C.B.I. vs . Samir Baron Ray on 30 August, 2014

[Cites 41, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

C.B.I. vs . Samir Baron Ray on 30 August, 2014

IN THE COURT OF SH. DINESH KUMAR SHARMA,
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) : CBI 01
SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI

CC No.06/13
Unique Case ID No.02406R0504152010

C.B.I. Vs. Samir Baron Ray
S/o Late Sh. Santosh Kumar Ray
R/o Flat No.603, Rio Grande,
Fortaleza Complex, Kalyani Nagar
Pune.

RC No. : 1(A)/2008/ACUV/New Delhi
u/Ss : 13(1)(e) punishable u/S.13(2) of POC Act

Judgment announced on : 29.08.2014
Date of Order on Sentence : 30.08.2014

ORDER ON SENTENCE

Present : Sh. Naveen Giri, Ld. PP for CBI

Convict Samir Baron Ray with Sh. Ghanshyam Sharma,

Advocate

CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 1 of 4
Arguments on the point of sentence heard.

Convict Samir Baron Ray has been convicted for the offence

u/S.13(1)(e) r/w S.13(2) of POC Act, 1988 vide judgment dated 29.08.2014.

1.0 Sh. Naveen Giri, Ld. PP for CBI has submitted that deterrent

theory of punishment may be applied in this case. A message should go to

the society that a person found guilty of corruption is given the exemplary

punishment. Ld. PP further submitted that a senior officer in Army should be

a role model to the society and convict in the present case failed to be so. It

has been submitted that maximum punishment should be awarded to the

convict and heavy fine may also be imposed in accordance with Section 16

of POC Act.

1.1 Sh. Ghanshyam Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the convict submitted

that convict retired as a Brigadier from Indian Army. He served Indian Army

for around 33 years. He had unblemished record and was judged

'Outstanding' in most of his annual confidential reports. Convict has served

at different and difficult parts of the country. It has further been submitted

that convict had also taken part in the war of "Kargil" in the year 1999. Ld.

Counsel further submitted that convict had also taken part in many extra

CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 2 of 4
curricular activities including upliftment of Dehu Road, tree plantation,

water harvesting, improvement in living conditions of men in barracks etc /

earthquake relief and improvement in Army School, Srinagar and various

other activities which were also praised and reported in the press from time

to time. Sh. Ghanshyam Sharma, Ld. Counsel submitted that a lenient view

may be taken.

Convict has submitted that during the course of his duties, he

had been given the assignments which required 24X7 kind of duties and

therefore, he could not pay attention to the necessary formalities like filing of

ITRs etc. Convict has submitted that he belongs to an Army family and most

of his close relatives have served the nation.

2.0 The job of sentencing the convict after the conviction is a very

delicate task. On one hand, the mitigating circumstances of an individual are

pleaded and on the other hand, the interest of the society at large is placed.

The court has to balance the interest of an individual and interest of the

society at large. In such like cases, the Court is required to deliver an

appropriate sentence.

3.0 Convict Samir Baron Ray has been found guilty for the offence

u/S.13(1)(e) r/w S.13(2) of POC Act for having been found in possession of

CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 3 of 4
disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.68,09,969/. I consider that taking

into account the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the convict is

sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for a term of 02 years and fine of

Rs.5 lakhs in default of payment of fine, SI for 06 months.

4.0 A copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to

the convict free of cost.

5.0 File be consigned to RR.

Announced in open Court (Dinesh Kumar Sharma)
today on 30.08.2014 Spl. Judge (PC Act) : CBI - 01
Saket Courts : New Delhi.

CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 4 of 4
IN THE COURT OF SH. DINESH KUMAR SHARMA,
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) : CBI 01
SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI

CC No.06/13
Unique Case ID No.02406R0504152010

C.B.I. Vs. 1) Samir Baron Ray
S/o Late Sh. Santosh Kumar Ray
R/o Flat No.603, Rio Grande,
Fortaleza Complex, Kalyani Nagar
Pune.

2) Smt. Asha Ray
W/o Sh. Samir Baron Ray
R/o Flat No.603, Rio Grande,
Fortaleza Complex, Kalyani Nagar
Pune.

RC No. : 1(A)/2008/ACUV/New Delhi
u/Ss : 13(1)(e) punishable u/S.13(2) PC Act and u/S.109 IPC r/w
S.13(1)(e) punishable u/S.13(2) of the PC Act.

Date of Institution : 01.04.2010
Received by transfer on : 25.03.2013
Arguments Concluded on : 22.08.2014
Date of Decision : 29.08.2014

CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 5 of 4
Appearances:
Sh. S. Krishna Kumar, Ld. PP for CBI
Sh. Ghanshyam Sharma, Ld. counsel for the accused persons

JUDGMENT

Accused Samir Baron Ray (hereinafter referred to as A1) and Smt. Asha Ray (hereinafter referred to as A2) have been tried for the charges u/S.13(1)(e) r/w S.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as POC Act) and u/S.109 IPC r/w S.13(1)(e) r/w S. 13(2) of POC Act, respectively, pursuant to the chargesheet after investigation in RC No.1(A)/2008/CBI/ACUV, New Delhi. 1.0 The case was registered on 31.08.2008 on the basis of source information against accused Samir Baron Ray the then Dy. Director General, Ordinance Services, Master General of Ordinance Branch, Integrated Headquarters of Ministry of Defence (Army), Delhi Headquarters, New Delhi. It was alleged that A1 Samir Baron Ray had amassed huge assets in his name as well as in the name of members of his family during the check period from 01.04.2000 to 31.08.2008 in the sum of Rs.28,95,827/.

A1 Samir Baron Ray joined the Indian Military Academy, Dehradun in the year 1973. After completion of training, he was allotted CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 6 of 4 Ordinance Corps and was posted as Lieutenant in 1 Mahan Regiment in Akhnoor, J&K. In October 2005, A1 Samir Baron Ray was promoted to the rank of Brigadier and was posted in DDOS, 15 Corps, Srinagar, J&K. A1 Samir Baron Ray was subsequently transferred as DDG (Technical Functioning & Budgetary Control) New Delhi from where he superannuated on 31.08.2008.

Late Sh. Santosh Kumar Ray, father of A1 Samir Baron Ray was a Defence Estates Service Officer and retired in the year 1977 as Assistant Director (Military Lands & Cantonments), Central Command, Lucknow. Late Sh. Santosh Kumar Ray had left one residential house at 12, Talkatora Road, Rajajipuram, Lucknow, which was sold on 05.07.2005 for Rs. 17,00,000/ (Seventeen Lakhs), after his death.

A1 Samir Baron Ray was married to qualified MBBS Dr. Asha Ray (A2) and had two sons namely Gaurav Ray and Rahul Ray from the marriage. A2 Dr. Asha Ray also joined Indian Army in the Army Medical Corps in the year 1983. However, A2 Dr. Asha Ray took voluntary retirement in the year 1988 and thereafter claimed to have done private practice as well as to have worked in different hospitals at various places where her husband i.e. A1 Samir Baron Ray was posted. Gaurav Ray (DOB - 20.08.1987) completed his Maritime Engineering Course from Tolani Maritime Institute, Pune, in 2007 and got a job in a foreign shipping company. Rahul Ray (DOB CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 7 of 4

- 16.12.1992) was student of class 12th at Dastoor Junior College, Pune. Both the sons were students during the check period and had no independent source of income. During the course of investigation, the check period was fixed from 01.04.2000 to 31.08.2008 i.e. the date of retirement of A1 Samir Baron Ray.

1.1 The investigation revealed that A1 Samir Baron Ray and members of his family had movable and immovable assets in the sum of Rs. 13,84,722/ at the beginning of the check period, the details of which are herein below :

Immovable Assets Sl. No. Details of the Property Amount 1 Duplex House No.A125, Sector - A, AWHO Colony, Gautam 433,662.00 Enclave, Secunderabad in the joint name of Sh. Samir Baron Ray and Dr. Asha Ray allotted by the Army Welfare Housing Organisation in 1990 2 Shop No.6, Sector - A, AWHO Colony, Gautam Enclave, 95,068.00 Secunderabad in the name of Sh. Samir Baron Ray by the Army Welfare Housing Organisation 26.05.1992 3 Shop No.7, Sector - A, AWHO Colony, Gautam Enclave, 102,600.00 Secunderabad in the name of Smt. Asha Ray by the Army Welfare Housing Organisation 26.05.1992 4 Plot No.D6/204, Vipul Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow in the 201,254.00 name of Sh. Samir Baron Ray acquired in 1995 Total 832,584.00 CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 8 of 4 Movable Assets Sl. No. Particulars Amount 1 Balance in Saving A/c No.01190024501 in SBI, Dehu Road 22,025.00 Branch, Pune in the name of Sh. Samir Baron Ray and Smt. Asha Ray 2 Balance in Saving A/c No.9358 in Union Bank of India, 53,025.00 Bareily Branch, in the name of Sh. Samir Ray 3 Balance in SB A/c No.10143 in Union Bank of India, Bareily 34,486.00 in the name of Dr. Asha Ray 4 Balance in SB A/c No.6465 in Punjab National Bank, COD, 79,185.00 Extension Counter, Delhi Cantt. New Delhi in the name of Sh. Samir Baron Ray 5 Kisan Vikas Patra No.45CC 914088 with Regn. No.371 dt. 10,000.00 29.04.1999 purchased at Manak Nagar, Post Office, Lucknow 6 Kisan Vikas Patra No.42BB 680748 with Regn. No.371 dt. 5,000.00 29.04.1999 purchased at Manak Nagar, Post Office, Lucknow 7 Kisan Vikas Patra No.45CC 914088 with Regn. No.372 dt. 10,000.00 29.04.1999 purchased at Manak Nagar, Post Office, Lucknow 8 Kisan Vikas Patra No.42BB 680749 with Regn. No.371 dt. 5,000.00 29.04.1999 purchased at Manak Nagar, Post Office, Lucknow 9 100 shares of The Great Eastern Shipping Company Ltd. in the 8,010.00 name of Sh. Samir Baron Ray vide Folio No.GEX02318. 10 100 units of 20th Century Mutual Fund with Folio 4,000.00 No.TQ0132996 in the name of Sh. Samir Baron Ray and Smt. Asha Ray 11 1000 units of SBI Magnum Multiplier Plus Scheme 93 10,000.00 Dividend with Folio No.170578633 in the name of Dr. Asha Ray and Sh. Samir Baron Ray purchased in the year 1993 CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 9 of 4 12 1000 units of LIC Mutual Fund Dhanvarsha - 13 Scheme in 10,000.00 the name of Asha Ray acquired in the year 1998 Samir Baron Ray and Smt. Asha Ray 13 500 units of Reliance Vision Fund - Retail Plan - Growth 5,000.00 acquired in the joint name of Dr. Asha Ray and Sh. Samir Baron Ray in the year 1995 14 500 units of Reliance Vision Fund - Retail Plan - Growth 5,000.00 acquired in the joint name of Dr. Asha Ray and Sh. Samir Baron Ray in the year 1999 15 Total payment made for acquisition of Reliance Petroleum 10,466.00 Limited Debentures / Shares under the Application No. 9682007 and Folio No.L90612223 in the joint name of Smt. Asha Ray and Sh. Samir Ray 16 Total payment made for acquisition of Reliance Petroleum 10,466.00 Limited Debentures / Shares under the Application No. 9681990 and Folio No.L90612222 in the joint name of Sh. Samir Ray and Smt. Asha Ray 17 100 Public Issue Shares of IDBI Ltd. acquired in the name of 13,000.00 Smt. Asha Ray vide Application dt. 07.07.1995 under Folio No.IDB319262 18 100 Public Issue shares of IDBI Ltd. acquired in the name of 13,000.00 Sh. Samir Baron Ray vide application dated 07.07.1995 under Folio No.IDB319263 19 ICICI Bank Bonds 971 (2 Bonds each Regular Income Bond 24,000.00 and Encash Bond) in the name of Smt. Asha Ray acquired in the year 1997 20 2 ICICI Bank Bonds January - 99 Regular Income Bond 10,000.00 (Option IV) in the name of Smt. Asha Ray acquired in the year 1999 21 4 ICICI Bank Bonds Oct99 Regular Income Bond (Option I) 20,000.00 in the name of Smt. Asha Ray acquired in the year 1999 22 3 ICICI Bank Bonds Dec.-98 Regular Income Bond (Option 15,000.00 III) in the name of Smt. Asha Ray jointly with Sh. SB Ray CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 10 of 4 acquired in the year 1999 23 2 ICICI Bank Bonds MAR - 98 Regular Income Bond (Option 10,000.00 III) in the name of Sh. SB Ray jointly with Smt. Asha Ray acquired in the year 1998 24 10 ICICI Bank Bonds 1997 in the name of Sh. SB Ray jointly 20,000.00 with Smt. Asha Ray acquired in the year 1997 25 2 ICICI Bank Bonds OCT - 99 (Tax Saving Bond - Option I) 10,000.00 in the name of Smt. Asha Ray jointly with Sh. SB Ray acquired in the year 1999 26 210 shares of Lloyds Finance Limited acquired in the year 19,000.00 1996 in the name of Sh. Samir Baron Ray 27 2 IDBI Flexi Bonds under folio No.FIB087609 held by Samir 10,000.00 Baron Ray jointly with Asha Ray 28 2 IDBI Flexi Bonds under folio No.IFE002446 held by Asha 10,000.00 Ray jointly with Samir Baron Ray 29 2 IDBI Flexi Bonds under folio No.IFE003371 held by Gaurav 10,000.00 Ray jointly with Asha Ray 30 2 IDBI Flexi Bonds under folio No.BRI030823 held by Asha 10,000.00 Ray jointly with Samir Baron Ray 31 2 IDBI Flexi Bonds under folio No.ARI04000500 held by 10,000.00 Asha Ray jointly with Samir Baron Ray 32 Value of items at the beginning of the check period as per 66,475.00 inventory prepared for Flat No.603, Rio Grande, Fortaleza Complex, Kalyani Nagar, Pune.

                                                                              Total      552,138.00




1.2            During the check period, A1 Samir Baron Ray and A2 Dr. Asha

Ray had a total income in the sum of Rs.2,45,18,053/, the details of which is CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 11 of 4 as follows :

Income of accused Samir Baron Ray and members of his family Sl. No. Particulars Amount 1 Salary Income of Sh. SB Ray during the check period 1,876,120.00 2 Income of Smt. Asha Ray from profession during the check 955,754.00 period Income from sale of Duplex Flat No.A 125, AWHO Colony, 2,200,000.00 Gautam Enclave, Secunderabad in the joint name of Sh. Samir 3 Baron Ray and Dr. Asha Ray Income from sale of Plot No.D6/204, Vipul Khand, Gomti 480,000.00 4 Nagar, Lucknow in the name of Sh. Samir Baron Ray Income from sale of Plot No.B3/440, Vishal Khand, Gomti 704,648.00 5 Nagar, Lucknow in the name of Dr. Asha Ray Income from sale of House No.12, Talktora, Rajajipuram, 300,000.00 6 Lucknow Income from sale of Plot No.3776 area 500 Sq. Yds. in Sector 1,862,060.00 2323A, Gurgaon, Haryana purchased in the year 2001 and 7 sold in May 2006 Income from sale of Shop Nos. 37 to 48, Tapasvi Plaza, 1,678,000.00 Mumbai Pune Road, Chinchwad, Akurdi, Pune in the name of 8 Smt. Asha Ray purchased on 14.10.2005 Income from sale of Shop No.G5, Krishna Apra Royal Plaza, 14,918.00 D2E (ACB), Alfa1, Greater Noida, UP in the name of Sh. 9 SB Ray purchased on 04.08.2004 and sold on 16.08.2006 Amount received in advance on account of agreement to sell 300,000.00 of Shop No.G37, Vardhaman City Mall, Sector 23, Dwarka, 10 New Delhi Income from sale of Plot No.M88, Sector Delta, Greater 160,870.00 11 Noida.

12 Rental Income from Shop Nos.37 to 48, Tapasvi Plaza, 671,200.00 Mumbai Pune Road, Chinchwad, Akurdi, Pune in the name of CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 12 of 4 Smt. Asha Ray Rental income from Shop No.G5, Krishna Apra Royal Plaza, 523,879.00 13 Greater Noida.

Rental income from Shop No.117, Connaught Place Bund 243,602.00 Garden Road, Pune in the name of Smt. Bina Ray with Power 14 of Attorney to Dr. Asha Ray Rental income from Shop No.118, Connaught Place Bund 243,602.00 15 Garden Road, Pune in the name of Sh. Samir Baron Ray Loan Against Rent Receivable (LARR) availed by Sh. SB ray 2,271,000.00 16 from HDFC Bank Housing Loan A/c No.809675100020448 availed by Sh. SB 1,500,000.00 17 Ray from IDBI Bank, Pune Housing Loan A/c No.809675100050917 availed by Sh. SB 300,000.00 18 Ray from IDBI Bank, Pune Home Loan availed for purchase of Shop Nos.37 to 48, Ist 2,800,000.00 19 Floor, Tapasvi Plaza, MumbaiPune Road, Chinchwada, Pune. 20 Car Loan availed by Sh. SB Ray from ICICI Bank 225,000.00 Car loan availed from HDFC Bank, Gopinath Bazar from 100,000.00 21 purchase of Opel Astra Car Car Loan availed from ICICI Bank, Pune for purchase of 287,000.00 22 Cheverlet Spark Car bearing Regn. No. MH 12 BM 9970 23 Agricultural loan availed by SB Ray from Axis Bank 494,195.00 24 Agriculture income of Sh. Samir Ray 91,454.00 Interest income received in SB A/c No.6295 in PNB Camp 2,551.00 25 Branch, Pune in the name of Sh. SB Ray & Dr. Asha Ray Interest income received in SB A/c No.935162 in ABN AMRO 13,426.00 Bank, MG Road, Pune in the name of Sh. SB Ray & Smt. Bina 26 Ray Interest income received in SB A/c No.4856 in PDCC Bank, 1,590.00 27 Dehu Road, Pune in the name of Sh. SB Ray 28 Interest income received in SB A/c No.5391000007611 in 593.00 CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 13 of 4 HDFC Bank, Kalyani Nagar, Pune in the name of Sh. SB Ray & Dr. Asha Ray Interest income received in SB A/c No.1391150030536 in 18,672.00 HDFC Bank, Kalyani Nagar, Pune in the name of Sh. SB Ray 29 and Dr. Asha Ray Interest income received in SB A/c No.05391460000452 in 127.00 HDFC Bank, Kalyani Nagar, Pune in the name of Master 30 Rahul Ray Interest income received in SB A/c No.01190024501, SBI, 6,472.00 Dehu Road in the names of Sh. Samir Baron Ray and Smt. 31 Asha Ray Interest income received in SB A/c No.13911930001423 in 3,652.00 32 HDFC, Gopinath Bazar, New Delhi Interest income received in SB A/c No.6465, Punjab National 236.00 33 Bank, New Delhi.

Interest income received in SB A/c No.006501014981 ICICI 924.00 34 Bank, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi in the name of Sh. Ray Interest income received in SB A/c No.006501014980 ICICI 57.00 35 Bank, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi Interest income received in SB A/c No.23899, Indian Bank, 542.00 36 Shantiniketan, New Delhi in the name of Dr. Asha Ray Interest income received in SB A/c No.833, Aryavrat Grameen 2,363.00 37 Bank, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow Interest income received in SB A/c No.10137922936 in the 9,019.00 name of Sh. SB Ray and Dr. Asha Ray in SBI, NCERT 38 Campus, New Delhi.

Interest income received in SB A/c No.10143, Union Bank of 801.00 39 India, Bareilly in the name of Dr. Asha Ray Interest income received in SB A/c No.9358, Union Bank of 7,381.00 40 India, Bareilly in the name of Sh. SB Ray Interest income received in SB A/c No.025401500734 ICICI 2,725.00 41 Bank, Greater Noida in the name of Sh. SB Ray CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 14 of 4 Income from redemption of 1000 units of LIC Mutual Fund 8,880.00 42 Dharvarsha - 13 Scheme in the name of Dr. Asha Ray Income from redemption of units in DSP Black Rock India 27,394.00 43 TIGER Fund Dividend income from 1000 shares of SBI Magnum Multiplier 7,600.00 Plus Scheme 93 Dividend in the name of Dr. Asha Ray and 44 Sh. Samir Baron Ray Income from dividend and redemption of units in HDFC 21,568.00 45 Capital Builder Fund in the name of Sh. Samir Baron Ray Dividend income from HDFC Capital Builder Fund in the 6,856.00 46 name of Sh. Samir Baron Ray Income from redemption of 5000 units in Tata Teped Equity 34,169.00 47 PE Fund in the name of Sh. Samir Baron Ray Income from redemption of 500 units of Reliance Vision Fund 21,980.00 Growth Plan (Folio No.4031622646) in the name of Dr. Asha 48 Ray Income from redemption of 500 units of Reliance Growth 28,840.00 Fund Growth Plan (Folio No.4031622651) in the name of Dr. 49 Asha Ray jointly with Sh. Samir Baron Ray Dividend income from 100 shares of The Great Eastern 7,279.00 Shipping Company Limited and 14 shares of M/s. Mahindra 50 Lifespace Developers Ltd. in the name of Sh. Samir Baron Ray Dividend income from shares in the names of Dr. Asha Ray 84,575.00 and Sh. Samir Baron Ray in various Reliance Group 51 Companies Dividend income from 100 Public Issue Shares of IDBI Ltd. 1,650.00 acquired in the name of Smt. Asha Ray vide application dt. 52 07.07.1995 under folio No.IDB319262 Dividend income from 100 Public Issue Shares of IDBI Ltd. 2,205.00 acquired in the name of Sh. Samir Ray vide application dt. 53 07.07.1995 under folio No.IDB319263 54 Dividend income from 500 shares of M/s. Advani Hotels and 100.00 CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 15 of 4 Resorts (India) Ltd. in the name of Sh. Samir Baron Ray jointly with Dr. Asha Ray Dividend income from 16 shares of Tata Motors Limited held 336.00 55 in the name of Sh. Samir Baron Ray and Dr. Asha Ray Dividend income from 80 shares of Hexaware Technologies in 272.00 56 the name of Sh. Samir Baron Ray and Dr. Asha Ray 57 Dividend income from Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. 3,900.00 Dividend income from 25 shares of Great Offshore Limited 400.00 58 held jointly in the name of Sh. SB Ray and Dr. Asha Ray Income from interest and maturity of 2 IDBI Flexi bonds 8,787.00 under folio No.FIB087609 held by Samir Baron Ray jointly 59 with Asha Ray Income from interest and maturity of 2 IDBI Flexi bonds 11,950.00 under folio No.IFE002446 held by Asha Ray jointly with 60 Samir Baron Ray Income from interest and maturity of 2 IDBI Flexi bonds 11,902.00 under folio No.IFE003371 held by Asha Ray jointly with 61 Samir Baron Ray Income from interest and maturity of 2 IDBI Flexi bonds 2,800.00 under folio No.BRI030823 held by Asha Ray jointly with 62 Samir Baron Ray Income from interest and maturity of 2 IDBI Flexi bonds 8,400.00 under folio No.ARI04000500 held by Asha Ray jointly with 63 Samir Baron Ray Income from redemption of units in Frankin Templeton 181,021.00 64 Investments Amount received from Money Back LIC Policy No.130784861 18,750.00 65 in the name of Dr. Asha Ray Survival Benefit on account of LIC Policy No.221280840 in 60,000.00 66 the name of Sh. Samir Baron Ray Amount refunded on foreclosure of ICICI Prudential Policy 166,396.00 67 No.00047062 of Sh. Samir Baron Ray CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 16 of 4 Income on account of maturity of Kisan Vikas Patras in the 170,950.00 68 name of Sh. SB Ray and Mrs. Asha Ray Unsecured loan taken by SB Ray from Smt. Rekha Dhaka W/o 640,000.00 69 Maj. Genl. Dhaka Unsecured loan taken by SB Ray from Lt. Genl. (Retd.) Dr. 200,000.00 70 Mahesh Vij Amount received as advance on sale of flat in Beverly Hills, 1,100,000.00 Sector 22, Dwarka, New Delhi from Smt. Aarthi Dalal W/o 71 Col. TS Dalal 72 Withdrawals from DSOP Fund during the check period 842,000.00 Amount received in US dollars by Smt. Bina Ray from her 582,660.00 grand daughter residing in the United States and deposited in SB A/c 931562 in the joint account of Samir Baron Ray and 73 Smt. Bina Ray in ABN AMRO Bank TOTAL 24,618,053.00 1.3 A1 Samir Baron Ray and members of his family had incurred an expenditure of Rs.1,52,49,230/ during the check period, the details of which are as below :

Expenditure incurred by accused Samir Baron Ray and members of his family during the check period Sl. No. Details of the Property Amount 1 Income tax paid by Sh. Samir Ray (FY 200203 to 200607) 285,279.00 2 Income tax paid by Smt. Asha Ray (AY 200405 & 200506) 89,565.00 Payment of premium towards LIC Policy No.130784861 in the 43,197.00 3 name of Dr. Asha Ray Payment of premium towards LIC Policy No.372966811 in the 56,322.00 4 name of Gaurav Ray CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 17 of 4 Payment of premium towards LIC Policy No.130787822 in the 31,040.00 5 name of Rahul Ray Payment of premium towards LIC Policy No.221280840 in the 97,248.00 6 name of Sh. Samir Baron Ray Payment of premium to ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Policy 280,022.00 7 No.00047062 in the name of Samir Baron Ray Premium paid to Aviva Life Insurance policy No.SVG 144,000.00 8 1124803 in the name of Asha Ray Premium paid to Aviva Life Insurance policy No.TPG 240,000.00 9 1077050 in the name of Asha Ray Premium paid to Aviva Life Insurance policy No.LLG 600,000.00 10 1122795 in the name of Asha Ray Premium paid to Aviva Life Insurance policy No.TPG 36,000.00 11 1129282 in the name of Gaurav Ray Premium paid to Aviva Life Insurance policy No.SVG 1129275 120,000.00 12 in the name of Gaurav Ray Payment of premium towards Bajaj Allianz General Insurance 16,069.00 Company Ltd. Policy No.OG081501996100114043 in the 13 name of Dr. Asha Ray Premium paid towards Policy No.10196954 in HDFC Standard 40,000.00 14 Life Insurance in the name of Brig. Samir Baron Ray Repayment of Loan Against Rent Receivable (LARR) availed 1,020,976.00 15 by Sh. SB Ray from HDFC Bank Repayment of Housing Loan A/c No.809675100020448 1,002,308.00 16 availed by Sh. SB Ray from IDBI Bank, Pune Repayment of Housing Loan A/c No.809675100050917 availed 144,330.00 17 by Sh. SB Ray from IDBI Bank, Pune Repayment of Home Loan availed for purchase of Shop Nos. 3,331,303.00 37 to 48, Ist Floor, Tapasvi Plaza, MumbaiPune Road, 18 Chinchwada, Pune Repayment of Car Loan availed by Sh. SB Ray from ICICI 244,728.00 19 Bank CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 18 of 4 Repayment of car loan availed from HDFC Bank Gopinath 122,160.00 20 Bazar for purchase of Opel Astra Car Car loan availed from ICICI Bank, Pune for purchase of 36,988.00 21 Cheverlet Spark Car bearing Regn. No. MH 12 BM 9970 Repayment of Agricultural loan availed by Sh. SB Ray from 70,000.00 22 Axis Bank Payment to M/s. Jaypee Coop Group Housing Society Ltd. for 2,160,110.00 23 a flat in Sector 22, Dwarka, New Delhi Payment made to Ansal housing Ltd. towards booking of 150 697,160.00 24 Sq.Yds. Plot in Ansal Golf Links, Greater Noida Rent paid in respect of locker No.227 in ICICI Bank, Vasant 7,274.00 25 Vihar Branch by Sh. Samir Baron Ray Rent paid in respect of locker in Aryavrat Grameen Bank, 1,820.00 26 Gomti Nagar Branch, Lucknow by Sh. Samir Baron Ray Rent paid in respect of locker in SBI, NCERT Campus, New 5,050.00 27 Delhi in the name of Samir Baron Ray and Dr. Asha Ray 28 Payment to Citi Bank Card No.5425 5683 0908 6009 67,244.00 29 Payment of SCB Visa Executive card 4129 0473 8081 5133 130,928.00 Payment made to Tolani Maritime Institute, Pune towards fees 624,090.00 30 for Gaurav Ray, elder son of Sh. Samir Ray Payment made by Sh. Samir Baron Ray towards his 14,218.00 31 membership in Rajendra Sinhji Institute, Pune.

