Delhi District Court
2.2004 And D120 Ex.Pw39/G Which Is ... vs State on 9 December, 2013
1 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJEEV JAIN: SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT), CBI03
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI
CC No. 48/2012
RC No. 04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D
U/s 13(2) r/w 13 (1)(e) of PC Act 1988
Central Bureau of Investigation
Versus
Virender Singh
s/o Late Sh. Molhar Singh
r/o G1/F, MIG Flats, DDA
Munirka, New Delhi
Date of FIR : 30.01.2002
Date of filing of Chargesheet : 23.12.2004
Arguments concluded on : 18.11.2013
Date of judgment : 09.12.2013
JUDGMENT
Appearance:
For prosecution : Sh Raj Mohan Chand, Ld. PP for CBI
For accused : Sh. Bhavuk Chauhan, Advocate.
2 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D
1 Chargesheet was filed by CBI against accused Virender Singh. Briefly, it is
disclosed in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C (chargesheet) that accused Virender Singh s/o Late Sh. Molhar Singh was working as Project Director, Telecommunication Consultant India Ltd., TCIL Bhawan, GK PartI, New Delhi . It is further revealed that Virender Singh is the only son of his parents namely Late Molhar Singh and late Sh. Gaindi Devi. It is submitted that his father inherited cultivated land and house from his grandfather in the village Bhikanpur of district Sharanpur. It is further stated that father of Virender Singh was serving in Imperial Tobacco Co. (ITC) at Saharanpur.
1.1 Investigation revealed that accused Virender Singh has three sisters namely Smt. Pushpa Tejan aged 60 years w/o Sh. M.P.S Tejan, Judge, Labour Court, Meerut, Smt. Savita Devi aged around 55 years married to late Sh. Vijay Vir Singh and Smt. Sumitra Devi aged 45 years married to Sh. Y.P Singh, CMO, CGHS, Delhi.
1.2 It is further stated in chargsheet that Virender Singh studied from H.A.V. Inter college, Saharanpur. He joined as Repeater Station Assistant in Post & Telegraph Department, Delhi during the year 1965. He passed graduation from the institute of Communication & Electronic Engineering India in the year 1969. Sh. Virender Singh was married to Smt. Indra Singh d/o Sh. G.S Nirmal, Sr. AE , CPWD in the year 1974. Smt. Indra Singh was MA, B.Ed and working as TGT in Education Department of MCD, Delhi. On the date of registration of the case, his wife Indra Singh was Principal, Govt. Girls Higher 3 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D Secondary School, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi. Sh. Virender Singh has two sons namely Sh. Anshul Singh (born in December, 1974) and Sh. Neeraj Singh (born in September, 1977). Sh. Anshul Singh is an Engineering graduate and at relevant time he was doing M.Tech from B.V. B college of Engineering & Technology, Hubli, Karnataka. The younger son Neeraj Singh is graduate from Bhagat Singh College, Delhi and at relevant time he was doing MIB course from Delhi college of Economic. His both sons did their schooling from Ramjas school, R.K. Puram, New Delhi.
1.3 During investigation all the income, expenditure and assets were taken for the check period from August 1965 to 11th December 2001.
1.4 It is further revealed during investigation that Sh. Virender Singh remained
posted at different places as detailed below:
S.No. Post held and scale of pay Period Organization
1 Repeater Station, Assistant, 23.08.65 to 08.4.66 Deptt. of
Rs.60/p.m. Telecommunication
2 RSA/JE trainee, 150300 09.4.66 to 14.4.67 Deptt. of
Telecommunication
3 JE, 425800, JE Selection Grade, 15.4.67 to 01.4.79 Deptt. of
550900 Telecommunication
4 AE ClassII, 6501200 02.4.79 to 15.3.80 Deptt. of
Telecommunication
5 AE ClassII,6501200 (Posting in 16.3.80 to 23.4.81 Deptt. of
North Yemen) Telecommunication
(on deputation to TCIL)
4 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D
6 AE, 6501200 24.04.81 to 18.6.85 Deptt. of
Telecommunication
7 Assistant Manager, 11001600 19.6.85 to 02.12.87 TCIL
8 Assistant Manager, 11001600 03.12.87 to 16.7.88 TCIL
(Posting in Kuwait)
9 Assistant Manager,11001600 17.8.88 to 08.8.88 TCIL
10 Deputy Manager, 13001700 09.08.88 to 05.2/91 TCIL
11 Deputy Manager, 13001700 06.2.91 to 5/12/91 TCIL
12 Manager, 37005000 06.12.91 to 5.11.92 TCIL
13 Manager, 37005000 6.11.92 to 5.4.93 TCIL
14 Manager, 37005000 6.4.93 to 17.6.94 TCIL
15 Manager, 37005000 18.6.94 to 12.9.94 TCIL
16 Manager, 37005000 13.09.94 to 12.3.94 TCIL
(Indonesia assignment)
17 Sr. Manager, 41005300 13.3.95 to 7.11.96 TCIL
18 Sr. Manager,41005300 8/11/96 to 22.11.96 TCIL
19 Sr. Manager, 41005300 23.11.96 to 20.5.98 TCIL
20 Jt. General Manager, 21.5.98 to 6.7.98 TCIL
1510018300
21 Jt. General Manager, 07.7.98 to 22.8.2001 TCIL
1510018300
22 General Manager, 23.8.2001 till the TCIL
1640020900 date of suspension
1.5 The service particulars of Smt. Indra Singh w/o Sh. Virender Singh is
5 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D
mentioned as below:
S.No. Post held and scale of pay Period Organization
1 TGT, 440750 2.1.74 to 30.1.75 MCD
2 TGT (selection grade) 01.2.75 to 11.9.79 MCD
74035880
3 PGT, 550900 12.9.79 to 11.9.80 MCD
4 PGT (selection grade) 12.9.79 to 11.9.80 MCD
2200744000
5 Vice Principal, 800013500 03.8.96 to 02.12.01 MCD
6 Principal,10,00015,200 03.12.01 to till date MCD
1.6 During investigation the details of income of Sh. Virender Singh and his family
members i.e his wife Indra Singh and his sons Sh. Anshul Singh and Sh. Neeraj Singh found as under:
Income of Sh. Virender Singh during August 196511.12.2001 (Referred as statement "A") Sl. NO. Source of Income Amount (Rs.) 1 Interest earned on the maturity of NSCs held in the joint name 30,450/ of Virender Singh and his wife (proved by Post Master Chankyapuri) 2 NSCs worth Rs.135000 purchased by him and his wife during 13,5000/ the years 1988,89,92,93 and 94 and in respect of his wife for the year 1993. No documentary proof accept TDS certificates for which income benefit of 135000 is being given and no 6 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D addition is made in movable assets.
3 Leave encashment of 30 days vide order dtd. 19.5.89 (verified 3,520/ by Sh. Y.P Aurora) 4 Leave encashment of 30 days vide order dtd. 16.7.93 (verified 7,420/ by Sh. Y.P Aurora) 5 Lease encashment of 30 days vide order dtd. 4.8.94 (verified 8,440/ by Sh Y.P Aurora) 6 Maturity value of NSS a/c no.2000053 in the name of Virender 50,073/ Singh at Post office Chankyapuri ( proved by post master Chankyapuri) 7 Vehicle advance for purchase of car from TCIL by Virender 100,000/ Singh vide letter dt.20.1.99 (Verified by Y.P Aurora) 8 Payment of commutation of pension from Deptt of 119,079/ telecommunication on 30.12.85 by Sh. Virender Singh 9 Interest earned on monthly income scheme in respect of a/c 18,720/ nos. 400632 @Rs.520/p.m for 36 months 400936 @ Rs.440/p.m. For 16 months 7,040/ 400822 @ Rs.360/p.m. For 25 months 9,000/ 401197 @ Rs.427.50p.m for 1 month of Sh. Virender Singh 427/ maintained at Postal Saving Bureau, R.K. Puram, Sector6, New Delhi 10 Self Lease w.e.f 01.09.1998 in respect of premises no.G1/F , 287,040/ Munirka, DDA Flats, new Delhi at the monthly lease rent of Rs.
7,630/ for the period from September,1998 to November, 2001. This has been calculated on the basis of the office order dated 07.09.1998 and 05.02.2001 of TCIL for 30 months @ Rs.
7360/(Verified by Sh.Y.P Aurora) 7 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D Second installment of pay arrears of Virender Singh vide order 35,446/ 11 dtd. 02.6.98 (verified by Sh. Y.P Aurora) 12 HBA from Deptt of P & T vide oder dtd.8.4.76 by Sh. Virender 37,500/ Singh, JE (Telephones), New Delhi. (from the details submitted by Sh. Virender Singh) 13 Interest paid by Sikand Motors on late delivery of motor car 1,983/ (from the details submitted b Sh. Virender Singh) 14 Refund received from Income Tax Department (from the 102/ details submitted by Sh. Virender Singh) 15 Income received by way of pension from Department of 8,387/ Telecommunications deposited in SB a/c no.23987 opened on 25.11.2000, an amount of Rs.758 is credited in this a/c monthly from January 2001 till 29.11.2001 (proved by AO PFP from DOT) 16 Earnings of accused Virender Singh and his mother Smt. 46,501.45 Gaindi Devi on account of death of his father Sh. Mohlar Singh received from ITC towards amount of Provident Fund Rs.
21,213.50 + balance of pay and composite grant Rs.12,878.75 +Saving bank a/c no.1992 in Hindustan Commercial Bank, Saharanpur Rs.683.30 + Leave encashment Rs.693.40 + Gratuity in the name of Smt.Gaindi Devi Rs.11,032.50 (from the details submitted by Sh. Virender Singh) 17 Retirement benefit received by Sh. Virender Singh towards 9,775.85 gratuity from P & T, Delhi (proved by AO PFP from DOT) Payment received towards commutation of pension for the 4,107.50 period 19.6.85 to 27.12.85 from department of 18 telecommunication (proved by AO PFP from DOT) 19 Payment received towards retirement benefits through RBI 27,653/ 8 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D cheque dtd. 2/1/86 GPF final payment ( proved by AO PFP from DOT) 20 House hold advance received from TCIL (proved by Sr. Mgr 9,900/ TCIL) 21 Interest earned on Fixed Deposits at Oriental Bank of 3,906/ Commerce Munirka ND 616709/743/200016375644198/2000 616710/744/200016375724199/2000 3,906/ 616711/745/200016376024200/2000 3,906/ 103996/276/9916477814039/99 7,561/ 103995/275/9916477994038/99 8,568/ 104300/523/9916376614161/99 6,962/ 104004/284/9916479004046/99 7,550/ 22 Interest earned on SB a/c no.90789 maintained at IOB, TCIL, 5,279/ Extn, Counter, Nehru Place opened on 28.04.98 is the salary a/c of Sh. Virender Singh (intt income is for the period 1.09.1998 to 10.12.2001) 23 Interest earned on SB a/c no.304346 in the joint name of 4,819/ Virender Singh, Indira Singh and Smt. Gaindi Devi, mother, opened on 12.09.79 at Syndicate Bank, R.K. Puram, sector5, New Delhi (intt income is from 16.10.95 to 11.12.2001) 24 Interest earned on SB a/c no.9527 in the name of Virender 2,178.80 Singh and his wife Indira Singh at Oriental Bank of Commerce, Munirka , New Delhi opened on 01.3.92 to 27.12.1997) 25 Interest earned on SB a/c no.10237 maintained in the joint 5,402.80 name of Virender Singh, Indira Singh and Neeraj Singh at 9 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D OBC, Munirka, New Delhi opened on 15.11.92 (intt income is from 10.1.93 to 11.12.2001) 26 Interest earned on SB a/c no.10236 maintained in the joint name of Virender Singh, Indira Singh and Anshul Singh at OBC, Munirka, New Delhi opened on 15.11.92 (intt income is from 10.1.93 to 11.12.2001) 4676.25 27 Interest earned on SB a/c no.8469 maintained in the joint 159/ name of Virender Singh & Indira Singh at OBC, Munirka, New Delhi opened on 12.01.91 (intt income is from 30.4.93 to 04.12.1994) 28 Interest earned on SB a/c no.105501 maintained in the joint 4,222/ name of Virender Singh & Indira Singh at Allahabad Bank, Nehru Place.
29 Interest earned on SB a/c no.112736 maintained in the name 1,228/ of Anshul Singh s/o Sh. Virender Singh at Allahabad Bank, Nehru Place 30 Interest earned on S.B a/c no.8376 in the name of Virender 3,946/ Singh and Anshul Singh at Canara Bank, Munirka, New Delhi 31 Interest earned on SB a/c no.9051 in the joint name of 4,880/ Virender Singh and his son Neeraj Singh at Canara Bank, Munirka, New Delhi.
32 Interest earned on SB a/c no.23987 in the name Virender 55/ Singh at Canara bank, Munirka, New Delhi 33 Interest earned on SB a/c no.6703 in the joint name of 3,813/ Virender Singh and Indira Singh at Canara Bank, Munirka, New Delhi.
34 Interest earned on SB a/c no.4735 in the joint name of 1,443.91 10 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D Virender Singh and Indira Singh at Canara Bank, Munirka, New Delhi 35 Interest earned on SB a/c no.9013005 maintained at Postal 1,155/ saving bureau, R.K. Puram , Sector 6, New Delhi in the name of Virender Singh.
36 Interest earned on SB a/c no.9013093 in the name of Neeraj 644/ Singh s/o Virender Singh at Postal Savings Bureau, R.K. Puram, sector6 37 Interest earned by way of receipt of money back claim by Sh. 10,000/ Virender Singh in LIC policy no.110276973 dtd. 28.3.89 38 Income earned by way of first survival benefit paid on 15.8.88 12,500/ in respect of LIC policy no.111923646 dtd.15.8.93 in the name of Sh. Virender Singh 39 Interest earned by way of receipt of survival benefit on two 10,000/ occasions i.e 28.2.94 and 28.2.99 in respect of policy no. 110275817 dtd. 15.2.89 40 Maturity value of FD no.0087742/51/2000 of Indian Overseas 84,461/ Bank dtd. 3.11.2001 credited in a/c no.90789.
41 Maturity value of FD no.0087792/109/2000 of Indian Overseas 48,234/ Bank dtd.01.11.2001 credited in a/c no.90789.
42 Maturity value of FD no.0087784/100/2000 of Indian Overseas 81,581/ Bank dtd. 12.09.2001 credited in a/c no.90791.
43 Maturity value of FD no.825706 42,608/
825707 39,603/
825962 132,938/
825272 111,831
11 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D
825604 55,577
912415 26,074/
43757 26,074/
312289 133,361/
301562 102,752/
301961,301962 in the name of Virender Singh at Allahabad 107,065/ Bank, Nehru Place (total Rs.7,77,883) 44 Refund made by DDA towards payment for flat no.G1/F, MIG, 8,466/ DDA Flats, Munirka 45 Remittance made to Anshul Singh from DDA towards SFS flat 86,671/ no.6144/6, Vasant Kunj 46 Dividend paid from 1991 to 2000 from Dhan 80 CCB (1), LIC 6,250/ Mutual Fund by Virender Singh 47 Income earned by way of dividend from UTI master shares 554.71 48 Income earned by way of dividend from Tata infomedia 3,634.53 49 Dividend earned from IPCL 1,960/ 50 Claim of reimbursement towards towards car/motorcycle 27,050/ allowance from TCIL 51 Claim regarding news paper subsidy from TCIL to Sh. Virender 7,560/ Singh 52 Net salary income of Virender Singh 1,527,859.75 Salary calculated is on the basis of particulars provided by department from 6/85 till November 2001 and the rest of the details for the period from 1965 till 5/85 are taken from the details provided by the accused in his compendium submitted to CBI.
12 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D
Total income earned by Sh. Virender Singh during check 3,738,491.05 period Income of Sh. Anshul Singh during check period (Referred as statement "B") Sl. NO. Source of Income Amount (Rs.)
1. Interest earned on monthly income scheme in 15,360/ respect of a/c no.400680 @ 480/PM for 32 months 400871 @440/pm for 20 months 8,800/ 400872 @440/pm fr 17 months 7,480/ of Sh. Anshul Singh maintained at Postal Saving Bureau, R.K. Puram, sector6, New Delhi (Total 31,640/) 2 Maturity amount of MIS a/c no.400271 in the 19,800/ name of Anshul Singh at PSB, R.K. Puram 3 Loan on FDs from Allahabad Bank on 29.3.97 152,600/ 4 Interest earned on SB a/c no.14476 in the name 2,427/ of Anshul Singh s/o Virender Singh at OBC, Munirka, New Delhi 5 Interest earned on PPF a/c no.1686 held in the 17,467.71 name of Anshul Singh s/o Virender Singh at SBI, JNU, New Delhi Rs.30,167/ 6 Interest earned on SB a/c no.9013094 in the 1,062/ name of Anshul Singh s/o Virender Singh at Postal Savings Bureau , R.K. Puram, sector6 13 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D 7 Income earned by way of stipend @ Rs.4,500/ 54,000/ during the period 16.09.98 to 15.09.99 from M/S Beco Engineering Company, Ballabhgarh (no document could be collected during investigation but the accused provided a photocopy duly certified by him) 8 Amount received by Anshul Singh towards 62,902/ salary bonus and PF from M/S Nappino Auto and Electronics ltd. Gurgaon during his employment as Engineer Quality Control during the period 17.09.99 to 20.09.2000.
9 Income earned by ways of dividend from UTI 13,850.32 Master shares Total income earned by Anshul Singh during 3,55,749.33 check period Income of Sh. Neeraj Singh during the check period (Referred as statement "C") Sl. No. Source of income Amount (Rs.) 1 Interest earned on monthly income scheme in 1,089/ respect of a/c no.401027 @ 990 pm for 11 months 401210 @ 427.50 pm for 1 month 427.50 400658 @ 480 pm for 34 months 16,320/ 400823 @ 480 pm for 25 months 12,000/ 400873 @ 440 pm for 20 months 8,800/ 14 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D 400896 @440 pm for 20 months 8,800/ of Sh. Neeraj Singh maintained at Postal Saving Bureau, R.K Puram, Sector6, New Delhi (Total Rs.57,237.50) 2 Interest earned on PPF a/c no.1685 held in the 17,290.32 name of Neeraj Singh s/o Sh. Virender Singh at SBI, JNU Rs.30,790/ 3 Maturity amount of monthly income scheme 19,800/ 400270 in the name of Neeraj Singh at Postal Saving Bureau, R.K. Puram 4 Dividend earned from UTI Master shares 13,850.32 Total income earned by Neeraj Singh during 98,377.14 the check period Income of Smt. Indra Singh during the check period (Referred as statement "D") Sl. No. Source of income Amount (Rs.) 1 Net Salary of Smt. Indra Singh from 1974 to 1,819.286/ November 2001 details from 1974 to July 1978 taken from compendium of the accused, rest of the details are provided by MCD 2 Interest earned on monthly income scheme in 16,320/ respect of a/c no.400649 @ 480 pm for 34 months 400866 @440/pm for 21 months of Smt. Indra 9,240/ Singh maintained at Postal saving Bureau, R.K. 15 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D Puram , Sector6, New Delhi (Total 25,560) 3 Interest/maturity income in respect of NSS a/c 19,788/ no.11889 in the name of Smt. Indra Singh opened on 12, February, 1990 withdrawal of Rs.
2,400/ each done during 02.01.1997 , 26.11.97 and 17.06.98.
4 PPF a/c interest earned on PPF a/c no.933, 54,545.31 SBI, JNU, New Delhi held in the name of Mrs. Indira Singh w/o Virender singh 5 Interest earned on SB a/c no.22165 in the name 5,677/ of Mrs. Indra Singh at Canara Bank, Munirka, New Delhi 6 Income earned by way of receipt of survival 40,000/ benefit (20,000 each) on two occasions i.e 28.2.95 and 28.2.2000 in respect of policy no.
110281387 purchased on 27.2.90 in the name of Smt. Indra Singh.
7 Income earned from UTI Master shares as 554.71 dividend 8 Refund received from income tax department 484/ Total income earned by Smt. Indra Singh 1,965,895.02 during the check period
2. As per chargesheet during investigation Sh. Virender Singh furnished income details of himself and his family members alongwith copies of documentary proof for certain income claims. As required under provision of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 , the 16 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D details of income given by Virender Singh were considered to the extent where the documentary proof in its support was given and requisite intimation regarding income were given to the authorities.
2.1 It is further submitted in chargesheet that Sh. Virender Singh has claimed TA/DA as part of his income which were not considered as income as TA/DA does not form the part of income. Sh. Virender Singh has claimed income of Rs.8,34,636/ as saving from DA received during postings in N. Yemen, Kuwait and Indonesia. It is stated that this is the income made from savings of foreign dearness allowance paid to him by TCIL which was not intimated by him to his department as per information given by his department to CBI. It is further stated that Virender Singh could not produce any document regarding intimation given by him to his department in this regard and he even could not produce copies of income tax returns reflecting such income. Further, Virender Singh himself has given in writing in respect of N. Yemen and Kuwait that he does not remember the bank account numbers and name of banks where such savings of foreign DA was deposited. 2.2 Sh. Virender Singh has claimed Rs.2,03,400/ towards DA received during his posting in India at Faridabad , Indore and Ahmedabad. This amount has also not been considered as part of income as daily allowance does not form part of income nor any intimation regarding these savings were given by him to TCIL and Income tax department. 2.3 Sh. Virender Singh has claimed maturity income from the NSCs for himself and his wife amounting to Rs.4,80,000/but he could not produce any details of the NSCs and name of post office from where such NSCs were purchased. However, during 17 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D investigation details regarding NSCs were collected and benefit of amount of NSCs i.e Rs. 1,35,000/ declared by Virender Singh and his wife to income tax authorities as reflected in TDS certificate has been given.
2.4 It is further revealed in chargesheet that Virender Singh has claimed income of Rs.5,93,125/ from house rent from house i.e LIG Flat no.BH6A, Munirka from 1979 till 30.11.2001. This flat was in the name of his mother Smt. Gaindi Devi which was purchased in the year 1979 and in 1980 it was transferred in the name of Sh. Virender singh through will. This flat has not been included in assets of Virender Singh and his family members as rental income from said house as claimed by Virender Singh was not intimated either to his department or income tax authorities. As such this income has not been considered for the purpose of calculation of income of accused.
2.5 It is revealed in chargesheet that Virender Singh has claimed Rs.27,050/ towards scooter/car allowance form TCIL and he has enclosed the office order from the department showing that he was given reimbursement of conveyance expenditure and benefit of this income has been given to him.
2.6 It is stated that Virender Singh has claimed Rs.7,560/ as income by newspaper and subsidy for which benefit has been given.
2.7 It is further revealed that Virender singh has claimed Rs.19,350/ as income by way of lunch coupons for which he has given copies of three lunch coupons of Rs.25/ each. Instead of this he has not given any evidence regarding this , as such lunch coupons cannot be taken as income, as these coupons are given for the consumption and towards 18 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D reimbursement of the officer.
2.8 It is further revealed in chargesheet that Sh. Virender Singh claimed Rs. 4,500/ towards the cash received by sons on birth day/exam, Rs.4,800/ towards paying guest accommodation of one room at G1/F, Munirka , from 1976 to 1979, Rs.1,60,000/ towards value of matured NSCs, Rs.8,76,445 towards income of interest on various savings banks/FDs in his name/in the name of his wife and sons and Rs.3,37,000/ towards streedhan of his wife Indra Singh received on different occasions. 2.9 Regarding above said claims, Sh. Virender Singh has neither submitted any document in support of these claims nor he has provided any details. It is further submitted that as far as income of interest on various saving banks/FDs is concerned, no details and documents have been provided , hence, above said income was not considered during investigation.
2.10 It is further stated in chargesheet that Sh. Virender Singh has claimed Rs. 70,000/towards cash left by his father. During investigation conducted at his village, no cash was left by his father and this amount was not taken as his income. He further claimed Rs.25000/ towards sale of wheat/rice/buffalow/fodder cutter machine/house hold items in June/July 1975 after his father's murder. During investigation, it was found that claim of Virender Singh is false.
2.11 It is further stated in chargesheet that Virender Singh claimed Rs.78,750/ towards surrendering his claim of 4.5 bighas land in 1994. During investigation it was revealed that 4.5 bighas land at village Bhikanpur belongs to Sangta Singh, grand father of 19 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D Virender Singh. After death of father of Virender Singh in 1975 , the aforesaid land was transferred in the joint names of Sh. Chetram and Sh. Virender Singh directly from Sangta Singh in year 1982. Sh. Virender Singh sold his share on aforesaid land to Sh. Chetram for an amount of Rs30,000/ to Rs.40,000/. Sh. Virender Singh claimed Rs.1,71,000/ as his income from agricultural land from 1976 to 1994. Investigation revealed that Sh. Chet Ram did not give any amount to Sh. Virender Singh from the sale of agricultural produce. Thus, the claim of Sh. Virender Singh is false.
