Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . (1) B.P. Verma on 29 July, 2017
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: SPECIAL JUDGE
(PCACT): CBI01: CENTRAL DISTRICT:
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
CC No.: 06/2008
CNR No.: DLCT01000202012
Registration No.: 532198/2016
CBI Vs. (1) B.P. Verma
The then Chairman, Central
Board of Excise and Customs,
Department of Revenue,
Ministry of Finance,
North Block, New Delhi
(Expired on 08.08.2005)
(2) Sidharth Verma
S/o Sh. B.P.Verma,
R/o 4C, HUDCO Place,
Andrews Ganj, New Delhi
Now R/o B2, ATS Greens
Part1, Sector50, Noida (U.P.)
(Acquitted)
(3) K. Vijay Pratap
Late pratap Kodnath
R/o 403/6, 2nd Avenue,
Anna Nagar, Chennia
(Expired on 09.06.2013)
(4) Rajeev Sharma
S/o Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma,
GM (Mkg.), M/s. Jubliee
Medicare Ltd., 18/7,
Keltron Chambers,
Arya Smaj Road, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 1 of 221
R/o 69G/2, Gautam Nagar,
New Delhi
Now R/o S282, 2nd Floor,
Greater Kailash, Part1,
New Delhi.
(Acquitted)
(5) C. Sharvan Kumar
S/o Sh. Champa Lal Jain,
MD of M/s. Yellow Cabs (I)
Pvt. Ltd. And Managing
Partner of M/s. Sripal
Garments, 9, First Lane,
Vijaya Raghavaiah Road,
T Nagar, Chennai
R/o 7, Balu Mudali Street,
Chennai.
(Acquitted)
RC No.: 31(A)/ 2001
Police Station: CBI/ACB/ New Delhi
Under Sections: 120B Indian Penal Code read with
Sections 7, 8, 9, 12 & 13 read with
Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
Date of Institution: 26.07.2002
Judgment Reserved on: 27.07.2017
Judgment Delivered on: 29.07.2017
JUDGMENT:
(1) The accused B.P.Verma (since deceased); Sidharth Verma; K. Vijay Pratap (since deceased); Rajeev Sharma and C. CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 2 of 221 Sharvan Kumar were sent up to face trial for the offences punishable Under Section 120B Indian Penal Code read with Sections 7, 8, 9, 12 & 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Brief facts/ Case of the Prosecution:
(2) The present case was registered on 30.03.2001, against the accused persons and some unknown persons on the allegations that accused B.P. Verma (since deceased) while functioning as Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Customs, during the period w.e.f. November, 2000 to March 2001 abused his official position and accepted illegal gratification / valuable things from the private persons. It has also been alleged that an export consignment of M/s.
A.K. Enterprises was seized by the custom department at Chennai, as it contained rags instead of declared garments, with the object of drawing false duty drawbacks and the accused B.P. Verma, with the object of causing undue pecuniary gain to M/s. A.K. Eneterprises, exercise his influence on the custom officers at Chennai, to favour the firm and in return, obtained/ accepted illegal gratification/ consideration from accused K. Vijay Pratap who was a middle man and acted in the said deal, on behalf of M/s A.K. Enterprises, Delhi. The said illegal gratification was collected by his son Siddharth Verma, at his instance.
(3) During the investigations, it was revealed that accused B.P. Verma, an officer of 1964 batch of Indian Customs and Excise Services became the Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Customs CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 3 of 221 on 01.06.2000 and was placed under suspension on 31.03.2001 by the Government of India, after registration of the present case and he retired on 31.08.2001 after attaining the age of superannuation. As per the allegations, the accused Siddharth Verma is the only son of B.P. Verma and was one of the directors in M/s Jubilee Enterprises/ Jubilee Medicare Private Ltd., Karol Bagh and resided with his father in the same residence. Accused Rajeev Sharma is an employee of Sidharth Verma and was working as General Manager in M/s. Jubilee Medicare Ltd. whereas the accused C. Sharvan Kumar is the Managing Partner of M/.s. Sripal Garments (engaged in exports of garments), M/s. Champa Fabrics and Managing Director of M/s Yellow Caps (India) P. Ltd.
(4) The investigations revealed that on 14.03.2001, specific intelligence was received by SIIB Branch of Customs, Chennai to the effect that M/s. A. K. Enterprises was going to export inferior quality garments as declared high value garments with the intention to claim a heavy amount of duty drawback. A close surveillance was mounted by SIIB on particulars of the shipping documents submitted at the Electronic Data Interchange Center as well as Manual System of Customs. On 17.03.2001, ten shipping bills pertaining to export of 100 percent Rayon Woven Ladies Blouses valued at Rs.4,26,16,272/ were drawn showing M/s. A.K. Enterprises as the exporter/ consignor and M/s. Dis & Dat, Montago Bay, Jaimica as the consignee. There was one more consignment dated 17.03.2001 being 100 percent cotton ladies blouses valued at Rs.17,98,545,60 drawn by M/s Sripal Garments of T. Nagar, Chennai. This consignment along with CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 4 of 221 consignment of ten shipping bills referred to above was handed over to the staff of the Clearing House Agent M/s. Trinity Forwarders. The invoice and packing list of M/s Sripal was also presented along with those in respect of ten shipping bills at the Electronic Data Intercharge Center for generating the shipping bills numbers etc. The exporter claimed a duty drawback of Rs.70.35 lacs on his alleged export consignment from the custom department. (5) On 19.03.2001 the customs authorities started inspection of the export consignment and found that the same were of a very small size garments having no commercial value. The examination of the above consignment started at 1.30 PM on 19.03.2001 and in the meantime the computer system showed that all the shipping bills have been cancelled. The officer conducting the examination came to know that the exporters had come to know the possibility of the examination of the goods and had become panic after which they managed to get a cancellation order from the consignee and accordingly applied for cancellation and got the consignment 'SHUT OUT'. As per the allegations, accused C. Sharvan Kumar is the Managing Partner of M/s. Sripal Garments, M/s. Yellow Cabs (India) Pvt. Ltd. with offices situated at Vijay Radhaviah Road, T. Nagar, Chennai. Shri Kiran Moolchand is the proprietor of M/s A.K. Enterprises, a firm primarily engaged in the export of jewellery and jewellery boxes. One Shiv Kumar is also a Director of M/s Yellow Cabs (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Shiv Kumar, Sh. Suresh Kesavan, accused K. Vijay Pratap and Sh. S. Krishnanad (Clearing and Forwarding Agent) are common friends and they all are residents of Chennai.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 5 of 221 Had the customs authorities not detected the fraud, the export in question would have been taken and an amount of Rs.70.35 Lacs would have become payable as duty drawback. The detection of false duty drawback attracts offences under Sections 113, 114 and 132 of the Customs Act.
(6) The case of the prosecution is that on 19.03.2001 the accused no.5 C. Sharvan Kumar requested his business associate for help in the above mentioned customs related problem following the seizure of the export consignment by the customs. Sh. Shiv Kumar informed his friend Sh. Suresh Keshavan about the problem of Sh. Shravan Kumar and in the morning of 20.03.2001, he requested Sh. Suresh Keshavan to talk to their common friend i.e. accused K. Vijay Pratap to put in a word to the Customs Commissioner to sort out this problem.
(7) The accused no.3 K. Vijay Pratap is a middle man of customs related matters, earning his livelihood by commissions received from various authorities for the work done by him through his influence and the accused no.4 Sh. Rajeev Sharma is an employee of accused no.2 Sh. Sidharth Verma and working as General Manager in M/s. Jubilee Medicare Ltd., a concern of Sh. Sidharth Verma (A
2).
(8) The telephone numbers of accused B.P. Verma were being intercepted by Special Unit of CBI during the relevant period and as a part of the exercise the telephone conversation made by or received by accused B.P. Verma from his mobile phone as well as land phones including the calls from Sh. M.V.S. Prasad and calls CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 6 of 221 made by accused K. Vijay Pratap to the office / residence of accused B.P. Verma and Sidharth Verma were taped on audio cassettes. Accused K. Vijay Pratap and Sh. Suresh Keshavan met Sh. M.V.S. Prasad, Commissioner, Customs and discussed the problem with him on which Sh. M.V.S. Prasad told accused K. Vijay Pratap that the party need not get scared if nothing illegal had been done. Thereafter, there was a meeting between accused Shravan Kumar, Sh. Shiv Kumar, accused K. Vijay Pratap and Sh. S. Krishnanand. Accused Shravan Kumar requested for his help to sort out the problem by contacting his sources in the Customs Department of Delhi and also told him not to worry about the expenses. The accused K. Vijay Pratap had been using a mobile phone bearing number 9840077687; accused B.P. Verma had been using mobile phone bearing No. 9810139022 and the telephone Nos. 6256715, 6254073 and 6254955 were installed at the official residence of accused B.P. Verma and telephone No. 3012849 was installed at his office during the relevant period. On 19.3.2001 accused K. Vijay Pratap telephoned Sh. Rama Krishna, P.A. to accused B.P. Verma and enquired whether accused B.P. Verma was in town and he would be reaching Delhi on 21.3.2001 and after confirming about availability of accused B.P. Verma in Delhi, accused K. Vijay Pratap came to Delhi on 21.03.2001 and stayed in room No. 826 of Hotel Le Meridian, New Delhi till 24.03.2001 during which accused K. Vijay Pratap used the hotel telephone. Further, as per the allegations the accused K. Vijay Pratap visited the office of B.P. Verma at North Block, Delhi in the afternoon of 21.3.2001 and requested him to use his influence in the CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 7 of 221 problem of M/s. A.K. Enterprises and again rang up B.P. Verma's residence telephone no. 6256715 in the morning of 22.3.2001 from hotel and B.P. Verma assured him of doing the needful by talking to Sh. M.V.S. Prasad, Commissioner, Customs, Chennai. It has been alleged that the accused no.1 B.P.Verma telephoned Sh. M.V.S. Prasad on 22.3.2001 and emphatically pleaded the case of M/s. A.K. Enterprises and told Sh. M.V.S. Prasad to help M/s. A.K. Enterprises and instructed him not to be too harsh in such matters and to do what best was possible. A little while later, B.P. Verma telephoned the accused K. Vijay Pratap and confirmed that he had spoken to M.V.S. Prasad and also advised him to meet Sh. M.V.S. Prasad. On 22.3.2001 accsued K. Vijay Pratap contacted Suresh Kesavan and other friends of Chennai including Sh. Sharvan Kumar and told that the deal had been struck for Rs.35 lacs by B.P. Verma and an advance of Rs.10 lacs was to be initially paid to him (B.P. Verma) which advance of Rs.10 lacs should be sent to him immediately but the accused K. Vijay Pratap did not receive the amount on time as promised by Sh. Sharvan Kumar. It is further alleged that K. Viljay Pratap had earlier acted as middleman in Central Excise problems of Shri K. Dhanpal of M/s. Gold Soap Company and in this connection, he introduced Sh. Dhanpal to Sh. B.P. Verma on 02.03.2001 and got favourable endorsement from Sh. B.P. Verma on the application submitted by Shri K. Dhanpal to D.G. C.E.I. for helping in his case, The accused K. Vijay Pratap demanded Rs.10 lacs from K. Dhanpal, of which he received Rs.5 lacs and out of the said amount, he (K. Vijay Pratap) had kept Rs.3 lacs with his friend Sh. S.G. Ramani. On CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 8 of 221 20.3.2001 K. Vijay Pratap collected Rs.50,000/ from Sh. S.G. Ramani for meeting out traveling expenses and when there was deal in receiving money from Sh. Sharvan Kumar, he telephoned S.G. Ramani on the night of 22.3.2001 and asked him to reach Delhi by the morning flight along with Rs.2.50 lacs pursuant to which Sh. S.G. Ramani came to Delhi on 22.3.2001 with this amount after which K. Vijay Pratap telephoned B.P.Verma and informed him about the arrival of his friend and also indicated about reaching of money. Accused K. Vijay Pratap made number of calls to B.P. Verma at his office on 22.3.2001 and left message in the office that he wanted to talk to Sh. B.P. Verma urgently. Later in the evening of 23.3.2001 accused B.P. Verma contacted K. Vijay Pratap from his mobile phone on which accused K. Vijay Pratap again informed that the money had reached him by saying "only two have landed" and the rest could not reach him, because the same was to reach from different channels and there was some delay. The accused K. Vijay Pratap promised to B.P. Verma that he would arrange the balance once he returns to Chennai and B.P. Verma informed K. Vijay Pratap that he would send Rajeev Sharma to collect the money after which B.P. Verma telephoned his son Sidharth Verma and asked him to send Rajeev Sharma to K. Vijay Pratap, who was staying in room no. 826 of hotel Le Meridian. During investigations, a slip of paper with the name of K. Vijay Pratap and room No. 826 and name of the hotel was recovered by CBI during the course of searches and the handwriting expert has confirmed that the writing on the paper is in the hand of B.P. Verma.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 9 of 221 (9) As per the case of the prosecution, Rajeev Sharma visited K. Vijay Pratap in room no. 826 and collected Rs. 2 lacs in the presence of S.G. Ramani after which accused Rajeev Sharma visited the Green Park Guest House of his company and delivered the said amount to Sidharth Verma on the night of 23.3.2001. Accused B.P. Verma got the telephonic confirmation of the receipt of the amount from Sidharth Verma. On 24.3.2001 accused K. Vijay Pratap while leaving Delhi by the evening flight to Chennai had telephoned B.P. Verma and got confirmation of the receipt of the amount. (10) During investigations, the audio cassettes containing the telephonic conversation between accused B.P.Verma, K. Vijay Pratap, Sidharth Verma and others, alongwith the specimen voice of these three accused were forwarded to CFSL, New Delhi, for voice spectographic analysis and CFSL experts had identified the voice of accused persons. The accused B.P. Verma was also subjected to polygraph test at CFSL, New Delhi, wherein, he made deceptive responses to the queries.
(11) As per the allegations, the accused B.P.Verma entered into a criminal conspiracy with coaccused C. Sharavan Kumar, K. Vijay Pratap, Sidharth Verma and Rajeev Sharma to abuse his official position and in furtherance of the conspiracy, he demanded illegal gratification of Rs.35,00,000/ and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.2,00,000/ from accused K. Vijay Pratap through Sidharth Verma and Rajeev Sharma, in lieu of using his influence on his subordinate customs officials to favourably settle the case of M/s. A.K. Enterprises and accused C. Sharvan Kumar at Sea Customs, Chennai.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 10 of 221 However, the investigations could not brought out any incriminating participation of Sh. Kiran Kumar, Proprietor of M/s. A.K. Enterprises and entire export transactions were done by accused C. Sharvan Kumar, without his knowledge.
CHARGES:
(12) After filing of the charge sheet, the accused were duly summoned to face the trial and on 30.10.2004, the order on charge was passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this court, pursuant to which the charges for the offences punishable under Section 120B IPC r/w Section 7 of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were framed against all the accused persons on 09.03.2005. Additional charges for the offence punishable under Section 7 of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were also framed against accused B.P. Verma.
The additional charges for the offences punishable under Section 12 of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were also framed against accused Sidharth Verma, K. Vijay Pratap, Rajeev Sharma and C. Sharvan Kumar. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty for all the charges and claimed trial.
(13) During the course of trial accused B.P. Verma expired on 08.08.2005 and accused K. Vijay Pratap expired on 09.06.2013. Therefore, the proceedings against accused B.P. Verma and accused K. Vijay Pratap were dropped, since abated vide orders dated 16.09.2005 & 31.07.2013 respectively.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 11 of 221 (14) Before coming to the testimonies of individual witnesses, the details of the witnesses examined by the prosecution and the documents proved by them are hereby put in a tabulated form as under:
List of Witnesses:
Sr. PW Name of witnesses Details of the witnesses No. No. Prosecution Witnesses:
1. PW1 Sh. Sandeep Official Witness - the then OSD to the Srivastava accused B.P. Verma
2. PW2 Sh. A.K. Samantha Official Witness PA to Accused B.P. Verma
3. PW3 Sh. Angna Ram Official Witness Under Secretary, Deptt. of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India, Delhi.
4. PW4 Sh. Sunil Kumar Official Witness - working as Room Service at Sayal Hotel LeMeridian during the relevant period.
5. PW5 Col. A.K. Mago Official Witness Chief Secretary Officer of (Retd.) Hotel LeMeridian.
6. PW6 Sh. Vidya Shankar Public Witness - Known to accused B.P. Pandey Verma
7. PW7 Sh. S. Official Witness Custom House Agent and Krishnanandh Proprietor of Trinity Forwarders, Madras.
8. PW8 Sh. N. Rama Official Witness PS to accused B.P. Verma Krishna during the relevant period.
9. PW9 Sh. T. Official Witness - the then Assistant Hanumantha Rao Commissioner, Customs.
10. PW10 Sh. Leo Joshn Official Witness - Appraiser in SIIB, Sea IIango Customs, Chennai
11. PW11 Sh. Shokender Official Witness - Custom Appraiser in Kumar Special Investigation and Intelligence branch, Customs House, Chennai.
12. PW12 Sh. M.V.S. Prasad Official Witness - the then Commissioner of Customs CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 12 of 221 Sr. PW Name of witnesses Details of the witnesses No. No.
13. PW13 Sh. G. Franklin Official Witness - Superintendent Freight Karunakaran Station, Central Warehousing Corpororation, Royapuram, Chennai.
14. PW14 Sh. S.M. Official Witness - the then Additional Bhatnagar Director in Directorate General of Excise Intelligence
15. PW15 Capt. Sh. Rakesh Official Witness Nodal Officer, Airtel Bakshi
16. PW16 Sh. Virendra Singh Official Witness - the then Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, New Delhi.
17. PW17 Sh. Arvind M. Official Witness - Nodal Officer/ Deputy General Manager, Legal, CIFY, Technologies Ltd., Chennai.
18. PW18 Sh. Anil Javed Official Witness - PRO/ MTNL
19. PW19 Sh. Barian Official Witness Asstt. Manager, Telephone D'Souza Department, Hotel LeMeridian.
20. PW20 Sh. Pratap Singh Official Witness Private Secretary & Personal Assistant to the Chief Minister, Haryana.
21. PW21 Sh. G. Gandhidoss Official Witness Deputy Commissioner (DOCK)
22. PW22 Sh. M.C. Kashyap Official Witness Inspector of Police, Spl.
Unit, CBI, New Delhi.
23. PW23 Sh. Vijay Singh Official Witness Addl. Director General, Directorate of Central Excise Intelligence, New Delhi.
24. PW24 Sh. Venkatesh Official Witness Warehouse Assistant, CWC Kumar Royapuram, Chennai.
25. PW25 Sh. Kishore Chand Public witness Cook in the Guest House of Pandey (Hostile) Siddharth Verma
26. PW26 Sh. I.P.S. Chouhan Official Witness SDO (Telephones), Chanakyapuri, New Delhi.
27. PW27 Sh. V.N. Sharda Official Witness SDE (SubDivisional Engineer), MTNL, Sena Bhawan, Telephone Exchange.
28. PW28 Mrs. Sarita Toora Official Witness Chief Supervisor, Reception Organization, Ministry of Home Affairs, North CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 13 of 221 Sr. PW Name of witnesses Details of the witnesses No. No. Block, New Delhi.
29. PW29 Sh. Umesh Official Witness Reception Officer under Chander Sharma MHA.
30. PW30 Sh. D. Santhana Official Witness Clearing Clerk with M/s.
Kumar Trinity Forwarders. 31. PW31 Sh. S.K. Tiwari Official Witness - Nodal Officer/ Dy. Director
General, Department of Telecom, 20, Ashoka Road, New Delhi.
32. PW32 Sh. Rajesh Sikka Official Witness Asstt. Front Office Manager, Hotel LeMeridian, New Delhi.
33. PW33 Sh. Sanjay Kumar Official Witness LDC in Deptt. of Food and Supplies, Govt. of Delhi.
34. PW34 Sh. R.K. Singh Official Witness Nodal Officer, Airtel Ltd.
35. PW35 Smt. Vibha Rani Official Witness - FLS Expert/ Director, Ray CFSL (Retd.), CBI, New Delhi.
36. PW36 Sh. K. Sriniwas Official Witness Assistant in Secondary & Rao Higher Education Department.
37. PW37 Sh. Arun Kumar Official Witness Under Secretary, Deptt. of Singh Food and Public Distribution, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi.
38. PW38 Sh. P.L. Narang Official Witness Superintendent, Land and Estate Department of Municipal Corporation of Delhi.
39. PW39 Sh. Deshpal Official Witness - Assistant DG Doordarshan, Mandi House, New Delhi.
40. PW40 Sh. Pradeep Official Witness Special Assistant, Kumar Corporation Bank, Mayur Vihar, Delhi.
41. PW41 Sh. Amarjit Singh Official Witness LDC in Ward No.35 of Sales Tax Office, ITO, New Delhi.
42. PW42 Sh. Rambir Singh Official Witness UDC in Ward No.49 of Sales Tax Office, ITO, New Delhi.
43. PW43 Sh. K.S. Hari Official Witness Head Clerk, Chief Kumar Minister's Office, New Delhi.
44. PW44 Sh. H.S. Bawa Official Witness Senior Accounts Officer, MTNL, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 14 of 221
Sr. PW Name of witnesses Details of the witnesses
No. No.
45. PW45 Sh. Jasjeet Official Witness - Nodal Officer from M/s.
Bhandari Bharti Cellular Ltd.
46. PW46 Sh. Ashwani Official Witness Airport Manager, Jet
Khanna Airways, Delhi.
47. PW47 Sh. R. Selvam Public Witness - Friend of accused K. Vijay
(Hostile) Pratap.
48. PW48 Sh. S.K. Official Witness Manager Incharge of EDI
Veeraraghavan Service Centre, Custom House, Chennai.
49. PW49 Sh. Suresh Public Witness - Friend of accused K. Vijay
Kesavan Pratap
50. PW50 Sh. P.M. Official Witness Private Secretary, Home
Murlidharen Ministry, Government of India, North Block,
New Delhi.
51. PW51 Sh. A. Shiv Kumar Public Witness One of the Directors of M/s (Hostile) Yellow Cabs, TNagar, Chennai.
52. PW52 Sh. K. Dhanapal Public Witness - a known to the accused K. (Hostile) Vijay Pratap.
53. PW53 Sh. M. Umapathy Official Witness Clerk in Trinity Forwarders.
54. PW54 Sh. N. Dilli Babu Official Witness Proprietor of M/s Shri Vadivudaiaman Transports, Chennai.
55. PW55 Sh. Shyam Sundar Official Witness - SDE (Sub Divisional engineer) - Records, MTNL, Delhi.
56. PW56 Sh. S. Official Witness Dy. Manager (Finance), Subramanium Indian Airlines, Chennai.
57. PW57 Sh. V. Udaiyar Official Witness Dy. Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, Chennai.
58. PW58 Sh. Janki Raman Official Witness Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, South Zonal Unit, Chennai.
59. PW59 Sh. K. Shankar Official Witness - Date Entry Operator at EDI Service Center, Custom House, Chennai.
60. PW60 Sh. Sandeep Official Witness - Dy. Director, Directorate Srivastava General of central Excise Intelligence.
61. PW61 Sh. L. Arul Official Witness Assistance Executive Prakash Engineer (Vigilance), Secretary's Department, CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 15 of 221 Sr. PW Name of witnesses Details of the witnesses No. No. Chennai Port Trust.
62. PW62 Sh. Ravindra Bose Official Witness Third Additional District & Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur Poomallee, Chennai.
63. PW63 Sh. R. Shanmugam Official Witness Tamil Metropolitan Magistrate (Retd.), Egmore, Chennai.
64. PW64 Sh. K. Shankar Official Witness Data Entry Operator, EDI Service Centre, Custom House, Chennai.
65. PW65 Sh. Vasa Seshagiri Official Witness - Joint Commissioner of Rao Customs, Chennai.
66. PW66 Sh. E. Surendran Official Witness Manager in M/s Trinity Forwarders, Chennai.
67. PW67 Sh. Rajender Official Witness Head Clerk in Factory Prasad Gautam Licencing Deptt. of MCD at Kashmere Gate, Delhi.
68. PW68 Sh. R. Madhav Official Witness Senior Manager Rao (Vigilance), Vigilance Cell, Corporation Bank, Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
69. PW69 Sh. R. Sellamuthu Official Witness Assistant Commissioner (Export) of Customs House, Chennai.
70. PW70 Sh. Narsimha Official Witness Audit Clerk, Canara Bank, Murthi Circle Office, Chennai.
71. PW71 Sh. Alok Kumar Official Witness Inspector, ACB, CBI, New Delhi.
72. PW72 Sh. N.V. Navneeth Official Witness Inspector, ACB, CBI, New Krishanan Delhi.
73. PW73 Sh. S.Q. Ali (IO) Official Witness Inspector, ACB, CBI, New Delhi.
74. PW74 Sh. Om Parkash Official Witness Inspector, ACB, CBI, New Delhi.
75. PW75 Sh. S.C. Bhalla Official Witness Inspector, ACB, CBI, New Delhi.
76. PW76 Sh. Pannir Selvam Official Witness Inspector, ACB, CBI, Bangalore.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 16 of 221
Sr. PW Name of witnesses Details of the witnesses
No. No.
77. PW77 Sh. P. Official Witness Inspector, ACB, CBI, New
Balachandran Delhi.
78. PW78 Sh. K. Hariom Official Witness Inspector, ACB, CBI,
Prakash Chennai.
79. PW79 Sh. Pawan Kumar Official Witness Inspector, ACB, CBI, New Delhi.
80. PW80 Sh. A.P. Singh Official Witness - Investigating Officer/ ASP, ACB, CBI, New Delhi.
Defence Witnesses:
Nil: The accused have not examined any witness in their defence.
List of documents exhibited:
Sr. Exhibit Document Details of Document Proved by No. Number No.
1. Ex.PW1/A D53 Signatures and Sh. Sandeep Handwriting of B.P. Srivastava (PW1) Verma
2. Ex.PW1/B D53 Signatures and Sh. Sandeep Handwriting of B.P. Srivastava (PW1) Verma
3. Ex.PW1/C D53 Signatures and Sh. Sandeep Handwriting of B.P. Srivastava (PW1) Verma
4. Ex.PW1/D D53 Signatures and Sh. Sandeep Handwriting of B.P. Srivastava (PW1) Verma
5. Ex.PW1/E D53 Signatures and Sh. Sandeep Handwriting of B.P. Srivastava (PW1) Verma
6. Ex.PW1/F D53 Signatures and Sh. Sandeep Handwriting of B.P. Srivastava (PW1) Verma CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 17 of 221 Sr. Exhibit Document Details of Document Proved by No. Number No.
7. Ex.PW1/G D53 Signatures and Sh. Sandeep Handwriting of B.P. Srivastava (PW1) Verma
8. Ex.PW1/H D53 Signatures and Sh. Sandeep Handwriting of B.P. Srivastava (PW1) Verma
9. Ex.PW1/I D53 Signatures and Sh. Sandeep Handwriting of B.P. Srivastava (PW1) Verma
10. Ex.PW1/J D53 Signatures and Sh. Sandeep Handwriting of B.P. Srivastava (PW1) Verma
11. Ex.PW1/K D53 Signatures and Sh. Sandeep Handwriting of B.P. Srivastava (PW1) Verma
12. Ex.PW1/L D53 Signatures and Sh. Sandeep Handwriting of B.P. Srivastava (PW1) Verma
13. Ex.PW1/M D53 Signatures and Sh. Sandeep Handwriting of B.P. Srivastava (PW1) Verma
14. Ex.PW1/N D53 Signatures and Sh. Sandeep Handwriting of B.P. Srivastava (PW1) Verma
15. Ex.PW1/O D53 Signatures and Sh. Sandeep Handwriting of B.P. Srivastava (PW1) Verma
16. Ex.PW1/P D53 Signatures and Sh. Sandeep Handwriting of B.P. Srivastava (PW1) Verma
17. Ex.PW1/Q D53 Signatures and Sh. Sandeep Handwriting of B.P. Srivastava (PW1) Verma
18. Ex.PW1/R D53 Signatures and Sh. Sandeep Handwriting of B.P. Srivastava (PW1) Verma CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 18 of 221 Sr. Exhibit Document Details of Document Proved by No. Number No.
19. Ex.PW1/S D53 Signatures and Sh. Sandeep Handwriting of B.P. Srivastava (PW1) Verma
20. Ex.PW1/T D53 Signatures and Sh. Sandeep Handwriting of B.P. Srivastava (PW1) Verma
21. Ex.PW1/U D53 Signatures and Sh. Sandeep Handwriting of B.P. Srivastava (PW1) Verma
22. Ex.PW1/V D40 A slip of paper containing Sh. Sandeep some writings Srivastava (PW1)
23. Ex.P2 D31 to 45 Entire file containing D Sh. Sandeep 31 to D45 Srivastava (PW1)
24. Ex.PW2/DA Statement of A.K. Singh Singh A.K. Singh recorded under Section (PW2) 161 Cr.P.C.
25. Ex.PW3/A D53 Letter dated 04.05.2001 Sh. Angna Ram bearing No. 1245 (PW3) /DG(Vig.) CVO/2001 from Angna Ram Under Secretary, Govt. of India to Sh. A.P. singh
26. Mark P1 D51 Main file containing D51 Sh. Angna Ram to D80 (PW3)
27. Ex.PW4/A D51 Room Service slip of Vijay Sh. Sunil Kumar Partap Syal (PW4)
28. Ex.PW4/B D51 Room Service slip of Vijay Sh. Sunil Kumar Partap Syal (PW4)
29. Ex.PW5/A D51 Letter dated 04.05.2001 Sh. A.K. Mago by Sh. A.P. Singh (PW5) CSP/CBI
30. Ex.PW5/B D51 Room Service Record of Sh. A.K. Mago room no. 826 between (PW5) 21.02.01 to 24.03.01
31. Ex.PW5/C D52 Letter of Sh. Sudhir Bali, Sh. A.K. Mago Front Office Manager of (PW5) LeMeridian to Sh. A.p.
Singh CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 19 of 221 Sr. Exhibit Document Details of Document Proved by No. Number No.
32. Ex.PW5/D D47 Registration Cards of K. Sh. A.K. Mago Vijay Pratap (PW5)
33. Ex.PW5/E D47 Registration Cards of K. Sh. A.K. Mago Vijay Pratap (PW5)
34. Ex.PW5/F D47 Registration Cards of K. Sh. A.K. Mago Vijay Pratap (PW5)
35. Ex.PW5/G1 D48 Copy of computerized bill Sh. A.K. Mago no. 115769 of Vijay (PW5) Pratap
36. Ex.PW5/G2 D48 Copy of computerized bill Sh. A.K. Mago no. 115769 of Vijay (PW5) Pratap
37. Ex.PW5/G3 D48 Copy of computerized bill Sh. A.K. Mago no. 115769 of Vijay (PW5) Pratap
38. Ex.PW5/G4 D48 Copy of computerized bill Sh. A.K. Mago no. 115769 of Vijay (PW5) Pratap
39. Ex.PW5/G5 D49 Copy of computerized bill Sh. A.K. Mago no. 115769 of Vijay (PW5) Pratap
40. Ex.PW5/G6 D49 Copy of computerized bill Sh. A.K. Mago no. 115769 of Vijay (PW5) Pratap
41. Ex.PW5/G7 D49 Copy of computerized bill Sh. A.K. Mago no. 115769 of Vijay (PW5) Pratap
42. Ex.PW5/G8 D49 Copy of computerized bill Sh. A.K. Mago no. 115769 of Vijay (PW5) Pratap
43. Ex.PW5/G9 D49 Copy of computerized bill Sh. A.K. Mago no. 115769 of Vijay (PW5) Pratap
44. Ex.PW6/A D58 Customer Application Sh. Vijay Form of Airtel form Shankar Pandey Photocopy (PW6) CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 20 of 221 Sr. Exhibit Document Details of Document Proved by No. Number No.
45. Ex.PW6/B D65 Request for issue of Sh. Vijay duplicate allotment letter Shankar Pandey (PW6)
46. Ex.PW6/C D65 Search cum seizure memo Sh. Vijay in respect of house of Sh. Shankar Pandey B.S. Pandey (PW6)
47. Mark PW6/X D65 Receipt for Rs.925/ Sh. Vijay issued on behalf of Bharti Shankar Pandey Airtel ltd. (PW6)
48. Ex.PW7/A Statement of witness S. Sh. S. Krishnanand under Krishnanand Section 164 CrP.C. record (PW7) by the Ld. MM Chennai.
49. Ex.PW7/B Statement of witness S. Sh. S. Krishnanandh Krishnanand (PW7)
50. Ex.PW8/A D79 Transcript of Telephonic Sh. N. Rama Conversation Krishna (PW8)
51. Ex.PW8/DA Statement of N. Rama Sh. N. Rama Krishna recorded under Krishna (PW8) Section 161 Cr.P.C.
52. Ex.P1 Audio Cassette Sh. N. Rama Krishna (PW8)
53. Ex.PW9/A D63 Letter of T.H. Rao AC Sh. T. Hanumant (SIIB) dated 11.05.2001 to Rai (PW9) Sh. A.P. Singh DSP CBI
54. Ex.PW9/B D57 File containing 95 sheets Sh. T. Hanumant Rai (PW9)
55. Ex.PW13/A D17 Carting Register Sh. G. Franklin Karunakaran (PW13)
56. Ex.PW13/B D18 Cargo Declaration and Sh. G. Franklin Acknowledgement Slip Karunakaran dated 17.03.01 (PW13)
57. Ex.PW13/C1 D12 Copy of bill no. 1284047 Sh. G. Franklin Karunakaran (PW13) CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 21 of 221 Sr. Exhibit Document Details of Document Proved by No. Number No.
58. Ex.PW13/C2 D12 Copy of bill no. 1283947 Sh. G. Franklin Karunakaran (PW13)
59. Ex.PW13/C3 D2 Copy of bill no. 1283998 Sh. G. Franklin Karunakaran (PW13)
60. Ex.PW13/C4 D3 Copy of bill no. 1283986 Sh. G. Franklin Karunakaran (PW13)
61. Ex.PW13/C5 D4 Copy of bill no. 1283902 Sh. G. Franklin Karunakaran (PW13)
62. Ex.PW13/C6 D5 Copy of bill no. 11283936 Sh. G. Franklin Karunakaran (PW13)
63. Ex.PW13/C7 D6 Copy of bill no. 1283886 Sh. G. Franklin Karunakaran (PW13)
64. Ex.PW13/C8 D7 Copy of bill no. 1283915 Sh. G. Franklin Karunakaran (PW13)
65. Ex.PW13/C9 D8 Copy of bill no. 1254022 Sh. G. Franklin Karunakaran (PW13)
66. Ex.PW13/C10 D9 Copy of bill no. 1284032 Sh. G. Franklin Karunakaran (PW13)
67. Ex.PW13/C11 D10 Copy of bill no. 1283968 Sh. G. Franklin Karunakaran (PW13)
68. Ex.PW14/A D70 Copy of fax message from Sh. S.M. M/s. Gold Soap Company Bhatnagar to the Chairman, Central (PW14) Board of Customs & Central Excise.
69. Ex.PW14/B D69 Letter dated 07.03.01 by Sh. S.M. Sh. S.M. Bhatnagar Bhatnagar (PW14) CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 22 of 221 Sr. Exhibit Document Details of Document Proved by No. Number No.
70. Ex.PW15/A D58 Statement of account no. Capt. Rakesh 176948 on Mobile No. Bakshi (PW15) 9810139022 on dated 09.04.2001 issued by Bharti Airtel Ltd.
71. Ex.PW15/B D58 List of the name of Capt. Rakesh persons to whom or who Bakshi (PW15) had called on mobile no.
9810139022
72. Ex.PW15/C D28 Call Details in respect of Capt. Rakesh Mobile No. 9810139022 Bakshi (PW15)
73. Ex.PW15/D D28 Call Details Record Capt. Rakesh Bakshi (PW15)
74. Ex.PW15/E D29 Call Details record of Capt. Rakesh Mobile No. 9810154454 Bakshi (PW15)
75. Ex.PW15/F D29 Call Details Record of Capt. Rakesh Mobile No. 9810154454 Bakshi (PW15)
76. Ex.PW15/G D30 Call Details Record of Capt. Rakesh Mobile 98101611358 Bakshi (PW15)
77. Ex.PW15/H D28 Notice under Section 91 Capt. Rakesh Cr. P.C. Bakshi (PW15)
78. Ex.PW17/A D20 Letter dated 23.05.2001 Sh. Arvind (PW17)
79. Ex.PW17/B D19 Copy of letter dated Sh. Arvind 21.04.99 (PW17)
80. Ex.PW17/C Addl. Receipt No. 109990 dated Sh. Arvind Document 24.11.02 (PW17)
81. Ex.PW18/A D35 Letter dated 17.05.2001 Sh. Anil Javed (PW18)
82. Ex.PW18/B D35 Call Details record of Sh. Anil Javed telephone no. 6166282 (PW18)
83. Ex.PW18/C D33 Letter dated 04.01.2002 Sh. Anil Javed (PW18)
84. Ex.PW21/A D12 Endorsement on check list Sh. G. for Duty Drawback dated Gandhidoss 19.03.2001 (PW21) CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 23 of 221 Sr. Exhibit Document Details of Document Proved by No. Number No.
85. Ex.PW21/B D12 Endorsement on performa Sh. G. invoice no. SG/025 dated Gandhidoss 07.03.2001 (PW21)
86. Ex.PW21/C D12 Endorsement on checklist Sh. G. for duty drawback dated Gandhidoss 19.03.2001 (PW21)
87. Ex.PW21/D D12 Endorsement on performa Sh. G. invoice no.050 dated Gandhidoss 19.03.2001 (PW21)
88. Ex.PW21/E D2 Endorsement on checklist Sh. G. for duty drawback dated Gandhidoss 19.03.2001 (PW21)
89. Ex.PW21/F D2 Endorsement on performa Sh. G. invoice no.050 dated Gandhidoss 30.09.2000 (PW21)
90. Ex.PW21/G D3 Endorsement on checklist Sh. G. for duty drawback no. 253 Gandhidoss dated 19.03.2001 (PW21)
91. Ex.PW21/H D3 Endorsement on performa Sh. G. invoice no. 050 dated Gandhidoss 30.09.2000 (PW21)
92. Ex.PW21/I D4 Endorsement on checklist Sh. G. for duty drawback no. 253 Gandhidoss dated 19.03.2001 (PW21)
93. Ex.PW21/J D4 Endorsement on performa Sh. G. invoice no. 050 dated Gandhidoss 30.09.2000 (PW21)
94. Ex.PW21/K D5 Endorsement on checklist Sh. G. for duty drawback no. 253 Gandhidoss dated 19.03.2001 (PW21)
95. Ex.PW21/L D5 Endorsement on performa Sh. G. invoice no.050 dated Gandhidoss 30.09.2000 (PW21)
96. Ex.PW21/M D6 Endorsement on checklist Sh. G. for duty drawback no. 253 Gandhidoss dated 17.03.2001 (PW21) CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 24 of 221 Sr. Exhibit Document Details of Document Proved by No. Number No.
97. Ex.PW21/N D6 Endorsement on performa Sh. G. invoice no.050 dated Gandhidoss 30.09.2000 (PW21)
98. Ex.PW21/O D7 Endorsement on checklist Sh. G. for duty drawback no. 253 Gandhidoss dated 17.03.2001 (PW21)
99. Ex.PW21/P D7 Endorsement on performa Sh. G. invoice no.050 dated Gandhidoss 30.09.2000 (PW21)
100. Ex.PW21/Q D8 Endorsement on checklist Sh. G. for duty drawback no. 253 Gandhidoss dated 17.03.2001 (PW21)
101. Ex.PW21/R D Endorsement on performa Sh. G. invoice no.050 dated Gandhidoss 30.09.2000 (PW21)
102. Ex.PW21/S D9 Endorsement on checklist Sh. G. for duty drawback no. 253 Gandhidoss dated 17.03.2001 (PW21)
103. Ex.PW21/T D9 Endorsement on performa Sh. G. invoice no.050 dated Gandhidoss 30.09.2000 (PW21)
104. Ex.PW21/U D10 Endorsement on checklist Sh. G. for duty drawback no. 253 Gandhidoss dated 17.3.2001 (PW21)
105. Ex.PW21/V D10 Endorsement on performa Sh. G. invoice no.050 dated Gandhidoss 30.09.2000 (PW21)
106. Ex.PW21/W Addl. Letter for permission to Sh. G. Document shutout Gandhidoss (PW21)
107. Ex.PW21/X Addl. Letter dated 19.03.2001 Sh. G. Document from M/s. Trinity Gandhidoss Forwarders to the (PW21) Assistant Commissioner of Customs CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 25 of 221 Sr. Exhibit Document Details of Document Proved by No. Number No.
