Delhi District Court
Cc No.30/11Cbi vs . Vijay Kumar Verma 1/153 on 14 October, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. M.K. NAGPAL, SPECIAL JUDGE
(P.C.ACT), CBI08, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI
CC No. : 30/2011
RC No. : 56(A)/1999
PS : CBI/ACB/ND
U/s : Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of PC Act, 1988
Unique ID No. 02401R0361992002
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
Versus
Vijay Kumar Verma
S/o Late Sh. Raghubir Chand Verma
R/o 19/9, Kalkaji, New Delhi
Date of FIR : 21.11.1999
Date of Institution : 01.07.2002
Arguments concluded on : 01.10.2015
Date of Judgment : 14.10.2015
J U D G M E N T
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
1. This case was registered on the basis of source information alleging that the accused Vijay Kumar Verma, Junior Engineer, MCD, Lajpat Nagar Zone, New Delhi had amassed huge assets by corrupt and illegal means which were CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 1/153 disproportionate to his known sources of income. These assets were reported to have been acquired by him during his service period in MCD. The immovable and movable assets acquired by the accused included two houses situated at 19/9, Kalkaji Extn., New Delhi and K1/11 C.R. Park, New Delhi, one Maruti car and other expensive household articles, valuing Rs. 33 lacs in total, whereas the total income of the accused from his all known sources came to Rs. 9,12,000/ approximately. On taking his expenditure @ 33% of the income earned by him, the assets disproportionate to his known sources of income came to the extent of Rs. 27 lacs approximately.
OUTCOME OF INVESTIGATION
2. Investigation revealed that the accused was born on 20.12.1957 and got married with Smt. Savita Verma, daughter of Sh. Gopi Chand Wadhwa, on 25.01.1998 and two children, i.e. one son namely Gaurav Vijay and one daughter namely Garima Vijay, were born out of the above wedlock. Investigation further revealed that after completion of his Diploma in Civil Engineering from G.B. Pant Polytechnic, Okhla, the accused joined MCD on 01.07.1978 as a Junior Engineer and he was working as such till date. His wife Smt. Savita Verma was also a Government servant and she joined IFCI on 01.07.1978 as a Stenographer and got promotion in 1995 as Personal Secretary. Since the accused and his wife started amassing assets since 1986, the check period was CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 2/153 taken from January 1986 to 22.11.1999. The status of Assets, Income, Expenditure and likely savings before check period came as under :
1. Assets Not included
2. Income Rs. 2,41,479.20
3. Expenditure Rs. 44,055.00
4. Likely savings Rs. 1,97,424.20
3. Investigation further revealed that during the check period from 01.01.1986 to 22.11.1999, the total income of Rs. 28,77,426.45 of the accused was as under :
1. Salary income of the accused Rs. 5,38,551.00
2. Salary income of Smt. Savita Verma Rs. 12,84,000.00
3. Refund from HUDA Faridabad Rs. 18,834.00
4. Income from bank account no. 50761 at Bank Rs. 3,838.00 of Baroda at Sansad Marg, New Delhi
5. Income from bank account no. 130354 at State Rs. 2,250.00 Bank of Hyderabad Scope Complex, New Delhi
6. Income from bank account no. 150169 State Rs. 11,840.00 Bank of Hyderabad Scope Complex, New Delhi
7. Survival benefit of LIC policy no. 0248657471 Rs. 6,000.00
8. Survival benefit of LIC policy no. 110912211 Rs. 12,000.00
9. Survival benefit of LIC policy no. 5025802 Rs. 7,500.00
10. IFCI bonds and shares interest and dividend Rs. 14,223.00
11. UTI dividend Rs. 18,933.85
12. Bank interest from account no. 2525 at Central Rs. 1,651.00 Bank of India Sukhdev Vihar
13. Bank interest from account no. 01SMP 157200 Rs. 25,920.40 & six FDs at Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank
14. Bank account no. 18022 at PNB Narayna Delhi Rs. 5,383.20
15. Bank account no. 73601 at Syndicate Bank, Rs. 4,650.00 Nehru Place, New Delhi
16. Bank interest in account no. 107647 at Rs 19,083.00 Allahabad Bank CR Park, New Delhi
17. Rental income Rs. 1,32,000.00
18. Income by sale property no. H66, Rajouri Rs. 32,000.00 Garden
19. Income by purchase and sale of property no. Rs 35,000.00 K1/28 CR Park
20. Income by purchase and sale of property no. Rs. 34,000.00 J1, two shops at Rajouri Garden CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 3/153
21. Income by purchase and sale of property no. Rs. 1,22,000.00 J176, Rajouri Garden
22. Income by purchase and sale of property no. Rs. 38,260.00 K1/11, CR Park, New Delhi
23. Income by purchase and sale of property farm Rs. 1,64,000.00 at Village Bhatti Mehrauli
24. Income by sale of shop at Lajpat Nagar Rs. 1,30,000.00
25. Income by purchase and sale of property farm Rs. 1,57,000.00 at Fatehpur Beri
26. Interest earned in bank account no. 106572 in Rs. 207.00 Allahbad Bank, CR Park
27. Interest earned in bank account no. 414 in PNB Rs. 330.00 ASC Alaknanda
28. Interest earned in bank account no. 426 in PNB Rs. 7,972.00 ASC Alaknanda
29. Income by purchase and sale of property no. Rs. 50,000.00 10/11 Kalkaji, New Delhi Total income = Rs.28,77,426.45
4. Investigation has further disclosed that the following total expenditure of Rs.15,58,539.98 was incurred by the accused during the above said check period:
1. Kitchen expenses Rs. 3,55,377.00
2. Water charges Rs. 9,450.00
3. Education charges Rs. 1,06,870.00
4. Telephone charges Rs. 35,959.00
5. Cell Phone charges Rs. 75,021.00
6. Insurance charges for Maruti car no. DL 8CA6697 Rs. 7,318.00
7. Insurance charges paid for Kinetic Honda no. Rs. 512.00 DL 3S 4132
8. Insurance charges paid for the new Santro car Rs. 10,913.00
9. Paid for LIC Policy no. 112087528 Rs. 30,000.00
10. Paid for LIC Policy no. 0248657471 Rs. 16,968.00
11. Paid for LIC Policy no. 111486527 Rs. 99,664.00
12. Paid for LIC Policy no. 110912211 Rs. 19,992.80
13. Paid for LIC Policy no. 5025802 Rs. 18,915.00
14. House tax paid for house no. 19/9 Kalkaji. Rs. 20,211.00 New Delhi
15. Repair bill for Maruti car no. DL8CA6697 Rs. 1,235.00
16. Consultation charges Rs. 250.00
17. Installation charges for Gen Set Rs. 573.00
18. Rent for locker at Central Bank of India, Rs. 9,225.00 Sukhdev Vihar
19. Rent for locker at Central Bank of India, Rs. 6,825.00 Sukhdev Vihar
20. Rent for locker at PNB Rs. 775.00 CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 4/153
21. Renovation charges for house no. 19/9 Kalkaji Rs. 32,468.00
22. Maintenance charges for motorcycle Rs. 2,640.00
23. Registration fees for vehicle Rs. 5,165.00
24. Purchase and sale of Moped no. 3SA6839 Rs. 9,564.00
25. Purchase and sale of motorcycle Rs. 3,025.00
26. Income tax paid by Smt. Har Kaur Rs. 54,589.00
27. Income tax paid by Smt. Savita Verma Rs. 2,97,858.00
28. Paid to Eureka Forbes Rs. 15,712.00
29. Payment of passport office Rs. 300.00
30. Electricity Charges Rs. 1,98,544.18
31. Bank charges to Standard and Chartered Rs. 400.00 Grindlays
32. Bank charges paid at Allahabad Bank, Rs. 60.00 CR Park, New Delhi
33. Paid to broker from agriculture land at Bhatti, Rs. 1,00,000.00 Mehrauli
34. Income tax paid by the accused Rs. 8,753.00
35. Loss by purchase and sale of scooter Rs. 3,408.00 Total Expenditure = Rs. 15,58,539.98
5. Investigation further disclosed that the accused was having following immovable assets valuing Rs. 43,75,487.00 in total, either in his own name or in the name of his family members, which were acquired by him during the above check period:
1. House no. 19/9, Kalkaji Ext., New Delhi Rs. 4,79,987.00
2. Plot no. 888, Sector 21C, PartII Rs. 5,19,750.00 Faridabad
3. Flat No. 36A Ground Floor, Pocket 13, Rs. 2,10,000.00 DDA Flats, Kalkaji Ext., New Delhi
4. Agricultural land at Mauza Fajalpur, Jharsa, Rs. 31,65,750.00 District Gurgaon, Haryana Total value = Rs. 43,75,487.00
6. Investigation further revealed that the accused was having the following movable assets valuing Rs.14,06,655.84 as on 22.11.1999, either in his own name or CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 5/153 in the name of his family members, which were acquired by him during the above said check period:
1. Household articles Rs. 4,37,464.00
2. Cash Rs. 87,400.00
3. Maruti Car no. DL8CA 6697 Rs. 2,00,000.00
4. Hyundai Santro car Rs. 3,03,610.00
5. Kinetic Honda Rs. 41,200.00
6. Bank account no. 2525 at Central Rs. 1,805.74 Bank of India, Sukhdev Vihar
7. Bank account no. 01SMP 157200 at Standard Rs. 73,615.30 Chartered Grindlays
8. Bank account no. 18022 at PNB, Narayana, Rs. 14,108.20 Delhi
9. Bank account no. 73601 at Syndicate Bank, Rs. 47,310.99 Nehru Place, New Delhi
10. Battery purchased from New Delhi Rs. 1,600.00 Tyre House
11. Crompton Motor 1HP with material Rs. 4,062.00
12. One blower cool home motor Rs. 2,000.00
13. IFCI bonds and shares Rs. 60,000.00
14. Different cycles purchased from Mahabikes Rs. 4,098.45 International
15. NSCs Rs. 43,000.00
16. UTI certificates Rs. 51,368.00
17. MTNL cell phone Rs. 10,000.00
18. GIC Rise units Rs. 15,000.00
19. Bank account no. 107647 at Allahabad Bank, Rs. 7,774.45 C.R. Park, New Delhi
20. Bank account no. 106572 at Allahabad Bank, Rs. 1,238.71 C.R. Park, New Delhi Total value = Rs.14,06,655.84
7. Thus the total value of the movable and immovable assets of the accused during the above check period was found to be Rs. 57,82,143.14 (Rs. 43,75,487.00 + Rs. 14,06,655.84). [It is found that the total value of movable assets of accused comes to Rs.57,82,142.84 and not Rs. 57,82,143.14 and there appears to be a difference of only 30 paise in the above total amount given in chargesheet.] CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 6/153
8. The investigation has, thus, revealed that the accused being a public servant and with a likely saving to the extent of Rs. 13,18,886.47 (i.e. income of Rs. 28,77,426.45 () expenditure of Rs. 15,58,539.98) was in possession of disproportionate assets (DA) to the extent of Rs. 44,63,256.67 (i.e. assets of Rs. 57,82,143.14 (+) expenditure of Rs. 15,58,539.98 () income of Rs. 28,77,426.45) (As stated above, the DA should be Rs. 44,63,256.37) as on 22.11.1999 and hence, the aforesaid facts disclosed commission of an offence punishable u/s 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short PC Act) by the accused and accordingly a chargesheet was prepared against the accused and filed in the court, after obtaining the requisite sanction for his prosecution for the above said offence from the competent authority.
PROCEEDINGS UPTO FRAMING OF CHARGE AND THE DOCUMENTS ADMITTED BY THE ACCUSED
9. The chargesheet was filed in the court on 01.07.2002 and cognizance of the above said offence was taken by the court on 20.08.2002 and on appearance of the accused on being summoned, he was also supplied copy of the chargesheet and documents, in compliance of the provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C.
CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 7/153
10. During the course of admission and denial of the documents conducted on 10.09.2004, in terms of the provisions contained in section 294 r/w section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused in his statement had admitted certain documents of the prosecution, to be read in evidence against him during the trial, and the same were, hence, exhibited. The details of these documents are as under :
DOCUMENTS ADMITTED ON 10.09.04 DOCUMENT NO. NATURE OF DOCUMENT EX. NO.
D6 PRODUCTION CUM SEIZURE MEMO DT. 24.11.99 PW P.1 MCS LTD. LETTER DT. 19.09.2001 CONTAINING D27 DIVIDENT/SHARES INFORMATION OF SAVITA VERMA PW P.2 AND V K VERMA PHOTOCOPY OF SALE DEED DT. 08.03.1995 OF PROP. D28 H66, RAJOURI GARDEN IN FAVOUR OF ANOOP PW P.3 NARANG AND EXECUTED BY SMT. HAR KAUR PHOTOCOPY OF SALE DEED DT. 08.03.1995 OF H66, D29 RAJOURI GARDEN IN FAVOUR OF ANOOP NARANG PW P.4 AND EXECUTED BY SMT. SAVITA VERMA PHOTOCOPY OF SALE DEED DT. 08.03.1995 OF H66, D30 RAJOURI GARDEN IN FAVOUR OF ANOOP NARANG AND PW P.5 EXECUTED BY SMT. SAVITA VERMA PHOTOCOPY OF SALE DEED DT. 24.02.1995 OF H66, D31 RAJOURI GARDEN IN FAVOUR OF ANOOP NARANG AND PW P.6 EXECUTED BY SMT. SAVITA VERMA PHOTOCOPY OF GPA OF G/F OF K1/11, C R PARK IN D32 PW P.7 FAVOUR OF K C SHARMA BY V K VERMA PHOTOCOPY OF SALE DEED DT. 21.12.1994 OF J176, D33 RAJOURI GARDEN IN FAVOUR OF S. SATPAL SINGH BY PW P.8 V K VERMA PHOTOCOPY OF SALE DEED DT. 21.12.94 OF J176, D34 RAJOURI GARDEN IN FAVOUR OF SMT. GULJEET KAUR PW P.9 BY V K VERMA PHOTOCOPY OF SALE DEED DT. 21.12.94 OF J176, D35 RAJOURI GARDEN IN FAVOUR OF KAWALDEEP SINGH PW P.10 BY V K VERMA PHOTOCOPY OF SALE DEED DT. 21.12.94 OF J176, D36 RAJOURI GARDEN IN FAVOUR OF SH. SATPAL SINGH PW P.11 BY SMT. SAVITA VERMA PHOTOCOPY OF SALE DEED DT. 21.12.94 OF J176, D37 RAJOURI GARDEN IN FAVOUR OF KARTAR SINGH PW P.12 CHANDHOK BY SMT. SAVITA VERMA D45 PHOTOCOPY OF LEASE DEED DT. 16.01.1998 OF FLAT PW P.13 NO. 36 A, POCKETA13 FORT VIEW APPT. , KALKA JI CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 8/153 BETWEEN V K VERMA AND TRIVENI ENG..LTD. MCD LETTER DT. 08.11.2001 WITH SALARY DETAIL OF V D47 PW P.14 K VERMA MCD LETTER DT. 09.11.2001 WITH SALARY DETAIL OF V D48 PW P.15 K VERMA FOUR ORIGINAL SALE DEEDS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AT VILLAGE FAZAL PUR, JHARSA, GURGAON D75 PW P.16 WITH MUKTHIARNANAS IN FAVOUR OF VIJAY KUMAR VERMA ORIGINAL LIC POLICY NO. S110542235 IN NAME OF D142 PW P.17 SMT. AND SH. VERMA ONE FILE HAVING PROPERTY PAPERS OF FLAT NO. 36 D146 PW P.18 A POCKET A13, KALKAJI UTI CHILDREN GIFT GROWTH FUND 1986 CERTIFICATE D151 PW P.19 IN NAME OF KUMAR GAURAV VIJAY IFCI FAMILY BOND DIVIDEND WARRANT NO. 667 IN D152 PW P.20 NAME OF GAURAV VIJAY IFCI FAMILY BOND DIVIDEND WARRANT NO. 538415 IN D153 PW P.21 NAME OF GARIMA VIJAY UTI CHILDREN GIFT GROWTH FUND 1986 CERTIFICATE D154 PW P.22 NAME OF KUMAR GAURAV VIJAY UTI CHILDREN GIFT GROWTH FUND 1986 CERTIFICATE D155 PW P.23 NAME OF KUMAR GAURAV VIJAY IFCI FAMILY BOND WARRANT NO.715 IN NAME OF V K D165 PW P.24 VERMA UTI UNIT SCHEME 1964 CERTIFICATE IN NAME OF V K D166 PW P.25 VERMA UTI UNIT SCHEME 1964 CERTIFICATE IN NAME OF V K D167 PW P.26 VERMA UTI UNIT SCHEME 1964 CERTIFICATE IN NAME OF V K D168 PW P.27 VERMA UTI UNIT SCHEME 1964 CERTIFICATE IN NAME OF V K D169 PW P.28 VERMA UTI UNIT SCHEME 1964 CERTIFICATE IN NAME OF V K D170 PW P.29 VERMA UTI UNIT SCHEME 1964 CERTIFICATE IN NAME OF V K D171 PW P.30 VERMA UTI UNIT SCHEME 1964 CERTIFICATE IN NAME OF V K D173 PW P.31 VERMA & SAVITA VERMA UTI CHILDREN GIFT GROWTH UNIT SCHEME 1986 D174 PW P.32 CERTIFICATE IN NAME OF V K VERMA IFCI FAMILY BOND FOLIO NO. 5311217 IN NAME OF V D175 PW P.33 K VERMA PHOTOCOPY SALE DEED DT. 31.12.94 OF PLOT NO. 176, D190 BLOCKJ, RAJOURI GARDEN IN FAVOUR OF SMT. PW P.34 JASBIR KAUR BY SAVITA VERMA
11. During the further admission and denial of the CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 9/153 documents conducted on 30.11.2004, some other documents of the prosecution were also admitted by the accused, to be read in evidence against him, and the same were also accordingly exhibited. These documents are as under:
DOCUMENTS ADMITTED ON 30.11.04 DOCUMENT NO. NATURE OF DOCUMENT EX. NO.
D76 NSC OF RS. 10000/ IN NAME OF MS. SAVITA VERMA PW P.35 D77 NSC OF RS. 10000/ IN NAME OF MS. SAVITA VERMA PW P.36 D78 NSC OF RS. 10000/ IN NAME OF MS. SAVITA VERMA PW P.37 D79 NSC OF RS. 10000/ IN NAME OF MS. SAVITA VERMA PW P.38 D80 NSC OF RS. 10000/ IN NAME OF MS. SAVITA VERMA PW P.39 D81 NSC OF RS. 10000/ IN NAME OF MS. SAVITA VERMA PW P.40 D82 NSC OF RS. 10000/ IN NAME OF MS. SAVITA VERMA PW P.41 D83 NSC OF RS. 1000/ IN NAME OF MS. SAVITA VERMA PW P.42 IFCI RETIREMENT FAMILY BOND CERTIFICATE NO.
D105 PW P.43 2554 IN NAME OF SAVITA VERMA IFCI EDUCATION BOND CERTIFICATE NO. 31269 IN D106 PW P.44 NAME OF GARIMA VERMA IFCI GROWING BOND CERTIFICATE NO. 23117 IN D107 PW P.45 NAME OF SAVITA VERMA IFCI MILLIONAIRE BOND CERTIFICATE NO. 50283 IN D108 PW P.46 NAME OF SAVITA VERMA LIC POLICY NO. 50258502 OF RS. 15000/ IN NAME D141 PW P.47 OF SAVITA VERMA IFCI FAMILY BOND FOLIO NO. 5069925 IN NAME OF D162 PW P.48 GAURAV VIJAY U/G SAVITA VERMA
12. Thereafter, detailed arguments were heard by this court on the point of charge and on the basis of the arguments advanced and the written arguments/submissions filed from both the sides, the accused was given benefit for certain other amounts, as claimed in para nos. 2(a), 2(c), 2(e), 2(g), 2(h), 2(i) and 2(j) of his written submissions dated 20.04.2005 filed on record, vide the order on charge dated 05.09.2006 of this court. The amounts and the relevant heads corresponding CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 10/153 these amounts as contained in the above paras, for which the accused was given benefit, are as under:
Para 2(a): The accused had claimed that as per the document D192, his net salary income during the period from 01.08.1996 to 31.10.1998 was Rs.2,22,582/, whereas in the statement of PW7 Sh. Prem Lal Upreti, a benefit of only Rs.1,14,856/ was given to him and hence, he was entitled to addition of an amount of Rs.1,07,732/ in his salary income.
Though, in the written submissions of the CBI, this benefit was denied to the accused, but during the course of arguments on charge, the same was admitted by Ld Sr. PP for CBI, on the basis of statement of PW7 and the document D192 and hence, the accused was held to be entitled to the addition of the above said amount of Rs.1,07,732/ as his salary income vide the above order on charge dated 05.09.2006 of the court.
Para 2(c): Under this para, the accused was given a benefit of Rs.12,000/, to be included in his income, which was on account of two months' security deposit as per document no. D45 and the statement of PW65 Sh. Neeraj Srivastava, which was earlier not added in his rental income calculated to be only Rs.1,32,000/ on the basis of the above evidence.
Para 2(e): Under this para, the accused was given benefit of addition of an amount of Rs.3,70,000/ to his income and it CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 11/153 was on account of a loan for the said amount which was taken by his wife Smt. Savita Verma from her father in law, i.e. the father of accused, Sh. R.C. Verma in 1986, i.e. during the check period, for purchase of property no. 19/9, Kalkaji, New Delhi, as per document no. D73 and statement of PW62 Sh. S.P. Arora. The above amount was earlier not taken into account while calculating the income of the accused.
Para 2(g): Under this para, the accused was given benefit of addition of an amount of Rs.4,50,000/ to his income and it was on account of a loan for the said amount which was taken by his wife Smt. Savita Verma from her mother in law, i.e. the mother of accused, Smt. Har Kaur during the check period, i.e. in 1998, for purchase of plot no. 888, Sector 21C, PartII, Faridabad, as per the statement of PW62 Sh. S.P. Arora. The above amount was also earlier not taken into account while calculating the income of the accused.
Para 2(h): Under this para, the accused was given benefit of addition of an amount of Rs.1,50,000/ to his income, which was on account of a loan of Rs.1,50,000/ taken by his wife Smt. Savita Verma from her sister Smt. Manorma Ahuja for purchase of Santro Car and it was advanced by way of cheques, which were credited in her account (document D44) on 28.04.1999 (Rs.1,00,000/) and on 29.04.1999 (Rs.50,000/), which amount was also earlier not included in CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 12/153 the income of the accused.
Para 2(i): Under this para, the accused was given benefit of addition of an amount of Rs.80,000/ in his income as agriculture income during the check period and it was given as per document no. D63 and the same was also found to be not earlier included in his income.
Para 2(j): Under this para, the accused was given benefit of addition of an amount of Rs.1,97,424/ in his income, which was the amount of his likely savings prior to the check period and the same was also not found added in his income earlier, though it was specifically mentioned in the chargesheet itself.
13. Thus, after giving benefit of the above said amounts to the accused on above said accounts, it was observed by this court in its above order dated 05.09.2006 on charge that on the basis of the material collected by the prosecution, the accused is found to be in possession of disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs. 30,96,100/ only and a prima facie case for commission of the offence punishable u/s 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act was held to be made out against the accused and hence, a charge for the said offence was directed to be framed against him.
14. It is necessary to mention here that benefit of a CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 13/153 total amount of Rs. 13,67,156/ under the above paras is found to be given to the accused in the charge as the disproportionate assets of the accused were reduced from Rs. 44,63,256.67 given in the chargesheet to Rs. 30,96,100/ in the charge (Rs. 44,63,256.67 - Rs. 13,67,156 = Rs. 30,96,100/). However, in the charge, the total assets of the accused to the tune of Rs. 57,82,143.14 have been inadvertently mentioned as including the precheck assets of Rs. 1,97,424/ (rounded of as such) and his income has been shown as 40,47,158/ (Rs. 28,77,426.45 given in the chargesheet + Rs. 11,69,732/, i.e. the difference of the amounts of Rs. 13,67,156/ and Rs. 1,97,424/ mentioned above) whereas actually, on calculations, it is found that the above amount of Rs. 1,97,424/ was added in the income of the accused and it has thus reduced his disproportionate assets to the extent of the said amount.
15. A charge for the above said offence punishable under section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act was also formally framed against the accused by this court on the same day and the evidence of the prosecution had started to be led on record w.e.f. 12.03.2007.
