HC dismisses Chandok’s plea for pardon

patna: justice ashok kumar verma of the patna high court has recently dismissed the petition for quashing of the entire proceedings in the complaint case under section 277 and 278 of the income tax act, 1961, filed by the income tax department as well as the order of cognisance passed by special judge (economic offences) samir kumar jha. justice verma said the related cases are still pending before the appropriate court and the examination of an approver as a witness is essential and that the approver has to fulfil the terms of the pardon.“until the approver fulfils all the terms of the pardon and the trial of all concerned cases are concluded and the approver is examined as a witness of the prosecution during trial of the cases, he continues to have his position as an accused,� he added. “the petitioner, therefore, cannot claim immunity from prosecution for any offence as he can be put back to his position as an accused if he does not fulfil all the terms and conditions of his pardon and his allowing to be an approver,� he said. accused dipesh chandok was a supplier of the animal husbandry department and stands accused in different cases filed by the cbi for misappropriation of funds of the government. chandok had made a confessional statement under section 164 of the code of criminal procedure before the special judge cbi. he had admitted his dubious role in fraudulent withdrawals from the state exchequer against fake bills in connivance with officials of the state government. justice verma noticed that the returns of the income filed by chandok and the documents and the statements annexed for assessment years 1989-90 to 1996-97 in his individual and in the name of the huf and the related concern were false. later on, he had claimed immunity when the income tax department issued a show-cause as to why he should not be prosecuted. the petitioner claimed that he had not made a statement under section 164 of the code, but under section 306 of the code. however, justice verma observed that he had not only made the statement under section 164 of the code, but also accepted the conditional pardon. he also observed that the criminal charge under the i-t act is in no way related to the grant of pardon by the special court in the cbi case and neither had the central government granted any pardon for the i-t offence.