Payment made by Sh. Samir Baron Ray towards his 17,494.00 32 membership in United Services Club, Colaba, Mumbai Payment made to Army Ordnance Officers Mess, Delhi Cantt. 78,328.00 towards membership fee and other services availed by Sh. 33 Samir Baron Ray Payment made to Army Golf Club towards membership fee 32,945.00 34 and other services availed by Sh. Samir Baron Ray Payment made to M/s. Khanna Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. towards 38,500.00 35 purchase of one Diamond Pendent by Dr. Asha Ray CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 19 of 4 Payment made to M/s. Raj Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. towards 8,200.00 36 purchase of one Diamond Ring by Dr. Asha Ray Payment made to M/s. Aggarwal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. towards 26,220.00 37 purchase of gold Jewellery by Sh. Samir Baron Ray Payment made to M/s. Inter Gold Gems Pvt. Ltd. towards 126,647.00 38 purchase of gold jewellery by Sh. Samir Baron Ray Payment made by Sh. Samir Baron Ray towards purchase of 256,227.00 39 Air tickets from M/s. Preeti Travels Pvt. Ltd.

Payment made to M/s. Antarctica Sales & Services, Pune 59,687.00 40 towards purchase of AC Etc. Payment made by Sh. Samir Baron Ray to M/s. Nezone 6,505.00 41 Agencies Pvt. Ltd. South Extension, New Delhi.

Payment made to M/s. Color Plus Fashions, Kalyani Nagar, 6,346.00 42 Pune towards purchase of garments Payment made to M/s. Maharashtra Electronics Corporation 14,000.00 Ltd. towards purchase of Fabre Castle Chimney and Glen Gas 43 Stove by Sh. Samir Baron Ray Payment made to M/s. Essar Telecom Retail Pvt. Ltd. by Sh. 26,397.00 44 Samir Baron Ray towards purchase of mobile phones Expenditure incurred on Telephone No.26608874 installed at 2,969.00 45 Flat No.603, Rio Grande, Fortaleza, Kalyani Nagar, Pune Payment made to Maharashtra State Electricity Authority in 1,990.00 respect of consumption of electricity in Shop No.131, Rio 46 Grande, Fortaleza, Kalyani Nagar, Pune.

Payment made to M/s. Anil Electronics Ltd. towards purchase 11,990.00 47 of CTV Payment made to M/s. New India Cables (Trading) Pvt. Ltd. 69,803.00 towards purchase of electrical items in the name of M/s. 48 Siddhi Vinayak Liesures and Travels owned by Dr. Asha Ray Payment made to M/s. C. Suman Hardware and Electricals, 47,850.00 Pune towards purchase of electrical items in the name of M/s. 49 Siddhi Vinayak Liesures and Travels owned by Dr. Asha Ray CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 20 of 4 Payment made to M/s. Sanghvi Timber, Pune towards purchase 46,645.00 of wooden items in the name of M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Liesures 50 and Travels owned by Dr. Asha Ray Payment made to M/s. SignOCraft, Pune towards purchase of 32,602.00 composite aluminium base for sign board in the name of M/s. 51 Siddhi Vinayak Liesures and Travels owned by Dr. Asha Ray Payment made to M/s. Worldtech Marketing & Computer 42,900.00 Services, Pune towards purchase of HCL computer alongwith printer and UPS in the name of M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Liesures 52 and Travels owned by Dr. Asha Ray Payment made to M/s. Welconstructs, Pune towards purchase 47,025.00 of glass items in the name of M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Liesures 53 and Travels owned by Dr. Asha Ray Payment made to M/s. Raj Electricals and General Stores, 7,088.00 Pune towards purchase of Electrical fittings in the name of M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Liesures and Travels owned by Dr. Asha 54 Ray Loss on account of sale of Shop No.G78, Vardhaman City 1,761,944.00 55 Mall, Dwarka, Sector 23, Delhi Expenditure incurred on the fuel for Cheverlet Spark car and 6,126.00 56 Honda Unicorn Motor Cycle Interest paid by SB Ray to Sh. Mahesh Vij during the check 88,000.00 57 period Non verifiable expenditure (equivalent to 1/3 of net salary of 625,373.00 58 SB Ray) TOTAL 15,249,230.00 1.4 The investigation revealed that accused persons had total assets in the sum of Rs.2,27,51,628/ at the end of the check period, the details of which are as below :

CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 21 of 4

Immovable Assets Sl. No. Details of the Property Amount 1 Shop No.6, Sector - A, Secunderabad in the name of Dr. Asha 95,068.00 Ray by the Army Welfare Housing Organization on 26.05.1992.

2 Shop No.7, Sector - A, Secunderabad in the name of Samir 102,600.00 Baron Ray by the Army Welfare Housing Organization on 26.05.1992.

3 Agricultural land at survey No.516 at village Induri Tal, 420,280.00 Vadgaon Maval, Distt. Pune of Brig SB Ray purchased vide sale deed dated 14.07.2004 4 Agricultural land at survey No.517 at village Induri Tal, 420,280.00 Vadgaon Maval, Distt. Pune of Brig SB Ray purchased vide sale deed dated 14.07.2004 5 Flat No.603, Rio Grande, Fortaleza Complex, Kalyani Nagar, 2,711,810.00 Pune in the name of Smt. Asha Ray and Sh. SB Ray purchased on 22.04.2004 6 Land and Farm House at Survey No.294, Village Yelwadi, 520,290.00 Taluka Khed, Pune acquired in the name of Smt. Asha Ray and Sh. SB Ray purchased on 22.04.2004 7 Shop No.130, VitoriaII, Fortaleza Complex, Kalyani Nagar, 1,076,760.00 Pune in the name of Smt. Asha Ray purchased on 23.01.2006 8 Shop No.131, VitoriaII, Fortaleza Complex, Kalyani Nagar, 1,076,760.00 Pune in the name of Smt. Asha Ray purchased on 23.01.2006 9 Shop No.118, Ist Floor, Connaught Place, Near Wadia College, 1,076,880.00 Pune in the name of Smt. Asha Ray and Sh. SB Ray purchased on 11.08.2006 10 Shop No.117, Ist Floor, Connaught Place, Near Wadia College, 1,036,030.00 Pune in the name of Smt. Bina Ray purchased on 11.08.2006 11 1000 Sq.Yds. Plot in New Palam Vihar in the joint name of Sh. 6,125,000.00 Samir Baron Ray and Dr. Asha Ray CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 22 of 4 12 Three bedroom flat (Unit No.A/902) booked in Kumar 1,050,000.00 Primrose, Kadadi, Pune in the name of Gaurav Ray 13 Shop No.G37, Vardhaman City Mall, Sector 23, Dwarka, New 2,652,645.00 Delhi.

                                                                          TOTAL 18,364,403.00



Movable Assets

 Sl. No.                         Details of the Property                                Amount 
1          Balance in SB A/c No.6295 in PNB Camp Branch, Pune in the                        4,742.00

name of Sh. Samir Ray and Smt. Asha Ray as on 31.08.2008. 2 Balance in SB A/c No.935162 in ABN AMRO Bank, MG 41,942.00 Road, Branch Pune in the name of Sh. Samir Ray and Smt. Bina Ray as on 31.08.2008.

3 Balance in SB A/c No.4856 in Pune District Central Coop 10,876.00 Bank, Dehu Road Branch, Pune in the name of Sh. Samir Baron Ray as on 31.08.2008.

4 Balance in SB A/c No.01190024501 SBI, Dehu Road Branch, 2,300.00 Pune in the name of Sh. Samir Baron Ray and Smt. Asha Ray as on 31.08.2008.

5 Balance in SB A/c No.5391000007611 in HDFC, Kalyani 101,717.00 Nagar, Pune in the name of Sh. Samir Baron Ray and Smt. Asha Ray as on 31.08.2008.

6 Balance in SB A/c No.1391150030536 in HDFC, Gopinath 96,254.00 Bazar, Delhi Cantt. in the name of Sh. Samir Baron Ray as on 31.08.2008.

7 Balance in SB A/c No.1391130001423 in HDFC Bank, 297,164.00 Gopinath Bazar Branch, New Delhi in the name of Sh. Samir Baron Ray as on 31.08.2008.

8 Balance in SB A/c No.05391460000452 in HDFC Bank, 8,409.00 Kalyani Nagar, Pune in the name of Master Rahul Ray as on 31.08.2008.

CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 23 of 4 9 Balance in SB A/c No.6465 in Punjab National Bank COD 106,955.00 Extension Counter, Delhi Cantt., New Delhi in the name of Sh. Samir Ray as on 31.08.2008.

10 Balance in 006501014981 in ICICI Bank, Vasant Vihar, New 9,345.00 Delhi in the name of Sh. Samir Ray and Smt. Asha Bora Ray 11 Balance in 006501014980 in ICICI Bank, C17, Local 1,257.00 Shopping Centre, Paschimi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi in the name of Sh. Samir Ray and Smt. Asha Bora Ray 12 Balance in SB A/c No.833 in Aryvrat Grameen Bank Gomti 22,016.00 Nagar Branch, Lucknow in the name of Dr. Asha Ray 13 Balance in 23899 in Indian Bank, Shantiniketan Branch, New 2,504.00 Delhi in the name of Smt. Asha Bora Ray 14 Balance in SB A/c No.10137922936 in SBI, NCERT Campus, 32,510.00 New Delhi in the name of Sh. Samir Baron Ray and Dr. Asha Ray 15 Reinvest Deposit A/c No.05395270000014 held by Sh. Samir 200,000.00 Ray in HDFC Bank, Kalyani Nagar, Pune 16 Reinvestment Deposit A/c No.05394830003994 held by 5,959.00 Master Rahul Ray in HDFC Bank, Kalyani Nagar, Pune 17 Term Deposit A/c No.978 in Aryavrat Grameen Bank, Gomti 26,510.00 Nagar, Lucknow in the name of Dr. Asha Ray 18 Reinvestment Deposit A/c No.05394830000954 held by 10,000.00 Master Rahul Ray in HDFC Bank, Kalyani Nagar, Pune 19 Opel Astra Car Regn. No. DL 2C 3436 of Sh. Samir Ray 165,000.00 purchased by Dr. Asha Ray 20 Lancer Car Regn. No. MH 20 U 5454 of Sh. Samir Ray 265,000.00 21 Chevrolet Spark LS with Regn. No.MH 12 EM 9970 359,901.00 purchased by Dr. Asha Ray 22 Honda (UNICORN) CBF150 Motor Cycle with Regd. No. MH 53,072.00 14 AK 4150 23 Investment in SBI Mutual Fund Magnum Multiplier Scheme 10,000.00 1993 CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 24 of 4 24 100 shares of The Great Eastern Shipping Company Ltd. in the 8,010.00 name of Sh. Samir Ray vide Folio No.GEX02318 25 Total payment made for acquisition of Reliance Petroleum 10,466.00 Limited Debentures / Shares under the Application No. 9682007 and Folio No.L90612223 in the joint name of Smt. Asha Ray and Sh. Samir Ray 26 Total payment made for acquisition of Reliance Petroleum 10,466.00 Limited Debentures / Shares under the Application No. 9681990 and Folio No.L90612222 in the joint name of Sh. Samir Ray and Smt. Asha Ray 27 100 Public Issue Shares of IDBI Ltd. acquired in the name of 13,000.00 Smt. Asha Ray vide Application dt. 07.07.95 under Folio No.IDB319262 28 100 Public Issue Shares of IDBI Ltd. acquired in the name of 13,000.00 Sh. Samir Ray vide Application dt. 07.07.95 under Folio No.IDB319263 29 ICICI Bank Bonds 971 (2 Bonds each Regular Income Bond 24,000.00 and Encash Bond) in the name of Smt. Asha Ray acquired in the year 1997 30 2 ICICI Bank Bonds January99 Regular Income Bond 10,000.00 (Option IV) in the name of Smt. Asha Ray acquired in the year 1999 31 4 ICICI Bank Bonds Oct99 Regular Income Bond (Option I) 20,000.00 in the name of Smt. Asha Ray jointly with Sh. SB Ray acquired in the year 1999 32 3 ICICI Bank Bonds Dec.-98 Regular Income Bond (Option 15,000.00 III) in the name of Smt. Asha Ray jointly with Sh. SB Ray acquired in the year 1999 33 2 ICICI Bank Bonds MAR - 98 Regular Income Bond (Option 10,000.00 III) in the name of Sh. SB Ray jointly with Smt. Asha Ray acquired in the year 1998 34 10 ICICI Bank Bonds 1997 in the name of Sh. SB Ray jointly 20,000.00 with Smt. Asha Ray acquired in the year 1997 CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 25 of 4 35 2 ICICI Bank Bonds OCT - 99 (Tax Saving Bond - Option I) 10,000.00 in the name of Smt. Asha Ray jointly with Sh. SB Ray acquired in the year 1999 36 500 shares of Advani Hotels & Resorts (India) Limited in the 1,000.00 name of Sh. Samir Baron Ray jointly with Dr. Asha Ray 37 210 shares of Lloyds Finace Limited acquired in the year 1996 19,000.00 in the name of Sh. Samir Baron Ray 38 Cash recovered from Flat No.603, Rio Grande, Fortaleza 280,000.00 complex, Kalyani Nagar, Pune 39 Cash recovered from Room No.6, Arjun, COD Officers Mess, 915,600.00 58, Kirby Place, Delhi.

40 Cash recovered from Locker No.227, ICICI Bank, 'C' Block, 47,000.00 Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.

41 Value of house hold items at the check period as per inventory 1,127,250.00 prepared for Flat No.603, Rio Grande, Fortaleza complex, Kalyani Nagar, Pune including cost of refurnishing this flat.

                                                                          TOTAL         4,387,225.00



1.5            The investigation revealed that A2 Dr. Asha Ray had actively

aided and abeted A1 Samir Baron Ray by allowing him in acquiring huge movable and immovable properties in her name even though she did not have means to acquire the same.

During the search, on 02.09.2008 at Pune and New Delhi, cash to the tune of Rs.11,95,600/ was recovered. The CBI chargesheeted the accused persons for having been found in possession of disproportionate assets worth Rs.1,19,98,083/ in the name of A1 and members of his family. CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 26 of 4 2.0 Upon chargesheet being filed, the cognizance was taken and the accused persons were summoned. The defence had made a detailed representation at the stage of charge on facts as well as on legal points. However, the defence in their arguments on charge as well as in brief synopsis had disputed the chargesheet only on limited points and were fair enough to admit on several counts. Even at the cost of repetition, it would be advantageous to briefly recapitulate the points on which the disputes were raised by the defence at the stage of charge :

i) Assets at the beginning of the check period -

The defence has taken a plea that the CBI under valued the assets at the beginning of the check period and CBI did not even take into account the Stridhan i.e. Jewellery etc.

ii) Immovable Assets at the end of the check period :

a) Shop No.G37, Vardhman City Mall, Sector - 23, Dwarka, New Delhi (Item No.13) - The defence has pleaded that this shop had already been sold to PW2 Harbhagwan Gupta and therefore, could not have been added to the assets of accused.

b) 1000 Sq. Yds. plot in New Palam Vihar in the joint name of A1 and A2 (Item No.11) - The defence has pleaded that the prosecution has wrongly fixed the price of the plot at Rs.61 lakhs whereas, as per sale deed duly registered, the price of the plot is CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 27 of 4 Rs.25 lakhs.

iii) Movable Assets at the end of check period  Cash recovered from Flat No.603, Rio Grande, Fortaleza complex, Kalyani Nagar, Pune (Item No.38)  Cash recovered from Room No.6, Arjun, COD Officers Mess, 58, Kirby Place, Delhi (Item No.39)  Cash recovered from Locker No.227, ICICI Bank, 'C' Block, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi (Item No.40) The plea of the defence was that this cash was received by A1 against sale of shop No.G37, Vardhman City Mall, Sector 23, Dwarka.

iv) Expenditure during the check period

a) Income tax paid by A1 Samir Baron Ray (Item No.1) - The plea of the defence was that the income was received after deduction of TDS and therefore, this amount could not have been taken as expenditure.

b) Repayment of loan against rent receivable (LARR) availed by A1 Samir Baron Ray from HDFC Bank (Item No.15) - The plea of the defence was that the amount of Rs.3,54,114/ be deducted as there is an accounting error.

c) Repayment of housing loan A/c No.809675100020448 availed by CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 28 of 4 A1 Samir Baron Ray from IDBI Bank, Pune (Item No.16) - The plea of the defence was that Rs.1,28,489/ is to be deducted as there is an accounting error.

d) Payment made by A1 Samir Baron Ray towards the purchase of Air Tickets from M/s. Preeti Travels Pvt. Limited (Item No.39) -

The plea of the defence was that travel is for official duty and payments were made from the advance received and credited in HDFC Bank, Gopinath Bazar Branch, salary account.

e) Loss on account of sale of shop No.G78, Vardhman City Mall, Dwarka, Sector 23, Delhi (Item No.55) - The plea of the defence was that the shop No.G78 Vardhman City Mall was sold for a sum of Rs.71 lakhs and therefore, there is a profit of Rs.13,38,056/ which is to be added in the income and the loss in the sum of Rs.17,61,944/ is to be deducted from the expenditure.

v) Income of A1 Samir Baron Ray and members of his family during the check period

a) Salary Income of A1 Samir Baron Ray (Item No.1) - The plea of the defence was that a total gross salary during the check period was Rs.30,07,590/ and in addition there was income from sale of jewellery for a sum of Rs.1,49,550/ in the year 2005.

CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 29 of 4

b) Income of A2 Dr. Asha Ray from profession during the check period (Item No.2) - The plea of the defence was that CBI has wrongly ignored the income in the sum of Rs.7,39,665/ from profession and income from sale of jewellery in the sum of Rs. 4,57,450/ and both are required to be added in the income.

c) Income from sale of house No.12, Talkatora, Rajajipuram, Lucknow (Item No.6) - The plea of the defence was that actually the income was in Rs.4 lakhs and CBI has wrongly taken the same as Rs.3 lakhs and therefore Rs.1 lakh is to be added in income.

d) Rental income from Shop No.G5, Krishna Apra Royal Plaza, Greater Noida (Item No.13) - The case of the defence was that the actual rental income of Rs.6,55,596/ was received in Bank and thus, Rs. 1,31,717/ has been shown less which is to be added.

e) Rental income from Shop No.117, Connaught Place, Bund Garden Road, Pune in the name of Smt. Bina Ray with Power of Attorney to A2 Dr. Asha Ray (Item No.14) - The plea of the defence was that actually the rent received was Rs.4,72,632/ and therefore, an amount of Rs.2,29,020/ is to be added.

f) Loans (Item No.16 to 23) -

The defence has taken a plea that CBI has not taken into account CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 30 of 4  the loan of Rs.3 lakhs taken from Punjab National Bank. The amount of loan minus the payment of EMI works out to Rs. 1,46,300/.

 An amount of Rs.1,28,608/ is shown as loan vide HDFC credit card No.40502820000002084 as on August 2008.

 An amount of Rs.57,378/ is loan against HDFC credit card No. 4050280000002076 as on August 2008.

g) Amount received in US dollars by Smt. Bina Ray from her grand daughter residing in the United States and deposited in SB A/c 931562 in the joint account of A1 Samir Baron Ray and Smt. Bina Ray in ABN Amro Bank - The plea of the defence was that the amount received as an remittance was Rs.7,96,410/ whereas, the prosecution has wrongly shown it in the sum of Rs.5,82,660/. Therefore, a sum of Rs.2,13,750/ is to be added in the income. 2.1 Besides this, the defence has taken a plea that the prosecution has not taken into account the following income of accused persons :

 Income from sale of jewellery of Rs.2,08,340/ whereas the bills of the same were seized by IO during the investigation.

 Agriculture income from Land and Farm house at Survey No.294 Village Yelwadi, Taluka Khed, Pune acquired in the name of Smt. CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 31 of 4 Asha Ray and Samir Baron Ray purchased on 22.04.2004.

 Agricultural income from Land at survey No.517 at village Induri Tal Vadgoan, Maval, Distt. Pune of Brig. SB Ray purchased vide sale deed dated 14.07.2004.

These points have been discussed in little details, in view of the fact that since only some of the items were disputed by the accused persons, the canvas of trial was shortened to a great extent. A1 Samir Baron Ray on his behalf as well as on behalf of A2 Dr. Asha Ray made a detailed statement whereby he admitted as many as 155 documents which were given Ex.P1 to P135. A1 made a specific statement regarding admissions of documents relied upon by the prosecution on his behalf and on behalf of A2 Dr. Asha Ray. The accused made endorsement on each of the document under his signatures and specifically stated that he would not have any objection if the same are read in evidence.

3.0 In view of the admission of documents, the prosecution which initially filed list of 58 witnesses, filed a revised list of 10 prosecution witnesses. The prosecution stood to its word and examined 10 witnesses. 3.1 PW1 Sh. Rajendra B. Chougle retired as AGM, IDBI Bank CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 32 of 4 deposed on oath that during the year 2009, he was Manager (Back office) and identified letter dated 29.06.2009, Ex.P122 issued by him. The witness proved the certificate u/S.2A of Bankers Book of Evidence Act as Ex.PW1/A. The witness pertained to loan account No.80965100050917 in the sum of Rs.3 lakhs. The witness also proved another letter dated 07.07.09 signed by him as Ex.PW1/B. Alongwith this letter, a photocopy of loan application in respect of the above said loan account in the name of A1 Samir Baron Ray was issued. The photocopy of loan application has been proved as Ex.PW1/B1. Vide another letter dated 07.07.09, Ex.PW1/C the photocopy of loan application in the sum of Rs.15 lakhs in the joint name of A1 Samir Baron Ray and A2 Dr. Asha Ray in respect of loan account No. 809675100020448 was issued. Another admitted document Ex.P121 dated 29.06.09 sent by PW1 was also put up alongwith which the statement of account of loan account No. 809675100020448 for the period 30.06.2004 to 29.06.2009, Ex.PW1/D was forwarded.

