Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . Bani Singh on 9 January, 2014
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRADEEP CHADDAH:
SPECIAL JUDGE: CBI01, CENTRAL DISTRICT. DELHI
CC No. 1/09 RC : 71(A)/96
PS : CBI/ACB/New Delhi
U/s : 13(2) r/w. Sec. 13(1) (e)
of P.C. Act, 1988
CBI Vs. Bani Singh
S/o. Late Sh. Ram Lal,
R/o. D208, Anand Vihar,
Delhi.
Date of Institution : 25.02.2000
Judgment Reserved : 02.12.2013
Judgment Delivered : 09.01.2014
J U D G M E N T
1. CBI filed the present charge sheet against the accused Bani Singh alleging therein that he was working as Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax and had amazed assets through illegal means which were disproportionate to his known sources of income. Searches were conducted at D208, Anand Vihar and also at 6/110,Rajender Nagar,Sahibabad. During searches at CC No.1/09, RC 71(A)/96 CBI Vs. Bani Singh pg 1 2 Anand Vihar, cash Rs. 127710/ was recovered in addition to NSCs worth Rs.11,000/, canpep equity link saving certificates worth Rs. 10,020/, IFCI bonds worth Rs. 2000/, IDBI Deep Discount bonds worth Rs. 16,200/ and various other movable assets worth Rs. 444460/ were found at D208, Anand Vihar, Delhi and assets worth Rs. 7900/ were found at Rajender Nagar, Sahibabad.
2. Upto year 1980 accused had movable assets worth Rs. 33325/ but from January 1981 to 29.08.1996 accused amazed huge assets by misusing his official position as a public servant. His total income during the above period was Rs. 1227972/ and his total expenditure was Rs. 598151/. Assets at the end of check period were Rs. 3182646/. His likely savings should have been Rs. 629821/. Assets acquired during check period were Rs. 3149321/ and his disproportionate assets were Rs. 2519500/. It was claimed that the facts establish commission of offence punishable u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act. It was prayed that accused be summoned, tried and punished.
3. After accused appeared in the Court, he was provided with copies of the documents relied upon by the prosecution. He also admitted CC No.1/09, RC 71(A)/96 CBI Vs. Bani Singh pg 2 3 considerable number of documents in Court before framing of the charge and after framing of the charge. After hearing submissions of prosecution and Counsel for the accused, my Ld. Predecessor framed the following charge:
"That you being a public servant, employed as Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi, during the period 01.01.1981 to 29.8.96 were found in possession of assets to the tune of Rs.31,82,646/ as against your income and that of your family to the tune of Rs.12,27,972/ and the expenditure to the tune of Rs.5,98,151/ giving rise to saving of Rs.6,29,821/ only and thus you were found in possession of assets to the tune of Rs.25,19,500/, which were disproportionate to your known sources of income and which you could not satisfactorily account for and thereby committed an offence u/s. 13(1) (e) punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and within my cognizance.
And I hereby direct you to be tried by the Court."
CC No.1/09, RC 71(A)/96 CBI Vs. Bani Singh pg 3 4
4. Prosecution in support of its case examined 26 witnesses, while accused examined 12 witnesses in his defence.
5. PW1 examined by the prosecution was Mr. Vinay Chhabra, a property dealer. He deposed that he had an employee namely Satish Bhasin. He (Satish Bhasin) used to earn Rs. 1500/ per month. He was removed from service. He (Vinay Chhabra) also knew Satish Mehra who was engaged in business of sale and purchase of cars. Witness further claimed to know accused Bani Singh Chaudhary. Accused had approached him alongwith some individual and he had arranged a flat for him in West Patel Nagar. Witness further claimed that he did not remember if he had got a car purchased in the name of Satish Bhasin from Satish Mehra. Vinay Chhabra was thereafter cross examined by Ld. PP as he was resiling from his previous statement wherein he admitted that he had been interrogated by CBI and his statement was also recorded. He denied having told CBI that accused had purchased D208, Anand Vihar, Delhi through Gulshan Sethi. He had also not told CBI that accused had approached him for purchasing a Maruti Car and he had taken him to Satish Mehra. He denied all the averments put to him by Ld.PP but admitted that Satish Basin was lowly paid employee and was not in a position to purchase any car.
CC No.1/09, RC 71(A)/96 CBI Vs. Bani Singh pg 4 5
6. The second witness to be examined was Sh. Gurbir Singh. He deposed that he had purchased plot no. D208, Anand Vihar in 198687. He had constructed two bed rooms and drawing room on the ground floor and one room on the first floor. It was a simple construction. Through a financier he sold the house for Rs. 3.30 Lacs of which he had received Rs. 2.30 Lacs by draft. The documents executed regarding the sale were Ex. PW2/A to PW2/F. He was not aware as to for what amount the house was further sold.
7. The third witness to be examined was Balak Ram Tyagi. He deposed that he knew accused and also his wife Smt. Savitri Devi. His (PW Balak Ram Tyagi) wife Vidyawati sold 2 bigas and 10 biswas of land to Savitri about 15/16 years ago. The money received from the sale was used for purchasing Fargusan tractor alongwith accessories and money was also used to perform marriage of his daughter. However he did not remember the sale consideration. The documents executed for sale of land were Ex. PW3/A and PW3/B. In 1991 rate of 1 biga of land in his village ranged from Rs. 1.50 Lacs to Rs. 4.50 Lacs. The tractor purchased by him was old one. Upon being cross examined by Ld. PP he admitted that his CC No.1/09, RC 71(A)/96 CBI Vs. Bani Singh pg 5 6 statement was recorded by CBI and it might be correct that he had told CBI that he had received Rs. 4,75,000/ for sale of land from Savitri Devi. He also admitted that the Fargusan tractor had been purchased for Rs. 1,80,000/. In cross examination he admitted that title documents were executed and the consideration amount was received and mentioned in those documents.
8. The next witness to be examined was Mr. Mahesh Mathur from Oriental Insurance Company. He claimed that on 21.11.1995 he went to house no. 208 of Bani Singh accused for insurance of vehicle. Production cumseizure memo Ex. PW4/A contained his signatures. The cover note Ex. PW4/B for insurance of car no. DL 3 CD 5123 was issued by him at instance of accused. He was paid Rs. 1914/ towards insurance. The policy was Ex. PW4/D. Witness further claimed that he had also insured another vehicle which was TATA Seira no. DL 4 CC 5563 at the instance of accused on the same day. The said vehicle was also parked outside D208, Anand Vihar. The accused had paid Rs. 3647/ as premium. Cover note issued by him was Ex.PW4/F2 and it was in the name of Jwahar.
9. PW5 was Bhupender Singh partner of Yojna Taxi Service. He CC No.1/09, RC 71(A)/96 CBI Vs. Bani Singh pg 6 7 claimed that a taxi was provided at D208 Anand Vihar. Driver Raj Kumar was deputed on the taxi no. 8289. The cash voucher in the sum of Rs. 498.50p was Ex. PW5/A while duty slip was Ex. PW5/B.
