Delhi District Court
Special Judge (Pc Act) Cbi vs Subhadramma (Supra) on 14 September, 2018
CBI/50/2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. PULASTYA PRAMACHALA
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) CBI : EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Registration No. : CBI/50/2016
Under Section : 13(1)(e) r/w 13 (2) of PC Act, 1947 & u/s 109 IPC
r/w section 13(1) (e) of PC Act.
Zone : CBI/ACB/ND
FIR No. : RC-10(A)/2002
CNR No. : DLET01 - 000093-2005
In the matter of :-
CBI
VERSUS
1. SH. ASHOK MEHTA (since expired)
S/o Late Sh. S.S. Mehta,
R/o D-5/8. Krishna Nagar,
Delhi - 110051.
2. MS. RENU MEHTA
W/o Late Sh. Ashok Mehta
R/o D-5/8. Krishna Nagar,
Delhi - 110051. ........ ACCUSED PERSONS
Name and particulars of complainant : Source Information
Date of Institution : 29.09.2005
Date of receiving in this Court : 26.09.2011
Date of reserving judgment : 12.09.2018
Date of pronouncement : 14.09.2018
Decision : Accused Ms. Renu Mehta (A2)
is acquitted.
(Section 437-A Cr.P.C. complied with on behalf of A2)
JUDGMENT
1. Briefly stated, on 25.02.2002 case RC no. 10(A)/2002-DLI was registered against Sh. Ashok Kumar Mehta, who was working as Assist. Zonal Inspector (House Tax), MCD, Delhi on the basis of search conducted at the house of Sh. Ashok Mehta on 05.01.2002, whereby Page 1 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016 incriminating documents pertaining to income, assets and expenses of Sh. Ashok Mehta and his family were seized. From the aforesaid seized incriminating documents, it was revealed that the family's movable/immovable assets were worth Rs. 24,05,283/-, while having income of family about Rs. 12 lacs and thus, Ashok Mehta was found in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income to the tune of about Rs. 14,70,283/-.
2. It is further alleged that Sh. Ashok Mehta joined MCD on 23.02.1972, as LDC and lateron, he was promoted as UDC w.e.f. 16.02.1988. The check period in this case was taken as 01.04.1981 to 05.01.2002. It is further alleged that during the pre-check period i.e. 23.02.1972 to 01.03.1981 Sh. Ashok Mehta received salary of Rs. 59,852/-. It was further alleged that prior to check period, Mr. Mehta had no property movable/immovable in his name or in the name of his family members. The jewellery and other household articles found during the aforesaid search were claimed to be gifted in his marriage and same were not taken as assets of accused for the purpose of calculating DA. Thus the assets prior to check period were taken as 'Nil'. INCOME OF SH. ASHOK MEHTA AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS DURING THE CHECK PERIOD:
3. Total income of accused Ashok Mehta during the check period i.e. 01.04.81 to 05.01.2002 as calculated by CBI was Rs. 12,43,490.38 (Salary of Rs. 8,47,315.74 + other income of Rs. 3,96,174/- = Rs. 12,43,490.38).
4. Total income of Smt. Renu Mehta W/o Sh. Ashok Mehta, who was working as a teacher during the aforesaid check period, including rental income, interest from banks, dividend on shares and from sale of property, as calculated by CBI was Rs. 8,44,111/-.Page 2 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016
5. Total income of Ms. Ramita Mehta D/o Sh. Ashok Mehta, as calculated by CBI was Rs. 5,80,400/- including income from loan, advance money of YSF Hotel and Resorts against her share in property no. 882 WEA Karol Bagh, rental income, prize, interest on bank deposits, etc. during the check period.
6. Total income of Ms. Taruna Mehta D/o Sh. Ashok Mehta, as calculated by CBI was Rs. 2,40,165.55 including income after sale of property bearing no. X/925, Chana Mohalla, Ganesh Nagar, lottery prize, interest on bank deposits, interest on FDR & LIC Mutual Fund, etc. during the check period.
TOTAL INCOME OF SH. ASHOK MEHTA AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS DURING THE CHECK PERIOD:
Sl. No. Name Income (Rs.)
1 Ashok Mehta 12,43,490.38
2 Renu Mehta 8,44,111
3 Ramita 5,80,400
4 Taruna 2,40,165.55
Total 29,08,166.93
7. IMMOVABLE ASSETS IN THE NAME OF SH. ASHOK MEHTA:
Investigation revealed that accused Sh. Ashok Mehta had acquired immovable assets in his name to the tune of Rs. 1,52,423.53, during the check period.
8. IMMOVABLE ASSETS IN THE NAME OF SMT RENU MEHTA:
Investigation revealed that accused Smt. Renu Mehta had acquired immovable assets in her name to the tune of Rs. 13,47,318/-, during the check period.
9. IMMOVABLE ASSETS IN THE NAME OF MS. RAMITA MEHTA:
Investigation revealed that Ms. Ramita Mehta had acquired immovable assets in her name to the tune of Rs. 3,24,000/-, during the check Page 3 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016 period.
10.IMMOVABLE ASSETS IN THE NAME OF MS. TARUNA MEHTA:
Investigation revealed that Ms. Renu Mehta had acquired immovable assets in her name to the tune of Rs. 90,000/-, during the check period.
11.MOVABLE ASSETS POSSESSED BY ACCUSED SH. ASHOK MEHTA AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS:
Sl. No. PARTICULARS AMOUNT (Rs.)
1 Purchase of Scooter No. DND 6715 13,253/-
2 Purchase of Scooter No. DL-5SE-7683 14,000/-
3 Household articles besides gifts/marriage 1,30,000/-
articles
4 Investment in NSCs from 03.03.99 to 09.03.01 42,000/-
5 Investment in Indira Vikas Patra during 1995 20,000/-
6 FDR No. 583772 dt. 19.03.96, Syndicate Bank 20,000/-
in the name of Sh. Ashok Mehta & Smt. Renu Mehta 7 FDR No. 944302 dt. 16.11.94, Syndicate Bank 25,000/-
in the name of Sh. Ashok Mehta & Smt. Renu Mehta 8 FDR No. 94430, Syndicate Bank in the name 20,000/-
of Taruna Mehta, minor daughter of accused, who had no income at the relevant time and same was debited from the A/c of Sh. Ashok Mehta and taken as assets of Sh. Ashok Mehta 9 FDR No. RGJ 279765 of PNB, Krishna Nagar, 10,000/-
in the name of Ramita Mehta, minor daughter of accused Ashok Mehta, who had no income at the relevant time and same was debited from the A/c of Sh. Ashok Mehta and taken as assets of Sh. Ashok Mehta.
10 Investment in LIC policy no. 24538295 in the 3,000/-
name of Sh. Ashok Mehta Page 4 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016 11 Investment in Peerless certificate no. 6810570, Rs. 750/-
office Regal Building, Cannaught Place, New Delhi.
12 FDR No. 506991 dated 23.08.99 SBI, Krishna Rs. 13,590/-
Nagar, in the name of accused Sh. Ashok Mehta and Smt. Renu Mehta.
13 FDR No. 506992 dated 23.08.99 SBI, Krishna Rs. 13,590/-
Nagar, in the name of accused Sh. Ashok Mehta and Smt. Renu Mehta.
14 Investment in FDR No. 159375, Syndicate Rs. 3,600/-
Bank, Kamla Nagar, New Delhi.
15 Cash found in the residential premises H. No. Rs. 2,60,000/-
D-5/8-9, Krishna Nagar, Delhi - 51 of Sh. Ashok Mehta 16 Cash in locker no. 28 of PNB Krishna Nagar in Rs. 2,700/-
the name of Sh. Ashok Mehta and Smt. Renu Mehta 17 Golden Articles three bangles were found in Rs. 4,000/-
the locker no. 28 of PNB Krishna Nagar, Delhi. 18 Golden Articles one chain was found in the Rs. 5,000/-
locker no. 28 of PNB Krishna Nagar, Delhi. 19 Investment in PNB mutual Fund - RIPS-1994 Rs. 10,000/-
vide Ch. No. 115871 of Allahabad Bank, Krishna Nagar, Delhi issued by Sh. Ashok Mehta from A/c No. 6048 20 Investment in PNB mutual Fund - RIPS-1994 Rs. 10,000/-
vide Ch. No. 115872 of Allahabad Bank, Krishna Nagar, Delhi issued by Sh. Ashok Mehta from A/c No. 6048 21 Investment in PNB mutual Fund - RIPS-1994 Rs. 10,000/-
vide Ch. No. 115873 of Allahabad Bank, Krishna Nagar, Delhi issued by Sh. Ashok Mehta from A/c No. 6048 Page 5 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016 22 Investment in Magnum Multiplier Plus - 1933 Rs. 5,000/-
of SBI mutual Fund certificate no. 14508415 to 14508419 in the name of Taruna Mehta, minor daughter of accused persons, who had no income at the relevant time and same is taken as assets of Sh. Ashok Mehta.
23 Investment in Magnum Multiplier Plus - 1933 Rs. 5,000/-
of SBI mutual Fund certificate no. 14508415 to 14508419 in the name of Taruna Mehta, minor daughter of accused persons, who had no income at the relevant time and same is taken as assets of Sh. Ashok Mehta.
24 Investment in PNB mutual Fund, A/c No. Rs. 10,000/-
115254 of PNB Capital Service Ltd. New Delhi. 25 Balance in A/c No. 7191 of Syndicate Bank, Rs. 2,732.2 Nirman Vihar in the name of Sh. Ashok Kumar Mehta 26 Interest from A/c no. 10599 of PNB, Krishna Rs. 62,433/-
Nagar, Delhi in the name of Sh. Ashok Mehta and Smt. Renu Mehta.
27 Balance in A/c no. 8351 of PNB Krishna Nagar Rs. 11,897.6/-
in the name of Sh. Ashok Kumar Mehta.
28 Balance in A/c no. 5432 including shares of Rs.10,660/-
thrift and credit society Ltd. In the of Sh. Ashok Kumar Mehta.
29 Balance in A/c no. 12603 of Khatri Cooperative Rs. 6,103/-
Bank, Dariya Ganj in the name of Sh. Ashok Kumar Mehta.
30 Balance in A/c no. 1582 of State Bank of Rs. 11,310/-
Hyderabad in the name of Sh. Ashok Kumar Mehta.
31 Balance in A.c No. 5432 including shares of Rs. 10,660/-
MCD Employees Cooperative Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. In the name of Sh. Ashok Mehta TOTAL 7,66,278.8 Page 6 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016
12.MOVABLE ASSETS POSSESSED BY ACCUSED SMT. RENU MEHTA:
Sr. Description of Investment Amount No. (Rs.) 1 Investment in NSCs from 11.04.95 to 22.03.01 62,000/- 2 FDR No. 64522 of Bank of India, Sansad Marg, New 13,210.2 Delhi in the name of Smt. Renu Mehta and Sh. Ashok Mehta 3 FDR No. 64523 of Bank of India, Sansad Marg, New 8,806.2 Delhi in the name of Smt. Renu Mehta and Sh. Ashok Mehta 4 FDR No. 64524 of Bank of India, Sansad Marg, New 8,806.2 Delhi in the name of Smt. Renu Mehta and Sh. Ashok Mehta 5 FDR No. 407376 of SBI Sansad Marg, New Delhi in the 10,728/-
name of Smt. Renu Mehta 6 Investment in 200 shares of Show Wallace Gelatines 40,000/-
Ltd. @ 10 and Rs. 10 at the premium 7 Investment in 1000 units of PNB Enquiry Growth Fund- 10,000/-95
8 Investment in shares of LML Ltd. 2,840/- 9 Balance in A/c no. 12602 of Khatri Co-operative, Urban 1,134/-
Bank, Darya Ganj in the name of Smt. Renu Mehta TOTAL 1,57,524.6
13.MOVABLE ASSETS POSSESSED BY MS. RAMITA MEHTA:
SN PARTICULARS AMOUNT
1 Balance in A/c no. 20407 of PNB Shahdara in the name 5,593/-
of Ramita Mehta
2 Balance in A/c No. 1330 of State Bank of Hyderabad in 45,071/-
the name of Ramita Mehta and Ashok Kumar Mehta TOTAL 50,664/-
14.MOVABLE ASSETS POSSESSED BY MS. TARUNA MEHTA:
S. N. PARTICULARS AMOUNT
1 Balance in A/c no. 6048 of Alnk, Krishna Nagar, Delhi 1,46,109/-
in the name of Taruna Mehta
Page 7 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016
15.EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY ACCUSED SH. ASHOK MEHTA DURING THE CHECK PERIOD:
After investigation, it was revealed that accused Sh. Ashok Mehta incurred total expenditure to the tune of Rs. 6,12,773/-, during the check period.
16.EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY ACCUSED SMT. RENU MEHTA DURING THE CHECK PERIOD:
The investigation further revealed that accused Smt. Renu Mehta incurred total expenditure to the tune of Rs. 2,14,215/-, during the check period.
17.EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY RAMITA MEHTA DURING THE CHECK PERIOD:
It was also revealed during the investigation that accused Ms. Ramita Mehta incurred total expenditure to the tune of Rs. 2,35,000/-, during the check period.
18.The check in period set by CBI had been since 01.04.1981 to 05.01.2002. CBI came up with final description of income, assets and expenditure of family of accused, in the following manner :-
Particulars Sh. Smt. Renu Ms. Ms. Accused' Ashok Mehta Ramita Taruna s Family Mehta Mehta Mehta Income 1243490 844111 580400 240166 2908167 Assets 918702 1504843 374664 236109 3034318 Expenditure 612773 214215 235000 0 1061988 D.A. 287985 874947 29264 4057 118139 % of D.A. 23.15% 103.65% 5% 40.85%
19.Accordingly, accused Sh. Ashok Mehta was found in possession of disproportionate assets (Assets + Expenditure - Income = disproportionate assets) to the extent of Rs. 2,87,985/ i.e. (Rs.
9,18,702/- + Rs. 6,12,773 - Rs. 12,43,490/-) to his known sources of Page 8 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016 income as on 05.01.2002 i.e. at the end of check period. Similarly, accused Smt. Renu Mehta was found in possession of disproportionate assets (Assets + Expenditure - Income = disproportionate assets) to the extent of Rs. 8,74,947/- I.e. (Rs. 15,04,843/- + Rs. 2,14,215 - Rs. 8,44,111/-) to her known sources of income as on 05.01.2002 i.e. at the end of check period.
20.Thus, it was revealed that accused Sh. Ashok Mehta and his family members had amassed huge assets, which were disproportionate to the known sources of their income, for which accused persons could not satisfactorily account and accordingly, accused Sh. Ashok Mehta and Smt. Renu Mehta were found in possession of disproportionate assets worth Rs. 11,62,932/-. After completion of investigation, accused Sh. Ashok Mehta was charge sheeted u/s 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (e) of P.C. Act and accused Smt. Renu Mehta was charge sheeted u/s 109 IPC r/w 13 (1) (e) r/w 13 (2) of the P.C. Act for instigating and abetting the accused Sh. Ashok Mehta for commission of offence of criminal misconduct as defined u/s 13 (1) (e) of P.C. Act 1988. CHARGE :-
21.On 13.02.2009, charges were framed against accused persons namely Sh. Ashok Mehta (A1) and Smt. Renu Mehta (A2) for aforesaid offences, to which both the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. However, during trial, accused Sh. Ashok Mehta (A1) died on 09.03.2015 and vide order dated 06.04.2018, proceedings qua accused Sh. Ashok Mehta (A1) were recorded to be abated vide order dated 06.04.2015. DESCRIPTION OF PROSECUTION EVIDENCE :-
22.Prosecution examined 58 witnesses in support of its case, as per following descriptions :-
Page 9 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016 Name Description Exhibited Documents PW1/Sh. He conducted search in the Ex. PW-1/1 (authorisation for Virender house of accused Sh. Ashok conducting search at the house Thakran Mehta situated at D-5/8, of accused Ashok Mehta);
Krishna Nagar, Delhi. He Ex. PW-1/2 (search cum
also went to the PNB seizure memo);
Krishna Nagar on 07.02.02
and conducted operation of Ex. PW-1/3 (Observation memo
locker no. 28, which was in mentioning inventory of articles the joint name of accused in the house);
Sh. Ashok Mehta and Smt. Ex. PW-1/4 (request made to Renu Mehta and prepared branch manager to operate locker operation memo. locker no. 28);
Ex. PW-1/5 (locker operation memo);
PW-2/Sh. He was the independent Ex. PW-2/1 (Attested copy of M.A. Khan witness from DDA, who ledger SB A/c No. 2351220);
joined the search Ex. PW-2/2 (Pass book of SB
proceedings conducted at A/c No. 2351220 in the name of
the residence of accused accused);
situated at H. No. D-5/8,
Krishna Nagar, Delhi and Ex. PW-2/3 (seizure memo
witnessed the proceedings dated 24.10.86);
conducted during the house
search.
PW-3/ He was the Sr. Manager Ex. PW-3/A (letter dated
Sh. D.S. Bank of India, Mayur Vihar 08.03.03);
Chauhan Branch, where both the Ex. PW-3/B & Ex. PW-3/C
accused persons were (both FDRs in the name of both
having their joint SB A/c the accused persons for an
bearing no. 8782. He proved amount of Rs. 12,210/- & Rs. the FDRs in the name of 10,212/- respectively); both the accused persons.
Ex. PW-3/D (FDR in the name of both the accused persons for an amount of Rs. 13,619/-);
Ex. PW-3/E (Attested copy of the ledger of the A.c no. 8782);
Page 10 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016 PW-4/Sh. He was PRO, Head Post Ex. PW-4/1 to E. PW-4/17 J.K.M Office, Krishna Nagar and (NSCs); Tripathi proved NSC, Indira Vikas Ex. PW-4/18 to PW-4/25 (Indira Patra having been issued Vikas Patras); from their post office.
PW-5/Sh. He was the authorised postal agent, who deposed in respect Hari Chand of depositing copies of ten applications for purchase of NSCs Pruthi in the name of accused Sh. Ashok Mehta, Smt. Renu Mehta and their daughter namely Ramita Mehta and identified both the accused persons. He further deposed about issuance of NSCs Ex. PW-4/1, Ex. PW-4/3 to Ex. PW-4/8, Ex. PW-4/12 to Ex. PW-4/17.
PW-6/Sh. He was brother of Sh. Ashok Ex. PW-6/A (Power of Rajender Mehta and also a witness to attorney); Ex. PW-6/B Nath Mehta the search proceedings (receipt in rspect of purchae of conducted at the residence plot no. 2A, out of Khasra No. of Sh. Ashok Mehta situated 2/26, Village Khureji Khas, New at D-5/8, Krishna Nagar, Krishna Nagar, Delhi);
Delhi. Ex. PW-6/C (Will of Sh.
Inderjeet Singh);
PW-7/Sh. He was the purchaser of flat Ex. PW-7/A (GPA of flat bearing Raju Singh bearing no. M-110, Sector no. M-110, Sector 23, Raj Rathore 23, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad, Nagar, Ghaziabad);
which was in the name of Smt. Renu Mehta and he proved the GPA executed by Smt. Renu Mehta in his favour on 03.11.99.
PW-8/Sh. He was working as Account Ex. PW-8/A (Letter dated Som Nath Officer, TR-II, MTNL Office, 18.08.03); Sharma Chitra Vihar. He proved the Ex. PW-8/B (Particulars of bills letter dated 18.08.03, vide of telephone no. 22099979 which he furnished furnished to IO Mr. Ansari);
particulars of bills of
telephone no. 22099979 to Ex. PW-8/C (post connection
IO/Mr. Ansari. Through this details of aforesaid telephone
letter he further furnished no.);
post connection details and
Page 11 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016 payment of Rs. 22,287/-
made by consumer Smt. Renu Mehta for the period 01.11.98 to 02.09.01.
PW-9/ He was the friend of Sh. Ex. PW-9/A (copy of cheque Sh. Amrit Ashok Mehta, who advanced dated 09.09.2000);
Lal Chug a sum of Rs. 1.5 lac to Ms. Ex. PW-9/B (Statement of
Ramita Mehta vide a cheque account of bank account of
dated witness);
09.09.2000 and proved the copy of statement of account of his bank. He further deposed that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1.5 lac was repaid to him by Ms. Ramita Mehta through a cheque.
PW-10/Sh. He was also an independent Ex. PW-10/1 to Ex. PW-10/66 Arun witness, who had witnessed (documents D-123 to D-173 & Pratap the search proceedings D-175 to D-179); Singh conducted at the residence Ex. PW-10/67 to Ex. PW-10/84 of accused bearing no. D- (D-434 telephone bills of Tel. 5/8, Krishna Nagar, Delhi. No. 2211763/2215800 for the He proved documents and period 1989 to 1992); articles seized from the aforesaid residence and memos prepared in this regard.
Ex. PW-10/85 to Ex. PW-10/111 (house tax receipts of property no. H-5/21 A, Krishna Nagar 2A, New Krishna Nagar);
Ex. PW-10/112 to Ex. PW-10/125 (D-432 Peerless certificate no. 6810570/510 in the name of Ashok Mehta comprising 13 sheets);
Ex. PW-10/126 to Ex. PW-10/133 (D-433 LIC policy no. 24538925 in the name of Sh. Ashok Mehta); Ex. PW-10/134 to Ex. PW-10/140 (Electricity bills of H-5/21, Krishna Nagar, 2A/GF, Krishna Nagar, A/21, Radhey Puri, Krishna Nagar, Delhi & D-5/8, Krishna Nagar) Ex. PW-10/142 to Ex. PW-10/143 (Registration Form - 2); Ex. PW-10/144 (D-404 agreement dated 17.04.2000);
Page 12 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016 Ex. PW-10/145 to Ex. PW-10/146 (D-405 & D-406 rent receipts both dated 01.07.2000);
Ex. PW-10/147 (D-407 PNB mutual fund folio no. EGF531232);
Ex. PW-10/150 (GPA);
Ex. PW-10/151 (Registration form no. 2); Ex. PW-10/152 (Agreement to sell);
Ex. PW-10/153 (receipt of the sum of Rs. 75,000/-); Ex. PW-10/154 (will deed);
Ex. PW-10/156 (D-410 allotment letter of LIG Flat no. 123, Pocket 14, Block D, Sector -8, Rohini); Ex. PW-10/157 (D-412 sale deed property no. GF-9, Ground Floor of property no. 882, Block - F, WES Estate, Karol Bagh);
Ex. PW-10/158 (D-413 sale deed of property no. GF-5A, Ground Floor of property no. 882, Block - F, WES Estate, Karol Bagh);
Ex. PW-10/159 (D-413 sale deed of property no. GF-9, Property no. 882, Block - F, WES Estate, Karol Bagh); PW-11/Sh. He was Clerk, IOB Preet Ex. PW-11/A (statement of Daya Ram Vihar Branch. He proved account in the name of Mahima certified copy of statement of Malik); account in the name of Ex. PW-11/B (certified copy of Mahima Malik, A-16, Nirman cheque dated 17.09.98 issued Vihar as well as certified in favour of Smt. Renu Mehta.); copy of cheque dated 17.09.98 issued in favour of Smt. Renu Mehta.
PW-12/Sh. He was UDC, Labour Ex. PW-12/A (file pertaining to Karamvir Department, Shyam Nath Maruti Car no. DL-1CB-8053); Singh Marg, Delhi. He proved Ex. PW12/DA & Ex. PW12/DB photocopy of file pertaining (copies of Form 29 & 30) to Maruti Car no. DL-1CB-8053, which was registered in the name of M/s Vins Overseas India Pvt. Ltd., which was later on transferrd in the name of Sh. Vijay Kumar Mehta S/o Sh. SS. Mehta.
Page 13 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016 PW-13/Sh. He was the owner of property F-9/12 Krishna Nagar and his Charanjeet mother Smt. Surjeet Kaur had sold half portion of said Singh property to Smt. Renu Mehta in the year 1986-87.
PW-14/Sh. He was the witness from Ex. PW-14/A (file pertaining to R.K. DDA, who proved the allotment of LIG Plot no. 123, Nagpal allotment of LIG Plot no. Plot No. 40, Block D, Sector -8 123, Plot No. 40, Block D, Rohini measuring 28 Sq. meter Sector -8 Rohini measuring to Sh. Ashok Mehta); 28 Sq. meter, allotted to Sh.
Ashok Mehta and as per record a sum of Rs.
42,412.53 including initial depost of Rs. 2000/- was paid by Sh. Ashok Mehta to DDA in respect of aforesaid plot.
PW-15/Sh. He was brother of Sh. Vinod Kumar, who had purchased one Kewal shop in the property No. H-5/21, Krishna Nagar from Smt. Kumar Renu Mehta for Rs. 50,000/-.
PW-16/Sh. He was husband of Smt. Ex. PW-16/A (seizure memo Shyam Renu Arora. He knew both dated 11.11.03); Arova the accused persons as their Ex.PW-16/B1 to Ex. PW-
children used to take tuition 16/B17 (statement of bank from Ms. Taruna Mehta, account of Smt. Renu Arora daughter of both accused comprising 17 sheets); persons.
Ex.PW-16/C (vide which
various documens were handed
over to CBI);
Ex. PW16/DC (letter of Bhabhi
of PW16);
Page 14 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016 PW-17/Sh. He was postal agent at Head Ex. PW17/A & Ex. PW-17/C Smt. Post Office, Krishna Nagar (NSCs);
Parvesh and he applied for NSCs in
Kapoor the joint name of Smt. Renu
Mehta and Sh. Ashok Mehta
on 22.03.94 and 25.03.95
for Rs. 10,000/- and Rs.
2000/- and proved
applications for issuing
NSCs.
PW18/Sh. He was posted as Special Ex. PW18/A (letter dated
Mahesh Assistant in Allahabad Bank, 17.09.03 issued by the bank);
Chand Krishna Nagar Branch and Ex. PW-18/B (statement of
Sharma proved statement of interest interest credited to Ms. Taruna
credited to Ms. Taruna Mehta SB A/c No. 6048);
Mehta's SB A/c No. 6048, &
list of photocopy of vouchers
above Rs. 10000/-.
Ex. PW-18/C (photocopy of vouchers above Rs. 10,000/- pertaining to aforesaid SB A/c) Ex. PW18/DA to Ex. PW18/DC (photocopy of cheque no. 115871, 115873 & 115872 pertaining to A/c No. 6048);
PW-19/Sh. He was younger brother of Ex. PW-19/A & Ex. PW-19/B Vinod Sh. Kewal Kumar (PW15) (rent receipts dated 18.12.94 Kumar and he proved rent receipts (D-337) and 15.12.95 (D-338) dated 18.12.94 (D-337) and issued by Smt. Renu Mehta); 15.12.95 (D-338) issued by Smt. Renu Mehta and seizure memo.
Ex. PW-19/C (seizure memo vide which aforesaid rent receipts were handed over to CBI);
Ex. PW-19/D (photocopy of registered sale deed (D-408) in respect of purchase of aforesaid shop);
Page 15 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016 PW-20/Sh. He was the owner of Ex.PW-20/A (photocopy of GPA, Pramod Kumar property no. X/625A, agreement to sell, affidavit, will Chand Mohalla, and receipt all dated 30.11.2000);
Gandhi Nagar, Delhi
and proved photocopy
of GPA, agreement to
sell, affidavit, will and
receipt all dated
30.11.2000.
PW-21/Sh. He was the owner of property no. 882 W A Karol Bagh,
Sushil Kumar New Delhi alongwith his wife. However, the major share Gupta was with his wife. They further sold different parts of this property to different persons and he also received a cheque from Smt. Renu Mehta as a purchaser and that property was being used by YSF Hotel & Resort Pvt. Ltd. PW-22/Smt. She sold a portion of her property to Ms. Ramita Mehta Sumitra Devi and Smt. Renu Mehta for Rs. 3 lacs. Gupta PW-23/Sh. He was Manager SBI Ex.PW-23/A (seizure memo); Manglu Singh who handed over bank Ex.PW-23/B (vouchers in original documents in respect dated 30.10.2000 for of Sh. Kartar Singh and Rs.4,50,000/- Smt. Renu Mehta to CBI.
Ex. PW-23/C (cheque no. 464132 dated 30.10.2000 for Rs.2,25,225/-);
Ex. PW-23/D (Cheque no. 464133 dated 30.10.2000 for Rs. 2,25,225/-);
Ex. PW-23/E (voucher dated 04.04.01 for Rs.70,000/-); Ex. PW-23/F (cheque no.464136 dated 30.03.2001 for Rs. 70,000/-);
Ex. PW-23/G (voucher dated 10.04.01 for Rs.70,000/-); Ex. PW-23/H (cheque no. 464135 dated 29.03.2001 for Rs.70,000/-);
Ex. PW-23/J (original account opening form, form-16, copy of statement of A/c no. 59619 of Sh. Pramod Singh);
Page 16 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016 PW-24/Sh. He knew Sh. Ashok Mehta as Mr. Mehta was friend of his Tejbhan maternal cousin (Mausi's son) namely Sh. Hari Devi Sharma Sharma, who was residing in USA. Mr. Tejbhan Sharma had received a draft/cheque from Sh. Hari Dev Sharma in the name of Ms. Ramita Mehta D/o Sh. Ashok Mehta alongwith a covering letter, which were handed over by him to Sh. Ashok Mehta.
PW-25/Sh. He was office assistant Ex. PW-25/A (letter dated Neeraj Kumar in Lovely Public Senior 25.03.03 issued by Mr. S.D. Chaubey School, Priyadarshini Malik, Principal of the school);
Viha. He proved letter
dated 25.03.03 issued
by Mr. S.D. Malik,
Principal of the school
and identified his
signature.
PW-26/Sh. He was clerk in the Allahabad Ex. PW-26/A
Vinod Bhasker Allahabad Bank, (production cum seizure memo
Krishna Nagar Branch dated 23.09.02);
and proved cum
seizure memo dated
23.09.02.
PW-27/Sh. He was working as Ex. PW-27/A (letter dated
B.M. Sharma Vice President with 15.10.03;
Assets Management Ex. PW-27/B (letter dated
Company Ltd. During 17.05.04);
the year 2003 and he
proved letters dated
15.10.03, 17.05.04
issued by him.
Page 17 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016 PW-28/Sh. He was posted as Sr. Ex. PW-28/A (photocopy of the Sudhir Gupta Assistant in SBI account opening form);
Krishna Nagar Branch Ex. PW-28/B (specimen
and he identified signature card);
photocopy of the
account opening form, Ex. PW-28/C1 (certified copy of
specimen signature statement of account ledger
card, certified copy of sheet for the period 1983 to
statement of account 1993);
ledger sheet for the Ex. PW-28/C2 (manual sheet for
period 1983 to 1993, the period 16.01.94 to 19.01.98);
manual sheet for the
Ex. PW-28/C3 (ledger sheet
period 16.01.94 to
1997 to 1998);
19.01.98, ledger sheet
1997 to 1998, Ex. PW-28/C4 (computerised
computerised sheet for sheet for the period 24.02.98 to the period 24.02.98 to 30.06.03) 30.06.03.
PW-29/Sh. He was posted as LDC Ex. PW29/A (Note sheet of PW
Jayant Kumar in Education 29);
Department, MCD at
Kashmere Gate and he
proved his note sheet.
He furnished salary
details of accused
Ashok Mehta as per
their record i.e. ECR
PW-30/Sh. He was working as Accounts Asst. Grade I in YPL. He
Vijender Kumar identified electricity bills in respect of different connections installed at different premises.
PW-31/Sh. He was working as Director YSF Hotel and Resorts Rabi Ghosh (Marriage hall/banquet hall) at ground floor of property no.
882 East Park Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. He deposed that 11 persons including accused Smt. Renu Mehta and Ramita Mehta had purchased the above-said property in the share of 6.25 % each.
Page 18 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016 PW-32/ Sh. He was working as computer operator Bank of Baroda Gopal Gogna and he deposed that he had handed over statement of account pertaining to account no. 9038 of Smt. Saroj Sharma.
PW-33/ Smt. She was posted as Sr. Ex.PW-33/A (letter dated Uma Murli Manager (Sales) in SBI 06.07.04);
Mutual Fund and
proved letter dated
06.07.2004, issued by
SBI Mutual Fund,
bearing her signature.
PW-34/Sh. He was posted as Ex.PW-34/A (Statement recorded
Amar Nath Assisant Administrative u/s 161 Cr.P.C.);
Dang Officer in Peerless,
Delhi Office and
identified peerless
certificate no.
96069225/510.
However, this witness
turned hostile and was
cross-examined by ld.
PP for CBI.
PW-35/Sh. This witness proved Ex.PW-35/A (Income tax returns
Rajender Singh income tax records of of Sh. Ashok Mehta);
Pawar Sh. Ashok Mehta filed
for the assessment
years 1991 to 1997.
PW-36/Sh. He was posted as Asst. Ex.PW-36/A (statement of A/c
Ignatius Manager, Krishna No. 1330 );
Balmuchu Nagar, Delhi and Ex.PW-36/B (cheque dated
identified statements of 18.05.83 drawn in the name of
account of different accused for the sum of Rs.
accounts numbers in 2500/-, which bears signature of
the name of different accused at point A & B);
persons including Ms.
Ramita Mehta and
Ashok Kumar Mehta.
Page 19 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016 Ex.PW-36/C (statement of A/c no. 01190007482 in the name of Shyam Arora and Renu Arora for the period 09.11.02 to 13.05.04);
Ex.PW-36/D (statement of A/c no. 1460 in the name of Vineet Arora for the period 01.01.01 to 09.11.02); Ex.PW-36/E (statement of A/c no. 01190007965 in the name of Vineet Arora for the period 01.01.01 to 09.11.02); Ex.PW-36/F (statement of A/c no. 1582 in the name of Ashok Kumar Mehta for the period 01.07.01 to 31.12.01); Ex.PW-36/G (statement of A/c no. 1582 in the name of Ashok Kmar Mehta for the period 26.06.01 to 05.01.02);
PW-37/Sh. He was posted as Ex.PW-37/A (Service book and Rajeev Accountant in the office personal file of accused) Sharma of Dy. Chief Ex.PW-37/B (extracts of ECRs Accountant, Shahdara for the period 1971-72, 1972-73, Zone, Karkardooma, 1973-74, 1975-76, 1974-75, April Delhi and he was 1976-77, 1977-78 and 03.07.78 ti called by CBI to Narcg 1979);
prepare salary details of Sh. Ashok Meha on Ex.PW-37/C (extract of ECR for the basis of his service the period 1977-78) book, personal file and extract of ECRs.
Ex.PW-37/D (extract of ECR for the period 29.08.85 to February 1988, March 1990 to February 1993, April 1994 to 02.05.1997);
Ex.PW-37/E (letter dated 16.02.04 covering the salary details for the period 16.02.88 to 09.05.88); Ex.PW-37/F (letter dated 09.06.04 covering the salary details for the period 10.05.88 to 21.06.88); Ex.PW-37/G (Extract from the ECR register for the period April 1993 to March 1994, 03.05.97 to January 2002);
Page 20 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016 PW- He was the witness Ex. PW38/A (letter dated 38/Sandeep from MCD, who had 02.06.04); Sabharwal proved letter dated Ex. PW38/B (statement of GPF 02.06.04 and proved subscription of accused Ashok GPF subscription Kumar Mehta for the period May deducted from the 1973 to January 2002);
salary of accused
Ashok Kumar Mehta
for the period May
1973 to January 2002.
PW- He was posted as Ex. PW39/A (letter dated
39/Dhirender Clerk in SBI Krishna 11.05.04 alongwith 14 sheets);
Kumar Nagar Branch, Delhi Ex. PW39/B & Ex. PW39/C
and identified signature (letters both dated 18.08.03 of Sh. Rajender Singh, issued by branch);
the then Branch
Manager, on the
documents handed
over to CBI.
Ex. PW39/D (production cum seizure memo); Ex. PW39/F (production cum seizure memo) Ex. PW39/G1 to Ex. PW39/G6 (cheques issued from A/c No. 1582 of SBI Branch);
Ex. PW39/H1 to Ex. PW39/H3 (Vouchers dated 26.06.01, 06.10.01 & 19.10.01 pertaining to SBI Branch); Ex. PW9/J1 to Ex. PW39/J13 (vouchers and cheques pertaining to A/c no. 1330 in SBI branch); PW-40/Smt. She deposed that Kumari Taruna Mehta had taught tuition Renu Arora to her children and they were having friendly relations and she also used to have money transactions as friendly loan. She was declared hostile.
PW-41/Sh. V.K. He was posed as SO Ex. PW41/A & Ex. PW41/B Nayyar (Admn.) with (letters dated 25.04.03 and Indraprastha College 26.05.04 alongwith enclosures);
for Women. He was
also disclosed hostile
and was cross-
examined by ld. PP for
CBI.
Page 21 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016 PW-42/Sh. He was the President Ex. PW42/A (letter dated G.C. Lagan of the Bal Bhawan 25.03.03 alongwith annexures Public School and containing school leaving proved letter with certificate of Taruna Mehta and annexures i.e. school Ramita Mehta); leaving certificate of Taruna Mehta and Ramita Mehta and deposed about the payment made by them towards fee.
PW-43/Sh. Ved He was posted as Ex. PW43/C1 (Vikas Cash Prakash Manager, Syndicate Certificate dated 19.03.96 of Rs.
Bank, Loni Ghaziabad, 30,000/- in the name of Sh.
UP and proved relevant Ashok Mehta and Smt. Renu
record/documents and Mehta);
FDRs/Vikas Cash Ex. PW43/C2 (Vikas Cash
Certificates in the Certificate dated 19.09.98,
name of Sh. Ashok wherein amount of Rs. 27536/-
Kumar Mehta and his reinvested in the name of Sh.
family members. He Ashok Mehta and Smt. Renu
further identified Mehta);
signature of Sh. M.C.
Sagar.
Ex. PW43/C3 (copy of application dated 19.03.96 made by Sh. Ashok Mehta and Smt. Renu Mehta at the time of investment);
Ex. PW43/C4 (Attested copy of ch. dated 16.11.96 for Rs. 20,000/-, ch. Dated 16.11.96 for Rs. 25000/-, withdrawal slip dated 19.03.96 for Rs. 20,000/-); Ex. PW43/C5 (Credit advice dated 06.05.96 of Rs. 47,700/- in the name of Sh. Ashok Mehta); Ex. PW43/C6 (Vikas Cash Certificate dated 16.11.96 of Rs. 25,000/- in the name of Taruna Mehta and Ashok Mehta);
Ex. PW43/C7 (Vikas Cash Certificate dated 16.02.2000, wherein maturity amount of Ex. PW43/C6 was reinvested);
Page 22 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016 Ex. PW43/C8 (Attested copy of application made by Taruna Mehta and Ashok Mehta at the time of investment of initial amount of Rs. 25,000/- on 16.11.96); Ex. PW43/C9 (Vikas Cash Certificate dated 16.11.96, for Rs. 20,000/- in the name of Sh. Ashok Mehta and Smt. Renu Mehta.
Ex. PW43/C10 (Vikas Cash Certificate dated 16.02.2000, wherein Rs. 30,311/- was reinvested. Ex. PW43/C11 (Attested copy of application made by Renu Mehta and Ashok Mehta at the time of investment of initial amount of Rs. 20,000/- on 16.11.96); Ex. PW43/D1 to Ex. PW43/D4 (letter dated 27.02.03, 30.03.03, 17.03.03 and 27.03.03);
PW-44/Sh. He was the younger brother of Sh. Ashok Mehta and he Vijay Kumar deposed about their family back ground and about the ancestral property left behind by their parents i.e. Plots bearing no. D-5/8 and D-5/9 Krishna Nagar, Delhi.
PW-45/Sh. He was posted as LDC Ex. PW45/A (letter dated
Sushil Kumar in the Office of EE 05.03.04, vide which certain
(Building) Shahdara documents were sent by their
South Zone, KKD, office to CBI);
Delhi. This witness Ex. PW45/DA (photocopy of
identified signature of salary bill register of Sh. Ashok Sh. Rakesh Kumar, AE Mehta for the year 1985-86); (Building), who had handed over certain documents to CBI with regard to pay and allowances paid to Sh. Ashok Mehta.
Page 23 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016 PW-46/Sh. D.P. He was posted as Ex. PW46/A (letter dated Gupta Officer in Canara Bank, 02.09.03 statement of A/c no.
Gandhi Nagar Branch, 836);
Delhi. This witness Ex. PW46/B (receipt dated
identified signature of 03.09.03);
Sh. Om Prakash, the
then Manager, who had Ex. PW46/B1 (original voucher
furnished certain dated 08.01.01, vide which two
documents to CBI with cheques bearing no. 330902 &
regard to computerised 330901 for Rs. 20000/- each
statements, receipt were issued by State Bank of
memos, original Hyderabad, Krishna Nagar,
vouchers, cheques, Delhi);
etc.
Ex. PW46/B2 (original voucher dated 05.09.01, vide which two cheques bearing no. 330903 & 330904 for Rs. 25,000/- each were issued by State Bank of Hyderabad, Krishna Nagar, Delhi);
Ex. PW46/B3 (original voucher dated 28.12.01); Ex. PW46/B4 (statement of A/c no. 836 of M/s Raj Jain & Associates, which was sent to State Bank of Hyderabad for clearing);
PW47/Sh. K.R. He was posted as Ex. PW47/1 (Handing over memo Narayana Bhat Manager, Corporation vide which PW47 handed over Bank, Lodhi Complex, documents to CBI); Delhi. This witness also Ex. PW47/2 (Account opening handed over certified form of current A/c No. 1003 of copies of documents M/s ICON Proprietor YSF Hotels as mentioned in the & Resorts Pvt. Ltd.); handing over memo to CBI at the relevant time and he had proved those documents.
Page 24 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016 Ex. PW47/3 (Ch. no. 815754 dated 09.11.2000 amounting to Rs. 21562.50, in favour of Renu Meha, which was issued by authorised signatory ICON Proprietor YSF Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd.
Ex. PW47/4 & Ex. PW47/5 (attested copies of cheques bearing no. 834363 & 815755);
Ex. PW47/6 (certified copy of specimen signature card of Mr. Ravi Ghosh, A/c no. 1003 of ICON Proprietor YSF Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd.);
Ex. PW47/7 (certified copy of specimen signature card of Mr. Anil Jain, A/c no. 1002 of ICON Proprietor YSF Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd.);
Ex. PW47/8 (statement of account of current A/c no. 1003 of ICON Proprietor YSF Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd.);
PW48/Sh. He was posted as UDC Ex. PW48/A (salary chart of Sh.
Naresh Kumar cum AZI in A & C Ashok Mehta, prepared on the
Department of MCD basis of ECRs);
Shahdara, South Zone, Ex. PW48/DA (service book of
Geeta Colony. He Sh. Ashok Mehta);
proved the salary chart
prepared by him on the
basis of ECR.
PW49/Smt. She was tenant of Smt. She identified her signature on
Asha Rani Renu Mehta in respect rent agreement Ex. PW10/144 as
of first and second floor well as on rent receipts Ex. PW- of H. No. 2A, New 10/145 and Ex. PW-10/146 (also Krishna Nagar at exhibited as Ex. PW-49/1 & Ex.
monthly rent of Rs. PW-49/2);
4,000/-. She resided Ex. PW49/D1 to Ex. PW49/D6
there till 31.08.04. She (cheques and counterfoil of rent
had given Rs. 40,000/- receipts);
to accused Smt. Renu
Page 25 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016 Mehta on 29.08.2000, vide ch. no. 554781 as loan and had paid Rs. 92,000/- to Smt. Renu Mehta as rent for period from March 2000 to January 2002. She had paid Rs. 10,000/- in cash as security, which was not returned to her. Out of Rs. 92,000/-, she paid Rs. 46,000/- in cash and Rs. 46,000/- through cheque. In November 1989, she had given Rs. 25050 to Smt. Renu Mehta for booking a Maruti Car, through cheque Ex. PW-49/D1. This amount was not repaid to her. She had given Rs. 28,000/- twice to Sh. Ashok Mehta through cheques Ex. PW-49/D2 and Ex. PW-49/D3, which was returned to him by Sh. Ashok Mehta by way of transfer on 04.01.99. She had given one gold weighing 8/10 gms chain to son of accused on the occasion of Namkaran ceremony.
PW50/Sh. He was Clerk cum Copy of A/c opening form of A/c Viresh Kumar Cashier in Bank of no. 24819 as Ex. PW50/1 and India, Parliament Street statement of account as Ex. Branch in April 2004. PW50/2.
He deposed that A/c Copy of FDRs issued by this
no. 24819 was in joint bank as Ex. PW50/D1 (11
name of Sh. Kartar sheets)
Chand Beri and Smt.
Renu Mehta.
He further deposed that FDR Ex. PW-3/D, Ex. PW3/J, Ex. PW3/K pertained to this bank and A/c no. 8782 as mentioned on these FDRs referred to account number of FDR in the name of Smt. Renu Mehta and Sh. Ashok Kumar. Amount of aforesaid FDRs were reinvested after maturity of previous FDRs.
PW51/Sh. He deposed that A/c The documents related to Sunil Kumar 24287 in his bank PNB Account viz. Opening form, Jain Shahdara Branch was specimen card etc. as Ex.
in the name of Ramita PW51/1 (5 sheets). Statement of Mehta and it was account for 18.02.95 to 14.09.02 opened on 12.07.85. as Ex. PW51/2 (2 sheets). The balance Page 26 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016 in this account on 05.01.02 was Rs. 5593.15. An amount of Rs. 3388 was paid as interest for period from 1995 to December 2001 and no loan was ever advanced by bank to Ramita Mehta.
PW52/Ram He was working as House tax files of four properties Chander Head Clerk, House Tax as Ex. PW52/1, Ex. PW52/3, Ex. Sharma Department, MCD PW55/5 & Ex. PW52/7.
Shahdara South Zone House tax details of the four in November 2003. He properties as Ex. PW52/2, Ex. proved entire file of PW52/4, Ex. PW52/6. property no. H5/21A, Krishna Nagar in the Seizure memo as Ex. PW52/8 name of Sh. Bansi Lal; and letter dated 17.11.03 as Ex.
Property no. 2A & 2B. PW52/9.
New Krishna Nagar in the name of Smt. Renu Mehta; property no. F9/12, Krishna Nagar in the name of Smt. Renu Mehta; Property no. D-5/8-9, Krishna Nagar in the name of Sh. S.S. Mehta. He identified signature of Sh. C.B. Sharma, Dy. A & C, MCD on details of house tax of aforesaid properties.
PW53/Sh. He was working as Receipt memo dated 27.07.04 as Bhanu Singh Manager Accounts in Ex. PW53/1, copy of cheque as State Bank of Ex. PW53/2, copy of voucher as Hyderabad, Nehru Ex. PW53/3, copy of account Place, New Delhi. He opening form as Ex. PW53/4 handed over attested and copy of statement of account copy of Ch. no. 167688 as Ex. PW53/5.
for Rs. 20 lac in favour of Sh. Rabi Ghosh, copy of statement of account no. 335781 for 01.07.2000 to 10.07.2000, copy of voucher dated 06.07.2000 for Rs. 20 lac regarding Ch. No. 461467 and account opening form of A/c no. 335781. He proved these documents, which were handed over by him.
PW54/Sh. Om He was brother of Sh. Will executed by Kartar Chand Prakash Rajinder Kumar. Beri as Ex. PW54/1. Maglani Page 27 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016 Rajinder Kumar was friend of Sh. Ashok Mehta. He was witness to Will deed dated 09.11.92 executed by Kartar Chand Beri. He signed this Will as witness at the instance of Sh. Ashok Mehta, though the Will was not executed by Mr. Beri in his presence and the Will was already bearing his signature.
PW-55/Sh. He was working in Statement of pay as Ex. PW55/1
Krishan Pal Accounts Department,
MCD South Shahdara
Zone.
He had prepared salary statement of accused Sh. Ashok Mehta for period from March 1990 to February 1993. He identified signature of Sh. C.B. Sharma on this statement. The record pertaining to salary of Sh. Ashok Mehta for 22.06.88 to February 1990 was not available in his office.
PW-56/Sh. He was Manager Statement of Account as Ex. S.C. Jain Operation in Allahabad PW56/1 , interest calculation as Bank, Krishna Nagar Ex. PW56/2, copy of another Branch since May statement as Ex. PW56/3, copy 2004. of ledger page as Ex. PW56/4, forwarding letter as Ex. PW56/5.
Account no. 6048 was maintained in his branch in the name of Taruna Mehta under guardianship of Ashok Mehta. He handed over statement of account no. 6048 to CBI for period 03.01.86 to 02.02.05, alongwith interest calculation, computerised copy of statement of aforesaid account for 17.09.98 to 02.02.05, attested copy of ledger page no. 352 related to aforesaid account. He identified signature of Sh. Vipin Kumar, the then Sr. Manager on the letter vide which such documents were handed over to CBI. Taruna Mehta had attained majority on 15.07.96.
Page 28 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016 PW57/Sh. Raj He deposed that he Ex. PW57/1 (receipt memo); Jain had entered into Ex. PW57/2 (computerized copy construction agreement of statement of account); with Sh. Ashok Mehta in respect of Ex. PW57/3 (copy of agreement); construction of two Ex. PW57/DA (GPA) floor at property no. F-
Ex. PW57/D2 (receipt)
1/9, Krishna Nagar,
Delhi of Sh. Ashok Ex. PW57/D3 (agreement to
Mehta for which Sh. sale)
Ashok Mehta paid Rs.
1,10,000/- in three
installments to him.
He proved the agreement entered into between him and Sh. Ashok Mehta, computerized copy of his bank statement, pay in slips of canara bank as Ex. PW46/B1 to B3 as well as statement of his current account Ex. PW46/B4. He further deposed that Taruna Mehta, daughter of accused Ashok Mehta sold one property to Sh. Parmod Singh through GPA and identified his signature as attesting witness on the same. PW58/Shree This witness identified his signatures on GPA, agreement Bhagwan Goel to sell, receipt dated 08.09.1993 and on registered Will dated 09.09.93.
PW59/Sh. He was partner of M/s Ex. PW59/1 (Voucher dated Dharmender Vasudev & Sons and 21.11.95 (D-322);
Anand was dealing in gold Ex. PW59/2 (Letter dated
jewellery at Karol 02.04.04);
Bagh. He identified
photocopy of purchase Ex. PW59/3 (photocopy of cash
voucher no. 053 dated book showing details of purchae
21.11.95 bearing his of gold);
signature at point A, Ex. PW59/4 (Entry regarding
vide which they had purchase of gold from Ashok
purchased one gold set Mehta);
and two gold kada
Ex. PW59/5 (photocopy of
weighing 121.050 gram
cheque dated 21.1195 for an
of 22 carat purity from
amount of Rs. 50,235/- issued to
Sh. Ashok Mehta);
Page 29 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016 Sh. Ashok Kumar Mehta and paid a sum of Rs. 50,235/- to Sh. Ashok Kumar Mehta vide cheque no. 293593 of of ANZ Grindlays Bank. He further identified signature of his father on letter dated 02.04.04, photocopy of cash book showing details of purchase of gold, ledger of purchase account of our firm with regard to purchase of gold from Sh. Ashok Mehta which were furnished by his father to CBI.
PW60/Sh. He was looking after the work of accounts of Happy Rajnish English School Sharad Vihar, Delhi on part-time basis. He Sharma further deposed that Sh. K.S. Choudhary was the CA, who used to lookafter the audit of the school.
PW61/Sh. He was MD of Happy Ex. PW61/1 (Production cum Kanwaljeet English School, Sharad seizure memo D-433); Khungar Vihar and he deposed Ex. PW61/D1 to D4 (photocopy that accused Smt. of salary certificate);
Renu Mehta was
working in their school Ex. PW61/D5 (appointment letter
as Caretaker since of Smt. Renu Mehta);
November at a monthly Ex. PW61/D6 (photocopy of
salary of Rs. 6600/- documents relating to previous
p.m. He further employment of Smt. Renu Mehta
identified his signature with Adarsh Bharti Public School
on certain documents and Raja Samark Shiksha
and proved the same. Samiti);
He further deposed that salary to the employees used to be disbursed by 5th of every calender month. He further deposed that salary of December 2001 was disbursed to Smt. Renu Mehta prior to 05.01.2002.
Page 30 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016 PW62/R.P.Mali He was friend of Sh. Ex. PW62/1 (cheque no. 446646, k Ashok Mehta and on dated 26.02.98 drawn on PNB, 21.11.97, he had Krishna Nagar issued by Sh.
advanced a friendly Ashok Mehta);
loan of Rs. 2 lac to Sh. Ex. PW62/2 (statement of
Ashok Mehta vide account of SB A/c no. 933
cheque no. 67954 of Corporation bank Laxmi Nagar
Corporation Bank containing debit entry of cheque
which was returned to no. 67954);
him vide cheque no.
446646, dated
26.02.98 drawn on
PNB, Krishna Nagar.
