Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment Dt. ... on 18 December, 2014
CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGEII
(PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT 1988) CBI, ROHINI, DELHI
RC No. 2(A)/2002/CBI/ACUVIII/N.Delhi
CC No. 76/2008
CBI Vs Shambhu Prasad Singh
S/o Late Sh. Anant Pratap Singh
R/o B136, Left Side, Ground Floor,
Kalka Ji, New Delhi.
Date on which the final arguments were concluded : 21.11.2014
Date of judgement : 18.12.2014
JUDGEMENT
As per prosecution this case was registered on 8.8.2002 on the basis of source information against Shambhu Prasad Singh, the then Additional Private Secretary to Sh. Tapan Sikdar, Minister of State for Chemical &Fertilizers, Government of India U/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of P. C. Act 1988. On the allegation that he, while posted and funcitoning as Additional Private Secretary to MOS(C) Tapan Sikdar amassed assets both immovable and movable worth about Rs.60 lakhs during the year 1995 to June, 2002 in his own name, in the name of his wife, Smt. Manjari Singh and others in Delhi, Faridabad, Lucknow and at other place, which were disproportionate to known sources of his income. It was alleged that during the check period from 1995 to CC No. 76/2008 Page 1/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 June, 2002, the total income from gross salary, of Shambhu Prasad Singh was Rs.13,70,652/ and after deducting 1/3 rd of the same towards his household expenditure, his likely saving could be Rs.9,13,768/. However, Shambhu Prasad Singh acquired immovable properties in his own name and/or in the name of his wife Smt. Manjari Singh, worth Rs.56,64,643/ at the aforesaid places. It was also alleged that Shambhu Prasad Singh acquired movable assets in the shape of a Maruti Zen Car No. DL 8CD3845 in the name of Mrs. Manjari Singh (wife), Fiat UNO Salon MH004Y 66 and Mitsubishi Lancer Salon No. DL6 CG1557. Thus, Shambhu Prasad Singh was found in possession of disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.47,50.875/ against his know sources of income.
Investigation disclosed that accused Shambhu Prasad Singh was born on 23.11.1964 at Howrah (West Bengal) in a middle class family at Village Pur, Distt. Ballia (Uttar Pradesh). His father Anant Prasad Singh had migrated from U.P. To Howrah and started working there in brick fields and also did small transportation business on petty contracts.
Late Anant Prasad Singh had married Late Smt. Asharfi Devi. Out of this wedlock he had 5 issues, three daughters and two sons. The eldest son Shahajanand Singh expired in 1960, second son CC No. 76/2008 Page 2/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 Surender Singh is staying at native village and looking after agricultural land. All the three daughters are married and settled. Anant Prasad Singh had four children including the accused out of the wedlock with Smt. Kunti Devi. Anant Prasad Singh died on 10.3.1969. Anant Prasad Singh never worked in Delhi nor did he have such wealth which could have, on inheritance, been used by the accused to acquire immovable/movable properties.
The accused completed his graduation in 1980 from Goenka College of Commerce, Business Administration from University of Calcutta and thereafter he assisted his brother in their parental business of transportation.
Investigation disclosed tht Shambhu Prasad Singh came to Delhi in 1990 and started independent work. He got married to Smt. Manjari Sharma D/o Late Sh. S. K. Sharma, resident of Dehradun in the year 1992, who, at the time of her marriage, was pursuing her own small business activities with Khadi & Village Industries Commission, Ministry of ARI, Govt. of India. She was running a society in the name of KAVILA and supplying various small products to Khadi and Village Industries Commission on 'no profit no loss basis'. KAVILA was registered with Registrar of Firms & Societies, Haryana vide registration no. 475 of 199091. Thus, Smt. Manjari worked as a CC No. 76/2008 Page 3/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 social worker only and had no real source of income till 1999, as intimated by herself to the Income Tax Authorities vide her letter no. Nill datd 17.2,1999, in response to a notice received by her from the letter. The couple has one daughter named Arushi born in the year 1995, who is presently 10 years old and studying in IIIrd standard in Delhi Public School, Sector12, R. K. Puram, New Delhi.
In the year 2001, Smt. Manjari Singh floated a Company in the name & style of M/s Rely Tours & Travels (P) Ltd., B29, Lajpat Nagar II, New Delhi in which she was the Managing Director. At the time of search conducted at this premises, the books of accounts were also seized which revealed that the firm had booked a net loss of Rs.71,488/ during the financial year 20012002, which was obviously its first year. Thus, Smt. Manjari Singh did not get any noticeable income during the check period (1.1.1995 to 8.8.2002) to financially support her husband in acquiring huge movable and immovable assets. She, however, later claimed to have run a boutique, done other activities of selling gift items including teddy bears etc. and thereby earned Rs,40,000/ to 50,000/ per year but failed to produce any books of accounts or documentary evidence to support her claim. She had not filed any income tax returns till CBI registered this case.
CC No. 76/2008 Page 4/143CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 As during the course of searches, some readymade teddy bears were found in her house, which were valued at of Rs.10,200.00 in the Observation Memo dated 9.8.2002. Therefore, her claim of income of about Rs.50,000/ per year was considered and given due weightage. There was no other earning member in the family claiming any sort of income, what so ever it may, to be added while computing the total income of the family during the check period between 1.1.1995 and 9.8.2002.
Investigation further revealed that accused Shambhu Prasad Singh got his first appointment as Assistant Private Secretary to Minister of State for Human Resources Development (Bhage Goverdhan) in the year 1991 and he worked, as such, about 8 to 10 months only. After his services were terminated,he started doing petty works mainly liaison to say. During the period from 1990 to 1993 also, there was no authentic sources of income to mention. Hence no income tax returns were filed by the accused Shambhu Prasad Singh or Smt. Manjari Singh, his wife. On 12.4.1994, accused Shambhu Prasad Singh was reappointed as Asstt. Private Secretary to the Minister of State for Health (Dr. C. Silvera). He worked, as such, till 14.9.1995. Consequent upon the change of portfolio of Dr. C. Silvera, MOS for Heath, the accused was appointed afresh as APS to MOS in CC No. 76/2008 Page 5/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 Ministry of Industry, where he remained in service till 30.5.1996. By this time, accused Shambhu Prasad Singh had not acquired any immovable property in his name. He was residing in a rented accommodation. During the check period, accused Shambhu Prasad Singh worked as Assistant Private Secretary to various Ministers in Govt. of India as a public servant during the period shown below:
SL. No. Posting Period
1 APS with Minister of State for Health 21.9.1994 to 15.5.1995
(Dr. C. Silvera)
2 APS to Minister of State 15.9.1995 to 30.5.1996
Ministry of Industry
3 APS to Minister of State for Forest 05.6.1996 to 29.6.1996
4 APS to Minister of State for Education 29.6.1996 to Feb. 1998
(Sh. M. R. Saikai)
5 APS to MOS for Communication 19 March 1998 to
(Sh. Tapan Sikdar) 30.6.2002
6 APS to Minister of Chemical and Fertilizers 02.7.2002 to till
(Sh. Tapan Sikdar) registration of the case.
Investigation disclosed that during the period from 1.1.1995 to 9.8.2002, (the date when the House No. B136 (Left Side), Ground Floor, Kalkaji, New Delhi was searched, after registration of the case), the accused has acquired most of the assets which are disproportionate to his known & lawful sources of income. In view of CC No. 76/2008 Page 6/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 this, for the purpose of calculation of disproportionate assets of Shambhu Prasad Singh, the check period has been taken from 1.1.1995 to 9.8.2002. During the check period from 1.1.1995 to 9.8.2002,there is a break in service for a total of 22 days; i.e. 4 days from 1.6.1996 to 4.6.1996, 18 days from 1.3.1998 to 18.3.1998 and 2 days from 1.7.2002 to 2.7.2002. Accused Shambhu Prasad Singh, however, did not reveal or produce any evidence of source of any other lawful income, if any, during the meagre break of 22 days in service, as mentioned above.
Investigation disclosed that before check period, the accused Shambhu Prasad Singh was having the assets to the tune of Rs.3,62,163.72 as per details given below: 1 Ancestral land at native place i.e. VillagePur, District Balia 2 Ancestral house at 3637 Round Tank Lance, Howrah 3 Bank balance of Shri SP Singh in SB A/c No.122663, Allahabad Bank, Parliament Street, New Delhi 15,57230 4 Bank Balance of Smt. Manjari Singh in A/c No. 28783, UCO Bank, Parliament Street, New Delhi. 45,19029 5 Bank balance of Shri SP Singh in SB A/c No. 28099 i8n UCO Bank, Parliament Street, New Delhi. 8,66113 6 House hold items mentioned in the Inventory 88,74000 7 Payment alrady made by Shri SP Singh to LDA in respect of plot No. 3/275, Vipul Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. 1,45,00000 CC No. 76/2008 Page 7/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 8 Maruti Car bearing No. WNW2519 89,00000 Total 3,92,16372 The cost of aforesaid properties of accused Shambhu Prasad Singh have not been considered for calculating the disproportionate assets because he was already in possession of these items before the check period i.e. 1.1.1995.
Investigation has revealed that accused Shambhu Prasad Singh received the amount of Rs.42,64,523.84/ from Salary, agricultural income and other loans etc. during the period 1.1.1995 to 8.8.2002, while working as a public servant, as per details given below.
SL NO. PARTICULARS Amount (in Rs.)
1 Salary received from the Ministry of 49,229.00
Health and Family Welfare with effect
from 1.1.95 to 14.9.95.
2 Salary received from the Minsitry of 48,571.00
Commerce and Industry with effect from
15.9.95 to 31.5.96.
3 Salary received from the Ministry of 4,623.00
Environment and Forest with effect from
5.6.96 to 29.6.96.
4 Salary received from the Ministry of 2,47,245.00
Education with effect from 29.6.96 to Feb.
98.
CC No. 76/2008 Page 8/143
CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014
SL NO. PARTICULARS Amount (in Rs.)
5 Salary received from the Ministry of 9,80,878.00
Telecome with effect from 19.3.98 to
30.6.2002.
6 Salary received from the Ministry of 21,391.00
Checmicals and Petro Chemicals for the
month of July, 2002.
7 Loan from Shri S. S. Bhattar, a family 13,00,000.00
friend.
8 Income of Smt. Manjari Singh during the 3,00,000.00
year 1995 to 2000. (Calculated @
Rs.50,000/ p.a., the income just below
the income tax slab has been taken.
Though she has not filed any ITR or
produced any evidence/record in support
of this income).
9 Income of Smt. Manjari Singh during the 1,21,310.00
year 2001 to 2002 as per own income tax
return filed after registration of the case.
10 Agriculture Income during the year 1995 7,95,000.00
to 2002, as claimed in his statement.
11 Sale Proceeds of Plot at Pandav Nagar in 2,25,000.00
the name of Smt. Manjari Singh.
12 Interest calculated on bank account 1,71,276.84.00
TOTAL Rs.42,64,523.84
CC No. 76/2008 Page 9/143
CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014
Investigation has revealed that accused Shambhu Prasad Singh along with the family members has incurred expenditure during the period 1.1.1995 to 8.8.2002 to the tune of Rs.50,86,696/ on various verifiable items, the details of which is given below:
Sl. Head of Expenditure Expenditure in the Amount No. name of (in Rs.) 1 Stamp Duty for property SP Singh 46,98000 3/275 Vipul Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow 2 Stamp Duty for property E SP Singh 48,00000 298, Greater KailashI (Second floor) 3 Stamp Duty for property Manjari Singh 31,62000 Shop No. 18, Destination Point, Faridabad.
4 Stamp Duty for property E Manjari Singh 56,00000 298, Greater KailashI (1st floor) 5 Stamp Duty for property E Manjari Singh 56,00000 298, Greater KailashI (Ground Floor) 6 Electricity charges for House SP Singh 43,69500 No. B136, Kalkaji 7 Membership of SIRI FORT SP Singh 11,40000 Club CC No. 76/2008 Page 10/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 Sl. Head of Expenditure Expenditure in the Amount No. name of (in Rs.) 8 Education of daughter of Arushi 60,54500 DPS 9 Shares SP Singh 12,000 10 Purchase of Gun SP Singh 22,19800 11 Charge of NETSTACY child Arushi 480000 Development Centre 12 Kitchen Expenditure (one SP Singh 4,43,51500 third of salary of the accused) 13 Loan to Sister Krishna Singh 1,90,00000 14 Construction of H. No. SP Singh 20,59,94300 3/275, Vipul Khand, Lucknow 15 2 DD s to mother Kunti Devi 20,00,00000 TOTAL 50.86,69600 Investigation revealed that accused Shambhu Prasad Singh acquired assets in his own name and the name of his wife Smt. Manjari Singh during the check period i.e. 1.1.1995 to 8.8.2002 worth Rs.49.95,556/ as per following details:CC No. 76/2008 Page 11/143
CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 Immovable assets SL. NO. TYPE OF ASSETS AMOUNT 1 Investment in property House No. B136 50,000.00 (Left Side), Ground Floor, Kalkaji, New Delhi. (50% share in the name of Sh. S.P. Singh).
2 Plot No. 3/275, Vipul Khand Gomti Nagar, 3,38,318.00 Lucknow. (S.P. Singh) 3 Shop No. 18, Destination Point, Mathura 2,04,000.00 Road, Faridabad (Smt. Manjari) 4 Entire Third Floor of Flat No. B29 Lajpat 2,00,000.00 Nagar, New Delhi (Smt. Manjari) 5 Kothi No. E298 Greater Kailash, New 20,00,000.00 Delhi (Shri S.P. Singh and Smt. Manjari) Movable assets 1 Cash found in Locker no. 1166 in the 50,000.00 name of Shri S.P. Singh and Smt. Manjari at UCO Bank, Parliamentary Street, Delhi during search.
2 Cash found in locker no. 1064 in the name 5,000.00 of Shri S.P. Singhand Smt. Manjari at UCO Bank, Parliamentary Street, Delhi during search.CC No. 76/2008 Page 12/143
CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 3 Cash found in Locker no. 383 in the name 39,000.00 of Shri S.P. Singh at Standar Charted Bank, Parliamentary Street, Delhi during search.
4 Balance in PPF A/c No. 901739 with State 2,57,401.00 Bank of India, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi of Shri S.P. Singh 5 Car ZEN Regn. No. DL9CD3845 (Smt. 1,20,000.00 Manjari) 6 Computer installed at his Lucknow house 52,600.00 7 Bank Balance of Shri S.P. Singh in SB/A/c 31,008.79 No. 122663 Allahabad bank, Parliament Street.
8 Bank Balance of Smt. Manjari in A/c 247.00 51710 Bank of India, Khan Market.
9 Bank Balance of Baby Aarushi in A/c 522 10,177.34 10123962 Standard Charted Metro Main Branch.
10 Bank Balancein the joint name of Shri S.P. 13,316.26 Singh and Smt. Manjari in A/c No. 1706011380 Global Trust BankI. 11 Bank Balance in the joint name of Shri S.P. 10,90,000.00 Singh and Smt. Manjari in A/c No. 1706537812 Global Trust BankI. 12 Bank Balance in the joint name of Shri S.P. 5,000.00 Singh and Smt. Manjari in A/c No. 1706537822 Global Trust BankI. CC No. 76/2008 Page 13/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 13 Bank Balance in the joint name of Shri S.P. 10,000.00 Singh and Smt Manjari in A/c No. 1706537845 Global Trust BankI. 14 Bank Balance of Blossom Creation in A/c 5,099.65 No. 1342000002026 HDFC Defence Colony.
15 Bank Balance of Smt. Manjari in A/c 5,317.89 1341000008900 HDFC Bank Defence Colony.
16 ICICI & IDBI Bond in the name of Sh. SP 50,000.00 Singh 17 House Hold Items Inventory of House No. 2,89,070.00 B136 Kalka Ji, New Delhi.
18 NSC's 81,000.00
19 Maruti Car bearing registration no. WNW 89,000.00
2519
TOTAL Rs.49,95,555.93
Thus, during the check period, accused Shambhu Prasad Singh was found in possession of assets to the tune of Rs.54,25,025/, as per the details given below, disproportionate to his known lawful sources of income, which he could not satisfactorily explain.
SL. NO. HEAD OF EXPENDITURE AMOUNT
1 Assets held as on 8.8.2002 49,95,556.00
CC No. 76/2008 Page 14/143
CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014
SL. NO. HEAD OF EXPENDITURE AMOUNT
2 Assets held as on 1.1.95 3,92,163.72
3 Assets acquired during the check period 46,03.392.00
4 Expenditure during the check period 50,86,696.00
5 Total assets and expenditure during the 96,90,088.00
check period
6 Income during the check period 42,64,524.00
Disproportionate Assets 54,25,564.00
Hence, asper prosecution, the assets of accused were highly disproportionate and accordingly the charge sheet was filed. Charge After hearing the arguments, a charge under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution Evidence Prosecution examined following witnesses :
PW1 S. K. Bhattacharjee is Deputy Finance Officer in BSES Dues Transfer Cell. He proved the statement of account of an electricity connection for the period July 1997 to February 2003 and that the electricity charges were paid by accused, which amounted to Rs.64,971/.CC No. 76/2008 Page 15/143
CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 PW2 O. P. Bhatti prove the certified copies of Will Ex.PW2/B and GPA Ex.PW2/C executed by Smt. Savita Sethi in favour of Smt. Manjari with respect to property no. B29, Lajpat Nagar measuring 100 sq. yards.
PW3 O. P. Verma is the bank official of SBI and proved the account opening form (D12) and form of nomination by the accused. He also proved the statement of PPF account exhibited as Ex.PW3/A in which accused deposited a cash amount of Rs.20 lacs on 27.3.1997. He also proved that the balance in the PPF account as on 9.8.2002 was Rs.2,57,401.16. He proved the relevant entry encircled at point X1 on Ex.PW3/B, which the computer generated statement of PPF account.
PW4 R. K. Gupta is the Deputy Manager in the Bank of Rajashtan, Kailash Colony, Delhi. He proved a pay order Ex.PW4/B daed 18.1.2008 for an amount of Rs.6 lacs issued by their bank. He proved statement of account pertaining to SBI account no. 25466 for the period 1999 to 7.11.2002 as Ex.PW4/C, which was maintained by Sham Sunder Bhattar and Smt. Nirmal Bhattar. He proved the statement of account as Ex.PW4/D. He testified that the aforesaid pay order in the sum of Rs.6 lacs was issued in favour of Smt. Adarsh Prabhakar against cheque no. 065234 for an amount of CC No. 76/2008 Page 16/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 Rs.6,00,450/, which was debited from the aforesaid account on 18.1.2001.
PW5 Devender Kumar Garg proved the certificate (D37) issued by Delhi Public School vide which the details of fees received by the school from student Arushi has been given. The certificate is proved as Ex.PW5/A. PW6 Muskan Singh is Branch Manager in HDFC Bank, Greater KailashI. He proved a pay order dated 18.1.2001 for an amount of Rs.7 lacs in favour of Smt. Adarsh Prabhakar as Ex.PW6/A2. He also proved the statement of account pertaining to account no. 0921000002678 maintained by S. S. Bhattar as Ex.PW6/A3. He testified that on 18.1.2001 Rs.7 lacs were debited from the aforesaid account against the Manager's cheque.
PW7 P. C. Jaryal was Assistant Manager in Uco Bank, Parliament Street, Delhi. He testified that a cheque bearing no.544009 for an amount of Rs.2 lacs in favour of Smt. Adarsh Prabhakar (Ex.PW7/A1) was deposited by Smt. Adarsh Prabhakar in SB account no. 40544 with Bank of India on 3.1.2001 and the same was passed by Uco Bank, Parliament Street, Delhi through clearing.
He proved the payin slip (Ex.PW7/A2) dated 18.1.2001 for deposit of Rs.5 lacs in cash in her account no. 28783in Uco Bank. On CC No. 76/2008 Page 17/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 the same day she presented a cheque no. 544010 for issue of pay order by filing the requisite voucher for an amount of Rs.5 lacs in favour of Smt. Adarsh Prabhakar.
He proved cheque no. 544010 for an amount of Rs. 5,00,500/ dated 18.1.2001 issued by Mrs. Manjari in bank account no. 28783.
He proved a pay order dated 18.1.2001 bearing no. 506069 for an amount of Rs.5 lacs in favour of Smt. Adarsh Prabhakar. This pay order is Ex.PW7/A4. This pay order was deposited in Bank of India by Smt. Adarsh Prabhakar on 28.1.2001 and the same was paid by Uco Bank, Parliament Street through clearing. He also proved the original voucher dated 18.1.2001 showing issuance of pay order no. 506069, which is Ex.PW7/A5.
PW8 Kanahi Charan Behra was the Private Secretary to the Acting Chairman, National Commission for Schedule Tribes. He testified that in the year 2002, he was posted as a Desk Officer in the Department of Secondary and Higher Education. He proved the appointment letter of accused as Ex.PW8/A. He also proved the pay drawn by accused as Additional PS to the Minister of State for Education for the period January 1991 to February 1991 and July 1996 to March 1998. He proved document showing total net pay as Ex.PW8/C of accused, which gives out to be Rs.2,47,240/.
CC No. 76/2008 Page 18/143CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 PW9 Gopal Krishan was AAO in Siri Fort Sports Complex. He proved the monthly membership susbscription made by accused Shambhu Prasad Singh, which is Ex.PW9/A. PW10 Khwaja Abdul Hamid proved a bill dated 14.3.1995 Ex.PW10/A vide which accused had purchased a rifle for an amount of Rs.22,198.40/.
PW11 Birender Pratap Singh was posted as UDA in Property Sectionb, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow and proved the allotment of land to the accused vide allotment letter Ex.PW11/C1 and the possession of the plot was given to the accused on 2.11.1996. He also proved the consideration amount deposited by accused. He also proved the stamp duty paid with respect to the said property.
PW12 Ms Savita Sethi testified that she had rented the 3rd Floor of her house to Smt. Manjari, wife of accused, in the month of March 2001 for an amount of Rs.3000/ per month till August 2001 in cash. Thereafter, she sold the said property to Smt. Manjari for a consideration of Rs.2 lacs vide Agreement to Sell, GPA and Will dated 15.3.2002.
