Delhi District Court
47 Accused Ajay Singh Chautala ... vs Ajay Singh Chautala Page 50 Of 58 on 20 September, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SHRI P.S. TEJI : DISTRICT JUDGE
(EAST) cum ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE, SPECIAL JUDGE
(CBI), KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
AC No.11/2009
FIR No.RC.02(A)/06/ACUVII
Central Bureau of Investigation
Versus
1 Ajay Singh Chautala
2 Chet Ram Kalera
3 Om Prakash
4 Abhimanyu Singh
5 Rajender Kumar Godara
6 Net Ram Godara
O R D E R
By this order, I shall decide the question of framing of charge against accused persons, namely, Ajay Singh Chautala, Chet Ram Kalera, Om Prakash, Abhimanyu Singh, Rajender Kumar Godara and Net Ram Godara. All these accused persons have been sent to the Court for facing the trial for the commission of offences AC No.11/2009 CBI Vs. Ajay Singh Chautala Page 1 of 58 punishable under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the Act) read with section 109 of IPC in case FIR No.RC.02(A)/06/ACUVII. Accused Ajay Singh Chautala has been chargesheeted for possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income whereas other accused persons have been chargesheeted for commission of offence under Section 109 of IPC. It is pertinent to mention that in the present FIR, three separate chargesheets have been filed. One is against the present accused Abhay Singh Chautala, second one is against accused Om Prakash Chautala and the third one is against Ajay Singh Chautala and others.
2 I have heard Sh. A.K. Dutta, Ld. Special PP for CBI as well as Sh. S.K. Saxena and H.K. Sharma, Ld. Counsels for accused Ajay Singh Chautala and Sh. Pradeep Teotia Ld. Counsel for other accused persons on the point of charge. I have carefully gone through the entire material available on record. 3 The facts, as enumerated in the chargesheet, are that Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition (Crl.) No.93/2003 passed an order dated 25.11.2003 whereby the investigation was entrusted to CBI to inquire into the matter of JBT Teachers AC No.11/2009 CBI Vs. Ajay Singh Chautala Page 2 of 58 Recruitment Scam pertaining to Haryana Government. During the course of investigation of that case, searches were conducted at the house of one Sh. Karan Dalal, MLA of Haryana Assembly and several incriminating documents were recovered about the assets accumulated by Sh. Om Prakash Chautala and is family members. The said documents contained a list of 43 alleged movable and immovable properties worth Rs.1467 crores. Thereafter, the investigation against the accused and his family members was entrusted to CBI and the instant FIR was registered. 4 Check in period in the present case has been taken as 24.5.1993 to 31.5.2006 i.e., during the period 1994 to 1999, when accused Ajay Singh Chautala was MLC from Nohar Assembly (Rajasthan) and Member of Parliament from 1999 to 2004 and thereafter he remained M.P. (Rajya Sabha) from 2004 to 2009. Sh. Tejaram Sihag, great grandfather of Sh. Om Prakash Chautala, father of the accused, migrated from Bikaner and settled a village namely Tejakhera. The property of Sh. Tejaram was inherited by his sons S/Sh. Devaram, Asharam and Hukmaram. Sh. Asharam had two sons, namely, S/Sh. Lekhram and Tarachand. Ch. Devilal was the son of Ch. Lekhram and his property was divided among two sons Ch. AC No.11/2009 CBI Vs. Ajay Singh Chautala Page 3 of 58 Devilal and Sahibram. Sh. Om Prakash Chautala is the eldest son of Late Ch. Devilal. Sh. Om Prakash Chautala had been the Chief Minister of Haryana during the period 2.12.1989 to 22.5.1990, 12.7.1990 to 17.7.1990, 22.3.1991 to 6.4.1991 and 23.7.1999 to April 2005. Accused Ajay Singh Chautala was married to Smt. Naina Singh and has two sons, namely, Dushyant Singh and Digvijay Singh. 5 Ch. Devilal Memorial Trust was set up vide Trust Deed dated 6.6.2001. Accused is the founder President of the Trust and its bank account is solely operated by him. Trust is having several properties in its name, like Jan Nayak Ch. Devilal Vidyapeeth at Sirsa, Centre for Excellence at Chandigarh and plots at Rohtak, Jind, Narnol, Hisar, Kaithal and Jhajhar. M/s Karan Automobiles at Dabwali is a partnership firm of accused and his brother Abhay Singh Chautala having 50% share each. Four welfare trusts in the name of sons of accused Ajay Singh Chautala were constituted in which Smt. Naina Singh wife of accused Ajay Singh Chautala is one of the trustees. M/s Kisan Trading Company Sirsa and Dabwali are partnership firms in which Smt. Naina Singh wife of accused Ajay Singh Chautala is one of the partners and the premises of firm are owned by accused Ajay Singh Chautala and his brother Abhay Singh AC No.11/2009 CBI Vs. Ajay Singh Chautala Page 4 of 58 Chautala jointly. M/s Regent Holiday Home, Pvt. Ltd. Manali is a three star hotel owned by accused Ajay Singh Chautala and Abhay Singh Chautala. Accused Ajay Singh Chautala is also a 50% partner in M/s Globe Agencies, Ghaziabad. Accused Ajay Singh Chautala is also a director in M/s Mecca Power Pvt. Ltd. Sardulgarh, Punjab. Smt. Naina Singh wife of accused Ajay Singh Chautala has been the Director of M/s Regent Auto Links, Pvt. Ltd. Faridabad and Ghaziabad till the year 2006. Smt. Naina Singh is also a Director of M/s Samar Khand Estates Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi. M/s Sirsa Petro Filling Station, Barnala Road, Sirsa is also a proprietorship firm of accused Ajay Singh Chautala. Smt. Naina Singh wife of accused Ajay Singh Chautala is also a partner of 20% in M/s Dev & Co. Sirsa. Smt. Naina Singh is a proprietor of M/s Regent Trading 382, SFS Flats, Mayur Vihar, PhaseII, New Delhi. During investigation, accused had not produced any document about his acquisition of assets, construction of buildings, expenditure and income. The explanation of accused had been obtained wherein he explained only such assets which he had declared in his declarations filed along with nomination papers before the Election Commission.
6 Accused Ajay Singh Chautala was having following AC No.11/2009 CBI Vs. Ajay Singh Chautala Page 5 of 58 assets at the beginning of the check period Property Sale Deed amount (1)Shop at New Anaz Mandi, Sirsa Rs.53,760/ (2)Residential Kothi, Khairpur, Sirsa Rs. 6,160/ (3)Agricultural land in Village Lambi, Sirsa Rs.1,83,000/ (4)Sirsa Coop. Bank Ltd. Buildg. Chautala Rs. 1,64,300/ (5) Buld. No. 283, Sec. 15, Hisar Rs. 3,46,500/ (6) Farm House, Kanakpura, Jaipur Rs.3,22,100/ (7)Shop at Anaj Mandi, Dabwali Rs. 84,375/ (8)Plot at Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur Rs. 1,67,905/ (9)Plot, DLF PhaseIII, Gurgaon Rs. 6,11,236/ (10)M/s Globe Agencies, Ghaziabad Rs. 3,75,525/ Total Value (Family) : Rs. 23,14,561/ 7 Accused Ajay Singh Chautala was having following immovable assets at the end of check period : Property Sale Deed Amount (1)Hotel Land WEA Karol Bagh, New Delhi Rs.5,80,100/ (2)Hotel Building Construction at Karol Bagh Rs.2,68,03,500/ (3)Farm House land Udham Singh Nagar Rs.2,000/ (4)Hotel Parking Plot, Karol Bagh Rs. 20,94,600/ (5)Hotel M/s Regent Holiday Home, Manali Rs. 3,40,91,257/ (6)Buld. Regent Tower, Karol Bagh Rs. 57,55,877/ (7)Kothi at Khairpur Sirsa Rs.1,31,670/ (8)Residential House at Khairpur Sirsa Rs.2,20,77,200/ (9)Kothi at Khairpur Sirsa Rs. 0/ (10)Land at Vill. Sher Garh Rs. 12,75,600/ (11)Land at Bhamboor Sirsa Rs. 6,84,261/ AC No.11/2009 CBI Vs. Ajay Singh Chautala Page 6 of 58 (12)Commercial Buld. At Dabwali Rs. 12,35,000/ (13)Commercial Buld. Chautala Dabwali Rs. 11,72,100/ (14)Commercial Buld. At Dabwali Rs. 31,53,700/ (15)Commercial Buld. At Dabwali Rs. 43,44,500/ (16)Agricultural land at Dabwali, Sirsa Rs. 5,18,025/ (17)Construction of Commercial Buld. Dabwali Rs. 19,06,050/ (18)Filling Station Sirsa Rs. 1,73,250/ (19)House DLF Gurgaon Rs.19,70,700/ (20)Commercial Buld. Village Chautala Rs. 8,35,100/ (21)Land at Village Sher Garh Rs. 1,36,867/ (22)Land at Dabwali Rs. 9,15,900/ (23)Land at Faridabd Rs.6,38,645/ (24)Industrial Property Faridabad Rs, 10,68,375/ (25)Commercial Bldg. Faridabad Rs. 52,25,467/ (26)Karan Automobiles Dabwali Rs. 19,54,450/ (27)Land at Village Vaidwala Rs. 1,50,371/ (28)Land at Village Chautala Rs. 40,000/ (29)Shop Anaj Mandi Sirsa Rs. 8,95,200/ (30)Hotel Karol Bagh Rs. 6,82,14,700/ (31)Flat at Gurgaon Rs. 41,80,000/ (32)Chautala Farm House, Sirsi Jaipur Rs. 16,79,760/ (33)Chautala Fram House, Kanakpura, Jaipur Rs. 62,13,300/ (34)Palatial House at Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur Rs. 87,53,019/ (35)Ch. Devi Lal Sadan Bhiwani Rs. 2,71,65,666/ Total Value : Rs. 22,80,34,210/ 8 Total immovable assets of accused Ajay Singh
Chautala at the beginning of the check period was worth Rs.23,14, 561/ whereas his total assets at the end of the check period was found AC No.11/2009 CBI Vs. Ajay Singh Chautala Page 7 of 58 to be Rs.28,76,16,611/.
