustly enriched himself, as there is no reference to the reciprocal benefit to the owner of the flat/guesthouse. The application is rejected on 13/02/2023 by the Special Court for CBI.”
Quite significantly, the Bench points out in para 7 that, “The moot question that arises for consideration, as rightly put forth by Mr. Ponda is, whether staying in the flat by bearing the necessary expenses towards maintenance, electricity bill, water tax, can it be said that the Applicant was staying free of cost. The Applicant came to Thiruvananthapuram as CCIT and his sub-ordinate i.e. the ITO showed him the flat, which he was to occupy. Apparently, he did not make any inquiries, unaware about the ownership of the flat or it’s possession. If it is the allegation that he continued to reside free of cost, then why no notice was ever issued and in fact, the charge-sheet disclose that the service charge, as directed to be paid, was borne by the Applicant from January 2014 to November 2015. The charge-sheet also include the statement of Shri Vijaya B. Panicker, father of the owner of the flat, Smt.Nanma Jayan, who has given his statement to the effect that he had approached Heera Constructions for renting out the flat, as it intended to take the same on lease for guesthouse purpose and the Lease Deed was signed between him and M.D. of Heera Constructions, Dr.A.R.Babu and the amount towards rent was transferred by Heera Constructions to his daughter’s account. He stated that the flat was subleted on rent to one Jaykumar, after September 2015 and he had not seen Anil Goel, who has stayed in the flat.”
It cannot be glossed over that the Bench discloses in para 8 that, “The charge-sheet also compromise of the statement of one Abdul Rashid Babu, the Managing Director of Heera Builders, who states that the guesthouse was requested for few days, but since no guesthouse was available, the flat was provided to the Applicant as temporary arrangement, but the Applicant did not vacate the flat. Not a single letter/communication is addressed to the Applicant, asking him to vacate the flat nor a demand is raised for payment of rent.”
Finally and far most significantly, the Bench concludes by holding in para 9 that, “Whether the Applicant had any knowledge about the requirement of payment of rent is an important question and, since, he was asked to occupy the said flat by the ITO, and was never apprised that he shall bear the rent for the same, it cannot be accepted that he was aware about the rent to be paid and the flat is leased out by the owner to M/s Heera Constructions. Further, in absence of any material to show that there was any business transacted or about to be transacted by him in respect of M/s Heera Builders as an ‘Assessee’ and as Mr. Shirsat would submit sometimes in future, M/s Heera Constructions would have been subjected to assessment or even if he was assessee, he may have some dealing in future, in my considered opinion, is an incomprehensible argument, as in Thiruvananthapuram, there may be large number of assessee and it cannot be speculated that there is going to be a future transaction or business connect with either of them. In absence of this relevant material in the charge-sheet, which would constitute as a ground for presuming that the Applicant has committed the offence, the charge must be considered to be groundless, which is a same thing as saying that there is no ground for framing the charge. The impugned order, by relying upon the statement of R. K. Babu and Ram Pillai Bhadra Kumar, has concluded that the Applicant occupied the flat, but has failed to pay the rent and this act is sufficient to make out a prima facie offence under Section 11 read with Section 12 of the P.C. Act though Accused No.2-Sarath was refused sanction and he was not charge-sheeted and, hence, the offence under Sections 34 and 120-B of the IPC is not made out. In absence of establishing that the flat has been enjoyed free of cost and it has a connect with the duty to be discharged by the Applicant in relation to the assessee, merely because a assessee fall within his jurisdiction, it cannot be said that the ingredients of Section 11 are made out. Hence, the Applicant has been wrongly charge sheeted and deserve a discharge. By setting aside the impugned order dated 13/02/2023, the Applicant is discharged from Special Case No.751 of 2022. Cri. Revision Application stands allowed as above.”
In conclusion, we thus see that the Single Judge Bench of the Bombay High Court comprising of Hon’ble Ms. Justice Bharati Dangre very rightly discharges former Chief Commissioner of Income Tax – Mr. Anil Goel in a corruption case. All the charges of abusing his official position could not be actually substantiated. So no wonder that Mr. Goel was thus very rightly discharged! No denying it!
Author Bio