PW13 Shyam Sunder Bhatter testified that he provided a loan of Rs.13 lacs to accused in shape of two pay orders drawn in the name of Smt. Adarsh Prabhakar because accused wanted to purchase a CC No. 76/2008 Page 19/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 property from her. He proved an MOU regarding the said property between himself, accused and his wife Smt. Manjari, which is Ex.PW13/B. PW14 Navil Kapur is the Under Secretary in the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting. He proved the PBR certified by the Section Officer, Cash Counter as Ex.PW14/B. He also proved an office order dated 10.10.1995 (Ex.PW14/C) vide which accused was appointed as Assistant Private Secretary to Minister of State (Industry) by Dr. C. Silvera in the scale of pay of Rs.2000602800 EB753200 1003500 w.e.f. 15.9.1995. He testified that as per pay bill register (PBR) Ex.PW14/B, accused had received a total pay of Rs.48,571/ w.e.f. October 1995 to May 1996.
PW15 Ms Meena Sharma is a Notary Public in Patiala House Courts. She testified that she had notarized the MOU Ex.PW13/B PW16 R. P. Vashisht is Under Secretary, Establishment Division. He proved the pay slip dated 7.4.2004 of accused as Ex.PW16/A. He testified that the salary paid to the accused as per pay slip was Rs.21,391/ for the month of July 2002. The pay slip is proved as Ex.PW16/B. PW17 A. A. Rizwani an official in the Ministry of Environment & Forest proved the notification dated 12.6.1996, office order dated CC No. 76/2008 Page 20/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 5.7.1996 and note under the signatures of the DDO, which contains the details of appointment of accused Shambhu Prasad Singh and the termination order , the salary details w.e.f. 5.6.1996 to 28.6.1996 etc. are proved collectively as Ex.PW17/B. He testified that net salary drawn by accused is shown as Rs.4623/ and cross salary is shown as Rs.4645/.
PW18 Shoukat Ali Khan Senior Sales Officer in HDFC Bank proved the statement of account pertaining to account no.1341000007837 for the period 30.11.2001 to 31.10.2003, which was in the name of Ms Manjari and the balance amount on 30.6.2002 was Rs.5,099.65/. This statement of account is exhibited as Ex.PW18/B. He also proved the statement of account in the name of Ms Manjari (account no. 1341000008900) for the period 1.1.2002 to 31.10.2003. In this account balance amount was Rs.5,317.89/ as on 6.8.2002. the statement of account is Ex.PW18/C. PW19 B. S. Sharma an official of Transport Authority, Nimri, Ashok Vihar, Delhi proved that vehicle no. DL8CD3845 was sold by Ms Manjari daughter of S. P. Singh on 6.9.2003 to one D. S. Popli. He also proved that this vehicle was sold by one Vinod Kumar to Ms Manjari on 6.1.2002 vide Form 30Ex.PW19/D. CC No. 76/2008 Page 21/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 PW20 Sunil Agarwal, the Assistant in Department of Tally Communication proved the details of Pay & Allowances paid to Shambhu Prasad Singh, who was appointed as Additional P.S. To the Former Minister of State for Communications. He proved the salary details, which are collectively marked as Ex.PW20/A. He proved four form no.16 issued by Department to the accused, which are collectively marked as Ex.PW20/C. PW21 Balram an official in Delhi Transport Authority brought the file Ex.PW21/A regarding the transfer of the vehicle already discussed.
PW22 R. P. Vimal a Company Prosecutor in the Registrar of Companies, Lucknow proved the balance sheet pertaining to M/s Apco Constructions Pvt. Ltd.
PW23 Khem Chand a clerk in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Faridabad proved the conveyance deed no. 7313 dated 15.11.1999 in respect of property/shop no. 18 on the upper ground floor in Hawaian Plaza, Faridabad executed by Mr. Suman Malhotra in favour of Ms Manjari for an amount of Rs.2,04,000/ and stamp duty Rs.31,620/. The conveyance deed is Ex.PW23/A. PW24 Kuldeep Singh was an employee in Lucknow Computer Shape Pvt. Ltd. He proved one baill dated 23.7.2001 pertaining to CC No. 76/2008 Page 22/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 purchase of a computer for an amount of Rs.52,600/ in the name of S. P. Singh. The billcumchallan is Ex.PW24/A. PW25 S. Saravanan, LDC in the office of Sub Registrar, Seelampur proved a sale deed dated 18.8.1997 executed between Shivan Ditti and Smt. Manjari as Ex.PW25/A. The sale deed amount was Rs.2 lacs and stamp duty was Rs.16,000/.
PW26 G. L. Arora, the Deputy Manager in Bank of India, proved that cheque no. 135237 dated 13.12.2001 issued from Standard Chartered Bank for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/ was credited in account no. 51735 on 15.12.2001, which is Ex.PW26/C. PW27 Sushil Kumar Sirohi, an official in Global Trust Bank, proved the statement of account pertaining to A/c No. 1706011380, account no. 1706537812, account no. 1706537822 and A/c No. 1706537845 in the name of Shambhu Prasad Singh and Manjari Singh. Four statement of accounts (D25 to D28) are collectively marked as Ex.PW27/A1.
He also proved the A/c No. 1706011380 in the name of Shambhu Prasad Singh & Manjari Singh was opened on 25th July 2002 with an amount of Rs.4,97,869.86 through cheque no. 75015 dated 25.7.2002 and on the same day, cheque no. 75014 dated 25.7.2002 for an amount of Rs.6,07,092.84 was deposited.
CC No. 76/2008 Page 23/143CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 On 25th July 2002, an amount of s.10,90,000/ was transferred through Auto Sweep in the A/c No. 1706537812 in the name of Shambhu Prasad singh & Manjari Singh. The said account was also opened on 25th July 2002.
On 27th July 2002, an amount of Rs.5,000/ was transferred through Auto Sweep in A/c No. 1706537822 in the name of Shambhu Prasad Singh & Manjari Singh. The said account was opened on 26 th July 2002.
On 2.8.2002, an amount of Rs.10,000/ was transferred through Auto Sweep in A/c No. 1706537845 in the name of Shambhu Prasad Singh & Manjari Singh. The said account was opened on 1.8.2002.
PW28 Bharat Singh Chauhan proved an unregistered photocopy of sale deed (D33) dated 15.12.1997 executed by Smt. Manjari in his favour for an amount of Rs.2,25,000/ in respect of a built up proprty no. P13, measured 100 sq. yds., Pandav Nagar. He also proved the photocopy of the registered sale deed in respect of this property, which is Ex.PW28/C. PW29 B. L. Chawla, Manager Allahabad Bank, Parliament Street, New Delhi proved cheque of Rs.50,000/ Ex.PW29/B dated 18.4.1996 issued by account holder no. 122663 maintained by Shambhu Prasad Singh in favour of Veera Builders.
CC No. 76/2008 Page 24/143CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 PW30 Jai Singh, the Registry Clerk in the office of Sub Registrar, Faridabad proved conveyance deed registered on 15.11.1999 executed between Uni Fashions Pvt. Ltd. through its Director Smt. Suman Malhotra and Ms. Manjari wife of S. P. Singh in respect of shop no. 18 property bearing no. 12/2, Milesstone, Main Mathura Road, Faridabad for a consideration of Rs.2,04,000/. The deed is proved as Ex.PW30/B. PW31 Ravinder Arora runs a business of properties in the name of Kapoor Associates. He testified that in the year 2000 a sale deed of Rs. 7 lacs was executed between Smt. Adarsh Kumar @ Adarsh Prabhakar and Smt. Manjari vide a sale deed Ex.PW31/A. He also proved another sale deed of Rs.7 lacs executed between the parties on 23.1.2000 vide sale deed Ex.PW31/B. He proved another sale deed for a consideration of Rs.6 lacs between the parties executed on 23.1.2000 vide sale deed Ex.PW31/C. PW32 Vipin Kapoor is a property dealer. He proved sale deed Ex.PW31/C, agreement to sale Ex.PW12/A for a sum of Rs.2 lacs.
PW33 Sunil Dutt Sharma, SubRegistrar proved a sale deed Ex.PW33/A by Smt. Adarsh Prabhakar in favour of Smt. Manjari Singh executed on 27.8.2002 for a sum of Rs.7 lacs, Rs.6 lacs and Rs.7 lacs respectively vide memo Ex.PW33/A. He also proved the other sale CC No. 76/2008 Page 25/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 deed Ex.PW31/A to Ex.PW31/C. He also proved the sale deed dated 12.8.1996 executed by Sh. Prakash Babbar and otherattornies in favour of Jai Prakash Narayan Singh and Shambhu Prasad Singh for a sum of Rs.9,50,000/ vide sale deed Ex.PW33/C. He proved the agreement to sale dated 15.3.2002 executed between Ms Savita Sethi and Ms Manjari in respect of property no. B29, Lajpat nagarII, New Delhi for a sum of Rs.2 lacs vide agreement to sale Ex.PW12/A. PW34 Amar Nath Anand, the Assistant Manager, Standard Chartered Bank proved the statement of account Ex.PW34/B in the name of Baby Arushi and Mr. S. P. Singh in respect of A/c no. 5221 0123962. He proved the statement of account of Shmabhu Prasad Singh (A/c no. 52210328645) as Ex.PW34/C. He proved the cheque no. 112392 dated 8.6.2001 in favour of bank for an amount of Rs.10 lacs from the aforesaid account of Shambhu Prasad Singh. The cheque was proved as Ex.PW34/D. He also proved the letter written by S. P. Singh to the bank authorizing A. K. Goel to collect demand draft of Rs.10 lacs. He proved the letter as Ex.PW34/E and the draft as Ex.PW34/E1. He proved the seizure memo Ex.PW34/G vide which two cheques dated 13.12.2001 and 24.12.2001 for Rs.2,50,000/ and Rs.5 lacs respectively in favour of Choose n Use and Rely Tours and Travels Pvt. Ltd.
CC No. 76/2008 Page 26/143CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 PW35 R. S. Singh, the Valuation Officer in the Valuation Cell CBDT, Income Tax Department, Lucknow testified that he valued the property in question of Rs.20.60 lacs vide letter Ex.PW35/B. PW36 Hari Shankar Verma, Lekhpal posted at Pahrajpur, District Baliya, U.P. Proved the Khata in the name of Jai Prakash, Shambhu Prasad and Surender Nath in respect of the agricultural land vide Intekhab Khatauni Ex.PW36/A. PW37 V. K. Bhandari, the Chief Manager, UCO Bank, New Delhi participated along wht M. S. Sethi, Special Assistant on 10.8.2002 in locker operation pertaining to locker no. 1166 in the joint name of Smt. Manjari and Shambhu Prasad Singh and found a total cash of Rs.50,000/ in it. He proved the locker operation memo as Ex.PW37/A. Similarly on 10.8.2002 they participated in locker operation pertaining to locker no.1064 maintained in UCO Bank in the joint name of Smt. Manjari and Shambhu Prasad Singh and a sum of Rs.5,000 was found in it vide locker operation memo Ex.PW37/B. PW38 V. Ramasubramaniam, PA to Minister of State, with whom Shambhu Prasad Singh was working as Additional Private Secretary, participated in the search conducted in respect of official room of accused Shambhu Prasad Singh. He proved the search memo Ex.PW38/A. CC No. 76/2008 Page 27/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 PW39 C. M. Ajayan participated in the search of residence of accused Shambhu Prasad Singh and he proved the search list dated 9.8.2002 as Ex.PW39/A. He also proved the inventory of the articles as Ex.PW39/B. PW40 A. B. Rane, the Chief Manager, Bank of India prove the statement of account A/c no. 51735 Ex.PW26/B in the name of M/s Choose "N" Use. He also proved the statement of account no. 51710 in the name of Ms Manjari as Ex.PW40/B. PW41 Sanjeev Sharma an officer of Corporation Bank, Zonal Office, Lucknow testified that in his presence a search operation was conducted vide search memo Ex.PW41/A. PW42 N. R. Thakur is the Investigating Officer of this case. PW43 Shyam Singh conducted part investigation. PW44 R. D. Wadhawan proved his signatures on the seizure memo Ex.PW43/B and Ex.PW43/C. PW45 Parmatma Singh, Lekhpal Chakbandi of Village Pur at Sikanderpur, District Baliya proved the chakbandi Ex.PW45 pertaining to the ancestral property in the name of Jay Prakash and Shambhu Nath sons of Anant of village Pur.
PW46 Ravinder Singh, the then DSP, CBI conducted part investigation from 8.8.2002 to 15.12.2002.
CC No. 76/2008 Page 28/143CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 PW47 Inspector D. S. Chauhan completed the investigation. PW48 Inspector Dhiraj Khetrapal remained associated with the investigation.
PW49 M. K. Bhatt, Additional SP, CBI also remained associated with the investigation.
PW50 Inspector D. P. Singh also remained associated with the investigation.
PW51 Prem Singh is a witness joined for the purpose of search conducted at the office premises of M/s Rely Tours & Travels Pvt. Ltd., Lajpat Nagar. He proved the search list as Ex.PW51/A. He proved the file Ex.PW51/B, which was recovered from the said premises in his presence.
Statement under Section 313 CrPC of accused In statement under Section 313 CrPC, accused did not dispute any of the prosecution evidence, but submitted that the prosecution has wrongly calculated the income and assets of his wife Ms Manjari as his income and assets. Further, the CBI did not take consideration of his incomes from other sources like taxi, trucks and agriculture. Further, prosecution did not consider the money/gifts from his mother and the contribution of his brother namely Sh. J. P. N. Singh and brother in law Sh. M. K. Singh as well as the monetary support from CC No. 76/2008 Page 29/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 his friends.
Defence witnesses Accused examined as many as 12 defence witnesses in his support. By examining these defence witnesses, accused intends to show that he had much more income than assessed by the prosecution and that big portion of the assets belong to his wife which she acquired by her own income or from her brother Sh. H. D. Sharma. His brother and friend also contributed to his income. I deem it appropriate to cite the examination in chief of these witnesses as under :
"DW1 Sh. Hari Dutt Sharma Aged: 68 years, s/o Late Sh. S.P. Sharma, r/o 313, Mount Kailash, Tower No. 1, East of Kailash, New Delhi65. On SA I am engaged in business and agriculture. Smt. Manjari is my sister. She was married to accused Shambhu Prasad Singh present in the court in the year 1992. My father had already expired, therefore, I got her married. My sister Smt. Manjari used to reside with me before her marriage and I used to look after her all the needs and requirements. She was herself doing business prior to her marriage. I bore the expenses of the marriage of my sister Smt. Manjari. I had given gifts in the marriage of my sister as per my capacity and I kept giving the gifts even after her marriage from time to time.
The items mentioned at serial no. 9, 23, 29, 46, 47, 49, 50, 55, 76, 77, 78, 81,82, 83, 85 to 96, 98, 99, 100, 120, 121, 122,123, 124 of inventory Ext.PW39/B was gifted by me to my sister at the time of her marriage with the accused. The items mentioned at serial no. 105, 106, 109, 126, 127 of the inventory Ext.PW39/B was gifted by me to my sister after her marriage.
I have personal bank account bearing no. SB20176 with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Sant Nagar, East of Kailash, New Delhi. The amount mentioned in CC No. 76/2008 Page 30/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 Ext.PW46/DE was withdrawn by me in cash and the same is duly reflected in photocopy of my statement of account which is brought by me today. The same is now exhibited as Ext.DW1/1. The amount withdrawn by me from the above bank in cash was given by me to my sister as gift time to time. The same amount was given to her for her personal use and that was not to be returned by her.
As I recollect, the officials of the CBI has recorded my statement u/s 161 CrPC on one or two occasions.
(At this stage, Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn the attention of the witness to a statement u/s 161 CrPC dt. 27.07.2004 Ext.PW43/DX10 & another statement u/s 161 CrPC dt. 05.03.2003 Ext.PW49/DA recorded by CBI.) It is correct that I had made these statements to CBI. In Ext.PW43/DX10, it is wrongly written that I have only one sister and our parents had died long back, but, actually I have three sisters and only my father had expired and my mother is alive.
I had purchased property part of Khasra No. 281 min. situated in abadi of Block P13, Pandav Nagar, Delhi from my own resources for my sister Ms. Manjari for a sum of Rs. 2 lacs approximately. The said property was purchased by me as a gift to my sister. After purchase of the said property, some dispute arisen in the said property and therefore the property was sold out for approximately about Rs. 2.25 lacs. The sale amount was kept by my sister Ms. Manjari.
My sister was running a boutique under the name & style of M/s Blossom Exports and also running the business of the travel agency prior to her marriage and continued after her marriage. Ms. Manjari was running a business from property no. 314, Mount Kailash, East of Kailash, New Delhi which was the house of my friend S.Ajaib Singh Puar.
....................
Reexamination by Sh. Amit Singh Rathod, Ld. Defence Counsel for accused.
I am filing original sale receipts, now marked as Ext. DW1/2 (colly.). This was the peas which were procured from Himachal Pradesh by me and had sold in Azad Pur Mandi, Delhi through aadti (Commission Agent). The incomes accrued to me through these sale receipts are as under:
Sl. No.Date of Receipt Quantity of Peas Amount received
1. 10.08.2001 3038 kgs Rs.56,452/
2. 13.08.2001 3053 kgs Rs.54,310/
3. 14.08.2001 2298 kgs. Rs.39670/
4. 14.08.2001 2248 kgs. Rs.37696/ CC No. 76/2008 Page 31/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014
5. 20.08.2001 2014 kgs. Rs.40366.80/
6. 24.08.2001 49 bags Rs. 36709/
7. 27.08.2001 62 bags (2334 kgs.) Rs. 42437/ The sale proceeds dt. 10.08.2001, 14.08.2001, 20.08.2001, 24.08.2001 and 27.08.2001 were issued by M/s Bharat TradersAzad Pur Mandi, Delhi. The sale proceeds dt. 13.08.2001, 14.08.2001 were issued by M/s Vijay Kumar and Co.New Subzi Mandi, Okhla, Delhi."
"DW2 Sh. Anil Singh Aged: 49 years, s/o Late Krishan Prasad Singh, r/o B9, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, U.P. On SA I have the business of construction under the name & style of company APCO Infratech Ltd. Earlier, this company was named as APCO Constructions Pvt. Ltd., but, from the office of ROC, the name of the company has been changed. I am MD of the company. APCO Constructions Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated in the year 1992 and having its registered office at Lucknow. My brother Vinod Singh and R.P. Singh are the other Directors of the said company. This company is doing the construction business.
Late Sh. Manoj Kumar Singh was my friend who was working as Assistant Conservator of Forest, posted at KanpurU.P. Late Manoj Kumar Singh died in 5th November, 2001 in a road accident while he was returning along with his family from Tirupati. Smt. Krishna Singh wife of Late Sh. Manoj Kumar Singh informed me about the said incident. I along with two three more friends of Late Manoj Kumar Singh went to Chennai to collect his dead body.
Since Late Manoj Kumar Singh was a good friend of mine, and was very frequent visitor, he made a proposal to me that he wanted construction over land 3/275, Vipul Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. The plot was allotted to his brother in law Shambhu Prasad Singh by Lucknow Development Authority. Late Manoj Kumar Singh told me that he had mutual understanding with his brother in law Shambhu Prasad Singh that Shambhu Prasad Singh will provide the land and if Manoj Kumar Singh and Kunti Devimother of Shambhu Prasad Singh make construction over the land, the said house can be used by Manoj Kumar Singh for his own purpose without paying anything to Shambhu Prasad Singh. Manoj Kumar Singh requested me to help in construction of the building and he promised me to make the payment subsequently. Subsequently, the company CC No. 76/2008 Page 32/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 APCO Constructions Pvt. Ltd. made a construction over the land and no money was charged for construction from Manoj Kumar Singh as he had promised to make the payment subsequently. However, unfortunately he died in a road accident. I approached his wife for the payment, but, she had no means to make the payment and seeing the poor condition of the family as the family was suffering from hardship, I did not press for payment of the money to the company APCO Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and still pending. The cost incurred for the construction is duly reflected in the balance sheet of the company which was submitted to the office of ROC and duly signed by me. The copy of the balance sheet was seized by CBI.
(At this stage, the balance sheet Ext.PW43/DX11 and Ext.PW43/DX 12 is shown to the witness) and after seeing the same the witness states that both the balance sheets are true and correct and duly signed by him at points A on each and every page and at points B contains the signatures of my brother Vinod Singh and at points C contains the signatures of V.S. Rao who was the Sr. Manager (Accounts & Admn.) and at points D contains the signatures of the auditor of the company Sh. P.K. Tandon on each and every pages. The expenses incurred for the construction is shown at point X on Ext.PW43/DX11 & Ext.PW43/DX12.
I was called in the CBI office for investigation in this case where my statement was recorded. During the course of investigation, I had disclosed the said facts to CBI. The seizure memo Ext.PW43/DX3 containing the signatures of Mr. N.P. Singh at point A who was the Field Manager of the company and I am well conversant with his signatures.
At this stage, the witness after going through Ext.PW43/DX2, states that the statement u/s 161 CrPC was the same statement which was recorded by CBI."
"DW3 Sh. Prahlad Singh Aged: 62 years, s/o Late Kanta Prasad Singh, r/o Village Pur, District Ballia, U.P. On SA I am B.A., LLB from Gorakhpur University. I did practice for ten years after completing my Law Degree. Thereafter, I started doing my agricultural work as I have agricultural land. I was doing the agricultural work and looking after the land given to me by Sh. Jai Prakash Narayan and Shambhu Prasad Singhboth sons of Late Anant Prasad Singh. Their land ad measuring about 7.65 acres in CC No. 76/2008 Page 33/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 Village Pur and about 7.6 acres in village Pahraj Pur was given to me for doing agriculture on the said land on batai. I used to give money to Shambhu Prasad Singh and Jai Prakash Narayan equal in amount from the agriculture on the said land. From year 1995 to year 2002, I had given around Rs. 10.5 lacs to Rs. 11 lacs each to both the brothers as agricultural income. The income from the land used to be given to both the brothers around Rs. 2.5 lacs per annum. The land of Shambhu Prasad Singh and Jai Prakash Narayan Singh is the ancestral property and devolve upon them after demise of their father. Sh. Shambhu Prasad Singh doing the agriculture of the land himself presently. The CBI had recorded my statement during investigation. The CBI officers visited at my residence for the purpose of the investigation and verified the facts. Upon verification of the facts, my statement was recorded.
The statement u/s 161 CrPC dt. 17.03.2004 is shown to the witness and after seeing the same, the witness states that the same is his statement but at page no.2 from point X to X and Y to Y are incorrect as I have stated the amount as around 10.5 to Rs.11 lacs. The statement is now exhibited as Ex.DW3/A. The expenses incurred in the agricultural was noted roughly on the loose paper as per the custom and no proper account book was being maintained. Since I used to make the payment annually to both the brothers in cash, therefore it was not noted in the diary as there was no balance on me."
