1 2025:CGHC:50237-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 587 of 2013 Pawan Kumar Agrawal S/o Ram Kumar Agrawal Aged About 42 Years R/o Payarelal Agrawal Marg Ramsagar Para Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Central Bureau Of Investigation Through - Superintendent Of Police CBI C.G. Bungalow No 4 Road No 15 Sector 2 , Bhilai, Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh 2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through - Principal Secretary, Home Department Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPCR No. 201 of 2017 Pawan Kumar Agrawal S/o Ram Kumar Agrawal, Aged About 45 Years R/o Pyarelal Agrawal Marg, Ramsagar Para, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus Central Bureau of Investigation, Through Police Superintendent, Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chirag Madan and Mr.Krishna Tandon, Advocates For Respondent(s)/CBI : Mr. B. Gopa Kumar and Mr. Himanshu Pandey, Advocates For Respondent/State : Ms. Soumya Sharma, Panel Lawyer Date of Hearing : 17/09/2025 Date of Judgment : 08 /10/2025 2 Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge C.A.V. Judgment Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 1. Heard Mr. Chirag Madan and Mr. Krishna Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B. Gopa Kumar and Mr. Himanshu Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent/CBI as well as Ms. Soumya Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. 2. Since both the petitions have been filed by the same petitioner, they are being considered and decided by this common order. 3. The petitioner, in Cr.M.P. No. 587/2013 seeks setting aside of the order dated 11.06.2013 passed by the Special Judge, Raipur, in Criminal Revision No. 6/13 by which it has affirmed the order passed by the learned Special Magistrate (CBI) Raipur, by which the learned Magistrate, vide order dated 05.12.2012, in Criminal Case No. 1125/2011, has rejected the application filed by the petitioner for supply of copies of certain documents and also seeks a direction to the Special Magistrate (CBI) and respondent/prosecution to provide the documents sought by the petitioner in its application dated 05.12.2012 (Annexure P/5). 4. The petitioner, in WP(Cr) No. 201/2017 seeks for the following relief(s): “i. To quash the charge sheet filed by the respondents against the petitioner and the criminal proceedings initiated against him (Annexure P/1). ii. To kindly make any other order that may deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including the awarding of the cost of the petition.” 5. The facts, as projected by the petitioner (in WPCr No. 201/2017) are that the petitioner is a businessman of Raipur city and the brother of the 3 petitioner, namely B.L.Agrawal is a senior IAS officer of 1988 batch. According to the prosecution, on 04.02.2010 and 06.02.2010, the Income Tax Department (for short, the ITD) Raipur, conducted search at the residential/business premises of the petitioner and also in the residential premises of the brother of the petitioner. During the search, nothing incriminating or undisclosed assets were found by the Income Tax officials. Assessments under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act were completed by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer after the search and issued a payable demand of only Rs.13,400/- against the brother of the petitioner against which the brother of the petitioner preferred an appeal before Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority, vide its order dated 31.05.2012 allowed the appeal and discharged the brother of the petitioner from all charges of concealing income. Looking at the grudge and over zealousness of the tax authorities and fearing foul play, the petitioner approached the Settlement Commission directly and got his tax case settled as per the prevailing law. Further, the Wealth Tax department also exonerated the brother of the petitioner from the allegation of concealing property and in the notice of demand under section 30 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 for AYs 2003-04 to 2008-09 the brother of the petitioner has not been held liable to pay any amount towards wealth tax. 6. A preliminary enquiry was registered with the respondent No. 1 on the written complaint of one Shri Akash Dewangan, Assistant Director of Income Tax (Inv.) Raipur. The allegation in the complaint pertains to fraudulent transfer of ownership of Locker No. 240-A, of Bank of Boroda, Main Branch, by tampering the bank records and deleting CCTV recording installed at the Main branch of Bank of Boroda, Raipur. It was alleged that during the search, the key of locker No.240-A was seized. It 4 was further alleged that in response to the notice dated 08.02.2010 of the ITD, the Bank replied that the said locker is in the name of Rameshwar Das Goel and the petitioner. On 09.02.2010, the IT officials checked the relevant documents of the Bank and suspicion was created in the mind of the officials about the manipulation of the Bank records and on 10.02.2010, they conducted a search of the said locker in presence of the petitioner in whose name the locker was standing in which Rs. 15,00,000/- in cash were recovered. According to the FIR, it was revealed that initially, the said locker was opened on 21.06.2000 in the joint name of Rameshwar Das Goel and the brother of the petitioner B.L. Agrawal with the provision of locker operation on ‘either or survivor’ basis. In the Bank records, the signatures of Rameshwar Das Goel were in Hindi and Rameshwar Das Goel expired on 07.12.2005. It was further alleged that on 03.07.2009, the Locker was operated and the operator signed the locker visitors Register as R.D.Goel and locker rent of Rs. 1935/- was paid. It was alleged that Rameshwar Das Goel was already dead on that date and no intimation with regard to the death of Rameshwar Das Goel was sent to the Bank and in fact, the brother of the petitioner operated the locker by signing R.D.Goel. It was further alleged that previously the locker was operated on 17.07.2004, 18.12.2006 and 21.04.2007 by the brother of the petitioner and in fact R.D. Goel never operated the locker. Further allegation in the FIR was that to shield the brother of the petitioner, who is an IAS officer of 1988 Batch from becoming liable for criminal, departmental and IT proceedings, this conspiracy was hatched. 