Bangalore District Court
Cbi/Acb/Bengaluru vs A1 Ram Bhuwan Chauhan on 28 March, 2024
KABC010042252019
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE FOR CBI
CASES AT BENGALURU (CCH-34)
Dated 28th March, 2024
-: PRESENT :-
Sri.H.A.Mohan, B.A.L., LL.B.
XXXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge
and Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru
Spl.C.C.No.92/2019
Complainant : Central Bureau of
Investigation,
Anti Corruption Branch,
Bengaluru
(By Sri.Balaji Francis,
Public Prosecutor)
-vs-
Accused : Shri.Ram Bhuwan Chauhan
S/o Shri.Ram Dhular
Chauhan
The then Asst. Garrison
Engineer, Military
Engineering Services, Naval
Base, Karwar,
Karnataka State
(By Sri.Shankar.P.Hegde,
2 Spl.C.C.92/2019
Advocate)
Date of commission of 01.03.2016
the offence/s :
Offences charged : U/S 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of
P.C.Act, 1988
Name of the CBI/ACB, Bengaluru
Complainant :
Date of commencement
of the evidence : 31.01.2023
Statement of accused 05.12.2023
u/S 313 of Cr.P.C. :
Evidence of Accused 16.02.2024
closed on :
Final Verdict : Accused is acquitted
(H.A.Mohan)
XXXII Addl.C.C. & S.J. and
Special Judge for CBI Cases,
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
This case emanates from the charge sheet filed by CBI/ ACB, Bengaluru, pertaining to 3 Spl.C.C.92/2019 RC.21(A)/2017, for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, Accused Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan S/o Shri.Ram Dhular Chauhan, joined Military Engineer Service on 01.05.2013 as Assistant Executive Engineer. After his basic training, he was posted as Asstt. Engineer in the Office of Chief Engineer, Lucknow Zone, Uttar Pradesh and Asstt. Garrison Engineer at Delhi Cantonment and subsequently on 27.02.2016, he was posted as Asstt. Garrison Engineer (Barrac & Roads) in the Office of Garrison Engineer (Independent), Military Engineering Service (MES) Karwar, Karnataka State and he worked there during the period from 27.02.2016 to 30.11.2017. He is 4 Spl.C.C.92/2019 presently working as Asst. Director (Barrac & Roads), Office of the Chief Engineer (Navy), Mumbai.
3. It is further contended that investigation conducted by the CBI revealed that accused while working in the capacity of a public servant as Asstt. Garrison Engineer (Barrac & Roads), in the Office of Garrison Engineer (Independent), MES, Karwar, Karnataka State, during the check period from 01.03.2016 to 28.07.2017, has acquired various movable assets in his name and in the names of his family members, which is disproportionate to his known sources of income to the tune of Rs.14,76,167/- and the percentage of disproportionate asset is 153.46%.
4. It is further contended that the above said 5 Spl.C.C.92/2019 allegations are based on the following facts and circumstances:
Accused Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan hailed from a middle class family from Serra Village, Kharihani Post, District, Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh and his father Sri. Ram Dhular Chauhan is an agriculturist and possessed agricultural land measuring 10258 hectares at his native place. His mother is a house wife. He has one sister and she is married and residing at New Delhi and he has elder brother by name Shri Rajesh Chouhan and he is LIC agent. His elder brother and his family (wife and 2 children) are staying at his native place i.e., Serra Village, Kharihani Post, District, Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh along with his parents. The agricultural land is in the name of his father and his father along with his
6 Spl.C.C.92/2019 elder brother are cultivating rice and wheat and the annual income is approx. Rs.1 lakh. The said agricultural property has not been partitioned and hence, the accused Shri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan is not in possession of any immovable properties either in his name or in the name of his wife.
5. It is further contended that the Investigation revealed that Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan got married to Smt. Sadhana Chauhan, D/o Sri. Mahendra Chauhan on 09.05.2015. Sri. Mahendra Chauhan is working as a Clerk in Municipal Office, Mohamadabad Gohna Village, Mau District of Uttar Pradesh. Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan and Smt. Sadhana Chauhan have one son Master Pratyush Chauhan, who is one year old. Smt. Sadhana Chauhan is a house wife and does not 7 Spl.C.C.92/2019 have any independent source of income. Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan has declared to his department that his father Sri. Ram Dular Chauhan, his mother Smt. Patti Devi (mother) and his wife Smt. Sadhana Chauhan as his dependents. Thus, the only source of income to Accused No.1 was from his salary.
6. It is further contended that, CBI, ACB, Bengaluru in RC 13(A) 2017 dated 27.07.2017 laid a trap against Shri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan, Asst. Garrison Engineer, MES, Naval Base, Karwar and Sri. Lt.Col. Jasbir Singh Bath, Garrison Engineer, MES, Naval Base, Karwar and caught them red handed while accepting the bribe and after completion of the investigation charge sheet has been filed against both in the competent court.
7. It is further contended that, during the 8 Spl.C.C.92/2019 search at the residential premises of the accused Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan conducted on 27/28.07.2017 in RC 13(A)/2017, a cash of Rs.8,66,830/- (Rs.8,14,330/- legally valid currency notes and Rs.52,500/- of demonetized currency notes) was seized. Inventory of the household articles were prepared. An amount of Rs.15,500/- was seized during the personal search memo dated 27.07.2017. During the searches, the incriminating documents relevant to the case also seized. The above amounts of Rs.8,66,830/- and 15,500/- have been transferred to the instant case with the permission of this Court.
8. Investigation has revealed that the accused was in possession of attests to the tune of Rs.3,23,898/- at the beginning of the Check period 9 Spl.C.C.92/2019 i.e., 01.03.2016 and Rs.19,50,411/- at the end of the check period i.e., 28.07.2017. His income during the check period was Rs.9,61,917/- and incurred an expenditure to the tune of Rs.8,11,571/- during the check period. Thus, Accused No.1 was in possession of disproportionate assets beyond his known sources of income which could not satisfactory account for to the tune of Rs.14,76,167/- constituting 153.46%.
9. The details of the ABCD statements and the calculation of disproportionate assets are as follows:
10. Statement -A : Assets at the beginning of the check period as on 01.03.2016 as detailed below:
10 Spl.C.C.92/2019 Sl. Details of property Amount in Rs.
No. IMMOVABLE Nil -
MOVABLE 1 Value of household articles acquired prior to check period 1,26,600=00 as per inventory dated 27/28.07.2017 2 Credit Balance in Savings Bank A/c No.33030839194 held 8,294=00 in the name of Ram Bhuwan Chauhan with State Bank of India, Delhi Cantonment Branch, Retail Business Centre, New Delhi as on 25.02.2016.
3 Credit balance in the Savings Bank A/c 1991=00 No.150101000015338 held in the name of Ram Bhuwan Chauhan with Indian Overseas Bank, NHPC Branch, Faridabad, Haryana as on 10.02.2016. 4 Balance in public provident Fund Account No.3396113850 1,01,124=00 held in the name of Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan with State Bank of India, Delhi Cantonment Branch, New Delhi as on 17.02.2016 5 Credit balance in Savings Bank Account 16,466=00 No.386402010930632 held in the name of Ms. Sadhana Chauhan W/o Ram Bhuwan Chauhan with Union Bank of India, Mohammadabad Branch in Uttar Pradesh as on 07.02.2016.
6 TVS Apache Two wheeler purchased on 07.12.2011 69,423=00
Total 3,23,898=00
11. During the search conducted at the
residence of Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan at Karwar on 27/28.07.2018, the inventory of valuables available in his possession was prepared. The value 11 Spl.C.C.92/2019 of the articles and date of acquiring the valuables were as per the information provided by Accused No.1 during the search. It is revealed that all the items in the inventory were purchased before the check period i.e., 01.03.2016 and hence, total value of the items amounting to Rs.1,26,600/- has been taken as assets at the beginning of the check period i.e., as on 01.03.2016.
12. It is revealed that Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan purchased TVS Apache Two wheeler on 07.12.2011 for Rs.69,423/-. The Invoice/ Receipt towards purchase of this vehicle was also available at the residence of Shri Ram Bhuwan Chauhan at Karwar during the search, which is purchased from Tayal Automobile Showroom, Faridabad.
13. Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan, opened 12 Spl.C.C.92/2019 Savings Bank A/c No.33030839194 on 01.06.2013 with State Bank of India, Delhi Cantonment Branch, Retail Business Centre, New Delhi and the balance available as on 01.03.2016 was Rs.8,294/- only.
14. Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan, opened Savings Bank A/c No.150101000015338 on 11.02.2011 with Indian Overseas Bank, NHPC Branch, Faridabad, Haryana and the balance available as on 01.03.2016 was Rs.1,991/-.
15. Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan, opened public provident Fund Account No.3396113850 on 16.07.2014 in his name with State Bank of India, Delhi Cantonment Branch, Retail Business Centre, New Delhi and the balance available as on 01.03.2016 was Rs.1,01,124/-.
13 Spl.C.C.92/2019
16. Smt. Sadhana Chauhan W/o Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan, opened Savings Bank Account No.386402010930632 with Union Bank of India, Mohammadabad Gohna Branch, Mau District, Uttar Pradesh and the balance available as on 01.03.2016 was Rs.16,466/-. Thus, the total assets at the beginning of the check period amounts to Rs.3,23,898/- only.
