Bangalore District Court
Central Bureau Of Investigation vs Sri.M.V.Rao on 21 July, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE XLVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR C.B.I.
CASES (CCH-48), BENGALURU
Dated this the 21st day of July 2017
Present: SRI.ASWATHA NARAYANA, B.Sc., LL.M.,
XLVII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge
& Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru.
SPECIAL CRIMINAL CASE No.45/2007
COMPLAINANT: Central Bureau of Investigation,
Represented by the Inspector of Police,
Anti Corruption Branch, Ganganagara,
Bengaluru.
(By Smt.K.S.Hema, Public Prosecutor.)
-Vs-
ACCUSED: Sri.M.V.Rao,
S/o.Sri.M.A.R.Ganeshwar Rao,
Aged about 43 years,
R/o.No.FD-77, HAL Senior
Officers' Enclave,
C.V.Raman Nagara,
Bengaluru-560 093.
(By Sri.S.G.Bhagavan, Sri.S.B.Suman &
Sri.P.Praveen Kumar, Advocates.)
1. Nature of Offence: Offence punishable under
Sections 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(e)
of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
2 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J]
2. Date of Commission of In between 18.07.1997 and
Offence: 26.10.2004.
3. Date of First Information
Report: 02.02.2005.
4. Date of Arrest of the
Accused: Not Arrested.
5. Date of Commencement of
Evidence: 08.02.2011.
6. Date of Closure of Evidence: 03.12.2014.
7. Date of Pronouncement of
Judgment: 21.07.2017.
8. Result of the Case : Convicted.
(ASWATHA NARAYANA)
XLVII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge
& Special Judge for CBI Cases,
Bengaluru.
-o0o-
3 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J]
JUDGMENT
The Complainant has filed Charge Sheet alleging that, while the Accused was functioning as a Public Servant in Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (for short, 'HAL') in the capacity of Senior Manager (Commercial) in TAD Division, Kanpur from 18.07.1997 to 22.09.2001; in Korwa Division from 24.09.2001 to 05.09.2003; in Hyderabad Division from 06.09.2003 to 03.02.2004 and in the capacity of Chief Manager (IMM), LCA-LSP Division, Bengaluru, from 04.02.2004 onwards, procured and possessed Assets worth Rs.24,02,006/-, in his name and in the name of his family members, which is disproportionate to his known sources of income, during the Check Period from 18.07.1997 to 26.10.2004, without any satisfactory account and that thereby, he has committed an offence of Criminal Misconduct punishable under Sections 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act').
2. After appearance of the Accused before this Court, Copies of Charge Sheet and other documents relied upon by the Complainant were furnished to him. After hearing both the sides before framing Charge, on 10.08.2010, the then Presiding Officer of this Court framed Charge against the Accused for an offence punishable under Sections 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(e) of the Act. When the same was read over and explained to the Accused, he pleaded not guilty to the same and claimed trial.
4 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J]
3. During trial, the Complainant got examined 60 Witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.60 and got marked 202 Documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.202 on his behalf. With that evidence, the Complainant closed his side. On examination of the Accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.'), the Accused did not admit that he possessed disproportionate assets as alleged against him. He filed his Written Statement also contending that he has not committed any offence as alleged.
4. During Defence Evidence, the Accused got examined himself as D.W.1 and he got marked 34 Documents as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.34 on his behalf. With that evidence, he closed his side.
5. Heard arguments of both the sides. Both the parties filed Written Arguments also. Records perused.
6. On considering the rival contentions of both the parties, the Points that arise for determination in this case are as follows:-
1. Whether there is valid Sanction as required under Section 19 of the Act for prosecuting the Accused for an offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w.
Section 13(1)(e) of the Act?
2. Whether the Accused, while working as a Public Servant during the Check Period from 18.07.1997 to 26.10.2004, possessed Disproportionate Assets to his known 5 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] sources of income in his name and in the names of his family members without any satisfactory account, as charged?
3. Whether the Accused is guilty of an offence of Criminal Misconduct punishable under Section 13(2) r/w. Section 13(1)(e) of the Act, as charged?
4. What Order?
7. Findings of this Court on the above Points are as follows:-
Point-1: Affirmative;
Point-2: Affirmative;
Point-3: Affirmative;
Point-4: See final portion of this Judgment.
REASONS POINT-1
8. As per Section 19 of the Act, without previous Sanction of the Competent Authority, the Court shall not take cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 13 of the Act. It is not in dispute that the Accused was a Public Servant working in HAL and that at the time of filing of Charge Sheet, he was working as Chief Manager (IMM), LCA-LSP Division, Bengaluru. P.W.45-Sri.Ashok Kumar Saxena, the then Managing Director, HAL, Bengaluru Complex, Bengaluru, has deposed that he was the 6 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Competent Disciplinary Authority for removal of Chief Manager from his Office. The Accused did not dispute the said evidence of P.W.45. In fact, he has admitted the said evidence in his Examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. As such, it is clear that P.W.45 was the Competent Authority to issue Sanction Order as per Section 19 of the Act to prosecute the Accused.
9. P.W.45 has further deposed that the CBI forwarded Copies of FIR, Statements of Witnesses and Documents pertaining to the Accused with a request to sanction to prosecute him and that he perused all those documents, applied his mind and that he was satisfied that a prima facie case was made out against the Accused for prosecution and that thereafter, he issued Sanction Order as per Ex.P.159 on 17.10.2006 to prosecute the Accused. He has identified Ex.P.159 (a) as his signature on Ex.P.159. Contents of Ex.P.159 show that after fully and carefully examining the Copies of FIR, Statements of Witnesses and material Documents collected during the investigation, P.W.45 applied his mind on all those materials and that after satisfying that a prima facie case was made out against the Accused for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w. Section 13(1)(e) of the Act, he passed a well reasoned speaking Order according Sanction under Section 19(1) of the Act to prosecute the Accused. As such, contents of Ex.P.159 corroborate the evidence of P.W.45, which fully supports the contention of the Complainant that 7 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] the Competent Authority has issued a valid Sanction Order to prosecute the Accused in accordance with law. P.W.45 has stood well in the test of Cross-examination and there is no reason to disbelieve his evidence.
10. On considering the undisturbed evidence of P.W.45, which is well supported by the contents of Ex.P.159, it is clear that the Competent Authority has issued Sanction Order in accordance with Law, by considering all the relevant materials and applying its mind on those materials, to prosecute the Accused for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w. Section 13(1)(e) of the Act. For all these reasons, Point-1 is answered in the Affirmative.
POINTS-2 & 3
11. According to the Complainant, when the Assets held by the Accused were computed during the period from 18.07.1997 to 26.10.2004 (for short, 'the Check Period'), it was found that the Accused held Assets, in his name and in the name of his family members, disproportionate to an extent of Rs.24,02,006/- to his known sources of income as detailed under:-
Sl. Description Amount
No.
(In Rs.)
1. Assets at the beginning of the
Check Period (Statement-A): 1,18,446.00
2. Assets at the end of the Check
Period(Statement-B) : 42,92,264.00
8 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J]
3. Income during the Check
Period (Statement-C) : 30,09,325.00
4. Expenditure during the Check
Period(Statement-D) : 12,37,513.00
5. Assets acquired during the
Check Period (B-A) : 41,73,818.00
6 Likely Savings during the
Check Period(C-D) : 17,71,812.00
7. Extent to which assets and
expenditure are
disproportionate to likely 24,02,006.00
savings E=[B-A-C+D]:
On the other hand, the Accused denied the said contention of the Complainant by contending that Assets, which did not belong to the Accused, were taken into account by the Complainant; calculations arrived at by the Complainant are all wrong; the Complainant has projected wrong figures; those figures are fictitious, baseless, arbitrary, false and unacceptable; the Accused had sufficient savings during the Check Period, which are not taken into account by the Complainant and that the Complainant has utterly failed to prove his case.
12. As per Section 13(1)(e) of the Act, a Public Servant is said to be guilty of the offence of Criminal Misconduct, if he or any person on his behalf, at any time during the period of his Office, found possessed pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income, for which, he cannot satisfactorily account. As per Explanation to that Section, 'known sources of 9 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] 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 that Public Servant.'
13. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused has strongly contended that only after the ingredients of the offence are proved by the prosecution satisfactorily and beyond all reasonable doubts with mathematical accuracy, it can be said that the offence of Criminal Misconduct has been committed and that as there is no such proof by the Complainant in the case on hand, the Accused cannot be held guilty of the offence charged against him. In support of his argument, the learned Advocate has relied upon the decision in the case of Vijaee Singh & Others -Vs- State of UP (AIR 1990 SC 1459), wherein it is held that in Criminal Cases, it is an acceptable principle of Criminal Jurisprudence that the burden of proof is always on the prosecution and that it never shifts and that this flows from the cardinal principle that the Accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty by the prosecution and that the Accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has contended that, as the evidence on record shows proof of Charge against the Accused beyond all reasonable doubts, the Accused is guilty of Charge made against him. In order to answer these arguments, it is necessary to have a glance on the concept of 'proof beyond reasonable doubt'.
10 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has defined the expressions-'fact', 'facts in issue', 'relevant fact', 'evidence', and 'proved'. The said definitions are as under:
'fact':
(1) Any thing, state of things or relation of things, capable of being perceived by the senses, (2) Any mental condition of which any person is conscious.
'facts in issue':
Any fact from which, either by itself or in connection with other facts, the existence, non-existence, nature or extent of any right, liability or disability, asserted or denied in any suit or other proceeding, necessarily follows".
'Relevant fact':
One fact is relevant to another when the one is connected with the other in any of the ways referred to in the provisions of this Act relating to relevancy of facts.
'Evidence':
All oral statements permitted or required to be made before Court in relation to matters of fact under enquiry, as also all documents produced for inspection of the Court.
'Proved':
A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the court
11 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] either believes to exist, or considers its' existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists.
The expression-'Disproved' is also defined in a similar way, except that the Court's belief or probability is that the disputed fact does not exist.
The expression-'not proved' is also defined in the Evidence Act, 1872 as "A fact is said not to be proved, when it is neither proved nor disproved."
14. On careful study of the definitions, referred to above, it is clear that those definitions do not expressly or impliedly indicate that the said definitions apply only to civil cases or they do not apply to the criminal cases. On the other hand, those definitions reveal that they apply irrespective of whether the case under trial is a Civil Case or a Criminal Case. In the case of Chaudhary Razik Ram
-Vs- Chaudhary Jaswant Singh, reported in AIR 1975 SC 667, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as follows:-
"It is true that there is no difference between the general rules of evidence in Civil and Criminal Cases and the definition of 'proved' in Section 3 of the Evidence Act, does not draw a distinction between Civil and Criminal Cases."
12 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] As such, on considering the definitions and provisions, referred to above, as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India referred to above, it is clear that the said definitions and provisions are equally applicable to Civil as well as Criminal Cases.
15. On careful analysis of the definition of expression-'proved', it is clear that it is in 2 parts. Under the first part, the Court 'believes' that a disputed fact exists. The second part refers to a situation, where the Court considers the existence of the disputed fact "so probable that a prudent person ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that the fact exists." The expression-'so probable' is otherwise termed as 'preponderance of probability'. As such, it is clear that the Court, not being an eyewitness, is required to consider the matters before it and arrive at a conclusion about existence of the disputed fact, based upon its own 'belief' or 'preponderance of probability' as a prudent person ought to find.
16. In the case of M.G.Agarwal -Vs- State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1963 SC 200, the Accused-1 to 3 were Charged for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 467 and 471 of the IPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act alleging that the Accused conspired to issue and did issue false Income Tax Refund Orders in the names of non-existent persons, forged signatures of those non-existent persons, collected money 13 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] covered by the Refund Orders and misappropriated the same. The Trial Court acquitted the Accused-1 and 2 of all the Charges and convicted the Accused-3 for the offence punishable under Sections 467 and 471 of the IPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, however, acquitted him of the Charge punishable under Section 120- B of the IPC. But, in the Appeal filed against the said Judgment, the Hon'ble High Court held that the Charge under Section 120-B of the IPC was proved beyond reasonable doubt against all the Accused and convicted them for the said offence. The Hon'ble High Court also convicted the Accused-2 for the offence punishable under Sections 467 and 471 of the IPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The case of the Complainant was based entirely on circumstantial evidence and those circumstances are as under:
1) established office procedure;
2) office duties assigned to all the Accused;
3) verifications of various matters, which had to be conducted by the Accused and which were not conducted;
4) statements of the Accused during departmental enquiry;
5) the role played by each of the Accused in relation to the incriminating documents;
6) the falsity of the case set up by the Accused-1 that the Accused-3 destroyed
14 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] documents, which would have shown that the Refund Orders were true and genuine;
7) the modus operandi adopted by all the Accused as seen from the proved office records;
8) non-existence of the alleged assesses in whose favour refund orders had been issued;
9) though all the alleged assessees being new assessees, absence of any enquiry being conducted by the Accused-1 before passing the Refund Orders;
10) nature of income purported to be disclosed in the alleged Returns;
11) the fact that in respect of Returns for such income, no Refund could be legally allowable under the particular statutory provision;
12) absence of Assessment Orders in most of the cases; and
13) absence of entries showing advance payment of tax in some instances and absence of cancellation of certain papers required to be made under law etc. When the Accused-1 to 3 approached the Supreme Court, in that case, the Constitution Bench considered the principles of criminal jurisprudence and law of evidence 15 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] regarding the manner of proof of 'circumstances' or 'basic facts' and the basis on which circumstantial evidence could lead to the finding of guilt of the Accused and in that case, it is held as follows:-
"....it is necessary to distinguish between facts which may be called primary or basic on the one hand and inference of facts to be drawn from them on the other. In regard to the proof of basic or primary facts, the court has to judge the evidence in the ordinary way, and in the appreciation of evidence in respect of basic or of primary facts, there is no scope for the application of the doctrine of benefit of doubt. The Court considers the evidence and decides whether the evidence proves a particular fact or not. When it is held that a certain fact is proved, the question arises whether the fact leads to an inference of guilt of the Accused person or not and in dealing with this aspect of the problem, the doctrine of benefit of doubt would apply and an inference of guilt can be drawn only if the proved fact is wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the Accused and is consistent only with his guilt. It is in the light of this legal position that the evidence in the present case has to be appreciated."
Similar view is taken in the cases of G.Parshwanath -Vs- State of Karnataka reported in AIR 2010 SC 2914, 16 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Kishore Chand -Vs-State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in AIR 1990 SC 2140 and Balu Sonba Shinde - Vs- State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2002 SC 3137.
17. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, as observed above, it is clear that the requirement of 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' does not apply to proof of 'basic or primary facts' in Criminal Cases or to the defences in Criminal Cases and that those facts can be proved in the ordinary way as explained in Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and that in the appreciation of evidence in respect of those basic or of primary facts, there is no scope for application of the doctrine of benefit of doubt. However, in order to show that the Accused is guilty of an offence, those proved facts must lead to an inference of guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt and while drawing such an inference, the doctrine of benefit of doubt would apply. Keeping in view this principle and ingredients of Section 13(1)(e) of the Act, this case is dealt with.
A. REGISTRATION, SEARCH, INVENTORY, SEIZURE & INVESTIGATION
18. P.W.58-Sri.L.S.Padmakumar was working as Dy.SP, ACB, CBI at Bengaluru from 04.05.2003 to June- 2010. He is the main Investigating Officer of this case. He has deposed that, on 02.02.2005, Sri.Biju George, the then SP of CBI, ACB, Bengaluru, registered this case in 17 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] R.C.4(A)/2005 on the basis of source information. He has identified Ex.P.165 as the FIR submitted by Sri.Biju George about registration of this case. He has further deposed that case papers were handed over to him and that an Order was passed under Section 17 of the Act by Sri.Biju George authorizing him to investigate this case for the offence punishable under Sections 13(2) r/w.13(1)(e) of the Act. He has identified Ex.P.167 as the Order passed in this regard. He has further deposed that as there were some errors in respect of amount and date, he submitted Corrigendum FIR as per Ex.P.166. Contents of Ex.P.165 to Ex.P.167 corroborate the evidence of P.W.58. P.W.58 has stood well in the test of Cross-examination and there is no reason to disbelieve his evidence.
19. It is not in dispute that, on 26.10.2004, a case was registered in R.C.15(A)/2004 against the Accused for an offence punishable under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) r/w.13(2) of the Act by the Complainant, a Trap was held in that case and that house and office premises of the Accused were searched on the same day. P.W.46-Sri.S.S.Giri, the then Dy.SP, CBI, ACB, Bengaluru, laid that Trap, conducted Search and Inventory in the house and Office premises of the Accused, prepared Search Lists as per Ex.P.128 and Ex.P.130 and Inventory List as per Ex.P.129 and Articles shown in Ex.P.128 and Ex.P.130 were seized at that time. P.W.40-Sri.Peter DJKM, the then Marketing Officer working in the Regional Office of UCO Bank, Bengaluru, was a witness to the said Search and Inventory. P.W.40 and 18 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] P.W.46 have deposed about the said Search, Seizure and Inventory in the presence of the Accused and his wife. It is also not in dispute that subsequently Charge Sheet is filed against the Accused and trial is going on in that case.
20. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Accused has contended that the records indicate that the source of information to the Complainant for registering this case is the said proceedings in R.C.15(A)/2004, which were held on 26.10.2004 and that as the present case is registered on 02.02.2005 on the basis of that source information, it is clear that there is delay of 99 days in registering the case, which remained unexplained, and that as such, the said delay is fatal to the case of the Complainant. Contents of Ex.P.128 to Ex.P.130, which came into existence on 26.10.2004, do not indicate that the Accused possessed Assets Disproportionate to his known source of income as alleged in Ex.P.165 and Ex.P.166. On the other hand, Ex.P.165 to Ex.P.167 show that subsequently, the Complainant collected information from various sources about back ground, income, expenditure and assets of the Accused and his family, which disclosed reasons to suspect that the Accused possessed Assets Disproportionate to his known sources of income and that on the basis of those materials, Sri.Biju George registered the case and ordered for investigation on 02.02.2005. Because of the said process of collection of information and nature of information shown in Ex.P.165 and Ex.P.166, it 19 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] can not be said that there is delay in registering the case. Furthermore, it is not shown by the Accused as to how he has been prejudiced from the alleged delay in registering the case. Hence, it is not fit to accept the bare argument advanced on behalf of the Accused.
21. It is the evidence of P.W.58 that he collected relevant documents relating to income, expenditure and assets of the Accused from the Office, where the Accused was working, and also from various Banks, Financial Institutions, Post Office, Schools, Sub-Registrar Office, Income Tax Office etc., under Letters and Receipt Memos- Ex.P.2, Ex.P.4, Ex.P.10, Ex.P.11, Ex.P.31, Ex.P.34 to Ex.P.37, Ex.P.39, Ex.P.40, Ex.P.45, Ex.P.47, Ex.P.48, Ex.P.60, Ex.P.62, Ex.P.70, Ex.P.72, Ex.P.76, Ex.P.77, Ex.P.79, Ex.P.80, Ex.P.95 to Ex.P.100, Ex.P.105, Ex.P.106-A, Ex.P.108, Ex.P.111, Ex.P.127, Ex.P.136, Ex.P.138, Ex.P.144, Ex.P.148, Ex.P.149, Ex.P.153, Ex.P.157, Ex.P.160, Ex.P.168, Ex.P.171 to Ex.P.175, Ex.P.178, Ex.P.184 to Ex.P.187, Ex.P.190 to Ex.P.193 and Ex.P.195 to Ex.P.200. Contents of those documents corroborate the evidence of P.W.58. P.W.58 has stood well in the test of Cross-examination. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Accused has contended that the Cr.P.C., does not provide to receive material information relating to a case under investigation through Letters. It is not shown by the Accused as to where there is bar to collect information through Letters. In fact, P.W.58 has also stated that there is no such bar to receive information through Letters. Hence, it is not fit to accept 20 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] the bare contention of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Accused.
22. P.W.57-Sri.P.M.Naidu was the Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Vishakapatnam during 2006. It is his evidence that as per the Orders of the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Vishakapatnam, he examined Sri.G.Lakshminarayana and Smt.M.Annapoorna and recorded their Statements, as those witnesses were residing at Vishakapatnam and that he sent those Statements to the Complainant. The Accused did not dispute the said evidence.
23. It is the evidence of P.W.58 that after completing investigation, he filed Charge Sheet against the Accused. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused has contended that as Search and Seizure in this case are made even without registration of case, the said Search and Seizure are illegal and that as such, the evidence regarding Search and Seizure cannot be relied upon. In support of his contention, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused has relied upon the decisions in the cases of L.Shankar Murthy and Others -Vs- State by Lokayuktha Police [2012(5) Kar.L.J. 545], S.R.Arun Kumar -Vs- State of Karnataka [Criminal Petition No.6668/2012 disposed on 18.2.2013] and Samaj Parivarthan Samaj -Vs- State of Karnataka [2012 AIR SCW 3323], wherein, it is held that search and seizure made by the police without registering the case is nothing but abuse of process of law. This position of law is not 21 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] disputed by the Complainant. Search and Seizure are not made in this case. On the other hand, those proceedings were held in R.C.15(A)/2004, as observed above. Ex.P.128 to Ex.P.130 and the evidence of P.W.46 show that after registration of case and submission of FIR in that case, Search and Seizure were made. The said evidence shows that though Search Warrant was not obtained, the said Search and Seizure were made by exercising powers under Section 165 of the Cr.P.C., after duly observing all the legal formalities. Those documents are used in this case for the purpose of investigation. As Search and Seizure were not conducted in the case on hand and as the said Search and Seizure were made in the Trap case relating to the Accused after registration of the case only, merely because those Search and Seizure evidence is used in this case, it cannot be said that the Complainant abused the process of law. Furthermore, it is not shown by the Accused as to how prejudice has been caused to him because of use of that evidence. In the decisions relied upon by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused, Search and Seizure were made even prior to registration of case. Under the said circumstance, it is held in those decisions that by abusing the process of law, the said Search and Seizure were made. Facts and circumstances of those decisions are altogether different from those of the case on hand. As such, those decisions are of no assistance to the Accused to substantiate his arguments and hence, it is not 22 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] fit to accept the argument advanced on behalf of the Accused that Search and Seizure are illegal.
24. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused has contended that as Search was conducted without Search Warrant and without compliance of mandatory provisions of the Cr.P.C., regarding Search, the said Search is illegal and that hence, the said Search Proceedings cannot be considered in this case. In support of his contention, he has relied upon an unreported decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Rajshekhar -Vs- Ulsoor Police Station [Criminal Petition No.4724/2012 disposed on 17.01.2003], wherein it is observed that non-compliance of Section 53 and Section 54 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 vitiates Search and Seizure and that as such, prosecution launched against the Accused on the basis of said Search and Seizure is liable to be quashed. As a counter to that argument, the learned Public Prosecutor has relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of State of Punjab -Vs- Baldev Singh [Appeal(Crl.) No.396/1990], State of Punjab -Vs- Balbir Singh [AIR 1994 SC 1872], Hamidhbai Azambhai Malik -Vs- State of Gujarat [Criminal Appeal No.164/2002], State of Punjab -Vs- Makhan Chand [(2004) 3 SCC 453] and Bharathbhai Bhagavanjibhai -Vs- State of Gujarat [Appeal (Crl.) No.312/2002]. Sum and substance of those decisions are that failure to comply with the provisions of the Cr.P.C., in respect of Search and 23 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Seizure and particularly those of Sections 100, 102, 103 and 165 per se does not vitiate the prosecution case and that if there is such a violation, what the Courts have to see is whether any prejudice was caused to the Accused. In the case on hand also, as observed above, though Search Warrant was not obtained, Search and Seizure were made by exercising powers under Section 165 of the Cr.P.C., after duly observing all the legal formalities. The Accused has not shown any prejudice caused to him relating to the procedure adopted during that Search and Seizure Proceedings. Hence, it is not fit to accept the bare contention of the Accused that Search and Seizure Proceedings cannot be made use of in this case.
B. ASSETS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE CHECK PERIOD (STATEMENT-A)
25. According to the Complainant, Assets found in the possession of the Accused at the beginning of the Check Period are as follows:
Value of Sl. Description of Asset the Assets No. (in Rs.)
1. Philips Music System: 7,000
2. Steel Utensils: 1,000
3. Steel Almirah: 4,000
4. Fridge Godrej 165 Litres: 4,000
5. MEP-93 of UTI: 2,000
6. Investment in Growing Corpus Income 2,800 Plan, 1994 (UTI):
7. Investment in ULIP-71: 4,000 24 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J]
8. Balance in the SB A/c No.6107 of the 6,672 Accused in UCO Bank, Vishakhapatnam:
9. Balance in the SB A/c No.7187 of Smt.Annapurna in UCO Bank, 2,127 Vishakhapatnam:
10. Balance in the SB A/c.No.7264 of Master MSR Krishna Chaitanya in UCO Bank, 3,002 Vishakhapatnam:
11. Gold Jewelery as declared in APR: 65,845
12. Engineering Books as declared in APR: 1,000
13. Scooter as declared in APR: 15,000 Total: 1,18,446 Except Items shown in Sl.No.5, Sl.No.6, Sl.No.7 and Sl.No.11, the Accused did not dispute the contention of the Complainant about possession of other Assets, shown in the above table, with him at the beginning of the Check Period.
On the other hand, in his Remarks and Figures Statement filed by him on 07.03.2017 (for short, 'R & F Statement'), he has admitted about possession of Items shown in Sl.No.1 to 4, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 with him. Hence, it is held that the Accused possessed Items shown in Sl.No.1 to 4, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 with him at the beginning of the Check Period.
B.5: MEP-93 of UTI
26. According to the Complainant, the Accused possessed Rs.2,000/- as investment in MEP-93 of UTI at the beginning of the Check Period. P.W.13-Smt.Urmila Anand was working as Manager in UTI Technologies Services Limited. She has deposed that the Accused had 25 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] invested Rs.2,000/- in the year 1993 in MEP-93 Scheme of UTI under Investor Identification No.259102430 for a period of 10 years and that the said plan was converted to an Open-end Scheme and that he got Dividend of Rs.336/- in March 2001 and Rs.400.26 in December 2003 and that he has 266.84 Units. She has identified Ex.P.43 as the Statement of Account relating to that investment. Contents of Ex.P.43 corroborate the evidence of P.W.13. The said evidence remained unchallenged. There is no reason to disbelieve the said evidence. In fact, the Accused has not disputed the said investment made by him. As per the said evidence available on record, the Accused possessed Rs.2,000/- in terms of Units of MEP-1993 at the beginning of the Check Period.
27. But, according to the Written Arguments of the Accused, he had invested Rs.6,800/- in 5 UTI-MEP Bonds prior to the Check Period, which has been declared by him to HAL as per Ex.P.18 and as such, he possessed Rs.6,800/- by way of UTI-MEP Bonds at the beginning of the Check Period. Ex.P.18 is the Statement No.VI in respect of investments made or payments received by the Accused between 1.7.1997 and 31.10.2004, which was furnished by him to the Complainant through his Office under Letter- Ex.P.31. In Ex.P.18, it is stated that the said investment of Rs.6,800/- was in the year 1993 and 1994 and that it was declared to Hindusthan Zinc Limited, where he was working earlier. It is not stated therein that he made declaration about that investment to HAL as contended by him in his 26 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Written Arguments. He has not produced anything to show about such declaration either to HAL or to HZL. There is nothing to show that he possessed that investment even at the beginning of the Check Period. P.W.13 is the proper person to speak about the said contention of the Accused. But, nothing has been elicited from P.W.13 by the Accused about the said contention. In fact, though the Accused himself has given his evidence as D.W.1, he did not whisper anything about possessing Rs.6,800/- by him under MEP- UTI Scheme at the beginning of the Check Period. As such, absolutely, there is nothing on behalf of the Accused to show that he possessed Rs.6,800/- under MEP-UTI Scheme at the beginning of the Check Period. Hence, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused that he possessed Rs.6,800/- under MEP-UTI Scheme at the beginning of the Check Period.
28. On the other hand, as per the undisturbed evidence of P.W.13 and Ex.P.43, it is clear that the Accused possessed Rs.2,000/- only under UTI MEP-93 Scheme at the beginning of the Check Period. Accordingly, it is held that the Accused possessed Rs.2,000/- only under UTI MEP-93 Scheme at the beginning of the Check Period.
B.6: Investment in Growing Corpus Income Plan, 1994 (UTI)
29. According to the Complainant, the Accused possessed Rs.2,800/- as investment in Growing Corpus 27 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Income Plan, 1994 (UTI) at the beginning of the Check Period. P.W.13 has deposed that Rs.2,800/- was invested in April 1994 in the name of wife of the Accused in Growing Corpus Growing Income Plan-1994, which was merged with UTI Balanced Fund subsequently. She has identified Ex.P.44 and Ex.P.44(a) as the Statements of Accounts relating to that investment. Those documents show that the said investment was made jointly in the name of the Accused and his wife-Smt.Manda Annapurna. The said evidence remained unchallenged. There is no reason to disbelieve the said evidence. In fact, though the Accused did not admit the said investment specifically, he has not disputed the said investment. As per the said evidence available on record, the Accused possessed Rs.2,800/- in terms of Units of Growing Corpus Income Plan, 1994 (UTI), which has been merged with UTI Balanced Fund now, at the beginning of the Check Period. Hence, it is held that the Accused possessed Rs.2,800/- in his name and in the name of his wife under Growing Corpus Income Plan, 1994 (UTI) Scheme at the beginning of the Check Period.
B.7: Investment in ULIP-71
30. According to the Complainant, the Accused possessed Rs.4,000/- as investment in ULIP-71 at the beginning of the Check Period. The learned Public Prosecutor has relied upon the evidence of P.W.40 and P.W.46 as well as Ex.P.128 and Ex.P.129 to substantiate the said contention. P.W.40 and P.W.46 have not stated 28 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] anything about the said investment by the Accused. Ex.P.128 and Ex.P.129 also do not throw any light about the said investment. As such, the said evidence relied upon by the Public Prosecutor is of no assistance to substantiate the said contention of the Complainant.
31. However, P.W.13 has deposed with reference to Ex.P.41 and Ex.P.42 that from 13.01.1996 to June 1997 i.e., prior to commencement of the Check Period, the Accused has paid Premium of Rs.4,000/- relating to ULIP- 1971 bearing Certificate No.UL000960311047620. The Accused has not disputed the said evidence and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. On the other hand, in his Written Arguments at Page-16, the Accused has admitted the said investment of Rs.4,000/-. As such, it is clear that the Accused had an investment of Rs.4,000/- in ULIP-71 at the commencement of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant.
32. On the other hand, the Accused has contended in his Written Arguments that he invested Rs.17,500/- at the rate of Rs.2,500/- p.a., in ULIP Policy No.920311034313 from February 1992 to June 1997 and that he received maturity amount of Rs.39,058/- on 20.05.2002. In support of his contention, he has relied upon Ex.P.17-Statement No.V, Ex.P.19-Annual Property Returns, Ex.P.35 and Ex.P.40-Letters and also Ex.P.42-Statement of Account. Ex.P.35 does not show anything about investment by the Accused as contended by him in the said ULIP Policy.