7. Mr. Chirag Madan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the instant case was registered against the petitioner and other co-accused for the sole reason that no advance tax has been paid on the amount 5 found in the locker amounting to Rs.15 Lacs neither by the petitioner nor his brother and only on the basis of an assumption which is not at all corroborated with any other piece of information or suspicion that the said amount belongs to the brother of petitioner who is an IAS officer, the CBI concluded that the bank records are fabricated to shift the onus of Rs.15 Lacs from IAS brother. Payment of advance tax is a mode whereby the tax payers have to ascertain their taxes and pay the same before the end of financial year i.e. 31st of March. Non-payment of advance tax does not implies that the tax payer is evading any tax or concealing his income as the same can be paid at a later date with the amount of interest as penalty as specified under the IT Act. It is further to be seen that the tax payer has disclosed this income in its return or not which is filed in the month of July, for individuals. Just because no advance tax was paid on the amount lying in the bank locker does not give rise to any presumption that the petitioner or his brother were concealing this income. 8. Mr. Madan submits that the respondent No. 1 should have waited for the outcome of IT proceedings rather than filing the charge sheet alleging for offence committed under Sections 120-B, 419, 466 and 477-A of IPC. The order dated 07.11.2012 passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission clearly gives a finding that the cash amounting to Rs.15 lakhs found and seized in locker belongs to Mamta Agrawal and is part of Rs. 18 lacs withdrawn from her bank account No. 44858 with UBI on 24th and 25th August, 2009 and kept for safe custody. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner, being a businessman, and in order to shift the ownership of the locker, hatched conspiracy with the co accused Antony Samy (Bank Official) and other unknown persons and an antedated application was signed by the petitioner and his brother 6 requesting the bank to substitute the name of the petitioner in place of his brother i.e. B.L.Agrawal and was placed on the record of the bank on 06.02.2010 Another ante-dated application written and signed by petitioner informing the Branch about the loss of the locker keys was also placed on the bank record on 09.02.2010 and the name of the brother of the petitioner was struck off from the bank records and the name of the petitioner was added by Antony Samy. The further allegations are that on 09.02.2010 and thereafter the petitioner inserted his signature in the Locker Visitor Register on the original entry dated 03.07.2009 and entry dated 13.01.2010, and the same was done in order to shield the brother of the petitioner from the penal provisions of IT Act and other laws. 9. Mr. Madan submits that the respondent No. 1 is not an expert body to determine whether a document was forged or was made ante-dated, and for arriving on such an opinion the respondent No. I should have waited for the report of some expert body (that documents were later sent for forensic examination). The respondent No. 1 on its own whims and assumptions proceeded with the investigation and without waiting for the report, concluded that the petitioner along with his brother and one officer of Bank hatched a criminal conspiracy to shift the ownership of bank locker. It is further alleged that Antony Samy has admitted in his statement recorded during preliminary enquiry that he had received the antedated applications and had kept them on the bank records and had also allowed the petitioner to insert his signatures on the relevant bank records. According to Mr. Samy this was done by him on the directions given by J.S.I.Chandran, the Regional Head of the Bank on telephone through Ravindra Pandey, the then Sr. Manager (Credit). Thus, in short it was alleged that the bank records were manipulated in order to shift 7 the ownership of the locker from the brother of the petitioner to petitioner for saving the brother of the petitioner from the unaccounted money i.e., 15,00,000/- which was found in the locker. The locker was searched and opened by the ITD on 10.02.2010 at about 2:15 p.m. whereas the petitioner on 10.02.2010 at 11:35 a.m. informed the Joint Director (Investigation), ITD, Raipur that the amount kept in the locker belongs to his sister-in-law Smt. Mamta Agrawal, wife of the second elder brother Ashok Kumar Agrawal and also furnished the copy of the bank statement along with the application. The statements of petitioner and Smt. Mamta Agrawal have also been recorded by the investigating agency. The petitioner has categorically admitted that he is the owner of the locker and the amount of Rs. 15 Lacs which was found in the locker belongs to Mamta Agrawal, Director of Prima Ispat Ltd. The statement of Mamta Agrawal has also been recorded in which she has admitted that the amount of Rs. 15 lacs found in the locker belongs to her and further stated that a total amount of Rs.18 Lacs was withdrawn by her from the Bank Account No. SB Gen. Ne 327002018844858 of Union Bank of India, Raipur on 24.08.2009 and 28.08.2009 by two cheques bearing Nos. 119274 and 119275 of Rs. 9 lacs each. Out of this amount of Rs. 18 lacs, Rs. 15 lacs were kept in the bank locker through the petitioner. Thus, it is clear that the amount so found in the locker belonged to Smt. Mamta Agrawal i.e. the same financial year and was kept in the said locker on 13.01.2010 through her brother-in-law. As the amount was already reflected in the bank accounts, therefore, there is no question of evasion of tax even by Smt. Mamta Agrawal and it cannot be said that the amount of Rs. 15 lacs was unaccounted money. This fact has also been accepted by the Income Tax Settlement Commission (Annexure 8 P/4) which has become final. In the proceedings against the brother of the petitioner, the ITD has never alleged that this amount belongs to him. 10.Mr. Madan submits that it is correct that initially the locker was opened in the joint names of Shri Rameshwar Das Goel and the brother of the petitioner i.e. Shri B.L.Agrawal. Shri Rameshwar Das Goel expired on 07.12.2005. It is submitted that the locker was opened on either or survivor basis and even if the information with regard to the death of Shri R.D. Goel was not given to the Bank it would not make any difference as the locker could have been legally operated by the brother of the petitioner on his own even after the death of Shri Goel. However, it is specifically submitted that oral information regarding the death of Mr. Goel was given to the Bank officials. It