Delhi District Court
Cc No. 17/2010 Cbi vs . Mohan Lal Goyal Page 1 Of 96 on 30 March, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SANJAY GARG-I:
SPECIAL JUDGE-IV, (PC ACT) CBI: DELHI
CC No.17/2010
ID No. 02401R0645072003
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
Versus
1. Mohan Lal Goyal
Executive Engineer,
PWD, Division No. 22,
New Delhi.
R/o. B-1, B/6, Janak Puri,
New Delhi ........
Accused
Case arising out of : FIR No. RC-DAI-2000-A-0014
Date of FIR : 13.04.2000
Date of Institution : 30.01.2003
Date of conclusion of
Final Arguments : 23.03.2016
Date of Judgment : 30.03.2016
JUDGMENT:
1.0 Brief facts of the case of prosecution are that during investigation of RC-61(A)/99-DLI u/s 120B R/w Section 420 IPC and 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 registered against accused. Search was conducted at his residential premises at B-1B/6, Janak Puri, New Delhi CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 1 of 96 on 28.12.1999. Thereafter Sh. Om Prakash, Inspector, CBI, ACB, Delhi made a complaint and on that basis RC-DAI-2000-A-0014 was registered against accused u/s 13(2) R/w Section 13(1)(e) of PC Act, 1988. It was found that accused and his family members were in possession of two flats, one plot at B-1B/6, Janak Puri, Delhi and one shop at Janak Puri, New Delhi. NSCs for Rs. 4,02,500/-, ICICI/IDBI bonds for Rs. 1,44,000/-, UTI Schemes for Rs. 1,17,180/-, bank balance of Rs. 4,51,320/- and shares of different companies were also found. Against the likely savings of around Rs. 29 lakhs, he was found in possession of disproportionate assets.
1.1 Investigation revealed that accused originally belongs to village Naola, District Muzaffar Nagar, U.P. His father Late Sh. Mam Chand was an agriculturist and left 7 bighas and 7 biswas of agricultural land. The accused has 1 brother and 5 sisters and all of them are living separately. In 1962 he got married to Mrs. Pushpa Goyal. She had her education upto 8th class. Accused has 3 daughters namely, Ms. Renu, Ms. Anju and Ms. Bindu born on 05.01.1964, 29.09.1969 and 29.12.1970 respectively. Ms. Renu got married on February, 1988 to Sh. Rajeev Aggarwal, Ms. Anju got married on 19.01.1996 to Sh. Arvind Kumar Mittal and Ms. Bindu got married to Sh. Ranjan Wadhwa on 12.10.1998. Sh. Ajay Kumar Goyal son of accused was born on 31.01.1967. He residing with his father, dealing in share business and got married on 05.12.1996. Ms. Bindu was working as Research Assistant in Ranbaxy before her marriage and she went to USA. Accused completed diploma in Civil Engineering from Roorki in 1961 and joined as Section Officer in CPWD on 28.11.1961. After qualifying AMIE he was appointed as Assistant Engineer in CPWD on 13.12.1967. He was promoted as Executive Engineer on 28.01.1981 and during the same year accused started construction of his house on plot B-1B/6, Janak Puri, New Delhi and it was completed in June, 1981. For the CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 2 of 96 construction purpose of the said house accused claimed to have taken a loan of Rs. 50,000/- from his relatives and friends and he applied on 11.01.1983 for House Building Allowance to liquidate his said loan of Rs. 50,000/- but his request was not accepted. The check period has been taken from August, 1981 to 28.12.1999 i.e. the date of search.
1.2. Assets held before check period, salary income of accused, income of his other family members, assets and expenditure as mentioned in the charge sheet are reproduced below:-
1.3. ASSETS HELD BEFORE CHECK PERIOD As per prosecution case accused was in possession of residential house no. B-1B/6, Janak Puri costing Rs. 1,48,994/- besides house hold articles worth Rs. 3,500/-. He was in possession of movable and immovable assets to the tune of Rs. 1,52,494 only and liability of loan of Rs. 50,000/-.
1.4. INCOME OF ACCUSED AND HIS FAMILY During the check period sons and daughters of accused was contributed to the income of the family. Daughters till their marriage were living with the accused. Since all were living together the whole family has been treated as one unit. The income of every member of the family has been calculated and added into the total income of the family.
Sl. No. Nature of Income Amount in
Rupees
1 Salary income of Mohan Lal Goyal from August, Rs. 14,08,742.35
1981 to November, 1999
2 Income from dividend Bank interest, UTI Rs. 67,248.12
Schemes, dividends, Maturity of NSC to Shri
Mohan Lal Goyal
3 Income of Smt. Pushpa Goyal W/o. Shri Mohan Rs. 3,52,278.00
Lal Goyal as per Income Tax Return, Bank
CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 3 of 96
interest
4 Income of Ms. Anju Goyal D/o. Shri Mohan Lal Rs. 2,15,108.00
Goyal as per Income Tax Return
5 Income of Ms. Bindu Goyal D/o. Shri Mohan Lal Rs. 2,31,887.00
Goyal as per details supplied by Ranbaxy
6 Income of Shri Ajay Kumar Goyal S/o. Shri Mohan Rs. 12,97,083.00
Lal Goyal as per Income Tax Return
Total Income of Family Rs. 35,72,345.47
Salary income details of accused Mohan Lal Goyal Annexure-A Sr. No. Period Amount
1. Pay 8/81 - 2/82 13,327.10
2. Pay 3/83 - 2/83 26,035.80
3. Pay 3/83 - 4/83 3,902.40
4. HRA drawn 3/83 - 4/83 1,314.65
5. Pay 5/83 - 9/83 6,976.10
6. Pay 10/83 - 6/84 (Nine months) 15,285.00 Salary details of the nine months have calculated on the basis of salary drawn of 7/84 which was Rs. 1698.30 and it was multiplied by nine.
7. Pay 7/84 - 9/87 1,04,210.60
8. Pay 16.10.1987 - 12.04.1990 1,46,455.70
9. Pay 13.04.1990 - August, 91 82,058.00
(i) Pay from 13.04.1990 to 30.04.1990 = 2954.91 based on the pay of 3/90 and 12 days of 4/90
(ii) Pay of 9/91 = 4944.00 Pay 5/90 - 8/91 = 4944 X 16 = 79104 Total (i) + (ii) Rs. 2954 + Rs. 79104 = Rs. 82,058.00
10. Pay 9/91 - 6/93 1,38,244.00
11. Pay 3/94 - 12/94 70,104.00 CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 4 of 96
12. Arrears of Pay 06.09.1993 - 31.01.1994 34,605.00
13. Arrears of Pay 01.07.1993 - 05.09.1993 15,720.00
14. Arrears of HRA 20.01.1992 - 05.09.1993 427.00
15. Arrears of Increment 1,050.00
16. Pay 1/95 - 8/95 47,217.00
17. Pay 9/95 - 2/96 1,33,788.00
18. Pay 3/96 - 2/97 80,287.00
19. Pay 3/97 - 2/98 1,08,464.00
20. Pay 3/98 - 2/99 2,08135.00
21. Pay 3/99 - 11/99 1,71,136.00 Total 14,08,742.35 Income from other Sources of Shri Mohan Lal Goyal such as dividend etc. Srl. No. Sources of Income Amount 1 Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. Rs.2,910.00 2 Deepak Spinners Ltd. Rs.1,258.00 3 Oswal Chemical Fertilizers Ltd. Rs.450.00 4 IDBI Rs.1,250.00 5 Orkay Industries Ltd. Rs.510.00 6 Nagarjuna Fertilizer & Chemical Ltd. Rs.720.00 7 Modern Insulator Rs.165.00 8 Reliance Industries Ltd. Rs.5,384.78 9 Chambil Fertilizer & Chemical Ltd. Rs.1,792.39 10 Noval Steel (India) Ltd. Rs.116.00 11 Rajinder Steel Ltd. Rs.615.45 12 Rajinder Pipe Ltd. Rs.33.00 13 IFCI Rs.100.00 14 ICCI Rs.2,016.00 15 Income from UTI Units/Shares Rs.25,978.00 CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 5 of 96 16 Dividend from Mool Chand Experts Rs.264.00 17 Income on maturity of NSC Rs.2,537.50 18 Interest of S.B. A/c. No. 7389 of PNB Rs.11,564.00 Janak Puri, Delhi 19 1/4th Share of selling Agricultury Land of Rs.5,750.00 Vill. NAOLA, Muzzafar Nagar, U.P. For Rs.23,000/- on 14.03.1983 20 Income from selling R.I.L. Share Rs.3,834.00 Total Rs.67,248.12 Income details of Smt. Pushpa Goyal W/o. Shri Mohan Lal Goyal as per Income Tax paid Assessment Income Tax Paid Approx. Gross Income in Year Rupees Rupees 1992-93 349 28,243.00 1993-94 842 35,743.00 1994-95 1,894 40,052.00 1995-96 1,656 45,658.00 1996-97 532 48,662.00 1997-98 450 51,200.00 1998-99 230 47,807.00 1999-2000 _____ 53,848.00 2000-2001 Bank Interest 365.00 Total Rs.5953 Rs.3,52,278.00 Income details of Shri Ajay Kumar Goyal S/o. Shri Mohan Lal Goyal Assessment Income Tax Paid in Approx. Gross Income in Year Rupees Rupees 1989-90 75 18,200.00 1990-91 90 18,450.00 1991-92 Nil 18,730.00 CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 6 of 96 1992-93 640+240 25,200.00 1993-94 1362+169 38,810.00 1994-95 1,000 36,439.00 1995-96 695 52,253.00 1996-97 5,021 74,478.00 1997-98 2,880 106,171.00 1998-99 7,204 159,980.00 1999-2000 9,555 175,181.00 2000-2001 114,495 385,191.00 Total Rs.11,09,083.00 Income details of Ms. Anju Goyal D/o. Shri Mohan Lal Goyal Assessment Year Income Tax Paid Approx. Gross Total Income 1993-94 126 29,888.00 1994-95 112 31,792.00 1995-96 480 39,832.00 1996-97 612 46,023.00 1997-98 625 50,250.00 Total Rs. 1,955 Rs. 1,97,785.00 Profit on sale of Barley with M/s. Motilal & Co. during October, 1990 17,323 Total: - 2,15,108 Income details of Ms. Bindu Goyal D/o. Sh. Mohan Lal Goyal 1 Salary for the period Dec.30'96 to March, 31'1997 Rs.26,917.00 2 Salary for the period April, 01'1997 to March, Rs.1,10,610.00 31'1998 3 Salary for the period April, 01'1998 to Oct., Rs. 94,360.00 20'1998 Total Rs. 2,31,887.00 CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 7 of 96 Income Tax Paid = Rs. 4,615.00 Assets acquired by the accused and his family Annexure-B Sr. No. Immovable Assets In Rupees
1. Shop No. 17, C-Block, Community Centre, Janak 3,35,825.00 Puri, New Delhi in the name of Shri Ajay Kumar Goyal in 1995
2. LIG Flat No. SK-1/316, Indira Puram, Ghaziabad in 1,36,001.00 the name of Sh. Ajay Kumar Goyal
3. Flat No. EWS-2/448, Naya Khand, Indira Puram, 54,463.00 Ghaziabad in the name of Mrs. Anju Goyal D/o Shri M.L. Goyal
4. Flat No. NK-II/939, Naya Khand, Indira Puram, 54,151.00 Ghaziabad in the name of Mrs. Bindu Goyal purchased in 1990 Sr. No. Movable Assets In Rupees
1. Cash observed during house search on 28.12.1999 2,50,000.00
2. Bank Balance in the name of Shri M.L. Goyal 51,808.74
3. Investment in NSS Account in Head Post Office 2,21,462.00 Sansad Marg in the name of Shri M.L. Goyal
4. Bank Balance in the name of Sh. Ajay Kumar 50,434.28 Goyal in different accounts
5. Investment Karsa Finvest (P) Ltd. in the name of 95,136.21 ShriAjay Kumar Goyal
6. Bank Balance in the name of Smt. Pushpa Goyal 17,474.74 W/o. Shri M.L. Goyal in different accounts
7. Bus No. DL-IP-2490 in the name of Shri Ajay 5,60,073.00 Kumar Goyal purchased in 1992
8. Bus No. DL-IP-A-4878 in the name of Shri Ajay 6,23,577.00 Kumar Goyal purchased in 1999
9. Maruti Car No. DNB 7232 in the name of Shri Ajay 1,00,679.00 Kumar Goyal
10. Bajaj Scooter DBE 5028 in the name of Shri 10,669.00 CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 8 of 96 Mohan Lal Goyal
11. Gold and Silver jewellery 5,39,052.00
12. House Hold articles as per observation Memo 2,09,648.00 acquired during the check period
13. Investment in NSC's by Shri M.L. Goyal, Pushpa 4,22,500.00 Goyal and Ajay Kumar Goyal
14. Investment in ICICI Bonds in the name of Sh. M.L. 1,33,000.00 Goyal, Pushpa Goyal & Ajay Kumar Goyal
15. Investment in IDBI infrastructure Bonds in the 20,000.00 name of Shri M.L. Goyal and Ajay Kumar Goyal
16. Investment in Shares in the name of Accused Shri 11,17,132.35 M.L. Goyal and his family members
17. Investment in UTI Shares 1,36,808.00 Total 51,39,867.82 EXPENDITURE Annexure-C Sl. No. Nature of Expenditure Amount 1 Non verifiable Kitchen Expenses etc. of the Carry Rs.4,88,615.00 home salary of Shri M.L. Goyal 2 Income tax paid by the family member of the Rs.42,030.00 accused (Rs.5953 +Rs.24507+Rs.1955+Rs.4615) 3 Expenditure towards Telephone Bill of Two Rs.61,239.00 Telephones 4 Property Tax of B-1B/6, Janakpuri, New Delhi Rs.26,299.00 5 Expenditure towards Anand Niketan Club Rs.50,000.00 6 Payment of Bharat Tent House and Light House Rs.10,000.00 7 Payment to Prominent Studio Pvt. Ltd. Rs.1,472.00 8 Payment to Vimal Chhabra, CA Rs.1050.00 9 Payment to Highway Printers Rs.800.00 10 Besco Battery and Electricals Service Co. Rs.625.00 11 Kemp & Co. for Suitcases Rs.3,430.00 12 Electricity Security charges in respect of Shop C-17, Rs.875.00 CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 9 of 96 Community Centre, Janakpuri 13 Purchase of Sarees from J.K. Sarees, Sarojini Nagar Rs.4990.00 14 Bill of Better deal Electronic Pvt. Ltd. Rs.2650.00 15 Purchase of Dress Materials from Kamal Sons Rs.6140.00 16 Purchase of Dress Materials from Krishna Fabrics, Rs.5,302.00 J&K Emporium Meet Rubia Matching and Pandit Brothers 17 Purchase of Sarees from Banarsi Saree Mandi and Rs.40,179.00 Nalli Silk Sarees 18 Car battery from Preet Motors Rs.1200.00 19 Insurance of Car DNB-7232 Rs.3,114.00 20 Purchase of Share in J.P. Industries by Anju Goyal Rs.38,000.00 21 Purchase of Share of TATA Metalik Rs.14,400.00 22 Watches purchased from Ganguly Bros. Rs.2410.00 Total Rs.8,04,820.00 1.5 As per the details of the income, expenditure, immovable and movable assets in the name of accused and his family members, the accused was found in possession of disproportionate assets of Rs.
23,72,341.35/- which is 66.40% of his known-source of income. Accordingly, charge sheet was filed against him for the offence punishable u/s 13(2) R/w 13(1)(e) of PC Act. Accused being retired from service on 30.06.2000 hence sanction of prosecution has not been obtained.
CHARGE 2.0 Accused was charged for the offence punishable u/s 13(2) R/w Section 13(1)(e) of PC Act, 1988 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE 3.0 To prove its case, prosecution has examined 92 witnesses.
CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 10 of 96 The various witnesses examined by prosecution are categorized under following heads:
3.1 To explain the assets, prosecution has examined the following witnesses:-
PW-2 Sh. Jagbir Singh, LDC, Education Department, Old Secretariat, Delhi.
PW-3 Sh. Amar Singh, From Health Department, Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangolpuri, Delhi.
PW-4 Sh. R.S. Chadha, Manager (Personal Administration) Bajaj Auto Ltd.
PW-7 Sh. Navin Chander, Clerk in GDA.
PW-13 Sh. R.S. Chadha, Working in Bajaj Auto Ltd., Asaf Ali Road.
PW-16 Sh. Dalpat Singh, Public Relation Inspector (Postal), Dwarka, P.O. New Delhi.
PW-17 Sh. Suresh Chand Sharma, Public Relation Inspector (Postal) H.P.O, Sansad Marg, New Delhi.
PW-18 Sh. Rohit C. Shah, Vice President, Corporate Secretarial, Reliance Industries Ltd.
PW-19 Sh. Ashwani Kumar Sunder, Sr. Secretarial Officer, Deepak Spinners Ltd.
PW-20 Sh. Vijay Kumar Chandak, Branch Manager in M/s Kassa Finvest Pvt. Ltd.
PW-21 Sh. Mahender Vyas, Asstt. General Manager, 3i Infotech Ltd.
PW-22 Sh. Dheeraj Gupta, Manager in M/s MCS Ltd.
PW-23 Sh. B.M. Paliwal, Assistant Officer in M/s Oswal Agro Mills Ltd.
CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 11 of 96 PW-24 Sh. Radhey Lal Sharma, Administrative Officer in HB Leasing & Finance Co. Ltd.
PW-26 Sh. R.K. Sharma, Asstt. General Manager, IDBI Bank.
PW-32 Sh. Surender Kumar, Assistant Manager, UTI Mutual Fund, Jeevan Bharti Building.
PW-36 Sh. N.K. Aggarwal, Retd. Managing Director of M/s Semri Computer Services Pvt. Ltd.
PW-38 Sh. Sushil Kumar Mehta, Assistant Post Master in Head Post Office, Parliament Street.
PW-46 Sh. H. Kerketta, Asstt. Director in the Office of Chief Engineer, Commonwealth Games Project, DDA at Shahpur Jat, New Delhi.
PW-47 Sh. Priyadarshan, Officer in M/s MCS Ltd., Okhla Industrial Area.
PW-50 Sh. Subhasis Dey, Vice President Corporate Services, Tata Metalliks Ltd., Kolkata.
PW-52 Sh. S.P. Venugopal, Dy. General Manager, M/s Karvy Computer Share Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad.
PW-53, Sh. L.C. Pandey, Sub-Registrar, Sadar-I, Saharanpur, U.P. PW-55 Sh. T.D. Joshi, Asstt. General Manager, M/s Jai Prakash Associates Ltd., Noida, U.P. PW-66 Sh. Shanti Nath Jha, Manager, Karvy Computershare Pvt. Ltd., Barakhamba Road, New Delhi.
PW-67 Sh. Shyamal Kumar Choudhary, Sr. Officer (Secretarial) with Chambal Fertilizer & Chemicals.
PW-68 Sh. Phool Singh Chauhan, Retd. Superintendent from Govt. School.
CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 12 of 96 PW-69 Sh. J.P. Ray, Asstt. Manager, SETCO Automotive Ltd.
PW-71 Sh. C.D. Sharma, Asstt. Manager, Vigilance Department, HR Division, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. at Gurgaon.
PW-75 Sh. Girish Duttaram Pilankar, Manager with Share Pro Service India Pvt. Ltd.
PW-76 Sh. Debashish Ghosh, Administrative Officer with Tata Motors (Sales & Service), Gajipur, Delhi.
PW-78 Sh. Rajinder Kumar, Zonal Head, IDBI Mutual Fund and was working as Manager, UTI New Delhi.
PW-85 Sh. S. Murali, Director in Pushya Industrial Gases Ltd. & Oswali Chemicals Ltd.
PW-87 Sh. R.S. Kabra, Manager (Share Department) with Century Enka Ltd.
PW-88 Sh. P.T. Dayanandan, Company Secretary, Manali Petro Chemicals Ltd.
PW-92 Ms. Lorraine Lobo, Assistant Manager (Legal), UTI Investor Services Ltd., Andheri, Mumbai.
3.2 To explain the expenditure, prosecution has examined the following witnesses:-
PW-1 Sh. Mohan Lal Khatri, who used to sit in the shop M/s Banaras Saree Mandir.
PW-5 Sh. Moti, Accountant in M/s R.S. Jewellers.
PW-6 Sh. Bhushan Aggarwal, working with Sri Ram Hari Ram Jewellers in Dariba Kalan.
PW-8 Sh. Surender Kumar Sharma, working in Indian Meteorological Department.
CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 13 of 96 PW-10 Sh. Satish Kumar Dhawan, TRI, GM West-II, MTNL, AOTR, Paschim Vihar.
PW-12 Sh. Vimal Chhabra, Chartered Accountant and Partner of Vimal Chhabra & Co.
PW-14 Sh. K.L. Gupta, one of the Directors of M/s Better Deals Electronics Pvt. Ltd.
PW-15 Sh. M.S. Choudhary, Accountant in Jammu & Kashmir Emporium.
PW-25 Sh. Ish Kalra, M/s Krishna Fashion Fabrics is being run by his father Sh. Raj Kumar Kalra.
PW-28 Sh. Jai Shanker, Cashier in Nalli Silk Sarees.
PW-29 Sh. Ramesh Kumar Bhatia, Running a saree shop in the name and style of J.K. Sarees at Sarojini Nagar Market.
PW-30 Sh. Narendra Marwah, Accountant in the Firm Pandit Bros.
PW-31 Sh. Satish Kumar Mishra, Assistant Manager, UTI Mutual Fund, Bhawani Market.
