Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Ajay Kumar Rai on 20 December, 2024
DLCT110006002019
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIL ANTIL, SPECIAL JUDGE,
PC ACT, CBI-15, ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT
NEW DELHI
Date of Judgment : 20.12.2024
CBI Case No.: 136/2019
CNR No : DLCT 11-000600-2019
RC No. : DAI/2012/A/0032/ACB/CBI/ND
U/Sec. : 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
COMPLAINANT Central Bureau Of Investigation
REPRESENTED BY CBI
ACCUSED Sh. Ajay Kumar Rai,
s/o Late Sh. Gomti Singh,
R/o Village Kabiruddinpur,
Post Dharampur,
District Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh
REPRESENTED BY Sh. Lakhi Prasad and Sh. Rajesh
Kumar, Advocates
Date of Offence 21.01.1986 to 21.09.2012
Date of FIR 21.09.2012
Date of Charge-sheet 09.12.2014
Date of Framing of Charges 08.11.2019
Date of Commencement of evidence 09.01.2020
Date on which judgment is reserved 16.12.2024
Date of Judgment 20.12.2024
Final Order Acquitted
CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 1 of 112
Table of Contents
S. No. Contents Page Nos.
1. Facts of the case & Allegations 3-19
2. Charge 19-20
3. Prosecution Evidence 20-38
4. Statement of Accused 38-42
5. Defence Evidence on behalf of accused 42
6. Arguments 42-43
7. Discussion / Analysis 43-111
8. Conclusion 111-112
CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 2 of 112
JUDGEMENT
1. The prosecuting agency (CBI), charge-sheeted accused Shri Ajay Kumar Rai s/o Late Sh. Gomti Singh to face trial for committing offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Prior to that a closure report was filed by the CBI stating no case of Disproportionate Assets is made out against accused Ajay Kumar Rai. However, learned predecessor of this court vide order dated 12.05.2017 was of the view that since only oral evidence, in terms of the statement of the witnesses/tenants, was filed on record without their being documentary proof, the benefit of said rental income should not be granted to the accused.
3. And accordingly, a charge sheet was filed against accused Ajay Kumar Rai, after deleting the said witnesses, for offences punishab le under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)
(e) of Prevention Act, 1988.
BRIEF FACTS ENUMERATED IN THE CHARGE-SHEET :-
4. In the present case FIR was registered by the CBI on 21.09.2012 vide R.C no.DAI-2012-A-0032/CBI/ACB/New Delhi against accused Sh. Ajay Kumar Rai, the then Deputy Manager, BSNL, New Delhi on the allegations that during his service period, he has worked in different capacities in BSNL and by corrupt and illegal means amassed huge assets/properties in his own name/ and in the name of his family members disproportionate to his source of income.
5. Investigation revealed that accused Sh. Ajay Kumar CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 3 of 112 Rai was born in Kabirudinpur, Uttar Pradesh ; his father Late Sh. Gomti Singh was a School Teacher in Government Middle School, Dharamapur, Uttar Pradesh and retired in the year 1987 ; his mother Smt. Shejadi was a housewife ; accused got married with Smt. Manjula Rai (now deceased) in the year 1982 and out of the said wedlock three children were born.
6. Investigation revealed that Late Dr. Nand Ram Singh was Professor in Kanpur Agriculture University and had three sons and a daughter namely Mrs. Manjula Rai, who was married to accused Ajay Kumar Rai ; that Smt. Manjula Rai was well qualified having degree of B.A/B.Ed ; she was running Beauty Parlour, Properties and Transport business alongwith a shop of PCO and Lamination machine work for her livelihood.
- that due to unfortunate demise of Smt. Manjula Rai in the year 2009, accused Ajay Kumar Rai got remarried with Smt. Sonam in the same year i.e. 2009, and who was graduate with degree of Bachelor of Arts and also engaged in the business of running shop of Photocopier and lamination job.
7. Investigation revealed that accused Sh.Ajay Kumar Rai joined BSNL on 21.01.1986 as JTO (CXL Mtce), WTR at Mumbai and thereafter he remained on the following Postings at different places throughout India :-
Sl. Period Designation Place of no. posting
1. 21.01.1986-02.12.1991 JTO(CXLMtce)WTR Mumbai.
2. 07.12.1991-25.10.1998 JTO, o/o DE (Phones) Noida.
3. 26.10.1998-13.10.1999 SDE,o/o DE (Phones) Noida.
4. 14.10.1999-30.09.2004 SDE (fault control Kanpur.
CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 4 of 112 Repair Service)
5. 01.10.2004-30.09.2009 SDE (Admn.) Kanpur.
6. 01.10.2009-03.09.2010 SDE (Admn.) Kanpur.
7. 10.09.2010 to till date Deputy Manager New Network Management Delhi.
8. Investigations revealed that the immovable properties in his wives name estimated to the tune of Rs.1,00,51,034/- and movable assets worth Rs. 25,76,214/- were in possession of accused.
9. That accused had in possession of assets to the tune of Rs. 47,06,600/- which were disproportionate to his known sources of income to the extent of 72.91%
10. Details of the calculations of assets, expenditure and income of accused in terms of the Charge-sheet are as follows : -
A. Assets at the beginning of the check period i.e. as on 21.01.1986.
11. During investigation, it was revealed that accused Ajay Kumar Rai was in possession of about 1.25 hectares of agriculture land at the beginning of check period i.e. before he joined as a JTO on 21.01.1986, which still remained with him at his native village ; the ancestral house was not given to him by his father ; however, accused had agricultural income from the village land mentioned above.
- No definite figure of the Agricultural income was mentioned.
B. Assets at the end of the check period i.e. as on CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 5 of 112 21.09.2012.
12. Investigation revealed that accused Ajay Kumar Rai and his family members were having number of immovable/movable properties at the end of Check Period, and the total value of the same as per Valuation Officer, Income Tax Department was = Rs. 78,75,396/-, with details mentioned underneath :-
(a) House No.18, HIG,Indra Nagar,Kanpur,Uttar Pradesh :
Investigation revealed that this house alongwith the plot was purchased by accused Ajay Kumar Rai and his wife Ms. Manjula Rai (since deceased) from Sh. Lekh Raj Sharma s/o Sh. Ganesh Das Sharma resident of Kanpur, UP for an amount of Rs.6,50,000/-, and after dismantling reconstructed it for an amount of Rs. 14,56,000/-.
- The valuation of the property, i.e. cost of the land and its construction, was done through the office of District Valuation Officer, Income Tax Department, Kanpur and taken as = Rs. 21,06,000/- .
(b) Property bearing No. F-64-C-16/376, Sector-40, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, District Uttar Pradesh :-
- That the ownership of the property was in the name of Ms. Hansa Manral, an employee of Tony Electronic Private Ltd. and she executed General Power of Attorney in favour of Ms. Manjula Rai (since deceased) wife of accused on 09.05.1995.
- That a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was spent towards executing the Power of Attorney including other expenses, and CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 6 of 112 for construction of one additional room on this property a sum of Rs.90,300/- was spent.
- The valuation of the property i.e. cost of the property was done through the office of District Valuation Officer, Income Tax Department, Meerut and was taken as = Rs.1,40,300/-.
(c) Property bearing No. E-16, Sector-20, Noida, District Uttar Pradesh :
- That on 14.08.1980 this property was allotted through lottery system to one Sh. Jagdish Kumar Mehra r/o F-41, Phase-I, Ashok Vihar Delhi by Noida Authority for a sum of Rs. 46,200/- and considering the request letter dated 17.04.21983 of allottee, this property was treated as Joint property in the name of allottee and Smt. Vandana Mehra and a Sale Deed was executed in their favour by the Noida Authority on 28.04.1983.
- Thereafter on 26.11.1996, this property was purchased for a sum of Rs. 5,51,300/- by accused and transferred in favour of Mrs. Manjula Rai wife of accused.
(d) Property bearing No.C-303/1, IInd Floor Gulteria Apartment, Civil Lines, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh :
- This property was purchased in the name of Smt. Sonam Rai (2nd wife of accused ) and transferred in her favour by its then owner Sh. Sanjiv Vaish s/o Late Sh. Ramesh Chand Vaish on 22.06.2009 for consideratiion of Rs. 17,10,020/-
- The cost of the property was taken as Rs. 17,10,020/-
(e) Property bearing No. D-288, Sector-P-3, Greater CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 7 of 112 Noida, District Uttar Pradesh :
- That this property was purchased from Smt. Roshni r/o Nanakpura, South Moti Bagh in re-sale for a sum of Rs. 2,69,370/- by Late Smt. Manjula Rai and it was transferred in her name vide letter no. Property/R01/96/8542 dated 07.01.1997 on 07.01.1997, and a sum of Rs.8,04,000/- was spent on its construction in terms of the valuation of the property, and the total cost of the property is taken as Rs. 10,73,370/-.
(f) Property bearing No. A-221, Sector-Swaran Nagari, Greater Noida, District Uttar Pradesh :-
- That this property was allotted in the name of Late Smt. Manjula Rai by Greater Noida Authority for a sum of Rs. 9,69,807/-, and a sum of Rs.6,28,000/- was spent on its construction in terms of the valuation, and the total cost of the property is taken as Rs. 15,97,807/.
(g) Property bearing No.H-31, Sector-Gama-II, Greater Noida, District Uttar Pradesh :
- That this property was purchased by accused from Sh. S.C. Vashan r/o Pushpa Vihar, New Delhi in the name of Late Smt. Manjula Rai ; a sum of Rs. 1,71,599/- was incurred on its purchase and further a sum of Rs. 5,25,000/- was spent on its construction, and the total value of the Property is taken as Rs.6,96,599/- .
h) Thus the total cost of the immovable properties comes = Rs. 78,75,396/-
CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 8 of 112
13. Movable Assets acquired in the name of accused A.K. Rai and his family members.
Sl. Particulars of Assets Value (in Rs.) no.
a. House hold articles alongwith Suzuki Rs. 6,76,950/- Scooty, Car make Santro and Computer (including cash of which were found during the Search Rs. 14,800/-) conducted on 24.09.2012.
b Balance in Saving Bank A/C no. Rs. 16,814/- 714001011000766 maintained at Vijay Bank in the name of Mrs. Manjula Rai, r/o F-64/C/16/376 Sector-40, Noida which was found during the Search dated 24.09.2012.
c. Balance in A/C no. 2726000100350990 Rs. 5,000/- maintained at Punjab National Bank, Noida in the name of Mrs. Sonam Rai, E-16, Sector-20 Noida which was found during the Search conducted on 24.09.2012.
d. Balance in A/C no. 029500100514801 Rs. 9,714/- maintained at Punjab National Bank, Noida in the name of Mrs. Sonam Rai, E-16, Sector-20 Noida which was found during the Search conducted on 24.09.2012.
e. Balance in Post Office SB A/c No. Rs. 7,092/- 2055017 dated 03.10.2006 in the name of Sh. A.K. Rai and Smt. Sonam Rai Rs.7,15,570/-
Jewellery articles :-
14. That during the search proceedings conducted on 24.09.2012, number of jewellery items were recovered, which were got evaluated by Sh. Om Parkash Malhotra, a government registered valuer, and he calculated the total amount of jewellery items to the tune of Rs. 12,89,475/-.
CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 9 of 112
- While evaluating the jewellery Sh. Om Parkash Malhotra excluded the jewellery pertaining to the year 1986 or prior to that, and also the jewellery of year 2009 (except the diamond ring), when the second marriage of accused was solemnized.
- That as per Government registered Valure report, the total value of jewellery items was 12,89,475/-. Out of which the excluded jewellery cost of Rs. 1,46,233/- was reduced.
- The amount taken into account for calculation comes :-
a. Total Jewellery worth : Rs.12,89,475/- b. Total Jewellery made prior to 1987 Rs,1,46,233/- made and in 2009 ( except the diamond ring ) c. Amount taken into calculation (Rs.12.89,475/-(-) Rs.1.46,233/-
Total Jewellery Value Rs.11,43,242/-
15. So, total assets of accused during check period was taken as : -
Sl. no Description Value
a. Cost of immovable property Rs. 78,75,396/-
b. Vehicles +House hold articles + Rs. 7,15,570/-
Cash in banks
c. Jewellery value + Rs. 11,43,242/-
d. Grand Total Asset Rs.97,34,208/-
C). Income during the Check period :-
Sl. Particulars of Assets Value in (Rs.)
CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 10 of 112
no.
1. Net Salary from January 1986 to 1,50,351/-
November 1991, (Mumbai)
2. Net Salary from December 1991 to 3,31,755/-
October 1999, Ghaziabad/Noida
3. Net Salary from November 1999 to 31,48,577/-
August 2010, Kanpur.
4. Net Salary from September 2010 to 18,69,498/-
September 2012, New Delhi.
5. Redeemed money received from 36,733/-
ICIC Prudent Tax Plan Growth Scheme on 16.04.2012.
6. Redeemed value Infra Tax Saving 37,489/-
Bond, Flexi-17 dt. 04.09.2006.
7. Redeemed value Infra Tax Saving 36,180/-
Bond, Flexi-17 dt. 05.09.2007.
8. MIS A/c Nos. 3340000024 to 27,000/-
3340000027 all dated 03.05.2010 in the name of Accused & Sonam Rai.
9. Loan taken on LIC policy no. 45,000/-
284710817 dt 29.02.2008 from Varanasi Branch.
10. Loan taken on LIC policy no. 1,90,000/- 28338900 dt 29.02.2008 from Varanasi Branch.
11. Loan taken for purchase of Flat no. 14,15,000/- C303/1, Gulteria Apartment, Civil Lines, Allahabad.
12. House rent from tenant Salem of 30,000/- C-303/1, Gulteria Apartment, Civil Lines, Allahabad for the month of CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 11 of 112 the August & September 2012.
13. Maturity amount of policy no. 23,010/- 058703341, LIC, Kanpur in the name of Accused.
14. Maturity and survival amount of 47,825,/- policy no 231358613, LIC office CBO-I, Kanpur in the name of Accused
15. Survival benefit and death claim of 1,34,825/- policy no. 231292608, LIC, Kanpur in the name of Accused wife Smt. Manjula Rai.
16. Investment in Franklin Templeton 1,02,545/- Asset Management (India) Pvt Ltd.
Bering Nos 2199901675639, 0369901420162 & 0539901420462
17. Sold Plot measuring 209.02 sq.mt at 5,00,000/-
Sadarpur Village Noida UP purchased for Rs. 1,25,000/-
18. Sold agricultural land measuring 1,40,000/- 0.162 hectare in Debari Village Kerakat, Jaunpur District, UP.
19. Sold agricultural land measuring 349 5,40,000/- hectare in Debari Village Kerakat, Jaunpur District UP to Sh. Abdul Rab
20. ITR filed by Ms. Sonam Rai under 3,60,000/- the head "Business" for the period 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011.
21. ITR filed by Ms. Sonam Rai under 1,79,546/- the head "Profit and gain from Business other then speculative business" for the period 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012.
22. Letter no. CBI/ITO Ward-1(2) Noida 1,25,401/- /2012-2013 dated 26.12.2012 issued by Sh. Vinod Kumar, ITO Ward1(2), Noida addressed to Sh. Joseph Krelo DSP, CBI ACB regarding ITR of Smt. Manula Rai for the assessment CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 12 of 112 year 2008-2009 under the head income from business.
23. Letter no. CBI/ITO Ward-1(2) Noida 1,35,344/- /2013-2014 dated 22.05.2014 issued by Sh. Vinod Kumar, ITO Ward1(2), Noida addressed to Sh. Joseph Krelo DSP, CBI ACB regarding ITR of Smt. Manula Rai for the assessment year 2007-2008 under the head income from business.
Total Rs.96,06,078/- 16. That accused Ajay Kumar Rai claimed a sum of
Rs.78,50,000/- as his total income through house rent accrued from his various houses/flats, out of which only Rs. 42,29,100/- was considered for the purpose of calculation and for the rest he failed to produce oral and documentary evidence. But the said amount was also not considered when the chargesheet was filed subsequent to filing of closure report.
- No benefit of said rental income was thereby given to the accused.
17. That accused further claimed that his first wife late Smt. Manjula Rai was running her own business including PCO, Lamination machine, Beauty Parlour, Properties and Transport business and had filed ITR's from 1995-1996 till her death in the year, 2009. The ITR of Assessment year 2007-2008 & 2008- 2009 Late Mrs. Manjula Rai were provided by the Income Tax department.
18. Though benefit of the same was given in the Clousre Report but the said income was added towards the income and CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 13 of 112 the expenses of accused Sh. A.K. Rai at the time of filing of the chargesheet.
19. That Smt. Sonam Rai, second wife of accused, claimed that during her marriage with accused a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- was given in cash by her parents ; that a sum of Rs.78,000/- was received in cash from relatives during marriage. But the said amount was not found just and reasonable, hence the benefit of the same was not given.
D) The expenditure incurred by Sh. Ajay Kumar Rai and his family during the check period :-
Sl Particulars Value in (Rs) .n o.
1. Investment towards ICICI Prudent Tax Rs.20,000/- Growth Scheme dated 16.09.2010
2. Ist installment of IDBI Wealthsurance Rs.25,000/- Milestone Scheme dated 22.03.2011
3. 2nd installment of IDBI Wealthsurance Rs.25,000/- Milestone Scheme dated 01.06.2012
4. HDFC Long Term Advantage Fund Rs.15,000/- Growth & HDFC Tax Saver Fund Growth dt. 20.08.2005
5. HDFC Long Term Advantage Fund Rs.20,000/- Growth & HDFC Tax Saver Fund Growth dt. 20.08.2005
6. Investment in Infra Tax Saving Bond, Rs.30,000/- Flexi-17 dt. 31.03.2003.
7. Investment in Infra Tax Saving Bond, Rs.30,000/- Flexi-17 dt. 31.03.2003.
8. MIS A/c Nos. 3340000024 to Rs.1,50,000/- 3340000027 all dated 03.05.2010 in the name of Accused & Sonam Rai.
9. LIC policy no. 284710817 dt Rs.8,43,290/- 29.02.2008 from Jaunpur, Premium CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 14 of 112 paid 10 LIC policy no. 28338900 dt 29.02.2008 Rs. 5,76,640/- . from Jaunpur, Premium paid.
11 School Fee of Sh. Aman Rai s/o Sh. Rs. 18,000/-
. Ajay Kumar Rai for class XI (Science) Academic year 2012-2013 in Lady Anusuya Singhania Educational Academy, Rajasthan.
12 School Fee of Ms. Garima Rai d/o Sh. Rs.1,733/- . Ajay Kumar Rai student of Kendriya Vidyalaya, Sector-24 Noida from 23.06.1992 to December,1999.