is submitted that undisputedly, the locker was operated only for three times prior to the search i.e., on 17.07.2004, 18.12.2006, 21.04.2007 by the brother of the petitioner and on 03.07.2009 and 13.01.2010 by the petitioner after the bank transferred the ownership of the said locker in his name. Initially the locker rent was paid by the brother of the petitioner till 20.06.2009 and thereafter as the brother of the petitioner was not interested in continuing with the locker, the petitioner requested his brother to transfer the locker in his name and accordingly application in that regard was filed which was allowed by the bank on 03.07.2009 itself. An amount of Rs. 1935/- was also deposited by the petitioner towards the locker rent for 03 years. It is not denied by the investigating agency that the locker rent was never deposited on 03.07.2009 and that cannot be denied also because the said amount of Rs.1935/- has been credited in the bank accounts on 03.07.2009 and no manipulation can be done with regard to any credit or debit entry in the bank records. The credit of this amount of Rs.1935/- clearly shows that the locker rent was deposited by the petitioner after 9 the transfer of the ownership of locker by the bank. The CBI has sent the bank locker register and other documents for the forensic examination for ascertaining the authorship of writings in the locker register and letters made to the bank. The Central Forensic Science Laboratory submitted its report on 09.01.2012 (after the filing of the charge-sheet) and according to the report:- a. Point No. 2 of the opinion would indicate that the petitioner's name was written by one Shri Hira Lal Verma working as peon-cum-farrash at Bank of Baroda, Raipur, after transfer of the locker in the petitioner's name by encircling the name of the petitioner's brother. b. Point No. 4 of the opinion would indicate that the Shri B. L Agrawal has signed the letter dated 03.07.2009 to the branch manager of Bank of Baroda for the transfer of bank locker no 240 A in the name of his brother, i.e. the petitioner. c. Point no 4 of the opinion would also indicate that Shri Padmakar Joshi, the then locker in-charge has written the telephone and mobile No. of the petitioner in the locker register pertaining to the entry dated 3rd July 2009. Point no 4 of the opinion would also indicate that the petitioner has signed the attendance register of locker for the entries made on 03.07.2009, 13.01.2010. that the petitioner wrote the letter dated 01.02.2010 stating therein that the keys of the bank locker has been lost.” 11. Mr. Madan submits that the FSL report has recently been made available to the petitioner by the prosecution, and a bare perusal of the same makes it manifestly clear that the prosecution has failed to connect 10 the petitioner with the instant crime. It is for sure that had the investigating agency waited for the outcome of the forensic report, there would have been no need to file the charge-sheet at all. It is further submitted that the entire case of the prosecution revolves around the income tax proceedings regarding the amount found in the bank locker wherein the IT authorities have already exonerated the petitioner as well as his brother by holding that the amount in issue belongs to Smt. Mamta Agrawal, and regarding forging of bank records the FSL, report has clearly ruled out any tampering with the bank records and therefore the entire prosecution case falls and nothing survives in the case. The CBI has registered the case against the petitioner only on a mere assumption that the amount found in the bank locker might belong to the brother of the petitioner as he was the owner of the same at some point of time, and also has anticipated that the petitioner and his brother have forged the bank records and transferred the bank locker in the name of petitioner. The forensic report rules out any possibility regarding the forgery or manipulation of the bank documents and therefore the sole ground on which the charge sheet has been filed doesn't exist anymore and therefore the criminal case registered against the petitioner is nothing but sheer abuse of law. There is no evidence of conspiracy against the petitioner because once the prosecution itself has stated that it is not sure that whether the petitioner has got any pecuniary gain therefore, at present neither the petitioner can be said to be beneficiary nor there is any evidence direct or circumstantial to show that the petitioner was in any manner a co-conspirator. The essential ingredient of the offence of conspiracy is that there should be an agreement between the conspirators to commit something illegal. The prosecution has failed to establish the existence of such an agreement between the 11 petitioner and his brother on one side and between the Bank officer Mr. Anthony Samy on the other for the purpose of altering bank records for back dated change of bank locker ownership. Mr. Anthony Samy had in his statement said that on the directions of the Senior Officers he has received antedated applications, which itself rules out any element of conspiracy between the petitioner, his brother and Anthony Samy Further, the prosecution has failed to corroborate the statement of the Anthony Samy with any documentary or other evidence and therefore no reliance can be placed on him. The statement of Mr. Samy is not admissible against the petitioner as Mr. Samy has also been arrayed as accused by the respondent. The petitioner had deposited the locker rent again in 2012 which the bank has accepted and finally the petitioner has handed over the keys of the locker to the bank and surrendered the locker to the bank. There is absolutely no evidence in the matter implicating the petitioner in the present case. 12.It is lastly submitted by Mr. Madan that the brother of the petitioner has filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court being WP No. 8052/2011, challenging the notification issued by the Central Govt. on 25.04.2001 under section 5 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 and notices have been issued and an interim order has been passed by the Delhi High Court Court restraining the respondent No. 1 from arresting the petitioner's brother. In support of his contentions, Mr. Madan places reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal {(2007) 12 SCC 1}, Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Rajvir Industries Ltd. {Cr.A. No. 62/2008, decided on 09.01.2008} Satish Mehra vs. Sate of N.C.T Delhi {(2012) 13 SCC 614}. 