16. However, during the course of trial and at different times, certain other documents of the prosecution were also admitted by the accused and the same are as follows:
CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 14/153 DOCUMENTS ADMITTED ON 10.04.07 DOCUMENT NO. NATURE OF DOCUMENT EX. NO.
D-8 STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT NO. 2525 IN THE NAME (This document was again OF V K VERMA OF CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA WITH PW P.49 (COLLECTIVELY) admitted on 13.03.07) LETTER DT. 26.11.99 MCD LETTER NO. TAX/CENT. ZONE/99/3290 DT. D-12 14.12.99 CONTAINING DETAILED INFORMATION PW P.52 (COLLECTIVELY) REGARDING PROP. NO. 19/9, KALKA JI, DELHI SALARY DETAIL OF SAVITA VERMA FURNISHED BY PW P.53 D-22 IFCI WITH LETTER DT. 03.01.2000 (COLLECTIVELY) LIC LETTER DT. 19.09.2001 WITH STATUS REPORT D-24 PW P.55 OF POLICY NO. 024867471V K VERMA LIC LETTER DT. 18.09.2001 RESPECT OF POLICY NO.
D-26 110912211 FAVOURING V K VERMA CONTAINING PW P.55 PREMIUM INFORMATION LETTER DT. 28.09.2001 OF BANK OF BARODA WITH D-38 ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF SAVITA VERMA AND V K PW P.56 VERMA STATEMENT SHOWING PAYMENT DETAILS FOR D-39 PW P.57 TELEPHONE NO. 6423767 NAME OF V K VERMA STATEMENT OF A/C NO. 150169SAVITA VERMA OF D-41 STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD WITH LETTER DT. PW P.58 16.10.2001 STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT NO. 130354 - V K VERMA D-42 PW P.59 OF STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT NO. 18022 V K VERMA D-43 OF PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK WITH LETTER DT. PW P.60 15.10.2001 STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT NO. 73601 SAVITA D-44 VERMA OF SYNDICATE BANK WITH LETTER DT. PW P.61 18.10.2001 STATEMENT OF ACCONT NO. 414 OF PUNJAB PW P.62 D-59 NATIONAL BANK (COLLECTIVELY) STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT NO(S). 106572GAURAV VERMA, A/C 107647HAR KAUR AND SAVITA VERMA D-60 AND A/C 108512 V K VERMA OF ALLAHBAD BANK PW P.63 (COLLECTIVELY) WITH LETTER DT. 29.09.2001 STATEMENT OF ACCONT NO. 106572 - GAURAV D-61 PW P.64 VERMA OF ALLAHBAD BANK PROPERTY RETURN FILE OF V K VERMA WITH PW P.65 D-63 LETTER DT. 03.11.2000 (COLLECTIVELY) D-65 MCD TAX FILE OF PROPERTY NO. 19/9, KALKAJI PW P.66 (COLLECTIVELY) HUDA FILE OF PROPERTY NO. 888, SECTOR 21C, PW P.67 D-67 FARIDABAD (COLLECTIVELY) PHOTOCOPY OF SALE DEED DT. 12.01.96 OF AGRICULTURA LAND AT VILLAGE BHATTI, TEHSIL D-68 PW P.68 MEHRAULI IN FAVOUR OF V K VERMA BY M/S VISHWA GANGA ESTATES P. LTD.
CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 15/153 PHOTOCOPY OF SALE DEED DT. 12.01.96 OF AGRICULTURA LAND AT VILLAGE BHATTI, TEHSIL D-69 PW P.69 MEHRAULI IN FAVOUR OF V K VERMA BY M/S MAGADH HOLDING P. LTD.
PHOTOCOPY OF SALE DEED DT. 12.01.96 OF AGRICULTURA LAND AT VILLAGE BHATTI, TEHSIL D-70 PW P.70 MEHRAULI IN FAVOUR OF V K VERMA BY M/S QUALITY PROPERTIES P. LTD.
PHOTOCOPY OF SALE DEED DT. 12.01.96 OF AGRICULTURA LAND AT VILLAGE BHATTI, TEHSIL D-71 PW P.71 MEHRAULI IN FAVOUR OF V K VERMA BY M/S QUALITY PROPERTIES P. LTD.
RTO FILE OF MOPED NO. DL 6SA 6839 NAME OF V K PW P.72
D-72
VERMA (COLLECTIVELY)
INCOME TAX FILE OF SAVITA VERMA FROM 198889 PW P.73
D-73
TO 199798 (COLLECTIVELY)
D-74 INCOME TAX FILE OF SMT. HAR KAUR PW P.74
(COLLECTIVELY)
UTI FAMILY BOND WARRANT NO. 563183 FOR RS.
D-84 PW P.75 6000/ NAME OF SAVITA VERMA UTI FAMILY BOND WARRANT NO. 668 FOR RS. 5000/ D-85 PW P.76 NAME OF SAVITA VERMA UTI FAMILY BOND WARRANT NO. 20028 FOR RS.
D-86 PW P.77 5000/ NAME OF SAVITA VERMA ONE CASH RECEIPT OF RS. 300/ V K VERMA OF D-109 PW P.78 REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE DELHI ORIGINAL LIC POLICY NO. 112087528 NAME OF D-143 PW P.79 SAVITA VERMA ORIGINAL LIC POLICY NO. 111486527 NAME OF D-144 PW P.80 SAVITA VERMA ORIGINAL LIC POLICY NO. 110912211 NAME OF V K D-145 PW P.81 VERMA ONE FILE HAVING SALE DEED, PHOTOCOPY D-147 AFFIDAVIT OF PROPERTY NO. 888, SECTOR21C, PW P.82 FARIDABAD ONE FILE HAVING THE RECEIPT, LEASE DEED, D-148 WILL, AGREEMENT OF SELL, GPA SALE DEED PW P.83 RECEIPT OF L&D OFFICE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT SLIP FOR REGISTRATION CUM DEMAND NOTE NO. 6195 DT. 21.10.99 FOR MTNL D-149 PW P.84 MOBILE AND THE COPY OF THE CHEQUE PAID NAME OF SAVITA VERMA UTI UNIT SCHEME 1964 CERTIFICATE NAME OF D-172 PW P.85 SAVITA VERMA & GAURAV VIJAY ORIGINAL RC OF VEHICLE NO. DL 6SA 6839 OF D-176 PW P.86 BAJAJ MOPPED NAME OF V K VERMA PHOTOCOPY OF RC OF VEHICLE NO. DL 8CA 6697 D-177 PW P.87 OF CAR MARUTI 800CC ORIGINAL RC OF VEHICLE NO. DL 3CP 2528 D-178 PW P.88 HYUNDAI MOTOR 999CC NAME OF SAVITA VERMA D-179 PHOTOCOPY CASH RECEIPT DT. 30.08.95 FOR SALE CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 16/153 OF MOTOR CYCLE PW P.89 RTO RECEIPT NO. 9749382 OF RS. 1250 FOR D-180 PW P.90 REGISTRATION OF SCOOTER NAME OF V K VERMA ORIGINAL RECEIPT NO. 092 DT. 10.12.98 NAME OF V D-181 PW P.91 K VERMA ORIGINAL RECEIPT NO. 091 DT. 08.12.98 NAME OF D-182 PW P.92 GAURAV VIJAY ONE NEW INDIA INSURANCE COVER NOTE DT.
D-183 PW P.93 08.12.98 NAME OF V K VERMA ONE NEW INDIA INSURANCE CERTIFICATE WITH D-184 PW P.94 RECEIPT NAME OF SAVITA VERMA ONE COVER NOTE AND POLICY OF THE ORIENTAL D-186 PW P.95 INSURANCE IN THE NAME OF SAVITA VERMA ONE CARBON COPY OF INVOICE NO. 99/1704 DATED D-187 12.06.99 OF SAMARA HYUNDAI IN THE NAME OF PW P.96 SAVITA VERMA ADMITTED DOCUMENTS ON 13.03.07 DOCUMENT NO. NATURE OF DOCUMENT EX. NO.
D-8 STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT NO. 2525 IN THE NAME alongwith its enclosures OF V. K. VERMA OF CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA WITH PW P.49 (Admitted earlier also on (COLLECTIVELY) 10.04.07) LETTER DT. 26.11.99 SERVICE BOOK OF V. K. VERMA ALONGWITH DUE D-64 DRAWN PARTICULARS FROM 1978 TO 1979 AND PW P.51 LETTERS DATED 29.03.2001 AND 16.11.2000 OF MCD PERSONAL FILE OF V. K. VERMA WITH LETTER PW P.50 D-192 DATED 02.12.99 AND PAYMENT STATEMENT EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
17. The prosecution in support of its case has examined total 66 witnesses on record (it is necessary to mention here that though the witnesses are numbered from Sr. No. 1 to 66, but PW4 Sh. Nihal Chand Arora was actually not examined on record and he was dropped, after recording of his personal details only, in view of admission of certain documents by the accused. Further, PW Sh. B. Venkteshwar Rao and Sh. Suresh Aggarwal examined on 17.01.2013 and CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 17/153 03.04.2013 respectively were both inadvertently numbered as PW56, but subsequently, Sh. Suresh Aggarwal was renumbered as PW56A vide order dated 31.05.2013). The names and purpose of examination of the witnesses is being stated herein below:
18. PW1 Sister Lincy, Treasurer, Francis and Clarist Sisters of Most Blessed Sacrament, has proved on record one letter Ex. PW1/A (D15) dated 16.12.1999 in respect of the tuition fees of Ms. Garima Vijay, the daughter of the accused, for the period from 05.03.1990 to November, 1999 of her school named St. Anthony School, Hauz Khas, Delhi. She has stated that as per the above letter, a total amount of Rs. 40,500/ was paid as tuition fees, addition fees, annual charges, computer fees and development charges etc of the above child during the said period and the above said letter was signed by sister Joyes, whose signatures she has identified. She has also stated that the above letter was produced by her before the IO/Inspector A. K. Singh and it was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PWI/B (D16), which was signed by her.
19. PW2 Sh. Ravinder Krishan is a witness of the search of house no. 19/9, Kalkaji, New Delhi of the accused conducted on 22.11.1999 and also of the observation memo Ex. PW2/A (D3) prepared regarding the search of the said CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 18/153 house. He has stated that the value of the articles and their year of acquisition etc were mentioned in the said memo in consultation with the wife of the accused and he had further witnessed the seizure memo Ex. PW2/B (D2) of the above articles.
20. PW3 Sh. Chetan Dass is an official of MCD, Central Zone, Lajpat Nagar and he has identified the signatures of his senior officer on one letter Ex. PW3/A (part of D65) regarding the payment of house tax of the above said house no. 19/9, Kalkaji, which is stated to be in the name of Smt. Savita Verma, the wife of the accused. As per him, the above letter was also initialed by him and the details mentioned therein were prepared by him.
21. PW4 Sh. Nihal Chand Arora was infact a witness from Central Bank of India, but as already stated above, he was not actually examined on record and was dropped in view of the admission of the document D8 by the accused.
22. PW5 Sh. Ajay Kumar, Security Incharge of Delhi Public School at Vasant Kunj, Delhi has proved one letter Ex. PW5/A (D19) dated 29.12.1999 signed by their principal at the relevant time, which was handed over by him to the CBI as per the instructions of their Accounts Head Sh. R. M. CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 19/153 Manchanda. He has stated that as per the above letter, a sum of Rs. 15,000/ was deposited on account of fees and admission charges etc of Master Gaurav Vijay Verma, i.e. the son of the accused, till 21.11.1999.
23. PW6 Sh. Suresh Chander Kalra was the Internal Auditor of APEEJAY School, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi and he had handed over a similar letter dated 11.12.1999 Ex. PW6/A (D5) signed by their principal Mrs. M. Goswamy to the CBI and this letter was also regarding the fees paid by Master Gaurav Vijay to the said school during the period from 199697 to 1999.
24. PW7 Sh. Chandgi Ram is the Clerk of the Estate Office, HUDA, Faridabad in the year 1999 and he has stated that vide the production cum seizure memo Ex. PW7/A (D9), he had handed over the files Ex. P67 (D67) and Ex. P82 (D
147) to the CBI officers, with regard to property no. 888, Sector21C, Faridabad of the accused. He has also identified the signatures of some officers of their office on the conveyance deed of the said property.
25. PW8 Sh. Prem Lal Kukreti, LDC of the office of Executive Engineer (Building), Central Zone, MCD had only handed over the documents Ex. P50 collectively (D192), i.e. the personal file of the accused, to the CBI officers during the CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 20/153 investigation vide production cum seizure memo Ex. PW8/A (D4), which was duly signed by him.
26. PW9 Sh. Raj Kumar, Proprietor of M/s S. R. Paint & Hardwares, has only proved one bill of their shop in the name of the accused as Ex. PW9/A (D115), which is regarding the sale of one Crompton motor and some other articles on 18.04.1998 against cash payment.
27. PW10 Sh. Navtej Singh has stated that he purchased one shop/room at J1, Rajouri Garden for Rs. 2.5 lac from one Smt. and Sh. Verma and he has also dealt with the above Sh. Verma in respect of sale of one other property no. H. 66, Rajouri Garden to the above persons on 12.10.1994 for a sale consideration of Rs. 9 lac.
28. PW11 Sh. Amarjeet Singh has stated that on 25.08.1993 a deal in respect of sale of property at J1, Rajouri Garden was struck in favour of Smt. Savita Verma resident of 19/9, Kalkaji for Rs. 2 lac and the stamp duty of Rs. 16,000/ was borne by the buyers and the documents handed over to them after execution.
29. PW12 Sh. Anil Mahajan was the Manager of Syndicate Bank, Nehru Place Branch, New Delhi during the years 1999 to 2004 and he only says that the certified copies CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 21/153 of the statements of saving bank accounts no. 73601 and 86118, which are Ex. PW12/A (D44) and Ex. PW12/B (D62) on record and were certified as per the Bankers Book of Evidence Act 1891, were handed over to CBI by them vide their communication Ex. P61 (D44).
30. PW13 Sh. K. P. S. Malik was the Manager of Punjab National Bank, Arawali Alaknanda Branch, Jungpura Extension, New Delhi during the period 2001 to October 2003 and he has also stated that he handed over similar certified copies of the saving bank accounts no. 414 Ex. P62 (D59) and also of one other account no. 426 Ex. PW13/A (D58) to the CBI during the investigation of the case.
31. PW14 Sh. Ishwar Gianchandani was the sole proprietor of M/s Dass Refrigeration, H11, Kalkaji main road, New Delhi and he has proved two cash memos dated 20.07.1996 and 12.12.1998 Ex. PW14/A (D113) and Ex. PW14/B (D118) for Rs. 15,029.99 and Rs. 16,400/ respectively, vide which one refrigerator make godrej and one microwave oven of BPL were sold to one Vijay Verma, resident of 19/9, Kalkaji, New Delhi. He has also stated that vide one other cash memo Ex. PW14/C (D129) dated 09.12.1996 of the shop of his brother being run in the same name and style, which is just adjacent to his shop, one Akai TV 2167 and 1417 was sold for Rs. 24,990/.
CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 22/153
32. PW15 Sh. Ram Lal, is an Assistant from LIC Office, Janakpuri Branch and according to him, one LIC policy no. 50258502 Ex. P47 (D141) was issued from their office in the name of Smt. Savita Verma on 15.05.1985 for Rs. 15,000/ and the maturity date of the said policy was 15.05.2000.
33. PW16 Sh. Ramesh Tiwari is the then Deputy Commissioner, MCD, Central Zone and he has accorded the requisite sanction Ex. PW16/A (available in judicial file) to prosecute the accused in the present case.
34. PW17 Sh. Kishan Lal is the then AAO of MTNL, Nehru Place in the year 2001 and he has supplied certain details Ex. PW17/1, Ex. PW17/2 and Ex. PW17/3 (all in D21) regarding the different payments of installation charges and bills etc of telephone no. 6232478 installed in the name of Smt. Savita Verma in property no. 19/9, Kalkaji, New Delhi.
35. PW18 Sh. Om Prakash Sharma has proved one production cum seizure memo Ex. PW18/A (D10) on record, vide which he had handed over three files to CBI officers, including the file Ex. P65 (D63) pertaining to House Tax Department of property no. 19/9, Kalkaji, New Delhi.
36. PW19 Sh. Raj Kumar Sharma was working as a Supervisor in Allahabad Bank, C. R. Park at the relevant time CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 23/153 and he has proved one letter dated 29.09.2001, already Ex. P63 (D60), signed by his then Chief Engineer, vide which the statement of account no. 107647 in the names of Smt. Har Kaur and Smt. Savita Ex. PW19/A (D60), statement of account no. 108512 Ex. PW19/B (D60) in the name of the accused, the statement of account no. 106572 Ex. P64 (D60) in the name of Sh. Gaurav Verma and one other statement of interest Ex. PW19/C (D60) of the above account no. 107647, which was prepared by him, were handed over by him to the investigating officer.
37. PW20 Sh. Prabhas Kumar, is an officer of Standard Chartered Bank (earlier known as ANZ Grindlays Bank) and he has identified the signatures of his then Manager Sh. Sanjay Dhull on the certified copies of the statement of account no. 01SMP 1579200 (26 pages) in the name of Smt. Savita Verma and also on the certified copy of one YTD report (4 pages) in respect of the said account, which are Ex. PW20/B5 to Ex. PW20/B30 and Ex. PW20/B1 to Ex. PW20/B4 (D40) respectively.
38. PW21 Sh. Sandeep Singh was running a workshop in the name of M/s Ram Singh & Sons and he has proved on record one cash memo/bill of Rs. 1,235/ of their workshop Ex. PW21/A (D139) in the name of one Mr. Verma, regarding the repair work done in car no. DL8CA 6697.
CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 24/153
39. PW22 Sh. Mandeep Singh Sethi of M/s New Delhi Tyre House at Jungpura Extension has also similarly proved one cash memo/bill Ex. PW22/A (D140) issued by him regarding the purchase of a battery by a customer.
40. PW23 Sh. D. D. Dua was working in the Sheikh Sarai Transport Authority at the relevant time and he had handed over one file consisting of 17 pages Ex. PW23/A1 to Ex. PW23/A17 (D66) to the CBI officers during investigation of this case and the said file was pertaining to one vehicle bearing registration no. DL8CA 6697 owned by Smt. Savita Verma. He has stated that the ownership of the vehicle was transferred in the name of Smt. Savita Verma on 01.08.1995 vide RC Ex. P87 (D177).
41. PW24 Sh. Suresh Chandra Seth identifies the signatures of his brother in law Sh. Vasudev Sawhney, who had already migrated to Canada, on some documents of sale of property no. 19/9, Kalkaji, Delhi executed by Sh. Vasudev Sawhney in favour of the accused and his wife Smt. Savita Verma and also some other documents regarding the same property executed in favour of his above cousin brother. The different documents have been executed as Ex. PW24/B1 to Ex. PW24/B12 and Ex. PW24/D. He has stated that though he was earlier the attorney of his above cousin brother vide GPA Ex. PW24/A, but it was cancelled vide cancellation deed CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 25/153 Ex. PW24/C and the above documents of sale in favour of the accused and his wife were executed by his cousin brother himself (all these documents are part of D148).
42. PW25 Sh. K. C. Singh is an official of the Transport Authority, Sheikh Sarai and he has proved on record one production cum seizure memo dated 20.12.1999 Ex. PW25/A (D14), vide which he had handed over certain documents pertaining to one car no. DL3CJ 6550 to the CBI. However, these documents are stated to be not a part of the record.
43. PW26 Sh. Sunil Gambhir is a property dealer working in the name of M/s Suryam Properties at C. R. Park. He claims that the accused was known to him for the last about 20 years and he has identified the signatures of the accused and his mother Smt. Har Kaur on the GPA Ex. PW26/A and the will Ex. PW26/B executed in favour of his cousin Sh. Harish Gambhir and one Smt. Madhu Juneja, the sister in law of his above cousin, regarding the property no. 10/11, 1st Floor, Kalkaji, New Delhi. He has further identified his signatures as well as the signatures of Sh. Umesh Chandra on one GPA Ex. PW26/C (all these documents are part of D74) regarding the flat no. 36A, Pocket A13, Kalkaji Extension, New Delhi, which was executed by Sh. Umesh Chandra in favour of the accused.
CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 26/153
44. PW27 Sh. Narain Singh is an official of the Transport Authority, Sarai Kale Khan at the relevant time and he had handed over the documents Ex. P72 (D72) regarding the vehicle bearing registration no. DL6SA 6839 to the investigating officer vide production cum seizure memo Ex. PW27/A (D18).
45. PW28 Sh. Rajeev Issar was working as a Clerk in the office of SubRegistrarV, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi and he had handed over photocopies of four sale deeds Ex. P68, P69, P70 and P71 (D68 to D71) to the CBI during the investigation of the case and all the sale deeds were dated 12.01.1996 and were executed in favour of the accused, regarding different agricultural properties in village Bhatti, Tehsil Mehrauli. These sale deeds have been exhibited as Ex. PW28/A, Ex. PW28/B, Ex. PW28/C and Ex. PW28/D respectively.
46. PW29 Sh. Anoop Narang has stated that his sister in law Smt. Amita Narang had jointly purchased the property no. H66, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi in the year 1995 from Smt. Savita Verma and Smt. Har Kaur for a total sale consideration of Rs. 9,32,000/, which was paid by both of them in equal shares of Rs. 4,66,000/. The above property was purchased vide documents Ex. P3, Ex. P4, Ex. P5 and Ex. P6 (D28 to D31) and was subsequently sold by them to some other persons in the year 1996 for a sale consideration CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 27/153 of Rs. 12,20,000/.
47. PW30 Sh. N. K. Jain was on deputation with CBI as a Junior Engineer (Civil) at the relevant time and he had inspected two properties no. KI/11, C. R. Park and F19, Kalkaji, New Delhi, on the request of the SP, ACP, CBI and alongwith the IO of this case. He has stated that the above inspection was carried out in the presence of the accused and he had prepared and given his detailed evaluation report Ex. PW30/A (D188), wherein the total value of the property K I/11, C. R. Park was given as Rs. 17,71,740/, including the construction cost of Rs. 10,33,000/ and the value of the other property no. F19, Kalkaji was given as Rs. 29,63,118/, including the construction cost of Rs. 15,57,798/ thereof.
48. PW31 Sh. K. C. Sharma is the purchaser of the ground floor of above property no. K1/11, C. R. Park from the accused in the year 1996 for a total sale of Rs. 9 lac vide documents Ex. PW31/A, Ex. PW31/B1, Ex. PW31/B2, Ex. PW31/C, Ex. PW31/D and Ex. PW31/E and also Ex. P7 (all part of D32) executed by the accused and his wife Smt. Savita Verma in his favour.
49. PW32 Dr. H. S. Kothari is a practicing consultant physician neurologist at West Patel Nagar at the relevant time and he has proved one receipt of Rs. 250/ as consultation CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 28/153 charges as Ex. PW32/A (D121), which was issued by him in the name of Mr. V. K. Verma.
50. PW33 Sh. S. P. Khurana is the proprietor of M/s TV Electroniks at Kalkaji and he has proved one cash memo/bill Ex. PW33/A (D117) of Rs. 23,500/ issued by him in the name of Smt. Savita Verma for purchase of one Aiwa music system. He has also identified one other cash memo/bill Ex. PW33/B (D119) in the name of one Mr. Verma for purchase of a Comfort Cooler for Rs. 4,800/ issued from their shop.
51. PW34 SR. Joyce Thadathil is the then Principal of St. Anthony School at Hauz Khas and his testimony is related to the testimony of PW1 Sister Lincy Treasurer already examined on record and he has also proved the letter dated 16.12.1999, which was issued by him and is already Ex. PW1/A (D15), containing the fee details of the daughter of the accused, as already discussed.
52. PW35 Sh. Neeraj Srivastava, an employee of the company named M/s Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd., had resided for about 2 years as a tenant in one Flat No. 36A, Pocket13, Fort View Apartment, Kalkaji Extension, New Delhi of the accused and the said flat was arranged for his accommodation by his company and it was taken on lease CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 29/153 from the accused vide lease deed Ex. P13 (D45) at a rent of Rs. 6,000/ per month.
53. PW36 Sh. R. B. Bhatia is the then Manager of State Bank of Hyderabad, Scope Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi and he had handed over to the IO the statements of account nos. 130354 Ex. P59 (D42) and 150169 Ex. PW36/A (D41) in the name of the accused and his wife respectively, for the period stated therein, vide his letter dated 16.10.2001 Ex. P58 (D41) on record.
54. PW37 Sh. Harinder Sandhu is an exemployee of Eureka Forbes Ltd and he has acknowledged the receipt of a total amount of Rs. 15,712/ by their company, vide different documents Ex. PW35/A1 to Ex. PW35/A5, Ex. PW35/B1 to Ex. PW35/B5 and Ex. PW35/C (D122 to D128 and D130, D 131, D137 and D138) in the name of the accused and his wife Smt. Savita Verma, towards the sales and service etc of different products of their company.
55. PW38 Sh. Deepak Mathur is the then Assistant Manager of UTI Bank and he had handed over to the IO a statement Ex. PW38/A (D46) containing the details of the investments made, dividends earned and the number of units etc in/from their company. He has also identified the signatures of his colleague Sarita Srivastava on the said CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 30/153 statement, according to which a total investments of Rs. 51,368/ were made by the accused and his family members with their company and they had earned dividends amounting to Rs. 18,933.85/ therefrom.
56. PW39 Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta is a property broker by profession and he claims that he had helped the accused in purchasing the property no. F19, Kalkaji by giving Rs. 14/15 lac to him, through cheques issued from the accounts of his family members, between 1993 to 1995. He has stated that the above amounts were given on a written assurance from the accused that in case he fails to repay the same, the property will be transferred in the name of the witness and he has also claimed that since the accused failed to repay the amount, the accused sold the above property to him, after 1½ years and he had further sold it to some one else on a margin of Rs. 50,000/ to 1 lac.
57. PW40 Sh. Praveen Wadhwa is the brother in law (sala) of accused and he is the witness of one cash receipt Ex. P9 (D179) regarding the sale of one motorcycle no. DAA 398 by the accused to one Sh. Ganesh Prasad Singh.
58. PW41 Sh. Prabhu Dayal is a witness from the DC Office, Gurgaon and he had handed over to the CBI an attested copy of the rates of agriculture land Mark A (D50) of CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 31/153 District Gurgaon in the years 199697, certified copies of three sale deeds of agricultural land bearing nos. 3350 (D52), 3348 (D53), 3349 (D54) Ex. PW41/A, Ex. PW41/B and Ex. PW41/C respectively, all dated 11.05.1996 and one Titnama (amendment deed) Ex. PW41/D (D51) dated 21.05.1996 during investigation. He has also produced on record a certified copy of the above rates of agriculture land on record as Ex. PW41/E (D50) and has stated that the rate of Chahi agriculture land in the village Fazalpur, Jharsa at that time was Rs. 9 lac per acre.
59. PW42 Sh. Pradeep Kumar Mittal is the then Accountant of the office of MCD at Shakarpur, DivisionIII and he has proved one salary statement of the accused for the period from 13.12.1989 to 31.05.1990, which was prepared by his colleague, as Ex. PW42/A (D47).
60. PW43 Sh. Subhash Chand is the then official of the MCD, Executive Engineer at Sewa Nagar and he had handed over the salary details of the accused for the years 199394 to 199596 to CBI, on the basis of the directions given by his Executive Engineer vide letter dated 09.11.2001 Ex. P15 (D48). The certified copies of the salary record handed over to the CBI by him vide the above said letter is Ex. PW43/A (D48) collectively and the rough calculation sheet is Ex. PW43/A1 (D48) and as per the same the total salary of CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 32/153 the accused during the said period was Rs. 1,13,050/.
61. PW44 Sh. Siyaram is a Patwari of District Gurgaon and holding charge of three villages, including the above village Fazalpur, Jharsa at the relevant time. He prepared the Khasra Girdawari certificate Ex. PW44/A (D50) of certain lands of the said village and handed it over to the CBI. He also states that the three Mukhtiyarnamas (SPAs) and the three sale deeds bearing registration nos. 1719, 1721 and 1722 and all dated 09.05.1996, already Ex. P16 collectively (D75) on record, are regarding the same land mentioned in the above Khasra Girdawari certificate and the rate of Chahi agriculture land in their village at that time was Rs. 9 lac per acre. He also states that the total area of the land mentioned in the above sale deeds was 30 Kanal 8 Marlas (3 Acres 6 Kanals 8 Marlas).
62. PW45 Sh. Ravinder Singh is the then Senior Accountant of the office of MTNL, Nehru Place and he proves on record one statement of the total amounts paid by the accused to MTNL regarding the telephone no. 6423767 installed at premises no. 19/9, Kalkaji, New Delhi, which statement was prepared by him and handed over to the CBI. The above statement was already Ex. P57 (D39).
63. PW46 Sh. Deva Nand is the then employee of CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 33/153 Indraprastha Post Office, though he was not able to identify the handwriting of his colleague Laxmi Chand on NSCs already Ex. P35 and Ex. P36 (D76 and D77), but he stated that the same were issued from their post office.
64. PW47 Sh. Praveen Kumar is the then Clerk of the office of Executive Engineer, MCD at Lajpat Nagar at the relevant time and he had handed over three building files of their office pertaining to the properties no. KI/11, C. R. Park and 19/9, Kalkaji to CBI vide production cum seizure memo dated 06.12.2001 Ex. PW47/A (D57).
65. PW48 Sh. Sushil Kumar Mehta, is PRO of Post Office Parliament Street in the year 1995 and he only says that NSC already Ex. P39 (D80) was issued from their Head Office at Parliament Street on 29.03.1995.
66. PW49 Sh. A. K. Ganju, is an Architect associated with various government organizations, including the MCD. He was a witness of the alleged arranging of a gift of 35,000 US$ through him, by the accused in the name of his mother Smt. Har Kaur, which was arranged from Hong Kong from someone in the scheme Remittances in Foreign Exchange (Immunities) Scheme, 1991 by this witness through some other person. However, during his examination, he has turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution on CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 34/153 material particulars.
67. PW50 Sh. Vinod Gulati is a partner of M/s New Gulati General Store, Kalkaji and he has identified a quotation Ex. PW50/A (D116) of their shop for purchase of a single blower cooler (cool home), though he was not able to identify the handwriting of his partner, who issued the said quotation.
68. PW51 Sh. Mahesh Kumar is the Director of M/s Maha Bikes International Pvt. Ltd and he proves on record three cash memos Ex. PW51/A (D132) for Rs. 1,250/, Ex. PW51/B (D114) for Rs. 1,08075/ and Ex. PW51/C (D120) for Rs. 1,767.70/ of their shop for purchase of three different bicycles.
69. PW52 Sh. Manjeet Singh is the then Postal Assistant of Lodhi Road Post Office and he says that the NSCs already Ex. P37 and Ex. P38 (D78 and D79) dated 10 12.02.1996 were issued from their Post Office and signed by his colleague Sh. Mani Ram.
70. PW53 Sh. Suresh Kumar is a resident of village Fazalpur, Jharsa, District Gurgaon and he claims to have sold certain agricultural land belonging to him and his other family members/ relatives to the accused and says that the Nakal Khasra Ex. PW44/A (D55) pertains to the same land. He also CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 35/153 proves on record three sale deeds referred to in the statement of PW44 as Ex. PW53/B, Ex. PW53/C and Ex. PW53/D (earlier exhibited as Ex. P16 and part of D75), as the same were executed by Sh. Kanwar Pal his cousin brother, Smt. Sheela his sister, Smt. Bimla his wife and also witnessed by him. He also proves one Hakuk Patta Ex. PW53/E executed in his presence by Sh. Swaroop Singh in favour of the accused and further identifies the signatures of Sh. Kanwar Pal, Smt. Sheela and Smt. Bimla on the Mukhtiyarnamas Ex. PW53/A1, Ex. PW53/A2 and Ex. PW53/A3 respectively (earlier exhibited as Ex. P16 and part of D75). Further, he is partially hostile on the point of some cash payment made by the accused towards the purchase of the above property and on certain other aspects also.
71. PW54 Sh. Ashok Choudhary is a Real Estate Agent and also the brother in law of PW53 and he claims to have mediated the above transactions pertaining to the agriculture land situated in Fazalpur, Jharsa, District Gurgaon covered by documents Ex. PW53/B, Ex. PW53/C and Ex. PW53/E (D75), as referred to in the statement of PW53, executed in favour of the accused. He further claims that apart from the above agriculture lands, he also mediated the sale of four other agriculture lands/holdings in Khasra Nos. 1412, 1414, 1436 and 1411 vide sale deeds Ex. PW54/A, Ex. PW54/B, Ex. PW54/C and Ex. PW54/D respectively (D68 to CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 36/153 D71) from different companies in favour of the accused.
72. PW55 Sh. Israr Babu, the alternate Nodal Officer of M/s Vodafone Ltd., has identified the signatures of his predecessor Sh. Rajiv Pandit on one letter dated 28.11.2001 Ex. PW55/A (D56) sent to CBI, vide which the payment details of one mobile no. 9811038014 in the name of one V. K. Verma were supplied to CBI. He has stated that the total payments made were for Rs. 75021.13/ for the period 05.02.1996 to 26.11.1999.
73. PW56 Sh. B. Venkateshwar Rao is an official of LIC posted in the Kasturba Gandhi Marg office at the relevant time and he supplied to the CBI the details Ex. PW56/B of payments received for the period from 28.02.1997 to 28.02.1999, to the tune of Rs. 30,000/, vide letter Ex. PW56/A (D23).
74. PW56A (renumbered as such vide order dated 31.05.2013) Sh. Suresh Aggarwal of M/s Rhythm Corner, SouthEx.II, is a witness for proving one cash memo/bill dated 06.01.1985 Ex. PW56A/A (available in the evidence file) for the purchase of a Philips music system in favour of Ms. Savita Verma (wrongly typed as Sarita Verma).
75. PW57 Sh. S. P. Arora, Chief General Manager of CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 37/153 IFCI Ltd. has identified the signatures of the then DGM of their office Sh. V. K. Gupta on communication/letter Ex. P53 collectively (D22) supplying the salary details of Ms. Savita Verma to the CBI.
76. PW58 (renumbered as such from PW57 vide order dated 23.04.2013) Sh. Kushal Kumar is the proprietor of M/s Relco and he only identifies one cash memo dated 08.06.1988 Ex. PW58/A (available in judicial file) of their shop, regarding the cash charged for installation of a Gen Set at house no. 9, Block No. 19, Near Desh Bandhu Gupta College, owned by one Sh. Vishwanath. However, he was not able to identify his writing in the said cash memo.
77. PW59 Sh. Om Prakash is an official of DJB posted at GKI, South Zone at the relevant time and he had only handed over to the CBI one statement Ex. PW59/A (D11) of water charges of property no. 19/9, Kalkaji for the period 199899 to 19992000.
78. PW60 Sh. Amar Nath Nakra is a retired Telegram Master of BSNL and likewise PW2 Sh. Ravinder Krishan, he is a witness of search of house no. 19/9, Kalkaji of the accused on 22.11.1999 and identifies his signatures on the seizure memo Ex. PW2/B (D2) and the observation memo Ex. PW2/A (D3). He also states that a lady and her son and also CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 38/153 one old lady were present in the said house at that time and the information mentioned in Ex. PW2/A was provided by the lady present there.
79. PW61 Sh. Harsh Oberoi is an employee of M/s Atlas Radio Traders, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, having distributorship of Crown TV at the relevant time. He has identified his handwriting and signatures on one cash receipt of Rs. 7,700/ Ex. PW61/C dated 10.05.1984, which was issued by him in the name of Vijay Verma resident of flat no. 49, Pocket - A, Alaknanda for purchase of one Crown TV from their shop. He has also identified one sale bill/voucher of Rs. 7,590/ dated 11.06.1984 Ex. PW61/A and also one delivery challan dated 15.05.1984 Ex. PW61/B in the name of the above Vijay Verma and issued from their shop in respect of the said TV, but he was not able to identify the handwriting and signatures of the concerned clerk who issued Ex. PW61/ and Ex. PW61/B (all these documents are available in the judicial file).
80. PW62 Sh. B. V. Rao is the then Manager of Syndicate Bank, Nehru Place and during investigation, he had handed over to the CBI an attested copy of the statement Ex. PW12/A (D44) of account no. 73601 of their bank, which was in the joint names of the accused and his wife, vide letter Ex. P61 (D44) of his then Chief Manager, alongwith one CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 39/153 calculation sheet prepared by him. As per him, the above account was opened on 15.10.1997 with an initial deposit of Rs. 500/ and as on 22.11.1999, Rs. 47,310.99, including interest amount of Rs. 4,650/, were lying deposited therein.
81. PW63 Sh. Kartar Singh is the purchaser of property no. J176, Rajouri Garden of the accused and he has identified 6 sale deeds Ex. P8, P9, P10, P11, P12 (D33 to D
37) and P34 (D170) of the above said property executed by the accused and his wife Smt. Savita Verma in his favour and in favour of his other family members, for a total sale consideration of Rs. 9 lac.
82. PW64 DSP R. C. Garvan, the then Inspector of CBI during the period from May 2002 to October 2006, had only prepared and filed the present chargesheet Ex. PW64/A in this court, on directions of his senior officers.
83. PW65 Sh. A. K. Malik is a retired Inspector of CBI and a part Investigating Officer (IO) of this case and he was entrusted with the investigation and the documents seized in this case by the previous IOs. He has identified the signatures of the initial IO Inspector A. K. Singh on various documents, mainly being the seizure memos of different documents, and has further stated that he had also received some letters and documents and recorded statements of witnesses, during the CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 40/153 investigation of the case conducted by him, and after his transfer, he had handed over the file to Inspector R. C. Garvan.
84. PW66 DSP A. K. Singh is also an Inspector of CBI at the relevant time and the initial IO of this case. He says that on being assigned the FIR Ex. PW65/A (D1) of this case, he took steps to seize various incriminating documents from the possession of the accused and his relatives and he has specifically deposed about the search of house no. 19/9, Kalkaji of the accused and seizure of various documents vide memo Ex. PW2/B (D2) and also the observation memo Ex. PW2/A (D3) of the seized articles prepared by him, at the instance of the wife of the accused. He further states that he collected various documents from different authorities and recorded the statement of witnesses, before handing over the investigation to Inspector U. K. Goswami.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 CR.P.C.
85. After the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, all the incriminating evidence brought on record was put to the accused in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 23.07.2015 and the same was denied by the accused to be either incorrect or beyond his knowledge. Regarding the educational expenses of his children, as deposed by PW1, CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 41/153 PW5, PW6 and PW34, it has been claimed by him that these amounts were paid by his wife Smt. Savita Verma from her own earnings in cash. He has also admitted his house search and the observation memo Ex. PW2/A (D3) as per record, but he claims that the estimated value of the articles mentioned therein was written by the CBI Inspector on his own and not in consultation with his wife. Regarding the seizure of different documents and files by the CBI from different authorities, like the house tax file of their property bearing no. 19/9, Kalkaji, his personal file from his office, the HUDA file pertaining to property no. 888, Sector21C, Faridabad, seizure of record pertaining to the above car and different statements of their bank accounts etc, he has claimed it to be a matter of record, though in some cases, he has stated that some specific amounts of interests, greater than the amounts mentioned in the chargesheet, were earned in the said accounts. He has also challenged the different cash memos/bills pertaining to the purchase of battery, repair of car, purchase of Aiwa music system, Crompton motor, Akai TV and comfort cooler etc, which are in his name, in the name of his wife or otherwise, while claiming that the payments reflected in the said bills/memos were not made by him and the same do not pertain to him and he has only admitted certain documents for purchase of a Crown television by him vide bill/voucher Ex. PW61/A and the delivery challan Ex. PW61/B. However, the ownership of the car no. DL8CA 6697 in the name of his wife CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 42/153 Savita Verma vide RC Ex. P87 (D77) is admitted as per record. The seizure of various UTI Certificates in his name as well as in the name of his family members is also admitted by him, while claiming that the total investments in UTI made by them were for Rs. 49,158/ and not for Rs. 51,368/.
86. Regarding the sale and purchase deals of properties no. J1, Rajouri Garden and H66, Rajouri Garden, he has admitted the transactions and documents on record regarding the said properties, as deposed by the prosecution witnesses, but it is his case that the deals for the same were struck with his wife Smt. Savita Verma. Regarding the property no. 19/9, Kalkaji sold by Sh. Vasudev Sawhney to him and his wife vide documents Ex. PW20/B1 to Ex. PW20/B6, the above transaction and the execution of documents has also been admitted by the accused. He has also admitted the lease deeds of his flat no. 36A, Pocket A 13, Kalkaji and has claimed to have received a total rent of Rs. 1,50,000/ for the said flat and has also admitted the sale and purchase transactions and the documents on record with regard to the property no. K1/11, C.R. Park and also about the other properties no. 10/11, Kalkaji and F19, Kalkaji.
87. However, regarding property no. K1/11, C.R. Park, it is also claimed by him that the said property was purchased by his wife for a sum of Rs. 1,70,000/ and it was CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 43/153 constructed at a cost of Rs. 5,14,050/ and the above amounts were duly reflected in the Income Tax Return of his wife Smt. Savita Verma. Regarding the other property no. F19, Kalkaji, it is his case that the said property was purchased by his mother Smt. Har Kaur for a sum of Rs. 8,30,000/ and it was sold for Rs. 15,00,000/ and the same is also duly reflected in the Income Tax Return of his mother. As regards the depositions made by PW30 Sh. N.K. Jain and the valuation report Ex. PW30/A regarding these two properties, he has claimed that the same are biased and arbitrary and these do not reflect the true valuation of the above properties and the valuations of these properties were highly inflated in the above report.
88. As regards the agriculture land measuring about 11 acres and located in village Fazalpur, Jharsa is concerned, he has also admitted the purchase of the said land and all the documents on record concerning it. However, it is his case that the said land was not purchased by him at the rate of Rs. 9 lac per acre and the said rate of Rs. 9 lac per acre, in terms of the rate list Ex. PW41/E, was only the rate applicable for payment of stamp duty for purchase of such agriculture land in the said area and the above rate did not reflect the actual price of the land, which is always mutually decided by the buyer and seller. He has also denied the payment of Rs. 1 lac as brokerage for purchase of the said land to PW54 Sh. Ashok CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 44/153 Choudhary. He has also admitted the purchase of the other agriculture lands, as well as the documents executed with regard to the same, measuring 2 bighas and 2 biswas (Khasra No. 1412) vide sale deed Ex. PW54/A (D71), measuring 1 bigha and 17 biswas (Khasra No. 1414) vide sale deed Ex. PW54/B (D68), measuring 2 bighas 10 biswas (Khasra No. 1436) vide sale deed Ex. PW54/C (D69) and measuring 5 bighas 2 biswas (Khasra No. 1411) vide sale deed Ex. PW54/D (D70) in village Bhatti, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi and also the subsequent sale of the said lands for the given considerations through PW54.
89. He has also expressed his ignorance regarding most of the investigation conducted by the IOs and has claimed himself to be innocent and this chargesheet and case to be false. It is also his specific case that no case of disproportionate assets is made out against him from the chargesheet and the witnesses examined by the prosecution on record are interested witnesses and he had also duly explained all his assets to the IO during the investigation of the case.
90. Though the accused had initially desired to lead evidence in his defence, but no evidence was actually led by him in his defence and ultimately his defence evidence was closed on 06.08.2015, on the basis of the submissions made CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 45/153 by him in the court in this regard.
91. I have heard the arguments advanced by Sh. Prabhat Kumar, Ld Sr. PP for the CBI and Sh. C. S. Sharma, Ld counsel for the accused. I have also perused the entire evidence led by the prosecution and other records of the case, including the written submissions filed from both the sides. It is necessary to mention here that though most of the documents of the prosecution were admitted by the accused during the course of admission and denial done on the above dates, but still much of the time of the court is found to have been wasted by the prosecution in leading evidence regarding those very documents.
92. Regarding the ingredients for substantiating a charge for an offence U/s 5 (1)(e) and now Section 13 (1)(e) of the PC Act, Ld defence counsel has referred to the judgment in case M. Krishna Reddy Vs. State Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hyderabad (1992) 4 SCC 45 and the relevant extracts of this judgment being relied upon in this regard are as under: "6. An analysis of Section 5(1)(e) of the Act, 1947 which corresponds to Section 13(1)(e) of the new Act of 1988 shows that it is not the mere acquisition of property that constitutes an offence under the provisions of the Act but it is the failure to satisfactorily account for such possession that makes the possession objectionable as offending the law.
7. To substantiate a charge under Section 5(1)(e) of the Act, CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 46/153 the prosecution must prove the following ingredients, namely, (1) the prosecution must establish that the accused is a public servant, (2) the nature and extent of the pecuniary resources of property which were found in his possession (3) it must be proved as to what were his known sources of income, i.e. known to the prosecution and (4) it must prove, quite objectively, that such resources or property found in possession of the accused were disproportionate to his known sources of income. Once the above ingredients are satisfactorily established, the offence of criminal misconduct under Section 5(1)(e) is complete, unless the accused is able to account for such resources or property. In other words, only after the prosecution has proved the required ingredients, the burden of satisfactorily accounting for the possession of such resources or property shifts to the accused."
93. Regarding the extent of burden of proof placed upon the accused, Ld defence counsel has also relied upon the judgment in case State of Maharashtra Vs. Wasudeo Ramchandra Kaidalwar AIR 1981 SC 1186, wherein the following observations were made: "That takes us to the difficult question as to the nature and extent of the burden of proof under Section 5(1)(e) of the Act. The expression 'burden of proof' has two distinct meanings (1) the legal burden, i.e. the burden of establishing the guilt, and (2) the evidential burden, i.e. the burden of leading evidence. In a criminal trial, the burden of proving everything essential to establish the charge against the accused lies upon the prosecution, and that burden never shifts. Notwithstanding the general rule that the burden of proof lies exclusively upon the prosecution, in the case of certain offences, the burden of proving a particular fact in issue may be laid by law upon the accused. The burden resting on the accused in such cases is, however, not so onerous as that which lies on the prosecution and is discharged by proof of a balance of probabilities."
94. With regard to the ingredients of Section 13(1)(e) of Act, the same have also been enunciated in judgment 2009 CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 47/153 CRI. L. J. 1767 "N. Ramakrishanaiah Vs. State of A.P. The relevant paras of the said judgment are reproduced as under:
14. Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act') deals with various situations when a public servant can be said to have committed criminal misconduct. Clause (e) of Subsection (1) of the Section is applicable when the public servant or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account of pecuniary resources of property disproportionate to his known source of income. Clause (e) of Subsection (1), of Section 5 of the Old Act was in similar lines. But there have been drastic amendments. Under the new clause, the earlier concept of "known sources of income" has undergone a radical change. As per the explanation appended, the prosecution is relieved of the burden of investigating into "source of income" of an accused to a large extent, as it is stated in the explanation that "known sources of income" mean income received from any lawful sources, the receipt of which has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant. The expression "known source of income" has reference to sources known to the prosecution after thorough investigation of the case. It is not, and cannot be contended that "known sources of income" means sources known to the accused. The prosecution cannot, in the very nature of things be expected to know the affairs of an accused person. Those will be matters "specially within the knowledge" of the accused, within the meaning of Section 106, of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short, the 'Evidence Act').
15. The emphasis of the phrase "known sources of income" in Section 13(1)(e) (old Section 5(1)
(e)) is clearly on the word "income". It would be primary to observe that qua the public servant, the income would be what is attached to his office or post, commonly known as remuneration or salary. The term "income" by itself, is classic and has a wide connotation. Whatever comes in CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 48/153 or is received is income. But, however, wide the import and connotation of the term "income", it is incapable of being understood as meaning receipt having no nexus to one's labour, or expertise, or property, or investment, and being further a source which may or may not yield a regular revenue. These essential characteristics are vital in understanding the term "Income". Therefore, it can be said that, though "income" in receipt in the hand of its recipient, every receipt would not partake into the character of income. For the public servant, whatever return he gets of his service, will be the primary item of his income. Other income which can conceivably be income qua the public servant will be in the regular receipt from (a) his property, or (b) his investment. A receipt from windfall, or gains of graft crime or immoral secretions by persons prima facie would not be receipt for the "known source of income" of a public servant.
16. The legislature has advisedly used the expression "satisfactorily account". The emphasis must be on the word "satisfactorily" and the legislature has, thus, deliberately cast a burden on the accused not only to offer a plausible explanation as to how he came by his large wealth, but also to satisfy the Court that his explanation was worthy of acceptance.