PW-33 Sh. Jaipal Sharma, looking after the work relating to accountancy in M/s Motilal & Co. Grain Merchants & Commission Agents.
PW-35 Sh. Gurpreet Singh, Partner of M/s Preet Motors.
PW-42 Sh. R.C. Gupta, Retd. General Manager in M/s Anand Niketan Club, Anand Niketan.
PW-43 Sh. Rajeev Bedi, Working in M/s Oriental Insurance Co.
PW-44 Sh. Ravinder Singh, Retd. Senior Manager, M/s Ashok Leyland Ltd.
PW-45 Sh. R.D. Ramasamy, Director of M/s Cameo Corporate CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 14 of 96 Services Ltd., Chennai.
PW-63 Sh. V.K. Garg, Proprietor, M/s Battery & Electrical Service Company, Mohamadpur, New Delhi.
PW-64 Sh. Om Prakash Bajaj, Proprietor, M/s Highway Printers, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi.
PW-65 Sh. Rajesh Sharma, Accountant in M/s Kemp & Company Ltd.
PW-72 Sh. M.N. Suresh, Sr. Manager in Tibhovandas Bhimji Zaveri, Delhi at Janpath, New Delhi.
PW-73 Sh. Devendar Singh who work alongwith his brother Sh. Narendar Singh who is Proprietor of Guru Nanak Coach Builders.
PW-80 Sh. Rajender Kumar, Employee with Prominent Studio Pvt. Ltd., Janak Puri.
PW-81 Sh. M.L. Khurana, Asstt. Engineer from DVB.
PW-89 Sh. Sunil Sahani, working with Ganguly Brothers.
PW-91 Sh. Rajnish Makhija appeared in pursuance to summons issued to owner of M/s Mehra Sons.
3.3 To explain the income, prosecution has examined the following witnesses:-
PW-37 Sh. V.D. Sharma, Assistant General Manager (Legal & Secretariat) in M/s Kajaria Ceramics Ltd.
PW-83 Sh. Sohan Lal, accused Mohan Lal Goyal is his younger brother.
PW-84 Sh. Mohan Ahuja, Senior Manager (Administration & Maintenance) with Ranbaxy Laboratories.
3.4 The witnesses from PWD (Employer of the accused):
PW-48 Sh. A.K. Aggarwal, Executive Engineer, Asian Games, Civil CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 15 of 96 Division-II, CPWD, New Delhi PW-51 Sh. Tapan Mitra, Dy. Secretary, Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation, Govt. of India, New Delhi PW-54 Sh. Rakesh Mishra, Engineer in Chief, PWD, Govt. of Delhi, I.P. Estate, Delhi PW-57 Sh. Sunil Kumar Srivastava, Technical Engineer, Central Vigilance Commission, Satarkata Bhawan, INA, New Delhi PW-62 Sh. Vikram Singh, Executive Engineer, Border Fencing Division-V, CPWD, Barmer, Bikaner, Rajasthan PW-70 Sh. P.V. Chopra, Retd. Executive Engineer (Planning), PWD PW-74 Sh. S.K. Bose, Retd. Executive Engineer from CPWD 3.5 Witnesses examined from various banks:
PW-34 Sh. P.N. Bansal, Computer Operator in Punjab National Bank. PW-49 Sh. Parmod Kumar Sharma, Assistant in State Bank of India, Janakpuri PW-59 Sh. S.K. Mittra, Retd. Manager, Punjab National Bank, Janak Puri PW-60 Sh. S.P. Dewan, Retd. Manager, Punjab National Bank, Rajendra Place PW-61 Sh. Bal Ram Bhasin, Retd. Bank Officer, SBI 3.6 Officials of CBI and public witnesses:
PW-11 Sh. Om Prakash, Inspector, CBI Jamnagar House, New Delhi PW-27 Sh. Om Prakash Malhotra, Jeweller and Govt. approved Valuer PW-79 Ms. Shobha Dutta, DSP with Special Unit, CBI PW-82 Sh. R.S. Bedi, Retd. Dy. Central Intelligence Officer from Intelligence Bureau 3.7 Others:
PW-9 Sh. B.M. Lal, Asstt. Assessor & Collector in MCD on deputation CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 16 of 96 PW-39 Sh. Pawan Kumar Goya, Distant relative of accused Mohan Lal Goyal PW-40 Sh. Kailash Chand, Asstt. Director, DDA Circle-I, Munirka PW-41 Sh. Brij Kishore Goel, his wife Smt. Draupadi Devi is owner of H.No. C-80, Vivek Vihar, New Delhi in which accused Mohan Lal Goyal alongwith his family used to reside in a separate portion PW-56 Sh. Manish Kumar, Technical Examiner, Central Vigilance Commission, Satarkata Bhawan, INA, New Delhi PW-58 Sh. S.K. Sehgal, Retd. Income Tax Officer PW-77 Ms. Sanchita Kapoor, Asstt. Manager with Global Trust Bank, Connaught Place Branch, New Delhi and presently working with Axis Bank PW-86 Dr. S.K. Bajpai, Sr. General Manager with Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
4.0. Accused in his defence has examined following witnesses:-
DW-1 Sh. P.R. Charan Babu, Executive Engineer, Construction Division-III, CPWD, IP Bhawan, New Delhi.
DW-2 Sh. Satish Kumar Yadav, Office Superintendent, F-Division, CPWD, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi.
DW-3 Sh. Rambir Singh, Postal Assistant, Office of Sr. Post Master, Sansad Marg, HO, New Delhi.
DW-4 Sh. Ashok Sharma, Customer Relation Officer (CRO) in State Bank of India, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.
DW-5 Sh. Neeraj Jain, AO, Branch Unit 310, Janpath, New Delhi.
DW-6 Sh. S.C. Jain, Executive, CBMD-M-232, PWD, Western Bank, Delhi.
DW-7 Sh. Pritam Lal, Retd., Accounts Officer, Ministry of Home CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 17 of 96 Affairs.
DW-8 Sh. P.P. Khurana, Officer Administrator, Engineers India Ltd., Bikaji Cama Place, New Delhi.
DW-9 Sh. C.R. Meena, Section Officer, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Department of DGIR, Akashwani Bhawan, New Delhi.
DW-10 Sh. Smt. Pragati Kumar, Assistant Assessor & Collector, SDMC (West Zone), Ashok Nagar, Delhi.
DW-11 Sh. Wazir Singh, Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 65(1), Civic Centre, Block-B, New Delhi.
DW-12 Sh. Mahender Pal DW-13 Sh. S.K. Nangia, Wing Commander, Manager, Holy Innocents Public School.
DW-14 Sh. Tara Chand, Income Tax Officer, Room No. D-206, Civic Centre, New Delhi.
DW-15 Sh. Jay Chanda, CPIO, University of Delhi, Main Campus, Delhi.
DW-16 Ms. Anju Mittal, daughter of accused Mohan Lal Goyal.
DW-17 Sh. Jai Pal who was having firm namely M/s Moti Lal & Company, Grain Merchants & Commission Agents.
DW-18 Sh. Priya Darshan, Director, M/s MCS Ltd. (Unit IFCI), F-65, First Floor, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi.
DW-19 Sh. Madhusudan Natholia has been authorised by M/s Deepak Spinners Ltd. vide letter Ex. DW-19/A to depose before this court.
DW-20 Sh. Pradeep Bhatia, Deputy Manager, UTI (Legal Department), Jeewantara Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi.
CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 18 of 96 DW-21 Sh. Pankaj Jain, Registration Clerk, Office of Upper Collector (V/R) / District Registrar, Mujaffar Nagar, UP.
DW-22 Sh. B.M. Paliwal, Secretarial Officer, M/s Oswal Agro Mills Ltd., Antriksh Bhawan, K.G. Marg, New Delhi.
DW-23 Ms. Renu Aggarwal, dauther of accused Mohan Lal Goyal.
DW-24 Sh. B.R. Verma, Administrative Assistant in Engineers India Ltd., PIT Building, 4 Sansad Marg, New Delhi.
DW-25 Sh. Sribhagwan Malik, Sr. Post Master, Sansad Marg, Head Office.
DW-26 Sh. S.N. Jha, Manager, Karvy Computer Share Pvt. Ltd.
DW-27 Sh. R.D. Sharma, Sr. Post Master, Ramesh Nagar Head Office, New Delhi.
DW-28 Sh. S.L. Bange, Deputy Manager, PNB, Janak Puri Branch, New Delhi.
DW-29 Sh. Jagbir Singh Dhankhar, Assistant Engineer, CPWD, Office of Chief Engineer, NDZ-I, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.
DW-30 Sh. Mohan Lal Goya, accused.
ARGUMENTS
5.0 Heard arguments of Sh. Anil Tanwar, Ld. PP for CBI and Sh. N.K. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the accused. Ld. Counsel for accused has filed detailed written submissions.
5.1 Ld. PP for CBI has submitted that in this case income of accused, his wife, one son and two daughters has been calculated as per the salary details of accused and income tax returns of the other family members. It has been stated that while calculating income of the accused, his income from other sources has also been considered. It has been further contended that assets acquired by accused on the name of his family members were CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 19 of 96 sourced by him and he has failed to satisfactorily explain those sources of income. It has been further contended that acquisition of jewellery and shares on his name as well as in the name of other family members has also not been informed by accused to his department; hence same may not be considered as his known income. It has been stated that prosecution has been able to prove to the hilt that accused was having disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs. 23,72,341.35/- which is 66.40% of his known source of income.
5.2 Sh.N.K.Sharma, Ld. Counsel for accused has submitted that prosecution has wrongly calculated income and assets of wife, son and two daughters of accused with the income of the accused. It has been stated accused has led defence evidence examining 30 witnesses including himself and has explained his salary income from additional sources not considered by CBI. It has been stated that deliberately CBI has calculated income of accused and his other family members on the lower side and in the similar manner CBI has wrongly calculated the assets of accused and his family members specially jewellery articles and shares on the higher side. The various other submissions made by Ld. Counsel for the accused are discussed at the appropriate stage while discussing the evidence led by prosecution as well as CBI in the following paras. In support of his submissions, Ld. Counsel for accused has relied on the following judgments:-
i) Sunil Mehta & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr., 2013 (3) SCC 881
ii) Narbada Devi Gupta Vs. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal & Anr., AIR 2004 Supreme Court 175
iii) Alamelu & Anr. Vs. State Represented by Inspector of Police, (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 688
iv) Krishnanand Agnihotri Vs. State of M.P., AIR 1977 Supreme Court 796 CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 20 of 96
v) Bhim Singh & Anr. Vs. Kan Singh, 1980 AIR 727, 1980 SCR (2) 628
vi) G.V.S. Lingam Vs. State of A.P., 1999 Cri. L. J. 1026
vii) State of Maharashtra Vs. Wasudeo Ramchandra Kaidalwar, 1981 Cri. L.J. 884
viii) Subhash Kharate Vs. State of M.P., 2000 Cri. L.J. 1178
ix) State of Maharashtra Vs. Pollonji Darabshaw Daruwalla, 1988 Cri. L.J. 183
x) M. Krishna Reddy Vs. State Dy. Supt. of Police, Hyderabad, 1993 Cri. L.J. 308
xi) DSP Chennai Vs. K. Inbasagaran, (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 325
xii) Kedari Lal Vs. State of M.P. & Ors., 2015 Cri. L.J. 4045
xiii) Govindaraju @ Govinda Vs. State by Sriramapuram P.S. & Anr., 2012 [3] JCC 1714 5.3 One of the main contention raised by Ld. counsel for accused is that various documents, though exhibited in prosecution evidence, are not properly proved, hence cannot be taken into consideration. To support this contention the Ld. counsel for accused has relied upon various judgments.
In Narbada Devi (Supra) the apex court has observed that mere production and marking of a document as exhibit by the court cannot be held to be a due proof of its contents, its execution has to be proved by admissible evidence, i.e. by the evidence of those persons, who can vouchsafe for the truth of the fact in issue. Same is the observation made by apex court in Alamelu and anr. (supra).
5.4 In Krishnanand Agnihotari (supra) apex court has observed that onus of establishing a transaction as benami is on the person who asserts CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 21 of 96 it. This burden has to be discharged by adducing legal evidence of a definite character. Suspicion however strong cannot take the place of proof. Same is the observation made by apex court in Bhim Singh & anr. (supra).
5.5 In DSP Chennai Vs. K. Inbasagaran (supra) the apex court has observed that initial burden is on the prosecution to establish whether accused has acquired the property disproportionate to his known source of income. In State of MP Vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta it has been held that accused has to account satisfactorily for the money received in his hand and satisfy the court that his explanation is worthy of acceptance.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE 6.0 As per the charge sheet son and daughters of accused have contributed to the income of the family. The daughters till their marriage were living with the accused. Since they all were living together, the whole family has been treated as one unit, therefore, the income of every member of the family has been calculated and added into the income of the family. Income of accused & his family members as proved by prosecution on record is taken first.
Salary Income of accused (Annexure-A) 6.1 As per the charge sheet salary income of accused has been taken by CBI as 14,08,742.35. In addition to this accused has claimed additional income submitting that CBI committed mistake in calculating his salary income.
6.2 There are total 21 items taken by CBI in Annexure-A of the charge sheet while calculating salary income of accused. CBI has led evidence by examining various witnesses from the employer of accused i.e. PWD to prove the salary income of the accused. Since same is not disputed by accused, due to this reason evidence led by CBI is not discussed.
6.3Out of the 21 items, first four stands admitted by accused. In item no. 5, 6, 7 accused has claimed wrong calculation by not including the arrears CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 22 of 96 which had accrued to him during this duration. The income claimed by accused against item no. 5, 6, 7 mentioned in the chart of the salary income are shown in tabular form as follows:-
Sr. Sr. No. in Salary Period Amount Plea of
No. Chart / Income / Accused
Additional Arrears
1. 5. Salary 5/83 to 9/83 6,976.10 His salary of
5/83 to
19.08.1983
2. Additional Salary 25.08.1983 2,525.20
to
30.09.1983
3. Additional Arrears 01.03.1983 459.70
to
24.08.1983
4. Additional Salary 10/83 to 9,426.75
02/84
5. Additional Arrears 20.08.1983 389.50
to
24.08.1983
6. Additional Arrears 20.08.1983 36.80
to
24.08.1983
7. Additional Arrears 1/84 to 3/84 151.20
8. Additional Arrears 20.08.1983 803.20
to
30.09.1983
and
01.10.1983
to
31.05.1984
9. Additional Salary 3/84 to 6/84 8,189.70
CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 23 of 96
10. 7. Salary 7/84 to 1,07,809.10 CBI has
15.10.1987 wrongly shown
(wrongly the duration of
shown by pay as 7/84 to
CBI upto 9/87 instead of
9/87) 7/84 to
15.10.1987
6.4. As per item no. 5 of Annexure-A i.e. salary income detail of accused, his pay from 5/83 to 9/83 is taken as Rs. 6,976.10/-. As per accused this pay is for the duration 5/83 to 19.08.1983, IO (PW-82) during his cross examination dated 04.03.2013 has admitted that salary for the period 20.08.1983 to 30.09.1983 has not been considered due to oversight. Moreover, as per Ex. PW-57/2 proved by Sh. Sunil Kumar Srivastva who was working as Executive Engineer, G-Division, CPWD, East Block, New Delhi, the total salary received by accused from May, 1983 till 19.08.1983 is mentioned as Rs. 6,976.10. Accordingly the salary mentioned at Sr. No. 5 in the main chart showing salary income of accused is taken as for the duration 5/83 to 19.08.1983.
6.5 Accused has claimed additional salary for the period 25.08.1983 to 30.09.1983 as 2,525.20. IO (PW-82) has admitted that salary for the period 20.08.1983 to 30.09.1983 has not been considered due to oversight. Accordingly benefit of this additional income is given to the accused.
6.6 Accused has claimed arrears of DA w.e.f. 01.03.1983 to 24.08.1983 to the tune of Rs. 459.70 has not been considered. As per Ld. Counsel for accused these arrears were drawn from the office of SSW (Aviation) which was under the control of Chief Engineer (NZ), CPWD, East Block, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. To prove these arrears accused has examined himself as DW-30 and has filed his statement showing salary drawn and deduction made from the salary for the period from 25.08.1983 to 29.02.1984. In Ex. PW-30/1 there are shown arrears of D.A. from 01.03.1983 to 24.08.1983 as Rs. 459.70. This CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 24 of 96 certificate bears the signatures and stamp of SSW (Aviation) Central, PWD, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. This witness has been cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI but nothing has come on record to disbelieve this document. Accordingly this additional salary stands proved.
6.7 In item no. 6 in Annexure-A showing income of accused for the period 10/83 to 6/84 (9 months) his salary income has been taken as Rs. 15285/-. As per the case of CBI, salary details of 9 months have been calculated on the basis of salary drawn for the month of 7/84 which was Rs. 1698.30 and it was multiplied by 9. As per Ld. Counsel for the accused CBI has wrongly calculated income of this period on the basis of net salary of Rs. 1698.30 for the month of 7/84 drawn from CPWD office at Kolkata. It has been stated that salary for this period was drawn from the then office of SSW (Aviation) CPWD, East Block, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. It has been contended that the salary of July, 1984 considered by CBI is less than the salary of July 1983 which is impossible. It has been stated for the month of July, 1984 recovery of Rs. 417/- was wrongly considered and same has affected salary income of these nine months. Ex. DW-30/1 is a statement regarding salary drawn by accused from 25.08.1983 to February, 1984 bearing signature and stamp of SSW (Aviation) Central, PWD, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. I agree with the contention raised by Ld. Counsel for the accused that from 10/83 to 2/84 salary of accused comes out to be Rs. 9,426.75.
6.8 Accused has also claimed addition of arrears of increment and HRA w.e.f. 1/84 to 3/84 amounting to Rs. 151.20. As per Ld. Counsel for the accused these arrears were drawn from SSW (Aviation) and reflected in the ITR for A.Y. 1985-1986 Ex. DW-30/5. Perusal of Ex. DW-30/5 reveals that this amount is reflected in the ITR. Accordingly this amount is accepted as income of the accused. Similarly accused has claimed arrears of DA from 20.08.1983 to 30.09.1983 being mentioned in ITR Ex. DW-30/5. Perusal of Ex. DW-30/5 reveals that these arrears are shown to have been received by accused. Accordingly Rs.803.20/- is accepted as income of the accused.
CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 25 of 96 6.9 Accused has claimed that salary from 3/84 to 6/84 is wrongly calculated on the basis of salary shown to have been drawn in the month of July, 1984 whereas as per the ITR Ex. DW-30/5 during this period accused has drawn total salary of Rs. 8,189.70.
6.10 In view of the aforesaid reasons from 10/83 to 6/84 salary and arrears received by accused comes out as Rs. 9,426.75 + 151.20 + 803.20 + 8,189.70 = Rs. 18,570.85. Rs. 18,570.85 is accordingly taken as salary of the accused for the duration 10/83 to 6/84 instead of Rs. 15,283 as mentioned in Annexure-A. 6.11 Accused has further claimed arrears of pay w.e.f. 20.08.1983 to 24.08.1983 to the tune of Rs. 389.50 and arrears of DA of this duration to the tune of Rs. 36.80. As per Ld. Counsel for the accused IO (PW-82) during his cross examination has admitted that he has not considered salary income for the period 20.08.1983 to 30.09.1983. It has been stated that these arrears were drawn from the office of SSW (Aviation), CPWD, East Block, R.K. Puram, New Delhi and same are reflected in the ITR for the A.Y. 1985-1986 i.e. Ex. DW-30/5. Perusal of Ex. DW-30/5, which is copy of the ITR filed by accused on record stated to be kept by him for his record, in his statement showing detail of salary drawn during 1984 to 1985, he has shown these arrears having been received by him. Admitting this contention of accused his additional income not considered by CBI is taken as Rs. 389.50 + Rs 36.80 = Rs. 426.30.
6.12 Item no. 7 in the main chart of salary depicts pay received by accused from 7/84 to 9/87. As per accused item no. 8 in the chart depicts pay from 16.10.1987 to 12.04.1990, which proves that pay for the first half month of 10/87 was not considered by CBI. It has been stated that while calculating the pay of accused for this duration there is totaling mistake done by IO and in addition to that recovery of pay advance of Rs. 1,250/- from the salary of 7/84 and 8/84 is wrongly considered. Ex. PW-74/2 is the salary statement of accused from 7/84 till 15.10.1987 filed and proved by PW-74 who was posted in CPWD Office, Kolkata as Executive Engineer. As per this statement for this period CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 26 of 96 accused has received Rs. 1,04,807/- as salary. Accused has failed to show how recovery of pay advance of Rs. 1,250/- has been wrongly considered. Accordingly instead of Rs. 1,04,210.60/- salary of accused be taken as RS. 1,04,807/-.
6.13 Item no. 8 in the main chart i.e. pay from 16.10.1987 to 12.04.1990 has not been disputed by the accused.
6.14 Item no. 9 in the main chart is depicting pay from 13.04.1990 to 8/91. The same is calculated as follows:-
Sr. No. Period Amount
1. 13.04.1990 to 30.04.1990 2,954.91
2. 5/90 to 8/91 79,104.00
Pay of 9/91
Total Rs. 82,058.00
6.15 Ld. Counsel for accused has contended that salary has been
wrongly worked out by the CBI on the basis of salary of 3/90 and 12 days salary of 4/90, whereas as per D-58 the salary of March & April, 1990 was 5210/- per month. It has been stated that IO (PW-82) has admitted during his cross examination dated 25.03.2013 that arrears of DA of Rs. 476 reflected in D-54 were not considered. It has been stated that CBI has wrongly calculated under salary for this period, on the basis of net salary of 9/91 instead of collecting salary details from concerned CPWD office. It is urged that DW-1 Sh. P.R. Charan Babu has furnished copy of bill register Ex. DW-1/1 and salary statement Ex. DW-1/2 establishing that total salary of Rs. 97,839/- was paid during this period.