"DW4 Sh. Jai Prakash Narain Singh Aged: 63 years, s/o Late Anant Prasad Singh, r/o 36 & 37, Round Tank Lane, Howrah711101. On SA I have one brother namely Shambhu Prasad Singh and two sisters Smt. Durgesh Singh and Smt. Krishana Singh. My sister Smt. Krishna Singh lives at 3/275, Vipul Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. Her husband Late Manoj Kumar Singh died in an accident in the year 2000. He was Asstt. Conservator of Forest, U.P. I am in the business of transport since the lifetime of my father. I was in the business of property and the landed property. I also have agricultural land at Balia, U.P. The agricultural land at my native place is ancestral land. Some land has also been purchased in my name. The agricultural land at Balia which was in the name of my brother was equally divided between me and my brother Shambhu Prasad Singh by my mother. Ancestral land was divided equally between me and my brother Shambhu Prasad Singh. My distant cousin brother CC No. 76/2008 Page 34/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 Prahlad Singh is cultivating the land and sent the income from the land yearly and to my brother Shambhu Prasad Singh also.
Two trucks bearing no. WMK 7199 & WMK 6689 were owned by my brother Shambhu Prasad Singh. Truck no. WMK 7199 is still working under my brother Shambhu Prasad Singh. Shambhu Prasad Singh is collecting the income from the trucks from the caretaker appointed by him in Howrah. The RC Ext.PW43/DX14 is pertaining to truck no. WMK 7199.
CBI had conducted the search on 09.08.2002 at my residence. The search list is now marked as Ext.DW4/D1 bearing my signatures at point A on each sheet thereof and my initial at point B. CBI had handed over the jewellery seized under the said search to me on zimbanama (Bond) which bears my signatures at point A. The same is marked as Ext.DW4/D2. The jewellery mentioned in the bond Ext.DW4/D2 was given to my wife by my mother at the time of my marriage. The same quantity of jewellery was also given by my mother to my brother's wife namely Manjari at the time of marriage. Both the jewelleries are the ancestral jewelleries and given after equally dividing to both the brothers. CBI had also seized cash amount around Rs. 3 lacs in the said search which was subsequently released under the orders of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Crl. Miscellaneous Main No. 694/2003 is annexed herewith as Ext.DW4/D3.
I was maintaining A/c No. 52210350349 with Standard Chartered Bank, Parliament Street, New Delhi. I am carrying the statement of account issued by the bank which is Ext.DW4/D4. I had transfered a sum of Rs. 5,10,000/ which is mentioned at point A to the account of Shambhu Prasad Singh in the same bank bearing A/c no. 52210328645 which is already exhibited as Ext.PW46/DC.
The above said jewellery were valued by M.Sirkar & Bros. through CBI. The valuation report is Ext.DW4/D5. The slip for fee for conducting valuation is Ext.DW4/D6.
I was also maintaining the bank account bearing no. 30570 with UCO Bank, Parliament Street, New Delhi branch. The statement of account issued by the bank is Ext.DW4/D7. The computer generated statement of account of Ext.DW4/D7 is Ext.DW4/D8. I used to deposit the amount in cash in the said bank account whenever I got my income in cash.
Me and my family are income tax payee. The income tax returns of myself, my daughter Pushpa Singh, Priya Singh, Indira Singh, my wife Veena Singh is Ext.DW4/D9 (Colly.) containing 10 pages.CC No. 76/2008 Page 35/143
CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 I had purchased a rifle in the name of Shambhu Prasad Singh for a sum of Rs. 22,198.40/. The bill of the said rifle is already exhibited as Ext.PW10/A. I used to deposit the money in the bank accrued from income of my business by cash and cheque. The voucher for depositing the amount in the bank are Ext.DW4/D10 (colly) containing six pages. There is also a transaction in the UCO Bank of myself and my wife which is shown in the voucher Ext.DW4/D11 (colly).
One house bearing no. D136, Kalkaji, New Delhi was jointly purchased by me and my brother Shambhu Prasad Singh. I used to pay equal electricity bill consumed in the said house as I was frequently visiting Delhi in connection with my business and see my other family members.
I had paid the stamp duty charge for purchase of H.No. E298, GKI, New Delhi at the request of Shambhu Prasad Singh. I used to give cash time to time to my brother Shambhu Prasad Singh as he was my younger brother. I had given approximately a sum of Rs. 1,90,000/ in cash to my brother. I had made a note on a paper for giving money to my brother which is Ext.DW4/D12."
"DW5 Ms. Manjari Aged: 45 years, d/o Late S.P. Sharma, r/o R122, GKI, First Floor, New Delhi.
On SA I have been residing in Delhi since 1990. I have five brothers and three sisters. I am a Post Graduate in English Literature. I was married to Shambhu Prasad Singh in the year 1992.
(At this stage, the witness has become quite ill. In these circumstances, I adjourn her examination for next date.) DW5 Ms. Manjari (called u/s 311 CrPC for further examination in continuation to dt. 22.02.2014.) On SA My elder brother Sh. H.D. Sharma had borne the expenses of my marriage with S.P. Singh. I came to Delhi in the year 198990.
(At this stage, the witness is shown D34 Ext.PW39/B which is inventory of the search conducted at Kalkaji, residence of Sh. S.P. Singh.) I received gifts mentioned at item no. 9, 23,29,46, 47, 49 to 50, 55,76 to 78, 8183, 8596, 98100 & 120124 at the time of my marriage from my elder brother Sh. H.D. Sharma. The gifts mentioned at item no. 105,106,109,126 & 127 were gifted to me by my elder brother after my marriage. I was doing CC No. 76/2008 Page 36/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 some business along with my brother. I was also giving tuitions to the children and was having income from the same. From 19901995, I was giving tuitions to the children from which I used to earn about Rs. 6000/ per month. The total income from the tuitions and the business used to be around Rs.12,000/ to Rs. 13,000/ per month. I did not deposit the said amount in the bank and it used to remain in cash with me and it was hardly spent by me. This amount was later on invested by me in my business of fabrication under the name and style of M/s Blossom Exports.
I have also done business under the name and style of M/s Kavila which was carrying out the business of textile and was certified by Khadi & Village Industries Commission to conduct the business.
In the year 2001, I started one more business under the name and style of M/s Rely Tours & Travels Pvt. Ltd. My elder brother Sh. H.D. Sharma also used to give money to me and my husband Sh. S.P. Singh from time to time by way of cash.
(At this stage, the witness is shown A/c statement of Sh. H.D. Sharma maintained with Oriental Bank of Commerce, East of Kailash, Delhi and the same is already exhibited as Ext.PW46/DA.) I have received these amounts reflected in the account statement of Sh. H.D. Sharma from the period 01.01.2000 to 06.11.2002 and the same is also reflected in the account statement of Sh. H.D. Sharma with Oriental Bank of Commerce already exhibited as Ext.DW1/1.
My elder brother Sh. H.D. Sharma also purchased a property bearing no. P13, Khasra No. 281, MIN situated in the abadi of Block P, Pandav Nagar in the village Gharaunda Neem Ka Banger, Patparganj, Delhi91 for an amount of Rs. 2 lacs in the year 1991 or 1992. The said property was later on sold by me to Sh. Bharat Singh Chauhan for an amount of Rs. 2.25 lacs."
..............
"Further examination in chief of DW5 Ms. Manjari. On SA I purchased two properties namely; Shop no. 18, Destination Point, Mathura Road, Faridabad and entire third floor of Flat No. B29, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi from my own income and savings. I purchased a MarutiZen car from my income, though, I do not remember for how much amount I purchased the same. At the time of my marriage, I received jewellery from my mother in law Late Smt. Kunti Devi, the value of which was approximately Rs. 6 lacs. Later on, I CC No. 76/2008 Page 37/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 sold the same for an amount of Rs.7 lacs (which also includes the jewellery which I received from my mother at the time of my marriage).
I was bearing the household expenses including the kitchen expenditure from my own income. I have one daughter namely Aarushi. I am bearing the educational expenses of Aarushi till date."
"DW6 Sh. Gautam Kumar, Aged: 32 years, S/o Sh. Parshu Ram Prasad, R/o U25, Subhash Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi59. On SA I am working in Ministry of Communication, Department of Telecommunication as Assistant (Admn.I) since 1st January 2009. I have been deputed to attend this court vide the order dated 28.2.2014 of Under Secretary, Administration, Department of Telecom, Govt. of India, which is now marked as Ex.DW6/A. (This order has been received by this court by Dak in an envelope, which is now enclosed with the aforesaid order.
I have brought the registers, which pertain to the local tours of Sh. Shambhu Prasad Singh for the period 20002001, 20012002.
(At this stage Ld. Defence Counsel has produced copy of the order dated 19th November 1999 issued by Sh. N. Mukherjee (Assistant Director General, Admn.I) vide which Sh. Shambhu Prasad Singh was appointed as Additional Private Secretary to the Minister of State for communication (Sh. Tapan Sikdar). The copy of the above said order is now exhibited as Ex.DW6/B.) I have seen this copy of the order. Since at that time Sh. N. Mukherjee was Assistant Director General at the relevant time, It appears that it is the correct copy of the original.
(At this stage Ld. Defence Counsel has produced a copy of order dated 11th of January 2002 issued by Sh. N. Mukherjee (Assistant Director General, Admn.I) vide which Sh. Shambhu Prasad Singh was appointed as Additional Private Secretary to the Minister of State for communication (Sh. Tapan Sikdar) and at that time he was looking after the charge of Private Secretary. The copy of the above said order is now exhibited as Ex.DW6/C.) I have seen this order and it appears to be the correct copy of the original.
I do not know if the Additional Private Secretary and the Private Secretary would also accompany the Minister, whenever such Minister goes for a foreign visit officially. I do not know what is the exact amount of foreign CC No. 76/2008 Page 38/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 allowance.
Q. Can you tell what travel allowances are available to a Minister? A. At present I have some records of the sanction order of expenditure of a Cabinet Minister in respect of her foreign visit in the month of May 1998. The copy of the same is Ex.DW6/D. I cannot tell if Shambhu Prasad Singh had accompanied Tapan Sikdar, the then Minister, on his foreign tours. For this purpose, I will have to trace out the old records and if the same are found out, I would produce the same on next date.
Further examination in chief is deferred.
DW6 Sh. Gautam Kumar (called for further examination in continuation to dt. 01.03.2014.) On SA I have brought one order dt. 19.01.2002 pertaining to foreign visit in respect of Sh. Tapan Sikdarthe then Minister of State (Communications) to Dubai along with Sh. S.P. Singhthe then Addl. P.S. I am tracing on record the photocopy of the said order. (original seen & returned) The same is now marked as Ext.DW 6/E. The daily allowance was to be paid as 56.25 US dollars for three days by the Embassy of IndiaDubai to each person. Apart from daily allowance, no other allowance was payable to the Addl. P.S. No other TA/DA Bill or any order pertaining to foreign visit of Singapore and Hong Kong of Shambhu Prasad Singh is available in the record."
"DW7 Sh. Ashwani Kumar Dialani is working as Section Officer in Ministry of Communications and Department of Telecommunication but he did not bring the requisite record. Therefore his examination in chief was deferred. The defence later on examined Sh. Ankit Srivastava (D10) in his place. "DW8 Sh. Sanjay Gupta Aged: 47 years, s/o Late Sh. B.P. Gupta, r/o 539, Laxmi Bai Nagar, New Delhi.
On SA I have been working as an Assistant in the Ministry of Human Resources and Development, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. I have brought a letter dt. 05.03.2014 issued under the signatures of Smt. Tulsi NegiDDO, Ministry of Human Resources and Development. I identify her signatures at point A on the said letter which is now marked as Ext.DW8/A. As per this letter, the record pertaining to the year 19961998 in respect of foreign visits of Sh. S.P. Singh, the CC No. 76/2008 Page 39/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 then Addl. PS to MOS (HRD) are not available with the section as the records are of more than 15 years old, normally, detention period of these type of records is about 3 years or 1 year from audit, hence, these records might have been destroyed.
I have been working in Ministry of Human Resources and Development for the last seven years in cash section.
(At this stage, the attention of the witness has been drawn to the document put forth by the Ld. Defence Counsel, the said document is letter dt. 05.09.1997 issued by Sh. P.S. Chakraborty, Desk Officer to the Accounts Officer. The said document is now been exhibited as Ext.DW8/B. {Objected to} ) I am not acquainted with the document shown to me as the said document has been addressed by the desk officer to the Pay & Accounts Office. Q I put it to you that whether the cash section deals with the amount of foreign allowance given to the officers of the Ministry of HRD when they are deputed on foreign tours along with the Minister? A Cash Section deals only with the said foreign bills where our Ministry has to pay any amount of travelling as per rules.
The documents pertaining to foreign visits usually remains in the record room of cash section."
"DW9 Ms. Sunila Bagga Aged: 50 years, w/o Sh. K. Bagga, r/o Z 93B, Dayalsar Road, Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
On SA I have been working as Section Officer in the Ministry of Communications and IT, Department of Telecommunications, Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi. I have brought a letter dt. 06.03.2014 issued under the signatures of Sh. G.Baskaran, Director (A/CsII) containing the details of local visits of Sh. Shambhu Prasad Singhthe then APS to MOS (C) of TA/DA Bills along with this letter. (original seen & returned) which could be traced. I identify the signatures of Sh. G.Baskaran at point A. The letter along with the enclosures is marked as Ext.DW9/A (Colly.)."
"DW10 Sh. Ankit Srivastava Aged: 33 years, s/o Sh. Udai Singh Srivastava, r/o C5/9, Radio Colony, Kingsway Camp, Delhi. On SA I have brought a letter pertaining to the foreign visits in respect of Sh.CC No. 76/2008 Page 40/143
CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 Tapan Sikdar, the then MOS(C) to Hong Kong, USA, Dubai and South Africa issued under the signatures of Somen ChaudharyUnder Secretary. I identify his signatures at point A. Sh. Shambhu Prasad Singh had only visited on a foreign visit to Dubai along with the Minister from 20.01.2002 to 23.01.2002 and he had not accompanied the Minister to Hong Kong, USA and South Africa. The letter along with enclosures is now collectively marked as Ext.DW10/A. This letter also includes the local visits of Shambhu Prasad Singh. The details of said local visits had already been provided by Ms. Sunila Bagga."
"DW11 Sh. Ajaib Singh Puar Aged: 71 years, s/o S. Tara Singh, r/o 68, Hunters Groves, Hayes, Middlex, U.B.3, JE, United Kingdom.
Presently residing at: 314, Mount Kailash, Tower No. 1, East of Kailash, New Delhi.
On SA I am a native of India and had migrated to United Kingdom in the year 1963 and had become the British citizen. I had done B.Sc. in India in the year 1963 from Punjab University. I am doing a business in Fashion Wear and I also run a travel agency. I also have the earnings from rented properties in Britain. I own two offices in India in Hemkunt Chambers, Nehru Place, New Delhi from which I have rental income. I have also acquired Overseas Citizenship of India and therefore I frequently visit India and do charitable works here out of my love for my motherland.
I have a property in Mount Kailash, as mentioned above and my next door neighbour is Sh. H.D. Sharma and I know him since 198788. Ms. Manjari is the sister of H.D. Sharma and is married to accused S.P. Singh present in the court. I had given financial aid of 4000 GBPs(Great Britain Pounds) in the year 1998 to S.P. Singh. I had brought this amount from U.K. and had declared the same vide a declaration under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. I have brought the said declaration today. The photocopy of the same is Ext.DW11/A (original seen & returned). Whenever accused S.P. Singh used to ask some financial help, I used to do so from time to time. The total amount might be somewhere around 1500 to 2000 pounds. From time to time, I had given financial aid in Indian currency also which should amount to about Rs. One lac."
"DW12 Statement of Sh. Shambhu Prasad Singh Aged: 50 years, s/o Late A.P. Singh, r/o R122, GKI, New Delhi48.CC No. 76/2008 Page 41/143
CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 (u/s 315 CrPC read with Section 21 P.C. Act.) On SA I was born on 24.11.1964 at Kolkata and had acquired a degree of B.Com from Calcutta University in the year 1980. I owned two trucks and used to earn about Rs.1000/ per day from each truck in those days. In the year 1988 I came to Delhi. I joined an NGO namely Women's Development Organization and I worked for that NGO till 1991. My father died on 10.03.1969. My late mother and my elder brother Sh. Jai Prakash Narain Singh bore my educational expenses. I have two brothers and two sisters. My family was doing business of transport, landed properties and had agricultural income from agricultural land situated at village Pur and Paharajpur, District Ballia, U.P. Since 1980, Sh. Prahlad Singh was doing farming on my agricultural land situated at above mentioned places and he used to pay yearly amount of Rs. 1.5 to Rs. 2 lacs as agricultural income earned from the above mentioned land. Till date, I am earning agricultural income from the above mentioned land, though, my income has increased to Rs. 2.5 lacs to Rs. 3 lacs per annum.
The truck registration numbers are WMK7199 and WMK6689 and as on date the truck no. WMK7199 is in existence. The other truck WMK6689 was sold in the year 2001.
(Further examination in chief is deferred at the request of Ld. Defence Counsel as it is already 4:00 p.m.) DW12 Statement of Sh. Shambhu Prasad Singh (called for further examination in chief in continuation to dt. 17.04.2014.) On SA (At this stage, attention of the witness is drawn towards the RC of the vehicle no. WMK7199 already exhibited as Ext.PW43/DX14.) I was earning an income of Rs. 1000/ per day. I have been earning this income from this vehicle since the purchase of this vehicle in the year 1981. I have sold the other truck bearing no. WMK6689 in the year 2001, therefore, I do not have the copy of the RC with me.
I got married in the year 1992 with Ms. Manjari. Whatever expenses which were incurred in my marriage were borne by my elder brother Sh. JPN Singh and my late mother. At the time of my marriage, I received jewellery from my mother which was given to my wife Ms. Manjari in my presence. Ms. Manjari also received jewellery from her mother and brother Sh. H.D. Sharma at the time of marriage.CC No. 76/2008 Page 42/143
CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 (At this stage, the attention of the witness is drawn towards D34 already exhibited as Ext.PW39/B.) I received gifts mentioned at item no. 9, 23, 29, 46, 47, 49, 50, 55, 76, 77, 78, 81 to 83, 85 to 96, 98 to 100, 121 to 124 from Sh. H.D. Sharma and my mother in law at the time of my marriage with Ms. Manjari. I also received gifts from my brother Sh. JPN Singh and my mother Late Smt. Kunti Devi at the time of my marriage. I received gifts from item no. 30, 32 to 39 from Sh. JPN Singh at the time of my marriage.
I received gifts from Sh. H.D. Sharma even after the marriage mentioned at item no. 105, 106, 109, 126 & 127.
Items mentioned at serial no. 24 to 26 of the inventory were purchased by Sh. JPN Singh and belonged to Sh. JPN Singh. Sh. H.D. Sharma is my brother in law (At this stage, attention of the witness is drawn to the statement of account from 01.01.2000 to 06.11.2002 of account no. SB20176 which belonged to Sh. H.D. Sharma and the same is already exhibited as Ext.PW46/DE. The transactions reflected in Ext.PW46/DE is also there in Ext.DW1/1.) Sh. H.D. Sharma gave a total of Rs. 15,25,000/ at various occasions to me and to my wife Ms. Manjari. The said amount was given as a financial aid as and when required by me or my wife.
I also purchased one taxi in the year 1988 from Varanasi and I got it registered and name transferred there before RTOVaranasi and the taxi no. was DLK7321. Subsequently, when I shifted to Delhi, I brought the taxi at Delhi and was earning income of approximately Rs. 400/ to Rs. 500/ per day from that also. I sold the said taxi in the year 2010.
As I mentioned above that I came to Delhi in the year 1988 and I joined an NGO and in the year 1991, I joined as Addl. Private Secretary to MOS HRD. Subsequently, I was again appointed as Addl. PS to MOSCommunications. My job was for the short tenure till August1991. After that, I established two private limited companies of my own in the name of Blossom Exports Pvt. Ltd. And Blossom Leasing Pvt. Ltd. Again in the year 1995, I joined as APS to MOS Health and Family Welfare and I continued till 2006 wherein I was posted as OSDMOS Food & Supplies. During 1995 to 2006, I had a break in service also which exactly I cannot explain. As far as documents related to my continuance in service till 2006 is concerned, I had those documents but during the search on 25.02.2014 such documents has been taken by the CBI which includes the records CC No. 76/2008 Page 43/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 pertaining to my break in service also.
As mentioned above, I was running business of export and leasing from that I was earning approximately Rs. 50,000/ to Rs. 70,000/ per month and the company had also filed the income tax return.
I knew the family of Sh. Shyam Sunder Bhatter since my early days in Kolkata. (At this stage, attention of the witness is drawn towards MoU dt. 19.12.2000 already exhibited as Ext.PW13/B.) Me and my wife Ms. Manjari entered into a MoU with Shyam Sunder Bhatter according to which Sh. Shyam Sunder Bhatter gave Rs. 13 lacs for the purchase of property bearing no. E298, Greater KailashI, New Delhi. I requested my brother Sh. JPN Singh to pay the stamp duty for the purchase of the above mentioned property.
I have a property bearing no. B136, Kalkaji, New Delhi. Me and my brother Sh. JPN Singh have 50% share each in the said property. My contribution in respect of purchase of the said property was Rs. 50,000/ only. I was paying half of the electricity bill charged from month to month and on few occasions my elder brother Sh. JPN Singh had made the complete payment.
I was also allotted a property bearing no. 3/275, Vipul Khand, Gomti Nagar in the year 1994 and I did not have money to deposit the complete cost of the land for the allotment of the said land, therefore, I approached my mother to deposit approximately Rs. 1.88 lacs against the allotment of said land, as per the terms of the MoU (Ext.PW46/DD) entered into between me, my late brother in law Sh. Manoj Kumar Singh and my mother Late Smt. Kunti Devi. Even the stamp duty of Rs. 47,000/, as per the terms of the MoU, was paid by my late mother. As per the MoU, it was agreed that Late Sh. M.K. Singh would bear the cost of construction from his own resources. As per the MoU, it was agreed that Sh. M.K. Singh shall have the possession of ground floor and my late mother shall have the possession of first and remaining floor during her life time. It was notarized through Sh. S.K. Sharma, Adv. (Attention of the witness is drawn towards the signatures on the last page of MoU.) The same bears my signatures at point A, that of Sh. M.K. Singh at point B and that of my mother Late Smt. Kunti Devi at point C. It also bears the signatures of Smt. Krishna Singh at point D and my wife Ms. Manjari at point E. The document is already exhibited as Ext.PW46/DD.