10. The next witness to be examined was Sh. Sushil Tyagi from MCD. He had handed over file pertaining to property no. D208, Anand Vihar and it was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW6/A. The original site plan in the file was Ex. PW6/Z1. The plan for addition in the property was Ex. PW6/B. The scrutiny sheet was Ex. PW6/C. The proposed addition on the first floor was 741.08 sq. ft. and 236.93 sq. ft. on the barsati floor. The witness further claimed that actual addition carried out was in excess. On the first floor instead of 741 sq.ft., 971.04 sq.ft. had been added.
11. Sh. Jaideep Yadav entered the witness box as PW7. He deposed that he had earlier worked with Rohan Motors and had handed over documents to the I.O. They pertained to vehicle no. DL 3 CD 5123.
12. The Next witness to be examined was Sh. S.L. Gengiia from DESU. He deposed that he had delivered statement of account running into five sheets Ex. PW8/A of K No. 6111437046 which was in the name of Savitri CC No.1/09, RC 71(A)/96 CBI Vs. Bani Singh pg 7 8 Devi R/o. D208, Anand Vihar.
13. The next witness to be examined was Mr. Ravinder Kumar Sharma from the office of ZRO (Water). He deposed that the water connection was installed in property no. D208, Anand Vihar in the name of Seeta Devi. He had prepared details of payment for the period 08.10.89 to 15.03.96 amounting to Rs. 2528/. The statement was Ex. PW9/A while production cumseizure memo was Ex. PW9/B.
14. Thereafter prosecution had examined Sh. Radha Kishan from MCD. He deposed that he had handed over house tax file in respect of property no. D208, Anand Vihar, Delhi to CBI which was taken in possession vide memo Ex. PW10/A. The file was Ex. PW10/B. Receipts issued by the department towards transfer duty and house tax were Ex. PW10/C and PW10/D respectively. In his cross examination he claimed that the amount mentioned as consideration in Ex. PW10/C was Rs. 2,30,000/.
15. PW11 was inspector H.S. Karmyal. He deposed that in 1996 he was posted as Inspector in ACB branch of CBI. I.O. Inspector B.K. Pradhan had taken him to house of the accused at Anand Vihar alongwith CC No.1/09, RC 71(A)/96 CBI Vs. Bani Singh pg 8 9 other team members and independent witnesses. Observation memo Ex. PW11/A was prepared during house search. A sum of Rs. 1,27,710/ was observed during search. The Jewellery mentioned at serial no. 198 was stated to be gift received by wife of the accused. The documents were seized vide memo Ex. PW11/B. Details of currency notes were in Ex. PW11/C and PW11/D. In his cross examination he admitted that he did not get valuation of the articles mentioned in observation memo done from the market. He denied the suggestion that cost of items as mentioned in the memo had not been disclosed by the accused or his wife and he had over valued them. He denied the suggestion that accused had suggested that Rs. 40,000/ out of sum of Rs. 1,20,000/ belonged to his brother Ashok Kumar.
16. Prosecution thereafter examined Virender Thakran as PW12. He deposed that in 1996 he was posted as inspector in ACB/CBI. He was authorized by B.P. Pradhan IO of the case to carry out search at 6/110, Sector2, Rajender Nagar, Distt. Ghaziabad. He was accompanied by inspector A.K. Malik, SI T.K. Rai and two independent witnesses namely Jagdish Lal and Suresh Babu. Praveen Chaudhary son of the accused was present during the search. In addition a watchman Joginder Prasad was CC No.1/09, RC 71(A)/96 CBI Vs. Bani Singh pg 9 10 already present over there. Articles observed were mentioned in inventory Ex. PW12/A. Price and year of acquisition was mentioned after consulting Praveen Chaudhary. He was informed that owner of the premises was accused Bani Singh and Joginder Prasad was getting salary of Rs. 400/ per month for the last 5/6 years. In the cross examination he denied the suggestion that he had mentioned value of the articles on his own.
17. Ms. Mridula Shukla thereafter entered the witness box. She claimed that investigation of the case was entrusted to her by the SP. Earlier this case was being investigated by Sh. B.K. Pradhan. FIR registered in the case was Ex. PW13/A. During investigation she collected documents, examined witnesses, got the properties valued and thereafter filed the charge sheet. Ex. P1 collectively were statement of account no. 10503/54 in the name of Savitri Devi, account no. 5329/8 in the name of B.S. Chaudhary and account no. 40906/88 in the name of Ram Lal, which she had received. She had also obtained pay details Ex. P6 & P10, reports of LIC policies Ex. P7 and P8 & P9. Details about investments of shares from Nodal agencies MCS Ltd., were received vide letter Ex. P59. She also obtained details of postal account in the name of Ram Lal Ex. P60. She also obtained details of investment in Canara Bank in Canpep Ex.
CC No.1/09, RC 71(A)/96 CBI Vs. Bani Singh pg 10 11 P61. She had got the properties valued, obtained registration file of motorcycle no. DL 5 SA 5248, obtained house tax assessment file and did other jobs. She had also obtained details of vehicle no. DL 3CD 5123 from Rohan Motors. Registered owner of the vehicle was Satish Bhasin but the same was recovered from house of the accused and he got it released on superdari. She further claimed that she had received details of UTI Master Gain 92 in the name of Parveen Chaudhary. The forwarding letter and application form were collectively Ex.P31. She had also obtained details of marble and other building material purchased by the accused, statement of ledger sheets and computerized sheets, details of LPG gas consumption, details of purchase of inverter from M/s Blue Chip Technologies Ltd., and fee details from M.S. Ramaiah Institute of Technology. She had recorded statement of many people U/s 161 Cr.P.C. The charge sheet filed in the Court was signed by her and was Ex. PW13/G. In her cross examination she claimed that after investigation was handed over to her she did not try to find the facts regarding source of information on the basis of which FIR was lodged. She denied the suggestion that valuation of household goods was excessive. She also admitted that as per sale deed Ex. P3/B, Rs. 85,000/ had been paid by Savitri Devi wife of accused towards sale consideration of agricultural land. She claimed that Savitri Devi had not CC No.1/09, RC 71(A)/96 CBI Vs. Bani Singh pg 11 12 given her any explanation as to where from she had got Rs. 85,000/. She admitted that while filing charge sheet she did not consider valuation report mentioned at page no. 21,22 & 82 of Ex. P82. She denied the suggestion that property no. D208 did not belong to Bani Singh and his father had purchased it from his own sources. She claimed that father of the accused had small shoe business in Bulandshahar and he never maintained any bank account or books of account. The only bank account or books of account he had was with State Bank of India, IP Extn. The account was opened only for taking care of transaction of property no. D208, Anand Vihar. No big transaction had taken place in the account. She also denied the suggestion that valuation report Ex. PW13/B was exaggerated and excessive. She denied the suggestion that she had wrongly included motorcycle no. DL 5 SA 5248 in the asset of the accused. She admitted that no witness examined by her had stated that construction was carried out at D208, Anand Vihar by the accused. She had not visited Buland Shahar to take a look at shop of father of the accused and finally she denied the suggestion that charge sheet filed by her was beyond investigation and was wrong.