95. The evidence led on record and the challenges made by the defence to the case of the prosecution can be broadly appreciated and discussed under the following heads: (1) JUSTIFICATION OF THE CHECK PERIOD
96. The first legal ground on which Ld defence counsel has challenged the case of the prosecution is that the CBI has taken the check period in this case to be 01.01.1986 CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 49/153 to 22.11.1999 arbitrarily and without assigning any cogent reasons for the same. It is his contention that no doubt the choice of selection of the check period necessarily lies with the investigating agency, but it is well settled that the check period taken in any particular case should not be arbitrary and the same should be such as is able to present a true and comprehensive picture of the known sources of income, expenses and the assets allegedly acquired and possessed by the concerned public servant, either by himself or through any other person, so as to come to a legitimate conclusion as to whether the same are disproportionate to his known sources of income or not. It is also argued by him that ultimately the above discretion and choice of the investigating agency in selecting a check period is always subject to the scrutiny of the courts and based on these submissions, an argument has been raised on behalf of the accused that the above check period selected in this case by the CBI was arbitrary and without any justification or basis and the accused stands seriously prejudiced thereby. Ld defence counsel has also placed reliance upon certain observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case State of Maharashtra Vs. Pollonji Darabshaw Daruwalla 1988 Crl. L.J. 183 : AIR 1988 SC 88 on this aspect.
97. On considering the above submissions being made by Ld defence counsel for the accused, in the light of the CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 50/153 facts and circumstances of this case, this court fails to agree with the submission being advanced by the Ld defence counsel to the effect that the above check period taken by the CBI in this case was arbitrary in any way. It was specifically alleged in the FIR, which was registered on the basis of a source information, that the accused started amassing assets since 1986 and it is also observed on the basis of the material brought on record of this court, which was collected during the investigation, that almost all the immovable assets of the accused, either acquired in his name or in the name of his family members, were acquired during the said period commencing from 01.01.1986 and terminating on 22.11.1999. Moreover, the above check period consisting of about 13 long years cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be termed as short or too long, as was submitted by the Ld defence counsel. Further, it is also observed that as far as the income or savings etc of the accused pertaining to the period prior to the commencement of the above said period are concerned, the accused was already given a credit or benefit for the same as in the chargesheet, it was specifically mentioned that the likely savings of the accused prior to the check period were Rs. 1,97,424.20 and the accused was even given benefit of the same, though not in the chargesheet, but at the stage of framing of the charges.
98. As far as the propositions of law laid down by the CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 51/153 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pollonji Darabshaw, Supra are concerned, the same are not in dispute and are held to be binding. However, in the considered opinion of this court, the above propositions do not help the case of the accused in any way. The relevant propositions of law laid down on this point are found in para 10 of the above judgment, including the portion which has been relied upon by the accused, and the same are being reproduced herein below: "The choice of the period must necessarily be determined by the allegations of fact on which the prosecution is founded and rests. However, the period must be such as to enable a true and comprehensive picture of the known sources of income and the pecuniary resources and property in possession of the public servant either by himself or through any other person on his behalf, which are alleged to be so disproportionate. In the facts and circumstances of a case, a ten years period cannot be said to be incapable of yielding such a true and comprehensive picture. The assets spilling over from the anterior period, if their existence is probabilised would, of course, have to be given credit to on the income side and would go to reduce the extent and the quantum of the disproportionate".
99. Thus, it is clear from the above that a check period of 10 years in the above case was held to be capable of yielding a true and comprehensive picture of the income, expenditure and assets etc of the accused, whereas in the present case, the check period spreads over to around 13 years and the same cannot be said to be arbitrary in any manner. Further, as also observed in the above case, the accused in this case has further been given a credit of Rs.
CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 52/153 1,97,424.20 on account of his likely savings prior to the above check period.
(2)INCOME OF THE ACCUSED
100. Apart from the different heads and amounts of his income mentioned in the chargesheet and further the amounts of which the accused was given credit/benefit at the time of charge, Ld defence counsel in his written submissions filed on behalf of the accused has sought the addition of the following amounts in the income of the accused: (2.1) Claim of Rs. 19,602/ on account of sale of old ornaments by wife of accused
101. It is submitted on behalf of the accused that his wife Smt. Savita Verma had sold her old ornaments for Rs. 9,744.60 to M/s Peshawar Jewellers at Chandni Chowk, New Delhi on 03.01.1991 vide receipt voucher Ex. PW65/DA2 (also Ex. P73) (on page 108 of D73, which is the income tax file of Smt. Savita Verma) and on the same day, she had also sold certain other old ornaments for Rs. 9,858/ to M/s Jagjit & Sons, Chandni Chowk, Delhi vide receipt/purchase voucher Ex. PW65/DA3 (also Ex. P73) (on page 109 of D73) and the total sale amount of Rs. 19,602.60 of these two transactions CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 53/153 has not been considered or added in the income of the accused. He has also submitted that in the Income Tax Return of Smt. Savita Verma for the assessment year 199192 Ex. 65/DA1 (also Ex. P73) (on page 107 of D73), there is a specific mention of these transactions under the heading 'CAPITAL GAINS' and further during the cross examination of the IO/PW65 Sh. A. K. Malik dated 24.09.2014, the above documents were specifically put to and admitted by him and hence, the above amount of Rs. 19,602.60 is required to be added in the income of the accused.
102. I have carefully perused the above records and considered the rival submissions being made on this aspect. All the above three documents are though photocopies and not the originals, but these are the documents relied upon by the prosecution itself and no further investigation was conducted by any of the IOs to challenge or controvert the contents of these documents and hence, the above amount of Rs. 19,602.60 is liable to be added to the income of the accused as the above transactions of sale of old ornaments had taken place during the above said check period itself and it was also specifically admitted by the IO/PW65 during his statement on record that the said amount was not earlier included in the income of the accused.
CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 54/153 (2.2) Claim for additional rental income of Rs. 72,000/ from the basement and ground floor of property no. K1/11, C. R. Park, New Delhi
103. The next submission made on behalf of the accused is regarding the non inclusion of a total amount of Rs. 72,000/ in the rental income of the accused, which was on account of lease of the basement and ground floor premises of the above property no. K1/11, C. R. Park, which was in the name of wife of the accused. It is submitted that the above property/plot was purchased by the wife of the accused on 02.01.1991 from one Sh. Sudhir Ranjan Barua and Smt. Sushila Barua and after raising construction over the said plot, she let out the basement and ground floor portions of the said property on rent to different persons and at different times and received a total rent of Rs. 72,000/ on account of the same, i.e. annual rent of Rs. 36,000/ for the basement and another annual rent of Rs. 36,000/ for the ground floor premises, which amounts were duly reflected in her Income Tax Returns for the assessment years 199394 Ex. PW65/DA4 (also Ex. P
73) (on page 63 of D73) and 199495 Ex. P73 (on page 69 of D73). It is also submitted that the above Income Tax Returns were also duly put to the IO/PW65 Sh. A. K. Malik during his cross examination dated 24.09.2014 and the above rent amounts of Rs. 36,000/ each reflected in the said returns were admitted by him.
CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 55/153
104. In this regard also, it is observed that though only the other Income Tax Return for the assessment year 199394 Ex. PW65/DA4 (on page 63 of D73/Ex. P73) was put to the IO during his above cross examination, but the other return for the assessment year 199495 (on page 69 of D73/Ex. P73) was not put to the IO/PW65. However, both the above amounts of Rs. 36,000/ as the lease amounts of the above portions of the said property for different periods are duly found reflected in the said Income Tax Returns of the wife of accused, which were seized by the IO during the investigation of the case. As already discussed, since these are the documents of the prosecution itself and no investigation at all has been conducted and no evidence collected to controvert the same. These documents were seized by the CBI during the investigation of the case and are the relied upon documents of the prosecution and these were even admitted by the accused during the course of admission and denial of documents. From the depositions of the IO/PW65, a perusal of the above documents and the submissions being made from both the sides, this court is satisfied that this amount of Rs. 72,000/ also, on account of annual rent for the above portions of property no. K1/11, C. R. Park in the name of wife of the accused, as reflected in the Income Tax Returns of Smt. Savita Verma for the above two assessment years 199394 and 199495, was not included earlier in the income of the accused as his total rental income shown at serial no. 17 of CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 56/153 the chargesheet was only Rs. 1,32,000/ and admittedly it was from some other property, i.e. flat no. 36A, Pocket A13, Fort View Apartment, Kalkaji Extn., New Delhi, in the name of the accused (as per lease deed Ex. P13) (D45), and further the benefit of Rs. 12,000/ on account of security deposit given to the accused at the time of charge was also concerning the above property/flat no. 36A, Pocket A13, Fort View Apartment, Kalkaji Extn., New Delhi. Therefore, the accused is also held to be entitled to the inclusion of the above amount of Rs. 72,000/ in his income.
(2.3) Claim of Rs. 19,000/ for the sale price of motorcycle no. DAA 398
105. The next contention of Ld defence counsel is that the accused had sold his motorcycle no. DAA 398 for Rs. 19,000/ on 30.08.1995 to one Sh. Ganesh Prasad Singh vide the cash receipt Ex. P89 (D179) dated 30.08.1995 executed in this regard on the same day, but this amount was also not included earlier in the income of the accused and hence, it is liable to be added in his income.
106. In this regard also, it is observed that the above document/receipt dated 30.08.1995 is the document of the prosecution itself and it was also admitted by the accused during the course of admission and denial of documents and it CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 57/153 was exhibited as Ex. P89. As per the above document, the motorcycle was sold to one Sh. Ganesh Prasad Singh and the prosecution has also examined on record one witness Sh. Praveen Wadhwa as PW40 and he has also duly proved the said receipt on record, though it was already an admitted document, as the same was written and witnessed by him. Even the IO/PW65 Sh. A. K. Malik in his cross examination dated 18.04.2015 has admitted the above document and the non inclusion of the above amount of Rs. 19,000/ in the income of the accused. On being asked about any document or other evidence regarding the purchase of the above motorcycle by the accused, Ld Sr. PP for CBI has admitted that no such evidence or document was collected or seized by the IOs during the investigation or is a part of the judicial record. Hence, the accused is also held entitled to the benefit/addition of the above amount of Rs. 19,000/ in his income.
(2.4) Claim for additional interest income of Rs. 289/ from bank account no. 130354 of State Bank of Hyderabad Scope Complex, New Delhi - (serial. No. 5 of income in the chargesheet)
107. It has been submitted by Ld defence counsel that at serial no. 5 pertaining to the interest income of the accused given in the chargesheet, only an amount of Rs. 2,250/ has been shown to have been earned as interest in the said CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 58/153 account no. 130354, whereas according to the document Ex. P59 (D42) and the statement of PW36 Sh. R. B. Bhatia, who is an official of the said bank, the total interest which was earned in the said account during the check period comes to Rs. 2,539/. The above submission of Ld defence counsel has been found to be true as per the evidence brought on record and it has also been admitted by the prosecution. The above statement Ex. P59 (D42) was collected by the IO during the investigation from the official of the concerned bank, alongwith letter Ex. P58 (D41), and these documents were duly admitted by the accused during the course of admission and denial itself. Hence, the accused is held entitled to the benefit of additional income of Rs. 289/ on account of the above.
(2.5) Claim for additional interest income of Rs. 549/ from bank account no. 150169 of State Bank of Hyderabad Scope Complex, New Delhi - (serial No. 6 of income in the chargesheet
108. It has also been submitted by Ld defence counsel that at serial no. 6 pertaining to the interest income of the accused given in the chargesheet, only an amount of Rs. 11,840/ has been shown to have been earned as interest in the said account no. 150169, whereas according to the document Ex. P58 (D41) and the statement of PW36 Sh. R. B. Bhatia of the said bank, the total interest which was earned CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 59/153 in the said account during the check period was Rs. 12,389/. This submission of Ld defence counsel has also been found to be true as per the evidence brought on record and it has also been admitted by the prosecution. Hence, the accused is also held entitled to the benefit of an additional income of Rs. 549/ on account of the above.
(2.6) Claim for additional interest income of Rs. 6548/ from bank account no. 157200 and 6 FDRs of Standard Chartered Grindleys Bank - (serial. No. 13 of income in the chargesheet)
109. The next addition sought in the income of the accused pertains to serial no. 13 of the head of income of the chargesheet, wherein a total amount of Rs. 25,920.40 has been shown as interest income of the accused from one saving bank account no. 157200 and 6 FDRs. The relevant documents pertaining to the said interest income are Ex. PW20/A, Ex. PW20/B1 to Ex. PW20/B30 (D40), which are the statements of the interest earned from the above saving bank account and 6 FDRs in the name of wife of the accused. The above documents have not been disputed by the accused and have also been proved on record by PW20 Sh. Prabhas Kumar, an official of the said bank. It is observed that as per the depositions made by PW20 during his cross examination, an interest of Rs. 10,679.55 was earned in the above saving account of Smt. Savita Verma from 04.01.1992 till 30.09.1999, CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 60/153 i.e. during the check period, and further an amount of Rs. 21,789.13 was also earned as interest from the FDRs in the said account during the period from 25.01.1996 to 16.03.1999 and this amount was also credited in the said account and thus the total interest earned in the above account and from the above FDRs comes to Rs. 32,468.68. It is the submission of Ld defence counsel that at serial no. 13 of the above head pertaining to the income of the accused shown in the chargesheet, only an amount of Rs. 25,920.40 has been shown as the interest income of the accused from the above account and hence, an additional amount of Rs. 6548/ is required to be added in the income of the accused from the above account (Rs. 32,468.68 - Rs. 25,920.40 = Rs. 6548.28). Since the above submission has been duly substantiated from the evidence led on record and has even not been disputed by Ld Sr. PP for CBI, the accused is also being given benefit of an amount of Rs. 6,548.28 and the same is held liable to be added in his income.
(2.7) Claim for addition of Rs. 6,000/ as rental income of accused from flat no. 36A, Pocket A13, Kalkaji (serial no. 17 of the income)
110. The next contention of Ld defence counsel is that in the chargesheet, the rental income of the accused from the said property was shown to be only Rs. 1,32,000/ and at the CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 61/153 stage of charge, he was only given benefit of further addition of an amount of Rs. 12,000/ to his income on the said count, but, according to the depositions of PW35 and the document D45, the total income earned by the accused from the said property, i.e. including the rent and security, comes to Rs. 1,50,000/, whereas only an amount of Rs. 1,44,000/ (Rs. 1,32,000 + Rs. 6,000 + Rs. 6,000) was earlier considered as his rental income from the said property and hence, a further amount of Rs. 6,000/ is required to be added in his income.
111. The depositions made by PW35 Sh. Neeraj Srivastava and the document D45 have been carefully perused. PW35 was working with M/s Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. at the relevant time and he had resided in the above flat/property of the accused as it was let out by the accused to the said company vide one lease deed dated 16.01.1998, a copy of which is available on record as D45. This document was admitted by the accused during the course of admission and denial and was exhibited as Ex. P13 and PW35 has also deposed briefly regarding the factum of lease of the said property for his residence. It is observed that the rate of rent agreed between the accused and the above company was Rs. 6,000/ pm and the lease was executed for a total period of 24 months commencing from 01.02.1998. The check period in this case expires on 22.11.1999, i.e. during the continuance of the above lease. The submission CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 62/153 being made on behalf of the accused is that he had earned interest from the said property for a total period of 23 months, i.e. from January, 1998 to November, 1999, at the rate of Rs. 6,000/ pm and further got 2 months rent as security from the said company and thus the total of the above comes to Rs. 1,50,000/ (23 x Rs. 6,000 = Rs. 1,38,000 + Rs. 12,000) and this amount should have been credited in his income. However, this submission is not found to be correct from the records because, as already stated above, the tenancy was not to start from January, 1998, but it started from 01.02.1998 and hence, there could only have been 22 months of tenancy during the check period (even the 22 th month was not completed) and not 23 months and the rent earned by the accused from the said lease was only Rs. 1,32,000/ and this amount was duly calculated in the chargesheet and he was further given an additional benefit of Rs. 12,000/ on account of 2 months rent taken by him as security from the said company, at the time of charge and hence, the claim of the accused for a further addition of an amount of Rs. 6,000/ to his income from the above property is not substantiated from the records and is being rejected.
(2.8) Claim for additional income of Rs. 10,87,740/ from the sale and purchase of property no. K1/11, C. R. Park, New Delhi (serial no. 22 of income in chargesheet) CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 63/153
112. The next contention of Ld defence counsel is that at serial no. 22 on page 3 of the chargesheet, the prosecution has taken the income of the accused from the purchase and sale of property no. K1/11, C. R. Park during the check period to be put only Rs. 38,260/ whereas the wife of accused had actually earned a profit of Rs. 11,26,000/ from the above transaction. It is also argued by him that the above fact is established on record from the documents filed by the prosecution itself and it has further been argued that the valuation (evaluation) report Ex. PW30/A (D188) given by PW30 Sh. N. K. Jain is not liable to be believed as the evaluation of the said property in the above report is highly inflated and it has been assessed arbitrarily. It is thus his contention that while adjusting the above amount of Rs. 38,260/ taken as income of the accused from the sale and purchase of the said property, from the profit of Rs. 11,26,000/ earned from the said property, an additional amount of Rs. 10,87,740/ is required to be added in the income of the accused during the check period.
113. On this aspect, it is gathered on appreciation of the evidence led on record that the original file pertaining to the above property no. K1/11, C. R. Park was not made a part of the chargesheet or filed in the court despite its seizure and only certain photocopies pertaining to the said property, which are mainly related to the subsequent sale of the ground portion CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 64/153 of the said property by the wife of accused, were filed on record as a part of the document D32. Hence, on the request of Ld defence counsel, the original file of the said property was summoned by the court vide an order passed during the cross examination of the IO/PW66 on 09.01.2015 and it was brought on record during his subsequent cross examination dated 10.03.2015. The above file, interalia, consists of one perpetual lease deed dated 20.12.1990, one agreement to sell dated 02.01.1991, one GPA dated 02.01.1991 and two wills dated 02.01.1991, which have been brought on record as Ex. PW66/DA, Ex. PW66/DB, Ex. PW66/C and Ex. PW66/D & Ex. PW66/E respectively (the GPA and two wills have been inadvertently exhibited as Ex. PW66/C, Ex. PW66/D and Ex. PW66/E instead of Ex. PW66/DC, Ex. PW66/DD and Ex. PW66/DE as all these documents were brought on record during the defence of the accused) (this file is now a part of the record and has been connected with the item/serial no. 4 of the searchcum seizure memo D2).
114. As per the above perpetual lease deed Ex. PW66/DA, the above property was originally allotted to the above Sh. Sudhir Ranjan Barua and his wife Smt. Sushila Barua for a consideration of Rs. 61,102/ and vide the above agreement to sell Ex. PW66/DB, the same was sold to Smt. Savita Verma for a consideration of Rs. 1,70,000/. All the above documents contained in the said file were seized by the CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 65/153 IO/PW66 Inspector A. K. Singh (as he then was) during the investigation of the case and the same were seized in the house search of the accused conducted on 22.11.1999 vide the searchcumseizure memo Ex. PW2/B (D2) and the IO cannot be said to have acted fairly in not filing these documents on record or withholding the same from this court and it apparently appears to this court that the same was done with a view to conceal the original cost of acquisition of the said property by Smt. Savita Verma from this court.
115. It is the contention of Ld defence counsel that the cost of acquisition of the said property by Smt. Savita Verma was only Rs. 1,70,000/, whereas, on the basis of the valuation report Ex. PW30/A (D188), the cost of acquisition of the said property is being alleged by the prosecution to be Rs. 7,37,940/. It is also submitted by him that even the cost of construction of the said property as per the above valuation report Ex. PW30/A is shown as 10,33,800/, whereas the actual cost of construction of the said property is only Rs. 5,14,000/ and this fact is clear from the Income Tax Return of Smt. Savita Verma for the year 199596 Ex. P73 (pages 50 and 51 of D73). It is further his contention that the Income Tax Returns for different years of Smt. Savita Verma, which are part of the above document Ex. P73 (D73), also show that the total consideration for which the different portions of the above property were subsequently disposed of by Smt. Savita CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 66/153 Verma was Rs. 18,10,000/. Thus, on the basis of the above, an argument has been advanced on behalf of the accused that the total cost of acquisition and construction of the said property of the accused was only Rs. 6,84,000/ (Rs. 1,70,000 + Rs. 5,14,000) and by selling it for Rs. 18,10,000/, the accused had earned a profit of Rs. 11,26,000/, whereas the CBI had taken the income of accused from the purchase and sale of the said property to be Rs. 38,260/ only and thus the accused is entitled to a benefit of additional income of Rs. 10,87,740/ on account of the same.
116. For considering these contentions of Ld defence counsel, first the above report Ex. PW30/A (D188) given by PW30 Sh. N. K. Jain is being taken up for appreciation. PW30 claims that on the request of CBI, he had inspected two different properties of the accused, i.e. the above property no. K1/11, C. R. Park and the other property no. F19, Kalkaji, New Delhi (not included in the calculations given in the chargesheet), and had submitted his above report Ex. PW30/A thereafter. Regarding the total evaluated cost of the property no. K1/11, C. R. Park, he has stated it to be Rs. 17,71,740/, including the cost of construction of Rs. 10,33,000/ (incorrectly typed/stated in his statement, as the correct figure is Rs. 10,33,800/, which is admitted by both the sides). Though the cost of acquisition of the said property is not found to be specifically stated in the above report, but while CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 67/153 deducting the above cost of construction of Rs. 10,33,800/ from the total evaluated cost of Rs. 17,71,740/, it comes to Rs. 7,37,940/. PW30 has also submitted in his above report that though the estimated cost of construction as per him was Rs. 11,17,622/, including the element of contractor's profit on the construction cost, but if the building is constructed by the owner under his own supervision, material purchased and labour engaged directly by himself, a rebate of Rs. 7.5% may be given and after allowing the said rebate, the cost of construction of the said property was worked out by him to be Rs. 10,33,800/.
117. First taking up the cost of acquisition of the above land/property, i.e. the cost excluding the cost of construction of the said property, the case of the accused is that the said property was acquired only for a sum of Rs. 1,70,000/. In this regard, reliance is being placed upon the above agreement to sell Ex. PW66/DB, which document was seized during the investigation itself, though it was not brought on record with the chargesheet. However, in any case, the same now forms a part of the evidence led on record and has to be considered as it is. It is the contention of Ld defence counsel that the valuation of land being calculated by the prosecution on the basis of the above report Ex. PW30/A as Rs. 7,37,940/ cannot be termed to be the actual cost of acquisition of the said property as it is specifically stated in the said document CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 68/153 that it was acquired for a sum of Rs. 1,70,000/ only. It is also argued by him that even the guidelines of CBI lay down that the value of the property is to be taken as given in the documents of the property, as is referred to in the circular No. 21/40/99PD(Pt.) dated 29.11.2001, which is Ex. PW65/DA5 on record.
118. However, these contentions of Ld defence counsel cannot be accepted as though the value of an immovable property as given in the documents pertaining to the same may be apparently taken to be true, but the same must certainly corelate to the value of the said property as may be notified by any local or competent authority in respect of the said property. In the above report Ex. PW30/A (D188), it is specifically found mentioned that the cost of land of the said property was taken by PW30 on the basis of the land rates issued by the local authority, i.e. DDA/L & DO office. PW30 was even specifically questioned by Ld defence counsel in this regard and also about his expertise in evaluating the cost of a plot and he stated that he was required to evaluate the cost of land with reference to the various guidelines issued by the competent authority, i.e. the Valuation Cell of CPWD. It is further observed from the record that his cross examination was also deferred on 19.12.2011 on the request of Ld defence counsel and the witness was asked to bring the relevant file pertaining to the above valuation for the purpose of his cross CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 69/153 examination and accordingly he was present with the relevant file on the subsequent date, i.e. 22.03.2012, when he was again specifically questioned in this regard. He has also stated on record during his above cross examination that the above guidelines were not available with him on that day, but the same were very much available in the Valuation Cell of CPWD and these guidelines include different points to be considered for such evaluation of the cost of a plot, i.e. as to whether the plot in question is 1/2/3 sided, the width of the main road, location of the plot nearby commercial complex or in the interior of the colony and park facing etc. He has further stated that the rates of the land were being taken on the basis of the rates released by the local authorities like DDA, NDMC and L & DO etc. To be more specific, he has also stated on record that the cost of land of the above property was taken by him on the basis of the rates issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development (Land Division) vide circular no. J22011/3/89LD(DOI) dated 05.09.1991, which was in existence on the day of evaluation of the said property and has further stated that he was also having a copy of the said circular with him on that day. He has also denied a suggestion given to him by Ld defence counsel that the land rates which were mentioned in the above circular dated 05.09.1991 were only applicable for the purpose of calculating the stamp duty. In his subsequent cross examination dated 26.10.2013, he has also stated on record that the above land CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 70/153 rates issued by the L & DO were adopted by them as the same were also being followed by the DDA.