9 Accused Ajay Singh Chautala and his family are alleged to have earned total income of Rs.7,97,18,919/ during the check period w.e.f 199394 to 20052006. Gross expenditure of family of the accused Ajay Singh Chautala is Rs.7,39,58,015/ 10 The family of accused Ajay Singh Chautala was found to be possessing assets of Rs.28,76,16,611/ at the end of check period. The assets of the accused at the beginning of check period were worth Rs.23,14,561/. The income of family of the accused Ajay Singh Chautala from all sources during the period was Rs.7,97,18,919/. The expenditures incurred by them were worth Rs.7,39,58,015/. The accused Ajay Singh Chautalal was found to be possessing disproportionate assets worth Rs.27,74,74,260/ i.e. 339.27% of his income.
11 It is alleged against accused persons Chet Ram and Om Prakash that they are the owners of farm house land at village Kanakpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan pertaining to alleged Chautala Farm House. However, it is not explained anything about source of money, particulars of sellers of land, actual amount of purchase of land and construction of the building.
AC No.11/2009 CBI Vs. Ajay Singh Chautala Page 8 of 58 12 It is alleged against accused Abhimanyu Singh that plot no.E18, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur is owned by him but it belongs to accused Ajay Singh Chautala. It is also alleged against him that payments for purchase of plot was made through his bank account and subsequently loan was also taken for raising structure on the plot, but the same was subsequently demolished and the present multi storeyed building has been constructed by accused Ajay Singh Chautala. It is also alleged that the rent paid by M/s Reliance Fresh, tenant of the building is being deposited in his account however the same is not used by him but by accused Ajay Singh Chautala. 13 It is alleged against accused Rajender and Net Ram that the property i.e. Chaudhary Devi Lal Sadan, Agrasen Chowk, Bhiwani was acquired by them and belongs to their family but during investigation it revealed that the said property was purchased by accused Ajay Singh Chautala in their names being benami property and construction over the same was raised from the funds of accused Ajay Singh Chautala.
14 FIR (D1) was registered against the accused Om Prakash Chautala, his sons Abhay Singh Chautala, present accused Ajay Singh Chautala and others. Investigation against Om Prakash AC No.11/2009 CBI Vs. Ajay Singh Chautala Page 9 of 58 Chautala and others was conducted separately and three separate chargesheets were filed in the Court. Present chargesheet against accused Ajay Singh Chautala and other accused persons is the off shoot of one FIR (D1).
15 Document D2 is the chargesheet against accused Om Prakash Chautala in RC 3(A)/2004 recovered during search on 7.4.2005. (D3) is the notification dated 13.12.2005 of the Govt. of Haryana requesting to Secretary of Govt. of India for conducting CBI enquiry against accused Om Prakash Chautala. Vide Notification dated 22.2.2006 (D4), Directorate of Personnel & Training, Govt. of India ordered for conducting CBI enquiry against Om Prakash Chautala and his family members. Vide letter dated 20.7.2005 (D5), CBI forwarded the copy of chargesheet against Om Prakash Chautala to DGP of Haryana. Letter dated 12.10.2007 (D6) by the Assistant Director of Rajya Sabha Secretariat is addressed to CBI whereby details of immovable properties of accused Ajay Singh Chautala were furnished to the CBI. Vide letter dated 12.11.2007 (D7) of Joint Director Rajya Sabha, details of payment received by accused Ajay Singh Chautala as M.P. were furnished to the CBI. Vide letter dated 17.09.2007, (D8) written by Director Rajya Sabha to the CBI, details AC No.11/2009 CBI Vs. Ajay Singh Chautala Page 10 of 58 of salary and allowances paid to accused Ajay Singh Chautala were furnished. Document D9 is the sale deed in respect of Chautala Farm House in favour of accused Chet Ram. Vide letter dated 9.10.2007 (D10) of Secretary Haryana Vidhan Sabha, the details of salary and allowances received by accused Ajay Singh Chautala were furnished to the CBI. Document (D11) is the letter of Secretary, Haryana Vidhan Sabha to the CBI vide which attested photocopy of affidavit of Ajay Singh Chautala submitted by him at the time of filing his nomination was furnished. Vide letter dated 12.7.2006 (D12) of Tehsildar Jaipur, documents pertaining to Chautala Farm house at village Kanakpura in the name of accused Om Prakash and Chet Ram were furnished to the CBI. Vide letter dated 20.10.2007 (D13) of Vijay Sahoo, information regarding payments received and made to Regent Holiday Home, Manali, was given to the CBI. Vide letter dated 21.8.2007 (D14) of Orient Craft Ltd., copy of lease agreement entered into between accused Ajay Singh Chautala and Orient Craft and ledger account was furnished to the CBI.
16 File D15 and D16 are with regard to Sirsa Petro filling station, Sirsa. File D17 is a folder containing cheque issued but were not presented in the bank of accused Ajay Singh Chautala. AC No.11/2009 CBI Vs. Ajay Singh Chautala Page 11 of 58 File D18 is containing valuation report of various buildings constructed at Dabwali by accused Ajay Singh Chautala. File D19 is a file containing documents relating to gift deed in favour of accused Ajay Singh Chautala by Abhay Singh with respect to property bearing No.28C, DLF Gurgaon. Document D20 is a file containing photocopies of sale deed, copies of intkal, lease deeds and agreements of a shop of accused Ajay Singh Chautala and Abhay Singh Chautala. Document D21 contains registry of shop no.14 New Anaj Mandi in favour of accused Ajay Singh Chautala and Abhay Singh Chautala. File D23 contains agreement of agricultural land between Mahavir Prasad and accused Ajay Singh Chautala. File D24 contains LIC receipts, challans of income tax in the name of accused Ajay Singh Chautala. Documents D25 are quotations in respect of furnitures to be supplied to Chautala Saheb at their house in Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur and advance payment made in respect of furniture. Documents D26 are the supply vouchers of cement supplied to accused Ajay Singh Chautala at Maharana Pratap Bagh. Documents D27 are the bills raised for repair of vehicles in the name of Indian National Lok Dal. Documents D28 are telephone and electricity bills issued in the name of accused Ajay Singh Chautala of the premises bearing No.E18, AC No.11/2009 CBI Vs. Ajay Singh Chautala Page 12 of 58 Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. Documents D29 are the expenditure details of Indian National Lok Dal of Rajasthan Pradesh. Documents D30 are details of correspondence made to various agencies to various Governments by accused Ajay Singh Chautala. Documents D31 are the registration certificate of various vehicles recovered during search from possession of accused Ajay Singh Chautala.