3.2 PW2 Sh. Harbhagwan Gupta buyer of shop No.G37, Vardhman Plaza, Sector - 19, Dwarka deposed on oath that he purchased this shop from A2 Dr. Asha Ray through A1 Samir Baron Ray for a consideration of Rs.28 lakhs. The witness proved the agreement to sell dated 14.08.2008 as Ex.PW2/A. It is pertinent to mention here that on the CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 33 of 4 agreement to sell A1 Samir Baron Ray had signed on behalf of A2 Dr. Asha Ray. The witness stated that at the time of execution of agreement i.e. 14.08.2008, he had paid an amount of Rs.1.50 lakhs. The witness also identified photocopies of the cheques dated 25.08.2008 in the sum of Rs.1.25 lakhs, Rs.1.95 lakhs, Rs.2 lakhs and Rs.3.30 lakhs issued by PW2, his brother Raj Kumar Gupta, Bal Kishan Gupta and his wife Hemlata in favour of A2. The witness stated that the remaining payment of around 18 lakhs was made by him in cash to A1 on the date when sale deed was registered. The witness voluntarily stated that no formal sale deed was registered as it was only a transfer case. He did not remember the date when payment in cash was paid by him regarding this transaction. However, the witness stated that he had made entire payment before 31.08.2008. PW2 also proved the carbon copy of certificate regarding receipt of entire sale consideration in the sum of Rs.28 lakhs as Ex.PW2/D. As per receipt, out of sale consideration of Rs.28 lakhs, payment of Rs.9.70 lakhs was made by cheque and remaining payment of Rs.18 lakhs was made in cash. In the cross examination, the witness admitted that the final deal took place on 25.08.08 and on that day the entire payment was made by them to A1 and A2.

3.3 PW3 Ms. Payal Jain, Branch Manager of Royal Bank of Scotland proved the statement of account pertaining to account no.935162 in CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 34 of 4 the joint name of Smt. Bina Ray and A1 Samir Baron Ray for the period 01.01.2004 to 22.02.2010 already admitted as Ex.P128 (colly). The statement of account for the period 16.02.2004 to 02.09.2008 admitted as Ex.P35 was also proved by the witness. Similarly, the original account opening form of this account as well as original account pertaining to two further NRE and NRO accounts Number 1381718 and 1381719 were proved as Ex.P37. The witness stated that in A/c No. 935162, certain foreign payments have been received in US dollars and the same have been credited to the account holder after converting the same into Indian rupee on 20/2/04, 2/6/04 and 3/8/04 as reflected at point X1 (Rs.2,67,157.50), X2 (Rs.1,78,253) and X3 (Rs.1,37,250) in statement of account Ex.P35. The witness further stated that there is further remittance in US$ 5000 and the same was credited to the account holder after converting the same into Indian Currency Rs.2,13,750/ on 22/7/05. The relevant entry in this regard appears at point Y1 on statement of account Ex.P35. The witness also stated that as per statement of account, Ex.P35 there are two debit entries dated 11.01.2005 and 15.03.2005 in the sum of Rs.5 lakhs vide cheque No.982207 and Rs.30,000/ vide cheque No. 0982214, respectively.

3.4 PW4 Sh. NK Mishra the then Inspector, CBI, conducted search at the residence of A1 Samir Baron Ray and A2 Dr. Asha Ray at Flat CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 35 of 4 No.603, Forteliza Complex, Kalyani Nagar, Pune pursuant to the search warrant issued by the court in presence of the accused persons and independent witnesses. The witness proved the search list Ex.PW4/A comprising 12 sheets bearing signatures of A1 and A2 on all the pages. The witness stated that the description of the articles, events, values of articles/works done were recorded as described by the accused persons in the presence of independent witnesses and CBI officers. The search was conducted peacefully. In the cross examination, the witness admitted that no independent witnesses from the neighbourhood of the accused were joined before conducting the search. He further admitted that no expert to assess the valuation of the articles in the house was called on the day of search. The witness denied the suggestion that the value of the articles mentioned in the observation memo were assessed by him without asking from the accused persons. PW4 Sh. NK Mishra admitted that he had not called Architect Paresh Lunavat on the day of search to make inquiry from him about the renovation work done by him in the flat of accused persons. Nor did the witness see the documents with regard to the payment made to Paresh Lunavat. The witness denied the suggestion that accused had not told him about the amount of Rs.4 lakhs incurred on the renovation of house. The witness admitted that he had not seen any document with regard to the payment of Rs.80,000/ for Grill fitting in windows on the day of search. CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 36 of 4 However, he denied the suggestion that accused had not told him about Rs. 80,000/ spent on Grill fitting in windows in addition to other expenses in December 2006 as mentioned in Ex.PW4/B. The witness also denied the suggestion that item shown at Sr. No.89 in Ex.PW4/B i.e. Steam Room bathroom fitting was part of the renovation work done by Paresh Lunavat and this item was also included in the renovation work. The witness voluntarily stated that as indicated in the observation memo, the accused had informed that this item was provided by the Builder.

In reply to a specific question that total value of household items including the payment made to jewellers as mentioned at Sr. No.37 & 38 of expenditure during the check period as mentioned in the chargesheet are included in the amount mentioned at Sr. No.41 of movable assets in the chargesheet, IO replied that the value of household items during the check period has been taken on the basis of inventory memo as Rs.11,27,250/, whereas, at Sr. No.37 & 38 of the list of expenditure it has been mentioned as some payments made to M/s. Raj Jewellers and M/s. Aggarwal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Inter Gold Gems Pvt. Ltd. towards purchase of Gold Jewellery by A1 Samir Baron Ray. The witness stated that there should not be any duplicacy in these items and this should be based on specific investigation which can be clarified by the IO. The witness denied the suggestion that the rings mentioned at Sr. No.134 in Ex.PW4/B are the same CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 37 of 4 item which has also been reflected at Sr. No.38 in the list of expenditure as mentioned in the chargesheet. Similarly, the witness denied the suggestion that item mentioned at Sr. No.136 in Ex.PW4/B is the same item which has also been reflected at Sr. No.37 in the list of expenditure. The witness voluntarily stated that as mentioned in the lists itself, as per period of acquisition, description of the articles and value of the articles, these are two different items. The witness admitted that he had not called any Goldsmith on the day of search to assess the value of the jewellery as mentioned in Ex.PW4/B and the value was taken as described by the accused. The witness denied the suggestion that accused had not given the value of any item as mentioned in Ex.PW4/B and he had mentioned the amount of value against the items with his own assessment without any basis and without the assistance of any expert. The witness admitted that he might have been in touch or contact with the IO during the search at the aforesaid premises. However, he denied the suggestion that he had mentioned the value in Ex.PW4/B at the instructions and in consultation with the IO. 3.5 PW5 Insp. DV Tripathi, IO deposed on oath that he took over the investigation of this case from Insp. SS Mayal. IO stated that accused had disputed the payment made to M/s. Preeti Travels. IO stated that he seized the carbon copy of various invoices in respect of air tickets purchased by A1 CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 38 of 4 Samir Baron Ray from M/s. Preeti Travels vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A. The seized vouchers were collectively proved as Ex.PW5/A1 (41 pages). IO stated that vide letter dated 21.11.2008, Ex.PW5/B, the detail/history of the 41 vouchers were supplied on behalf of M/s. Preeti Travels. He stated that the total payments made by A1 against said 41 vouchers is Rs.3,04,498/. The plea taken by the accused during the investigation was that even though these payments were made by him, however all such payments were reimbursed to him by his office vide TA/DA claim as all the said trips were official trips. IO stated that the perusal of the vouchers revealed that some of the air tickets were issued in various other names than that of A1. IO also stated that he collected the details of TA/DA payment made to A1 from his office i.e. office of CDA(O), Golibaar Maidaan, Pune comprising covering letter dated 13.11.2009 in one sheet and details of the TA/DA payments in three sheets, Ex.P73. IO stated that Ex.P73 which is an admitted document does not reflect the payment in respect of the alleged official trips claimed by A1 except few payments. He stated that after deducting such few payments from the figure of Rs.3,04,498/ paid by accused A1 to M/s. Preet Travels against 41 vouchers, he reached to the figure of Rs.2,56,227/. IO further stated that during the course of investigation, he had collected the details of the salary received by A1 alongwith detailed calculation chart, Ex.P63 and based on this, Sh. AS Janorkar, Sr. Accounts Officer had calculated the total net salary CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 39 of 4 in the sum of Rs.18,76,120/ received by A1 Samir Baron Ray during the check period i.e. 01.04.2000 to 31.08.2008.

In respect of sale of shop No.G37, Vardhman City Mall, IO stated that he seized the relevant agreement to sell and purchase dated 14.08.2008 Ex.PW2/A from PW2 Harbhagwan Gupta. He stated that as per investigation certain cheques received by accused against sale of the said property, was credited to his account after the end of the check period i.e. 31.08.2008 and secondly, there was claim of certain cash payments being made for which PW2 was not able to produce any evidence in the form of Income Tax payments etc. In respect of another disputed item i.e. sale of loss of Rs.17,61,944/ on sale of shop No.G78, Vardhmaan City Mall, Sector 23, Dwarka i.e. item 55 under the head expenditure in the chargesheet, IO stated that this property was purchased by accused for Rs.57,61,944/ but was sold by him at Rs.40 lakhs to Sh. Balbir Singh on 30.04.2008.

In the cross examination, IO admitted that sale transaction of shop No.G37 was completed on 25.08.2008 and the said shop was transferred in the name of PW2 Harbhagwan Gupta on 25.08.2008 in the documents of Vardhman Properties Ltd. IO admitted that on 31.08.2008, the shop No.G37, Vardhman City Mall, Sector 23, Dwarka, New Delhi mentioned at Sr. No.13 of assets was not existing in the name of the accused. IO also admitted that the above said shop was sold by accused to PW2 CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 40 of 4 Harbhagwan Gupta for a total consideration of Rs.28 Lakhs. The witness was shown the copy of the transfer deed dated 25.08.2008 (Mark PW5/DB) in the name of PW2. IO stated that PW2 in his statement made to the CBI admitted that he had paid Rs.9,70,000/ by cheque and Rs.18,30,000/ in cash before the transfer of the shop in his name i.e. on 25.08.2008. IO stated that since the cheque was not encashed during the check period, the amount had not come in the account of the accused as on the day at the end of the check period and this was the reason why the above shop was mentioned at Sr. No. 13 of assets as on 31.08.2008 as mentioned in the chargesheet. IO denied that value of the shop in the sum of Rs.26,52,645/ should not have been mentioned at Item No.34 of immovable assets and a profit of Rs.1.48 lakhs should have been added to the income of the accused.

IO in the cross examination stated that he seized the sale deed of plot No.1000 sq. yds., and according to this sale deed Ex.P25, the total sale consideration of this flat was Rs.25 Lakhs. IO admitted that he had not recorded the statements of Sh. Praveen Kumar Chandersen, owner of this plot as well of Sh. Pardeep Kumar Chandersen, Power of Attorney Holder of Sh. Praveen Kumar Chandersen. IO also did not record the statement of Sh. Manoj Tomar nor did he examine Devender, Sh. Mahesh Kumar Chauhan, who were witnesses of this sale deed. IO admitted that he had not got the property assessed from any expert or valuer. IO voluntarily stated that he had CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 41 of 4 recorded the statement of Nirmala and one property dealer, who had taken part in this deal. IO stated that he personally visited this plot and had assessed the value of this plot as Rs.61.25 lakhs merely on the basis of the statement of the witnesses.

IO admitted that the salary is paid to the government employee after deducting TDS. In respect of Item No.1 of the expenditure, IO stated that he had added the income tax paid in the expenditure as the same was paid by accused on income other than Salary income. IO stated that as per the statement of Income tax officer, the amount shown as above found part of the TDS already deducted by the department. IO denied the suggestion that he had intentionally made statement that accused had not filed the ITRs of AY 200001 and 200102. He was also confronted with the photocopy of both the ITRs of both the AYs, Ex.PW6/DA and Ex.PW /DB. IO stated that he was not aware regarding refund of Rs.1,50,850/ made by Income Tax Department to the accused and therefore, he did not show this amount in the income of the accused. IO was also not aware if the accused had paid tax on the capital gain. IO voluntarily stated that accused had paid the tax on capital gain in respect of all the properties after registration of the case and therefore, it was an afterthought. IO admitted that for the property sold in the year 2008, the tax would be paid in 2009. However, IO stated that it should have been paid in March 2009 whereas, the tax was paid in October 2009. IO CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 42 of 4 denied the suggestion that ITRs for the AY 200405, 200506 (revised), 200607 (revised), 200708, 200809 and 20092010 in respect of A2 Dr. Asha Ray were shown to him during the investigation. Similarly, IO denied that the ITRs for the AY 200506 (revised), 200607 (revised), 200708 and 200809 of A1 Samir Baron Ray were shown to him during the investigation. IO stated that he had not shown the capital gain in respect of shop No.G37 and G78 as no document was shown to him during the investigation. IO voluntarily stated that the capital gain was paid later on by the accused. IO denied that he had shown repayment of loan as shown in Item No.15 of expenditure wrongly as Rs.10,20,976/ whereas, the actual amount paid was Rs.6,66,862/. Similarly, IO denied the suggestion that he has wrongly shown the repayment of loan at Item No.16 as Rs.10,02,308/ in place of Rs. 8,73,819/. In respect of the payment made to M/s. Preeti Travels, IO stated that accused had paid a total amount to the tune of Rs.3,44,498/ out of which Rs.2,56,227/ was paid by the accused on the air journey conducted by member of his family and relatives and rest of the amount was claimed by him from the office. IO stated that he reached to the conclusion after comparing the TA bill (D63), Ex.P73 and the vouchers supplied by M/s. Preeti Travels.

In respect of shop No.G78, IO admitted that he had examined Sh. Balbir Singh i.e. the buyer of this shop during the course of investigation. CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 43 of 4 IO also admitted that Sh. Balbir Singh had also given him an affidavit giving details of total payments made by him to A2 for the said property. IO also stated that in the affidavit Sh. Balbir Singh stated that the total sale consideration of the above said shop was Rs.71 lakhs and Rs.40 lakhs was paid through pay order and remaining amount of Rs.31 lakhs was paid by him in cash. IO admitted that he has not placed on record the statement of said Sh. Balbir Singh and his affidavit. IO voluntarily stated that since Balbir Singh did not give any proof regarding cash payment as such only Rs. 40 lakhs was considered. IO denied the suggestion that Sh. Balbir Singh had disclosed him the source of cash payment and also his income tax papers during the investigation and IO had intentionally and with malafide intentions did not consider the same and placed on record.

The defence merely gave a suggestion that assets at the beginning of the check period have not been correctly evaluated and have been undervalued only to increase the DA. However, the defence did not lead any substantive evidence in this regard. IO admitted that Rs.14,000/ shown at Item No.43 in expenditure on account of payment made to M/s. Maharashtra Electronics System towards the purchase of Glen Gas Stove and Fabre Castle Chimney by the accused has been shown in the inventory Ex.PW4/B prepared by PW4 NK Mishra at Item No.26 and 27. IO stated that expenditure shown at Item No.38 in expenditure regarding payment made to CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 44 of 4 M/s. Intergold Gems Pvt. Ltd. is towards the purchase of Gold Jewellery by A1 and this item is similar to Item No.37 and 38 of inventory Ex.PW4/B. Similar was the reply of IO in regard to the purchase of mobile phone as shown at Item No.54 in the list of expenditure.

In respect of actual income from salary of the accused during the check period, IO denied the suggestion that it has wrongly been shown as Rs.18,76,120/ in place of Rs.19,72,945/. However, IO admitted that income as shown by him in the chargesheet is net income after making all the deductions and taxes.

IO admitted that he had seized the bill of Jewellery sold by accused A1 and A2 and Smt. Bina Ray. However, he did not recall whether he had filed these bills alongwith chargesheet or not. IO admitted that he had seized the bills Ex.PW5/DC1 to DC4 vide production memo Ex.PW5/DC5. IO admitted that he had not taken this into consideration while calculating the income of the accused on account of the fact that he did not find any register which is required to be maintained and checked by the DM or his authorized agent, with the said jeweller. IO admitted that he did not record the statement of the Jeweller in this regard.

IO denied the suggestion that accused persons had entered into an agreement to sell with Sh. Shambahji Khanduji at Village Yalwadi, Pune and received a sum of Rs.10 lacs. However, IO admitted that he had seized CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 45 of 4 agreement to sell dated 17.02.2005 and proved the photocopy of production memo Mark DA and photocopy of agreement to sell in Marathi language as Mark DB and its English translation as Mark DC.

IO in the cross examination denied the suggestion that A2 Dr. Asha Ray was running business in the name of M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Leisures and Travels at Pune. However, he admitted that he has shown the expenditure towards the electricity bill as well as expenses towards the purchase of different items at Item No.46 to 54 towards running of this business. IO stated that infact A2 had not started business. IO denied the suggestion that a MoU was duly entered into with M/s. Samsonite South Asia Pvt. Ltd. on 18.07.2008 and in the year 200708 there was a total turnover of Rs. 27,33,040/ on which A2 Dr. Asha Ray got 25% commission i.e. Rs. 6,85,574/. IO denied the suggestion that documents relating to this were duly shown to him during the investigation but the same were not considered by him. IO also denied the suggestion that there was further turnover of Rs. 14,49,204/ during the period 01.04.08 to 31.08.08 on which A2 had earned a commission of Rs.3,62,301/ and after deducting the expenses there was a net profit of Rs.2,76,524/. IO denied the suggestion that he did not take this into account only to increase the DA. IO denied the suggestion that A2 earned a total income of Rs.7,39,665/ from her business. IO was not able to say whether A2 had filed ITRs in this regard and had paid income tax. CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 46 of 4

In the further cross examination, IO has denied the suggestion that he has not taken complete sale price of Rs.4 lakhs on account of sale of H.No.12, Talkatora, Rajajipuram, Lucknow. Similarly, IO denied the suggestion that he had not taken complete rental income from property No. G5 Royal Apra Plaza and shop no.117 Connaught Place, Pune. IO also denied the suggestion that he has not intentionally taken into account loan in the sum of Rs.3 lacs taken by accused from PNB and has intentionally not taken into account a sum of Rs.1,28,608/ and Rs.57,378/ on account of loan which was outstanding in relation to the purchase made by accused through credit card. IO also denied the suggestion that he had not taken a sum of Rs. 1,22,820/ received by accused from Reliance on account of mutual fund which was credited in the salary account of accused being maintained in HDFC Bank.

IO admitted that accused persons had agricultural land at Pune. However, IO stated that he cannot say that accused persons had 9 acres of agricultural land. IO denied the suggestion that there were sugarcane, peddy, fruits and nursery plants in that land. He voluntarily stated that there were only some flowers in that land. IO denied the suggestion that he had intentionally not taken into account agricultural income in the sum of Rs. 9,93,304/ from the year 200405 upto 31.08.2008. CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 47 of 4 3.6 PW6 Smt. RV Thakar was Income tax Officer, Ward 4(1), GHQ, Pune during the period 2008 to 2010 in respect of the Military Officers, whose salary is paid through Controller of Defence Accounts (CDA) Officer (O) (Pune). The witness was shown a letter dated 18.09.2009, Ex.P69 issued by her. She was shown the Income Tax Returns pertaining to A1 Brig. SB Ray for the AY 200203, 200304, 200405, 200506, 200607 and 200708. She stated that A1 Samir Baron Ray paid following taxes :

               Rs.58,670/           AY 200203, 
               Rs.68,482/           AY 200304, 
               Rs.62,185/           AY 200405, 
               Rs.50,568/           AY 200506, 
               Rs.22,724/           AY 200607, and 
               Rs.22,650/           AY 200708.

The witness stated that all these payments were made by A1 Samir Baron Ray in the form of TDS i.e. the tax was deducted by his office from his gross salary. In the cross examination, the witness stated that for the AY 200405 to 200708, the actual income tax was less than the TDS deducted from the salary of A1 SB Ray and accordingly, the refunds of Rs. 4,500/, Rs.29,984, Rs.50,157 and Rs.40,133/, respectively, (totaling to Rs. 1,24,774/) were made to Brig. SB Ray. The witness admitted that the total income tax paid by the accused was Rs.2,85,279/ and this amount was deducted from TDS of Brig. SB Ray. The witness admitted that there is a CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 48 of 4 rules and regulations of Income tax Deptt. whereby the Income tax Deptt. maintain the record of the Assessee for seven years only and thereafter, the record is weeded out. She stated that the record for Financial Year 19992000 (AY 20002001) and 20002001 (AY 20012002) was not mentioned by her in her statement to the CBI. The witness was shown the copy of processing form of return for the FY 19992000 (AY 20002001) and FY 20002001 (AY 200102) and in the name of Samir Baron Ray, Ex.PW6/DA and Ex.PW6/DB, respectively, in which there was a refund of Rs.12,698/ and Rs. 13,376/, respectively. At the request of Ld. PP the witness was recalled for further examination. The witness stated that after going through the ITR pertaining to AY 200203 to 200708, A1 Samir Baron Ray had not reported any income from capital gain during the period 200001 to 200708. 3.7 PW7 Raj Kumar Rana deposed on oath that he is a property dealer since the year 1996 and Sh. Manoj Tomar was known to him being a resident of New Palam Vihar. In the year 2008, Manoj Tomar came to him alongwith A1 Samir Baron Ray. By that time, A1 had already purchased property No. T76, New Palam Vihar and had approached him with a request for some rented accommodation as he (A1) was planning to raise construction on the aforesaid property. In the cross examination, the witness admitted that the colony where the property No.T76, New Palam Vihar is CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 49 of 4 located was an unauthorized colony and the plotting was done from the agricultural land. There were no sewage and roads as it was an unauthorized colony. In the year 2008, the prevailing rate of the land/plots, where the plot No.T76 New Palam Vihar was located was Rs.2,500/ per sq. yds. PW7 admitted that the total deal in respect of plot No. T76, New Palam Vihar, Gurgaon was done between A1, Manoj Tomar and Parveen Kumar Sen through him and he was the dealer from the side of A1 SB Ray and Manoj Tomar. The witness also stated that the adjacent plot No.T77, New Palam Vihar, Gurgaon was bought by Manoj Tomar and it was constructed upto three storey. The witness also admitted the suggestion that Manoj Tomar had given Rs.10 lakhs in cash to Sh. Muktesh Narula (PW8), dealer from the side of the owner, towards the construction cost raised on the plot T77, New Palam Vihar, Gurgaon.

3.8 The prosecution examined Sh. Muktesh Narula as PW8. He stated that during the period 1995 to 2009, he was doing the business of construction. The witness deposed that plot No.T76 and T77 were owned by two brothers namely, Sh. Praveen Chandra Sen and Sh. Pradeep Chandra Sen, who were residents of Dubai. In the year 2007, the said brothers gave him the contract for raising constructions on the said plot. The construction was almost complete by early 2008. Then, Sh. Pradeep Chandra Sen CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 50 of 4 telephonically directed PW8 to stop further construction and instead get the property disposed of. PW8 deposed that the expected figure of 1.25 crores was given by the sellers for both the plots. The witness found out the prevailing market rate and PW7 Sh. Raj Kumar Rana gave the figure of Rs. 1.05 crores to Sh. Pradeep Chandra Sen. The witness further stated that PW7 Sh. Raj Kumar Rana had one party with him by the name of Sh. Manoj Tomar and after meeting Sh. Manoj Tomar, the deal was fixed at Rs. 1.05 crores for both the plots and an advance of Rs. 21,000/ was handed over by Manoj Tomar to him. It came in the evidence of PW8 that Sh. Manoj Tomar had clarified that one of the plot was to be purchased by A1 Samir Baron Ray. It was suggested by Sh. Manoj Tomar that figure of Rs.1.05 crores may not be disclosed before A1 Samir Baron Ray and it was discussed that Rs.60 lakhs to be quoted in respect of the particular plot to be purchased by A1 Samir Baron Ray. PW8 met A1 personally alongwith Sh. Manoj Tomar. A1 handed over Rs.6 lakhs as an advance to the witness and it was understood that the total deal was for Rs. 60 lakhs and 10% of the same i.e. Rs. 6 lakhs was paid as advance in cash by A1. Witness stated that he had issued a receipt for Rs. 6 lakhs in favour of A1 Samir Baron Ray on that day itself. Another sum of Rs.4 lakhs was paid by Sh. Manoj Tomar in cash after about a week. This sum of Rs. 10 lakhs were deposited in the account of Sh Pradeep Chandra Sen, in Bank of Baroda, Kandivali branch, Mumbai to CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 51 of 4 confirm the deal. PW8 Muktesh Narula stated that when Pradeep Chandra Sen, power of attorney of his brother, had come to India, the remaining amount was handed over by A1 and Sh. Manoj Tomar at the time of execution of sale deed in the form of drafts and cash. The witness stated that in the sale deed, the consideration amount was mentioned as Rs. 25 lakhs and the remaining consideration amount paid in cash was not mentioned in the sale deed. The witness stated that he was given a cash of Rs.1 lakh as commission. The witness also proved his statement u/S.164 Cr.P.C. as Ex.PW8/A. In the cross examination, the witness admitted that the colony where the plot No. T76 and T77 were located was an unauthorized colony and did not have the water and sewage facility. However, it had metaled road. The witness admitted that PW7 Raj Kumar Rana was the Property Dealer from the side of A1 SB Ray and Manoj Tomar. Witness reiterated in the cross examination that Rs.6 lakhs were paid by A1 to him in cash. The witness also voluntarily stated that some cash payments were made directly to Sh. Pradeep Sen. The witness denied the suggestion that no cash payment was made by Sh. Pradeep Chander Sen at the time of execution of sale deed. In the cross examination, witness stated that he had not maintained any record regarding property dealing.