He further proved the cheques and statement of account of SB A/c no. 933 Corporation bank Laxmi Nagar containing debit entry of cheque no. 67954.
PW63/Mahima She had purchased Ex. PW63/1 (photocopy of sale Malik part of propety no. F- deed);
9/12 Krishna Nagar from accused Smt. Renu Mehta and made payment to her vide chque no. 9496161 dt. 17.09.98 drawn on IOB, Preet Vihar. She further proved sale deed, attested copy of cheque no. 9496161, statement of account no. 5064 of IOB.
PW64/S.C. He was a private Ex. PW64/1 (valuation report Bhargav architect, who had dated 12.08.99);
prepared valuation Ex. PW64/2 (certificate dated report on the 14.02.2005 given by him to CBI); instructions of Smt. Renu Mehta for the purpose of capital gain tax with regard to one shop no. H-5/21, Krishna Nagar which was sold to one Vinod Kumar in 1998 by Smt. Renu Mehta.
Page 31 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016 PW65/Sh. He was posted as Ex. PW65/1 (production cum Pardeep Singh Assistant in BSES, seizure memo);
Negi Krishna Nagar, Delhi.
He had produced five
bills of various
connection to Insp.
M.M. Ansari which
were seized by Mr.
Ansari vide seizure
memo.
PW66/Sh. S.S. He was working as Ex. PW66/1 (letter dated
Khungar Manager in Happy 01.06.04);
English School, Sharad Ex. PW66/2 (Certificate of
Vihar and deposed that registration of Happy English
Smt. Renu Mehta was School Education Society);
working there as
Caretaker, though her Ex. PW66/3 (letter dated
name was mentioned 11.05.04);
in attendance register Ex. PW66/4 (document sent by
as a teacher and it was him);
no where mentioned
Ex. PW66/5 (List of staff with
that she was working
their address as on January 1999
as Caretaker. He had
wherein at page no. 9 name of
identified his letter
Smt. Renu Mehta, caretaker is
dated 01.06.04 written
mentioned at Sr. No. 13);
by him to Insp. Ansari
and letter dated Ex. PW66/6 (list of staff as on
11.05.04, vide which January 2002 wherein at Sr. no. 8
he had furnished name of Smt. Renu Mehta as
certain documents to Teacher); Ex. PW66/7 (Bio-Data
CBI. of Smt. Renu Mehta dated
12.10.98);
Ex. PW66/8 (resignation of Smt. Renu Mehta dated 25.02.03, which was accepted on 28.02.2003); Ex. PW66/9 (appointment letter of Smt. Renu Mehta); PW67/Sh. J.P. He was working as Ex. PW67/1 (Letter dated 19.2 D-
Mehta Zonal Inspector in 373);
House Tax Department,
Karol Bagh Zone, Delhi
Page 32 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016 in the year 2005. He identified signature of Sh. K. Vijayan at point A on letter no. Tax/KBZ/2004-05/1192 dated 19.2. issued by Sh. K. Vijayan, Jt. Assessor and Collector, Karol Bagh Zone, which was addressed to Insp. CBI, pertaining to property no. 882, Part (rear ground floor), East Park Road, F-Block, WEA Karol Bagh New Delhi. This property was assessed in the name of Smt. Sumitra Devi for the rateable value of Rs. 24,52,900/- commercial w.e.f. 1.11.2000. He further deposed that no property tax regarding this property was paid during the period from October, 2000 to January, 2002.
PW68/Sh. R.K. He was posted as Ex. PW68/1 (production cum Sharma Manager at PNB seizure memo, vide which he had Krishna Nagar and he handed over certain photocopies had handed over of document to Insp. CBI); photocopies of certain Ex. PW68/2 (photocopy of documents to Insp. CBI account opening form of SB A/c and had identified no. 10599 in the name of Sh. those documents. Ashok Mehta and Smt. Renu Mehta);
Ex. PW68/3 (photocopy of statement of account of SB A/c no. 10599 for the period 19.08.95 to 28.05.96); Ex. PW68/4 (statement of account of SB A/c no. 10599 for the period 27.05.96 to 06.03.2000);
Ex. PW68/5 (computerized copy of statement of account of SB A/c no. 10599 for the period 04.04.2000 to 18.12.2001);
Ex. PW68/6 (Letter dated 04.06.04 addressed to CBI); Ex. PW68/7 (photocopies of documents sent through letter Ex. PW68/6);
Ex. PW68/8 (letter dated 30.09.02 sent to Insp. CBI, vide which he had sent details relating to SB A/c No. 8351, 10599 and 29818);
Ex. PW68/9 (copy of statement of account of SB A/c no. 8351 for the period 01.05.2000 to 14.08.2003); Ex. PW68/10 (letter dated 24.05.04 sent by one of the officer of the bank to Insp. CBI);
Page 33 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016 Ex. PW68/11 (true copy of pay in slip both dated 04.01.99 of A/c no. 31657 in the name of Rajinder Kaur and 23496 in the name of Asha Rani).
Ex. PW68/D1 (letter sent by one of the office of Krishna Nagar Branch to CBI);
Ex. PW68/D2 (letter dated 17.07.04 of PNB, Radhey Puri Branch, vide which document Ex. PW68/D3 was furnished to CBI);
Ex. PW68/D4 (letter dated 04.06.04 of PNB, Lodhi Road Branch, vide which Ex. PW68/D5 i.e. photocopy of cheque was handed over to CBI);
Ex. PW68/D6 (letter dated 03.09.03 of Krishna Nagar Branch vide which photocopy of pay-in-slip regarding deposit of cheque of Rs. 40,000/- in account no. 10599 in the name of Renu Mehta was sent to CBI.
Ex.PW68/D8 (letter dated 13.5.2004 which was sent by one of the officer of Krishna Nagar Branch to Inspector M.M. Ansari.).
Ex.PW68/D9 (photocopy of statement of account of Account No. 8351 of Sh. Ashok Kr. Mehta for the period November 86 to 1.3.2004, (running into 9 sheets) which was sent to Inspector CBI.).
Ex.PW68/D10 (letter dated 23.9.2002 sent to Inspector M.M. Ansari alongwith photocopy of request for opening a saving bank account made by Sh. Ashok Kr. Mehta on 5.12.1980 when account no. 8351 was opened); Ex.PW68/D-11 (Statement of account for the period 28.5.96 to 1.9.2000 of SB A/c No. 10599 in the name of Ashok Kumar Mehta and Renu Mehta);
Ex.PW68/D-12 (Letter dated 21.9.2002 of the bank, Shahdara Branch, photocopy of account opening form in the name of Kumari Ramita Mehta under guardianship of Ashok Kumar Mehta, specimen signature card etc. were sent to Insp. Ansari);
Ex.PW68/D-13 (Photocopy of account opening form of account no. 29818 with Krishna Nagar Branch which is in the name of Renu Mehta on 1.10.93);
Page 34 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016 Ex.PW68/D-14 (Statement of account of SB No. 29818 for the period 1.10.93 to 6.3.2000);
Ex.PW68/D-15 (Statement of account of SB No.23496 in the name of Asha Rani for the period 8.9.99 to 27.2.2004 with Krishna Nagar Branch);
Ex.PW68/D-16 (Statement of account of SB A/c No. 31657 in the name of Mrs. Rajinder Kaur for the period 18.7.98 to 8.3.99 with Krishna Nagar Branch); Ex.PW68/D-17 & Ex.PW68/D-18 (original passbooks of SB A/c No. 10599);
Ex.PW68/D-19 (counterfoils of pay-in-slip of PNB relating to A/c no. 10599 with Krishna Nagar Branch); Ex.PW68/D-20 (8 counterfoils of pay-in-slip relating to A/c no. 10599 with Krishna Nagar Branch); Ex.PW68/D-21 (Photocopy of statement of account of A/c no. 23496 in the name of Asha Rani for the period 9.12.98 to 8.3.99 Krishna Nagar Branch);
Ex.PW68/D-22 to Ex.PW68/D-39 (Bank copies of pay-in- slips of PNB bank);
Ex.PW68/D-40 (Original FDR No.1528/95, opened on 16.6.96 in the name of Ramita Mehta under guardianship of Ashok Kumar Mehta for Rs. 10,000/- and later name of Ashok Kumar Mehta was deleted when Ramita Mehta became major);
Ex.PW68/D-41 (Receipt bearing no. 339502 in the name of Ashok Kumar Mehta vide which a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was deposited with maturity value of Rs. 15,639/-); Ex.PW68/D-42 (Photocopy of cheque issued in favour of SB A/c no. 8351 of PNB Krishna Nagar for Rs. 15,639/- payable at par in the New Delhi Branch of Punjab National Bank);
Ex.PW68/D-43 (Office copy of bank regarding pay-in-slip placed at page two of Ex.PW68/D-19. It is correct that three pay-in-slips collectively Ex.PW68/D-44 (D-205, D- 206 and D-210) are of our bank);
Page 35 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016 PW69/Sh. Bal He was posted as Ex. PW69/1 (Computerised copy Kishan Manager at Gandhi of statement of A/c No. 15482 of Dhawan Nagar on 17.03.2003 Sh. A.L. Chugh dated 07.04.01, and identified showing outward clearing credit computerised copy of entry with regard to clearing of statement of A/c No. ch. no. 404943 for Rs. 1.5 lacs); 15482 of Sh. A.L. Ex. PW69/2 (Photocopy of Chugh dated 07.04.01, cheque no. 251475 dated showing outward 09.09.2000, issued in favour of clearing credit entry Ramita Mehta issued from A/c with regard to clearing no. 15482 of Sh. A.L. Chugh); of ch. no. 404943 for Rs. 1.5 lacs as well as photocopy of cheque no. 251475 dated 09.09.2000, issued in favour of Ramita Mehta issued from A/c no. 15482 of Sh. A.L. Chugh. PW70/Sh. She was working at Ex. PW70/1 (statement of total Manjeet Singh Mata Sundri College as fee paid by Kumari Ramita Section Officer and she Mehta);
identified signature of Ex. PW70/2 (Authority letter Dr. Satnam Kaur, who issued by Dr. Satnam Kaur in was Principal of the favour of PW70 to appear before college and signature Insp. M.M. Ansari); of Dr. Mahender Ex. PW70/3 (Photocopy of Chawla, who was application form for admission of admission convener. Kumari Ramita Mehta); PW71/Sh. Ved He was posted as Ex. PW71/1 (letter dated Parkash DDO, Education (HQ), 26.05.04);
Aggarwal MCD at Kashmere Gate and identified his signature on letter dated 26.05.04 and also identified his signature on Ex. PW29/A which is a notesheet.
PW72/Sh. He was running a Ex. PW72/D1 to Ex. PW72/D6 Vijay Prakash tenanted paan shop at (Rent receipts);
the ground floor of property no. H-5/21, Krishna Nagar, Delhi Ex. PW72/D7 (copy of FIR); since 1985, which was owned by Sh. Bansi Lal Ex. PW72/D8 (certified copy of Nanda. He further order of ARC);
Page 36 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016 deposed that this building was later on purchased by Sh. Ashok Mehta in the year 1993. There were three shops at ground floor, out of which one was possessed by him, another was possessed by Sh. Ravi, milk vendor and other one was possessed by Sh. Kewal Sethi, who was scooter mechanic. He further deposed that he used to pay Rs. 150/- p.m. rent to Smt. Renu Mehta. Sh. Ashok Mehta wanted PW72 to vacate the aforesaid shop. However, he was not ready to vacate the same and an FIR bearing no. 235/09 u/s 406/423/465/471 IPC, PS Krishna Nagar was registered against him. Lateron Smt. Renu Mehta filed a suit of eviction before ARC against him in respect of aforesaid shop and he was given benefit of Sec. 14 (2). PW73/Rajinder He was residing at H. No. A-3, New Krishna Nagar, Delhi Kumar - 51 and accused Sh. Ashok Mehta was the owner of adjoining house which was purchased in the name of Smt. Renu Mehta in the year 1982.
PW74/Sh. He was residing in the property bearing no. 2, New Krishan Kumar Krishna Nagar, Delhi-51. He further deposed that Ashok Mehta was his neighbour as he alongwith accused and two more persons were in possession of aforesaid property which was measuring 200 sq. yards. The property of Ashok Mehta was three storied building consisting of ground floor, first floor and second floor. PW75/Sh. Gian He identified his Ex. PW75/1 (seizure memo Chand Sharma signature on seizure dated 10.02.2003);
memo dated 10.02.03, Ex. PW75/1 (affidavit of Smt. seized by CBI officials Renu Mehta, showing that Sh. and proved certain Raju had purchased H.No. M- other documents with 110, Sector-23, Sanjay Nagar, regard to purchase of Ghazibad for a sum of Rs.
H. No. 110, Sec-23, 1,10,000/-);
Sanjay Nagar,
Ghaziabad from Smt.
Renu Mehta.