29 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Ex.P.40 though indicates that the Accused received maturity amount of Rs.39,057.99 in respect of ULIP Policy No.920311034313 on 20.05.2002, it does not show the investment made by him in that Policy prior to the Check Period. Ex.P.42 relates to investment made by the Accused in ULIP Policy No.960311047620, which has been referred above already. In Ex.P.17, it is stated by the Accused that he invested Rs.2,500/- p.m., in ULIP Policy No.920311034313 from February 1992. In Ex.P.19, without giving any details of the ULIP Policy, he has simply stated that he invested Rs.2,500/- p.a., in ULIP Policy since 1992. Though no other material is available regarding payment of yearly subscription, as he received Rs.39,057.99 in the year 2002 after its maturity, it can be inferred that he had invested Rs.2,500/- p.a., in that Policy from February 1992 to February 1997 also, which comes to Rs.15,000/- only till the commencement of Check Period as next Premium falls due in the month of February 1998 only. As against this, there is nothing on behalf of the Accused to show investment of Rs.17,500/- prior to commencement of the Check Period in respect of ULIP Policy No.920311034313 by the Accused. As such, it is not fit to accept the bare contention of the Accused about such investment.
33. Thus, it is clear that investment in 2 ULIP Policies i.e., Policy No.920311034313 and Policy No.960311047620 upto the date of Check Period by the Accused is Rs.15,000/- + Rs.4,000/- = Rs.19,000/- only and not Rs.21,500/- as contended by him or Rs.4,000/- only as 30 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] contended by the Complainant. Accordingly, it is held that the Accused possessed Rs.19,000/- only under ULIP Policies at the beginning of Check Period.
B.11: Gold Jewelery as declared in APR
34. According to the Complainant, the Accused possessed Gold Jewelery worth Rs.65,845/- at the beginning of the Check Period as declared by him in his Annual Property Returns. In his Written Argument, at Page- 14, the Accused has contended that the Gold Jewelery possessed by him and his family members at the beginning of the Check Period was worth Rs.67,245/-. However, details of the said Gold Jewelery are not furnished either by the Complainant or by the Accused.
35. In support of the said contention of the Complainant, the learned Public Prosecutor has relied upon the evidence of P.W.6, P.W.40 and P.W.46. These witnesses have also not stated anything about the details and value of Gold Jewelery possessed by the Accused at the beginning of the Check Period.
36. P.W.6-Sri.Subhash Chakravarthy, the then Senior Manager, Personnel Administration Department, HAL, Bengaluru, has deposed that Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.18 are the Statements in Form No.I to Form No.VI relating to movable and immovable properties possessed by the Accused and his family members and Ex.P.19 to Ex.P.23 are the Annual 31 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Property Returns regarding purchase and sale of movable and immovable properties of the Accused. The Complainant as well as the Accused have relied upon these documents to substantiate their contention.
37. In Sl.No.IV of Ex.P.15 i.e., Statement No.III and Sl.No.V of its Annexure-I, the Accused has shown the details of Gold Jewelery possessed by him, his wife and his daughter at the beginning of the Check Period. As per those details, they possessed Gold Jewelery worth Rs.67,245/- at that time as declared in Annual Property Returns. In those details, it is stated that Jewelery worth Rs.1,685/- and Rs.1,400/- were purchased by the wife and daughter of the Accused respectively in the year 1994. But, Ex.P.19 though shows purchase of Jewelery worth Rs.1,685/- in the year 1994, it does not show purchase of Jewelery worth Rs.1,400/- in the year 1994. There is nothing on behalf of the Accused to show that he or his wife or his daughter purchased or possessed Jewelery worth Rs.1,400/- in the year 1994 apart from purchasing Jewelery worth Rs.1,685/-. As such, it is not possible to accept the bare contention of the Accused that his daughter possessed Jewelery worth Rs.1,400/-, which was said to be purchased in the year 1994. If this Item is deleted, Gold Jewelery possessed by the Accused and his wife at the commencement of Check Period, as declared in Annual Property Returns, would be worth Rs.65,845/- only as contended by the Complainant and not Rs.67,245/- as contended by the Accused. Hence, it is held that the 32 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Accused possessed Gold Jewelery worth Rs.65,845/- only as declared in Annual Property Returns at the beginning of the Check Period.
LEFT OUT ITEMS ACCORDING TO THE ACCUSED B.14: Household Items
38. According to the Accused, he possessed Household Items worth Rs.2,22,400/- at the commencement of the Check Period, which have been left out by the Complainant at the time of computation. According to the Accused, he has shown the said Assets in Ex.P.15 and the said Assets include Items-B.1 to B.4, B.11, B.12 and B.13 (Page-2 & Item-1, under the Head of ASSETS, of Calculation of Statement filed by the Accused). According to the Accused, he transported those Items from Vishakhapatnam to Kanpur in the month of July 1997, when he reported to his first place of posting in HAL. He has deposed about these facts in his evidence. In addition, he has relied upon Ex.D.29-Certificate issued by Senior Manager (Materials) of Hindustan Zinc Limited, Ex.D.30-Trip Sheet, Ex.D.31- Receipt and Ex.D.32-List of Articles. These documents fortify the evidence of the Accused, which supports his contention that he transported Household Items worth Rs.2,22,400/- from Vishakhapatnam to Kanpur in the month of July 1997. Though contents of Ex.P.15 and Ex.D.29 to Ex.D.31 show those Household Items contained Items-B.1 to B.4, B.12 and B.13, they do not show that Item-B.11 i.e., Gold Jewelery was also included in those 33 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] items. As such, it cannot be said that Gold Jewelery worth Rs.65,845/- was also included in the Household Items worth Rs.2,22,400/- transported by the Accused. As Items- B.1 to B.4, B.12 & B.13 are already taken into consideration, as observed above, it is necessary to deduct value of those items i.e., Rs.32,000/- from Rs.2,22,400/-, which comes to Rs.1,90,400/-. As such, it is clear that the Accused possessed Household Items worth Rs.1,90,400/-, which were transported from Vishakhapatnam to Kanpur, prior to Check Period. But, the Complainant has not taken into consideration those items. Hence, it is held that the Accused possessed Household Items worth Rs.1,90,400/- at the beginning of the Check Period.
B.15: High Value Items
39. According to the Accused, he possessed other High Value Items including Colour TV with Stand, Philips Power House and Gold & Silver Articles worth Rs.98,000/- at the commencement of the Check Period, which he has shown in Sl.No.II of Ex.P.15 and declared at the time of joining HAL. According to the Accused, the Complainant has not considered the said item. No doubt, in Sl.No.II of Ex.P.15, the Accused has stated that he and his wife possessed High Value Items i.e., Colour TV with Stand, Power House, 4 Gold Rings, 2 Gold Chains, 2 Silver Plates, 2 Silver Glasses and other 6 Gold Ornaments worth Rs.98,000/- in all, having acquired the same in the year 1985-86. He has stated that he has declared those Items 34 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] at the time of joining HAL on 20.07.1997. But, in Ex.P.20, which is Annual Property Returns filed in the month of April 2001, it is shown that the Accused possessed Colour TV worth Rs.18,000/-, Audio System worth Rs.8,000/- and Ornaments worth Rs.22,000/-, which were said to be purchased during 1989 to 1997. The said document does not show possession of Items worth Rs.98,000/- as contended by the Accused. Audio System i.e., Music System worth Rs.7,000/- is already taken into consideration under Item-'B.1'. Gold Jewelery worth Rs.65,845/- is also already taken into consideration under Item-'B.11'. There is nothing to show that the Accused possessed any other Music System or Audio System and Ornaments other than shown in B.1 and B.11 and also Power House as stated in Ex.P.15. As such, all these items have to be deleted. As the Accused has declared in Ex.P.20 that he possessed Colour TV worth Rs.18,000/- and as the Complainant has not taken it into consideration, it has to be held that Accused possessed that Colour TV prior to commencement of the Check Period. Hence, it is held that the Accused possessed Colour TV worth Rs.18,000/- only under the head of High Value Items prior to commencement of Check Period.
B.16: Household Items of Wife of the Accused
40. According to the Accused, his wife had brought Household Items, which were marriage gifts, worth Rs.45,306/- to Kanpur, after he joined HAL and thus, he 35 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] possessed Household Items worth Rs.45,306/- prior to the commencement of the Check Period. According to the Accused, the Complainant has not taken into consideration of those items. Except stating so in his Statement given as per Ex.P.15 at Sl.No.VI, the Accused has not produced any supporting evidence to substantiate his contention. Wife of the Accused is the best person to speak about the said contention of the Accused. But, she has not come forward to give evidence. Though the Accused himself has given his evidence as D.W.1, he did not whisper anything about the said items in his evidence. Furthermore, he has not stated as to what happened to those items. Under these circumstances, it is not possible to accept the bare contention of the Accused that he possessed Household Items worth Rs.45,306/-. Hence, it is held that the Accused failed to prove that he possessed Household Items worth Rs.45,306/- prior to commencement of Check Period.
B.17: Jewelery Items
41. In Page-2 & Item-4, under the Head of ASSETS, of Calculation of Statement filed by the Accused, he has contended that Jewelery Items worth Rs.67,245/- declared by him were also possessed by him prior to commencement of Check Period. According to the Accused, those items are left out by the Complainant. While determining Gold Jewelery Items under 'B.11', this item has been considered already. As such, question of considering the said item 36 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] once again does not arise. Hence, it is held that the Accused failed to prove that he possessed Jewelery Items worth Rs.67,245/- prior to commencement of Check Period.
B.18: 5 LIC Policies
42. According to the Accused, he had 5 LIC Policies and he had paid Premium of Rs.43,446/- in all upto June 1997 in respect of those Policies at the rate of Rs.694/- p.m., and thus, he possessed Rs.43,446/- as investment in LIC Policies at the beginning of Check Period. In support of his contention, the Accused has relied upon Ex.P.17 and Ex.P.20. In Ex.P.17, the Accused has given the details of payment of Premium as contended by him. In Ex.P.20, it is stated about payment of Premium of Rs.1,402/- p.m., through salary deductions in respect of Insurance Policies. Ex.D.23-Letter dated 22.12.1998 issued by Hindustan Zinc Limited also shows about deduction of Premium of Rs.694.60 towards 5 Insurance Policies as contended by the Accused. Thus, it is clear that the Accused possessed 5 Insurance Policies and that Premium in respect of those Policies were being deducted from his salary. The Complainant has not taken into consideration these investments. There is no explanation from the Complainant in this regard. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to disbelieve the contention of the Accused that he possessed 5 Insurance Policies and that he was paying Premium from his salary to an extent of Rs.694.60 p.m., prior to commencement of Check Period. Hence, it is held 37 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] that the Accused possessed Rs.43,446/- as Investment in 5 LIC Policies prior to commencement of Check Period.
B.19: National Savings Certificate
43. According to the Accused, he possessed Rs.16,000/- as an investment in National Savings Certificate (for short, 'NSC') prior to commencement of Check Period, which was matured in the months of January and October 2002. Contents of Ex.P.18 show the details of 3 NSC worth Rs.16,000/- possessed by the Accused. Ex.P.20 shows that the Accused purchased those Certificates in the year 1994-95, which were to be matured in the year 2002. In the Written Arguments filed by the learned Public Prosecutor at Page-12, it is admitted about investment made by the Accused in NSC to an extent of Rs.16,000/-, but, stated that no evidence is available and as such, the said amount is not taken into consideration. However, there is no reason to disbelieve the contention of the Accused, which is well supported by his declaration in Ex.P.20, about the said investment. Hence, it is held that the Accused possessed Rs.16,000/- by way of Investment in NSC prior to commencement of Check Period.
B.20: 2 ULIP Policies
44. According to the Accused, he purchased 2 ULIP Policies, one in February 1992 and another in January 1996 38 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] with yearly Premium of Rs.2,500/- and Rs.2,000/- each and till June 1997, he had paid Premium of Rs.17,500/- and Rs.4,000/- respectively in respect of those Policies and as such, he possessed Rs.21,500/- by way of said investment prior to commencement of Check Period. This aspect is already considered and determined in Item-'B.7' and hence, it is not necessary to consider the same once again.
B.21: US-64 Bonds
45. According to the Accused, he invested Rs.9,600/- and Rs.2,200/- in US-64 Bonds prior to commencement of the Check Period and as such, he possessed Rs.11,800/- prior to commencement of Check Period. In support of his contention, he has relied upon Ex.P.18. Ex.P.18 is the Statement in Form No.VI given by the Accused to the Investigating Officer during investigation. In that Statement, he has simply stated that he invested Rs.9,600/- and Rs.2,200/- at the time of joining. Details of date of investment are not furnished. In Ex.P.15, which is also a Statement in Form No.I given by the Accused to the Investigating Officer, he has stated that he invested Rs.2,200/- only in US-64. There also, he has not given any particulars as to when actually he invested the said amount. Ex.P.15 is inconsistent with Ex.P.18. There is no supporting material to show about the said investment. It is also not made clear as to what happened to that investment subsequently and whether he received amount after maturity of that investment. Under these circumstances, 39 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] it is not possible to accept the bare contention of the Accused that he invested Rs.11,800/- in US-64 prior to commencement of Check Period. Hence, it is held that the Accused failed to prove possession of Rs.11,800/- as an investment in US-64 prior to commencement of Check Period.
B.22: Cash on Hand
46. According to the Accused, at the beginning of the Check Period, he had Cash of Rs.41,226/-, which includes Rs.26,000/- withdrawn by him from UCO Bank as shown in Ex.D.28. Ex.D.28 is the Savings Bank Pass Book and Letter of the Bank relating to SB Account No.6107 of the Accused maintained at UCO Bank, Hindustan Zinc Smelter Factory, Vishakhapatnam. As per this document, as on 1.7.1997, the Accused had credit balance of Rs.30,576/- and that on 03.07.1997, he has withdrawn Rs.26,000/- from that Account. Though this document supports the contention of the Accused that he has withdrawn Rs.26,000/-, it does not assist the Accused to show that he possessed Cash of Rs.41,226/- at the commencement of the Check Period. Though he has relied upon Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.18, which are his self serving Statements submitted to the Investigating Officer, there is no supporting evidence to show that he possessed Cash of Rs.41,226/- at the commencement of the Check Period. It is not explained by him as to for which purpose he possessed so much of Cash at his hand at that time. It is also not explained by the Accused as to for which 40 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] purpose, he withdrawn Rs.26,000/- on 03.07.1997. It appears that he might have withdrawn the said amount for his family maintenance as it was the beginning of the month. As the Check Period commenced from 18.07.1997, which is the 3rd week of the month, he might have spent substantial amount for his family maintenance in those 3 weeks. As such, it is not possible to accept the contention of the Accused that he possessed Cash of Rs.41,226/- even in the 3rd week of the month. However, on considering the status, income and probable expenditure towards family maintenance, it is just and proper to infer that the Accused possessed Cash of Rs.10,000/- at the commencement of the Check Period. Hence, it is held that the Accused possessed Cash of Rs.10,000/- only at the commencement of the Check Period.
B.23: FINAL CALCULATION OF STATEMENT-A
47. In view of the above findings, Final Calculation of Assets held by the Accused at the commencement of the Check Period is as under:
Value of Sl. Description of Asset the Assets No. (in Rs.) B.1 Philips Music System: 7,000 B.2 Steel Utensils: 1,000 B.3 Steel Almirah: 4,000 B.4 Fridge Godrej 165 Litres: 4,000 B.5 MEP-93 of UTI: 2,000 41 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] B.6 Investment in Growing Corpus Income 2,800 Plan, 1994 (UTI):
B.7 Investment in ULIP-71: 19,000 B.8 Balance in the SB A/c No.6107 of the Accused in UCO Bank, Vishakhapatnam:
6,672 B.9 Balance in the SB A/c No.7187 of Smt.Annapurna in UCO Bank, 2,127 Vishakhapatnam:
B.10 Balance in the SB A/c.No.7264 of Master MSR Krishna Chaitanya in UCO Bank, 3,002 Vishakhapatnam:
B.11 Gold Jewelery as declared in APR: 65,845
B.12 Engineering Books as declared in APR: 1,000
B.13 Scooter as declared in APR: 15,000
B.14 Household Items: 1,90,400
B.15 High Value Items (Colour TV): 18,000
B.16 Household Items of Wife of the Accused: -
B.17 Jewelery Items: -
B.18 5 LIC Policies: 43,446
B.19 National Savings Certificate: 16,000
B.20 2 ULIP Policies: -
B.21 US-64 Bonds: -
B.22 Cash on Hand: 10,000
Total: 4,11,292
Thus, it is clear that at the commencement of the Check Period, the Accused possessed Assets worth Rs.4,11,292/-. Hence, it is held that the Assets possessed by the Accused at the commencement of the Check Period is Rs.4,11,292/-.
42 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] C. ASSETS AT THE END OF THE CHECK PERIOD (STATEMENT-B)
48. According to the Complainant, Assets found in the possession of the Accused at the end of the Check Period are as follows:
Sl. Description of Value of
No. Immovable Assets the Assets
(in Rs.)
1. House at Maddilapalam,
Vishakhapatnam, purchased on
25.05.2001: 6,72,000
2. House at Vasanth Nagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, purchased on 28.11.2003: 14,00,000 Total: 20,72,000 Sl. Value of Description of No. the Assets Movable Assets (in Rs.)
1. Samsung TV 29 inches:
27,600
2. Samsung VCD Player: 4,400
3. Philips Music System: 7,000
4. Preview PC with Printer: 38,000
5. Computer Stand: 3,000
6. Sofa set and two Chairs: 3,000
7. Godrej Refrigerator-225 Litres: 12,500
8. Washing Machine LG: 6,800
9. Dining Table and four Chairs: 11,000
10. Wooden Bed: 1,000
11. CD Player: 3,000 43 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J]
12. Steel Utensils: 1,000
13. Wooden Bed: 1,000
14. Steel Almirah: 4,000
15. Child's Cot: 1,000
16. Steel Almirah: 4,000
17. Double Bed: 15,000
18. Dressing Table-wooden: 2,500
19. TV Stand: 1,000
20. Assorted Utensils: 5,000
21. Fridge Godrej 165 Liters: 4,000
22. Books: 1,000
23. AC-LG Unit: 20,500
24. Maruti Zen: 3,71,492
25. Stabilizer: 4,300
26. Aquaguard: 7,250
27. Premier Padmini Car: 41,000
28. Unaccounted Cash seized during the 6,30,040 search of residential premises on 26.10.2004:
29. Gold jewelery as declared in the APR: 65,845
30. Scooter as declared in the APR: 15,000
31. Gold ornaments purchased from 1,10,641 Chandana Jewelers, Vishakhapatnam:
32. Gold ornaments purchased from 1,37,970 M/s.Kashi Jewellers (Kanpur):
33. Gold ornaments purchased from 14,882 M/s.Dulare Jewellers (Kanpur):
34. Dress materials from M/s.Nalli Silk 24,116 Saris, Hyderabad:
35. Dress materials from M/s.Nalli Silk 2,700 Saris, Vishakhapatnam:
44 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J]
36. Dress materials from M/s.Chandana 23,060 Jewelers, Vishakhapatnam:
37. Akai two in one: 4,400 38. Champion Ceiling Fan: 850
39. Philips two-in-one: 1,995 40. Champion Exhaust Fan: 950 41. Savour gifts set three Casseroles: 199 42. Chopping Board: 139 Total: 16,36,129 Value Sl. Other Deposits found to (in Rs.) No. have been made
1. IDBI Bonds: 30,000
2. ICICI Bonds: 60,000
3. NSC Certificates: 16,000
4. ULIP Policies (2 Nos. of 10 year Insurance Plan Policies): 32,000
5. Cash balance in ICICI Bank, Vishakhapatnam: 26,810
6. Cash Balance at SBI, HAL Branch, Bengaluru: 88,017
7. Cash Balance at SBI, HAL Campus Branch, Hyderabad: 12,175
8. Cash balance in Punjab National Bank, New Chakeri Branch, Kanpur: 1,466
9. Cash balance in SBI, Korwa Branch, U.P.: 6,923
10. Balance in SB A/c No.6107 of the Accused in UCO Bank, Vishakhapatnam: 59,414
11. Balance in SB A/c No.7264 of Krishna Chaitanya (son) in UCO Bank, Vishakhapatnam: 17,619 45 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J]
12. Balance in SB A/c No.7181 of Smt.Annapurna in UCO Bank, Vishakhapatnam: 23,116
13. Term Deposit in the name of Smt.Annapurna in UCO Bank, Vishakhapatnam: 1,30,724
14. Term Deposit in the name of the Accused in UCO Bank, Vishakhapatnam: 48,177
15. Term Deposit in the name of the Accused in ICICI Bank, Vishakhapatnam: 10,000
16. Balance of the Joint SB Account of Smt.Annapurna & the Accused, in Post Office, Kanpur: 1,600
17. Balance of the SB Account of the Accused in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Kukatpally, Hyderabad: 1,694
18. MEP Policy of UTI: 8,800 Total: 5,84,135 In his R & F Statement filed at Pages-3 to 6, the Accused has admitted about his possession of Movable Assets shown as Items at Sl.No.4, 6, 24, 25, 27 and 29 and also Sl.No.1, 4, 15 and 16 under the Head of 'Other Deposits Found to have been Made'. Hence, it is held that the Accused possessed Movable Assets shown as Items at Sl.No.4, 6, 24, 25, 27 and 29 and also Sl.No.1, 4, 15 and 16 under the Head of 'Other Deposits Found to have been Made' at the end of the Check Period.
46 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J]
1. IMMOVABLE ASSETS C.1.1: House at Maddilapalam, Vishakhapatnam
49. According to the Complainant, the Accused possessed a House bearing Door No.1-62-19 at Maddilapalam, Vishakhapatnam, worth Rs.6,72,000/-
having purchased the same on 25.05.2001. P.W.11- Sri.R.Damodara Rao, the then Joint Sub-Registrar-1 of Vishakhapatnam, has deposed that Ex.P.38 is the Copy of registered Sale Deed registered in his Office relating to sale of the said House by Smt.Vijja Purapu Meenakshi in favour of Smt.Jonnalagadda Annapurna on 25.05.2001 for a consideration of Rs.6,72,000/-, Stamp Duty of Rs.92,020/- was paid on the basis of prevailing market value of Rs.7,07,600/- and that Registration Charges of Rs.3,831/- was paid in respect of that Sale Deed. Contents of Ex.P.38 corroborate the said evidence of P.W.11. It is not in dispute that Smt.Jonnalagadda Annapurna is the wife of the Accused. The Accused has not disputed the said evidence of P.W.11, which indicates that the said House was purchased in the name of the wife of the Accused. In fact, it is the contention of the Accused that the said House was purchased by his wife and that it exclusively belongs to her. Thus, it is clear that a House at Maddilapalam was possessed in the name of the wife of the Accused at the end of the Check Period having purchased the same on 25.05.2001.
47 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J]
50. The learned Public Prosecutor has argued that though the market value of the property was around Rs.8,00,000/- as on the date of purchase and that though around Rs.8,75,000/- was spent for purchasing that property, it is wrongly shown in the Sale Deed that the sale consideration was Rs.6,72,000/- only and that as such, it has to be held that value of that property was Rs.8,75,000/-. In support of her arguments, she has relied upon the evidence of P.W.42-Sri.V.Adi Reddy and Valuation Report-Ex.P.135, which was sent to the Complainant along with a Covering Letter-Ex.P.136 and also Proceedings- Ex.P.137.
51. P.W.42 was working as Assistant Engineer, CPWD at Vishakhapatnam during 2006. It is his evidence that as per the request of the Complainant and as directed by his Superintendent Engineer and Executive Engineer, he visited the property in the month of January 2006 and that he valued the building situated in that property at Rs.2,88,218/- and that of the land at Rs.4,91,400/- and that he gave his Valuation Report as per Ex.P.135. It is also his evidence that the Dy.S.P., prepared Proceedings as per Ex.P.137 about that visit and Valuation. He has stated that for the purpose of evaluating the building, basic rates fixed by CPWD, New Delhi and that variable rates prevailing in that area, where the property is located, and that also the Cost Index were considered. In Ex.P.135, some rates are mentioned. But, no material is placed to show that 48 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] those rates were fixed and prevailing at that particular point of time. P.W.42 has deposed that value of the land was fixed at Rs.2,600/- per square yard. Basis for this valuation is not stated by P.W.42. But, in Ex.P.135, it is stated that as the prevailing market rates in the vicinity were not available, the guideline rate at the rate of Rs.2,600/- per square yard fixed by the Sub-Registrar was taken as market value of the land. Said guidelines are not produced. As such, there is no basis at all for the valuation arrived at by P.W.42. As building in that property was constructed in the year 1984 and as the property was purchased in the year 2001 and as valuation was made in the year 2006, the said valuation cannot be the exact valuation of the property in the year 2001. Under these circumstances, it is not fit to accept the evidence of P.W.42 and the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor regarding valuation. However, the evidence of P.W.11 as well as Ex.P.38 show that market value of that property prevailing at the time of execution of Sale Deed-Ex.P.38 was Rs.7,07,600/- and that Stamp Duty and Registration Charges were paid on that valuation. As such Stamp Duty and Registration Charges were paid on behalf of wife of the Accused by admitting the said valuation, it has to be inferred that the said property was worth not less than Rs.7,07,600/- as on the date of Registration. Accordingly, it is held that the said property was worth Rs.7,07,600/- as on the date of purchase.
49 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J]
52. P.W.56-Sri.J.Lakshminarayana is the father-in-law of the Accused. He was working as Accounts Officer in Bharath Heavy Plates and Vessels Limited, Vishakhapatnam (for short, 'BHPV') and retired in the year 2001. He received Terminal Benefits as under:
Rs.2,07,914/- on 19.04.2001; Rs.6,71,866/- on 18.05.2001; Rs.4,02,992/- on 26.05.2001.
P.W.10-Sri.Krishna Swaroop, Deputy Manager of BHPV has deposed the said fact. Ex.P.36 and Ex.P.37-Letters of BHPV also show the said payments to P.W.56. Ex.P.109 is the Statement of Account of SB Account No.0119002365 of P.W.56 maintained at State Bank of India, BHPV Branch, Vishakhapatnam. P.W.36-Sri.C.Chalapathy Rao was the Manager of that Bank. Ex.P.110 consists of Copies of Cheques and Pay-in-Slips relating to Rs.6,71,866/- and Rs.4,02,992/-. P.W.36 has produced Ex.P.109 and Ex.P.110 before the Investigating Officer during investigation. Ex.P.117 and Ex.P.118 are the Statements of Account relating to SB Account No.01190008694 and 00008278 pertaining to P.W.56 maintained at State Bank of Hyderabad, MVP Branch, Vishakhapatnam. P.W.38 has produced these documents to the CBI Officers as per their request. Ex.P.199 consists of Statement of Account pertaining to the same Account for the period from 08.06.2005 to 19.01.2006. P.W.58 has collected that document on 02.05.2006 during investigation. All these 50 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] documents also show payment of Terminal Benefits to P.W.56 as observed above. P.W.56 and the Accused have also not disputed these facts.
53. According to the Accused, his wife is the registered owner of the said House i.e., House situated at Maddilapalam, entire sale consideration for purchasing that property has flown from Joint Account bearing No.270 standing in the name of P.W.56, his wife and wife of the Accused through Cheque-Ex.P.115 issued by the wife of the Accused and the Accused has not contributed any sum for acquiring that property and as such, the said property is not the asset acquired by the Accused as contended by the Complainant. It is not in dispute that the said property was acquired in the name of wife of the Accused. But, it is the contention of the Complainant that the said property is acquired by the Accused in the name of his wife.
54. Ex.P.163 consists of Statement of Account and Letter of Branch Manager relating to SB Account No.270 standing in the names of P.W.56, his wife- Smt.J.Gnaneshwari and wife of the Accused maintained at Andhra Bank, MVP Colony Branch, Vishakhapatnam. As per the said document, the said SB Account was opened on 05.10.1992 in the names of P.W.56 and his wife only and subsequently, on 24.05.2001, name of wife of the Accused was also added as 3rd Joint Account Holder of that Account. The said document and Ex.P.115 show that sale 51 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] consideration for purchasing the House property was paid from that Joint Account through Cheque-Ex.P.115 issued by the wife of the Accused.
55. Though the Accused has given his evidence, he has not stated in his evidence that the said House property was acquired by his wife alone out of her own funds and that he did not contribute any money to purchase that House. On the other hand, in Statement No.1 of Ex.P.12, the Accused himself has admitted by declaring that out of his Terminal Benefits received from M/s.Hindustan Zinc Limited, he financed to the tune of Rs.4,27,000/- to his wife to purchase that House property. In Ex.P.22 & Ex.P.22(A), which are Annual Property Returns filed by the Accused, he has admitted that he contributed Rs.2,87,000/- out of Terminal Benefits received from M/s.Hindustan Zinc Limited and Rs.80,000/- out of his salary savings i.e., in all Rs.3,67,000/- for purchasing that property. These admissions of the Accused negative his contention that he did not contribute anything to purchase that property.
56. Wife of the Accused is the best person to speak about the contention of the Accused that the House property was the exclusive property of his wife and that he did not contribute any money to purchase that property. But, she did not come forward to give evidence to substantiate the contention of the Accused. Ex.P.47 consists of Income Tax Returns filed by wife of the Accused 52 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] for the Assessment Years 2002-2003 to 2004-2005 i.e., for the Financial Years 2001-2002 to 2003-2004. Ex.D.13 is the Income Tax Return filed by the wife of the Accused for the Financial Year 2001-2002. In the Computation Sheet of that document, wife of the Accused has stated that the House was purchased by her out of her own savings, salary income of the husband, gifts and FDs and also out of marriage gifts from her father. It is clearly stated in that Statement that contribution of the Accused for purchasing that House was Rs.1,50,000/- + Rs.2,87,000/- + Rs.60,000/- i.e., in all Rs.4,97,000/-. This Statement also shows that the Accused has contributed Rs.4,97,000/- for purchasing the said House in the name of his wife, which negatives his contention that he did not contribute anything for purchasing that House.
57. It is also stated in Ex.D.13 that Rs.1,34,000/- was the savings of wife of the Accused, marriage gifts, interest etc., Rs.46,000/- was FD amount and Rs.20,000/- was the amount received from Grihalakshmi Scheme of UTI and that these amounts were utilized for purchasing that House in the name of the wife of the Accused. But, there is no supporting evidence to substantiate the said Statement.
58. With reference to the Written Statement filed by the Accused, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused has contended that his wife is well qualified, employed as Teacher and that she was handling other 53 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] income earning sources like e-Commerce work for selected customers, teaching in private schools, offering tuitions to school children, Computer teaching, summer coaching for children etc., and that as such, the wife of the Accused had sufficient independent earnings, which are shown in her Income Tax Returns filed as per Ex.P.47 and Ex.D.13. But, the Accused himself has not deposed to that effect in his evidence given as D.W.1. As observed above, wife of the Accused is the best person to give evidence about her property and income. But, she has also not come forward to give evidence to substantiate the arguments of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused.