2.12 Sh. Virender singh has claimed an income of Rs.65000/in lieu of surrendering the claim of his house in Saharanpur city in the year 1994. Investigation has revealed that the house consist of two rooms belongs to Sh. Chet Ram (uncle of Virender Singh).He further claimed income of Rs.50,000/ by surrendering his claim in the village house in the year 1984. Investigation has revealed that Sh. Virender Singh has sold his share in the village house to his uncle for Rs.30,000/(approx). It is stated that aforesaid income of Virender Singh which was found during investigation was not attributed towards known sources of income as he has not intimated such income to his department as the same is not covered under the provision of section 13 (1) (e) of PC act, 1988. 2.13 Sh. Virender Singh has claimed Rs.8100/ towards using of village house from 1976 to 1984 and he has claimed Rs.18000/ towards using of his house in Sharanpur City from 1976 to 1994 but during investigation the claim of Sh. Virender Singh was found false. Sh. Virender Singh also claimed income of Rs.50,000/ towards the loan received back from borrowers which was given by his father before his death. During investigation, it was 20 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D revealed that claim of Sh. Virender Singh is false and he even did not produce any documentary proof in this regard. Therefore, aforesaid income as claimed by Virender Singh was not taken into account towards known sources of income. 2.14 In chargesheet, it is submitted that during the check period the following assets were found in possession of Sh. Virender Singh and his family consisting of his wife, Smt. Indra Singh and his two sons namely Anshul Singh and Sh. Neeraj Singh.
Assets of Sh. Neeraj Singh during the check period
(Referred as statement "E")
Sl. No. Nature of Assets Amount (Rs.)
1 Initial deposit in the monthly income scheme 1,08,000/
at postal saving bureau, R.K. Puram by Sh.
Neeraj Singh a/c no.401027.
401210 54,000/
400658 48000/
400823 48,000/
400873 48,000/
400896 (Total 3,54,000) 48,000/
2 Amount held in PPF a/c no.1685 in respect of 1,97,290.32
Sh. Neeraj Singh maintained at SBI, JNU,
New Delhi
3 Deposits in MIS a/c no.400270 by Sh. Neeraj 18,000/
Singh at PSB, R.K. Puram , New Delhi
4 FD no.63252452 dated 28.7.2001 issued by 50,000/
21 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D
SBI favouring Neeraj Singh, date of maturity
28.7.2002
5 FD no.63595610 dated 03.11.2001 issued by 50,000/
SBI favouring Neeraj Singh, date of maturity
03.11.2002
6 UTI Master shares held in the name of Neeraj 1,000/
Singh having 100 units
Total assets of Sh. Neeraj Singh 6,70,290.32
Assets of Sh. Anshul Singh during the check period
(Referred as statement "F")
Sl. No. Nature of Assets Amount (Rs.)
1 Initial deposits in the monthly income scheme 48,000
at postal saving bureau, R.K. Puram by Sh.
Anshul Singh in a/c nos.400680
400871 48,000
400872 48,000
401219 (Total 2,34,000) 90,000
2 Amount held in PPF a/c no.1686 in respect of 1,97,467.71
Sh. Anshul Singh maintained at SBI, JNU,
New Delhi
3 Deposits in MIS a/c no.400271 in the name of 18,000
Anshul Singh at PSB, R.K Puram, New Delhi
4 Balance in SB a/c no.14476 between 8.1.98 to 71,476
22.11.2001 maintained at Oriental Bank of
22 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D
Commerce, Munirka, New Delhi
5 Balance in SB a/c no.9013094 between the 3,212
period 31.3.99 to 16.11.2001 in respect of
Anshul Singh at Postal Saving Bureau , R.K.
Puram6 , New Delhi
6 FD no.48377281 dtd. 3.2.2001 issued by SBI, 50,000
JNU,New Delhi favouring Anshul Singh date of
maturity 03.2.2002
7 FD no.63252784 dtd. 04.09.2001 issued by 50,000
SBI, JNU,New Delhi favouring Anshul Singh
date of maturity 04.3.2002
8 UTI Master shares held int he name of Anshul 1,000
Singh having 100 units
9 Shares of Reliance 100 shares in the name of 10,000
Anshul Singh
Total assets of Sh. Anshul Singh during the 6,35,155.71
check period
Assets of Smt. Indira Singh during the check period
(Referred as statement "G")
Sl. No. Nature of assets Amount (Rs.)
1 Initial deposit in the monthly income scheme 48,000
at postal saving bureau, R.K Puram by Smt.
Indira Singh in a/c no.400649
400866 (Total 96,000) 48,000
23 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D
2 Amount held in PPF a/c no.933 in respect of 3,10,545.13
Smt. Indira Singh maintained at SBI, JNU,
New Delhi
3 Deposits in NSS a/c no.11889 in the name of 11,500
Smt. Indira Singh w/o Virender Singh at H90,
Sarojini Nagar
4 Balance in SB a/c no.22165 at Munirka, New 31,382.98
Delhi between 01.3.98 to 09.12.2001 in the
name of Smt. Indra Singh
5 Amount deposited towards premium of policy 80,804
no.110281387 in the name of Indira Singh
between the period February 1990 to February
2001
6 Amount deposited towards premium of policy 36,450
no.110268459 dtd.28.8.87 in the name of Indra
Singh between August,87 to August, 2001
7 Plot no.734 , sector21, Gurgaon,allotted to 889475.90
Indra Singh w/o Virender Singh by HUDA on
15.11.85.
Payments made by the allottee towards plot
charges till 27.2.2001 = Rs.1,44,475.90 cost of
plot.
Payments made by Virender Singh in respect
of construction of residential building upto
December 2001 to Sh. Hardeep Singh,
Director, EC Construction =Rs.7,45,000
construction cost (7,45,000 + 1,44,475.90
=8,89,475.9)
24 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D
8 Fixed deposit no.TD389371/566322 dtd. 50,000
18.4.2001 in favour of Indra Singh w/o
Virender Singh date of maturity 18.5.2002.
9 Shares held in the name of Indra Singh of 2,000
Tauras Starshare folio no.10272288 on 18.1.94
10 UTI Master shares held in the name of Indra 3,000
Singh having 300 units
Assets of Smt. Indra Singh during the 1,511,158.01
check period
Assets of Sh. Virender Singh during the check period
(Referred as statement "H")
Sl. NO. Nature of Assets Amount (Rs.)
1 Initial deposit in the monthly income scheme 48,000
at postal saving bureau, R.K Puram by Sh.
Virender Singh in a/c no.400632
400936 48,000
400822 36,000
401197 (total 1,86,000) 54,000
Deposits in NSS a/c no.2000053 in the name 25,000
of Sh. Virender Singh at Post office,
Chankyapuri
Balance in SB a/c no.90789 standing in the 41,565
name of Virender Singh maintained at Indian
Overseas Bank, TCIL Extn. Counter, Nehru
25 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D
place during the check period
2 Balance between 12.9.79 to 10.12.2001 in SB 15,268
a/c no.304346 in the joint name of Virender
Singh, wife Indira Singh , mother Smt. Gaindi
Devi at Syndicate bank , R.K. Puram, Sector5
3 Balance between 01.3.92 to 27.12.97 in SB a/c 7,457.30 no.9527 in the joint name of Virender Singh and his wife Smt. Indira Singh at Oriental bank of Commerce, Munirka 4 Balance in SB a/c no.10237 maintained 78,480 between 15.11.92 to 30.6.2001 in the name of Virender Singh ,his wife Smt. Indira Singh and son Neeraj Singh at Oriental bank of Commerce, Munirka 5 Balance in SB a/c no.10236 between 15.11.92 80,092 to 28.7.2001 in the name of Virender Singh, wife Indira Singh and son NeerajSingh at Oriental Bank of Commerce.
6 Balance in SB a/c no.905501 between 40,405 07.09.89 to 07.12.2001 in the joint name of Virender Singh and his wife Indira Singh at Allahabad Bank, New Delhi 7 Balance in SB a/c no.8376 between 18.1.87 to 59,795 01.11.2001 in the name of Virender Singh and Anshul Singh at Canara Bank , Munirka , New Delhi 8 Balance between 16.8.87 to 01.11.2001 in SB 53,168 a/c no.9051 in the joint name of Virender 26 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D Singh and Neeraj Singh at Canara Bank , Munirka, New Delhi 9 Balance in SB a/c no.22251 at UTI bank ltd, 15,000 Gurgaon in the name of Virender Singh 10 Balance in SB a/c no.23987 in the name of 8,684 Virender singh at Canara Bank, Munirka , New Delhi between 25.11.2000 to 01.11.2001 11 Balance between 15.09.85 to 01.11.2001 in SB 51,542 a/c no.6703 in the joint name of Virender Singh and Indira Singh at Canara Bank, Munirka, New Delhi.
12 Balance in SB a/c no.9013005 in the name of 6,494 Virender Singh at postal service bureau, R.K. Puram6, New Delhi, between the period 20.5.99 to 08.12.2001.
13 Balance in SB a/c no.9013093 between 5,380 31.3.99 to 29.11.2001 in the name of Neeraj Singh s/o Virender Singh at postal saving bureau, R.K Puram 14 Amount deposited towards premium of LIC 20,150 policy no.110276973 of Virender singh 15 Amount deposited between August,93 to 21,375 August 2001 towards premium in respect of LIC policy no.111923646 dtd. 15.8.93 16 Amount deposited towards premium in respect 20,150 of LIC policy no.110275817 dtd. 15.2.89 in the name of Virender Singh during the period February 89 to February 2001 27 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D 17 Fixed deposits in Allahabad bank, Nehru 32,065 Place, New Delhi FD no.825706/52/939 dtd.
29.8.95 18 Fixed deposits in Allahabad bank, Nehru 32,066 Place, New Delhi FD no.825707/52/940 dtd.
29.8.95 19 Fixed deposits in Allahabad bank, Nehru 1,00,000 Place, New Delhi FD no.825962/52/195 dtd.
09.11.95 20 Fixed deposits in Allahabad bank, Nehru 1,00,000 Place, New Delhi FD no.825272/52/517 dtd.
17.5.95 21 Fixed deposits in Allahabad bank, Nehru 45,000 Place, New Delhi FD no.825604/52/937 dtd.
01.8.95 22 Fixed deposits in Allahabad bank, Nehru 25,500 Place, New Delhi FD no.912415/52/365 dtd.
13.3.95 23 Fixed deposits in Allahabad bank, Nehru 25,500 Place, New Delhi FD no.43757/52/309 dtd.
03.2.95 24 Fixed deposits in Allahabad bank, Nehru 111,831 Place, New Delhi FD no.312289/52/922 dtd.
18.5.95 25 Fixed deposits in Allahabad bank, Nehru 95000 Place, New Delhi FD no.301562/53/116 dtd.
23.11.96 28 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D 26 Fixed deposits in Allahabad bank, Nehru 55,577 Place, New Delhi FD no.301961/53/509 dtd.
26.3.97 27 Fixed deposits in Allahabad bank, Nehru 39,603 Place, New Delhi FD no.301962/53/510 dtd.
26.3.97 28 Fixed deposits in Allahabad bank, Nehru 40,000 Place, New Delhi FD no.565097/53/509 dtd.
26.3.97 29 Fixed deposits in Allahabad bank, Nehru 40,000 Place, New Delhi FD no.565103/59/397 dtd.
13.12.2000 30 Fixed deposits in Allahabad bank, Nehru 50,000 Place, New Delhi FD no.565167/59/460 dtd.
29.12.2000 31 Fixed deposits in Allahabad bank, Nehru 43,723 Place, New Delhi FD no.641300/59/590 dtd.
01.2.2001 32 Fixed deposits in Canara bank, Munirka, New 50,000 Delhi KD no.450/2001 33 Fixed deposits in Canara bank, Munirka, New 50,000 Delhi KD no.451/2001 34 Fixed deposits in Canara bank, Munirka, New 50,000 Delhi KD no.76/2001 35 Fixed deposits in Canara bank, Munirka, New 50,000 Delhi KD no.228/2001 36 Fixed deposits in Canara bank, Munirka, New 50,000 29 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D Delhi KD no.226/2001 37 Fixed deposits in Canara bank, Munirka, New 50,000 Delhi KD no.227/2001 38 Fixed deposits in Canara bank, Munirka, New 50,000 Delhi KD no.229/2001 39 Fixed deposits in Indian Overseas bank,TCIL 75,000 Extn Counter, New Delhi no.0087742/51/2000 40 Fixed deposits in Indian Overseas bank, TCIL 45000 Extn. counter, New Delhi no.
0087792/109/2000 41 Fixed deposits in Indian Overseas bank, TCIL 75,000 Extn. counter, New Delhi no.
0087784/100/2000 42 FDR no. RDP/008770/13/02 dtd.15.2.2000 40,000 issued from IOB, TCIL Extn. Counter, Nehru Place Branch, New Delhi, date of maturity 15.2.2001.
43 FDR no. RDP/0087705/17/2000 dtd.17.2.2000 40,000 issued from IOB, TCIL Extn. Counter, Nehru Place Branch, New Delhi, favouring Neeraj Singh and Virender Singh 44 FDR no.RDP/00877706/18/2000 dtd.17.2.2000 40,000 issued from IOB, TCIL Extn. Counter, Nehru Place Branch, New Delhi favouring Anshul Singh and Virender Singh 45 FDR no.RDP/0087704/16/2000 dtd.17.2.2000 40,000 issued from IOB, TCIL Extn. Counter, Nehru 30 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D Place Branch, New Delhi favouring Indra Singh and Virender Singh 46 FDs in Oriental Bank of Commerce, held in the 40,000 name of Sh.Virender singh no.
732734/1643203 dtd. 25.6.2001 47 FDs in Oriental Bank of Commerce, held in the 40,000 joint name of Sh.Virender Singh and his wife Smt. Indra singh no.732924/1645745 dtd.
01.07.2001 48 FDs in Oriental Bank of Commerce, held in the 50,000 name of Sh.Virender singh no.4161/99 renewed to 163661 dtd. 04.04.1999 49 FDs in Oriental Bank of Commerce, held in the 30,000 joint name of Sh.Virender singh and his son Neeraj Singh no.4199/2000 renewed to1637572 dtd. 22.4.2000 50 FDs in Oriental Bank of Commerce, held in the 30,000 joint name of Sh.Virender singh and his son Anshul Singh no.4198/2000 renewed to 1637564 dtd. 22.4.2000.
51 FDs in Oriental Bank of Commerce, held in the 30,000 joint name of Sh.Virender singh and his wife Smt. Indra Singh no.4200/2000 renewed to 1637602 dtd. 22.4.2000 52 FDs in Oriental Bank of Commerce, held in the 50,000 joint name of Sh.Virender singh and his son Neeraj Singh no.4039/1999 renewed to 1647781 dtd. 20.2.1999 31 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D 53 FDs in Oriental Bank of Commerce, held in the 50,000 joint name of Sh.Virender singh and Indra Singh no.4038/1999 renewed to 1647799 dtd.
20.2.1999 54 FDs in Oriental Bank of Commerce, held in the 50,000 joint name of Sh.Virender singh and his son Anshul Singh no.4046/1999 renewed to 1647900 dtd. 21.2.1999 55 FD no.TD387262 dtd.18.4.2001 of Syndicate 50,000 Bank in favour of Virender Singh date of maturity 18.5.2002 56 FD no.TD414707 dtd. 06.10.2001 of Syndicate 75,000 Bank in favour of Virender Singh and Indra Singh date of maturity 06.1.2003 57 FD no.TD414715 dtd. 06.10.2001 of Syndicate 75,000 Bank in favour of Virender Singh and Indra Singh, date of maturity 06.1.2003 58 Household articles found at premises of 3,59,300 Virender Singh at G1/F,DDA flats, Munirka , in occupation of Virender Singh and his family members during search on 11.12.2001 (House search observation memo) 59 Cash found during the house search of 1,70,000 premises no.G1/F, DDA flats, Munirka in occupation of Virender Singh and his family members during search on 11.12.2001 60 Cash found in the locker no.313 in the nam eof 1,60,000 Virender Singh and Indra Singh at Oriental 32 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D Bank of Commerce, Munirka on 03.1.2002 61 Yamaha Motorcycle no.DL9SC0545 39,453 registered in the name of Anshul Singh s/o Virender singh 62 Maruti Zen registration no.DL2CK6554 in the 3,01,276 name of Virender Singh purchased on 08.3.99 63 Maruti 800 no.DNC 44374 registered in the 93,895 name of Virender Singh on 23.6.89 64 Flat no.G1/F, MIG, DDA flat, Munirka allotted 61,059 to Virender Singh on 31.12.75 Cost of the flat 38,419.96 Ground rent 2,640 Freehold conversion charges 20,000 65 Cost of SFS Flat no.6144/6, Vasant Kunj 9,52,565 allotted to Sh. Anshul Singh s/o Virender Singh r/o G1/F, MIG, DDA flats, Munirka by DDA during 1996 Cost of flat Rs.8,44,600 Stamp duty paid by allottee 1,07,965 8966 Payment made by Virender Singh towards 1,79,186 shop no.G3 Raj Nagar Distt. Sector allotted to him by GDA on 02.8.94 67 Shares held in the name of Virender Singh 2,000 having folio no.10272289 of Taurus Starshare purchased on 18.1.94 68 LIC mutual fund Dhan 80 CCB (1) held in the 5,000 name of Virender Singh on 04.3.91 69 UTI Master shares held in the name of 3,000 33 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D Virender Singh 300 Units 70 Shares held in the name of Ganges Fertilizers 1,000 & CheMISals Ltd. 100 equity shares @ 10/ 71 Shares of IPCL having folio no.160124, 100 16,000 shares @ 10 face value but a premium of Rs.
15072 Shares of IPCL 140 rights share @ 80 each 11,200 73 Shares of Enfield Electronics Ltd. @ 10/ 100 1,000 shares 74 Shares of Tata Infomedia 172 securities @ 10 1,720 each held in the name of Virender Singh and Indra Singh 75 Shares of Reliance held in the name of 10,000 Virender Singh Total Assets of Sh. Virender Singh during 5,198,528.36 the check period Expenditure of Virender Singh and his family during the check period August 1965 to 11.12.2001 (Referred as statement "J") Sl. No. Nature of Expenditure Amount (Rs.) 1 Nonverifiable expenditure towards kitchen & 7,73,895 clothing expenses from 1965 to November 2001 taken as 1/3rd of (gross salaryincome tax deducted) of Sh. Virender Singh 1/3(26,33,980 3,12,285)=1/3 (23,21,685) 34 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D 2 Return of loan taken by Anshul Singh from 1,56,350 Allahabad Bank, Nehru Place, New Delhi with interest 3 Insurance paid for Yamaha Motorcycle 541 no.DL9SC0545 registered in the name of Anshul Singh s/o Virender Singh 4 Insurance charges for maruti zen registration 10,946 no.DL2CK6554 in the name of Virender Singh purchased on 08.3.99 5 Expenditure towards payment of road tax and 3,915 registration fees for maruti zen registration no.DL2CK6554 in the name of Virender Singh on 10.3.99 6 Expenditure towards payment of tuition fees 18,300 and activity fee in respect of Anshul Singh s/o Sh. Virender Singh in Ramjash School, Sector IV, R.K. Puram , New Delhi 7 Expenditure towards tuition fees and other 31,905 fees in respect of Sh. AnshulSingh s/o Sh.
Virender Singh for pursuing Production Management School of Engineering & Technology, Hubli580031, Karnataka 8 Expenditure towards purchase of Gold 43,921 jewellery by Sh. Anshul Singh from Tribhuvandas Bhimji Jhaveri, Delhi on 16.2.2001 9 Expenditure towards tuition fees and activity 29,700 fee of Neeraj Singh s/o Virender Singh from 35 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D Class 1 to ClassXII of Ramjas School, Sector IV, R.K. Puram , New Delhi 10 Expenditure towards fee etc of Mr. Neeraj 22,642 Singh s/o Virender Singh for pursuing MIB Courses, Deptt. Of commerce University of Delhi for the y ear 199899 and 19992000 11 Expenditure towards fee etc in respect of 5,478 Neeraj Singh s/o Sh. Virender Singh for pursing B. Com Hons. course in Shaheed Bhagat Singh college , Delhi University during 199598 12 Expenditure towards payment made vide Citi 16,564 Bank Credit Card no.5546199077813008 standing in the name of Sh. Neeraj Singh for the period from 27.10.2000 to November 2001 13 Expenditure towards water charges in respect 2,870 of property no.G1/F in DDA Munirka in the name of Sh. Virender Singh for the period from 25.1.91 to 24.09.2001 14 Expenditure towards payment of water 1,812 charges in respect of property no.BH/6A, DDA, Munirka in the name of Smt. G. Devi, mother of Sh. Virender Singh for the period from 18.1.91 to 31.3.2000 15 Expenditure towards purchase of jewellery by 20,450 Mrs. Indira Singh on 18.2.92 and 17.12.2000 from Mehra & Sons, South Extn., PartI, New Delhi 36 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D 16 Expenditure towards purchase of jewellery 41,711 from Tribhovan Das Bhimji Zaveri on 16.2.2001 by Sh. Anshul Singhs/o Virender singh 17 Expenditure towards purchase of Gold TT bAr 54,130 and one Silver Medalllian by Sh. Virender Singh on 22.11.2000 from MMTC Ltd. Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi 18 Expenditure towards purchase of 21" Sony 23,150 colour TV from Radio Electronics Emporium, Sarojini Nagar by Virender Singh on 25.12.97 Total expenditure of Sh. Virender singh and 1,258,280 his family during the check period.
Calculation of DA 1 Income : 6,158,512.54 2 Expenditure : 1,258,280.00 3 Assets : 8,015,132.40 4 Disproportionate assets : 3,114,899.86 Income - Expenditure = Likely savings 6158512.54 1258280 = 4900232.54 Assets = 8015132.40 Assets Likely Savings 8015132.40 4900232.54 = 3114899.86 37 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D DA% (Disproportionate assets /Total income x100) = Rs.3114899.86/6158512.545 100 = 50.57%
3. It is submitted in chargesheet that on the basis of oral and documentary evidence Sh. Virender Singh, the then Project Director, Telecommunication Consultants India Ltd. was found in possession of disproportionate assets worth Rs.3114899.86 which he could not satisfactorily explain during investigation and thus committed offence punishable u/s 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (e) of PC Act, 1988. No sanction for prosecution was required as accused had already retired from the service at the time of chargesheet.
4. Chargesheet was filed against Virender Singh. Cognizance of offence was taken and copies were supplied to accused as required u/s 207 Cr.P.C.
5. After hearing arguments, charge was framed against accused for the offence u/s 13 (1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (P.C Act in short) punishable u/s 13 (2) of the Act.
6. Prosecution have examined 39 witnesses to prove its case. The testimony of prosecution witnesses are as under:
6.1 PW1 Shri Satvir Singh Tyagi has deposed that from the year 20002004, he was posted in Regional Transport Office, Tilak Marg, New Delhi. He proved document 38 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D Ex.PW1/A which was signed by Shri V.A. Vasu, the then MLO regarding vehicle no.DL2CK6554. He also proved attested photocopy of Form No.16 dated 11/11/2002 relating to the registration of the said car in the name of accused Virender Singh as Ex.PW1/B. He deposed that amount of transaction as per form No.16 is Rs.301276/. He further proved attested photocopy of ration card of accused Virender Singh as Ex.PW1/C as the same was filed for registration of the car in question. He further proved attested photocopy of the original registration certificate of car no.DL2CK6554 in the name of accused Virender Singh as Ex.PW1/D. He also proved attested photocopy of original receipt as Ex.PW1/E and deposed that a sum of Rs.3815/ was charged as Road Tax and Rs.100/ as registration fee. He further proved attested photocopy of application form for registration of motor vehicle (form No.20) filed by accused Virender Singh as Ex.PW1/F. He also proved attested photocopy of form no.22 relating to chasis number & engine number, share certificate and invoice of the aforesaid car as Ex.PW1/G, Ex.PW1/H and Ex.PW1/J respectively. He further proved attested photocopy of insurance of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd in respect of said car as Ex.PW1/K and deposed that a sum of Rs.10,946/ was paid as insurance of the said vehicle. He further proved attested photocopy of Income Tax Department Certificate relating to permanent account to accused Virender Singh as Ex.PW1/L. 6.2 PW2 Shri Surender Kumar Verma, Manager (Accounts), M/s Sikand & Co., 50, Janpath, New Delhi has proved attested photocopy of invoice no.52237 dated 08/03/1999 in the name of accused Virender Singh as Ex.PW1/J and has deposed that car ZEN LX (M) 39 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D was sold to accused Virender Singh for a total amount of Rs.3,01,276/. 6.3 PW3 Shri Mahesh Mathpal, Office Attendant, Bhagat Singh College has proved letter dated 24/08/2004 signed by Dr. Jitender Kaur, Principal, Bhagat Singh College as Ex.PW3/A and its annexures as mark A, B and C. 6.4 PW4 Shri Rajender Kumar Aggarwal, Assistant Post Master, Sarojini Nagar Post Office, New Delhi has proved carbon copy of letter dated 04/03/2003 as Ex.PW4/A. He further deposed that he had seen application for purchase of NSC for Rs.5000/ in the name of Mrs. Indira Singh and accused Virender Singh and said application bears endorsement of Shri B.L. Khuba, the then Dy. Post Master and the same is Ex.PW4/B. He further deposed that on maturity of said NSC an amount of Rs.10,075/ was paid on 30/11/2002.