18. The next witness to be examined was Sandeep Garg from Income CC No.1/09, RC 71(A)/96 CBI Vs. Bani Singh pg 12 13 Tax Department. He claimed in in 1999 he was working as Under Secretary to the Government of India, in department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes. He had signed sanction for prosecution on behalf of President of India which was Ex. PW14/A. Regarding valuation of house no. D208, Anand Vihar, he claimed that value of the house was taken as Rs. 14,18,799/. It had been taken from page no. 5 of D32 and it did not reflect non application of mind. He claimed that accused and his family were living in the house and there was also power of attorney executed in the name of wife of the accused. Thus it was prima facie case of construction cost borne by the accused.
19. The next witness to be examined was Inspector B.K Pradhan. He deposed that in 1996 he was working as Inspector CBI ACB Delhi. Investigation of the present case was entrusted to him by the SP. During investigation house of accused at D208 Anand Vihar was searched by him in presence of independent witnesses Om Prakash and Sobti Ram. Other CBI team members were also present. Observation memo Ex.PW11/A was prepared regarding the articles found over there. Cash Rs.125300/ and Rs.2410/ were seized. Details of the currency notes Ex.PW11/C and Ex.PW11/D were prepared. He had collected documents, recorded CC No.1/09, RC 71(A)/96 CBI Vs. Bani Singh pg 13 14 statement of witnesses, received original papers of car No. DL 3CD 5123. He also seized from the house of the accused papers pertaining to vehicle No. DL 4CC 5563. He deposed further having collected details of water charges, cover note book from Oriental Insurance Company, house tax assessment file and additional plan file of property No. D208, Anand Vihar, Delhi. Subsequently the investigation was handed over by him to Inspector Sanjay Nimji. In his crossexamination by Ld. counsel for the accused, he admitted having made no efforts to call a witness from the locality. He claimed that at the time of search, accused, his wife and children were also present. The cost of articles had been assessed by mutual consent. He further claimed that some documents pertaining to Maruti car DL CD 5123 were seized from house of the accused.
20. PW16 was Amarnath Sehgal who deposed that he had taken Rs. 700/ for giving driving training to wife of D.S. Chaudhary.
21. The next witness to enter witness box was Mr. Satish Mehra proprietor of New Auto Home, Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. He deposed that he knew Vinay Chhabra proprietor of Pooja Properties. He had approached him for purchasing new Maruti car in the name of Satish CC No.1/09, RC 71(A)/96 CBI Vs. Bani Singh pg 14 15 Bhasin. He (Satish Mehra) gave him form20 which was to be signed by the purchaser. He sent back form20 duly signed by Satish Bhasin. He had also received form for registration record duly signed by Satish Bhasin, copy of which was Ex PW17/B. Vehicle was purchased from Rohan Motors, Mukund Nagar, Ghaziabad. Copy of sale certificate issued by Rohan Motors was Ex. PW17/C. The vehicle was delivered to Vinay Chhabra at his residence. RC of vehicle no. DL 3CD 5123 was delivered at the office of Vinay Chhabra at Patel Nagar. Payment was made by Vinay Chhabra in cash. The witness was cross examined by Ld. PP wherein he claimed that Satish Bhasin had never come to him. However he knew that he was employee of Vinay Chhabra. He denied the suggestion that Vinay Chhabra had visited the shop alongwith the accused and had taken delivery of the car. He further claimed that he was not aware if Vinay Chhabra wanted to purchase the car for accused B.S.Chaudhary.
22. Thereafter Suresh Chand Sharma deposed as PW18 but we will have to discard his testimony since it was never concluded.
23. PW19 was Dushyant Yadav. He deposed that in April 1999 he was working as PRO in Head Post Officer, Ramesh Nagar. D29 which was Ex.
CC No.1/09, RC 71(A)/96 CBI Vs. Bani Singh pg 15 16 P60 and admitted document was true attested copy of ledger card no. 9107114 NSS account which was in the name of Ram Lal R/o. D208, Anand Vihar, Delhi92. The account was opened on 28.3.89 with cash deposit of Rs. 30,000/. The nominee was Savitri Devi. On 24.05.96 cash payment of Rs. 62,852/ was made to the nominee on production of death certificate of Ram Lal.
24. The witness further claimed that Ram Lal had purchased NSCVI no. 5030537 for Rs. 10,000/ in cash on 30.03.89 from Ramesh Nagar post office. Payment of Rs. 19,010/ was made to Savitri Devi on 18.05.96 since she was nominee.
25. PW20 was T.B. Sengupta. He claimed that in September 1996 he was posted as Asstt. Administrative officer in New Indian Insurance Company. Production cum seizure memo Ex. PW15/B1 bore his signatures. He had handed over documents mentioned therein to inspector Pradhan. Further he deposed that carbon copy of policy number 3131040116324 of Maruti car no. DL 3 CD 5123 also contained his signatures and the same was Ex. PW20/A. Cover note of the said policy was Ex. PW20/A1, while its proposal form was Ex. PW20/A2. Carbon CC No.1/09, RC 71(A)/96 CBI Vs. Bani Singh pg 16 17 copy of policy no. 3131040119777 of the above car for the year 199495 was Ex. PW20/A3, while its cover note was Ex. PW20/A4. Renewal notice for 199495 was Ex. PW20/A5. All these documents were in the name of Satish Bhasin.
26. Thereafter Surender Kumar entered the witness box as PW21. He deposed that he was employed in the office of Motor Licencing officer, Loni Road, Delhi. Productioncumseizure memo Ex. PW13/C contained his signatures. Copy of RC of vehicle no. DL 5 SA 5248 was Ex. PW21/B. Its owner was Sanjay Chaudhary S/o. Sh. R.L. Chaudhary R/o. D208, Anand Vihar, Delhi. It was Yamaha RX 100. Carbon copy of the policy was Ex. PW21/A and its price as on 25.03.1991 was not less than Rs. 25,200/. He further after seeing photocopy of ration card mark PW21/1 submitted that father of Sanjay Chaudhary, according to the ration card was accused Bani Singh.
27. PW22 was Satnam Singh Monga. He deposed that in 199697 he was a marble dealer working on contract basis with Delhi Marble Industries at 3, Heiley Lane, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. He had sent his supervisor Govind Ram to D208, Anand Vihar and subsequently visited CC No.1/09, RC 71(A)/96 CBI Vs. Bani Singh pg 17 18 the site. He commenced the job in April 1995. He raised his bill of about Rs. 1,60,000/. Vide productioncumseizure memo Ex. PW13/D he had handed over the bill dt. 19.12.95 and statement of payment. The bill was Ex. PW22/A. According to it, Rs. 1,40,000/ had been received in cash. Balance payment outstanding till 19.12.95 was Rs. 20,836/. Upon being cross examined he claimed that his statement was recorded by CBI in its office. He had submitted the documents and had met accused Bani Singh only once at the site. The payments had been made by elder Chaudhary Saheb.
28. The next witness to be examined was Narender Kumar Arora from State Bank of India. He deposed that on 03.04.99 he was posted as Manager, SBI, I.P. Estate. Vide seizure memo Ex. P27 he had handed over documents mentioned therein. He had handed over attested photocopy of ledger book account no. 5329 Ex. PW23/A in the name of Bani Singh of U116, Shakarpur, Delhi.