59. In Ex.D.13, wife of the Accused has stated that she earned Rs.15,360/- out of tuition during the year 2001- 2002. In Ex.P.47, she has stated that she earned Rs.15,000/- from tuition and Rs.32,250/- through e- Commerce service in the year 2002-2003 and that in the year 2003-2004, she earned Rs.36,000/- from tuition, Rs.18,500/- from e-Commerce service and Rs.21,600/- from Computer teaching. However, no documents are produced to show about qualification of wife of the Accused for doing all those works and also to show that she actually did those works and earned income as stated by her. Though P.W.56 has stated that his daughter was giving tuitions to students and that she was working as a part time worker in a private concern, no supporting material or evidence is produced in this regard. As observed above, 54 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] though it is stated in Ex.P.47 and Ex.D.13 by the wife of the Accused that the Accused also contributed money for purchasing the House, the Accused has denied the same. This aspect shows that the Accused himself is not ready to accept the Statements of his wife given in Ex.P.47 and Ex.D.13. Under these circumstances and in the absence of supporting evidence, it is not safe to rely upon Ex.P.47 and Ex.D.13 as serious doubt arises about genuineness of the contents of those documents.
60. It is pertinent to observe here that Jeevan Anand Life Insurance Policy was obtained on 05.02.2004 in the name of the wife of the Accused. P.W.20- Sri.M.Lakshminarayana Rao, the Assistant Administrative Officer of LIC of India, produced Ex.P.64-Proposal for Insurance, Ex.P.64(A)-Confidential Report, Ex.P.64(B)- Medical Examiners' Confidential Report, Ex.P.64(C)-Copy of SSLC Marks Card, Ex.P.64(D)-Proposal Deposit Receipt, Ex.P.65-Copy of Proposal Deposit Receipt and Ex.P.66-Copy of Insurance Policy before the Investigating Officer during investigation. His evidence and contents of Ex.P.64 show that the wife of the Accused was only a housewife and that except the salary income of the Accused, she had no other source of income. This witness has stood well in the test of Cross-examination and there is no reason to disbelieve his evidence. If at all the wife of the Accused had income from other sources as contended by the Accused, nothing prevented to mention about the same in Ex.P.64. As no 55 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] such mention is made, it has to be inferred that she had no income of her own. This evidence negatives the contention of the Accused that his wife had her own independent income. Hence, it is not possible to accept the bare statement of the Accused and arguments of his Counsel that wife of the Accused had her own independent income.
61. Though Ex.P.11 and Ex.D.13 indicate about income of Rs.14,580/- as interest from FD to the wife of the Accused, Ex.P.11 shows that the said interest was not actually received by the wife of the Accused as the said deposit with interest was again renewed on the date of maturity itself.
62. On the other hand, as observed above, the Accused himself has admitted that Rs.6,60,000/- out of entire sale consideration of Rs.6,72,000/- was paid from SB Account No.270 through Ex.P.115. Ex.P.112 is the Challan, which indicates that Rs.4,00,000/- was deposited into that SB Account No.270 by P.W.56 on 24.05.2001. Ex.P.113 is the Challan, which indicates that Rs.3,00,000/- was deposited into that SB Account No.270 by P.W.56 on 26.05.2001. Ex.P.114 is the Challan, which indicates that Rs.2,30,000/- was deposited into that SB Account No.270 by P.W.56 on 29.05.2001. Ex.P.163 also shows the said deposits. In fact, in his evidence, P.W.56 has also admitted those deposits. However, he has stated that he made those deposits out of his retirement benefits. Though Ex.P.109 and Ex.P.118 show that Rs.2,07,914/-, Rs.6,71,866/- and 56 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Rs.4,02,992/- being the Terminal Benefits of P.W.56, were deposited in SB Accounts of P.W.56 maintained at SBI, BHVP Campus Branch and State Bank of Hyderabad, MVP Branch on 19.04.2001, 18.05.2001 and 31.05.2001 respectively, those documents do not show withdrawal of any amount to the tune of Rs.7,00,000/- by P.W.56 on or before 26.05.2001 from any of his Accounts. This fact negatives the Statement of P.W.56 that he deposited Rs.7,00,000/- through Ex.P.112 and Ex.P.113 out of his Terminal Benefits. No other source is shown by P.W.56 for the said deposit. As such, it is not fit to accept the Statement of P.W.56 that out of his funds, he deposited Rs.7,00,000/- in the Joint SB Account of himself, his wife and the wife of the Accused. Ex.P.163 shows that transactions prior to 24.05.2001 in that Joint Account of P.W.56, his wife and the wife of the Accused were less than Rs.2,000/- only and heavy amounts in Lakhs were came to be deposited in that Account on 24.05.2001 onwards after wife of the Accused was added to that Account as 3rd Joint Account Holder. On considering all these facts and circumstances, it appears that for the purpose of showing purchase of House in the name of wife of the Accused, her name was added to the Account and that transactions are shown to be made through that Account. As Rs.7,00,000/- was not deposited by P.W.56 out of his funds and as no other source of income of P.W.56, his wife and wife of the Accused are shown to the tune of Rs.7,00,000/- and as it is admitted by the Accused as well as his wife, as observed 57 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] above in Ex.P.12 and Ex.D.13, that there was contribution by the Accused also for purchasing House, it has to be inferred that the said Rs.7,00,000/- was the money belonging to the Accused himself.
63. For all the above reasons, it is not fit to accept the contention of the Accused that House property situated at Maddilapalam was acquired by his wife exclusively and that he did not contribute anything for acquiring that property. On the other hand, the facts and circumstances and also the evidence, referred to above, indicate that the Accused himself purchased that property in the name of his wife. Hence, it is held that the Accused possessed House at Maddilapalam worth Rs.7,07,600/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.1.2: House at Vasanth Nagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad
64. It is not in dispute that, on 28.11.2003, a House situated at Vasanth Nagara, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, was purchased for Rs.14,00,000/- in the name of the Accused and his wife under a registered Sale Deed-Ex.P.73. As requested by the CBI Officers, Smt.K.Jhansi, the then Sub- Registrar of Kukatpally, sent Ex.P.73 along with a Covering Letter-Ex.P.72 to the CBI Officers. P.W.22-Sri.T.V.Prasad has deposed the said fact. It is not in dispute that the Accused possessed this property at the end of the Check Period.
58 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J]
65. According to the Complainant, the actual value of that House property was Rs.21,45,916/- as on the date of purchase of that property and Sale Deed is made only for Rs.14,00,000/-. But, the Accused by denying the said contention of the Complainant has contended that the said property was purchased for prevailing market value shown in the Sale Deed. To substantiate the said contention of the Complainant, the learned Public Prosecutor has relied upon the evidence of P.W.41-Sri.C.Subramanyam, who was working as Assistant Engineer, CPWD, Hyderabad, during 2006. P.W.41 has deposed that he visited the property along with Junior Engineer-Sri.A.Srinivasa Rao and Dy.S.P., of CBI-Sri.L.S.Padma Kumar and his staff. He has deposed that he evaluated the building cost on the basis of plinth area method approved by Central Board of Direct Taxes and evaluated the land cost on the basis of market value prevailing during November 2003. According to P.W.21, the said property was worth Rs.21,45,916/- and he has given his Report as per Ex.P.131 along with Sketch- Ex.P.132 and Covering Letter-Ex.P.133. Ex.P.134 is the Proceedings drawn at the time of visit to that property for valuation. The property was purchased in the year 2003 and the House in that property was constructed about 13 years prior to 2003. Valuation is made by P.W.41 in the year 2006. He himself has given drawbacks in his valuation method by stating that the method involves more assumptions and approximations. Though he has stated that cost of construction of building was assessed on the 59 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] basis of plinth area rates of 1992, duly enhanced Weighted Cost Index of 168 prevailing during the period of construction at Hyderabad and that also on the basis of PWD rates assessed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, material in support of those rates is not produced. Though, it is stated by P.W.41 that land value was taken on the basis of prevailing market value at the rate of Rs.6,000/-, no material is placed to show that market value in that area was Rs.6,000/-, when the property was purchased. If at all the property worth Rs.21.46 Lakhs had been purchased only for Rs.14 Lakhs, the Sub-Registrar would have definitely objected. But, it is not done so. None from neighbouring buildings has come forward to support the version of the Complainant and P.W.41. Under these circumstances, it is not fit to accept the bare contention of the Complainant that the property was worth Rs.21,45,916/- as against Rs.14,00,000/- shown in the Sale Deed. Thus, it is held that the Accused possessed House at Vasanth Nagara worth Rs.14,00,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
2. MOVABLE ASSETS C.2.1: Samsung TV 29" with V-Guard Stabilizer
66. It is not in dispute that the Accused possessed 29" Samsung TV with V-Guard Stabilizer at the end of the Check Period. According to the Complainant, the said item was worth Rs.27,600/-. The learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the evidence on record shows that the said 60 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] item was worth Rs.28,525/-. P.W.14-Sri.Diwakar M., is the Manager of M/s.Coolwell Electrics. He has deposed that on the request made by the CBI, he handed over Ex.P.45- Covering Letter, Ex.P.46-Receipt and Xerox Copy of Invoice. He has identified Ex.P.45(a) and Ex.P.46(a) in Ex.P.45 and Ex.P.46 as the signatures of his Boss- Sri.K.P.John. He has deposed that those documents relate to purchase of 29" Samsung TV and V-Guard Stabilizer worth Rs.28,525/- by Mr.M.V.Rao. Contents of Ex.P.45 and Ex.P.46 corroborate the evidence of P.W.14. P.W.14 has stood well in the Cross-Examination by denying the contention of the Accused that Ex.P.46 and Invoice are created for the purpose of this case and that payment of Rs.28,525/- was not made as per those documents. Mr.M.V.Rao is none other than the Accused in this case. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.14 coupled with Ex.P.45 and Ex.P.46. As per that evidence, the Accused purchased Samsung TV with Stabilizer for Rs.28,525/- on 07.04.2004.
67. On the other hand, the Accused has contended that value of the TV is Rs.19,900/- only as shown in Ex.P.14 and Ex.P.129. Ex.P.14 is the self serving Statement of the Accused. In Ex.P.129, as per the say of the Accused, it is noted that the said item was purchased in the year 2004 for Rs.19,900/-. But, no supporting document such as Receipt is produced by the Accused to substantiate his contention and to rebut the contents of 61 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Ex.P.46 coupled with the evidence of P.W.14. In the absence of such supporting material to rebut the evidence placed by the Complainant, it is not possible to accept the bare Statement of the Accused that the said item was worth Rs.19,900/- only. Hence, it is held that the Accused possessed Samsung TV with V-Guard Stabilizer worth Rs.28,525/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.2.2: Samsung VCD Player
68. According to the Complainant, the Accused possessed Samsung VCD Player worth Rs.4,400/- at the end of the Check Period. Ex.P.129, which is supported by the evidence of P.W.40 and P.W.46, show that during Search, Samsung VCD Player was found in the House of the Accused. As per the particulars furnished by the Accused during Search, it was purchased in the year 2000 for Rs.4,400/-. Accordingly, it is noted in Ex.P.129. Except stating that there is no evidence showing purchase of that item, the Accused has not placed anything to rebut the contents of Ex.P.129, which is supported by Ex.P.128, to which the Accused has also subscribed his signature. As such an item was found in the House of the Accused, it has to be explained by the Accused himself as to how he got that item. But, there is no such explanation. In the absence of such an explanation, on the basis of Ex.P.129, it has to be inferred that the Accused possessed VCD Player worth Rs.4,400/- at the end of the Check Period. Accordingly, it is held that the Accused possessed 62 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] VCD Player worth Rs.4,400/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.2.3: Philips Music System
69. According to the Complainant, the Accused possessed Philips Music System worth Rs.7,000/- at the end of the Check Period. Ex.P.128 and Ex.P.129 show that the Accused possessed the said item, which was said to be purchased in the year 1987 i.e., prior to the commencement of the Check Period. As observed above under Head-'B', the Accused has admitted the existence of Philips Music System worth Rs.7,000/- at the commencement of the Check Period. Though the Accused has disputed the said item under the present head by contending that the said item is old one and that there is no material to indicate that it was purchased during the Check Period, he has not denied the existence of that item at the end of the Check Period also. As such, it is clear that the Accused possessed the said item even at the end of the Check Period. Hence, it is held that the Accused possessed Philips Music System worth Rs.7,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.2.5: Computer Stand
70. Ex.P.128 and Ex.P.129 show that the Accused possessed Computer Stand having purchased the same in the year 2000 for Rs.5,000/-. In his Written Arguments at Page-22, the Accused has admitted the existence of that item by stating that the said item is an old one reflected in 63 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Ex.P.15. But, in Ex.P.15, though he has stated about TV Stand, he has not stated anything about the Computer Stand. He has not produced any material to show as to when exactly he purchased that Computer Stand as against the contents of Ex.P.129. In the absence of such material on behalf of the Accused and in view of the contents of Ex.P.129, it has to be inferred that the Accused possessed Computer Stand worth Rs.5,000/- having purchased the same in the year 2000. Hence, it is held that the Accused possessed Computer Stand worth Rs.5,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.2.7: Godrej Refrigerator-225 Liters
71. According to the Complainant, the Accused possessed Godrej Refrigerator worth Rs.12,500/- having purchased the same in the year 2001. In Ex.P.129, on the basis of information furnished by the Accused and his wife during Search, it is stated that the said item was purchased in the year 2001 for Rs.10,000/-. On this basis, the learned Public Prosecutor has stated in her Written Arguments that the said item was worth Rs.10,000/-. But, according to the Accused, as per the admission in Page-3 of Calculation of Statement-B filed with Written Arguments, the said property was worth Rs.12,500/-. There is no reason to disbelieve the said admission of the Accused. Hence, it is held that the Accused possessed Godrej Refrigerator worth Rs.12,500/- at the end of the Check Period.
64 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] C.2.8: Washing Machine
72. Ex.P.128 and Ex.P.129 show that at the time of Search and Inventory in the House of the Accused, LG Washing Machine of 6.5 Liters worth Rs.6,800/- was found and according to Ex.P.129, the said item was purchased in the year 2000. In his Written Arguments, except stating that there is no evidence to prove the expenditure on this item, the Accused has not placed anything to disbelieve the contents of Ex.P.129. He has not even stated that he did not possess the said item. There is no reason to disbelieve the contents of Ex.P.129, which get support from the evidence of P.W.40 and P.W.46. As such, it has to be inferred that the Accused possessed the said item. Hence, it is held that the Accused possessed Washing Machine worth Rs.6,800/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.2.9: Dining Table & 4 Chairs
73. According to the Complainant, the Accused possessed Dining Table set with 4 Chairs worth Rs.11,000/- at the end of the Check Period. As per Ex.P.129, it was purchased in the year 2001. In his Written Arguments at Page-22, the Accused has contended that the said item is an old one reflected in Ex.P.15 and that there is nothing to show that it was purchased during the Check Period. In his Statement as per Ex.P.15, he has stated that he possessed Dining Table and Chairs worth Rs.4,500/-. Ex.P.29 to Ex.P.31 also show about transportation of the said item in 65 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] the month of July 1997. There is nothing to disbelieve the contents of Ex.P.29 to Ex.P.31, which fortify the Statement as per Ex.P.15. This evidence shows that the said item was with the Accused even in the year 1997 itself, which negatives the contention of the Complainant that it was purchased in the year 2001. Hence, it is held that the Accused possessed Dining Table with 4 Chairs worth Rs.4,500/- at the end of the Check Period, which was in existence at the beginning of the Check Period also falling under Head-B.14.
C.2.10: Wooden Bed
74. According to the Complainant, the Accused possessed Wooden Bed worth Rs.1,000/- at the end of the Check Period. Ex.P.129 shows that it was purchased in the year 2000. But, according to the Accused, the said item was an old one purchased prior to commencement of the Check Period and in fact, it is shown as transported item in Ex.P.15. But, neither in Ex.P.15 nor in Ex.D.32, which consists of transported items, existence of Wooden Bed is shown. There is nothing on behalf of the Accused to show that it was purchased prior to commencement of the Check Period. In the absence of such evidence and considering Ex.P.129, it has to be held that the Accused possessed the said item at the end of the Check Period. Hence, it is held that the Accused possessed Wooden Bed worth Rs.1,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
66 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] C.2.11: CD Player
75. According to the Complainant, the Accused possessed CD Player worth Rs.3,000/- at the end of the Check Period. Ex.P.129 shows that it was purchased in the year 1999. But, according to the Accused, the said item was an old one purchased prior to commencement of the Check Period and in fact, it is shown as transported item in Ex.P.15. But, neither in Ex.P.15 nor in Ex.D.32, which consists of transported items, existence of CD Player is shown. There is nothing on behalf of the Accused to show that it was purchased prior to commencement of the Check Period. In the absence of such evidence and considering Ex.P.129, it has to be held that the Accused possessed the said item at the end of the Check Period. Hence, it is held that the Accused possessed CD Player worth Rs.3,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.2.12: Steel Utensils
76. According to the Complainant, the Accused possessed Steel Utensils worth Rs.1,000/- at the end of the Check Period. Ex.P.129 shows that it was purchased in the year 1999. But, according to the Accused, the said item was an old one purchased prior to commencement of the Check Period and in fact, it is shown as transported item in Ex.P.15. In Ex.P.15 and Ex.D.32, which consists of transported items, existence of Steel Utensils is shown. There is nothing to disbelieve the said contents, which show that the said item was with the Accused prior to 67 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] commencement of the Check Period. However, it is not disputed by the Accused that it was existing at the end of the Check Period also. Hence, it is held that the Accused possessed Steel Utensils worth Rs.1,000/- at the end of the Check Period, which was with him even at the beginning of the Check Period falling under Head- B.14.
C.2.13: Wooden Bed
77. According to the Complainant, the Accused possessed another Wooden Bed worth Rs.1,000/- at the end of the Check Period. Ex.P.129 shows that it was purchased in the year 1999. But, according to the Accused, the said item was an old one purchased prior to commencement of the Check Period and in fact, it is shown as transported item in Ex.P.15. But, neither in Ex.P.15 nor in Ex.D.32, which consists of transported items, existence of Wooden Bed is shown. There is nothing on behalf of the Accused to show that it was purchased prior to commencement of the Check Period. In the absence of such evidence and considering Ex.P.129, it has to be held that the Accused possessed the said item at the end of the Check Period. Hence, it is held that the Accused possessed another Wooden Bed worth Rs.1,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.2.14: Steel Almirah
78. According to the Complainant, the Accused possessed Steel Almirah worth Rs.4,000/- at the end of the 68 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Check Period. Ex.P.129 shows that it was purchased in the year 1999. But, according to the Accused, the said item was an old one purchased prior to commencement of the Check Period and in fact, it is shown as transported item in Ex.P.15. In Ex.P.15 and Ex.D.32, which consists of transported items, existence of Steel Almirah is shown. There is nothing to disbelieve the said contents, which show that the said item was with the Accused prior to commencement of the Check Period. However, it is not disputed by the Accused that it was existing at the end of the Check Period also. Hence, it is held that the Accused possessed Steel Almirah worth Rs.4,000/- at the end of the Check Period, which was with him even at the beginning of the Check Period falling under Head- B.14.
C.2.15: Child's Cot
79. According to the Complainant, the Accused possessed Child's Cot worth Rs.1,000/- at the end of the Check Period. Ex.P.129 shows that it was purchased in the year 2000. But, according to the Accused, the said item was an old one purchased prior to commencement of the Check Period and in fact, it is shown as transported item in Ex.P.15. But, neither in Ex.P.15 nor in Ex.D.32, which consists of transported items, existence of Child's Cot is shown. There is nothing on behalf of the Accused to show that it was purchased prior to commencement of the Check Period. In the absence of such evidence and considering Ex.P.129, it has to be held that the Accused possessed the 69 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] said item at the end of the Check Period. Hence, it is held that the Accused possessed Child's Cot worth Rs.1,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.2.16: Another Steel Almirah
80. According to the Complainant, the Accused possessed another Steel Almirah worth Rs.4,000/- at the end of the Check Period. Ex.P.129 shows that it was purchased in the year 1998. But, according to the Accused, the said item was an old one purchased prior to commencement of the Check Period and in fact, it is shown as transported item in Ex.P.15. In Ex.P.15 and Ex.D.32, which consists of transported items, existence of another Steel Almirah i.e., totally 2 Steel Almirahs, is shown. There is nothing to disbelieve the said contents, which show that the said item was with the Accused prior to commencement of the Check Period. However, it is not disputed by the Accused that it was existing at the end of the Check Period also. Hence, it is held that the Accused possessed another Steel Almirah worth Rs.4,000/- at the end of the Check Period, which was with him even at the beginning of the Check Period falling under Head- B.14.
C.2.17: Double Bed
81. According to the Complainant, the Accused possessed Double Bed worth Rs.15,000/- at the end of the Check Period. Ex.P.129 shows that it was purchased in the year 1999. But, according to the Accused, the said item 70 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] (stated as 'Double Cot' in Written Arguments) was an old one purchased prior to commencement of the Check Period and in fact, it is shown as transported item in Ex.P.15. But, neither in Ex.P.15 nor in Ex.D.32, existence of Double Bed or Cot is shown. There is nothing on behalf of the Accused to show that it was purchased prior to commencement of the Check Period. In the absence of such evidence and considering Ex.P.129, it has to be held that the Accused possessed the said item at the end of the Check Period. Hence, it is held that the Accused possessed Double Bed worth Rs.15,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.2.18: Wooden Dressing Table
82. According to the Complainant, the Accused possessed Wooden Dressing Table worth Rs.2,500/- at the end of the Check Period. Ex.P.129 shows that it was purchased in the year 1998-99. But, according to the Accused, the said item was an old one purchased prior to commencement of the Check Period and in fact, it is shown as transported item in Ex.P.15. In Ex.P.15 and Ex.D.32, existence of Dressing Table is shown. There is nothing to disbelieve the said contents, which show that the said item was with the Accused prior to commencement of the Check Period. However, it is not disputed by the Accused that it was existing at the end of the Check Period also. Hence, it is held that the Accused possessed Wooden Dressing Table worth Rs.2,500/- at the end of the Check 71 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Period, which was with him even at the beginning of the Check Period falling under Head-B.14.
C.2.19: TV Stand
83. According to the Complainant, the Accused possessed TV Stand worth Rs.1,000/- at the end of the Check Period. Ex.P.129 shows that it was purchased in the year 2000. But, according to the Accused, the said item was an old one purchased prior to commencement of the Check Period and in fact, it is shown as transported item in Ex.P.15. In Ex.P.15 and Ex.D.32, existence of TV Stand is shown. There is nothing to disbelieve the said contents, which show that the said item was with the Accused prior to commencement of the Check Period. However, it is not disputed by the Accused that it was existing at the end of the Check Period also. Hence, it is held that the Accused possessed TV Stand worth Rs.1,000/- at the end of the Check Period, which was with him even at the beginning of the Check Period falling under Head- B.14.
C.2.20: Assorted Utensils
84. According to the Complainant, the Accused possessed Assorted Utensils worth Rs.5,000/- at the end of the Check Period. Ex.P.129 shows that it was purchased in between 1999-2004. But, according to the Accused, the said item was an old one purchased prior to commencement of the Check Period and in fact, it is shown as transported 72 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] item in Ex.P.15. In Ex.P.15 and Ex.D.32, existence of new Steel Utensils, new Bronze new Utensils and general kitchen items worth Rs.5,000/- are shown. There is nothing to disbelieve that those items are Assorted Utensils claimed by the Complainant. There is also nothing to disbelieve the said contents of Ex.D.32, which show that the said item was with the Accused prior to commencement of the Check Period. However, it is not disputed by the Accused that it was existing at the end of the Check Period also. Hence, it is held that the Accused possessed Assorted Utensils worth Rs.5,000/- at the end of the Check Period, which was with him even at the beginning of the Check Period falling under Head-B.14.
C.2.21: Godrej Fridge 165 Litres
85. According to the Complainant, the Accused possessed Godrej Fridge 165 Liters worth Rs.4,000/- at the end of the Check Period also. Ex.P.129 shows that it was purchased in the year 1980. As observed above under Head-'B.4', the said item was in existence at the commencement of the Check Period also. According to the Accused also, the said item was an old one purchased prior to commencement of the Check Period. However, it is not disputed by the Accused that it was existing at the end of the Check Period also. Hence, it is held that the Accused possessed Godrej Fridge worth Rs.4,000/- at the end of the Check Period also.
73 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] C.2.22: Books
86. According to the Complainant, the Accused possessed Books worth Rs.1,000/- at the end of the Check Period also. As observed above under Head-'B.12', the said item was in existence at the commencement of the Check Period also. According to the Accused also, the said item was an old one purchased prior to commencement of the Check Period. However, it is not disputed by the Accused that it was existing at the end of the Check Period also. Hence, it is held that the Accused possessed Books worth Rs.1,000/- at the end of the Check Period also.
C.2.23: AC-LG Unit
87. According to the Complainant, the Accused possessed Air Conditioner worth Rs.20,500/- at the end of the Check Period. In Ex.P.129, as per information given by the Accused and his wife, it is stated that the said item was purchased in the year 2000 for Rs.25,000/-. It is not disputed by the Accused that Air Conditioner was found in his House during Search and Inventory.
88. P.W.39-Smt.Anju Singh is the Proprietrix of M/s.Shiva Electronics, Priyadarshini Market, HAL Gate No.2, Korwa. She has deposed that she is maintaining accounts in respect of her Electronics business. She has deposed that, when the CBI Officer enquired her in the year 2005 about the account of the Accused, she furnished Statement of 74 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Account relating to the Accused along with Invoice-cum- Delivery Challans as per Ex.P.119 to Ex.P.126 and that the CBI Officer seized those documents under a Seizure Memo- Ex.P.127. She has identified Ex.P.127(a) as her signature in Ex.P.127. In Ex.P.119, it is written in Hindi language that the credit account of the Accused was opened on 20.04.2002 and that it was closed on 15.02.2003. On the ground that the said writing is not in Court language and that as the signature of authorised person of M/s.Shiva Electronics is not found on those documents, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Accused objected for marking those documents. Hence, those documents were marked subject to that objection. P.W.39 is the Proprietrix of M/s.Shiva Electronics and as such, she is the authorised person to represent M/s.Shiva Electronics. P.W.39 has stated that signatures found in Ex.P.119 to Ex.P.126 above the Seal are her signatures. Those signatures with the Seal of M/s.Shiva Electronics are found in those documents. There is nothing on behalf of the Accused to show that authorised person has not signed on those documents. As P.W.39 being the authorised person as a Proprietrix of M/s.Shiva Electronics has signed on Ex.P.119 to Ex.P.126, objection in this regard raised by the learned Advocate appearing for the Accused requires to be over ruled as it is untenable and accordingly, it is over ruled. As writing relating to opening and closing of credit account of the Accused is written in Hindi language, which is a National language of our Country, and as it is possible to read and 75 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] understand that language by this Court and as there is no impediment to admit the document in evidence, merely because some portion of that document is not in the Court language, the document cannot be discarded. As such, objection raised by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused in this regard is also untenable and hence, it is over ruled.
89. In the Cross-examination, P.W.39 has denied that Ex.P.119 to Ex.P.126 are all false and that they are concocted for the purpose of this case. P.W.39 has stood well in the test of Cross-examination and there is no reason to disbelieve her evidence, which gets corroboration by the documentary evidence. Her evidence coupled with Ex.P.119 to Ex.P.126 show that the Accused purchased 11 items including LG Air Conditioner on credit basis from P.W.39 during 20.04.2002 to 15.02.2003. As per that evidence, the Accused purchased LG Air Conditioner worth Rs.29,200/- on 20.04.2002. This evidence fortifies the contention of the Complainant.
90. But, according to the Accused, the said item was purchased on 30.04.2002 by Sri.M.A.R.Ganeshwar Rao, who is the grandfather of his wife, and gifted to his wife. In support of his contention, the Accused has produced Ex.D.8- Bill and Ex.D.9-Warranty Card issued by M/s.Shiva Electronics. P.W.39 has admitted in her Cross-examination that as per Ex.D.8 and Ex.D.9, Sri.M.A.R.Ganeshwar Rao 76 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] purchased Air Conditioner for Rs.20,500/- on 30.04.2002 from her Establishment. However, those documents do not show that the said Air Conditioner was gifted to the wife of the Accused. No doubt, in Ex.P.21, which is Copy of APR filed by the Accused on 31.03.2003, it is stated that LG Air Conditioner worth Rs.19,000/- purchased in April/May 2002 was gifted by his wife's grandfather. Value shown in Ex.D.8 do not tally with the contents of Ex.P.21. When it was purchased and gifted by his wife's grandfather, it is not explained as to what was the necessity or for which purpose or for whom Air Conditioner was purchased by the Accused as per Ex.P.119. The best persons to give evidence in this regard are the wife of the Accused and Sri.M.A.R.Ganeshwar Rao. But, they have not come forward to give evidence to substantiate the claim of the Accused. As particulars of the said item was recorded in Ex.P.129 as told by the Accused and his wife, if at all it was gifted as contended by the Accused, nothing prevented him or his wife to tell about the same and to produce Ex.D.8 to the CBI Officers while preparing Ex.P.129. But, they have not done so and there is no explanation from them in this regard. As there is document to show that the Accused purchased Air Conditioner on 20.04.2002 itself, in the absence of the evidence of Sri.M.A.R.Ganeshwar Rao or the wife of the Accused, it has to be inferred that Sri.M.A.R.Ganeshwar Rao might have purchased Air Conditioner under Ex.D.8 for his own use. On considering all these facts, circumstances and evidence, it is not possible to accept the bare contention of 77 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] the Accused that Air Conditioner was not purchased by him, but, it was gifted to his wife. Hence, it is held that the Accused possessed LG Air Conditioner worth Rs.29,200/- at the end of the Check Period having purchased on 20.04.2002.
C.2.26: Aquaguard
91. According to the Complainant, the Accused possessed Aquaguard worth Rs.7,250/- at the end of the Check Period. But, the Accused has contended that value of that Aquaguard is Rs.7,000/- only. Though the learned Public Prosecutor has relied upon the evidence of P.W.40 and P.W.46 and also Ex.P.128 and Ex.P.129, they do not assist in any manner to show that the said item is worth Rs.7,250/-. Even, there is no evidence on behalf of the Accused to show that the said item is worth Rs.7,000/-. Though there is no such supporting evidence on behalf of both the sides, as the Accused himself has admitted that value of the Aquaguard is Rs.7,000/- only, it is just and proper to infer that he possessed that item worth Rs.7,000/-. Hence, it is held that the Accused possessed Aquaguard worth Rs.7,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.2.28: Unaccounted Cash Seized During Search On 26.10.2004
92. According to the Complainant, during Search and Inventory in the House of the Accused on 26.10.2004, Cash 78 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] of Rs.6,30,040/- was seized from that House, which was kept in a Trunk in the drawing room of the House and as such, the Accused possessed Cash of Rs.6,30,040/- at the end of the Check Period. P.W.40 has deposed the said fact in his evidence. The evidence of P.W.46 and contents of Ex.P.128 and Ex.P.129 fortify the evidence of P.W.40. Seizure of that Cash from his House by the Complainant is not disputed by the Accused. But, it is his contention that the said Cash was brought by his parents by collecting from relatives and friends for providing treatment to his mother, who was suffering from Cancer. In order to substantiate the said contention, the Accused has relied upon the evidence of P.W.12, P.W.40 and P.W.46 to P.W.53.
