The applicant Ex CIT sought the following reliefs in appeal:
(i) To set aside & quash the order dated 14.02.2020 of learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption, CBII, Ghaziabad by which the cognizance has been taken by the Court in the matter of CBI RC 1202019A0004 dated 04.07.2019 filed by the CBI.
(ii) To also set aside & quash the Charge sheet dated 14.02.2020 under Section 120B & 420 IPC, 1860 r.w. Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 & which has been forwarded by I.O., ACB, CBI, Ghaziabad in CBI RC1202019A0004 dated 04.07.2019.
(iii) To grant Ad-interim ex-parte stay of proceedings in CBI RC No. 1202019A0004 dated 04.07.2019 u/s 120B & 420 IPC, 1860 & Section 7 of P.C. Act, 1988 & to further grant Ad-interim Ex-parte stay on all the consequential proceedings initiated or bring initiated based upon CBI RC No. 1202019A0004 dated 04.07.2019 & Chargesheet.
(iv) To summon the records of the Trial Court of the present case.”
The facts, for the purposes of the case, briefly stated, is that the C.B.I. registered a regular case on the written complaint of Director General of Income Tax (Vigilance) on directions of the Commissioner, Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi, dated 1 July 2019. The allegation against the applicant, a (compulsory) retired official while posted as Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) (for short ‘CIT(A)-I’), with additional charge of CIT(A)-II Noida, during December 2018 to 11 June 2019, indulged in acts of omission and commission adverse to the interest of revenue. It is further alleged that the orders passed by the applicant in the capacity of an appellate authority were antedated i.e. after his retirement on 11 June 2019. The orders were uploaded on the ITBA system after demitting office. The investigation further reveals falsification of records; it is further alleged that during this period 13 appeals was decided by the applicant in conspiracy with co-accused Anil Kumar (Chartered Accountant), which were beyond the jurisdiction of CIT(A) Noida. These appeals fall within the jurisdiction of CIT(A) Ghaizabad. It is alleged that the appellate orders were procured orders for extraneous consideration. The applicant never held the charge of CIT(A) Ghaziabad during the period September 2018 to 11 June 2019.
In the present case, the allegation against the applicant during December 2018 to 11 June 2019, indulged in acts of omission and commission adverse to the interest of revenue. It is further alleged that the orders passed by the applicant in the capacity of an appellate authority were antedated i.e. after his retirement on 11 June 2019. The orders were uploaded on the ITBA system after determining the office.
High Court states that, the allegation against the applicant is that by virtue of his position as appellate authority he dishonestly and fraudulently adjudicated 13 appeals outside his jurisdiction conspiring with the co-accused, thereby, causing wrongful loss at Rs. 7.26 crores to the revenue. Therefore, the court, while dismissing the appeal opined that there is prima facie evidence in support of the charges. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that the criminal prosecution does not constitute the ingredients of the offence against the applicant, lacks substance. – [S. K. Srivastava, IRS (Retd.) v. CBI & 4 Ors. – Date of Judgement : 04.11.2020 (All.)]