Delhi District Court
C.B.I. vs . Sh. Lala Ram S/O Sh. Lakhmi on 6 May, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH AJAY KUMAR KUHAR:
SPECIAL JUDGE, 06 (CBI), P C Act ,CENTRAL, DELHI.
CC No. 01/2012
RC No. 51(A)/1995-DLI
P.S. CBI/ACB/ND
C.B.I. Vs. Sh. Lala Ram S/o Sh. Lakhmi
Chand, R/o A-8, Gali No. 2, Road
No. 2, New Gurgaon Road,
Mahipal Extension, New Delhi.
Date of Institution : 27.05.1997
Date of receipt in the
Court : 03.01.2012
Judgment Reserved : 17.04.2014
Judgment Delivered : 06.05.2014
____________________________________________________________
The accused has been sent for trial for the offence under Sec.
13(1)(e) read with Sec. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for
being in possession of assets disproportionate to his known source of
income.
PROSECUTION CASE
1. During the investigation of the case RC-1(A)/94-DLI
registered on 04.01.1994 against the accused Lala Ram, JTO in Mahanagar
CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 1/87
Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL) for the offence under Sec. 13(1)(d) of
the PC Act, Sec. 120-B IPC read with Sec. 13(1)(d) PC Act and Sec. 25 of
the Indian Telegraph Act, house search of accused was conducted on
05.01.1994. This search led to recovery of several incriminating
documents showing the acquisition of assets in the name of Lala Ram and
his family members. The documents so recovered showed that the accused
was in possession of following movable and immovable properties:-
- share certificates for Rs.4,63,600/-;
- FDRs, NSCs etc. for a sum of Rs.10,86,000/-;
- LIC policies of Rs.23,400/-;
- House A-8, Mahipal Pur Extension for Rs. 2,00,000/-;
- One plot in Jai Bharat Sanchar Co-op Society, Rs.20,000/-;
- DDA Flat 259, Laxmi Road, Shahdara for Rs.20,100/-;
- Bank balance of Rs.2,00,000/-;
- Various house hold articles worth Rs.64,000/-; and
- Cash of Rs.85,000/-.
1.1 Inspector Azad Singh, CBI/ACB found the above assets of the
accused disproportionate to his known source of income as JTO to the
extent of Rs. 15,90,100/-. On the basis of his preliminary inquiry,
Inspector Azad Singh, CBI/ACB filed the complaint on 28.06.1995 which
led to registration of the present case bearing No.
RC-51(A)/1995/CBI/ACB/ND against the accused.
INVESTIGATION
2. The investigation revealed that accused Lala Ram had joined
MTNL on 22.11.1974 and was promoted as Junior Engineer (JE) on
10.11.1990. His family background is as follows:-
CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 2/87
2.1 The accused got married with Smt. Suresh Lata D/o Sh.
Giriraj Singh, R/o Village Ghatani, Bulandshaher, UP, in the year 1974.
The accused Lala Ram was blessed with three daughters and a son out of
this wed-lock. After his marriage, accused stayed with his family at
various places in Delhi / New Delhi on rent. In the year 1985-86, he
purchased two plots measuring 100 Sq. Yards each, in his name and in the
name of his wife. He constructed a house at one of the plots I.e A-8, Gali
No. 2, Road No. 2, Mahipal Pur Extension, New Delhi.
2.2 The father of the accused namely Sh. Lakhmi Chand was an
agriculturist and was residing with his wife Mukhtiyari Devi at Village
Pepli, District Aligarh, UP. He owned 2.275 Hectares of agricultural land
which was his only source of income. A certificate issued by Tehsildar,
Aligarh shows that the income of Late Lakhmi Chand from the said
agricultural land was Rs. 9,000/- per annum. The investigation also
revealed that Lakhmi Chand had booked LIG Flat with Delhi Development
Authority (DDA) under the New Pattern Scheme in the year 1979 and he
submitted the income certificate issued by the Tehsildar to DDA at the time
of booking.
2.3 The father of the accused expired on 28.08.1988. Thereafter,
the agricultural land measuring 2.275 hectares was mutated in the name of
the accused . Smt. Mukhtiyari Devi, mother of accused, is a very old lady.
All the family members of the accused Lala Ram were dependent on him
and none of them was an earning member. His wife was also a simple
house-wife.
2.4 The investigation revealed that accused had acquired most of
the movable and immovable properties from year 1986 onwards. The
CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 3/87
statement of his bank accounts and that of his family members show
maximum transaction from 1989 onwards. Keeping in view the financial
background of the accused and the property inherited by him, the
Investigating Agency kept the check period from 22.11.1974 to
05.01.1994, to assess the disproportionate assets acquired by the accused
during this period.
2.5 The detail of the disproportionate assets as worked out by
prosecution is as under:
1 Total movable and immovable assets Rs.21,46,060=00
acquired by the accused, as per Annexure-C
2 Total income as per Annexure-A Rs.06,34,012=00
3 Total expenditure as per Annexure-B Rs.02,20,976=00
4 Total likely saving Rs.04,04,036=00
Disproportionate assets after deducting the Rs.17,42,024=00
likely saving from total assets.
%age 17,43,024 x 100 = 256%
6,34,012
2.6 Thus, it has been found that accused Lala Ram was in
possession of assets worth Rs.17,42,024/- as on 05.01.1994, which were
disproportionate to his known sources of income and which he could not
satisfactorily explain. The income of the accused has been calculated as
per Annexure-A; total expenditures have been shown in Annexure-B; and
the assets acquired by the accused in his name and in the name of his
family members have been calculated as per Annexure-C. All these three
Annexures are reproduced as under:
CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 4/87
ANNEXURE 'A'
INCOME
1 Salary Income from MTNL w.e.f. 27.11.74 to Rs. 63,503=00
31.12.85 without calculating DA, ADA, HRA Rs.3,23,581=20
01.01.86 to 1.94 Rs.1,12,915=80
Considerable benefit given against non-
calculations of DA, ADA, HRA etc.
Rs.5,00,000=00
TOTAL
2 Interest on SB Accounts No.11583, 24293 Rs. 79,882=77
(Syndicate Bank)
3 Dividend/interest on the different shares Rs. 6,128=85
recovered/purchased by accused.
4 Income at an average of Rs.12,000/- per year Rs. 48,000=00
through agriculture land since 1990 to 5.1.94
(4 years) has been taken into consideration
though the accused has not submitted any
document in this connection, only to rebut the
plea may taken by accused.
Total Rs. 6,34,011=62
Income : Rs. 6,34,012=00
ANNEXURE 'B'
EXPENDITURES
1 LPG Gas expenditure up-to 31.12.1993 Rs. 5,728=65
2 School fee (3 daughters) Air Force School, Rs. 803=20
Palam
3 School fee, Kishal Pal Singh, DAV School, Rs. 18,219=00
Vasant Kunj, upto 05.01.94.
CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 5/87
4 DESU, Payment of Electricity, Bills upto Rs. 13,035=95
5.1.94, A-8, New Mahipalpur Extn., New
Delhi.
5 DESU, Payment of Electricity bills upto 5.1.94, Rs. 1,986=00
LIG Flat 239, Jai Dev Park.
6 30% of total income Rs. 1,90,203=00
Total Expenditures Rs. 2,29,975=80
Rs. 2,29,986=00
ANNEXURE 'C'
ASSETS
1 5 ½ years Kishan Vikas Patra Nos. 853843 to Rs. 40,000=00
853846 dated 28.09.1993
2 NSC No. 04 DD 641765 dated 6.2.92 Rs. 5,000=00
3 CDR, B2709163 dated 9.7.91 in the name of Rs. 50,000-00
Lala Ram, issued by Oriental Bank of
Commerce, Mahipalpur
4 DCR No. DT 657060 dated 27.2.93 issued in Rs. 1,00,000=00
the name of Suresh Lata w/o Lala Ram, issued
by OBC
5 CDR No. B2790164 dt. 9.7.91 in the name of Rs. 50,000=00
Suresh Lata w/o Lala Ram, issued by OBC
6 CDR No.657059 dt. 27.2.93 in the name of Rs.
Suresh Lata w/o Lala Ram, issued by OBC 1,00,000=00
7 CDR No. B2790200 dt. 18.7.91 in the name of Rs. 50,000=00
Lala Ram and M/o Lala Ram, Mukhtiari Devi,
issued by POBC
8 CRS No. NBI/A351298 dated 12.7.91 in the Rs. 50,000=00
name of Lala Ram, issued by NBI, now PNB.
CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 6/87
9 CRS No. NBI/A351297 dated 12.7.91 in the Rs. 50,000=00
name of Suresh Lata, issued by NBI (now
PNB)
10 MMDC No. H 395032 dt. 12.7.91 in the name Rs. 16,000=00
of Lala Ram, Central Bank of India, Janpath
11 STDR No. STD/1 850879 dated 15.10.91 in the Rs. 20,000=00
name of Suresh Lata, by S.B.Patiala,
Mahipalpur.
12 STDR No. STD/1 850880 dated 15.10.91 in the Rs. 20,000=00
name of Lala Ram, by S.B.P
13 STDR No. A/10 639806 dated 15.10.91 in the Rs. 20,000=00
name of Suresh Lata, by SBI Janpath
14 VCC No. 082640 dated 6.10.93 in the name of Rs. 60,000=00
Lala Ram of Vijaya Bank, Delhi Cantt.
15 MBDC No.127223 dated 3.5.92 in the name of Rs. 50,000=00
Lala Ram of PNB
16 VCC No.49322/21032 93227/2106 dated Rs. 4,00,000=00
1/2.9.92 476818/15336-476817/15337,
0706174 dt.12.7.91 in the name of Lala Ram @
Suresh Lata of SBI, N. Delhi
17 Cash balance as on 5.1.94 (dt. Of search) in the Rs. 2,51,409=00
bank accounts No.11583, 24293 of Syndicate
Bank, No.2438, 2439 of PNB and Tokeyo Bank
account No.525401, OBC Account No.4069 &
Syndicate Bank 3712 in the name of Lala Ram
and Suresh Lata
18 Cash found during the house search as per Rs. 85,000=00
memo 5.1.94
19 House hold articles as per observation memo Rs. 61,800=00
dated 5.1.94 (1985 to 5.1.94)
20 Booking of plot with Versha Ritua Housing Rs. 31,110=00
Society
21 Payment towards DDA LIG Flat No.239D Rs. 29,303=00
Jaydev Park in the name of Mother of accused
Lala Ram
CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 7/87
22 Purchase of 2 plots measuring 100 sq. yards Rs. 28,000=00
each from Shri Om Prakash and Shri Mam Raj
Singh in the name of Lala Ram & Suresh Lata,
bearing No. A-4, Gali No. Road No.-2,
Mahipalpur Extn., New Delhi
23 Payment of LIC policy No. 110703362 and Rs. 21,088=00
11134836
24 Shares of different companies Rs. 4,08,764=00
25 Cost of construction of house A-8, Gali No.2, Rs. 1,39,600=00
Mahipalpur Extn., New Delhi as per the
evaluation report of TE of CVC dated 24.12.96
Total Assets Rs.21,46,060=00
CHARGE
3. Considering the allegations in the charge-sheet supported by
the documents pertaining to movable and immovable properties connected
with the accused, a prima facie case of acquisition and possession of assets
by the accused disproportionate to his known source of income was made
out. Accordingly, after hearing learned Public Prosecutor (PP) for CBI
and the learned Defence Counsel for the accused, charge for the offence
under Section 13(1)(e) punishable under section 13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act ,1988 was framed against the accused by my Ld.
Predecessor on 28.02.2000. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial.
CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 8/87
ADMISSION AND DENIAL OF DOCUMENTS
4. Before the prosecution examined witnesses, the documents
relied upon by the prosecution were tendered for admission and denial to
the accused under Sec. 294 Cr.PC.
4.1 Vide his statement dated 13.09.2010, accused Lala Ram has
admitted the genuineness of documents D-4, D-11, D-16, D-19, D-22 to
D-37, D-39 to D-41, D-43, D-46 and D-47 which were then exhibited as
Ex.P1 to P5, Ex.P6/1 to Ex.P6/5, Ex.P7 to Ex.P31, Ex.P32, Ex.P32/1,
Ex.P32, Ex.P33/1, Ex.P34, Ex.P34/1, Ex.P35, Ex.P35/1, Ex.P36, Ex.P37
and Ex.P37/1 respectively;
4.2 Vide his statement recorded on 14.09.2010, accused Lala Ram
has further admitted the genuineness of documents D-63, D-67, D-68,
D-75, D-76 to D-78, D-81, D-82, D-85 to D-87, D-89, D-90, D-92, D-94 to
D-98, D-101 to D-110, which were then exhibited as P38 to P100
respectively; and
4.3 Further vide his statement dated 21.09.2010, accused has also
admitted the genuineness of documents D-111 to 118, D-125, D-126,
D-129, D-132, D-133, D-137, D-142 and D-148 which were then exhibited
as Ex.P101 to Ex.P134 respectively.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
5. The prosecution had examined witnesses categorized as
under:-
Banks, Post Office and UTI Witnesses:-
01. PW 1 Sh. A. K. Bhardwaj, Post Office, Aligarh.
02. PW 3 Sh. R. N. Grewal, Vijaya Bank.
CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 9/87
03. PW 4 Raj Padam, Central Bank of India.
04. PW 5 Ajay Saxena, Syndicate Bank.
05. PW 6 Vinod Kumar Puri, New Bank of India.
06. PW 7 R. N. Punia, Life Insurance Corporation of India.
07. PW 8 Sh. R. C. Pillai, Syndicate Bank.
08. PW 9 Sh. K. C. Chawla, Life Insurance Corporation of India.
09. PW 10 Sh. Sushil Gera, Tokyo Bank.
10. PW 12 Sh. Ved Prakash, Oriential Bank of Commerce.
11. PW 13 Smt. N. K. Chaudhary, Punjab National Bank.
12. PW 15 Mrs. Madhu Batiyal, Punjab National Bank.
13. PW 28 Sh. J. K. Bhalla, State Bank of Patiala.
14. PW 36 Sh. Pradeep Bhatia, UTI Investment Services (also
examined as PW 47).
15. PW 60 Sh. K. G. Deewan, State Bank of India.
16. PW 64 Sh. B. R. Gogia, SBI Mutual Funds.
Witnesses from Companies / Institutions regarding Share
Certificates:-
17. PW 18 Ms. Hema Rao, M/s Mid East-India Limited.
18. PW 19 Sh. Rajesh Dheer, M/s Flex Food Limited.
19. PW 20 Sh. Mahesh Bhatnagar, M/s Oswal Chemical Fertilizers
Ltd.
20. PW 21 Sh. Yatendra Singh, M/s Narmada Electronics Ltd.
21. PW 22 Sh. S. K. Sood, M/s J. P. Hotels Ltd.
22. PW 23 Sh. A. K. Mittal, M/s Lunar Diamonds Ltd.
23. PW 25 Sh. H. C. Sehgal, M/s Thaper Water Base Ltd.
24. PW 26 Smt. Kamlesh Chawla, M/s Chawla Investments.
CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 10/87
25. PW 27 Sh. B. S. Badoria, M/s Indo - Asian Fuse Gear Ltd.
26. PW 29 Sh. P. K. Singh, M/s Morepen Laboratories Ltd.
27. PW 31 Sh. R. K. Rai, M/s Chambel Fertilizer &Chemicals.
28. PW 32 Sh. Atma Ram Sarda, M/s Sumit Synthetics.
29. PW 34 Sh. V. K. Nayer, M/s Shri Pre-coated Steels.
30. PW 35 Sh. T. D. Joshi, M/s J. P. Industries Ltd.
31. PW 37 Sh. R. V. Krishnan, M/s Nagarjuna Fertilizers &
Chemicals.
32. PW 42 Sh. Vimal Prakash Jain, M/s United 3-V.
33. PW 43 Sh. G. Laxman Rao, M/s Timex Watches Ltd.
34. PW 46 Sh. Ravindra Chaturvedi, M/s Chemox Chemicals.
35. PW 48 Sh. Girdhari Lal, M/s Indian Seemless Matel Tubes.
36. PW 50 Sh. Mohan Lal, M/s Uniworld Intentional Ltd.
37. PW 51 Sh. K. L. Mehndiratta, M/s Hindustan Alloys.
38. PW 52 Sh. Ashok Digamber Dhoparker, M/s Gujurat Indus. Ltd.
39. PW 53 Sh. S. N. Jha, M/s Place-well Communication Pvt. Ltd.
(also examined as PW 66).