29. The next witness to be examined by the prosecution was Sh. Om Prakash. He deposed that he had accompanied CBI officers on 29.08.96 to D208, Anand Vihar for conducting search. In his presence search CC No.1/09, RC 71(A)/96 CBI Vs. Bani Singh pg 18 19 operation was carried out. Search cum seizure memo Ex. PW11/B contained his signatures. Its annexures Ex. PW11/C and PW11/D also contained his signatures. Observation memo in this regard was Ex. PW11/A which too was signed by him. In his cross examination he claimed that value of the articles was written after enquiries from the accused. The list had been prepared at the residence of the accused and not in CBI office. Search operation had continued throughout the day.
30. Next witness Jagdish Lal similarly deposed that on 29.08.96 he had accompanied CBI team to 6/110, Sector2, Rajender Nagar, Sahibabad. The property belonged to Bani Singh and search was carried out in his presence. Observation memo Ex. PW12/A contained his signatures. In his cross examination he claimed that he had remained at the spot for about an hour and did not participate in the search but search had been carried out in his presence and he had signed the papers. He further claimed that son of the house owner namely Praveen Chaudhary was present over there and also a chowkidar.
31. The last witness to be examined by the prosecution was Sh. N.K. Jain. He deposed that he was posted in CBI as JE from January 1997 to CC No.1/09, RC 71(A)/96 CBI Vs. Bani Singh pg 19 20 February 2002. He had on request of I.O. physically inspected property no. 6/110, Rajender Nagar, Ghaziabad and D208, Anand Vihar, New Delhi which belonged to the accused Bani Singh and his relations. His report was Ex. PW13/B. The property at Ghaziabad was on a plot area of 464.57 sq. mtrs. and built up area of the main building was 154.39 sq. mtrs and servant quarter was 33.67 sq. mtrs. The cost of construction evaluated was Rs. 312026/. The other property at D208, Anand Vihar had a plot area of 150.50 sq. mtrs. and built up area of 181.05 sq. mtrs. The cost was estimated as Rs. 1221809/. The cost had been evaluated on basis of plinth area rate method and enhanced by cost index issued by CPWD from time to time. In his cross examination he denied the suggestion that he was not competent to prepare valuation report. He also admitted that he had written a letter to the accused in respect of valuation and had also received a reply. He did not remember having seen valuation report mark DW10/1 regarding property no. 6/110, Rajender Nagar, Ghaziabad. He admitted that he had not made Delhi plinth area rates 1976 as part of his report. He expressed his ignorance whether accused had informed income tax department that construction had been done using lime and rakh. He also admitted that in his report regarding Anand Vihar property he had not mentioned the exact quantity of the material used. He also admitted having CC No.1/09, RC 71(A)/96 CBI Vs. Bani Singh pg 20 21 not mentioned ratio of cement and sand in his report. Lastly he denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
32. After closing of prosecution evidence accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C wherein it was put to him that Vinay Chhabra was a property dealer functioning in name and style of Pooja Properties and Satish Bhasin was his employee who was being paid Rs. 1500/ per month. Accused did not deny the query regarding Vinay Chhabra and merely expressed his ignorance about Satish Bhasin. He also admitted that he was residing at D208, Anand Vihar. He admitted that his wife's name was Savitri Devi and had purchased land from Vidyawati W/o. Balak Ram Tyagi. However he denied that the cover note of two vehicles no. DL 4CC 5563 and DL 3CD 5123 had been issued at his instance. He admitted that Rs. 1,25,000/ and Rs.2410/ was found during search at his residence. He did not deny that registered owner of vehicle no. DL 3CD 5123 was Satish Bhasin and the same had been recovered from his (accused) house and he had got it released on superdari also. Lastly he claimed that case registered against him was false and witnesses had deposed under pressure from CBI.
33. He examined twelve witnesses in his defence.
CC No.1/09, RC 71(A)/96 CBI Vs. Bani Singh pg 21 22
34. DW1 was Dhirender Kumar who produced GPF ledger. According to it, accused had withdrawn Rs. 13000/ oin 29.6.87.
35. The second witness was R.K. Gupta. He claimed that he was Administrator of Sai Cooperative Group Housing Society and his predecessor S.N. Shukla had written two letters addressed to Ravinder Thapar at B4/13, Paschim Vihar.
36. The third witness was J.C. Verma. He produced certified true copy of letter dt. 02.01.1998 given by Bani Singh alongwith proforma Ex. DW3/B.
37. Fourth witness was Anil Kumar Dang but he did not produce the summoned record as the same was not traceable.
38. Fifth witness was S. Eshwar. He produced the file containing informations given by the accused under conduct rules w.e.f. 2000.
39. Sixth witness was R.P. Tiwari from Syndicate Bank. He deposed that records prior to 2002 had been weeded out by the bank. He produced CC No.1/09, RC 71(A)/96 CBI Vs. Bani Singh pg 22 23 attested copy of bank statement of account no.6584 in the name of Praveen Chaudhary. Closing balance as on 31/03/2002 was Rs.513/ and closing balance as on 30/09/2002 was Rs.523/. Attested copy of the statement was Ex.DW6/C. Attested true copy of account Opening Form was Ex.DW6/A. In his cross examination by ld.APP, he admitted that statement brought by him had not been certified in accordance with section 65 (B) of Indian Evidence Act and as per Bankers Books of Evidence Act.
40. Seventh witness who entered the witness box in defence of the accused was Ashok Kumar, brother of accused Bani Singh. He claimed that Ex.DW7/A was passbook of State Bank of India, Siyana Branch, District Bullandshehar. His account number was 43/10336. He had withdrawn Rs.45,000/ on 06/08/1996 and handed over to Savitri Devi, wife of the accused. In his cross examination, he claimed that apart from giving loan of Rs.45,000/ to Savitri Devi, he had not extended loan to anybody. Then he corrected himself claiming that he had given loan of Rs.5,000/ to his nephew, Amresh Chand. He admitted that he had no document regarding the loan advanced by him.
41. DW8 was Praveen Chaudhary, son of the accused. He claimed to CC No.1/09, RC 71(A)/96 CBI Vs. Bani Singh pg 23 24 have opened Saving Bank Account in Syndicate Bank. He had deposited cheque of Rs.50,000/ in 1992 which was profit from sale and purchase of his shares. In his cross examination, he admitted that he had no document to show sale and purchase of shares. All the documents with him had been seized by CBI. At that time, he was a student and used to do part time jobs and impart tuitions. However, he did not have any document in support of his claim.
42. Dr.Atul Aggarwal, who was DW9 deposed that his father Mahinder Pal Aggarwal died on 02/09/1999. He was Government Approved Valuer. He identified letter head of his father on which Valuation Report dated 12/11/1988 had been prepared, however he could not identify the signatures of his father as he had not seen his father signing any document.
43. Dr.Sat Parkash thereafter entered the witness box. He deposed that he had one brother namely Brij Bhushan, who was a Civil Engineer. He died in 1991. He could not identify signatures of his deceased brother.
