Delhi District Court
Cbi vs 1 Ram Singh on 17 January, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MANOJ JAIN SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT)(CBI)-04: TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI CNR No. DLCT01-000009-1998 New CC No. 532184/2016 RC Nos. 26(A)/92-ACB/ND and 44(A)/92-ACB U/s 120-B/193/467 & 471 IPC & 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of PC Act 1988 CBI Versus 1 Ram Singh S/o Pehlu Singh (Died on 14.6.2010 and proceedings abated on 18.11.2010) 2 Savitri Singh Wife of Sh. Ram Singh R/o D-II/3, Road No.1, Andrews Ganj, New Delhi. Date of Institution : 28.05.1998 Date of conclusion of Final Arguments : 20.12.2017 Date of Judgment : 17.01.2018 Memo of Appearance: Sh. A.K.Rao, learned Sr.PP for CBI, Sh. M.P.Singh, Learned counsel for accused and for all objectors (except Khem Chand) Sh. Praveen Suri, learned counsel for Objector Sh. Khem Chand JUDGMENT
PROSECUTION VERSION 1.0 Accused Ram Singh (since deceased) was caught red handed on 13.4.1992 while accepting bribe of Rs. 2 lacs. It resulted in registration of case FIR No. RC.22(A)/92.
1.1 Registration of said FIR also led to the search of house of accused Ram Singh. Such search brought to fore various incriminating documents pertaining to numerous transactions done by accused Ram Singh CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 1 of 145 and his wife accused Savitri Singh.
1.2 Accordingly, two additional but separate FIRs were registered against accused Ram Singh and his wife Savitri Singh for being found in possession of assets disproportionate to their respective income. These were RC N. 26 (A)/92-ACB dated 24.04.1992 against Ram Singh and RC No. 44 (A)/92-ACB dated 13.07.1992 against Savitri Singh.
1.3 At the relevant time, Ram Singh, an IAS officer, was working as General Manager, Delhi Milk Scheme (DMS) and his wife Smt. Savitri Singh was working as Inspector, Income Tax.
1.4 As per investigating agency, the financial background of Sh. Ram Singh was very ordinary as his father Sh. Pehlu Singh and his mother Ramkali had no substantial income to acquire any property. During 1970, Ram Singh and his brothers had mere 1.16 acres of land at their native place which they owned jointly. In 1976, 0.089 hectares of barren land was allotted to them on lease by the government. Neither accused Ram Singh nor his brothers purchased/acquired any land in their village till 1989 which also indicated their weak financial condition.
1.5 Ram Singh had two brothers namely Sh. Ram Avatar Singh and Sh. Ashok Kumar Singh and two sisters namely Smt. Sukhdevi and Smt. Kusumlata Das.
1.6 Sh. Ram Avatar Singh was working in M.P. Forest Corporation while Ashok Kumar Singh, a student at the relevant time, was doing internship in Medical College at Jabalpur. Sh. Ram Avatar Singh as well as his wife Smt. Raj Kumari Singh were residing in Bhopal and were in no position to make any investment as their financial status was also not sound.
CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 2 of 1451.7 Sh. Ram Singh had earlier joined Labour Department in Simla but eventually got selected as Civil Servant in the year 1972.
1.8 Savitri Singh had joined Income Tax Department in the month of May, 1969. She got married to Ram Singh on 13.04.1971. They were blessed with three children, namely, Jitender Kumar Singh, Gaurav Kumar Singh and Miss Sangeeta Bala Singh. All three of them, mostly, studied in Delhi and did their schooling from DPS, R.K. Puram. According to investigation, educational expenses of Ashok Kumar Singh, (younger brother of Ram Singh) were also borne by accused.
1.9 As per investigation, most of the assets, movable and immovable, were acquired by the accused from 1985 onwards and, therefore, check period has been taken from 1.1.1985 to 13.4.1992.
1.10 As per investigating agency, both the accused conspired with each other and started accumulating assets by dubious means and in a surreptitious manner. Such acquisition was made by them either in their own names or in the names of their children or close relatives. They both indulged in benami transactions and to hide such acquisition, they opened benami bank accounts and created false documents.
1.11 Investigation revealed that they both had opened a large number of bank accounts, 66 in number to be precise, and all such accounts used to be operated by them. These accounts, which were either in their own names or in the names of their children or in the names of other close relatives, were managed by them only and they were responsible for the transactions carried out in such accounts.
1.12 Savitri Singh had opened bank accounts in different names viz 'Savitri Devi' and 'Raj Kumari Singh' etc. She opened forged bank accounts and operated those as well.
CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 3 of 1451.13 Both the accused also got prepared false receipts in the name of Ms. Ram Kali (mother of accused Ram Singh) showing sale of jewellery. These receipts were created for the purpose of fabricating false evidence to show their enhanced income.
1.14 Investigation was carried out and details of Income, Expenditure and Assets were collected.
1.15 Though separate FIRs had been registered and initially investigation was also separate, yet eventually CBI decided to file a composite charge sheet particularly keeping in mind the fact that both the accused were 'husband and wife' and were residing together and also because there was a clear-cut conspiracy between them.
1.16 As per the final conclusion of investigating agency, both the accused were found in possession of disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs. 53,23,408.00. Following chart would depict the same:-
1. Assets at the beginning of the check period i.e. 1.1.85 4,35,073.00 2 Income during check period 15,25,839.00
3. Expenditure during check period 7,51,546.00
4. Likely savings (2-3) 7,74,293.00
5. Assets acquired during check period 60,97.701.00
6. Assets at the close of check period i.e. on 13.4.92 65,32,774.00
7. Total disproportion in assets (5-4) 53,23,408.00 1.17 After obtaining sanction for their prosecution, such charge sheet was submitted before the court on 26.5.98.CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 4 of 145
COGNIZANCE AND CHARGES 2.0 Cognizance was taken by the court on 18.7.1998 and both the accused were directed to be summoned.
2.1 Arguments on charge were heard and vide order dated 25.9.2004, both the accused were directed to be charged for commission of offences under Sections 120-B read with Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of P. C. Act and Sections 467 and 471 IPC. Both the accused were also charged under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) P. C. Act read with Section 34 IPC, 467 and 471 read with Section 34 IPC . As far as accused Savitri Singh is concerned, she was also separately charged for commission of offences under Section 467 IPC for various transactions. Both the accused pleaded not guilty to such charges framed on 18.10.2004 and claimed trial.
2.2 It will be also not out of place to mention here that both the accused were also directed to admit or deny the documents relied upon by the prosecution and number of documents were admitted by accused Ram Singh as well as accused Savitri Singh as is evident from the order sheet dated 24.4.2004.
2.3 Following documents were admitted by accused Savitri Singh:-
S. No. Document Exhibit Number Brief Description of Document Number 1 D-8 P-1 to P-124 Intimation to department regarding allotment of a plot by GDA in Indira Puram Intimation to department regarding the manner in which the funds were arranged including sale of jewellery and raising loan against KDR.
2 D-9 P-124 to P-133 Money raised by Smt. Ram Kali for purchasing plot no. V-37/6 in DLF Qutab Enclave by sale of gold and by taking loans from various other persons i.e. Satish Kumar, Vinita, Uday Veer, Jagbir Singh, Anil Kumar, Jagdish Chander, Puttu Lal 3 D-11 P-134 to P-143 Explanation submitted by Ram Kali to ITO regarding CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 5 of 145 the investment made by her for purchasing plot no.
V-37/6 in DLF Qutab Enclave 4 D-13 P-144 & P-145 Debit vouchers of Union Bank of India in favour of Ram Kali.
5 D-17 P-146 Credit voucher of Rs. 10,000/- favouring Ram Kali issued by Punjab & Sind Bank, New Agra as per request of Ms. Vinita.
6 D-18 P-147 & P-148 Original receipt issued by jeweller Panna Lal Roshan Lal Chandni Chowk dated 02.11.1998 for Rs. 9003/- and by Ram Lal Kundan Lal Chandni Chowk dated 07.11.1988 for Rs. 9134/-
7 D-22 P-149 & P-150 Application by Savitri Devi for allotment of plot in Alpha-I Scheme, Form No. 005175, GREATER NOIDA 8 D-26 P-151 o P-165 Documents regarding purchase of two acres of land @ Rs. 20,000/- per acre situated in Halka No. 42, Tehsil Hujur, District Bhopal from Ms. Tara Kilotra in January 1986 9 D-28 P-166 to P-168, P- Correspondence regarding allotment of Flat No. 170, P-186, P-190, P- BH/10V, First Floor, Munirka 198, P-217, P-221, P-
230, P-231, P-234, P-
236 & P-239 10 D-29 P-240 to P-350 Documents related to allotment of Flat No. BH/10V, First Floor, Munirka 11 D-30 P-351 to P-379 Documents related to allotment of Flat No. BH/10V, First Floor, Munirka as per the record of DDA 12 D-32 P-380 to P-391 Letter issued by Department seeking explanation from accused regarding source of deposit in her bank account no. 1473, copy of letter dated 20.08.1990 issued by LIC Jabalpur regarding sending of cheque of Rs. 33,320/- in relation to LIC policy, sale of jewellery worth Rs. 11,500/- on 19.11.1990 to M/s Agra Bullion Company, Delhi, statement of account no. 1473, Bank of India, statement of account no. 5621 Canara Bank, copy of receipt of Ram Lal Kundan Lal Chandni Chowk dated 23.05.1991 for Rs. 9792/- and transaction related to L&T Bonds through R. Aggarwal & Company 13 D-37 P-392 to P-392 Intakhab Khatoni regarding land of Ram Singh, Ram Avtar and Ashok Kumar in village Kakroli, District Farukhabad 14 D-38 P-399 to P-413 Intimation to Department on 26.04.1985 regarding receiving a sum of Rs. 35,994/- from the estate of her father and showing intimation to buy two acres of land from Smt. Tara Kilotra 15 D-43 P-422 to P-426 Leasing out of H. No. BH/10V Munirka to M/s Utility Engineers from 16.05.1992 to 15.05.1994 @ Rs.
CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 6 of 1453000/- per month (inclusive of fittings and fixtures) 16 D-44 P-427 Letter to MCD regarding water meter installed in Munirka Flat 17 D-46 P-428 to P-433 Installation of telephone no. 655844 by MTNL in Munirka Flat 18 D-62 P-445 & P-446 Application for grant of passport.
19 D-64 P-450, P-451 & P- Certificate issued by Bank of India, BSZ Marg 454 certifying sanction of loan of Rs. 9,000/- and Rs.
33,000/- to Savitri Singh Sale of ornaments by Ram Kali to M/s Panal Roshan Lal on 18.12.1991 for Rs. 25,005/-
Receipt issued by Manohar Bansal & Company Stock Broker to Savitri Singh on 05.04.1990 regarding security of Garden Silk in lieu of Rs. 4690/-
20 D-65 P-455 to P-466 Letter issued by Department seeking explanation from accused regarding source of deposit in her bank account no. 1473, reply dated 21.08.1989 by accused Savitri Singh to her department, receipt issued by M/s Gupta & Company to Savitri Singh regarding shares of All Seasons Food Limited, Membership certificate issued by UTI in favour of Savitri Singh, letter by Savitri Singh to LIC regarding loan, receipt issued by concerned broker in relation to shares of Grasim Industries and one more security (name illegible), letter issued to Department regarding payment of installments to GDA, letter issued by office of Income Tax regarding investment in property at Indira Puram Ghaziabad, challan regarding Indira Puram plot, letter to UTI regarding termination of membership certificate and to pay her surrender value 21 D-68 P-467 Letter of LIC issued to CBI on 16.12.1994 informing about the loan of Rs. 33,320/- paid by them 22 D-69 P-468 to P-471 Application for dealership in National Fertilizer Limited by Ram Kali made on 01.10.1991 Certificate of agriculture income by Ram Kali showing details of her income from 1986 to 1991 Registration bill M/s Farukhabad Khaad Bhandar Offer of dealership by M/s NFL to Ram Kali vide letter dated 09.10.1991 23 D-73 P-473 Pay particulars of Savitri Singh 24 D-74 P-474 Pay particulars of Savitri Singh 25 D-78 P-488 to P-492 Letter dated 29.07.1988 by Savitri Singh to her Department intimating about her intention to apply for allotment of land from HUDA and deposit of Rs.
20,790/-, Application for leave, letter to Department regarding licence fee in relation to official CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 7 of 145 accommodation of Netaji Nagar 26 D-81 P-493 to P-515 Statement of account no. 17310 of Savitri Singh with Canara Bank along with several vouchers 27 D-82 P-516 & P-517 KDR of Rs. 29,500/- issued by Canara Bank in favour of Savitri Singh and application dated 18.09.1990 of accused Savitri Singh to that effect 28 D-83 P-518 Statement regarding KDR 29 D-84 P-519 Statement regarding KDR 30 D-85 P-520 Statement regarding KDR 31 D-86 P-521 Account opening form of Savitri Singh with Canara Bank whereby she was given account no. 5621 32 D-87 P-522 Specimen card of said account no. 5621 33 D-88 P-523, P-524 to P- Statement of account no. 5621 and related vouchers 551, P-553 & P-554 34 D-89 P-555 Account opening form of Jitender Kr. Singh through Savitri Singh with Canara Bank whereby she was given account no. 5940 35 D-92 P-556 Account opening form of Sangeeta Bala Singh through Savitri Singh with Canara Bank whereby she was given account no. 2479 36 D-93 P-557 Specimen card of said account no. 2479 37 D-95 P-558 Account opening form of Gaurav Kr. Singh through Savitri Singh with Canara Bank whereby she was given account no. 1265 38 D-96 P-559 Specimen card of said account no. 1265 39 D-105 P-590 to P-596 Statement of account no. 6983 of Savitri Singh and Ram Kali 40 D-108 P-597 to P-661 Various KDRs issued by Canara Bank, Munirka 41 D-111 P-672 Saving bank account opened by Master Jitender Kr.
Singh with Bank of India 42 D-113 P-674 to P-753 Saving bank account of Savitri Singh with Bank of India 43 D-115 P-754 Account opening card of account no. 2246 by Savitri Singh with Bank of India 44 D-116 P-755 to P-757 Various vouchers related to SB account no. 2246 of Savitri Singh 45 D-117 P-758 & P-759 Copy of cheque issued by LIC of Rs. 33,120/- in favour of Ram Singh and Savitri Singh on 31.08.1990 and its deposit in Bank of India, BSZ CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 8 of 145 Marg, New Delhi 46 D-118 P-760 to P-762 Copy of cheque of Rs. 10,000/- issued by LIC in favour of Savitri Singh dated 05.10.1989 and its deposit, cheque dated 25.01.1990 of Rs. 4432/-
issued by Varun Investment in favour of Savitri Singh 47 D-119 P-763 to P-783, P- Various double benefit deposits (DBR) certificates 790, P-792, P-799 to issued by Bank of India, BSZ Marg, New Delhi P-801 48 D-123 P-802 & P-803 Copy of deposit slips whereby Ram Kali deposited cheques of Rs. 25,005/- and Rs. 27,162/- in her account no. 494 of Bank of India 49 D-127 P-804 to P-808 Vouchers related to SB Account No. 3439 of Savitri Singh with Central Bank of India 50 D-129 P-809 Statement of HSS Account No. 3685 of Savitri Singh with Central Bank of India 51 D-139 P-810 & P-811 Saving bank account of Sangeeta Bala Singh of Bank of Rajasthan and statement of such account 52 D-140 P-812 & P-813 Saving bank account of Savitri Singh of Bank of Rajasthan and statement of such account 53 D-141 P-814 & P-815 Saving bank account of Gaurav Kr. Singh of Bank of Rajasthan and statement of such account 54 D-142 P-816 to P-818 Aravali Deposit Ledger, Bank of Rajasthan Ltd of Savitri Singh, Gaurav Kr. Singh and Jitender Kr.
Singh 55 D-143 P-819 & P-820 Application for opening saving account by Savitri Singh in State Bank of Patiala Shastri Bhawan and specimen signatures card 56 D-147 P-827 & P-828 Statement of account of State Bank of Patiala of Savitri Singh Term Deposit Ledger statement of account of Savitri Singh with State Bank of Patiala Shastri Bhawan 57 D-148 P-832 Statement of account no. 5866 of Savitri Singh with State Bank of Patiala, Palwal Branch 58 D-149 P-833 Application for opening of joint account of Savitri Singh and Jitender Kumar with State Bank of Patiala Palwal 59 D-156 P-834 Specimen signatures card of Savitri Singh with respect to her Oriental Bank of Commerce, Munirka Branch 60 D-157 P-835 to P-839 & P- Application for opening of SB Account with OBC, 866 Munirka by Savitri Singh and vouchers related to said account no. 5335 and statement of account 61 D-163 P-840 Saving Bank account form of Savitri Singh submitted CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 9 of 145 before Union Bank of India, Moti Bagh Branch whereby account no. 1476 was opened 62 D-164 P-841 to P-862 Statement of said account no. 1476 and various cheques issued by Savitri Singh from said account and various vouchers related to said account along with request for closure of said account 63 D-169 P-863 to P-865 Statement of account of Ram Kali having SB No. 9871 with PNB, Green Park, New Delhi 64 D-172 P-866 to P-880 Copy of account opening form of said account of Ram Kali along with related cheques and vouchers 65 D-175 P-882 to P-890 Copy of statement of account of accused Ram Singh having SB account no. 8951, SBI Shadipur Depot 66 D-227 P-1033 & P-1034 Letter dated 30.06.1993 written by JK Synthetic to CBI informing about holding of Savitri Singh 67 D-229 P-1035 Letter dated 04.10.1995 from M/s Larsen & Toubro Ltd. to CBI informing about holding of both the accused.
68 D-280 P-1036 to P-1041 File of GDA, Ghaziabad in respect of allotment of plot to Savitri Singh in Indira Puram vide application form no. 018653 69 D-340 P-1036-A, P-1037-A, Sale of jewellery by Savitri Singh to Khanna P-1038-A, P-1039-A, Jewellers, Karol Bagh on 29.04.1990 for Rs. 54,300/- P-1040-A, P-1041-A & P-1042 Original letter dated 20.08.1990 issued by LIC Jabalpur regarding sending of cheque of Rs.
33,320/- in relation to LIC policy Original voucher regarding sale of jewellery worth Rs. 11,500/- on 19.11.1990 to M/s Agra Bullion Company, Delhi Letter to UTI regarding termination of membership certificate and to pay her surrender value Payment of Rs. 1200/- by UTI to Savitri Singh on 22.03.1991 in relation to Unit Link Insurance Plan 1971 Letter by employer of Savitri Singh whereby she was permitted to raise loan from LIC for finance of loan 70 D-347 P-1043 TDR issued by SBI Shastri Bhawan in favour of Savitri Singh on 04.10.1991 regarding deposit of Rs. 10,141/-
71 D-348 P-1044 Deposit receipt issued by Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. On 21.02.1992 to Savitri Singh regarding deposit of Rs. 5000/- having maturity limit of Rs. 7339/- after three years.
72 D-349 P-1045 Deposit receipt issued by Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. On 21.02.1992 to Jitender Kr. regarding deposit of Rs. 5000/- having maturity limit of Rs. 7339/- after three years.
CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 10 of 14573 D-350 P-1046 Deposit receipt issued by Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. On 21.02.1992 to Gaurav Singh regarding deposit of Rs. 6200/- having maturity limit of Rs. 9100/- after three years.
74 D-351 P-1047 Deposit receipt issued by Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. On 21.02.1992 to Sangeeta Bala Singh regarding deposit of Rs. 6200/- having maturity limit of Rs. 9100/- after three years.
75 D-352 P-1048 Deposit receipt issued by State Bank of Patiala Shastri Bhawan on 04.09.1990 to Savitri Singh regarding deposit of Rs. 4000/-
76 D-353 P-1049 Deposit receipt issued by Bank of India BSZ Marg on 10.02.1992 to Savitri Singh & Ram Singh regarding deposit of Rs. 63833/-
77 D-354 P-1050 to P-1056 Letter dated 20.04.1990 issued by Bank of India BSZ Marg certifying sanction of loan of Rs. 9,000/- and Rs. 33,000/- to Savitri Singh Letter dated 15.07.1989 written by HUDA to Savitri Singh regarding refund of Rs. 20,790/-
Intimation to employer by Savitri Devi regarding applying for HUDA plot and making payment of Rs.
20,790/- and regarding refund 78 D-359 P-1137 Certificate by Sub Post Master IP Estate Post Office dated 07.01.1992 certifying payment of Rs. 4000 to Savitri Singh on 06.01.1992 in discharge of her NSCs 79 D-377 P-1153 to P-1188 Dividend intimation by L&T to Savitri Singh for Rs.
414.80, Rs. 488.00, Rs. 101.25, Rs. 84.38.
Share certificates of L&T Ltd.
Intimation dated 09.12.1988 regarding transfer of 244 shares of L&T in the name of Savitri Singh by TATA Consultancy Service Intimation dated 18.12.1987 regarding Transfer of 40 shares of JK Synthetics in the name of Savitri Singh along with certificates Intimation regarding consolidation of folio by JK Synthetics Intimation dated 17.09.1984, dated 30.07.1987 and 26.02.1990 regarding bonus shares by Goodricke Group Ltd along with certificates Intimation regarding bonus share of Foods Specialty Ltd. With copies of certificates.
80 D-379 P-1194 to P-1197, P- KDR No. 171/92 dated 10.02.1992 of Sangeeta Bala 1209 to P-1224 Singh issued by Canara Bank Munirka Branch for Rs. 2672.05 KDR No. 172/92 dated 10.02.1992 of Sangeeta Bala Singh issued by Canara Bank Munirka Branch for Rs. 12543.90 CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 11 of 145 KDR No. 984/90 dated 18.09.1990 of Savitri Singh issued by Canara Bank Munirka Branch for Rs.
29500/-
KDR No. 170/92 dated 10.02.1992 of Jitender Kr.
and Savitri Singh issued by Canara Bank Munirka Branch for Rs. 5195.65 Intimation by UTI to Savitri Singh regarding issue of 375 bonus master shares with copies of certificates 81 D-389 P-1238 to P-1240 Certificates issued by Bank of Rajasthan, New Delhi dated 05.09.1990 in favour of Gaurav Kr. Singh and Sangeeta Bala Singh for Rs. 4,000/- each Certificate issued by Bank of Rajasthan, New Delhi dated 05.09.1990 in favour of Savitri Singh for Rs. 9,500/-
82 D-390 P-1242 to P-1249 Certificates issued by UTI in favour of Gaurva Kr.
Singh, Sangeeta Bala Singh and Savitri Singh 2.4 As far as accused Ram Singh is concerned, he died on 14.6.2010 in the middle of the trial and proceedings qua him stood abated vide order dated 18.11.2010. Though the documents admitted by A-1 Ram Singh can also be used against his wife, being tried jointly as co-conspirator, these are still not automatically assumed as proved qua his wife Savitri Singh to obviate any plea of prejudice from her side.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE 3.0 Prosecution was directed to adduce evidence and examined 203 witnesses. These can be classified as under:-
Witnesses from various banks of Delhi
(i) PW1 P.K. Bhasin, United Commercial Bank, Parliament Street, Delhi
(ii) PW2 Anil Girotra, Canara Bank, Parliament Street
(iii) PW4 Madan Lal, Central Bank of India, Khan Market
(iv) PW5 Jitender Kumar Gupta, Central Bank, Parliament Street Branch
(v) PW6 V. Sudeer, Syndicate Bank, R.K. Puram
(vi) PW15A S.R. Joshi, Indian Bank, Safdarjung Enclave
(vii) PW15 Paritosh Kumar Shinde, Indian Bank, Safdarjung Enclave
(viii) PW22 R.L. Gupta, Sr. Manager, Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. NDSE-II, New Delhi CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 12 of 145
(ix) PW23 M.C. Jain, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Vasant Kunj Branch
(x) PW24 Vimal Duggal, Dy. Manager, State Bank of Indoor, Connaught Place
(xi) PW28 Sanjiv Kapoor, State Bank of Patiala, Shastri Bhawan Branch, New Delhi
(xii) PW29 R. Niranjan, Sr. Manager, Canara Bank, Munirka Branch, New Delhi
(xiii) PW42 N.K. Madan, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Munirka Branch, New Delhi (xvi) PW47 R.K. Kaul, Canara Bank, Munirka Branch, New Delhi
(xv) PW48 Gian Prakash Gupta, PNB, Green Park Branch, New Delhi (xvi) PW54 A.K. Sharma, Bank of India, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg Branch, New Delhi (xvii) PW55 Anil Bhargava, State Bank of Patiala, Shastri Bhawan Branch, New Delhi (xviii) PW62 V.K. Dutt, SBI, MS Shadi Pur Branch, New Delhi (xix) PW63 Rakesh Lal Chopra, Union Bank of India, Moti Bagh Branch, New Delhi (xx) PW64 Ashok Gupta, Union Bank of India, Moti Bagh Branch, New Delhi (xxi) PW65 Gireesh Kakar, Bank of India, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg Branch, Delhi (xxii) PW66 Chanchal Chadha, SBI Parliament Street Branch, New Delhi (xxiii) PW67 S.B. Malik, PNB Green Park Branch, New Delhi (xxiv) PW68 V. Rama Rao, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Munirka Branch (xxv) PW69 Vijay Kumari Puri, PNB Green Park Branch, New Delhi (xxvi) PW73 Vincent Joachim D'Silva, Canara Bank, South Extension Branch (xxvii) PW77 P.M. Kushalappa, Canara Bank, Munirka Branch, New Delhi (xxviii) PW80 Narender Singh Yadav, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Basant Lok Branch (xxix) PW81 R. Suresh, Indian Bank, Safdarjung Enclave Branch, New Delhi (xxx) PW85 Virender Kumar Dhingra, Union Bank of India, Moti Bagh, New Delhi (xxxi) PW86 O.P. Kanojia, PNB Naroji Nagar, New Delhi (xxxii) PW87 Anand Bakshi, Syndicate Bank, R.K Puram Branch, New Delhi (xxxiii) PW91 Ashok Kr. Nagar, Canara Bank, Munirka Branch, New Delhi (xxxiv) PW92 Dr. Manohar Lal, Bank of India, BSZ Marg, New Delhi (xxxv) PW93 M.C. Arora, Central Bank of India, Khan Market, New Delhi (xxxvi) PW102 P. Radhakrishna, Indian Bank, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi (xxxvii) PW103 N.C. Jain, Delhi Nagrik Sehkari Bank, Delhi (xxxviii) PW108 O.P. Vohra, OBC Munirka Branch, New Delhi (xxxix) PW116 Satya Pal Gupta, Central Bank of India, Khan Market, Delhi (xxxx) PW127 Ajay Bhalla, PNB Green Park Branch, New Delhi (xxxxi) PW132 D.P. Talwar, Union Bank of India, Moti Bagh Branch (xxxxii) PW142 Trilok Chand, State Bank of Patiala, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi (xxxxiii) PW143 C.M. Vasudeva, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Munirka Branch (xxxxiv) PW144 J. Khitoliya, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Munirka Branch (xxxxv) PW145 Saroja Sridha, Union Bank of India, Moti Bagh, Delhi (xxxxvi) PW160 H.S. Bhugra, Central Bank of India, BSZ Marg, New Delhi (xxxxvii) PW162 Kewal Krishan, Central Bank of India, Khan Market (xxxxviii) PW165 Arun Janeja, PNB Green Park, New Delhi (xxxxix) PW167 Netra Pal Singh, Canara Bank, South Extension, New Delhi (xxxxx) PW168 Ved Prakash Marwah, PNB Green Park, New Delhi CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 13 of 145 (xxxxxi) PW171 Y.P. Sharma, Canara Bank, Parliament Street, New Delhi (xxxxxii) PW173 K. Laxman Mallya, Canara Bank, South Extension, New Delhi (xxxxxiii) PW174 Kanwar Lal, PNB Green Park, New Delhi (xxxxxiv) PW175 Sushil Kumar Srivastava, SBI Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal Witnesses from various banks situated outside Delhi
(i) PW31 V.K. Aggarwal, Central Bank of India, Noida
(ii) PW43 Rajesh Kr. Sharma, Central Bank of India, Noida Branch
(iii) PW75 Subhash Chand, Sr. Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ghaziabad
(iv) PW78 S.K. Mehra, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Noida Branch
(v) PW79 Hari Om Aggarwal, SBI Aliganj Branch, District Etah, UP
(vi) PW82 Cahnder Prakash Jolly, OBC, Lohia Nagar, Ghaziabad
(vii) PW83 M.S. Yadav, Bank of India, Farukhabad Branch, UP
(viii) PW84 Vijay Yechuri, Bank of India, Chhindwara, UP
(ix) PW95 Bhairab Singh Rautela, Bhopal District Cooperative Bank Ltd.