13 School Fee of Ms. Gunjan Rai d/o Sh. Rs.1,613/- . Ajay Kumar Rai student of Kendriya Vidyalaya, Sector-24 Noida from 30.06.1993 to December,1999.
14 School Fee of Ms. Garima Rai d/o Sh. Rs. 6,930/- . Ajay Kumar Rai student of class XI(2002-03) and in class XII (2003-04) at B.S.S. Inter College, P Block, Kakadeo Kanpur.
15 Repayment of loan of Flat no. C-303/1, Rs. 6,36,098/- . Gulteria Apartment, Civil Lines, Allahabad, from August 2009 to September 2012 for LIC Housing Finance Ltd, Allahabad.
16 School Fee of Aman Rai s/o Sh. Ajay Rs. 71,850/- . Kumar Rai for class V to VII Academic year 19.01.2006 to 27.03.2009 of DPS, Kalyanpur, Kanpur 17 School Fee of Garima Rai, Kendariya Rs.3,254/- . Vidalya IIT, Kanpur from 28.10.1999 to 14.02.2002 18 School Fee of Gunjan Rai for B.Ed Rs.49,405/- . Academic year 2011-2012, Modern International College of Education, Village Jasana, Faridabad, Haryana.
19 School Fee of Aman Rai s/o Sh. Ajay Rs.51,000/- . Kumar Rai for class VIII Academic CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 15 of 112 year 2009 to 2010 of DPS, Allahabad.
20 College fee of Garima Rai from 2004- Rs.9,232/- . 05 to 2006-07 in A.N.D. College, Harsh Nagar, Kanpur 21 College fee of Gunjan Rai from 2006- Rs.2,980/- . 07 to 2008-09 at Guru Nanank Girls P.G College, Sudar Nagar, Gomti No.-5, Kanpur 22 College Fee of Gunjan from 2009-2011 Rs.11,905/- . at Dayanand Girls, P.G. College, Civil Lines, Kanpur 23 College Fee of Gunjan Rai from 2004 Rs.4,335/- . to 2006 at Pandit Ram Narayan Kanhiya Lal Shukla Inter College, Nankari, Kanpur.
24 Total Premium on Policy No. Rs.10,180/- . 058703341in the name of Sh. Ajay Kumar Rai of LIC of India, Kaushalpuri, Kanpur.
25 School Fee of Aman Rai from 1999 to Rs.88,220/- . 2000 & 2005 to 2006 at Dr. Virendra Swarup Education Centre, 117/Q/49-A, Sharda Nagar, Kanpur.
26 Total Premium on Policy No. Rs.86,823/- . 231282781 in the name of Sh. Ajay Kumar Rai of LIC of India, Kanpur.
27 Total Premium on Policy No. Rs.30,330/- . 231358613 in the name of Sh. Ajay Kumar Rai of LIC of India, Kanpur.
28 Total Premium on Policy No. Rs.66,456/- . 231292608 in the name of Smt Manjula Rai Rai of LIC of India, Kanpur.
29 School fees of Aman Rai 1998 to 2000 Rs.22,300/- . at Sommerville School, Noida 30 Investment in Franklin Templeton Rs.68,000/-
. Asset. Management ( India) Pvt Ltd
bearing No. 2199901675639,
0369901420462 & 0539901420462.
31 Expenses towards LPG Gas from Rs.8,074/-
CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 16 of 112
. 02.02.2011 to 28.08.2012.
32 Installation charges for Electrical Rs. 3,940/-
. connection for consumer No.
2000004429-0520007238 in the name
of Ms. Manjula Rai
33 Installation charges for Electrical Rs. 10,980/-
. connection for consumer No.
2000041487 for house no. A-221,
Swarna Nagari, Greater Noida in the
name of Ms. Manjula Rai
34 School fees of Aman Rai during the Rs.2,48,500/-
. year 2010 to 2012 at Rishikul
Vidapeeth, Sonepat (Haryana)
35 A plot of land measuring 209.02 sq. Rs.1,25,000/-
. meter at Sadarpur Village, Noida UP
was purchased
36 Purchase of Agricultural land Rs. 25,000/-
. measuring 0.162 hectors & 349 hectors &
at Dehari Village Kerakat Jaunpur, Rs. 3,00,000/-
District UP
37 Treatment of late Smt. Manula Rai at Rs.92,397/-
. Apollo Hospital, New Delhi Sarita
Vihar Delhi in the year 2008
38 1/3rd of the Net Salary towards Rs.18,33,393/-
household expenses
Total Rs 56,22,858/-
20. That during investigation CBI had initially calculated the income of accused Sh. Ajay Kumar Rai as Rs.1,42,92,678/- which included rental income of Rs.47,06,600/- from various properties in the name of accused and his family members, and it was concluded therein that accused had disproportionate assets only to the tune of 07.53% which do not call for prosecution of accused being less than 10% .
21. However, after consideration of the documents and other records filed alongwith the Closure Report vide order dated CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 17 of 112 12.05.2017, it was observed by the learned Predecessor court that income of Rs.1,42,82,678/- during the check period is not calculated correctly by the CBI.
22. It was observed that out of the total rental income of Rs. 47,06,600/- from various properties, except the document i.e. Rent Deed found during the Search with respect to property bearing Flat no. C-303/1, Gulteria Apartment, Civil Lines, Allahabad Uttar Pradesh having rental income of Rs. 30,000/-, the rental income was wrongly added in favour of the accused by the CBI.
23. That accordingly the income of accused was taken as Rs.96,06,078/-, instead of Rs.1,42,82,678/- as calculated by the CBI, and the court found that the disproportionate assets of accused comes to the tune of 59%, and opined that prima facie there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused for the commission of the offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
24. That CBI was directed to place the matter before the Sanctioning Authority alongwith the records for consideration of the question of seeking Sanction to prosecute the accused.
25. That the Sanction Order bearing Nos. 262-24/12-C&A dated 20.08.2018 under the Signatures of Sh. Sujata Ray, Director (HR) BSNL, New Delhi, was issued by the Competent Authority for prosecution of accused Sh. Ajay Kumar Rai, the then DM(NM) - AGM (MS-III) office of GM (NWO-CFA), BSNL Co. New Delhi, as required under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and filed accordingly.
CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 18 of 112
26. That on 10.10.2018, the Charge sheet against the accused Sh. Ajay Kumar Rai was filed, and vide order dated 04.01.2019, cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was taken against the accused Ajay Kumar Rai and he was accordingly summoned to face trial.
27. That as per the case of the prosecution, in terms of order dated 12.05.2017, calculation of assets, income and expenditure of the accused was made afresh by the CBI, details of the same are as under :-
Sl. no. Head Amount
(a) Assets acquired during the check Rs.97,34,208/-
period 21.01.1986 to 21.09.2012
(b) Income during the Check period Rs.96,06,078/-
(c) Expenses during the check period Rs.56,22,858/-
(d) Likely Savings Rs.39,83,220/-
(e) D.A( assets-Likely Savings) Rs.57,50,988/-
(f) % of DA( DA/Income X 100) 59.86%
CHARGES FRAMED :-
28. That on 08.11.2009 charge for the offences punishable 13(1)(e) and punishable u/s 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was framed against the accused Sh. Ajay Kumar Rai to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
29. That after framing of the charge in respect of Admission and Denial qua the documents filed alongwith the charge-sheet by the prosecution, the statement of the accused Ajay Kumar Rai was recorded separately without Oath on CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 19 of 112 19.12.2009.
30. That record reveals that on 01.12.2021 and thereafter on 21.12.2021, two separate statements of learned Sr.PP for CBI were recorded, and in terms of his statements after going through the admission-denial of the documents conducted on 19.12.2019, the witnesses cited by the prosecution at serial number LW-27, LW-41, LW-49, LW-54,LW-55,LW-56,LW-57,LW-58 and LW-10, LW-17, LW-21, LW-25, LW-29, LW-30, LW-36, LW-37, LW-38,LW-39,LW-40,LW-42,LW-44, LW-47,LW-52 & LW-54, related to the admitted documents were dropped accordingly, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the CBI.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE :
31. Prosecution in support of its case has examined 27 witnesses to prove their case against the accused and testimony of the said witnesses relevant for its disposal is discussed in brief here-under.
32. PW-1 Sh.Arvind Kumar, Asstt. Engineer (Civil) deposed that he was part of the team consisting of Sh. Prakash Rawat and Sh. V.K. Yadav to assess the valuation of built up property bearing no. 18, HIG Indira Nagar Kanpur ; and they all alongwith the IO of the case reached at the aforesaid property on 22.02.2013 for its inspection and measurement to assess its valuation ; the ground floor was admeasuring 89.75sq metrs plus 75 sq.mtrs ( equal to 164.75 sq. mtrs), the first floor was admeasuring 172 sq. mtrs approximately and the second floor (Temporary shed) was admeasuring 20.72 sq. mts.
CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 20 of 112
33. The valuation report was prepared on the basis of CPWD Plinth Area Rate-192 with Cost Index 164, in which calculation cost of land was not included ; and as per Valuation report/abstract of cost, the value of the aforesaid property was quantified to Rs.14,56,000/- ; witness identified the signatures of Sh. Prakash Rawat at point A on the forwarding letter dated 07.03.2013 alongwith the abstract of Cost/Valuation Report Ex PW1/A ( D-51).
34. Witness was cross-examined by accused and suggestions were put to him that he had never visited at the spot to assist other team members for inspection and in preparation of the Valuation report and was deposing falsely on that aspects.
35. PW-2 Sh. Sujeet Kumar Mishra, Accountant, Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, Greater Noida, UP identified the signatures of Sh. Ajab Singh Bhatti, Manager (Property) on the letters vide which the copy of the documents qua the ownership and the charges deposited in respect of three different properties sought by the CBI were provided.
36. He stated that the letter bearing the signatures of Sh. Ajab Singh Bhatti at point 'A' on Ex PW2/A alongwith photocopy of record of property bearing No .D-288, Sector P-3, Greater Noida, UP Ex PW2/B ( D-44) ;
- the letter bearing the signatures of Sh. Ajab Singh Bhatti at point 'A' on Ex PW2/C vide which photocopy of record of property bearing No.A-221, Sector Swaran Nagri, Greater Noida, UP Ex PW2/D ( D-45) ; and
- the letter bearing the signatures of Sh. Ajab Singh CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 21 of 112 Bhatti at point 'A' on Ex PW2/E vide which photocopy of record of property bearing No. H-31, Sector Gamma-II, Greater Noida, UP Ex PW2/F (D-45), were provided to the IO, CBI.
37. Witness also stated that initially these properties were purchased in the name of Smt. Manjula Rai (since deceased), and after her demise same were mutated in the name of her husband/accused Sh. Ajay Kumar Rai. Original records were produced by the witness during his examination which were seen and returned.
38. Witness was cross-examined and in response to a question put to him he stated that he can not tell whether the properties mentioned in Ex PW2/A and Ex PW2/B are fully constructed or not, as the file on these aspects was maintained by the Planning Department.
39. PW-3 Ms. Sujata Ray, Retired Director, HR, BSNL Board, New Delhi deposed that the Sanction qua prosecution of accused Ajay Kumar Rai was accorded by her vide order bearing no.262-24/12-C&A dated 20.08.2018 Ex PW3/A and she identified her signatures at point A on the same.
40. Witness was cross-examined on behalf of accused at length on the points that she was not the competent authority to remove him from the services at the relevant time.
41. PW-4 Sh. A.K. Pinge deposed that in the year 2012, he was working as Sub-Post Master, Harihar Nath Shastri Nagar Post Office, Kanpur, UP and on the directions of his Senior CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 22 of 112 Superintendent had handed over the copy of certain documents related to Saving Bank Account of accused A.K. Rai to CBI.
- Witness identified his signatures at point 'A' appearing on the Seizure Memo dated 27.12.2012 (D-9) prepared by the IO at the time of seizure of the documents handed over by him, and exhibited as Ex PW4/1(Colly.)
42. Witness also identified the signatures of Sh.J.P. Maurya, Sub-Post Master, Sarvodaya Nagar, Post Office, Kanpur, UP, appearing on the account opening Forms of accused A.K. Rai and his wife Smt. Sonam Rai (D-9).
43. In his cross-examination he stated that he has never dealt with the account as referred to in his examination-in-chief as he was never posted in Sarvodaya Nagar, Post Office, Kanpur branch.
44. This witness was not able to produce the aforesaid original record despite being given opportunity and no explanation or any other plausible reason was forthcoming qua the status of original documents.
45. PW-5 Sh. Rampal, Asstt. Post-Supdt. SSPO, Kanpur brought the following summoned record i.e. :-
- Account Opening Form pertaining to Saving Account No. 2055017, in the joint name of accused A.K. Rai and Smt. Manula Rai in post Office Nawabganj, Kanpur EX PW5/1 ;
- Original Ledger Card pertaining to the Saving account No. 2055017, Ex PW5/2 ;
- Account Opening Form pertaining to Saving Account CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 23 of 112 No(s). 3340000024, 3340000025, 3340000026 and 3340000027 in the joint name of accused A.K. Rai & Smt. Manula Rai in post Office Sarvodya Nagar, Kanpur exhibited as EX PW5/3, EX PW5/4, EX PW5/5 & Ex PW5/6 respectively ;
- Attested copy of Print-outs of the Ledger pertaining to the aforesaid accounts and exhibited the same as Ex PW5/7 to Ex PW5/10 ;
46. Witness was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused wherein he admitted that he was never posted at Sarvodya Nagar Post Office or dealt with the said accounts and had no personal knowledge about the accounts.
47. PW-6 Sh. Sanjeev Vaish deposed that the property bearing Flat No.303/1, Gultaria Apartment, Civil Road, Prayagraj was purchased by Sh. Ajay Kumar Rai and his wife Smt. Sonam Rai in the year 2009 for a sum of Rs. 17 lacs from him ; and they paid him Rs. 5 lacs by way of two cheques and remaining Rs. 12 lacs from LIC Housing Loan Scheme.
- The registration fee of Rs. 10,020/- was paid by accused Ajay Kumar Rai and his wife Ms. Sonam Rai. Witness identified his signatures appearing on the sale deed dated 23.06.2009 at point X, Ex PW6/1.
48. In the cross-examination, witness stated that he has no personal relation with the purchaser party and it was limited to this transaction only.
49. PW-7 Sh. P.P.Betkar deposed that he was posted as Senior Accountant in BSNL, Mumbai and identified his CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 24 of 112 signatures at point 'A' on the Production-cum-Seizure Memo dated 12.03.2014 (D-4) Ex PW7/1, vide which the salary statements of accused Ajay Kumar for the period 21.01.1986 to 30.11.1991 were handed over to the IO.
- He also identified the Seal and signatures of Sh. J.S. Shah, Accounts Officer, at point 'A', and his own signatures at point 'B' on all the handed over Salary Statements to the IO.
50. In the cross-examination, he admitted that all the handed over Salary Statements are photocopies ; the employees of MTNL department are part of Tele Communication upto the post of JTO ; and they were paid overtime, however, the salary statements of accused do not reflect any payment as overtime.
51. PW-8 Sh. Karan Bansal deposed that in the year 2012, he was working as Relationship Manager in ICICI Prudential Mutual Funds and handed over certain records related to the investment made by accused Ajay Kumar Rai in ICICI Prudential Tax Plan Growth, 2005 to CBI, which reflected that a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was invested in the Scheme on 16.09.2005 and redeemed on 16.04.2012.
- He identified his signatures at point 'A' on the Production Cum Seizure Memo dated 05.12.2021 Ex PW8/1 vide which the documents were seized by the IO, CBI.
- Despite opportunity witness was not cross examined.
52. PW-9 Sh. Bijay Kumar Prasad deposed that in the year 2012, he was posted as Asstt Manager in IDBI Bank, Parliament Street, New Delhi.
CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 25 of 112
- that as per the records accused Ajay Kumar Rai had purchased Six Infra Tax Saving Bonds, Flexi-17 on 31.03.2003 with face value of Rs. 5000/- each and its maturity amount of Rs. 37,489/- was paid to him on 04.09.2006 ;
- that accused Ajay Kumar Rai again purchased Six Infra Tax Saving Bonds, Flexi-20 on 07.04.2004 with face value of Rs. 5000/- each and its maturity amount of Rs. 36,180/- was paid to him on 05.09.2007.
- He identified his signatures at point 'A' on the Production-cum-Seizure Memo dated 12.12.2012 alongwith covering letter (D-8) Ex PW9/1 (colly), vide which the record of Infra Tax Saving Bonds, Flexi-17 & 20 were handed over to the IO, CBI.
53. In the cross-examination witness admitted that all the refund documents are photocopies, which was handed over to the IO CBI, with the seal of Delhi Office of IDBI Bank,
53. PW-10 Sh. Rajeev Goel was posted as Junior Accounts Officer, BSNL, Noida, UP, and he identified his signatures at point 'A' on the Seizure Memo dated 25.02.2014 (D-5) Ex PW10/1, vide which the details of earning and deduction of accused Ajay Kumar Rai (JTO) for the period December, 1991 to June, 1992 ( gross salary Rs. 26,042/- & net salary Rs. 22052/-) under the signatures of Sh. M.P.Gupta Accounts officer Ex. PW10/2 ; the Salary slips for the period July, 1992 to October, 1999 under the Signatures of Sh. Akbar Ali, Accounts Officer, at point 'A' Ex PW10/3 & Ex PW10/4, were handed over along- with covering letter to the IO.
CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 26 of 112
- He also identified his signatures at point 'B' on Ex. PW10/3.
54. Witness stated that accused Ajay Kumar Rai, Sh. M.P.Gupta, Accounts Officer, BSNL, Ghaziabad, UP and Sh. Akbar Ali, Accounts Officer, BSNL, Noida UP had worked with him during the above referred period, and as per the records accused was not drawing any HRA, meaning thereby he was residing in Government Accommodation.
55. In the cross-examination, he admitted that all the handed over Salary Statements are photocopies ; the employees of MTNL department are part of Tele Communication upto the post of JTO and they were paid overtime as and when applicable, however, the salary statements of accused do not reflect any payment as overtime.
56. Witness was cross-examined and formal questions were put to him on behalf of the accused.
57. PW-11 Sh. Sheo Pal Singh Chandel deposed that from 2011 till 2015, he was working as Accounts Officer in the office of G.M. Telecom, BSNL Bhavan, Kanpur, and in response to a letter received from CBI, he obtained the details of the Pay & Allowances of accused Ajay Kumar Rai, who remained posted in his department till 03.09.2010 as SDE.
58. Witness identified the signatures of the then SDE, Vigilance on the letter dated 23.01.2014 (D-6) Ex PW 11/1 vide which the required information was sent to the CBI.
