Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Cbi vs . Ashok Kumar Raswant 1 Of 179 on 19 December, 2017

                                 1              CC No. 532204/16 (4/15)




IN THE COURT OF KOVAI VENUGOPAL, SPECIAL JUDGE,
P.C. ACT (CBI)-09, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI: DELHI

                            CC No. 4/15 (532204/16)
                                 RC No. 9(A)/2002
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

               VERSUS

ASHOK KUMAR RASWANT
SON OF SH. OM PRAKASH
R/O H. NO. B-5/46, SECTOR -4,
ROHINI, DELHI. (NOT ARRESTED)

                       DATE OF INSTITUTION               :01.04.2004
                       DATE OF ARGUMENTS                 :12.12.2017
                       DATE OF JUDGMENT                  :19.12.2017
       JUDGMENT

1. Accused Ashok Kumar Raswant was charge-sheeted by the CBI for the offence punishable under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)

(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Accused Ashok Kumar Raswant was put on trial.

CASE OF THE PROSECUTION

2. The present case was registered on 01.04.2004 for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 1 of 179 2 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, 1988, against accused Ashok Kumar Raswant. This FIR No. RC 9(A)/2002 was registered on the basis of written complaint dated 22.02.2002 submitted by Sub Inspector Sh. Lalit Kaushik, CBI, ACB, New Delhi. It is mentioned in the Complaint that the scrutiny of documents seized during the house search of accused in a trap case bearing no. RC 1(A)/2002 revealed that accused Ashok Kumar Raswant has acquired following Assets:-

ASSETS S. DETAILS OF ASSETS COST (RS.) No.

01. Double Storey House No. B-5/46, Sector-IV, Rohini, Rs.5,00,000/-

Delhi

02. 2 ½ Storey Property No. 81, Pocket A/4, Sector-IV, Rs.76,000/-

Rohini

03. Built up property No. 264, Pocket A/4, Sector-IV, Rohini Rs.3,00,000/-

04. Cash Amount Rs.9,82,540/-

05. House Hold Articles Rs.2,00,000/-

06. Bank Balance Rs.8,00,000/-

07. Investments in LIC & UTI Rs.70,000/-

08. Plot in Ghaziabad in Uma Sehkari Awas Samiti Ltd. Rs.16,000/-

CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 2 of 179 3 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15)

09. Plot No.213 measuring 120 sq. yards at Khasra Rs.1,00,000/-

No.1892, Village Bhati, Delhi.

10 Maruti Car No. DL-4CH-5755 Rs.2,00,000/- 11 Scooter No. DL8SN-4955 Rs.30,000/-

TOTAL Rs.32,74,540/-

3. After registration of the FIR, investigation was carried out.

During the investigation, it revealed that on 10.08.1974, Sh. Ashok Kumar Raswant joined DESU as Meter Reader (Temporary). Thereafter, on 27.12.1990, he was promoted as Meter Reading Inspector. He was again promoted as Meter Reading Inspector (TS) on 01.04.1991 and since then he has been working in the same capacity. In the year 2002, the DESU has been privatized and since then he is not a Government /Public Servant and is presently working in the BSES Rajdhani Power Limited.

4. Investigation has further revealed that on 01.03.1978, Ashok Kumar Raswant got married with Smt. Kamlesh Raswant, who is also working as Lab Assistant in Directorate of Health CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 3 of 179 4 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) Service Department since the year 1976. On 24.01.1994, accused and his wife adopted one Anurag S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Guglani, as they do not have a child of their own. Master Anurag was getting education in Sachdeva Public School, Rohini.

5. Investigation has further revealed that Ashok Kumar Raswant was residing at W-4/86-A1, Mehrauli, New Delhi in an ancestral house with his parents and brothers. In the month of February-March 1991, Ashok Kumar Raswant shifted to H. No. B-5/46, Sector-4, Rohini, Delhi. In the year 1991-92, all the four brothers including Ashok Kumar Raswant got separated and Ashok Kumar Raswant got an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- by selling his share in ancestral house i.e. H. No. W-4/86-A1, Mehrauli, New Delhi to his brother, in installments during the year 1991-92.

6. The check period for the computation of Assets, Expenditure and Income of accused and his family members was taken from the date of his joining in the service i.e. 19.08.1974 to the CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 4 of 179 5 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) date of search i.e. 02.01.2002. Ashok Kumar Raswant was having no Assets or Income before the check period.

7. Investigation has further revealed that during the check period, the accused has acquired the following Movable and Immovable Assets in his name as well as in the name of his family members :-

IMMOVABLE ASSETS:-

(1) On 25.11.1983, Plot No. 46, Pocket-5, Block-B, Sector-

IV, Rohini, Delhi measuring 90 sq. mtrs. was allotted by DDA to Ashok Kumar Raswant and his wife Smt. Kamlesh Raswant. The accused paid an amount of Rs.17,832/- to the DDA against the said plot from 29.03.1981 to 26.10.1989. He got constructed ground floor and 1st floor on the said plot from 18.07.1990 to 22.06.1990 and incurred an amount of Rs.2,15,177/-.

(2) On 22.04.2000, Ashok Kumar Raswant purchased 2½ Storey Property No. 81, A-4, Sector-4, Rohini, Delhi, measuring 31.69 sq. mtrs from Sh. Subhash Batra for a sum CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 5 of 179 6 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) of Rs.76,000/- in cash.

(3) On 03.03.1998, Ashok Kumar Raswant purchased a built up Property No. 264, A-4, Sector-4, Rohini, Delhi, measuring 31.69 sq. mtrs. from Sh. Janardhan and his brother Ved Prakash for Rs.90,000/- in cash.

(4) From 10.03.1991 to 11.07.2000 for the purchase of Plot of 60 sq. mtrs. in the name of Smt. Kamlesh vide Membership No. 17 in the Uma Sehkari Awas Samiti Limited, Ghaziabad, an amount of Rs.22,540/- was paid in cash. As the Society could not ascertain who made this payment, hence this amount was considered to have been paid by Smt. Kamlesh. (5) During the house search of accused Ashok Kumar, a certificate issued by Gram Panchayat Bhati, New Delhi, showing the ownership of plot No. 213, measuring 120 sq. yds. At Khasra No. 1892 was recovered. Investigation has revealed that this land belongs to Government and it was not sold to the accused.

       (6)     In the year 1995, Ashok Kumar Raswant purchased a




CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant                                     6 of 179
                                  7                  CC No. 532204/16 (4/15)

Flat No. 3200, Type-II, Pocket-B4, SFS Vasant Kunj, New Delhi from Smt. Darshana Dhingra for an amount of Rs.6,50,000/-. He paid an amount of Rs.90,000/- from his Bank Account and Rs.4,90,000/- from the Bank Account of his wife. He paid Rs.70,000/- from Bank Account of his father-in- law. Investigation has revealed that this amount of Rs.70,000/- was returned by Ashok Kumar Raswant to his father-in-law in cash installments during the check period. (7) On 17.06.1999, Ashok Kumar Raswant purchased Membership of Kalka Co-operative Society, Sector-6, Dwarka, Delhi from Smt. Ravikanta for Rs.6,50,000/-. Thereafter, a Flat No. A-403 was allotted to him in the Society. Investigation has revealed that Ashok Kumar Raswant paid an amount of Rs.4,80,000/- by cheque and Rs.1,70,000/- in cash to Smt. Ravikanta. But Ashok Kumar Raswant has claimed that he has sold this flat to his friend Sh. Kuldeep Sharma on 21.12.2001 for Rs.6,80,000/-. The sale documents of this flat are showing that the same has been notarized by Sh. R. S. CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 7 of 179 8 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) Beniwal but he categorically denied his signature/initials and his stamp on the said document and this attestation is not entered in his Notary Register. The alleged purchaser also could not furnish the details of the amount of Rs.6,80,000/- as to how he arranged the same. In view of these facts, the sale transaction claimed by the accused is not genuine and it is taken as his asset.

MOVABLE ASSETS (1) On 02.01.2002, during the course of search of House No. B-5/46, Sector-4, Rohini, Delhi, cash of Rs.9,82,540/- was recovered. The accused could not satisfactorily account for this amount.

(2) During the course of house search of accused, various household articles amounting to Rs.1,78,510/- were found excluding serial no. 7 of bed room no. 1 and serial no. 1 of bed room cum sitting room.

(3) Sh. Ashok Kumar Raswant was maintaining various Bank accounts in his name in which the balance of CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 8 of 179 9 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) Rs.4,95,448.45 as on 02.01.2002 was shown. Similarly, his wife was also maintaining various Bank accounts, in which the balance of Rs.1,93,112.20 as on 02.01.2002. (4) From 22.03.1988 to 02.01.2002, Ashok Kumar Raswant and Smt. Kamlesh purchased UTI Units in their names and paid Rs.34,820.47 and Rs.35,463.97 respectively. (5) On 22.03.1999, Ashok Kumar Raswant purchased a Maruti Car No. DL-4CH 5755 for a sum of Rs.1,98,643/- (including Insurance, Registration, Road Tax) in his name from Bhasin Motors, after taking loan from M/s. Citi Corp. Maruti. He paid rest of the amount in cash.

(6) On 02.02.2001, Ashok Kumar Raswant purchased a Scooter No. DL8SN-4955 in his name from Umang Motors for Rs.33,500/- in cash.

(7) On 25.01.1999 and 31.01.2000, Ashok Kumar Raswant and Smt. Kamlesh purchased NSC No.27EE899282, 283, 284, 285 & 21EE962110 for Rs.10,000/- each respectively.

       (8)     On 24.02.19999, Smt. Kamlesh Raswant purchased




CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant                                     9 of 179
                                  10              CC No. 532204/16 (4/15)

KVP No. 48CC992777, 78 & 33BB304241 for Rs.10,000/- each in her name from Post Office Ashok Vihar. (9) On 09.08.1998, Ashok Kumar Raswat got a deposit receipt No. KD/1105/98 of Rs.25,000/- from Canara Bank, Rohini issued in the name of his son Anurag. (10) On 04.06.2001, Ashok Kumar purchased KVP No. 48BB702356 to 359 for Rs.5,000/- each in the name of his son Anurag under his guardianship.

(11) During the check period, Ashok Kumar Raswant purchased house hold articles amounting to Rs.39,550/- in cash. The cost of these articles had been excluded from the Observation Memo dated 02.01.2002.

(12) On 02.01.2002, during the personal search of Ashok Kumar Raswant, Rs.5,075 was recovered.

(13) During the course of investigation, on the operation of Locker No. 291 in Canara Bank, Sector 5, Rohini, Delhi, Gold Jewellery weighing 290 gms were found in the presence of accused and his wife. The cost of these gold jewellery articles CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 10 of 179 11 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) was evaluated to be Rs.24,650/- out of which 43 gms of unaccounted jewellery amounting to Rs.5477.77 was taken as Assets of Smt. Kamlesh Raswant and the rest of the jewellery is considered as Istridhan.

(14) During the course of investigation, the correspondence in regard to payment for purchase of 100 Share Certificates of M/s. Videocon International Limited for Rs.10/- each in the name of Smt. Kamlesh Raswant was made but the same could not be ascertained. Hence, the face value of these shares amounting to Rs.160/- is taken as Assets of Smt. Kamlesh Raswant.

EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ACCUSED ASHOK KUMAR RASWANT AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS.

(1) From 17.04.1999 to 10.02.2000, Rs.99,572/- paid by Ashok Kumar Raswant as repayment of loan taken from Citi Corp. Naraina Industrial Area, Delhi for purchase of Maruti Car. He also made payment of Rs.9,508/- as Insurance Premium to New India Assurance Co. Ltd. from 25.04.2000 to CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 11 of 179 12 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) 27.04.2001 for vehicle no. DL4CH-5755. Ashok Kumar Raswant purchased Scooter no. DL1SJ-0533 on 20.04.1995 in his name from Royal Motors for Rs.26,950/- in cash. He has claimed to have sold this scooter but the registration is still in his name. He could not furnish any document in support of his claim and to whom he had sold the same. He made payment of Rs.655/- for registration of Vehicle No. DL-1SJ- 0533 on 23.04.1995. He also made payment of Rs.60,200/- for fee etc. of his son Anurag to Sachdeva Public School from 1997 to 02.01.2002.

(2) Sh. Ashok Kumar Raswant made payments of Rs.3,846/- and Rs.5,736/- to the Jaipur Golden Hospital, Rohini and Ganga Ram Hospital from 18.03.1991 to 22.03.1991 and 14.08.1992 for the treatment of his wife.

(3) Sh. Ashok Kumar Raswant in the month of October 1992 purchased Scooter No. DL4SG-9458 in his name from M/s. Gautam Auto Okhla, New Delhi. The said record is not traceable with M/s. Gautam Auto, however, the existing rate of CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 12 of 179 13 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) Scooter during this period was Rs.15,500/-. Hence, this amount is taken into his account.

(4) The total gross salary of Ashok Kumar Raswant is Rs.14,43,386.89 on which Income Tax of Rs.32,452/- has been paid. On the basis of the said figure, the household expenditure taken as 1/3rd of (Gross Salary - Paid Income Tax) comes to Rs.4,70,311.63. From the said amount, the electricity expenditure of Rs.16,650/- was incurred by Ashok Kumar Raswant during the check period.

(5) In the observation memo, the clothing were found to be of Rs.55,800/- as such the total non-verifiable expenditure comes to Rs.3,97,861.63 (4,70,311.63 - 55,800 - 16,650). (6) During investigation, it was found that Ashok Kumar Raswant purchased Scooter No. DL3S-8022 Model 1990 from Sh. Sunil Kumar Mishra. Sh. Sunil Kumar is not traceable and the cost of purchase of this vehicle amounting to Rs.14,000/- is taken on the basis of insurance document. (7) Sh. Ashok Kumar Raswant paid an amount of Rs.43,699/-

CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 13 of 179 14 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) to the MCD from 1995-1996 to 28.07.2001 as Tax of House No. B-5/46, Rohini. He also paid an amount of Rs.30,159/- as Ground Rent, Additional Electricity work construction money of Flat No. A-403, Kalka Apartment, Dwarka, New Delhi to the Kalka Co-operative Society from the period 17.06.1999 to 27.08.2001. He repaid an amount of Rs.11,000/- to his Department from 1995 to 02.01.2002 against the loan taken by him for the purchase of scooter.

(8) Sh. Ashok Kumar Raswant has taken 3 LIC Policies on his life and he paid an amount of Rs.78,597.60 as premium from 1989 to 2001. Similarly, his wife also took two LIC Policies for which she paid an amount of Rs.36,080.30 as premium from 1989 to 2001.

(9) Sh. Ashok Kumar Raswant paid an amount of Rs.24,938/- from 1991 to 02.01.2002 to the MTNL against the use of telephone. Smt. Kamlesh gifted Rs.30,000/- to Ms. Esha Raswant in the year 1998. Ashok Kumar Raswant paid an amount of Rs.4,880/- as tax of House No. 3200, Type-II, CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 14 of 179 15 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) Pocket B-4, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi on 16.03.2001. INCOME OF ASHOK KUMAR RASWANT AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS DURING THE CHECK PERIOD:-

(1) Sh. Ashok Kumar Raswant got net salary etc. of Rs.13,05,833.03 from 20.08.1974 to 02.01.2002 from his Department. His wife got net salary of Rs.8,90,975.27 from her Department from 17.05.1976 to 02.01.2002. Ashok Kumar got loan of Rs.13,000/- from his Department for the purchase of scooter. He also sold part of his ancestral house W-4/86-

A1, Mehrauli, New Delhi for Rs.1,75,000/- to his brother Sh. Sudarshan Raswant and got this amount in cash installments during the year 1991 to 1992. He also took loan amount of Rs.90,948/- on 22.03.1999 from Citi Corps Maruti for purchase of Maruti Car No. DL4CH 5755. He and his wife got an amount of Rs.12,500/- and Rs.9,987.60 on 31.05.1994, 27.05.1999, 06.09.1994 and 27.05.1999 as survival benefit from LIC of India against their policies. Sh. Ashok Kumar Raswant and his wife got Rs.65,946.39 and Rs.32,627/- as CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 15 of 179 16 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) interest against the deposit made in the above account during the check period.

(2) Ashok Kumar Raswant got an amount of Rs.9,500/- and Rs.8,000/- in the year 1992 and June 1997 against the sale of Scooters No. DL3S-8022 and DL4SG-9458.

(3) Investigation has revealed that Ashok Kumar Raswant got income of Rs.3,000/- in the year 1993 on the sale of Flat No. 150, Type II, DDA SFS Flat, Sector-3, Rohini, which was purchased for Rs.1,22,000/- in the year 1992 in the name of his wife Kamlesh.

(4) Investigation has revealed that Sh. S.K. Mohanty and Sh. Munander Gupta paid an amount of Rs.38,600/- and Rs.2,61,000/- as rent and security to Ashok Kumar Raswant for first floor of H. No. B-5/46, Sector-4, Rohini and Flat No. 3200, B-4, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.

(5) During investigation, it was found that Ashok Kumar Raswant had taken interest free loan of Rs.1,00,000 each from Sh. Umesh Chander and Sh. Kuldeep Sharma for the CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 16 of 179 17 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) purchase of Property No. A-403, Sector-6, Kalka Apartment, Dwarka, Delhi in the year 1999. This amount was paid by the above said friends of the accused by way of cheques directly to Smt. Ravikanta from whom this flat was purchased.

8. CBI has filed 03 Annexures along with the Charge Sheet containing the details of Assets as Annexure-A, Income as Annexure-B and Expenditure as Annexure-C. The same are as follows:-

ANNEXURE -A ASSETS S. DETAILS OF ASSETS AMOUNT NO.

IMMOVABLE ASSETS:-

01. Purchase of H. No. 46, B-5, Sector-4, Rohini, in the joint Rs.2,33,009/-

name of Sh. Ashok Kumar & his wife Smt. Kamlesh Raswant, in the year 1981 and construction thereon in the year 1989 & 1990.

02. Purchase of 2½ storey property No. 81, A-4, Sector-4, Rs.76,000/-

Rohini, Delhi measuring 31.69 sq. mtrs. In the name of Sh. Ashok Kumar Raswant on 22.04.2000.

03. Purchase of built up Property No.264, A-4, Sector-4, Rs.90,000/-

Rohini measuring 31.69 sq. mtrs. in the name of Sh. Ashok Kumar Raswant on 3.3.1998.

04. Purchased Flat No. 3200, Pocket B-4, SFS, Vasant Rs.1,60,000/-

Kunj, New Delhi in the year 1995.

CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 17 of 179 18 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15)

05. Purchased Flat No. A-403, Kalka Apartment, Dwarka in Rs.6,50,000/-

1999.

MOVABLE ASSETS

01. Cash recovered during the house search of House No. Rs.9,82,540/-

B-5/46, Sector-4, Rohini, Delhi of accused.

02. Household articles and jewellery found during search of Rs.1,78,510/-

H. No. B-5/46, Sector-4, Rohini, Delhi on 02.01.2002 excluding serial no. 7 of bed room no.1 and serial no. 1 of bed room cum sitting room of Observation Memo.

03. Balance in Account No.5273 in Central Bank of India, Rs.13,224.07 Mehrauli in the name of Sh. Ashok Kumar Raswant, as on 02.01.2002.

04. Balance in PPF A/c. No.2108 in State Bank of India, Rs.65,800/-

Malviya Nagar, New Delhi in the name of Sh. Ashok Kumar Raswant as on 02.01.2002.

05. Balance in Account No.4172 in the Canara Bank, Rs.2,77,453.38 Rohini, in the name of Sh. Ashok Kumar Raswant as on 02.01.2002.

06. Balance in Account No.20375 in the Punjab National Rs.1,38,971/-

Bank, Rohini in the name of Sh. Ashok Kumar Raswant as on 02.01.2002.

07. Investment in UTI in the name of Sh. Ashok Kumar Rs.34,820.47 Raswant from 22.03.1988 to 02.01.2002.

08. Purchase of Maruti Car No. DL-4CH-5755 in the name Rs.1,98,643/-

of Sh. Ashok Kumar Raswant in the year 1999.

09. Purchase Scooter No. DL8SN 4955 in the name of Sh. Rs.33,500/-

Ashok Kumar Raswant on 02.02.2001 from Umang Motors.

10. Purchased NSCs No. 27EE899282,83 & 21EE962110 Rs.30,000/-

for Rs. 10,000/- each on 25.01.1999 in the name of Sh. Ashok Kumar Raswant.

11. Purchase Deposit Receipt No. ICD/1105/98 dated Rs.25,000/-

09.08.1998 of Canara Bank, Rohini, Delhi, in the name CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 18 of 179 19 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) of Sh. Anurag.

12. Purchase of KVPs No. 48BB702356 to 359 for Rs. Rs.20,000/-

5,000/- each on 04.06.2001 in the name of Sh. Anurag S/o Ashok Kumar Raswant.

13. One Mobile Phone make Nokia 5110 purchased on Rs.11,250/-

18.10.1999 by Sh. Ashok Kumar Raswant from Indtek Communication.

14. Purchase FP sets in the name of Smt. Kamlesh Rs.5,300/-

Raswant on 27.11.1996 from Singer vide order No.635.

15. Payment made for purchase of Godrej Refrigerator from Rs.17,500/-

Nayyar Electronics on 27.10.1996 in the name of Smt. Kamlesh.

16. Purchased two in one from D.K. Electronics on Rs.2,500/-

29.09.2001

17. Purchased one room cooler from Grover Electronics on Rs.3,000/-

19.05.1991.

18. Cash Amunt recovered during personal search of Sh. Rs.5,075/-

Ashok Kumar Raswant on 02.01.2002.

                                                              Total Rs.32,52,095.92




       ANNEXURE -C
       EXPENDITURE
        S.  DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE                                  COST (RS.)
        NO.

01. Re-payment of loan of Car No. DL4CH 5755 to Citi Rs.99,572/-

Corp. Maruti from 07.04.1999 to 10.02.2000.

02. Payment of Insurance premium to the New India Rs.9,508/-

Insurance Co. Ltd. for Vehicle No. DL4CH 5755 on 25.04.2000 to 27.04.2001.

03. Payment made for purchase and registration of Vehicle Rs.27,605/-

CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 19 of 179 20 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) N. DL1SJ 0533 in the year 1995 in the name of Sh. Ashok Kumar Raswant.

04. Payment made to the Sachdeva Public School from Rs.60,200/-

1997 to 02.01.2002 for the education etc. of son Master Anurag.