3.9 PW9 Sh. Udesh Sharma, Manager (Accounts) deposed CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 52 of 4 regarding transaction in respect of shop No.G37 and G78, Vardhman City Mall, Sector 23, Dwarka, New Delhi. The witness had handed over documents pertaining to said shop vide production memo dated 29.10.2008, Ex.P113. The witness stated that shop No.G37 was booked by A2 Dr. Asha Ray and the total payments made by her was Rs.26,52,645/ during the period 20.04.2005 to 25.08.2008. Similarly, shop No.G78 was booked by A2 Dr. Asha Ray and the total payments made by her was Rs.57,61,944/ during the check period 25.01.2006 to 01.02.2007. The witness stated that shop No.G78 was sold by A2 Dr. Asha Ray to Balbir Singh and endorsement to this effect was made in their record on 30.04.2008 pursuant to letter dated 30.04.2008 submitted by Balbir Singh and A2. However, there was no mention of sale consideration in this document. Similarly, endorsement regarding sale of shop No.G37 was made in the record on 25.08.2008.

3.10 PW10 Insp. Shailender Singh Mayal was the initial IO. He proved the carbon copy of FIR as Ex.PW10/A. The case was entrusted to him for investigation. During investigation on 01.09.2008, Ld. Predecessor of this court issued search warrant for the search of residence, office and one room allotted to A1 at Officers' Mess at Kirbi Place, Delhi Cantt., New Delhi authorizing him to conduct search. The witness stated that he further CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 53 of 4 authorized PW4 Insp. NK Mishra to conduct search at the residence of A1 at Pune. PW10 conducted the search himself on 02.09.08 at Officers Mess and office of A1 at integrated branch in Delhi. IO stated that during searches two independent witnesses also accompanied the search party. Insp. SS Mayal proved the search list dated 02.09.08 pertaining to search conducted at Room No.6, Arjun, COD Officers Mess, 58, Kirbi Place, New Delhi as Ex.PW10/B. The inventory prepared in respect of articles which were not seized was proved as Ex.PW10/C. Insp. SS Mayal stated that on 02.09.08, the case was transferred to Insp. DV Tripathi (PW5). In the cross examination, PW10 stated that the valuation of the articles were made in consultation with the witnesses. However, he admitted that he had not taken services of the expert for the valuation of the articles. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED 4.0 A1 Samir Baron Ray in his statement u/S 313 Cr.PC, admitted the loan a/c No. 809675100020448 and 809675100050917. He also did not raise any dispute regarding sale of shop No. G37 and G78, Vardhmaan City Mall, Sector 23, Dwarka. In respect of Shop No. G37, the accused stated that all payments were received by him before the transfer of the shop on 25.08.2008 in favour of PW2 Harbhagwan Gupta.In respect of two cheques issued from A/c No. 935162, the accused stated that cheque No. CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 54 of 4 0982207 dated 09.01.2005 for Rs.5 lacs was given to Gen. Mahesh Vij towards repayment of personal loan taken from him and cheque No.0982214 dated 01.03.2005 for Rs.30,000/ was the interest on loan. The accused stated that foreign remittances in A/c No. 935162 were made to his mother Smt. Bina Ray by her grand daughter residing in USA. In respect of the inventory/observations memo Ex.PW4/B, the accused stated that articles mentioned in Ex.PW4/B were over valued and the said memo was not prepared correctly. In respect of the payment made to M/s Preeti Travels, the accused admitted that payment of Rs.3,04,498/ was made by him. However, he stated that out of this amount of Rs.2,12,563/ has been reimbursed by the CDA(O) vide their letter T/11/148201 dated 13.11.2009. In respect of salary from income, the accused stated that he had received a total salary of Rs. 19,72,945/ during the period 01.04.2000 to 31.08.2008. In respect of Shop No.G78, accused stated that this shop was purchased by him and his wife and the same was sold to Sh. Balbir Singh for Rs. 71 lakhs. In respect of the payment of incme tax of Rs. 58,670/ for the AY 200203, Rs.68,482/ for AY 200304, Rs.62,185/ for AY 200405, Rs.50,568/ for the AY 200506, Rs.22,724/ for the AY 200607 and Rs.22,650/ for the AY 200708, the accused stated that above income tax was deducted at source from salary and the refund of Rs.1,50,850/ was made by income tax department. In respect of non furnishing of capital gain in the return filed for the AY 20002001 to CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 55 of 4 AY 200708, the accused stated that inadvertently the capital gain was not reported in the ITRs for the above years but subsequently, revised ITRs were filed showing the capital gains and tax paid thereon. In respect of the sale consideration of T76, New Palam Vihar, Village Chouma, Gurgaon, the accused stated that the deal was done through Sh. Manoj Tomar and no cash amount was paid by him. The accused stated that he had not met PW8 Sh. Muktesh Narula nor had any interaction with him. The documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P135 admitted by the accused were put to him which were duly admitted. The accused stated that it is a false case and he has been implicated falsely.

A1 in his statement u/S 313 Cr.Pc, also filed detailed written statement stating that he has put in around 33 years of Commissioned Service. A1 served in various parts of the country and in difficult counter insurgency operation in North East, J&K and Punjab with utmost devotion and dedication and had been judged 'Outstanding' in most of his ACRs. A1 had also commanded unit which took part in the Kargil operations in the year 1999. Accused has also mentioned about additional tasks like tree plantation, water harvesting, improvement in living conditions of men in barracks etc / earthquake relief and improvement in Army School, Srinagar. A1 is also recipient of the Army Commendation Card for his selfless devotion. Accused stated that his wife A2 is an MBBS doctor and also served in the Army and later took up jobs in Govt. and private hospitals as well as CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 56 of 4 carried out private practice. It was submitted that A2 also took up business and invested in real assets and is an income tax payee. A1 further stated that his father was also a civil servant who retired in the year 1976. Accused stated that since he himself and his wife were serving in defence forces, their expenditure was minimal and his wife utilized earnings from the profession judiciously in shares /NSC bonds and later in real estate which gave her good income. A1 stated that he had also withdrawn and utilized his DSOP fund (Provident Fund) leaving about Rs. 57,000/ in the said fund at the time of retirement for meeting the expenditures. A1 stated that CBI has made an incorrect calculation. It was submitted that infact the combined income of his and his wife is much more than the assets. The accused stated that minimal assets at the pre check period should have been taken as Rs. 21 lakhs as by that time he had put in 25 years of service and his wife was also an earning member. The accused stated that he had 09 acres of agricultural land at Village Yalvadi, Village Induri and his agricultural income which is also been declared in the ITR was Rs. 9,93,304/:

       2004  2005                    Rs. 2,70,656/

       2005 - 2006                    Rs. 3,90,748/

       2006 - 2007                    Rs.    09,800/

       2007 - 2008                    Rs. 3,22,100/

               Total                  Rs. 9,93,304/


CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr.                   CC No.06/13                        Page 57 of 4

The accused stated that Rs. 1 lakh has to be added in the income on account of sale of ancestral property bearing No. A12, Rajajipuram, Tal Katora, Lucknow. It was further submitted that rental income from shop No. G5, Krishna Apra, Greater Noida, UP and Shop No. 117, Connaught Place, Bund Garden Road, Pune has been taken incorrectly. The income from rental received from Shop No G5, Krishna Apra, Greater Noida, UP was infact Rs. 6,55,596/ in place of Rs. 5,23,879/ as shown by the CBI. The accused filed the certified copy of the bank statement. Similarly, it was submitted that a rental deposit in his SB A/c No. 935162 in ABN Amro Bank in the sum of Rs. 1,14,510/ against Shop No. 117, Connaught Place, Bund Garden Road, Pune has not been included. Accused filed the certified copy of the bank statement. A1 stated that he had also taken a loan from Punjab National Bank in his SB A/c No. 0386000470006295 in PNB, MG Road, Pune on 22.02.07 vide DD No. 17/07 of Chinar, Sri Nagar and this amount was also to be added in the income. The certified copy of the bank statement was filed. The accused stated that income from redemption of Reliance Mutual Funds amounting to Rs. 1,22,820/ credited in his SB A/c No. 01391150030536 in HDFC Bank, Gopinath Bazar, New Delhi on 7/2/03 and 10.2.03 is also to be added. The certified copy of bank statement was filed. The accused stated that amount received by his mother Smt. Bina Ray from her grand daughter was Rs. 7,96,410/ and not Rs. 5,23,879/. The accused CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 58 of 4 has also stated that income from sale of jewellery belonging to his mother Smt. Bina Ray of Rs. 2,08,340/ is to be added. Similarly, loan of Rs. 1,28,608/ pertaining to credit card needs to be added. A1 also stated that advance received by him in the sum of Rs. 10 lakhs and Rs. 15 lakhs from Sh. Shambaji Lendghar and Sh. Ashok Rambhau Bhalekar is also to be added in his income. Accused further stated that the CBI has wrongly added a sum of Rs. 60 lakhs on account of plot at Village Chouma, New Palam Vihar. It was further submitted that cash recovered during the searches was infact sale consideration receipts against Shop No. G37, Vardhman City Mall, Dwarka. The accused further stated that CBI has shown inflated expenditure on account of repayment of loan of HDFC Bank and IDBI Bank. In respect to the payment made to M/s Preeti Travels, the accused stated that the correct computation would be that he received a sum of Rs. 2,12,563/ as TA /DA from his department which should be added in his income and then the token amount to M/s Preeti Travels can be shown in expenditure. Alongith the written statement, the accused also filed various paper clippings to show his achievements.

4.1 A2 Asha Ray in her statement u/S 313 Cr.PC, in respect of NRE and NRO accounts Number 1381718 and 1381719, stated that these accounts were opened by her son Sh. Gaurav Ray who was employed in a foreign ship CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 59 of 4 company. A2 also made the statement u/S 313 Cr.PC on the pattern of A1 and stated that she has been implicated falsely.

A2 had also filed a written statement alongwith statement u/S 313 Cr.PC. In the written statement, A2 stated that she completed her MBBS in 1980 and after completing her house surgeon Gynecology in the year 1983, joined the Army Medical Corp. in the year 1983 and served in Army till 1988. A2 was married to A1 in the year 1984. A2 also stated that being both of them in defence forces, their expenses were marginal and she had been investing the fund judiciously. A2 stated that her income from the medical profession from 20002008 comes to Rs. 25,04,603/, whereas, the CBI has only shown a sum of Rs. 9,55,754/. The accused stated that an amount of Rs. 15,48,849/ is to be added in her income. Similarly, A2 stated that she started business of Samsonite franchise in the name of Siddhi Vinayak leisure and travels in the year 2007 and operated from shop No. 130 and 131, Fortaleza Kalyani Nagar, Pune and the net income from the shop for the year 200708 was Rs. 4,63,141/ and upto 31/8/08 was Rs. 2,76,524/. A2 stated that this income was reflected in the ITR for the financial year 200708 and 200809. A2 stated that she had already filed ITR in the court. A2 stated the sale proceeds received in the HDFC Bank, Kalyani Nagar A/c No. 05392000001196 was seized by the CBI. It was stated that an amount of Rs. 7,39,665/ should be added in the income. It has further been submitted CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 60 of 4 that though the CBI has taken into account the expenditure on the shop at S. No. 40, 46 to 50 but failed to take the income earned from the shop. A2 filed certified copy of the bank statement. A2 stated that she had income of Rs. 4,57,450/ from the sale of jewellery and though IO seized the bill but did not add this in the income. IO also correctly included rental income from shop No. 118, Connaught Place, Bund Garden Road, Pune let out to M/s Phoenix Infra Estate International Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur but did not take into account the rent deposit of Rs. 1,14,510/ credited on 25/3/08 in her SB A/c No. 05391000007611 in HDFC Bank, Kalyani Nagar, Pune. The certified copy of bank statement was filed and was submitted that this be added in the income. A2 also stated that Rs. 57,318/ was due in her HDFC Credit card No. 4050280000002076 and this be added in the income. A2 also stated that CBI had wrongly included shop No. G37, Vardhman City Mall, Dwarka in the assets . It has been further submitted that G78, Vardhman City Mall, Dwarka was sold to Sh. Balbir Singh for Rs. 71 lakhs and therefore, the income of Rs. 13,64,725/ be taken into account instead of loan as shown by CBI.

DEFENCE WITNESSES 5.0 DW1 Sh. Ashok Kumar Dubey stated that he had a negotiation for the sale of H. No. A12, Rajajipuram, Lucknow with A1 initially. It was a CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 61 of 4 joint property of A and his brothers. Sh. Ashok Kumar Dubey deposed on oath that he purchased this house for a total consideration of Rs. 17 lakhs and gave cheque No. 569098 dtd. 20/9//04 for Rs. 01 lakhs drawn on ICICI Bank, Garden Road, Pune to A1 towards advance money. The witness also produced the photocopy of sale deed executed on 5/7/05 between him and Sh. Salil B Ray, brother of the accused.

5.1 DW2 Sh. Rajeev from ICICI Bank produced the statement of transaction in A/c No. 025401500734 for the period 21/4/05 to 31/12/07 and proved the same as Ex.DW2/B. 5.2 DW3 Sh. Vipin Gupta from HDFC Bank produced statement of loan account No. 2965560 for the period 16/4/07 to 30.08.08 and proved the same as Ex.DW3/A. The witness stated that entries against which the cross has been marked are in respect of the bounced cheques. The entries against which the tick mark are mentioned are actually the payment received by the bank. The witness clarified that at page 4 of Ex.DW3/A, from S.No. 1 to 9 at mark X to X1 are the entries regarding bounced cheque. In the cross examination by the prosecution, the witness stated that this was loan against rent receivable (LARR) and actually amount financed was Rs. 22,71,000/. The loan amount was to be repaid in 84 monthly instalments of Rs. 42,042/ CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 62 of 4 each. The repayment started w.e.f. 16/4/07. The witness stated that the following amount was received against repayment:

 16/04/07    - Rs. 35,842/. 

15.05.2007    Rs. 35,842/

16.05.2007 Rs. 35,842/ (in cash in lieu of bounced cheque); 15.06.2007 Rs. 35,842/;

31.07.2007 Rs. 35,842/ ;

23.08.2007 Rs. 42,042/;

15.09.2007 Rs. 42,042/ ;

15.10.2007 Rs. 42,042/ ;

15.11.2007 Rs. 42,042/ ;

15.12.2007 Rs. 42,042/ ;

31.01.2008 Rs. 42,042/;

22.02.2008 Rs. 42,042/;

24.03.2008 Rs. 39,382/;

15.04.2008 Rs. 42,042/ ;

22.04.2008 Rs. 913/;

21.05.2008 Rs. 44,999/ ;

15.06.2008 Rs. 42,042/;

22.07.2008 Rs. 2958/ ;

04.08.2008 Rs. 39,084/ ;

CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 63 of 4 25.08.2008 Rs. 5916/ Total Rs. 6,90,740/ Thus, the total repayment as per witness was in the sum of Rs. 6,90,740/ in place of Rs.10,20,976/ as shown in the chargesheet. Therefore, a sum of Rs.3,30,236/ (10,20,976 - 6,90,740) is to be deducted from the expenditure in Item No.15.

5.3 DW4 Sh. Vipul Yadav produced the certified copy of account bearing No. 809675100020448 of A1 for the period 1/7/04 to 9/7/11 and proved the same as Ex.DW4/A. He stated that total 07 cheques of Rs. 17,800/ each upto 31/8/08 towards repayment of loan was bounced. In the cross examination on behalf of prosecution, the witness stated that as per statement of account Ex.DW4/A, the payment received actually upto 31/8/08 by way of repayment of loan was Rs. 8,94,536/ in place of Rs.10,02,308/ as shown at item No.16 of the expenditure. Therefore, a sum of Rs.1,07,772/ (10,02,308 - 8,94,536) to be deducted from Item No.16 of expenditure. 5.4 DW5 Sh. Devender deposed that A1 had bought the plot No.T76 through his brother Sh. Manoj Tomar and both the sale deeds were executed in his presence and he signed as a witness. The witness identified his signatures on sale deed Ex.P25. The defence witness stated that at the CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 64 of 4 time of execution of sale deed, A1 had handed over three cheques of Rs.25 lakhs towards the total sale consideration to Sh. Pradeep Chander Sen in his presence in the office of SubRegistrar Gurgaon and no cash payment was made by A1 Samir Baron Ray to Sh. Pradeep Chander Sen in his presence. DW5 also stated that the deal was also got finalized through one property dealer Sh. Raj Kumar Rana. In the cross examination by Ld. PP, nothing material came out against the accused.

5.5 DW6 Sh. Sambhaji Khandu Lendghar deposed on oath that A1 had around 04 acre farm land at 293, 294 Village Yelwadi, Taluka Khed, Distt. Pune on which there were fruit trees. The defence witness having come to know that the accused was selling his land, talked to the accused regarding the same. The witness stated that the land of the accused was situated on the Mumbai - Ahmadnagar State Highway. The defence witness wanted to do farming and business of warehouse on the land and the deal of the land was finalized in the sum of Rs. 75 lakhs. Sh. Sambhaji Khandu Lendghar stated that accused had agreed to give him the change land use from agricultural to non agricultural. He stated that it was decided that deal would be finalized only after the accused would give him above said certificate. DW6 stated that under the agreement he paid Rs. 10 lakhs in advance as three instalments and the balance was to be paid at the time of finalizing the deal. The payment of CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 65 of 4 Rs. 10 lakhs in JanuaryFebruary, 2005 and the agreement was prepared on stamp paper. The photocopy of the agreement was proved as Mark A. The witness stated that original of this document was taken by CBI Officer Mr. Tripathi vide a seizure memo. The witness also produced the photocopy of seizure memo Ex.DW6/A. The witness stated that deal could not be finalized as the accused could not furnish the CLU certificate and therefore, it was cancelled. The witness requested the accused to cancel the deal and return back the money. The defence witness stated that accused returned him back Rs. 10 lakhs in August 2012 through Axis Bank cheque. In the cross examination, the witness stated that he did not have any bank account at the time of payment to accused. The witness denied the suggestion that he did not have cash amount of Rs. 10 lakhs at that time. The defence witness stated that he is not an Income Tax Assessee nor does he maintain any books of accounts. The defence witness stated that except the receipt of documents, he does not have any document to show that he had Rs. 10 lakhs in cash and paid to the accused.

5.6 DW7 Sh. Umesh Kurtkoti produced the monthly salary statement of A1 from 1/4/2000 to 31/8/08. He deposed that total gross salary of A1 was Rs. 50,66,680/ and his net salary for the aforesaid period was Rs. 18,77,092/. The witness also stated that A1 had taken withdrawals of Rs. CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 66 of 4 1,50,000/ from Defence Service Officers Provident Fund. The witness stated that during the check period, the accused has received a net salary of Rs. 18,77,092/ as per sheet Ex.DW7/A and the complete salary detail of the check period is Ex.DW7/B. The monthly statement of the salary of accused is Ex.DW7/C (colly.).

5.7 DW8 Manoj Tomar deposed on oath that in the year 2008, he was running a business of real estate at Gopinath Bazar, Delhi Cantt., New Delhi and at that time A1 approached him for purchase of a plot in New Palam Vihar, Gurgaon. The witness stated that he alongwith A1 S.B. Ray contacted PW7 Raj Kumar Rana who showed plot No.T76 and T77 in New Palam Vihar which were located in unauthorised colony on agriculture land. The prevailing rates of the plots at that time was from 2000 sq. yards to 3000 sq. yards. The witness also stated that A1 S.B. Ray had bought plot No. T76 and Plot No.T77 was bought by Mr. Bansal through him. The deal for the above two plots was finalised for Rs.25 lakhs each with the person residing in Dubai. The sale deed was executed in respect of above two plots No.T76 and T77. DW8 stated that A1 S.B. Ray had given the cheque of Rs. 25 lakhs towards the sale consideration of the plot No.T76 to the owner of the plot and no cash payment was made by A1 S.B. Ray. In the cross examination by Ld. PP the witness denied the suggestion that in most of the property CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 67 of 4 transactions, there is a practice of cash payments being exchanged by the parties over and above the amount declared in the registered sale deed/documents. The witness stated that he did not deal in cash payments because he mostly sold flats constructed by himself. The witness stated that the owner of T76 was Sh. Pradeep Chandra Sen, who was not in India at the time when the deal was finalised by accused S.M. Ray and it was Sh. Mukhtesh Narula (PW8) who had acted on behalf of Sh. Pradeep Chandra Sen. The witness voluntarily stated that PW8 Mukhtesh Narula was a builder. The witness admitted that the consideration amount for the sale of plot No.T76 was finalised between accused Sameer Baron Ray and Sh. Mukhtesh Narula.

5.8 DW9 Sh. Ashok Rambhau Bhalekar deposed on oath that he used to work in Bajaj Auto as Research and Development Machinist from 1984 to 2002. thereafter, he took VRS in the year 2002 and took up maintenance work of Appu Ghar, Nigri, Pune and at other private industries. The witness stated that he received an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs from his VRS and he invested the same in private loans. In the year 2005, DW9 contacted A1 Samir Baron Ray to purchase the 5 acres agricultural land at Induri, near Cadury factory, Distt. Pune. The accused had assured him to get the use of the land converted from agricultural land to non agricultural land, as DW9 CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 68 of 4 wanted to use the said land for commercial purposes. The deal was finalized with A1 Samir Baron Ray for Rs. 34 lakhs, out of which Rs.15 lakhs was paid in cash in three instalments as advance money. The balance amount was to be paid to accused at the time of execution of sale deed on his getting the certificate for the use of non agricultural purposes. The agreement to sale was executed between him and A1. The witness proved the photocopy of the agreement to sale as Mark A. The witness stated that when the deal could not materialize, he started demanding the money back from the accused and also sent a letter dated 27.12.2007, Mark B to the accused. The witness also stated that he has not yet received the money back from the accused. In the cross examination by Ld. PP, DW9 stated that he had many businesses including rental income on account of which he used to have cash payment. The witness stated that he did not maintain any books of account, as it was a joint family venture. He also did not used to maintain any regular book of account. DW9 stated that he had not informed Income Tax authorities regarding payment of Rs. 15 lakhs as an advance to the accused, out of which Rs.5 lakhs was received on account of VRS from Bajaj Auto. The witness stated that he had not brought any document to show regarding receipt of this Rs. 5 lakhs from Bajaj Auto. Witness expressed his ignorance of the fact that transaction in cash of an amount to the quantum of Rs. 15 lakhs is an offence under Income Tax Act.

CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 69 of 4 ARGUMENTS 6.0 Sh. S. Krishna Kumar, Ld. PP for CBI and Sh. Naveen Giri, Ld. PP for CBI have submitted that prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. It has been submitted that accused persons had admitted most of the items in assets, income and expenditure which is reflected in the admission of documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P135. In view of the dispute raised by the accused only on some of the items, the trial was shortened to a great extent. It has been submitted that in respect of sale of shop bearing No. G37, Vardhman City, Dwarka, since the cheques were encashed after the check period and the accused has not accounted for the cash received by him, therefore, shop No. G37 has rightly been shown in the asset of the accused. Similarly, in respect of shop No. G78, Vardhman City, Dwarka, the prosecution has submitted that the defence has not been able to bring any evidence on record to show that Rs. 31 lakhs was received in cash. It has been submitted that as per documents, only a payment of Rs. 40 lakhs was received by the accused from the buyer and therefore, the only inference that can be drawn is that accused persons had suffered a loss of Rs. 17 lakhs. In respect of sale transaction of plot at Palam Vihar, Gurgaon, the plea of the prosecution is that it is unbelievable that 1000sq yards of plot in Gurgaon would be purchased at Rs. 25 lakhs CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 70 of 4 only. It has been submitted that PW8 Muktesh Narula made a specific statement on oath that payment in cash was made by A1 to the seller. This witness also proved on record that the deal was stuck at Rs. 60 lakhs for the plot. In respect of payment to M/s Preeti Travels, the prosecution stated that after taking into account the reimbursement received by the accused from the department, only a sum of Rs. 2,56,227/ has been included in the expenditure. The prosecution has submitted that the capital gains and the alleged income from business and profession of A2 cannot be taken into account as the same have been shown only in the ITR filed after the registration of the FIR. It has been submitted that these all are an after thought. It has also been submitted that except the ITRs, the accused has not led any other evidence in the form of books of accounts or any evidence regarding agreement with M/s Samsonite or the evidence regarding purchase of articles so as to prove the running of business by A2. Ld. PP submitted that prosecution has successfully proved its case and accused has failed to account for the possession of disproportionate assets. In regard to the offence of abatement against A2, prosecution has relied upon P. Nallamal Vs. State rep. By Inspector of Police, AIR 1999 SC 2556 (1). In this case, it was inter alia held by the Apex Court that the "legislative intent is manifest that abettors of all the different offences under Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act should also be dealt with along with the public servant in the same trial held CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 71 of 4 by the Special Judge." It was further held that "exclusivity of the jurisdiction conferred upon Special Judge under the POC Act, 1988 extends to conduct trial of abettors or conspirator linked with the public servant facing trial". The Apex Court held that "if conspiracy or abetment of "any of the offences"

punishable under the P.C. Act can be tried "only" by the Special Judge, it is inconceivable that the abettor or the conspirator can be delinked from the delinquent public servant for the purpose of trial of the offence." The prosecution has also relied upon State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Ors., (2004) 1 SCC 691, on the point of "known sources of income" and "satisfactorily account".