- He also identified his signatures at point 'A' on the CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 27 of 112 letter dated 17.01.2014 Ex PW11/2, and also on the details of the statement prepared on the basis of pay bills and supplementary bills available in the office qua accused Ajay Kumar Rai for the period November, 1999 to August 2010 ( running into 8 pages) Ex PW11/3 provided to the CBI.
59. Witness stated that as per the Salary statements, the gross salary alongwith Bonus and DA drawn through Supplementary bills by the accused was Rs. 42,90,503/- and Net Salary was Rs. 31,48,577/-, and accused was not staying in the Government Accommodation during that period.
60. In the cross-examination witness admitted that the gross salary included Basic Pay, DA, HRA, Professional Upgradation Allowances etc. and these are separately not shown in the Salary Statement, and accused was also entitled to Towel allowance and Newspaper allowance.
61. PW-12 Sh. Vishwambhar Jha deposed that on 25.04.2014, he was working as Income Tax Inspector, Ward-1(4) Noida, and as per the instructions of his senior Sh.S.S.Chahal, the documents i.e. ITRs in respect of Ms. Sonam Rai (PAN Number AVXPR1610F) for the Assessment year 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 (running into 17 pages) were furnished by him for its onward transmission to CBI.
- Witness identified the signatures of Sh. S.S. Chahal at point A on the covering letter Ex PW12/1 (D-17) vide which the above referred documents Ex PW12/2 (Colly) were handed over to the CBI.
- Witness was cross examined and he stated that for the CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 28 of 112 assessment year 2012-2013 no income was shown under the head "House property".
62. PW-13 Sh. Avin Mayank was posted as Executive in Franklin Templeton Asset ( India Pvt. Ltd) and he identified the Application Form of Mutual Fund Investment Monthly Income Plan (D-14) in respect of account bearing no. 0539901420462 in the name of Sh.Aman Kumar Rai, under the guardianship of Sh. Ajay Kumar Rai, Ex PW13/1, and a sum of Rs. 48,000/- was invested in the said account.
63. He further stated that through a Systematic Transfer Plan dated 22.08.2005, a sum of Rs.1,500/- was transferred from this account every month till 31.07.2008, and on maturity a sum of Rs. 73,867/- was redeemed after leaving balance of Rs. 873.24 which was lateron claimed by Sh. Aman Kumar Rai.
64. After seeing the documents of another Application Form of Mutual Fund Investment in respect of account No. 2199901675639 vide which a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was invested on 13.01.2006, witness stated that after its maturity on 19.04.2012 a sum of Rs.28,060/- was redeemed in favour of Sh. Ajay Kumar Rai.
- Witness was not cross examined by the learned counsel for the accused.
65. PW-14 Sh. Kumar Keshav, was an Income Tax Officer and during his examination accused had not disputed the said Income Tax Returns. Accordingly, both the Income Tax Returns were exhibited as Ex PW14/1 & Ex PW14/2.
CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 29 of 112
66. PW-15 Sh. Ali Sher, is a witness with respect to a transaction of selling a plot of land admeasuring 500 sq yards in his village to one Sh. Satbir Gujjar and Sh. Ajay Kumar Rai (accused).
67. The witness was declared hostile and after seeking permission from the court he was cross examined by the learned Sr.PP, CBI but nothing in favour of the prosecution or against the accused has come on record in his examination.
68. PW-16 Sh. Umakant Rai, is a witness in respect of another transaction qua the sale of the piece of land in favour of Smt. Manula Rai.
- Witness stated that he knows Smt. Manula Rai and Sh. Ajay Kumar Rai and identified the accused Ajay Kumar Rai in the court.
69. But this witness also did not support the case of prosecution, he was declared hostile and after seeking permission from the court he was cross-examined by the learned Sr.PP, CBI.
70. PW-17 Sh. Naresh Kumar, a witness from Noida Power Company Limited, deposed that on the instructions of Sh. Sujay Chaturvedi, the then DGM Commercial, he handed over the copies of document sought by the CBI vide production/Seizure memo dated 27.03.2014 Ex PW17/1 and identified the documents annexed alongwith the aforesaid letter collectively Ex PW17/2. Witness identified his signatures at point 'A' on both the exhibited documents.
71. Witness after seeing the records of a Electricity Bills CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 30 of 112 in respect of property no. H-31, Gamma-2, Greater Noida Gautam Budh Nagar, UP, in the name of Ms. Manjula Rai, from January 2006 to September, 2012, and
- also with respect to Property bearing No. H.No. A-221 Swarna Nagri, Greater Noida, UP in the name of Smt. Manjula Rai from December, 2006 till September, 2012 maintained at their office, stated that a sum of Rs.1,48,406/- and a sum of Rs. 34,101/- alongwith the installation charges respectively of the electricity bills were paid by the customer through cash/manual mode.
- Witness has not produced the original records.
72. PW-18 Sh. R.K. Srivastava, Administrative Officer, Department of LIC, Kanpur deposed that he has retired from his official services in the month of February, 2022 and during that time he had worked with Sh P.S. Rana, the then Chief Manager/Controlling Officer.
73. He deposed that vide letter dated 21.11.2012 Ex PW18/1, the records of three different LIC Policies were handed over to the CBI i.e. :-
(i) Policy bearing Number 231282781 in the name of accused Ajay Kumar Rai purchased on 29.02.2004 with maturity amount of Rs.1.01 lacs for a tenure of 11 years with annual premium of Rs. 9647/-.
(ii) Policy bearing Number 231358613 in the name of accused Ajay Kumar Rai purchased on 06.12.1988 with maturity amount of Rs. 25,000/- for a tenure of 15 years with annual CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 31 of 112 premium of Rs.2022/-, and
(iii) Policy bearing Number 231292608 in the name of Smt. Manjula Rai purchased on 28.12.2004 with maturity amount of Rs. One lac for a tenure of 20 years.
74. He stated that a death claim of Rs.1,09,824/- was received by accused on 14.03.2009 from the last policy on the demise of Smt. Manjula Rai.
- The witness was not cross examined.
75. PW-19 Sh. Bijender Singh deposed that he had purchased a plot bearing Khasra M-53, measuring 250 sq. yards in village Sadarpur, Noida from accused Ajay Kumar Rai in the year 2009 and the payment of the same was made through two cheques i.e. one for Rs. two lacs and another for Rs. three lacs. Witness after comparison of the Sale deed identified the same which was exhibited as Ex PW19/1.
- In the cross-examination witness admitted that the consideration amount of the sale transaction is itself mentioned in the Sale deed.
76. PW-20 Sh. Janardan Rai deposed that accused Ajay Kumar Rai is his younger brother ; he knows Late Mrs. Manjula Rai wife of his brother and identified her photograph available on the Transfer Deed of Lease Hold Rights dated 23.11.1996 executed between Sh. J.K. Mehra alongwith Smt. Vandana Mehra in favour of Mrs. Manjula Rai (since deceased ) pertaining to House no. E-16, Sector-20 Noida, which was exhibited as Ex PW20/1.
CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 32 of 112
- Witness further deposed that they have inherited six bighas of Agricultural Land in the village ; the agricultural produce of the said land are equally distributed between the four brothers and about Rs. 30,000/- is their annual income.
- In the cross-examination, witness stated that in the year 2000 a sum of Rs. 15,000/- approximately was the annual income of each brother.
77. PW-21 Sh. S.M. Bhatia deposed that he joined Noida Authority as an Assistant in the year 1977 ; he went to the office of CBI on the directions of his Senior Officer Sh. R.S. Yadav, OSD and handed over record of two files bearing no. (i) F-64- C-16, Flat no. 376 Sector-40, Noida, UP and (ii) E-16 Sector 20 Noida, UP through his assistant Sh Sandeep via letter dated 26.11.2023, and identified his signatures on the same at point 'A' on Ex PW21/1(D-41).
78. After seeing the documents/part of D-41, he identified the allotment letter in the name of Tony Electronics, Noting file of the said Flat, execution of Sale deed/Lease deed, Power of attorney and other miscellaneous documents of the property bearing no. F-64-C-16, which were handed over by him to CBI under his signatures at point 'A & B' exhibited as Ex PW21/2 ( Colly.)
79. He stated that in terms of the documents the said flat was allotted to one Sh. Hansa Manral in the year 1992, for a consideration of Rs. 47,600/-, and thereafter Sh. Hansa Manral executed a GPA in favour of Mrs. Manjula Rai wife Sh. A.K. Rai, authorizing her to act on her behalf.
CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 33 of 112
- He had also handed over the documents of the property bearing no. E-16 Sector-20 allotted to Mr. J.K. Mehra for a consideration of Rs. 46,200/-, which lateron was transferred in the name of Smt. Manjula Rai, and thereafter on her death to accused A.K. Rai.
- Witness identified the copies of the Death Certificate, Indemnity Bond, Affidavit, Attested photos, signatures, ID proof, Copy of Ration card etc which were handed over by him to CBI and exhibited Ex PW 21/3 (part of D-42).
- In the cross-examination he stated that as per the Project report of concerned Engineer of their department pertaining to property No. F-64-C, it was mentioned in the file that the allottee had encroached upon by constructed one room used for commercial purpose like running a shop.
80. PW-22 Sh. Praveen Kumar Singh deposed that accused Ajay Kumar Rai is his brother-in-law (Jija) and Smt. Manula Rai ( since expired ) was his sister, and he alongwith his family and father resided in the property bearing no. HIG 18, Indira Nagar, Kalyanpur, Kanpur UP, which was purchased jointly by his sister and Jija ji for a sum of Rs. 6.5 lakhs. Witness identified their signatures available on the Sale Deed dated 14/10/1997 Ex PW22/1 (D-52).
- He stated that they had never paid any rent to the said owners and till date he alongwith his family is residing there ; Sh. Babu Singh Yadav was tenant on the another floor of the said Flat for some time and used to pay a sum of Rs. 4,000/- as monthly rent.
CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 34 of 112
- He stated that the aforesaid house was reconstructed in the year 1997-1998 and a sum of Rs.35 lakhs was spent towards its construction, which was born by the accused.
- Witness was cross-examined on behalf of the accused.
81. PW-23 Sh. Naveen Kataria deposed that in the year 2012, he was Asstt. Registrar Co-operative Societies, Govt of NCT of Delhi, Parliament Street, New Delhi.
- He stated that on the instructions of Registrar, CGHS he joined the raiding team for Search of the house of accused Ajay Kumar Rai at E-16, Ground Floor, Sector 20, Noida ; he identified his signatures at point 'A' on the inventory Ex.PW23/1 (D-1) prepared at the spot in presence of accused and his wife.
- Witness stated that another independent witness/Valuer prepared Valuation list of ornaments seized from the house of accused vide Ex PW23/2 (D-1) and ornaments seized from the Locker no. 244 maintained at Axis Bank & Locker No.428 maintained at Citizen Cooperative Bank Ex PW23/2 & Ex PW23/3 (D-2), and he identified his signatures on the same at point 'A'.
- Witness was cross examined by the learned counsel for the accused.
82. PW-24 Sh. Soran Singh was also posted as Registrar Cooperative Societies, Parliament Street, New Delhi, in the year 2000 and joined the raiding team alongwith Sh. Naveen Kataria (PW-23), Sh. O.P.Malhotra (Valuer), and CBI staff during search CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 35 of 112 proceedings conducted at the house as well as bank lockers of accused Ajay Kumar Rai.
- Witness deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW-23 and identified his signatures at point 'B' on the exhibits prepared by the IO.
- He was also cross examined by the learned counsel for the accused.
83. PW-25 Sh. Satyapal Jain deposed that in the year 2014, he was working as Assistant Valuation officer in the Central Public Works Department, Meerut UP, and at the behest of CBI officials, he alongwith Sh. Ajit Singh (Junior engineer) and IO Joseph Krelo carried out inspection of four properties belonging to Sh. Ajay Kumar Rai on 10.12.2013 ; and after preparation of the Valuation report Ex PW25/1 (colly) sent the same under his signatures at point 'A' alongwith forwarding letter dated 06.01.2014 to CBI through post.
- He also deposed that the abstract of cost/enclosures Ex PW25/1 (colly ) are part of the Valuation report.
- Witness was cross examined by the learned defence counsel on behalf of the accused.
84. PW-26 Sh. Bhagwan deposed that in the year 2012, Sh. D.S. Shukla was the SSP of Anti Corruption Branch, who had worked with him as Inspector and therefore he identified the signatures of SSP at point 'A' on the FIR dated 21.09.2012 Ex PW26/1.
- He stated that after seeking permission from the CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 36 of 112 competent authority u/s 93 Cr.P.C he conducted Searches u/s 165 Cr.P.C. and sent letters to different departments for providing the documents pertaining to accused Ajay Kumar Rai and examined several witnesses.
- He identified his signatures on Inventory Memo at point 'D' on Ex PW23/1 (colly), Valuation reports of Roshan Jewellers Ex PW23/2 to Ex PW23/4.
- Witness after seeing the Production-cum-Seizure memo(s) prepared by the IO, through which the information sought/received from various banks/post Office/Financial institutions in respect of investments of accused Ajay Kumar Rai, Manjula Rai and Sonam Rai were seized vide memos Ex PW8/1, Ex PW-26/2 to Ex PW26/4, Ex PW9/1, Ex PW4/1, Ex P-3 to Ex P-6, Ex PW18/1, Ex PW14/1, Ex P-9, Ex PW2/E & Ex PW2/F (colly.) & Ex PW1/A (colly.), and identified his signatures and signatures of other witnesses on the same.
- Witness was cross-examined and suggestions were also put to him to impeach his testimony.
85. PW-27 Sh. Joseph Krelo, IO of the case deposed about the investigation conducted by him. He stated that during investigation Search proceedings were conducted alongwith independent and official witnesses in the presence of accused Ajay Kumar Rai at his residence, various documents of assets i.e. properties/ITRs, Investment Certifications, Jewellery etc were seized. The statement of witnesses were recorded and after the completion of the documents a Closure Report was filed.
- That the court was not satisfied and thereafter a charge CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 37 of 112 sheet was accordingly filed keeping in view the observations made by the then learned predecessor court ; a Sanction for prosecution of the accused was obtained from the concerned Competent Authority and accused was put to trial thereafter.
- Witness identified his signatures on the memos prepared by him and exhibited the same as Ex PW27/1 to Ex PW27/10.
- The witness was cross examined at length wherein he seems to be admitting the case of the defence.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED AJAY KUMAR RAI :-
86. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C and he admitted the case of prosecution on some aspects and preferred to lead defence evidence on others - disputed ones.
87. In his statement accused admitted that the property bearing no. H-31 Sector Gamma II Greater Noida was purchased by Smt. Manjula Rai in cash by paying a sum of Rs. 1,21,824/- as cost of land and Stamp Papers cost of Rs. 19,850/- & Lease rent of Rs. 14,520/- ; and after her death, it was mutated in his name and a mutation charges of Rs.1000/- was paid by him to the concerned authority.
88. Accused stated that he was not aware whether the documents related to the MIS accounts bearing nos. 3340000024 to 3340000027 Ex PW5/3 to Ex PW5/6 respectively were handed over to the CBI or not.
89. Accused admitted that the Flat no. 303/1 Gultaria CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 38 of 112 Apartment, Civil Road, Prayagraj was purchased in the year 2009 for a sum of Rs.17 lacs, out of which Rs.5 lacs was paid by way of two cheques and remaining Rs.12 lacs by way of loan from LIC Housing Scheme, bearing the signatures of PW-6 Sh.Sanjeev Vats at point X on Sale Deed dt. 23.06.2009 Ex PW6/1.
90. He also admitted following documents :-
- handing over of his salary slip for the period from 21.06.1986 to November 1991 under the signatures of Sh. P.P. Betkar (PW-7) Ex PW7/1 ;
- the records of investment of Rs.20,000/- in ICICI Prudential Mutual Funds Scheme seized vide seizure memo Ex PW8/1 alongwith its redemption on 16.04.2012,
- the records qua purchase of IDBI Bonds handed over by PW9 Sh. Bijay Kumar vide memo Ex PW9/1 ;
- the details of earning and deduction from December 1991 to June, 1992 under the signatures of Sh. Rajeev Goel Ex PW10/1 & Salary details Ex PW10/2 under the signatures of Sh.M.P.Gupta, Accounts officer, BSNL, Ghaziabad, UP ;
- the another salary details Ex PW10/3 & Ex PW10/4 under the signatures of Sh. Akbar Ali, Account Officer, BSNL, Noida, UP ;
- the details of pay and other allowances under the signatures of the then SDE Ex PW11/1, and ;
- the record of ITR's of his wife Smt. Sonam Rai CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 39 of 112 for the assessment year 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 Ex PW12/1 ;
- the Investment Application Form of Mutual Funds of Franklin Templeton Asset India Pvt Ltd in the name of his son Sh. Aman Rai under his guardianship ; investment of Rs.48,000/- in monthly Income Plan account No. 0539901420462 and from this account to another account no 0369901420462 through Systematic Transfer Plan transfer continued till 31.07.2008 ; the investment of Rs. 20,000/- in his name in another account no 21999016775639
- the ITR's of Smt. Manjula Rai for the Assessment year 2007-2008 ;
- the handing over of record qua payment of electricity bill of Rs.1,28,406/- in respect of property bearing no. H-31, Gamma-2, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, UP and excess payment of energization dated 23.08.2006 in respect of H.No. A-221 Swarna Nagari Greater Noida, UP, both in the name of Smt. Manjula Rai to the CBI.
- a letter dated 21.11.2012 Ex PW18/1 vide which the record of three LIC policies was handed over to the IO under the signatures of Sh. P.S. Rana at point A, and also receiving of a sum of Rs.1,09,824/- by him against the death claim of his wife Smt. Manjula Rai in respect of LIC policy bearing No. 231292608 assured for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 20 years ;
- a Sale Deed dated 04.11.2009 Ex PW19/1 executed between him (accused) and Sh. Bijender Singh (PW-19) (buyer) in respect of purchase of plot admeasuring 250 sq. yards CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 40 of 112 of Khasra No. M-53, Lal Dora, Village Sadarpur, Noida UP for a sum of Rs.10 lacs ;
- Transfer Deed of Lease Hold Rights dated 23.11.1996 Ex PW-20/1 executed between Sh.J.K. Mehra & Smt. Vandana Mehra (first party) and Mrs. Manjula Rai (Second Party) in respect of House No. E-16, Sector-20,Noida, UP ; and the record produced by PW-21 Sh. S.M. Bhatia in respect of Flat no. F-64/C/16, Flat no. 376, Sector-40 maintained at Noida Authority.