05. Payment made to Jaipur Golden Hospital, Rohini, for Rs.3,846/-

treatment of wife Smt. Kamlesh on 14.08.1992.

06. Payment made to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital for Rs.5,736/-

treatment of wife Smt. Kamlesh on 18.03.1991 to 22.03.1991.

07. Purchased Scooter No. DL4SG 9458 from M/s. Rs.16,000/-

Gautam Auto Okhla, New Delhi in October, 1992.

08. 1/3rd of carry home salary of Sh. Ashok Kumar from Rs.3,97,861.63 19.08.1974 to 02.01.2002 taken as non-verifiable expenditure.

09. Purchased Scooter No. DL3S 8022 from Sh. Sunil Rs.14,000/-

Kumar Mishra by Sh. Ashok Kumar in the year 1990-

91.

10. Payment made as House Tax of H. No. B-5/46, Sector Rs.43,699/-

4, Rohini, Delhi, from 1995-96 to 02.01.2002 (28.07.2001) to MCD.

11. Payment made to the Kalka Co-operative Group Rs.30,519/-

Housing Society, Dwarka for Flat No. A-403, as construction money, ground rent, additional electricity work from 17.06.1999 to 27.08.2001.

12. Re-payment of Scooter loan to the Department by Sh. Rs.11,000/-

Ashok Kumar Raswant from 1995 to 02.01.2002.

13. Paid premium of LIC Policy No.111116400 in the name Rs.28,678/-

of Sh. Ashok Kumar Raswant from October 1992 to October 2000.

14. Paid premium of LIC Policy No.121332115 in the name Rs.22,226/-

of Sh. Ashok Kumar Raswant from 10.08.2000 to 10.09.2001.

CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 20 of 179 21 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15)

15. Paid premium of LIC Policy No.110451954 in the name Rs.27,693.60 of Sh. Ashok Kumar Raswant from 28.05.1989 to May 1996 and May 1997 to June 2001.

16. Payment made against consumption of electricity in H. Rs.16,650/-

No. B-5/46, Sector 4, Rohini

17. Payment made against the use of telephone Rs.24,938/-

No.7045652 in the name of Sh. Ashok Kumar Raswant.

18. Payment made as Tax of H. No. 3200, Type II, Pocket Rs.4,880/-

B-4, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi on 16.03.2001.

                                                             Total Rs.8,44,612.23




       ANNEXURE -B
       INCOME
        S. No.                DETAILS OF INCOME                  COST (RS.)

01. Net Salary, arrears etc. received by Sh. Ashok Rs.13,05,833.03 Kumar Raswant from his Department from 20.08.1974 to 02.01.2002.

02. Loan taken from Citi Corp., Maruti, Naraina for Rs.90,948/-

purchase of Maruti Car on 22.03.1999.

03. Refund given by LIC of India against Policy Rs.12,500/-

No.110451954 in the name of Sh. Ashok Kumar Raswant on 31.05.1994 & 27.05.1999.

04. Interest on deposit in PPF A/c No. 2108 in SBI, Rs.5,800/-

Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, in the name of Sh. Ashok Kumar Raswant.

05. Interest on deposit on A/c No. 5273 at CBI, Rs.18,161.39 Mehrauli in the name of Sh. Ashok Kumar Raswant from 08.03.1985 to 02.01.2002.

06. Sale of Scooter No. DL3S 8022 to Sh. Azad Singh Rs.9,500/-

in the year 1992.

CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 21 of 179 22 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15)

07. Loan taken by Sh. Ashok Kumar Raswant from his Rs.13,000/-

Deptt. On 22.03.1995 for purchase of scooter.

08. Sale of Ancestral house No. W-4/86-A1, Mehrauli Rs.1,75,000/-

on 21.03.1992 to Sh. Sudarshan Raswant.

09. Interest on deposit in A/c No. 1198 & 20375 in Rs.26,010/-

PNB, Rohini in he name of Sh. Ashok Kumar Raswant from 1994 to 02.01.2002.

10. Sale proceeds of Scooter No. DL4SG 9458 Rs.8,000/-

received from Sh. Pramod Kumar in June 1997.

11. Profit from sale of property no. 150, Pocket-25, Rs.3,000/-

DDA flat, Sector-3, Rohini, in the name of Smt. Kamlesh, received in the year 1993.

12. House rent of First floor of H. No. H. No. B-5/46, Rs.38,600/-

Sector 4, Rohini, in the name of Sh. Ashok Kumar from 01.05.2001 to December 2001 @ Rs.4,200/- per month and security of Rs.5,000/- received from Sh. S. K. Mohanty.

13. Received rent of H. No. 3200, B-4, Vasant Kunj, Rs.2,61,000/-

New Delhi, in the name of Sh. Ashok Kumar from July 1998 to December 2001 from Sh. Muneendra Gupta.

14. Received loan from Sh. Umesh Chander for Rs.1,00,000/-

purchase of flat at Dwarka, by Sh. Ashok Kumar Raswant in June 1999.

15. Received loan from Sh. Kuldeep Sharma for Rs.1,00,000/-

purchase of flat at Dwarka, by Sh. Ashok Kumar Raswant in June 1999.

16. Received interest in A/c No. 4172 maintained by Rs.15,975/-

Sh. Ashok Kumar Raswant at Canara Bank, Rohini.

Total Rs.21,83,327.42

9. In view of the above facts, the calculation of Disproportionate CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 22 of 179 23 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) Assets was made by the CBI as under:-

        Assets                        Rs.32,52,095.92
        Expenditure                   Rs.8,44,612.23
        Income                        Rs.21,83,327.23

Disproportionate Assets=Total Assets+ Expenditure - Income. =32,52,095.92 +8,44,612.23-21,83,327.42 = Rs.19,13,380.73 D.A. % = 87.63%

10. Thus, As per Charge Sheet, Ashok Kumar Raswant acquired assets of Rs.19,13,380.73, which are disproportionate to the known sources of income and he could not satisfactorily account for the same.

11. It was alleged that Ashok Kumar Raswant has committed an offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Sanction for prosecution of accused Ashok Kumar Raswant was not required as he was an employee of Delhi Vidhyut Board and the same has since been CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 23 of 179 24 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) privatized.

12. Accused Ashok Kumar Raswant summoned to appear in the Court. After his appearance, copies were supplied to him in compliance of Section 207 of Cr. P. C.

13. Vide Order dated 29.04.2005, Charge for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was framed against accused Ashok Kumar Raswant, who pleaded not guilty to the Charge and claimed trial.

14. To prove the charge against the accused, CBI examined 89 witnesses. Thereafter, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused Ashok Kumar Raswant had examined 7 witnesses in his defence.

EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION

15. PW-1 is Sh. Ashwani Kumar Sharma. He has deposed that he was working in The New India Assurance Company Ltd., New Delhi, since July 1988. He has proved the Insurance Policy Ex. PW-1/B and Ex. PW-1/C pertaining the vehicle CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 24 of 179 25 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) number DL4CH 5755 bearing Engine No.3207286 and Chasis No.2205471 for which an amount of Rs.6,709/- was paid as premium.

16. PW-2 is Sh. S. P. Verma. He was an Assistant Manager in SBI, Malviya Nagar Branch, New Delhi, at the relevant time and brought on record the Letter Ex. PW-2/A vide which PPF account No.2108 of Ashok Raswant was sent to CBI and letter Ex. PW-2/B vide which Account Opening Form of the aforesaid account Ex. PW-2/C was sent to CBI. As per the record, the balance of Rs.65,800/- and interest of Rs.5,800/- was paid upto 02.12.2002 in this account.

17. PW-3 is Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta. He has deposed that in the year 2003, he was posted as Assistant Administrative Officer in LIC Branch at New Friends Colony, New Delhi. He has proved the letter Ex. PW-3/A vide which he handed over Attested photocopies of Proposal Forms submitted by Ashok Kumar Raswant and Smt. Kamlesh Raswant, Status Reports and details of Payment of Premium Ex. PW-3/A1 to Ex. PW-

CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 25 of 179 26 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) 3/A9, to the CBI. He has also proved the letter Ex. PW-3/B vide which he gave details of payment of survival benefits to Ashok Kumar Raswant and Smt. Kamlesh Raswant paid by LIC to CBI.

18. PW-4 is Sh. Amar Jeet Singh. He has deposed that in the year 2003, he was posted as LDC in the office of Motor Licencing Officer, Transport Department at Bharat Nagar, Delhi. He has brought on record the certified copies of Receipt regarding registration of Scooter No. DL8SL-4955, Application for Registration, Bills and other documents Ex. PW-4/B1 to PW-4/B7 which was handed over by him to CBI vide letter Ex. PW-4/A. The said Scooter No. DL-8SL-4955 was registered in the name of Ashok Kumar Raswant S/o Sh. O. P. Raswant R/o B-5/46, Sector-4, Rohini, Delhi.

19. PW-5 is Mohd. Jamil. This Witness has deposed that in the year 2003, he was posted as Assistant, Lease Administration Branch of DDA, Rohini at Vikas Sadan, New Delhi. He has proved the letter Ex. PW-5/A vide which he handed over the CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 26 of 179 27 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) attested copy of allotment file of Plot No. 46, B-5, Sector No.4, Rohini, alloted in the name of Ashok Kumar Raswant and details of total payment of Rs.17,832/- Ex. PW-5/B, which was paid by Ashok Kumar Raswant to DDA.

20. PW-6 is Sh. Kuldeep Sharma. This witness is the friend of Sh. Ashok Kumar. He has deposed that he had given a loan of Rs. One Lac by way of Cheque in the name of Sh. Ravi Kanta from his saving Bank Account in the month of June 1999 to accused Ashok Kumar Raswant. He had also paid Rs.6,80,000/- to the accused by Cash on 21.12.2001. He has further deposed that the Sale Deed with regard to the purchase of Flat No. A-403, Plot No. 31, Kalka Apartments, Sector-6, Dwarka, New Delhi, was executed and registered between him and the accused at Sub-Registrar Office, Pitampura, Delhi.

21. PW-7 is Sh. Suresh Chand. He has deposed that he was posted as LDC in Motor Licence Office at Janakpuri since 2001 to 2005. He has proved the documents Ex. PW-7/A1 to CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 27 of 179 28 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) Ex. PW-7/A4 pertaining to Car and Scooter bearing Vehicle No. DL-IV-CH 5755 and DL-IV-SG-9458, which were registered in the name of accused Ashok Kumar Raswant.

22. PW-8 is Sh. Alok Mahajan. He has deposed that during the year 1991-92, he was posted as Development Officer in Oriental Insurance Company, City Branch Office, Jangpura, New Delhi. He has proved the Insurance Policy Ex. PW-8/A pertaining to Bajaj Chetak Scooter No.DL-3S-8022 in name of Sh. Ashok Kumar Raswant was issued from his office.

23. PW-9 is Sh. S. K. Sharma. He has deposed that he remained posted as Senior Manager in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. II, Central Road, Jangpura, Bhogal, New Delhi, during the period June 2002 to March 2004. He has also proved the Insurance Policy Ex. PW-8/A pertaining to Bajaj Chetak Scooter No. DL-3S-8022 in name of Sh. Ashok Kumar Raswant.

24. PW-10 is Sh. Parmod Kumar, who purchased Scooter No. DL-4SG-9458 for Rs.8,000/- from Sh. Ashok Kumar Raswant CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 28 of 179 29 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) through Sh. Mukesh Kumar. He has proved the Photocopy of Report of Transfer of Ownership of Motor Vehicle Ex. PW- 10/A.

25. PW-11 is Sh. Subhash Batra, who sold the property no. 81, Pocket A-4, Sector No.4, Rohini, Delhi to accused Ashok Kumar Raswant in April 2000 for Rs.76,000/-. He has proved the documents Ex. PW-11/A and Ex. PW-11/A1 to Ex. PW- 11/A9, which were executed by him at the time of transaction of sale of above said property.

26. PW-12 is Sh. Ashwani Kumar, who purchased Scooter No. DL-3S-8022 for Rs.15,000/- from one Sh. Azad. He has proved the Sale Letter Ex. PW-12/A which was executed by the accused in his favour on 13.06.1994. He also proved his request to Transferring Authority for Transfer of vehicle Ex. PW-12/B.

27. PW-13 is Sh. Anil Ahuja. He has deposed that in the year 2003, he was working as UDC at Motor Licensing Office, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi. He has proved the photocopy of file CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 29 of 179 30 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) Ex. PW-13/B pertaining to Vehicle Bajaj Chetak Scooter No. DL-3S-8022, which was initially in the name of Sunil Kumar Mishra and thereafter, it was transferred in the name of Sh. Ashok Kumar on 19.07.1990. Sh. Ashok Kumar sold the said scooter to Ashwini Kumar on 13.06.1994.

28. PW-14 is Sh. P. C. Aggarwal. He has deposed that during the year 2003, he was posted as Assistant Grade-II, Higher scale in the office of Assistant Personal Officer (Billing), BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. He identified the accused Ashok Kumar Raswant, who was posted in Training Department Staff in the same office. He has proved the Letter Ex. PW-14/A vide which he had handed over the salary details of accused Ex. PW-14/C and Ex. PW-14/C1 to Ex. PWC-17, to CBI.

29. PW-14 has also brought on record the Personal File Ex. PW-

14/B of the accused Ashok Kumar Raswant. He has identified the Certificate Ex. PW-14/B1 which was issued by the office of CMO, DHS, Government of NCT of Delhi to the effect that CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 30 of 179 31 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) Smt. Kamlesh Raswant wife of the accused, has given an undertaking regarding not claiming of any Medical Reimbursement from Delhi Government. He has also identified the photocopy of Deed of Adoption Ex. PW-14/B2 according to which accused had adopted Master Anurag on 24.01.1994.

30. PW-14 has further deposed that accused did not give any intimation to the Department regarding acquisition /sale of any movable or immovable property held either by him or any member of his family as required under Rule 18 of CCS (Conduct) Rule 1964.

31. PW-15 is Sh. Janardhan Pandey. He has proved the documents Ex. PW-15/A to Ex. PW-15/Q regarding selling of one plot bearing no. 264, Pocket-A4, Sector-4, Rohini, Delhi to Ashok Kumar Raswant.

32. PW-16 is Sh. Azad Singh, who purchased Bajaj Chetak Scooter No. DL3S-8022 from accused Ashok Kumar Raswant and after about two years, he sold the same to Sh. Ashwani CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 31 of 179 32 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) Kumar.

33. PW-17 is Sh. Surender Singh. He has deposed that from May 2003 to July 2007, he was posted as Public Relation Inspector in Lajpat Nagar Post Office, Krishna Nagar Post Office, come under the administrative control of Superintendent Office, South Division, New Delhi. He has proved the letter Ex. PW-17/A vide which he had handed over the application Ex. PW-17/B for purchase of NSC Ex. PW- 17/C filed by the accused Ashok Kumar Raswant. The purchase value of the NSC is Rs.10,000/- and the date is 25.01.1999.

34. PW-18 is Sh. Kuldeep Chand. He has deposed that during the year 2003, he was posted as Public Relation Inspector in Head Post Office, Ashok Vihar, Delhi. He has brought on record the letter Ex. PW-18/A vide which application dated 04.06.2001 Ex. PW-18/B submitted by Anurag for purchase of Kisan Vikas Patra for Rs.20,000/- was handed over to CBI. He has further deposed that on the basis of the application, CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 32 of 179 33 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) Kisan Vikas Patras Ex. PW-18/C1 to Ex. PW-18/C4 were issued under the guardianship of Ashok Kumar Raswant.

35. PW-19 is Sh. Ramesh Kumar. He has deposed that from August 2003 to October 2004, he was posted as Record Keeper in the office of Sub Registrar-II, Janakpuri, New Delhi. He has proved the photocopy of GPA dated 17.06.1999 Ex. PW-19/A (Certified copy of GPA Ex. PW-19/A1) and Will dated 17.06.1999 Ex. PW-20/C5 regarding the built-up Plot No. 31, Sector-VI, Kalka Group Co-operative Housing Group Society, Dwarka, New Delhi, executed by Smt. Ravi Kanta in favour of accused Ashok Kumar Raswant.

36. PW-20 is Sh. Sumer Singh Yadav. He has deposed that he was the Care Taker of the Kalka CGHS Limited, Plot No. 31, Sector VI, Dwarka, New Delhi, since the year 2003. He had handed over the documents Ex. PW-20/B, Ex. PW-20/C1 to Ex. PW-20/C6 executed by Smt. Ravi Kanta in favour of accused Ashok Kumar Raswant and Ex. PW-20/C7 executed by accused Ashok Kumar Raswant in favour of Sh. Kuldeep CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 33 of 179 34 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) Sharma, to the CBI vide letter Ex. PW-20/A.

37. PW-21 Smt. Darshan Dhingra. This witness has deposed that she has sold the Flat No. 3200, Pocket B-4, Category II, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi to Ashok Kumar Raswant vide PW- 21/A to PW-21/C respectively. She has also proved the Application cum Specimen Signature Card Ex. PW-21/D of her account No. 6910 through which, she has encashed the pay orders.

38. PW-22 is Sh. Sunil Kumar. He has deposed that during the year 2004, he was working as Assistant Telephone Officer Assistant General, office of SDE (Technical) Sanchar Parisad, Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi. He has proved the Certified copies of the relevant pages of the commercial file pertaining to telephone No.7045652 in the name of accused Ashok Kumar Raswant Ex. PW-22/A1 to Ex. PW-22/A5, details regarding payment of telephone bills till 11.11.2001 Ex. PW-22/A-6 and Ex. PW-22/A-7 and the schedule of by monthly rent in respect of telephone connection w.e.f. 01.03.1992 onwards Ex. PW-

CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 34 of 179 35 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) 22/A-8, to the CBI vide letter Ex. PW-22/A.

39. PW-23 is Sh. Sudershan Sharma. He has proved the Letter dated 11.09.2003 Ex. PW-23/1 vide which Receipt dated 20.04.1995 Mark B and Delivery Challan Mark C, in respect of LML Vespa, were handed over to CBI.

40. PW-24 is Sh. Yogender Lakra. He has deposed that during the period November 1997 to September 2004, he had worked with M/s. Bhasin Motors India Pvt. Ltd., 22, Raja Garden, New Delhi. He has brought on record the documents Ex. PW-24/2 to Ex. PW-24/8 pertaining to Vehicle No. DL4CH- 5755 in the name of accused Ashok Kumar Raswant..

41. PW-25 is Sh. Sudershan Raswant. He is the real brother of the accused Ashok Kumar Raswant. He has proved the Photocopy of the Original Agreement Deed of Internal agreement with the accused Ex. PW-25/2, which he had handed over to CBI vide Ex. PW-25/1. He has further deposed that vide the said agreement, he had bought the share of the accused in the Joint family property bearing no.

CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 35 of 179 36 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) 4/86, Mehrauli, New Delhi, for a sum of Rs.1.75 lacs and he had paid the said amount to the accused in installments vide relevant Receipt Ex. PW-25/3.

42. PW-26 is Dr. Muneendra Gupta. He is tenant of the accused Ashok Kumar Raswant, in H. No. 3200, B-3/4, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi from August 1998 to September 2002. He has proved the Rent Receipts Ex. PW-26/2 (colly.), Ex. PW-26/4 (colly.), Ex. PW-26/6 (colly.), Ex. PW-26/8 and Ex. PW-26/10 along with the photocopy of Form No. 16 Ex. PW-26/1, Ex. PW-26/3, Ex. PW-26/5, Ex. PW-26/7 and Ex. PW-26/9 pertaining to the Assessment Years 1999-2000 to 2003-2004, in his Department.

43. PW-27 is Sh. Umesh Chander. He has deposed that at the relevant period of time, he was working as Sub Station Foreman in Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. He has proved the Cheque bearing No. 767768 dated 15.06.1999 Ex. PW-27/1 which was issued by him in favour of Smt. Ravi Kanta from whom accused was CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 36 of 179 37 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) purchasing the flat. He has further deposed that he had given an interest free loan of Rs.1 lac to the accused for purchase of a house, which was returned by the accused through Cheque dated 30.07.2002.

44. PW-28 is Sh. Bhori Kala. This witness has deposed that in the year 2003, he was working as Assistant Accountant (Recovery) in Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking at District Rohini, Delhi. He has brought on record the letter dated 21.11.2003 Ex. PW-28/1 vide which he had provided information regarding payment made against electricity connection Nos. K-132005, K-124627 & K-124626, which was in the name of Ashok Kumar Raswant. He has also provided the details of payment which is mentioned in Statement of Account Ex. PW-28/2.

45. PW-29 is Sh. Anil Kumar Singh. He has deposed that at the relevant time, he was working as Stenographer in Ministry of Urban Development and Poverty Alleviation, Govt. of India, New Delhi. He was the member of the search team of the CBI CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 37 of 179 38 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) at the time of search of house of accused Ashok Kumar Raswant at Rohini. He has proved the Search cum Seizure Memo Ex. PW-29/1.

46. PW-30 is Sh. Shiv Shanker. He has deposed that in the year 2003, he was posted as Sub Registrar-VI at Pitampura, Delhi. He has brought on record the letter Ex. PW-30/1 vide which certain documents i.e. GPA, SPA, Will, Certificate Ex. PW- 30/2 to Ex. PW-30/7 executed in respect of Property No. 264, Block & Pocket A-4, Sector-4, Rohini, were provided by him to the CBI.

47. PW-31 is Sh. R. S. Beniwal. He has deposed that he was working as Notary appointed by Govt. of India, since 2000. He has proved Letter Ex. PW-31/1 vide which he had handed over the attested copies of page Nos. 151 to 154 Ex. PW-31/2 of his Notary Register of 19th to 24th December 2001 to the Inspector CBI.

48. PW-32 is Sh. B. P. Tomar. He has deposed that at the relevant time, he was posted as Sub Post Master at Post CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 38 of 179 39 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) Office, South Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. He has proved the Letter Ex. PW-32/1 vide which he had provided the photocopy of Application Form dated 31.01.2000 Ex. PW-32/2 for purchase of NSC worth Rs.20,000/-(two NSCs worth Rs.10,000/- each) Ex. PW-32/3 and Ex. PW-32/4 in the name of accused Ashok Kumar Raswant from his Post Office. As per letter Ex. PW-32/1, payment against both the NSCs was not paid by the Post Office to the accused until 10.09.2003.

49. PW-33 is Sh. Prakash Chand. He speaks about the documents pertaining to NSCs of accused Ashok Kumar Raswant which are already brought on record as Ex. PW- 17/A, Ex. PW-17/B and Ex. PW-17/C.