6.1 Sh. KK Sood, Ld. Senior Counsel for the accused persons assisted by Sh. Ghanshyam Sharma, Ld. counsel made a detailed and emphatical arguments to the effect that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. It was submitted that in the trial u/S 13(1)(e) of the POC Act, 1988, A2 could not have been prosecuted for the offence of abatement. The defence also placed reliance upon P. Nallamal's case (supra). It was submitted that the ratio laid down in P. Nallamal (supra) is to the following effect:

(a) private person can be prosecuted with the public servant if the act for abetment notwithstanding Sec. 10 & 12 of the Act;

CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 72 of 4

(b) three illustrations noticed in the abovesaid decision clearly specify the requirements of various clauses of Sec. 107 and unless those ingredients are made out prosecution for abetment like any other offence is not permissible.

Ld. Sr. Counsel placed heavy reliance upon the illustrations cited by Sh. Shanti Bhushan, appearing for the respondents which have been noticed in para 22 of the judgment and the same is reproduced as under:

"The first illustration cited is this:

If A, a close relative of the public servant tells him of how other public servants have become more wealthy by receiving bribes and A persuades the public servant to do the same in order to become rich and the public servant acts accordingly. If it is a proved position there cannot be any doubt that A has abetted the offence by instigation.

Next illustration is this:

Four persons including the public servant decide to raise a bulk amount through bribery and the remaining persons prompt the public servant to keep such money in their names. If this is a proved position then all the said persons are guilty of abetment through conspiracy. The last illustration is this: If a public servant tells A, a close friend of him, that he has acquired considerable wealth through bribery but he cannot keep them as he has no known source of income to account, he requests A to keep the said wealth in A's name, and A obliges the public servant in doing so. If it is a proved position A is guilty of abetment falling under the "Thirdly" clause of Section 107 of the Penal Code."

Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the prosecution has not led any evidence on record which could bring the case within the parameter of these CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 73 of 4 three illustrations which are an apt example of how an offence u/S 13(1)(e) of the POC Act, 1988 can be tried.

It was further submitted that to make out a case u/S 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, 1988, income or assets of non public servant having another income cannot be clubbed together nor the public servant can be called upon to explain his sources of income. Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the expression "known sources of income" as stated in explanation of Sec. 13(1)

(e) of the POC Act, 1988 restricts the sources to lawful and not the unlawful sources. Trading of any property is not an unlawful source of income. Ld Sr. Counsel submitted that A1 was a business oriented person and he raised sufficient capital by trading in the properties. It has been submitted that there is not even a whisper of evidence on record that the income derived from real estate was from unlawful source.

In respect of the intimation to the department regarding the property transactions Ld. Sr. Counsel relied upon Ashok Tshering Bhutia Vs. State of Sikkim, AIR 2011 SC 1363, in which it was held that "non compliance of Rules of 1981 would not adversely effect the evidentiary value of statement of immovable property inherited/owned or acquired by the appellant during the relevant period in criminal proceedings". It has been submitted that non intimation at the best may be taken as an irregularity and only on this account, the accused cannot be deprived of the benefit of CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 74 of 4 income earned by him through lawful sources. Ld. Sr. Counsel also emphasized that prosecution has miserably failed to bring anything on record to show that under which rule, law / order A1 was supposed to intimate to the competent authority. It has been submitted that in absence of any such material on the record the accused cannot be held liable for the non intimation. Ld. Senior Counsel submitted that accused is not required to prove his innocence beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is only required to establish the preponderance of probability.

In respect of the phrase "known sources of income", Ld. Sr. counsel submitted that qua the public servant, the receipt of salary income is the primary item of income. However, the other income which conceivably are income qua the public servant will be in the regular receipt from:

(a) his property; or,

(b) his investment.

Sh. KK Sood, Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the onus is always on the prosecution to prove that the accused or any person on his behalf has been in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income. When this onus is discharged by the prosecution, it is for the accused to account satisfactorily for the disproportionality of the assets over the income. The accused has to satisfy to the Court that his explanation is worthy on acceptance. Sh. KK Sood, Ld. Sr. Counsel CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 75 of 4 submitted that A1 has received certain sale consideration in cash which may be in violation of Sec. 269 as punishable u/S 127 of the Income Tax Act but this receipt would not make it unlawful. It was submitted that CBI had initiated a malicious prosecution which is vindictive on the face of it. Ld. Sr. Counsel admitted that the department was not informed about the transactions. However, it was submitted that CBI has not proved that accused has failed to perform any compliance of statutory rules. It was submitted that accused might have exposed himself to the offence as prescribed u/S 168 IPC by unlawfully engaging in trade but cannot be held liable for the disproportionate assets. It was submitted that since the property transactions are not illegal, immoral, crime, it ought to be included in the income. Ld. Sr. Counsel also submitted that even the charge framed in this case is defective as it is totally silent that how A2 aided and abetted the accused. Sh. KK Sood, Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the prosecution has not produced any law, rules and orders under which the accused was supposed to intimate to the department. It was submitted at bar that ill date the Central Government has not framed any law as required to be done as laid down in K. Veeraswami Vs. Union of India, 1991 (3) SCC 655. Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that if law permits filing of revised returns then nothing can be attributed against the accused. In respect of the testimony of the IO, Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that these are only opinions which are not admissible CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 76 of 4 under the law.

In separate written submissions filed on behalf of accused persons by Sh. Ghanshyam Sharma, Ld. counsel, it was submitted that the prosecution has undervalued the assets in the sum of Rs. 13,84,722/ at the beginning of the check period on account of family background, nature of job and the period of 25 years of service coupled with the facts that A2 was also Class I officer and a qualified doctor. It was submitted that immovable assets as on 31/8/08 at item No. 8 of the chargesheet i.e. Shop No. G37, Vardhman City Mall, Sector23, Dwarka, New Delhi has wrongly been shown in the assets whereas the same had already been sold to PW2 Sh. Harbhagwan Gupta, before the end of the check period. Similarly, in respect of plot of 1000sq.yards in Village Chouma, New Palam Vihar, it has been submitted that despite the sale deed on record, the CBI has wrongly taken the assets in the sum of Rs. 60 lakhs. In respect of item No. 41 regarding value of household items worth Rs. 11,27,250/, it has been submitted that PW4 Inspt. NK Mishra did not call any valuer. It was submitted that the plea of PW4 was that valuation was made on the statement of A1. It was submitted that any statement made by A1 during the course of investigation before the police in any case, is inadmissible. It has further been submitted that a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs has wrongly been attributed on account of payment made to architect whereas the CBI has not examined such architect. It was stated that CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 77 of 4 the plea of the CBI that Rs. 01 lakh was paid in cash in addition to payment of Rs. 3 lakhs in cheque cannot be believed in absence of any evidence regarding payment of Rs. 1 lakh in cash, it cannot be taken into account. Similarly, in respect of item shown at S. No. 89 steam room and payment of Rs. 80,000/ towards installation of grill cannot be taken into account as the same are part of the renovation.

Ld. defence counsel has further submitted in the written submissions that items mentioned at S. No. 26 Faber Chimney worth Rs. 12,000, Glen 4 burner stove worth Rs. 2,000/ have also been shown as expenditure at item No. 43. Similarly, the jewellery items shown at S. No. 134 and 136 of Ex.PW4/B, have been shown at S.No. 37 and 38 of the expenditure during the check period. It has been submitted that therefore, a sum of Rs. 1,45,000/ is liable to be deducted from the total amount mentioned in the inventory Ex.PW4/B. Ld. counsel submitted that thus, a total sum of Rs. 4,29,000/ is to be reduced:

(1) Excess payment shown to Paresh Lunavat Rs. 1,00,000/ (2) Value of steam room(shown in S.No.89 of Rs. 90,000/ Ex.PW4/B) whereas it is included in the renovation expenses.

(3) Expenses shown on the grill fitting. (already Rs. 80,000/ included in the renovation).

CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 78 of 4

(4) Faber Chimney and Glen four burner stove Rs. 14,000/ (item No. 26 & 27 in Ex.PW4/B, also shown at item No. 43 of the expenditure).


   (5) Jewellery item (shown at S.No.134 & 136                      Rs. 1,45,000/

       whereas this has also been included in the 

       expenditure at S.No. 37 &38)

               Total                                         Rs. 4,29,000/

The plea of the defence is that in these circumstances, the household items stands at Rs. 6,98,250/.

In regard to the addition in the income of A1, the defence in the arguments have submitted that net salary received by the accused during the check period was Rs. 18,77,092/. It has also been submitted that income on account of sale of jewellery of the value of Rs. 1,49,550/ vide bill Ex.PW5/DC2 is also to be added.

The defence has also contended that the total income on account of sale of H. No. 12, Talkatora, Rajajipuram, Lucknow is to be taken as Rs. 4 lakhs instead of Rs. 3 lakhs and in this regard, have relied upon the tesitmony of DW1 Sh. Ashok Kumar Dubey. The accused stated that the CBI has not taken into account loan of Rs. 3 lakhs taken from Punjab National Bank. Similarly, an amount of Rs. 1,28,608/, which were also loan vide HDFC credit Card No. 4050282000002084 was not taken into consideration. CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 79 of 4

The defence took a plea that CBI has wrongly not taken into account the advance of Rs.10 lakhs received from DW6 Sh. Shamba Ji Lendghar. Similarly, it was submitted that A1 had entered into an agreement for sale regarding agricultural income at Survey No. 516 and 517, Village Induri, Distt. Pune referred to S. No. 3& 4 in the chargesheet of immovable assets, with Sh. Ashok Rambhau Bhalekar in the year 2005 in the sum of Rs. 15 lakhs was received as advance. It was submitted that the agreement was seized by the IO but the same was not placed on record with ulterior motive. The accused stated that he had placed copy of sale agreement alongwith his statement u/S 313 Cr.PC.

In the written submissions, the accused persons have taken a plea that A1 had received a sum of Rs. 2,12,563/ from the department as reimbursement and this needs to be added in the income. It has further been submitted that a sum of Rs. 9,93,304/ is to be added in the income as agricultural income. The accused persons have further submitted that a sum of Rs. 1,22,820/ has intentionally been omitted from income which was received from redemption of Reliance Mutual Fund. Similarly, the accused submitted that IO has not taken into consideration the rent deposit of Rs. 1,14,510/ against shop No. 117, Connaught Place, Bund Garden Road, Pune in the name of Smt. Bina Ray which was deposited in SB A/c No. 931562 of A1. Ld. counsel submitted that total income of Rs. 48, 95,165/ has been CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 80 of 4 omitted by the CBI. In respect of income of A2, Ld. counsel submitted that income from profession was Rs. 25,04,603/ and income from business of Samsonite Franchise was Rs. 7,39,665/ and this has not been taken correctly. Similarly, income from jewellery of Rs. 4,57,450/ has intentionally been omitted by the CBI. It was contended that rent on account of Shop No. G5, Krishna Apra Royal Plaza, Greater Noida was actually Rs. 6,55,596/ and CBI has wrongly shown as Rs. 5,23,879/. Ld. counsel submitted that capital gain in respect of Shop No. G37 and G78, Vardhman City Mall, Dwarka has also not been taken into account. It was submitted that income of Rs. 45,04,916/ of A2 has not been taken into account. In respect of the expenditure shown by the CBI, the plea of the defence is that a sum of Rs. 2,85,279/ as income tax has wrongly been shown as expenditure whereas it has already been deducted as TDS as proved by PW6 Smt. RV Thakar. Similarly, repayment of loan to HDFC Bank and IDBI Bank have been shown in expenditure. CBI took into account, the cheques which were even dishonoured. The accused persons have summed up that total value of movable and immovable assets are infact Rs. 1,67,30,028/ out of which the assets acquired before the check period was Rs. 21,00,000/ is deducted, the total value of assets would come to Rs. 1,46,30,028/. It was further submitted that actual expenditure was Rs. 1,27,61,105/ in place of Rs. 1,52,49,230/ and during the period, the income of the accused persons was CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 81 of 4 Rs. 3,66,16,136/. It has been submitted that therefore, the income was more than assets and expenditure and therefore, there is no case of DA.

In the form of additional statement and clarification, it was submitted that CBI has not taken into account the jewellery with A2 given to her as a gift by her father in law in the sum of Rs. 7 lakhs. It was submitted that part of this jewellery was sold to M/s Babu Bhai Jewellers, Nigri, Pune and the bill amounting to Rs. 8,15,340/ seized by the CBI vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/DC4 is in respect of the same jewellery. In respect of the payment made for renovation in the sum of Rs. 4 lakhs and expenditure of Rs. 80,000/ of window grill, it was submitted that CBI wrongly added into the household articles. The accused came with a fresh plea that item No. 68 & 69 of the inventory Ex.Pw4/A, consisting of Sony Ericson and Nokia N70 valued at Rs. 19,000/ has also been shown in S. No. 44 of the expenditure as the payment made to M/s Essar Telecom Retail Pvt. Ltd. by A1 towards purchase of mobile phones.

6.2 In support of his contention, Ld. defence counsels has placed reliance upon Dayaram Phukan & Anr. Vs. State, 1967 CRLJ 1270, Faguna Kanta Nath Vs. The State of Assam, AIR 1959 SC 673, K. Veeraswami Vs. Union of India & Ors., 1991(3) SCC 655, Shri Devi Das Vs. The Union of India & Ors., 1985(2) Crimes 321, M. Sreeramulu Vs. CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 82 of 4 The State of AP, 2003 CrLJ 2956, State of MP Vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta and Ors., 2004(1) SCC 691, State of Gujarat Vs. Maheshkumar Dhirajlal Thakkar, 1980 (2) SCC 322, Krishnanand Agnihotri Vs. The State of MP, 1977 SCC (Cri.)190, State of AP Vs. J. Satyanaryana, JT 2000 (10) SC 430, Ashok Kumar Thakur Vs. State of Rajasthan, RLW 2009 (1) Raj 97, R. Janakiraman Vs. State rep. By Inspector of Police, 2006 (1) SCC 697, M. Krishna Reddy Vs. The State (Dy. Supdt. Of Police), AIR 1993 SC 313, P. Nallamal & Anr. Vs. State, 1999 (6) SCC 559, Subhash Khararte Vs. State of MP, 2000 CRLJ 1178, State of Maharashtra Vs. Wasudeo Ramchandra Kaidalwar, 1981 CrLJ 884, P. Satyanarayan Murty Vs. State of AP, 1992 (3) Crimes 36, Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr., 2012 (7) SCC 621, Ashok Tshering Bhutia Vs. State of Sikkim, AIR 2011 SC 1363, Samadhan Dhudaka Koli Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2008 (16) SCC 705, Mahesh Prasad Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1974 SC 773, VD Jhigan Vs. State of UP, AIR 1966 SC 1762, Jagan M. Seshadiri Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2002 (9) SCC 639, Raja Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2005(5) SCC 272, Shakuntla Vs. State of Delhi, 2007 (139) DLT 178.

In respect of the offence of abetment, Ld. Sr. Counsel has relied upon Dayaram Phukan's case (supra) wherein it was inter alia held that CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 83 of 4 "before the charge of aiding can be said to have peen brought home against the accused persons, it must be proved". It was contended that "a person abets by aiding when by the commission he intends to facilitate and does facilitate the commission thereof". The reliance was also placed upon Faguna Kanta Nath's case (supra) in order to buttress the point that in order to convict a person u/S 107, it must be proved that "if a person abets by doing of a thing when he instigates any person to do a thing or engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing or intentionally aides, by any act or illegal omission the doing of that thing." It was submitted that if an accused charged with abetment by aiding of an offence is acquitted on the ground that he had not committed the offence, no question of intentionally aiding by any act or omission the commission of the offence arises. In Faguna Kanta Nath's case (supra), it was inter alia held that in case of abetment, a person can be said to be abetting only by the commission of an act, he intends to facilitate and does facilitate the commission thereof. Therefore, where a person is charged with abetment by doing of an offence u/S 161 IPC and the person charged with the offence is acquitted on the ground that he has not committed the offence, no question of intentionally aiding by any act or omission of commission of offence arises.

In respect of the abetment, reliance was also placed on Shri CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 84 of 4 Devi Das case (supra) in which it was inter alia held that "intentional aiding and therefore, active complicity is the gist of the offence of abetment".

In respect of the onus upon the accused reliance was placed upon K. Veeraswami's case (supra). In M. Sreeramulu's case (supra), it was inter alia held that in the case of DA the prosecution has to establish that the various items which it attributes to the public servant are held by him directly or even indirectly. In respect of the words and phrases "trade" reliance has been placed upon Maheshkumar Dhirajlal Thakkar's case (supra). Ld. Sr. Counsel for the accused persons submitted that the offence for DA would be proved only after accused is shown to be in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income and he is unable to satisfactorily account to such pecuniary resources or property. Ld. Sr. Counsel placed reliance upon Krishnanand Agnihotri's case (supra) wherein it was held that since the excess was less than 10% of the total income it would not be right to hold that the assets found in the possession of the appellant were disproportionate to his known sources of income so as to justify the raising of the presumption under the law. The reliance was placed upon this judgment to emphasize that burden of proving the transaction as benami lies on the person alleging it to be so. In this case, it was inter alia held that the burden of showing that a particular transaction is benami and the appellant owner is not the real owner always rests on the CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 85 of 4 person asserting it to be so and this burben has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidence of a definite character which would either directly prove the fact of benami or establish circumstances unerringly and reasonably raising an inference of that fact. On the similar point reliance was placed upon J.Satyanarayana's case (supra).

In M. Krishna Reddy's case (supra) it was inter alia held that an analysis of Section 5(1)(e) of the Act, 1947 which corresponds to Section 13(1)(e) of the new Act of 1988 shows that is not the mere acquisition of property that constitutes an offence under the provisions of the Act but it is the failure to satisfactorily account for such possession that makes the possession objectionable as offending the law.

In P. Nallamal's case (supra) it was inter alia held that trial of non public servant for abetment of offence u/S 13(1)(e) by the Special Judge is not barred. It was further inter alia held that the "lawful source" as per the Explanation further enjoins that receipt of such income should have been intimated by the public servant in accordance with the law applicable to him.

In Wasudeo Kaidalwar's case (supra), it was inter alia held that accused need not prove his innocence. He has to only establish the preponderance of probability. Preponderance of probability as to possession set out by accused is sufficient.

In P. Satyanarayana's case (supra), it was inter alia held that CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 86 of 4 the charge of acquiring disproportionate assets will not be sustainable if the prosecution has not satisfactorily established the charge. In respect of filing of revised ITR Ld. counsel relied upon Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel's case (supra), wherein reliance was placed upon Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati v. C.B.I., New Delhi, AIR 2003 SC 2545, in which the Apex Court while considering the case for quashing the criminal prosecution for evading the customs duty inter alia held that where the matter stood settled under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme 1988, if the tax matter was settled under the said Scheme, the offence stood compounded, and prosecution for evasion of duty, in such a circumstance, would amount to double jeopardy.

Ld. Defence counsel submitted that even in Ashok Tshering Bhutia's case (supra), the Apex Court held that Sikkim Government Servants Conduct Rules are merely service rules by which Govt. servant are expected to abide. Rule 19 of this rule require Govt. servant to on first appointment to any service or post and thereafter at the close of every financial year, submit to the government the return of their assets and liabilities. It was emphasized that the Apex Court inter alia held that failing to submit such returns, would only make a public servant liable to face the disciplinary proceedings under the service rules applicable at the relevant time.

In Samadhan Dhudaka Koli's case (supra) it was held that CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 87 of 4 Fairness in investigation as also trial is a human right of an accused and therefore, the prosecution must also be fair to the accused. The State cannot suppress any vital document from the court only because the same would support the case of the accused.

In Mahesh Prasad Gupta's case (supra) and VD Jhigan's case (supra) it was inter alia held that accused can establish its case by preponderances of probabilities and he need not prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt.

In Jagan M. Sheshadri's case (supra) it was inter alia held that if the prosecution witness is not declared hostile, the prosecution cannot wriggle out of the statement of such a witness even though that witness was related to the accused and the defence can rely upon the evidence of such witness and it would be binding upon the prosecution.

In Shakuntla's case (supra) it has been inter alia held that fair and just investigation is hallmark of any investigation. It is not the duty of the IO to strengthen the case of the prosecution by withholding evidence collected by him. Fair investigation is right of the accused. FINDINGS 7.0 A1 Samir Baron Ray has been tried for the offence u/S.13(1)(e) r/w S.13(2) of the POC Act, 1988. A2 Dr. Asha Ray his wife has been tried CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 88 of 4 for the offence of abetment and aiding A1 in acquisition of disproportionate assets.

Section 13 (1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 reads thus :

"A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,

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

Explanation. For the purposes of this section, 'known sources of income' means income received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant." In VK Puri Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2007(6) SCC 91, the conditions essential to bring a case u/S 13(1)(e) of the PC Act were laid down as under:

a) The accused is a public servant;

b) The nature and extent of the pecuniary resources of property found in his possession;

c) His known sources of income, i.e. known to the prosecution.

d) Such resources or properties found in possession of the accused were disproportionate to his known sources of income.

e) After the aforementioned ingredients are established by the prosecution, the burden of proof would shift on the accused to show that the prosecution case is not correct.

CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 89 of 4

Once the above ingredients are satisfactorily established, the offence of criminal misconduct u/S.13(1)(e) is complete, except if the accused is able to account for such resources or property. In other words, only after the prosecution has proved the required ingredients, the burden of satisfactorily accounting for the possession of such resources or property shifts to the accused.

The offence of disproportionate assets defined in Sec. 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, is committed when a public servant possesses pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income. In C.S.D Swami Vs. State, AIR 1960 SC 7, the Hon'ble Supreme Court inter alia held that the expression "known sources of income" must have reference to sources known to the prosecution on a thorough investigation of the case. It was not, and it could not be, contended that "known sources of income" means sources known to the accused. It is pertinent to mention here that the explanation to Sec. 13 (1)(e) was added only in the year 1988 which reads as under:

"Explanation: For the purposes of this section, "known sources of income" means income received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant."

Thus, it is seen that, now for a source of income to qualify as a CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 90 of 4 known sources of income for the purposes of Sec. 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, it is essential that it should satisfy the following two conditions, namely:

1. it should be a lawful source of income, and

2. the receipt of income from such a source should have been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to the concerned public servant. As a natural corollary, it immediately follows that:

(a) any income received from a source which is not lawful cannot be considered for inclusion in the expression known sources of income for the purposes of Sec. 13(1)(e) of the said Act, even if such an income was actually received by the concerned public servant;

(b) any income, even though received from a lawful source, cannot likewise be considered for inclusion in the expression known sources of income for the aforesaid purposes, if the receipt of such income has not been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to the concerned public servant.

In N. Ramakrishnaiah Vs. State of AP, 2009 CriLJ 1767, it was inter alia held as under:

"Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act') deals with various situations when a public servant can be said to have committed criminal misconduct. Clause (e) of Subsection (1) of the Section is applicable when the public servant or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 91 of 4 account of pecuniary resources of property disproportionate to his known source of income. Clause (e) of Subsection (1), of Section 5 of the Old Act was in similar lines. But there have been drastic amendments. Under the new clause, the earlier concept of "known sources of income" has undergone a radical change. As per the explanation appended, the prosecution is relieved of the burden of investigating into "source of income" of an accused to a large extent, as it is stated in the explanation that "known sources of income" mean income received from any lawful sources, the receipt of which has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant. The expression "known source of income" has reference to sources known to the prosecution after thorough investigation of the case. It is not, and cannot be contended that "known sources of income" means sources known to the accused. The prosecution cannot, in the very nature of things be expected to know the affairs of an accused person. Those will be matters "specially within the knowledge" of the accused, within the meaning of Section 106, of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short, the 'Evidence Act').

The emphasis of the phrase "known sources of income" in Section 13(1)

(e) (old Section 5(1)(e)) is clearly on the word "income". It would be primary to observe that qua the public servant, the income would be what is attached to his office or post, commonly known as remuneration or salary. The term "income" by itself, is classic and has a wide connotation. Whatever comes in or is received is income. But, however, wide the import and connotation of the term "income", it is incapable of being understood as meaning receipt having no nexus to one's labour, or expertise, or property, or investment, and being further a source which may or may not yield a regular revenue. These essential characteristics are vital in understanding the term "Income". Therefore, it can be said that, though "income" in receipt in the hand of its recipient, every receipt would not partake into the character of income. For the public servant, whatever return he gets of his service, will be the primary item of his income. Other income which can conceivably be income qua the public servant will be in the regular receipt from (a) his property, or (b) his investment. A receipt from windfall, or gains of graft crime or immoral secretions by persons prima facie would not be receipt for the "known source of income" of a public servant.