108. Ex.PW22/A D59/1 Order dated 15.11.2010 Sh. M.C. passed by Secretary to the Kashyap (PW22) Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs
109. Ex.PW22/B D59/2 Another order dated Sh. M.C. 15.11.2010 passed by Kashyap (PW22) Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs
110. Ex.PW22/C D60 Order dated 08.02.2001 Sh. M.C. passed by Secretary to the Kashyap (PW22) Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs
111. Ex.PW22/D D68 Seizure Memo of Sh. M.C. documents from Sh. M.C. Kashyap (PW22) Kashyap Inspr. CBI/SU dated 19.06.01
112. Ex.PW22/E D79 Gist of conversation Sh. M.C. relating to A.K. Kashyap (PW22) Enterprises
113. Ex.PW23/A D70 Fax message of M/s. Gold Sh. Vijay Singh Soap Company to the (PW23) Chairman, Central Board of Customs and Central Excise
114. Ex.PW24/A D17 Letter dated 10.07.2001 Sh. V. Ventakesa written by Sh. G. Franklin (PW24) Karunakaran
115. Ex.PW25/A Statement of Kishore Sh. Kishore Chand Chand Pandey (PW25)
116. Ex.PW26/A D34 Certificate issued by Sh. I.P.S. MTNL in respect of Chauhan (PW26) telephone no. 6256715
117. Ex.PW26/B D34 Certificate issued by Sh. I.P.S. MTNL in respect of Chauhan (PW26) telephone no. 6254955 CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 26 of 221 Sr. Exhibit Document Details of Document Proved by No. Number No.
118. Ex.PW26/C D34 Certificate issued by Sh. I.P.S. MTNL in respect of Chauhan (PW26) telephone no. 6254073
119. Ex.PW27/A D32 Certificate issued by Sh. V.N. Sharda MTNL in respect of (PW27) telephone no. 3012849
120. Ex.PW28/A D46 Reception Register in Ms. Sarita Toora respect of the Gate No.2, (PW28) Ministry of Home Affairs
121. Ex.PW29/A D81 Visitors Register Sh. Umesh No.141/2001/RO of Chander Sharma Ministry of Home Affairs (PW29)
122. Ex.PW30/A D12 Copy of Shipping Bill no. Sh. D. Santhana 1283947 Kumar (PW30)
123. Ex.PW30/B D2 Annexure - C to Shipping Sh. D. Santhana Bill No. 1283947 Kumar (PW30)
124. Ex.PW30/C D2 Annexure - B to Shipping Sh. D. Santhana Bill No. 1283947 Kumar (PW30)
125. Ex.PW30/D D2 Shipping Bill No. 1283998 Sh. D. Santhana Kumar (PW30)
126. Ex.PW30/E D3 Annexure - C to Shipping Sh. D. Santhana Bill No. 1283998 Kumar (PW30)
127. Ex.PW30/F D4 Declaration on check list Sh. D. Santhana of bill no. 1283986 dated Kumar (PW30) 17.3.2001
128. Ex.PW30/G D4 Declaration on check list Sh. D. Santhana of bill no. 1283986 dated Kumar (PW30) 17.3.2001
129. Ex.PW30/H D4 Check list for bill no. Sh. D. Santhana 1283902 dated 17.3.2001 Kumar (PW30)
130. Ex.PW30/J D5 Annexure C to Shipping Sh. D. Santhana Bill No. 12839002 Kumar (PW30)
131. Ex.PW30/K D5 Annexure B to Shipping Sh. D. Santhana Bill No. 12839002 Kumar (PW30)
132. Ex.PW30/L D5 Check list in respect of bill Sh. D. Santhana no. 1283936 Kumar (PW30) CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 27 of 221 Sr. Exhibit Document Details of Document Proved by No. Number No.
133. Ex.PW30/M D6 Check list in respect of the Sh. D. Santhana shipping bill no. 1283886 Kumar (PW30)
134. Ex.PW30/N D7 Check list in respect of the Sh. D. Santhana shipping bill no. 1283915 Kumar (PW30)
135. Ex.PW30/O D8 Check list in respect of the Sh. D. Santhana shipping bill no. 1284022 Kumar (PW30)
136. Ex.PW30/P D9 Check list in respect of the Sh. D. Santhana shipping bill no. 1284032 Kumar (PW30) dated 17.3.2001
137. Ex.PW30/Q D10 check list in respect of the Sh. D. Santhana shipping bill no. 1283968 Kumar (PW30)
138. Ex.PW30/R D12 Check list in respect of the Sh. D. Santhana shipping bill no. 1284047 Kumar (PW30) dated 17.3.2001
139. Ex.PW31/A D31 Forwarding letter dated Sh. S.K. Tiwari 24.04.2001 in respect of (PW31) Call Details Record
140. Ex.PW31/B D31 Details of STD calls in Sh. S.K. Tiwari respect of telephone no. (PW31) 3012849 from 16.3.2001 to 31.03.2001
141. Ex.PW33/A D36 Specimen voice recording Sanjay Kumar Memo (PW33)
142. Ex.PW35/A D44 Report of Principal Dr. Vibha Rani Scientific Officer (Lie (PW35) Detection)
143. Ex.PW35/B D44 Forwarding letter to CBI Dr. Vibha Rani (PW35)
144. Ex.PW36/A D38 Specimen voice recording Sh. K. Sriniwas Memo dated 04.04.01 Rao (PW36)
145. Ex.PW37/A Audio Cassette Sh. Arun Kumar Singh (PW37)
146. Ex.PW37/B Cloth Wrapper Sh. Arun Kumar Singh (PW37)
147. Ex.PW38/A Audio Cassette Sh. P.L. Narang (PW38) CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 28 of 221 Sr. Exhibit Document Details of Document Proved by No. Number No.
148. Ex.PW38/B Wrapper Sh. P.L. Narang (PW38)
149. Ex.PW38/C D37 Specimen voice recording Sh. P.L. Narang Memo dated 05.04.01 (PW38)
150. Ex.PW39/A D37 Search cum - seizure Sh. Deshpal Memo dated 31.03.01 (PW39)
151. Ex.PW40/1 to D50 Specimen signatures of K. Sh. Pradeep Ex.PW40/15 Vijay Pratap Grover (PW40)
152. Ex.PW43/1 to D53 Specimen Signatures of Sh. K.S. Hari Ex.PW43/5 B.P. Verma Kumar (PW43)
153. Ex.PW44/A D42 Seizure Memo dated Sh. H.S. Bawa 22.05.2001 (PW44)
154. Ex.PW46/A D61 Message Confirmation Sh. Ashwani Khanna (PW46)
155. Mark PW46/1 D61 Revenue sheet in respect Sh. Ashwani of Flight No. 9W 822 for Khanna (PW46) dated 23.03.2001
156. MarkPW46/2 D61 Load Sheet Sh. Ashwani Khanna (PW46)
157. MarkPW46/3 D61 Passenger Manifest in Sh. Ashwani respect of flight No. 9W Khanna (PW46) 822 of 23.03.01
158. Ex.PW47/A Statement of R. Selvam Sh. R. Selvam recording under Section (PW47) 161 Cr.P.C.
159. Ex.PW48/A D8 Shipping bill No. 1283986 Sh.
Veeraraghvan (PW48)
160. Ex.PW48/B D8 Shipping bill No. 1283915 Sh.
Veeraraghvan (PW48)
161. Ex.PW49/A Statement of Sh. Suresh Sh. Suresh Kesavan recorded under Kesavan (PW49) Section 161 Cr.P.C.
162. Ex.PW50/A D59/1 Order no. 14/3/97CBI Sh. Suresh dated 15.11.2000 Kesavan (PW49) CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 29 of 221 Sr. Exhibit Document Details of Document Proved by No. Number No.
163. Ex.PW50/B D59/2 Another order dated Sh. Suresh 15.11.2000 Kesavan (PW49)
164. Ex.PW50/C D59/3 Order dated 8.2.2001 Sh. Suresh Kesavan (PW49)
165. Ex.PW51/A Statement of Sh. A. Shiv Sh. A. Shiv Kumar recorded under Kumar (PW51) Section 161 Cr.P.C.
166. Ex.PW52/A Statement of Sh. K. Sh. K. Dhanapal Dhanapal recorded under (PW52) Section 161 Cr.P.C.
167. Ex.PW53/A Statement of Sh. M. Sh. M. Umapathy Umapathy recorded under (PW53) Section 161 Cr.P.C.
168. Ex.PW54/A D43 Seizure memo dated Sh. Dilli Babu 11.05.2001 (PW54)
169. Mark PW54/1 D13 Trip sheets Sh. Dilli Babu to PW54/3 (PW54)
170. Mark PW54/4 D14 to D Three slips of papers Sh. Dilli Babu to PW54/6 16 addressed to CVC (PW54) Royapuram
171. Ex.PW56/A D74 Letter dated 07.02.2002 Sh. S. Subramanian (PW56)
172. Mark PW56/A D74 Passenger manifest of IC Sh. S. 440 dated 21.03.2001 Subramanian (PW56)
173. Ex.PW56/DA D74 Statement of S. Sh. S. Subramanian recorded Subramanian under Section 161 Cr.PC. (PW56)
174. Ex.PW57/A D62 Letter of V. Udaiyar dated Sh. V. Udaiyar 17.01.2002 to Sh. A.P. (PW57) Singh, DSP CBI
175. Ex.PW57/B D73 Letter dated 12.06.2002 Sh. V. Udaiyar by Sh. V. Udaiyar (PW57)
176. Ex.PW57/C D73 Letter dated 08.036.2002 Sh. V. Udaiyar (PW57) CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 30 of 221 Sr. Exhibit Document Details of Document Proved by No. Number No.
177. Ex.PW57/D D73 Letter dated 12.06.2002 Sh. V. Udaiyar (PW57)
178. Ex.PW57/E D72 Letter dated 17.01.02 by Sh. V. Udaiyar Sh. V. Udaiyar (PW57)
179. Ex.PW57/E1 D72 Enclosures along with the Sh. V. Udaiyar to E5 letter dated 17.01.2002 (PW57)
180. Ex.PW59/A D2 Job No. 287113 dated Sh. K. Shankar 17.03.2001 (PW59)
181. Ex.PW60/A D71 Receipt Memo form Sh. Sandeep received Sh. S. Srivastava Srivastava (PW60)
182. Ex.PW61/A D41 Search List in respect of Sh. L. Arul house of Vijay Pratap Prakash (PW61)
183. Ex.PW62/A D78 Statement under Section Sh. Ravindra 164 Cr.P.C. of witness Bose (PW62) Ramani
184. Ex.PW63/A Statement of witness Sh. R. Suresh Kesavan S/o Shanmugam Kesavan under Section (PW63) 164 Cr.P.C.
185. Ex.PW63/B Statement of witness Shiv Sh. R. Kumar under Section 164 Shanmugam Cr.P.C. (PW63)
186. Ex.PW63/C Addl. Letter dated 22.01.2002 Sh. R. Document Shanmugam (PW63)
187. Ex.PW68/A D45 Bag/suitcase opening Sh. R. Madhav memo dated 25.05.2001 Rao (PW68)
188. Ex.PW68/B D45 Cash receipt for Sh. R. Madhav Rs.2,000/ dated Rao (PW68) 24.11.2002
189. Ex.PW68/C D45 Visiting card of Yellow Sh. R. Madhav cabs Rao (PW68)
190. Ex.PW68/D D45 Visiting card of Vijay Sh. R. Madhav Pratap Rao (PW68)
191. Ex.PW68/E D45 The notesheet of Le Sh. R. Madhav Meridian (6 Pages) Rao (PW68) CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 31 of 221 Sr. Exhibit Document Details of Document Proved by No. Number No.
192. Ex.PW69/A Fax message Sh. R. Sellamuthu (PW69)
193. Ex.PW73/A D80 Seizure Memo dated Sh. S.Q. Ali 04.04.2002 (PW73)
194. Ex.PW76/A D45 Productioncumreceipt Sh. Pannir memo dated 07.04.2001 Selvam (PW76)
195. Ex.PW76/B D45 Endorsement of Sh. P.K. Sh. Pannir Ram Chandran on Selvam (PW76) productioncumreceipt memo dated 07.04.2001
196. Ex.PW80/A Addl. Carbon copy of FIR Sh. A.P. Singh Document (PW80)
197. Ex.PW80/B D21 Letter dated along with Sh. A.P. Singh call details for mobile No. (PW80) 9841018881, 9841041669, 9841042325, 9841026243 for the period 16.03.2001 to 31.03.2001
198. Ex.PW80/C D25 Letter dated 25.05.2001 Sh. A.P. Singh from RPG Cellular Mobile (PW80) Company along with call details record for mobile no. 9841094731, 9841038811, 9841092909 for the period 16.03.2001 to 25.03.2001.
199. Ex.PW80/D D64 Receipt dated 03.01.2002 Sh. A.P. Singh (PW80)
200. Ex.PW80/E D66 Letter dated 26.07.2001 Sh. A.P. Singh from RPG Cellular (PW80) Company along with the details of IMEI & SIM numbers
201. Ex.PW80/F D54 Forwarding letter dated Sh. A.P. Singh 04.06.2001 from Director (PW80) CFSL, CBI, New Delhi CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 32 of 221 Sr. Exhibit Document Details of Document Proved by No. Number No.
202. Ex.PW80/G D55 Letter dated 28.06.2001 of Sh. A.P. Singh Central Forensic Science (PW80) Laboratory
203. Ex.PW80H D56 Letter dated 29.06.2001 of Sh. A.P. Singh Central Forensic Science (PW80) Laboratory
204. Ex.PW80/I Addl. Letter dated 26.03.2002 Sh. A.P. Singh Document from the office of (PW80) Commissioner of Customs (SEA), Chennai, EVIDENCE:
(15) In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as Eighty Witnesses as under:
Sr. Name of the Deposition No. witness
Official Witness from Customs/ Excise Department/ MHA/ Indian Airlines:
1. Sh. Sandeep PW1 Sh. Sandeep Srivastava is the Director from Srivastava (PW1) Ministry of Textiles who has deposed on the following Witness relevant aspects :
qua the accused 1. That in June 2000, he was working as Officer B.P. Verma (now on Special Duty to Chairman, Central Board deceased) of Excise & Customs Sh. B.P. Verma and his duties were monitoring of revenue, all Parliament related work, board meetings proceedings, revenue research matters etc.
2. That the disposal file work of Sh. B.P. Verma was a bit slow
3. That Board meetings, which were collective matters between him and other members of the board and decisions were to be taken collectively in a routine manner, but comparatively slow.
4. That he had seen Sh. B.P. Verma writing and signing as he was his immediate superior.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 33 of 221
5. That file Mark P1 containing D51 to D80 and he identified handwriting Ex.PW1/A and signatures marked Ex.PW1/B; handwriting Ex.PW1/C & signatures Ex.PW1/D;
handwriting Ex.PW1/E & signatures Ex.PW1/F; handwriting Ex.PW1/G & signatures Ex.PW1/H; handwriting Ex.PW1/I & signatures Ex.PW1/J; handwriting Ex.PW1/K & signatures Ex.PW1/L;
handwriting Ex.PW1/M & signatures Ex.PW1/N; handwriting Ex.PW1/O & signatures Ex.PW1/P; handwriting Ex.PW1/Q & signatures Ex.PW1/R;
handwriting Ex.PW1/S & signatures Ex.PW1/T and signatures Ex.PW1/U in the note sheet which are of Sh. B.P. Verma.
6. That he has seen file marked P2 (D31 to D 45 and D47 to D50).
7. That he has also seen D40 in the said file Ex.P2 and I identify handwriting of Sh. B.P. Verma as that of him on piece of paper pasted as D40, which is Ex.PW1/V. He has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Counsels for the accused.
2. A.K. Samantha PW2 A.K. Samantha was the P.A. of Sh. B.P. Verma (PW2) Witness and has deposed on the following aspects:
relevant qua the 1. That he was the P.A. to Sh. B.P. March since accused B.P. March 1997 till 31.03.2001. Verma and K. 2. That at first Sh. B.P. Verma was the member Vijay Pratap (both of the Central Board of Excise & Customs and deceased) thereafter he became Director General, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau and thereafter he became Chairman of the Central Board of Excise & Customs and he knew Sh. Verma since 1997.
3. That visitors used to meet Shri Verma by appointment and if some person came without appointment, then a slip used to be sent to Sh. Verma and only after asking him, the person concerned used to be sent to him.
4. That the witness pointed out towards accused Vijay Pratap in the Court who used to visit CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 34 of 221 office of Sh. B.P. Verma.
5. That he (Vijay Pratap) may have come to Sh..
Verma two or three times but he cannot say definitely.
6. That he does not remember whether there was any call from him for talking to Sh. Verma.
7. That as P.A. to Mr. Verma, he had seen him writing and signing and can identify his handwriting and signatures.
8. That handwriting Ex.PW1/V on the paper slip pasted on D40 in file Ex.P2 is that of Sh. B.P. Verma.
In his crossexamination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused, the witness has deposed on the following aspects:
That while he was working in his office, he never kept any record regarding the visitors who used to come to meet Sh. Verma nor he was maintaining any such record. That he does not remember if he had stated before the CBI that a slip used to be sent to Mr. Verma and only after asking from him, the person concerned used to be sent to him. When confronted with his statement Ex.PW2/DA the said aspect was not found so recorded.
3. Angna Ram PW3 Angna Ram is the under Secretary, Department (PW3) Witness of Revenue who has deposed that on receipt of letter relevant qua the No. DLI/AC/CR/3(A) 31 (A)/2001/DLI dated accused B.P. 9.4.2001, he had vide his letter dated 04.05.2001 Verma (now Ex.PW3/A, forwarded original note sheets which are deceased) Ex.PW1/A to Ex.PW1/U in file cover Mark P1 to DSP Sh. A.P. Singh.
He has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Counsels for the accused.
4. Sh. N. Rama PW8 Sh. N. Rama Krishna was the P.S. of the Krishna (PW8) accused B.P. Verma and has deposed on the following Witness relevant aspects:
qua the accused 1. That he joined as P.A. in the Department of B.P. Verma and K. Revenue, Ministry of Finance in the year 1975 Vijay Pratap (both and was promoted as PS in the year 1991. deceased) CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 35 of 221
2. That since March 1997, he was attached with Sh. B.P. Verma who had joined as member Central Board of Excise and Customs and became Chairman of CBEC on 01.06.2000.
3. That accused K. Vijay Pratap (whom the witness has identified in the court) used to come to see accused B.P. Verma two to three times in his office and lastly he came to visit Sh. B.P. Verma in the early part of 2001.
4. That Ms. Bhawna Pandey, Sh. Vijay Jain, Sh.
Arun Berry, Sh. Mohan Gupta, Sh. Joshi, Sh. Anil Khanna, Sh. Ashok Sharma, Ms. Veena Ranjan, Ms. Dass Sharma used to visit accused B.P. Verma.
5. That the document Ex.PW1/V (D40) is in the handwriting of late Sh. B.P. Verma.
6. That he had received telephonic call from accused K. Vijay Pratap for Sh. B.P. Verma twothree times and he had connected him to Sh. Verma.
7. That the witness has identified his voice as well as the voice of accused K. Vijay Pratap from the audio cassette Q1 (Ex.P1) .
8. That the witness has heard the conversation portion A to A in document C79 which is Ex.PW8/A.
9. That he identified the voice of accused Vijay Pratap because he had given his name as Vijay towards the end of conversation.
10. That he identified the conversation between him and accused Vijay Pratap in the audio cassette which is Mark B to B in Ex.PW8/A but he cannot tell the exact date of the conversation, though it was of the year 2001.
11. That he identified the conversation between him and accused Vijay Pratap in the audio cassette which is Mark C to C in Ex.PW8/A. Though there is a small difference in the voice since instead of word HU, he had uttered the work OK at point X and there is an additional word may be after the word HU at point Y.
12. That he identified the voice of accused Vijay Pratap and Sh. B.P. Verma in the audio cassette which contains the talks as given in CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 36 of 221 the transcript Ex.PW8/A portions D to D and E to E.
13. That he identified the conversation between him and accused Vijay Pratap in the audio cassette which is Mark F to F and between accused Vijay Pratap and his colleague A.K. Samanta at portion F1 to F2.
14. That he identified the conversation between him and accused Vijay Pratap in the audio cassette which are at portions Mark L to L, Mark M to M, Mark N to N, Mark O to O in the transcript Ex.PW8/A.
15. That he identified the conversation between accused Vijay Pratap and Sh. B.P. Verma at the transcript portions Mark P to P, Mark Q to Q, Mark R to R and Mark S to S in Ex.PW8/A. In his crossexamination by the Ld. Counsels for the accused the witness has deposed on the following aspects:
That his cabin was separate from the office of late Sh. B.P. Verma.
Over a period of time, hundreds of people may have met late Sh. B.P. Verma during the time he was working with him as his PS. That being Chairman of CBEC, Sh. B.P. Verma would receive lot of representations connected with custom related problems. That he must have talked to accused Vijay Pratap, personally as well as on telephone before the above said conversation but he cannot tell the number thereof.
That there were other persons also visiting Sh. B.P. Verma frequently.
That he was summoned by the CBI and the audio cassette containing the above conversation was played before him after which he had identified the voices but he cannot tell the specific portions which were put to him by the CBI when he was called to identify the voice.
That he does not recollect the portion of the voice identified by him.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 37 of 221 He is unable to tell if he had stated to the CBI Inspector that he had identified the voice/ conversation of Vijay Pratap in the transcript serial no. 1, 5, 6, 11, 13 and 14. However, when confronted with the statement Ex.PW8/DA portion A to A the above fact was found so recorded.
5. PW9 T. PW9 T. Hanumant Rai is the Deputy Commissioner, Hanumant Rai Central Excise, Salem, Tamil Nadu who has deposed Witness relevant on the following aspects:
qua the accused C. 1. That in December 2001 he was working as Sharvan Kumar Assistant Commissioner, Customer in Chennai and was working in Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch.
2. That his duties were to gather intelligence about the export and import and investigate the cases through the team of officers working under him.
3. That if anybody wants to export the goods, he has to file a Shipping Bill in the Export Department of Customs House along with the Purchase order, Export Invoice, Packing list, GR Declaration Form.
4. That there was a duty drawback scheme introduced by the Government and reimbursement of the excise duty suffered in respect of the raw material was made to the exporter at the time of the export of the finished products.
5. That on 14.03.2001 he received a specific intelligence that M/s. A.K. Enterprises, Chennai were attempting to export inferior garments in the guise of high value garments to claim undue drawback.
6. That he discussed this intelligence with Sh.
V.S. Rao the then Joint Commissioner who directed him to keep a watch and intercept the export consignment.
7. That he verified the computer system and found that on 17.03.2001, 14 shipping bills were assigned for export of 100% rayon ladies blouses and the assessment thereof was completed on 17.03.2001 itself.
8. That the unit price declared was US Dollars 7.90 per piece and total quantity of all the CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 38 of 221 shipping bills was over one lac pieces; the total FOB value declared accordingly worked out to Rs.4,26,16,773/ and duty drawback amount involved was Rs.70,31,685/.
9. That it appeared to them that per price of the garment was very high and therefore, it was decided to intercept the consignment but it could be established only after arrival of the cargo in the custom area, therefore a watch was kept.
10. That on 19.03.2001 he verified the status of the shipping bill in the computer system and noticed that all the cargo of the shipping bills have been received and registered at Central Warehousing Corporation Royapuram, pursuant to which he sent a team of officers including Sh. Shokender Kumar, Ram Mohan Rao, Appraisers and Arun Kumar Examiner to find out the details from CWC Royapuram.
11. That the officers later informed him that they had examined about 3925 cartons and the entire lot was seized by the customs on the same day or on the next day.
12. That the officers also informed him that two persons namely Shiv Kumar and Sharvan Kumar were found loitering in CWC area and when they were asked why they were in any way connected with the consignment of M/s. A.K. Enterprises but they denied and informed them that they were engaged in the business of taxi/ cabs.
13. That on 19.03.2001 premises of M/s. A.K. Enterprises at 4/A CRV Apartments, Ragahvaihya Road, T Nagar, Chennai were searched but nothing incriminating was found.
14. That Kiran Kumar the owner of M/s. A.K. Enterprises was also not available at that time and his Manager whose name he does not remember, informed that M/s. A.K. Enterprises was exporting only jewellery.
15. That the office of Customs House Agent Trinity Forwarders was also searched on 19.03.2001 and the documents such as Shipping Bills, Invoices, Packing List were collected and the statement of Manager of CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 39 of 221 Trinity Forwarders was also recorded.
16. That the premises of M/s. Yellow Cabs (I) Pvt. Ltd. Located at Vijay Raghavaiya Road T Nagar, Chennai were also searched and incriminating documents like copies of invoices, packing list etc. relating to the export of garments in the name of A.K. Enterprises were seized.
17. That on 23.03.2001 Krishna Nandh and Sharvan Kumar appeared before SIIB while Kiran Kumar proprietor of A.K. Enterprises appeared on 26.03.2001.
18. That Kiran Kumar informed that his company A.K. Enterprises was not dealing with the export of garments and in order to received the drawback amount, an account has to be opened in the Indian Bank, harbour Branch in the name of M/s. A.K. Enterprises and he had received the documents to file shipping bills through a messenger of Sharvan Kumar.
19. That as a followup they verified and found that through 35 shipping bills, export of cotton garments was made in the name of A.K. Enterprises during March 2001 and FOB value of which was above Rs.6.91 crores and the duty drawback claimed involved was about Rs. One Crore.
20. That the export of this shipment was made on 11.03.2001 and on verification from duty drawback department no duty drawback has been paid on that shipment on which he instructed not to release the amount with regard to the earlier export.
21. That they verified from the steamer agent M/s. Greenways Shipping Agency Steamer Agent and cargo booking agent Naveen Prakash on which they were told that the goods have already been delivered at Dubai to M/s. Priya Textiles, Dubai on 22.03.2001 and the party had taken the delivery on 24.03.2001 whereas the consignment was meant for Sunflower Agency, Jamaica and the port of discharge was Montegobay.
22. That out of total consignment of 3925 cartons seized on 20.03.2001 relating to M/s.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 40 of 221 A.K. Enterprises, 68 cartons belong to S. Sripal Garments whose owner was Sharvan Kumar which was also registered in the name of M/s. A.K. Enterprises.
23. That had they not stopped the cargo of M/s. A.K. Enterprises they would have received the drawback amount of Rs.70 lacs from the department.
24. That he had written a letter dated 11.05.2001 to the CBI which is Ex.PW9/A (D63 in the file Mark P1) and along with the same he had forwarded the relevant documents containing in file no.7 mark as D57 which is Ex.PW9/B (containing 94 sheets).
In his crossexamination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused, the witness has deposed on the following aspects:
That all the consignments meant for export are subject to check by the customs. That he personally did not verify the consignments and it was the appraisers and examiners posted in the dock who examined the cargo consignment.
That the cargo itself reached on 19.03.2001 and shipping bills are made earlier to reaching the cargo.
That on 19.03.2001 afternoon, he had sent his officers to CWC Royapuram for examination of the cargo.
That he has not produced anything to show as to when the cargo reached CWC Royapuram. That he did not see the cargo personally. That shipping bills were in existence when cargo reached on 19.03.2001 and as long as the hipping bills are there, the shipment is valid.
That the cargo was seized on 20.03.2001 and they waited till 20.03.2001 since there was 100% examination of 3925 cartons. That first of all, the cargo was examined by the officers attached to SIIB.
That the shut out permission was granted by the Assistant Commissioner, Docks but the officers of Customs at CWC Royapuram had CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 41 of 221 not permitted shut out and at CWC Royapuram one appraiser and one examiner are posted at present.
That the appraiser and examiner are not above the Assistant Commissioner in rank. That normally shut out permission is given by the Assistant Commissioner but shut out will be allowed by appraiser after examination and verifying and declaration in export documents. That an Appraiser cannot overrule Assistant Commissioner.
That he had not himself allowed the shut out. That out of 3926, 68 cartons belong to Sripal Garments and he is not personally aware about the condition of cargo belonging to Sripal Garments.
That the drawback amount, if a party gets, will go to the bank account of the party concerned. That as far as he knows, the bank account number belongs to M/s. A.K. Enterprises. That the consignment of M/s. Sripal Garments was also seized and their goods were also not as per declaration.
That he is not aware if any action has been initiated against M/s. Sripal Garments or not since he was transferred from that area. That no person other than owner of M/s. A.K. Enterprises could have benefited out of the transaction.
That he has not personally examined the accused Sharvan Kumar.
That he is not aware, if he (Sharvan Kumar) is the owner of M/s. A.K. Enterprises but his name is Sharvan Kumar.
That he even does not know Sharvan Kumar. That the Shut out cargo can be seized if the goods are not as per declaration. That cargo was seized to establish that the goods were not as per declaration. That he is not aware if in respect of previous transaction, in which duty drawback was stopped by him, whether any action under the Customs Act was taken or not since he was transferred from the said place.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 42 of 221
6. PW10 Sh. Leo PW10 Sh. Leo John Ilango is the Appraiser who has John Ilango deposed on the following aspects:
Witness relevant 1. That from 1998 to 2000, he was posted as qua the accused C. Appraiser in SIIB Sea Customs, Chennai till Sharvan Kumar 2001.
2. That on 19.03.2001 Assistant Commissioner T.H. Rao and Joint Commissioner Sh.
Seshagiri Rao directed him to assist the officials were looking after the case of attempt to export goods under the guise of good quality garments sent by M/s. A.K. Enterprises for getting undue duty drawback.
3. That he was not at the examination spot of the cargo and Sh. Shokender Kumar Appraiser and other officers had examined the cargo sent by M/s. A.K. Enterprises.
4. That he was directed to find out one Mr. Murthy and was also given his address by Assistant Commissioner Sh. T.H. Rao but the telephone number was not given.
5. That the given address i.e. 16 Raja Street Padi, Channi was could not be located and it appeared that the address was fictitious.
6. That on 20.03.2001 he recorded the statement of Surenderan, Manager of Custom House Agent M/s. Trinity Forwarders, Madras.
7. That on 21.03.2001 he participated in the search proceedings of M/s. Yellow Cabs (I) Pvt. Ltd. at T Nagar, Chennai where the offices of M/s. A.K. Enterprises, M/s. Champa Fabrics, Sripal Garments were found.
8. That Sh. Sharvan Kumar was the partner of Champa Fabrics and certain incriminating documents pertaining to A.K. Enterprises were seized.
9. That they had inquired about the earlier export made by M/s. A.K. Enterprises.
10. That the export of garments was made in March 2001 itself value of which was about Rs. 6 crores and about Rs. One Crore duty drawback was claimed but due to timely detection it was not paid.
In his crossexamination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused Sharvan Kumar, the witness has deposed on CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 43 of 221 the following aspects:
That the premises of M/s. Champa Fabrics were searched since it had transpired that it may be connected to M/s. A.K. Enterprises. That there is a connection between Champa Fabrics and A.K. Enterprises since the accused Sharvan Kumar had got connection with A.K. Enterprises as well as Champa Fabrics.
That he understand that Sh. Sharvan Kumar was the partner of M/s. Champa Fabrics and he (Sharvan Kumar) was connected to A.K. Enterprises since he was present at the time of examination of goods on behalf of M/s. A.K. Enterprises.
That he (witness) was not present at the time of inspection of goods of M/s. A.K. Enterprises.
That he did not record the statement of any partner or person from M/s. Champa Fabrics nor he record the statement of M/s. Sripal Garments.
7. Sh. Shokender PW11 Sh. Shokender Kumar is the Appraising Kumar (PW11) Officer who has deposed on the following aspects:
Witness relevant 1. That in November, 2000 he was posted as qua the accused C. Custom Appraiser in Special Investigation and Sharvan Kumar Intelligence Branch, Customs House, Chennai, and his duties were to check malpractices in exports and imports and Joint Commissioner was the head of the Unit.
2. That on 17.3.2001, a specific information was received by Assistant Commissioner that inferior quality garments are being exported in the guise of high value goods quality garments by M/s M. K. Enterprises.
3. That thereafter they kept the watch on the shipping bills of A K Enterprises which declared 100% Rayon ladies blouses at the rate of US dollar 7.9 per piece and the total quantity for all the 10 shipping bills was about 1,16,000 and some pieces approximately.
4. That the FOB value declared was over Rs.4 crores and duty draw back amount involved as Rs.70,00,000 plus.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 44 of 221
5. That on 19.3.01, they verified all the shipping bills of M/s MK Enterprises in the system and found that all the bills were shown as registered at CWC, Royapuram.
6. That on the directions of the Sr. Officers, he along with A Arun Kumar, Examiner, and R M Rao, Appraiser went to CWC, Royapuram for detailed examination of the goods and they found that the goods of M/s AK Enterprises was registered in the system.
7. That they also found that all the 10 shipping bills of M/s AK Enterprises were shown as cancelled in the computer system.
8. That the cargo was, however, there, and they accordingly started the examination of the cargo to verify the declaration made by the exporter and the Joint Commissioner was informed about it.
9. That they found there were total numbers of 3925 cartons and it was found that the cartons contained very inferior quality of garments and 68 cartons belonged to M/s Sripal Garments whose proprietor was found to be Sharvan Kumar and the goods found in the cartons were of no commercial value.
10. That while they were examining the cargo, they found that two persons were loitering near the examination premises and were having mobile phones with them and on asking, they said that they came to see their friend Murthy and on further inquiry they denied any involvement with AK Enterprises and after some time they slipped away from that place without informing anyone which led to a doubt about those persons.
11. That the cargo was seized on 20.03.2001 and on the same day search was conducted on the office premises of M/s Yellow Cabs India Pvt.
Ltd. T Nagar, Chennai, and some incriminating documents like copies of relevant invoices, packing list, etc. relating to AK Enterprises was also recovered and seized along with other documents.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 45 of 221
12. That the statement of Aneesur Rehman, Manager MK Enterprises was recorded who told that they were not dealing in the export of garments but they were dealing in the export of jewellery and had no connection with the cargo seized by the Customs Department.
13. That he recorded the statement of Sharvan Kumar 2/3 times who informed that he had helped one Kiran Kumar, the owner of M/s AK Enterprises in opening DBK Account in Indian Bank, Harbour Branch, Chennai, Sharvan Kumar also told that he has given his godown to AK Enterprises.
14. That Sharvan Kumar also dislcosed that he had run away on 19.3.2001 from CWC Royapuram as he was scared of harassment.
15. The witness has correctly identified the Sharvan Kumar in the court.
16. That on 19.3.2001, the other person found loitering with Sharvan Kumar was Shiv Kumar who was not present in the court on the date of of examination of this witness.
17. That he also recorded the statement of Kiran Kumar proprietor of M/s AK Enterprises who disclosed that he has nothing to do with the export being made or already made earlier in the name of M/s AK Enterprises and that he was opened the draw back account with the Indian Bank, Habour Branch as suggested Sharvan Kumar.
18. That he also recorded statement of Krishananand Customs House Agent of M/s Trinity Forwarders Madras who had stated that the documents were filing shipping bills have been handed over to him by Sharvan Kumar through his messenger.
19. That he had also recorded the statement of Dilli Babu the owner of M/s Sh. Vadivudai Amman Transport, Chennai who has transported the goods to CWC Royapuram from the premises of Sharvan Kumar.
20. That after completing necessary preliminary inquiry a report was submitted to AC/JC/Commissioner, Customs, Chennai, a copy of which was also handed over to the CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 46 of 221 CBI.
In his cross examination by the Ld. Counsels for accused persons, the witness has deposed on the following aspects:
That case relating to the previous export of about 7 crores covering 35 shipping bills was referred to DRI, however, he is not aware if any communication has been received by the customers or not.
That a show cause notice has been issued to M/s AK Enterprises with regard to this case. That M/s AK Enterprises would be the beneficiaries of the transactions if the goods had actually been exported and not intercepted.
That Sharvan Kumar has connection with M/s AK Enterprises in the sense that they had searched the premises of yellow cab whereof he had given his address on his visiting card, which has handed over to him on the date the goods were examined by them.
That when the premises of yellow cab were searched, some incriminating documents relating to AK Enterprises were recovered and some documents in the name of Champa Fabrics were also recovered.
That Kiran Kumar of M/s AK Enterprises was summoned and his statement with respect to the documents was recovered.
That statement of Sharvan Kumar was also recorded in this regard wherein he admitted that he had helped Kiran Kumar in preparing the documents and getting the duty draw back account opened.
That in his statement Kiran Kumar had stated that he was not aware of any export of the consignment in question and that it was Sharvan Kumar who had told him that they would start some joint business of export. That Kiran Kumar did not produce any memo of understanding between him and Sharvan Kumar.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 47 of 221 That Sharvan Kumar could not have enjoyed the duty draw back without the knowledge of Kiran Kumar.
That at the time of inspection, Sharvan Kumar did not disclose that he was present with regard to the Sripal Garments and simply told that he had come to meet Mr. Murthy. That they searched the premises of Yellow Can on first floor as the address was given by Sharvan Kumar as per his visiting card and during the said search, the documents of AK Enterprises and Champa Fabrics were recovered.
That he is not aware the constitution of Champa Fabric, Yellow Cab or Sripal Garments.
That the consignment of Sripal Garments were sized as the goods of Sripal Garments were mixed with goods of AK Enterprises and the lorry driver who had brought the goods told that the entire goods had been lifted by him from the premises of Sharvan Kumar.
8. Sh. MVS Pershad PW12 Sh. M.V.S. Pershad is the Retired Chairman (PW12) Witness Customs and Excise Settlement Commission who has relevant qua the deposed on the following aspects:
accused B.P. 1. That since July, 2000 to April 2001 he was Verma and K. posted as Commissioner of Customs, Sea Port, Vijay Pratap (both Customs House, Chennai and he was the head deceased) of the Sea Customs.
2. That on 14.3.2000, he was informed by his officers working in Special Investigation Branch that some fraudulent export of ready made garments was likely to take place.
3. That he does not recollect the names of the firm or the persons who were indulging in fraudulent export and import.
4. That on 17.3.2001, 10 shipping bills were filed on behalf of M/s AK Enterprises through Trinity Forwarders.
5. That the FOB value of the shipment was about four crores of rupees and the duty draw back on this amount was about Rs. 70 lakh.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 48 of 221
6. That a team of officers went to CWC Royapuram for inspection of the goods.
7. That after start of the examination if was found that the shipping bills have been cancelled.
8. That the examination of the goods continued and goods were found to be small pieces of blouse made from old fabrics and did not have any market value at all.
9. That the entire lot of the goods were examined and the cartons were seized on 20.3.2001.
10. That on 20.3.2001 one Vijay Pratap contacted him on telephone and told that he was friend of B. P. Verma the then Chairman of Central Board of Excise and Customs.
11. That he told Vijay Pratap that if that is so, his friend can meet the Custom Officers and explain the things.
12. That Vijay Partap asked him to put in a word to the concerned SIB Officers, however, he declined.
13. That on 22.3.2001 he received telephonic call from B. P. Verma who inquired about the Customs happening and as to what was the case of AK Enterprises on which he explained B. P. Verma that it was a case of mis declaration and export of rags in the guise of garments.
14. That B. P Verma asked him that the party had shut out the cargo on which he told him that the shut out was done only after the examination of the goods had been started and that it was a bad case.
15. That B. P. Verma suggested him that they should not be too harsh with these people on which he told B. P. Verma that he will do his best, however, he did not interfere in the matter and the investigation went on.
16. That on coming to know of this transaction, they went through the previous record of the export of cargo by AK Enterprises and found that they had exported T shirts through 35 shipping bills valued at Rs. 6 crores and having entitlement of duty draw back of about CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 49 of 221 Rs. One crore.
17. The witness has correctly identified the accused Vijay Partap.
18. That in April /May 2001, he was posted as Commissioner Central Excise, Chennai.
19. That he had an opportunity to talk Sh. B. P. Verma on telephone and also in person on several occasions and he can identify the voice of B. P. Verma.
20. That Sh. Ramesh was working as PA with him on 22.3.2001 and he identified the voice of said Ramesh as scribed to said Ramesh in portion G2 X.
21. That he had heard the conversation on the audio cassette Q1 (Ex.P1) which is between B. P. Verma, the then Chairman and him (witness) and its correct transcript is from point X1 to point G of Ex.PW8/A. In his cross examination by the Ld. Counsels for accused persons, the witness has deposed on the following aspects:
That under law if a shut out has been ordered the Customs Authority can seize the goods if the examination of the goods is started. That he was not present at the time of examination of the goods and the statement made by him in his examinationinchief is on the basis of information given to him by the officers of SIB who inspected the goods. That he and B. P. Verma used to talk about the revenue and other official matter once in a while.
That B. P. Verma had given an advice relating to policy related matter which was purely administrative in nature and there was nothing personal to it and he did not talk him regarding this matter after 22.3.2001 nor he asked him to stop the investigations or to release the goods.
That he never met Sharvan Kumar the accused, during the above period or thereafter.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 50 of 221
9. G. Franklin PW13 G. Franklin Karunakaran is the Storage & Karunakaran Inspection Officer who has deposed on the following (PW13) Witness aspects:
relevant qua the 1. He has deposed that in March 2001, he was accused C. posted as Superintendent Container Freight Sharvan Kumar Station.