50. PW-34 is Sh. Radhey Shyam Saxena. He has deposed that at the relevant time, he was posted as Public Relation Inspector(Post) at Post Office (Head Office), Ashok Vihar, Delhi. He has brought on record the documents Ex. PW-18/A to Ex. PW-18/C-4 regarding the purchase of 4 Kisan Vikas Patras in the name of Anurag Raswant under the CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 39 of 179 40 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) Guardianship of accused Ashok Kumar Raswant.

51. PW-35 is Sh. Ram Narayan. He has deposed that at the relevant time, he was posted as Officer in Canara Bank, Central Branch, Rohini, Delhi. He has proved the Locker Operation Memo Ex. PW-35/1 vide which Locker No.291 in the name of Smt. Kamlesh w/o accused Ashok Kumar Raswant was operated on 23.08.2003.

52. PW-36 is Sh. S. K. Mishra. He has deposed that at the relevant time, he was posted as Motor Licensing Officer, West Zone, New Delhi. He has proved the documents Ex. PW-7/A1 and Ex. PW-7/A3 pertaining to Maruti Car DL-IV-CH 5755 and Scooter No. DL-4SG-9458, registered in the name of accused Ashok Kumar Raswant.

53. PW-37 is Sh. Rajesh. He has deposed that in the year 2003, he was posted as Motor Licensing Officer(HQ), at 5/9, Under Hill Road, Delhi. He has brought on record the certified copies of papers pertaining to vehicle i.e. LML Scooter No. DL1SJ 0533 Ex. PW-37/2, which was provided by him to the CBI vide CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 40 of 179 41 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) letter Ex. PW-37/1.

54. PW-38 is Sh. Sanjay Narula. He has deposed that in the year 2003, he was posted as Motor Vehicle Inspector, Transport Authority, Bharat Nagar, Ashok Vihar, Delhi. He has provided the documents Ex. PW-4/B1 to Ex. PW-4/B7 regarding registration of Scooter No. DL8SL-4955, which was handed over to CBI vide letter Ex. PW-4/A. The said Scooter No. DL8SL-4955 was registered in the name of Ashok Kumar Raswant.

55. PW-39 is Sh. Rakesh Dutt. He has deposed that he had worked as J.E. (Technical), on deputation in CBI, ACB, New Delhi since 07.08.2002 to 31.07.2007. He has proved the Evaluation Report dated 19.12.2003 Ex. PW-39/1 vide which the property No. B-5/46, Sector-4, Rohini, Delhi was evaluated by him.

56. PW-40 is Smt. P. D. Baby. She has deposed that in the year 2003, she was working as Dy. Director, Rohini, Delhi. He has also proved the letter Ex. PW-5/A vide which the details of CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 41 of 179 42 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) payment regarding allotment of Plot No. 46, B-5, Sector-IV, Rohini, Delhi Ex. PW-5/B made by the accused to the DDA.

57. PW-41 is Sh. Karamveer Singh. He has deposed that at the relevant time, he was posted as Sub-Registrar, Janak Puri, New Delhi. He has proved the letter Ex. PW-41/1 vide which he had provided the Certified Copy of General Power of Attorney dated 08.09.1995 Ex. PW-41/2, which was executed by Mrs. Darshan Dhingra in favour of accused in respect of SFS Flat No. 3200, Pocket B-4 Category II, situated at Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.

58. PW-42 is Sh. Dalip Narang. He has deposed that at the relevant time, he was Director of M/s. R. L. Motors Pvt. Ltd., RR-4, Miyan Wali Nagar, Delhi. He has proved the photocopy of Sale Certificate Ex. PW-42/1 and Sale Invoice dated 21.04.1995 Ex. PW-42/2 in respect of sale of LML Vespa Scooter. He also deposed that the cost of LML Vespa Scooter at that time was Rs.27,199/-.

59. PW-43 is Sh. Rameshwar Prasad Meena. He has deposed CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 42 of 179 43 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) that in the year 2003, he was working as Assistant Manager in Central Bank of India, Mehrauli Branch, New Delhi. He has proved the letter Ex. PW-43/1, vide which certified copy of ledger sheet pertaining to SB A/c No. 5273 in the name of the accused for the period January 1988 to 19.12.1997 Ex. PW- 43/2 and computerized statement of aforesaid account for the period 08.04.2000 to 05.07.2003 Ex. PW-43/3, were handed over to the CBI.

60. PW-44 is Sh. Sanjay Pant. He has proved the Arrest cum Personal Search Memo dated 02.01.2002 Ex. PW-44/1 pertaining to the arrest and personal search of accused Ashok Kumar Raswant.

61. PW-45 is Sh. Arun Kumar Gupta. He has deposed that from July 1997 till September 2004, he was working as Accounts Manager in M/s. Umang Motors. This witness deposes about the selling of one LML Scooter DL8SN-4955 by Umang Motors to the accused and brought on record the documents Ex. PW-45/1 to Ex. PW-45/3 in this regard.

CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 43 of 179 44 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15)

62. PW-46 is Sh. Rohit Gupta. He is one of the partners in M/s.

Umang Motors since 1994. He has also proved the documents Ex. PW-45/1 to Ex. PW-45/3 regarding the selling of one LML Scooter DL-8SN-4955 to accused Ashok Kumar Raswant.

63. PW-47 is Sh. Gulshan Kumar. He has deposed that he was posted as Sub Divisional Engineer (Technical), N-II, Telephone Exchange Building, Rohini, Delhi. He has proved his signatures on letter containing details of Telephone No. 7045652 Ex. PW-22/A.

64. PW-48 is Sh. Subhash Sharma. He has proved the details of payments made by accused Ashok Kumar Raswant pertaining to Property Tax in respect of Property No. B-5/46, Sector-4, Rohini, Delhi Ex. PW-48/2, which was given by him vide PW-48/1.

65. PW-49 is Sh. Ashok Aggarwal. He has deposed that in the year 2003, he was posted as Senior Manager, Canara Bank, Sector-5, Rohini, Delhi. He has proved the attested copy of CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 44 of 179 45 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) Account Opening Form in the name of Master Anurag, KDR Account No. 1105 Ex. PW-49/1A and Statement of Account pertaining to SB A/c No. 4172 Ex. PW-49/1B which were handed over by him to CBI vide letter dated 11.02.2003 Ex. PW-49/1.

66. PW-50 is Sh. Vidyadharan M. P. He has deposed that he had worked as Honorary Secretary in the Kalka Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd., for about 3 years i.e. from 2003 to 2005. He had also proved the documents Ex. PW-20/B and Ex. PW-20/C1 to Ex. PW-20/C7, which were given to the CBI vide letter dated 21.07.2003 Ex. PW-20/A.

67. PW-51 is Sh. Dharam Dev. He has deposed that during the year 2003, he was working as Assistant General Manager (Legal) in main Branch of Unit Trust of India, New Delhi. He has proved the details of investment made by accused Ashok Kumar Raswant during the period 22.03.1988 to 28.01.2003 in ULIP Scheme of UTI Ex. PW-51/2, which was given by him to the CBI vide Letter Ex. PW-51/1.

CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 45 of 179 46 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15)

68. PW-52 is Sh. Vinay Kumar Chhibber. He has deposed that he has been working as Assistant Administrative Officer in Sachdeva Public School, Sector-13, Rohini, New Delhi since August 2007. He has brought on record the documents Ex. PW-52/2 to Ex. PW-52/5 regarding the details of fees paid to school for Anurag Raswant son of accused Ashok Kumar Raswant and donation given to Sh. Laxman Dass Memorial Educational Society (Regd.) by accused.

69. PW-53 is Sh. D. D. Verma. He has deposed that in the year 2002, he was posted as Senior Manager, Central Bank of India, Mehrauli Branch, New Delhi and retired from there in the year 2008. This witness has also proved the letter Ex. PW- 43/4 vide which certified photocopies of account Opening Slip and Specimen Signature Card of account No. 5273 Ex. PW- 43/5 and Ex. PW-43/6 as well as certified Statement of Account no. 5273 Ex. PW-43/7, has given to CBI.

70. PW-54 is Smt. Sudesh Kapoor. She has deposed that during the year 2003, she was posted as Manager, Punjab National CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 46 of 179 47 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) Bank, Sector 7, Rohini, Delhi. She has proved the Certified copies of Statement of accounts pertaining to S.F. Account Nos. 20735, 1198 and 2345 Ex. PW-54/2 to Ex. PW-54/4, which were sent by her to the CBI vide letter Ex. PW-54/1. All the three accounts were in the name of accused Ashok Kumar Raswant. She has also proved the attested true copies of account opening form and specimen signatures card Ex. PW- 54/5 of S. F. Account no. 20375.

71. PW-55 is Sh. G. S. Abhilashi. He has proved the letter dated 02.05.2002 Ex. PW-55/1, by which he had provided information regarding the Bank Account No. SF 20375 and SF 2345 to the IO.

72. PW-56 is Sh. O. P. Grover. He has also proved the Arrest cum Personal Search Memo Ex. PW-44/1 by which accused Ashok Kumar Raswant was arrested in his presence.

73. PW-57 is Sh. Ravi Kant Rampal. He has deposed that he was working as G. M. (Finance) in M/s. Bhasin Motors (India) Pvt. Ltd., 28, Raja Garden, New Delhi. He has proved the CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 47 of 179 48 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) documents Ex. PW-24/1, Ex. PW-24/2, Ex. PW-24/4 to Ex. PW-24/8, & Ex. PW-57/1 (Mark A) pertaining to the purchasing of one Maruti Car 800 from M/s. Bhasin Motors (India) Pvt. Ltd. by accused Ashok Kumar Raswant.

74. PW-58 is Sh. Sunil Kumar Goel. He has deposed that during the year 2002, he was posted as Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Malviya Nagar Branch, New Delhi. He has proved the Letter Ex. PW-2/A by which information regarding the PPF account No. 2108 and 916 of Ashok Raswant was sent to CBI. He has also proved the letter Ex. PW-2/B vide which Account Opening Form of the aforesaid account No. 2108 Ex. PW-2/C and attested photocopy of Statement of account pertaining to PPF Account No. 2108 Ex. PW-2/D was sent to CBI.

75. PW-59 is Sh. L. K. Arora. He has deposed that during the year 2001 to 2003, he had worked in Rohini Branch of Canara Bank as Manager. He has proved the letter Ex. PW-59/1 by which Photocopy of Deposit Slip dated 08.09.1990 Ex. PW-

CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 48 of 179 49 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) 59/2 in the name of Sh. Anurag Raswant in respect of Kamdhenu Receipt (KDR) and Account Opening Form and Specimen Signature Card Ex. PW-59/3 and Ex. PW-59/4 pertaining to SB Account No. 4172 in the name of the accused Ashok Kumar Raswant, were handed over to the CBI.

76. PW-60 is Sh. Vijay Sharma. He has deposed that he has been working as Manager in M/s. Gautam Auto Private Ltd., Tilak Nagar, New Delhi since 1992. He has proved the letter Ex. PW-60/1, by which photocopy of Bill No. 2590 dated 14.07.1990 Ex. PW-60/2 in the name of Sh. Sanjay Popli was given to IO.

77. PW-61 is Sh. Jagdish Khattar. He was the Proprietor of M/s.

D. K. Electronics, 48/4, Yusuf Sarai Market, New Delhi. He has proved the Bill No. 3923 dated 29.09.2001 Ex. PW-61/1 by which one Phillips Two in One was sold in cash for Rs.2,500/- to the customer.

78. PW-62 is Sh. Kishori Lal. He has deposed that as on CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 49 of 179 50 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) 11.07.2003, he was posted as Assistant Personnel Officer (Billing-III), Lajpat Nagar. He has proved Ex. PW-14/A and Ex. PW-14/B regarding the details and personal file of accused Ashok Kumar.

79. PW-63 is Sh. P. N. Malhotra. He retired as Senior Medical Record Officer from Sir Ganga Ram Hospital in 1999 and then, he was re-employed with the Hospital and finally retired in June 2008. He has proved the Bill No. 0035305 dated 22.03.1991 Ex. PW-63/A from Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, in respect of patient Kamlesh R/o 44/86, A-1, Mehrauli, New Delhi.

80. PW-64 is Sh. Ravinder Kumar. He has deposed that he was working in Jaipur Golden Hospital, Rohini, as Manager Corporate since 11.09.1992. He has proved the particulars of Bill no. 5399, dated 14.08.1992 of patient Kamlesh Ex. PW- 64/B, which was handed over by him to the CBI vide Authority letter Ex. PW-64/A. He has also proved the original Bill No. 5399 Ex. PW-64/C which was given to the patient at the time CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 50 of 179 51 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) of discharge.

81. PW-65 is Sh. Deepak Gondolay. He has deposed that in May 2002 he was posted as Senior Manager in Sant Nagar, East of Kailash Branch of Oriental Bank of Commerce. He has proved the letter Ex. PW-65/A vide which he had handed over the Statement of Account of SB A/c No. 16829 and copy of account opening form and copy of specimen signature card of accounts of Ashok Kumar Raswant Ex. PW-65/A1 to Ex. PW-65/A3 respectively.

82. PW-66 is Sh. Tara Chand. He has deposed that since April 2003, he has been posted in the Paharganj Branch of Allahabad Bank. He has proved the signature of Sh. Balram Singh, the then Manager of Allahabad Bank on documents pertaining to A/c No. 106910 in the name of Smt. Darshan Dhingra Ex. PW-66/A, Ex. PW-66/A1 and Ex. PW-66/A2.

83. PW-67 is Sh. T. D. Talreja. He has also proved the signature of Sh. Balram Singh, the then Manager of Allahabad Bank on Ex. PW-66/A, Ex. PW-66/A1 and Ex. PW-66/A2.

CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 51 of 179 52 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15)

84. PW-68 is Sh. D. K. Chawla. He has deposed that he was posted as Chief Manager in Sant Nagar, East of Kailash Branch of Oriental Bank of Commerce. He has proved the letter Ex. PW-68/A, vide which the copy of Account Opening Form and Statement of account of Smt. Ravi Kanta had been handed over to CBI.

85. PW-69 is Sh. Rajasekaran. He has deposed that he retired as Assistant Vice President-I from IndusInd Bank on 30.09.2011. He has proved the letter Ex. PW-69/A by which he had handed over copy of Cheque No. 033270 Mark A in favour of Smt. Ravi Kanta, to the CBI. He has also proved the letter Ex. PW-69/B, by which he had handed over the copy of account opening form of Kuldeep Sharma and Poonam along with copy of statement of account in respect of account no. 102668050 for the period 01.04.1997 to 31.03.1998 Mark B & C, to the CBI.

86. PW-70 is Sh. Anil Ralhan. He has deposed that in September 2003, he was posted as Chief Manager, PNB, CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 52 of 179 53 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) Rohini Branch, Delhi. He has proved his signatures on the documents pertaining to account no. 1198 of Ashok Kumar Raswant Ex. PW-54/2 to Ex. PW-54/4.

87. PW-71 is Sh. J. S. Sodhi. He has deposed that as on 30.06.2003, he was posted as Joint Director (Building)/Rohini and Narela. He has proved the letter Ex. PW-71/A, vide which copy of the records pertaining to property No.46, B-5, Sector- 4, Rohini, Delhi had been sent by him to the CBI.

88. PW-72 is Sh. V. B. Rastogi. He has deposed that in March 2004, he was posted as Branch Manager in Malviya Nagar Branch of SBI. He has identified his signature on the statement of account no. 2108 in the name of Ashok Kumar Raswant Ex. PW-2/D.

89. PW-73 is Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma. This witness was dropped by the Ld. PP for the CBI on the ground that he is not the person who was actually summoned to be examined in this case.

90. PW-74 is Sh. Ved Prakash. He has deposed that in the year CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 53 of 179 54 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) 2003, he was posted as Assistant Assessor and Collector, MCD (Assessment & Collection Office) Near Sangam Cinema, R. K. Puram, Delhi. He has proved the Report Ex. PW-74/A regarding the up to date payment of property tax dues in respect of Property No. 3200, B-4, Vasant Kunj, for the period 2000-01 amounting to Rs.4,880/-.

91. PW-75 is Sh. A. R. Joshi. He has deposed that during June 2003, he was posted as Motor Licensing Officer at Sheikh Sarai STA (South Zone). He has proved the Ex. PW-13/A by which attested copies of record file of Vehicle No. DL3S-8022 and DL3CC-7077 had been handed over to CBI. He has also proved Ex. PW-13/B, Ex. PW-12/A and Ex. PW-12/B regarding the fact that the Scooter No. DL3S-8022 was got transferred by Sh. Sunil Kumar in the name of Sh. Ashok Kumar s/o Sh. Om Prakash.

92. PW-76 is Sh. V. K. Sharma. He has deposed that around 2004, he was posted as JE (Building Section) DDA (Rohini), Delhi and at that time, Sh. Sodhi was the Deputy Director in CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 54 of 179 55 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) the Building Section. He has identified the signature of Sh. Sodhi, Deputy Director on document pertaining to property no. B-5/46, Sector-4, Rohini, Delhi Ex. PW-71/A.

93. PW-77 is Sh. Dinesh Panth. He has deposed that in the year 2003, he had been posted as AZI in House Tax Department, Rohini Zone, Delhi. He has identified the Rubber Stamp on document pertaining to information with regard to house tax paid for property no. B-5/46, Sector-4, Rohini, Delhi Mark P-77/A and A-1.

94. PW-78 is Sh. Sanjay Bhagat. He has deposed that he was the Sole Proprietor of M/s. Indtek Communications. He has proved the Invoices Ex. PW-78/A and Ex. PW-78/A1 by which one Mobile instrument as well as pre-paid 'Speed Card' had been sold to Ashok R/o B-5/46, Sector 4, Rohini, Delhi.

95. PW-79 is Smt. Ravi Kanta. She has deposed that she was the member of Kalka Co-operative Group Housing Society, Dwarka, New Delhi. She has proved Share Certificate Ex. PW-6/A2, Will Ex. PW-6/A1, General Power of Attorney Ex.

CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 55 of 179 56 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) PW-19/A, PW-6/A3 and Mark P-79/X regarding the sale transaction of Flat No. A-403, Kalka Apartments, Dwarka, Delhi to Ashok Kumar Raswant.

96. PW-80 is Inspector Lalit Kaushik. He has deposed that in the year 2002, he was posted as PSI/CBI, ACB, New Delhi. He has proved the Complaint Ex. PW-80/A, which was prepared by him on the basis of search memos and documents recovered from the house of accused Ashok Kumar Raswant. He has also proved the FIR Ex. PW-80/B.

97. PW-81 is Sh. U. K. Goswami. He has deposed that he was posted as Inspector, CBI, ACB, New Delhi from April 2000 till May 2002. He has proved the FIR Ex. PW-80/B. He has deposed that after the registration of the FIR, investigation was initially marked to him. However, during course of two months during which investigation remained with him, no effective investigation took place and when he was transferred from the Branch, the investigation was handed over to Inspector Surender Malik.

CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 56 of 179 57 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15)

98. PW-81 is Ms. Serophina Xalxo (Inadvertently been given the same PW number as PW-81). She has deposed that she was presently posted as Assistant Director (Building), Rohini, DDA. She has proved the copies of documents Ex. PW-81/A (colly.) in connection with Plot No. 46, Pocket-5, Block-B, Sector-4, Rohini.

99. PW-82 is Sh. N. Muthuswamy. He has deposed that as on 09.10.2003, he was working as Chief Manager with Indian Bank, Janakpuri Branch, Delhi. He has proved the copy of Statement of Account Mark P-82/X, copy of Cheque No. 767768 dated 18.07.1999 Ex. PW-27/1 and the Account Opening Form Ex. PW-82/B pertaining to Sh. Umesh Chander, which were handed over to the CBI vide Ex. PW- 82/A.

100. PW-83 is Sh. S. P. Surender Malik. He is the IO of the present case. He has deposed that he had been posted as Inspector with CBI, ACB, New Delhi from 1996 till January 2005. He has deposed that on 02.01.2002, Investigation of CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 57 of 179 58 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) the Trap case pertaining to the accused Ashok Kumar Raswant was marked to him. He speaks about Arrest Memo Ex. PW-44/1 of accused Ashok Kumar Raswant, Search cum Seizure Memo dated 02.01.2002 Ex. PW-29/1 and Observation Memo Mark P-83/A. He has further deposed that the investigation in respect of RC No. 1(A)/2002 was transferred from him and handed over to SI Lalit Kaushik, who subsequently filed complaint Ex. PW-80/A against accused Ashok Kumar Raswant regarding the Disproportionate Assets. On the basis of the said complaint, present FIR Ex. PW-80/B was registered on 22.02.2002 and the investigation of the present case was also marked to him.

101. PW-83 deposed about the investigation done by him and the about the witnesses examined by him and further the documents collected by him in course of investigation. The relevant documents are brought on record by examining the various witnesses connected to the documents. After completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet in the CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 58 of 179 59 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) present case.

102. PW-84 is Sh. Bhupender Pal Singh. He has deposed that he had been working as Partner of M/s. Nayyar Electronic Palace from 1990 till 2006. He has proved the photocopies of Ex. PW-84/A1 and Ex. PW-84/A2 regarding the selling of Godrej Refrigerator worth Rs.17,500/- to Mrs. Kamlesh, which was haded over by him to CBI vide Letter Ex. PW-84/A.

103. PW-85 is Inspector A. K. Malik. He had remained on deputation as Inspector with CBI from 1996 uptil May 2006. In January 2002, he was posted as Inspector, CBI, ACB, Delhi. He has made searches at the house of the accused on the authorization given by Insp. Surender Malik.

104. PW-86 is Sh. Alok Jain. He has deposed that in the year 2003, he was posted as Senior Manager with Indian Bank Branch, Janakpuri, Delhi. He has also proved the documents pertaining to the account of Shri Umesh Chander Mark P- 82/X, Ex. PW-27/1, Ex. PW-82/B, which was handed over vide letter Ex. PW-82/A to the CBI.

CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 59 of 179 60 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15)

105. PW-87 is Sh. S. K. Mohanty. He was a tenant in premise of the accused bearing no. B-5/46, 1st Floor, Sector-4, Rohini, Delhi from 01.05.2001 to 02.01.2002 at monthly rent of Rs.4,200/-.