44. DW11 was Resham Pal Koli. He produced computerized bank CC No.1/09, RC 71(A)/96 CBI Vs. Bani Singh pg 24 25 account statement of account number 10310546985. The account was in the name of accused Bani Singh. He produced statement of account from 01/01/2005 to 04/04/2012. He then produced attested copy of Account Opening Form of account no.C5329 in the name of Bani Singh R/o.U166, Shakarpur, Delhi. Two applications, certified copies of which were Ex.DW11/A and Ex.DW11/B had been moved by the accused regarding account no.C5329. Passbook of the said account was Ex.DW11/C. He deposed that the account has been given new 11 digit number and address of the account holder Bani Singh had been changed to D208, Anand Vihar, Delhi.
45. The last witness who entered the witness box was Mr.P.K.Ruiya again from State Bank of India. He deposed about copies of Account Opening Form of account no.C5329.
46. I have heard Ld. counsel for the accused, accused himself as well as Ld.Senior PP, Sh.Praneet Sharma very extensively. I have also gone through the written arguments filed by the accused.
47. In the written arguments it was claimed that the proceedings CC No.1/09, RC 71(A)/96 CBI Vs. Bani Singh pg 25 26 initiated in the case were illegal as no evidence had been brought on record to form prima facie opinion. Another objection taken was that the proceedings initiated suffered from illegalities. Search had been carried out at residence of accused in violation of provisions of Cr.P.C. Accused had been arrested without warrant and CBI had no powers to arrest. Documents had been seized without preparing lists. Contents of FIR had not been proved. IO had no authority to investigate the case. Sanction order had not been proved. Investigation had been conducted in unfair manner. Accused also discussed the evidence which had been led. It was claimed that cash amounting to Rs.127710/ belonged to wife of the accused and she had received the same from post offices as well as his brother Ashok Kumar. Accused thereafter gave his own computation of the income, gross expenditure, total assets and ultimately claimed that no case u/s. 13 (1) (e) r/w 13(2) P.C. Act was made against him and he was entitled to acquittal. As per "computation of disproportionate assets as per the accused Bani Singh", his actual income during the check period was Rs. 1464642/ and not Rs.1227972/ which was reflected in the charge sheet. Further down, he had claimed that expenditure as per the charge sheet was Rs.598151/ but actually it was Rs.572237/. According to the accused as per charge sheet his total assets in the beginning of check CC No.1/09, RC 71(A)/96 CBI Vs. Bani Singh pg 26 27 period were Rs.33380/ (as per charge sheet the assets reflected were Rs. 33325/). Accused further claimed that his total assets at the end of check period according to CBI were Rs.3182646/. According to the accused his assets at the end of the check period were Rs.815839/.
48. According to the "computation of disproportionate assets as per accused Bani Singh", he had received loans amounting to Rs.63200/ from various persons. He had duly intimated his office under CCS Conduct Rules. I would like to submit that it might be true that accused had been giving intimation to his office about the loans taken by him, but this by itself does not mean that the money so received was not ill gotten. He did not lead any evidence in black and white about the said loans and so we have no option, but to discard his averment regarding the loans.
49. The next item was that he had received Rs.12350/ on maturity of NSCs which were deposited in his account account No. 5329 in State Bank of India, I.P. Estate, on 01.11.1995. Again no evidence was led that the amount had been received from maturity of NSCs. Only deposit in cash entry is there in the bank account.
CC No.1/09, RC 71(A)/96 CBI Vs. Bani Singh pg 27 28
50. The third item was regarding cash received by the accused on maturity of NSC Rs.16120/. Same was deposited in his account no. 103805 Bank of America, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Though evidence was not led by the accused. But accused filed a copy of the certificate issued by the Post Master and so we can grant him some relief regarding the said item.
51. The fourth item was regarding receipt of cash Rs.45,000/ by his wife from his brother Ashok Kumar. He had examined his brother DW7 Ashok Kumar in this regard. He had deposed about withdrawal of Rs. 45,000/ from his account and handing over of the same to Savitri Devi wife of the accused. So we can safely grant benefit to the accused regarding said loan of Rs.45,000/.
52. The fifth item was regarding receipt of Rs.50,000/ by wife of the accused from OM Sai Group Housing Society, Rohini, New Delhi. IO Mridula Shukla in her crossexamination admitted that she had received Ex.PW13/D1 from the Society before filing of the charge sheet. Hence, we can grant benefit of Rs.50,000/ to the accused as received from Om Sai Group Housing Society.
CC No.1/09, RC 71(A)/96 CBI Vs. Bani Singh pg 28 29
53. Accused had claimed that his son Praveen Chaudhary had received some money by way of cheque. CBI had not taken in consideration income of his son. Praveen Chaudhary had also entered the witness box and deposed as DW8. He had claimed that he had deposited cheque of Rs. 50,000/ in his account in the year 1992 which was his profit from sale and purchase of shares. He had invested the money in NSS, Canpep and Units. In his crossexamination he admitted that he had no document with him to show sale and purchase of shares. He was a student when he had opened his account in Syndicate Bank. He used to do part time jobs and also impart tuitions. However, he admitted that he had no document to back up his claim. In these circumstances court has no option but to discard this averment of the accused.
54. So net income of the accused works out to be Rs.1227972/+ Rs. 16120/ (maturity of NSC) + Rs.45,000/ (loan from Ashok Kumar) + Rs. 50,000/ (received from Om Sai Group Housing Society) i.e. Rs.1339092/.
55. Accused in his "computation of disproportionate assets as per accused Bani Singh", had claimed that according to the charge sheet his CC No.1/09, RC 71(A)/96 CBI Vs. Bani Singh pg 29 30 expenditure during check period was Rs.598151/. It had not been properly calculated. According to him it was Rs.572237/. He had claimed that there was no evidence regarding payment of salary to Chowkidar Rs. 24,000/. It is correct that there is no evidence led by the prosecution to show that accused had spent Rs.24,000/ on salary to his Chowkidar. So we must deduct Rs.24,000/ from the figure of Rs.598151/ . After deducting the same we arrive at figure of Rs.574151/. However, I do not find any justifiable ground to exclude amount of insurance Rs.1914/ as PW4 Mahesh Mathur had deposed about it. So the net figure of expenditure during check period is Rs.574151/ .
56. Accused in "computation of disproportionate assets as per accused Bani Singh", had claimed that according to charge sheet his total assets in the beginning of check period were Rs.33380/. According to him he had total salary of Rs.104513/ from which he had saved Rs.69675/ before the check period. He had also received marriage gifts. Accused was in service from 04.10.1966. The check period begins from 01.01.1981. From
04.10.1966 to 31.12.1980 accused had received total salary of Rs. 104513/. It is next to impossible that his assets were Rs.69675/ on 01.01.1981 as it is almost 70% of his total income. So we should accept CC No.1/09, RC 71(A)/96 CBI Vs. Bani Singh pg 30 31 total value of assets in the beginning of check period as Rs.33380/ which is about 1/3rd of his income before the check period. So his likely savings before check period was Rs.33380/.