6.16 DW-1 Sh. P.R. Charan Babu, Executive Engineer, Construction Division-III, CPWD, IP Bhawan, New Delhi has produced the record from the office of Executive Engineer, Construction Division-III. As per him the salary received by accused from May, 1990 to 09.05.1991 is Rs. 97,839/-. He has filed CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 27 of 96 the record as Ex. DW-1/1 and Ex. DW-1/2. As per Ex. DW-1/2 the certificate signed by DW-1 from May, 1990 till 09.05.1991 accused has received net amount of Rs. 97,839/-. Accordingly instead of Rs. 79,104/-, the pay received by accused during this period should have been taken as Rs. 97,839/-. Accordingly under item no. 9 total income of accused stands proved as Rs.97,839/- + Rs. 2,954.91/- = Rs. 1,00,793.19/-.
6.17 Item No. 10, 11, 12 & 13 of Annexure-A i.e. salary income of accused is not disputed by the accused.
6.18 Item No. 14 in Annexure-A is depicting arrears of HRA on 20.01.1992 to 05.09.1993 as Rs. 427/-. As per Ld. Counsel for accused this figure has been wrongly taken as correct figure is Rs. 2,711/- reflected in Ex. PW-56/2 (D-61). It has been stated that IO (PW-82) has admitted his mistake during cross examination dated 04.03.2013.
6.19 PW-56 Sh. Manish Kumar was working as Executive Engineer (Planning), New Delhi Zone-I, CPWD, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi in 2002. He has proved his letter Ex. PW-56/1 containing salary details of accused as Ex. PW-56/2 and Ex. PW-56/3. As per Ex. PW-56/2 accused has received arrears of HRA w.e.f. 20.01.1992 to 05.09.1993 as Rs. 2,711/-. Accordingly instead of Rs. 427/- the arrears of HRA for this period should have been taken as Rs. 2,711/-.
6.20 Accused has claimed additional income on account of arrears of increment from 2/94 to 7/94. As per Ld. Counsel for the accused CBI has wrongly not added this income in the salary income although it is reflected in Ex. PW-56/2. It has been stated that even IO (PW-82) has admitted the mistake during his cross examination dated 04.03.2013. As per Ex. PW-56/2 accused has received arrears of increment from 2/94 to 7/94 to the tune of Rs. 750/-. Accordingly Rs. 750/- is taken as additional income of the accused.
6.21 Item No. 15 to 21 in Annexure-A are not disputed by the accused.
6.22Accused has claimed additional income of Rs. 8,666/- on account pay CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 28 of 96 received by him for 12/99. Ld. Counsel for accused has submitted that pay of 12/99 was received by accused during check period but the same has not been considered by the CBI. It has been stated that as per Ex. PW-70/A pay for this period was paid by cheque dated 22.12.1999.
6.23PW-70 Sh. P.V. Chopra was Executive Engineer (Planning), PWD. He has proved the six sheets depicting statement in respect of pay allowances of accused as Ex. PW-70/A. During cross examination he has admitted that as per Ex. PW-70/A net salary of Rs. 8,666/- had been paid to accused for December, 1999 vide cheque no. A-600386 dated 22.12.1999. Accordingly on the basis of Ex. PW-70/A, Rs. 8,666/- is taken as additional income of accused.
6.24Hence in view of the findings discussed above on account of arrears/salary difference in calculation, the total salary income of accused comes out to be Rs 14,38,282.91/-.
INCOME OF ACCUSED FROM OTHER SOURCES 7.0 Accused has claimed that calculations made in 20 items in the charge sheet are not properly made and in addition to that he has claimed additional income deliberately not considered by CBI.
7.1 First three items in this chart are not disputed by the accused.
7.2 Fourth item pertains to dividend of IDBI to the tune of Rs. 1,250/- and the same is proved by PW-26 as Ex. PW-26/A. As per the accused dividend income of Rs. 55/- & Rs. 115/- vide dividend warrants Ex. D-1/1 and Ex. D-1/2 were also received by him. Accordingly on the basis of this record instead of Rs. 1,250/-, dividend income of accused is taken as Rs. 1,420/-.
7.3 Item No. 5 pertains to dividend of Rs. 510/- for Orkay Industries Ltd. As per accused income of Rs. 210/- earned via dividend warrant dated 14.01.1989 reflected in the ITR Ex. DW-30/20 has not been considered. Accordingly on the basis of record instead of Rs. 510/-, Rs. 720/- is taken as income of the accused.
CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 29 of 96 7.4 Item No. 6 pertains to dividend of M/s Nagarjuna Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. It has been stated that as per D-573 accused has received dividend of Rs. 1,020/- and PW-82 has admitted that accused has received this dividend. PW-82 during his cross examination dated 18.04.2013 has admitted that dividend income of accused from M/s Nagarjuna Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. is Rs. 1,020/-. Accordingly instead of Rs. 720/- dividend income of accused is taken as Rs. 1,020/-.
7.5 Item No. 7 is not disputed.
7.6 Item No. 8 pertains to dividend income of Rs. 5,384.78/- from Reliance Industries Ltd. Ld. Counsel for accused has claimed dividend income to be Rs. 8,884.75/- submitting that PW-52 Sh. S.P. Venugopal who was Deputy General Mangager of M/s Karvy Computer Share Pvt. Ltd. during his cross examination has admitted that warrants Mark P-52/DA & DB or dividend mentioned therein is not reflected in his letter Ex. PW-52/1. PW-52 has proved his letter Ex. PW-52/1 as per which accused has received various dividends for different periods during the check period against his holdings in Reliance Industries Ltd. amounting of Rs. 5,384.78/-. During his cross examination he has admitted that warrants Mark P-52/DA & DB which are of Rs. 350/- and Rs. 3,150/- are not reflected in his letter Ex. PW-52/1. I agree with the submissions of the accused that dividend income of Rs. 8,884.75/- stands proved in favour of the accused.
7.7 Item No. 9 & 10 are not disputed by the accused.
7.8 Item No. 11 pertains to dividend income of Rs. 615.45/- from M/s Rajender Steel Ltd. As per Ld. Counsel for the accused the various documents lying in D-573 proves that total dividend received by accused was Rs. 757/-. Even IO (PW-82) in his statement has admitted that total amount calculated comes out to be Rs. 757/-. Accordingly instead of Rs. 615.45/-, Rs. 757/- is taken as income of the accused.
7.9 Item No. 12, 13 & 14 are not disputed by the accused.
CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 30 of 96 7.10 Item No. 15 pertains to income from UTI Units to the tune of Rs. 25,978/-. As per accused the total income is Rs. 29,022/-. PW-78 Sh. Rajinder Kumar who was working as Manager, UTI New Delhi in the year 2002 has proved his letter Ex. PW-78/1 containing the details of units held by accused and dividend paid against these units. IO (PW-82) during his examination in chief has admitted that as per Ex. PW-78/1 total income comes out to be Rs. 29,022/-. Accordingly in this item income of accused is taken as Rs. 29,022/-.
7.11 Item No. 16 is not disputed by the accused.
7.12 Item No. 17 pertains to maturity of NSCs. As per accused, total income to him on this account is Rs. 22,025.50/- instead of Rs. 2,537,50/- taken by the prosecution. PW-38 Sh. Sushil Kumar Mehta was working as Public Relation Inspector in Head Post Office, Parliament Street, New Delhi has proved his letter Ex. PW-38/1 regarding purchase of NSC worth Rs. 2,500/- by the accused. As per the accused, he earned interest income of Rs. 19,488/- from his investment in NSCs. To support his submissions he has relied upon his ITRs Ex. DW-30/17 to Ex. DW-30/30. As per the accused he invested various amounts in the year 1985, 1986 & 1993 in NSCs, reflecting the same in his ITRs and had received interest income from these investments which were also reflected in his ITRs.
7.13 As per the accused he has received interest income from investments in NSCs to the tune of Rs. 19,488/- and same has been reflected by him in his ITRs Ex. DW-30/17 to Ex. DW-30/30. It is relevant to mention here that NSCs are generally issued for a period more than 5 years. The money invested by investors remain locked for that duration and he gets the maturity amount at the later stage. Though interest accrues on the NSCs every year but same is not received by the investor. Accordingly, the interest received shown by accused in his various ITRs appears to be hypothetical and was not actually received by him. Therefore, the benefit claimed by accused cannot considered and amount taken by CBI is rightly taken.
CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 31 of 96 7.14 Item No. 18 pertains to interest of SB A/c No. 7389. As per accused, total interest earned was Rs. 15,836/- instead of Rs. 11,564/-. PW-34 Sh. P.N. Bansal was posted as Clerk in PNB, Janak Puri in 2002 as proved statement of interest in respect of this account as well as three other accounts as Ex. PW-60/1. PW-60 Sh. S.P. Dewan was posted as Manager in PNB, Janak Puri Branch has proved the details of this account in the name of accused. IO (PW-82) has deposed that it is transpired during investigation that accused was having same bank account no. 7389 with PNB and during check period he had earned interest income of Rs. 11,564/- from the said account. Ex. PW-59/7 is statement of account filed by Sh. S.K. Mittra, Manager, PNB, Janak Puri, New Delhi in the year 2000.
7.15It has been stated by Ld. Counsel for accused that accused has opened this account account in the joint name with his wife on 14.10.1980. PW-34 has furnished statement of bank's interest of this account for the period 9/89 to 9/90 and 3/93 to 9/99. The interest income for the period August, 1981 to August, 1989 and from January, 1991 to January, 1993 is missing and this fact stands admitted by PW-60. It has been stated that during this period various amounts of interest totaling Rs. 4,272.88/- received by the accused are reflecting by him in his various ITRs during check period filed by him on record. PW-60 during his cross examination has admitted that statement of account for the period August, 1981 to 20.05.1989 and for the period 12.01.1991 to 17.01.1993 is not available in the court record. The perusal of various ITRs filed by accused i.e. Ex. DW-30/2 to Ex. DW-30/5, Ex. DW-30/17 to Ex. DW-30/20, Ex. DW-30/22 to Ex. DW-30/24 reveals that accused has shown various amounts of interest received by him against this account totaling of Rs. 4,272.88/-. Accordingly interest income of accused is taken as Rs. 15,836/- for this item.
7.16Item No. 19 & 20 are not disputed by the accused.
7.17Hence, in view of the findings in above paras income of accused from other sources comes out to be Rs. 78,885.64/-.
CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 32 of 96 ADDITIONAL INCOME CLAIMED BY ACCUSED 7.18 Accused has claimed additional income from other sources against following 21 items:-
Sl. No. Source of Income Difference in income, not considered by CBI
1. Interest income on S.B. A/c No. 5954 in 257.00 State Bank of India, Raisingh Nagar (Raj.)
2. Interest income on S.B. A/c No. 7674 in 609.00 SBI, Bikaner (Raj.)
3. Interest income on 15 bonds of Bindal 56.71 Agro Chem. Ltd. vide interest warrant no. 141328 dated 1.2.1989
4. Income on performance on 1.6.1982 in 75.00 A.I.R. on Astro turf on Urdu service
5. Refund of 5th installment of CDS through 607.15 DD No. A/21-319452 dated 4.1.1983 drawn at SBI, R.K. Puram, New Delhi from Ghaziabad, Central Division of CPWD
6. Refund of income tax relating to A.Y. 317.00 1983-84
7. Refund of income tax pertaining to A.Y. 298.00 1984- 85
8. Refund of income tax pertaining to A.Y. 195.00 1985- 86
9. Income from refund of income tax 3,986.00 pertaining to A.Y. 1988-89, 1990-91, 1993-94 & 1994-95
10. Interest income on FDR of Rs. 40,000/- 1,000.00 purchased on 11.7.1993 from PNB, Janak Puri, New Delhi
11. Interest income from National Saving 1,11,100.00 Scheme A/c No. 11861 in Parliament Street HPO, New Delhi
12. Interest income from National Saving 10,362.00 Scheme A/c No. 3730366 in Parliament Street HPO, New Delhi
13. Income on selling inherited agricultural 5,000.00 CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 33 of 96 land in village Naola on 13.6.1996
14. Income on maturity of two LIC Policies 30,500.00
15. Long term capital gain income on purchase / sale of shares
i) On 700 shares of Bihar Caustic & Chemicals Ltd. and 50 shares of Oswal 1,159.00 Agro Mills
ii) 250 shares of Steel Tubes of India 3,262.50
iii) 100 shares of Titan Watches 3,230.00
iv) 100 shares of Orkay Industries Ltd. 3,274.00
v) Short term capital loss (-) 567.00
16. Dividend income from shares of Steel 1,278.00 Tubes of India
17. Dividend income from shares of Chambel 1,830.00 Fertilisers & Chemicals
18. Interest income on 10 debentures of Titan 119.61 Watches Ltd.
19. Rental income by subletting a portion of 38,080.00 house no. B-1, B/6, Janak Puri, New Delhi-58
20. Agricultural income 14,100.00
21. Interest income from bonds of Oswal Agro 910.96 Mills Ltd. under Folio No. 346085 7.19 Item No. 1 to 8 stands admitted by Ld. PP for CBI as Ex. DW-1/3 to Ex. DW-1/12.
7.20 Item No. 9 pertains to refund of Rs. 3,986/- stated to have been received by accused during the check period. As per the ITRs Ex. DW-30/19, Ex. DW-30/21, Ex. DW-30/24 & Ex. DW-30/25 the different amounts are claimed by accused as refund of income tax. Claiming the certain amount as income tax refund is different from receiving income tax refund in his account. There is no CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 34 of 96 evidence on record if this refund claimed by accused was actually received by him. Therefore, benefit of this item accused does not deserve.
7.21 Item No. 10 pertains to income of Rs. 1,000/- received as interest on FDR of Rs. 40,000/-. In ITR Ex. DW-30/25 accused has mentioned that he has received interest of Rs. 1,000/- on FDR of Rs. 40,000/- through cheque no. 365688 dated 11.07.1993 from PNB, Janak Puri. Accordingly, benefit of this item is given to the accused.
7.22 Item No. 11 pertains to Rs. 1,11,100/-, which accused has claimed to have received as interest from his National Saving Scheme A/c No. 11861 in Parliament Street, HPO, New Delhi. As per Ld. Counsel for the accused, accused has deposited Rs. 80,000/- in this account during A.Y. 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92 & 1992-93. DW-27 Sh. R.D. Sharma, Sr. Post Master has proved his letter dated 03.12.2013 as Ex. DW-27/1. In this letter he has certified that Rs. 1,11,100/- is a total interest earned by accused on Rs. 80,000/- for the period 1990 to 1999. PW-17 Sh. Suresh Chand Sharma during the year 2000 was posted as Public Relation Inspector (Postal), HPO, Sansad Marg, New Delhi. He has proved seizure memo Ex. PW-17/A vide which he had handed over attested copies of applications for purchase of NSCs, account opening form and statement of account of NSS account no. 11861 and 3730366 on the name of accused, his wife and son. During his cross examination, he has stated that as per Ex. PW-17/C-2 total balance as on 31.03.1999 was Rs. 1,11,100/- in account no. 11861 which included the principal amount invested and the interest earned on this amount. As per record this account is on the name of accused. Accordingly, accused deserves benefit of this amount to be considered as his additional income.
7.23 Item No. 12 pertains to interest from National Saving Scheme account no. 3730366 amounting to Rs. 10,362/-. PW-17 has proved document Ex. PW-17/C-1. He has deposed that amount of Rs. 30,362 shown in Ex. PW-17/C-1 dated 31.03.1999 included Rs. 20,000/- as principal amount and remaining amount of Rs. 10,362/- as interest amount. Moreover, PW-82 has CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 35 of 96 admitted during his cross examination that perusal of Ex. PW-17/B-1 and Ex. PW-17/BC-1 reveals that interest of Rs. 10,362/- had accrued to accused against account no. 3730366 and same was not mentioned in the charge sheet. Accordingly, this income deserves to be considered as additional income of the accused.
7.24 Item No. 13 pertains to income of Rs. 5,000/- received by accused by selling inherited agricultural land in village Noula on 13.06.1996. DW-21 Sh. Pankaj Jain, Registration Clerk, Office Upper Collector, District Registrar Muzaffar Nagar, U.P. as proved Ex. DW-21/A i.e. certified copy of original contained in the register Bahi. As per Ex. DW-21/A agricultural land belongs to Sh. Sohan Lal and Sh. Mohan Lal was sold on 13.06.1996 at the price of Rs. 10,000/- PW-83 Sh. Sohan Lal who was earlier Zamindar has deposed accused is his younger brother. During his cross examination he has admitted that in June, 1996 he and accused had sold some land to Sh. Shyam Lal for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- out of which Rs. 5,000/- had been received by the accused. Accused has thereby proved that he had received Rs. 5,000/- by selling his ancestral agricultural land in the year 1996.
7.25 Item No. 14 pertains to Rs. 30,500/- on account of maturity of two LIC policies. DW-5 Sh. Neeraj Jain, AO, Branch Unit 310, Janpath has proved reply given by Appellate Authority Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. Divisional Manager as Ex. DW-5/1. As per this reply approximate amount towards maturity claimed against policy no. 24312554 is Rs. 15,000/- and against policy no. 35280757 is Rs. 15,500/-. As per accused he has shown the premium paid against these policies in his ITRs of A.Y. 1982-83 & 1988-89. RTI reply Ex. DW-5/1 talks about the applications submitted in February, 2013. There is nothing on record to infer if this amount was received by accused during the check period or thereafter. Accused could have easily proved that by producing his statement of account which he failed to do. Accordingly, benefit of this amount cannot be given to him.
7.26 Item No. 15 pertains to Rs. 1,159/- on the basis of Long Term CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 36 of 96 Capital Gain on purchase / sale of 700 shares of Bihar Caustics & Chemicals and 50 shares of Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. PW-82 has admitted during his cross examination that as per ITR of accused for A.Y. 1984-85 accused has received income of this amount on account of sale of these shares. Accordingly this income is being reckoned as additional income of the accused. Accused is further claimed income of Rs. 3,262.50/- on account of sale of 250 shares Steel Tubes of India Ltd. IO (PW-82) during his cross examination has admitted that it is correct that as per page no. 12 & 13 of D-573 there is allotment of 150 and 50 shares respectively on the name of accused for consideration of Rs. 1,800/- and Rs. 600/- respectively. Page No. 11 appears to be a bill regarding sale of 250 shares of this company with the sale price as Rs. 6,412.50/-. He has further stated that these documents were not considered by him. Accordingly, this amount is reckoned as additional income of the accused.
7.27 The second sub-item in item no. 15 pertains to sale of 250 shares of Steel Tubes of India. Ld. Counsel for accused has submitted that as per Ex. DW-30/20 and page no. 11, 12 & 13 of D-573, accused was allotted 250 shares of this company at a total cost of Rs. 2,900/- and as per page no. 11 of D-573 he had sold 250 shares at the cost of Rs. 6,412.50/-, earning income of Rs. 3,262.50/- which is reflected in his ITR of A.Y. 1989-90.
7.28 Ld. PP for CBI has contended that page 12 & 13 only reflect allotment of 200 shares of this company to the accused. Page 11 of D-573 is only a contract note and accused has failed to establish if he has sold 250 shares of this company and has received Rs. 6,412.50/- as sale consideration.
7.29 Page 12 of D-573 is the allotment letter of 1983 regarding allotment of 150 shares to accused. Page 13 is allotment letter of 50 shares in the year 1986 to the accused. Page 11 is a bill issued by M/s Mangal Chand Beriwala, Stock & Share Brokers mentioning sale of 250 shares totalling Rs. 6,412.50/-. The distinctive numbers of shares mentioned here tally with the distinctive numbers mentioned on the allotment letter. IO (PW-82) during his cross examination has admitted that page 11 of D-573 is a bill regarding sale of 250 CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 37 of 96 shares of this company. Moreover, the law is settled that accused is suppose to established his defence by preponderance of probability. Hence, this amount is reckoned as additional income of the accused.
7.30 Sub-item no. 3 of item no. 15 pertains to the income on sale of 100 shares of Titan Watches to the tune of Rs. 3,230/-. As per the accused, as per page 3 of D-573, ten debentures of this company were allotted to him in 1987 and same were disposed and income of Rs. 3,230/- was reflected in the ITR Ex. DW-30/22.
7.31 Perusal of Ex. DW-30/22 reveals that accused has shown capital gain of Rs. 3,230/- on the sale of 100 shares of this company. Therefore, this amount is reckoned as additional income.
7.32 Sub-item no. 4 of item 15 pertains to income on account of sale of 100 shares of Orkay Industries Ltd. amounting to Rs. 3,274/-. As per accused allotment letter and sale agreement of 100 shares is available at page 76 & 80 of D-573 and in ITR Ex. DW-30/23 accused has shown income of Rs. 3,274/- on account of sale of these shares. IO (PW-82) has admitted in his statement dated 28.05.2013 which appears that accused was allotted 200 shares of this company for Rs. 3,200/-. Perusal of Ex. DW-30/23 reveals that accused has shown capital gain of Rs. 3,274/- on account of sale of 100 shares of this company. Accordingly this amount needs to be reckoned as additional income of the accused.
7.33 Sub-item no. 5 of item 15 is pertaining to loss suffered by accused on 20 non-convertible debentures of M/s Titan Watches Ltd. As per accused he has suffered loss of this amount which has been reflected in his ITR Ex. DW-30/19 and this amount should be deducted from his income. Perusal of Ex. DW-30/19 reveals that accused has shown loss of Rs. 567/- in this regard. Accordingly this amount needs to be deducted from the total income of the accused.