The construction on the said property was carried out by APCO Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Sh. Anil Singh who was a good friend of my late brother in law Sh. M.K. Singh, is managing director of APCO Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and CC No. 76/2008 Page 44/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 the construction of the aforesaid property was carried out on the basis of understanding between Sh. M.K. Singh and Sh. Anil Singh. At present, my sister Smt. Krishna Singh is residing in the aforesaid property and has possession of entire property apart from some portion which has been leased out by her. All the movable items lying in the property belongs to my late brother in law Sh. M.K. Singh and my sister. No movable item lying in the said property or found by the CBI during the course of search and seizure operation, belonged to me.
My mother late Smt. Kunti Devi executed a gift deed in favour of my daughter Aarushi of an amount of Rs. 5 lacs in the year 2000. (At this stage, attention of the witness is drawn towards the gift deed which has already been exhibited as Ext.PW43/DX9.) The same bears the signatures of Smt. Kunti Devi at point A. The amount mentioned in the gift deed was given by my mother for welfare of her grand daughter Aarushi.
I also received Rs. 5 lacs from my mother in my account bearing no. 52210328645 with Standard Chartered Bank, Parliament Street, New Delhi branch. The same is reflected in my account statement of the above mentioned account number on entry dt. 08.06.2001 which is already exhibited as Ext.PW46/DC. The said transfer is of Rs. 5 lacs is also reflected in account statement of Smt. Kunti Devi of account bearing no. 52210340521 with Standard Chartered Bank, Parliament Street, New Delhi branch on entry dt. 08.06.2001 and same is already exhibited as Ext.PW46/DB.
I used to receive money as a financial help from my elder brother Sh. JPN Singh from time to time. I received Rs. 5.10 lacs from my brother Sh. JPN Singh in my account bearing no. 52210328645 with Standard Chartered Bank, Parliament Street, New Delhi branch. The same is reflected in my account statement of the above mentioned account number on entry dt. 08.06.2001 which is already exhibited as Ext.PW46/DC. The said transfer of Rs. 5.10 lacs is also reflected in account statement of Sh. JPN Singh of account bearing no. 5221 0350349 with Standard Chartered Bank, Parliament Street, New Delhi branch on entry dt. 08.06.2001 at point A and same is already exhibited as Ext.DW4/DX4. Apart from this amount, I also received Rs.1.90 lacs in total on various dates and the same is reflected in a note made by Sh. JPN Singh which is already exhibited as Ext.DW4/D12. The said note bears the handwriting of Sh. JPN Singh.
Sh. JPN Singh also purchased a rifle for me for an amount of approximately Rs. 22,000/ from Premier Gun House, Meena Bazar, Jama Masjid, Delhi06. The invoice of the said purchase of gun is already on record.CC No. 76/2008 Page 45/143
CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 My wife Ms.Manjari before her marriage with me was giving tuitions as well as she was doing the business of outsourcing of teddy bears which was carried in the name and style of M/s Blossom Creations. She was doing this business and was giving tuitions since her arrival in Delhi i.e. in the year 1989. Before marriage, her monthly income was Rs. 30,000/. After marriage, her monthly income was Rs. 40,000/ to Rs. 50,000/. She also started a business under the name and style of Rely Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd. I do not know the exact profit gained by this company, but, the company was earning profit. Ms. Manjari was bearing the educational expenses incurred in the education of our daughter Aarushi. Ms. Manjari was bearing the day to day expenses which included the kitchen expenses.
The jewellery which was received as gift by my wife Ms. Manjari from my mother Late Smt. Kunti Devi was later on sold by her and she utilized the proceeds in her business as well as in acquiring property. Ms. Manjari purchased two properties namely Shop No. 18, Destination Point, Mathura Road, Faridabad and 3rd Floor of the Flat no. B29, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi.
I remained public servant till 2006. I served in Ministries like Ministry of Chemical & Fertilizers, Ministry of Food & Civil Supplies etc. as OSD to the then Ministers.
I visited countries like UAE, Singapore, UK etc. with my the then Ministers. There is a fix foreign allowance varies from country to country starting from 50USD to 150USD per day excluding travelling, boarding and lodging expenditure. I went on foreign visit with Mr. Tapan Sikdarthe then Minister as well as I was also sent on foreign deputation to UK in the year 1997.
I know Mr. Ajaib Singh Puar since 1992 as he is the next door neighbour of my brother in law Mr. H.D. Sharma. I sought financial assistance from Mr. Ajaib Singh Puar time to time and he was kind enough to provide me the financial assistance of 4000+2000 GBPs and approximate Rs. One lac. I got this money on various occasions."
Accused filed two documents of his service record which are Ext.X & Ext.Y and closed his defence evidence.
CC No. 76/2008 Page 46/143CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 Final Arguments Ld. Defence Counsel has not only addressed oral arguments but has also submitted written submissions.
Sanction under Section 197 of CrPC Ms Geeta Luthra, Ld. Senior Advocate for accused has referred to R. Balakrishna Pillai vs. State of Kerala, (1996) 1 SCC 478, in which Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that for cognizance of the offence of criminal conspiracy alleged against the Petitioner therein, the requirement of sanction under Section 197 CrPC was sine qua non. Ld. Defence counsel has also referred to State of Orissa vs. Ganesh Chand Jew, (2004) 8 SCC 40 & State of H.P. vs. M.P. Gupta,(2004) 2SCC 349 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the protection given under Section 197 CrPC is to protect responsible public servants against the institution of possibly vexatious criminal proceedings for the offences alleged to have been committed by him while they are acting or purporting to act as public servants.
I have considered this case law. There is no offence of conspiracy alleged in the present case. No offences of IPC or any other act have been alleged except the offence under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Therefore, requirement u/s 197 CrPC is not a sine qua non in the present case.
CC No. 76/2008 Page 47/143CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 Sanction under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ld. Seniorr Advocate has drawn my attention to Abhay Singh Chautala Vs CBI (2011)7 Supreme Court Cases 141 and submits that the appellant in the said case was MLA during the check period and thereafter he was again elected as M.P. and at the time of filing the charge sheet, the said public servant was holding a new office. Therefore, no sanction u/s 19 CrPC was required for the period of offence under the P.C. Act for the check period during which the appellant held the office of MLA previously. Ld. Sr. Adv. has also drawn my attention to R.S. Nayak Vs A.R. Antulay AIR 1984 SC 684 & Prakash Singh Badal and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and others (2007)1 Supreme Court Cases 1 in her support.
It is argued by Ld. Sr. Adv. that the present case should be differentiated from Abhay Singh Chautala and Prakash Singh Badal's case in the sense that in the present case the accused is continuously holding the same office except a break of 24 days. It is submitted that when the accused is holding the same office, the prosecution must get sanction u/s 19 of P.C. Act to prosecute him. On the contrary, Dr. Padmini Singh, Ld. Public Prosecutor urged that the public post held by accused at the time of cognizance was no more connected with the period when he abused or misused the office for CC No. 76/2008 Page 48/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 the corrupt motives. Hence, sanction for prosecution is not required. To support her contention, she has placed reliance upon the same case law as relied upon by defence, wherein it has been held that if the date on which offence is alleged to have been committed, the accused was a public servant but at the time when the court is called upon to take cognizance of the offence committed by him, the accused had ceased to be a public servant, then in that situation, no sanction would be necessary for taking cognizance of the offence against him.
I have considered the rival submissions. It is not in dispute that accused was a public servant during the check period which is 01.01.1995 to 09.08.2002. It is also not in dispute that the cognizance of the offence was taken on 13.10.2005 and on that date the accused was discharging duties as public servant being APS to the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Government of India. The question is whether the accused is continuing in the same office at the time of cognizance, which he was holding during the check period. As per charge sheet, the accused was holding the following offices:
S.No. Posting Period
1. APS with Minister of State for Health 21.9.1994 to 15.5.1995
(Dr. C.Silvera)
CC No. 76/2008 Page 49/143
CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014
2. APS to Minister of State 15.9.1995 to 30.5.1996
Ministry of Industry
3. APS to Minister of State for Forest 5.6.1996 to 29.6.1996
4. APS to Minister of State for Education 29.6.1996 to Feb. 1998 (Sh. M.R. Saikai)
5. APS to MOS for Communication 19.3.1998 to 30.6.2002 (Sh. Tapan Sikdar)
6. APS to Minister of Chemical 02.7.2002 to till & Fertilizers (Sh. Tapan Sikdar) registration of the case i.e. on 8.8.2002.
The aforesaid facts are not disputed by the accused. A perusal of the above postings would show that he was APS with Minister of State for Health upto 15.5.1995. Then there is a break for a few months and from 15.9.1995 to 30.5.1996, he was APS to the Minister of State, Ministry of Industry. Similarly, there are gaps whenever he gets appointment to the post of APS to different ministries.
I have already stated that the check period in the present case is from 01.01.1995 to 09.08.2002. The cognizance in the present case was taken by this court on 13.10.2005. The question is as to whether CC No. 76/2008 Page 50/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 from 09.08.2002 till 13.10.2005, the accused was continuously working as A.P.S. to the Minister of Chemical and Fertilizers or not. In the charge sheet, it is mentioned that he was working as APS to Sh. Tapan Sikdar till registration of the case on 8.8.2002. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that thereafter accused remained the PS to the Minister continuously and during this period the cognizance was taken by the Ld. Predecessor of this court. I disagree with this submission. The accused himself has furnished OFFICES ORDER NO. 04/2006E.1 DATED 16.1.2006 issued by Mohd. Moniruzzaman, under Secretary to the Government of India, which is marked as Ex.Y. The same is reproduced as under :
No. A11013/3/2004)/EI Government of India Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution Department ofFood & Public Distribution Krishi Bhawan, Date the 16th January 2006 OFFICES ORDER NO. 04 /2006E.I Services of Shri S. P. Singh, who was appointed Officer on Special Duty in the personal staff of Hon'ble MOS (CA) (Shri Taslimuddin) in the scale of pay of Rs.10,00032515,200 w.e.f. 07062004 vide this Department's Notification No.A11013/3/2004E.I dated 1372004 are terminated w.e.f. 1612006 (AN) (Mohd. Moniruzzaman) Under Secretary to the Govt. of India CC No. 76/2008 Page 51/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 On the basis of this letter, it is submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that the accused was public servant on the date of cognizance, because as per the above order, he remained OSD to the Minister from
7.6.2004 to 16.1.2006, whereas the cognizance was taken on 13.10.2005.
I have considered the submissions of Ld. Defence Counsel. Ld. Defence Counsel has tried to differentiate this case from Abhay Chautala's case and and Prakash Singh Badal's case on the ground that in the present case the accused is being appointed as the APS to the Minister, whereas in the cases decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the public servants assumed totally different responsibilities as public servants e.g. the accused was MLA during one tenure and MP during another tenure, whereas in the present case, the accused always got the posting as APS to the Minister. I have perused the aforesaid judgements and I disagree with this differentiation. In the present case every time it was a fresh appointment. That is why there is gap of few days before joining the next posting. As per the charge sheet, the check period is from 1.1.1995 to 8.8.2002. Since the accused started working as APS to the Minister of Chemical and Fertilizers from 2.7.2002 onwards till registration of FIR i.e. till CC No. 76/2008 Page 52/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 8.8.2002. As per the document Ex.Y, the fresh appointment of the accused as OSD was effected from 7.6.2004. Therefore, when the cognizance of the offence was taken, the accused was holding a different office than the offices which he was holding during the check period. Hence, to my mind, no sanction under Section 19 of P. C. Act is required for the check period.
What kind of evidence is required to be adduced by defence to discharge his onus of explaining the disproportionateness?
Ld. Defence Counsel submits that the initial burden of proof is always on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, but the burden once shifted to the accused, is not so onerous as that of prosecution and that accused is only required to show the probability of his version. Therefore, the level of proof by the accused is only preponderance of evidence to create doubt on the case of prosecution. On the other hand, Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that this issue has been finally settled by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in K. Veeraswami Vs. Union of India, (SC) 1991 (2) RCR (Cri) 559, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court had laid down as under :
"74.... it is significant to note that there is useful parallel found in Section 5(3) and CC No. 76/2008 Page 53/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 clause (e) of section 5(1). Clause (e) creates a statutory offence which must be proved by the prosecution. It is for the prosecution to prove that the accused or any person on his behalf, has been in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income. When the onus is discharged by the prosecution, it is for the accused to account satisfactorily for the disproportionality of the properties possessed by him. The Section makes available statutory defence which must be proved by the accused. It is a restricted defence that is accorded to the accused to account for the disproportionality of the assets over the income. But the legal burden of proof placed on the accused is not so onerous as that of the prosecution. However, it is just not throwing same doubt on the prosecution version. The legislature has advisedly used the expression "satisfactorily account." That means the accused has to satisfy the court that his explanation is worthy of acceptance.
The burden of proof placed on the accused is an evidential burden though not a pursuasive burden. The accused could however, discharge that burden of proof "on the balance of probabilities" either CC No. 76/2008 Page 54/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 from the evidence of the prosecution and/or evidence from the defence."
Ld. Public Prosecutor has referred to CSD Swamy Vs. State, AIR 1960 SC 7 that the legislature has advisedly used the expression satisfactorily account. The legislature has thus deliberately caste a burden on the accused not only to offer a plausible explanation as to how he came by his large wealth but also to satisfy the court that his explanation was worthy of acceptance. Thus the evidence adduced by the prosecution as well as defence has to be appreciated in light of the above legal position.
Ld. Public Prosecutor has emphasized that as per explanation appended to Section 13(1)(e) "known sources of income" means income received from any lawful sources and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant. He has submitted that if an intimation has not been given to the department in terms of the conduct rules about any income or assets acquired by the public servant, the benefit of the same can not be availed when he is prosecuted under the PC Act.CC No. 76/2008 Page 55/143
CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in N Ramakrishnaiah through Lrs Vs. State of A P , 2009 (Cri.) LJ 1767, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed as under : "... Therefore, it can be said that, though "income" is receipt in the hand of its recipient, every receipt would not partake into the character of income.
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 (1) his property, or (b) his investment. A receipt from windfall, or gains of graft crime or immoral secretions by persons prima facie would not be receipt for the "known source of income" of a public servant.
In view of above case law, it is clear that the explanation of the accused should be supported with evidence and such evidence should be worthy of acceptance by the court. Further, the income of the accused, which looks like a windfall or receipts or expenditure out of love and affection, which suddenly arises during the check period, require adequate evidentiary explanation from the accused.
CC No. 76/2008 Page 56/143CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 THE ASSETS IN THE NAME OF Ms MANJARI I have already reproduced the evidence of Smt. Manjari, (the wife of the accused), who testified as DW5. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that her evidence is corroborated by the statement of her brother Sh. Hari Dutt Sharma (DW1), her husband/accused Shambhu Prasad Singh (DW12) and her brother in law Jai Prakash Narayan (DW4). On the other hand, Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that these witnesses are testifying falsely to save the accused just because of being close relatives. The question before this court is as to whether their testimonies and the explanation in respect of the income of Ms Manjari are satisfactory and acceptable? I discuss this under following heads :
I. Shop No.18, Destination Point, Mathura Road, Faridabad (D 4 Conveyance Deed of Faridabad property) It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that this property was purchased by Ms Manjari from her own source of income and her personal savings. It is argued that Ms Manjari (DW5) has deposed during her examination in chief that she purchased Shop No.18, Destination Point, Mathura road from her own income and savings.
The accused (DW12) has supported the version of DW5 regarding the ownership of this shop. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that CC No. 76/2008 Page 57/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 the prosecution failed to examine any witness to the effect that the accused has any role to play in the purchase of the property and thus the assertion of the prosecution that the aforesaid property is benami and the accused was the real owner of the property remained unproved. Further, the prosecution failed to examine Mr. Suman Malhotra owner of the property in question especially, when the prosecution was asserting the particular transaction to be benami.
I have considered the submissions. It is to be seen as to whether the Ms Manjari, in whose name the property has been purchased for an amount of Rs.2,04,000/, had any income and savings to purchase it and if so how much.
II. Entire Third Floor of Flat No. B29, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi (D5 Will and GPA) It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel, while drawing my attention to the evidence of DW5, that this property was purchased by Ms Manjari out of own sources of income and personal savings. It is further by Ld. Defence Counsel that the accused (DW12) has supported the version of DW5 regarding the ownership of this property. It is further argued that the prosecution failed to examine any witness to the effect that the accused has any role to play in the purchase of the property or the payment of the sale consideration and CC No. 76/2008 Page 58/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 thus the assertion of the prosecution that the aforesaid property is benami and the accused was the real owner of the property remained unproved. Further, the prosecution failed to examine Ms Savita Sethi owner of the property in question especially, when the prosecution was asserting the particular transaction to be benami.
Before considering the aforesaid submissions, it is to be ascertained as to what were the incomes and savings of Ms Manjari. III. Kothi No. E298, Greater Kailash, New Delhi.
Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the list of immovable assets, where the above stated property has been mentioned at serial no.5 and its value has been written as Rs.20,00,000/. Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the testimony of PW31 Sh. Ravinder Arora, a property dealer and PW33 Sh. Sunil Dutt Sharma, the sub registrar at INA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi. From their testimonies, following sale deeds in respect of this property by Smt. Adarsh Prabhakar (vendor) stand proved:
Sl. Serial Consider Name of purchaser Portion of Exhibit No. number of ation the house the Sale amount Deed
1. 76 7 lakhs Ms Manjari Singh Ground Ex.PW31/ Floor B CC No. 76/2008 Page 59/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014
2. 78 7 lakhs Ms Manjari Singh First Floor Ex.PW31/ A
3. 77 6 lakhs S. P. Singh Second Ex.PW31/ Floor C As per the testimony of PW33, the stamp duties paid on the aforesaid sale deeds are as under :
1. Ground Floor Rs.56,000/
2. First Floor Rs.56,000/
3. Second Floor Rs.48,000/ It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that the assets of ground floor and first floor were purchased by Ms Manjari and therefore the same should not be counted in the list of assets of accused Shambhu Prasad Singh. It is further argued that stamp duties were paid by J. P. N. Singh as per his evidence as DW4.
It goes without saying that Ms Manjari can purchase the property from her own sources only if she had some income. This aspect will be discussed by me later on. Regarding the payment of stamp duty by J. P. N. Singh, I will discuss the issue at appropriate place.
CC No. 76/2008 Page 60/143CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 IV. Car ZEN Regn. No. DL8CD3845. (ADL13) It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that the said car was purchased by Ms Manjari from her own sources of income and personal savings and the same is evident from her testimony as defence witness as DW5. Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to the testimony of PW19 Sh. B. S. Sharma an official of Transport Authority, who has testified that one Sh. Vinod Kumar had sold this vehicle to Ms Manjari. I have perused the testimony of DW5 Ms Manjari, who has stated that she does not remember as to for how much money she purchased the car. I have perused the official record proved by PW19. Ex.PW19/E is a Form of Declaration meant for cash transaction filed by Ms Manjari with transport authority, which shows that she had purchased the vehicle for a sum of Rs.1,20,000/. The language of the Form shows that this Form is filled when the money is paid in cash. The date of purchase appears to be 6.1.2002 (i.e. within the check period) because the Form was filled on this date.
There is another document Ex.PW19/A dated 6.9.2003, which proves that she had sold this vehicle to one D. S. Popli. However, it is not clear as to for how much money, the car was sold. Since, the car was sold after the check period, the sale amount, if any, can not be taken in consideration.
CC No. 76/2008 Page 61/143CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 Whether Ms Manjari could afford to purchase this vehicle from her own independent source of income, is a question dependent upon the issue as to what were her earnings.
V. Bank Balance in the joint name of S. P. Singh and Ms Manjari Global Trust Bank Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to the statement of the accused, Shambhu Prasad Singh under Section 313 CrPC in answer to question no.92, wherein, he clearly stated that "The said account was in the joint name and amount of Rs.6,07,092.84 was deposited by me from my account no. 52210328645 of Standard Chartered Bank and out of the said amount of Rs.5,00,000/ was given by mother as a gift to my daughter (Aarushi). The said amount was deposited by me in cash in my above mentioned account on 30.11.2000, while the gift deed executed in the favour of my daughter is dated 20.11.2000 and the amount of Rs.4,97,869.86 must have been deposited by Ms Manjari".
I have perused the testimony of DW5 Ms Manjari. In her entire statement, she has not explained this money. Therefore, the explanation of accused in respect of the amount of Rs.4,97,869.86 as discussed above cannot be ascribed to Ms Manjari and the explanation of the accused on this point is not acceptable.
CC No. 76/2008 Page 62/143CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 VI. House Hold Items Inventory of House No. B136, Kalkaji, New Delhi (D34 Inventory of House Articles) As per the list of movable assets (at serial no.17) of the charge sheet, the household items found in H. No. B136, Kalkaji, New Delhi, were valued by the Investigating Officer to be of Rs.2,89,070/. As per prosecution case (as testified by Dy. S. P. Ravindra Singh i.e. PW46), pursuant to search warrant issued by Sh V. K. Jain, Ld. Special Judge, CBI, on 9.8.2002 Inspector N. R. Thakur conducted search at B136, Left side Ground Floor, Kalkaji, New Delhi, which was the residence of accused Shambhu Prasad Singh. This search was conducted in presence of a witness namely C. M. Ajayan (PW39), who proved the search list as Ex.PW39/A. He testified that an inventory of articles was prepared at the spot and such inventory is marked as Ex. PW39/B (D34). As per this list, the value of the articles has been mentioned as disclosed by accused. This fact was put to the accused in question no.146 in statement under Section 313 CrPC. I would like to reproduce the answer of the accused as under :
"It is incorrect that search was conducted and I was only made to sign the documents forcefully by the CBI officials as well as the value ascertained by the CBI for the articles found were highly escalated and not in accordance with the actual market value of those items. Moreover, most of the articles were purchased by me before the check period and some of the articles were gifted to me at the time of my marriage as well as some of them were gifted by my brother Sh. Jai CC No. 76/2008 Page 63/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 Prakash Narayan Singh and this fact was not considered by the CBI."
From this answer, it appears that the accused is challenging the assessment of the value of the articles mentioned in the list. As per prosecution, the value has been given by the accused himself and the signatures of accused are very much available on the search list.