Page 37 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016 PW76/Sh. He was posted as Sr. Ex. PW76/1 (authorisation letter Mukesh Kumar Manager, The Khattri of Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, CEO); Tondon Cooperative Urban Ex. PW76/2 (letter vide which Bank Ltd. Krishna certain documents as sought by Nagar Delhi and CBI were furnished to CBI); identified handwriting and signature of Sh. Ex. PW76/3 (photocopy of Kiran Kumar Mehta, application form for membership the then CEO. of The Khattri Cooperative Urban Bank, Daryaganj in the name of Sh. Ashok Mehta);
Ex. PW76/4 (Original share certificate no. KCUB 024013 against membership no. 12603 in the name of Sh. Ashok Kumar Mehta);
Ex. PW76/5 (Statement of A/c of mebership no. 12603 issued in the name of Sh. Ashok Kumar Mehta); Ex. PW76/6 (Statement of loan A/c no. KO/2499); Ex. PW76/7 (photocopy of application form of The Khattri Cooperative Urban Bank, Daryaganj in the name of Smt. Renu Mehta);
Ex. PW76/8 (Original share certificate no. KCUB 02012 against membership no. 12602 in the name of Smt. Renu Mehta);
Ex. PW76/9 (Statement of CSD account and share money account of membership no. 12602 issued in the name of Smt. Renu Mehta);
PW-77/Sh. He was the sanctioning Ex. PW77/A (Sanction order of N.K. Sharma authority, who had Sh. Ashok Kumar Mehta);
accorded sanction for Ex. PW77/DA (copy of
prosecution of Sh. documents for grant of sanction
Ashok Kumar Mehta such as copy of observation
and proved the memo, etc.);
sanction order passed
by him.
PW78/Ms. He was posted as clerk in Happy English School, Sharat
Veena Saxena Vihar, Delhi, who used to maintain fee register and record entries therein. He further deposed that salary to Smt. Renu Mehta used to be paid in cash, whereas salary to other staff used to be paid through cheque.
Page 38 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016 He identified letter of appointment on probation (Ex. PW66/9) addressed to Smt. Renu Mehta who was appointed as Caretaker in the aforesaid school . He further identified resignation of Smt. Renu Mehta (Ex. PW66/8).
PW79/Sh. R.S. He was posted as Ex. PW79/1 (complaint); Bedi Inspector in CBI on Ex. PW79/2 (FIR);
deputation from 1999 to August, 2005 and he Ex. PW79/3 (Production memo had preferred a vide which all the relevant complaint against documents were handed over to accused Ashok Mehta Insp. M.M. Ansari); the then Asst. Zonal Inspector MCD, Geeta Colony, New Delhi qua acquisition of disproportionate assets to his income on 25.2.2002. He was the IO of the case RC 2 (A)/2002 against Sh. Ashok Mehta u/s 7/13 PC Act, whereby he had had issued authorization u/s 165 Cr.P.C Ex.PW1/1 (D-3) in faovur of Inspector Virender Thakran to conduct house search of the accused, whereupon house search of accused Ashok Mehta at D-5/8, Krishna Nagar, Delhi-51 was conducted. SI Virender Thakran effected the search and prepared search sum seizure memo Ex.PW1/2 (D-4) and observation memo Ex.PW1/3 (D-5). He scrutinized the articles seized by Virender Thakran and lodged a complaint D-1 under his signatures at point A on the same.
PW80/Mohd. He was the IO of the Ex. PW80/1 (production cum Mustafa Ansari case, who had seizure memo dated 04.08.03, conducted investigation vide which he received one in the present matter. original file of scooter Sunny No. During investigation he DL-7SE-1160);
had Ex. PW80/2 (file which was
collected/seized/receiv received through production cum
ed certain documents seizure memo dated 04.08.03);
related to income,
expenditure and assets Ex. PW80/3 (Letter dated
pertaining to both 24.03.03 addressed to PW80 );
accused persons. He Ex. PW80/4 (Form bearing no.
further recorded 4938 of IP College of Women of
statements of number Kumari Taruna Mehta);
of persons/officials.
Page 39 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016 Ex. PW80/5 (letter dated 16.12.03 vide which fee details of Ankit Mehta S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Mehta from class I to VIII during the years 1995-96 upto 05.01.02 were furnished.
Ex. PW80/6 (Letter dated 26.03.03 vide which fee and other charges in respect of Ankit Mehta S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Mehta were furnished);
Ex. PW80/7 (copy of registration form, admission form of DAV Public School Dayanand Vihar in respect of Ankit Mehta and birth certificate of Ankit Mehta were furnished); Ex. PW80/8 (correspondence made by PW80 with various authorities/banks/institutions); Ex. PW80/9 & Ex. PW80/10 (letter dated 20.09.02 vide which certain documents alongwith annexures were furnished by Chief Manager Syndicate Bank to CBI); Ex. PW80/11 (letter dated 17.09.03 vide which certain documents alongwith annexures were furnished by Bank Manager, Allahabad Bank);
Ex. PW80/12 (letter dated 22.01.04 of DDO (Edu.) HQ, MCD, SI (Gen.)/DEO/AEO, Kashmere Gate, Delhi.); Ex. PW80/13 (letter dated 13.08.02 of Assistant Assessor and Collector, Shahdara, South Zone MCD); Ex. PW80/14 (letter dated 17.06.04 of Sh. C.B. Sharma, Dy. Assessor and Collector, MCD, Shahdara (South Zone) Delhi);
Ex. PW80/15 (letter dated 06.05.04 of Head of Bank of Punjab Ltd. Preet Vihar, New Delhi alongwith certified copy of statement of A/c of M/s Akriti Construction, Vivek Vihar, Phase-II, Delhi and certified copy of acount opening form);
Ex. PW80/16 (letter dated 11.08.04 and certified copy of statement of A/c no CA11021950 from 01.07.2000 to 15.07.2000);
Ex. PW80/17 (letter dated 26.03.04 received from AGM, Bank of India, Parliament Street Branch, Sansad Marg, New Delhi alongwith enclosures);
Page 40 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016 Ex. PW80/18 (letter dated 19.04.04 sent by AGM Bank of India, Parliament Street Branch, Sansad Marg, New Delhi alongwith enclosures);
Ex. PW80/19 (letter dated 18.09.02 sent by AGM, SBI Krishna Nagar);
Ex. PW80/20 (Cheque no. 457751 for a sum of Rs. 35,000/- drawn on SBI Krishna Nagar branch); Ex. PW80/21 (statement of account no. 12684 from 1986 to 13.01.98);
Ex. PW80/22 (statement of account no. 12684 from 24.02.98 to 14.09.02);
Ex. PW80/23 (letter dated 16.08.03 sent by AGM, SBI Krishna Nagar);
Ex. PW80/24 (letter dated 13.06.04 sent by Canara Bank, 25, Mahila Colony, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi); Ex. PW80/25 (receipt memo dated 14.06.04, vide which certain documents mentioned in receipt memo from Sl. No. 1 to 12, received by Sh. D.P. Gupta, Officer Canara Bank, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi);
Ex. PW80/26 (letter dated 02.02.05 of Mr. Subhas Bendre, Asst. Manager -RPC of HSBC enclosing therewith certified true copies of statement of A/c no. 053- 030458-006 in the name of Sh. C.S. Aggarwal and Mr. K. Agggarwal from 19.05.2000 to 04.08.2000); Ex. PW80/27 (letter dated 26.08.04 of Mr. Subhas Bendre, Asst. Manager -RPC of HSBC enclosing therewith certified true copies of cheque no. 187732 dated 01.07.2000 for INR 10 lac favouring Mobi Phone Network India Pvt. Ltd and statement of A/c no. 053-030458-006 in the name of Sh. C.S. Aggarwal and Mr. K. Agggarwal reflecting the debit entry of cheque no. 187732 on 04.07.2000);
Ex. PW80/28 (letter dated 18.08.04 of Mr. T.A. Sampath Kumar, Manager, Customer Care of Citi Bank, enclosing therewith certified true copies of cheque no. 388532 for Rs. 5 lac issued from A/c no. 0417958223 (M/s Rockman Page 41 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016 Printers & Publishers), cheque no. 429030 for Rs. 5 lac issued from A/c no. 0419744228 (M/s Rockman Group of Companies) and of statement of account showing clearing of both the abovementioned cheques); Ex. PW80/29 (letter dated 27.01.05 of Mr. T.A. Sampath Kumar, Manager, Customer Care of Citi Bank, enclosing therewith statements of account of Rockman Group Co. bearing A/c no. 0419744228 and Rockman Printers and Publishers bearing A/c No. 0417958223 for the period from 01.07.2000 to 31.07.2000);
Ex. PW80/30 (letter dated 01.09.04 of Mr. T.A. Sampath Kumar, Manager, Customer Care of Citi Bank, enclosing therewith statements of account of Rockman Group Co. bearing A/c no. 0419744228 and Rockman Printers and Publishers bearing A/c No. 0417958223 for the period from 01.06.2000 to 01.03.2001);
Ex. PW80/31 (letter dated 03.09.03 received from Chief Manager, OBC, vide which documents mentioned at Sr. no. 1 to 4 were handed over to IO);
Ex. PW80/32 (receipt memo);
Ex. PW80/33 (letter sent by Sr. Manager UCO Bank to IO);
Ex. PW80/34 (letter dated 23.08.04 sent by Sr. Manager, UCO Bank to IO);
Ex. PW80/35 (letter dated 01.02.05 sent by Sr. Manager, UCO Bank to IO);
Ex. PW80/36 (letter dated 26.07.04 sent by Manager, Standard Chartered Bank to IO);
Ex. PW80/37 (The documents received through letter Ex. PW80/36);
Ex. PW80/38 (letter dated 04.08.04 sent by Manager, Standard Chartered Bank to IO);
Ex. PW80/39 (The documents received through letter Ex. PW80/38);
Ex. PW80/40 (letter dated 04.08.04 sent by Manager, Standard Chartered Bank to IO );
Page 42 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016 Ex. PW80/41 (The documents received through letter Ex. PW80/40);
Ex. PW80/42 (The documents taken into possession vide production cum seizure memo Ex. PW39/D); Ex. PW80/43 (The statement of account no. 1330 of Ramita Mehta with State Bank of Hyderabad, Krishna Nagar);
Ex. PW80/44 (copy of account opening form of Taruna Mehta);
Ex. PW80/45 (letter dated 21.08.03 sent by Sr. Manager, Allahabad Bank, Krishna Nagar alongwith statement of A/c No. 6048 in the name of Taruna Mehta); Ex. PW80/46 (letter dated 24.03.03 sent by Principal Presentation Convent Sr. Secondary School regarding details of fees paid by Taruna Mehta and Ramita Mehta); Ex. PW80/47 (letter dated 21.08.99 sent by Bank of India, Parliament Street Branch in the name of A2 @ A1 for Rs. 13619/-);
Ex. PW80/48 (statement of A/c no. 8782 dated 08.03.03 of Bank of India in the name of A1 & A2);
Ex. PW80/49 (letter dated 07.01.2004 sent by IO to Dy. Education Officer, Shahdara North Zone, Delhi, asking him to furnish pay details of Sh. Ashok Mehta for the period 01.02.78 to 30.06.78.
Ex. PW80/50 (Receipt memo dated 29.03.2004 vide which IO received some documents from Sh. Ashwani Kumar, which are mentioned at Sr. no. 1 to 4 of this memo);
Ex. PW-80/51 (receipt memo dated 10.03.2003 prepared by IO regarding receiving some documents from Sh. D.S. Chauhan, Staff Officer, BOI Parliament Street, Delhi, which are mentioned in the memo.
Ex. PW-80/52 (receipt memo dated 02.08.2004 (D-395) prepared by IO regarding receiving some documents from Sh. Ram Phal, House Tax MCD which are mentioned in this memo.
Page 43 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016 Ex. PW-80/53 (receipt memo dated 20.11.2003 prepared by IO regarding receiving some documents from Sh. Ram Chander Sharma, Head Clerk, MCD, which are mentioned in this memo.
Ex. PW-80/54 (receipt memo dated 07.05.2004 (D-425) prepared by IO regarding receiving some documents from Sh. Naresh Kumar, AZI, MCD, which are mentioned in this memo);
Ex. PW-80/55 (Production cum seizure memo dated 04.08.2003 (D-341)), prepared by IO regarding receiving some documents from Sh. Naresh Kumar, LDC Office of MLO, Loni Road, Delhi.
Ex. PW-80/56 (production cum seizure memo dated 25.09.2002 (D-352)), prepared by IO regarding receiving some documents from Sh. Dhirender Kumar, Clerk, SBH, Krishna Nagar, Delhi - 51.).
Ex. PW-80/57 (Witness has pointed out to a production cum seizure memo dated 28.04.2004 (D-353)), prepared by IO regarding receiving some documents from Sh. Dhirender Kumar, Clerk, SBH, Krishna Nagar, Delhi -
51.).
Ex. PW-80/58 (production cum seizure memo dated 18.08.2003 (D-354)), prepared by IO regarding receiving some documents from Sh. Ram Niwas, Officer PNB, Krishna Nagar, Delhi - 51) Ex. PW-80/59 ( production cum seizure memo dated 05.02.2003 (D-421)), prepared by IO regarding receiving some documents from Sh. Dharampal S/o Sh. Sohan Lal R/o F-6/14, Krishna Nagar, Delhi - 51.). Ex. PW-80/61 (production cum seizure memo dated 16.01.2004 (D-423)), prepared by IO regarding receiving some documents from Sh. Pramod Singh, Krishna Nagar, Delhi - 51);
Page 44 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016 Ex. PW-80/D1 (notice dated 13.12.2004 upon the accused Ashok Mehta (since deceased), thereby directing him to produce some documents before IO on 20.12.2004);
Ex. PW-80/D2 (response submitted by Sh. Ashok Mehta in response to notice dated 13.12.04); Ex. PW-80/D3 (notice dated 31.12.2004 to accused Ashok Mehta, thereby asking him to produce various documents);
Ex. PW-80/D4 ( copy of WILL);
Ex. PW-80/D5 (photocopy of notice, vide which Ms. Rajinder Kaur was summoned by IO);
Ex. PW-80/D6 (statement of Smt. Rajinder Kaur recorded on 15.04.04);
Ex. PW-80/D7 (statement of Sh. Naresh Kumar recorded on 07.05.04);
Ex. PW-80/D8 (statement of Smt. Asha Rani dated 23.02.2004);
PW81/Sh. Shri He was the second IO, Ex. PW81/D1 (photocopies of Bhagwan who received the case ITRs pertaining to both accused file from Insp. M.M. and their daughters); Ansari. He prepared chargesheet and filed the same before the court against Ashok Mehta and his wife Smt. Renu Mehta u/s 13 (1) (e) P.C. Act, 1988 and u/s 109 IPC respectively.