93. P.W.12-Sri.Pratapchandra Nanda is said to be the student of father of the Accused and classmate of brother of the Accused. According to him, he paid Rs.45,000/- to the father of the Accused during June or July 2004 for providing medical treatment to the mother of the Accused and the said amount was repaid in installments over a period of 3 to 4 years. P.W.47-Sri.M.V.N.Murthy is the brother of the Accused and P.W.48-Smt.M.Anuradha is the wife of P.W.47. According to them, mother of P.W.48 i.e., Smt.M.Jagadamba got retirement benefits in the year 2004 and out of that, she gave Rs.1,50,000/- to P.W.48 and in turn, P.W.48 gave that money to father of the Accused to provide treatment to the mother of the Accused. According to P.W.47, Smt.D.Venkatalakshmi is his cousin and out of 79 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Insurance Policy benefits, she paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the father of the Accused. P.W.49-Smt.M.V.L.Surya Prabha is the sister's daughter of mother of the Accused. According to her, out of her retirement benefits, she paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the mother of the Accused. P.W.50-Smt.O.Bharathi is the daughter-in-law of the father of the Accused. According to her, her father took loan of Rs.1,25,000/- from Society and gave that money to her and she had Rs.25,000/- with her and in all, she paid Rs.1,50,000/- to father of the Accused for providing treatment to the mother of the Accused. P.W.51-Sri.A.Chitti Babu has stated that for providing treatment to the mother of the Accused, he paid Rs.1,20,000/- to the father of the Accused on 20.08.2004. P.W.52-Sri.Ankaladala Tavitanna has stated that he paid Rs.30,000/- to the father of the Accused for providing treatment to the mother of the Accused. P.W.53- Sri.K.Shyamasundara Rao has stated that he paid Rs.65,000/- to the father of the Accused for providing treatment to the mother of the Accused. All these witnesses are close relatives and friends of the Accused. Though they have stated that they paid money to the parents of the Accused, there is nothing to show that they possessed so much of amount to pay the same at the relevant point of time. Though Ex.D.10-Passbook indicates that mother of P.W.48 got retirement benefits, there is nothing to show that she paid Rs.1,50,000/- to P.W.48. It is the evidence of P.W.52 and P.W.53 that they are having agricultural lands and that they are getting income from those lands and that 80 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] out of that income, they paid amount to father of the Accused. But, Ex.P.196-Report submitted by Mandal Revenue Officer of Srikakulam to P.W.58 shows that P.W.52 and P.W.53 have no such agricultural lands. This Report negatives the evidence of P.W.52 and P.W.53. Though all these witnesses have stated and though it is the strong contention of the Accused that the mother of the Accused was suffering from Cancer and that she was taking treatment at Bengaluru, there is nothing to show that the Accused or the father of the Accused were providing treatment to her at Bengaluru. Though Ex.D.34 indicates that in the month of December 2003, when the Accused was working at Hyderabad, he took leave on the ground of providing treatment to his mother, who was suffering from Cancer, it does not show that treatment was provided to the mother of the Accused at Bengaluru. It is a matter of common knowledge that Cancer is a big serious disease, which requires lengthy treatment and high expenditure. According to the Accused, more than Rs.6½ Lakhs was kept for providing such treatment. If such was the situation, there should have been documents regarding treatment and expenditure. But, no such documents are produced. As such huge sum of money was kept for treatment, it is not explained by the Accused as to whether such treatment was provided subsequently. Parents of the Accused are the best persons to give evidence in this regard. But, they have not come forward to give evidence. Though the Accused gave his evidence as D.W.1, he did not whisper anything about 81 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] such treatment or keeping of amount by the parents for treatment purpose. All these circumstances create a serious doubt, which make it difficult to accept the version of the Accused as well as the Statements of P.W.12, P.W.47 to P.W.53 as they are interested witnesses.
94. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused has strongly relied upon the Statement of P.W.40 given in his evidence that the mother of the Accused was looking frail and unhealthy and that the Accused told the CBI Officers that the money, which was in the Trunk, was brought by his mother for taking treatment. The said Statement of P.W.40 does not show that the mother of the Accused was suffering from Cancer and that she was taking treatment at Bengaluru. As such, the said Statement does not help the Accused to substantiate his contention.
95. P.W.46 has stated in his Cross-examination that there were 2 big Aluminum Trunks in the drawing room of the Accused, those Trunks were clearly visible and that when he opened the Trunks, he noticed that there were clothings. On the basis of this Statement, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused has contended that, if really the money was ill-gotten money of the Accused, it would have been kept hidden and not in open place visible and accessible to everyone. But, it is not the evidence of P.W.40 or P.W.46 that Currency Notes were kept openly so as to visible to all in those Trunks. On the other hand, Ex.P.128 shows that those Notes were kept 82 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] hidden beneath old clothes in a Trunk Box. This evidence shows that the said money was hidden beneath the clothes, which itself negatives the arguments of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused.
96. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused has contended that as the Accused has stated in Ex.P.17 about that money that it was brought by his parents for treatment of his mother, it has to be accepted that the said money belonged to his parents and not to him. Ex.P.17 is a self serving Statement of the Accused, which was made subsequent to starting of this dispute. As such and in view of absence of acceptable material on behalf of the Accused and the other circumstances, which go against the Accused as observed above, it is not fit to accept the bare contention of the Accused that the said money belonged to his parents.
97. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused has strongly contended that as P.W.12, P.W.40 and P.W.46 to P.W.53 are examined by the Complainant himself and that as the Complainant did not treat those witnesses as hostile and that as there is no reason to disbelieve their evidence, which is in favour of the Accused, their evidence has to be accepted to hold that those witnesses gave money to the father of the Accused for providing treatment to the mother of the Accused. In support of his arguments, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused has relied upon the decision in the case of Jagan M. Sheshadri 83 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J]
-Vs- State of Tamilnadu (AIR 2002 SC 2399), wherein it is observed as follows:
" ....... We are unable to appreciate the submission of learned Counsel for the State that P.W.31 being the mother-in-law of the Appellant who had supported the explanation offered by the Appellant regarding receipt of Rs.50,000-00 and Rs.40,000-00 by him from her should not believed. She is a prosecution witness. She was never declared hostile. Prosecution cannot wriggle out of her statement."
In that case, Statement of mother-in-law of the Accused, which supported the explanation offered by the Accused about receipt of Rs.90,000/- by him from her, was not accepted by the High Court on the ground that the said receipt was not intimated by the Accused to his Office in accordance with the provisions of law. On perusal of the facts of that decision, it appears that there was no doubtful circumstance in the Statement of mother-in-law of the Accused, which was not disputed by the prosecution, and also in the explanation offered by the Accused relating to that Statement. Under those circumstances, the above observation was made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. But, in the case on hand, as observed above, there is no evidence to show that all those P.W.12, P.W.40 and P.W.46 to P.W.53 had money at the relevant point of time to pay the same to the father of the Accused and there are other doubtful circumstances in the Statements of those 84 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] witnesses and the circumstances relied upon by the Accused, which make it difficult to accept the Statements of those witnesses as well as the explanation of the Accused. As the facts and circumstances of the case on hand are totally different from those of the case relied upon by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused, the said decision does not assist him to substantiate his arguments.
98. For all the above reasons, it is clear that the said cash of Rs.6,30,040/- belonged to the Accused only and not to his parents. Hence, it is held that the Accused possessed unaccounted Cash of Rs.6,30,040/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.2.30: Scooter as declared in APR
99. According to the Complainant, the Accused possessed Scooter worth Rs.15,000/- at the end of the Check Period. The Accused has disputed this claim by contending that, it was not purchased during the Check Period and that it is an old Scooter. As observed above, the Accused himself has admitted that he possessed that Scooter at the beginning of the Check Period. Ex.P.20 also shows that the said Scooter was with him in the year 2000- 2001 also as per his declaration. It is not the contention of the Accused that he sold or disposed that Scooter subsequent to 2000-2001 and prior to the end of the Check Period. As such, it has to be inferred that the Accused 85 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] possessed that Scooter at the end of the Check Period also. Hence, it is held that the Accused possessed Scooter worth Rs.15,000/- at the end of the Check Period also.
C.2.31: Gold Ornaments purchased from Chandana Jewelers, Vishakhapatnam
100. According to the Complainant, the Accused possessed Gold Ornaments worth Rs.1,10,641/- at the end of the Check Period having purchased the same from Chandana Bros' Jewelers, Vishakhapatnam on 16.04.2002. In support of that contention, the learned Public Prosecutor has relied upon the evidence of P.W.17, Ex.P.57 and Ex.P.58.
101. P.W.17-Sri.M.Subramanya was the Manager of M/s.Chandana Bros', Vishakhapatnam. He has stated that Ex.P.57 and Ex.P.58 are the Bills pertaining to the sale of Jewelery for Rs.47,901/- and Rs.62,740/-. He has stated that CBI Officers showed those Bills to him. This witness has not stated that the Accused purchased Jewelery under those Bills from his shop. In fact, he has not whispered anything about the Accused. Even Ex.P.57 and Ex.P.58 do not contain name or signature of the Accused. P.W.58 has stated that on 20.07.2005, he examined and recorded the Statement of P.W.17 and that he collected Ex.P.57 to Ex.P.59 from him. This witness has also not stated anything about purchase of Jewelery by the Accused under those 86 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Bills. There is nothing to connect the Accused to Ex.P.57 and Ex.P.58. As such, the evidence of P.W.17 and P.W.58 and also Ex.P.57 and Ex.P.58 do not assist the learned Public Prosecutor to substantiate her arguments. There is no other evidence in support of the said claim of the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Complainant has failed to prove that the Accused possessed Gold Ornaments worth Rs.1,10,641/- at the end of the Check Period having purchased the same from Chandana Jewelers, Vishakhapatnam.
C.2.32: Gold Ornaments purchased from M/s.Kashi Jewelers, Kanpur
102. According to the Complainant, the Accused possessed Gold Ornaments worth Rs.1,37,970/- at the end of the Check Period having purchased the same from M/s.Kashi Jewelers, Kanpur in the year 2000-2001. In support of that contention, the learned Public Prosecutor has relied upon the evidence of P.W.28-Sri.V.K.Singh, who is the Chief Accountant of M/s.Kashi Jewelers. He has deposed that Ex.P.87 to Ex.P.94 are the Cash Bills, which were issued from his shop for having received money from the party towards sale of Gold and Silver items mentioned in those Bills. He has also deposed that at the request of CBI Officer, he handed over Xerox Copies of those Bills as per Ex.P.87(a) to Ex.P.94(a) through Covering Letter-Ex.P.95 and Receipt Memo-Ex.P.96. It is not the evidence of P.W.28 87 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] that the Accused or some one on behalf of the Accused purchased Jewels under those Bills.
103. Ex.P.87 indicates that Jewels worth Rs.27,100/- was purchased on 05.08.2000. Ex.P.88 indicates that Silver Plate was purchased for Rs.4,400/- on 05.08.2000. Ex.P.89 indicates that Gold Jewels worth Rs.20,800/- were purchased on 16.09.2000. Ex.P.90 indicates that Silver Glasses worth Rs.6,070/- were purchased on 16.09.2000. Ex.P.93 shows that Gold Jewels worth Rs.20,000/- were purchased on 23.07.2001. But, none of these documents do contain name or signature of the Accused or his wife or any person relating to the Accused. There is nothing to show that the Accused or his family members purchased Gold and Silver articles under these Bills and that the Accused possessed those articles. As such, it is not possible to accept the bare contention of the Complainant that the Accused possessed Gold and Silver articles relating to those Bills.
104. Ex.P.92 shows that the Accused purchased Gold Jewels worth Rs.9,000/- on 23.07.2001. In Page-22 of his Written Arguments, he has admitted the said fact. But, he has contended that the said item is included in Sl.No.29 i.e., 'C.29' and that as such, the said item cannot be taken into account once again. Said Gold Jewelery taken into account under 'C.29' was in existence even at the beginning of the Check Period, which is shown in 'B.11', as they were acquired prior to commencement of the Check Period. As 88 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Gold item under Ex.P.92 was purchased on 23.07.2001 i.e., subsequent to commencement of the Check Period, it does not fall under 'C.29' or 'B.11'. Hence, it has to be held that the Accused possessed Gold Jewels worth Rs.9,000/- having purchased the same on 23.07.2001 at the end of the Check Period.
105. Ex.P.91 shows that, in the name of Sri.J.L.Narayana, Gold items worth Rs.16,900/- were purchased on 13.12.2000. Ex.P.94 shows that, in the name of Smt.J.Gnaneshwari, Gold items worth Rs.33,700/- were purchased on 10.02.2001. Those documents show that amount has been paid in respect of those purchases through Cheques from the Account maintained at SBI, Kanpur and that addresses of Sri.J.L.Narayana and Smt.J.Gnaneshwari are shown as "C/o.M.V.Rao, 416-HAL Township, Kanpur". Said M.V.Rao is none other than the Accused. At Page-24 of his Written Arguments, the Accused himself has admitted that Sri.J.L.Narayana is his father-in-law and Smt.J.Gnaneshwari is his mother-in-law. As observed above, P.W.56 is the said father-in-law of the Accused. It is not his evidence that he or his wife worked or resided at Kanpur and that he or his wife had any Account at SBI, Kanpur. It is also not his evidence that he or his wife purchased the said Jewels under Ex.P.91 and Ex.P.94. It is not in dispute that the Accused was working at Kanpur at the relevant point of time. The evidence of P.W.29-Sri.R.C.Sonkar, who was the Manager of SBI, HAL Branch, Kanpur, during 2004- 2007 shows that he furnished information through Letter-
89 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Ex.P.97 relating to the SB Account of the Accused maintained in his Branch. As per that Letter, the Accused had SB Account bearing No.4725 in that Branch from 07.08.1997 till 27.10.2003 and subsequently, the said Account was transferred to Hyderabad Branch. Statement of Account relating to that Account is not available. However, the Accused is the best person to produce Passbook or any other document to show that payment was not made from his Account for those purchases. Though he has produced Passbook as per Ex.D.19 for the period from 1997 to 1999, he did not produce Passbook for relevant period 2000-2001 for the reasons best known to him. As P.W.56 or his wife did not work or reside at Kanpur or they had no Account at SBI, Kanpur and as P.W.56 has not stated that he or his wife purchased Jewels under Ex.P.91 and Ex.P.94 and as the Accused worked at Kanpur and had SB Account at SBI, Kanpur at the relevant point of time, the only inference that could be drawn under the circumstances is that the Accused purchased Jewels under Ex.P.91 and Ex.94 in the name of his parents-in-law. As such, it is clear that the Accused possessed Gold Ornaments worth Rs.16,900/- and Rs.33,700/- having purchased on 13.12.2000 and 10.02.2001 in the name of his parents-in- law.
106. For all the above reasons, it is clear that the Complainant failed to show that the Accused possessed Gold Ornaments worth Rs.1,37,970/- having purchased the same from M/s.Kashi Jewelers, Kanpur. However, the evidence 90 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] available on record shows that the Accused possessed Gold Ornaments worth Rs.59,600/- only at the end of the Check Period having purchased the same from the said Jewelers. Accordingly, it is held that the Accused possessed Gold Ornaments worth Rs.59,600/- only at the end of the Check Period having purchased the same from M/s.Kashi Jewellers, Kanpur.
C.2.33: Gold Ornaments purchased from M/s.Dulare Jewelers, Kanpur
107. According to the Complainant, the Accused possessed Gold Ornaments worth Rs.14,882/- at the end of the Check Period having purchased the same from M/s.Dulare Jewelers, Kanpur. In support of that contention, the learned Public Prosecutor has relied upon the evidence of P.W.27 and Ex.P.84 to Ex.P.86.
108. P.W.27-Sri.Anup Verma is an employee of M/s.Dulare Jewellers as well as son of the Proprietor of that firm. He has deposed that Ex.P.84 to Ex.P.86 are the Cash Bills issued from his shop relating to the articles purchased from his shop. Ex.P.84 indicates that on 24.10.2000, 2 items worth Rs.5,150/- were purchased from the said shop. But, it does not show the name of the Accused or his family members or any of his relatives. There is nothing in that document to connect it to the Accused. Hence, it is not possible to accept the contention of the Complainant that the said items were purchased and possessed by the Accused.
91 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J]
109. Ex.P.85 shows that the Accused purchased one Gold item worth Rs.732/- on 10.06.2000. Genuineness of this document is not disputed by the Accused. There is nothing on behalf of the Accused to rebut the contents of Ex.P.85. As such, it has to be inferred that the Accused possessed that item having purchased the same under Ex.P.85.
110. Ex.P.86 shows that Sri.M.A.R.G.Rao, residing at 416, HAL Township, Kanpur, purchased Gold Jewels worth Rs.9,100/- on 24.10.2000. As observed above, it is not in dispute that Sri.M.A.R.Ganeshwar Rao is the father of the Accused. Residential address given in Ex.P.86 is that of the Accused only. As such, it has to be inferred that 'M.A.R.G.Rao' shown in Ex.P.86 refers to Sri.M.A.R.Ganeshwar Rao only. It is not the contention of the Accused or any of the relatives of the Accused that father of the Accused purchased Gold items at Kanpur at any point of time. There is nothing on behalf of the Accused to rebut the contents of Ex.P.86 and the circumstances appearing against him. Hence, it has to be inferred that the Accused himself purchased Gold items under Ex.P.86 for Rs.9,100/- and that he possessed the same at the end of the Check Period.
111. For all the above reasons, it is clear that the Complainant failed to show that the Accused possessed Gold Ornaments worth Rs.14,882/- having purchased the same from M/s.Dulare Jewelers, Kanpur. However, the evidence 92 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] available on record shows that the Accused possessed Gold Ornaments worth Rs.9,100/- and Rs.732/- only at the end of the Check Period having purchased the same from the said Jewelers. Accordingly, it is held that the Accused possessed Gold Ornaments worth Rs.9,832/- (Rs.9,100/- + Rs.732/-) only at the end of the Check Period having purchased the same from M/s.Dulare Jewellers, Kanpur.
C.2.34: Dress Materials from M/s.Nalli Silk Saris, Hyderabad
112. According to the Complainant, the Accused possessed Dress Materials worth Rs.24,116/- at the end of the Check Period having purchased the same from M/s.Nalli Silks, Hyderabad. In support of that contention, the learned Public Prosecutor has relied upon the evidence of P.W.18, P.W.23 and Ex.P.61, Ex.P.74 and Ex.P.75. P.W.18- Sri.T.Varaprasad, the then Chief Manager of SBI, HAL Campus Branch, Hyderabad has produced Ex.P.61- Statement of Account relating to SB Account No.01190/049206 standing in the name of the Accused and his wife. P.W.23-Sri.G.Jaganmohan, Retired Vice-President of Nalli Silk Saris, Hyderabad, has stated about the transactions made under Credit Card Slips-Ex.P.74 and Ex.P.75 and seizure of those documents by the CBI Officers under Receipt Memo-Ex.P.76. Ex.P.74 and Ex.P.75 show that the Accused purchased Dress Materials worth Rs.9,116/- and Rs.21,823/- through Credit Cards on 04.10.2004 and 11.01.2004 respectively from Nalli Silks.
93 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Ex.P.61 shows that on 12.01.2004, the Accused has paid Rs.15,000/- to M/s.Nalli Silks for the transactions made on 11.01.2004. In Pages-24 and 25 of his Written Arguments, the Accused has admitted the said transactions and payments.
113. But, it is the contention of the Accused that he purchased Dress Materials worth Rs.9,116/- through Credit Card on 04.10.2004 as shown in Ex.P.74 and that the other transaction pertaining to Ex.P.75 relates to Sri.M.Kiran Kumar, who is the son of P.W.49. According to the Accused, Sri.M.Kiran Kumar was residing in USA, he had come to India in January 2004, he made purchases in Nalli Silks at Hyderabad and he i.e., the Accused had made payments towards the said purchase, which he repaid under Ex.D.11 through P.W.49. In support of his contention, the Accused has relied upon the evidence of P.W.49. In her Cross- examination, P.W.49 has admitted the said contention of the Accused. Ex.D.11-Pay-in-Slip dated 29.05.2004 shows that P.W.49 deposited Rs.17,500/- to the Account of the Accused. As such, contents of Ex.D.11 also fortify the evidence of P.W.49, which supports the contention of the Accused. There is no reason to disbelieve the said evidence available on behalf of the Accused. As such, it has to be inferred that out of Credit Slip transaction as per Ex.P.75, Rs.17,500/- relates to Sri.M.Kiran Kumar and that on his behalf, the Accused paid amount to M/s.Nalli Silks by using his Credit Card. However, there is no explanation from the Accused as to remaining transaction to the tune of 94 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Rs.4,323/- out of the transaction under Ex.P.75, which was for Rs.21,823/-. In the absence of such an explanation and as the said transaction took place through the Credit Card of the Accused, it has to be inferred that the Accused purchased Dress Materials worth Rs.4,323/- among the clothes purchased under Ex.P.75.
114. For all the above reasons, it is clear that the Accused purchased clothes worth Rs.9,116/- and Rs.4,323/- under Ex.P.74 and Ex.P.75 respectively in the year 2004 through his Credit Cards. Hence, it is held that the Accused possessed Dress Materials worth Rs.13,439/- (Rs.9,116/- + Rs.4,323/-) only at the end of the Check Period having purchased the same from M/s.Nalli Silks, Hyderabad.
C.2.35: Dress Materials from M/s. Nalli Silk Saris, Vishakhapatnam
115. Though the Complainant alleged that the Accused possessed Dress Materials worth Rs.2,700/- at the end of the Check Period having purchased the same from M/s.Nalli Silks, Vishakhapatnam, no evidence is produced to substantiate the same. In fact, in her Written Arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor has fairly admitted the said fact. Hence, it is held that the Complainant failed to prove that the Accused possessed Dress Materials worth Rs.2,700/- at the end of the Check Period having purchased the same from M/s.Nalli Silks, Vishakhapatnam.
95 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] C.2.36: Dress Materials from M/s.Chandana Jewelers, Vishakhapatnam
116. According to the Complainant, the Accused possessed Dress Materials worth Rs.23,060/- at the end of the Check Period having purchased the same from M/s.Chandana Jewelers, Vishakhapatnam. In support of that contention, the learned Public Prosecutor has relied upon the evidence of P.W.17 and P.W.18, Ex.P.59 and Ex.P.61.
117. As observed above, P.W.17 was working as Manager of M/s.Chandana Jewelers. He has stated that his firm deals with Textile and Jewelery. He has identified Ex.P.59 as the Bill issued by his firm for Rs.23,060-25 relating to sale of cloth. But, it is not his evidence that the said sale was made in favour of the Accused or his family members. Ex.P.59-Bill shows that on 17.08.2002, clothes worth Rs.23,060-25 were purchased from M/s.Chandana Brothers, which is a cloth show room. Ex.P.59 does not show name or signature of the Accused or his family members. There is nothing in Ex.P.59 to connect the Accused to the said transaction. As such, the evidence of P.W.17 and Ex.P.59 do not in any way assist the Complainant to substantiate his contention.
118. P.W.18 has produced Ex.P.61, which is the Statement of Account pertaining to the Accused and his wife. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, in Ex.P.61, Rs.15,000/- is shown as transfer from the Account of the Accused, which relates to purchase of clothes under Ex.P.59.
96 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Transaction under Ex.P.59 has taken place on 17.08.2002. There is nothing in Ex.P.61 to connect the Accused to the said transaction under Ex.P.59. In fact, Ex.P.61 shows transactions only subsequent to 15.10.2003. Hence, Ex.P.61 also does not assist the Complainant to substantiate his contention.
119. There is no other evidence on behalf of the Complainant to show that the Accused purchased clothes from M/s.Chandana Brothers under Ex.P.59. Hence, it is held that the Complainant failed to prove that the Accused possessed Dress Materials worth Rs.23,060/- at the end of the Check Period having purchased the same from M/s.Chandana Jewelers, Vishakhapatnam.
C.2.37: Akai Two-in-One
120. According to the Complainant, the Accused possessed Akai Two-in-One worth Rs.4,400/- at the end of the Check Period. In support of that contention, the learned Public Prosecutor has relied upon the evidence of P.W.40, P.W.46 and also Ex.P.128 and Ex.P.129. P.W.40 and P.W.46 have not whispered anything about possession of Akai Two- in-Oneby the Accused. There is also nothing in Ex.P.128 and Ex.P.129 to show that the Accused possessed the said item. No other evidence is available on behalf of the Complainant. As such, the said evidence relied upon by the learned Public Prosecutor is of no assistance to her. Hence, it is held that the Complainant failed to prove that the 97 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Accused possessed Akai Two-in-One at the end of the Check Period.
C.2.38: Champion Ceiling Fan
121. According to the Complainant, the Accused possessed Champion Ceiling Fan worth Rs.850/- at the end of the Check Period. In support of that contention, the learned Public Prosecutor has relied upon the evidence of P.W.40, P.W.46 and also Ex.P.128 and Ex.P.129. P.W.40 and P.W.46 have not whispered anything about possession of such Fan by the Accused. There is also nothing in Ex.P.128 and Ex.P.129 to show that the Accused possessed the said item. No other evidence is available on behalf of the Complainant. As such, the said evidence relied upon by the learned Public Prosecutor is of no assistance to her. Hence, it is held that the Complainant failed to prove that the Accused possessed Champion Ceiling Fan worth Rs.850/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.2.39: Philips Two-in-One
122. According to the Complainant, the Accused possessed Philips Two-in-One worth Rs.1,995/- at the end of the Check Period. In support of that contention, the learned Public Prosecutor has relied upon the evidence of P.W.40, P.W.46 and also Ex.P.128 and Ex.P.129. P.W.40 and P.W.46 have not whispered anything about possession of such item by the Accused. There is also nothing in Ex.P.128 and Ex.P.129 to show that the Accused possessed the said item.
98 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] No other evidence is available on behalf of the Complainant. As such, the said evidence relied upon by the learned Public Prosecutor is of no assistance to her. Hence, it is held that the Complainant failed to prove that the Accused possessed Philips Two-in-One worth Rs.1,995/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.2.40: Champion Exhaust Fan
123. According to the Complainant, the Accused possessed Champion Exhaust Fan worth Rs.950/- at the end of the Check Period. In support of that contention, the learned Public Prosecutor has relied upon the evidence of P.W.40, P.W.46 and also Ex.P.128 and Ex.P.129. P.W.40 and P.W.46 have not whispered anything about possession of such Fan by the Accused. There is also nothing in Ex.P.128 and Ex.P.129 to show that the Accused possessed the said item. No other evidence is available on behalf of the Complainant. As such, the said evidence relied upon by the learned Public Prosecutor is of no assistance to her. Hence, it is held that the Complainant failed to prove that the Accused possessed Champion Exhaust Fan worth Rs.950/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.2.41: Savour Gifts Set-3 Casseroles
124. According to the Complainant, the Accused possessed Savour Gifts Set-3 Casseroles worth Rs.199/- at the end of the Check Period. In support of that contention, the learned Public Prosecutor has relied upon the evidence 99 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] of P.W.40, P.W.46 and also Ex.P.128 and Ex.P.129. P.W.40 and P.W.46 have not whispered anything about possession of such item by the Accused. There is also nothing in Ex.P.128 and Ex.P.129 to show that the Accused possessed the said item. No other evidence is available on behalf of the Complainant. As such, the said evidence relied upon by the learned Public Prosecutor is of no assistance to her. Hence, it is held that the Complainant failed to prove that the Accused possessed Savour Gifts Set worth Rs.199/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.2.42: Chopping Board
125. According to the Complainant, the Accused possessed Chopping Board worth Rs.139/- at the end of the Check Period. In support of that contention, the learned Public Prosecutor has relied upon the evidence of P.W.40, P.W.46 and also Ex.P.128 and Ex.P.129. P.W.40 and P.W.46 have not whispered anything about possession of such item by the Accused. There is also nothing in Ex.P.128 and Ex.P.129 to show that the Accused possessed the said item. No other evidence is available on behalf of the Complainant. As such, the said evidence relied upon by the learned Public Prosecutor is of no assistance to her. Hence, it is held that the Complainant failed to prove that the Accused possessed Chopping Board worth Rs.139/- at the end of the Check Period.
100 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J]
3. Deposits Found To Have Been Made By The Accused C.3.2: ICICI Bonds
126. According to the Complainant, the Accused possessed Rs.60,000/- at the end of the Check Period by way of Investment in ICICI Bonds. The evidence of P.W.43- Sri.Ganesh Dandapani Iyer, representative of ICICI Bank Limited, and contents of Ex.P.139 to Ex.P.146-Bonds, Statement and Letter of the said Institution show such possession through investment by the Accused. In his Written Arguments at Page-26, the Accused has also admitted the said fact. Thus, it is clear that the Accused possessed Rs.60,000/- at the end of the Check Period by way of Investment in ICICI Bonds.
C.3.3: NSC Certificates
127. According to the Complainant, the Accused possessed Rs.16,000/- at the end of the Check Period by way of Investment in NSC. But, no supporting evidence available in this regard. In fact, the learned Public Prosecutor has fairly admitted in her Written Arguments that there is no evidence in support of that claim. Hence, it is held that the Complainant failed to prove that the Accused possessed Rs.16,000/- at the end of the Check Period by way of Investment in NSC.
101 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] C.3.5 to 3.12 & 3.17: Cash Balance in Various Banks Shown in Sl.No.5 to 12 & 17
128. In her Written Arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the Accused possessed Cash balance of Rs.26,810.45, Rs.88,016.92, Rs.12,130/-, Rs.1,466/-, Rs.4,747.26, Rs.59,414.17, Rs.17,619.09, Rs.23,116.49 and Rs.1,694/- at the end of the Check Period relating to Sl.Nos.5 to 12 and 17 shown under the Head of "Other Deposits found to have been made". In Pages-5 and 6 of his R & F Statement attached to the Written Arguments filed by the Accused, the said claim is admitted. According to the Accused, the said amounts shown are closing balances in the respective Accounts and not Deposits. The Complainant himself has stated that those amounts shown are closing balances in the respective Accounts at the end of the Check Period. Hence, it is held that the Accused possessed Cash Balance of Rs.26,810.45, Rs.88,016.92, Rs.12,130/-, Rs.1,466/-, Rs.4,747.26, Rs.59,414.17, Rs.17,619.09, Rs.23,116.49 and Rs.1,694/- at the end of the Check Period relating to Sl.Nos.5 to 12 and 17 shown under the Head of "Other Deposits found to have been made".
