Summons to Amarinder, son issued on inadmissible evidence: Ludhiana court

AN ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE HAS DIRECTED THE LOWER COURT TO DECIDE AFRESH ON A CASE THAT THE IT DEPT HAD FILED AGAINST DUO IN 2016

The court of additional sessions judge Rajeev K Beri has directed the lower court to decide afresh on a case that the income tax department had filed against Punjab chief minister Captain Amarinder Singh and his son Raninder Singh in 2016.

The case pertains to “properties and concealed income” the family allegedly owns in foreign countries. The court allowed three revision petitions that Raninder had filed.

Previously, the court of chief judicial magistrate Jaapinder Singh had issued summons to Raninder on March 7, 2016, March 17, 2017 and April 24, 2017. These had been stayed.

The court found that mere unattested photocopies, not complying with section 78 (6) of the Indian Evidence Act, were attached with the I-T department’s complaint.

“The income tax department never had the original mastersheets in hand. These always remained with the French authorities, where these were converted into the digital form of pen drive. This was then handed over to the competent authority,” the court observed.

“This information was then forwarded to the Chandigarh office from where... the same was received ultimately by the Ludhiana office of the department. The original mastersheets never landed with the Ludhiana office. These so called public documents remained in (France),” the court added.

“The outcome is that there was no admissible evidence so far before the trial court on the basis of which it could make out the existence of any ground to proceed against the accused. It was required to look into these material aspects and not pass summoning order mechanically,” the court added.

THE COMPLAINT

The prosecution complaint — the I-T department’s equivalent of a police charge-sheet — was filed in 2016 under sections 277 (false statement in verification) of the I-T Act and sections 176 (omission to give notice or information to public servant), 177 (furnishing false information), 193 (false evidence) and 199 (false statement made in declaration which is by law receivable as evidence) of the IPC.