Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs . Rakesh Chand Jain on 28 March, 2014

   IN THE COURT OF SHRI B.R. KEDIA, SPECIAL JUDGE­07 
        (CENTRAL), (PC ACT CASES OF ACB, GNCTD), DELHI


C.C.NO.  : 34/12
Unique Case ID : 02401R0000692002


STATE                         VS.       RAKESH CHAND JAIN
                                        S/o Mool Chand Jain
                                        R/o H.No. 26, Gagan Vihar Extn., 
                                        Delhi­110051.

FIR NO.                            :       20/98

U/S                                    :       13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(e) of 
                                        Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988


P.S.                             :     Anti Corruption Branch, Delhi


                        Date of Institution 13.02.2002
                        Judgment reserved on 21.03.2014
                        Judgment delivered on 28.03.2014


JUDGMENT

1. The precise case of the prosecution is that on 23.03.1998 a case bearing FIR No.09/1998 U/S 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered as against the accused Rakesh Chand Jain who was posted as JE in DDA. On that date, under the instructions of Sh.Rohtash Singh ACP, Anti Corruption Branch, House search of the C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 1 of 101 accused was conducted by the then Inspector P.S.Patwal, Anti Corruption Branch and several documents including Shares, Bonds, Dividends, Pass books of different Banks, Forwarding Letters etc. in the name of accused, his wife Shashi Bala Jain, his two daughters Preeti Jain and Niti Jain and one son Ashish Kumar Jain were found and the said documents were seized and ultimately, a case of Disproportionate Assets U/S 13(1) (e) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 was registered as against accused on dated 19.06.1998 at PS Anti Corruption Branch, Delhi. After registration of the case, Investigation was entrusted to the then Inspector G.L.Mehta (PW6) and thereafter, further Investigation was entrusted to the then Inspector Abhay Ram (PW11) and thereafter, further Investigation was entrusted to the then Inspector Ranbir Singh (PW61).

2. During the course of the Investigation, the IO collected several evidence in the form of documents from various Departments and recorded statement of several witnesses and it was found by the IO that the accused Rakesh Chand Jain, who was posted as JE in DDA, was in possession of Disproportionate Assets in his name as well as in the name of his wife Shashi Bala Jain and two daughters namely Preeti Jain and Niti Jain and one son Ashish Kumar Jain. C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 2 of 101 Thus his total Assets amounting to Rs.12,90,408/­, found to be Disproportionate Assets to the known sources of the accused during the Check period i.e. January 1981 to March 1998. The details of the Income, Expenditure and Assets during the Check Period as shown by the IO are as under:­ (A) Income from Salary of Sh.R.C. Jain, JE (C), DDA, Vikas Minar, New Delhi during the Check Period from Jan. 1981 to March 1998

1. Salary drawn from ED­V (August 1981 to June 1983) Rs.25,855.00

2. Salary drawn from ED­IV (July 1983 to Dec 1983) Rs. 08,354.00

3. Salary drawn from ED­II (Jan.1984 to Oct.1984) Rs.15,176.00

4. Salary drawn from ED­XII (1984 to Nov. 1988) Rs.1,05,205.00

5. Salary drawn from ED­X (Dec.1988 to Sep.1989) Rs.67,370.00 (October 1990 to November 1990) Rs.06,122.00

6. Salary drawn from ED­IX (Dec.1990 to May 1992) Rs.64,935.00 (June 1992 to September 1992) Rs.14,976.00

7. Salary drawn from ED­IV (Oct.1992 to Dec.92) Rs.12,065.00

8. Salary drawn from AO (E) NG (Jan. 93 to Feb.96) Rs.1,96,641.00

9. Salary drawn from PAO (Engg.) (March 96 to March 98) Rs.2,10,385.00 ______________ TOTAL SALARY INCOME Rs. 7,22,084.00 ______________ (B) Details and cost of Immovable property held by Sh.R.C.Jain JE/DDA either in his name or in the name of his family members. C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 3 of 101 House No.­26, Gagan Vihar Extn. stand in the name of Smt. Bala Jain W/o Sh.R.C.Jain

(i) Cost of construction evaluated by EEP (III), PWD GNCT, Delhi Rs.2,54,289.00

(ii) Cost of gate Rs.1,000.00

(iii) Cost of boundary wall Rs.14,279.00

(iv) Cost of Plot Rs.30,000.00 _____________ Total cost of No.26, Gagan Vihar Ext. Rs.2,99,568.00 _____________ Cost of plot in Jan Vihar Co­operative Housing Society Ltd., Ghaziabad in the name of Sh.R.C.Jain. This plot is of 246 sq. yds. and following deposits have been made by Sh.R.C.Jain for this plot.

     Date                         Rs.
     11.01.90                     9,735.00
     04.04.90                     9,680.00
     10.07.90                     9,680.00
     28.10.90                     9,680.00
     27.01.91                     9,680.00
     13.02.93                     12,200.00
     04.03.93                     13,080.00
     28.01.95                     12,500.00
     19.03.95                     12,010.00
     09.10.95                     17,008.00
     09.12.95                     10,765.00
     21.09.96                     12,400.00
     TOTAL                        1,45,418.00


C.C. No. 34/12                                                     Page No. 4 of 101

Details of Savings in various Banks in accounts of Sh.R.C.Jain and his family. S.No. AC No. Name of Bank A/C Holder Balance (Rs.)