12 13.So far as Cr.M.P No. 587/2013 is concerned, here, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 11.06.2013 passed by the Special Judge, (CBI) Raipur, in Criminal Revision No. 6/2013 by which the learned Special Judge has affirmed the order dated 05.12.2012 passed in Criminal Case No. 1125/2011 by the learned Special Magistrate CBI, Raipur, rejecting the application of the petitioner by which the petitioner had sought for copies of certain documents seized by the respondent/CBI. 14.Mr. Madan submits that the some important documents were not supplied to the petitioner either by the learned Special Magistrate (CBI) or by the prosecution, therefore, on 05.12.2012 the petitioner filed an application before the learned Special Magistrate for supplying a copy of the following documents: a) Complaint of Akash Dewangan, Assistant Director Income Tax numbered ADIT(Inv) Rpr/BLA/2010 dated 10.02 2010 b) Preliminary investigation report of CBI; CBI conducted the preliminary investigation on the complaint of Akash Dewangan c) Report of handwriting expert (GFQD) 15. Mr. Mr. Madan submits that on 05.12.2012, when the case came up for hearing, the respondent/CBI opposed to provide the documents to the petitioner and without assigning any reason, the learned Special Magistrate rejected the application vide order dated 05.12.2012 which was later challenged in a revision petition which also stood dismissed vide order dated 11.06.2013. He further submits that the documents demanded by the petitioner are of utmost importance as the whole case is relied on the preliminary enquiry report of the CBI which is based on the investigation conducted on the complaint made by Akash Dewangan. 13 A bare perusal of the FIR would reveal that the report is established on the facts gathered from the investigation conducted by the CBI on the complaint of Akash Dewangan, and therefore, these documents sought by the petitioner becomes part of the FIR and the police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The documents sought by the petitioner have direct nexus with the application filed by the petitioner on 03.07.2012 wherein the petitioner has challenged the jurisdiction of the respondent to initiate the investigation of criminal case against the petitioner. Those documents would show that how the CBI had acted without jurisdiction. 16. Mr. Madan further submits that the CBI traces its origin to the Special Police Establishment (SPE) which was set up in the year 1941 by the Government of India and the CBI’s power to investigate the cases is derived from Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (for short, the Act of 1946). The provisions of the Act of 1946 provides that to exercise jurisdiction by the CBI in a State (other than Union Territory or Railway Area, consent of the Central Government and State Government under Section 5 and 6 are mandatory. In other words, before the provisions of the Act of 1946 are invoked to exercise power and jurisdiction by Special Police Establishment in any State the following conditions must be fulfilled: (i) A notification must be issued by the Central Government specifying the offences to be investigated by Delhi Special Police Establishment (Section 3); (ii) An order must be passed by the Central Government extending the powers and jurisdiction of Delhi Special Police Establishment to any State in respect of the offences specified under Section 3 (Section 5); and 14 (ii) Consent of the State Government must be obtained for the exercise of powers by Delhi Special Police Establishment in the State (Section 6). But the respondent No. 1 without obtaining order from Central Government as provided in Section 5 and without obtaining permission of State Government in Section 6 initiated criminal proceedings against the petitioner. 17.When cognizance on final report by Special Magistrate (CBI) was awaited, the petitioner on 03.07.2012 filed an application before Special Magistrate (CB1) Raipur to put an end on the proceedings in criminal case No. 1125/11 and to close the case on the ground that the respondent had no jurisdiction to investigate the case and the charge sheet filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was bad and illegal as the CBI had acted without jurisdiction for want of permission to investigate the case as required under the provisions of Section 5 and 6 of the Act of 1946, as such, the present Cr.M.P. deserves to be allowed. 18.Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Arvind Kejriwal and Another v. State NCT of Delhi {2020 SCC OnLine Del 1362}, Central Bureau of Investigation v. INX Media Pvt. Ltd. and Others {2021 SCC OnLine Del 4932}, Criminal Trials Guidelines regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies, In Re v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others {(2021) 10 SCC 598}, Dharambir v Central Bureau of Investigation {Crl.M.C. 1775/2006}, Jahid Shaikh and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another {(2011) 7 SCC 762}, Manoj and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh {(2023) 2 SCC 353}, P Gopalkrishnan v. State of Kerala and Another {(2020) 9 SCC 161}, Shakuntala v. State of Delhi {ILR (2007) 1 Delhi 1005}, Shashi Bala v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. {2016 SCC OnLine Del 3791} and Sidhartha Vashisht v. State (NCT of Delhi) {(2010) 6 SCC 1}. 15 19.On the other hand, Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent/CBI {in WPCr No. 201/2017} submits that B.L.Agarwal, (IAS), Government of Chhattisgarh, entered into a criminal conspiracy with his brother i.e. the petitioner and Antony Samy, the then Manager, Bank of Baroda. Main Branch, Raipur and in pursuance thereof, the accused persons committed offences of impersonation, cheating forgery falsification of bank records and criminal misconduct in the matter of fraudulent transfer of ownership of the locker in question which was in the joint names of B.L.Agarwal and R.D.Goel. Petitioner’s name was fraudulently inserted in the bank records showing him as the renter of the locker in place of B.L.Agarwal with the help of Antony Samy. B.L.Agarwal and the petitioner are real brothers. Petitioner is the youngest brother of B.L.Agarwal and R.D.Goel was the cousin of father of B.L. Agarwal. 