17. Statement-B: Assets at the end of the check period as on 28.07.2017 is furnished in detail:
Sl. Details of property Amount in Rs.
No.
IMMOVABLE
Nil -
MOVABLE
1 Value of household articles as per inventory dated 1,26,600=00
27/28.07.2017
2 Credit Balance in Savings Bank A/c No.33030839194 of 5,05,525=00
Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan with SBI, Delhi Cantonment Branch, New Delhi as on 26.07.2017. 3 Credit balance in the Savings Bank A/c 23,872=00 14 Spl.C.C.92/2019 No.150101000015338 of Ram Bhuwan Chauhan with Indian Overseas Bank, NHPC Branch, Faridabad, Haryana as on 28.07.2017 4 Balance in public provident Fund Account 2,03,754=00 No.3396113850 held in the name of Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan with State Bank of India, Delhi Cantonment Branch, New Delhi as on 24.06.2017. 5 Balance in SB Account No.386402010930632 of Ms. 1,13,907=00 Sadhana Chauhan W/o Ram Bhuwan Chauhan with Union Bank o India, Mohammadabad Branch in Uttar Pradesh as on 02.07.2017.
6 Amount invested in Special Term Deposit vide STD 25,000=00 Account No.36151970004 by Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan with SBI, Delhi Cantt Branch, New Delhi as on 02.10.2016.
7 TVS Apache Two wheeler purchased on 07.12.2011 69,423=00 8 Cash seized from the residence of Sri. Ram Bhuwan 8,66,830=00 Chauhan during search conducted on 27/28.07.2017 9 Cash seized from the possession of Sri. Ram Bhuwan 15,500=00 Chauhan vide arrest-cum-personal search memo on 28.07.2017 Total 19,50,411=00
18. Immovable properties: Sri. Ramdular Chauhan father of Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan owns 1.258 hectares of agricultural land in Serra Village, Kharihani, Azamgarh District, Uttar Pradesh, which is an ancestral property. It is still in the name of his 15 Spl.C.C.92/2019 father Sri. Ramdular Chauhan.
19. During the search conducted at the residence of Shri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan at Karwar on 27/28.07.2018 in RC 13(A) 2017 (Trap case), the inventory of valuables were prepared that the articles worth of Rs.1,26,600/- are only available. These assets were purchased before the check period i.e., before 01.03.2016. Hence, the entire amount of Rs.1,26,600/- has been taken as assets at the end of the check period i.e., as on 28.07.2017. Shri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan purchased TVS Apache Two wheeler purchased on 07.12.2011 for Rs.69,423/-. The Invoice/Receipt towards purchase of this vehicle was also available at the residence of Shri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan at Karwar during the search and inventory, which is purchased from Tayal 16 Spl.C.C.92/2019 Automobile Showroom, Faridabad.
20. Bank Balance: Shri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan had opened Savings Bank A/c No.33030839194 on 01.06.2013 with SBI, Delhi Cantonment Branch, Retail Business Centre, New Delhi. In the account, his salary and all other emoluments he regularly received from his department are credited. The balance available as on 28.07.2017 was Rs.5,05,525/-.
21. Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan had opened Savings Bank A/c No.150101000015338 on 11.02.2011 with Indian Overseas Bank, NHPC Branch, Faridabad, Haryana and the balance available as on 28.07.2017 was Rs.23,872/-.
22. Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan had opened 17 Spl.C.C.92/2019 public provident Fund Account No.3396113850 on 16.07.2014 with State Bank of India, Delhi Cantonment Branch, Retail Business Centre, New Delhi and the balance available as on 28.07.2017 was Rs.2,03.754/-.
23. Smt. Sadhana Chauhan W/o Ram Bhuwan Chauhan had opened SB Account No.386402010930632 with Union Bank o India, Mohammadabad Gohna Branch, Mau District, Uttar Pradesh and the balance available as on 28.07.2017 was Rs.1,13,907/-.
24. Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan has invested an amount of Rs.25,000/- in Special Term Deposit vide STD Account No.36151970004 with SBI, Delhi Cantt. Branch, New Delhi as on 02.10.2016 by transferring the amount from his SB Account No.3030839194.
18 Spl.C.C.92/2019
25. During the search conducted at the residence of Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan at Karwar on 27/28.07.2018 in RC 13(A) 2017, an amount of Rs.8,14,330/- legal tender and demonetized currency of Rs.52,500/- has been seized from his residence. These amounts have been transferred/ accounted to the instant case i.e., RC 21(A) 2017 with the permission of this Court. Hence, an amount of Rs.8,14,330/- legal tender and demonetized currency of Rs.52,500/- has been taken as assets acquired at the end of the check period as on 28.07.2017. The total movable assets possessed by Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan and his family members during the check period from 01.03.2016 to 28.07.2017 amounts to Rs.19,50,411.00.
19 Spl.C.C.92/2019
26. Statement-C : Income calculated during the check period (01.03.2016 to 28.07.2017) as follows:
Sl. Details of Income Amount in
No. Rs.
1 Net salary received by the Sri Ram Bhuwan Chauhan during 9,29,280=00
the check period
2 Interest received in SB A/c 33030839194 maintained with 9,389=00
SBI, Delhi Cant. Branch.
3 Interest received in SB A/c No.150101000015338 475=00
maintained with Indian Overseas Bank, NHPC Branch, Faridabad.
4 Interest received in STD A/c No.36151969838 in the name 1,702=00 of Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan.
5 Interest received in SB A/c No.386402010930632 in the 3,441=00 name of Sadhana Chauhan.
6 Interest received in PPF A/c No.33969113850 in the name of 17,630=00 Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan.
Total 9,61,917=00
27. Income earned during the check period from 01.03.2016 to 28.07.2017: Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan had received net salary of Rs.9,29,280/- including Dearness allowance and 7th pay 20 Spl.C.C.92/2019 Commission arrears during the above said period. His wife Smt. Sadhana Chauhan is house wife and she is not having any independent source of income. Further, the interest received in the bank accounts of Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan and his wife Smt. Sadhana Chauhan and also in the PPF account, Special Term Deposits etc., of the accused have been taken into consideration and treated as income in statement-C Apart from salary income, there is no other source of income received by the accused or his wife. The details are as follows:
Salary Income: Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan has received a net salary of Rs.9,29,280/- for the period from 01.03.2016 to 28.07.2017.
28. Interest Income from SB Accounts: Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan, opened Savings Bank A/c
21 Spl.C.C.92/2019 No.33030839194 on 01.06.2013 with State Bank of India, Delhi Cantonment Branch, Retail Business Centre, New Delhi and amount of Rs.9,389/- is accrued interest in that account upto 28.07.2017
29. Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan, opened Savings Bank A/c No.150101000015338 on 11.02.2011 with Indian Overseas Bank, NHPC Branch, Faridabad, Haryana and amount of Rs.475/- is accrued interest in that account upto 28.07.2017.
30. Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan, opened Public Provident Fund A/c No.33969113850 on 16.07.2014 with State Bank of India, Delhi Cantonment Branch, Retail Business Centre, New Delhi and amount of Rs.17,630/- is accrued interest in that account upto 28.07.2017.
22 Spl.C.C.92/2019
31. Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan, has invested an amount of Rs.50,000/- in Special Term Deposit Account No. 36151969838 opened on 02.10.2016 by transfer from SB A/c No.3030839194 and the same was closed on 02.04.2017 on maturity, an amount of Rs.51,702/- was paid to him including the interest of Rs.1,702/-. Hence, an amount of Rs.1,702/- has been considered as income accrued during the check period
32. Smt. Sadhana Chauhan W/o Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan opened SB A/c No.386402010930632 with Unian Bank, Mohammadabad Gohna Branch, Mau District, Uttar Pradesh and amount of Rs.3,441/- is accrued interest in that account upto 28.07.2017. The total income of Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan and his family 23 Spl.C.C.92/2019 members during the check period (01.03.2010 to 28.07.2017) amount to Rs.9,61,917/
33. Statement -D: Expenditure incurred during the check period (01.03.2016 to 28.07.2017). Sl. Details of Expenditure Amount in Rs. No. 1 Unverifiable domestic expenses calculated @ 1/3rd 3,72,467=00 of Gross salary minus TDS of Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan 2 Purchase of Samsung Pro Mobile on 13.07.2016 11,190=00 3 Expenditure incurred during move on temporary 820=00 duty in the month of May 2016.
4 Expenditure incurred during move on temporary 1,096=00 duty in the month of March 2016 5 Expenditure incurred during move on temporary 2,348=00 duty in the month of August 2016 6 Expenditure incurred during LTC for home town in 5,960=00 the month of October and November 2016 7 Expenditure incurred on Flight ticket booking in the 11,236=00 name of Smt. Sadhana Chauhan from Goa to Mumbai for the date 14.08.2017 and Mumbai to Goa for the dated 18.08.2017.
8 Flight fare from Varanasi to Goa - 16.08.2017 vide 10,690=00 Indigo Invoice dated 26.07.2017 for the journey of Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan, Ms. Sadhana Chauhan. 9 Flight fare from Varanasi to Mumbai and Goa - 7,332=00 16.08.2017 vide Indigo Airticket in the name of Ms. Pooja Chauhan.