1. 29105 Syndicate Bank,I.P.Ext. Shashi Bala (W) 429.00

2. 4786 Bank of Maharashtra (PV) ­do­ 1,063.00

3. 288 P.N.B. (PV) R.C.Jain 93,354.00

4. 4224 Bank of Maharashtra (PV) ­do­ 31,028.00

5. 5709 PNB (PV) ­do­ 21,157.00

6. 5300 Bank of Maharashtra Niti Jain (D) 593.00

7. 5200 ­do­ Preeti Jain (D) 628.00

8. 27240 Syndicate Bank R.C.Jain 104.15

9. 8049 Central Bank R.C.Jain 1,199.27

10. 4225 Bank of Maharashtra ­do­ 1,181.87 TOTAL 1,52,725.00 Agreed Value of house hold items held by Sh.R.C.Jain at the time of House search:­

(i) Colour T.V. (Uptron) 7,500.00

(i) VCP 5,000.00

(iii) Dewan 200.00

(iv) Cooler 500.00

(v) Vacuum Cleaner 1,500.00 Total of house hold items 14,700.00 Investment made by Sh.R.C.Jain JE/DDA either in his name or in the name of his family members for the purchase of shares, debentures, bonds, fixed deposits, etc. is as under:­

(i) In the name of Sh.R.C.Jain, Self 26,1980.00

(i) Smt.Shashi Bala Jain (Wife) 3,61,053.00

(iii) Miss Preeti Jain (Daughter) 2,29,453.00 C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 5 of 101

(iv) Miss Neeti Jain (Daughter) 1,60,203.00

(v) Master Anshu Jain (Son) 85,000.00 Total Investment 10,97,689.00 (C) Expenditure incurred by Sh. R.C. Jain JE/DDA during the check period.

(i) Towards house hold expenses 33 % of the total Income Rs. 2,38,260.00

(ii) Bill paid towards water charges for C. No. 51555 at 26, Gagan Rs. 1209.00 Vihar Ext. in the name of Smt. Shashi Bala Jain

(iii) House Tax paid Rs. 11,507.00

(iv) Rent for locker at PNB Rs. 1375.00

(v) Exp. on Children's Education Rs. 33,320.00

(vi) Towards bill of Telephone No.at 26, Gagan Vihar Rs. 4000.00 (approximately)

(vii) Towards electricity bill of 26, Gagan Vihar Rs. 12,718.00 Grand Total Rs. 3,02,389.00 Final details of Income, Assets and Expenditure of Sh.R.C.Jain, JE/DDA during the check period:­ A. Income of Sh.R.C.Jain, JE/DDA from Salary during the check period 7,22,085.00 B. Details of Assets held by Sh.R.C.Jain during the check period 17,10,104.00 C. Final details of Expenditure incurred by Sh.R.C.Jain during check 3,02,389.00 period Expenditure + Assets - Income = Disproportionate Assets Rs. 3,02,389.00 + Rs.17,10,104.00 ­ Rs.7,22,085.00 = Rs.12,90,408.00 (DA) Thus, after calculating the aforesaid Income, Expenditure and Assets as found during Investigation, the accused was found to be in possession of Disproportionate Assets to the tune of Rs.12,90,408.00 C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 6 of 101 during the Check Period from January 1981 to March 1998. After completion of the Investigation and obtaining Sanction for prosecution as against the accused, Chargesheet was filed by the concerned IO.

