Swetabh Suman Vs Central Bureau of Investigation (Uttarakhand High Court)
The conviction of the appellant Swetabh Suman for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is upheld and confirmed. The sentence imposed on the appellant Swetabh Suman under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is also upheld and confirmed.
The appellant Swetabh Suman is convicted under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant Swetabh Suman shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months.
Criminal Appeal No. 164 of 2019 is disposed of with the above modification in the conviction and sentence of the appellant Swetabh Suman.
On the death of the appellant Gulab Devi, the appeals filed by her, namely, Criminal Appeal Nos. 138 of 2019 and 139 of 2019 are abated.
The appellantsDr. Arun Kumar Singh and Rajendra Vikram Singh are convicted under Section 109 IPC read with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The appellant Dr. Arun Kumar Singh is sentenced under Section 109 IPC read with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 years and a fine of Rs. 20,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant Dr. Arun Kumar Singh shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of four months.
The appellant Rajendra Vikram Singh is sentenced under Section 109 IPC read with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 years and a fine of Rs. 20,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant Rajendra Vikram Singh shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of four months.
Criminal Appeal Nos. 116 of 2019 and 125 of 2019 are disposed of with the above modification in the conviction and sentence.
The order passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 09 of 2014 on the application under Section 3 of Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance (No. 38) of 1944, read with Section 5(6) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is upheld and confirmed.
Criminal Appeal Nos. 115 of 2019 is dismissed accordingly. Criminal Appeal No. 125 of 2019 is dismissed to the extent it challenged the judgment and order dated 13.02.2019 passed in the Miscellaneous Case. The other directions given in the impugned judgment and order shall remain unaltered.
The appellants Shwetabh Suman, Dr. Arun Kumar Singh and Rajendra Vikram Singh are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged of their liability. They be taken into custody to serve out the sentence imposed on them.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Since common questions of facts and law are involved in all these appeals, they are heard together and being decided by this common judgment.
2. Present appealsare preferred against the judgment and order dated 13.02.2019 passed in CBI Case No. 12 of 2010, CBI v. Swetabh Suman and others (“the case”), and in Miscellaneous Case No. 09 of 2014, CBI v. Swetabh Suman and others, by the court of Special Judge/CBI, Dehradun (“the Miscellaneous Case”).
3. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellant Swetabh Suman (hereinafter referred to as “A1”), has been convicted under Section 11 and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13(1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”) and sentenced as hereunder:-
(i) Under Section 11 of the Act – Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a further period of two months.
(ii) Under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13(1) (e) of the Act – Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and a fine of Rs. 3,50,70,414/-. In default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a further period of 18 months.
4. The appellant Gulab Devi (hereinafter referred to as “A-2) has been convicted under Section 109 IPC read with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) and Section 11 of the Act, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a further period of two months.
5. The appellant Arun Kumar Singh (hereinafter referred to as “A-3”) has been convicted under Section 109 IPC read with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) and Section 11 of the Act, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 years and a fine of Rs. 20,000/-. In default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a further period of four months.
6. The appellant Rajendra Vikram Singh (hereinafter referred to as “A-4) has been convicted under Section 109 IPC read with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) and Section 11 of the Act, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 years and a fine of Rs. 20,000/-. In default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a further period of four months.
7. By the impugned judgment and order, the following properties have been confiscated in favour of the Government of India under the provisions of Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance (No. 38) of 1944(“the Ordinance”), read with Section 5(6) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:-
(i) Rs. 1,00,000/- cash, which were recovered from the search of the house of A-1.
(ii) House No. 169/21, Rajpur Road, Dehradun, registered in the name of A-2.
(iii) Plot No. 10, Block C, Sector 50, Noida, registered in the name of A-2.
(iv) Honda City Car bearing registration No. DL 2C F 0021, registered in the name of A-2.
(v) Hotel Uruvela International, Bodhgaya, Bihar, registered in the name of A-3.
(vi) Flat No. B-122, Panchwati Apartment, Sector 62, Noida, registered in the name of A-4.
(vii) Flat No. 303, IRS, Officers Society, V-33, Vatayan Nehru Enclave, Gomtinagar, Lucknow.
(viii) Land situated at Village Pondha, which were purchased in the name of Abhay Kumar Singh by way of the following sale deeds:-
(a) Sale Deed No. 4069 dated 03.12.2002
(b) Sale Deed No. 721 dated 24.02.2003
(c) Sale Deed No. 722 dated 24.02.2003
(d) Sale Deed No. 75 dated 08.01.2003
(e) Sale Deed No. 723 dated 24.02.2003
(f) Sale Deed No. 1641 dated 14.05.2003
(g) Sale Deed No. 3343 dated 23.07.2004
(h) Sale Deed No. 429 dated 05.02.2004
(i) Sale Deed No. 3344 dated 23.07.2004
(ix) Land situated at Village Pondha, which were purchased in the name of Vinay Kumar by way of sale deeds as hereunder:-
(a) Sale Deed No. 2693 dated 09.08.2002
(b) Sale Deed No. 934 dated 19.03.2003
(c) Sale Deed No. 2753 dated 16.08.2002
8. Criminal Appeal No. 164 of 2019 has been preferred by A-1 against his conviction and sentence recorded in the case.
9. Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 2019 has been preferred by A-3 against the order of confiscation of Hotel Uruvela International Bodhgaya, Bihar, as recorded in the Miscellaneous Case. A-3 has also preferred Criminal Appeal No. 116 of 2019 against his conviction and sentence recorded in the case.
10. Criminal Appeal No. 125 of 2019 has been preferred by A-4 challenging the impugned judgment and order passed in the case as well as in the Miscellaneous Case.
11. Criminal Appeal No. 138 of 2019 has been preferred by A-2 against her conviction and sentence recorded in the case. In Criminal Appeal No. 139 of 2019, A-3 has challenged the order passed in the Miscellaneous Case, by which the properties have been confiscated.
FACTS
The Appellants:
12. Before the facts are narrated, it would be apt to first narrate about the status of the appellants, which is as hereunder:-
(i) A-1 was the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamshedpur, when the FIR was lodged against him. He is a permanent resident of Village Bara, Tehsil Nabinagar, District Aurangabad, Bihar. He joined Group “A” services on 09.01.1989.
(ii) A-2 is the mother of A-1. The details of her children are as hereunder:-
(a) Elder son is Amitabh Suman, a doctor settled in U.S.A.
(b) Second son is A-1.
(c) Youngest son Arunabh Suman, practicing as an Advocate in Delhi since 2000.
(d) Mrs. Suniti Suman, the daughter, who is married to A-3. She was working as a Lecturer.
(e) Mrs. Supreeti Suman (daughter), working as a Lecturer.
(iii) A-3 is the husband of the sister of A-1.
He at the relevant time was Reader in the Magadh University, Bodhgaya.
(iv) A-4 at the relevant time was working in the Education Department in Dehradun
Prosecution Case:
13. The CBI, Dehradun received a reliable source information that A-1, working as Additional Commissioner, Income Tax, Jamshedpur was leading a luxurious life and had amassed assets in his own name, in the names of A-2 and other family members and benamis between 1.4.1997 and 31.03.2004, which prima facie appears to be disproportionate to his known source of income. The check period in the FIR was between 01.04.1997 and 31.03.2004. The properties, which were mentioned in the source information were:–
(i) Plot No. 169/21, Rajpur Road, Dehradun measuring 752.50 sq.mts. in the name of A-2 and sister Smt. Suniti Suman. A very huge house was constructed on it in the year 2001-03 at the cost of more than Rs. one crore;
(ii) Agricultural land measuring 14.435 acres in village Pondha, Dehradun in the name of different persons purchased by A-1 during July, 2002 to March, 2003 for a total amount of Rs. 18,17,500/-, whereas the market value of the land was about Rs. one crore.
(iii) A-1 also purchased Plot No. 10, Block C, Sector 50, Noida, Gautam Buddha Nagar, U.P.in the name of A-2 for Rs. 15,20,640/-. The cost of the land was about Rs. 60,00,000/-.
(v) A-1 owns a hotel, namely, Uruvela International at Bodhgaya, Bihar about five years back since receipt of source information. Details of source information have been given in the FIR, which is as hereunder:-