24 Spl.C.C.92/2019 10 Indigo flight fare from Varanasi to Mumbai- 5,450=00 10.05.2017 11 Amount paid to Kamath Motors towards repairs to 5,986=00 two wheeler-vice Invoices dated 17.02.2017 and 27.07.2016.
12 Expenditure incurred on third party payments from 6,597=00 HDFC Credit Card 13 Expenditure incurred on third party payments from 38,893=00 Citi Credit Card 14 Amount paid to Nitin Enterprises, Karwar towards 3,500=00 purchase of spare parts for RO water purifier 15 Bank charges debited by the Bank from SB A/c 38=00 No.150101000015338 of Ram Bhuwan Chauhan with Indian Overseas Bank, NHPC Branch, Faridabad, Haryana during the check period 16 Amount paid towards LIC Policy No.266395807 30,021=00 17 Amount transferred through NEFT to the account 5,000=00 No.614902010013949 in the name of Sri. Ramdular Chauhan (father of the accused) maintained with Union Bank of India, Kharihani Branch, uttar Pradesh on 21.05.2016 18 Amount transferred through NEFT to the A/c 5,000=00 No..614902010013949 in the name of Sri. Ramdular Chauhan (father of the accused) maintained with Union Bank of India, Kharihani Branch, uttar Pradesh on 18.06.2016 19 Cash deposits to Ram Dular Chauhan into the A/c 79,000=00 No..614902010013949 of Union Bank of India, Kharihani Branch, UP (Rs.49,000/- on 26.10.2016 and Rs.30,000/- on 07.03.2017).
20 Amount transferred to Sri. Bal Gobind Chauhan to 15,000=00 his SB A/c NO.30287900078 maintained with SBI, Azamgarh Branch on 13.04.2016 through NEFT from Indian Overseas Bank, NHPC Branch, Faridabad.
21 Expenditure made towards self contribution to 1,22,000=00 National Pension Scheme vide PRAN 25 Spl.C.C.92/2019 No.11001387485 by Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan 22 Expenditure incurred towards third party payments 49,091=00 in SB A/c No.33030839194 maintained with SBI, Delhi Cant. Branch 23 Insurance premium paid towards Reliance premium 15,000=00 held in the name of Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan 24 Repayment of personal loan account No.23805022 7,856=00 availed from HDFC Ltd., Total 8,11,571=00
34. Domestic Expenditure: The domestic expenditure which constitute the household expenditure and other unverifiable expenditure is worked out at 1/3 of gross salary of Rs.11,17,402/- (Gross Salary 11,63,904/- minus TDS of Rs.46,502/- = Rs.11,17,402/-) which is about Rs.3,72,467/-. It includes expenses on rations, groceries, milk etc., and (ii) Other household expenses such as clothing, wages of servants, expenditure on cable TV/Dish TV, expenditure on border, washer-man, movies, newspaper and magazines, drinks, hobbies, pre-
26 Spl.C.C.92/2019 paid mobile recharge for the accused and his wife, payment made through PayTM etc., credit card payments made towards purchase of household expenditure, fuel charges etc. Accused No.1 was using two credit cards-CITI Bank and HDFC. During the check period he had spent a total of Rs.1,38,004/- and 1,43,169/- respectively through the above two credit cards. Investigation revealed that he has spent Rs.51,165 and Rs.1,726 respectively through CITI Bank and HDFC credit card on some of the domestic expenses. Hence, the same is not separately treated as expenditure and considered part of 1/3 domestic expenses.
35. Purchase of Mobile phone: Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan had incurred an expenditure of Rs.11,190/- towards purchase of Samsung on7 Pro 27 Spl.C.C.92/2019 Mobile on 13.07.2016 through Amazon Services in his name. The same has been taken as expenditure incurred during the check period.
36. Expenditure incurred towards traveling expenses (TA) on official duty and towards Leave Travel Concession(LTC) for self and his wife. Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan has spent an amount of Rs.24,216/- during his temporary duty to Goa, Mumbai and Jodhpur during the period from 01.05.2016 to 04.05.2016 and on his return, he submitted his Traveling Allowance (TR) Bills. He claimed Rs.24,216/-, whereas his department has sanctioned and paid him Rs.23,396/-. Hence, the remaining amount of Rs.820/- spent by him from his pocket and taken as expenditure incurred during the check period 28 Spl.C.C.92/2019
37. Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan has spent an amount of Rs.4,456/- during his temporary duty performed at Bengaluru during the period from 17.03.2016 to 20.03.2016. On his return, he submitted his TA Bill and Rs.4,456/- claimed. The department has sanctioned and reimbursed to him Rs.3,360/-. Hence, the remaining amount of Rs.1,096/- spent by him from his pocket during this tour and taken as expenditure incurred during the check period.
38. Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan has spent an amount of Rs.16,268/- during his posting of temporary duty of Goa and Mumbai between the period 14.08.2016 and 18.08.2016. On his return, he submitted his TA Bill. Against his claim of Rs.16,268/-, the department has sanctioned and 29 Spl.C.C.92/2019 reimbursed Rs.13,920/-. Hence, the remaining amount of Rs.2,348/-spent by him from his pocket and the same amount has been taken as expenditure incurred during the check period.
39. Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan had availed home town LTC facility once from Karwar to Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh during the check period for himself and his wife Smt.Sadhana Chauhan. In this regard, he has spent an amount of Rs.91,244/- and submitted his LTC reimbursed Bill. Against Rs.91,244/- claimed, the department has sanctioned and paid Rs.85,284/- (Rs.78,000/- and Rs.7,284/-). Hence, the difference amount of Rs.5,960/- spent by him from his pocket and taken as expenditure incurred during the check period.
40. Life insurance policy premium: Sri. Ram 30 Spl.C.C.92/2019 Bhuwan Chauhan had taken a Jeevan Saral Insurance Policy vide Policy No.266395807 in his name with Life Insurance Corporation of India Limited, Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh for a sum assured Rs.4,12,500/- on 28.11.2010. During the check period, an amount of Rs.30,021/- was paid in three installments of Rs.10,007/- each on 23.06.2016, 23.12.2016 and 25.06.2017. hence, an amount of Rs.30.021/-has been taken as expenditure incurred during the check period.
41. Expenditure incurred towards service of Motor Cycle to M/s. Kamath Motors: An amount of Rs.5,306/- and Rs.690/- was paid by Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan on 27.07.2016 and 17.02.2017 respectively to M/s. Kamath Motors, Karwar towards service of his two wheeler. Hence an amount of 31 Spl.C.C.92/2019 Rs.5,986/- has been taken as expenditure incurred during the check period.
42. Expenditure incurred on flight ticket bookings: During the check period, Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan, his wife and Ms.Pooja Chauhan visited Mumbai, Goa, and Varanasi and in this regard, Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan has spent an amount of Rs.34,708/- towards flight charges and the same has been taken as expenditure incurred during the check period. Details are furnished herein below:
Sl. Date Places Amount Remarks
No.
1 10.05.2017 Varanasi to 5,450.00 Indigo Flight ticket booked
Mumbai in the name of Sri. Ram
Bhuwan Chauhan
2 16.08.2017 Varanasi to Goa 10,690.00 Indigo Flight ticket booked
in the name of Sri. Ram
Bhuwan Chauhan and Ms.
Sadhana Chauhan.
32 Spl.C.C.92/2019
3 16.08.2017 Varanasi to Goa 7,332.00 Indigo Flight ticket booked in the name of Ms. Pooja Chauhan 4 14.08.2017 Goa to Mumbai 11,236.00 Air india Flight Ticket and for the date booked in the name of Smt. 18.08.2017 14.05.2017 and Sadhana Chauhan.
Mumbai to Goa 34708=00
43. Expenditure incurred towards HDFC credit Card payment: Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan is availing facility of HDFC Credit Card. During the period from 05.03.2016 to 19.02.2017, he has spent an amount of Rs.1,43,169/- towards HDFC Credit Card payment. The statement of account has been scrutinized and after excluding the amount spent on domestic expenses (Rs.1,726/-) and on official duty which was subsequently reimbursed to the accused b y the department (Rs.1,34,846/-) only an amount of Rs.6,597/- has been taken towards expenditure 33 Spl.C.C.92/2019 incurred during the check period.
44. Expenditure incurred towards payments Citi Credit Card: Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan is using Citibank Credit Card. During the period from 02.03.2016 to 24.07.2017, he has spent an amount of Rs.1,38,004/- towards Citibank Credit Card payment. The statement of account has been scrutinized and after excluding the amount spent on domestic expenses (Rs.51,165) and on official duty which was subsequently reimbursed to the accused by the department (Rs.47,946/-) only an amount of Rs.38,893/- has been taken towards expenditure incurred during the check period.
45. Expenditure incurred towards purchase of spare parts for RO water purifier from M/s Nitin Enterprises, Karwar: On 24.07.2017, an amount of 34 Spl.C.C.92/2019 Rs.3,500/- was spent by Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan towards the purchase of Spare Parts for his two wheeler with M/s Nitin Enterprises Karwar. Hence, Rs.3,500/- has been taken towards expenditure incurred during the check period
46. Bank charges paid: During the check period, an amount of Rs.38/- has been debited from the SB A/c No.150101000015338 of Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan by Indian Overseas Bank, NHPC Branch, Faridabad, Haryana and hence the same has been taken towards expenditure incurred during the check period.
47. Expenditure incurred towards transfer of amount to the account of Sri. Ramdular Chauhan:
On 21.05.2016 and on 18.06.2016, Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan, has sent by transferring an 35 Spl.C.C.92/2019 amount of Rs.5,000/- each through NEFT to the Account of Sri. Ramdular Chauhan (father of the accused) to his SB Account No.614902010013949 maintained with Union Bank of India, Kharihani Branch, Uttar Pradesh. Hence, the same has been included as expenditure incurred during the check period.
48. Expenditure incurred towards transfer of amount to the account of Sri. Ramdular Chauhan through cash Deposit: On 26.10.2016 and on 07.03.2017 Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan has transferred an amount of Rs.49,000/- and Rs.30,000/- through Cash Deposit to the Account of Sri. Ramdular Chauhan to his SB A/c.No.614902010013949 maintained with Union Bank of India, Kharihani Branch, Uttar Pradesh.
36 Spl.C.C.92/2019 Hence, the same has been taken towards expenditure incurred during the check period.
49. Expenditure incurred towards transfer of amount to the account of Sri. Bal Gobind Chauhan:
On 13.04.2016, an amount of Rs.15,000/- has been transferred to Sri. Bal Gobind Chauhan through NEFT to his SB A/c No.30287900078 maintained with SBI, Azamgarh Branch from the A/c No.150101000015338 of Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan maintained with Indian overseas Bank, NHPC Branch, Faridabad. Hence, the same has been taken towards expenditure incurred during the check period.
50. Expenditure made towards self contribution to National Pension Scheme vide PRAN No.11001387485 by Sri. Ram Bhuwan: Sri Ram 37 Spl.C.C.92/2019 Bhuwan Chauhan has invested (self-contribution other than the mandatory salary deduction) an amount of Rs.1,22,000/- to his National Pension Scheme Account vide PRAN No.110013587485 through NEFT Transfer from his Savings A/c No.33030839194 operated in State Bank of India, Delhi Cant.Branch, Delhi. Therefore, Rs.1,22,000/- has been taken towards his expenditure incurred during the check period. The details of amounts contributed towards pension scheme are tabulated as under:
Sl. Date Amount
No.
1 08.08.2016 1000.00
2 29.08.2016 5000.00
3 29.08.2016 10000.00
4 02.09.2016 10000.00
5 02.09.2016 20000.00
6 21.09.2016 5000.00
7 23.09.2016 5000.00
38 Spl.C.C.92/2019
8 02.10.2016 15000.00
9 06.11.2016 5000.00
10 21.11.2016 10000.00
11 14.12.2016 11000.00
12 16.12.2016 5000.00
13 19.01.2017 10000.00
14 21.04.2017 5000.00
15 23.06.2017 5000.00
Total 1,22,000.00
51. Expenditure incurred towards third party payments in SB Account No.33030839194 of Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan: Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan had incurred expenditure towards the below mentioned payments from his SB A/c No.33030839194 maintained with State Bank of India, Delhi Cant.Branch, Delhi. Hence, an amount Rs.49,091/- has been considered as expenditure incurred during the check period.
39 Spl.C.C.92/2019
Sl. Date Amount Narration
No.
1 02.03.2016 20,000.00 Transferred to A/c
No.34900048834 of Sri.
Akshay Jain and Anju jain.
2 07.05.2016 10,000.00. Transferred to A/c
No.1391150357707 of Sri.
Rohit
3 19.07.2016 2,540.00 Payment of Income Tax
4 14.12.2016 11,000.00 Amount paid to SBI ePay
Pooling Account
5 13.07.2017 1,675.00 IRCTC Payment
6 13.07.2017 3,876.00 Indigo Airlines Payment
Total 49,091.00
52. Insurance premium paid towards Reliance premium held in the name of Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan: Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan had taken a Reliance Life Insurance Policy with Reliance Limited for a premium of Rs.15,000/- to be paid yearly for a period of 15 years. This payment was made on 12.09.2016 through HDFC Credit Card and the same has been reflected the statement of account for the month of September 2016. The total amount of 40 Spl.C.C.92/2019 Rs.15,000/- is taken as expenditure
53. Repayment of personal Loan A/c.no.23805022 availed from HDFC Ltd.,: Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan had availed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as personal loan on 01.03.2013 from HDFC Bank vide loan A/c.No.23805022. Majority of the loan amount was repaid before the check period. During the check period i.e., from 01.03.2016 to 27.07.2018, an amount of Rs.7,856/- was paid towards repayment of loan. Hence, an amount of Rs.7,856/- is taken as expenditure incurred towards repayment of personal loan.
54. Calculation of disproportionate Assets: The details of disproportionate of assets possessed by Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan at the end of the check period has calculated as under:
41 Spl.C.C.92/2019 Sl. Computation of DA Amount Rs. No. 1 Assets at the beginning of the check period 3,23,898=00 (Statement-A) 2 Assets at the end of the check period (Statement -B) 19,50,411=00 3 Assets acquired during the check period (B-A) 16,26,513=00 4 Income earned during the check period (Statement-C) 9,61,917=00 5 Expenditure incurred during the check period 8,11,571=00 (Statement-D) 6 Total assets acquired and expenses incurred during the 24,38,084=00 check period (01.03.2016 to 28.07.2017) (III=IV) 7 Extent to which assets and expenses are 14,76,167=00 disproportionate to income (B-A+D)-(C) Disproportionate Assets 8 DA Percentage - Percentage of disproportionate assets 153.46% with reference to income
55. Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan has thus been found in possession of disproportionate assets to the known source of income in his name and in the names of his family members to the tune of Rs.14,76,167/- constituting 153.46% which he could not satisfactorily account and whereas, the above acts of Sri. Ram Bhuwan Chauhan, now posted as Assistant Director (Barrack and Roads), Office of the 42 Spl.C.C.92/2019 Chief Engineer (Navy), Coloba, Mumbai, while working as Asst. Garrison Engineer, Office of Garrison Engineer, Military Engineer Service, Naval Base, Karwar, Karnataka State, constitute commission of the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(e) of P.C.Act, 1988.
56. After receipt of the charge sheet and on perusal of the same, by order dated 31.01.2019 my learned predecessor has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(e) of P.C.Act and ordered to issue summons to the accused. In response to the summons received, the accused appeared along with his Advocate and he has been released on bail.
57. Thereafter, discharge application filed on behalf of accused has been dismissed and framed 43 Spl.C.C.92/2019 the charges against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of P.C.Act and read over to accused in English language known to him and accused denied charges and claimed to be tried.
58. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined Cws 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 13, 14, 15, 22, 16 and 17 as PW1 to PW11 and one Niranjan as PW12, CWs 7, 23, 11, 25 as PW13 to 16, one witness Kartik Bajpai as PW17, CWs 35, 33, 29, 31, 40 and 42 as PW18 to PW23 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.77
59. Thereafter, statement as contemplated under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has been recorded by putting the incriminating evidence available against Accused. It has been submitted that all the proper 44 Spl.C.C.92/2019 questions have been framed as contemplated under Seton 313 Cr.P.C. based upon the evidence available.
60. Thereafter, accused filed his written statement as per Section 313(5) of Cr.P.C. The accused himself has been examined as DW1 and got marked Ex.D.1 to D.6. He has examined one Sri.Vinod and Sri.Vinayaka Hegde, practicing Advocates as DW2 and DW3 and got marked Ex.D.7 and D.8 and closed his side evidence.
61. Heard the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor Sri.Balaji Francis and and the learned counsel for the Accused Sri.Shankar.P.Hegde.
62. The points that would arise for my consideration are:
45 Spl.C.C.92/2019
1. Whether there is a valid sanction to prosecute the accused?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that during the check period from 01.03.2016 to 28.07.2017 the accused had acquired disproportionate asset to the tune of Rs.1,47,616, which is equivalent to 153.46% and beyond his known source of income and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
3. What order?
63. My findings on the above points are as under:
46 Spl.C.C.92/2019 Point No.1 : In the affirmative Point No.2 : In the negative Point No.3 : 'As per final order' for the following:
REASONS
64. POINT No.1: Since during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for accused Sri.S.P.H. has not seriously disputed about the sanction accorded by the competent authority, as per the evidence of PW22 there is no necessity to discuss much about this aspect. Hence, I hold that there is no serious dispute with regard to according sanction to prosecute the accused. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the affirmative.
65. POINT NO.2: In this case, the learned counsel for the accused has submitted written 47 Spl.C.C.92/2019 arguments and based upon the said written arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor has also argued with regard to the disputed assets and also with regard to additional income, expenditure etc.
66. After having heard the learned counsel for accused and the learned Public Prosecutor at length, the first and foremost point raised by the accused is with regard to the assets shown in Statement A. Hence, the assets shown in Statement A is taken first for discussion.
67. As per the written arguments, the accused has not disputed the assets mentioned in Sl.No.1 to 4, 6, but there is dispute with regard to item No.5 for a sum of Rs.16,466/- that will be decided in accordance with law.
48 Spl.C.C.92/2019
68. In addition to the same, the learned counsel for the accused has taken a specific defense during the course of trial to the effect that the check period taken by Investigating Officer i.e. PW23 from 01.03.2016 to 28.07.2017 is not fair on account of the fact that before 01.03.2016 the accused had already put in 13 years of service in various departments and earned about Rs.48,00,000/- during that period. It has been seriously pointed out by Sri.Shankar P Hegde that even as per the admissions elicited in the cross- examination of PW23 and the documents as per Ex.D.1 to D.6 produced by the accused, it is not in dispute that accused had worked for about 13 years in various departments and earned about Rs.48,00,000/-. It is pointed out that as per law, 49 Spl.C.C.92/2019 after deducting 1/3rd out of the said amount towards the domestic expenses of the accused, the remaining Rs.28,00,000/- should have been taken as the likely savings of the accused before the starting of check period. But, intentionally the Investigating Officer has adopted wrong method, ignoring the guidelines issued even in CBI Manual and also law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Courts in catena of judgments with regard to selecting the duration of check period and confined the check period for a shorter period i.e. for about one year four months even though by that time accused had served more than 13 years and earned about Rs.48,00,000/-. It is pointed out that as per the evidence of PW23, he investigated the matter and ascertained that he could not find any material to know that accused had invested his 50 Spl.C.C.92/2019 2/3rd salary amount on any property or any other purpose. Even as per his evidence on the day of search, the CBI could secure the asset only to the extent of Rs.1,26,600/-. In that regard, Sri.S.P.H. has cited the following decisions to point out as to how to consider the likely savings when it was available at the beginning of check period:
1. In the judgment reported in AIR 1988 Supreme Court 88 (State of Maharashtra v. Pollonji Darabshaw Daruwalla), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"The choice of the period must
necessarily be determined by the
allegations of fact on which the
prosecution is founded and rests.
However, the period must be such as to enable a true and comprehensive picture of the known sources of income and the
51 Spl.C.C.92/2019 pecuniary resources and property in possession of by the public-servant either by himself or through any other person on his behalf, which are alleged to be so disproportionate. In the facts and circumstances of a case, a ten year period cannot be said to be incapable of yielding such a true and comprehensive picture. The assets spilling-over from the anterior period, if their existence is probablised, would, of course, have to be given credit- to on the income side and would go to reduce the extent and the quantum of the disproportion.
It is further held in para No.11 as under:
11. The assumptions implicit in the above observation of the High Court suffer from a basic fallacy. It is for the prosecution to choose what according to it, is the period which having regard to the acquisitive activities of the public-
52 Spl.C.C.92/2019 servant in amassing wealth, characterise and is late that period for special scrutiny. It is always open to the public-servant to satisfactorily account for the apparently disproportionate nature of his possession. Once the prosecution establishes the essential ingredients of the offence of Criminal Misconduct by proving, by the standard of criminal evidence, that the public servant is, or was at any time during the period of his offence, in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his sources of income known to the prosecution, the prosecution discharges its burden of proof and the burden of proof is lifted from the shoulders of the prosecution and descends upon the shoulders of the defence. It then becomes necessary for the public-servant to satisfactorily account for the possession of such properties and pecuniary resources. It is 53 Spl.C.C.92/2019 erroneous to predicate that the prosecution should also disprove the existence of the possible sources of income of the public servant. Indeed in State of Maharashtra v. Wasudeo Ramchandra, A.I.R. 1981 SC 1189 this Court characterised the approach of that kind made by the High Court as erroneous.
2. In judgment passed in Crl.Apeal No.2735/2006 dated 17.12.2004 (unreported), the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, held as under:
"Accused had joined the service of the department as Telephone Inspector in the month of June 1985 and this say of the accused has not been disputed by the prosecution. Therefore, the number of years of service put in by the accused upto the date of the charge is around 16 years. The prosecution ought to have 54 Spl.C.C.92/2019 placed evidence to show what was the total salary earned by the accused during all these 16 years. There is no evidence placed by the prosecution in this regard though the statement enclosed along with the charge sheet refers to certain investment made by the accused and the total income earned for the check period from 01.12.2000 to 16.12.2001. thus, the entire income of the accused by way of salary upto the date of the charge sheet is not placed by the prosecution before the trial court."
3. In another decision reported in (2017) 14 SCC 442 (Vasant Rao Guhe v. State of Madhya Pradesh), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para No.21 held as under:
"From the design and purport of clause
(e) of sub-clause (1) to Section 13, it is apparent that the primary burden to bring 55 Spl.C.C.92/2019 home the charge of criminal misconduct thereunder would be indubitably on the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the public servant either himself or through anyone else had at any time during the period of his office been in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income and it is only on the discharge of such burden by the prosecution, if he fails to satisfactorily account for the same, he would be in law held guilty of such offence. In other words, in case the prosecution fails to prove that the public servant either by himself or through anyone else had at any time during the period of his office been in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income, he would not be required in law to offer any explanation to satisfactorily account therefor. A public 56 Spl.C.C.92/2019 servant facing such charge, cannot be comprehended to furnish any explanation in absence of the proof of the allegation of being in possession by himself or through someone else, pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income. As has been held by this Court amongst others in State of Maharashtra Vs. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede1, even in a case when the burden is on the accused, the prosecution must first prove the foundational facts.
Incidentally, this decision was rendered in a case involving a charge under Sections 7, 13 and 20 of the Act."
69. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor Sri.Balaji Francis has vehemently argued that the Investigating Officer has properly conducted the investigation to ascertain as to the legal source of income of the accused at the 57 Spl.C.C.92/2019 beginning of check period. It is pointed out that this case has not been registered on source information and on the other hand a trap was laid against accused and another person and during that course, the house of accused was searched and cash amount of Rs.8,66,830/- was found and out of that demonetized currency notes were also available. But, accused could not give satisfactory explanation with regard to the said huge cash. In order to prove the said aspect, the accused has examined two witnesses. Of course, the said point can be decided later after deciding the first issue.
70. The learned Public Prosecutor has argued that even as per the evidence of DW1 and Ex.D.1 to D.6 the alleged amount of Rs.28,00,000/- was not available with accused and whatever that was 58 Spl.C.C.92/2019 available in his account, that has been shown in Statement B in item Nos.2 and 3. Investment made by accused have also been shown in Statement B. Whatever the amounts that were available as on 01.03.2016 have been shown in Statement A, which comes to Rs.3,23,898/-. But, the contention of the accused with regard to likely savings of Rs.28,00,000/- cannot be accepted. Because he failed to give satisfactory explanation as to where and how he had saved the said amount. He has not invested the same on any property nor retained the said amount by cash. Even though he has withdrawn amounts from his salary account on various dates before 01.03.2016, but he must have spent the said amount for some other purposes. Whatever the asset that was available and in possession of accused, that has been taken for 59 Spl.C.C.92/2019 consideration by the Investigating Officer. It is further argued that it is a discretion of the Investigating Officer to select particular check period depending upon the facts and circumstances of the each case. Since no fresh asset was available before 01.03.2016, but disproportionate asset was found available in between 01.03.2016 to 28.07.2017, the Investigating Officer must have thought it fit to select the said check period. Therefore, the accused cannot question the said discretion exercised by the Investigating Officer. The accused has not probabalized his case with regard to availability of Rs.28,00,000/- prior to 01.03.2016.
71. In support of his arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor has cited the following decisions:
60 Spl.C.C.92/2019
1. In (1996) 1 Supreme Court Cases 542 (State of Maharashtra v. Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri and others), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para No.14 held as under:
"Interpreting this provision, the learned Judge had come to the conclusion that opportunity to satisfactorily account for must be afforded before an offence is registered. In this connection, it was observed as follows:
Having regard to the procedure followed in relation to the investigation of corruption charges under Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, one needs to bear in mind that unlike in the case of offences under the I.P.C., substantial inquiries/investigations are carried out and completed prior to arriving at a conclusion as to whether or not, there is ground to hold that an offence has been completed. That procedure cannot 61 Spl.C.C.92/2019 be one-sided in the face of a statutory requirement which prescribes that the accused must be afforded an opportunity of being heard. Undisputedly, therefore, that opportunity has to come prior to the stage when conclusions are reached, if at all it is to be meaningful."
2. In latest judgment reported in (2021) 18 Supreme Court Cases 135 (Central Bureau of Investigation and another v. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi @ T.H.Vijayalakshmi and another), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed about various procedures to be followed by CBI while conducting preliminary enquiry and also with regard to opportunities to be given to the public servant before registering the case in respect of disproportionate asset.
62 Spl.C.C.92/2019
3. In another decision reported in (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases 697 (R.Janakiraman v. State Represented by Inspector of Police), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para No.7 has discussed about traveling allowance.
72. In the light of the said arguments and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, I have carefully perused the evidence. The evidence of Investigating Officer i.e. PW23 alone is relevant to decide this aspect. Because accused has not at all disputed evidence of so many witnesses, but disputed the evidence of some witnesses with regard to some some small amounts.
73. In the examination-in-chief, PW23 has 63 Spl.C.C.92/2019 deposed as to the manner in which he started investigation and submitted the report. But, he admitted in para No.16 that accused was first appointed in the year 2009 in L & T Company and worked thereafter in various companies and joined M.E.S. on 01.05.2013 and till now working in the said department. He also admitted that NHPC Limited is Government organization. He also admitted that prior to 01.03.2016, he had worked for more than 13 years and earned money. He admitted that while taking beginning of check period, they will take opening balance of income, expenditure and asset. He also admitted that there is CBI manual, which prescribes the procedure as to how to calculate the opening balance of the public servant at the beginning of check period. He also admitted that as per the said guidelines after 64 Spl.C.C.92/2019 deducting 33% from the income of the public servant, the remaining amount will be shown as likely savings. He admitted that he did not take the opening balance of income and expenditure, but he only calculated and considered opening balance of assets.
74. PW23 further admitted that accused got married in the year 2015 and he has submitted his assets and liabilities statement for the year 2016 and declared the availability of gold and silver with him and his wife. He further admitted that there was no impediment for him to take check period from 08.02.2011, but as per his discussion, he has selected a particular check period. He admitted that accused joined MES on 01.05.2013 itself. It did not come to his knowledge that accused has 65 Spl.C.C.92/2019 acquired any property from out of his income received from 08.02.2011 to 01.03.2016. He did not notice any material to know that except spending amount for his food, clothing and house hold expenditure. He has not spent any amount for other purposes. He did not issue any notice in writing to the accused asking him to furnish the details as to what was his income from 08.02.2011 to 28.02.2016 and how he has utilized the same and what was his savings, except serving Statement as per 1 to 6.
75. PW23 further admitted that the amount of Rs.5,05,525/- shown in Sl.No.2 of Statement B was from his salary and other amount shown in Sl.No.3 is pertaining to the salary amount received from NHPC and Sl.No.4 is pertaining to Provident Fund 66 Spl.C.C.92/2019 and the said amount has also being credited from his salary account. From the above said evidence, one thing is very clear and undisputed that even from the year 2009 onwards till 01.03.2016 accused was employed and drawn salary of Rs.48,00,000/-. Drawing of the said salary amount during the said period is not in dispute. Now the point for consideration is whether after deducting 1/3rd towards the domestic expenses, from out of Rs.48,00,000/- salary, the remaining should have been considered as likely savings of accused in Statement A. It is an established principles of law that if property /other assets including likely savings is not taken in Statement A i.e. at the beginning of check period, it will have serious impact on calculation of disproportionate asset and it will be disadvantage for the accused.
67 Spl.C.C.92/2019
76. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court in the said judgments, have considered the point with regard to taking the likely savings of public servant at the beginning of check period. The learned Public Prosecutor has cited contrary decisions, but this Court is required to apply the legal principles based upon the facts involved in case. It is to be noted that the fact that accused had earned about Rs.48,00,000/- before 01.03.2016 through salary is not in dispute. The legal principle with regard to taking 1/3rd towards expenditure, out of the income is also not in dispute. Now the question is whether accused has able to probabalize his defense with regard to said aspect.
77. As stated above, since it is not in dispute that accused had served for more than 13 years as 68 Spl.C.C.92/2019 on 01.03.2016 i.e. beginning of check period and with regard to drawing of total salary in a sum of Rs.48,00,000/-, as rightly pointed out by Sri.S.P.H., the learned counsel for accused, the accused has probablized his defense. Since PW23, even though he was aware of the fact that accused had served for more than 13 years and drawn salary and account statements were available to show that amounts were withdrawn from the respective salary accounts from time to time, it was his duty to ask the accused as to in what manner, he had utilized the said salary amount. Admittedly, PW23 has conducted investigation in that regard and came to know that accused did not spend so much salary amount either for purchasing of any property or for any bad vices. Further, there is no law as such that all the salary amount should be maintained in the 69 Spl.C.C.92/2019 accounts itself and no cash shall be kept in his house.
78. Further, accused submitted his written reply as per Ex.P.71 with regard to the assets statement furnished to the Investigating Officer. Of course, he has not stated anything with regard to the the previous salary amount. He also submitted his letter with regard to gold and silver, as per Ex.P.72.
79. Here in this case, even though the accused had put in 15 years of service at the end of check period, but the Investigating Officer has taken the check period only for 1 year 4 months. The Investigating Officer i.e. PW23 has stated that it is his discretion to consider any check period. But, he 70 Spl.C.C.92/2019 admitted that as per CBI manual, he has to conduct the investigation. He also admitted that if he had considered the check period for a larger period, there would not have been any disproportionate asset. But, since it appears the Investigating Officer has concentrated only with regard to seizure of Rs.8,00,000/- and odd while conducting the raid and since sufficient amount was not available in the bank accounts of accused at the beginning of check period, he must have thought fit to consider the check period only for a period of one year 4 months. That apart, the Investigating Officer has also admitted that he has only taken the assets in Statement A and not taken the movable assets. It is a fact that accused was also working in MES from May, 2013 and that shows that he had served in the same department for about 3 years before 71 Spl.C.C.92/2019 01.03.2016. Since even though there was no impediment for PW23 to ascertain as to what was happened to the likely savings of accused for the period from 2009 to 01.03.2016 and since admittedly accused did not invest the said salary amount on any property either movable or immovable, the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court come to the rescue of accused.
80. In view of the above said discussion, since there is a probable material on record with regard to salary amount received by the accused till 01.03.2016, as per Ex.D.1 to D.6 and since the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid judgments have stated that the Investigating Officer should consider the previous 72 Spl.C.C.92/2019 income of the public servant as likely savings at the beginning of check period, the arguments of learned counsel for accused Sri.S.P.H. is to be accepted. As stated above, this will seriously impact on the calculation of disproportionate asset if, this amount which was legally received by the accused before 01.03.2016 is not considered as an asset in Statement A. It is not the case of the prosecution that such an amount was not received by the accused. At the cost of repetition it is stated that the Investigating Officer, for the reasons best known to him did not conduct proper investigation in that regard to ascertain the true facts even though he was fully aware that if that income was taken there would not have been disproportionate asset and therefore he has chosen lesser check period. It is to be noted that even though it is the discretion of the 73 Spl.C.C.92/2019 Investigating Officer to select any check period, but he admitted that he has to conduct the investigation as per CBI manual. He has not given any reason as to why he was forced to select such a lesser check period even though accused had put more than 14 years of service as on 28.07.2017 the date on which raid was conducted. Time and again the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made it clear that any investigation to be conducted by the investigating agencies pertaining to criminal cases is to be fair, impartial and it should not be disadvantage for the public servant particularly in case of this nature. Here, there is a probable evidence to believe that accused had received so much of salary amount and withdrawn the same from time to time from his bank accounts and since PW23 himself has admitted that as per his 74 Spl.C.C.92/2019 investigation, accused did not have any bad vices and did not spend the said amount for acquisition of any property, the version of the accused is required to be believed and accepted in that regard.
81. The next item of property, which is in serious dispute for the calculation of disproportionate asset is the amount of Rs.8,00,000/- that was seized from the house of accused on 28.07.2017 when the raid was conducted and the same is shown in Statement B.
82. The learned counsel for accused Sri.S.P.H. has argued that the said amount was received by the accused by selling gold items in favour of Sri.Vinayaka Hegde, Sri.Vinod Patil and Sri.Mahabaleshwar Bhat, the residents of Hubli and 75 Spl.C.C.92/2019 Karwar. It is argued that as per Ex.P.72 accused has given explanation in that regard and in order to prove the same accused himself has given evidence and also examined Sri.Vinayaka Hegde and Sri.Vinod Patil as DWs2 and 3. They have clearly given evidence stating that they had purchased gold from the wife of accused Smt.Sadhana Chouhan and in that regard got marked Ex.D.7 and D.8. Nothing worth has been elicited in their cross- examination to discredit the testimony of these two witnesses. Since another one witness did not come, it was not possible for the accused to examine him.
83. It is further argued that there is no law as such that documents to be secured for selling the movable properties. Both are practicing advocates at Hubli and responsible persons and they have 76 Spl.C.C.92/2019 come and deposed and the same clearly establishes the contention of accused.
84. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the evidence of DW1 to DW3 in that regard cannot be believed and accepted because, in Ex.P.72 accused has stated that he himself has sold gold of 65 grams to one Sri.Vinayaka Hegde for Rs.1,62,000/-, 62 grams of gold necklace to one Sri.Vinod Patil for Rs.1,55,000/- and another 71 grams of gold bangles and rings to one Mahabaleshwar Bhat of Karwar for a sum of Rs.1,77,000/-. But, in the evidence, DWs2 and 3 have stated that they had purchased the gold from Smt.Sadhana Chouhan. Therefore, there is a contradictory version on the part of accused with regard to selling of the said gold articles. Moreover, 77 Spl.C.C.92/2019 the said witnesses did not wish to give statements before Investigating Officer when they were contacted several times and served notices in that regard. The Investigating Officer has given evidence stating that he made his best efforts to secure the presence of the said persons, but they did not come and give evidence. Moreover, they are responsible practicing advocates and when they were aware that Investigating Officer wanted to conduct investigation with regard to gold stated to have been sold in their favour, it was their duty to come and assist the Investigating Officer. But, they did not choose to come and give evidence. Therefore, their evidence is not credible. Therefore, their evidence cannot be believed and accepted to prove the said factum. It is further argued that the accused did not choose to examine his father and 78 Spl.C.C.92/2019 brother to prove the contention that his father has paid Rs.3,00,000/- to him and also he had received some amount from his brother Sri.Rajesh Chauhan in the first week of May, 2017. Even though the prosecution has not examined the father of accused, but since it is the burden on the accused to examine his father to prove receipt of Rs.3,00,000/-, non-examination of his father will leads to create serious doubt with regard to the version of the accused. Therefore, the contention of accused in that regard cannot be believed and accepted.