3. After compliance with the provision U/S 207 of Cr.P.C and after hearing both sides on the point of charge, charge for offence punishable U/S 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was framed against accused on 11.03.2005 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. Thereafter, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution got examined 63 prosecution witnesses namely Sh.D.C.Jain,the then Executive Engineer in Eastern Division­II, DDA, a formal witness as PW1, Sh. D.K.Sharma, the then Treasurer/Accountant in Jan Vihar Co­operative Housing Society, a formal witness as PW2, Sh. Kishan Lal, witness to House search, a formal witness as PW3, Inspector Beer Singh who is also witness to House search, a formal witness as PW4, Sh.V.B.Singh, Taller from Punjab National Bank, Preet Vihar, Delhi, a formal witness as PW5, The then Inspector G.L.Mehta, Initial IO as PW6, Sh. Bhagwati C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 7 of 101 Prasad, the then Manager, Central Bank of India,Vikas Minar, Delhi, a formal witness PW7, Sh.B.S.Yadav, UDC from Eastern Division­X, DDA, a formal witness as PW8, Sh. Sunil Sharma, the then Commissioner, (Personnel) DDA, Sanctioning Authority against accused has again been examined as PW8, Sh.R.S.Chopra, the then Executive Engineer, DDA, a formal witness as PW9, The then Inspector P.S.Patwal, AC Branch, a formal witness as PW10, The then Inspector Abhay Ram, Part IO as PW11, Sh.Z.S.Rai, the then Executive Engineer, Eastern Division­XII, DDA, a formal witness as PW12, Sh.J.P.Verma, the then Executive Engineer, Division IX, DDA, a formal witness as PW13, Sh. Subhash Chandra, the then Executive Engineer, Eastern Division­V, DDA, a formal witness as PW14, Sh.Ramesh Kumar, the then Account Officer (E), Non­ Gazetted, DDA a formal witness as PW15, Sh.Ramdhari Singh, the then Assistant Finance Officer (Distribution), Delhi Vidyut Board,a formal witness as PW16, Sh.A.P.Jugran, the then Executive Engineer, PWD, New Delhi, a formal witness as PW17, Sh. Subhash Chand, The then Assistant Zonal Inspector, House Tax Department, MCD, a formal witness as PW18, Sh. Mohan Singh, The then Deputy Director, Vigilance, DDA, a formal witness as PW19, Sh. Arun Kumar Sharma, Clerk from Syndicate Bank, I.P.Estate Branch,a C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 8 of 101 formal witness as PW20, Sh.D.M.Gupta, The then Zonal Revenue Officer, West, Delhi Jal Board, a formal witness as PW21, Sh. O.N.Seth, the then Manager, Punjab National Bank, Preet Vihar Branch, Delhi, a formal witness as PW22, Sh. I.P.Pasricha, the then Sr.Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Preet Vihar Branch, Delhi, a formal witness as PW23, Smt. Kanwaljeet, the then Accounts Officer MTNL, Delhi, a formal witness as PW24, Sh. Yogesh Kumar, The then Vice Principal, Bal Mandir Sr. Sec. School, Defence Enclave, Delhi, a formal witness as PW25, Sh. Gaurav Tyagi, The then Manager Legal GE Capital Transportation Finance Ltd. as formal witness as PW26, Sh. Dinesh Chandra, Compliance Officer, Industrial Progressive (India) Ltd. a formal witness as PW27, Sh. T.D. Joshi, AGM Shares, Jai Prakash Associates Ltd., a formal witness as PW28, Sh. Arun Kumar Sharma, PRO, from Syndicate Bank, IP Estate, New Delhi, a formal witness as PW29, Sh. Viraf Katrak GM, Shardol Securities Ltd., a formal witness as PW30, Ms. Suvira Goel, Project Executive from Ind. Bank, Rajouri Garden, Delhi, a formal witness as PW31, Sh. R.B. Singh Officer from DCM Shri Ram Industries Ltd., erstwhile Daulara Organics Ltd., New Delhi, a formal witness as PW32, Sh. Amitabh Mukherjee GM (Admn.), Bala Techno Industries Ltd., a formal witness as PW33, Sh. C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 9 of 101 D. Ganesh Ayer, Sr. Manager from Infotech Ltd., a formal witness as PW34, Sh. Sunil Kashiram Jadhav, Asst. Manager, Sharepro Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., a formal witness as PW35, Sh. Tajinder Singh, Liasion Manager, Ajanta Soya Ltd., Delhi a formal witness as PW36, Bijay Kumar Prasad Asstt. Manager IDBI, Delhi, a formal wtitness as PW37, Sh. Arun Kumar Joshi, an Officer from MCS Ltd., New Delhi, a formal witness as PW38, Sh. Suresh Kumar, Public Relation Inspector from Krishna Nagar Head Post office, Delhi, a formal witness as PW39, Smt. Ratna Joshi, Sr.Manager, MMTC Limited, a formal witness as PW40, Sh. Sachin Kumar, Legal Executive, DCM Financial Services Ltd., a formal witness as PW41, Sh. Ram Kumar Khatri, Assistant Secretarial Officer, Bhilwara Spinners Ltd., a formal witness as PW42, Sh. Amitabh Rajat, Assistant Manager, Legal Department, Ambuja Cements Ltd., a formal witness as PW43, Sh. Rakesh Malhotra, Asstt. Manager, RICCO Auto Industries Ltd., a formal witness as PW44, Sh. Uday Sharma, Secretarial Officer, M/s Media Video Ltd., a formal witness as PW45, Sh. N.K. Gupta, Retired Deputy General Manager IFCI of India Ltd.(now known as IFCI Ltd.), a formal witness as PW46, Sh. Amreek Singh Manager, Administration, Charminar Granites Exports Ltd., a formal witness as PW47, Sh. Rajinder Kumar, a formal witness as PW48, Sh. C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 10 of 101 Sandeep Jain, Officer Jain Cooperative Bank Ltd., New Delhi, a formal witness as PW49, Sh. Rajesh Kumar Jain, Manager, Secretarial Chambal Fertilizer & Chemicals Ltd., a formal witness as PW50, Sh. Priyadarshan, Secretarial Officer, MCS Ltd., a formal witness as PW51, Sh. R.V. Singh, Incharge, Modern Syntex (India) Ltd., a formal witness as PW52, Sh. P.S. Rao, Consultant, Tirumala Seung Han Textiles Ltd., a formal witness as PW53, Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, Incharge, Abhishek Industries Ltd., Ludhiana, a formal witness as PW54, Sh. Rajesh Dheer, Company Secretary, Flex Foods Ltd., Delhi, a formal witness as PW55, Sh. Navdeep Gupta, Deputy Manager (Finance), Bhatinda Chemicals Ltd., a formal witness as PW56, Sh. Vikram Avinash Vora, Incharge, AVI Photochem Ltd., a formal witness as PW57, Sh. S.K. Tandon, Manager Escort Finance Limited, a formal witness as PW58, Ms. Jayanti, Company Secretary, Advance Medical Care Limited, a formal witness as PW59, Sh. O.P. Verma, General Manager, (HR), Haryana Texprints (Overseas Ltd.), formerly known as Indo Texprints (Overseas Ltd.), a formal witness as PW60, the then Inspector Ranbir Singh/Last IO as PW61, SI Om Prakash, Duty Officer, a formal witness as PW62 and Sh. Tushar Shah, Director, Gujarat Meditek Ltd., a formal witness as PW63. C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 11 of 101

5. After closure of the PE, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which the accused stated that IO has illegally and unlawfully shown the Income and Assets of his wife as well as the Assets of his Children as that of him. He further added that his wife was independently earning and was filing Income Tax Returns. He further added that IO has not shown the amount given by his father and his father­in­law to his daughters, son and his wife during their lifetime but the same has been shown as part of his Assets. He further added that his daughters and son have been receiving gifts on various festivals and occasions from their relatives but the same have been falsely shown by the IO as his Assets. Thus the accused claimed to be innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case.

6. The accused in support of his defence got examined 19 DWs namely Shashi Bala Jain, wife of the accused, as DW1, Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta, an Architect, as DW2, Sh. S.K. Jain, who was a tenant of his wife as DW3, Sh. Amit Ahuja, a Share Sub Broker as DW4, Sh. Raman Mehta, a partner of M/s Pretty Woman as DW5, Sh. Vijay Pal Singh, UDC, Eastern Division as DW6, SI Sukhvinder Singh, CBI, as DW7, Sh. G.D. Verma, Asst. Account Officer, DDA, as DW8, Sh. C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 12 of 101 Avinash Kumar, UDC, Personal Branch­II, DDA, as DW9, Ct. Devinder Kumar, as DW10, Sh. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, Asstt. General Manager, FD, DCM Sri Ram Consolidated Ltd., as DW11 Sh.Kuldeep Singh, Clerk from Bank of Maharashtra, Preet Vihar as DW12, Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Tax Assistant, as DW13, Sh. Som Pal, Sr. Tax Assistant, as DW14, Sh. Sanjay Sharma, a Share Sub­Broker as DW15, Pradeep Kumar, as DW16, Sh. Subhash Chand Jain, as DW17, Sh. Avinish Kumar Jain, as DW18 and the accused himself as DW19 and thereafter DE was closed.