C.3.13: Term Deposit in the name of Smt.Annapurna in UCO Bank, Vishakhapatnam
129. According to the Complainant, there was Term Deposit of Rs.1,30,724/- at the end of the Check Period in the name of Smt.Annapurna i.e., wife of the Accused in UCO 102 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Bank, HZSF Branch, Vishakhapatnam. The evidence of P.W.5-Sri.Tharanath Mallya, the then Manager of UCO Bank and contents of Ex.P.11-Letter issued by UCO Bank fortify the said contention of the Complainant. Ex.P.11 shows that initially Rs.83,438/- was deposited in that Bank on 20.02.1999 and that the said Deposit was renewed periodically after maturity along with interest accrued, which became Rs.1,30,724/- as on 20.08.2004. In his Cross- examination, P.W.5 has also admitted the said fact.
130. According to the Accused, at the time of marriage, P.W.56 had given Rs.75,000/- to his wife and out of that amount, she deposited Rs.50,000/- in UCO Bank, HZSF Branch, Vishakhapatnam, which became Rs.1,30,724/- after periodical renewal with interest. P.W.56 has deposed that marriage of his daughter took place with the Accused on 15.08.1990 and that at that time, he had given Rs.75,000/- to his daughter. In the Cross-examination made by the Accused, he has stated that out of that Rs.75,000/-, his daughter kept Rs.50,000/- in FD in that UCO Bank and that she was renewing that Deposit from time to time along with accrued interest. But, there is nothing to show that P.W.56 paid Rs.75,000/- to his daughter and that she kept Rs.50,000/- out of it in FD. It is not stated by P.W.56 or the Accused as to when actually the said Deposit of Rs.50,000/- was made. As per Ex.P.11, as observed above, initial Deposit of Rs.83,438/- was made on 20.02.1999 only. As marriage of the Accused with the 103 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] daughter of P.W.56 was taken place in the year 1990 and as initial Deposit was made only on 20.02.1999 as per Ex.P.11, in the absence of any supporting material, it is not possible to accept the contention of the Accused and the Statement of P.W.56, at any stretch of imagination, that out of money given by P.W.56, his daughter kept Rs.50,000/- in FD and that the said amount of Rs.1,30,724/- shown in Ex.P.11 relates to the said Deposit. Thus, it is clear that the said Deposit of Rs.1,30,724/- found in the name of Smt.M.Annapurna does not belong to her and that on the other hand, it has to be inferred that it is the money belonging to the Accused. Hence, it is held that the Accused possessed Rs.1,30,724/- at the end of the Check Period by way of Term Deposit at UCO Bank, Vishakhapatnam.
C.3.14: Term Deposit in the name of the Accused in UCO Bank, Vishakhapatnam
131. The learned Public Prosecutor has contended that there was Term Deposit of Rs.48,177/- at the end of the Check Period in the name of the Accused in UCO Bank, Vishakhapatnam. The evidence of P.W.5 and contents of Ex.P.11 fortify the said contention of the Complainant. Ex.P.11 shows that initially Rs.40,000/- was deposited in that Bank on 16.01.2002 and that the said Deposit was renewed periodically after maturity along with interest accrued, which became Rs.48,177/- at the end of the Check Period. In his Written Arguments, at Pages-26 and 27, the Accused has also admitted that he deposited Rs.40,000/- on 104 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] 16.01.2002, which became Rs.48,177/- due to renewal of Deposit periodically with accrued interest. Hence, it is held that the Accused possessed Rs.48,177/- at the end of the Check Period by way of Term Deposit at UCO Bank, Vishakhapatnam.
C.3.18: MEP Policy of UTI
132. According to the Complainant, the Accused possessed Rs.8,800/- at the end of the Check Period by way of closing balance in MEP Policy of UTI. But, the learned Public Prosecutor has contended in her Written Arguments that the evidence on record shows that the balance was Rs.2,000/- only. In support of her contention, the learned Public Prosecutor has relied upon the evidence of P.W.13 and Ex.P.43. In his evidence, P.W.13 has deposed that the Accused had invested Rs.2,000/- in the year 1993 for a period of 10 years in Master Equity Plan-1993 and that he got converted that Scheme to Master Equity Plan Unit Scheme with no fixation of period i.e., Open Ended Scheme and that on account of such conversion, he possessed closing balance of 266.840 Units. As per Ex.P.43, NAV of one Unit was Rs.26.96. As such, value of those 266.840 Units was Rs.7,194/- at the end of the Check Period. The Accused has contended that as declared in Ex.P.18, he had invested Rs.6,800/- under that Scheme. Ex.P.18 is a Self Serving Statement of the Accused, which has no supporting material as against the evidence of P.W.13 and Ex.P.43. Hence, it is not fit to accept the said bare contention of the 105 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Accused. On considering Ex.P.43, which is supported by the evidence of P.W.13, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary on behalf of both the sides, it has to be inferred that the Accused possessed Rs.7,194/- at the end of the Check Period under that Scheme. Hence, it is clear that the Accused possessed Rs.7,194/- at the end of the Check Period as closing balance in his Investment in MEP Policy of UTI.
C.4: FINAL CALCULATION OF STATEMENT-B
133. In view of the above findings, Final Calculation of Assets held by the Accused at the end of the Check Period is as under:
Sl. Description of Value of
No. Immovable Assets the Assets
(in Rs.)
C.1.1. House at Maddilapalam,
Vishakhapatnam, purchased on
25.05.2001: 7,07,600
C.1.2. House at Vasanth Nagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, purchased on 14,00,000 28.11.2003:
Total: 21,07,600
Sl. Value of
Description of
No. the Assets
Movable Assets
(in Rs.)
C.2.1. Samsung TV 29 inches: 28,525
C.2.2. Samsung VCD Player: 4,400
C.2.3. Philips Music System: 7,000
106 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J]
C.2.4. Preview PC with Printer: 38,000
C.2.5. Computer Stand: 5,000
C.2.6. Sofa set and two Chairs: 3,000
C.2.7. Godrej Refrigerator-225 Litres: 12,500
C.2.8. Washing Machine LG: 6,800
C.2.9. Dining Table and four Chairs: 4,500
C.2.10. Wooden Bed: 1,000
C.2.11. CD Player: 3,000
C.2.12. Steel Utensils: 1,000
C.2.13. Wooden Bed: 1,000
C.2.14. Steel Almirah: 4,000
C.2.15. Child's Cot: 1,000
C.2.16. Steel Almirah: 4,000
C.2.17. Double Bed: 15,000
C.2.18. Dressing Table-wooden: 2,500
C.2.19. TV Stand: 1,000
C.2.20. Assorted Utensils: 5,000
C.2.21. Fridge Godrej 165 Liters: 4,000
C.2.22. Books: 1,000
C.2.23. AC-LG Unit: 29,200
C.2.24. Maruti Zen: 3,71,492
C.2.25. Stabilizer: 4,300
C.2.26. Aquaguard: 7,000
C.2.27. Premier Padmini Car: 41,000
C.2.28. Unaccounted Cash seized during the 6,30,040
search of residential premises on
26.10.2004:
107 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J]
C.2.29. Gold jewelery as declared in the 65,845
APR:
C.2.30. Scooter as declared in the APR: 15,000
C.2.31. Gold ornaments purchased from -
Chandana Jewelers,
Vishakhapatnam:
C.2.32. Gold ornaments purchased from 59,600
M/s.Kashi Jewellers (Kanpur):
C.2.33. Gold ornaments purchased from 9,832
M/s.Dulare Jewellers (Kanpur):
C.2.34. Dress materials from M/s.Nalli Silk 13,439
Saris, Hyderabad:
C.2.35. Dress materials from M/s.Nalli Silk -
Saris, Vishakhapatnam:
C.2.36. Dress materials from M/s.Chandana -
jewelers, Vishakhapatnam:
C.2.37. Akai two in one: -
C.2.38. Champion ceiling fan: -
C.2.39. Philips two-in-one: -
C.2.40. Champion Exhaust fan: -
C.2.41. Savour gifts set three Casseroles: -
C.2.42. Chopping Board: -
Total: 13,99,973
Value
Sl. Other Deposits found to
(in Rs.)
No. have been made
C.3.1. IDBI Bonds: 30,000.00
C.3.2. ICICI Bonds: 60,000.00
C.3.3. NSC Certificates: -
C.3.4. ULIP Policies (2 Nos. of 10 year Insurance Plan Policies): 32,000.00 108 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] C.3.5. Cash balance in ICICI Bank, Vishakhapatnam: 26,810.45 C.3.6. Cash Balance at SBI, HAL Branch, Bengaluru: 88,016.92 C.3.7. Cash Balance at SBI, HAL Campus Branch, Hyderabad: 12,130.00 C.3.8. Cash balance in Punjab National Bank, New Chakeri Branch, Kanpur: 1,466.00 C.3.9. Cash balance in SBI, Korwa Banch, U.P.: 4,747.26 C.3.10. Balance in SB A/c No.6107 of the Accused in UCO Bank, Vishakhapatnam: 59,414.17 C.3.11. Balance in SB A/c No.7264 of Krishna Chaitanya (son) in UCO Bank, Vishakhapatnam: 17,619.09 C.3.12. Balance in SB A/c No.7181 of Smt.Annapurna in UCO Bank, Vishakhapatnam: 23,116.49 C.3.13. Term Deposit in the name of Smt.Annapurna in UCO Bank, Vishakhapatnam: 1,30,724.00 C.3.14. Term Deposit in the name of the Accused in UCO Bank, Vishakhapatnam: 48,177.00 C.3.15. Term Deposit in the name of the Accused in ICICI Bank, Vishakhapatnam: 10,000.00 C.3.16. Balance of the Joint SB Account of Smt.Annapurna & the Accused, in Post Office, Kanpur: 1,600.00 C.3.17. Balance of the SB Account of the Accused in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Kukatpally, Hyderabad: 1,694.00 C.3.18. MEP Policy of UTI: 7,194.00 Total: 5,54,709.38 109 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Thus, it is clear that at the commencement of the Check Period, the Accused possessed Immovable Assets worth Rs.21,07,600/-, Movable Assets worth Rs.13,99,973/- and Deposits of Rs.5,54,709.38 i.e., in all Rs.40,62,282.38. Hence, it is held that the Assets possessed by the Accused at the commencement of the Check Period is Rs.40,62,282.38.
D. INCOME & OTHER RECEIPTS DURING THE CHECK PERIOD (STATEMENT-C)
134. According to the Complainant, Income and Other Receipts of the Accused during the Check Period are as follows:
Sl. Value
Details of Income
No. (in Rs.)
1. Net Pay and allowances of the Accused 9,56,150
during the Check Period:
2. Housing Loan from ICICI Home Finance, 12,75,850
Hyderabad (Net):
3. Car Loan from HDFC Bank, Hyderabad 2,61,163
(Net):
4. Net proceeds from NSC invested in 1994- 16,240
95, matured in 2000-2001:
5. Income from rent of House at Kukatpally, 36,000
Hyderabad:
6. Income from rent of House at
Vishakhapatnam: 84,000
7. Terminal benefits from M/s.Hindustan Zinc Ltd.: 3,36,519
8. Income through interest earned on FD of Smt.Annapurna (declared in her Income Tax Returns): 14,580 110 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J]
9. Income through interest from ICICI Bonds of Master M.S.Krishna Chaitanya & the Accused: 22,931
10. Income from GCGI Plan-1994 of UTI: 2,640 11. Income from MEP-1993 of UTI: 736
12. Income from IDBI Bonds in the name of the Accused: 2,516 Total: 30,09,325 In his R & F Statement filed at Page-7, the Accused has admitted about his Income & other Receipts shown at Sl.Nos.7, 10 and 11 under the Head of 'Income & Other Receipts during the Check Period'. Hence, it is held that the Accused was having Income and Receipts shown at Sl.Nos.7, 10 and 11 under the Head of 'Income & Other Receipts during the Check Period'.
D.1: Net Pay and Allowances of the Accused during the Check Period
135. As per Charge Sheet, the Accused received income of Rs.9,56,150/- by way of Net Pay and Allowances during the Check Period. However, during the course of arguments, on the basis of available evidence, the learned Public Prosecutor has admitted in her Written Arguments at Page-9 that Net Pay and Allowances received by the Accused during the Check Period was Rs.12,28,407/-. The said argument is well supported by the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.26, P.W.58 and the contents of Ex.P.3, Ex.P.82, Ex.P.83 and Ex.P.170. But, the Accused has contended in his 111 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Written Arguments at Page-33 and Page-7 and R & F Statement that Net Pay and Allowances received by him during the Check Period was Rs.12,28,039/-, which is Rs.368/- less than the admission made by the Complainant during the course of arguments. As the amount admitted by the Complainant during the course of argument is advantageous to the Accused, it is just and proper to accept the same. Hence, it is held that the Accused has received income of Rs.12,28,407/- by way of Net Pay and Allowances during the Check Period.
D.2: Housing Loan from ICICI Home Finance, Hyderabad (Net)
136. As per Charge Sheet, the Accused received Rs.12,75,850/- as Housing Loan from ICICI Home Finance during the Check Period. But, according to the Accused, he received Rs.13,00,000/- as Housing Loan. Ex.P.171- Statement of Account and Ex.P.195-Copies of Loan papers of that Housing Loan support the contention of the Accused. In fact, in her Written Arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor has fairly admitted the said fact. Hence, it is held that the Accused received Rs.13,00,000/- as Housing Loan from ICICI Home Finance during the Check Period.
D.3: Car Loan from HDFC Bank, Hyderabad (Net)
137. As per Charge Sheet, the Accused received Rs.2,61,163/- by way of Car Loan from HDFC Bank, 112 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Hyderabad during the Check Period. However, during the course of arguments, on the basis of the evidence of P.W.34 and Ex.P.107, the learned Public Prosecutor has contended in her Written Arguments at Page-10 that Car Loan amount received by the Accused during the Check Period was Rs.3,26,570/-. But, the Accused has contended in his Written Arguments at Page-34 and Page-7 and R & F Statement that Car Loan received by him during the Check Period was Rs.3,35,000/-. Ex.P.168-Letter dated 07.06.2005 issued by HDFC Bank and Ex.P.169-Accounts Statement, issued by HDFC Bank, which are collected and produced by the Complainant himself, show that Car Loan received by the Accused was Rs.3,35,000/-. This evidence supports the contention of the Accused and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. Hence, it is held that the Accused has received Car Loan of Rs.3,35,000/- during the Check Period.
D.4: Net Proceeds from NSC invested in 1994-95, Matured in 2000-2001
138. According to the Complainant, the Accused received Rs.16,240/- being the maturity amount of National Savings Certificates, during the Check Period. But, according to the Accused, he received Rs.12,090/- in the month of October 2002 and Rs.20,150/- in the month of January 2002, i.e., in all Rs.32,240/- on maturity of National Savings Certificates during the Check Period. There is no evidence on both the sides in respect of their claims. However, as 113 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] observed above, under the Head 'B.19', the Accused had invested Rs.16,000/- in NSC in the year 1994-95, which were to be matured in the year 2002. As the Scheme of NSC itself was for getting not less than double the amount of investment, it has to be inferred that the Accused got such amount on its maturity. Hence, it is held that the Accused has received Rs.32,240/- during the Check Period from NSC.
D.5: Income from Rent of House at Kukatpally, Hyderabad
139. As per Charge Sheet, the Accused received income of Rs.36,000/- from the rent of House situated at Kukatpally, Hyderabad, during the Check Period. To substantiate the said contention, the learned Public Prosecutor has relied upon the evidence of P.W.55 and Ex.P.161. P.W.55-Smt.V.C.Devika Rani, the then Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, states that in his Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Years 2004-2005 and 2005- 2006 i.e., in Ex.P.161 and Ex.P.162, the Accused has declared Receipt of rent of Rs.22,500/- and Rs.54,000/- respectively from his House situated at Kukatpally, Hyderabad. In his Written Arguments at Page-34, the Accused has contended that as per Ex.P.161 and Ex.P.162, he received Rs.54,000/- in all, as rent. But, he has not stated the details of rent. However, from the evidence of P.W.55 and Ex.P.161 and Ex.P.162, it is not clear as to how much rent he received during the Check Period. The Accused 114 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] purchased that House on 28.11.2003. As such, he might have received rents subsequent to December 2003 only. But, there is no evidence as to since when he gave that building for rent. Though, in Ex.P.161, which relates to the period from 01.03.2003 to 31.03.2004, the Accused has declared that he received Rs.22,500/- as rental income, he has not given details of his rental income. As per Ex.P.162, rental income of the Accused for the period from 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2005 was Rs.54,000/- i.e., monthly rent was Rs.4,500/- only. But, P.W.49 has stated that she was collecting rents relating to that building at the rate of Rs.2,000/- p.m. If it is presumed that the building was given for rent from the month of December 2003 itself, rental income received by the Accused till September 2004 would be Rs.20,000/- only at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month. This evidence negatives the contention of the Accused that he received rent at the rate of Rs.4,500/- p.m., or Rs.54,000/- during the Check Period. However, the Complainant himself has admitted that the rental income of the Accused during the Check Period was Rs.36,000/- and it may be at the rate of Rs.4,500/- p.m., for a period of 8 months. In the absence of any other acceptable evidence to the contrary on behalf of both the sides, it is just and proper to accept the said income of Rs.36,000/- admitted by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused has received rental income of Rs.36,000/- during the Check Period from the House situated at Kukatapally, Hyderabad.
115 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] D.6: Income from Rent of House at Vishakhapatnam
140. As per Charge Sheet, the Accused received income of Rs.84,000/- from the rent of House situated at Vishakhapatnam during the Check Period. To substantiate the said contention, the learned Public Prosecutor has relied upon the evidence of P.W.55 and Ex.P.161 and Ex.P.162. The evidence of P.W.55 and Ex.P.161 and Ex.P.162 do not show anything about rental income received by the Accused from the House situated at Vishakhapatnam. As such, the said evidence is of no assistance to the Complainant to substantiate his contention. On the other hand, by relying upon Ex.P.47, which consists of Ex.D.13 also, the Accused has contended in his Written Argument at Page-34 that the rental income received from that House during the Check Period was Rs.1,08,500/-. But, he has not given the details about the rate of rent and since when such rent received from that House. However, Ex.P.47 and Ex.D.13 indicate that rate of rent was Rs.2,000/- p.m., in the year 2001- 2002 and 2002-2003, and Rs.3,000/- p.m., in the year 2003-2004. Though it is stated in Ex.D.13 that Rs.24,000/- received as rent for the period from 01.04.2001 to 31.03.2002 at the rate of Rs.2,000/- p.m., as that House was purchased on 25.05.2001 only, there are no chances of getting rent for the months of April and May 2001. Excluding these 2 months, on calculation at the rate of Rs.2,000/- p.m., for the years 2001, 2002, 2003 and upto September 2004, rents received may be Rs.20,000/- in the 116 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] year 2001, Rs.24,000/- in the year 2002, Rs.36,000/- in the year 2003 and Rs.18,000/- upto September 2004 i.e., in all Rs.98,000/-. In the absence of any acceptable evidence to the contrary on behalf of both the sides, it is just and proper to infer that rents received during the Check Period was Rs.98,000/- only. Though the said House is in the name of wife of the Accused, as observed above, there is contribution from the Accused and as such, it is just and proper to consider the said rental income as the income of the Accused. Hence, it is held that the Accused has received rental income of Rs.98,000/- during the Check Period from the House situated at Vishakhapatnam.
D.8: Income through Interest earned on FD of Smt.Annapurna (Declared in her Income Tax Returns)
141. According to the Complainant, on the Fixed Deposit of wife of the Accused, interest income of Rs.14,580/- was received during the Check Period as declared in the Income Tax Returns filed by wife of the Accused. Ex.D.13 is the said Income Tax Returns relied upon by the Complainant. It is true that in that Returns, wife of the Accused has declared that she received income interest of Rs.14,580/- on FD during the year 2001-2002. However, details of that FD are not shown. But, according to the Accused, interest earned during the Check Period on the FD was Rs.61,866/-, which includes Rs.14,580/- shown 117 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] in Ex.P.47, and also interest earned on the FD kept at UCO Bank as shown in Ex.P.11. As per Ex.P.11, interest income earned during the Check Period on the FD kept in the name of wife of the Accused was Rs.47,286/-, which includes interest earned from 1999 to 2004. But, the said interest income is not shown in the Income Tax Returns filed as per Ex.P.47 and Ex.D.13. As per Ex.D.13, interest earned on the FD during 2001-2002 was Rs.14,580/-. As details of that FD are not shown and as UCO Bank FD interest is not shown in the Income Tax Returns and as there is nothing to show that there was FD in the name of the wife of the Accused other than UCO Bank FD, it has to be inferred that interest of Rs.47,286/- earned as per Ex.P.11 includes the Interest of Rs.14,580/- shown in Ex.D.13. In the absence of any other evidence to the contrary, it has to be inferred that interest earned on FD in the name of the wife of the Accused during the Check Period was Rs.47,286/- only. For all these reasons, it is held that on the Fixed Deposit of wife of the Accused, interest income of Rs.47,286/- was received during the Check Period.
D.9: Income through Interest from ICICI Bonds of Master M.S.Krishna Chaitanya & the Accused
142. According to the Complainant, on the ICICI Bonds standing in the name of the Accused and his son- Master M.S.Krishna Chaitanya, interest income of Rs.22,931/- was received during the Check Period. But, according to the Accused, the said income was Rs.36,321/-.
118 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] In support of his contention, he has relied upon the evidence of P.W.43 and Ex.P.139 to Ex.P.143 and Ex.P.146, which are the Annexures issued by ICICI. During the course of arguments, by relying upon the said evidence relied upon by the Accused, the learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the said income of Rs.36,321/- was in respect of ICICI Bonds standing in the name of the Accused, his son and his wife.
143. P.W.43 has stated that as per Ex.P.139 to Ex.P.143 and Ex.P.146, interest income received was Rs.3,787/-, Rs.4,109/-, Rs.8,308/-, Rs.6,354/-, Rs.5,455/- and Rs.8,308/- respectively. But, on calculation with the details available in Ex.P.139 to Ex.P.143 and Ex.P.146, it reveals that interest income received on those Bonds during the Check Period was Rs.3,787/-, Rs.59/-, Rs.1,440/-, Rs.6,354/-, Rs.3,694/- and Rs.1,786/- i.e., in all Rs.17,120/- only and not Rs.22,931/- claimed by the Complainant and Rs.36,321/- as claimed by the Accused. Hence, it is held that on the ICICI Bonds standing in the name of the Accused, his wife and his son-Master M.S.Krishna Chaitanya, interest income of Rs.17,120/- was received during the Check Period.
D.12: Income from IDBI Bonds in the name of the Accused
144. According to the Complainant, on the IDBI Bonds standing in the name of the Accused, interest income of Rs.2,516/- was received during the Check Period. In his 119 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Written Arguments, at Page-32, by relying upon Ex.P.175, the Accused has also admitted the said income. Ex.P.175 also shows about receipt of such income by the Accused. Hence, it is held that on the IDBI Bonds standing in the name of the Accused, interest income of Rs.2,516/- was received during the Check Period.
LEFT OUT IN THE CHARGE SHEET BUT ADDED DURING THE COURSE OF ARGUMENT BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR:
D.13: Interest paid to SB Account of SBI, HAL Branch, Kanpur
145. As per the Written Arguments filed by the learned Public Prosecutor, the Accused earned interest income of Rs.5,207/- during the Check Period on his SB Account No.4725 maintained at SBI, HAL Branch, Kanpur.
Ex.P.97-Letter of that Bank fortifies the said contention. In his R & F Statement at Page-7, the Accused has also admitted receipt of that income. Hence, it is held that the Accused earned interest income of Rs.5,207/- during the Check Period on his SB Account No.4725 maintained at SBI, HAL Branch, Kanpur.
D.14: Interest paid to SB Account of Punjab National Bank, New Chakeri Branch, Kanpur
146. As per the Written Arguments filed by the learned Public Prosecutor, the Accused earned interest income of Rs.1,030/- during the Check Period on his SB 120 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Account No.8170 maintained at Punjab National Bank, New Chakeri Branch, Kanpur. Ex.P.99-Letter of that Bank fortifies that contention. In his R & F Statement at Page-7, the Accused has also admitted receipt of that income. Hence, it is held that the Accused earned interest income of Rs.1,030/- during the Check Period on his SB Account No.8170 maintained at Punjab National Bank, New Chakeri Branch, Kanpur.
D.15: Interest paid to SB Account of SBI, Korwa Branch
147. As per the Written Arguments filed by the learned Public Prosecutor, the Accused earned interest income of Rs.2,675.74 during the Check Period on his SB Account No.01190/007340 maintained at SBI, Korwa Branch. The evidence of P.W.35-Sri.M.C.Mishra, the then Manager of that Bank and contents of Ex.P.107(A)-Letter of that Bank fortify that contention. In his R & F Statement at Page-7, the Accused has also admitted receipt of that income. Hence, it is held that the Accused earned interest income of Rs.2,675.74 during the Check Period on his SB Account No.01190/007340 maintained at SBI, Korwa Branch.
D.16: Amount given by P.W.56
148. As per the Written Arguments filed by the learned Public Prosecutor, P.W.56 gave Rs.1,74,995/- on 28.11.2003 to the Accused through his wife, while 121 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] purchasing House at Vasanth Nagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. In his evidence, P.W.56 has stated that he deposited Rs.1.75 Lakhs as per Ex.D.12 for the purpose of Registration Charges. Ex.D.12-Challan shows that P.W.56 deposited Rs.1,74,995/- towards Registration Charges on 28.11.2003. As such, the evidence of P.W.56 and Ex.D.12 fortify the said contention of the learned Public Prosecutor that the Accused received Rs.1,74,995/- from P.W.56, while purchasing House of Vasanth Nagar.
149. But, according to the Accused, the amount paid by P.W.56 was Rs.2,75,000/- and not Rs.1,75,000/-. In his Written Arguments at Page-36, the Accused has contended that said amount of Rs.2,75,000/- was a loan taken from P.W.56. But, he himself has not stated the said fact in his evidence given as D.W.1. P.W.56 has also not stated that he gave loan of Rs.2,75,000/- to the Accused or his wife. On the other hand, at the first instance, he has stated that he gave Rs.2.75 Lakhs to his daughter for purchasing House. In his Cross-examination made on behalf of the Accused, he has stated that by withdrawing Rs.2,50,000/- from the Bank, he paid that amount to his daughter to meet Registration Charges. Again he said that apart from Registration Charges of Rs.1,75,000/-, he paid Rs.1,00,000/- i.e., totally Rs.2,75,000/- to his daughter for purchasing House at Hyderabad. Again he has said that he had given Rs.2,00,000/- to his daughter apart from Registration Charges and that out of that amount, his daughter returned Rs.1,00,000/- to him. All these 122 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Statements are inconsistent with each other. Except Ex.D.12, which shows deposit of Rs.1,74,995/- by P.W.56 towards Registration Charges, there is nothing to show that P.W.56 paid so much of amount to his daughter. There is also nothing to show that P.W.56 gave loan of Rs.2,75,000/- to the Accused as contended by him. Under these circumstances, it is not possible to accept the bare contention of the Accused that he received loan of Rs.2,75,000/- from P.W.56. On the other hand, the evidence on record shows payment of Rs.1,74,995/- by P.W.56 to the Accused through payment of Registration Charges for purchasing House at Hyderabad.
150. For all the above reasons, it is held that the Accused received Rs.1,74,995/- during the Check Period from P.W.56.
INCOME LEFT OUT BY THE COMPLAINANT ACCORDING TO THE ACCUSED:
D.17: Maturity of ULIP Policies
151. According to the Accused, he received Rs.39,057.99 on 26.02.2002 towards maturity of ULIP Policy No.UL920311034313 and the Complainant has not considered this income received during the Check Period. In support of his contention, he has relied upon Ex.P.40. That document shows that the Accused received Rs.39,057.99 as contended by him during the Check Period. This maturity amount includes investment and interest or profit or 123 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] returns. As observed above in 'B.7', towards that Policy, the Accused invested Rs.2,500/- p.a., from February 1992 till February 1997 i.e., upto the commencement of Check Period, which amounts to Rs.15,000/-. As the said investment matured on 26.02.2002, he had to pay Premium till 26.02.2001 as it was a Policy of 10 years duration. As such, total investment made by the Accused towards that Policy will be Rs.25,000/-. Hence, out of Rs.39,057.99 received by the Accused after its maturity, the said investment amount of Rs.25,000/- has to be deducted to ascertain the Net Income under that Policy. If that investment amount is deducted, Net Income under the Policy will be Rs.39,057.99 - Rs.25,000/- = Rs.14,057.99. Out of the said investment amount of Rs.25,000/-, investment of Rs.15,000/- has been taken into account under 'B.7' and remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- has to be taken into account in the Expenditure column during the Check Period. There is no explanation from the Complainant as to why he did not consider the said income of Rs.14,057.99 received by the Accused. Hence, it is held that the Accused received Rs.14,057.99 on 26.02.2002 towards maturity of ULIP Policy No.UL920311034313.
D.18: Maturity of LIC Policies
152. According to the Accused, he received Rs.13,500/- during the Check Period towards maturity of LIC Policies and the Complainant has not considered this 124 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] income received during the Check Period. In support of his contention, he has relied upon Ex.D.24. That document shows that the Accused received Rs.13,500/- on 15.05.2000, 16.05.2000 and 28.06.2002 as contended by him. There is no explanation from the Complainant as to why he did not consider the said income of the Accused. Hence, it is held that the Accused received Rs.13,500/- during the Check Period towards maturity of LIC Policies.
D.19: Cash Payment on 07.08.1997 as TA, DA Claim & D.20: Transfer Grant paid by HAL
153. According to the Accused, he received Rs.29,400/- on 07.08.1997 i.e., during the Check Period, towards TA & DA claim upon joining HAL and he also received Rs.35,578/- towards Transfer Grant from HAL and the Complainant has not considered this income received during the Check Period. In support of his contention, he has relied upon Ex.D.22 & Ex.D.27. Ex.D.22 & Ex.D.27 contain particulars issued by HAL to the Accused under Right to Information Act. As per those documents, on 07.08.1997, the Accused received Rs.29,400/- towards TA & DA and Rs.35,578/- towards Transfer Grant. It is true that the Complainant has not considered this income of the Accused during the Check Period.
125 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J]
154. For outstation duties or on transfer from one place to another, Public Servant is entitled for Traveling Allowance (TA), Dearness Allowance (DA) and Transfer Grant. For performing such outstation duties and for shifting his family to new place on transfer and to settle there, the Public Servant has to spend lot of money apart from his regular family maintenance. Though T.A., D.A., Transfer Grant, Transportation Charges will be paid by the Government, it is the experience of all the Public Servants that the said allowances that will be paid by the Government will be far less than the actual expenses. The Accused has not shown this expenditure separately. As such, it appears that the Complainant has not taken that amount into consideration as Receipt during the Check Period. Hence, it is held that the TA, DA and Transfer Grant received by the Accused is not necessary to be taken as Receipt or Income during the Check Period. For all these reasons, the claim of the Accused to include TA, DA and Transfer Grant in the Income or Receipt during the Check Period is rejected.
D.21: Car Advance (loan) in January 1998
155. According to the Accused, he received Rs.70,000/- as Car Advance from HAL during the Check Period and the Complainant has not considered this income received during the Check Period. In support of his contention, he has relied upon Ex.D.19 and Ex.D.22. Those documents show that the Accused received Car Advance of 126 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Rs.70,000/- in the month of January 1998 as contended by him. There is no explanation from the Complainant as to why he did not consider the said income of the Accused. Hence, it is held that the Accused received Rs.70,000/- as Car Advance from HAL during the Check Period.