2. That as per procedure, entries are made in the carting register maintained in the Central Warehousing Corporation (CWC) showing the total quality of export consignments received at CWC at CVC in respect of every exporter date wise.
3. That on the back of export document (checklist), endorsement is made by the Shed Incharge or a clerk of CWC indicating total quantity received by him in respect of every such checklist / shipping document and the endorsement is signed by Shed Incharge or the clerk concerned.
4. That he has seen copy of Page 89 of the Carting Register maintained at CWC, Royapuram pertaining to Carting NO. 4579 dated 17.3.2001 and the said entry is made by Sh. V. Venkatesh Kumar, Godown Assistant and he identifies his writing as he has worked under him.
5. That the copy of carting register duly certified and stamped is Ex.PW13/A, entry in respect of carting number is red encircled and marked point A in Ex.PW13/A.
6. That the total number of 3925 packages of export consignment of garments were received from M/s Trinity Forwarders on account of AK Enterprises.
7. That Ex.PW1/B is the duly certified copy of Cargo Declaration and Acknowledgment Slip dated 17.3.2001 of CWC.
8. That Sh. Damodaran has mentioned in this declaration that it was under carting no. 4579 and the receipt is of 3925 packages of garments from M/s Trinity Forwarders.
9. That the number of units shown in this document i.e. Ex.PW13/B is shown as 1370, 68, 1370 and 1117 packages of the above consignment having been received at CWL on CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 51 of 221 17.3.2001.
10. That these packages had been transported by Lorry Nos. TNG 9799, TDE 279, TCZ 5241 and TNZ 5859 respectively.
11. That this declaration was also signed by the representative of the exporter / CHA M/s Trinity Forwarders, Chennai, in the relevant column.
12. That the exporter / CHA is required to give a carting application and such an application was in respect of this consignment was received on 17.3.01 filled up and signed by CHA /exporter and also the Shift Incharge of CWC must have noted down the details about the receipt of packages for export received from AK Enterprises and it was Sh. I S C Nargunam was the Technical Assistant doing this job at that time.
13. That a daily transaction report was also prepared on 17.3.2001 and it was done by V Venkatsh Kumar, Godown Assistant of CWC to show the receipt of 395 packages of garments against carting no. 4579.
14. That he has seen the endorsement Ex.PW13/C1 to Ex.PW13/C11 which are made on the back of checklist / shipping bills no. 1284047, 1283947, 1283998, 1283986, 1283902, 1283936, 1283886, 1283915, 1284022, 1284032, 1283968 (objected to).
15. That the endorsement with regard to the goods so exhibited bear stamps of CWC/CFS/RPM.
16. That the same are filled in by Sh. V. Venkatsh Kumar, Godown Assistant whose handwriting and signatures the witness has identified.
17. That in fact on scrutiny, they found that their of the total consignments as referred to above 68 packages were in respect of M/s Sripal Garments, Chennai which had been received in the shed by lorry no. TDF279.
In his cross examination by the Ld. Counsels for accused persons, the witness has deposed on the following aspects:
That their job was to receive the cargo and save the same in safe custody of CWC.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 52 of 221 That he had no personal relations with the owners of M/s. AK Enterprises and M/s. AK Sirpal.
That he confirmed that 68 cartons of M/s AK Sripal were received separately and he has mentioned in Ex.PW13/B. That 68 packages / cartons of Sripal were kept in the same godown in which articles of AK Enterprises were kept.
That he is not sure whether goods of M/s Sripal were in a separate lots and goods of M/s AK Enterprises were in separate lots. That it depends on the availability of the space in the godowns whether the consignments of two exporters are to be kept in the same godown or separately.
10. Sh. S. M. PW14 S.M. Bhatnagar is the Commissioner of Bhatnagar Customs who has deposed on the following aspects:
(PW14) Witness 1. That he has deposed that in March 2001 he relevant qua the was posted as Addl. Director in the accused C. Directorate General of Excise Intelligence, Sharvan Kumar RK Puram, New Delhi; Sh. B. P. Verma was the Chairman of Central Board Excise & Customs, New Delhi; Sh. Virender Singh was the Director General Central Excise Intelligence, New Delhi and SH. Vijay Singh was the Addl. Director General of Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence.
2. That he has seen the copy of fax message Ex.PW14/A on which he identifies the signatures of Sh. Virender Singh, which are at portion A and also that of Sh. Vijay Singh at portion B on Ex.PW14/A.
3. That vide these endorsement of Sh. Virender Singh and Vijay Singh made under the purported endorsement of Sh. B. P. Verma, he was directed to get a report from ADG, Chennai.
4. That on the contents of the fax message, he accordingly vide letter Ex.PW14/B, which bears his signatures at point A, forwarded the copy of the fax message to Sh. R. Sunder Raman, Addl. Director General, Directorate of General of Central Excise Intelligence, CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 53 of 221 South Zone, Chennai, seeking report as desired by Sr. Officers.
5. That the endorsement at points A and B in Ex.PW14/A are under the endorsement purported to be in the handwriting of Sh. B. P. Verma but the witness is unable to identify his handwriting and signatures.
In his cross examination by the Ld. Counsels for accused persons, the witness has deposed on the following aspects:
That the document Ex.PW14/A was received by him through official channel and the letter Ex.PW14/B was written by him during the course of his official duty.
11. Sh. Virender PW16 Sh. Virender Singh was the Director General Singh (PW16) of Central Excise who has deposed on the following Witness relevant aspects:
qua the accused 1. That on 7.3.2001 he was posted as Director B.P. Verma (now General of Central Excise Intelligence, New deceased) Dehli and Mr. B. P. Verma was posted as Chairman of Central Board of Excise and Customs Ministry of Finance, New Delhi.
2. That he had worked with Sh. B. P. Verma and can identify his signatures.
3. That the endorsement dated 02.03.2001 which is at portion Mark X in the document Ex.PW14/A is under the signatures of late Sh. B. P. Verma.
4. That the party's letter together with the endorsement made on it was received by a fax message received in the office of DG, Central Excise Intelligence.
5. That the fax copy was marked to him by late Sh. B. P. Verma on which he made his own endorsement as "please get a report from AFG, Chennai and p.u. i.e. put up".
6. That the endorsement marked 'A' on Ex.PW14/A is under his handwriting and initials dated 7.3.2001.
7. That he marked his endorsement to the then Addl. Director General, Head Quarters.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 54 of 221 In his cross examination by the Ld. Counsels for accused persons, the witness has deposed on the following aspects:
That he had received the fax in question through official channel.
That prior to the receipt of this fax the office of the Chairman used to fax similar communications in official routine. That he had marked the fax in question to the ADG, Head Quarters during the course of his official duties.
12. Sh. G. PW21 Sh. G. Gandhidoss is the Joint Commissioner, Gandhidoss Central Excise, Chennai who has deposed on the (PW21) Witness following aspects:
relevant qua the 1. That in August 2000 he was posted as Deputy accused B.P. Commissioner of Customs, DOCK and had Verma (now been supervising and exercising over all deceased) control of movement or import and export documents and their examination.
2. That a file pertaining to shutout case of Cargo made on the basis of request by M/s. Trinity Forwarders (Madras), the Custom House Agents, was put up before him.
3. That on the basis of the applications moved by M/s. Trinity Forwarders to the Assistant Commissioner (Customs) EDI, Custom House Chennai and upon cancellation of shipping of bills by them, he had ordered for shutout of the Cargos subject to the condition that the goods should be examined for verification whether the declared articles in the shipping bills were there in the cargo or not.
4. That on all the Shipping Bill No. 284047 with invoice and other documents; Shipping Bill No. 283947 with invoice and other enclosures;
Shipping Bill No. 283998 with invoice and other documents; Shipping Bill No. 283902 with invoice and other documents; Shipping Bill No. 283936 with invoice and other documents; Shipping Bill No. 283886 with invoice and other documents; Shipping Bill No. 283915 with invoice and other documents; Shipping Bill No. 284022 with invoice and other documents; Shipping Bill No. 284032 CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 55 of 221 with invoice and other documents and Shipping Bill No. 283968 with invoice and other documents, he had passed the order "Shutout Registration No. 252/253 dated 19.03.2001 open and inspect/ examine Select/2 packages and allow delivery out of CWC, if contents are as declared".
5. That on all the Shipping Bills and invoices, this order had been passed with the stamp of his office and the same bear his initials at point A.
6. That the said documents were placed him by the concerned Office Examiner namely Smt. Subha Shankeri and he identified her signatures on each endorsement which are Ex.PW21/A to Ex.PW21/V bearing his signatures at point A and that of Smt. Subha Shankeri at point B.
7. That these Shutout Orders were passed on the basis of recommendations made by the Assistant Commissioner (Export) who had given Cancellation Order and Shutout Permission.
8. That letter dated 19.03.2001 which is Ex.PW21/W is from M/s. A.K. Enterprises filed by M/s. Trinity Forwarders to the Assistant Commissioner (Exports) and vide this letter the permission for shutout was sought by export office and put up before him through AC (Export).
9. That vide this letter the permission to shutout was approved and it was forwarded to Shed Appraiser to examine the same.
10. That letter dated 19.03.2001 which is Ex.PW21/X is the request letter of M/s. Trinity Forwarders received in the Export Office and after cancellation of shipping bills by AC (Exports), it was put up before him.
11. That he permitted shutout with the condition open and inspect, examine S2 packages, vide endorsement at Point X at the back of the said endorsement order along with his signatures at point A. CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 56 of 221
12. That during the examination of goods, if any discrepancy is noticed, it is to be reported to the DC (Docs) and in this case, prior to examination of goods, the goods were seized by SIB, Customs, Chennai for investigations.
This witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Counsels for the accused.
13. Sh. M.C. Kashyap PW22 Sh. M.C. Kashyap is the Inspector of Police (PW22) Witness who has deposed on the following aspects:
relevant qua the 1. That his duties as Inspector in Special Unit accused B.P. included gathering on intelligence, Verma (now verification of complaints and telephonic deceased), K. surveillance.
Vijay Pratap (now 2. That from November 2000 to March 2001 deceased) and they had intercepted telephonic conversation accused Siddharth to Sh. B.P. Verma the then Chairman, Verma Central Board of Excise and Customs pertaining to telephone numbers 6256715, 6254073, 6254955 and 3012849.
3. That the telephone numbers 6564747, 6464805 & 6463602 and the mobile numbers 9810139021 and 9810139022 are in the name of Ms. B. Pandey.
4. That this interception on telephone conversation was made on the basis of orders dated 15.11.2000 (two orders) and order dated 08.02.2001, passed by Sh. Kamal Pandey, the then Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs which orders are Ex.PW22/A to Ex.PW22/C.
5. That the intercepted conversation was between Sh. B.P. Verma, his son Sidharth Verma and another person from Chennai i.e. Vijay and others.
6. That when their Unit came to know that a case against B.P. Verma and others had been registered in ACB, CBI, Delhi they interacted with Anti Corruption Branch and two cassettes of the conversation relevant to the case were prepared, one was kept in a sealed cover and other was kept open for day to day investigations.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 57 of 221
7. That on 19.06.2001 two audio cassettes recording during March 17 to 26, 2001 were handed over to Sh. A.P. Singh, Addl. SP, CBI, ACB vide memo Ex.PW22/D.
8. That on 19.06.2001 transcript of the conversations between Sh. Vijay Pratap Singh, Sh. B.P. Verma and others recorded during 17.03.2001 to 26.03.2001 was also prepared by him which is Ex.PW8/A.
9. That he had also prepared a gist of conversation relating to A.K. Enterprises which is Ex.PW22/E.
10. That the calls which were copied in these cassettes were taken out from the original cassettes recorded during that period without editing or any alteration and these calls were the true replica of the original calls record.
11. The witness has identified the two audio cassettes in the court.
In his crossexamination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused, the witness has deposed on the following aspects:
That CBI undertakes telephonic interceptions (landline as well as mobile telephone), only after obtaining the permission of the competent authority i.e. Union Home Secretary.
That the telephone numbers to be placed under surveillance as well as the period or duration for interception, is clearly mentioned in the permission order.
That the order Ex.PW22/B was for a period of 90 days from the date of issue.
That he cannot say whether the tapping/ impugned interceptions were beyond the period of permission but for continuation of interception, another permission order is required, clearly mentioning the period of extension.
That in the present case one more extension order was received by him but probably the same is not on judicial record.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 58 of 221 That he does not remember whether the voice sample of Siddharth Verma was taken in his presence.
That he had not received the CFSL report dated 28.06.2001 and the samples were never sent by him to CFSL and it was never requested to the CFSL to return back the same to him.
That he does not remember the date on which he prepared the transcripts.
That during the interceptions of the conversations, he also heard various other conversations and therefore, he could recognize the names of the persons in the conversations and the same has been mentioned by him in these transcripts. That he does not remember whether the phone number of Siddarth Verma was put under surveillance or not.
That the conversations were recorded on an automatic recording machine which machine was never seized.
That the conversations were contained in a master cassette/ cassettes but he had not seized the master cassette.
14. Vijay Singh PW23 Vijay Singh is the Retired Additional Director (PW23) Witness General of Directorate General of Central Excise relevant qua the Intelligence who has deposed on the following accused B.P. aspects:
Verma (now 1. That the fax message Ex.PW14/A (D70) was deceased) received from M/s. Gold Soap Co., Udai Road and M/s. Narmadha Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Pondicherry wherein Sh. B.P. Verma had made an endorsement which is Ex.PW23/A.
2. That this endorsement was marked by Sh. B.P. Verma to Sh. Virender Singh the then Director General in the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence.
3. That at portion Mark A in Ex.PW14/A is the endorsement and signatures of Sh. Virender Singh which he duly identified.
4. That Sh. Virender Singh in turn marked the fax message to him (witness) on 07.03.2001 CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 59 of 221 and he marked the same to Addl. Director Investigations Sh. S.M. Bhatnagar.
In his crossexamination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused, the witness has admitted that the receipt of the communication by fact was a routine in their office.
15. Sh. V. Venkatesa PW24 Sh. V. Venkatesa has deposed on the following Kumar (PW24) aspects:
Witness relevant 1. That in the year 200001 he was posted as qua the accused C. Warehouse Asstt. GradeII in CWC Sahrvan Kumar Royapuram, Chennai.
2. That vide shipping bills number 284047, 283947, 283998, 283986, 283902, 283936, 283886, 283915, 284022, 284032 and 283968 they had received cargo from M/s Trinity Forwarders (Madras) and on the back of each bills he had put his office stamp giving the number of admitted packages in the mentioned godown number on 17.3.2001.
3. That the said shipping bills are Ex.PW13/C1 to Ex.PW13/C11 which bear his signatures at point A on each exhibit.
4. That entries in respect to these cargo packages were made in the carting register, copy of which is Ex.PW13/A and is issued under the signatures of Sh. G. Franklin Karunakaran which signatures the witness has correctly identifies at point B.
5. That the letter dated 10.7.2001 Ex.PW24/A is written by Sh. Karunakaran which bears his signatures at point C.
6. That total number of 3925 cartons of ready made garments pertaining to M/s A. K. Enterprises as mentioned in Ex.PW13/A and letter Ex.PW24/A were received.
This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused persons despite an opportunity in this regard.
16. Ms. Sarita Toora PW28 Ms. Sarita Toora is the Chief Supervisor who (PW28) Official deposed on the following aspects:
Witness 1. That she was working as Chief Supervisor, Reception Organization (MHA) in the year CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 60 of 221 1997 which deals with all reception offices in various Central Government offices except Railways and Defence.
2. That there were 45 reception offices in North Block and Gate No.2 reception office of North Block used to deal exclusively with Finance for the last many years.
3. That Gate No.4 reception office used to deal with MHA, DoPT.
4. That Gate No.9 reception office used to deal with the entire North Block.
5. That Two Reception Officers used to be posted to control a particular reception office on one gate.
6. That Visitor Register used to be maintained at each reception office.
7. That every visitor coming to North Block who intended to visit/meet any officer of Ministry of Finance was required to approach a Reception Officer at Gate No.2 or Gate No.9 of the North Block.
8. That every visitor was required to tell as to the name of the officer to whom he/she wanted to visit and whether he/she had earlier appointment with that officer.
9. That every visitor was required to make entry in the visitor register if he/she was to meet the officer concerned.
10. That in Entry Register the particulars of the visitor, like his/her name, his/her address and the name of the officer concerned with whom he/she wanted to visit, his/her purpose of visit, time and signatures were made.
11. That after putting such entries and signing in the Entry Register, that visitor used to be given an Entry Pass by the Reception Officer.
12. That it is a common practice and procedure that the visiting person will hand over that Entry Pass to the officer concerned he/she had visited, or would return it at the reception office from where he/she receives it or may drop the same in a box meant for the same purpose.
13. That all pages in the Visitor Register were serially numbered and visitor's pass number CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 61 of 221 was also mentioned in Column No.7 of the Register.
14. That the witness has seen the Reception Register which is Ex.PW28/A which is of Gate No.2(MHA).
15. That the number of Register is 140/2001/RO which was maintained at Gate No.2, Reception Office, North Block.
16. That the Entry at Page No.79 at Sl.No.182 is in the name of Vijay Pratap, R/o 403/6, 2nd Avenue, Anna Nagar, Madras40.
17. That he (Vijay Pratap) visited Sh. B.P. Verma, Chairman, CVEC on 21.03.2001 at 16:50 hours on Gate Pass bearing No. 045856.
18. That the said entry was not made in her (Ms. Sarita Toora) presence.
19. That she could not tell as to who signed at red encircled portion MarkedA on Page No.79 in Reception Register Ex.PW28/A.
20. That she could not identify the writing of Sh.
Vijay Pratap as the said entry was not made in her presence.
21. That she has checked up the record of the reception office and come to know that Sh. H.S. Sehrawat was on duty as Reception Officer at Gate No.2 on 21.03.2001 at North Block.
22. That the Original File of MHA in which posting of Reception Officers on various gates of North Block are maintained is File No.4/1/01RO.
23. That the person who had signed at portion encircled MarkedA on Page No.79 in Reception Register Ex.PW28/A was Sh. H.S. Sehrawat who was posted at the Reception of Gate No.2 and was working under her and seen him signing and writing.
In her crossexamination, by the Ld. Counsel for the accused Siddharth Verma, Vijay Pratap and Rajiv Sharma, the witness has deposed on the following aspects:
That she has been able to identify the signatures of Mr. H.S. Sehrawat on the basis CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 62 of 221 of transfer/ posting orders and hence she can state that he (Vijay Pratap) was on duty on 21.03.2001.
That she cannot identify the signature of Mr. Sehrawat because he had not affixed his stamp below his signatures.
That she could identify his signature only on the basis of office order dated 11.04.2001 wherein the name of Mr. Sehrawat is mentioned at Sl.No.50, the copy of the said order is MarkA.
17. Sh. Umesh PW29 Sh. Umesh Chander Sharma was the Chander Sharma Reception Officer who deposed on the following (PW29) Witness aspects:
relevant qua the That he had joined Reception Organization accused B.P. under MHA in May, 1996 and joined North Verma and K. Block in 2001 and was working as Reception Vijay Pratap (both Officer till 2002. deceased) That he was managing Reception Office at Gate No.2 since the posting of Reception Officer on a particular gate is about one year and at that time one another Reception Officer was also posted at Gate No.2.
That the visitors to the Ministry of Finance and its Departments, namely, Department of Economic Affairs, Department of Expenditure and Department of Revenue, used to visit through Gate No.2.
That the visitor used to disclose the name of the officer concerned with whom he/she wanted to meet and, thereafter, it was confirmed from the staff of the officer concerned to be visited.
That the visitors to Central Board of Excise and Customs and Central Board of Direct Taxes used to go through North Block. That the Visitors Register No.141/2001/RO which is Ex.PW29/A is for the period from 19.01.2001 to 03.04.2001.
That at Page No.96 of Visitors Register, the entries No.136 and 137 in the names of Mr. Vijay Pratap and K. Dhanpal who visited Sh. B.P. Verma, Chairman, CBEC on 02.03.2001 at 17:00 hours are made with their respective CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 63 of 221 signatures in relevant columns.
That the bottom of Page No.96 of Register Ex.PW29/A, bear the stamp of name and designation of witness as Reception Officer, Ministry of Home Affairs with his signatures at PointA. That the Entries No.136 and No.137 which are Ex.PW29/B which were made in her presence. That the Entry Pass No.048 1818 was issued to Sh. Vijay Pratap and Entry Pass No.048 1819 was issued to Sh. Dhanpal and they both were allowed to meet Mr. B.P. Verma after confirmation from P.S. to Chairman, CBEC Sh. B.P. Verma.
In his crossexamination, by the Ld. Counsel for the accused Siddharth Verma, K.Vijay Pratap and Rajiv Sharma, the witness has deposed on the following aspects:
That the duty hours of the witness at the time of his working as Reception Officer used to be from 09:00 a.m. to 05:30 p.m. That there is a Column in the Visitors Register Ex.PW29/A under the heading "Name & Designation of the Officer to be visited". That entry No. 135 in the column, the name and designation of the officer who was intended to be visited by the visitor is mentioned.
That at entry no. 136 & 137 the name and designation of the officer sought be visited is mentioned as 'PS to Mr. B.P. Verma' and not as 'Mr. B.P. Verma'.
That during his duty hours hundreds of visitors come and go back and he is never in a position to recollect the identity and handwriting of the people who visit the officers in the Ministry.
That as per rules, the visitor is to obtain signatures of the officer whom he intends to visit, on the visitors pass and deposit it back with them upon his return.
That he cannot admit or deny as to whether the visitors pass was deposited back with him CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 64 of 221 with regard to the visitors mentioned at entry No. 136 & 137 (Ex.PW29/B).
That he has no knowledge as to whether the visitors pass pertaining to Ex.PW29/B is available on record.
That he cannot identify the handwriting of the visitors who are mentioned in Ex.PW29/B. That he cannot say it with certainty as to whether the visitors actually met the officer mentioned in the above entries or not.
18. Sh. Ashwani PW46 Sh. Ashwani Khanna is the Vice President of Khanna (PW46) - Delhi International Airport who has deposed on the Official Witness following aspects:
1. That he was working as Airport Manager, Jet Airways, Delhi from 2001 to 2005.
2. That Passenger Manifest in respect of Flight No. 9W 822 of 23.03.2001 from Chennai to Delhi was furnished to CBI with copy of revenue sheet and load sheet.
3. That the revenue sheet received from Chennai is Ex.PW46/1; Load Sheet is Ex.PW46/2 and the Passenger Manifest in four sheets are Ex.PW46/3.
4. That on checking the passenger manifest, it was found that name of Ramani appears at Serial No. 26 at check in and somebody with the name of Ramani travelled on the flight from Chennai to Delhi on 23.03.2001.
5. That he cannot say about the identity of that Ramani since there was no mandatory identification check at that time.
6. That the manifest shows that there is no other person who may have travelled in the said flight which took off from Chennai at around 7'O Clock and landed at Delhi Airport at about 9:40 AM.
7. That the message confirmation Ex.PW46/A bears the signatures of the then Secretary Ms. Manpreet Bhatia.
In his crossexamination by the ld. Counsel for the accused, the witness has deposed that as Manager, he had not personally generated the document and someone in the office may have done it but he cannot tell as to who did it.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 65 of 221
19. Sh. Veeraraghvan PW48 Sh. Veeraraghvan was the Manager Incharge (PW48) - Official of EDI Service Center, Custom House, Chennai who witness has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That in July 20002001 he was working as Manager Incharge of EDI Service Centre, Custom House, Chennai where he work from 1998 to 2003.
2. That the checklist Ex.PW30F (D4) for shipping bill No. 1283986 for job No. 287286 and also shipping bill No. 1283915 for job No. 287111 which are Ex.PW48/A and Ex.PW48/B were submitted by CHA M/s.
Trinity Forwarders, Chennai on account of M/s. A.K. Enterprises.
3. That he is unable to identify the signatures of data entry operator on these documents.
In his crossexamination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused, the witness has deposed as under:
That the above documents have not been scribed by him.
That he personally was not connected with feeding of data regarding the air freight bills, invoices and other related documents. That all the documents mentioned above are the photocopies and not the originals.
20. Sh. P. M. PW50 Sh. P.M. Muralidharen is the Principle Muralidharen Private Secretary, Home Ministry who has deposed (PW50) - Official on the following aspects:
Witness 1. That Sh. Kamal Pandey was the secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, during the year 2000.
2. That he (witness) was working as private secretary in the Home Ministry and attached as such with Sh. Kamal Pandey and hence is in a position to identify the handwriting and signatures of Sh. Kamal Pandey.
3. That the order no. 14/3/97CBI dated 15.11.2000 (D59/1) which is signed by Sh.
Kamal Pandey at point A is Mark PW50/A and the signatures of Sh. Kamal Pandey are Ex.PW50/A, which signatures the witness has duly identified.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 66 of 221
4. That the another order dated 15.11.2000 which is marked as PW50/B bears the signatures of Sh. Kamal Pandey at Ex.PW50/B, which signatures the witness has duly identified.
5. That the order dated 8.2.2001 which is marked as PW50/C bears the signatures of Sh. Kamal Pandey at Ex.PW50/C, which signatures the witness has duly identified.
This witness has not been cross examined by the Ld. Counsels for the accused despite being granted an opportunity in this regard.
21. Sh. S. PW56 Sh. S. Subramanian was the Deputy Manager Subramanian (Finance) in Indian Airlines, Chennai who has (PW56) Witness deposed on the following aspects:
relevant qua the 1. That during the period from 2000014 to accused K. Vijay 2003, he remained posted as Dy. Manager Pratap (now (Finance) in Indian Airlines, Chennai. deceased) 2. That the passenger manifest of IC440 dated 21.03.2001 which is Mark PW56/A was maintained in his section and dealt with by him.
3. That at Sl. No. 33 encircled with red at point X in Mark PW56/A shows that one Sh. Vijay Pratap had travelled by the said flight IC 440 on 21.03.2001 and his seat no, was 5A, without any registered baggage but he cannot tell the class in which he travelled,.
4. That the time of departure of the flight from Chennai to Delhi is not mentioned in the manifest but generally it takes off at about 6.00 am from Chennai.
5. That normally the flight takes about 2 hours and 40 minutes from Chennai to New Delhi.
6. That the manifest was handed over to Sh. A.P. Singh Superintendent of Police, CBI/ACB, Bangalore vide his letter dated 07.02.2002 which is Ex.PW56/A bearing his signatures at point A. In his cross examination by the Ld. Counsels for the accused the witness has deposed on the following aspects:
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 67 of 221 That his statement with regard to travelling of Vijay Pratap as stated by him, is based on the statement Mark PW56/A. That his statement was recorded by CBI during investigation.
That he does not remember whether he had exactly stated before the CBI that one Vijay Pratap had travelled by the flight IC440 on 21.03.2001.
That the attention of the witness was invited to his statement Ex.PW56/DA, wherein the name of the person is written as 'Vijay P' and the date is mentioned as '21.03.2002. However, the Special PP explained that there appears to be a typing error in the year.
That Mark PW56/A is a computer printout. That he had read Ex.PW56/A before signing the same but he did not raise any objection to the year mentioned as 2002, which may be due to oversight.
That he had not given any details including the schedule of flights, besides Mark PW56/A to CBI.
22. Sh. V. Udaiyar PW57 Sh. V. Udaiyar is the Deputy Commissioner of (PW57) Witness Customs who has deposed on the following aspects:
relevant qua the 1. That in June 2001, he was posted as Dy.
accused C. Commissioner of Customs, Customs House,
Sharvan Kumar Chennai.
2. That he had taken charge from T.H. Rao the then Assistant Commissioner.
3. That at that time, Mr. Rao was the incharge of Special Intelligence Investigation Branch (SIIB).
4. That he is not aware anything about the seizure of export goods of M/s. A.K. Enterprises at CWC, Royapuram during March 2001 nor does he aware whether any investigation was going on as it was prior to his joining when the team was working on it.
5. That vide letter dated 12.01.2002 (D62) which is Ex.PW57/A bearing his signatures at point A, he had sent photocopies of 46 shipping bills and packing list drawback declaration and SDF thereof to CBI.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 68 of 221
6. That he had also handed over photocopies of correspondence which customs department had directed the Revenue Intelligence with regard to consignment of M/s. A.K. Enterprises and had informed the CBI that the issue had also been taken up with Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. TNagar Branch, Chennai requesting them to intimate the custom department about the realization of sale proceeds received from the foreign buyers.
7. That the bankers had not replied by the time he had written letter Ex.PW57/A to CBI.
8. That vide his letter dated 12.06.2002 (D73) which is Ex.PW57/B, he had forwarded a copy of show cause notice dated 08.03.2002 issued to M/s. A.K. Enterprises by the customs department but no reply from the parties to whom the show cause notice were issued, had been received.
9. That the attested photocopies of two notices are Ex.PW57/C (running into 31 pages) & PW57/D (running into seven pages).
10. That all the pages bears the signatures of his subordinate officer Mr. John Elango and also the seal of the Appraiser of the Customs House.
11. That all these documents pertain to M/s. A.K. Enterprises and investigation conducted by the customs department with regard to the export of garments being illegally done, when the cargo was seized.
12. That vide letter dated 17.01.02 (D72) which is Ex.PW57/E bearing his signatures at point A, he had handed over the document mentioned in the said letter to CBI.
13. That the enclosures to the letter are Ex.PW57/E1 to Ex.PW57/E5 which are copies attested by his another subordinate officer whose signature he cannot identify now but all the pages bear the seal of the Appraiser Customs Madras.
In his cross examination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused C. Sharvan Kumar, the witness has deposed on the following aspects:
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 69 of 221 That he has no personal information with regard to the investigation conducted by the customs department against M/s. A.K. Enterprises.
That he cannot tell if the parties had replied to the show cause notices dated 08.03.2002 after he sent letter dated 12.06.2002 Ex.PW57/B, to the CBI.
That CBI had recorded his statement during investigation in the present case. That he had not stated to the CBI in his statement that all the aforesaid documents pertain to M/s. A.K. Enterprise and investigation conducted by the customs department with regard to the export of garments being illegally done, when the cargo was seized.
23. Sh. S. Janki PW58 S. Janki Raman was the Senior Intelligence Raman (PW58) Officer in the Directorate General of Central Excise Witness qua the Intelligence who has deposed on the following procedural aspects aspects:
1. That from October 1999 to 2005, he was posted as Sr. Intelligence Officer in the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, South Zonal Unit, Chennai.
2. That they had gathered informed about large scale evasion of central excise duty indulging by certain detergent manufacturers including M/s. Gold Soap Company, Kodai Road and M/s. Narmada Chemical Industries.
3. That in pursuance thereof, simultaneous search operations were conducted during 13/14.11.2000 leading to seizure of several incriminating documents considered relevant to the proceedings.
4. That the case against M/s. Gold Soap Company was fully investigated by team of officer of Zonal Unit at Madras as well as Regional office at Madurai.
5. That they have conducted enquiries with principal raw material suppliers namely Tamilnadu Petro Product Ltd. In respect of Linear Alkyl Benzene (LAB), Tuticorin Alkalies Chemicals (TAC), GHCL, Tata CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 70 of 221 Chemical in respect of Soda Ash supply.
6. That there was evasion of about Rs. 2 Crores of excise duty by M/s. Gold Soap company.
7. That when the investigations were in progress, there was a complaint made to the Chairman alleging harassment by the investigating officers.
8. That in this the zonal unit was in receipt of a copy of said complaint forwarded from the Head Quarters of DGCEI at New Delhi seeking comments from the Additional Director General Sh. Sunder Raman, who in turn marked to Mr. Suresh Additional Director of DGCEI Chennai.
9. That he himself and his team of officers at the relevant point of time were reporting to Sh.
A.P. Davis Dy. Director of DGCEI, South Zone Unit, Chennai regarding progress of a case.
10. That accordingly a reply about the status of case was made to the Head Quarters of DGCEI at New Delhi by the Additional Director General Mr. Sunder Raman DGCEI Chennai.
11. That the reference from the Head Quarters of DGCEI was sent by Mr. Bhatnagar which was addressed to Mr. Sunder Raman ADG Chennai.
12. That a reply was sent by him in this regard.
13. That in the year 2001 a representation from Gold Soap Co. and Narmada Chemical Industries was sent from Head Quarters.
14. That he does not remember who had signed the said representation.
15. That the letter of Dhanapal was addressed to the then Chairman of CBEC.
16. That at that time of Sh. B.P. Verma was the Chairman, who has already died.
17. That sometime in the early part of 2002, he was called by Sh. A.P. Singh of CBI at Bangalore.
18. That he went there and handed over the copies of the necessary and relevant document of the excise case.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 71 of 221
19. That he had also mentioned about the stage of investigation in the matter of evasion of excise duty by M/s. Gold Soap Co. and M/s.
Narmada Chemicals.
20. That copies of relevant correspondence was also handed over.
21. That Sh. Virendra Singh was their Director General at that time.
22. That CBI had recorded his statement during investigation.
This witness has not been cross examined by the Ld. Counsels for the accused despite an opportunity in this regard.
24. Sh. K. Shankar PW59 Sh. K. Shankar was the Date Entry Operator (PW59) Witness who has deposed on the following aspects:
qua the procedural 1. That in 2001, he was working in Custom aspects House, Chennai.
2. That he was working as Data Entry Operator at EDI Service Centre.
3. That as data entry operator, his duties were to enter data in the system on the basis of various documents like invoice, packing list, bill etc. received from Custom House Agent on which the system automatically used to generate check list containing necessary data/ information therein.
4. That in the check list, there used to be entry list with regard to the name of the exporter, importer, quantity of export consignment, value of consignment and amount etc. and also included destination to which the consignment had to be sent.
5. That thereafter, the check list along with all the documents were used to given to the Custom House Agents (CHA) for verification and certification to see that the data incorporated in the check list were as per the document submitted by him.
6. That after verification/ certification the complete papers were presented by the CHA at the submission counter.
7. That the staff at submission centre used to verify the document and enter the same into the system with job number.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 72 of 221
8. That the system used to generate shipping bill number for the particular consignment under the said set of papers.
9. That the job No. 287113 dated 17.03.2001 which is Ex.PW59/A and also shipping bill No. 1283947 dated 17.03.2001 which is Ex.PW30/B were prepared by him.
10. That the check list was prepared on the basis of relevant documents received from Custom House Agent of M/s. Trinity forwarders, Chennai, on account of M/s. A.K. Enterprises.
11. That code number is fed in the system, but it is not mentioned in Ex.PW30/B or Ex.PW59/A. This witness has not been cross examined by the Ld. Counsels for the accused despite an opportunity in this regard.
25. Sh. Sandeep PW60 Sh. Sandeep Srivastava was the Deputy Srivastava (PW60) Director in the office of Directorate General of Witness relevant Central Excise Intelligence who has deposed on the qua the accused C. following aspects:
Sharvan Kumar 1. That on 08.04.2002, he was posted as Dy.
Director in the office of Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, R.K. Puram, New Delhi.
2. That on that day, a CBI officer of inspector rank came to the office of Directorate General with two documents mentioned in receipt memo Ex.PW60/A (D71), which bears his signatures at point A and the documents were seized vide this memo.
This witness has not been cross examined by the Ld. Counsels for the accused despite an opportunity in this regard.
26. Sh. L. Arul PW61 Sh. L. Arul Prakash was the Assistant Prakash (PW61) Executive Engineer (Vigilance), Secretary's Witness relevant Department, Chennai Port Trust and has deposed on qua the accused K. the following aspects:
Vijay Pratap (now 1. That on 31.03.2001 he had joined a CBI team deceased) and had gone to Anna Nagar, Manasa Apartments, Chennai40.
2. That he does not recollect whether the flat searched by the CBI team was on the first CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 73 of 221 floor or the second floor, but it was the flat of Vijay Pratap.
3. That the flat of Vijay Pratap was searched and at that time Vijay Pratap was not there but his mother was present and after seizing the articles mentioned in search list Ex.PW61/A (D41) the same was read over to him (witness) and he put his signatures on the same.
4. That the documents mentioned in the seizure memo were taken by the CBI team.
In his crossexamination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused, the witness has deposed on the following aspects:
That they searched the flat at Manasa Apartments at about 8:00 AM.
That the CBI officials have told him that the lady present in the said flat was the mother of Vijay Pratap.
27. Sh. K. Shankar PW64 Sh. K. Shankar was the Data Entry Operator (PW64) - official in EDI Service Center, Custom House, Chennai who witness has proved the check list for Duty Drawback SP dated 17.03.2001 which is Ex.PW30/A but he cannot tell who had entered the data. According to him, there is an operator code is allotted to each operator but he does not remember his code number.
Since the witness was resiling from his previous statement, therefore the witness was crossexamined by the Ld. Spl. PP for CBI wherein the witness has deposed as under:
1. That his statement was recorded by the CBI on 10.07.2001 wherein he had stated that the checklist Ex.PW30/A was prepared by him on the basis of document submitted by the Custom House Agents M/s. Trinity Forwarder, Chennai on account of M/s. A.K. Enterprises.
2. That at the relevant time he was having operator code No. EXP16 and he had entered the said code in the system to generate the check list.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 74 of 221 This witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused despite having been granted an opportunity in this regard.
28. Sh. Vasa PW65 Sh. Vasa Sehagiri Rao is the Commissioner of Seshagiri Rao Customs who has deposed on the following aspects:
(PW65) Official 1. That he was working as joint commissioner of Witness from Customs, Incharge of Special Investigation & Special Intelligence Branch (SIIB) Section, among Investigation & other sections of the Custom House, Channai, Intelligence during the period, year 2000 to 2001.
Branch 2. That the main function of SIIB is to detect cases of under valuation or over valuation on exports or imports and also to monitor implementation of various prohibitions imposed under the Customs Act and under various Allied Acts, in relation to exports and imports.
3. That SIIB section consists of Appraising officers, Examining Officers, Preventive Officers and Superintendent of Customs, their work being supervised by any Asstt. Commissioner and Dy. Commissioner of Customs.
4. That the SIIB consisting of the aforesaid officers, collects intelligence, intercepts the consignments and carry out further investigations, into the contravention of the Custom Law, in order to protect government revenue.
5. That as Joint Commissioner of SIIB, his main function will be for proper deployment of the officers and monitoring the pendency of investigations and also to provide all administrative support.
6. That various officers in the department have been given the powers of adjudication, which is depending upon the rank of the officer, who has been assigned this function.
7. That at the relevant time the Joint Commissioner, SIIB, was empowered to adjudicate cases, where the value involved is not exceeding Rs. 10 Lacs.
8. That the Asstt. Commissioner, SIIB, has informed him about the intelligence collected CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 75 of 221 by him relating to drawback fraud by over valuing the export consignment by one party, namely, A.K. Enterprises.
9. That consequent to receipt of this information, he has directed the Asstt. Commissioner and other officers, to keep a watch regarding filing of the shipping bills by this party and also for detailed of examination of the consignments pertaining to this party, as and when they brought the goods to any customs area, for the purpose of export.
10. That the Asstt. Commissioner, SIIB, told him that the party has filed the shipping bills on 17.03.2001, in the service centre of the customs house, by one clearing agent, namely, Trinity Forwarders.
11. That Asstt. Commissioner, SIIB, has been asked to keep a watch on the exports of this party including similar other for possible modus operandi of export of no commercial value goods to obtain illegal drawback.
12. That as SIIB was keeping a watch on the computer system, regarding logging of the goods for registration and examination, it has been brought to his notice that the exporter M/s. A.K. Enterprises has dispatched the goods to CWC, Royapuram, which is near to the Port, for the purpose of examination by the customs.
13. That it has to be appreciated that the violation of the Customs Act, takes place only when the goods have been brought to any customs area, for the purpose of export, contravening any of the provisions of the Customs Act and other Allied Acts and that is the reason the Officer of the SIIB, have been directed to keep a watch on the consignment of A.K. Enterprises, in the light of intelligence collected, till the goods have been brought to the customs area.
14. That he had ordered for the seizure of the goods, when the examining officers have brought to his notice that the export consignment was highly over valued and the goods declared as women's blouses of very very small size, not fit to be used and made CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 76 of 221 from old polyester/ rayon sarees.
15. That he has also directed to check the previous consignments of the same party and also seek whether there were any exports, effected in the past.
16. That then it came to his knowledge that the party also affected the previous consignments of similar goods, so the drawback amount sanctioned was frozen from payment.
This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused persons despite an opportunity in this regard.
29. Sh. R. Sellamuthu PW69 Sh. R. Sellamuthu was the Assistant (PW69) Custom Commissioner (Exports) of Customs, Chennai who Officer has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That during January, 2001, he was posted at Customs House, Chennai, as Assistant Commissioner (Exports) of customs.
