- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) IT will be appropriate to first mention here that the counsel for the respondent no.17 submitted that, against the respondent no.17 no investigation is being conducted by the C.B.I. and that is because of the reason that Income Tax Department or State Vigilance Department did not find anything against the respondent no.17. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is clear from the various orders passed in this case and specifically in view of the order dated 04.08.2010, it has already been made clear by the Court that there may be no involvement of the person against whom there is allegation of involvement in the criminal activities and at the same time, there may be possibility that some other persons against whom there is no allegation, he may also involve in the criminal activities. It is also submitted that Income Tax Department and the State Vigilance Department were supposed to give requisite information to the C.B.I. in all matters irrespective of sending of two matters by this Court by above order to the C.B.I. because of the reason that there was a large scale bungling, and therefore, by order dated 04.08.2010, two matters, which were matured were referred to the C.B.I. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Income Tax Department already found assets, which was the assets beyond the proportion to the income of the respondents, and therefore, it was a disproportionate asset's case. But, those matters have not yet been handed over to the C.B.I. and the C.B.I. also is not even preliminarily investigated into the matter. Learned counsel for the Income Tax Department wants some time to place on record certain material facts, which may be relevant for the purpose of passing further order by this Court.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the C.B.I. submitted that the C.B.I. may undertake only those cases, which have been assigned to the C.B.I. by specific order either by the Central Government or by the Court's order and at this stage only two cases have been referred to the C.B.I. for which they are proceeding and the challan has been filed in those two cases. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. also submitted the progress report, which we are taking on record. However, that progress report will be considered on next date. Income Tax Department and State Vigilance Department may submit their affidavit and Income Tax Department may state with respect to the fact of the case of individual respondent i.e. the respondent No.14 to 20, and it state, on oath, whether they found the case of disproportionate assets within their jurisdiction of the assessment of the particular assessee. The State Vigilance Department may also state whether they have found any criminality in their any of the enquiry or investigation.;