The legislature has advisedly used the expression "satisfactorily CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 92 of 4 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."

7.1 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 how he came by his large wealth, but also to satisfy the court that his explanation was worthy of acceptance. Reference can be made to CSD Swami Vs. State, AIR 1960 SC 7.

In CSD Swami's case (supra), the Apex Court inter alia held that Sec. 5(3) of the PC Act, 1947 (corresponding to Sec. 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, 1988) is a complete departure as compared to the criminal jurisprudence. It lays down the rule of evidence, enabling the Court to raise a presumption of guilt. However, still the burden is on the prosecution to prove all the ingredients of the offence charged. In State of MP Vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Ors., (2004) 1 SCC 691, it was inter alia held that after the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of the offence charged, the accused has to account satisfactorily the money received in his hand and satisfy the court that his explanation was worthy of acceptance. It was held CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 93 of 4 as under:

"The expression 'known sources of income' in S. 13 has reference to sources known to the prosecution after thorough investigation of the case. It is not, and cannot be contended that 'known sources of income' means sources known to the accused. The prosecution cannot, in the very nature of things, be expected to know the affairs of an accused person. Those will be matters 'specially within the knowledge' of the accused, within the meaning of S. 106. The phrase 'known sources of income' in S. 13(1)(e) (old S. 5(1)(e)) has clearly the emphasis on the word 'income.' It would be primary to observe that qua the public servant, the income would be what is attached to his office or post, commonly known as remuneration or salary. The term 'income' by itself, is elastic and has a wide connotation. Whatever comes in or is received, is income. But, however, wise the import and connotation of the term 'income,' it is incapable of being understood as meaning receipt having no nexus to one's labour, or expertise, or property, or investment and having further a source which may or may not yield a regular revenue. These essential characteristics are vital in understanding the term 'income.' Therefore, it can be said that, though 'income' is receipt in the hand of its recipient, every receipt would not partake into the character of income. Qua the public servant, whatever return he gets of his service, will be the primary item of his income. Other incomes which can conceivably are income qua the public servant, will be in the regular receipt from (a) his property, or (b) his investment. A receipt from windfall, or gains of graft, crime, or immoral secretions by persons prima facie would not be receipt from the 'known sources of income' of a public servant. 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."

7.2 If we analyze section 13 (1) (e), it would be clear that the gist of the offence is not possession of the assets merely nor even the sheer excess CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 94 of 4 of assets and other income, the gist of the offence is that inability of the public servant in not being able to satisfactory account for the excess. The burden of establishing unsatisfactory is squarely on the prosecution. The ingredients of Section 13 of PC Act, 1988 corresponding to Section 5 (i)(e) (old Act) came up for discussion in State of Maharashtra Vs. Wasudeo Ramachandra Kaidalwar 1981(3) SCR 675), In this case it was inter alia held as under : "The terms and expressions appearing in S. 5 (1) (e) of the Act are the same as those used in the old Section 5 (3). Although the two provisions operate in two different fields, the meaning to be assigned to them must be the same. The expression "known sources of incomes" means "sources known, to the prosecution." So also, the same meaning must be given to the words, "for which the public servant is unable to satisfactorily account" occurring in S. 5 (1) (e). The provision contained in S. 5 (1) (e) of the Act is a selfcontained provision. The first part of the Section casts a burden on the prosecution and the second on the accused. When S. 5 (1) (e) uses the words "for which the public servant is unable to satisfactorily account" it is implied that the burden is on such public servant to account for the sources for the acquisition of disproportionate assets. High Court, therefore, was in error in holding that a public servant charged for having disproportionate assets in his possession for which he cannot satisfactorily account, cannot be convicted of an offence under Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (e) of the Act, unless the prosecution disproves all possible sources of income."

" The expression "burden of proof" has two distinct meanings (1) the legal burden, i.e. the burden of establishing the guilt, and (2) the evidential burden, i.e. the burden of leading evidence. In a criminal trial, the burden of proving everything essential to establish the charge against the accused lies upon the prosecution, and that burden never shifts. Notwithstanding the general rule that the burden of proof lies exclusively upon the prosecution, in the case of certain CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 95 of 4 offences, the burden of proving a particular fact in issue may be laid by Law upon the accused. The burden resting on the accused in such cases is, however, not so onerous as that which lies on the prosecution and is discharged by proof of a balance of probabilities.""

7.3 In respect of abetment, it has been defined u/S.107 IPC, which reads as under :

"107. Abetment of a thing. A person abets the doing of a thing,who First. Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly. Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly. Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation 1. A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing."

The ingredients of S.107 IPC are as under :

(a) instigation to commit an offence;

(b) engaging in conspiracy to commit an offence; and ,

(c) aiding commission of offence.

Abetment thus necessarily means some active instigation or aid to the commission of the offence.

During the arguments on charge accused had raised the dispute CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 96 of 4 only to a limited extent and has admitted the substantial part of assets and expenditure by not raising any dispute about the same. Even in his statement u/S 313 Cr.PC, accused admitted about the admission of documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P135.

8.0 The accused has taken a plea that the investigation has not been conducted fairly and the lawful income of the accused persons has not been taken into account. The accused persons have also taken a plea that assets have been shown at a higher side and similarly, the expenditure have unnecessarily been increased. I have taken into account the pleas raised by the prosecution and the accused persons which have been discussed herein before and my findings are as follows :

1. Assets at the beginning of the check period The prosecution has taken immovable assets in the sum of Rs.

8,32,584/ and movable assets in the sum of Rs.5,52,138/ at the beginning of the check period. The accused persons have taken a plea that the prosecution has not taken this amount correctly. It has been submitted that A1 had put in more than 25 years of service and A2 was also a qualified professional. At the fag end of the trial, the accused persons in the written submissions stated that the prosecution has not taken into account the jewellery in the sum of CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 97 of 4 Rs.7 lakhs which was received by A2 from her inlaws at the time of her marriage. However, the defence has not led any credible evidence in this regard. The onus was on the defence to show that the assets at the beginning of the check period were more than as shown in the chargesheet by the CBI. The assets cannot be increased merely at the asking of the defence. I consider that there is nothing on the record to suggest that accused persons were holding assets more than as claimed by the prosecution.

2. Income The prosecution has taken the income of Rs.2,46,18,053/. The plea of defence is that the prosecution has not taken the income correctly. The plea of the accused persons is that the following income is to be added :

     Sl. No.                         Particulars                         Amount (in Rs.)
       1       Income from profession of A2 Dr. Asha Ray                          25,04,603
               Income from business from M/s. Samsonite South Asia                 7,39,665
       2       Pvt. Ltd.
       3       Agricultural Income                                                 9,93,304
               Advance received from DW6      10,00,000                          25,00,000
       4       Advance received from DW9      15,00,000
       5       Loan from Punjab National Bank                                      3,00,000
       6       Outstanding against HDFC credit card                                1,28,608
       7       Reimbursement from office (TA)                                      2,12,563
       8       Reliance Mutual Fund                                                1,22,820
       9       Income from jewellery                                               8,15,340



CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr.                 CC No.06/13                        Page 98 of 4
      10       Rent from shop No.117, Connaught Place, Pune                          1,14,510
     11       Rent   from   G5,   Krishna   Apra,   Royal   Plaza,   Greater       1,21,717
              Noida (6,55,596 - 5,23,879)
     12       Enhanced income from foreign remittance                               2,13,750
     13       Income   from   sale   of   Shop   No.G37,   Vardhman   City         1,47,355
              Mall, Dwarka
     14       Income   from   sale   of   Shop   No.G78,   Vardhman   City       13,38,056
              Mall, Dwarka
                                          Total                                  1,02,52,291

The CBI has shown a sum of Rs.5,82,660/ as income (Item No.

73) on account of amount received in US dollars by Smt. Bina Ray from her grand daughter residing in United States. PW3 Ms. Payal Jain has proved the statement of account pertaining to A/c No.935162 in the name of Smt. Bina Ray and A1 Samir Baron Ray. Perusal of the testimony of PW3 Payal Jain alongwith Ex.P35 would indicate that there are four credit entries as follows :

          Date         US Dollars        At the rate      Amount in Indian 
                                          (in Rs.)            Rupee
     20/02/04                    5970             44.75           267,157.50
     02/06/04                    3970              44.9           178,253.00
     03/08/04                    3000             45.75           137,250.00
     22/07/05                    5000             42.75           213,750.00

Thus, apparently, the CBI has shown Rs.5,82,660/ in place of Rs.7,96,410/. Therefore, Rs.2,13,750/ is required to be added in income. CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 99 of 4 Loss on account of sale of Shop No.G78, Vardhman City Mall, Sector - 23, Dwarka, Delhi In respect of shop No.G78 Vardhman City Mall, Dwarka, CBI has shown a loss of Rs.17,61,944/ on account of sale of shop No.G78. CBI has taken this figure on the basis that this shop was purchased by A2 at the price of Rs.57,61,944/ and since it was sold at Rs.40 lakhs to Balbir Singh, therefore, the accused persons suffered a loss of Rs.17,61,944/. The plea of the accused is that infact this shop was sold to late Sh. Balbir Singh for a sum of Rs.71 lakhs. However, Sh. Balbir Singh paid a sum of Rs.40 lakhs by cheque and Rs.31 lakhs in cash and therefore, the shop having been sold at Rs.71 lakhs, actually, the accused persons had earned a profit of Rs. 13,38,056/ (71,00,000 - 57,61,944). The defence has pleaded that CBI has wrongly shown loss in the sum of Rs.17,61,944/ whereas, actually the CBI should have shown a income on account of profit by way of sale of shop in the sum of Rs.13,38,056/. This entire case was put to the IO during the cross examination and IO admitted the entire facts. IO also admitted that late Sh. Balbir Singh had given an affidavit wherein he admitted that the shop was sold to him at Rs.71 lakhs and he had paid Rs.31 lakhs in cash. It is an admitted fact that accused has shown the capital gain in the sum of Rs. 13,64,725/ in the ITR for the AY 20092010 on 15.10.2009. The FIR Ex.PW10/A in this case was lodged on 31.08.2008. The accused has taken a CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 100 of 4 plea that the shop was sold at Rs.71 lakhs out of which Rs.40 lakhs was received by way of pay order and remaining Rs.31 lakhs in cash but the accused is totally silent regarding the accounting of such cash received of Rs. 31 lakhs. Even if the plea of the accused is accepted that the sale was effected before the check period for a consideration of Rs.71 lakhs, then there had to be cash available in the sum of Rs.31 lakhs with the accused as on the date of check period. Had this cash been deposited in bank or invested somewhere it would have increased the cash in hand or the assets at the end of check period. As per the admissions of the defence itself, the accused persons received a cash of Rs.31 lakhs. This amount was not put in the banking transaction and therefore, remained in liquidity with the accused. This cash amount have been used either for purchasing some movable and immovable property or by making expenditure on some consumable item or lastly, it would have remained in cash with the accused. This was for the accused to explain that where and how this money had been used. The accused is totally silent about it. Therefore, if the plea of the accused is accepted then this transaction will have to be shown as under :

i) the loss of Rs.17,61,944/ is shown in expenditure at Item No.55 shall be deducted ;

ii) Income on account of sale of above said shop in the sum of Rs.

13,38,056/ be added in the income of the accused ; and CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 101 of 4

iii) cash in the sum of Rs.31 lakhs be added in the movable assets. Income on account of sale of Jewellery The defence has taken a plea that there was sale of jewellery by A2 Dr. Asha Ray during the check period on 01.03.2005, 05.10.05 and 08.08.05 in the sum of Rs.2,52,400/, Rs.2,05,050/ and Rs.1,49,550/. IO admitted that in the cross examination he had seized these bills vide production memo Ex.PW5/DC5. IO had also admitted that he did not take into account this amount. The reason given by the IO was that he did not find any register which is required to be maintained and checked by the DM or this authorized agent, with the said jeweller. It is pertinent to mention here that IO did not record the statement of Jeweller in this regard. I consider that IO had been unreasonable in this regard. When he had seized the bill of sale of jewellery during the check period by A2 Dr. Asha Ray, he could not have discarded the same without making any investigation. In view of the admission of the IO that these bills were duly seized by him during the course of investigation and that when there is no allegation of prosecution that these are manipulated and forged bills, thus in the circumstances, the income in the sum of Rs.2,52,400/, Rs.2,05,050/ and Rs.1,49,550/ ought to be added in the income of the accused. Another bill dated 07.03.2006 Ex.PW5/DC4 in the sum of Rs.2,08,340/ pertains to Smt. Bina Ray mother CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 102 of 4 of accused and therefore, it also needs to be taken into account. Thus, a sum of Rs.8,15,340/ is required to be added in the income of accused persons on account sale of jewellery.

Income of A2 Dr. Asha Ray In respect of income of A2 from her business, the plea of the defence is that A2 had following income from her business / profession as shown in the ITR :

Sr. No. Assessment year Original / Return filed on Income from Revised business 1 200405 Original 15.10.2009 319,701.00 2 200506 Revised 15.10.2009 544,212.00 3 200607 Revised 15.10.2009 670,356.00 4 200708 15.10.2009 337,221.00 5 200809 Revised 15.10.2009 606,294.00 6 200910 15.10.2009 538,572.00 Total 3,016,356.00 The bare perusal of these ITRs would indicate that all these returns have been filed on same day after registration of the present case.

The income in the ITRs filed on 15.10.2009 have been shown in excess to the income shown in the ITRs filed before registration of case. In the earlier ITRs there is no mention of capital gain etc. The accused persons have based CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 103 of 4 their claims on the basis of such income shown in the ITRs. However, except the ITR's which have admittedly been filed after registration of the case, the accused persons have not produced any other document to prove income of A2. It is also pertinent to mention here that the accused persons have not produced even an iota of evidence to prove their income from business or profession. The situation would have been different, had these income been shown in the ITR's filed prior to registration of case. The accused persons may take a plea that for the AY 20082009 the return could have been filed only after registration of case. In such an event the defence in order to lend credence to their plea could have produced some other corroborative evidence to prove this fact. The onus to prove the enhanced income of A2 was on the defence and regarding this the duty was casted upon them to establish it on record in accordance with law. I consider that defence has failed in this regard. The defence has put a suggestion during the cross examination of IO PW5 DV Tripathi that MoU was duly entered into with M/s. Samsonite South Asia Pvt. Ltd. on 18.07.2008. IO had denied the suggestion. However, the defence has not placed any such MoU on record. It was for the defence to prove that A2 Dr. Asha Ray had some MoU with M/s. Samsonite South Asia Pvt. Ltd. and was running business. The plea of A2 that she had an income of Rs. 25,04,603/ from her medical profession, the same cannot be accepted. The accused merely stated in her written statement CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 104 of 4 and in this regard she did not lead any evidence. The written statement would not be sufficient to take the income of A2 as Rs. 25,04,603/.

Similarly, in respect of the business, the accused has only filed certified copy of statement of account. This statement of account do show from 15/7/05 to 5/5/08 number of transactions. However, merely on the basis of this statement of account, it cannot be inferred that A2 was running such business and she had an income from this. If such business was being run, there must have been some account. The accused has not furnished even an iota of evidence regarding such business activities. It has also to be kept in mind that accused persons had lot of cash with them, therefore, the possibility of managing transaction in Bank cannot be ruled out. The ITRs have also been filed subsequent to the registration of the case. I consider that therefore, this also cannot be taken into account.

The accused has placed much reliance upon the income tax filed by him subsequent to the registration of the case. It has been submitted that income shown in such tax returns should be added. However, this plea of the accused cannot be accepted. Even in the case law relied upon by the defence in J. Satyanarayana's case supra, the income tax returns were filed much before the date of raid and even registration of case. In the present case, the ITRs were filed much after the date of raid and registration of the case.

In regard to amount shown at Item No.46 and 48 to 54 in the CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 105 of 4 expenditure though IO has voluntarily stated that A2 had not started the business as on the date at the end of the check period. However, the accused has not raised any dispute regarding such expenditure. Income from sale of H. No. 12, Talkatora, Rajajipuram, Lucknow CBI has shown an income of Rs. 3 lakhs at item No. 6 on account of sale of H. No. 12, Rajajipuram, Lucknow. However, the defence took a plea that infact A1 had received a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs and therefore, Rs. 01 lakhs is to be added in the income of the accused. In this regard, the defence has examined DW1 Sh. Ashok Kumar Dubey who deposed on oath that he purchased this property for a sum of Rs. 17 lakhs and he gave a cheque of Rs. 01 lakhs to A1 towards advance money. However, the perusal of this testimony does not indicate that A1 had received a total consideration of Rs. 4 lakhs. It only speaks of payment of Rs. 01 lakhs as advance money to A1 by DW1. I consider that this evidence is not sufficient to infer that in item No. 6, the income is to be increased from Rs. 3 lakhs to Rs. 4 lakhs. Income on account of advance received from DW6 regarding sale of land and farm house at survey No.294, Village Yelwadi, Taluka Khed, Pune The defence has taken a plea that Rs. 10 lakhs be added in the income of accused on account of income received from DW6 against CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 106 of 4 agreement to sell in respect of agricultural land at Gat No.293 & 294. In this respect, the defence has examined DW6 who stated on oath that he had paid Rs. 10 lakhs in cash to A1 in January - February 2005. The witness also procued the photocopy of the seizure memo vide which the original of this agreement was seized by the IO during the investigation of this case. In the cross examination, the witness admitted that neither he is an income tax assessee nor he maintains any books of account. DW6 also admitted in the cross examination that he does not have any documentary evidence except the document Mark A to show that he was having Rs. 10 lakhs at the relevant time or paid Rs. 10 lakhs to the accused. I consider that in absence of any such material, this plea of the accused does not hold any force. Accused has allegedly taken Rs. 10 lakhs in cash and he wants this Court to believe this fact solely on the basis that an agreement was executed between him and DW6. It is correct that this agreement was seized by the IO but by virtue of this it would not ipso facto mean that this transaction is a genuine transaction. As per Ex.DW6/A, the document was seized on 14/11/09 i.e. more than a year after the registration of the FIR. The defence has argued that this amount was repaid by A1 through cheque in 2012 and this shows that it was a genuine transaction. I would consider that this also cannot grant any legitimacy to this transaction. The transaction in cash of Rs. 10 lakhs without any documentary evidence of such payment would not entitle the CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 107 of 4 accused to have this included in his income. The agreement between A1 and DW6 is a self serving document and cannot be believed. The subsequent payment by cheque would also not make it a genuine transaction. Salary income of A1 Samir Baron Ray The CBI has shown a salary income during the check period as Rs. 18,76,120/ whereas, as per DW7 the accused has received a total net salary of Rs. 18,77,092/. Thus, in view of the testimony of DW7 and the documents produced by him, a sum of Rs. 972/ is required to be added in item No. 1 of the income of the accused.

Income on account of advance received from DW9 as advance against agricultural land at survey No.516 and 517, Village Induri Tal, Vadgaon, Maval, District Pune The defence has taken a plea that he had received a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs as an advance against sale of agricultural land referred to S.No. 3 & 4 in the chargesheet. In this regard, alongwith written statement u/S 313 Cr.PC, A1 placed on record photocopy of agreement of sale dtd. 23/6/05 executed between him and Sh. Ashok Rambhau Bhalekar (DW9). Perusal of this agreement to sale (the English translation of which has also been placed on record) reveals that the sale consideration was Rs. 30 lakhs and the CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 108 of 4 amount to agreement to sale was Rs. 8 lakhs. In the said agreement, A1 seems to have accepted Rs. 15 lakhs from the buyer in cash on 6/3/05, 7/5/05 and 23/6/05. I consider that on the face of this, this contention of the accused cannot be accepted. The defence has merely taken the plea but has not placed any credible evidence on record. Perusal of the testimony of DW9 would also indicate that he had paid this amount in cash in three instalments of Rs. 5 lakhs each. The defence witness admitted that he did not maintain any books of account as it was a joint family venture. The witness also stated that he did not used to maintain any regular book of account nor did he inform the income tax authorities regarding the payment of Rs. 15 lakhs as an advance to the accused. The plea of the defence witness was that out of these Rs. 15 lakhs, he had received Rs. 5 lakhs from Bajaj Auto at the time of his VRS. The witness also even did not produce any receipt of such Rs. 5 lakhs. It also does not appeal to the reason that a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs would be received in cash by A1. It is also relevant to note here that this amount has neither been intimated to the department nor is there any record regarding payment of income tax at the relevant time. Subsequent intimation to the IT department after registration of case would not lend any credance to the submissions of the accused. The accused has not even filed the original of such agreement to sale.

CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 109 of 4 Loan from PNB Bank In respect of the plea of the accused that he had taken a loan of Rs. 3 lakhs from Punjab National Bank which is reflected in the statement of account filed alongwith the written statement u/S 313 Cr.PC cannot be accepted as besides this statement of account, the accused has not led any evidence regarding loan transaction. Furthermore, this amount has been deposited in A/c No. 6295. It is pertinent to mention here that the balance of this account has been taken as on 31/1/08 in the movable assets of the accused. This last balance includes all the debits / withdrawals. It also includes such debits which the accused claims to have been from the loan transactions. Hence, this cannot be accepted. Similarly, in respect of the outstanding regarding HDFC Card bearing No. 2084, the accused has filed the certified copy of statement of account and photocopy of credit card statement. The photocopy of credit statement do show total outstanding in the sum of Rs.1,28,608.94. However, this cannot be taken in the assets because actually these were the expenditure which were to be made by the accused. By no stretch of imagination, it can be taken as an income. Similarly, the plea of A2 that outstanding as on 31/8/08 against credit card be added as income cannot be accepted as this was an expenditure which shall be incurred by the accused in future.

CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 110 of 4 Rental Income from Shop No. 118, Connaught Place, Bund Garden Road, Pune In respect of the plea of A2 that rental income from Shop No. 118, Connaught Place, Bund Garden Road, Pune has not been taken correctly, I consider that same cannot be accepted. A2 alolngwith the written statement has filed certified copy of No. 05391000007611. Perusal of this would show that deposit of Rs. 1,14,510/ but it does not indicate at all that this amount is on account of rent received in respect of Shop No. 118.

In respect of the reimbursement on account of travelling allowance, reliance has been placed upon R. Janakiraman's case supra. In this case, it was inter alia held that travelling allowance is not a source of income to the Government servant but only a compensation to meet his expenses. Therefore, the prosecution while calculating the sources of income during the check period, need not take it into account as income. However, it is open to the Government servant to lead in evidence to show that he had in fact saved something out of the travelling allowance. It is for the court then to accept or not whether there was such actual saving. It was further held that the question of automatically considering the entire travelling allowance as a source of income does not arise. In the present case since the payment made to M/s Preeti Travels has been taken as an expenditure and evidence of prosecution is not clear, therefore, TA can be added as an income. The CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 111 of 4 accused has also not led any positive evidence regarding agricultural income, in the absence of which the agricultural income cannot be added.

In respect of the income which has been pleaded to be added on the basis of discussion made hereinabove, the findings are as follows :

 Sl. No.                   Particulars                    Amount              Remarks
                                                          (in Rs.)
    1      Loan from Punjab National Bank                    3,00,000 Not          sufficient 
                                                                      evidence   led   by   the 
                                                                      accused in this regard
    2      Outstanding against HDFC credit card              1,28,608       Not plausible
    3      Advance   received   from   DW6               25,00,000          Not proved
           10,00,000
           Advance   received   from   DW9            
           15,00,000
    4      Reimbursement from office                         2,12,563 Admitted to be added
    5      Agricultural Income                               9,93,304 Not          sufficient 
                                                                      evidence   led   by   the 
                                                                      accused in this regard
    6      Reliance Mutual Fund                              1,22,820 Not          sufficient 
                                                                      evidence   led   by   the 
                                                                      accused in this regard
    7      Rent from shop No.117, Connaught Place,           1,14,510 Not          sufficient 
           Pune                                                       evidence   led   by   the 
                                                                      accused in this regard
    8      Income from profession of A2 Dr. Asha          25,04,603 Not          sufficient 
           Ray                                                      evidence   led   by   the 
                                                                    accused in this regard
    9      Income   from   business   from   M/s.            7,39,665 Not          sufficient 
           Samsonite South Asia Pvt. Ltd.                             evidence   led   by   the 
                                                                      accused in this regard



CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr.                 CC No.06/13                         Page 112 of 4
       10     Income from jewellery                                 8,15,340 Admitted to be added
      11     Rent   from   G5,   Krishna   Apra,   Royal          1,21,717 Not          sufficient 
             Plaza,   Greater   Noida   (6,55,596   -                       evidence   led   by   the 
             5,23,879)                                                      accused in this regard
      12     Enhanced income from foreign remittance               2,13,750 Admitted to be added
      13     Income   from   sale   of   Shop   No.G37,           1,47,355 Admitted to be added
             Vardhman City Mall, Dwarka
      14     Income   from   sale   of   Shop   No.G78,       13,38,056 Admitted to be added
             Vardhman City Mall, Dwarka



8.1              I  consider that  after evaluation of the entire submissions, the

revised chart showing income of accused Samir Baron Ray and members of his family during the check period would be as follows :

Income of accused Samir Baron Ray and members of his family Sl. Particulars Amount No. 1 Salary Income of Sh. SB Ray during the check period 1,877,092.00 2 Income of Smt. Asha Ray from profession during the check 955,754.00 period Income from sale of Duplex Flat No.A 125, AWHO Colony, 2,200,000.00 Gautam Enclave, Secunderabad in the joint name of Sh. Samir 3 Baron Ray and Dr. Asha Ray Income from sale of Plot No.D6/204, Vipul Khand, Gomti 480,000.00 4 Nagar, Lucknow in the name of Sh. Samir Baron Ray Income from sale of Plot No.B3/440, Vishal Khand, Gomti 704,648.00 5 Nagar, Lucknow in the name of Dr. Asha Ray 6 Income from sale of House No.12, Talktora, Rajajipuram, 300,000.00 CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 113 of 4 Lucknow Income from sale of Plot No.3776 area 500 Sq. Yds. in Sector 1,862,060.00 2323A, Gurgaon, Haryana purchased in the year 2001 and 7 sold in May 2006 Income from sale of Shop Nos. 37 to 48, Tapasvi Plaza, 1,678,000.00 Mumbai Pune Road, Chinchwad, Akurdi, Pune in the name of 8 Smt. Asha Ray purchased on 14.10.2005 Income from sale of Shop No.G5, Krishna Apra Royal Plaza, 14,918.00 D2E (ACB), Alfa1, Greater Noida, UP in the name of Sh. 9 SB Ray purchased on 04.08.2004 and sold on 16.08.2006 Amount received in advance on account of agreement to sell of Shop No.G37, Vardhaman City Mall, Sector 23, Dwarka, 10 New Delhi Income from sale of Plot No.M88, Sector Delta, Greater 160,870.00 11 Noida.