17 Documents D32 are the copies of Insurance policies of the vehicles recovered from the possession of the accused Ajay Singh Chautala. Documents D34, D35 and D36 are various goods receipts of construction material supplied at Chautala Kothi, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. Files D37 and D38 are with regard to labour bills and material supplied bills in respect of Chaudhary Devi Lal Memorial Trust, Sirsa School. File D39 is containing details of various construction works done at Chautala Kothi, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. File D40 contains bills, letters, etc. of Indian National Lok Dal and accused Ajay Singh Chautala. Document D42 is the file of MCD in respect of House Tax of property in Karol Bagh in respect of which Smt. Naina wife of accused Ajay Singh Chautala is one of the assessee. Document D43 is the file of MCD in respect of house tax of property No.4/70 WEA Karol Bagh, New Delhi in the name of Sh. AC No.11/2009 CBI Vs. Ajay Singh Chautala Page 13 of 58 Dushyant Singh Chautala son of accused Ajay Singh Chautala. Document D44 is the house tax file of property No.4/71 Karol Bagh, New Delhi in the name of Sh. Dushyant Singh and Digvijay Singh sons of accused Ajay Singh Chautala. Document D45 contains photocopies of mutation of land of MCD in respect of house tax of property no. 4/70 WEA Karol Bagh, New Delhi in the name of Sh. Dushyant Singh Chautala son of accused Ajay Singh Chautala in village Vaidwala. Document D46 contains documents of land belonging to Benami assets of accused Ajay Singh Chautala registered in the name of accused Rajender and Net Ram. Document D47 contains various documents in respect of hotel Regent Home Manali. Document D48 contains copy of assessment, mutation and building plan etc. in respect of shops and property at Dabwali in the name of accused Ajay Singh Chautala and his family. Document D 49 contains certified copies of Chaudhary Devi Lal Sadan Bhiwani. Document D50 is the sale deed of plot No.12A, Sector 15A, Ajronda Mode, Faridabad. Document D127 is the original file of HUDA in respect of aforesaid flat. Document D51 is the original lease agreement in respect of property No.4/70 WEA Karol Bagh executed between accused Ajay Singh Chautala and Sardar Gurcharan Singh. AC No.11/2009 CBI Vs. Ajay Singh Chautala Page 14 of 58 File D52 of Jaipur Development Authority is in respect of plot No.E 18, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur in the name of accused Abhimanyu Singh. File D54 contains the Xerox copy of the sale deed in respect of various properties in Karol Bagh in the name of wife and sons of accused Ajay Singh Chautala and their family members. Document D55 is a file in respect of property No.17G, Chautala Road, Mandi Dabwali in the name of accused Ajay Singh Chautala. 18 Document D56 is a file pertaining to plot No.28D, DLF City, PhaseIII Guragaon in the name of accused Ajay Singh Chautala and his family members. Document D58 is letter dated 24.11.2008 of M/s Pakistan International Airlines whereby details of expenditure on air tickets of accused Ajay Singh Chautala was furnished. Letter dated 21.11.2008 (D59) is of Qatar Airways whereby details of air ticket of Ajay Singh Chautala were furnished. Vide letter (D60) of BPCL, Noida, it was informed that there is only one petrol pump, namely, M/s Sirsa Petrol Station, Sirsa, in the name of accused Ajay Singh Chautala. Vide letter dated 5.8.2008 (D61) of Addl. Commissioner Customs, the custom duty paid by accused Ajay Singh Chautala for import of the car was intimated to the CBI. Vide letter dated 24.10.2008 (D62) of DRI, information was furnished to AC No.11/2009 CBI Vs. Ajay Singh Chautala Page 15 of 58 the CBI regarding four cars of foreign origin allegedly belonging to accused Ajay Singh Chautala. Vide document D63, copy of electricity bills in respect of Chautala Farm House at Sirsa were furnished to the CBI. Vide letter dated 31.10.2008 (D64), details of payments on account of electricity bills for shop No.14 & 15, Dabwali and Lambi Farm House allegedly belonging to accused Ajay Singh Chautala and his family were furnished. Vide letters dated 28.3.2008 (D65 & D66) of India Habitat Centre, the fee paid by accused Ajay Singh Chautala towards membership was furnished. Vide document D68, information regarding allotment letter and application of transfer in favour of Nain Tara wife of accused Ajay Singh Chautala was furnished by HUDA to the CBI. Vide document D69 of the HUDA, photocopy of sale deed in favour of Nain Tara wife of accused Ajay Singh Chautala was furnished to the CBI. File D70 pertains to Plot No.12A, Sector 15A, Faridabad owned by accused Ajay Singh Chautala. Vide letter (D71) of New India Assurance, details of Insurance premium paid by accused Ajay Singh Chautala and his family members were furnished to the CBI. Vide letter (D72) of Jindal Aluminum Ltd. Bangalore, the payments made to accused Om Prakash were intimated to the CBI. Document D73 is AC No.11/2009 CBI Vs. Ajay Singh Chautala Page 16 of 58 the letter of LIC informing the payment received from accused Ajay Singh Chautala and his family members to the CBI. Vide letter (D
74) of MCD, the payments made to the MCD in respect of property which are in the name of family members of accused Ajay Singh Chautala i.e. at Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi were furnished to the CBI. Vide letter (D76) information regarding imported vehicle of accused Ajay Singh Chautala was furnished to the CBI. Vide document (D77) of MCD, information regarding payment of electricity and water charges in respect of Farm house at Gadai Pur, 18 Janpath, 100 Lodhi Estate, D601 Gauri Sadan, Mehrauli, New Delhi in the name of accused Ajay Singh Chautala and his family were furnished to the CBI. Vide document (D78) certified copies of sale deed, mutation register in respect of various properties in Dabwali in the name of accused Ajay Singh Chautala and his family members were furnished to the CBI. Vide documents (D79 & 80) information regarding various properties at Sirsa in the name of accused Ajay Singh Chautala and his family members was furnished to the CBI. Vide document (D81) information regarding property at Siri Jaipur in the name of accused Chet Ram (Benami) was furnished to the CBI. Vide document (D82) information regarding property at AC No.11/2009 CBI Vs. Ajay Singh Chautala Page 17 of 58 Kher Pur, Sirsa in the name of accused Ajay Singh Chautala, his wife and others was furnished to the CBI. Vide document (D84), information in respect of property in village Teja Khera, Lambi, Mauj Garh, Sher Garh, Chautala, Aboob Shehar in the name of accused Ajay Singh Chautala and his family members was furnished to the CBI. Vide document (D85 & D86) information with regard to various properties in Sirsa in the name of accused Ajay Singh Chautala and his family members were furnished to the CBI. Vide document (D87) information regarding M/s Samar Khand Estates Pvt. Ltd. was furnished to the CBI. Vide documents (D88 & D123) of Delhi Public School Mathura Road, the fee paid by accused Ajay Singh Chautala in respect of his son Digvijay Singh was intimated. Vide letter (D89) of Lawrance School Sanawar Solan H.P., the fee paid by accused Ajay Singh Chautala for his son Dushyant Singh and Digvijay Singh was intimated. Vide letter (D90) of BSNL, information of telephone document and details of payment paid by accused Ajay Singh Chautala and his family members was intimated to CBI. Vide documents (D94, D111, D112, D121, D128 & D
131) information regarding membership, ownership and other documents of Septa Farm Collective Cooperative Farming Society AC No.11/2009 CBI Vs. Ajay Singh Chautala Page 18 of 58 Ltd., Udham Singh Nagar of which accused Ajay Singh Chautala and his brother Abhay Singh Chautala were members, was furnished to the CBI. Vide document (D95) it was informed that M/s Samar Khand was sold to Smt. Naina Singh and accused Ajay Singh Chautala. Vide document (D96) details of payments received for construction of property of accused Ajay Singh Chautala and his family members by M/s Buildcon Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur, was furnished to the CBI. Vide document (D104) of M/s D.S. Doors Pvt. Ltd. Faridabad, details of payments received from accused Ajay Singh Chautala and Abhay Singh Chautala for wooden work done in their houses in Delhi, Sirsa, Bhivani were furnished to the CBI. 19 Vide letter (D105) of MCF, information regarding payment received from accused Ajay Singh Chautala for his property at Faridabad was furnished to the CBI. Vide document (D106) payment received from accused Ajay Singh Chautala for transfer of 900 shares of Khurana Land Housing and Investment Company was intimated to the CBI. Vide document (D107) it was intimated to the CBI that loan amount of Rs.1 crore was taken from accused Ajay Singh Chautala on behalf of trusts constituted in the name of his family members. Vide document (D108), it was informed by Sh. AC No.11/2009 CBI Vs. Ajay Singh Chautala Page 19 of 58 Pawel Garg that he had taken a loan of Rs.1 crore from accused Ajay Singh Chautala. Vide document (D109) information pertaining to Benami assets of accused Ajay Singh Chautala at Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur registered in the name of accused Abhimanyu Singh was given to the CBI. Vide document (D110) information regarding bills raised and payments received for construction of properties of accused Ajay Singh Chautala and his family members at Jaipur and Sirsa was furnished to the CBI. Documents (D115 to D120) are the search lists in respect of searches conducted at various properties of accused Ajay Singh Chautala and his family members. File D122 contains documents of properties owned by accused Ajay Singh Chautala and his family members furnished by him during his examination by the Investigating Officer. Document (D124) is the details of expenses paid by accused Ajay Singh Chautala in respect of electricity for his property at Ram Colony, Sirsa. (D125) is the declaration filed by accused Ajay Singh Chautala in the year 2005 for Rajya Sabha election. Vide document (D126) it was intimated that accused Ajay Singh Chautala had taken land of other party on non recommend of loan.