20.According to Mr. Gopa Kumar, the Bank of Baroda has issued written instructions as stipulated in the Book of Instruction (Vol. II), Bank of Baroda, regarding addition and deletion of name of any locker owner in the records of the bank which are as under: (a) The renter/s may be allowed to add the name of a person as a joint locker holder in which case Form No 281 should be obtained duly signed by the renter/s and also by the person whose name is to be added as a joint renter. (b) The addition in the name/s of renter/s should be recorded in red ink in all the forms as well as books under authentication. (c) Branches may also allow deletion of the name of one of the joint locker holders at the written request of all the locker holders. 16 (d) In both the cases, a fresh memorandum of letting should be got signed by all renter/s (including the person whose name is being added or excluding the person whose name has been deleted as the case may be). (e) Charges as prescribed in Bank's Publication No 123 on "Service Charges be levied for each addition/deletion. 21. On 21.6 2000, the locker in question was allotted in the joint name of B.L. Agarwal and R.D.Goel. A Memorandum of Letting was signed by both these persons. The locker was to be operated by "either or survivor R.D.Goel expired on 07.12.2005 at Nagpur which was not intimated to the Bank by B.L.Agrawal and the locker was continuously operated by B.L. Agarwal. The rent of the locker was paid from time to time. The last advance rent was paid in July-2009, for the period 21.6.2009 to 20.6.2012. The rent receipt was issued in the name of R.D.Goel by Padmakar Joshi, the then Incharge Locker Operation, Bank of Baroda, Main Branch Raipur, The entry to this effect has been made in the safe ledger. The locker was operated by B.L.Agarwal on 17.7.2004, 18.12.2006 and 21.4.2007. The locker has been shown to be operated on 03.7.2009 by R.D. Goel and the petitioner. The locker attendance register bears the name of these persons against locker operating persons. It is established that on 21.4.2007, B.L.Agarwal, while operating the locker put his signature and then cut it and put another signature. The signature made on 18.12.2006 was entirely different from this signature. This shows that B.L Agarwal was in the habit of avoiding his real signature while operating the questioned locker. The ITD conducted search operation at the residential premises of B.L.Agarwal on 04.2.2010. During the search, one bunch of keys was recovered from the lawn of the residence of B.L.Agrawal which appeared to be of 17 lockers of different banks. B.L.Agrawal expressed ignorance in this regard. These facts have been disclosed by the ITD officials who have participated in the search at the residential premises of B.L.Agrawal and also have reduced the same in writing in the Panchnama prepared to this effect. One of the keys belonged to the Bank Locker No. 240A of Bank of Baroda which was informed by the Bank on 08.02.2010 to be belonging to R.D.Goel and the petitioner. The ITD authorities visited the Bank of Baroda on 9.2.2010 and enquired about questioned locker. It was found that two applications dated 03.07.2009 and 01.02.2010, respectively for change of ownership of the locker and loss of locker key, had been submitted in the Bank. The first application jointly signed by B.L.Agarwal and the petitioner was purportedly written for deleting the name of B.L.Agarwal and adding the name of the petitioner as the co- owner of the locker. The second application was purportedly written for intimating the loss of the key of the locker and it was signed by the petitioner. The name of the petitioner was found written in the Safe Ledger Register of the bank by cutting the name of B.L.Agarwal. The Bank documents contained signatures of the petitioner in Memorandum of Letting, specimen signature card etc. The locker attendance register had an entry dated 13.01.2010 showing operation of the questioned locker by the petitioner at about 14:10 hours. That entry was the last entry (at the bottom line) of the concerned page i.e. page No 61 of the register. The Locker Attendance Register also showed signature of petitioner against the entry of locker operation dated 03.07.2009 alongwith signature, R.D.Goel. Since it was known to IT authorities that the said locker key had been recovered from the house search of B.L.Agarwal, the relevant records i.e. Memo of Letting, Signature Card Safe Ledger Register, Locker Operation Register and above described 18 two applications were seized by Income Tax Officials. In order to ascertain the genuineness that petitioner visited Bank of Baroda on 01.2.2010 to hand over the application and also to ascertain whether he had actually operated the locker on 13.01.2010 (as shown in the documents of bank) the Close Circuit Television (CCTV) footage was checked and it was found that no Close Circuit Television (CCTV) footage for the period 31.01.2010 to 08.02.2010 was available. Petitioner was not seen in the CCTV footage neither entering the locker room nor coming out of the locker room on 13.01.2010 at the time shown in the entry of the Locker Attendance Register. The IT officials operated the questioned locker on 10.02.2010 and found an amount of Rs. 15 Lakh kept in the locker and seized the same. 22.Mr. Gopa Kumar further submits that Padmakar Joshi, the then Manager (who was Incharge of locker operations) during the period December 2006 to October 2009, has stated that on 02.7.2009, some body had enquired about the rent of the locker. The rent was due w.e.f June 2009 and on the request of that visitor he filled the rent voucher and handed over the rent voucher to the visitor for depositing the rent at the cash counter. However. he could not remember as to who had visited the Bank. He has also identified his writing on the voucher. The rent of locker was deposited on 03.07.2009. Mr. Joshi denied to have received application dated 03.07.2009 signed by B.L.Agarwal and the petitioner for transfer of name. He has also stated that the change of name in safe ledger memo of letting specimen cards etc. were not written by him. He has also admitted that addition/deletion of name of Pawan Agarwal in place of B.L.Agarwal was not as per the established banking rules/guidelines. He further denied that on 03.07.2009, the questioned locker was operated by him, however, he confirmed that the petitioner 19 was not authorized to operate the locker on 03.07.2009. It is also on record that service charge of Rs.25/- for addition/deletion of name has not been collected by the Bank so far. Examination of all the concerned Bank officials posted on 03.07.2009 in the Bank have confirmed that the said application has neither been received nor anybody allowed changes in the relevant bank records relating to locker No 240-A substituting the name of B.L.Agarwal with the petitioner. This clearly established that change in the name of