106. PW-88 is Sh. B. Subramanyam. He has deposed that around 2002-2003, he was working with IndusInd Bank, International Trade Tower, F-Block, Nehru Place, New Delhi as an Assistant Manager. He has spoken about the letters Ex. PW-69/A and Ex. PW-69/B vide which copy of Cheque and copy of statement of account Mark B & C pertaining to the account of Smt. Ravi Kanta, were handed over to the CBI.

107. PW-89 is Sh. Shakti Srivastava. He has deposed that he was employed with e-Serve International Limited and had worked there from July 2003 to December 2008. He has proved the Financial Statement in respect of Auto Loan Contract No. DEA-002-158797 Mark P-89/A pertains to Ashok Kumar Raswant, which was handed over vide letter Ex.

       PW-89/1 to the CBI.          He has deposed that eServe




CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant                                  60 of 179
                                       61            CC No. 532204/16 (4/15)

International was a subsidiary of Citi Bank as well as Citi Corp. Maruti Finance Limited.

STATEMENT OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C.

108. After closing the Prosecution Evidence, all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused for his explanation, under Section 313 Cr. P.C. It has been submitted by the accused that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further submitted that some of the assets have been falsely reflected to have been acquired by him. Some expenditures made by her wife from her own sources have been wrongly shown to have been incurred by him. All his investments had been made through his bank accounts. Some investments in properties had been done by him by taking loans from individuals and one such property had been sold to Sh. Kuldeep Sharma. He got employed in 1974 i.e. about 20 years prior to the start of check period. He got married on 01.03.1978. Gift, articles, jewellery and cash received by his wife at the time of marriage had not been CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 61 of 179 62 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) taken into consideration and had not been given due credit. The witnesses who have deposed against him are the interested witnesses and they have deposed falsely against him under the pressure of CBI.

EVIDENCE LED BY ACCUSED PERSON

109. In his defence evidence, the accused has examined 07 witnesses.

110. DW-1 is Sh. Lalit Mohan Negi. He has brought the photocopies of attested true copies of pay bill record of the accused.

111. DW-2 is Sh. Amit Srivastava. He has deposed that the summoned record is not being maintained under his custody but rather was maintained by the Assistant Personnel Officer, BSES, Rajdhani Power Ltd., Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi.

112. DW-3 is Sh. Anand Minj. He has brought on record the duly attested photocopies of the Check Registers Ex. DW-3/1 (colly.) pertaining to the salary details of the accused Ashok Kumar Raswant.

CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 62 of 179 63 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15)

113. DW-4 is Sh. Upender Kumar. He has brought on record the copies of Pay Bill Registers for the period 05.01.1992 to 28.02.2002 of Smt. Kamlesh Raswant Ex. DW-4/1(Colly.).

114. DW-5 is Ms. Premlata. She has brought on record the photocopies of Original Pay Bill Register for the period 1985- 86 to 1991-92 in respect of Ms. Kamlesh Raswant Ex. DW-5/1 (colly).

115. DW-6 is Sh. D. Ravi. He has brought on record the photocopies of Original Pay Bill Register for the period March 1979 till February 1985 in respect of Ms. Kamlesh Raswant Ex. DW-6/1 (colly).

116. DW-7 is Sh. Gautam Kumar Sagar. He has produced the letter /order dated 27.11.2001 Ex. DW-7/A, Draft Report with Annexures Mark DW-7/A (colly.), Letters/Notifications dated 28.02.1978 and 09.08.1988 Ex. DW-7/B and Ex. DW-7/C respectively.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

117. Ld. PP for the CBI has argued that the accused has amassed CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 63 of 179 64 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) the assets which are of disproportionate to his income during the check period i.e. 1974 to 02.01.2002 while he was working in Delhi Vidyut Board. It is further argued that the CBI has unearthed the assets of the accused during the search proceedings of his house in trap case where the accused was trapped while accepting bribe amount.

118. Ld. PP further argued that the immovable and movable assets as mentioned in the Annexures filed along with the charge sheet could not have been acquired without resorting to corrupt practices by the accused.

119. It is also argued that the list of assets and the expenditure itself sufficient to say that the accused has committed an offence of Section 13(1)(e) punishable under Section 13(2) of PC Act. Ld. PP for the CBI also argued that all the assets acquired by the accused during the check period have been duly proved by examining relevant witnesses by the prosecution and similarly, expenditure and income details are also proved. Ld. PP also argued that the CBI has properly CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 64 of 179 65 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) conducted the investigation and value of the assets are taken by the IO in charge-sheet properly and the same are also proved in evidence.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED

120. Ld. Counsel for accused argued that a false case has been registered against the accused by the CBI. Ld. Counsel also argued that the accused has not earned or acquired properties which are disproportionate to his income. The Ld. Counsel also argued that the CBI in charge-sheet has added certain properties which actually do not belong to the accused and further shown highly exaggerated values of assets and expenditure only to falsely implicate the accused. It is also argued that the CBI has deliberately not considered the income of wife of the accused Smt. Kamlesh Raswant, who was admittedly an employee of Health Department in Delhi Government. Ld. Counsel for accused also argued that the CBI has intentionally ignored the fact that the wife of accused has significantly contributed to the immovable properties and CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 65 of 179 66 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) the household articles, being earning member of the family. Ld. Counsel for the accused has relied on DSP Chennai Vs. K. Inbasagaran 2006 (1) SCC 420 wherein it is held as follows:-

"It is true that when there is joint possession between the wife and husband or father and son and if some of the family members are involved in amassing illegal wealth, then unless there is categorical evidence to believe that this can be read in the hands of the husband or as the case may be, it cannot fastened on the husband or head of the family."

121. Ld. Counsel also argued that the household articles shown in the seizure memos should not be considered as the assets as one third income of accused has already been considered towards purchasing such articles and other expenses of the house. It is also argued by the Ld. Counsel for accused that a public servant facing such a charge is not required to furnish CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 66 of 179 67 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) any explanation, in absence of the proof of the allegation contained in the charge sheet, in the form of specific evidence to that effect, emerging during the prosecution evidence and the prosecution is required to prove the entire quantum of the alleged disproportion, so detailed in the order of charge and the Court cannot undertake the exercise to assume the quantum of income, valuation of assets or valuation of expenditure in absence of corresponding evidence.

122. Ld. Counsel for the accused further relied on State of Maharashtra vs. Pollonji Darabshaw Daruwalla AIR 1988 SC 88 wherein it is held as follows : -

"11. Once the prosecution establishes the essential ingredients of the offence of criminal misconduct by proving, by the standard of criminal evidence that public servant is or was at any time during the period of office in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his source of income known to the prosecution, the prosecution discharges the CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 67 of 179 68 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) burden of proof and the burden of proof is lifted from the shoulder of the prosecution and descend upon the shoulder of defence."

123. Ld. Counsel for accused also relied on State of Maharashtra Vs. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede 2990 (15) SCC 200 wherein it is held that : -

"16. Before the accused is called upon to explain.....the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution.........."

124. Ld. Counsel for the accused also relied on Vasant Rao Guhe vs. State of M.P. 2017 IX AD (SC) 1 wherein it is held that :-

"21. From the design and purport of clause

(e) of sub-clause (1) to Section 13, it is apparent that the primary burden to bring home the charge of criminal misconduct thereunder would be indubitably on the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the public servant either himself or through anyone else had at any time during the period of his office been in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 68 of 179 69 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) sources of income and it is only on the discharge of such burden by the prosecution, if he fails to satisfactorily account for the same, he would be in law held guilty of such offence. In other words, in case the prosecution fails to prove that the public servant either by himself or through anyone else had at any time during the period of his office been in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income, he would not be required in law to offer any explanation to satisfactorily account therefore. A public servant facing such charge, cannot be comprehended to furnish any explanation in absence of the proof of the allegation of being in possession by himself or through someone else, pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income. As has been held by this Court amongst others in State of Maharashtra vs. Dnyaeshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede, even in a case when the burden is on the accused, the prosecution must first CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 69 of 179 70 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) prove the foundational facts. Incidentally, this decision was rendered in a case involving a charge under Sections 7, 13 and 20 of the Act."

125. Ld. Counsel for the accused has further argued that Section 101 of Indian Evidence Act read with Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, specifically provides that it is for the prosecution to prove that the income of the accused is less than his assets and expenditures by way of positive evidence and not by way of presumption or surmises. He further argued that it is for the prosecution to establish the essential ingredients of the offence of criminal misconduct by proving by the standard of criminal evidence that public servant is or was at the time during the period of his office in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his sources of income.

126. Ld. Counsel for the accused also contended that accused had sold out a property i.e. Flat No. 403, Kalka CGHS to his friend PW-6 in December 2001 for consideration of Rs.7,80,000/-

CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 70 of 179 71 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) out of which Rs.6,80,000/- paid in cash by PW-6 and the said amount was lying in the house of the accused and the same was shown in search-cum-observation memo Ex. PW-85/1. Despite giving proper explanation, the CBI went on to show the said amount and the immovable property as assets of accused only to implicate the accused in the present case. It is also argued by the Ld. Counsel for the accused that the valuation of the property number B-5/46, Sector-4, Rohini, Delhi is not done by an expert and further wrongly valued which is against the documents D-49 brought on record by prosecution itself. Ld. Counsel further contended that prosecution has failed to prove that the accused was in possession of disproportionate assets to his income from known sources during the check period.

Discussion

127. The accused is facing trial for the charge under section 13(1)

(e) of the P.C. Act. Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act is reproduced as follows -

CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 71 of 179 72 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15)

13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant -(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,-

(a) ......

(b) ......

(c) ......

(d) ......

(e) if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income.

128. A public servant charged of criminal misconduct thereunder has to be proved by the prosecution to be in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income at any time during the period of his office. It is to be noted that such possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income may CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 72 of 179 73 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) be of his or anyone on his behalf as the case may be. Further he would be held to be guilty of such offence of criminal misconduct if he cannot satisfactorily account such disproportionate pecuniary resources or property. The explanation to 13(1)(e) elucidates the word known sources of income to mean income received from any lawful source and that such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of law, rules, orders for the time being applicable to a public servant. Primarily, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the fact that accused is in possession of disproportionate assets may be of his or anyone on his behalf.

129. According to the case of prosecution, the accused was found in possession of assets of Rs.19,13,380.73 which are disproportionate to the known sources of his income. The details have been given by the prosecution under three heads namely Assets, Expenditure and Income. I would like to take up these issues in the same order item-wise as per Annexures

- A, B and C filed along with the charge-sheet, based on the CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 73 of 179 74 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) material available in evidence and on the touchstone of the principles propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vasant Rao Guhe Vs. State of M.P. 2017, SCC Online SC 893.

130. Annxure-A filed along with Charge Sheet shows the list of immovable and movable properties which are allegedly acquired by the accused during the check period i.e. 19.08.1974 to 02.01.2002. In the list, there are 05 immovable properties. At page no. 4 of the charge-sheet, 07 immovable properties were shown, however, the CBI after investigation has not considered 02 properties i.e. Plot vide membership no. 17 in Uma Sehkari Awas Samiti Limited, Ghaziabad and plot no.213 at khasra no. 1892 village Bhati, New Delhi, as the assets of the accused leaving 05 immovable properties as shown in Annexure-A and the same are discussed as follows. IMMOVABLE ASSETS - ANNEXURE-A

131. Item No. 1 : - At item No. 1, the accused is shown to have possessed house at Plot No. 46, Pocket V, Block B, Sector-4, Rohini, Delhi measuring 90 sq. meters. The accused CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 74 of 179 75 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) according to the CBI, has constructed two floors of RCC building on the plot, allotted by the DDA. Initially, this plot was allotted by the DDA in the name of accused and his wife Smt. Kamlesh for a consideration of Rs.17,832/-. To prove this fact, the Prosecution has examined PW-5, namely, Mohd. Jamil, who is an Assistant in the Lease Administrative Branch of DDA, Rohini at Vikas Sadan, Delhi. PW-5 has handed over the allotment file of the said property to the CBI Officer vide letter Ex. PW-5/A. This file contains details of payment made by the accused to the DDA and the relevant document is Ex. PW-5/B. As per the document Ex. PW-5/B, the allotees have paid Rs.17,832/- to DDA towards allotment of Plot No. 46, Pocket V, Block B, Sector 4, Rohini, Delhi. Prosecution has also proved the said allotment by examining PW-81 Smt. Serophina Xalxo. This fact is not disputed by the accused.

132. It is alleged by the prosecution that a two storey building was raised by the accused in the plot alloted by the DDA i.e. Plot No. 46, Pocket V, Block B, Sector-4, Rohini, Delhi. It is also CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 75 of 179 76 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) the case of the prosecution that the said building was raised by the accused himself and the value of the construction is Rs.2,15,177/-. The prosecution has examined one Rakesh Dutt as PW-39, who evaluated this property. The witness PW-39 was working as JE, Technical in CBI and on instructions from SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi, he valued the two storey construction at Plot No. 46, Pocket V, Block B, Sector 4, Rohini, Delhi. According to PW-39, the property No. B-5/46, Sector-4, Rohini, Delhi was a double storeyed building constructed on a plot measuring 90 square meters. As per his calculation, the total constructed area of the aforesaid property came to 124.38 square meters. By applying Delhi Plinth Area Rates 1976 enhanced by Cost Index Method for the year 1989-90, the cost of construction is estimated at Rs.2,15,177/-. It is also according to PW-39 that at the time of valuation the accused Ashok Kumar Raswant was also present. The Valuation Report is Ex. PW-39/A.

133. The Ld. Counsel for accused seriously contended that witness CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 76 of 179 77 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) PW-39 is not an expert but only an officer working with CBI, therefore, his opinion cannot be considered. Ld. Counsel for accused also questions the method used for calculating the cost of the construction i.e. Plinth Area Rates as per CPWD Manual by PW-39. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel that Plinth Area Rates as per CPWD Manual is only one of the methods to assess an estimated cost of the proposed construction. Moreover, nowhere in CPWD Manual it is prescribed that any private individual is bound to raise building as per the Plinth Area Rate. If all buildings are to be raised as per Plinth Area Rate then there would be no deviation in the tenders floated by the government for raising any building and, therefore, all proposed contractors would give one proposed rate of construction, which is equivalent to Plinth Area Rate calculation. Thus, any assessment of cost of construction on Plinth Area Rate would lead to absurd results. It is also argued by the Ld. Counsel that the document D-49 filed by the CBI shows that the permission to construct the said building was CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 77 of 179 78 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) given in the year 1988-89 and the permitted area of construction is only 59.70 sq. meters leaving set backs on front and back side of the plot. It is further argued by the Ld. Counsel that the construction value for the abovesaid area of 59.70 sq. meters and even if it is taken as per CPWD rates, the same should be divided by 2 as the building is in the name of accused and his wife who is also an earning member.

134. PW-39 Rakesh Dutt is an Engineer in PWD, Arunachal Pradesh Cadre. The accused has neither questioned his qualification as Engineer nor his posting/service as JE in PWD/CBI. Being an Engineer working as JE, Technical in CBI, there is no reason why he cannot be considered as an Expert for evaluating the construction at the alleged site and further calculating its value as per the prescribed method. The PW-39 has given a valid reason in his Report i.e. Ex. PW-39/A as to why the Plinth Area Rates as per CPWD Manual is used for calculating the value of the construction. The relevant portion of his report Ex. PW-39/A reads as follows :-

CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 78 of 179 79 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) "Value of this property is estimated on the basis of Delhi plinth Area rates 1976 enhanced by cost Index method. This method of cost calculation is the most appropriate method because no record/details about foundation, RCC slab, mix Mortar, its thickness, steal reinforcement etc. are available and same cannot be found out without destruction. In this property case from built up area and specification point of view it is considered equivalent to T-IV Govt. Quarters hence rates are calculated to the above stated type of building only."

135. The above reason given by PW-39 in his report appears to be genuine and valid. The argument of the defence that the method used by PW-39 was not correct and further that PW- 39 was not an expert is bereft of any reason and material on record. As far as the area of the construction is concerned, PW-39 has visited the spot and measured the building. Though the argument of defence that as per the sanction, the CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 79 of 179 80 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) area of construction is 59.70 sq. meters on each floor, there is no evidence produced by the accused to say that the building is construed only as per sanction letter. As it is stated earlier, PW-39 has visited the building and took the measurements on his own. His evidence as an eye witness to the dimensions of the building cannot be ignored specially in the absence of any material to rebut the same. In view of the above, the evidence of PW-39 with regard to the area of construction and the method used for calculating the value of construction is found reliable. Another argument of Ld. Counsel for the accused that another property i.e. item No. 3 Property No. 264, in the same area is purchased at the cost of Rs.90,000/- and therefore, the construction cost at Plot No. 46, Pocket V, Block B, Sector-4, Rohini, Delhi can not be Rs.2,15,177/- is also not tenable for the simple reason that the value of properties is never constant and depend on the various circumstances like market conditions, need of the seller etc.

136. It is a proved fact through PW-5 & PW-81 and documents Ex.

CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 80 of 179 81 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) PW-5/B & Ex. PW-81/A that DDA had alloted the plot in the name of accused and his wife Smt. Kamlesh Raswant in the year 1988 for Rs.17,832/-. It is admitted by the prosecution that the wife of the accused is also a public servant and had an independent source of income. The documents Ex. PW- 81/A (D-49) also shows that all the permissions, sanction for construction and affidavits are in both names i.e. accused and his wife. It is clear from the entire set of documents Ex. PW- 81/A, right from the allotment upto the construction and further, that the property stands in the name of two persons i.e. accused and his wife Smt. Kamlesh Raswant. There is no specific evidence which shows that the entire plot value and the construction cost were paid by the accused alone exclusively from his income. In view of the fact that the property is in both the names and also that wife of the accused is an independent earning member, only half of the value of this property (cost of the plot + cost of the construction) can be considered as the asset of the accused.

CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 81 of 179 82 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) Accordingly, the value of this asset for the purpose of this case is held as Rs.1,16,504.50/-.

137. Item No. 2 : - This is an immovable property bearing No. 81, A-4, Sector-4, Rohini, Delhi measuring 31.69 sq. meters which is according to CBI acquired by the accused in the year 2000. The said property stated to have been purchased by the accused for a consideration of Rs.76,000/-. The prosecution has examined PW-11 Subhash Batra, who has sold this property to the accused. It is stated by PW-11 in his evidence that he had sold the property No. 81, A-4, Sector-4, Rohini, Delhi to the accused Ashok Kumar Raswant in April, 2000 for Rs.76,000/- and accused had made the payment in cash. It is also stated by PW-11 that the relevant sale documents were executed by him in favour of accused and the same are brought on record as Ex. PW-11/A, PW-11/A1 to A9. The witness also identifies his signatures on the sale documents. There is no cross-examination of this witness by the Counsel for accused. In view of the clear statement of CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 82 of 179 83 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) PW-11 and the documents Ex. PW-11/A, Ex. PW-11/A1 to A9, it is held proved that the accused has acquired the property i.e. No. 81, A-4, Sector-4, Rohini, Delhi on 22.04.2000 for Rs.76,000/-.

138. Item No. 3 : - This immovable property i.e. No. 264, A-4, Sector-4, Rohini, Delhi alleged to have been acquired by the accused during the check period. The prosecution has examined PW-15 Sh. Janardhan, who has sold this property to the accused. It is stated by PW-15 in his evidence that he had sold a built up plot No. 264, Pocket-A, Sector-4, Rohini to Ashok Kumar Raswant. According to PW-15 this property consists of ground floor comprising two rooms, toilet and bathroom and the same was sold to Ashok Kumar Raswant about 7-8 years ago for Rs.90,000/- by him and his brother Sh. Ved Prakash. In this regard PW-15 executed sale documents in favour of the accused and same are brought on record as PW-15/A to 15/Q. It is further stated by the witness that he received a total sale consideration of Rs.90,000/-

CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 83 of 179 84 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) which includes share of his brother Ved Prakash. This witness was allowed to be cross-examined by the Special Public Prosecutor for CBI wherein it was suggested to the witness that he received Rs.5,50,000/- from Ashok Kumar Raswant in cash towards the sale transaction of the property. However, the prosecution has not brought any material to prove that accused has paid Rs.5,50,000/- to PW-15 for purchasing this property. In this connection Sub-Registrar-VI, Pitampura also was examined as PW-30, who has proved the documents i.e. GPA executed by PW-15 as Ex. PW-30/2. The documents Ex. PW-15/A to Q only indicate that the sale consideration of the property was Rs.90,000/-. It is pertinent to mention that the value of this particular property is also shown by the CBI at item No. 3 of Annexure-A (immovable assets) as Rs.90,000/- only and not Rs.5,50,000/- as suggested by the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor. Therefore, it is held that the property i.e. Plot No. 264, A-4, Sector-4, Rohini, Delhi is acquired by the accused in the year 1998 for Rs. 90,000/- and considered CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 84 of 179 85 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) accordingly.

139. Item No. 4 : - This asset is an immovable property allegedly acquired by the accused in the year 1995. This property is a flat bearing No. 3200, Pocket B-4, SFS, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. According to CBI, the accused has purchased this property from one Sh. Darshan Dhingra for an amount of Rs.6,50,000/-. Accused had paid Rs.90,000/- from his Bank Account and Rs.4,90,000/- from the Bank Account of his wife and another Rs.70,000/- from the Bank Account of his father in law. It is also according to the CBI that investigation has revealed that the amount of Rs.70,000/- was returned by the accused to his father-in-law in cash installments during the check period.