119. Though, PW30 has specifically stated on record that the above cost of acquisition of the above land beneath property no. K1/11, C. R. Park was calculated in accordance with the rates notified by the above circular of the Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, which was also being followed by the DDA, and further that he has also brought with him a copy of the above circular on the above day of his cross examination, but despite that no request was made by Ld defence counsel for taking a copy of the said circular on record nor he had given any suggestion to this witness that on the basis of the rates given in the above circular, the cost of the above land did not come to Rs. 7,37,940/. The other suggestion given by him to this witness that these rates were applicable only for the purpose of stamp duty was specifically denied by the witness to be incorrect. Hence, on the basis of the evidence led on record in the form of the above report Ex. PW30/A (D188) and the depositions made by PW30, the cost of acquisition of the land beneath the above property no. K1/11, C. R. Park can be taken to be Rs. 7,37,940/ and the same cannot be taken as Rs. 1,70,000/ as mentioned in the above agreement to sell Ex. PW66/DB. The contention of Ld defence counsel that the buyer and seller of a property are always free to settle any amount as a CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 71/153 consideration for the sale and purchase of a property is misconceived as if this contention is accepted to be true then any costly property of the world can always be sold and purchased for a petty or meager amount, which can never be acceptable to any authority. Even the guidelines contained in the above circular cannot be said to be having any binding effect upon a court as the same are only for the purposes of guidance of the investigating officers and moreover, the reason behind taking the documentary value of a property as the true value, as per the said guidelines, is only that the investigating officers may not cause any prejudice or disadvantage to the accused by taking the calculated market value of a property as per their own assumptions, which may be much higher than the value given in the documents of the said property. However, this documentary value of a property must necessarily conform to and should be in accordance with atleast the rates of land notified by any such local or other competent authority, which the above agreement to sell Ex. PW66/DB fails to conform. As far as the submission of Ld defence counsel for accepting the above cost of Rs. 1,70,000/ on the basis of Income Tax Returns of Smt. Savita Verma Ex. P73 (D73), on the ground that this document is also a document of the prosecution itself, is concerned, in view of the convincing evidence brought on record in the form of the above report Ex. PW30/A and the depositions made by PW30, the above cost given in the Income Tax Returns, on the basis CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 72/153 of the agreement to sell Ex. PW66/DB itself, cannot be accepted as the true cost, as has already been discussed above.
120. Now coming to the cost of construction of the said property, the same as per the above report Ex. PW30/A (D
188) is Rs. 10,33,800/. However, Ld defence counsel has been able to point out various reasons and factors which make this court to discard the above cost of construction being given by this witness. It has been pointed out that as per the Income Tax Return of Smt. Savita Verma for the year 199596 Ex. P73 (pages 50 and 51 of D73), the construction of 2½ storeies was raised on the said plot during the years 1991 to 1993 and the total cost of construction given in the above Income Tax Return is 5,14,000/ (actually mentioned as 5,14,000.50) and it was as per the report dated 04.03.1994 of M/s Ahuja & Associates, which was also submitted to the Income Tax Authorities, alongwith the above said Income Tax Return. The above document is a document of the prosecution itself and was also admitted by the accused and the above cost of construction given in the above document can be believed by the court, provided there is no other convincing evidence on record to controvert the same. It is also observed from the record that during the investigation, the IO had not thought it proper to conduct any investigation on this aspect from any official of the above firm named M/s Ahuja & Associates.
CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 73/153
121. Regarding the cost of construction given as Rs. 10,33,800/ in the above report Ex. PW30/A (D188), it is pointed out by Ld defence counsel, and also observed by the court, that the above inspection of the property was done by PW30 on 25.11.2001, whereas the said property was acquired by the wife of accused on 02.01.1991 and hence, the above inspection was carried out after about 11 years from the acquisition of the said property. Again, from the documents brought on record and the depositions of PW30 made during his cross examination, Ld defence counsel has been able to bring sufficient material on record, which compel this court to reject and discard the above cost of construction being projected by this witness in his above report.
122. As stated above, it has been brought on record that the wife of accused had raised a construction of only 2½ storeies on the said building and the same was completed during the years 1991 to 1993 and then the 2 nd floor portion of the said property was sold on 02.03.1994 for Rs. 3,10,000/, the 1st floor was sold on 15.06.1994 for Rs. 3,00,000/, the basement was sold in September, 1995 for Rs. 3,00,000/ and the ground floor was sold on 18.05.1996 to PW31 Sh. K. C. Sharma for Rs. 9,00,000/ and all the above sale transactions are found to be duly reflected in the Income Tax Returns of Smt. Savita Verma for the year 199495 (pages 68 to 72), 199596 (pages 5760), 199697 (pages 24 to 29) and of the CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 74/153 year 199798 (pages 11 to 16) of Ex. P73 (D73). Hence, the above property stood completely sold by the wife of accused Smt. Savita Verma by 18.05.1996 and the above evaluation was conducted by PW30 even after 5½ years from the said date.
123. Further, during the cross examination of PW30, it has specifically come on record that at the time when he had inspected the said property, it was a 4 storey residential building with basement and the basement and ground floor of the property were in commercial use and the remaining 3 floors were being used for residential purposes. He has also admitted on record that as per the completion certificate dated 03.04.1992 of the said building, there was no mention of any construction in the said property on the 3rd floor. It is thus the contention of Ld defence counsel that subsequent to the sale of the said property by Smt. Savita Verma and prior to the inspection of the said property by PW30, certain further construction on the 2nd floor as well as the construction of the 3rd floor on the said property were raised by the subsequent owners of the property and the costs of these constructions were also included in the above valuation report Ex. PW30/A (D188) given by PW30, though, as per the said report Ex. PW30/A, the date of assessing the cost of construction was taken as 24.08.1991 since the same was constructed around the year 1991, as per the estimation of PW30.
CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 75/153
124. The above submission of Ld defence counsel is found to be true from the depositions made by this witness and the documentary evidence brought on record. Ld defence counsel has also brought to the notice of this court certain other evidence showing different additions or improvements made in the above property by the subsequent purchasers thereof, which were also considered by PW30 in his above report while calculating the above cost of construction. PW31 Sh. K. C. Sharma examined on record by the prosecution is the purchaser of the ground floor portion of the said property for Rs. 9,00,000/ and it is clear from his depositions, as also highlighted by Ld defence counsel in his written submissions, that he had made considerable changes and renovations in the above portion purchased by him. Some of his relevant depositions made in his cross examination dated 18.01.2012, which are being referred to on behalf of the accused, are being reproduced herein below: "When I purchased ground floor of K1/11, C. R. Park, New Delhi, there was basement, first floor and second floor (barsati) in addition to the ground floor in the said property. There was only one room constructed on the second floor (barsati). There was no third floor on the said property. When I had purchased the ground floor, the basement, first floor and barsati had already been sold. The flooring of the ground floor of K1/11 was of cement. When I purchased the ground floor, there was ordinary marble in the bathroom which I replaced by affixing good quality of marble later on. Some tiles upto 2 ft. were also affixed in the bathroom when I purchased this property and some additional tiles were also affixed later on by me in the bathroom. There were no almirahs when I purchased the ground floor of the property. I had got constructed one almirah on my CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 76/153 own. When, I had purchased the ground floor, it was having ordinarily distempered/painted and I had got it textured. When I purchased the ground floor of the property, the electrical fittings were existing in the inner side and the out side electrical fixtures were got affixed by me later on. I had spent about Rs. 8090 thousand on renovation of the ground floor after purchasing the property. The renovations were also got done in the basement, first floor and barsati by all the respective owners".
125. It is clear from the above depositions that whatever additions, improvements or renovations were made by the subsequent owners of the said property, the same were certainly considered by PW30 in his above evaluation report while giving the estimated cost of construction as Rs. 10,33,800/. Hence, in the considered opinion of this court, the cost of construction of the said property can be taken as Rs. 5,14,000/ only on the basis of the above document Ex. P73 (D73) and while adding the cost of acquisition of the land of said property thereto, which has been held to be Rs. 7,37,940/ on the basis of the depositions of PW30 and his report Ex. PW30/A, the total cost of acquisition and construction of the said property comes to Rs. 12,51,940/. As already stated above, the total sale price of the said property is admittedly Rs. 18,10,000/, and thus the profit earned by the accused from the said property comes to Rs. 5,58,060/. Earlier, the accused has been given benefit of only Rs. 38,260/ on this account at serial no. 22 of his income given in the chargesheet and hence, after reducing the above amount of Rs. 38,260/ from Rs. 5,58,060/, he has to be given a CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 77/153 further benefit of Rs. 5,19,800/, and not of Rs. 10,87,740/ as is being claimed by Ld defence counsel, and this amount of Rs. 5,19,800/ is thus required to be added in his income.
126. It is also necessary to mention here that in his written submissions, Ld defence counsel has also challenged the above report Ex. PW30/A (D188) on the ground that PW30 does not befit in the category of an expert in the field of cost evaluation and on this aspect, he has also referred to certain judgments in cases State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Jai Lal 1999 Crl. L.J. 4294, Ramesh Chandra Agrawal Vs. Regency Hospital Limited & Ors. (2009) 9 SCC 709 and Raj Kishore Vs. State 1969 Crl. L.J. 860 (Cal. DB) and the provisions of Section 45 of the Evidence Act. However, after appreciating the propositions of law laid down in the above cases and going through the provisions of the above Section, it is found that PW30 can certainly be considered to be an expert in his field of cost evaluation and he is thus found to be a competent witness to depose on the above aspect. It is so because he has specifically stated on record that he had passed out his Diploma of Civil Engineering from Delhi Board in 1985 and thereafter, he passed out B.E. (Civil) degree in 1998 from Jamia Milia Islamia University, Delhi and then he joined the government service in 1988 as a Jr. Engineer and he came on deputation to CBI as Jr. Engineer (Civil) in January, 1997 and thus he is found to be having all the CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 78/153 necessary qualifications and the requisite expertise of his field to perform the above job.
127. Therefore, in view of the above, the following amounts are also held liable to be added in the income of the accused under the following heads: Srl. No. of Nature of income Amount income (As claimed in Sale of old ornaments Rs. 19,602.60 written submissions of accused and discussed above) do Rental income from basement & Rs. 72,000 ground floor of property no. K1/11 C. R. Park do Sale price of motorcycle no. DAA 398 Rs. 19,000 5As per chargesheet Interest income from bank a/c no. 130354 Rs. 289 6 do Interest income from bank a/c no. 150169 Rs. 549 13 do Interest income from bank a/c no. 157200 & 6 FDRs of Standard Chartered Grindleys Bank Rs. 6,548.28 22 do Sale and purchase of property no. K1/11, C. R. Park Rs. 5,19,800 Total Rs. 6,37,788.88
128. However, it is necessary to discuss here one other item of income of the accused as given at serial no. 19 of his income in the chargesheet. At this serial no. 19, accused is shown to have earned an income of Rs. 35,000/ from the CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 79/153 purchase and sale of property no. K1/28, C. R. Park. However, on appreciation of the evidence led on record, it is found that there is no evidence at all brought on record in respect of the above said income of the accused. As Ld Sr. PP for CBI as well as Ld defence counsel have both failed to point out any such oral or documentary evidence pertaining to the said income or the above property. It is also not made clear in the chargesheet as to whether the alleged income was earned by the accused himself or by any other member of his family. Though, Ld Sr. PP for CBI has submitted that there was a reference to some transaction pertaining to the above property in the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. made by the witness Sh. Sunil Gambhir during the investigation, but during his examination in this court, the said witness has not uttered anything regarding the above property no. K1/28, C. R. Park or any such income of the accused from the said property. Even during his cross examination conducted by Ld defence counsel, this witness was not questioned regarding any such transaction pertaining to the said property or any financial aspects thereof. Hence, even though the accused has been shown to have earned an income of Rs. 35,000/ from the purchase and sale of the above property, but still this amount is being reduced from his income as the same is not substantiated by any oral or documentary evidence and it cannot be credited to his account simply because it was mentioned as such in the chargesheet.
CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 80/153
129. Thus, on calculations, the total income of the accused during the check period comes to as under: (1) As given in chargesheet Rs. 28,77,426.45 (2) As admitted on charge Rs. 13,67,156.20 (3) Additional income, as proved in trial Rs. 6,37,788.88 Total Rs. 48,82,371.53
130. After reducing an amount of Rs. 35,000/ of serial no. 19 of the chargesheet from this total amount of Rs. 48,82,371.53, the total income of the accused proved on record comes to Rs. 48,47,371.53.
(3)EXPENDITURE
131. Likewise income, most of the items and amounts of expenditure mentioned in the chargesheet have not been challenged by the accused and only the following amounts mentioned at the given serial numbers have been challenged or disputed on behalf of the accused: (3.1) Claim for reduction of kitchen expenses of Rs. 1,39,949/ (serial no. 1 of expenditure in the chargesheet) CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 81/153
132. It is the contention of Ld defence counsel that the expenses of Rs. 3,55,377/ are being wrongly taken as kitchen expenses of the accused on the basis of salary of the wife of accused, whereas this amount should have been calculated on the basis of the salary of the accused himself. It is also his contention that even the amount of Rs. 2,97,858/ paid by the wife of the accused as income tax, which is duly reflected at serial no. 27 of the expenses given in the chargesheet, has not been deducted by the IO from the salary of the wife of accused while calculating the above kitchen expenses as 1/3 rd of her salary. It is also submitted that as per the above circular Ex. PW65/DA5 of CBI, which was duly put to the IO/PW65 Sh. A. K. Malik during his cross examination, the kitchen expenses should have been taken as 1/3rd of the net salary of the wife of accused, i.e. the salary left after payment of income tax, and not of her gross salary. It is further his submission that the above expenses should have been taken as 1/3 rd of her salary as the last resort only and the IO/PW65 should have first made sincere efforts to quantify such expenses, as is provided in the above circular Ex. PW65/DA5 itself, which he had not made in the present case.
133. In this regard, it is observed that as per the above circular Ex. PW65/DA5, the kitchen and other unverifiable expenses should have been taken as 1/3rd of the salary of wife of accused as the last resort only and the IO should have first CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 82/153 attempted to quantify such expenses during the investigation. However, in most of the cases, it is not possible to quantify or ascertain such expenses and that is the reason why these expenses have been held as unverifiable expenses and in view of the settled law, and even the above circular of CBI, the same are to be taken as 1/3 rd of the net salary of an individual, i.e. the salary which is left after payment of the income tax. It is also provided in the above circular itself that in case the spouse of the accused is also working, then the salary of the accused or his/her spouse, which is higher amongst the two is to be made the basis for computing such unverifiable expenses. Hence, when Ld defence counsel himself is putting reliance upon the above circular of CBI, he cannot be heard in making a submission that the same should have been calculated as per the salary of the accused because admittedly the wife of the accused was earning more than the accused himself.
134. Now coming to the calculations of these unverifiable expenses, it is observed that the salary of the wife of accused is given as Rs. 12,84,000/ at serial no. 2 of the income given in the chargesheet and vide serial no. 27 of the expenses mentioned in the chargesheet, she is shown to have paid an income tax of Rs. 2,97,858/ during the check period and hence, her net salary comes to Rs. 9,86,142/ and 1/3 rd of this amount comes to Rs. 3,28,714/. As per the chargesheet, CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 83/153 this 1/3rd amount of salary of the wife of accused has been calculated as Rs. 3,55,377/ at serial no. 1 of the expenses, whereas it should have been taken as Rs. 3,28,714/ and hence, the excess expenditure to the tune of Rs. 26,663/ (Rs. 3,55,377 - Rs. 3,28,714) has been taken in the chargesheet under this head and this amount is held liable to be reduced from the expenses of the accused. However, the claim for reduction of Rs. 1,39,949/ on this account, which has been made in the written submissions of the accused, is held to be not maintainable as per the records.
(3.2) Claim for reduction of water charges of Rs. 9,450/ (serial no. 2 of expenditure in the chargesheet)
135. It is also the contention of Ld defence counsel that the above water charges of Rs. 9,450/ have been wrongly included in the expenses of the accused as there is no evidence on record to show that the accused had actually incurred the said expenses in respect of his property no. 19/9, Kalkaji Extn. and hence, this amount is liable to be reduced from his expenses.
136. The relevant document being pointed out by the prosecution in this regard is D11, which has been proved on record as Ex. PW59/A by PW59 Sh. Om Prakash, who had prepared the above document, i.e. the statement of water CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 84/153 expenses in respect of the above said property for the period w.e.f. 199899 to 19992000. The said statement was prepared by him on the basis of the records available in his office and was given to the CBI during the investigation. As per this statement, a total amount of Rs. 2,250/ was paid towards the water charges of the said property during the above period. Except the above, there is no other document on record with regard to the payment of any water charges regarding the said property and on being questioned in this regard during his cross examination, the IO/PW65 Sh. A. K. Malik had admitted this fact and further the fact that the expenditure of Rs. 9,450/ mentioned as water charges in the chargesheet was calculated on taking the expenditure on average basis for the entire check period.
137. Though, the contention of Ld defence counsel is that as per the depositions of PW59 and the document Ex. PW59/A (D11), the above statement of water charges pertains to one Sh. Vasudev Sharma and hence, it should not be linked to the accused, but this contention is baseless as even though the water meter was in the name of some other person, but the water meter was installed in the above property no. 19/9, Kalkaji Extn. and the said property admittedly belonged to the accused and the accused with his family was also residing in the said property at the relevant time. There is also nothing wrong if on the basis of the CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 85/153 average consumption of the above period, the IO/PW65 had calculated the water expenses of the accused to be Rs. 9,450/ for the entire check period. However, Ld defence counsel is right in making a submission that once the prosecution had taken the kitchen and other unverifiable expenses of the accused to be 1/3rd of the salary of his wife, then the charges of water should not have been independently calculated or included in the expenses of the accused and he stands prejudiced thereby. In this regard also, he has referred to the above circular of CBI Ex. PW65/DA5 on record, which says that the electricity and water expenses are not to be computed separately, when the unverifiable expenses of an accused have already been taken as 1/3 rd of his salary. The simple reason for it that these expenses are linked with the basic survival of the accused. Hence, the alleged charges of Rs. 9,450/ paid by the accused towards water are not liable to be included in his expenses independently when his unverified expenditure has already been computed by the prosecution as 1/3rd of the salary of his wife. Therefore, this amount of Rs. 9,450/ is also held liable to be excluded from his expenditure.
(3.3) Claim for reduction of education expenses of Rs. 23,955/ (serial no. 3 of expenditure in the chargesheet)
138. The next contention of Ld defence counsel is that CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 86/153 the amount of Rs. 1,06,870/ has been wrongly calculated as the education expenses of the children of accused and from the evidence led on record, this amount comes to only Rs. 82,915/ and hence, an amount of Rs. 23,955/ (Rs. 1,06,870
- Rs. 82,915) is also liable to be excluded from his expenses on this account.
139. The relevant witnesses examined by the prosecution in this regard are PW1 Sister Lincy, PW5 Sh. Ajay Kumar, PW6 Sh. Suresh Chander Kalra and PW34 SR. Joyce Thadathil and the relevant letters/documents showing the amount of fees paid towards the studies of the children of the accused are Ex. PW1/A (D15), Ex. PW5/A (D19) and Ex. PW6/A (D5) on record. As per the statements of PW1 and PW34 and the letter Ex. PW1/A (D15), a total amount of Rs. 40,500/ was paid to their school towards the fees of Ms. Garima, as per PW5 and the letter Ex. PW5/A (D19) the total amount paid towards the fees of Master Gaurav Vijay was Rs. 18,385/ and further as per the statement of PW6 and the letter Ex. PW6/A (D5), the total amount of fees paid in their school in respect of Master Gaurav Vijay was Rs. 27,415/. Ld defence counsel has pointed out that an amount of Rs. 3,385/ is also liable to be excluded from the above amount of Rs. 18,385/ shown in letter Ex. PW5/A (D19), as the amount of fees of Master Gaurav Vijay, as this amount of Rs. 3,385/ is shown to have been paid on 14.12.1999, i.e. after the check CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 87/153 period had expired on 22.11.1999, as also admitted by PW5, and it was wrongly added by the IO in expenses of the accused. Hence, as per him, after reducing this amount of Rs. 3,385/ the fee paid vide letter Ex. PW5/A comes to only Rs. 15,000/. He has also submitted that from the above documents, the total amount of fees incurred by the accused towards expenses of his children can be taken to be only Rs. 82,915/ (Rs. 40,500 + Rs. 15,000 + Rs. 27,415) and not Rs. 1,06,870/ as there is no other evidence, oral or documentary on record on this aspect and this fact is also admitted by Ld Sr. PP for CBI and was even admitted by the IO/PW65 Sh. A. K. Malik during his cross examination. Since the above submission of Ld defence counsel is found to be true from the records, the expenses incurred by the accused towards expenses of his children can be taken as only Rs. 82,915/ and not Rs. 1,06,870/ and hence, the accused is being given benefit for an amount of Rs. 23,955/ under this head and this amount is also held liable to be excluded from his expenses.
(3.4) Claim for reduction of telephone expenses of Rs. 800/ (serial no. 4 of expenditure in the chargesheet)
140. It is also the contention of Ld defence counsel that at serial no. 4 of the expenses, the telephone expenses of accused have been wrongly shown to be Rs. 35,959/, CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 88/153 whereas according to the depositions made by PW17 Sh. Kishan Lal and PW45 Sh. Ravinder Singh and the statements/documents D21 (Ex. PW17/1 to Ex. PW17/3) and D39 (Ex. P57) proved by these witnesses, the accused is entitled to a benefit of Rs. 800/ under this head as in both these documents, i.e. D21 and D39, the installation charges of Rs. 800/ are found to have been included. However, this submission of Ld defence counsel is not found to be true from the records because PW17 has proved on record the statement of the telephone charges in respect of one landline telephone no. 6232478, which was in the name of wife of the accused, whereas PW45 has proved on record the statement pertaining to the other landline telephone no. 6423767 in the name of the accused himself. Both these telephone numbers were installed at the residence of the accused at 19/9, Kalkaji Extn. and hence, separate installation charges for both these landline numbers were liable to be added in the charges paid by the accused towards these telephones during the check period. Hence, the accused is not entitled to any reduction in his expenses on this count or the above claimed reduction of Rs. 800/.
(3.5) Claim for reduction of Cell phone charges of Rs. 75,021/ (serial no. 5 of expenditure in the chargesheet) CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 89/153
141. An amount of Rs. 75,021/ has been shown to have been incurred as expenses by the accused towards the payment of his mobile phone no. 9811038014. In order to substantiate the above allegation, the prosecution has also examined on record PW55 Sh. Israr Babu, who is the Alternate Nodal Officer of M/s Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. (earlier known as ESSAR Cell Phone) and he has sought to prove on record one covering letter dated 22.11.1999 Ex. PW55/A and the annexed statement of payment Ex. PW55/B (both documents are part of D56) in respect of the above mobile phone of the accused, which documents were supplied to the IO during the investigation of the case.
142. However, it has been observed on appreciation of the evidence that these documents have not been proved on record by the prosecution as per the provisions of the Evidence Act because the above letter Ex. PW55/A as well as the statement Ex. PW55/B were both signed and given to the IO by the then Nodal Officer Sh. Rajiv Pandit, who has not been examined on record. PW55 has specifically stated on record that he had joined M/s Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. only in May, 2010 and at that time, Sh. Rajiv Pandit was not working in the said company and this witness has also stated that he had never worked with Sh. Rajesh Pandit nor he had ever seen him writing or signing and he had even not met him ever. Though, he has also stated that he can identify the CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 90/153 signatures of Sh. Rajiv Pandit on the basis of the records, but even this claim of the witness can be treated with doubts as there was a long gap of about 11 years in supplying the above documents to the CBI and the time when this witness joined the said company. Moreover, there is also no explanation on record from the side of the prosecution as to why the primary evidence of the said documents was not led on record, in the form of the depositions of Sh. Rajiv Pandit himself, and why the secondary evidence was brought on record, without even seeking any permission from the court.
143. Again, it is also observed that the above statement of cell phone expenses Ex. PW55/B (D56) is a computerized document and it contains the statement for a long period from 05.02.1996 till 06.01.2000 and it is not clear as to who might have prepared it and in what manner. This document is even not found to be accompanied by any certificate U/s 65B of the Evidence Act regarding its authenticity and hence, Ld defence counsel is right in making a submission that because of the above reasons and in view of the law laid down in case of Anwar P.V. Vs. P. K. Basheer & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 4226/2012 decided on 18.09.2014, the statement Ex. PW55/B (D56) showing the cell phone expenses of Rs. 75,021.13 of the accused cannot be considered to be an admissible evidence against him and hence, this amount is also held liable to be excluded from the CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 91/153 expenses of the accused.