(x) PW101 Ram Niwas, Union Bank of India, Jhasra Road, Gurgaon (xi) PW109 Ganga Sharan, SBI Aliganj, Etah (xii) PW136 G.C. Narang, Bank of India, Chhindwara, MP (xiii) PW137 S.P. Mehtani, State Bank of Patiala, Palwal (xiv) PW138 Rajvir Singh, SBI Chipitola, Agra, UP (xv) PW157 M.R. Gupta, Chief Manager, SBI, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (xvi) PW161 B.L. Aggarwal, Bank of India, Farukhabad, UP
(xvii) PW172 Jasbir Singh, AGM, State Bank of Indore, Indore Witnesses from Income Tax Department
(i) PW-34 Sajni Talwar for proving due and drawn statement of Savitri Singh
(ii) PW-35 Malar Vizhy for proving due and drawn statement of Savitri Singh
(iii) PW-36 Attar Singh for proving due and drawn statement of Savitri Singh
(iv) PW46 Rakesh Kumar Gupta
(v) PW131 R.N. Jain, Income Tax Officer Witnesses from Unit Trust of India, LIC & TATA Consultancy
(i) PW32 Bindu Khanna, Agent, Unit Trust of India
(ii) PW37 Naresh Kr. Sachdeva, TATA Consultancy for proving documents of 600 units of accused persons
(iii) PW45 B.P. Birla, Oriental Insurance Co for proving insurance policy of accused Ram Singh
(iv) PW53 Rajinder Kumar, AGM, Unit Trust of India
(v) PW128 R.C. Ranglani for proving LIC policies of accused persons
(vi) PW184, Mahadv, UTI
(vii) PW186 P.P.S. Narula, UTI CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 14 of 145
(viii) PW193 Asik Pramanik, UTI
(ix) PW194 Gurdeep Singh Kochhar, UTI
(x) PW195 Ashwani Ghai, LIC Public witnesses
(i) PW3 B. Bhushan, Vice President, DLF Universal Limited
(ii) PW7 R.K. Aggarwal, Deed Writer of property C-33, Sector-14, Noida
(iii) PW8 Sahender Singh, seller of plot of Raj Nagar, Palam
(iv) PW9 Raj Pal Duhan, seller of plot of Raj Nagar, Palam
(v) PW10 Jagat Singh, witness to sell/purchase of plot of Palam
(vi) PW11 Kuldeep Kumar, executed sale deed of Sainik Niketan Society
(vii) PW12 Brij Narayan, executed sale deed of Sainik Niketan Society
(viii) PW13 Sita Ram Kharwal attested photograph and signature of Ram Avtar Singh
(ix) PW14 V.P.S. Punia, relative of accused
(x) PW14A Laxmi Chand signed form of Housing Finance form of Rockland Leasing
(xi) PW16 Ramesh Mishra, signed lease deed of C-33, Sector-14, Noida
(xii) PW17 Dr. Rajiv Bhasin, neighbour of property C-33, Sector-14, Noida
(xiii) PW18 Pawan Kochhar for documents of Plot No. 260, Wazid Pur, Ghaziabad
(xiv) PW27 Uday Vir Singh, brother of accused Ram Singh
(xv) PW30 Anil Kumar, brother of accused Ram Singh (xvi) PW33 P.K. Sinha, son of introducer of account no. 320030 of Mr. Raj Kumari (xvii) PW49 Nawab Khan (xviii) PW50 Ramesh Kohli, partner of M/s Kay Kay Developers (xix) PW52 Malti Puri seller of plot in DLF Qutub Enclave to Ram Kali and Savitri Singh (xx) PW61 Puttu Lal, relative of accused (xxi) PW70 Vishnu Bhagwan, property dealer of Wazid Pur (xxii) PW76 Ramesh Chand, Partner of M/s M.L. Bansal & Company (xxiii) PW88 K.C. Joshi, Purnima Group Housing Society (xxiv) PW89 Raja Ram who sold land to Ram Kali (xxv) PW90 Sanjay Dixit whose mother sold land to Ram Kali (xxvi) PW97 Sri Ram, Pradhan of Village Kakuli (xxvii) PW98 Vishram, resident of Village Kakuli (xxviii) PW99 Chander Prakash, resident of Village Kakuli (xxix) PW100 Babu Ram Chauhan, employee of M/s Steel Strips (xxx) PW105 Chandrashekhar, Stamp Vendor, Sub Registrar Office, Noida (xxxi) PW107 H.S. Chowdhary, Director M/s H. Chowdhary Estates Pvt. Ltd. (xxxii) PW111 Om Prakash, Vilalge Kakuli, District Farukhabad (xxxiii) PW118 O.P. Mehra, tenant of H. No. C-33, Noida. (xxxiv) PW119 Anju Mehra, tenant of H. No. C-33, Noida (xxxv) PW133 Riazuddin, neighbour of Puttu Lal (xxxvi) PW135 Salamatullah, neighbour of Puttu Lal CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 15 of 145 (xxxvii) PW139 Ram Das, elder brother of Ram Pal Singh (xxxviii) PW158 Mukesh Aggarwal, proprietor of M/s Kamakhya Enterprises, Munirka Other officials witnesses
(i) PW19 Uma Malik, Clerk Building Section GDA for proving documents of Vaishali Housing Scheme, HIG
(ii) PW20 S.N. Badola, Superintendent, Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi for life membership of accused Ram Singh
(iii) PW21 A.K. Saxena, Law Officer, Noida for proving lease deed of C-33, Noida
(iv) PW25 Vinay Kr. Singh, Clerk, GDA for proving document of Indira Puram Plot scheme
(v) PW26 Vinod Kr. Papnai, Delhi Gymkhana Club for proving membership of Ram Singh
(vi) PW38 Narinder Mohan Gupta, DDA for proving payments details of Munirka MIG Flat
(vii) PW39 S.K. Singhal, Sr. Accounts Officer, DDA for proving payment details of Flat No. BH/10B, Munirka allotted to accused Savitri Singh
(viii) PW44 Rajiv Sinha, Noida Development Authority for proving documents of allotment of plot C-33, Noida
(ix) PW59 P.C. Patil, MC Bhopal for proving house tax
(x) PW71 Anita Mehrotra, Dy. Manager, G. Noida
(xi) PW72 Raj Pal Singh, Junior Accountant, G. Noida
(xii) PW104 Inspector Singh, Lekhpal (Patwari), Tehsil Sadar, Farukhabad, UP
(xiii) PW106 Ramendra Kumar, Assistant Land Record Officer, District Kannauj
(xiv) PW112 Kewal Kishan Arora, Section Officers, Hindu College, Delhi
(xv) PW113 Devendra Kumar Garg, Delhi Public School, R.K. Puram (xvi) PW114 Subhash Chander Sharma, Superintendent, BSNL, Bhopal (xvii) PW115 Kuldeep Kr. Yadav, Lekhpal (Patwari), District Farukhabad, UP (xviii) PW123 Mahesh Chandra Sharma, Tehsildar, Kayamganj, District Farukhabad (xix) PW124 Janak Ram, Nazir Sadar, Collectorate Kannauj, UP (xx) PW125 Kailash Bahadur, Moharrar Mal, Tehsil Kayamganj, District Farukhabad (xxi) PW126 Samta Prasad Srivastava, Sub Registrar, Kayamganj, District Farukhabad (xxii) PW129 C.W. Lobo, Dy. Secretary, Govt. of MP for proving HBA (xxiii) PW130 K.N. Sharma, Under Secretary, Govt of MP (xxiv) PW159 S.R. Dudhe, Assistant Post Master, Chhindwara Post Office, MP (xxv) PW163 Vijay Kumar Sharma, Assistant, Vigilance Department, DDA (xxvi) PW164 Bhupinder Kumar Sharma, Asstt. Development Manager, Noida (xxvii) PW166 O.P. Gupta, Assistant Engineer, Govt of India, Bhopal (xxviii) PW169 S.K. Chatterjee, M/s J.K. Synthetics Ltd. Kamla Tower, Kanpur (xxix) PW176 P.N. Wahal, Company Secretary M/s Apollo Tyres Ltd. (xxx) PW177 B. Shiva, Company Secretary, M/s Carbon Corporation Ltd. (xxxi) PW178 Nalin Baijal, DGM, M/s Electrosteel Casting Ltd. (xxxii) PW179 Kartikey B. Dave, Asstt. Company Secretary, M/s Finolex Pipes Ltd. (xxxiii) PW180 Rohit Chhannaalal Shah, Sr. Vice President, M/s Reliance Industries Ltd. (xxxiv) PW181 Sanjay Laxman Mali, Manager, M/s LarsenToubro Ltd. (xxxv) PW182 Rajender Aggarwal, Manager Investor Relation, M/s Nestle India Ltd. (xxxvi) PW185 M.L. Jain, General Manager, M/s Steel Strip Ltd.
(xxxvii) PW187 R.K. Singh, Post office Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi (xxxviii) PW198 Pankaj Kapdeo, Dy. Company Secretary, Grasim Industries Ltd.
Witnesses related to investigation
(i) PW40 Col. B.S. Ahluwalia for proving members of Sainik Niketan Development Association
(ii) PW41 Manoj Kr. Dixit, Lekhpal, Revenue Department, Farukhabad, UP
(iii) PW51 Satbir Singh, UDC Income Tax Department CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 16 of 145
(iv) PW56 J.K. Gogia, ITO for proving valuation reports of articles of lockers
(v) PW57 N.K. Khatri, JE CPWD prepared valuation report of building work of C-33, Sector-14, Noida
(vi) PW58 P.K. Das, Dy. Chief Manager, OBC for proving house search
(vii) PW60 Prem Nath Khanna, private government valuer
(viii) PW110 P.S. Samvedi, Income Tax Department for identifying signature & handwriting of accused Savitri Singh
(ix) PW117 G.L. Nankani, Manager, SBI Medical College, Jabal Pur, MP
(x) PW 120 Bradhi, Income Tax Department for identifying signature & handwriting of accused Savitri Singh
(xi) PW121 Harish Sharma, DMS for identifying signature & handwriting of accused Ram Singh
(xii) PW122 R.C. Punj, DMS for identifying signature & handwriting of accused Ram Singh
(xiii) PW134 Raja Ram, witness to specimen handwriting of Puttu Lal
(xiv) PW140 S.K. Chadha, Handwriting Expert
(xv) PW141 Balkrishan, MTNL, Delhi witness to seizure of documents (xvi) PW146 J.M. Jaiswal, MP State Forest Department for proving house search of brother of A-1 Ram Singh at Bhopal (xvii) PW147 S.D. Dharpure for proving house of brother of A-1 Ram Singh at Bhopal (xviii) PW148 Suresh Yadav for proving house of brother of A-1 Ram Singh at Bhopal (xix) PW149 Amrita P. Puri, State Bank of Patiala, Shastri Bhawan for proving search of locker no. 29 (xx) PW150 Mohan Singh, DDA for proving house search of A-1 at Andrews Ganj (xxi) PW151 B.D. Joshi, DDA for proving house search of A-1 at Andrews Ganj (xxii) PW152 S.R. Dagar, Income Tax Department for proving search locker at PNB Green Park (xxiii) PW153 V.K. Mishra SBI, Bhopal for proving seizure memo (xxiv) PW154 Bhagwan Dass, Canara Bank, Bhopal for proving seizure memo (xxv) PW155 Hero Gianchandani, SBI, Bhopal for proving seizure memo (xxvi) PW156 Shyam Singh Tanwar, Indian Overseas Bank, Kanpur for proving seizure memo (xxvii) PW157 M.R. Gupta, SBI Ballabh Bhawan, Bhopal for proving seizure memo (xxviii) PW170 Padam Singh, Public Relation Inspector, Chanakya Puri, New Delhi (xxix) PW183 Lalit Mohan, Corporation Bank for proving house search (xxx) PW188 Ravinder Singh Jaggi, DSP, Investigating Officer (xxxi) PW189 Dr. M.A. Ali, GEQD (xxxii) PW190 J.S. Emmanuel, Addl. SP/CBI (xxxiii) PW191 D.C. Sorari, DSP/CBI (xxxiv) PW192 M.C. Thapliyal, Inspector/CBI (xxxv) PW196 Dhiraj Khetrapal, Inspector/CBI (xxxvi) PW197 M.C. Joshi, DSP/CBI (xxxvii) PW199 Roby Jawahar, Inspector/CBI Sanctioning Authority
(i) PW94 Shankar Aggarwal, Secretary, Ministry of Labour for proving sanction qua A-1 Ram Singh
(ii) PW96 P.K. Sinha, Commissioner Income Tax for proving sanction qua A-2 Savitri Singh VERSION OF ACCUSED 4.0 Accused Savitri Singh pleaded false implication when she was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C.
CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 17 of 1454.1 She contended that she had not entered into any benami transaction and had no concern with the properties which were in the names of her relatives. She asserted that witnesses of prosecution had deposed falsely under the influence or pressure of CBI. She claimed that her husband-accused Ram Singh had filed an appeal in Income Tax Department and said appeal was decided in favour of her husband holding that properties which were in the names of his relatives did not belong to him and the money for purchasing those properties had not been given by Ram Singh to his relatives. She also claimed that other owners of properties have already filed their claims/objections in the Court.
4.2 She also examined seven witnesses, namely, DW1 Ashok Kumar Singh (her devar/brother-in-law), DW2 Ram Prakash Singh (cousin of her husband Ram Singh), DW3 Dr. Sarita Punia (her younger sister), DW4 Ms. Raj Kumari Singh (her devrani/sister in law), DW5 Ram Avtar Singh (her devar/brother-in-law), DW6 Kusum Lata (her nanad/sister-in-law) and DW-7 Jitender Singh (her son). She also chose to enter into witness box as DW8.
RIVAL CONTENTIONS 5.0 Sh. Rao, Ld. Sr. PP CBI has stated that accused persons had very cleverly and cunningly diverted their ill-gotten money and made huge investment in benami names. They opened number of bank accounts in the names of their relatives and acquaintances. Such ill-gotten money was deposited and later on siphoned off from such accounts for acquiring immovable assets. He contended that report of handwriting expert clearly nails down the complicity of accused Savitri Singh who had shown the audacity of signing in different names for the purpose of opening of bank accounts and investment.
5.1 Sh. Rao has expressed his astonishment claiming that despite the fact that she was a responsible government official, she did not think CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 18 of 145 twice or even blink before indulging into any such fraudulent activity. He has argued that since she knew that her such deceitful act might come to fore, she did not deliberately give her specimen handwriting and signatures and, therefore, adverse inference should be drawn against her. He has also argued that though separate FIRs were registered but since both the accused persons were living together and sharing the same household, it was thought that a consolidated charge sheet would ensure that no prejudice is caused and, therefore, accused cannot claim any disadvantage or discrimination on such account.
5.2 He has argued that the prosecution has been able to prove disproportionate assets by examining number of witnesses and exhibition of several documents. He has also argued that when the lockers of the accused were searched, these were found containing various property documents, FDRs, jewellery, IVPs etc. Since these were found to be in the exclusive possession of the accused, it has to be necessarily inferred that all such articles lying in the locker belonged to the accused and accused alone. Sh. Rao has asserted that accused Savitri Devi has taken a false plea that many such jewellery articles, FDRs and IVPs belonged to her relatives. According to him, no such relative or acquaintance, living at a far off place, would permit all these things to be kept in locker of accused Savitri Devi in Delhi.
5.3 Sh. Rao has also contended that all the objections filed by various objectors have no merit and are liable to be discarded and the attachment order needs to be made absolute.
5.4 All such assertions have been rejected by the defence.
5.5 According to Ld. defence counsel Sh. M. P. Singh, investigation was unfair and biased. It has been argued that for the reasons best known to the investigating agency, they never chose to make any enquiry from Ram Kali or her husband Pehlu Singh. It has been argued that they both were CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 19 of 145 having substantial income, agricultural & rental both, and were in a position to maintain themselves with dignity and also to invest in various properties.
5.6 He has also contended that investigating agency has unjustifiably clubbed two separate FIRs which has caused immense prejudice to the defence. He has agitated that due to untimely demise of accused Ram Singh, Savitri Devi is feeling prejudiced to a very great extent as she is not able to offer satisfactory explanation about some of the alleged acquisition of properties which her husband was definitely in a better position to explain about.
5.7 He has also argued that accused Savitri Devi never forged any document and never signed as someone else. He has argued that the report of Handwriting expert cannot be pressed into service which, even otherwise, is a very weak type of evidence and cannot be relied without sufficient corroboration. He has also drawn my attention towards the testimony of various defence witnesses claiming that all such defence witnesses have demolished the case of prosecution. He has contended that if the properties, which are otherwise acquired by such other relatives, are excluded, it would become absolutely clear that there were no disproportionate assets.
5.8 During the course of arguments, Sh. M. P. Singh, Ld. defence counsel, after taking instructions from the accused who was present during the course of final arguments, reiterated about the admission of several documents by her. While pointing out several entries contained in various annexures, he admitted the following entries:-
Sl. Annexure Serial Number of entries admitted by defence. No. 1 Annexure-I 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 (except Kusum Lata), (Assets held at beginning of check 9 (admitted of self, spouse and their children) period) 10 (admitted of self, spouse and their children), 11, 12 & 13.
2 Annexure-II 1, 2, (Income from known sources) 3 (Admitted but claimed that the actual income was Rs.CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 20 of 145
3,44,350/-), 4 (Admitted but claimed that the actual income was Rs.1,90,750/-),
6 (admitted of self, spouse and their children) 7 (admitted of self, spouse and their children) 8 (admitted of self, spouse and their children) 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 (Admitted but claimed that the total inheritance amount was Rs 70,000/-) 18 (Additional benefit of Rs. 87,500/- has also been claimed towards the salary which Sh. Ram Singh got in India during the period he was abroad).
19 (Besides aforesaid, It has been contended that there was additional Income of Rs. 1,67,345/- from sale of jewellery, of Rs. 2,52,000/- from agricultural income and of Rs. 20,000/- on account of gifts received by Ram Sing and Rs. 50,000/- on account of gifts received by Savitri Singh).
3 Annexure-IV 4, 14, 15, 16, 18, 21, 28, 42, 38, 39, 40, (Assets held at close of check 41 (Only those owned which are in name of self/children period) and not those which are jointly owned with Ram Kali) 43 Shares (only those which she acquired in her name excluding those which she received as part of estate of her deceased father.) 44 (Admitted to the tune of Rs.29,500/- only) 45 (Part of jewellery as recovered from locker of PNB only) 4 Annexure-IV(a) 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 to 14, 16 to 23, 26 to 29, 30, 31 to 33, 34, 38, (Details of FDRs as on close of 40 to 46.
check period) 5 Annexure-IV(b) 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14 to 17, 18, 24, 25, (Details of bank balance as on 28,29,30,32,33,35,36,37, 44, 50, 56, 57, 58, 62, 64, 65 close of check period) (Those account which are jointly owned with Ram Kali, are not admitted on the ground that the amount in those accounts was deposited by Ram Kali only.
6 Annexure-IV(c) All Admitted (Details of post office accounts) 5.9 In rebuttal, Sh. Rao has stated that there was no occasion for investigating agency to have recorded statement of Sh. Pehlu Singh who died in the year 1980, i.e. much before the registration of FIR and therefore, defence is only trying to mislead the court by deliberately making wrong statement.
5.10 Sh. Praveen Suri has defended Objector Sh. Khem Chand. I would take up his contentions in the last.
CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 21 of 145APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE 6.0 Possession of disproportionate assets itself constitutes an of- fence of criminal misconduct. Essentially, such offence is based on the un- stated presumption that such assets must have been acquired by corrupt or illegal means or by abuse of official position. No further proof of mens rea is, therefore, required to be established.
6.1 Ingredients of the offence under Section 13(1) (e) of the 1988 Act are as under:-
(i) the accused is a public servant;
(ii) the nature and extent of the pecuniary resources of property found in his possession;
(iii) his known sources of income ;
(iv) such resources or properties found in possession of the accused are disproportionate to his known sources of income.
6.2 Once the aforementioned ingredients are established by the prosecution, the burden of proof shifts on the accused to show that the prosecution case was not correct. Accused is required to satisfactorily account for possession by him of assets disproportionate to his income. The extent and nature of burden of proof resting upon the public servant cannot be higher than establishing his case by a preponderance of probability. But, at the same time, as rightly pointed out by Sh. Rao while relying on State of MP Vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta 2004(1) SCC 691, legislature has advisedly used the expression "satisfactorily account" and has thus, deliberately cast a burden on the accused not only to offer a plausible explanation as to how he came by his large wealth but also to satisfy the Court that his explanation was worthy of acceptance. Thus such burden has to be discharged in a satisfactory manner as well.
CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 22 of 1456.3 Sh. M.P. Singh has vehemently asserted that the death of Ram Singh has left a big vacuum in the case thereby causing serious prejudice to his surviving spouse, she being not in a position to explain several such assets acquired by him particularly when she is more than 70 years of age and confined to wheel chair.
6.4 I am mindful of the fact that prime accused Ram Singh died during the trial. In such type of matters, the explanation given by accused carries immense importance. Of course, had Ram Singh been alive, he might have offered explanation and clarification about some of the assets in somewhat better manner. Viewed from that angle, the situation is indeed tricky as offence, normally, would stand proved when accused fails to offer any explanation. Therefore, ideal and prudence requirement would to offer every such accused a proper opportunity during the investigation stage itself instead of asking him to reveal his version before the court, on being summoned. Soliciting explanation from him at the very threshold would help investigating agency as well as the court to comprehend as to for which properties or acquisition, he has any disagreement. As far as possible, such final chart containing figures related to assets, income and expenditure should be properly served upon him during the investigation stage itself and he should be clearly asked to respond to all such entries in writing. This might also avert any possibility of having any grievance or prejudice from the side of accused. I can only expect that investigating agency would keep such suggestion in mind in future while conducting investigation in such type of matters.
6.5 Though, death of Ram Singh would not automatically imply that a grave prejudice is caused to his surviving accused, I would deal with the defence contentions bit more sympathetically and liberally while also ensuring that no injustice is caused to CBI.
CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 23 of 145ISSUE OF BENAMI PROPERTY AND BENAMI ACCOUNTS 7.0 According to Ld. Prosecutor, accused persons had devised a novel way and opened up multiple bank accounts in the names of their other relatives. All such benami accounts were managed and controlled by none other than by accused persons and, in particularly, by accused Savitri Singh. He has contended that the holder-on-record did not have even an inkling that any such account in his/her name had been opened. So much so, the signatures on relevant bank-documents had been put by accused Savitri Devi herself.
7.1 Let me deal with such alleged benami accounts and benami properties. However, before that, let me also see the pedigree table of ac- cused persons. Same is as under:-
Pehlwan Singh (Spouse- Ram kali) Sukhdevi Kusum Lata Ashok Singh (Spouse- (DW6) (DW1) Ram Avtar Ram Snehi Spouse- Ram DW5 Das (Spouse DW4) Raj Kumari) Ram Singh (Accused) Spouse- Savitri Singh (Accused) Ankita Sweta Rohit Jitender@ Sandeep DW7 Gaurav Singh Sangeeta Bala Singh CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 24 of 145 7.2 The alleged benami properties and accounts etc. were, as per CBI, taken in the names of Ram Kali, Raj Kumari Singh, Ashok Kumar Singh, Ram Avtar Singh, Ram Prakash, Puttu Lal, Kusum Lata and children of Raj Kumari Singh.
7.3 According to defence, as already noted above, accused had no connection with any such account or property in said names and those persons/relatives themselves had either opened up such accounts or bought property or made investment with their own money. It has been claimed that Pehlu Singh had enough of means to take care of his children and he and Ramkali had substantial income from agriculture as well as by creating tenancy. It has been reiterated that they were never examined by CBI during investigation to obtain a clear picture and before, they could be examined in defence, they both left for their heavenly abode.
7.4 Where a person buys a property with his own money but in the name of another person without any intention to benefit such other person, the transaction is called benami. In that case, the transferee holds the property for the benefit of the person who has contributed the purchase money, and he is the real owner. Hon'ble Delhi High Court has, in the case of Krishna Kumar v. Harnamdas [1991] 56 Taxman 233 (Delhi), held that Benami transaction means any transaction in which the property is transferred to one person for a consideration paid or provided by another person and that such transaction would stand attracted if (i) there is a transfer of property, and (ii) the consideration is paid or provided not by the transferee, but by another person.
7.5 The burden of proof regarding benami is upon the one who alleges benami. Naturally, here, in the case in hand, such onus lies upon prosecution. Such aspect of benami transaction was considered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Valliammal (D) By Lrs vs Subramaniam & Ors (2004) 7 SCC 233, wherein it was held as under:
CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 25 of 145"This Court in a number of judgments has held that it is well- established that burden of proving that a particular sale is benami lies on the person who alleges the transaction to be a benami. The essence of a benami transaction is the intention of the party or parties concerned and often, such intention is shrouded in a thick veil which cannot be easily pierced through. But such difficulties do not relieve the person asserting the transaction to be benami of any part of the serious onus that rests on him, nor justify the acceptance of mere conjectures or surmises, as a substitute for proof. Referred to Jaydayal Poddar Vs. Bibi Hazra, 1974 (1) SCC 3; Krishnanand Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1977 (1) SCC 816; Thakur Bhim Singh Vs. Thakur Kan Singh, 1980 (3) SCC 72; His Highness Maharaja Pratap Singh Vs. Her Highness Maharani Sarojini Devi & Ors., 1994 (Supp. (1) SCC 734; and Heirs of Vrajlal J. Ganatra Vs. Heirs of Parshottam S. Shah, 1996 (4) SCC 490. It has been held that in the judgments referred to above that the question whether a particular sale is a benami or not, is largely one of fact, and for determining the question no absolute formulas or acid test, uniformly applicable in all situations can be laid. After saying so, this Court spelt out following six circumstances which can be taken as a guide to determine the nature of the transaction:
1. the source from which the purchase money came;
2. the nature and possession of the property, after the purchase;
3. motive, if any, for giving the transaction a benami colour;
4. the position of the parties and the relationship, if any, between the claimant and the alleged benamidar;
5. the custody of the title deeds after the sale; and
6. the conduct of the parties concerned in dealing with the property after the sale.
The above indicia are not exhaustive and their efficacy varies according to the facts of each case. Nevertheless, the source from where the purchase money came and the motive why the property was purchased benami are by far the most important tests for determining whether the sale standing in the name of one person, is in reality for the benefit of another"
7.6 The Supreme Court in G. Mahalingppaa v. G. M. Savitha [2005] 147 Taxman 583 (SC) also observed that the following findings of facts arrived at by the appellate court and the trial court would conclusively prove that the transaction in question was benami in nature: (i) the appellant had paid the purchase money; (ii) the original title deed was with the appellant; (iii) the appellant had mortgaged the suit property for raising loan to improve the same; (iv) he paid taxes for the suit property; (v) he had let out the suit property and collecting rents from the tenants; (vi) the motive for purchasing the suit property in the name of plaintiff was that the plaintiff was CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 26 of 145 born on an auspicious nakshatra and the appellant believed that if the property was purchased in the name of plaintiff / respondent, the appellant would prosper; and (vii) the circumstances surrounding the transaction, relationship of the parties and subsequent conduct of the appellant.
7.7 One can also be guided by the principles laid down in Jayadayal Poddar (Deceased) through LRs and Anr. v. Mst. Bibi Hazra [1974] 2 SCR 90 and Bhim Singh v. Kan Singh AIR [1980] SC 727.
7.8 Thus, all aforesaid factors are of immense importance to determine whether the transaction is benami or not. A combination of some or all of them and a proper weighing and appreciation of their value would obviously go a long way towards indicating whether the transaction was benami or not. I would also remind myself that in every benami transaction, the intention of the parties is the essence.
7.9 I would now take up the aspect of such benami accounts and properties.
Bank accounts opened in the name of Raj Kumari Singh 8.0 As per details appearing in charge sheet in Annexure-IV(b), following bank account had been opened in the name of Raj Kumari Singh:-
Sl. Name of Bank/Account Balance During D. No./Ex. No. Related PW No. Holders/Account Number April, 1992 (13.4.1992) Bank of India, Bhahadur Shah Zafar Marg, N. Delhi
5. Raj Kumari Singh SB A/c 0 D-110 PW-54, PW-65 2156 and PW-92 Syndicate Bank, Sec. 8, R.K. Puram, New Delhi
61. Raj Kumari Singh SB A/c 507.75 D-137 PW-6 (Bank 320030 D-250 Official) PW-33 (Son of introducer) CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 27 of 145 PW-87 Union Bank of India, Moti Bagh, New Delhi
63. Raj Kumari Singh SB A/c 0 D-161 to D-168 PW-63, PW-64, 2449 PW-85 and PW-101
8.1 Raj Kumari Singh happens to be the wife of Ram Avatar, brother of accused Ram Singh.
8.2 It will be worthwhile to mention here that Raj Kumari Singh entered into witness box as well and got herself examined as DW-4. I have seen her deposition very carefully and in her testimony, she made reference about three vital things.
8.3 Firstly, she claimed that she had purchased flat no. 4/2 Vaishali, Ghaziabad in the year 1989 and that she had accordingly deposited Rs. 31,000/- same year. She, however, specifically claimed that she had not purchased any other property in Noida nor had booked any property in Noida. Secondly, she made reference about her statement of account in Syndicate Bank, R. K. Puram. According to her, it was her own account. She also made reference to specimen signature card (Ex. PW 33/A) and several related cheques claiming that such card and cheques were bearing her signatures. Thirdly, she made mention about the 'Objection' which had been filed by her and her daughter Ankita. Surprisingly, as regards such Objection Petition (Ex. DW 4/9), she claimed that these objections were not filed by her. Though she did claim that such objections were bearing her signature at point 'A' but according to her, these were never filed by her and she never conveyed the facts mentioned therein to anybody. She also claimed that she had one gold set and four bangles which she had kept with accused Savitri Singh as her area was not safe.
CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 28 of 1458.4 Evidently, in her deposition, she made reference about account with Syndicate Bank, R. K. Puram only whereas according to prosecution, there were two more accounts in which she had been falsely shown as account holder, i.e. account in Bank of India, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg and account in Union Bank of India, Moti Bagh. Though, bank balance in both such accounts was found 'Zero' as on closing of the check period but since prosecution had categorically asserted that even these two accounts were managed and maintained by none other than accused Savitri Singh, it would have been certainly better if she had whispered something or the other about those accounts as well. However, in her examination-in-chief she did not make any statement with respect to said two accounts, either way. Omission on said aspect indicates that she had no connection with said two accounts, else she must have made reference about those as well.
8.5 During investigation, CBI had taken into possession relevant documents including account opening form/signature cards and various cheques/vouchers.
8.6 Admittedly, during the investigation, accused Savitri Singh had denied to give her specimen handwriting and, therefore, an adverse inference should be drawn against her and it should be assumed that if she had given her specimen handwriting and signatures, it would have established that such benami accounts belonged to her and that she had signed on the relevant bank documents in a fraudulent manner.
8.7 Faced with the peculiar denial on the part of accused Savitri Singh, prosecution did the next best thing. It took specimen handwriting of Raj Kumari Singh and then sent the relevant documents pertaining to said three accounts to CFSL for comparison with such specimen handwriting of DW-4 Raj Kumari Singh as well as with available admitted handwriting of accused Savitri Singh.
CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 29 of 1458.8 The report of Dr. M. Ali, Senior Scientific Officer-cum-Assistant Chemical Examiner clinches the issue in favour of prosecution. Such relevant report has been proved as Ex. PW 189/5 (D-248).
8.9 I have seen the documents with respect to account of Syndicate Bank which are contained in D-250. There are some crucial signatures. These include signatures Q-1 and Q-2, Q-2/1 on the account opening form/specimen card and various other signatures on cheques and vouchers i.e. Q-3 to Q-8 and Q-19/1. The documents with respect to Union Bank of India, Moti Bagh are contained in D-251 and the signatures of the alleged account holder, i.e. Raj Kumari Singh are on Q-9, Q-9/1. There are other signatures also which have been assigned number as Q-10 to Q-14 and Q-
21. The documents related to Bank of India, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg branch are contained in D-263 which, inter-alia, contain signature of the alleged account holder, i.e. Raj Kumari Singh at Q-181/1 on one cheque dated 24.7.1986.
8.10 As per the specific report of Dr. Ali, all these signatures appearing in account opening form/specimen signature cards as well as on some of the cheques/vouchers were found to be of none other than accused Savitri Singh. To make things worse for defence, Dr. Ali also opined that some of these questioned signatures as well as some of the questioned writings with respect to said three bank accounts did not stand connected with specimen writing/signatures (Mark S-1 to S-3) and admitted handwriting/signatures (A-1 to A-11) of Raj Kumari Singh. Such report makes it amply evident that the said three accounts had been opened by accused Savitri Singh and she was managing the same.
8.11 Moreover, Raj Kumari Singh is resident of Shahpura, Bhopal. She got married in the year 1979 and there was no reason for her to have opened any such bank account in Delhi. Though she tried to own up account No. 320030 of Syndicate Bank, R. K. Puram, fact remains that report of Dr. CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 30 of 145 Ali clearly belies her stand. Quite possibly, being a close relative of accused Savitri Singh, she has tried to help her out by owning up these forged documents, manifestly, prepared by Savitri Singh.
8.12 Since, I have dealt with the bank account, allegedly in the name of Raj Kumari Singh, it would be important to deal with any FDR or CDR in her name right here. As far as Annexure IV(a) of charge sheet is concerned, there is no FDR or CDR in the name of Raj Kumari Singh.
8.13 However, there are three CDRs of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Munirka, which are mentioned at serial no. 35 to 37 as per following details:-
Sl. Name of FD FD No. & Date FD amount Source
No. Holder SBA/C
No.