2. That his nature of duties were that at the time of filing shipping bills by the exporters and when it used to come into his system, he used to pass the same to customs freight stations, where the shipping bills were processed, after examining the goods for shipment.
3. That when the shipping bills were filed in the system, on behalf of exporters clearing agents, it will come to appraiser group export, he will process and pass on to AC (Exports.).
4. That in turn, AC (Export) pass on the shipping bill to the CFS (DC docks), for examination of export.
5. That the letter dated 19.03.2001, which is Ex.PW21/X was from M/s. Trinity Forwarders for cancellation of ten shipping bills mentioned therein, on account of M/s. A.K. Enterprises, Chennai, all dated 17.03.2001.
6. That the said letter was processed by Dy.
Office Superintendent and was put up before him by them, vide noting Ex.PW21/W.
7. That vide this noting, cancellation of shipping bills and shutout of cargo was requested to be considered, which noting bears his signatures at point B. CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 77 of 221
8. That he had cancelled shipping bills and permitted shutout, vide his endorsement on Ex.PW21/X, at point X1 and his signatures at point B.
9. That the fax massage which is Ex.PW69/A of the buyer, who cancelled the purchase order, was also annexed with the letter Ex.PW21/X. The witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused persons despite an opportunity in this regard.
Official Witnesses from LeMeridian Hotel:
30. Sunil Kumar Syal PW4 Sunil Kumar Syal has deposed on the following (PW4) Witness aspects :
relevant qua the 1. That in March 2001, he was under training in accused K. Vijay Hotel LeMeridian, New Delhi and on Pratap (now 23.03.01, he was a duty from 3:00 PM to deceased) 12:00 midnight.
2. That at 8:30 pm he had gone to room no. 826 for room service where there was an order for coffee for two persons.
3. That then there was an order for cigarette in the same room and he served cigarette in that room and at time also, there were two persons.
4. That there was a complaint with regard to coffee served in the room and he again served coffee in the said room. The witness has pointed out towards accused Vijay Pratap present in Court, who was present in room no.
826 and when he served coffee and cigarette. After seeing the accused person present in court, the witness stated that another person besides Vijay Partap was present in the said room.
5. That when they serve in the room service, they get check signed from the customer for each items served.
6. That after seeing the check no. RA5030 and Check No. RA5036, the witness stated that these checks were got signed by him from the person whose name the room was booked. The witness identified accused K. Vijay Partap who signed the check.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 78 of 221
7. That his signatures were obtained on point A on these two documents Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B which are in file Ex.P1.
8. That later on he had identified the photograph of accused K. Vijay Pratap, who was in the room, when he visited.
9. That there were photographs of other persons, but he did not identify them.
This witness was crossexamined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused K. Vijay Partap (expired).
31. Col. A. K. Mago PW5 Retd. Col. A.K. Mago is the Security Officer of (Retd.) PW5 Hotel LeMeridien and has deposed on the following Witness relevant aspects:
qua the accused 1. That he has been working at the above said Rajeev Sharma post in above said hotel since June 1996 and and K. Vijay as Chief Security Officer, he supposed to Pratap (now supervise and maintain security as well vigil deceased) in the hotel, property and guests.
2. That vide letter dated 4.5.2001 addressed to Sh. A.P. Singh, DSP, CBI, he had forwarded the record of the hotel as detailed in the letter Ex.PW5/A, which is signed by him at point A.
3. That with this letter, he had forwarded the gist of room service with regard to room no. 826 between 21.3.01 and 24.3.01 which was based on the record of the hotel.
4. That this record Ex.PW5/B also bear his signatures at point A.
5. That as per the record, Sh. Vijay Partap Singh was staying in room no. 826.
6. That Sh. Sudhir Bali was working as Front Office Manager in the hotel who has now left the services of the hotel and gone abroad and his whereabouts are not known in the hotel.
7. That the letter Ex.PW5/C bears the signatures of Sh. Sudhir Bali, which he duly identified as he has seen him writing and signing during the course of official duty.
8. That the registration cards Ex.PW5/D to Ex.PW5/F are in the name of Sh. K. Vijay Partap Singh for the period 1.3.01 to 4.3.01, 6.3.01 to 7.3.01 and 21.3.01 to 23.3.01 and these cards bear the signatures of the guest CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 79 of 221 Vijay Partap Singh at portion A of each card.
9. That the computerized bills of the hotel for the above said period are Ex.PW5/G1 to Ex.PW5/G9 which documents are in file Ex.P2.
10. That he cannot say when in this case the guest was asked to pay any advance amount at the time of his entry at three occasions referred to above.
11. That they also provide facility to the guest incoming fax messages and for that purpose maintain incoming fax register, in which entries on the name of guests are maintained.
12. That CBI had shown him a photograph of a person whom he had identified as a familiar face. The witness has pointed out towards Rajiv Sharma, as the person, whose photograph he had seen and about which he had told the CBI that the face was familiar.
In his crossexamination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused Rajiv Sharma, the witness has deposed on the following aspects:
That he did not take part in test identification parade.
That the photograph shown to him by the CBI have not been shown to him on the date of his evidence.
That he had not identified Rajiv Kumar before any Magistrate.
32. Sh. Brian D'souza PW19 Brian D'souza is the Assistant Manager, (PW19) Witness Telephone Department of Hotel LeMeridian who has relevant qua the deposed on the following aspects:
accused K. Vijay 1. That since 1995 he is working as Assistant Pratap Manager, Telephone Department, Hotel Le Meridian
2. That in the hotel, facilities were provided in all hotel rooms to the guest to dial directly from the room telephone.
3. That the details of the calls like date, number called, duration and stopping / disconnecting time used to be recorded on the computer and the details used to go straightaway to the folio CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 80 of 221 of the guest.
4. That the guests were required to make the payment of the telephone bills with other bills at the time of final checkout.
5. That bills Ex.PW5/G1 to G9 (Ex.PW5/G1 to G4 are the computerized generated record) and the bills referred to him pertains to the room used by Sh. Vijay Pratap.
In his cross examination by the Ld. Counsels for accused persons, the witness has deposed on the following aspects:
That neither he himself prepared the bills referred to above nor he gave directions for preparation of bills.
That he has not brought to the court the record either from the computer bank of the hotel or the guest folio.
That whatever statement are made by him is on the basis of the bills seen by him and referred to above and he has no personal knowledge about the same.
That he does not remember as to which software was used to record the telephone calls at that time but it was for computer department.
That he has not personally supervised the computer bank or the guest folio to authenticate the call records.
33. Sh. Rajesh Sikka PW32 Sh. Rajesh Sikka is the Assistant Front Office (PW32) Witness Manager, Hotel Le Meridian who has deposed on the relevant qua the following aspects:
accused K. Vijay 1. That he is working in Hotel Le Meridian, New Pratap (now Delhi since 1994 and for the last 34 years deceased) (i.e. on the date of his depositions) he is working as Asstt. Front Office Manager.
2. That from the year 1997 to 2003, Sh. Sudhir Bali was Front Office Manager in the said hotel and since he had worked with Sh. Sudhir Bali, hence he can identify his signatures.
3. That after checkin of the guest, a registration card is filled in which the details of the guest such as name, address etc are recorded and CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 81 of 221 signed by the person who checkin.
4. That vide the registration card no. 192272 which is Ex.PW5/D Sh. Vijay Pratap checked in on 1.3.2001 at 21:05 hrs. and his departure is shown on 4.3.2001.
5. That the said card is signed by Sh. Ashwini Kuttan at Point G10 and his signatures are at point G11 while the signatures of guest appears at point A.
6. That vide second registration card no. 192686 Ex.PW5/E, Mr. Vijay Pratap checked in on 6.3.2001 at 22.00 hrs. and departure is shown on 7.3.2001 and this card is signed Ms. Bindia, Front Office Assistant (FOA) which bears his signatures at point G12 and the signatures of the guest at point A.
7. That vide third registration card no. 194086 Ex.PW5/F, Mr. Vijay Pratap checked in on 21.3.2001 at 10.15 hrs. and departure is shown on 23.3.2001 and this card is signed by him as FOA at point G13 and the signatures of the guest appears at point A.
8. That registration card Ex.PW5/D and Ex.PW5/E show that at these two occasions Mr. Vijay Pratap accompanied by another guest Sh. Dhanapal.
9. That in first two registration cards, Mr. Vijay Pratap had given his address as 403/6, 2 nd Avenue, Anna Nagar, Madra while in registration card Ex.PW5/E, the address given was 911,Walkeshwar Road, Bombay.
10. That three bills were prepared regarding three stays of mr. Vijay Pratap Singh which computer generated bills are Ex.PW5/G1 to Ex.PW5/9.
11. That the total bill for the first stay was Rs.24,604/ out of which Rs.10,000/ was received as advance.
12. That the second stay bill was for Rs.8,454.85p excess amount received as advance was refunded.
13. That the third stay bill was for amount of Rs.27,471.50p and after deducting advance of Rs.10,000/, Rs.17,471.50p was paid by the CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 82 of 221 guest.
14. That the letter Ex.PW5/C is signed by Sh.
Sudhir Bali the then FOA of the Hotel whose signatures he can identify having worked with him.
15. That during the first stay, Mr. Vijay Pratap and Sh. Dhanapal had stayed in Room no. 501; during second visit they stayed in room no. 527 and during third stay Mr. Vijay Pratap stayed in Room no. 826.
In his cross examination by the Ld. Counsel for the on behalf of the accused, the witness has deposed on the following aspects:
That whatever he has deposed, it is on the basis of the record placed before him and not on the basis of his personal knowledge and recollection.
That on examining Ex.PW5/D and Ex.PW5/F, he noticed correction as far as time is concerned and this is because a default time is prerecorded by the computer.
That the name of Mr. Dhanpal has been added by hand in two cards Ex.PW5/D and Ex.PW5/F because the room was initially booked for one person and when the second person come his name was mentioned by hand.
That in the year 2001 he was Front Office Executive handling the lobby.
That they obtain arrival and departure details of the guest in question and the same is recorded in the registration card. That on examining the registration cards, the address of Mr. Vijay Pratap given on first two registration cards Ex.PW5/D and Ex.PW5/F is different from Ex.PW5/F. That it is incorrect to suggest that the Ex.PW5/D, Ex.PW5/F and Ex.PW5/G1 to G9 were prepared subsequently and are not a correct reflection of guest registration of the days in question.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 83 of 221 Official Witnesses from Custom House Agent:
34. S. Krishnanandh PW7 S. Krishnanadh is the Custom House Agent and (PW7) Witness Proprietor of Trinity Forwarders, Madras licensed by relevant qua the Chennai Custom. He has deposed on the following accused C. Shavan aspects:
Kumar 1. That as a custom house agent his duties were to facilitate documentation pertaining to import and export producing import and export cargo Custom Officers for inspection and deliver the imported cargo to the importers, stuff the cargo into container and offload the export container in the harbor on board of vessel.
2. That after the ship leaves the port they release the bill of lading to the exporter as per instructions of the exporter.
3. That he knew Shiv Kumar for the last about 15 years who was the dealer in used cars Indian as well as imported.
4. That he was Director of Yellow Cabs India Pvt. Ltd., T. Nagar, Chennai.
5. That Sharvan Kumar was the MD of Yellow Cabs and was introduced to him by Shiv Kumar.
6. That Sh. Sharvan Kumar owned M/s. Champa fabrics and M/s. Sripal Garments, garment export companies at T Nagar, Chennai.
7. That Shiv Kumar told him if he could handle the garment export work of the companies of Sharvan Kumar.
8. That he has handled 4/5 shipments of Champa Fabrics and Sripal Garments in the year 20002001 and had handled all the documents with regard to the said shipments.
9. That after the stamped and signed documents are received, they file the documents with the service Centre in Custom House electronically which is called Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) for further processing the shipping bills.
10. That after assessment of shipping bills by EDI, the goods are taken to the warehouse where the goods are examined by the custom officials for clearance for export.
11. That in March, 2001, Shravan Kumar (whom the witness has identified in the Court) CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 84 of 221 informed him that there was a consignment of T Shirts of M/s A. K. Enterprises owned by his friend Kiran Kumar and if he can handle the said messenger.
12. That the documents of shipment were sent to him through a messenger and the documents were filed with the custom in the month of March 2001.
13. That the goods were to be exported to Montego bay Jamaica through Dubai after which it was the risk of consignee.
14. That the approximate value of the consignment was Rs. 6.5 Crore.
15. That simultaneously, he had handled another consignment of Sripal Garments and A.K. Enterprises and the documents were sent to his office through messenger.
16. That the consignment of A.K. Enterprises was supposed to contain 100% rayon ladies blouses whereas consignment of Sripal garments was supposed to contain 100% cotton blouses.
17. That they were 10 shipping bills in respect of the consignment of A.K. Enterprises and there was one shipping bill in respect of consignment of Sripal Garments.
18. That there were 2600 cartons covered by the shipping bill of M/s. A.K. Enterprises and 68 cartons covered by the shipping bill of Sripal Garments.
19. That the buyer in these two shipping were Dis N Dat and M/s. Legend, Jamaica and the cargo pertaining to the parties were dispatched to CWC by Sh. Sharvan Kumar.
20. That the offloading of the goods was completed at about 6:30 PM on 17.03.2001 and after the goods reached CWC Royapuram, his staff approached the Custom Officers with the Shipping bill number.
21. That the shipping bills were registered in the computer system at CWC Royapuram and the computer generated carton numbers to the presented for examination.
22. That only 60 cartons were to be inspected by the Custom Officer as per the numbers CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 85 of 221 generated by the computer and while the segregation was going on the officers informed his staff that it was too late on the Saturday evening and the light was too poor and they asked him to deregister the shipping bills and produce cargo for examination on Monday i.e. 19.03.2001.
23. That at about 7:00 PM when he reached CWC Royapuram, the labourers had segregated few of the 60 cartons and he found the cargo to be sub standard i.e. of inferior quality.
24. That he immediately called Sharvan Kumar who informed him that he will discuss the same with Sh. Kiran Kumar and get back to him and hence the cartons were closed and they left for the day on 17.03.2001.
25. That on 18.03.2001 he was informed by Sh.
Shravan Kumar that the order of consignment of A.K. Enterprises had been cancelled and that the consignment had to be Shut Out, on which he told S. Sharvan Kuamr that he cannot be done on oral instructions and written instructions are required to be communicated to the customs.
26. That there was no problem in the 60 carton of Sripal Garments but he informed Sh. Sharvan Kumar that he will have to pay freight for the full container as the container cannot go just for 68 containers.
27. That Sh. Sharvan Kumar informed him that orders have been cancelled for both the consignments and official letter would be communicated to his office on receipt of written information from the buyers.
28. That when he reached the office on Monday i.e. 19.03.2001, he found two faxes of concellation of orders of both M/s. A.K. Enterprises and M/s. Sripal Garments, after which he applied for cancelltion of shipping bills pertaining to both these companies and also sought permission for shut out.
29. That in this regard he had written covering letters in respect of these two companies with orders of cancellation to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Exports) who CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 86 of 221 accordingly cancelled the shipping bill pertaining to M/s. A.K. Enterprises and Sripal Garments and he asked him (witness) to obtain permission from Deputy Commissioner (Docks) for Shut Out.
30. That on 19.03.2001, Shut Out permission was accorded at about 4:30 PM and it was instructed that the cargo pertaining to the shipment was to be examined before the goods are permitted to be taken out of the Customs Area.
31. That the Shut Out permission and instruction for examination of goods were to be submitted for appraiser/ examiner at CWC Royapuram for taking delivery of the goods.
32. That goods were not released since intelligence department of customs was seized with the matter and were examining the goods and therefore, the examination work could not be conducted on that day.
33. That on 19.03.2001 he (witness) went to Bangalore and came back on 20.03.2001.
34. That Sharvan Kumar told him on 19 th and 20th that there was some problem with the consignment at Royapuram.
35. That when he returned from Bangalore, Sh. Sharvan Kumar contacted him and asked him to discuss the issue with him, pursuant to which a meeting was held in Hotel Heritage, Halls Road Egmore, Chennia at about 9:00 PM on 20.03.2001.
36. That Sh. Sharvan Kumar, Sh. Shiv Kumar, Sh. Vijay Pratap Singh and Sh. Suresh Kesavan were present there.
37. That in the meeting he was asked to explain the issue and as to what was the problem in customs and why the shipment could not be taken out of the custom area, on which he explained the whole issue to them.
38. That they were also told by him that the goods supposed to be exported were of poor quality and could not be exported and could not also be removed from the custom area without the permission of SIIB (Special Intelligence Investigation Branch, Customs).
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 87 of 221
39. That he was informed that accused Vijay Pratap had lot of contacts in Delhi and that is why he had been asked to explain the problem to Vijay Pratap.
40. That he visited the Customs House SIIB on 23.03.2001 where he met the Appraiser Sh. Shokender Kumar who recorded his statement under Section 108 of Customs Act.
41. That his statement was again recorded on 24.03.2001 and he was visiting SIIB daily till the end of March 2001.
42. That during the course of investigations, he met with Sh. Kiran Kumar the owner of M/s. A.K. Enterprises who is also the owner of M/s. Lalitha Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., T. Nagar, Chennai.
43. That the Appraiser Sh. Shokender Kumar had introduced him to Sh. Kiran Kumar and in the presence of Appraiser Sh. Shokender Kumar, Sh. Sharvan Kumar had denied having sent any documents to him or having anything to do with the shipment of M/s. A.K. Enterprises and nothing had transpired between Appraiser Shokender Kumar and Sharvan Kumar in his presence.
44. That his statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the Ld. MM, Chennai on 11.01.2002 which is Ex.PW7/A. Since the witness has been suppressing the truth with regard to the date of meeting at Chennai and the talks which had taken place between Sh. Shiv Kumar and Sh. Suresh about the accused B.P. Verma, therefore, the witness was crossexamined by the Ld. Special PP for CBI wherein the witness has deposed as under:
45. That he did not make any statement to the Inspector of CBI to the effect that he was in Bangalore on 20th and 21st March and returned to Chennai on 22nd late evening.
However, when confronted with portion A to A of the statement Ex.PW7/B the said fact was found so recorded.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 88 of 221
46. That in the meeting at Hotel Heritage, Chennai, Sh. Shiv Kumar and Sh. Suresh had not told that Sh. Vijay Pratap knew Sh. B.P. Verma, Chairman CBEC and he could try to speak to him to sort out the matter. However, when confronted with portion B to B of the statement Ex.PW7/B the said fact was found so recorded.
In his crossexamination by the Ld. Counsels for the accused, the witness has deposed on the following aspects:
That once the permission for shut out is given and the shipping bills are cancelled, the customs department cannot proceed further against the party in respect of the shipment for the purpose of export.
That since no shipping bills exist on the record, nothing remains with the custom authority.
That it is not the job of the CHA to inspect the goods and there are no proceedings pending against him or Shiv Kuamr with regard to any matter dealing with the customs clearance or otherwise.
That Sh. Shiv Kumar told him that Sh. Sharvan Kumar is the MD of M/s. Yellow Cabs but he did not try to verify this fact.
That according to document D18 four lorries of cargo had come to CWC Royapuram but this document does not concern him. That for every exporter there is an Import Export Code issued by the Director General, Foreign Trade.
That the Form Annexure - B for claiming draw back in duty contains the account number of the concerned exporter and the duty drawback is always remitted into the exporter's account.
That cargo of A.K. Enterprises and Sripal Garments had to be shipped together as a consolidated cargo to be stuffed in one container and therefore, if the cargo of A.K. Enterprises was not exported the cargo of CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 89 of 221 Sripal Garments could have been exported provided the complete freight of the container was borne by Sripal Garments as he was informed that the order was cancelled, the cargo of Sripal Garments was also Shut Out. That he does not remember if the goods of Sripal Garments were confirming to the declaration.
That no action was taken against Sripal Garments by the Custom Authority. That the offending cargo is of A.K. Enterprises and Sharvan Kumar had no connection with A.K. Enterprises.
That the consignment of A.K. Enterprises was handled by him only at the instance of Sharvan Kumar.
That he had never met Kiran Kumar and had never talked to him about the consignment.
35. Sh. D. Santhana PW30 Sh. D. Santhana Kumar was the Clearing Kumar (PW30) Clerk with M/s. Trinity Forwarders who has deposed Witness relevant on the following aspects:
qua the accused C. 1. That he was working as Clearing Clerk with Sahrvan Kumar M/s Trinity Forwarders since 1999 and his duties were to look after the customs clearance on behalf of the company.
2. That the shipping bill no. 1283947 which is Ex.PW30/A bears his signatures at point A.
3. That the Annexure C which is Ex.PW30/B bears the signatures of Sh. Surendran and he had worked with Sh. Surendran for about 10 years.
4. That he also identified the signatures of Sh.
Krishnaanand who was the authorized signatory of M/s Trinity Forwarders (Madras) on annexure which is Ex.PW30/C (Ex.PW30/A to Ex.PW30/C are contained in document D2).
5. That the shipping bill no. 1283998 (check list) bears his signatures at point A and the cheque is Ex.PW30/D.
6. That on annexure C to this check list, (D3) the witness identified the signatures of Sh. Surendran at point B and the signatures of Sh. Krishnanand at point C in Ex.PW30/E. CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 90 of 221
7. That he is not aware as to who had signed the declaration on check list of bill no. 1283986 dated 17.3.2001 however he identifies the signatures of Sh. Surendran at point A on Ex.PW30/F (D4).
8. That on the same document at portion marked Ex.PW30/G, the witness identified the signatures of Sh. Krishnanand at point B.
9. That the check list for bill no. 1283902 dated 17.3.2001 Ex.PW30/H bears his signatures at point A and on annexure C Ex.PW30/J which is in respect of shipping bill no. 1283902 bear the signatures of Sh. Surendran at point B (D
5) and in annexure B in respect of shipping bill no. 1283902 dated 11.03.2001, he has identified the signatures of Sh. Krishnanadh at point A on Ex.PW30/K.
10. That the check list in respect of bill no. 1283936 is Ex.PW30/L bears the signatures at point A and the signatures of Sh. Surendran and Sh. Krishnanandh at points B and C respectively.
11. That the check list in respect of the shipping bill no. 1283886 dated 17.3.2001 is Ex.PW30/M which bears his signatures at point A and the signatures of Sh. Surendran and Sh. Krishnanandh at points B and C respectively.
12. That the check list in respect of the shipping bill no. 1283915 is Ex.PW30/N which bears his signatures at point A and the signatures of Sh. Surendran and Sh. Krishnanandh at points B and C respectively.
13. That the check list in respect of the shipping bill no. 1284022 is Ex.PW30/O which bears his signatures at point A and the signatures of Sh. Surendran and Sh. Krishnanandh at points B and C respectively.
14. That the check list in respect of the shipping bill no. 1284032 dated 17.3.2001 is Ex.PW30/P which bears his signatures at point A and the signatures of Sh. Surendran and Sh. Krishnanandh at points B and C respectively.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 91 of 221
15. That the check list in respect of the shipping bill no. 1283968 is Ex.PW30/Q which bears his signatures at point A and the signatures of Sh. Surendran and Sh. Krishnanandh at points B and C respectively.
16. That the check list in respect of the shipping bill no. 1284047 dated 17.3.2001 is Ex.PW30/R which bears his signatures at point A and the signatures of Sh. Surendran and Sh. Krishnanandh at points B and C respectively.
In his cross examination on behalf of the accused, the witness has deposed that he is still working with M/s Trinity Forwarders and Sh. Krishnanandh was his boss.
36. Sh. M. Umapathy PW53 Sh. M. Umapathy is the clerk in Trinity (PW53) - Official Forwarders who has deposed on the following aspect:
Witness relating to 1. That he is working as a clerk in Trinity procedure of Forwarders.
Cargo Declaration 2. That vide Cargo Declaration and Acknowledgment Slip (D28) which is Ex.PW13/10, 3925 units were received at warehouse, Royapuram.
3. That since the cargo was packed, hence he cannot say as to what the same contained.
4. That he also cannot say from where this cargo was received.
5. That the cargo declaration Ex.PW13/10 was also countersigned by the Shed Incharge, but he cannot identify his signatures since long time has passed.
Since the witness was resiling from his previous statement, therefore he was crossexamined by the Ld. Spl. PP for CBI wherein the witness has deposed as under:
1. That he does not remember whether his statement was recorded by the CBI in this case or not since long time has passed.
2. That he cannot admit or deny if his statement was recorded on 10.07.2001.
3. That he had not stated to CBI that as clearing clerk his duties were to put up CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 92 of 221 documents to customs examiner/ appraiser, produce cargo for physical examination to the customs officers and supervise stuffing of cargo into the container at the container freight station. When confronted with his statement Ex.PW53/A the said aspect was found so recorded at portion B to B.
4. That he had not stated to CBI that as per pay slip dated 17.03.2001 of CWC, Royapuram pertaining to receipt of 3925 cartons of garments of M/s. A.K. Enterprises, Chennai were received. When confronted with his statement Ex.PW53/A the said aspect was found so recorded at portion C to C.
5. That after seeing the document Ex.PW13/10, the witness states that portions marked as X and X1 were not written when he had put his signatures on point A and B.
6. That at the time of signing the documents, he had neither gone through nor understood the contents thereof and simply signed it.
7. That the cargo was received in the godown of CWC, Royapuram and he had simply signed while receiving the cargo.
8. That the cargo had reached CWC in trucks but he is not aware as to who were the drivers of trucks who had brought the above cargo.
9. That he cannot say whether in document Ex.PW13/10 registration number of the trucks which had brought the cargo to the warehouse are written in encircled portion marked X2.
37. Sh. E. Surenderan PW66 Sh. E. Surenderan was the Manager of M/s.
(PW66) Witness Trinity Forwarders, Chennai who has deposed on the relevant qua the following aspects: accused C. 1. That he was working in M/s. Trinity Sharvan Kumar Forwarders, Chennai, in the year 1993, as Manager, for the last about 78 years.
2. That the nature of business of M/s. Trinity Forwarders was clearing and forwarding of consignments before customs authorities, on behalf of clients.
3. That he was looking after the business of the firm as Manager.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 93 of 221
4. That Sh. S. Krishnanand was proprietor of this firm.
5. That Sh. Santhana Kumar was working as assistant for the purpose of filing up consignment paper and other works.
6. That in 2001, he was working with M/s. Trinity Forwarders, 24 Murthy Lane, Chennai.
7. That he was having no concern or business dealing with M/s. A.K. Enterprises.
Since the witness was rersiling from his previous statement, hence he was crossexamined by the Ld. Spl. PP for CBI wherein the witness has deposed on the following aspects
1. That CBI officials had made inquiries from him and his statement was also recorded on 11.05.2001.
2. That he had stated to the CBI officials that on 05.03.2001, someone had directly handed over documents, like invoices, packing lists, GR declaration and Export declaration in respect of export of ready made garments, 100% cotton Knitted TShirts of M/s. A.K. Enterprises, No. 4/A, CRV Apartments, Raghvaiah Road, T. Nagar, Chennai17, to Sh. Krishnanand, Proprietor of the firm.
3. That he had stated to the CBI officials that these documents were given to him by Sh. Krishnanand and in turn, he handed over the same to his assistant Sh. D. Santhan Kumar, to file the Shipping bills and documents at service centre, Custom House, Chennai.
4. That he had stated to the CBI officials that Sh.
Santhan Kumar filled up all the EDI annexures and filed all the documents with the service centre of custom house, Chennai, on 05.03.2001.
5. That he had stated to the CBI officials that these 35 shipping bills pertain to export of 100% cotton Knitted Tshirts in 2569 cartons.
6. That he had stated to the CBI officials that the export consignment was meant for destination Montego Bay, Jamaica, and the consignee was M/s. Danny's Bargain Centre, 53, Barnett CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 94 of 221 street, Montego Bay, Jamaica and M/s. Sunlover Agency Ltd., Montego Bay, Jamaica.
7. That he does not remember whether the CBI officials had shown to him the 35 shipping bills, related declaration forms, invoices and packing lists.
8. That he had stated to the CBI officials that AnnexureB & AnnexureC, were filled in by Sh. Santhan Kumar and signed by Sh. S. Krishnanand/manager of export firm and Appendix3 and Appendix4, had been filled in by Sh. Santhan Kumar and signed by the manager of the exporting firm and all such enclosures to 35 shipping bills had been duly filled in by Sh. Santhan Kumar and signed by Sh. Krishnanand.
9. That he had stated to the CBI officials that the consignment should have been exported to Jamaica, but it had gone to Dubai.
10. That he has typed out the draft bill of lading, in respect of 35 shipping bills, showing the port of discharge as Dubai and place of delivery as Montego Bay, Jamaica, as per the instructions of Sh. Krishnanand.
11. That the containers were arranged by M/s. All Cargo Movers Pvt. Ltd., from M/s. Greenways Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd., for stuffing the export cargo, under the 35 shipping bills.
12. That he has presented the 35 shipping bills in Central Warehousing Corporation (CWC), Royapuram, before customs, for examination of cargo and stuffing the export cargo into the containers.
13. That thereafter, sealed containers were brought to the port area, for making shipment.
14. That the export cargo was loaded by their steamer agents, on board the vessel.
15. That he had told to the CBI officials that on 17.03.2001, 3925 cartons of 100% Rayon Ladies Blouses were brought at CWC, Royapuram, by Dilli Babu of M/s.
Vadivudaiamman Transporters, No.7, Balamudali Street, Tondaiarpet, for which they have filled 11 shipping bills, with customs.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 95 of 221
16. That the documents for these shipments were handed over by some persons to Sh.
Krishnanand personally.
17. That in turn, Sh. Krishnanand had given these documents to him for filing the shipping bills at custom service centre, customs house, Chennai.
18. That accordingly, he had given the documents to his assistant Sh. Santhan Kumar for filing the shipping bills at custom service centre, on 17.03.2001.
19. That the shipping bills were assessed on the same day.
20. That he stated to CBI officials that on 19.03.2001, they approached Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Exports), for cancellation of the shipping bills on the ground that the buyer had cancelled the export order.
21. That Sh. Krishnanand had received the photocopy of the cancellation order from the exporter and the same was submitted to the customs, with covering letter dated 19.03.2001, signed by Sh. Krishnanand, which he identified, requesting to cancel all the 121 shipping bills and permit them to take back the cargo from the CWC, Royapuram.
22. That he had stated to the CBI officials that the letter, dated 9.03.2001, issued by Sh. Krishnanand, requesting the customs to permit to take back the cargo, in view of cancellation of export order.
23. That SIIB (Special Investigation Bureau) officers examined the cargo on 19.03.2001 and 20.03.2001 and seized the same on account of misdeclaration of description and value of the goods.
24. That inquiries were made by the customs authorities with him and other staff and also with Sh. Krishnanand of M/s. Trinity Forwarders, to ascertain the facts of the above export consignment.
25. That he had stated to the CBI Officials in his statement that he has seen all the eleven export bills, invoices, packing lists and all CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 96 of 221 other related documents.
26. That enclosures of the above eleven shipping bills, AnnexureB & C, have been filed in by Sh. Santhan Kumar and signed by the Manager of the exporting firm.
27. That the export goods under these eleven shipping bills had been delivered to us at CWC, Royapuram by Sh. Dilli Babu of Vadivudaiamman Transport Co., on 17.03.2001.
28. That he had handed over the export bills, invoices and packing list and other related documents to Sh. Krishnanand, which are Ex.PW30/B (D2), Ex.PW30/E (D3), Ex.PW30/F (D4), Ex.PW30/J (D5), Ex.PW30/L (D6), Ex.PW30/M (D7), Ex.PW30/N (D8), Ex.PW30/O (D9), Ex.PW30/P (D10), Ex.PW30/Q (D11), Ex.PW30/R (D12).
This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused person despite an opportunity in this regard.
Nodal Officers/ Witnesses from Telecom Department:
38. Capt. Rakesh PW15 Capt. Rakesh Bakshi has deposed on the Bakshi (PW15) following aspects:
Witness from That he left the Indian Army in the year 1978 Airtel relevant qua and was working in Airtel in February, 1999. the accused B.P. That he has seen attested copy of application Verma (now form no. 42011 presented by Sh. B. S. Pandey deceased) S/o R. L. Pandey R/o C113, Shakti Nagar, Extn., Delhi6, which is already Ex.PW6/A and the said application is for allotment of mobile no. from Airtel and no. 9810139022 was alloted.
That he has also seen the statement of account in respect of the above said number from 22.11.1997 to 20.3.2001, which is Ex.PW15/A and on page 2 and 3 the adjustments with regard to the telephone bills are mentioned at the end of the statement.
That the total amount of Rs.1,87,068.85 was payable out of which total payment of CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 97 of 221 Rs.1,71,702.00 was made.
That he has seen the list of the name of persons to whom or who had called on mobile no. 9810139022 which list is Ex.PW15/B. That he has seen the details of the various calls made by the said mobile number to other mobile numbers details of which are Ex.PW15/C to Ex.PW15/G. That he identifies the signatures and handwriting of Sh. R. K. Singh, Security Officer and that vide letter dated 12.4.2001, the above documents were forwarded by Sh. R. K. Singh, to SP ACB, New Delhi which letter is Ex.PW15/H. In his cross examination by the Ld. Counsels for accused persons, the witness has deposed on the following aspects:
That the computer prints exhibited above were not generated by him and has voluntarily explained that these prints were generated by his immediate junior but he does not recollect if the said junior is a witness in this case or not.
39. Sh. Arvind PW17 Arvind has deposed on the following aspects:
(PW17) Witness That from 2001 to 2003 he worked as from Sky Cell Assistant Manager, Legal, Sky Cell Communication Communication Ltd. Chennai.
That the letter dated 9.7.2001 Ex.PW17/A bears his signatures at point A and with this letter he had forwarded the details of incoming and outgoing calls of mobile phone no. 9840077187 which belonged to Sh. R. Selvam.
That the call details on 55 pages enclosed with Ex.PW17/A and each page bears his signatures and official seal of the company. That Ex.PW17/B is the photocopy of subscriber agreement dated 21.4.1999 and bears the original seal impression of Sky Cell Communications and also bears his signatures at point A. That receipt no. 109990 dated 24.11.2002 marked as PW17/C is issued by the Sky Cell CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 98 of 221 Communications Ltd.
In his cross examination by the Ld. Counsels for accused persons, the witness has deposed on the following aspects:
That he was Incharge of the legal operation and not the technical operation of Sky Cell Communications.
40. Sh. Anil Javed PW18 Anil Javed is the Commercial Officer, MTNL (PW18) Witness who has deposed on the following aspects:
from MTNL 1. That till 2001 he was working as PRO in Hauz Khas Managar Telephone Nigam Ltd. and prior to that he was working as SDE, (MRC) MTNL, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi, and land line telephone no. 6166282 was under Bhikaji Cama Place Telephone Exchange.
2. That vide his letter dated 17.5.2001 which is Ex.PW18/A bearing his signatures at point A and also the seal of his office, he had forwarded to CBI the details, on the basis of record maintained in the office with regard to telephone no. 6166282.
3. That with this letter he had enclosed annexure Ex.PW18/B which bears his signatures at point A which is a computer generated record of the said telephone number.
4. That the record shows that a telephone call was made from this telephone on 23.3.2001 to mobile no. 09840077187 which lasted for 93 seconds and was equal to 19 local calls.
5. That letter dated 4.1.2002 was written by Sh.
Shyam Sunder the then SDE (Record), MTNL Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi on which the witness identifies the signatures on letter Ex.PW18/C at point A. In his cross examination by the Ld. Counsels for accused persons, the witness has deposed on the following aspects:
That he has not brought the original record on the basis of which the statement Ex.PW18/B was prepared.
That he had not personally prepared the CD containing the original record of Ex.PW18/B. CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 99 of 221
41. Sh. I.P.S. PW26 Sh. I.P.S. Chauhan is the S.D.O. (Telephones) Chauhan (PW26) who has deposed on the following aspects:
Official Witness 1. That in January 2002, he was working as SDO from MTNL (Telephone) and posted in the office at Panchsheel Park, New Delhi.
2. That vide letter dated 4.1.2002 he had certified that telephone no. 6256715 was working during March, 2001 in the name of the under Secretary (GAR Ministry of Finance, Deptt. of Revenue), as per the history of telephone available in his office.
3. That the telephone no. 6254955 was also working during March, 2001 in the name of Sidharth Verma, 4C HUDCO Place, Khelgaon Marg, Andrewz Ganj, New Delhi, as per his record.
4. That the telephone no. 62544073 was also working during March, 2001 in the name of Abhinandita Mudgal, 4C HUDCO Place, Khelgaon Marg, Andrewz Ganj, New Delhi, as per MTNL record.
5. That three certificates dated 4.1.2002 with regard to the above telephones were prepared by Sh. Devi Singh, Supervisor (Record) and the witness has identified the signatures of Devi Singh at point A on each of the tree letters and the said letters also Ex.PW26/A, PW26/B and Ex.PW26/C. This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused persons despite an opportunity in this regard.
42. Sh. V.N. Sharda PW27 Sh. V.N. Sharda is the Retired SubDivisional (PW27) Witness Engineer, from MTNL who deposed on the following relevant qua the aspects:
accused B.P. 1. That the MTNL Telephone No. 3012849 was Verma (now working/ installed in the name of Ministry of deceased) Finance, Room No.156, North Block, New Delhi during March, 2001.
2. That Certificate dated 04.01.2002 regarding installation of this telephone is Ex.PW27/A which bears his signature at PointA and also countersigned by Divisional Engineer but he does not remember name of DE and cannot CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 100 of 221 identify his signatures.
The witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused despite an opportunity in this regard.
43. Sh. S. K. Tiwari PW31 Sh. S.K. Tiwari is the Deputy Director (PW31) - Official General, Department of Telecom who has proved that Witness vide letter dated 24.4.2001 which is Ex.PW31/A he had forwarded the STD calls details made from telephone no. 3012849 during the period from 16.3.2001 to 31.03.2001 to the CBI which call details are in three sheets which are collectively Ex.PW31/B. In his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused, the witness has deposed on the following aspects :
That Ex.PW31/B is a computer generated document and he was not personally in control of the computer which generated the said letter.
That he did not personally pull out Ex.PW31/B and this was generated a long time ago but if he recall correctly Mr. K.K. Mishra must have pulled out it.
That on examining Ex.PW31/B neither Mr. Mishra or no one else who may have in control of the said computer had authenticated the said document.
44. Sh. R. K. Singh PW34 Sh. R.K. Singh is the Nodal Officer from (PW34) - Nodal Bharti Airtel Ltd. who has deposed on the following Officer from aspects:
Bharti Airtel Ltd. 1. That on 12.4.2001 he was posted as Security Officer cum Nodal officer in Bharti Cellular Ltd. and on that day vide his letter Ex.PW15/H, he had forwarded to CBI the information contained in the said letter which bears his signatures at point A.
2. That the list Ex.PW15/B is containing the names of the persons to whom or who had called on mobile no. 9810139022.
3. That the list of calls made from mobile no.
9810139022 (D28) and received on this mobile from 2.11.2000 to 18.2.2001 is Ex.PW15/C and each page contains his initials and seal of the Bharti Cellular Ltd.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 101 of 221
4. That the list of calls made from mobile no. 9810139022 (D28) and received on this mobile from 1.2.2001 to 30.3.2001 is Ex.PW15/D and each page contains his initials and seal of Bharti Cellular Ltd.
5. That document Ex.PW15/E (D29) is the list of calls made from mobile no. 9810139022 and received on this mobile. Each page contains his initials and seal of the Bharti Cellular Ltd.
6. That the list of calls made from mobile no. 9810154454 and received on this mobile from 21.3.2001 to 25.3.2001 is Ex.PW15/F and each page contains his initials and seal of the Bharti Cellular Ltd. (D29)
7. That the list of calls made and received on mobile no. 9810161358 from 1.3.2001 to 31.3.2001 (D30) is Ex.PW15/G and each page contains his initials and seal of the Bharti Cellular Ltd.
In his cross examination by the Ld. Counsels for the accused, the witness has deposed on the following aspects :
That he has no personal knowledge of the contents of Ex.PW15/B. That Call Data Records of Bharti Cellular numbers are maintained in the IT department of the company.
That he has no personal knowledge of the CDRs details of which are mentioned in his statement given above and referred to in Ex.PW15/C to PW15/G but he has taken out the printouts of the call details from the computer.
45. Sh. H.S. Bawa PW44 Sh. H.S. Bawa is the Retired Sr. Accounts (PW44) Witness Officer from MTNL who has deposed that on Hostile qua the 22.05.2001 he was posted as Senior Accounts Officer accused K. Vijay in MTNL, Karol Bagh but he does not remember Pratap (now whether he had joined the investigations with CBI or deceased) not.
Since the witness was resiling from his previous statement, therefore, he was crossexamined by the Ld. Spl. PP for CBI wherein the witness has deposed as under:
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 102 of 221
1. That the seizure memo Ex.PW44/A bears his signatures at point A, however, the words "in my presence" written above his signatures do not appear to be in his handwriting.
