UMA SHANKAR MALVIYA Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the Court. - Heard the learned counsel for the .petitioner and learned Special P.P. for the prosecution.

(2.) THE petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connec40n with RC 5 -A/2010 AHD. Ranchi for the offence under Sections 109 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2)/13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(3.) THE allegation against the petitioner is of abetment in illegal acquisition of wealth by said Bhanu Pratap Shahi, with whom, the petitioner was attached as OSD. The charge sheet submitted by the C.B.I. shows that the petitioner had negotiated various deals through which immovable property were acquired by Bhanu Pratap Shahi in the names of other persons, about which, it is alleged in the charge sheet that the property dealer involved in the deal had disclosed before the C.B.I. that the actual payment of the said property was to the tune of Rs.1 crore, but as the documentary evidence was not supporting the same, its registered value was taken into account. It also appears that there was a trust in the name of Dehati Sthapna Nyas, which got registered on 13.03.2008. in which, there is allegation against the petitioner to have shown donations through the fictitious names and the donors were found to be fictitious persons and non -existant persons. In the charge sheet, the list of the witnesses has also been given, which includes the name of Shri Vinay Kumar Jalan. The statement of Shri Vinay Kumar Jalan was also recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., wherein the said Vinay Kumar Jalan has stated that he was running a law firm and the petitioner had brought the documents of the said trust for the registration before the Income Tax Commissioner. He has also stated that the donations were made in cash even though, donation of more than Rs.20.000/ - was not permitted to be made in cash. The statement of Vinay Kumar Jalan would further show that the petitioner had furnished a list of donors and on the instructions of this petitioner, the income tax return of those donors were prepared by Vinay Kumar Jalan. so as to show their validity before the Income Tax Authorities. He has also stated that actually the money shown as donations were the money of trusties themselves, as the persons who were shown as donors, had no capacity to make the donations of such amount. He has specifically mentioned about two persons, who had made donations, one of whom was a vegetable vendor and other was a newspaper vendor. He has so stated that whatever cash donations were made, they were undeclared money of the petitioner and other persons.