A retired Army Major General, who was chargesheeted by CBI along with his wife for allegedly amassing huge assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, has been denied relief by a special court which dismissed his plea seeking discharge in the case.
Special CBI Judge Vinod Kumar dismissed the plea filed by Major General (Retd) Anand Kumar Kapur, noting that only a "full-fledged trial" would determine as to whether the assets, in the name of his wife, son and other relatives were actually allegedly acquired by the accused.
"I have perused the case diary and I find that approval of the Central Government for the registration of regular case in this matter was accorded by the Central Government," the judge said, adding, "Accordingly, application for discharge on behalf of accused number 1 (Kapur) is hereby dismissed."
CBI had filed a charge sheet against Kapur and his wife Mridula Kapur allegating that during his service period from November 14, 1971 to May 31, 2006, Kapur had amassed assets in his name and in the name of his family members which were disproportionate to his known sources of income.
Regarding Mridula, it was alleged that she had actively abetted him in acquisition of huge assets.
Both the accused have denied the allegations levelled against them by the CBI.
The court had noted the charge sheet showed that almost the whole service period has been considered as check period.
During arguments, the defence counsel said the check period prior to 1988 should not be considered because any act of acquiring property prior to that cannot be subject matter of trial under Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, 1988, which came into effect in September 1988.
Dealing with this issue, the court said with promulgation of the new Act in 1988, the previous offence covered under the PC Act, 1947 has been continued by the legislature.
Kapur's counsel also argued that his client was a serving officer at the time of alleged commission of offence and if an Army officer commits any offence which relates to section 13 of PC Act or disproportionate assets, he is liable to be tried under the Army Act for court martial only.
During the arguments, Kapur's counsel contended that his client cannot be tried twice for the same offence as a court of enquiry of the Army was constituted against him.
Opposing Kapur's plea seeking discharge from the case, CBI said there were plethora of judgements in which it was decided that court martial and criminal prosecution cannot amount to double jeopardy.
CBI had filed the charge sheet in the case, which is presently at the stage of arguments on framing of charges, in October 2009.