85. In the light of the said arguments, I have perused the records. Of course, it is an admitted fact that when the raid was conducted an amount of Rs.8,66,630/- was found and seized on 28.07.2017.
79 Spl.C.C.92/2019 Notice was also served to the accused to give explanation in that regard. He has submitted his explanation through his department as per Ex.P.71. In respect of the said item, he stated that he does not dispute about seizure of the said amount. He stated that the source of the said cash is as per Statement 1 to 6. But, he has not given separate explanation as to how he accumulated the said amount of Rs.8,66,630/-. Further, on 26.03.2018 he has given an explanation as per Ex.P.72 and in that explanation, he has narrated about selling of gold items in favour of three persons and also receipt of Rs.3,00,000/- from his father and another amount from his brother. Even though the evidence of PW23 with regard to securing the presence of these three purchasers is not so convincing because, he did not take the coercive steps under law to secure 80 Spl.C.C.92/2019 their presence by using the power given to him by statue, but it has not been disputed by the accused with regard to efforts made by PW23 to contact these persons several times and also to serve the notices. PW23 has deputed the staff to serve the summons and as per Ex.P.75, notice was served to father of Sri.Vinayaka Hegde.
86. During the course of evidence, DW2 and DW3 have not stated that they did not receive any call from the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation nor received any notice. They have not explained in their evidence as to what prevented them to appear before the Investigating Officer to give their statements as to the purchase of gold articles from the accused. Further, it is also noticed that the evidence of DW2 and DW3 is 81 Spl.C.C.92/2019 contrary to the explanation given by the accused as per Ex.P.72. Because DW2 and DW3 have stated that they have purchased gold weighing 62 grams and 65 grams respectively from the wife of accused. Their evidence is not convincing as to how and under what circumstances one Sri.Vinayak Pavaskar was introduced to them by the accused and his wife. They are practicing at Hubli and this accused was working at Karwar. No proper evidence has been led as to how they came in contact with accused for the purpose of purchasing the gold.
87. That apart on perusal of Ex.D.7 & D.8 they disclose that the Certificates, which are in typed form and dates have been mentioned in writing as 04.03.2016 and 28.05.2017. Of course, there is no prescribed format as to purchasing of movable 82 Spl.C.C.92/2019 property, but since these two are the practicing advocates, they should have acted vigilantly while purchasing the gold atleast by making minimum enquiries. But, they have not whispered anything about whether any enquiry was made or not. That apart as stated above, they failed to explain as to what prevented them to appear before the Investigating Officer to give their statements. As stated above, these two documents and the evidence of these two witnesses is contrary to the explanation submitted by the accused as per Ex.P.72.
88. That apart, accused has not examined another one person Sri.Mahabaleshwar Bhat with regard to selling of gold weighing 71 grams and receipt of amount of Rs.1,77,000/- from him. No 83 Spl.C.C.92/2019 explanation has been given as to why he could not examine the said person. Therefore, evidence of DW3 in that regard cannot be believed and accepted. That apart, the accused has not chosen to examine his father with regard to receipt of cash amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and other cash amount from his brother. Even though the prosecution has failed to examine the father of accused, all though he has been cited as a witness, but the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer does not speak about receipt of cash amount. Therefore, it was the duty of the accused to examine his father and his brother to substantiate the contention about receipt of cash amount in a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and other amounts. He has also not specifically mentioned as to how much amount was received from his brother.
84 Spl.C.C.92/2019
89. Further, accused during the course of his evidence has not given any explanation as to why he has stated in Ex.P.72 stating that he himself has sold the gold in favour of three persons. In fact, he stated that he wanted to sell the gold and accordingly came in contact with one Sri.Vinay Pavaskar, but the documents marked as Ex.D.7 and D.8 and the evidence of DW2 and DW3 is contrary to the said statement. Therefore, with regard to the selling of gold in favour of three persons and receipt of cash from them and also with regard to receipt of cash from his father, becomes doubtful and hence cannot be believed and accepted. Therefore, the explanation of accused in that regard cannot be accepted.
90. The next aspect is with regard to the 85 Spl.C.C.92/2019 additional income of Rs.1,38,704/-. According to accused, he has received TA and DA on 16.05.2016, 28.09.2016 and 31.12.2016 totaling to Rs.1,38,704/-.
91. The arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor is that since TA and DA will be allowed after incurring expenditure, therefore it cannot be taken as an income.
92. It is to be noted that here in this case, PW23 in para No.17 has admitted that he had collected information to know as to how much TA and DA was allowed to the accused before 01.03.2016. He also admitted that accused was entitled to get fixed DA irrespective of whether he utilizes or not. He has also admitted that accused 86 Spl.C.C.92/2019 has submitted his explanation in that regard in Form 1 to 6. Further, since this amount has been received by the accused during the check period and the expenditure was made before 01.03.2016 and since the Investigating Officer did not take any income or expenditure prior to 01.03.2016, the said amount received by the accused during the check period should be considered as income. Otherwise, it will have an impact on the calculation of DA. It is not the case of the prosecution that accused did not receive the said amount during the check period. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by Sri.S.P.H., without much discussion, I hold that this amount is required to be taken as income during the check period.
93. As discussed earlier, the other additional 87 Spl.C.C.92/2019 amounts shown in Sl.No.8 to 10 cannot be accepted.
94. After having taken note of the said important items, since the alleged disproportionate income is only Rs.14,76,167/- even as per the Investigating Officer and since the additional income of Rs.1,38,704//- is required to be taken as income of the accused, the disproportionate income will be reduced to Rs.13,47,463/-. But, in view of my above discussion and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, if the likely savings as on 01.03.2016 in a sum of Rs.28,00,000/- is taken, then there will be no disproportionate asset. Having regard to my discussion and the same is based upon the material available on record and keeping in mind, two direct decisions on the point, it is 88 Spl.C.C.92/2019 necessary to take that amount of Rs.28,00,000/- as likely savings of the accused. The same should be taken in Statement A. If that amount is taken to Statement A, then there will be no disproportionate asset.
95. As stated above, for the reasons best known to Investigating Officer, he did not consider the likely savings of the accused before 01.03.2016. The said investigation is not in accordance with CBI Manual and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. When sufficient material was available before the Investigating Officer while conducting the investigation he should have examined it carefully and ascertained the fact as to how and in what manner the same was utilized and whether there was any possibility for the accused to 89 Spl.C.C.92/2019 save the money after withdrawal of the same from his accounts and to know as to whether the same amount was available in the house of the accused when the raid was conducted or not.
96. Further, one more probable explanation has also been given by the accused to the effect that during that period, his wife was pregnant and in anticipation of delivery, he had kept the cash in his house and while going to her parental house along with her father, she had taken some money with her, along with jewels. That fact has not been specifically disputed by the prosecution. In that regard, the prosecution has not examined the wife of accused to ascertain as to the true facts. So, considering all these facts and circumstances and as per my above discussion, I hold that there cannot 90 Spl.C.C.92/2019 be any disproportionate asset as alleged by the prosecution. The likely savings will match the amount that was available in the house of accused, along with other alleged disproportion. Therefore, the case put forth by the prosecution that there was a disproportionate asset during the check period from 01.03.2016 to 28.07.2017 in a sum of Rs.14,76,167/- is not proved by the prosecution by placing cogent, convincing and satisfactory evidence. The benefit of not ascertaining the true facts by the Investigating Agency is extended in favour of the accused, in accordance with law. Hence, I am not inclined to accept the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor. Hence, without much discussion, I answer Point No.2 in the negative.
91 Spl.C.C.92/2019
97. POINT NO.3: In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., I hereby acquit the Accused of the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The bail bond of the Accused and that of his surety, shall stands canceled.
(Dictated to the Judgment-writer, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected and then signed by me on this the 28th day of March, 2024).
(H.A.Mohan) XXXII Addl.C.C. & S.J. and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru.