140. To prove this fact, Prosecution has examined PW-21 Smt. Darshan Dhingra, who sold the flat No. 3200 to the accused and PW-41 Sub Registrar, Janak Puri before whom the GPA pertaining to this property was registered. PW-21 stated in her evidence that she was the owner of the flat No. 3200, SFS CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 85 of 179 86 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) Flats, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi which was purchased by her husband in her name. It is also stated that due to financial difficulty, the said flat was sold out by way of Receipt, Agreement to Sell, GPA dated 08.09.1995. Photocopies of the said documents are Mark PW-21/A, B, and C respectively and the witness had identified her signatures on the said documents. PW-21 also states that the said property was sold out by her for a consideration of Rs.6,50,000/- and the details of the payment are mentioned in Receipt Mark PW-21/A. As per the copy of the receipt Mark PW-21/A, the amount of Rs.6,50,000/- was paid by the accused as follows -

1. PNB 20.08.1995 328903 Rs.50,000/-

2. PNB 20.08.1995 306822 Rs.50,000/-

3. PNB 03.09.1995 419763 Rs.1,40,000/-

4. PNB 03.09.1995 419762 Rs.1,40,000/-

5. Central Bank 04.09.1995 004278 Rs.1,60,000/-

6. Central Bank 04.09.1995 004279 Rs.40,000/-

7. SBI 05.09.1995 856510 Rs.40,000/-

CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant                                       86 of 179
                                    87               CC No. 532204/16 (4/15)




        8. Karur Vasya Bank   05.09.1995   187375          Rs.30,000/-

                                                     Total Rs.6,50,000/-

141. As per the case of the prosecution and as per the details of payment on mark PW-21/A, out of Rs.6,50,000/- paid to PW- 21, Rs.90,000/- was paid by way of two cheques by the accused, and an amount of Rs.4,90,000/- was paid by way of four cheques by the wife of accused and remaining Rs.70,000/- was paid by way of two cheques from the account of father in law. Prosecution has examined Sub Registrar, Janak Puri as PW-41, who produced the document i.e. certified copy of GPA pertaining to property No.3200 and the same is Ex. PW-41/2. PW-21 was cross-examined by the counsel for the accused, who suggested to her that Mark PW- 21/A to PW-21/C and Ex. PW-21/D were not executed by her and the same was denied by the witness. Ld. Counsel for accused contends that since the sale documents Mark PW- 21/A to PW-21/C are only photocopies, the same cannot be CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 87 of 179 88 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) relied. Though Mark PW-21/A to PW-21/C are photocopies, the prosecution is successful in proving the GPA executed by PW-21 in favour of accused by examining PW-41 Sub Registrar, Janak Puri, who produced the certified copy of said GPA as Ex. PW-41/2. The payment of sale consideration i.e. Rs.6,50,000/- was made by way of different cheques and accused has not brought any evidence on record to disbelieve the mode of payment. Therefore, it can be safely relied on the version of the prosecution that property No.3200 was acquired by the accused in the year 1995. Out of the sale consideration of Rs.6,50,000/-, an amount of Rs.4,90,000/- was paid through cheques from the account of wife of the accused. The CBI did not consider the above said amount of Rs.4,90,000/- and the value of this asset of accused is calculated in Annexure A to the charge sheet as only Rs.1,60,000/-.

142. Though the prosecution has stated in charge sheet that Rs.70,000/- was paid from the account of father in law of the CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 88 of 179 89 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) accused and the same was returned by the accused to his father in law during the check period, there is absolutely no evidence on record to prove the said fact. In the absence of any material on record to show that accused has repaid Rs.70,000/- to his father in law, it is held that the accused has paid only Rs.90,000/- towards the payment of sale consideration of the property no. 3200 at Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. In view of the above, the value of the share of the accused in this asset i.e. Property no.3200, Pocket B-4, SFS, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi at item no. 4 of the list of immovable assets, is held to be only Rs.90,000/- and considered accordingly.

143. Item No. 5 :- As per charge sheet at item no. 5 of the list of immovable properties in Annexure-A, the accused has acquired a Flat no. A-403, Sector-6, Dwarka, New Delhi in the year 1999. It is alleged by the prosecution that accused has acquired this property by purchasing membership of the Group Housing Society from one Smt. Ravi Kanta on CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 89 of 179 90 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) 17.06.1999 for Rs.6,50,000/- based on which flat no. 403 was alloted to him by the Society. The accused has allegedly paid an amount of Rs.4,80,000/- by way of cheques and Rs.1,70,000/- in cash to Smt. Ravi Kanta.

144. To prove this fact, the prosecution has examined PW-79 Smt. Ravi Kanta. The said witness deposed that she was a member of Kalka Group Housing Society, Dwarka and her membership /flat was sold to one Sh. Ashok through one Sh. Sharma, Secretary of the society and she could not identify the said Ashok due to lapse of time. The witness initially stated that she received an amount of Rs. 5-6 lacs towards the said transaction, however, she was confronted in cross- examination that she received Rs. 6.50 Lacs out of which Rs. 4.8 Lacs by way of cheque and Rs. 1.7 lacs by way of cash. Witness admits that the amount received by way of cheque had been deposited by her in Account No.16951 at Oriental Bank of Commerce. At a later stage, the witness also identifies the accused as the person to whom she sold the CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 90 of 179 91 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) membership/Flat. PW-79 also states in her evidence that she does not remember the exact amount she received from the accused, however, admits that some amount has been received by her by way of cheque/drafts.

145. PW-68 is the Chief Manager of Oriental Bank of Commerce, East of Kailash Branch, who proved the account of Smt. Ravi Kanta bearing No. 16951 in her name and also the statement of account brought on record as Annexure to Ex. PW-68/A. Witness PW-65 is the Sr. Manager of Oriental Bank of Commerce, who proved that accused had an SB A/c No. 16829 in East of Kailash Branch and the statement of the said account is brought on record as Ex PW-65/A1.

146. Perusal of statement of account of Smt. Ravi Kanta bearing no. 16951 shows that an amount of Rs.1,45,000/- was transferred to her account from the account No. 16829 of the same bank, which belongs to the accused, by way of three cheques (50,000/+50,000/+45,000/-) on 17.6.1999 i.e. the date of alleged sale of flat/Membership of the Society/Flat. It is CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 91 of 179 92 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) the case of the prosecution that Smt. Ravi Kanta also received an amount of Rs.90,000/- from the accused by way of a pay order as per entry dated 17.06.1999 shown in Statement of Account attached with Letter Ex. PW-68/A. However, there is no evidence to prove that the said pay order for Rs.90,000/- was made by the accused, nor there is any evidence to connect the said pay order to the accused except that the amount of Rs.90,000/- was credited to the account of Smt. Ravi Kanta on 17.06.1999. Merely an amount of Rs.90,000/- was credited to the account of Smt. Ravi Kanta on 17.06.1999, it cannot be concluded that the said amount was paid by the accused only in the absence of any supporting evidence.

147. The Statement of account of Smt. Ravi Kanta also shows that on 18.06.1999 there are three cheques credited (Rs. 1 Lac + Rs.45,000/- + Rs. 1 Lac) for a total amount of Rs.2,45,000/-. The IO PW-83 states in his evidence that the above said amount was paid by the accused towards the purchase of CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 92 of 179 93 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) Membership/Flat at Kalka Appts. but the same was paid by way of cheques of his known people. PW-6 Kuldeep Sharma has stated that he has paid Rs.1,00,000/- by way of Cheque to Smt. Ravi Kanta on behalf of accused at the time of purchase of above said Membership /Flat by the Accused. PW-27 Sh. Umesh Chander is also a friend of accused and stated in his evidence that he had given interest free loan of Rs.1,00,000/- to the accused in the year 1999 for purchasing a house. The said amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was given by PW- 27 by way of cheque in favour of Ravi Kanta PW-79 from whom accused purchased this property. Though it is stated by the IO that two other cheques, one for Rs. 1 Lac and another for Rs.45,000/- were also paid by the accused from the A/c of his friends but there is no evidence on record in that regard.

148. It is the contention of the accused that the membership/ Flat no. A-403, Sector 6, Dwarka, New Delhi, which is purchased from PW-79 Ravi Kanta was sold out by him to his friend CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 93 of 179 94 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) Kuldeep Sharma in December 2001. The said Kuldeep sharma, who is examined as PW-6 also states that he had purchased the said property from the accused by way of some notarized sale documents i.e. Ex. PW-6/A5 to PW-6/A8. It is also stated by the said witness that he had paid Rs.6,80,000/- to the accused and another Rs. 1 Lac, which is already paid by him directly to the earlier owner of the property i.e. Smt. Ravi Kanta. This witness in his statement has categorically stated that a registered sale deed has been executed in his favour by the accused at Pitampura Sub Registrar office. The sale deed, which is stated to have been executed by the accused in favour of PW-6 has not been produced by him nor the same has been called for by the accused. The notarized sale documents as stated by PW-6 are stated to have been attested by one Mr. R.S. Beniwal, Advocate/ Notary Public.

149. The prosecution in fact did not believe the version of the accused as well as PW-6 with regard to the sale of the Property i.e. Flat No. A-403, Plot No. 31, Kalka Apartments, CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 94 of 179 95 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) Sector 6, Dwarka, New Delhi by the accused to PW-6 Sh. Kuldeep Sharma. The Prosecution has examined Mr. R.S. Beniwal as PW-31, who according to PW-6, has attested the sale documents i.e. Ex. PW-6/A5 to PW-6/A8. PW-31 in his evidence squarely denied that he has ever attested the sale documents i.e. Ex. PW-6/A5 to PW-6/A8. His statement in this regard is as follows :-

"I am working as Notary appointed by Govt. of India since 2000. My sitting place is in the campus of office of Sub-Registrar-VI, situated at Pitampura, Delhi. I used to maintain Notary Register and whatever documents are attested by me, are recorded in the Notary Register at the relevant time.

I have seen Special Power of Attorney Ex. PW 6/A-7, Agreement to Sale and Purchase, Ex.

PW 6/A-8 and Receipt Ex. PW 6/A-6 (all photocopies), which neither bear my signatures nor my seal. I also did not attest anyone of the said documents.

I have seen my letter (D-38) dated 12.09.2003, CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 95 of 179 96 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) which bears my signatures at point A and the same is Ex. PW 31/1. Vide Ex. PW 31/1, I had handed over attested copies of pages Nos. 151 to 154 of my Notary Register for the month of 19th to 24th December, 2001 to Inspector CBI. Attested photocopies of Page Nos. 151 to 154 of my Notary Register are collectively marked as Ex. PW 31/2 (four pages). The said photocopies are correct as per the originals. I had attested each page of Ex. PW 31/2 at points A under my signatures and with my seal.

Special Power of Attorney, Ex. PW 6/A-7, Agreement to Sale and Purchase, Ex. PW 6/A- 8 and Receipt Ex. PW 6/A-6 do not find a mention in page Nos. Ex. PW 31/2 (all photocopies), since the same were not attested by me."

150. The witness PW-31 has denied his signatures and stamp on the copies of the sale documents as claimed by PW-6 and accused. PW-31 also produced his Notary Register for the relevant date which is Ex. PW-31/2. The entries with regard to CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 96 of 179 97 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) the notarization of Ex. PW-6/A are not found in the said register. The accused has not cross examined the witness PW-31 nor brought any evidence to show that the copies of sale documents Ex. PW-6/A are actually attested by PW-31. The evidence of PW-31 goes un-controverted. The evidence of PW-31 falsifies the claim of accused and PW-6 that this property i.e. Flat No. A-403, Plot No. 31, Kalka Apartments, Sector-6, Dwarka, New Delhi, was sold by the accused to PW-6 by way of Notarized sale documents.

151. Under Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, the accused has to satisfactorily account for the possession of the pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to the known sources of income. The burden on the accused which is cast by Section 13(1)(e) of PC Act, not only to offer a plausible explanation as to how he came to acquire the property but also to satisfy the Court that his explanation was worthy of acceptance. While evaluating the evidence on record, the attendant facts and circumstances need to be taken note of to CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 97 of 179 98 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) determine as to whether the material available, having regard to the common course of natural events and human conduct do logically prove the point in issue, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka Vs. J. Jayalalitha.

152. In cross examination of PW-79, it was suggested by the accused that the said property is purchased by one Mr. Paul in the name of accused also falsifies the entire claim of accused with regard to this property. It is also contended by the Ld. Counsel for the accused that the accused was only a GPA Holder of Smt. Ravi Kanta and transferred the property to PW-6 only in the capacity of GPA Holder. It is categorically stated by Smt. Ravi Kanta that the membership/flat was sold to the accused . In fact PW-6 and PW-27 both have stated, that they lent money to accused at the time of purchase of this property. It is clear that accused is changing his stances. After going through the entire evidence, it can be easily made out that the claim of the accused that he had sold out this property to PW-6 in December 2001 just prior to the date of CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 98 of 179 99 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) raid, is neither believable nor supported by any reliable evidence.

153. I am not inclined to accept the argument of Ld. Counsel for the accused that, the evidence of PW-6 with regard to his purchasing the property and making the payment of Rs.6,80,000/- in cash to the accused, has to be believed as this witness is examined by prosecution itself. In K. Veeraswamy Vs. Union of India, 1991 SCC (Cr) 734, it is held that "The Investigating Officer is only required to collect material to find out whether the offence alleged appears to have been committed. In the course of in the investigation, he may examine the accused. He may seek his clarification and if necessary he may cross check with him about his known sources of income and assets possessed by him. Indeed, fair investigation requires that the accused should not be kept in darkness. He should be taken into confidence if he is willing to co-operate.......". The IO as part of fair investigation examined PW-6 and recorded his statement. Examination of CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 99 of 179 100 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) PW-6 who is a friend of the accused, only shows that IO had given an opportunity to the accused to prove his claim and nothing more than that. In fact, the Investigating Officer giving the opportunity to the accused to explain or to prove his claim is part of fair investigation and prosecution. In this regard, approach of the Investigating Officer and Prosecution deserves appreciation.

154. In view of the above, it is held that the property that is at item no.5 of the list of immovable property in Annexure-A is the property acquired by the accused during the check period. However, the value of the property is taken as Rs.3,45,000/- instead of Rs.6,50,000/- for want of evidence with regard to remaining Rs.3,05,000/-. The amount of Rs.1,00,000/- given by PW-6 and another amount of Rs.1,00,000/- given by PW- 27 to the accused are also shown in the details of income by the prosecution.

Movable Assets:-

155. Annexure-A filed along with the charge sheet also contains a CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 100 of 179 101 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) list of Movable assets. In this list 18 Movable Assets are mentioned which according to prosecution, the accused has acquired during the check period. These movable assets include cash, household articles found at the house of the accused, some bank accounts, vehicles, investments and some electronic items. I shall proceed to discuss the abovesaid movable assets item-wise as mentioned in Annexure-A.

156. Item No. 1 :- It is according to the prosecution that in pursuance of investigation in trap case i.e. RC1(A)/02, the CBI searched the house of the accused U/s 165 of Cr. P. C. The said search was conducted by Sh. A. K. Malik, Inspector CBI, ACB, New Delhi (PW-85) with authorization from the IO in trap case. The search was conducted on 02.01.2002 at the house of accused i.e. B-5/46, Sector-4, Rohini, Delhi from 7.30 p.m. to 11.30 p.m., in the presence of one independent witness Sh.

Anil Kr. Singh (PW-29), other team members of the CBI and wife of accused namely Smt. Kamlesh Raswant. It is also CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 101 of 179 102 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) stated that Smt. Kamlesh Raswant was given an opportunity to call any of her relatives or known person to witness the search proceedings. Smt. Kamlesh Raswant had called one neighbour Sh. Om Prakash Gupta, who was also present during the search and signed the Seizure Memo and Observation Memo. The Observation Memo containing the list of articles found at the house of the accused, is brought on record as Ex. PW-85/1 and the Seizure Memo is brought on record as Ex. PW-29/1.

157. It is contended by the Counsel for the accused that the Observation Memo cannot be considered in evidence as the same is not proved through independent witness i.e. PW-29. It is also the argument of Ld. Counsel for accused that PW-29 and PW-85, who are government officials working on behalf of CBI, cannot be trusted as they are interested witnesses and they are under the influence of the CBI. On the other hand, it is argued by the Ld. PP for CBI that the evidence of PW-29 and PW-85 cannot be rejected merely on the ground that they CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 102 of 179 103 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) are government servants and also just that they are asked by the CBI to witness the proceedings.

158. In State of Gujrat Vs. Ragunath, AIR 1985 SC 1092, the Apex Court held as follows -

"The Court is not entitled to reject the evidence of witnesses merely because they are Government Servants, who, in the course of their duties or even otherwise, might have come into contact with the Investigating Officers. Their evidence cannot be rejected merely because they are called in to associate themselves with the investigation as they happened to be available or it is convenient to call them. There is no need to view their evidence with suspicion."

159. In Baldev Singh vs. State of Haryana Crl. Appeal No. 167/2006, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows :

"10. There is no legal proposition that evidence of police officials unless supported by independent evidence is unworthy of acceptance. Evidence of police witnesses CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 103 of 179 104 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they belong to police force and interested in the investigation and their desire to see the success of the case. Prudence however requires that the evidence of police officials who are interested in the outcome of the result of the case needs to be carefully scrutinized and independently appreciated. Mere fact that they are police officials does not by itself give rise to any doubt about their creditworthiness."

160. The CBI officer PW-85 who is associated with search proceedings at the house of the accused and PW-29, a government official who has been asked to witness the search proceedings cannot be considered as interested witnesses. Their testimony is not to be ruled out unceremoniously as tainted without scrutiny. Such testimony deserves consideration by the court in the light of surrounding circumstances and if it impresses the court as credible, it can safely be accepted.

CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 104 of 179 105 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15)

161. The witness PW-85 Sh. A.K. Malik Inspector CBI states that he has conducted the search at the premises of the accused i.e. B-5/46, Sector-4 Rohini, Delhi on 02.01.2002 after receiving the authorization from Sh. Surender Malik, Inspector (PW-83). It is also stated by this witness that the search was conducted in the presence of Independent witness, other team members, one Om Prakash and Smt. Kamlesh Raswant i.e. the wife of the accused.

162. The Observation Memo Ex. PW-85/1 was prepared in the presence of the wife of the accused and the value of the articles were mentioned as disclosed by her. In fact some articles are excluded from the calculation of assets as they were said to be gifted items which was also disclosed by Smt. Kamlesh Raswant. Entire exercise was done in the presence of Smt. Kamlesh Raswant and other witnesses and the Search-cum-Seizure Memo Ex. PW-29/1 and the Observation Memo Ex. PW-85/1 are also signed by her. There is no reason to disbelieve the version of the IO and also the contents of CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 105 of 179 106 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) Search-cum-Seizure Memo Ex. PW-29/1 and the Observation Memo Ex. PW-85/1.

163. It is according to the Observation Memo Ex. PW-85/1 that an amount of Rs.9,82,540/- was found in the house of the accused and out of the above said amount Rs.7,540/- was handed over to the wife of the accused to meet household expenses. Remaining Rs.9,75,000/- was seized as per Search-cum-Seizure Memo Ex. PW-29/1. Prosecution has examined the independent witness Sh. Anil Kumar Singh as PW-29. The relevant portion of statement of PW-29 in the court is as follows:-

"During the search, various documents were found and cash amount between Rs.9,00,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/- was also found. CBI team took the documents and the cash amount in their possession and the proceedings were recorded on the spot, which were signed by myself and other team members. I have seen Search cum Seizure Memo (D-3) running into 3 sheets, which CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 106 of 179 107 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) bears my signatures at point A on each page thereof and the same is Ex. PW-29/1 (Objected to on the mode of proof). At the time of the said search, the wife of the accused was present and one of his neighbours was also joined therein. I have read the contents of Ex. PW-29/1 and state that the exact cash amount recovered was Rs. 9,75,000/-, which was seized at the time of the search."

164. Though initially witness PW-29 could not recollect the exact amount of cash seized but at later stage he could recollect that Rs.9,75,000/- cash was seized from the premises of the accused. The witness identifies his signatures on the Search cum Seizure Memo i.e. Ex. PW-29/1. The witness PW-29 was cross examined at length but nothing is brought out to discredit his evidence.

165. It is contended by the Ld. Counsel for the accused that the accused had sold out his property i.e. Flat no. A-403, Sector- 6, Dwarka, New Delhi in December 2001 to PW-6 for CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 107 of 179 108 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) Rs.7,80,000/- out of that Rs.1,00,000/- was already paid to PW-79 Smt. Ravi Kanta and Rs.6,80,000/- was received in cash from PW-6. In this regard the counsel for accused also gave a suggestion to the IO PW-83 which was denied by the witness. It is also the case of the defence that cash of Rs.6,80,000/- which was received by the accused from PW-6 as part of the sale consideration, was kept by the accused at his house and the same is the major part of the amount, which was seized during the search proceedings.

166. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, 1991(3), S.C.C. 655, has held "It is for the prosecution to prove that the accused or any person on his behalf, has been in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income. When that onus is discharged by the prosecution, it is for the accused to account satisfactorily for the disproportionality of the properties possessed by him. The section makes CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 108 of 179 109 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) available statutory defence which must be proved by the accused. It is a restricted defence that is accorded to the accused to account for the disproportionality of the assets over the income. But the legal burden of proof placed on the accused is not so onerous as that of the prosecution. However, it is just not throwing some doubt on the prosecution version. The legislature has advisedly use the expression "satisfactorily account". The emphasis must be on the word "satisfactorily". That means the accused has to satisfy the court that his explanation is worthy of acceptance. The burden of proof placed on the accused is an evidential burden though not a persuasive burden. The accused, however, could discharge that burden of proof "on the balance of probabilities" either from the evidence of the prosecution and/or evidence from the defence."

167. In K. Ponnuswamy Vs. State of T.N., the Apex Court referred to the definition of the word "proved" in Section 3 of the CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 109 of 179 110 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) Evidence Act, 1872 and also Section 114 thereof. While noting that in terms thereof, a fact is said to be proved when after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man, under the circumstances of the particular case, ought to act upon this supposition that it exists. It reflected also on the permissible presumption envisaged under the statute, with regard to the existence of any fact which a court is likely to think to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business in relation to the facts of a particular case. The significance of this decision is also observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka Vs. J. Jayalalitha.

168. In the present case the prosecution has successfully proved that an amount of Rs.9,82,540/- was found at the house of the accused and out of that Rs.9,75,000/- was seized. Now it is to be seen whether the explanation offered by the accused that CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 110 of 179 111 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) the amount seized consists of sale consideration of Rs.6,80,000/- received in cash from PW-6 is believable or not. This issue of sale of immovable property i.e. Flat No. A-403, Kalka Apartments, Dwarka, Delhi by the accused to PW-6 is elaborately discussed while dealing with the said immovable asset at item no. 5 of the list of immovable assets. The entire claim of the accused that he had sold out the property i.e. Flat No. A-403, Kalka Apartments, Dwarka, Delhi, to PW-6 by way of Notarized Sale Documents and received an amount of Rs.6,80,000/- in cash from PW-6, is already held unreliable and not worthy of acceptance for the reasons discussed while discussing the immovable property at item no. 5 in Annexure- A in para no. 161. There is absolutely no evidence to show where from PW-6 got huge amount of Rs.6,80,000/-, which is claimed to have been paid to accused in cash. Therefore, the explanation offered by the accused with regard to the cash found at his house during search proceedings is liable to be rejected.

CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 111 of 179 112 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15)

169. In view of the evidence of PW-29 and PW-85, it is held that cash of Rs.9,82,540/- was found and out of which Rs.9,75,000/- was seized vide Ex. PW-29/1 from the house of accused during the search on 02.01.2002. The remaining amount of Rs.7,540/- was handed over to Smt. Kamlesh Raswant, wife of the accused by the CBI to meet the household expenses. Accordingly, movable asset at item no. 1 of the Annexure-A is held proved.

170. Item No. 2 : This asset is the value of the articles found at the house of the accused at the time of search proceedings. According to Prosecution, the value of various articles as shown in the Observation Memo Ex. PW-85/1 is to the tune of Rs.1,78,510/-. In this Memo, the details of the articles along with details of mode of purchase, year of purchase and approximate cost, are mentioned. It is also according to the Prosecution that all the above details were disclosed by Smt. Kamlesh Raswant, the wife of accused.

171. Ld. Counsel for accused contends that the Observation Memo CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 112 of 179 113 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) prepared at the time of house search i.e. Ex. PW-85/1 contains normal household articles which are generally found at a house of any middle class family. It is further argued that when 1/3rd of the income of the accused is already considered towards unverifiable expenses by the prosecution, which includes household articles, again calculating the household articles separately and valuing them for the purpose of disproportionate assets is arbitrary. It is also argued that the paragraph no. 2(a) of circular dated 27.11.2001 issued by the CBI itself shows that the household articles are included in unverifiable expenses. While arguing what household articles consist, the Ld. Counsel relied on Prakash Vishwasrao Kohok Vs. State of Maharashtra (1197) 99 BOMLR 176, wherein it is held as follows -

34. I think, the learned trial Judge has clearly fallen into an error in placing such burden on the appellant because it is needless to say that there is no any sound reason for one to maintain record of purchase of such CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 113 of 179 114 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) household articles. It is true that the Government servant is to satisfactorily account for the disproportionate assets and not to prove the claim with mathematical exactitude beyond all possibility of doubt. One may might be keeping accounts of expenditure for his satisfaction but why should he procure and preserve supporting bills and vouchers? These are not the Government cash to be audited. Besides why should one keep them from the beginning of his carrier till his superannuation anticipating to be required in a court of law? Even for certain expenditure supporting vouchers are not feasible for which audit accepts a flat rate."

172. The Ld. Counsel also referred to the observation of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Kolkatta Bench) in Nethamal Bhuwalka v. Income Tax Officer (1983) 15 TTJ 243, wherein it is explained as to what household articles contain. The relevant portion is as follows -

CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 114 of 179 115 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) "After carefully considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the matter requires a fresh look. Silver utensils can both be personal effects and they may not. The term "personal effects" as used in sub-cl. (ii) of s. 2(14) has a very restricted meaning, that is to say, it includes movable property wearing apparel and furniture but excluding jewellery held for personal use by the assessee or any member of the family dependent upon him.

Such a definition is much more restricted from the definition contained in cl. (viii) of s. 5 of the WT Act where all articles intended for personal or household use including furniture, utensils, wearing apparel, etc. are exempt from liability to tax. In each case, it would be a question of fact where the assets in question were held for personal use by the assessee or any member of his family depended upon him."

173. The Ld. Counsel for the accused also relied on Subhasis Basu Vs. The State, Calcutta High Court.

CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 115 of 179 116 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15)

174. Ld. Counsel for accused argued that the value of the articles mentioned in observation memo Ex. PW-85/1 are not proved and the same are only mentioned by the CBI officials on their own in a highly exaggerated manner.

175. On the other hand, Ld. PP for the CBI argued that the articles found at the house of the accused as mentioned in Observation Memo Ex. PW-85/1 are the luxury items which need to be considered as assets. Ld. PP for the CBI also contended that the unverifiable expenses for which 1/3rd of the income is considered only towards the expenses for food and entertainment etc. which can not be quantified. Ld. PP for the CBI also contended that the details of the articles with regard to their purchase and value were given by the wife of the accused and therefore, there is nothing to doubt about them. It is also argued by the Ld. PP for the CBI that entire inventory of the articles found in the house of the accused in course of search as mentioned in Observation Memo Ex. PW- 85/1 can not be considered as covered under unverifiable CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 116 of 179 117 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) expenditure. Ld. PP for the CBI in this regard relied on Judgment N. Ramakrishaniah Vs. State of A. P. 2009 Crl. L. J. 1767, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the inventory of articles found in the house of the accused also as part of the assets of accused.

176. In this regard, the Ld. Defence counsel has placed on record one letter bearing No. 21/40/99-PD(Pt.) dated 27.11.2001 of Dy. Insp. Genl. of Police(P)/CBI which is brought on record as Ex. DW-7/A. It is necessary to peruse the above said Letter i.e. Ex. DW-7/A to properly understand what the unverifiable expenses mean and include. The said letter is reproduced as below :

                 "                                  No. 24/40/99-PD(Pt.)
                                                   Government of India
                                         Central Bureau of Investigation
                                         Policy & Coordination Division
                                                North Block, New Delhi.

                                                     Dated : 27-11-2001
       To

       The Supdts. of Police,
       All CBI Branches (local & outside).




CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant                                       117 of 179
                                     118           CC No. 532204/16 (4/15)

Sub:- Standardizing the procedure for investigation into the Assessment of wealth possessed by public servants

- Instructions - issued.

***** It is to inform that the Central Vigilance Commission had constituted a study group consisting of officers of the CVC, Income Tax, CPWD and CBI all of whom are procedurally involved in investigations into disproportionate assets or whose expertise is in this area, for standardizing the procedure for assessment of wealth of suspect public servants under scrutiny of the CBI for being in possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income. The Study Group had made following recommendations to ensure that a standard procedure is utilized without compromising the integrity of the investigations, which have been accepted by the Central Vigilance Commission :-

1. The procedure laid down in CBI vide letter No. 27/2/78-PD dated 28.2.78 for investigation into cases of CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 118 of 179 119 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) disproportionate assets should be reiterated for compliance by all investigating officers and the reports sent to the departments and the Central Vigilance Commission should contain all the four prescribed statements.

2. While it would be improper to presume that all cases are identical or similar, it is necessary that the prescribed standards be followed, as far as possible, in all the investigations into disproportionate assets.

Accordingly, the following standards need to be prescribed :-

a) Unverifiable expenditure such as on kitchen, household clothing etc. should be taken as 1/3rd of the gross salary as a last resort after attempting to qualify the expenses broadly under each of these heads by verification.

b) if husband and wife have independent sources of income, the income of the spouse with higher salary shall CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 119 of 179 120 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) be the base for computing the unverifiable expenditure in accordance with the above prescription. If the spouse with the higher income is investing or depositing the salary entirely, then the lower salary shall become the base for computing unverifiable expenses.

c) The salary used as the base for computing unverifiable expenditure as above should be taken net of income tax paid.

d) Electricity and water charges are not be computed separately when unverifiable expenditure is computed as detailed above.

e) Other expenses such as education, telephone, pleasure trips etc. should be calculated as per information or actual bills produced.

f) Value of movable properties should be taken at billed value failing which an estimated value may be taken adjusted for the year of acquisition.

       g)      Immovable property is to be valued at registered




CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant                                      120 of 179
                                       121               CC No. 532204/16 (4/15)

deed value ; in the case of power of attorney route for acquisition, value is to be determined in accordance with standard principles for determination of market value.

h) Valuation of construction declared by the public servant should be accepted if the variation with the CPWD/Government Department valuation is not more than 15% otherwise, the valuation done by CPWD/Government department should be utilized. While computing the value all alternations, fittings and fixtures needs to be included. A special Drive was conducted for surprise checks and registration of trap and disproportionate assets cases by Anti-corruption Branches of CBI from 11.10.2000 to 18.10.2000 as per Policy Division circular of even number dated 4/5.9.2000.

A number of surprise checks were carried out by CBI Branches located throughout the country and on the basis of which several cases were registered. In view of the above, it is requested that procedures as CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 121 of 179 122 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) laid down in CBI Circular dated 28.02.1978 and as mentioned in above paras may please be followed strictly for investigation into the assessment of wealth possessed by the Public Servants.

Please acknowledge receipt of the circular. Encl: as above.

(H.C. SINGH) Dy. Inspr. Genl. Of Police (P)/CBI"

177. As per the document Ex. DW-7/A and the guidelines therein, it is clear that the 1/3rd of income of the accused is considered towards non-verifiable expenditure, which include kitchen expenses, clothing and other household expenses. To understand what consist household articles it is helpful to refer the observation of Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in Subhasis Basu Vs. State, wherein it is held in para 15 as follows -

"In this context, he brought it to my notice, the list of household articles containing three pages (Exhibit-40) prepared by one Soumendranath Bhattacharya (PW-37), which CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 122 of 179 123 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) included the movable household articles found in the residence of the appellant in course of inventory dated 24th day of February 1987 and emphatically submitted that the said list of household articles clearly indicated that those articles are available in almost any middle class or lower middle class family out of which some furniture were acquired by the parents of the appellant or by the parents of his wife, either by inheritance, gift or otherwise."

178. Therefore, it is necessary to segregate normal household articles from the list of articles as mentioned in Observation Memo Ex. PW-85/1 and delete them from the list.

179. I have carefully gone through the list of articles as mentioned in Observation Memo Ex. PW 85/1. The list contains several sundry items which are found in a normal house. There are items like clothes, utensils, crockery, sarees, etc., find mention in Observation Memo Ex. PW-85/1, found at the house of accused. In the Observation Memo, there are also certain CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 123 of 179 124 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) items which are shown as gifts and some articles like food processor, refrigerator, two-in-one which are shown separately in the list of movable assets. In the entire list of household articles as mentioned in Ex. PW 85/1, only the following as mentioned in the table below, are found to be the valuables and can be considered as part of the movable assets of the accused.

                                          LIST

         S.    S. No. of         Description of Articles            Year of Estimated
         No.    Memo                                               Acquisitio cost
                                                                      n

        Bed Room

        1          1       One Box type         double     size      1985      4,500/-
                           Wooden bed

        2          3       14' Optonica TV                           1988      7,000/-

        3          4       One Window Air Conditioner                1996      14,000/-

        4          5       One Skyland Electronic Voltage            1996      1,200/-
                           Stabilizer

        5          6       One Nintendo TV Video Game                2000      900/-
                           Instrument

        6         11       One Phillips Electric Iron                2000      600/-

        Store Room

        7          1       IFB    Washing      Machine     fully     1993      16,000




CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant                                                     124 of 179
                                           125                       CC No. 532204/16 (4/15)




                          automatic

        8          2      One Euroclean Vaccum Cleaner                1991      4000/-

        Kitchen

        9          6      One electric toaster                        1994      600/-

        10         7      One wall fan                                1994      350/-

        Bed Room cum Sitting Room

        11         2      One Active plus exercising cycle            2000      2000/-

        12         3      One Shriram           Honda    E-650K       1998      10000/-
                          Generator

        13         4      Two Music System Speakers                   1995      2000/-

        14         5      One local make Inverter                     1998      9000/-

        15         6      One triple seater sofa, two single          1991      6000/-
                          seater sofa with a center table

        16         7      One 21' Sony CTV with Remote                1998      16000/-

        17        10      One TV Trolly                               1998      400/-

        18        12      One medium            size   box   type     1992      3000/-
                          wooden bed

        19        13      One children bicycle                        1999      1700/-

        20        14      One National Hot air Blower                 2000      700/-

        21        16      One Orpat telephone Instrument              2000      450/-

                                                                         Total 1,00,400/-

180. The total value of the above listed articles comes to Rs.1,00,400/-. In view of the above discussion, the value of CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 125 of 179 126 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) household articles which can be considered as movable assets shall be taken as Rs.1,00,400/- instead of Rs.1,78,510/-.

181. Item No. 3: - This item contains the balance amount in A/c No. 5273 in Central Bank of India, Mehrauli, Delhi. The said Account according to prosecution, belongs to accused and the same was having a balance of Rs.13,224.07/-. To prove this fact, the prosecution has examined one witness namely Sh. Rameshwar Prasad Meena, Assistant Manager, Central Bank of India as PW-43. According to this witness, there is a SB A/c No. 5273 in the name of accused and the certified copies of the Ledger sheet duly certified under Bankers' Books of Evidence Act, is handed over to CBI. The same is taken on record as Ex. PW-43/2. The witness has identified his signatures at point A on Ex. PW-43/2. The Computerized Statement of A/c No. 5273 for the period 08.04.2003 to 05.07.2003 which is also certified under Bankers' Books of Evidence Act, is taken on record as Ex. PW 43/3. The CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 126 of 179 127 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) witness also identifies the signature of Sh. G.R. Shayambaria on Account Opening Slip Ex. PW-43/5 and specimen signature card Ex. PW-43/6. After going through the documents proved by PW-43 which are Ex. PW-43/2 to Ex. PW-43/6, it is clear that the accused was having a balance amount of Rs.13,224.07/- in his SB A/c No.5273 at Central Bank of India, Mehrauli Branch, Delhi and the same is held proved.

182. Item No. 4 : - This item pertains to the balance in PPF A/c No. 2108 in SBI Malviya Nagar Branch in the name of accused. The prosecution has examined witness namely Sh. S.K. Verma, Assistant Manager, SBI as PW-2. This witness had handed over the relevant documents to the IO during investigation vide letters Ex. PW-2/A and Ex. PW-2/B. The relevant documents are the application by the accused for opening a PPF Account which is Ex. PW-2/C and Statement of Account pertaining to the above said PPF Account no. 2108 in the name of the accused which is Ex. PW-2/D. As per CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 127 of 179 128 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) these documents, the accused is holding a PPF A/c bearing No. 2108 and having a balance of Rs.65,800/- which includes Rs.5,800/- as interest earned. In view of the above documents, the asset is held proved by the prosecution. The interest earned on the above said PPF A/c i.e. Rs.5,800/- is also shown in the income part of the accused in Annexure B.

183. Item No. 5 : - This asset pertains to the balance in Account of the accused bearing No. 4172 in Canara Bank, Rohini. To prove this asset, the prosecution has examined one Ashok Aggarwal, AGM, Canara Bank as PW-49. Through this witness, documents pertaining to the A/c No. 4172 in Canara Bank Rohini, which is in the name of accused, are brought on record as Ex. PW-49/1B. The Ex. PW-49/1B is a certified Bank statement of A/c No. 4172 in Canara Bank, Rohini in the name of accused. As per this statement, the accused was having a balance of amount of Rs.2,77,453.38 as on 02.01.2002. It is suggested to the witness in cross- examination that Ex. PW-49/1B is tampered, however, the CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 128 of 179 129 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) same is denied by the witness. The witness has admitted that signatures of Sh. S.K. Gupta, Manager at point B and stamp impressions at point X were not put in his presence, however, he identified the signatures of Sh. S.K. Gupta on the statement of Account i.e. Ex. PW-49/1B. Nothing is elicited in cross-examination to disbelieve the evidence of PW-49 and contents of Ex. PW-49/1B, which is duly certified under Bankers' Books of Evidence Act. The prosecution has brought another document i.e. Ex. PW-49/1A which is Account Opening Form in the name of minor son of accused, namely, Master Anurag which is showing a balance of Rs.25,000/-. However, the CBI in its charge sheet has not considered it as an asset of the accused. Therefore, the amount in the account of Master Anurag i.e. Bank Balance in Account No. 1105 is not taken into account. In view of evidence of PW-49 & Ex. PW- 49/1B on record, the amount of Rs.2,77,453.38 in the bank account of accused in A/c No. 4172 of Canara Bank, Rohini, is held proved and considered accordingly.

CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 129 of 179 130 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15)

184. Item No. 6:- This item pertains to balance in Account No. 20375 in PNB in the name of the accused. The prosecution has examined one Sh. Sudesh Kapoor, retired Manager, PNB as PW-54, through whom documents Ex. PW-54/2 to Ex. PW- 54/4 are brought on record. The document Ex. PW-54/2 is the Statement of Account No. 20375 in the name of the accused. This document is certified under Bankers' Books of Evidence Act and duly proved by the Prosecution. According to this Statement of Account, the accused is having a balance of Rs.1,38,971/- as on 02.01.2002 in his account no. 20375 at PNB. Witness PW-54 has been cross examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel, however, nothing brought out to discredit his evidence and the contents of the Statement of Account. Accordingly, this asset is also held proved.

185. Item No. 7 :- This asset pertains to the investment made by the accused in UTI from 22.03.1988 to 02.01.2002. To prove this fact, the prosecution has relied on the evidence of witness namely Sh. Dharamdev, PW-51. The witness PW-51 brought CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 130 of 179 131 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) on record document i.e. Summary of Unit Holdings in UIT Scheme of the accused as PW-51/2. In view of the evidence of PW-51 and document Ex. PW-51/2, the value of the investment by the accused to the tune of Rs. 34,820.47/- is also held proved.

186. Item No. 8 : - This asset is a Maruti Car bearing No. DL4CH-

5755 purchased by accused in the year 1999 for an amount of Rs.1,98,643/-. The prosecution has examined PW-24 Sh. Yogender Lakra. PW-24 was an employee at M/s Bhasin Motors where from the accused stated to have purchased this Maruti Car. He has identified the signature of Sh. Ravi Kant Rampal who is an authorized signatory of M/s Bhasin Motors India (P) Ltd. on two cash receipts i.e. Ex. PW-24/2 and PW- 24/3. He has also identified original invoice of Maruti Car No. 10065 dated 13.04.1999 in the name of accused issued by M/s. Bhasin Motors for Rs.1,92,642.99/-. Certified copies of sale certificate and delivery receipt dated 13.04.1999 are also brought on record through this witness as Ex. PW-24/6. The CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 131 of 179 132 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) evidence of PW-24 is also supported by the evidence of PW- 57 General Manager (Finance) of M/s. Bhasin Motors. The evidence of PW-24 and PW-57 along with the documents together show that the accused has purchased a Maruti Car vide invoice Ex. PW-24/5 for an amount of Rs.1,92,642.99/-. Accordingly, the asset is held proved and the value of this asset is taken as Rs.1,92,642.99/-.

187. Item No. 9 : - This is a scooter bearing No. DL8SN-4985 stated to be in the name of accused purchased by him on 02.02.2001 from Umang Motors for Rs.33,500/-. Ld. Counsel for accused argued that the purchase of the said scooter by the accused is not proved by the prosecution. To prove this asset prosecution examined 3 witnesses i.e. PW-4, PW-38 and PW-45. PW-4 was a Clerk at the relevant time in the office of Motor Licensing, Transport Department, Rohini Zone, Delhi. He has supplied the documents pertaining to registration of Scooter No. DL8SN-4955 to the CBI vide letter dated 01.02.2003, Ex. PW-4/A. The registration documents CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 132 of 179 133 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) available at the MLO office pertaining to vehicle number DL8SN-4985 which were handed over to the IO are brought on record as Ex. PW-4/B1 to B7. The Ex. PW-4/B1 to B7 contains receipt dated 23.02.2001, Form No. 20, copy of the telephone bill, Form No. 21, Invoice and Form No. 22 submitted by the accused for registration of Scooter LML NV. PW-38 is Motor Vehicle Inspector who states that vide documents Ex. PW- 4/B1 to B7, a LML NV scooter bearing No. DL8SN-4955 was registered in the name of accused Ashok Kumar Raswant on 23.02.2001. PW-45 who was Accounts Manager in Umang Motors in the year 2003 stated that the accused had purchased one LML NV scooter from Umang Motors for Rs.33,500/- on 22.02.2001 and invoice issued by the Umang Motors is brought on record as Ex. PW- 45/2. The original receipt Ex. PW-45/3 was found by the IO during the search of the house of the accused and is proved by this witness as Ex. PW-45/3. The evidence of PW-4, PW- 38 and PW-45 along with proved documents clearly show that CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 133 of 179 134 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) accused had purchased a scooter bearing No. DL8SN-4955 for Rs.33,500/- which is duly registered in his name and hence this asset is held proved.

188. Item No. 10 :- In this item, the prosecution shows 3 NSCs of total purchase value of Rs.30,000/- purchased by the accused. Prosecution has examined PW-17, Deputy Post Master who has proved the documents Ex. PW-17/B and PW- 17/C. The Ex. PW-17/B is the copy of application for purchase of NSC. Ex. PW-17/C is NSC No. 21EE962110 for Rs. 10,000/-. The prosecution also examined PW-32, Sub Post Master, Malviya Nagar who has proved documents Ex. PW- 32/2, PW-32 to Ex. PW-32/4. Ex. PW-32/2 is the application dated 31.01.2000 for the purchase of NSC and Ex. PW-32/3 and PW-32/4 are NSCs of Rs.10,000/- each in the name of accused. Ld. Counsel for accused argued that the NSC certificates do not contain the particulars of the buyer like parentage, age, address etc. and therefore cannot considered as they belong to the accused. The NSC certificates i.e. Ex.

CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 134 of 179 135 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) PW-17/C, Ex. PW-32/3 and Ex. PW-32/4 along with their applications i.e. Ex. PW-17/B and Ex. PW-32/2 clearly prove that these NSC are purchased by the accused during the check period for a value of Rs.10,000/- each. Accordingly, item No. 10 is held proved.

189. Item No. 11 : - This is deposit receipt of Rs.25,000/- of Canara Bank, Rohini Branch in the name of Master Anurag. Prosecution has examined PW 49 Manager Canara Bank who has proved the documents i.e. deposit receipt (ICDR) of Rs. 25,000/- and the same is Ex. PW 49/1A. The Ld. Counsel for accused contends that this asset cannot be considered as an asset of accused as it is in the name of his minor son and mother of the minor son is also an earning member. It is correct that the present FD is in the name of master Anurag, son of the accused, however, on careful perusal of the documents i.e. Ex. PW 49/1A shows that the amount is deposited by Ashok Kumar Raswant and he is also shown as the guardian of the minor. There is no evidence to rebut this CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 135 of 179 136 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) fact nor there is any suggestion given to the IO in this regard. There is also no evidence by the defence that minor had a separate income nor there is any evidence to show that amount is deposited by a person other than the accused. In view of the above, the present asset i.e. deposit receipt of Rs.25,000/- in the name of Master Anurag is held as an asset of the accused.