40. PW 54 Sh. R. Balasubramanium, M/s Herbert Sons Ltd.
41. PW 57 Sh. Sunil Bhatia, M/s Onida Savak Ltd.
42. PW 59 Sh. Davender Kumar, M/s Thaper Concast Ltd.
43. PW 61 Sh. Munish Dheer, M/s Tata Elxsi (India) Ltd.
44. PW 63 Sh. Vipul Shah, M/s Gujurat Ambuja Protein Ltd.
45. PW 65 Sh. Rajesh Chauhan, M/s Essar Groups.
46. PW 69 Sh. Ajay Baluja, M/s Mirc Electronics.
47. PW 70 Sh. H. S. Bhakuni, M/s Mesco Groups.
CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 11/87
Witnesses from different Departments and school:-
48. PW 2 Sh. Laxmi Chand, Delhi Development Authority.
49. PW 11 Sh. Prahlad Singh, Delhi Development Authority.
50. PW 14 Sh. D. P. Rana, Principle, Air-Force School, Palam.
51. PW 24 Sh. Dev Raj Sharma, Delhi Vidhyut Board.
52. PW 30 Sh. Suraj Bhan, House-Tax Department, MCD.
53. PW 44 Sh. Lal Bahadur Singh, DAV School.
54. PW 56 Sh. Radhey Shyam, MTNL.
55. PW 58 Sh. Satender Sachdeva, Delhi Vidhyut Board.
56. PW 62 Sh. R. S. Sharma, Delhi Development Authority.
Witnesses from CBI and Member of Search Team:-
57. PW 38 Inspector Azad Singh.
58. PW 39 Sh. S. C. Duggal, MTNL (Member of Search Team).
59. PW 40 Sh. D. P. Badola, MMTC (Member of Search Team).
60. PW 41 Sh. Rai Singh Khatri, Inspector, CBI.
61. PW 49 Sh. R. S. Jaggi, DSP, CBI.
Other witnesses:-
62. PW 16 Sh. L. M. Gupta (Varsha Ritu Cooperative GHS).
63. PW 17 Sh. Sanjay Kochar, M/s Qutub Gas Services.
64. PW 33 Sh. Mam Raj (Sold plot to accused in Mahipal Pur).
65. PW 45 Sh. Banarsi Dass.
66. PW 55 Sh. J. P. Mittal, Technical Examiner.
67. PW 67 Sh. Pawan Aakash Pathak, Naib Tehsildar, Teh.Iglas,
Aligarh.
68. PW 71 Sh. S. Ahmed, Chief Development Officer, Aligarh.
CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 12/87
Witness to prove Sanction:-
69. PW 68 Sh. C. Chandra Nair, Divisional Engineer (Vig.).
The prosecution closed its evidence on 28.05.2012.
6. Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC,
wherein he has admitted that on 05.01.1994 he was working in the capacity
of JTO in MTNL, New Delhi and as a public servant with MTNL during
the period 22.11.1974 to 05.01.1994. The accused has challenged the
prosecution case basically on two counts. Firstly, he has challenged the
sanction for prosecution under Section 19(1)(c) of the PC Act vide
Sanction Order (Ex.PW68/A) accorded by Shri K. Govindam, the then
Deputy General Manager. The accused claimed that only the General
Manager of the MTNL was the Competent Authority to accord the
Sanction for prosecution of a JTO and further non-examination of Sh. K.
Govindam has caused prejudice to his defence.
6.1 The second line of defence of the accused is that his assets,
which he has more or less admitted, is not disproportionate to his income.
His case is that he was having agricultural income from the land which he
inherited from his father and the land which he took on lease from his co-
villagers / relatives for cultivation. This agricultural income has not been
taken into account by the Investigating Agency. If this income from
agriculture is taken into account then there will be no asset
disproportionate to his source of income. He also took the plea that he had
informed his department about his agricultural income time to time, which
has not been considered by the Investigating Agency.
CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 13/87
6.2 In nutshell, accused has submitted that his agricultural income
and his salary income have not been shown correctly by the CBI. The CBI
has not made any enquiry from his mother or his any relative, villager or
the neighbourhood. His investments are only in the debenture certificates
and the share certificates have been issued on the basis of the investment
made by him in the debentures. He has admitted all the investments,
except the FDR of Rs.50,000/-, issued by Oriental Bank of Commerce,
Mahipalpur, Delhi, and stated that this amount was deposited by his mother
on sale of the DDA flat No.239, Jaidev Park, Delhi.
7. Accused had opted to lead defence evidence and has produced
as many as 9 witnesses in his defence beside appearing himself as a
witness under Section 315 Cr.P.C.
7.1 DW1 Sh. Nathi Singh, cousin of accused Lala Ram has
deposed that he was having about 4.053 hectors (approx. 50/55 Bighas) of
agricultural land, which he had given to the accused for farming, for the
period 1990-1994 @ Rs. 35,000/- per year and he was physically looking
after the farming done on the said land for which accused used to give him
Rs. 500/- per month. He further deposed that he used to sell sugarcane on
behalf of accused and has proved the vouchers Ex.DW1/A (40 to 47
collectively) with respect to the sugarcane sold to one Mr. Jagdish Prashad.
He has also proved photocopy of his driving license as Ex. PW1/B (sic
DW1/B) and Kissan Bahi issued by revenue department U.P. as Ex.PW1/C
(Sic DW1/C) to show that he had agricultural land. He has also proved the
receipt Ex.PW1/D (Sic DW1/D) in relation to the sale of 400 Eucalyptus
and 40 Kikar trees which were sold by the accused from his farm.
CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 14/87
During cross-examination by Ld. PP for CBI, this witness has
deposed that the agricultural land between him and his brother had already
been partitioned and the distance of the land given by him to the accused
on Patta was about 50 meteres from his house and he used to supervise the
said land from his house. He has denied the suggestion that he had given
the land on Patta to the accused only in the year 1992 or that except the
receipt for the period 1992, all others receipts have been forged or that
being relative of the accused he has deposed falsely.
7.2 DW2 Sh. D K Sharma, an Assistant from DDA has produced
the reconstructed file of LIG flat no. 239, Jaidev Park, Punjabi Bagh, New
Delhi and proved photocopy of the conveyance deed dated 09.11.2012 as
Ex.DW2/1. He had stated that original allottee of this flat was Mr. Lakhmi
and thereafter on his death, on 20.08.1989 the property was transferred in
the name of his wife Smt. Mukhtiari Devi, vide transfer letter Ex.DW2/2
who sold this property to one Anjali Kumari on 08.07.1991. He has also
placed on record photocopy of noting 4/N and 5/N as Ex.DW2/3 and
Ex.DW2/4, indicating directions for reconstruction of the file pertaining to
the above said flat.
In his cross-examination this witness could not answer as to
who had made payment for the original allotment of the flat in the name of
Lkhmi Singh nor could he say if the payment was made by accused Lala
Ram.
7.3 DW3 Shri Shyam Babu Sharma, Lekhpal from the office of
the Naib Tehsildar Tehsil Iglas, Distt. Aligarh has proved the certified copy
of the Khatoni issued by the Revenue Department, Aligarh as Ex.DW3/1,
CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 15/87
according to which agricultural property bearing khasra no. 9 measuring
2.275 hectares was mutated in the name of Lala Ram S/o Lakhmi Chand
on 09.11.1989. He had also proved the computerized khatoni as Ex.DW3/2
and Ex.DW3/3 and has stated that as per the record the above-mentioned
agricultural land of Lakhmi Chand is still in the name of Lala Ram.
In the cross-examination by the Ld. PP for the State this
witness has deposed that on demise of Lakhmi Chand the above-mentioned
agricultural land was mutated in the sole name of Lala Ram.
7.4 DW4 Devinder Kumar, Lekhpal (Patwari) has proved the
photocopy of Khatoni of 1461 to 1421 fasli as Ex.DW4/1 and photocopy of
chakbandi record Ex.DW4/2. He has deposed that as per record, Khet no.9
at village Pipli measuring 9 Bighas 17 biswas which was in the name of
Lakhmi Chand (father of Lala Ram) S/o. Deep Chand r/o. Village Pipli,
has been mutated in the name of Lala Ram on demise of Lakhmi Chand.
He has further deposed that as per record Ex. DW3/1 the agricultural year
1416 to 1421 fasli for Khatoni no. 87, Khet no.9 measuring 2.275 hectares,
is in the name of Lala Ram S/o. Lakhmi Chand.
In his cross-examination by the Ld. PP for CBI this witness
could not answer as to what crops were grown on Khet no.9 during the
period 1974 to 1994, without seeing the record which is maintained
updated each year regarding record of the crops grown on the agricultural
land.
7.5 DW5, Shri Chokey Lal Gautam has proved the photocopy of
pensioners identity card No.5275112 and has deposed that he knows
accused Lala Ram since 1957, being his classmate from Class - I till M.Sc.
CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 16/87
During the period January 1986 to April, 1990, while working as an
Assistant Metrologist Grade-II with the Indian Metrological Department,
New Delhi, he had stayed with the accused as his tenant at House No.A8 &
9, Gali No.2, Road No.2, Mahipal Pur Extension, New Delhi at a monthly
renet of Rs.500/-. He had paid rent from January 1986 to April 1990 i.e.
for 52 months and had shifted to Bombay in April, 1990 as he was
promoted & transferred to Bombay.
In the cross-examination by the Ld. PP for CBI, he has stated
that he was a tenant on the basis of oral agreement for this period, as the
accused was his friend and he did not take any rent receipt from the
accused. He has further testified that he had been transferred back to
Delhi in August, 1998 and from September, 1998 to August 2005, he again
resided as a tenant at the house of accused at a monthly rente of Rs.8,500/-
and had taken rent receipts for the months of July, August and September,
1999 which he had submitted in his office as needed to submit the rent
receipts only for three months. He has denied the suggestion that being
friend of the accused, he has deposed falsely at the behest of the accused.
7.6 DW6, Shri Pushpender is nephew of accused Lala Ram. He
has deposed that his father Shaubir Singh had 60/65 bighas of agricultural
land and has proved copies of Kissan Bahi Ex.PW6/1 issued by the
Revenue Department, UP in his name and in the names of his four brother.
He proved his Election Commission Identity Card as Ex.PW6/2. He has
testified that during the period 1990 to 1995, his father had given the said
land to the accused on lagan for growing crops, with his and his brothers'
consent. In the year, 1990, he was 17/18 years old. The lease rent had
been agreed at Rs.300/- per bigha per annum which was initially received
CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 17/87
by his father and after the demise of their father, by him and his brothers.
He used to assist accused Lala Ram in transporting sugarcane from
agricultural land for which he was being paid Rs.5,000/- per annum by the
accused.
In the cross-examination by the Ld. PP for the CBI, this
witness has deposed that in the entire 60/65 bighas of land, sugarcane was
grown; wheat and rice was grown in lesser quantities and they used to take
rice and wheat from the market for self consumption. He has denied the
suggestion that they used to take rice and wheat from the agricultural land
and not from the market. He alongwith his brothers and mazdoors used to
do the sugarcane farming on the said land and payment was being made to
the mazdoors after taking the same from the accused. He could not tell as
to how much sugarcane was sold in four years but he used to sell the
sugarcane at the crusher in the village itself. He has denied that he has
deposed falsely to save the accused, his uncle.
7.7 DW7 Shri Praveen Kumar has proved photocopy of his
identity card as ex.PW7/1. He has testified that his father had started the
sugarcane crusher in the name of Rana Jhivaj Mill Udyog, in the village
around the year, 1990, which he had sold in 1995-96 after the demise of
their paternal grandfather. He has deposed that documents (pages 27 to 39)
filed by the accused are the receipts in relation to payments made by him
for sugarcane brought for crushing and purchased by him. He has proved
his signatures on each of them at point-A and has proved the same
Ex.DW7/2 (colly.)
During cross-examination by the learned PP for CBI, the
witness has stated that the kind of receipts Ex.DW7/2 were got printed and
CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 18/87
the contents thereof are in his handwriting. He has denied the suggestion
that the contents of this receipt are not in his handwriting or that they are
fabricated or that he has deposed falsely.
7.8 DW-8, Shri Anand Singh Jeena was summoned to bring
original record of Income Tax returns for the year 1992-93 and 1993-94 of
M/s. Lala Ram & Sons (HUF). This witness has stated that the original
record is not available in their Ward No. 24(4) as the said record was
available in circle No.20(1), which has now been merged in Circle No.
24(4) and the record is generally destroyed (if it is not required) within 7
years. However, from the year 2003 to 2009 M/s. Lala Ram & Sons
(HUF) has filed the return in their circle and no appeal against this firm is
pending in their department. He has testified that when circle No.20(1)
was merged in Ward No.24(3), the staff was directed to preserve those files
in which dues are to be recovered and rest of the files were destroyed.
In the cross-examination by the Ld. PP for CBI, the witness
has admitted that he could not say anything about the income tax returns of
M/s. Lala Ram & Sons for the year 1992-93 and 1993-94.
7.9 DW9 Shri Sachin Aggarwal has deposed that his father used
to work as Commission Agent regarding sale and purchase of grains etc. at
his shop bearing No.9-B, Naveen Anaaz Mandi, Khair, Aligarh. He has
recognized the signature of his father on voucher bearing No.61 dated
25.12.1993, Ex.DW9/A at point-A, but has stated that he could not tell
about the document because at present they only issue kachi receipts
regarding the sale and purchase of grains/cereals. He could not produce
any record of the year 1993 as it was not available with him.
CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 19/87
In the cross-examination, this witness could not say whether
in the year, 1993, the kind of receipt Ex.DW9/A, used to be prepared or not
or that such receipts were issued at that time. He has admitted that the
year is not printed on Ex.DW9/A and address of Lala Ram is not
mentioned therein. He could not admit or deny whether Ex.DW9/A was a
forged document.
7.10 Accused Lala Ram has examined himself as a witness as
DW10. He has testified that he used to have income of Rs.4.75 Lacs to 5
Lacs per annum from his own agriculture land as well as the agriculture
land which was taken by him on lease for cultivation . He has proved the
receipts of income tax returns for the assessment year 1993-94, 1994-95, as
Ex.DW10/A & B respectively, as also the same for the assessment year
1993-94 and 1994-95 as Ex.DW10/C & D respectively. He has also
proved the assessment order dated 25.03.1996 for the assessment year
1993-94 as Ex.DW10/E. He has testified that an appeal was filed against
the assessment order, which was decided in his favour and has proved a
copy of the order dated 03.03.1997 as Ex.DW10/F. Against this order, the
department had gone in appeal, which was also decided in his favour and
has proved a copy of the order dated 09.05.2005 as Ex.DW10/G. He filed
copy of letters written by him to his department regarding his income from
immovable property, as marked D-10/1 to D-10/5. He deposed that after
death of his father in the year, 1988, the land was mutated in his favour,
which had 'Safeda' & 'Keekar' trees. The said trees were cut and sold and
he had an income of Rs.1,40,000/- from the same, out of which he had
given Rs.20,000/- to his mother and rest he kept in S/B Accounts. He also
testified that his father had left Rs.1,20,000/- with the villagers, when he
had expired and the said amount was handed over to him from time to time
CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 20/87
by the villagers.
In the Cross-examination by the Ld. PP for CBI, he has
deposed that after death of his father he started purchasing property. He
admitted that he has no document to prove that he had taken agriculture
land on lease. He admitted that his wife was housewife. He has no
document to show that at the time of mutation of land after the death of
his father there were Keekar and Safeda trees on the land. He denied that
the receipt EX DW 1/D was fabricated. He admit that this receipt was not
shown at the time of investigation to CBI officials. He also admitted that
he has no documentary proof that his father had given 1,20,000/- to
villagers which amount was paid to him after the death of his father.
8. I have heard the arguments of Sh. Mohd. Shakeel, Ld. PP for
CBI and Sh. M. P. Chaudhary and Sh. S. S. Mishra, Ld. Counsel for the
accused. I have also perused the written submissions submitted on behalf
of the accused and considered the calculations made by the accused with
regard to his income and assets. I have also gone through the judgments
on which Ld. Counsel for the accused has placed reliance. Before
adverting to the evidence and appreciation thereof, I would deal with a
legal issue raised by the accused concerning the Sanction for prosecution
of the accused granted under Sec. 19(1)(C) of the PC Act.
Sanction for Prosecution:.
9. Sanction by a competent authority is sine qua non for
prosecution of an accused under the PC Act. Therefore, it is imperative to
first determine whether the prosecution had procured the requisite
CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 21/87
sanction u/s. 19 of the PC Act and has proved the sanction on the record as
per law.