locker owner was not done on 03.07.2009. Antony Samy worked as Incharge, Locker Operation Bank of Baroda, during the period October-2009 to March-2010. The examination of Antony Samy regarding the two applications dated 03.07.2009 and 01.02.2010 was conducted and during examination, Antony Samy confessed before IT authorities about the intended changes in the ownership done by him on 06.02.2010. He further stated that on 09.02.2010, Pawan Agarwal (petitioner) and another person met him in the Bank and a letter dated 01.02.20210 was handed over to him. He also confessed that these two intended letters were placed in the Bank records on 06.02.2010 and 09.02.2010, respectively by him. 23.It is further submitted by Mr. Gopa Kumar that the Bank of Baroda has also conducted enquiry into the matter of fraudulent transfer of the locker. During the enquiry conducted by Harish Chandra, Sr. Manager (Inspection) New Delhi, Antony Samy had confessed about addition/deletion of names in the locker register on 06.02.2010 and placement of letter dated 03.07.2009. He has also confessed that the petitioner had signed the locker attendance register on 09.02.2010 antedated showing as if signed on 03.7.2009 and 13.01.2010. Harish Chandra, Sr. Manager had concluded in his report that Antony Samy had altered documents of the Bank in contravention of systems and 20 procedure of the Bank. R.C.Verma Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda, Bhopal also inquired into the case of locker of B.L.Agarwal. He also concluded in his report that Antony Samy had facilitated the other accused persons. Thereafter, a memo was also issued by J.S.I Chandra, Regional Head, Bank of Baroda, Raipur to Antony Samy. In reply to the same, Antony Samy has accepted that he had facilitated the change of ownership of the questioned locker. During investigation both these reports were collected and both the enquiry officers have been examined. Similarly, Hira Lal Verma, Peon, Bank of Baroda had worked as Peon at Bank of Baroda stated that he had entered the name of the petitioner in his writing, in the locker register on the directions of Antony Samy while posted at Bank of Baroda. Hira Lal Verma had offered his statement to be recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C which had been recorded by the learned Magistrate, Raipur This also proves that the substitution of name in the banks records relating to locker no 240-A was not done on 03.07.2009 as claimed by the accused persons including petitioner, rather it was done on a later date by falsifying the bank records in conspiracy with Antony Samy the then Locker Incharge Bank of Baroda, Main Branch, Raipur. 24.So far as the amount of Rs.15 Lakh recovered from the locker which was claimed by the petitioner that the amount belonged to Smt. Mamta Agarwal (wife of elder brother of Pawan Agarwal) petitioner had also handed over the copy of statement of SB account of Smt. Mamta Agarwal maintained with Union Bank of India, Raipur. This statement shows withdrawal of Rs 9 Lakh each on 24.8.2009 and 28.8.2009. The petitioner claimed that out of Rs. 18 lakhs, 15 lakhs were kept in the questioned locker on 13.1.2010. The plea taken by the petitioner is not tenable and acceptable as the bundles of currency notes bear the slips 21 of State Bank of India and Dena Bank instead of Union Bank of India as claimed by the petitioner. Further, the date placed on the bundles of notes was of the year 2007, instead of 2009 as claimed by the petitioner. Moreover, the CCTV footage of the bank also proves that he neither entered the locker room on 13.1.2010 nor came out of the same. Smt. Mamta Agarwal, wife of Ashok Kumar Agarwal is having a Saving Bank Account with Union Bank of India, Raipur. In the same branch an account in the name of M/s Sunder Nagar Filling Station is also maintained. The said M/s Sunder Nagar Filling Station is a partnership firm which owns a petrol pump. The firm belongs to Ashok Kumar Agarwal (husband of Smt. Mamta Agarwal) and Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal (petitioner). Two separate cheques were presented on 24.8.2009 and 28.8 2009 for withdrawal of Rs. 9 Lakhs each from SB account of Smt. Mamta Agarwal. In the bank, after entries and passing of the cheques, the cheques came to Yontan Sagar, Head Cashier of the Bank for payment. The person who had come for collecting the payments had submitted a voucher requesting for deposit of Rs.7.5 Lakhs cash on both the occasions in the account bearing No. 327001010298289 which was the current account of Sundar Nagar Filling Station. Accordingly Yontan Sagar made entries of the payment part of the receipt and payment register on 24.8.2009 and 28.8.2009 and made deposit entries of Rs.7.5 Lakhs each of the said Register. Thus a cash of Rs.15 Lakhs only was given to the party on each dates i.e. on 24.8.2009 and on 28.8.2009 against the said two cheques Thus, Smt Mamta Agarwal had received Rs 3 Lakhs only in cash from the bank against the claim of Rs.15 or 18 Lakhs. In view of these facts, the explanations given by the petitioner regarding the cash deposit in the said locker and ownership of the cash in the locker is incorrect. 22 25.It is next submitted by Mr. Gopa Kumar that B.L.Agarwal had operated the locker on 21.4.2007. The bundles of currency notes bear dates as 15.03.2007 and 19.03.2007 and the same are very much in proximity with the locker operations dated 21.4.2007 by Shri BL Agarwal. Till the date of 03.07.2009 locker owners had not informed the bank about demise of the co-owner of locker, Rameshwar Das Goel who passed away on 07.12.2005. The bank was never informed about any loss of locker key before 03.07.2009. Moreover on 03.07.2009 locker has been operated with signatures as "RD Goel" in English. In the locker opening documents Rameshwar Das Goel has given his specimen signature in Hindi. Since Rameshwar Das Goel was no more on 03.07.2009, and no key loss/ theft was intimated to bank before 03.07.2009, it is clear that locker has been operated by the only surviving co-owner of the locker i.e. B.L.Agarwal. Thus, B.L.Agarwal has made the signature of RD Goel and impersonated himself as R.D Goel and on that said basis, he operated the locker. The dishonest and fraudulent change of name in the records of the Bank relating to the Locker No 240A have been resorted to show that the amount of Rs.15 Lakhs recovered by ITD form the locker did not belong to B.L.Agarwal who, as a salaried public servant had no cogent way to explain the amount of Rs 15 Lakhs. The averments made by the petitioner are efforts to scuttle the legal processes against him for the commission of offences punishable under various sections of Indian Penal Code for which a charge sheet has already been filed before the Hon ble Court of Special Magistrate for CBI cases, Raipur. 