(3.6) Claim for reduction of Rs. 1,354/ as premium of LIC policy no. 5025802 (serial no. 13 of expenditure in the chargesheet)
144. It is also being claimed on behalf of the accused that his expenditure under this head has been wrongly taken as Rs. 18,915/, whereas the same comes to only Rs. 17,661/ as per the depositions made by PW15 Sh. Ram Lal and the document D141 (Ex. P47) and hence, an excess expenditure of Rs. 1,354/ has been calculated under this head of the chargesheet and it is liable to be excluded from the expenses of the accused.
145. In this regard, it is observed on appreciation of the evidence that PW15 has nowhere stated about the total payments made against the above policy in the name of Smt. Savita Verma and he has only stated that the sum assured of this policy was Rs. 15,000/. The document D141 is a photocopy of the said policy and the original thereof was released to the accused by this court earlier. As per this policy, the annual premium payable against the said policy was Rs. 1,261.50 and on calculations, the submission of Ld defence counsel is found to be correct that only an amount of Rs. 17,661/ could have been paid by the accused towards the CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 92/153 said policy during the check period and not Rs. 18,915/ as has been claimed in the chargesheet. Hence, the accused is also held entitled to this benefit of Rs. 1,354/ and this amount is also liable to be excluded from his expenses.
(3.7) Claim for reduction of house tax amount of Rs. 938/ (serial no. 14 of expenditure in the chargesheet)
146. The next contention of Ld defence counsel is that the total expenditure of accused as house tax towards his residential property no. 19/9, Kalkaji Extn., New Delhi comes to only Rs. 19,273/ and not Rs. 20,211/, on the basis of the depositions made by PW3 Sh. Chetan Dass and the documents D12 (Ex. P52) and D65 (Ex. P66), which are the statements of the house tax paid towards the said property. However, on calculations, this submission of Ld defence counsel has also not been found to be true as it is observed that the amount of house tax paid by the accused against the said property during the check period comes to Rs. 20,211/, as has been claimed in the chargesheet, and not Rs. 19,273/, as is being claimed by the accused. Hence, this claim being made by the accused for reduction of Rs. 938/ from his expenses is being discarded.
CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 93/153 (3.8) Claim for reduction of installation charges of Rs. 573/ of Gen Set (serial no. 17 of expenditure in the chargesheet)
147. At serial no. 17 of the expenses given in the chargesheet, an amount of Rs. 573/ has been shown as the expenses borne by the accused on installation of one Gen Set. The contention of Ld defence counsel is that the cash memo Ex. PW58/A (available in judicial file) brought on record by PW58 Sh. Kushal Kumar is not in the name of the accused, but the same is in the name of one Sh. Vishwanath and further there is also no other evidence on record to show that any such Gen Set was being used by the accused at his residence and hence, the above amount of Rs. 573/ is liable to be reduced from the expenses of the accused.
148. On appreciation of the depositions made by PW58, it is observed by the court that though he has stated that the above cash memo was of their firm, but he was not able to identify the handwriting or signatures of the official by whom it was prepared and hence, this document cannot be said to have been proved on record as per the provisions of the Evidence Act. Further, Ld Sr. PP for CBI has also admitted that there is no other evidence on record that the accused was actually using any Gen Set at his above residence during the relevant time. Hence, the accused is CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 94/153 also held entitled to have reduction of Rs. 573/ from his expenses on this account.
(3.9) Claim for reduction of locker rent of Rs. 4,950/ (serial no. 19 of expenditure in the chargesheet)
149. At serial no. 19, a rent of Rs. 6,825/ has been shown to have been incurred by the accused towards a locker in Central Bank of India (actually stated to be Standard Chartered Grindleys Bank) and it is a submission made in the written arguments of the accused that infact this amount was Rs. 1,875/ only and reference in this regard has been made to the depositions made by PW20 Sh. Prabhas Kumar and the document D40 (Ex. PW20/B1 to Ex. PW20/B30). However, during the course of making oral submissions before this court with reference to the document D40, Ld defence counsel has agreed that the actual amount of locker rent was not Rs. 1,875/ and it was Rs. 6,825/, as is mentioned in the chargesheet. Hence, the accused is not found entitled to any benefit on this count.
(3.10) Claim for reduction of renovation expenses of Rs. 32,468/ (serial no. 21 of expenditure in the chargesheet)
150. The next contention of Ld defence counsel is that CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 95/153 at serial no. 21 of the expenses in the chargesheet, the accused is shown to have incurred an expenses of Rs. 32,468/ on renovation of his house no. 19/9, Kalkaji, but no evidence has been led on record by the prosecution to substantiate this allegation. Ld Sr. PP for CBI has also admitted during arguments that he has not able to trace out any evidence on record to justify the inclusion of the above amount and hence, this amount of Rs. 32,468/ is also held liable to be excluded from the expenses of the accused.
(3.11) Claim for reduction of electricity expenses of Rs. 1,98,544/ (serial no. 30 of expenditure in the chargesheet)
151. At serial no. 30 of the expenses given in the chargesheet, an amount of Rs. 1,98,544/ has been given as electricity expenses of the accused for his above house no. 19/9, Kalkaji Extn. It is observed on perusal of the record that though vide letter dated 01.01.2002 Mark PW65/G (D191) on record, photocopy of one statement of the electricity bills paid for the said property was taken into possession by the IO/PW65 during the investigation, but it is found that the above document was neither admitted by the accused during the course of admission and denial nor it has been proved by the prosecution during the trial. Hence, the electricity expenses of Rs. 1,98,544/ cannot be said to have been legally proved by CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 96/153 the prosecution on record. Even otherwise, as per the above circular Ex. PW65/DA5 of CBI, the electricity expenses were not liable to be computed separately when unverifiable and kitchen expenses of the accused have already been taken to be 1/3rd of the salary of his wife. Hence, the accused is also held entitled to the exclusion of this amount of Rs. 1,98,544/ from his expenses.
(3.12) Claim for reduction of an amount of Rs. 90,000/ as brokerage of agricultural land at Bhatti, Mehrauli (serial no. 33 of expenditure in the chargesheet)
152. It is the next contention of Ld defence counsel that the prosecution has failed to lead any evidence on record to substantiate its allegation of incurring of expenses of Rs. 1,00,000/ by the accused on account of brokerage of the agricultural land at village Bhatti, Mehrauli, as alleged at serial no. 33 of expenditure given in the chargesheet. It is also his contention that evidence of payment of only Rs. 10,000/ as brokerage by the accused has come on record and thus, a further amount of Rs. 90,000/ is also liable to be reduced from the expenses of the accused.
153. In this regard, the only evidence led on record by the prosecution is found to be in the form of depositions of PW54 Sh. Ashok Choudhary, who is a real estate agent and CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 97/153 had brokered the above sale and purchase transactions of the accused pertaining to the agricultural lands/holdings at village Bhatti, Mehrauli, as well as in village Fazalpur, Jharsa. PW54 has specifically stated on record in his examination in chief itself that he had received a brokerage of Rs. 10,000/ only in cash from the accused in respect of all the properties purchased by the accused through him at village Fazalpur, Jharsa (the witness does not say that this brokerage was received for land in village Bhatti, Mehrauli, as mentioned in the chargesheet, but certainly says that the same was for all the agricultural lands purchased by the accused through him). Except the above, there is no other evidence on record to show payment of any amount as brokerage by the accused to PW54 or any other person in respect of any of the said properties or the alleged brokerage of the above amount of Rs. 1,00,000/, as has been claimed by the prosecution in the chargesheet. It was even not put to this witness by the Ld Sr. PP for CBI that this brokerage amount was Rs. 1,00,000/ and not Rs. 10,000/. Hence, the expenses of the accused under this head of brokerage are being taken to be Rs. 10,000/ only and an amount of Rs. 90,000/ is also held liable to be excluded from his expenditure.
154. Therefore, in view of the above, the accused is held entitled to the reduction of the following amounts from his expenditure under the following heads: CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 98/153 Srl. No. of expenses Nature of charges Amount in chargesheet
1. Kitchen expenses Rs. 26,663
2. Water charges Rs. 9,450
3. Education charges Rs. 23,955
5. Cell phone charges Rs. 75,021
13. Premium of LIC policy No. 5025802 Rs. 1,354
17. Installation charges of Gen Set Rs. 573
21. Renovation charges Rs. 32,468
30. Electricity expenses Rs. 1,98,544
33. Brokerage expenses Rs. 90,000 Total Rs. 4,58,028
155. The total expenditure of the accused during the check period can, thus, be taken as Rs. 11,00,510.82 (Rs. 15,58,539.98, as given in the chargesheet, Rs. 4,58,028, as discussed above).
(4)ASSETS (IMMOVABLE AS WELL AS MOVABLE)
156. Likewise income and expenditure, only those amounts and heads of assets are being taken up for discussion, as have been challenged or disputed on behalf of the accused in his written submissions filed on record. These are as under: (4.1) Claim for reduction of an amount of Rs. 25,53,750/ with regard to the asset in the form of agriculture land at Moza Fazalpur, District Jharsa, Gurgaon, Haryana (serial no. 4 of immovable assets given in the chargesheet) CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 99/153
157. It is a major contention of Ld defence counsel that the prosecution has wrongly shown the value of the above agriculture asset of the accused to be Rs. 31,65,750/ in the list of immovable assets given in the chargesheet, whereas the said land was actually acquired by the accused for a total consideration of Rs. 6,12,000/ only and thus, an amount of Rs. 25,53,750/ (Rs. 31,65,750 - Rs. 6,12,000) is liable to be reduced from the assets of the accused.
158. In this regard, the relevant evidence led on record by the prosecution is in the form of the depositions of PW41 Sh. Prabhu Dayal, Clerk of the office of DC, Gurgaon, PW44 Sh. Siya Ram, Patwari holding the charge of the above village, PW53 Sh. Suresh Kumar with whom the deal of purchase of the said property was struck by the accused and PW54 Sh. Ashok Choudhary, the real estate broker, through whom the said deal of the property was struck. The relevant documents brought on record by the prosecution and proved through these witnesses are stated to be following:
i) Certified photocopy of the sale deed in respect of agricultural land of 2 Kanal 13.3 Marla at village Fazalpur, Quila No. 47 dated 11.06.1996 Ex. PW41/A (D52).
ii) Certified photocopy of the sale deed in respect of CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 100/153 agricultural land of 2 Kanal 13.3 Marla at village Fazalpur, Quila No. 47 dated 11.06.1996 Ex. PW41/B (D53).
iii) Certified photocopy of the sale deed in respect of agricultural land of 2 Kanal 13.3 Marla at village Fazalpur, Quila No. 47 dated 11.06.1996 Ex. PW41/C (D54).
iv) Certified photocopy of Titnama Deed in respect of agriculture land of 6 Kanal at Quila No. 32 of village Fazalpur dated 21.05.1996 Ex. PW41/D (D51).
v) Copy of rate list in respect of agriculture land of District Gurgaon Ex. PW41/E (D50).
vi) Copy of Khasra Girdawari in respect of agriculture land in village Fazalpur in the name of Satpal S/o Risal Singh etc. Ex. PW44/A (D55).
vii) The Power of Attorney in respect to agriculture land located at village Fazalpur, Jharsa bearing the signature of one Sh. Kanwar Pal Ex. P16, page no. 1, Ex. PW53/A1 (D
75).
viii) The Power of Attorney in respect to agriculture land CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 101/153 located at village Fazalpur, Jharsa bearing the signature of one Smt. Sheela Devi Ex. P16, page no. 2, Ex. PW53/A2 (D
75).
ix) The Power of Attorney in respect to agriculture land located at village Fazalpur, Jharsa bearing the signature of one Smt. Bimla Devi Ex. P16, page no. 3, Ex. PW53/A3 (D
75). (There appears to be some typographical mistake in statement of PW53 as page 2 has been typed in place of page
3)
x) Sale Deed executed by Sh. Kanwar Pal in favour of Vijay Kumar Verma in respect to agriculture land located at village Fazalpur, Jharsa Ex. P16, page no. 4 to 13 Ex. PW 53/B (D75).
xi) Sale Deed executed by Smt. Sheela Devi in favour of Vijay Kumar Verma in respect to agriculture land located at village Fazalpur, Jharsa Ex. P16, page no. 14 to 24 Ex. PW 53/C (D75).
xii) Sale Deed executed by Smt. Bimla Devi in favour of Vijay Kumar Verma in respect to agriculture land located at village Fazalpur, Jharsa Ex. P16, page no. 25 to 32 Ex. PW 53/D (D75).
CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 102/153
xiii) Hakuk Patta executed by Sh. Swaroop Singh in favour of Vijay Kumar Verma in respect to agriculture land located at village Fazalpur, Jharsa Ex. P16, page 33 Ex. PW53/E (D
75).
(It may be mentioned that documents mentioned above from sl. no. vii to xiii are D75 and were admitted by the accused under Section 294 Cr.P.C. and were exhibited as P 16 colly).
159. Besides the above, during the cross examination of PW41 Sh. Prabhu Dayal, three other sale deeds with respect to the above agriculture land in favour of the sellers of the said property to the accused were also brought on record as Ex. PW41/DA, Ex. PW41/DB and Ex. PW41/DC and one Khasra Girdawari certificate regarding the said property prepared by PW44 as Ex. PW44/A (D55) was also proved on record by PW44.
160. On the basis of the above oral and documentary evidence, the submission being made on behalf of the accused is that the above total agriculture land measuring 3 Acres 6 Kanals and 8 Marlas in the above village was purchased by the accused from Sh. Kanwar Pal Singh, Smt. Sheela Devi and Smt. Bimla Devi vide sale deeds Ex. PW53/B CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 103/153 (pages 413 of D75), Ex. PW53/C (pages 1424 of D75) and Ex. PW53/D (pages 2532 of D75), all executed on 09.05.1996 in favour of the accused for a consideration of Rs. 2,60,000/, Rs. 1,30,000/ and Rs. 2,10,000/ respectively, and thus the total consideration paid by the accused for purchase of the above agriculture land was only Rs. 6,00,000/, which was paid through cheques and besides this a further amount of Rs. 12,000/ only was paid in cash by the accused to Sh. Swaroop Singh towards the execution of the above Hakuk Patta Ex. PW53/E (page 33 of D75) and thus the total consideration amount for acquisition of the above land comes to Rs. 6,12,000/ only. On the other hand, the case of the prosecution is that apart from the above amount of Rs. 6,00,000/ paid by the accused through cheques, a cash amount of Rs. 26,00,000/ was also paid by the accused for purchase of the said land and the said land could not have been purchased by the accused for a paltry sum of Rs. 6,00,000/ only when the rate fixed by the concerned revenue authority for the said land was Rs. 9,00,000/ per acre. It is also the contention of Ld Sr. PP for CBI that even otherwise, the total value of the above land acquired by the accused should be taken to be Rs. 31,65,750/ on the basis of the rate of the said land, as fixed by the concerned revenue authority.
161. In this regard, it is observed from the records that PW41 Sh. Prabhu Dayal has duly proved on record one rate CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 104/153 list of different kinds of agriculture lands in District Gurgaon during the year 199697, i.e. the year in which the above said land was acquired by the accused, and the same is Ex. PW41/E (D50) on record. The entry pertaining to the above village Fazalpur, Jharsa is there at serial no. 46 of the said list and as per this entry the rate of 'Chahi' land in the said village during the above year was Rs. 9,00,000/ per acre. PW44 Sh. Siya Ram has also proved on record one Khasra Girdawari of the said land prepared by him as Ex. PW44/A (D55) and he has also specifically stated that the aforesaid agriculture land came under the classification known as 'Chahi' and the Collectorate had notified the rate of Rs. 9,00,000/ per acre for the said land for the period 199697 and further that the total area of the agriculture land covered by the above sale deeds (which are all admitted and exhibited documents as P16) in favour of the accused was 3 Acres 6 Kanals 8 Marlas. He has also stated that 'Chahi' land means the land which is good irrigated land by the tubewells.
162. In their cross examinations, both these witnesses have stated that the above rate of Rs. 9,00,000/ per acre of the said land was notified for the purposes of stamp duty. It is also stated on record by PW41 that it may be possible that the consideration for the purchase of a property may be less than that, but still the stamp duty has to be calculated on the notified rates. However, these depositions made by the CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 105/153 witnesses do not help the accused because even though, the above rates may be the Collectorate rates notified by the concerned revenue authority for the purposes of calculation of stamp duty on the sale and purchase of agriculture land in the said district, but still the same can be accepted as the minimum market rate of the said land unless there is any convincing or compelling evidence available before the court to arrive at a conclusion otherwise. It is so because the Collectorate or circle rates are always fixed by the concerned local or revenue authorities after a deep study of all the relevant factors prevailing in the said area and by taking into consideration the prevailing or market prices of the property in the said area and at most of the times, these notified rates are still less than the market rates of the property in the said area, though the possibility cannot be ruled out that in some of the cases, the same may be equivalent to or more than the market rates. However, in such cases, a very strong evidence is required to arrive at a conclusion that the notified or circle rate of such a property was actually more than the actual or market value of the property. However, in the present case, the accused had not led on record any independent evidence to make this court believe that the said land was actually acquired by him for Rs. 6,10,000/ only. He could have led this evidence by summoning the relevant records pertaining to the sale and purchase of the adjoining properties of the said area or by bringing on record certain special reasons, i.e. like CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 106/153 the nature of the said land or its location etc, which could have forced this court to take a different opinion in the matter, but no such evidence has been brought on record by him.
163. The evidence on which the accused is relying in this regard is in the form of three sale deeds Ex. PW41/DA, Ex. PW41/DB and Ex. PW41/DC, which have been brought on record during the cross examination of PW41 and the same were executed in favour of the above sellers Sh. Kanwar Pal Singh etc, who had sold the said land to the accused. It is submitted that as per these sale deeds, the above sellers themselves had acquired the said land for a consideration of Rs. 2,50,000/, Rs. 1,20,000/ and Rs. 1,20,000/ respectively, i.e. for a total sum of Rs. 4,90,000/ only, and had sold it to the accused on a marginal profit of about Rs. 1,10,000/. However, the proximity of relations between the parties to these documents and the proximity of time within which these sale deeds and the subsequent sale deeds in favour of the accused have been executed clearly point out that even the considerations mentioned in these documents were not the true considerations. It is observed that all the above sales vide deeds Ex. PW41/DA, Ex. PW41/DB and Ex. PW41/DC have been executed by their owners through their attorney Sh. Suresh Kumar S/o Sh. Swaroop Singh, i.e. PW53, and these have been executed in favour of Sh. Kanwar Pal Singh, Smt. Sheela Devi and Smt. Bimla Devi, who are the cousin brother, CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 107/153 sister and wife respectively of the above attorney/PW53 and PW53 is also a witness to the subsequent sale of the above lands by his above three relatives in favour of the accused vide documents Ex. PW53/B, Ex. PW53/C and Ex. PW53/D (all parts of D75). Hence, it appears that the sale considerations of all these transactions have been intentionally kept low in all the above documents, with an ulterior motive to benefit the accused.
164. One other contention raised by Ld defence counsel regarding the nature of the said land is that the said land felt under the 'Doob' category, i.e. the land which remains immersed in water being a low lying area. He has also referred to some depositions of PW53 made in his cross examination in this regard when he had stated that the above land was of 'Doob' category. However, in this regard, it is observed that PW53 being a private person is not found to be a competent witness to depose about or prove the said fact. The competent witness in this regard is PW44, who was the Patwari of the said village and had prepared the above Khasra Girdawari Ex. PW44/A (D55) showing the nature of the said land as 'Chahi', in the concerned column no. 5 of the document, and who had the authority to decide the said nature of land as he has also stated on record that the Patwari decides and classifies the nature of the land and it is based on the means of irrigation and availability of water and fertility of CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 108/153 soil etc and such classification is made only after physical verification of the property. There is no reason to discard the above classification of the said land as 'Chahi' as made and deposed by this witness and as also shown in the above Khasra Girdawari or to take it as a 'Doob' land.
165. Now coming to the depositions made by PW53 Sh. Suresh Kumar and PW54 Sh. Ashok Choudhary regarding the sale consideration of the above land, it is the contention of Ld defence counsel that they both have denied that any amount in cash was paid by the accused for the purchase of the said land and they have also stated that the entire sale consideration of Rs. 6,00,000/ vide the sale deeds Ex. PW53/B, Ex. PW53/C and Ex. PW53/D (all parts of D75) was paid through cheques only and further that the only amount of cash paid by the accused was Rs. 12,000/, which was paid to Sh. Swaroop Singh vide the Patta Hakuk Ex. PW53/E (D75). It is also his contention that though PW53 is alleged to have made a statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. during the investigation regarding the payment of a cash amount of Rs. 26,00,000/, but during his examination in this court he has not supported the prosecution case in this regard and has resiled from his alleged statement made during the investigation and has also denied specifically the making of any such cash payment of Rs. 26,00,000/ by the accused for the said land, despite being confronted with the relevant portion of his above statement CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 109/153 Mark PW53/A. It is also his contention that even this confrontation was not done properly and as per law by Ld Sr. PP for CBI and he has also referred to the judgments in cases Shaik Subhani @ Bombay Subhani & Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2000 Crl. L.J. 321 and Hazari Lal Vs. State (Delhi Admn.) 1980 Crl. L.J. 564 to raise a submission that even the said confrontation cannot be used against the accused and cannot be considered to be an incriminating evidence. It is also his submission that despite specific depositions made by PW54 Sh. Ashok Choudhary that no amount was paid in cash towards the purchase of the above agriculture lands, except the amount of Rs. 12,000/ paid vide Hakuk Patta Ex. PW53/E, no cross examination of this witness was sought by Ld Sr. PP for CBI to the effect that any such cash amount was also paid by the accused to the above sellers. He has also referred to the judgments in cases State Vs. Sushil Sharma 2007 II AD (Cr.) (DHC) 289, Sarwan Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2003) 1 SCC 240 and P. Sanjeeva Rao Vs. State of A. P. (2012) 7 SCC 54 in support of his argument that in view of the above failure of prosecution, the depositions of PW54 should be believed by the court.
166. In this regard, as already discussed by the court, the rate notified for the above said land by the concerned revenue authority was Rs. 9,00,000/ per acre and merely because PW53 and PW54 have not supported the prosecution CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 110/153 case regarding the payment of the above cash amount of Rs. 26,00,000/ by the accused or they have stated that the entire amount of Rs. 6,00,000/ was paid by cheques, the sale consideration of the said land measuring 3 Acres 6 Kanals 8 Marlas cannot be taken to be Rs. 6,00,000/ only in the year 199697. Further, though, PW53 has denied to have made any such previous statement regarding the payment of cash amount and was also rightly confronted by Ld Sr. PP for CBI with the relevant portion of his said statement and also that though, PW54 was not got declared hostile by the prosecution on the above aspect, but even in the absence of any support from these two witnesses, the rate of the above agriculture land at the relevant time of purchase thereof by the accused can be taken to be minimum of Rs. 9,00,000/ per acre on the basis of the depositions made by PW41 and PW44, the above rate list Ex. PW41/E (D50) and the Khasra Girdawari Ex. PW44/A (D55) and if calculated on this rate, the value of the said land admittedly comes to Rs. 31,65,750/. As far as the submission of Ld defence counsel that even the above circular Ex. PW65/DA5 talks about taking the value of the property given in the document itself is concerned, as has earlier been discussed, the above circular cannot be considered to be binding and can be stated to be a guiding factor only for the IOs of CBI and the IO will be well within his rights to reject such valuation given in the documents of a property, if there is other convincing evidence available to him to show that the CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 111/153 valuation of the said property was much higher or different than that which was given in the documents of the said property, like it was in the present case where the rate of such land was already notified by the concerned revenue authority to be Rs. 9,00,000/ per acre, but still the transactions took place giving very low and unacceptable rates. The buyer and the seller of a property cannot be given a liberty to fix or mention any value of their choice in a document, as is also submitted by Ld defence counsel, as if it is permitted to be done, the same will destroy the entire financial fabric of the country. Moreover, it appears to this court that the accused was habitually and intentionally undervaluing his transactions of acquisition of immovable properties with the only ulterior motive of concealing their actual prices from different authorities and his employer and in case of acquisition of property no. K1/11, C. R. Park also it is found to have been valued only for Rs. 1,70,000/ at the time of its acquisition by his wife, though as per the notified rates and the valuation report Ex. PW30/A (D188) it was valuing at Rs. 7,37,940/, as has already been discussed above under the relevant head pertaining to the income of the accused. Hence, this claim of accused for reduction of an amount of Rs. 25,53,750/ from his assets is being rejected by the court.