20 Document (D129) is the file containing true copies AC No.11/2009 CBI Vs. Ajay Singh Chautala Page 20 of 58 of sale deeds pertaining to Benami Chautala Farm House at Jaipur. Document (D130) is regarding partnership deed, income tax return, sale deeds, various agreements for giving loan and taking land in exchange by accused Ajay Singh Chautala and his family members. Document (D132) is the file containing declaration filed by accused Ajay Singh Chautala in Lok Sabha in the year 2004. Document (D
133) is declaration filed by him for election in the Rajya Sabha in the year 2004. Documents (D134 to D136) are the copies of sale deeds in respect of properties owned by wife of accused Ajay Singh Chautala and his family members. Vide Document (D138) Xerox copy of partnership deed of M/s Deven and its Income Tax Return in which Naina Singh wife of accused Ajay Singh Chautala is one of the partner was furnished. Document (D140 & D141) is the photocopy of sale deed of land at Village Vaidwala in the name of Dushyant Singh son of accused Ajay Singh Chautala. Documents (D143 & D
143) are the Income Tax Returns of accused Ajay Singh Chautala. Document (D145) is the Income Tax Return of Smt. Naina Singh, (D146 to D150) are the Income Tax Returns of M/s Digvijay Singh and Dushyant Singh Welfare Trust and Marriage Trust. 21 Documents (D151) are the Income Tax Returns of AC No.11/2009 CBI Vs. Ajay Singh Chautala Page 21 of 58 accused Rajender Godara, document (D152) is the Income Tax Return of accused Net Ram Godara, document (D153) is the Income Tax Return of accused Abhimanyu Singh, Documents (D154) are Income Tax Returns of accused Chet Ram and document (D155) is the Income Tax Return of accused Om Prakash. Documents (D157 to D175) are the valuation reports in respect of numerous properties of accused Ajay Singh Chautala and his family members in various parts of India. Document (D176) is the letter dated 10.7.2006 of he Dy. Commissioner cum Election Officer, Bhiwani alongwith copy of affidavit of accused Ajay Singh Chautala regarding movable/ immovable properties, filed in the Lok Sabha Election 2004. Document (D178) is a letter from Sub Registrar, Distt. Bajpur, Udham Singh Nagar regarding payment made by accused Ajay Singh Chautala for property No.12A, Sector 15A, Faridabad. Document (D
180) is the search list of house No.E18, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur of accused Ajay Singh Chautala. Document (D181) is the search list of Chautala Farm House, Kanakpura, Sirsi Road, Jaipur of accused Ajay Singh Chautala. Documents (D182 & D183) are the letters of the President of Haryana Jan Pratinidhi Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. Gurgaon alongwith details of payments in respect of flats AC No.11/2009 CBI Vs. Ajay Singh Chautala Page 22 of 58 P1 to P3, paid by accused Ajay Singh Chautala, his father Om Prakash Chautala and his brother Abhay Singh Chautala towards purchase of said flats. Document (D184) is the letter of BSNL Hisar vide which list of telephone bills paid by accused Ajay Singh Chautala and his family members were furnished to the CBI. Document (D185) is the letter of Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Sirsa whereby details of payments of House Tax made by accused Ajay Singh Chautala in respect of his properties at Sirsa were furnished. File (D186 to D189) contains photocopies of sale deeds, Income Tax Returns and other documents taken over from accused Ajay Singh Chautala during his examination conducted on 2.4.2008, 1.2.2008 and 1.2.2008. File (D190) contains Ration Card, PAN Cards, statement of affairs and other documents of accused Om Prakash. Document (D191) is the letter dated 25.8.2008 of accused Ajay Singh Chautala to the CBI furnishing details of income expenditure and assets etc. Document (D192) is the receipt memo whereby photographs, VCD, Video cassettes conducted in respect of various buildings and properties of the accused Ajay Singh Chautala and his family members were furnished to the CBI. Document (D
193) is the search list in respect of premises of Kishan Trading AC No.11/2009 CBI Vs. Ajay Singh Chautala Page 23 of 58 Company, New Anaj Mandi, Sirsa owned by accused Ajay Singh Chautala and his brother Abhay Singh Chautala. Document (D194) is the inventory of various articles found in numerous properties of accused Ajay Singh Chautala and his family members and approximate value thereof. Document (D195) is the letter of State Bank of India, Mandi Dabwali alongwith statement of account of accused Ajay Singh Chautala, Abhay Singh, Smt. Naina Singh and Kanta Singh. Document (D196) is the letter of UCO Bank, Manali furnishing the bank statement of joint account of accused Ajay Singh and Abhay Singh Chautala. Document (D197) is the letter of State Bank of India, Parliament House Branch furnishing the bank statement of O.P. Chautala and accused Ajay Singh Chautala. Documents (D198 to D220) are the letters of various banks furnishing details of accounts of accused Ajay Singh Chautala and his family members. Document (D221) is the letter of Narula Travels furnishing details of payments made by accused Ajay Singh Chautala and his family members towards air tickets. Document (D222) is a letter of Lufthansa Airlines furnishing details of payments made by accused Ajay Singh Chautala and his family members towards air tickets. Document (D223) is the scrutiny report of bank accounts of AC No.11/2009 CBI Vs. Ajay Singh Chautala Page 24 of 58 family members of accused Ajay Singh Chautala. Documents (D 224, D225 & D226) are letters of UCO Bank Manali, letter of Corporation Bank Chandigarh and State Bank of India, Manali alongwith statement of accounts showing balance of Regent Holiday Home, Manali.
22 During investigation into the matter, CBI recorded statements of witnesses. Witness Ram Niwas has stated that the notification was issued by the Government of Haryana for conducting CBI inquiry into the matter. Witness Sh. Karan Singh Dalal, the then MLA, Palwal identified the memo of chargesheet against Om Parkash Chautala and his family members. Witness Balwant Rai, Patwari of village Chautala, Sirsa has given the details of land acquired by accused Ajay Singh Chautala and his family members in the said village. Witness Madan Lal, Patwari of village Tejakhera, Dabwali, Sirsa has given the details of land acquired by accused Ajay Singh Chautala and his family members in the said village. Witness Vinod Kumar, official of Income Tax Department has stated that Income Tax Returns of accused Ajay Singh Chautala, his family members and of Chautala Group were given to CBI. Witness Smt. Inoshi Sharma has stated that the Income Tax Returns of accused AC No.11/2009 CBI Vs. Ajay Singh Chautala Page 25 of 58 Ajay Singh Chautala and of Chautala Group were handed over to CBI.
23 Witness Rahul Bishnoi, working as Chartered Accountant for the family of accused, has stated that he furnished the copies of Income Tax Returns, Bank Statements, Balance sheets, list of donors etc. of the Trust and Society to the CBI. He also furnished the documents of accused Ajay Singh Chautala and his family members to the CBI. Witness S.L. Goyal furnished the documents of partnership deed of M/s Devan Company and Income Tax Returns of accused Rajender Kumar. Witness Subhash Chander, Patwari of village Lambi, Dabwali furnished the documents of land owned by accused Ajay Singh Chautala and his family members at said village. Witness Raman Narula has stated that his travel agency had issued air tickets to accused Ajay Singh Chautala and his family members. Witnesses Gulshan Kumar Wadhwa and Sukhbir Kamboj have furnished the details of payments made by accused Ajay Singh Chautala and his family members towards consumption of electricity in their various properties situated in Sirsa. Witness Dhan Singh Sharma has stated that he supplied wooden material to accused Ajay Singh Chautala and Trust run by him and his family. Witness AC No.11/2009 CBI Vs. Ajay Singh Chautala Page 26 of 58 Gurender Singh has submitted that two plots were sold to accused Ajay Singh Chautala and his wife by his family in village Kher Pur, Sirsa. Witness Jagmohan, Patwari of Village Kher Pur has stated that land of Chautala House is in the name of accused Ajay Singh Chautala and his wife Smt. Naina Singh. Witness Mohan Lal, Patwari has stated that land of Chautala House is in the name of accused Ajay Singh Chautala and his wife Naina Singh.
24 Witness S.S. Chauhan, Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Chautala Branch has stated that rent for the bank building is being paid to owner accused Ajay Singh Chautala. Witness Sh. Raje Ram and Satish Kumar, Patwaris have stated that the land pertaining to godown cum plinth at Village Bhamboor, Tehsil Sirsa, belong to Anoop Singh, Krishan Kumar and Smt. Naina Singh. Witness Laxman, Patwari of Village Shergarh, has given the details of land owned by accused Ajay Singh Chautala and his family members in Village Shergarh which was supplied by him to CBI. Witness Dharam Chand has submitted documents to the CBI for properties at Village Dabwali in the name of accused Ajay Singh Chautala and his family members. The documents of property known as Chautala House in Sirsa were supplied to CBI by witness Chandra Bhan vide AC No.11/2009 CBI Vs. Ajay Singh Chautala Page 27 of 58 letter dated 18.9.2008. Witness Krishan Gauba has stated that shop No.14, Anaj Mandi, Dabwali was sold to the accused Ajay Singh Chautala. Witness Jagdish Chander, Patwari has stated that the bank building of State Bank of India at Sirsa is owned by the accused Ajay Singh Chautala. Witness Anil Kumar Ghai is the witness with regard to properties at Karol Bagh in the name of family members of accused Ajay Singh Chautala. Witness Jatinder Pal Singh has stated that he is running Hotel Raunak in the said property while entering into lease agreement with family members of accused Ajay Singh Chautala. Witness Brish Bhan has stated that he sold the Hotel property No.4/70 Karol Bagh, New Delhi to accused Ajay Singh Chautala. Witness R.A. Verma, Zonal Inspector of MCD has stated that the said property is in the name of family members of accused Ajay Singh Chautala. Witness Mandir Singh has stated that he signed the sale deed of the property No.4/70 WEA Karol Bagh in favour of Dushyant Singh and Digvijay Singh sons of accused Ajay Singh Chautala. Witnesses Virender Kumar and Ajit Singh, officials of the office of Sub Registrar III, New Delhi have stated that they furnished the copies of sale deed of the properties in the name of family members of accused Ajay Singh Chautala to the CBI vide memo dated 1.8.2006. Witness AC No.11/2009 CBI Vs. Ajay Singh Chautala Page 28 of 58 Deepak Sogani, proprietor of M/s Kailraj Builders has stated that he had done the designing and construction work of the properties of accused Ajay Singh Chautala and his family members and he submitted documents to the CBI in this regard.