I have considered this submission. PW39 C. M. Ajayan has denied the suggestion that CBI officials have themselves mentioned the rate of items in the inventory. No suggestion has been given to the witness that police has taken the signatures of the accused under duress. I am of the opinion that accused could have given his own independent assessment of the articles in the court, which he has not done. In such a situation, the assessment of the value of the articles by the prosecution has to be accepted.
It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that Ms Manjari had received gifts of worth 172490/ from her elder brother Sh. Hari Dutt Sharma at the time of her marriage with accused and rest of the gifts after the marriage, the total worth of those items mentioned in the inventory is 172490/. Ld. Defence Counsel submits that DW1 Sh. H. D. Sharma has stated during his examination in chief that "I had given in the marriage of my sister as per my capacity and I kept giving the gifts CC No. 76/2008 Page 64/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 even after her marriage from time to time." Ld. Defence Counsel argues that this fact is corroborated by the statement of DW5 Ms Manjari "I received gifts mentioned at item no. 9, 23, 29. 46, 47, 49 to 50, 55, 56, 7678 8183, 8596, 9698 and 120/124 at the time of my marriage from my elder brother sh. H. D. Sharma. The gifts mentioned at item no. 105, 106, 109, 126 & 127 were gifted to me and my elder brother after my marriage." Further, accused has clearly stated during his statement under Section 315 CrPC that "... I received gifts mentioned at item no 9, 23, 29, 46, 47, 49, 50, 55, 76, 77, 78, 81 to 83, 85 to 96 and 121 to 124 from Sh. H.D. Sharma and my mother in law at the time of marriage with Ms Manjari. I also received gifts from my brother Sh. J. P. N. Singh ad my mother Late Smt. Kunti Devi at the time of my marriage. I received gifts from item no. 30, 32 to 39 from Sh. J. P. N. Singh at the item of my marriage. I received gifts from Sh. H. D. Sharma even after the marriage mentioned at 105, 106, 109, 126 and
127."
I have considered the evidence and submissions. Perusal of the inventory would show that the Investigating Officer has mentioned in various of the aforesaid articles by noting "marriage gift", "purchased by J. P. N. Singh", "gifted by mother in law" etc. In such situation, the CC No. 76/2008 Page 65/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 value of the article is not mentioned. I have compared the item numbers mentioned in the testimony of DW1, DW5 and DW12 and I find the stand of these witnesses in respect of the articles mentioned in their evidence, is no different than what is written in the inventory, except in respect of following articles :
Articles, which as per statement of Ms Manjari, were received as marriage gift but as per prosecution, the same were acquired by the accused.
Sl. Article Description of article and year of Value
No. No. acquisition as per inventory
1. 47 Five blankets (year not mentioned) 4000/
2. 81 One silver pooja thali, three bowls, two 4000/
spoons and one small container (1992)
3. 82 Six silver bowls in blue box (1999) 2500/
4. 83 One gold chain gents (1991) 10000/
5. 85 One old silver bangle (1997) 100/
6. 86 Four silver bowls in red box (1992) 300/
7. 87 One gold necklace studded with white 2000/
pearl (2000)
8. 89 One wrist watch electro plated made in 3000/
Japan (1996)
9. 90 A set of ear tops of gold (2000) 1000/
10. 93 One gold chain with ear tops (1995) 1500/
CC No. 76/2008 Page 66/143
CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014
Sl. Article Description of article and year of Value
No. No. acquisition as per inventory
11. 94 19 silver coins approximately 8 grams 1500/
each (1990)
12. 96 Two silver bowls and one silver glass 800/
(approximately 100 gm) (1995)
13. 97 13 sweator woolen (19902001) 1500/
14. 98 11 Saries (1990) 3000/
Normally whereever the Investigating Officer has mentioned an article to the marriage gift, he has not written its value. However, there are certain articles against which the noting of marriage gift is written but its value is also given. The same are as under :
Sl. Article Description of article and year of Value No. No. acquisition as per inventory
1. 120 Sofa set ten seater (1992) 30000/
2. 121 Drawing table with glass table top (1992) 7000/
3. 122 Dinning table with six chairs and glass 12000/ top (1992)
4. 124 Crockery in wooden cabinet with three 5000/ dinning set (1992) The total of the aforesaid amount comes to Rs.89,200/, for sake of convenience in calculation, I take this amount to be Rs.89,000/.CC No. 76/2008 Page 67/143
CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 Since the defence witnesses have testified that these were the gifts given on and after marriage of accused with Ms Manjari by Sh. H. D. Sharma, the brother of Ms Manjari, I accept the same. Therefore, after deducting a sum of Rs.89,000/ out of Rs.2,89,000/, the movable assets of the accused have to be taken to of the value of Rs.2,00,000/ (Rs. Two Lakhs only).
INCOME AND SAVINGS OF Ms MANJARI I. Loan of Rs.13 lacs received from Shyam Sunder Bhuttar Ld. Sr. Advocate for accused has submitted that in the property ground floor, first floor and second floor was purchased by Ms Manjari from the loan amount of Rs.13 lacs received from Shayam Sunder Bhatter (PW13) and the same is evident from MOU (D20) Ex.PW13/B and that the remaining amount of Rs.7,00,000/ (Seven Lakh Rupees) was arranged by Ms. Manjari from her own sources and the same is evident from Cheque No. 544009 Ex.PW7/A1 (D41) for an amount of rupees two lakh in favour of Smt. Adarsh Prabhakar and further a pay order dated 18.01.2001 bearing no. 506069 dated 18.01.2001 Ex.PW7/A4 (D43) for an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs. It is further submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that during the cross examination of DW5 Ms Manjari no question was put to prove that CC No. 76/2008 Page 68/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 money lying in the SB A/c No. 28783 in the UCO Bank, Parliament Street Branch at New Delhi stood benami in the name of the accused. Ld. Defence Counsel argues that the burden of proving that a particular transaction is benami and the apparent party is not the actual party to the transaction rest upon the person asserting it to be so. Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to the evidence of two property dealers i.e. PW31 Ravinder Arora and PW32 Vipin Kapoor, who have witnessed the above mentioned transaction of sale and purchase of the property in question. It is submitted that these two witnesses did not depose anything regarding the particular transaction is benami and that Ms Manjari is benamidar with respect to ground floor and first floor of property no. E298, GKII, New Delhi and the real owner is the accused. Further, it is argued that prosecution has failed to examine Mr. Adarsh Prabhakar, the owner of the property in question, to prove that actually the transaction was being done by Shambhu Prasad Singh in the name of his wife. Therefore, it is argued that this property, which is in the name of Smt. Manjari, should be excluded from the list of assets because the accused has been able to show as to how the money came to purchase the said property.
CC No. 76/2008 Page 69/143CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 I have considered this submission and have perused the charge sheet. In the schedule of income (at page 6), prepared by the Investigating Officer in the charge sheet, the Investigating Officer has taken care of the loan of Rs.13 lacs from Sh. S. S. Bhattar and has shown the property in question as item no.5 in the list of assets at page 8. The question of Rs.13 lakhs loan will also be takenup again at appropriate stage.
But presently the question is, wherefrom the remaining amount of Rs.7 lacs came. Prosecution has examined PW7 P. C. Jaryal, an Assistant Manager in UCO Bank, who proved the cheque Ex.PW7/A1 dated 19.12.2000 for Rs.2,00,000/ and a cheque Ex.PW7/A3 dated 18.1.2001 worth Rs.5,00,000/ in the name of the bank with a request to issue a pay order of the same amount in favour of Smt. Adarsh Prabhakar. Prosecution has proved the pay order no.506069 dated 18.1.2001 issued by UCO Bank for Rs.5,00,000/ in favour of Smt. Adarsh Prabhakar, which is marked as Ex.PW7/A4. The sale deed Ex.PW31/B in respect of the ground floor of property no. E298, Greater KailashI, New Delhi executed between Smt. Adarsh Prabhakar and Ms Manjari mentions payment to Smt. Adarsh Prabhakar by the aforesaid cheque Ex.PW7/A and pay order Ex.PW7/A4. The defence alleges that it was from the income and CC No. 76/2008 Page 70/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 savings of Ms Manjari. I have seen the bank account no.28783 of UCO Bank of Ms Manjari. The cheque in the name of the bank with request to issue a pay order of Rs.5,00,000/ is dated 18.1.2001. The statement would show that on 18.1.2001 itself an amount of Rs.5,00,000/ was deposited in UCO Bank in cash and on the same day the aforesaid cheque for the purpose of issuing a pay order was submitted to the bank. Further, the cheque in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/ dated 19.12.2000 was honoured by the bank on 4.1.2001 as reflected in the statement of account and just a few days before i.e. on 29.11.2000, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/ was deposited in this account in cash. Therefore, it stands proved that the amount of Rs.7,00,000/ went to Smt. Adarsh Prabhakar from the bank account of Ms Manjari.
Whether Ms Manjari was really having the income to that extent will be seen in the next heading below.
II. Financial aid of Rs.15.25 lacs from Sh. Hari Dutt Sharma to Ms Manjari Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to the testimony of Sh. Hari Dutt Sharma, DW1, who has deposed during his examination in chief that "... I have personal bank account bearing no. SB0176 with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Sant Nagar, East of Kailash, New Delhi.
CC No. 76/2008 Page 71/143CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 The amount mentioned in Ex.PW46/DE was withdrawn by me in cash and the same is duly reflected in photocopy of my statemnt of account which is brought by me today. The same is now exhibited as Ex.DW1/1. The amount withdrawn by me from the above bank in cash was given to her for personal use and that was not to be returned by her...". Ld. Defence Counsel submits that this fact is further corroborated by the statement of Ms Manjari, DW5, who stated during his examination in chief that "... I have received these amounts reflected in the account statement of Sh. H. D. Sharma with Oriental Bank of Commerce already exhibited as Ex.DW1/1." Ld. Defence Counsel submits that the accused (DW12) has also stated during his examination in chief "...Sh. H.D. Sharma gave a total of s.15,25,000/ at various occasions to me and to my wife Ms Manjari. The said amount was given as a financial aid as and when required by me or my wife...."
It is submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that the prosecution failed to give any suggestion to DW1 that amount Rs.15.25 lakhs was not given by DW1 to his sister Ms Manjari or to the accused and thus in the absence of any rebuttal to this effect this fact that an amount of Rs.15.25 lakhs was given by H. D. Sharma stands admitted on the part of prosecution. It is further submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that CC No. 76/2008 Page 72/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 during cross examination of DW5 Ms Manjari, no suggestion was put to the accused regarding the existence of this fact that an amount of Rs.15.25 lakhs was given to Ms Manjari by Sh. H. D. Sharma.
Ld. Defence Counsel submits that the only question put to the accused during cross examination (Pg 5 03.05.2014) in statement under Section 315 CrPC is given below:
"Q. Did you intimate your department regarding receipt of Rs.15 lacs from your brother in law Sh. H. D. Sharma by your wife Ms Manjari Singh?."
Ld. Defence Counsel argues that the prosecution failed to give any suggestion to deny the existence of any such amount being given to the wife of the accused by Sh. H. D. Sharma and thus the prosecution gravely failed to rebut the existence of this fact regarding income from the amount given by Sh. H. D. Sharma.
I have considered this submission. Although, it is correct that by way of suggestion a fact can be admitted or denied by the opposite party and if no suggestion controverting a fact is made during cross examination, such fact can be taken to have been admitted by the party crossexamining the witness. But it is not always the case. Here, the accused has to explain satisfactorily the disproportionality of the assets. I have perused the statement of account of Oriental CC No. 76/2008 Page 73/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 Bank of Commerce pertaining to Account No. 8B20176 in the name of Sh. Hari Dutt Sharma (Ex.DW1/1). This statement shows withdrawal of Rs.50,000/ on 1.6.2000 in cash vide cheque no. 482058, withdrawal of Rs.20,000/ on 6.6.2000 in cash through cheque no. 482059, further withdrawal of Rs.50,000/ on 7.6.2000 through cheque no. 482069 and so on. It is interesting to note that the amounts have been drawn in cash in all these entries. If H.D. Sharma was making frequent monetary remittance to Manjari of substantial amounts, why he was not directly making such payment to her through cheques, which was an easier and natural course, and was making effort to go to the bank every time to withdraw the money by self cheques. Therefore, this part of testimony of H.D. Sharma, Ms. Manjari and Shambhu Prasad Singh is unworthy of credence and is not a normal human behaviour.
III. Other Incomes Ld. Defence Counsel has tried to show the income and savings of Ms Manjari by the following chart :
Income from the jewellery sold by Ms Manjari 7,00,000/ (Seven received from late Smt. Kunti Devi at the time Lakh Rupees).
from marriage. Ms Manjari DW5 has clearly stated during her further examination in chief that "...I received jewellery from my mother in CC No. 76/2008 Page 74/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 law Late Smt. Kunti Devi, the value of which was approximately Rs.6 lacs. Later on I sold the same for an amount of Rs.7 lacs (which also includes the jewellery which I received from my mother at the time of my marriage). Further, the accused has stated during his examination in chief that regarding the jewellery received by her at time of marriage that "...I received jewellery from my mother which was given to my wife Ms Manjari in my presence. Ms Manjari also received jewellery from her mother and brother Sh. H. D. Sharma at the time of marriage." This fact is further corroborated by the statement of DW4 Sh. J. P. N. Singh, wherein, he stated that "...The jewellery mentioned in the bond Ex.DW4/D2 was given to my wife at the time of my marriage.
The same quantity of jewellery was also given by my mother to my brother's wife namely Ms Manjari at the time of marriage. Both the jewelleries are the ancestral jewelleries and given after equally dividing to both the brother."
Income of Ms Manjari from businesses and 12000 to 13000 tuitions given by her. DW1 Sh. Hari Dutt Rupees/month Sharma, who stated during his examination in before 1995. chief that "...My sister was running a boutique Since 1995 20000 under the name and style of M/s Blossoms to 22000 Rupees Exports and also running the business of the per month. Total travel agency prior to her and continued after her income of Ms marriage." further, Ms Majari DW5 has clearly Manjari during the stated regarding her income that ". I was doing check period from CC No. 76/2008 Page 75/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 some business along with my brother. I was also 1995 to 2002 giving tuitions to the children and was having 11.52 lakhs to income from the same. From 19901995, I was 12.48 lakhs from giving tuitions to the children from which I used which an amount to earn about Rs.6000/ per month. The total of 3,00,000/ is to income from, the tuitions and the business used be subtracted as to be around Rs.12,000/ to Rs.13,000/ per the benefit of the month. I did not deposit the said amount in the same has been bank and it used to remain in cash with me and it given in the was hardly spent by me. This amount was later charge sheet and alter on invested by me in my business of thus the fabrication under the name and style of M/s additional amount Blossom Exports..." further, the accused himself of Rs.8.52 to 9.48 during his examination in chief has supported the lakhs is to be version of DW1 and DW5 regarding income of added to the DW5 and has stated that "...My wife Ms Manjari income of Ms before her marriage with me was giving tuitions Manjari. as well as she was doing the business of outsourcing of teddy bears which was carried in the name and style of M/s Blossom Creations.
She was doing this business and was giving tuitions since her arrival in Delhi i.e. in the year 1989. before marriage, her monthly income was Rs.30,000/. After marriage, her monthly income was Rs.40,000/ Rs.50,000/. She also started a business under the name and style of rely Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd. I do not know the exact profit gained by this company, but, the company was earning profit. Ms Manjari was bearing the educational expenses incurred in the education of CC No. 76/2008 Page 76/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 our daughter Aarushi. Ms Manjari was bearing the day to day expenses which included the kitchem expenses..."
On perusal of the testimony of Ms Manjari (DW5), I am surprised that she has not stated as to under what circumstances, she sold the jewellery received from her mother in law for a sum of Rs.7 lacs. As per her own testimony, she was earning handsome amounts by her tuitions and business. The jewellery received by a woman from parents or in laws has great emotional value and in Indian circumstances, such jewellery would be sold only in dire circumstances. She does not testify as to when this jewellery was sold by her and to whom. It is necessary to mention here that it was not one or two items, rather it appears that she should have sold big chunk of jewelleries in order to fetch an amount of Rs.7 lacs. She has not disclosed to the court as to whom this jewellery was sold. In these circumstances, the plea that she had sold jewellery and earned an amount of Rs.7 lacs is not substantiated by any evidence or circumstance.
Now let me see her income from tuitions and business. As per her testimony, she was earning about Rs.6,000/ per month from CC No. 76/2008 Page 77/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 tuitions during the period 1990 to 1995. This general statement will not be sufficient unless it is corroborated by some evidence. Accused has not examined any person from the neighbourhood or any student who took tuitions from her. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept her testimony in this regard. I may point out that she was married to the accused in the year 1992 as per her statement. It means that she should be giving tuitions from 1990 to 1992 (when she was unmarried) while living with her brother Sh. H. D. Sharma (DW1). However, DW1 does not state that she was earning by tuitions. Hence, this entire statement in respect of earnings through tuitions, are unworthy of credence.
Regarding the earnings from the business under the name and style of M/s Blossom Exports and Rely Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd., the Investigating Officer has calculated her income at the rate of Rs.50,000/ per annum, i.e. the income just below the tax slab. This approach was taken by the Investigating Officer because Ms Manjari had not filed any income tax return. Further, for the year 2001 to 2002, the Investigating Officer calculated the income of Ms Manjari Singh to be Rs.1,21,310/ as per the income tax return filed by her. I am of the opinion that the Investigating Officer has erred in presuming that she was earning a sum of Rs.50,000/ per month from CC No. 76/2008 Page 78/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 1995 to 2000. The Investigating Officer (PW46) has testified that the office of accused was searched on 9.8.2002 and the various documents were seized by CBI. One of the documents is a letter written by Ms Manjari to Sh. V. K. Jiwani, the Assessing Officer, Income Tax Office dated 17.12.1999 mentioning that she is only a housewife having no real source of income. When this letter was put to Ms Manjari (DW5), she denied her signatures on this letter. However, the fact that this letter was found from the records maintained by accused Shambhu Prasad Singh itself shows that these signatures cannot be of any other person than Ms Manjari. Interestingly, the signatures appearing on this letter are similar to her own signatures placed by her on her statement before this court as DW5. It appears that the Investigating Officer ignored this letter while assessing the income of Ms Manjari. This is a proof that till the end of year 1999, Ms Manjari had no income at all. Even as per the testimony of Ms Manjari (DW5), she invested her previous earnings in the business of fabrication under the name and style of M/s Blossom Exports. She does not furnish any document to prove her earnings from this business. Similarly, there is nothing to show that Ms Manjari had any income in the years 19992000 and 20002001.CC No. 76/2008 Page 79/143
CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 It is necessary to mention here that prosecution has examined PW51 Prem Singh, who has proved the search list dated 9.8.2002, prepared for the search conducted by CBI at the office of M/s Rely Tours & Travels Pvt. Ltd., B29, Third Floor, Lajpat NagarII, New Delhi. The documents seized in the search are part of and are listed in the search list Ex.PW51/A. The balance sheet of M/s Rely Tours & Travels Pvt. Ltd. was seized vide this search list and has been proved as Ex.PW51/B. This balance sheet is for the year 1.4.2001 to 28.3.2002. It shows net loss of Rs.71,488/. It is pertinent to note that vide this search list at point 4, the Memorandum & Articles of Association of this Company was also seized, which shows that this company was incorporated on 7.7.2001. Hence, the balance sheet shows that there was no income, rather there was loss in the business of the aforesaid company.
Now the financial condition of Ms Manjari. The prosecution has examined PW18 Sh. Shaukat Ali Khan, the concerned official from HDFC Bank, Defence Colony, who proved the statement of account (D30) from 1.1.2002 to 31.10.2003, which is Ex.PW18/C. I find that the account does not show a rosy picture and the cheques of amount of Rs.32,000/ (15.5.2002), Rs.32,000/ (18.5.2002), Rs.31,000/ (21.5.2002), Rs.32,000/ (23.5.2002) and Rs.31,500/ (4.6.2002) CC No. 76/2008 Page 80/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 issued by Ms Manjari had been dishonoured by her bank. On 6.8.2002, balance in her account was Rs.6867.89. If her earnings were so good as testified in her evidence, the aforesaid cheques would not have been dishonoured.
Now, I take up the bank accounts of Ms Manjari jointly with accused Shambhu Prasad Singh in Global Trust Bank Ltd. The same are as under :
1. A/c No. 1706011380 in the name of Shambhu Prasad Singh & Manjari Singh
2. A/c No. 1706537812 in the name of Shambhu Prasad Singh & Manjari Singh
3. A/c No. 1706537822 in the name of Shambhu Prasad Singh & Manjari Singh
4. A/c No. 1706537845 in the name of Shambhu Prasad Singh & Manjari Singh The prosecution has examined PW27, an official from Global Trust Bank Ltd. to prove the statement of accounts. I would like to reproduce his testimony as under :
"The A/c No. 1706011380 in the name of Shambu PrasadSingh & Manjari Singh was opened on 25th July 2002 with an amount of Rs.4,97,869.86 through cheque no. 75015 dated 25.7.2002 and on the same day, cheque no. 75014 dated 25.7.2002 for an amount of Rs.6.07.092,84 was deposited.
On 25th July 2002, an amount of Rs.10,90,000/ was transferred through Auto Sweep in the A/ Cno. 1706537812 in the name of Shambu Prasad Singh & Manjari Singh. The said account was also opened on 25th July 2002.
On 27th July 2002, an amount of Rs.5,000/ was transferred through Auto Sweep in A/c No. 1706537822 in the name of Shambu Prasad Singh & Manjari Singh. The said account was opened on 26th July 2002.
On 2.8.2002, an amount of Rs.10,000/ was transferred thrugh Auto CC No. 76/2008 Page 81/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 Sweep in A/c No. 1706537845 in the name of shambyu Prasad Singh & Manjari Singh. The said account was opened on 1.8.2002."
From the perusal of the aforesaid testimony, it has to be seen as to from where an amount of Rs.4,97,869.86 and an amount of Rs.6,07,092.84 was brought by accused and deposited in the aforesaid account. Although, neither accused Shmabhu Prasad Singh nor his wife Ms Manjari testifying as DW12 and DW5 had explained this amount, however, in statement under Section 313 CrPC, in response to question no.92 replied as under :
"The said account was in the joint name and an amount of Rs.6,07,092,84 was deposited by me from my account no.52210328645 of Standard Chartered Bank and out of the said amount Rs.5,00,000/ (5 lacs) was given by my mother as a gift to my daughter (Aarushi). The said amount was deposited by me in cash in my above mentioned account on 30/11/2000, while the gift deed executed in the favour of my daughter is dated 20/11/2000 and the amount of Rs.4,97,869.86 must have been deposited by Ms Manjari."