92 Spl.C.C.92/2019
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSESS EXAMINED ON
BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
PWs CWs Name of the Date of
Witness examination
PW1 CW1 Kishore J.Hedav 31.01.2023
PW2 CW3 Srinivasulu 31.01.2023
PW3 CW4 Gangaram 20.02.2023
PW4 CW6 Raju.B.Chavan 20.02.2023
PW5 CW8 Dhananjaya Kumar 20.02.2023
PW6 CW13 Surojit Swapan Pal 10.03.2023
PW7 CW14 Ananda Selvam.R 10.03.2023
PW8 CW15 Srinidhi.S.N. 10.03.2023
PW9 CW22 Karnal Venugopal 29.03.2023
PW10 CW16 B.K.Venkatesh Murthy 19.04.2023
PW11 CW17 Ramraj 19.04.2023
PW12 - Niranjan 19.04.2023
PW13 CW7 Captain Ankush 03.05.2023
Dahiya
PW14 CW23 Colonel S.B.Herlekar 03.05.2023
PW15 CW11 Rathnesh Kumar Singh 07.06.2023
PW16 CW25 Nandish Prabhakar 07.06.2023
PW17 - Kartik Bajpai 07.06.2023
PW18 CW35 M.P.Bugude 07.06.2023
PW19 CW33 Smt.Dimple Dua 26.06.2023
PW20 CW29 Naveen Prakash 13.07.2023
Srivastav
PW21 CW31 A.Inbazhagan 13.07.2023
PW22 CW40 Rajkumar 04.08.2023
93 Spl.C.C.92/2019
PW23 CW42 T.Rajashekar 04.08.2023
LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON
BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
Exhibit Description
Number
Ex.P.1 Production cum receipt memo dated 22.11.2017
prepared by IO
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of CW3
Ex.P.2 Service particulars of accused
Ex.P.3 Salary particulars along with pay slips of accused
for the period from March 2016 to July 2017 Ex.P.4 Statement of TA, Da of accused , pay bill on account of implementation of 7th pay, claim for moves on temporary duty Ex.P.5 Letter dated 13.01.2017 submitted by Sri.J.S.Bath to office of PW1 Ex.P.6 Letter dated 17.09.2018 of Mr.M.P.Bugude along with declaration of Assets and Liability Statement submitted by accused Ex.P.6(a) Document discloses about declaration of Assets and Liabilities by the accused Ex.P.7 Form No.16 for the period from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017 Ex.P.8 C/c of requisition for LTC advance dated 15.09.2016 Ex.P.9 Covering letter dated 21.06.2018 of PW3 for handing over documents to CBI Police Ex.P.9(a) Signature of PW3 Ex.P.10 C/c of service book pertaining to the accused Ex.P.11 Search list prepared by IO on 27.07.2017 94 Spl.C.C.92/2019 Ex.P.11(a) Signature of PW4 Ex.P.12 Inventory dated 27.07.2017 prepared in the premises of the accused Ex.P.12(a) Signature of PW4 Ex.P.13 Documents seized on 27.07.2017 Ex.P.13(a) Signature of PW13 Ex.P.14 Letter dated 21.06.2018 in RC.No.21(A)/2017 Ex.P.15 Arrest memo Ex.P.16 Covering letter dated 18.06.2018 of PW3 for handing over documents to CBI Police Ex.P.16(a) Signature of PW6 Ex.P.17 Deposit slip dated 13.11.2016 in the name of accused for a sum of Rs.20,000/-
Ex.P.18 Deposit slip dated 13.11.2016 in the name of accused for a sum of Rs.4,000/-
Ex.P.19 Documents along with covering letter dated 18.06.2018 Ex.P.19(a) Signature of PW7 Ex.P.20 Deposit slip dated 26.10.2016 in the name of accused for a sum of Rs.49,000/-
Ex.P.21 Deposit slip dated 13.11.2016 in the name of accused for a sum of Rs.45,000/-
Ex.P.22 Production cum receipt memo dated 18.06.2018 Ex.P.22(a) Signature of PW7 Ex.P.23 Deposit slip dated 07.03.2017 in the name of accused for a sum of Rs.30,000/-
Ex.P.24 Deposit slip dated 26.10.2016 in the name of accused for a sum of Rs.49,000/-
Ex.P.25 Documents along with covering letter dated 26.06.2018 Ex.P.25(a) Signature of PW8 Ex.P.26 Attested copy of loan application in the name of 95 Spl.C.C.92/2019 accused dated 25.02.2013 for sanctioning personal loan of Rs.2,00,000/-
Ex.P.27 Statement of account pertaining to said loan account along with certificate u/S 2A of Banker's Books of Evidence Act and Section 65B IEA.
Ex.P.28 Copy of Form No.16 along with covering letter dated
15.06.2018
Ex.P.28(a) Signature of PW9
Ex.P.29 Form No.16
Ex.P.30 Document dated 14.11.2017 issued by Indian
Overseas Bank
Ex.P.31 Document dated 16.11.2017 submitted by State
Bank of India
Ex.P.32 Document dated 02.05.2018 issued by Kamath
Bajaj
Ex.P.33 Document dated 22.06.2018 prepared by IO
pertaining to LIC
Ex.P.34 Document dated 23.06.2018 prepared by IO
Ex.P.35 Document dated 29.06.2018 submitted by Director,
Vigilance along with APR
Ex.P.36 Document dated 04.09.2018 pertaining to ITRs for
the year 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 Ex.P.37 Covering letter dated 04.07.2018 for handing over documents of PW10 Ex.P.37(a) Signature of PW10 Ex.P.38 Copy of NEFT details in respect of the account of accused Ex.P.39 Covering letter dated 05.12.2018 for handing over documents of PW11 Ex.P.39(a) Signature of PW11 Ex.P.40 Copy of account opening form in the nam eof 96 Spl.C.C.92/2019 accused Ex.P.41 C/c of statement of account in respect of account of accused along with 65B IEA and 2A of Banker's Books of Account Certificate Ex.P.41(a) Signature of Vijaykumar Singh Kuril in the Certificate Ex.P.42 Covering letter dated 28.06.2018 signed by Smt.K.Navya Shetty Ex.P.42(a) Signature of Smt.K.Navya Shetty Ex.P.43 Credit card statement in the name of accused Ex.P.44 C/c of search list Ex.P.45 C/c of Inventory report 28.07.2017 Ex.P.46 Covering letter of forwarding LTC and TA bills to the CBI Inspector Ex.P.47 Covering letter dated 15.05.2018 and statement I to VI submitted along with letter Ex.P.48 Covering letter dated 17.11.2017 of PW15 for handing over documents Ex.P.48(a) Signature of PW15 Ex.P.49 Attested copy of account opening form in the name of Smt.Sadana Chauhan along with KYC documents Ex.P.50 C/c of statement of account in respect of the said account, along with 65B IEA and 2A of bankers books of account certificate Ex.P.50(a) Signature of witness in 65B Certificate Ex.P.50(b) Signature in Certificate u/S 2A Ex.P.51 Covering letter dated 26.04.2018 of PW16 for handing over documents Ex.P.51(a) Signature of PW16 Ex.P.52 Attested copy of application for credit card in the name of accused and account opening form in the name of accused along with KYC documents 97 Spl.C.C.92/2019 Ex.P.53 C/c of credit card statement pertaining to accused for the period from 01.01.2016 to 31.07.2017 Ex.P.54 Forwarding letter dated 21.06.2018 signed by CW21 Ex.P.55 Certificate u/S 65B IEA issued by CW21 Ex.P.56 Ticket itinerary issued in the name of accused for his traveling on 10.05.2017 from Varanasi to Goa via Mumbai Ex.P.57 Ticket itinerary issued in the name of accused for his traveling on 16.08.2017 from Varanasi to Goa via Mumbai Ex.P.58 Ticket itinerary issued in the name of accused and his wife for their traveling on 16.08.2017 from Varanasi to Goa via Mumbai Ex.P.59 Letter dated 25.07.2018 of PW18 containing details Ex.P.59(a) Signature of PW18 Ex.P.60 Handing over and taking over memo dated 30.07.2018 signed by PW19 and T.Rajashekar Ex.P.60(a) Signature of PW19 Ex.P.61 Production cum receipt memo dated 23.06.2018 Ex.P.61(a) Signature of PW20 Ex.P.62 Documents relating to landed properties Ex.P.63 Original sanction order Ex.P.63(a) Signature of PW22 in the last page Ex.P.64 FIR and authorization letter Ex.P.65 Order dated 24.10.2017 and authorization issued by SP Ex.P.66 & Notices dated 17.06.2018 and 16.06.2018 67 Ex.P.68 Copy of notice Ex.P.69 Copy of notice Ex.P.70 Copy of letter dated 22.06.2018 Ex.P.71 Explanation as per Statement A to D on 03.07.2018 98 Spl.C.C.92/2019 Ex.P.72 Explanation submitted by accused dated 23.06.2018 in respect of seizure conducted in respect of RC.13(A)/2017 Ex.P.73 Production cum receipt memo with regard to Hissa Pramana Pathra in the name of CW39 Ex.P.74 Letter dated 22.06.2018 from P.S.Hegde, father of Vinayak Hegde seeking another date to attend the CBI office Ex.P.75 Report dated 26.06.2018 of CW30 regarding non-
receipt of notices by Vinayak Hegde Ex.P.76 NPS document in respect of accused for financial year 2015-16 to 2017-18 from CW27 Ex.P.77 Statement of account in the name of accused for the period from 14.07.2015 to 31.07.2017 along with a/c opening form and KYC documents along with certificate u/S 65B IEA and 2A of Banker's Books of Evidence Act.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE DWs Name of the witness Date of examination DW1 Ram Bhuwan Chauhan 15.12.2023 DW2 Vinod 08.02.2024 DW3 Vinayak Hegde 16.02.2024 99 Spl.C.C.92/2019 LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE Exhibit Particulars No. Ex.D.1 Documents relating to work of DW1 in L&T Co. Ex.D.2 IT Returns for the period from 2010-11 to 2018-19 along with 65B Certificate Ex.D.3 Documents pertaining to NHPC Ltd. obtained under RTI and also the account statement furnished by SBI Ex.D.4 Documents obtained under RTI from MES Ex.D.5 Bank account statements obtained from Indian Overseas bank obtained under RTI Ex.D.6 Bank account statements obtained from State Bank of India obtained under RTI Ex.D.7 Declaration Copy Ex.D.8 Declaration and Ownership Certificate (H.A.Mohan) Digitally signed by XXXII Addl.C.C. & S.J. and MOHAN Special Judge for CBI Cases, MOHAN Date: Bengaluru.
2024.03.28 15:26:29 +0530 100 Spl.C.C.92/2019