7. I have heard Final Arguments as addressed by Sh. H.R. Dhamija, Adv. Ld. Counsel for the accused and Sh.Vinod Kumar Sharma, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and perused the relevant record.

8. First of all let us discuss about the 'Expenditure' aspect. As per the case of the prosecution, the details of the Expenditure of the accused and his family during the Check Period have been shown as under :­

(i) Towards House hold expenses 33 % of the total Income 2,38,260.00

(ii) Bill paid towards water charges for C. No. 51555 at 26, Gagan Vihar 1,209.00 Ext. in the name of Smt. Shashi Bala Jain

(iii) House Tax paid 11,507.00 C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 13 of 101

(iv) Rent for locker at PNB 1,375.00

(v) Exp. on Children's Education 33,320.00

(vi) Towards bill of Telephone No.at 26, Gagan Vihar (approximately) 4,000.00

(vii) Towards electricity bill of 26, Gagan Vihar 12,718.00 Grand Total 3,02,389.00

9. Thus there are 7 items under the Head of Expenditure as shown by the prosecution. The Item no. 1 is towards the House hold expenses of Rs.2,38,260/­ being calculated as 33% of the total Salary of the accused. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that since there is no evidence on record regarding the said House hold expenses of Rs.2,38,260/­ therefore, the same could not be proved by the prosecution. No doubt, there is no specific evidence regarding the said House hold expenditure of Rs.2,38,260/­. No one is supposed to get issued or preserve any bills/vouchers etc. for the House hold expenditure nor the same can be calculated minutely and therefore, only a fair estimation is to be made in this respect on the basis of the Income of the person concerned. In the present case, since as per the case of the prosecution, the accused is found to have received total Salary of Rs.7,22,085/­ from his Department during the Check Period therefore, as per the well established practice of calculating the 33% of the Salary Amount as House hold expenses, I am of the considered view that the said amount of Rs.2,38,260/­ has been correctly C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 14 of 101 determined as the House hold expenditure as per 33% of the Salary of the accused. Even Ex.DW7/A (colly.) provide the standard procedure of Investigation relating to Disproportionate Assets, which has been accepted by the Central Vigilance Commission, state at Para 2(a) Unverifiable expenditure such as on kitchen, household, clothing etc. should be taken at 1/3rd of the gross salary. Keeping the said guidelines in mind also, I am of the considered view that the said expenditure of Rs.2,38,260/­ as per 33% of the Salary of the accused as per Item No.1 under the Head of the Expenditure has been validly determined by the prosecution.

10. As regards the Item no. 2 under the Head of Expenditure, it state Bill paid towards water charges for C.No.51555 at 26, Gagan Vihar Ext. in the name of Smt.Shashi Bala Jain as Rs.1209/­. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that since amount of Rs. 2,38,260/­ which is 33% of the total Salary of the accused has already been calculated as House hold expenditure of the accused, separate expenditure on water, electricity etc. cannot be added further. I found force in the said submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused as even said Ex.DW7/A (colly.), Para 2 (d) clearly provide that Electricity and Water charges are not to be computed separately when C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 15 of 101 unverifiable expenditure such as kitchen, household etc. has been computed on the basis of 1/3rd of the gross salary. In the present case, since the House hold expenditure of the accused has been determined as Rs.2,38,260/­ by applying the principle of 33% of total Salary of the accused and therefore, the Water charges of Rs.1209/­ cannot be separately included in the Head of Expenditure and hence, said Item No.2 deserves to be deleted from the Head of Expenditure.

11. As regards the Item no. 3, it shows the expenditure of Rs. 11,507/­ towards House Tax paid. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that as said House No.26, Gagan Vihar Ext., Delhi was owned by his wife Smt.Shashi Bala Jain who was having independent source of Income and she had paid the House Tax of said Property. PW11 Abhay Ram/IO has deposed that he had received Letter Ex.PW11/F from House Tax Department, MCD regarding the House Tax paid in respect of Property No.26, Gagan Vihar Ext., Delhi, showing the House Tax paid from the Year 1986­1987 to 2000­2001. But as the Check Period is up to March 1998 and therefore, the House Tax paid from 1986­1987 to 1997­1998 is Rs.10,611/­ and in view of the same, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 16 of 101 established regarding the House Tax of Rs.10,611/­ as per Item No.3 under the Head of Expenditure.

12. As regards, the Item no. 4 it shows the expenditure of Rs. 1,375/­ towards rent for locker at PNB by the accused. As regards the said rent for locker is not disputed by the accused, said expenditure of Rs.1,375/­ relating to Item No.4 under the Head of Expenditure stands established by the prosecution.

13. As regards the Item no. 5 under the Head of Expenditure it shows expenditure of Rs.33,320/­ towards expenditure on Children's Education by the accused. Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that the prosecution could not establish about the same as the School Fees of his Children were being paid by his wife Smt.Shashi Bala Jain, who was having independent source of Income. PW25 Sh.Yogesh Kumar, Vice Principal from Bal Mandir Sr.Secondary School Defence Enclave, Vikas Marg, Delhi has proved the Letter dated 9.4.2001 as given by their Principal Smt.Santosh Ahuja showing the details of the Fees deposited for students namely Ashish Jain, Neeti Jain and Preeti Jain, children of Sh.R.C.Jain for the period 1994­1995 to July 1998 and as per said Letter Ex.PW11/F, Rs,.33,320/­ has been C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 17 of 101 paid towards School Fees and therefore, said Item No.5 under the Head of Expenditure has been duly established by the prosecution.

14. As regards the Item no. 6 of Expenditure, it state about payment of Rs. 4,000/­ (approx.) towards bill of Telephone at 26, Gagan Vihar. As regards the said expenditure on Telephone has not been disputed on behalf of the accused. PW11/the IO has deposed regarding this aspect as under:­ "The details regarding payments of Telephone bill of telephone No.2056252 in the name of the accused were received vide Covering Letter Ex.PW11/T and the details are collectively Ex.PW11/T1 (containing six leafs)"

In view of the aforesaid material on record, I am of the considered view that said Item No.6 regarding expenditure on Telephone of Rs.4,000/­ has been established by the prosecution.