Rental Income from Shop Nos.37 to 48, Tapasvi Plaza, 671,200.00 Mumbai Pune Road, Chinchwad, Akurdi, Pune in the name of 12 Smt. Asha Ray Rental income from Shop No.G5, Krishna Apra Royal Plaza, 523,879.00 13 Greater Noida.

Rental income from Shop No.117, Connaught Place Bund 243,602.00 Garden Road, Pune in the name of Smt. Bina Ray with Power 14 of Attorney to Dr. Asha Ray Rental income from Shop No.118, Connaught Place Bund 243,602.00 15 Garden Road, Pune in the name of Sh. Samir Baron Ray Loan Against Rent Receivable (LARR) availed by Sh. SB ray 2,271,000.00 16 from HDFC Bank Housing Loan A/c No.809675100020448 availed by Sh. SB 1,500,000.00 17 Ray from IDBI Bank, Pune Housing Loan A/c No.809675100050917 availed by Sh. SB 300,000.00 18 Ray from IDBI Bank, Pune 19 Home Loan availed for purchase of Shop Nos.37 to 48, Ist 2,800,000.00 CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 114 of 4 Floor, Tapasvi Plaza, MumbaiPune Road, Chinchwada, Pune. 20 Car Loan availed by Sh. SB Ray from ICICI Bank 225,000.00 21 Car loan availed from HDFC Bank, Gopinath Bazar from 100,000.00 purchase of Opel Astra Car Car Loan availed from ICICI Bank, Pune for purchase of 287,000.00 22 Cheverlet Spark Car bearing Regn. No. MH 12 BM 9970 23 Agricultural loan availed by SB Ray from Axis Bank 494,195.00 24 Agriculture income of Sh. Samir Ray 91,454.00 Interest income received in SB A/c No.6295 in PNB Camp 2,551.00 25 Branch, Pune in the name of Sh. SB Ray & Dr. Asha Ray Interest income received in SB A/c No.935162 in ABN AMRO 13,426.00 Bank, MG Road, Pune in the name of Sh. SB Ray & Smt. Bina 26 Ray Interest income received in SB A/c No.4856 in PDCC Bank, 1,590.00 27 Dehu Road, Pune in the name of Sh. SB Ray Interest income received in SB A/c No.5391000007611 in 593.00 HDFC Bank, Kalyani Nagar, Pune in the name of Sh. SB Ray 28 & Dr. Asha Ray Interest income received in SB A/c No.1391150030536 in 18,672.00 HDFC Bank, Kalyani Nagar, Pune in the name of Sh. SB Ray 29 and Dr. Asha Ray Interest income received in SB A/c No.05391460000452 in 127.00 HDFC Bank, Kalyani Nagar, Pune in the name of Master 30 Rahul Ray Interest income received in SB A/c No.01190024501, SBI, 6,472.00 Dehu Road in the names of Sh. Samir Baron Ray and Smt. 31 Asha Ray Interest income received in SB A/c No.13911930001423 in 3,652.00 32 HDFC, Gopinath Bazar, New Delhi Interest income received in SB A/c No.6465, Punjab National 236.00 33 Bank, New Delhi.

CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 115 of 4

Interest income received in SB A/c No.10143, Union Bank of 801.00 39 India, Bareilly in the name of Dr. Asha Ray Interest income received in SB A/c No.9358, Union Bank of 7,381.00 40 India, Bareilly in the name of Sh. SB Ray Interest income received in SB A/c No.025401500734 ICICI 2,725.00 41 Bank, Greater Noida in the name of Sh. SB Ray Income from redemption of 1000 units of LIC Mutual Fund 8,880.00 42 Dharvarsha - 13 Scheme in the name of Dr. Asha Ray Income from redemption of units in DSP Black Rock India 27,394.00 43 TIGER Fund Dividend income from 1000 shares of SBI Magnum Multiplier 7,600.00 Plus Scheme 93 Dividend in the name of Dr. Asha Ray and 44 Sh. Samir Baron Ray Income from dividend and redemption of units in HDFC 21,568.00 45 Capital Builder Fund in the name of Sh. Samir Baron Ray Dividend income from HDFC Capital Builder Fund in the 6,856.00 46 name of Sh. Samir Baron Ray Income from redemption of 5000 units in Tata Teped Equity 34,169.00 47 PE Fund in the name of Sh. Samir Baron Ray 48 Income from redemption of 500 units of Reliance Vision Fund 21,980.00 Growth Plan (Folio No.4031622646) in the name of Dr. Asha CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 116 of 4 Ray Income from redemption of 500 units of Reliance Growth 28,840.00 Fund Growth Plan (Folio No.4031622651) in the name of Dr. 49 Asha Ray jointly with Sh. Samir Baron Ray Dividend income from 100 shares of The Great Eastern 7,279.00 Shipping Company Limited and 14 shares of M/s. Mahindra 50 Lifespace Developers Ltd. in the name of Sh. Samir Baron Ray Dividend income from shares in the names of Dr. Asha Ray 84,575.00 and Sh. Samir Baron Ray in various Reliance Group 51 Companies Dividend income from 100 Public Issue Shares of IDBI Ltd. 1,650.00 acquired in the name of Smt. Asha Ray vide application dt. 52 07.07.1995 under folio No.IDB319262 Dividend income from 100 Public Issue Shares of IDBI Ltd. 2,205.00 acquired in the name of Sh. Samir Ray vide application dt. 53 07.07.1995 under folio No.IDB319263 Dividend income from 500 shares of M/s. Advani Hotels and 100.00 Resorts (India) Ltd. in the name of Sh. Samir Baron Ray 54 jointly with Dr. Asha Ray Dividend income from 16 shares of Tata Motors Limited held 336.00 55 in the name of Sh. Samir Baron Ray and Dr. Asha Ray Dividend income from 80 shares of Hexaware Technologies in 272.00 56 the name of Sh. Samir Baron Ray and Dr. Asha Ray 57 Dividend income from Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. 3,900.00 Dividend income from 25 shares of Great Offshore Limited 400.00 58 held jointly in the name of Sh. SB Ray and Dr. Asha Ray Income from interest and maturity of 2 IDBI Flexi bonds 8,787.00 under folio No.FIB087609 held by Samir Baron Ray jointly 59 with Asha Ray Income from interest and maturity of 2 IDBI Flexi bonds 11,950.00 under folio No.IFE002446 held by Asha Ray jointly with 60 Samir Baron Ray CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 117 of 4 Income from interest and maturity of 2 IDBI Flexi bonds 11,902.00 under folio No.IFE003371 held by Asha Ray jointly with 61 Samir Baron Ray Income from interest and maturity of 2 IDBI Flexi bonds 2,800.00 under folio No.BRI030823 held by Asha Ray jointly with 62 Samir Baron Ray Income from interest and maturity of 2 IDBI Flexi bonds 8,400.00 under folio No.ARI04000500 held by Asha Ray jointly with 63 Samir Baron Ray Income from redemption of units in Frankin Templeton 181,021.00 64 Investments Amount received from Money Back LIC Policy No.130784861 18,750.00 65 in the name of Dr. Asha Ray Survival Benefit on account of LIC Policy No.221280840 in 60,000.00 66 the name of Sh. Samir Baron Ray Amount refunded on foreclosure of ICICI Prudential Policy 166,396.00 67 No.00047062 of Sh. Samir Baron Ray Income on account of maturity of Kisan Vikas Patras in the 170,950.00 68 name of Sh. SB Ray and Mrs. Asha Ray Unsecured loan taken by SB Ray from Smt. Rekha Dhaka W/o 640,000.00 69 Maj. Genl. Dhaka Unsecured loan taken by SB Ray from Lt. Genl. (Retd.) Dr. 200,000.00 70 Mahesh Vij Amount received as advance on sale of flat in Beverly Hills, 1,100,000.00 Sector 22, Dwarka, New Delhi from Smt. Aarthi Dalal W/o 71 Col. TS Dalal 72 Withdrawals from DSOP Fund during the check period 842,000.00 73 Amount received in US dollars by Smt. Bina Ray from her 796,410.00 grand daughter residing in the United States and deposited in SB A/c 931562 in the joint account of Samir Baron Ray and Smt. Bina Ray in ABN AMRO Bank 74 Profit earned on account of sale of Shop No. G37, Vardhman 147,355.00 CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 118 of 4 City Mall , Dwarka 75 Profit earned on account of sale of G78, Vardhman City Mall, 1,338,056.00 Dwarka 76 Income on account of sale of jewellery 815,340.00 77 Refund of income tax 150,848.00 78 Reimbursement from office 212,563.00 TOTAL 27,196,937.00

3. Expenditure In regard to the expenditure, the accused has taken a plea that the same has been shown at the higher side. In this regard, the accused has taken the following pleas :

Item No. 15 - Repayment of loan against rent receivable (LARR) The defence has taken a plea that CBI has wrongly shown at item No. 15 of the expenditure a sum of Rs.10,20,976/ as repayment of loan against rent receivable (LARR) availed by A1 from HDFC Bank. In this regard, the defence has examined DW3 Sh. Vipin Gupta. The defence witness proved the statement of account as Ex.DW3/A and as per the statement of account, the total repayment was shown up to 31/8/07 in the sum of Rs. 6,90,740/. Thus, a sum of Rs. 3,30,236/ is to be deducted from the expenditure.

CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 119 of 4

Item No. 16 - Repayment of housing loan account No.809675100020448 The CBI has shown a sum of Rs. 10,02,308/ at item No 16 of expenditure against repayment of housing loan account No. 809675100020448 availed by A1 from IDBI Bank, Pune. The defence has taken a plea that this amount has been shown wrongly and infact the actual repayment was in the sum of Rs. 8,93,536/. In this regard, the defence has examined DW4 Sh. Vipul Yadav who proved the statement of account as Ex.DW4/A and proved that total payment upto 31/8/08 was Rs. 8,94,536.

Thus, the sum of Rs. 1,07,772/ is required to be deducted from the expenditure.

Item No.1: Income Tax Paid by Samir Baron Ray (FY 200203 to 200607) Since it has appeared in the evidence of prosecution itself that the income tax was deducted at source and only the net income has been taken into account, therefore, item No.1 income tax paid by accused Samir Baron Ray in the sum of Rs. 2,85,279/ is to be deducted from the expenditure. It is also relevant to mention here that in the original ITRs, A1 has shown only income come salary. It has also come on record that even there was refund of income tax, which has been added in the income.

CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 120 of 4

8.3 I consider that after evaluation of the entire submissions the revised chart showing expenditure of accused Samir Baron Ray and members of his family during the check period would be as follows :

Expenditure incurred by accused Samir Baron Ray and members of his family Sl. Particulars Amount No. 1 Income tax paid by Sh. Samir Ray (FY 200203 to 200607) 2 Income tax paid by Smt. Asha Ray (AY 200405 & 200506) 89,565.00 3 Payment of premium towards LIC Policy No.130784861 in the 43,197.00 name of Dr. Asha Ray 4 Payment of premium towards LIC Policy No.372966811 in the 56,322.00 name of Gaurav Ray 5 Payment of premium towards LIC Policy No.130787822 in the 31,040.00 name of Rahul Ray 6 Payment of premium towards LIC Policy No.221280840 in the 97,248.00 name of Sh. Samir Baron Ray 7 Payment of premium to ICICI Prudential Life Insurance 280,022.00 Policy No.00047062 in the name of Samir Baron Ray 8 Premium paid to Aviva Life Insurance policy No.SVG 144,000.00 1124803 in the name of Asha Ray 9 Premium paid to Aviva Life Insurance policy No.TPG 240,000.00 1077050 in the name of Asha Ray 10 Premium paid to Aviva Life Insurance policy No.LLG 600,000.00 1122795 in the name of Asha Ray 11 Premium paid to Aviva Life Insurance policy No.TPG 36,000.00 1129282 in the name of Gaurav Ray 12 Premium paid to Aviva Life Insurance policy No.SVG 120,000.00 1129275 in the name of Gaurav Ray CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 121 of 4 13 Payment of premium towards Bajaj Allianz General Insurance 16,069.00 Company Ltd. Policy No.OG081501996100114043 in the name of Dr. Asha Ray 14 Premium paid towards Policy No.10196954 in HDFC Standard 40,000.00 Life Insurance in the name of Brig. Samir Baron Ray 15 Repayment of Loan Against Rent Receivable (LARR) availed 1,020,976.00 by Sh. SB Ray from HDFC Bank 16 Repayment of Housing Loan A/c No.809675100020448 6,90,740.00 availed by Sh. SB Ray from IDBI Bank, Pune (Revised) 17 Repayment of Housing Loan A/c No.809675100050917 8,94,536.00 availed by Sh. SB Ray from IDBI Bank, Pune (Revised) 18 Repayment of Home Loan availed for purchase of Shop Nos. 3,331,303.00 37 to 48, Ist Floor, Tapasvi Plaza, MumbaiPune Road, Chinchwada, Pune 19 Repayment of Car Loan availed by Sh. SB Ray from ICICI 244,728.00 Bank 20 Repayment of car loan availed from HDFC Bank Gopinath 122,160.00 Bazar for purchase of Opel Astra Car 21 Car loan availed from ICICI Bank, Pune for purchase of 36,988.00 Cheverlet Spark Car bearing Regn. No. MH 12 BM 9970 22 Repayment of Agricultural loan availed by Sh. SB Ray from 70,000.00 Axis Bank 23 Payment to M/s. Jaypee Coop Group Housing Society Ltd. 2,160,110.00 for a flat in Sector 22, Dwarka, New Delhi 24 Payment made to Ansal housing Ltd. towards booking of 150 697,160.00 Sq.Yds. Plot in Ansal Golf Links, Greater Noida 25 Rent paid in respect of locker No.227 in ICICI Bank, Vasant 7,274.00 Vihar Branch by Sh. Samir Baron Ray 26 Rent paid in respect of locker in Aryavrat Grameen Bank, 1,820.00 Gomti Nagar Branch, Lucknow by Sh. Samir Baron Ray 27 Rent paid in respect of locker in SBI, NCERT Campus, New 5,050.00 Delhi in the name of Samir Baron Ray and Dr. Asha Ray CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 122 of 4 28 Payment to Citi Bank Card No.5425 5683 0908 6009 67,244.00 29 Payment of SCB Visa Executive card 4129 0473 8081 5133 130,928.00 30 Payment made to Tolani Maritime Institute, Pune towards fees 624,090.00 for Gaurav Ray, elder son of Sh. Samir Ray 31 Payment made by Sh. Samir Baron Ray towards his 14,218.00 membership in Rajendra Sinhji Institute, Pune. 32 Payment made by Sh. Samir Baron Ray towards his 17,494.00 membership in United Services Club, Colaba, Mumbai 33 Payment made to Army Ordnance Officers Mess, Delhi Cantt. 78,328.00 towards membership fee and other services availed by Sh. Samir Baron Ray 34 Payment made to Army Golf Club towards membership fee 32,945.00 and other services availed by Sh. Samir Baron Ray 35 Payment made to M/s. Khanna Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. towards 38,500.00 purchase of one Diamond Pendent by Dr. Asha Ray 36 Payment made to M/s. Raj Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. towards 8,200.00 purchase of one Diamond Ring by Dr. Asha Ray 37 Payment made to M/s. Aggarwal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. towards 26,220.00 purchase of gold Jewellery by Sh. Samir Baron Ray 38 Payment made to M/s. Inter Gold Gems Pvt. Ltd. towards 126,647.00 purchase of gold jewellery by Sh. Samir Baron Ray 39 Payment made by Sh. Samir Baron Ray towards purchase of 256,227.00 Air tickets from M/s. Preeti Travels Pvt. Ltd. 40 Payment made to M/s. Antarctica Sales & Services, Pune 59,687.00 towards purchase of AC Etc. 41 Payment made by Sh. Samir Baron Ray to M/s. Nezone 6,505.00 Agencies Pvt. Ltd. South Extension, New Delhi. 42 Payment made to M/s. Color Plus Fashions, Kalyani Nagar, 6,346.00 Pune towards purchase of garments 43 Payment made to M/s. Maharashtra Electronics Corporation 14,000.00 Ltd. towards purchase of Fabre Castle Chimney and Glen Gas CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 123 of 4 Stove by Sh. Samir Baron Ray 44 Payment made to M/s. Essar Telecom Retail Pvt. Ltd. by Sh. 26,397.00 Samir Baron Ray towards purchase of mobile phones 45 Expenditure incurred on Telephone No.26608874 installed at 2,969.00 Flat No.603, Rio Grande, Fortaleza, Kalyani Nagar, Pune 46 Payment made to Maharashtra State Electricity Authority in 1,990.00 respect of consumption of electricity in Shop No.131, Rio Grande, Fortaleza, Kalyani Nagar, Pune. 47 Payment made to M/s. Anil Electronics Ltd. towards purchase 11,990.00 of CTV 48 Payment made to M/s. New India Cables (Trading) Pvt. Ltd. 69,803.00 towards purchase of electrical items in the name of M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Liesures and Travels owned by Dr. Asha Ray 49 Payment made to M/s. C. Suman Hardware and Electricals, 47,850.00 Pune towards purchase of electrical items in the name of M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Liesures and Travels owned by Dr. Asha Ray 50 Payment made to M/s. Sanghvi Timber, Pune towards 46,645.00 purchase of wooden items in the name of M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Liesures and Travels owned by Dr. Asha Ray 51 Payment made to M/s. SignOCraft, Pune towards purchase 32,602.00 of composite aluminium base for sign board in the name of M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Liesures and Travels owned by Dr. Asha Ray 52 Payment made to M/s. Worldtech Marketing & Computer 42,900.00 Services, Pune towards purchase of HCL computer alongwith printer and UPS in the name of M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Liesures and Travels owned by Dr. Asha Ray 53 Payment made to M/s. Welconstructs, Pune towards purchase 47,025.00 of glass items in the name of M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Liesures and Travels owned by Dr. Asha Ray 54 Payment made to M/s. Raj Electricals and General Stores, 7,088.00 CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 124 of 4 Pune towards purchase of Electrical fittings in the name of M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Liesures and Travels owned by Dr. Asha Ray 55 Loss on account of sale of Shop No.G78, Vardhaman City Mall, Dwarka, Sector 23, Delhi 56 Expenditure incurred on the fuel for Cheverlet Spark car and 6,126.00 Honda Unicorn Motor Cycle 57 Interest paid by SB Ray to Sh. Mahesh Vij during the check 88,000.00 period 58 Non verifiable expenditure (equivalent to 1/3 of net salary of 625,373.00 SB Ray) TOTAL 1,36,40,645.00

4. Assets at the end of the check period Item No.13 Shop No.G37, Vardhman City Mall, Dwarka, Delhi.

In respect of shop No.G37, the CBI has included this property at Item No.13 in the list of assets at the end of the check period. CBI has shown a sum of Rs. 26,52,645/ on account of this assets. However, PW2 in his testimony made a specific statement on oath that he purchased this shop from accused persons for a sum of Rs.28 lakhs. The witness also made a specific statement that he made Rs.9.70 through chequs and Rs.18.30 lakhs in cash and the final deal took place on 25.08.2008. PW2 has also made a specific statement on oath during the examination that shop No.G37 Vardhman City Mall, was transferred in his name in the record. IO also in the cross examination admitted that this shop was sold by accused persons to CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 125 of 4 PW2 for a consideration of Rs.28 lakhs. IO included this in assets at the end of check period primarily for two reasons; firstly, the cheques given to the accused persons were encashed beyond the check period and secondly, neither PW2 nor the accused could give any evidence regarding cash payment. I consider that IO has not considered the issue in proper perspective. Since the evidence has come on record that the shop had already been transferred in the name of PW2 before the end of check period, this should not have been added in the assets of the accused. In respect of the cash received, the accused persons have taken a plea that the cash recovered during the house search was infact the sale consideration of this shop.

The case of the defence is that the final deal took place on 25.08.2008 and on that day entire cash was received. It has been argued that this cash could not be deposited as the accused superannuated on 31.08.2008 and there were many formalities to be completed. I consider that this plea of the accused seems to be plausible and cash recovered during the search can be taken as part of the sale consideration of shop No.G37, Vardhman City Mall. However, the cash recovered was only Rs.2,80,000/ and Rs.9,15,600/, which is other than Rs.47,000/ cash recovered from the locker No.227, ICICI Bank, Vasant Vihar. If we subtract Rs.11,95,600/ (Rs.9,15,600/ + Rs. 2,80,000/) from Rs.18,30,000/ still there is no explanation regarding the remaining cash i.e. Rs.6,34,400/ (Rs.18,30,000 - Rs.11,95,600). Therefore, I CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 126 of 4 consider that if the accused who has admittedly taken this amount in cash then it is for him to explain the possession of the same. The accused persons kept silent over the remaining cash. Therefore, I consider that total Rs. 18,30,000/ be added as cash in hand at the end of the check period presuming that the cash recovered during the search was also part of sale consideration. It is pertinent to mention here that if the accused has spent this amount of Rs.6,34,400/ then either it has to be added in the expenditure or in the movable assets. In both the cases, it will have the same impact on the disproportionate assets.

Similarly, in respect of the cheque amount of Rs.9.70 lakhs, IO has shown a sum of Rs.3 lakhs as an amount received in advance on account of agreement to sell of shop No.G37, Vardhman City Mall, Sector - 23, Dwarka, New Delhi. Since we are taking it as an asset to have been sold before the end of the check period, this amount of Rs.3 lakh would be deducted from Income and in this place Rs.6,70,000/ (Rs.9,70,000 - Rs. 3,00,000) would be taken in the assets as an income accrued but not realized. To make it more clear, the cheques which were encashed after the date of the check period should be taken as an asset in the hands of the accused at the end of the check period because had these cheques been encashed or deposited before the end of the check period, the cash in hand/bank balance of accused would have been increased by this amount. Therefore, the net CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 127 of 4 effect of this transaction would be as under :

i) Assets in the sum of Rs.26,52,645/ be deducted from immovable assets at the end of the check period ;

ii) income of Rs.1,47,355/ be added in the income of accused as profit earned on account of sale of shop No.G37 ;

iii) Item No.38 and 39 as cash recovered in the sum of Rs.2,80,000/ and Rs.9,15,600/ be deducted from the movable assets ;

iv) Cash in hand on account of sale consideration received in cash against shop No.G37 Vardhman City Mall in the sum of Rs.18,30,000/ be added ; and

v) a sum of Rs.6,70,000/ be added in the movable assets as income accrued but not realised.

vi) Item No.10 in income "amount received in advance on account of agreement to sell of shop No.G37, Vardhman City Mall, Sector - 23, Dwarka" in the sum of Rs.3 lakh be reduced from income.

It is pertinent to mention here that even IO in the cross examination could not say if the cash mentioned at Sr. No.38, 39 and 40 of the movable assets as mentioned in the chargesheet was part of sale proceed of shop No.G37.

CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 128 of 4 Item No.11 - 1000 Sq. Yds. Plot in New Palam Vihar, New Delhi In respect of this plea, the defence examined DW5 Sh. Devender who deposed that A1 had bought the plot No.T76 through his brother Sh. Manoj Tomar and both the sale deeds were executed in his presence and he signed as a witness. The witness identified his signatures on sale deed Ex.P25. The defence witness stated that at the time of execution of sale deed, A1 had handed over three cheques of Rs.25 lakhs towards the total sale consideration to Sh. Pradeep Chander Sen in his presence in the office of SubRegistrar Gurgaon and no cash payment was made by A1 Samir Baron Ray to Sh. Pradeep Chander Sen in his presence. DW5 also stated that the deal was also got finalized through one property dealer Sh. Raj Kumar Rana. In the cross examination by Ld. PP, nothing material came out against the accused.