D.22: ICICI Bonds matured during Check Period
156. According to the Accused, he received Rs.40,000/- during the Check Period on maturity of ICICI Bonds and the Complainant has not considered this income received during the Check Period. In support of his contention, he has relied upon Ex.P.140, Ex.P.141, Ex.P.142 and Ex.P.146. Those documents show that the Accused received Rs.14,050/-, Rs.20,000/-, Rs.20,000/- and Rs.20,000/- respectively i.e., in all Rs.74,050/- during the Check Period as contended by him. Ex.P.139 shows that he also received Rs.10,000/- during the Check Period on maturity of ICICI Bond. Hence, on maturity of ICICI Bonds, the Accused received Rs.84,050/- during the Check Period, which includes investment of Rs.80,000/- during the Check Period and it has to be taken under Expenditure Statement. There is no explanation from the Complainant as to why he did not consider the said income of the Accused. Hence, it is held that the Accused received Rs.84,050/- during the Check Period on maturity of ICICI Bonds.
127 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] D.23: Salary Advance of Rs.10,000/- on 29.09.2001, Rs.4,000/- on 12.12.1998, Rs.15,000/- in March 2000 & Rs.10,000/- in September 2001
157. According to the Accused, he received Salary Advance of Rs.10,000/- on 29.09.2001, Rs.4,000/- on 12.12.1998, Rs.15,000/- in March 2000 & Rs.10,000/- in September 2001 i.e., during the Check Period and the Complainant has not considered this income. On considering Ex.D.20 and Ex.D.22 relied upon by the Accused, it is clear that he received Salary Advance of Rs.10,000/- on 29.9.2001, Rs.4,000/- on 12.12.1998 and Rs.15,000/- in the month of March 2000, which amounts to Rs.29,000/- only. As per the contention of the Accused, he received Rs.10,000/- towards Salary Advance twice in the month of September 2001, which is impermissible. In fact, there is nothing to show as to when exactly he received Rs.10,000/- 2nd time in the month of September 2001. As information given by his Office was under 2 documents i.e., Ex.D.20 and Ex.D.22, the Accused might have miscalculated to the effect that he received Rs.10,000/- twice in the same month. As such, it is clear that Salary Advance received by the Accused during the Check Period was Rs.29,000/- only. There is no explanation from the Complainant as to why he did not consider the said income of the Accused. Hence, it is held that the Accused received Rs.29,000/- during the Check Period as Salary Advance.
128 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] D.24: Credits into SB Account No.7264 & D.25: Credits into SB Account No.7181
158. According to the Accused, balance of Rs.17,619/- in the SB Account No.7264 shown in Ex.P.8 and balance of Rs.23,116/- in the SB Account No.7181 shown in Ex.P.9 marked through P.W.5 would be the income of the Accused during the Check Period as those amounts are credits from some Institution and the Complainant has not considered this income received during the Check Period. Those balances are considered under the head-'C.11 & C.12'. While Cross-examining P.W.25, it is the contention of the Accused that the said balances are the credits of interest received from ULIP Dividends and ICICI Bonds interest. The said credits towards proceeds of ULIP Policies and ICICI Bonds are considered as income of the Accused under head- 'D.9 & D.17'. As such, question of considering the same once again does not arise. Hence, claim of the Accused under this head that he received Rs.17,619/- and Rs.23,116/- as income during the Check Period is rejected.
D.26: FINAL CALCULATION OF STATEMENT-C
159. In view of the above findings, Final Calculation of Receipts and Income of the Accused during the Check Period is as under:
129 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Sl. Value Details of Income No. (in Rs.) D.1. Net Pay and allowances of the Accused during the Check Period: 12,28,407.00 D.2. Housing Loan from ICICI Home Finance, Hyderabad (Net): 13,00,000.00 D.3. Car Loan from HDFC Bank, Hyderabad (Net): 3,35,000.00 D.4. Net proceeds from NSC invested in 1994-95, matured in 2000-2001: 32,240.00 D.5. Income from rent of House at Kukatpally, Hyderabad: 36,000.00 D.6. Income from rent of House at Vishakhapatnam: 98,000.00 D.7. Terminal benefits from M/s.Hindustan Zinc Ltd.: 3,36,519.00 D.8. Income through interest earned on FD of Smt.Annapurna (declared in her Income Tax Returns): 47,286.00 D.9. Income through interest from ICICI Bonds of Master M.S.Krishna Chaitanya & the Accused: 17,120.00 D.10. Income from GCGI Plan-1994 of UTI: 2,640.00 D.11. Income from MEP-1993 of UTI: 736.00 D.12. Income from IDBI Bonds in the name of the Accused: 2,516.00 Left out in Charge Sheet, but, added during the course of Arguments by the learned Public Prosecutor:
D.13. Interest paid to SB Account of SBI, HAL Branch, Kanpur: 5,207.00 D.14. Interest paid to SB Account of PNB, New Chakeri Branch, Kanpur: 1,030.00 130 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] D.15. Interest paid to SB Account of Korwa Branch: 2,675.74 D.16. Amount given by P.W.56: 1,74,995.00 Income Left Out by the Complainant according to the Accused:
D.17. Maturity of ULIP Policies: 14,057.99 D.18. Maturity of LIC Policies: 13,500.00 D.19. Cash Payment on 07.08.1997 as TA, -
DA claim:
D.20. Transfer Grant paid by HAL: - D.21. Car Advance (loan) in January, 1998: 7,000.00
D.22. ICICI Bonds matured during the Check Period: 84,050.00 D.23. Salary Advance of Rs.10,000/- on 29.09.2001, Rs.4,000/- on 12.12.1998, Rs.15,000/- in March 2000 & Rs.10,000/- in September 2001: 29,000.00 D.24. Credits into SB Account No.7264: -
D.25. Credits into SB Account No.7181: -
Total: 37,67,979.73 Thus, it is clear that Receipts and Income of the Accused during the Check Period is Rs.37,67,979.73. Accordingly, it is held that the Receipts and Income of the Accused during the Check Period is Rs.37,67,979.73.
E. EXPENDITURE DURING THE CHECK PERIOD (STATEMENT-D)
160. According to the Complainant, Expenditure incurred by the Accused during the Check Period is as follows:
131 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Sl. Value Details of Expenditure No. (in Rs.)
1. Household expenditure @ one third of Gross Salary: 6,93,573
2. Payment of Interest on Car Loan @ Rs.8,500/- per month from November 2003 to October 2004 (HDFC Bank, Hyderabad): 27,323
3. Payment of interest on Housing Loan of House at Hyderabad @ Rs.10,473/- per month from December 2003 to October 2004 (ICICI Home Finance, Hyderabad): 80,580
4. Expenditure towards Stamp Papers, Deficit Stamp Duty, Registration Fees of House at Vishakhapatnam: 95,851
5. Municipal tax paid to Vishakhapatnam Corporation on House: 3,680
6. LIC Policy Premium of Smt.Annapurna in City Branch-20, of LIC, Hyderabad: 15,248
7. LIC Policy Premium of Smt.Annapurna in LIC, DO, Nellore: 17,466
8. Expenditure towards Stamp Papers, Deficit Stamp Duty, Registration Fees of House at Hyderabad: 1,75,000
9. Expenditure towards Education of the children in HAL, Public School, Bengaluru: 18,105
10. Expenditure towards Education of the children in HAL, Public School, Hyderabad: 1,850
11. Expenditure towards Education of the children in HAL, Public School, Korwa: 6,257
12. Expenditure towards Education of the children in HAL, Public School, Kanpur: 7,400
13. Expenditure on purchase of Car Accessories for new Car from M/s.Varun Motors, Hyderabad: 94,180
14. Payment to Shri.Sai Spiritual Central Trust: 1,000 Total: 12,37,513 132 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] E.1: Household Expenditure @ 1/3rd of Gross Salary
161. In the Charge Sheet, the Complainant has contended that Household Expenditure of the Accused during the Check Period is 1/3rd of Gross Salary received by him during the Check Period i.e., Rs.6,93,573/-. The Accused has disputed the said claim on the ground that the Complainant has considered Gross Salary for the purpose of estimating Expenditure, though he has taken Net Salary for the purpose of Income and that as such, there is no uniformity in the computation adopted by the Complainant.
162. Household Expenditure means the expenses which will incur towards food items, fuel, electricity, clothes, medicine, magazines, wages of servants, barber, washer-man, pleasure trips, habits like smoking, drinks, hobbies etc., which are non-verifiable items. This expenditure depends upon size of the family, number of dependants, living standard of the family, living style of the family and status of the family.
163. Gross Salary includes deduction of Income Tax, Professional Tax, Provident Fund Subscription, Life Insurance Premium etc., and that deduction amount will not come to the hands of the Accused for spending. On the other hand, Cash on Hand only i.e., Net Salary received by the Accused will be available to spend towards Domestic Expenses. No basis is shown by the Complainant for considering Gross Salary for estimating Domestic Expenses.
133 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] As only Cash on hand will be available for spending, the method of considering Gross Salary for the purpose of estimating Domestic Expenses appears to be unreasonable. In the case of Sajjan Singh -Vs- the State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1964 SC 464, it is held as follows:
"...But, taking the most liberal view, we do not think it is possible for any reasonable man to say that Assets to the extent of Rs.1,20,000/- is anything but disproportionate to a Net Income of Rs.1,03,000/- out of which atleast Rs.36,000/- must have been spent in living expenses."
(Underlined by this Court) On considering the above decision, it is clear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has considered the Net Income of the Accused of that case to estimate Domestic Expenses. Keeping in view the said decision and in the absence of any legal basis for considering Gross Salary instead of Net Salary and the fact that only Cash on hand i.e., Net Salary will be available for spending, it has to be held that consideration of Gross Salary by the Complainant for estimating Domestic Expenses of the Accused is improper and unreasonable. Hence, it is just, proper and reasonable to consider Net Salary of the Accused to estimate his Domestic Expenses during the Check Period.
134 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J]
164. In the Sajjan Singh's Case, referred to above, Net Income of the Accused was Rs.1,03,000/- and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered Rs.36,000/-, which is almost 35% i.e., more than 1/3rd of the Net Income, as Domestic Expenses. On considering the said decision and status, size of the family of the Accused which consists of the Accused, his wife and his 3 children, living standard and style of living of the Accused and in the absence of any acceptable evidence to the contrary on behalf of both the sides, it is just, proper and reasonable to consider 1/3rd of Net Salary Income of the Accused towards his Domestic Expenses. In his Written Arguments at Page-40, the Accused has also stated that it is reasonable to deduct 1/3rd of his Net Salary of Rs.12,38,039/-, which amounts to Rs.4,12,680/-, towards his Household Expenditure during the Check Period. In her Written Arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor has also contended that 1/3rd of Net Salary of Rs.12,28,407/-, which amounts to Rs.4,09,469/-, is the Household Expenditure of the Accused during the Check Period. In his R & F Statement at Page-9, the Accused has admitted the said contention of the learned Public Prosecutor. As observed above, in the case on hand, as held in the Head-'D.1', Net Salary Income of the Accused during the Check Period is Rs.12,28,407/-. 1/3rd of this amount is Rs.4,09,469/-. Hence, it is held that Household Expenditure of the Accused during the Check Period is Rs.4,09,469/-.
135 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] E.2: Payment of Interest on Car loan @ Rs.8,500/- p.m., from November 2003 to October 2004 (HDFC Bank, Hyderabad)
165. As per Charge Sheet, the Accused incurred Expenditure of Rs.27,323/- towards payment of interest on Car loan during the Check Period. As observed above, the Accused borrowed Rs.3,35,000/- from HDFC Bank for purchasing Car on 20.11.2003. The learned Public Prosecutor has contended on the basis of Ex.P.168-Letter of HDFC Bank and Ex.P.169-Statement of Account pertaining to Loan Account issued by HDFC Bank that the said Expenditure was Rs.27,326/-. Ex.P.168 also shows the said fact. The Accused has also admitted the said fact in his R & F Statement at Page-9 and Written Arguments at Page-39. As per Ex.P.168, the Accused repaid Principal of Rs.73,834/- and Interest of Rs.27,326/- to that Bank towards that Car Loan till October 2004. But, Ex.P.169 shows that the Accused paid Rs.8,430/- p.m., from 15.12.2003 to 12.10.2004 towards that Car Loan. Thus, the payment made by the Accused towards the Car Loan during that period was Rs.92,730/-, which includes Principal as well as Interest. The said payment made by the Accused towards Principal as well as Interest is nothing but expenditure incurred by him during the Check Period. As receipt of the said loan is taken as Income of the Accused during the Check Period, repayment of Principal and Interest of that loan has to be considered as expenditure incurred by him. Hence, it is held that the Accused incurred 136 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Expenditure of Rs.92,730/- during the Check Period towards repayment of Principal and Interest of his Car Loan.
E.3: Payment of Interest on Housing Loan of House at Hyderabad @ Rs.10,473/- p.m., from December 2003 to October 2004 (ICICI Home Finance, Hyderabad)
166. As per Charge Sheet, the Accused incurred Expenditure of Rs.80,580/- towards payment of interest on Housing Loan during the Check Period. As observed above, the Accused borrowed Rs.13,00,000/- from ICICI Home Finance for the purpose of purchasing a House on 28.11.2003 and the said receipt of loan is taken as income of the Accused during the Check Period. But, the Accused has contended that payment made by him towards interest was Rs.80,850/- at the rate of Rs.10,473/- p.m., from December 2003 to October 2004. Both the sides have relied upon Ex.P.177 in support of their contention. Ex.P.177 shows that the Accused paid Rs.10,473/- p.m., from 29.02.2004 till 07.10.2004 apart from Rs.2,500/- paid on 29.11.2003 being the Process Fee towards that Housing Loan. Thus, the payment made by the Accused towards the Housing Loan during that period was Rs.96,757/-, which includes Principal, Interest as well as Process Fee. The said payment made by the Accused is nothing but expenditure incurred by him during the Check Period. Hence, it is held that the Accused incurred Expenditure of Rs.96,757/- during the Check Period towards repayment of 137 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Principal, Interest and Process Fee of his Housing Loan.
E.4: Expenditure towards Stamp Papers, Deficit Stamp Duty, Registration Fees of House at Vishakhapatnam
167. According to the Complainant, the Accused incurred expenditure of Rs.95,851/- during the Check Period towards Stamp Papers, Deficit Stamp Duty and Registration Fee relating to the House at Vishakhapatnam. The evidence of P.W.11-Sri.R.Damodara Rao coupled with the contents of Ex.P.38 show that Rs.92,020/- was spent towards Stamp Duty and Rs.3,831/- was spent towards Registration Charges i.e., in all Rs.95,851/- for the purpose of purchasing House at Maddilapalam, Vishakhapatnam in the name of the wife of the Accused. The Accused has not disputed about spending of so much of amount towards Stamp Duty and Registration Charges. But, it is his contention that he did not incur that expenditure as the said entire amount was paid by his wife out of the Joint Account of his wife, P.W.56 and wife of P.W.56. As observed above under Head-'C.1', there is no evidence to show that the said House was purchased by the wife of the Accused as contended by him. On the other hand, as per the evidence on record, it is held that the Accused himself purchased that property in the name of his wife for Rs.7,07,600/-. As the Accused purchased that property in the name of his wife, it has to be inferred that he incurred expenditure of Rs.7,07,600/- for purchasing the said property. As such, it 138 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] has to be inferred that the Accused spent Rs.95,851/- also towards Stamp Duty & Registration Charges for purchasing the said House. Hence, it is held that the Accused spent Rs.7,07,600/- and Rs.95,851/- i.e., in all Rs.8,03,451/- towards Sale Consideration, Stamp Duty and Registration Charges for purchasing the House at Vishakhapatnam during the Check Period.
E.5: Municipal Tax paid to Vishakhapatnam Corporation on House
168. According to the Complainant, the Accused has incurred expenditure of Rs.3,680/- during the Check Period towards payment of tax on House to the Vishakhapatnam Municipal Corporation. In Ex.P.47, which is Income Tax Returns filed in the name of wife of the Accused, Copies of Receipts regarding payment of House tax to Vishakhapatnam Municipal Corporation are also available. As per those Receipts, during the Check Period, House tax of Rs.3,680/- relating to the Vishakhapatnam House standing in the name of wife of the Accused was paid. According to the Accused, as the said House exclusively belongs to his wife, she herself has paid that tax and he did not pay the same. But, as observed above, the Accused himself has purchased that House in the name of his wife. As such, it has to be inferred that the Accused himself has paid the said tax in the name of his wife. Hence, it is held that the Accused incurred expenditure of Rs.3,680/- towards 139 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] payment of House tax to Vishakhapatnam Municipal Corporation during the Check Period.
E.6: LIC Policy Premium of Smt.Annapurna in City Branch-20 of LIC, Hyderabad
169. According to the Complainant, the Accused has incurred expenditure of Rs.15,248/- during the Check Period towards payment of LIC Policy Premium in the name of his wife. P.W.19-Sri.S.A.Gafoor, Branch Manager of LIC of India, produced Ex.P.62-Letter before the Investigating Officer during investigation. As per that Letter, Rs.15,249/- was paid on 10.01.2004 towards Premium of Jeevan Anand Policy standing in the name of wife of the Accused. In his Cross-examination, he has stated that, that payment was made through Cheque issued by the wife of the Accused. On the basis of this answer, the learned Counsel for the Accused has contended that the said payment was made by the wife of the Accused and that not by the Accused. But, as observed above, there is no evidence to show about the independent income of wife of the Accused. As observed above, though the Accused himself purchased House at Vishakhapatnam, he has made a Sale Deed in the name of his wife. Under these circumstances, it has to be inferred that the said payment of Premium though made in the name of wife of the Accused, it is made by the Accused only. Hence, it is held that the Accused incurred Expenditure of Rs.15,249/- towards payment of LIC 140 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Policy Premium in the name of his wife during the Check Period.
E.7: LIC Policy Premium of Smt.Annapurna in LIC, DO, Nellore
170. According to the Complainant, the Accused has incurred expenditure of Rs.17,466/- during the Check Period towards payment of LIC Jeevan Anand Policy Premium in the name of his wife. As observed above, P.W.20 produced Ex.P.64, Ex.P.64(A), Ex.P.64(B), Ex.P.64(C), Ex.P.64(D), Ex.P.65 and Ex.P.66 before the Investigating Officer during investigation. As per the evidence of P.W.20 and contents of those documents, Premium of Rs.17,466/- towards LIC Jeevan Anand Policy was paid on 03.02.2004 and 07.02.2004 in the name of wife of the Accused. As observed above, the evidence of P.W.20 and contents of Ex.P.64 show that except the salary income of the Accused, wife of the Accused had no other income and that she was only a housewife. As observed above, there is no other evidence to show that the wife of the Accused had income of her own. Under these circumstances, it has to be inferred that the said payment of Premium though made in the name of wife of the Accused, is made by the Accused only. Hence, it is held that the Accused incurred Expenditure of Rs.17,466/- towards payment of LIC Policy Premium in the name of his wife during the Check Period.
141 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] E.8: Expenditure towards Stamp Papers, Deficit Stamp Duty, Registration Fees of House at Hyderabad
171. According to the Complainant, the Accused incurred expenditure of Rs.1,75,000/- during the Check Period towards Stamp Papers, Deficit Stamp Duty and Registration Fee relating to the House at Hyderabad. The evidence of P.W.22-Sri.T.V.Prasad, the then Sub-Registrar and contents of Ex.P.73 support the said contention of the Complainant. In his Written Arguments at Page-39 and R & F Statement at Page-9, the Accused has admitted the said expenditure incurred by him. Hence, it is held that the Accused spent Rs.1,75,000/- towards Stamp Duty and Registration Charges for purchasing the House at Hyderabad during the Check Period.
E.9: Expenditure towards Education of the Children in HAL Public School, Bengaluru
172. According to the Complainant, the Accused incurred expenditure of Rs.18,105/- towards education of his children in HAL Public School at Bengaluru, during the Check Period. The evidence of P.W.32-Smt.Sindhu Vijay Kumar, the Accountant of that School and contents of Ex.P.101 to Ex.P.104, which are issued by that School, fortify the said contention of the Complainant. In his Written Arguments at Page-39 and R & F Statement at Page-9, the Accused has admitted the said expenditure incurred by him during the Check Period. Hence, it is held 142 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] that the Accused incurred expenditure of Rs.18,105/- towards education of his children in HAL Public School at Bengaluru during the Check Period.
E.10: Expenditure towards education of the children in HAL Public School, Hyderabad
173. According to the Complainant, the Accused incurred expenditure of Rs.1,850/- towards education of his children in HAL Public School at Hyderabad, during the Check Period. The evidence of P.W.33-Sri.Y.Jagan Mohan Rao, the then Office Superintendent of that School and contents of Ex.P.105 & Ex.P.106, which are issued by that School show that during the Check Period i.e., from September 2003 to January 2004, a sum of Rs.1,882/- was deducted from the salary of the Accused and paid to that School towards education expenses of his children. The said evidence also shows that during the Check Period i.e., from February 2004 to June 2004, the Accused paid Cash of Rs.1,850/- to that School towards education expenses of his children. This evidence fortifies the contention of the Complainant. As it is stated in Ex.P.106 that all the fees were received by salary deduction, the learned Counsel for the Accused has contended that entire amount shown in Ex.P.106 including Rs.1,850/- has been deducted from his salary and that he did not pay any Cash as contended by the Complainant. Ex.P.3, Ex.P.82, Ex.P.83 and Ex.P.170 consists of salary particulars including deductions relating to the Accused. Those documents show that Rs.1,882/- relating to the period from September 2003 to January 2004 143 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] has been deducted towards School fee of children of the Accused. But, they do not show such deductions in respect of Rs.1,850/- pertaining to the period from February 2004 to June 2004. In view of this evidence, coupled with the evidence of P.W.33 and Ex.P.106 and in the absence of any other evidence to the contrary on behalf of the Accused, it has to be inferred that he paid Cash of Rs.1,850/- towards School fee of his children apart from salary deduction of Rs.1,882/- shown in Ex.P.106. Hence, it is held that the Accused incurred expenditure of Rs.1,850/- towards education of his children in HAL Public School at Hyderabad during the Check Period.
E.11: Expenditure towards Education of the Children in HAL Public School, Korwa
174. According to the Complainant, the Accused incurred expenditure of Rs.6,257/- towards education of his children in HAL Public School, Korwa, during the Check Period. In support of that contention, the learned Public Prosecutor has relied upon the evidence of P.W.58 and Ex.P.193. Except stating that he received Letter-Ex.P.193 from HAL School, Korwa by Post regarding educational expenses of the children of the Accused, P.W.58 has not stated the details of those expenses incurred by the Accused. Ex.P.193 shows that an amount of Rs.6,257/- towards School fees of children of the Accused for the period from 23.10.2001 to 03.09.2003 was credited to the School Account. Payment of that fee is not disputed by the 144 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Accused. But, it is his contention that the said fee was paid through his salary deduction and not paid by him through Cash. Ex.P.170 shows that during that relevant period, Rs.6,257/- was deducted from the salary of the Accused by his Office. This evidence supports the contention of the Accused. There is nothing on behalf of the Complainant to show that the said fee was paid through Cash by the Accused. As such, it is clear that the Accused did not incur expenditure as contended by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Complainant failed to show that the Accused incurred expenditure of Rs.6,257/- towards education of his children in HAL Public School, Korwa, during the Check Period.
E.12: Expenditure towards Education of the Children in HAL Public School, Kanpur
175. According to the Complainant, the Accused incurred expenditure of Rs.7,400/- towards education of his children in HAL Public School, Kanpur, during the Check Period. In support of that contention, the learned Public Prosecutor has relied upon the evidence of P.W.58 and Ex.P.192. Except stating that he received Letter-Ex.P.192 from HAL Vidyalaya, Kanpur, by Speed Post regarding details of fee in respect of children of the Accused, P.W.58 has not stated the details of those expenses incurred by the Accused. Ex.P.192 shows that an amount of Rs.7,580/- towards School fees of children of the Accused for the period from 30.07.1997 to 17.10.2001 was paid to that School. Payment of that fee is not disputed by the Accused. But, it 145 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] is his contention that the said fee was paid through his salary deduction and not paid by him through Cash. Ex.P.82 and Ex.P.170 show that during that relevant period, Rs.7,848/- was deducted from the salary of the Accused by his Office. This evidence supports the contention of the Accused. There is nothing on behalf of the Complainant to show that the said fee was paid through Cash by the Accused. As such, it is clear that the Accused did not incur expenditure as contended by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Complainant failed to show that the Accused incurred expenditure of Rs.7,400/- towards education of his children in HAL Public School, Kanpur, during the Check Period.
E.13: Expenditure on Purchase of Car Accessories for New Car from M/s.Varun Motors, Hyderabad
176. According to the Complainant, the Accused incurred expenditure of Rs.94,180/- towards purchase of Car Accessories for new Car from M/s.Varun Motors, Hyderabad, during the Check Period. In support of that contention, the learned Public Prosecutor has relied upon the evidence of P.W.34-Sri.K.N.Srinivas Babu, the then Accounts Manager of M/s.Varun Motors and Ex.P.107-Ledger Account. Though P.W.34 has stated that the Accused paid Rs.94,180/- by Cash and Cheque towards Insurance, Life Tax, Registration Charges and purchase of Accessories, he has not stated that the Accused spent Rs.94,180/- towards purchase of Car Accessories as contended by the 146 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Complainant. However, Ex.P.107 shows that the Accused spent Rs.3,600/-, Rs.29,039/- and Rs.13,640/- i.e., in all Rs.46,279/- towards purchase of Accessories to his new Car. The Accused has contended that the amount spent by him towards purchase of new Car including Accessories was Rs.3,71,492/- only. In support of his contention, he has relied upon Ex.D.7-Invoice issued by M/s.Varun Motors Limited. As per that document, the Accused has paid Rs.3,71,492/- towards purchase of his Car, which includes Accessories worth Rs.407.88. The said amount is shown in Ex.P.107 also. Those Accessories worth Rs.407.88 shown in Ex.D.7 are separate from those of Accessories purchased by the Accused as shown in Ex.P.107. It is also contended by the Accused that discount of Rs.35,000/- was given to him by M/s.Varun Motors. P.W.34 has admitted that the said discount of Rs.35,000/- was inclusive of Insurance Premium. However, nothing is elicited in the Cross-examination of P.W.34 to show that the Accused did not spend Rs.46,279/- towards Accessories as shown in Ex.P.107. There is no reason to disbelieve the contents of Ex.P.107. Hence, it is held that the Accused incurred expenditure of Rs.46,279/- towards purchase of Car Accessories for new Car from M/s.Varun Motor, Hyderabad, during the Check Period.
E.14: Payment to Shri.Sai Spiritual Central Trust
177. According to the Complainant, the Accused incurred expenditure of Rs.1,000/- towards payment to 147 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Shri.Sai Spiritual Central Trust, during the Check Period. But, no supporting evidence is available in this regard. In fact, the learned Public Prosecutor has fairly admitted the same in her Written Arguments. Hence, it is held that Complainant failed to prove that the Accused incurred expenditure of Rs.1,000/- towards payment to Shri.Sai Spiritual Central Trust, during the Check Period.
E.15: Expenditure towards Purchase of House at Vishakhapatnam
178. In her Written Arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor has contended that in Ex.P.13, the Accused himself has declared that he had given Rs.4,27,000/- to his wife for purchase of property at Maddilapalam, Vishakhapatnam and that as such, it has to be held that the Accused spent Rs.4,27,000/- during Check Period for purchasing that House. As observed above under Head- 'E.4', it is held that the Accused incurred expenditure of Rs.8,03,451/- during the Check Period towards purchase of the said House. The said amount includes expenditure towards Sale Consideration, Stamp Papers and Registration Fee incurred by the Accused for purchasing that House. As such, it is not necessary to once again consider Rs.4,27,000/- claimed by the learned Public Prosecutor as expenditure towards purchase of that House. Hence, it is held that it is not necessary to consider Rs.4,27,000/- as expenditure incurred by the Accused as the said expenditure is already considered under Head-'E.4'.
148 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] EXPENDITURE LEFT OUT BY BOTH THE PARTIES E.16: Expenditure towards Payment of Premium of ULIP Policies
179. As observed above in Heads-'B.7' and 'D.17', towards ULIP Policy No.920311034313, the Accused invested Rs.2,500/- p.a., from February 1992 till February 2001 i.e., upto the maturity of Policy, which amounts to Rs.25,000/-. Out of the said investment amount of Rs.25,000/-, investment of Rs.15,000/- has been taken into account under Head-'B.7' and remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- has to be taken into account as expenditure during the Check Period. There is no explanation from the Complainant as well as the Accused as to why they did not consider the said expenditure of Rs.10,000/- made by the Accused during the Check Period.
180. As observed above in Head-'B.7', the Accused invested Rs.2,000/- p.a., in ULIP-1971 Policy since 13.01.1996. P.W.13 has deposed that the said investment was for 10 years and that from 13.01.1996 till October 2004, the Accused has paid Rs.18,000/- towards Premium and that Ex.P.41 and Ex.P.42 relate to that Policy. As observed in Head-'B.7', prior to the commencement of the Check Period, payment made by the Accused towards that Policy was Rs.4,000/-. If this Rs.4,000/- is deducted from total Premium of Rs.18,000/- paid upto October 2004, payment made by the Accused during the Check Period amounts to Rs.14,000/-. There is no explanation from the 149 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Complainant as well as the Accused as to why they did not consider the said expenditure of Rs.14,000/- made by the Accused during the Check Period.
181. Hence, it is held that the Accused incurred expenses of Rs.10,000/- towards payment of Premium of ULIP Policy No.UL920311034313 and Rs.14,000/- towards payment of Premium of ULIP Policy No.UL0009603111047620 i.e., in all Rs.24,000/- during the Check Period.
E.17: FINAL CALCULATION OF STATEMENT-D
182. In view of the above findings, Final Calculation of Expenditure incurred by the Accused during the Check Period is as under:
Sl. Value
Details of Expenditure
No. (in Rs.)
