A special CBI court recently refused to discharge a member of the city’s Child Welfare Committee, who also works as a fitness counsellor, in a disproportionate asset (DA) case.
Christine Swaminathan and her husband, Sharadchandra Swaminathan, superintendent at the Central Goods and Services Tax office, have been named as accused in a DA case by the CBI.
Christine claimed that the agency had failed to consider her independent income and said that she was not earning anything. Special Judge SM Menjoge rejected her claim and said: “There is prima facie evidence against her to abet the said offence by her husband of accumulating wealth more than his known source of income. Mere filing of ITR does not mean that said amount was earned by legal source.”
As per the CBI’s case, Sharadchandra is alleged to have accumulated immovable and movable properties in his name and in the name of his wife from April 2003 to January 2018. It is further alleged that both these accused acquired properties worth Rs1.18 crore as against likely saving of Rs30.66 lakh. Christine is accused of abetting the offence.
Christine, however, claimed that in the FIR, income and expenditure figures were wrong.
The prosecution argued that seven witnesses had stated that they did not know the applicant and had never paid her any fees.
The prosecution further said no staff worked at her consultancy centre, no book of accounts were maintained. The applicant had given names of her 60 clients. But some were not found on given addresses and eight people had denied taking her treatment. According to the prosecution, Christine had filed fake ITRs.
“Applicant’s chartered accountant has given list of 60 clients whose names are mentioned in cash receipts, but during investigation only eigt persons were found residing on the given addresses. Their statement are recorded but they stated that they had never taken any treatment from applicant nor paid any fees to her. Rest of persons were not found. Applicant has not maintained book of account to substantiate her income but, only filed ITR,” the court said.