35. Rohit Singh U/G CDR No. 522/91 6,800.00 SB A/C
Savitri Singh A/c dated 11.4.91 (Ex. PW14/B) 7334 (D-389)
36. Ms. Sweta CDR No. 523/91 6,600.00 SB A/c Singh U/G dated 11.4.91 (Ex. PW14/A) Savitri Singh (D-389) A/C 7335
37. Ankita Singh CDR No. 524/91 6,700.00 SB A/c U/G Savitri dated 11.4.91 (Ex. PW14/C) Singh A/c 7336 (D-389) 8.14 It is important to mention that Raj Kumari Singh deposed in her examination-in-chief that she had got prepared FDRs in the name of her daughter Ankita, Shweta and son Rohit. According to her, such FDRs were got prepared from Oriental Bank of Commerce, Munirka Branch in the year 1989. These CDRs have been got issued from Oriental Bank of Commerce where admittedly, accused Savitri Singh was also having an account. Raj Kumari Singh was having no account with said branch of Oriental Bank of Commerce and, therefore, it is hard to believe that she would come to Delhi from Bhopal for said insignificant purpose.
CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 31 of 1458.15 PW-14 Sh. V.P.S. Punia has also been examined by prosecution with respect to said three CDRs of Oriental Bank of Commerce. He has, however, claimed that these FDRs/CDRs had nothing to do with him or any of his family members.
8.16 Fact remains that in view of the aforesaid discussion, it becomes evident that these three CDRs were owned by none other than accused Savitri Singh. Moreover, there is one fact which clearly corroborates that accused Savitri Singh was the actual holder of the amount under said three CDRs. Reference be made to search-cum-seizure memo Ex. PW 168/1 (part of D-382). When locker No. 907 of PNB, Green Park Branch was got drilled opened, it was found containing various articles of gold jewellery, silver coins besides cash and other bank related documents. One bunch of FDRs was also recovered and all the aforesaid three CDRs No. 522/91, 523/91 and 524/91 were also found lying in said locker. If at all these CDRs had been got prepared by Raj Kumari Singh herself, there was no reason or occasion for her to have parted with the same. Recovery of these CDRs from the exclusive possession of accused Savitri Singh from her locker and also in view of the aforesaid report of Handwriting Expert, I am persuaded to hold that these CDRs were owned by accused Savitri Singh. Right here, I would also hasten to add that various bank accounts held with OBC, Munirka Branch and as mentioned at Sr. No. 38 to Sr. 43 of Annexure-IV (b) also stand attributed to accused Savitri Singh particularly in light of testimony of PW42 Sh. N.K. Madan who has proved the relevant documents related to account opening and whose testimony clearly indicates that these accounts were opened under the guardianship of accused Savitri Singh.
8.17 Let me now refer to one asset i.e. Flat No. IV/002 at Vaishali Housing Scheme, Ghaziabad, U.P., mentioned at serial no. 13 of Annexure- IV, allegedly in the name of Ms. Raj Kumari Singh. The concerned official from Ghaziabad Development Authority has proved the relevant documents.
CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 32 of 1458.18 Reference be made to the testimony of PW-19 Uma Malik. According to her deposition, one application Ex. PW 19/A signed by Savitri Singh and Raj Kumari Singh was received by them in their office but the applicant was Mrs. Savitri Singh wife of Ram Singh. Along with application, an amount of Rs. 31010/- was deposited by Savitri Singh vide DD and Savitri Singh was allotted said house. The estimated cost of same was Rs. 31,00,000/-. It will be also important to mention here that part payment for said allotment had been made from the aforesaid referred bank account of Syndicate Bank, R. K. Puram. I have already noticed that such account was actually owned by accused Savitri Singh alone. Though according to Raj Kumari Singh, she herself had purchased the said property and deposited the amount but fact remains that even as per the application, though it was a joint application, the allotment application was, primarily, on behalf of Savitri Devi who was shown as first applicant.
8.19 Such application bears signature of applicants i.e. Savitri Singh (Q-498 and Q-504) and Raj Kumari Singh at Q-499. However, as per report of GEQD, these three signatures were found to be of none other than accused Savitri Singh herself. Reference be made to report Ex. PW 189/3. Moreover, one more receipt, whereby the payment of Rs. 62,000/- was made to Ghaziabad Development Authority has been proved as Ex. PW 19/E. Such receipt contains purported signature of Raj Kumari Singh at Q-487. As per report of GEQD, again, such signatures were found to be of accused Savitri Singh.
8.20 Therefore, it becomes apparent that such property of Vaishali belonged to accused Savitri Singh alone.
8.21 There is one more immovable asset which though is in the name of Raj Kumari Singh but allegedly owned by accused Savitri Singh. It is as per the following details:
CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 33 of 145Sl. Property Details & Date of initial Worth of D. No. / Prosecution Witness No. purchased in the name of purchase property Ex. No. /investment
33. Appl. No. 4080 invested in 03.07.89 7,670.00 D-277 PW-71, PW-72 the name of Raj Kumari PW-78 , PW-82 Singh PW-189 8.22 Application No. 04080 allegedly moved on behalf of Raj Kumari Singh is contained in D-277. Such application and the attached challan contain signatures of Raj Kumari Singh at points Q-446, Q-447, Q-448/2 and Q-449. Alleged handwriting of Raj Kumari Singh are at point Q-445, Q-448/1 and Q-450. As per report of GQED, which has been proved as Ex. PW 189/3, all these questioned handwritings and signature rather matched with the handwriting and signature of accused Savitri Singh. Therefore, it is evident that said application for allotment was moved by Savitri Singh in false name of Raj Kumari Singh.
8.23 Right here, I would also comment that as far as the aforesaid aspect related to application for allotment of said plot of Indira Puram is concerned, DW-4 Raj Kumari Singh categorically claimed that she had not applied for any plot except for the aforesaid plot of Vaishali. Thus, said investment has to be inferred as the one made by accused Savitri Singh.
Since the amount had been merely invested for allotment purpose and since the property had not, actually, been allotted by the close of the check period, it should not have been, strictly speaking, construed as an acquisition of immovable property and should have been treated as expenditure amount. However, in ultimate calculation process, it would not make much difference.
8.24 There is one more property which is allegedly in the joint name of Raj Kumari and Jitender Kumar Singh (son of accused) which is as under:-
CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 34 of 145Sl. Property Details & Date of initial Worth of D. No. / Relevant No. purchased in the name of purchase property Prosecution Ex. No. /investment Witnesses
1. Plot No. 260, at Annad Kunj 22.02.90 19,750.00 Ex. PW 7/C PW-7 (Wazidpur), Dadri, (D-1 & D-2) PW-18 Ghaziabad purchased in the name of Raj Kumari Singh PW-50 and Jitendra Kumar Singh PW-70 8.25 I have seen the testimony of related witnesses, i.e. PW-7, PW-
18, PW-50 and PW-70. Testimony of PW -50 Ramesh Kohli is important. He was partner of firm M/s K.K. Estate Developers which had sold the aforesaid property. Though the sale deed is found in the name of Mrs. Raj Kumari Singh and Mr. Jitender Kumar Singh but fact remains that PW-50 Ramesh Kohli has categorically claimed in his deposition that the application form for such allotment was Ex. PW 50/B. Along with such application form, receipt issued by Developer has been proved as Ex. PW 18/E which was in lieu of Cheque No. 567297 of Rs. 8,000/- dated 7.3.1989 drawn on Syndicate Bank, R.K. Puram Branch towards earnest money. In cross-examination, this witness also claimed that since at the time of sale, presence of the purchaser was not required, the purchaser was not present.
8.26 I have already discussed above that the aforesaid bank account of Syndicate Bank was being controlled and managed by accused Savitri Singh only. Moreover, Raj Kumari Singh had graced the witness box as defence witness and she did not utter even a single word regarding her being owner of any such property. On the contrary, she categorically stated that she did not possess any other property. Moreover, as regards sale consideration of Rs. 14,000/- no light has been thrown either by DW-4 Raj Kumari Singh or by her husband Ram Avatar Singh (DW-5) as to how such amount was arranged by them. There is no intimation about said investment and intended acquisition by Ram Avatar to his employer.
CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 35 of 1458.27 More importantly, Raj Kumari Singh, as already noted above, disowned her Objection Petition Ex. DW 4/9. Therefore, for all practical purposes, such property is to be construed as benami property held by accused Savitri Singh.
Assets held by Sh. Ram Avtar Singh 9.0 As per details appearing in Annexure-IV of the charge-sheet, two properties were though acquired in the name of Ram Avtar Singh yet according to prosecution, said two properties were owned by accused persons and Ram Avtar Singh had never applied for the following said two properties.
9.1 One property is of Paschim Vihar and other is the investment made for allotment of plot with Greater Noida. These are as per the following details:-
17. Flat No. LIG G-17, GH-8, 484, 15.05.89 95,181.42 Ex. PW 74/1 to Ex. PW-74 at Paschim Vihar purchased in PW 74/3 (D-282).
the name of Ram Avtar Singh (DDA Official)
Ex. PW 13/A to Ex.
PW 13/C (D-281) PW-13
(Acquaintance of
accused)
32. Reg. No. 6471 at Greater 10.04.92 8,500.00 Ex. PW 71/A PW-71 (G. Noida
Noida Dev. Authority invested Official)
in the name of Ram Avtar
Singh PW-72 (G. Noida
Official)
9.2 It will be worthwhile to mention here that Ram Avtar Singh
happens to be the real brother of accused Ram Singh and he entered into witness box as DW5 as well. He deposed that he had applied for DDA Flat in the year 1979 and property no. 8/484, Paschim Vihar was allotted to him by DDA. In his examination-in-chief, he made reference to various documents CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 36 of 145 contained in D281 to D-284 and also owned up number of signatures appearing at several places. He claimed that even the challans were filled up by him in his handwriting and were bearing his signatures. He admitted his signatures on following documents:
S. No. Brief Description of Exhibit Q Number
Document Number
1 Application DW5/6 Q519
2 Affidavit DW5/5 Q520/1 & Q520/2
3 Undertaking DW5/4 Q521
4 Challan DW5/2 --
5 Challan DW5/3 --
6 Specimen signature PW13/A Q523/1
7 Challan PW66/C Q543/2
8 Challan PW66/B Q544/2
9.3 It is also important to mention that he was working as
Accountant in MP Forest Development Corporation, Bhopal. His office was also maintaining his personal files. During investigation, such personal files Ex. DW5/P1 (D-342) and Ex. DW5/P2 (D-343) were collected. DW5 Sh. Ram Avtar Singh claimed that he had intimated his office regarding the aforesaid allotment of DDA Flat but when he was shown said personal files, he had to cut sorry figure and had to admit that there was no such intimation to that effect by him to his office. This, automatically, makes his testimony totally unreliable. His such personal files were also containing number of leave applications and other documents which were containing his handwriting and signatures as well and it would need no discerning eyes to distinguish between the signatures appearing on such admitted documents in his personal files and the signatures appearing in the file related to allotment of flat by DDA. These are totally different. Signatures appearing in the correspondence made with DDA do not match 'even a bit' with the signatures appearing in the personal files. This has potential to indicate that he had CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 37 of 145 never, actually, applied for any such property and that his brother Ram Singh and accused Savitri Singh were pulling the strings and were using his name for the purpose of acquisition of said flat of DDA.
9.4 There is one more investment related to Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority.
9.5 DW5 Sh. Ram Avtar Singh claimed in his examination-in-chief that he had applied for such flat on 27.03.1992 and deposited Rs. 8,500/-
vide receipt dated 27.03.1992. He made reference to such receipt as well and proved the same as Ex. DW5/8. He claimed that handwriting contained in said receipt was his handwriting. Such portion was encircled as Q627. Such file of Greater Noida also contained one affidavit which was bearing signature of same Sh. Ram Avtar Singh at Q632 & Q633. Fact remains that even these signatures do not match with his admitted signatures. Moreover, there is no intimation by him to his department with respect to investment/allotment regarding any such flat. In the aforesaid backdrop, the testimony of GEQD also assumes immense importance. I have seen report Ex. PW189/3 of Dr. Ali and at page 6 of his said report, he has categorically observed that handwriting evidence pointed to the writer of admitted handwriting of Savitri Singh being the person responsible for various questioned writings and signatures including writings/ signatures at points Q-626 to Q-629 and Q-632 to Q-637.
9.6 It will be also important to mention here that Sh. Ram Avtar Singh had sent a letter to accused Ram Singh and such letter was seized during the investigation. It was containing handwriting of Sh. Ram Avtar Singh besides his signatures. These were marked as Q-734, Q-735, Q-735A and Q- 735B. Such questioned portions were tallied with the available admitted handwriting of Sh. Ram Avtar Singh as available in his leave applications and were marked as A-117 to A-134 and A-137 to A-146. As per report Ex. PW189/2 of Dr. Ali, the admitted handwriting of Ram Avtar Singh matched CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 38 of 145 with the questioned writing Q-734 and Q-735A. Thus, it stood established that said letter D-417 (xxiv) had been written by none other than Ram Avtar Singh. The contents of said letter clearly reflects the poor financial condition of Sh. Ram Avtar Singh which also is indicative of the fact that Sh. Ram Avtar Singh was in no position to apply for any immovable property.
9.7 Thus, both the aforesaid assets are held to be benami assets of accused persons.
ACCOUNT HELD IN THE NAME OF SMT. KUSUM LATA 10.0 Kusum Lata happens to be real sister of accused Ram Singh. She has entered into witness box as defence witness.
10.1 According to investigating agency, accused(s) were holding following bank accounts and FDRs in her name:-
Sl. Name of FD FD No. & FD amount Source D/Ex. No. PW No. Holder Date
3. Kusum Lata Das DBD No. 17,608.45 Old FD D-379 PW 54 A/c 2245 19/601 (page 5) PW 65 dated PW 92 Bank of India, 225.03.92 Bhahadur S. Z. Marg, N. Delhi
24. Kusum Lata Das KDR No. 8,000.00 SB A/c Ex. PW PW 29 A/c 2908 950/90 29/J-3 PW 47 dated (D-260) PW 77 Canara Bank, 28.9.90 PW 91 Munirka Sl. Name of Bank/Account Balance During D. No./Ex. No. PW No. No. Holders/Account Number April, 1992 (13.4.1992) Bank of India, Bhahadur S. Z. Marg, N. Delhi
6. Kusum Lata Ds SB A/c 2245 0 Ex. PW54/B (D-379) PW54 PW65 PW92 CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 39 of 145 Central Bank of India, Press Area, New Delhi.
21. Kusum Lata Das, SB A/c 5,897.35 D-130 PW199 17824 Canara Bank, Munirka, N. Delhi
26. Kusum Lata Das SB A/c 1,113.40 Ex. PW29/J1-J3 PW29 2908 PW77 10.2 According to defence, these accounts were opened by DW-6 Kusum Lata and were being managed by her. In this regard, strong reliance has been placed upon the deposition of DW-6 Kusum Lata.
10.3 I have carefully gone through the deposition of Kusum Lata.
Admittedly, she claimed that she had bank accounts in Bank of Baroda, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, Central Bank of India, Press Area and Canara Bank, Munirka branch. She also made reference to various documents with respect to the said accounts as well as FDRs obtained through such accounts.
10.4 In her cross-examination, she claimed that she was married in the year 1979. Her husband was working as Deputy Regional Marketing Officer. When asked about his salary in the year 1979, she ducked the answer claiming that she did not remember the same. Her husband remained posted at various places at Farukhabad, Bijnour, Muradabad, Banda, Laliptpur, Bulandshahar, Orai, Aligarh, Basti Jhansi, Calcutta, Gorkhpur and Azamgarh etc. He never remained posted in Delhi and it is indeed little surprising as to why she opened these three accounts in Delhi, more so, when even as per her own version, she rarely used to come to Delhi i.e. only once or twice a year.
10.5 Ld. Sr. PP has, again, drawn my attention towards the opinion of GEQD and claimed that various documents related to aforesaid accounts and FDRs were, in fact, found having signatures of accused Savitri Singh. Reference has been made to signatures appearing at Q-153 and Q-139 with respect to Canara Bank, Q-167 and Q-168 with respect to Bank of India and CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 40 of 145 Q-195/2, Q-197/3, Q-198/2, Q-199/3 with respect to Central Bank of India. I have seen all these documents contained in D-260, D-262 and D-264 respectively. I have also seen the report of GEQD. According to said report, the aforesaid signatures stand attributed to accused Savitri Singh. This clearly indicates that these were benami accounts and though these were opened in the name of Kusum Lata, these were managed by accused Savitri Singh, to the exclusion of all others including Kusum Lata.
ASSETS IN THE NAME OF ASHOK KUMAR SINGH 11.0 Ashok Kumar Singh is real brother of accused Ram Singh.
11.1 According to CBI, he was merely a student at the relevant time and had no personal income or personal asset and, therefore, it was not possible for him to have purchased any immovable property. It has also been contended that properties acquired in his name are actually owned by accused persons and even the bank accounts were being controlled by accused persons.
11.2 Following immovable properties, bank deposits and saving bank accounts have been shown to be in name of Sh. Ashok Kumar Singh:-
IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES Sl. Property Details & purchased in Date of Worth of D. No. / Related No. the name of initial property Witness purchase/i Ex. No. nvestment 3 Plot No. 240, at Anand Kunj, 22.02.90 19750 Ex. PW7/C PW7 (Wazidpur), purchased in the (D-1 & D-2) PW18 name of Ashok Kumar Singh and Gaurav Kumar Singh PW50 PW70
7. Plot No. 46/21, at Raj Nagar 01.06.89 1,47,060.00 Ex. PW 8/A to Ex. PW PW8 Extn.-II, Palam purchased in the 8/F (D-1).
name of Ashok Kumar Singh CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 41 of 145
11. Plot No. E-346, invested in the 20.04.89 17,902.00 Ex. PW 107/1 PW107 name of Ashok Kumar Singh (D-7) Builder/Developer
22. Mem. No. 252, Purnima Co- 03.07.89 35,594.00 Ex. PW 197/39 PW88 operative Housing Society Ltd.
G-2329, at Netaji Nagar in the (D-27) PW197
name of Ashok Kumar Singh
31. Reg. No. 6474 at Greater Noida 10.04.92 8,500.00 Ex. PW 71/Z-7 (D-24) PW71
Dev. Authority invested in the
name of Ashok Kumar Singh (D-290) PW72
PW78
PW82
36. Appl. No. 59198 invested in the 28.07.89 7,670.00 Ex. PW 78/8 to Ex. PW71
name of Ashok Kumar Singh PW 78/13
PW72
(D-277)
PW78
PW82
BANK ACCOUNTS
11. Ashok Kumar Singh SB A/c 332, 7,840.62 D-120 & D-121 PW83
Bank of India, Farukhabad
19. Ashok Kumar Singh SB A/c 2,388.30 Ex. PW 31/A to PW 31/J PW31
2960, Central Bank of India, (D-131 to D-136) PW43
Noida PW116
27. Ashok Kumar Singh SB A/c 535, 1,896.20 Ex. PW29/C1-C3 PW29
Canara Bank, Munirka, New PW77
Delhi
49. Ashok Kumar Singh SB A/c 187.75 D-213 & D-214 PW-117
16806, SBI Medical College, (Bank Official)
Jabalpur, MP
FIXED DEPOSITS
15. Ashok Kumar MMD No. 21,000.00 SB A/c Ex. PW 31/D- PW31
Singh A/c 2960, 9/18 dated 14 (D-133)
Central Bank of 16.4.91 Cheque Ex.
India, Noida PW 31/I (D-
136)
25. Ashok Kumar KDR No. 4,301.25 Old FD Ex. PW 77/10 PW29
Singh A/c 535 179/91 (D-108) PW47
dated PW77
2.3.91 PW91
39. Ashok Kumar FDR No. 12,000.00 Cash D-379 (P-4) PW-117
Singh A/c 16806 1893 dated Ex. PW 117/3
12.2.90 and 117/4 (D-
213/214)
CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 42 of 145
11.3 Sh. Ashok Kumar Singh has entered into witness box as DW1.
11.4 I have seen his testimony very carefully. He did make reference
to bank accounts of Bank of India, Central Bank of India and Canara Bank. He did claim that all these accounts were opened by him and he owned up the account opening forms and also made reference to pay-in-slips claiming that such amount was deposited by him. As regards amount deposited in account no. 332, Bank of India, District Farukhabad, he claimed that such account used to be operated by his mother Smt. Ram Kali. In his cross- examination, he claimed that he completed his MBBS in the year 1994 and his earning started from 01.04.1994 with the beginning of his internship. He also deposed that his mother was having agriculture income and income by selling milk though he failed to quantify the same. According to him, he left his native village when he was 6-7 years of age and started living with his elder brother Ram Singh wherever he remained posted. Though he remained with his brother-accused Ram Singh but according to him, his educational expenses were borne by his mother Smt. Ram Kali. As regards immovable property, he claimed that as far as he remembered, his mother Ram Kali had purchased a plot in the year 1986-87 supplementing further that he was not aware as to who had made the payment for such plot. He also claimed that application Ex. PW1/4 (part of D-27) was bearing his signatures whereby he had applied for membership of Poornima Group Housing Society. Except for the aforesaid, he did not make any reference about any immovable property.
11.5 Undoubtedly, bank account can be opened even if a person is not earning anything and even if the person is minor or a student. Such fact would not be, in itself, sufficient to suspect anything.
11.6 As far as Plot No. 240, Anand Kunj, Wazid Pur is concerned, according to Sh. Rao, a total investment of Rs. 19,750/- was made and though property was purchased in the name of Ashok Kumar Singh yet the entire consideration was paid by accused Savitri Singh and her husband.
CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 43 of 14511.7 Such contention has been resisted by defence.
11.8 I have seen the relevant documents regarding purchase of the property which are contained in D-2 as well as the bank record of Canara Bank which is contained in D-101 to D-103. Account opening form of Munirka Branch of Canara Bank has been proved as Ex. PW29/C-2 and statement of account has been proved as Ex. PW29/C (D-103). It will be important to mention that such bank account was opened way back in the year 1983 and there are transactions regarding deposits and withdrawal right from the beginning. As per said statement of account, on 08.03.1989 two cash deposits of Rs. 2,800/- & Rs. 2,600/- were made in said account and with the help of said amount as well as the balance already lying in said account, cheque in a sum of Rs. 8,000/- was prepared in the name of M/s Kay Kay Estates for acquiring said property. Investigating agency was also able to collect various deposit slips/vouchers but fact remains that as far as the aforesaid two vital cash deposits are concerned, it could not lay its hands upon those vouchers/ pay-in-slips.
11.9 As per the record of M/s Kay Kay Estates, a sum of Rs. 8,000/- was paid initially vide cheque and thereafter a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was deposited in cash. The cash deposit-slip of Rs. 10,000/- has been proved as Ex. PW18/B. If testimony of PW48 Pawan Kochar is to be believed then according to him, the plot was purchased by Ashok Kumar Singh and sale amount was paid by Ashok Kumar Singh. Total sale amount was Rs. 18,000/- and Ashok Kumar Singh also bore the expenses of Rs. 1,750/- towards stamp duty.
11.10 Be that as it may, there is no convincing material on record which may show that said bank account was maintained and controlled by accused Savitri Singh or that payment for purchasing the aforesaid plot was made by Savitri Singh and not by Ashok Kumar Singh.
CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 44 of 14511.11 According to Sh. Rao, two more aspects require intense consideration. Firstly, when the account was opened with the Canara Bank, Ashok Kumar Singh had not attained the age of discretion and he was still a student and less than 18 years of age. Bank record does not reflect any such thing and there are no signatures of anyone as guardian. As per Sh. Rao, the age of the account-holder was suppressed at the time of the opening of account. Moreover, one old cash deposit receipt of 02.021986 of Rs. 1,000/- indicates that deposit was made by none other than accused Savitri Singh and, therefore, there is a possibility that such account was being controlled by accused persons and not by Ashok Kumar Singh. Secondly, as per Sh. Rao, Ashok Kumar Singh entered into witness box but did not make any specific reference about the aforesaid property at all. His deposition is limited to one application regarding seeking membership of Poornima Group Housing Society and he has not deposed about his purchasing any other property. Such omission becomes little inconsequential keeping in mind the fact that Ashok Kumar Singh was a student at that time and investment in his name could have always been made by his parents. There is little room for speculation and, in case, there is any doubt, benefit needs to be given to accused. Thus, net result is evident. There is not enough of evidence to show that such payment was made by accused and accused only. Therefore, I am persuaded to exclude the property from the assets of accused, the possession of which, even otherwise, is still stated to be with the developers.
11.12 Simultaneously, said account being old account and for want of inspiring material, entry mentioned at serial no. 27 of Annexure-IV (b) and entry no. 25 of Annexure-IV (a) related to same bank is liable to be excluded. Though PW77 Subhash Chand Garg proved KDR No. 179/91 for Rs. 4,301.25 (invested amount) as Ex. PW77/10 and bank record has also been proved but it could not be substantiated by CBI in desired manner that it was a benami account of accused. There is a odd chance that his parents must have contributed towards his educational expenses as well and, therefore, a bank account had been opened for him. There is no material which may CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 45 of 145 suggest that FDRs mentioned at serial no. 15 and 39 of Annexure IV(b) were being held as benami by accused.
11.13 As regards property mentioned at serial no. 7, which is stated to be of Palam, I would reiterate that Ashok Kumar Singh had made reference about said property in his deposition. He claimed that amount for the purpose of purchasing said property was paid by his mother Smt. Ram Kali. I have seen the relevant documents in this regard. This property was earlier owned by one Sh. Ram Mehar Sharma. He sold the same to Ms. Santosh Kumari Yadav and Santosh Kumari Yadav thereafter sold the same to Ashok Kumar Singh in the year 1989. GPA, deed of agreement, receipt and affidavit have been proved as Ex. PW8/C, Ex. PW8/D, Ex. PW8/F and Ex. PW8/E respectively. Interestingly, as per the sale agreement, sale consideration has been shown as Rs. 45,000/- and even receipt executed by Santosh Kumari Yadav (Ex. PW8/F) indicates that she had received a sum of Rs. 45,000/- from Ashok Kumar Singh for said property. However, to make the situation complex, one more receipt (Ex. PW8/B) was issued by Sh. Suhender Singh Yadav (husband of Santosh Kumari Yadav) in which, sale price has been mentioned either as Rs. 47,060/- or as Rs. 1,47,060/-. Confusion has cropped up because of the overwriting over the first numerical. I have seen testimony of PW8 Sh. Suhender Singh Yadav. He deposed that Santosh Kumari Yadav was his wife and was owner of plot in Khasra No. 46/21, Raj Nagar Extension Part-II, Palam, New Delhi and she had sold the same. He deposed that though such sale transaction was with Ram Singh and his wife, the receipt was executed in favour of Ashok Kumar Singh. He deposed that he had issued the receipt in favour of Ashok Kumar as Ashok Kumar Singh was present there and he was told that receipt of earnest money be issued in favour of Ashok Kumar. He also signed as witness on such receipt. He also deposed that his wife had executed receipt and affidavit but he did not explain and elucidate as to how the receipt executed by his wife was showing sale consideration as Rs. 45,000/- and his own receipt as Rs. 1,47,060/-. His deposition contradicts the executed documents on two vital aspects i.e. about CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 46 of 145 the actual buyer and actual sale consideration. His such oral evidence has no evidentiary value in view of Sections 91 & 92 of Indian Evidence Act.
11.14 Moreover, seller was Santosh Kumari Yadav and she should have entered into witness box to prove said vital aspects. A mere witness to agreement to sell and receipt should not be permitted to impeach the contents in the aforesaid manner. On one hand, he is a witness and on the other, he is trying to disown the contents of such documents. Moreover, one more attesting witness PW10 Jagat Singh has turned hostile and did not reveal anything in favour of prosecution which could even remotely indicate that any such amount was actually invested by accused. In view of aforesaid, there is perplexity about the exact sale consideration. Moreover, CBI has also failed to prove that such sale consideration amount had come from accused alone.
11.15 Coming to property mentioned at serial no. 11 which happens to be of Village Namoli. District Bulandshahar, UP, reference be made to testimony of PW107 H.S. Chowdhary who was Managing Director in H. Chowdhary Estate Pvt. Ltd. He proved various entries maintained in ledger with respect to sale of plot to Sh. Ashok Kumar Singh as well as to Jitender Kumar and Smt. Ram Kali. He has proved his letter Ex. PW107/1 and the ledger statement as Ex. PW107/5. Relevant receipts have been proved as Ex. PW107/2 collectively and as per these receipts, he had received following amount from Sh. Ashok Kumar Singh regarding sale of Plot No. E-346:-
S. No. Amount Date Mode Name of Bank
1 Rs. 6,800.00 23.04.1989 Cheque Moti Bagh Branch of UBI of Savitri
Singh
2 Rs. 6,800.00 08.11.1989 Cash --
3 Rs. 4,302.00 08.11.1990 Cheque Canara Bank, Munirka Branch of
Ashok Kumar Singh
CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 47 of 145
11.16 Statement of account of UBI Moti Bagh Branch has also been
duly admitted as Ex. P-841 (D-164). However, there is no evidence that such investment was a benami one. Merely because, one payment came from the bank of accused Savitri Singh, it cannot be robotically inferred that Ashok Kumar Singh had no connection with such property.
11.17 Since I have gone through the testimony of PW107 Sh. H.S. Chowdhary, it would be also appropriate to mention right here that in view of his testimony and documents proved by him, it stands proved that plot no. E- 345 mentioned at Sr. No. 12 of Annexure-IV was sold in the name of Smt. Ram Kali for Rs. 16,275/- and as regards plot mentioned at serial no. 10, payment of Rs. 22,000/- was made. Such investment was made in the name of Sh. Jitender Kumar Singh. Receipt has been proved as Ex. PW 107/3 which clearly suggests that a plot was booked against payment of Rs. 22,000/-. In this regard, consideration had come by a cheque issued from the Bank Account owned by accused Savitri with Central Bank of India, Khan Market. Her statement of account Ex. PW 4/C (part of D-128) also clearly indicates that such amount of Rs. 22,000/- was debited from her account in favour of M/s Chowdhary Estates Pvt. Ltd. Bald assertion of disowning the bank account as well as the property on the basis that she is not known as Savitri Devi has no legs to stand upon. Thus, such allotment is of accused.
11.18 However, since Smt. Ram Kali had her own income, it cannot be straightaway assumed that it was benami property owned by accused. Therefore, such property mentioned at serial no. 12 of Annexure-IV, purchased in the name of Ram Kali, is liable to excluded from the assets. I would discuss said aspect in detail when I consider the assets held in the name of Ram Kali.