23.PLEA OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. ● PLEA OF ACCUSED:-
In her statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. accused Smt. Renu Gupta took plea that this case was falsely registered against her husband. She had nothing to do with commission of any offence. All investment, income and expenditure were shown by her in her ITRs. Even her deceased husband had not committed any offence and the CBI had exorbitantly placed the figure on record. While responding to several piece of evidence related to her husband, accused took plea that same was Page 45 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016 not evidence against her.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE & ARGUMENTS AND FINDINGS:-
24.A written argument was filed on behalf of accused. Ld. counsel for accused argued that accused Sh. Ashok Mehta (A1) expired during trial and proceedings qua him stood abated. He further argued that it is well settled law that no order of conviction/acquittal can be passed against a person, who died during trial and even the property of the deceased cannot be attached. Reliance in this regard was placed in a case titled as U. Subhadramma & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2016) 7 SCC
797.
25.Ld. counsel for accused argued that there was no authorization u/s 17 of P.C. Act in favour of PW80 Insp. M.M. Ansari or PW 81 Insp. Shri Bhagwan to investigate D.A. case. Even Rule 10.10 of CBI manual is talking about such specific order to be issued by S.P. concerned in favour of IO. Reliance in this regard was placed in a case titled as State v. Surya Sankaran, 2006 Cr. L.J 4598 SC.
26.He further argued that no authorization u/s 18 P.C. Act was there in favour of PW80 Insp. M.M. Ansari for collecting evidence form Bank and the evidence so collected by the IO were illegal, which fact was admitted by PW80 in his cross examination on 29.08.17. Even the so collected evidence/documents from different banks by the CBI were not attested as per "The Banker's Book of Evidence Act", nor original of any such bank records were ever produced before the court. PW80 had shown his ignorance about obtaining any such certificate from bank. IO even did not bother to collect certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act from those banks regarding computerized copies of relevant documents. He further argued that it was mandatory for CBI to produce certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, as present case pertains to the year 2002 Page 46 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016 and Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act was inserted in the Act on 17.10.2000.
27.Ld. counsel for accused further argued that there was complete violation of Rule 13.2 of CBI Crime Manual, while dealing with search u/s 165 Cr.P.C. as the search officer was required to file copies of the records of search to the nearest Magistrate/Special Judge. The CBI official who had made search in the house of accused, showed his ignorance about making any enquiry in compliance of Section 165(5) Cr.P.C. Even PW79 falsified the statement of PW80 stating that authorization u/s 165 Cr.P.C. was issued by him in favour of Insp. Thakran, who conducted the search. Though, the search was conducted by PW-1 Sh. Virender Thakran and even PW-1 is silent about filing of any report u/s 165 (5) Cr.P.C.
28.Ld. counsel for accused further argued that as per Rule 19.16 (e) of CBI Crime Manual, IO was required to mention defence plea in the chargesheet in comprehensive manner and not in brief. However, even defence plea Ex. PW80/D-2 & Ex. PW80/D-9 were not discussed by IO PW80 or the second IO in the chargesheet, which amounts to violation of Rule 19.16 (e) of CBI Manual.
29.Ld. counsel for accused further argued that as per Rule 19.20 (iv) of CBI Manual, accused persons should be interrogated in question answer form in respect of any substance against them. However, CBI did not bring it on record to show that accused persons were interrogated by any of the IO in compliance of Rule 19.20 (iv) of CBI Manual. Reliance in this regard was placed on a case law titled as Vineet Narayan v. Union of India, 1988 SCC (Cr.) 307.
30.Ld. counsel for accused further argued that ITRs of accused Renu Mehta were seized by the CBI officials during house search and only few Page 47 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016 of them were relied upon by them, while other ITRs were produced on moving of an application u/s 91 Cr.P.C. by the accused. He further argued that even accused Ashok Mehta had furnished all ITRs of accused Smt. Renu Mehta to IO during investigation, which is Ex. PW- 81/D1 (page 263 to 435 of file B-27). However, no weightage was given to them. He further argued that PW35/Sh. Rajinder Singh Panwar was examined as prosecution witness from Income Tax Department, but only few ITRs were shown to him. It was further argued that Smt. Renu Mehta had shown all her income, expenditure and investments alongwith gifts and presents received by her from her father and parents in-law, in her ITRs. Reliance in this regard was placed on a case law titled as Kedari Lal v. State, 2015 (2) RCR (Cr.) 477 SC.
31.Ld. counsel for accused further argued that as per Rule 13:18 (ii) of CBI Crime Manual, it was incumbent upon the IO to secure ITRs of suspects/accused. However, despite being availability of the records, no proper verification was done by PW80 & PW81. Reliance in this regard was placed on a case law titled as State, Inspector of Police, Visakhapatnam v. Surya Sankaram Karri, 2006 Cri. L.J. 4598.
32. Ld. counsel referred and relied upon the observations made in paras 8 to 12, in the case of V. Subhadramma (supra), which are as follows:-
"8. Section 13 requires the Government to inform the District Judge about the status of the criminal proceedings. It requires the Government to furnish the District Judge with a copy of the judgment or order of the trial court and with copies of the judgment or orders, if any of the appellate or revisional court thereon. Sub-clause 2 mandates that the District Judge shall forthwith withdraw any orders of attachment of property made in connection with the offence if (a) cognizance of alleged scheduled offence has not been taken or (b) where the final judgment and orders of the criminal court is one of acquittal. While, this clause is clear that the orders of attachment must be Page 48 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016 withdrawn if cognizance of the offence has not been taken or there has been an acquittal; the clause is silent as to the effect of abatement of prosecution. It is due to this silence that it is contended by the State Government in this case that the orders of attachment could not only have been continued but could also have been confirmed. It is not possible for us to accept the submission. If the law requires that the orders of attachment should be withdrawn upon acquittal it stands to reason that such orders must be withdrawn when the prosecution abates or cannot result in a conviction due to the death of the accused, whose property is attached. Concept of abatement of a trial could be subsumed in the clause where the final judgment and order of the Criminal Court is one of acquittal. In this context, the presumption of innocence of an accused till he is convicted must be borne in mind and there is no reason to consider this presumption to have vaporized upon the death of an accused. It may be noted that this Court has time and again reiterated the presumption of innocence of an accused till he is convicted.
9. As far as the circumstances of this case are concerned, we find that there has been a gross mis-carriage of justice at several steps. In the first place, the finding of the trial court that Ramachandraiah was alone responsible for the offences is completely vitiated as null and void since Ramachandraiah had admittedly died on the date this finding was rendered. It is too well settled that a prosecution cannot continue against a dead person. A fortiori a criminal court cannot continue proceedings against a dead person and find him guilty. Such proceedings and the findings are contrary to the very foundation of criminal jurisprudence. In such a case the accused does not exist and cannot be convicted. Consequently, the learned District Judge committed a gross error of law in acting upon such a finding and treating Ramachandraiah as guilty of such offences while making the order of attachment and while confirming the said order of attachment of properties. (Emphasis put by me).
33. Ld. counsel referred and relied upon the observations made in paras Page 49 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016 16, 17, 19, 21, in the case of State v. Surya Sankaram Karri (supra), which are as follows:-
"The approach of the learned Special Judge, to say the least, was not correct. When a statutory functionary passes an order, that too authorizing a person to carry out a public function like investigation into an offence, an order in writing was required to be passed. A statutory functionary must act in a manner laid down in the statute. Issuance of an oral direction is not contemplated under the Act. Such a concept is unknown in Administrative Law. The statutory functionaries are enjoined with a duty to pass written orders.
Submission of the learned Additional Solicitor General was that the respondent did not further cross-examine the said witnesses to the effect that no such order in writing was passed, and thus, he cannot be said to have been prejudiced in any manner whatsoever. We do not agree. It is now well settled that when a document being in possession of a public functionary, who is under a statutory obligation to produce the same before the court of law, fails and/or neglects to produce the same, an adverse inference may be drawn against him. The learned Special Judge in the aforementioned situation was enjoined with a duty to draw an adverse inference. He did not consider the question from the point of view of statutory requirements, but took into consideration factors, which were not germane.
Illegality apart, the manner in which the investigation was conducted, is condemnable. The least that a court of law would expect from the prosecution is that the investigation would be a fair one. It would not only be carried out from the stand of the prosecution, but also the defence, particularly, in view of the fact that the onus of proof may shift to the accused at a later stage. The evidence of P.W.41 raises doubts about his bona fide. Why he did not examine important witnesses and as to why he had not taken into consideration the relevant documentary evidence has not been explained. He did not even care to ascertain the correctness or otherwise of the status of both of the respondent and his wife before the Income Tax Department. Above all, he did not produce before the Page 50 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016 Court the statements made by the appellant, his wife and those of his sons, although they were relevant. Had the statements of D.W.3 and D.W.4 been produced before, the learned Special Judge might not have opined that the sons of the respondent, other than D.W.2, did not make any contribution to their parents at all. If such statements were made by the said witnesses before the Investigating Officer, omission on the part of D.W.1, the wife of the respondent, to state the same before the Special Judge might have taken a back seat and the statements of other sons of the respondent, namely, D.W.3 and D.W.4 might not have been ignored by the learned Special Judge."
34. Ld. counsel referred and relied upon the observations made in para 58 (12), in the case of Vineet Narain & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr. (supra), which are as follows:-
"The CBI Manual based on statutory provisions of the Cr.P.C. provides essential guidelines for the CBI's functioning. It is imperative that the CBI adheres scrupulously to the provisions in the Manual in relation to its investigative functions, like raids, seizure and arrests. Any deviation to from the established procedure should be viewed seriously and severe disciplinary action taken against the officials concerned."
35. Ld. counsel referred and relied upon the observations made in paras 3
(i), 4, 10, in the case of Kedari Lal v. State of M.P. & Ors. (supra), which are as follows:-
"3. The prosecution in support of its case examined 10 witnesses. The defence of the appellant was that:-
(i) On the occasion of his marriage he had received gifts from his in- laws, (ii) he had received certain sums as and by way of his share in family partition, (iii) he had received bequest under the will executed by his mother, and (iv) he had taken loan or advances for purchase of plot and construction from his relations and friends. It was submitted that every such receipt was duly intimated by him to the department. The details of such receipt and intimation as submitted, are as under:-
a. On 16.04.1984, the appellant got married and had Page 51 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016 received gifts from his in- laws such as Fridge, Colour TV, Sofa Set, Almirah, which fact was intimated to the Department vide letter dated 25.04.1984. b. In 1987, in terms of the family partition that took place, an amount of Rs.1,45,000/- was agreed to be given to the appellant by his father. The father of the appellant gave an amount of Rs.60,000/- which was intimated by him to his Department vide letter dated 10.05.1987. c. The balance amount was remitted to the appellant vide two Bank Drafts of Rs.45,000/- and Rs.40,000/- and the same was intimated to the Department vide letter dated 14.11.1991.
d. In the year 1987, the appellant wanted to purchase a plot of land, for which he took a loan of Rs.20,000/- from PW-6 Ramji Lal Agarwal, a friend and resident of the same area, which was intimated to the Department vide letter dated 03.09.1987.
e. In the year 1988-1989, the appellant had applied for a construction loan which had not been sanctioned by the Department till then. To ensure continuous construction work, he took loans or received gifts from his close relative, details of which were reflected in his letter to the department dated 15.12.1989. The details being:-
(i) On 09.09.1988 and 01.04.1989 he received gifts in cash of the amounts Rs.20,000/- and Rs.15,000/- from his brother PW 7 Brij Narayan and on 03.12.1988 and 10.04.1989 he received gifts of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.15,000/- in cash from his other brother PW5 Gopal Agarwal.
(ii) Furthermore, he took a loan of Rs.75,000/- from M/S Radhaballabh Dal Mills, a company in which PW 5 Gopal Agarwal his brother was a partner and the loan was given through a cheque.
f. On 17.01.1991 the mother of the appellant passed away leaving behind a will under which the appellant received an amount Rs.50,672/- which fact was intimated to the Department vide letter dated 14.11.1991. g. In the year 1993, in order to purchase a gun, the appellant took a loan of Rs.10,000/- from his brother-in-law PW1 Kapoor Chand which fact was intimated by him to the Department vide letter dated 15.03.1993.