6.5 PW5 Shri Ganga Saran, retired Post Master from Mehrauli Post Office has appeared in the witness box and deposed that during the year 1994 and 1995 he remained posted as Public Relation Officer with RK Puram, Main Post Office and he knew Smt. Meera who was Incharge, Postal Saving Bureau, Sector 6, RK Puram, New Delhi. He proved Ex.PW5/A, the document pertaining to MIS Account number 400270 bearing the signature of said Smt. Meera. He further deposed that this account was in the name of Shri Neeraj Singh. He also proved MIS account no.400271 which was in the name of Shri Anshul Singh and deposed that both the accounts were matured on 29/06/2000 and on closing of the accounts, a sum of Rs.19800/ each in the aforesaid two accounts was paid in cash. 6.6 PW6 Smt. Neera, Postal Assistant, R.K. Puram Post Office, New Delhi has 40 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D proved photocopy of statement of account no.9013005 in the name of accused Virender Singh as Ex.PW6/1 and deposed that as on 11/12/2001, there was a balance of Rs.5812.95 in the said account. She further proved photocopy of statement of account no.9113093 in the name of Shri Neeraj Singh as Ex.PW6/2 and deposed that a sum of Rs.4735.95 was balance in the said account on 11/12/2001. She has further proved photocopy of statement of account no.9013094 in the name of Shri Anshul Singh as Ex.PW6/3 and deposed that a sum of Rs.2149.90 was the balance in the said account on 11/12/2001. She further deposed that she had certified MIS accounts in the name of Shri Neeraj Singh and Anshul Singh and the same are Ex.PW5/A. 6.7 PW7 Shri E. Madhavan, Account in Tribhuvan Das Bheemji Zaveri, 2, Scindia House, Janpath, New Delhi has deposed that on 10/02/2001 one Shri Anshul had purchased a pair of gold Kangans for Rs.43,921/ and paid in cash. He further deposed that said Shri Anshul again came to their shop on 16/02/2001 and wanted to change the aforesaid pair of gold Kangans and returned the aforesaid Kangans and instead purchased one pair of Kangan and one separate Kangan i.e. three Kangans in all for an amount of Rs.
41,711/. The difference of Rs.2210/ was returned in cash to Shri Anshul and the net purchase of gold item by Shri Anshul from their shop was for an amount of Rs.41,711/. He proved copy of receipt no.36042 dated 16/02/2001 as Ex.PW7/B and forwarding letter as Ex.PW7/A. 6.8 PW8 Shri R.P. Garg, Assistant Director, DDA, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi has proved seizure memo dated 27/11/2002 as Ex.PW8/A vide which papers regarding 41 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D allotment of SFS Flat, SectorD, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi in favour of Shri Anshul Singh was handed over to CBI. He also proved letter dated 27/11/2002 by which information was sought by CBI from DDA and the same was supplied by him as Ex.PW8/B. He deposed that total payment made by Shri Anshul regarding this flat was Rs.7,57,929/. He further deposed that Shri Anshul Singh is son of Shri Virender Singh and proved possession letter dated 04/02/2002 as mark A stating that the same is in favour of Shri Anshul Singh and was signed by him.
6.9 PW9 Shri Anil Kumar Goyal, Manager, Syndicate Bank, Khan Market, New Delhi has deposed that since July, 2001 to August, 2007, he was posted as Assistant Manager in Syndicate Bank, Sector5, RK Puram, New Delhi. He has proved certified copy of statement of account SB no.304346 which was maintained in the said RK Puram branch in the name of Shri Virender Singh, Smt. Gaindi Devi and Smt. Indira Singh as Ex.PW9/A. He deposed that on 16/10/1995, the opening balance in this account was Rs.3922.35 and on 11/12/2001, the balance in this account was Rs.15,268.60 and the interest for the period from 16/10/1995 to 11/12/2001 was Rs.4819/. He has also proved letter dated 28/09/2004 addressed to Insp. of Police, CBI by Shri K.S. Chauhan, Assistant General Manager as Ex.PW9/B and has deposed that the said letter contains the number of documents as well as details of the amount. He has also proved letter dated 02/07/2004 as Ex.PW9/C (also Ex.P59) and deposed that the same contains the details of the documents as well as amounts.
6.10 PW10 Sub Inspector Praveen Ahlawat, CAW Cell, District North, PS Sabzi 42 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D Mandi, Delhi has deposed that from August, 2001 to December, 2007, he was posted in ACB, CBI, Delhi. He deposed that he know accused Virender Singh as he was investigating a trap case against accused Virender Singh bearing RC No.78/01. After completing investigation, he filed a charge sheet against accused in that case. After scrutiny of documents in that case he lodged a complaint against accused Virender Singh before SP, CBI, ACB for disproportionate assets possessed by the accused and the same is Ex.PW10/A. He further deposed that present RC No.04/02 was registered on the basis of his complaint dated 10/01/2002. He proved FIR as Ex.PW10/B. He further deposed that he got operated two lockers on 03/01/2002 of accused in presence of accused in OBC Bank, Munirkaand Canara Bank, Munirka and the said lockers were in the name of accused and they may be in the joint names but the name of the accused was there. The number of locker in the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Munirka was 313 and the documents and cash recovered from the locker number 313 were seized by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/C. Cash amounting to Rs.1,60,000/ was recovered from said locker. The locker was operated in the presence of independent witnesses namely Shri Satish Kumar Parcha and Shri K.K. Abhi. From said locker no.313, gold and silver items, one gold biscuit and some silver coins were also recovered and in respect thereof an observation memo Ex.PW10/D was prepared without seizing the same. He further deposed that on the same day he also got operated another locker no.265 in Canara Bank, Munirka in which also gold and silver items were found and in respect thereof also an observation memo Ex.PW10/E was prepared, which was also signed by independent witness Shri H.S. Bakshi. He further deposed that as per 43 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D FIR, the investigation of this case i.e. RC No.4A/02 was entrusted to Inspector DK Singh and vide order dated 07/08/2002 Ex.PW10/F passed by Shri P.V. Rama Shastri, SP, CBI, the case was transferred to Inspector Mridula Shukla.
6.11 PW11 Ms. Vinita Anand has deposed that between 2004 to 2007, she was working as Senior Manager (Vigilance), TCIL, New Delhi and Shri S.K. Verma was Chief Vigilance Officer at that time. She further deposed that accused Virender Singh was an employee of TCIL who retired from service in March, 2003. She has proved letter dated 15/12/2004 as Ex.PW11/A written by her to the CBI and a blank proforma for claiming conveyance as Ex.PW11/B. She also proved proforma for claiming newspaper reimbursement as Ex.PW11/C. She has deposed that she had received letters dated 01/12/2004 and 02/11/2004 from CBI as mark X and Y and replied to both the letters vide her letters dated 23/11/2004 and 06/12/2004 regarding savings done by the accused in respect of daily allowances and income generated from a flat no.6A, DDA , LIG Flat (claimed to be acquired by will) and the said letters are Ex.PW11/D and Ex.PW11/E. 6.12 PW12, Shri Ravinder Pal Singh, Stenographer, Department of Commerce, Delhi University, Delhi has proved letter dated 24.7.2003 Ex.PW12/A which was signed by Professor Khanna at point A. He deposed that Ex.P72 bears the signature of Professor Sh. Ram Khanna at point A on each page . He also brought the original file with him. He deposed that as per document, the bill dated 28.05.98 for Rs.11,571/ was paid by sh. Neeraj Singh as fee and other charges and similarly bill dated 20.9.99 for Rs.11,071/ was also paid by Neeraj Singh as fee and other charges. He deposed that as per record Sh. 44 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D Neeraj Singh s/o Virender Singh was student of MIB in Delhi University. 6.13 PW13 is Sh. K.S Chauhan, Additional General Manager, Syndicate Bank, R.K. Puram, New Delhi deposed that letter dated 28.09.04 was sent by him to CBI and letter was already Ex.PW9/B. 6.14 PW14 Kamal Kishore Abbi was retired Senior Manager from Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Delhi. He proved letter dated 30.10.2002 Ex.PW14/A (admitted as Ex.P27). He also proved letter dated 18.10.2002 Ex.PW14/B. He proved account opening form no.10237 Ex.PW14/C which was in the name of Neeraj Singh, Indra Singh and Virender Singh. He deposed that said account was opened on 15.11.92 and proved statement of account of said account from 15.11.92 to 25.01.97 (8 pages) as Ex. PW14/D. He further proved statement of account from 20.2.99 to 31.3.2000 as Ex.PW14/E. He also proved computerized statement of aforesaid account from 30.06.2000 to 29.062002 as Ex.PW14/F. He proved duplicate pass book of aforesaid account from 16.2.97 to 31.03.2000 as Ex.PW14/G. He deposed that on 11.12.2001 amount of Rs.78,480.15 was there in account Ex.PW14/F, out of which Rs.5,342/ was interest w.e.f 10.1.93 to 30.06.2001. He deposed that interest calculation in respect of account no.10237 and chart were also certified by him and proved calculation chart as Ex.PW14/H. He proved certificate of Sh. Ganguli, the then branch Manager in respect of aforesaid account as Ex.PW14/J. The account opening form in respect of SB no.10236 in the name of Anshul Singh, Virender Singh and Indra singh was opened on 15.11.92 and same is proved as Ex. PW14/K. The statement of account of the aforesaid account running into nine pages was certified by 45 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D PW14 and proved as Ex.PW14/L (colly.). PW14 also proved copy of the ledger in duplicate passbook, mark page no.10 to 13 as Ex.PW14/M (colly.). He also proved another statement of aforesaid account w.e.f. 31/01/1999 to 09/04/2000 & w.e.f. 07/06/2000 to 29/06/2002 as Ex.PW14/N & Ex.PW14/O respectively having balance of Rs.80,091.60 as on 11/12/2001 and out of this amount, interest component was Rs.4,694.25 as per calculation chart Ex.PW14/P and also proved certificate Ex.P1. He has also proved account opening form as Ex.PW14/Q of SB account no.14476 in the name of Anshul Singh which was opened on 08/01/1998. He also proved computerized duplicate passbook of said account for the period w.e.f. 09/01/1998 to 12/05/2000 as Ex.PW14/Q1 and another computerized statement of said account w.e.f. 04/06/2000 to 29/06/2002 as Ex.PW14/Q2 showing balance of Rs. 71,475.80 as on 11/12/2001. He also proved interest chart of the said account as Ex.PW14/Q3 showing interest as Rs.2,427.30. This witness also proved certified copy of FD No.416199 for an amount of Rs.50000/ dated 04/04/1999 in the name of accused Virender Singh and FD No.616710/744/2000 for an amount of Rs.30,000/ dated 22/04/2000 in the name of Shri Neeraj Singh and Shri Virender Singh (accused) as Ex.PW14/R & Ex.PW14/S respectively. FD No.616709/743/2000 dated 22/04/2000 for an amount of Rs.30,000/ in the name of Shri Anshul Singh and accused Virender Singh and FD No.616711/745/2000 for an amount of Rs.30000/ in the name of Shri Virender Singh and Smt. Indira Singh have also been proved by this witness as Ex.PW14/T & Ex.PW14/U respectively. This witness has also proved FD No.103996/276/99 dated 20/09/1999 for an amount of Rs.50,000/ in the name of Neeraj Singh and Virender Singh(accused), FD No.103995/275/99 dated 46 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D 20/02/1999 for an amount of Rs.50,000/ in the name of Ms. Indira Singh and Virender Singh (accused) and FD No.104004/284/99 dated 21/02/1999 for an amount of Rs.50,000/ in the name of Anshul Singh and Virender Singh (accused) as Ex.PW14/V, Ex.PW14/W and Ex.PW14/X respectively. He also proved letter dated 29/09/2004 addressed to Inspector of Police, CBI which was signed by Shri P.K. Ganguli as Ex.PW14/Y. He identified accused Virender Singh in the court and deposed that accused Virender Singh used to visit his bank. 6.15 PW15 Inspector A.K. Pandey deposed that from May 2000 to 2005 he was posted in CBI, ACB, New Delhi. He has further deposed that on 11/12/2001, a search warrant under section 165 CrPC was issued by Inspector Alok Kumar, IO of case RC DAI01(A)00/78/01/DLI authorising him to conduct the house search of accused Virender Singh r/o G1F, DDA Flats, Munirka, New Delhi. He further deposed that he along with Inspector Umesh Vashishth, lady ASI Sunita Chamoli, two independent witnesses namely Shri Naveen Aggarwal and Sh. Gyaneshwar reached the above said residence at about 1930hours and disclosed their identity and purpose of visit to Ms. Indra Singh and Anshul Singh, wife and son respectively of the accused Virender Singh. After showing the search warrants and observing all legal formalities, the house search was conducted and search cumobservation memo Ex.PW15/A was prepared in the handwriting of Insp. Umesh Vashishth. The articles mentioned in the observation memo, their costs and year of acquisition were taken on the mutual consultation of Smt. Indira Singh (wife of accused), Shri Anshul Singh (son of accused) and both independent witnesses. He further deposed that during search some incriminating documents pertaining to the movable/immovable 47 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D assets, locker keys and cash amounting to Rs.1,70,000/ were found, out of which the incriminating documents FDs, passbook and cash of Rs.1,55,000/ were seized vide separate searchcumseizure memo which were prepared at the spot. He proved search cumseizure memo as Ex.PW15/B (D3). He also proved locker searchcumseizure memo as Ex.PW10/C pertaining to locker no.313 of Oriental Bank of Commerce and deposed that during locker search, NSCs, FDRs and cash amounting to Rs.1,60,000/ were found and seized. He further deposed that another locker No.265 of Canara Bank was also searched in his presence on 03/01/2002 and a memo Ex.PW10/E was prepared in this regard. 6.16 PW16 Shri Shiv Shankar Gehlot, retired Sr. Accounts Officer, DDA has proved photocopy of file no.125(600)/97/SFS/VKII in respect of Anshul Singh allottee of SFS flat no.6144/6, Second Floor, CategoryII, Sector D6, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi as Ex.PW16/A. He also proved demand letter dated 16/08/2001 Ex.PW16/B and possession letter dated 04/02/2004 as Ex.PW16/X. He also proved demand and collection sheet as Ex.PW16/C and deposed that as per said documents the allottee had paid Rs.7,57,929/ after deduction of Rs.86,671/ credited to his account on account of BCI (belated construction interest) and interest on deferred installments, out of the total amount of Rs.8,44,600/. He also proved conveyance deed as Ex.PW16/D and deposed that on the conveyance deed paper the stamp of stamp duty is affixed regarding payment of Rs.1,07,965/ and as per record the stamp of stamp duty is affixed after payment of the stamp duty. 6.17 PW17 Shri Kamlesh Kumar Batish, retired official of Post Office, Chanakya Puri, New Delhi has deposed that as per copy of statement of account of NSS account no. 48 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D 200053, Ex.PW17/A, in the name of Shri Virender Singh (accused), a sum of Rs.20,000/ was deposited on 08/03/1991 and a sum of Rs.5000/ was deposited on 06/01/1992 and a sum of Rs.50,073/ was paid to Shri Virender Singh (accused) on maturity of said account on 12/07/1999.
6.18 PW18 Shri S.S. Hulbikar, Assistant Administrative Officer, B.V. Bhoomaraddi College of Engineering & Technology, Hubli, Karnataka has deposed that vide letter Ex.PW18/A vide he has been deputed by Dr. Ashok S. Shettar, Principal of aforesaid college to appear and depose in the court and also proved general power of attorney Ex.PW18/B. He has proved letter dated 29/07/2003 which was sent to CBI office and deposed that total amount paid by Shri Anshul Singh for Production Management Engineering Course was to the extent of Rs.31,885/.
6.19 PW19 Shri Prem Kumar Vashisht, Sr. Manager, MMTC Limited has proved receipt/cash memo no.2021 dated 22/11/2000 as Ex.PW19/A for sale of ten tola bar of 999.00 fineness and one silver medallion of 50 grams also in 999.00 fineness to Shri Virender Singh (accused) for Rs.53,594/ respectively for the total amount of Rs.54130/ including sale tax of Rs.536/.
6.20 PW20 Shri Rajender Prasad, Sr. Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, R.K. Puram, New Delhi deposed that he certified the statement of account of account no.90789 Ex.PW20/A in the name of Virender Singh (12 pages) under the Bankers book of Evidence Act on 23.7.2004. He also proved document Ex.PW20/B which is a letter dated 03.08.2004 (D77) addressed to CBI running into two pages. He also proved another letter dated 49 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D 16.10.2002 Ex.PW20/C of Indian Overseas Bank addressed to Inspector, CBI which was signed by Sr. Manager , Incharge of his bank and PW20 identified the rubber stamp of the bank. He further proved a letter dated 22.07.2004 Ex.PW20/D (already admitted by the accused on 13.11.2004) which was in his handwriting and bears his signature at point A running into two pages. He deposed that vide this letter he had submitted the photostate copy of the statement of SB account no.90789, in the name of Virender singh Ex.PW20/A and twelve cheques which was exhibited as Ex.PW20/E1 to Ex.PW20/E12. 6.21 PW21 Sh. Vijay Kumar, Sr. Manager, Napino Auto & Electronics Ltd., 753754 , Udyog Vihar, PhaseV, Gurgaon, Haryana deposed that he know Sh. Sanjiv Dagar who was working as Company Secretary. PW21 identified signature of Sanjiv Dagar on letter dated 20.09.2009 at point A Ex.PW21/A. He deposed that this letter was issued regarding acceptance of resignation of Anshul Singh s/o Virender Singh by the management. He further deposed that Anshul Singh joined their company on 17.09.99 and worked till 20.09.2000. PW21 also proved Ex.PW21/B which form no.3A in respect of Anshul Singh for the period 01.4.99 to 31.3.2000 in which details of wages including contribution of provident fund and pension fund are mentioned. He also proved Ex.PW21/C which is also Form3 A for the period May 2000 to November 2000. He deposed that full and final payment of Rs.3,951.65 was paid to Sh. Anshul Singh on 20.09.2000 and said document bears his signature at point A and proved the same as Ex.PW21/D. 6.22 PW22 Sh. Vipin Kumar, Sr. Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Noida deposed about the document already proved by PW20 Sh. Rajender Prasad. He further deposed 50 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D that he handed over record of four FDRs i.e FDR no.00870/13/2000 dated 15.02.2000 in the name of Virender singh, FDR no.RDP 0087705/17/2000 for Rs.40,000/ in the name of Neeraj Singh and Virender Singh, FDR no.RDP0087706/18/2000 for Rs.40,000/ in the name of Anshul Singh and Virender Singh , RDP 87704/16/2000 for Rs.40,000/ in the name of Indra Singh and Virender Singh.
6.23 PW23 Smt. Sushma Uppal, Officer, Canara Bank, Ganesh Nagar, Delhi deposed that she can identify the handwriting and signature of Sh. Ram Swarup Saroiwal, the then Manager in the said branch and signature and handwriting of Smt. Madhu Aggarwal, the then Sr. Manager as she was conversant with the same being posted in same branch. She further deposed that she handed over the records of Kamdhenu Fixed deposit receipts bearing no.450/2001 and 451/2001 and proved the account opening form of said deposits as Ex.PW23/A and Ex.PW23/B. She further deposed that account no. 450/2001 was opened by Virender Singh and Indra Singh and amount of Rs.50,000/ was deposited initially in the year 1999 in saving account. KDR no.433/99 was issued for Rs. 50,000/ on 20.02.99 by debiting his account. It was further renewed as KDR no.420/2000 for an amount of Rs.54,594/ by adding the interest. It was again renewed vide KDR n o. 450/2000 for an amount of Rs.54,594/. The interest of Rs.4257/ was credited to his savings account. Computerized statement was taken from the computer and same is proved as Ex.PW23/C. She deposed that KDR no.451/2001 is in the name of Indra Singh and Virender Singh. Initially the amount was debited from account no.22165 on 21.02.99 and KDR no.438/99 was issued . It was further renewed in 2000 and KDR no.421/2000 for 51 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D amount of Rs.54,137/. Again it was renewed vide KDR no.451/2000 for amount of Rs. 54,137/. She deposed that maturity value was Rs.58,394/. The computerized statement is proved as Ex.PW23/D. She also proved account opening form no.8376 in the name of Master Anshul Singh as Ex.PW23/E. She deposed that a/c no.8376 was opened on introduction of Virender Singh being minor's account and on attaining majority Anshul Singh volunteered to operate account independently. She had been shown application dated NIL filed by Anshul Singh and certified copy of same is Ex.PW23/F. Certified copy of statement of account of above account of Anshul Singh proved as Ex.PW23/G. She also proved the certified computerized copy of statement of account of joint account of Virender Singh and Neeraj Singh bearing account no.9051 (D47) as Ex.PW23/H. She also proved certified computerized statement of account no.23987 in the name of Virender singh as Ex.PW23/J. She also proved computerized statement of account of a/c no.6703 as Ex.PW23/K and proved certified copy of statement of account no.4735 in the name of Virender Singh and Indra Singh (D50) as Ex.PW23/L. She proved certified copy of cheque through which cash was paid amounting to Rs.8,328.85 to Virender singh and Indra Singh on closure of account as Ex.PW23/M. She also proved computerized statement of account no.22165 in the name of Indra Singh as Ex.PW23/N and letter dated 19.8.2004 addressed to Inspector of Police, CBI which was signed by Smt. Madhu Aggarwal, the then Sr.Manager as Ex.PW23/O. She deposed that vide this letter the printouts mentioned in above letter sent to CBI running into four pages and exhibited as Ex.PW23/P1 to P4. She deposed that prinouts were signed by Ram Swarup at point A. 52 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D 6.24 PW24 Sh. T.C Shakun , Accounts Officer, DDA, Vikas Sadan,New Delhi brought the original file bearing no.125 (600) 97/SFS/VK II which is permanent record of DDA. The photocopy of same is D97 and original file was returned after deposition of PW16 Sh. Shivshanker.
6.25 PW25 Sh. Daroga Prasad, Peon , Rajori Garden Branch of Syndicate bank, Delhi identify the signature of AGM Sh. K.S Chauhan on document Ex.PW9/B and same bears signature of point A. 6.26 PW26 Sh. Govind Kumar, Assistant , LIC Branch, NO.118, Janpath, Connaught Place, New Delhi proved the status report (D61) as Ex.PW26/A (previously Ex. 44 on being admitted by the accused) of policy no.110276973 in the name of Virender Singh commenced on 28.3.89 and matured on March 2009. He further deposed that premium history of the said policy is D61 (page2). He deposed that premium paid till March 2001 is Rs.20,150/ which was signed by Sh. R.G Saxena and he identified his signature and proved document as Ex.PW26/B. He also deposed that as per Ex.PW26/B , the premium paid was Rs.10,850/ and survival benefit of Rs.5000/ was given twice , once in 1994 and in 1999. He deposed that annual premium was Rs.1,550/ He further deposed that as per endorsement at portion B on Ex.PW26/A the total premium collected from March 1989 to March 2001 was Rs.20,150, however , computerized statement Ex.PW26/B was from12.3.96 to 04.2.2002. PW26 also proved status report of policy no.111923646 which was commenced on 15.8.93 and matured on 15.8.2008 and as per endorsement of Sh. G. Saxena , total premium collected from August 1993 to August 2001 was Rs.21,375/(half 53 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D yearly premium of which was Rs.2,375/) as Ex.PW26/C. He further deposed that as per endorsement of Sh. R.G Saxena , the survival benefit of Rs.12,500/ was paid to insured person Virender Singh. The premium record of said status report is Ex.PW26/D. He also proved status report of policy no.110275817 in the name of Virender Singh as Ex.PW26/E. The computerized premium history sheet of said policy proved as Ex.PW26/F started from 08.3.96 to 04.2.2002. He also proved status report of policy no.110281387 in the name of Smt. Indra Singh as Ex.PW26/G. He deposed that as per endorsement of Sh. R.G Saxena at point B , date of commencement was 27.2.1990 and premium collected from February 1990 to February 2001 was to the extent of Rs.80,804.40 (yearly premium of Rs.6,7,33.70). He further deposed that survival benefit of Rs.20,000/ each, total Rs.40,000/ was given to policy holder Smt. Indra Singh. Computerized premium history of said policy proved as Ex.PW26/H started from 01.3.96 to 04.02.2002. He also proved status report of policy no. 110268459 in the name of Indra Singh as Ex.PW26/J. He deposed that there is endorsement of Sh. R.G Saxena that premium collected from August 1987 to August 2001 at the rate of Rs.2,430/ was to the extent of Rs.36,450/(installment @ Rs.2,430/ yearly). Computerized premium history sheet of said policy proved as Ex.PW26/K. 6.27 PW27 Sh. V.A Vasu, Assistant Secretary, STA, Rajpur Road, Delhi who proved the Form no.60 as Ex.PW27/A which was in respect of maruti zen car no.DL2CK6554 in the name of Virender Singh r/o G1/F, DDA Flats, Munirka, New Delhi. 6.28 PW28 Sh. Surender Singh , Assistant Meter Reader, Delhi Jal Board, Sector7, R.K. Puram, New Delhi deposed that he identify the signature of Sh. Ravayan Lal , the then 54 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D Zonal Revenue Officer (West). He proved letter dated 30.11.2002 (D115) as Ex.PW28/A. He also proved two annexures to the same letter as Ex.PW28/B and Ex.PW28/C. 6.29 PW29 Sh. Purshottam Kumar, UDC, Personal branchIII, WZ 19 B, Naraina, New Delhi deposed that he identify the signature of Sh. Ramesh Chander , the then Assistant Director ( LAB housing), Vikas Sadan, New Delhi and proved the letter dated 27.11.2002 (D96) as Ex.PW29/A and annexure attached with letter as Ex.PW29/B. 6.30 PW30 Sh. Pradeep Kumar Jain, Area Manager, LIC Mutual Fund, A.K Tower, Sector14, Gurgaon, Haryana proved letter dated 31.10.2002 as Ex.PW30/A regarding investment made in mutual funds by Virender singh.
6.31 PW31 Sh. A.R Joshi, Ex. MLO, South Zone, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi proved letter dated 20.12.2004 (D102) as Ex.PW31/A. Vide this letter he forwarded photocopy of file of vehicle no.DNC4783 to Inspector , CBI. The said vehicle was maruti 800, 1989 model and cost of vehicle was Rs.93,895/ and said vehicle is in the name of Virender Singh. 6.32 Sh. R.C. Verma, the then MLO who retired from Transport authority, Palam Janakpuri, New Delhi (South West zone). He proved letter dated 8.11.2002 (D103) addressed to CBI as Ex.PW32/A vide which he had forwarded attested photocopy of file of motorcycle no.DL9SC0545. He deposed that file copy was attested under his signature on each page after comparing the same with original file (nine pages) and proved the same as Ex.PW32/B. He deposed that said motorcycle was in the name of Anshul Singh. The purchase price of motorcycle was Rs.39,453/ as per copy of invoice on record. 6.33 PW33 Sh. Pawan Mehra deposed that he was running jewellery showroom 55 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D under the name and style of Mehra Sons Gold room, a unit of M/S Vidhata Properties Pvt. Ltd. , G4, South Extension, PartI. He proved letter dated 12.3.2003 (D105) as Ex.PW33/A. Vide this letter they confirmed to CBI regarding sale of jewellery on 18.2.1992 vide cash memo no.1977 for Rs.2450/ and on 17.12.2000 vide cash memo 3339 for Rs.18,000/. 6.34 PW34 Sh. Naveen Aggarwal was posted as LDC in Sales Tax Department, Delhi. He deposed that on 11.12.2001 on the directions of officials in Admn. Branch of Sales Tax Department, he alongwith Sh. Gyneshwar reached CBI office at about 6.006.30 PM and thereafter on directions of CBI officials they had accompanied them to Munirka DDA flats in their official vehicle. He deposed that CBI team searched said DDA flat till 2.30 AM in the intervening night of 11.12.200112.12.2001 and articles recovered during search including jewellery, cash and other articles were detailed in a list. He deposed that total cash of Rs.1,70,000/ was recovered , out of which Rs.15000/ was returned to occupier of the hosue for misc. expenses and Rs.1,55,000/ was seized. He deposed Ex.PW15/A was same list which was prepared after search of premises in his presence as well as in presence of Gyneshwar and they signed the same also. He further deposed that Ex.PW15/B was also prepared in his presence.
6.35 PW35 Sh. John Koshy , Assistant Vice President , Citi Bank, Chennai proved letter dated 26.11.2002 as Ex.PW35/A which was addressed to CBI. Vide this letter the details of payment received on the credit card issued in the name of Sh. Neeraj Singh r/o G1/F, Munirka , DDA Flats , New Delhi were given. The statement of credit card no. 5546199077813004 is proved as Ex.PW35/B. 56 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D 6.36 PW36 Smt. Santosh Pandita who was officiating as Accounts officer (EFP) Department of Telecommunication. She deposed that in letter dated 02.11.2004 (Ex.P16) addressed to CBI. She had furnished the details of payment made to accused Virender Singh . She deposed that 100 percent commutation of pension paid on 13.12.85 was Rs. 1,19,079.00; total pension paid from 19.06.85 to 27.12.85 was Rs.4,107.50; net retirement gratuity was Rs.9775.85; amount of CHEGIS was Rs.1,396/; and GPF final payment was Rs.27,653/.
6.37 PW37 Sh. Ram Swaroop Saroiwal was posted as Manager, Canara Bank, Munirka Branch who issued certificate under the Bankers Book Evidence Act which was already Ex.PW23/N. He proved account opening form of account no.22165 dated 01.3.98 in the name of Mrs. Indira Singh which was certified by him under Bankers Book of Evidence Act as Ex. PW37/A. 6.38 PW38 Sh. Shanti Lal Chaplor was working at Vijaya Bank as Sr. Bank Manager , Bikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. He proved photocopy of letter mark PW38/PX vide which annexures were supplied to Ms. Mridula Shukla, Inspector, CBI and the annexures are certain cheques to account no.2366 of M/S Engineer's India Ltd. towards lease rent paid on behalf of their employees.
6.39 PW39 Ms. Mridula Shukla , DSP is Investigating Officer of the present case. She has proved various documents which were already exhibited as Ex.PW10/A, PW10/B. She deposed that Initially the case was endorsed to Inspector D.K Singh , CBI for investigation. She further deposed that on 12.12.2001 search cum seizure was conducted 57 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D by Sh. Umesh Vashist, Inspector in case RC DAIA0078/2001/DLI (already Ex.P1) at G1F, DDA Flat, Munirka, Delhi occupied by Sh. Virender Singh and his family. She deposed that based on the search conducted at G1F, DDA Flats, Munirka, Delhi one search cum observation memo dated 11.12.2001 was also prepared. She further deposed about the documents which were already exhibited as Ex. PW10/C, Ex.PW10/D, Ex.PW10/E, Ex.PW10/F. She further deposed that representation Ex.P5 dated 10.07.2002 of accused addressed to SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi was received alongwith one copy to IO containing annexure A (pertaining to details of income upto 11.12.2001 of Sh. Virender Singh and his family), annexure B (comparison charge of assets movable and immovable in possession of Sh. Virender Singh and his family) and annexure C (details of income of Sh. Virender Singh and his family alongwith documentary evidence) and this representation was taken into consideration during investigation of the case.
She further proved letter no.TCIL/11/340/2001 dated 29.11.2002 Ex.PW39/B which was from Sh S.K. Verma, CVO, TCIL addressed to Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, New Delhi in which salary statement (earning cards) in respect of Sh. Virender singh from period March 1999 to February 2002 were forwarded. In this letter Biodata of Sh. Virender Singh, copy of personal file maintained by TCIL, immovable property statements filed by Sh. Virender Singh, Form 16 regarding TDS for the period 01.4.96 to 31.03.2001 alongwith posting details including foreign assignments were also forwarded.
She has also deposed about the letter no.TCIL/11/340/2001/VIG dated 58 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D 23.11.2004 from Smt. Vinita Anand, Sr. Manager (Vigilance), TCIL to SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi which was already Ex.PW11/D. Vide this letter it was informed that no intimations of agriculture land holdings, house in village Bhikhanpur, District Saharanpur and house in Municipal limits of Saharanpur was given by Sh. Virender Singh to his department. She further deposed that Sh. Virender Singh claimed house hold advance of Rs.9,900/ from TCIL and no information was given regarding DA made during his posting in Kuwait and Indonesia to department. Virender Singh did not intimate his department regarding any saving made by him during his posting in Faridabad, Ahmedabad and Indore from the daily allowance paid to him. She deposed about the letter no.TCIL/11/340/2001/VIG dated 06.12.2004 already marked Ex.P9 which was also from Smt. Vinita Anand, Sr. Manager (Vigilance), TCIL to SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi. Vide this letter she had informed that there was no information regarding ownership /will of flat no.BH 6A, DDA, LIG Flats, Munirka, New Delhi. It is informed vide this letter that Virender singh had intimated about flat no.G1/F, DDA Flats, Munirka , New Delhi in his annual property return for the year ending 31.12.1991.
PW39 further proved Ex.P10 which is copy of letter addressed to PRI (P), Chankyapuri dated 05.3.2002 of Sh. Satyanarain, Postmaster, Chankyapuri. This letter is regarding purchase of NSCs in the name of Sh. Virender Singh and Smt. Indira Singh for Rrs.10,000/ each. She also proved Ex.P11, Ex.P12, Ex.P13 which is copy of letter dated 19.5.1989, 16.7.93, 04.8.94 of Sh. S.C Malik regarding encashment of earned leaves of 30 days to Virender Singh which was verified by department. 59 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D
PW39 further proved copy of ledger of post office, Chankya puri, New Delhi already marked Ex.P14 which is details of NSC account no.2000053 in the name of Virender Singh. She proved Ex.P15 which is copy of letter dated 20.01.99 regarding sanction of advance of Rs.1,00,000/ to Sh. Virender singh for purchase of maruti car. She also proved Ex.PE16 which is letter dated 02.11.2004 from Smt. Santosh Pandita, Accounts Officer (PFP), Department of Telecommunication , New Delhi to IO of the case.
PW39 also proved copy of ledger already marked Ex.P17 (page 1 to 16 collectively) in respect of account no.4101219, 401027,400649, 410210, 400658,400632,400936,400680,400873, 400822, 400823,400866,400871, 400896, 401197 and 400872 in the name of Sh. Anshul Singh, Neeraj Singh (both sons of Virender Singh) and Smt. Indira Singh w/o Sh. Virender Singh. She proved copy of letter dated 07.9.98 already marked Ex.P18 which is from Sh. Purshottam Sharma, Dy. Manager (legal), TCIL. She proved Ex.P19 which is letter dated 05.02.2001, Ex.P20 which is letter dated 02.6.1998, letter dated 08.4.76 Ex.P21 and letter dated 11.11.2002 which is Ex.P22.
PW39 Mridula Shukla also proved D27 already marked Ex.P81, D28 already marked as Ex.P82 and D29 already marked as Ex.P83 which are regarding invoice dated 23.6.89 of maruti sales and services, Delhi , income tax refund order dated 23.11.2000 and 07.3.2001 in the name of Sh.Virender Singh and Smt. Indira Singh. She proved letter dated 11.11.2002 already marked as Ex.P22. She further proved D27 already marked as Ex.P81, D28 already marked as Ex.P82, D29 already marked as Ex.P83. She proved letter dated 05.12.2002 already marked Ex.P23, D31 already marked as Ex.P84, D32 60 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D already marked as Ex.P85, D33 already marked as Ex.P86, D34 already marked as ExP87, D35 already marked as Ex.P88, D36 already marked as Ex.P89 and D37 already marked as Ex.P90.
She further proved documents numbered as D38 to D60 which are certified copies of different statements of account of different banks duly certified under the Banker's Books of Evidence Act, 1981 in the name of Virender Singh, Neeraj Singh and Anshul Singh. She also proved D61 to D65 are attested copies of status and premia statements in respect of LIC policies by Sh. Virender Singh and Indira Singh. She also proved letter dated 09.12.2002 already marked Ex.P49, letter dated 28.11.2002 already marked Ex.P50, letter dated 10.03.2003 already marked Ex.P51, letter dated 31.10.2002 already marked as Ex.P52, letter dated 17.12.2002 already marked as Ex.P53, letter dated 03.04.2003 already marked as Ex.P54 (page 1 to 6) , letter dated 09.07.2003 already marked as Ex.P55 (page 1 to 3), letter 22.09.2004 already marked as Ex.P56 (page 1 2), letter dated 19.7.2004 already marked as Ex.P57, letter dated 29.09.2004 already marked as Ex.P58, letter dated 02.7.2004 already marked as Ex.P59 (page 1 to 6) and letter dated 03.08.2004 & 04.08.2004 already marekd as Ex.P60 (page 1 to 6).
PW39 also proved D78 which is a letter dated 16.10.2002 from Sr. Manager, Incharge IOB, TCIL Extension counter already marked Ex.P61 (page 1 and 7 to 19) vide which the Manager had forwarded details regarding fixed deposits held by Sh. Virender Singh in the above bank. She also proved D79 which is a letter dated 23.7.2004 regarding fixed deposits from Sh.P.K Ganguly, Sr. Manager, OBC, Munirka which is marked Ex.P62 61 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D (page 1 to 5). She also proved D80 which was already marked Ex.P63 (page 1 to 3). She further proved D81 which is certified statement of account under Bankers Book Evidence Act 1892 in respect of SB account no.22165, Canara Bank , Munirka in the name of Smt. Indra Singh, wife of accused. This document was already marked as Ex.PW23/N and enclosed sheets pages 1 to 3 are already marked Ex.PW37 (A).
PW39 proved letter dated 28.09.2004 already marked Ex.PW9/B (D82) regarding fixed deposits in the name of Virender Singh and his wife. She also proved D83 already marked as Ex.P64 (pages 1 to 17) which are copies of cumulative deposits, ledger sheets of OBC, Munirak , New Delhi. She proved D84 already marked Ex.P79 which is self attested copy of letter dated 20.10.99 of Factory Manager, BECO Engineering , Ballabhgarh regarding stipend paid to Sh. Anshul Singh son of accused. She further proved D85 already marked Ex.P80 which is self attested copy of EPF statement in respect of Anshul Singh for his employment with NAPINO Auto & Electronics Ltd, Gurgaon. She deposed that these documents collected during investigation and same are already marked Ex.Pw21/A to Ex.PW21/D (page 1 to 11).
PW39 also proved D86 already Ex.PW65/A which is a letter dated 01.01.2003. She deposed that D87 to D92 are admitted documents bearing exhibit marking Ex.PW65, Ex.PW66, Ex.PW67, EX.PW68, Ex.PW69, Ex.Pw74 and PW75. She also proved D93 already marked Ex.PW4/A. She also proved D94 already marked Ex.Pw5/A which is computerized statement in respect of MIS account no.400270, 400271 in the names of Sh. Neeraj Singh and Sh. Anshul Singh, both sons of Virender Singh. She also proved D95 62 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D which is admitted document bearing Ex.PW76.
She further proved D96 already marked Ex.PW29/A which is letter dated 27.11.2002. D97 which is seizure memo dated 27.11.2002 Ex.PW8/A , D98, D99 and D100 are admitted documents bearing Ex.P78, Ex.P79 (page 1 to 69) and Ex.P80. She also proved D101 which is letter dated 07.11.2002 which is already marked Ex.PW1/A to L. She deposed that D102 is already marked Ex.PW31. She proved D103 already marked Ex.PW32/AB which is letter dated 08.11.2002. She also proved D104 which is letter dated 15.12.2004 already marked Ex.Pw11/A. She also proved D105 which is letter dated 12.03.2003 already marked Ex.PW33/A, D106 letter dated 08.11.2002 already marked Ex.PW7/AB, D107 which is a letter dated 22.11.2000 already marked Ex.PW19/ A, D108 which is admitted document marked Ex.P70, D109 is admitted document marked Ex.P71/A and Ex.PW71 (12) and D110 which is letter already marked Ex.PW12/A. PW39 proved D111 already marked Ex.PW3/AC and D112 already marked Ex.PW18/B which is letter dated 29.07.2003, D113 already marked Ex.PW35/A and Ex.PW35/B (colly) letter dated 26.11.2002. She further proved D114 marked Ex.PW39/B which is letter dated 18.11.92, D115 letter dated 30.11.2002 which is admitted document marked Ex.P73 (1 to3 ) and D116 Ex.Pw39/C which is letter dated 03.6.2004.
PW39 proved D117 Ex.PW39/D which is letter dated 01.12.2004, D118 Ex.PW39/E which is letter dated 03.6.2004 ,D119 Ex.PW39/F which is letter dated 01.12.2004 and D120 Ex.PW39/G which is letter dated 02.11.2004. She also proved D121 to D125 which are admitted documents marked Ex.P74, 75 ,76, 77 and 78. 63 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D
PW39 has further deposed that during the course of investigation she seized the documents bearing no. D1 to D 125. During investigation she recorded the statement of witnesses. After completion of investigation and going through the statement of witnesses and documents seized by her, she formed an opinion about the case and came to the conclusion that during the check period accused was found in possession of disproportionate assets to the known sources of income. During investigation accused was also given an opportunity to explain the possession of above mentioned assets. Accused submitted a representation along with the documents which has been filed along with the chargesheet as D9. The submissions of accused and documents submitted by him along with the consideration were considered and verified. Due benefit was given to accused in accordance with the law while making the final calculations for the purpose of disproportionate assets. The entire service period of the accused was from the year 1965 to the date of search i.e November 2001 and the check period was taken as the entire service period. She took into consideration the total income of the accused during the check period and considered the explanation of the accused regarding his total income and expenditure. Where ever the explanation of accused was verifiable and /or was found satisfactory the due benefit was given in final calculation. During investigation accused claimed benefit of TA/DA for official trips, benefit for his rental and agricultural income, income from lunch coupons provided by department but she did not consider these incomes as the TA/DA and the lunch coupons were for the expenditure on these items and the rental and agricultural income was never intimated by him to his department. PW39 64 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D stated that the final calculations of income, expenditure, savings, disproportionate assets, percentage of disproportionate assets has been correctly given by her in the concluding pars of report U/s 173 CrPC and may be read accordingly.
She further deposed that accused was already superannuated from the service at the time of filing of chargesheet and therefore no sanction for prosecution was required against him in accordance with Section 19 of the P C Act.
7. Statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C in which he admitted some of the incriminating evidence but denied the other. I will discuss the statement of accused in relevant portion of judgment. Accused also opted for defence evidence.
8. Accused examined eight witnesses in his defence. DW1 Sh. O.S Yadav, Postal Assistant, office of Central Public Information Officer & Sr. Suptd of post office, South West Division, New Delhi proved Ex.DW1/A and Ex.DW1/B which are replies to the applications of Sh. Virender Singh filed under the Right to Information Act to their department and it bears the signature of Smt. Padmaghandha Mishra.
8.1 DW2 Sh. M.K Goel, AGM, NTPC, New Delhi proved Ex.DW2/A which is reply given to Sh. Virender Singh under RTI Act and same bears the signature of Sh. Pramod K. Yadav, CPIO, NTPC Ltd.
8.2 DW3 Sh. Raju Saraswat, Under Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training, North Block, New Delhi proved Ex.DW3/A which is certified copy of office memorandum dated 04.10.1976 which is in reference to the CCS (conduct rules, 1964). He deposed that the same bears his signature and official seal impression at point A on 65 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D Ex.DW3/A. He further proved certified copies of notifications of Govt of India/Bharat Sarkar in relation with CCS Rules dated 24.11.1976, 11.09.1978, 12.05.1982, 07.03.1986, 03.07.1986, 04.09.1986,19.04.1988, 08.04.1992, 09.12.1992, 24.01.1994 , 16.08.1996 and 09.5.2011 which are collectively exhibited as Ex.DW3/B (colly). He also proved copy of notification dated 30.11.1964 as Ex.DW3/C (running into 6 pages).
8.3 DW4 Sh. Kanwal Krishan, Central Public Information Officer, Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd. TCIL Bhawan, Greater KailashI, New Delhi proved Ex.DW4/A which is letter dated 24.6.2013 written by him to Sh. Virender singh in relation with application under RTI Act, 2005 for deposit of fee of Rs.58/. He further proved Ex.DW4/B which is information regarding TCIL Conduct Discipline and appeal Rules . He also proved Ex.DW4/C (colly, internal page 44to 46 of documents filed by accused) which is letter dated 18.6.2013. He also proved Ex.DW4/D which is letter dated 18.6.2013. (colly, internal page 47 to 49 of documents filed by accused). He also proved Ex.DW4/E (internal page 50 of documents filed by accused) and Ex.DW4/F (colly)(internal page 5153 of documents filed by accused) which is letter dated 20.6.2013. He further proved Ex.DW4/G (colly, internal page 5456 of documents filed by accused) which is letter dated 19.6.2013. He proved Ex.DW4/H1 to Ex.DW4/H4 respectively (internal page 69 to 72 of documents filed by accused).
8.4 DW5 Sh. Bijender Singh, Inspector, CBI, ACB, New Delhi proved Ex.DW5/A which is letter dated 29.11.2001 by HC Singh, Dy. Inspector General of Police (B/CBI) on the subject " Standardizing the procedure for investigation into the assessment of wealth 66 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D possessed by public servantsinstructionsissued" which has been attested/certified as true copy by Sh. M.R Kadole.
8.5 DW6 Sh. Vijay Satija, Sr. Executive, TCIL, Greater KailashI, New Delhi who was authorized by Sh. Harsh Kr. Verma, Chief Project Director, TCIL . Sh. Harsh Kr. Verma was out India, DW6 brought the authority letter which was Emailed by Sh. Harsh Kr. Verma to him and proved the same as Ex.DW6/A. He also proved Ex.DW6/B (colly) which is letter dated 30.6.2008 and information submitted alongwith letter (internal page 39 to 43 of the documents filed by accused).
8.6 DW7 Sh. T.R Chanderasekharan, Manager, Human Resource Management Department (HRMD), Right to Information Act (RTI) Division, Central office, Mumbai proved Ex.DW7/A (running into two pages, internal page no.38 of the documents filed by the accused) which is reply dated 22.01.2008 to application dated 14.12.2007 under RTI filed by Virender Singh marked as mark DW7/1 (running into one page, internal page no.38 of the documents filed by accused). He also proved Ex.DW7/B which is reply dated 03.6.2013 to the RTI filed by Virender Singh.
8.7 DW8 Sh. Pradeep Bhatia, Dy. Manager, UTI Infrastructure Technology & Service Ltd. , Jeewan Tara Building, New Delhi proved Ex.DW8/A which is reply to RTI of Sh. Virender singh dated 18.04.2013.
9. I have heard the Ld.PP for CBI and Sh. Bhavuk Chauhan, advocate for accused Virender Singh. I have gone through the statement of witnesses and documents proved on record. I have considered the respective submissions of ld.PP for CBI and ld. 67 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D defence counsel and the written submissions filed on record.
10. Section 13 of P.C Act, 1988 provides offence of criminal misconduct by public servant from clause (a) to (e).
10.1 Explanation to Section 13 (1) (e) provides " For the purpose of this section, "known sources of income" means income received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant."
10.2 The offence u/s 13 (1) (a) to 13(1) (e) are punishable u/s 13 (2) of P.C Act. 10.3 Ld. PP for CBI relied on following cases:
i) State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Awadh Kishore & ors (2004) (1) SCC 691.
ii) N. Rama Krishnaniah (D) TR. LR s Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2008)INSC 1767 (17th October, 2008).
iii) P. Nallammal Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India i.e judgment dated 09.8.1999.
Ld. PP also relied on articles published in Crl. L.J in 1995 with citation 1995 Crl.L.J (General) 68 on subject "Interpretation of known sources of income in Prevention of Corruption Act 1988" authored by Sh. Ashok Dhamija, IPS, Suptd. Of Police, CBI, Bombay.
11. Ld. Defence counsel relied on the following cases:
a) M. Krishna Reddy Vs. State (Dy. Suptd of Police, Hydrabad) (1992) 4 SCC (45).
68 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D
b) Rama Suresh Singh Vs. Prabhat Singh (2009) 6 SCC 681.
c) State of Maharastra Vs. Wasu Dev Ram Chandra Kaildalwar.
d) Jaswinder Singh Vs. State, 2005 (55) DRJ 170.
e) State, Inspector of police, Vishakapatnam Vs. Surya Sankarana Karri (2006) 7
SCC 172.
f) Sajjan Singh Vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1964) SC 464.
g) Babappa Vs. State Lokayukta police, Gulbarga (2010) 2 Knt. LJ 1.
h) Sohan Singh Thandal Vs. State of Punjab (criminal appeal no.1417 SB of
2011, O &M).
12. In case of Awadh Kishore Gupta (supra) and other cases cited above, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that :
" The expression "known sources of income" i S.13 (1)(e) of the Act does not mean known sources of income known to the accused but has also reference to sources known to the prosecution after thorough investigation of the case. The prosecution, however, is not expected to know the whole affairs of the accused. Those are matters, which are specifically within knowledge of the accused within the meaning of S.106 of the Evidence Act. However, the expression "known sources of income" have clear emphasis on the word "income". It would be primary to observe that qua public servant, the income would be what is attached to his office or post commonly knows as "remuneration or salary". But a receipt for windfall or gains of graft or crime or immoral secret income would prima facie be not received from known source of income of the public servant. So, 69 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D the burden is case upon the accused not only to offer plausible explanation as to how he came by large wealth and but also to satisfy the court that his explanation was worthy of credence."
13. In the case of P. Nallammal Vs. State (Supra), it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that :
"The above contention perhaps could have been advanced before the enactment of the P.C Act 1988 because section 5(1)(e) of the old P.C Act did not contain an "Explanation" as Section 13(1)(e) now contains. As per the Explanation the "known sources of income" of the public servant, for the purpose of satisfying the court,should be "any lawful source".
Besides being the lawful source the Explanation further enjoins the receipt of such income should have been intimated by the public servant in accordance with the provision of any law applicable to such public servant at the relevant time. So a public servant cannot now escape from the tentacles of Section 13 (1)(e) of the P.C Act by showing other legally forbidden sources, albeit such sources are outside the purview of clauses (a) to (d) of the subsection."
14 From the above mentioned cases following principle of law may be clearly understood:
a) That the expression "known sources of income" in section 13 (1) (e) of the P.C Act means the sources of income known to the prosecution after thorough investigation of the case.
b) "income" would what is attached to his office or post commonly known as "remuneration or salary".
70 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D
c) A receipt for windfall or gain of graft or crime or immoral secret income would prima facie not received from known sources of income of public servant.
d) The burden is upon the accused not only to offer plausible explanation as to how he came by large wealth and also to satisfy the court i.e. Explanation was worthy of credence.
15 As per explanation to section 13 (1) (e) of P.C Act, 1988 the "known sources of income" should be from "lawful source" and should have been intimated by the public servant in accordance with the provision of any law applicable to such public person at relevant time.
16. Essential ingredient of offence u/s 13 (1) (e) of P.C Act 1988 are as follows:
a) That accused is/was a public servant.
b) He himself or through any other person should be in possession of pecuniary sources and property disproportionate to the known sources of income.
c) Accused/public servant cannot satisfactorily account the disproportionate pecuniary sources or property.
d) Having possession of disproportionate sources or property by itself is not a offence. Offence u/s 13 (1) (e) is made out when accused failed to satisfactorily account for said disproportionate sources or properties.
17. From the above mentioned judgments, it may be clearly understood that during investigation prosecution is liable to consider only "known sources of income" in view of explanation to section 13 (1) (e). The offence is made out when accused cannot 71 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D satisfactorily account for the disproportionate assets. The burden is upon the accused to "satisfactorily account " for the same and his explanation should be plausible and acceptable to the court. Income from unlawful activities/sources cannot be accepted. However, the receipts or possession of pecuniary sources or properties may be accepted , if the same are "satisfactorily accounted for " by the accused.
In the cases of disproportionate assets u/s 13 (1)(e) of P.C Act, income, expenditure, assets and savings comes into the question. The expression "known sources of income" is primarily attached to the salary/remuneration. The income may be from other sources like interest, investments, rent , royalties, copy rights etc. "The assets" are primarily movable/immovable properties found in possession of accused or any other person on his behalf at the beginning or end of the check period. "Expenditure" primarily towards consumable items/services which does not derive anything in return or in movable or immovable properties. If the asset is purchased during the check period and disposed of during the end of check period, primarily income/receipt from said asset should be taken into the consideration and there should not be double accounting.
18. Accused is facing charge for the offence u/s 13 (1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 punishable u/s 13 (2) of P.C Act.
19. In order to prove its case prosecution has given the income, assets and expenditure of accused Virender Singh, his sons Anshul Singh and Neeraj Singh and his wife Smt. Indra Singh. As per prosecution case after investigation, the check period was taken from year 1965 to 11.12.2001 which is almost the entire service of the accused. 72 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D It was concluded in chargesheet that accused was found in disproportionate assets of about 50.57%. In other words accused was found in disproportionate assets of Rs.31,14,899.86.
UNDISPUTED INCOME OF SH. NEERAJ SINGH
20. After careful consideration of testimony of witnesses and documents on record and in view of submissions of Ld.PP and defence counsel, income of Sh. Neeraj Singh shown in statement "C" are not in dispute except two items. The first disputed item is in respect of interest income from MIS a/c no.401027. It is admitted by Investigating Officer (IO) PW39 Ms. Mridula Shukla in her cross examination that his income from said account has been taken in chargesheet as Rs.1089/ whereas the amount received by Sh. Neeraj Singh was Rs.10890/. Therefore, income of Rs.9801/ is required to be added in the income of Sh. Neeraj Singh.
(+Rs.9801 in income of Neeraj Singh)
21. Another dispute is about income of Neeraj Singh in respect of maturity amount of MIS a/c no.400270 which was closed during the check period. This income has been shown at sr. no.3 in statement "C". His income on maturity of the said account has been taken by prosecution as Rs.19,800/. As per sr. no.2 under the assets of Neeraj Singh, his assets deposited in said MIS account has been taken as Rs.18000/. As per testimony of PW5, apart from Rs.19,800/ as mentioned in chargesheet, additional amount of Rs.14,040/ was paid to Sh. Neeraj Singh. Therefore, total amount of Rs.33,840/ was received by 73 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D Neeraj Singh on maturity of said MIS, out of which principle amount of Rs.18000/ has already been calculated under the head of assets of Neeraj Singh. It was admitted by PW39 in her cross examination that as per D94, Ex.PW5/A, interest of Rs.14,040/should be added in the income of Sh. Neeraj Singh. In view of testimony of PW39 and documents Ex.PW5/A (D94) amount of Rs.14,040/ is required to be added to the income of Sh. Neeraj Singh.
(+Rs.14040, income of Neeraj Singh) After giving addition, total income of Sh. Neeraj Singh should be taken as Rs. 1,22,218.14.
INCOME OF SH. ANSHUL SINGH
22. Incomes of Sh. Anshul Singh has been shown in statement "B". In view of the testimony of the witnesses documents proved on record and submissions of Ld. PP and Ld. defence counsels, all the incomes of Anshul Singh shown in chargesheet has been proved on record and is not in dispute except the income shown at sr. no.2 in statement "C" i.e of account of maturity account of MIS account no.400271 closed during the check period. As per serial no.2 under the income of Anshul Singh, his income of maturity of MIS no.400271 has been taken by prosecution as Rs.19,800/. As per serial no.3, under the assets of Anshul Singh, his assets as MIS account no.400271 has been taken as Rs.18000/. It has been proved by PW5 that apart from Rs.19,800/ as mentioned in chargesheet, an additional amount of Rs.14,400/was paid as interest to Anshul Singh and therefore, total 74 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D amount of Rs.33,840/ was received by Anshul Singh on maturity of said MIS account out of which amount of Rs.18,000/ has already been taken under the Assets Head. It is admitted by PW39 in her cross examination that interest of Rs.14040/ should have been taken in addition to Rs.19,800/. Therefore, income of Rs.14,040/ requires to be added in the income of Anshul Singh.
(+ Rs.14,040/ in the income of Anshul Singh) After giving above mentioned addition, the income of Anshul Singh comes to Rs.3,69,789.33.
INCOME OF SMT. INDRA SINGH
23. Income of Indra Singh w/o accused Virender Singh has been shown in statement "D". As per the statement of witnesses and documents on record, the income of Smt. Indra Singh shown at Sr. no.1,2,4,6,7 and 8 in statement "D" has been duly proved and there is no dispute about these incomes. During the course of arguments, it was submitted by Ld. PP and Ld. defence counsel that there is no dispute about these incomes. 23.1 Only dispute is about the income shown at sr. no.3 and 5 of statement "D". At sr. no.3 interest income from maturity of NSS has been shown as Rs11889/. It was admitted by IO PW39 Mridula Shukla in her cross examination that as per Ex.P74 (D91), three interest of Rs.2400/ each(Rs.7200) were withdrawn by Smt. Indra Singh and it should have been added to her income portions. In written submissions filed by ld. PP it was admitted that additional income of Rs.7200/ is required to be added. It was further 75 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D submitted that as per said document, income tax of Rs.3957.60 was deducted from this NSS account. Therefore, Ld.PP requested that said amount of Rs.3957.60 be put up in expenditure of Smt. Indra Singh. It is not clear from the documents that whether the additional amount of Rs.7200/ was paid after deduction of income tax or the income tax was separately paid. Otherwise, also adding the expenditure at this stage would amount to setting up a new case. It was not the charge in chargesheet. Therefore, in my view additional income of Rs.7200/ is required to be included in the income of Smt. Indra Singh.
(+Rs.7200/ in income of Indra Singh) 23.2 At sr. no.5 income from half yearly interest from saving bank account no. 22165 maintained in Canara Bank were shown as Rs.5677/ in the chargesheet (in statement "D"). On the basis of Ex. PW23/N (D81) it was admitted by IO PW39 that infact this interest is Rs.6331/. During the course of arguments there was no dispute between the Ld. PP and Ld. defence counsel that as per the evidence on record at sr. no.5 , income from interest should be taken as Rs.6331/. Therefore, in the income of Smt. Indra Singh Rs. 654/ should be added in the total income.
(+Rs.654/ in income of Indra Singh) NON DISPUTED INCOME OF VIRENDER SINGH
24. As shown in statement "A" at sr. no.1 interest earned on maturity on NSC i.e Rrs.30450/ in the joint name of accused Virender Singh, his wife Smt. Indra Singh and son Anshul Singh has been shown. Document D14 Ex.P10 has been proved in this 76 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D regard. There is no dispute in respect of the interest of Rs.30,450/. Ld. PP submitted that initially amount of Rs.30,000/ was invested in said three NSCs each of Rs.10,000/ and on maturity, amount of Rs.60,450/ was received by accused and his wife. The said NSC matured during the check period. Ld. PP contended that initial investments of Rs.30,000/ may be taken as additional expenditure as the same has not been shown in the statement of expenditure and the total income i.e principal amount plus interest may be taken as Rs. 60,450/. In my opinion, the NSCs were matured during the check period and therefore, it will not make any substantial difference if interests of Rs. 30,450/ be taken into the calculation as shown in the chargesheet.
24.1 The incomes shown at sr. no.3,4,5,7,8 & 9 in statement "A" has not been disputed either by the prosecution or by the defence and these incomes have been proved by documents and testimony on record.
24.2 At sr. no.10, income of Rs.2,79,680/ has been shown on account of receipt of self lease w.e.f 01.09.98 for the period from September, 19998 to November, 2001. This amount has been calculated on the basis of office order dated 07.09.1998 and 05.02.2001 of TCIL for 39 months @ Rs.7,360/. This income has been proved by documents D22 Ex.P18 and by testimony of IO PW39. In statement of accused, Q109 was put to the accused and he admitted that in total he received the amount of Rs.2,79,680/ but the same is reflected in chargesheet as Rs.2,87,040/. Therefore, in view of evidence on record, this amount is required to be taken as Rs.2,79,680/ instead of Rs.2,87,040/ and from income portion of accused Virender Singh, amount of Rs.7360/ (difference) is required to be 77 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D deducted.
(7360 in the income of Virender Singh) 24.3 Income shown at sr. no.11 is proved by document D24 Ex.P20 and at sr no.12 is proved by document D25 Ex.P21 and testimony of PW39 , Investigating Officer. There is no dispute about these incomes shown at sr. no.11 and 12 which stands proved on record. 24.4 At sr. no.13 income of Rs.1983/ has been shown in statement "A" as interest paid by Sikand Motors for late delivery of motor car. In her testimony, on the basis of D9, Ex.P81 and P22 , IO PW39 admitted that this amount should be Rs.2442/ instead of Rs. 1983/. As there is no dispute from any side,let this amount shown at sr. no.13 be taken as Rs.2442/. Therefore, in income portion of Virender Singh, there requires addition of Rs. 459/(as difference).
(+Rs.459/ in income of Virender Singh) 24.5 Income shown at sr. no.14 & 15 in statement "A" has been proved by documents (D28) Ex.P82 and (D30) Ex.P16 respectively which have been supported by IO PW39 and there is no dispute about these incomes.
24.6 At sr. no.16 earnings of Sh. Virender singh and his mother on account of benefits received from ITC on death of his father Sh. Mohlar Singh including PF fund, balance of pay and composite grant, saving bank account, leave encashments and gratuity has been shown as Rs.46501.45. These incomes have been proved from document D31 Ex.P84 and D37 Ex.P89 as well as by testimony of PW39. Ld.PP for CBI submited that 78 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D the assets possessed by mother of Virender singh has not been taken for calculation. Hence, 50% of Rs.46501.45 i.e Rs.23250/ be taken as income of Virender singh instead of Rs.46501.45. It was the case of prosecution itself that as per sr. no.16 of statement "A", there was income of Rs.46501.45 of Virender Singh and accordingly the same was included in chargesheet. There is no clear evidence on record that he actually received entire amount or whether the same was received in the share of 50% each by accused Virender Singh and his mother. Therefore, the plea of prosecution is not acceptable. Otherwise, there was no dispute about the said income shown at sr. no.16 of statement "A". 24.7 Income shown at sr. no.17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23 shown in statement "A" there is no dispute from either side and the said incomes have been duly proved by documents and testimony of witnesses on record.
24.8 At sr. no.25 in statement "A" interest from saving bank account no.10237 maintained in joint name of Sh. Virender Singh, Smt. Indra Singh and Neeraj Singh has been shown as 5402.80 for the period from 10.01.93 to 11.12.2001. In relation with the said income document D41 Ex.P27 and testimony of PW14 is relevant. It was admitted by prosecution that as per documents proved on record and testimony of PW14, this amount should be taken as Rs.5342/. Hence, amount of Rs.60/ is required to be deducted.
(Rs.60 from the income of Virender Singh) 24.9 At sr. no.26 in statement "A" interest earned from saving bank account no. 10236 maintained in joint name of Virender singh, Indra Singh and Anshul Singh at OBC 79 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D bank, Munirka, Delhi has been shown as Rs.4676.25. In respect of column no.26 relvant document (D42) Ex.P28 has been proved and testimony of PW14 K.K Abbi, Sr. Manager, OBC is relevant. It was admitted by the prosecution and defence that in view of the evidence on record, the amount should be taken as Rs.4694.25 instead of 4676.25. Therefore, addition of Rs.18/ is required in the income of Virender Singh.
(+Rs18/ in income of Virender Singh) 24.10 The income shown at sr. no.27, 29, 30 and 31 in statement "A" are dully proved by the relevant documents and statement of witnesses and there is no dispute about this income which has been admitted by the prosecution.
24.11 At sr. no.32, six monthly interest of saving bank account no.23987 in Canara Bank has been shown as Rs.55/. Ld. Defence counsel claimed that as per document D58 Ex.P34, this interest comes to Rs.813.00. As per ld. PP, these documents indicates only two interest of half yearly interest of Rs.4728/. No PW has been examined in this regard. In my opinion document reflects interest of Rs.55 which has been shown in the chargesheet. 24.12 The incomes shown at sr. no.34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49 in statement "A" have been duly proved by the documents on record and statement of witnesses and there was no dispute from either side about these incomes. 24.13 At sr.no.50, income of Rs.27050/ has been shown as claim of reimbursement towards car/motor cycle allowance from TCIL whereas at sr. no.51 income of Rs.7560/ has been shown on account of claim regarding newspaper subsidy from TCIL to Virender Singh. 80 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D In respect of car allowance relevant document D10/11 Ex.PW7/91 and testimony of PW39 is relevant whereas in respect of newspaper allowance documents D9 Ex.P5 is relevant. These incomes were admitted by prosecution in their own chargesheet and no further evidence was led. At the stage of final arguments, Ld.PP submitted that as per above mentioned documents , the reimbursement of conveyance and newspaper allowance was permissible on submission of actual bills and therefore, these amount should not be considered as income. In my opinion now at the final stage prosecution cannot withdraw from its own admission. Moreover, 1/3rd income is considered as household expenses in respect of verifiable items. Amount which has been specifically reimbursed to accused Virender Singh by company and is admitted by prosecution in chargesheet are required to be taken into the calculations. Otherwise, there was no dispute in respect of these incomes at sr. no.50 and 51 from the side of defence.
24.14 At sr.no.52 of statement "A" , income of Virender Singh from salary was shown as Rs.1527859.75. During the cross examination IO PW39 admitted that figure mentioned in chargesheet was wrong. The net salary received by Virender Singh was Rs.1749851.49. The gross salary received by him was Rs.2960154 and income tax paid by him was Rs. 361645/. Therefore, the known verifiable expenditure comes to Rs.866170/. In view of the documents on record and testimony of PW39, there was no dispute that as per sr. no.52, the salary of Virender singh is required to be taken as 1749851.49 instead of 1527859.75. Therefore, amount of Rs.221991.74 is required to be added in income of Virender Singh. 81 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D
(+Rs.221991.74 in income of Virender Singh.) DISPUTED INCOME OF SH. VIRENDER SINGH
25. In statement "A", at sr. no.1, income of Rs.30,450/ was shown as interest earned on maturity of NSC held in joint name of Virender Singh and his wife Smt. Indra Singh. At sr. no.2 in statement "A" income of Rs.1,35,000/has been shown on account of NSC purchased by Virender Singh and his wife during the year 1988, 1989, 1992, 1993 and 1994 and in respect of his wife in the year 1993. During the course of arguments it was submitted by ld. Defence counsel that at sr. no.1, the income of Rs.30,450/ has been correctly shown. In respect of income shown at sr. no.2 in statement "A" it was submitted that total income comes to Rs.1,80,450/. It was stated by ld. Defence counsel that in respect of NSC purchased in the name of Smt. Indra Singh in the year 1995, income of Rs. 25000/ had accrued. It has been proved by documents D9, Ex.P6 and admitted by PW39. On account of these NSC purchased in the year 19951996 benefit of Rs.20,000/ has already been given in the chargesheet and additional income of Rs.5000/has to be considered. As per ld. Defence counsel, in view of income shown at sr. no.1 & 2 total income is proved as Rs.30,450 + 1,50,000 which comes to Rs.1,80,450/. During the course of arguments, ld. PP for CBI has also not raised any substantial objection. Therefore, on account of investment in NSC shown at sr. no.1 in statement "A" total income requires to be taken as Rs.1,80,450/ instead of Rs.1,65,450/. Therefore, income of Rs.15000/is required to be added.
82 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D
(+Rs.15000/ in income of Virender Singh) 25.1 On account of investments in NSCs it was submitted by ld. Defence counsel that accused received additional interest of Rs.1,02,100/ as interest from investments in NSCs as proved by DW1 by two replies dated 30.4.2013 Ex.DW1/A and Ex.DW1/B under Right to Information Act. As per Ex.DW1/A Sh. Virender Singh and Smt. Indra Singh received Rs.81,200/ in the year 1990 as per the break up given below:
i) As per sr. no.1 Ex.DW1/A, they received Rs.20,300/.
ii) As per sr. no.5 of Ex.DW1/A, they received Rs.10,150/.
iii) As per sr. no.6 of Ex.DW1/A, they received Rs.20,300/.
iv) As per sr. no.7 of Ex.DW1/A, they received Rs.10,150/.
v) As per sr. no.8 of Ex.DW1/A, they received Rs.20,300/. 25.2 It was submitted by Ld. Defence counsel that accused has already been given benefit of Rs.40,000/out of Rs.81,200/ in the chargesheet. Therefore, they are entitled to additional income of Rs.41,200/ received by them in year 1999. It was also submitted by ld. Defence counsel that as per Ex.DW1/A and Ex.DW1/B, Sh. Virender Singh and Smt. Indra Singh received Rs.60,900/ in the year 2000 as per the following break up:
i) As per sr. no.2 of Ex.DW1/A, they received Rs.10,150/.
ii) As per sr. no.9 of Ex.DW1/A, they received Rs.20,300/.
iii) As per sr. no.10 of Ex.DW1/A, they received Rs.10,150/.
iv) As per sr. no.1 of Ex.DW1/B, they received Rs.20,300/. 83 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D 25.3 Ld. Defence counsel submitted that benefit of Rs.60,900/ has not been given in chargesheet and therefore, it should be treated as additional income. Accordingly, ld. Defence counsel requested for the benefit of additional income of Rs.1,02,100/ (Rs.41,200 + 60,900) on account of NSCs. Ld. PP for CBI submitted that as per the evidence on record total face value of NSC purchased by Sh. Virender Singh and his wife during the check period is Rs.3,60,000/. Out of these NSCs worth Rs.2,80,000/matured during the check period. Hence, keeping in mind the double matured valued of NSCs , it is presumed that income of Rs.5,60,450/ has been accrued to the holder and expenses of Rs.2,80,000/ had been made by the holder. Ld. PP submitted that total income including those at sr. no.1 and 2 of the income column of Virender Singh and additional income claimed by him comes to Rs.5,60,450/. Ld. PP requested that additional expenditure of Rs.2,80,000/ needs to be added and additional assets of Rs.80,000/ is required to be included in final calculations. Ld. Defence counsel controverted the submission on the limited aspect of inclusion of additional expenses and additional assets on the ground that at his stage, he is only required to satisfactorily account for the pecuniary sources/assets. In my opinion, there is not much difference as far as the income received by accused and his wife on account of NSCs concerned. As per ld. Defence counsel total income on account of NSCs is claimed as Rs.2,82,550/ whereas as per Ld.PP this income comes to Rs.2,80,000/ on account of interest and Rs.2,80,000/ on account of principle. It is admitted case of both the parties that all the NSCs had been purchased during the check period. NSCs of worth Rs.2,80,000/ had matured during the check period itself. In my opinion, if only income accrued from NSC 84 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D is taken in to consideration instead of adding investment of NSCs in expenditure and total return (principle investment + interest) in income. It will not make any substantial difference in final calculation of amount of principle investment on account of NSC is shown both in expenditure and income , it will neutralize in the final calculations of disproportionate assets (DA). It was also submitted by Ld.PP that income from the NSCs brought on record by way of defence evidence were not disclosed by accused Virender Singh either to his department or to income tax authorities. In my opinion, the investments and the interest received by accused has been duly proved by DW1 and the documents proved by him. Nothing came on record to doubt the genuineness of said transaction. The documents are admitted by parties. The additional income claimed by accused on account of NSCs is proved from a lawful source. Therefore, in my opinion in preponderance of probabilities, the additional income on account of NSC has been proved by accused and he is entitled for the benefit for the same. Accordingly, accused be given additional benefit of Rs.1,02,100/ on account of receipt of interest on the investment of NSCs during the check period.
(+Rs.1,02,100/ as additional income of Virender Singh) ADDITIONAL INCOME OF ACCUSED VIRENDER SINGH
26. Additional income of Rs.712.50 on account of interest earned on MIS account no.401219 in respect of admitted document D21 , Ex.P17, an amount of Rs.1983/ on account of interest from Maruti sales and service, proved by way of document D09, 29, Ex.P82, 83 and an amount of Rs.1396/ on account of CGEIS claim proved by way of 85 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D document D20 Ex.P16 is not in dispute. During cross examination Pw39 admitted that the said amounts are required to be included and it was admitted that as per document D20, Ex.P16, amount of Rs.1396/ from CGEIS received from Virender Singh has not been calculated in his income. Therefore, these amounts are required to be added as additional income of accused Virender Singh.
( + Rs.712.50, 1983/ & 1396/ in additional income of Virender Singh) 26.1 At sr. no.23 of income of Rs.4819/ of Sh. Virender Singh ( as shown in statement "A") has been shown as interest in SB account no.304346 which was in the joint name of accused Virender Singh, Indra Singh and Gaindi Devi (mother of Virender Singh). As per prosecution case said account was opened on 12.09.79 at Syndicate bank, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. Interest income is shown from 16.10.95 to 11.12.2001. 26.2 Ld. Defence counsel submitted that as per document D39, Ex.P25 and statement of PW9 , additional income of Rs.12073/, Rs.4055/ and Rs.5923/ are also to be included which have not been considered in the chargesheet. Pw9 Anil Kumar in his cross examination clearly admitted about the components of interest by three entries as claimed by ld. Defence counsel and it is clear that benefit of the interest has not been given in the chargesheet. Therefore, in view of the testimony of PW9 and above mentioned documents, benefit of income from interest i.e Rs.12,073/, 4,055 and 5,923/ are required to be given to the accused.
(Rs.12,073 + 4055 +5923 added in additional income of Virender Singh) 86 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D 26.3 Ld. Defence counsel claimed additional income of Rs.8328.85 on account of receipt of closing of saving bank account no.4735 by accused Virender Singh. On the basis of admitted document D50, Ex.P36. It was admitted that this receipt of closing of bank account should have been included in the statement of income of Virender Singh but the same has not been included and therefore, benefit of additional income of Rs.8328.85 is required to be given to accused Virender Singh.
(+Rs.8328.85 in additional income of Virender Singh) 26.4 Ld. Defence counsel claimed that interest of Rs.4121.61 was received by Sh. Neeraj Singh on account of term deposit no.595160 and its benefit has not been given to him. Ld. Defence counsel submitted that admitted document D73, Ex.P56 is on record. I have gone through the documents. The check period ended on 11.12.2001 in this case. The interest of Rs.4121/ accrued on renewal of the said term deposit on 11.12.2002 i.e after the check period. Therefore, this income neither accrued nor was received by Neeraj Singh during check period and its benefit cannot be given.
26.5 Accused Virender Singh claimed additional income of Rs.973/on account of monthly interest in NRE account no.179 maintained in Allahabad bank on the basis of admitted document D44, Ex.P30. This document was admitted by IO PW39 in her cross examination on 03.09.2013 and during course of arguments it was stated by Ld.PP that this claim of additional income is not disputed. Therefore, amount of Rs.973/ is required to be added in additional income of accused Virender Singh.
87 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D
(+ Rs.973 in additional income of Virender singh) 26.6 It was submitted on behalf of accused Virender Singh that interest income of Rs.6,754/ each in the name of accused Virender Singh, Indra Singh, Anshul Singh and Neeraj Singh had accrued. It was submitted that this fact has been proved by document Ex.DW2/A, and statements of DW2 and IO PW39. It was submitted that during cross examination PW39 could neither admit nor deny the aforesaid income in her cross examination, but as per testimony of DW2 and document Ex.DW2/A, the said income had accrued which has not been included in the chargesheet.
Ld. PP submitted that there is no evidence on record to establish that intimation of these FDRs was given by accused Virender Singh to his department, therefore, benefit of these incomes cannot be given. From the evidence on record, it has been established from the documents and testimony of witnesses that above mentioned incomes claimed by accused had accrued during the check period from the lawful sources. The benefit cannot be denied merely on the ground of intimation to the department, particularly, when no investigation was carried out by IO on this aspect to show that any intimation was required for the small amount. Therefore, amount of Rs.6754/ is required to be added each in the income of Virender Singh, Indra Singh, Anshul Singh and Neeraj Singh. Therefore, total income of Rs.27,016/(6754 x 4) is required to be added in additional income of Virender Singh and his family members.
(+Rs.27,016/ as additional income of family of Virender Singh) 88 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D 26.7 Accused claimed sale of Rs.1100 unit64 in the name of Virender Singh and claimed profit of Rs.850/; sale of 200 unit64 in the name of Virender Singh and claimed profit of Rs.4,675/; sale of 1100 units64 in the name of Indra Singh and claimed profit of Rs.850/; sale of 200 unit64 in the name of Indra Singh and claimed profit of Rs.4,675/; sale of 1100 units64 in the name of Neeraj Singh and claimed profit of Rs.850/; sale of 200 units64 in the name of Neeraj Singh and claimed profit of Rs.4,675/; sale of 1100 units64 in the name of Anshul Singh and claimed profit of Rs.850/ and sale of 200 units64 in the name of Anshul Singh and claimed profit of Rs.4,675/. It was submitted by Ld. Defence counsel that accused Virender Singh has purchased three different certificates of UTI bonds on 08.7.98 i.e 1000 units, 200 units and 100 units for a total amount of Rs. 13000/, as reflected at page no.185, D9, Ex.P6. He received dividend of Rs.2600/against it as reflected at page no.9, D40, Ex.PW14/D1 of accused Virender Singh received divident of Rs.1536/ against it as reflected at page no.8, D41, Ex.PW14/D. Accused Virender Singh sold 1100 units out of 1300 units on 18.11.1998 for Rs.15,675/ as reflected at page no.1 , D38, Ex.PW20/A thereby making a profit of Rs.4675/. He sold 200 units out of 1300 units on 14.11.98 for Rs.2850/ as reflected in D38, Ex.PW20/A thereby making profit of Rs.850/. The factum of repurchase of UTI bonds in November, 1998 is reflected in reply dated 18.04.2013 under RTI Act Ex.DW8/A. PW39 was cross examined on 28.03.2013 with respect of aforesaid units and she could not tell if she had made any enquiry from UTI in respect of sale price of dividend paid by UTI.
26.8 Similarly, it was submitted that Smt. Indra Singh had purchased three different 89 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D certificate of UTI bonds i.e 1000 units, 200 units and 100 units for total amount of Rs. 13,000/. She sold 1100 units out of 1300 units on 18.11.98 for Rs.15,675/ thereby making profit of Rs.4675/ and sold 200 units out of 1300 units on 14.11.98 for Rs.2,850/ thereby making profit of Rs.850/ during check period. The factum of repurchase of 1300 units of UTI bonds in November,1998, is reflected in reply dated 18.4.2013 under RTI , Ex.DW8/A. 26.9 It was submitted that Sh. Neeraj Singh had purchased three different certificates of UTI bonds i.e. 1000 units, 200 units and 100 units for total amount of Rs. 13,000/. Neeraj Singh sold 1100 units out of 1300 units on 18.11.98 for Rs.15,675/thereby making profit of Rs.4,675/ and sold 200 units out of 1300 units pm 14.11.98 for Rs.2,850/ thereby making profit of Rs.850/during check period, as reflected in D41, Ex.PW14/G. The factum of repurchase of 1300 units of UTI bonds in November, 1998 is reflected in reply dated 18.04.2013 under the RTI, Ex.DW8/A. 26.10 It was submitted that Sh. Anshul Singh had purchased three different certificates of UTI bonds i.e. 1000 units, 200 units and 100 units for total amount of Rs. 13,000/. Anshul Singh sold 1100 units out of 1300 units on 18.11.98 for Rs.15,675/thereby making profit of Rs.4,675/ and sold 200 units out of 1300 units on 14.11.98 for Rs.2,850/ thereby making profit of Rs.850/during check period, as reflected in D42, Ex.PW14/M. The factum of repurchase of 1300 units of UTI bonds in November, 1998 is reflected in reply dated 18.04.2013 under the RTI, Ex.DW8/A. 26.11 In view of discussion and evidence on record in preponderance of probabilities the sale of above mentioned units and amount of sales has been duly established. The sale 90 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D amount of original purchase of said units is also established. Therefore, accused Virender Singh has satisfactorily explained that he himself, his wife Indra Singh and sons Anshul Singh and Neeraj Singh had earned profit of Rs.4675 + Rs.850/ each on account of resale of UTI bonds and this profit should be included in additional income of each member of family of accused Virender Singh. Let the benefit of additional income of Rs.5525/ (Rs. 4675+ 850) be added to income of Virender Singh, Indra Singh, Anshul Singh and Neeraj Singh. Total income required to be added as additional income of family members of Virender Singh comes to Rs.22,100/.
(+Rs.22,100/ as additional income of family of Virender Singh) 26.12 From the above mentioned documents and evidence on record it is also established that accused Virender Singh received dividend of Rs.2600/ and Rs.1536/ on account of above mentioned UTI certificates and deserve benefit of additional income on account of receipt of said dividends.
(+ Rs.2600 and Rs.1536 as additional income of Virender Singh) 26.13 Ld. Defence counsel submitted that four KVPs each of Rs.10,000/were purchased by accused Virender Singh which were matured during check period and thereby accused Virender Singh earned interest/profit of Rs.10,000/ on each KVPs. Therefore, defence counsel claimed additional income of Rs.10,000/on maturity of each KVPs.
It was submitted by ld. Defence counsel that PW39 was cross examined on 21.3.2013. She admitted that before filing of chargesheet, she sent a letter to concerned 91 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D department to verify the income of Virender Singh from investments from KVPs. However, she filed the chargesheet without receiving any reply to her letter and did not even mention about the fact of pending investigation in chargesheet. Subsequently, she received a letter (D123) Ex.P176, giving details of investments made by Virender Singh in KVPs and date of their maturities. She further admitted that she made no attempt to find out the details of exact maturity amount. She denied the suggestion that she deliberately did not find the amount of matured KVPs to show lesser income of Virender Singh.
The document D123 , Ex.P176 and cross examination of PW39 show that accused Virender Singh had purchased four KVPs of Rs.10,000/ each which had matured during check period. It was submitted by Ld.PP that the above mentioned four KVPs matured before end of check period and details of said KVPs were put up after the filing of chargesheet. Hence, benefit of income of Rs.10,000/ may be given. It is a known fact that generally these KVPs are matured on double of the investment. The facts are not disputed and in view of the submissions of Ld.PP and Ld. Defence counsel benefit of Rs.40,000/ should be given as additional income to Virender Singh on account of maturity of above mentioned four KVPs.
(+Rs.40,000/ as additional income of Virender Singh) 26.14 It was submitted by ld. Defence counsel that accused Virender Singh had invested Rs.50,000/ in KDR no.433/99. On its maturity in the year 2000 as reflected in ( D74, P5), Ex.PW23/P4 it was renewed as KDR no.420/2000, and the interest of Rs. 92 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D 4,423/ was credited to the account as proved by PW23. Ld. PP submitted that the said FDRs were initially purchased for Rs.50,000/ each on 21.2.2000 , each matured on 21.2.2001 for Rs.54,594/ and this amount was again reinvested in the KDRs for Rs. 54,594/ each on 21.2.2001 with maturity date of 21.2.2002 i.e after end of check period. In view of submission of Ld.PP as the whole amount was reinvested no benefit of additional income can be given to accused Virender Singh. Virender Singh claimed benefit of interest of Rs.8437/ from investment in FDR on the basis of D81 Ex.PW23/N. It was submitted by ld. Defence counsel that accused Virender Singh had invested Rs.15000/ in FDR against which he received regular quarterly interest of Rs.562.20 @15% p.a. 15 credit entries of Rs.564.50 each amounting to Rs.8437/ are reflected in D41 Ex.PW14/D, statement of account of SB a/c no.10237 with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Munirka Branch in the joint name of Neeraj Singh, Indra Singh and Virender Singh which was admitted by PW39. Virender Singh received Rs.15000/ on 07.8.96 on encashment of said FDR as shown in Ex.PW14/D. Ld.PP submitted that no bills of initial investments as well as details regarding FDR number is available and no benefit can be given. In preponderance of probabilities, evidence on record and documents mentioned above, it has been established by accused that he received interest of Rs.8437/ on account of said FDR and therefore, the said amount of interest is required to be added in the additional income of Virender Singh and his family.
93 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D
(+Rs.8437/ in additional income of Virender Singh) 26.15 Ld. Defence counsel submitted that accused Virender Singh had invested Rs. 15000/ in FDR against which he received quarterly interest of Rs.562.20 @ 15% per annum. 11 credit entries of Rs.564.50 each amounting to Rs.6187.50 are reflected in D42, Ex.P14/L. Statement of account of SB a/c no.10236 with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Munirka in the joint name of Anshul Singh, Virender Singh and Indra Singh as admitted by PW39, Sh. Virender Singh received Rs.15425.50 on 11.9.96 on encashment of said FDRas shown in Ex.PW14/L. Therefore, Ld. Defence counsel claimed benefit of additional income of Rs.6187.50 on account of interest on said FDR.
Ld.PP submitted that no bills of initial investments as well as details regarding FDR number is available and no benefit can be given. In preponderance of probabilities, evidence on record and documents mentioned above, it has been established by accused that he received interest of Rs.6187.50 on account of said FDR and therefore, the said amount of interest is required to be added in the additional income of Virender Singh and his family.
(+Rs.6187.50 as additional income of Virender Singh) 26.16 Ld. Defence counsel submitted that accused Virender Singh had invested Rs. 10,000/ in FDR against which he received regular monthly interest of Rs.140/@16.8% p.a. 53 credit entries of Rs.140/ each, total amounting to Rs.7,420/ are reflected in D4W, Ex.PW14/L, statement of a/c SB account no.10236 with Oriental Bank of Commerce, 94 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D Munirka branch in the joint name of Anshul Singh, Indra Singh, Virender Singh as admitted by PW39. Sh. Virender Singh received Rs.10,000/ on 12.10.96 on encashment of said FDR as shown in D49, Ex.PW23/K, statement of a/c of SB a/c no.6703 in the name of Virender Singh and Indra Singh maintained in Canara Bank, Munirka.
Ld.PP submitted that no bills of initial investments as well as details regarding FDR number is available and no benefit can be given. In preponderance of probabilities, evidence on record and documents mentioned above, it has been established by accused that he received interest of Rs.7420/ on account of said FDR and therefore, the said amount of interest is required to be added in the additional income of Virender Singh and his family.
(+Rs.7420/ as additional income of Virender Singh & his family) 26.17 Ld. Defence counsel submitted that PW39 was cross examined on 03.09.2013 with respect to D38, Ex.PW20/A, statement of account of SB a/c no.90789 in the name of Virender Singh, maintained in Indian Overseas Bank, R.K. Puram branch. PW39 could not admit or deny that Virender Singh had invested into recurring deposit a/c maintained at said bank and on its maturity he received principal amount alongwith interest of Rs.37,891/.
Ld. PP submitted that no details of initial investments as well as details regarding RD is available and hence no benefit can be given. After going through the evidence on record and as mentioned in document, in preponderance of probabilities , the details of initial investments in said recurring account has not been established and 95 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D therefore, no benefit can be given.
26.18 Ld. Defence counsel submitted that accused Virender Singh had informed CBI (D9), Ex.P6, during course of investigation that Anshul Singh s/o Virender Singh earned income of Rs.18,000/ and Neeraj Singh earned amount of Rs.7200/ on account of tuition. PW39 was cross examined on 04.09.2013 and she stated that she did not examine any witness to check the veracity of these particulars. She volunteered that she telephonically contacted sons of Virender Singh but they could not tell about particulars of students taught by them. PW39 admitted that she had not recorded the factum of her telephonic calls to both sons of accused Virender Singh. PW39 denied the suggestion that she had given false explanation.
Ld. PP submitted that no evidence is available on record in respect of earnings from tuitions and therefore, no benefit can be given. Keeping in view the evidence on record, it was within the special knowledge of accused and therefore, it was for him to prove incomes from tuition. There is no evidence on record to accept the fact of income by tuition. Therefore, no benefit can be given as claimed by accused Virender Singh. 26.19 Ld. Defence counsel submitted that accused Virender Singh had informed the CBI , (D9), Ex.P6, during course of investigation that his wife Indra Singh had received gifts and money as her stridhan on account of marriage, festive occasions, birth of children and anniversory for total amount of Rs.3,37,000/. PW39 in her cross examination on 04.09.13 admitted that she did not examine any witness in this regard. Ld.PP submitted that 96 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D no benefit can be given on this count as there is no evidence on record.
I have carefully considered the material on record. During course of investigation, duty of IO was to consider known source of income. The stridhan articles could have been in the personal knowledge of accused and his wife. It was for the accused to lead the evidence. Neither accused appeared in the witness box nor brought his wife Smt. Indra Singh to establish the facts of stridhan. There is no evidence on record in support of the claim of stridhan. Therefore, no benefit can be given. 26.20 It was submitted by ld. Defence counsel that accused Virender Singhu had informed the CBI during investigation that he received Rs.50,000/ on account of surrendering his claim in his village house in 1984. PW39 did not give him benefit of this amount on the ground that he had sold his share to his uncle Sh. Chet Ram for Rs.30,000/ and accused did not intimate about it to his department. PW39 in her cross examination on 04.09.2013 had stated that Sh. Chet Ram was not listed as witness to show the investigation conducted by her. PW39 even did not give benefit of Rs.30,000/ to Virender Singh. Ld. Defence counsel submitted that the onus was upon the IO to show that she had found the claim of accused to be false or she should have given the benefit of Rs.30,000/ to accused. Ld. Defence counsel placed reliance on judgment titled as "Jaswinder Singh Vs. State , 2005 (55) DRJ 170 at page 177". In the case it was held that: 97 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D
"There is consensus of judicial opinion in favour of the view that where the burden of an issue lies upon the accused, he is not required to discharge that burden by leading evidence to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. That, no doubt, is the test prescribed while deciding whether the prosecution has discharged its onus to prove the guilt of the accused; but that is not a test which can be applied to an accused person who seeks to prove substantially his claim that his case falls under an Exception. Where an accused person is called upon to prove that his case falls under an Exception, law treats the onus as discharged is the accused person succeeds "in proving a preponderance of probability." As soon as the preponderance of probability is proved, the burden shifts to the prosecution which has still to discharge his original onus. It must be remembered that basically, the original onus never shifts and the prosecution has, at all stages of the case, to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt."
Ld. PP submitted that in chargesheet the relevant fact has been submitted at page no.15 and 60. In substance, IO did not give benefit on the ground that no such payment was actually proved by uncle of accused Virender Singh. Initially it was upon the prosecution to make the investigation. After investigation IO did not find sufficient evidence to give benefit to accused on account of surrendering his share of village house. The facts were in the personal knowledge of accused. Accused has also not led any evidence. There is no dispute to the law laid down in the case Jaswinder Singh (Supra) which is about the onus of proof. Therefore, it is not proved on record that actually any payment was made to the accused by his uncle. Moreover, any transaction of immovable property was required to 98 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D be intimated to the department. Accused has not led any evidence to show any such transaction or receipt of any amount was intimated by him to his department. Therefore, in my opinion, no benefit can be given to accused on this ground. 26.21 Ld. Defence counsel submitted that accused Virender Singh had informed CBI during investigation that he received Rs.65000/ on account of surrendering his claim in his house at Saharanpur in year 1994. PW39 did not give him benefit of this amount on the ground that he has sold the share to his uncle Sh. Chet Ram for Rs.18000/. PW39 in her cross examination on 09.09.2013 had stated that Sh. Chet Ram was not listed as witness. PW39 did not give benefit of Rs.18,000/ as admitted by her. Ld. Defence counsel requested benefit of Rs.65000/ and placed reliance on the case of Jaswinder Singh (Supra).
Ld. PP submitted that during investigation the said claim of Virender Singh was checked by Inspector C.K. Sharma and details of facts had been highlighted in chargesheet at page no.15 and 60. In substance, IO did not give benefit on the ground that no such payment was actually proved by uncle of accused Virender Singh. Initially it was upon the prosecution to make the investigation. After investigation IO did not find sufficient evidence to give benefit to accused on account of surrendering his share of Sharanpur house. The facts were in the personal knowledge of accused. Accused has also not led any evidence. There is no dispute to the law laid down in the case Jaswinder Singh (Supra) which is about the onus of proof. Therefore, it is not proved on record that actually any payment was made to the accused by the uncle. Moreover, any transaction of immovable property was required to be intimated to the department. Accused has not led any evidence 99 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D to show any such transaction or receipt of any amount was intimated by him to his department. Therefore, in my opinion no benefit can be given to accused on this ground. 26.22 Ld. Defence counsel submitted that accused had informed the CBI during investigation that he received Rs.1,71,000/ on account of agriculture produce during the years 19761994. PW39 did not give him benefit of this amount on the ground that his uncle Chet Ram did not give any amount from Agriculture income to the accused. PW39 in her cross examination on 04.09.2013 stated that Sh. Chet Ram was not listed as witness to show that any investigation was conducted by her. It was submitted that when the IO denied the benefit of income to accused on the ground that she conducted the investigation and found claim to be false, then the onus was upon the prosecution to show that she had found claim of accused to be false. Ld. Defence counsel submitted that benefit of claim of agriculture income should have been given to accused. Reliance was again placed on judgment Jaswinder Singh (Supra).
Ld. PP submitted that claim of accused Virender Singh was checked by Inspector C.K Sharma and relevant fact has been highlighted in chargesheet. As claim of accused was not substantiated, no benefit was given. It is principle of law of evidence that the fact in issue is required to be proved by party who asserts the fact. In other words, the party whose claim is going to be adversely affected is required to prove the fact, asserted by him. The claim of agriculture income was asserted by accused Virender Singh and therefore, onus is upon him to establish the relevant fact. It is also established principle of law that if no evidence is led by any party in respect of a fact, the party who asserted the 100 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D fact will fail. Therefore, it was upon the accused to prove relevant fact. No evidence has been led in defence to prove the claim of agricultural income. Moreover, there is nothing on record from the side of accused to convince that he had even intimated any agriculture income to his department. Though, agriculture income may be exempted from income tax but when the accused was filing the income tax returns, he should have disclose the same in his income tax returns and could have claimed exemption from the income tax. No income tax return establish the disclosure of agricultural income. In my opinion, the claim of agriculture income has not been satisfactorily explained by the accused even in preponderance of probabilities. Therefore, no benefit can be given to accused on account of claim of agricultural income.
26.23 Ld. Defence counsel submitted that accused received cash amount of Rs. 70,000/after the death of his father; received Rs.25000/ on account of sale of wheat, rice, buffalo etc and received 78750/ on account of surrendering of cultivated land of 4.5 bighas. PW39 (IO) did not give benefit of these amounts to the accused. It is stated that during cross examination on 04.09.2013 she stated that inspector C.K. Sharma investigated about these documents of the accused but these claims were not substantiated and therefore, benefit has not been given. Ld. Defence counsel submitted that relevant witnesses have not been cited by prosecution to establish that any investigation carried out in respect of these claims of the accused. The onus was upon the prosecution to prove the said claim of the accused as false. Ld. Defence counsel relied on the case of Jaswinder Singh Vs.State (Supra) and claimed that accused should be given benefit of said income. 101 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D
It has already been discussed that case of Jaswinder Singh is pertaining to onus of proof and there is no dispute to the legal proposition. Again, these claims were made by accused during investigation and IO did not find sufficient evidence to give benefit of these incomes claimed by accused. No other evidence has been led on record by the prosecution or defence. These incomes were asserted by accused since beginning, ultimately the onus was upon him to prove his claims but accused failed to prove actual receipts of said incomes. Otherwise, also accused has failed to show that any such income was actually received by him or was intimated to his department or income tax authorities. In view of material on record, in my opinion, accused Virender Singh has failed to satisfactorily account for the said incomes. Therefore, no benefit can be given. 26.24 Ld. Defence counsel submitted that in compilation D9, Ex.P6 accused had intimated to CBI about receipt of rental income of Rs.5,93,125/ showing the rental details of house no.BH6A w.e.f August 1979 to November 2001. It is stated that supported document about the receipt of document was also submitted from page 132 to 136. Ld. Defence counsel submitted that said property was in the name of Gaindi Devi, mother of Virender Singh. She executed a will in favour of house no.BH6A in favour of accused. She died in the year 1985. Ld. Defence counsel submitted that during cross examination, PW39 stated that she tried to ascertain the veracity of claim of Virender Singh but did not find any tenant in the premises. PW39 stated that she sent a letter to RWA in this regard but she did not remember if she received any reply in this regard. It is stated that PW39 falsely deposed that during examination. IO examined one Shanti Lal Chaplot and it was clearly established 102 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D from the documents that accused had received amount of Rs.5,93,125/ on account of rent. Ld. Defence counsel submitted that no efforts was made by IO PW39 to find out from DOT , if rental income from the aforesaid flat was intimated by Virender Singh to concerned authority. Ld. Defence counsel submitted that in the case of "Sajjan Singh Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1964 SC 464", it was held that "principal source of income in income received by Appellant as salary. However, the court further gave the appellant benefit of travelling allowance as claimed by him. The appellant was also given benefit of income by way of interest from provident fund and bank deposits". Therefore, Ld. Defence counsel requested benefit of aforesaid income of Rs.5,93,125/ on account of receipt of rent.
Ld. PP submitted that no benefit can be given as no intimation either given to department of TCIL or to the income tax authorities. In the case of Sajjan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, the question was related to question of travelling allowance and income from interest. In that case, the incomes were satisfactorily explained and therefore, benefit was given. In the present case, the claim of rental income was made by accused. There was no substantial evidence to accept the claim. These facts were asserted by accused and therefore, onus was upon him to prove the fact. In defence evidence, no evidence was brought on record. Even if, it is assumed that accused had inherited the said house in accordance with will of his mother, it is for the accused to satisfactorily account for the said income. In any case, the amount received on account of rent is "income" within the knowledge of the accused. Transaction between landlord and tenant requires intimation to 103 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D the department. Those incomes from rent are taxable incomes which are required to be reflected in income tax return also. Accused has also not established either any intimation to his department or disclosure of rental income in income tax return. In totality of the circumstances, in my opinion the accused has failed to satisfactorily account for the receipt of said rental income and disclosure accordance with the rules. Therefore, no benefit can be given to accused in respect of alleged receipt of rental income. 26.25 In respect of claim of daily project allowance or daily allowance, it was submitted by ld. Defence counsel that accused saved/earned Rs.6,57,457/ while posted in DPA Indonesia; Rs.73,385/ while posted in DPA Kuwait; Rs.54,755/ while posted in DPA Yemen; Rs.76,680/ while posted in DPA Faridabad, Rs.48,360/ while posted in DPA Indore and Rs.70,920/ while posted in DPA Gujrat. Ld. Defence counsel submitted that above mentioned amounts were saved by accused from the daily project allowance and daily allowance. It was submitted that DW4 Sh. Kanwal Kishore, CPIO, TCIL proved document Ex.DW4/B which are Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules. As per these documents nowhere it is provided that TCIL employees were required to intimate to department about savings made from daily project allowance received by them.
DW4 in his cross examination clarified that daily project allowance and daily allowance are one and same thing and not two separate allowances. When accused Virender Singh was posted in foreign countries he was being paid in foreign currency to meet incidental charges like food extra. The employee was not required to submit any bills in respect of allowances. During cross examination of DW4 he admitted that daily project 104 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D allowance was not a reimbursement. DW6 Vijay Satija, Sr. Executive, TCIL proved RTI reply dated 30.06.2008 Ex.PW6/B. As per this reply, the facilities of transportation from airport to work place/guest house at Yemen/Kuwait/Indonesia, local transportation from gues house to work place or vice versa, bachelors furnished accommodation with electricity and water at Yemen/Kuwait/Indonesia, Attendeant services at officercumresidence at Indonesia, cook service in Yemen and Kuwait, were provided free of cost to the staff deputed there free of cost. DW6 also stated that staff deputed to Yemen, Kuwait and Indonesia were being paid foreign daily allowance (FDA) for the period of the deputation and were also receiving normal salary apart from FDA. He also proved that as TCIL, Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1980 , there was no provision for intimation of daily allowances paid in foreign currency in Yemen, Kuwait, Indonesia.
Ld. Defence counsel submitted that D9, page9596, Ex.P6 i.e office order dated 12.09.94 provides that Virender Singh was sent on deputation for execution of project of TCIL to Indonesia and he was to be paid daily allowance i.e provisional rate of daily allowance @ 25 US dollars per day in Indonesia itself, wherein his monthly salary with due allowances was to be credited in his bank account in India. He was relieved from his duty vide office order dated 07/05.11.1996, D9, page 97 Ex.P6. Virender Singh remained on duty there for 796 days.
DW7 Sh. T.R. Chandersekharan, Manager, HRMD, RTI Division, Mumbai proved RTI reply dated 22.01.2008 Ex.DW7/A which provides rate of US $ on 05.11.1996 as Rs.34.72. It is claimed that Virender Singh earned an amount of Rs.6,98,490/ on 105 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D account of daily project allowance while posted in Indonesia. As per document D44, Ex.PW39/DX which is statement of NRE account no.179 in the name of Virender Singh maintained at Allahabad bank, Nehru Place, New Delhi, accused Virender Singh received foreign remittance in this account also. IO did not make any efforts to determine the sources of money received in said account. It was submitted that D41 , Ex.PW14/D1 is the statement of account of SB a/c no.9527 in the name of Smt. Indra Singh and Virender Singh maintained at Oriental Bank of Commerce, Munirka. This account reflect entry of Rs. 71,863/ dated 24.02.96 at point X and other entry of Rs.25,335/ dated 19.04.96 at point X1. It is stated that this amount was received by way of foreign remittance, however, IO PW39 did not examine any bank official to determine sources of amount shown at point X and X1. Therefore, it was claimed that it is proved on record that accused Virender Singh sent Rs.6,57,457/ to India by way of foreign remittance provided to him as foreign daily allowance (Rs.6,98,490/) but benefit of said income has not been given to accused. 26.26 In respect of posting in Yemen, it was submitted that document D9, Ex.P6 which is office order dated 13.03.80 Virender Singh was sent on deputation for execution of project of TCIL to Yemen Arab Republic. He was to be paid daily allowance i.e provisional rate of daily allowance @ 18 US $ per day wherein his monthly salary with due allowances was to be credited in his bank account in India. He was relieved from his duty vide office order dated 23.04.1981 i.e D9 Ex.P6. He remained on duty in Yemen for 404 days. It was alleged that IO PW39 did not determine the rate of foreign currency at the relevant time and failed to give benefit to accused. Ld. Defence counsel submitted that accused Virender 106 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D Singh earned an amount of Rs.58,176/ on account of daily project allowance while posted in Yemen Arab Republic and remitted Rs.54,755/ to India and therefore, he is entitled for benefit of this additional income.