26.With respect to Cr.M.P. No. 587/2013, Mr. Gopa Kumar submits that there is no error in the order passed by the learned trial Court as well as the revisional Court while rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking copies of the documents as aforesaid, as it is the clear stand of 23 the respondent/CBI that the documents which the petitioner is seeking, though may have been seized by the respondent/CBI, but they are not the part of the charge sheet and the petitioner has also not been able to establish as to what prejudice would be caused to him if those documents are not supplied to him by the prosecution. The attempt of the petitioner is to anyhow linger on the trial. 27.So far as the contention of the petitioner that the CBI had no authority to investigate the matter in question, Mr. Gopa Kumar places reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Sushil Chandrakar & Others v. Union of India & Others {WPCr No. 147/2017, decided on 10.08.2023}, wherein the said plea raised by the petitioner therein has been rejected and it was observed that the CBI was well within its jurisdiction to investigate the matter. 28.Ms. Soumya Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent submits that the main contesting party in these petitions is the respondent/CBI, however, she would support the arguments raised by Mr. Gopa Kumar. 29.The aforesaid two petitions i.e. the WPCr as well as the Cr.M.P. were earlier decided by a learned Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.09.2019 whereby the learned Single Judge quashed the entire proceedings including the charge sheet filed by the CBI, Bhilai, in RC/1242010A0009 of 2010 before the Special Court (C.B.I.) so far it related to the petitioner and consequently, the Cr.M.P. also stood disposed of. However, the said order was challenged by the respondent/CBI by filing a Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. 11650 - 011651 / 2025 before the Apex Court. The Apex Court, vide its order dated 05.08.2025 observed as under: 24 “7. On perusal of the impugned order, we find the same to be so cryptic that the same cannot be sustained. The High Court does not appear to have dealt with the documents forming part of the charge-sheet before it returned the finding that no case for subjecting the respondent no.1 to stand trial is made out. 8. We are satisfied that interest of justice would be sufficiently served if the order impugned is set aside and both the writ petition as well as the petition under Section 482, Cr. PC are reconsidered by the High Court. It is ordered accordingly. 9. The petitions filed by the respondent no.1 stand restored on the file of the High Court. 10. Given the lapse of time since registration of the crime, we request the High Court, subject to its convenience, to decide the petitions as early as possible.” 30. Accordingly, these two petitions have come up before this Court for reconsideration. 31.By way of WPCr, the petitioner seeks quashing of the entire criminal proceedings and by way of Cr.M.P., the petitioner seeks copies of certain documents which were allegedly seized by the respondent/CBI. 32.The allegations against the petitioner are basically that he, in connivance with other accused persons including the Bank officials, got his name recorded against the owner of the locker in question which was owned by B.L.Agrawal, an IAS officer, posted in the State of Chhattisgarh. The detailed reply filed by the respondent/CBI speaks volumes. The documentary evidence as well as the statement of the bank officials makes it amply clear that firstly, the demise of the co-owner R.D.Goel was not informed by B.L.Agrawal to the Bank authorities and the name of the petitioner was got added in place of B.L.Agrawal antedating the applications in a fraudulent manner and further, the petitioner also could not establish that the cash of Rs. 15 Lakhs found in the locker in 25 question belonged to Mamta Agrawal, though in the IT proceedings, she has been exonerated. As per the return filed by the CBI, it is amply clear that the said amount of Rs. 15 Lakhs for which B.L.Agrawal did not had any explanation, the entire conspiracy was hatched and the said amount was tried to be shown to be belonging to Mamta Agrawal, when in fact, the said amount prima facie belonged to B.L.Agrawal himself. The plea taken by the petitioner is not tenable and acceptable as the bundles of currency notes bear the slips of State Bank of India and Dena Bank instead of Union Bank of India as claimed by the petitioner. Further, the date placed on the bundles of notes was of the year 2007, instead of 2009 as claimed by the petitioner. Moreover, the CCTV footage of the bank also proves that he neither entered the locker room on 13.1.2010 nor came out of the same. 33.A query was put by this Court as to how may cases have been registered against B.L.Agrawal, it has been informed by the learned counsel for the State as well as by the CBI that there are three-four other cases registered under various offences under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. 34.From perusal of the materials available on record, it transpires that prima facie there is sufficient materials available on record to prosecute the petitioner as he connived with other accused persons and in order to provide a shield to his brother B.L.Agrawal, the petitioner has tried to show that the locker in question belonged to him and the money belonged to Mamta Agrawal, and his brother B.L.Agrawal, had nothing to do either with the locker or the cash found in the locker. The charge sheet has already been filed by the respondent/CBI before the learned Special Judge (CBI) and at this stage, we do not find any extraordinary reason so as to interfere with the trial proceedings. Prima facie, the 26 conduct of the petitioner clearly falls under the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 419, 466 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code. 35.A perusal of the charge sheet goes to show that the FIR was lodged against B.L.Agrawal, the petitioner and Antony Samy for the offences under Sections 120-B read with Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477(A) of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. However, the charge-sheet filed by the CBI reveals that the petitioner alongwith two other