2. That the words "H.S. Bawa, Senior A.O., TR II, MTNL K/Bagh, New Delhi - 110005"
written below his signatures are in his handwriting.
3. The does not remember as to on whose asking he has made the signatures.
4. That he does not remember whether Sh. A.P. Singh, Addl. SP, CBI, ACB, Delhi had seized mobile No. 9840077187 from Sh. Vijay Pratap and also whether the person from whom the said mobile was seized had signed the seizure memo Ex.PW44/A.
5. That he does not remember whether he had signed on Ex.PW44/A and also whether he had read over the seizure memo before signing the same.
It has been observed by the Court that the witness appeared to be suffering from selective amnesia as he remembered other facts and events but not connected with the case. However, after recollecting the witness deposed as under:
6. That in the year 2001 or near about, he had gone to CBI office in CGO complex to deliver certain documents from MTNL office and when he was sitting with an officer of CBI in that connection a person whom he cannot name or identify, called him to another room and asked the CBI official sitting there to take his signatures as a witness after which his signatures were obtained on a paper but he cannot say whether it was about the seizure of some mobile from any person or not.
46. Sh. Jasjeet PW45 Sh. Jasjeet Bhandari was working as Bhandari (PW45) Executive Trainee with Bharti Cellular Ltd. Who has Witness relevant deposed in the following aspects: qua the B.S. 1. That he had worked as Executive Trainee with Pandey M/s. Bharti Cellular Ltd, from 1997 to 1998.
2. That Customer Agreement Form bearing No. 42011 was submitted by one Mr. S.B. Pandey CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 103 of 221 for Airtel connection on 27.10.1997 pursuant to which Sh. Pandey was given Airtel connection no. 9810139022.
3. That the amount of Rs.5,260/ was paid by cheque No. 176948 which is mentioned in the application form Ex.PW6/A bearing the signatures of Manager (Corporate, Sales) Sh. Lalit Mathur at point C who had sanctioned the connection in the name of Sh. B.S. Pandey.
4. That the statement of account of mobile no. 9810139021 is Ex.PW15/A which is a computerized copy bearing the seal and initials of the official of Bharti Cellular Ltd.
This witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused despite an opportunity in this regard.
47. Sh. Shyam Sunder PW55 Shyam Sunder is the Assistant General (PW55) - Official Manager, MTNL who has deposed on the following Witness from aspects:
MTNL 1. That he remained posted as Sub Divisional Engineer (Record), Bikaji Cama Place, GM (SouthI) Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd, New Delhi from April 1996 to 2008.
2. That he has seen document D33 marked as Ex.PW18/C which bears his signatures at point A.
3. That vide letter Ex.PW18/C (D33) he had informed the CBI that telephone No. 61662802 was working from 01.04.1996 to 07.06.2008 for Sh. Rohit Jain at H8, Green Park Extn, 2nd Floor.
4. That this letter was written by him to CBI on the basis of the record history maintained in the record section of Bikaji Cama Place, GM (SouthI) of MTNL, New Delhi.
This witness has not been cross examined by the Ld. Counsels for the accused despite an opportunity in this regard.
Public witnesses:
48. Vidya Shanker PW6 Vidya Shanker Pandey is a Broker in the Share Pandey (PW6) Market who has deposed on the following aspects:
Witness relevant CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 104 of 221 qua the accused 1. That he knew Sh. B.P. Verma through one B.P. Verma (now Chendi Ram, who was in business. deceased) 2. That Sh. B.P. Verma was an officer in Customs House, Calcutta and he used used to visit B.P. Verma with Chendi Ram and became quite close to him (B.P. Verma) as also Sh. B.P. Verma is from Eastern UP, to which place he (witness) belong.
3. That about 12 years back, he (witness) shifted to Delhi and started residing in Shakti Nagar Extension as a tenant in the house of late Shri M.M. Khosla at a monthly rent of Rs.5,000/.
4. That he used to sell material i.e. tailoring material at Sadar Bazar.
5. That after he came to Delhi, Sh. B.P. Verma also came to Delhi after about 45 years, but he does not remember the exact date and year.
6. That Mr. Verma had come to Delhi as Chairman, Customs and thereafter, he had once met Sh. Verma at his house.
7. That he had purchased a SIM card in his name on the asking of Sh. Verma in
8. That he had deposited Rs.4000/ or Rs.5000/ for this SIM card but he does not remember, when this money was deposited.
9. That at first, he had paid the money from his pocket and thereafter Sh. Verma had paid him Rs.4,000/ for obtaining SIM card, he had filed an application to the Airtel Company, certified copy of which is Ex.PW6/A, bearing his signatures at point A.
10. That he does not remember the number of that SIM card, but the last digits were "22".
11. That this SIM card was given by him to Sh. B.P. Verma for his use.
12. That he (Mr. Verma) had a mobile phone/ instrument and SIM card was used by him in that instrument.
13. That thereafter, the rent in respect of the SIM card used to be paid by Sh. Verma.
14. That no other SIM card was obtained by Sh. Verma in his (witnee's) name.
15. That his house search was made by CBI but he does not remember the date.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 105 of 221
16. That at the time of house search, he was not present in the house.
17. That the landlady Smt. Raj Rani Khosla was present at the time of house search.
18. That receipt Mark PW6/X is the receipt of the SIM card, which the CBI had taken from the house search.
19. That the amount mentioned in the receipt, was paid by him and then Mr. Verma paid it to him.
20. That he identified the letter Ex.PW6/B in file Mark (D65) (in D65) which is in the handwriting and signatures of Sh. B.P. Verma which letter was also recovered by CBI from the house search.
21. That he identified the signatures of Smt. Raj Rani Khosla on search cum seizure memo Ex.PW6/C at point A on all the four pages.
22. That Mr. B.P. Verma has now expired.
This witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Counsels for the accused.
49. Sh. Pratap Singh PW20 Sh. Pratap Singh was the Private Secretary (PW20) Witness and Personal Assistant to the Chief Minister, relevant qua the Haryana who has deposed on the following aspects:
accused Siddharth Verma and Rajeev 1. That in April 2001 he used to reside in Sector Sharma 16, Faridabad, Haryana and was PS and PA to the Chief Minister, Haryana for three and a half to four years.
2. That he knew one Sh. Rohit Jain whom he met through his friend Naresh Rathi, Advocate residing at Faridabad.
3. That when he met Rohit Jain, he was in to the business of Health Medicare which he was doing at Delhi.
4. That once he had gone to the Green Park office of Rohit along with Naresh Rathi and he had once met Sidharth Verma along with them (correctly identified by the witness).
5. That Rohit had told him that Sidharth Verma was working with him in his business, however, he does not remember if they had talked of any problem with their partners.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 106 of 221
6. That he has no knowledge if Rohit Jain had a guest house at Green Park.
7. That once he had gone to AIIMS to see a person and from there he went to the office of Rohit Jain in Green Park where he found Siddarth Verma present there and after some time Rajiv Sharma (correctly identified by the witness) also came there.
8. That at that time Rohit Jain was not there and he asked Rajiv and Sidharth about Rohit on which Sidharth asked him to sit and that he would tell him about Rohit.
9. That he sat there for about 2/4 minutes as Rohit Jain was not there and he told them that he was in hurry and was to go towards Gole Dak Khana side on which Rajiv Sharma told him that he would drop him where he wanted to go but he declined.
10. That it was in the last week of March and time was between 9 or 9:30 PM and at that time he was not knowing that Sidharth was the son of B. P. Verma the then Chairman Central Board of Excise and Customs.
In his cross examination by the Ld. Counsels for accused persons, the witness has deposed on the following aspects:
That there was no special conversation of him between accused Sidharth and Rajiv Sharma when he met them at Green Park office.
That he does not recollect any conversation between Sidharth Verma and Rajiv Sharma taken place at that time.
That no paper / file / packet was handed over by accused Rajiv Sharma to the accused Sidharth Verma in his presence at that time.
50. Sh. Kishore PW25 Sh. Kishore Chand Pandey has deposed on Chand Pandey the following aspects:
(PW25) - Witness 1. That in the year 200001 his brother Deepak hostile qua the came to Delhi and was working in a guest accused Siddharth house as a cook.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 107 of 221 Verma and Rajeev 2. That he had come to meet Deepak and lived Sharma along with him in the guest house for about a week after which Deepak went to his village and before leaving, he had placed him in his place in the guest house whose owner was Sidharth Verma (accused correctly identified by witness).
3. That he does not know as to on which date Sidharth Verma had come to the guest house and what he had done there.
4. That no one else had come to meet Sidharth in his presence and that Sidharth stayed in the guest house for about 2/3 hours but he does not remember if during this period anyone had come to meet him.
Since the witness was suppressing the truth, he was crossexamined by the Ld. Spl. PP for CBI wherein the witness has deposed on the following aspects:
5. That CBI had perhaps recorded his statement in the case and admits that he had told the CBI in his statement that he and his brother stayed in the guest house till 22nd March.
6. That he does not remember if he had told the CBI that his brother had gone to the village on 23rd March to appear in class 10th papers. However, when confronted with portion A to A in statement Ex.PW25/A the said fact was found so recorded.
7. That he does not remember if he had stated to CBI that on 23rd March when he was put on work, Sidharth had come in the evening and made telephone calls etc. However, when confronted with portion B to B in statement Ex.PW25/A the said fact was found so recorded.
8. That he does not remember if he had stated to CBI that at 9:00 in the night Rajiv also came and as he had heard his name from hi brother he opened the gate on his telling his name. However, when confronted with portion C to C in statement Ex.PW25/A the said fact was found so recorded.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 108 of 221
9. That he had not stated to the CBI that Rajiv straightaway reached the balcony and sat there for about one / hone and a half hour and thereafter left. However, when confronted with portion D to D in statement Ex.PW25/A the said fact was found so recorded.
10. That he had not stated to CBI that on that day in the evening before the arrival of Rjaiv one another person had come to meet Sidharth and another person had come after Rjaiv left the place and that Sidharth and antoher person had come after Rajiv left the place and that Sidharth had gone with that person in the night. However, when confronted with portion E to E in statement Ex.PW25/A the said fact was found so recorded.
51. Sh. R. Selvam PW47 Sh. R. Selvam has deposed on the following (PW47) Witness aspects:
relevant qua the 1. That originally he belong to Chennai and in accused K. Vijay the year 20002001 he had a contract work for Pratap (now M/s. Ashok Leyland.
deceased) 2. That he used to supply components to them and the company was of his brother.
3. That he knew accused K. Vijay Pratap and for about three years they have been friends.
4. That there was a wine shop opposite to the residence of Sh. Vijay Pratap in Chennai and he used to meet Sh. Vijay Pratap at that wine shop.
5. That he is not aware what K. Vijay Pratap used to do in 20002001.
6. That he had a mobile phone during that period but he does not recollect the number or the company.
7. That initially he used to make payment for the mobile phone but then he gave the mobile phone to K. Vijay Pratap and he gave his mobile phone to K. Vijay Pratap since he (Vijay Pratap) had no land line phone connection at his residence.
8. That thereafter the mobile phone was used by K. Vijay Pratap and he used to pay the rent for that.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 109 of 221
9. That he is not known to any Suresh Kesavan a friend of K. Vijay Pratap.
Since the witness was resiling from his previous statement, the witness was crossexamined by the Ld. Spl. PP for CBI wherein the witness has deposed as under:
1. That he was called by the CBI but he does not remember whether his statement was recorded or not.
2. That he cannot admit or deny whether his statement was recorded by CBI on 22.05.2001.
3. That he does not remember whether he had stated to CBI that Vijay Pratap had been doing TV serials. However, when confronted with portion A to A of statement Ex.PW47/A the said fact was found so recorded.
4. That it is possible that the mobile connection which he was having was of Sky Cell company but he does not remember whether number of that mobile phone was 9840077187.
In his crossexamination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused, the witness has admitted that he cannot read, write, speak and understand Hindi and English and he is not aware of the contents of the statement which may have been recorded by the Investigating Officer nor does he remember whether the statement was read over to him in Tamil or not.
It has been specifically observed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court that it was not written in the statement Ex.PW47/A that the statement was read over and explained to the witness in Tamil.
52. Sh. Suresh PW49 Sh. Suresh Kesavan is the friend of accused K. Kesavan (PW49) Vijay Pratap who has deposed on the following Witness relevant aspects:
qua the accused 1. That he knew K. Vijay Pratap and they both B.P. Verma and K. studied together in the school. Vijay Pratap (both 2. That Adayar Park Hotel is located in Adayar deceased) but he is not sure whether there is M/s. Vigna Transport at Chamiers Road, near Adayar Park Hotel.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 110 of 221
3. That he does not remember whether he had met Sh. K. Vijay Pratap at that transport company but he had met him several times being a friend,
4. That he is not sure whether he had met G.D. Ramesh Proprietor of Vigna Transport Company.
5. That he does not have any friend by the name of G.D. Ramesh though G.D. Ramesh and K. Vijay Pratap may be friends.
6. That he and Vijay Pratap may have met in 2000 & 2001.
7. That he is not aware what Vijay Pratap was doing during that period but he used to tell him that he was doing TV Serials.
8. That K. Vijay Pratap never told him about his relations with B.P. Verma of Customs department.
9. That Mrs. Prema Ashok is his (witness's) sister who used to reside in Bangalore.
10. That once he had gone to see his sister at Bangalore where he met Viay Pratap and they had drinks together.
11. That he is not sure if while in Bangalore he along with Vijay Pratap went to Hotel Atrya and met Sh. B.P. Verma.
12. That he does not recollect that Vijay Pratap had introduced him to Sh. Verma.
13. That after being returned from Bangalore, K. Vijay Pratap never told him about his being in touch with Sh. Verma.
14. That he knew Sh. Shiv Kumar who is engaged in the taxi business by the name of M/s. Yellow Cabs Pvt. Ltd. in Chennai.
15. That Shiv Kumar was his friend and they used to drink and dine together.
16. That he is not known to any Sharvan Kumar nor can he identify him.
Since the witness was resiling from his previous statement, the Ld. Spl. PP for CBI has cross examined the witness wherein the witness has deposed as under:
1. That he was questioned by CBI and they have taken his statements on 01.04.2001 and CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 111 of 221 05.04.2001.
2. That he is not sure whether he had stated before the CBI that about four years back, he met K. Vijay Pratap in the office of M/s. Vigna Transport whose proprietor Sh. G.D. Ramesh was his friend. When confronted with his statement Ex.PW49/A the said fact was found so recorded at portion A to A.
3. That he is not sure whether he had stated before the CBI that about a year back, Vijay Pratap told him that he has got contacts with many big officers of customs including Sh.
B.P. Verma. When confronted with his statement Ex.PW49/A the said fact was found so recorded at portion C to C.
4. That he does not recollect if he had stated before the CBI that he was going to Bangalore to see his sister Mrs. Prema Ashok and when he talked to Vijay Pratap about the same, he also expressed desire to go Bangalore on which they both went to Bangalore and during their journey Vijay Pratap told him that he wanted to meet Sh. B.P. Verma who was also at Bangalore on some official visit. When confronted with his statement Ex.PW49/A the said fact was found so recorded at portion E to E.
5. That he does not recollect if he had stated before the CBI that in Bangalore Vijay Pratap took him to hotel Atrya and introduced him to Sh. Verma who was staying in the said hotel at that time and thereafter Vijay Pratap remained in regular touch with Sh. Verma. When confronted with his statement Ex.PW49/A the said fact was found so recorded at portion F to F.
6. That he did not state in his statement to CBI that he used to see Sharvan Kumar in the office of Yellow Cabs Pvt. Ltd. when he used to go to meet Shiv Kumar. When confronted with his statement Ex.PW49/A the said fact was found so recorded at portion H to H. CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 112 of 221
7. That he is not sure if he had stated before the CBI that he had spoken to Shiv Kumar in the evening of 09.03.2001 at 5:00 PM from his mobile no. 9841041669 on his (Shiv Kumar's) mobile 9841018881 who told him that his partner Sarvar Kumar was facing some customs related problem. When confronted with his statement Ex.PW49/A the said fact was found so recorded at portion J to J.
8. That Shiv Kumar had mobile no. 9841018881 but he is not sure whether this talk had taken place while he (Shiv Kumar) was in CWC/ Royapuram. When confronted with his statement Ex.PW49/A the said fact was found so recorded at portion K to K.
9. That he is not sure whether he had stated before the CBI that on 20.03.2001 he called up Shiv Kumar when he told him that SIIV Custom House Chennai was asking him (Shiv Kumar) to come to custom office and he (Shiv Kumar) also requested him to talk to Vijay Pratap so that he could put a word to customs commissioner to sort out the problem. When confronted with his statement Ex.PW49/A the said fact was found so recorded at portion L to L.
10. That he is not sure whether he had stated before the CBI that thereafter he contacted Sh. Vijay Pratap over phone and informed him about the problem on which they both went the Customs Office at 33, Rajaji Salai and met the Commissioner Sh. M.V.S. Prasad. When confronted with his statement Ex.PW49/A the said fact was found so recorded at portion M to M.
11. That he is not sure whether he had stated before the CBI that Vijay Pratap told the commissioner about the problem on which Sh. Prasad told that there was no reason to get scared if nothing illegal has been done after which they left the custom office. When confronted with his statement Ex.PW49/A the said fact was found so recorded at portion N to N. CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 113 of 221
12. That Vijay Pratap must have told Shiv Kumar on telephone at about 11:30 AM that they had already met the Commissioner and it might be correct that in the evening of 20.03.2001 at about 5:30 PM he spoke to Shiv Kumar over phone to enquire from him as to whether he had met the customs authorities on which Shiv Kumar replied in negative as he was scared and asked him to follow him to hotel Heritage at Egmore.
13. That probably at hotel Heritage Shiv Kumar told Sharvan Kumar that he (witness) and Vijay Pratap had met the commissioner on which Shiv Kumar asked him to call Vijay Pratap on mobile No. 9840077187 from his mobile phone no. 9841041669 at about 8:30 PM and asked him to come to Hotel Heritage.
14. That after few minutes Vijay Pratap reached hotel Heritage after which Vijay Pratap, Shiv Kumar and Sharvan Kumar talked about the problem whereas he (witness) kept sitting in the lawn.
15. That he is not sure if after sometime Sh. Krishnanand clearing and forwarding agent also came there. However, when confronted with his statement Ex.PW49/A the said fact was found so recorded at portion O to O.
16. That he is not sure if he had stated before the CBI that Krishnanand might had taken part in the discussion with Vijay Pratap, Sharvan Kumar and Shiv Kumar after which he (witness) also joined them in the discussion. However, when confronted with his statement Ex.PW49/A the said facts were found so recorded at portions P to P and Q to Q.
17. That he cannot recollect if Krishnanand had said that the export consignment of Sh. Sharvan Kumar had been brought to CWC, Royapuram for making Shipment to Jamaica, the customs SIIB Unit had become suspicious and thereafter they checked the consignment and found the goods to be nor as per the declaration given in the invoices and shipping bills and the goods have been seized by the customs. When confronted with his statement CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 114 of 221 Ex.PW49/A the said fact was found so recorded at portion R to R.
18. That he is not whether he had stated before the CBI that Sharvan Kumar requested Vijay Pratap to do needful by contacting his sources in customs department at Delhi and whatever amount was to be spent, he would take care and all this should have been done before Sh. Kiran Kumar returns to Chennai. When confronted with his statement Ex.PW49/A the said fact was found so recorded at portion S to S.
19. That he is not sure whether Sh. Vijay Pratap rang him up at about 6:00 PM on 21.03.2001 and asked that a fax be sent to him giving the list of the above export case and informed him that he was staying in room no. 826 in Hotel LeMedidian and also gave his fax number. When confronted with his statement Ex.PW49/A the said fact was found so recorded at portion V to V.
20. That he is not sure whether he had then contacted Shiv Kumar over his mobile phone at about 8:00 PM and gave him the room number, fax number and hotel name of Vijay Pratap for passing on the same to Sharvan Kumar since he (Vijay Pratap) could not reach Sharvan. When confronted with his statement Ex.PW49/A the said fact was found so recorded at portion W to W.
21. That he is not sure if he had stated before the CBI that thereafter he rang up Shiv Kumar 5/6 times to inquire if he had been able to convey the same to Sharvan since Vijay Pratap had been calling from Delhi to enquire about the same and whether on 22.03.2001 Vijay Pratap telephoned him from his Delhi at about 2O'clock informing him that he had already met Sh. B.P. Verma to sort out Sharvan's problem and also that a deal has been struck for Rs.35 lacs out of which Rs.10 lacs was to be paid initially to Vijay Pratap immediately. When confronted with his statement Ex.PW49/A the said fact was found CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 115 of 221 so recorded at portion X to X.
22. That he does not remember if Vijay Pratap had told him that he had talked to Sharvan Kumar and Shiv Kumar in this regard and Sharvan had agreed to send him the advance amount of Rs. 10 lacs on that day itself but he had received the said amount and wanted to know from him (witness) as to what happened. When confronted with his statement Ex.PW49/A the said fact was found so recorded at portion Y to Y.
23. That he does not remember if he (witness) tried to contact Sharvan Kumar but could nto get through after which he went to the office of M/s. Yellow Cabs Pvt. Ltd. and informed Shiv Kumar about Vijay Pratap on which Shiv Kumar told that Sharvan Kumar was in SIIB customs and he had not been able to contact Sharvan Kumar in this regard. When confronted with his statement Ex.PW49/A the said fact was found so recorded at portion Z to Z.
24. That he though that it had happened that while he was with Shiv Kumar in his office, Vijay Kumar spoke to him over telephone from Delhi and talked to Shiv Kumar after which Shiv Kumar explained that Sharvan Kumar alone would be in a position to do the needful and asked Vijay Pratap to wait for the amount but in vain.
25. That he is not sure if he had stated before the CBI that on 23.03.2001 also Vijay Ppratap telephoned him from Delhi several times (between 11:30 AM to 11:00 PM) and informed him that he was still waiting for the amount and wanted him (witness) to contact both Shiv Kumar and Sharvan Kumar on which he tried to contact them but could not get through. When confronted with his statement Ex.PW49/A the said fact was found so recorded at portion Z1 to Z1.
26. That he is not sure if he had stated before the CBI that Vijay Kumar had talked to him in the night of 23.03.2001 at about 11:00 PM from Delhi and informed that he had not received CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 116 of 221 the amount as yet and he was returning to Chennai next day. When confronted with his statement Ex.PW49/A the said fact was found so recorded at portion Z2 to Z2.
27. That on 24.03.2001 morning he rang up Shiv Kumar on his mobile phone and informed that Vijay Kumar was returning on that day but he does not remember the exact date.
28. That he is not sure if he had stated before the CBI that on 25.03.2001 he met Vijay Pratap at Hotel Woodsland where Shiv Kumar, Sharvan Kumar, Krishnanand and two other friends came there and Sharvan Kumar told Vijay Pratap that he could not arrange for the amount as he remained struck with the customs authorities and further told Vijay Pratap to continue his efforts, on which Vijay Pratap told that being fed up he was not interested and thereafter Vijay Pratap left for Banglore and he (witness) met him (Vijay Pratap after few days in the CBI Office, Chennai in the night of 02.04.2001. When confronted with his statement Ex.PW49/A the said fact was found so recorded at portion Z3 to Z3.
29. That he may or may not have met such person called Sharvan Kumar and it may correct that a close friend of Shiv Kumar may have been involved in connection with export of certain articles.
30. That it might be that K. Vijay Pratap may help some friend of Shiv Kumar in his custom related matter and Vijay Kumar might have spoken to him about the involvement of friend of Shiv Kumar in custom related matter and possibly Vijay Pratap might have tried to help him.
31. That he is not sure whether Vijay Pratap had acquaintances with the high rank officers in customs department.
In his crossexamination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused, the witness has deposed on the following aspects:
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 117 of 221 That in his examination in chief wherever he has used the expressions "I am not sure" and "it might be"means that he is not aware or remember about those particular facts. That in so far as the friends and acquaintances of Vijay Pratap are concerned, he is not aware about their particulars and details he (Vijay Pratap) has many friends. That he is not aware about the contents of the statements which had been recorded by the Investigating Officer.
That the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded by the investigating officer was never typed in his presence.
That he had not signed any document or statement in the CBI office.
53. Sh. Shiv Kumar PW51 Sh. Shiv Kumar was one of the Directors of (PW51) Witness M/s. Yellow Cabs and has deposed on the following relevant qua the aspects:
accused C. 1. That from the year 2004 onwards, he was Sharvan Kumar - dealing in used cars including indigenous and Not supported the imported cars and was one of the directors of allegations against M/s Yellow Cabs which was conceptualized by C. Sharvan Kumar him having its office in TNagar, Chennai.
2. That the said company started in the year 2001 and there were four directors of the company i.e. Shiv Kumar (witness himself), Mr. Kannan, Mr. P.M. Shahji and Mr. Sharvan and there was one more person whose name he does not recollect.
3. That Mr. Sharvan Kumar was a garments exporter and the name of his company was M/s Champa Exports whereas Mr. Kannan was into hotel business but he does not remember the name of his hotel but it was located in Salem.
4. That the other director was Mr. Mahesh however, he is not aware as to in what business he was engaged in.
5. That he wanted some investors for M/s Yellow Cabs which was a call taxi service and that he how the other Directors joined him.
6. That he met Sharvan Kumar in the early 2000 and Sharvan brought to him the other two CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 118 of 221 directors namely Mr. Kannan and Mr. Mahesh.
7. That the Yellow Cab was having office in the premises of Sharvan Kumar which was taken on rent by the company.
8. That he does not know of the company Sripal Garments but there were few companies which were running from the building where M/s Champa Exports was located.
9. That in the early 2001 M/s Champa Exports was raided by SIB customs in the presence of some local watchman.
10. That he was not a part of that search but he knew it because he was a tenant in the same premises.
11. That he does not recollect if he had a meeting with Sharvan Kumar in the office of Yellow Cabs to finalize the marketing tours for advertisement. He voluntarily states that their meetings were quite frequent being directors of Yellow Cabs.
12. That sometime in the year 2001 after they had taken lunch, Sharvan Kumar had asked him to accompany him as one of his friend was in problem and thereafter they had gone to container yard or may be a custom yard which was located somewhere in North Madras.
13. That Royapuram bridge is also located in North Madras.
14. That they waited for sometime and after 5 to 10 minutes, Sharvan Kumar said 'let us go back' and they went back to the office of Yellow Cabs.
15. That Sharvan Kumar had told him the name of person whom he wanted to meet on that day but he does not recollect now.
16. That during the time they were waiting at the custom's office, several persons enquired as to whether they were waiting for someone.
17. That S. Krishnanandh who was a clearing agent in Chennai was also running a company but its name he does not know.
18. That he does not recollect to have met personally any officer of SIIB Customs but he had given his visiting cards to many persons.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 119 of 221 Since the witness was resiling from his previous statement, hence he was crossexamined by the Ld. Spl. PP for CBI wherein the witness has deposed as under:
That he cannot admit or deny if his statement was recorded by the CBI.
That it may be when they reached custom's place, in Royapuram, North Madras, they were waiting for one Sh. Murthy as Sharvan Kumar told him (confronted with portion A to A of statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC which is Ex.PW51/A, where it is so recorded).
That he does not recollect that at that time a person had come and had asked to accompany him the godown of the CWC, Royapuram and he may have stated to sin his statement to CBI.
The witness has correctly identified the accused Sharvan Kumar in the court. That he does not remember that he also walked along with the said person and Sharvan Kumar was attending to a phone call and that Sharvan Kumar was also asked by that person to join them and he may have told it in his statement to CBI, but he does not remember it in detail now.
That when they entered the CWC Warehouse, the man who came with them introduced himself as an officer of SIIB Customs. That he does not recollect but it may be that customs officer showed them certain cartons stagged there and asked them whether the same belonged to them That he introduced himself after showing his visiting card of Yellow Cabs India Pvt. Ltd. and told him that he had come with Sharvan Kumar who was the Director.
That he heard Sharvan Kumar telling the officer that he had come on getting a call from one Murthy regarding the above consignment. (confronted with portion B to B of statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC which is Ex.PW51/A, where it is so recorded).
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 120 of 221 That he had not told the CBI that he came to know later on that the said SIIB Customs Officer was Sukhinder and the said Sukhinder asked both of them to wait there for Sh. Murthy (confronted with portion C to C of statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC which is Ex.PW51/A, where it is so recorded). That he had told the CBI that he had asked for telephone number of Sh. Murthy but he does not remember whether Sharvan Kumar gave telephone number to him.
That he may have stated to the CBI that Sharvan Kumar gave two telephone numbers, he does not remember.
That he may have told the CBI that he tried to dial this number, as requested by Sh. Sukhinder, but he does not remember. That they may have waited there for about one hour but no person by name of Murthy came there.
That the customs officer may have told that they (witness) were in a serious problem and therefore, they should wait. He has voluntarily stated that he did not tell him (witness) and that he does not remember whether he told it to Sharvan Kumar or not. That at some point of time that officer had asked them to wait outside but they waited outside for some time and then left the place in their car but after some time about 25 minutes later, he got a call on his mobile from some officer of customs who asked about their location.
That one more call may have received by him but he does not remember the time and the caller introduced himself as Joint Commissioner Customs and asked him if he could come to his office next day along with Sharvan Kumar.
That he asked Sharvan Kumar, if there was some problem, but Sharvan said that it was not his problem.
That he did not specifically tell Suresh Kesavan that his partner Sharvan Kumar was CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 121 of 221 facing some customs related problem. That he does not recollect to have stated to CBI that at about 5 PM on 19.3.2001, he telephoned Suresh Kumar from his mobile phone no. 9841018881 and told him that his parter Sharvan was facing some customs related problem. (confronted with portion D to D of statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC which is Ex.PW51/A, where it is so recorded).
That on 20.3.2001, (again said he does not recollect the date), Suresh Kesavan called him up and he told him that SIIB Joint Commissioner Customs was asking him to seem them at the customs office on which he told Kesavan that he was worried as to why they were calling him (witness). That he did not tell Suresh Kesavan that he should talk to Vijay Pratap and voluntarily explained that he even does not know any Vijay Pratap.
That he did not tell to CBI that he requested Sh. Suresh Kesavan that he should talk to Vijay Pratap so that he could put in a word to the customs commissioner to sort out the problem. (confronted with portion E to E of statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC which is Ex.PW51/A, where it is so recorded). That he had not stated before the CBI that Suresh Kesvan told him that he would speak to Vijay Pratap to do the needful and that Vijay Pratap telephoned him from is mobile phone at about 11.30 am and told him that he and Suresh Kesvan had already met the commissioner and he advised him to got o the customs office to meet the authorities. (confronted with portion F to F of statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC which is Ex.PW51/A, where it is so recorded). That he does not recollect if he had stated in his statement to CBI that in the evening on 20.3.2001 at about 5:30 PM Sh. Suresh Kesvan called him up and enquired from him as to whether he have met the customs CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 122 of 221 authorities. (confronted with portion G to G of statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC which is Ex.PW51/A, where it is so recorded).
That it is possible that during that talk Kesvan may have asked him whether he had met the customs authorities and he may have told Suresh that he had not met any custom officer as he was worried and that Suresh Kesavan used to visit his office M/s Yellow Cab usually, but he does not recollect whter he had come on 20.3.2001 or not.
That they may have gone to the hotel Heritage at Egmore for dinner when they reached there, Sharvan Kumar may have been already there. That he has not stated to CBI that he talked to Sharvan Kumar and told him that Vijay Pratap and Suresh Kesvan and already met the commissioner of customs or that Sharvan Kumar asked him to call Vijay Pratap and thereafter he asked Suresh Kesvan to call Vijay Pratap. (confronted with portion H to H of statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC which is Ex.PW51/A, where it is so recorded).
That he did not state to CBI that Sh. Suresh Kesavan accordingly rang up Vijay on his mobile telephone no. 9840077187 from his i.e. Suresh Kesvan's mobile no. 9841041669 at about 8.30 pm. and asked him to come to hotel Heritage (confronted with portion I to I of statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC which is Ex.PW51/A, where it is so recorded).
That he had also not stated to the CBI that after few minutes Vijay Pratap reached hotel Heritage after which he and Vijay Pratap discussed about the above problem and in the mean time at about 910 pm Krishnanand joined them and that Sh. Sharvan Kumar had contacted Krishnanand and asked him to join them at hotel Heritage and after reaching hotel Heritage and meeting them there, he (Sharvan Kumar) explained the CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 123 of 221 facts of the export case to Vijay Pratap (confronted with portion J to J of statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC which is Ex.PW51/A, where it is so recorded). That he had not stated to the CBI that Vijay Pratap told them that he is going to Delhi on his personal work next day and that he knows Sh. B. P. Verma, Chairman, Customs and at this Sharvan Kumar told Vijay Pratap that since he is going to Delhi, he may request Chairman to put in a word to the commissioner at Chennai and that even earlier before the arrival of Krishnanand, Sharvan Kumar had requested Vijay Pratap that problem has to be solved immediately at any cost and that for this, whatever amount was required to be spent, he would take care and that Vijay Pratap should not worry about money and that Sharvan Kumar also told Vijay Pratap that this has to be done before Kiran Kumar returns to Chennai and that Vijay Pratap also told that he would contact Sharvan Kumar and he (witness) from Delhi. (confronted with portion K to K of statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC which is Ex.PW51/A, where it is so recorded). That he did not tell the CBI in his statement that Vijay Pratap had not talked to him on his mobile at about 10.30 am on 21.03.2001 and had not asked him that he should go and meet the Commissioner, Customs and he had also not told him that he would go by noon. (confronted with portion L to L of statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC which is Ex.PW51/A, where it is so recorded). That he received a call from his Yellow Cab Office that a team of Customs official had come to raid Sharvan Kumar's office and the customs officers were unable to reach Sharvan Kumar on phone.
That he remembers that thereafter he went to his office and contacted Sharvan Kumar at about 11.00 O'clock on his mobile from his CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 124 of 221 mobile informing him to get his office opened to enable the customs officials to conduct the raid, but he do not recollect the mobile phone number of Sharvan Kumar on which he had talked to him.
That he does not recollect the mobile number of Sharvan Kumar.
That Sharvan Kumar sent his office boy with keys and the office of Champa Fabrics / Sripal Garments on the second floor was opened and the customs officials conducted the raid and he was present at the time of raid proceedings. That he does not remember whether some documents relating to M/s AK Enterprises were recorded by the customs officers during the raid.
That he also does not recollect whether he had signed on some papers seized by customs officials and also on the memorandum. (confronted with portion M to M of statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC which is Ex.PW51/A, where it is so recorded). That Sharvan had not joined the raid. That he had met the Joint Commissioner, Customs but he does not recollect the time and date of meeting him. He also does not recollect if the name of Joint Commissioner SIIB was Sh. Shesh Giri Rao.
That the Joint Commissioner had asked him as to why he was present at the CWC, Royapuram on 19.03.2001 and he had also explained to him as to how he (witness) was there.
That he had told the Jonit Commissioner that he had gone to CWC Roayapuram on 19.3.2001 along with Sharvan Kumar who had received a call on his mobile from one Murthy who had asked him to come to CWC Roayapuram.
That the Joint Commissioner after hearing him asked him (witness) to go and had also asked to tell Sharvan Kumar on his mobile at about 6/6.30 pm that Joint Commissioner, Customs wanted him and Krishnanad to meet him.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 125 of 221 That he does not remember whether Sharvan Kumar had said anything whether he would go or not.
That Suresh called him on mobile put he does not recollect as to what he had said as Suresh used to all him almost daily.
That he does not recollect but Suresh may have said that Vijay Pratap was asking for detailed facts of the export case to be faced to him immediately.
That he does not recollect if thereafter he tried to contact Sharvan on his mobile to pass on the message of Vijay Pratap but he could not contact him on his mobile was switched off.
That he did not tell the CBI in his statement that he tried to contact Sharvan on his mobile to pass on the message of Vijay Pratap but he could not contact him as his mobile was switched off (confronted with portion N to N of statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC which is Ex.PW51/A, where it is so recorded). Witness voluntarily explained that he did not know Vijay Pratap but he was trying to contact Sharvan Kumar since everybody was trying to reach him. That he must have left a message with the family of Sharvan Kumar that he should contact him as everybody was trying to contact him but he does not recollect that he was able to contact Sharvan Kumar on his mobile at about 11 pm on 21.03.2001 and asked him that he should send detailed facts of his report case by fax to Vijay Pratap and had he gave him the detail of fax number, name of the hotel where Vijay Pratap was staying. (confronted with portion O to O of statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC which is Ex.PW51/A, where it is so recorded). That he does not recollect having stated to CBI that Vijay Prataop was staying at room no. 926 Hotel Meridian as given to him by Suresh Kesavan and that Sh. Sharvan Kumar informed him that he would do the needful CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 126 of 221 (confronted with portion P to P of statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC which is Ex.PW51/A, where it is so recorded). That Kirshnanand and SharvanKumar may have called him on his mobile around 9 am to 11.30 on 22.3.2001 asking him whether there was any call from SIIB Customs enquiring about them. He states that he would have told them that they were wanted by SIIB officers. That the custom officers may have asked him whether he had conveyed to Krishnanand and Sharvan Kumar that they were required to meet the custom authorities.
That he does not recollect if he had stated in his statement to the CBI that in the forenoon of 22.3.2001 Vijay Pratap telephoned him from Delhi and enquired if he (witness) had gone to the customs and met the Joint Commissioner. (confronted with portion Q to Q of statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC which is Ex.PW51/A, where it is so recorded).
That he had not told the CBI that he told Vijay Pratap that he (witness) had already met the Joint Commissioner on the evening of the day before and told him that it seemed there was no problem and he thanked him (confronted with portion R to R of statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC which is Ex.PW51/A, where it is so recorded). That Suresh Kesvan used to call him regularly and may have called on 22.3.2001 but he does not recollect the conversation.
That he had not stated to the CBI that Suresh Kesvan telephoned him several times on 22.3.2001 and informed him that he and Vijay are trying to reach Sharvan and wanted to know if he had any idea about his whereabouts (confronted with portion S to S of statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC which is Ex.PW51/A, where it is so recorded).
That in the evening of 22.3.2001 Suresh may have come to his office as he comes daily, but CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 127 of 221 it is incorrect that Suresh had informed him that Vijay had spoken to him and informed him that he was waiting for Rs.10 lacs which Sharvan had promised to get delivered in Delhi.
That he does not recollect having stated to the CBI that Suresh came to his office when he informed that Vijay had spoken to him and informed him that he was waiting for Rs. 10 lacs which Sharvan had promised to get delivered in Delhi. (confronted with portion T to T of statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC which is Ex.PW51/A, where it is so recorded).
That he did not tell CBI in his statement that Suresh Kesavan told him that Sharvan after promising for arranging for the amount was not reachable. (confronted with portion U to U of statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC which is Ex.PW51/A, where it is so recorded).
That eventually they did locate Sharvan, but he does not recollect as to when he was located. He also does not remember that after Suresh came and they tried to locate Sharvan, he came to understand that he (Sharvan Kumar) was at that time in SIIB office. That while Suresh was with him, he may have received a telephone call but he cannot say from where and from whom he had received the call on his mobile and he does not remember that Suresh had made him talk on that telephone at that time.
That he does not remember if he has stated to the CBI that he explained the situation to Vijay Pratap stating that he cannot do anything because only Sharvan knows what to do and he was at that time in SIIB.
(confronted with portion V to V of statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC which is Ex.PW51/A, where it is so recorded). That the did not tell the CBI that he told Vijay that he would inform Sharvna that Vijay has been trying to reach him. (confronted with CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 128 of 221 portion W to W of statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC which is Ex.PW51/A, where it is so recorded).
That on 23.3.2001 at about 10.30 AM he may have received a telephone call on his mobile from Sharvan and he may have informed him that Suresh and others have been trying to reach him since last evening and has explained that he would not have named Vijay as he did not know him and has not given the name of Vijay in his statement to CBI. (confronted with portion X to X of statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC which is Ex.PW51/A, where it is so recorded). That he had not told the CBI that Sharvan at that time informed him over phone that Vijay had telephoned him the previous day, that a deal had been fixed at Rs.35 lacs out of which Rs.10 lacs was to be paid to Vijay as advance immediately and that he further told him that he would contact Suresh and Vijay regarding the above matter. (confronted with portion Y to Y of statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC which is Ex.PW51/A, where it is so recorded).