15. The Item no. 7 under the Head of Expenditure state about the expenditure of Rs.12,718/­ towards electricity bill of Property No. C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 18 of 101 26, Gagan Vihar by the accused. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that since House hold expenditure of Rs.2,38,260/­ has been calculated on the basis of formula of 33% of the total Salary of the accused and therefore, the expenditure towards electricity bill for Rs.12,718/­ cannot be added separately once again and therefore, the same deserves to be deleted from the Head of Expenditure. I found force in the said submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused as even said Ex.DW7/A (colly.), Para 2 (d) clearly provide that Electricity and Water charges are not to be computed separately when unverifiable expenditure such as kitchen, household etc. has been computed on the basis of 1/3rd of the gross salary. In the present case, since the House hold expenditure of the accused has been determined as Rs.2,38,260/­ by applying the principle of 33% of total Salary of the accused and therefore, the Electricity charges of Rs. 12,718/­ cannot be separately included in the Head of Expenditure and hence, said Item No.7 deserves to be deleted from the Head of Expenditure.

16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the total of Expenditure of the accused and his family during Check Period which could be established by the prosecution are as under:­ C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 19 of 101 (1) Towards House hold expenses 33 % of the total Income 2,38,260.00 (2) House Tax paid 10,611.00 (3) Rent for locker at PNB 1,375.00 (4) Exp. on Children's Education 33,320.00 (5) Towards bill of Telephone No. 2056252 at 26, Gagan Vihar 4,000.00 Grand Total 2,87,566.00

17. Now let us discuss about the Assets aspect. As per the case of the prosecution the details of the Assets of the accused and his family members has been shown by the prosecution as under:­ (B) Details and cost of Immovable property held by Sh.R.C.Jain JE/DDA either in his name or in the name of his family members. House No.­26, Gagan Vihar Extn. stand in the name of Smt. Bala Jain W/o Sh.R.C.Jain

(i) Cost of construction evaluated by EEP (III), PWD GNCT, Delhi Rs.2,54,289.00

(ii) Cost of gate Rs.1,000.00

(iii) Cost of boundary wall Rs.14,279.00

(iv) Cost of Plot Rs.30,000.00 _____________ Total cost of No.26, Gagan Vihar Ext. Rs.2,99,568.00 _____________ Cost of plot in Jan Vihar Co­operative Housing Society Ltd., Ghaziabad in the name of Sh.R.C.Jain. This plot is of 246 sq. yds. and following deposits have been made by Sh.R.C.Jain for this plot.

C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 20 of 101

                    Date                                   In Rs.
                 11.01.90                              9,735.00
                 04.04.90                              9,680.00
                 10.07.90                              9,680.00
                 28.10.90                              9,680.00
                 27.01.91                              9,680.00
                 13.02.93                             12,200.00
                 04.03.93                             13,080.00
                 28.01.95                             12,500.00
                 19.03.95                             12,010.00
                 09.10.95                             17,008.00
                 09.12.95                             10,765.00
                 21.09.96                             12,400.00
                 TOTAL                               1,45,418.00

Details of Savings in various Banks in accounts of Sh.R.C.Jain and his family. S.No. AC No. Name of Bank A/C Holder Balance (Rs.)

1. 29105 Syndicate Bank,I.P.Ext. Shashi Bala (W) 429.00

2. 4786 Bank of Maharashtra (PV) ­do­ 1,063.00

3. 288 P.N.B. (PV) R.C.Jain 93,354.00

4. 4224 Bank of Maharashtra (PV) ­do­ 31,028.00

5. 5709 PNB (PV) ­do­ 21,157.00

6. 5300 Bank of Maharashtra Niti Jain (D) 593.00

7. 5200 ­do­ Preeti Jain (D) 628.00

8. 27240 Syndicate Bank R.C.Jain 104.15

9. 8049 Central Bank R.C.Jain 1,199.27

10. 4225 Bank of Maharashtra ­do­ 1,181.87 TOTAL 1,52,725.00 C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 21 of 101 Agreed Value of house hold items held by Sh.R.C.Jain at the time of House search:­

(i) Colour T.V. (Uptron) 7,500.00

(i) VCP 5,000.00

(iii) Dewan 200.00

(iv) Cooler 500.00

(v) Vacuum Cleaner 1,500.00 Total of house hold items 14,700.00 Investment made by Sh.R.C.Jain JE/DDA either in his name or in the name of his family members for the purchase of shares, debentures, bonds, fixed deposits, etc. is as under:­

(i) In the name of Sh.R.C.Jain, 26,1980.00 Self

(i) Smt.Shashi Bala Jain (Wife) 3,61,053.00

(iii) Miss Preeti Jain (Daughter) 2,29,453.00

(iv) Miss Neeti Jain (Daughter) 1,60,203.00

(v) Master Anshu Jain (Son) 85,000.00 Total Investment 10,97,689.00

18. Regarding the valuation of House No.­26, Gagan Vihar Extn. which stands in the name of Smt. Bala Jain W/o Sh.R.C.Jain, the prosecution has taken the valuation as under:­

(i) Cost of construction evaluated by EEP (III), PWD GNCT, Delhi Rs.2,54,289.00 C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 22 of 101

(ii) Cost of gate Rs.1,000.00

(iii) Cost of boundary wall Rs.14,279.00

(iv) Cost of Plot Rs.30,000.00 _____________ Total cost of No.26, Gagan Vihar Ext. Rs.2,99,568.00 _____________

19. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that Smt.Shashi Bala Jain out of her own funds had purchased the Property measuring 200 sq.yds. and at the time of purchase, there was only one Room and Boundary Wall and Gate for total consideration of Rs.30,000/­ vide General Power of Attorney, Money Receipt dated 23.5.1984 from one Subhash and thereafter she had got constructed 3 Rooms along with Toilet and Bathroom by spending Rs.80,000/­ from her own source during 1984 to 1986 but the prosecution has falsely obtained higher Valuation Report regarding cost of construction showing Valuation of Rs. 2,54,289/­. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that the accused has also got submitted the correct Valuation of cost of construction Report which is Ex.DW2/A, showing the Valuation of cost of construction as Rs.84,000/­. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that as the Gate and Boundary wall was already found existed C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 23 of 101 at the time of the purchase of the property, the cost in this respect as shown by the prosecution deserves to be deleted.

