VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

940 DECISION - 527
prosecution having established by legal evidence that the monies
were transferred by the appellant to A.2 and A.3 through A.4 and that
these were monies of the appellant in the hands of A.2 and A.3, it
was for the appellant to satisfactorily account for the gifts. He could
have done so by showing that even before the check period A.4 had
made gifts of substantial amounts. It has not been claimed by A.2
and/or A.3 and/or A.4 that before the check period also A.4 had made
any such gifts. It is also not their case that after the check period
gifts were made. Thus the trial court and the High Court were right in
not believing the case of gifts supposedly made out of a sudden
burst of love and affection. Both the trial court and the High Court
were right in convicting the appellant.
The Supreme Court observed that they were told that the
State is going to file an appeal against the acquittal of A.2 and A.3,
they (Supreme Court) are not making any comments thereon.
The Supreme Court held that there is no infirmity in the order
of the High Court so far as the conviction of the appellant is concerned
and saw no reason to interfere.
(527)
(A) Cr.P.C. — Sec. 173(2)(8)
(B) Investigation — further investigation after final
report
Special Judge can order further investigation under
sec. 173(8) Cr.P.C., on receipt of final report under
sec. 173(2) Cr.P.C. for ends of justice, but he cannot
direct that further investigation shall be conducted
by an officer of a particular rank.
Hemant Dhasmana vs. Central Bureau of Investigation,
2001 Cri.L.J. SC 4190
This is a case of trap laid by the Central Bureau of
Investigation against the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, in which,