9.1 Sanction u/s. 19 of the PC Act is not an ideal formality. It has
been considered a sacrosanct act which afford protection to government
servant against frivolous prosecution. Law enjoins upon the sanctioning
authority to apply its mind to the facts of the case and the material placed
before it before grant of the sanction for prosecution. Considering the
sanctity and solemnity attached to sanction u/s. 19 of PC Act, Court must
look firstly, into the competency of the authority which grants sanction and
secondly whether the sanctioning authority has applied its mind, while
granting the sanction.
9.2 In the case of Ram Kishan Prajapati Vs. State of U.P., (2000)
10 SCC-43, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stressed that the person
granting sanction should be a competent person and sanction accorded by a
person, not competent to grant the same, can not be held to be a valid
sanction.
9.3 Ld. Public Prosecutor has submitted that in the present case,
sanction has been granted for prosecution of the accused by Mr. K.
Govindam, Dy. General Manager (Operation), O/o the General Manager
Telecome District, Canannore, Department of Telecommunication. The
sanction so granted has been proved on record as Ex. PW-68/A. Since Mr.
K. Govindam was immobile due to his old age, therefore, with the
permission of the court, vide order dated 15.02.2012, Shri C. Chandra Nair,
Divisional Engineer (Vigilance), Canannore, was summoned by
prosecution to prove the sanction granted by Mr. K. Govindam.
Accordingly, PW-68, Shri C. Chandra Nair has proved the sanction Ex.
PW-68/A. He has identified the signature of Mr. K. Govindam at point-A
CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 22/87
stating that he had seen Mr. K. Govindam writing and signing during the
course of his official duties. Ld. Public Prosecutor submitted further that
the sanction order by itself shows the application of mind by the
sanctioning authority which has perused all the material placed before him.
9.4 The ld. counsel for accused has, however, argued that the
sanction order dated 12.05.1997 has not been proved as per the law.
Secondly, the non-examination of Mr. K. Govindam, the sanctioning
authority, has caused prejudice to the accused. The accused did not get the
opportunity to question the sanctioning authority as to application of mind.
Thirdly, he argued, Mr. K. Govindam was not the competent person to
grant the sanction. He submitted that accused was a JTO in MTNL and the
competent authority to remove him from service, was the General
Manager. In Telecom Department, General Manager is the competent
authority for removing JTO and PW-68 has confirmed this fact.
9.5 It needs no reiteration that the sanctioning authority needs to
apply its mind to the facts of the case when the matter is placed before him,
for grant of sanction for prosecution. This is for the reason that sanction
under Section 19 of the PC Act lifts the bar for prosecution of public
servant. In the present case, the sanction order Ex. PW-68/A needs to be
considered to ascertain whether there is any application of mind or not.
9.6 The accused was working in the capacity of JTO in MTNL.
He had joined the service on 22.11.1974. On 05.01.1994, a raid was
conducted on his residential premises. The accused was found in
possession of assets disproportionate to his "known sources of income".
9.7 The sanctioning authority has taken into consideration the
documents which have been recovered from the house of the accused
CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 23/87
pertaining to his movable and immovable assets which are either in his
name or in the name of his family members. The competent authority has
also noted that the accused has not made a declaration regarding his assets
during the course of investigation. He has also considered the valuation of
his residential house by Technical Examiner of CVC, New Delhi. He has
also noted that none of family member of accused was earning member
and all of them were fully dependent of him. Sanction order refers to the
property movable and immovable, alleged to be acquired by the accused,
the earning capacity of the accused and what was the "known sources of
income" of the accused. The sanctioning authority has stated in the order
itself, "after fully and carefully examining the material placed before
him and after applying his mind with regard to the allegations in the
circumstances of the case, he considered that Lala Ram, JTO be
prosecuted for the offence Under Section PC Act".
9.8 The operative part of the sanction order dated 12.05.1997 read
as under:-
"Now, therefore, I, K. Govindam, Deputy General
Manager (O), Office of GMTD, Canannore, being the authority
competent to remove the said Sh. Lala Ram, JTO, MTNL, DOT from
service, do hereby accord sanction u/s. 19 (1) (C) of the PC Act, 1988
for prosecution of said Sh. Lala Ram for the said offence and any other
offences punishable under other sections in respect of Acts aforesaid
and for taking cognizance of the said offence by the court/ competent
authority".
9.9 Ld. Counsel for accused has submitted that the sanctioning
authority K. Govindam has not be examined by the prosecution, which has
caused prejudice to the accused. Accused has been deprived of the
CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 24/87
opportunity to question the Sanctioning Authority regarding the material
produced and considered by him while granting Sanction. This argument,
however, does not find favour with me. When the sanctioning order itself
reflect the application of mind, the non examination of the sanctioning
authority will not make the sanction order invalid. The satisfaction of the
sanctioning authority, if it is apparent on the face of it that would be
sufficient for the court.
9.10 The sanction order Ex. PW-68/A, clearly reflect the
application of mind by the Sanctioning Authority. The sanction order if
show application of mind than adequacy of material placed before
Sanctioning Authority cannot be gone into. In the case of State Vs.
Maharashtra through CBI Vs. Mahesh G. Jain (2013) 8 SCC 119, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has made a very pertinent observation as under;
"The adequacy of material placed before the sanctioning
authority cannot be gone into by the court as it does not sit in appeal over
the sanction order. An order of sanction should not be construed in a
pedantic manner and there should not be a hyper-technical approach to test
its validity. When there is an order of sanction by the competent authority
indicating application of mind, the same should not be lightly dealt with.
The flimsy technicalities cannot be allowed to become tools in the hands of
an accused".
9.11 In the case of Gurbachan Singh Vs. State, AIR 1970, Delhi
102 (1970) Sanctioning authority was not examined. However, his
signatures were proved on the sanction order. The Hon'ble Court was of
the view that in such situation, presumption was that sanction was duly
accorded in absence of evidence to the contrary.
CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 25/87
9.12 In the case of State of H.P. Vs. Wazira Ram, 1986, Crl. J.J.
995, the Sanctioning Authority i.e. the Deputy Commissioner was not
examined. His signature however, were proved. The sanction order
contained all the salient features constituting the offence. The court was
of the view that non examination of the Deputy Commissioner, himself to
state that he accorded the sanction after full application of his mind to the
facts of the case, is of no consequence.
9.13 In the case of C.S. Krishnamurty Vs. State of Karnataka
(2005) 4 SCC 81, it was held that in case the sanction speaks for itself,
then the satisfaction of the sanctioning authority is apparent by reading the
order.
9.14 In the case of Kootha Peruman Vs. State (2011) 1 SCC 491,
it was held that when sanctioning authority grants sanction on an
examination of the statements of the witnesses, as also the material on
record and certify that it is the competent authority to remove the
appellant from the office, it can safely be concluded that the
sanctioning authority has duly recorded its satisfaction and, therefore,
sanction order is valid.
9.15 In the case of State of M.P. Vs. Jiya Lal, AIR 2010 SC 1451,
the conviction u/s. 7 of the P.C. Act 1988, was set aside by the High Court
on the ground that requisite sanction order had not been obtained properly
and the District Magistrate who granted the sanction order in question, had
not applied his mind and secondly, the District Magistrate who passed the
sanction order had not been examined as a witness by the prosecution in
order to prove the same. These findings were set aside by the Hon'ble
CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 26/87
Supreme Court by holding that the sanction order was clearly passed in
discharge of routine official functions and, hence, there is a presumption
that same was done in a bonafide manner and there was no requirement for
the District Magistrate to be examined as a witness by the prosecution.
9.16 In view of the position of law, it may be stated that the
sanctioning authority Sh. K. Govindam, Deputy General Manager was
incapacitated due to his old age and in such situation examination of
PW-68 Shri C. Chandra Nair with the permission of the court, to prove the
signature of Sh. K. Govindam on the sanction order Ex. PW-68/A, was
sufficient compliance of law to prove the sanction order. The sanction
order on the face of it shows application of mind.
9.16 Ld. counsel for accused also took the plea that Sh. K.
Govindam was Dy. General Manager, thus, not competent to remove the
accused from service. He referred to Section 19 (1) (c) of P.C. Act, 1988,
as per which, sanction for prosecution can be granted by "an authority
competent to remove the public servant from his office".
9.17 The sanction order Ex. PW-68/A is self explanatory on this
issue. The sanctioning authority Sh. K. Govindam, categorically
mentioned in paragraph -5 that "being the Deputy General Manager (O),
he was competent to remove Sh. Lala Ram, JTO, MTNL, DOT from
service".
9.18 Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that PW-68 has stated
that General Manager was competent to remove JTO in Telecom
CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 27/87
Department. It may be stated that PW-68 Shri C. Chandra Nair, himself
was not the sanctioning authority. He was summoned to prove the sanction
order passed by Sh. K. Govindam on account of inability of Sh. K.
Govindam to attend the court. PW-68 has stated that General Manager is
competent authority to remove JTO in Telecom Department. He expressed
his opinion on the issue without being supported or referring to any
material in this regard. The fact which has been stated in the sanction
order by the sanctioning authority cannot be falsified or disproved by such
an opinion given by the witness in the absence of material in support
thereof. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivender Kumar Vs.
State of Maharashtra (2001) 9, SCC 303 has dealt with such an objection
as to competency of sanctioning authority and it observed that where a
sanction order has been passed by an authority who is competent under the
law to represent the State Government, the burden is heavy on the party
who challenge the authority in such order to show that the authority
competent to pass the order of sanction, is somebody else and not the
officer who has passed the sanction order in question.
9.19 Ld. counsel for accused assailed the competency of Mr. K.
Govindam to grant the sanction u/s. 19 (1) (c) of the PC Act on the ground
that he being the Dy. General Manager could not have granted the sanction
as only the General Manager was competent to remove the accused from
the service. The Ld. counsel for accused has not referred to any rule or
regulation of the Department of Telecom in support of his submissions.
The bald challenge to the competency of the sanctioning authority, without
any material in support of same, will not be sufficient.
CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 28/87
9.20 In case of Sabhajeet Singh Vs. State of UP, 1994 Crl. L. J.
NOC 1978 (AIR), it was held that where Sanctioning Authority declare
himself to be competent, it would be a prima facie proof that Sanction was
given by Competent Authority. So when the Sanctioning Authority is
found to be competent, than in view of the ratio laid down in the case of
Shivender Singh's case (Supra), the burden was on accused to show that
only General Manager was competent to remove JTOs from the service.
Thus, I am of the view that a valid Sanction with due application of mind
has been granted by the Competent Authority.
Evaluation of Evidence with regard to Income, Expenditure and
Assets:-
10. The prosecution along with the charge-sheet has submitted
Annexure A, B and C. Annexure A shows the income of the accused for
the check period, Annexure B shows the expenditure made by the accused
during the check period and Annexure C shows the movable and
immovable assets acquired by the accused during the check period. The
accused has not seriously controverted the income shown in Annexure A.
However, it is his contention that his salary income does not reflect DA,
CCA and HRA. Similarly, the income on account of interest accrued from
the bank accounts of the accused is disputed to the extent that prosecution
has shown interest income only for two accounts i.e account No. 11583
and 24293 maintained with Syndicate Bank. The accused claimed income
on account of interest accrued in five more bank accounts maintained by
him and his wife. The accused has given details of the said income in his
written submissions and I shall take into consideration his calculation on
CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 29/87
this count. He also claimed that rental income is also not taken into
account by the prosecution, which he has proved through DW 5 Sh.
Chhokey Lal Gautam.
10.1 The accused has serious dispute with regard to income shown
by the prosecution from agricultural land. The accused claimed that from
the year 1992 to 1995 he had earned Rs. 14,42,500/- from the sale of
agricultural produce I.e Sugarcane, trees and mustard. He submitted that
apart from his own agricultural land measuring 2.27 Hectare, he was also
cultivating land taken on lease. He has relied upon the statement of
defence witnesses DW 1 Nathi Singh, DW 6 Pushpender Singh, DW 7
Praveen, DW 9 Sachin Aggarwal, in support of his contention with regard
to agricultural income. He also relied upon the assessment order of the
Income Tax Authority pertaining to Assessment Year 1993-94 and the
judgment passed in an Appeal against the said Assessment Order to stress
his point that his income from agriculture which he claimed in the present
case has been accepted to be correct by the Income Tax Authorities.
10.2 Accused has no serious dispute with regard to the expenditure
shown by the prosecution in Annexure B.
10.3 The accused has disputed the prosecution claim with regard to
movable and immovable assets. The case of the accused is that
prosecution had shown total assets worth Rs. 21,46,060/- which calculation
in Annexure C is incorrect and the sum total of Item No. 1 to 25 in
Annexure C comes to Rs. 20,46,074/-. Apart from this arithmetical
mistake, he has disputed the assets shown at item No.7,18, 20, 21, 24 & 25.
CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 30/87
11. To appreciate the case of the prosecution and the defence of
the accused with regard to the income, expenditure and the assets, I intend
to deal with each item in Annexure A, B and C separately.
Income Annexure -A
Salary Income:-
12. The prosecution has counted the salary of the accused from the date
of his appointment in MTNL I.e 27.11.1974 till the date when raid was
conducted at his resident on 05.01.1994. The salary income has been
divided into two parts. The first part pertains to the period 27.11.1974 to
31.12.1985 in which DA, HRA etc., have not been calculated. The second
part pertains to the period 01.01.1986 to 05.01.1994 which include basic
salary along with other benefits. The total income shown is as under:-
(a) Salary w.e.f from 27.11.1974
to
31.12.1985 Rs. 63,503.00/-
(b) Salary w.e.f from 01.01.1986
to
January, 1994 Rs. 3,23,581.20/-
12.1 Prosecution has given due consideration to the fact that in the
salary income from 27.11.1974 to 31.12.1985, benefits like DA, HRA,
CCA have not been included. On this count, the prosecution has given the
benefit to the accused as mentioned here under:-
(c) Benefit of non-calculation of DA etc.,
in Salary w.e.f from 27.11.1974
CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 31/87
to 31.12.1985 Rs. 1,12,915.80/-
The total salary income of the accused till January, 1994
therefore comes to a+b+c (Rs. 63503+323581.20+112915.80) = Rs.
5,00,000/-
The accused has not disputed this income from salary.
Interest on Bank Account
13. The prosecution has shown income of Rs. 79,882.77/- from
interest on saving bank account No. 11583 and 24293 in Syndicate Bank in
the name of accused Lala Ram and his wife Smt. Suresh Lata.
13.1 The accused has disputed this. His argument is that he is
having five more accounts in his name and jointly in the name of his wife
Smt. Suresh Lata, which were in the knowledge of the prosecution as
during investigation CBI had collected the statements of these accounts
from the respective banks. Apart from the two bank accounts mentioned
above, the accused has shown income accrued on account of interest as
under:-
Sr. No. Account No. Bank Name Period / Date Interest
1 2438 Punjab National 07.09.1990 to Rs. 1906/-
Bank 12.03.1994
2 2439 Punjab National 07.09.1990 to Rs. 2338/-
Bank 12.03.1994
3 525401 Bank of Tokyo 24.09.1992 to Rs. 536/-
06.03.1993
4 3721 Syndicate Bank 20.09.1991 to Rs. 6214/-
20.10.1993
5 4068 Oriental Bank of 05.12.1986 to Rs. 17583/-
Commerce 12.07.1993
Total Rs. 28577/-
13.2 Prosecution in the charge-sheet has mentioned about seven
bank accounts maintained by the accused and his wife. However,
CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 32/87
prosecution counted the interest income only of two bank accounts i.e
Account No. 11583 & 24293. No explanation has come from the
prosecution why the interest income of five bank accounts mentioned
above have not been taken into account. In view of the fact that
prosecution was well aware about seven bank accounts of the accused and
his wife but calculated interest income only of two bank accounts, I am of
the view that the accused deserve to include the interest income of five
bank accounts mentioned above in his income from "interest" in bank
accounts.
13.3 Thus, the total income of the accused from interest on saving
bank accounts would be as under:-
(a) Interest income shown by prosecution - Rs. 79882.77/-
(b) Interest income claimed by the accused
on five bank accounts mentioned above - Rs. 28577/-
Total interest income - Rs. 1,08,459.77/-
Dividend / Interest on different shares recovered / purchased by
accused
14. The prosecution has shown the total income on this count as
Rs. 6,128.85/-. Ld. Public Prosecutor submitted that this dividend /
interest is on the basis of face value of share certificates. The prosecution,
however, has not shown any such calculation nor any witness has spoken
about this amount. It appears that prosecution has left it to the court to do
all the exercise to calculate the income on this head without being very
specific about its own calculation. However, the accused has not disputed
this income and in his written submissions he has taken into account this
CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 33/87
income without challenging its accuracy. Therefore, on this head the total
income which the court consider to have accrued to the accused is taken as
under:-
Dividend / interest income on shares - Rs. 6,128.85/-
AGRICULTURE INCOME
15. To allay the allegations of possession of assets
disproportionate to the known source of income, Ld. Counsel for the
accused has submitted that though prosecution has taken into account the
income of accused from agriculture but the extent of income measured by
the prosecution is not factual. The accused has also claimed that his
agricultural income when taken into account would make it clear that his
assets are not disproportionate to his income.