7.34 Item no. 16 pertains to income of Rs. 1,278/- stated to have been CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 38 of 96 earned by accused from shares of Steel Tubes of India. As per accused, accused has earned this dividend income for the A.Y. 1984-85, 1985-86, 1986-87, 1987-88 & 1989-90. It is stated that these dividend income of different amounts totaling Rs. 1,278/- is reflected in the ITRs Ex. DW-30/4, Ex. DW-30/5, Ex. DW-30/17, Ex. DW-30/18 & Ex. DW-30/20. Perusal of these ITRs reveal that accused has earned dividend income of Rs. 73.50/- + Rs. 255/- + Rs. 289.50/- + Rs. 410/- + Rs. 250/- = Rs. 1,278/-. Accordingly, this income is taken as additional income of the accused.
7.35 Item no. 17 pertains to dividend income of Rs. 1,830/- stated to have been earned by accused from the shares of Chambel Fertilizers & Chemicals. PW-67 Sh. Shyamal Kumar Choudhary was working as Sr. Officer with the company. He has proved the letter Ex. PW-67/A written by Sh. R.K. Jain, Manager in the office. Mark P-67/X1 is the letter stated to be signed by Sh. Sanjay Gupta, Assistant Company Secretary of the company but this witness has failed to identify his signatures. However, during his cross examination he has admitted that accused had received dividend of Rs. 1,830/- from 06.11.1995 to 29.09.1999 under folio no. 0128708. Accordingly, this income should be reckoned as additional income of the accused.
7.36 Item No. 18 pertains to interest income of 10 debentures of Titan Watches Ltd. As per page 3 of D-573 accused was allotted 10 debentures. As per ITR Ex. DW-30/19 accused is shown to have received this interest on these debentures. Accordingly this income is taken as additional income of the accused.
7.37 Item No. 19 pertains to rental income stated to have been claimed by accused by subletting a portion of house no. B-1, B/6, Janak Puri, New Delhi to the tune of Rs. 38,080/-. As per Ld. Counsel for the accused, he had subletted a portion of his house during the A.Y. 1984-85 to 1988-89 and the income earned by him is reflected in these ITRs. As per ITRs Ex. DW-30/4, Ex. DW-30/5 & Ex. DW-30/17 to Ex. DW-30/19 accused is shown to have received rental income of Rs. 7,150/- + Rs. 7,200/- + Rs. 5,130/- + Rs. 10,800/- + Rs.
CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 39 of 96 7,800/- = Rs. 38,080/-.
7.38 Item No. 20 is pertaining to agricultural income of Rs. 14,100/- stated to be earned by accused. PW-51 Sh. Tapan Mitra, who was working as Deputy Director (Administration) in the Directorate General of Works, CPWD, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi in the year 2000 has proved his letter Ex. PW-51/1 vide which he had provided property file of accused to CBI. He has proved property file of the accused as Ex. PW-51/2. IO (PW-82) during his cross examination has admitted that income from agriculture as claimed by the accused in his statement filed in his office were not considered by him while calculating his total income. Perusal of Ex. DW-30/2, Ex. DW-30/3, Ex. DW-30/9 to Ex. DW-30/11 & Ex. DW-30/13 to Ex. DW-30/19 reveal that accused has received this amount as his agricultural income during check period. Accordingly this income is taken as additional income of the accused.
7.39 Item No. 21 pertains to interest income from bonds of Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. amounting to Rs. 910.96/-. Page 6 of D-573 is the counter foil of the dividend warrant for sum of Rs. 910.96 on the name of accused issued by Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. Accordingly this income is taken as additional income of the accused.
7.40 Hence, the additional income of accused from other sources is as follows:-
ADDITIONAL INCOME Sl. Source of Income Amount Proved / Amount No. Unproved taken
1. Interest income on S.B. A/c No. 257.00 Proved 257.00 5954 in State Bank of India, Raisingh Nagar (Raj.)
2. Interest income on S.B. A/c No. 609.00 Proved 609.00 7674 in SBI, Bikaner (Raj.)
3. Interest income on 15 bonds of 56.71 Proved 56.71 Bindal Agro Chem. Ltd. vide CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 40 of 96 interest warrant no. 141328 dated 1.2.1989
4. Income on performance on 75.00 Proved 75.00 1.6.1982 in A.I.R. on Astro turf on Urdu service
5. Refund of 5th installment of CDS 607.15 Proved 607.15 through DD No. A/21-319452 dated 4.1.1983 drawn at SBI, R.K. Puram, New Delhi from Ghaziabad, Central Division of CPWD
6. Refund of income tax relating to 317.00 Proved 317.00 A.Y. 1983-84
7. Refund of income tax pertaining to 298.00 Proved 298.00 A.Y. 1984- 85
8. Refund of income tax pertaining to 195.00 Proved 195.00 A.Y. 1985- 86
9. Income from refund of income tax 3,986.00 Unproved -
pertaining to A.Y. 1988-89,
1990-91, 1993-94 & 1994-95
10. Interest income on FDR of Rs. 1,000.00 Proved 1,000
40,000/- purchased on 11.7.1993
from PNB, Janak Puri, New Delhi
11. Interest income from National 1,11,100.0 Proved 1,11,100.00
Saving Scheme A/c No. 11861 in 0
Parliament Street HPO, New Delhi
12. Interest income from National 10,362.00 Proved 10,362
Saving Scheme A/c No. 3730366
in Parliament Street HPO, New
Delhi
13. Income on selling inherited 5,000.00 Proved 5,000
agricultural land in village Naola on
13.6.1996
14. Income on maturity of two LIC 30,500.00 Unproved -
Policies
15. Long term capital gain income on
purchase / sale of shares
i) On 700 shares of Bihar Caustic & 1,159.00 Proved 1,159.00
Chemicals Ltd. and 50 shares of
Oswal Agro Mills
CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 41 of 96
ii) 250 shares of Steel Tubes of 3,262.50 Proved 3,262.50
India
3,230.00 Proved 3,230.00
iii) 100 shares of Titan Watches
3,274.00 Proved 3,274.00
iv) 100 shares of Orkay Industries
Ltd. (-) 567.00 Proved (-) 567.00
v) Short term capital loss
16. Dividend income from shares of 1,278.00 Proved 1,278.00
Steel Tubes of India
17. Dividend income from shares of 1,830.00 Proved 1,830.00
Chambel Fertilisers & Chemicals
18. Interest income on 10 debentures 119.61 Proved 119.61
of Titan Watches Ltd.
19. Rental income by subletting a 38,080.00 Proved 38,080.00
portion of house no. B-1, B/6,
Janak Puri, New Delhi-58
20. Agricultural income 14,100 Proved 14,100
21. Interest income from bonds of 910.96 Proved 910.96
Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. under Folio
No. 346085
Total 1,96,553.93
7.41 Thus the total income of the income of the accused from salary,
other income and additional income as claimed by accused comes out to be Rs.
14,38,282.91 + 78,888.64 + 1,96,553.93 = Rs. 17,13,725.48/-
INCOME OF SMT. PUSHPA GOYAL WIFE OF ACCUSED 8.0 Prosecution has taken income of Smt. Pushpa Goyal during the check period as Rs. 3,52,278/-. The calculation of this income by the prosecution has not been disputed by the accused but he has claimed additional income of Rs. 1,61,969.13/- being not considered by the prosecution. This income of Smt. Pushpa Goyal is proved by PW-49 Sh. Parmod Kumar Khanna, CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 42 of 96 Assistant in State Bank of India, Janakpuri who has proved statement of account no. 70589 of Smt. Pushpa Goyal as Ex. PW-49/G. PW-58 Sh. S.K. Sehgal from Income Tax Department has proved the various income tax returns filed by her as Ex. PW-58/18 to Ex. PW-58/25.
8.1 Accused has claimed following additional income not considered by CBI of Smt. Pushpa Goyal:-
Sr. No. Income Particulars Amount
1. Income not considered by CBI 1,54,567.63
2 Income from units of US-64 of UTI vide income 810.00
distribution warrants no. 0051477197 dated
15.07.1999
3. Interest on ICICI Safety Bonds vide interest 564.00
warrant no. 116252 dated 31.05.1999
4. Interest on debentures of Chambal Fertilizers 150.00
& Chemicals vide interest warrant no.
120008023 dated 15.07.1999
5. Income from units of US-1964 of UTI vide 958.00
income distribution warrant no. 0051477189
dated 15.07.1999
6. Interest income on ICICI Safety Bonds vide 2,844.00
interest warrant no. 105548 dated 31.07.1999
7. Dividend income from Master Shares of UTI 1,536.00
vide warrant no. 686748100 dated 06.10.1999
8. Dividend income from shares of Chambal 280.00
Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd vide dividend
warrant no. 9054830-H dated 20.09.1999
9. Dividend warrant from Colgate Palmolive vide 150.00
dividend warrant no. 1261762 dated
07.10.1999
10. Interest income from bank account no. 15646 109.00
of Punjab National Bank, Janak Puri, New
Delhi
8.2 As per the accused, Smt. Pushpa Goyal did not file her income tax
return for previous years before 01.04.1991 as her income for these years are CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 43 of 96 below taxable limit. She has filed her income tax return for the first time of A.Y. 1992-93 as Ex. PW-58/18, which reflected her income of previous years in capital account - balance brought forward of Rs. 1,54,567.63/-. It has been stated that even IO (PW-82) has admitted that capital account - balance brought forward as reflected in statement of account of Smt. Pushpa Goyal was not considered by him as being her income prior to 1992.
8.3 PW-58 has proved the assessment order of Smt. Pushpa Goyal for the year 1992-93 as Ex. PW-58/18. As per which she had shown her taxable income as Rs. 23,750/- and has paid tax of Rs. 349/- on it. Accused has failed to prove income tax return of Smt. Pushpa Goyal filed for the A.Y. 1992-93. As already discussed Ex. PW-58/18 is the only assessment order. Ex. PW-58/18 nowhere reflect if Rs. 1,54,567.63/- was shown by her as her income of previous years in capital account brought forward. Therefore, this amount as claimed by accused cannot be taken as additional income of Smt. Pushpa Goyal.
8.4 Item No. 2 in this chart pertains to income of Rs. 810/- from units of US-64 of UTI. PW-32 Sh. Surender Kumar working as Assistant in UTI has proved the letter Ex. PW-32/A containing details of the dividend earned by accused Mohan Lal Goyal, Smt. Pushpa Goyal and their son Sh. Ajay Kumar Goyal. IO (PW-82) during his cross examination has admitted that warrant amount to Rs. 810/- at page 252 of D-572 has not been taken into consideration while calculating income of Smt. Pushpa Goyal for the A.Y. 2000-01. Accordingly this income is taken as her additional income.
8.5 Item No. 3 pertains to interest of Rs. 564/- on account of ICICI Safety Bonds and PW-21 Sh. Mahender Vyas from ICICI Infotech Services Ltd. has proved the letter Ex. PW-21/A mentioning the interest earned by Smt. Pushpa Goyal. Ex. PW-21/B is the details of the dividend warrants received by accused and his other family members including Smt. Pushpa Goyal, as per which Smt. Pushpa Goyal is shown to have received dividend of Rs. 564/-. Moreover, page 250 of D-572 is counter file of dividend received on the name of Smt. Pushpa Goyal for this amount. Moreover, IO (PW-82) during his cross examination has CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 44 of 96 admitted that this dividend warrant was not taken into consideration while calculating her income. Therefore, this amount is taken as her additional income.
8.6 Item No. 4 pertains to Rs. 150/- as interest on debentures of Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals. PW-67 Sh. Shyamal Kumar Chaudhary was working as Senior Officer (Secretarial) with Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. has deposed that debentures interest of Rs. 150/- was paid to Smt. Pushpa Goyal under folio no. 0128602 from 31.03.1999 to 28.12.1999. Accordingly this income is taken as her additional income.
8.7 Item No. 5 pertains to Rs. 958.50/- on account of income from units of US-1964 of UTI. PW-32 Sh. Surender Kumar, Assistant in UTI has proved Ex. PW-32/B which is containing details of the dividend received by accused and his family members. It shows dividend warrant of Rs. 958 received by Smt. Pushpa Goyal for the year 1999. Moreover, it stands admitted by IO (PW-82) that warrants amounting to Rs. 958.50/- at page 253 of D-572 has not been taken into consideration. Accordingly this income is taken as her additional income.
8.8 Item No. 6 pertains to Rs. 2,844/- on account of interest income on ICICI Safety Bonds. IO (PW-82) had admitted that amount appearing at page 254 of D-572 has not been taken into consideration. PW-92 Ms. Lorraine Lobo who was Assistant Manager (Legal) UTI has proved letter Ex. PW-92/1. PW-92 during cross examination has admitted that as per Ex. PW-92/1 dividend warrant dated 06.10.1999 for sum of Rs. 1,536/- was issued for payment in favour of Smt. Pushpa Goyal. Accordingly this amount is taken as her additional income.
8.9 Item No. 7 pertains to Rs.1536/- as dividend income from Master Share UTI vide warrant no. 686748100 dated 6.10.1999. As per Ld. counsel for the accused PW-92 has admitted that in Ex. PW 92/1 payment of Rs.1,536/- is reflected but date of payment was wrongly shown as 31.12.1999, i.e. beyond CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 45 of 96 check period. It has been stated that dividend cheque was deposited on 6.10.1999 and same was credited into the account on 7.10.1999. It has been stated that there is entry of this amount in Ex. PW 59/8, i.e. bank record of account no. 15446 P. N. B. Janakpuri. Dividend warrant page 257 of D-572 for Rs. 1,536/- is dated 6.10.1999. Ex. PW 59/8 is copy of the of the statement of account of Pushpa Goyal with Punjab National Bank duly certified under Bankers Book of Evidence Act, as per which Rs.1,536/- stands credited in her account on 7.10.1999. Accordingly this amount is taken as additional income.
8.10 Item No. 8 pertains to Rs. 280/- as dividend income from shares of Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. PW-82 has admitted during his cross that dividend of Rs. 280/- was paid to her during the check period 31.03.1999 to 28.12.1999 under folio no. 0128602. Moreover, IO (PW-82) has admitted that warrant at page 258 of D-572 was not taken into consideration. Therefore, this amount is taken as her additional income.
8.11 Item No. 9 pertains to Rs. 150/- as dividend warrant from Colgate Palmolive. PW-75 Sh. Girish Duttaram Pilankar, Manager in Shae Pro Services India Pvt. Ltd. which deals with share transfer of this company has proved Ex. PW-75/A as per which 50 shares of their company was purchased by Smt. Pushpa Goyal on 08.10.1994. IO (PW-82) has admitted during cross examination that dividend warrant appearing at page 267 of D-573 was not taken into consideration. Accordingly this amount is taken as her additional income.
8.12 Item No. 10 pertains to Rs. 109/- on account of interest income from bank account no. 15646 of PNB, Janak Puri. PW-82 has admitted during his cross examination that amount of Rs. 109/- as an interest amount was credited to account no. 15646 of Smt. Pushpa Goyal. This fact also stands admitted by IO (PW-82). Accordingly this income is taken as her additional income.
ADDITIONAL INCOME OF SMT. PUSHPA GOYAL
CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 46 of 96
Sr. No. Income Particulars Amount Proved /
Unproved
1. Income not considered by CBI 1,54,567.63 Not proved
2. Income from units of US-64 of UTI 810.00 Proved
vide income distribution warrants no.
0051477197 dated 15.07.1999
3. Interest on ICICI Safety Bonds vide 564.00 Proved
interest warrant no. 116252 dated
31.05.1999
4. Interest on debentures of Chambal 150.00 Proved
Fertilizers & Chemicals vide interest
warrant no. 120008023 dated
15.07.1999
5. Income from units of US-1964 of UTI 958.00 Proved
vide income distribution warrant no.
0051477189 dated 15.07.1999
6. Interest income on ICICI Safety 2,844.00 Proved
Bonds vide interest warrant no.
105548 dated 31.07.1999
7. Dividend income from Master Shares 1,536.00 Proved
of UTI vide warrant no. 686748100
dated 06.10.1999
8. Dividend income from shares of 280.00 Proved
Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd
vide dividend warrant no. 9054830-H
dated 20.09.1999
9. Dividend warrant from Colgate 150.00 Proved
Palmolive vide dividend warrant no.
1261762 dated 07.10.1999
10. Interest income from bank account 109.00 Proved
no. 15646 of Punjab National Bank,
Janak Puri, New Delhi
Total 7,401.00
8.13 Hence considering the income admitted/proved by CBI of Rs.
3,52,278/- and Rs. 7401/- additional income proved, the total income of Smt. Pushpa Goyal comes out to be Rs.3,59,679/-.
Income of Sh. Ajay Kumar Goyal S/o of accused CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 47 of 96 9.0 Rs. 12,97,083/- has been taken as income of Sh. Ajay Kumar Goyal during the check period. Same is not disputed by the accused and due to this reason how prosecution has proved this income is not being discussed. Moreover, income tax official PW-58 has proved ITR Ex. PW-58/4 to Ex. PW-58/17 of Sh. Ajay Kumar Goyal which reflected his income.
9.1 Accused has claimed additional income of his son. The additional income claimed by accused on different count is as follows:-
Sr. No. Income Particulars Amount
1. Income not considered by CBI:- 2,572.54 Income assessed by CBI during the A.Y. 1992-93 is Rs. 25,200/- whereas actual income is Rs. 27,772,54. The difference in income considered on lower side by CBI = (27,772.54 -
25,200.00) = Rs. 2572.54. There is clerical mistake rectified by PW-58.
2. Loan taken from Renu Aggarwal (Sister) for 2,75,000.00 purchasing chasis of bus and making bus body:-
9.2 The first item is on account of clerical mistake which has accrued while calculating the income for the A.Y. 1992-93. As per accused income of Sh. Ajay Kumar Goyal assessed by CBI during the A.Y. 1992-93 is Rs. 25,200/- whereas actual income is Rs. 27,772.54/-. Income tax official PW-58 has admitted during his cross examination that gross income of Ajay Kumar in respect of A.Y. 1992-93 is Rs. 27,772.54/- as shown in Ex. PW-58/6. IO (PW-82) has admitted this fact. Accordingly this income is taken as additional income of Sh. Ajay Kumar Goyal.
9.3 Item No. 2 pertains to Rs. 2,75,000/- on account of loan taken by accused from his sister Ms. Renu Aggarwal for purchase of chasis of buses and for making bus body. To prove this loan accused has examined his daughter as DW-23. She has deposed that Sh. Ajay Kumar Goyal is her real brother and she did M.Sc (Chemistry) in 1986 and got married in February, 1988. In November, CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 48 of 96 1999 her brother Sh. Ajay Kumar Goyal wanted to purchase a bus chasis for doing his transport business and asked her to give some loan. Initially she gave him cheque bearing no. 759891 for Rs. 75,000/- from her saving bank account number 19793 maintained in PNB, Janak Puri. Another cheque bearing no. 759892 for Rs. 1,00,000/- drawn on PNB, Janak Puri from saving bank account no. 19793 was also given to Sh. Ajay Goyal. In the middle of December, 1999 she withdrew a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- in cash from her said account and gave cash of Rs. 1,80,000/- to him on December, 1999. She had given the cash as Sh. Ajay Kumar Goyal was to pay it to get the body of bus released from the builder. On her RTI application PNB vide letter Ex. DW-23/F had sent her the statement of account from 01.04.1999 to 28.11.2005 of her saving bank account no. 19793 which is Ex. DW-23/F1.
9.4 She has further deposed that in October or December, 1999 she and her husband were negotiating with builder Vivek Ahuja for the purchase of one unfinished partially built up third floor at A-3/2, Janak Puri, New Delhi. After giving Rs. 1,00,000/- to Sh. Ajay Goyal out of the total sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- which she had withdrawn from the bank,she had kept the remaining cash of Rs. 80,000/- with her parents residing at B-1/B-6, Janak Puri, New Delhi. This amount was to be paid to the builder. The CBI had wrongly taken the cash of Rs. 80,000/- as belonging to her father at the time of house search on 28.12.1999.
9.5 As per Ld. counsel for accused, Renu Aggarwal (DW-23) daughter of accused and sister of Ajay Kumar Goyal had given two cheques, one of Rs. 75,000/- and other of Rs. 1,00,000/-from her saving bank account No. 19793 to Ajay Kumar Goyal to help him in purchasing chassis of bus. It has been further stated that on 15.12.1999 DW-23 had withdrawn Rs. 1,80,000/- from her saving bank account and out of this amount she had given Rs. 1,00,000/- more to Ajay Kumar Goyal. It has been stated that DW-23 had specifically deposed about it and has proved documents Ex. PW 23/F & F-1. It has been stated that DW-28 S. L. Bange, who is from PNB has proved statement of account No. CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 49 of 96 19793 of PNB Janak Puri as Ex. DW 28/1 and DW 28/2. He has also proved statement of account of account no. 14059 of Ajay Kumar Goyal as Ex. DW 28/3 showing money transactions between these two accounts.
9.6 On the other hand as per Ld. PP CBI Ex. DW 23/F-1 is the photo copy of computer printout and is not accompanying certificate under Section 65- B of Indian Evidence Act, hence, same cannot be considered. It has been further stated that even document Ex. DW 28/1 to DW 28/3 are computer printout of statement of account not accompanying mandatory certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, hence, cannot be considered.