91. Accused further stated that he was not aware whether Smt. Reshma Begum, mother of PW-15 Sh. Ali Sher, had sold the plot measuring 500 square yards for a consideration of Rs.2,50,000/- to Sh. Satbir Gujjar alongwith him (accused) ; or that another plot was sold to Ms. Manjula Rai by PW-16 Sh. Uma Kant Rai ; or that on 24.09.2012, the Search Proceedings were conducted by the CBI at his residence i.e. E-16,Ground Floor, Sector-20, Noida, UP alongwith search team consisting of PW-23 Sh. Naveen Kataria, AR, CGHS, Sh.O.P. Malhotra, Govt Valuer and PW-24 Sh. Soran Singh.
92. Accused in his statement further denied having purchased Flat bearing No. HIG-18, Indira Nagar, Kalyanpur Kanpur UP in the joint name with his wife Smt. Manjula Rai or that he had spent a sum of Rs. 35 lacs for its construction.
93. Accused further denied having any knowledge about the Search Proceedings conducted on 24.09.2012 at the premises bearing no. E-16, Ground Floor, Sector-20 Noida and seizure of the LIC and other property documents etc alongwith CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 41 of 112 jewellery from there in presence of other witnesses. He also denied the Valuation Report.
94. He stated that Sanction for his prosecution granted in the year 2018 by Ms. (Retired) Sujata Ray (PW-3), the then Director HR, BSNL Board New Delhi is incorrect and she was not a competent authority to dismiss him or remove him from the services at the relevant time.
95. Accused preferred to lead defence evidence and examined 34 witnesses in total in his defence and the testimony of defence witnesses is discussed later at an appropriate stage.
96. Some of the defence witnesses were also dropped consequent to the admission of the documents by the IO. FINAL ARGUMENTS :-
97. A lengthy arguments have been addressed by learned Sr.PP for CBI as well as by the learned defence counsel, the number of judgments, primarily governing law related to the alleged offence have also been cited at bar in support of the claim and the same has been dealt with at the time of appreciation of evidence underneath in the judgement.
98. In so far as prosecution is concerned learned Sr. PP had limited area to address arguments as the closure report was filed by the Investigating Officer and thereafter without carrying out the further investigation the charge sheet on the same investigation was filed by dropping large number of witnesses.
99. Learned Sr.PP thereby primarily relied upon the judgment of State of Karnataka Vs. J. Jayalalitha, (2017) 6 Supreme Court Cases 263.
CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 42 of 112
100. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at bar and have meticulously gone through the evidence recorded in the matter as well as the documents proved on record.
ANALYSIS / APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
101. With regard to the ingredients of Section 13(1)(e) of Act, the same have been enunciated in judgment 2009 CRI.L.J.1767 "N. Ramakrishanaiah Vs. State of A.P. The relevant paras of the said judgment are reproduced as under:-
14. 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 Sub-section (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 account of pecuniary resources of property disproportionate to his known source of income. Clause (e) of Sub-section (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 CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 43 of 112 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').
15. 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 CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 44 of 112 prima facie would not be receipt for the "known source of income" of a public servant.
16. 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.
102. So, to substantiate the charge U/s 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(e)of Act, the prosecution has to prove the following ingredients :-
(i).The accused is a public servant.
(ii) What were his known sources of income i.e known to the prosecution.
(iii) The nature and extent of the pecuniary resources or property which were found in his possession ; and
(iv) Such resources or property found in possession of the accused were disproportionate to his known sources of income.
103. It is an admitted case that the accused was a public servant at the time of filing of charge sheet and he was working as Deputy Manager, BSNL, New Delhi at the relevant time.
104. Before proceeding further, while reiterating it may be noted that a closure report was filed by the CBI initially stating that no case of disproportionate assets is made out against CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 45 of 112 the accused Sh. Ajay Kumar Rai.
105. The learned predecessor of the court had some reservations with respect to the amount of the rental income accrued in favour of the accused during the check period citing that there is no sufficient evidence/documents on record to support the said rental income, which was made part of the total income of the accused during the check period.
106. Surprisingly, a fresh charge sheet was thereafter filed by the CBI without carrying out any further investigation, after deducting the said rental income from his total income and deleting the corresponding witnesses thereto.
107. The said documents were put under the list of un- relied documents and witnesses were dropped accordingly by the prosecution. A practice and a procedure unheard of under relevant provisions of Cr.P.C and / or any other provisions of law.
108. So, if we go by that observations/ findings of the Court and taking the case of the prosecution at its face value, the only issue remains to be decided is whether accused A.K. Rai was having the rental income from the properties so mentioned thereto during the check period, and if so, is there any positive evidence in support thereof.
109. Since all the witnesses related to tenancy were more or less deleted by the prosecution and the documents were put under un-relied documents, when the fresh charge sheet was filed, the defence has summoned the said witnesses in support of their case to prove his rental income amongst other facts.
CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 46 of 112
110. (I) Total Rent received by Smt. Manjula Rai wife of accused Ajay Kumar Rai till January, 2009 from various properties in her name, which has been added by the prosecution towards the income and corresponding expenses of accused.
111. (i) - DW-5 Sh. Chander Mauli Tiwari deposed that in the year 2003, he was posted as Executive Engineer in PWD Delhi and started residing on rented accommodation at House No. H-131, Sector Gama II, Greater Noida, UP, which was taken by him from Ms. Manjula Rai @ Rs.3500/-p.m ; and after two years, it was increased to Rs.4,000/- which continued for next three years.
112. He stated that he vacated the said premises in the month of May, 2010 and at that time he was paying a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month. Witness identified his handwriting and signatures on the Rent Agreement Ex DW5/1 collectively.
113. During cross-examination witness stated that the owner of the house i.e. Ms. Manjula Rai and the witnesses thereto shown on the Rent agreement were not related to him. Though he was not aware about from where the stamp paper for Rent agreement was purchased or if he had appeared before the Notary, but the fact remains the witness was a Senior Officer in a government department, posted as Chief Engineer, PWD, Ghaziabad, UP, and I see no reason for him to depose falsely or to be an interested witness.
114. Further, the said information if not given to his department, as was argued by the learned Sr. PP, is also not sufficient to wash out his testimony on the said aspect of tenancy.
CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 47 of 112
115. In-fact, he was quite confident during his examination wherein he reiterated the facts about taking the said premises on rent from Ms. Manjula Rai at the given time.
116. The total rent of the premises from June, 2003 to January, 2009 comes = Rs. 2,68,000/- .
117. - After the demise of Mrs. Manjula Rai in January, 2009, the rent thereafter was paid to accused Ajay Kumar Rai from February, 2009 to May, 2010 which comes to Rs.80,000/- (Added separately under Head II in the Rental income of accused Ajay Kumar Rai from properties).
118. ii) - DW-6 Sh. Devender Kumar deposed that he alongwith his wife and two children had resided on rent on the first floor of House No. E-16, Sector-20, Noida, UP from January, 2001 to December, 2005, and one Sh. Sanjay Singh was also residing on the top floor of the said house, who used to collect rent alongwith electricity and miscellaneous charges from him.
- During cross-examination witness admitted that no written document regarding the rent was executed, it was an oral agreement and he always paid the rent in cash.
119. Herein, I may also state that it is not necessary that tenancy can be established/executed only through a written tenancy agreement duly Notarized. A tenancy can be oral and legally binding. Only the consequences differs between Oral and written agreement, which are not discussed here as the said issues are not under consideration.
CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 48 of 112
120. DW-6 further gave the location of the surroundings i.e. road in front, park across the road, and the constructed structure of the other premises of the locality.
121. IO also admitted that he had recorded his statement during investigation of the case, which was in terms of the statement made before the Court. Nothing has come on record to disbelieve his testimony.
122. The total rent of the premises from January, 2001 to December, 2005 comes = Rs. 2,76,036/-
123. iii) - DW-9 Smt. Mansa Rai deposed that from December, 1996 to April, 1999, she stayed as tenant at the first floor of E-16, Sector 20, Noida ; that on the ground floor one Mr. Mishra Ji was tenant and on the second floor Sh. Sanjay was residing, who used to collect a sum of Rs.4,500/- from her as monthly rent which was increased after expiry of every 11 months. That at the time when she vacated the premises the rent was about Rs 5,500 to Rs 6,000/- per month.
124. In the cross-examination, she stated that she had met Ms. Manjula Rai may be four to five times, who herself disclosed that she was the owner of the property.
125. Witness stated that she was running a small Baby Garments Shop at Sector 27, Atta Market, Noida when the said house was taken on rent, and she denied the suggestion that she was not in a financial position to pay the said rent.
126. Her similar statement was also recorded by the IO and relied upon when the closure report was filed.
CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 49 of 112
127. It has also come on record that Sh. Sanjay Singh was relative of Smt. Manjula Rai, who used to look after the property and collect rent on her behalf from the tenant(s).
128. The total rent of the premises from December, 1996 to April, 1999 comes = Rs. 1,43,000/-.
129. iv) - DW-13 Sh. Harish Chander Mishra was a BE (Civil Engineer) and deposed that from January, 1997 to May, 2004, he stayed as tenant at the ground floor of E-16, Sector-20, Noida on a monthly rent of Rs.4,000/- which was increased by 10% every year.
130. That Sh Sanjay Singh used to collect rent and no written agreement was executed between him and owner of the property.
131. During cross-examination, he reiterated the said facts by giving minute details qua the construction of the said rented house including his own previous rented accommodations.
132. He stated that he does not remember if he had shown the said rent and / or taken benefit in his ITR's. But not filing the ITR's or filing of the ITR's without mentioning the house rent is of not of much consequence to the issue at hand or to say that the premises were not taken on rent.
133. Similar statement of this witness was also recorded by the IO and relied upon when the closure report was filed.
134. The total rent of the premises from January, 1997 to May, 2004 comes = Rs.4,94,351/-
135. v) - DW-15 Sh. Brajesh Kumar Rai deposed that from CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 50 of 112 May,1999 to March, 2000, he stayed at House No. E-16, Sector-20, Noida on a monthly rent of Rs.5,500/- and a written agreement was executed between him and owner of the property. He identified his own signatures and signatures of Ms. Manjula Rai, which was exhibited as DW15/1.
136. During cross-examination, he also gave the details about the other occupants of the said house during the relevant time. He was not able to recall the exact date and time, and as to who all were present when the agreement was signed, but he voluntarily stated that since it was a long time ago and at that time execution of rent agreement in Noida, UP was not prevalent nor considered to be of much significance.
137. Learned Sr.PP highlighted that the Stamp Paper was purchased on 01.05.1999, whereas the date of execution of the rent agreement is 30.04.1999, and further that it seems to have been purchased in the name of Ms.Vineeta.
138. The said discrepancies in the agreement and Stamp Paper does not have much significance as normally the date of execution of the agreement is mentioned the day of starting of the tenancy or the day prior to that.
139. In so far as the name of Ms. Vinita is concerned, it is the name of the Stamp Paper Vendor which the learned Sr.PP has wrongly appreciated to be that of the purchaser. Ms. Vinita was the Stamp Vendor and her name is duly reflected inscribed on the Stamp so affixed.
140. The Agreement document also seems to be quite old, almost 25 years old. The witness was a journalist by profession CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 51 of 112 and had earlier his own daily Newspaper publication by the name Janmukh. He is also not related to the accused and/or his wife.
141. His similar statement was also recorded by the IO and relied upon when the closure report was filed.
142. I see no reason for him to be a planted witness or to depose falsely.
143. The total rent of the premises from May, 1999 to March, 2000 comes = Rs. 60,500/-
144. vi) - DW-17 Sh. Manoj Kumar Rai deposed that from February-2005 to August 2008, he stayed at House No. E-16, Sector-20, Noida on a monthly rent of Rs. 5,000/- which was increased @ 10% per year, and no written agreement was executed between him and owner of the property. He further stated that he was working as Sales Executive in Max-life Insurance.
145. His cross-examination was also primarily based on the facts whether he was filing ITR's and/or if he has shown the same in his ITR's.
146. Learned Sr. PP had argued that neither the witnesses nor accused A.K. Rai has shown the said rental income anywhere in their respective ITR's and/or no information regarding the same was furnished to the departments concerned.
147. But it would be profitable to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Virender Singh Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation 2011 (1) JCC 623 decided on 22.11.2010 in WP (Criminal) Nos. 765/2010 & 871/2010, on this issue wherein it is held that :- "even if a public servant / accused may CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 52 of 112 not have intimated the receipt of income from lawful sources to the department even then, he is not estopped from proving the source of receipt of income was lawful in his quest to satisfactorily account the pecuniary resources found or possessed by him".
148. In light thereof, the contentions raised by learned Sr. PP has no force in that regard.
149. Witness stated that he was summoned by the CBI officials during investigation of the case wherein queries regarding the said tenanted premises was also made from him. A fact admitted by IO.
150. Nothing has come on record to doubt the veracity of his statement.
151. The total rent of the premises from February, 2005 to August, 2008 comes = Rs. 2,45,185/-
152. vii) - DW-19 Sh. Ishwar Suthar deposed that prior to one or two month from December 2008, the House No. A-221, Swaran Nagari, Noida, belonging to Ms. Manjula Rai, was taken by him on a monthly rent of Rs. 2,500/-, and there was an increase of Rs. 500/- per year.
153. A Rent agreement was duly executed between him and owner of the property through one Sh. Ramesh Chander Rai, who had negotiated the deal with him.
154. He identified his own signatures at point X and that of Sh. Ramesh Chander Rai at point Y as a witness on the said agreement, which was exhibited as Ex PW19/1 (Colly.). He stayed there till the year 2010. The electricity charges were paid CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 53 of 112 by him separately.
155. In the cross-examination, he admitted that Ms. Manjula Rai had not signed the aforesaid agreement in his presence nor he was aware as to who had purchased the Stamp Papers.
156. He also failed to recollect whether the said amount was shown in his ITR's or not. However, he reiterated that the entire documentation and the deal was executed through Sh. Ramesh Chander Rai. He also narrated the description of the surroundings of the property, which stands substantiated by the testimony of other examined defence witnesses.
157. Witness was a permanent resident of Rajasthan and having Furniture business, and at the relevant time he was working for J.P. Greens which was near to the aforesaid rented premises. He is also not related to accused or known to accused A.K. Rai and his wife Ms. Manjula Rai.
158. A similar statement was also recorded by the IO and relied upon when the closure report was filed.
159. Nothing has come on record to doubt his testimony, which is duly supported with the rent agreement.
160. The total rent of the premises from December, 2008 to January, 2009 (till the time Mrs. Manjula Rai was alive ) comes = Rs.5,000/-.
161. - After the demise of Mrs. Manjula Rai in January, 2009, DW-19 paid further rent to accused Ajay Kumar Rai from February, 2009 to May, 2010 which come = Rs.43,000/-. (Added separately under Head II in the income of accused Ajay Kumar Rai ).
162. viii) - DW-20 Sh. Satbeer deposed that for running the CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 54 of 112 dairy business the plot in Sadar Pur Village, District Gautam Budh Nagar belonging to Late Ms. Manjula Rai was taken by him on a monthly rent of Rs. 2,500/-, which was increased at the rate of Rs. 500/- per year, but no written rent agreement was executed between them.
163. He stated that he had made some temporary constructions on the said plot to streamline his Dairy business and to maintain cattles. He also stated that some times rent was adjusted towards the milk charges which he used to supply Mrs. Manjula Rai, other times it was paid in cash.
164. In the cross-examination, he reiterated the aforesaid facts and stated further that his plot was also adjacent to the plot of Mrs. Manjula Rai, which made it more convenient for him to carry his Dairy business from the said plot.
165. He also narrated about the location/ measurement and about neighbouring occupants of the plot. He went on to state that Ms. Manjula Rai and he himself had purchased the said plots from one Ms. Resham.
166. Nothing has come on record to doubt his testimony as he has given the minute details of the premises and the manner in which the rent was paid by adjusting milk charges, and he does not seems to be making a false statement.
167. The total rent of the premises from January, 1997 to December, 2008 comes = Rs.7,56,000/-
168. ix) - DW-24 Sh.Jitender Narayan Singh was employed with MTNL as a Technician and retired in the year 2019, and he deposed that during his posting at Delhi, he had taken the Flat bearing No. E-16, Second Floor, Sector-20, Noida, UP on rent in CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 55 of 112 the month of September ,2008 and stayed there till April, 2010.
169. The rent of Rs.6,500/- was fixed and paid by him to Ms. Manjula Rai, and after her death it was increased to Rs.7,000/- per month and paid to accused Sh.A.K. Rai, the owner of the said flat.
170. Witness was cross-examined, and he stated that no information regarding the change of residential address was furnished by him to his department as it was not required, and the rent amount was not shown in the ITRs submitted by him to the Income Tax Department at the relevant time.
171. He denied the suggestion that he had come to the court alongwith accused Ajay Kumar Rai. He stated that he spoke to him only when the summons from the Court were received by him.
172. This witness was a government employee, and not related or personally known to the accused Ajay Kumar Rai and his wife. Nothing has come in his cross examination to raise doubt over his testimony.
173. The total rent of the premises from September, 2008 to January, 2009 comes = Rs.32,500/-
174. - After the demise of Mrs. Manjula Rai in January, 2009, DW-24 paid further rent to accused A.K. Rai from February 2009 to April, 2010 which come = Rs. 1,01,500/- ( Added separately under the Head II Rental Income of accused Ajay Kumar Rai).
175. x) - DW-27 Sh.Jaideep Singh, Manager State Bank of India produced the Register maintained by their branch w.e.f. 01.04.2004, mentioning the details of persons to whom the rent CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 56 of 112 was paid by the bank on behalf of their bank employees, who had taken the property on Lease basis for their accommodations.
176. Witness proved the entry regarding periodical payment of lease amount @ 5,700/- per month commencing from July, 2004 to July, 2006, and payment accordingly made from 02.08.2004 till 01.07.2006 to Smt. Manjula Rai wife of accused A.K. Rai, reflected at page no. 33 of the register Ex DW27/1.
177. The witness was cross-examined by the learned Sr.PP wherein he submitted that he has no personal knowledge about the records as he had joined the Bank subsequently in the year 2009.
178. But witness stated that as per records, which are of the year 2004-2006, the said accommodation was provided to Bank Official namely Sh.P.L.Kakroo, the then Assistant Manager, SBI in terms of Lease executed between SBI and Mrs. Manjula Rai.
179. On examination, the Original Register was found in order and duly paginated wherein payments to number of other persons made on behalf of the bank was reflected with corresponding name of the bank officials to whom the accommodation was provided.
180. The rent @ was also duly mentioned and the list was collated on the last page of the Register with 20 such entries whereby the SBI had paid rent to the owners of the properties.
181. A similar statement was also recorded by the IO, the documents were collected, and relied upon by the IO when the closure report was filed.