15.1 Ld. Counsel for the accused further submitted that prosecution
admitted income of Rs. 48,000/- from agriculture for the period from 1990
to 05.01.1994, however, failed to show how it has computed the income of
Rs. 48,000/- from agriculture sources. It is the imaginary figure without
any basis. On the contrary, it is submitted that accused has proved on
record his agricultural income to the tune of Rs. 14,42,500/- during the
period 1992 to 05.01.1994.
15.2 Ld. Counsel for the accused referred to the documents relied
upon by the accused Ex. DW 1/A ( A-44 to 74 Colly) and on the statement
of DW 1 Sh. Nathi Singh and DW 6 Pushpender Singh. These two
witnesses have deposed in the court that they leased out their land to the
CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 34/87
accused, who cultivated the same.
15.3 Ld. Counsel for the accused also referred to the statement of
DW 7 Sh. Praveen Kumar and DW 9 Sh. Sachin Aggarwal to bring on
record that accused sold agriculture produce and received the sale
consideration in cash to the extent of Rs. 14,42,500/-. Ld. Counsel also
relied upon the statement of DW 3 Sh. Shyam Babu Sharma and DW 4 Sh.
Devender Kumar to prove that the agriculture land holdings are in the
name of accused Lala Ram, DW 1 Nathi Singh and DW 6 Pushpender
Singh.
15.4 It was submitted that the accused not only informed his
Department about his income from agriculture but he also filed the income
tax returns showing income from agriculture. He referred to letters written
by accused to his Department Mark D-10/1 to D-10/5. He placed on
record the receipts of income tax returns for the assessment year 1993-94
and 1994-95 as Ex. DW 10/A and DW10/B respectively. The Assessment
Order dated 25.03.1996 for the assessment year 1993-94 was filed as Ex.
DW 10/E.
15.5 It was further submitted that this Assessment Order was
challenged in an Appeal and the said Appeal was decided on 03.03.1997
vide order Ex. DW 10/F. The Appellate Authority i.e Commissioner of
Income Tax (Appeals), accepted the income shown from agriculture in the
income tax returns admissible under "agricultural income". Accused Lala
Ram also filed a copy of the order dated 09.05.2005 passed by Income Tax
Appellant Tribunal (Ex. DW 10/G), which was passed in the Appeal filed
by the Income Tax Department against the order of Commissioner
(Appeal) dated 03.03.1997. By the said order, the appeal of the department
CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 35/87
was dismissed.
15.6 It is further submitted by Ld. Counsel for accused that in a DA
case, prosecution has to pass through the rigor of the criminal procedure
established under the law and the standard of proof required in
adjudicating income tax proceedings are more stringent and accurate in
comparison to criminal or civil proceedings. He further submitted that the
Income Tax Authorities while arriving at the conclusion, have relied upon
the testimony of DW 1 Nathi Singh and DW 6 Pushpender Singh.
15.7 Ld. Counsel for accused submitted the details of agricultural
income claimed by the accused, which has been reflected in the tabular
form as under:-
Sr. Year Income Expenditure Net Source Remark
No Income
.
1. 1992 5,20,500/ 1,32,000/ 3,88,500/ Sale of sugar Proved by DW1 1993 cane to Jagdish Nathi Singh, DW6 Ganna Crusher Pushpender and DW (Aligarh) & Rana 7 Parveen, Ex.
Siwach Mill DW1/A,40 to 55; Ex.
Udhyog DW7/2 (35 to 39)
(Bulandshahar)
1 1,40,000/ Nil 1,40,000/ Sale of trees Proved by DW1
(a)
2 1993 4,89,000/ 66,000/ 4,23,000/ Sale of Sugar Proved by DW1,
1994 cane DW6 & DW7
(DW1/A, 56 to 61 &
70, 71 and DW7/2,
27, 31, 36.
3. 1994 4,72,000/ 66,000/ 4,06,000/ Sale of Sugar DW1, DW6 & DW7
1995 cane (Ex. DW1/A, 62 to
69 & 72 to 74 and Ex.
DW7/2 slip No.
28,29 & 30.
4. 1993 85,000/ Nil 85,000/ Sale of Mustard DW9 Sachin
seeds to Naveen Agarwal (Ex.
Anaz Mandi, DW9/A).
Khair, Aligarh
Total 17,06,500/ 2,64,400/ 14,42,500/
CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 36/87
15.8 The ld. Counsel for accused submitted that the judgment
passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal vide Ex. PW-10/D, has settled once for all that accused had agricultural income as disclosed in the income tax returns for the assessment year 1993-94. In nut shell the arguments by the Ld. Counsel is that accused has disclosed his agricultural income in the income tax record and he also informed his department about this income. Therefore, the prosecution has no option but to except the agricultural income of the accused to the extent mentioned in the chart above.
15.9 The Ld. Public Prosecutor at the outset submitted that the judgment of the Income Tax Tribunal is not binding on this court. He further submitted that Income Tax Authorities assess the income and the source thereof solely for the purpose of taxation. While a criminal court has different criteria for assessing the evidence with regard to income claimed by the accused. Merely by showing some receipts and filing of income tax returns, is not sufficient. The accused has to prove source of income by cogent, reliable, reasonable and rational evidence.
15.10 The Ld. Public Prosecutor further submitted that the improbabilities of agricultural income to the tune of Rs. 14,42,500/- in a span of four years is obvious although the accused has tried to camouflage by procuring documents and producing witnesses, who cannot be relied upon.
15.11 Ld. Public Prosecutor further submitted that instead of producing number of witnesses and the receipts showing the sale of CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 37/87 agriculture produce, accused could have produced best piece of evidence by filing the revenue record showing the cultivation of sugarcane during the relevant period. The accused has placed on record the Khatoni showing his ownership of land but he deliberately withheld the record of cultivation as Khasra / Girdawari.
15.12 Ld. Public Prosecutor further submitted that accused has taken the plea that he had taken the land on lease from his relatives / co-villagers and he used to cultivate the said land. Ld. Public prosecutor further submitted that accused was a government employee working in Delhi away from his village. It sounds very unlikely impractical and unbelievable that a person sitting in Delhi working as a government servant, would take land on lease in village from the persons, who themselves live in village and themselves are engaged in agriculture activities on the land which the accused claimed that he had taken on lease from those villagers. Therefore, the income, which the accused is projecting from his agricultural land, is highly exaggerated and unbelievable based on falsehood and cannot be relied upon. Ld. Public Prosecutor further submitted that the witnesses, who have supported the accused on this count, are his relatives and known persons. The receipts, which accused has produced regarding the sale of sugarcane, are fabricated receipts. Moreover, the accused had not produced these receipts during the investigation so that prosecution could have verified the authenticity of these documents. Therefore, the inference is that these receipts have been procured after the case was registered and charge-sheet was filed. Thus, no reliance can be placed on these documents.
CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 38/8715.13 The first contention raised by the Ld. Public Prosecutor to resists these submissions of the accused with regard to the agricultural income is that the judgment of the Income Tax Tribunal is not binding in this court. The accused has submitted that the prosecution has admitted his income from agricultural land and he also does not claim any other source of income except his salary income, interest income and the agricultural income. As per the accused the prosecution has not taken into account the actual / real income indeed earned by the accused during the check period. It is submitted that prosecution is giving benefit of Rs. 12,000/- per annum as agricultural income for the period 1990 to January, 1994 which comes to Rs. 48,000/-. The prosecution, however, miserably failed to prove its stand to establish the income of Rs. 48,000/- from agricultural source. It is a imaginary figure without any evidence. The income certificate document (D-143) on which the prosecution relied, has not been proved as per the law.
15.14 The ld. Defense counsel in support of his contention as to the binding nature of the judgment of Income Tax Tribunal is seeking strength from following judgments:
I)Suraj Naravan Vs. Seth Jhabulal AIR (31) 1944 Allahabad 114 which says that the certified copy of assessment order is admissible. II)Naim Singh Vs. Teekam Singh AIR 1955 Allahabad 388 which also says that copies of income tax returns or the assessment order are public documents.
III)Hira Lal Chaudhary Vs. Ramanand Chaudhary AIR 1959 Patna 515 which also says assessment order is a public document.
IV)A.K. Kadarkutti Vs. Agricultural Income Tax Officer, AIR 1961 CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 39/87 Kerala 32 which again said that assessment record is public document. V)Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumari AIR 1969 Supreme Court 575 which says that a degree and a judgment are public documents and under section 77 of the Evidence Act only a certified copy may be produced in proof of their contents.
15.15 The ratio of these judgments is not in dispute. The question in the present case however is not about the admissibility of the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal or the assessment order but whether the judgment of the ITAT is binding on this court. The Income Tax Returns mentions fact about the income, the question is whether the income shown in ITR itself prove that the said income was from the "known sources".
15.16 The ld. Counsel for the accused cited the judgment in P.S Rajya Vs. State of Bihar (1996) 9 SCC & Radheyshyam Kejriwal Vs. State of Bengal (2011) 4 SCR 889, to argue that exoneration in departmental proceedings on identical charge call for an exoneration in the criminal proceedings as well. I have gone through the judgments. These are distinguishable from the facts of the present case. In P.S. Rajya's case (Supra), the prosecution under PC Act was quashed not only on the basis of exoneration in department proceedings but for the reason that there was some over writing and alteration in the reports submitted by the CBI. In the case, charge before the departmental proceedings and in the criminal prosecution was the same. In the present case however, there is no such department inquiry exonerating the accused. In Kejriwal's case (Supra) the Enforcement Directorate had sought prosecution under section 56 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1976, however, the Adjudicating Authority had dropped the charges. In this scenario, it was held that once CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 40/87 the Adjudicating Authority had dropped the charges, under section 50 of the FERA there could be no prosecution under section 56 of the FERA. In the present case however, the facts are on a different footings. The accused was booked for the offence of possessing assets disproportionate to the known source of his income. After he was booked for the offence he subsequently filed the Income Tax Return claiming his income from agriculture. Once the prosecution has shown the assets which are apparently disproportionate to the known source of income, the burden is on the accused to offer a plausible explanation about his source of income. Not only the accused has to give a satisfactory explanation he has also to satisfy that the explanation is worthy of acceptance (Virender Singh Vs. CBI 2011 (1) JCC 623.
15.17 In support of his explanation the accused has relied upon the assessment order Ex. DW-10/E, the Appellate order Ex. DW-10/F and order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in Appeal Ex. DW-10/G. The Assessment Order and judgments in Appeal though have evidential value but not binding on the court. The purpose of investigation about the source of income by the Income Tax Authorities is fiscal but the purpose of probing the source of income in the trial under the PC Act is to look into any criminality. The judgment of the Income tax tribunal is binding between the parties it is not a judgment in rem as per Section 41 of Evidence Act. The finding therefore, are not binding on the criminal court. The counsel for accused had argued that the income tax authorities have relied upon the statement of the same witnesses i.e. Nathi Singh and Pushpender Singh who were examined in the present case as DW-1 and DW-6 respectively. However, the ld. Counsel has ignored the fact that CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 41/87 before the income tax authorities these two witnesses were not subjected to cross examination. The procedure of examination of witnesses itself distinguish the proceedings before Income Tax Authorities and Courts. Moreover, the Court has to consider the statements of DW 1 and DW 2 as recorded in this case and draw conclusion therefrom.
15.18 In the case of "State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad" 2008 CRI. L. J. 2433, it was observed by the Hon'ble High Court that in the case of disproportionate assets the finding of income tax appellate tribunal are not binding upon criminal court. The court went to the extent of saying that even if the returns were filed prior to the registration of the FIR still the finding of the tribunal can not be held to be conclusive.
15.19 In the case of Permanand Kedarnath Jha Vs. State of M.P. 2000, (2) RCR (Criminal ) 427, the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court was of view that mere declaration of property in income tax returns does not amount to showing that same was acquired from known source of income of the assessee.
15.20 In the case of Sarabdeep Singh Virk Vs. State of Punjab, 2011 (4) RCR (Criminal) 844, it was observed that a government servant who acquires huge properties unlawfully can not be absolved of criminal liability for the mere fact that he reflected the properties in his properties statement and Income Tax Returns.
15.21 So the arguments of the Ld. Defence counsel that in the face of the judgment by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ex. DW-10/G the court can not look into the sources of income of the accused, can not be CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 42/87 accepted. This court has to come to a finding on the basis of evidence which has come on the record.
15.22 The accused has submitted a chart showing his income from agricultural produce as mentioned above, along with his written submissions. As per the claim of the accused his total income from agricultural from the period 1990 to 1995 was Rs. 17,06,500/-. His expenditure was Rs. 2,64,000/-. Thus, the net income was Rs. 14,42,500/-. This agricultural income he has earned, by sale of sugar cane, sale of trees and sale of mustered seeds.
15.23 The accused has examined DW-3 Sh. Shyam Babu Sharma from the office of Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil Iglas, District Aligarh, who proved the Khatauni issued by Revenue Department Aligarh Ex. DW-3/1. DW-4 Devender Kumar has also proved the Khatauni Ex. DW-4/1. These two witnesses proved that the land measuring 2.275 hectares was mutated in the name of Lala Ram S/o Lakhmi Chand on 09.11.1989 and is still in his name. Thus, the agriculture land owned by accused Lala Ram is 2.275 hectares (equivalent to 6 acres of land).
15.24 The accused claim that apart from cultivating his own land he has also taken land on lease from Nathi Singh DW-1 and Pushpender Singh DW-6. In this regard, he has examined these two witnesses. It is pertinent to note that the accused was employed in MTNL as JTO and residing with his family in Delhi. His plea that while being resident of and employed in Delhi, he was managing the agriculture activities not only of his own land but also of the land taken on lease from his relative is highly improbable and a camouflage to project agriculture income. This is more so in view of the statement of DW 1 and 6 who say that the land which was taken on CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 43/87 lease by the accused, was being looked after by them. It is highly improbable that they would lease out their highly productive agriculture land for a pittance and accused would earn Lacs of rupees from the said land.
15.25 It is desirable to now go through the evidence of DW- 1 and DW-6 carefully. DW-1 Nathi Singh has deposed that he owned 4.053 hectares of agricultural land approximately 50/55 bighas. In the year 1990, due to financial constrain he had given his land to accused on "Patta" (lease) @ 35,000/- per year. He received this lease amount @ 35,000/- per year from 1990 to 1994. He testify that since accused was in service, he (DW-1) was physically looking after the farming done on the land and for that he got Rs. 500/- per month. He further said that he used to sell sugar-cane on behalf of the accused. He placed on record the vouchers/ receipts Ex. DW-1/A (40 to 74 colly).
15.26 In the cross-examination he admit that he has three sons but they were very young in the year 1990. He deposed that distance between his house and the land leased out to accused was just 50 meters. He further deposed that he used to live in his house from where he was supervising the farming done on the agriculture land. On the face of it, his statement is unbelievable and is a feeble attempt to save accused, who happens to be his relative.
15.27 DW-6 Pushpender Singh has deposed that accused Lala Ram is his maternal uncle. He deposed that between 1990 to 1995 his father had given his land to accused on "Lagan" for growing crops as he and his brother were very young at that time. The lease rent was Rs. 300 per bighas, per annum which was paid by the accused Lala Ram. In the cross-
CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 44/87examination he admit that he was living in the village with his father. The land given on lease to accused situated in the same village. The entire land was used for growing sugar-cane. He further deposed that he alongwith his brother used to do the sugar-cane farming on the land given to accused on lease. It sounds strange that DW 6 and his brothers were doing all the manual activities related with farming but fruits thereof taken by accused by paying meager amount to them as lease rent.