11.19 As regards property mentioned at serial no. 22, DW1 Ashok Kumar Singh himself admitted in his deposition that he had applied for CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 48 of 145 membership in Poornima Group Housing Society. He admitted the application form as well. He had moved said application in the year 1989 when he was around 23 years of age. Documents related to his membership were received by PW197 Sh. M.C. Joshi, DSP/CBI vide letter dated 04.05.1995. Such letter has been exhibited as Ex. PW197/39. Such letter was sent by Sh. K.S. Joshi who was President of said Housing Society. Sh. K.S. Joshi has also entered into witness box as PW88 and he merely claimed that some vouchers were bearing signatures of his father who was also having account in Union Bank of India. He did claim that he along with some other persons had formed the aforesaid Group Housing Society. He, however, pleaded his complete ignorance about accused Savitri Singh in context of said Society. I have seen documents contained in D-27 and though the details were provided by society regarding the payments received from the applicant but fact remains that these details have not been proved in the desired manner. It seems that a sum of Rs. 35,000/- was deposited by the applicant Ashok Kumar Singh with the aforesaid society but there is no evidence that such amount was paid by accused persons on behalf of applicant Ashok Kumar Singh to achieve benami hold over the same. Some such payments have rather been made from the accounts of Ram Kali, Puttu Lal and Ashok Kumar Singh himself.
11.20 Be that as it may, said asset does not stand proved and the investment related to said membership cannot be attributed to accused persons.
11.21 However, as regards investment of Rs. 8,500/- (at serial no. 31) for obtaining plot in Greater Noida vide application no. 6474 {Ex. PW 7/12 (D-
290)} and investment of Rs. 7,670/- (at serial no. 36) for seeking plot in Indira Puram under SFS (application contained in D-277), there is one important aspect which portrays that these were benami transactions.
CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 49 of 14511.22 D-290 purportedly contains signature of applicant Ashok Kumar Singh at point Q-552 and the other application contains his alleged signature at point Q-468 and Q-469 in the front side. These signatures matched with the admitted signatures of Savitri Singh as is evident from report Ex. PW 189/3 of Dr. Ali. I can understand that any family member can fill up the details in the form, but no such family member, even the closest one, has any business to sign in the name of other while submitting such application. It shows criminality only. It clearly indicates that investment has been made simply in the name of Ashok Kumar Singh, without his knowledge or consent. Moreover, Ashok Kumar Singh entered into witness box and he did not make even a whisper about applying any such property with Greater Noida or Ghaziabad Development Authority and, therefore, these two properties are attributed to accused persons.
11.23 Right here, I would also like to deal with one investment allegedly made by accused persons with Ghaziabad Development Authority on behalf of Puttu Lal. Such property is mentioned at serial no. 35 of Annexure-IV and as per the case of CBI, Puttu Lal had never made any such investment with Ghaziabad Development Authority. Sh. Rao has contended that the application was moved before Ghaziabad Development Authority but Puttu Lal had never signed any such application and rather it was Savitri Singh who signed as Puttu Lal. I have seen such application Ex. PW 61/D (D-277). Such application bears alleged signatures of Puttu Lal at points Q- 458, Q-461, Q-463/1, Q-463/2 and 464. Fact, however, remains that these signatures did not match with the admitted signatures of Savitri Devi. Thus, it will be difficult to hold said property as benami one.
11.24 There is one more important aspect of the case, Puttu Lal, during investigation, told CBI that he had never booked any flat/plot with Ghaziabad Development Authority and did not put his signatures on any such application but when he entered into witness box, he took a somersault and did not reveal any such thing. Therefore, he was cross-examined by the CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 50 of 145 prosecution with permission of the court and even during such cross- examination, he remained adamant and rather positively asserted that he himself had booked the plot in his name with Ghaziabad Development Authority and he also claimed that such application Ex. PW 61/D was bearing his signatures. In view of the hostile testimony of Puttu Lal, it would be difficult to assume that the said investment of Rs. 22020/- was benami investment made by accused persons.
11.25 Since I have taken up the aforesaid two files related to Ghaziabad Development Authority and Noida, it would be appropriate to make mention about the investment made on behalf of Sh. Ram Prakash Singh with respect to property mentioned at Sr. No. 30 & Sr. No. 34 of Annexure-IV.
11.26 File D-277 contains one application form allegedly submitted by Ram Prakash Singh whereby he had applied for plot in Indira Puram Scheme and made payment of Rs. 7,670/-. Such property is mentioned at serial no.
34. Such application bears purported signatures of Sh. Ram Prakash Singh at Q452, Q453/1, Q453/2, Q454 & Q456. These signatures too did not match with the admitted signature of accused Savitri Singh. Sh. Ram Prakash Singh was also examined in defence. In his examination-in-chief, though DW2 Ram Prakash Singh did not make reference about his applying for any such property in Ghaziabad Development Authority, the prosecution could have easily confronted him with said application. Perhaps, feeling that he had entered into witness box as a defence witness and, therefore, he would not have supported the case of prosecution on said aspect as well, it seems that CBI did not confront him with said application.
11.27 Similarly, with respect to another application, which was moved before Noida Authority, situation is not very rosy from the perspective of prosecution. Copy of application is contained in file Ex. PW71/V (D-21). Investment of Rs. 8,500/- was made on 10.04.1992. Such investment is CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 51 of 145 mentioned at serial no. 30 of Annexure-IV and according to the objection Ex. DW2/2 filed by Sh. Ram Prakash Singh, he had applied for the aforesaid property. There is nothing on record that said sum of Rs. 8,500/- was invested by accused persons in the name of Sh. Ram Prakash Singh. Though the counterfoil of deposit receipt seems to be in the handwriting of accused Savitri Singh, but such said mere fact would not mean that even the investment was made by Savitri Singh. There is no additional corroborating material to hold so and, therefore, said two properties in the name of Ram Prakash Singh are liable to be excluded.
11.28 I have seen the details regarding SB Account No. 332 which Sh. Ashok Kumar Singh was maintaining with Bank of India, Ganipur, Farukhabad, UP. Account opening form has been proved as Ex. PW83/1 (D-
120) and the statement of account has been proved as Ex. PW83/2 ( part of D-121). Various deposit slips have been proved as Ex. PW183/3 (part of D-
121). All such deposits slips bear signatures of depositor Ashok Kumar Singh and there is nothing on record which may show that either the cash amount was not deposited by Ashok Kumar Singh or that such amount, mentioned at serial no. 11 of Annexure- IV(b) was actually deposited by accused persons.
11.29 As regards entry mentioned at serial no. 19 of Annexure-IV (b), reference be made to the testimony of PW31 A.K. Aggarwal who has proved relevant documents. Account opening form has been proved as Ex. PW31/A (D-131). Statement of account has been proved as Ex. PW31/C (D-133). Various deposit slips including one cheque (Ex. PW31/D-14) have been proved. Vide said cheque, Ashok Kumar Singh had requested Central Bank of India to open one FDR in his name with principal amount of Rs. 21,000/-. Such cheque bears signatures of Ashok Kumar Singh. Nothing has been brought on record which may show that amount deposited in said bank account was actually deposited by accused persons.
CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 52 of 14511.30 As regards account mentioned at serial no. 27, which Ashok Kumar Singh was maintaining with Canara Bank, Munirka Branch, discussion has already been made in the foregoing paragraphs.
11.31 As regards bank account mentioned at serial no. 49, reference be made to the testimony of PW117 Sh. G.L. Nankani. He has proved various bank documents including statement of account Ex. PW117/2 (D-
213). Sh. Ashok Kumar Singh was also holding one FDR issued by said Branch of State Bank of India. Such term deposit pay-in-slip of Rs. 12,000/- has been proved as Ex. PW117/4. Ashok Kumar Singh was studying Medicine in Medical College, Jabal Pur and he had opened one account with State Bank of India situated in such college. Account was opened in the year 1988. I have seen statement of account as well as various entries placed on record and perusal of same would not suggest any criminality on the part of accused persons. Therefore, I am unable to draw any inference of conspiracy or benami transaction or benami acquisition with respect to said account and related FDRs of Ashok Kumar Singh.
PROPERTY AND ACCOUNTS IN THE NAME OF RAM KALI 12.0 Let me now deal with the assets which are allegedly acquired in the name of Smt. Ram Kali. These are alleged to be as under:-
Sr. Description of Property Date of Amount Relevant Exhibits Relevant No. Acquisition Witnesses
5. Plot No. 1A/A, Raj Nagar, 16.11.89 48,000.00 Ex. PW 9/A to Ex. PW PW-9 Palam, Delhi purchased in the 9/C (D-1) name of Ramkali and Jitender Kumar Singh
8. Flat No. 307-B, Sector-18, at 20.04.89 1,79,625.00 D-3 (not proved by Oceans Plaza, Noida, U. P. prosecution but purchased in the name of Savitri reference made by Singh and Ram Kali accused in her defence evidence.) D-278.CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 53 of 145
9. House No. C-33, Sector 14, at 02.02.81 3,75,428.00 Ex. PW57/B (D-5) PW17 Noida, UP purchased/ onwards constructed in he name of Ram PW44 Kali. PW57 PW118 PW119
12. Plot No. E-345 invested in the 19.04.89 16,275.00 Ex. PW 107/1 PW-107 name of Ram Kali (D-7) Builder/Developer
19. Plot No. V-37/6, at Qutab 11.07.89 3,51,378.00 Ex. PW 3/A (D-10) PW-3 (DLF Enclave purchased in the name official) of Ram Kali and Savitri Singh Ex. PW 52/A to Ex.
PW 52/C (D-9) PW-52
(previous
owner)
27. Land at Khasra 299, Village 21.11.90 18,000.00 D-34 to D-37 PW41
Kakauli, Farukhabad purchased PW99
in the name of Ramkali (Ex. P-392 admitted) PW104
PW111
PW115
PW126
PW89
37. Membership of Bhagwan 28.07.89 96,600.00 D-19, D-20 & D-38
Buddha Co-operative Society onwards
invested in the name of Ramkali
12.1 As regards property mentioned at serial number 9, there does
not seem to be any real dispute or debate about the fact that House. No. C-
33, Sector-14, Noida, UP was owned by Smt. Ram Kali. I have seen the testimony of PW44 Rajeev Sinha who has appeared on behalf of NOIDA and has made reference about the various documents contained in relevant file Ex. PW44/A (D-4).
12.2 According to his testimony, initially, Smt. Ram Kali had been allotted plot in Sector-11, Noida but later on she was allotted Plot No. C-33 in Sector-14, Noida, UP. According to him, payments were made by the party through challans. I have seen the relevant documents contained in D-4 and it is evident that even the possession certificate had been issued to Smt. Ram Kali way back on 02.02.1981. Thus, acquisition is of prior to the check period. There is nothing to show that any payment of consideration amount for CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 54 of 145 acquiring said plot was made by accused. Sh. Pehlwan Singh (husband of Smt. Ram Kali) must have contributed and for want of any substantial evidence, it cannot be robotically inferred that father of accused Ram Singh was penniless or that he was living in acute penury and was unable to buy property in the name of his wife.
12.3 According to prosecution, acquisition cost of said plot was Rs. 48,175 and construction was raised over such plot during the check period and the cost of such construction was Rs. 3,27,253/- and, therefore, the total value of the asset has been taken as Rs. 3,75,428/- as on close of check period.
12.4 In this regard, strong reliance has been placed upon the testimony of PW57 Sh. N.K. Khatri, Valuer. He was posted as Engineer in CPWD and as per request of CBI, he had visited the aforesaid plot and prepared valuation report dated 04.11.1994 I have seen the aforesaid report Ex. PW57/A (D-5). It is mentioned in the report that construction was initiated in September 1986 and was completed in the month of April 1988 but it is not clear who had provided such vital information to Sh. Khatri. There does not seem to be any other witness who might have claimed that construction was raised between 1986 and 1988.
12.5 There are two important aspects with respect to the aforesaid construction. Firstly, whether the construction had been carried out during the check period or not. Secondly, if yes, who had incurred the expenditure of construction.
12.6 Sh. Rao has asserted that during investigation, CBI was able to contact Sh. Baljeet Singh (LW187). He was the one who had carried out the aforesaid construction during the aforesaid period and according to his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., substantial amount of approximately Rs. 7 lacs was spent in the aforesaid construction.
CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 55 of 145Unfortunately, he died before his evidence could be recorded during the trial. His statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during investigation does not carry any evidentiary value.
12.7 My attention has also been drawn towards the testimony of PW118 Sh. O.P. Mehra and PW119 Smt. Anju Mehra who were residing as tenants in the aforesaid plot and were paying rent @ Rs. 1,000/- per to Smt. Ram Kali. This, at least, goes on to show that Smt. Ram Kali was having rental income. Both these witnesses did not support the case of prosecution and, therefore, they were declared hostile and were cross-examined by the prosecution with the permission of the Court. They both out-rightly denied that rent was ever paid to accused Ram Singh in cash or that they had taken flat on rent from accused Ram Singh. According to them, they either used to pay the rent to Smt. Ram Kali or used to deposit the same in the account of Smt. Ram Kali which she was having with Central Bank of India, Noida. Their evidence does not throw any light with respect to the construction over said plot.
12.8 PW17 Dr. Rajiv Bhasin has also been examined from the neighbourhood. He was earlier having his residence-cum-clinic at C-34, Sector-14, Noida which was got constructed by his parents in the year 1986-
87. He deposed that he used to visit said house during the construction occasionally and during that period, he had also seen construction being carried out at C-33. He claimed that he had seen Mrs. Singh (accused Savitri Singh) three or four times at the site of construction. Even if, it is assumed that Savitri Singh was present at the construction site on some such occasions, it would not automatically prove either the construction cost or the fact that such construction cost was borne by accused only.
12.9 Thus, the construction cost does not stand proved in the desired manner.
CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 56 of 14512.10 In relation to acquisition of property of Raj Nagar, Palam mentioned at serial no. 5, reference be made to the testimony of Sh. Rajpal Duhal who had sold the aforesaid plot. He deposed that such portion of the plot measuring 100 sq. yards was sold by him to Smt. Ram Kali and Jitender Kumar for a sum of Rs. 48,000/- in November, 1989. GPA, Agreement to sell, Affidavit and receipt have been proved by him as Ex. PW 9/A to Ex. PW 9/D respectively.
12.11 According to learned defence counsel, Smt. Ram Kali has purchased the aforesaid property with her own funds. Admittedly, it was purchased in the joint names. Learned defence counsel has not been able to throw any light as to from where such amount of Rs. 48,000/- was arranged by Smt. Ram Kali. I cannot be oblivious of the fact that since the acquisition of immovable property was in the joint names and since one such co-vendee was her son, such acquisition was required to be reported to her employer by accused Savitri Singh. Undoubtedly, PW-9 Rajpal Duhal is blowing hot and cold. In his examination-in-chief, though he claimed that payment was made by Savitri Singh but in his cross-examination, he backed out and claimed that when the payment was received, neither Ram Singh nor Savitri Singh were present. It seems to me that his such assertion is patently incorrect. Payment was made in cash and he should have at least further elucidated as to who else, if not accused persons, had made the payment in cash. Moreover, on the same day accused Savitri Singh had also purchased one adjacent property, i.e. Plot No. 1A/B against payment of Rs. 45,000/-. Relevant documents in this regard have been duly proved as Ex. PW9/E to Ex. PW9/H. Savitri Singh has also not bothered to explain as to from where she had arranged the aforesaid cash amount of Rs. 45,000/- for acquiring said plot.
12.12 Be that as it may, the property mentioned at serial no. 5 is held as acquired by accused persons in the name of their son Jitender Kumar Singh and their mother Ram Kali.
CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 57 of 14512.13 As regards plot of Oceans Plaza, Noida UP mentioned at serial no. 8, accused Savitri Singh has admitted that it was joint acquisition. Defence has asserted that the total investment was of Rs. 1,79,625/- but according to her, she had merely signed as a co-purchaser as her mother-in- law was not able to sign properly on account of having problem in finger of her hand. Unfortunately, no witness from M/s Oceans Construction Industries Pvt. Ltd. has been examined. I have seen the documents contained in D-31 and D-78 which have not been proved by anyone. These are not admitted by the defence either. Undoubtedly, in her deposition, she claimed that she had merely invested Rs. 4500/- for acquiring the said property but according to learned Prosecutor there were several other cheques from her bank account. Defence has countered the same by pointing out that such bank account was not a single account but rather a joint bank account held with Ram Kali. Be that as it may, since no witness entered into witness box for proving said documents and since such documents are lying unproved, theory of such acquisition by accused does not stand substantiated at all.
12.14 As regards plot mentioned at serial no. 19, though as per case of prosecution and the details mentioned in annexure, said plot was purchased in the name of Ram Kali but the documents produced on record and proved during the trial clearly go to indicate that such acquisition was in the joint names of Ram Kali and Savitri Singh. Reference be made to testimony of PW-3 Sh. B. Bhushan and PW-52 Malti Puri. PW-52 Malti Puri had purchased the said plot in the year 1984. She has proved the Plot Buyer Agreement between her and DLF as Ex. PW 52/A. Thereafter, according to her deposition, she sold the aforesaid plot to Ram Kali and Savitri Singh. Her testimony is unrebutted.
12.15 PW-3 B. Bhushan has appeared on behalf of DLF Universal Ltd. and he has also deposed that sale deed dated 22.3.90 (Ex. PW 3/A) was executed by him on behalf of DLF and was bearing his signatures and as per CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 58 of 145 such sale deed, vendees were Smt. Ram Kali and Savitri Singh. There is no suggestion to any of the aforesaid two witnesses to the contrary. Sale consideration is quite substantial. It is Rs. 3,51,378/- which is quite high, particularly, in view of the fact such amount was paid way back in the year 1989. Savitri Singh did not inform her employer about said significant acquisition. Moreover, defence has also not been able to show that Smt. Ram Kali was having that much income and assets during those days which enabled her to invest in said property in the year 1989. As such, said asset is treated as one acquired by accused Savitri Singh.
12.16 As regards land at Village Kakauli, Farukhabad purchased in the name of Ram Kali at serial no. 27, even the defence admits that the said land had been purchased by Ram Kali but defence has supplemented that the entire consideration was paid by Ram Kali herself. Sale document has been proved as Ex. PW 126/4 (D-36). Sh. Rao has contended that during investigation, it surfaced that though the land had been purchased in the name of Ram Kali but the sale consideration was given by none other than accused persons.
12.17 Such assertion, however, could not be substantiated during the trial. Two independent witnesses PW-99 Chander Prakash and PW-111 Om Prakash have not supported the case of the prosecution. They both were cross-examined by the prosecution with permission of the court but they out- rightly denied that such land had been actually purchased by Ram Singh and that the money was paid by Sh. Ram Singh. Though revenue record may indicate that the property was in the name of Ram Kali but the most important and vital aspect, as to who had paid the sale consideration, if not Ram Kali, could not be proved in desired manner.
12.18 Reference be also made to the testimony of PW-89 Raja Ram who categorically deposed that he had sold such piece of land to Ram Kali by registered sale deed. He also claimed that he did not know accused Ram CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 59 of 145 Singh as he never met him. He was also cross-examined by the prosecution with permission of court but he denied that the said land was purchased by Ram Singh and that the sale consideration was paid by Ram Singh.
12.19 In view of the aforesaid, the testimony of revenue officials including PW-41, PW-104, PW-115, PW-126 do not carry much significance.
12.20 As per investigating agency, one more investment was made by accused persons in the name of Smt. Ram Kali vide serial No. 37 above and a sum of Rs. 96,600/- was invested for seeking membership in Bhagwan Buddha Co-operative Society. Relevant documents are found contained in D- 19, D-20 & D-38. These documents have not been admitted by defence and unfortunately, these documents have not been proved by the prosecution either. Therefore, such acquisition does not stand proved.
12.21 Since, Ram kali had a separate identity and had means to survive and invest. She had applied for dealership in fertilizer and had agricultural income as well. Since prosecution has not produced any substantial evidence to show to the contrary, said property is liable to be removed from the assets - both at the start of check period and at the close of check period. For the same reasons, I also exclude the other properties and bank accounts from the relevant charts/Annexures.
ASSETS IN THE NAME OF JITENDER AND SAVITRI DEVI 13.0 As regards property mentioned at serial no. 29 of Annexure-IV, the same has been denied by the accused but it is very much evident that it was acquired by accused in the name of their son Jitender Kumar Singh. Original application has been proved as Ex. PW 71/N (D-292). It bears the photograph of Master Jitender Kumar Singh as he then was and the payment was made in cash. Total consideration amount, given at the time of applying for aforesaid property, was Rs. 17,000/- and the signatures of purported CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 60 of 145 applicant i.e. Jitender Kumar are appearing at Q-558. However, as per specific report of Dr. Ali given in Ex. PW 189/3, such signatures appearing at Q-558 matched with the admitted handwriting of accused Savitri Singh and, therefore, such property is held to be acquired by accused only.
13.1 It is also quite evident that Savitri Devi and Savitri Singh are one and the same person. I have already referred about property mentioned at serial no. 10 of Annexure- IV. As per defence, Ramkali had a sister with same name of Savitri Devi. When asked, it was revealed that name of her husband was Ram Pal. No material has been brought on record to show that properties alleged to be in the name of Savitri Devi are actually owned by said sister of Ram Kali.
13.2 Reference be also made right here about the property mentioned at serial no. 2, i.e. Plot no. 261, Anand Kunj, Wazidpur, Dadri, Ghaziabad. It had been purchased in the name of Savitri Devi. Accused has, however, denied any connection with the said property. According to her, Savitri Devi and Savitri Singh are two different entities and, therefore, such property cannot be attributed to her. Her such assertion is totally false and lame one. I have seen the application form which has been proved as Ex. PW 50/C (D-2) and applicant has though described herself as Mrs. Savitri Devi but the husband name has been proved as Sh. R. Singh which can be safely assumed to be Ram Singh. R. Singh would not denote Ram Pal at all. The address has been mentioned as C-33, Sector-14, Noida which property is one in the name of mother of accused Ram Singh Payment of Rs. 8,000/- was made by way of cheque number 240078 dated 9.3.1989 drawn on Central Bank of India, Khan Market branch, New Delhi which was owned by accused Savitri Singh. Statement of account of said bank account no. 3439 has been proved as Ex. PW 4/C (part of D-128). The documents related to said bank would clearly reveal that the account holder was Savitri Singh. Though the account opening form has not been brought on record, various entries mentioned in statement of account Ex. PW 4/C would indicate that CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 61 of 145 such account was owned by Smt. Savitri Singh who was known as Savitri Devi before her marriage. From said account, payment has been made to Delhi Public School where her children were studying as well as to M/s Chowdhary Estates and, therefore, she cannot be permitted to deny the fact that she was the holder of said account bearing no. 3439 with Khan Market branch of Central Bank of India and that she was the person who had applied for the aforesaid acquisition.
13.3 I would not mince any word in holding that even the property mentioned at serial no. 6 was stated to be purchased by accused Savitri Singh and she is trying to take undue advantage of the said fact of names. She admitted that she was known as Savitri Devi before her marriage. Moreover, she was duly identified by PW-9 Rajpal, owner of the aforesaid property. He was the one who had sold the same to accused Savitri Singh. While identifying the relevant sale documents in the witness box, he also pointed out towards both the accused claiming that they had come in relation to purchase of the said property. Though in later part of the deposition, he claimed that the payment was not made by them but his testimony with respect to the fact that the property was purchased by 'Savitri Singh' remained completely unimpeached and could not be dislodged by defence.
13.4 As regards property mentioned at serial no. 20, as per allegations of CBI, such property was acquired by accused Savitri Singh in her own name and also in the name of Jitender Kumar Singh way back on 11.6.1990. She had purchased the same from one Vinod Kumar s/o Sh. Jai Ram and thereafter, such property was duly entered in their names in the revenue record. Unfortunately, neither the concerned seller entered the witness box nor the revenue record has been proved by anyone. I have seen the documents contained in D-33 and since documents have not been proved in any manner whatsoever, such property is liable to be excluded from the present discussion.
CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 62 of 14513.5 Sh. Rao has asserted that prosecution may be given one more opportunity to summon the concerned official to prove the aforesaid acquisition. However, such request has come belatedly. Since even otherwise, it is an old case, it is not possible to accede to such request.
13.6 As regards property mentioned at serial no. 23 & 24 of Annexure-IV, accused has denied having any concern with said property as well as property mentioned at serial no. 25 & 26. However, testimony of PW126 Sh. Samta Prasad Srivastava belies her such assertion with respect to property mentioned at serial no. 23 & 24. He was posted as Sub Registrar, Tehsil Kayamganj, District Farukhabad, UP and vide seizure memo Ex. PW126/1 (part of D-381), he had handed over attested copies of registered agreements/sale deeds to CBI.
13.7 Ex. PW126/2 (D-34) is a certified copy of registered sale deed between Radhey Shyam and accused Savitri Singh which shows sale consideration as Rs. 49,000/-. Another sale deed Ex. PW126/3 (D-35) shows that Urmila wife of Radhey Krishan had sold the property to Jitender Singh son of Ram Singh and Sangeeta Singh daughter of Ram Singh for Rs. 43,000/-. It seems that when such sale deeds were executed, stamp duty was also borne by the vendee. However, such aspect has not been brought on record very clearly and distinctly and thus there is no positive and specific evidence that such stamp duty was borne by vendee and vendee alone. Therefore, the acquisition cost is held as Rs. 49,000/- and Rs. 43,000/- for the aforesaid two properties.
13.8 As regards, property mentioned at serial no. 25, it seems that no witness has been examined to prove the aforesaid acquisition and no document has been exhibited either. As regards property mentioned at serial no. 26, though prosecution has examined PW111 Om Prakash to prove that he had sold ¾ bigha of land for Rs. 10,000/- to accused Ram Singh and that land was transferred in the name of Savitri Singh, fact remains that he did not CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 63 of 145 support the case of prosecution and rather claimed that he had sold the land of one bigha to Smt. Ram Kali. He also claimed that such transaction was carried out by his uncle Subedar Singh who had received the sale consideration from Ram Kali. He was also not confronted with any document either.
OTHER ACCOUNTS 14.0 Let me refer to now remaining bank accounts which are, otherwise, not admitted by accused Savitri Singh.
14.1 Let me take up the accounts held in Canara Bank, Munirka Branch.
22. Puttu Lal SB A/c 11109 2,557.80 D-86 to D-107 PW-29 PW-61 PW-77
23. Ram Prakash Singh SB A/c 1,363.65 Ex. PW29/H1 to H3 PW-29 1202 (D-86 to D-107) PW-77
31. Savitri Singh & Ram Kali 26,207.31 Mark PW29/X1-X3 PW-29 Joint A/c 6983 Ex. PW29/J PW-77 (D-86 to D-107) 14.2 As far as Sh. Puttu Lal is concerned, he happens to be close relative of accused. According to prosecution, he also assisted the accused persons and benami account was opened and immovable property was purchased using his name. PW61 Puttu Lal has entered into witness box and as per his deposition, he was having agriculture land and was also earning handsomely from his tailoring business where he had employed three-four employees. According to him, accused Ram Singh was son-in-law of his brother-in-law. He denied that he had given any loan of Rs. 40,000/- to accused Ram Singh while supplementing that he had given such loan to Smt. Ram Kali. He also pleaded his ignorance about receipt Ex. PW61/A and Ex. PW61/B. Since he was not found supporting the case of prosecution, he was cross-examined by the prosecution with the permission of the Court and even during such cross-examination, he did not attribute any CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 64 of 145 criminality on the part of accused persons. He denied that Savitri Singh used to hold hand of her mother-in-law and used to get the documents signed from her and sometimes Savitri Singh herself used to sign in the name of her mother-in-law. He was man of means and such fact can be gauged by the sheer fact that even prosecution had suggested to him that he (Puttu Lal) had borne the cost of education on behalf of accused Ram Singh for nine years. He denied that Sh. Pehlu Singh was extremely poor man and that he was in no position to bear the expenses of education. He admitted his signatures on various bank related documents but fact remains that with respect to alleged account of Canara Bank, Munirka Branch, New Delhi, neither any question was put to him nor he was shown any document. So much so, when PW29 R. Niranjan, Sr. Manager, Munirka Branch entered into witness box, he also did not make any reference about any document in relation to said bank account of Sh. Puttu Lal. Similarly, PW77 P.M. Kushalappa, official of Canara Bank, Munirka Branch, New Delhi has also not thrown any light with respect to the alleged account of Sh. Puttu Lal and, therefore, such account does not stand proved.
14.3 Sh. Ram Prakash Singh was also having SB Account No. 1202 with said Branch and statement of account has been proved as Ex. PW29/H3 (D-107) but except for the statement of account, nothing else has been shown which may even remotely indicate that it was benami account. Sh. Ram Prakash Singh has also entered into witness box as DW2 and in his such deposition, he has categorically deposed in examination-in-chief that he was having bank account no. 1202 in Canara Bank, Munirka Branch in which there was last balance of Rs. 1,364/- in the year 1983. He also claimed that application for opening of account Ex. PW29/H1 was bearing his signature and specimen card (Ex. PW29/H2) was having his signature. He claimed that he was maintaining said account and various cheques were also signed by him in relation to said account. His such deposition could not be dislodged by the prosecution and, therefore, said account is held as owned by Sh. Ram Prakash Singh in his right and capacity.
CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 65 of 14514.4 Accused Savitri Singh was also having joint account with his mother-in-law Smt. Ram Kali in said Branch. Documents contained in D-186 to D-107 and same have been duly proved. Several cheques were also issued from said account under the sole signatures of accused Savitri Singh and Savitri Singh cannot be permitted to disown said bank account. Accordingly, said account his held as owned by accused Savitri Singh.
14.5 Details of bank accounts mentioned at Sr. No. 59 & 60 of Annexure-IV (b) are as under:-
59. Ram Kali SB A/C 11253 1,092.83 D-143 to D-147 PW-28 PW-55
60. Ram Singh SB A/C 8992 0 D-143 to D-147 PW-28 PW-55 14.6 As regards account maintained by accused Ram Singh, balance was zero at the close of check period though accused Ram Singh had admitted said account and the statement of account has been admitted as Ex. P-824 (D-145), fact remains that neither PW28 Sanjeev Kapoor nor PW55 Sh. Anil Bhargava made any reference about said account. PW55 Sh.
Anil Bhargava has, however, made reference about certified copy of ledger account no. 11253 in the name of Sh. Ram Kali and has proved the same as Ex. PW55/T (D-146) and specimen card of said account has also been proved as Ex. PW55/V and there is no cross-examination challenging the aforesaid fact. However, since Smt. Ram Kali was having her own income, prosecution should have been brought some additional material to show that it was benami account and, therefore, I am constrained to hold that both the aforesaid account mentioned at Sr. No. 59 & 60 do not stand proved.
14.7 As per entry mentioned at Sr. No. 34 of Annexure-IV (b), Savitri Singh and Ram Kali were having joint account no. 17807 with South Extension Branch of Canara Bank. I have seen the testimony of two bank officials i.e. PW167 Sh. Netra Pal Singh and PW173 Sh. K. Laxman Mallya.
CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 66 of 145Except for proving the seizure memo regarding handing over of said documents and they have not said anything about the aforesaid account much less either it was a joint account or whether substantial banking activity had been done by Savitri Singh. Account Opening Form (D-79) is also lying unproved and, therefore, entry mentioned at Sr. No. 34 does not stand proved.
14.8 As regards bank account mentioned at Sr. No. 20 of Annexure- IV (b), accused Savitri Singh and Ram Kali were having joint account no. 3361 with Central Bank of India, Noida. Admittedly, Ram Kali was registered owner of H. No. C-33, Sector-14, Noida and the account opening form has been proved as Ex. PW31/E and specimen card has been proved as Ex. PW31/F (D-427). I have seen two cheques issued from said bank account which have been proved as Ex. PW31/H1 & H2. These bear signatures of Ram Kali at Q972 and Q974 respectively and even report of GEQD does not come to the rescue of prosecution as these signatures allegedly of Ram Kali could not be attributed to accused Savitri Singh. There is no other evidence which may indicate that it was actually a benami account exclusively held and maintained by Savitri Singh and, therefore, said account is also excluded from the scope of the present consideration.