9.7 I agree with the contention raised by Ld. PP for CBI that Ex. DW 23/F-1, DW 28/2 and DW 28/3 are the computer print outs of the statements of accounts of DW 23 and Ajay Kumar Goyal with PNB Janak Puri branch. These statements are not accompanying certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act and hence cannot be taken as proved and considered. However, Ex. PW 59/10 is the statement of account of saving bank account No. 14059 from 11.6.1996 to 6.3.2000. As per seizure memo Ex. PW 59/1 it was seized by IO on 3.7.2000. Ex. PW 59/10 is duly certified under Banker's Book of Evidence Act. Section 65-B was introduced in the Indian Evidence Act w.e.f. 17.10.2000 but since this print out Ex. PW 59/10 was taken prior to that and is duly certified under Banker's Book of Evidence Act, same can be considered. As per Ex. PW 59/10, Rs. 75,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- was credited in account No. 14059 of Ajay Kumar Goyal with PNB Janak Puri on 2.11.1999 and 9.11.1999 from saving bank account No. 19793. Hence, it stands proved that vide these two entries Rs. 1,75,000/- was deposited in the account of Ajay Kumar Goyal by transfer from saving bank account no. 19793 which is on the name of DW 23.
9.8 Regarding Rs. 1,00,000/- more which is as per DW 23 she had given to Ajay Kumar Goyal, except oral testimony of DW 23, accused has failed to bring any evidence to support her testimony.Therefore, instead of Rs. 2,75,000/- as claimed by accused, the transfer of Rs. 1,75,000/-, as loan amount as claimed by accused, from saving bank account of DW-23 stands CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 50 of 96 proved to the account of Ajay Kumar Goyal.
9.9 In view of the aforesaid reasons, the total income of Ajay Kumar Goyal stands proved as Rs. 12,97,083 + 2,572.54 + 1,75,000 = Rs. 14,74,655.54/-.
Income of Anju Goyal 10.0 Prosecution has taken income of Anju Goyal on the basis of her income tax return as Rs. 1,97,785/-. In addition to that income of Rs. 17,323/- is taken as profit on sale of Barley with Moti Lal & Company during Oct. 1990. This calculation of income is not disputed by accused. In addition to that he has claimed additional income of Rs. 86,691.80/- on account of income prior to 1.4.1992 not considered by CBI, although reflected in ITR of assessment year 1993-94.
10.1 The Ld. counsel for accused has submitted that Anju Goyal had written vide letter Ex. PW 16/C to Assistant Commissioner Income Tax Circle
-17 (2) stating that she is filing ITR for the first time only for AY 1993-94 as her income has crossed the maximum exemption limit of Rs. 28,000/- for that year and she had not filed income tax returns for the previous years as her income was below taxable limit. It has been stated that her letter Ex. DW 16/C is part of her ITR of the AY 1993-94 and is Ex. PW 58/26 and from contents of this letter it is abundantly clearly that she had income during earlier years also. It has been stated that this letter is part of the judicial record but the same was ignored by CBI while assessing income of Anju Goyal.
10.2 Ex. PW 58/26 is the copy of computation of taxable income of Anju Goyal for AY 1993-94. This has been proved by PW 58 an official from Income Tax Department. Ex. DW 16/C is copy of letter written by Anju Goyal to Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, which is part of Ex. PW 58/26, wherein it is mentioned that it is for the first time her income has crossed then maximum exemption limit of Rs. 28,000/- for the year and due to this reason she is filing income tax return. In Ex. PW 58/26 in statement of affairs she has shown CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 51 of 96 balance in capital account as Rs. 86,691.20/- (PNB). It is relevant to mention here that as per the calculation of income Anju Goyal in the charge sheet, the first assessment year is 1993-94 for which her income has been considered. Therefore, the contention raised by Ld. counsel for the accused stands proved that at the time of filing Income Tax Return for AY 1993-94 Anju Goyal was having balance of Rs. 86,691.20/- in her accounts. Accordingly, this amount needs to be taken as her additional income.
10.3 In view of the aforesaid reasons total income of Anju Goyal stands proved on record is Rs. 3,01,799.20/-.
Income of Ms. Bindu Goyal 11.0 Prosecution has taken income of Ms. Bindu Goyal as Rs. 2,31,887/- from salary earned by her from Ranbaxy from 30.12.1996 to 20.10.1998. PW-84 Sh. Mohan Ahuja, Sr. Manager (Administration & Maintenance) with Ranbaxy Laboratories has proved salary details of Ms. Bindu Goyal vide his letter Ex. PW-84/A. In addition to this salary accused has claimed that Ms. Bindu Goyal has earned more income to the tune of Rs. 2,91,684/- which was not considered by CBI. He has claimed additional income on 15 counts.
11.1 First item pertains to Rs. 17,290/- which as per accused she has earned on sale of commodities through M/s Moti Lal & Company during the year 1990. To establish this income accused has examined DW-17 Sh. Jai Pal who was having firm under the title M/s Moti Lal & Company, Grain Merchants & Commission Agents at Bahadurgarh Road. As per him Ms. Bindu Goyal had deposited Rs. 5,000/- with them as advance, profit of Rs. 22,290/- had accrued on foodgrains and she was paid this amount through cheque. He had filed the receipts Ex. DW-17/A to C. During his cross examination DW-17 has stated that Ex. DW-17/A to C are in fact not receipts but the copies taken out from Khatas (Account Books) and these Account Books are no longer available with them. He has further deposed that receipts Ex. DW-17/A to C are in Mundi language. As per him he had deposited these receipt in the court about 4 - 5 years ago.
CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 52 of 96 At that time he was called in the court but he cannot tell that how he was called in the court but he had come to the court at the instructions of his owner. This additional income claimed by accused for his daughter is not inspiring confidence due to the following reasons:-
1.The date of deposit of advance of Rs. 5,000/- has not been mentioned by DW-17. It is unbelievable that an amount of Rs. 5,000/- can earn profit of Rs.
17,290/- and more over the period during which this alleged profit has accrued has not been explained by this witness.
2.These receipts Ex. DW-17/A to C being in Mundi language are not legible. Accused was required to file English or Hindi translation of these receipts only then it was possible for this court to appreciate these receipts.
3.As per DW-17 these receipts are produced from the original Account Books, which have been destroyed.
4.As per DW-17 he had filed these receipts in the court 4 - 5 years ago but as per the record of this case, there was no occasion for DW-17 to appear in this court and file these receipts.
11.2 Hence, this income cannot be taken as her additional income.
11.3 Item No. 2 pertains to income of Rs. 2,000/- from scholarship for the year 1992-93 being Science Meritorious Award. To prove this income accused has examined DW-15 Sh. Jai Chanda, CPIO, University of Delhi. This witness has proved his letter Ex. DW-15/A. As per him information contained in this letter was based on the information given by Assistant Registrar (Scholarship). He has filed annexures Ex. DW-15/B to E alongwith his letter. As per Ex. DW-15/B Ms. Bindu Goyal was recipient of Science Meritorious Award "Sh. Jugal Kishore jain and Smt. Kalawati Jain Memorial Scholarship" for the year 1992-93. The amount of scholarship was Rs. 200/- per month. As per Ex. DW-15/C amount of Rs. 2,000 was disbursed to Ms. Bindu Goyal towards payment of scholarship under " Sh. Jugal Kishore jain and Smt. Kalawati Jain Memorial Scholarship". In view of statement of DW-15 additional income of CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 53 of 96 Rs. 2,000/- stands proved.
11.4 Next item pertains to income from Junior Research Fellowship Award from Bureau of Police Research and Development on Forensic Services, University of Delhi. As per accused, Ms. Bindu Goyal had received Rs. 11,044/- under this award. DW-15 has proved Ex. DW-15/E issued by University of Delhi. As per this letter a sum of Rs. 11,044/- has been released / paid to Ms. Bindu Goyal towards scholarship fellowship and contingency during the period from 07.05.1996 to 28.10.1996. Accordingly this amount is also taken as additional income of Ms. Bindu Goyal.
11.5 Next income claimed by accused is Rs. 712.44/- on account of interest on debentures of Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. from 15.06.1989 to 26.12.1991. To prove this income accused has examined DW-26 Sh. S.N. Jha, Manager M/s Karvy Computers Shares Pvt. Ltd. As per him he has seen counter files of warrants issued from Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. / Reliance Industries Ltd., which are already marked as Mark P-52/DE to DH, P-52/D3, P-52/DK, DL, DG, GC, DA and DB which are issued from Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. He exhibited these counter files of warrants as Ex. DW-26/1 to 11. As per the accused the counter files Ex. DW-26/1 to 7 are regarding interest on debentures held by Ms. Bindu Goyal. Accordingly Rs. 712.44/- stands proved as additional income.
11.6 Next item pertains to dividend income of Rs. 75/- on account of shares of Reliance Industries. Ex. DW-26/8 & 9 are counter files of equity dividends from Reliance Industries Ltd. on the name of Ms. Bindu Goyal for the years 1991-92 & 1992-93. Accordingly this amount is taken as additional income.
11.7 Next item pertains to interest of Rs. 3,648/- which as per accused has accrued to saving bank account no. 17029 with PNB, Janak Puri. To prove this income accused has examined DW-28 Sh. S.L. Bange, Dy. Manager, PNB, Janak Puri. DW-28 has exhibited statement of account held by Ms. Bindu Goyal CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 54 of 96 in PNB, Janak Puri. As per Ld. Counsel for the accused from 06.04.1996 to 28.11.2005, for various quarters within the check period interest amount comes out to be Rs. 3,648/-. Ld. PP for CBI has submitted that as per statement of DW-28 Ex. DW-28/4 is computer print out and same is not accompanying the certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act and hence is not admissible in evidence.
11.8 Ex. DW-28/4 is computer print out. As per DW-28 this print out was not taken by him from computer and he has brought it from the bank where its print out was already lying. Since Ex. DW-28/4 is not accompanying mandatory certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act, hence same cannot be considered. Accordingly, this additional income remains unproved.
11.9 Next item is pertaining to dividend income of Rs. 952.30 against shares of Ashima Syntex Ltd. This income stands admitted by the prosecution as per Ex. DW-1/13. Accordingly this income is taken as additional income.
11.10 Next item pertains to dividend income of Rs. 300.80/- against 16 shares of Reliance Industries Ltd. PW-52 has admitted during his cross examination that during the period 1993-94 to 1998-99 Ms. Bindu Gupta has been paid dividend income of Rs. 300.80/- in respect of shares on her name. Even IO (PW-82) during his cross examination has admitted that Ex. PW-52/1 reveals payment of dividend amount of Rs. 300.80 to her and same was not considered by him in calculating income of Ms. Bindu Goyal. Accordingly this amount is taken as additional income.
11.11 Next item pertains to dividend income of Rs. 3,150.36/- against shares of Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. To prove this income accused has examine DW-22 Sh. B.M. Paliwal, Secretarial Officer of M/s Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. As per him dividend warrants Ex. DW-22/A & A5 were issued to Ms. Bindu Goyal from their company. Accordingly this income is taken as additional income.
11.12 Next item pertains to dividend income of Rs. 850/- against shares of Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. This income stands admitted by CBI CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 55 of 96 vide Ex. D-1/17 to 20. Accordingly this income is taken as additional income.
11.13 Next item pertains to dividend income of Rs. 1,070/- against 100 shares of IFCI. To prove this income accused has examined DW-18 Sh. Priya Darshan, Director of M/s MCS Ltd. He has admitted that dividend warrants Ex. DW-18/1 to 5 are issued by their company on the name of Ms. Bindu Goyal. During cross examination he has admitted that stationery on which these dividend warrants have been printed in the stationer of IFCI. The stationery is provided by the company to them, on which after calculation the amount of dividend is printed and sent to the share holder by them. Accordingly this amount is taken as additional income.
11.14 Next item pertains to interest income of Rs. 1,792.39/- on debentures of Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. PW-67 Sh. Shyamal Kumar Choudhary, Sr. Officer (Secretarial) of the company has admitted during his cross examination that Rs. 1,792/- was paid to Ms. Bindu Goyal on debentures from 01.01.1994 to 28.12.1999 under folio no. 0128599. Accordingly this income is taken as additional income.
11.15 Next item pertains to dividend income of Rs. 700 against the shares of M/s Deepak Spinners Ltd. from the period 1989 to 1993. To prove this income, accused has examined DW-19 Sh. Madhusudan Natholia of M/s Deepak Spinners Ltd. As per him dividend warrants Ex. DW-19/1 to 4 are issued by their company. Accordingly this amount is taken as additional income. Accused has further claimed that dividend warrant of Rs. 408/- reflected in Ex. DW-19/A was not considered by CBI and IO (PW-82) has admitted during his cross examination about this income. PW-19 Sh. Ashwani Kumar Sunder, Sr. Secretarial Officer of Deepak Spinners Ltd. has proved letter Ex. PW-19/A, as per which Ms. Bindu Goyal has received dividend of Rs. 408/- for the year 1993-94 to 1997-98. It is relevant to mention here that dividend income of Rs. 700 claimed by accused is for different duration. Accordingly Rs. 700/- + Rs. 408/- is taken as additional income.
CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 56 of 96 11.16 Next item pertains to income of Rs. 6,560/- by selling 20 shares of M/s Reliance Industries Ltd. PW-18 Sh. Rohit C. Shah, Vice President, Corporate Secretarial, Reliance Industries Ltd. has admitted that Ms. Bindu Goyal was allotted 10 debentures of Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. at a price of Rs. 1,500/- during 1988-89 and thereafter company had issued 200 shares of Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. against these debentures. Upon merger of Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. into Reliance Industries, 20 shares of Reliance Industries Ltd. were issued to Ms. Bindu Goyal which she has sold out. As per Ex. PW-18/A she had sold 20 shares on 21.05.1994. IO (PW-82) has admitted during his cross examination that sale price of 20 shares of Reliance Industries was not considered by him in arriving at income of Ms. Bindu Goyal. Accordingly by deducting the cost of acquisition i.e. Rs. 1,500/-, Rs. 6,560/- is taken as additional income.
11.17 Next item pertains to income of Rs. 9,244/- from the sale of units of US 1964 of UTI. DW-20 Sh. Pradeep Bhatia, Dy. Manager, UTI has admitted that dividend warrants Ex. DW-20/1 to 18 have been issued by their company. The total income of these dividend warrants comes out to be Rs. 9,244/-. Accordingly this amount is taken as additional income.
Srl. Source of Income Income Claimed Income
No. Proved
1 Sale of commodities Through M/s Moti 17,290/- Nil
Lal & Company
2 Scholarship for the year 1992-93 2,000/- 2,000/-
3 Junior Research Fellowship Award 11,044/- 11,044/-
4 Interest on debentures of Reliance 712.44/- 712.44/-
Petro Chemicals
5 Dividend from Reliance Industries 75/- 75/-
6 Interest from Saving Bank A/c No. 3,648/- 3,648/-
17029 PNB Janak Puri
7 Dividend on shares of Ashima Syntex 952.30/- 952.30/-
8 Dividend income on 16 shares of 300.80/- 300.80/-
Reliance Industries.
CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 57 of 96
9 Dividend on shares of Oswal Agro 3,150.36/- 3,150.36/-
Mills.
10 Dividend on shares of Chambal 850/- 850/-
Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd.
11 Dividend on 100 shares of IFCI 1,070/- 1,070/-
12 Interest of Debentures of Chambal 1,792.39/- 1,792.39/-
Fertilizers & Chemicals
13 Dividend on 700 shares of Deepak 1,108/- 1,108/-
Spinners Ltd.
14 Income from sale of 20 shares of 6,560/- 6,560/-
Reliance Industries
15 Income from sale of units of US 1964 9,244/- 9,244/-
UTI
Total 42,507.29/-
11.18 By adding income considered by CBI and other additional income
proved on record, total income of Ms. Bindu Goyal is taken as Rs.2,31,887 (as admitted by CBI) + 42,507.29/- (additional income as proved) = Rs. 2,74,394.29/-.
Total Income of the accused & his family members 11.19 (I) Income of accused = Rs. 17,13,725.48/-
(II) Income of Pushpa Goyal = Rs. 3,59,679.00/-
(iii) Income of Ajay Kumar Goyal = Rs.14,74,655.54/-
(iv) Income of Anju Goyal = Rs. 3,01,799.20/-
(v) Income of Bindu Goyal = Rs. 2,74,394.29/-
--------------------------------
Total = Rs. 41,24,253.51/-
--------------------------------
CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 58 of 96
Assets acquired by accused and his family members 12.0 Immovable & Movable Assets acquired by accused and his family members are shown in annexure "B" of the charge sheet totalling Rs. 51,39,867.82. The first four items shown in annexure "B" are not disputed by the accused. The various witnesses examined by prosecution to prove these assets held by accused and his family members, since same are not disputed by the accused, due to this reason, the testimony of those witnesses is not discussed. In written submissions, Ld. Counsel for accused has explained the manner of arranging resources in which these assets were acquired.
12.1 Item No.1 under movable asset is cash of Rs. 2,50,000/- recovered from the house of accused on 28.12.1999. As per Ld. Counsel for accused out of this recovered amount, Rs. 1,50,000/- belonged to M/s RANS Electronics owned by in-laws of Anju Mittal daughter of the accused. Anju Mittal while deposing as DW-16 has specifically deposed regarding it. It has been stated that on many bundles of currency note seized by CBI marking of Dehradoon Bank was there. It has been stated that out of this amount Rs. 80,000/- belonged to Ms Renu Aggarwal (DW-23), second daughter of the accused. Ex. PW 11/C is the search-cum-seizure memo prepared by PW-11 Inspt. Om Prakash. As per this memo currency notes of Rs. 2,30,400/- under different denominations are shown to have been recovered from the house of accused. Recovery of Rs. 16,600/- in the form of coins is also mentioned. PW-11 Inspt. Om Prakash has deposed that on 28.12.1999, he had conducted search at the residential premises of the accused. He was accompanying two independent witnesses namely Ram Prasad and Kailsh Chand, both from DDA. At the starting of search Ajay Kumar Goel and Pushpa Goel were present and accused reached his house at about 2.30 PM. He identified his signatures and signature of son and wife of accused on memo Ex. PW 11/C. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that there were Smt. Pushpa Goel, Ajay Goel, Smt. Priti Goel wife of Ajay Goel and daughter of accused, whose name he does not know.
CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 59 of 96 12.2 DW-16 Anju Mittal has deposed that she got married in the year 1996 and her husband and his family were residents of Dehradun. His in-laws family was running a firm under the name and style of M/s RANS Electronics at 10/2, Ballu Pur Road, Dehradun, dealing in sale & purchase of computers and peripherals thereof. Most of the purchases required for the business used to be made from Delhi market. She used to actively participate in the business. On 19/20.12.1999 she had come to Delhi . She had brought cash of Rs. 1,50,000/- with her from Dehradun for purchase of laptop and she had stayed with her parents. She had to purchase laptop "Compaq Presario" which she could not get till 28.12.1999. In the meanwhile the said cash was in briefcase kept in the dining-cum-bedroom of her parents. On 28.12.1999, during search of her parents house her briefcase was also searched and cash of Rs. 1,50,000/- was taken away by CBI. To support her statement, she has relied upon computer copy of cash book of M/s RAN Electronics Ex. DW 16/1. As per Ld. Counsel for the accused, as per Ex. DW16/1 payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- has been shown to have been given to Arvind Mittal husband of DW-16 Smt. Anju Mittal. Ex. DW 16/B is the audit report of M/s RANS Electronics dated 30.10.2000.
12.3 The document Ex. PW 16/A has been disputed by the prosecution. Genuineness of this document is under serious doubt. It is computer printout and not accompanying certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act which is a mandatory requirement. Moreover, the possibility of manufacturing this document to support the defence of the accused cannot be ruled out. As per PW 11 one daughter of accused was also present at the time of inspection of his house. From presence of the daughter of the accused it cannot be presumed that she was also carrying cash of Rs. 1,50,000/- with her at that time. Regarding Rs. 80,000/- DW-23 has deposed that in middle of Dec. 1999, she had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- in cash from her account out of which she had given Rs. 1,00,000/- to Ajay Kumar and kept remaining Rs. 80,000/- with her parents. She had to give this amount to builder as there was negotiations with the builder Vivek Ahuja for the purchase of one unfinished CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 60 of 96 partially built up 3rd floor at A-3/2, Janak Puri, New Delhi. CBI had wrongly taken cash of Rs. 80,000/- from the house of her parents at the time of search on 28.12.1999.
12.4 Ld. PP has contended that it is a false defence created by the accused and if this money belonged to DW-23, then why she did not make representation in this regard to the CBI or moved an application in the court seeking return of this amount. DW -23 to establish her income has proved various documents Ex. DW 23/A to E. As per her on her application under RTI Act PNB vide its letter Ex. PW 23/F had sent her statement of account from 1.4.1999 to 28.11.2005 of her saving bank account no. 19793 which is Ex. DW 23/F-1. Ex. DW 23/F is forwarding letter dated 6.8.2012 stated to have been issued by PNB, Rajendra Bhawan, Rajendra Place, New Delhi enclosing statement of account of Smt. Renu Aggarwal for the period 1.4.1999 to 31.3.2000 as Ex. DW 23/F-1. Ld. Counsel for the accused has pointed out that as per this statement of account Rs. 1,80,000/- stands withdrawn by DW-23 from this account. Prosecution has objected to the mode of proving Ex. DW 23/F and DW 23/F-1. Both these documents appears to be photo copies and original of these documents are not produced by accused. Accused could have proved the statement of account of DW-23 by calling witness from Punjab National Bank for this purpose.Ttherefore, contention raised by accused regarding Rs. 80,000/- does not inspire confidence. Accordingly, the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- has been rightly taken as assets of the accused.
12.5 Item No. 2 & 3 are not disputed by the accused.
12.6 Item No. 4 pertains to bank balance on the name of Ajay Kumar in different accounts. As per ld. Counsel for accused, as per document Ex. PW 59/10 and Ex. PW 49/F, it were totaling Rs. 50,400.28ps and Rs. 34/- was taken more by prosecution while calculating the figure. I agree with the contention raised by ld. Counsel for accused that there is mistake of calculation and the total balance of both the account comes to Rs. 50,400.28 and same is CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 61 of 96 taken as asset of accused.