25 Witness Sh. Satbir Singh has stated that plot No.4/71 WEA Karol Bagh was sold by him to Om Prakash Chautala which was registered in the name of his four grandsons. Witnesses Mahavir Prasad Kakrania and Rajesh Kakrania have stated that they have taken shop No.B6, B7, B9, Regent Tower, Karol Bagh on rent from its owner Smt. Nain Tara wife of accused Ajay Singh Chautala and have been paying rent thereof to her. Witness Pramod Kumar has stated that he has taken shop No.106 Regent Tower, Karol Bagh on rent from Smt. Nain Tara wife of accused Ajay Singh Chautala and has been paying rent to her. Witness Rajender Dayal, Zonal Inspector of MCD has furnished details of House Tax filed in respect of properties of Chautala family in Karol Bagh. Witness Raj Kumar Goyal and witness Vivek Singhal have taken on rent shop no.B12 and B13 of Regent Tower basement from Smt. Nain Tara wife of accused Ajay Singh Chautala and have been paying rent to her. Witness Rajpal Lamba of HUDA has stated that plot No.283, Sector 15A, Hisar is in AC No.11/2009 CBI Vs. Ajay Singh Chautala Page 29 of 58 the name of Smt. Nain Tara wife of accused Ajay Singh Chautala. Witness Bir Singh has stated that land at Aggarsen Chowk, Rohtak Bhiwani, was sold to accused Rajender Kumar and Net Ram. Witness J.L. Tanwar stated that plot no. E18, Type 4, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur was sold to accused Abhimanyu Singh and its land use was changed from residential to commercial plot. Witness K.R. Radhakrishnan has stated that his company M/s Buildcon Consultant Pvt. Ltd. provided services of BDC Flooring at Chautala Kothi and Chautala Farm house at Jaipur apart from Sirsa School and at Chaudhari Devi Lal Vidhyapeeth, Sirsa. Witness Krishan Chaudhary stated that plot No.E18, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur was actually owned by accused Ajay Singh Chautala which was purchased in the name of accused Abhimanyu Singh. Witness Murari Lal Aggarwal stated that his firm supplied bricks at Chautala Kothi Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur and at Chautala Farm House Jaipur against payment. Witness Nirmal Sanghi stated that he was looking after the accounts/finance of firms namely M/s Kailraj builders, M/s N.M. Roof and Designers Ltd. and M/s Deepak Saugani Structural Consultant. The said firms constructed the properties of accused Ajay Singh Chautala and his family members and received payments of Rs.10,88,95,077/. AC No.11/2009 CBI Vs. Ajay Singh Chautala Page 30 of 58 Witness Vikram Garg has stated that he supplied building material for the construction of the house of the accused Ajay Singh Chautala. Witness Deepak Saugani has stated that his firms constructed the properties of accused Ajay Singh Chautala and his family members and received payments.
26 Witness Amar Chand, Patwari, Manali has stated that Hotel Park Inn is owned by M/s Regent Holiday Home Pvt. Ltd. and he supplied documents of the said properties to the CBI. Witness Ashok Kumar Arora has stated that he furnished the documents to CBI with regard to loan taken by Regent Holiday Home and accused Ajay Singh Chautala was one of the Director of the said firm. Witness Pratap Chand Negi has stated that accused Ajay Singh Chautala is the Chairman of M/s Regent Holiday Home Pvt. Ltd. which was subsequently registered as Hotel Park Inn. Witness Ramesh D. Shah has stated that his company made the payment of Rs.1 crore to Regent Holiday Home to purchase the hotel building. Witness Sita Ram Maru has stated that he was looking after the construction work of hotel building at Manali and used to take payments from accused Ajay Singh Chautala. Witness Tez Singh, Patwari Manali has stated that plot bearing khasra No.777 was AC No.11/2009 CBI Vs. Ajay Singh Chautala Page 31 of 58 purchased by M/s Regent holiday Home for Rs.4,60,000/ which was mortgaged to HPFC against the loan or Rs.43.50 lacs. Witness Thakur Singh Thakur has stated that accused Ajay Singh Chautala is the chairman of M/s Regent Holiday Home Pvt. Ltd. Witness Thomas Mathai has stated that he was General Manager of Regent Holiday Home Pvt. Ltd. of which accused Ajay Singh Chautala was Director. Witness Vijay Sahu has stated that he was working as Architect and he received Rs.60 lacs for renovation of hotel building at Manali. Witness Yashpal Singh Thakur has stated that he sold his company M/s Regent Holiday Home Pvt. Ltd. to accused Ajay Singh Chautala and his brother Abhay Singh Chautala on payment of Rs.12 lacs and they also took over the loan of Rs.14 lacs of the company. Witness Pavel Garg has stated that he obtained a loan of Rs.1 crore from accused Ajay Singh Chautala and repaid the same. 27 Witness Anil Kumar Bansal has stated that he purchased land at Sector 15A Ajraunda More, Faridabad for Rs.1 crore but sold the same for Rs.70 lacs in the name of Anoop Kumar under pressure. Witness Brij Bhan has stated that he sold his land to Anil Kumar for a sum of Rs.1 crore. Witness Krishan Chand Sehrawat has stated that plot no.12A, Sector 15A, Faridabad was AC No.11/2009 CBI Vs. Ajay Singh Chautala Page 32 of 58 purchased by accused Ajay Singh Chautala and payments were received by HUDA. Witness R.S. Dwivedi has stated that total capital of M/s Regent Auto links Pvt. Ltd. is 1.9 crores. Witness Krishan Lal has stated that he furnished the documents with regard to House Tax of properties of accused Ajay Singh Chautala and his family. Witness Kuldeep Kumar, Patwari of Dabwali, Sirsa has stated that several properties are owned by accused Ajay Singh Chautala and his family members. Witness Raj Kumar, Patwari, Nai Dabwali stated that he furnished documents with regard to properties of accused Ajay Singh Chautala and his family members. 28 Witness Mahendra Singh stated that Sirsa Primary Coop. Agricultural and Rural Development bank is paying monthly rent of Rs.8200/ to accused Ajay Singh Chautala. Witness Rajendra Gajraj has stated that LIC is paying monthly rent of Rs.17,587/ to accused Ajay Singh Chautala since 1.5.2003. Witness Mukesh Bansal, Manager of M/s Karan Automobiles has stated that accused Ajay Singh Chautala is having 50 % share in the said firm. Witness Krishan Kumar Srivastava has stated that he sold his land to accused Ajay Singh Chautala @ Rs.18,500/ per acre. Witness Jagdish Chander Bhayona has stated that he used to pay rent to accused Ajay AC No.11/2009 CBI Vs. Ajay Singh Chautala Page 33 of 58 Singh Chautala. Witness Subendo Kumar Ghatuari has stated that his company used to pay Rs.25,000/ p.m. to accused Ajay Singh Chautala. Witnesses Ramesh Kumar and Jai Chand Heja have stated that property at village Shergarh was sold to Ajay Singh Chautala and his family members. Witness Gopi Chand Gehlot has stated that flat No.P3 at Haryana Janpratindhi Cooperative Group Housing Society is owned by accused Ajay Singh Chautala and payment of Rs.41.80 lacs was made by him. Witness Rajender Kumar Gautam has stated that properties i.e. M/s Regent Holiday Home Private Ltd. Hauz Khas and Farm House No.36 village Gadaipur, Hauz Khas were assessed by the MCD. Witness Sahib Singh, Kanoongo of Mehrauli has stated that documents with regard to properties of accused Ajay Singh Chautala and his family members were furnished to CBI. 29 Witness Jagdish Kumar Badhwar has stated that he sold his company M/s Samarkhand Private Ltd. to accused Ajay Singh Chautala and his wife against consideration of Rs.3.45 lacs. Witness Bhanwar Lal Bagda has stated that he sold his land to accused Ajay Singh Chautala at village Sirsi Jaipur @ Rs.3 lacs per bigha. Witnesses Bodhu Ram Yadav and Prabhu Yadav have stated that they sold their land to accused Ajay Singh Chautala at village AC No.11/2009 CBI Vs. Ajay Singh Chautala Page 34 of 58 Kanakpura @ Rs.40,000/ per bigha. Witness Devkinandan Sharma has stated that he sold his land to accused Ajay Singh Chautala at village Sirsi Jaipur @ Rs.80,000/ per bigha. Witness Ganesh Raigar has stated that he sold his land to accused Ajay Singh Chautala at village Kanakpura @ Rs.45,000/ per bigha. Witness Kajod Yadav has stated that he sold his land to accused Chet Ram @ Rs.38,000/ per bigha at village Sirsi, Jaipur. Witness Liyakat Ali has stated that land at village Kanakpura belongs to accused Chet Ram. Witness Murari Lal Madhuria has stated that his firm supplied iron material at Chautala Kothi, Vaishali Nagar and Chautala Farm House, Jaipur. Witness Prahlad Parikh has stated that he and his family members sold their land at village Sirsi, Jaipur which was actually purchased by accused Ajay Singh Chautala. Witness Prem Singh Jalwal, Patwari, Bhilwara has stated that he visited the agricultural land and farm house at village Kanakpura and found that same were owned by accused Chet Ram and Om Prakash. Witness Rajender Kumar Mathur, Patwari of Meenawala has stated that land at village Kanakpura was purchased in the name of accused Chet Ram and Om Prakash on which huge farm house building was constructed. Witness Rajender Shankhya has stated that his firm supplied building AC No.11/2009 CBI Vs. Ajay Singh Chautala Page 35 of 58 material for Chautala Kothi and Chautala farm house in Jaipur. Witness Satya Narayan Sharma, Patwari of Sirsi, Jaipur has stated that land at village Sirsi was purchased in the name of Chet Ram. Witness Shyam Singh Shekhawat, Tehsildar, has stated that land at village Sirsi was purchased by accused Chet Ram for a sum of Rs.14 lacs. Witness Sultan Singh, Nambardar, Teja Khera, Sirsa, stated that accused Om Prakash and Chet Ram were not residing in village since 1993. Witnesses Rakesh Rawat, Ram Mohan Ladha and Ram Dayal Nawal have stated that their firm supplied building material for Chautala Kothi and Chautala Farm House, Jaipur. Witness Gurnam Singh has stated that accused Ajay Singh Chautala is member of Septa Collective Cooperative Farming Society. Witness Bishamber Dass Mehta has stated that he furnished various documents of accused Ajay Singh Chautala and his family members to CBI. Witness R.K. Ahuja has stated that State Bank of India, Dabwali is paying monthly rent of Rs.27,716/ to accused Ajay Singh Chautala. Witness Amit Kumar, LDC, DPS Mathura road has stated that accused Ajay Singh Chautala paid a sum of Rs.1,41,600/ towards fees in respect of his son from 2002 to 2008. Witness Arunava Sarkar stated that accused Ajay Singh Chautala is member of India Habitat Centre and paid AC No.11/2009 CBI Vs. Ajay Singh Chautala Page 36 of 58 subscription. Witnesses Naresh Tanwar and Rajesh Mishra witnessed the search of Chautala House, Sirsa. Witness S.C. Kush stated that accused Ajay Singh Chautala deposited Rs.53,49,626/ towards security fee and license fee for plot No.12A, Sector 15A, Faridabad. Witness Harwinder Diwan furnished Income Tax Returns of accused Ajay Singh Chautala and his wife to CBI for period 2001 to 2006. Witness Sanjay Bhandari stated that he imported vehicles in the name of accused Ajay Singh Chautala and his family members. Witness Ishwar Singh, Patwari, Bhiwani, Haryana, stated that land known as Ch. Devi Lal Sadan at Bhiwani is in the name of accused Rajender Kumar and Net Ram. Witness Kamal Narayan Kapoor has stated that his companies purchased gold/ diamond ornaments from the trusts of accused Ajay Singh Chautala. Witnesses Ram Avtar Singh and Ram Lakhan Singh have stated that their fathers sold their land at Vaka Mauja, Bhiwani to accused Ajay Singh Chautala which was registered in the name of accused Rajender and Net Ram. Witnesses Madan Singh and Nathu Singh have stated that they sold their land at Vaka Mauja, Bhiwani to accused Ajay Singh Chautala which was registered in the name of accused Rajender and Net Ram.
30 Witness Saurabh Malik stated that he sold 900 shares AC No.11/2009 CBI Vs. Ajay Singh Chautala Page 37 of 58 of M/s Khuraa Land Housing and Investment Company Private Ltd. to accused Ajay Singh Chautala for a sum of Rs.3,87,000/. Witness Shyam Sunder Arora has stated that he purchased shop No.B4, Regent Tower, Karol Bagh from the wife of accused Ajay Singh Chautala. Witness Ravinder Singh stated that land at Vaka Mauja, Bhiwani was sold by his father to accused Ajay Singh Chautala for a sum of Rs.1,35,000/. Witness Vinit Gupta stated that he filed Income Tax Returns of accused Ajay Singh Chautala. Witness Harish Kohli stated that his company installed a lift at E18, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur owned by accused Ajay Singh Chautala and payment of Rs.7.7 lacs was received. Witness Surender Singh stated that he sold his land at Vaka Mauja, Bhiwani to accused Ajay Singh Chautala for a sum of Rs.1,86,000/ who got it registered in the name of accused Rajender and Net Ram. Witness Ramesh Kumar, Nambardar of village Lohar, Bhiwani, stated that during 20022003 land at Vaka Mauja, Bhiwani was purchased by accused Ajay Singh Chautala and got it registered in the name of accused Rajender and Net Ram. Witness Ram Prasad has stated that his father sold the land at village Sirsi, Jaipur which is registered in the name of accused Chet Ram. Witness Gopal Yadav stated that his family sold land to accused Ajay AC No.11/2009 CBI Vs. Ajay Singh Chautala Page 38 of 58 Singh Chautala at village Kanak Pura @ Rs.40,000/ per bigha. 31 Witnesses Rajender and Bhagat Singh stated that accused Om Prakash is resident of their village and he has not purchased any land at Jaipur or in Rajasthan. Witness Randhir Singh, Patwari of village Mehrana, TehsilDadri, Bhiwani, stated that accused Om Prakash is the resident of said village, having a small piece of land in his name. Witness Jagat Singh, Advocate, stated that on the instructions of accused Ajay Singh Chautala, he arranged the execution of sale deed in the name of accused Rajender Kumar. Witness Rakesh Kumar Garg, Chartered Accountant stated that his firm prepared the balance sheet of M/s Regent Holiday Home Pvt Ltd., Manali. Witness Tirloki Nath Singla, Chartered Accountant stated that his firm prepared and filed Income Tax Returns of accused Ajay Singh Chautala and his family members. Witness Satish Kumar stated that he submitted the file to CBI containing declarations filed by accused Ajay Singh Chautala along with nomination papers. Witness Puran Mal Saini stated that declaration/affidavit filed by accused Ajay Singh Chautala before the Returning Officer was supplied to CBI. Witness Girdhari Lal Falod, Accountant, Rajasthan Vidhan Sabha Secretariat, stated that details of salary and allowances AC No.11/2009 CBI Vs. Ajay Singh Chautala Page 39 of 58 paid to accused Ajay Singh Chautala were forwarded to CBI. Witness Narayan Singh stated that his father sold the land to accused Ajay Singh Chautala at Vaka Mauja, Bhiwani for a sum of Rs.2,11,000/ which was registered in the name of accused Rajinder Singh and Net Ram. Witness Ombir Singh stated that he sold his land at Vaka Mauja, Bhiwani to accused Ajay Singh Chautala which was registered in the name of accused Rajender and Net Ram. Witness Bir Singh Tanwar stated that he sold his land at Vaka Mauja, Bhiwani to accused Ajay Singh Chautala for sum of Rs.1,19,000/ which was registered in the name of accused Rajender and Net Ram. Witnesses Vijay Singh, Ravinder, Ramavtar Singh and Ravi Shankar stated that they sold their land at Vaka Mauja, Bhiwani to accused Ajay Singh Chautala which were registered in the name of accused Rajender and Net Ram. Witness Sher Singh stated that documents with regard to properties purchased in the name of M/s Regent Holiday Home were furnished to CBI.
32 It has been argued on behalf of the accused Ajay Singh Chautala that he was not a public servant as on 24.5.1993 from which date the CBI has taken the check period, so the assets included at that period cannot be read against the accused. AC No.11/2009 CBI Vs. Ajay Singh Chautala Page 40 of 58 33 Record reveals that as per chargesheet, CBI has taken the check period of accused Ajay Singh Chautala as 24.5.1993 to 31.5.2006. It has been argued by the Ld. Counsel for accused that on 24.5.1993, he was not a public servant, but the fact remains that he was Member of Rajasthan Vidhan Sabha from 1989 to 1993 from Data Ramgarh Assembly Constituency. Statement of witness Girdhari Lal Falod, Accountant of Rajasthan Vidhan Sabha recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC shows that accused Ajay Singh Chautala was MLA of Rajasthan Assembly and received payments of salary and allowances right from 199091 to 199798. So, there is nothing wrong in the investigation of CBI that the check period of 1993 has been taken against the accused.