57. Accused in "computation of disproportionate assets as per accused Bani Singh", had claimed that his total assets at the end of check period as per CBI were Rs.3182646/. He claimed that CBI had arbitrarily assessed cost of additional construction made in house No. 208, Anand Vihar. There is no evidence in support of the charge. Even the valuation report was arbitrary one. Value of the asset adopted by CBI was wrong. CBI had not valued cost of construction of house No. 6/110, Sector2 Rajender Nagar, Ghaziabad (U.P.) correctly. It had been done on basis of valuation report Ex.PW13/B. Report was not reliable because it had been prepared by applying Delhi SSR rates while the house was located in Ghaziabad (U.P.). Actually the house was constructed with Rakhi and Chuna and not with Cement mortar. Valuation of these assets was wrong because as per valuation report value was Rs.1124713/ while CBI treated it as Rs. 1418799/. CBI had also without evidence included cost of Maruti Car No. DL 3CD 5123 as Rs.145774/. It was claimed that CBI had overestimated the cost of house hold articles by Rs.215710/. Regarding the agricultural CC No.1/09, RC 71(A)/96 CBI Vs. Bani Singh pg 31 32 land which had been purchased by the wife of accused for Rs.85,000/, CBI had considered cost of the land in the charge sheet as Rs.465000/, thus resulting in over statement of the cost of agricultural land by Rs.3,80,000/. Regarding motorcycle No. DL 53A 5248, it was claimed that it was not in possession of the accused and there was no evidence to show that accused had paid for the motorcycle. CBI had also added Rs.127710/ in the charge sheet which was recovered from his house. In fact, the said amount had been received by his wife from various sources which are as under: Rs.19010/ from post office being nominee of his late father, Rs. 62852/ again received from a post office as per Ex.P60 and Rs.45,000/ which had been received on 06.08.96 from his brother Ashok Kumar. Thus according to the accused his assets at the end of the check period were Rs.3182646 - 2366807 i.e. Rs.815839/. The total assets acquired during the check period were only Rs.712784/ and his income during the check period exceeded his assets by Rs.179621/.
58. PW19 examined by the prosecution deposed about payment of Rs. 62852/ on 24.5.96 to wife of the accused and payment of Rs.19010/ again to wife of the accused on 18.5.96. There is no reason to disbelieve testimony of witness in this regard. This court had already accepted that CC No.1/09, RC 71(A)/96 CBI Vs. Bani Singh pg 32 33 Rs.45,000/ had been advanced as loan by Ashok Kumar brother of accused to Savitri Devi wife of accused. Thus we must exclude all these three figures from the value of total assets found with the accused at the end of the check period. After reducing these three figures from the value of assets found at the end of check period, we arrive at figure of Rs.3055784/.
59. Now I will deal with other contentions of the accused regarding valuation of assets at the end of check period. Accused had claimed that motorcycle No. DL 53A 5248 was not found in his possession and IO had also stated that there was no document to show that he (accused) had paid for the said motorcycle. IO had deposed that she had obtained registration file of the said motorcycle from RTO, Loni Road. Now if we go through the said file, we find that the name of the buyer was Sanjay Chaudhary r/o D208 Anand Vihar, Delhi92. According to copy of ration card Sanjay Chaudhary was son of the accused Bani Singh. He resided with the accused in the house owned by the accused i.e. D208, Anand Vihar. According to Form20A, Sanjay Chaudhary under his signatures had applied to the registering authority wherein he mentioned name of the accused as that of his father and mentioned the address of the accused as CC No.1/09, RC 71(A)/96 CBI Vs. Bani Singh pg 33 34 his residential address and the vehicle indeed was registered in the name of Sanjay Chaudhary at D208, Anand Vihar. As such there is no reason with the court to disbelieve prosecution that the price of the vehicle was not paid by the accused since Sanjay Chaudhary was a minor at that time. According to the ration card, he was 16 years old. The motorcycle indeed had been paid for by the accused and it was rightly included in the assets of the accused by the CBI.
60. Regarding house No. 6/110, Rajender Nagar, Ghaziabad (U.P.). Mr .N.K Jain was cross examined and questions were put to him suggesting that the house was constructed at Ghaziabad using lime and rakh and not with cement and bricks. Mr. Jain was also suggested that cost of construction using lime and rakh would be less than cost of construction using bricks and cement. Accused himself had filed a valuation report before Income Tax Authorities at pg. no. 82 of Ex. P82. It is an admitted document. If we take a look at the said report, we find mentioned therein that 300 bags of cement, 2.5 tons of steel and 70,000 bricks had been used for construction. It belies that claim made by accused that house had been constructed with lime and rakh and that report given by Mr. N.K Jain was incorrect. It rather strengthen case of CBI that the construction was carried CC No.1/09, RC 71(A)/96 CBI Vs. Bani Singh pg 34 35 out with bricks and motar and the cost of construction as evaluated by Mr. Jain was correct.
61. According to CBI the cost of construction of house at 6/110, Rajender Nagar, Ghaziabad (U.P.) was Rs.312026/. 7.5% was to be reduced towards self supervision. So net value of the property was Rs. 288624/. Accused on the other hand claimed that the value of the property was Rs.116650/. As per admitted document Ex.P82 he had intimated this figure to his office. He had also intimated cost of addition in the property as Rs.26500/. So, the total value of the property according to the accused was Rs.116650/ + Rs.26500/ i.e. Rs.143150/.
62. We have to discard the value given by the accused for the following reasons.
i) The value given by the accused was not based on any valuation, but it was according to the information given by him to his office. Value given by him has not been proved or corroborated.
iii) Accused had examined DW 9 & 10 but the valuation report Ex.DW9/A and Mark DW10/1 has not been proved.
CC No.1/09, RC 71(A)/96 CBI Vs. Bani Singh pg 35
36
ii) Sh. N.K. Jain was qualified engineer. He used to value
properties and he had valued the property in question at instance of CBI. So, the value suggested by him should be accepted.
63. Accused had a house No.D208, Anand Vihar. According to N.K. Jain its value was Rs.1221800/. According to accused the house belonged to his father who was a business man in his own right. His father had got the construction carried out. IO PW13 Mridula Skhula in her cross examination admitted that no witness had claimed that construction was carried out by the accused. Prosecution had examined PW2 Gurbir Singh erstwhile owner of property no. D208, Anand Vihar. He had claimed that he had constructed two bed rooms and a drawing/dining on the ground floor and one room on the first floor. He had sold the property through a financer for Rs. 3,30,000/. Now if we take a look at the documents which had been executed, we find that General Power of Attorney Ex. PW2/A and Special Power of Attorney Ex. PW2/B are in favour of Savitri Devi wife of accused Bani Singh. Other documents like rent agreement, Will and agreement to sell are in favour of R.L. Chaudhary father of the accused. This all is just financial jugglery and attempt at circumventing execution of registered sale deed and nothing else. Even agreement to sell Ex.PW2/C CC No.1/09, RC 71(A)/96 CBI Vs. Bani Singh pg 36 37 which had been executed does not mention the price at which sale was to be effected. The column of consideration is totally blank. It is a known fact that properties in Delhi earlier used to be bought and sold only on power of attorney, Will and such like documents. There rarely used to be registered sale deeds. I do not find any force in contention of the accused that property belongs to his father and construction had also been raised by him. If the property had actually belonged to his father then there is no occasion for GPA and SPA to be made in favour of his wife Savitri Devi. The property belonged to accused Bani Singh throughout from day one having purchased the same from Gurbir Singh for Rs.3,30,000/ and all the post sale constructions which had been raised thereon had been raised by the accused Bani Singh. PW2 had very categorically claimed that he had built only two bed rooms and a drawing/dining room on the ground floor and a room on the first floor. It was simple construction. If something more was found at the time of search, it is implied that it was built by the accused and nobody else. According to valuation report Ex. PW13/B, N.K. Jain had carried out inspection and gave his report. According to original owner Gurbir Singh simple construction had been raised and what N.K. Jain found was pink green white marble and granite used on the ground floor, while on the first floor there was white marble, green marble, spartex tile granite. On CC No.1/09, RC 71(A)/96 CBI Vs. Bani Singh pg 37 38 the second floor crazy pink marble, white marble had been used. Toilets and baths were decorated with granite and spartex tile flooring. In addition a puja room had also been constructed on the first floor. All the rooms had been neatly furnished with POP on walls, POP conicals, POP molding, wooden box type cup boards and extensive carving work on the wood and duco type...... N.K. Jain had assessed total cost without cost of land and built up portion at Rs. 1221809/. There is no reason for me not to accept the valuation given by N.K.Jain. Simple three rooms on the ground floor and a room on the first floor by Gurbir Singh had been converted into a marble palace by the accused. So it can very conveniently been said that accused had spent Rs. 1221809/ on the said house after purchasing the same from Gurbir Singh. Thus it is clearly established that D208 Anand Vihar belongs to the accused and he had spent the above amount for reconstruction and renovation. The total value of both properties as per valuation report Ex.PW13/B Rs.1418799/ is correct.
