Case Law Details
CBI Vs Prithvi Raj Meena (District Court Delhi)
1. Introduction: Complainant Sh. Krishan Kumar is one of the partners of a firm known as M/s Square 9 Inn. Sh. P.R. Meena/Accused No.1 was the Income Tax Officer (ITO) dealing with the ITR of the said firm. Sh. Deepak Aggarwal/Accused No. 2 is a Chartered Accountant in the firm known as M/s. P.K. Garg and Associates. Ms. Parul Garg/Accused No. 3 is also a Chartered Accountant in the said firm and is daughter of Sh. P.K. Garg and Sh. P.K. Garg is the husband of daughter of sister of Sh. Krishan Kumar/the complainant i.e. complainant is the maternal uncle of the wife of Sh.P.K.Garg. The share of Sh. P.K. Garg in this firm is 55%, shares of Accused No. 2 Sh. Deepak Aggarwal and Accused No. 3 Ms. Parul Garg are 15% each and one Sh. Satish Gupta is having remaining 15% share in the said firm.
2. Chargesheet: The firm M/s Square 9 Inn had received a notice from Income Tax Department on 15.09.2015 regarding assessment of income for the Assessment Year 2013-2014. The complainant contacted his Chartered Accountant Sh. Deepak Aggarwal who dealt with the said notice. The complainant was told by Sh. Deepak Aggarwal that the ITO is demanding bribe of Rs. 5 Lacs and the complainant is required to meet him for settling this amount. A meeting was fixed between the complainant and the said ITO on 22.02.2016 between 3:00 to 4:00 pm at Income Tax Office.
3 Since the complainant did not want to give the bribe, he gave a written complaint in the office of CBI on 22.02.2016 mentioning all these facts and requested action as per law.
4. The complaint was marked to Sh. S.P. Singh, Inspector CBI for verification who arranged presence of independent witness Sh. Subhash Kumar, LDC, Service Tax Department, New Delhi. A DVR and a new memory card Sandisk 4 GB were arranged from the caretaker of the CBI office and after ensuring that the DVR and the memory cards are blank, the formal voice of the independent witness was recorded in the memory card through DVR. The independent witness, Inspector Sh. S.P. Singh and the complainant, duly armed with the said DVR, went to the office of Accused No. 1 Sh. P.R. Meena but to avoid any suspicion, the complainant went alone to meet the said Income Tax Officer in order to record the conversation with the help of said DVR containing the memory card, in recording mode. The complainant went inside the room of Accused No. 1 at about 15:15 hours and came out after about 25 minutes. The DVR was taken from the complainant and it was switched off by the Verifying Officer.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