34 It has further been argued that properties in the name of accused Ajay Singh Chautala have been assessed excessively. It is further submitted that the valuation reports are inadmissible in evidence for the reason that they do not reflect the expenditure/ cost of construction and that CPWD manual is not applicable in the present case. It is further argued that valuation of assets as reflected in Income Tax Returns is not conclusive. To substantiate these contentions, Ld. Counsel for accused has relied upon authorities AC No.11/2009 CBI Vs. Ajay Singh Chautala Page 41 of 58 reported as Amiya Bala Paul Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, IV (2003) SLT 397 ; Krishnanand Agnihotri Vs. State of M.P., AIR 1977 SC 796 ; Krishna Reddy Vs. State, 1993 Cri.L.J. 308 ; Ananda Bezbaruah Vs. Union of India, 1994 Cri. L.J. 12 ; State of M.P. Vs. Mohan Lal Soni, AIR 2000 SC 2583 and State of Orissa Vs. Devender Nath Padhi, IV (2004) CCR 343 (SC).
35 As per Section 38A of Wealth Tax Act, 1957, valuation officer can inspect any books of account, document or record relevant for the valuation of property. In the present case, valuation reports were prepared by the valuation officers/assessors. The accused would have ample opportunity to crossexamine the witnesses who prepared the valuation reports, during the course of trial. So, this is not the stage to comment on this contention of the accused. The authorities relied upon by the accused have been delivered by the Superior Courts at the time of final judgment. But the present case is that at the stage of framing the charge and it is a settled law that at the time of framing charge, appreciation of evidence is not to be done in the manner as is done at the time of delivery of judgment. Therefore, the authorities relied upon by the accused are distinguishable to the facts of the present case. AC No.11/2009 CBI Vs. Ajay Singh Chautala Page 42 of 58 36 It has further been argued by Ld. Counsel for accused Ajay Singh Chautala that the declarations filed by him at the time of filing nomination papers do not disclose the sources of income, therefore, the assets mentioned therein cannot be taken to be disproportionate.
37 Perusal of record shows that witnesses have proved in their statement under Section 161 Cr.PC that they submitted the affidavits before the CBI submitted by accused Ajay Singh Chautala before the Returning Officer at the time of filing his nomination papers. The Investigating Officer has taken the assets mentioned in the declarations as the assets of the accused. While mentioning his assets in his own affidavit by the accused, the same cannot be excluded from consideration. There is nothing wrong in taking the assets of accused mentioned in his declaration papers. Even, accused would have ample opportunity to crossexamine the witnesses who furnished declaration papers to the CBI. So, there is no force in this contention of the accused.
38 It is further argued on behalf of accused Ajay Singh Chautala that there is no cogent evidence on record which show that accused was in possession of benami properties. In support of his AC No.11/2009 CBI Vs. Ajay Singh Chautala Page 43 of 58 contention, reliance has been placed on Krishnanand Agnihotri Vs. State of M.P. (supra) ; Gapadibai Vs. State of M.P., AIR 1980 SC 1040 ; State of M.P. Vs. Mohan Lal Soni, 2000 (6) SCC 338 and Mohd. Mumtaz Vs. Nandani Satpathy, 1987 Cri. Appeal Reports 57 (SC).
39 I do not find any force in the contention of the accused that there is no material on record to show the benami properties of accused Ajay Singh Chautala. Number of witnesses have been examined by the Investigating Officer who have in their statements under Section 161 Cr.PC have stated that they sold their properties to accused Ajay Singh Chautala who got it registered in the name of his coaccused persons. There are so many witnesses who have deposed that accused persons namely, Chet Ram, Om Prakash, Rajender Kumar and Net Ram were having small pieces of land at their native places. Witnesses have also deposed that the above said accused persons have not purchased any land at any place. Even there is no evidence on record that these accused persons were in such financial position to purchase such a huge pieces of land. However, there are number of witnesses who have deposed that they made the dealings of their land with accused Ajay Singh Chautala who got it AC No.11/2009 CBI Vs. Ajay Singh Chautala Page 44 of 58 registered in the name of his coaccused persons. So, prima facie there is sufficient material against accused Ajay Singh Chautala that he purchased benami properties in the name of his coaccused persons and his coaccused persons facilitated him in acquiring benami properties by getting the same registered in their own names. Therefore, the authorities relied upon by accused on this point are of no help to him.
40 It is further argued by Ld. Counsel for accused Ajay Singh Chautala that the Investigating agency has withheld several important documents which it cannot be allowed to do so. But, the accused has not mentioned any such document which is claimed to be seized by the Investigating Officer and not produced on record. There is no document mentioned in the list of documents which has been withheld or used against the accused. Even otherwise, there is sufficient material on record which go against the accused. 41 It has further been argued by Ld. Counsel for the accused Ajay Singh Chautala that income tax returns of the accused and his family members were not taken into consideration. On the other hand, case of CBI is that the accused accumulated huge wealth, but had not disclosed the same in his income tax returns. I am not AC No.11/2009 CBI Vs. Ajay Singh Chautala Page 45 of 58 agreeable with the arguments advanced by the ld. defence counsel, as the accused had not disclosed his earnings in his income tax returns accurately or concealed the same from Income Tax Department, as reflected from income tax returns and the details of assets accumulated by him, as demonstrated on the record. My this view gets strength from the judgment in case titled Dilip N. Shroff Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai and Another (Reported in (2007) 6 SCC 329), in which it was held that concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars in income tax returns refer to a deliberate act or omission on the part of the assessee. 42 It has been argued by the ld. Counsel for the accused that investigation in the present case is without jurisdiction as consent of Government of Haryana State was not taken for conducting CBI inquiry against the accused Ajay Singh Chautala. As regards this contention, it is matter of record that the Governor of Haryana vide notification dated 13.12.2005 has given consent under Section 6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 for conducting CBI inquiry against accused Om Prakash Chautala. Along with this notification, letter dated 13.12.2005 was sent to Govt. of India vide which Govt. of Haryana requested to conduct CBI inquiry into the AC No.11/2009 CBI Vs. Ajay Singh Chautala Page 46 of 58 matter. On the basis of request of State of Haryana, the Govt. of India vide notification dated 22.2.2006 has given consent under subsection (1) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act for holding CBI inquiry into the matter of disproportionate assets acquired by Om Prakash Chautala and his family members. In this view of the matter, no fault can be found either with the consent given by State of Haryana for CBI inquiry into the matter or with notification dated 22.2.2006 vide which powers and jurisdiction of Delhi Special Police Establishment was extended to whole State of Haryana for the purpose of holding inquiry against accused Ajay Singh Chautala also. Therefore, it cannot be said that consent of State of Haryana was not obtained before initiation of inquiry or that CBI came into motion without jurisdiction. 43 In the judgment reported as Dr. N. Nagambikadevi Vs. CBI, Bangalore, 2002 Cri.L.J. 1334 (Karnataka High Court), it was held that if consent of the State Government was only for two suspects, it did not mean that if future investigation reveals involvement of more persons such consent would be bad or fresh consent would be required for those who came to be involved during the course of investigation. Similar observations were made by AC No.11/2009 CBI Vs. Ajay Singh Chautala Page 47 of 58 Hon'ble Supreme Court in case M. Krishna Vs. State of Karnataka (Reported in (1999) 3 SCC 247).
44 In the present case, complaint was made against accused Om Prakash Chautala and his family members by Shamsher Singh Surjewala. It is matter of record that memo of chargesheet was filed against Om Prakash Chautala only and after conducting inquiry into the matter, his family members including the present accused, came to be involved in acquiring assets disproportionate to their known sources of income. In this complaint, there are specific allegations against the accused, which is reproduced as under : "Properties declared by Mr. Ajay Chautala in his affidavit, dated 17.06.2004, before Returning Officer for election to Rajya Sabha.
Total value declared as assessed himself in the name of Ajay Chautala, his wife and minor sons, Rs.7,90,10,113/ (nearly Rs.8 crore)."
45 In view of law of land in cases Dr. N. Nagambikadevi Vs. CBI, Bangalore, (supra) and M. Krishna Vs. State of Karnataka (supra) and the above mentioned facts, I am of the considered opinion that no fresh sanction of the State of Haryana was required for CBI inquiry against his family members including the present accused Ajay Singh Chautala.
AC No.11/2009 CBI Vs. Ajay Singh Chautala Page 48 of 58 46 It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the accused that the CBI has not taken the sanction of the competent authority for lodging prosecution against the accused, therefore, the accused is liable to be discharged. On the other hand, Ld. Special PP for CBI has argued that no previous sanction in the present case is required as the accused already ceased to hold the public office during the period when he acquired disproportionate assets. This matter of controversy has already been dealt by me while taking cognizance against the accused. Cognizance against the accused was taken on 2.2.2010. The accused preferred petition in the Hon'ble High Court against the order of taking of cognizance. The Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 8.7.2010, dismissed the said petition while holding as under : "After the Kerala judgment, Supreme Court delivered another judgment on the same point Prakash Singh Badal & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab, 2007 1 SCC 1, and observed that no sanction for prosecution of a person alleged to have committed offences in the capacity of a public servant was necessary when cognizance of such offence is taken after he ceased to hold the office in question.
I find no infirmity in the order of learned Special Judge (CBI). The petition is hereby dismissed."