The prosecution had proved the statement of account of A/c No. 52210328645 of Standard Chartered Bank as Ex.PW46/N showing the entry dated 13.6.2002 transferring the amount of Rs.607,092.84. However, Shambhu Prasad Singh will have to explain this amount which is available in his Standard Chartered Bank account. Regarding the sum of Rs.4,97,869.86 through cheque no.75015 dated 25.7.2002, CC No. 76/2008 Page 82/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 he was unable to give any explanation except that this amount must have been deposited by Ms Manjari. I have already discussed the financial status of Ms Manjari and have held that she had no income at all. His wife Ms Manjari (DW5) is also silent about this amount. Therefore, this amount is absolutely not explained by the accused Shambhu Prasad Singh. It is pertinent to note that the bank account of Global Trust Bank was opened by Shambhu Prasad Singh in July 2002 and the account starts with the aforesaid two entries. It is surprising that when already Shambhu Prasad Singh was having bank accounts in UCO Bank, Allahabad Bank, Standard Chartered Bank etc. why there was need for him to open four new bank accounts in Global Trust Bank jointly with his wife.
However, since Ms Manjari has shown her income to be Rs.1,21,310/ for the period 1.4.2001 to 31.3.2002 in the income tax return Ex.DW5/DX, this income has to be accepted and the Investigating Officer has rightly included this amount in the income of Ms Manjari.
In nut shell, accused could show that his wife had earned the income of Rs.1,21,310/ during the check period.
CC No. 76/2008 Page 83/143CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 BENAMI PROPERTIES?
Ld. Defence Counsel has submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held in DSP, Chennai Versus K.Inbasagaran (2006) 1SCC 420, "...15. We have heard both the learned counsel at length. The basic question that emerges in the present case is whether the accused could be saddled with all the unaccounted money at his hand or not. It is the admitted position that both the husband and wife were living together. The wife was running three concerns though those concerns were running in loss. Yet she could manage to earn black money by selling goods without bills and amassed this wealth without disclosing the same to the Incometax authority and when the raid was conducted she disclosed the unaccounted money and accepted herself for being assessed by the Incometax Department."
It is argued by ld. Defence Counsel that when Hon'ble Supreme Court of India accepted the earning of black money by the wife of the public servant and did not take the said money as the income of the accused, why shouldn't this court accept the lawful earnings and the properties in the name of Ms. Manjari and exclude the same from the earnings and assets of the accused.
Ld. Defence Counsel has taken me through this judgment in detail. I am of the opinion that the judgment should be read in the back drop of peculiar facts of that case. It is pertinent to note that in the said case the actual money was recovered, which was claimed by the wife of the public servant as her own money. On the other hand, CC No. 76/2008 Page 84/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 in the present case, no evidence is coming forth about the actual earning of Ms. Manjari, which has already been discussed above.
Ld. Defence Counsel has referred to State of Andhra Pradesh versus J. Satyanarayana JT 200 SC 430 and submits that the house in the name of wife was not included by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as an asset of the public servant. I have perused this case law and I find that the wife of the public servant had filed income tax return even prior to the registration of FIR, which was taken as a proof of income of the wife of the public servant and consequently it was held that she could have purchased this house out of her own income. On the contrary, in the present case, the wife of accused had filed only one income tax return to prove her income. The income shown in this return has been accepted by this court as already discussed.
Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that when the prosecution includes the properties of Ms Manjari in the list of assets of the accused, it intends to say that accused had purchased the said properties in the name of his wife and thus the property is Benami. Ld. Defence Counsel has submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held in M. Krishna Reddy Vs. State Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hyderabad 1993 Crilj308, "...To rebut the CC No. 76/2008 Page 85/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 case of the appellant that the certain jewellery was Stridhana, we do not find any material on the side of the prosecution. The evidence led by the appellant to substantiate that the jewellery of his wife were Stridhana are more acceptable. Under these circumstances, we are unable to agree with the finding of the High Court and on the other hand, we hold that the sum of Rs.65,657.06 representing the value of the gold jewellery should be given a deduction from the value of the disproportionate assets."
"...Needless to say that this Court on a series of decisions have laid down the guidelines in finding out the benami nature of a transaction. Though it is not necessary to cite all those decisions, it will suffice to refer to the rule laid down by Bhagwati, J. as he then was in Krishnanand Agnihotri Vs. State of M.P. 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 CC No. 76/2008 Page 86/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 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 think 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."
Ld. Defence Counsel has also referred to Jastinder Singh Vs. State 2001 Cri.L.J. 11 wherein Hon'ble High Court of Delhi relied upon the aforesaid judgement.
The perusal of the above mentioned judgements clearly shows that a Benami property can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. In the present case, I have already discussed that Ms Manjari practically had no income upto 2000. Her testimony regarding financial assistance from her brother already stands discredited. In such circumstances, the only inference, which can be drawn, is that her husband was purchasing properties in her name. Here, I would again like to refer to the testimony of PW13 Shyam Singh Bhatter who deposed that he knows accused S.P. Singh as his CC No. 76/2008 Page 87/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 father was the contractor in a mill which was his family concern. In the year 2000, S.P. Singh had seen a property at E298, Greater Kailash, New Delhi and he wanted to purchase the same. He further testified that accused approached him to provide Rs. 13 lacs as a loan and accordingly he provided the loan of Rs. 13 lacs in the shape of two pay orders drawn in the name of Smt. Adarsh Prabhakar, the owner of the property. He testified that one MoU in this regard was entered into between him, S.P. Singh and Smt. Manjari which was Ext.PW13/A. Prosecution has proved the three sale deeds (D6, D7 & D8) pertaining to this house which are Ext.PW31/A , Ext.PW31/B (both in the name of Ms. Manjari Singh) & Ext.PW31/C (in the name of S.P. Singh).
Now I take up the issue of the payment of stamp duties. As per the defence, DW4 J. P. N. Singh had paid the stamp duty for the purchase of the aforesaid house. In his testimony, DW4 states that he had paid the stamp duty charge for purchase of H. No. E298, GK I, New Delhi at the request of accused Shambhu Prasad Singh. This is another circumstance, which proves that it was Shambhu Prasad Singh, who is the real owner of the entire property and it is he, who had arranged the entire money. Therefore, it is clear that Ms Manjari is only a Benamidar for accused in this property. Regarding CC No. 76/2008 Page 88/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 the other properties also, accused could not show satisfactorily that Ms Manjari had enough income and savings to purchase the same.
This evidence clearly show that properties in the name of Manjari Singh were actually being purchased by none other than the accused himself.
INCOME OF SHAMBHU PRASAD SINGH As per the charge sheet, the income of Shambhu Prasad Singh during the check period is as under :
SL NO. PARTICULARS Amount (in Rs.)
1 Salary received from the Ministry of 49,229.00
Health and Family Welfare with effect
from 1.1.95 to 14.9.95.
2 Salary received from the Minsitry of 48,571.00
Commerce and Industry with effect from
15.9.95 to 31.5.96.
3 Salary received from the Ministry of 4,623.00
Environment and Forest with effect from
5.6.96 to 29.6.96.
4 Salary received from the Ministry of 2,47,245.00
Education with effect from 29.6.96 to Feb.
98.
5 Salary received from the Ministry of 9,80,878.00
Telecome with effect from 19.3.98 to
30.6.2002.
CC No. 76/2008 Page 89/143
CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014
SL NO. PARTICULARS Amount (in Rs.)
6 Salary received from the Ministry of 21,391.00
Checmicals and Petro Chemicals for the
month of July, 2002.
7 Loan from Shri S. S. Bhattar, a family 13,00,000.00
friend.
8 Income of Smt. Manjari Singh during the 3,00,000.00
year 1995 to 2000. (Calculated @
Rs.50,000/ p.a., the income just below
the income tax slab has been taken.
Though she has not filed any ITR or
produced any evidence/record in support
of this income).
9 Income of Smt. Manjari Singh during the 1,21,310.00
year 2001 to 2002 as per own income tax
return filed after registration of the case.
10 Agriculture Income during the year 1995 7,95,000.00
to 2002, as claimed in his statement.
11 Sale Proceeds of Plot at Pandav Nagar in 2,25,000.00
the name of Smt. Manjari Singh.
12 Interest calculated on bank account 1,71,276.84.00
TOTAL Rs.42,64,523.84
Since the accused is not disputing the aforesaid incomes, I am not inclined to discuss the prosecution evidence in this regard. However, accused has submitted that the agricultural income has been CC No. 76/2008 Page 90/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 shown on lower side and that he had many more sources of income. These submissions are being dealt as under :
I. Agricultural Income The accused has agricultural land admeasuring about 7.42 acres of land in village Pur and '7.051/2' and '1.75' acres in village Paharajpur. It is argued that it is admitted case of the prosecutin that the said agricultural land is ancestral property which is evident from the testimony of PW36 and PW45. It is further submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that the average annual income of accused from the above mentioned land is 1.5 lakhs to 2.5 lakhs per annum and the same is evident from the testimony of DW3 Sh. Prahlad Singh and DW12 Shambhu Prasad Singh. It is further submitted that during the check period from 1995 to 2002 the average annual income of the accused from the land in question was Rs.1.5 to 2 lacs which later on increased to 2.5 to 3.5 lakhs per annum. My attention has been drawn by Ld. Defence Counsel to the evidence of accused (DW12) during his examination in chief, where he has clearly stated that "...My family was doing business of transport, landed properties and had agricultural income from agricultural land situated at village pur and Paharajpur, District Balia, U.P. Since 1980, Parhlad Singh was doing farming on my agricultural land situated at above mentioned places and CC No. 76/2008 Page 91/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 he used to pay yearly amount of Rs.1.5 to Rs.2 lacs as agricultural income earned from the above mentioned land. Till date, I am earning agricultural income from the above mentioned land, through, my income has increased to Rs.2.5 lacs to Rs.3 lacs per annum..". DW3 Sh. Parhlad Singh has supported the version of the accused during his examination in chief "...Their land admeasuring about 7.65 acres in Village Pur and about 7.6 acres in village Paharaj Pur was given to me for doing agriculture on the said land on balati. I used to give money to Shambhu Prasad Singh and Jai Prakash Narayan equal in amount from the agriculture on the said land. From year 1995 to year 2002, I had given around Rs.10.5. Lacs to Rs.11 lacs each to both the brothers as agricultural income. The income from the land used to give to both the brothers around Rs.2.5 lacs per annum. The land of Shambhu Prasad Singh and Jai Prakash Narayan Singh is the ancestral property and devolve upon them after demise of their father...".
I have considered the evidence of DW3. As per prosecution evidence, the agricultural income for the whole of the check period has been assessed to be Rs.7,95,000/. Although, no document has bee produced by the witness to show that he had paid Rs.10.30 lacs to Rs.11 lacs to the accused as agricultural income and no evidence of CC No. 76/2008 Page 92/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 the sale of the produce has been shown, it is not possible to accept the claim of DW3. He has testified that presently Shambhu Prasad Singh is doing the agriculture in the land himself. Had DW3 or the accused himself produced some evidence of value of the sale proceeds of the agriculture produce, even of the recent years, this court could have taken a view as to what income, the accused might have been receiving from the agricultural source. Neither accused has produced any proof of the sale of the agricultural produce, nor it has been produced by DW3. Now, let me see as to on what basis, the Investigating Officer had calculated the agricultural income at Rs.7,95,000/. It appears that he did so simply on the basis of the statement under Section 161 CrPC of DW3 recorded by the Investigating Officer. However, no documentary evidence was sought from this witness by the Investigating Officer. Although, this amount appears to be highly exaggerated and has been taken by the Investigating Officer without any evidence and should have not been taken in account by the Investigating Officer, I do not propose to reject it. But at the same time, I am not inclined to take a higher income from the agricultural source as testified by DW3, who has been the beneficiary of Shambhu Prasad Singh on account of doing agricultural work on the land of accused.
CC No. 76/2008 Page 93/143CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 II. Income from two trucks WMK7199, WMK6689 and Taxi No. DLK7321.
Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to the statement of accused (DW12), wherein he testifies that the accused has clearly stated in his statement under Section 315 CrPC that "... I owned two trucks and used to earn about Rs.1000/ per day from each truck in those days...... the truck registration numbers WMK7199 and WMK 6689 and as on date the truck no. WMK7199 is in existence. The other truck WMK6689 was sold in the year 2001..... I was earning an income of s.1000/ per day. I have been earning this income from this vehicle since the purchase of this vehicle in the year 1981. I have sold the other truck bearing no. WMK6689 in the year 2001, therefore, I do not have the copy of the RC with me." It is submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that this statement of accused is further corroborated by the statement of DW4 Sh. J. P. N. Singh, who stated during his examination in chief that "...Two trucks bearing No. WMK7199 & WMK6689 is still working under my brother Shambhu Prasad Singh. Shambhu Prasad Singh is collecting the income from the trucks from the caretaker appointed by him in Howrah. The RC Ex.PW43/DX14 is pertaining to truck no. WMK7189."
CC No. 76/2008 Page 94/143CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 Ld. Defence Counsel submits that from the statement of the accused, DW4 and the RC of the Truck No. WMK7199 (Ex.PW43/DX
14), it is apparent that the aforesaid truck was in existence, and the accused had a total income of Rs.24,00,000/ to 28,80,000/ during the check perido from 1995 to 2002.
It is further submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that the accused has also stated regarding his income from Taxi No. DLK7321 during his examination in chief that ".. I also purchased one taxi in the year 1988 from Varanasi and I got it registered and name transferred there before RTOVaranasi and the taxi no. was D:L7321. Subsequently, when I shifted to Delhi, I brought the taxi at Delhi and was earning income of approximately Rs.400/ to Rs.500/ per day from that also. I sold the taxi in the year 2010."
In cross examination, he testified that the money earned from truck is being received in cash and that he had not kept any such document and that truck no. WMK7199 is still in existence. In respect to taxi no. DLK7321, he could not tell name of any driver.
It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that from the aforesaid taxi, there was an income of Rs.11.52 lacs to Rs.14.4 lacs during the check period.
CC No. 76/2008 Page 95/143CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 I am not inclined to accept this submission. No evidence of any earning from the aforesaid trucks or the taxi during the check period has been brought on record. I may point out that the running of truck requires some documentation about loading and deloading. Further, the receipts have to be issued against the payments made. Further, some accounts are also required to be maintained. Various fees to the transport department has to be paid. Therefore, doing the business from trucks and taxi involves a lot of documentation. The bald statement of earnings from the trucks and the taxi cannot be accepted. III. Income from official foreign tours It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that accused had visited many foreign countries along with the Ministers on official tours and earned TA DA. However, accused could not prove as how much money he saved from such foreign tours. Hence, no benefit can be given to the accused on this account.
ASSETS OF SHAMBHU PRASAD SINGH Now, I take up the assets in the name of the accused. I. Plot No.3/275 Vipul Khand Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (D3) allotment file of Plot No.3/275, Vipul Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.
It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that the said amount for CC No. 76/2008 Page 96/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 purchase of land was given by Smt. Kunti Devi and the same is evident from MOU Ex.PW46/DD entered into between accused, Smt. Kunti Devi and Sh. M. K. Singh. Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to the examination in chief of the accused (DW12) wherein he has stated that "...I was also allotted a property bearing no.3/275, Vipul Khand, Gomti Nagar in the year 1994 and I did not have money to deposit the complete cost of the land for the allotment of the said land, therefore, I approached my mother to deposit approximately Rs.1.88 lacs against the allotment of said land, as per the terms of MOU (Ex.PW46/DD) entered into between me, my late brother in law Sh. Manoj Kumar Singh and my mother Late Smt. Kunti Devi. Even the stamp duty of Rs.47,000/, as per the terms of the MOU, was paid by my late mother. As per the MOU, it was agreed that Late Sh. M. K. Singh would bear the cost of construction from his own resources. As per the MOU, it was agreed that Sh. M. K. Singh shall have the possession of ground floor and my late mother shall have the possession of first and remaining floor during her life time......"
Ld. Defence Counsel argues that the MOU clearly proves as to from which source the money came for the purchase of the property. I may point out that total amount paid by accused Shambhu Prasad Singh for the purchase of this property has been proved by PW11 CC No. 76/2008 Page 97/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 Birender Pratap Singh, the concerned official of property section Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, U.P. as per Ex.PW11/C (which is written in Hindi), the following details are required to be noted :
1. Area of land 250 square meter
2. Date of distribution 22.6.1994
3. Date of registration 1.11.1996
4. Date of possession 2.11.1996
5. Registration amount 3,33,092.20
6. Stamp duty 46980 As per charge sheet, accused had already made payment in the sum of Rs.1,45,000/ before the check period. Therefore, the amount required to be explained during the check period is Rs.2,35,072.20 (i.e. 3,33,092.20 + 46,980 - 1,45,000/ = 2,35,072.20). For sake of convenience in calculation, I take the amount to be Rs.2,35,000/.
Now, I take up the MOU Ex.PW46/DD. Perusal of this document shows that there is one stamp on it purported to be that of District & Sessions Judge, New Delhi and there is another stamp showing the words "copy to copy". I take judicial notice of the fact that whenever a certified copy of a document is issued by the court, the particulars of the case in which such document was presented are mentioned in it. Further, the stamp of the Copying Agency and date of issue of the CC No. 76/2008 Page 98/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 certified copy are mentioned in the same. Accused while testifying as DW12 has not stated as to why the stamp of the court is available on this document. If, it is to be presumed that it is the copy of a document presented in the court, in that case it is clear that original was not present in the court's record and that is why the stamp mentions the words "copy to copy". DW12 has not explained as to where this original document is lying. In normal circumstances, the original should be in possession of the parties to the MOU, who are close relatives of accused. Therefore, the accused was in a position to produce the original document in the court. After perusing this document carefully, I am of the considered opinion that it is a fraudulent document created to prove the defence of the accused. Hence, this document as well as the testimony of the accused (DW12) has to be rejected.
Accordingly, I am convinced that the aforesaid amount of Rs.2,35,000/ was paid to Urban Development Authority, Lucknow by Shambhu Prasad Singh himself.
II. Computer Installed at H.No. 3/275, Vipul Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, U.P.Value Rs. 52,600/.
Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the billcum challan Ext.PW24/A proved by Sh. Kuldeep Singh Chauhan (PW24), CC No. 76/2008 Page 99/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 a Marketing Executive for Lucknow Computer Shack Pvt. Ltd., which shows that on 23.07.2001 one computer was purchased in the name of S.P. Singh for an amount of Rs. 52,600/ at the address 3/275, Vipul Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. It is submitted that not only it has to be counted in the list of assets, but, it also proves that the aforesaid house was infact under control of Shambhu Prasad Singh even in the year 2001.
Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to the cross examination of the accused (DW12) by Ld. Public Prosecutor which is reproduced as under:
"Q I put it to you that you were very much in possession of property situated at Vipul Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow as bill cum challan (D13) Ex.PW24/A regarding purchase of computer of Rs. 52,600/ dated 23.7.2001 in your name was recovered from the said premises during the course of searches on 9.8.2002. Is it correct?
A. As I stated,the said house was in possession of my late brotherin law/sister and my late mother, therefore question does not arise for my possession in the said property. As far as the said bill cum challan of the computer, my sister has clarified during her examination to CBI. Further, the said bill cum challan does not bear any of my signature nor ever I visited the said shop to purchase the said computer."
It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that a product may be purchased by one person in someone else name. Therefore, it cannot be said that the computer was purchased by Shambhu Prasad Singh. I disagree with the submissions of Ld. Defence Counsel. Normally, a CC No. 76/2008 Page 100/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 product is purchased in the name of the purchaser. But, if it has been purchased in some other's name, the accused was under an obligation to prove the same. Therefore, not only prosecution has been able to prove the aforesaid asset i.e. the computer, but also, it corroborates the aforesaid findings of this court that the house no. 3/275, Vipul Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow belongs to accused. III. Property No. B136, Kalkaji, New Delhi This property is in joint name of Shambhu Prasad Singh and his brother J. P. N. Singh. Though, this property will be discussed under the head of J. P. N. Singh.
IV. The bank accounts in Global Trust Bank, Greater KailashI, New Delhi I have already discussed that four joint accounts in the name of Shambhu Prasad Singh and Ms Manjari Singh were opened. I have already discussed that Ms Manjari had no income except of Rs.1,21,310/, therefore the amount available in these bank accounts will have to be explained by accused Shambhu Prasad Singh. The perusal of the statement of account (A/c No.1706011380) Ex.PW27/A1 shows that on 7.8.2002 (i.e. two days before the last date of check period), the bank balance was Rs.13,316.26. This account shows that on 25.7.2002 an amount of Rs.10,90,000/ was CC No. 76/2008 Page 101/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 transferred to another joint account no. 1706537812 by way of auto sweep. The entry in account no. 1706537812 is also dated 25.7.2002. Entries dated 27.7.2002 and 2.8.2002 in remaining two joint accounts i.e. 1706537822 and 1706537845 shows the balance amount of Rs.5000/ and Rs.10,000/ respectively. Thus, the accused is required to explain the aforesaid money in his bank account. I have already rejected his submission that Rs.4,97,869/ was deposited by Ms Manjari. Regarding a sum of Rs.6,07,092.84, he submits that it was transferred from his bank account of Standard Chartered Bank (A/c No. 52210328645) and that out of the said amount of Rs.6,07,092.84, her mother had given a sum of Rs.5 lacs as a gift vide a gift deed to his daughter Ms Aarushi and that said amount was deposited by him in cash on 30.11.2000. I may point out that the balance of the bank account of Standard Chartered Bank of Shambhu Prasad Singh was not taken in account and therefore finally the accused has to account for the bank balance in Global Trust Bank, to which the aforesaid amount was transferred. It is necessary to mention here that Ms Aarushi was having a bank account in Standard Chartered Bank, which is part of Ex.PW46/N, which was opened on 21.10.1997. If Smt. Kunti Devi wanted to make a gift of such a big amount to Ms Aarushi vide gift deed dated 20.11.2000, she would CC No. 76/2008 Page 102/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 have directly deposited it in the bank account of Ms Aarushi or could have put it in fix deposit in her name. Therefore, the plea of the gift by Smt. Kunti Devi is not substantiated.
GIFTS/MONETARY ASSISTANCE BY RELATIVES (A) Gifts/Monetary Assistance from Smt. Kunti Devi I. Gift of Rs. 5 lacs by Smt. Kunti Devi in the name of her grand daughter Ms. Arushi.
Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to the intimation given by the accused to his department of Telecom regarding the purchase of the second floor of H.No. E298, G.K.I, New Delhi for a consideration of Rs. 6 lacs. It is submitted that accused received Rs. 5 lacs by way of gift deed Ext.PW43/DX9 dt. 20.11.2000 executed by Smt. Kunti Devi in favour of Ms. Arushi, the daughter of accused in the year 2000. It is argued that out of Rs. 6 lacs, price of the aforesaid house, accused has explained the source of Rs. 5 lacs.
The perusal of this gift deed shows that this amount was paid in cash. In his entire testimony, accused has not stated as to from where his mother got this money. As per his own testimony during cross examination, father of accused died, when the accused was barely four years of age. He has not testified that her mother was doing any business. He has not shown that his mother was maintaining any CC No. 76/2008 Page 103/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 bank account, from where she withdrew the said amount of Rs. 5 lacs. Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to this gift deed written in Hindi and submits that the new paper proved in the court in the year 2013 does not reflect that it is a 13 years old gift deed. Without drawing any inference from the quality of the paper, I may point out that this is not a small amount and therefore I am of the opinion that the accused has not been able to show the true source of this income. II. Amount of Rs. 5 lacs given by Late Smt. Kunti Devi to Shambhu Prasad Singh.
Ld. Defence Counsel submits that amount of Rs. 5 lacs was given by Late Smt. Kunti Devi to accused Shambhu Prasad Sing and the same is reflected in her account statement of account bearing account no. 52210340521A in Standard Chartered Bank Ext.PW46/DB and the said amount of Rs. 5 lacs is reflected in the account statement of accused of A/c no. 52210328645 maintained in Standard Chartered Bank bearing Ext.PW46/DC.
The accused has stated to this effect in his statement u/s 315 CrPC who stated during his examinationinchief that ".... I also received Rs. 5 lacs from my mother in my account bearing no. 5221 0328645 with Standard Chartered Bank, Parliament Street, New Delhi branch. The same is reflected in my account statement of the CC No. 76/2008 Page 104/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 abovementioned account number on entry dt. 08.06.2001 which is already exhibited as Ext.PW46/DC. The said transfer is of Rs. 5 lacs is also reflected in account statement of Smt. Kunti Devi or account bearing no. 52210340521 with Standard Chartered Bank, Parliament street, New Delhi branch on entry dt. 08.06.2001 and same is already exhibited as Ex.PW46/DB."
Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the bank account no. SB 52210340521 of Smt. Kunti Devi. The Investigating Officer collected the details of this document from the bank. Although, the proper course for the prosecution to prove the details of the statement of account, was by way of examining a bank official as prosecution witness, however, since accused while testifying as DW12 has also filed the copy of the statement of bank account of his mother Smt. Kunti Devi as Ext.PW46/DC. I would like to reproduce the relevant portion of the testimony of DW12 as under:
"I also received Rs. 5 lacs from my mother in my account bearing no. 5221 0328645 with Standard Chartered Bank, Parliament Street, New Delhi branch. The same is reflected in my account statement of the above mentioned account number on entry dt. 08.06.2001 which is already exhibited as Ext.PW46/DC. The said transfer is of Rs. 5 lacs is also reflected in account statement of Smt. Kunti Devi of account bearing no. 52210340521 with Standard Chartered Bank, Parliament Street, New Delhi branch on entry dt. 08.06.2001 and same is already exhibited as Ext.PW46/DB."CC No. 76/2008 Page 105/143
CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 Thus, the accused has admitted the statement of account of Smt. Kunti Devi and accordingly stands proved by way of admission. This statement of account of Shambhu Prasad Singh Ext.PW46/DC shows that on 08.06.2001, he received an amount of Rs. 5 lacs by way of cheque. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that the account of Smt. Kunti Devi shows the corresponding withdrawal of Rs. 5 lacs on 08.06.2001 through cheque. It is submitted that this explains that an amount of Rs. 5 lacs was transferred from the account of Smt. Kunti Devi to the bank account of accused Shambhu Prasad Singh. Ld.Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to the statement of Investigating Officer, who testified that during investigation the Standard Chartered Bank sent documents along with the letter which were collectively marked as Ext.PW46/O. These documents include the full statement of account of Smt. Kunti Devi. I have considered these statements of accounts of accused and her mother. Perusal of the statement of account of Smt. Kunti Devi shows the transfer of Rs. 5 lacs from her account to the account of accused. Accused has not explained as to from where this amount of Rs. 5 lacs has come to the account of his mother and in what year and from what source. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the accused has not able to explain the source of Rs. 5 lacs deposited in his bank account through cheque.
CC No. 76/2008 Page 106/143CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 (B) Gifts and Monetary Assistance by J. P. N. Singh and Property purchased in the joint name of J. P. N. Singh and Accused.
Now I take up the defence of the accused about the gifts and monetary assistance given by his brother J.P.N. Singh (DW4).
I. Purchase of Gun Value Rs. 22,198/.
The prosecution has proved the purchase of gun by accused through invoice of the gun Ext.PW10/A (D38). Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to the testimony of JPN Singh (DW4) who deposed that "I had purchased a rifle in the name of Shambhu Prasad Singh for a sum of Rs. 22,198.40/." It is argued that this shows that the money was paid by JPN Singh. I fail to understand as to why JPN Singh will purchase a gun in the name of his brother, instead of his own name. The explanation is not satisfactory. II. Rs. 5,10,000/ received in the account no. 52210328645 Ext.PW46/DC of Shambhu Prasad Singh.
Ld. Defence counsel has drawn my attention to the following portion of the testimony of JPN Singh (DW4):
"... I was maintaining A/c No. 52210350349 with Standard Chartered Bank, Parliament Street, New Delhi. I am carrying the statement of account issued by the bank which is Ext.DW4/D4. I had transferred a sum of Rs. 5,10,000/ which is mentioned at point A to the account of Shambhu Prasad Singh in the same bank bearing A/c No. 52210328645 which is already exhibited as Ext.PW46/DC...."CC No. 76/2008 Page 107/143
CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to the testimony of accused (DW12) which is reproduced as under:
"... I received Rs. 5.10 lacs from my brother Sh. JPN Singh in my account bearing no. 52210328645 with Standard Chartered Bank, Parliament Street, New Delhi branch. The same is reflected in my account statement of the above mentioned account number on entry dt. 08.06.2001 which is already exhibited as Ext.PW46/DC. The said transfer of Rs. 5.10 lacs is also reflected in account statement of Sh. JPN Singh of account bearing no. 52210350349 with Standard Chartered Bank, Parliament Street, New Delhi branch on entry dt. 08.06.2001 at point A and same is already exhibited as Ext.DW4/DX4."
I have considered this submission. It is interesting to note that DW4 JPN Singh has only proved one page of his statement of account containing four entries of the year 2001. Interesting thing to note is that this account bears the address of JPN Singh as B136, Kalkaji at which the account of Smt. Kunti Devi as well as of the accused have been opened. Prosecution has proved the statement of account of JPN Singh starting from the year 1999 to 2002. The entry dt. 25.11.2000 and 29.11.2000 show that Rs. 2.5 lacs each were deposited on the each day. In other words, on these two dates a total amount of Rs. 5 lacs was deposited in the account of JPN Singh in cash. Apart from this, the entries are below Rs. 2000/. The entry dt. 30.06.2001 shows the withdrawal of Rs. 5.10 lacs. This situation leads to only one conclusion that bank account of JPN Singh and Kunti Devi have CC No. 76/2008 Page 108/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 been opened just to launder the dirty money.
III. Purchase of Property no. B136, Kalkaji, New Delhi.
The prosecution has examined PW33 Sunil Dutt Sharma, Sub Registrar at INA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi. He proved the sale deed dt. 12.08.1996 Ext.PW33/C vide which the aforesaid property was sold by one Prakash Babbar & Others in favour of JPN Singh and the accused for an amount of Rs. 9.5 lacs. I may point out that in the charge sheet the value of the property has been written as Rs. 50,000/. It appears that it is some inadvertent typing mistake due to which the numeral '9' went missing out of Rs.9,50,000/.
DW4 JPN Singh has testified that one house bearing no. B 136 Kalkaji was jointly purchased by him and his brother Shambhu Prasad Singh. The perusal of the sale deed shows that the payment was made by eight cheques of UCO Bank, Parliament Street, New Delhi. DW4 has testified that he was maintaining a bank account no. 30570 at UCO Bank and he proved his statement of account as Ext.DW4/D7 and its computer generated statement as Ext.DW4/D8. I have perused the documents and it is interesting to note that even this account is maintained at the address of Shambhu Prasad Singh i.e. B136, Kalkaji, New Delhi. The perusal of this account also shows that on 18.04.1996 a cash of Rs. 1.5 lac was CC No. 76/2008 Page 109/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 deposited and on 20.04.1996 a cheque no. 488274 of Rs.1,25,000/ was cleared. It must not be forgotten that DW4 is a resident of Kolkata, whereas his bank account is being maintained at the address of accused Shambhu Prasad Singh. DW4 does not disclose as to from where he brought Rs.1,50,000/ to deposit in the bank account on 18.4.1996. Apart from this cheque, none of the cheques mentioned in the sale deed have been cleared. I would like to reproduce the relevant portion of the sale deed Ext.PW33/C, which contains the details of the cheques as under:
"Rs. 2,50,000/ vide Cheque No. 488288 dt. 21.5.1995 Rs. 1,25,000/ vide Cheque No. 488251 dt. 19.4.1996 Rs. 1,25,000/ vide Cheque No. 488274 dt. 19.4.1996 Rs. 1,00,000/ vide Cheque No. 488292 dt. 19.4.1996 Rs. 50,000/ vide Cheque No. 683334 dt. 19.4.1996 Rs. 1,00,000/ vide Cheque No. 488253 dt. 19.7.1996 Rs. 1,00,000/ vide Cheque No. 488294 dt. 19.7.1996 Rs. 1,00,000/ vide Cheque No. 488279 dt. 19.7.1996 all drawn on UCO Bank, Parliament Street, New Delhi."
DW4 has not produced the statement of his UCO Bank for the year 1995 and thus has concealed the fact as to whether the first cheque of Rs. 2.5 lacs (Cheque no. 488288) dt. 21.05.1995 was cleared or not. I presume that the same was not cleared. The last cheque is dt. 19.7.1996 and the sale deed is executed on 12.08.1996, CC No. 76/2008 Page 110/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 which means that all the cheques must have been cleared before 12.08.1996, otherwise the owner would not have executed the sale deed. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that prosecution should have examined the owner to prove as to how the payment was made by accused and JPN Singh. I am of the opinion that Section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act casts this duty upon the accused to explain all his transactions. It is not surprising that JPN Singh (DW4) in his testimony has given a passing reference to this property without explaining as to how much money was paid by him and how much money was shared by Shambhu Prasad Singh. The accused in his testimony as DW12 has testified that he had purchased a property no. B136, Kalkaji, New Delhi and that he along with his brother JPN Singh have 50% share each in the said property. He further testified that his contribution in respect of the said property was Rs. 50,000/ only. However, his statement, that his share was of Rs. 50,000/ only, is not borne out of any evidence, rather, he has taken the advantage of the clerical mistake in the charge sheet which has shown the value of the said house as Rs. 50,000/ instead of Rs. 9,50,000/. If he had 50% share in the said house, he should have contributed Rs. 4.75 lacs. However, I have already discussed that the transaction by way of cheques is substantially fraudulent. Therefore, the testimony of JPN CC No. 76/2008 Page 111/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 Singh (DW4) and the accused (DW12) regarding the joint purchase of the property is not believable. This fact coupled with the circumstance that all the accounts have been opened at the address of the accused shows that it was accused himself who was managing this account in the name of JPN Singh. In these circumstances, I am convinced that the entire property belongs to no one else than Shambhu Prasad Singh.
IV. Payment of electricity charges.
Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to the testimony of accused (DW12) who has testified that he was paying half of the electricity bill. My attention is also drawn to the testimony of JPN Singh (DW4). He testified that he used to pay equal electricity bill consumed in the said house, as he was frequently visiting Delhi in connection with his business. I have already discussed above that although the property is in the joint name of JPN Singh and the accused, but, actually it is Shambhu Prasad Singh who is the real owner of the property. JPN Singh is therefore only testifying to save his brother i.e. accused Shambhu Prasad Singh. V. Stamp Duty of Rs. 1,90,000/ for H.No. E298, G.K.I, New Delhi.
Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to the following CC No. 76/2008 Page 112/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 portion of the charge sheet which specifies the stamp duty paid for the purchase of aforesaid house.
Sl. Head of Expenditure Expenditure in the Amount No. name of (in Rs.) 1 2 Stamp Duty for property E Shri SP Singh 48,00000 298, Greater KailashI (Second floor) 3 4 Stamp Duty for property E Smt. Manjari Singh 56,00000 298, Greater KailashI (1st floor) 5 Stamp Duty for property E Smt. Manjari Singh 56,00000 298, Greater KailashI (Ground Floor)
Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to the testimony of JPN Singh (DW4) who has testified that he had paid stamp duty charge for purchase of H.No. E298, GKI, New Delhi at the request of Shambhu Prasad Singh. I have considered this submission. The above stated amount, if totalled, comes out to be Rs. 1,60,000/. As per the sale deed Ext.PW31/A (First Floor) in the name of Manjari Singh, another sale deed Ext.PW31/B ( Ground Floor) in the name of CC No. 76/2008 Page 113/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 Manjari singh and sale deed Ext.PW31/C (Second floor) in the name of Shambhu Prasad Singh show that these sale deeds were executed on 23.01.2001. The back side of the stamp papers show that the same were purchased on 27.08.2000. However, the statement of account of J. P. N. Singh at UCO Bank Ext.DW4/D8 does not show any withdrawal of such amount on or before 27.08.2000. The aforesaid amount of stamp duties is not a small amount. JPN Singh (DW4) is a resident of Howrah. Therefore, if he had a bank account in Delhi in UCO Bank, he would have preferred to draw it from the same. The statement of his bank account had already been placed on record by him, as already discussed. I nutshell, his submission in this regard is unworthy of credence.
My attention has been further drawn by Ld. Defence Counsel to the testimony of JPN Singh (DW4) where he states that he used to give cash from time to time to Shambhu Prasad Singh and had given approximately a sum of Rs. 1,90,000/ in cash to him and that he had made a note of it, which is Ext.DW4/D12. I reproduce the note as under:
"Indian Bank Howrah Br.
Rs. 50,000/ Withdrawn by Self cheque on 18.12.99 by J.P. Singh.
60,000/ Withdrawn by Self cheque CC No. 76/2008 Page 114/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 by J.P. Singh on 20.1.2000 10,000/ Withdrawn by Self cheque on (31.1.2000) 30,000/ Withdrawn by Self cheque on 15.2.2000 by J.P. Singh.
40,000/ Withdrawn by Self cheque on 15.3.2000 by J.P. Singh.
Rs. 1,90,000/ I am of the opinion that this hand written note does not prove anything. Even if, the aforesaid withdrawal are considered to be true, the same show that J. P. N. Singh had withdrawn the aforesaid amounts by self cheques. Had J. P. N. Singh wanted to give this amount to the accused, he should have directly issued the cheques for the aforesaid amounts in the name of Shambhu Prasad Singh, instead of troubling himself to go to the bank and withdraw the huge amount and thereafter to pay it in cash to his brother Shambhu Prasad Singh. Therefore, this testimony of J. P. N. Singh is unworthy of credence and is unacceptable.
(C) Financial Assistance by Ajaib Singh Puar Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to the testimony of A.S. Puar (DW11). Ld. Defence Counsel argues that DW11 is a philanthropist and does charitable work in India out of his love for mother land. It is submitted that he was a next door neighbout of Sh.CC No. 76/2008 Page 115/143
CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 H. D. Sharma, the brother of Ms Manjari, and had very good relation with the accused. It is submitted that he had testified that he gave financial aid of 4000 Great Britain pounds in the year 1998, which he had brought from U. K. and had declare the same vide declaration under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1973. He proved the said declaration as Ex.DW11/A. I have considered this submission. Though I have no doubt that PW11 had brought 4000 GBPs from Britain on 23.5.1998 but this witness does not explain as to for what purpose he had given this amount as monetary assistance to the accused. It is not believable that a person would give entire foreign exchange to the accused and will keep nothing for himself. If, he had given it to the accused, accused must have got it exchanged in Indian currency through some bank. Accused does not explain as to how he used this foreign currency. Therefore, the testimony of DW11 that he gave 4000 GBPs to the accused is unworthy of credence.
EXPENDITURE I. Two DDs to mother Smt. Kunti Devi amounting to Rs.20,00,000/ At serial no.15 of table of expenditure prepared by the Investigating Officer in the charge sheet, two DDs in the name of Smt. CC No. 76/2008 Page 116/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 Kunti Devi, amounting to Rs.20,00,000/ have been shown. This fact is not denied by the accused. Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to following facts :
(a) The Investigating Officer has brought on record the statement of account of UCO Bank no. 28099 in the name of Shambhu Prasad Singh, sent by the bank along with letter Ex.PW46/L. There is an entry dated 7.6.2001 which shows that a draft in the sum of Rs.10 lacs was prepared. My attention is further drawn to the slip of UCO Bank placed along with seizure memo (D46), showing the slip in which accused had requested for preparation of demand draft in the name of Smt. Kunti Devi.
(b) PW34, the official from Standard Chartered Bank, who has proved a letter Ex.PW34/E of accused authorizing A. K. Goel to collect demand draft of Rs.10 lacs and a copy of the draft Ex.PW34/E1 in the name of Smt. Kunti Devi for Rs.10 lacs.
These two drafts have been shown as expenditure.
II. Education of daughter at DPS The prosecution has drawn my attention to the testimony of PW5 Devender Kumar Garg, the Incharge of Account Section of DPS School. He has proved that a total amount of Rs.60,545/ was paid as fee for the education of Ms Aarushi, the daughter of the accused.
CC No. 76/2008 Page 117/143CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to the testimony of DW5 Ms Manjari, who has testified that she was bearing the educational expenses of Aarushi till date. I have already discussed that Ms Manjari was having no income. Therefore, the defence arguments cannot be accepted.
III. Charge of NESTACY Child Developmental Centre My attention has been drawn my Ld. Defence Counsel that the said expense was borne by Ms Manjari from her own source of income and personal savings, as testified by her in capacity of DW5 Ms Manjari.
Since this amount is too small, I am inclined to accept the arguments of Ld. Defence Counsel.
IV. Kitchen Expenditure (One third of salary of the accused) It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that all the household expenses were borne by Ms Manjari and that this amount determined by the CBI is based upon presumption and there is no document to support this expenditure. DW5 Ms Manjari has clearly stated during ".. I was bearing the household expenses including the kitchen expenditure from my own income." It is further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that this fact is corroborated by the accused himself in his examination under Section 315 CrPC has stated that "...Ms Manjari CC No. 76/2008 Page 118/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 was bearing the day to day expenses which included the kitchen expenses..."
The prosecution has assessed the kitchen expenses to be of Rs.4,43,515/ in the charge sheet, being one third of the salary of the accused. It has not been shown by the accused that a lesser amount were spent on the kitchen expenses. It means that around Rs.73,000/ per year (i.e. about Rs.6000/ per month) has been assessed by the prosecution as kitchen expenditure. I am of the opinion that this is the bare minimum, which could be spent on the food of two persons of a middle class family.
I have already discussed the question of the income of Ms Manjari and therefore I am of the opinion that this expenditure will be calculated in respect of Shambhu Prasad Singh only.
I also disagree with the submissions of Ld. Defence Counsel that the one third of income as expenditure taken by CBI was arbitrary.
In the present case, accused, his wife and child are three persons and in such composition of a middle class family, assessment of household expenditure to the tune of one third of the salary of the accused is reasonable and fully justified.
V. Loan to Sister (Smt. Krishna Singh) As per the charge sheet, a loan in the sum of Rs. 1,90,000/ has CC No. 76/2008 Page 119/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 been shown in the list of expenditure advanced by accused in favour of his sister Smt. Krishna Singh. Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the testimony of PW34 Amar Nath Anand, the official from Standard Chartered Bank, Sansad Marg, New Delhi who proved the letter and the documents sent along with it as Ext.PW34/A, which pertains to a bank account no. 52210165487 (015/29/51592) in the name of Ms. Krishna Singh which was opened through the opening amount of Rs. 1,90,000/ through cheque no. 243218 dt. 02.08.1997 drawn on UCO Bank. Along with it, a copy of this cheque issued by Shambhu Prasad Singh is annexed. Ld. Defence Counsel has tried to explain it by drawing my attention to the testimony of the accused (DW12) who has testified as under:
"As I remember, my late brotherinlaw was posted in District Buldandsher and his sister was getting married accordingly my brother in law came to Delhi, was carrying Rs. 1,90,000/ and requested me to make demand draft in her favour as my sister and late brotherinlaw were travelling for Varanasi in connection with the arrangements of his sister's marriage and it was not safe for them to carry the cash amount. During the examination before the CBI, I stated the above mentioned transaction but they have not considered and they have included a loan to my sister while submitting the charge sheet."
It is submitted that the Ld. PP has not cross examined DW12 to disprove this fact stated by the accused and has not even given any suggestion to raise doubt upon the existence of this fact and in absence of any suggestion to this effect, the aforesaid fact stands CC No. 76/2008 Page 120/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 admitted on the part of the prosecution and further the accused has discharged the burden lying upon him to explain the source of the aforesaid amount.
I disagree with the submissions of Ld. Defence Counsel. If an appropriate suggestion has not been given by a party, it does not mean that court will accept the evidence of the witness mechanically. The court has to assess the intrinsic worth of the evidence of a witness. The aforesaid testimony has to be appreciated in view of all the attending circumstances. As per the testimony of the accused (DW
12), his brotherinlaw came to Delhi from District Bulandshahar carrying an amount of Rs. 1,90,000/ and requested him to make a demand draft in favour of Smt. Krishna Singh, the sister of Shambhu Prasad Singh, so that they could travel to Varanasi in connection with arrangement of his sister's marriage, because it was not safe for them to carry the cash amount. If the brotherinlaw thought it risky to carry such a big amount, I find no reason as to why he did not get a draft prepared in the name of Smt. Krishna Singh in Bulandshahar itself, where he was posted. Further, if Smt. Krishna Singh was having the bank account in Delhi itself, why the brotherinlaw of accused did not directly deposit the amount in the Standard Chartered Bank in Delhi, and get the bank draft prepared. The fact remains that bank CC No. 76/2008 Page 121/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 account of Smt. Krishna was opened with the cheque of Rs. 1,90,000/ issued by Shambhu Prasad Singh himself. It is interesting to note that this bank account in the name of Smt. Krishna Singh also shows her address as B136, Kalkaji, New Delhi. Apart from falsifying the testimony of Shambhu Prasad Singh, it also proves that the bank accounts were being opened by Shambhu Prasad Singh by his own money in the names of his relatives including Smt. Krishna Singhhis sister.