14.9 As regards two bank accounts, mentioned at Sr. No. 9 & 12 of Annexure-IV (b), maintained with Farukhabad Branch of Bank of India, accordingly to prosecution, Ram Kali was having Current Account No. 45 and Ram Kali was also having another account jointly held with her son Ashok Kumar Singh. Relevant documents are contained in D-120 to D-126. Except for statement of account of said Current Account No. 45, which has been proved as Ex. PW83/6, nothing has been brought on record which may show that it was a benami account. Even as regards other joint account no. 494, there does not seem to be any document pertaining to said account at all and, therefore, both these accounts do not stand proved.
CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 67 of 14514.10 As per entry at Sr. No. 45 of Annexure-IV (b), Ram Kali and Savitri Singh were having joint account no. 91871 with PNB, Green Park, New Delhi. Statement of account has been proved as Ex. PW67/H. Account opening form has been proved as Ex. PW67/C and various documents related to said account are contained in D-167 to D-173. Sh. Rao has expressed his surprise as to why Smt. Ram Kali, an aged lady who was even otherwise illiterate, had opened so many accounts at so many places. He states that therefore, burden shifts on to accused Savitri Singh to show that she had no connection with the aforesaid account at all. It has also been argued that since account was maintained in Delhi, in all probabilities, it was accused Savitri Singh who was managing said account.
14.11 Undoubtedly, such inference can be drawn but fact remains that except for the aforesaid inference, there is no other material which may show that Ram Kali was not the joint holder. Since, I have already observed above that Ram Kali was having her own separate identity and was having her own income, without there being any further material, it will not be possible to hold that it was a benami account held by accused Savitri Singh alone.
14.12 As far as accounts mentioned at serial no. 46, 47, 48 & 51 of Anneuxre-IV (b) are concerned, relevant documents are contained in D-211 & D-212 and though these were admitted by accused Ram Singh during the pendency of the matter, since outstanding balance was in said four accounts was zero, it would make no difference if these accounts are excluded.
14.13 As regards four accounts which accused Ram Singh was having with State Bank of India, Ballabh Bhawan, Bhopal, MP at Sr. No. 52 to 55 of Annexure-IV (b), no witness has been examined by the prosecution. Documents are contained in D-185 to D-196. Similarly, Ram Singh was having SB Account No. 8173 with UCO, Parliament Branch which is mentioned at Sr. No. 66 of Annexure-IV (b), the documents of which are contained in D-176-D-178. These were admitted by accused Ram Singh CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 68 of 145 during the trial. Fact, however, remains that no prosecution witness has entered into witness box for proving the said record and, therefore, in order to eliminate any prejudice or grievance coming from the side of his wife, I am excluding these accounts also.
14.14 As far as details of various post office accounts as mentioned in Annexure-IV (c) are concerned, these have been admitted by the accused.
JEWALLARY, CASH & INDIRA VIKAS PATRAS (IVPS) 15.0 According to CBI, the malafide intention on the part of accused stands exposed as when their lockers were searched, those were found containing unexplained and unaccounted jewellary articles, cash amount and IVPs. Besides aforesaid, these lockers were also found containing title deeds of properties held by accused in benami names as well as FDRs in benami names. Sh. Rao has contended that all other relatives of the accused persons were living outside Delhi and there was no reason or occasion for them to have handed over any such instrument, jewellary article or IVP to accused persons. It has been asserted by prosecution that finding no other plausible explanation, accused have tried to take shelter behind, evidently, a lame excuse by claiming that some such jewellary articles, IVPs and cash belonged to their relatives and that due to some security concern, those were given to accused persons for keeping in locker in safe condition.
15.1 Before discussing the aforesaid aspect, let me now first see as to what accused Savitri Singh has to say in this regard when she entered into witness box as DW-8. Relevant portion of her deposition is extracted as under:-
Jewellary:
"37 Settlements' regarding the distribution of the jewellery has been declared in the Income -Tax assessment year 1992-
93. My father-in-law and my mother-in-law made it to family settlements regarding sharing of the jewellery in the family in CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 69 of 145 numerical 1977 and 1984. This partition has been declared by my brother-in-law Sh Ram Avtar Singh, vide affidavit 31-7-96 to IT department. In the first partition, my children received 90 tolas gold ornaments, 5 Kg Silver ornaments and utensils and 100 silver coins. In 2nd Partition my children received 9 Tolas gold ornaments. During 1977 to 1984, my children received 15 tolas gold ornaments and 15 silver coins on birthdays and other occasions. Total gold ornaments was 114 Tolas, 5 Kg silver ornaments and utensils and 115 silver coins. I have sold Some jewellery approx. 299 gms for children welfare trust for the benefit of the children and the proceeds was deposited in the account No. 3439, Central Bank Of India, Khan Market, New Delhi and Indian Bank, S.J Enclave, New Delhi and State Bank of Patiala, Palwal Haryana as per D-319, D-267 D-265 D-316. The jewellery was also deposited in State bank of Patiala, Palwal, Haryana as per D-148 & D-331.
38 During the investigation The valuation of the jewellery (D-383-387) was got done by M/s Khanna Brothers. The valuation of the jewellery has been objected by me and valuation report signed in protest. The claimants were not called at the time of the valuation of the jewellery. The slips of the jewellery with the name of claimants were thrown by the CBI. The jewellery were kept in locker No. 29 at State bank of Patiala, Shastri Bhavan, Delhi and the locker No. 1035, in Punjab National Bank, Gulmohar Park, New Delhi. All the jewellery were kept with me in my lockers. In 1972 my brother- in -law was kidnapped, other claimant had far flung areas of posting so the jewellery of the entire was kept with me.
39 The personal gold jewellery of myself, which I received in marriage from my father and other relatives was around 25 tola. I received from my father-in-law 20 tola gold jewellery, before marriage I had 3 tola gold jewellery, and received on various occasions 5 tola gold jewellery. Total, I have 53 tola gold jewellery. I have sold for Indira Puram plot scheme to M/s Khana jewellery on 29-4-90 for Rs 54,300/- (187.250 gms) deposited in the account no. 1473, Bank of India, BZM, New Delhi. Intimation to the department has been given as per D- 405 and D-8. After claiming the jewellery by the claimants, I was left with the jewellery with me which I had kept in PNB Locker No.1035, Gulmohar Park, New Delhi. As per valuation Report dated 10-6-96 as per D-383, I have the following jewellery:-
(i) Sr. No. 1, two set 4pcs each gold enabled and thread 67.800gms
(ii) Sr. No.4, two set plain 4pcs and 3pcs gold 47.500gms
(iii) Sr. No. 5, one set plain 3 pcs gold 36.200gms
(iv) Sr. No. 8, 3 bracelet plain gold (Enamel) 56.100gms
(v) Sr. No. 9, 4 pair ear-rings and one ring with white stone (gold) 25.100gms
(vi) Sr. No.10, one pendant set 4pcs, two rings and small pendant in gold and small diamond set (3.90cents) of 45gms.CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 70 of 145
(vii) Sr. No. 16, one neckless and one bangle plain emerald 32.600 gms.
(viii) Sr. No. 17, one bangle enamel gold 27.200gms
(ix) Sr. No. 18, silver coins 7pcs weight 105gms.
(x) I have kept jewellery in Locker No. 29, State Bank of Patiala, Shastri Bhawan A New Delhi,
(xi) Sr. No. 12, 3 tikka and 8 rings plain 46.500gms
(xii) Sr. No. 15, 5 rings (3 with stone and one plain gold) 42.800gms 40 Rest of the jewellery articles mentioned in said report did not pertain to me but to the other claimants."
IVP:-
41 I have IVP (Indira Vikas Patra) having purchase value of Rs 11,500/- which was purchased from family saving from time to time and were kept in locker No. 1035, PNB, Green Park New Delhi. This is Before Check Period.
15.2 It would also be import to take note of statements of other defence witnesses.
15.3 DW-1 Ashok Kumar Singh deposed in his examination-in-chief that he had filed an application seeking release of the documents seized by CBI. He claimed that certain jewellary was seized by CBI which was kept by her mother Ram Kali for his marriage but fact remains that he could not give any further details of the same claiming that he did not remember the same.
As already noted, he has also categorically admittedthat he started earning from 1.4.1994 only. His testimony does not even remotely indicate that any such jewellary belonged to him or given to him by his mother had been kept in any locker by the accused. His vague assertion is totally meaningless.
15.4 DW-2 Ram Prakash Singh has also not stated anything in this regard and he has not staked any claim over any article allegedly found in the lockers. In his cross-examination, he, in a very casual manner, claimed that he had kept some jewellary with accused Savitri Singh which contained of one gold chain, one pair tops, one pair baali, 8 bangles, 5 karas and one ring. Surprisingly, he does not know even the weight of such ornaments. He CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 71 of 145 claimed that this jewellary was got prepared by his grandfather for his mother and after her death, same came in possession of Smt. Ram Kali. He is a government official but fact remains that he never disclosed about such jewellary articles to his own department. No other document has been produced by him to stake claim over such jewellary and it is quite evident that being a close relatives of accused Savitri Singh, he has attempted to bail her out by making a palpably wrong statement.
15.5 The testimony of DW-4 Raj Kumari Singh rather demolishes the defence as she has categorically claimed that she had not filed any objection before the court though objection petition was bearing her signatures. According to her she did not know as to who mentioned the facts contained in such objection petition. She claimed that she had not conveyed any such fact to anyone. Though she claimed that she was having one gold set and 4 bangles which she had given to accused Savitri Singh but she has not given any further description about such gold articles. She has not apprised as to when such articles were handed over by her to accused Savitri Singh. Her husband was a government employee and was posted in M. P. and it is unbelievable that she would hand over her such few jewellary articles to accused Savitri Singh in Delhi claiming that her area was not safe.
15.6 DW-6 Kusum Lata has also deposed that she had kept some of her jewellary with accused Savitri Singh as she did not have any locker. She, however, also claimed that she was not aware as to where those jewellary articles were kept by accused Savitri Singh. According to her, when she demanded her jewellary back from accused Savitri Singh, it was told that such jewellary had been seized in the present matter. In her cross- examination, she admitted that her husband was working as Deputy Regional Marketing Officer and remained posted in various cities. Her husband had even taken a Government accommodation in Oria in 1990-91 and she hardly used to visit Delhi once or twice a year and it is not worth-imagining that she would hand over her jewellary articles to accused Savitri Singh for alleged CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 72 of 145 safe custody. She could have easily taken a locker in the bank situated in the city where her husband remained posted but for totally explicable reasons, she did not apply for any such locker. So much so, she does not even know weight or value of such jewellary articles and baldly claimed that these were given to her by her-in-laws.
15.7 DW-7 Jitender Kumar Singh has defended his mother by claiming that he too had received some jewellary articles, from time to time, on several occasions, i.e. on his birthdays, functions, ceremonies etc. He has not thrown any light whether he himself had any locker in his name or not. According to him, most of the jewellary seized by CBI was gifted to him by his grandparents but he failed to give further details as to who gifted and when.
15.8 Thus, the cumulative reading of such defence witnesses clearly goes on indicate that they have merely tried to help accused Savitri Singh. I have no hesitation in holding that all the jewellary articles, IVPs and cash, which were eventually recovered from the lockers search, belonged to accused persons only.
15.9 As regards IVPs, accused has baldly claimed that she owned IVPs worth Rs. 11,000/- only. Her such assertion is not believable.
15.10 Let me now come to the lockers held by accused Savitri Singh. She had locker no. 270, Moti Bagh branch, U.B.I. and she also had one locker no. 400, Safdarjung Enclave Development Area branch of Indian Bank. These two lockers were searched on 28.4.1992 and 20.5.1992 respectively. Observation memos have been proved as Ex. PW 132/1 and Ex. PW 15/B respectively and both these lockers were found empty at the time of search.
CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 73 of 14515.11 Accused Savitri Singh was having two lockers in Green Park branch of PNB. These were having locker no. 1035 and locker no. 907. Both these lockers were searched on 27.4.1992. However, when locker no. 1035 was searched, it was found empty as is evident from observation memo Ex. PW 168/2. However, locker no. 907 was got drilled opened at the request of accused Savitri Singh, who claimed that she had misplaced her keys. Accordingly, a service mechanic was arranged who drilled open the locker and then inventory was prepared. Right here, I would also like to mention here that gold jewellary and silver coins which were recovered from locker no. 907 were eventually put in locker no. 1035 same day and thereafter both the said lockers were sealed. Search of locker no. 907 led to the following recovery:-
(i) Gold Jewellary (1020 grams).
(ii) Silver Coins (100 grams.)
(iii) Cash Rs. 50,000/-
(iv) Bunch of IVPs 15.12 Besides the aforesaid, various FDRs, passbooks and other title deeds were recovered which are described in search-cum-seizure memo Ex.
PW 168/1.
15.13 Accused Savitri Singh was also having locker no. 139 with Munirka branch of OBC. It was also searched on 25.4.1992 and memo in this regard has been proved as Ex. PW 143/1. It was also found containing, inter-alia, cash amount of Rs. 1928/-, gold ornaments and silver ornaments. The weight of the gold ornaments was found to be 150 grams and weight of silver ornaments was found to be 1450 grams. These were resealed by placing those in the same locker.
15.14 Accused Savitri Singh had another locker, i.e. locker no. 29, Shastri Bhawan branch of State Bank of Patiala. It was searched on 25.4.1992 and it was found containing, inter-alia, cash of Rs. 1,00,950/-, various FDRs, sale deeds/title deeds and various jewellary articles.
CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 74 of 14515.15 Though the lockers had been searched in the year 1992, the investigating agency got the valuation report prepared much later, i.e. on 10.6.1996.
15.16 Let me see these valuation reports.
15.17 Valuation report Ex. PW 56/A (part of D-383) indicates that worth of jewellary articles found during the locker search of PNB Green Park Branch was Rs. 4,04,684/-. The concerned valuer also certified that the valuation was based on the market value as on 13.4.1992. Ex. PW 56/B is in respect of the jewellary articles found in the locker no. 139 of OBC, Munirka Branch and the worth of jewellary was found to be of Rs. 62,919/-. Valuation report Ex. PW 56/C pertains to articles recovered from locker of State Bank of Patiala, Shastri Bhawan and total worth of such articles was found to be Rs. 7,16,791/-.
15.18 Accused Savitri Singh has opposed the manner of valuation. She has claimed that these jewellary, as contained in locker no. 139 of OBC Munirka branch, belonged to Kusum Dass and she was not called by CBI despite her request. She also went on to indicate that there was a slip on the jewellary articles which also suggested that these belonged to Kusum Dass. She claimed to have signed the valuation reports under protest.
15.19 I have seen the testimony of all concerned search witnesses as well as valuer and neither the search operation nor the valuation reports could be impeached by the defence in any manner whatsoever. I have seen testimony of PW-60 Prem Nath Khanna, approved Government valuer who has proved his valuation reports. He also clarified in cross-examination that he had prepared the valuation report on the basis of prevalent market rate. It, however, seems that what he wanted to indicate could not be recorded properly as in all reports, he has very specifically claimed that the market CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 75 of 145 value was taken as on 17.4.1992.
15.20 PW-56 Sh. J.K. Gogia was posted as Inspector in the office of Commissioner of Income Tax-I and he was joined as attesting witness at the time of such valuation and he has supported the case of prosecution and nothing stands revealed in his cross-examination which may indicate that the valuation was improper. Testimony of concerned bank officials clearly indicates that the lockers were searched in the proper manner. Moreover, there is no defence that any article was planted in the locker or that the observation memos were not prepared as per the articles contained in the lockers.
15.21 According to Annexure-IV, accused were having total cash of Rs. 1,90,848/- and jewellery worth Rs. 11,84,394/- as on the close of check period. Said calculation seems to have been done on the basis of following details:
15.22 Recovery of cash: (I) Cash Rs. 29,320/- recovered as per Ex.
PW18/A from house search of D-II/3, Andrews Ganj dated 14.04.1992. (ii) Cash Rs. 8,650/- recovered from search of Noida house on 28.04.1992 as per memo Ex. PW31/J. (iii) Cash Rs. 313/- from the search of house situated in Village Kakoli, Farukhabad, UP on 16.05.1992 as per memo Ex. PW188/6. (iv) Cash Rs. 1,00,950/- from locker no. 29 State Bank of Patiala, Shastri Bhawan New Delhi vide memo Ex. PW142/1. (v) Cash Rs. 1928/- from locker no. 139 OBC Munirka Branch vide memo Ex. PW143/1. (vi) Cash Rs. 50,000/- from locker no. 907, PNB Green Park Branch, New Delhi vide memo Ex. PW168/1 15.23 Recovery of Jewellery: (i) Various silver and other jewellery articles (total 25 in number) which were assessed at the Shop of M/s Dhir Sons on 20.04.1992. Weight of various jewellery articles has been mentioned and value has not been given except for three articles whose CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 76 of 145 value has been assessed as Rs. 7,225/-. (ii) Jewellery articles recovered from locker no. 29 State Bank of Patiala, Shastri Bhawan New Delhi vide memo Ex. PW142/1. Valuation of all such jewellery articles was got done and as per memo Ex. PW56/C (D-383), the value has been found to be Rs. 7,16,791/-. (iii) Gold ornaments (150 grams) and silver ornaments (1450 grams) from locker no. 139 OBC Munirka Branch vide memo Ex. PW143/1. Valuation of all such jewellery articles was got done and as per memo Ex. PW56/B (D-383), the value has been found to be Rs. 62,919/-. (iv) Gold jewellery (1020 grams) and silver coins (100 grams) from locker no. 907, PNB Green Park Branch, New Delhi vide memo Ex. PW168/1. Valuation of all such jewellery articles was got done and as per memo Ex. PW56/A (D-
383), the value has been found to be Rs. 4,04,684/-.
15.24 There does not seem to be any dispute with respect to the recovery of cash and it is not possible that even cash would be of other relatives of accused persons.
15.25 Accused Savitri Singh has merely owned up some of the articles lying in locker of PNB. However, I have no hesitation in holding that all such articles were owned by accused persons and there was no reason or occasion for any of her relative to have kept their jewellery in the locker of accused persons without any reason much less a plausible one. As regards jewellery articles, Sh. Singh has, as already noted, claimed that valuation has not been done properly. I have seen the valuation reports and the gold value has been taken as it was prevalent on 13.04.1992. However, still, it has not been specified whether value has been taken as per 22 carats or 24 carats. Defence is also to be equally blamed as it also did not try to seek clarification regarding said aspect either during the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses or during its own evidence. However, ends of justice would meet if margin of 10 per cent is given to accused and accordingly, worth of jewellery articles is held as Rs. 10,65,954.60 instead of Rs. 11,84,394/.
CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 77 of 145SHARE HOLDING 16.0 As per Sh. Rao, following seems to be details regarding investment in shares held by accused and income derived through dividend:-
Sl. Name of Company Number Date of Name of Amount Interest/ No. of Investment Allottee invested dividend shares earned
1. Apollo Tyres Ltd. 25 19.09.89 Ram Singh 3500.00 682.31 2 25 19.09.89 Jitendra 3500.00 682.31 Kumar Singh 3 Bindal Agro 25 19.10.89 Savitri Singh 5000.00 748.56 Chemical S. Ltd.
4 25 19.10.89 Ram Singh 5000.00 748.56 Savitri Singh 5 25 19.10.89 Ashok 5000.00 748.56 Kumar Singh Jitendra Kumar Singh 6 50 19.10.89 Ramkali 10000.00 1497.12 Savitri Singh 7 Electrosteel 20 20.09.89 Jitendra 1700.00 1031.55 Castings Ltd. Kumar Singh 8 20 20.09.89 Savitri Singh 1700.00 1031.55 9 Essar Gujrat Ltd. 25 01.12.90 Ram Singh 4500.00 926.58 10 Finolex Pipes Ltd. 25 22.09.90 Savitri Singh 3750.00 285.14 11 25 22.09.90 Ram Singh 3750.00 285.14 12 25 22.09.90 Jitendra 3750.00 285.14 Kumar Singh 13 25 22.09.90 Ram Kali 3750.00 285.14 Singh 14 Food Specialties 50 28.11.85 Savitri Singh 7250.00 4083.12 Ltd. Ram Singh 15 25 14.04.88 Savitri Singh 2500.00 0.00 Ram Singh CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 78 of 145 16 19 31.03.89 Ram Singh 1140.00 1299.89 Jitendra Kumar Singh Gaurav Kumar Singh 17 25 31.03.89 Savitri Singh 1500.00 0.00 Ram Singh 18 19 11.12.89 Ram Singh 1900.00 0.00 Jitendra Kumar Singh Gaurav Kumar Singh 19 50 30.03.90 Savitri Singh 6000.00 0.00 Ram Singh 20 50 30.03.90 Savitri Singh 6000.00 0.00 Ram Singh 21 Grasim Industries 10 06.02.89 Ram Singh 700.00 0.00 Ltd.
22 11 01.12.89 Ram Singh 1320.00 0.00 23 10 06.02.89 Savitri Singh 700.00 0.00 24 10 01.12.89 Savitri Singh 1200.00 0.00 25 1 06.05.87 Savitri Singh 100.00 0.00 26 2 09.12.88 Savitri Singh 200.00 386.99 27 4 06.05.87 Savitri Singh 400.00 0.00 28 5 25.03.86 Ram Singh 500.00 0.00 29 3 16.05.87 Ram Singh 300.00 0.00 30 2 09.12.88 Raj Kumari 200.00 92.67 Singh 31 2 09.12.88 Ram Singh 200.00 92.67 32 Garden Silk Mills 50 23.04.90 Savitri Singh 2200.00 860.00 Ltd. (MCS Ltd.) 33 50 23.04.90 Savitri Singh 2200.00 0.00 34 Hindustan 29 04.10.89 Savitri Singh 4205.00 676.20 Development Ram Singh Corporation Ltd.
35 47 20.06.89 Savitri Singh 1645.00 0.00 CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 79 of 145 Ram Singh 36 16 14.03.92 Savitri Singh 2447.00 0.00 Ram Singh 37 12 01.01.87 Sangeeta 0.00 0.00 Bala Singh 38 19 20.06.90 Sangeeta 0.00 0.00 Bala Singh 39 7 14.03.92 Sangeeta 1820.00 86.00 Bala Singh 40 J.K. Synthetics Ltd. 40 06.03.87 Savitri Singh 0.00 0.00 41 15 06.03.87 Savitri Singh 0.00 0.00 42 20 07.09.88 Savitri Singh 600.00 1976.30 43 5 25.01.90 Savitri Singh 1500.00 0.00 44 26 07.09.88 Savitri Singh 1200.00 0.00 45 5 25.01.90 Savitri Singh 1500.00 0.00 46 5 25.01.90 Ram Kali 1500.00 3232.24 47 Kedia Electrical 100 01.02.85 Ram Singh 100.00 0.00 48 Larsen & Toubro 244 15.10.86 Savitri Singh 29280.00 0.00 Ltd.
49 25 31.08.87 Savitri Singh 2500.00 0.00 50 25 31.08.87 Savitri Singh 0.00 0.00 51 10 09.12.89 Raj Kumar 1500.00 0.00 Singh 52 10 09.12.89 Ashok 1500.00 0.00 Kumar Singh 53 20 29.01.90 Savitri Singh 3000.00 0.00 54 50 29.01.90 Savitri Singh 7250.00 0.00 55 50 12.03.92 Ram Singh 9000.00 0.00 56 10 12.03.92 Ram Singh 0.00 0.00 57 50 12.03.92 Savitri Singh 14500.00 0.00 58 50 12.03.92 Savitri Singh 0.00 0.00 CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 80 of 145 59 40 12.03.92 Savitri Singh 6000.00 0.00 60 Macleod Ruseel 30 29.03.90 Ram Kali 0.00 520.00 (India) Ltd.
61 Parke Davis (India) 30 27.03.91 Ram Singh 0.00 0.00 Ltd.
62 Reliance Industries 20 14.11.88 Savitri Singh 4000.00 1379.08 Ltd.
63 10 14.11.88 Ram Singh 2000.00 697.37 64 13 14.11.88 Savitri Singh 2000.00 861.80 65 10 30.09.85 Ram Singh 962.00 947.90 Savitri Singh 66 28 14.11.88 Raj Kumari 5600.00 1816.00 Singh 67 Steel Strips Ltd. 75 19.04.91 Ram Kali 2625.00 183.25 68 75 19.04.92 Savitri Devi 2625.00 122.50 69 Usha India Ltd. 140 01.10.89 Ram Kali 7000.00 269.57 70 120 01.10.89 Savitri Singh 6000.00 231.06 Ram Singh 71 120 01.10.89 Kusum Lata 6000.00 231.06 Sangeeta Bala Singh 72 120 01.10.89 Ram Singh 6000.00 232.90 Savitri Singh 73 120 01.10.89 Jitendra 6045.00 321.73 Kumar Singh Ashok Kumar Singh 16.01 As per prosecution, accused had shares worth Rs. 11,900/- at the start of check period and shares worth Rs. 2,46,715.30 at the close of check period. Prosecution has also given benefit of income from interest and dividend as Rs. 32,849.51 as is evident from Sr. No. 7 of Annexure A. CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 81 of 145 16.2 According to the version of accused, as deposed by her in her defence evidence, she had acquired many such shares from the estate of her father in terms of probate and some such shares were bonus shares and CBI added those shares as well, which were required to be excluded. As regards shares, reference be made to her testimony as contained in Para-71 to Para-
88. Her such deposition reads as under:
71 The shares along with interest and dividend are declared in ITR-91-92 and ITR-92-93 as per D-374, D-375 & D376. All the share are released from the court on 24-8-07.
The mode of acquisition of the shares are from the Probate of my father Sh. GR Bahmani, shares held by myself, shares acquired by myself, shares acquired by Jitendra Kumar Singh and Sangeeta Bala Singh, bonus share, shares before check period-gifts. CBI added the value of the share whereas it has to be exempted for the shares received on probate, transmission, prior to check period, bonus shares. The total value of the share is Rs 28,005/-. The C.B.I. has wrongly calculated and taken the value of shares as Rs 40,930/-.
72 I have purchased 25 shares of Bindal Agro Chemical Ltd. for Rs 5000/- on 30-6-90 and on conversion it became 150 share.
73 I have 300/25 PCD shares of Food specialties. I spent Rs 2080 on application and Rs 1920 on allotment. 50 shares were gifted by sister in law in 1985. I received 215 shares as bonus. I received 25 shares on PCD (12% interest).
74 I have purchased 100 shares on 23-4-90 of Garden silk mills ltd for Rs 4400/-.I received dividend Rs 1180/- as per D-224.
75 I have purchased 90 shares of Goodrick Group Ltd on20-9-79 for Rs 250/-. This is before check period as per D-
222. 76 I have total 76 shares in Hindustan Development Corporation. I purchased 48 debentures on 11-4-92 for Rs 900/- and on call paid Rs 600/- as per D-225.
77 I have 31 shares and 7 debentures of Hindustan Development Corporation in the name of my daughter Smt Sangeeta Bala Singh. I received 3 shares which were gifted by my sister in law on 30-6-90 as per D-225.
CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 82 of 14578 I purchased 5 debentures for Rs 1500/- on 25-1-90 of JK Synthetic. I further purchased 5 debentures for Rs 1500 on 19-9-89 on conversion total 76 shares as per D-226, D-227 and D-377.
79 I have 20 shares and 10 debentures of Electro steel casting ltd purchased for Rs 1700/- on 20-9-89. 20 shares received on 7-12-92 after Check period as per D-225. I received Dividend of Rs 295/-and interest Rs 736.55 as per D-218.
80 I have 50 shared and 25 debentures purchased for Rs 3750/- of Finoles Pipes Ltd. as per D-220. I received dividend of Rs 285.14 as per D-220.
81 I have 37 shares in Grasim Industries purchased for Rs 2200/-D-221. I have 5 bonds of Rs 160/- each purchased before the check period. I received 10 shares on conversion on 13.5% on bonds on 1-4-83. It is before check period as per D-221.
82 I have 78 shares of reliance industries ltd. These share were received on "right basis" and on conversion on 2- 1-87. I received Dividend of Rs. 2355/- as per D-232, D-233 & D-377.
83 I have 13 shares and 13 debenture of reliance petro-chemical which were purchased for Rs 2600/- as per D-232, D-233 & D-77.
84 I have 624 share and 135 debentures of L&T. I received 244 shares from the estate of my father late Sh. GR Bahmani as per D-229 & D-377.
85 I have 75 shares of steel strip ltd purchased for Rs 2625 on 19.10.90. Dividend /interest received was Rs 306.25 as per D-236.
86 I have 120 shares of Usha India Ltd for Rs 6000/-
on 28-8-90. I got the interest Rs 231.06.and dividend of Rs 90.67 as per D-234.
87 I purchased 60 FCD @ Rs 100/- for Rs 6000/- on 11-10-8 of Usha India ltd. I got dividend of Rs 231.60, interest Rs 90.67 as per D-235.
88 I received shares/debentures/cash from the Probate/estate of my father late Sh. GR Bahmani 244 shares of L&T Ltd. On 21-11-86 as per D-229 & D-377. I also received 50 shares/ 50 debentures of reliance industries ltd on 28-11-86 as per D-323, D-233 & D-377. I also received 40 CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 83 of 145 shares/15 debentures of JK Synthetic Ltd as per D-227. I also received proportionate dividend of reliance textile Rs 693.30, proportionate dividend of L&T Rs 228. I also received cash of Rs 44,334/- from fixed deposit no. 184168 of my father. I also received cash of Rs 2482/- from my father. Intimation to the Income tax department has been given as per D-38.
16.3 Thus, if her investment in shares of Bindal Agro Chemical Limited, FSL, Garden Silk, Hindustan Development Corporation, J.K. Synthetic, Electro Steel, Finolex, Grasim, Reliance Petro Chemicals, Steel Strips and Usha is calculated, even as per her, it comes to Rs. 42,775/-. According to her, shares of Goodrich were obtained prior to the check period and shares of Reliance Industries came to her on the basis of conversion on right basis and 240 shares of L&T came to her from the estate of her father, therefore, these could not have been taken into consideration.
16.4 In order to prove holding of shares as well as income by way of interest/dividend, several witnesses have entered into witness box from the side of prosecution. Let me deal with their evidence one by one.
(1) Electrosteel Castings Ltd: I have seen testimony of PW- 178 Nalin Baijal which goes on to indicate that such investment was made in the year 1989 and Rs. 1700/- each was deposited by accused Savitri Singh and Sh. Jitender Kumar Singh. Such evidence is unchallenged.
(2) Finolex Pipes Ltd: PW-179 Sh. Kartikey B. Dave has entered into witness box and has proved details as contained in letter Ex. PW 179/2 (D-220). According to such details, each of the four allottees had deposited a sum of Rs. 3750/- during the period 22.9.1990 to 5.2.1992. I have seen such letter as well as details contained therein and there is no cross-examination with respect to said aspect either.