64. Regarding land at village at Pargana Teshil Hapur, Distt. Ghaziabad, prosecution had examined PW3 Balak Ram Tyagi. His wife Vidyawati had sold land to Savitri Devi wife of the accused. While accused admitted in his statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. that his wife had purchased 2 CC No.1/09, RC 71(A)/96 CBI Vs. Bani Singh pg 38 39 bighas 10 biswas of land from Vidyawati wife of Balak Ram Tyagi. The evidence which has come up on record suggest that value mentioned in the documents admitted by the accused was not correct. Normally oral evidence has to be discarded if documentary evidence is available. But in case documents do not show complete facts on face of it or incorrect facts, then they should be discarded. It is common knowledge that documents prepared for sale and purchase of land do not indicate correct value. They are under valued for obvious reasons. Coming back to case in hand, Balak Ram Tyagi PW3 had claimed that his wife Vidyawati had sold 2 bigas and 10 biswas of land to Savitri Devi. The money received from the sale consideration was used in marriage of his daughter and other works. He had also purchased one Fergusan Tractor alongwith all accessories like cultivator, tiller, trolly and manza within a year from the date of selling of the land to Savitri Devi. Sale documents Ex. PW3/A and PW3/B suggest that the sale was for Rs.161500/. However he claimed that in 1991 value of 1 biga of the land ranged from Rs. 1,50,000./ to Rs. 4,50,000/. The witness was cross examined by Ld. PP wherein he admitted having told CBI that he had received Rs. 4,75,000/ as sale consideration from Savitri Devi. He also admitted that he had purchased Fergusan tractor for Rs. 1,80,000/. This clearly indicate that value of the land indicated in the sale documents CC No.1/09, RC 71(A)/96 CBI Vs. Bani Singh pg 39 40 Ex. PW3/A and PW3/B as Rs.1,61,500/ is not correct. It is not possible for a person who sold his land for Rs.1,61,500/ to buy a Fergusan tractor for Rs.1,80,000/, spend money on marriage of the daughter also more so when he himself admits that going rate was between Rs.1,50,000/ and Rs. 4,50,000/ per biga. The actual sale consideration should have been much more than Rs.1,61,500/ which is indicated in the sale documents. So the value must be taken at Rs.4,75,000/. Accused had spent Rs.4,75,000/ towards purchase of said agricultural land. So the value taken in the charge sheet of the land purchased is correct and should be accepted.
65. CBI had claimed that accused owned a Maruti Car No. DL 3CD 5125. The vehicle stood in the name of Satish Bhasin R/o. 1/16, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi which is address of the witness, according to Form20 which is application for registration of motor vehicle Ex. PW17/A and sale certificate Ex. PW17/C. If we take a look at the insurance cover Ex. PW4/D, and receipt Ex. PW4/C of the same vehicle, we find that the name and address of the owner is given as Sanjay Ahuja R/o 8/32, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. PW4 Mahesh Mathur in his testimony had claimed that he had issued the cover note at instance of accused Bani Singh. The cover note was issued on 21.11.1995 at residence of Bani Singh. It was prepared at CC No.1/09, RC 71(A)/96 CBI Vs. Bani Singh pg 40 41 instance of Bani Singh. The name Sanjay Ahuja was entered into at instance of Bani Singh. PW7 Jaideep Yadav had deposed about a letter issued to the I.O. regarding the above vehicle. According to it, money had been received from Harish Kumar Mehra while vehicle was invoiced in the name of Satish Bhasin. They had transferred the amount to credit of Satish Bhasin who otherwise according to PW1 did not have the means to afford a car being lowly paid employee. The witness further had claimed that the vehicle was delivered to Satish Bhasin through Satish Kumar Mehra. Thus it is clear that indeed vehicle had been got purchased in the name of Satish Bhasin by the accused on 26.06.1993. The vehicle continued to remain with the accused and at his instance insurance cover Ex.PW4/B was issued on 21.11.1995 at 05.30 pm mentioning name of Sanjay Ahuja R/o. 8/32, Kirti Nagar. All this was done at the instance of Bani Singh. Advocate for the accused did not cross examine the witness regarding inability of Satish Bhasin to purchase a car due to his poor financial condition. The vehicle was parked outside D208, Anand Vihar on the day cover note was issued. It was the accused who had got the vehicle released on superdari as per the testimony of Mridula Shukla IO. Accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. did not deny that vehicle was recovered from his house and he had got it released on superdari from the Court. It is more than clear that CC No.1/09, RC 71(A)/96 CBI Vs. Bani Singh pg 41 42 the vehicle indeed belonged to Bani Singh and had remained with him throughout after its purchase, and he was its actual owner and registered owner was not in a position to own and maintain Maruti Car no. DL 3C D 5123. The value of the car was rightly included by the CBI in the assets of the accused.
66. According to PW4 Mahesh Mathur, he had visited house of the accused at D208, Anand Vihar and prepared cover note of vehicle No.DL 4C C 5563. It was prepared at the instance of accused Bani Singh. The said cover note was Ex. PW4/F2 and was in the name of Jawahar. This vehicle was also parked outside house of the accused. Accused himself had paid Rs.3,647/ as Insurance Premium in cash. If the vehicle did not belong to accused, there was no occasion for the accused to pay its premium and get it insured. This would indicate that accused possessed not only Maruti car but also Tata Seira no. DL 4CC 5563. The cover note had been issued at instance of accused Bani Singh. Incidentally address given in the cover note Ex. PW4/F 2 as provided by the accused was the same as that in insurance of Maruti Car i.e. 8/32, Kirti Nagar. Obviously this vehicle too belonged to the accused and safely be treated as his asset. As CBI did not indicate this car in the assets of the accused in the CC No.1/09, RC 71(A)/96 CBI Vs. Bani Singh pg 42 43 charge sheet which was filed, hence I refrain myself from considering this car as asset of the accused.