VI. Expenditure on construction of H. No. 3/275, Vipul Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, U. P. Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the testimony of PW35 Sh. R. S. Singh, a valuation officer in the Valuation Cell CBDT, Income Tax Department, Lucknow, who vide his report Ex.PW35/B had evaluated the cost of construction on the aforesaid plot to be of Rs.20.60 lacs. Ld. Defence Counsel has strongly objected to this evaluation on the ground that neither he prepared any site plan, nor he took the photographs of the building and therefore his report is of doubtful nature. I disagree with the submissions of Ld. Defence Counsel. In cross examination, the witness has stated that cost of construction was evaluated on the basis of market rates prevalent during construction period for which there are different cost CC No. 76/2008 Page 122/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 indices approved by competent authority, Govt. of India. Nothing has come in cross examination to cast doubt on his valuation report. Accused has also not examined any expert in defence to show that the cost of the construction was lesser than the one opined by PW35. Therefore, the cost of construction, has rightly been assessed to be Rs.20.60 lacs. However, I would like to adopt a cautious approach and I take the cost of construction to be Rs.20 lacs.
Regarding the source of this money, Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to the testimony of accused (DW12) wherein he has testified that "...construction on the said property was carried out APCO Construction Pvt. Ltd. Sh. Anil Singh who was a good friend of my late brother in law Sh. M. K. Singh, is managing director of APCO Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and the construction of the aforesaid property was carried out on the basis of understanding between Sh. M. K. Singh and Sh. Anil Singh. At present, my sister Smt. Krishna Singh is residing in the aforesaid property and has possession of entire property apart from some portion which has been leased out by her..."
Ld. Defence Counsel has also drawn my attention to the testimony of Sh. Anil Singh (DW2), the proprietor of APCO Constructions Pvt. Ltd., who has deposed as under :
CC No. 76/2008 Page 123/143CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 "....Late Sh. Manoj Kumar Singh was my friend who was working as Assistant Conservator of Forest, posted at Kanpur U.P. Late Manoj Kumar Singh died on 5th November, 2001 in a road accident while he was returning along with his family from Tirupati. Smt. Krishna Singh wife of Late Sh. Manoj Kumar Singh informed me about the said incident. I along with two three more friends of Late Sh. Manoj Kumar Singh went to Chennai to collect his dead body. Since Late Sh. Manoj Kumar Singh was a good friend of mine, and was very frequent visitor, he made a proposal to me that he wanted construction over land 3/275, Vipul Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. The plot was allotted to his brother in law Shambhu Prasad Singh by Lucknow Development Authority. Late Sh. Manoj Kumar Singh told me that he had mutual understanding with his brother in alw ShambhuPrasad Singh that Shambhu Prasad Singh will provide the land and if Manoj Kumar Singh and Kunti Devi mother of Shambhu Prasad Singh make construction over the land, the said house can be used by Manoj Kumar Singh for his own purpose without paying anything to Shambhu Prasad Singh. Manoj Kumar Singh requested me to help in CC No. 76/2008 Page 124/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 construction of the building and he promised me to make the payment subsequently. Subsequently, the company APCO Constructions Pvt. Ltd. made a construction over the land and no money was charged for construction from Manoj Kumar Singh as he had promised to make the payment subsequently. However, unfortunately he died in a road accident.
I approached his wife for the payment, but, she had no means to make the payment and seeing the poor condition of the family as the family was suffering from hardship, I did not press for payment of the money to the company APCO Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and still pending.
The cost incurred for the construction is duly reflected in the balance sheet of the company which was submitted to the office of ROC and duly signed by me. The copy of the balance sheet was seized by CBI. (At this stage, the balance sheet Ex.PW43/DX11 had Ex.PW43/DX12 is shown to the witness) and after seeing the same the witness states that both the balance sheets are true and correct and duly signed by him at points A on each and every page and at points B contains the signatures of my brother Vinod Singh and at points C contains the signatures of V. S. Rao, who was the Sr. Manager CC No. 76/2008 Page 125/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 (Accounts & Admn.) and at points D contains the signatures of the auditor of the company Sh. P. K. Tandon on each and every pages. The expenses incurred for the construction is shown at point X on Ex.PW43/DX11 & Ex.PW43/DX12."
I have carefully considered this testimony and it is very surprising that DW2 Anil Singh agreed to build house for his friend Manoj Kumar Singh without any agreement or without any payment, that to on a plot, which is not in the name of Manoj Kumar Singh. The defence has drawn my attention to the balance sheets of APCO Construction (P) Ltd., which are Ex.PW43/DX11 and Ex.PW43/DX
12. My attention is also drawn to schedule G, AnnexureI of Ex.PW43/DX11 (which is the balance sheet as on 31.3.2000), wherein following entry has been made :
Schedule - G of Loans & Advances Annexure - I Advance to Supplied Bakhtawar Transport Company 83183.00 Dadi Maa Forwarding Agency 241269.40 3/275, Vipul Khand, (M.K.Singh) 747841.34 CC No. 76/2008 Page 126/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 Ld. Defence Counsel thus submits that a sum of Rs.7,47,841.34 was paid for construction of house to M. K. Singh. It is pertinent to note that this balance sheet appears to be filed on 2.9.2001 or thereafter because it carries the date as 2.9.2001. It is interesting to note that DW2 does not mention the date on which these balance sheets were filed in the office of ROC. The documents do not bear any stamp of ROC. Therefore, the documents and the entries therein do not stand proved. I may point out that as per his own testimony, Manoj Kumar Singh died on 5.11.2001 in a road accident. He does not testify as to when the construction in the plot was carried out. Interestingly, Shambhu Prasad Singh also does not testify as to in which year the construction of the plot was complete. Therefore, both these witnesses are concealing very material information. Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that in examination in chief the defence proved that DW2 Sh. Anil Kumar Singh made a statement under Section 161 CrPC (Ex.PW43/DX2) to CBI. It is further submitted by Ld. Public Prosecutor that although a statement under Section 161 CrPC cannot be used by prosecution for corroboration or confrontation but if the accused wants to rely on it, the court can look into it. As per this statement of DW2, "the above construction was started in the year 1997 (September) and completed by the end of year 2000. I CC No. 76/2008 Page 127/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 remember that Greh Parvesh was held sometime in the month of April 2001." Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that if the constructions continued from 1997 till 2000, and the entire construction has been made by APCO, Sh. Anil Kumar Singh (DW2) should have also produced the balance sheets of the previous years, whereas he has only filed the balance sheet for the year 2000. Although I find substance in the submissions of Ld. Public Prosecutor, but, the legal proposition in respect of the use of statement under Section 161 CrPC is very clear. As per Section 162 CrPC, it can only be used for contradicting a witness. Nonetheless, I agree with Ld. Public Prosecutor that DW2 and DW12 are concealing very material facts regarding the construction of the house. I may further point out that the balance sheet, the contents of which have been reproduced above, also carries a heading i.e. advance to supplier. It simply means that the persons/companies mentioned under this head used to supply some material, for which some advance payment used to be made by the company. It cannot be construed to mean that this company built some house for M. K. Singh. Even if it is presumed that this money was spent for construction of the house for M. K. Singh, the best person to prove this fact was the sister of accused namely Smt. Krishna Singh, the wife of Late Sh. Manoj Kumar Singh, who as per CC No. 76/2008 Page 128/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 testimony of Shambhu Prasad Singh (DW12) was still residing at that place as per the MOU Ex.PW46/DD. Non examination of Smt. Krishna Singh by accused Shambhu Prasad Singh further demolishes his defence.
Therefore, the defence of the accused that the house on the plot was constructed by APCO Construction P. Ltd. cannot be accepted. Hence, above discussion proves the house was constructed by accused and he spent Rs.20 lakhs over its construction.
Apart from the above mentioned issues, the accused has not disputed the income, expenditure and assets as alleged and proved by the prosecution. Therefore, the same do not require any discussion. However, I would like to discuss something more.
First, I will take up the nature of loan of Rs.30 lacs. Shyam Sunder Bhattar (PW13) has testified that he knew the accused because his father was the sole contractor of a mill, which is his family concern. In the year 2000, at the request of S. P. Singh, he provided loan of Ra.13 lacs by way of two pay orders issued in the name of Smt. Adarash Prabhakar, the owner of E298, GKI, New Delhi. He further testified that one MOU dated 19.12.2000 regarding the aforesaid property was entered between him, S. P. Singh and his wife Smt. Manjari and the same was handed over to the Investigating CC No. 76/2008 Page 129/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 Officer vide seizure memo dated 20.11.2002. Now, it is to be seen whether this payment of Rs.13 lacs is a genuine loan or not. I would like to refer to MOU Ex.PW13/B, which states that the money has to be returned within 45 days, otherwise Shyam sunder Bhattar will have option of either claiming the repayment of loan with interest at the rate of 15% per annum, claiming the ownership of second floor of the property and that on completion of construction of the building, the parties shall sell the basement and the sale proceeds thereof shall be divided between S. P. Singh, Smt. Manjari and Shyam Sunder Bhattar. Now, it should be seen that Ms Manjari (DW5) has not testified anything in respect of this property/loan/MOU. Accused, while testifying under Section 315 CrPC as DW12 has testified that he along with his wife had entered into an MOU with Shyam Sunder Bhattar, however he nowhere testifies as to whether he ever returned the said amount, or in default of it, he handed over the second floor of the property to Shyam Sunder Bhattar or the repayment was made by selling ground floor of the property. I have carefully perused the entire MOU and I am convinced from its very language that the money was never intended to be returned. Therefore, although the Investigating Officer has taken the amount of Rs.13 lacs in consideration while counting the income, it appears that he could not CC No. 76/2008 Page 130/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 see through the fraudulent nature of this MOU.
Now, I refer to the fraudulent nature of the consideration amount of Rs.9,50,000/ for purchase of H. No. B136, Kalkaji, New Delhi. This aspect has already been dealt with.
Courts would be naïve to believe the aforesaid value of the properties of Greater Kailash and Kalkaji, both in New Delhi to be the true value. In fact, the price of properties in these areas is very high and the black money component paid for purchasing such properties is many times more than the value shown in the sale deeds.
I also refer to the fraudulent nature of the MOU, used by the accused in respect of his property no. 3/275, Vipul Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.
I have already discussed as to how huge amounts were deposited in the bank account in cash & cheque and thereafter cheques were issued from the bank account of Shambhu Prasad Singh. Accused did not prove as to what her mother Smt. Kunti Devi was earning and from which business. His brother J. P. N. Singh did not prove his income from his business. His wife Ms Manjari is found to have no earning except for one year. The testimonies of the defence witnesses are found unworthy of credit. The overall scenario definitely points out to huge income of the public servant from CC No. 76/2008 Page 131/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 unknown sources. It must be kept in mind that he had been a public servant, who worked in close proximity with the Union Ministers in Government of India.
In view of the above discussions, I redraw the tables of income, assets and expenditure during the check period as under :
Income
SL PARTICULARS Amount (in Rs.)
NO.
1 Salary received from the Ministry of Health 49,229.00
and Family Welfare with effect from 1.1.95 to
14.9.95.
2 Salary received from the Minsitry of 48,571.00
Commerce and Industry with effect from
15.9.95 to 31.5.96.
3 Salary received from the Ministry of 4,623.00
Environment and Forest with effect from
5.6.96 to 29.6.96.
4 Salary received from the Ministry of 2,47,245.00
Education with effect from 29.6.96 to Feb. 98. 5 Salary received from the Ministry of Telecome 9,80,878.00 with effect from 19.3.98 to 30.6.2002.
6 Salary received from the Ministry of 21,391.00 Checmicals and Petro Chemicals for the month of July, 2002.
7 Loan from Shri S. S. Bhattar, a family friend. 13,00,000.00
CC No. 76/2008 Page 132/143
CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014
SL PARTICULARS Amount (in Rs.)
NO.
8 Income of Smt. Manjari Singh during the year Nil
1995 to 2000.
9 Income of Smt. Manjari Singh during the year 1,21,310.00
2001 to 2002 as per own income tax return
filed after registration of the case.
10 Agriculture Income during the year 1995 to 7,95,000.00
2002, as claimed in his statement.
11 Sale Proceeds of Plot at Pandav Nagar in the 2,25,000.00
name of Smt. Manjari Singh.
12 Interest calculated on bank account 1,71,276.84.00
TOTAL Rs.39,64,523.84
For the sake convenience in calculation, I take the total income to be 40 lacs during the check period.
Assets SL. NO. TYPE OF ASSETS AMOUNT 1 Investment in property House No. B136 9,50,000.00 (Left Side), Ground Floor, Kalkaji, New Delhi. (50% share in the name of Sh. S.P. Singh).
2 Plot No. 3/275, Vipul Khand Gomti Nagar, 2,35,000.00
Lucknow. (S.P. Singh)
CC No. 76/2008 Page 133/143
CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014
SL. NO. TYPE OF ASSETS AMOUNT
3 Shop No. 18, Destination Point, Mathura 2,04,000.00
Road, Faridabad (Smt. Manjari)
4 Entire Third Floor of Flat No. B29 Lajpat 2,00,000.00
Nagar, New Delhi (Smt. Manjari)
5 Kothi No. E298 Greater Kailash, New 20,00,000.00
Delhi (Shri S.P. Singh and Smt. Manjari)
1 Cash found in Locker no. 1166 in the 50,000.00
name of Shri S.P. Singh and Smt. Manjari
at UCO Bank, Parliamentary Street, Delhi
during search.
2 Cash found in locker no. 1064 in the name 5,000.00
of Shri S.P. Singhand Smt. Manjari at UCO
Bank, Parliamentary Street, Delhi during
search.
3 Cash found in Locker no. 383 in the name 39,000.00
of Shri S.P. Singh at Standar Charted Bank,
Parliamentary Street, Delhi during search.
4 Balance in PPF A/c No. 901739 with State 2,57,401.00
Bank of India, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi of
Shri S.P. Singh
5 Car ZEN Regn. No. DL9CD3845 (Smt. 1,20,000.00
Manjari)
6 Computer installed at his Lucknow house 52,600.00
CC No. 76/2008 Page 134/143
CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014
7 Bank Balance of Shri S.P. Singh in SB A/c 31,008.79
No. 122663 Allahabad bank, Parliament
Street.
8 Bank Balance of Smt. Manjari in A/c 247.00
51710 Bank of India, Khan Market.
9 Bank Balance of Baby Aarushi in A/c 522 10,177.34
10123962 Standard Charted Metro Main
Branch.
10 Bank Balance in the joint name of Shri S.P. 13,316.26
Singh and Smt. Manjari in A/c No.
1706011380 Global Trust BankI.
11 Bank Balance in the joint name of Shri S.P. 10,90,000.00
Singh and Smt. Manjari in A/c No.
1706537812 Global Trust BankI.
12 Bank Balance in the joint name of Shri S.P. 5,000.00
Singh and Smt. Manjari in A/c No.
1706537822 Global Trust BankI.
13 Bank Balance in the joint name of Shri S.P. 10,000.00
Singh and Smt Manjari in A/c No.
1706537845 Global Trust BankI.
14 Bank Balance of Blossom Creation in A/c 5,099.65
No. 1342000002026 HDFC Defence
Colony.
15 Bank Balance of Smt. Manjari in A/c 5,317.89
1341000008900 HDFC Bank Defence
Colony.
CC No. 76/2008 Page 135/143
CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014
16 ICICI & IDBI Bond in the name of Sh. SP 50,000.00
Singh
17 House Hold Items Inventory of House No. 2,00,000.00
B136 Kalka Ji, New Delhi.
18 NSC's 81,000.00
19 Maruti Car bearing registration no. WNW 89,000.00
2519
TOTAL Rs.57,03,167.93
For sake of convenience in calculation, I take this amount to be Rs.57 lacs.
Now I draw a table of expenditure as under :
Sl. Head of Expenditure Expenditure in the Amount No. name of (in Rs.) 1 Stamp Duty for property SP Singh 46,98000 3/275 Vipul Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow 2 Stamp Duty for property E SP Singh 48,00000 298, Greater KailashI (Second floor) 3 Stamp Duty for property Manjari Singh 31,62000 Shop No. 18, Destination Point, Faridabad.
4 Stamp Duty for property E Manjari Singh 56,00000
298, Greater KailashI (1st
CC No. 76/2008 Page 136/143
CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014
Sl. Head of Expenditure Expenditure in the Amount
No. name of (in Rs.)
floor)
5 Stamp Duty for property E Manjari Singh 56,00000
298, Greater KailashI
(Ground Floor)
6 Electricity charges for House SP Singh 43,69500
No. B136, Kalkaji
7 Membership of SIRI FORT SP Singh 11,40000
Club
8 Education of daughter of Arushi 60,54500
DPS
9 Shares SP Singh 12,000
10 Purchase of Gun SP Singh 22,19800
11 Charge of NETSTACY child Arushi 480000
Development Centre
12 Kitchen Expenditure (one SP Singh 4,43,51500
third of salary of the
accused)
13 Loan to Sister Krishna Singh 1,90,00000
14 Construction of H. No. SP Singh 20,00,00000
3/275, Vipul Khand,
Lucknow
15 2 DD s to mother Kunti Devi 20,00,00000
TOTAL 50,26,75300
CC No. 76/2008 Page 137/143
CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014
For sake of convenience in calculation, I take this amount to be Rs.50 lacs.
Thus, during the check period, accused Shambhu Prasad Singh earned a total amount of Rs.40 lacs. He was found in possession of the assets to the tune of Rs.1 crore 7 lacs (Rs.57 lacs + Rs.50 lacs). It means the assets to the extent of Rs.67 lacs were found beyond the means of the accused. Thus, the assets of the accused are hugely disproportionate to his known source of income, which he could not satisfactorily account.
Accordingly, I convict the accused Shambhu Prasad Singh under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.
Announced in the open court on 18.12.2014.
(Vinod Kumar) Special JudgeII, CBI Prevention of Corruption Act Rohini, Delhi CC No. 76/2008 Page 138/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGEII (Prevention of Corruption Act: 1988): CBI: ROHINI: DELHI RC No. 2(A)/2002/CBI/ACUVIII/N.Delhi CC No. 76/2008 CBI Vs Shambhu Prasad Singh S/o Late Sh. Anant Pratap Singh R/o B136, Left Side, Ground Floor, Kalka Ji, New Delhi.
O R D E R O N S E N T E N C E 18.12.2014 Dr. Padmini Singh, Ld. Public Prosecutor for CBI has drawn my attention to Part III of schedule to of The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 vide which the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been amended and minimum sentence for offences u/s 13(e) & 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been provided to be four years. It is submitted that in view of the spirit of the new legislation, a minimum sentence of four years should be awarded to the convict. Ld. Public Prosecutor has also drawn my attention to Section 16 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and submits that while fixing the amount of fine, the disproportionality of the assets should be taken into consideration. Ld. Public Prosecutor also referred to Mirza Iqbal Hussain vs State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1983 Supreme Court 60 and CC No. 76/2008 Page 139/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 submits that the properties to the extent of disproportionateness should be confiscated.
On the other hand, Ms. Geeta Luthra, learned Senior Advocate for the convict argues that the convict has only one daughter of marriageable age and has a family to support including the two widow sisters. It is submitted that the minimum possible sentence may be awarded to the convict in the present case because the disproportionality is not extremely high.
It is further argued by learned Defence Counsel that the properties are not exclusively in the name of the convict and therefore no confiscation order should be passed.
I have considered the rival submissions. First, I would like to refer to Mirza Iqbal Hussain vs State of Uttar Pradesh cited by Ld. Public Prosecutor in which Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was considering the question as to whether in a case of disproportionate assets under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, the court was empowered to confiscate the unexplained assets. Hon'ble Supreme Court answered it in affirmative holding that Section 452 CrPC will apply in full force to such properties and the trial court is within its rights could order confiscation of such properties.
In the main judgment I have held that the assets worth Rs. 67 CC No. 76/2008 Page 140/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 lacs were disproportionate to the known source of income of the convict. I have also held that the immovable properties were infact owned by the convict in the name of his wife and his brother. Same is the case of bank accounts. Therefore, I order confiscation of the following properties:
S.No. Property Value
1. House No. B136 (Left Rs. 9,50,000/
Side)Ground Floor,
Kalkaji, New Delhi.
2. House and Plot No. (Rs. 20 lacs+Rs.
3/275, Vipul Khand, 3,38,318/= Rs.
Gomti Nagar, 23,38,318/)
Lucknow.
3. Entire Third Floor and Rs. 2 lacs
Flat No. B29, Lajpat
Nagar, New Delhi.
4. Kothi No. E298, Rs. 20 lacs
Greater KailashI, New
Delhi.
Total Rs. 54,88,318/
As regarding the remaining amount of Rs. 12,11,682/ (Rs. 67,00,000 Rs, 54,88,318/= Rs. 12,11,682/), I direct the CBI to file a report as to which of the bank account/Fixed Deposit can be confiscated. I may point out that the two FDRs in the name of Smt. CC No. 76/2008 Page 141/143 CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 Kunti Devi amounting to Rs. 20 lacs is also a subject matter of this trial. It would be for CBI to find out if the same could be confiscated to the extent of the above mentioned remaining amount. This report should be filed by CBI within one month of this order. The convict is directed not to dispose of any of the aforesaid properties till final confiscation. CBI is directed to inform the concerned SubRegistrars that any sale/purchase or disposal of the aforesaid properties in any manner is prohibited.
Now I come to the question of sentence.
Considering all facts and circumstances, I sentence the convict to Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and fine in the sum of Rs. 10,000/ u/s 13(1)(e) r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In default of payment of fine, the convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The convict is taken to custody to undergo the sentence, though, he may be released on bail in case he moves an application for suspension of sentence.
Copy of the judgment be supplied free of cost to the convict as well as to CBI for compliance of the order. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on this 18th day of December, 2014.
CC No. 76/2008 Page 142/143CBI Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh Judgment dt. 18.12.2014 (Vinod Kumar) Spl. JudgeII, CBI Rohini/18.12.2014 CC No. 76/2008 Page 143/143