182. There is nothing on record to doubt veracity of the documents and /or the statements made thereto by the witness.
CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 57 of 112
183. - The total rent of the premises from July, 2004 to July, 2006 = Rs.1,36,800/-
184. xi) - DW-7 Sh. Ramesh Rai deposed that he was residing in Noida, UP since 1996 and he stayed as a tenant in Flat no. 376, Sector-40, Noida UP on a monthly rent of Rs. 10,000/- per month from 2008 to April, 2010, wherein one room was used by Ms. Manjula Rai to run STD/PCO/Photocopier business, and he also used to look after her business.
185. The witness identified his signatures at point A on the Rent Agreement dated 12.12.2008 executed between him and Ms Manjula Rai Ex DW 7/1 (Colly).
186. He also identified his name and signatures of Sh. A.K. Rai on another Rent Agreement dated 29.05.2010, alleged to have been executed between Sh. Ajay Kumar Rai and himself.
187. He stated that he had shifted again to the said house after a break of about ten months as he was having some problem at his earlier accommodation, and as such the documents were prepared and executed but it was not signed by him. The agreement was exhibited as Ex DW7/2.
188. The documents were objected by learned Sr. PP to the mode and manner of proof but without much substance, as the witness has not only identified the signatures of the executant but also deposed to the fact about its execution and significantly him taking the premises on rent in terms thereof.
189. Witness further stated that two other rooms of the said premises were used for running Saloon and General Departmental Store and he used to collect the rent of the same on behalf of Ms. Manjula Rai, the owner of the property.
CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 58 of 112
190. He specifically deposed that the rent from the portion of the Saloon business was @ Rs 3500/- per month, which was increased 10% annually, and by the end of year, 2012 the rent was somewhere Rs. 7,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per month.
191. With respect to the rent from the Departmental Store, it was stated to be @ of Rs.5,000/- per month. He stated that the Departmental Store was run by one Sh. Sanjay Singh, who was known to Ms. Manjula Rai, therefore the rent of the Store premises was not increased annually.
192. Witness also testified that the business of PCO and Photocopier, which was run in the name of M/s Aman Telecommunications from the said premises, was looked after by him ; and at that time there were about one ISD, 2 STD, 2 Local PCO's, 2 Xerox Copier and a machine for Lamination and Spiral Bindings used in the business so carried out.
193. He stated that since it was an era prior to influx of mobile phones and other electronic communication devices, the business was giving high returns to the tune of Rs. 60,000/- to Rs. 70,000/- per month.
194. He also deposed that for some time a Cyber Cafe and Tour & Travel business was also carried out from the said portion of the house, where the Departmental Store came in existence in the year 2002, which was also being looked after by him.
195. In the cross-examination witness has corroborated the aforesaid facts by giving details of the witnesses of the Stamp papers and the persons present when the said rent agreements were executed.
CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 59 of 112
196. He admitted that the aforesaid properties were residential flats. But at the same time, he stated that the electricity connection at Flat no. 376 was Commercial as the premises were being used to carry out various business activities and there was high electricity consumption.
197. He also gave the details of ISD number and STD numbers which were used from the premises to substantiate his deposition.
198. His cross-examination, as argued by the learned Sr. PP, was mainly on the points that since these were residential properties/flats, therefore, no commercial activities could have been carried out. But that is not the hard and fast rule.
199. The court is alive to the fact wherein large number of residential properties are used for commercial purpose. Merely because on papers it is so, it would not belie the facts deposed by the witness.
200. Moreover, his testimony inspire confidence with respect to the rent and the premises being used for commercial activities in terms of specific and clear factual details so provided.
201. Further, the factum of commercial utilization and illegal construction at the properties also stands substantiated from the testimony of prosecution witness PW-21 Sh. S.M. Bhatia from the Noida Authority, who admitted that the allottee had encroached upon and constructed a room which was being used for commercial purpose and a notice in that regard was issued by the concerned official.
202. A similar statement was also recorded by the IO, the CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 60 of 112 agreements were collected, and relied upon when the closure report was filed.
203. The total rental income from above said premises paid to Ms. Manjula Rai : -
- December, 2008 to January, 2009 (PCO) -Rs.20,000/-
- January,2002 to December,2006 (Departmental -Rs. 3,00,000/-
Store)
- January, 1997 to January 2009 (Saloon) - Rs.8,66,276/-
= Rs. 11,86,276/-
204. After demise of Mrs. Manjula Rai in January, 2009, the rent of the aforesaid premises so paid to accused Ajay Kumar Rai :-
- February, 2009, till April, 2010 (PCO) - Rs.1,50,000 /-
- May, 2010 to March, 2011 ( E-16, Sector-20, Rs. 77,000/-
Noida
- February, 2009 to May, 2012 ( Saloon) - Rs. 3,20,000/-
= Rs. 05,47,000/-
( Added separately as Rental income of accused Ajay Kumar Rai)
205. (a) So, the total Rental income received by Mrs. Manjula Rai during the check-in-period till January, 2009 from aforesaid properties in her name comes to = Rs 36,03,612/-
206. (II) - Total rent received by accused Ajay Kumar Rai from the said properties after the death of his wife Mrs. Manjula Rai i.e. from February, 2009 to September, 2012.
207. (i) - DW-4 Sh. Nitin Bhatnagar was a Consultant for Asian Development Bank and he deposed that he was residing in Noida CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 61 of 112 since 2010, and thereafter took the first floor of property bearing no E-16, Sector 20 Noida, UP, after negotiations with Sh. A.K. Rai, on a monthly rent of Rs.12,000/- which lateron was increased to Rs.13,000/- for the year 2012.
208. He stated that a sum of Rs.24,000/- was deposited with the land lord as Security amount equivalent to two months rent ;
that initially a rent agreement was executed between him and land lord Sh. A.K. Rai, but after its expiry the tenancy continued on oral commitments between them.
209. During cross-examination he gave the details of his employment with SBI Life Insurance at Noida, about the Stamp Papers and the charges so taken by Notary Public including the office of the Notary, which was stated to be in the basement under HDFC Bank, Sector-18, Noida, UP.
210. Even though the said rent agreement was not produced by him, as stated it was misplaced, but he gave details of the witness i.e. his wife, who had signed the agreement as the witness. He stated that Stamp Paper was purchased by him and the entry in that regard was duly made in the Registers so maintained by the vendor as well as by the Notary Public. He also gave the details of the neighboring areas of the said house.
211. His testimony also inspires confidence whereby he further states that the said address was duly mentioned in his bank accounts at ICICI Bank ; A Pan Card in the name of his wife was also issued from the said address ; his Adhaar Card initially was issued from the same address.
212. And also from the fact that he was present when the search of the premises was carried out by the CBI during the CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 62 of 112 investigation of the case and he had signed the Search List which was prepared by the CBI officials thereafter.
213. IO admitted his statement on above facts being recorded by him during investigation.
214. -The total rent of the premises from January, 2011 to September, 2012 comes = Rs.2,85,000/-.
215. (ii) - DW-11 Sh.Avinash Mohan deposed that from 01.04.2012 to 04.02.2014, he resided at H.No. HIG-18, Indira Nagar, Kalyanpur, Kanpur as tenant and used to pay a sum of Rs. 4,200/- as monthly rent which was increased to Rs 4,500/- per month. He further deposed that only for one month rent was paid in cash and for the remaining months it was deposited in the account of accused.
216. During cross- examination he gave the specific details of the property as well as the occupants thereof. Witness was a Government Teacher at the relevant time and used to reside with his father, who was also an Assistant Professor at Nehru Degree Collage, Kannoj.
217. IO admitted his statement on above facts being recorded by him during investigation.
There is nothing to disbelieve his testimony.
218. The total rent of the premises from April 2012 to September, 2012 comes = Rs.33,600/-
219. (iii) - DW-12 Sh. Rahis Pal Singh deposed that from June, 2010 to March,2017, he stayed as tenant at House No. H-31, Sector Gama II. Greater Noida UP, and used to pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- as monthly rent, which was increased by 10% each year. The Security amount equivalent to a month or two months CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 63 of 112 rent was taken by Sh. A.K. Rai at the time of commencing the tenancy.
220. He deposed that the said house was taken by him through a Agent Mr. Gupta Ji, who was from Bijnore and known to him. He stated that at that time he was in the business of Property dealing at Greater Noida, UP.
221. During cross-examination, learned SrPP questioned him about his Licence of Property dealing, which he denied with the statement that no person used to ask about such licence at that time. He stated that he shifted to Noida in the year 2004 and stayed there till 2017.
222. There is nothing to discard his testimony, nor does he seems to be a planted witness.
223. The total rent of the premises from June, 2010 to September, 2012 comes = Rs.2,10,280/-
224. (iv) - DW-14 Sh. Ajay Kumar Pandit deposed that from March, 2009 to September, 2015, he stayed as tenant at H.No. 376, F-Block, Sector-40, Noida, UP on a monthly rent of Rs. 3,000/- per month which was increased @ Rs. 500/- every year.
225. That Sh Ramesh Rai used to collect rent and no written agreement was executed between him and owner of the property.
226. He admitted during his cross-examination that he was aware Sh. Ramesh Rai was not the actual owner of the said property nor had he met the actual owner.
227. But he specified about the three story construction of the house and that it was a DDA Flat. That he had taken only one room on rent and the other rooms on the ground floor were used for PCO and Saloon business, which is duly corroborated by the CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 64 of 112 testimony of other witnesses namely DW-7 amongst others.
228. The total rent of the premises from March, 2009 to September, 2012 comes = Rs.1,57, 500/-
229. (v) - DW-16 Sh. Harbir Singh was a carpenter by profession and deposed that in the month of June 2010, House No. A-221, Swaran Nagari was taken by him on rent from one Mr. Rai. He used to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month and every year there was increase of Rs. 500/- It was an oral tenancy.
230. Witness identified accused A.K. Rai, present in the court, as said Mr. Rai from whom the house was taken on rent and the payment made thereto.
231. He also testified that he was physically present at the aforesaid premises when the search by the CBI officials was conducted during investigation of the case, and he had also signed on the pullandas so prepared by the CBI officials on their asking.
232. A fact which seems to have been substantiated from the proceedings and the records of the investigating agency and reaffirmed by the witness during his cross-examination by the learned Sr.PP on that aspect.
233. The total rent of the premises from June, 2010 to September, 2012 comes = Rs.94,000/-
234. (vi) - DW-18 Sh. Mukesh Kumar was a Washerman and used to iron clothes, and he deposed that in the month of January 2009, he had taken house No. D-299, P-3, Greater Noida UP on a monthly rent of Rs.3,000/-from accused Ajay Kumar Rai, and stayed there for about seven years, and there was increase of rent of Rs. 500/- per month, and no written agreement was executed CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 65 of 112 between him and owner of the property.
235. He used to pay electricity charges separately. He stated that his total income was approximately Rs.15,000/- wherein he also used to do some part-time odd jobs cleaning vehicles etc.
236. He was also present at the premises when the CBI raid was conducted during the investigation of the case and inquiries regarding the rent and its mode of payment etc were made by them, a fact not denied by the investigating agency.
237. This witness has also given the minute details of the property and the area. There is no reason to not to believe the testimony of defence witness.
238. The total rent of the premises from January, 2009 to September, 2012 comes = Rs.1, 66,500/-
239. (vii) - DW-25 Sh. Ajay Kumar Rai s/o Sh. Hardev Sharma, Agent of Union Bank of Inida, Azamgarh, UP deposed that he had taken the Flat bearing No. E-16, Sector-20, Noida, UP on a monthly rent of Rs. 6,500/-, which was increased by Rs. 500/- in the year 2011, and he used to pay rent in cash to accused Sh. A.K. Rai.
240. Witness identified his signatures and that of Sh. Ajay Kumar Rai on the Rent Deed executed between them. He also identified the signatures of the two witnesses on the said Rent Deed as Ex DW25/1 (colly.).
241. During cross-examination he reiterated the above said facts and stated that Agreement was executed for a period of one year, which was extended subsequently. He stated that as of now he does not remember whether the exact amount of Rs.6,500/-
CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 66 of 112 per month was mentioned in the rent agreement or not, wherein actually a sum of Rs. 6,000/- is mentioned.
242. But he testified that there was no clause in the agreement to say how much rent and after how much time it shall be increased, a clause which is not so mentioned thereto.
243. Witness in fact correctly states that the house was in the name of Sh. Aman Rai, son of accused Sh A.K. Rai. Nothing has come during cross-examination to raise doubt over his statement or the fact that he never resided at the given premises as tenant.
244. The total rent of the premises from May, 2010 to June 2012 comes = Rs.1,76,500/-
245. (viii) - Defence also examined Ms. Preeti Bhardwaj, DW-26 in support of their case, wherein she stated that she is working with IT Company, Bangalore, and in the year 2012, when she was working as Business Development with Arora & Associates at WTO Connaught Place, she had taken a property at Sector 40 Noida, belonging to accused @ Rs. 6,000/- per month.
246. During her deposition, she was not able to give the specific address of the Flat which was taken by her on rent and stated that it was something starting with 'F', but she identified accused Ajay Kumar Rai, who was present in the Court, as the person who was the owner and from whom she had taken it on rent.
247. She stated that no written agreement was executed and the rent was paid in cash. She also admitted that she was summoned by the CBI and her statement in that regard was recorded.
CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 67 of 112
248. During cross-examination she admitted a suggestion by learned Sr.PP that she has never stayed at Flat bearing no. F-65, C-16/376, Sector-40 Noida UP, and she voluntarily stated that it was three digit house number after alphabet 'F'.
249. The witness seems to be confused with the house number of the property, but relevant to note that she has identified accused Ajay Kumar Rai as the person who was owner of the said property, and besides this there was no other property of Mr. Ajay Kumar Rai in Sector 40 Noida UP starting with 'F'.
250. Moreover, she was also examined by the IO wherein all the above mentioned facts were stated by her in terms of the queries made to her. A fact not denied by the IO.
251. Besides that, this rental amount is of not much significance, as it is a meagre amount, and would not make much of a difference to the DA case at hand.
252. The total rent of the premises from June, 2012 to June 2012 comes = Rs.24,000/-
253. (ix) - Further, the rental income separately of accused Ajay Kumar Rai, after demise of his wife Mrs. Manjula Rai, from the other premises in terms of deposition of DW-5, DW-7, DW-19 & DW-24, as discussed above under Head - (I), respectively comes to (Rs.80,000/- + Rs.5,47,000/- + Rs. 43,000/- & + Rs.1,01,500/- ) = 7,71,500/-
254. (b) - Thus, the total Rental income separately received by Sh. Ajay Kumar Rai during the aforesaid period i.e. From February, 2009 to September, 2012 ( Check period ) from the said properties comes to = Rs .19,18, 880/-
255. Thus, appreciating the defence evidence in the light of CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 68 of 112 the judgments referred above, it can not be said that the said rental income/ amount was from any unlawful source or to say that the source of the said income was infested with ill-gotten money.
256. So, in terms of the charge sheet filed by the prosecution, admitting all the assets and expenses so added towards the accused during investigation of the case, in light of the rental income of accused so proved on record from the above said properties, then also no case of Disproportionate Assets is made out against accused, as per calculation made underneath under different head(s) : -
Sl. no. Head Amount
(i) Assets acquired during the check Rs.97,34,208/-
period 21.01.1986 to 21.09.2012
(ii) Income during the Check period Rs.96,06,078/-
from Salary + other allowances
(iii) Rental income from Properties Rs, 55,22,492/-
during check period (a+b) =
Total Income during Check period Rs. 1,51,28,570/- (ii+iii)
(iv) Expenses during the check period Rs.56,22,858/-
(v) Likely Savings Rs.95,05,712/-/-
(vi) D.A(assets-Likely Savings) i.e. (i- Rs.2,28,496/-
v)
(vii) % of DA( DA/Income X 100) 1.51%
CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 69 of 112
257. No DA case is made out against the accused Ajay Kumar Rai in terms thereof.
258. But, the matter does not end here.
259. Prosecution also seems to have applied wrong provisions of law to add assets acquired by the wife of accused towards his total assets and also corresponding expenses, which ought not to have been calculated and added so.
260. The prosecution has also even otherwise failed to substantiate its case in terms of the assets/income/ and expenditure so calculated for the reasons discussed herein below.
261. Prosecution has examined 27 witnesses to prove its case.
262. A) The assets of accused at the beginning of the check in period i.e. on 21.01.1986.
263. It is an admitted case of the prosecution that accused Ajay Kumar Rai was in possession of about 1.25 hectares of land at his native place Village Kabiruddinpur, Post Dharampur, District Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh at the beginning of check in period, prior to his joining as Junior Technical Officer in MTNL on 21.01.1986.
264. It is also admitted case of the prosecution that he was having an agricultural income from the aforesaid piece of land in his village.
265. PW-20 Sh. Janardan Rai examined by the prosecution is younger brother of accused Ajay Kumar Rai, and he admits to the fact that they had inherited six bighas of Agricultural Land in CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 70 of 112 native place ; the agricultural produce of the said land are equally distributed between the four brothers and about Rs.30,000/- each is their annual agricultural income from the said land.
266. In the cross-examination witness stated that in the year 2000 a sum of Rs.15,000/- approximately was the annual agricultural income of each brother.
267. Implying thereby, accused A.K. Rai was having an income @ Rs.15,000/- per year and which would be part of his annual income during the check period i..e. - Rs 15,000/- X 12 ( 12 years from 2000-2012) = 1,80,000/-.
268. Assuming his average income to be Rs.7,000/- per annum on rational basis, prior to the year 2000 till the beginning of check period i.e. 21.01.1986, it comes to Rs. 7,000 X 14 years = Rs 98,000/-
269. (a) Both these amounts of Rs. 1,80,000/- + Rs 98,000/- = (Rs. 2,38,000/-) shall be part of his total income of the check period, which the investigating Officer has failed to calculate and add to his total income.
270. (B) Assets allegedly acquired during the check- period ( 21.1.1986 to 21.09.2012 ).
271. (I) Immovable properties/Assets.
272. (i) - Property at Kanpur, UP - Prosecution claims that the property bearing House no.18, Indira Nagar, Kanpur, UP was purchased for an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- and a sum of Rs.14,56,000/- was spent on the reconstruction of the building after dismantling it.
CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 71 of 112
273. Thus Rs.6,50,000/- + Rs.14,56,000/- = Rs. 21,06,000/- was taken as total cost of the house.
274. PW-1 Sh.Arvind Kumar, Asstt. Engineer (Civil) was examined by the prosecution to prove the construction cost of the said House.
275. He deposed that he was part of the team consisting of Sh. Prakash Rawat and Sh. V.K. Yadav to assess the valuation of built up property bearing no.18, HIG Indira Nagar Kanpur, and he gave details of the construction of the said house.
276. He stated that the valuation report was prepared on the basis of CPWD Plinth Area Rate-192 with Cost Index 164, in which calculation cost of land was not included ; and as per Valuation report/abstract of cost, the constructed value of the aforesaid property was quantified to Rs.14,56,000/-.