(3) Reliance Industries Ltd: Reference be made to the testimony of PW-180 Sh. Rohit Channalal Shah. He has deposed that Ram Singh and Savitri Singh had invested a sum of Rs. 2,000/- in September, 1985 but out of the said amount Rs. 1037.80 was refunded on 7.10.1985.
CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 84 of 145This reduces the actual investment to Rs. 962/-. PW-180 Sh. Rohit Shah also admitted in his examination-in-chief itself that he was not in a position to give the date and year of any other investment.
(4) Larsen & Toubro Ltd: PW-181 Sanjay Laxman Mali, on the basis of letter Ex. PW 181/1 (D-229), has deposed that accused Savitri Singh had invested a sum of Rs. 29,280/ on 13.10.1986 and applied for 244 shares. He has also deposed about the investment made by accused Savitri Singh, i.e. investment of Rs. 2500/- (for 25 debentures), Rs. 5,000/- (for 40 debentures), Rs. 40,500/- (for 50 debentures) and Rs. 6,000/- (for 20 debentures). He also deposed that Ram Singh had invested Rs. 9,000/- (for 30 debentures). Thus, the total investment with respect to shares of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. comes to Rs. 92,280/- (Rs. 83280/- plus 9,000/-).
(5) Food Specialties Ltd: In order to prove investment made for acquisition of said company, prosecution has examined PW-182 Rajinder Agarwal. He has deposed that accused Ram Singh had invested Rs. 3040/- for purchase of 19 convertible debentures of Rs. 160/- each on 14.4.1988. He also proved allotment certificate as well as bonus share certificates. He has also deposed that Savitri Singh had invested Rs. 4,000/- their company and accordingly she was allotted 25 debentures on 14.4.1988. Thus, total investment on behalf of both the accused, in view of the aforesaid testimony of sh. Agarwal, comes to Rs. 7040/-.
(6) Steel Strips: PW-185 Sh. M.L. Jain has entered into witness box and has deposed that vide letter Ex. PW 185/1 (D-236), details regarding debentures in the name of Smt. Ram Kali, Jitender Kumar Singh and accused Savitri Singh were provided. I have carefully perused Ex. PW 185/1 (D-236) and the chart attached with the same. It seems that 75 shares were applied by Savitri Devi and same number of shares was applied for by Ram Kali and Jitender Kumar Singh and they were allotted 25 shares each on 19.1.1991. Remaining 50 shares were allotted to both of them beyond the check period. It also seems that when the applications were moved by applicants, they had made the payment at the rate of Rs. 105/- per debenture CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 85 of 145 for 50 debentures each. Thus, total investment by Savitri Singh was of Rs. 5250/-. Similarly the total investment/deposit made by Ram Kali/Jitender Kumar Singh was also of Rs. 5250/-.
(7) Grasim Industries Ltd: PW-198 Pankaj Kapdeo has proved his letter Ex. PW 190/4 whereby he had provided information regarding investment made by Ram Singh, Savitri Singh, Raj Kumar Singh in shares and debentures. There is no challenge to his such testimony. I have also seen the relevant document i.e. D-221. I have seen the details annexed with the said letter and though it is apparent that investment had been made by Sh. Ram Singh, Savitri Singh and Raj Kumari Singh for obtaining shares of M/s Grasim but even as per details certified by M/s Grasim Industries Ltd., particulars regarding payments were not available with the company. Some of the shares were allotted in the year 1982 and in 1983 which are naturally before the check period. Bonus shares were also allotted but such allotment cannot be reckoned for the present purpose. Said chart also discloses that some shares were given against the conversion. Be that as it may, the chart does not convey a very clear picture about the exact date of investment and even the testimony of PW-198 Sh. Pankaj Kapdeo, Deputy Company Secretary with M/s Grasim Industries Ltd. does not throw requisite light and since wild guess or estimation would not be permissible, the worth of acquisition does not stand proved in the desired manner.
(8) J.K. Synthetics: On careful perusal of the details contained in Ex. PW 169/2 (D-227), it is quite clear that there was total investment of Rs. 6300/- on behalf of accused Savitri Singh for acquiring shares which also included investment of Rs. 1500/- on behalf of Ram Kali as well.
(9) M/s Apollo Tyres Ltd: As regards holding which accused Ram Singh and his son Jitender Kumar Singh had with M/s Apollo Tyres Ltd., PW-176 P. N. Wahal has graced the witness box and has proved his letter Ex. PW 176/8 (D-215). This letter clearly proves that Ram Singh and Jitender Kumar Singh were allotted 25 partly convertible debentures and they both had invested Rs. 3500/- each in their company in the year 1989. The CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 86 of 145 testimony of Sh. Wahal remains unrebutted and the record proved brought him also shows the acquisition as alleged by the prosecution.
(10) Bindal Agro Chemcals Ltd: Sh. A. K. Rao, Ld. Sr. PP has, though, very fairly admitted that no concerned official of M/s Bindal Agro Chemicals Ltd. has graced the witness box, yet the bank record establishes that Savitri Singh had made total payment of Rs. 2500/- to said company in relation to her such holding. Reference has been made to two cheques Ex. PW 42/O and Ex. PW 42/P. These two cheques are dated 19.10.1989 and 6.2.1990 respectively and are of Rs. 1250/- each. I have also seen the testimony of PW-42 Sh. N. K. Madan who has proved the relevant bank documents including the aforesaid two cheques and such fact could not be dislodged by the defence during the cross-examination or otherwise. Thus, acquisition, to that effect, is held as proved.
16.5 Undoubtedly, some of the share holdings could not be proved by the prosecution. As already noticed above, number of share holdings have been admitted by accused Savitri Singh in her defence evidence itself and it is settled position of law that a fact admitted need not be proved any further and, therefore, on cumulative reading of evidence adduced during the trial as well as the admission by the defence, the acquisition with respect to share holdings stands proved as Rs. 163682/-.
HOUSE SEARCH 17.0 It is now appropriate to see the aspect related to house search.
17.1 Inventories were prepared during the various house searches. As per the prosecution case, accused were having household articles at the start of check period to the tune of Rs. 87,275/- and such worth escalated to Rs. 4,44,008/- at the time of end of check period.
CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 87 of 14517.2 According to Sh. M.P. Singh, learned defence counsel, house of Noida is required to be excluded as it belonged to Smt. Ram Kali and her belongings cannot be held to be the assets of accused persons. As regards valuation conducted with respect to household goods of Delhi house, Sh. M.P. Singh has contended that CBI has overvalued most of the household articles and even the acquisition year has been mentioned incorrectly. He has also claimed that most of such articles were, even otherwise, of pre- check period.
17.3 Let me first come straightway to house search related to Noida house which has been proved as Ex. PW31/J. It is important to mention that even as per the observation memo Ex. PW31/J, when the search was conducted, house was found locked and nobody was found present in the house. However, Ram Singh was already accompanying the raiding party and the lock was broken with his consent and then all the articles lying in the house were noted down and the cost of the articles was assessed. Reference be made to the testimony of PW31 Sh. V.K. Aggarwal. He was, at the relevant time, posted in Central Bank of India and knew the accused family also. Besides proving the bank record pertaining to Sh. Ashok Kr. Singh, Smt. Ram Kali and Savitri Singh, he also deposed that on 28.04.1992, he along with CBI team had gone to house located at C-33, Sector-14, Noida. House was found locked and same was broken in the presence of Sh. Ram Singh and the articles kept/found there were noted down in the observation memo. He also claimed that he signed the observation along with CBI team and date of acquisition and mode of acquisition and amount written against each item was mentioned in the observation memo on the basis of revelation made by Sh. Ram Singh. Fact, however, remains that it has already been discussed above that said house belonged to Smt. Ram Kali and since she was having a separate and independent entity, of her own, it will not be appropriate to fasten her household articles upon the accused persons. As per rough calculation, worth of such assets is found to be around Rs. 80,000/-.
CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 88 of 14517.4 Significant recovery is from H. No. D-II/3, Andrews Ganj, New Delhi. It will be important to mention right here that such house was searched twice by CBI. First search took place on 14.04.1992 when a detailed inventory was made with respect to the household articles. It also comprises of observation memo showing the valuation of all such assets. It also takes into consideration the Fiat Car worth Rs. 52,000/- and cash worth Rs. 29,300/-. Besides the aforesaid, various jewellery articles were found lying in the house. These were evaluated on approximation basis and thereafter such jewellery was returned back to Sh. Ram Singh. No such jewellery was taken into possession by CBI.
17.5 Another search of said house was conducted on 20.04.1992 and then CBI learnt that certain items of jewellery, which they had observed during the earlier search, were missing on the comparison of list prepared on 13.04.1992. Fact remains that no such list dated 13.04.1992 of jewellery articles is found to be on record or proved by the prosecution. Thereafter, investigating officer took the remaining jewellery articles to a goldsmith M/s Dhir Sons, Greater Kailash, New Delhi. Inventory was prepared. Search memo has been proved as Ex. PW183/1 and memo prepared at M/s Dhir Sons has been proved as Ex. PW183/2. I have seen the testimony of PW183 Sh. P.K. Dass, official of Oriental Bank of Commerce. He was briefed that a raiding team had been constituted in which he was to join as a witness and then they reached H. No. D-II/3, Andrews Ganj, New Delhi. He deposed that search-cum-seizure memo was prepared in his presence and he signed on each page of such memo. He has also deposed about preparation of observation memo. In his cross-examination, he also claimed that there were two independent witnesses and six-seven CBI officials when they reached at the spot. He deposed that neighbours were not joined in the raid. Though his examination seems to be little sketchy but fact remains that defence could not dig out anything substantial from his cross-examination either.
CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 89 of 14517.6 PW183 Sh. Lalit Mohan was posted as Clerk in Corporation Bank, CGO, New Delhi. He joined search operation dated 20.04.1992. He has deposed that he accompanied CBI team to a flat having number as. D-3 probably and CBI had prepared list of articles found during the search of said flat. He has also deposed that search memo Ex. PW183/1 (D-382) was bearing his signatures. He also deposed that after conducting search, they all went to a jewellery shop situated at Greater Kailash for weighing the jewellery articles found during the search. Thereafter, a list was got prepared at the jewellery shop. He also signed the same. He has also proved the appraisal list EX. PW183/2. His cross-examination also does not show anything worth mentioning.
17.7 With the assistance of Sh. Rao, valuation of household articles as recovered in the search of H. No. D-II/3, Andrews Ganj has been calculated and total worth comes to Rs. 3.50 lacs approximately. Though valuation does not seem to be on higher side or exaggerated one but still, to be fair to the accused, I grant further benefit of 10 per cent to her and, therefore, worth is held as Rs. 2.80 lacs. Right here, I would also add that to avoid double jeopardy, I am not reckoning the cost of car as part of assets since cost thereof is mentioned in expenditure chart.
17.8 Defence has not been able to show as to what assets, which they actually possessed at the start of check period, have been omitted by the investigating agency and, therefore, the initial figure worth of assets taken as Rs. 82,275/- is also treated in the same manner by giving benefit of 10 per cent and such worth is held as Rs. 78,547.
EXPENDITURE 18.0 As regards item no. 1, according to CBI, accused had paid house tax for his house No. E-7/717, Shahpura, Bhopal, MP @ Rs. 830/- per annum. According to CBI, during the check period, he had paid a sum of Rs.
CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 90 of 1454,150/- towards house tax. In this regard, prosecution has relied upon the testimony of PW59 Sh. P.C. Patil who used to work as LDC in the Office of Municipal Corporation, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal. He has made reference about the relevant documents contained in D-66 and deposed that as per record, total house tax paid by accused Ram Singh was Rs. 4,150/-. He has also made reference to the payments made by accused Ram Singh with respect to some such receipts and also deposed that entries in those receipts had been made by him in the official record. Such official record has been proved as Ex. PW59/A. There is no suggestion to the contrary. It was never suggested to Sh. Patil that no such house tax was paid by Sh. Ram Singh and, therefore, for all practical purpose, such expenditure, particularly in light of convincing testimony of PW59 Sh. P.C. Patil stands proved.
18.1 As regards items mentioned at serial no. 2 & 3 of Annexure III, reference be made to the statement of account of Bhopal Co-operative Central Government Bank Ltd. Such statement is contained in D-204 and has been proved as Ex. P-1000. Such statement clearly indicates that total sum of Rs. 50,000/- was disbursed to accused Ram Singh. It also becomes clear that he repaid the same with interest of Rs. 14,376/-. Moreover, such expenditure has to be read along with the income from known sources during the check period and prosecution has already taken into consideration said loan amount of Rs. 50,000/- at entry no. 15 of Annexure-II as income details. Said entries thus stand proved.
18.2 As regards expenditure item mentioned at serial no. 4 related to ground-rent of Bhopal house, though some of the relevant documents are found to be admitted and have been exhibited as Ex. P-1086 to P-1132 but these documents are in relation to execution of lease deed only. Admittedly, such lease deed bears stipulation regarding the payment of ground rent but merely because a recital to that effect is there in the lease deed would not automatically mean that ground rent was also paid much less that such payment was made within the check period. Therefore, such entry does not CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 91 of 145 stand substantiated in the desired manner.
18.3 As regards item no. 5, as per prosecution case, accused had made expenditure towards payment of ground rent for their Munirka House. In this regard, CBI has examined PW39 Sh. S.K. Singhal who was posted as Senior Account Officer, DDA, Vikas Sadan at the relevant time. He deposed that the property in question i.e. Flat No. BH-10B, Munirka had been allotted to Ms. Savitri Singh and besides making of payments of EMIs regarding cost of the flat, allottee had also paid ground rent @ Rs. 270/- per annum. Total ground rent paid by Ms. Savitri Singh between the period 01.01.1982 to 11.11.1992 has been proved as Rs. 3,330/-. Since the check period is from 01.01.1985 to 13.04.1992, the ground rent for the check period (8 years) has been taken by the prosecution as Rs. 2,160/-. Testimony of PW39 Sh. S.K. Singhal could not be impeached by the defence in any manner whatsoever and the relevant documents contained in D-31, which stand duly proved, confirms the aforesaid expenditure.
18.4 No witness has been examined to prove the expenditure mentioned at Sr. No. 6.
18.5 As regards National Saving Certificate (NSC) dated 14.02.1989 mentioned at serial no.7, prosecution has relied upon the testimony of PW159 Sh. S.R. Dhudhe as well as upon the testimony of PW187 Sh. R.K. Singh. They both are officials of Post Office. PW159 Sh. S.R. Dhudhe was posted as Assistant Post Master, Chhindwara Post Office, MP and he has deposed that vide letter Ex. PW159/1 (D-53), he had furnished information to CBI regarding NSCs issued from Chhindwara Post Office in the name of Ram Singh. He has deposed that such information was provided on the basis of record of post office. Similarly, PW187 Sh. R.K. Singh has deposed about various National Saving Certificates which had been issued by the Post Office, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi. It will be also important to mention that several such NSCs were admitted by the accused during the trial. Accused CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 92 of 145 Savitri Singh had also admitted some of the NSCs contained in D-379. Three National Saving Certificates in question i.e. Ex. P-1198 to Ex. P-1200 have not been admitted by accused Savitri Singh herself but fact remains that PW187 R.K. Singh has categorically deposed about all these three NSCs as well and has testified that these were issued by Post Office of Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi and were bearing stamp of their post office. These were issued on 14.03.1989. Two certificates are of face value of Rs. 1,000/- each and one is of Rs. 500/-. Thus, the total investment comes to Rs. 2,500/-. Same stands proved.
18.6 Besides the expenditure mentioned at item no. 8, 9 & 10 for ULIP of Unit Trust of India (UTI), CBI has also made reference about UTI in the charts of assets as well as of the income. It will be appropriate if all these entries are taken up together. Numbers of witnesses have been examined by the prosecution in this regard. Reference be also made to the testimony of PW32, PW37, PW53, PW184, PW186, PW193 & PW194.
18.7 PW32 Ms. Bindu Khanna had the agency of UTI and she has proved the application form of Master Equity Plan 1992. According to her, such form (Ex. PW32/A) was in relation to purchase of 1000 Master Equity Plan Units of Scheme MEP-92. Application was filled up by Ram Singh who had signed the form in her presence. Nominee was Savitri Singh and according to her, payment for above said 1000 units was made by way of cheque dated 24.01.1992 drawn on SBI for Rs. 10,000/-.
18.8 PW32 Ms. Bindu Khanna has also made reference about the investment made by accused Ram Singh in UGS 2000 Scheme. He invested Rs. 2,000/- in his own name and purchased the Units under the same scheme in the name of his daughter Sangeeta Bala Singh and such payment was made by accused Ram Singh in cash. She has further deposed that Ram Singh has also purchased units in ULIP 1971 Scheme for Rs. 2,000/- in the name of his wife Savitri Singh and the payment was made by Ram Singh CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 93 of 145 in cash. However, in her deposition, she nowhere verified whether such investment/payment was made by Ram Singh during the check period or not. She also did not make any reference about any document and, therefore, the aforesaid alleged investment of Rs. 6,000/- (Rs. 4000 in USG 2000 Scheme and Rs. 2,000 in ULIP 1971 Scheme) does not stand proved.
18.9 PW37 Naresh Kr. Sachdeva of Tata Consultancy made reference about one letter dated 26.03.1995 which was written to CBI by Sh. B.N. Krishna. Such letter has been proved by him as Ex. PW37/A. He, on the basis of such letter, made reference about the transactions and details of units applied by Ram Singh and his wife till 13.04.1992. Transactions details have been given in Ex. PW37/B (part of D-239). Such chart clearly indicates that a total sum of Rs. 6,000/- was invested by accused Ram Singh for purchasing Units and he made payment through SBI, DMS Shadipur, New Delhi Branch. Similarly, Savitri Singh also paid a sum of Rs. 2,000/- through cheque drawn on her OBC Munirka Branch, New Delhi account. All such cheques are also dated 10.09.1990.
18.10 Testimony of PW53 Rajinder Kumar does not seem to be of much significance as he has merely identified the signatures of Sh. Rajender Singh, the then Deputy Manager, UTI on letter Ex. PW53/A. He did not make any mention about the investment or other details related to accused persons. I have seen Ex. PW53/A (D-245). It also only talks about the name of the holder of the units and about the number of units held by such holders i.e. Savitri Singh and her children but there are no other details with respect to the date of purchase of units and the mode of acquisition. Therefore, the testimony of PW53 Rajinder Kumar does not take us anywhere.
18.11 I have also seen the testimony of PW184 Mahadev and PW186 Sh. P.S. Narula. They both are officials of UTI and their testimony would merely indicate that Savitri Singh had made investment of Rs. 500/- for purchasing units in the name of her child Kumari Sangeeta Bala Singh. Such CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 94 of 145 investment was made on 02.03.1977 even as per testimony of PW184. I have seen letter Ex. PW184/1 (D-243) and it becomes evident that such investment was of the year 1977 i.e. much prior to the check period in question and, therefore, their testimony also does not carry any real value in relation to the present acquisition.
18.12 Testimony of PW193 Sh. Asik Pramanik is also little bit skeptical. He claimed that he did not remember whether CBI had made any inquiry from him in connection with the present case. He was shown letter dated 30.09.1994 signed by Mr. Jaggi who was posted as AGM with UTI at the relevant time. He identified his signatures and on the strength of such letter Ex. PW193/1 (D-244), he deposed that dividend was paid to accused Ram Singh. Prosecution, at the time of recording of deposition of said witness, did not make any endeavour to decipher the exact payment of dividend. However, keeping in mind the check period, it becomes clear that Sh. Ram Singh was paid dividend of Rs. 770/- (Rs. 160 + 165 + 195 + 250) during the check period.
18.13 PW194 Gurdeep Singh Kochhar has made reference about letter Ex. PW194/1 (D-240). As per said letter, Sh. Ram Singh had taken ULIP policy on 01.10.1984 and the date of maturity was 10.10.1994 and the annual contribution was to be of Rs. 1,200/-. Similarly, Savitri Singh joined ULIP policy on 01.07.1984 having maturity as 01.07.1994 and her annual contribution was also of Rs. 1,200/-. It seems that prosecution calculated the expenditure towards acquiring ULIP policy on the basis of fact that accused persons were required to pay annual contribution @ Rs. 1,200/-. There is every possibility that they must have paid the contribution and must have been issued certificates thereafter only but fact remains that even as per letter Ex. PW194/1 (D-240), UTI has expressed its inability to furnish the details and mode of payment of yearly contribution. It was only able to give one detail of payment of Rs. 1,200/- through cheque dated 06.03.1991. Mere assumption and guess work would not work and, therefore, investment CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 95 of 145 stands proved only to the extent of Rs. 1,200/-.
18.14 Net result of my aforesaid discussion goes on to show that as regards items no. 8, 9 & 10 of Annexure-III, though total expenditure alleged to have been made by accused was to the tune of Rs. 22,800/- but same stands proved to the extent of Rs. 1,200/- only. I am mindful of the fact that prosecution has brought on record additional expenditure/investment of Rs. 18,000/- during the check period but fact remains that such investment/ expenditure was never taken into consideration during the investigation and, therefore, expenditure chart cannot be changed at the fag end of the case and, that too, to the prejudice of the accused and, therefore, I am not considering the aforesaid investment of Rs. 18,000/- which though seems to have been made by accused during check period established in view of the afore-referred testimony of prosecution witnesses.
18.15 It would be also important to mention here that when accused Savitri Singh entered into witness box, she also made reference about her holding/investment/income from such units. Relevant paragraphs of her deposition are extracted as under:
20 As per D-390, I have taken certificate No. 48212210633, for 50 units from UTI (Unit trust of India) under my guardianship in the name of my son Gaurav Kumar Singh. This is before check period.
33 I have taken UNITS from UNITS Trust Of India certificate no. 4159404901 D-2101. The date of Units 2-3-1977 No. of Units 50.purchased before Check Period as per D-390. 34 I have taken UNITS from UNITS Trust Of India certificate no. 48212210731. The date of Units taken on 3.7.81, No. of Units 100, purchased before Check Period as per D-390. 44 I have ULIP No. 30165597 for Rs.12,000/-. The annual premium is Rs 1200/- which was taken on 1-7-84. This is before the Check period as per (D-240-245) D-374-375 (ITR-92-93). 47 I have MISG-90(1) of UNITS Scheme, the units certificate no. M9011222457 is in my name and my husband sh.CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 96 of 145
Ram Singh. Total units purchased 570 on cumulative option. The date of maturity was 1.6.87 as per D-242.
49 I have UGS-2000 scheme of UTI on which no interest or dividend is payable. Certificate No.914130009974 folio no. 42S117360, purchased 200 units. Payment made of Rs 2000/- paid by chq no.204634 dated 10-9-90 from OBC, Munirka New Delhi is in my name as per D-245.
50 I have units purchased from Delhi branch vide certificate no. 48212210633 in the name of my son Sh. Gaurav Kumar Singh having 50 units as per D-245.
51 I have units purchased from Delhi Branch vide certificate no. 48212210634 in the name of my daughter Smt. Sangeeta Bala Singh. Gaurav Kumar Singh having 50 units as per D-245.
52 I have units purchased from Delhi branch vide certificate no. 48212210632 in the name of my son Sh. Jitendra Kumar Singh purchased on 24-7-81 having 50 units as per D-245. This was purchased Before Check Period.
53 I have US-64 under units scheme purchased from Delhi branch vide certificate no. 48211201573 in my name having 350 units as per D-245.
54 I have units certificate no. 4159404001-D-2000 in the name of my daughter Smt. Sangeeta Bala Singh purchased on 2- 3-77 having 50 units as per D-390. This was purchased Before Check Period.
55 I have units certificate no. 48212210731 in the name of my daughter Smt. Sangeeta Bala Singh purchased on 30-7-81 having 100 units as per D-390. This was purchased Before Check Period.
56 I have units certificate no. 48212210633 in the name of my son Sh. Gaurav Kumar Singh purchased on 24-7-81 having 50 units as per D-390. This was purchased Before Check Period. 57 I have units certificate no. M-9011222457 dated 3-5-90 in my name having 570 units as per D-390.
58 I have 500 units under MF-Unit Scheme (Master Folio) having No. 500868 Distinctive no. 00058681981-2480 on 12-1-
286. I have MF-Unit Scheme MF no.500868 received 250 bonus in my name on 29.5.89.
CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 97 of 14559 I have MF-Unit Scheme MF no. 500868 received 375 bonus share on 1.9.91.
70 I received ULIP income by Chq No.932458 dated 2-4- 91 for Rs 1200/-, is the final amount received from the ULIP. I also received RS 12,000/- surrender value of ULIP of UTI vide letter dated 15-10-90. I also received Rs 10,575/-UTI (ULIP) as per D-240 to D-245. The said amount was deposited in SB a/c No. 1473, Bank of India, BS Marg, New Delhi vide D-114.
18.16 Evidently, she, too, has made reference about various acquisitions prior to the check period. According to the case of prosecution, her assets in UTI at the start of check period were Rs. 9,047.50 and such assets were worth Rs. 47,022.55 as on the close of check period. However, prosecution has not been able to throw sufficient light whether at the time of making such calculation, it had excluded those units which were either acquired before the check period or the units which accused had or might have received by way of bonus. Undoubtedly, there are number of certificates available on record but for lack of convincing evidence, it will not be possible to come to a firm conclusion either way as no prosecution witness bothered to throw any light over the same. Therefore, while accepting assets value as on start of check period as Rs. 9,047.50, I am forced to hold that there was no further increase in such asset in relation to UTI even at the end of check period.
18.17 As regards income from ULIP, prosecution has taken such income as Rs. 10,575.87 which accrued to her on 06.03.1991. Such fact has also been admitted by accused Savitri Singh in her deposition and, therefore, such income as mentioned at item no. 12 of Annexure-II also stands proved.
18.18 As regards Item No. 11 & 12, the prosecution has, again, not been able to substantiate the expenditure. As per case of prosecution, one Sh. Malkhan Singh had been given a loan of Rs. 10,000/- and one Sh. Vishram Singh had been given a loan of Rs. 2,000/- by accused. As far as CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 98 of 145 loan allegedly given to Sh. Malkhan Singh is concerned, admittedly, there is no document to that effect. No witness has either been examined to prove the aforesaid loan. As regards alleged loan of Rs. 2,000/- to Sh. Vishram Singh, prosecution did examine PW-98 Sh. Vishram Singh but to the utter dismay of the prosecution, he took a somersault and instead of claiming that he had taken a loan of Rs. 2,000/- from accused Savitri Singh, he rather claimed that he had taken a loan of Rs. 500/- from Smt. Ram Kali. Prosecution was armed with a document with respect to said loan transaction. Reference be made to D-361 but for the reasons best known to the then prosecutor, Sh. Vishram Singh was never confronted with the aforesaid executed receipt dated 3.3.1992. Such receipt is lying unproved and unexhibited. Thus, both the aforesaid loan entries mentioned at serial no. 11 & 12 do not stand proved.
18.19 As regards item No. 13, according to prosecution, accused were having number of policies issued by LIC and during the check period, premium to the tune of Rs. 1,75,073/- was paid. I have seen the relevant documents contained in D-68, D-117, D-118 and D-378. With the great assistance rendered by Sh. Rao, Ld. Sr. PP, I went through all such record and it becomes evident that the following policies were held by accused Ram Singh and accused Savitri Singh besides Ashok Kumar Singh:-
Sl. Policy No. Name of Policy Holder Risk Dated Amount of Yearly No. Premium 1 23517560 Ram Singh 15.04.71 471.20 2 23517561 Ram Singh 11.06.71 471.20 3 23558097 Shri & Smt. Ram Singh 11.06.72 876.60 4 28515404 Shri & Smt. Ram Singh 15.04.75 898.00 5 76931515 Ram Singh 01.09.84 7190.00 6 76931619 Savitri Singh 02.10.84 3555.00 7 76948125 Shri & Smt. Ram Singh 12.03.86 3860.00 CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 99 of 145 8 111085767 Gaurav Kumar 28.01.91 4926.50 9 111082074 Sh. Ram Singh 28.11.89 4931.30 10 111081666 Sh. Ram Singh 15.02.90 4709.50 11 111081443 Sh. Ashok Kumar Singh 28.08.89 2574.60 12 111084507 Savitri Singh 28.07.90 3665.90 13 111084607 Sh. Ashok Kumar 28.08.90 3333.50 18.20 I have seen the testimony of PW-128 R. C. Ranglani, LIC officials from Jabalpur Division. He has proved his letter Ex. PW128/2 (part of D-68) whereby he had furnished the relevant information to CBI. Letter Ex. PW 128/1 talks about the total loan of Rs. 33,320/- paid to holder as loan.
Such loan was paid during the check period. Ex. PW128/2 makes reference about the policies which were issued by Jabalpur branch of LIC.
18.21 PW-136 Sh. G.C. Narang happens to be official of Bank of India, Chhindwara Branch, M.P. He has deposed that LIC paid a cheque (Ex. PW758) of Rs. 33,320/- in favour of Ram Singh and Savitri Singh. He also made reference about another payment from LIC of Rs. 10,000/-. Such payment was made by LIC vide cheque dated 5.10.1989 in the name of Savitri Singh and cheque has been proved as Ex. P-707.
18.22 PW-195 Ashwani Ghai has also proved letter Ex. PW 195/1 (part of D-68. There does not seem to be any dispute regarding the fact that such policies were held by Sh. Ram Singh, his wife and their children and they were paying premium regularly during the said check period. However, it is not made clear by prosecution about mode and source of payment of premium in relation to the two policies held by Ashok Kumar Singh. Therefore, I am excluding these two policies from the scope of consideration. In view of the documents brought on record, it stands proved that accused Ram Singh and accused Savitri Singh had paid premium to the tune of Rs. 1,57,350/- (1,75,037 - 17,723).
CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 100 of 14518.23 Similarly, expenditure regarding repayment of loan and interest as mentioned at serial No. 14 of Annexure-III, expenditure amount of Rs. 29,529/- stands proved in view of the details given in Ex. PW128/2 (part of D-
68).
18.24 Prosecution has made reference to two entries in relation to income from LIC. These are at serial No. 10 & 11 of Annexure-II. These are not disputed by the defence either and these also stand proved.
18.25 As regards item no. 15 & 16, according to the prosecution, there was expenditure regarding telephone calls with respect to the telephone numbers installed in DMS, Shadipur Depot and Munirka House of accused Savitri Singh. Documents, to that effect, are contained in D-45 & D-42 respectively. Some such documents are also contained in D-46. However, fact remains that no official from concerned Telephone Exchange of MTNL has graced the witness box and no other witness has deposed about the same either. Therefore, such expenditure does not stand proved in any manner whatsoever.
18.26 As far as expenditure towards education fee as mentioned at serial no. 17 to 20 are concerned, reference be made to the testimony of PW112 Sh. Kewal Kishan Arora, official from Hindu College and PW113 Devender Kr. Garg, official from DPS, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. Relevant documents as contained in D-67 have been duly proved. I have gone through all such documents and the testimony of said two witnesses is also virtually uncontroverted and, therefore, said educational expenses stand proved.
18.27 However, as regards expenditure towards education fee for Sh. Ashok Kumar Singh in Medical College, Jabal Pur mentioned at Sr. No. 21, according to CBI, there was total expenditure of Rs. 29,484/-. Documents CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 101 of 145 are contained in D-57 but these have not been proved by anyone during the trial. On the contrary, DW1 Sh. Ashok Kumar Singh has categorically deposed in his cross-examination that his educational expenses were borne by his mother. Be that as it may since no one was examined from said medical college of Jabal Pur, said expenditure does not stand proved.