20. DW1 Smt.Shashi Bala Jain has deposed in this respect as under :­ "In the year 1984, I encashed my Kisan Vikas Patra and obtained Rs.48,000/­ in total from village Sarsava Post office, District Saharanpur, UP. From that amount I purchased one house bearing no. 26, Gagan Vihar Extn. comprising of one room, laterine, bathroom, and was having boundary having gate on the same measuring 200 sq. yds. for Rs.30,000/­ in the month of May 1984 from one Subhash. After about two months of purchase of said house, we shifted from our tenanted house to said house. In the year 1985, I got constructed 3 rooms on the said house and invested Rs.80,000/­ on the same".

C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 24 of 101

21. Similarly, DW19 Rakesh Chand Jain has also deposed in this respect as under:­ "My wife purchased a house constituting one room and boundary wall at 26, Gagan Vihar Extension from her own independent savings for Rs.30,000/­ paid vide Bank Draft prepared from her own Saving Account of Syndicate Bank, I.P.Estate, New Delhi in the month of May, 1984. Later on, she constructed additional 3 rooms with latrine and bathroom spending Rs.80,000/­ during the period May 1984 to July 1986. The house was already constructed in a plot of 200 sq.yds".

22. No doubt, PW17 A.P.Jugran, the then Executive Engineer (Planning)­III, PWD, has proved the Property Valuation Report as Ex.PW11/B which shows the cost of construction as on 1.1.92 as Rs. 2,54,289/­. But said PW17 in his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel has deposed in this respect as under:­ C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 25 of 101 "It is correct to suggest that as mentioned in Ex.PW17/A, 21.9 sq.mt.were constructed in the year 1976 and construction on 86.62 sq.mt.was done in the year 1982 which makes out total constructed area as 108.53 sq.mt. It is correct to suggest that I have mentioned in the Report that we have valued the cost of construction for constructed area of 108.53 sq.mt."

23. From the perusal of deposition of DW1 Shashi Bala Jain, DW19 Rakesh Chand Jain/accused, it is clearly reflected that part construction including the Boundary Wall and Gate was already there in the said Property No.26, Gagan Vihar Extn.even at the time of purchase by Smt.Shashi Bala Jain in May 1984. Even said PW17 has also admitted in his cross examination that out of total constructed area of 108.53 sq.mt., 21.91 sq.mt. were already constructed in the year 1976 as found mentioned in Ex.PW17/A. It is reflected that in the said Valuation Report Ex.PW11/B, the Valuation of cost of construction has been shown as Rs.2,54,289/­ as cost of construction as on 1.1.92 which appears to be on much higher side as it shows that the entire construction of 108.53 sq.mt.has been raised in the year C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 26 of 101 1992. But from the perusal of the deposition of DW1 Shashi Bala Jain as well as DW19 accused, it is reflected that Shashi Bala Jain had got constructed 3 Rooms with Latrine, Bathroom on spending Rs. 80,000/­ during period May 1984 to July 1986. Furthermore, DW2 Sh.Anil Kumar Gupta, who is a registered Valuer of the Building Supervisor with MCD has inspected the said Property and submitted the cost of construction Report Ex.DW2/A showing the Valuation of additional construction as Rs.84,034.97/­. Considering the aforesaid material on record, I am of the considered view that the Valuation Report Ex.PW11/B appears to be on much higher side and Valuation Report Ex.DW2/A appears to be on lower side and therefore, the cost of additional construction of said Property No.26, Gagan Vihar Extn. can be fairly estimated as Rs.1,25,000/­ and since the Gate and Boundary Wall were stated to be already existing at the time of purchase of said Property by Smt.Shashi Bala Jain for Rs.30,000/­ on 23.05.84, the cost of Gate and Boundary Wall cannot be added further.Therefore, total cost of said Property No.26, Gagan Vihar Extn. is estimated as Rs.1,25,000/­ (cost of additional construction) + Rs.30,000/­ (cost of Plot with existed construction) = Rs.1,55,000/­. C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 27 of 101

24. Regarding the cost of Plot in Jal Vihar Co­operative Housing Society, total deposit amount has been shown by the prosecution as Rs.1,45,418/­ but PW2 Sh.D.K.Sharma, the then Treasurer/Accountant Jal Vihar Co­operative Housing Society has deposed that the accused R.C.Jain has paid Rs.1,38,418/­ in total in the Society for allotment of his Plot and the Application Form of the accused is Ex.PW2/B and Declaration Form is Ex.PW2/C. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the total deposits towards said Plot in Jal Vihar Co­operative Housing Society by the accused has been determined as Rs.1,38,418/­.

25. The details of Savings in various Bank Accounts of the accused and his family has been shown by the prosecution are as under:­ Details of Savings in various Banks accounts of Sh.R.C.Jain and his family. S.No. AC No. Name of Bank A/C Holder Balance (Rs.)