That he did not tell the CBI that everybody was calling him to trace out Sharvan Kumar and he had been communicating to Sharvan Kumar, whenever contacted, that he was being traced by several persons but he (witness) had not stated any name and he had not stated in any of his statement to the CBI that Suresh had conveyed him that Vijay had been contacted him for the amount of Rs.10 lacs and that Suresh has been trying to contact Sharvan in this regard but Sharvan was not reacable on his mobile and in the evening on that day at about 6 pm - 7 pm (on 23.3.2001), he spoke to Sharvan Kumar and asked him whether he had spoken to Vijay and Suresh since they are trying him the whole day. (confronted with portion Z to Z of CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 129 of 221 statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC which is Ex.PW51/A, where it is so recorded). That he does not recollect having told the CBI that thereafter Suresh rang him on his mobile at about 7.30 am on 24.3.2001 and told him that Vijay was fed up with Sharvan and that he is returning to Chennai and that then he told Suresh that they would meet when Vijay comes back and that Vijay returned to Chennai on 24th night. (confronted with portion Z1 to Z1 of statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC which is Ex.PW51/A, where it is so recorded). That on 25.3.2001 at about 2 O' clock he may had gone to Woodland Drive Inn restaurant to take coffee etc. but he does not remember a to who else were present there. He also does not remember to have stated in his CBI statement that Suresh, Krishnanand, Vijay, Sharvan, he (witness) and other two friends namely Badri and Paul met at Woodland Drive Inn restaurant at about 2 O'clock on 25.3.2001 and that Vijay was very much upset and told that he had unnecessarily suffered loss of money, time and peace of mind. (confronted with portion Z2 to Z3 of statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC which is Ex.PW51/A, where it is so recorded).
54. Sh. K. Dhanapal PW52 Sh. K. Dhanpal is a public witness who has (PW52) Witness deposed on the following aspects:
hostile qua the 1. That he used to reside at Kodai Road, accused B.P. Madurai in April, 2001 and in the year 1983 Verma and K. and 1985 he was in the business of Soap Vijay Pratap (both Manufacturing i.e. detergent and in the year deceased) 1983 the name of his company was 'Jai Soap' which was changed to 'Gold Soap Company' in the year 1985 and the factory was located at Kodai Road.
2. That a complaint was lodged against his company with the Excise Department in the year 2000 and in June, 2000, his factory was searched by the officers from Central Excise Prevention Division but nothing abnormal in their dealings was found.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 130 of 221
3. That besides Gold Soap company, he also had another firm i.e.M/s Narmada Chemicals Pvt.
Ltd. At RS No. 94/1, Sembiapalayam Village, Pondicherry, Narmada Chemicals also used to manufacture powder detergent soap.
4. That in November, 2000 at team of officers from DRI Chennai conducted surprise check at both the places in Kodai Road and Pondicherry and since he was the Proprietor of the two companies, his statement was recorded by DRI officers but nothing was found incriminating during the searches.
5. That as the DRI/ Excise Officers could not found any irregularity in the two factories, they regularly started harassing his agents as a result of which his business suffered.
6. That he had agricultural land of about 200 acres in Manjalar Damnear Devadanapatti near Kodai Road.
7. That he also had shares valued about Rs 45 lacs in Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank whose Director was Sh. Manoharan who had approached him to deposit money in his back.
8. That around about 25th February 2001, he had visited Chennai and met Sh. Manoharan and that at that time also he had requested him (witness) to invest money in his Bank but he (witness) does not remember whether he had expressed his inability to do so due to the set back in the business on account of harassment of his agent by the Excise Department.
9. That he also does not remember that he had expressed his inability to deposit further money with the bank and Mr. Manoharan has however told him that he knew persons who could help him to solve the excise problem.
10. That may be sometimes in 2001 he was staying at Hotel Residency Chennai, Sh. Manoharan had also come there and he introduced him to one gentleman named Vijay Pratap.
11. That he informed about his meeting with K. Vijay Pratap to his friends Krishnan, Selvaraj and Jawahar but he does not know whether Sh. Selvaraj had any problem from Excise department.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 131 of 221
12. That during meeting Vijay Pratap had not told him that he had very close relations with Sh. B.P. Verma who was the Chairman, Excise and Customs.
13. That Vijay Pratap also did not tell him and his friends that he will talk to Sh. B. P. Verma in the evening for an appointment for a meeting at Delhi.
Since the witness was resiling from his previous statement, hence he was crossexamined by the Ld. Spl. PP for CBI, the witness has deposed as under:
1. That his statement was recorded by CBI but he does not remember to have stated that Sh.
Selvaraj was called by him as he also had the problem from Excise department (confronted with portion A to A of statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC which is Ex.PW52/A, where it is so recorded).
2. That he does not remember to have stated in his statement to CBI that Vijay Pratap also told them that he will talk to Sh. B. P. Verma in the evening for an appointment for meeting at Delhi. (confronted with portion B to B of statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC which is Ex.PW52/A, where it is so recorded).
3. That he does not remember to have stated in his statement to CBI that he again called him over mobile phone and informed that Sh. B. P. Verma Chairman CBES has given him an appointment on 1st and 2nd March, 2001 (confronted with portion C to C of statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC which is Ex.PW52/A, where it is so recorded).
4. That on 1.3.2001 he, Vijay Pratap, Krishan, Selvaraj, Jawahar left Chennai by Indian Airlines Flight No. IC 539 at 18.00 hrs and reached New Delhi in the night and all of them stayed at Hotel Le Meridian, New Delhi.
5. That on 2.3.2001 at about 12 hrs. he along with Vijay Pratap went to the office of Sh. B. P. Verma, Chairman CBEC and the Vijay Pratap entered the chamber of Sh. B. P. Verma first and after few seconds he came out CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 132 of 221 and took him (witness) inside and introduced him to Sh. B. P. Verma and he (witness) was asked to handover the representation which he was carrying with him but he does not remember if Sh. B. P. Verma had gone through the representation and called his PA.
6. That he may have stated in his statement to CBI but now he does not remember whether he has stated or not that after going through the representation Sh. B. P. Verma made some endorsement on the representation and called his PA.(confronted with portion D to D of statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC which is Ex.PW52/A, where it is so recorded).
7. That he does not recollect if the name of PA was Ramakrishnan.
8. That he had not come to know thereafter that his representation was marked to the Director General Central Excise Intelligence, R. K. Puram.
9. That he does not remember having stated in his statement made to CBI that they went to Ramakrishnan the PA to Sh. Verma from whom they understood that the representation was marked to the Director General Central Excise Intelligence, R. K. Puram. (witness is confronted with portion E to E of his statement made to the CBI which is Ex.PW52/A where it is found so recorded).
10. That he and Vijay Pratap had gone to the office of Director General Central Excise Intelligence, R. K. Puram and there they had come to know that the Director General was out of the station on that day i.e. 02.03.2001 and was likely to resume office on 5.3.2001.
11. That on 3.3.2001 he along with Selvaraj and Vijay Pratap had not gone to the residence of Sh. B. P. Verma.
12. That he does not remember to have stated to CBI either at Chennai or at New Delhi that again on 3.3.2001 around 11.30 hours, he himself along with Selvaraj and Vijay Pratap went to the resident of Sh. B. P. Verma and CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 133 of 221 that at the residence of Sh. B. P. Verma, Vijay Pratap entered inside and he (witness) along with Selvaraj waited outside the residence (witness is confronted with the portion F to F of statement made by him to the CBI which is Ex.PW52/A where it is found so recorded).
13. That he does not remember to have stated in his statement made to CBI that after spending about one hour at the residence of Sh. B. P. Verma, Sh. Vijay Pratap came out and told them that Sh. Verma is demanding Rs. 50 lacs. (witness is confronted with portion G to G of his statement made to the CBI which is Ex.PW52/A where it is found so recorded).
14. That he had not stated to the CBI in his statement that on this when they requested to arrange meeting with Sh. Verma, Sh. Vijay Pratap said that they cannot meet Sh. Verma as he was busy with his relations. (witness is confronted with portion H to H of his statement made to CBI which is Ex.PW52/A where it is found so recorded).
15. That he had not stated in his statement made to CBI that as the demand amount of Rs. 50 lacs was very heavy, they decided not to pursue the issue any further. (witness is confronted with portion I to I of his statement made to CBI which is Ex.PW52/A where it is found so recorded).
16. That on 3.3.2001, they all five left New Delhi for Chennai by Jet Airways.
17. That in the evening of 3.3.2001 they reached Chennai and from Chennai, he was to go to Kodai Road.
18. That he had not stated in his statement made to the CBI that Vijay Pratap insisted him to stay back in Chennai for couple of days.
19. That on this 5.3.2001, Vijay Pratap came to his room in hotel Park Shereton, from there with his mobile phone, he contacted the DG, Central Excise Intelligence and got an CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 134 of 221 appointment for personal meeting for 7.3.2001. (witness is confronted with portion J to J of his statement made to CBI which is Ex.PW52/A where it is found so recorded).
20. That on 6.3.2001 he (witness) along with Vijay Pratap left Chennai for Delhi by Indian Airlines Flight in the evening and at Delhi they stayed at holtel Le Medidian.
21. That on 7.3.2001 he along with Vijay Pratap went to the office of Director General Central Excise Intelligence at R.K. Puram at about 11.30 hours and met the Director General whose name was Captain Virender Singh.
22. That they gave a copy of the representation to him and after hearing them, he assured that he would look into the matter and thereafter they returned back to their hotel room.
23. That he had not stated to the CBI that Vijay Pratap demanded Rs. 20 lacs and that he categorically said that he could pay only Rs. 10 lacs. (witness is confronted with portion K to K of his statement made to CBI which is Ex.PW52/A where it is found so recorded).
24. That he had not stated before the CBI that at Chennai Airport, Vijay Pratap again insisted him to pay the advance payment saying that the next day that was on 8.3.2001, Sh. B. P. Verma was going to Bangalore and he (Vijay Pratap) require money to pay to Sh. B. P. Verma during his meeting at Bangalore. (confronted with portion L to L of his statement made to CBI which is Ex.PW52/A where it is found to recorded).
25. That he had not stated before the CBI that they reached in his Benz car parked at Chennai Airport where he earlier kept some amount and out of that amount, he paid Rs. 5 lacks to Vijay Pratap on 7.3.2001 as part payment of total Rs.10 lacs which Sh. Vijay Pratap had agreed to (confronted with portion N to N of his statement made to CBI which is Ex.PW52/A where it is found so recorded).
26. That he had not stated before the CBI that either on 14.3.2001 or 21.3.2001, Vijay CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 135 of 221 Pratap met him in MGM Resort and told him that the Chairman Sh. B. P. Verma was out of Delhi on that day and therefore the journey to Delhi was postponed to the next day that was for Thursday (confronted with portion O to O of the statement of witness made to CBI which is Ex.PW52/A where it is found so recorded).
27. That he had not stated to the CBI that on the next day, Vijay Pratap visited him in his hotel room of park Shereton and that he (witness) paid Rs. 5 lacs, that was 2nd installment which was in additional to the earlier payment of Rs. 5 lacs (witness is confronted with portion P to P of statement of witness made to the CBI which is Ex.PW52/A where it is found so recorded).
28. That he had not stated before the CBI that he gave Vijay Pratap two open air tickets which were purchased by the end of February, 2001 and which were in his (witness) the name and in the name of Sh. Vijay Pratap (witness is confronted with portion Q to Q of his statement made to CBI which is Ex.PW52/A where it is found so recorded).
29. That he had not stated to the CBI that he had handed over any air ticket to Vijay Pratap to find out as to what happened to his representation which was personally handed over to Chairman, CBEC and it is incorrect that every time he assured that his work would be done (witness is confronted with portion R to R of his statement made to the CBI which is Ex.PW52/A where it is found so recorded).
30. That his representation which he had given to Chairman, Central Board of Customs and Central Excise, New Delhi, is Ex.PW14/A (D
70) and bears his signatures at point Z.
31. That the photocopies of annexures to the said representation which are mark Z1 and Z2 and bears his signatures at point Z3 and Z4.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 136 of 221
32. That he had come to Delhi from Chennai two times with Vijay Pratap.
33. That for the first time he had come to give the representation to the Chairman, CBEC and second time, to meet the Director, General Excise Intelligence.
34. That he did not pay any amount to anybody and that no one had ever demanded from him any money to help him in the excise matter concerning his two factors.
35. That he had come to know about this case only from news telecasted on Sun TV.
36. That he does not remember the exact date, but had come to know of it after about 15 days or one month of meeting of Vijay Pratap.
37. That he had last met Vijay Pratap when they returned back to Chennai from Delhi after the second visit to Delhi.
38. That he had not met Vijay Pratap after having seen the news item on TV.
39. That he did not contact Vijay Pratap to find out details of the news item seen by him on the TV.
40. That he did not have mobile number of Vijay Pratap.
In his cross examination by the counsels for the accused persons, the witness has deposed on the following aspects:
That he is not aware in whose handwriting statement said to be his marked as Ex.PW52/A was recorded.
That said statement was never read out to him by any CBI officer in Tamil language. The witness has voluntarily explained that he does not understand Hindi or proper English.
55. Sh. Dilli Babu PW54 Sh. Dilli Babu is the Proprietor of M/s. Shri (PW54) Witness Vadivudaiaman Transports Chennai who has deposed relevant qua the on the following aspects:
accused C. 1. That he was the proprietor of M/s. Shri Sharvan Kumar Vadivudaiaman Transports Chennai which existed during the period from 1996 to 2001.
2. That in 2001, he had two Ashok Leyland Lorries and also had the drivers at that time CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 137 of 221 but not the staff.
3. That as transporter he used to transport goods from concerned business premises/ godowns to custom notified areas for exports as per directions of customs parties and clearing forwarding agents.
4. That he knew Sh. Anand the proprietor of M/s.
Trinity Forwarders located at Flower Bazaar, Chennai.
5. That he may have transported 2569 cartons of M/s. Champa Fabrics C/o M/s. Trinity Forwarders Chennai from their godown to custom warehouse Royapuram in 2001, but he does not remember the date and month when it was so transferred.
6. That he may have also received Rs.5,100/ as charges for the transportation but he does not remember the date.
7. That he may have transported 3925 cartons of M/s. Champa Fabrics C/o M/s. Trinity Forwarders Channai in 2001 but he does not remember the date as long time as passed.
8. That he may have received Rs.2,500/ as transportation charges and he has issued the bill for the same.
9. That he had no business dealings with M/s. Champa Fabrics No.7 Vadimudali Street, Chennai.
10. That he had business dealing with M/s. Trinity forwarders for a long time.
11. That he had received telephone call from M/s. Trinity Forwarders asking him to transport 2569 cartons from godown of M/s. Champa Fabrics at No.7, Balumundali Street, Chennai to CWC Royapuram but he does not remember the date.
12. That he accordingly got the cartons transported from godown of M/s. Champa Fabrics to the staff of M/s. Trinity Forwarders at CWC Royapuram but he cannot say how many cartons were transported.
13. That he had spoken to Surendran, Prakash, Ravi and other of M/s. Trinity Forwarders on phone.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 138 of 221
14. That the transport charges were received in cash and no bill in writing was issued by his transport company for the payment.
15. That after sometime, the date he does not remember another telephone message had come from M/s. Champa Fabrics and certain cartons, the number of which he does not remember, got transported through his transport to CWC.
16. That he had not received the transportation charges for the last consignment which he got transported.
17. That the material referred to above was delivered at Central Warehousing Corporation, Royapuram Chennai as the same was to be exported.
18. That he has no idea as to whom the material transported were entrusted at the CWC.
19. That there was enquiry done from him by the custom officers Chennai in this regard.
20. That he had never personally visited the godown of M/s. Champa Fabrics.
21. That he has never done any business with M/s. A.K. Enterprises, the proprietor of which is said to be Kiran Kumar.
22. That he has never been Sharvan Kumar nor he has talked to him.
23. That vide seizure memo Ex.PW54/A which bear his signatures at point A, he had handed over three trip sheets Mark PW54/1 to PW54/3 and also three slips of papers addressed to CVC Royapuram on account of M/s. Trinity Forwarders for transportation of 1370 and 1117 cartons of readymade garments in vehicle no. TNG 9799, TCZ 5241 and TNZ 9859, to CBI, which slips are Mark PW54/4 to PW54/6.
This witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Counsels for the accused despite an opportunity in this regard.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 139 of 221 Witnesses/ Magistrates who had recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
56. Sh. Ravindra Bose PW62 Sh. Ravindra Bose was the Metropolitan (PW62) - Official Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai who has deposed on Witness - Ld. MM, the following aspects:
Chennai 1. That on 19.02.002 he was posted as 23rd Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and on receipt of orders from the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai he recorded the statement of witness Ramani son of Ganapathy.
2. That the statement was dictated by him to the stenotypist Sh. Thiru R. Vinayagam who had typed the same as per his dictation as deposed by the witness, which statement is Ex.PW62/A. He has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused but nothing much has come out of the same.
57. Sh. R. PW63 R. Shanmugam was the Metropolitan Shanmugam Magistrate, Chennai who has deposed on the (PW63) - Official following aspects:
Witness - Ld. MM, 1. That on 11.01.2002 while he was working as Chennai Metropolitan Magistrate, he recorded the statement of witness Suresh Kesavan S/o Kesavan under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which is Ex.PW63/A.
2. That on 11.01.2002 he also recorded the statement of witness S. Krishnanand under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which is Ex.PW7/A.
3. That on 17.01.2002 he recorded the statement of witness Shiv Kumar under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which is Ex.PW63/B.
4. That vide letter dated 22.01.2002 which is Ex.PW63/C he had sent the aforesaid statement of witnesses to the Special Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
He has been crossexamined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused but nothing much has come out of the same.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 140 of 221 Official Witnesses connected to investigations:
58. Sh. Sanjay Kumar PW33 Sh. Sanjay Kumar was the LDC in the (PW33) Witness department of Foods & Supplies, Government of relevant qua the Delhi wherein he has deposed on the following accused B.P. aspects:
Verma (now 1. That on 7.4.2001 he was working as LDC in deceased) Food and Supplies, Government of Delhi and was called by CBI officer in their office located in CGO complex and in his presence the voice sample of Sh. B. P. Verma was recorded in audio cassette.
2. That besides him, there was another witness Sh. N. V. Ravi Kumar who was present at the time of recording of the specimen voice of Sh. B. P. Verma.
3. That after taking the voice sample, a memo was prepared which was signed by him at point A on two pages which memo is Ex.PW33/A.
4. That the recorded cassette was sealed by the CBI officer and was kept by them.
In his cross examination on behalf of the accused, the witness has deposed on the following aspects:
That he reached CBI office at about 10.00 AM and remained there till 3.00 PM and does not remember as to into how many cassettes voice sample of Sh. B. P. Verma was recorded. That he is also not aware as to what Sh. B. P. Verma had spoken during specimen voice sample.
That he had signed the memo Ex.PW33/A at the instance of CBI officers. On a specific Court question the witness has explained that he was made to hear the voice of Sh. B. P. Verma and he was shown to him also before he was asked to sign.
That he had not checked or seen any identity card of Sh. B. P. Verma to ascertain as to whether the person whose voice sample was taken, was in fact B. P. Verma.
That he was informed about contents of Ex.PW33/A before he was made to sign.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 141 of 221
59. Dr. Vibha Rani PW35 Dr. Vibha Rani Ray is the Retired Director Ray (PW35) CFSL who has deposed on the following aspects:
Witness relevant 1. That on 21.5.2001 she was posted as qua the accused Principal Scientific Officer (Lie Detection) B.P. Verma (now CFSL, New Delhi and on request of SP, CBI, deceased) ACB, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, Delhi, she had conducted the polygraph examination (lie detection) on Sh. Bhagwan Prasad Verma.
2. That the pretest interview was conducted on 4.5.2001 and the polygraph test was conducted on9.5.2001 and 10.5.2001.
3. That her detailed report in this respect is Ex.PW35/A (running into two pages) which bears her signatures at point A on each page.
(objected to by the counsel for accused regarding admissibility).
4. That at that time Dr. S. R. Singh was the direct CFSL. The witness identified his signatures having worked under him.
5. That letter dated 23.5.2001 Ex.PW35/B bears the signatures of Dr. S. R. Singh at point A which the witness has duly identified.
6. That her report was forwarded to SP, CBI vide letter Ex.PW35/B. In her cross examination on behalf of the accused, the witness has deposed that the CFSL was functioning under administrative control of CBI.
60. Sh. K. Sriniwas PW36 Sh. K. Sriniwas Rao is the Assistant in Rao (PW36) Ministry of Culture who has deposed on the following Witness relevant aspects:
qua the accused K. 1. That on 04.04.2001 he was posted as Assistant Vijay Pratap (now in Secondary & Higher Education deceased) Department, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi wherein Sh. A.K. Singhw as also working as Assistant.
2. That he had gone to CBI office for some other work where the CBI had recorded specimen voice of Sh. K. Vijay Pratap.
3. That before that his voice and voice of A.K. Singh were recorded in a Sony Cassette and it was ensured that the cassette was blank.
4. That voice of K. Vijay Pratap was recorded through voice transmitter and he (Vijay CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 142 of 221 Pratap) gave his specimen voice voluntarily and there was no pressure or inducement upon him.
5. That voice of K. Vijay Pratao was also recorded through telephone bug also.
6. That the recorded cassette was wrapped in a cloth and sealed with the seal of CBI and the voice recording memo Ex.PW36/A was prepared which bear his signatures at point A. In his crossexamination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused, the witness has deposed on the following aspects:
That he does not remember as to why he along with A.K. Singh visited CBI office on 04.04.2001 but it was for some official work.
That on that day he went to his office from his residence and thereafter went to CBI office. That he cannot tell at what time he reached CBI office nor can he tell whom he met in CBI office nor can he tell as to who was the officer who asked him to join voice specimen recording proceedings.
That he is not aware where these proceedings took place i.e. either second or third floor. That 45 persons were present in the room in which these proceedings took place. That he cannot tell the time when these proceedings commenced nor can he tell the time when these proceedings concluded but it took half an hour after which he immediately left for office.
That he visited CBI office only once and his statement was not recorded by CBI.
That he signed two document in CBI Office, one was the memo and another the Sony Cassette.
That he cannot tell the contents of the voice specimen of K. Vijay Pratap recorded in the cassette.
That he does not remember the duration of recording of specimen voice of K. Vijay Pratap.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 143 of 221
61. Sh. Arun Kumar PW37 Sh. Arun Kumar Singh is the Under Singh (PW37) Secretary, Department of Food and Public Witness relevant Distribution who has deposed on the following qua the accused K. aspects:
Vijay Pratap (now 1. That in April 2001 he was posted as Assistant deceased) in Department of Secondary and Higher Education, Ministry of HRA, Shastri Bhawan New Delhi and Sh. K. Sriniwas Rao was also working as Assistant in the same department.
2. That on some date in April 2001, he had gone to CBI office in CGO complex along with Sh. K. Sriniwas Rao.
3. That one DSP Joshi was there and the voice of a person was recorded in his presence but he does not remember whether prior to recording the voice of that person, his voice and voice of K. Sriniwas Rao were also recorded in a blank cassette.
4. That he is also not aware whether the cassette in which voice of that person was recorded, was blank prior to the said recording or it contained some other voices. Witness has correctly identified the accused K. Vijay Pratap in the court as the person whose voice was recorded on telephone.
5. That no pressure was put on that person (K. Vijay Pratap) and both i.e. he (witness) and accused K. Vijay Pratap were sitting in different rooms but the accused was brought in his presence and then his voice was recorded.
6. That the cassette containing the voice was sealed but he does not remember in what the cassette was wrapped.
7. That a memo was prepared in respect of recording of specimen voice which is Ex.PW36/A bearing his signatures at point B. The witness has identified his signatures on the cassette which is Ex.PW37/A and also on cloth wrapper which is Ex.PW37/B. In his crossexamination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused, the witness has deposed on the following aspects:
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 144 of 221 That he went to the CBI Office for the first time on the date of memo.
That he does not remember whether the UI had shown him any prior permission from the court for taking of voice samples. That he had gone to the CBI Office in connection with some other case and it was at that point of time that he was asked to become a witness in this case as well.
That he had no idea of this case and no prior intimation regarding the nature of proceedings before he visited CBI Office nor he has any knowledge as to from where the IO procured the audio cassettes, KCR360 recorder and card type transmitter for recording of voices.
That the IO did not explain to him as to what functions would be performed by which instrument and all he was told that the voice samples of the accused will be recorded and he has to listen to it.
That he had never met the accused K. Vijay Pratap Singh prior to his voice was recorded in the present case.
That the fact mentioned in the memo Ex.PW36/A that accused K. Vijay Pratao gave specimen voice without any pressure, inducement, compulsion is his own perception and he was not shown any written consent regarding the voluntariness of giving voice sample.
That at the time when the voice sample of accused K. Vijay Pratap was taken, he (witness) was in another room but he heard Vijay Pratap when he spoke on the telephone. That he does not remember as to whether the UI had seized or sealed the KCR360 recorder, credit card type instrument or telephone buck.
62. Sh. P.L. Narang PW38 Sh. P.L. Narang is a retired government (PW38) Witness servant who has deposed on the following aspects:
relevant qua the 1. That on 05.04.2001 he was the Superintendent accused Siddharth in Land and Estate Department of MCD and Verma on that day he was called by the CBI, CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 145 of 221
2. That other person was Sh. R.P. Gautam who was the Head Clerk in the same office.
3. That in their presence, specimen voice of either B.P. Verma or Siddharth Verma was recorded in a cassette. When asked to identify the accused, the witness pointed out towards the accused Siddharth Verma and stated that he could be the one.
4. That after recording the conversation, the cassette was sealed and the seal was given to him after use which the witness has brought (the seal has been taken in Court Possession and was kept on judicial record).
5. That the recording instrument was not interconnected with telephone buck of extension no. 2423 and the line was not connected to extension no. 2801 in his presence.
6. That he does not remember whether Sh. R.P. Gautam was directed to receive the call of the conversation at extension No. 2801 (the figure of 1 or 2 is not legible). The witness has identified the cassette which is Ex.PW38/A and the wrapper which is Ex.PW38/B.
7. That a memo in this regard was prepared which is Ex.PW38/C bearing his signatures at point A. Since the witness was resiling from his previous statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., therefore, he has been crossexamined by the Ld. Spl. PP for the CBI wherein he has deposed as under:
8. That he had signed the memo Ex.PW38/C after reading and understanding the same.
9. That the contents of Ex.PW38/C at portions B to B, C to C, D to D and E to E are correct but due to passage of time,. He had forgotten the details thereof.
In his crossexamination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused the witness has deposed on the following aspects:
That he had reached the CBI Office at about 11'o clock and had received a letter from the CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 146 of 221 CBI office to attend the proceedings on the said date but he is not aware whether the said letter is a part of the judicial record or not. That he was not shown any prior permission from the court by the IO at the time of taking of voice samples of the accused.
That he does not remember as to whether the Philips Audio Cassette FX 60 was in a sealed condition or not.
That the blank audio cassette was played in full before recording to ensure its blankness, which fact was also recorded in the memo Ex.PW38/C. That he does not remember as to whether he had put any signatures on the voice recording instrument called KCR360 and the card type instrument which was used for recording the specimen voice.
That he is not aware from where the IO procured the said instruments.
That he does not recollect as to whether or not the IO had sealed the KCR360 recorder and the card type instrument.
That he has not mentioned in Ex.PW38/C that the contents of the memo had been read over to him and after understanding the same, he had affirmed the same to be correct. That the IO did not explain to him as to what a 'telephone buck' was and what were its functions and the IO of his own recorded the factum of a 'telephone buck' in the memo after which he simply asked him to put his signatures on the memo.
That he does not recollect as to whether the instrument that was used for recording voice of Sidharth Verma was seized by the IO or not. That he is not aware as to who was at the other end (recipient) at the time Sidharth Verma was giving his voice sample. That the instrument which was being used for recording voice of Sidharth Verma was not present before him and was also not visible to him.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 147 of 221
63. Sh. Deshpal PW39 Sh. Deshpal was the Assistant DG (PW39) Witness Doordarshan who has deposed on the following relevant qua the aspects:
accused B.P. 1. That on 31.03.2001 he was posted as UDC in Verma (now Doordarshan, Mandi House, New Delhi and deceased) had joined the investigation of CBI on that day.
2. That his colleague Sh. Mahesh Chand (now expired) had also joined the investigations.
3. That they were taken in a CBI car to the residence of Sh. B.P. Verma, exact place he does not remember.
4. That at that time Sh. B.P. Verma, his wife and daughter were present in the house which was searched by the CBI officers and a search memo was prepared which is Ex.PW39/A (running into four sheets) containing the details of the seized articles.
In his crossexamination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused, the witness has deposed on the following aspects:
That his office had asked him to attend the CBI office.
That the search lasted for about 14 to 16 hours.
That the house of late Sh. B.P. Verma was situated in a Housing Complex where many other flats were also located.
That in his presence, the IO had not asked any of the neighours staying in the adjacent flats to become witness in the case during investigations nor any notice in writing was served by the IO to the neighbours. That as long as the CBI team conducted search of the house, apart from the CBI officials, no independent person came or was allowed to come inside the house.
64. Sh. Pradeep Sh. Pradeep Grover (PW40) is the Special Assistant Grover (PW40) in Corporation Bank, Mayur Vihar, Delhi who has Witness relevant deposed on the following aspects:
qua the accused K. 1. That on 22.05.2001, he was posted as Special Vijay Pratap (now Assistant in Corporation Bank, CGO deceased) Complex, New Delhi.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 148 of 221
2. That on that day he was called by the CBI in CBI Head Quarters on which he went there and met ASP Sh. A.P. Singh and one gentleman Sh. K. Vijay Pratap had given his specimen signatures on 15 sheets.
3. That he (K. Vijay Pratap)had given his signatures voluntarily and no pressure was put on him.
4. That 15 sheets of specimen signatures of K. Vijay Pratap are Ex.PW40/1 to Ex.PW40/15 (D50) bearing his (witness's) signatures at point A on each page.
5. That all the 15 sheets bear the endorsement and signatures of accused K. Vijay Pratap encircled in red and marked at point B. Since the witness was unable to identify the accused in the court, therefore he was crossexamined by the Ld. Spl. PP for CBI wherein the accused K. Vijay Pratap was specifically put to the witness despite which he could not identify him on the pretext that long period of about 10 years have passed.
In his crossexamination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused, the witness has deposed on the following aspects:
That he had received a telephone call from Sh. A.P. Singh to visit the CBI office but no written communication was received. That he visited the CBI office on the said day because on previous occasions also he had been visiting the CBI office.
That he cannot recollect as to whether the Investigating Officer had shown him or not any prior permission from the court or any such other whereby the Investigating Officer was authorized to take the specimen signatures.
That he has been witness for the CBI is some other cases also.
65. Sh. Amarjit Singh PW41 Sh. Amarjit Singh is the Retired Government (PW41) Witness servant who has deposed on the following aspects:
relevant qua the 1. That on 05.05.2001 he was posted as LDC in search of house of Ward No. 35 of Sales Tax, ITO, New Delhi.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 149 of 221 B.S. Pandey 2. That he had participated in the house search of Sh. B.S. Pandey at 1st Floor, C113, Shakti Nagar Extn., Delhi and Sh. Rambir Singh of Sales Tax Department was also in the search party.
3. That the search cum seizure memo is Ex.PW6/C and whatever was recovered in the house search was mentioned in the said document.
In his crossexamination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused, the witness has deposed on the following aspects:
That at the time of their visit to the premises of B.S. Pandey, they found the flat locked and the IO called a person from outside and the lock was got opened.
That the IO merely asked him to put his signatures on the memo which he did on his asking.
66. Sh. Rambir Singh PW42 Sh. Rambir Singh is a Retired Government (PW42) Witness servant who has deposed on the following aspects:
relevant qua the 1. That on 05.05.2001 he was posted as UDC in search of house of Ward No. 49 of Sales Tax Office, ITO, New B.S. Pandey Delhi and had joined the investigation of CBI in connection with the search of residence of B.S. Pandey.
2. That the search cum seizure memo Ex.PW6/C (D65) running into 4 sheets bear his signatures at point C on each sheet and whatever was recovered from the house search was mentioned in the said document.
In his crossexamination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused, the witness has deposed on the following aspects:
That at the time of their visit to the premises of B.S. Pandey, they found the flat locked and the IO called a person from outside and the lock was got opened.
That he has no personal knowledge about the nature of the document which was collected by the IO.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 150 of 221 That the IO merely asked him to put his signatures on the memo which he did on his asking.
67. Sh. K.S. Hari PW43 Sh. K.S. Hari Kumar is the Head Clerk from Kumar (PW43) Chief Minister's Office, Delhi who has deposed on the Witness relevant following aspects:
qua the accused 1. That on 13.04.2001 he was posted as UDC in B.P. Verma (now Sales Tax Department, Delhi and had joined deceased) investigations of this case.
2. That on that day the Investigating Officer of the case had taken specimen signatures of Sh.
Bhagwan Prasad Verma on five sheets in his presence which sheets are Ex.PW43/1 to Ex.PW43/5 bearing his signatures at point A on each sheet.
3. That Sh. Verma had given his specimen signatures voluntarily.
The witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused despite an opportunity in this regard.
68. Sh. Rajender PW67 Sh. Rajender Prashad Gautam was the head Prasad Gautam clerk in Factory Licensing Department of MCD, who (PW67) - Witness has deposed on the following aspects:
to seizure of audio 1. That during April 2001, he was posted as recording of Head Clerk in factory licencing department of telephonic MCD at Kashmere Gate, Delhi. conversation 2. That he was directed by the Central Establishment Department, Head Office, to report in CBI on which he reported to CBI office in the evening to Sh. R.K. Singh Dy. S.P., CBI.
3. That there was also one official of MCD, namely, Sh. P.L. Narang.
4. That continuously, for 3 or 4 days, audio recordings of the telephonic conversations were made in CBI office, in his presence as well as 34 team members.
5. That daily recordings were being sealed, in their presence and their signatures were obtained on the sealed pullandas.
6. That specimen voice recording memo, dated 05.04.2002 which is Ex.PW38/C bears his signatures at pointB on both pages and the CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 151 of 221 audio cassette mark Q1 is Ex.P1.
In his cross examination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused the witness has deposed on the following aspects:
That he does not remember the date, when he was instructed by the head office to attend the CBI office.
That a letter was issued by the head office in this regard but he has not brought the said letter.
That in the year 2001, there was no movement register in their office and therefore, he had not made any entry for visiting the CBI Office, in any register in their office.
That he does not remember the exact time, when he reached the CBI office.
That he was directed to report to Sh. R.K. Singh, at the CBI office.
That he does not remember the names of the other CBI officials.
That Mr. R.K. Singh used to sit in the other room, while recordings were being done. That the CBI officials have not shown him any court order for conducting the recordings. That he used to leave the room for lunch etc. during the recordings.
That he had not attended the CBI proceedings in any other case, as a witness.
That he had given his evidence in several cases, relating to the cases of MCD, as he is employed in MCD.
69. Sh. R. Madhav PW68 Sh. R. Madhav Rao was the Senior Manager Rao (PW68) - (Vigilant), Vigilance Cell, Corporation Bank, Karol Witness to seizure Bagh who has deposed on the following aspects:
of suitcase 1. That during May, 2001, he was posted as Sr. Manager (Vigilance), Vigilance Cell, Corporation Bank, Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
2. That he was asked to visit the CBI office in the month of May, 2001 and he met Sh. A.P. Singh, DSP, ACB, CBI, Delhi, who informed him that he should be witness, in respect of search to be conducted, pertaining to the CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 152 of 221 suitcase, which was seized in a CBI case.
3. That the CBI officer brought the suitcase before 45 persons and the same was opened in their presence after which some items, out of it, were seized.
4. That CBI officers asked him to sign on the paper, regarding aforesaid proceedings.
5. That the bag/suitcase opening memo (D45) dated 25.05.2001 which is Ex.PW68/A bears his signatures at point A.
6. That the cash receipt for Rs.2,000/, dated 24.11.2002 which is Ex.PW68/B bears his signatures at point A.
7. That the visiting card of Yellow Cabs is Ex.PW68/C;visiting card of 'Vijay Pratap' is Ex.PW68/D and notesheet of 'Le Meridian', running into 6 pages, is Ex.PW68/E and all these documents were seized in his presence and bear his signatures at point A.
8. That all these documents were recovered by CBI officials, in his presence from a suit case, brought by them.
9. That his statement was not recorded by the CBI officials.
In his cross examination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused the witness has deposed on the following aspects:
That he had not been shown the suitcase to him, in the court, from which the above mentioned documents were recovered in his presence.
That he does not remember whether the said suitcase was in sealed condition or not, when the documents were recovered from it. That he does not know the place from where the suitcase was brought by the CBI officials.
70. Sh. Narsimha PW70 Sh. Narsimha Murthi was the Audit Clerk, Murthi (PW70) - Canara Bank, Circle Office, Chennai who has Witness to search deposed on the following aspects:
That in March 2001, he was working as Audit Clerk, Canara Bank, Circle Office, Chennai and as per the direction of his higher officers, he went to the CBI office at Chennai, on CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 153 of 221 31.03.2001 at 5.00 AM.
That from there CBI officials took him for a search at the residential premises at Anna Nagar, Chennai where he reached there at 7.30 AM.
That there was one middle aged lady, at that place.
That the CBI officials told him the purpose that a search is to be conducted at that place and he has to be a witness to the search. That except that lady, nobody was there at that accommodation.
That the CBI officials revealed their identity to that lady and search was conducted, in his presence.
That a search list was prepared and he had signed the same.
That during the search, documents mentioned in the search list were seized from the cupboard of the bedroom.
That the search list is Ex.PW61/A which bear his signatures at point B, on both the page on the search list.
That the witness also identifies his initials at point A on the air Ticket and the search was concluded at about 9.30 AM peacefully.
The witness has not been cross examined by the Ld. Counsels for the accused despite opportunity in this regard.
71. Sh. Alok Kumar PW71 Sh. Alok Kumar was the Inspector, CBI and (PW71) Witness has deposed on the following aspects:
relevant qua the 1. That on 04.04.2001 he was posted as accused K. Vijay Inspector, CBI, ACB, Delhi and on the Pratap instructions of DSP Sh. A.P. Singh he took specimen voice of Sh. K. Vijay Pratap in the presence of two independent witnesses namely Sh. A.K. Singh and Sh. Sriniwas.
2. That the said specimen voice was taken with the help of recording instrument on a blank audio cassette, make 'Sony' after recording the introductory voice of both independent witnesses in the initial part.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 154 of 221
3. That specimen voice of Sh. K. Vijay Pratap was taken with the help of credit card type of transmitter as well as from the telephone with the help of telephone bug.
4. That thereafter the cassette was got duly sealed and the signatures of both the independent witnesses was taken on the label pasted on the cassette and also on the cloth wrapper.
5. That a memo to this effect was prepared which is Ex.PW36/A (D38).
In his crossexamination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused, the witness has deposed on the following aspects:
That he has not taken any prior permission from the concerned Magistrate for taking specimen voice of Sh. K. Vijay Pratap. That the written consent of Sh. K. Vijay Pratap was not taken before taking his specimen voice and only oral consent was taken.
That he had not seized the instrument i.e. KCR 360 after taking the specimen voice.
72. Sh. N.VN. PW72 Sh. N.V.N. Krishnan is the DSP, CBI, ACB, Krishnan (PW72) New Delhi who has proved that in April 2001 while Official Witness - he was posted as Inspector in CBI, ACB, New Delhi, CBI Officer on the directions of the Investigating Officer Sh. A.P. Singh, he recorded the statement of Sh. K. Dhanpal which is Ex.PW52/A. In his crossexamination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused, the witness has deposed that Sh. Dhanpal was fluent in Tamil but he was able to follow English a little bit.
73. Sh. S.Q. Ali PW73 Sh. S.Q. Ali is the DSP, CBI, Jodhpur who in (PW73) Official his examinationinchief has deposed the following Witness - CBI aspects: Officer 1. That during the year 2002, he was working as Inspector, CBI, ACB, New Delhi.
2. That investigations of this case was transferred to him, from Sh. A.P. Singh, Addl. SP. IO of the case, sometime in April, 2002.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 155 of 221
3. That after taking over the case, he had seized documents, vide memo Ex.PW60/A (D71), which bears his signatures at point 'B'.
4. That vide memo dated 04.04.2002, he had seized the documents mentioned therein, from Mrs. Sarita Toora, Chief Supervisor, Reception Organization, MHA, New Delhi.
5. That the Memo (D80), bears his signatures at point 'A' and the same is Ex.PW73/A.
6. That he had also recorded the statement of Sh. Umesh Chander Sharma, further statement of Sh. M.C. Kashyap, Inspector; Sh. N. Rama Krishnan (Ex.PW8/DA); Sh. S.M. Bhatnagar; Sh. Virender Singh and Sh. Vijay Singh.
7. That as the accused B.P. Verma, the then Chairman, C.B.E.C., New Delhi, had already retired from service, no sanction for prosecution was required in the case.
8. That after concluding the investigations, he filed the charge sheet on 26.07.2002, in the Hon'ble Court of Special Judge.
In his cross examination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused, the witness has deposed on the following aspects:
That as far as possible, he had gone through the records of the case as handed over to him, by the previous Investigating Officer of the case and did peripheral work where ever felt necessary and concluded the investigations. That at the time of filing the charge sheet, he read over the same and affirmed to the narrative contained therein.