4. The appellant had thus intimated the department on Page 52 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016 every occasion that he received any advance or gifts or share in partition or entitlement by way of bequest. These facts are spoken to by various prosecution witnesses. Moreover, the appellant had filed his Income Tax Return on 28.09.1992, which clearly reflected the details of the loan transactions and the amounts that he had received. Copy of the Income Tax Return was also filed with the department on 5.01.1994, well before the present F.I.R. was filed on 9.02.1994. The appellant submitted that if these amounts which were duly intimated and stood reflected in his Income Tax Returns were to be taken into account, the alleged disproportionate assets would not be to the tune of Rs.4,08,077/- but would stand reduced to the sum of Rs.37,605/-.........
10The expression "known sources of income" in Section 13(1) (e) of the Act has two elements, first the income must be received from a lawful source and secondly the receipt of such income must have been intimated in accordance with the provisions of law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to the public servant. In N. Ramakrishnaiah (Supra), while dealing with said expression, it was observed:-
"...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 (1) his property, or (b) his investment."
The categories so enumerated are illustrative. Receipt by way of share in the partition of ancestral property or bequest under a will or advances from close relations would come within the expression "known sources of income" provided the second condition stands fulfilled that is to say, such receipts were duly intimated to the authorities as prescribed".
36. Ld. counsel referred and relied upon the observations made in para 30, in the case of Kailash Gour & Ors. State of Assam (supra), which are as follows:-
".....That an accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, is a principle that cannot be sacrificed on the altar of inefficiency, Page 53 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016 inadequacy or inept handling of the investigation by the police. The benefit arising from any such faulty investigation ought to go to the accused and not to the prosecution. So also, the quality and creditability of the evidence required to bring home the guilt of the accused cannot be different in cases where the investigation is satisfactory vis-`-vis cases in which it is not. The rules of evidence and the standards by which the same has to be evaluated also cannot be different in cases depending upon whether the case has any communal overtones or in an ordinary crime for passion, gain or avarice........".
37.On the other hand, ld. Sr. PP for CBI also filed a written synopsis on the record, thereby referring to the evidence relied upon by CBI to prove the respective entries of income, expenditure and assets.
38.Before I look into the evidence of the case, it is appropriate to appreciate the legal principles qua criminal liability of accused Smt. Renu Mehta in the present case. Section 13(1)(e) of the Act defines offence qua a public servant. A non public servant is, therefore, not accountable for any wealth either possessed by him/her or by such public servant. However, at the same time Supreme Court in P. Nallamal v. State, AIR 1999 SC 2556, recognized culpability of a non public servant for offence punishable under Section 109 IPC in such cases, on the basis of relevant additional allegations.
"In P. Nallamal's case (supra), petitioners were non public servants, who were being prosecuted along with public servants for offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act, with aid of Section 109 IPC. They challenged their prosecution on the ground that offence under Section 13(1)(e) could not be abetted. They took plea that unless ill gotten wealth has nexus with the sources contemplated in preceding clauses i.e clauses (a) to (d) of Section 13, the public servant cannot be held guilty under clause (e). It was further argued that "If a public servant is able to account for the excess wealth by showing some clear sources, though not legally permissible, but not falling under any of the preceding clauses of the sub- section, he would be discharging the burden cast on him".Page 54 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016
39.However, Supreme Court negated this argument. It is appropriate to refer to the relevant observations made by the court in that case, which are as under:-
"The above contention perhaps could have been advanced before the enactment of the P.C. Act 1988 because Section 5(1)(e) of the old P.C. Act did not contain an "Explanation"
as Section 13(1)(e) now contains. As per the Explanation the "known sources of income" of the public servant, for the purpose of satisfying the court, should be "any lawful source". Besides being the lawful source the Explanation further enjoins that receipt of such income should have been intimated by the public servant in accordance with the provisions of any law applicable to such public servant at the relevant time. So a public servant cannot now escape from the tentacles of Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act by showing other legally forbidden sources, albeit such sources are outside the purview of clauses (a) to (d) of the sub-section.
There is no force in the contention that the offences under Section 13(1)(e) cannot be abetted by another person." (Emphasis/underlining put by me.)
40.At the same time court also referred to two limbs of this offence, while referring to a previous judgment, in following terms:
"It may be remembered that this Court has held in M. Krishna Reddy v. State Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hyderabad {1992 (4) SCC 45} thus:
"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."
Thus, the two postulates must combine together for crystallization into the offence, namely, possession of property or resources disproportionate to the known sources of income of public servant and the inability of the public servant to account for it. Burden of proof regarding the first limb is on the prosecution whereas the onus is on the public Page 55 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016 servant to prove the second limb." (Emphasis/underlining put by me.)
41.Thereafter, court also approved some additional illustrations for abetment, which are as follows:-
"The first illustration cited is this:
If A, a close relative of the public servant tells him of how other public servants have become more wealthy by receiving bribes and A persuades the public servant to do the same in order to become rich and the public servant acts accordingly. If it is a proved position there cannot be any doubt that A has abetted the offence by instigation. Next illustration is this:
Four persons including the public servant decide to raise a bulk amount through bribery and the remaining persons prompt the public servant to keep such money in their names. If this is a proved position then all the said persons are guilty of abetment through conspiracy. The last illustration is this:
If a public servant tells A, a close friend of him, that he has acquired considerable wealth through bribery but he cannot keep them as he has no known source of income to account, he requests A to keep the said wealth in A's name, and A obliges the public servant in doing so. If it is a proved position A is guilty of abetment falling under the "Thirdly"
clause of Section 107 of the Penal Code. Such illustrations are apt examples of how the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act can be abetted by non-public servants. The only mode of prosecuting such offender is through the trial envisaged in the P.C. Act." (Emphasis/underlining put by me.)
42.On careful reading of above mentioned observations of Supreme Court, one can find that there is a definite role to be played by main accused/public servant in such trial. After prosecution establishes that public servant accumulated wealth beyond his known sources of income, public servant has to account for such wealth. It is the inability of the public servant to account for such assets, which becomes the basis to Page 56 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016 say that public servant is guilty of disproportionate assets. If, however, public servant satisfactorily accounts for his wealth and shows lawful source behind the alleged assets, then he is declared to be innocent and prosecution has to fail. In such situation, any allegation against a non public servant for abetment of main offence is also bound to fail for simple reason that if disproportionate assets are not established against the public servant then there cannot be a question of abetment of acquiring disproportionate assets.
43.Similarly from the given illustrations for abetment of main offence (in the case of P. Nallamal), it can be easily discerned that it has to be proved position that public servant had earned ill gotten money, either on the instigation of non public servant or on prompting of non public servant. In order to invoke third clause also, it has to be proved position that public servant had acquired assets beyond his known sources of income (including inability of the main accused to account for it), only thereafter, it can be shown that non public servant acquiesced in keeping such wealth in his/her name and thus, abetted in acquiring disproportionate assets. Thus, once again if disproportionate assets against main accused are not established, then question of acquiescence in keeping such wealth cannot arise.
44.In the present case, the main accused/public servant Sh. Ashok Mehta, died during the trial and case stood abated qua him vide order dated 06.04.2015. Though trial proceeded further qua non public servant i.e. accused Ms. Renu Mehta, but absence of main accused during complete trial has significant repercussions in this case. Sh. Ashok Mehta was entitled for an opportunity not only to challenge and demolish the evidence of prosecution, but also to account for and to offer his explanations in respect of the assets, established on the record to be Page 57 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016 acquired by him during check period. In absence of Sh. Ashok Mehta, this court certainly cannot return any finding that he had acquired disproportionate assets. In such a situation, the inevitable consequence is that this court also cannot say that co accused/Ms. Renu Mehta abetted in acquisition of disproportionate assets by Sh. Ashok Mehta.
45.An argument was advanced by ld. Sr. Public Prosecutor that in the case of State of Karnataka v. J. Jayalalitha (2017) 6 SCC 263, Supreme Court retained the order of confiscation of properties against the non public servants (who also faced trial for offence under section 109 IPC), though on account of death of public servant/Ms. Jayalalitha, appeal against her acquittal stood abated. Ld. PP submitted that on same analogy, this court may look into the evidence and return a finding that accused Ms. Renu Mehta abetted offence of acquiring disproportionate assets by Sh. Ashok Mehta.
46.One has to realise that there is a mark difference between this case and Jayalalitha's case. In the case of Jayalalitha, she had faced complete trial and had all the opportunities not only to defend herself, but also to account for her properties. In such circumstance, Supreme Court proceeded further in the appeal, to return findings against co accused persons/non public servants, on the basis of evidence on the record. The relevant observations of the court are reproduced hereunder:
"569. We have noticed that in State v. Jitender Kumar Singh [State v. Jitender Kumar Singh, (2014) 11 SCC 724 :
(2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 512 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 843] this Court held that once the power has been exercised by the Special Judge under sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the PC Act to proceed against non-PC offences along with PC offences, the mere fact that the sole public servant dies after the exercise of powers under sub-section (3) of Section 4, will not divest the jurisdiction of the Special Judge or vitiate the proceedings pending before him.Page 58 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016 Therefore, we hold that as the sole public servant has died being A-1 in this matter, in our opinion, though the appeals against her have abated, even then A-2 to A-4 are liable to be convicted and sentenced in the manner as has been held by the trial Judge.".
47.The above-mentioned observations would show that the court was guided by the fact that the public servant had died after the exercise of powers under sub sec. 3 of Section 4, therefore, no infirmity was found in exercising jurisdiction under the Act by Special Judge.
48.However, in the present case the main accused i.e the public servant did not survive the trial. The challenge from him to prosecution evidence regarding disproportionate assets remained incomplete. An opportunity to account for established disproportionate assets was also not given to this public servant. In these circumstances, in this trial, court cannot return any finding against that dead person/public servant that he had acquired disproportionate assets. The observations made by Supreme Court in the case of V. Subhadramma (supra) as referred by ld. defence counsel (already mentioned herein above) do have their application to the facts and circumstances of this case.
49.Further more, in the case of Amara Krishna Mohan Rao & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2012 CRI LJ 969, High Court of Andhra Pradesh dealt with same situation, though in respect of offence under section 13 (1) (d) of the Act. The court held as under:
"9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court under the circumstances enumerated above in the decision cited observed "If such conspiracy or abetment of 'any of the offences' punishable under the P.C. Act can be tried 'only' by the Special Judge, it is inconceivable that the abettor or the conspirator can be delinked from the delinquent public servant for the purpose of trial of the offence. If a non-public servant is also a member of the criminal conspiracy along with a public servant to commit any offence under the P.C. Act, or if such non-public servant has abetted any of the offences which the Page 59 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016 public servant commits, such non-public servant is also liable to be tried along with the public servant before the Court of a Special Judge having jurisdiction in the matter."
Therefore, it was only considered by the Supreme Court as to whether a non-public servant was to be tried for such an offence covered by the act along with a public servant who was also charged with the same offence along with the nonpublic servant. There was no question as to whether the non-public servant was to be tried when the public servant i.e. the principal-accused died and the offence was abated so far as he was concerned under similar circumstances and hence the analogy put-forth by the Supreme Court is not applicable here. Thereby, I do not agree with the proposition laid down by the Kerala High Court.
10. In fact, the question of prosecuting a non-public servant for any offence covered by the P.C. Act arises if there is any possibility of ascertaining basing upon the evidence to be recorded as to whether the public servant involved in connivance with the non-public servants being the concerned Commercial Tax Officer in committing the alleged offences along with the non-public servants. It all depends upon whether the prosecution can be allowed to record evidence against him with reference to the charge under the P.C. Act. 'Abatement' means an extinguishment of the very right of action itself or to cease, terminate or come to an end prematurely and consequently the right of the prosecution to prosecute a deceased accused in a criminal case is effectually wiped out. Unless the public servant is held to be guilty of the charge punishable under the P.C. Act on the basis of the evidence which can be recorded, there will not be any possibility to uphold the same charge against the non-public servants. Therefore, when in view of the abatement of the charge against the public servant the question of reopening it against him does not arise at all, the question of considering that charge against the non-public servants also does not arise at all."
50.In my opinion, legal principle guiding aforesaid observations are applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case also. It is further worth to note that prosecution did not come up with a case and evidence that accused Ms. Renu Mehta instigated or prompted Sh. Ashok Mehta Page 60 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/50/2016 to acquire ill gotten properties. Prosecution in this case, referred to the assets in the name of accused Ms. Renu Mehta and alleged that same were beyond source of her income as well as income of Sh. Ashok Mehta. The allegations of prosecution in this case against accused Ms. Renu Mehta are based upon the fiduciary relation between her and Sh. Ashok Mehta, so as to allege that the assets in the name of accused Ms. Renu Mehta, were acquired out of ill gotten money of Sh. Ashok Mehta.
51.However, without returning a finding that Sh. Ashok Mehta did acquire disproportionate assets, it cannot be said that Ms. Renu Mehta abetted in acquiring disproportionate assets by Sh. Ashok Mehta. Thus, the requisite conditions, as discussed herein above on the basis of observations made by Supreme Court in the case of P. Nallamal (supra), are missing in this case and therefore, I conclude that in the facts, evidence and circumstances of this case, accused Ms. Renu Mehta cannot be held guilty of abetment of offence under Section 13(1)
(e) of the Act with aid of Section 109 IPC. Accordingly accused Ms. Renu Mehta is acquitted of the charges.
File be consigned to the record room, as per rules.
Digitally signed by PULASTYA PRAMACHALAPULASTYA Location: Court No.3, PRAMACHALA Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Date: 2018.09.14 16:42:37 +0530 Announced in the open court (PULASTYA PRAMACHALA) today on 14.09.2018 Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East (This order contains 61 pages) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Page 61 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi