0

The account which is frenzied by the order of the special court will not be operated : High Court of New Delhi .

The extra amount which was received from one of the parties is to be impugned transaction and also it can’t be prima facie termed as case property, this was held in the judgement passed by a single bench judge comprising HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE  MUKTA GUPTA, in the matter Ravina and Associates PVT LTD & ANR V. Central Bureau Of Investigation & ANR, dealt with an issue where the entire amount frozen London and transferred to India in the case property.

In this case, the petitioners under Sections 451/457CrPC And the other filed by the Income Tax Authorities under Section 226(4)of the Income Tax Act 1961 were dismissed, the petitioners prefer the present petition. 2 Applications were filed that the above – noted FIR was lodged on 6th March 2006 by the CBI on a piece of reliable information that certain officials of the National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. (NTPC) entered into a criminal conspiracy with the GRUPVO TECHNOPROMEXPORT RUSSIA. In the year 2005, an amount of US$ 20 million was paid/received against illegal gratification/kickbacks in the bank account of the petitioner M/s. Ravina & Associates Pvt. Ltd. (in short ‘RAPL’) in the U.K. Also, the 2 petitioners account was frozen I.e RAPL and   Ravina Khurana.

The trial court directed further investigation. CBI filed a charge sheet against t M/s. T.P.E. Moscow Russia, Mr Sergei Mukhin, Mr Alexander V. Schegolev representative Director of M/s. T.P.E. and the petitioners herein under Section 420 read with 120B IPC. learned Special Judge which has directed the CBI to conduct further investigation, According to CBI, the investigation revealed that M/s. TPE Russia on receiving the funds from NTPC paid illegal gratifications to petitioner No. 1 RAPL which have been detailed in the additional affidavit filed by the CBI. And also there was An application was filed under Section 226(4) of the Income Tax Act by the Income Tax Department for recovery of the tax demand due towards the two petitioners and according to the Income Tax Department, it also contained some Outstanding dues where interest was not included u/s 220(20).

The earlier applications filed by the Income Tax Department Authority and the petitioners were dismissed vide order dated 26th November 2009, e learned Special Judge, directing the learned Special Judge to pass appropriate orders for bringing back the amount lying in the Natwest Bank, London bearing Account Nos. 1400103368092, 44259816, 1400021000 and 18009336. Coming to the amount which was frozen at the National Westminster Bank, London was transferred to Account No. 33629397157 opened on 31st January 2014 in the name of Special Judge CBI-01 at the Tis Hazari Branch of State Bank of India. The mentioned amount was converted into Special Term Deposit Receipt for ₹138,58,81,245/- and as of date, the total principal amount of Special Term Deposit Receipt is ₹192,02,26,514/-, the interest accrued thereon is ₹58,39,592.95/- and the FDR is in auto-renewal mode.

So the petitioners filed an appeal before the Commissioner Income-Tax seeking a stay of the demand which was rejected. In the meantime, petitioner RAPL filed a writ petition being W.P.(Crl.) 783/2021 before this Court with the prayer that the application dated 23rd August 2012 of the Income Tax Authorities for release of the amount to the tune of ₹41,13,73,732/- be heard expeditiously in the wake of the settlement reached between the Income Tax Authorities and the petitioner RAPL, on the Income Tax Authorities launching the scheme „Vivid se Vishwas‟.

The court goes through- “ Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the decision reported as (1999) 7 SCC 685 State of Maharashtra Vs. Tapas D.Neogy, dealing with the case property and affirming the decision of the Madras High Court in Bharath Overseas Bank Vs. Minu Publication 1988 Madras Law Weekly (Crl.) 106,” and also many order cases.

 The court perused the facts and argument’s presented, it was of the opinion that-  “As per the status report filed by the CBI, the amounts transferred by TPE to RAPL in the NatWest Bank, London account, in relation to the impugned transaction are mentioned in entries 2 and 3 above, totalling to a sum of USD 2,15,71,843.90. However, the amount which was frozen and received in India is beyond the amount in relation to the impugned transactions with TPE. The amount received in excess of the amount received from TPE by RAPL qua the impugned transaction cannot be prima facie termed as case property or the proceeds of the crime liable to be confiscated or for compensation in case the petitioners are charged and convicted. Consequently, the learned Special Judge is directed to retain the amount received in lieu of the frozen amount of USD 2,15,71,843.90 along with the interest accrued thereon from the date of receipt till date and transfer the balance amount along with the interest accrued thereon received in the account at SBI, Tees Hazari, to the income-tax department”.Dated on 2ns September 2021.  

Click here to read the judgment 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat