Bangalore District Court
State Karnataka Represented By vs S.Lakshman Singh S/O Late Seetharam on 27 April, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE XXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU URBAN
DISTRICT, (C.C.H. 24), BENGALURU CITY
Dated this the 27th day of April, 2019.
PRESENT:
SMT. MANJULA ITTY, B.A.L., LL.B.,
XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge
Special Judge,
Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru City.
Spl.C.C. No.226/2015
Complainant: State Karnataka represented by
Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Karnataka Lokayuktha, City Division,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri. D. Ramesh Babu, Public
Prosecutor)
Vs.
Accused: S.Lakshman Singh S/o Late Seetharam
Singh, aged about 61 years, then
Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Vidhana Soudha Security, Bengaluru
City. Resident of No.502, 7th Cross
Road, HAL 3rd Stage, Bengaluru.
(By Sri C.G.Sundar, Advocate for
accused)
2 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015
Date of offence 22.04.2008
Date of report of 22.04.2008
offence
Date of arrest of the -
accused
Date of release on -
bail
Total period of -
custody
Name of the Sri. Eswarachandra Vidyasagar
complainant Superintendent of Police
Date of 11.10.2017
commencement of
recording evidence
Date of closing of 17.01.2019
evidence
Offences complained 13 (1)(e) read with section 13(2) of
of Prevention of Corruption Act
Opinion of the Judge Accused is acquitted
State represented by Sri.D.Ramesh Babu Public Prosecutor
Accused defended by Sri. C.G.Sundar Advocate for
accused
3 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015
JUDGMENT
1. Deputy Superintendent of Police, City Division, Bengaluru has submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the offence defined under section 13(1)(e) punishable under section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the PC Act).
2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that the accused, who hails from a middleclass family and native of Doddachinnahalli village, Kolar District, being public servant joined Government service on 16.01.1974 in the official capacity of Sub-Inspector of Police in Police Department and while he was working as Deputy Commissioner of Police, Vidhana Soudha Security, Bengaluru City, the Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bengaluru City, Sri. Eswarachandra Vidyasagar received credible information that the accused has amassed wealth illegally. On the basis of this, he conducted preliminary enquiry and collected information and documents relating to the source 4 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 of accumulation of properties by the accused and a Source Report was submitted by the Superintendent of Police (S.P.) to the Additional Director General of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bengaluru who in turn, under the provisions of Section 17 of the PC Act, made an order that Sri.Prasanna V.Raju, Police Inspector to register and investigate the said case and accordingly, a case is registered in Cr.No.23/2008 by the police inspector, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bengaluru and the FIR is submitted to the Court. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer armed with search warrants, searched the residential premises of the accused bearing House No.502, 7th Cross, H.A.L., 3rd Stage, Bengaluru and a mahazar was drawn. Gold ornaments, silver articles and some incriminating documents found in the possession of the accused during the search were seized from the house of the accused. The Dy.S.P., Karnataka Lokayuktha Bengaluru City conducted investigation by collecting documents from various departments and after obtaining explanation from the accused and after completion of the investigation, it was 5 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 revealed that the accused during the check period from 06.09.1980 to 22.04.2008 had acquired assets worth Rs. 77,07,182.72 and he made expenditure of Rs. 35,77,018.20, but his income from his known sources were only Rs. 94,95,918.15 which exposed that the accused had amassed wealth disproportionate to his known source of income to the tune of Rs. 17,88,282.77 which is at 18% and on 30.04.2014, the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet before this Court against the accused.
3. The presence of accused was secured who is represented by his counsel. Copy of the charge sheet was supplied to the accused as contemplated under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) and the case was posted to hear before charge and after hearing both sides, my learned predecessor-in-office has framed charge against the accused on 31.08.2016 for the offence defined under section 13(1)(e) punishable under section 13(2) of the PC Act. 1988 which was read over and 6 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 explained to the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused has examined 10 witnesses as PWs.1 to 10 and got marked documents at Ex. P1 to P61. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and he also submitted his written statement under section 313(5) of the Cr.P.C. The accused has not chosen to examine any witnesses on his behalf, however, he got marked documents at Ex. D1 to D17 in support of his defense.
5. Having heard the arguments on both sides and taking into consideration of the evidence on record coupled with the documents and the written arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the accused, the following points arise for consideration.
7 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused being public servant, working as Deputy Commissioner of Police, Vidhana Soudha Security, Bengaluru City during his tenure for the check period from 06.09.1980 to 22.04.2008 acquired assets disproportionate to his known source of income and on 22.04.2008 accused was found in possession of pecuniary resources and property in his name and in the name of his family members to the tune of Rs. 77,07,182.72 and his expenses during the said period was Rs. 35,77,018.20 and during this period his known source of income was Rs.94,95,918.15 and thereby was found in possession of property disproportionate to his known source of income to the extent of Rs. 17,88,282.77 which is at 18.83% by misusing his official position and committed criminal misconduct and thereby the accused has committed the offence defined under section 13(1)(e) punishable under section 8 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
2. What order?
6. My findings on the above points are:
Point No.1: In the Negative Point No.2: As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
7. Point No.1: It is the case of the prosecution that the accused being public servant working as Deputy Commissioner of Police, Vidhana Soudha Security, Bengaluru City has amassed assets worth Rs. 17,88,282.77 which is at 18.83% disproportionate to the known source of his income during the check period from 06.09.1980 to 22.04.2008 and he has not satisfactorily accounted for the possession of the property thereby the accused has committed the alleged offence. The accused retired from service on 30.04.2014 on superannuation and the charge sheet is submitted to this 9 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 court on 12.05.2015 and hence, prosecution sanction order from the competent authority of the accused for prosecuting the accused was not necessary as on the date of submission of charge sheet as the law prevailing then and therefore, the investigating officer submitted the charge sheet against the accused without obtaining the sanction order from the concerned authority.
8. Now, coming to the case of the prosecution that the accused has amassed assets disproportionate to his known source of income during the check period from 06.09.1980 to 22.04.2008. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the accused has amassed wealth in his name and in the name of his family members illegally during the check period. Hon'ble Supreme Court in (1991) 3 SCC page 6555 in K. Veeraswamy V/s Union of India has held that:
"Statutory evidence which must be proved by the prosecution, it is for the prosecution to prove that the accused or 10 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 any person on his behalf has been in possession of pecuniary resource or property disproportionate to his known source of income. When that onus is discharged by the prosecution, it is for the accused to account satisfactorily for the disproportionate of the properties possessed by him."
In view of the said decision, while considering the commission of an offence under section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, it is relevant to note that the initial burden to prove that either the accused or any member of his family member at any point of time been in possession of the property disproportionate to his known source of income, lies on the prosecution. If the initial burden is not discharged by the prosecution the onus does not shift to the accused to offer his explanation as to how he could have been in possession of either directly or through some other members of his family in possession of the property disproportionate to the known source of income.
11 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015
9. Hon'ble Apex Court in M. Krishna Reddy V/s State Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hyderabad reported in (1992) 4 SCC 45 has culled out the points that are to be established by the prosecution and held that "It is not mere acquisition of property that constitutes an offence under section 5(1)(e) but it is the failure to satisfactorily account for such possession that makes the possession objectionable as offending the law.
To substantiate a charge under section 5(1)(e) of the Act, the prosecution must prove the following ingredients, namely i. the prosecution must establish that the accused is a public servant, ii. the nature and extent of the pecuniary resources or property which were found in his possession iii. it must be proved as to what were his known sources of income, i.e., known to the prosecution and iv. it must prove, quite objectively, that such resources or property found in possession of the 12 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 accused were disproportionate to his known sources of income.
Once the above ingredients are satisfactorily established, the offence of criminal misconduct under section 5(1)(e) is complete, unless the accused is able to account for such resources or property. In other words, only after the prosecution has proved the required ingredients, the burden of satisfactorily accounting for the possession of such resources or property shifts to the accused".
The facts revealed from the documents and evidence on record shows that PW1, Eshwar Chandra Vidhyasagar, the Superintendent of Police attached to the Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bengaluru City division received credible information that the accused has illegally amassed wealth by misusing his official position as Assistant Commissioner of Police and hence, he conducted secret preliminary enquiry with respect to the information he received and he found that the accused had amassed wealth to the tune of Rs. 2,45,00,000/- disproportionate to his known source of 13 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 income which is 700% more than his known source of income. Hence, he submitted source report to his superior officer, the ADGP, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bengaluru City division who in turn authorized PW1 u/s 17 of the PC Act to register case and to conduct investigation. Based on that PW1 being the officer of the cadre of the Superintendent of Police authorized PW8, Prasanna V. Raju to conduct investigation. He commenced investigation and conducted investigation till 15.10.2012. From 18.12.2012 PW9 took over the investigation and completed the investigation on 22.02.2013 and submitted the Final Report before his superior officer for approval. As per his investigation during the check period the assets the accused gained was Rs. 17,10,728/-, his expenditure was at Rs. 50,45,395/- and his income during check period was Rs. 97,78,633/- and therefore, the sum of assets and expenditure of accused was Rs. 47,33,237 less than his income during the check period which means that the accused was in possession of assets 48.40% less than his income and hence, PW9 submitted 'B' 14 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 Final Report before his superior officer for approval. While the file was pending for approval, PW9 got transferred from the said office. PW10 is another Investigating Officer who had conducted investigation from 05.12.2013 and laid charge sheet before the Court alleging that the accused had amassed wealth to the tune of Rs. 17,88,282.77 disproportionate to his known source of income which is at 18.83%. It is brought out in evidence that he had taken over investigation form Dy.S.P. V.P.M.Swamy as per Ex. P58 authorization. PW1 in his preliminary investigation and source report says that accused amassed wealth to the tune of Rs. 2,45,00,000/- disproportionate to his known source of income which is at 700% more than his known source of income. PW9 Investigating Officer's investigation revealed that accused was in possession of 48.04% less property than his known source of income and PW10 Investigating Officer's investigation found that accused has amassed wealth to the tune of Rs. 17,88,282.77 diproportionate to his known source of income, which is at 18.83% more than his income. 15 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 Therefore, it can be seen that each Investigating Officer gives out different amount of wealth possessed by the accused and the difference in the possession of wealth by accused as per investigation of each Investigating Officer varies in huge amount. The facts being thus, I have to appreciate the evidence and documents on record carefully to analyze the assets, expenditure and income of the accused.
10. According to the prosecution the accused had amassed assets worth Rs. 77,07,182.72 during the check period from 06.09.1980 to 22.04.2008 and the details of the same is as under:
Table No. I Sl.
Description of assets Value (in Rs.) No. Immovable properties Value of the building constructed 1 in site No.502, H.A.L. 3rd Stage, 8,70,000.00 Bengaluru (40 x 60 ft) 16 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 Four sites bearing Site Nos 861, 862, 863 and 864 each measuring 30 x 40 feet situated at 9th Block, 2 6th Stage, Banashankari, 2,26,800.00 Bengaluru allotted to the accused by the B.D.A under Special Encouragement scheme Value of the site No.394, measuring 40 x 60 feet situated at 3 Amarjyothi H.B.C.S. Layout, 13,78,000.00 Dommaluru, Bengaluru purchased in the name of Smt.Bharathi Purchase value of the site and building in Site No.1644/121/510, New No.5, measuring 30 x 40 feet 4 situated at Karinayakanapalya, 19,76,418.00 Kacharakana-halli Panchayath, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk Two floors building constructed in Site No.78, measuring 30 x 40', 3rd 5 00.00 cross, Thambuchattipalya, Hosakote Road, Bengaluru Movable properties Balance amount in S.B.Account No.2092, Vijaya Bank, H.A.L 3rd 6 1,73,294.96 Stage, Bengaluru standing in the name of accused Balance amount in S.B.Account No.28/86158 (New No. 54049438196), S.B.M., C.B.A.B 7 1,742.47 Complex, Bengaluru standing in the name of accused 17 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 Balance amount in S.B.Account No.5166, Veerashaiva Co-op. Bank 8 Ltd., Akkamahadevi Road, 1,214.90 Akkipete, Bengaluru standing in the name of accused Balance amount in S.B.Account No.AGSB000040381, Canara Bank, 9 2,993.00 Cunningham Road, Bengaluru standing in the name of accused Balance amount in S.B.Account 10 No.065010100096159, Axis Bank, 26,757.00 standing in the name of accused Maruthi Swift Car bearing 11 00 No.KA.41.M.590 Cash found during the search of 12 19,280.00 the house of the accused Silver articles found during the 13 9,250.00 search of the accused House articles found during the 14 6,05,500.00 search of the accused Deposit made towards the B.S.N.L 15 telephone No.25280888 to the 1,000.00 house of the accused Deposit made in respect of electricity connection taken to the 16 house No.502, H.A.L. 3rd Stage, 1,344.00 Bengaluru belonging to the accused Deposit made in respect of electricity connection taken to the building No.17644/121/510, New No.5, Karinayakanapalya, 17 9,860.00 Kacharakanahalli Panchayathi, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk belonging to the accused 18 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 Deposit made towards water connection taken to the house of 18 50.00 the accused bearing No.502, H.A.L. 3rd Stage, Bengaluru Deposit made by the accused to obtain membership No.H/91 in 19 00 The Malleswaram Association-club, Malleswaram, Bengaluru Deposit made for obtaining cable connection to the house No.502, 20 1,000.00 H.A.L. 3rd Stage, Bengaluru belonging to the accused Share No.6845 obtained by the accused in Veerashaiva Co-
21 2,000.00
operative Bank Ltd., Akkipete
branch, Bengaluru
Excess amount with the accused
as per Crime No.60/80-81
22 678.39
registered by the State Vigilance Commission against the accused Amount invested in Prestige Estate 23 24,00,000.00 Project Total 70,07,182.72
11. From the analysis of the documents and from the evidence on records, it can be seen that the accused has not raised any dispute with regard to the asset listed in items No. 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22 and 23. 19 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015
12. Remaining items in Table-I i.e., 1, 3, 4, 12, 13, 14, 17 and 20 are disputed by the accused and hence, the observations made by the investigating officer, and the objections raised by the learned Counsel for the accused has to be discussed item wise.
Item No.1:
As per As per Difference Description accused I.O. in Rs. in Rs.
in Rs.
Value of the building constructed in site No.502, H.A.L. 3rd 8,70,000/- 1,20,000/- 7,50,000/- Stage, Bengaluru (40 x 60 ft)
13. The prosecution relies upon Ex. P5 valuation report and evidence of PW3/ B. Prasanna Kumar, Assistant Engineer, Technical Wing, Lokayuktha. PW3 has valued the 1st floor of the building constructed as Rs. 2,82,000/- and 2nd 20 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 floor of the building constructed as Rs.5,88,000/- and considering the value of the site as Rs. 1,20,000/- the investigating officer has taken into account Rs.8,70,000/- into the assets of the accused.
14. The learned counsel for accused has disputed the value of the building and he contends that from the evidence it is clear that PW3 has not deducted the 10% of the total value of the building which would be cost of self-supervision charges. PW3 has not considered the details of building construction and its value submitted by the accused to PW3 as per Ex D1. PW 3 has not measured the rooms and not verified the details of building furnished by the investigating officer. PW3 at the time of valuation has not enquired about the ownership of the building or who constructed the building. He further contends that the accused constructed the first floor of the building during the year 1986-87 by availing loan from the Veerashaiva Co-operative Society Bank, hand loans from brothers, saving from salary, sale of 21 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 gold and from rental income from ground floor. He further contends that the 2nd floor of the building was constructed by M/s R.S.Buildings during 1996-97 as per agreement dated 01.05.1996. The accused had declared all these expenditures in his APRs and the builder who constructed the 2nd floor of the building has also declared the expenditure incurred by them for the construction of 2nd floor in their Income Tax Returns the copy of which is produced before this Court and marked as Ex. D6. He further contends that the accused had invested only Rs. 1,20,000/- for construction of the building, 2nd floor was constructed by the tenant Mr.Gaurav Marvya and he made certain internal alterations. The same was declared by the accused in his APR and the tenant also filed affidavit in this regard. Hence, the investigating officer has taken Rs 7,50,000/- excess as asset of the accused.
15. Learned Public Prosecutor contended that the accused has stated that he leased the 2nd floor to M/s R.S.Builders who constructed the 2nd floor in the year 1996- 22 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 97 and stayed in the said floor. But, from the documents it is evident that the said R.S.Builders had stayed in the first floor and the accused stayed in the 2nd floor from 1996 to December 1999 and during January 2000, the accused shifted his residence to first floor. Therefore, it is clear that the 2nd floor was constructed by the accused and not by the R.S.Builders/ tenant. Hence, the investigating officer has rightly taken the expenditure incurred for construction of entire building to the asset of the accused.
16. PW3, B. Prasanna Kumar, Assistant Engineer, Technical Section, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bengaluru City has deposed in his evidence that he along with Sri.U.D.Krishna Kumar, police inspector and Srinivasa Murthy, constable went to the above house of the accused and inspected the said three storyed building. The first floor of the building was constructed in the year 1987-88 and 2nd floor was constructed in the year 1996-97. Lokayuktha police had asked the valuation report of 1st and 2nd floor of the building. 23 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 His further testimony is that the 1st floor measures 127.51 sq. ft. with a veranda, drawing room, bed rooms, kitchen, bathroom and toilet and the 2nd floor measured 137.39 sq. ft. with a drawing room, lobby, three bed rooms, kitchen and a bathroom. Above the 2nd floor of the building a shed is constructed with plastic sheet. He valued the first floor and 2nd floor as per the rates fixed by the PWD for the respective years. Accordingly, he valued the first floor at Rs. 2,82,000/- and 2nd floor at Rs. 5,88,000/- and submitted the Ex. P5 report.
17. In the cross examination, he admits that he valued the building as per the information provided by the investigating officer and not by the accused. He further admits that he has not deducted the concession of 10% of the total value of the building which could be given for the owner of the building for self-supervision charges while constructing the building. He admits that there are guidelines issued by the PWD which are to be followed during the 24 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 valuation of a building and he has not written detailed report in accordance with the said guidelines.
18. PW 9 Lokanatha Kadari, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bengaluru in his cross examination in para No.10 has deposed that the accused had declared in his Annual Property Returns submitted to his department that he has constructed the first floor of the building in Site No.502 during the year 1989 by incurring Rs. 1,20,000/-, for which, he had availed loan of Rs. 80,000/- from Veerashaiva Co-operative Bank and hand loan of Rs. 20,000/- from his brothers. He further admits in his cross examination at page 13 page 5 that the agreements entered into between the accused and his tenants are in File No.6 pages 315 to 400. In the lease agreement, the tenant has agreed to construct the 2nd floor and internal wood work of the 2nd floor. He further admits that the accused had also declared this aspect in his annual property returns, which are available in File No.6, Pages 1057 to 1087. The original 25 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 annual property returns are at File No.5, page Nos 94 to
120. He further admits in para 14 that the tenants who constructed the 2nd floor as per the agreement, have also declared this fact in their income tax returns.
19. I have perused the File No.6 which is marked as Ex. D6 at page 1058 which is a lease deed cum agreement dated 01-05-1996 entered into between the accused and M/s R.S.Builders and Developers. The said agreement is in respect of premises bearing No.502, First floor, situated at 7th Cross, 10th Main, H.A.L. III Stage, Bangalore for a consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/- as security deposit, monthly rent fixed at Rs. 10,000/-. The 3rd covenant in the said agreement says "The Lessee can erect or build or put up any structural alteration in the schedule premises and he can put up any structure on his own cost, without the written consent of the lessor". The condition No. 7 to 13 in the said agreement are as under:
26 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015
"7. The Lessee has requested the lessor to permit it to put up second floor on existing first floor at the cost of lessee and use the proposed II floor as an additional accommodation. The lessor has agreed to permit the lessee to construct the II floor on the existing first floor on the terms and conditions herein after contained.
8. The Lessee can construct the 2nd floor on the existing 1st floor of the premises specified in the schedule at his own cost and use the same for a period of 5 years.
9. The lessor has allowed the lessee to occupy the terrace of the first floor of the schedule premises for the purpose of construction of the II Floor and use the same.
10. The Lessee shall be entitled to use the proposed II Floor for their own use for a period of 5 years free of rent or any other charges.27 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015
11. The Lessee shall bear water and electric charges in respect of the proposed II floor.
12. The lessor is not liable to pay anything towards the cost of the construction of the proposed II floor.
13. The Lessee shall vacate and handover to lessor on the expiry of the 5 years without claiming compensation or cost of construction."
From the terms and conditions of the aforesaid lease deed cum agreement, it is clear that the 2nd floor was constructed by the R.S.Builders/tenant of the accused. The accused leased only the first floor to the R.S.Builders, and the tenant of the accused constructed the 2nd floor of the said building. The learned counsel for the accused invited my attention to the APRs submitted by the accused to his Department for the year 31.03.1997 in which, the accused has clearly declared with regard to the agreement of lease entered into between the accused and his tenants and further, the 28 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 accused has stated with regard to the alterations and the wood work and also construction of the 2nd floor done by the tenant. Therefore, the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused that the 2nd floor was constructed by the tenant of the accused is to be appreciated. The investigating officer has ignored this aspect and he had not conducted any investigation in this line.
20. From the perusal of the documents furnished by the accused (Ex D6), the accused has declared the source of income for construction of 1st floor in the year 1986-87 itself. According to which, the accused has borrowed loan of Rs. 80,000/- from Veerashaiva Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Bengaluru, Rs 20,000/- from his brother Mr.S.K.Singh, Rs. 500/- is his salary savings and Rs. 19,500/- rent advance from ground floor and thus the cost of construction shown by him at Rs. 1,20,000/-. Therefore, from oral evidence and the documentary evidence on record, it is clear that the accused had incurred Rs. 1,20,000/- for the construction of 29 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 the first floor. Hence, the investigating officer without looking into the schedules submitted by the accused has erroneously concluded that the accused had incurred Rs. 8,70,000/- for construction of the entire building, accordingly, he has taken excess amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- to the asset of the accused and the same is liable to be deducted from the asset side of the accused and the value of the building in item No.1 is to be considered as Rs. 1,20,000/-.
ITEM NO.3:
As per As per I.O. Difference Description accused in Rs. in Rs.
in Rs.
Value of the site
No.394, measuring
40 x 60 feet situated
at Amarjyothi
H.B.C.S. Layout, 13,78,000/- 1,33,667/- 12,44,300/-
Dommaluru,
Bengaluru purchased
in the name of
Smt.Bharathi
30 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015
21. Learned counsel for the accused contends that the wife of the accused Smt.Bharathi purchased the aforesaid property on 23.12.1995 through registered sale deed for Rs. 94,000/- from The Amara Jyothi House Building Co-operative Society Limited and thereafter, by way of rectification sale deed, the son of the accused paid a sum of Rs. 39,667/- and the total cost of the said site is Rs.
1,33,667/-. However, the investigating officer has erroneously taken it Rs. 13,78,000/-.
22. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that at the time of purchase of the site, the son of the accused had just completed his Bachelor degree in Engineering and therefore, he had no source of income and hence, the entire amount is paid by the accused. He further submits that at the time of execution of rectification deed, stamp duty of Rs. 1,15,050/- was paid and Rs. 13,080/- was paid towards the registration charges. Therefore, from these facts, the investigating officer has taken the market value of the said property and 31 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 as on the said date, the market value was at Rs. 12,84,000/- plus the consideration amount of Rs. 94,000/- paid by the wife of accused and accordingly, the investigating officer has taken the value of the site at Rs. 13,78,000/-.
23. I have perused Ex. D7 furnished by the accused in which the site No.394 was sold to the wife of the accused through registered sale deed for a consideration of Rs. 94,000/-. Ex D9 is the rectification deed executed by the aforesaid society in favour of L.Vikram, son of the accused in which the Society made the rectification in respect of the schedule of the site. In the rectification deed it is clearly mentioned that earlier the site bearing No.394 was allotted to the mother of the vendee Smt.Bharathi through registered sale deed dated 26.12.1995 and since, the schedule is wrongly mentioned in the said sale deed, this rectification deed was executed in favour of L.Vikram, the son of the accused, through which, the son of the accused had paid Rs. 39,667/-.
32 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015
24. In the cross examination of PW10, the Investigating Officer S.D.Venkataswamy, at page No.14, para No.21, he has clearly admitted that the wife of the accused Smt.Bharathi was the member of Amar Jyothi House Building Co-operative Society. He further admits that on the basis of her seniority, the society had allotted the site No.394, Dommaluru, Bengaluru in her favour. He further admits that in the Ex. D7, sale deed the consideration of the said site is Rs. 94,000/-. He further admits that after the death of Smt.Bharathi, her son L.Vikram got the Ex D9 rectification deed from the aforesaid society and for which the son of the accused paid additional amount of Rs. 39,667/-. He specifically admits that, from the aforesaid Ex. D7 and Ex. D9, the value of the said site is Rs. 1,33,667/-. He further admits that in the earlier sale deed the extent of the land was wrongly mentioned and later through the rectification deed, the additional space is also included to the said site. He further admits that, except Ex. D7 and D9 there are no other documents to show that said 33 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 Smt.Bharathi and L.Vikram had purchased the aforesaid property for an higher value. He further admits that there are no documents to show that Smt.Bharathi and L.Vikram have paid Rs. 13,78,000/- as consideration to purchase of the aforesaid property. He further admits that Smt.Bharathi and L.Vikram are the Income Tax Assessee and they have declared the value of the aforesaid property in their income tax returns and that Smt.Bharathi had declared in her income tax returns that she has purchased the aforesaid property for Rs. 94,000/-. Further, he admits that son of the accused L.Vikram had also declared with regard to the execution of the rectification deed by the society in his Income Tax Returns. So, from the oral and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution and also the documents produced by the accused, I am of the opinion that the aforesaid society had allotted the site No.394 to the wife of the accused on consideration of Rs. 94,000/- and from the rectification deed, the son of the accused L.Vikram paid Rs. 39,667/-. Hence, the prosecution has failed to 34 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 prove that the value of the said site was Rs. 13,78,000/- and the investigating officer has erroneously taken the said amount to the asset of the accused. Hence, as argued by the learned counsel for the accused the amount of Rs. 12,44,333/- is required to be deleted from the assets of the accused and the value of asset item No. 3 is to be calculated at Rs. 1,33,667/-.
ITEM NO.4:
As per Description As per I.O. Difference accused Purchase value of the site and building in Site No.1644/121/510, New No.5, measuring 30 x 40 feet situated at 19,76,418/- 0 19,76,418/-
Karinayakanapalya,
Kacharakanahalli
Panchayath,
kasaba Hobli,
Bengaluru North
Taluk
35 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015
25. The learned counsel for the accused in the course of arguments seriously objected the clubbing of the property standing in the name of his sister-in-law Smt.Saraswathi which was acquired by her out of her legitimate source of income on 18.03.1994 for a sum of Rs.82,000/-. The entire revenue records stand in the name of said Smt.Saraswathi and she had paid all electricity charges and water charges in respect of the aforesaid property. The investigating officer purposely included the aforesaid property into the assets of the accused to exaggerate the value of assets of the accused.
26. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that Smt.Saraswathi is none other than the sister-in-law of the accused and at the time of search of the residential premises of the accused the original documents in respect of the aforesaid property were seized from the possession of the accused. He further submits that the said Saraswathy had no independent source of income to purchase the property 36 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 and she was residing in the house of the accused at the time of search. It is further argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that later in the year 2014, the said Saraswathi gifted the said property to Sonia Singh, the daughter of the accused. Therefore, the said property is a benami property of the accused purchased by the accused in to the name of Saraswathi and later it was gifted to the daughter of the accused. Some of the documents were also found in the house of the accused which shows that one Smt.Sathya was receiving the monthly rents from the tenants of the building and the said Smt.Sathya is shown as his wife in his bank account at Axis Bank. He further submits that PW4, Achutha Bidarahalli, Assistant Engineer had valued the aforesaid building at Rs. 19,76,418/- and hence, the investigating officer has rightly taken the aforesaid amount into assets of the accused.
27. I have perused the evidence of PW4, Achutha Bidarahalli who was working as Assistant Engineer, Public 37 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 Works Department No.1, buildings sub-division, Bengaluru.
In his testimony he submits that on 03.01.2012 and 04.01.2012, Sri. Sanjeevarayappa, Police Inspector of Lokayuktha took him to the House No.5, Aiyappa Temple Road, K.K.Halli, Aravinda Nagar, Bengaluru and he inspected the said house which consisted of ground floor and two floors and third floor was partly constructed and he valued the building at Rs. 18,94,418/- and submitted his Ex P6 report. In the cross examination, he testifies that at the time of his visit to the said place, the owner of the property was not present and he has valued the property as per the 2004 rate schedule. He admits that the police did not provide any documents with regard to the completion of the building. He admits that initially the police informed that the said building belongs to the accused, later in the schedule, it is mentioned that the said building belong to the relatives of the accused. He has not issued any notice to the owner of the building prior to visit to the said building. 38 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015
28. PW 10 investigating officer in his cross examination at para 24 page 16 has deposed that he received letter from Saraswathi addressed to Dy.S.P. Karnataka Lokayuktha as per Ex. D10. He admits that in the said letter Smt.Saraswathi informed that the House No.5, Aiyappa Temple Road, Kariyanahalli, Banasawadi belongs to her. He admits that the revenue records and sale deed of the said property are in the name of the said Saraswathi and Saraswathi had purchased the said property for Rs. 82,000/-. The statement of said Saraswathi was not recorded by any of the Investigating Officer during the investigation. He also admits that the said Saraswathi paid the electricity bills and water bills pertaining to the said property. He further admits that the Katha of the said house stands in the name of said Saraswathi. His explanation to include the value of the said property into the assets of the accused is that since the said Saraswathi gifted the aforesaid property to the daughter of the accused. He admits that the said gift is made six years after the check period. From the oral and documentary 39 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 evidence it is clear that the all the documents pertaining to the property stands in the name of Smt. Saraswathy. Admittedly the revenue records, water connections, electricity connections, telephone connections, etc., stands in her name. During the search of the residential premises of the accused 3 blank stamp papers in the name of one Saraswathy were found in the bedroom of the accused and the Investigating Officer seized the same along with other documents belonging to the accused. The certified copy of the sale deed dated 18.03.1994 executed by one Tessie George in favour of Smt. Saraswathy and the connected documents are produced by the prosecution and marked as Ex. P31 and these documents depicts that Smt. Saraswathy is the absolute owner of the said property with all the revenue records and other documents standing in her name. The sale deed shows that sale consideration of Rs. 82,000/- has been paid by the vendee to the vendor. The case of the prosecution is that the said property is purchased by the accused in the name of Saraswathy and the prosecution has 40 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 to prove that fact. The document speaks that the sale consideration is paid by Saraswathy and prosecution has not produced any document whatsoever to prove that the sale consideration amount has been paid by the accused or the prosecution has not produced any documents to show that any money has been flown from the account of accused to any of the accounts of the said Saraswathy, rather the prosecution has no case that the money has been paid by accused. None of the documents pertaining to the said property is seized from the possession of the accused. The Investigating Officer in his evidence testifies that since, 3 blank stamp papers bearing the name of one Saraswathi was found in the possession of the accused and the said Saraswathy had gifted the said property to the daughter of the accused, presuming that the property is purchased by the accused in the name of the said Saraswathy, the value of the property is added into the assets of the accused. The Investigating Officer has included the value of the said property into the assets of the accused under assumption 41 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 that the accused might have paid the consideration amount. The Investigating Officer in his final report substantiates that Saraswathy was a home-maker and had no source of income to purchase the said property and the said Saraswathy had gifted the property to the daughter of the accused and the Investigating Officer also states that the said Saraswathy has not produced any documents to show that she had sufficient income to purchase the property and hence, he had taken the value of the property into the assets of the accused. It is burden of the prosecution to prove the initial burden that the said property is purchased by the accused in the name of another person. Accused is duty bound to prove the source of income for acquiring the property in his name and this burden on accused to explain the source can be extended to the property acquired in the name of his wife and children if the prosecution proves that they do not have sufficient source of income. The burden of proving the source of income of Saraswathy to purchase property in her name cannot be attributed upon accused. The burden is upon 42 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 prosecution to prove the same. The prosecution asserts that the said property was gifted by Saraswathy in the year 2014 to the daughter of accused, even though she had her own children. No documents are produced by the prosecution to prove the said gift. Another explanation given by the Investigating Officer to include said property into the assets of the accused is that rental agreement pertaining to the building situated in the said property were in the name of one Sathyakumari, who was residing in the house of the accused and running a paying guest accommodation business at the residential premises of the accused. Xerox copies of rental agreements are produced by the prosecution which are marked as Ex. P32 thorough the Investigating Officer. These are secondary piece of evidence and hence, not admissible in evidence. Ex. P32 were not seized from the possession of the accused. It is not forthcoming from the evidence of the Investigating Officer that from where he obtained these documents. Even if these documents are admitted as such, it reveals that Smt. Sathya as the Power of 43 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 Attorney holder of Smt. Saraswathy had executed the lease deed and was collecting rent for and on behalf of the said Saraswathy and only because Smt. Sathya was staying at the residence of accused, the said property cannot be attributed into the account of the assets of the accused. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove that the said property standing in the name of Saraswathy was the benami property of the accused. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 19,76,418/- has been erroneously included into the assets of the accused and the same is to be deleted from the assets of the accused.
ITEM NO.12:
As per Description As per I.O. Difference accused Cash found during the search of the 19,280/- Nil 19,280/- house of the accused
29. Investigating officer in his Ex. P61 Final Report has stated that at the time of search of the house of the 44 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 accused, cash of Rs. 19,280/- was found in the room where Smt. Sathyakumari was staying and he returned Rs. 10,000/- to said Smt.Sathyakumari and seized the balance amount of Rs. 9,280/- as per mahazar. He further explains that in the ration card of the accused, the said Sathyakumari is shown as his sister-in-law and in the account opening form of Axis Bank, where accused holds an account, she was shown as wife of the accused. Therefore, the investigating officer has taken the said amount to the asset of the accused.
30. Learned counsel for the accused argues that Smt.Sathyakumair is a tenant of the accused and admittedly the said amount of Rs. 19,280/- was seized from the possession of Sathyakumari and hence, the investigating officer returned Rs. 10,000/- to her and later as per Court order the seized amount of Rs. 9,280/- also given to the interim custody of Smt.Sathyakumari. Therefore, investigating officer has erroneously taken the said amount into the account of the accused.
45 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015
31. PW 10, the investigating officer in his testimony has admitted that in the mahazar it is mentioned that amount of Rs. 19,280/- belongs to Sathyakumari and that he returned Rs 10,000/- to Sathyakumari and seized balance amount of Rs. 9,280/-. He has further deposed that there are no documents to show that the said amount belongs to the accused. From the oral and documents produced by the prosecution and also the admissions made by the investigating officer in his cross examination, it is clear that Rs. 19,280/- belongs to Smt.Sathyakumari. Ex. P28 is the account opening form filled by the accused when he opened an account with the Axis Bank and the said form shows Smt. Sathya as the nominee and the relationship of the Said Sathya with the accused is shown as Wife. Based on this document the Investigating Officer arrived at a conclusion that the said Smt. Sathya is the wife of the accused and the amount seized from her possession is included into the assets of the accused. Bank account opening form is not a document to decide the marital status of a person. It is not 46 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 in dispute that the said amount was seized from the possession of Smt. Sathya and there are no documents produced by the prosecution to show that the said amount belongs to accused. There is nothing on record to show that the said Smt. Sathya is the wife of the accused except an entry in Ex. P28. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove by cogent, admissible evidence that the said amount belongs to accused and therefore, the said amount Rs. 19,280/- has to be deleted from the assets of the accused. ITEM NO.13:
As per Description As per I.O. Difference accused Silver articles found during the 9,250/- 0 9,250/-
search of the accused.
32. The Investigating Officer has given explanation that the silver articles found in the house of the accused during search belongs to the accused and Smt. Sathya who was staying with him and the said Sathya is stated as his 47 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 wife in the bank account opening form and hence, the value of the articles are included into the assets of the accused.
33. The learned counsel for the accused submits that the said silver items No. 5 to 7 are given to the accused at the time of his marriage and the same has been declared in his APRs of 1983 and the items No. 1 to 4 were seized from the tenant Sathyakumari and hence, the Investigating Officer has wrongly included this amount into the assets of the accused.
34. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that Smt. Sathyakumari is none other than the member of the family of the accused. The accused has mentioned in the bank account opening application form that the said Sathyakumari is his wife and hence, the same has been taken as asset of the accused.
35. I have perused the evidence of PW 10 Venkataswamy, Dy,S.P., the investigating officer of this case 48 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 who has clearly admitted that the silver items No. 1 to 3 in the mahazar were seized from Sathyakumari. Further, he admits that the accused at the time of drawing mahazar had informed that silver items No. 5 to 7 were given to accused at the time of his marriage. Ex. P56 are the copies of the Annual Property Returns submitted by the accused to his department and I have perused the Statement of Assets and Liabilities for the year 1981-82. In this document, the accused has declared 730 grams of silver articles given by his father-in-law at the time of his marriage. Therefore, from the evidence of PW 10, Ex. P4 mahazar and Ex. P56 APRs, it is clear that the silver items No. 1 to 4 mentioned in Ex. P4 mahazar belongs to Sathyakumari and silver item No. 5 to 7 belongs to the accused and the said items were gifted to him by his father-in-law. Possession of assets or acquiring assets by a government servant as such is not an offence. If the government servant is unbale to give satisfactory account for the possession of pecuniary resources or properties which is disproportionate to his known source of income will attract 49 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 offence u/s 13(1)(e). and known source of income is explained as income received from lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders applicable to the public servant.
Here, the accused was under the obligation to submit his annual assets and liabilities statements every year before his department and from the documents produced by the prosecution it is clear that the accused was promptly submitting his statements and in the statements pertaining to the year 1981-82 he has stated that he received silver articles from his father-in-law at the time of his marriage. The explanation given by the Investigating Officer that the accused got separated from his wife Smt. Bharati, the silver articles gifted by his father-in-law might have been taken by her and therefore, the silver articles found in the house of the accused is to be presumed to be purchased by the accused later. No evidence is led by the prosecution to prove that Smt. Bharathi had taken all the silver articles with her when she got separated from accused. Also, the silver 50 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 articles seized from the possession of Sathya is treated by the Investigating Officer as the articles of the acused on the sole ground that the name of said Sathya is written as wife in the account opening form submitted by the accused before the Axis Bank while opening a new account by the accused with that bank. The bank account opening form cannot be treated as a document to decide the marital status of a person and the conclusion of the Investigating Officer to include the value of silver articles into the assets of the accused treating the said Sathya as the wife of the accused based on the bank account opening form cannot be accepted and hence, I am of the considered view that the value of the said silver articles ought to be deleted from the assets of the accused.
ITEM NO.14:
As per Description As per I.O. Difference accused House articles found during the 6,05,500/- 1,00,450/- 5,05,050/- search of the accused.51 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015
36. The Investigating Officer in his final report submits that the house hold articles found in the house of the accused during search were valued at Rs. 7,87,000/- and after deducting the items such as value of a television, which accused claimed to be purchased by his son, the value of household articles he received as gift from his father-in-law and declared in his APRs, the value of laptop owned by his son, etc., the Investigating Officer accounted Rs. 6,05,500/-
into the assets of the accused.
37. Learned counsel for the accused argued in vehemence that the tenant of the accused R.S.Builders left some of the articles to the extent of Rs. 15,100/-, another tenant Mr.Gaurav Marya left house hold articles to the extent of Rs.63,500/-, and the accused declared all the details in his Annual Property Returns submitted to his department. The investigating officer has also admitted in his cross examination about the declaration made by the accused in his APRs. According to the declaration made by the accused, 52 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 the investigating officer ought to have taken only Rs. 1,00,450/- into the assets of the accsued.
38. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that all the house hold articles listed and valued as per mahazar were found in the house of the accused. The investigating officer has deducted the value of those items which the accused had submitted to be of his son's. The investigating officer has rightly taken the value of Rs. 6,05,500/- as house hold articles and hence the same is required to be taken as asset of the accused.
39. From the evidence of PW10 Investigating Officer it is clear that he had verified the schedule submitted by the accused giving explanation with respect to the value of the house hold articles found in the house of the accused. The Investigating Officer has deducted the value of the electronic articles said be purchased by his son and the value of the articles accused had declared in his APRs as gifted by relatives. The accused claims that the value of the articles 53 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 found in the room of Sathya is to be deducted as those articles belonged to his tenant Sathya. But, no legally admissible documents to show that the said Sathya was tenant of accused is produced before this court. Hence, the Investigating Officer has rightly included the articles found in the room wherein Sathya was staying into the assets of the accused. The Ex. D6 schedule submitted by the accused before the Investigating Officer gives out the details of the articles said to be left by his tenants. The learned counsel for accused submits that the Investigating Officer has admitted that Ex. D 6 page 56 to 58 shows the details of the articles. But these are only the statements of the accused giving out the details of the articles and there are no documents to substantiate these statements. Hence, the Investigating Officer has rightly taken Rs. 6,05,000/- as the value of the house hold articles as the assets of the accused.
40. Hence, from the oral and documentary evidence placed before this court the assets of the accused are as in the Table I(a) below.
54 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015TABLE I(a) Sl.
Description of assets Value (in Rs.) No. Immovable properties Value of the building constructed 1 in site No.502, H.A.L. 3rd Stage, 7,50,000.00 Bengaluru (40 x 60 ft) Four sites bearing Site Nos 861, 862, 863 and 864 each measuring 30 x 40 feet situated at 9th Block, 2 6th Stage, Banashankari, 2,26,800.00 Bengaluru allotted to the accused by the B.D.A under Special Encouragement scheme Value of the site No.394, measuring 40 x 60 feet situated 3 at Amarjyothi H.B.C.S. Layout, -
Dommaluru, Bengaluru purchased in the name of Smt.Bharathi Purchase value of the site and building in Site No.1644/121/510, New No.5, measuring 30 x 40 4 feet situated at -
Karinayakanapalya, Kacharakana-
halli Panchayath, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk Two floors building constructed in Site No.78, measuring 30 x 40', 5 -
3rd cross, Thambuchattipalya, Hosakote Road, Bengaluru 55 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 Movable properties Balance amount in S.B.Account No.2092, Vijaya Bank, H.A.L 3rd 6 1,73,294.96 Stage, Bengaluru standing in the name of accused Balance amount in S.B.Account No.28/86158 (New No. 7 54049438196), S.B.M., C.B.A.B 1,742.47 Complex, Bengaluru standing in the name of accused Balance amount in S.B.Account No.5166, Veerashaiva Co-op.
8 Bank Ltd., Akkamahadevi Road, 1,214.90 Akkipete, Bengaluru standing in the name of accused Balance amount in S.B.Account No.AGSB000040381, Canara 9 Bank, Cunningham Road, 2,993.00 Bengaluru standing in the name of accused Balance amount in S.B.Account 10 No.065010100096159, Axis Bank, 26,757.00 standing in the name of accused Maruthi Swift Car bearing 11 -
No.KA.41.M.590 Cash found during the search of 12 -
the house of the accused Silver articles found during the 13 -
search of the accused House articles found during the 14 6,05,500.00 search of the accused Deposit made towards the 15 B.S.N.L telephone No.25280888 1,000.00 to the house of the accused 56 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 Deposit made in respect of electricity connection taken to the 16 house No.502, H.A.L. 3rd Stage, 1,344.00 Bengaluru belonging to the accused Deposit made in respect of electricity connection taken to the building No.17644/121/510, New 17 No.5, Karinayakanapalya, 9,860.00 Kacharakanahalli Panchayathi, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk belonging to the accused Deposit made towards water connection taken to the house of 18 50.00 the accused bearing No.502, H.A.L. 3rd Stage, Bengaluru Deposit made by the accused to obtain membership No.H/91 in 19 -
The Malleswaram Association-
club, Malleswaram, Bengaluru Deposit made for obtaining cable connection to the house No.502, 20 1,000.00 H.A.L. 3rd Stage, Bengaluru belonging to the accused Share No.6845 obtained by the accused in Veerashaiva Co-
21 2,000.00
operative Bank Ltd., Akkipete
branch, Bengaluru
Excess amount with the accused
as per Crime No.60/80-81
22 678.39
registered by the State Vigilance Commission against the accused Amount invested in Prestige 23 24,00,000.00 Estate Project Total 42,04,234.72 57 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015
41. Expenditure of accused as per investigating officer is as per Table II is as under:
TABLE II Sl.
Particulars of expenditure Value (in Rs.) No. Expenditure incurred by the accused for registration and stamp fee in respect of Site Nos 1 6,020/-
861, 862, 863, and 864 of Banashankari 6th Stage, 9th Block, Bengaluru Expenditure incurred by the accused for registration and stamp fee in respect of Site No.394, Amarajyothi H.B.C.S. 2 1,42,030/-
Layout, Dommaluru Ward No.72, Bengaluru transferred to his son from his wife.
Registration and Stamp fee in respect of Site No.1644/121/510, New No.5, measuring 30 x 40 feet 3 situated at Karinayakanapalya, 12,585/-
Kacharakanahalli Panchayath, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk Tax paid in respect of land bearing Sy.No.69/12, 4 1/-
Hemmigepura village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk 58 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 Tax paid in respect of Property No.394, Amarajyothi Nagara, 5 H.B.C.S. Laylout, Dommaluru, 00/-
Bengaluru standing in the name of wife of the accused.
Tax paid in respect of House 6 No.502, H.A.L. 3rd Stage, 82,664/- Bengaluru Tax paid in respect of Property No.5, Kacarakanahalli, Ayyappa 7 17,649/-
Temple Road, 3rd Cross,
Bengaluru.
Application registration fee in respect of a request made for 8 6,000/-
allotment of site before Mysuru Development Authority Water charges in respect of 9 House No.502, HAL 3rd stage, 21,491/- Bengaluru Electricity consumption charges in respect of R.R.No.AEH 9672 of 10 74,561/-
House No.502, HAL 3rd Stage, Bengaluru Electricity connection charges in respect of Property No.1644/121/ 510, new No.5, Karinayakana 11 8,560/-
playa, Kacharakanahalli
Panchayath, Kasaba Hobli,
Bengaluru North Taluk
Diesel charges to the
12 Scooter of the accused No.MEF 150/-
8708
Repair charges of scooter of MEF
13 200/-
8708
59 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015
Insurance charges of scooter of
14 450/-
MEF 8708
Expenditure of BSNL phone
No.25280888 of the house of the
15 1,42,187/-
accused
Repayment of loan amount to
Account No.4/182 at Veerashaiva 16 1,01,644.20 Co-op. Bank Ltd Interest paid to the loan for 17 13,128/-
having purchased the computer Repayment of loan amount to Co-
operative Agriculture and Rural 18 23,859/-
Development Bank, Banashankari Repayment of loan in respect of 19 KGID Policy Nos 374512, 928164, 0/-
1521454 Locker No.123 standing in the 20 name of accused at Vijaya Bank, 3,770/-
HAL 3rd Stage, Bengaluru Income tax paid by the accused 21 and his family members to 2,02,851/-
Income Tax Department Tax paid by the wife of the 22 accused to Income Tax 3,970/-
Department
Expenditure incurred for
23 maintenance of accused and his 3,93,147/-
family members
Expenditure incurred for cable
24 connection to the house No.502, 17,840/-
of the accused
60 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015
Expenditure incurred for
25 education of Vikram Singh son of 10,300/-
the accused
Expenditure incurred for
26 education of Kum. Soniya Singh 31,750/-
daughter of the accused
Expenditure for obtaining the
27 passport No.A708989 by the 300/-
accused
Expenditure incurred for trip to 28 Singapore and Hong Kong by the 6,000/-
accused
Expenditure incurred for the
29 1,500/-
marriage of the accused
Investment in Madura Coats Bond
30 60,000/-
No.103623
Amount invested in Safety Bond,
31 at ICICI Bank, Commissionerate 40,000/-
Road, Bengaluru
Amount invested in NABARD
Share certificate No.267806,
32 20,00,000/-
267807 at NABARD Capital by the
accused
Amount invested in KDR, at
33 Canara Bank, Malleswaram 20,000/-
branch
Amount invested in Deposit at
34 24,870/-
GPO
Amount invested in deposit at
35 Vijaya Bank, HAL 3rd Stage, 60,000/-
Bengaluru
Amount invested in the State
36 Bank of Mysore, Richmond Town 2,541/-
branch, Bengaluru
61 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015
Expenditure incurred for purchase 37 45,000/-
of NSC certificates Total 35,77,018.20
42. Out of 37 items Rs. 35,77,018.20 is the expenditure of the accused as per the final report of the investigating officer. Out of these 37 items, the accused disputes the amounts mentioned in the following items listed below.
TABLE II(a) Sl.
Particulars of expenditure Value (in Rs.) No. Expenditure incurred by the accused for registration and stamp fee in respect of Site 2 No.394, Amarajyothi H.B.C.S 1,42,030/- Layout, Dommaluru Ward No.72, Bengaluru transferred to his son from his wife.
Registration and Stamp fee in respect of Site No.1644/121/510, New No.5, measuring 30 x 40 feet 3 situated at Karinayakanapalya, 12,585/-
Kacharakanahalli Panchayath, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk 62 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 Tax paid in respect of Property No.5, Kacharakanahalli, Ayyappa 7 17,649/-
Temple Road, 3rd Cross,
Bengaluru.
Water charges in respect of
9 House No.502, HAL 3rd stage, 21,491/-
Bengaluru
Electricity connection charges in respect of Property No.1644/121/ 510, new No.5, Karinayakana 11 8,560/-
playa, Kacharakanahalli
Panchayath, Kasaba Hobli,
Bengaluru North Taluk
Expenditure of BSNL phone
15 No.25280888 of the house of the 1,42,187/-
accused
Repayment of loan amount to Co-
18 operative Agriculture and Rural 23,859/-
Development Bank, Banashankari Expenditure incurred for 23 maintenance of accused and his 3,93,147/-
family members Expenditure incurred for cable 24 connection to the house No.502, 17,840/-
of the accused
Expenditure incurred for
25 education of Vikram Singh son of 10,300/-
the accused
Expenditure incurred for
26 education of Kum. Soniya Singh 31,750/-
daughter of the accused
Expenditure incurred for trip to 28 Singapore and Hong Kong by the 6,000/-
accused 63 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015
43. Each disputed item is taken into consideration for analysis along with the objection raised by the accused, explanation offered by the prosecution and the available evidence on record.
ITEM No.2 As per Description As per I.O. Difference accused Expenditure incurred by the accused for registration and stamp fee in respect of Site No.394, 1,42,030/- 0/- 1,42,030/-
Amarajyothi H.B.C.S Layout, Dommaluru Ward No.72, Bengaluru transferred to his son from his wife.
44. As per the investigating officer the site No.394 was allotted by Amarjyothi House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., and it was registered before the Senior Sub-Registrar, Shivajinagar, Bengaluru and at the time of registration Rs. 64 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 13,900/- was paid as the registration and stamp charges. Thereafter on 11.05.2005 the above society executed deed of rectification in favour of L. Vikram Singh, son of the accused. At that time, Rs. 1,28,130/- for the purpose of the registration and stamp charges was paid by the said Vikram Singh. Therefore, the expenditure incurred for the registration of the above said property was Rs. 1,42,030/- and hence, the Investigating Officer has taken the aforesaid amount as expenditure incurred by the accused.
45. The learned counsel for the accused argued that the aforesaid amount was paid by the wife of the accused Smt. Bharathi and son Vikram as they are independent earning members and both of them were living separately from the accused since, 1996-97. Both are income tax payees and hence, the investigating officer has erroneously taken the aforesaid amount to the account of the accused. 65 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015
46. In the evidence of PW 10 at para 30, he has clearly admitted that the site No.394 was in the name of the wife of the accused. The entire consideration amount was paid by the wife of the accused. No documents are placed before the court to show that the accused paid the amount. He admits that the accused and his wife were living separately from the date of divorce. In para 31 he admits that the wife of the accused Smt. Bharathi is the income tax assessee and she has paid the property tax.
47. From the evidence of PW 10, documents placed by the prosecution, it is clear that the accused and his wife were living separately after divorce from the year 1996-97. This property was purchased on 26.07.2011 i.e., after the divorce. Further the entire consideration amount was paid by the wife of the accused. Therefore, the investigating officer has erred in taking the aforesaid amount in the account of the accused.
66 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015ITEM No. 3, 7 and 11
As per As per
Description Difference
I.O. accused
Registration and Stamp
fee in respect of Site
No.1644/121/510, New
No.5, measuring 30 x 40
feet situated at 12,585/- 0/- 12,585/-
Karinayakanapalya,
Kacharakanahalli
Panchayath, Kasaba Hobli,
Bengaluru North Taluk
Tax paid in respect of
Property No.5,
Kacharakanahalli, Ayyappa 17,649/- 0/- 17,649/-
Temple Road, 3rd Cross,
Bengaluru.
Electricity connection
charges in respect of
Property No.1644/121/
510, new No.5,
8,560/- 0/- 8,560/-
Karinayakana playa,
Kacharakanahalli
Panchayath, Kasaba Hobli,
Bengaluru North Taluk
48. As per the investigating officer, the accused purchased the aforesaid property in the name of Saraswathi and he has paid the registration fee, stamp fee, taxes and 67 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 charges of electricity connections. Therefore, the said amount is taken into the account of the accused.
49. Learned counsel for the accused submits that one Saraswathi purchased the aforesaid property. She is the income tax assessee. The entire sale consideration amount, including the registration and stamp charges were paid by the said Saraswathi. The investigating officer has not placed any documents to show that the aforesaid property was purchased by the accused in the name of Saraswathi. Therefore, the investigating officer has wrongly taken this into the account of the accused.
50. As already discussed in the earlier part of this judgement under the disputed asset in item No. 4 the aforesaid property belongs to said Saraswathi. Therefore, as claimed by the learned counsel for the accused the investigating officer has wrongly included this amount into the expenditure of the accused and hence, is to be deleted from the expenditure of the accused.
68 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015ITEM No.9:
As per Description As per I.O. Difference accused Water charges in respect of House 21,491/- 7,163/- 14328/- No.502, HAL 3rd stage, Bengaluru The Investigating Officer in his final report has explained that the building was in the name of the accused and hence, the accused had paid the water charges and the bill amount extending to the check period was Rs. 21,491/- and hence, the entire amount is taken as expenditure towards water charges of the accused.
51. The learned counsel for the accused submits that the building consisted of 3 floors including the ground floor and the accused was staying in the 1st floor of the building and the ground floor and the 2nd floor of the said building were rented out by the accused and the lease deed which is even admitted by the prosecution depicts that the electricity and water charges of the respective rented premises would 69 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 be borne by the tenants and hence, entire water charges incurred is to be divided and 1/3rd portion of the share is to be considered as the expenditure of the accused and the Investigating Officer has purposely included the exaggerated amount into the expenditure of the accused.
52. It is not in dispute that the accused had leased out the ground floor and the 2nd floor of the said building and since, the prosecution do not dispute this aspect the lease deeds executed by the accused with his tenants are also admitted and the deed covenants that the water and electricity charges should be borne by the tenants and hence, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for accused 1/3rd share of the water charges is to attributed to the accused and I agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the Investigating Officer ought to have included only Rs. 7,163/- into the expenditure of the accused instead of Rs. 21,491/-.
70 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015ITEM No.15:
As per Description As per I.O. Difference accused Expenditure of BSNL phone No.25280888 of 1,42,187/- 1,40,143/- 2,044/- the house of the accused
53. As per the investigating officer, the accused had incurred Rs. 1,42,187/- towards the telephone charges during the check period in respect of telephone No.25280888.
54. The learned counsel for the accused submits that the tenants of the accused M/s R.S.Builders from 01.05.1996 to 05.01.2000 utilized the said telephone connection and they paid Rs. 2,044/- as telephone charges and hence, out of the aforesaid amount Rs. 2,044/- requires to be deducted.
55. It is not in dispute that M/s R.S.Builders were the tenants of the accused from 01.05.1996 to 05.01.2000 and 71 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 the lease deed is also admitted by the prosecution. The 5th clause of the said lease deed shows that the lessee shall be entitled to use the telephone No. 5280883 installed in the scheduled premises during the subsistence of lease but he shall pay the telephone call charges regularly. From the documents produced by the prosecution an amount of Rs. 2,044/- is paid as telephone charges from 01.05.1996 to 05.01.2000 and hence, the said amount has to be deducted from the total amount of telephone charges incurred and the expenditure to be included into the account of the accused towards telephone charges has to considered as Rs. 1,40,143/-.
ITEM No.18:
As per Description As per I.O. Difference accused Repayment of loan amount to Co-operative Agriculture and 23,859/- 0/- 23,859/-
Rural Development Bank, Banashankari 72 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015
56. As per the investigating officer, the father of the accused Sri. Seetharam Singh raised agriculture loan from Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Limited. Total loan amount of Rs. 70,965/- including interest is repaid to the aforesaid bank, out of which Rs. 13,313/-
was the subsidy amount given by the Government. Sri. Devisingh repaid the loan amount of Rs. 33,793/- to the said loan account. Since, the father of the accused has no means to pay the balance amount and as the father of the accused was residing with the accused at that time, the balance amount of Rs. 23,859/- paid by the accused. This amount has been taken as expenditure of the accused.
57. Learned counsel for the accused submits that the accused did not pay the loan amount to the aforesaid bank. The father of the accused raised loan of Rs. 48,700/- from the aforesaid Bank for agriculture purpose. The brother of the accused repaid Rs. 33,793/- to the loan account and the 73 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 balance amount was paid by the father of the accused and the accused has not paid any amount towards the said loan account. Accordingly, the said amount is required to be deducted from the account of the accused.
58. The investigating officer in his evidence testifies that "¤.r. 6gÀ ¥ÀÅl 813 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 814gÀ°è DgÉÆæAiÀÄ vÀAzÉ ¹ÃvÁgÁªÀiï¹AUï UÁæ«ÆuÁ©üªÀÈ¢Þ ¨ÁåAPï¤AzÀ ¸Á® ¥ÀqÉzÄÀ ºÁUÀÆ CªÀgÉà ¸Á®ªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄgÀÄ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ vÉÆÃj¸ÀĪÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. gÀÆ 23,859/- £ÀÄß DgÉÆæAiÀÄ vÀAzÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CtÚ ªÀÄgÀÄ¥ÁªÀw¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ JA§ zÁR¯É EzÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀzÀj ªÉÆvÀª Û À£ÀÄß DgÉÆæAiÀÄ Rað£À ¯ÉPÀÌPÉÌ £À£Àß CAwªÀÄ vÀ¤SÁ ªÀgÀ¢ ¥ÀÅl 193 ERB 3 gÀAvÉ ¥ÀjUÀtô¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ."
59. The prosecution has no case that the said loan was availed by the accused. The prosecution has produced no evidence to prove that the said loan amount was repaid by the accused. From the evidence of PW 10 it is clear that 74 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 though the records clearly establish that the loan amount was repaid by the father of the accused, the investigating officer has purposefully taken the said amount to the expenditure of the accused. The reason given by the Investigating Officer in his final report for including the said amount into the expenditure of the accused is that the father of the accused was staying with the accused and he had no independent source of income. It is the bounden duty of the prosecution to prove by adducing legally admissible evidence to accept that the said loan was repaid from the account of the accused to include the said amount into the expenditure of the accused. Mere assumption that the accused might have paid the loan amount cannot be accepted and therefore, the said amount is to be deleted from the expenditure of the accused.
75 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015ITEM No.23:
As per Description As per I.O. Difference accused Expenditure incurred for maintenance of 3,93,147/- 72,609/- 3,20,538/-/- accused and his family members
60. As per investigating officer the accused and his family members' food and other invisible expenditure during the check period is at Rs. 3,93,147/- and the prosecution has produced Ex. P7 report of PW5/Jayadeva Prakash, Joint Director, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Statistical Wing, Bengaluru. This is the amount spent by accused and his family members for 27 years and 07 months i.e., the entire check period.
61. The learned counsel for accused has raised serious objections and submits that the method adopted by PW5 for preparing Ex. P7 report is not scientifically approved and PW7 was not provided with the food habits of accused and 76 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 his family members before calculating the expenditure. He further argues that many of the food items were made available to accused from the agricultural and horticultural products grown in their own farm. His further submission is that accused was living in a joint family from 1975 to 1987 and his brothers incurred the expenditure of the entire family and during the said period he has not incurred any money. The learned counsel for the accused submits that after obtaining divorce from his wife, the accused and was living alone from 1997 onwards and hence, there will be no expenditure from his side in his family expenditure and these aspects have not been considered by PW 5 while preparing report and he claims that after deducting all these the accused and his family members have not spent more than Rs. 72,609/- for food and other invisible expenditure.
62. From the evidence of PW5, it is proved that he was provided with the statement of income of the accused and his family, number of members, etc. Based on 2009 77 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 National Sample Survey for Karnataka Urban/Rural Report along with year wise All India Consumer Price Index, he has given the details of items covered under invisible and non- verifiable items and the details of non-food items. He has also mentioned the visible and verifiable items which are not covered under his report.
63. He admits in his cross examination that from 1997 to 2008 the accused was living alone. He admits that he has not enquired the accused or his family members and he prepared the report as per the information furnished by the investigating officer. There is nothing produced on record to show that accused was living alone in the said house, further no records are produced by the accused to show that the brothers of the accused maintained the entire family of the accused from 1975 to 1987 and no evidence either oral or documentary is produced before the Court to establish this fact. The expenditure is calculated according to number of members in the family. Even if accused was 78 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 not having food from his home, that does not mean that he will not be having any expenditure. Hence, considering all these aspects the Ex. P7 report of PW5 is to be considered as correct and the investigating officer has rightly taken the amount of Rs. 3,93,147/- into the expenditure of the accused.
ITEM NO.24:
As per As per
Description Difference
I.O. accused
Expenditure incurred
for cable connection
17,840/- 0 17,840/-
to the house No.502,
of the accused
64. As per the investigating officer, in the month of April 1992, the cable connection was installed in the house of the accused and M/s Galaxy Crystals Entertainers and Net Service Promoters, H.A.L 3rd Stage, Bengaluru-75 has given a letter stating that an amount of Rs. 53,520/- was incurred from April 1992 up to the date of raid of the house of the accused and this includes the services provided to the 79 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 tenants also. Therefore, the investigating officer after deducting the tenants' portions ie., 2/3rd portions, one portion of Rs. 17,840/- is taken to the account of the accused.
65. The learned counsel for the accused vehemently argued that the accused has not obtained any cable connection to his house and his tenants had taken the cable connection to their respective houses. Therefore, the entire amount of Rs 17,840/- is required to be deducted from the account of the accused.
66. PW 10 in his evidence at para No.32 page No.31 has deposed that the amount of Rs 17,840/- towards the cable connection is taken to the account of the accused on the information he had obtained from M/s Galaxy Crystals and Net Services. In this case, the prosecution has not examined the owner or any authorized person representing the M/s Galaxy Crystals and Net services. The prosecution has not placed any documents to show that the accused has 80 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 obtained the cable connection to his house. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused had paid Rs. 17,840/- for the purpose of cable connection taken to his house. Hence, the same is required to be deducted from the account of the accused.
ITEM NO.25 & 26:
As per As per
Description Difference
I.O. accused
Expenditure incurred
for education of
10,300/- 0 10,300/-
Vikram Singh, son of
the accused
Expenditure incurred
for education of
Kum.Soniya Singh, 31,750/- 0 31,750/-
daughter of the
accused
67. The Investigating Officer has given explanation that he included Rs. 10,300/- and Rs. 31,750/- as educational expenditure incurred by the accused for his son and daughter respectively on the basis of the information provided by the Principal of the Indiranagar Cambridge School.
81 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015
68. The learned counsel for the accused vehemently argued that the son of the accused has not studied at Cambridge School, Indiranagar and therefore the investigating officer erroneously taken the expenditure of Rs. 10,300/- to the account of the accused and the same is to be deleted from the expenditure of the accused. He further argued that the prosecution has not placed any documents to show that the accused has incurred Rs. 31,750/- for the education purpose of his daughter Kum. Sonia Singh and hence, the said amount is to be deleted.
69. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the accused in his Schedule-17 had informed that his son Vikram was born on 18.11.1982 and studied at the Cambridge School, Indiranagar from 1987 to 1997 and for his education he had incurred Rs. 300/- tuition fee, Rs. 100/- for uniform, Rs. 50/- for text books and therefore in total he had incurred Rs. 4,500/- per year. After 1997, his son was residing in the house of his father-in-law after the accused 82 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 got divorce from his wife. The Investigating Officer has deposed in his evidence that the accused in his schedule 17 has furnished the information that his daughter Kum. Soniya Singh studied at National Public School, 12-A Main Road, H.A.L. II Stage, Bengaluru from 1993-94 to 1996-97 and the accused had paid Rs. 31,750/- for the purpose of education of his daughter.
70. PW 10 in his cross examination at para 31 para 33 and 34 has deposed as under:
"33. EE 1 gÀAvÉ gÀÆ 10,300/- «zÁå¨sÁå¸ÀzÀ RaðUÁV PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JA§ gÀ²Ã¢UÀ¼À£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀAUÀ滹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
¤.¦. 60 gÀAvÉ 1987 jAzÀ 1997 gÀªÀgU
É É DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ªÀÄUÀ
EA¢gÁ£ÀUÀgÀ PÉÃA©æqïÓ ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÁå¸ÀAUÀ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢® JAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÀzÀj ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ°è 1987 jAzÀ 1997 gÀªg À ÉUÉ MAzÀÄ «zÁåyðUÉ RZÀÄð DUÀĪÀ «zÁå¨sÁå¸ÀzÀ ±ÀÄ®ÌzÀ «ªÀgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ªÀÄUÀ ¸ÀzÀj ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÁå¸ÀAUÀ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JA§ ªÀiÁ»w EzÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ¸ÀzÀj gÀÆ 10,300/- £ÀÄß DgÉÆæAiÀÄ Rað£À ¯ÉPÀÌPÉÌ ¥ÀjUÀtô¹gÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj.83 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015
EE 2 gÀAvÉ gÀÆ 31750/- £ÀÄß DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÉÆäAiÀiÁ ¹AUïgÀªÀgÀ «zÁå¨sÁå¸ÀzÀ ¯ÉPÀÌzÀ RaðUÉ ¥ÀrUÀtô¹gÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸Àzj À ¸ÉÆÃAiÀiÁ¹AUïUÁV ¸Àzj À ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÄÀ ß DgÉÆæ ¥ÁªÀw¹gÀĪÀ §UÉÎ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà gÀ²Ã¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀAUÀ滹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¤.¦. 46 gÀAvÉ gÀ²Ã¢UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÀÄqÀÄPÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀµÀÖ JAzÀÄ ±Á¯Á C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ §gÉ¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."
71. I have perused Ex P60 letter dated 07.03.2014 issued by the Principal, The Indiranagar Cambridge school, HAL III Stage, Bengaluru. In his letter, it is clearly mentioned thus "there was no student in the name of Master Vikram Singh, S/o Mr.Lakshman Singh who studied in our school during 1987 to 1997. Our admission register is not having his name in any year". From the Ex. P60 the document marked by the prosecution itself, it is clear that the son of the accused had not studied in the aforesaid school. Therefore, the said amount of Rs. 10,300/- cannot be taken as expenditure incurred by the accused. 84 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015
72. I have perused Ex. P47 issued by National Public school, 12-A, Main Road, HAL 2nd Stage, Bengaluru, in which it is mentioned that Sonia Singh daughter of Sri.Lakshman Singh (accused herein) was a student of the aforesaid institution from L.K.G, I to VIII standard and left the school during the academic year 2000-01. It is further mentioned that they are not in a position to get the details of the payment of fees as these records were very old. Further, the said school furnished the fee structure of the school for the academic years 1993 to 2001 Year Class Fee amount 1993-94 KG-I 3,925.00 1994-95 KG -II 3,925.00 1995-96 I 4,675.00 1996-97 II 6,075.00 1997-98 III 8,150.00 1998-99 IV 10,950.00 1999-2000 V 13,400.00 2000-01 VI 15,800.00 2001-02 VII 18,300.00
73. No witnesses were examined by the prosecution to prove the above said aspect. Only a letter issued by the 85 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 Principal of the school showing the fee structure of the school is produced before this court which is inadmissible in evidence without examining the author of the letter. If the prosecution asserts a fact that a particular amount has been paid by the accused towards the educational expenses of his children, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the same by adducing cogent and legally admissible evidence. The accused has also not placed any documents to show that he has not incurred any expenditure towards the education of his daughter. Unless and until the prosecution proves that the accused had incurred a particular sum of amount towards the educational expense the accused need not produce and document to rebut it. Since, the prosecution has failed to produce any evidence documentary or oral to prove the fact that the accused had in fact incurred Rs. 31,070/- towards the educational expense of his daughter the said amount cannot be included into the expenditure of the accused and is to be deleted.
86 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015ITEM NO.28:
As per As per
Description Difference
I.O. accused
Expenditure incurred
for trip to Singapore
6,000/- 0 6,000/-
and Hong Kong by
the accused
74. The Investigating Officer gives explanation that the accused was holding a passport and the said passport shows that the accused had visited Singapore and Hong Kong and the Investigating Officer had tried to obtain the details of the same from the Foreigners' Regional Registration Officer, Bureau of Immigration, Indira nagar, but could not obtain any details of the same and on enquiry with the accused, the accused had given information that he had gone for a foreign trip and thus he had incurred Rs. 6,000/- for the same and based on that information this amount is included into the expenditure of the accused. 87 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015
75. The learned counsel for the accused vehemently submitted that the accused has not visited to Singapore or Hong Kong and hence, the amount of Rs 6,000/- is to be deleted as the prosecution has not produced any documents to substantiate the same.
76. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that during interrogation, the accused reveals that he had visited Singapore and Hong Kong and as such he had incurred an expense of Rs. 6000/- for his trip. The prosecution has furnished document Ex. P49 which shows that the accused obtained a passport but the prosecution has failed to furnish any documents to show that the accused traveled to Singapore or Hong Kong. In the absence of any documentary evidence, the oral testimony of the Investigating Officer cannot be accepted and hence, the amount of Rs 6,000/- is to be deducted from the expenditure of the accused.
88 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015
77. Thus, from the available evidence on record, the expenditure of accused and his family is as mentioned in Table II(b) below:
Table II(b) Sl.
Particulars of expenditure Value (in Rs.) No. Expenditure incurred by the accused for registration and stamp fee in respect of Site No. 1 6,020/-
861, 862, 863, and 864 of Banashankari 6th Stage, 9th Block, Bengaluru Expenditure incurred by the accused for registration and stamp fee in respect of Site 2 No.394, Amarajyothi H.B.C.S 0/- Layout, Dommaluru Ward No.72, Bengaluru transferred to his son from his wife.
Registration and Stamp fee in respect of Site No.1644/121/510, New No.5, measuring 30 x 40 feet 3 situated at Karinayakanapalya, 0/-
Kacharakanahalli Panchayath, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk Tax paid in respect of land bearing Sy.No.69/12, 4 1/-
Hemmigepura village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk 89 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 Tax paid in respect of Property No.394, Amarajyothi Nagara, 5 H.B.C.S Laylout, Dommaluru, 00/-
Bengaluru standing in the name of wife of the accused.
Tax paid in respect of House 6 No.502, H.A.L. 3rd Stage, 82,664/- Bengaluru Tax paid in respect of Property No.5, Kacarakanahalli, Ayyappa 7 0/-
Temple Road, 3rd Cross,
Bengaluru.
Application registration fee in respect of a request made for 8 6,000/-
allotment of site before Mysuru Development Authority Water charges in respect of 9 House No.502, HAL 3rd stage, 7163/- Bengaluru Electricity consumption charges in respect of R.R.No.AEH 9672 of 10 74,561/-
House No.502, HAL 3rd Stage, Bengaluru Electricity connection charges in respect of Property No.1644/121/ 510, new No.5, Karinayakana 11 0/-
playa, Kacharakanahalli
Panchayathi, Kasaba Hobli,
Bengaluru North Taluk
Diesel charges to the
12 Scooter of the accused No.MEF 150/-
8708
Repair charges of scooter of MEF
13 200/-
8708
90 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015
Insurance charges of scooter of
14 450/-
MEF 8708
Expenditure of BSNL phone
15 No.25280888 of the house of the 1,40,143/-
accused
Repayment of loan amount to
16 Account No.4/182 at Veerashaiva 1,01,644.20
Co-op. Bank Ltd
Interest paid to the loan for
17 13,128/-
having purchased the computer
Repayment of loan amount to Co-
18 operative Agriculture and Rural 0/-
Development Bank, Banashankari Repayment of loan in respect of 19 KGID Policy Nos 374512, 928164, 0/-
1521454 Locker No.123 standing in the 20 name of accused at Vijaya Bank, 3,770/-
HAL 3rd Stage, Bengaluru Income tax paid by the accused 21 and his family members to 2,02,851/-
Income Tax Department Tax paid by the wife of the 22 accused to Income Tax 3,970/-
Department
Expenditure incurred for
23 maintenance of accused and his 3,93,147/-
family members
Expenditure incurred for cable
24 connection to the house No.502, 0/-
of the accused
Expenditure incurred for
25 education of Vikram Singh, son of 0/-
the accused
91 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015
Expenditure incurred for
26 education of Kum. Sonia Singh, 0/-
daughter of the accused
Expenditure for obtaining the
27 passport No.A708989 by the 300/-
accused
Expenditure incurred for trip to 28 Singapore and Hong Kong by the 0/-
accused Expenditure incurred for the 29 1,500/-
marriage purpose of the accused Investment in Madura Coats Bond 30 60,000/-
No.103623 Amount invested in Safety Bond, 31 at ICICI Bank, Commissionerate 40,000/-
Road, Bengaluru Amount invested in NABARD Share certificate No.267806, 32 20,00,000/-
267807 at NABARD Capital by the accused Amount invested in KDR, at 33 Canara Bank, Malleswaram 20,000/-
branch Amount invested in Deposit at 34 24,870/-
GPO Amount invested in deposit at 35 Vijaya Bank, HAL 3rd Stage, 60,000/-
Bengaluru Amount invested in the State 36 Bank of Mysore, Richmond Town 2,541/-
branch, Bengaluru Expenditure incurred for purchase 37 45,000/-
of NSC certificates 92 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 Total 32,90,073.20
78. Income of the accused as per the investigating officer is as per Table III below:
Table III Sl.
Particulars of income (in Rs.)
No.
1 Income from salary 20,14,315/-
2 Income from the wife of accused 00/-
Rent derived from House No.502,
3 23,88,940/-
HAL 3rd Stage, Bengaluru
Agriculture income from Sy.No.69/12 measuring 2.39 acres and Kharab 4 land, situated at Hemmigepura 25,055/-
village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk Horticulture Income from Sy.No.69/12 measuring 2.39 acres 5 and Kharab land, situated at 1,68,204/-
Hemmigepura village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk Loan borrowed from Veerashaiva 6 80,000/-
Co-operative Bank Ltd., Bengaluru 93 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 Loan borrowed from the 7 Government for purchase of 50,000/-
computer Interest amount from S.B.Account No.0431101040381, Canara Bank, 8 413/-
Cunningham Road branch,
Bengaluru
Interest amount from S.B.Account 9 No.54049438196, Canara Bank, 150/- CBAB Complex branch, Bengaluru Interest amount from S.B.Account No 005166, Veerashaiva Co-
10 561/-
operative Bank Ltd., Akkipet Branch, Bengaluru Interest amount from S.B.Account 11 No.2092, Vijaya Bank, HAL 3rd Stage, 1,10,380/-
New Thippasandra Road, Bengaluru Interest amount from S.B.Account No.065010100096159, Axix Bank, 12 12,542/-
Basaveswaranagara branch,
Bengaluru
Dividend amount of Safety Bond
13 from ICICI Bank, Commissionerate 46,891/-
Road, Bengaluru
Loan borrowed from the private
14 0/-
persons by the accused
Loan borrowed from KGID Insurance 15 policy No.374512, 928164 and 1,02,640/- 1521454 Amount received from Madhura 16 1,16,175/-
Coats Bond No.103623 Maturity amount of NABARD Capital 17 20,81,698/-
share certificate No.267806, 267807, 94 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 Maturity amount received from 18 1,30,491/-
National Savings Certificates 19 Maturity amount received from LIC 31,725/-
Maturity amount of KDR received
20 from Canara Bank, Malleswaram 31,570.25
Branch
Maturity amount received from
21 36,035/-
Deposit at GPO
Maturity amount received from
22 deposit at Vijaya Bank, HAL 3rd 77,035/-
Stage, Bengaluru
Maturity amount received from
23 deposits at State Bank of Mysore, 7,441/-
Richmond Town Branch, Bengaluru Loan borrowed from GPF account 24 00 No.31222 Compensation amount paid by the BDA for acquiring his land bearing 25 Sy.No.69/12, Hemmigepura village, 18,74,009/-
Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk Amount paid by his father after 26 4,000/-
selling the house Amount paid by his father after 27 6,000/-
selling the land Income received from sale of scooter 28 0/-
No.MEF 8708 Amount received from sale of colour 29 0/-
TV 95 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 30 Amount received from sale of gold 67,367/-
Amount give to the wife of accused 31 00 Bharathi by her father 32 Particulars of US Dollars 32,280/-
Total 94,95,917.65
79. The accused disputes the calculations made by the investigating officer while computing the income of the accused. He submits that investigating officer has not considered several incomes of accused and his family members so as to rope accused into this case. The income accused disputes on the ground of wrong calculation and left out incomes are shown in Table III(a) below:
Table III(a) Sl. Particulars As per I.O. Accused Difference No. of income Income from wife of the 1 0/- 2,10,400/- 2,10,400/-
accused 96 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 Rental income from 2 23,88,940/- 27,09,940/- 3,21,000/-
House No.502 Agriculture 3 income from 25,055/- 2,35,824/- 2,10,769/-
Sy.No.69/12 Horticulture 4 income from 1,68,204/- 16,55,405/- 14,87,201/-
Sy No.69/12 Interest 5 earned from 150/- 3,716/- 3,566/-
SBM Bank Interest 6 earned from 1,10,380/- 1,21,351/- 10,971/-
Vijaya Bank ICICI Bank 7 46,891 2,923/-
dividends 49,814/-
Hand loan
8 raised from - 20,000/- 20,000/-
S.K.Singh
Madura
Coats
9 1,16,155/- 1,16,455/- 300/-
(Deposits)
Maturity
NABARD
10 Deposits 20,81,698/- 23,67,356/- 3,48,658/-
(Maturity)
11 LIC Maturity 31,725/- 32,276/- 551/-
Sale of
12 - 10,000/- 10,000/-
scooter
Sale of color
13 - 7,500/- 7,500/-
TV
97 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015
Amount
received
14 - 1,26,000/- 1,26,000/-
from father
in law
Interest
earned from
Canara Bank
15 - 2,089/- 2,089/-
Malleswaram
Branch A/c
No.45782
Maturity
amount of
account
No.LF 11519
16 - 2,033/- 2,033/-
& From
Veerashaiva
Co Op Bank
Akkipet
Agriculture
income from
Sy.No.75, 49,216/-
17 - 24,161/-
Mallangur
Bangarpet
Taluk
Total 49,94,253/- 77,19,375/- 27,88,122/-
80. Now, I have to analyze the explanation of investigating officer, evidence on record and the submission of the learned counsel for accused and the learned Public Prosecutor to ascertain the income item wise. 98 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 ITEM No.1:
As per Description As per I.O. Difference accused Income from wife of the 00/- 2,10,400/- 2,10,400/- accused
81. The wife of the accused Smt. Bharathi had declared her income during the year 1991-92 at Rs. 13,600/- , for the year 1992-93 Rs. 24,000/-, Rs. 24,200/- for the year 1993-94, Rs 27,650/- for the year 1994-95, and Rs 31,500/- for the year 1995-96 in her Income Tax Returns and she had paid tax of Rs. 3,970/- and xerox copies of the ITRs are marked by the prosecution as Ex. P54. The accused had declared that his wife along with children were living separately from the year 1996. Therefore, the income of the wife of accused when taken up to 1995-96, amounts to Rs. 1,20,950/- which is to be taken to the account of income of the accused.
99 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015
82. The prosecution has examined PW 9 Lokanath Kadri, Dy.S.P., who has deposed in his cross examination at para 9 of Page No.4 that the wife of the accused had independent source of income and her income was Rs. 10,69,569 he also admits that the wife of the accused was an income tax assessee.
83. The learned counsel for the accused relies on Ex. D5 the final 'B' report prepared by PW9 to submit before the Court. I have perused Ex. D5. In para No.16 of Ex D5, it is mentioned that the wife of the accused had derived an income of Rs. 2,00,400/- from her tuitions and the said amount has been taken into consideration by the investigating officer in Ex D5. The investigating officer has also relied on the Income Tax Returns declared by the wife of the accused and also the accused had declared the said income of his wife in his annual property returns submitted to the Department from time to time. PW 10 in his evidence deposes that he has not considered the amount of Rs. 100 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 2,10,400/- declared by the wife of the accused as no supportive documents submitted by the accused.
84. From the evidence of PWs 9 and 10 and also documents furnished by the prosecution Ex. P54, and Ex D5 furnished by the accused, I am of the opinion that the wife of the accused had in fact derived income and the Ex. P54 Income Tax Returns depicts the same and proves that she derived an income of Rs. 1,20,950/- from tuitions. Hence, the investigating officer ought to have taken the said amount into the income of the accused.
ITEM No.2:
As per Description As per I.O. Difference accused Rental income from House 23,88,940/- 27,09,940/- 3,21,000/- No.502
85. Learned counsel for the accused submits that the investigating officer has not considered the rental income of Rs. 80,650/- received from 1.11.1980 to December 1985, Rs. 19,500/- received from March 1986 to December 1986, 101 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 Rs.5,850/- received from January 1987 to March 1987, Rs. 7000/-received from March 87 to May 87, Rs. 8000/- received from May 96 to June 96 and Rs. 2,00,000/- received from June 2006 to April 2008, which comes to total of Rs. 3,21,000/-. The entire rent has been received by way of cheque and the entries made in the bank statement clearly depicts the rent received by the accused.
86. In the evidence of PW10, the investigating officer admits in para 19 page 12 that he had omitted to include the amount of Rs. 3,21,000/- and his evidence is thus " PÉ£ÀgÁ ¨ÁåAPï ¥Á¸ï §ÄPï ¥ÀæPÁgÀ gÀÆ. 3,21,000/- £ÀÄß ©nÖgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj"
87. I have perused Ex. P15 in which depicts the receipt of Rs. 1,150/- from November 1980 to October 1982 and thereafter Rs. 1,325/- from November 1982 to November 1984 and then Rs. 1600/- from January 1985 to 102 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 October 1987. The accused had declared the rental income in his annual property returns and also in his Income Tax Returns. Therefore, the said amount of Rs. 3,21,000/- is to be added into the rental income of the accused. ITEM No.3:
As per Description As per I.O. Difference accused Agriculture income from 25,055/- 2,35,824/- 2,10,769/- Sy.No.69/12
88. The Investigating Officer has taken Rs. 25,055/- into account of the agricultural income earned by the accused during the check period and explanation given by him is that he had obtained report from PW7 Smt.Rashmi Aliyas, Assistant Director of Agriculture, Bengaluru South Taluk, as per Ex. P9 and the learned counsel for the accused submits that the accused obtained an income of Rs. 2,35,769/- during the check period as agricultural income from Sy.No.69/12 of Himmegepura village. He substantiates his arguments on Ex. D4 report given by PW7 based on the 103 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 revenue records. Counsel for the accused also submits that the accused had declared his agricultural income in his Annual Property Returns and also in his Income Tax Returns. The investigating officer says in his final report that the accused had declared that an income of Rs. 2,67,000/- is derived from the year 1990-91 to 2007-08 in his APRs and the accused had declared Rs. 2,06,600/- as agricultural income in his ITRs pertaining to 1998-99 to 2007-08. The investigating officer further explains that he has not taken into consideration either the amount declared in APR or ITR as the accused has not separated the agriculture and horticulture income derived by him. Hence, he depends upon Ex. P9 report and includes Rs. 25,055/- into the income of the accused. From the evidence of PW7 it is brought out that she has not annexed any documents along with her report Ex. P9. It is also brought out from the cross examination that she had given another report dated 11.06.2009 to the investigating officer and the RTI copy of the same is produced by the accused and marked through 104 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 PW 7 as Ex. D4. She also identifies her signature in report as per Ex D4(a). She also annexes the year wise details of the crops grown in the said property of the accused which shows the income derived from the said property from 1999 to 2006-07. As per Ex. D4 the accused had derived an income of Rs. 2,34,824/- from ragi and paddy. Details of the quantity of the crops grown year wise, the expenditure incurred, the gross income and net income derived from the crops are also stated in Ex. D4 by PW 7. Ex. D4 was prepared by PW7 she admits that she had given this report to the investigating officer during investigation and the accused has obtained the RTI copy from the office of PW7 and produced before this Court. The amount also almost tallies with the income declared by the accused in his APRs and ITRs from time to time. Hence, Ex. D4 is to be admitted in evidence and the agricultural income derived by the accused from the property bearing Sy.No.69/12 of Hemmigepura village is to be included as Rs. 2,35,824/-. 105 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 ITEM No.4:
As per Description As per I.O. Difference accused Horticulture income from 1,68,204/- 16,55,405/- 14,87,201/- Sy No.69/12
89. As per the evidence of PW 6, Senior Assistant Director of Horticulture, the horticulture income was Rs.
1,68,204/- and the investigating officer gives the same explanation as he had given for the agricultural income that the accused had not distinguished the agriculture and horticulture income separately and declared in his APRs and ITRs. The investigating officer depends upon the report Ex. P8 of PW 6 wherein it shows the property gained an income of Rs. 1,68,204/-. Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused submits that the accused had derived a huge income from horticulture crops grown in his field which comes to the tune of Rs. 16,55,405/-. He banks his submissions on the report given by PW 6 to the investigating officer wherein it is stated that from the said property during 106 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 the year 1997-2009 an income of Rs. 16,55,405/- has been derived by the accused and the said report is produced before this Court and marked as Ex. D3 through PW 6 in cross examination. He admits in his cross examination that this amount is the net horticulture income derived from the property. He supports this submission stating that the RTCs and other details of horticulture crops grown in the said property and also discussed in detail in Ex D3. It is clear from Ex. D6 report that coconut trees, arcanut trees, suppota, teak plantation were grown along with the mango, ginger, banana and cardamom. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused has to be accepted in the light of Ex. D3 and from the oral admission of PW 6 and amount of Rs 16,55,405/- has to be added as income of the accused.
ITEM No.5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 15 and 16:
As per Description As per I.O. Difference accused Interest 150/- 3,716/- 3,566/-
earned from
107 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015
SBM Bank
Interest
earned from 1,10,380/- 1,21,351/- 10,971/-
Vijaya Bank
ICICI Bank
46,891 49,814/- 2,923/-
dividends
Madura Coats
(Deposits) 1,16,155/- 1,16,455/- 300/-
Maturity
NABARD
Deposits 20,81,698/- 23,67,356/- 3,48,658/-
(Maturity)
LIC Maturity 31,725/- 32,276/- 551/-
Interest
earned from
Canara Bank
- 2,089/- 2,089/-
Malleswaram
Branch A/c
No.45782
Maturity
amount of
account No.LF
11519 & From - 2,033/- 2,033/-
Veerashaiva
Co Op Bank
Akkipet
90. The accused claims that the investigating officer has left out many of the incomes gained by the accused as 108 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 interest from various bank accounts and the investigating officer also admits in his evidence that he has mistakenly left out several incomes earned by the accused and these are as under:
91. An income of Rs. 150/- is taken as income earned by the accused from interest of his account maintained in State Bank of Mysore Bank, but the document Ex. D6 produced by the accused shows that accused had in fact earned Rs. 3,716.05 and the investigating officer also accepts that he has mistakenly left out Rs. 3,566/-. Hence that amount has to be included into the income of the accused.
92. In the same way, the investigating officer has taken Rs. 1,10,380/- as an amount of interest earned by the accused from the Vijaya Bank, but the documents produced before this Court shows that the accused had in fact earned Rs. 1,21,351/- and the investigating officer also admits that it is bonafide mistake crept in, in the final report and hence 109 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 the differential amount of Rs. 10,971/- has to be included into the income of the accused.
93. Another income of Rs. 46,891/- is added by the investigating officer as a dividend received by the accused from the ICICI Bank, but the prosecution record Ex. P38 shows that an income of Rs. 49,814/- has been received by the accused and the investigating officer admits that it is a bonafide mistake from his part that Rs. 2,923/- has been left out. Hence, the same has to be included into the income of the accused.
94. Accused had derived an income of Rs. 2,089.90 interest earned from Canara Bank, Malleswaram Branch S.B.account No.45732 and accused produced Ex. D6 document which is admitted by the investigating officer and the said document was obtained by the investigating officer from the said Bank and produced before the Court as per PF, but the investigating officer deposes that he has mistakenly left out to include this income as income of the accused.110 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015
Hence this amount is to be included into the income of the accused.
MATURITY AMOUNT
95. From Veerashaiva Co-operative Bank, Akkipet, Bengaluru, the accused had received maturity amount of Rs. 2,033/- and the document produced by the accused and marked as Ex D6. Investigating officer also admits the same and testifies in his evidence that it is a bonafide mistake that he had not included this amount even though the document has been produced by the accused before the Court. Hence, the same has to be included in to the account of the accused.
LIC MATURITY AMOUNT
96. Learned counsel for the accused submits that the accused had derived an amount of Rs.32,276/-as the LIC maturity amount, but the investigating officer has included only Rs. 31,725/- towards the income of the accused and the 111 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 investigating officer admits in his evidence that the differential amount of Rs. 551/- has been omitted by him by mistake. Hence, the said amount has to be included into the account of the accused.
MADURA COATS
97. The accused had derived an income of Rs. 1,16,475/- as maturity amount from deposit maintained with Madura Coats, but the investigating officer has included Rs. 1,16,175/- making a differential amount of Rs. 300/- which the investigating officer also admits in his evidence that it is his bonafide mistake and hence this differential amount has to be included into the account of the accused. NABARD
98. Under the Head of Income, the investigating officer has taken Rs. 20,81,698/- as maturity amount obtained by the accused from NABARD Bonds. The accused submits that an amount of Rs. 23,67,356/- is obtained by him from NABARD and investigating officer has purposefully left out an amount of Rs. 3,48,658/-.
112 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015
99. The learned counsel for the accused has drawn my attention to page No.21, para 34 of the cross examination of the investigating officer PW 10 wherein he testifies that the documents produced before the Court obtained by the investigating officer from Vijaya Bank Statement of accounts that an amount of Rs. 24,30,356/- has been derived by the accused from NABARD capitals and he admits that an amount of Rs. 3,48,658/- has not been included in the income of the accused. Hence, the said left out amount is to be added to the income of the accused.
ITEM No.8:
As per Description As per I.O. Difference accused Hand loan raised from - 20,000/- 20,000/- S.K.Singh
100. Accused in his statement states that in his Annual Property Returns given before his department in the year 1987-88, he has declared that he had obtained a loan of Rs. 113 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 20,000/- from his brother S.K.Singh and he has sought permission from his department to avail the same. During investigation, the accused had informed the same to the investigating officer and the said S.K.Singh had also given a letter to the investigating officer stating that he had given the said loan amount to his brother Lakshman Singh. This loan amount was paid by the said S.K.Singh through cheque of Rs. 17,000/- drawn on Canara Bank and Rs 3000/- by cash. But the investigating officer has not taken this amount into the income of the accused on the ground that no documents were available from the bank details on investigation with respect to the amount so paid by the said S.K.Singh, even though the same has been declared by the accused before his competent authority. Since, the accused has declared the said amount long back i.e., in the year 1987-88 before his competent authority and obtained permission vide letter dated 01.12.1986 for availing such loan and the copies of the letter of permission is also produced by the accused before this Court the amount so 114 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 claimed by the accused is to be included into the income of the accused.
ITEM No.12:
As per Description As per I.O. Difference accused Sale of scooter - 10,000/- 10,000/-
101. Under item No.12 the accused claims that he had sold his scooter to one Krishnamurthy and obtained an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as sale proceeds and the said sale of vehicle has been declared in his APR pertaining to the year 1987-88 and he received the sale consideration vide cheque dated 17.2.1987. The accused has also produced the Xerox copy of the said cheque which finds in Ex. D6 page No.827. The investigating officer (PW 10) admits in his cross examination that he had verified the APRs of the year pertaining to 1987-88 which shows the sale of the said vehicle, but the investigating officer has not done any 115 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 investigation with respect to this aspect and in his explanation, he states that the accused had obtained loan of Rs. 6,000/- and purchased the said scooter in the year 1980 and later after 7 years, he has sold the said vehicle for Rs. 10,000/-. Since the accused had sold the vehicle for Rs. 4,000/- higher than the rate of purchase of the vehicles, the said aspect could not be believed and hence, he does not intend to include this amount into the income of the accused.
102. It is stated that the accused had obtained the loan of Rs.6,000/- from the Government to purchase a scooter but it is not stated that the purchase value of the scooter was Rs.6000/-. As the accused had availed Rs. 6000/- loan from the Government, it cannot be presumed that the scooter should not value more than Rs. 6000/-. Since, the accused has produced the copy of the cheque given by the purchaser which shows that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- has been obtained by the accused from the sale of 116 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 the said vehicle, the explanation given by the investigating officer cannot be accepted and the claim of the accused that Rs. 10,000/- has to be included into his income. ITEM No.13:
As per Description As per I.O. Difference accused Sale of color
- 7,500/- 7,500/-
TV
103. The accused claims that an amount of Rs. 7,500/- has been obtained by him from sale of a colour TV to Electro visuals and obtained the said amount vide cheque drawn on SBM dated 20.03.1992. The investigating officer has not taken this amount into the account of the accused on reason that the accused had purchased a second hand colour TV in the year 1987 for Rs. 6000/- and in the year 1992 he had sold the said colour TV to Electro Visuals for an amount of Rs. 7,500/-. The investigating officer admits in his final report and in his evidence that the said sum of Rs. 7,500/- has been obtained by the accused vide cheque 117 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 No.0342139 dated 20.03.1992. The explanation offered by the investigating officer have not taken into account since, after 5 years, the accused has obtained Rs. 1500/- more than the value of the TV for which he had purchased and hence the version of the accused could not be believed.
104. From the available evidence on record and from the oral admissions, it can be seen that the accused had provided documents with respect to the sale of the said TV to the investigating officer which shows that Electro Visuals had purchased the said TV and paid the amount through bank and the accused had also declared the same in his APR pertaining to the year 1992, but the investigating officer has not made any efforts to investigate with respect to the genuineness of the transaction and simply gives his explanation that Rs. 1,500/- more than amount is received by the accused and hence, the version is not believable. The explanation offered by the investigating officer cannot be accepted and the claim of the accused has to be taken into 118 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 consideration looking into the documentary and oral evidence available on record.
ITEM No.17:
As per Description As per I.O. Difference accused Agriculture income from Sy.No.75,
- 49,216/- 24,161/-
Mallangur Bangarpet Taluk
105. The accused states that he obtained an agricultural income of Rs. 49,216/- from land bearing Sy.No.75 of Mallinguru, Bangarpete Taluk and relies on the documents found in page 458 to 467 of Ex D6 and prays to include the said amount into the income side of the accused. The investigating officer has not discussed in his final report with respect to any of the income derived from the above said land. On perusal of the documents found in Ex D6 page 458 to 467 it can be seen that a Xerox copy of the letter issued by the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Bangarpet 119 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 taluk dated 25.6.2009, xerox copies of the letter, report and RTC extracts. Since the investigating officer has not stated anything with respect to such an income and if the accused claims that he in fact derived this income, the burden of proving the same is on accused by adducing legally admissible evidence. The Assistant Director of Agriculture who has issued a letter has not been examined before this Court to substantiate the claim of the accused and hence, this amount cannot be included into the income of the accused due to want of legal admissible evidence in that respect.
106. Therefore, from the thorough analysis of evidence on record the income derived by accused during check period is as mentioned in Table III(c) below.
Table III(c)
Sl. (in Rs.)
Particulars of income
No.
1 Income from salary 20,14,315/-
Income from the wife of 2,10,400/-
2
accused
3 Rent derived from House 3,21,000/-
120 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015
No.502, HAL 3rd Stage,
Bengaluru
Agriculture income from
Sy.No.69/12 measuring 2.39
acres and Kharab land, 2,35,769/-
4
situated at Hemmigepura
village, Kengeri Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluk
Horticulture Income from
Sy.No.69/12 measuring 2.39
acres and Kharab land, 16,55,405/-
5
situated at Hemmigepura
village, Kengeri Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluk
Loan borrowed from
6 Veerashaiva Co-operative Bank 80,000/-
Ltd., Bengaluru
Loan borrowed from the
7 Government for purchase of 50,000/-
computer
Interest amount from
S.B.Account
8 No.0431101040381, Canara 413/-
Bank, Cunningham Road
branch, Bengaluru
Interest amount from
S.B.Account No.54049438196, 3716.50
9
Canara Bank, CBAB Complex
branch, Bengaluru
Interest amount from
S.B.Account No 005166,
10 Veerashaiva Co-operative Bank 561/-
Ltd., Akkipet Branch,
Bengaluru
Interest amount from 1,21,351/-
11
S.B.Account No.2092, Vijaya
121 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015
Bank, HAL 3rd Stage, New
Thippasandra Road, Bengaluru
Interest amount from
S.B.Account
12 No.065010100096159, Axix 12,542/-
Bank, Basaveswaranagara
branch, Bengaluru
Dividend amount of Safety
Bond from ICICI Bank, 49,814/-
13
Commissionerate Road,
Bengaluru
Loan borrowed from the 20,000/-
14
brother of the accused
Loan borrowed from KGID
15 Insurance policy No.374512, 1,02,640/-
928164 and 1521454
Amount received from
16 Madhura Coats Bond 1,16,455/-
No.103623
Maturity amount of NABARD
17 Capital share certificate 23,67,356/-
No.267806, 267807,
Maturity amount received from 1,30,491/-
18
National Savings Certificates
Maturity amount received from 32,276/-
19
LIC
Maturity amount of KDR
20 received from Canara Bank, 31,570.25
Malleswaram Branch
Maturity amount received from 36,035/-
21
Deposit at GPO
Maturity amount received from
22 deposit at Vijaya Bank, HAL 77,035/-
3rd Stage, Bengaluru
Maturity amount received from 7,441/-
23
deposits at State Bank of
122 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015
Mysore, Richmond Town
Branch, Bengaluru
Loan borrowed from GPF 00
24
account No.31222
Compensation amount paid by
the BDA for acquiring his land
25 bearing Sy.No.69/12, 18,74,009/-
Hemmigepura village, Kengeri
Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk
Amount paid by his father after 4,000/-
26
selling the house
Amount paid by his father after 6,000/-
27
selling the land
Income received from sale of 10,000/-
28
scooter No.MEF 8708
Amount received from sale of 7,500/-
29
colour TV
Amount received from sale of 67,367/-
30
gold
Amount give to the wife of 00
31
accused Bharathi by her father
32 Particulars of US Dollars 32,280/-
Total 96,77,741.75
Therefore, the assets, expenditure, income and the disproportionate assets if any of the accused is to calculated 123 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 Sl. Amount (in Rs.) Heads No.
1. Assets acquired during the 42,04,234.72 check period
2. Expenses incurred during 32,90,073.20 check period
3. Sum of assets and expenditure 74,94,307.92 of the accused
4. Income earned during the 96,77,741.75 check period
5. Assets disproportionate -21,83,433.83 Therefore, from the available evidence on record it is clear that the accused had excess income of Rs. 25,50,458.83. The prosecution miserably failed to prove the allegations leveled against the accused that he amassed wealth disproportionate to his known source of income. From the evidence of PW 1 who prepared Ex P1 Source Report, it is revealed that a preliminary enquiry is conducted by him in a very casual manner. In his source report he states that the residential premises of accused valued approximately Rs 1 crore, while the investigating officer have valued the same at Rs 8,70,000/-. In his source report he finds that accused owned a site in No.78, 3rd cross, 124 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 Thambuchettypalya, Hosakote, Bengaluru to an extent of 40 x 80 and the said site was valued by PW 1 at Rs 50,00,000/- and PW 10 on investigation found that there is no such property available and the information received is said to be false. PW 1 states in his source report that the accused and his family members owned a 50x80' site at HSR layout, Bengaluru city which is valued as Rs 1 crore and PW 10 investigating officer has not found any such property in the name of accused or any of his family members. PW 1 also included Rs 5 lakhs as the value of a swift car bearing Reg No.KA.41 M 590. On investigation by PW 10, it is found that said car does not belong to the accused. PW 1 has stated that accused has amassed wealth to the tune of Rs 2,55,00,000/-. In his evidence, before the Court in cross examination he admits that he has not verified the sale deeds of the properties of which he has given huge amounts as the value of the same. He also admits that he has not verified the APRs and ITRs of the accused. It is clear from the evidence of PW 1 that he had given Ex P1 Source report 125 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 on assumption and presumption according to his whims and fancy and submits that the accused amassed more than 700% assets disproportionate to his known source of income. It is clear from the evidence of PW 9 that there was no evidence against the accused to file charge sheet and hence, he had prepared 'B' final report and submitted before his Senior Officer for approval. And PW10 had conducted further investigation and laid charge sheet against the accused alleging that the accused amassed wealth to the tune of Rs. 17,88,282/- disproportionate to his known source of income. It is not forthcoming from the prosecution records that after PW9 submitted his report after completion of investigation what was the reason for continuation of further investigation of this case. Apart from PW1, who conducted preliminary enquiry of this case, 3 other Investigating Officers were examined before this court. PW8, Prasanna V. Raju, PW9 Loknath Kadri and PW10 S.D.Venkataswamy. There are other Investigating Officers who conducted investigation who are not examined by the prosecution. PW9 126 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 has taken over the investigation of this case from PW8 and PW 10 has taken over the investigation from Dy.S.P. VPM Swamy and this VPM Swamy is not examined before this court by the prosecution throws doubt on the entire investigation conducted after the investigation of PW9. PW10 has in his evidence admits that he had left out huge sum of income of the accused by mistake and attitude of the Investigating Officer also shows that the investigation of this case is done in a very casual manner which is to be looked into seriously. It is evident from the oral testimony of PW1 and his Ex. P1 source report that anyone can be roped into a criminal case and innocent accused persons has to run from pillar to post behind the case. Such attitudes of investigating officers have to curbed at the earliest and appropriate steps has to be taken to see that such unfortunate events should not be repeated in future.
107. Under these circumstances, I hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused amassed wealth disproportionate to 127 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 his known source of income by adducing satisfactory and convincing evidence. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the Negative.
108. Point No 2: In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under section 248(1) Cr.P.C, the accused Mr.S.Lakshman Singh is acquitted for the offence defined under Section 13(1)(e) punishable under section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused other than the bonds executed by the accused under section 437-A of Cr.P.C, stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer, printout taken, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 27th day of April, 2019) Sd/-27.04.2019 [MANJULA ITTY] XXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU 128 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
PW 1 : Eshwara Chandra Vidhya Sagar PW 2 : S.Saheb Ahamed PW 3 : B.Prasanna Kumar PW 4 : Achuta Bidarahalli PW 5 : Jayadeva Prakash PW 6 : R.Narayana Murthy PW 7 : Smt.Rashmi Aliyas PW 8 : Prasanna V.Raju PW 9 : Lokanath Kadri PW 10: S.D.Venkataswamy List of documents marked on behalf of prosecution:
Ex P1 : Source Report Ex P1(a): Signature of PW 1 Ex P2: Proceedings of Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha.
Ex P2(a): Signature of PW 1 Ex P3: Search warrant 129 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 Ex P3(a): Signature of PW 2 Ex P3(b): Signature of PW 8 Ex P4 : search mahazar of House No.502 Ex P4(a): Signature of PW 2 Ex P4(b): Signature of PW 8 Ex P5 : Building valuation report Ex P5(a): Signature of PW 3 Ex P5(b): Signature of PW 3 Ex P6 : Valuation report in respect of building No.5, Ayyappa Temple Road Ex P6(a): Signature of PW 4 Ex P7 : Food expenditure report Ex P7(a): Signature of PW 5 Ex P8 : Horticulture report Ex P8(a): Signature of PW 6 Ex P9 : Agriculture report Ex P9(a): Signature of PW 7 Ex P10 : Proceedings of Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha dtd 21.4.2008 Ex P 11: FIR in Crime No.23/2008 Ex P11(a): Signature of PW 8 Ex P 12 & 13: Two requisiting letters Ex P12(a) & 13(a): Signature of PW 8 Ex P 14: House search warrant Ex P14(a): Signature of PW 8 130 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 Ex P15 : Locker search mahazar Ex P15(a): Signature of PW 8 Ex P16 : Office search mahazar Ex P16(a): Signature of PW 8 Ex P17 : PF No.25/2008 dtd 22.04.2008 Ex P17(a): Signature of PW 8 Ex P18: Service particulars of accused Ex P19 : Ration card details from Food Department Ex P 20 : Copy of vigilance report Ex P 21: Copy of Will and death certificate Ex P 22: Letter of Sub-Registrar and E.C of Sy.No.69/12 Ex P 23: Letter of Additional Deputy Commissioner and site's sale deeds Ex P 24: Copy of sale deed, rectification deed and EC from Sub-Registrar, Indiranagara Ex P 25: SBM - CBAB Branch account details Ex P26 : S.B.Account of accused maintained at Veerashiva Co.Op. Bank Ex P27 : Details of S.B. account of the accused maintained at Canara Bank Ex P 28: Details of S.B.Account of the accused maintained at Axis bank Ex P29 : Details of account of the accused maintained at UTI Bank.
Ex P 30: RTO (JNB) 'B' extract - KA.41.M.590 131 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 Ex P 31: Property No.1644/121/510 EC and attested copy of Register ledger extract, BBMP certificate, sketch, tax paid receipt Ex P32: Copy of lease deed cum rental agreement Ex P33: Blank stamp papers of Rs 50+100+100 Ex P 34: Salary particulars of the accused Ex P 35: Particulars of horticulture report Ex P 36: RTC papers in respect of the property at Hemmigepura Ex P37 : ICICI Safety blonds details. Ex P38 : KGID Bonds details and documents Ex P39 : GPF account details Ex P 40: BDA - Land acquired details Ex P 41: Tahasildar's report of Tax paid details. Ex P 42: Site No.394, Dommalur - BBMP sketch and details. Ex P 43: House No.502, BBMP - tax paid details. Ex P44: MUDA Mysore AGO's -son's site sanction application amount paid details Ex P 45: BWSSB House No.502, connection details Ex P 46 : Telecom Department connection details Ex P47 : Letter of National Public School - Education expenses details.
Ex P 48: Education details from N.P.School Ex P48(a) : Signature of PW 10 Ex P49 : Details of passport, visa and paid details.132 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015
Ex P50: Tax paid details in respect of House No.1644/12/1510 Ex P 51: Loan details of the accused maintained in Bengaluru East and South Taluk Co.Op. Bank. Ex P 52: Income tax salara forms of AGO Ex P 53: Income tax paid details of Vikram Ex P 54: Income gtax details of Bharathi Ex P 55: Proceedings of Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha dtd 18.12.2012 Ex P56 : Conversation letter of commissioner of police dtd 20.12.2012 with assets and liabilities statement Ex P56 (a): Page No.27 Ex P56 (b): Page No.113 Ex P56(c) : Page No.114 Ex P56(d) : Page No.144 Ex P56(e) : Page No.145 Ex P56(f) : Page No.149 Ex P56(g) : Page No.150 Ex P56(h & i) : APR 2000-01 Ex P56(j) : Page No.38 List of material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
NIL 133 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 List of witnesses examined on behalf of accused:
Nil List of documents marked on behalf of accused:
Ex D1: Letter dated 17.5.2010 of S.Lakshman singh Ex D2 : Covering letter of BBMP dated 22.11.17 Ex D2(a): True copy of sanction plan Ex D3: RTI/Horticulture report Ex D4 : Letter of Assistant Director of Agriculture dated 11.06.2009 with agriculture income report Ex D4(a): Signature of PW 7 Ex D5 : Final investigation report dtd 22.2.2013 Ex D5(a) Signature of PW 9 Ex D6 : Schedules book Ex D7: True copy of sale deed Ex D8: RTC Form No.15 in respect of Site No.394 Ex D9 : True copy of rectification deed Ex D 10: Letter of Smt.Saraswathi dtd 4.4.2014 Ex D11: Income tax acknowledgment and return documents Ex D12: Receipt of Radio House dtd 11.2.2008 Ex D13: Fridze receipt, bank letter, warranty Ex D14: KPTCL letter with electric connection details and plan Ex D 15: Khatha certificate 134 Spl.C.C.No.226/2015 Ex D16: Khata extract Ex D17: Letter of FRRO dtd 17.8.2011 Sd/-27.04.2019 [MANJULA ITTY] XXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE SPECIAL JUDGE, PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BANGALORE CITY.