That he had not seized the customer application form pertaining to phone No. 9810154454.
That he had not recorded the statement of any witness to affirm the identity of the subscriber of this phone number or the identity of the person who used this phone. That he had not seized any CCTV footage from Hotel Meridian pertaining to 23.03.2001.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 156 of 221
74. Sh. Om Prakash PW74 Sh. Om Prakash is the retired Assistant (PW74) Official Director, Ministry of Communication, New Delhi who Witness - CBI in his examinationinchief has deposed the following Officer aspects: That in the year 2001, he was posted as Inspector, ACB, CBI, New Delhi.
That he had recorded the statement of Sh. S. Krishnanand, Shiv Kumar and Suresh Kesvan (Statement Ex.PW49/A), on the instructions of the IO DSP Sh. A.P. Singh, correctly.
This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused persons despite an opportunity in this regard.
75. Sh. S.C. Bhalla PW75 Sh. S.C. Bhalla (Inspector Retired) has (PW75) Official deposed the following aspects:
Witness - CBI 1. That during the year 2001, he was posted as Officer Inspector in Anti Corruption Branch, CBI, New Delhi.
2. That on 05.05.2001, he had conducted the search of residential premises of Sh. B.S. Pandey, C113, Shakti Nagar Extension, Delhi.
3. That the witnesses Sh. Amarjit Singh and Ranbir Singh, both accompanied him, and were present, during the entire proceedings of the search.
4. That he had conducted the search on the abovesaid premises, on the authorization of Sh. A.P. Singh, DSP, CBI, IO of the case.
5. That the abovesaid premises was found locked.
6. That in the presence of landlady of the abovesaid premises Smt. Raj Rani, her son, one neighbour and both the independent witnesses, the lock was broken.
7. That thereafter, the search was conducted and whatever incriminating was found, was seized and a searchcumseizure memo was prepared which is Ex.PW6/C (D65) bearing his signatures at point D.
8. That whatever was seized, has been mentioned in the seizure memo.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 157 of 221
9. That he has also seized articles/documents on 25.05.2001, from the Mal Khana of ACB, CBI, New Delhi which is Ex.PW68/A and it bears his signatures at point 'B'.
10. That whatever seized from the Mal Khana, is mentioned in the said memo.
This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused persons despite an opportunity in this regard.
76. Sh. Pannir PW76 Sh. Pannir Selvam is the DSP, Special Crime Selvam (PW76) Branch, Chennai who has deposed the following Official Witness - aspects:
CBI Officer 1. That in the month of April, 2001, he was working as Inspector, CBI, Anti Corruption Branch, Bangalore.
2. That in this case, he had seized the documents on the directions of the then SP of the branch.
3. That the productioncumseizure memo (D
46), dated 07.04.2001 which is Ex.PW76/A bears his signatures at point 'A' and that of witness Mothi Dass at point 'B'.
4. That after seizing these articles, he deposited the same in the mal khana of the branch on 10.04.2001 and an endorsement regarding receiving of the same is at the back of this memo Ex.PW76/A.
5. That the articles were received in the malkhana by Sh. P.K. Ram Chandran, Inspector of the Branch.
6. That he identified the signatures at point 'A' of Sh. P.K. Ram Chandran, as he had signed before him and he had also worked with him for about four years and the endorsement is Ex.PW76/B. This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused persons despite an opportunity in this regard.
77. Sh. P. PW77 Sh. P. Balachandran is the Addl. S.P. MDMA Balachandran Branch, CBI, New Delhi who has deposed on the (PW77) - Witness following aspects: relevant qua the 1. That in the year 2001, he was posted as accused B.P. Inspector in CBI, ACB, Delhi.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 158 of 221 Verma (now 2. That he was member of the search team led by deceased) and Sh. A.P. Singh, DSP, for conducting search at Siddharth Verma the residence of Sh. B.P. Verma, at Hudco Place, New Delhi.
3. That as far as he remember, the search was conducted on 01.03.2001.
4. That the searchcumseizure memo (D39) (running into four pages) is Ex.PW39/A bearing his signatures at point B on all the four pages.
5. That the date of search was 31.03.2001 and not 01.03.2001, as stated by him earlier.
6. That he has also taken specimen voice of Sh. B.P. Verma and his son Sh. Sidharth Verma, on the directions of the IO, on 05.04.2001 and 07.04.2001, respectively.
7. That the specimen voice recording memo of Sh. B.P. Verma is Ex.PW33/A (D36) (running into two pages) and specimen voice recording memo of Sidharth Verma is Ex.PW38/C (D37) (running into two pages).
8. That both these memos bears his signatures at point B and point C, respectively on both the pages.
In his cross examination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused the witness has deposed on the following aspects:
That on 31.03.2001, he reached the CBI office at around 6.30 AM sand his SP had instructed him to join the search team.
That no instruction in writing was given to him.
That there were about 78 members in the search team.
That they left the CBI office at around 7.15 AM.
That they reached the residence of Mr. B.P. Verma at around 8.00 AM.
That Mr. B.P. Verma and his wife alongwith 23 other persons were present in the house. That he had not ascertained the relationship of other persons, with Mr. B.P. Verma, who were present there.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 159 of 221 That he is not aware whether the Investigating Officer had called any independent person from the neighbourhood. That they remained at the residence of Mr. B.P. Verma, till about 9.00 PM.
That so far as he remember, the recording of voice specimen of Mr. Sidharth Verma was conducted in the afternoon from 2.00 to 2.30 PM but he does not remember the exact time of recording of the specimen voice of Mr. B.P. Verma.
That he is not aware of any permission from the court for recording the voice specimen of Sidharth Verma and B.P. Verma and he just followed the direction of the Investigating Officer.
That as far as he remember, there were about five persons, including him and excluding Sidharth, were present at the time of recording of the specimen voice.
That only one cassette was used to record the specimen voice.
That the Cassette was procured from the Malkhana of CBI.
That he does not remember if this fact was mentioned in the specimen voice recording memo.
78. Sh. K. Hari Om PW78 Sh. K. Hari Om Prakash is the Deputy SP, Prakash (PW78) CBI, Anti Corruption Branch, Kochi, Kerla who has Official Witness - proved that on 01.04.2001 while posted as inspector, CBI Officer CBI, Anti Corruption Branch, Chennai, on the instruction of Mr. A.P. Singh, Dy. SP. CBI, ACB, Delhi, he recorded the statements of Sh. Suresh Keshavan and Sh. A. Shiv Kumar, in this case.
This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused persons despite an opportunity in this regard.
79. Sh. Pawan Kumar PW79 Sh. Pawan Kumar, Inspector (Retd.) has (PW79) Official proved that on 07.04.2001 while posted as Inspector, Witness - CBI CBI, Anti Corruption Branch, Delhi, he recorded the Officer statements of two witnesses namely Sunil Kumar Sayal and Kishore Chand Pandey under Section 161 CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 160 of 221 Cr.P.C. on 07.04.2001 and 04.04.2001, respectively.
This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused persons despite an opportunity in this regard.
80. Sh. A.P. Singh PW80 Sh. A.P. Singh is the Investigating Officer of (PW80) Official the present case, who has deposed the following Witness - CBI aspects:
Officer 1. That he was working as Dy. S.P. and later as Addl. S.P., CBI, Anti Corruption Branch, New Delhi, during the year 20002001.
2. That the present case was registered on 30.03.2001 at CBI, ACB, New Delhi against accused B.P. Verma and others and the FIR was issued by Sh. R.P. Aggarwal, the then S.P., ACB, CBI, New Delhi, under his signatures.
3. That the case was marked to him for conducting investigations after which he took up the investigation and conducted the search of residential premises of accused B.P. Verma.
4. That the searches of other accused persons were conducted by the other officers of the team, as detailed by the branch head.
5. That during the searches, incriminating documents, were seized by him and other officials of the CBI.
6. That during the course of investigations, he examined concerned witnesses and recorded their statements.
7. That other officials also recorded statements, as and when detailed by him or the S.P. of the Branch.
8. That he has also collected relevant documents from various departments and other, under seizure memo or handing over memos, from time to time.
9. That certain case properties were also seized, like mobiles etc. and taken for investigations.
10. That the voice samples of accused persons were also obtained as also specimen writings and signatures were also obtained from them for expert examination and opinion.
11. That they were sent to the CFSL for examination and obtained their expert CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 161 of 221 opinions in the case.
12. That the accused persons were interrogated and their explanations were also recorded.
13. That in the meantime, he was transferred from the ACB and the case was handed over to another IO Mr. S.Q. Ali, for further investigation of the case.
14. That the carbon copy of the FIR issued by Mr. R.P. Aggarwal, the then SP is Ex.PW80/A bearing the signatures of Sh. P.R. Aggarwal at point A.
15. That the letter Ex.PW24/A was received by him form superintendent, CFS, CWC, Royapuram, Chennai vide which he had received the photocopies of carting register, which letter bears his signatures at point A in token of receipt of the same.
16. That vide letter Ex.PW17/A received from Skycell Communications, he received attested copies of current agreement form for mobile no. 9840077187, belonging to Mr. R. Selvan.
17. That vide letter dated 18.04.2001 Ex.PW80/B, which was received by Sh. Thomas John, Dy.
S.P. ACB, CBI, Chennai, from whom he had received the said letter, the call details for mobile No. 9841018881, 9841041669, 9841042325, 9841026243 for the period 16.03.2001 to 31.03.2001 were obtained by Sh. Thomas John.
18. That vide letter dated 25.05.2001, from RPG Cellular Mobile Company which is Ex.PW80/C he had received the details of calls for mobile no. 9841094731, 9841038811, 9841092909 for the period 16.03.2001 to 25.03.2001.
19. That vide letter Ex.PW15/H he had received the information regarding mobile no. 9810139022 through Pawan Kumar, Inspector, ACB, New Delhi.
20. That vide letter Ex.PW31/A he had received the details of STD calls of telephone No. 3012849 for the period 16.03.2001 to 31.03.2001.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 162 of 221
21. That vide letter Ex.PW27/A he had received the information regarding telephone No.3012849, which was installed at room No. 156, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi, during the month of March, 2001.
22. That vide letter Ex.PW18/C, he had received information, regarding telephone No. 6166282, installed at H8, Green Park Extn., 2nd Floor, New Delhi in the name of Rohit Jain, from MTNL.
23. That vide letter Ex.PW26/A it was certified by MTNL that telephone No. 6256715, was working during March, 2001 and installed at (GAR) Ministry of Revenue, 4C, Hudco Place, Andrews Ganj, New Delhi.
24. That vide letter Ex.PW26/B it was certified by MTNL that telephone No. 6254955, was working during March, 2001 and installed at 4C, Hudco Place, Khel Gaon Marg, Andrews Ganj, New Delhi, in the name of accused Sidharth Verma.
25. That vide letter Ex.PW26/C it was certified by MTNL that telephone No. 6254073, was working during March, 2001 and installed at 4C, Hudco Place, Andrews Ganj, New Delhi, in the name of Abhinandita Mudgal.
26. That vide letter Ex.PW18/A, he had received the STD/ISD call details of telephone No. 6166282 from the MTNL, for the period 16.03.2001 to 31.03.2001.
27. That vide seizure memo Ex.PW44/A he had received the documents mentioned therein, from K. Vijay Pratap.
28. That vide seizure memo Ex.PW54/A he had seized the documents mentioned therein, from Sh. Dilli Babu, who was proprietor of M/s. Vadivudaiaman Transport, Chennai.
29. That vide productioncumreceipt memo, which is Ex.PW76/A, Sh. B. Pannir Selvam, Inspector CBI, ACB, Bangalore, seized the documents, mentioned therein, from Smt. Nakshatra Mary Selvi G.
30. That vide letter Ex.PW5/A, received from Chief Security Officer, Hotel Le Meridian, CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 163 of 221 New Delhi he has received room service record for room No. 826 for the period 21.03.2001 to 24.03.2001.
31. That vide letter Ex.PW3/A received from Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise & Custom, he had received the notesheet pages, mentioned in the letter, as admitted writing of accused B.P. Verma, for the purpose of examination by GEQD.
32. That vide letter Ex.PW9/A, received from the office of Commissioner of Customs (SEA), Channai, he had received the documents mentioned therein.
33. That vide receipt dated 03.01.2002 (D64) which is Ex.PW80/D he had received the visitors register No. 140/2001R.O., for the period 09.03.2001 to 08.05.2001, pertaining to Gate No.2, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi, from Mrs. Sarita Toora Chief Supervisor, Reception Organization, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi.
34. That vide letter dated 26.07.2001 (received by fax) which is Ex.PW80/E from RPG Cellular Company he had received the details of IMEI & SIM numbers mentioned in the letter.
35. That vide seizure memo Ex.PW22/D, he had received two audio cassettes, mentioned in the seizure memo, from Sh. M.C. Kashyap, Inspector CBI, SU, New Delhi.
36. That vide letter Ex.PW57/E (D72) received from the office of Commissioner of Customs, Madras (Chennai), he had collected the attested photocopies of the documents, mentioned therein.
37. That vide letter Ex.PW57/B received from the office of Commissioner of Customs (SEA), Chennai, he had collected the copy of show cause notice, issued to M/s. A.K. Enterprises.
38. That vide letter dated 07.02.2002 which is Ex.PW56/A from the office of Dy. Manager (Finance), Indian Airlines, Chennai he had received the original passenger manifest of flight No. IC440 of 21.03.2001.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 164 of 221
39. That in the said letter, the dated 21.03.2002 is mentioned, which is typographical mistake and it should be 21.03.2001.
40. That he had obtained the specimen signatures of K. Vijay Pratap vide Ex.PW40/1 to Ex.PW10/15 (D50) in presence of witness Pradeep Grover, who was Special Assistant, Corporation Bank, CGO Complex, New Delhi.
41. That the bag/ suitcase opening memo which is Ex.PW68/A was prepared after conducting the search of suit case belonged to Smt. Nakshatra Mary Selvi G. on 07.04.2001, by Sh. B. Pannir Selvam, Inspector CBI, Bangalore and the documents seized from the suitcase are mentioned in the memo.
42. That vide forwarding letter dated 04.06.2001 which is Ex.PW80/F, from Director CFSL, CBI, New Delhi, he had received the of report No. CFSL 2001/D261, dated 31.05.2001 through his SP.
43. That vide letter dated 29.06.2001 which is Ex.PW80/H from CFSL, New Delhi he had received the report No. CFSL2001/D0338.
44. That vide letter Ex.PW35/B, from Director, CFSL, CBI, New Delhi, he had received the report of CFSL which is Ex.PW35/A.
45. That vide searchcumseizure memo which is Ex.PW39/A the search was conducted at the residence of accused B.P. Verma and whatever documents were found, are mentioned in the memo and it was signed by the independent witnesses and the team members of the CBI.
46. That vide letter dated 26.03.2002 which is Ex.PW80/I, from the office of Commissioner of Customs (SEA), Chennai, he had received the documents mentioned therein, from Sh. K.S.P. Reddy, AO (SIIB) Chennai.
47. That he was relieved from ACB, CBI, New Delhi on 23.01.2002 and he took charge as SP, CBI, ACB, Bangalore.
48. That since, he was the original IO of this case, certain points were given to him by the SP, ACB, CBI, New Delhi to be attended by him at CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 165 of 221 Chennai and Bangalore.
49. That part of investigations was carried forward by him and after investigations all the papers were sent to the SP, ACB, CBI, New Delhi.
In his cross examination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused the witness has deposed on the following aspects:
That he has not collected any certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, from any service provider, in respect of the call detail records, seized by him during the investigations.
That he has not obtained any permission from the concerned court, prior to taking the specimen signatures & handwritings of the accused persons.
That he has not got conducted the test identification parade of accused Sidharth Verma or Rajiv Sharma, during his tenure as IO.
That he has no knowledge whether the recording device, which was used for recording the conversations between the accused persons, was seized or not. That he had heard the contents of the two audio cassettes, which were handed over to him by inspector M.C. Kashyap.
That Mr. Kashyap had handed over these two audio cassettes to him and therefore, he has no knowledge about the process and the persons who prepared these audio cassettes. That he had no occasion to see any document, mentioning therein, that Mr. M.C. Kashyap had prepared these two audio cassettes. That he had examined the concerned officials from the mobile phone companies, from whom the call detail records were taken by him. That he does not remember whether he had made inquiries from the mobile phone companies, in respect of any other mobile phone numbers, pertaining to the investigation of the present case.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 166 of 221 That he had not obtained any permission from the concerned court for taking specimen voice samples of the accused persons.
That accused were arrested during his tenure as Investigating Officer.
That there was an order on record, regarding the interception of the conversations, issued by the then Secretary, Home, Government of India.
That he had obtained the consent of the accused persons, before taking their specimen signatures & handwriting.
That these facts must have been mentioned by him in the memos, in which the specimen handwriting and signatures were taken. That the transcript of the recorded conversations was prepared in his presence. That he has not prepared any certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, regarding the preparation of the transcript.
That Sh. Kiran Kumar Moolchand was the proprietor of M/s. A.K. Enterprises. That the accused Sharvan Kumar was to get the benefit of the duty draw back. That the accused Sharvan Kumar was having no connection with M/s. A.K. Enterprises. That all the actions were done on behalf of M/s. A.K. Enterprises by accused Sharvan Kumar and therefore, he was to get benefit from the duty draw back.
That the amount of duty draw back is sent directly to the account of the concerned firm and in this case the amount of duty draw back was to be sent to the account of M/s. A.K. Enterprises.
That the department of customs had issued some notice to Sharvan Kumar, as per the provisions of the Customs Act.
That he is not aware about the exact proceedings conducted by the customs department against him.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 167 of 221 That he is not aware about the prosecution of the Sharvan Kumar by the Customs Department, under the provisions of the Customs Act.
That he has not made any inquiries from the custom department in this regard. That there was another consignment of Sripal Garments, but he had not conducted any investigations regarding the quality of the goods of the said consignment.
That the consignment of the goods of M/s. A.K. Enterprises was checked for quality by the customs department.
That the consignment of Sripal Garments was never checked.
That he has not seized any CCTV footage from Le Meridian Hotel, Delhi.
That the documents Ex.PW22/D was prepared before sending the audio cassettes to the CFSL.
That he has no knowledge whether the proprietor of M/s. A.K. Enterprises was prosecuted by the customs department or not. That he has no knowledge whether the proprietor of M/s. A.K. Enterprises has remained in custody for a period of six months in a case under the provisions of COFEPOSA.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED AND DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
(16) After completion of prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure wherein all incriminating evidence has been put to them which they have denied. The accused Siddharth Verma and Rajeev Sharma have stated that they are innocent and the Investigating Officers have conducted unfair investigations. According to them, they have been falsely implicated despite there being no tangible CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 168 of 221 evidence against them and no evidence has been brought on record to attribute any overt act to them or to show that they had entered into any criminal conspiracy with the coaccused. They have further stated that the witnesses of the prosecution are interested witnesses and they have deposed with a view to secure their unlawful and illegal conviction.
(17) The accused C. Sharvan Kumar has similarly stated that he is innocent and the Investigating Officers have conducted unfair investigations. According to him, he has been falsely implicated despite there being no tangible evidence against him and no evidence has been brought on record to attribute any overt act to him or to show that he had entered into any criminal conspiracy with the coaccused. They have further stated that the witnesses of the prosecution are interested witnesses and they have deposed with a view to secure their unlawful and illegal conviction. (18) However, none of the accused have preferred to examine any witness in their defence.
ARGUMENTS:
(19) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Learned Senior Public Prosecutor for CBI and the Learned Defence Counsels. I have also considered the written memorandum of arguments filed by the prosecution as well as the defence and the main plank of their arguments is culled out as under.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 169 of 221 Arguments on behalf of the accused:
Principle accused B.P. Verma and K. Vijay Pratap have expired: It is argued that the foundation of the present case is the receipt of illegal gratification by the accused B.P. Verma in lieu of favour shown to C. Sharvan Kumar. Once the public servant namely B.P. Verma is dead and is not in the position to defend himself, the Court cannot given findings against such person and hence the charge of Section 120B Indian Penal Code against those who have conspired with the public servant fails. Reference in this regard is made to the case of Ketrogen Kemi Vs. State through CBI reported in 2004 (72) DRJ 693. There is no voice identification of Siddharth Verma: It is argued that the voice conversation between the accused B.P. Verma (since expired) and the accused Siddharth Verma has not been proved as the witness N. Rama Krishna (PW8) has not recognized the voice and refers him as 'some other person'. It is further argued, that the CFSL Report (D55) has not been proved in accordance with law, the experts Sh. T.R. Nehra and Sh. C.K. Jain having expired. It is also argued that the even the voice of accused Siddharth Verma has not been connected and the main accused B.P. Verma only refers as 'Kittu'. It is submitted that no permission to take the specimen voice of accused Siddharth Verma was obtained any consent has been taken from the CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 170 of 221 accused. Reliance is placed upon the judgments in the case of Ritesh Sinha Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. reported in 2013 (2) SCC 357 and Rakesh Bisth Vs. CBI reported in ILR 2007 Del 223.
Interception order expired before the phone conversation was intercepted: It is argued that the interception orders, issued by Sh. Kamal Pandey, Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs which are Ex.PW22/A, Ex.PW22/B and Ex.PW22/C were in relation to three telephone numbers i.e. 6564747, 6464805 and 6463602 for the period 15.11.2000 to 15.02.2001. It is submitted that the prosecution sought the interception of phone including 9810139022 belonging to B.P. Verma and the order passed on 15.11.2000 was operating for a period of 90 days and hence ceased to be operational after 15.02.2001. Master Recording Machine and Master Cassettes not seized: the Ld. Counsel for the accused has placed his reliance upon the testimony of M.C. Kashyap (PW22) who had prepared two cassettes of intercepted conversation and during crossexamination has conceded that the conversation were recorded in an automatic recording machine which was never seized nor the master cassettes were seized.
No certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act:
It is argued that the cassettes have been proved by N. Rama CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 171 of 221 Krishna (PW8) and M.C. Kashyap (PW22) without producing the certifications under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. The impugned conversation was dated 22.03.2001 and Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act was inserted by an act of Parliament in 2000 and came into effect on 17.10.2000 and hence the certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act was necessary. Reliance is placed upon the case of Anvar P.V. Vs. P.K. Basheer & Others reported in 2014 (10) SCC 43 and it is argued that even the secondary evidence produced by the prosecution has not been accompanied by the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
No attempt to lay a trap: It is argued that the present FIR was registered on 30.03.2001 i.e. seven days after the alleged pickup of money by Rajeev Sharma from the hotel of K. Vijay Pratap. It is further argued that the CBI who were intercepting and monitoring the phone calls, made no attempts to lay the trap on 23.02.2001 wherein they could have caught the alleged accused red handed but chose not to do so and registered an FIR seven days later. PW20 and PW25 do not support the case of prosecution:
It is argued that Pratap Singh (PW20) and Kishore Chand Pandey (PW25) have not supported the case of the prosecution. Though in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. both these witnesses claimed that Rajeev Sharma CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 172 of 221 had come to the guest house in Green Park and handed over a black packet to Siddharth Verma but in the Court Pratap Singh (PW20) has categorically stated that he did recollect any conversation between Siddharth Verma and Rajeev Sharma and no packet was handed over in his presence. Further, reliance is placed upon the testimony of Kishore Chand Pandey (PW25) who has stated that he does not remember whether he had stated to the CBI that Rajeev Sharma had come that night at 9:00 PM and was declared hostile.
Arguments on behalf of the prosecution:
(20) The Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor for CBI has admitted that the main accused B.P. Verma i.e. Public Servant and the accused K. Vijay Pratap have expired during the trial. It is also an admitted case of the prosecution that the Master Recording Machine and the Master Cassettes have neither been seized nor produced in the Court. It is argued that the oral testimony of M.C. Kashyap (PW22) who had intercepted the telephone calls of B.P. Verma and Siddharth Verma and had heard the same and also the testimony of N. Rama Krishna (PW8), are sufficient evidence against the accused Siddharth Verma in so far as his voice identification is concerned. Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor for CBI has also placed his reliance upon the transcript of the conversation which is Ex.PW8/A and the CFSL report which gives a positive opinion in respect of CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 173 of 221 voice of B.P. Verma and K. Vijay Pratap is concerned, though it is an admitted that the said reports have not been proved by calling the experts who too have expired. However, the Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor has placed his reliance upon the provisions of Section 293 Cr.P.C. and has argued that the CFSL reports are admissible in evidence.
(21) Reliance has also been placed upon the testimonies of Sunil Kumar Sayal and K. Maggo (PW5) who have proved the various documents relating to stay of accused K. Vijay Pratap in hotel LeMeridian i.e. computerized bill which is Ex.P2, two cheques vide which the accused K. Vijay Pratap made the payments which are Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B; letter of Hotel LeMeridian which is Ex.PW5/A; list of room service which is Ex.PW5/B and registration cards which are Ex.PW5/D to Ex.PW5/F. Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor has conceded that the Investigating Officer has in his crossexamination admitted that he has not collected the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act with regard to the Call Details Record and the recorded conversation.
OBSERVATIONS & FINDINGS:
(22) I have considered the rival contentions. My findings are as under:
Registration of FIR Proved:
(23) The present case was registered on 30.03.2001 against the accused B.P. Verma (since expired) the then Chairman of Central CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 174 of 221 Board of Excise and Customs; Siddharth Verma; K. Vijay Pratap (since expired); Rajeev Sharma; C. Sharvan Kumar and M/s. A.K. Enterprises through its Proprietor Kiran Kumar. However, later on only the accused B.P. Verma (since expired); Siddharth Verma; K. Vijay Pratap (since expired); Rajeev Sharma and C. Sharvan Kumar were sent up for trial. The Investigating Officer i.e. ASP CBI Sh.
A.P. Singh has duly proved the carbon copy of FIR which is Ex.PW80/A. Even otherwise, the accused have not disputed the FIR and hence, I hold that the registration of FIR has been duly proved.
Main accused B.P. Verma and K. Vjay Pratap have expired:
(24) The allegations against the accused B.P. Verma, the then Chairman of central Board of Excise and Customs was of taking illegal gratification from the exporters and the accused K. Vijay Pratap was the middle man who allegedly acted on behalf of M/s.
A.K. Enterprises. During the trial the accused B.P. Verma expired on 08.08.2005 and the accused K. Vijay Pratap expired on 09.06.2013. The record reveals that the charges were framed against the accused B.P. Verma and K. Vijay Pratap for the offences under Section 120B IPC r/w Section 7 of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Further, charges under Section 7 of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were also framed against accused B.P. Verma and charges for the offences punishable under Section 12 of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were also framed against accused K. Vijay Pratap. In so far as the surviving accused namely Siddharth Verma, CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 175 of 221 Rajeev Sharma and C. Sharvan Kumar are concerned, charges were framed against them under Sections 120B read with Section 7 and Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The main accused B.P. Verma, a public servant having expired during the trial and not being in a position to defend himself, no findings can be given either against the accused B.P. Verma or accused K. Vijay Pratap. The proceedings against the accused B.P. Verma and K. Vijay Pratap have already been abated during the trial of the case.
Electronic Evidence:
(25) The present case was registered on the basis of the information received during tapping of telephones and the entire case of the prosecution is based upon the Call Details Record and the telephonic conversation i.e. electronic data. It is an admitted case of the prosecution that the voice recording had been done on the Master Recording Machine and thereafter the data was copied to from the Cassette of Master Recording Machine to other audio cassettes which audio cassettes have been produced in the Court and also sent to CFSL. Admittedly, no certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act has been produced in the Court with regard to the telephonic conversation copied through the Master Recording Machine or with regard to the Call Details Record, so much so even the Customer Application forms of the accused Siddharth Verma and Rajeev Sharma have not been produced before this Court by the prosecution.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 176 of 221 (26) Before coming to the appreciation to the evidence produced by the prosecution and the implication there of, it is necessary to revert back to the provisions of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act which provides as under:
65 B. Admissibility of electronic records (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any information contained in electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer (herein after referred as a computer output) shall be deemed to be also a document, if the condition mentioned in this section are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question and shall be admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible.
(2) the conditions referred to in subsection (1) in respect of a computer output shall be the following, namely
(a) the computer out put containing the information was produced by the computer during the period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of the computer.
(b) during the said period, information of the kind contained in the electronic record or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinarily course of the said activities:, CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 177 of 221
(c) throughout the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly or, if not, then in respect of any period in which it was not operating property or was out of operation during that part of the period was not such as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents:, and
(d) the information contained in the electronic record reproduces or is derived from such information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities.
(3) where over any period, the function of storing or processing information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period as mentioned in clause (a) of subsection (2) was regularly performed by computers, whether
(a) by a combination of computers operation over that period:, or
(b) by different computer operation in succession over that period or
(c) by different combination of computers operation in succession over that periods: or
(d) in any other manner involving the successive operation over that period, in whatever order, of one or more computers and one or more combination of computers, all the computers used for that purpose during tat period shall be treated for the purpose of this section as constituting as single computer: and references in this section to a computer shall be constructed accordingly.
(4) in any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate doing any of the following things, that is to say.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 178 of 221
(a) identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced:
(b) giving such particulars of any device involved in production of that involved in the production of that electronic record was produced by a computer.
(c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in subsection (2) relate, and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of relevant activities (whichever is appropriate) shall be sufficient for a mater to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it.
(5) For the purposes of section:
(a) information shall be taken to be
supplied to a computer if it is supplied thereto in any appropriate form and whether it is so supplied directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of action any appropriate equipment.
(b) whether in course of activities carried on by any official information is supplied with a view to for its being stored or processed for the purposes of those activities, that information, if duly supplied to that computer, shall be taken to be supplied to it in the course of those activities:,
(c) a computer output shall be taken to have been proceeded by a computer whether it was produced by it directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 179 of 221 (27) In the case of Anvar P.V. Vs. P.K. Basheer & Others reported in 2014 (10) SCC 43 decided by the Three Judges Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India comprising of Hon'ble the then Chief Justice of India R.M. Lodha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down the manner in which the Electronic Record is required to be proved and I quote:
"........ The evidence consisted of three parts - (i) electronic records, (ii) documentary evidence other than electronic records, and (iii) oral evidence. As the major thrust in the arguments was on electronic records, we shall first deal with the same.
6. Electronic record produced for the inspection of the court is documentary evidence under Section 3 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as 'Evidence Act'). The Evidence Act underwent a major amendment by Act 21 of 2000 [The Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'IT Act')]. Corresponding amendments were also introduced in The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), The Bankers Books Evidence Act, 1891, etc.
7. Section 22A of the Evidence Act reads as follows:
"22A. When oral admission as to contents of electronic records are relevant Oral admissions as to the contents of electronic records are not relevant, unless the genuineness of the electronic record produced is in question."
8. Section 45A of the Evidence Act reads as follows:
"45A. Opinion of Examiner of Electronic Evidence.When in a proceeding, the court has to form an opinion on any matter relating to any CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 180 of 221 information transmitted or stored in any computer resource or any other electronic or digital form, the opinion of the Examiner of Electronic Evidence referred to in section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000(21 of 2000)., is a relevant fact.
Explanation.For the purposes of this section, an Examiner of Electronic Evidence shall be an expert."
9. Section 59 under Part II of the Evidence Act dealing with proof, reads as follows:
"59. Proof of facts by oral evidence.--All facts, except the contents of documents or electronic records, may be proved by oral evidence."
10. Section 65A reads as follows:
"65A. Special provisions as to evidence relating to electronic record: The contents of electronic records may be proved in accordance with the provisions of section 65B."
11. Section 65B reads as follows:
"65B. Admissibility of electronic records:
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer (hereinafter referred to as the computer output) shall be deemed to be also a document, if the conditions mentioned in this section are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question and shall be admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production of the original, as evidence of any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible.
(2) The conditions referred to in subsection (1) in respect of a computer output shall be the following, namely: CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 181 of 221
(a) the computer output containing the information was produced by the computer during the period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of the computer;
(b) during the said period, information of the kind contained in the electronic record or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities;
(c) throughout the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly or, if not, then in respect of any period in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of the period, was not such as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents; and
(d) the information contained in the electronic record reproduces or is derived from such information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities.
(3) Where over any period, the function of storing or processing information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period as mentioned in clause (a) of subsection (2) was regularly performed by computers, whether -
(a) by a combination of computers operating over that period; or
(b) by different computers operating in succession over that period; or
(c) by different combinations of computers operating in succession over that period; or
(d) in any other manner involving the successive operation over that period, in whatever order, of one or more computers and one or more combinations of computers, all the computers used for that purpose during that period shall be CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 182 of 221 treated for the purposes of this section as constituting a single computer; and references in this section to a computer shall be construed accordingly.
(4) In any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate doing any of the following things, that is to say,
(a) identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced;
(b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that electronic record as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was produced by a computer;
(c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in subsection (2) relate, and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities (whichever is appropriate) shall be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; and for the purposes of this subsection it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it. (5) For the purposes of this section,
(a) information shall be taken to be supplied to a computer if it is supplied thereto in any appropriate form and whether it is so supplied directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment;
(b) whether in the course of activities carried on by any official, information is supplied with a view to its being stored or processed for the purposes of those activities by a computer operated otherwise than in the course of those activities, that information, if duly supplied to that CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 183 of 221 computer, shall be taken to be supplied to it in the course of those activities;
(c) a computer output shall be taken to have been produced by a computer whether it was produced by it directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment.
Explanation: For the purposes of this section any reference to information being derived from other information shall be a reference to its being derived therefrom by calculation, comparison or any other process."
These are the provisions under the Evidence Act relevant to the issue under discussion.
12. In the Statement of Objects and Reasons to the IT Act, it is stated thus:
"New communication systems and digital technology have made drastic changes in the way we live. A revolution is occurring in the way people transact business."
In fact, there is a revolution in the way the evidence is produced before the court. Properly guided, it makes the systems function faster and more effective. The guidance relevant to the issue before us is reflected in the statutory provisions extracted above.
13. Any documentary evidence by way of an electronic record under the Evidence Act, in view of Sections 59 and 65A, can be proved only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 65B. Section 65B deals with the admissibility of the electronic record. The purpose of these provisions is to sanctify secondary evidence in electronic form, generated by a computer. It may be noted that the Section starts with a non obstante clause. Thus, notwithstanding anything contained in the Evidence Act, any information contained in an CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 184 of 221 electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer shall be deemed to be a document only if the conditions mentioned under subSection (2) are satisfied, without further proof or production of the original. The very admissibility of such a document, i.e., electronic record which is called as computer output, depends on the satisfaction of the four conditions under Section 65B(2). Following are the specified conditions under Section 65B(2) of the Evidence Act:
(i) The electronic record containing the information should have been produced by the computer during the period over which the same was regularly used to store or process information for the purpose of any activity regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of that computer;
(ii) The information of the kind contained in electronic record or of the kind from which the information is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activity;
(iii) During the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly and that even if it was not operating properly for some time, the break or breaks had not affected either the record or the accuracy of its contents; and
(iv) The information contained in the record should be a reproduction or derivation from the information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activity.
14. Under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, if it is desired to give a statement in any proceedings pertaining to an electronic record, it is permissible provided the following conditions are satisfied:
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 185 of 221
(a) There must be a certificate which identifies the electronic record containing the statement;
(b) The certificate must describe the manner in which the electronic record was produced;
(c) The certificate must furnish the particulars of the device involved in the production of that record;
(d) The certificate must deal with the applicable conditions mentioned under Section 65B(2) of the Evidence Act; and
(e) The certificate must be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device.
15. It is further clarified that the person need only to state in the certificate that the same is to the best of his knowledge and belief. Most importantly, such a certificate must accompany the electronic record like computer printout, Compact Disc (CD), Video Compact Disc (VCD), pen drive, etc., pertaining to which a statement is sought to be given in evidence, when the same is produced in evidence. All these safeguards are taken to ensure the source and authenticity, which are the two hallmarks pertaining to electronic record sought to be used as evidence. Electronic records being more susceptible to tampering, alteration, transposition, excision, etc. without such safeguards, the whole trial based on proof of electronic records can lead to travesty of justice.
16. Only if the electronic record is duly produced in terms of Section 65B of the Evidence Act, the question would arise as to the genuineness thereof and in that situation, resort can be made to Section 45A - opinion of examiner of electronic evidence.
17. The Evidence Act does not contemplate or permit the proof of an electronic record by oral evidence if requirements under Section 65B of the Evidence Act are not complied with, as the law CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 186 of 221 now stands in India.
18. It is relevant to note that Section 69 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984 (PACE) dealing with evidence on computer records in the United Kingdom was repealed by Section 60 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act, 1999. Computer evidence hence must follow the common law rule, where a presumption exists that the computer producing the evidential output was recording properly at the material time. The presumption can be rebutted if evidence to the contrary is adduced. In the United States of America, under Federal Rule of Evidence, reliability of records normally go to the weight of evidence and not to admissibility.
19. Proof of electronic record is a special provision introduced by the IT Act amending various provisions under the Evidence Act. The very caption of Section 65A of the Evidence Act, read with Sections 59 and 65B is sufficient to hold that the special provisions on evidence relating to electronic record shall be governed by the procedure prescribed under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. That is a complete code in itself. Being a special law, the general law under Sections 63 and 65 has to yield....."
(28) In the above case the Hon'ble Supreme Court had also made a reference to the observations made on the aspect of Section 65B of Evidence Act in the earlier case of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru, reported in (2005) 11 SCC 600 and distinguished the same as under:
"....... 20. In State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru, reported in (2005) 11 SCC 600 a twoJudge Bench of this Court had an CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 187 of 221 occasion to consider an issue on production of electronic record as evidence. While considering the printouts of the computerized records of the calls pertaining to the cellphones, it was held at Paragraph150 as follows:
"150. According to Section 63, secondary evidence means and includes, among other things, "copies made from the original by mechanical processes which in themselves insure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies".
Section 65 enables secondary evidence of the contents of a document to be adduced if the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable. It is not in dispute that the information contained in the call records is stored in huge servers which cannot be easily moved and produced in the court. That is what the High Court has also observed at para 276. Hence, printouts taken from the computers/servers by mechanical process and certified by a responsible official of the serviceproviding company can be led in evidence through a witness who can identify the signatures of the certifying officer or otherwise speak of the facts based on his personal knowledge. Irrespective of the compliance with the requirements of Section 65B, which is a provision dealing with admissibility of electronic records, there is no bar to adducing secondary evidence under the other provisions of the Evidence Act, namely, Sections 63 and 65. It may be that the certificate containing the details in subsection (4) of Section 65B is not filed in the instant case, but that does not mean that secondary evidence cannot be given even if the law permits such evidence to be given in the circumstances mentioned in the relevant provisions, namely, Sections 63 and 65."......
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 188 of 221
21. It may be seen that it was a case where a responsible official had duly certified the document at the time of production itself. The signatures in the certificate were also identified. That is apparently in compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. However, it was held that irrespective of the compliance with the requirements of Section 65B, which is a special provision dealing with admissibility of the electronic record, there is no bar in adducing secondary evidence, under Sections 63 and 65, of an electronic record.
22. The evidence relating to electronic record, as noted herein before, being a special provision, the general law on secondary evidence under Section 63 read with Section 65 of the Evidence Act shall yield to the same. Generalia specialibus non derogant, special law will always prevail over the general law. It appears, the court omitted to take note of Sections 59 and 65A dealing with the admissibility of electronic record. Sections 63 and 65 have no application in the case of secondary evidence by way of electronic record; the same is wholly governed by Sections 65A and 65B. To that extent, the statement of law on admissibility of secondary evidence pertaining to electronic record, as stated by this court in Navjot Sandhu case (supra), does not lay down the correct legal position. It is required to be overruled and we do so. An electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted in evidence unless the requirements under Section 65B are satisfied. Thus, in the case of CD, VCD, chip, etc., the same shall be accompanied by the certificate in terms of Section 65B obtained at the time of CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 189 of 221 taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible.
23. The appellant admittedly has not produced any certificate in terms of Section 65B in respect of the CDs, ExhibitsP4, P8, P9, P10, P12, P13, P15, P20 and P22. Therefore, the same cannot be admitted in evidence. Thus, the whole case set up regarding the corrupt practice using songs, announcements and speeches fall to the ground.
24. The situation would have been different had the appellant adduced primary evidence, by making available in evidence, the CDs used for announcement and songs. Had those CDs used for objectionable songs or announcements been duly got seized through the police or Election Commission and had the same been used as primary evidence, the High Court could have played the same in court to see whether the allegations were true. That is not the situation in this case. The speeches, songs and announcements were recorded using other instruments and by feeding them into a computer, CDs were made therefrom which were produced in court, without due certification. Those CDs cannot be admitted in evidence since the mandatory requirements of Section 65B of the Evidence Act are not satisfied. It is clarified that notwithstanding what we have stated herein in the preceding paragraphs on the secondary evidence on electronic record with reference to Section 59, 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act, if an electronic record as such is used as primary evidence under Section 62 of the Evidence Act, the same is admissible in evidence, without compliance of the conditions in Section 65B of the Evidence Act......"