26.27 In respect of his posting in Kuwait, it was submitted that as per office order dated 01.12.1987, D9, Ex.P6 accused Virender Singh was sent on deputation for execution of project of TCIL, Kuwait . As per office order dated 16.7.88, D9, Ex.P6 accused Virender Singh remained on duty in Kuwait for 226 days. Accused was paid daily allowance i.e provisional rate of daily allowance @ 6.05 Kuwaiti Dinar which is equal to 25 US $. It was alleged that accused Virender Singh earned a total amount of Rs.77,970/ on account DPA while posted in Kuwait and remitted Rs.73,385/to India, but the benefit of this income has not been given to him by IO PW39. It was stated that D9, Ex.P6 further proves that accused while posted in Faridabad, Indore and Gujrat was paid DPA and received Rs. 76,680 while posted in Faridabad ; Rs.48,360/ while posted in Indore and Rs.70,920/ while posted in Gujrat. Ld. Defence counsel submitted that in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Sajjan Singh Vs. Punjab" (Supra) , the benefit of travelling allowance and other allowances can be granted to accused. Ld. Defence counsel submitted that incomes received by accused during his respective postings in Faridabad, Indore, Gujrat, Kuwait, Yemen and Indonesia etc has been duly proved from the documents. Documents also proves that above mentioned amounts were remitted in foreign currency in his NRE account while posted in foreign countries. These facts were brought to notice of IO by accused by way of document D9, Ex.P6. Savings from these allowances were not required to be 107 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D intimated to the department. Therefore, ld. Defence counsel prayed that benefit of these additional incomes may be given to the accused.
26.28 Ld. PP for CBI controverted the submissions of ld. Defence counsel. It was submitted that foreign daily allowance, daily project allowance and daily allowance are the same allowances having different names depending his place of tour. If employee is on tour, he is paid "daily allowance". If employee is on project site, he is paid "daily project allowance". If project is in India, he is paid daily allowance and if project is in foreign country, it is called daily project allowance. Ld. PP submitted that these allowances are not incomes as per income tax rules and it is meant for to be spent for sustenance by the employee to whom it is granted while he is away from his head quarter/office. 26.29 I have carefully considered the respective submission and material on record. Whether it is called by any name like "daily allowance" or "daily project allowance", In substance, it is a allowance by the company to its employees while they are on tour or on project either in India or in foreign country. The allowances are generally paid in two modes. The first mode is when reimbursement of actual expenses is made by the department towards particular amount on submission of claim. The second mode is when fixed allowance is paid to the employee in respect of particular facility. In both modes, these allowances are not considered part of the income and meant to be spent by the employee. Ld. Defence counsel tried to establish his claim on the strength of the evidence that while posted in foreign country, transportation, free mess facility, free accommodation were provided to the accused and therefore, he had no actual expenses. Ld. Defence counsel 108 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D tried to justify that accused was able to save almost 8090 % of the allowances paid to him in foreign countries. Similarly, arguments was advanced in respect of allowances received in India. Ld. Defence counsel also tried to establish that these amount are reflected in NRE account of accused by way of foreign remittance which proved that amounts had been received in India in his NRE account from lawful source. Ld. Defence counsel submitted that there was no requirement of intimation to department in respect of such savings. It was not a "income" within the meaning of Income Tax Act and was exempted from the liability of income tax. In the case of non resident Indian , it was not required to be reflected in ITRs. 26.30 After careful consideration, I am not impressed with the contentions of ld. Defence counsel. It is for the accused to satisfactorily account for the pecuniary resources within the knowledge. My attention was drawn by Ld. PP towards instruction no.1407 F.no.200/24/80 IT (AI) dated 21.7.81 from Central Board of Direct Taxes. These instructions are pertaining to daily allowance and its taxability which provides as under: " Section 10 (14) of the Income Tax, 1961 exempts any special allowance or benefit, not being in the nature of entertainment allowance or other prequisites within the meaning of Section 17 (2), specifically granted to meet the expenses wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred in the performance of the duties of an office or employment of profit, to the extent to which such expenses are actually incurred for that purpose. Daily allowance given to employees of the Central and State government for their official tours within India qualify 109 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D for exemption under Section 10 (14) to the extent the allowances are actually spent in the performance of their duties. In cases where employees of the Central/State Government go abroad on official duty, the allowances granted to them are exempt from tax in terms of Section 10 (7) provided the employee is a citizen of India. The requirement of its having been spent actually which is present in Section 10 (14) is absent in Section 10 (7). In the case of allowances given by all other employers to their employees whether for official tours in India or abroad the relevant provision is Section 10 (14) and such allowances are exempt only to the extent the expenses are actually incurred in the performances of duties.
Instances have been brought to the notice of the Board where a part of the foreign exchange allowed to certain executives as daily allowance for tours abroad was brought back in India as the amount saved. To the extent the allowance was brought back to India unspent, the allowance was not wholly spent within the meaning of section 10 (14) and the saving thereof would not qualify for exemption from Income Tax in the hands of such employees.
In view of the position brought out above, the Board desires that in the case of an employee, other than that of the Central/State Government, who has received daily allowance for tour abroad, the incometax officers should go into the question whether any part of the allowance has been brought back to India and if so the amount be brought to tax. These instructions may be brought to the notice of all officers working in your charge."
26.31 The above mentioned instructions clearly established that in the case of employees other than of Central/State government , income tax officer should go into the question whether any part of allowance has been brought back to India and if so, the 110 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D amount be brought back to the tax. Any such amount was brought back to India was taxable and was required to be disclosed by the accused. It is admitted case that no such savings on account of daily project allowance, daily allowance while posted in foreign country has been shown in income tax returns by the accused. It was submitted by Ld. PP that as per claim of accused while posted in foreign countries, his salary with allowances were credited in India. In foreign countries only source of funds was the allowances received by him. Ld. PP submitted that by any stretch of imagination, accused could not have survive merely spending 1020% of the allowances and was not in a position to save 8090% of the amount. If 8090% amount of the total allowances are remitted to India from foreign countries, the presumption is , accused was indulging in corrupt practices and therefore, able to save such big proportion of allowances. Ld. PP submitted that prior to registration of FIR of this case, accused was arrested in case FIR no.78 (A)/2001 while demanding and accepting bribe. Vide judgment dated 30.11.2012 and order on sentence dated 11.12.12, accused was convicted and sentenced by the court of Sh. N.K. Sharma, Ld. Special Judge, Delhi for the offence u/s 7 & 13 (2) r.w. Section 13 (1) (d) of P. C Act 1988. Ld. PP tried to establish that accused had been indulging in corrupt practices which is reflected by above mentioned judgment and order on sentence and savings claimed by accused while posted in foreign countries is result of corrupt practices.
26.32 Above mentioned judgment and order on sentence by the court of Ld. Special Judge is pending in appeal before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and final verdict is still awaited. It is difficult to accept the contention of ld. PP that accused had been regularly 111 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D indulging in corrupt practices. However, it appears quite impossible that such a senior official can survive in foreign country only by spending 1020% daily project allowance or in normal course may save 8090% of the amount out of the said allowances. 26.33 Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, in my opinion at the first instance, the daily allowances/daily project allowances were required to be spent by employee. In case any portion of allowances were saved by the employee, the burden is heavy on accused to establish that income from said allowances were saved from lawful sources and were disclosed to the department and/or income tax authorities as per rules. In my opinion, accused has failed to satisfactorily account for the actual receipt of amount and its disclosure to the department and/or to the income tax authorities. Therefore, in my opinion, no benefit can be given to accused in respect of his claim on account of daily allowance/daily project allowances etc as he has failed to establish his claim even in preponderance of probabilities.
NON DISPUTED ASSETS IN THE NAME OF NEERAJ SINGH S/O VIRENDER SINGH
27. In statement "E", the assets in the name of Neeraj Singh s/o Virender Singh has been shown in the chargesheet. Assets shown at sr. no.1 has been proved with the help of D21 Ex.P17 and the statement of PW6 which are related to the deposit in MIS a/c. Similarly, at sr. no.2 in statement "E" amount held in PPF a/c no.1685 has been shown as Rs.197290.32 which has been proved by prosecution by way of admitted document D55 Ex.P41. At sr. no.3 deposits made in MIS a/c no.400270 has been shown as Rs.18000/ 112 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D which are proved by D94 Ex.PW5/A and statement of PW5. At sr. no.4 & 5 amount of Rs. 50,000/ each shown in FDRs issued by State Bank of India has been shown in statement "E" which are proved by D73 Ex.P56. At sr. no.6 of statement "E" asset of Rs.1000/ as UTI Master share has been proved by D71 Ex.54. There is no dispute in respect of assets shown in statement "E" at sr. no.1,2,3,4,5 and 6. The total assets in the name of Neeraj Singh in statement "E" has been shown and proved as Rs.6,70,290.32.
NON DISPUTED ASSETS IN THE NAME OF ANSHUL SINGH
28. The assets of Anshul Singh has been shown in statement "F". During the course of arguments there was no dispute relating to assets of Anshul Singh s/o accused Virender Singh. Non disputed assets of Anshul Singh has been proved by witnesses/documents as mentioned below:
1) Initial deposit in MIS a/c no. 400680 i.e 48000/ proved by documents D21, Ex.P17 and statement of PW6 which has been admitted in question no.108 of statement of accused.
1.1) Initial deposit in MIS a/c no. 400871 i.e 48000/ proved by documents D21, Ex.P17 and statement of PW6 which has been admitted in question no.108 of statement of accused.
1.2) Initial deposit in MIS a/c no. 400872 i.e 48000/ proved by documents D21, Ex.P17 and statement of PW6 which has been admitted in question no.108 of statement of accused.
113 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D1.3) Initial deposit in MIS a/c no. 401219 i.e 90000/ proved by documents D21, Ex.P17 and statement of PW6 which has been admitted in question no.108 of statement of accused.
2.) Amount held in PPF a/c no.1686 i.e 197467.71 proved by documents D54, Ex.P40 which has been admitted in question no.120 of statement of accused.
3.) Deposit in MIS a/c no. 400271 i.e 18000/ proved by documents D94, Ex.P5/A and statement of PW5 which has been admitted in question no.13 of statement of accused.
4.) Balance in SB a/c no.14476 in OBC bank i.e 71,476/ as per chargesheet but ld. Defence counsel submits that actual amount is 71,475.80 which has been proved by documents D42, Ex.P28 and statement of PW14 which has been admitted in question no. 35 of statement of accused.
5.) At serial no.6 and 7 FDRs issued by State bank of India for Rs.50,000/ each proved by documents D80, Ex.P63 ,56 and statement of PW39 which has been admitted in question no.134 of statement of accused.
6.) UTI Master share held for a sum of Rs.1,000/ proved by documents D71, Ex.P54 which has been admitted in question no.129 of statement of accused.
7.) 100 shares of Reliance for sum of Rs.10,000/ proved by documents D66, Ex.P49 and statement of PW39 which has been admitted in question no.125 of statement of accused.
8.) At sr. no.5 of saving bank account no.9013094 in PSB was shown in 114 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D chargesheet as Rs.3212/ which has been proved by D60 Ex.P6/3 and statement of PW6. It is reflected in evidence that as per statement of account as on 16.11.2001 there was balance amount of Rs.2149.90 and 15.12.2001 balance was Rs.2589.90. Check period ends on 12.12.2001, therefore, it was submitted by Ld.PP and Ld. Defence counsel that balance amount nearer to the date of end of check period should be taken which comes to Rs.2149/. Therefore, assets of Anshul Singh requires to be deducted i.e (3212 2149.90) 1062.1.
( Rs.1062.1 from assets of Ansul Singh) Accordingly, net assets of Ansul Singh s/o accused Virender Singh may be taken as Rs.634,093.61.
NON DISPUTED ASSETS OF SMT. INDRA SINGH W/O VIRENDER SINGH
29. The assets of Smt. Inra Singh has been shown in statement "G". During the course of arguments, there was no dispute relating to assets of Smt. Indra Singh w/o accused Virender Singh. Non disputed assets of Smt. Indra Singh has been proved by witnesses/documents as mentioned below:
1) Initial deposit in MIS a/c no. 400649 i.e 48000/ proved by documents D21, Ex.P17 and statement of PW6 which has been admitted in question no.108 of statement of accused.
1.1) Initial deposit in MIS a/c no. 400866 i.e 48000/ proved by documents D21, Ex.P17 and statement of PW6 which has been admitted in question no.108 of statement of 115 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D accused.
2. Amount held in PPF a/c no. 0933 i.e 310,545.13 proved by documents D56, Ex.P42 which has been admitted in question no.122 of statement of accused.
3. Deposit made in NSS a/c no.11889 i.e 11,500/ proved by documents D91, Ex.P74 and statement of PW39 which has been admitted in question no.142 of statement of accused.
4. Balance of SB a/c no. 22165 in Canara Bank i.e 31,382.98 proved by documents D81, Ex.PW23/N which has been admitted in question no.60 of statement of accused.
5. At sr. no.5 & 6 amount paid in premium of LIC policy no.110281387 &110268459 for a sum of Rs.80,804/ and Rs.36,450/ proved by documents D64 & D65, Ex.P47 & Ex.P48 and statement of PW26 which has been admitted in question no.74 & 77 of statement of accused.
6. At sr. no.7 Cost and construction of plot734/21 in Gurgaon for sum of Rs. 889,475.90 proved by documents D98, Ex.P78 which has been admitted in question no. 145 of statement of accused.
7. At sr. no.8 FD issued by Syndicate Bank no.389371/566322 for sum of Rs. 50,000/ proved by documents D82, Ex.PW9/B and statement of PW39 which has been admitted in question no.22 of statement of accused.
8. At sr. no.9, 200 shares of Tauras Starshare for Rs.2000/ proved by documents D68, Ex.P51 which has been admitted in question no.127 of statement of 116 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D accused.
DISPUTED ASSET IN THE NAME OF SMT. INDRA SINGH W/O VIRENDER SINGH
30. At item no.10, assets of Rs.3000/ were shown on account of purchase of 300 units of master shares of UTI in the name of Indra Singh. The document D71, Ex.P54 pertaining to said transaction is admitted document. Ld. Defence counsel submitted that during cross examination, PW39 stated that there was probability that Smt. Indra Singh might have sold the said shares before the date of check period. She could not admit or deny suggestion that said shares had been sold before the end of check period @ Rs.17/ per share. It was submitted that neither prosecution nor accused could show the sale price of 600 units which should be excluded from the assets of Smt. Indra Singh. D71 Ex.P54 is admitted document which established that the said shares were purchased in the name of Smt. Indra Singh. It was upon the accused to establish the sale of said shares and price thereof. On the basis of document, PW39 was not sure about the sale price of the shares. Defence has failed to establish its plea and assets of Rs.3000/ as shown at sr. no.10 in statement "G" has been duly proved. Accordingly, the net assets in the name of Smt. Indra Singh has been proved as Rs.1,511,158.01 as shown in the chargesheet.
NON DISPUTED ASSETS OF VIRENDER SINGH
31. Assets of Virender Singh has been shown in statement "H". During the course of arguments, in respect of following assets shown in statement "H", there was no dispute 117 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D between prosecution and defence. It has been proved by evidence on record as mentioned below:
1. At sr. no.1, Initial deposit in MIS a/c no.400632 i.e 48000/ proved by documents D21, Ex.P17 and statement of PW6 which has been admitted in question no. 108 of statement of accused.
1.1) At sr. no.1, Initial deposit in MIS a/c no.400936 i.e 48000/ proved by documents D21, Ex.P17 and statement of PW6 which has been admitted in question no. 108 of statement of accused.
1.2) At sr. no.1, Initial deposit in MIS a/c no.400822 i.e 36000/ proved by documents D21, Ex.P17 and statement of PW6 which has been admitted in question no. 108 of statement of accused.
1.3) At sr. no.1, Initial deposit in MIS a/c no.401197 i.e 54000/ proved by documents D21, Ex.P17 and statement of PW6 which has been admitted in question no. 108 of statement of accused.
1.4.) Deposit in NSS a/c no.2000053 i.e 25000/ proved by documents D18, Ex.P14 and statement of PW17 which has been admitted in question no.42 of statement of accused.
1.5.) Balance in SB a/c no.90789 at IOB i.e Rs.41565/ proved by documents D38, Ex.P24 which has been admitted in question no.45 of statement of accused.
2) Balance in SB a/c no.304346 at Syndicate bank in joint name of Smt. Gaindi Devi, Virender Singh and Indra Singh were Rs.15,268/ proved by documents D39, 118 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D Ex.P25 and statement of PW9 which has been admitted in question no.21 of statement of accused.
3) Balance in SB a/c no.10237 in OBC upto 30.06.2001 were Rs.78,480/ proved by documents D41, Ex.P27 and statement of PW14 which has been admitted in question no.32 of statement of accused.
4) Balance in SB a/c no.10236 in OBC bank upto 28.07.2001 were Rs.80,092/ proved by documents D42, Ex.P28 and statement of PW14 which has been admitted in question no.34 of statement of accused.
5) Balance in SB a/c no.905501 in Allahabad bank upto 07.12.2001 were Rs. 40,405/ proved by documents D72, Ex.P55 which has been admitted in question no.116 of statement of accused.
6) Balance in SB a/c no.8376 in Canara bank upto 01.12.2001 were Rs.59,795/ proved by documents D46, Ex.P32 which has been admitted in question no.55 of statement of accused.
7) Balance in SB a/c no.9051 in Canara bank upto 01.11.2001 were Rs.53,168/ proved by documents D47, Ex.P33 which has been admitted in question no.56 of statement of accused.
8) Balance in SB a/c no.22251 in UTI bank were Rs.15000/ proved by document D57, Ex.P37/A and statement of PW37 which has been admitted in question no.123 of statement of accused.
9) Balance in SB a/c no.23987 in Canara bank upto 01.11.2001 were Rs.8,684/ 119 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D proved by document D48, Ex.P34 which has been admitted in question no.57 of statement of accused.
10) Balance in SB a/c no.6703 in Canara bank upto 01.11.2001 were Rs.51,542/ proved by document D49, Ex.P35 which has been admitted in question no.58 of statement of accused.
11) Balance in SB a/c no.9013005 in PSB were Rs.6,494/ proved by document D59, Ex.P6/1 and statement of PW6 which has been admitted in question no.14 of statement of accused.
12) Balance in SB a/c no.9013093 in PSB were Rs.5,380/ proved by documents D58, Ex.P6/2 and statement of PW6 which has been admitted in question no.15 of statement of accused.
13) Amount deposited towards premium in LIC policy no.110276973 were Rs. 20,150/ proved by documents D61, Ex.P44 and statement of PW26 which has been admitted in question no.65 of statement of accused.
14) Amount deposited towards premium in LIC policy no.111923646 were Rs. 21,375/ proved by documents D61, Ex.P45 and statement of PW26 which has been admitted in question no.68 of statement of accused.
15) Amount deposited towards premium in LIC policy no.110275817 were Rs. 20,150/ proved by documents D61, Ex.P46 and statement of PW26 which has been admitted in question no.71 of statement of accused.
16) From sr. no. 17 to 27 in statement "H" which are assets of Virender Singh, 120 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D these are FDRs of Allahabad Bank of different amounts proved by document D72, Ex.P55 and statement of IO PW39 and which have been admitted in question no.160 statement of accused.
17) From sr. no. 28 to 31 in statement "H" which are assets of Virender Singh, these are FDRs of Allahabad Bank of different amounts proved by document D72, Ex.P55 and statement of IO PW39.
18) From sr. no. 32 to 38 in statement "H" which are assets of Virender Singh, these are FDRs of Canara Bank of Rs.50,000/each proved by document D74, Ex.P57 and statement of PW23 and which have been admitted in question no.61 statement of accused.
19) From sr. no. 39 to 41 in statement "H" which are assets of Virender Singh, these are matured FDRs in Indian Overseas Bank of different amounts proved by document D78, Ex.P61 and statement of PW20 and which have been admitted in question no.46 statement of accused.
20) From sr. no. 42 to 45 in statement "H" which are assets of Virender Singh, these are FDRs in Indian Overseas Bank of Rs.40,000/each proved by document D77,78 Ex.P60,61 and statement of PW22 and which have been admitted in question no.47 statement of accused.
21) From sr. no. 46 & 47 in statement "H" which are assets of Virender Singh, these are FDRs in OBC of different amounts proved by document D75, Ex.P58 and statement of PW14 and which have been admitted in question no.37 statement of accused.
22) From sr. no. 48 to 54 in statement "H" which are assets of Virender Singh, 121 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D these are renewed FDRs in OBC of different amounts proved by document D75, Ex.P58 and statement of PW14 and which have been admitted in question no.36 statement of accused.
23) From sr. no. 55 to 57 in statement "H" which are assets of Virender Singh, these are FDRs in Syndicate bank of different amounts proved by document D82, Ex.PW9/B and statement of PW13, PW39 and which has been admitted in question no.22 of statement of accused.
24) At sr. no.59 in statement "H" which are assets of Virender Singh, it is shown that cash at house was Rs.1,70,000/ proved by document D4 and statement of PW15 and PW39 and which have been admitted in question no.40 of statement of accused.
25) At sr. no.60 in statement "H" which are assets of Virender Singh, it is shown that cash in locker was Rs.1,60,000/ proved by document D6,7 and statement of PW10 and which has been admitted in question no.24 of statement of accused.
26) At sr. no.61 in statement "H" which are assets of Virender Singh, it is shown that cost of Yamah motor cycle was Rs.39,453/ proved by document D103 and statement of PW32 and which has been admitted in question no.84 of statement of accused.
27) At sr. no.62 in statement "H" which are assets of Virender Singh, it is shown that cost of car (maruti zen) was Rs.301,276/ proved by document D26/101, Ex.P23 and statement of PW1 and PW27 and which has been admitted in question no.9 of statement of accused. As per testimony of PW1 and PW27 the cost of car does not include the refund amount of Rs.2442/ paid to accused Virender Singh as interest. Hence, amount of 122 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D Rs.2442/ should be included as additional income of Sh. Virender Singh.
(+Rs.2442/ in income of Virender Singh)
28) At sr. no.63 in statement "H" which are assets of Virender Singh, it is shown that cost of maruti 800 DNC4374 (DNC 4783) was Rs.93,895/ proved by document D27/102, Ex.P81 and statement of PW31 and which has been admitted in question no.83 of statement of accused.
29) At sr. no.64 in statement "H" which are assets of Virender Singh, it is shown that cost of flat no.G1/F at Munirka was Rs.61,059.96 proved by document D96, Ex.P77 and statement of PW29 and which have been admitted in question no.81 of statement of accused.
30) At sr. no.65 in statement "H" which are assets of Virender Singh, it is shown that cost of SFS flat 6144/6, Vasant Kunj & cost of freehold was Rs.952,565/ proved by document D97, Ex.P79 and statement of PW8, PW24 and which have been admitted in question no.18 & 20 of statement of accused.
31) At sr. no.66 in statement "H" which are assets of Virender Singh, it is shown that cost of GDA shop no.G3 at Raj Nagar in Ghaziabad was Rs.179,186/ proved by document D95, Ex.P76 and which have been admitted in question no.144 of statement of accused.
32) At sr. no.67 in statement "H" which are assets of Virender Singh, it is shown that 200 shares of Tauras Starshare purchased on 18.01.94 for Rs.2,000/ proved by 123 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D document D68, Ex.P51 and which have been admitted in question no.127 of statement of accused.
33) At sr. no.68 in statement "H" which are assets of Virender Singh, it is shown that LIC MF, 80 CCB(1) 500 units purchased on 04.03.91 was Rs.1,720/ proved by document D70, Ex.P53 and which has been admitted in question no.128 of statement of accused.
34) At sr. no.74 in statement "H" which are assets of Virender Singh, it is shown that 172 shares of Tata Infomedia @ Rs.10/ was Rs.1,720/ proved by document D70, Ex.P53 and which has been admitted in question no.128 of statement of accused.
35) At sr. no.75 in statement "H" which are assets of Virender Singh, it is shown that reliance shares for Rs.10,000/ proved by document D66, Ex.P49 and statement of PW39 and which has been admitted in question no.125 of statement of accused.
DISPUTED ASSETS OF ACCUSED VIRENDER SINGH
32. At sr. no.3, assets of Rs.7457.30 was shown as balance between 01.03.92 & 21.12.97 in saving bank account no.9527 in Oriental Bank of Commerce. D40, Ex.P26 is the relevant document which was admitted by accused. Ld. PP submitted that no bill was given by the bank in respect of the closure of the said account, therefore, amount shown at sr. no.3 should be taken as asset. Ld. Defence counsel submitted that it was admitted by PW39 during her cross examination that this account was closed during the check period and closing balance of Rs.5447/ was received by accused Virender Singh before the end of 124 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D check period. Therefore, said amount should not be considered as assets of Virender singh. In view of testimony of the PW39 as the account was closed and closing balance was also received by Virender Singh. Therefore, the amount of Rs.7457.30 shown at sr. no.3 as assets cannot be considered as assets and therefore, required to be removed from the total assets. ( Rs.7457.30 from assets of Virender Singh) 32.1 At sr. no.58 in statement "H" , household articles worth Rs.3,59,300/ has been shown as assets of accused Virender Singh. Ld. PP submitted that as per evidence on record valuation of household articles (found during house search conducted at G1/DDA flat, Munirka in possession of Virender Singh and his family members) was taken in consultation with independent witnesses, Smt. Indra Singh w/o accused Virender Singh and his son Anshul Singh. Therefore, the assets of account of household articles should be taken as shown in the chargesheet.