1. 29105 Syndicate Bank,I.P.Ext. Shashi Bala (W) 429.00

2. 4786 Bank of Maharashtra (PV) ­do­ 1,063.00

3. 288 P.N.B. (PV) R.C.Jain 93,354.00

4. 4224 Bank of Maharashtra (PV) ­do­ 31,028.00

5. 5709 PNB (PV) ­do­ 21,157.00

6. 5300 Bank of Maharashtra Niti Jain (D) 593.00 C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 28 of 101

7. 5200 ­do­ Preeti Jain (D) 628.00

8. 27240 Syndicate Bank R.C.Jain 104.15

9. 8049 Central Bank R.C.Jain 1,199.27

10. 4225 Bank of Maharashtra ­do­ 1,181.87 TOTAL 1,52,725.00

26. Regarding the aforesaid Savings by the accused and his family members have not been disputed on behalf of the accused except to the extent that the Savings of Rs.31,028/­ in the Account No.4224 Bank of Maharashtra (Preet Vihar) as shown in Item No.4, it is stated by Ld. Counsel for accused that said Account does not relate to accused R.C.Jain or to any of his family member nor the prosecution has established in this respect. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that as per Item No.5 in the Saving Bank A/C No.5709 of PNB Pret Vihar in the name of accused R.C.Jain, the balance has been wrongly shown as Rs.21,157/­ but actually it is Rs.606.31/­ as per concerned Bank Statement of Account Ex.PW22/D1.

27. From the perusal of the record, it is reflected that the accused R.C.Jain was having Saving Bank A/C No.4225 at Bank of Maharashtra, Preet Vihar and was having balance of Rs.1181.87 as shown in Item No.10 of above Saving Table and no such Account bearing No.4224 of Bank of Maharashtra, Preet Vihar, showing C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 29 of 101 balance of Rs.31,028/­ in the name of R.C.Jain or any of his family member has been established by the prosecution and therefore, said Item No.4 deserves to be deleted from the Head of Savings. Furthermore, from the perusal of Bank Statement of Accounts of SB A/C No.5709 of PNB, Preet Vihar of R.C.Jain which is Ex.PW22/D1, it is clearly reflected that the balance of said Savings on March 1998 is found to be Rs.606.31 and not Rs.21,157/­ as shown by the prosecution and therefore, the Saving Balance as per Item No.5 is established to be Rs.606.31. In view of aforesaid discussion, the total Bank Savings of the accused and his family members are determined as under:­ S.No. AC No. Name of Bank A/C Holder Balance (Rs.)

1. 29105 Syndicate Bank,I.P.Ext. Shashi Bala (W) 429.00

2. 4786 Bank of Maharashtra (PV) ­do­ 1,063.00

3. 288 P.N.B. (PV) R.C.Jain 93,354.00

4. 5709 PNB (PV) ­do­ 606.31

5. 5300 Bank of Maharashtra Niti Jain (D) 593.00

6. 5200 ­do­ Preeti Jain (D) 628.00

7. 27240 Syndicate Bank, I.P. Ext. R.C.Jain 104.15

8. 8049 Central Bank R.C.Jain 1,199.27

9. 4225 Bank of Maharashtra (PV) ­do­ 1,181.87 TOTAL 99,158.60 C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 30 of 101

28. The prosecution has shown the Value of the House hold Items as held by accused at the time of House search as under:­

(i) Colour T.V. (Uptron) 7,500.00

(i) VCP 5,000.00

(iii) Dewan 200.00

(iv) Cooler 500.00

(v) Vacuum Cleaner 1,500.00 Total of House hold items 14,700.00 It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that since the prosecution has already taken the cost of the said House hold articles while determining the House hold expenses of Rs.2,38,260/­ as 33% of total Income and therefore, separate calculation of the aforesaid House hold items for Rs.14,700/­ cannot be added further. However, it is added by Ld. Addl. PP that the cost of the said House hold items found during House search cannot be considered to be included in the House hold expenses which has been determined on the basis of 33% of the total Salary Income of the accused and therefore, said cost of Rs.14,700/­ relating to the House hold items has been rightly calculated separately.

29. I am of the considered view that the cost of the said House hold articles as found during House search of the accused cannot be C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 31 of 101 claimed to have been included in the House hold expenses/kitchen expenses of Rs.2,38,260/­ which has been determined on the basis of 33% of the total Salary Income of the accused and therefore, the cost of the said House hold articles are to be taken into account separately. PW11/IO has deposed regarding the Valuation of the said House hold articles as found during House search of the accused as under :­ "On 23.3.98 I had also interrogated the accused and enquired about the tentative value of the articles mentioned in the search memo and the agreeable value report by the accused is Ex.PW11/E which bear my signature at point A and also bear the signature of accused as point B".

30. Considering the aforesaid deposition of PW11/IO regarding Valuation of said House hold articles found during House search of the accused coupled with the Valuation Memo of said House hold articles Ex.PW11/E which is duly signed by the accused, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has rightly established the Value of the said House hold items found during the House search of the C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 32 of 101 accused as Rs.14,700/­ and the same has been rightly taken into account as part of the Assets of the accused.

31. The prosecution has shown the Investments as made in the name of accused and his family members on Shares, Debentures, Bonds, Fixed Deposits etc. as under:­

(i) In the name of Sh.R.C.Jain, Self 2,61,980.00

(i) Smt.Shashi Bala Jain (Wife) 3,61,053.00

(iii) Miss Preeti Jain (Daughter) 2,29,453.00

(iv) Miss Neeti Jain (Daughter) 1,60,203.00

(v) Master Anshu Jain (Son) 85,000.00 Total Investment 10,97,689.00 It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the prosecution has shown the cost of the aforesaid Assets on higher Valuation as certain Shares, Debentures etc. do not belong to the accused or his family members or certain Shares/Debentures were already encashed. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel that the prosecution had taken the excess amount of Rs.45,000/­ on the Assets on showing Investment on SFR Debentures of Rs.15,000/­ each in the name of Shashi Bala Jain, Preeti Jain and Niti Jain as said Debentures were purchased in 1996 and were already encashed after their maturity on 20.02.1998 which is much before the search on 23.03.1998 and C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 33 of 101 Shashi Bala Jain/DW1 had proved Redemption Counter Folio as Mark D1/DF (1 to 3) (colly.) but the prosecution has included said amount of Rs.45,000/­ on Investment of SRF Debentures only on the basis of Allotment Invoice recovered from the House of the accused and therefore, said amount of Rs.15,000/­ each on SRF Debentures deserves to be deducted from the Investment of Shashi Bala Jain, Preeti Jain and Niti Jain. It is also added by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the prosecution has shown the cost of Share of Bala Techno Synthetics Ltd. Ex.PW6/J Mark A1 and Ex.PW33/1 in the name of Preeti Jain, R/o 1242/84, Shanti Nagar, Tri Nagar, Delhi vide Share Certificate No.38984 and Dist. No.5701071­170 (100 Shares) but the said Shares does not belong to Preeti Jain, daughter of the accused but of some other Preeti Jain and therefore, the cost of said Shares deserves to be deleted. It is also added by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the 100 Shares of Triumula Seunghan Textile Ltd. as per Ex.PW53/B and Ex.PW6/C in the name of Arun Kumar Jain S/o Mitar Sen Jain, R/o 13/168, Jatwan Street, Saharanpur does not belong to the accused or his family members and therefore, cost of said Shares deserve to be deleted. It is also added by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the cost of 100 Shares of Haryana Texprints Overseas Ltd., formally known as Indo Texprints Overseas Ltd. as C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 34 of 101 per Ex.PW60/A and B in the name of Avnish Kumar Jain does not belong to the accused but to Sh.Avnish Kumar Jain/DW18 and therefore, the cost of said Shares deserves to be deleted.

