- (1.) THE petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482, Cr PC for quashment of the order taking cognizance dated 7.12.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge -cum -Special Judge, CBI, Dhanbad in RC 1(A)/04/C.B.I./ A.H.D./Ranchi for the offence under Section 13(2) read with 13 (1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and also the entire criminal proceeding against him.
(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that the FIR of the case was registered on 8.3.2004 at CBI/AHD/Ranchi by Shri R.C. Chaudhary, S.P./C.B.I./A.H.D./Ranchi on the basis of information received through 'source ' to the effect that the petitioner Mukteshwar Prasad Singh, while was functioning as Inspector of Income Tax in the office of Income Tax Commissioner, Dhanbad and in various capacity during the period 1978 to 2003 acquired properties by corrupt practices and illegal means and for such possession he could not give satisfactory account. It was further alleged that the petitioner was in possession of the properties worth Rs. 30 lakhs approximately, in the form of house, homestead land etc. in his own name as well as in the name of the members of his family which was acquired during 1978 to 2003 whereas the petitioner had received during such period, a total income of Rs. 15.54 lakhs from his salary and house rent being the known source. The household expenditure of the petitioner was estimated at Rs. 3,74,000/ - and his likely saving at Rs. 11,80,000/ -. the extent of the disproportionate assets was counted at Rs. 18,20,000/ - and according the case was registered under Section 5 (2) read with Section 5(1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 corresponding to Section 13(2) read with Section 13 (1) (e) of the P.C. Act, 1988. The CBI after investigation submitted charge -sheet on 30.7.2005 against the petitioner before the Special Court and the Commissioner of Income Tax -I, Patna vide order dated 20th July, 2005 accorded sanction for prosecution against the petitioner under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that without conducting a preliminary enquiry into the matter and allegation on the complaint from source the FIR was instituted by the Superintendent of Police CBI in haste. The case was investigated after the institution of FIR by Shri Manas Kumar Bakshi, Sub -Inspector of Police, A.H.D./ Ranchi who was not a competent officer for investigation of the present case under specific provision of Section 17 of the P.C. Act, 1988. The provisions of Section 17 of the P.C. Act authorizes only Inspector of Police to make investigation in such cases and therefore, the investigation conducted by the officer below the rank of Inspector vitiates the entire investigation and accordingly the order taking cognizance of the offence is erroneous, which is unsustainable.
(3.) ADVANCING his argument, learned counsel with reference to the letter of Assistant Valuation Officer dated 22.3.2005 (Annexure -5) addressed to Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle V, Patna devised the competent authority in the valuation of the properties of different gradations. The said letter communicated that Assistant Valuation Officer would assess the estimate cost of the construction of the properties up -to 10 lakhs. Valuation Officer upto 50 lakhs and District Valuation Officer above 50 lakhs but in the instant case the valuation of the property of the petitioner was made by the District Valuation Officer, Kanpur who was not a competent officer and that it was not prima facie assessed that the properties of the petitioner valued to be more than 50 lakhs. It was a fact that Assistant Valuation Officer was posted at Ranchi and Valuation Officer was posted at Patna but due to vested interest the work of valuation was assigned to the District Valuation Officer posted at Kanpur without any explanation. It would be relevant to mention that the valuation made by the District Valuation Officer, Kanpur was based upon the valuation of the property on the day of search and seizure and the settled principle of law is that the valuation of property for the purpose of determining the disproportionate assets is to be made on the basis of the market rate of the property during the purchase and not the current.;