18.28 As regards the expenditure mentioned at serial no. 22 of Annexure-III, according to CBI, a sum of Rs. 1,000/- was spent by accused for procuring telephone connection in Bhopal. I have seen the testimony of PW114 Sh. Subhash Chander Sharma. He retired as Superintendent, BSNL, Bhopal and has proved the documents contained in D-47. His testimony and documents contained in D-47 clearly go on to indicate that accused Ram Singh had paid a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to Department of Telecommunication for taking a telephone connection. Such amount was paid along with application dated 02.02.1990. Thus, expenditure of said amount of Rs. 1,000/- stands proved. Even otherwise, such expenditure is not disputed by the defence.
18.29 Coming to item no. 23, 25 & 26 of Annexure-III, it is quite evident that one Premier Padmini Car (Fiat) was earlier having registration number as MBJ 6888. It was later on changed to DL-2C 8583. Registration book of said vehicle is admitted as Ex. P-472 (part of D-70) and it becomes evident that Sh. Ram Singh was third owner of said motor car. The ownership over such vehicle is not disputed and as per registration-book (Ex. P-472), a sum of Rs. 375/- was paid towards road tax on 10.7.1990. As regards insurance, reference be made to the testimony of PW-45 B.P. Birla, who has proved the insurance policy and related documents. However, his testimony merely indicates that sum of Rs. 762/- was paid as insurance premium on one occasion, i.e. 15.1.1992. Reference be made to receipt Ex. PW45/G (part of D-71). There is no other document showing payment of insurance premium for the aforesaid vehicle and, therefore, the insurance expenditure stands proved to the extent of Rs. 763/- instead of Rs. 5,300/-. However, amount of Rs. 375/- mentioned at Item No. 23 and amount towards CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 102 of 145 acquisition of vehicle mentioned as Rs. 34,800/- at Item No. 26 stand proved.
18.30 Coming to serial no. 24 of Annexure-III, as per case of prosecution, accused Ram Singh was member of Delhi Gymkhana Club and besides making payment of membership charges of Rs. 5,100/-, he had incurred various other expenses when he used to come to Delhi Gymkhana Club as member during the check period. I have seen various receipts contained in D-39.
18.31 Prosecution has examined PW26 Sh. Vinod Kumar Papnai. He has deposed that accused had become member of Delhi Gymkhana Club in 1988 and had deposited a sum of Rs. 5,100/- towards membership fee vide Ex. PW26/A. He also deposed that his family members, being dependents, were entitled to avail the facility of the club. Thereafter, PW26 Vinod Kumar made reference about various receipts i.e. Ex. PW26/B to Ex. PW26/T. If initial entrance fee amount of Rs. 5,100/- and the amount under all such receipts are taken into consideration, the total amount would come to Rs. 10,068/-. Even as per the testimony of PW26 Vinod Kumar Papnai, accused Ram Singh had paid a sum of Rs. 10.068/- to Delhi Gymkhana Club upto April 1992. Thus, the total expenditure in this regard is proved as Rs. 10,068/-.
18.32 As far as payment of Rs. 600/- to Vir Jyoti Enterprises for seeking gas connection as mentioned at Sr. No. 27 is concerned, the solitary document lying in D-60 is neither admitted nor proved. However, with respect to payment of Rs. 500/- to M/s Kamakhya Enterprises for gas connection as mentioned at Sr. No. 28, reference be made to the testimony of PW158 Sh. Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal who happens to be the proprietor of said firm. He deposed that said gas connection was issued on 01.01.1988. Voucher has been proved as Ex. PW158/1 which shows that a sum of Rs. 500/- was paid by the consumer. Testimony of PW158 Sh. Mukesh Kr. Aggarwal is unrebutted and uncontroverted and no argument has been advanced to CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 103 of 145 dispute the aforesaid expenditure and, therefore, said expenditure of Rs. 500/- stands proved.
18.33 According to CBI, accused had made investment of Rs. 8,000/- with M/s Rockland Leasing Limited. I have seen the documents contained in D-326. No official from M/s Rockland Leasing Limited has graced the witness box. Though application is found to be there and relevant record is also contained in D-326, fact remains that no witness has entered into witness box. Therefore, investment mentioned at Sr. No. 29 does not stand proved in the desired manner. Right here I would also like add here that though prosecution has examined PW14 Laxmi Chandra but even his testimony does not seem to be sufficient and convincing for proving said investment. He happens to be neighbour of accused Savitri Singh. He claimed that application form Ex. PW14/A was also bearing his signature. He signed because as per the requirement of the housing finance, applicant was required to give the names and addresses of two references and one such reference was of said Sh. Laxmi Chandra. Moreover, said witness has not supported the case of prosecution as he did not categorically claim whether such application form was signed by Savitri Singh in his presence. Be that as it may, said expenditure does not stand proved.
18.34 As regards expenditure towards electricity as mentioned at items no. 30 & 31, since CBI had taken non-verifiable expenditure as 1/3rd of the salary, the expenditure towards electricity bills is required to be excluded.
18.35 As regard serial no. 32, according to prosecution, payment of Rs. 81,555/- was paid to Farukhabad Khaad Bhandar. Documents are contained in D-40 but these have not been proved in any manner whatsoever. No witness from National Fertilizer Limited or for that matter from Farukhabad Khaad Bhandar has entered into witness box and, therefore, said expenditure does not stand proved. Moreover, said expenditure has to be attributed to Ms. Ramkali who had applied for said CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 104 of 145 distributorship.
18.36 As regards serial no. 33, according to prosecution, a sum of Rs. 13,828/- was spent by way of repayment of bank loan but no sufficient light has been thrown with respect to any such bank loan. No prosecution witness has said anything specifically about any such repayment. There are number of bank accounts held by accused and his family members and it was expected that prosecution would have come with complete precision instead of leaving the task to the Court. Therefore, said amount is held as not proved.
18.37 As regards serial no. 34, prosecution has taken 1/3rd of gross salary as non-verifiable expenditure (towards household and other miscellaneous expenditure) and such amount has been accordingly calculated as Rs.163036/-. In such type of disproportionate assets matters, 1/3rd amount of the income is assumed to be spent on household expenditure. This is done in terms of case of Sajjan Singh Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1964SC 464 where it is observed that taking the most liberal view, it was not possible for any reasonable man to say that assets to the extent of Rs. 1, 20,000/- was anything but disproportionate to a net income of Rs. 1,03,000/- out of which at least Rs. 36,000/- must have been spent in living expenses.
18.38 As per CBI, Sh. Ram Singh had drawn net salary of Rs. 2,79,948/-. Documents in this regard are contained in D-75 & D-76 which are admitted by accused Ram Singh as Ex. P-475 & P-487. Net salary of Savitri Singh has been taken as Rs. 2,10,348/-. These documents are contained in D-73 & D-74 and these are also admitted as Ex. P-473 & P-474 and prosecution has also examined PW34 Sajni Talwar, PW35 Malar Vizhy and PW36 Attar Singh to prove the salary of accused Savitri Singh. Such income is not disputed.
CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 105 of 14518.39 Sh. Rao has stated that as per circular no. 21/40/99-PD (PT) dated 27.11.2001 issued by CBI, instructions have been given for standardizing the procedure for investigation into the assessment of wealth possessed by public servants and according to such circular, if husband and wife both have independent sources of income, the income of the spouse with higher salary shall be the base of computing the unverifiable expenditure. It would be important to mention that as per said instructions, it has been prescribed that non-variable expenditure such as on kitchen, household, clothing etc should be taken as 1/3 rd of gross salary as a last resort after attempting to quantify the expenses broadly under each of these heads by verification. It is also mentioned that electricity and water charges are also not to be computed separately when unverifiable expenditure is computed in the above mentioned manner.
18.40 Thus, for said purpose, it is the gross salary which is to be taken into consideration and not the net salary. The details of gross salary of accused Ram Singh were accordingly calculated by the Court with the help of Sh. Rao which was found to be Rs. 5,47,434/-. His salary is higher than his wife's salary. One third of such gross salary would come to Rs. 1,64,230/-. However, since the expenditure in this regard has been taken as Rs. 1,63,036/- in the charge-sheet, same is taken as proved.
INCOME OF ACCUSED 19.0 Income from known sources of accused during the check period has been detailed in Annexure-II and there does not seem to be any real dispute with respect to the most of such entries even by the defence.
19.1 Net salary of Sh. Ram Singh has been admitted by him and net salary of Savitri Singh has been duly proved. As far as rent received from Noida house is concerned, though same has been assessed as Rs. 27,000/- yet since such house happens to be in the name of Smt. Ram Kali and said CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 106 of 145 house has been excluded from the scope of consideration, rental income from said Noida house also cannot be reckoned.
19.2 As regards interest income from various shares, bank accounts and FDRs, investigating agency has not bothered to give individual and specific details and seems to have taken for granted that court may itself indulge into such herculean exercise. Whatever might be the reason, behind the same, I, for the moment, give benefit to accused about such interest income in toto due to total apathy of investigating agency on said score.
19.3 Housing Building Advance of Rs. 1,25,000/- was sanctioned to accused Ram Singh and such aspect has been duly proved by prosecution in view of the testimony of PW129 Sh. C.W. Lobo. Similarly, there does not seem to be any dispute regarding GPF of accused Ram Singh and about his getting bank loan.
19.4 According to accused Savitri Singh, as regards Bhopal house, she had received rental income to the tune of Rs. 3,44,350/- whereas prosecution has reckoned the said income as Rs. 1,96,000/- only. Similarly, as regards Delhi house, she has claimed that she had rental income to the tune of Rs. 1,90,750/-. In her deposition dated 31.10.2917, she simply claimed that she rented out one flat to Sh. S.C. Mathur and the rent was Rs. 1,000/- per month from 01.08.1979 for 11 months. According to her, she declared the same in her ITR also. Except for the aforesaid assertion, she has not produced any record or adduced any evidence to show that she was having rental income much more than what has been projected by CBI. Merely because, she had mentioned her rental income for the assessment year 1992-93 as Rs. 36,000/- per year would not mean that she was deriving that much rental income throughout the check period. Moreover, such return was filed by her after the registration of FIR and, therefore, there is a possibility that she might have deliberately introduced exaggerated facts while filing such return to take some undue advantage later on. Munirka flat CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 107 of 145 had been given on rent for Rs. 3,000/- per month and the copy of rent deed on record is for a period of three years i.e. 1991-1992, 1992-1993 & 1993- 1994. These are contained in D-43. Be that as it may, fact remains that accused has not been able to show that her rental income was much more than what has been estimated by CBI.
19.5 As regards foreign remittance of Rs. 57,313.09, defence has not been able to place on record any document which may show that foreign remittance was more than the aforesaid amount.
19.6 Right here, I would also like to take up the aspect asserted by defence regarding additional income from sale of jewellery.
19.7 According to Sh. M.P. Singh, learned defence counsel, accused Savitri Singh belonged to an affluent family and she was having sufficient jewellery articles with her even at the start of check period. He has argued that investigating agency was unjustified in not taking into consideration her jewellery articles at the beginning of check period i.e. on 01.01.1985. Savitri Singh joined Income Tax Department in the year 1969 and she got married 13.04.1971 and the FIR was registered in the year 1992 and it would not be appropriate to hold that all these years i.e. right from 1971 till 1985, she did not possess even a single ornament. Since accused Savitri Singh was from a well off family and her father had retired as a very senior officer from Income Tax Department, I give benefit to her to the extent of jewellery articles worth Rs. 2 lacs and it is assumed that she must be holding jewellery articles worth Rs. 2 lacs, at least, at the start of check period.
19.8 According to Savitri Singh, she had sold jewellery articles from time to time during the check period and had total income of Rs. 1,67,345/-. As per her assertion, she derived income in the following manner:-
CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 108 of 145S. Amount Name of Jeweller to whom accused Date Mode of D & Exhibit No. sold her jewellery Payment Number 1 Rs. 11,500/- M/s Agra Bullion Company, Chandni 19.11.1990 Cheque Part of D-32 Chowk, Delhi Ex. P-384 2 Rs. 9,792/- M/s Ram Lal Kundan Lal Jewellers, 23.05.1991 Cheque Part of D-Chandni Chowk, Delhi 316
3 Rs. 54,300/- M/s Khanna Jewellers 29.04.1990 D-340 4 Rs. 3,302/- - - - -
5 Rs. 30,535/- M/s Ram Lal Kundan Lal Jewellers, Cheque D-316 Chandni Chowk, Delhi 6 Rs. 34,974/- - - - -
7 Rs. 23,042/- M/s Ram Lal Kundan Lal Jewellers, 17.11.1989 Cheque Part of D-Chandni Chowk, Delhi 319
19.9 It is admitted by CBI that the sale of jewellery worth Rs.
11,500/- was informed by her to her department. As regards intimation regarding sale of jewellery articles worth Rs. 54,300/-, D-8 contains one letter allegedly written by Savitri Singh to her employer purportedly received by her employer on 18.05.1990. I have no option but to admit the aforesaid letter as well for two reasons. Firstly, no one has been examined from M/s Khanna Jewellers in order to show that such receipt was a bogus one. Secondly, when the concerned officials from the office of accused Savitri Singh entered into witness box, it was never suggested to them that no such intimation was ever received in the office. According to Sh. Rao, there is a possibility that accused had prepared a bogus intimation and might have kept such intimation with her without actually informing the employer. However, if that was so, such fact should have been got clarified and it should have been clearly asked from the concerned official whether any such intimation regarding sale of jewellery articles worth Rs. 54,300/- was ever received in the department or not. Therefore, it will not be possible for me to straightway discard such intimation, copy of which is contained in D-8 and which is, even otherwise, admitted by the defence.
CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 109 of 14519.10 Thus, as regards income from sale of jewellery articles, since accused Savitri Singh had reported her employer about sale of jewellery worth Rs. 75,592/- (11,500/- + 9,792/- + 54,300), said amount is required to be reckoned as her additional income during the check period.
19.11 Accused has also claimed that she had agriculture income of Rs. 2,52,000/- during the check period but she has not been able to elaborate the same in the desired manner. Moreover, if one has to derive any such income, one is also required to invest a lot in farming towards purchase of seeds, fertilizer, crop management besides manpower for supervision. No such aspect has been highlighted by the defence in any manner whatsoever.
19.12 It has also been baldly claimed that she and her husband had been receiving gifts from time to time without coming up anything in specific on said aspect. As held in State of Karnataka Vs. Selvi J. Jayalalitha & Ors (2017)6 SCC 263, gifts to a public servant in the context of Sections 161 to 165A IPC now integrated into PC Act are visibly illegal and forbidden by law. The endeavour to strike a distinction between "legal" and "unlawful" as sought to be made to portray gifts to constitute a lawful source of income is thus wholly misconstrued.
19.13 As regards the amount which accused Savitri Singh received from her father after his death, prosecution has taken the amount as Rs. 35,994/- as per Sr. No. 17 of Annexure-II (Income Chart) and reference in this regard be made to D-114 as said amount landed in the bank account of accused Savitri Singh which she was maintaining with Bank of India, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg. As per defence, such amount of inheritance from the estate of her father was around Rs. 85,000/-. This has been asserted on the basis of probate granted by a competent court of Delhi. Copy of such probate order was shown during final arguments. Though, it was not attempted to be proved in any manner, keeping in mind the fact that it is a judicial order, the authenticity of which has been undertaken by Sh. M.P.Singh by asserting to CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 110 of 145 that effect at the Bar, I assume such income as Rs. 85,000/-.
19.14 Remaining entries of income as given in Annexure II are also held as proved as these are, even otherwise, not disputed.
ASSETS AT THE START OF CHECK PERIOD 20.0 As regards assets held at the beginning of check period, accused Savitri Singh had admitted all such assets (except for Noida house mentioned at serial no. 4) and investment mentioned at Serial No. 7. Noida has already been excluded and the investment mentioned at serial no.7 does not stand proved and, therefore, same stand excluded.
VARIOUS OTHER INVESTIGATIONAL ASPECTS 21.0 I have also seen the deposition of PW188 Sh. Rajender Singh Jaggi who remained involved with the investigation. He has proved the complaint as well as FIR. He has also made reference about various searches conducted during the investigation and also deposed about collection of various documents from various banks. His cross-examination is hardly of any significance or substance. I have also seen the testimony of PW190 J.S. Emmanuel, PW191 D.C. Sorari, PW192 M.C. Thapliyal, PW196 Dhiraj Khetrapal, PW197 M.C. Joshi and PW199 Roby Jawahar and various aspects related to investigation stand proved. Sanctions have also been proved appropriately and there is no challenge to the grant of sanction or that it was accorded by an authority not competent to grant such sanction.
21.1 It has been argued by Sh. M.P. Singh, learned defence counsel that though the FIR had been lodged in the year 1992 yet fact remains that the check period taken by prosecution is from 01.01.1985 to 13.04.1992 and the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 came into force w.e.f. 09.09.1988 whereby the previous Act i.e. Prevention of Corruption of Act 1947 was CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 111 of 145 repealed and thus the check period falls partly in the period prior to the enforcement of PC Act 1988 and, therefore, the explanation introduced in the new Act of 1988 as appearing along with Section 13 (1) (e) of PC Act, 1988 cannot be made applicable as it would amount to violation of constitutional rights of accused as such penal provision cannot be applied retrospectively.
21.2 I have also considered such defence contention whereby he has asserted that the explanation of Section 13 (1)(e) of PC Act 1988 which was introduced in the statue book only on 09.09.1988 cannot be read retrospectively. In this regard, reference be made to the judgment given by our own High Court in the case of Virender Singh Vs. CBI (DOD: 22.11.2010). Para-13 of said judgment reads as under:
"Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, 1988 and 5(1)(e) of the PC Act, 1947 are identical and pari materia (except for two changes or additions noticed below). It is, therefore, not possible to accept the contention that Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, 1988 enacts a new offence. It does not make any difference if the check period overlaps the PC Act, 1947 and the PC Act, 1988. It is not possible to accept the contention that the check period in the case in question is prior to 9th September, 1988 and, therefore, the PC Act, 1988 is being given retrospective effect in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Sajjan Singh's case (supra)."
21.3 In said case of Virender Singh (Supra), it was observed that the two changes/additions in Section 13(1)(e)of the PC Act,1988 were the Explanation and removal of the clause giving discretion to the Courts to award punishment of less than one year for reasons to be recorded in writing and it was also asserted before the Hon'ble Bench that the explanation had CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 112 of 145 created a new offence and such assertion was negated and it was observed that such explanation has limited effect of defining expression "known source of income" used in Section 13 (1) (e) of PC Act 1988 holding further that burden in such type of matters was on the accused as the facts were within his special knowledge and, therefore, Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act was applicable and in such background, explanation attached to Section 13 (1) (e) of PC Act 1988 was merely a procedural Section which sought to define the expression "known source of income" as sources known to the prosecution and not to the accused. It was thus held that such explanation was merely procedural and not substantive and, therefore, it did not create a new offence. It was also held that obligation of accused-public servant to offer satisfactory explanation remained the same under both the enactments and, therefore, there was no distinction between the two penal provisions and that the requirement of the law thus remained the same under both the enactments. In view of aforesaid judgment, defence contention stands fully deflated.
21.4 Sh. Rao has, on the strength of P. Nallamal Vs. State AIR 1999 SC 2556, has contended that any such public servant is required to satisfy the Court by showing that known sources of income are also lawful sources. He has argued that besides being lawful source, the explanation given in penal section further enjoins that receipt of such income should have been also duly intimated by the public servant in accordance with the provisions of any law applicable to such public servant. It has been re-asserted that at no point of time, accused Savitri Singh had given any substantial information regarding her alleged acquisition of various properties and jewellery articles. This Court is also cognizant of the observations given by Hon'ble Apex Court in State of MP Vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta AIR 2004 SC 517 wherein it has been observed that the legislature has advisedly used the expression "satisfactorily account". The emphasis must be on the word "satisfactorily" and the legislature has, thus, deliberately cast a burden on the accused not only to offer a plausible explanation as to how he came by his large wealth, but also to satisfy the Court that his explanation was worthy of acceptance CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 113 of 145 21.5 Relying on celebrated case of J. Jayalalitha & Ors (supra), Sh. Rao has contended that affairs of accused would be a matter within his special knowledge in terms of Section 106 Evidence Act and all the legitimate and possible source of income beyond those known to the prosecution were matters within the special knowledge of such public servant and were required to be substantiated by such public servant only. Admittedly, burden of proof of accused may not be that onerous but it certainly has to be discharged on the yardstick of preponderance of probabilities. In Ashok Debbarma alias Achak Debbarma Vs. State of Tripura (2014) 4 SCC 747, it has been observed that for recording guilt of the accused, it is not necessary that the prosecution should prove the case with absolute or mathematical certainty, but only beyond reasonable doubt. Criminal Courts, while examining whether any doubt is beyond reasonable doubt, may carry in their mind, some "residual doubt", even though the Courts are convinced of the accused persons' guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
21.6 In K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 655, it was observed that the legal burden of proof placed on the accused was not so onerous as that of the prosecution, it was enunciated that it would not be enough to just throw some doubt on the prosecution version. Referring to the expression "satisfactorily account", it was ruled that due emphasis must be accorded to the word "satisfactorily" which signified that the accused has to satisfy the Court that his explanation was worthy of acceptance. It was also held that though such procedure was contrary to the well known principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden of proof lay always on the prosecution and did never shift to the accused, the competence of the Parliament to shift such burden on certain aspects and particular in matters especially in the knowledge of the accused was acknowledged. It was held that if one possesses assets beyond his legitimate means, it goes without saying that the excess is out of ill-gotten gain observing that assets are not drawn like Nitrogen from the air and that have to be essentially acquired, for which means are necessary.
CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 114 of 14521.7 I have also seen various intimations contained in file Ex. PW129/2 (D-399) whereby accused Ram Singh had informed his employer about the acquisition of movable and immovable properties. Except for his acquiring fridge and Maruti Car and one immovable property i.e. H. No. E- 7/717, Bhopal and about his wife acquiring flat in Munirka, he did not inform about any other acquisition. Savitri Singh has also not informed about any acquisition to her employer.
21.8 Testimony of PW189 Dr. M.A. Ali, Handwriting Expert is also virtually unimpeached which proves to be a certain nemesis for defence.
21.9 As regard evidentiary value of opinion and testimony of handwriting expert, before a Court can act on the opinion evidence of a handwriting expert two things must be proved beyond any manner of doubt, namely, (i) the genuineness of the specimen/admitted handwriting of the concerned accused and (ii) the handwriting expert is a competent, reliable and dependable witness whose evidence inspires confidence. Once these are established, the conviction can be based even on the sole circumstance of such opinion of expert. It would be worthwhile to make reference to judgment of Murari Lal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1980 SC 531 wherein it has been held as under:
"There is no rule of law nor any rule of prudence which has crystalized into a rule of law that opinion evidence of a hand-writing expert must never be acted upon unless substantially corroborated. But having due regard to the imperfect nature of the science of identification of handwriting, the approach should be one of caution. Reasons for the opinion must be carefully probed and examined. All other relevant evidence must be considered. In appropriate cases, corroboration may be sought. In cases where the reasons for the opinion are CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 115 of 145 convincing and there is no reliable evidence throwing a doubt, the uncorroborated testimony of a handwriting expert may be accepted. There cannot be an inflexible rule on a matter which, in the ultimate analysis, is no more than a question of testimonial weight."
21.10 Reference be also made to judgment of State of Maharashtra Vs. Sukhdeo Singh & Ar. AIR 1992 2100 SC.
21.11 Section 120A of the IPC defines criminal conspiracy as under:-
"120A. Definition of criminal conspiracy. - When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done, -
(1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy.
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offense shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof."
21.12 The conspiracy requires an act (actus reus) and an accompanying mental state (mens rea). The agreement constitutes that act and the function to achieve the unlawful objective of that agreement constitutes the required mental state. All conspirators are liable for crimes committed in furtherance of the conspiracy by any member of the group. One who enters into a conspiracy is liable for every reasonable foreseeable act committed by every other member of this conspiracy in furtherance of its objective, whether or not he knew all about the crime or aided in their commission. It is not essential that all the conspirators must know each and every detail of the conspiracy. Thus, conspirators are liable on an "agency theory" for statements of co-conspirators, just as they are for the overt acts and crimes committed by their conferrers.
CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 116 of 14521.13 Interpreting the provisions of Section 120A and 120B of IPC, the Apex Court in case of 'Yash Pal Mittal v. State of Punjab', (1977) 4 SCC 540, observed as under:-
" The offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-A is a distinct offence introduced for the first time in 1913 in Chapter V-A of the Penal Code. The very agreement, concert or league is the ingredient of the offence. It is not necessary that all the conspirators must know each and every detail of the conspiracy as long as they are co- participators in the main object of the conspiracy. There may be so many devices and techniques adopted to achieve the common goal of the conspiracy and there may be division of performances in the chain of actions with one object to achieve the real end of which every collaborator must be aware and in which each one of them must be interested. There must be unity of object or purpose but there may be plurality of means sometimes even unknown to one another, amongst the conspirators. In achieving the goal several offences may be committed by some of the conspirators even unknown to the others. The only relevant factor is that all means adopted and illegal acts done must be and purported to be in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy even though there may be sometimes mis-fire or over-shooting by some of the conspirators. Even if some steps are resorted to by one or two of the conspirators without the knowledge of the others it will not affect the culpability of those others when they are associated with the object of the conspiracy. The significance of criminal conspiracy, under Section 120-A is brought out pithily by this Court in Major E.G Barsay v. State of Bombay [AIR 1961 SC 1762: (1962) 2 SCR 195, 228: (1962) 2 Cri LJ 828] thus:
"The gist of the offence is an agreement to break the law. The parties to such an agreement will be guilty of criminal CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 117 of 145 conspiracy, though the illegal act agreed to be done has not been done. So too, it is not an ingredient of the offence that all the parties should agree to do a single illegal act. It may comprise the commission of a number of acts. Under Section 43 of the Indian Penal Code, an act would be illegal if it is an offence or if it is prohibited by law. Under the first charge the accused are charged with having conspired to do three categories of illegal acts and the mere fact that all of them could not be convicted separately in respect of each of the offences has no relevancy in considering the question whether the offence of conspiracy has been committed. They are all guilty of the offence of conspiracy to do illegal acts, though for individual offences all of them may not be liable."
21.14 In State of Maharashtra v. Pollonji Darabshaw Daruwalla [AIR 1988 SC 88], it has been held that once the prosecution establishes the ingredients of the offence of criminal misconduct by proving, by the standard of criminal evidence, that the public servant is, or was at any time during the period of his offence, in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his sources of income known to the prosecution, the prosecution discharges its burden of proof and the burden of proof is lifted from the shoulders of the prosecution and descends upon the shoulders of the defence. It then becomes necessary for the public servant to satisfactorily account for the possession of such properties and pecuniary resources. It is erroneous to predicate that the prosecution should also disprove the existence of the possible sources of income of the public servant.
21.15 Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled "Rekha Rani Vs. CBI (Crl. MC 4402/2014 dated 05.10.15)" held if the assets of the wife of the govt servant are more than known sources then it would be presumed that she earns the said money illegally.
CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 118 of 14521.16 According to defence, the assets were never benami and moreover the additional income was duly reported to the tax authorities and were adjudicated in the favour of assessee and, therefore, such adjudication has to be given full importance and evidentiary value. In the case in hand, only oral argument has been advanced to that effect and no such ITR has been placed on record and no argument has been raised on the basis of any such ITR. Moreover, Hon'ble Apex court in case titled "State of Tamilnadu Vs. N. Suresh Ranjan & Ors. (Crl. Apeal no. 2223/2014 dated 06.01.2014 )" held that the mere fact that the property in the name of the income tax assessee itself cannot be a ground to hold that it actually belongs to such an assessee. In case, such a proposition is accepted then in their opinion it will lead to disastrous consequences and it will give opportunity to public servant to amass property in the name of known persons, pay income tax on their behalf and put themselves out of the mischief of the law.
21.17 Manner in which investment was made to acquire various other immovable properties coupled with the recovery of various passbooks and title deeds of alleged benami accounts from the conscious possession of accused persons clearly go on to indicate that acquisition was made by them only albeit in benami names. Prosecution has been able to discharge initial burden and it was for the accused to show to the contrary. As already noticed above, essence of benami is the intention of the party which is generally concealed behind a thick veil and, therefore, there is no absolute formula or acid test uniformly applicable in all situation and such ticklish aspect related to benami holdings is to be decided while keeping in mind various factors and circumstances already enumerated above. These may not be the only factors but these would certainly create impact either way and would be sufficient to raise a strong inference with respect to the aspect whether property had been purchased in benami name or not.
21.18 Thus, in the final analysis and as upshot of my foregoing discussion, the details of Income, assets (at the start of check period and at CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 119 of 145 the end of check period) and expenditure would as per the following details:-
Annexure 1 (Assets at the start of Check period) Sl. No. Asset (As per (As per As Proved during the challan) accused) trial 1 0.472 hectare 0 0 0 land at Village Kakuli (inherited jointly) 2 0.089 hectare of 0 0 0 land allotted by Govt. during 1976 (held jointly) 3 One house at 0 0 0 village Kakuli (held jointly) 4 Plot at C-33, 48175 0 0 Sec. 14, Noida purchased in the name of Smt. Ram Kali 5 Plot at E-717, 63915 63915 63915 Area Colony, Bhopal in the name of Sh. Ram Singh 6 Flat No. BH-103, 74217 74217 74217 Munirka, N. Delhi in the name of Smt. Savitri Singh 7 Investment with 15100 0 Bhagwan Buddha Group Housing Society in the name of Smt. Ram Kali 8 10 fixed deposits 55300 55300 55300 existing in the name of Savitri Singh, Ram Singh, their minor children and Kusumlata Das CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 120 of 145 9 Bank balance 55552 55552 55552 existing in 19 accounts held in different banks either in their own name or benami or in the names of their family members 10 Post Office 6091 6091 6091 Account in the form of RD, CTD, Savings A/c in the name of accused persons and their minor children 11 NSCs held with 8500 8500 8500 post office by Sh.