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 190 of 221 (29) Applying these settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, I may observe that the provisions of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence was inserted by an act of parliament in 2000 and came into effect on 17.10.2000. The impugned conversation was of dated 23.03.2001, the present FIR was registered on 30.03.2001 and the charge sheet was filed on 26.07.2002. (30) It is an admitted case of the prosecution that the Master Recording Machine and the Master Cassette have never been seized nor produced in the Court and the certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act with regard to the copies prepared from the Master Cassette have never been obtained. Further, the Call Details Record on which the prosecution is placing its reliance are also not accompanied with the certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act and not proved in accordance with law. Also, the Customer Application Forms of both the accused Siddharth Verma and Rajeev Sharma have not been obtained and produced in the court to prove their involvement. Hence, under the given circumstances, the evidence in the form of telephonic conversation/ transcripts and the Call Details Record which are not accompanied by any certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act, is inadmissible in evidence.
CFSL Reports - Not Proved:
(31) The case of the prosecution is that the voice samples of Siddharth Verma, B.P. Verma (now deceased) and K. Vijay Pratap CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 191 of 221 (now deceased) had been taken and were sent to CFSL for expert opinion and the experts Sh. T.R. Nehra and Sh. N.K. Jain had given a positive report. Ld. Counsel for the accused Siddarth Verma has raised an objection with regard to the admissibility of the CFSL reports on the ground that the said evidence is self incriminating. (32) Before coming to the merits of the case, I may observe that it would depend upon the appreciation of report / opinion of handwriting expert and other attending circumstances as to whether the said report can be relied upon or not and to what extent. Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act lay down that when the court has to form an opinion as to foreign law or of science or art or as identity of hand writing or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of the persons expert in that science are relevant facts. If the two voice samples match with each other, this itself is an evidence as per the Indian Evidence Act. To say it differently, the matching of two voice samples is itself a substantial evidence under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act and the opinion of the hand writing expert is sought only to facilitate the court to form an opinion on this point.
Therefore, to say that conviction can be or cannot be based solely upon the report of hand writing expert would be misleading. The appropriate interpretation of Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act is that court is competent to form its own opinion on the point of science (voice analysis) and for that purpose the court may call for the report of the expert/ analyst. Therefore, the relevant fact before this court is the matching or non matching of the voice samples of the accused with the questioned voice samples. If the voice samples CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 192 of 221 match, there cannot be any hitch in convicting the accused even if further corroborative evidence is not available. (33) In the case of S. Pratap Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1964 (4) SCR 733 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
".... 76. The High Court did not rely on the renderings of the tape recorded conversation in view of the fact that such tape recordings can be tampered with. Tape recordings can be legal evidence by way of corroborating the statements of a person who deposes that the other speaker and he carried on that conversation or even of the statement of a person who may depose that he overheard the conversation between the two persons and what they actually stated had been tape recorded. Weight to be given to such evidence will depend on the other facts which may be established in a particular case. It cannot be held, and it has not been so held by the Court below, that the record of the conversation on a tape record is not admissible in evidence for any purpose and therefore we need not say anything more about it....."
(34) Similarly, the Hon'ble Delhi Court has in the case of State Vs. Ravi alias Munna reported in 2000 (52) DRJ 77 has observed and I quote as under:
"........ It is settled law that rendering a tape recorded conversation can be legal evidence by way of corroborating the statement of a person who deposes that the other speaker and he carried on with the conversation or even of the statement of a person who deposes that he overheard the CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 193 of 221 conversation between the two persons and what they actually stated had been taperecorded. The taperecorded conversation can only be used as corroborative evidence of such conversation deposed to by any of the parties to the conversation. In the instant case, there is absence of such evidence, therefore, the taperecorded conversation is indeed no evidence and cannot be relied upon. The Supreme Court in Mahavir Prasad Verma Vs. Surinder Kaur, has held :
"taperecorded conversation can only be relied upon as corroborative evidence of conversation deposed to by any of the parties to the conversation and in the absence of evidence of any such conversation, the taperecorded conversation is indeed no proper evidence and cannot be relied upon......"
(35) Recently, in the case of Savita @ Babbal Vs. State reported in 2011 SCC OnLine Del 1966, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court while considering the admissibility of such tape recorded conversations held that the tape recorded conversations contained in the cassette should be accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act and the mere exhibition of a transcript is not sufficient. I quote the relevant portion as under:
"........ 22. Learned counsel argued that the so called telephonic conversations, the transcripts of which were relied on by the prosecution, are inadmissible. In this respect, it was submitted that there was no proof, or connecting material to establish that Telephone Number 31925 was installed at the Ashram of the Swami. The transcripts nowhere reveal any role of the swami or Savita, in the crime. Importantly, submitted the CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 194 of 221 counsel, no one from the telephone exchange, at Rishikesh was examined, in the trial to prove that the recording in fact took place, as alleged in this case. Lastly, submitted the counsel, the transcripts cannot be co related with the voice of any one accused. Arguing about admissibility of such telephone recordings, their cassettes, or transcripts, the appellants' counsel submitted that the decision in Mahavir Prasad Verma v. Surinder Kaur, AIR 1982 SC 1043 and of a Division Bench of this Court, in State v. Ravi, 2000 (1) AD (Del) 222 have ruled that tape recorded conversations can be relied upon as corroborative evidence of conversation deposed to by parties to the conversation and in the absence of evidence (of such conversation) the tape recording is not proper evidence, and cannot be relied on. Similarly, the judgments reported as R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharastra, AIR 1973 SC 417; Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra, AIR 1975 SC 1788 and Ram Singh v. Col. Ram Singh, AIR 1986 SC 3 have been relied on to show what are the material tests for a tape recording to be admissible, as evidence. The Court had indicated that the fulfillment of the following preconditions was essential for a tape recording to be admissible in a trial:
a) the voice of the speaker must be duly identified by the maker of the record or by others who recognize his voice. Where the maker has denied the voice it will require very strict proof to determine whether or not it was really the voice of the speaker.
b) The accuracy of the tape recorded statement has to be proved by the maker of the record by satisfactory evidence direct or circumstantial.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 195 of 221
c) Every possibility of tempering with or erasure of a part of a tape recorded statement must be ruled out otherwise it may render the said statement out of context and, therefore, inadmissible.
d) The statement must be relevant according to the rules of Evidence Act.
e) The recorded cassette must be carefully sealed and kept in safe or official custody.
f) The voice of the speaker should be clearly audible and not lost or distorted by other sounds or disturbance.
73. So far as the expert evidence is concerned, the Court notes that the transcripts relied on by the trial court do not show the exact conversations, and who spoke what. Though the voice samples given to PW41, are said to match those in the three tape recordings, in the absence of identity of those conversing, in the transcripts, it would be unsafe for the Court to rely on this evidence. The rulings in R.M. Malkani; Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari and Ram Singh (supra) have mandated safeguards, which are to be followed by courts while taking into account taperecorded telephonic conversations. Here, none of the witnesses knew, or could have identified the swami's voice; none of them have shown convincingly that the possibility of tampering with tape recordings had been eliminated. Besides, the authenticity of the tapes becomes questionable, since the prosecution does not produce the authority documents which persuaded the MTNL officials to accept the request for telephone tapping; in fact even MTNL officials did not depose in support of the prosecution, corroborating its version. The authorities are uniform and clear on this aspect; the voice of the CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 196 of 221 accused, or the maker to whom a conversation was attributed, had to be identified by someone familiar with it. That is not the case here; the prosecution merely points at the transcripts and states that copies were given. In the absence of proof that the swami's conversation was in the tapes, by one who was familiar with his voice, the Court cannot jump to the conclusion that he was one of the participants in the three telephonic tape recordings. In view of this finding, it is held that the trial court fell into error in considering the alleged transcripts of telephonic conversations, or even the conversations, and concluding that it constituted a proven suspicious circumstance......"
(36) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, it is evident that neither the Master Recording Machine nor the Master Cassettes have been seized or produced in the Court. I may observe that in so far as the accused B.P. Verma and K. Vijay Pratap are concerned, they have expired. It is an admitted case of the prosecution that both the experts i.e. Sh. T.R. Nehra and Sh. N.K. Jain have not been examined as witnesses before the Court. Therefore, the reports of the CFSL have not been proved by calling the authors of the same i.e. Sh. T.R. Nehra and Sh. N.K. Jain or the person acquainted with their signatures and handwriting. (37) Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor for CBI has desperately tried to place his reliance on the provisions of Section 293 Cr.P.C. In this regard, I may observe that this would not help the prosecution in any manner since no person acquainted with the voice of accused Siddharth Verma has been called to prove the same by recognizing it. Reliance has been placed upon the testimony of M.C. Kashyap CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 197 of 221 (PW22) who states that he has been able to identify the persons only because he could recognize the names that they were calling each other in the conversation which was recorded by him. It clearly reveals that the deceased accused B.P. Verma nowhere addressed the other person on line as Siddharth Verma but has rather referred to him as 'Kittu' as evident from the transcript and no witness has been examined to prove that the said 'Kittu' was none else than the accused Siddharth Verma.
(38) This being the background, I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove the CFSL Reports which are inadmissible in evidence.
Allegations against the accused Siddharth Verma and Rajeev Sharma:
(39) Coming now to the allegations against the accused Siddharth Verma and Rajeev Sharma and the evidence against them, I may observe that the accused Siddharth Verma is the son of the main accused B.P. Verma. The case of the prosecution is that the accused B.P. Verma, the then Chairman of Central Board of Excise and Customs had telephoned his son Siddharth Verma and asked him to send Rajeev Sharma to the accused K. Vijay Pratap (now deceased) to collect the bribe amount from Room No. 826, Hotel LeMeridian, New Delhi and as directed by the accused B.P. Verma, the accused Siddharth Verma directed the accused Rajeev Sharma to collect the bribe amount from the K. Vijay Pratap who was staying the said hotel and thereafter the said amount of Rs.2 lacs was handed over to the CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 198 of 221 accused B.P. Verma in the intervening night of 23.03.2001 at H8, Green Park Extension, Second Floor. Thereafter on 24.03.2001 the accused K. Vijay Pratap in order to confirm the receipt of the bribe amount, telephoned the accused B. P. Verma. (40) In order to prove their case, the prosecution has placed their reliance upon the testimony of Sh. M.C. Kashyap (PW22) who had intercepted and recorded the conversation on the audio cassette Ex.P1 and prepared its transcript relating to the relevant conversations between the accused Siddharth Verma and Rajeev Sharma which transcript is Ex.PW8/A (relevant portion is Q to Q1 and R to R1). The said recorded conversation was then sent to CFSL, CBI, New Delhi for voice identification and the experts Sh. T.R. Nehra and Sh. N.K. Jain gave positive opinion about the same but incidentally both these experts namely T.R. Nehra and N.K. Jain have expired and their reports, as discussed herein above, have not been proved in accordance with law. Neither these reports have not been proved by calling any other witness who is in a position to identity the signatures of either Sh. T.R. Nehra or Sh. N.K. Jain nor any other person acquainted with the voice of Siddharth Verma has been called to identify the same.
(41) The prosecution has also placed its reliance upon the testimonies of Sunil Kumar Syal (PW4) and A.K. Maggo (PW5) who have deposed about the stay of the accused K. Vijay Pratap (now deceased) in hotel LeMeridian and issuance of cheques by the accused K. Vijay Pratap relating to the payments made by him in connection with his stay.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 199 of 221 (42) For the sake of convenience, the role of the accused Siddharth Verma and Rajeev Sharma along with the evidence on which the prosecution has placed its reliance, is being put in a tabulated form as under:
Sr. Allegation as per Oral evidence as Documentary Scientific No. prosecution per the evidence as per evidence (expert prosecution the prosecution opinion) as per the prosecution
1. On 23.03.2001 The oral evidence Sh. M.C Kashyap The conversation accused B.P. is in the form of (PW22) had recorded on audio Verma (now testimony of Sh. prepared the cassette Ex.P1 expired) M.C Kashyap transcript during telephoned his son (PW22) who had Ex.PW8/A and interception and accused Sidharth intercepted the the relevant the transcript Verma and asked telephone call conversation prepared by IO him to send between accused pertaining to the was sent to CSFL accused Rajeev B.P. Verma and accused is in the (CBI) New Delhi Sharma to accused Sidharth Verma portion Q to Q for voice K. Vijay Pratap to and had heard/ (D79) identification of collect the bribe perceived the accused B.P. amount from Room same with his Verma and K. No. 826 of Le own senses i.e. Vijay Pratap and Meridian Hotel. his ears and it expert gave has been positive opinion recorded by him (D55/56). The on the audio experts T.R.Nehra cassette and and N.K. Jain identified the gave their expert voice of the opinion but they accused B.P. could not be Verma as well as examined during accused Sidharth trial as the both Verma as he had expired. These intercepted report are several admissible under telephonic calls Section 293 Cr.PC and heard the conversation.
Further, N. Rama Krishna (PW8) CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 200 of 221 also identified the voice of accused B.P. Verma in the audio cassette.
2. As per the Nil Nil The conversation directions of recorded on audio accused B.P cassette Ex.P1 Verma, accused during Sidharth Verma interception and directed Rajeev the transcript Sharma to collect prepared by IO the bribe amount was sent to CSFL from the accused (CBI) New Delhi Sh. K. Vijay Pratap for voice staying in the hotel. identification of accused B.P. Verma and K. Vijay Pratap and expert gave positive opinion (D55/56). The experts T.R.Nehra and N.K. Jain gave their expert opinion but they could not be examined during trial as the both expired. These report are admissible under Section 293 Cr.PC
3. Accused Rajeev Sunil Kumar Computerized The conversation Sharma visited to Sayal (PW4) and Bill of Hotel Le recorded on audio accused K. Vijay A.K. Maggo Meridian which cassette Ex.P1 Pratap at room no. (PW5) proved the is Ex.P2. during 826, Hotel Le documents interception and Meridien and pertaining to stay Payment made by the transcript collected Rs.2 lacs of accused K. accused K. Vijay prepared by IO from him in Vijay Pratap at Pratap vide two was sent to CSFL presence of witness Hotel Le cheques (CBI) New Delhi Sh. Ramni and Meridian Ex.PW4/A and for voice thereafter, the Ex.PW4/B. identification of handed over the accused B.P. CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 201 of 221 said amount to Letter of Hotel Verma and K. accused Sidharth which is Vijay Pratap and Verma in the night Ex.PW5/A. expert gave of 23.03.2001 at positive opinion companies guest List of Room (D55/56). The house at Green Service which is experts T.R.Nehra Park, New Delhi. Ex.PW5/B and N.K. Jain gave their expert Registration Card opinion but they which are could not be Ex.PW5/D to examined during Ex.PW5/F. trial as the both expired. These report are admissible under Section 293 Cr.PC
4. On 24.03.2001 Oral evidence in Sh. M.C Kashyap The conversation accused K. Vijay the form of (PW22) had recorded on audio Pratap telephoned testimony of Sh. prepared the cassette Ex.P1 accused B.P. M.C. Kashyap transcript during Verma and got (PW22) who had Ex.PW8/A and interception and confirmation from intercepted the the relevant the transcript him about the telephone call conversation prepared by IO receipt of the bribe between accused pertaining to was sent to CSFL amount. B.P. Verma and above both (CBI) New Delhi K. Vijay Pratap accused in the for voice which he had portion R to R(D identification of heard/ perceived 79) accused B.P. with his own Verma and K. senses i.e. his Vijay Pratap and ears and had expert gave prepared a positive opinion transcript of (D55/56). The conversations experts T.R. between them. Nehra and N.K. Further, N. Ram Jain gave their Krishna (PW8) expert opinion but had identified the they could not be voice of accused examined during B.P. Verma trial as the both containing in the expired. These audio cassette. report are admissible under Section 293 Cr.PC CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 202 of 221 (43) I have gone through the above evidence on which the Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor has placed his reliance and I may observe that despite the prosecution having placed their reliance on the transcripts of the recorded conversation, the Master Recording Machine and Master Cassettes have not been seized nor produced in the court. Further, the witness N. Rama Krishna (PW8) who was the Personal Assistant to the accused B.P. Verma at the relevant point of time and on whose testimony the prosecution has placed its reliance, has only identified the voice of accused B.P. Verma and K. Vijay Pratap (both expired accused) but in so far as the voice of accused Siddharth Verma is concerned, the same has not been identified by him.
(44) Also, the entire electronic record including the Call Detail records and the audio cassettes have been produced in the court without any certification under Section 65B of the Evidence Act which was inserted by an act of Parliament in 2000 and came into effect on 17.10.2000. I may observe that the present case was registered on 30.03.2001 and the impugned conversations were dated 22.03.2001 and the charge sheet was filed on 26.07.2002. Further, M.C. Kashyap (PW22) has admitted that the conversations were recorded on an automatic recording machine which machine was never seized and the conversations were contained in a master cassette which was never seized nor produced in the court. The prosecution has failed to lead any secondary evidence in terms of provisions of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act and the said CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 203 of 221 evidence is not accompanied by any certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. Hence, under the given circumstances, the said evidence in the form of telephonic conversation/ transcripts and the Call Details Record which are not accompanied by any certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act, is inadmissible in evidence. (45) I may further observe that even otherwise the tape recorded conversations are only in the nature of corroborative evidence. The Delhi High Court in the case of State Vs. Ravi @ Munna reported in 2000 (52) DRJ 77 has observed that the tape recorded conversation can become legal evidence by way of corroborating the statement of a person who deposes that the other speaker and he carried on with the conversation. Reference is also made in the case of Savita Vs. State reported in 2011 SCC Online Del 1966 with regard to the fulfillment of safeguards necessary in trial relating to tape recorded conversations). In the present case, no witness has been examined by the prosecution who is familiar with the voice contained in the audio cassette and the testimony of M.C. Kashyap (PW22) is very clear in this regard. He has been questioned on the aspect of transcripts which were made on 17.03.2001 and he has deposed that he was able to ascertain the identity of person only because he could recognize the name of the person recorded in the conversation. In so far as N. Rama Krishna (PW8) is concerned, he could only identify the voice of B.P. Verma being his Personal Assistant as he had directly heard him speaking but he nowhere identified the voice of Siddarth Verma. Further, the perusal of CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 204 of 221 transcript reveals that late B.P. Verma has nowhere addressed the other person as Siddharth Verma and in fact he referred to him as "Kitto" . There is nothing on record to show that Siddharth Verma was also known as Kitto. Similarly, the voice of Rajeev Sharma has also not been identified and there is no voice identification of Rajeev Sharma in any of the recordings.
(46) It is also argued by the Ld. Counsel for the accused that the consent of Siddharth Verma had never been taken prior to taking his voice samples on 07.04.2001 while he was in custody and there is nothing on record to show that Siddharth Verma has voluntarily consented to the recording of the voice samples and this fact is confirmed from the testimony of Sh. P.L. Narang (PW38), the signatory to the document who has specifically stated that no voluntarily consent was given by the accused Siddharth Verma in his presence. The evidence on record does not confirm that any permission was taken from the concerned Magistrate before taking the voice samples of the accused Siddharth Verma or that his consent was taken. No reliance can be placed on the report of the CFSL relating to voice analysis which has not been proved in accordance with law by examining the experts who had prepared the said reports. Further, no witness who could identify the signatures of either Sh. T.R. Nehra and Sh. N.K. Jain have been examined nor any other expert acquainted with the handwriting & signatures of the experts Sh. T.R. Nehra and Sh. N.C. Jain have been examined and that too when no permission had been taken to obtain the voice samples of the accused from the concerned Magistrate or consent from the accused CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 205 of 221 with the regard to the same, which samples have not been proved by producing the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act nor the Master Recording Machine or the Master Cassette seized or produced in the court.
(47) Under these circumstances, I hereby hold that the evidence on which the prosecution is placing its reliance is neither direct nor circumstantial in so far as the accused Siddharth Verma and Rajeev Sharma are concerned, in view of the fact that:
1. Firstly, the Master Recording Machine and the Master Cassette have never been seized nor produced in the Court.
2. Secondly, the certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act with regard to the copies prepared from the Master Cassette has not been obtained.
3. Thirdly, the Call Details Record on which the prosecution is placing its reliance are also not accompanied with the certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act and not proved in accordance with law.
4. Fourthly, the Customer Application Forms of both the accused Siddharth Verma and Rajeev Sharma have not been obtained and produced in the court to prove their involvement.
5. Fifthly, there is no voice identification of accused Siddharth Verma and Rajeev Sharma by a person who had directly spoken to them.
6. Sixthly, even the voice samples of accused Siddharth Verma have not been taken after due permission of the Ld. CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 206 of 221 Magistrate or even after taking his consent nor there is any person who was directly acquainted with Siddharth Verma and had identified the same.
7. Seventhly, the most material witness of the prosecution i.e. Pratap Singh (PW20) and Kishore Chand Pandey (PW25) have not stood by their earlier statements to the extent that Rajeev Sharma had come to the Guest House at H8, Greent Park Extension, New Delhi and handed over a black packet to Siddharth Verma or that there was any conversation between Siddharth Verma and Rajeev Sharma regarding handing over of the packet to B.P. Verma and have been declared hostile.
8. Eighthly, the best witness of the prosecution namely G.S. Ramanai who according to the prosecution was a witness to the handing over of bribe of Rs.2 lacs by late K. Vijay Pratap to Rajeev Sharma, has not been examined by the prosecution.
9. Lastly, the most important witness of the prosecution i.e. the Investigating Officer Sh. A.P. Singh (PW80) has admitted in his crossexamination that he has not conducted the Test Identification Parade of the accused Siddharth Verma or the accused Rajeev Sharma. Even the witness A.K. Maggo (PW5) has not specifically identified the accused Rajeev Sharma and only stated that his face is familiar to him.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 207 of 221 (48) Under these circumstances, I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Siddharth Verma and Rajeev Sharma.
Allegations against the accused C. Sharvan Kumar:
(49) The case of the prosecution is that the accused C. Sharvan Kumar was the Managing Director of Yellow Cabs, M/s.
Champa Fabrics and M/s. Shripal Garments Export at TNagar, Chennia and was introduced by Shiv Kumar to Krishna Nand who was the Custom House Agent and proprietor of Trinity Forwarders, Madras. It is alleged that on 17.03.2001 the accused C. Sharvan Kumar got prepared ten shipping bills to export 100% Rayon Woven ladies blouses numbering 1,16,010 pieces valued Rs.4,26,10,272/ in the name of M/s. A.K. Enterprises as exporter/ consignee M/s. Dis & Dat Montago Bay Jamica which consignment was packed in 3,857 cartons of A.K. enterprises along with 68 cartons of Shripal garments and these cartons were transported to CWC, Royapuram, Cheenai and were delivered to the Custom House Agent M/s. Trinity Forwarders at CWC Royapuram. Further, as per the allegations, on the same day M/s. Trinity Forwarders processed these documents pertaining to consignment and present the same to EDI Center for generating the shipping bill number and claimed the duty draw back of about Rs.70 lacs. Thereafter on 18.03.2001 accused C. Sharwan Kumar informed Krishnanand the Proprietor of M/s. Trinity Forwarders that the order of consignment had to be cancelled and had to be shut out pursuant to CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 208 of 221 which on 19.03.2001 on the application of M/s. Trinity Forwarder, the Assistant Commissioner Custom, EDI Custom House, Chennai cancelled the shipping bills and passed order of shut out and directed to open, inspect / examine by selecting two packages and allowed delivery out to CWC and during inspection it was found that the seized garments were having no commercial value. Further, as per the allegations, accused C. Sharwan Kumar met the accused K. Vijay Pratap (now deceased) in the presence of Shiv Kumar, Suresh Keshvan and Krishnanand where accused K. Vijay Pratap and Suresh Keshvan apprised about the meeting with the Commissioner Custom, Chennai Sh. M.V.S. Prasad.
(50) In order to prove the allegations against the accused C. Sharvan Kumar, the prosecution is placing its reliance upon the testimonies of S. Krishnanand (PW7), T. Hanumanta Rai (PW9), D. Santha Kumar (PW10), Shokender Kumar (PW11), M.V.S. Prasad (PW12), M.G. Franklin (PW13), S. Gandhidoss (PW21) and N. Dillibabu (PW54). For the sake of convenience, the role attributed to the accused C. Sharvan Kumar and the oral as well as the documentary evidence against the accused is hereby put in a tabulated form as under:
Sr. Allegation as per Oral evidence as per the Documentary evidence No. prosecution prosecution as per the prosecution
1. Accused C. Sharvan PW7 S. Krishnanand Nil Kumar was M.D of yellow Proprietor M/s Trinity cab, old M/s. Champa Forwarders and a fabrics and M/s Shripal Custom House Agent, Garments export at T has deposed about the Nagar, Chennai and he said fact on page no.1, CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 209 of 221 was introduced by Shiv para no.2 of his Kumar to Krishna Nand deposition who was custom house agent(CHA) and proprietor of Trinity Forwarders Madras.
2. On 17.03.2001, accused C. PW7 S. Krishnanand 10 Shipping Bills Sharvan Kumar got Proprietor M/s. Trinity Ex.PW30A to prepared 10 shipping bills Forwarders, and a Ex.PW30/R (D2 to D to export 100 percent Custom House Agent, 11) of A. K. Enterprises Rayon Woven ladies has deposed about the blouses numbering 116010 said fact on page no.3 pieces valued and 4 of his deposition.
Rs.4,26,10,272/ were drawn showing in the The submission of ten name of M/s A.K. shipping bills by M/s.
Enterprises, as Trinity Forwarders
exporter/consignee M/s before the Custom office
Dis & Dat Montago Bay at Chennai is also
Jamica. proved by PW9 T.
Hanumanta Rai at page
No.2 line no. 8 to 15 in
his deposition and also
by PW11 Shokender
Kumar and PW10 D.
Santha Kumar in their
depositions.
3. These export consignment PW7 S. Krishnanand The receipt of
were packed in 3857 has deposed about these consignment by CWC,
cartons of A.K. Enterprises facts at page no.3 and 4 Royapuram vide entry
along with 68 cartoons of of his deposition No. 89 in Carting
Shri pal Garments, these Register Ex.PW13/A
cartons were transported PW9 T. Hanumant Rai and Ex.PW13/B and
to CWC, Roya Puram, has deposed about this the endorsements
Cheenai and were fact in his deposition at Ex/PW13/C1 to
delivered to M/s. Trinity last two lines on page Ex./PW13/C11 as per
Forwarders (CHA)at CWC no.6 and first line of check list annexed with
Royapuram. page no.7 10 shipping bill
Ex.PW30/A to
PW13 M. G. Franklin Ex.PW30/R.
has also deposed about
these facts in his
deposition.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 210 of 221
PW54 N. Dilibabu has
deposed about the
transportation of these
consignment to CWC
Royapuram, Chennai at
last three lines of page
no.l of his deposition.
4. On the same day M/s PW7 S.Krishnanand The various claims of
Trinity Forwarders has deposed about these duties of Rs.Seventy
processed these documents facts at page no.3 of his Lacs (Approx) vide
pertaining to consignment deposition. declaration forms
and present to EDI Center made by the company
for generating the shipping PW13 G. Franklin has which are annexed with
bill number and claimed also deposed the similar the 10 Shipping Bills
the duty draw back of facts in his deposition Ex.PW30/A
about Rs.70,00,000/ Ex.PW30/R.
5. On 18.03.2001 accused PW9 T. Hanumantrai at Nil
C.Sharwan Kumar page no.7 in his
informed Krishnanand the deposition, PW11
Proprietor of M/s Trinity Shokender Kumar line
Forwarders that the order no.1 to 10 on page no.4
of consignment had to be of his deposition and
cancelled and had to be also PW12 M. V. S.
shut out. Prasad line no.8 to 10,
page no.2 of his
deposition, they all
proved the same facts.
PW7 S. Krishnanand
has deposed about the
request of cancellation
and SHUT OUT of
consignment at para
No.2, page No.4 of his
deposition dated
20.09.2006
6. On 19.03.2001 on the PW21 Sh. S. The endorsement of
application of M/s Trinity Gandhidoss has proved Gandhidoss with
Forwarder, the Assistant these facts by deposing regard to cancellation
Commissioner Custom, the same at line no. 3 to of shipping bills and
EDI Custom House, 6 at page no.2 of his shut out of consignment
Chennai cancelled the deposition. and directions for
shipping bills and passed examination of goods
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 211 of 221
order of shut out and PW9 T. Hanumanta are Ex.PW21/A to
directed to open, inspect / Rai, page no.3, PW11 Ex.PW21/B.
examine by selecting two Shokender Kumar page
packages and allowed no.4 and 5 and PW12
delivery out to CWC. M. V. S. Prasad has
On the same day proved these facts in
consignment was inspected their depositions.
and it was found that the
seized garments were
having no commercial
value.
7. Accused C. Sharwan PW7 S. Krishnanand Nil
Kumar met K. Vijay has proved these facts in
Pratap in present of Shiv line number 8 to 12 on
Kumar, Suresh Keshvan page no.6 (it should be
and Krishnanand where page no.5) in his
accused K. Vijay Pratap deposition
and Suresh Keshvan
apprised about the meeting PW12 Sh.M. V. S.
with the Commissioner Prasad has also proved
Custom, Chennai Sh. the facts of meeting with
M.V.S. Prasad accused K. Vijay Pratap
(51) It is evident from the oral as well as the documentary
evidence on record that there is nothing on record to confirm that the accused C. Sharvan Kumar had ever met the main accused B.P. Verma (now deceased) or Siddharth Verma or had known them at all. He has not been identified or even named by any witness in the chain of conspiracy. The witness S. Krishnanandh (PW7) is the Custom House Agent who has only proved that the accused C. Sharvan Kumar was the Managing Director of Yellow Cabs and also owned the garment export companies i.e. M/s. Champa Garments and M/s. Shripal Garments, at T Nagar, Chennai. He has admitted that out of the total cartons covered by the Shipping Bill of M/s. A.K. Enterprises, 68 cartons were covered under the shipping bill of CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 212 of 221 Shripal Garments and further stated that there was no problem with regard to the 68 cartons of Shripal Garments. He has not totally supported the case of the prosecution and has resiled from his previous statement with regard to the date of meeting at Chennai which had taken place about the accused B.P. Verma. His testimony does not incriminate the accused C. Sharvan Kumar. Again, the witnesses T. Hanumant Rai (PW9) and the Leo John Ilango (PW10) do not incriminate the accused C. Sharvan Kumar. Event the witness Shokender Kumar (PW11) does not incriminate the accused C. Sharvan Kumar and only confirms that the Shipping Bills of M/s. A.K. Enterprises had been cancelled. Further, Sh. M.V.S. Prasad (PW12) only incriminates the accused B.P. Verma (expired) and K. Vijay Pratap (expired) but admits that he had never met the accused C. Sharvan Kumar though the accused B.P. Verma had suggested him that he should not be too harsh upon the accused C. Sharvan Kumar. He has in his crossexamination clarified that the accused B.P. Verma had only given an advice upon a policy matter and this certainly cannot be read against the accused C. Sharvan Kumar.
(52) Sh. G. Franklin Karunakaran (PW13) and S.M. Bhatnagar (PW14) also do not incriminate the accused C. Sharvan Kumar. Sh. G. Gandhidoss (PW21) only confirms that he had ordered Shutout Registration No. 252/253 dated 19.03.2001 and Sh. V. Venkatesa Kumar (PW24) is a formal witness who does not incriminate the accused C. Sharvan Kumar. Further, Sh. D. Santhana Kumar (PW30) was the clearing clerk with M/s. Trinity Forwarders CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 213 of 221 who deposed about the manner in which the Shipping Bills had been prepared and clearing work had been done and does not incriminate the accused C. Sharvan Kumar.
(53) I note that the witness Shiv Kumar (PW51) has turned hostile and has not supported his earlier version. Similarly, Sh. M. Umapathy (PW53) has also resiled from his previous statement and not supported the case of the prosecution. In so far as the witness Sh. Dilli Babu (PW54) is concerned, he was the Transporter and has supported the case of the prosecution but does not connect the accused C. Sharvan Kumar to the allegations involved in the present case. Sh. V. Udaiyar (PW57) has proved the process relating to seizure of goods and again does not incriminate the accused. In so far as Sh. S. Janki Raman (PW58) is concerned, he had been dealing with the cases of evasion of excise duty by the various export companies and is relevant only qua the said aspect but his testimony is not relevant qua the allegations against the accused C. Sharvan Kumar. Sh. Sandeep Srivastava (PW60), Deputy Director, Directorate General of central Excise Intelligence has proved having handed over various papers to the CBI but do not connect the accused C. Sharvan Kumar with the allegations involved. Sh. Vasa Seshagiri Rao (PW65) the Commissioner of Customs is a formal witness and has not deposed anything against the accused C. Sharvan Kumar. Sh. E. Surenderan (PW66) is the Manager of M/s. Trinity Forwarders and has resiled from his earlier statement given to the CBI. Sh. R. Sellamuthu (PW69) is the Assistant Commissioner (Exports), at Customs House, Chennai who has proved the cancellation of CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 214 of 221 Shipping Bills and permission to shut out. (54) Hence, in view of the above it stands established that the accused C. Sharvan Kumar was the Managing Director of Yellow Cabs and owned M/s. Champa Fabrics and M/s. Shripal Garments export at TNagar, Chennai and was introduced by Sh. Shiv Kumar to Krishnanand who was Custom House Agent (CHA) and proprietor of Trinity Forwarders Madras. It also stands established that on 17.03.2001 accused C. Sharvan Kumar got prepared ten shipping bills to export 100 % Rayon Woven ladies blouses i.e. 116010 pieces valued Rs.4,26,10,272/ in the name of M/s. A.K. Enterprises, as exporter/ consignee M/s. Dis N Dat Montago Bay Jamica. Further, it stands established that these export consignment were packed in 3857 cartons of A.K. Enterprises along with 68 cartoons of Shripal Garments which cartons were transported to CWC, Roya Puram, Cheenai and were delivered to M/s. Trinity Forwarders (CHA) at CWC Royapuram and on the same day M/s. Trinity Forwarders processed these documents pertaining to consignment and presented them to EDI Center for generating the shipping bill number and claimed the duty draw back of about Rs.70,00,000/. It also stands established that on 18.03.2001 accused C. Sharwan Kumar informed Krishnanand the Proprietor of M/s. Trinity Forwarders that the order of consignment had to be cancelled and had to be shut out, pursuant to the same on 19.03.2001 on the application of M/s. Trinity Forwarder, the Assistant Commissioner Custom, EDI Custom House, Chennai cancelled the shipping bills and passed order of shut out and directed to open, inspect / examine by selecting two packages and CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 215 of 221 allowed delivery out to CWC and during inspection it was found that the seized garments were having no commercial value. However, it does not stand established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused C. Sharwan Kumar met with accused K. Vijay Pratap (now deceased) in presence of Shiv Kumar, Suresh Keshvan and Krishnanand where accused K. Vijay Pratap and Suresh Keshvan apprised about the meeting with the Commissioner Custom, Chennai Sh. M.V.S. Prasad. It has also not been established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused C. Sahrvan Kumar during the period 19.03.2001 and 23.03.2001 had agreed to do an illegal act i.e. to give illegal gratification to accused B.P. Verma (now deceased), the then Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Custom at New Delhi to exercise his influence on Custom Authorities at Chennai to help him i.e. C. Sharvan Kumar in respect of two export consignments pertaining to 116010 pieces valued at Rs.4,26,13,272/ and 4896 pieces valued at Rs.17,95,545.60 of Rayon Woven Ladies Blouses to enable the consignor to get duty back of Rs.70.35 lacs. (55) This being the background, I hereby hold that no doubt, the accused C. Sharvan Kumar would be getting the benefit of duty drawback but the allegations against him have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
FINAL CONCLUSION:
(56) In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharastra, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 216 of 221 down the tests which are prerequisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
(57) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, it stands established that the present FIR was registered on 30.03.2001 against the accused B.P. Verma (now deceased), the then Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Customs; his son i.e. accused Siddharth Verma; accused K. Vijay Pratap (now deceased); accused Rajeev Sharma and accused Rajeev Sharma. It has also been established that an export consignment of M/s. A.K. Enterprises was seized by the custom department at Chennai as it contained rags instead of declared garments with an object of drawing false duty drawback. It also stands established that during the trial accused B.P. Verma and accused K. Vijay Pratap have expired.
CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 217 of 221 (58) Coming first to the accused Siddharth Verma and Rajeev Sharma, the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Siddharth Verma, Rajeev Sharma and C. Sharvan Kumar. It has not been established that on 23.03.2001 the accused B.P. Verma (now deceased) telephoned his son Siddharth Verma and asked him to send accused Rajeev Sharma to the accused K. Vijay Pratap to collect the bribe amount from Room No. 826, at Hotel LeMeridian. It has also not been established that the accused Rajeev Sharma visited the accused K. Vijay Pratap at Room No. 826, Hotel LeMeridian and collected Rs.2 lacs and thereafter handed over the said amount to the accused Siddharth Verma in the night of 23.03.2001 at companies guest house at H8, Second Floor, Green Park Extension, New Delhi. Further, it has not been established that on 24.03.2001 the accused K. Vijay Pratap (now deceased) telephoned accused B.P. Verma (now deceased) and got the confirmation from him about the receipt of the bribe amount.
(59) In so far as the accused C. Sharvan Kumar is concerned, it has been established that he was the Managing Director of Yellow Cabs and owned M/s. Champa Fabrics and M/s. Shripal Garments export at TNagar, Chennai and was introduced by Sh. Shiv Kumar to Krishnanand who was Custom House Agent (CHA) and proprietor of Trinity Forwarders Madras. It has also been established that on 17.03.2001 accused C. Sharvan Kumar got prepared ten shipping bills to export 100% Rayon Woven ladies blouses i.e. 116010 pieces valued Rs.4,26,10,272/ in the name of M/s. A.K. CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 218 of 221 Enterprises, as exporter/ consignee M/s. Dis N Dat Montago Bay Jamica. Further, it has been established that these export consignment were packed in 3857 cartons of A.K. Enterprises along with 68 cartoons of Shripal Garments which cartons were transported to CWC, Roya Puram, Cheenai and were delivered to M/s. Trinity Forwarders (CHA) at CWC Royapuram and on the same day M/s. Trinity Forwarders processed these documents pertaining to consignment and presented them to EDI Center for generating the shipping bill number and claimed the duty draw back of about Rs.70,00,000/. It has also been established that on 18.03.2001 accused C. Sharwan Kumar informed Krishnanand the Proprietor of M/s. Trinity Forwarders that the order of consignment had to be cancelled and had to be shut out, pursuant to the same on 19.03.2001 on the application of M/s. Trinity Forwarder, the Assistant Commissioner Custom, EDI Custom House, Chennai cancelled the shipping bills and passed order of shut out and directed to open, inspect / examine by selecting two packages and allowed delivery out to CWC and during inspection it was found that the seized garments were having no commercial value.
(60) However, the prosecution has not been able to establish beyond doubt that the accused C. Sharwan Kumar met accused K. Vijay Pratap (now deceased) in presence of Shiv Kumar, Suresh Keshvan and Krishnanand where accused K. Vijay Pratap and Suresh Keshvan apprised about the meeting with the Commissioner Custom, Chennai Sh. M.V.S. Prasad. It has also not been established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused C. Sahrvan Kumar during the CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 219 of 221 period 19.03.2001 and 23.03.2001 had agreed to do an illegal act i.e. to give illegal gratification to accused B.P. Verma (now deceased), the then Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Custom at New Delhi to exercise his influence on Custom Authorities at Chennai to help him i.e. C. Sharvan Kumar in respect of two export consignments pertaining to 116010 pieces valued at Rs.4,26,13,272/ and 4896 pieces valued at Rs.17,95,545.60 of Rayon Woven Ladies Blouses to enable the consignor to get duty back of Rs.70.35 lacs. (61) Therefore, I hereby hold that the circumstances reflected from the material on record do not stand conclusively established. The facts are also not consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The chain of evidence is not so much complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the guilt of the accused persons. The materials brought on record by the prosecution are insufficient so as to hold that each of the accused namely Siddharth Verma, Rajeev Sharma and C. Sharvan Kumar was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Further, each circumstance has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has also not established a conclusive link connecting each individual circumstance with the other, and the accused. Crucially, the material and evidence on the record do not bridge the gap between "may be true" and "must be true" so essential for a court to record a finding of guilt of an accused, particularly in cases based on circumstantial evidence. Therefore, I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 220 of 221 Siddharth Verma, Rajeev Sharma and C. Sharvan Kumar, beyond reasonable doubt and hence, benefit of doubt is being given to them who are acquitted of the charges under Section 120B Indian Penal Code read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
(62) File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 29.07.2017 Special Judge (PC Act Cases), CBI01, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CBI Vs. B.P. Verma Etc. RC No. 31(A)/2001 Page No. 221 of 221