8.3 CBI has added a sum of Rs.61,25,000/ in the assets at the end of the check period as reflected in Item No.11. In order to prove this, the prosecution examined PW7 Raj Kumar Rana and PW8 Muktesh Narula. PW7 in his testimony specifically stated on oath that the prevailing rate of the plot/land in question at the relevant time was Rs.2,500/ per sq. yds. He also stated that it was an unauthorized colony and there was no sewage. PW8 Muktesh Narula who was the property dealer from the side of the seller CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 129 of 4 deposed that sale price was fixed at Rs.60 lakhs and sale deed was executed at Rs.25 lakhs. In this respect, the defence has also examined DW5 who again reiterated that the plot being in unauthorized colony was sold at Rs.25 lakhs. He stated that DW5 was witness to the sale deed and stated that sale deed was executed in his presence and A1 made the entire payment by cheque and no cash payment was made. IO in the cross examination stated that he had not got the property assessed from any expert or valuer. He stated that the value was assessed merely on the basis of statement of witnesses. I consider that IO miserably failed to conduct proper investigation in this regard. The prosecution itself has filed the sale deed Ex.P25 which shows that the plot was purchased at the sum of Rs.25 lakhs. It is correct that now days in the same transaction of land, there is stated to be transaction of cash other than payment made by cheque/draft as reflected in the sale deed. However, merely because this is a practice, it cannot be presumed by the court. The prosecution is duty bound to prove on record by cogent and creditworthy evidence that the sale amount shown in the sale deed is not correct and infact the sale consideration was paid in cash by the buyer to the seller. IO did not admittedly get the property assessed from any expert or valuer. PW8 stated that some amount was paid in cash but against this the witness produced by the prosecution itself i.e. PW7 Raj Kumar Rana stated otherwise. I consider that in absence of any cogent and creditworthy CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 130 of 4 evidence on record, it cannot be presumed that the amount shown in the sale deed is incorrect. Therefore, in the assets a sum of Rs.25 lakhs and Rs. 1,25,000/ paid towards stamp duty be taken in place of Rs.61,25,000/. Therefore, the effect of this transaction would be that against item No.13 a sum of Rs.26,25,000/ would be taken instead of Rs.61,25,000/. Item No.41 - Value of Household items at the check period as per inventory prepared for Flat No.603, Rio Grande, Fortaleza, complex, Kalyani Nagar, Pune.

The defence has taken the plea during the course of arguments that the household items have wrongly been shown in the sum of Rs. 11,27,250/ as per Ex.PW4/B. It was pointed out that certain items shown at S.No. 26, 17, 134 and 136 have also been shown in the expenditure list. Similarly, the expenditure of steam room and grill fitting were included in the renovation expenses. It is pertinent to mention here that the prosecution has not led any specific evidence regarding the expenditure incurred on steam room and grill fitting. Similarly, the jewellery items shown at S.No. 134 and 136 of Ex.PW4/B have also been shown at S.No. 37 and 38 of the expenditure. The accused has taken a plea that item No. 134 of the inventory memo Ex.PW4/A, 02 platinum finger rings with diamond have also been shown as expenditure at S. No. 38 as payment made to M/s Inter Gold Gems CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 131 of 4 Pvt. Ltd. towards purchase of gold jewellery and therefore, sum of Rs. 1,05,000/ is also to be deducted. It was further submitted that the bill from M/s Inter Gold Gems Pvt. Ltd. was duly seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.P115 (D104). Alongwith the additional submissions/clarifications submitted on 22/8/2014, accused also filed photocopy of cash memo / invoices No. 347 dtd. 13/6/03 of M/s Inter Gold Gem Pvt. Ltd. Perusal of this would indicate that this bill is regarding two gold rings, but the amount of payment shown at S. No. 38 does not match with this bill. Still the benefit of doubt can be given to the accused and a sum of Rs. 1,05,000/ as shown in the memo Ex.PW4/B may be reduced. In respect of expenditure at S. No. 37 in regard to payment made to M/s Aggarwal Jewellers, Sadar Bazar, Delhi Cantt., in the sum of Rs. 26,220/, the accused took a plea that in item No. 37, two radium polished diamond studded kadas valued at Rs. 40,000/ has also been added. The plea of the defence is that these two are the same thing and has placed reliance upon the statement of Sh. Satish Aggarwal recorded u/S 161 Cr.PC by the CBI. In this respect also, the benefit of doubt may be given to the accused and a sum of Rs. 40,000/ may be reduced from the household articles. There is no specific evidence to show that these were distinct items. IO in the cross examination merely stated that these were different items but there was no basis for the same. In the similar fashion, the item shown at S.No. 26 and 27 of Ex.PW4/B have also been shown at S.No. CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 132 of 4 43 of the expenditure.

The plea of the defence that expenditure on mobile has been doubly counted in the household articles at item No. 68 & 69 and in expenditure at item No. 44, the sum of Rs. 19,000/ may be deducted from the household articles. The prosecution has also not led any specific evidence regarding expenditure / payment in cash to Prakash Lunavat. Similarly, there is no evidence regarding expenditure made on steam room and grill fitting. The items shown at S. No. 26, 27, 37, 38, 68 and 69 also seems to have been added in item No. 43, 37, 38, 68 & 69 of expenditure. Thus, the total amount to be reduced is Rs. 4,48,000.

I consider, therefore, the defence has rightly contended that Rs. 4,48,000/ is liable to be deducted from Rs. 11,27,250/ of the expenditure:

(1) Excess payment shown to Paresh Lunavat Rs. 1,00,000/ (2) Value of steam room(shown in S.No.89 of Rs. 90,000/ Ex.PW4/B) whereas it is included in the renovation expenses.

(3) Expenses shown on the grill fitting. (already Rs. 80,000/ included in the renovation).

(4) Faber Chimney and Glen four burner stove Rs. 14,000/ (item No. 26 & 27 in Ex.PW4/B, also shown at item No. 43 of the expenditure).

CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 133 of 4

(5) Jewellery item (shown at S.No.134 & 136 Rs. 1,45,000/ whereas this has also been included in the expenditure at S.No. 37 &38) (6) Sony Ericsson K790i mobile and Rs. 19,000/ Nokia N70 mobile handset (at S.No.68 & 69 of Ex.PW4/B) Total Rs. 4,48,000/ Thus, the household items is to be taken as Rs. 6,79,250/.

8.4 I consider that after evaluating the entire submission, the revised assets at the end of the check period of accused Samir Baron Ray and members of his family would be as follows:

Immovable Assets at the end of the check period Sl. Details of the Property Amount No. 1 Shop No.6, Sector - A, Secunderabad in the name of Dr. Asha 95,068.00 Ray by the Army Welfare Housing Organization on 26.05.1992. 2 Shop No.7, Sector - A, Secunderabad in the name of Samir 102,600.00 Baron Ray by the Army Welfare Housing Organization on 26.05.1992.

3 Agricultural land at survey No.516 at village Induri Tal, 420,280.00 Vadgaon Maval, Distt. Pune of Brig SB Ray purchased vide sale deed dated 14.07.2004 4 Agricultural land at survey No.517 at village Induri Tal, 420,280.00 Vadgaon Maval, Distt. Pune of Brig SB Ray purchased vide CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 134 of 4 sale deed dated 14.07.2004 5 Flat No.603, Rio Grande, Fortaleza Complex, Kalyani Nagar, 2,711,810.00 Pune in the name of Smt. Asha Ray and Sh. SB Ray purchased on 22.04.2004 6 Land and Farm House at Survey No.294, Village Yelwadi, 520,290.00 Taluka Khed, Pune acquired in the name of Smt. Asha Ray and Sh. SB Ray purchased on 22.04.2004 7 Shop No.130, VitoriaII, Fortaleza Complex, Kalyani Nagar, 1,076,760.00 Pune in the name of Smt. Asha Ray purchased on 23.01.2006 8 Shop No.131, VitoriaII, Fortaleza Complex, Kalyani Nagar, 1,076,760.00 Pune in the name of Smt. Asha Ray purchased on 23.01.2006 9 Shop No.118, Ist Floor, Connaught Place, Near Wadia College, 1,076,880.00 Pune in the name of Smt. Asha Ray and Sh. SB Ray purchased on 11.08.2006 10 Shop No.117, Ist Floor, Connaught Place, Near Wadia College, 1,036,030.00 Pune in the name of Smt. Bina Ray purchased on 11.08.2006 11 1000 Sq.Yds. Plot in New Palam Vihar in the joint name of Sh. 2,625,000.00 Samir Baron Ray and Dr. Asha Ray 12 Three bedroom flat (Unit No.A/902) booked in Kumar 1,050,000.00 Primrose, Kadadi, Pune in the name of Gaurav Ray 13 Shop No.G37, Vardhaman City Mall, Sector 23, Dwarka, New Delhi.

TOTAL 122,11,758.00 Movable Assets at the end of the check period Sl. Particulars Amount No. 1 Balance in SB A/c No.6295 in PNB Camp Branch, Pune in the 4,742.00 name of Sh. Samir Ray and Smt. Asha Ray as on 31.08.2008. 2 Balance in SB A/c No.935162 in ABN AMRO Bank, MG Road, 41,942.00 Branch Pune in the name of Sh. Samir Ray and Smt. Bina Ray CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 135 of 4 as on 31.08.2008.

3 Balance in SB A/c No.4856 in Pune District Central Coop 10,876.00 Bank, Dehu Road Branch, Pune in the name of Sh. Samir Baron Ray as on 31.08.2008.

4 Balance in SB A/c No.01190024501 SBI, Dehu Road Branch, 2,300.00 Pune in the name of Sh. Samir Baron Ray and Smt. Asha Ray as on 31.08.2008.

5 Balance in SB A/c No.5391000007611 in HDFC, Kalyani 101,717.00 Nagar, Pune in the name of Sh. Samir Baron Ray and Smt. Asha Ray as on 31.08.2008.

6 Balance in SB A/c No.1391150030536 in HDFC, Gopinath 96,254.00 Bazar, Delhi Cantt. in the name of Sh. Samir Baron Ray as on 31.08.2008.

7 Balance in SB A/c No.1391130001423 in HDFC Bank, 297,164.00 Gopinath Bazar Branch, New Delhi in the name of Sh. Samir Baron Ray as on 31.08.2008.

8 Balance in SB A/c No.05391460000452 in HDFC Bank, 8,409.00 Kalyani Nagar, Pune in the name of Master Rahul Ray as on 31.08.2008.

9 Balance in SB A/c No.6465 in Punjab National Bank COD 106,955.00 Extension Counter, Delhi Cantt., New Delhi in the name of Sh. Samir Ray as on 31.08.2008.

10 Balance in 006501014981 in ICICI Bank, Vasant Vihar, New 9,345.00 Delhi in the name of Sh. Samir Ray and Smt. Asha Bora Ray 11 Balance in 006501014980 in ICICI Bank, C17, Local Shopping 1,257.00 Centre, Paschimi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi in the name of Sh. Samir Ray and Smt. Asha Bora Ray 12 Balance in SB A/c No.833 in Aryvrat Grameen Bank Gomti 22,016.00 Nagar Branch, Lucknow in the name of Dr. Asha Ray 13 Balance in 23899 in Indian Bank, Shantiniketan Branch, New 2,504.00 Delhi in the name of Smt. Asha Bora Ray 14 Balance in SB A/c No.10137922936 in SBI, NCERT Campus, 32,510.00 CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 136 of 4 New Delhi in the name of Sh. Samir Baron Ray and Dr. Asha Ray 15 Reinvest Deposit A/c No.05395270000014 held by Sh. Samir 200,000.00 Ray in HDFC Bank, Kalyani Nagar, Pune 16 Reinvestment Deposit A/c No.05394830003994 held by Master 5,959.00 Rahul Ray in HDFC Bank, Kalyani Nagar, Pune 17 Term Deposit A/c No.978 in Aryavrat Grameen Bank, Gomti 26,510.00 Nagar, Lucknow in the name of Dr. Asha Ray 18 Reinvestment Deposit A/c No.05394830000954 held by Master 10,000.00 Rahul Ray in HDFC Bank, Kalyani Nagar, Pune 19 Opel Astra Car Regn. No. DL 2C 3436 of Sh. Samir Ray 165,000.00 purchased by Dr. Asha Ray 20 Lancer Car Regn. No. MH 20 U 5454 of Sh. Samir Ray 265,000.00 21 Chevrolet Spark LS with Regn. No.MH 12 EM 9970 purchased 359,901.00 by Dr. Asha Ray 22 Honda (UNICORN) CBF150 Motor Cycle with Regd. No. MH 53,072.00 14 AK 4150 23 Investment in SBI Mutual Fund Magnum Multiplier Scheme 10,000.00 1993 24 100 shares of The Great Eastern Shipping Company Ltd. in the 8,010.00 name of Sh. Samir Ray vide Folio No.GEX02318 25 Total payment made for acquisition of Reliance Petroleum 10,466.00 Limited Debentures / Shares under the Application No.9682007 and Folio No.L90612223 in the joint name of Smt. Asha Ray and Sh. Samir Ray 26 Total payment made for acquisition of Reliance Petroleum 10,466.00 Limited Debentures / Shares under the Application No.9681990 and Folio No.L90612222 in the joint name of Sh. Samir Ray and Smt. Asha Ray 27 100 Public Issue Shares of IDBI Ltd. acquired in the name of 13,000.00 Smt. Asha Ray vide Application dt. 07.07.95 under Folio No.IDB319262 CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 137 of 4 28 100 Public Issue Shares of IDBI Ltd. acquired in the name of 13,000.00 Sh. Samir Ray vide Application dt. 07.07.95 under Folio No.IDB319263 29 ICICI Bank Bonds 971 (2 Bonds each Regular Income Bond 24,000.00 and Encash Bond) in the name of Smt. Asha Ray acquired in the year 1997 30 2 ICICI Bank Bonds January99 Regular Income Bond (Option 10,000.00 IV) in the name of Smt. Asha Ray acquired in the year 1999 31 4 ICICI Bank Bonds Oct99 Regular Income Bond (Option I) in 20,000.00 the name of Smt. Asha Ray jointly with Sh. SB Ray acquired in the year 1999 32 3 ICICI Bank Bonds Dec.-98 Regular Income Bond (Option 15,000.00 III) in the name of Smt. Asha Ray jointly with Sh. SB Ray acquired in the year 1999 33 2 ICICI Bank Bonds MAR - 98 Regular Income Bond (Option 10,000.00 III) in the name of Sh. SB Ray jointly with Smt. Asha Ray acquired in the year 1998 34 10 ICICI Bank Bonds 1997 in the name of Sh. SB Ray jointly 20,000.00 with Smt. Asha Ray acquired in the year 1997 35 2 ICICI Bank Bonds OCT - 99 (Tax Saving Bond - Option I) 10,000.00 in the name of Smt. Asha Ray jointly with Sh. SB Ray acquired in the year 1999 36 500 shares of Advani Hotels & Resorts (India) Limited in the 1,000.00 name of Sh. Samir Baron Ray jointly with Dr. Asha Ray 37 210 shares of Lloyds Finace Limited acquired in the year 1996 19,000.00 in the name of Sh. Samir Baron Ray 38 Cash recovered from Flat No.603, Rio Grande, Fortaleza 280,000.00 complex, Kalyani Nagar, Pune 39 Cash recovered from Room No.6, Arjun, COD Officers Mess, 915,600.00 58, Kirby Place, Delhi.

40 Cash recovered from Locker No.227, ICICI Bank, 'C' Block, 47,000.00 Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.

CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 138 of 4 41 Value of house hold items at the check period as per inventory 679,250.00 prepared for Flat No.603, Rio Grande, Fortaleza complex, Kalyani Nagar, Pune including cost of refurnishing this flat. 42 Cash in hand on account of sale consideration in cash of shop 1,830,000.00 No. G37, Vardhman City Mall, Dwarka 43 Income accrued but not realized (cheques as part of sale 670,000.00 consideration after check period) 44 Cash received on account of sale of shop No. G78, Vardhman 3,100,000.00 City Mall, Dwarka.

                                                                          TOTAL         9,539,225.00




9.0              Sh.   KK   Sood,   Ld.   Sr.   Counsel   has   submitted   that   there   is

nothing on the record to suggest that A1 was under some legal obligation to submit an intimation to his department regarding acquisition of properties. It has been submitted that onus was on the CBI to prove the same and the prosecution has failed to bring anything on record to prove the same.

Any employee working under an establishment is bound by the rules. It is impossible that a Govt. employee, be it Civil or Defence, will not be controlled by any rules or regulations. I have found Rule 343 in Defence Services Regulations (Regulations for the Army) Vol. 1, Part2, Discipline, Chapter VIII Discipline General, Section 1 (General) which provides as under:

"343. Movable / Immovable property - All ranks are forbidden to acquire or dispose of any movable or immovable property by lease, CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 139 of 4 mortgage, purchase, sale, gift or otherwise either in their own names or in the name of any member of the family (term 'family' includes, in relation to a male, his wife or child or any other person wholly dependent on him whether or not residing with him, and in relation to a female, her husband residing with or dependent on her, her child or any other person wholly dependent on her) except with the prior permission of the superior military authority. However, when the transaction is carried out through a reputed dealer, it may be reported after it has been carried out.

The prescribed monetary limits for this purpose, separately for movable and immovable property, will be approved by the Government and laid down in Army Orders and may be revised from time to time as considered necessary."

I consider that A1 has miserably failed to prove that he has taken permission or intimated about the acquisition of the properties. In view of the explanation of Section 13(1)(e) of POC Act, 1988, since these income have not been intimated to the department, the same cannot fall within "known source of income". The dictum laid down in Ashok Tshering Bhutia's case (supra) is respectfully distinguished as in that case the Apex Court was dealing with the particular rules pertaining to the State of Sikkim. 9.1 The defence has consistently been raising a plea that there is no evidence of abetment against A2. In respect of this Sh. KK Sood, Ld. Sr. Counsel for the accused relied heavily upon P. Nallamal's case (supra) and particularly about the illustrations mentioned in the said judgments. For CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 140 of 4 ready reference, the illustrations are reproduced as under :

"The first illustration cited is this:

If A, a close relative of the public servant tells him of how other public servants have become more wealthy by receiving bribes and A persuades the public servant to do the same in order to become rich and the public servant acts accordingly. If it is a proved position there cannot be any doubt that A has abetted the offence by instigation.

Next illustration is this:

Four persons including the public servant decide to raise a bulk amount through bribery and the remaining persons prompt the public servant to keep such money in their names. If this is a proved position then all the said persons are guilty of abetment through conspiracy. The last illustration is this: If a public servant tells A, a close friend of him, that he has acquired considerable wealth through bribery but he cannot keep them as he has no known source of income to account, he requests A to keep the said wealth in A's name, and A obliges the public servant in doing so. If it is a proved position A is guilty of abetment falling under the "Thirdly" clause of Section 107 of the Penal Code."

The prosecution has not led any positive evidence so as to prove on record any aiding or abetment made by A2. There is not even an iota of evidence that A2 has in any manner instigated, aided, abeted or faciliated the commission of offence. The court has to be pragmatic while appreciating the evidence on record. In the context of Indian society, unless and until there is a specific evidence on record, it cannot be presumed that the wife aids and abets or instigates the husband in such type of offences. I consider that the CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 141 of 4 prosecution has miserably failed to prove any direct evidence in this regard. Hence, A2 Dr. Asha Ray is acquitted for the offence u/S.109 IPC r/w S. 13(1)(e) r/w S.13(2) of POC Act, 1988 in case RC No.1(A)/08. 9.2 A1 Samir Baron Ray has mainly relied upon the fact that the income has not been shown correctly by the CBI. In respect of this, the accused has relied upon the ITRs filed by him after the registration of the case. I have perused the ITRs. A1 has not shown any capital gain in the ITRs filed by him before the check period. Perusal of ITRs of Dr. Asha Ray would also show that the same have been filed casually and only some receipts have been shown without disclosing the source of such receipts. Dr. Asha Ray filed ITR of AY 200405 in October 2009 only, wherein she had filed a detailed statement of account showing the dividends, capital gain and income from profession. Similarly, in the revised return of AY 200506 Dr. Asha Ray has shown the capital gain in the sum of Rs.3,45,670/. Similarly, in the revised ITR of AY 200607, again the income from business and profession has been shown in the sum of Rs.6,70,356/ and capital gain in the sum of Rs.1,45,410/. The ITR of AY 200708 also shows gross income in the sum of Rs.4,37,355/ and for the AY 200809 the income has been shown as Rs. 18,95,575/. It is relevant to note here that for the AY 200809 the FY would be 200708 and this period is very crucial for this case. For the AY 200910 CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 142 of 4 again Dr. Asha Ray has shown gross total income in the sum of Rs. 22,59,657/. If we see the pattern of revised ITR of A1 also, it would reveal that A1 has shown capital gain of Rs.4,24,596/ in the revised ITR of AY 200506 and capital gain in the sum of Rs.91,442/ in the revised ITR of AY 200607. Similarly, A1 has shown the agricultural income in the sum of Rs. 2,70,656/ and Rs.3,90,748/ in the revised ITR of AY 200506 and 200607, respectively, whereas no such income was shown in the original ITR. All this would show that the ITRs have been filed to show the inflated income which does not seem to be believable.

9.3 In view of the above findings, the computation of assets, income and expenditure of the accused persons may be summarized as follows :

   A.    Assets held on 01.04.2000                                              13,84,722.00

   B.    Assets held on 31.08.2008                                             2,17,50,983.00

   C.    Assets   acquired   during   the   check   period   (01.04.00   to    2,03,66,261.00
         31.08.08)  (BA)
   D.    Expenditure during the check period (01.04.00 to 31.08.08)            1,36,40,645.00

   E.    Total assets & expenditure during the check period (01.04.00          3,40,06,906.00
         to 31.08.08)  (C+D)
   F.    Income during the check period (01.04.00 to 31.08.08)                 2,71,96,937.00

   G.                       Disproportionate Assets                             68,09,969.00

                                 % of DA  (G/F *100)                                 25.03%




CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr.                   CC No.06/13                      Page 143 of 4
 10.0           In   view  of   the  discussions made hereinabove, I consider that

prosecution has successfully proved its case against A1 Samir Baron Ray. Hence, A1 Samir Baron is convicted for the offence u/S.13(1)(e) r/w S. 13(2) of POC Act 1988 in case RC No.1(A)/2008.





Announced in the open court                         (Dinesh Kumar Sharma)  
today on 29.08.2014                            Spl. Judge (PC Act) : CBI - 01 
                                                      Saket Courts : New Delhi.




CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr.            CC No.06/13                  Page 144 of 4
 CC No.06/13
CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr.
RC No.1(A)/08


29.08.2014


Present :       Sh. Naveen Giri, Ld. PP for CBI

Both the accused persons on bail are present with Sh. Ghanshyam Sharma, Advocate Holding IO SI Ranjit Tank is present.

Vide separately announced judgment, A1 Samir Baron Ray is convicted for the offence u/S.13(1)(e) r/w S.13(2) of POC Act 1988 in case RC No.1(A)/2008.

A2 Dr. Asha Ray is acquitted for the offence u/S.109 IPC r/w S. 13(1)(e) r/w S.13(2) of POC Act, 1988 in case RC No.1(A)/08.

A2 Dr. Asha Ray is on bail. Her bail bonds canceled. Surety discharged. Original documents of the surety, if any, be returned against proper acknowledgment.

In terms of S.437(A) Cr.P.C. accused Asha Ray is directed to furnish bail bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/ with one surety in the like amount to appear before the Hon'ble High Court as and when court issues notice in respect of any appeal or petition filed against this judgment. Such CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 145 of 4 bail bonds shall be in force for 6 months.

Now to come up for arguments on the point of sentence on 30.08.2014.

(Dinesh Kumar Sharma) Spl. Judge (PC Act) : CBI - 01 Saket Courts : New Delhi.

CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 146 of 4 CC No.06/13 CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr.

RC No.1(A)/08


30.08.2014


Present :      Sh. Naveen Giri, Ld. PP for CBI

Convict Samir Baron Ray with Sh. Ghanshyam Sharma, Advocate Arguments on the point of sentence heard.

Vide separate order on sentence, Convict Samir Baron Ray is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a term of 02 years and fine of Rs.5 lakhs in default of payment of fine, SI for 06 months.

A copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to the convict free of cost.

An application u/S.389(3)(i) Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail has been moved on behalf of convict Samir Baron Ray. Convict is admitted to bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/ with one surety in the like amount till 01/10/2014.

Ld. Counsel for the convict is seeking time to deposit the fine. Let the fine be deposited on 15.09.2014.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Dinesh Kumar Sharma) Spl. Judge (PC Act) : CBI : 30.08.2014 CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 147 of 4 CBI Vs. Samir Baron Ray & Anr. CC No.06/13 Page 148 of 4

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

C.B.I. vs . Samir Baron Ray on 30 August, 2014