Ram Singh 12 Units of UTI held 9047 9047 9047 by the accused persons 13 Shares of 11900 11900 11900 different companies held by the accused persons 14 House Hold 87275 78547 Articles observed during search 15 Additional Assets 200000 (Jewellery) TOTAL 435072 284522 563069 Annexure IV(a): Details of FDRs as on close of check-Period Sr. Value of Fixed Value of Value of No. Deposit Fixed Fixed Deposit Deposit (As per As (As proved Challan) admitted during trial) by accused 1 12000 12000 12000 CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 121 of 145 2 63833 63833 63833 3 17608 17608 4 12321 12321 12321 5 2300 2300 2300 6 9500 9500 9500 7 5000 5000 5000 8 4000 4000 4000 9 11000 11000 11000 10 5000 5000 5000 11 4000 4000 4000 12 6200 6200 6200 13 4000 4000 4000 14 6200 6200 6200 15 21000 0 16 2000 2000 2000 17 2824 2824 2824 18 1400 1400 1400 19 2000 2000 2000 20 20000 20000 20000 21 2672 2672 2672 22 12543 12543 12543 23 1000 1000 1000 24 8000 8000 25 4301 0 26 5195 5195 5195 27 500 500 500 28 3500 3500 3500 29 2408 2408 2408 30 29500 29500 29500 31 37000 37000 37000 32 6500 6500 6500 33 10000 10000 10000 34 5604 5604 5604 35 6800 6800 36 6600 6600 37 6600 6700 6700 38 1500 1500 1500 39 12000 0 40 84500 84500 84500 41 10300 10300 10300 42 20000 20000 20000 43 3265 3265 3265 44 1218 1218 1218 45 10141 10141 10141 46 4000 4000 4000 Total 507933 424924 470632 CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 122 of 145 Annexure IV(b): Details of Bank-Accounts as on close of check-Period Sr. No. Amount Amount Value of Fixed lying in lying in bank Deposit bank (As per (As admitted (As proved during Challan) by accused) trial) 1 0 0 0 2 10837 10837 10837 3 2071 2071 2071 4 3116 3116 3116 5 0 0 6 0 0 7 890 890 890 8 2973 2973 2973 9 9500 0 10 804 804 804 11 7840 0 12 3763 0 13 5892 5892 5892 14 337 337 337 15 339 339 339 16 403 403 403 17 5170 5170 5170 18 0 0 0 19 2388 0 20 4635 0 21 5897 5897 22 2557 0 23 1363 0 24 5372 5372 5372 25 4363 4363 4363 26 1113 1113 27 1896 0 28 205 205 205 29 3991 3991 3991 30 4740 4740 4740 31 26207 26207 32 18043 18043 18043 33 8948 8948 8948 34 2583 0 35 207 207 207 CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 123 of 145 36 1425 1425 1425 37 941 941 941 38 3612 3612 39 2953 2953 40 3261 3261 41 3340 3340 42 3083 3083 43 7840 7840 44 1216 1216 1216 45 2047 0 46 0 0 47 0 0 48 0 0 49 187 0 50 11375 11375 11375 51 0 0 52 7958 0 53 170 0 54 100 0 55 14344 0 56 20818 20818 20818 57 1951 1951 1951 58 1488 1488 1488 59 1092 0 60 0 0 61 507 507 62 1000 1000 1000 63 0 0 64 4185 4185 4185 65 5618 5618 5618 66 484 0 TOTAL 249438 128718 186531 Annexure IV: Assets at the end of check-period CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 124 of 145 Sl. No. Property Details (As per (As per defence) (As Proved challan) during trial) Worth of property in Rupees 1 Plot No. 260, at Anand 19750 19750 Kunj purchased in the name of Raj Kumari Singh and Jitender Kumar Singh 2 Plot No. 261, at Anand 19750 19750 Kunj, (Wazidpur), purchased in the name of Savitri Devi 3 Plot No. 240, at Anand 19750 0 Kunj, (Wazidpur), purchased in the name of Ashok Kumar Singh and Gaurav Kumar Singh 4 Plot No. 56, Khasra 22350 22350 22350 No. 128/18, at Sainik Niketan, Dichou Kalan purchased in the name of Savitri Devi 5 Plot No. 1A/A, Raj 48000 48000 Nagar, Plam, Delhi purchased in the name of Ramkali and Jitender Kumar Singh 6 Plot No. 1A/B, at Raj 45000 45000 Nagar-II, Palam, Delhi purchased in the name of Savitri Devi 7 Plot No. 46/21, at Raj 147060 0 Nagar Extn.-II, Palam purchased in the name of Ashok Kumar Singh CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 125 of 145 8 Flat No. 307-B, 179625 0 Sector-18, at Oceans Plaza, Noida, U. P. purchased in the name of Savitri Singh and Ram Kali 9 Flat No. 307B, Sector 375428 0 18, Ocean Plaza, Noida, UP, purchased in the name of Ramkali 10 Plot No. A-276, 22000 22000 Surajpur, at Greater Noida invested in the name of Jitendra Kumar Singh 11 Plot No. E-346, 17902 0 invested in the name of Ashok Kumar Singh 12 Plot No. E-345 16275 0 invested in the name of Ram Kali 13 Flat No. IV/002 at 310010 310010 Vaishali Housing Scheme, Ghaziabad, UP invested in the name of Savitri Singh and Raj Kumari 14 Plot No. 558-710-0329 385904 385904 385904 at Indira Puram, Ghaziabad, UP invested in the name of Savitri Singh 15 Land at Village 44790 44790 44790 Bhawaria Kalan, Bhopal, M.P. Purchased in the name of Savitri Singh CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 126 of 145 16 House No. E-717, at 679194 679194 679194 Shahpura, Bhopal, M. P. purchased/constructe d in the name of Ram Singh 17 Flat No. LIG G-17, 95181 95181 GH-8, 484, at Paschim Vihar purchased in the name of Ram Avtar Singh 18 Plot No. U-45/2, DLF 35378 35378 35378 at Qutab Enclave, Gurgaon, Haryana purchased in the name of Jitendra Kumar Singh and Ram Singh 19 Plot No. V-37/6, at 351378 351378 Qutab Enclave purchased in the name of Ram Kali 20 Land No. H. No. 21, 115875 0 Quila No. 23 (8-8) 24 (8-0) at Muazakhera Sarai, Palwal purchased in the name of Savitri Devi and Jitendra Kumar Singh 21 Flat No. MIG BH-10/B, 84445 84445 84445 at DDA Munirka purchased in the name of Savitri Singh 22 Mem. No. 252, 35594 0 Purnima Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.
G-2329, at Netaji
Nagar in the name of
Ashok Kumar Singh
CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 127 of 145
23 Agricultural land at 55150 49000
village Kakuli, Khasra
No. 283, at
Farrukhabad
purchased in the
nameof Savitri Singh
24 Land at village Kakuli, 49000 43000
Khasra No. 282, at
Farukhabad
purchased in the
name of Jitendra
Kumar Singh and
Sangita Devi
25 One Kothari etc. at 4000 0
Village Kakuli,
Farukhabad
purchased in the
name of Savitri Singh
26 Land at Village Kakuli, 10000 0
Farukhabad
purchased in thename
of Savitri Singh
27 Land at Khasra 299, 18000 0
Village Kaluli,
Farukhabad
purchased in the
name of Ramkali
28 Reg. No. 5175 at 17000 17000 17000
Greater Noida Dev.
Authority invested in
the name of Savitri
Devi
29 Reg. No. 4636 at 17000 17000
Greater Noida Dev.
Authority invested in
the name of Jitendra
Kumar Singh
30 Reg. No. 07723 at 8500 0
Greter Noida Dev.
Authority inested in
the name of Ram
Prakash Singh
CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 128 of 145
31 Reg. No. 6474 at 8500 8500
Greater Noida Dev.
Authority invested in
the name of Ashok
Kumar Singh
32 Reg. No. 6471 at 8500 8500
Greater Noida Dev.
Authority invested in
the name of Ram
Avtar Singh
33 Appl. No. 4080 7670 7670
invested in the name
of Rajkumari Singh
34 Appl. No. 4081 7670 0
invested in the name
of Ram Prakash Singh
35 Appl. No. 18652 22020 0
invested in the name
of Puttulal
36 Appl. No. 59198 7670 7670
invested in the name
of Ashok Kumar Singh
37 Membership of 96600 0
Bhagwan Buddha Co-
operative Society
invested in the name
of Ramkali
38 46 Fixed deposit in 507933 470632
different bank vide
Annexure IV(a)
39 Bank Balance in 249465 186531
different banks 66
accounts vide
Annexure IV (b)
40 Balance in Post 180460 180460
Office/NSS account 10
Post Office accounts
and 2 NSS vide
Annexure IV(e)
41 Indira Vikas Patra 74000 11000 74000
42 U.T.I. 47022 9047
43 Shares 246715 42775 163682
44 Cash 190848 29500 190848
CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 129 of 145
45 Jewellery 1184394 1065954
46 Household Goods 444008 280000
Total 6532764 1352336 4942624
Annexure II: Income from Known Sources
Sl. No. Income Head Amount in Rupees Admitted by As proved during
defence trial
1 Net Salary of
Sh. Ram Singh
2,79,948.00 2,79,948.00 2,79,948.00
2 Net Salary of
Smt. Savitri Singh
2,10,348.00 2,10,348.00 2,10,348.00
3 Rent Received
from Bhopal
House 1,96,000.00 344350 196000
4 Rent Received
from Delhi
House 87,000.00 190750 87000
5 Rent Received
from Noida
House 27,000.00 0 0
6 Interest earned
from FDR's 1,61,358.00 161358 161358
7 Interest From
Dividends 32,849.00 32849 32849
8 Interest earned
from bank A/cs. 45,756.00 45756 45756
9 Interest earned
from P. O. A/cs 22,975.00 22,975.00 22,975.00
10 LIC Payment on
1.9.89 & 1.10.89
30,000.00 30,000.00 30,000.00
11 LIC Loan 54,540.00 54540 54540
12 ULIP Payment on
6.3.91 10,575.87 10,575.87 10,575.87
13 N.S.C. Ram
Singh/Savitri
Singh 24,280.00 24,280.00 24,280.00
14 H.B.A. Ram
Singh 1,25,000.00 1,25,000.00 1,25,000.00
15 Bank Loan
Ram Singh 50,000.00 50,000.00 50000
16 G. F. P. Ram
Singh 42,900.00 42,900.00 42,900.00
CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 130 of 145
17 Amount
received by
Smt. S. Singh
from her father
35,994.00 85000 85000
18 Foreign
Remittance of
Ram Singh 57,313.00 144813 57313
19 Car Advance
Ram Singh 32,000.00 32000 32000
20 Additional
Income by sale
of jewellary 167345 75592
Agricultural
income
252000 0
Total 15,25,836.87 23,06,787.87 16,23,434.87
Annexure III: Expenditure during the check period Sl. Expenditure Head (Amount as (Amount (Amount as No. per challan) as per proved during defence) trial) 1 Bhopal House Tax 4150 4150 @ 830 P.A. 2 Repayment of 50000 50000 Bhopal Co-op.
Central Bank Loan
3 Interest paid on 14376 14376
Bhopal Co-op.
Central Bank Loan
4 Ground Rent for 1715 0
Bhopal House @
Rs. 245 P.A.
5 Ground Rent to 2160 2160
DDA for Munirka
House @ Rs. 270
P.A.
6 Ground Rent paid 3053 0
to MCD Delhi
7 NSC taken on 2500 2500
14.2.89
8 ULIP- 6000 1200
910452051043 on
1.7.90
9 ULIP-30165597 8400 0
10 ULIP-40142302 on 8400 0
1.10.84
CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 131 of 145
11 Loan given to 10000 0
Malkhan Singh
12 Loan given to 2000 0
Bishram Singh
13 LIC payment in 175073 157350
instalment
14 LIC repayment, 29529 29529
Loan & interest
15 Excess Call at 2,541.00 0
residence at Delhi
to DMS
16 Telephone 9,372.00 0
expenses at
Munirka House
17 Education fee for J. 1523 1523
K. Singh in Hindu
College, Delhi
18 Education fee for J. 13215 13215
K. Singh in D.P.S.
R. K. Puram, New
Delhi
19 Education fee for 16930 16930
Gaurav K. Singh in
D. P. S. R. K.
Puram, New Delhi
20 Education fee for 17360 17360
Sangeeta Bala
Singh D. P. S. R.K.
Puram, New Delhi
21 Education fee for 29,484.00 0
A. K. Singh in
Medical College
Jabalpur
22 Telephone 1000 1000
expenses at Area
Colony Bhopal
23 Road Tax paid for 375 375
Car
24 Delhi Gymkhana 16806 10068
Club Expenses
25 Insurance for Car 5300 763
No. MBJ-6888
26 Investment on Car 34800 34800
No. DL-2C-8583
27 Paid to Veer Jyoti 600 0
Ent. Delhi for Gas
Connection
28 Paid to Kamakhya 500 500
Ent. Delhi for Gas
Connection
29 Deposit with 8000 0
Rockland Leasing
30 Electricity Bill of 3664 0
Munirka House
31 Electricity Bill of 14301 0
CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 132 of 145
Andrews Ganj
32 Paid to 81555 0
Farukhabad Khad
Bhandar
33 Repayment/interes 13828 0
t on Bank Loan
34 Other expenses @ 163036 163036
30% of gross
Salary of Ram
Singh
GRAND TOTAL 751546 520835
21.19 Thus, the final equation would read as under:
1. Assets at the beginning of the check period i.e. 1.1.85 5,63,069.00
2 Income during check period 16,23,434.00
3. Expenditure during check period 5,20,835.00
4. Likely savings (2-3) 11,02,399.00
5. Assets at the close of check period i.e. on 13.4.92 49,42,624.00
6. Assets acquired during check period (5-1) 43,79,555.00
7. Total disproportion in assets (6-4) 32,77,156.00
21.20 Thus, accused Savitri Singh is found in possession of
disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs. 32,77,156/-. She had accumulated such disproportionate assets with the aid of her deceased husband Ram Singh and, therefore, she is held guilty for commission of offence under Sections 13(1)(e) & 13(2) of PC Act r/w Section 120B IPC.
21.21 It also stands proved that she had opened forged bank accounts. As per charges, she had forged the documents for opening accounts in the name of Rajkumari Singh [(i) Syndicate Bank, Sector-5, R.K. Puram Branch, New Delhi, ii Union Bank of India, Moti Bagh, New Delhi) as Savitri Devi (Indian Bank Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi, (ii) Central Bank of CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 133 of 145 India, Khan Market, New Delhi)]. As per charges, she had also forged cheques in relation to SB Account No. 535, Canara Bank, Munirka Branch, New Delhi in the name of Ashok Kumar Singh. As per charge, she had also forged various receipts showing sale of old gold ornaments. During trial, it could not be proved that there was any forgery in relation to preparation of receipts regarding sale of jewellery. Keeping in mind the charges framed and in view of the foregoing discussion and the evidence adduced during the trial, it stands established that accused Savitri Singh had committed forgery in relation to accounts as under:
(i) SB Account No. 320030 Syndicate Bank, Sector-8, R.K. Puram Branch opened in the name of Raj Kumari Singh.
(ii) SB Account No. 2449, UBI Moti Bagh, New Delhi opened in the name of Raj Kumari Singh.
(iii) Forging cheques by signing in the name of account holder Ashok Kumar Singh having SB Account No. 535, Canara Bank, Munirka Branch,New Delhi.
21.22 By indulging in act of forgery as aforesaid, she has made herself liable under Sections 467/471 IPC. However, no role of accused Ram Singh (since deceased) stands surfaced for said acts of forgery and, therefore, Savitri Singh alone is held guilty for said offences of Indian Penal Code in her personal capacity.
OBJECTIONS UNDER CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ORDINANCE, 1944 22.0 There is one more important and significant limb of prosecution case.
22.1 Since the investigation had revealed that various benami properties had been acquired and several bank accounts had been opened in the names of others, investigating agency apprehended that such properties CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 134 of 145 may not be disposed of during the trial of the case and, therefore, vide order dated 04.10.1999 passed by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3 (1) (2) of Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance 1944 r/w Section 29 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, Sh. M.C. Joshi, DSP/CBI was authorized to make an application before the Court of Special Judge, Delhi for attachment of such assets. Pursuant to such order, an application was filed before the Court. Such application was directed against eighteen persons, namely, Ram Singh (since expired), Smt. Savitri Singh (accused), Jitender Kumar Singh, Gaurav Kumar Singh, Sangita Bala, Ashok Kumar Singh, Ram Avtar Singh, Ram Prakash Singh, Puttu Lal, Mrs. Raj Kumari Singh, Mrs. Savita Devi, Mrs. Ram Kali (since deceased), Mrs. Kusum Lata Das, Sudhansu, Rohit Singh, Ms. Sweeta Singh, Ankita Singh and Aarushi and it was prayed that all movable and immovable properties acquired in the benani names by the accused may be attached.
22.2 Notice was issued to all the respondents. It will be also important to mention that vide order dated 21.01.2000, when the notice of the application was issued, it was also directed that properties detailed in Para 4 to 4.5 of the petition may be attached.
22.3 All such respondents put in appearance and objections were also filed by them.
22.4 I have gone through the written statements/objections filed by various such objectors.
22.5 Accused Ram Singh (since expired) gave reference about two terms deposits in his objection petition. He also claimed that jewellery articles, as recovered from the lockers of PNB (Green Park), State Bank of Patiala House (Shastri Bhawan), Oriental Bank of Commerce (Munirka) did not belong to him and no such jewellery articles had been purchased by him during his service period. He claimed that possession of such jewellery had CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 135 of 145 already been explained by accused Savitri Singh and she had also received jewellery as 'istridhan'. As regards cash, he claimed that cash of Rs. 50,000/- belonged to Sh. Ram Prakash Singh, another sum of Rs. 50,000/- to Sh. Uday Vir Singh and another Rs. 50,000/- to Ram Snehi Singh who have already filed their respective claims before the Court. He also claimed that after the death of Ram Snehi, his wife Sukh Devi had staked the claim. As regards cash amount of Rs. 8,650/- found in the Noida house, it was allegedly claimed that the same to his mother Ram Kali. As regards Indira Vikas Patras, he claimed that his wife Savitri Singh had already explained that IVPs worth Rs. 25,500/- belonged to late Smt. Savitri Devi, IVPs worth Rs. 15,000/- belonged to late Baba Narsingh Das and IVPs worth Rs. 20,000/- belonged to Sh. Ram Prakash Singh which had been kept by them with accused Savitri Singh for safe custody. He claimed that IVPs worth Rs. 11,500/- belonged to accused Savitri Singh which she had purchased from family savings from time to time. As regards immovable property, he admitted ownership over H. No. E-7/717, Shahpura, Bhopal, MP while supplementing that Plot No. U-45/2, Qutab Enclave, Gurgaon, Haryana had though been purchased in the joint names of Jitender Kumar Sigh and himself (Ram Singh) but in fact, such flat belonged to Sh. Jitender Kumar Singh only who had made investment from his own resources and income.
22.6 Accused Savitri Singh also filed separate claim/objections. She did admit various bank accounts and FDRs in her such objection petition and attempted to justify the source thereof as well. As regards jewellery articles found in lockers, she claimed that during investigation, she had explained in detail qua the jewellery belonging to her as her 'istridhan' and the fact that the jewellery belonged to some other persons had been kept by her for safe custody. As regards cash and Indira Vikas Patras, she took the stand consistent with the version of her husband. As regards immovable properties, she admitted that she had purchased Plot No. 50, Khasra No. 128/18, Sainik Niketan, Dichau Kalan. She admitted investment regarding Flat No. 558-710-0329, Indira Puram Ghaziabad, UP as well as land at CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 136 of 145 Village Bawaria Kalan, Bhopal, MP. She also owned up investment regarding Registration No. 5175 at Greater Noida to the tune of Rs. 17,000/-. As regards, flat of Ocean Plaza, Noida, she claimed that it belonged to her mother-in-law Smt. Ram Kali and that the entire investment was made by her (Ram Kali) from her agriculture income and other resources. As regards Flat No. IV/002, Vaishali Housing Scheme, Ghaziabad, UP, according to Savitri Singh, it belonged to Smt. Raj Kumari Singh in her own right. As regards agricultural land at Village Kakuli, Khasra No. 283, Farukhabad, UP, according to her, such land had been purchased by Smt. Ram Kali, though, in her name (name of Savitri Singh). According to her, the entire payment for said land was made by Smt. Ram Kali from her own resources and her own agricultural income. No investment was made by her and her husband Ram Singh. Similar stand was taken by her in relation to one Kothari at Village Kakuli, Farukhabad. Nothing further was mentioned by her with respect to any other immovable property in her claim/objection.
22.7 Sh. Jitender Kumar Singh has also filed a detailed claim/objection petition. He also entered into witness box DW7 and his deposition has already been discussed in the earlier part of the judgment.
22.8 Sh. Gaurav Kumar Singh has claimed in his objection/claim that he had received jewellery in family partition and also on various family functions and these were kept by his mother Smt. Savitri Singh for safe custody. He claimed that he had received small amount of cash-gifts and other small savings which were deposited by him in his bank account and FDRs were prepared from bank balance and were renewed from time to time. He claimed that his grandmother Smt. Ram Kali had purchased a piece of agricultural land in his name out of love and affection in his Village Kakuli, Farukhabad and that the entire investment was made by his grandmother Smt. Ram Kali and he himself did not contribute anything in this regard. He also claimed that a bracelet, two set of gold and ten gold bangles belonged to him. He, however, did not enter into witness box in support of his claim.
CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 137 of 14522.9 Smt. Sangeeta Bala Singh (daughter of accused) also filed a separate claim but she also did not enter into witness box.
22.10 Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh has entered into witness box as DW1 and I have already gone through his deposition. He staked his claim over Flat No. 240, Anand Kunj, Wazid Pur, Ghaziabad, Plot No. 46/21, Raj Nagar Extension-II, Palam, New Delhi, membership in Poornima Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., application (vide Regn. No. 6474), Greater Noida and application No. 59198 with Ghaziabad Development Authority. He claimed that for the purpose of acquisition of aforesaid properties, he had made investment from his own resources.
22.11 Sh. Ram Avtar Singh (DW5) staked his claim over one property of Paschim Vihar and investment related to application moved before Greater Noida Authority with respect to Registration No. 6471.
22.12 Sh. Ram Prakash Singh (DW2) claimed that he had applied for property with Greater Noida Authority vide Registration. No. 007723 and investment was made by him. He also claimed that various jewellery articles, as contained in locker of State Bank of Patiala (Shastri Bhawan), belonged to him and he also claimed that cash of Rs. 50,000/- belonged to him which was eventually recovered from the locker of State Bank of Patiala, Shastri Bhawan. As regards IVPs, he claimed that IVP worth Rs. 27,500/- belonged to him. Fact, however, remains that none of such assertions could be substantiated by him when he entered into witness box. He simply claimed that he had filed claim application supported with an affidavit but did not make any specific assertion either regarding Indira Vikas Patras or applying for said immovable properties at Greater Noida. He vaguely claimed that he was earning by selling tobacco-crop. He admitted in his cross-examination that he never paid any income tax. No document has been furnished by him with CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 138 of 145 respect to his having any such income from alleged sale of tobacco.
22.13 Sh. Puttu Lal (PW61) staked his claim over one investment related to application made to Ghaziabad Development Authority for allotment of plot vide application no. 18652.
22.14 Smt. Raj Kumari Singh (DW4) staked her claim over various jewellery articles as described by her in Para- 1(A) of her application Ex. DW4/9. Besides claiming that she was account holder of saving bank account no. 320030 Syndicate Bank, R.K. Puram Branch and saving bank account no. 7336, Oriental Bank of Commerce (owned up by her daughter Kumari Ankita Singh) and the related CDR, she also claimed that Flat No. IV/002 Vaishali Housing Scheme Ghaziabad, UP was applied for by her and investment was made by her from her own earnings and savings. She also alleged that investment with respect to Plot No. 260, Anant Kunj, Wazid Pur, Ghaziabad was made by her from her own resources. In her deposition, however, she did not make any reference about said Plot No. 260, Anant Kunj, Wazid Pur. Moreover, her examination does not inspire any confidence as she has not been able to disclose as to how she was able to arrange for the amount with the help of which she had made the alleged investment in Vaishali Housing Scheme or for that matter for getting prepared FDR in the name of her children.
22.15 Savitri Devi (wife of Sh. Ram Pal Singh) also filed separate objection while seeking claim over IVP worth Rs. 27,500/- and immovable properties. However, she did not enter into witness box. As per record, she has already died.
22.16 Smt. Ram Kali Singh had also filed separate written statement/claim and, unfortunately, even she did not enter into witness box as she too, reportedly, expired. Smt. Kusum Lata Das (DW6) staked her CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 139 of 145 claim over gold jewellery and two bank accounts i.e. SB Account No. 17824, Central Bank of India, Press Area, New Delhi and SB account No. 2908, Canara Bank, Munirka, New Delhi besides two FDRs. I have already discussed about her deposition and evidently, her testimony does not inspire much confidence. Joint objections have been filed by Sudhanshu and Arushi, children of Sarita Punia (DW3). Another joint objection petition has been filed by Rohit Singh and Kumari Sweta Singh.
22.17 As regards property bearing no. RZF-761/13, Gali No. 4, Raj Nagar-II, Palam Colony, New Delhi-77, though Ashok Kumar Singh was shown owner of the property on record and though as per CBI, it was benami property of accused persons, Sh. Khem Chand also put in appearance as non-applicant and filed reply claiming that he was the actual owner of said property which he had purchased from one Ram Mehar Sharma. He also claimed that he had let out the same to one Ms. Usha and even initiated eviction proceedings against her. His such application was also treated as objections filed under Section 4 (4) of Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance 1944 and simultaneously vide order dated 20.08.2011, Khem Chand was directed not to dispose of said property or create any charge in the property without permission of the Court till his objections and the objections filed by Ashok Kumar Singh qua said property were disposed of by the Court. However, Khem Chand was granted permission to pursue his eviction proceedings. As regards, said property of Raj Nagar being claimed by Khem Chand reference be also made to order dated 15.10.2015 whereby CBI was directed to depute a competent officer for filing detailed report with respect to the aforesaid property after taking assistance of Revenue Officer as well as Municipal Officer.
22.18 Accordingly, a demarcation report was submitted by the CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 140 of 145 prosecution before the Court on 22.02.2016. Though at one of point time, it was contemplated that the issues were required to be framed but subsequent proceedings indicate that the matter was fixed for arguments on all such objection petitions. Order dated 21.01.2017 also indicates that it was observed by the then learned Presiding Officer that all such objections would be decided along with the main case.
22.19 Sh. M.P. Singh, learned defence counsel has represented the interest of all such objectors, except for Khem Chand. He has argued that attachment order should not have been passed and there was no reason to make the same absolute either. Sh. Suri has, on the other hand, contended that Khem Chand was owner in his own right and, therefore, there was no reason to have attached his property. I have heard Mr. Suri and also seen the written submissions placed by him. Needless to emphasize that a criminal court cannot be asked to decide a title which, essentially, is job left to civil court. Both the warring sides i.e. Khem Chand and Ashok Singh are tracing ownership through the same owner but surprisingly, none of them chose to call him as witness in their respective support.
22.20 I have already made detailed reference about all bank account and each property. Suffice it to say, the worth of disproportionate assets has been found to be of Rs. 32,77,156/- and keeping in mind the preceding discussion and material brought on record, I make the order of attachment absolute for the following properties:-
(A) Immovable Properties as per following description of Annexure IV CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 141 of 145 Sl. No. Property Details & purchased in the Worth of property name of
1. Plot No. 260, at Anand Kunj (Wazidpur), 19,750.00 Dadri, Ghaziabad purchased in the name of Raj Kumari Singh and Jitender Kumar Singh
2. Plot No. 261, at Anand Kunj, (Wazidpur), 19,750.00 Dadri, Ghaziabad purchased in the name of Savitri Devi 5 Plot No. 1A/A, at Raj Nagar-II, Palam, 45,000.00 Delhi purchased in the name of Ramkali and Jitender Singh
6. Plot No. 1A/B, at Raj Nagar-II, Palam, 45,000.00 Delhi purchased in the name of Savitri Devi
13. Flat No. IV/002 at Vaishali Housing 3,10,010.00 Scheme, Ghaziabad, UP invested in the name of Savitri Singh and Raj Kumari
17. Flat No. LIG G-17, GH-8, 484, at 95,181.42 Paschim Vihar purchased in the name of Ram Avtar Singh
19. Plot No. V-37/6, at Qutab Enclave 3,51,378.00 purchased in the name of Ram Kali (B) FDRS as per following details of Annexure IV(a) Bank of India, BZS Marg, New Delhi 3 Kusum Lata Das A/c 2245 17,608.45 Canara Bank, Munirka, New Delhi 24 Kusum Lata Das A/c 2908 8,000.00 Oriental Bank of Commerce, Munirka, New Delhi 35 Rohit Singh U/G Savitri Singh A/c 6,800.00 7334 36 Ms. Sweta Singh U/G Savitri Singh 6,600.00 A/C 7335 37 Ankita Singh U/G Savitri Singh A/c 6,700.00 7336 CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 142 of 145 (C) Bank Accounts as per following details of Annexure IV (b) Central Bank of India, Press Area, New Delhi.
21 Kusum Lata Das, SB A/c 17824 5,897.35 Canara Bank, Munirka, New Delhi 26 Kusum Lata Das SB A/c 2908 1,113.40 Oriental Bank of Commerce, Munirka, New Delhi 38 Sudhansu SB A/c 7197 3,612.75 39 Rohit Singh SB A/c 7334 2,953.95 40 Ms. Sweeta Singh SB A/c 7335 3,261.90 41 Ankita Singh SB A/c 7336 3,340.80 42 Aarushi SB A/c 9255 3,083.70 43 Sundhansu SB A/c PD 903 7,840.00 Syndicate Bank, Sec. 8, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 61 Raj Kumari Singh SB A/c 320030 507.75 (D) All the Jewellery articles (valued Rs. 7,16,791/- as per the valuation report) recovered from locker no. 29, State Bank of India, Shastri Bhawan.
(E) Cash amount of Rs. 1,00,950/- recovered from locker no. 29, State Bank of India, Shastri Bhawan, cash amount of Rs. 50,000/- recovered from locker no. 907, PNB, Green Park Branch, New Delhi, Cash amount of Rs. 19,028/- recovered from locker no. 139, OBC, Munirka Branch, New Delhi. (Total Cash amount = Rs.1,699,78 (F) IVPs worth Rs. 75,000/- recovered from locker no. 907, PNB, Green Park Branch, New Delhi.
CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 143 of 14522.21 As a necessary corollary, remaining properties stand released from attachment.
22.22 The application filed by CBI under Section 4 of Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance 1944 and all the objections filed by objectors as well as deemed objection of Sh. Khem Chand stand disposed of in aforesaid terms.
CONCLUSION 23.0 Accused Savitri Singh is held guilty for offences under Sections 13(1)(e) read with section 13(2) of PC Act r/w Section 120B IPC and also under Section 467/471 IPC. She stands convicted accordingly.
23.1 Application filed by CBI under Section 4 of Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance 1944 as well as objections including the deemed objection petition of Sh. Khem Chand stand disposed of in aforesaid terms.
23.2 Details of the properties, attachment of which has been made absolute, have already been specified above. A copy of this judgment be sent to concerned Branch of CBI through learned Sr. P.P. for requisite compliance. Report to that effect be submitted within four weeks from today.
23.3 Before parting, I would be failing in my duty if I do not recognize as well as compliment the hard slog and sincere efforts put in by Sh. A.K. Rao, learned Sr. P.P. He always responded to all the queries with absolute precision and in the best possible manner and kept on making reference to numerous documents with utmost ease. He was quick with calculations as well. He, certainly, has a very bright future. Defence counsel also assisted in the same way which helped the court in deciding this old and voluminous matter.
CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 144 of 14523.4 Matter be now posted for arguments on sentence.
Announced in the open Court
On this 17th day of January 2018 (MANOJ JAIN)
Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)-04
Central Distt: Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi
CBI Vs. Ram Singh and Savitri Singh Page 145 of 145