277. Witness identified the signatures of Sh. Prakash Rawat at point 'A' on the forwarding letter dated 07.03.2013 alongwith the abstract of Cost/Valuation Report Ex PW1/A ( D-51).
278. During cross-examination he admitted that for valuation of the property the investment with year-wise breakup, year of construction, bills/vouchers qua purchase of building material, the then prevailing wages and drawings of the building etc are required for an authentic valuation, but no such details were provided by the CBI.
279. Significantly, as is apparent from the Valuation Report Ex PW1/A and from the deposition of this witness, Sh. Parkash Rawat was the Valuation Officer who had carried out the CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 72 of 112 Valuation of the property, but for the reasons unknown, he has not been cited as a witness nor examined during trial.
280. Without him stepping into the witness box, the valuation report does not have much evidentiary value as he was the only competent witness who could have deposed on the standard, the yard sticks and other factors taken into consideration to carry out the calculations and the value of the property.
281. The facts about Mr. Parkash Rawat constituting a team comprising of himself and one Sh. V.K. Yadav to assist him for valuation of the said property or visiting the property in the afternoon of 22.02.2013 were also admitted by PW-1 to have not been stated so during his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., when confronted with the said facts by the learned defence counsel.
282. PW-1 also admitted that the Valuation Report Ex PW1/A does not bears his signatures. He admitted that no date is mentioned in the abstract of cost/ valuation report. He admitted that he had not made inquiries with respect to the material used in the construction of the aforesaid building.
283. His testimony is not of much significance viz a viz the cost of the construction of the said building.
284. Further, prosecution has also examined witness PW-22 Sh. Praveen Kumar Singh to prove the ownership of the said house in the name of accused and his wife, its consideration amount and the cost of the construction.
CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 73 of 112
285. PW-22 deposed that accused Ajay Kumar Rai is his brother-in-law (Jija) and Smt. Manjula Rai (since expired) was his sister, who had purchased the aforesaid property in the year 1997 for a sum of Rs.6.5 lakhs ; he identified the signatures of Mrs. Manjula Rai at Point A and signatures of accused Ajay Kumar Rai at point B on the Sale deed dt 14.10.1997, which was exhibited as Ex PW22/1 ( D-52).
286. But importantly, PW-22 further stated that he alongwith his family and father have been residing in the said property since the year 1997-1998, after it was demolished and re-constructed. He stated that as of now also he is residing in the said property alongwith his wife. He admitted that they have never paid any rent to accused or to his wife.
287. Witness stated that the said property was reconstructed in the year 1997-1998 after demolition and a sum of Rs.35 lacs approximately was spent towards its construction by the accused, which is contrary to the alleged valuation report exhibited by PW-1 wherein Rs. 14,56,000/- was taken as a construction cost.
288. In the cross-examination, he again admitted that his father Dr. Nand Ram Singh, Professor at Chander Shekhar Azad University, Kanpur, UP had resided in the said constructed house from the year 1997-1998 till his death in the year 2008 with his family including he himself (PW-22).
289. He also admitted that an affidavit Ex PW22./DX-1, put to him during cross-examination by learned defence counsel, filed in a Civil Suit no. 144 of 2010 titled as 'Ajay Kumar Rai Vs. Gyan Parkash & Ors' pending adjudication at Kanpur, UP CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 74 of 112 between the parties, wherein he has claimed that the aforesaid house was purchased and got constructed after its demolition by his deceased father for his friendly-abled sister Mrs. Manjula Rai wife of accused A.K. Rai.
290. The deposition of this witness does not assist the case of the prosecution in any manner what-so-ever, nor does he prove the fact that the said house was purchased by accused Ajay Kumar Rai and/or Mrs. Manjula Rai, nor does he prove that the cost of the construction was paid by the accused and/or his wife. And interestingly, he states that the construction was carried out under the supervision of his elder brother.
291. In fact, in terms of the Affidavit Ex PW22./DX-1 so filed on record by the defence during cross-examination, PW-22 has laid a contrary claim to what has been deposed by him before the court, whereby he is not only disputing the ownership of the accused and his wife qua aforesaid house but also stating that his father had paid the construction cost thereto. The testimony of this witness is unreliable.
292. The cost of the house and the construction thereby remains not proved.
293. (ii) - Properties at Noida, UP - bearing No. F-65-C-16/376 Sector 40, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, UP.
294. As per the documents this property was purchased from Sh. Hansa Manral through GPA for a consideration of Rs. 50,000/- with the additional cost of one Room to the tune of Rs. 90,300/-, thus totaling to Rs. 1,40,300/-.
CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 75 of 112
295. The property is in the name of Ms. Manjula Rai, wife of accused. Prosecution claims that this amount of Rs. 1,40,300/- was paid by accused A.K. Rai and the property was purchased under Benami transaction in the name of his wife but there is no such evidence on record to reflect that the payments were made by accused A.K. Rai or through him for purchasing the said property in the name of his wife Ms. Manjula Rai.
296. PW-21 Sh. S.M. Bhatia from the Noida Authority was examined by the prosecution in support of its case. But the witness is merely proving the document whereby the property was transferred in the name of Ms. Manjula Rai, and nothing more than that.
297. No positive evidence has been led by the prosecution to support their case that the consideration amount and the cost of the additional room so constructed there was made for and on behalf of accused A.K. Rai or by him.
298. Similarly, is the case of other property at Noida i.e. Property bearing No. E-16, Sector-20, Noida, District Uttar Pradesh, where by PW-21 Sh. S.M. Bhatia had produced the record of Flat no. E-16/20, Ex PW21/3 (Colly.) which was initially allotted to Sh. J.K. Mehra son of Sh. R.R. Mehra on 14.01.1980 for a consideration of Rs. 46,200/-, which lateron was transferred by the allottee to Ms. Manjula Rai on 23.11.1996 with the consent of Noida Authority.
299. The said flat was thereafter transferred in the name of accused Sh. A.K. Rai after the demise of his wife Ms. Manjula Rai on 21.01.2009.
CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 76 of 112
300. Here also, besides the chain of title documents produced by the Noida Authority, there is no evidence on record to reflect that the payment of any sought for any purpose was made by accused for himself or on his behalf.
301. At this stage a useful reference be made to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case titled as Krishnanand Agnihotri Vs State of M.P AIR 1977 SC 796, wherein it was held as under:-
17. In that case, it was contended that the amounts lying in fixed deposit in the name of one Shanti Devi was an asset belonging to the appellant and that Shanti Devi was a benamidar of the appellant. The Learned Judge speaking for the Bench has disposed of that contention holding that (para 26 of AIR) :
"It is well settled that the burden of showing that a particular transaction is benami and the appellant owner is not the real owner always rests on the person asserting it to be so and this burden 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. The essence of benami is the intention of the parties and not unoften, such intention is shrouded in a thick veil which cannot be easily pierced through. But such difficulties do not relieve the person asserting the transaction to be benami of the serious onus that rests on him, nor justify the acceptance of mere conjectures or surmises as a substitute for proof."
Emphasis Supplied
302. And, the prosecution has failed to lead evidence of any definitive character to show that accused A.K. Rai had CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 77 of 112 contributed in any manner to acquire the alleged Benami properties in the name of his wife Ms. Manjula Rai.
303. (iii) - Three Properties at Greater Noida, UP - bearing No. D-288, Sector-P-3, / bearing No. A-221, Sector-Swaran Nagar,/and bearing No. H-31, Sector-Gama-II, Greater Noida.
304. All these three properties are also in the name of Ms. Manjula Rai, which the prosecution claims to be benami properties purchased by accused A.K.Rai in the name of his wife.
305. PW-2 Sh.Sujeet Kumar Mishra was examined by the prosecution to prove the documents i.e. GPA, Sale Deed and Conveyance Deed in terms of the official record maintained at the authority.
306. The documents of the aforesaid three properties which were exhibited as Ex PW2/B, Ex PW2/D, and Ex PW2/F respectively also reflects that all these properties are in the name of Ms. Manjuala Rai.
307. It is contended by the learned Sr. PP that the cost of the land/Flat and the construction cost of the land/flat was paid by accused A.K. Rai and were part of his illegal acquired properties.
308. PW-2 in terms of his examination-in-chief has stated that the consideration charges/rent charges/lease rent/ completion fee / stamp charges etc were paid by Ms. Manjula Rai with respect to aforesaid three properties.
309. He further states that application form dated 23.03.1998 pertaining to property bearing no.A-221, Sector CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 78 of 112 Swaran Nagari, Greater Noida bears the signatures of Ms. Manjula Rai.
310. Herein also, besides oral contentions to that effect no positive evidence has been led by the prosecution to show the payments of aforesaid amounts by and/or behalf of accused herein.
311. Whereas, none of the original allottee(s) or the person from whom the properties were purchased by Ms. Manjula Rai have been examined to connect the payment of the consideration amount, if any, by accused Sh. A.K. Rai or on his behalf to substantiate its case.
312. There is absolutely nothing on record to establish the fact that all these properties were purchased by accused Sh. A.K. Rai in the name of his wife through benami transactions from his illegal source of money, if any. In fact there is no investigation on the said aspects. Why and for what reason no explanation is forthcoming.
313. Further, PW-25 Sh. Satyapal Jain was examined by the prosecution to prove the valuation of the construction of the said properties.
314. He deposed that in the year 2014, he was working as Assistant Valuation officer in the Central Public Works Department, Meerut UP, and at the behest of CBI officials, he alongwith Sh.Ajit Singh (Junior Engineer) and IO Sh. Joseph Krelo carried out inspection of five properties (two at Noida + three at Greater Noida ) belonging to Sh. Ajay Kumar Rai on 10.12.2013, and after preparation of the Valuation report Ex CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 79 of 112 PW25/1 (colly) sent the same under his signatures at point-A to CBI through Post alongwith forwarding letter dated 06.01.2014.
315. He also deposed that the abstract of cost/enclosures Ex PW25/2 (colly) were part of the Valuation report relating only to the construction cost of the properties.
316. In the cross-examination PW-25 stated that the inspection was carried out in the presence of another official namely Sh. Ajeet Singh (JE) alongwith CBI officials, and accused and said persons had also signed the Valuation Report, but there are no signatures of any of the persons alleged to be present there on the Valuation Report or on the abstract of cost/enclosures.
317. PW-25 admitted that he was not provided with the Site Plan / Naksha or building plans of the properties. He admitted that he had not taken any photographs of the properties when the Inspection and Measurements were so carried out.
318. During his examination, he orally gave some details about the construction at the said properties, but it was noticed by the Court while he was under examination, that the witness was carrying a slip wherein the status/description of construction of the properties were mentioned and he was referring to the same in clandestine manner to speak out the details thereto.
319. He admitted that the status of the construction at the properties is not mentioned in his Valuation Report. Though he stated that the year for which the valuation report of the construction was to be prepared was mentioned by the IO, but he admitted that he was not aware nor informed about the year in CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 80 of 112 which the properties were constructed.
320. He was also not aware whether the construction on the said properties was as per standards and specification so notified by the CPWD in that regard, the latest rates of plinth area rate and cost index rate, which he has taken into consideration while making the calculations.
321. He also admitted that he did not see the local schedule of rates notified by Noida Authority / Greater Noida Authority at the time of carrying out its Valuation, where the properties were situated.
322. Thus, analyzing the testimony of this witness, the valuation report Ex PW25/1 (colly.) and the abstracts submitted thereto are found lacking on vital aspects and the Valuation report raises strong doubt over its correctness and authenticity.
323. (iv) - Property at Allahabad U.P - bearing No. C-303/1, IInd Floor Gulteria Apartment, Civil Lines, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh-299.
324. PW-6 Sh. Sanjeev Vaish was examined, and during his examination he deposed that the above said property was purchased by Sh. Ajay Kumar Rai and his wife Smt. Sonam Rai (second wife) in the year 2009 for a sum of Rs.17 lacs from him.
325. That they had paid him Rs. 5 lacs by way of two cheques and remaining Rs.12 lacs from LIC Housing Loan Scheme. The registration fee of Rs. 10,020/- was paid by accused Ajay Kumar Rai and Sonam. He further identified his signatures appearing on the sale deed dated 23.06.2009 at point CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 81 of 112 X, Ex PW6/1.
326. Accused is not disputing the factum of purchase of the property and the payment of the consideration amount through the loan from LIC.
327. Moreover, taking his deposition on face value, then also, only half of the consideration amount and the charges paid thereto can be attributed to accused Sh. A.K. Rai, as PW-6 himself states that the aforesaid flat was purchased by accused Ajay Kumar Rai and his wife jointly and they made the payment to him through cheques. The sale deed is also executed in the joint name of Ms. Sonam Rai and accused A.K. Rai. The loan taken from the LIC was also in joint names.
328. Here testimony of defence witness Ms. Sonam Rai (DW-10) is relevant to note wherein it has been established on record during her cross-examination that she was a Graduate and not working for gain prior to her marriage, but after her marriage with accused A.K. Rai she started looking after the Photocopier / Courier business at their house at Sector-40, Noida somewhere in the year 2010.
329. She also testified that after her marriage they had purchase only one house in Allahabad, having reference to this afore mentioned property.
330. At this juncture, a useful reference be also made to the decision of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court In Criminal Appeal No.5 of 1995, D/d. 26.4.2001 titled K.Goverdhan Versus State of A.P, where the Hon'ble High Court has held as under:-
14. Thus, in this case, the learned CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 82 of 112 Special Judge seems to have relied on only two circumstances for holding that the assets in question are held by the ostensible owners benami for the accused officer. Firstly, the alleged absence of any known source of income on the part of those ostensible owners and secondly issuing of cheques by the accused officer on various occasions in favour of D.W.5, who is his son-in-law. It is pertinent to mention here that even assuming that the ostensible owners in question do not have any known sources of income this in itself cannot be a conclusive circumstance for holding that the property held by them was benami on behalf of accused officer.
22. There is another aspect of the matter which deserves to be mentioned. Mere fact that the ostensible owner had no source of income in itself would not lead to any inference that the property in question was purchased with the income of a particular person. The absence of any source of income to the ostensible owner would merely indicate that the property might have been acquired with the income flowing from some one else.
As to who that some one else is a matter of evidence and proof. That circumstance cannot lead to an inference that the property in question was acquired with the income from the accused. As pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant one of the sons of Narsingamma who has been examined as P.W.12 was himself a Government employee. No material has been placed before the Court to show that he might not have been interested in having the property acquired benami in the name of his mother. Thus, as stated above, it is a matter of evidence and not a matter of mere inference though the evidence may not be direct and may consist of circumstantial CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 83 of 112 evidence. In this case, the Investigating officer P.W.43, has candidly admitted that there is no material to show that the investments for the purchase of properties alleged to be benami were in any way traceable to the income of the accused. No circumstantial evidence of a definitive character has been placed on record to lead to an inference that it was the income of the accused which financed purchase of alleged benami properties.
Emphasis Supplied.
331. Even assuming that Mrs. Manjula Rai and Mrs Sonam Rai were having no source of independent income that by itself would not lead to any inference that the properties in question were purchased with the income/ill-gotten money for and on behalf of accused A. K. Rai.
332. Whereas, in terms of the evidence produced on record by the defence and also evidence so produced by the prosecution especially PW-22 & ITRs of Ms. Manjula Rai and Ms. Sonam Rai, it is evident that they both were having their independent source of income and were financially capable to purchase the properties.
333. PW-21 Sh. S.M. Bhatia was confronted with his statement under Section 161 wherein he has specifically stated that a General Store, Saloon, and PCO was being run from the said premises bearing no. F-64-C/376 Sector-40, Noida, UP. His testimony corroborates the fact that accused Ms. Manjula Rai was carrying out her own business related to PCO/General Store / and Saloon.
CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 84 of 112
334. So, in the case at hand, prosecution has failed completely to prove by leading any sort of evidence to draw an inference that the aforesaid properties in the name of his deceased wife Ms. Manjula Rai were purchased by accused A.K. Rai himself or if he had contributed any amount thereto, or to say that the immovable properties standing in the name of his wives especially Mrs. Manjula Rai were benami transactions.
335. Prosecution has thereby wrongly added the said properties towards the assets acquired by accused A.K.Rai during the check period.
336. Nextly, the rental income from the said properties ( i.e. Rs. 36,03,612/- as discussed under Head I- Rental Income of Mrs. Manjula Rai) also can not be added towards the income of accused A.K. Rai, which the prosecution has done so.
337. It would be a separate and individual income of Ms. Manjula Rai, and the prosecution has misconstrued and mis- applied the provisions of law to add the said properties/rental income towards the assets / income of accused A.K. Rai. It needs to be subtracted from the account of accused on both counts.
338. So, the total value of immovable assets/properties acquired by accused A.K. Rai, as proved on record by the prosecution, will only be to the tune of Rs. 8,50,000/-, after being apportioned in terms of loan taken from the LIC jointly by accused A.K. Rai and his wife Ms. Sonam Rai.
339. (II) - Movable Assets/ house hold articles and accounts maintained with different banks and post office in the name of accused and his wife Smt. Sonam Rai was taken to be Rs.
CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 85 of 112 7,15,770/- :-
340. Prosecution claims that during search conducted at the residence of accused on 24.09.2012 one Scooty make Suzuki, one Car make Santro, Computer and other house hold articles valued at Rs.6,76,950/- alongwith cash of Rs.14,800/- were recovered and seized by the CBI.
341. However, no witness has been examined by the prosecution to prove the ownership of the vehicles and the articles and the valuation thereof. Said articles / valuation remains not proved.
342. Similarly, no witness has been examined to prove that a sum of Rs.16,814/- was balance in the Saving Bank Account bearing No. 714001011000766 maintained with Vijay Bank in the name of Smt. Manjula Rai (Ist wife since deceased), and that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was balance in the Saving Bank Account bearing No.2726000100350990 maintained with Punjab National Bank in the name of Smt. Sonam Rai ( 2nd wife).
343. Further, a sum of Rs.9,714/- was balance in the Saving Bank Account bearing No. 0292500100514901 maintained with Karnataka Bank Ltd. Allahabad Branch in the name of Smt. Sonam Rai. This amount is admitted by accused i.e.Rs. 9,714/-
344. But relevant to note that all these accounts were in the name of wives of accused Ajay Kumar Rai who were having their own independent source of income and can not be included towards his assets.
345. With respect to a sum of Rs.7,092/-, which was CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 86 of 112 balance in the Saving Account bearing No. 2055017 dated 03.10.2006 maintained with Post Office Branch in the joint name of Sh. Ajay Kumar Rai and Smt. Sonam Rai, and prosecution has proved the same in terms of testimony of PW-5 Sh. Rampal, Asstt. Post Supdt. SSPO.