12.7 Item No. 5 pertains to Rs. 95,131.21ps on account of investment made on the name of Ajay Kumar with M/s Kassa Finvest (P) Ltd. PW-20 Vijay Kumar Chandak of M/s Kassa Finvest Pvt. Ltd. has proved computer copy of statement of account of accused and his son Ajay Kumar Goyal for the period 1.4.1996 to 28.12.1999 as Ex. PW 20/B-1. Ld. Counsel for accused has contended that Ex. PW 20/B-12 is the computer printout not accompanying certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act. I agree with the contention raised by Ld. Counsel. Ex. PW 20/B-1 being a computer printout of statement of account of Ajay Kumar Goyal should have accompanied mandatory certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, prosecution is held to have failed to prove this asset. Accordingly, same should not be reckoned as assets on the name of the son of accused.
12.8 Item No. 6 pertains to bank balance on the name of Pushpa Goel in different accounts totaling Rs. 17,474.74ps. As per ld. Counsel for the accused there is calculation mistake of Rs. 179.62ps as the total amount comes out to be Rs. 17,295.12ps. I agree with the contention raised by accused. Accordingly, Rs.179.12/- be reduced as assets for this item.
12.9 Item No. 7 pertains to cost of the bus DL 1P 2940 on the name of Ajay Kumar Goyal purchased in 1992 for Rs. 5,60,073/-. Ld. Counsel for the accused has submitted that the bus was purchased in Sept. 1992 and was operated by Ajay Kumar Goyal. The cost of bus has depreciated with the passage of time due to wear and tear and there was depreciation in its cost every year. He has further submitted that the depreciation in the cost was charged as business income by Ajay Kumar Goyal and thus actual income of Ajay Kumar Goyal was calculated after deducting the depreciation in the cost of the bus. It has been further submitted that depreciation of the bus from the date of its purchase has been reflected in the ITRs. CBI has considered the reduction in income by depreciation in cost but for the valuation of the assets CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 62 of 96 purchase price has been considered which is not reasonable. It has been further contended that if benefit of depreciation is not being given to the accused then his actual income reflected in ITRs for the assessment year 1993-94 to 2000-01 be taken under income head.
12.10 Ld. PP has submitted that the benefit of depreciation as claimed by the accused cannot be given to him and the cost of the bus acquired by the accused in the year 1992 should be taken as asset in this case.
12.11 The law is settled that the assets held by accused at the end of check period has to be taken into consideration for calculating the disproportionate assets. Perusal of ITRs of accused Ex. PW 58/7, Ex. PW 58/9, Ex. PW 58/10, Ex. PW 58/12, Ex. PW 58/14 to 16 reveals that he has shown his income from the bus and after depreciating cost of the bus he has shown his actual income. This income of accused has been taken by prosecution while calculating his total income of Ajay Kumar Goyal. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I agree with the contention raised by Ld. Counsel for the accused that instead of Rs. 5,60,073/-, assets on the name of Ajay Kumar Goyal should be taken as Rs. 37,643/-.
12.12 Item No. 8 pertains to the acquisition price of bus no. DL 1P A 4878 on the name of Ajay Kumar Goyal in the year 1999 for Rs. 6,23,577/-. As per Ld. Counsel for the accused the actual cost of the bus was Rs. 6,23,268/- and there is calculation mistake done by the prosecution. It has been stated that depreciation for three months has not been considered by the prosecution. It has been stated that Ajay Kumar Goyal had claimed depreciation of Rs. 1,24,155.40ps on this bus for six months and for three months it comes to Rs. 62,078/-.
12.13 As per the various documents regarding purchase of this bus, it was purchased three months before the end of check period. Though no document has been produced by accused to establish that Ajay Kumar Goyal claimed depreciation of Rs. 1,24,155.40ps for this bus for six months,but as per law Ajay CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 63 of 96 Kumar was entitled to depreciation. Normally a business entity is entitled for 15% depreciation; hence benefit of depreciation needs to be given to accused. Accordingly, at the rate of 15% per annum for 3 months depreciation amount comes out to be Rs.23,372.Therefore assets of Ajay Kumar Goyal is reckoned as Rs. 6,23,577-23,372= Rs.6,00,205/-.
12.14 Item No. 9 pertains to cost of Maruti car no. DNB 7232 in the name of Ajay Kumar Goyal as Rs. 1,00,699/-. As per the accused his son Ajay Kumar Goyal used this car for his business purpose and its cost depreciated with the passage of time. It has been stated that depreciation in the cost was charged as his business income which reduced his income to the extent of depreciation cost. It has been stated that depreciation in cost is reflected in his income tax return Ex. PW 58/5 and PW 58/6. It has been stated that depreciation cost of the car is Rs. 77,583.35ps and this amount should be reckoned as asset. As per Ex. PW 70/1 the price of 800 CC Car as on 6.1.1990 was Rs. 1,00,699.75ps. Ex. PW 58/5 and 58/6 are the two ITRs on which accused is relying upon to prove the depreciation of the price. Ex. PW 58/5 is not showing any depreciation of Rs. 16106/- as claimed by accused. But there is mention of depreciation of Rs. 13,690/- in ITR Ex. PW 58/6.
12.15 Ex. PW 3/A is the production-cum-seizure memo of the transport department for producing the document pertaining to registration of Car no. DNB 7232. Ex. PW 3/C is the file containing sale certificate, form no. 20, 34 etc. regarding purchase of car no. DNB 7232. From these document, it stands established that Ajay Kumar has purchased this vehicle in Jan. 1990. The law is settled that while calculating the assets of the accused, depreciated value of the asset needs to be taken on the end of the check period. Here accused has no where mentioned if this car remained with him at the end of the check period. Accused is only claiming depreciation for two assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93. The entire prosecution case as well as case presented by accused in his defence is silent if Ajay Kumar Goyal remained owner of this car after assessment year 1992-93 or not. The ITR Ex. PW 58/6 is of M/s Ajay Goyal, CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 64 of 96 the firm owned by Sh. Ajay Kumar Goyal. As per Income Tax Act, a business entity can claim depreciation on the motor vehicle i.e. around 15% of the value every year. Accordingly, though ITR Ex. PW 58/5 is not showing any depreciation claimed by Ajay Kumar Goyal on this vehicle but he was entitled to the depreciation on the price of said vehicle. Accordingly, the benefit on account of depreciation, as claimed by accused needs to be given to him. Therefore, this asset is taken as Rs. 77,583.35ps.
12.16 Item No. 10 is not disputed by the accused.
12.17 Item No. 11 pertains to gold and silver jewellery and on this count assets has been taken as Rs. 5,39,052/-. Ld. counsel for accused has submitted that valuation of the jewellery is done wrongly and on unfounded basis by CBI on the basis of prevailing market rate on 27.4.2002. It has been stated that gold/silver jewellery rates are not mentioned in the valuation report by the IO. IO during his cross-examination has admitted that market value of the gold on 24.7.2002 was taken into consideration while ascertaining the value of jewellery articles. It has been stated that age of gold ornaments is not assessed/mentioned in the valuation report. It has been further stated that accused has declared gold and silver jewellery worth Rs. 15,000/- as on 31.12.1972 vide his letter Ex. PW 30/6 and 30/7. This jewellery was ishtridhan of accused's wife. This was partly gifted to her by her parents in 1962 and partly by the parents of the accused. It has been further stated that DW-23 Smt. Renu Aggarwal has deposed that she had kept two necklaces, two pairs of ear rings, nose ring, one ring, one bangle (all of gold) and two pairs of silver payal in the locker of her parents while leaving for Jammu in late 1988. It has been stated that DW-23 during her cross-examination has stated that the valuation of the jewellery kept in the locker of accused was Rs. 70,000/-. It has been stated that these facts were not considered by CBI while calculating the valuation. It has been further stated that in fact entire jewellery in the house belongs to Preeti Goyal wife of Ajay Kumar Goyal, which was given to her by her parents and gifted by her friends and relatives in the marriage. It has been stated that CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 65 of 96 CBI has only given benefit of 114 grams of gold jewellery which is very less. It has been stated that there is also totaling mistake in Ex PW 27/A as the valuation of the jewellery is determined on the higher side by Rs. 3,000/-. It has been stated that the valuation of gold jewellery on the basis of seized cash memos of jewellery and proved by PW 72 works out to be only Rs. 2,76,887/- and only this amount should be considered as assets. The details of this amount, as per accused, is as follows:-
Sl. No Particulars Page Amount
1 Ex. PW 91/1 (Page 30 of D-579) 1,325.00
2 Ex. PW 6/A (Page 31 of D-579) 2,190.55
3 Ex. PW5/A (Page 34 of D-579) 50,643.20
4 Ex. PW 72/26 (Page D-95) 45,491.00
5 Ex. PW 72/1 (Page 3 of D-579) 17,487.00
6 Ex. PW 72/2 (Page 5 of D-579) 2,206.00
7 Ex. PW 72/4 (Page 10 of D-579) 28,281.00
8 Ex. PW 72/5 (Page 13 of D-579) 6,297.00
9 Ex. PW 72/6 (Page 14 of D-579) 1,971.00
10 Ex. PW 72/7 (Page 16 of D-579) 6,354.00
11 Ex. PW 72/8 (Page 18 of D-579) 13,378.00
12 Ex. PW 72/13 (Page 29 of D-579) 2,597.00
13 Ex. PW 72/14 (Page 32 of D-579) 1,110.00
14 Ex. PW 72/15 (Page 33 of D-579) 5,629.00
15 Ex. PW 72/18 ( D-579) 8,447.00
16 Ex. PW 72/20 ( D-579) 5,031.00
17 Ex. PW 72/21 (Page 45 of D-579) 39,286.00
18 Ex. PW 72/23 (Page 50 of D-579) 10,491.00
19 Ex. PW 72/24 (Page 53 of D-579) 26,571.00
20 Ex. PW 27/25 (Page 55 of D-579) 2101.00
Total Rs. 2,76,886.75
12.18 The jewellery articles were seized from the house of the accused as
well as from locker No. 317 with PNB, B-1, Community Centre Branch, New Delhi. Ex. PW 11/C is the search-cum-observation memo prepared by PW-11 Inspt. Om Prakash . PW-40 Kailash Chand and PW 79 Ms. Sobha Dutt, Dy SP are the witnesses to this memo. It also bear signatures signature of accused, his wife Pushpa Goyal and his son Ajay Goyal. As per CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 66 of 96 PW 11 on 30.12.1999, the locker on the name of accused and his wife Pushpa Goyal at PNB, Janak Puri was searched. Ex. PW 11/B is the locker operation-cum-seizure memo vide which various jewellery articles were seized. As per PW11 the valuation of gold and silver jewellery was not done, its approximate weight was mentioned in these memos. In the house of the accused, jewellery was returned to Smt. Pushpa Goyal and Smt. Preeti Goyal wife of Ajay Kumar Goyal and at the bank, jewellery was put back in the locker and key of the said locker was retained with CBI. 12.19 PW-27 Sh. Om Prakash Malhotra is the jeweller and government approved valuer. As per him he has valued the jewellery lying in the locker at PNB Janakpuri branch as well at the residence of the accused. He has proved the valuation report Ex. PW 27/A and Ex. PW 27/C. 12.20 The total of Ex. PW 27/A and Ex. PW 27/C comes out to Rs. 4,98,424/- + 95,405 = 5,93,832/-. But as per annexure "B" showing movable assets, the value of the gold and silver jewellery has been taken as Rs. 5,39,052/-. Ld. PP for CBI has admitted that during the trial IO of the case filed reply to the application moved by accused admitting that gold items stated to be gifted being approximately 114 gms, as mentioned in the observation memo worth Rs. 54,780/-, was excluded from evaluating the price of the jewellery.
12.21 As per Ld. PP for CBI the following jewellary articles purchased by accused on his name or in the name of his other family members were considered in calculating the total amount are also stands proved on record. In addition to the jewellery admitted by accused.
Sl. No. Particulars Amount
1. Ex. PW 5/B 5518/-
2. Mark PW 72/3 & 3-A 2597/-
3. Mark PW 72/9 & 9-A 5109/-
4. Mark PW 72/10 & 10-A 23,462/-
5. Mark PW 72/11 & 11-A 16,143/-
6. Mark PW 72/12 31,469/-
7. Mark PW 72/16 2697/-
8. Mark PW 72/17 & 17-A 2465/-
CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 67 of 96
9. Mark PW 72/19 & 19-A 24,761/-
10. Mark PW 72/22 5011/-
Total Rs. 1,19,232/-
12.22 First item proved vide Ex. PW 5/B pertains to purchase of
jewellery worth Rs. 5,518.20 in the name of Sh. Ajay Kumar Goyal.
12.23 Second item pertains to Rs. 2597 vide bill mark PW 72/3. As per ld. counsel for accused since PW-72 has failed to name the cashier who had signed on it, due to this reason, same remains unproved in view of Section 47 of Indian Evidence Act. On the other hand, Ld. PP for CBI has submitted that though PW 72 has failed to identify the signatures of the cashier but the bill mark PW 72/3 is on the name of Bindu Goyal and he has admitted that this bill is concerning Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri and in addition to that PW 72 has proved the guarantee card in respect of bill mark PW 72/3.
12.24 No doubt as stated by ld. counsel for accused PW-72 has failed to identify the signatures of the cashier on the bill mark PW 72/3 but he has admitted that this bill pertains to them. Moreover, the guarantee card Ex. PW 72/3B pertains to this bill. In view of these reasons, it stands proved that jewellery of Rs. 2,597/- was purchased vide this bill on the name of Bindu Goyal.
12.25 Next item pertains to the bill marked PW 72/9 for Rs. 5,109/-. Ex. PW 72/9A is the guarantee card in respect of the bill mark PW 79/9. On the same logic as discussed in above para, it also stands proved that jewellery worth Rs. 5,190/- was purchased on the name of Pushpa Goyal.
12.26 Next item pertains to bill mark PW 72/10 for Rs. 23,462/- and guarantee card Ex. PW 72/10A on the name of Pushpa Goyal. Applying the same logic as above is also taken as proved that jewellery worth Rs. 23,462/- was purchased during the check period.
12.27 Next item pertains to bill mark PW 72/11 for Rs. 16,143/- and CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 68 of 96 guarantee card Ex. PW 72/11A. On similar ground as above,it is also taken as purchased on the name of Pushpa Goyal on 1.1.1998.
12.28 Next item pertains to bill mark PW 72/12 which is for Rs. 31,469/-. In this bill advance of Rs. 25,000/- has been adjusted and accordingly cash received is shown as Rs. 6,469/-. Though the guarantee card is not proved by PW-72 in this case but since PW-72 has admitted this bill pertains to them, for the same reasons Rs. 31,469/- is taken as the amount spent by Bindu Goyal for purchase this jewellery on 10.02.1998.
12.29 Next item pertains to mark PW 72/16 and guarantee card Ex. PW 72/16A. Therefore, it is taken as proved that Pushpa Goyal had purchased jewellery article worth Rs. 2,697/- on 13.04.1992.
12.30 Next item pertains to mark PW 72/17 and guarantee card is Ex. PW 72/17A. On similar ground it is taken as proved that Bindu Goyal had purchased jewellery worth Rs. 2,465/- on 26.10.1992.
12.31 Next item pertains to bill mark PW 72/19 and guarantee card Ex. PW 72/19A. As per this bill jewellery of Rs. 24,761/- was purchased by Pushpa Goyal on 2.12.1992. Advance of Rs. 20,000/- had been adjusted and cash received mentioned is Rs. 4,761/-. Therefore, it is taken as proved that she had purchased jewellery of this amount of Rs. 24,761/-.
12.32 Last item no. 10 pertains to bill mark PW 72/22 for Rs. 5,011/-. Guarantee card accompanying this bill remained unproved but as held in above paras from this bill it is taken as proved that Bindu Goyal had purchased jewellery worth Rs. 5,011/- on 1.1.1998.
12.33 In view of the aforesaid reasons as submitted by Ld. PP for CBI, jewellery worth Rs. 1,19,313/- stands also proved.
12.34 One of the contention raised by accused is that his daughter (DW-23) had kept jewellery worth Rs. 70,000/- in his locker. Except the oral assertion made by DW-23 no other evidence in this regard has been produced CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 69 of 96 by the accused. Moreover, none of the bill out of the various bills proved by prosecution on record, is in the name of DW-23 Renu Aggarwal. Therefore, this contention of the accused is not accepted. Other contention raised by accused is that valuation done by PW 27 is in the year 2002 whereas date of seizure is 1999. It is relevant to mention here that in addition to the admitted jewellery by the accused, the remaining amount has been calculated on the basis of bills and not on the basis of the prevailing market price of gold in 2002 or any other year.
12.35 Adding the jewellery not disputed by the accused of Rs. 2,76,886.75/- and the other jewellery proved on record as above, the total valuation of the jewellery comes out to be Rs. 2,76,886.75 + 1,19,313 = Rs. 3,96,118.75. Therefore, this amount of Rs. 3,96,198.75 is taken as asset of the accused and his family members.
12.36 Item No. 12 is regarding various house hold articles as per search- cum-observation memo Ex. PW 11/C, amounting to Rs. 2,09,648/-. As per ld. counsel for accused there is calculation mistake of Rs. 9,298/- as correct valuation even as per CBI is Rs. 2,00,350/-. It has been stated that IO PW 82 has deposed that on further calculation, it transpired that the value of the house hold articles was only Rs.1,95,800/- and not Rs. 2,09,648/-. It has been stated that there are contradictions in the statement of PW-11, who was heading the search team, PW-79 Ms. Sobha Dutta, Dy. SP and PW-40 Sh. Kailsh Chand, who was accompanying the team, regarding the valuation done.
12.37 As per accused there were various articles purchased prior to pre- check period but the same were not considered by CBI. It has been stated that actual valuation of the articles only comes out to be Rs. 1,21,455/-. It has been specifically pointed out that item no. 1 to 13, 17, 27, 33, 34, 40, 54, 86 were purchased prior to the check period. It has been stated that there is wrong calculation of the electronic items, i.e. colour TV (Item no 7 & 54). It has been further stated that certain articles like table lamp were gifted to the accused and some articles belong to the children of the accused but wrongly calculated in this memo.
CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 70 of 96 12.38 In Ex. PW 11/C, it is found mentioned that year of acquisition, mode of acquisition and price of the article was written/arrived after consulting with Mrs. Pushpa Goyal and Ajay Kumar Goyal. As pointed out by Ld. counsel for accused, PW-11 has deposed that valuation of these house hold articles was done after consulting the accused, his family members and the independent witnesses but PW-79 in her cross-examination has stated that mode of acquisition of articles were mentioned in the memo in consultation with son and wife of accused and cost/valuation in respect of house hold articles had also been ascertained from them. PW-40 who was independent witness has deposed that he cannot say on what basis recording of the date and valuation of the article was mentioned.
12.39 Statement of PW-11 is in conformity with search-cum-observation memo Ex. PW 11/C. The contradictions pointed out by Ld. counsel for the accused in the statement of PW 79 and PW 40 are minor and could be safely ignored. The other contention raised by Ld. counsel for accused is that before the commencement of the check period accused had already completed 20 years of government service and had 4 school going children. It has been stated that date/mode of acquisition and price of the various articles was noted down by PW-11 at his own without consulting accused or his family members.
12.40 It is admitted fact by CBI that accused joined service in 1962. As per Ex. PW 11/C only articles worth Rs. 3,750/- are shown to have been acquired before the check period. As per ld. PP for CBI that the signing of Ex. PW 11/C by accused and his family members itself proves that they agreed with the contents of this document. No doubt Ex. PW 11/C is bearing signature of accused, his wife and son but it cannot be believed that having put 20 years of service before start of the check period accused was having only articles worth Rs. 3,750/-. I agree with the valuation of Rs. 1,21,455/- calculated by the accused. Accordingly, this amount be calculated as asset of the accused.
12.41 Item no. 13, 14 and 15 are not disputed by the accused.
CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 71 of 96 12.42 Item no. 16 pertains to investment in shares in the name of accused and his family members worth Rs. 11,25,132.25ps. As per Ld. counsel for the accused, accused has admitted shares worth Rs. 1,06,437/- and in addition to that prosecution could prove only shares worth Rs. 2,90,870/-. It has been stated that total shares of the accused and his family members proved on record by prosecution are for Rs. 3,97,307/- and accordingly, this amount should be considered as asset of the accused and his family members.
12.43 As per record accused vide his statement under Section 294 Cr.P.C. has admitted various share certificate on 11.03.2005 as Ex. P-1 to P-221. Further accused vide statement dated 18.09.2013 has admitted the genuineness of some more share certificates of Reliance Petroleum Ltd., M/s Jindal Vijay Nagar Sales Ltd. and M/s Nova Steel India Ltd. in the name of his daughter Anju Goyal and of M/s Reliance Petroleum Ltd. in the name of his daughter Bindu Goyal and M/s Reliance Petroleum Ltd. in his name. As per the calculation of these admitted shares filed by Ld. counsel for accused the total valuation according to face value/acquisition price comes out to be Rs. 1,06,437/-. Ld. PP for CBI has admitted that as per record valuation of these admitted shares comes out to be the same as stated by the accused.
12.44 As per ld. PP CBI sufficient evidence has come on record to prove the shares held on the name of accused and his family members as mentioned in the assets in the charge sheet.
12.45 Whatever evidence has come on record regarding holding of shares on the name of accused and his family members is discussed in paras below.
12.46 PW-18 Rohit C. Shah, Vice President of Corporate Secretariat of Reliance Industries Ltd. has proved letter Ex. PW 18/A which was signed by him. As per this letter vide Folio no. 50923231, 10 shares of Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. were allotted to Bindu Goyal along with 20 B series debentures and 10 C series debentures. On conversion of these debentures, CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 72 of 96 190 shares were allotted on 1.10.1991 and total holding on the name of Bindu Goyal was 200 shares. Thereafter she was allotted 20 shares of Reliance Industries Ltd. during Sept. 1992 after merger of Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. with Reliance Industries Ltd. As per him these 20 shares were sold vide transfer deed Ex. PW 18/A-1. Ld. PP for CBI admitted that as per record these shares were sold by Ms. Bindu Goyal during the check period. Hence same could not be considered for calculating the value of the total holding of accused and his family members.
12.47 PW-18/B is another letter proved by PW-18 along with 3 annexures Ex. PW 18/B-1 to B-3 wherein details are provided regarding holding of shares by accused and his family members in Reliance Group of Companies, namely, Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd, Reliance Industries Ltd. and Reliance Polypropylene Ltd. and subsequent bonus issue made by the company. Ld. PP for CBI and Ld. counsel for accused admitted that the total valuation of these shares comes out to be Rs. 2060/-.
12.48 PW19 Ashwani Kumar Sunder, Sr. Secretarial Officer of Deepak Spinners Ltd. has proved his letter Ex. PW 19/A which is duly signed by him. Vide this letter he had given details regarding shares held by accused and his family members. As per him, the total of 200 shares has been allotted to accused at the time of public issue at the rate of Rs. 10/- per share. Ms. Bindu Goyal has been allotted 50 shares (right issue) against payment of Rs. 1,250/- vide cheque dated 11.11.1993. Further accused has been allotted 50 shares during the year 1993 (right issue) on payment of Rs. 1,250/- vide cheque dated 11.11.1993. Again accused was allotted 50 shares in the year 1990 (right issue) on payment of Rs. 650/-.
12.49 As per statement of PW-19 total valuation of the shares allotted to accused and his daughter Bindu Goyal comes out to Rs. 5,800/-. As per Ld. counsel for accused out of the total valuation of Rs. 3,500/-, shares of Rs. 2,500/- are admitted under Section 294 Cr.P.C. As per Ld. counsel for accused D-265 is the share certificates regrading 100 shares of Deepak Spinners Ltd., as CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 73 of 96 per which accused is holding 100 shares in the company. Statement of accused is dated 11.3.20015 and there is no mention of these 100 shares in it. Therefore, allotment price of these shares stands proved as Rs. 5,800/-.
12.50 PW-20 Vijay Kumar Chandak of M/s Kassa Finvest Pvt. Ltd. has proved letter Ex.PW 20/A and computer copy of the sale bill dated 6.5.1998 as Ex. PW 20/A-1. Ld. counsel for the accused admits that 1000 shares of Reliance Industries at the rate of Rs. 189.64 were acquired by the accused during the check period for Rs. 1,89,640/-. As per Ld. PP for CBI as per Ex. PW 20/A-1 this is the same bill where there is mentioning of brokerage of Rs. 2,800/- and service tax of Rs. 140/- on this amount and total acquisition price comes out to Rs. 1,92,580/-.
12.51 Perusal of Ex. PW 20/A-1 reveals that total price of Rs. 1,89,640/- has been calculated after considering brokerage and service tax and, therefore, share held on the name of accused for a sum of Rs. 1,89,640/- stands proved.
12.52 PW-20 has also proved letter Ex. PW 20-/B, C & D accompanying statement of account Ex. PW 20/B-1, B-2 and B-3. As per ld. counsel for accused, prosecution has failed to prove Ex. PW 20/B-1, C-1 and annexure of Ex. PW 20/D. As per Ld. PP for CBI the amount mentioned in Ex. PW 20/C-1, i.e. statement of account of Ajay Kumar Goyal has also been considered as movable asset and hence need not be reconsidered now. He has further submitted that amount mentioned in Ex. PW 20/C-1 for purchase of 197 shares of Penta Software should also be taken as proved.
12.53 Ld. counsel for accused has simply submitted that prosecution has failed to prove it without specifying objection on its part. Ex. PW 20/C is the computer generated sale bill dated 27.8.2002 and the same should have been accompanying certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act.
12.54 The law is settled that any computer printout generated from electronic record should accompany certificate under Section 65-B of Indian CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 74 of 96 Evidence Act. Ex.PW 20/C-1 is not accompanying any such certificate, hence, same cannot be considered.
12.55 PW-23 B.M. Paliwal, Assistant Officer in M/s Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. has proved letter Ex. PW 23/A (D-22). Ld. counsel for accused admitted that Ajay Kumar Goyal had purchase 1000 shares of M/s Oswal Chemicals Fertilizers Ltd. at the rate of Rs. 18/- per share totaling Rs. 18,000/-.
12.56 Ld. PP for CBI has submitted that the purchase of 200 shares of Bindal Agro Chemicals at the rae of Rs. 18/- also stands proved in Ex. PW 23/A. 12.57 Ex. PW-23/A only mentions the purchase of 1000 shares of Oswal Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. in the name of Ajay Kumar Goyal at the rate of Rs. 18/-. Accordingly, from Ex. PW 23/A only shares worth Rs. 18,000/- stands proved.
12.58 PW-23 has proved letter Ex. PW 23/B containing details of shares of M/s Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. on the name of accused. As per this letter total 976 shares were transferred on the name of accused on 14.8.1999. As per Ld. counsel for the accused out of 976, 926 shares stands admitted by accused under Section 294 Cr.P.C. and rest prosecution has failed to prove. Ld. PP for CBI admits that out of total 976 shares, share numbering 926 stands admitted by the accused under Section 294 Cr.P.C. As per Ld. PP CBI the acquisition particulars of remaining 50 shares stands duly proved from Ex. PW 23/H (D-32). As per this letter the purchase consideration written in the transfer deed of 976 shares is approximately Rs. 16/- per share. Vide this letter company has also sent photo copy of the transfer deeds signed by the accused for transfer of shares. Accordingly, on the basis of Ex. PW 23/H, acquisition price of remaining 50 shares at the rate of Rs. 16/- per share , i.e. Rs. 800/- also stands proved. Therefore, prosecution is held to have proved acquisition price of Rs. 800/- for 50 shares Oswal Agro Mills Ltd.
12.59 PW-23 has also proved further holding of accused and his family members in group companies of Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. vide Ex. PW 23/C to G. CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 75 of 96 As per Ld. counsel for accused prosecution has failed to duly prove it as required under law, hence, same cannot be considered. As per Ld. PP for CBI it is specifically mentioned in letter Ex. PW 23/C that wife of accused Smt. Pushpa Goyal was holding 1134 shares of Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. and on the basis of Ex. PW 23/F and G their value should be taken. On the other hand, objection raised by Ld. counsel for accused is that the annexure attached with Ex. PW 23/C are computer printout not accompanying certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, hence, same cannot be considered.
12.60 The letter Ex. PW 23/C is dated 26.06.2000. Section 65-B was introduced in Indian Evidence Act w.e.f. 17.10.2000. Moreover, Ex. PW 23/C is specifically containing certificate numbers and distinctive numbers of the shares held on the name of Smt. Pushpa Goyal. It appears to be a letter giving details compiled in the computer and not a computer printout taken from the memory of the computer. In view of these reasons, I agree with the submissions made by Ld. PP for CBI. Ex. PW 23/F and PW 23/G contain the details regarding purchase price of these 1134 shares. Ex. PW 23/F contains the details of 724 shares in the name of Smt. Pushpa Goyal. As per this letter 300 shares were allotted to her at the time of public issue in 1989 on total amount of Rs. 15,000/- and 424 shares were transferred on her name on 3.1.1990 and 25.1.1990 respectively at the rate of Rs. 55/- per share as per the market quotation. Therefore, the total acquisition price of 724 shares comes out to be Rs. 38,320/-. As per Ex. PW 23/G out of 410 shares, 10 shares were bonus shares and 400 shares were transferred on the name of Smt. Pushpa Goyal on 10.11.1990 and price of shares at that time was Rs.60/- per share as per market quotation. Therefore, the total acquisition price of 400 shares comes out to be Rs. 24,000/-. Accordingly, total acquisition price of 1134 shares comes out to be Rs. 62,320/-. Therefore, the share holding worth this amount stands proved.
12.61 Ex. PW 23/D is another letter of Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. As per Ld. PP CBI this letter contains details of 300 shares acquired by Ajay Kumar Goyal from market for Rs. 16,000/-, hence this amount be taken as proved. This letter CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 76 of 96 contains details of the dividend to accused and his son Ajay Kumar Goyal. It further mentions that in the year 1989 Rs. 10,000/- was paid for 200 shares and further 100 shares were acquired from the market by Ajay Kumar Goyal at the rate of Rs. 60/- per share in the year 1991. It is further mentioned that 100 shares of Ajay Kumar Goyal and 200 shares of accused have been dematerialized and, therefore, share certificates have been destroyed. The share certificate numbers and distinctive numbers of shares is not found mentioned in Ex. PW 23/D. Hence, nothing stands proved on the basis of this letter.
12.62 Ex. PW 23/E is another letter of Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. containing details of dividends and share holding of accused and his son Ajay Kumar Goyal. As per this letter accused was holding 200 shares of Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. with acquisition price of Rs. 10,000/- and Ajay Kumar Goyal was holding 100 shares with acquisition price of Rs. 6,000/-. This letter containing certificate number and distinctive numbers of shares held by the accused and his son. These shares were transferred in the name of accused and his son during the check period. Accordingly, it is taken as proved that accused and Ajay Kumar Goyal were holding 300 shares of the company on the acquisition price of Rs. 16,000/-.
12.63 PW 24 Radhey Lal Sharma, Administrative Officer in HB Leasing & Finance Co. Ltd has proved his letter Ex. PW 24/A. As per this letter these shares were allotted to accused and his family members on conversion of 20 NCD (Non-convertible debentures) of Rs. 2,000/-. Same is not disputed by Ld. Counsel for the accused. Accordingly, it is taken as proved that the accused and his family were holding shares worth Rs. 2,000/- in this company.
12.64 PW-36 N.K. Aggarwal, Managing Director of M/s Semri Computer Services Pvt. Ltd. has proved the letter Ex. PW 36/1, as per which accused and his family members were holding 800 shares (200 each) on the allotment price of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. 5,000/- each). As per Ld. counsel for accused only 400 shares should be counted under this head as remaining 400 shares worth Rs.
CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 77 of 96 10,000/- stands admitted by him under Section 294 Cr.P.C. Ld. PP for CBI admits that out of 800 shares held by accused and his family members, accused has admitted 400 shares in his statement under Section 294 Cr.P.C. and has been been considered there. Accordingly, the holding of accused and his family members of shares worth Rs. 10,000/- stands proved.
12.65 PW-37 V. D. Sharma, Assistant General Manager of M/s Kajaria Ceramics Ltd. has proved letter Ex PW 37/1 of the company. As per this letter in September 1997, 5 shares were transferred on the name of Ajay Kumar Goyal at the rate of Rs. 450/-. As per Ld. counsel for accused prosecution has failed to prove it as per law. On the other hand, Ld. PP for CBI submitted that from letter Ex. PW 37/1 it stands proved that Ajay Kumar Goyal had purchased 5 shares each at the price of Rs. 450/-. This letter is containing certificate numbers and folio numbers of the shares held by Ajay Kumar Goyal. It is specifically mentioned in this letter that he had purchased these shares for Rs. 450/-. Accordingly, Rs. 450/- is taken as proved.
12.66 PW-45 R. D. Ramasamy, Director of M/s Cameo Corporate Services Ltd. has proved letter Ex. PW 45/1. As per which accused has invested Rs. 1,000/- with M/s Manali Petro Chemicals Ltd. for allotment of 100 shares in the year 1990. As per Ld. counsel for accused this investment stands admitted by accused in statement under Section 294 Cr.P.C. This fact is not disputed by Ld. PP for CBI. Accordingly, same having been already considered, is not considered now.
12.67 PW-47 Priyadarshan, Officer in M/s MCS Ltd. has proved letter Ex. PW 47/1 and 47/2. As per Ld. counsel for accused 900 shares on the name of Ajay Kumar Goyal and 100 shares on the name of Mohan Lal Goyal were sold out during the check period and rest are not proved. Hence, no amount can be attributed to accused for these shares.
12.68 As per Ld. PP for CBI Ex. PW 47/2 is having transfer deeds (total 125 pages) as annexure regarding purchase of shares of IFCI Ltd. on the name CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 78 of 96 of Mohan Lal Goyal (100 shares) at the rae of Rs. 14/- in the year 1999 and purchase of 900 shares on the name of Ajay Kumar Goyal in 1998 at different rates for Rs. 2,58,400/-. It is further stated that as per this record Smt. Pushpa Goyal had purchased 3000 shares at the rate of Rs. 37/- per share in the year 1998. It is stated that total worth of the shares proved is Rs. 3,37,950/-.
12.69 As per Ex. PW 47/2 accused had purchased 100 shares in the year 1999 at the rate of Rs. 14/- per share and 900 shares in the company were purchased on different dates in the year 1998 by Ajay Kumar Goyal, having purchased price of Rs. 2,58,400/-. It is further mentioned in the letter that Smt. Pushpa Goyal transferred 3000 shares in the company purchased in the year 1998 at the total price of Rs. 1,11,000/-.
12.70 Photo copies of various transfer deeds totaling 125 in numbers are filed along with letter Ex. PW 47/2. These being photo copies and original not being produced before the court cannot be considered. The letter Ex. PW 47/2 is not containing the details of the companies in which accused and his family members are holding the shares. It is not even containing certificate numbers and folio numbers of the shares held by them. In absence of these vital details and original transfer deeds, it cannot be taken as proved. It is hereby held that the prosecution has failed to prove it.
12.71 PW-50 Subhasis Dey, Vice President Corporate Services Tata Metalliks Ltd. has proved letter Ex. PW 50/1. As per accused these shares were sold by Anju Goyal during the check period and same has already been considered under the head of expenditure. However, as per Ld. PP for CBI, as per Ex. PW 50/1, Anju Goyal had paid Rs. 14,400/- for purchase of 400 shares as per transfer deed. PW-50 during his cross-examination admitted that Anju Goyal was not holding shares of M/s Tata Metalliks Ltd. on her name on 28.12.1999. Therefore, no amount can be considered for these shares.
12.72 PW-52 S. P. Venugopal Dy. General Manager in M/s Karvy Computer Shares Pvt. Ltd. has proved his letter Ex. PW 52/1 and 52/2. As per CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 79 of 96 accused total value of the shares on the name of accused and his daughter Bindu Goyal proved by PW-52 is Rs. 2,920/-. Ld. PP has admitted that same is the value of these shares proved by PW-52. Accordingly, value of these shares Rs.2,920/- stands proved.
12.73 PW-55 T.D. Joshi, Assistant General Manager in M/s Jai Parkash Associates Ltd. has proved letter Ex. PW 55/1, Ex. PW 55/DA and PW 55/DB. As per Ld. counsel for accused 400 shares were sold by accused during the check period and the value of 100 shares worth Rs. 7,600/- was considered under expenditure. PW-55 during his cross-examination has admitted that Anju Goyal was holding 100 shares on her name between 14.9.1999 to 15.1.2000. Ld. PP for CBI admitted that the amount of 100 shares, i.e. Rs. 7,600/- stands considered under expenditure head. Hence, statement of PW-55 is of no value to the prosecution.
12.74 PW-66 Shanti Nath Jha, Manager Karvy Computershare Pvt. Ltd. has proved letters Ex. PW 66/A to 66/B. As per Ld. counsel for accused only shares worth Rs. 27,000/- stands proved from these documents. As per Ld. PP amount of Rs. 64,050/- was invested. Accused and his wife have purchased 2300 shares of Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. and total Rs. 1,61,383/- was invested by accused and his family members in shares of Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd.
12.75 Ex. PW 66/B contains the details of payment made by accused and his other family members, as application money, allotment money and money demanded on 3 calls. This letter is dated 12.4.2002. Date of allotment and date of various amount paid by accused and his family members is not found mentioned anywhere in Ex. PW 66/B. But as per letter Ex. PW 66/C, it is mentioned that Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. had come out with public issue during the year 1993 of 3 optionally convertible debentures of Rs. 60/- each. Therefore, it stands proved that different amount was paid by accused and his family members during the check period.
CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 80 of 96 12.76 Ex. PW 66/B contain the details of money paid by accused, his wife Smt. Pushpa Goyal, his daughters Anju Goyal and Bindu Goyal. The total amount of these shares comes out to be Rs. 70,000/-.
12.77 Ex. PW 66/C dated 30.06.2000 mentions about holding of 500 shares by Ajay Kumar Goyal but the details of the shares stated to he held on his name are missing in this letter.
12.78 Annexure attached with Ex. PW 66/C is containing details of debentures, shares and warrant equity shares (WES) held by accused and his family members in the records of the company.It is relevant to mention here that letter Ex. PW 66/B is dated 12.04.2000 and it contains complete details of the payments made by accused and his family members, i.e. Rs. 70,000/-. Out of this holding, accused has admitted 1100 shares worth Rs. 11,000/- under Section 294 Cr.P.C. as mentioned in his application dated 18.09.2013. Therefore, share holding to be counted comes out to be Rs.59,000/-.
12.79 Ex. PW 66/D talks about 300 securities transferred on the name of accused on 07.07.1999. Accused has admitted that these securities were purchased at the rate of Rs. 25/- each and total amount comes to be Rs. 7,500/-. Ld. PP also agreed to it. Even as per Ex. PW 66/D accused has purchased 300 shares. Accordingly, holding worth Rs. 7,500/- stands proved.
12.80 Ex. PW 67 Shyamal Kumar Choudhury of Chambal Fertilizer & Chemicals Ltd. has proved Ex. PW 67/A. As per Ld. counsel for accused, this witness proved share holding worth Rs. 6,000/- on the name of accused and his family members. He further submits that other shares proved by this witness stands admitted by accused in his statement under Section 294 Cr.P.C. Same is not disputed by Ld. PP for CBI. Accordingly, holding worth Rs. 6,000/- is taken as proved.
12.81 PW-69 J.P. Roy, Assistant Manager with SETCO Automotive Limited has not deposed anything in favour of prosecution. However, accused has admitted that 2 share certificates are on the name of Ajay Kumar Goyal.
CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 81 of 96 Accordingly, share worth Rs. 1,000/- are taken as proved.
12.82 PW-75 Girish Duttaram Pilankar, Manager with Share Pro Services India Pvt. Ltd. has proved share transfer form Ex. PW 75/1 vide which 50 shares worth Rs. 23,000/- were purchased by Smt. Pushpa Goyal wife of accused on 8.10.1993. Accordingly, shares worth Rs. 23,000/- stands proved.
12.83 PW-77 Sanchita Kapoor was posted as Assistant Manager, Global Trust Bank. She proved memo Ex. PW 77/A and PW 77/B bearing her signatures. As per Ld. counsel for accused this witness is of no help to the prosecution as all the documents handed over by her to CBI as per seizure memos are photo copies. I agree with the contention raised by accused that vide Ex.PW 77/1 and PW 77/B, PW-77 had handed over photo copies of transaction statement of accused. These transaction statements are computer print out, not accompanying certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, hence, cannot be considered. Other documents are photo copies of demat requisition of various shares but original having not produced before the court. The same cannot be taken as proved.
12.84 PW-85 V. Murali was director in Pushya Industrial Gases Limited as well as Oswali Chemicals Limited. He has proved letter Ex. PW 85/1 to 4 and share certificate Ex. PW 85/5 & 85/6. As per accused from Ex. PW 85/5 only share holding of Rs. 250/- stands proved and rest are admitted under Section 294 Cr.P.C. by him. As per Ex. PW 85/1 accused was holding 25 shares and his daughter Renu Goyal was also holding 25 shares of the face value of Rs. 250/-. Date of allotment is 20.01.1984.
12.85 D-274 which is share certificate of Pushya Industrial Gases Limited stands admitted by accused under Section 294 Cr.P.C. As per this certificate accused was holding 25 shares each of Rs.10/- face value. This share certificate is dated 21.1.1984. As per Ex. PW 85/1 face value of share is Rs. 250/-. There appears to be some mistake in mentioning the face value on Ex. PW 85/1 as Rs. 250/-, since as per share certificate D-274 it was Rs. 10/-.
CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 82 of 96 Therefore, instead of Rs.250/- as mentioned in Ex. PW 85/1, face value of each share is taken as Rs.10/-. Accordingly share holding worth Rs. 500/- stands proved.
12.86 Ex. PW 85/3 is letter of Oswali Chemicals Ltd., as per which Ajay Kumar, Anju Goyal and Bindu Goyal each were holding 50 shares each of face value of Rs. 500/-.
12.87 As per Ld. counsel for accused Ex. PW 85/6 is the only share certificate proved by prosecution and the remaining certificate not being proved. Therefore, face value of the shares as per Ex. PW 85/6 should be considered. Ex. PW 85/3 is the information furnished by the company giving details of the holding of the family members of the accused. D-307 stands admitted by accused under Section 294 Cr.P.C. As per Ex. PW 85/6 Ajay Kumar Goyal was holding 50 shares of face value Rs.10/-. This share certificate is dated 12.11.1985 and he appears to be original allottee.
12.88 As already discussed face value of each share mentioned on Ex. PW 85/3 is Rs. 500/-. It appears it is mistakenly mentioned as Rs. 500/-, since in 1985 face value of each share was Rs.10/- and same cannot be Rs.500/- subsequently. Accordingly, taking face value as Rs.10/-, the total holding of 150 shares worth Rs. 1,500/- stands proved.