190. Item No. 12 :- These are the 4 KVPs bearing No. 48BB702356 to 59 of Rs.5,000/- each in the name of Anurag Raswant minor son of the accused. It is alleged by the prosecution that the accused had purchased above said 4 KVPs worth Rs.20,000/- in the name of his minor son from Post Office Malviya Nagar. Deputy Post Master, Malviya Nagar is examined as PW 18. The 4 KVPs are Ex. PW-18/C1 to C4. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for defence that there is no proof that the said KVPs are purchased by the accused only. There is a letter Ex. PW-18/A written by Asstt. Post Master to the IO wherein it is stated that on 24.02.1999, Smt. CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 136 of 179 137 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) Kamlesh had purchased 2 KVP on her name. On 04.06.2001, 4 KVPS of Rs.5,000/- each are also purchased in the name of minor son Anurag. There is no evidence to show that it is the accused who paid the money for purchasing the 4 KVPs Ex. PW 18/C1 to C4 in the name of his minor son. The application for KVPS Ex. PW-18/B does not show the name of the accused as depositor unlike the application for deposit receipt i.e. Ex. PW-49/1A. In the absence of any material, the argument of Ld. Counsel for accused that the amount could have been paid by Smt. Kamlesh Raswant cannot be rejected. Accordingly, this asset is not considered as the asset of the accused.

191. Item No. 13 : - This is a mobile phone make NOKIA 5110 alleged to have been purchased by the accused. Prosecution has examined PW-78 proprietor of M/s Inditec Communications, who allegedly sold the mobile instrument to the accused. Ex. PW-78/A and A1 are the invoices showing that the said mobile instrument i.e. NOKIA 5110 and one CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 137 of 179 138 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) speed card were sold to the accused for an amount of Rs.9,750/- and Rs.1,500/- totaling to Rs.11,250/-. In cross- examination, it is brought out that the Ex. PW-78/A and A1 show the name of the buyer as only Ashok and the amount was also paid in cash. PW-78 also did not identify the accused as the person who purchased the mobile. The IO has also not seized the mobile NOKIA 5100 from the possession of the accused either from his person or from his premises. Therefore, it is held that there is no sufficient evidence to prove that the asset at item No. 13 in the list of movable items in Annexure-A.

192. Item No. 14 : - This asset is a food processor with a value of Rs.5,300/- which is not proved by any evidence on record. The document i.e. D-19 filed along with the charge sheet is not in the name of accused nor the said document is proved by any witness. Accordingly, the said asset is held not proved.

193. Item No. 15 : - This is a refrigerator make Godrej which is alleged to have been purchased in the name of Smt. Kamlesh CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 138 of 179 139 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) for an amount of Rs.17,500/-. This item is also shown in the observation memo containing household articles i.e. Ex. PW- 85/1. The prosecution has examined PW-84, Parter of M/s. Nayyar Electronics who sold Godrej Refrigerator for Rs.17,500/- to the accused as per the story of the prosecution, however, the document i.e. invoice/bill Ex. PW- 84/A1 is in the name of Smt. Kamlesh Raswant wife of accused, who is also an earning member. There is no evidence to show that the said bill amount for purchasing Godrej Refrigerator was paid by the accused only. Therefore, this asset is held not proved as the asset of the accused.

194. Item No. 16 : - This item is a Phillips Two-in-One which is found in the house of the accused during search proceedings. Prosecution has examined PW-61 of M/s. D.K. Electronics from whom one Philips Two-in-One was purchased for Rs.2,500/-. The cash receipt issued by M/s. D.K. Electronics does not show the name of the person who paid the amount for purchasing the said item. Since there is no name of the CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 139 of 179 140 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) buyer in Ex. PW 61/1, in view of the fact that the wife of the accused is also an earning member, the asset is not considered as the asset of accused in the absence of specific evidence.

195. Item No. 17 :- It is a room cooler alleged to have been purchased by the accused from Grover Electronics on 19.05.1991 for Rs.3,000/-. Prosecution has filed a document i.e. guarantee card of the room cooler which was seized by the CBI officers at the time of search proceedings conducted at the premises of the accused. However, no document brought on record nor any witness has been examined to prove that the said article has been purchased by the accused only. Therefore, this asset is not considered.

196. Item No. 18 :- This is cash amount recovered during the personal search of Ashok Kumar Raswant on 02.01.2002. As per the asset cum personal search memo i.e. Ex. PW-44/1, an amount of Rs.5,075/- was recovered from the accused at the time of his arrest. The said document is proved by PW-44 Sh.

CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 140 of 179 141 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) Sanjay Pant who was an independent witness to the memo i.e. Ex. PW-44/1 and the same is held proved.

197. In view of the reasons given above, the table of assets is redrawn as follows :-

       S. NO.                 DETAILS OF ASSETS                          VALUES

                IMMOVABLE ASSETS:-
       1        Purchase of H. No. 46, B-5, Sector-4, Rohini, in the Rs.1,16,504.50/-

joint name of Sh. Ashok Kumar & his wife Smt. Kamlesh Raswant, in the year 1981 and construction thereon in the year 1989 & 1990. 2 Purchase of 2½ Storey Property No. 81, A-4, Rs.76,000/-

Sector-4, Rohini, Delhi measuring 31.69 sq. mtrs. in the name of Sh. Ashok Kumar Raswant on 22.04.2000.

3 Purchase of built up Property No.264, A-4, Sector- Rs.90,000/-

IV, Rohini, Delhi measuring 31.69 sq. mtrs. in the name of Sh. Ashok Kumar Raswant on 03.03.1998. 4 Purchase of Flat No. 3200, Pocket B-4, SFS, Vasant Rs.90,000/-

Kunj, New Delhi in the year 1995.

5 Purchase of Flat No. A-403, Kalka Apartment, Rs.3,45,000/-

Dwarka in 1999.

MOVABLE ASSETS 6 Cash recovered during the house search of House Rs.9,82,540/-

No. B-5/46, Sector-4, Rohini, Delhi of accused. 7 Value of the articles found during the house search Rs.1,00,400/-

of H. No. B-5/46, Sector-4, Rohini which are considered as assets for the purpose of this case.

       8        Balance in Account No.5273 in Central Bank of Rs.13,224.07




CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant                                                141 of 179
                                       142                  CC No. 532204/16 (4/15)

India, Mehrauli in the name of Sh. Ashok Kumar Raswant as on 02.01.2002.

9 Balance in PPF Account No.2108 in State Bank of Rs.65,800/-

India, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi in the name of Sh. Ashok Kumar Raswant as on 02.01.2002.

10 Balance in Account No.4172 in the Canara Bank, Rs.2,77,453.38 Rohini, in the name of Sh. Ashok Kumar Raswant as on 02.01.2002.

11 Balance in Account No.20375 in the Punjab National Rs.1,38,971/-

Bank, Rohini in the name of Sh. Ashok Kumar Raswant as on 02.01.2002.

12 Investment in UTI in the name of Sh. Ashok Kumar Rs.34,820.47 Raswant from 22.03.1988 to 02.01.2002.

13 Purchase of Maruti Car No. DL-4CH-5755 in the Rs.1,92,642.99/-

name of Sh. Ashok Kumar Raswant in the year 1999.

14 Purchase of Scooter No. DL-8SN-4955 in the name Rs.33,500/-

of Sh. Ashok Kumar Raswant on 02.02.2001 from Umang Motors.

15 Purchase of NSCs No.27EE899282,83 & Rs.30,000/-

21EE962110 for Rs.10,000/- each in the name of Sh. Ashok Kumar Raswant.

16 Purchase Deposit Receipt No. ICD/1105/98 dated Rs.25,000/-

09.08.1998 of Canara Bank, Rohini, Delhi, by Ashok Kumar Raswant in the name of his son Sh. Anurag. 17 Cash Amount recovered during personal search of Rs.5,075/-

Sh. Ashok Kumar Raswant on 02.01.2002.

Total Rs.26,16,931.41 Expenditure as per Annexure- C

198. Item No. 1 :- The first item in the list of expenditure contains CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 142 of 179 143 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) the repayment of loan of Car No. DL4CH-5755. As per the contents of charge sheet, the accused has obtained a loan of Rs.90,948/- from Citi Corp for purchasing a Maruti Car bearing No. DL4CH-5755. This car was purchased by the accused from M/s. Bhasin Motors vide invoice dated 13.04.1993. The prosecution has examined one Shakti Srivastava, Manager (Legal), Citi Bank as PW-89. Through PW-89, prosecution tried to prove the statement of account pertaining to the loan account of the accused in Citi Corp. As per the statement of account which is Mark P-89/A, a loan amount of Rs.90,948/- was disbursed by Citi Corp to the accused for purchasing Maruti Car and the said loan amount was repaid in 11 installments of Rs.9,052/- totaling Rs.99,572/-. The Ld. Counsel for accused submits that this expenditure is not proved as the statement of account pertaining to the loan is not in accordance with law. PW-24 vide documents Ex. PW-24/1 to PW-24/8 has proved that an amount of Rs.90,948/- was given by Citi Corp. towards the CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 143 of 179 144 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) sale consideration of Maruti Car. In fact, document Ex. PW- 24/3 which is a receipt of Rs.90,948/- issued by M/s. Bhasin Motors shows that the loan of Rs.90,948/- obtained by the accused is paid to M/s. Bhasin Motors at the time of purchase of Maruti Car. Ex. PW-24/1 to Ex. PW-24/8 along with Mark P- 89/A clearly show that the accused has repaid the loan amount of Rs.99,572/- to the Citi Corp. against the loan of Rs.90,948/- taken for purchasing the Maruti Car. In fact, the loan amount of Rs.90,948/- is also shown at item No. 2 of the table consisting the source of income of accused. In view of the above, the expenditure of Rs.99,572/- which is loan repayment by the accused to Citi Corp. is held proved and further the actual loan amount of Rs.90,940/- is also held proved for the purpose of calculating income.

199. Item No. 2 :- This is the payment of insurance premium for vehicle No. DL4CH-5755 Maruti Car to New India Insurance Co. Ltd. PW-1 is the Development Officer of New India Insurance Co. It is stated by PW-1 that an insurance premium CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 144 of 179 145 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) for the above said vehicle was paid vide Ex. PW-1/B for Rs.5,679/- and vide Ex. PW-1/C for Rs.3,829/-. The total amount paid by the accused towards payment of premium of the vehicle insurance comes to Rs.9,508/- and the same is proved by the prosecution by examining PW-1 and by documents Ex. PW-1/B and C. The said expenditure is also not disputed by the accused in his written submissions.

200. Item No. 3 :- By this item it is alleged by the prosecution that the accused has spent an amount of Rs.27,605/- for purchase of the scooter LML Select bearing No. DL1SJ-0533 in the year 1995. Prosecution has examined PW-42 one Dilip Narang from M/s. Royal Motors. PW-42 has stated an LML Vespa Select Scooter of 1995 Model was sold to accused Ashok Kumar Raswant vide sale certificate Ex. PW-42/1 and invoice dated 21.04.1995 Ex. PW-42/2. These copies of sale certificate and invoice are certified copies supplied by the MLO to the IO during investigation. PW-42 had identified his signatures on sale certificate i.e. Ex. PW-42/1 and further CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 145 of 179 146 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) identified the invoice. The concerned official i.e. Motor Licensing Officer is also examined as PW-37 who has proved the registration documents pertaining to vehicle i.e. LML Scooter No. DL1SJ-0533. According to the statement of PW- 37 and documents Ex. PW-37/2 the vehicle i.e. LML Scooter No. DL1S-J-0533 is registered in the name of accused. Both the witnesses PW-37 and PW-42 were not cross-examined by the accused. The evidence of PW-37 as well as PW-42 and the documents Ex. PW-37/1, Ex. PW-37/2, Ex. PW-42/1 and Ex. PW-42/2, clearly show that accused had spent an amount of Rs.26,950/- for purchasing LML Vespa Scooter and further incurred an expenditure of Rs.655/- towards the registration of the said vehicle. Accordingly, the expenditure at item No. 3 is held proved.

201. Item No. 4 :- By this item the prosecution intends to prove the expenditure of Rs.60,200/- allegedly spent by the accused towards the education of his son Master Anurag. The Prosecution has examined PW-52 Sh. Vinay Kumar Chhibbar CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 146 of 179 147 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) who was Assistant Administrative Officer in Sachdeva Public School, Sector-13, Rohini, Delhi. As per evidence of PW-52, an amount of Rs.31,500/- as shown in Ex. PW-52/2 and an amount of Rs.32,000/- as shown in Ex. PW-52/3 and Rs.3,000/- as shown in Ex. PW-52/5 are paid to the school towards the various types of fees pertaining to Anurag Raswant son of the accused. By deducting the proportionate fees of January to March, 2002 (not within the check period), IO has calculated the total amount paid to the school as Rs.60,200/- vide Ex. PW 52/2 and Ex. PW-52/3. The documents Ex. PW-52/2 and 52/3 are the calculation provided by the school with regard to the amount paid towards the fees of Anurag Raswant. However, these documents do not show that the said amount is paid by the accused only nor it is stated by PW-52. There is also no other document or evidence which shows that the said amount is paid by the accused only. It is an admitted fact that the wife of the accused was also an employee and was an earning member CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 147 of 179 148 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) and there is a possibility that the amount could have been paid by the wife of the accused. In the absence of any specific material to show that the accused only has incurred the expenditure of Rs.60,200/- towards the school fees of his son, the said expenditure is held not proved. However, Ex. PW- 52/5 is a receipt of Rs.3,000/- which shows that the said amount is deposited by the accused for the reason mentioned in Ex. PW-52/5. In view of the above an amount of Rs.3,000/- is only held as proved as expenditure incurred by the accused.

202. Item No. 5 and 6 :- In these items, Prosecution intends to show that an expenditure of Rs.9,582/- (Rs.3,846/- and Rs.5,736/-) was incurred by the accused towards payment made to Jaipur Golden Hospital and Ganga Ram Hospital for the treatment of his wife Smt. Kamlesh Raswant. To prove this the prosecution has examined PW-63 P.N. Malhotra from Ganga Ram Hospital who has proved the bill i.e. Ex. PW-63/A and PW-64 Sh. Ravinder Kumar from Jaipur Golden Hospital, CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 148 of 179 149 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) who has proved bills Ex. PW-64/B&C. On careful perusal of these bills i.e. Ex. PW-63/A, Ex. PW-64/B & C, nothing is found in these bills that the said amount was paid by the accused only. These are the bills pertaining to the treatment of Smt. Kamlesh, wife of accused who was also admittedly an earning member. Therefore, the said expenditures with regard to the treatment of Smt. Kamlesh Raswant are not considered as the expenditures incurred by the accused.

203. Item No. 7 :- This item refers to the expenditure incurred by the accused for purchasing the scooter DL4SG-9458. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused had purchased the aforesaid scooter from M/s. Gautam Auto, Okhla by spending an amount of Rs.16,000/-. It is also the case of the prosecution that the accused had sold out the said vehicle to one Pramod Kumar PW-10 for Rs.8,000/-. Accordingly, prosecution intends to show the expenditure incurred by the accused in this regard as Rs.16,000/- and the income by selling the scooter to PW-10 at Rs.8,000/-. Prosecution has CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 149 of 179 150 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) examined one Suresh Chand, who was an employee in the office of MLO, Janakpuri, as PW-7 who has brought on record document Ex. PW-7/A4 which shows that the vehicle i.e. Bajaj Chetak Scooter bearing No. DL4SC-9458 is registered in the name of accused. Prosecution has also examined PW-60 Sh. Vijay Sharma, Manager M/s. Gautam Auto Pvt. Ltd. PW-60 stated in his evidence that the record pertaining to the vehicle bearing No. DL4SG-9458 is not traceable however states that Bajaj Chetak Scooter was costing Rs.15,500/- in the year 1992. Ld. Counsel for accused contends that the expenditure cannot be considered as the prosecution failed to prove that the accused purchased the said vehicle from M/s. Gautam Auto and further failed to prove the exact price of the said vehicle.

204. The evidence of PW-7 and document Ex. PW-7/A4 clearly show that there was a vehicle bearing No. DL4SG-9458 registered in the name of accused. Further the evidence of PW-10 shows that the said vehicle was sold out to him by the CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 150 of 179 151 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) accused. The document Ex. PW-10/A i.e. transfer of vehicle Form No. 30 bears the signature of the accused which supports the case of the prosecution that the accused owned a vehicle Bajaj Chetak Scooter bearing No. DL4SG-9458 in the year 1992 and further he sold out the same to PW-10 in the year 1997. Though there is no record produced by the prosecution which shows the price of the said vehicle, PW-60 who was Manager with M/s Gautam Auto deposed that cost of the said vehicle in the year 1992 is Rs. 15,500/-. He also produced a document i.e. Ex. PW 60/2 which shows that the price of Bajaj Chetak Model in the year 1992 was Rs.15,500/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the factum of owning the vehicle i.e. Bajaj Chetak Scooter bearing No. DL4SG-9458 and further selling it to PW-10 is admitted by the accused in his examination U/s 313 Cr.P.C. Entire material on record in this regard prove that accused had purchased a scooter by spending Rs.15,500/- in the year 1992 and further earned an amount of Rs.8,000/- by selling the same to PW-10.

CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 151 of 179 152 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) Accordingly, the expenditure as mentioned in this item and the income mentioned at item No. 10 of list of income held proved.

205. Item No. 8 :- This item refers to the 1/3rd of carry home salary income towards non-verifiable expenditure which is to the tune of Rs.3,97,861.63. It is according to the charge sheet that the accused had an income from his salary during the check period i.e. from 19.08.1974 to 02.01.2002 to the tune of Rs.13,05,833.03 which includes monthly salary, arrears and ex-gratia payments. The IO has considered an amount of Rs.3,97,861.63 as 1/3rd of gross income from salary, arrears and ex-gratia towards non-verifiable expenditure.

206. After going through the entire evidence with regard to the salary particulars as brought on record by PW 14, the net income from salary is considered as Rs.13,09,906.73/- as discussed in succeeding para No. 226, and 1/3rd of the same which comes to Rs.4,47,398.23/- is considered towards non- verifiable expenditure in terms of Ex. DW-7/A i.e. circular CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 152 of 179 153 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) dated 27.11.2001. The above said non-verifiable expenses include the value of clothing to the tune of Rs.55,800/- as mentioned Ex.PW85/1 i.e. Observation Memo and electricity charges of Rs.16,650/-. After deducting the said expenses of clothing and electricity, the remaining non-verifiable expenses come to Rs.3,74,948.23.

207. Item No. 9 :- In this item the prosecution intends to prove that the accused had purchased a scooter DL3S-8022 in the year 1991. It is alleged that the said vehicle is purchased by the accused from one Sunil Kumar Mishra at a cost of Rs.14,000/- and later the same was sold out to one Azad who in turn sold the vehicle to Ashwani Kumar PW-12. The Ld. Counsel for accused contends that the prosecution has failed to prove the value of the vehicle and therefore the expenditure in this regard cannot be considered. To prove this fact prosecution has examined PW-8, PW-9, PW-12 and PW-13. It is according to PW-13 that the Scooter bearing No. DL3S-8022 was transferred in the name of the accused vide Ex. PW-12/B i.e. CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 153 of 179 154 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) transfer Form No. 30 exhibited by the previous owner. PW-8 and PW-9 are the officials of the Oriental Insurance Co. who had proved the fact that the vehicle was insured in the name of the accused vide Ex. PW-8/A by paying insurance premium of Rs.95/-. The Ex. PW-8/A is the policy document of the said vehicle which is in the name of the accused and shows the value of the vehicle as Rs.14,000/-. The fact of purchasing the said vehicle is also not denied by the accused in his examination U/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he himself stated that he had sold the vehicle to one Azad. Witness PW-12 Ashwani Kumar has stated that he had purchased the vehicle bearing No. DL3S-8022 from one Azad but the transfer document was signed by the accused. The entire material on record clearly shows that the vehicle was purchased by the accused during the check period from one Sunil Kumar Mishra whose value was Rs.14,000/- as per insurance document Ex. PW-8/A and the same was sold out to one Azad. The list of income at item No. 6 shows that the accused had earned Rs.9,500/- by CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 154 of 179 155 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) selling the said vehicle to Azad. The said fact is not denied by the accused in his examination U/s 313 Cr.P.C. at question No. 47. In view of the above, the expenditure of Rs.14,000/- at item No. 9 in the list of expenditure and income of Rs.9,500/- at item No. 6 in the list of income are held proved.

208. Item No. 10 :- In this item, the prosecution shows that expenditure of Rs.43,699/- incurred by the accused for payment of House Tax of H. No. B-5/46, Sector-4, Rohini, Delhi from 1995-96 to 02.01.2002. To prove this fact, prosecution has examined PW-48 Inspector House Tax MCD and PW-77 Assistant Zonal Inspector. PW-48 Subhash Sharma, Inspector House Tax Department MCD has produced the entire record pertaining to the Proprietor Tax payment with respect to H. No. B5/46, Sector-4, Rohini vide Ex. PW-48/1 and Ex. PW-48/2. The Ex. PW-48/1 contains the details of the House Tax paid by accused for the year 1995-96 to 2002-03. Totally Rs.46,250/- since check period is upto 2002, the tax paid for the year 2002-03 is not considered. The document CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 155 of 179 156 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) Ex. PW-48/1 coupled with the connecting record Ex. PW-48/2 clearly proved the payment of amount of Rs. 43,699/- towards House tax with respect to H. No. B-5/46, Sector-4, Rohini, Delhi. It is already held that the House No. H. No. B-5/46, Sector 4, Rohini, Delhi is owned by accused and his wife jointly. In view of the fact that wife is also an earning member, the expenditure towards house tax needs to be divided between accused and his wife. Accordingly, an expenditure of Rs.21,849.50 (half of Rs.43,669/-) is held incurred by the accused towards the payment of house tax with respect to the house No. H. No. B-5/46, Sector 4, Rohini, Delhi.

209. Item No. 11 : - By this item, the prosecution seeks to prove the expenditure incurred by the accused towards ground rent, additional electricity work etc. paid to Kalka G.H.S., Dwarka, Delhi for Flat No. A-403. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for accused that prosecution has failed to prove this expenditure. PW 20 Sameer Singh Yadav, who is Care Taker of Kalka Group Housing Society has stated in his evidence that vide CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 156 of 179 157 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) letter Ex. PW-20/A by Sh. Vidhyadharan, the details of payments made by the accused during the period 17.06.1999 to 02.01.2002 in respect of Flat No. A-403 of the society. The chart showing the details of payment is Ex. PW 20/B. As per the details in Ex. PW 20/B, the accused has paid to the Kalka GHS an amount of Rs.30,519/- towards AMC, Construction Money, ground rent and additional electricity work. In view of the evidence by PW-20 and the documents PW-20/A and PW- 20/B on record, this expenditure is held proved.