32.2 Ld. Defence counsel made following submissions on the aspect of household articles of accused Virender Singh:
a) The observation memo (D4), Ex.PW15/B (also Ex.PW39/A) is a false document, wherein exaggerated value of the household articles is given. The value of the household articles was taken without any verification from the occupants, and the valuation of articles is exaggerated and it does not reflect the real household item of Sh. Virender Singh. The falsity and inadmissibility of this document would become apparent in light of the cumulative reading of the following facts.125 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D
b) PW15, Insp. A.K. Pandey prepared this document. This document has been prepared in another case RC78 (A)/2001DLI. However, no document has been placed on record to show that the search was conducted pursuant to any authorization in that case.
c) None of the officers who signed and prepared the memo Ex.PW39/A, was authorized by SP, CBI, to investigate the present case in accordance with section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The accused has been prejudiced because of reliance on memo Ex.PW39/A by the prosecution, as the figures of the valuation of the household articles mentioned therein are wrongly mentioned. (Reliance is placed on State Inspector of Police Vishakhapatna Vs. Surya Sankram Karri, 2006 VII AD (SC) 278).
d) No independent witness of the locality was summoned to witness the search and observation proceedings. PW15 in his deposition volunteered that he did not take any independent witnesses from the colony. He asked Smt. Indra Singh to ensure independent witnesses of her choice, but she declines as her elder son was in the house. However, he did not tell this fact to the IO and it is also not so recorded in the memo Ex.PW15/B.
e) The accused remained present in the house through out the search proceedings till 2.30 am. But the accused was neither asked with respect to valuation of the household articles, nor his signatures were obtained on it. This raises suspicion on the veracity of the contents of the document, as the accused should have been consulted for ascertaining the valuation, year of acquisition and other particulars of his household articles.126 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D
f) The guidelines dated 29.11.2001 Ex.DW5/A issued to the CBI for investigating a case of disproportionate assets have not been followed in the present case, and the memo Ex.PW39/A has been prepared in violation of the said guidelines, which has caused prejudice to the accused. PW39 during her cross examination pleaded ignorance with respect to the said guidelines.
g) Ex.DW5/A, provides that non verifiable expenditure include kitchen expenses/grocery items and expenses towards clothing & other household articles. The household articles which form part of the nonverifiable expenditure have been added as assets in the said memo, which has caused prejudice against the accused. PW39 was not even aware of the articles which form part of the non verifiable expenditure, and therefore cannot be separately calculated as asset of the accused. The various items, at sr. no.
11,12,13,14 at page 2, S.no.19 at page 4, sr. no.2 to 10 under the head "Bed Room no.2", and sr. no. 33 at page 8, mentioned in the memo Ex.Pw39/A, form part of non verifiable expenditure, as per guidelines Ex.DW5/A , however, they have separately calculated as asset of the accused.
h) The IO did not even examine any witness with respect to preparation of Ex.PW39/A to determine its correctness. The IO did not independently try to ascertain the correct value of the household articles mentioned in Ex.PW39/A. Therefore, the memo prepared without any authorization and without any verification cannot be considered to determine the value of household articles of Sh. Virender Singh. 32.3 It is not disputed by accused that the search of his house was taken and 127 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D inventory of household articles was prepared. As per evidence it is not the case of the accused that articles mentioned in observation memo D4, Ex.PW15/B (also Ex.PW39/A) were not found during the house search. Therefore, house search, preparation of observation memo and articles mentioned in Ex.PW15/B has been duly proved. There is no substance in the contentions of ld. Defence counsel that the search was conducted without any order of the Superintendent of police or no independent witness was joined or the accused and his family members were not consulted. As per evidence on record, accused was arrested in a trap case under Provision of Corruption Act and during investigation of that case PW15 A.K. Pandey conducted the house search. During the time of house search, this case of disproportionate assets was not found registered. House search was in pursuance of another case against accused. Therefore, contention of ld. Defence counsel in this regard is without any substance. Ld. Defence counsel further contended that at sr. no. 11,12,13,14 at page no.2 , sr. no.19 at page no.4, sr. no.2 to 10 under the head of "Bed Room no.2" and sr. no.33 at page 8 , mentioned in memo Ex.PW39/A form the part of non verifiable expenditure and therefore, these articles should not be included in the assets of the accused. After careful consideration of Ex.PW39/A and evidence on record, I am satisfied that some of the above articles should not have been mentioned in assets. As per evidence on record, the valuation of different articles was taken in consultation with Smt. Indra Singh and his son Anshul Singh. Still at that time, there could not be very precise criteria to determine the year of purchase and respective purchase valuation of different articles. Practically, receipts/documents pertaining to purchase of each and every articles 128 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D could not be found. Therefore, the valuation of the articles was only estimates. On careful perusal of observation memo Ex.PW15/B ( Ex.PW39/A), it appears that at some places the price of the articles has been taken on higher side whereas small articles should not have been included in the assets. There cannot be any precise calculation of the price of household articles. No evidence has been led by the prosecution or the defence to establish the exact valuation of different articles. Therefore, as per rough estimates, valuation of household articles may be around Rs.3 lacs. Therefore, from the assets of accused Virender Singh, an amount of Rs.59, 300/ on account of household articles is required to be deducted.
(minus Rs.59,300/ from the assets of Virender Singh) 32.4 At item no.69, assets of Rs.3000/ were shown on account of purchase of 300 units of master shares of UTI in the name of Virender Singh. The document D71, Ex.P54 pertaining to said transaction is admitted document. Ld. Defence counsel submitted that during cross examination, PW39 stated that there was probability that Sh. Virender Singh might have sold the said shares before the date of check period. She could not admit or deny suggestion that said shares had been sold before the end of check period @ Rs. 17/ per share. It was submitted that neither prosecution nor accused could show the sale price of 600 units which should be excluded from the assets of Sh. Virender Singh. D71 Ex.P54 is admitted document which established that the said shares were purchased in the name of Sh. Virender Singh. It was upon the accused to establish the sale of said shares 129 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D and price thereof. On the basis of document PW39 was not sure about the sale price of the shares. Therefore, defence has failed to establish its plea and assets of Rs.3000/ as shown at sr. no.69 in statement "H" has been duly proved.
32.5 At sr. no.70 in statement "H" , assets of Rs.1000/has been shown on account of 100 shares of Ganges Fertilizers & Chemicals @ Rs.10/. The relevant document is D3. Document D3 has not been proved by prosecution. It was submitted by ld. Defence counsel that because the asset has not been proved by prosecution, it should be deducted from the assets of Virender singh. As there is no evidence on record and said asset has not been proved by prosecution, it is required to be deducted from the assets of Virender Singh.
(minus Rs.1000/ from assets of Virender Singh) 32.6 At sr. no.71, assets of Rs.16000/ has been shown in the name of Virender Singh on account of 100 shares of IPCL @ Rs.160/. Similarly, at sr no.72, asset of Rs. 11,200/ has been shown in the name of Virender Singh on account of 100 shares of IPCL @ Rs.80/. Pw39 during her cross examination on 05.09.2013 admitted that as per document D67, Ex.P50 , 200 shares out of 240 shares were transferred by accused to one R. Pal Singh in September, 1998 i.e much before the check period. PW39 admitted that because 200 shares were transferred during the check period, purchase value of said shares should not be included in the assets and profit earned on the said shares (if any) should have been included in the income. Neither prosecution nor accused could show the selling price of 200 shares, but it has been admitted by PW39 that 200 shares were sold. 130 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D Therefore, in my opinion, the purchase value of 200 shares is required to be deducted from the assets of accused Virender Singh. The cost of remaining 40 shares come out to Rs. 3200/. Therefore, at sr. no.71 & 72 total assets should be taken as 24,000/ instead of Rs. 27,200/ . (16000 + 11200= 27200) (272003200 = 24000).
(minus 3200/ from assets of Virender Singh) 32.7 At sr. no.73 of statement "H" assets of 1000 has been taken in the name of Virender Singh on account of 100 shares of Enfield Elec. @Rs.10/ . No evidence has been led by prosecution to prove the said assets. Therefore, this asset of 1000 has not been proved and is required to be deducted from the assets of accused Virender Singh.
(minus Rs.1000/ from assets of Virender Singh)
33. It was submitted b y Ld. PP for CBI that following assets and expenditure could not be added by IO in the chargesheet due to inadvertence. Therefore, the following assets of Virender Singh may be added in accordance with the evidence on record. 33.1 Term deposit no.1647781 in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Munirka shown at coloumn no.52 of assets of Virender Singh . It was submitted that as per evidence on record, the said account was opened on 20.08.2001. In fact, benefit of Rs.4922/ has been given to the accused in chargesheet. Expenditure of Rs.50,000/has been reflected in column of assets at sr. no.52. Additional assets of Rs.7107/ should be added. In my opinion contention of Ld.PP is not acceptable. Neither any case was set up in the chargesheet nor any evidence has been led nor any question was put up to the accused during statement of 131 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D accused. Accused had not defended these allegation during course of trial. Therefore, the plea of additional asset is declined.
33.2 Similarly, plea was taken by Ld.PP in respect of two term deposits in Oriental Bank of commerce , Munirka , FDRs in Syndicate Bank and NSCs. Ld. PP requested that in total additional assets of Rs.2,01,303/ should be added. In view of above mentioned reasons, the plea of Ld.PP is not acceptable as no such case was set up against the accused in the chargesheet and he did not get an opportunity to defend the same. 33.3 At the stage of final arguments, Ld.PP requested to add following amount in the expenditure of accused Virender Singh on the ground that following investments were matured during the check period and benefit of additional income has been claimed by accused.
(i) Rs.10,000/ on account of 13CC 463020 registration no.1584 purchased on 19.04.94 and matured on 22.10.99 which is matured during check period and maturity value is not available.
(ii) Rs.10,000/ on account of 13CC 463021 registration no.1585 purchased on 19.04.94 and matured on 22.10.99 which is matured during check period and maturity value is not available.
(iii) Rs.10,000/ on account of 13CC 492187 registration no.1656 purchased on 27.06.94 and matured on 06.01.1999 which is matured during check period and maturity value is not available.
(iv) Rs.5,000/ on account of 10BB 125881 registration no.789 purchased on 132 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D 13.07.94 and matured on 06.01.99 which is matured during check period and maturity value is not available.
(v) Rs.15,000/ on account of investment in NTPC FD in the name of Sh. Virender Singh which is matured during check period and benefit of additional income being claimed.
(vi) Rs.15,000/ on account of investment in NTPC FD in the name of Sh. Indra Singh which is matured during check period and benefit of additional income being claimed.
(vii) Rs.15,000/ on account of investment in NTPC FD in the name of Sh. Anshul Singh which is matured during check period and benefit of additional income being claimed.
(viii) Rs.15,000/ on account of investment in NTPC FD in the name of Sh. Neeraj Singh which is matured during check period and benefit of additional income being claimed. 33.4 Above mentioned transaction from sr. no.1 to 8 clearly reflects that all these investments were matured during the check period. When a investment matured during the check period, there are two ways to calculate the same. Either only interest/benefit may be taken into the consideration or in expenditure, the total investment may be taken and in income the particular amount plus interest may be added. By both the ways, the net result will remain the same because the principal amount of investment will be neutralized in the final calculation. In the present case also, only additional income have been claimed by accused which has been dealt with at relevant places. In my opinion, there is no substance in the submission of ld.PP at this stage. The additional expenditure as claimed by Ld.PP cannot be allowed because neither there was any such case in the chargesheet nor parties 133 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D have led their evidence nor any explanation is sought during statement of accused. Hence, total assets of Virender Singh comes to Rs.51,29,013.06.
NON DISPUTED EXPENDITURE OF ACCUSED VIRENDER SINGH AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS.
34. Expenditure of accused Virender Singh and his family has been shown in statement "J". The following expenditure has been proved by evidence on record and during course of arguments, it was submitted by Ld. PP and defence counsel that in respect of said expenditure there is no dispute.
34.1 At sr. no.1 non verifiable expenditure of accused Virender Singh has been taken as 7,73,895/ which is 1/3rd of gross salary Rs.26,33,980/ and income tax of Rs. 3,12,285/ was paid. During cross examination, IO PW39 admitted that figure mentioned in chargesheet are wrong. As per evidence on record, the net salary received by Virender Singh was Rs.17,49,851.51. The gross salary received by him was Rs.29,60,154/ and income tax paid by him was Rs.3,61,645/. Therefore, if non verifiable expenditure is taken as 1/3rd of the gross salary minus income tax paid , then it comes to Rs.8,66,170/. During course of arguments it was admitted that non verifiable expenditure of accused is required to be taken as Rs.8,66,170/ instead of Rs.7,73,895/. Accordingly, on account of non verifiable expenditure, expenditure of Rs.92275/ is required to be added in expenditure.
(+ Rs.92,275/ in expenditure of Virender Singh and family) 134 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D 34.2 At serial no.2, expenditure of Rs.1,56,350/ has been shown on account of return of loan taken by Anshul Singh from Allahabad Bank, New Delhi which has been proved by document D45, 72 Ex.P31 which is a admitted document. At sr. no.3, expenditure of Rs.541/ has been taken in chargesheet which has been proved by document D103 Ex. PW32/AB by statement of PW32. During course of arguments, it was admitted by prosecution and defence that there is clerical mistake and this amount should be taken as Rs.655/as per document proved on record. Therefore, this expenditure be taken as Rs.655/ and expenditure of Rs.14/ should be added.
(+ Rs.14/ in expenditure of Virender Singh and family) 34.3 At sr. no.4, expenditure of Rs.10,946/ has been taken on insurance charges of maruti zen which has been proved by document D101 Ex.PW1/AL and statement of PW1. 34.4 At sr. no.7, expenditure of Rs.31,905/ was taken in chargesheet on account of fees paid to the university on behalf of Anshul Singh. During course of arguments, it was admitted by Ld.PP and defence counsel that as per evidence on record this expenditure is actually Rs.31,885/, therefore, expenditure of Rs.20/ should be deducted.
(minus Rs.20/in expenditure of Virender Singh and family) 34.5 At sr. no.8 of statement "J" , Rs.43921/ has been shown on account of purchase of jewellery from Tribhuwan Dass Jhaveri. Prosecution has proved document D106 Ex.PW7/AB which are forwarding letter and receipt of jewelery proved by PW7. As per PW7 jewelery items for Rs.43921/ were purchased by Anshul Singh on 10.2.2001 and 135 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D on 16.2.2001. He returned the above mentioned jewelery articles and replaced the same with other jewelery items of Rs.41,711/. The differences of price i.e Rs.2210/ was returned to Mr. Anshul Singh. In cross examination PW7 stated that he cannot recognize purchaser Anshul Singh and records does not show the parentage or address of Anshul Singh. IO PW39 in her cross examination dated 04.09.2013 stated that she has shown the amount of Rs.43920/ as expenditure at sr. no.8 of the chargesheet on the basis of Ex.PW7/E. PW39 also stated that at sr. no.16, she has also shown expenditure of Rs.41,711/ towards purchase of gold of Anshul Singh from Tribhuwan Dass Bhimji Jhaveri. PW39 further stated that she has wrongly added the expenses of Rs.43,921/ in the chargesheet. The expenditure of jewelery purchased by Anshul Singh has been shown twice in the statement of expenditure which has been admitted by IO PW39. In view of the testimony of PW7 and PW39 expenditure of Rs.43921/ shown at sr. no.8 in statement "J" is required to be deducted from the total expenses.
(minus Rs.43921/ from the expenditure of Virender Singh and family) 34.6 At sr. no.10, expenditure of Rs.22,642/ has been taken as fees deposited in college of Delhi University on behalf of Neeraj Singh which has been proved by document D111 Ex.PW39/AC and statement of PW12.
34.7 At sr. no.11, expenditure of Rs.5,478/ has been taken as fees deposited in college on behalf of Neeraj Singh which has been proved by document D110 Ex.PW72,12/A. 136 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D 34.8 At sr. no.12, expenditure of Rs.16,564/ has been taken for Citi bank cards which has been proved by document D113 Ex.PW39/B and statement of PW35. 34.9 At sr. no.17, expenditure of Rs.54,130/ has been taken for gold bar from MMTC which has been proved by document D107 Ex.PW19/A and statement of PW19. 34.10 At sr. no.18, expenditure of Rs.23,150/ has been taken on account of purchase of sony TV which has been proved by document D108 Ex.P70 and statement of PW39.
DISPUTED EXPENDITURE OF VIRENDER SINGH AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS.
35. At sr. no.5 in statement "J" expenditure of Rs.3,915/ has been shown on account of payment of road tax for maruti zen car which has been proved by way of document D101/8, Ex.PW1/J and statement of PW1.
35.1 Statement of PW1 and IO PW39 proves that cost of maruti zen car was Rs. 3,01,276/ which was inclusive of road tax of Rs.3915/ which has been shown in the assets of Virender Singh at sr.no.62. The amount of road tax has already been included in the assets and it was not separate expenditure as mentioned in the chargesheet. Therefore, expenditure of Rs.3915/ for payment of road tax is required to be deducted from the expenditure.
(minus Rs.3915/ from the expenditure of Virender Singh and family) 35.2 In statement "J" at sr. no.5 and 9, expenditure of Rs.18,300 and Rs.29,700/ has been shown on account of payment of fees to Ramjas school. In order to prove these 137 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D expenditures documents D109 Ex.PW71/A and Ex.DW4/D have been proved by way of testimony of DW4 and IO PW39. In view of evidence on record, there is no dispute about the said expenditure on account of payment of fee. Ld. Defence counsel submitted that DW4 has proved RTI reply dated 18.6.2013 alongwith office order dated 10.4.2008 that TCIL employees were entitled for reimbursement of tuition fee @ 50/pm. There is no evidence on record, if at all the reimbursement of tuition fee was claimed by accused Virender Singh and if so, what amount was reimbursed to him. Therefore, in my opinion, the plea of ld. Defence counsel is not acceptable.
35.3 At sr. no. 13 & 14, water charges of Rs.2,870/ and Rs.1,812/ have been shown as expenditure. In respect of expenditure on account of water charges Ex.PW39/B and Ex.P73 have proved by prosecution whereas document Ex.DW5/A has been proved by accused. PW39 and DW5 were also examined. From the evidence on record, payment of water charges have been proved on record. Ld. Defence counsel submitted that Ex.DW5/A i.e guidelines dated 29.11.2001 (issued to CBI for investigation in DA case), water charges are not be calculated separately as they are part of non verifiable expenses. PW39 stated that she did not remember about such guidelines. In view of guidelines Ex.DW5/A and principle of law , I am satisfied that water charges are the part of non verifiable expenses which should not be separately included in the expenditure. Therefore, water charges of Rs.2870/ and Rs.1812/ shown as expenditure should be deducted from the total expenditure.
138 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D
(minus Rs.2870 and Rs.1812/ from expenditure of Virender Singh and family) 35.4 At sr. no.15, expenditure of Rs.20,450/ has been shown on account of purchase of jewelery from Mehras & Sons. Prosecution has placed on record D116 Ex.PW39/C and examined IO PW39 and PW33 to establish the said expenditure. At sr. no. 16, expenditure of Rs.41,711/on account of purchase of jewelery from Tribhuwan Dass Jhaveri has been shown. Prosecution has examined IO PW39 & PW7 placed on record document D110, Ex.P72/12 A. It was sated by IO that these expenditures have been included as copies of receipt about purchase of jewelery items were found during the house search of the accused. Ld. Defence counsel submitted that these purchases have not been proved on record. PW33 Pawan Mehra appeared from Mehra & Sons and he proved letter dated 12.3.2003 D105, Ex.PW33/A which was addressed to PW39 Ms. Mridula Shukla, IO . This letter indicates the sale of some articles from the said show room on 18.9.92 for Rs. 2,450/ through cash memo no.1977 and purchase of jewelery articles of Rs.18,000/ on 17.12.2000 through case memo no.3339. The letter does not show the name of the purchaser and details of articles sold. Copies of cash memos were not submitted alongwith this letter. PW33 deposed that he had no knowledge about the said sale transaction as the sales were looked after by their staff.
35.5 In respect of expenditure shown at sr. no.16, PW7 appeared from Tribhuwan Dass Jhaveri and proved letter dated 08.11.2008, D106, Ex.PW7/A which was addressed to CBI. No details were provided by this letter. However, copies of three invoices were 139 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D annexed which are marked Ex.PW7/B. Ld. Defence counsel submitted that photocopies are inadmissible evidence in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Saran Vs. Prabhat Singh, (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 1149.
35.6 In view of evidence of PW33 , PW7 and PW39, it is clear that PW39 was not present at the time of house search. As alleged receipts were recovered during the house search have not been produced on record. Original cash memos or its office copy has not been proved on record. The photocopies of three invoices Ex.PW7/B and letter Ex.PW33/A does not show the details of purchaser and jewelery items. In these circumstances, in my opinion prosecution has not been able to prove said expenditures. Therefore, expenditure shown at sr. no.15 & 16 on account of jewelery is required to be deducted from total expenditure.
(minus Rs.20,450/ and Rs.41711/ from the expenditure of Virender Singh & family) Total expenditure of accused Virender Singh and his family members comes to Rs. 12,35,870/.
36. It was submitted by ld. Defence counsel that CBI has taken check period for the period of about 35 years i.e from 1965 to 2001 which has caused prejudiced to the accused. It was submitted that due to such long period, it was extremely difficult for accused to produce on records and to prove income earned by him. The various incomes earned through legal sources could not be proved by him due to lapse of time and non traceability of various documents.
140 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D
37. Under the provisions of P.C Act, no fixed check period has been provided u/s 13 (1) (e) of P.C Act, 1988. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the particular case, it is for the investigating agency to choose a particular check period. The test for a proper check period is that it should disclose a correct and comprehensive picture of the known sources of income, pecuniary sources and property in possession of the public servant either by himself or through any other person on his behalf which are alleged to be disproportionate. In support of the said legal test State of Maharastra Vs. Pollonji Darashaw Daruwala, 1988 (SCC) Crl. (91) may be referred. Keeping in view the circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that prosecution has taken unnecessarily a long check period. The transaction involved in the case are spread over almost entire career of accused Virender Singh. Therefore, in order to establish a complete and proper picture of the transactions related to disproportionate assets, it was proper and necessary to take a long check period in this case.
38. In view of above discussion, the final outcome of income , assets, expenditure and extent of disproportionate asset can be summarized as follows:
HEADS AS PER CHARGESHEET AS PER FINDINGS INCOME OF VIRENDER Rs. 37,38,491.05 Rs.39,70,981.79 SINGH AS PER STATEMENT "A". INCOME OF SH. ANSHUL Rs. 3,55,749.33 Rs.3,69,789.33 SINGH AS PER STATEMENT "B". 141 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D INCOME OF NEERAJ Rs.98,377.14 Rs.1,22,218.14 SINGH AS PER STATEMENT "C" INCOME OF SMT. INDRA Rs.19,65,895.02 Rs.19,73,749.02 SINGH AS PER STATEMENT "D" ADDITIONAL INCOME OF NOT SHOWN IN Rs.2,52,840.85 VIRENDER SINGH AND HIS CHARGESHEET FAMILY ASSETS OF NEERAJ Rs. 6,70,290.32 Same SINGH AS PER STATEMENT "E" ASSETS OF ANSHUL Rs.6,35,155.71 Rs.6,34,093.61 SINGH AS PER STATEMENT "F" ASSETS OF SMT. INDRA Rs.15,11,158.01 Same SINGH AS PER STATEMENT "G" ASSETS OF VIRENDER Rs.51,98,528.36 Rs.51,26,571.06 SINGH AS PER STATEMENT "H" EXPENDITURE AS PER Rs.12,58,280/ Rs.12,35,870/ STATEMENT "J" Calculation of DA 1. Income : 66,89,579.13 2. Expenditure : 12,35,870 142 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D 3. Assets : 79,42,113 4. Disproportionate Assets : Income Expenditure = Likely savings 66,89,579.13 12,35,870 = 54,53,709.13 Assets = 79,42,113 Assets Likely Savings 79,42,113 - 54,53,709.13 = 24,88,403.87 DA% (Disproportionate assets/Total income x 100) = 24,88,403.87/66,89,579.13 x 100 = 37.19%
39. In view of the above findings, prosecution has been able to prove its case against accused Sh. Virender Singh beyond any shadow of resaonable doubt that he was found in possession of disproportionate assets to the extent of Rs.24,88,403.87 i.e 37.19% against his known sources of income which he failed to explain/account for satisfactorily. Therefore, accused Virender Singh is convicted for the offence u/s 13 (1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 punishable u/s 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
40. Let convict Virender Singh be heard separately on the point of sentence.
Announced in the open court (Sanjeev Jain)
on this 09 December, 2013
th
Special Judge (PC Act), CBI03
South District, Saket Court, New Delhi.