346. With respect to the law governing the joint account, profitable reference be made to the judgment titled as State of Maharashtra Vs. Pollonji Darabshaw Daruwalla AIR 1988 SC 88: wherein the Hon'ble Court had held held as under :-
"Equally erroneous is the view of the High Court on the proposition noticed at point (b). The assumption that in all joint deposits, the depositor first name alone is the beneficial owner and the depositor named second has no such beneficial interest is erroneous. The matter is principally guided by the terms of the agreement, inter se, between the joint depositors. If, however, the terms of the acceptance of the deposit by the depositee stipulate that the name of the beneficial owner shall alone be entered first, then the presumptive beneficial interest in favour of the first depositor might be assumed. There is no such material before the Court in this case."
347. In light thereof, it can not be said that the second wife (Smt. Sonam Rai) of accused A.K. Rai has no beneficial interest in the same, and there is nothing on record to prove the contrary fact. However, considering the accused to be the principal earner, major part of the same can be attributed to him. May be to the extent of 60-40% ratio, which comes to = 4255/- and is to be CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 87 of 112 added to the movable assets of accused Sh. Ajay Kumar Rai.
348. (III) - Jewellery in the name of accused and his wife Smt. Sonam Rai is stated to be worth Rs.11,43,242/- :-
349. Prosecution has claimed that during search of the house of accused and lockers at Bank jewellery items worth Rs.11,43,242/- were recovered from his possession.
350. Jewellery articles were got evaluated from Sh. Om Parkash Malhotra, a government registered valuer ; and while evaluating he excluded the jewellery pertaining to the year 1986, or prior to that period, and after the year 2009 (except the diamond ring), when the second marriage of accused was solemnized ; and as per his report the total value of jewellery items was Rs.12,89,475/-. Out of which the excluded jewellery cost of Rs.1,46,233/- was reduced.
351. So an amount of Rs.11,43,242/- was added to the movable assets of accused Ajay Kumar Rai on this count.
352. The jewellery articles so recovered are not denied by the accused and his wife with the claim that it was given to them in their marriage as per customary rites and rituals.
353. Surprisingly, no witness has been cited or examined by the prosecution to prove the valuation of the said jewellery articles. Sh. O.P. Malhotra, alleged Valuer has not appeared before the court to prove his reports or the valuation of the articles.
354. Two witnesses PW-23 and PW-24 examined by the prosecution in that regard were witnesses only to the Search CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 88 of 112 Proceedings undertaken at the house and the Lockers of the Bank, maintained jointly by the accused Ajay Kumar Rai and his wife Smt. Sonam Rai, and not the Valuers of the articles.
355. In absence thereof, no valuation can be attached to the said jewellery articles. The value of the jewellery items remains not proved.
356. Whereas, on the contrary, second wife of accused namely Ms. Sonam Rai has stepped in the witness box as DW-10, and she has testified on the said jewellery articles and the money being received by her in the marriage.
357. The witness has in fact given minute details about each articles differently, as to when and by whom it was given to her. The description so given by the witness was to a great extent found matching with the seizure list which was prepared by the investigating officer at the time of search proceedings.
358. The facts deposed by DW-10 are duly substantiated by Mrs. Narveda Rai (DW-8), her mother, whereby she has also stated that as per customary traditions, she had given 3 necklace/sets of gold, 5-6 ear rings of gold, gold waist lace, one gold arm bracelet, two gold bangles and some silver jewellery to her daughter and a gold chain to accused amongst other gold and silver articles alongwith cash of Rs. 1.5 lacs to her daughter during her marriage.
359. She has further given specific details not only about the jewellery but also about the weight of each articles.
360. During cross-examination also they both had CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 89 of 112 reaffirmed the facts so deposed by them without their being any fluctuations. The valuation of the jewellery i.e. Rs.11,43,242/- therefore can not be added to the movable assets of the accused Ajay Kumar Rai.
361. (b) - So, the total assets acquired by accused A.K. Rai during check period (I)+(II)+(III) = Not proved as per charge- sheet, except to the extent of Rs. 8,50,000/- (I) & 4255/- /-(II, joint account of A.K. Rai and Ms. Sonam Rai).
362. (C) Total income of accused A.K. Rai during the check period :-
363. i) Net Salary from the day of his appointment in BSNL till September 2012 comes to Rs. 55,000,181/- as per the case put up by CBI.
364. PW-7 Sh. P.P. Bedikar, who was posted as Senior Accountant in BSNL Mumbai proved on record the salary statements of accused for the period 21.01.1996 to November,1991, which were exhibited as Ex PW7/1 collectively.
365. PW-10 Sh. Rajeev Goel, posted as Junior Accounts Officer, Noida, UP proved on record the details of earnings and deductions of accused for the period December, 1991 to June 1992 Ex PW10/2, and Salary details for the period July 1992 to October 1999 Ex. PW10/4 (Colly.).
366. Witness deposed that gross salary of accused during this period was 26,042/- (December, 1991 to June 1992 ) + 6,74,892/- (July 1992 to October 1999), with Net salary of 22,052 + 3,09,703/- (= 3,31,755/-) respectively.
367. He had contributed a total sum of Rs. 3,09,300/- towards the GPF during this period.
CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 90 of 112
368. PW-11 Sh. Sheo Pal Singh, Accounts Officer at BSNL Bhawan, Kanpur proved on record the statement of account, the payment of the Salary / Pay bills / Supplementary Bills for the period from November 1999 till August 2010, as per record which were available in the concerned office.
369. He deposed that as per the Salary statements, the gross salary alongwith Bonus and DA drawn through Supplementary bills by the accused was Rs. 42,90,503/- and Net Salary was Rs. 31,48,577/-, Ex PW11/3 (colly.), and he stated that accused A.K. Rai was not staying in the Government Accommodation during that period.
370. These facts to a great extent have not been disputed by the accused during cross-examination or otherwise, except that the statements of salary were not indicating the over-time payments for the work so done by the accused and allowances w.r.t. Newspaper / Towel and other miscellaneous allowances to which he was entitled.
371. Here, I would state that it was incumbent upon the accused to produce on record such over time payments, if at all, they were made to him. However, accused also failed to produce any thing on record to indicate the over time so done by him and the payments, if any, made thereto.
372. At this stage, it may also be noted that prosecution has not examined any witness to prove the net salary and allowances, if any, of accused for the period September, 2010 to September, 2012, which the prosecution claims was to the tune of Rs. 18,69,498/-.
373. Accused had initially disputed the said amount but CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 91 of 112 lateron during final arguments admitted the same.
374. So, total income of accused from his salary is taken as Rs. 55,000,181/-.
375. ii) Redeemed money received from ICICI Prudent Tax Plan Growth Scheme on 16.04.2021 (D-7) = 36,733/-.
376. Prosecution examined PW-8 Sh. K.Bansal, Relationship Manager of ICICI who produced on record relevant documents to substantiate the investment made by accused and the money received at the end on its redemption.
377. The fact is also not disputed by accused during admission and denial stage.
378. The income from ICICI Bond = Rs 36,733/-
379. iii) Income from Flexi Bonds dated 04.09.2006 & 05.09.2006 (D-8).
380. PW-9 Sh. Bijay Kumar Prasad Asstt Manager in IDBI Bank, Parliament Street, New Delhi deposed that as per their record accused Ajay Kumar Rai purchased Six Infra Tax Saving Bonds, Flexi-17 on 31.03.2003 and Six Infra Tax Saving Bonds, Flexi-20 on 07.04.2004 with face value of Rs. 5000/- each, and maturity amount of Rs.37,489/- was paid on 04.09.2006 and Rs.36,180/- was paid on 05.09.2007 respectively to the accused Ajay Kumar Rai.
381. The documents (D-8) are also not disputed by accused.
382. So, the total income from these two Flexi bonds comes to Rs. 73,669/-
383. iv) Income from MIS Saving Account No(s). 3340000024, 3340000025, 3340000026 and 3340000027 in the joint name of accused A.K. Rai and Smt. Manjula Rai in post CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 92 of 112 Office Sarvodya Nagar, Kanpur.
384. PW-5 Sh. Rampal, Asstt. Post Supdt. SSPO, Kanpur had produced the Account Opening Form pertaining to Saving Account No. 2055017 and aforesaid MIS Accounts in the joint name of accused A.K. Rai and Smt. Manjula Rai in post Office Nawabganj, Kanpur and EX PW5/1, and EX PW5/3, EX PW5/4, EX PW5/5 & Ex PW5/6 respectively.
385. Witness also produced the Original Ledger Card of Ex PW5/1 and attested printouts of Ledger Card of other four MIS accounts and exhibited the same as Ex PW5/7 to Ex PW5/10.
386. During cross-examination, besides questioning the witness about him not personally dealing the aforesaid accounts, the accused has no where disputed the veracity of these documents.
387. Since, the accounts were in the joint name of accused and his wife Ms. Sonam Rai and the income therefrom is to be divided proportionately to half.
388. So, the total individual income of accused from these investments is half of Rs. 27,000/- i.e. equal to Rs. 13,500/-
389. (v) Loan taken on LIC Policy No. 284710817 dt. 29.02.2008 from Varanasi Branch (D-10) Ex P-3 - Admitted by accused = Rs 45,000/-
390. (vi) Maturity amount on Policy No. 058703341 in the name of Sh. Ajay Kumar Rai of LIC of India, Kaushalpuri, Kanpur (D-12) Ex P-5 - Admitted by accused = Rs 23,010/-
391. (vii) Loan taken jointly in the name of Sh. A.K. Rai and CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 93 of 112 Mrs. Sonam Rai for purchase of Flat No. C-303/1Gultaria Apartment, Civil Lines, Allahabad UP (D-43) Ex P-28 - Admitted by accused Rs. 14,15,000/- ( i.e. half to the share of accused comes to Rs. 7,07,500/-
392. (viii) Maturity and Survival amount of LIC Police no. 231358613 in the name of Sh. Ajay Kumar Rai ( Ex PW18/1 ) and Survival benefit and death claim of Policy no. 231292608 in the name of Mrs. Manjula Rai, wife of accused ( Ex PW18/2) ( D-13).
393. To prove these documents / payments prosecution examined PW-18 Sh. R.K. Srivastava, Administrative Officer, Department of LIC, Kanpur.
394. After going through the records and the payments so made thereto, PW-18 stated that Policy bearing Number 231358613 in the name of accused Ajay Kumar Rai purchased on 06.12.1988 had matured in the year 2003 and the payments were accordingly made (premium and amount received set off ) ; and for Policy bearing Number 231292608 in the name of Smt. Manjula Rai, a sum of Rs.25,000/- as survival benefit and a sum of Rs.1,09,824/- was received by accused on 31.12.2008 & 14.03.2009 respectively. i.e Rs. 25,000/- + Rs.1,09,824/- = Rs. 1,34,824 /-
395. ix) Income from investment in Franklin Templeton Asset Management (India) Pvt Ltd. bearing A/c Nos 2199901675639, 0369901420162 & 0539901420462.
396. PW-13 Sh. Avin Mayank posted as Executive in Franklin Templeton Asset (India Pvt. Ltd) identified the CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 94 of 112 Application Form of Mutual Fund Investment Monthly Income Plan (D-14) in respect of account bearing no. 0539901420462 in the name of Sh.Aman Kumar Rai under the guardianship of Sh. Ajay Kumar Rai, Ex PW13/1, and account No. 2199901675639 in the name of accused Ajay Kumar Rai, which after its maturity a total amount of (Rs.73,867 + 873/-) + Rs 28,060/- = 1,02,800/- was redeemed in favour of accused Ajay Kumar Rai.
397. These documents are also not disputed by the accused.
398. x) Income from immovable properties sold by accused A.K. Rai during check period.
399. Accused sold agricultural land measuring 0.162 hectare ( D-15 ) and land measuring 349 hectare (D-16) in village Debari Kerakat Jaunpur District, UP for a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- and Rs. 5,40,000/- respectively.
400. Accused admitted these both transactions and documents and thereby were exhibited as Ex P-7 and Ex P-8 respectively.
401. With respect to vacant plot bearing Khasra M-53, measuring 250 sq. yards in village Sadarpur, Noida, PW-19 Sh. Bijender Singh, Purchaser of the said plot was examined by the prosecution, and he deposed that he had purchased the said plot from accused Ajay Kumar Rai in the year 2009 for a sum of Rs. 5 lac and the payment of the same was made through two cheques i.e. one for Rs.Two lacs and another for Rs. Three lacs. Witness after comparison of the Sale deed identified the same as Ex PW19/1. This fact was also not disputed by the accused in the cross-examination of PW-19.
CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 95 of 112
402. So, the total amount received from the sale of the above said properties comes to Rs. 1,40,000/- + Rs 5,40,000/- + Rs. 5,00,000/- = 11,80,000/-
403. xi) Loan taken on LIC Policy no. 28338900 dt. 29/02/2008 from Varanashi Branch ( D-10) Ex P-3 for a sum of R 1,90,000/-. Admitted by the accused.
404. xii) House rent from tenant Mr. Salem qua property no. C-303/1 Gulteria Apartment, Civil Lines, Allahabad for the period Auggutst - September, 2012, Ex P-4 (D-11), Rs. 30,000/- + 15,000/-.
405. Since the property was in joint name of accused and his wife, the rent is also divided in half accordingly. i.e. half of Rs. 45,000/- = 22,500/-. Admitted by the accused.
406. Besides the aforesaid income relied upon by the prosecution, accused has also produced number of witnesses and the documents in defence to prove his total income during check period, relating to LIC Policies/ investments Folio's and the Death Claims received by accused, which were seized by the IO from the house of accused during Search Proceedings, and which ought to have been investigated by the IO to reach to the logical conclusion to make out a case of Disproportionate Assets against accused, and which he has completely failed to do so.
407. xiii) DW-1 Sh.Mahendran Raman from Franklin Templeton Mutual Fund, produced the summoned record of Folio no. 13724651 for the period 12.07.2005 to 03.12.2009 in the name of Sh. Ajay Kumar Rai whereby a sum of Rs. 44,618.43 was redeemed in the month of February 2007, and CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 96 of 112 remaining Units of 167.168 (equivalent to Rs. 39,163.34) were redeemed in the month of December, 2009 in favour of accused in terms of Ex DW1/1.
408. Though learned Sr.PP had objected to the mode of proof, but without any much force. The documents pertains to the year 2005-2009 and were produced from the proper custody which were not within the reach of the accused and under his influence.
409. The authority letter and the statement of account of the aforesaid Folio was verified by the witness himself, therefore, the objection of the learned SrPP qua exhibits was without any substance.
410. The total amount of the redeemed Units from the aforesaid Folio of Franklin Templeton Mutual Fund comes to - Rs. 83,781/- .
411. So, the total income from these funds comes to Rs. 83,781.77 (-) Rs. 76,000/- (Principal amount) = 7782/-.
412. xiv) DW-2 Sh. Prakash Anand, proved the records for the Policy bearing no.02468451 with application no.5266050 assured for a sum of Rs. One Lac with premium of Rs.5000/- per month in the name of Ms. Manjula Rai with Nominee Sh. Ajay Kumar Rai, and a sum of Rs.1,56,282/- paid to the Nominee accused Ajay Kumar Rai through cheque on 18.05.2009. as per Ex DW2/1 & DW2/2 i.e. = Rs. 1,56,282/- .
413. xv) DW-3 Sh. Vikas Pandey brought the records of Account/Folio no. 515186956055 (units i.e. 2,258,533) in the name of accused Ajai Kumar Rai alongwith copy of investment CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 97 of 112 history, process of conversion and the final redemption request letter.
414. He stated that the investment was initially made in the name of child Garima Rai under Child Career Plan on 01.11.2000 for a value consideration of Rs. 28231.66 (Old Folio no. 5010110034175) and Certificate number R 944027006404 was issued, which was lateron changed to above Folio number on migration of data.
415. He stated that a request for deleting the name of Garima Rai was received on 18.12.2009 from accused on her death and an amount of Rs.83,112.03 was redeemed in the account of accused Ajay Kumar Rai.
416. Record reflects that an investment of Rs.10,000/- was made by investor, thereby Rs. 83,112.03 (-) Rs. 10,000/- = Rs. 73,112.03/- received as income by accused.
417. Nothing has come during the cross-examination of these two witnesses to doubt the veracity of the documents.
418. xvi) DW-21 Sh. Rahul Shankar Nawkar deposed that six bonds with Folio no.171FB17750014 in the name of Sh.Ajai Kumar Rai were allotted on 04.03.2003 with value of Rs. 5000/- each, and on its maturity warrant no.60039893 was prepared, and cheque against its value for a sum of Rs. 37,489/- was issued in favour of Sh. Ajai Kumar Rai.
418. The maturity value of bonds was Rs. 37,489/- .
419. So, income = Rs. 37,489 (-) Rs. 30,000 (Principal amount ) = Rs, 7,489/-
420. xvii) DW-22 Sh. Anshul Dave Assistant Manager ICICI Prudential produced records of two SIPs bearing Folios CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 98 of 112 no.1147804/88 & 11803/91 purchased on 06.10.2005, in the name of accused Sh.Ajai Kumar Rai for a sum of Rs.1500/- each, and the maturity amount against first SIP was Rs. 85,062.24 & a sum of Rs. 64,071.60 against second SIP was directly transferred by the ICICI Prudential Mutual Fund into the account of accused maintained with the bank.
421. The documents were objected by the learned Sr.PP to its mode of proof as no Certificate u/s 65-B or Banker's Book was furnished alongwith it. However, witness has produced the status of the said Folio's in the form of reply addressed to the Court which is stated to have been duly verified from the original records under the Sign and Seal of witness, which pertains to year 2005-2008.
422. The maturity value of two SIP's (Rs. 85,062.24 + Rs. 64,071.60 = Rs. 1,49,133.84 /-.
423. So, the income from the two SIP's comes to = 1,49,133.84/- (-) Rs. 1,14,000/- (premium amount so paid) = Rs. 35,133.84/-
424. xviii) - DW-28 Sh. Manoj Kumar produced the record and the payment details of seven LIC policies mentioned underneath. Out of which four were in the name of accused Ajay Kumar Rai and remaining three in the name of his deceased wife Smt. Manjula Rai.