210. Item No. 12 : - In this item, the repayment of scooter loan to the tune of Rs.11,000/- by the accused is sought to be proved. The prosecution has examined PW-14 Sh. P. C. Aggarwal through whom the entire salary record of the accused, is brought on record. Ex. PW-14/A contains salary particulars and other income details like vehicle loan etc. At point 2(i) of the said document Ex. PW- 14/A it is mentioned as follows : -

"Sh. Raswant was sanctioned an amount of CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 157 of 179 158 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) Rs. 13,000/- as Scooter Advance on 22/03/1995 out of which Rs. 11,000/- have been recovered and Rs. 2,000/- are yet to be recovered from his salary".

211. It is clear from the above that the accused had taken a loan of Rs.13,000/- from his department and out of the said loan amount, Rs.11,000/- is repaid by him. Since the net salary as per Ex. PW-14/C shows the salary drawn after deducting the above said scooter loan to the tune of Rs.11,000/- in monthly installments, the said expenditure cannot be considered for the purpose of calculation of disproportionate assets. Accordingly, the expenditure in this item is not considered and the income mentioned at item No. 7 of list of income, is held proved.

212. Items No. 13, 14 and 15 :- By way of these items, the prosecution intends to prove the expenditure incurred by the accused towards the payment of premium of LIC policies in the name of the accused. Prosecution has examined PW-3 Anil Kumar Gupta, Assistant Admn. Officer of LIC, who has CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 158 of 179 159 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) proved on record Ex. PW-3/A1 to A9. Vide letter Ex. PW-3/A, PW-3 has furnished particulars of the LIC policies purchased by the accused and their premium payment details. I have carefully gone through the document referred to by PW-3 with regard to the above insurance policies. It appears that the exhibit number is not put on these documents inadvertently. These documents are referred to by the witness PW-3 as Ex. PW- 3/A-1 to A-9. As per these documents i.e. Ex. PW-3/A-1 to A-9, the following three life insurance premiums are purchased by the accused paying total premium of Rs.78,597/- as on the date of 02.01.2002 :

        S. No.    Policy No.                Amount

        1.        111116400                 Rs. 28,678/-

        2.        121332115                 Rs. 22,226/-

        3.        110451954                 Rs. 27,693/

213. The argument of Ld. Counsel for accused that the LIC policies are in the name of the wife of accused do not find any merit as it is clearly seen from documents Ex. PW- 3/A-1 to A-9 that CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 159 of 179 160 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) the policies are in the name of accused only. In fact the LIC policy No. 121332148 which is in the name of Smt. Kamlesh Raswant wife of the accused is not mentioned in the list of expenditure by the IO. Accordingly, the expenditure by the accused towards the payment of premium of LIC policies to the tune of Rs.78,597/- is held proved.

214. Item No. 16 : - In this item, the prosecution intends to prove that the accused has incurred an expenditure of Rs.16,650/- towards the charges for electricity connection at H. No. B-5/46, Sector-4, Rohini. The Prosecution has examined one Bhori Kala, Assistant Manager, NDPL as PW- 28, who stated in his deposition that Electricity Connection No. 1246263 in the name of Ashok Kumar Raswant was installed at H. No. B-5/46, Sector-4, Rohini, Delhi and accused had paid Rs.16,650/- towards electricity charges for the period April, 2000 to December, 2001. Ex. PW 28/2 is the statement of account as per ledger and the same had been prepared on the basis of entries made in the ledger against CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 160 of 179 161 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) book numbers.

215. The Ld. Counsel for accused contends that in the absence of original record, Ex. PW-28/2 cannot be considered in evidence.

216. In the charge-sheet, the IO has considered this expenditure as the one covered under non-verifiable expenditure. The circular dated 27.11.2001 Ex. DW-7/A also states that the electricity and water charges are not to be computed separately when unverifiable expenditure is computed. The paragraphs 2(d) of the said Circular is reproduced as below :-

"2...........

d) Electricity and water charges are not to be computed separately when unverifiable expenditure is computed as detailed above."

217. In view of the above said guidelines, this expenditure at item No. 16 of the Annexure 'C' is not considered as the same is included in 1/3rd of income shown as non-verifiable expenditure.

CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant                                            161 of 179
                                       162                CC No. 532204/16 (4/15)




218. Item No. 17 : -           This   item     shows    the   expenditure            of

Rs.24,938/- incurred by the accused towards the charges of telephone No. 70456562. The prosecution has examined Sunil Kumar Assistant Telephone Officer as PW-22. According to this witness, accused Ashok Kumar Raswant had applied for a fresh telephone connection on 07.06.1991 and the same was installed on 13.03.1992 with No. 7279652, later changed to new number 27045652. The subscriber paid Rs.1000/- by way of Bank draft dated 02.11.1991. The witness brought on record Ex. PW-22/A2 to A8 as documents pertaining to the telephone connection and the details of the payment of bills for the period from install till 11.11.2001. Though it is stated by PW-22 in his statement that an amount of Rs.24,398/- was paid towards the charges of telephone by the accused from the date of installation till 11.11.2001, the Ex. PW 22/A7 shows the details of the payments from 01.01.1998 only i.e. to the tune of Rs.8,949/-. Since there is no document to show the amount paid by the accused CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 162 of 179 163 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) towards the telephone charges prior to 1998, the same cannot be considered as proved as per the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vasant Rao Guhe vs. State of M.P(Supra). In the examination of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C. he has not denied the payment of telephone bills but only stated that part payments were made by his wife. However, the same is not substantiated by any evidence. Therefore, based on the material on record, it is held that accused had incurred an expenditure of Rs.8,948/- towards the charges for telephone connection installed at his residence and towards telephone bills.

219. Item No. 18 :- At this item, prosecution shows that the accused has paid Rs.4,880/- towards the house tax of property No. 3200, B-4, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi for the period 2000-01. The prosecution has examined PW-74 Sh. Ved Prakash, Assistant Collector in MCD, who has given the particulars of property tax paid in respect of property No.3200, B-4, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi for the period 2000-01 vide Ex.

CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 163 of 179 164 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) PW-74/A. This document Ex. PW-74/A is a report given to the IO with regard to property tax of property No. 3200, B-4, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. It is neither accompanied by any receipt nor by any document which shows that the accused only has paid this amount. Ld. PP for CBI contends that since the property No. 3200, B-4, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi is in the name of accused having purchased by him in the year 1995, the property tax with respect to said property is presumed to have been paid by accused only. The evidence of PW-74 and Ex. PW-74/A are not sufficient to prove that the house tax of Rs.4,880/- was paid by the accused only. Accordingly, the expenditure shown in this item is held not proved.

220. In view of the reasons given above, the table of expenditure is redrawn as follows :-

        S.    DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE                           COST (RS.)
        NO.

        1     Re-payment of loan of Car No. DL4CH 5755 to Citi Rs.99,572/-

Corp. Maruti from 07.04.1999 to 10.02.2000. 2 Payment of Insurance premium to the New India Rs.9,508/-

Insurance Co. Ltd. for Vehicle No. DL4CH 5755 on 25.04.2000 to 27.04.2001.

CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant                                            164 of 179
                                        165                  CC No. 532204/16 (4/15)




        3     Payment made for purchase and registration of Rs.27,605/-

Vehicle N. DL1SJ 0533 in the year 1995 in the name of Sh. Ashok Kumar Raswant.

4 Payment made to the Sachdeva Public School from Rs.3,000/-

1997 to 02.01.2002 for the education etc. of son Master Anurag.

5 Purchased Scooter No. DL4SG 9458 from M/s. Rs.15,500/-

Gautam Auto Okhla, New Delhi in October, 1992. 6 1/3rd of carry home salary of Sh. Ashok Kumar from Rs.3,74,948.23/-

19.08.1974 to 02.01.2002 taken as non-verifiable expenditure.

7 Purchased Scooter No. DL3S 8022 from Sh. Sunil Rs.14,000/-

Kumar Mishra by Sh. Ashok Kumar in the year 1990-91.

8 House Tax of H. No. B-5/46, Sector 4, Rohini, Delhi, Rs.21,849.50/-

from 1995-96 to 02.01.2002 (28.07.2001) to MCD. 9 Payment made to the Kalka Co-operative Group Rs.30,519/-

Housing Society, Dwarka for Flat No. A-403, as construction money, ground rent, additional electricity work from 17.06.1999 to 27.08.2001. 10 Premiums of LIC Policy No.111116400, 121332115 Rs.78,597/-

and 110451954 in the name of Sh. Ashok Kumar Raswant.

11 Payment made against the use of telephone Rs.8,948/-

No.7045652 in the name of Sh. Ashok Kumar Raswant.

Total Rs.6,84,046.73 Income as per Annexure- B

221. Item No. 1 :- As per the charge-sheet, during the check period i.e. 01.10.1974 to 02.01.2002, the net income of the CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 165 of 179 166 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) accused from salary and ex-gratia payments is Rs.13,05,833/-. To prove this, the prosecution has examined one P. C. Aggarwal, Assistant Grade-I, BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. as PW-14. It is deposed by PW-14 that he was working as Assistant Grade-II in the office of Assistant Personnel Officer Billing, BSES, Lajpat Nagar, Delhi in the year 2003. He has identified the accused, who was also an employee of BSES. The witness identified the signature of Assistant Personnel Officer(Billing) on letter dated 11.07.2003 by which the particulars with regard to the salary emoluments of the accused are given to the IO. As per this letter i.e. Ex. PW- 14/A, the net salary of the accused from 20.08.1974 to 02.02.2002 is Rs.13,05,833.03/-. As per this letter, the said amount includes the arrears and ex-gratia payment of Rs.1,48,175.11/- (27,312.66 + 1,20,862.45). The summary sheet of the salary particulars is Ex. PW-14/C and the detailed sheets which are 17 in number are Ex. PW-14/C1 to C17. The witness PW-14 stated that he has prepared the said CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 166 of 179 167 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) particulars on the basis of check register available in the office. The entire personal file of the accused is also brought on record as Ex. PW-14/B.

222. The Counsel for accused has cross-examined this witness at length. It is mainly argued by the Ld. Counsel for accused that the prosecution has not properly calculated the entire salary emoluments of the accused during the check period. It is also the argument of Ld. Counsel for the accused that the salary detail sheets prepared by PW-14 do not contain all the details and even otherwise they cannot be read in evidence as they are not the original record. The accused has examined DW-3 from the Accounts Department of BSES through whom the original salary record i.e. check registers are brought on record as DW-3/1 (colly.). DW-3 has stated in his evidence that there is no record pertaining to the salary emoluments of the accused for the period March, 1979 to October, 1979 (8 months) and the record pertaining to the year 1989-90.

CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 167 of 179 168 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15)

223. Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that since the record of salary of accused pertaining to March 1979 to October 1979 and 1989-90 are not available, the income of accused for that period is liable to be added. Ld. Counsel also argued that the IO has mentioned salary income of the accused during the check period for Rs.13,05,833.30/- just mechanically without scrutinizing the documents.

224. I have carefully gone through the entire documents brought on record by the prosecution as well as the defence with regard to salary emoluments of the accused. The figures mentioned in Ex. PW-14/C and Ex. PW-14/C1 to C-17 are not tallying with the figures on original salary record i.e. Ex. DW- 3/1(colly.). It appears the document Ex. PW-14/C are not properly prepared and therefore, do not show the correct figures with regard to emoluments of the accused. In view of the fact that these documents i.e. Ex. PW-14/C and Ex. PW- 14/C1 to C17, do not show the correct figures, the same are not relied and only original record i.e. Ex. DW-3/1(colly.) is CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 168 of 179 169 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) considered.

225. As far as salary income of the accused for the period April, 1979 to September, 1979 is concerned, the same is required to be added additionally by properly calculating the same. For this purpose, the salary for the month of October 1979 is taken for calculating the salary of 06 preceding months. As per Ex. DW-3/1(colly.), the net salary of the accused for the month of October, 1979 is Rs.678.95/-. Accordingly, the net salary of the accused for these 6 months i.e. April 1979 to September, 1979 is calculated as 678.95 X 6 = 4073.70/-. The same is liable to be added to the salary income of the accused.

226. As far as the salary for the year 1989-90 is concerned, there is no original record available. The Ld. Counsel for the accused submits in the written submissions that an amount of Rs.33,155/- was received as salary by the accused for the year 1989-90. The said quantum of salary is also matching with the salary of preceding and succeeding years. As per the CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 169 of 179 170 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) original record Ex. DW-3/1(colly.), the accused has received an amount of Rs.13,38,121/- as income from salary and other emoluments. In view of the above discussion, the net salary income of the accused during the check period i.e. 01.04.1978 to 02.01.2002 is taken as Rs.13,42,194.70.

227. The income from other sources as mentioned in Annexure-B at items no. 2, 6, 7, 10, 14 and 15 are already discussed while appreciating the evidence of the corresponding assets. The income as shown at items no. 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13 and 16 are not disputed by the accused in the written submissions filed by him.

228. Another contention of the Ld. Counsel for the accused is that Smt. Kamlesh Raswant, wife of the accused was working as Clerk in Health Department, therefore, had independent source of income by way of salary. It is argued that the CBI deliberately not considered her income in the present case though her properties and entire household articles are shown in the charge sheet as the assets of the accused. Ld. Counsel CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 170 of 179 171 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) for the accused further argued that the defence has examined DW-4 and DW-5 and proved that wife of the accused had total income of Rs.8,90,975.27. Ld. Counsel for the accused has relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in DSP Chennai vs. K. Inbasagaran 2006 (1) SCC 420 wherein it is held as follows :

"It is true that when there is joint possession between the wife and husband or father and son and if some of the family members are involved in amassing illegal wealth, then unless there is categorical evidence to believe that this can be read in the hands of the husband or as the case may be, it cannot fastened on the husband or head of the family."

229. On the other hand, the Ld. PP for the CBI argued that in the present case, the assets of accused which are specifically on his name and acquired by him are only considered and assets of Smt. Kamlesh Raswant are not taken into account. It is CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 171 of 179 172 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) further argued by the Ld. PP for the CBI that since the assets of Smt. Kamlesh Raswant were not considered, her income was also not taken into account in this case. Ld. PP for the CBI also argued that the prosecution has been able to prove each and every asset of accused whereas the defence has not adduced any evidence to show that the income of Smt. Kamlesh Raswant was used in acquiring any of the assets as shown in the Charge Sheet. Ld. PP for the CBI also argued that wherever the income of Smt. Kamlesh Raswant was shown to have been spent in acquiring any asset that benefit is already given to the accused in the charge sheet by the IO.

230. The prosecution admitted the fact that wife of the accused was having an independent source of income and her income was to the tune of Rs.8,90,975.27 during the check period. This fact is also proved by DW-4 and DW-5. However, the prosecution is very clear on one aspect in its charge sheet as well as evidence adduced by it that the income (from salary and other sources), assets and expenditure of the accused CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 172 of 179 173 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) Ashok Kumar Raswant are only taken into account for the purpose of this case. From Ex. PW-85/1, it is found that IO has returned the jewellery of Smt. Kamlesh Raswant, when he was informed that the same was given to her as Istridhan. It is also seen from the record that the immovable property at item No. 4 in Annexure-A i.e. Flat No. 3200, Pocket B-4, SFS, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, as alleged to have been purchased at the cost of Rs.6,50,000/- in the name of accused and his wife. It has been found by the IO during the investigation that an amount of Rs.4,90,000/- was paid from the account of Smt. Kamlesh Raswant and accordingly, IO has not considered this amount while calculating the value of the asset. It is clear from the charge sheet as well as evidence adduced by the prosecution that the income of Smt. Kamlesh Raswant, which is to the tune of Rs.8,90,975.27 during the check period and her assets, are not taken into account for the purpose of calculation of Disproportionate Assets acquired by the accused. The immovable asset at item no. 1 of Annexure-A CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 173 of 179 174 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) i.e. Property No. B-5/46, Sector-4, Rohini, Delhi, is a house in the name of accused as well as his wife Smt. Kamlesh Raswant. This Court has while discussing the evidence on the said asset, also considered the share of Smt. Kamlesh Raswant and accordingly deducted 50% value of the asset for proper calculation of disproportionate assets of the accused only.

231. The dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in DSP Chennai Vs. K. Inbasagran (supra) is not applicable to the present case as the facts of the present case are totally different. In the above noted case, the plea taken by the accused was that all the money which had been received, belonged to his wife and in that regard, he examined as many as 13 witnesses including himself and his wife. The Apex Court in view of the evidence by the wife of the accused and other defence witnesses held that 'when there is joint possession between the wife and husband or father and son and if some of the members of the family are involved in CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 174 of 179 175 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) amassing a legal wealth, then unless there is categorical evidence to believe that this can be read in the hands of the husband or as the case may be, it cannot be fastened on the husband or head of the family'. But in the present case, the facts clearly show that only the assets which are in the name and possession of the accused are only considered and the assets which are acquired in the name of the wife are excluded. There is also no evidence by the defence that the assets in the present case are actually acquired by using her income.

232. Even otherwise the contents of the charge sheet and the evidence on record clearly show that the total salary income of the wife of the accused i.e. to the tune of Rs.8,90,975.27 infact was spent in assets like :

(i) purchasing the Flat at Vasant Kunj by paying Rs.4,90,000/-

from her bank account;

(ii) her share in Property No. B-5/46, Rohini, is considered as Rs.1,16,000/-;

CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 175 of 179 176 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15)

(iii) her investments in LIC of Rs.36,080/-;

(iv) 3 KVPs worth Rs.30,000/-;

(iv) 100 share certificates for Rs.1000/-;

(v) jewellery of Rs.5477/-;

(vi) immovable property i.e. plot of 60 sq. meters at Uma Awas Samiti, Ghaziabad for Rs.22,540/-;

(vii) 2 NSCs worth Rs.20,000/-; and

(viii) Rs.1,93,112.02 in various bank accounts as on 02.01.2002 was found by the IO during investigation as mentioned in the charge sheet.

233. The value of the above said assets of Smt. Kamlesh Raswant will be equal to her income during the check period. Therefore, the income of Smt. Kamlesh Raswant during the check period is not liable to be added or considered for the purpose of calculating the assets of the accused in the present case.

234. In view of the reasons given above, the table of income is redrawn as follows :-

CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant                                        176 of 179
                                        177                  CC No. 532204/16 (4/15)




        S. No. DETAILS OF INCOME                                  COST (RS.)

        1       Net Salary, arrears etc. received by Sh. Ashok Rs.13,42,194.70
                Kumar Raswant from his Department from
                20.08.1974 to 02.01.2002.

        2       Loan taken from Citi Corp., Maruti, Naraina for Rs.90,948/-
                purchase of Maruti Car on 22.03.1999.

        3       Refund given by LIC of India against Policy Rs.12,500/-

No.110451954 in the name of Sh. Ashok Kumar Raswant on 31.05.1994 & 27.05.1999.

4 Interest on deposit in PPF A/c No. 2108 in SBI, Rs.5,800/-

Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, in the name of Sh. Ashok Kumar Raswant.

5 Interest on deposit on A/c No. 5273 at CBI, Rs.18,161.39 Mehrauli in the name of Sh. Ashok Kumar Raswant from 08.03.1985 to 02.01.2002.

6 Sale of Scooter No. DL3S 8022 to Sh. Azad Singh Rs.9,500/-

in the year 1992.

7 Loan taken by Sh. Ashok Kumar Raswant from his Rs.13,000/-

Deptt. On 22.03.1995 for purchase of scooter. 8 Sale of Ancestral house No. W-4/86-A1, Mehrauli Rs.1,75,000/-

on 21.03.1992 to Sh. Sudarshan Raswant.

9 Interest on deposit in A/c No. 1198 & 20375 in Rs.26,010/-

PNB, Rohini in he name of Sh. Ashok Kumar Raswant from 1994 to 02.01.2002.

10 Sale proceeds of Scooter No. DL4SG 9458 Rs.8,000/-

received from Sh. Pramod Kumar in June 1997. 11 Profit from sale of property no. 150, Pocket-25, Rs.3,000/-

DDA flat, Sector-3, Rohini, in the name of Smt. Kamlesh, received in the year 1993.

12 House rent of First floor of H. No. H. No. B-5/46, Rs.38,600/-

Sector 4, Rohini, in the name of Sh. Ashok Kumar from 01.05.2001 to December 2001 @ Rs.4,200/- per month and security of Rs.5,000/- received CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 177 of 179 178 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) from Sh. S. K. Mohanty.

13 Received rent of H. No. 3200, B-4, Vasant Kunj, Rs.2,61,000/-

New Delhi, in the name of Sh. Ashok Kumar from July 1998 to December 2001 from Sh. Muneendra Gupta.

14 Received loan from Sh. Umesh Chander(PW-27) Rs.1,00,000/-

for purchase of flat at Dwarka, by Sh. Ashok Kumar Raswant in June 1999.

15 Received loan from Sh. Kuldeep Sharma(PW-6) Rs.1,00,000/-

for purchase of flat at Dwarka, by Sh. Ashok Kumar Raswant in June 1999.

16 Received interest in A/c No. 4172 maintained by Rs.15,975/-

Sh. Ashok Kumar Raswant at Canara Bank, Rohini.

Total Rs.22,19,689.09 CONCLUSION

235. After going through the entire evidence on record, perusing the material and in view of the reasons mentioned in the aforesaid paras, the assets, expenditure and income of accused Ashok Kumar Raswant are calculated as follows -

       Assets                 = Rs.26,16,931.41

       Expenditure            = Rs.6,84,046.73

       Income                 = Rs.22,19,689.09

Disproportionate Assets = Assets + Expenditure - Income CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant 178 of 179 179 CC No. 532204/16 (4/15) = Rs.26,16,931.41 + Rs.6,84,046.73 - Rs.22,19,689.09 = Rs.10,81,289.05

236. In view of the reasoning recorded in the preceeding paragraphs, the accused Ashok Kumar Raswant is held to be in possession of the assets to the tune of Rs.10,81,289.05 which are disproportionate to the known sources of income. Thus, the prosecution is successful in proving the charge against the accused for the offence under section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (e) of the PC Act. Accordingly, accused Ashok Kumar Raswant is convicted for the offence punishable under section 13 (2) read with Section 13(1) (e) of the PC Act. Accused shall be heard separately on the point of Sentence. Announced in the open Court today i.e. on 19.12.2017.

                                  (KOVAI VENUGOPAL)
                              SPECIAL JUDGE, PC ACT, (CBI)-09
                                   CENTRAL, DELHI




CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Raswant                                   179 of 179