15.28 The statements of these witnesses do not inspire much confidence at all in the plea of accused that he had taken their land on lease and earned agriculture income. The court is not bound to accept whatever a witness says if the statements smacks of improbabilities. A fact asserted by a party to the litigation has to "prove" it. Section 3 of the Evidence Act define what is meant by "proved". While appreciating the evidence with regard to a fact asserted, the court may consider the common course of natural events, "human conduct" and public and private business in relation to the facts of the particular case as per section 114 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, a fact can be set to be proved when after considering the matter before it, the court believes it to exists, or consider its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under circumstances of a particular case to act upon supposition that it exists. In coming to its beliefs, court may presume existence of any fact which it things likely to have happened having regard to the natural course of events and human conduct (K. Poonuswamy Vs. State of Tamilnadu, AIR 2001, SC 2464) 15.29 With regard to the statement of DW-1 and DW-6, one can say that their statement narrate facts which are highly improbable and no rational and prudent man would be convinced with their deposition. It is CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 45/87 difficult to digest the proposition that a person who is working for gain in Delhi is able to cultivate land at a distant place and the land which he cultivate is taken on lease from those very person who reside in the village and also do the farming and selling of agriculture produce on behalf of the accused. It is unbelievable that DW-1 would lease out his land to the accused who was residing in Delhi for an yearly rent of Rs. 35,000/- per annum and he himself would look after this land on behalf of accused. The accused, on the other hand, without even working on the land would be earning lacs of rupees from sale of the sugar-cane allegedly grown on the same very land. Same is the case of DW-6 who was only getting Rs. 300/- per annum per bighas of land while the accused allegedly earned lacs of rupees from the agriculture produce of this land while DW-6 himself did the farming and looked after the land. Further, accused did not produce the record of Khasra/Girdawari which is the most authentic proof which crop is grown on the land in particular year. This best evidence has been withheld by accused from the Court, which could have shown whether sugar-cane was grown or not on the land in question from 1990 to 1995.
15.30 In view of the improbable and unbelievable statement of DW-1 and DW-6 I decline to accept their averments that they had leased out their land to the accused for growing sugar-cane. Their relation with the accused obviously is the reason for their coming out with this story.
15.31 The accused has placed on record the assessment order DW-10/E, the perusal of which shows that the accused had taken this plea of taking the land of DW-1 and DW-6 on lease when the Assessing Officer raised a query after he obtained evidence with regard to income which could be earned from the land owned by the accused. The Assessing CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 46/87 Officer was of view that in view of per acre yield of sugar-cane and its rate, it was not possible to earn the projected income from land holding of the Assessee. When he raised query, the Assessee (accused) came out with story that he had taken land on lease for cultivation. The accused taking a cue from those proceedings before Assessing Officer introduced these two witnesses in the present case also. The statement DW-1 & DW-6 is devoid of logic and apparently is concocted and contrived piece of evidence which can not be believed. Hence, I discard the statement of DW-1 and 6.
15.32 Now, the question arise what could be the productive worth of the agriculture land which is owned by the accused? The accused admittedly has 2.275 hectares of land equivalent to 6 acres of land. The case of the accused is that he has grown sugar-cane on his land. However, the accused never produced the Khasra Girdawari which is a record of a particular crop being grown on the agriculture land.
15.33 Income from agriculture activities vary according to the crop which is grown and the quality of the land. Different crops may give varied returns from its produce. In the present case, the accused has claimed that he had grown sugar-cane on his land. Notwithstanding the fact that he has not produced on record the record of cultivation in the form of Khasra Girdawari, the Court accept his version as even the prosecution has nothing to prove that sugar-cane was not grown by the accused in his land. Prosecution could not show the basis of calculation of Rs. 12,000/- as agriculture income per annum. The income certificate referred to in charge-sheet also could not be proved. The accused has also not brought on record what could be the yield of sugar-cane per acre.
CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 47/8715.34 To ascertain the yield of sugar-cane per acre, I would like to rely upon the documents on which accused himself relied i.e Assessment Order (Ex. PW 10/E). Although, the accused has challenged this Assessment Order in the Appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) but the finding with regard to the yield of sugar-cane per acre and the rate of sugar-cane at the relevant time was not disputed by him. Therefore, court can rely upon the evidence on the basis of which the Assessing Officer had quantified the agricultural income of the accused for six acres of land. The Assessing Officer had observed that the average yield of sugar-cane in that area was about 250-275 quinttals per acre and the rate of sugar-cane at that particular time was Rs. 50 per quinttal. If we take average yield of sugar-cane as 275 quinttals per acre, the total yield of sugar-cane would be 1650 quinttals for six acres (275 quinttals per acre). Hence, the gross receipt for the sale of sugar-cane at the rate of Rs. 50 per quinttal would be Rs. 82,500/-. So the agricultural income from sugar-cane crop, which the accused earned, would be Rs. 82,500/- per year. It is the admitted case of the accused that he had started growing sugar-cane after 1989 when the land was mutated in his name. He has further admitted that prior to 1989 when his father was alive, sugar-cane was never grown on the land. So the total income, which the accused could have earned from the sugar-cane crop from 1990 to 1994, would be Rs. 3,30,000/- (Rs. 82,500/- per year). The crop cannot be grown without expenditure on account of seed, fertilizer and labour. At a conservative estimate about 20 % of total yield would be spent on such expenses. So, at the rate of 20 %, the expenditure would be Rs. 66,000/-. Thus, the net income of accused from sugar-cane would be Rs. 2,64,000/- for the period from 1990 to 1994.
CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 48/8715.35 Thus, I intend to give benefit of Rs. 2,64,000/- to the accused on account of his agricultural income keeping in view the principle of law that the accused has to prove his point on the principle of preponderance of probabilities and not on the basis of standard of proof beyond reasonable doubts. So the agricultural income of the accused is taken to be Rs. 2,64,000/- from the sugar-cane crop.
EXPENDITURE:-
Prosecution has mentioned in Annexure - B the total expenditure incurred by the accused during the check period. The item wise analysis of the expenditure is as under:-
(1). LPG Gas Expenditure up to 13.12.1993:-
16. The prosecution has examined PW 17 to prove this fact. PW 17 Sh. Sanjay Kochar is a partner of M/s Qutub Gas Services and accused was having an LPG Gas Connection registered with this firm with consumer No. 978. This witness has deposed that from March, 1987 till January, 1994, accused Lala Ram had purchased cooking gas worth Rs. 4,778.65/-. Apart from this, accused Lala Ram had applied for a duplicate cylinder. This witness further deposed that accused Lala Ram deposited Rs. 500/- for the purchase of gas cylinder and regulator vide subscription voucher Ex. PW 17/B and he also paid Rs. 450/- vide voucher Ex. PW 17/E for the purchase of a duplicate cylinder.
Thus, the expenditure on LPG Gas connection is Rs. 5728.65/-.
(2) School Fees (for three daughters in Air-Force School, Palam):-
CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 49/8717. The prosecution had examined PW 14 Sh. D. P. Rana, Principle (Retd.) Air-Force School, Air-Force Station, Palam, in this regard. He had furnished the information with regard to educational expenses incurred on behalf of students Ms. Vinita, Ms. Seema and Ms. Veenu (daughters of the accused), on the basis of school records. The document Ex. PW 14/A (D-119) shows the educational expenses of Ms. Vinita from April, 1992 to January, 1994 as Rs. 277.40/-, that of Ms. Seema from July, 1986 till 1994 as Rs. 225.40/- and that of Ms. Veenu from 1986 to January, 1994 as Rs. 300.40/-.
Thus, the total expenditure on education of three daughters was Rs. 803.20/-.
(3) School Fees of Kishan Pal Singh (Son of the accused Lala Ram):-
18. The prosecution has examined PW 44 Lal Bahadur Singh, UDC, DAV Public School, Vasant Kunj, in this regard. He has placed on record the letter issued by Mrs. V. Arora (Ex. PW 44/B) along with the statement of the fees for the year 1989 to 1990, 1990 to 1991, 1991 to 1992, 1992 to1993, 1990 to 1994 and 1994 to 1995 (Ex. PW 44/C). The total fees deposited for the educational expenses of Kishan Pal Singh comes to Rs. 18,219/-.
Thus, the prosecution case is that the accused had spent Rs. 18,219/- on the educational expenses of his son during the check period.
(4) DESU payment of Electricity Bill:-
19. The Prosecution has examined PW 24 Sh. Dev Raj Sharma, Senior Clerk in Delhi Vidyut Board, AFO(D) MLI, Aadhchini, to prove the CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 50/87 expenses incurred by accused Lala Ram on account of payment of electricity bills of the Meter installed at A-8, New Mahipalpur Extension, New Delhi. As per his statement, he has prepared the statement of payment made on account of electricity consumption by the consumer pertaining to connection No. 712/131792/G-320 and FTM/1702/T/99 installed at the residence of accused Lala Ram w.e.f from January, 1991 till July, 1996. He has placed on record the said statement prepared by him as Ex. PW 24/A. The accused was confronted with the statement Ex. PW 24/A, he admitted that he made the payment of the amount of Rs. 13,035.95/-, however, he claimed that the expenditure should be computed only till January, 1994 and the amount paid beyond 05.01.1994 may be excluded. The perusal of the statement Ex. PW 24/A (D-122, page 439) reveals that the amount shown as expenditure on account of payment of electricity bill pertains to the period from January, 1991 to January, 1994 only. The expenditure incurred beyond 05.01.1994 has not been taken into account.
19.1 So, the expenditure on account of payment of electricity bill of Meter installed at A-8, Mahipalpur Extension, New Delhi, is taken as Rs. 13,035.95/-.
(5) Payment of electricity bill up to 05.01.1994, LIG Flat-239, Jaidev Park, Delhi:-.
20. The prosecution has examined PW 58 Sh. Satyender Sachdeva, Senior, Clerk, Delhi Vidyut Board, who has brought the record of electricity consumption pertaining to electric Meter PB-204-1200596/T 839/DL in favour of Smt. Mukhtiyari Devi, installed at Flat No. 239, Jaidev Park, New Delhi. The expenditure shown is Rs. 1986/- till January, 1994 on account of electricity consumption.
CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 51/8720.1 The accused when confronted with this evidence under Sec. 313 Cr.PC had taken the plea that this flat was sold by his mother in the year 1991 itself, therefore, this expenditure on electricity consumption pertaining to house No. 239, Jaidev Park, New Delhi, cannot be counted. In this connection, accused has examined DW 2 Sh. D. K. Sharma, Assistant LAB Housing, DDA, New Delhi. This witness has brought the file pertaining to LIG Flat No. 239, Jaidev Park, New Delhi. This witness has deposed that the original allottee of this property was Mr. Lakhmi Singh and on 20.08.1989, the property was transferred to Smt. Mukhtiyari Devi on account of death of Lakhmi Singh (vide transfer deed Ex. DW 2/2). On 08.07.1991, Mukhtiyari Devi sold the said Flat to Anjali Kumari vide Agreement to Sell dated 08.07.1991 Mark DW2/A. He also filed on record the conveyance deed dated 09.11.2012 Ex. DW 2/1.
20.2 The prosecution had also examined witness from DDA with regard to property No. 239, Jaidev Park, New Delhi. PW 2 Sh. Lakshmi Chand, Assistant Director, Personal Branch, DDA. He had proved the Challan Receipt of deposit of Rs. 21,620.92/- by Smt. Mukhtiyari Devi vide Ex. PW 2/B. The demand-cum-allotment letter issued to Lakhmi Singh was proved as Ex. PW 2/X. The possession letter was issued to Mukhtiyari Devi vide Ex. PW 2/Y. 20.3 PW 2 Sh. Laxmi Chand in his cross-examination had categorically stated that that there was nothing in the file to suggest that in the year 1991, Smt. Mukhtiyari Devi sold the flat No. 239, Jaidev Park, to Smt. Anjali Kumari for Rs. 35,000/-. Meaning thereby the contention of the accused that Mukhtiyari Devi sold the flat to Smt. Anjali Kumari in year 1991 is not substantiated by any documentary evidence. The CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 52/87 Agreement to sale and purchase alleged to be executed in the year 1991 by Smt. Mukhtiyari Devi in favour of Smt. Anjali Kumar has not been proved on the record. On the contrary, the witness of the accused DW 2 Sh. D. K. Sharma has placed on record a Conveyance Deed executed in favour of one Smt. Meena Kumari on 09.11.2012. This Conveyance Deed is Ex. DW 2/1. The Conveyance Deed categorically state that allottee Smt. Mukhtiyari Devi wife of Late Sh. Lakhmi Singh, R/o A-8, New Gurgaon Road, Mahipal Pur, New Delhi, had executed an attorney on 22.01.2003 appointing Smt. Meena Kumari, R/o 239, Jaidev Park, New Delhi, as her attorney. This Conveyance Deed, therefore, proves that Smt. Mukhtiyari Devi had executed the Power of Attorney on 22.01.2003 in the name of Smt. Meena Kumari. If the plea of accused that Mukhtiyari Devi sold this flat in 1991 to Smt. Anjali Kumari is accepted, then this stipulation in the Conveyance Deed regarding execution of Power of Attorney by her in favour of Smt. Meena Kumari on 22.01.2003 would not have been there.
20.4 It is the case of the prosecution that Smt. Mukhtiyari Devi was not having any income. The accused has not taken the plea that his mother was having any income. The agricultural land which was in the name of Lakhmi Singh, husband of Mukhtiyari Devi, was transferred in the name of accused Lala Ram in the year 1989. This establish the fact that Smt. Mukhtiyari Devi was financially dependent on the accused. So, this expenditure on account of electricity bill has to be credited to the accused in the absence of any plea that this flat was rented out and the electricity bill was paid by some tenant.
20.5 Therefore, the contention of the accused that this expenditure of Rs. 1986/- may be excluded, cannot be accepted. So, the expenditure on CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 53/87 account of payment of electricity bill of Meter installed at Flat No. 239, Jaidev Park, New Delhi, is taken as Rs. 1986/-.
(6) 30% of the Total Income:-.
21. The general principle of calculation of expenditure is to take into account the amount spent by a public servant on his family and meeting the house-hold expenses. Certain expenses cannot be accounted for want of documents showing the expenses. For example:- buying day to day grocery items, clothing, travel expenses etc. Generally no account is kept for such expenses. Therefore, while calculating the expenditure of a public servant during the check period, 30 % of the total income is added in expenditure apart from the expenditure which has documentary proof.
21.1 Subject to explanation given by accused to be discussed in later part of judgment, the total income of accused Lala Ram comes to Rs. 8,78,587/-. Therefore, 30 % of this amount is also added in the expenditure of the accused during the check period. The said amount comes to (Rs. 8,78,587/- multiplied by 30 and divided by 100) Rs. 2,63,576/-.
ASSETS Now, I shall deal with the assets which the prosecution alleged the accused had acquired during the check period. I shall deal with item No. 1 to 25 mentioned in Annexure 'C' with the charge-sheet individually.
Item No. 1:- Kisan Vikas Patras (KVPs) No. 853843 to 853846 dated 28.09.1993:-
22. The prosecution has examined PW 1 Sh. R. A. Bhardwaj, CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 54/87 Head, Post Office, Civil Lines, Aligarh. He has proved the KVPs Ex. PW 1/C-1 to 1/C-4 for Rs. 10,000/- each in the name of Lala Ram. The accused has not denied this evidence. So the total value of KVPs in the name of accused Lala Ram is Rs. 40,000/-.
Item No. 2:- National Savings Certificate (NSC):-
23. The accused had purchased NSC vide No. 641765 dated 06.02.1992. This was admitted by the accused at the time of admission and denial and was marked as Ex. P-1. The value of NSC is Rs. 5000/-.
Item No. 3:- Cumulative Deposit Receipt (CDR) in the name of Lala Ram:-
24. PW 12 Sh. Ved Prakash from Oriental Bank of Commerce, has proved the Cumulative Deposit Account No. 1807 of Lala Ram as Ex. PW 12/C and the CDR as Ex. PW 12/H 1 for sum of Rs. 50,000/-. Thus, prosecution proved that CDR No. BZ-790163 dated 09.07.1991 for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was issued by Oriental Bank of Commerce, Mahipal Pur in the name of Lala Ram.
Item No. 4:- Cumulative Deposit Receipt (CDR) in the name of Lala Ram:-
25. PW 12 Sh. Ved Prakash from Oriental Bank of Commerce, has proved the Cumulative Deposit Account No. 1808 of Lala Ram as Ex. PW 12/C and the CDR as Ex. PW 12/H 4 for sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Thus, prosecution proved that CDR No. DT-657060 dated 27.02.1993 for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was issued by Oriental Bank of Commerce, Mahipal Pur in the name of Lala Ram.CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 55/87
Item No. 5:- Cumulative Deposit Receipt (CDR) in the name of Smt. Suresh Lata:-
26. PW 12 Sh. Ved Prakash from Oriental Bank of Commerce, has proved the Cumulative Deposit Account No. 1808 of Smt. Suresh Lata (wife of accused Lala Ram) as Ex. PW 12/D and the CDR as Ex. PW 12/H 2 for sum of Rs. 50,000/-. Thus, prosecution proved that CDR No. BZ-790164 dated 09.07.1991 for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was issued by Oriental Bank of Commerce, Mahipal Pur in the name of Smt. Suresh Lata.