67. Accused had claimed CBI had excessively assessed value of his household goods which were found at his residence on the date of raid. According to CBI household articles acquired during check period which were found at D208, Anand Vihar were worth Rs.444460/. According to the accused, the actual goods acquired during check period were worth Rs. 243675/. Accused had examined DW3. DW3 Sh. J.C. Verma had produced certified true copy of letter dt. 02.01.1998 written by the accused. He also produced proforma I to VI which was collectively exhibited as Ex.DW3/B. We cannot place any reliance on the said information which had been furnished by the accused since the same was furnished after CBI had raided premises of the accused on 29.08.1996. I could have been easily tailored as per requirement.
68. So, ultimately it stands established that net income of the accused during check period was Rs.1339092/. His expenditure during the check period was Rs.574151/. His likely savings should have been Rs.764941/. Assets found with the accused at the end of check period were Rs.
CC No.1/09, RC 71(A)/96 CBI Vs. Bani Singh pg 43 44 3055784/. From this amount we must reduce his likely savings of the pre check period i.e. Rs.33380/. After deducting figure of Rs.33380/, we arrive at figure of Rs.3022404/. This is the net value of assets acquired by the accused during the check period. They are grossly disproportionate to his known sources of income.
69. I therefore hold that prosecution has been successful in making out case against the accused that he possessed assets which were grossly disproportionate to his known sources of income. Thus, he stands convicted u/s 13(2) r/w Sec. 13 (1) (e) of PC Act.
70. Ordered accordingly.
Announced in open Court
on January 9, 2014 ( PRADEEP CHADDAH )
Special Judge:CBI01
Central District. Delhi
CC No.1/09, RC 71(A)/96 CBI Vs. Bani Singh pg 44
45
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRADEEP CHADDAH:
SPECIAL JUDGE: CBI01, CENTRAL DISTRICT. DELHI
CC No. 1/09 RC : 71(A)/96
PS : CBI/ACB/New Delhi
U/s : 13(2) r/w. Sec. 13(1) (e)
of P.C. Act, 1988
CBI Vs. Bani Singh
S/o. Late Sh. Ram Lal,
R/o. D208, Anand Vihar,
Delhi.
ORDER ON SENTENCE
1. This Court had vide its judgment dated 09.01.2014 found accused Bani Singh guilty U/s 13(2) r/w. Sec. 13(1) (e) of P.C. Act, 1988.
2. I have heard Ld. PP for CBI and Ld. Counsel for convict at length. I have also gone through the file and bunch of documents on court record.
3. Ld.Counsel prayed for taking of lenient view. He submitted CC No.1/09, RC 71(A)/96 CBI Vs. Bani Singh pg 45 46 that convict Bani Singh was elderly person aged 70 years. He had also faced trial for 17 years. He had unblemished service record and sending him to jail would serve no purpose. He prayed that he be awarded the minimum possible sentence.
4. On the other hand, Ld. PP requested the court to take stringent view in the matter. He submitted that corruption in the society has reached alarming levels. He requested the court to impose a severe sentence.
5. I have given my considered thoughts to the submissions made. Convict Bani Singh was Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. His premises were raided and he was found in possession of assets grossly disproportionate to his known sources of income.
6. My Lord Mr. Justice Krishna Iyer in Som Prakash Vs. State of Delhi : AIR 1974 SC 989 held:
CC No.1/09, RC 71(A)/96 CBI Vs. Bani Singh pg 46 47 "Bribes are paid not only to get unlawful things done but to get lawful things done promptly since time means money."
7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raman Lal Vs. State of Bombay :AIR 1960 SC 961 had held:
" For a public servant to be guilty of corruption is a very serious matter and the Courts would not look upon it with undue leniency."
8. Coming back to the facts of the case in hand, this court has found the convict to be in possession of assets grossly disproportionate to his known sources of income.
9. The menace of corruption indeed has touched all time high level. Convict Bani Singh who was employed with Income Tax CC No.1/09, RC 71(A)/96 CBI Vs. Bani Singh pg 47 48 Department thoroughly misused his office and amassed wealth and committed criminal misconduct. I am, therefore, not inclined to take lenient view in the matter and let off the convict lightly.
10. Keeping in mind the value of the disproportionate assets which was much more than his income, I sentence convict Bani Singh to undergo two years R.I. u/s. 13(2) r/w.13(1) (e) of the P.C. Act. As per section 16 of the P.C Act Court must keep in mind value of the property which convict had obtained by committing offence of criminal misconduct. I further direct him to pay fine of Rs. 1 Lac. In event of failure to pay fine, he shall be undergoing further S.I. of six months.
11. Benefit u/s. 428 Cr.P.C. be given to the convict for the period spent in custody, if any.
12. Ld.PP has prayed to the court that the property acquired by ill legitimate means by the convict should be confiscated. As per CC No.1/09, RC 71(A)/96 CBI Vs. Bani Singh pg 48 49 section 452 of the Cr.P.C. at the time when any trial is concluded Court can make such orders, as it thinks fit, for confiscation or disposal of property regarding which any offence was committed. In case titled as Mirza Iqbal Hussain Vs. U.P. : AIR 1983 SC 60, Hon'ble Supreme Court had held:
"The Prevention of Corruption Act being totally silent on the question of confiscation, the provisions of the Cr. P.C. would apply in their full force, with the result that the Court trying an offence under P.C. Act would have the power to pass an order of confiscation by reason of the provisions contained in Sec. 452 of Cr.P.C. The order of confiscation cannot, therefore, be held to be without jurisdiction".
CC No.1/09, RC 71(A)/96 CBI Vs. Bani Singh pg 49 50
13. Sometimes back Hon'ble Supreme Court had also dealt with similar plea in case titled as K. Ponnuswamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu : AIR 2001 S.C. 2464. In the said case the appellant was an MLA and Dy. Speaker of Assembly. He was also Education Minister in State of Tamil Nadu. Case was registered against him under Prevention of Corruption Act. Trial Court convicted him and his other relatives under section 109 IPC and also under Sec. 13(2) r/w. sec. 13(1) (e) of the P.C Act. Trial Court in addition directed confiscation of his property. Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the order of the trial court against the appellant public servant.
14. In the case in hand convict Bani Singh acquired assets from the income generated by acts of criminal misconduct by the convict. Against his likely savings of Rs.7,64,941/ he had amassed assets worth Rs.30,22,404/ . If it would be in fitness of things, the immovable CC No.1/09, RC 71(A)/96 CBI Vs. Bani Singh pg 50 51 property No. D208, Anand Vihar, Delhi is confiscated and accused deprived of its ownership and usage. Otherwise, convict would be at liberty to enjoy fruits of his illegal activities after carrying out his sentence. I, therefore, order confiscation of property No. D208, Anand Vihar, Delhi to the State. CBI shall be taking steps to take over the said property.
Announced in open Court
on January 15, 2014 ( PRADEEP CHADDAH )
Special Judge:CBI01
Central District. Delhi
CC No.1/09, RC 71(A)/96 CBI Vs. Bani Singh pg 51