THE STATE BY S.P v. UTTAMCHAND BOHRA

1.3 It is clear that in terms of both the chargesheet and the final report, respondent is not involved with the money trail or the transaction for the purchase of the property which was acquired by A-1, according to the prosecution. It is a fact that not only is the investigation complete, depositions of prosecution witnesses too have been recorded. There cannot be any question of introducing any further evidence. CBI cannot deny that the respondent’s name was included in the present case, although the sale deed was seized during a search conducted in relation to another FIR (the earlier case- CC No. 3/2013 wherein respondent was a co-accused and according to the prosecution his vehicle was intercepted when he had attempted to help A-1 in transporting a bribe amount of `50 lakhs received by A-1 to a safe place)- and not in relation to the present case, which relates to the disproportionate assets case. The FIR in the present case names only A-1 and A-2 as the accused. The sale deed had already been seized from respondent’s house by then. The CBI had urged that the allegations against respondent in the earlier case can be used against him in the present case although the final report in the present case does not make any reference to them. The final report in the present case was filed after the registration of FIR in CC No. 3/2013 and after the seizure of the sale deed from THE STATE BY S.P. THROUGH THE SPE CBI v. UTTAMCHAND BOHRA 825 respondent’s house. The final report makes a mention of the FIR dated 29.08.2011. There is, however, no allegation against respondent in the chargesheet in the present case [CC No. 5/ 2015] on the basis of or adopting the allegations against him in CC No. 3/2013. Thus, the two cases are separate. The allegations against respondent in CC No. 3/2013 does not relate to disproportionate assets. Therefore, CC No. 3/2013 is irrelevant to the present case. [Paras 9, 26-28][841-E-H; 829-E-F; 842-A-C, F] State of J&K v. Sudershan Chakkar 1995) 4 SCC 181 : [1995] 1 Suppl. SCR 294 – relied on. 1.4 The material to implicate someone as a conspirator acting in concert with a public servant, alleged to have committed misconduct, under the PCA, or amassed assets disproportionate to a public servant’s known sources of income, thus, has to be on firm ground. In the present case, only two circumstances - the custody of the sale deed (of the property allegedly belonging to A-1) and the fact that it was witnessed by respondent’s employee - are alleged against the respondent. These are wholly insufficient to raise a reasonable suspicion, or make out a prima case against him, for conspiracy. As far as the respondent is concerned, the initial burden of showing that a conspiracy existed, cannot even be alleged against him, given the nature of the material presented along with the charge sheet. An entire overview of the material produced before the trial court, with the charge sheet and final report, as well as deposition of the 74 witnesses who were examined during the trial, does not support CBI’s allegation of the respondent. He did not directly or indirectly finance the transaction by which property was sold to M/s Raviteja Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd, which, according to that prosecution, was in fact by A-1. The respondent also is not alleged to have facilitated the flow of money to fund acquisition of the flat. The material put against him is that the sale deed was seized, prior to the present case. The other circumstance put against him is that his employee witnessed the sale deed. The respondent is concededly neither the owner, nor has any links with M/s Raviteja Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. There is no material which can prima facie support an inference that respondent was either a conspirator or had abetted the commission of the offences alleged against the accused A-1. [Paras 29, 30, 32][843-D-F; 844-B-H; 845-A-C] A B C D E F G H 826 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 9 S.C.R. A B C