(4.2) Claim for reduction of Rs. 1,10,000/ on account of cost of CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 112/153 revolver included in household articles (serial no. 1 of movable assets given in the chargesheet)
167. At serial no. 1 of the movable assets of accused, a total amount of Rs. 4,37,464/ has been taken as the cost of the household articles of the accused and this item is related to the observation memo Ex. PW2/A (D3), which was prepared by the IO/PW66 Sh. A. K. Singh during the investigation of the case. It is the case of the prosecution that the value of the articles mentioned in the said memo was written in consultation with the wife of the accused. The depositions made by the IO/PW66 in this regard are also found corroborated by the depositions made by the two independent witnesses of the search of house of the accused, i.e. PW2 Sh. Ravinder Singh and PW60 Sh. Amar Nath Nakra who both had witnessed the said search and are witnesses of the above observation memo as well as the seizure memo Ex. PW2/B (D2).
168. It has been pointed out by Ld defence counsel that at serial no. 132 of the above observation memo Ex. PW2/A (D3), the cost of revolver, alongwith 6 used and 7 unused cartridges, has been shown as Rs. 1,25,000/, whereas, infact the said revolver was purchased by the accused only for a sum of Rs. 15,000/ on 29.11.1990 and it was also duly reflected in the statement of liquid assets of the CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 113/153 accused as on 31.12.1993 on record, on pages 1314 of Ex. P65(D63) (it is pointed out that in the statement of the IO/PW65 Sh. A. K. Malik that there is a typographical mistake in this regard as D63 is mentioned as Ex. P63 instead of P65). It is submitted that vide the above statement Ex. P65, the accused had intimated the above cost of Rs. 15,000/ of the said revolver to his department and hence, in view of the above, the cost of the said revolver given as Rs. 1,25,000/ in the observation memo Ex. PW2/A (D3) cannot be accepted and it has to be taken as Rs. 15,000/ only and the difference of the above two amounts, i.e. Rs. 1,10,000/, is liable to be reduced from the movable assets of the accused.
169. The above submissions being made by Ld defence counsel have been appreciated in the light of the relevant evidence led on record. It is observed that the document Ex. P65 colly (D63) is a file pertaining to the property returns filed by the accused with his employer and it is observed that in his statement of liquid assets as on 31.12.1993, the accused had declared to have purchased one licensed revolver of 'Smith & Warson' brand valuing Rs. 15,000/ on 29.11.1990. This is a document of the prosecution itself and was admitted by the accused during the course of admission and denial of documents. Apart from the above, there is no other oral or documentary evidence on record to show as to how and on what basis the IO/PW66 had taken the CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 114/153 value of the above revolver to be Rs. 1,25,000/ in the above observation memo. He did not even approach or seek any valuation report of the said revolver from any of the armouries during the period of investigation. Since the revolver was in the name of the accused, there is a possibility that his wife was not aware about the cost of the said revolver. Hence, in the absence of there being any other evidence on record, this court is forced to take the value of the said revolver to be Rs. 15,000/ only and thus an amount of Rs. 1,10,000/ is held liable to be reduced from the movable assets of the accused on this count, as is being claimed by Ld defence counsel.
(4.3) Claim for reduction of Rs. 61,310/ as the cost of clothings from the above household articles (serial no. 1 of movable assets given in the chargesheet)
170. The next contention of Ld defence counsel is that in the above amount of Rs. 4,37,464/ pertaining to the cost of household articles of the accused, the IO/PW66 had even calculated the cost of clothings amounting to Rs. 61,310/ and included the same in the said cost of household articles, though in terms of the above circular Ex. PW65/DA5 of CBI, the cost of clothings was not required to be computed separately when the IO had already taken 1/3rd salary of the wife of accused towards the kitchen and other unverifiable expenses. Hence, it is being claimed that the above amount CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 115/153 of Rs. 61,310/ is also liable to be reduced from the cost of household articles and the assets of the accused.
171. In this regard, it is observed on appreciation of the above observation memo Ex. PW2/A (D3) that the clothings which are found included in the said memo are not the wearing clothes of the accused or of his other family members and rather it is the cost of the curtains and bedsheets etc found in the house of the accused and in the opinion of this court this cost of curtains and bedsheets etc was required to be calculated separately as assets and the same could not have been included in the above calculations of 1/3 rd of salary of the accused or of his wife. The reference to the word 'clothings' in the above circular Ex. PW65/DA5 of the CBI, in the relevant clause pertaining to the calculation of unverifiable expenses of accused, only means the wearing clothes of the accused or his other family members and the same cannot be stretched to include the cost of each and every piece of cloth which may be found in possession of an accused, i.e. either in the form of costly curtains or bedsheets or blankets and quilts etc. Hence, this claim being made on behalf of accused for reduction of the above amount of Rs. 61,310/ from his assets is being rejected.
CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 116/153 (4.4) Claim for reduction of an amount of Rs. 50,000/ of savings in bank account no. 01SNMP157200 of Standard Chartered Grindleys Bank (serial no. 7 of movable assets given in the chargesheet)
172. The next claim being made on behalf of accused is for reduction of an amount of Rs. 50,000/ from his movable assets on account of the amount which was lying in the above saving bank account no. 01SNMP157200 of Standard Chartered Grindleys Bank, as mentioned at serial no. 7 of his movable assets given in the chargesheet. It is submitted that only an amount of Rs. 23,615.30 was lying in the said account at the relevant time, but the IO has wrongly mentioned an amount of Rs. 73,615.30 in the list of movable assets of accused given in the chargesheet and hence, the difference of these two amounts, i.e. an amount of Rs. 50,000/, on account of the above is also liable to be reduced from his assets.
173. On appreciation of the evidence in this regard, it is found that the relevant witness examined by the prosecution on record is PW20 Sh. Prabhas Kumar and the relevant documents proved by him are Ex. PW20/B1 to Ex. PW20/B30 (D40), which is the statement pertaining to the above account during the check period. During his cross examination, PW20 is found to have clearly stated on record that only Rs. 23,615.30 were lying balance in the above saving bank CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 117/153 account as on 22.11.1999, i.e. the day on which the check period expired, and this amount is also shown as balance in the said account on 22.11.1999, as is clear from Ex. PW20/B30. It appears to the court that an amount of Rs. 73,615.30 has been wrongly written at serial no. 7 of the movable assets of accused given in the chargesheet either due to some typical or other mistake on the part of the IO and hence, this amount is liable to be treated as Rs. 23,615.30 only and the above claim of the accused for reduction of an amount of Rs. 50,000/ from his assets on this account is also being allowed accordingly.
(4.5) Claim for reduction of Rs. 1,600/ being the cost of the battery (serial no. 10 of movable assets given in the chargesheet)
174. It is also pointed out by Ld defence counsel that at serial no. 10 of the movable assets, an amount of Rs. 1,600/ has also been included in the movable assets of accused as the cost of a battery purchased from New Delhi Tyre House, whereas it is the contention of Ld defence counsel that the prosecution has failed to prove on record the said asset of the accused by any satisfactory evidence and hence, this amount is also being claimed for reduction from the assets of the accused.
CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 118/153
175. On appreciation of the prosecution evidence in this regard, it is found that the relevant document of the prosecution with regard to the same was D140, which has been proved on record from the depositions made by PW22 Sh. Mandeep Singh, who was running the business of batteries and tyres etc in the above name and style of New Delhi Tyre House and had issued the above bill/cash memo D
140. However, he has also stated specifically that the said cash memo dated 21.09.1999 was issued against cash payment to the customer, but the name of the customer was not written on the said memo. The above document Ex. PW22/A (D140) also does not bear any address or other identification mark of the accused, so as to link this document with the accused. Hence, in the absence of there being any satisfactory evidence on record to connect this document with the accused, the accused is also being given benefit of exclusion of the above amount of Rs. 1,600/ from his movable assets.
(4.6) Claim for reduction of Rs. 4,062/ as cost of Crompton Motor 1HP with material (serial no. 11 of movable assets given in the chargesheet)
176. The next claim of accused is for reduction of an amount of Rs. 4,062/ from his movable assets, which has been included at serial no. 11 of his movable assets given in the chargesheet, on account of purchase of one Crompton CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 119/153 motor of 1HP with material. Here also, the contention being raised on behalf of the accused is that the evidence led on record does not substantiate the above claim of the prosecution and hence, this amount should be excluded from assets of the accused.
177. On appreciation of the evidence, it is observed that the relevant document available on record in this regard is D115, which is a cash memo/bill dated 18.04.1998 of M/s S. R. Paints & Hardware. It is found that this bill has been duly proved on record as Ex. PW9/A during the depositions made by PW9 Sh. Raj Kumar, who is the proprietor of the above firm. Though, he has stated in his cross examination that he cannot identify Mr. Vijay in whose name the above bill was issued from his shop, but he is also found to have stated on record that the said bill was issued in the name of Mr. Vijay resident of 19/9, Kalkaji Extn. and hence, it can be said that the prosecution has satisfactorily linked the above said bill/cash memo of Rs. 4,062/ with the accused. It cannot also be ignored that the above document was recovered from the house search of the accused and therefore, the claim being made for reduction of Rs. 4,062/ from his assets is being rejected.
CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 120/153 (4.7) Claim for reduction of Rs. 2,000/ as cost of blower cool home motor (serial no. 12 of movable assets given in the chargesheet)
178. The next claim made on behalf of the accused is for reduction of an amount of Rs. 2,000/ shown at serial no. 12 of his movable assets, which pertains to one blower cool home motor. The relevant document in this regard is D116, which has been exhibited as Ex. PW50/A during the statement of PW50 Sh. Vinod Gulati, who is one of the partners of New Gulati General Stores. However, this document cannot be said to have been proved on record from his depositions as he has stated that he was not sure as to by whom it was prepared out of his two brothers and other partners Sh. Ashwani Gulati and Sh. Naresh Gulati. Again, he has also stated on record that it was a quotation only and being so, the same could even have been prepared by the customer himself. Moreover, the document itself is titled as a 'quotation' and hence, it cannot be taken to be a bill or cash memo in proof of purchase of the said article and for this reason and also for the other reason that the document has not been proved on record as per the provisions of the Evidence Act, the accused is also held entitled to the benefit of reduction of an amount of Rs. 2,000/ from his assets, as mentioned at serial no. 12 of his movable assets given in the chargesheet.
CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 121/153 (4.8) Claim for reduction of Rs. 2,500/ as cost of bicycle (serial no. 14 of movable assets given in the chargesheet)
179. The next contention of Ld defence counsel is that at serial no. 14 of the movable assets of accused given in the chargesheet, an amount of Rs. 4,098.45 has been taken as the cost of different cycles purchased from M/s Maha Bikes International Ltd, whereas in the observation memo Ex. PW2/A (D3) also an amount of Rs. 2,500/ has been shown at item no. 244 thereof as the cost of one exercise bicycle and hence, there is a double entry of an amount of Rs. 2,500/ by the prosecution on this account and this amount is liable to be excluded from the movable assets of the accused. He has also pointed out that none of the cash memos/bills of cycles brought by the prosecution on record is for an amount of Rs. 2,500/.
180. In this regard, it is observed that the prosecution in its evidence has brought on record total 3 cash memos/bills Ex. PW51/A (D132), Ex. PW51/B (D114) and Ex. PW51/C (D120) and these bills have been proved on record from the depositions made by PW51 Sh. Mahesh Kumar, who is one of the Directors of M/s Maha Bikes International Ltd. These bills are for an amount of Rs. 1,250/, Rs. 1,080.75 and Rs. 1,767.70 only, i.e. totaling for a sum of Rs. 4,098.45, as given in the chargesheet, and all these bills have been issued during CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 122/153 the check period. Apart from these three bills and the depositions of PW51, no other oral or documentary evidence has been led on record by the prosecution against the above entry of movable assets of the accused. Ld Sr. PP for CBI has also not been able to explain as to which other bicycle, the entry at item no. 244 of the observation memo Ex. PW2/A (D
3) relates and there is every possibility that there is a double entry made by the IO in this regard and hence, the above amount of Rs. 2,500/ is also held liable to excluded from the movable assets of the accused.
(4.9) Claim for reduction of Rs. 2,210/ as value of the UTI Certificates (serial no. 16 of movable assets given in the chargesheet)
181. The last contention of the Ld defence counsel pertaining to the movable assets of accused is that in the valuation of the UTI certificates of the accused and his family members at serial no. 16 of the movable assets given in the chargesheet, the total valuation of the certificates has been wrongly shown as Rs. 51,368/, whereas this investment of the accused should have been taken to be of Rs. 49,158/ only as the certificates valuing for Rs. 2,210/ out of the same were issued as bonus certificates only and the valuation thereof was liable to be reduced.
CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 123/153
182. In this regard, it is observed that the relevant witness examined by the prosecution with respect to the above item is PW38 Sh. Deepak Mathur and the certificates, as mentioned in detail in his statement, alongwith document number (DNo.), were seized during the investigation by the IO. The IO/PW65 Sh. A. K. Malik had further taken on record during the investigation, a statement of the payments made against the said certificates from PW38 and the same is proved as Ex. PW38/A (D46) during the trial. All the above certificates have also been duly admitted by the accused during the course of admission and denial. However, during his cross examination PW38 has also specifically stated on record that some of these certificates, as mentioned in his cross examination and valuing Rs. 2,210/ in total, were the bonus certificates. It means that the said certificates were not acquired by the accused by making any separate payments for the same and the same were issued to the accused or his family members as bonus only and hence, the above amount of Rs. 2,210/ is also liable to be excluded from the total valuation of Rs. 51,368/ of the UTI certificates given at the above entry and also from the movable assets of the accused.
183. Apart from the above, no claim for reduction of any other amount or any other article of assets of the accused has been made on behalf of the accused. However, on a careful perusal of the above observation memo Ex. PW2/A (D CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 124/153
3), it is observed by the court that apart from the amount of Rs. 2,500/ of a bicycle included at serial no. 244 of the above observation memo, which has been found to have been included in the said memo despite the fact that a separate amount of Rs. 4,098.45 for three bicycles was also included at serial no. 14 of the movable assets of the accused, there are also certain other articles/items of which double entries appear to have been made by the IOs. Two of such entries have been found by the court at serial no. 273 and 274 of the above observation memo Ex. PW2/A (D3), which pertain to a Kinetic Honda valuing Rs. 31,180/ and one Maruti 800 car no. DL8CA 6697 valuing Rs. 1,50,000/ respectively. It is so because at serial no. 5 and 3 respectively of the movable assets of accused given in the chargesheet also, there are entries made regarding one Kinetic Honda and the same Maruti 800 car no. DL8CA 6697, though their valuation has been differently shown as Rs. 41,200/ and Rs. 2,00,000/ respectively. On being confronted regarding these two entries, Ld Sr. PP for CBI has to admit that the above entries of the observation memo and of the list of movable assets of the accused given in the chargesheet pertain to the same Kinetic Honda and car of the accused.
184. First, coming to the value of the Kinetic Honda, as stated above, it is shown to be Rs. 31,800/ at serial no. 273 of the above observation memo and to be Rs. 41,200/ at serial CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 125/153 no. 5 of the movable assets of the accused given in the chargesheet. The relevant documents of the prosecution on record pertaining to the above Kinetic Honda are the documents D181 and D182, besides the documents D180 and D183, and all these documents were admitted by the accused during the course of admission and denial of documents and are Ex. P90, Ex. P91, Ex. P92 and Ex. P93 respectively on record. Out of these four documents, the documents Ex. P91 (D181) and P92 (D182) are the two deposit receipts of Sachdeva Motors regarding the booking and payment of balance amount by the accused for the said scooty and these two receipts are for a sum of Rs. 31,180 and Rs. 10,000/ respectively and are dated 10.12.1998 and 08.12.1998 respectively. It has been stated on behalf of the accused that the scooty was initially booked on 08.12.1998 against a payment of Rs. 10,000/ and the balance payment of Rs. 31,180/ was made and the delivery of scooty taken on 10.12.1998. Thus, on the basis of these two documents, the total cost of the above scooty comes to Rs. 41,180/ and not Rs. 31,180/ as given in the observation memo or Rs. 41,200/ as given at serial no. 5 of the movable assets of accused given in the chargesheet. The other amounts spent towards the insurance and registration of the said vehicle etc are stated to have been taken up separately in the expenses of the accused. Hence, because the entry regarding the above Kinetic Honda is found to have been doubly made in the above CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 126/153 two documents, it is held that an amount of Rs. 31,800/ shall also be reduced from the cost of household articles of the accused, as given in the chargesheet at serial no. 1, and further that the cost of Rs. 41,200/ of this vehicle given at serial no. 5 of the list of movable assets of the accused shall be treated as Rs. 41,180/ and the accused will be given reduction of Rs. 20/ under the said item.
185. As far as the cost of the car no. DL8CA 6697 is concerned, the relevant documents/file brought by the prosecution on record is D66, which is Ex. PW23/A1 to Ex. PW23/A17 on record. This file was handed over to the CBI during investigation by PW23 Sh. D. D. Dua, an employee of the concerned transport authority, and a copy of the RC of the above vehicle in the name of wife of the accused was already admitted by the accused during the course of admission and denial of documents and the same is Ex. P87 on record. On perusal of the above documents, it is found that this vehicle was not a new vehicle purchased by Smt. Savita, but it was originally registered in the name of M/s Govind Ferro Alloyds and they had sold it to the wife of accused and the vehicle was then registered in the name of wife of accused. The cost of sale or purchase of the said vehicle is not found to have been disclosed in any of these documents and Ld Sr. PP for CBI has failed to explain as to on what basis, the cost of the said vehicle has been mentioned as Rs. 2,00,000/ at serial no. 3 of CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 127/153 the list of movable assets of the accused. Since there is a double entry regarding the said car found to have been made in the above documents, the cost of Rs. 2,00,000/ of the car shown at serial no. 3 of the list of movable assets of the accused is being directed to be reduced from his assets and the valuation of the car is being taken as Rs. 1,50,000/ only, as given at serial no. 274 of the observation memo Ex. PW2/A (D3) because this value of the car was written by the IO in consultation with the wife of accused, who was the owner of the said car.
186. However, it has further been observed by the court on extensive calculations of the values of different articles given in the above observation memo, which have been carried out with the help of the Ld Sr. PP for CBI and the Reader of the court, that the total valuation of different articles, which are mentioned in the above observation memo Ex. PW2/A (D3), comes to Rs. 6,23,395/ and out of this amount, articles valuing Rs. 47,560/ are stated to have been acquired in the precheck period and hence, the exact valuation of the articles acquired by the accused during the check period comes to Rs. 5,75,835/ (Rs. 6,23,395 - Rs. 47,560) and not Rs. 4,37,464/, as given at serial no. 1 of the movable assets of accused in the chargesheet. Hence, the amount of Rs. 4,37,464/ mentioned as the cost of household articles of the accused at serial no. 1 of the chargesheet is being taken as CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 128/153 Rs. 5,75,835/ and the reductions or benefits out of the amounts of the household articles, as discussed above, will be allowed to the accused from this amount of Rs. 5,75,835/ and not from the amount of Rs. 4,37,464/. The difference of the above two amounts of Rs. 5,75,835/ and Rs. 4,37,464/ comes to Rs. 1,38,371/ and hence, this amount of Rs. 1,38,371/ is also required to be added in the value of total assets (immovable as well as movable) of the accused as given in the chargesheet and after adding this amount of Rs. 1,38,371/ to the value of total assets of the accused given as Rs. 57,82,143.14 in the chargesheet, the total assets of the accused are being taken as Rs. 59,20,514.14 instead of Rs. 57,82,143.14. Out of this amount of total assets, the accused shall be entitled to the following reductions/benefits: Srl./item No. of movable assets Nature of article Amount in chargesheet 1 Household articles
a) Cost of revolver Rs. 1,10,000 (item no. 132 of observation memo) 1 b) Cost of bicycle Rs. 2,500 (item no. 244 of observation memo) 1 c) Cost of Kinetic Honda Rs. 31,800 (item no. 273 of observation memo) 3 Maruti 800 car Rs. 2,00,000 7 Bank A/c no. Rs. 50,000 O1SMP 157200 10 cost of battery Rs. 1,600 CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 129/153 11 Cost of Rs. 4,062 Crompton motor 12 Cost of blower cool Rs. 2,000 home motor 16 Cost of UTI certificates Rs. 2,210 Total Rs. 4,04,172
187. Thus, the valuation of total assets of the accused during the check period, on the basis of the above calculations, comes to Rs. 55,16,342.14 (Rs. 57,82,143.14, as given in the chargesheet + Rs. 1,38,371, as added on calculations of household articles given above - Rs. 4,04,172, of which the accused has been given reductions/benefits, as discussed above).
188. Therefore, in view of the above discussions, it can be said that with a total income of Rs. 48,47,371.53 from his all known sources and the total expenditure of Rs. 11,00,510.82, the likely savings of the accused during the above check period were Rs. 37,46,860.71 only (Rs. 48,47,371.53 - Rs. 11,00,510.82), whereas his total assets acquired during the said period were valuing Rs. 55,16,342.14. Thus, he can be said to have been found in possession of total disproportionate assets to the extent of Rs. 17,69,481.43 (Rs. 55,16,342.14 - Rs. 37,46,860.71), CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 130/153 which come to Rs. 36.5% of his total income.
189. Now, another important legal aspect of the case is to be seen by the court. It is clear from the above that in alleging and calculating disproportionate assets of the accused, the CBI had clubbed the income, assets and expenditure etc of the entire family members of the accused, i.e. his wife, his mother and two children. Though, admittedly, both the children of the accused were minor and hence, dependent upon him during the relevant period, but it is the admitted case of the prosecution that the wife of accused, namely Smt. Savita Verma, was also working and she was employed with IFCI as a Stenographer in the year 1978 and was then promoted as a Private Secretary in the year 1996 and further that her salary was also more than that of the accused. In the relevant head pertaining to the income of the accused given in the chargesheet, the salary of the accused was shown to be only Rs.5,38,551/, whereas the salary of his wife was shown as Rs.12,84,000/. Even after giving the benefit of additional salary of Rs.1,07,732/ to the accused at the stage of charge, his salary income comes to Rs.6,46,283/ only and thus, the salary income of wife of the accused is almost double of the salary income of accused and she was also a separate income tax assessee. Even the mother of the accused, namely Smt. Har Kaur, was a separate income tax assessee as per the evidence brought on record as she had CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 131/153 also been filing Income Tax Returns and had even advanced a loan of Rs.4,50,000/ to Smt. Savita Verma during the year 1998 for purchasing the above Plot No.888, Sector21C, Part II, Faridabad. Hence, Ld defence counsel is right in making the submissions that the accused stands prejudiced by clubbing of the assets, income and expenditure etc of all his family members, along with himself, and the IO should have made an attempt to ascertain the separate income and assets etc of the accused.
190. The law in this regard is also now well settled and in a case of disproportionate assets, the separate assets of the other family members of an accused cannot be clubbed with that of the accused if they are separate income tax assessees, unless such member of his family is also an accused in the case as a conspirator or as an abettor and the prosecution is able to collect and lead some satisfactory evidence to show that such assets were acquired from the finances of the accused or were being held by such family members of the accused for or on behalf of the accused. In case of Ananda Bezbaruah Vs. Union of India, 1994 Crl.L.J. 12, the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court had set aside the charges of disproportionate assets framed against an accused as it was observed that the material collected by the CBI during the investigation showed that the accused satisfactorily accounted for the property acquired in the name of his wife, which was CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 132/153 alleged to be his benami property. In case of D.S.P., Chennai Vs. K. Inbasagaran Appeal (Crl.) No. 480/2002 decided on 07.12.2005, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that it is not the acquisition of assets which is made punishable U/s 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, 1988, but it is the failure of the accused to explain such assets which has been made punishable under the above Section. In this case, the Hon'ble Apex Court had upheld the acquittal of an accused as it was observed that the major portion of the assets of the accused seized by the police was claimed by the wife of the accused as pertaining to her, who was not made an accused by the police and was also found to be a separate income tax assessee, and further she even examined herself in defence of the accused and had again claimed those assets to be pertaining to her. It was held that in the said case that, in the given circumstances of the case, the burden placed upon the accused to offer a plausible explanation of the alleged assets stood properly discharged.