Item No. 6:- Cumulative Deposit Receipt (CDR) in the name of Smt. Suresh Lata:-
27. PW 12 Sh. Ved Prakash from Oriental Bank of Commerce, has proved the Cumulative Deposit Account No. 1808 of Smt. Suresh Lata as Ex. PW 12/D and the CDR as Ex. PW 12/H-5 for sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
Thus, prosecution proved that CDR No. BT-657059 dated 27.02.1993 for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was issued by Oriental Bank of Commerce, Mahipal Pur in the name of Smt. Suresh Lata.
Item No. 7:- Cumulative Deposit Receipt (CDR) in the name of Lala Ram and Smt. Mukhtiyari Devi:-
28. PW 12 Sh. Ved Prakash from Oriental Bank of Commerce, has proved the Cumulative Deposit Account No. 1847 of Smt. Mukhtiyari Devi as Ex. PW 12/E and the CDR as Ex. PW 12/H-3 for sum of Rs. 50,000/-. Thus, prosecution proved that CDR No. BZ-790200 dated 18.07.1991 for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was issued by Oriental Bank of Commerce, Mahipal Pur in the name of Lala Ram and Smt. Mukhtiyari Devi.CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 56/87
Item No. 8:- Certificate for Re-Investment Scheme (CRIS), New Bank of India (now Punjab National Bank) in the name of Lala Ram:-
29. PW 13 Smt. N. K. Chaudhary is Officer from Punjab National Bank. This witness has proved that CRIS pertaining to account No. 49/6 of Lala Ram was issued vide Ex. PW 13/F for a sum of Rs. 50,000/-.
Item No. 9:- Certificate for Re-Investment Scheme (CRIS), New Bank of India (now Punjab National Bank) in the name of Suresh Lata:-
30. PW 13 Smt. N. K. Chaudhary is Officer from Punjab National Bank. This witness has proved that CRIS pertaining to account No. 48/6 of Smt. Suresh Lata was issued vide Ex. PW 13/G for a sum of Rs. 50,000/-.
Item No. 10:- Money Multiplier Deposit Certificate (MMDC) in the name of Lala Ram:-
31. The accused has admitted the MMDC No. H-395032 for the sum of Rs. 16,000/- issued by Central Bank of India, Janpath, which was marked as Ex. P-2.
Item No. 11:- Special Term Deposit Receipt (STDR) in the name of Smt. Suresh Lata:-
32. The prosecution has examined PW 28 Sh. J. K. Bhalla from State Bank of Patiala, Mahipal Pur, New Delhi, who proved that Smt. Suresh Lata had opened the account vide Account Opening Form Ex. PW 28/B. He further deposed that FDR was issued from her account No. 634 CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 57/87 for an amount of Rs. 20,000/- on 15.10.1991. He has proved the STDR No. 850879 dated 15.10.1991 in the name of Smt. Suresh Lata as Ex. PW 28/E. Item No. 12:- Special Term Deposit Receipt (STDR) in the name of Lala Ram:-
33. PW 28 Sh. J. K. Bhalla from State Bank of Patiala, Mahipal Pur, New Delhi, has also proved that Lala Ram had opened the account vide Account Opening Form Ex. PW 28/C and the FDR was issued from his account No. 635 for an amount of Rs. 20,000/- on 15.10.1991. He has proved the STDR No. 850880 dated 15.10.1991 in the name of Lala Ram as Ex. PW 28/D. Item No. 13:- Special Term Deposit Receipt (STDR) in the name of Lala Ram:-
34. The prosecution has examined PW 60 Sh. K. G. Dewan from State Bank of India, Janpath, New Delhi, who proved that Lala Ram was issued a STDR vide No. A/10-639806 dated 15.10.1991 for an amount of Rs. 20,000/-. The STDR has been proved as Ex. PW 60/A. Item No. 14:- Vijaya Cash Certificate (VCC) in the name of Lala Ram:-.
35. Prosecution has examined PW 3 Sh. R. M. Grewal, Vijaya Bank, Delhi Cantt, who had proved that the FDR for a sum of Rs. 60,000/-
was issued in the name of Lala Ram on 06.10.1993 vide VCC No. 082640, Ex. PW 3/A. CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 58/87 Item No. 15:- Multi Benefit Deposit Scheme (MBDS) in the name of Lala Ram:-.
36. The accused has admitted the MBDS No. 127223 issued by Punjab National Bank, Jahangir Pur, Bulandshaher, UP, dated 03.05.1991 for a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. This was exhibited as Ex. P-3.
Item No. 16:- Vikas Cash Certificates (Syndicate Bank) in the name of Lala Ram and Smt. Suresh Lata.
37. The prosecution has shown the assets of Rs. 4,00,000/- on account of Vikas Cash Certificates purchased by accused Lala Ram in his name and in the name of his wife Smt. Suresh Lata from Syndicate Bank. As per the prosecution, the accused had purchased following Vikas Cash Certificates:-
(i)No. 476817/15337 in the name of Smt. Suresh Lata dated 20.10.1992 for sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Ex. PW 8/C).
(ii)No. 493223/2105 in the name of Smt. Suresh Lata dated 01.09.1992 for sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Ex. PW 5/5).
(iii)No. 076174/1760 in the name of Smt. Suresh Lata dated 10.07.1991 for sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Ex. PW 5/4).
(iv)No. 493224/2106 in the name of Smt. Suresh Lata dated 02.09.1992 for sum of Rs. 50,000/- (this document does not bear the exhibition mark.
However, this document was returned to the accused on 24.12.2002 and he made an endorsement on the copy of this document that he received the FDR in original and undertake not to challenge its authenticity and the value of the FDR).
(v)No. 0706177/1763 in the name of Smt. Suresh Lata dated 12.07.1991 for sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Ex. PW 5/3).
CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 59/87(vi) No. 493222/2104 in the name of Lala Ram dated 01.09.1992 for sum of Rs. 50,000/- (this document does not bear the exhibition mark. However, this document was returned to the accused on 06.02.2003 and he made an endorsement on the copy of this document that he received the FDR in original and undertake not to challenge its authenticity).
(vii) No. 471816/15336 in the name of Lala Ram dated 21.10.1992 for sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Ex. PW 5/1).
(viii) No. 493221/2103 in the name of Lala Ram dated 01.09.1992 for sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Ex. PW 5/2).
Thus, the total assets on account of holding of Vikas Cash Certificates comes to Rs. 4,00,000/-.
Item No. 17:- Cash Balance in the Bank Accounts:-
38. The prosecution has shown assets of Rs. 2,51,409/- on account of cash balance in the bank accounts of the accused Lala Ram and his wife Smt. Suresh Lata as on 05.01.1994, in the following account numbers:-
(1) Account No. 11583 and 24293 of Syndicate Bank. (2) Account No. 2438 and 2439 of Punjab National Bank. (3) Account No. 525401 in Tokyo Bank.
(4) Account No. 4069 in OBC.
(5) Account No. 3721 in Syndicate Bank.
38.1 Now, we will see how much balance was there in the above mentioned account numbers of the accused and his wife as per the statements collected from the Banks.
CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 60/8738.2 For the accounts mentioned at Serial No. 1 above, prosecution has examined PW 8 Sh. R. C. Pillai, who has proved the statement of account of account No. 24293 in the name of Smt. Suresh Lata and account No. 11583 in the name of Lala Ram, which shows balance of Rs. 585.90/- and Rs. 9644.83/- respectively as on 05.01.1994.
38.3 For the accounts mentioned at Serial No. 2 above, prosecution has examined PW 15 Mrs. Madhu Batiyal, Managar, Punjab National Bank, who has proved the statement of account of account No. 2438 in the name of Lala Ram and account No. 2439 in the name of Smt. Suresh Lata, which shows balance of Rs. 885/- and Rs. 1013/- respectively as on 05.01.1994.
38.4 For the account mentioned at Serial No. 3 above, prosecution has examined PW 10 Sh. Sushil Gera, Head Clerk, Bank of Tokyo, Parliament Street, Delhi, who has proved the statement of account of account No. 525401 in the name of Lala Ram, which shows balance of Rs. 17917.74/- as on 05.01.1994.
38.5 For the account mentioned at Serial No. 4 above, prosecution has examined PW 12 Sh. Ved Prakash, Clerk, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Mahipal Pur, Delhi, who has proved the statement of account of account No. 4068 in the name of Lala Ram, which shows balance of Rs. 1,94,131.25/- (D-135, Page 518) as on 05.01.1994. 38.6 For the account mentioned at Serial No. 5 above, the statement of account was admitted by the accused as Ex. P-4 which shows balance amount of Rs. 23,253.52/- on 04.01.1994.
38.7 Thus, the total balance in the accounts mentioned at serial No. 1 to 5 maintained by the accused Lala Ram and his wife Smt. Suresh Lata, comes to Rs. 2,47,431/- on against Rs. 2,51,409/- calculated by CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 61/87 prosecution.
Item No. 18:- Cash found during the house search of the accused Lala Ram.
39. As per the case of the prosecution, the search was conducted in the house of accused Lala Ram on 05.01.1994. The observation memo has been proved on record as Ex. PW 39/A. Apart from the house-hold articles and jewelry, the Search Team also recovered Rs. 85,000/- in cash from the house of accused Lala Ram at A-8/9, Mahipal Pur Extension, New Gurgaon Road, New Delhi. PW 39 Sh. S. C. Duggal, AGM, Member of the raiding party, PW 38 Inspector Azad Singh, PW 40 Sh. V. P. Badhola, PW 41 Rai Singh Khatri and PW 49 Sh. R. S. Jaggi, Deputy SP, CBI, have deposed about the recovery of articles and the cash mentioned in the memo Ex. PW 39/A. 39.1 The accused in his arguments submitted that this cash of Rs. 85,000/- was the sale proceed of mustard seeds which he had grown on his agricultural land and which he sold on 25.12.1993. I shall deal with this defence of the accused when I will consider the explanation of the accused with regard to assets if they are found disproportionate to known source of income after calculations of the amount of income, expenditure and assets as per Annexure A, B and C. Item No. 19: House-hold articles as per observation memo dated 05.01.1994:-
40. At the time of the search of the house of accused Lala Ram, the house-hold articles as well as jewelry items were counted and their approximate date of acquisition and the value was ascertained from the accused and his wife.
CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 62/8740.1 PW 39 Sh. S. C. Duggal deposed that the list of documents / articles and cash seized during the search, was prepared. The observation memo Ex. PW 39/A was signed by him. The rates (value) and year of acquisition of items was mentioned after consultation with accused Lala Ram. In the cross-examination, he categorically denied the suggestion that the rates (value) and year of acquisition was mentioned arbitrarily. 40.2 PW 40 Sh. V. P. Badhola in his cross-examination denied the suggestion that the rates (value) and year of acquisition of items (in memo Ex. PW 39/A) was mentioned arbitrarily by the CBI without asking the accused.
40.3 PW 49 Sh. R. S. Jaggi has deposed that the observation memo Ex. PW 39/A of the house-hold articles was prepared and duly signed by the independent witnesses.
40.4 The accused has not brought anything on the record to suggest that the value of the items mentioned in the observation memo Ex. PW 39/A was less that what was mentioned in the memo. Even a layman observation of the items and their values mentioned against them would show that a very conservative valuation of the items has been done and no exaggeration has been reflected therein. The prosecution had given the total value of house-hold articles in items No. 1 to 53 and jewelry articles at items No.1 to 3 as Rs. 61,800/-. However, there is a mathematical error in calculation and the total value after counting of the house-hold as well as jewelry articles mentioned in observation memo Ex. PW 39/A, comes to Rs. 66,141/-.
CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 63/87Item No. 20:- Booking of plot with Varsha Ritu Cooperative Group Housing Limited, Shahdara, Delhi:-
41. As per the prosecution case, the accused Lala Ram had invested Rs. 30,110/- for booking a plot with Varsha Ritu Co-operative Group Housing Society Limited, Shahdara, Delhi, however, this amount was refunded to him in the year 1994 when the allotment of land by DDA was canceled by the Hon'ble High Court. PW 16 Sh. L. M. Gupta was examined to prove these facts.
41.1 When the accused was confronted with this evidence in his statement under Sec. 313 Cr.PC, he has admitted that he had paid three installments of Rs.10,000/- each vide receipt dated 07.12.1990, 25.03.1991and 23.03.1991 with Varsha Ritu Co-operative Group Housing Limited, Shahdara, Delhi which were refunded to him vide cheque dated 20.01.1994 and 29.04.1994 for Rs.12,000/- and Rs.18,000/- on quashing of allotment of land by the Hon'ble High Court. He has further admitted receipt Ex.PW16/D in lieu of payment of Rs.110/- as share money and admission fee for the Varsha Ritu Co-operative Group Housing Limited, Shahdara, Delhi.
41.2 It was submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that in terms of the statement of PW 16, it stands proved that the plot / flat in Varsha Ritu Co-operative Group Housing Limited, Shahdara, Delhi, was never allotted to the accused. Thus, he was not owner or in possession of any plot / flat in the said society. Therefore, it was submitted that the amount of Rs. 30,000/- should be deducted from the assets as mentioned in Annexure C in the charge-sheet (item No. 20).
41.3 I considered this submission of Ld. Counsel. The prosecution has not claimed that the accused was owning or in possession of plot / flat CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 64/87 in the Varsha Ritu Co-operative Group Housing Limited, Shahdara, Delhi. The prosecution had included the amount of Rs. 30,110/- which was paid by the accused for booking of the plot / flat. Of course this amount was returned to him when the panel of allotment was canceled by the Hon'ble High Court as stated by PW 16. So the possession of Rs. 30,000/- remains with the accused and it is to be taken as movable asset of the accused. Therefore, in my view this amount cannot be deducted from the calculation of assets of the accused.
41.4 Thus, the amount of Rs. 30,110/- is taken as the movable asset of the accused.
Item No. 21:- Payment towards DDA LIG Flat at 239, Jaidev Park, New Delhi:-
42. The Ld. PP for CBI has submitted that accused was the Benami owner of the Flat No. 239, Jaidev Park, which was in the name of his mother Smt. Mukhtiyari Devi. He further submitted that the payment made towards the installments of this flat up to 05.01.1994 was made by the accused. He refers to the statement of PW 11 Sh. Prahlad Singh, Joint Chief Account Officer, DDA, who has proved on record the letter Ex. PW 11/A issued by him. As per this letter Ex. PW 11/A (D-134), initial deposit of Rs. 21,620.92/- was made by Smt. Mukhtiyari Devi and thereafter seven installments at the rate of Rs. 1097.54/- were paid till 05.01.1994. Thus, the total amount deposited with the DDA was Rs. 29,303.70/-. 42.1 It is the admitted position that Smt. Mukhtiyari Devi had no source of income. The flat No. 239, Jaidev Park, was transferred in her name after the demise of her husband namely Lakhmi Singh. The payment of the flat was made on 08.07.1989 and thereafter seven installments have CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 65/87 been paid till 05.01.1994. Smt. Mukhtiyari Devi was not having any source of income and was dependent on the accused. Therefore, it is the logical inference that the entire money i.e Rs. 29,303.70/- was deposited by the accused on behalf of his mother.
42.2 The plea of the accused that Smt. Mukhtiyari Devi sold this flat in the year 1991 to Smt. Anjali Kumar has already been discarded when discussing item No. (5) "Payment of Electricity Bill of Flat No. 239, Jaidev Park, New Delhi" under the heading "Expenditure" in paragraphs 20 to 20.5 above.
42.3 So the payment on account of DDA LIG Flat No. 239, Jaidev Park, in the name of Smt. Mukhtiyari Devi is taken into account of the accused as asset to the tune of Rs. 29,303/-.
Item No. 22:- Purchase of two plots measuring 100 sq. yards each in the name of accused Lala Ram and his wife Smt. Suresh Lata:-
43. Prosecution has examined PW-33 Shri Mam Raj Singh, who deposed that he was having a plot measuring about 100 yards at Village Mahipalpur, Delhi about 16-17 years before, which was sold by him to Lala Ram for Rs.14,000/-. He has admitted his signatures on the attested copy of Agreement to Sell, Ex.PW33/A and GPA Ex.PW33/B at point-A. 43.1 As regards the other plot of 100 sq. yards, the accused admitted the Agreement to Sell dated 20.12.1983 executed by Sh. Om Prakash in favour of Smt. Suresh Lata wife of accused Lala Ram. This document was admitted and marked as Ex. P-127.
43.2 The accused when appeared as DW 10 admitted in the cross- examination that in the year 1985-86, he had purchased two plots CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 66/87 measuring 100 sq. yards each at Gali No. 2, Road No. 2, Mahipal Pur, Delhi. He also admitted that he built a house on one of the plot bearing No. A-8, Gali No. 2, Road No. 2. So, the statement of PW 33 Mam Raj Singh and DW 10, the accused himself, prove the assertion of the prosecution that accused had purchased two plots of 100 sq. yards each with cost of Rs. 28,000/-.
Item No. 23:- Payment of LIC Policies No. 110703362 and 111348362:-
44. Prosecution has examined PW9 Shri K.C. Chawla, who has proved the LIC policy No. 110703362 of accused Lala Ram as Ex. P-130 and has deposed that sum assured under this policy was Rs.50,000/- and yearly installment was Rs.2,618.30. As per the statement submitted by him Ex. PW 9/PX 1, a sum of Rs. 10,705.10/- was deposited up to 05.01.1994 by accused Lala Ram.
44.1 The accused on 21.09.2010 admitted this document at the time of admission and denial and it was marked as Ex. P-130. 44.2 The accused also admitted the Life Insurance Policy No. 111348362 in the name of his son namely Kishan Pal Singh, which had assured sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and per annum installment of the premium was Rs. 5174/-. This policy was effective from 23.06.1992. This document was marked as Ex. P-129. The admission of this document only establish the genuineness of the LIC policy in the name of son of the accused. This document Ex. P-129, however, does not show how much amount has been paid as premium on this policy. The prosecution has failed to prove the fact of payment of premium on this policy. No witness has been examined to this effect. There is no evidence before the court to CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 67/87 ascertain the amount which was deposited as premium on this policy. Therefore, only the amount of premium mentioned in the document Ex. P-129 can be taken into consideration. This document mentioned the premium as Rs. 5174/- which is, therefore, taken into account. 44.3 So, the total amount which the accused paid on account of LIC policies mentioned above is taken as Rs. 10,705/- and Rs. 5174/- i.e Rs. 15,879/-.
Item No. 24:- Share certificates of different companies:-
45. As per the prosecution at the time of the search of house of the accused Lala Ram, shares and debentures of different companies and certificates of UTI in the name of accused Lala Ram and his wife Smt. Suresh Lata were recovered vide search cum seizure memo Ex. PW 39/B and 39/C. To prove the acquisition of shares and debentures of different companies by the accused in his name and the name of his wife Smt. Suresh Lata, the prosecution has examined following witnesses:-
PW 18 Ms. Hema Rao, M/s Mid East-India Limited. PW 19 Sh. Rajesh Dheer, M/s Flex Food Limited.
PW 20 Sh. Mahesh Bhatnagar, M/s Oswal Chemical Fertilizers Ltd. PW 21 Sh. Yatendra Singh, M/s Narmada Electronics Ltd. PW 22 Sh. S. K. Sood, M/s J. P. Hotels Ltd.
PW 23 Sh. A. K. Mittal, M/s Lunar Diamonds Ltd.
PW 25 Sh. H. C. Sehgal, M/s Thaper Water Base Ltd. PW 26 Smt. Kamlesh Chawla, M/s Chawla Investments. PW 27 Sh. B. S. Badoria, M/s Indo - Asian Fuse Gear Ltd. PW 29 Sh. P. K. Singh, M/s Morepen Laboratories Ltd. PW 31 Sh. R. K. Rai, M/s Chambel Fertilizer & Chemicals.CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 68/87
PW 32 Sh. Atma Ram Sarda, M/s Sumit Synthetics. PW 34 Sh. V. K. Nayer, M/s Shri Pre-coated Steels. PW 35 Sh. T. D. Joshi, M/s J. P. Industries Ltd.
PW 37 Sh. R. V. Krishnan, M/s Nagarjuna Fertilizers & Chemicals. PW 42 Sh. Vimal Prakash Jain, M/s United 3-V. PW 43 Sh. G. Laxman Rao, M/s Timex Watches Ltd.
PW 46 Sh. Ravindra Chaturvedi, M/s Chemox Chemicals. PW 48 Sh. Girdhari Lal, M/s Indian Seemless Matel Tubes. PW 50 Sh. Mohan Lal, M/s Uniworld Intentional Ltd. PW 51 Sh. K. L. Mehndiratta, M/s Hindustan Alloys. PW 52 Sh. Ashok Digamber Dhoparker, M/s Gujurat Indus. Ltd. PW 53 Sh. S. N. Jha, M/s Place-well Communication Pvt. Ltd. (also examined as PW 66).
PW 54 Sh. R. Balasubramanium, M/s Herbert Sons Ltd. PW 57 Sh. Sunil Bhatia, M/s Onida Savak Ltd.
PW 59 Sh. Davender Kumar, M/s Thaper Concast Ltd. PW 61 Sh. Munish Dheer, M/s Tata Elxsi (India) Ltd. PW 63 Sh. Vipul Shah, M/s Gujurat Ambuja Protein Ltd. PW 65 Sh. Rajesh Chauhan, M/s Essar Groups.
PW 69 Sh. Ajay Baluja, M/s Mirc Electronics.
PW 70 Sh. H. S. Bhakuni, M/s Mesco Groups.
45.1 At the time of admission or denial, the accused had admitted shares certificates shown to him. Hence, the witnesses relevant to those share certificates were not examined by the prosecution. The accused had admitted that following shares certificates, UTI certificates and bills of purchasing shares. Vide his statement dated 13.09.2010, accused Lala Ram has admitted the genuineness of documents D-4, D-11, D-16, D-22, D-23, CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 69/87 D-24 to D-37, D-39 to D-41, D-43, D-46 and D-47 which were then exhibited as Ex.P1, P2, P3 and P5, Ex.P6/1 to Ex.P6/5, Ex.P7 to Ex.P31, Ex.P32, Ex.P32/1, Ex. P33, Ex.P33/1, Ex.P34, Ex.P34/1, Ex.P35, Ex.P35/1, Ex.P36, Ex.P37 and Ex.P37/1 respectively. On 14.09.2010, accused Lala Ram has further admitted the genuineness of documents D-63, D-67, D-68, D-74, D-76 to D-78, D-81, D-82, D-85 to D-87, D-89, D-90, D-92, D-94 to D-98, D-101 to D-110, which were then exhibited as P38 to P100 respectively. On 21.09.2010, accused has also admitted the genuineness of documents D-111 to D-116, D-148 which were then exhibited as Ex. P101 to P106 and D-134 respectively. 45.2 To prove the purchase of Units of Unit Trust of India by the accused and his wife Smt. Suresh Lata, prosecution has examined PW 36 Sh. Pradeep Bhatia, UTI Investment Services (also examined as PW 47).
He has deposed that he was working with UTI and knew Shri Dharambir, who has since been retired from the UTI. As per the record, address of Lala Ram and Suresh Lata is A-8, New Gurgaon Road, Mahipal Pur, New Delhi. He has proved the following documents:
S.N Particulars Exhibited as Amount
spent
1 10 unit certificates issued in the Ex.PW47/A1 to Rs.10,000/-
name of Suresh Lata for 100 units A10
each @ Rs.10/- per unit
2 Allotment advice Ex.PW47/B -
3 500 units in the name of Suresh Ex.PW47/C1 to Rs.05,000/-
Lata vide 5 certificates of 100 C-5
units each.
4 Allotment advice Ex.PW47/D -
CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 70/87
5 500 units of UTI issued in the Ex.PW47/E1 to Rs.05,000/-
name of Suresh Lata E5
6 Membership form of UTI in the Ex.PW47/F -
name of Lala Ram
7 Allotment advice in the name of Ex.PW47/G -
Lala Ram
8 Allotment of 500 units through Ex.PW47/H1 to Rs.05,000/-
Unit Certificates in the name of H5
Lala Ram
9 Five certificates of 100 units each Ex.PW47/J1 to Rs.05,000/-
in the name of Lala Ram J5
10 Allotment of 500 units in the Ex.PW47/K1 to Rs.07,000/-
name of Lala Ram K5
11 Allotment of 700 units in the Ex.PW47/L Rs.07,000/-
name of Lala Ram
12 Allotment of advice of 100 units Ex.PW47/M Rs.10,000/-
to Lala Ram
13 Record of some unit certificates Ex.PW47/N -
14 Letter written by their RM Mr. Ex.PW47/P -
Davesh Sinha pertaining to above
said fact and address
45.3 The prosecution has valued the shares of different companies
as Rs. 4,08,764/-. This was, however, disputed, by the accused. The accused submitted that there is an error in calculation. The correct value of shares comes to Rs. 3,45,337/-. The accused has given detailed statement referring to shares and their value, with his written submission. The copy of this statement is now being marked as Mark C/DX today for purpose of identification and reference and is made part of judicial record. The prosecution has not given any details how the value of the shares has been calculated as some of the shares have been allotted to the CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 71/87 accused directly and some of the shares he has purchased from the allot- tees. The prosecution has left the entire exercise for the court to do the calculation without providing the criteria to value shares purchased by the accused Lala Ram. Even at the time of arguments, no assistance was received to verify the amount of Rs. 4,08,764/- as the worth of the shares. The accused has admitted the worth of his shares and UTI as Rs. 3,45,337/-. The prosecution was unable to rebut this submission of the accused. Therefore, an amount of Rs. 63,427/- being the difference of the amount claimed by the prosecution and the accused, is being deducted from the assets of the accused shown as Income from shares / UTIs.
45.4 The accused has also disputed that the 100 shares of M/s Essar Gujurat Ltd., worth Rs. 30,300/- belongs to him. Therefore, he submitted that this amount of Rs. 30,300/- be also deducted from the amount of Rs. 4,08,764/- as the assets from shares / UTIs.
45.5 The prosecution has filed the document D-45 showing the transaction of 100 shares @ Rs. 303/- each of M/s Essar Gujurat Ltd., worth Rs. 30,300/-. This document, however, has not been proved. The prosecution examined PW 45 Sh. Banarsi Dass Gupta with regard to the receipt (D-45) page 825, however, he denied any knowledge about the said receipt. The prosecution has also not produced the share certificate mentioned in the receipt (D-45), therefore, I agree with the submission of Ld. Counsel for accused that this amount of Rs. 30,300/- on account of 100 shares of M/s Essar Gujurat @ Rs. 303/- each has to be deducted from the assets on account of failure of the prosecution to prove the ownership of the accused of these shares.
CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 72/8745.6 Thus, the total assets of accused Lala Ram on account of shares, debentures and UTI units after evaluation of the evidence on this count and considering the submissions of Ld. Defence Counsel and the Ld. Public Prosecutor, comes to [Rs. 4,08,764/ - (Rs. 63,427/- + Rs. 30,300/-)] Rs. 3,15,037/-.
Item No. 25:- Cost of construction of house A-8, Gali No. 2, Mahipal Pur Extension, New Delhi:-
46. The prosecution examined PW 55 Sh. Jai Prakash Mittal, Technical Examiner (Retrd) from Central Vigilance Commission. On 13.11.1996, he along with his assistant Sh. Satish Kumar Garg and Sh. Ved Prakash, Inspector CBI had visited and inspected house No. A-8, Gali No. 2, Road No.2, Mahipal Pur Extension, New Delhi which was in possession of Lala Ram. He prepared the report Ex. PW55/A and sent the same to CBI vide his letter dated 24.12.1996 (Ex. PW 55/B). As per his report, the property was constructed in two parts i.e. first part was constructed during the year 1986, 1987-88 and its value was assessed as Rs.1,15,900/- and the second part was constructed during the year 1989 and its value was assessed at Rs.23,700/- and the total cost of construction was assessed as Rs.1,39,600/-. He had valued the cost of construction only and the cost of land was not included.
46.1 This witness had inspected the house in the presence of the accused.
46.2 The prosecution had also examined PW 30 Sh. Suraj Bhan from the House-Tax Department. He has proved the detailed inspection report as Ex.PW30/B with regard to the plot measuring 200 sq. feet situated at 8-A, Mahipal Pur Extension. He has deposed that Lala Ram CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 73/87 was in possession of this double storeyed building. He further deposed that notice was served upon Lala Ram for the proposed rateable value which is Ex.PW30/C and against this notice, Lala Ram filed objections vide his letter Ex.PW30/D. As per his report Ex. PW 30/B, the rateable value of the property was proposed as Rs. 65,000/-.
46.3 The argument by Ld. Counsel for the accused is that prosecution has examined two witnesses PW 30 Sh. Suraj Bhan and PW 55 Sh. Jai Prakash Mittal, who have given different value of house of accused. He submitted that for the subsequent evaluation of cost of construction of the house, no permission from the court was taken. He submitted that the MCD is the competent authority for the purpose of evaluation of the cost of construction. Therefore, the statement of both these witnesses should be discarded. He submitted that the settled position of law is that when there are two different views, the view that is favorable to the accused, should be accepted. He relied upon the judgment in Shivaji Saheb Rao Babode Vs State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793 where the court observed that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in a case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and other to his innocence, the view which is favorable to the accused should be adopted.
46.4 The argument of the Ld. Counsel is misplaced. This argument is in ignorance of the fact that PW 30 Sh. Suraj Bhan had inspected the house for the purpose of house-tax. Since MCD is the Civic Authority providing civic amenities to the residents, it has to collect house-tax from the user of those civic amenities. There are different sizes of houses, area- wise and construction-wise. Therefore, there cannot be a uniform house- tax for all the properties irrespective of the size and the user thereof. Thus, to determine the house-tax of a particular property, an inspection is carried CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 74/87 out to ascertain the size, the accommodation available in the property and the nature of the user of the property. These are the determining factors to calculate the rateable value of property for fixing house-tax. The purpose of House-Tax Department is not to ascertain the cost of construction. A house-tax inspector is not a technical hand to ascertain the cost of construction. Therefore, the inspection done by PW 30 Sh. Suraj Bhan who was Assistant Zonal Inspector in the House-Tax Department of MCD was to propose the rateable value for the purpose of house-tax and not to assess the cost of construction.
46.5 On the contrary, PW 55 Sh. Jai Prakash Mittal is a technical man, deputed by CVC to examine the house of the accused Lala Ram to ascertain the cost of construction of the house. He submitted his valuation report Ex. PW 55/A wherein he has given in detail the various parameters on the basis of which he gave the cost of construction. He has divided the cost of construction in two parts. For the portion constructed in the year 1986, 87-88, the cost was estimated as Rs. 1,15,900/- and for the portion constructed during 1989, cost was estimated was Rs. 23,700/-. The total cost of construction comes to Rs. 1,39,600/-.
46.6 So it is not the case where two different views are on the same aspect. The scope of inspection by House-Tax Department and the scope of inspection of the house by the technical examiner was quiet different. The purpose of the prosecution to examine PW 30 Sh. Suraj Bhan was to establish that the property was assessed to house-tax. While the purpose of examining PW 55 Sh. Jai Prakash Mittal was to ascertain the cost of construction of the house of accused Lala Ram. There is no contradiction in their statement. Therefore, the cost of construction of house of accused Lala Ram is taken as Rs. 1,39,600/-.
CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 75/8747. On the basis of discussion above the income, expenditure and assets of the accused Lala Ram comes as under:-
1.Income : Rs. 8,78,587/-.
2.Expenditure : Rs. 3,03,348/-.
3.Assets : Rs. 20,37,501/-.
Whether accused satisfactorily explains the assets ?
48. Now, once the prosecution has proved the assets of the accused which are disproportionate to his known source of income, the burden comes on the accused / public servant to explain his assets and the manner of their acquisition. Thus, the public servant has to account for the assets. The accused has to "satisfactorily account" for the assets. The legislature put emphasis on the word "satisfactorily" as used in Section 13 (1)(e) of the PC Act. Thus, a duty has been cast on the accused not only to offer plausible explanation as to how he acquired the assets but he has also to satisfy the court that his explanation was worthy of acceptance. 48.1 "Thus, two postulates must combine together for crystallization into the offence, namely, possession of property or resources disproportionate to the known source of income of public servant and inability of public servant to account for it. Burden of proof regarding the first limb is on the prosecution whereas the onus is on the public servant to prove the second limb". P. Nallammel Vs State Rep. by Inspector of Police, AIR 1999 SC 2556.
48.2 The Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the explanation of the accused regarding the possession of assets has to be considered on the principle of preponderance of probability and not on the CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 76/87 principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt. He has relied upon following judgments in support of his submissions as to the explanation of the accused regarding his income and assets.
State of Maharashtra Vs W. R. Kaidalwar, AIR 1981 SC 1186. DSP Chennai Vs K. Inbasagaran, 2006 Crl. L J 319 M. Krishna Reddy Vs State, AIR 1993 SC 313 Jhaggan Vs State, AIR 1966 SC 1762 Vemulakonda Anjane Yulu Vs State, 1996 Crl. L J 3897 State of M. P. Vs Mohan Lal Soni, 2000 SCC (Crl.) 1110 State of Punjab Vs Bhajan Singh, AIR 1975 SC 258.
Deshraj Vs State of Punjab, 1971 (3) SCC 235.
Dudh Nath Pandey Vs State of UP, AIR 1981 SC 911.
Machhatar Singh Vs State of Punjab, (1976) 1 SCC 750. 48.3 The Ld. Counsel, however, has not submitted copies of the judgments listed as above, with his written submissions. He submitted that these judgments are relevant to the nature of proof which is required from the accused to prove his innocence. This court does not dispute with the broad principle of criminal law which presume the innocence of accused and cast a duty on the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. However as per Sec. 106 of the Evidence Act, if a fact is within the knowledge of the accused then he has to prove it. The basic principle of law is that accused has to prove his defence on the principle of preponderance of probabilities.
48.4 In the case of possession of assets by a public servant disproportionate to his known source of income, public servant has to satisfactorily explain his assets. The applicability of the principle of preponderance of probabilities does not extend to the extent that the CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 77/87 principle of Evidence Act, the principle of appreciation of evidence and the improbabilities of the defence are ignored. In the present case, the accused has claimed agricultural income and rental income to explain his assets.
I shall deal with the each head of income which the accused has claimed:-.
Rental Income:-
49. The accused has stated that he had rental income of Rs. 26,000/- during the check period. In this regard he has examined DW 5 Sh. Chhokey Lal Gautam. He deposed that he was working as Assistant Meteorologist Grade-II with Indian Meteorological Department from January, 1986 to April, 1990. During this period, he had stayed in the residence of accused Lala Ram on rent at A-8 and 9, Gali No. 2, Road No. 2, Mahipal Pur Extension. He paid rent @ Rs. 500/- per month during this period. Thereafter, he was transferred to Mumbai. 49.1 The accused has also claimed the benefit of Rs. 26,000/- as rental income which he earned by renting out his house for 52 months @ Rs. 500/- per month to DW 5. It is interesting to note that in the cross- examination of DW 5 he stated that he also stayed in the house of the accused as tenant from September, 1998 to August, 2005 and paid rent @ Rs. 8500/- per month. However, he did not produce any documentary proof with regard to his tenancy during this period. The accused has also not claimed that DW 5 was his tenant from September, 1998 to August, 2005. The accused appeared as DW 10 (under Sec. 315 Cr.PC) but he has nowhere claimed that DW 5 Chhokey Lal Gautam was his tenant for this period. I intend to believe the statement of DW 5 with regard to his tenancy from January, 1986 to April, 1990. Since this tenancy was long CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 78/87 time back, it was not expected that any documentary proof would be available with DW 5 to show his tenancy. However, the same cannot be said with regard to the so called tenancy from September, 1998 to August 2005 as stated by DW 5 in his cross-examination because it was recent in time and without any documentary proof in the form of election card, ration card, driving license etc., showing the address of DW 5 as A-8, Mahipal Pur Extension, Delhi, this claim of tenancy cannot be accepted. Therefore, I extend the benefit of Rs. 26,000/- to the accused on account of his rental income from January, 1986 to April, 1990.
Sale of Eucalyptus and Keekar Trees:-
50. The accused has also claimed that he had earned Rs. 1,40,000/- by the sale of Keekar and Eucalyptus trees. To prove this assertion, he has placed on record the receipt (Ex. DW 1/B) signed on the revenue stamp by the accused and witnessed by Nathi Singh (DW 1) and Rajpal Singh. This receipt apparently was without any date initially. The date 13.03.1990 under the signatures of accused Lala Ram, Nathi Singh and Rajpal Singh is apparently written later on. A naked eye comparison of the ink used for writing the date on receipt and the signatures thereon would show that the date 13.03.1990 has been mentioned by a different pen and ink. If the accused had got this receipt prepared on 13.03.1990, there was no occasion for the use of different pen and ink under his signature for writing the date 13.03.1990. Same is with the case of witnesses namely Nathi Singh and Rajpal Singh.
50.1 DW 1, who is a witness to this receipt, has deposed that this receipt pertains to the sale of 400 keekar and Eucalyptus trees by the CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 79/87 accused and he had signed it at point A. The accused when appeared as a witness under Sec. 315 Cr.PC as DW-10 has stated that when his father had expired in the year 1988, the land was mutated in his name along with Eucalyptus and Keekar trees and he sold these trees for the sum of Rs. 1,40,000/-.
50.2 In the cross-examination, however, accused has admitted that there is no document to show that agriculture land mutated in his name also had Keekar and Eucalyptus trees. As per his case, he has six acres of land on which he grew sugar-cane crop and the trees were already planted on the land even at the time of his father. As regards the record of trees in the revenue record, he has stated that at the time of mutation of land the reference to the trees etc., are not made as the mutation is only of the land. He further stated in his cross-examination that he had sold these trees to one Sh. Durjan Singh, who has expired, and the receipt Ex. DW 1/D was procured by Sh. Nathi Singh from the son of Sh. Durjan Singh. The accused has not brought the best evidence i.e the son of Sh. Durjan Singh from whose possession receipt Ex. DW 1/D was brought by him. DW 1 Nathi Singh also does not say that he had procured the receipt from son of Sh. Durjan Singh. The existence of Ex. DW 1/D as on 13.03.1990, the date of its preparation, is highly doubtful. Moreover, although the accused claimed that he informed the department about the sale of Eucalyptus and Keekar Trees but he could not satisfy the court on this count. He filed one copy of a letter Mark DW-10/1 which neither bear the endorsement of his office nor any diary number. His explanation that he used to leave the information in the office of his superior, is not found satisfactory. In every office, there is system of keeping the record of Receipt and Issue. The accused was working in the MTNL, therefore, it is not possible to believe CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 80/87 that the information with regard to assets would be communicated to the Department without having a receipt number.
Sale of Mustard Seeds:-
51. The prosecution had shown Rs. 85,000/- cash, which is shown in the assets at item No. 18 in Annexure-C. The accused claimed that he had sold mustard seeds on 25.12.1993 to Agricultural Produce Marketing committee (APMC) worth Rs. 84,380/-. The amount recovered on 05.01.1994 from his house was the same. To prove his assertion, he has examined one witness DW 9 Sh. Sachin Aggarwal, who deposed that his father Munni Lal Aggarwal was a Commission Agent for sale and purchase of grains in the Anaz Mandi, Aligarh. With regard to the receipt Ex. DW 9/A showing the sale of mustard, he deposed that he identified the signature of his father at point A. However, he cannot tell who has written the contents of receipt. He further deposed that he cannot tell about the document Ex. DW 9/A and he does not have any record of the year 1993 nor he can say that in 1993 the kind of receipt as Ex. DW 9/A used to be prepared and he cannot say whether such receipts were issued at any time. Lastly, in the cross-examination he deposed that he cannot admit or deny that Ex. DW 9/A is a forged document.
51.1 The accused claimed that he had grown mustard seeds which was sold on 25.12.1993. This plea is contrary to his plea that he had grown sugar-cane on his entire land. Further, the accused has not produced any revenue record i.e Khasra / Girdawari to show that he had grown mustard on his land. If this receipt Ex. DW 9/A was with the accused on 05.01.1994, then he could have easily produced it before the CBI officials CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 81/87 to explain the recovery of Rs. 85,000/- cash from his house. It is pertinent to note that on 05.01.1994 the house search of accused led to recovery of number of documents but this receipt was not recovered. The accused has not explained from where he got this receipt. Therefore, the genuineness of this receipt cannot be believed.
Loan of Rs. 1,20,000/- given by father and recovered by accused:-
52. The accused in his written submission and also in his statement as DW 10 claimed that before his death, the father of the accused had given Rs. 1,20,000/- to co-villagers. This amount was returned to the accused by those persons from time to time. However, he has not mentioned the name of even a single person who has returned any amount taken as loan from father of the accused. This plea of the accused is simply an after thought without any basis and, therefore, cannot be believed.
CDR of Rs. 50,000/- in the name of Lala Ram and Smt. Mukhtiyari Devi of Oriental Bank of Commerce:-
53. It was argued on behalf of accused that this amount of Rs.
50,000/- should be deducted from the assets of the accused as it was in the name of his mother Smt. Mukhtiyari Devi who had sold the flat No. 239, Jaidev Park, New Delhi, in the year 1991 for a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. This submission of the accused cannot be accepted in view of the documents on record. The issue whether Smt. Mukhtiyari Devi sold the flat on 08.07.1991 to Smt. Anjali Kumari has already been discussed while considering the expenditure on account of payment of electricity bill of LIG Flat 239, Jaidev Park, New Delhi in item No. 5 under the heading CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 82/87 'Expenditure' in paragraphs 20 to 20.5 above. This is a fact that the mother of the accused was not having any income of her own. She was dependent on the accused. The land which was in the name of her husband Sh. Lakmi Singh was mutated in the name of accused. Therefore, there was no source of income for Smt. Mukhtiyari Devi to deposit Rs. 50,000/- as CDR in the bank. So, this amount is also to the credit of the accused.
FINAL CONCLUSION AS TO THE INCOME, EXPENDITURE AND ASSETS OF THE ACCUSED:-
54. On the basis of the above discussion about the income, expenditure and assets of the accused in the light of evidence which has come on record and the explanation of the accused with regard to rental income which is accepted by the court to the extent of Rs. 26,000/-, the total income, expenditure and assets of the accused is calculated as under
in the tabular form:-
ANNEXURE 'A' INCOME 1 Salary Income from MTNL w.e.f. 27.11.74 to Rs. 63,503=00 31.12.85 without calculating DA, ADA, HRA Rs.3,23,581=20 01.01.86 to 1.94 Rs.1,12,915=80 Considerable benefit given against non-
calculations of DA, ADA, HRA etc. Rs.5,00,000=00 TOTAL 2 Interest on SB Accounts No.11583, 24293 Rs. 1,08,459/-
(Syndicate Bank) 3 Dividend/interest on the different shares Rs. 6,128/-
recovered/purchased by accused.
4 Agricultural Income on account of sale of Rs. 2,64,000/-
sugar-cane from 1992 to 1994.
CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 83/875 Rental Income from January, 1986 to April Rs. 26,000/-
1990 (As proved by the accused)
Total Rs. 9,04,587/-
Income : Rs. 9,04,587/-
ANNEXURE 'B'
EXPENDITURES
1 LPG Gas expenditure up-to 31.12.1993 Rs. 5,728=65
2 School fee (3 daughters) Air Force School, Rs. 803=20
Palam
3 School fee, Kishal Pal Singh, DAV School, Rs. 18,219=00
Vasant Kunj, upto 05.01.94.
4 DESU, Payment of Electricity, Bills upto Rs. 13,035=95
5.1.94, A-8, New Mahipalpur Extn., New
Delhi.
5 DESU, Payment of Electricity bills upto 5.1.94, Rs. 1,986=00
LIG Flat 239, Jai Dev Park.
6 30% of total income Rs. 2,71,376/-
Total Expenditures Rs.3,11,148.80/-
Rs.3,11,148.80/-
ANNEXURE 'C'
ASSETS
1 5 ½ years Kishan Vikas Patra Nos. 853843 to Rs. 40,000=00
853846 dated 28.09.1993
2 NSC No. 04 DD 641765 dated 6.2.92 Rs. 5,000=00
3 CDR, B2709163 dated 9.7.91 in the name of Rs. 50,000-00
Lala Ram, issued by Oriental Bank of
Commerce, Mahipalpur
4 DCR No. DT 657060 dated 27.2.93 issued in Rs. 1,00,000=00
the name of Suresh Lata w/o Lala Ram, issued
by OBC
CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 84/87
5 CDR No. B2790164 dt. 9.7.91 in the name of Rs. 50,000=00
Suresh Lata w/o Lala Ram, issued by OBC
6 CDR No.657059 dt. 27.2.93 in the name of Rs. 1,00,000=00
Suresh Lata w/o Lala Ram, issued by OBC
7 CDR No. B2790200 dt. 18.7.91 in the name of Rs. 50,000=00
Lala Ram and M/o Lala Ram, Mukhtiari Devi,
issued by POBC
8 CRS No. NBI/A351298 dated 12.7.91 in the Rs. 50,000=00
name of Lala Ram, issued by NBI, now PNB.
9 CRS No. NBI/A351297 dated 12.7.91 in the Rs. 50,000=00
name of Suresh Lata, issued by NBI (now
PNB)
10 MMDC No. H 395032 dt. 12.7.91 in the name Rs. 16,000=00
of Lala Ram, Central Bank of India, Janpath
11 STDR No. STD/1 850879 dated 15.10.91 in the Rs. 20,000=00
name of Suresh Lata, by S.B.Patiala,
Mahipalpur.
12 STDR No. STD/1 850880 dated 15.10.91 in the Rs. 20,000=00
name of Lala Ram, by S.B.P
13 STDR No. A/10 639806 dated 15.10.91 in the Rs. 20,000=00
name of Suresh Lata, by SBI Janpath
14 VCC No. 082640 dated 6.10.93 in the name of Rs. 60,000=00
Lala Ram of Vijaya Bank, Delhi Cantt.
15 MBDC No.127223 dated 3.5.92 in the name of Rs. 50,000=00
Lala Ram of PNB
16 VCC No.49322/21032 93227/2106 dated Rs. 4,00,000=00
1/2.9.92 476818/15336-476817/15337,
0706174 dt.12.7.91 in the name of Lala Ram @
Suresh Lata of SBI, N. Delhi
17 Cash balance as on 5.1.94 (dt. Of search) in the Rs.2,47,431=00 bank accounts No.11583, 24293 of Syndicate Bank, No.2438, 2439 of PNB and Tokyo Bank account No.525401, OBC Account No.4069 & Syndicate Bank 3712 in the name of Lala Ram and Suresh Lata CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 85/87 18 Cash found during the house search as per Rs. 85,000=00 memo 5.1.94 19 House hold articles as per observation memo Rs. 66,141=00 dated 5.1.94 (1985 to 5.1.94) 20 Booking of plot with Versha Ritua Housing Rs. 30,110=00 Society 21 Payment towards DDA LIG Flat No.239D Rs. 29,303=00 Jaydev Park in the name of Mother of accused Lala Ram 22 Purchase of 2 plots measuring 100 sq. yards Rs. 28,000=00 each from Shri Om Prakash and Shri Mam Raj Singh in the name of Lala Ram & Suresh Lata, bearing No. A-4, Gali No. Road No.-2, Mahipalpur Extn., New Delhi 23 Payment of LIC policy No. 110703362 and Rs. 15,879=00 11134836 24 Shares of different companies Rs. 3,15,037=00 25 Cost of construction of house A-8, Gali No.2, Rs. 1,39,600=00 Mahipalpur Extn., New Delhi as per the evaluation report of TE of CVC dated 24.12.96 Total Assets Rs. 20,37,501=00 On the basis of the above analysis of the evidence, the final result as to the Income, Expenditure, Assets acquired during check period and Disproportionate Assets comes as under:-
1 Total Income during the check period Rs. 9,04,587=00 2 Expenditure during the check period Rs. 3,11,148=00 3 Likely Savings during the check period Rs.5,93,439=00 [Income (-) Expenditure] 4 Assets acquired during check period Rs.20,37,501=00 CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 86/87 Disproportionate assets after deducting the Rs.14,44,062=00 likely saving from total assets.
[ Assets (-) Likely Savings] %age 14,44,062 x 100 = 159.63% 9,04,587
55. Thus, in view of the discussion above in the light of evidence led by the prosecution and the accused, I have come to the conclusion that on 05.01.1994 the accused was in possession of pecuniary resources and property to the extent of Rs. 14,44,062/- which was disproportionate to his known source of income. Thus being a public servant, he committed an act of criminal misconduct under Sec. 13(1)(e) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The accused Lala Ram is held guilty for the offence under Sec. 13(1)(e) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and convicted accordingly.
Announced in open Court (Ajay Kumar Kuhar) on 06.05.2014 Special Judge-06 (CBI), PC Act District Central, Tis Hazari Court Delhi, CBI Vs Lala Ram CC No. 01/12 87/87