12.22.PW-87 R. S. Kabra, Manager (Share Department) of Century Enka Ltd. has proved letter Ex. PW 87/1 and share script Ex. PW 87/2. As per Ex. PW 87/1 Bindu Goyal was allotted 100 shares of Rajshree Polyfil Ltd. (RPL) for Rs. 1,000/-. Rajshree Polyfil Ltd. was merged with Century Enka Ltd. and as per amalgamation 5 shares of Century Enka Ltd. were allotted to her. Accordingly, holding worth Rs. 1,000/- stands proved.
12.89 In view of the aforesaid reasons, the total shareholdings on the name of accused and his family members worth Rs. 5,81,867/- stands proved.
12.90 Item no. 17 is not disputed by the accused.
CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 83 of 96 12.91 In view of the aforesaid reasons, the assets (immovable) & (movable) of accused and his family members which stands proved on record are shown in the chart below:-
Sr. Immovable Assets Amount Admitted/proved
No.
1. Shop No. 17, C-Block, Community 3,35,825/-
Centre, Janak Puri, New Delhi in the
name of Shri Ajay Kumar Goyal in 1995
2. LIG Flat No. SK-1/316, Indira Puram, 1,36,001/-
Ghaziabad in the name of Sh. Ajay
Kumar Goyal
3. Flat No. EWS-2/448, Naya Khand, 54,436/-
Indira Puram, Ghaziabad in the name of
Mrs. Anju Goyal D/o Shri M.L. Goyal
4. Flat No. NK-II/939, Naya Khand, Indira 54,151/-
Puram, Ghaziabad in the name of Mrs.
Bindu Goyal purchased in 1990
Sr. Movable Assets Amount Admitted/proved
No.
1. Cash observed during house search on 2,50,000/-
28.12.1999
2. Bank Balance in the name of Shri M.L. 51,808.74/-
Goyal
3. Investment in NSS Account in Head 2,21,462/-
Post Office Sansad Marg in the name of
Shri M.L. Goyal
4. Bank Balance in the name of Sh. Ajay 50,400.28/-
Kumar Goyal in different accounts
5. Investment Karsa Finvest (P) Ltd. in the Not proved
name of ShriAjay Kumar Goyal
CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 84 of 96
6. Bank Balance in the name of Smt. 17,295.62/-
Pushpa Goyal W/o. Shri M.L. Goyal in
different accounts
7. Bus No. DL-IP-2490 in the name of Shri 37,643/-
Ajay Kumar Goyal purchased in 1992
8. Bus No. DL-IP-A-4878 in the name of 6,00,205/-
Shri Ajay Kumar Goyal purchased in
1999
9. Maruti Car No. DNB 7232 in the name 77,583.35/-
of Shri Ajay Kumar Goyal
10. Bajaj Scooter DBE 5028 in the name of 10,669/-
Shri Mohan Lal Goyal
11. Gold and Silver jewellery 3,96,198.75/-
12. House Hold articles as per observation 1,21,455/-
Memo acquired during the check period
13. Investment in NSC's by Shri M.L. Goyal, 4,22,500/-
Pushpa Goyal and Ajay Kumar Goyal
14. Investment in ICICI Bonds in the name 1,33,000/-
of Sh. M.L. Goyal, Pushpa Goyal & Ajay
Kumar Goyal
15. Investment in IDBI infrastructure Bonds 20,000/-
in the name of Shri M.L. Goyal and Ajay
Kumar Goyal
16. Investment in Shares in the name of 5,81,867/-
Accused Shri M.L. Goyal and his family
members
17. Investment in UTI Shares 1,36,808.50/-
CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 85 of 96
Total 37,09,309.24/-
EXPENDITURE (Annexure-C)
13.0 Item No. 1 and 2 in the list are not disputed by the accused. Item
No. 3 is regarding expenditure towards telephone bill. Ld. Counsel for accused has submitted that from the statement of DW-6 it stands established that bill of the telephone no. 5599954 for the period 28.10.1995 to 28.02.2000 was paid by the department. It has been stated that the second telephone no. 5525583 was on the name of Ajay Kumar Goyal son of accused and he has shown sum of Rs. 29,771/- as business expenditure in his Income Tax Returns for the A.Y. 1996-1997 to 2000-2001. It is stated that by deducting these amounts the actual expenditure which can be attributed to the accused comes to be Rs. 9,253/-. On the other hand Ld. PP for CBI has submitted that it is nowhere mentioned in Ex. DW-6/1 if the bills of the telephone were paid by the department. He has further submitted that son of accused was not having any different business and expenditure shown by Ajay Kumar Goyal in his ITRs should not be believed.
13.1 PW-10 Sh. Satish Kumar Dhawan, was posted as TRI Office of GM West-I, Janak Puri. He has identified the signatures of P.S. R. Murti, Chief Accounts Officer on letter Ex. PW-10/A regarding telephone no. 5599954. Ex. PW-10/B1 and Ex. PW-10/B2 are the details of the bills paid in respect of these telephone numbers. The total amount paid by subscriber w.e.f. billing cycle 01.02.1992 till 16.04.2002 comes out to Rs. 32,943/-. Ex. PW-10/C is the covering letter signed by Smt. Vasudevan Arya, Accounts Officer pertaining to telephone no. 5525583. The total amount paid by subscriber w.e.f. billing cycle 01.03.1995 to 09.06.2000 comes to Rs. 33,770/-.
13.2 DW-6 Sh. S.C. Jain, Executive Engineer, PWD has produced the details of payments of telephone number 5599954 installed at the residence of the accused at Janak Puri w.e.f. August, 1995 to June, 2000. He has CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 86 of 96 specifically deposed that during this period the bill amount of this telephone number was paid directly by the department.
13.3 Ex. DW-6/1 is the details of telephone no. 5599954 w.e.f. 28.10.1995 to 28.08.2000 containing 29 items. The last three bills i.e. 27 to 29 are beyond the check period. From the statement of DW-6 it stands established that it was official telephone installed at the residence of accused. It is fact of common knowledge that payments of official telephone installed at the residence of a Govt. official are normally paid by the department to certain financial limits. I agree with the contention raised by accused that amount of Rs. 22,215/- be excluded from the total amount of the expenditure.
13.4 As per Ex. PW-10/C telephone no. 5525583 was installed at the house of the accused on the name of his son Ajay Kumar Goyal. As per Ex. PW-10/D against this telephone number from 01.03.1995 till 09.06.2000 total bill of Rs. 33,772/- was paid. Ajay Kumar Goyal as per accused while deposing as DW-30 was born in the year 1967 and is 12th pass. During his cross examination he has stated that in the year 1988-89 Ajay Kumar Goyal started his business and he used to invest in equity / stock and started filing ITR from A.Y. 1991-1992 or 1992 -1993.
13.5 During the period of this bill Ajay Kumar Goyal was aged about 28 years and as per DW-30 he was doing transport business. I do not agree with the contention raised by Ld. PP for CBI that Ajay Kumar Goyal was not doing any business and in fact transport business was done by accused on the name of his son.
13.6 PW-58 Sh. S.K. Sehgal, Retd. ITO has proved the ITRs Ex. PW-58/12, Ex. PW-58/14 to Ex. PW-58/17. In his ITRs Ajay Kumar Goyal has shown telephone expenses of different amounts. Accordingly I agree with the contention raised by accused that instead of expenditure of Rs. 61,239/-, the expenditure of telephone which can be attributed to accused is only Rs. 9,253/-.
CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 87 of 96 13.7 Item No. 4, 5 & 6 in Annexure-C are not disputed by the accused.
13.8 Item No. 7 pertains to payment to M/s Prominent Studios Pvt. Ltd. As per Ld. Counsel for accused this expenditure remain unproved. PW-80 Sh. Rajender Kumar was earlier employed with M/s Prominent Studios Pvt. Ltd. has deposed that the receipt for Rs. 1,472/- Ex. PW-80/1 bear signature of Sh. Devender Khattar at point X. As pointed out by Ld. Counsel for the accused in the search-cum-observation memo (D-4) item no. 28 is "One wooden cabinet containing 15 daily use sarees and miscellaneous ladies item and 6 albums containing approximately 500 photographs". Against this item the assets to the tune of Rs. 54,000/- have been attributed to the accused. Accused has failed to correlate if bill Ex. PW-80/1 pertains to these photographs. Therefore, this contention of accused is not accepted.
13.9 Item No. 8 is not disputed by the accused.
13.10 Item No. 9 pertains to Rs. 800/- paid by accused to M/s High Way Printers. Prosecution has examined PW-64 Sh. Om Prakash Bajaj to prove this receipt. PW-64 is Proprietor of M/s High Way Printers. He has deposed that vide this bill/estimate he had printed 100 wedding cards for wedding of Anju with Arvind for this job he had charged Rs. 800. However, during his cross examination he has stated that the said person had only taken estimate from him and he does not remember when he got the cards printed thereafter or not. In view of this, the expenses of Rs. 800/- cannot be attributed to the accused.
13.11 Item No. 10 is receipt Ex. PW-63/1 of M/s Besco Battery and Electricals Service Co. PW-63 Sh. V.K. Garg who is Proprietor of M/s Besco Battery and Electricals Service Co. has proved this receipt. As per him the receipt bears signatures of his employee whose name he does not remember now. As per Ld. Counsel for the accused in view of this statement PW-63 this remain unproved.
CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 88 of 96 13.12 I do not agree with this contention raised by Ld. Counsel for accused as PW-63 has specifically stated that he had charged Rs. 625/- for annual maintenance of inverter for the period 09.07.1998 to 31.12.1998 from Ms. Pushpa Goyal. Therefore, this amount has rightly taken by the prosecution as expenditure of the accused.
13.13 Item No. 11 pertains to purchase of suit cases from M/s Kemp & Co. PW-65 Sh. Rajesh Sharma was working as Accountant in M/ Kemp & Co. As per him these memos Mark PW-65/A, B & C are type of cash memos being used in the company during the relevant time. As per Ld. Counsel for the accused these invoices are not exhibited hence these cannot be considered. The law is settled that merely putting exhibit on a document do not make it prove. PW-65 has specifically stated that memos Mark PW-65/A, B & C were type of cash memos being used in the company during the relevant time. Despite opportunity no cross examination of this witness was done by the accused. Therefore, I do not agree with the contention raised by the accused that this amount cannot be taken as proved.
13.14 Item No. 12 is not disputed by the accused.
13.15 Item No. 13 pertains to the invoices Ex. PW-29/A, B & C. As per PW-29 Sh. Ramesh Kumar Bhatia he is running a saree shop in the name and style of M/s. J.K. Sarees. These cash memos are in the handwriting of his son J.K. Bhatia. He identified his handwriting and signatures of his son as he was looking after cash counter of the shop during those days. During his cross examination he has stated that he cannot identify the person i.e. customer who had made the above payments. As per Ld. Counsel for the accused these invoices remained unproved and cannot be considered. Simple because invoices are not bearing name of the customers, it cannot be rendered unproved. Moreover, section 106 casts burden of proving a fact within special knowledge of the person. Since these invoices were recovered from the house of the accused, he should have prove that it does not belong to him which he CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 89 of 96 failed to discharge. Therefore, I do not agree with this contention raised by the accused.
13.16 Item No. 14 is not disputed by the accused.
13.17 Item No. 15 is invoice regarding purchase of dress material from M/s Kamal Sons to the tune of Rs. 6,140/-. Prosecution has failed to prove this invoice as no witness was called to prove it. Therefore, this expenditure cannot be attributed to the accused.
13.18 Item No. 16 pertains to four invoices totaling Rs. 5,302/- Ex. PW-25/A is cash memo of M/s Krishna Fashion Fabrics for Rs. 425/-. The same is not disputed by the accused. Ex. PW-15/A is cash memo of Rs. 428/- of M/s Jammu & Kashmir Emporium. PW-15 Sh. M.S. Chaudhary who was Accountant of Jammu & Kashmir Emporium has deposed that on the directions of CBI Officer he has cross checked this receipt with his official record and found it to be correct. During cross examination he has stated that receipt does not contain the person issuing the receipt and address of the person in whose name the receipt is issued is not found mentioned on Ex. PW-15/A. Ld. Counsel for accused has submitted that it being unsigned should not be taken as proved. But PW-15 has specifically stated that he has cross checked this receipt from his official record. Accordingly, same is taken as proved. Third invoice is of Rs. 774 of Meet Rubia but prosecution has failed to examine any witness in this regard. Hence, the same is taken as unproved. The fourth item is comprising invoices Ex. PW-30/A1, A3, A4 & A5. PW-30 Sh. Narendra Marwah was working as Accountant with M/s Pandit Brothers, Connaught Place who was distributor as well as retailer of Bombay Dyeing. He has specifically stated that cash memo Ex. PW-30/A1 to Ex. PW-30/A5 are issued from their firm. I find no reason to not consider these proved invoices. Therefore, out of the total expenses i.e. Rs. 5,302/-, prosecution has failed to prove invoice of Rs. 774/-. Therefore, expenses of Rs. 5,302/- - Rs. 774/- = Rs. 4,528/- stands proved.
13.19 Item No. 17 pertains to purchase of sarees from Banarsi Saree CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 90 of 96 Mandir & Nalli Silk Sarees. The cash memo Ex. PW-1/B is pertaining to Baransi Saree Mandir for a sum of Rs. 9,113/-. As per Ld. Counsel for accused on the bottom of this invoice there is something written which proves that this invoice does not pertain to the accused. At the bottom of Ex. PW-1/B it is found written that "2 sarees D. Date 25.10.1996 at 9/33, Sunder Vihar, New Delhi 10 PM". Merely because these words are mentioned on the bottom of the cash memo, from this it cannot be presumed that the same does not pertain to accused. If it does not pertain to accused and was pertained to someone else, the burden was on the accused to prove that. Ex. PW-28/A is cash bill of Nalli Silk Sarees for sum of Rs. 20,960/-. PW-28 Sh. Jai Shanker who working as Cashier at Nalli Silk Sarees has proved it by stating that it bears his signature at point A and amount was received by him in cash. As per the accused this cash bill is computer generated and same is not accompanied with the certificate as required u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act. Ld. PP for CBI has objected to this contention raised by Ld. Counsel for the accused submitting that section 65B of Indian Evidence Act has no applicability to the invoice issued in such a manner and moreover, this invoice pertains to the year 1998 when section 65B of Indian Evidence Act had not come in the statute. I agree with the contention of Ld. PP for CBI as section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act came into effect in 2000 and this cash bill pertains to the year 1998. Therefore, the contention raised by Ld. Counsel for the accused holds no ground. Accordingly, prosecution is held to have proved expenses to the tune of Rs. 40,179/-.
13.20 Item No. 18 & 19 are not disputed by the accused.
13.21 Item No. 20 pertains to purchase of 500 shares of J.P. Industries on the name of Ms. Anju Goyal by the accused. It has been stated on behalf of accused that Ms. Anju Goyal was holding 500 shares of the company on her name on 21.03.1994. Thereafter, she has started selling the shares and PW-55 Sh. T.D. Joshi has admitted during cross examination that she had only 100 shares in her name of the value of Rs. 7,600/- as on 28.12.1999. PW-55 Sh. T.D. Joshi, Asstt. General Manager of M/s Jai Parkash Industries has proved the CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 91 of 96 various Transfer Deeds Ex. PW-55/2 to Ex. PW-55/15 on the name of Ms. Anju Goyal. During his cross examination, he has admitted that she was holding only 100 shares on her name between the period 14.09.1999 to 15.01.2000. Therefore, I agree with the contention raised by the accused that in place of Rs. 38,000/-, only Rs. 7,600/- should be taken as expenditure.
13.22 Item No. 21 pertains to purchase of shares of Tata Metalik for a sum of Rs. 14,400/-. Accused has objected to it stating that PW-50 has admitted during his cross examination that Ms. Anju Goyal had sold out 400 shares before 28.12.1999 and she had no holding of shares of Tata Metalik as on 28.12.1999 in her name. PW-50 Sh. Subhasis Dey was working as Company Secretary with Tata Metalik in the year 2002. He has proved the Transfer Deeds Ex. PW-50/2 to Ex. PW-50/5 on the name of Ms. Anju Goyal regarding 400 shares at the price of Rs. 36/- per share. During his cross examination he has admitted that Ms. Anju Goyal was not holding any share of Tata Metalik in her name on 28.12.1999. Therefore, I agree with the accused that this amount cannot be attributed to accused as expenditure.
13.23 Item No. 22 pertains to purchase of watches from M/s Ganguly Brothers worth Rs. 2,410/-. Ex. PW-89/1 & 2 are the two cash memos in this regard. Same are proved by PW-89 Sh. Sunil Sahani who was working with M/s Ganguly Brothers at the relevant time. As per him cash memos are bearing signatures of sales girl Ms. Gargi Mukherjee. During his cross examination, he has stated that the sales girl left Ganguly Brothers in 2013 and she had joined in 1998. Ld. Counsel for the accused has submitted that these two invoices pertains to the year 1995-1996 but as per PW-89 she had joined the services in the year 1998. This creates doubt on the credibility of these invoices. The benefit of the same needs to be given to the accused. Therefore, this figure cannot be reckoned as expenditure of the accused.
13.24 In view of the aforesaid reasons, the total expenditure of accused during check period, item wise comes out as follows:-
CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 92 of 96 EXPENDITURE Sl. Nature of Expenditure Amount Not Amount taken No. Disputed / Proved / Unproved 1 Non verifiable Kitchen Rs. 4,88,615/- Not Rs. 4,88,615/-
Expenses etc. of the Carry Disputed
home salary of Shri M.L.
Goyal
2 Income tax paid by the Rs. 42,030/- Not Rs. 42,030/-
family member of the Disputed
accused (Rs.5953+Rs.
24507+Rs.1955+Rs.4615)
3 Expenditure towards Rs. 61,239/- Not Rs. 9,253/-
Telephone Bill of Two Proved
Telephones
4 Property Tax of B-1B/6, Rs. 26,299/- Not Rs. 26,299/-
Janakpuri, New Delhi Disputed
5 Expenditure towards Anand Rs. 50,000/- Not Rs. 50,000/-
Niketan Club Disputed
6 Payment of Bharat Tent Rs. 10,000/- Not Rs. 10,000/-
House and Light House Disputed
7 Payment to Prominent Rs. 1,472/- Proved Rs. 1,472/-
Studio Pvt. Ltd.
8 Payment to Vimal Chhabra, Rs. 1,050/- Not Rs. 1,050/-
CA Disputed
9 Payment to Highway Rs. 800/- Unproved -
Printers
10 Besco Battery and Rs. 625/- Proved Rs. 625.00/-
Electricals Service Co.
CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 93 of 96
11 Kemp & Co. for Suitcases Rs. 3,430/- Unproved -
12 Electricity Security charges Rs. 875/- Not Rs. 875/-
in respect of Shop C-17, Disputed
Community Centre,
Janakpuri
13 Purchase of Sarees from Rs. 4,990/- Proved Rs. 4,990/-
J.K. Sarees, Sarojini Nagar
14 Bill of Better deal Electronic Rs. 2,650/- Not Rs. 2,650/-
Pvt. Ltd. Disputed
15 Purchase of Dress Rs. 6,140/- Unproved -
Materials from Kamal Sons
16 Purchase of Dress Rs. 5,302/- 1st Invoice Rs. 4,528/-
Materials from Krishna not
Fabrics, J&K Emporium disputed
Meet Rubia Matching and 2nd Invoice
Pandit Brothers proved
3rd Invoice
unproved
4th Invoice
proved
17 Purchase of Sarees from Rs. 40,179/- Proved Rs. 40,179/-
Banarsi Saree Mandi and
Nalli Silk Sarees
18 Car battery from Preet Rs. 1,200/- Not Rs. 1,200/-
Motors Disputed
19 Insurance of Car DNB-7232 Rs. 3,114/- Not Rs. 3,114/-
Disputed
20 Purchase of Share in J.P. Rs. 38,000/- Unproved Rs. 7,600/-
Industries by Anju Goyal
21 Purchase of Share of TATA Rs. 14,400/- Unproved -
Metalik
CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 94 of 96
22 Watches purchased from Rs. 2,410/- Unproved -
Ganguly Bros.
Total Rs. 8,04,820/- Rs.6,93,605/-
Conclusion
14.0 In view of the aforesaid discussion, the vital figures are as follows:-
(i) Income of accused and his family members = Rs. 41,24,253.51/-
(ii) Expenditure during check period = Rs. 6,93,605.00/-
(iii) Savings (Income - Expenditure) = Rs. 34,30,648.51/-
(iv) Assets = Rs. 37,09,309.24/-
(v) Disproportionate Assets (Assets-Savings) = Rs. 2,78,660.73/-
(vi) Percentage of Disproportionate Assets = 6.75% 14.1 The law is settled that if assets possessed by accused are less than 10% in excess to surplus income, the same would not be held to be disproportionate to his known sources of income, to justify the raising of the presumption under Section 13(1)(e) of P. C. Act. Reliance is placed upon Krishnanand Agnihotri Vs. State of M. P. (supra).
14.2 In view of the foregoing reasons, prosecution is held to have failed to prove its case against the accused. Therefore, he is acquitted from the offence punishable under Sections 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) PC Act, 1988.
14.3 The accused is directed to furnish bond, i.e. personal bond and surety bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- each under Section 437-A Cr.P.C.
14.4 File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court
on 30th day of March, 2016 (SANJAY GARG-I)
CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 95 of 96
SPECIAL JUDGE-IV, CBI
(PC Act)
TIS HAZARI
COURTS,DELHI
CC No. 17/2010 CBI Vs. Mohan Lal Goyal page 96 of 96