AC No.11/2009 CBI Vs. Ajay Singh Chautala Page 49 of 58 47 Accused Ajay Singh Chautala preferred criminal appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 4.7.2011 while deciding the appeal (Criminal Appeal No.1258/2011) has upheld the view taken by Hon'ble High Court and observed that accused abused entirely different office than the one which they were holding on the date on which cognizance was taken and, therefore, there was no necessity of sanction. Relevant portion from the judgment is quoted herebelow : "Thus, we are of the view that the High Court was absolutely right in relying on the decision in Prakash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab (cited supra) to hold that the appellants in both the appeals had abused entirely different office or offices than the one which they were holding on the date on which cognizance was taken and, therefore, there was no necessity of sanction under Section 19 of the Act as held in K. Karunakaran v. State of Kerala (cited supra) and the later decision in Prakash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab (cited supra). The appeals are without any merit and are dismissed." 48 In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1258/2011, it is held that no sanction under Section 19 of the P.C. Act is required in the present case as accused Ajay Singh Chautala was not holding the office which was abused by AC No.11/2009 CBI Vs. Ajay Singh Chautala Page 50 of 58 him. He was holding entire a different office on the date when cognizance was taken against him. Therefore, I do not find any force in the contention of the accused that the prosecution is bad for the want of prior sanction.
49 It has further been argued by Ld. Counsel for accused Ajay Singh Chautala that properties of Societies and Trusts and income therefrom is from known sources. It has further been argued that Income of Societies and Trusts was not taken into consideration. In the present case, the CBI has produced sufficient material on the record which shows that accused or his family members were the Director/shareholder of the Societies and Trusts. It is also apparent from the record that Societies and Trusts have been formulated by the accused for accumulating wealth. Even otherwise, in case titled State of Maharashtra Vs. Ishwar Peeraji Kalpatri and Others (Reported in (1996) 1 SCC 542) it has been held that accused is not required to be afforded an opportunity of satisfactorily explaining about his assets and resources before registration of the case inasmuch as such opportunity is to be given to him before the court during the course of trial. Therefore, at this stage it would not be appropriate to go into the merits of the contention raised on behalf of the accused. AC No.11/2009 CBI Vs. Ajay Singh Chautala Page 51 of 58 50 It is further argued by Ld. Counsel for accused Ajay Singh Chautala is that the Court is not the mouth piece of prosecution and it has also to take into consideration the defence put forth by the accused. It is further submitted that the Court is not required to accept the documents and evidence produced by the prosecution as gospel truth. In support of his contention, he has relied upon judgments in Century Spinning and Manufacturing Company Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1972 SC 545 ; Union of India Vs. Praful Kumar Samal, AIR 1979 SC 366 ; Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi Vs. Jitender Bhimraj Bijjaya, AIR 1990 SC 1962 ; Hate Singh Vs. Bhagat Singh, AIR 1953 SC 468 ; Palvinder Kaur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1952 SC 354 ; CBI Vs. Sh. Someshwar and Others, 2005 (2) JCC 993 ; Tamilnadu Electricity Board and Others Vs. N. Raja Naidu, 1996 (4) SCC 551 ; S. Saktivel Vs. N. Venu Gopal Pillai, 2000 (7) SCC 104 and CBI Vs. V.C. Shukla, 1998 (3) SCC 410.
51 The aforesaid judgments relied upon by accused are distinguishable to the facts of the present case, as the prosecution has produced enough material to show that accused Ajay Singh Chautala accumulated assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. AC No.11/2009 CBI Vs. Ajay Singh Chautala Page 52 of 58 The details of properties and the wealth recovered during the search of properties of accused, shows prima facie that the accused acquired assets more than his known sources of income. The evidence collected by the CBI during investigation of the case, clearly discloses that the accused acquired disproportionate assets. The learned counsel for the accused has failed to satisfy the court that the documents and evidence collected during investigation by the CBI, do not disclose the commission of offence by the accused. In my considered view, the burden of proof regarding possession of disproportionate assets is on the prosecution and inability of the public servant to account for it, is on the accused. CBI has brought enough material on the record to establish prima facie that the accused has acquired disproportionate assets. The accused has failed to give any explanation with regard to same. The accused has not accounted the assets acquired by him.
52 It is a settled law that at the time of framing of charge, the standard of proof is different than at the time of passing the final judgment. At the time of framing of charge, court can frame charge against the accused if there is grave suspicion against him, from the material available on record. My view gets strength from AC No.11/2009 CBI Vs. Ajay Singh Chautala Page 53 of 58 the judgment titled as Smaty Machra and another Versus State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (Reported in 2007 Cr.L.J. 4341) in which it was held that the considerations which are relevant at time of framing of charges and those at time of conclusion of trial are entirely different. While grave suspicion would entitle Court to frame charges, grave suspicion alone would not entitle Court to convict a person in respect of said charges. If the Court has strong reasons to suspect that crime was committed by accused, then it would not be in error if it frames charges accordingly.
53 I have gone through the recent pronouncement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled S.K. Lakhina And Ors. Vs. CBI Thru. State (Reported in 2010 VII AD (Delhi) 51) in which it was held that at the time of framing of charge, the Court need not to scrutinize the evidence cited by CBI. Relevant portion from para 6 of the judgment is quoted herebelow: "It is well settled law that at the time of framing of charge, the Court need not scrutinize whether the evidence cited by CBI was credible or not. The charges are to be framed on the basis of material collected."
54 It is now well settled that at the time of framing of AC No.11/2009 CBI Vs. Ajay Singh Chautala Page 54 of 58 charge, only the material produced by the prosecution has to be looked into and the accused would get an opportunity to prove his case and to rebut the case of the prosecution during the course of trial. While dealing with similar situation, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Bharat Parikh Vs. CBI & Anr. (Reported in (2008) 10 SCC
109) has held as under : "With regard to the second proposition regarding the High Court's powers to look into materials produced on behalf of or at the instance of the accused for the purpose of invoking its powers under Section 482 of the Code for quashing the charges framed, it has to be kept in mind that after the stage of framing charge evidence has to be led on behalf of the prosecution to prove the charge if an accused pleads not guilty to the charge and/or charges and claims to be tried. It is only in the exceptional circumstances enumerated in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal; 1992 Cri. LJ 527, that a criminal proceeding may be quashed to secure the ends of justice, but such a stage will come only after evidence is led, particularly when the prosecution had produced sufficient material for charges to be framed. As observed in Debendra Nath Padhi's case (supra) at the stage of framing charge roving and fishing inquiry is impermissible and a mini trial cannot be conducted at such stage. At the stage of framing of charge the submissions on behalf of the AC No.11/2009 CBI Vs. Ajay Singh Chautala Page 55 of 58 accused has to be confined to the material produced by the investigating agency. The accused will get an opportunity to prove the documents subsequently produced by the prosecution on the order of the Court, but the same cannot be relied upon to reopen the proceedings once charge has been framed or for invocation of the High Court's powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."
55 It is matter of record that when the accused was examined by the CBI during the course of investigation, the accused has failed to give any explanation with regard to assets accumulated by him. The accused has failed to disclose the legal sources from which he acquired such assets. Therefore, I am of the view that the assets acquired by accused Ajay Singh Chautala remained unaccounted for. From the foregoing discussion, it has also come on record that accused Ajay Singh Chautala has purchased benami properties in the name of his coaccused Chet Ram, Om Prakash, Abhimanyu Singh, Rajender Kumar and Net Ram.
56 As per above discussion, benami properties have been acquired by accused Ajay Singh Chautala in the name of his co accused persons. Aforesaid witnesses have stated that properties of AC No.11/2009 CBI Vs. Ajay Singh Chautala Page 56 of 58 Chautala farm House and Chautala Kothi which are now in the name of his coaccused persons, have been purchased by accused Ajay Singh Chautala. Witnesses have also stated that accused Ajay Singh Chautala made dealings with them with regard to their properties on which Chautala Farm House and Chautala Kothi were constructed and that payments were made by accused Ajay Singh Chautala himself. The other properties mentioned in the chargesheets have also been acquired by accused Ajay Singh Chautala in the name of his family members. The declaration filed by accused Ajay Singh Chautala before the Returning Officer is his voluntary declaration. It has been demonstrated that during the check period, accused Ajay Singh Chautala was having income of Rs. 8,17,85,805/ whereas he acquired the assets worth Rs. 27,74,74,260/ i.e. 339.27% which were disproportionate to his known sources of income. 57 In view of the aforementioned discussion, I am of the considered opinion that prima facie case for framing charge under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988 is made out against the accused Ajay Singh Chautala for acquiring assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, whereas a prima facie case for framing charge under Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. AC No.11/2009 CBI Vs. Ajay Singh Chautala Page 57 of 58 Act, 1988 read with section 109 IPC is made out against accused persons, namely, Chet Ram, Om Prakash, Abhimanyu Singh, Rajender Kumar and Net Ram by intentionally aiding their co accused Ajay Singh Chautala in purchase of his benami properties in their names. Charges be accordingly framed against accused persons.
Announced in the open Court ( P.S. TEJI )
Dated: 20.09.2011 District Judge (East)
Special Judge ( CBI )
Karkardooma Courts : Delhi
AC No.11/2009 CBI Vs. Ajay Singh Chautala Page 58 of 58