425. He identified the signatures of Sh. Sandeep Puri, Manager (Admn) and Sh. Sanjay Gupta, Chief Manager, who had verified the said reports vide Ex DW28/1 & Ex DW28/2 collectively at point A & B. CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 99 of 112 S.N Policy No. Name of Policy Date of Nature of Amount Date of o. Holder Commence claim (Rs.) Payment ment
1. 251177963 Sh. Ajai Kumar 28.07.1997 Maturity 1,35,000/- 28.07.2012 Rai claim
2. 251174275 Sh. Ajai Kumar 27.02.1996 Maturity 14,296/- 28.02.2011 Rai claim
3. 252915659 Smt. Manjula 28.03.2003 Death 95,705/- 15.06.2009 Rai claim
4. 252026619 Smt. Manjula 01.02.1999 Maturity 75,182/- 25.02.2004 Rai claim
5. 252026620 Sh. Ajai Kumar 01.02.1999 Maturity 75,182/- 25.02.2004 Rai claim
6. 252417054 Smt. Manjula 27.01.2001 Death 6,88,500/- 15.06.2009 Rai Claim
7. 251174288 Sh. Ajai Kumar 28.02.1996 Maturity 1,53,700/- 28.02.2006 Rai claim
426. There appears some ambiguity in the name of Policy holder and Nominee. All these policies, or the nominees thereto, are in the name of Ajai Kumar Rai and not Ajay Kumar Rai. But reading the same in the light of other particulars including the name of wife so mentioned both the persons appears to be one and the same
427. Further, as per the case of the prosecution also all these documents were recovered from the house of accused A.K. Rai during search proceedings. They have also not disputed the identity of the accused viz a viz Ajai Kumar Rai.
428. With respect to policy no. 252026619 in the name of Mrs. Manjula Rai, the maturity amount of the same was taken by her during her life time and the said amount is not added towards the Income of accused Ajay Kumar Rai.
CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 100 of 112
429. So, the amount comes to Rs 12,37,565 (-) Rs. 75,182 (Principle amount ) =11,62,383/-
430. xix) DW-30 Sh. Shashwat Shankar Srivastava, Deputy Manager Nippon India produced the Statement of account of Folio no. 43012611582 in the name of Ms. Manjula Rai invested under the Reliance Tax Saver Fund Growth Plan, which has now been changed to Nippoin India ELSS Tax Saver Fund Growth Plan.
431. He stated that on 21.09.2005 one time investment of Rs.26,000/- in this bond was made, which was redeemed in the name of Sh. Ajai Kumar Rai and a sum of Rs.53,045.58 paisa was transferred in the account bearing no. XXXXXXX3091 of Sh. Ajai Kumar Rai after demise of his wife.
432. Witness also produced the statement of account in respect of Folio bearing no. 4309706112 vide which two investments in Nippoin India Focus Largrecap and Nippon India Growth Fund Plan was made, and on their maturity a sum of Rs.14,885.50 & Rs.1,21,100.84 was credited in the account of accused at ICICI bank.
433. Witness identified his signatures on the statement brought by him at point A on Ex DW30/1 & Ex DW30/2 2 ( colly).
434. The documents were objected by the learned Sr.PP to its mode of proof as no Certificate u/s 65-B or Banker's Book was furnished alongwith it. However, the witness specifically deposed that all the information so furnished are stored at the company level and he has personally verified the investments so made and the amount redeemed thereto in favour of Sh. Ajai CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 101 of 112 Kumar Rai. The documents have been duly verified from the original records under the Sign and Seal of witness.
435. The maturity value of Folio/bonds = (Rs. 53,045.58/- + Rs.14,885/- + Rs.1,21,100/ = Rs. 1,89,030.58/-.
436. Income from above mentioned Folios/bonds would be = Rs.1,89,030.58/- (-) investment amount Rs. 10,000/- (-) 2000 X 38 ( Rs.76,000/- ) = Rs .1,03,030/-.
437. xx) DW-31 Sh. Hemant Kumar Srivastava, Branch Manager LIC, Jaun Pur, UP produced the status report w.r.t Policy No. 283424170 issued in the name of Smt. Manjula Rai with Premium of Rs.24,875/-X 5 and Policy No. 285912646 with Premium of Rs.45,000/- with nominee Ajay Kumar Rai, and on her demise, a death claim of Rs. 3,44,718/- and Rs.32,152.92/- was paid to Ajay Kumar Rai on 17.03.2009 through cheques.
438. Witness identified his signatures on the statement of the premium paid and the encashment/claim/surrender history of both the policies at point A on each page Ex. DW31/1 & DW31/2 (colly).
439. The death claim against the policies i.e. (Rs. 3,44,718 + Rs. 32,152.92 paisa = Rs. 3,76,870.92/-
440. xxi) DW-33 Sh. Manoj Kumar Verma produced the status report w.r.t Policy no. 230791088 in the name of Ms. Manjula Rai with nominee Sh. Ajay Kumar Rai, her husband, with yearly premium @ Rs.2593/- and it was paid till 2008. The death claim amount of Rs. 66,250/- was paid to Sh. Ajay Kumar Rai on 20.03.2009 vide cheque no. 0120614 dated 21.03.2009.
441. Here also, learned Sr.PP objected to the mode of proof as no Certificate u/s 65-B was furnished alongwith it. Learned CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 102 of 112 defence counsel refuted the same by stating that case of accused can not be prejudiced for want of Certificate u/s 65B as it was incumbent upon the Government officials / witnesses to produce the same as and when computer generated printouts are produced before the court in evidence.
442. The learned defence counsel further submitted that all these documents were seized by the Investigating Officer and he intentionally did not produce the same before the Court by keeping the same in his bag under un-relied documents. A fact which is evident from the records of the case so produced by the agency.
443. Moreover, the witness had specifically deposed that he has produced information as per records available at the Branch Office ; and the documents pertains to old Policies and the records are Centralized and preserved at Central Level, and no official can interfere in those records without the permission of the Competent Authority.
444. The witness identified his signatures on the statement of the premium paid and the encashment/claim/surrender history of policy with seal at point A on each page Ex. DW33/1 (colly, ).
445. IO has also admitted that he had officially collected/seized this document during investigation. The objections of the learned Sr.PP can not be sustained.
446. The death claim against the policy received by accused Ajay Kumar Rai = Rs. 66,250/-
447. xxii) DW-34 Sh.Jobi, Deputy Manager in Aviva Life Insurance Cannaught Place, New Delhi produced the status CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 103 of 112 report w.r.t Policy no. LFB1181695 in the name of Ms. Manjula Rai with nominee Sh.Ajaiy Kumar Rai, her husband, and death claim amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- was paid to him after her demise on 19.02.2009 vide cheque no. 528364 drawn on Axis Bank.
448. The witness identified his signatures on the statement of the premium paid and the encashment/claim/surrender history of policy with seal at point A on each page Ex. DW34/1 (colly.), with further statement that information at hand pertains to old policies which are preserved at Central level and no person can interfere in it, on objections by the learned PP qua non furnishing Certificate u/s 65-B.
449. It is relevant to note that most of the witnesses summoned by the accused in defence are independent and neutral witnesses who have simply produced the official records of the company in terms of the summons issued by the Court. So, there can not be any cloud over the veracity of their statements and the documents so produced in terms thereof.
450. The death claim against the policy received by accused Ajay Kumar Rai = Rs.1,25,000/-
451. xxiii) And besides that, as discussed and calculated under head II, accused Ajay Kumar Rai had also rental income from from the properties, which were in the name of his wife Mrs. Manjula Rai, after her demise in the year 2009 for the period February, 2009 to September, 2012 = 19,18,880/-.
452. Further, the prosecution has included the income of Mrs. Sonam Rai, so reflected in her ITRs filed under the Head of 'Business' for the period 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011 for an amount of Rs. 3,60,000/- & 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012 of Rs.1,25,000/-.
CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 104 of 112
453. Similarly, the prosecution has also included the income of Mrs. Manjula Rai, so reflected in her ITRs filed under the Head of 'Business' for the Assessment Year 2007-2008 & 2008- 2009 as Rs. 1,35,344/- & Rs. 1,25,401/-, towards the income of accused Ajay Kumar Rai.
454. Whereas, on the contrary, defence evidence has been led by the accused where the factum of employment/carrying business independently by Ms. Manjula Rai and Ms. Sonam Rai stands established, as discussed above, implying thereby that they both have their own independent source of income and were financially sound to purchase the properties. Therefore the addition of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 7,45745/- (as reflected in their respective ITRs) is totally unjustified, and which accordingly needs to be deducted from his Total income, so calculated by the CBI.
455. (c) - So, the income of the accused A.K. Rai during the check period from aforesaid Salary & Investments comes to Rs 1,32,89,498/-.
456. IV) Expenditure incurred by Sh. Ajay Kumar Rai during the check period, as per case of prosecution :-
Sl Particulars Value in (Rs) Admission/ .n Denial by o. accused
1. Investment towards ICICI Rs.20,000/- Admitted Prudent Tax Growth Scheme dated 16.09.2010
2. Ist installment of IDBI Rs.25,000/- Admitted Wealthsurance Milestone Scheme dated 22.03.2011 CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 105 of 112
3. 2nd installment of IDBI Rs.25,000/- Admitted Wealthsurance Milestone Scheme dated 01.06.2012
4. HDFC Long Term Advantage Rs.15,000/- Admitted Fund Growth & HDFC Tax Saver Fund Growth dt.
20.08.2005
5. HDFC Long Term Advantage Rs.20,000/- Admitted Fund Growth & HDFC Tax Saver Fund Growth dt.
20.08.2005
6. Investment in Infra Tax Saving Rs.30,000/- Admitted Bond, Flexi-17 dt. 31.03.2003.
7. Investment in Infra Tax Saving Rs.30,000/- Admitted Bond, Flexi-17 dt. 31.03.2003 .
8. MIS A/c Nos. 3340000024 to Rs.1,50,000/- Proved by 3340000027 all dated PW-5, 03.05.2010 in the name of lateron Accused & Sonam Rai. admitted by accused.
9. LIC policy no. 284710817 dt Rs.8,43,290/- Admitted 29.02.2008 from Jaunpur, Ex P-3 Premium paid 10 LIC policy no. 28338900 dt Rs. 5,76,640/- Admitted . 29.02.2008 from Jaunpur, Premium paid.
11 School Fee of Sh. Aman Rai Rs. 18,000/- Admitted . s/o Sh. Ajay Kumar Rai for Ex P-11 class XI (Science) Academic year 2012-2013 in Lady Anusuya Singhania Educational Academy, Rajasthan. 12 School Fee of Ms. Garima Rai Rs.1,733/- Admitted . d/o Sh. Ajay Kumar Rai Ex P-12 student of Kendriya Vidyalaya, Sector-24 Noida from 23.06.1992 to December,1999. 13 School Fee of Ms. Gunjan Rai Rs.1,613/- Admitted CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 106 of 112 . d/o Sh. Ajay Kumar Rai Ex P-13 student of Kendriya Vidyalaya, Sector-24 Noida from 30.06.1993 to December,1999. 14 School Fee of Ms. Garima Rai Rs. 6,930/- Admitted . d/o Sh. Ajay Kumar Rai Ex P-14 student of class XI (2002-03) and in class XII (2003-04) at B.S.S. Inter College, P Block, Kakadeo Kanpur. 15 Repayment of loan of Flat no. Rs. 6,36,098/- Admitted . C-303/1, Gulteria Apartment, Civil Lines, Allahabad, from August 2009 to September 2012 for LIC Housing Finance Ltd, Allahabad. 16 School Fee of Aman Rai s/o Rs. 71,850/- Admitted . Sh. Ajay Kumar Rai for class V to VII Academic year 19.01.2006 to 27.03.2009 of DPS, Kalyanpur, Kanpur 17 School Fee of Garima Rai, Rs.3,254/- Admitted . Kendariya Vidalya IIT, Kanpur from 28.10.1999 to 14.02.2002 18 School Fee of Gunjan Rai for Rs.49,405/- Admitted . B.Ed Academic year 2011- 2012, Modern International College of Education, Village Jasana, Faridabad, Haryana. 19 School Fee of Aman Rai s/o Rs.51,000/- Admitted . Sh. Ajay Kumar Rai for class VIII Academic year 2009 to 2010 of DPS, Allahabad. 20 College fee of Garima Rai Rs.9,232/- Admitted . from 2004-05 to 2006-07 in A.N.D. College, Harsh Nagar, Kanpur 21 College fee of Gunjan Rai Rs.2,980/- Admitted CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 107 of 112 . from 2006-07 to 2008-09 at Guru Nanank Girls P.G College, Sudar Nagar, Gomti No.-5, Kanpur, UP 22 College Fee of Gunjan from Rs.11,905/- Admitted . 2009-2011 at Dayanand Girls, P.G. College, Civil Lines, Kanpur 23 College Fee of Gunjan Rai Rs.4,335/- Admitted . from 2004 to 2006 at Pandit Ram Narayan Kanhiya Lal Shukla Inter College, Nankari, Kanpur. 24 Total Premium on Policy No. Rs.10,180/- Admitted . 058703341in the name of Sh. Ajay Kumar Rai of LIC of India, Kaushalpuri, Kanpur. 25 School Fee of Aman Rai from Rs.88,220/- Admitted . 1999 to 2000 & 2005 to 2006 at Dr. Virendra Swarup Education Centre, 117/Q/49-A, Sharda Nagar, Kanpur. 26 Total Premium on Policy No. Rs.86,823/- Admitted . 231282781 in the name of Sh. Ajay Kumar Rai of LIC of India, Kanpur. 27 Total Premium on Policy No. Rs.30,330/- Admitted . 231358613 in the name of Sh. Ajay Kumar Rai of LIC of India, Kanpur. 28 Total Premium on Policy No. Rs.66,456/- Denied . 231292608 in the name of Smt Manjula Rai Rai of LIC of India, Kanpur. 29 School fees of Aman Rai 1998 Rs.22,300/- Admitted . to 2000 at Sommerville School, Noida 30 Investment in Franklin Rs.68,000/- Admitted . Templeton Asset. Management ( India) Pvt Ltd bearing No. CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 108 of 112 2199901675639, 0369901420462 & 0539901420462. 31 Expences towards LPG Gas Rs.8,074/- Admitted . from 02.02.2011 to 28.08.2012. 32 Installation charges for Rs. 3940/- Admitted . Electrical connection for consumer No. 2000004429- 0520007238 in the name of Ms. Manjula Rai 33 Installation charges for Rs. 10,980/- Admitted . Electrical connection for consumer No. 2000041487 for house no. A-221, Swarna Nagari, Greater Noida in the name of Ms. Manjula Rai
34 School fees of Aman Rai Rs.2,48,500/- Admitted . during the year 2010 to 2012 at Rishikul Vidapeeth, Sonepat (Haryana) 35 A plot of land measuring Rs.1,25,000/- Denied . 209.02 sq. meter at Sadarpur Village, Noida UP was purchased 36 Purchase of Agricultural land Rs. 25,000/- Denied . measuring 0.162 hectors at Dehari Village Kerakat Jaunpur, District UP 37 Treatment of late Smt. Manjula Rs.92,397/- Denied . Rai at Apollo Hospital, New Delhi Sarita Vihar Delhi in the year 2008 38 1/3rd of the Net Salary towards Rs.18,33,393/ Admitted household expenses -
457. Accused A.K. Rai has denied the expenditure in terms of column no. 28, 35, 36 & 37.
CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 109 of 112
458. As per serial no. 28, a sum of Rs 66,456/- was paid towards the premium of LIC Policy, but as rightly contended by the defence the policy was in the name of Mrs. Manjula Rai wife of accused and nothing has come on record to show that the said premium was paid by accused from his account. It needs to be subtracted accordingly.
459. With respect to serial no. 35 i.e. purchase of Plot at Sadar Pur, Noida, PW-15 Sh. Ali Sher, was examined as a witness by the prosecution but he did not support its case.
460. PW-15 deposed that the said plot was purchased by Sh. Satbeer Gujjar for a sum of Rs.2.50,000/-, and lateron he came to know that the said plot was purchased jointly by Sh. Satbeer Gujjar and one person by Sh. Rai from Telephone department, who was present there at the time of Registry but he failed to identify accused A.K. Rai present in the court to be said Sh. Rai.
461. Prosecution has also failed to produce the said Sale Deed /GPA and /or any other document in support of their case to show the consideration amount.
462. In the cross-examination by the prosecution he reiterated that the total consideration amount for purchase of the said plot was paid by Sh. Satbeer Gujjar to the Seller. So, the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- remains not proved as the expenses of accused A.K. Rai.
463. With respect to properties at Serial no. 36 & 37 pertaining to Agricultural land at Village Dehari, Karakat Jaunpur, UP, one witness Sh. Uma Kant Rai was examined by the prosecution to support its claim towards the expenses i.e. Rs.
CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 110 of 112 25,000/- for property at serial no. 36.
464. He stated that he has sold a piece of land to his niece Mrs. Manjula Rai but did not further support the case of prosecution. He was not aware about the consideration amount so paid by Mrs. Manjula Rai, nor was he aware about the measurement of the said plot.
465. Qua the property at serial no. 37, no witness was examined to substantiate the consideration amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- alleged to have been paid by Sh. A.K. Rai for purchase of the said property.
466. The entire chain of title documents to show the consideration amount, if any, paid by accused Ajay Kumar Rai or Manjula Rai to purchase the said properties has also not been collected or filed by the Investigating Officer.
467. The copies of the documents / sale deed seized by the IO only reflects the sale of the properties by accused Ajay Kumar Rai to one Sh. Abu Rafe Shekh, after the demise of his wife Mrs. Manjula Rai. Original documents are also not produced before the Court.
468. The expenses so incurred, if any, by accused Ajay Kumar Rai, remains not proved in terms of serial no. 36 and 37.
469. So, the total expenses in terms of admission by the accused and the case so put up and proved by the prosecution comes to = Total Rs. 51,06,202/-
CONCLUSION :-
470. (a) - Assets acquired by the accused during the check in period :-
CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 111 of 112 Prosecution failed to prove the same in terms of the chargesheet except to the extent of Rs 8,50,000/- (B-I) + Rs. 4255 /- (B.-II) = Rs. 8, 53,546/-
(b) Income during check in period (as calculated under Head A+C ) = Rs. 2,38,000/- + Rs 1,32,89,498/- = Rs 1,35,27,498/-
(c) Expenses incurred = Rs. 51,06,202/-
(d) Likely Saving = 75,67,750/- (e) Disproportionate Assets = Nil.
471. Since the likely savings of accused A.K. Rai is much more than the assets acquired by him and the expenses so incurred during the check period no case of Disproportionate Assets is made out against accused A.K. Rai. He is entitled to be acquitted of all the charges so framed against him in the present case.
472. The previous bail bond(s) of accused stands cancelled.
Previous surety stands discharged. Documents, if any be returned after cancelling the endorsement, if any, if the same are not resubmitted while furnishing bail bonds u/S. 437-A CrPC/481 BNSS.
473. Acquitted Accordingly.
474. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally
Announced in the open court ANIL
signed by
ANIL ANTIL
Date:
Delhi, dated 20.12.2024. ANTIL 2024.12.20 17:03:21 +0530 (Anil Antil) Spl. Judge (PC Act): CBI-15 Rouse Avenue Courts Complex New Delhi/20.12.2024 CBI Case No. 136/19 CBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Rai 112 of 112