E.1. Household expenditure @ one third of Gross Salary: 4,09,469 E.2. Repayment of Principal & Interest on Car Loan @ Rs.8,500/- per month from November 2003 to October 2004 (HDFC Bank, Hyderabad): 92,730 E.3. Repayment of Principal, Interest and Process Fee on Housing Loan of House at Hyderabad @ Rs.10,473/- per month from December 2003 to October 2004 (ICICI Home Finance, Hyderabad): 96,757 E.4. Expenditure towards Sale Consideration, Stamp Papers, Deficit Stamp Duty, Registration Fees of House at Vishakhapatnam: 8,03,451 150 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] E.5. Municipal tax paid to Vishakhapatnam Corporation on House: 3,680 E.6. LIC Policy Premium of Smt.Annapurna in City Branch-20, of LIC, Hyderabad: 15,249 E.7. LIC Policy Premium of Smt.Annapurna in LIC, DO, Nellore: 17,466 E.8. Expenditure towards Stamp Papers, Deficit Stamp Duty, Registration Fees of House at Hyderabad: 1,75,000 E.9. Expenditure towards Education of the children in HAL, Public School, Bengaluru: 18,105 E.10. Expenditure towards Education of the children in HAL, Public School, Hyderabad: 1,850 E.11. Expenditure towards Education of the children in HAL, Public School, Korwa: -
E.12. Expenditure towards Education of the children in HAL, Public School, Kanpur: - E.13. Expenditure on purchase of Car Accessories for new Car from M/s.Varun Motors, Hyderabad: 46,279 E.14. Payment to Shri.Sai Spiritual Central Trust: -
E.15. Expenditure towards Purchase of House at Vishakhapatnam: -
Expenditure Left Out By Both the Parties:
E.16. Expenditure towards Payment of Premium of ULIP Policies: 24,000 Total: 17,04,036 Thus, it is clear that the expenditure incurred by the Accused during the Check Period is Rs.17,04,036/-.
151 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Accordingly, it is held that the Expenditure incurred by the Accused during the Check Period is Rs.17,04,036/-.
F. FINAL CALCULATION OF INCOME, EXPENDITURE & ASSETS OF THE ACCUSED
183. From the above findings given on the Statements-A to D under the Heads-'B to E', Final Calculation of Income, Expenditure and Assets of the Accused is as under:
Sl. Amount
No. Description (In Rs.)
1. Assets at the beginning of the 4,11,292.00
Check Period (Statement-A) :
2. Assets at the end of the Check
Period (Statement-B) : 40,62,282.38
3. Income during the Check Period
(Statement-C) : 37,67,979.73
4. Expenditure during the Check
Period (Statement-D): 17,04,036.00
5. Assets Acquired during the Check
period (B-A): 36,50,990.38
6 Likely Savings during the Check
Period (C-D): 20,63,943.73
7. Extent to which Assets and
Expenditure are disproportionate
to likely savings [E=(B-A)-C+D]: 15,87,046.65
152 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J]
8. Percentage of Disproportionate
Assets=E x 100/C:
15,87,046.65 x 100/37,67,979.73 42.11%
From the above calculations based upon the findings given by this Court, it is clear that Disproportionate Assets worth Rs.15,87,046.65 i.e., to an extent of 42.11% were held by the Accused and his family members to their known and lawful sources of income. As observed above, the Accused has failed to show Receipts and Income as contended by them. As observed above, wife of the Accused had no independent source of income during the Check Period and she is a housewife only. Children of the Accused were still studying during the Check Period and they had no source of income. There is nothing to show that they had any job or source of income during the Check Period. As such, the probabilities are not at all in favour to believe or accept that the Disproportionate Assets, noted above, have been earned out of income of the Accused, his wife and his children. On the other hand, the Accused being a Senior Officer of HAL had a lucrative job during the Check Period. He has not given any satisfactory account in respect of the said Assets. Under these circumstances, the only inference that could be drawn is that the Disproportionate Assets, noted above, have been amassed by the Accused taking advantage or by misusing his position as a Public Servant.
153 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J]
184. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused has contended that the Check Period chosen by the Complainant is not proper as it does not give correct picture of the known sources of income, expenditure and assets of the Accused and that as such, the Accused cannot be held guilty. In support of his arguments, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused has relied upon a decision in the case of State of Maharashtra -Vs- Pollonji Dharab Shaw Daruwalla reported in AIR 1988 SC 88, wherein it is held as follows:
"In order to establish that a public servant is in possession of pecuniary resources and property, disproportionate to his known sources of income, it is not imperative that the period of reckoning be spread out for the entire stretch of anterior service of the public servant. There can be no general rule or criterion, valid for all cases, in regard to the choice of the period for which accounts are taken to establish criminal misconduct under S.5(1)(c) of the 'Act'. The choice of the period must necessarily be determined by the allegations of fact on which the prosecution is founded and rests. However, the period must be such as to enable a true and comprehensive picture of the known sources of income and the pecuniary resources and property in possession of the public servant either by himself or through any other person on his behalf, which are alleged to be so disproportionate. In the facts and circumstances of a case, a ten year period cannot be said to be incapable of yielding such a true and comprehensive picture. The assets spilling over from the anterior period, if their existence is probabilised would, of course, have to be given credit to on the income side and would go to reduce the extent and the quantum of the disproportion.
154 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] It is for the prosecution to choose what according to it, is the period which having regard to the acquisitive activities of the public servant in amassing wealth, characterize and isolate that period for special scrutiny".
In the case on hand, Check Period chosen by the Complainant is from 18.07.1997 to 26.10.2004 i.e., a period of 7 years 3 months. On 18.07.1997, the Accused joined HAL. As such, the said Check Period consists of starting date of service of the Accused till the end of the Check Period at HAL. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also allegations leveled against the Accused, it can be said that this long period of 7 years and 3 months i.e., his entire service period at HAL, is capable of giving a true and comprehensive picture of the known sources of income, expenditure and the assets in possession of the Accused. It is not shown by the Accused as to how the selection of that Check Period by the Complainant is not correct and that as to such selection has caused prejudice to him in any manner. On the other hand, entire income, expenditure and assets of the Accused, as contended by him during the course of arguments has been taken into consideration. Hence, it is not fit to accept the arguments of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused that selection of Check Period is not proper.
185. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused has contended that under similar set of facts and circumstances, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has 155 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] acquitted the Accused and that as such, the Accused in the case on hand also cannot be held guilty. In support of his argument, he relied upon an unreported Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka passed in Criminal Appeal No.2735/2006 on 17.04.2012 in the case of S.Thimmaraja -Vs- State by CBI. The said case relied upon by Counsel for the Accused is also a Disproportionate Assets case filed against Junior Telecom Officer of BSNL. The Check Period in that case was from 01.12.2000 to 16.12.2001 i.e., just 1 year 15 days. In that case, there was no proper authorization to conduct investigation and the evidence placed by the Complainant was not showing total income, expenditure and savings of the Accused and his family members during the entire service period of the Accused. Furthermore, in that case, the Trial Court had held that non-filing of Annual Property Report by the Accused was a serious defect, though the Accused still had time till the end of December 2001 for filing such Report. Under such circumstances, by setting aside the Judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka acquitted the Accused. But, facts and circumstances of that case are entirely different from those of the case on hand. As observed above, Check Period chosen is more than 7 years and that period is the entire service period of the Accused at HAL. Evidence available on record shows total Income, Receipts, Expenditure, Savings and Assets of the Accused during that period. Hence, the said decision is of no assistance to the learned Advocate 156 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] appearing on behalf of the Accused to substantiate his contention.
186. As observed above, the proved facts show that the Accused possessed Disproportionate Assets to the tune of Rs.15,87,046.65 to the known sources of income and that there is no satisfactory account on the part of the Accused in respect of those Assets. Thus, these proved facts show beyond reasonable doubt that the Accused is guilty of Criminal Misconduct within the meaning of Section 13(1)(e) of the Act, which is punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act. For all these reasons, Points-2 & 3 are answered in the affirmative holding that the Accused possessed Disproportionate Assets worth Rs.15,87,046.65 i.e., to an extent of 42.11% to his known and lawful sources of income.
POINT-4
187. In view of the above findings of this Court on Points-1 to 3, the Accused is liable for conviction for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(e) of the Act.
188. It is not in dispute that the Complainant has seized Rs.6,30,040/- from the House of the Accused during Search and Inventory. As observed above, explanation of the Accused that the said Cash belonged to his father is not fit to be accepted and it is held that it is an unaccounted 157 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] money possessed by the Accused, which is part of Disproportionate Assets held by the Accused. As such, it is just and proper to confiscate the said unaccounted Cash. By an Order dated 29.07.2009, the then Presiding Officer of this Court released that Cash in favour of Sri.M.A.R.Ganeshwar Rao i.e., the father of the Accused, by taking Indemnity Bond and a Surety binding themselves to pay that amount in case this Court confiscates the same in the event of conviction of the Accused. As such, now it is just and proper to direct Sri.M.A.R.Ganeshwar Rao and his Surety-Sri.Jonnalagadda Lakshminarayana to deposit the said Cash of Rs.6,30,040/- in the Court forthwith.
189. During the same Search and Inventory, the Complainant seized foreign currency of 500 Pounds and 100 US Dollars from the House of the Accused. But, either in the Charge Sheet or in the evidence, it is not the contention of the Complainant that the said currency is part of Disproportionate Assets held by the Accused. According to the Accused, the said currency belonged to his father, who had received the same from P.W.54. P.W.54-Sri.P.Srinivasalu has deposed the said fact. The Complainant has not disputed the said evidence of P.W.54 as well as the explanation of the Accused. As observed above, it is not the claim of the Complainant in this case that the said currency is part of Disproportionate Assets held by the Accused. Under these circumstances, it has to be inferred that the said foreign currency belongs to father of the 158 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Accused i.e., Sri.M.A.R.Ganeshwar Rao. Hence, it is just and proper to order to release the said foreign currency to Sri.M.A.R.Ganeshwar Rao.
190. During the course of arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the Complainant has filed Criminal Misc.No.4021/2011 before this Court seeking Attachment of Immovable Properties as per Section 3 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944 (for short, 'the Ordinance') and that in that case, an ad-interim Order of attachment is passed and that as such, as the Complainant has proved the guilt of the Accused, it is necessary to pass suitable Order under Section 12 of the Ordinance in this case and consequent Orders in that Criminal Misc. Petition. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused has submitted that as the Complainant has failed to prove the Charge in this case, question of passing Orders as prayed by the Public Prosecutor does not arise and that Criminal Misc. Petition requires to be dismissed as not maintainable. As observed above, it is held that the Accused possessed Disproportionate Assets to the tune of Rs.15,87,046.65 i.e., to an extent of 42.11% to the known sources of income and that as such, he is liable for conviction for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(e) of the Act. Therefore, it is clear that the Accused procured and possessed Assets worth Rs.15,87,046.65 by means of the offence committed by him relating to this case. Hence, 159 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] under Section 12 & 13 of the Ordinance, it is just and proper to pass suitable Order in that Criminal Misc. Petition and accordingly, such Order will be passed in that case.
191. In the result, the following Order is passed:
ORDER
1. Under Section 235(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973, the Accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 13(2) r/w.
13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Sentence will be passed after hearing the Accused.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her, revised, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 21st day of July 2017.) (ASWATHA NARAYANA) XLVII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru.
ORDER ON SENTENCE
192. Heard Counsels of both the sides and also the Accused regarding sentence to be imposed on the Accused. Records Perused.
193. The Accused and his Counsel submitted that the Accused is the first offender, he has no criminal background, he is suffering from Heart disease, his father 160 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] being aged about 87 years is suffering from age old ailments, his mother is a Cancer patient, his wife is suffering from arthritis, his children still studying, he has lost his job due to this case and that he has already suffered punishment by attending the Court since 2007 and that, as such, lenient view may be taken while imposing sentence on the Accused. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the Accused being a Senior Officer of HAL has committed grave economic offence with high disregard to his Office and the welfare of the Society; in fact, he was caught red-handed while accepting bribe, for which, he is facing trial before this Court itself and that as such, he is not entitled to any lenience and that on the other hand, maximum punishment provided in the Section has to be imposed on him.
194. The Accused has committed the offence punishable under Sections 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Accused being a Public Servant has amassed Disproportionate Assets to an extent of about Rs.15,87,046.65 i.e., 42.11% to his known sources of income and as such, the said act of the Accused is a serious offence. The Accused was a Senior Officer of HAL, which deals with Aeronautical Equipments and has dealings relating to Defence of our nation. Though he was in such a high position, without any regard to his Office and the oath taken by him and also by ignoring the welfare of the Society and our country, he has committed the heinous 161 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] crime. Corruption by Public Servant is highly dangerous to the Society as it seriously affects the welfare and progress of the nation. The Apex Court has held time and again that it is the duty of the Court to award proper sentence having regard to the manner in which the offence was committed and that age of the Accused and that sufficient time elapsed since occurrence of the incident are of no relevance and that showing undue sympathy would do more harm to criminal justice system undermining the public confidence in the efficacy of the system. If any mercy is shown, a wrong message will go to the Society to the effect that, it is possible to escape from the punishment by committing serious offences also. Such a wrong message will have a serious repercussion on the Society that too in these hard days, where there is severe increase of crime rate that too by Public Servants holding high positions. On considering all these facts and circumstances, nature and gravity of the offence that the Accused has committed, it is not a fit case to show mercy on the Accused. However, the Accused is attending the Court since 10 years. He has lost job because of this case. Having regard to all these facts, nature and gravity of the offence committed by the Accused, present status of the Accused and his family and all other facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the ends of justice would be met if the Accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,00,000/- and in default to pay fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period of six months for 162 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] the offence punishable under Sections 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
195. In the result, the following Order is passed:
ORDER
1. Under Section 235(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973, The Accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,00,000/- and in default to pay fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period of six months for the offence punishable under Sections 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Cash of Rs.6,30,040/- seized in this case is confiscated to State. For realisation of the said amount, issue Notice to Sri.M.A.R.Ganeshwar Rao & Sri.Jonnalagadda Lakshminarayana, directing them to deposit the said amount in this Court within 3 weeks.
3. Foreign currency i.e., 500 Pounds and 100 US Dollars seized in this case be returned to Sri.M.A.R.Ganeshwar Rao.
163 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J]
4. Furnish free Copy of the Judgment to the Accused forthwith.
(Computerized by the Judgment Writer to my dictation in the open Court on this the 21st day of July 2017.) (ASWATHA NARAYANA) XLVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru.
164 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT WITH THE DATES OF THEIR EXAMINATION:
P.W.1 Sri.Y.P.Nagaraj. 08.02.2011.
P.W.2 Sri.Uday Bhanu Singh. 08.02.2011.
P.W.3 Smt.Dr.T.R.Dhanalata. 06.04.2011.
P.W.4 Sri.Girish Tampta. 06.04.2011.
P.W.5 Sri.Tharanath Mallya. 06.04.2011.
P.W.6 Sri.Subhash Chakrawarthy. 20.06.2011.
P.W.7 Dr.I.Babji. 23.08.2011.
P.W.8 Sr.Karl Dushyant. 23.08.2011.
P.W.9 Sri.Sandeep Roy. 23.08.2011.
P.W.10 Sri.Krishna Swaroop. 23.08.2011.
P.W.11 Sri.R.Dhamodhara Rao. 10.11.2011.
P.W.12 Sri.Prathap Chandra Nanda. 10.11.2011.
P.W.13 Smt.Urmila Anand. 10.11.2011.
P.W.14 Sri.Divakar.M. 10.11.2011.
P.W.15 Sri.Sundara Rao. 02.01.2012.
P.W.16 Sri.Lallan Kumar. 02.01.2012.
P.W.17 Sri.M.Subramanya. 13.02.2012.
P.W.18 Sri.T.Varaprasad. 13.02.2012.
165 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J]
P.W.19 Sri.S.A.Gafoor. 14.03.2012.
P.W.20 Sri.Lakshmi Narayan Rao.M. 14.03.2012.
P.W.21 Sri.R.Rajkumar. 17.04.2012.
P.W.22 Sri.T.V.Prasad. 17.04.2012.
P.W.23 Sri.Jagan Mohan.G. 17.04.2012.
P.W.24 Sri.Srinivas. 17.04.2012.
P.W.25 Sri.D.P.Singh. 25.05.2012.
P.W.26 Sri.Paritosh Kumar Dixit. 25.05.2012.
P.W.27 Sri.Anup Varma. 25.05.2012.
P.W.28 Sri.V.K.Singh. 25.05.2012.
P.W.29 Sri.R.C.Sonkar. 25.05.2012.
P.W.30 Sri.Nirmal Kumar Shukla. 12.06.2012.
P.W.31 Sri.Mohamad Salim. 12.06.2012.
P.W.32 Smt.Sindhu Vijay Kumar. 06.07.2012.
P.W.33 Sri.Y.Jagan Mohan Rao. 06.07.2012.
P.W.34 Sri.K.N.Srinivasa Babu. 06.07.2012.
P.W.35 Sri.M.C.Mishra. 03.08.2012.
P.W.36 Sri.C.Chalapathi Rao. 03.08.2012.
P.W.37 Sri.V.Udaya Bhaskar Rao. 03.08.2012.
Sri.Tanikella Shivaram
P.W.38 03.08.2012.
Krishna.
P.W.39 Smt.Anju Singh 05.10.2012.
166 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J]
P.W.40 Sri.Peter.D.J.K.M. 05.10.2012.
P.W.41 Sri.Subramanyam. 05.10.2012.
P.W.42 Sri.V.Adi Reddy. 05.10.2012.
P.W.43 Sri.Ganesh Dandapani Iyer. 08.11.2012.
P.W.44 Sri.Pradeep Kumar. 10.01.2013.
P.W.45 Sri.Ashok Kumar Saxena. 10.01.2013.
P.W.46 Sri.S.S.Giri. 11.03.2013.
P.W.47 Sri.M.V.N.Murthy. 09.04.2013.
P.W.48 Sri.M.Anuradha. 09.04.2013.
P.W.49 Sri.M.V.L.Surya Prabha. 09.04.2013.
P.W.50 Sri.O.Bharathi. 09.04.2013.
P.W.51 Sri.A.Chitty Babu. 09.04.2013.
P.W.52 Sri.Ankadala Tavitanna. 09.04.2013.
P.W.53 Sri.K.Shayam Sundara Rao. 09.04.2013.
P.W.54 Sri.P.Srinvasalu. 09.04.2013.
P.W.55 Smt.V.C.Devika Rani. 09.04.2013.
P.W.56 Sri.J.Laxminarayana. 04.06.2013.
P.W.57 Sri.P.M.Naidu. 04.06.2013.
P.W.58 Sri.L.S.Padma Kumar. 01.07.2013.
P.W.59 Sri.M.N.Kamath. 28.10.2013.
P.W.60 Sri.Prashanth Singh. 28.10.2013.
167 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J]
2. LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P.1 : Statement of Accounts bearing A/c No.01190/052220 of SBI pertaining to the Accused for the period from 27.05.2004 to 30.10.2004.
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of Sri.Sudhakar Kulai in Certificate under Section 2A of the Bankers' Books of Evidence Act, 1981.
Ex.P.2 : Letter dated 30.03.2005 from SBI, Bengaluru to The Dy.S.P., CBI, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of Sri.H.K.Sathyanarayana in Ex.P.2.
Ex.P.3 : Salary Particulars of the Accused from June-2004 to October-2004 issued from Sri.Udyabanu Singh, Manager (Finance).
Ex.P.3(a) : Signature of P.W.2 in Ex.P.3. Ex.P.4 : Letter dated 28.06.2005 from HAL, Bengaluru to the Dy.S.P., CBI, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.4(a) : Signature of P.W.2 in Ex.P.4. Ex.P.5 : Statement of Accounts bearing SB A/c No.4026 of Andhra Bank, Srikakulam, Women's College Branch, AP pertaining to the Accused for the period from 01.01.2004 to 30.10.2004.
Ex.P.5(a) : Signature of P.W.4 in Ex.P.5.
Ex.P.6 : Letter dated 09.10.2005 from Andhra Bank, Srikakulam, Women's College Branch, AP to The Dy.S.P., CBI, Bengaluru.
168 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Ex.P.6(a) : Signature of P.W.4 in Ex.P.6.
Ex.P.7 : Certified Extract of Statement dated
09.06.2005 bearing SB A/c.No.6107
of UCO Bank, HZSF Branch,
Vishakhapatnam pertaining to the
Accused for the period from
01.01.1997 to 09.06.2005.
Ex.P.7(a) : Signature of P.W.5 in Certificate Under
Section 2A of the Bankers' Books of
Evidence Act, 1981.
Ex.P.8 : Certified Extract of Statement dated
09.06.2005 bearing SB A/c.No.7264
of UCO Bank, HZSF Branch,
Vishakhapatnam pertaining to
Sri.Krishna Chaitanya for the period from 01.01.1997 to 09.06.2005.
Ex.P.8(a) : Signature of P.W.5 in Certificate Under Section 2A of the Bankers' Books of Evidence Act, 1981.
Ex.P.9 : Certified Extract of Statement dated
09.06.2005 bearing SB A/c.No.7181
of UCO Bank, HZSF Branch,
Vishakhapatnam pertaining Smt.Annapurna for the period from 01.01.1997 to 09.06.2005.
Ex.P.9(a) : Signature of P.W.5 in Certificate Under Section 2A of the Bankers' Books of Evidence Act, 1981.
Ex.P.10 : Letter dated 20.09.2005 from UCO Bank, HZSF Branch, Vishakhapatnam to the Dy.S.P., CBI, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.10(a) : Signature of Sri.Singh in Ex.P.10.
Ex.P.11 : Letter dated 09.06.2005 from UCO Bank, HZSF Branch, Vishakhapatnam to the Dy.S.P., CBI, Bengaluru.
169 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Ex.P.11(a) : Signature of P.W.5 in Ex.P.11. Ex.P.12 : Statement No.I regarding Immovable Properties possessed by the Accused between 18.07.1997 to 31.10.2004.
Ex.P.12(a) : Signature of the Accused in Ex.P.12.
Ex.P.13 : Statement No.II regarding Immovable Properties of the Accused between 01.07.1997 to 31.10.2004.
Ex.P.13(a) : Signature of the Accused in Ex.P.13.
Ex.P.14 : Statement No.III regarding Movable Properties of the Accused between 18.07.1997 to 31.10.2004.
Ex.P.14(a) : Signature of the Accused in Ex.P.14.
Ex.P.15 : Statement No.III regarding Movable Properties possessed by the Accused before 18.07.1997.
Ex.P.15(a) : Signature of the Accused in Ex.P.15.
Ex.P.16 : Statement No.IV regarding Movable
Properties disposed off from
01.07.1997 to 31.10.2004.
Ex.P.16(a) : Signature of the Accused in Ex.P.16. Ex.P.17 : Statement No.V regarding Financial Investment and Cash pertaining to the Accused between 18.07.1997 to 31.10.2004.
Ex.P.17(a) : Signature of the Accused in Ex.P.17.
Ex.P.18 : Statement No.VI regarding Financial Investment of Cash of Dependents of the Accused between 18.07.1997 to 31.10.2004.
Ex.P.18(a) : Signature of the Accused in Ex.P.18.
170 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Ex.P.19 : Copy of Annual Property Returns of Movable and Immovable Properties.
Ex.P.20 : Copy of Annual Property Returns of Movable and Immovable Properties.
Ex.P.21 : Copy of Annual Property Returns pertaining to PB No.7733.
Ex.P.22 : Copy of Annual Property Returns for the period from 31.03.2001 to 31.03.2002.
Ex.P.22(A) : Copy of Ex.P.22.
Ex.P.23 : Copy of Annual Property Returns since joining to HAL.
Ex.P.24 : Copy of Last Pay Certificate dated 31.05.2004 pertaining to the Accused.
Ex.P.25 : Copy of Appendix-IV dated 09.03.1999 pertaining to the Accused.
Ex.P.26 : Copy of Statement of Immovable Property dated 09.03.1999 for the year 1998-99.
Ex.P.27 : Copy of Property Returns in Appendix-
IV dated 20.07.1997.
Ex.P.28 : Copy of Statement of Immovable Properties in Appendix-IV dated 19.03.1995.
Ex.P.29 : Copy of Property Returns seeking approval in Appendix-IV dated 21.01.2002.
Ex.P.30 : Copy of the Suspension Order dated 29.11.2004 pertaining to the Accused issued from HAL.
Ex.P.31 : Letter dated 02.06.2005 from HAL.
Vigilance Department, Bengaluru to The Dy.S.P., CBI, Bengaluru regarding 171 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] forwarding of Original Statements-I to VI pertaining to the Accused.
Ex.P.31(a) : Signature of Sri.Pradeep Kumar in Ex.P.31.
Ex.P.32 : File containing Letter dated 27.05.2006 from HAL, Vigilance Department Bengaluru to the Dy.S.P., CBI, Bengaluru along with Attested Copies of Annual Property Returns for the years 1996 to 2004 pertaining to the Accused.
Ex.P.32(a) : Signature of P.W.6 in Ex.P.32.
Ex.P.32(b) : Signature of Sri.Pradeep Kumar in Ex.P.32.
Ex.P.33 : Statement of Account of ICICI Bank for the period from 21.08.2002 to 31.03.2003 and 01.04.2003 to 30.10.2004 pertaining to the Accused.
Ex.P.33(a) : Signature of P.W.8 in Ex.P.33.
Ex.P.34 : Letter dated 02.04.2005 from ICICI Bank to the Dy.S.P., CBI, Bengaluru regarding Details of A/c.No.631601021232 pertaining to the Accused.
Ex.P.34(a) : Signature of P.W.8 in Ex.P.34.
Ex.P.35 : Letter dated 19.07.2005 from UTI Mutual Fund to The Dy.S.P., CBI, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.36 : Letter dated 20.07.2005 from BHPV, Vishakapatnam to The Dy.S.P., CBI, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.37 : Letter dated 29.12.05 from BHPV, Vishakapatnam to The Dy.S.P., CBI, Bengaluru.
172 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J]
Ex.P.38 : Certified Copy of Sale Deed dated
25.05.2001 executed between
Smt.Vijjapurapu Meenakshi and
Smt.Jonnalagadda Annapurna.
Ex.P.38(a) : Signature of P.W.11 in Ex.P.38.
Ex.P.39 : Letter dated 08.09.2005 from UTI Technology Services Ltd. to The Dy.S.P., CBI, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.39(a) : Signature of P.W.13 in Ex.P.39.
Ex.P.40 : Letter dated 23.09.2005 from UTI Technology Services Ltd. to the Dy.S.P., CBI, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.40(a) : Signature of P.W.13 in Ex.P.40.
Ex.P.41 : Statement of Account dated 08.09.2005
of UTI Mutual Fund bearing
No.148316210 for the period from
01.01.1999 to 06.09.2005 pertaining to the Accused.
Ex.P.42 : Statement of Account dated 08.09.2005 of UTI Mutual Fund bearing No.193513794 for the period from 01.01.1999 to 06.09.2005 pertaining to the Accused.
Ex.P.43 : Statement of Account dated 08.09.2005
of UTI Mutual Fund bearing
No.259102430 for the period from
01.01.2000 to 06.09.2005 pertaining to the Accused.
Ex.P.44 : Statement of Account dated 08.09.2005
of UTI Mutual Fund bearing
No.242504267 for the period from
01.01.1990 to 06.09.2005 pertaining to wife of the Accused-Smt.Annapurna.
173 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Ex.P.44(A) : Enclosure to Ex.P.44-Membership Advice dated 02.04.1994 issued in the name of Smt.Annapurna.
Ex.P.45 : Letter dated 15.10.2005 from M/s.Coolwell Electrix, Bengaluru to the Dy.S.P., CBI, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.45(a) : Signature of Sri.K.P.John in Ex.P.45.
Ex.P.46 : Receipt No.7136 dated 07.04.2004 issued from M/s.Coolwell Electrix, Bengaluru for Rs.28,525/-.
Ex.P.46(a) : Signature of Sri.K.P.John in Ex.P.46.
Ex.P.47 : Letter dated 19.07.2005 from the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-3, Vishakapatnam to the Dy.S.P., CBI, Bengaluru along with its enclosures.
Ex.P.47(a) : Signature of P.W.15 in Ex.P.47.
Ex.P.48 : Letter dated 19.07.2005 from Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-3, Vishakapatnam to The Dy.S.P., CBI, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.48(a) : Signature of Sri.Mahendra Singh in Ex.P.48.
Ex.P.49 : Copy of Audited Annual Financial Statement for the year 1997-1998 pertaining to Indian Institute of Management (IIM), Vishakapatanam.
Ex.P.49(a) : Signature of P.W.16 in Ex.P.49.
Ex.P.50 : Copy of Audited Annual Financial Statement for the year 1998-1999 pertaining to Indian Institute of Management (IIM), Vishakapatnam.
Ex.P.50(a) : Signature of P.W.16 in Ex.P.50.
174 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Ex.P.51 : Copy of Audited Annual Financial Statement for the year 1999-2000 pertaining to Indian Institute of Management (IIM), Vishakapatnam.
Ex.P.51(a) : Signature of P.W.16 in Ex.P.51.
Ex.P.52 : Copy of Audited Annual Financial Statement for the year 2000-2001 pertaining to Indian Institute of Management (IIM), Vishakapatnam.
Ex.P.52(a) : Signature of P.W.16 in Ex.P.52.
Ex.P.53 : Copy of Audited Annual Financial Statement for the year 2001-2002 pertaining to Indian Institute of Management (IIM), Vishakapatnam.
Ex.P.53(a) : Signature of P.W.16 in Ex.P.53.
Ex.P.54 : Copy of Audited Annual Financial Statement for the year 2002-2003 pertaining to Indian Institute of Management (IIM), Vishakapatnam.
Ex.P.54(a) : Signature of P.W.16 in Ex.P.54.
Ex.P.55 : Copy of Audited Annual Financial Statement for the year 2003-2004 pertaining to Indian Institute of Management (IIM), Vishakapatnam.
Ex.P.55(a) : Signature of P.W.16 in Ex.P.55.
Ex.P.56 : Copy of Audited Annual Financial Statement for the year 2004-2005 pertaining to Indian Institute of Management (IIM), Vishakapatnam.
Ex.P.56(a) : Signature of P.W.16 in Ex.P.56.
Ex.P.57 : Cash Bill No.10 dated 16.04.2002 for Rs.47,901/- issued from Chandana Brothers, Jewelery, Vishakapatnam.
175 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Ex.P.58 : Cash Bill No.13 dated 16.04.2002 for Rs.63,865/- issued from Chandana Brothers, Jewelery, Vishakapatnam.
Ex.P.59 : Cash Bill No.A-59 dated 17.08.2002
for Rs.23,060.25 issued from
M/s.Chandana Brothers, Jewelery,
Vishakapatnam.
Ex.P.60 : Letter dated 13.04.2005 from SBI,
HAL Campus Branch, Hyderabad to
the Dy.S.P., CBI, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.61 : Statement of Accounts of SBI, HAL
Campus Branch, Hyderabad for the
period from 15.10.2003 to 13.10.2005 pertaining to the Accused.
Ex.P.61(a) : Signature of P.W.18 in Certificate Under Section 2A of the Bankers' Books of Evidence Act, 1981.
Ex.P.62 : Letter dated 05.09.2005 from LC of India, Hyderabad to the Dy.S.P., CBI, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.62(a) : Signature of P.W.19 in Ex.P.62.
Ex.P.63 : Office Order issued from LIC of India.
Ex.P.63(a) : Signature of P.W.20 in Ex.P.63.
Ex.P.64 : Form-300-Attested Copy of LIC Application dated 05.02.2004 in the name of Smt.Annapurna.
Ex.P.64(a) : Seal and Signature of P.W.20 in Ex.P.64.
Ex.P.64(A) : Attested copy of Agents Confidential Report dated 05.02.2004 of LIC of India.
176 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Ex.P.64(A-a) : Seal and Signature of P.W.20 in Ex.P.64(A).
Ex.P.64(B) : Attested Copy of Medical Examiner's Confidential Report dated 05.04.2004. Ex.P.64(B-a) : Seal and Signature of P.W.20 in Ex.P.64(B).
Ex.P.64(C) : Attested Copy of SSLC Certificate of Smt.Annapurna.
Ex.P.64(C-a) : Seal and Signature of P.W.20 in Ex.P.64(C).
Ex.P.64(D) : Attested Copy of Proposal Deposit Receipt bearing No.7316344 dated 03.02.2004 for Rs.17,320/-.
Ex.P.64(D-a) : Signature of P.W.20 in Ex.P.64(D).
Ex.P.65 : Copy of Proposal Deposit Receipt
bearing No.7317053 dated
07.02.2004 for Rs.146/-.
Ex.P.65(a) : Seal and Signature of P.W.20 in
Ex.P.65.
Ex.P.66 : Attested Copy of LIC Policy bearing
No.840534623 dated 11.02.2004
pertaining to the wife of the Accused-
Smt.Annapurna.
Ex.P.66(a) : Seal and Signature of P.W.20 in Ex.P.66.
Ex.P.67 : Attested Copy of Status Report dated 06.02.2004 pertaining to LIC Policy No.840534623.
Ex.P.67(a) : Seal and Signature of P.W.20 in Ex.P.67.
Ex.P.68 : Annexure-B-Attested Copy of Letter dated 12.02.2004 from LIC of India, Nellore Division to the Dy.S.P., CBI, Bengaluru.
177 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Ex.P.68(a) : Seal and Signature of P.W.20 in Ex.P.68.
Ex.P.69 : Attested Copy of Policy Proposal Review slip dated 06.02.2004 issued from LIC of India, Nellore Division.
Ex.P.69(a) : Seal and Signature of P.W.20 in Ex.P.69.
Ex.P.70 : Letter dated 18.10.2005 from ICICI Bank, Hyderabad to The Dy.S.P., CBI, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.71 : Statement of Account of ICICI Bank, Hyderabad bearing A/c No.631201098581 for the period from 11.07.2004 to 16.10.2004 pertaining to Smt.M.V.L.Surya Prabha.
Ex.P.72 : Letter dated 24.05.2005 from Government of Andhra Pradesh, Registration of Stamps Department to the Dy.S.P., CBI, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.73 : Copy of Sale Deed dated 28.11.2003 executed from Sri.Pankaj Kumar Kanjlal in favour of Sri.M.V.Rao & Smt.Annapurna.
Ex.P.74 : Credit Card Slip dated 04.10.2003 for Rs.9,116/- issued from Standard Chartered, Hyderabad.
Ex.P.75 : Carbon Copy of Daily Statement dated 11.01.2004 for Rs.21,823/-.
Ex.P.76 : Receipt Memo dated 19.10.2005.
Ex.P.76(a) : Signature of P.W.23 in Ex.P.76.
Ex.P.77 : Letter dated 13.04.2005 from Orient Bank of Commerce, Hyderabad to The Dy.S.P., CBI, Bengaluru.
178 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Ex.P.77(a) : Signature of Sri.S.Ramesh in Ex.P.77.
Ex.P.78 : Statement of Account bearing A/c.
No.11050128231 for the period from 18.10.2003 to 26.03.2005 of Orient Bank of Commerce pertaining to the Accused and his wife-J.Annapurna.
Ex.P.79 : Copy of Letter dated 31.08.2005 from the Sub-Post Master, Department of Posts, Kanpur to The Dy.SP, CBI, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.79(a) : Initials of P.W.25 in Ex.P.79.
Ex.P.80 : Letter dated 24.11.2005 from the Sub-Post Master, Department of Posts, Kanpur to The Dy.S.P., CBI, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.80(a) : Initials of P.W.25 in Ex.P.80.
Ex.P.81 : Attested Copy of Ledger Extract bearing A/c.No.2770949 of Post Office at Kanpur pertaining to the Accused and his wife-Smt.J.Annapurna.
Ex.P.81(a) : Initials of P.W.25 in Ex.P.81.
Ex.P.82 : Salary Particulars of the Accused for the period from July-1997 to August-
2001.
Ex.P.82(a) : Signature of P.W.26 in Ex.P.82.
Ex.P.83 : Particulars of Yearwise Net Earning of the Accused for the period from July-
1997 to August-2001.
Ex.P.83(a) : Signature of P.W.26 in Ex.P.83.
Ex.P.84 : Bill No.683 dated 24.10.2000 for Rs.5,150/- of M/s.Dulare Jewelers.
179 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Ex.P.85 : Bill No.213 dated 10.06.2000 for Rs.732/- of M/s.Dulare Jewelers.
Ex.P.86 : Bill No.559 dated 24.10.2000 for Rs.9,100/- of M/s.Dulare Jewelers.
Ex.P.87 : Bill No.4393 dated 05.08.2000 for Rs.27,100/- of M/s.Kashi Jewelers.
Ex.P.87(A) : Copy of Ex.P.87.
Ex.P.88 : Bill No.1801 dated 05.08.2000 for Rs.4,400/- of M/s.Kashi Jewelers & Co.
Ex.P.88(A) : Copy of Ex.P.88.
Ex.P.89 : Cash Bill No.5863 dated 16.09.2000 for Rs.20,800/- of M/s.Kashi Jewelers.
Ex.P.89(A) : Copy of Ex.P.89.
Ex.P.90 : Bill No.2316 dated 16.09.2000 for Rs.6,070/- of M/s.Kashi Jewellers & Co. Ex.P.90(A) : Copy of Ex.P.90.
Ex.P.91 : Bill No.9580 dated 13.12.2000 for Rs.16,900/- of M/s.Kashi Jewelers.
Ex.P.91(A) : Copy of Ex.P.91.
Ex.P.92 : Bill No.3595 dated 23.07.2001 for Rs.9,000/- of M/s.Kashi Jewelers.
Ex.P.92(A) : Copy of Ex.P.92.
Ex.P.93 : Bill No.3594 dated 23.07.2001 for Rs.20,000/- of M/s.Kashi Jewelers.
Ex.P.93(A) : Copy of Ex.P.93.
Ex.P.94 : Bill No.11764 dated 10.02.2001 for Rs.33,700/- of M/s.Kashi Jewelers.
Ex.P.94(A) : Copy of Ex.P.94.
180 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Ex.P.95 : Letter dated 12.11.2005 from M/s.Kashi Jewelers to The Dy.S.P., CBI, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.95(a) : Signature of P.W.28 in Ex.P.95. Ex.P.96 : Receipt Memo dated 12.11.2005.
Ex.P.96(a) : Signature of P.W.28 in Ex.P.96.
Ex.P.97 : Letter dated 30.08.2005 from SBI, HAL, Kanpur to The Dy.S.P., CBI, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.97(a) : Signature of P.W.29 in Ex.P.97.
Ex.P.98 : Letter dated 06.04.2005 from Punjab National Bank, New Chakeri, Kanpur to The Dy.S.P., CBI, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.99 : Letter dated 11.11.2005 from Punjab National Bank, HAL Extension, Kanpur to The Dy.S.P., CBI, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.99(a) : Signature of P.W.30 in Ex.P.99.
Ex.P.100 : Letter dated 04.01.2006 from HAL Public School, Bengaluru to The Dy.S.P., CBI, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.100(a) : Signature of Principal of HAL Public School-Smt.Shobha Rajiv in Ex.P.100.
Ex.P.101 : Fee Structure of HAL Public School, Bengaluru for the year 2004-05 pertaining to the children of the Accused.
Ex.P.102 : Fee Structure of HAL Public School, Bengaluru for the year 2005-06 pertaining to the children of the Accused.
Ex.P.103 : Fee Details of HAL Public School, Bengaluru for the year 2004-05 181 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] pertaining to the children of the Accused.
Ex.P.104 : Fee Details of HAL Public School, Bengaluru for the year 2005-06 pertaining to the children of the Accused.
Ex.P.105 : Letter dated 10.01.2006 from HAL High School, Hyderabad to The Dy.S.P., CBI, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.105(a) : Signature of Head Mistress of HAL High School, Hyderabad in Ex.P.105.
Ex.P.106 : Statement showing the Fee paid to the School by the Accused pertaining to his children for the period from September-2003 to 2004.
Ex.P.106-A : Letter dated 13.09.2005 from SBI, (As per Order Korwa Branch, Sulthanpur District, UP dated 27.02.17) to The Dy.S.P., CBI, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.106-A(a) : Signature of Sri.D.Munshi in Ex.P.106.
Ex.P.107 : Ledger Account for the period from 01.04.2003 to 31.03.2004 of M/s.Varun Motors Private Limited, Hyderabad pertaining to payments made by the Accused regarding purchase of Car.
Ex.P.107(a) : Seal and Signature of Sri.P.T.Nagaraj in Ex.P.107.
Ex.P.107-A : Statement of Account of SBI for the (As per Order dated 07.06.2016) period from 26.09.2001 to 24.06.2005 pertaining to the Accused.
Ex.P.107-A(a) : Branch Seal with Initials of P.W.35 in Ex.P.107-A. 182 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Ex.P.108 : Receipt Memo dated 17.11.2005 of SBI, Korwa, Sultanpur Dist.
Ex.P.109 : Statement of Account of SBI, BHPV
Ltd. Campus, Vishakapatnam
pertaining to Sri.J.Lakshmi Narayana.
Ex.P.109(a) : Initials of P.W.36 on the 1st Sheet of Ex.P.109.
Ex.P.109(b) : Initials of P.W.36 on the 2nd Sheet of Ex.P.109.
Ex.P.110 : Photocopy of 2 Cheques dated 14.05.2001 for Rs.6,71,866/- and dated 26.05.2001 for Rs.4,02,992/-
and one Pay-in-Slip dated 18.05.2001 for Rs.6,71,866/-of SBI.
Ex.P.111 : Receipt Memo dated 19.01.2006. Ex.P.111(a) : Signature of Sri.Padma Kumar.L.S., The Dy.SP, CBI, Bengaluru in Ex.P.111.
Ex.P.111(b) : Signature of P.W.37 in Ex.P.111.
Ex.P.112 : Credit Voucher dated 24.05.2001 for
Rs.4,00,000/- of Andhra Bank,
Vishakapatnam pertaining to
Sri.J.Lakshmi Narayan.
Ex.P.113 : Credit Voucher dated 26.05.2001 for
Rs.3,00,000/- of Andhra Bank,
Vishakapatnam pertaining to
Sri.J.Lakshmi Narayan.
Ex.P.114 : Credit Voucher dated 29.05.2001 for
Rs.2,30,000/- of Andhra Bank,
Vishakapatnam pertaining to
Sri.J.Lakshmi Narayan.
183 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J]
Ex.P.115 : Cheque No.757775 dated 24.05.2001
for Rs.6,00,000/- issued in favour of Smt.Vijjapurapu Meenakshi.
Ex.P.116 : Statement of Account of ICICI Bank for the period from 01.10.2004 to 30.10.2004 pertaining to the SB A/c.
No.631601021232 of the Accused.
Ex.P.117 : Statement of Account bearing A/c.
No.01190008694 of State Bank of Hyderabad, Vizag pertaining to Sri.J.Lakshmi Narayana for the period from 01.01.2003 to 08.06.2005.
Ex.P.117(a) : Seal and Signature of Branch Manager in Ex.P.117.
Ex.P.118 : Statement of Account of State Bank of Hyderabad, Muvvalavanipalam for the period from 01.01.2000 to 08.03.2003 pertaining to Sri.J.Lakshmi Narayana.
Ex.P.118(a) : Seal and Signature of Branch Manager in Ex.P.118.
Ex.P.119 : Statement in respect of A/c No.7733 pertaining to the Accused issued from M/s.Shiv Electronics, HAL, Sultanpur.
Ex.P.120 : Invoice Cum Delivery Challan No.245 dated 20.04.2002 for Rs.29,200/-
issued from M/s.Shiv Electronics in the name of the Accused.
Ex.P.121 : Invoice Cum Delivery Challan No.249 dated 20.08.2002 for Rs.850/- issued from M/s.Shiv Electronics in the name of the Accused.
Ex.P.122 : Invoice Cum Delivery Challan No.280 dated 08.09.2002 for Rs.1,995/-
184 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] issued from M/s.Shiv Electronics in the name of the Accused.
Ex.P.123 : Invoice Cum Delivery Challan No.473 dated 18.12.2002 for Rs.7,250/-
issued from M/s.Shiv Electronics in the name of the Accused.
Ex.P.124 : Invoice Cum Delivery Challan No.537 dated 31.01.2003 for Rs.950/- issued from M/s.Shiv Electronics in the name of the Accused.
Ex.P.125 : Invoice Cum Delivery Challan No.540 dated 07.02.2003 for Rs.199/- issued from M/s.Shiv Electronics in the name of the Accused.
Ex.P.126 : Invoice Cum Delivery Challan No.553 dated 15.02.2003 for Rs.139/- issued from M/s.Shiv Electronics in the name of the Accused.
Ex.P.127 : Seizure Memo dated 19.11.2005.
Ex.P.127(a) : Signature of P.W.39 in Ex.P.127.
Ex.P.128 : Search List dated 27.10.2004.
Ex.P.128(a) : Signature of P.W.40 in Ex.P.128.
Ex.P.128(b) : Signature of P.W.46 in Ex.P.128.
Ex.P.128(c) : Signature of Accused in Ex.P.128.
Ex.P.129 : Inventory List dated 26.10.2004.
Ex.P.129(a) : Signature of P.W.40 in Ex.P.129.
185 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Ex.P.129(b) : Signature of P.W.46 in Ex.P.129.
Ex.P.130 : Search List dated 27.10.2004.
Ex.P.130(a) : Signature of P.W.40 in Ex.P.130.
Ex.P.130(b) : Signature of P.W.46 in Ex.P.130.
Ex.P.130(c) : Signature of the Accused in Ex.P.130.
Ex.P.131 : Valuation Report dated 24.02.2006.
Ex.P.131(a) : Signature of P.W.41 in Ex.P.131.
Ex.P.132 : Xerox Copy of Rough Sketch of House on Plot No.175, Vasanth Nagar pertaining to the Accused.
Ex.P.132(a) : Signature of P.W.41 in Ex.P.132.
Ex.P.133 : Letter dated 24.02.2006 from the Assistant Engineer, HCSD, III/5, CPWD, Hyderabad to the Executive Engineer, HCD III, CPWD, Hyderabad.
Ex.P.133(a) : Signature of P.W.41 in Ex.P.133. Ex.P.134 : Proceedings of Valuation of Property dated 16.01.2006 owned by the Accused.
Ex.P.134(a) : Signature of P.W.41 in Ex.P.134.
Ex.P.134(b) : Signature of P.W.58 in Ex.P.134.
Ex.P.135 : Valuation Report of Ground Floor
Building, Door No.1-62-19,
Vishakapatnam pertaining to
Smt.J.Annapurna.
Ex.P.135(a) : Signature of P.W.42 in Ex.P.135.
Ex.P.135(b) : Signature of P.W.42 in Ex.P.135.
186 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Ex.P.135(c) : Signature of P.W.42 in Ex.P.135.
Ex.P.135(d) : Signature of P.W.42 in Ex.P.135.
Ex.P.135(e) : Signature of P.W.42 in Ex.P.135.
Ex.P.136 : Letter dated 07.03.2006 from the Executive Engineer, Central Division, CPWD, Vishakapatnam to The Dy.SP, CBI, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.137 : Proceedings of Valuation of Property owned by Smt.J.Annapurna.
Ex.P.137(a) : Signature of P.W.42 in Ex.P.137.
Ex.P.137(b) : Signature of P.W.58 in Ex.P.137.
Ex.P.138 : Letter dated 26.07.2005 from M/s.3i Infotech Limited, Mumbai to The Dy.SP, CBI, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.138(a) : Signature of P.W.43 in Ex.P.138.
Ex.P.139 : Annexure-I-Particulars of Issue of
Bonds of January-1999 bearing
No.500127 dated 03.03.1999 issued
from M/s.3i Infotech Limited, Mumbai in the name of the Accused.
Ex.P.140 : Annexure-II-Particulars of Issue of Bonds of Febbruary-2000 bearing No.7096971 dated 24.03.2000 issued from M/s.3i Infotech Limited, Mumbai in the name of the Accused.
Ex.P.141 : Annexure-III-Particulars of Issue of Bonds of August-2000 bearing No.7863597 dated 05.10.2000 issued from M/s.3i Infotech Limited, Mumbai in the name of wife of the Accused-
Smt.Manda Annapurna.
187 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J]
Ex.P.142 : Annexure-IV-Particulars of Issue of
Bonds of August-2000 bearing
No.7863611 dated 05.10.2000 issued from M/s.3i Infotech Limited, Mumbai in the name of the Accused.
Ex.P.143 : Annexure-V-Particulars of Issue of Bonds of December-2001 bearing No.2152770 dated 23.01.2002 issued from M/s.3i Infotech Limited, Mumbai in the name of the Accused.
Ex.P.144 : Letter dated 01.09.2005 from M/s.3i Infotech Limited, Mumbai to The Dy.SP, CBI, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.144(a) : Signature of P.W.43 in Ex.P.144. Ex.P.145 : Annexure-I-Particulars of the Bonds.
Ex.P.145(a) : Seal and signature of P.W.43 in Ex.P.145.
Ex.P.146 : Annexure-I-Particulars of Issue of
Bonds of August-2000 bearing
No.7863593 dated 05.10.2000 issued from M/s.3i Infotech Limited, Mumbai in the name of Sri.Manda Sairama Krishna Chaitanya U/G M.Annapurna.
Ex.P.147 : Xerox Copy of the Application of ICICI Safety Bond dated 11.09.2000 in favour of Sri.Manda Sairama Krishna Chaitanya U/G M.Annapurna.
Ex.P.148 : Letter dated 29.12.2005 from the HAL, Vigilance Department, Bengaluru Complex to the Dy.SP, CBI, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.148(a) : Signature of P.W.44 in Ex.P.148. Ex.P.149 : Attested Copy of Form-16 dated 15.04.2003 for the period from 188 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] 01.04.2002 to 31.03.2003 pertaining to the Accused.
Ex.P.150 : Attested Copy of Form-16 dated 15.04.2004 for the period from 01.04.2003 to 31.03.2004 pertaining to the Accused.
Ex.P.151 : Attested Copy of Form-16 dated 15.04.2002 for the period from 01.04.2001 to 31.03.2002 pertaining to the Accused.
Ex.P.152 : Attested Copy of Form-16 dated 30.04.2004 for the period from 01.03.2003 to 29.02.2004 pertaining to the Accused.
Ex.P.153 : Letter dated 03.01.2006 from the HAL, Vigilance Department, Bengaluru Complex to the Dy.S.P., CBI, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.153(a) : Signature of P.W.44 in Ex.P.153.
Ex.P.154 : Attested Copy of Form-16 dated 20.04.1998 for the period from 03.1997 to 02.1998 pertaining to the Accused.
Ex.P.155 : Attested Copy of Form-16 dated 20.04.1999 for the period from March 1998 to February 1999 pertaining to the Accused.
Ex.P.156 : Attested Copy of Form-16 dated 20.04.2000 for the period from 03.1999 to 02.2000 pertaining to the Accused.
Ex.P.157 : Letter dated 17.11.2005 from the HAL, Vigilance Department, Bengaluru 189 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Complex to The Dy.S.P., CBI, Bengaluru Ex.P.157(a) : Signature of P.W.44 in Ex.P.157.
Ex.P.158 : Computer Generated Copy of Form-16 dated 13.06.2005 for the period from April-2004 to March-2005 pertaining to the Accused.
Ex.P.159 : Sanction Order dated 17.10.2006 of HAL, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.159(a) : Signature of P.W.45 in Ex.P.159.
Ex.P.160 : Letter dated 21.12.2005 from the Government of India, Corporate Office of Income Tax, Bengaluru to the Dy.S.P., CBI, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.161 : Saral Form dated 25.12.2004 for the Assessment Year 2004-05 pertaining to the Accused.
Ex.P.162 : Income Tax Returns of the Accused dated 23.07.2005 pertaining to the Assessment Year 2004-05.
Ex.P.163 : Statement of Account of SB A/c.No.270.
Ex.P.164 : Portion of Statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., of P.W.56- J.Lakshmi Narayana.
Ex.P.165 : FIR dated 02.02.2005.
Ex.P.165(a) : Signature of Superintendent of Police in Ex.P.165.
190 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Ex.P.166 : Corrigendum to the FIR dated 18.03.2005.
Ex.P.166(a) : Signature of Superintendent of Police in Ex.P.166.
Ex.P.167 : Proceedings of Superintendent of
Police, CBI, Bengaluru dated
02.02.2005.
Ex.P.167(a) : Signature of Superintendent of Police-
Sri.Biju George Joseph in Ex.P.167.
Ex.P.168 : Letter dated 07.06.2005 from HDFC Bank, Hyderabad to Dy.S.P., CBI, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.169 : Statement of Account of the Accused for the period from 07.06.2000 to 07.06.2005 of HDFC Bank.
Ex.P.170 : Salary Particulars of Accused the along with enclosures pertaining to HAL for the period from October-2001 to August-2003.
Ex.P.171 : Letter dated 22.07.2005 from
Hindustan Zinc Limited,
Vishakapatnam to Dy.S.P., CBI,
Bengaluru with enclosure.
Ex.P.172 : Letter dated 19.07.2005 from Vijaya
Bank, Srikakulam to Dy.S.P., CBI,
Bengaluru with enclosures.
Ex.P.173 : Letter dated 19.07.2005 Registration
& Stamp Department to Dy.S.P., CBI,
Bengaluru with enclosures.
Ex.P.174 : Letter dated 03.09.2005 from Steel
Executives' Association,
Vishakapatnam to Dy.S.P., CBI,
Bengaluru.
191 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J]
Ex.P.175 : Letter dated 07.10.2005 from IDBI,
Mumbai to Dy.SP, CBI, Bengaluru with enclosure.
Ex.P.176 : Statement of Account of SBI,
Hyderabad for the period from
02.09.2003 to 18.03.2004.
Ex.P.177 : Statement dated 18.10.05 of ICICI
Home Finance for the period from
28.11.2003 19.10.2004 pertaining to the Accused.
Ex.P.178 : Receipt Memo dated 19.10.2005.
Ex.P.178(a) : Signature of P.W.58 in Ex.P.178.
Ex.P.179 : Pay-in-Slip dated 01.12.2003 for Rs.1,00,000/- of SBI pertaining to the Accused.
Ex.P.180 : Pay-in-Slip dated 26.08.2004 for Rs.27,400/- of SBI pertaining to the Accused and Smt.Annapurna.
Ex.P.181 : Pay-in-Slip dated 29.05.2004 for Rs.20,000/- of SBI pertaining to the Accused.
Ex.P.182 : Pay-in-Slip dated 27.04.2004 for Rs.30,000/- of SBI pertaining to the Accused.
Ex.P.183 : Pay-in-Slip dated 27.04.2004 for Rs.6,000/- of SBI pertaining to the Accused.
Ex.P.184 : Fax Letter dated 19.10.2005 from Life
Insurance Corporation,
Vishakapatnam to Dy.S.P., CBI,
Bengaluru.
192 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J]
Ex.P.185 : Letter dated 20.10.2005 from SBI,
Tirupati to Dy.S.P., CBI, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.186 : Letter dated 08.11.2005 from Indian Drugs & Pharmaceutical Limited, Hyderabad to Dy.S.P., CBI, Bengaluru with enclosures.
Ex.P.187 : Letter dated 21.11.2005 from NTPC Limited, Ramagunda to Dy.S.P., CBI, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.188 : Xerox Copy of Delivery Challan No.1017 dated 22.08.2000 issued from Zenith Automation, Kanpur.
Ex.P.188(a) : Endorsement made by P.W.60 on the Reverse Side of Ex.P.188.
Ex.P.189 : Xerox copy of Delivery Challan No.1006 dated 25.07.2000 issued from Zenith Automation.
Ex.P.189(a) : Endorsement made by P.W.60 on the Reverse Side of Ex.P.189.
Ex.P.190 : Letter dated 06.01.2006 from HAL, Kanpur to Dy.S.P., CBI, Bengaluru with enclosures.
Ex.P.191 : Receipt Memo dated 19.01.2006 with enclosures.
Ex.P.192 : Letter dated 16.02.2006 from HAL, Vidyalaya, Kanpur to Dy.S.P., CBI, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.193 : Letter dated 06.03.2006 from HAL School, Sultanpur to Dy.S.P., CBI, Bengaluru.
193 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J]
Ex.P.194 : Certified Copy of Statement of
Rejoinder to the Objections in
Criminal.Mis.3287/04 dated
31.12.2004.
Ex.P.195 : Letter dated 08.09.2006 from HAL,
Vigilance Department, Bengaluru to Dy.S.P., CBI, Bengaluru with enclosures.
Ex.P.196 : Letter dated 23.07.2005 from Mandal
Revenue Office, Srikakulam to
Dy.S.P., CBI, Bengaluru with
Enclosures.
Ex.P.197 : Letter dated 15.07.2005 from Life
Insurance Corporation to Dy.S.P., CBI, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.198 : Letter dated 21.07.2005 from the RMS Employees' V-Division Co-operative Thrift & Credit Society Limited to Dy.S.P., CBI, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.199 : Letter dated 27.04.2006 from State Bank of Hyderabad, Vishakapatnam to Dy.S.P., CBI, Bengaluru with enclosures.
Ex.P.200 : Letter dated 18.01.2006 from SBI, Vishakapatnam to Dy.S.P., CBI, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.201 : Cash Bill bearing No.10001934/CT01 dated 04.10.2003 for Rs.9,116/-
issued from Nalli Silk Sarees.
Ex.P.201(A) : Card Holder Copy dated 04.10.2003 for Rs.9,116/-.
Ex.P.202 : Circular dated 07.02.2005 regarding HAL Conduct, Discipline & Appeal Rules, 1984 issued from HAL, 194 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Corporate Office, Bengaluru.
3. LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT:-
-NIL-
4. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED WITH DATE OF EXAMINATION:-
D.W.1 Sri.Manda Varaprasada Rao. 08.04.2014
5. LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED:-
Ex.D.1 : Pay Bill of the Accused for the month of June-2004 issued from HAL.
Ex.D.2 : Pay Bill of the Accused for the month of July-2004 issued from HAL.
Ex.D.3 : Pay Bill of the Accused for the month of August-2004 issued from HAL.
Ex.D.4 : Pay Bill of the Accused for the month of September-2004 issued from HAL.
Ex.D.5 : Statement of Account of Andhra Bank, Srikakulam for the period from 01.04.2003 to 29.11.2004.
Ex.D.6 : Letter dated 03.12.2004 from Andhra Bank, Srikakulam to Smt.M.Jagadamba, Gudiveedi, Srikakulam.
195 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Ex.D.7 : Invoice No.2232 dated 12.11.2003 issued from M/s.Varun Motors Limited, Hyderabad in favour of the Accused for Rs.3,71,492/-.
Ex.D.8 : Bill No.389 dated 30.04.2002 issued from M/s.Shiv Electronics, Sultanpur in favour of Sri.M.A.R.Ganeswara Rao for Rs.20,500/-.
Ex.D.8(a) : Signature of P.W.39 in Ex.P.8. Ex.D.9 : Warranty Card dated 30.04.2002 issued from M/s.Shiv Electronics, Sultanpur in favour of Sri.M.A.R. Ganeswara Rao.
Ex.D.10 : Pass Book of Andhra Bank bearing Account No.200348 pertaining to Smt.M.Jagadamba.
Ex.D.11 : Pay-in-Slip dated 29.05.2004 of SBI, Hyderabad for Rs.17,500/-
pertaining to the Accused.
Ex.D.12 : Xerox Copy of the Challan issued in the name of the Accused from Government of Andhra Pradesh, Registration & Stamps Department for Rs.1,74,995/-.
Ex.D.12(a) :
Signature of P.W.56 in Ex.P.12.
Ex.D.13 : Copy of Saral Form (Form-2D) for
the Assessment Year 2002-03
pertaining to Smt.J.Annapurna.
Ex.D.14 : Xerox Copy of Delivery Challan/Invoice
No.106/16 dated 23.03.2000 for
Rs.38,000/- of M/s.Zenith Automation issued in the name of the Accused.
Ex.D.15 : Letter dated 02.11.2011 from HAL,
Bengaluru to the Accused regarding
Mode of Payment to
196 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J]
Employees/Officer along with Postal Cover.
Ex.D.16 : Letter dated 23.10.2007 from HAL, Bengaluru to the Accused regarding information pertaining to various Logos/Emblem.
Ex.D.17 : Pay-in-Slips of September-1997, October-1997, April-1998, August- 1998, September-1998, October-
1998 and December-1998
pertaining to the Accused issued
from HAL, Kanpur.
Ex.D.18 : Pay-in-Slip of October-2001 pertaining
to the Accused issued from HAL,
Korwa.
Ex.D.19 : Pass Book bearing Account No.4725
of Bank of India pertaining to the
Accused.
Ex.D.19(a) : Entry at Page-11 of Ex.D.19 for Rs.70,000/-.
Ex.D.20 : Letter dated 09.10.2007 from HAL, Kanpur to the Accused along with its enclosures.
Ex.D.21 : Copy of document containing HAL Conduct Discipline & Appeal Rules, 1984.
Ex.D.22 : Letter dated 01.09.2007 from HAL, Kanpur to the Accused along with its enclosures.
Ex.D.23 : Certificate dated 22.12.1998 issued from Hindustan Zinc Limited, Vishakapatnam regarding Recovery Policy Amount in July-1997.
Ex.D.24 : Letters dated 15.05.2000 and 16.05.2000 from LIC, Kanpur and Letter dated 28.06.2002 of LIC.
197 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J] Ex.D.25 : Salary Certificate dated 20.12.2003 issued from HAL, Hyderabad in favour of the Accused.
Ex.D.26 : Certificate dated 09.04.2003 issued by HAL, Avionics Division, Korwa, Personnel Department regarding Reimbursement of School Fees. Ex.D.27 : Letter dated 08.09.2012 from SBI, Sultanpur Road, Raibareli to the Accused along with Postal Cover. Ex.D.28 : Pass Book bearing A/c.No.6107 at UCO Bank pertaining to the Accused along with Certificate dated 15.06.2011 issued from UCO Bank.
Ex.D.29 : Certificate dated 14.07.1977 issued
from Hindustan Zinc Ltd,
Vishakhapatnam.
Ex.D.30 : Trip Sheet No.RJ1467029 dated
17.07.1997 for Rs.2,22,400/-.
Ex.D.31 : Lorry Receipt No.31189 dated
14.07.1997 of Mewer Transport
Company (Regd.), Udaypur to the
Accused.
Ex.D.32 : List of Articles for Rs.2,02,400/-.
Ex.D.33 : Letter dated 22.12.2003 from the
Accused to the Manager, SLRDC,
HAL, Hyderbad.
Ex.D.34 : Letter dated 16.12.2003 from the
Accused to the Chief Manager,
Korwa Amethi regarding grant of
leave.
(ASWATHA NARAYANA)
XLVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru.
198 [Spl.C.C.45/2007-J]