Latest news with #PC)Act
Deccan Herald
a day ago
- Politics
- Deccan Herald
Karnataka HC declines to intervene in graft case against KIADB official
The petitioner, at present working as Joint Director of Municipal Administration, had moved the high court challenging the proceedings under sections 7 (a) and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act.
Hindustan Times
7 days ago
- Business
- Hindustan Times
CBI books senior IRS official, others, in ₹4.22 cr disproportionate assets case
Mumbai: The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has booked a senior Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer currently posted with the Income Tax (I-T) Department for allegedly possessing assets worth ₹4.22 crore, disproportionate to his known sources of income. The action follows the agency's verification of a complaint received from the vigilance wing of the I-T Department. According to the CBI's First Information Report (FIR), the assets were allegedly accumulated during the officer's postings in Gujarat between January 2012 and March 2021. Alongside the officer, the CBI has named four others as co-accused — his wife, a Gujarat-based chartered accountant, and two officials associated with a partner firm of a Gujarat real estate group — for allegedly aiding him in concealing and investing illicit wealth. The agency has also booked unnamed individuals under relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act for abetment and criminal misconduct by a public servant. The complaint from the Directorate General of Income Tax (Vigilance), New Delhi, dated August 2024, alleged that the officer had amassed several immovable properties in his and his wife's name that were not commensurate with their declared income. It cited details of four such properties and other financial transactions for verification. A discreet enquiry by a CBI inspector, completed in February this year, corroborated the allegations. The findings indicated that the officer had acquired both movable and immovable assets, including multiple properties, in his and his family members' names during his tenure in Gujarat. The CBI stated that the officer was on study leave abroad when the probe was initiated. In one instance highlighted in the FIR, the officer is alleged to have purchased four villas in Gujarat in September 2020, registering them in the name of his wife and the relative of the chartered accountant. Within a week of registration, the chartered accountant's family member reportedly executed a will transferring their share of the property — along with other valuable items — to the IRS officer. The FIR further mentions that a search conducted by the I-T Department in September 2021 led to the seizure of evidence suggesting these properties were undervalued at the time of purchase, raising concerns about possible irregularities. A senior CBI official said, 'The officer was found in possession of disproportionate assets amounting to ₹4.22 crore. He prima facie misused his official position to enrich himself illicitly, in violation of the Prevention of Corruption Act.' The agency also noted that several of the transactions and asset acquisitions were not disclosed to the department, as required under the Conduct Rules applicable to public servants. Further investigations are underway to determine the full extent of the alleged misconduct and the roles of the other accused.
Hindustan Times
30-05-2025
- Hindustan Times
Lucknow range additional director (prosecution) booked in DA case
Additional director of prosecution, Lucknow range, Virendra Vikram Singh has been booked for allegedly procuring disproportionate assets (DA) worth ₹86.12 lakh during his service period. Uttar Pradesh Vigilance Establishment has registered an FIR under appropriate sections of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, 1988, with its Lucknow sector police station on Wednesday, confirmed senior vigilance officials here on Friday. A senior vigilance official said inspector Gyanendra Pandey had lodged an FIR against Singh under PC Act's section 13(1)(b) for enriching himself illicitly during the period of his office and section 13 (2) for criminal misconduct by a public servant. He said the FIR was lodged on the basis of findings surfaced in an open inquiry ordered against Singh regarding his disproportionate assets earned during the period of his office. The investigator discovered that Singh earned around ₹2,20,88,325 (2.2 crore) through his all legal sources, but did expenditure of ₹3,07,00,061 (3.07 crore) in procuring properties and daily maintenance of his and his family. 'This way, the investigation findings suggested that he earned an extra amount of around ₹86,12, 286 other than his legal sources of income and it is a crime under the provisions of the PC Act following which a regular case has been registered against him,' the official said and added, 'The investigation in the matter is going on and further legal action will be initiated against him for corrupt practices'.
Time of India
27-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
HC seeks status of bribery case against court official
New Delhi: Delhi High Court on Tuesday asked the anti-corruption branch (ACB) for a status report on its investigation into bribery allegations against Mukesh Kumar, an ahlmad, or record keeper, at the Rouse Avenue Courts. While hearing Kumar's plea for anticipatory bail, the single-judge bench of Justice Amit Sharma refused to grant him interim protection from arrest. "These are very serious allegations, and the evidence is already on record. A person from our own staff is involved. This is a serious matter," the court said and scheduled the next hearing for May 29. The same day, Kumar's petition to quash the FIR is also listed. "We will dispose of it," the judge said. The case led to the transfer of a special judge (PC Act) from the Rouse Avenue Courts to North West, Rohini, after the registration of the FIR against Kumar. In his petition, Kumar claimed that he was being framed as part of a conspiracy against the judge. Senior advocates Mohit Mathur and Maninder Singh, appearing for Kumar, submitted that the ACB officer against whom Kumar complained in Jan 2025 was made the investigating officer in the case. Additional standing counsel Sanjay Bhandari, in response, told the court that Kumar was directly involved in the bribery. Mathur said that Kumar had joined the investigation at least seven times since Feb. During the hearing on Tuesday, the court was told that Kumar submitted additional documents containing a transcript of a conversation between the special judge and an ACB officer. According to the transcript, the judge asked the ACB officer why he was being framed. In response, the ACB officer is stated to have referred to the judge's adverse orders. The counsel representing the ACB told the court that the trial judge handed over the audio to Kumar. "I will respond. This is FIR named qua applicant (Kumar), they are travelling beyond this," Bhandari said. The ACB on May 16 registered a case against Kumar under Section 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), alleging that the ahlmad demanded and received bribes from certain accused to ensure their bail. In Jan, the ACB wrote to the law secretary of Delhi govt seeking permission to probe the judge and submitted the alleged material against him and the court official to the high court on the administrative side. According to the ACB, the high court in Feb responded that the investigating agency was at the liberty to probe the allegations further. However, the high court said that the ACB then did not have sufficient material against the judge for it to grant permission against the judge.
Time of India
24-05-2025
- Time of India
Court upholds police bribery conviction
Raja alias Andrews anti-corruption bureau The high court has sustained the conviction and punishment of MK Manjanna, a head constable at Bagalagunte police station, who was apprehended in 2017 for accepting Rs 10,000 as bribe from a complainant to close a criminal trial court's sentence of four years' imprisonment and Rs 50,000 fine was upheld. Despite minor inconsistencies, the high court noted that crucial elements of demand and acceptance of a bribe were adequately proven, supporting the trial court's July 15, 2017, Manjanna was caught allegedly receiving money from complainantto close a pending criminal case. The(ACB) subsequently investigated and filed the September 29, 2021, the special court found Manjanna guilty, imposing three years' rigorous imprisonment with Rs 50,000 fine under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, and four years with Rs 50,000 fine under Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2).Manjanna contested the verdict, stating no official work was pending with the complainant and claimed the recovery of phenolphthalein-soaked money alone did not constitute an offence. He argued that Sections 7 and 13 were not met as demand and acceptance were absent. Justice HP Sandesh confirmed the presence of demand and acceptance.