191. Again, in case of State rep. by D.S.P. Vigilance and AntiCorruption Vs. K. Ponmudi & Ors. Crl. Revision Case Nos. 1317 to 1320 of 2004 and Crl. M.P. Nos. 8443 to 8446 and 8939 to 8935 of 2004 also the income and assets of certain family members of the accused were clubbed with those of the accused, though they all were separate income tax assessees and in such circumstances, the Hon'ble High CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 133/153 Court of Madras vide its order dated 11.08.2006 had upheld the order of discharge of the accused for the said reasons in a case of disproportionate assets. Further, in case of Akhilesh Yadav & Ors. Vs. Vishwanath Chaturvedi & Ors., Review Petitions (Civil) Nos. 272/2007, 339/2007, 347/2007 and 348/2007 in W.P. (C) No. 633/2005, decided on 13.12.2012, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in review had set aside its own earlier order dated 01.03.2007 directing the CBI to undertake an investigation into the allegations of amassing wealth beyond the known sources of income qua the petitioner/accused Smt. Dimple Yadav on the ground that at the relevant time, she was not holding any public office or government post and was thus, essentially a private person, notwithstanding her proximity to her husband Sh. Akhilesh Yadav and her fatherinlaw Sh. Mulayam Singh Yadav. It was specifically alleged in the above case that Smt. Dimple Yadav was having her separate agricultural income, in respect of which no offence under the above Act could have been made out and further that there was no allegation that she had, in any way, added or abetted any public servant to commit any act, which could have attracted the provisions of the said Act.
192. During the course of final arguments, I have asked Ld defence counsel as to if the accused is willing to file calculations of his separate income and assets etc, from those of his other family members, for consideration by this court of CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 134/153 his independent income and assets, but Ld defence counsel has politely refused to file the same while submitting that since the separate assets and income etc of the accused were never investigated or alleged by the prosecution at any stage of the proceedings of this case and were even not put to the accused in the charge or in his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C., the accused will be prejudiced by separate calculations of his income and assets. However, in the considered opinion of this court, no prejudice is going to be caused to the accused in making out these calculations even at this stage of the case as all the items of the clubbed income, expenditure and assets, etc of the accused and his other family members are a part of the record and all the relevant evidence led on record by the prosecution in this regard has been duly put to him during the course of recording of his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. and the same was also well within his knowledge throughout during the trial of the case. Further, he had even got an opportunity to counter or challenge the said evidence being led on record and the apparent reason for which the accused might not have agreed for such separate calculations, in the opinion of the court, is that he could not have been benefitted by the same in any manner as a major part of his income given in the chargesheet was attributable to the other members of his family.
193. Though, the accused has been found to be in CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 135/153 possession of disproportionate assets to the extent of Rs. 17,69,481.43 while clubbing his assets etc with those of his above family members, but still, to be fair to the accused, an exercise is also being done by this court to separately evaluate the income and assets etc of the accused, on the basis of the evidence brought on record. For this, the different heads of his income, expenditure and assets are being revisited, on the basis of the figures given in the chargesheet and the discussions and calculations held in the earlier part of this judgment.
(5)INDIVIDUAL INCOME OF ACCUSED
194. The position with regard to different heads of income of accused and his family members given in the chargesheet and as added subsequently, at the stage of charge or vide this judgment, and the persons to whom the same pertains is being discussed hereinafter and for the sake of convenience, the given abbreviations will be used for different persons, i.e. A for accused, W for his wife Smt. Savita Verma, M for his mother Smt. Har Kaur and C for both his children Mr. Gaurav Vijay and Ms. Garima. The position comes as under: Srl. No. as per Item Amount to whom pertains chargesheet
1. Salary Income Rs. 5,38,551.00 A CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 136/153
2. Salary Income Rs. 12,84,000.00 W
3. Refund from HUDA Rs. 18,384.00 W Faridabad
4. Income from Bank A/c Rs. 3,838.00 A & W No. 50761 of Bank of Baroda
5. Income from Bank A/c Rs. 2,250.00 A & W No. 130354 of Bank of Hyderabad
6. Income from Bank A/c Rs. 11,840.00 A & W No. 150169
7. Survival benefit of LIC Rs. 6,000.00 A Policy No. 0248657471
8. Survival benefit of LIC Rs. 12,000.00 A Policy No. 110912211
9. Survival benefit of LIC Rs. 7,500.00 W Policy No. 5025802
10. IFCI Bonds & Shares Rs. 14,223.00 A & W interest and Dividend
11. UTI Dividend Rs. 18,933.85 A & W
12. Bank interest from A/c Rs. 1,651.00 A No. 2525
13. Bank interest from A/c Rs. 25,920.00 A & W No. 01SMP 157200
14. Bank A/c No. 18022 Rs. 5,383.20 A at PNB
15. Bank A/c No. 73601 Rs. 4,650.00 A & W at Syndicate Bank
16. Bank interest in A/c No. Rs. 19,083.00 A, W & M 107647 Allahabad Bank
17. Rental Income Rs. 1,32,000.00 A
18. Income from sale of Rs. 32,000.00 W & M property no. H66 Rajouri Garden
19. Income from sale and Rs. 35,000.00 Already reduced purchase of property no. (as discussed K1/28, C. R. Park above) CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 137/153
20. Income from sale and Rs. 34,000.00 W purchase of property no.
J1, two shops at Rajouri Garden
21. Income from sale and Rs. 1,22,000.00 A & W purchase of property no.
J176, Rajouri Garden
22. Income from sale and Rs. 38,260.00 W purchase of property no.
K1/11, C. R. Park
23. Income from sale and Rs. 1,64,000.00 A purchase of property Farm at Village Bhatti, Mehrauli
24. Income by sale of shop Rs. 1,30,000.00 M at Lajpat Nagar
25. Income from sale and Rs. 1,57,000.00 A purchase of property Farm at Fatehpur Beri
26. Interest from Bank A/c Rs. 207.00 C No. 106572 of Allahabad Bank
27. Interest from Bank A/c Rs. 330.00 A No. 414 of PNB, ASC
28. Interest from Bank A/c Rs. 7,972.00 M No. 426 of PNB, ASC
29. Income from sale and Rs. 50,000.00 A purchase of property no.
10/11, Kalkaji
195. On the basis of the above, the exclusive income of accused as per the chargesheet and item numbers 1, 7, 8, 12, 14, 17, 23, 25, 27 and 29 above comes to Rs. 10,66,915.20 (Rs. 5,38, 551 + Rs. 6,000 + Rs. 12,000 + Rs. 1,651 + Rs. 5,383.20 + Rs. 1,32,000 + Rs. 1,64,000 + Rs. 1,57,000 + Rs.
CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 138/153 330 + Rs. 50,000). The joint income of accused and his wife at item numbers 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 13, 15 and 21 above comes to Rs. 2,03,654/ (Rs. 3,838 + Rs. 2,250 + Rs. 11,840 + Rs. 14,223 + Rs. 18,922 + Rs. 25,920 + Rs. 4,650 + Rs. 1,22,000) and half share of the accused out of this joint income of Rs. 2,03,654/ can be taken as Rs. 1,01,827/. Besides the above, there is also another joint income of the accused, his wife and his mother to the tune of Rs. 19,083/ at serial no. 16 above and one third share of accused out of this income comes to Rs. 6,361/. Thus, the total individual income of accused as per chargesheet comes to Rs. 11,75,103.20 (Rs. 10,66,915.20 + Rs. 1,01,827 + Rs. 6,361).
196. Apart from the above, a total benefit of Rs. 13,67,156.20 as additional income of the accused and his family members was also given to him at the stage of charge, as has already been discussed in the earlier part of this judgment. The position with regard different heads of this additional income and the persons to whom these pertain is as given below: Srl. No. Item Amount to whom pertains
1. Salary income Rs. 1,07,732.00 A
2. Security deposit of Rs. 12,000.00 A Flat No. 36A, Pocket13, Fort View Apartments, Kalkaji Extn.
3. Loan amount for Rs. 3,70,000.00 W purchase of property CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 139/153 no. 19/9, Kalkaji
4. Loan amount for Rs. 4,50,000.00 W purchase of property no. 888, Sector21 C Faridabad
5. Loan amount for Rs. 1,50,000.00 W purchase of Santro car
6. Agriculture income Rs. 80,000.00 A
7. Precheck period savings Rs. 1,97,424.00 A & W
197. On the basis of the above, the exclusive income of accused as per the benefits given at the stage of charge and items at serial numbers 1, 2 and 6 above comes to Rs. 1,99,732/ (Rs. 1,07,732 + Rs. 12,000 + Rs. 80,000) and half share of the accused out of the joint income amount of Rs. 1,97,424/ above with his wife at serial no. 7 comes to Rs. 98,712/. Thus, the additional income of accused admitted at the stage of charge comes to Rs. 2,98,444/ (Rs. 1,99,732 + Rs. 98,712).
198. Besides the above, the position with regard to the additional income of the accused and his family members and the different heads/items of such income, which has been proved during the trial and has also been discussed above under the relevant head 'income' of accused in this judgment, comes as under: Srl. No. Item Amount to whom pertains
1. Sale of old ornaments Rs. 19,602.60 W
2. Rental income from Rs. 72,000 W property no. K1/11 CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 140/153 C. R. Park
3. Sale price of motorcycle Rs. 19,000 A
4. Interest income from Rs. 289 A & W bank a/c no. 130354
5. Interest income from Rs. 549 A & W bank a/c no. 150169
6. Interest income from Rs. 6,548.28 W bank a/c no. 157200 & 6 FDRs of Standard Chartered Grindleys Bank Rs. 5,19,800 W
7. Sale and purchase of property no. K1/11, C. R. Park
199. On the basis of the above, the exclusive income of accused proved during the trial is Rs. 19,000/ at serial no. 3 above and his joint income with his wife at serial numbers 4 & 5 above is Rs. 838/ (Rs. 289 + Rs. 549) and his half share of income out of this amount comes to Rs. 419/ and thus, his total individual income proved during the trial comes to Rs. 19,419/.
Hence, the grand total of individual income of accused comes to Rs. 14,92,966.20, which is as under:
1. Income as per chargesheet Rs. 11,75,103.20
2. Additional income as per Rs. 2,98,444/ order on charge
3. Additional income found Rs. 19,419 during trial Grand Total of individual income Rs. 14,92,966.20 CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 141/153 (6) INDIVIDUAL EXPENDITURE OF ACCUSED
200. The position with regard to different heads of expenditure of accused and his family members given in the chargesheet and as reduced subsequently during the trial, as has been discussed under the relevant head of 'expenditure' of accused in the earlier part of this judgment, and the persons to whom the same pertain is being discussed herein below: Srl. No. as per Item Amount to whom pertains chargesheet
1. Kitchen expenses Rs. 3,28,714.00 A & W (as reduced in trial)
2. Water charges Rs. 9,450.00 Nil (totally reduced from expenses)
3. Education charges Rs. 82,915.00 A & W (as reduced in trial)
4. Telephone charges Rs. 35,959.00 Rs. 25,041 - A Rs. 10,918 W
5. Cell phone charges Rs. 75,021.00 Nil (totally reduced from expenses)
6. Insurance charges for Rs. 7,318.00 W Maruti DL8CA 6697
7. Insurance charges for Rs. 512.00 A Kinetic Honda No. DL3S 4132
8. Insurance charges Rs. 10,913.00 W for new Santro
9. Paid for LIC Policy Rs. 30,000.00 W No. 112087528
10. Paid for LIC Policy Rs. 16,968.00 A CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 142/153 No. 0248657471
11. Paid for LIC Policy Rs. 99,664.00 W No. 111486527
12. Paid for LIC Policy Rs. 19,992.80 A No. 110912211
13. Paid for LIC Policy Rs. 17,661.00 W No. 50258502 (as reduced in trial)
14. House Tax for house Rs. 20,211.00 W No. 19/9, Kalkaji
15. Repair bill for Maruti Rs. 1,235.00 W Car no. DL3CA 6697
16. Consultation charges Rs. 250.00 A
17. Installation charges Rs. 573.00 Nil for Gen Set (totally reduced from expenses)
18. Rent for locker of CBI Rs. 9,225.00 A Sukhdev Vihar
19. Rent for locker of CBI Rs. 6,825.00 A & W Sukhdev Vihar
20. Rent for locker of PNB Rs. 775.00 A
21. Renovation charges of Rs. 32,468.00 Nil 19/9, Kalkaji (totally reduced from expenses)
22. Maintenance charges Rs. 2,640.00 A for motorcycle
23. Registration fees Rs. 5,165.00 A & W for vehicle
24. Purchase and sale of Rs. 9,564.00 A Moped No. 3SA 6839
25. Purchase and sale of Rs. 3,025.00 A motorcycle
26. Income tax paid by Rs. 54,589.00 M Smt. Har Kaur
27. Income tax paid by Rs. 2,97,858.00 W Smt. Savita Verma
28. Paid to Eureka Forbes Rs. 15,712.00 Rs. 11,640 - A Rs. 4,072 - W
29. Payment to passport Rs. 300.00 M CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 143/153 Office
30. Electricity charges Rs. 1,98,544.18 Nil (totally reduced from expenses)
31. Bank charges to Standard Rs. 400.00 A & W Chartered Grindleys
32. Bank charges paid to Rs. 60.00 A & W Allahabad Bank, C.R. Park
33. Paid to broker for Rs. 10,000.00 A agriculture land at (as reduced in trial) Bhatti, Mehrauli
34. Income tax paid by Rs. 8,753.00 A V. K. Verma
35. Loss by purchase and Rs. 3,408.00 A sale of scooter
201. On the basis of the above, the exclusive expenses of the accused as per serial numbers 4, 7, 10, 12, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 25, 28, 33, 34 and 35 come to Rs. 1,21,793.80 (Rs. 25,041 + Rs. 512 + Rs. 16,968 + Rs. 19,992.80 + Rs. 250 + Rs. 9,225 + Rs. 775 + Rs. 2,640 + Rs. 9,564 + Rs. 3,025 + Rs. 11,640 + Rs. 10,000 + Rs. 8,753 + Rs. 3,408) and his half share of joint expenses of Rs. 3,41,164/ at serial numbers 1, 19, 23, 31 and 32 above (Rs. 3,28,714 + Rs. 6,825 + Rs. 5,165 + Rs. 400 + Rs. 60) comes to Rs. 1,70,582/. Thus, his total individual expenditure can be taken as Rs. 2,92,375.80 (Rs. 1,21,793.80 + Rs. 1,70,582).
202. Though, Ld defence counsel has submitted that the kitchen expenses of Rs. 3,28,714/ should be taken as exclusive expenses of wife of accused, instead of taking it as CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 144/153 joint expenses of both of them, on the ground that these expenses were calculated as per her salary, but this submission is without any merits as though the expenses have been calculated on the basis of her salary, in terms of the above circular Ex. PW65/DA5 of CBI, but it never means that she had borne it exclusively and reasonably it can be presumed that the accused had also equally contributed towards payment of these expenses as they both were earning hands and liable for maintenance of the kitchen, though the possibility is more that the accused himself might have borne all these expenses being the head of the family. One other submission of Ld defence counsel is also that in some of the items, there is no actual evidence as to who had borne these expenses and the possibility can also be that the same were borne exclusively by the wife of accused, but the expenses have been taken as per the ownership or title of the articles against which these expenses have been borne, like the bank charges of lockers and insurance policies etc, and for some of the other items like the education expenses etc, the same have been taken jointly for both of them. Therefore, the accused is not going to be prejudiced thereby.
(7)INDIVIDUAL ASSETS OF ACCUSED
203. Now coming to the position with regard to the immovable and movable assets of the accused and his family CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 145/153 members and the persons to whom these pertain, as have been conclusively proved at the end of the trial and as discussed under the relevant head of 'assets' of the accused, it comes as under: (7.1) Immovable Assets Srl No. as per Property value to whom pertain chargesheet
1. 1.House no. 19/9, Rs. 4,79,987.00 W Kalkaji Ext., New Delhi
2. Plot no. 888, Sector Rs. 5,19,750.00 W 21C, PartII, Faridabad
3. Flat No. 36A Rs. 2,10,000.00 A Ground Floor, Pocket 13, DDA Flats, Kalkaji Ext., New Delhi
4. Agricultural land at Rs. 31,65,750.00 A Mauza Fajalpur, Jharsa, District Gurgaon, Haryana
204. The total value of individual immovable assets of accused, as at serial no. 3 and 4 above comes to Rs. 33,75,750/.
(7.2) Movable Assets Srl. No. as per Item Amount to whom pertains chargesheet
1. Household articles Rs. 5,75,835 Rs. 15,000 A (Rs. 6,23,395 - Rs. 47,560 (revolver) of precheck period) CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 146/153 Less () Rs. 1,44,300 Rs. 1,50,000 W (Rs. 1,10,000 of revolver, (car no. 6697) Rs. 2,500 of bicycle and Rs. 31,800 of scooty) Rs. 2,66,535 A & W = Rs. 4,31,535/ (Balance)
2. Cash Rs. 87,400.00 M
3. Maruti car no. Rs. 2,00,000.00 Nil DL8CA 6697 (totally reduced as Rs. 1,50,000 already included in item no. 1 above)
4. Hyundai Santro car Rs. 3,03,610.00 W
5. Kinetic Honda Rs. 41,200.00 A
6. Bank A/c No. 2525 Rs. 1,805.74 A of CBI, Sukhdev Vihar
7. Bank A/c No. Rs. 73,615.30 A & W 01SNMP 157200
8. Bank A/c No. 18022 Rs. 14,108.20 A of PNB
9. Bank A/c No. 73601 Rs. 47,310.99 A & M of Syndicate Bank
10. Battery purchased Rs. 1,600.00 Nil (totally reduced from assets)
11. Crompton Motor, 1HP Rs. 4,062.00 A
12. One blower cool Rs. 2,000.00 Nil home motor (totally reduced from assets)
13. IFCI Bonds & shares Rs. 60,000.00 A & W
14. Cycles purchased Rs. 4,098.45 A & W
15. NSC Rs. 43,000.00 W
16. UTI certificate Rs. 51,368.00 A & W
17. MTNL cellphone Rs. 10,000.00 W
18. GIC Rise Units Rs. 15,000.00 W
19. Bank A/c No. 107647 of Rs. 7,774.45 A, W & M of Allahabad Bank
20. Bank A/c No. 106572 of Rs. 1,238.71 A & W CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 147/153 of Allahabad Bank
205. On the basis of the above and as per items at serial no. 1, 5, 6, 8 and 11 above, the valuation of the individual movable assets of the accused comes to Rs. 76,175.94 (Rs. 15,000 + Rs. 41,200 + Rs. 1,805.74 + Rs. 14,108.20 + Rs. 4,062) and the valuation of his joint movable assets, either with his wife or with his mother, as per items at serial numbers 1, 7, 9, 13, 14, 16 and 20 above comes to Rs. 5,04,166.45 (Rs. 2,66,535 + Rs. 73,615.30 + Rs. 47,310.99 + Rs. 60,000 + Rs. 4,098.45 + Rs. 51,368 + Rs. 1,238.71) and his half share of the above comes to Rs. 2,52,083.22. The valuation of his joint movable assets with his wife and mother, as per item no. 19 above is Rs. 7,774.45 and his one third share of the same comes to Rs. 2,591.48. Thus, the total valuation of the movable assets of the accused is Rs. 3,30,850.64 (Rs. 76,175.94 + Rs. 2,52,083.22 + Rs. 2,591.48). Hence, the valuation of all the individual immovable as well as movable assets of the accused comes to Rs. 37,06,600.64 (Rs. 33,75,750 + Rs. 3,30,850.64).
206. As per the above calculations, with a total individual income of Rs. 14,92,966.20 from all the known sources and a total of individual expenses of Rs. 2,92,375.80, the likely savings of the accused could have been only Rs. 12,00,590.40 (Rs. 14,92,966.20 - Rs.
CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 148/153 2,92,375.80). However, the total valuation of his individual immovable as well as movable assets during the check period has been found to be Rs. 37,06,600.64 and thus, he can be said to be in possession of his individual disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs. 25,06,010.24 (Rs. 37,06,600.64 - Rs. 12,00,590.40), which come to 168% of his total individual income.
207. Here, it is also necessary to reflect that it is being felt by this court that the disproportionate assets of the accused would have been much more on higher side had the CBI investigated this case properly and also the above different immovable properties acquired in the name of the accused or his other family members and the sources from which the consideration amounts of such immovable properties were paid. With only a salary of around Rs. 7,00,000/ of the accused and Rs. 12,00,000/ of his wife, they could not have dealt in so many immovable properties as more than ten properties of theirs have come on record and even two properties are found to have been left out of the calculations by the CBI. Again, though the mother of the accused namely Smt. Har Kaur was shown to be a separate income tax assessee and also to have acquired certain properties over these years, which were sold by her subsequently and certain incomes derived therefrom, but it has been brought to the notice of the court during the course CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 149/153 of hearing submissions that the father of the accused was running a grocery shop only and with his income from the above shop, it was not possible for the mother of the accused to have acquired or dealt with in different immovable properties. Further, a considerable loan amount of about Rs. 8,20,000/ was also stated to have been advanced by the mother and father of the accused to his wife for purchasing two immovable properties, but no investigation was done to find out if they were in a position to advance these loans or not. Again, as per the prosecution case, a quite heavy amount equivalent to 35,000 US$ as gift was also arranged as foreign remittances from Hong Kong in the name of mother of accused, under some government scheme, but the relevant witness in this regard, i.e. PW49 Sh. A. K. Ganju, had turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case to the effect that the said amount was arranged at the instance of the accused. However, it is observed by the court on perusal of the Income Tax Returns of Smt. Har Kaur, i.e. the mother of the accused, which is Ex. P74 (D74) on record, that the said amount was received by her vide pay order no. E562187 dated 27.01.1992 and it was credited in her bank account no. 426 of Punjab National Bank, Alaknanda, Kalkaji, New Delhi, and was credited as Rs. 8,98,088/ on 19.02.1992. No material investigation was also done by the CBI to trace out as to from which source, the said huge gift was arranged by the mother of accused and the possibility is very strong that the CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 150/153 same was also arranged by the accused from his unaccounted or illgotton money and even the above loans were projected out of such money. However, even despite all the above odds and lapses committed during the investigation and further by taking the above transactions on record as it is, the prosecution has been able to prove that the accused was in possession of the above disproportionate assets during the check period, which come to 36.5% when the entire income and assets etc of his family are calculated and to 168% by calculating his individual income and assets etc.
208. Though, as discussed in the judgments cited earlier, it is not only the possession of disproportionate assets which has been made punishable by Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, but it is the failure of an accused to account for such assets. As also discussed above, no defence evidence has been led by the accused on record and all his other explanations offered to explain these disproportionate assets have already been appreciated and rejected by the court and even going by the legal propositions already discussed in the earlier part of this judgment, the accused cannot be said to have discharged the burden of proof placed upon him to explain his disproportionate assets even by preponderance of probabilities. Hence, it can be held that the accused has failed to satisfactorily explain or account for the above said disproportionate assets and he can be said CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 151/153 to have committed the offence of criminal misconduct defined U/s 13(1)(e) of the above said Act, which has been made punishable by Section 13(2) of the said Act. The judgments in cases Krishna Nand Agnihotri Vs. State of M.P. AIR 1977 SC 796, Saddiq & Ors. Vs. State 1981 Crl. L.J. 379 (All) and of some other cases, as have also been relied upon by Ld defence counsel, are not found to be of any help to the case of the accused, in view of the factual and legal discussion held above.
209. No challenge has been made nor any defect or deformity has been pointed out by Ld defence counsel in the sanction for prosecution of the accused given by PW16 Sh. Ramesh Tiwari, which stands duly proved on record from his depositions as Ex. PW16/A. Even otherwise, he has specifically stated on record that he was the competent authority to take disciplinary action against a junior engineer and was competent to remove the accused from his services. The detailed depositions made by him during his cross examination further show that all the relevant material was also placed before him at the time of granting of such sanction and the same was not granted in an arbitrary or mechanical manner.
210. Therefore, it is held that the charge for the offence CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 152/153 punishable U/s 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act as framed against the accused stands duly proved and accordingly, he is held guilty of and convicted for the above said offence. Let he be now heard on the point of sentence.
211. A personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/ with one surety of the like amount, alongwith the proofs of addresses and photographs of the accused and surety, has already been furnished on record by the accused in terms of the provisions contained U/s 437A Cr.P.C.
Announced in open Court on 14.10.2015 (M.K. Nagpal) Special Judge (PC Act), CBI08, Central District, THC, Delhi CC No.30/11CBI V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 153/153