co-accused i.e. B.L.Agrawal and Antony Samy, they are alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 419, 466 and 477-A of the IPC. There is prima facie ample evidence collected by the CBI that the B.L.Agrawal conspired with the petitioner and Antony Samy, the then incharge of Locker Department of the Bank as ante- dated application was prepared by the petitioner and B.L.Agrawal and was taken on record by Antony Samy. The statement of Antony Samy alongwith other officials of the Bank makes it amply clear that it was the petitioner who in order to save his brother B.L.Agrawal, got his name entered in the records of the Bank by ante-dating an application. The original co-owner of the Locker namely R.D.Goel had expired on 07.12.2005 but the same was never intimated to the Bank and on 03.07.2009, the locker was operated by B.L.Agrawal with signature of R.D.Goel and that too, with specimen signature in English, whereas R.D.Goel used to sign in Hindi. Hence, the offence of cheating by impersonation appears to be prima facie made out. The statement of co- accused Antony Samy clearly indicates that there has been manipulations in the Bank records to show that the petitioner is the renter of the locker in question and not B.L.Agrawal. 27 36.Even though the ITD may have observed that the amount of Rs. 15 Lacs belonged to Smt. Mamta Agrawal, the offence of criminal conspiracy, cheating by impersonation, forging of record of public register etc. and falsification of accounts are prima facie made out against the petitioner. The petitioner knowing fully well that the co-renter of the Locker R.D.Goel had expired way back on 07.12.2005, did not intimate the Bank and got his name inserted in place of B.L.Agrawal by ante-dating an application, which is an act of cheating. The materials available on record in the charge sheet filed by the CBI is sufficient to observe that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 120-B, 419, 466, 477-A of the IPC. There are number of officials / employees of the Bank who have made a statement against the petitioner. The death certificate of R.D.Goel enclosed with the charge sheet clearly establishes that R.D.Goel had expired way back on 07.12.2005 which was never intimated to the Bank. 37.So far as the jurisdiction / competence of the CBI to investigate the matter is concerned, this Court, in Sushil Chandrakar & Others (supra) observed as under: “5. Annexure-P/2 is the letter No. 695/Home/2001 dated 03.02.2001 written by Principal Secretary, Govt. of Chhattisgarh to the Additional Secretary, Govt. of India DOPT, North Block, New Delhi, whereby, it has been informed that “The Govt. of Chhattisgarh here of gives its consent u/s 6 of the DSPS Act 1946.” Thus, vide aforesaid letter, consent under Section 6 of the Act 1946 was given by the Govt. of Chhattisgarh to the CBI to register and file criminal case arising from the State of Chhattisgarh. 6. The pleadings of the petition and the documents available on record show that instant crime was registered against the petitioners and other persons on 06.5.2012 at Durg for the offence under Sections 120B of the Indian Penal Code read 28 with Sections 7, 12, 13, 13(1)(a) and 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which is well within the purview of aforesaid consent (Annexure-P/2) given by the Govt. of Chhattisgarh, as consent under Section 6 of the Act 1946 was given by the Govt. of Chhattisgarh. So far as, clarificatory notification issued by the Govt. of Chhattisgarh (Annexure-P/4) is concerned, it was issued on 19.7.2012, i.e. after registration of aforesaid FIR. It is also worth to note here that notification dated 19.7.2012 (Annexure-P/4) nowhere states that consent given earlier is withdrawn, rather, it states that consent of the Govt. of Chhattisgarh shall continue to be given on the case to case basis. Hence, it cannot be said that the CBI has registered Case No.RC1242012A0003 and filed charge sheet before learned Special Judge against the petitioner without having jurisdiction under Section 6 of the Act 1946. 7. In view of the above, only on the basis of clarificatory notification issued by the Govt. of Chhattisgarh dated 19.7.2012 (Annexure-P/4), it cannot be said that there was no consent given by the State government under Section 6 of the Act 1946 or consent was withdrawn. Hence, we are not inclined to grant any of the relief sought by the petitioner. 8. Having regard to the above consideration, we do not find any merit in the instant petition, hence the same is dismissed. However, as has been informed by the petitioners on 30.9.2019 that the trial against the petitioners is on the verge of its completion and the case was listed for final argument on 01.10.2019, hence, we do not find any good ground for interference in the present petition for grant of any of the relief claimed by the petitioners, hence, the same is refused and the petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the learned trial Court/Special Judge is directed to proceed with the trial and conclude the same expeditiously on day to day basis and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment.” 38.The aforesaid issue is already settled and as such, this plea of the petitioner is also rejected. 29 39.So far as Cr.M.P. No. 587/2013, is concerned, on a specific query being made to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to what prejudice is going to be caused if the documents as sought by the petitioner is not supplied to the petitioner, especially when the prosecution/CBI has not made it a part of the charge sheet and it has also been stated that they would not be placing any kind of reliance on those documents, the learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to state anything except to say that in light of various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the prosecution is required to supply each and every document which they had seized during the investigation. The order passed by the learned trial Court as well as revisional Court rejecting the application of the petitioner is well reasoned and does not warrant any interference. 40.As a result of the aforesaid discussion, both these petitions viz. WPCr. No. 201/2017 as well as Cr.M.P. No. 587/2013, are dismissed being devoid of merit. No order as to cost(s). 41.Since the trial is pending consideration for a long period of time of 12 years, this Court hopes and trust that the learned trial Court would make all efforts to conclude the trial at the earliest. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.10.08 19:02:36 +0530