32. From the perusal of deposition of DW1 Shashi Bala Jain, it is reflected that she has deposed regarding the encashment of SRF Debentures as under:­ "I was having Invoice of Rs.45,000/­ in my name on encashment from SRF Debentures and the IO had seized the Invoice and included the amount in the name of my husband.

Counter Foil of SRF Ltd. are Mark DF (1 to 3) (colly.)."

33. From the perusal of said Debenture Redemption Counter Folio which has been placed on record by DW1 Shashi Bala Jain as Mark DF (1 to 3) (colly.), clearly reflect that the Debentures of SRF Ltd. of Rs.15,000/­ each in the name of Shashi Bala Jain, Preeti Jain and Niti Jain were found to have already encashed by them on their maturity on 20.02.1998 and therefore, the cost of said Debentures of C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 35 of 101 Rs.15,000/­ each deserve to be deleted from the Assets of Smt.Shashi Bala Jain, Preeti Jain and Niti Jain.

34. From the perusal of Letter Ex.PW6/J coupled with Mark A1, it is reflected that 100 Shares of Rs.10/­ each vide Certificate No. 38984 of M/s Bala Techno Synthetics Ltd. has been issued to Preeti Jain, R/o 1242/84, Shanti Nagar, Tri Nagar, Delhi­35. PW33 Sh.Amitabh Mukherjee, GM (Admn.) from M/s Bala Techno Industries in the cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel also stated as under:­ "It is correct that the address of R.C.Jain is different from Preeti Jain in Annexure Mark A and A1 attached with the Letter Ex.PW6/J. It is correct that shares are not issued to the minors and they are issued through the guardians".

35. In view of the aforesaid deposition of PW33 Amitabh Mukherjee coupled with the Letter Ex.PW6/J and Mark A and A1, I am of the considered view that said 100 Shares of Rs.10/­ each vide C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 36 of 101 Certificate No.38984 of M/s Bala Techno Synthetics Ltd. has been issued to Preeti Jain, R/o 1242/84, Shanti Nagar, Tri Nagar, Delhi­35 and not to Preeti Jain who is daughter of the accused and therefore, Rs.1000/­ as the cost of said Shares be deleted from the Assets of the Preeti Jain in this respect.

36. From the perusal of deposition of PW53 P.S.Rawat, Consultant, Trimula Seung Hen Textile Ltd. coupled with Ex.PW53/B and Letter Ex.PW6/C, it is reflected that 100 Shares of Rs.10/­ each of Trimula Seung Hen Textile Ltd. were alloted in favour of Arun Kumar Jain S/o Mitar Sen Jain, R/o 13/168, Jatwan Street, Saharanpur and not to Smt.Shashi Bala Jain and therefore, said amount of Rs.1000/­ as cost of said 100 Shares deserves to be deleted from the Share Investment of Smt.Shashi Bala Jain.

37. From the perusal of the deposition of DW18 Sh.Avnish Kumar Jain, 100 Shares of Rs.10/­ each of Indo Texprints Overseas Ltd. as per Share Certificate Ex.PW60/B, it is reflected that said 100 Shares of Rs.10/­, (total Rs.1000/­) belongs to DW18 Avnish Kumar Jain and therefore, the said amount of Shares cannot be included in the Shares of the accused.

C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 37 of 101

38. During the course of the argument, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the Shares of Rs.85,000/­ in the name of Anshu Jain has been wrongly shown as the Son of the accused but said Shares of Rs.85,000/­ belongs to Anshu Jain who is wife of Pradeep Kumar Jain, who is Director of M/s Jaina Fincap Services Ltd. and said Pradeep Kumar Jain has been examined as DW16 and he has clearly deposed in this respect.

39. From the perusal of the record, it is reflected that Sh.Pradeep Kumar Jain who is the Director M/s Jaina Fincap Services Ltd. who has been examined as DW16 has deposed as under :­ "I was working as Director of the Company namely M/s Jaina Fincap Services Ltd. which used to deal with the Financing and Sale Purchase of shares. Anshu Jain is my wife. The share certificates Ex.PW45/A1 to Ex.PW45/A20 are in the name of my wife. The share certificates of Kirloskar Ferros Industries Ltd. (Document No. 110, numbering 10 certificates) are in the name of my wife and the same are C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 38 of 101 Ex.DW16/A1 to Ex.DW16/A10. Ex.PW43/1 to Ex.PW43/5 are in my name and Ex.PW43/6 to Ex.PW43/15 are in the name of M/s Jaina Fincap Services. The share certificates Ex.DW16/A11 to Ex.DW16/A20 are the share certificates in the name of my company M/s Jaina Fincap Services. The Share certificates Ex.DW16/A21 to Ex.DW16/A40 are in the name of my wife Smt. Anshu Jain. Inadvertently, I left the file containing share certificates in the name of my wife, my company and myself, at the house of R.C. Jain who is known to me as I had gone to his house for taking the premises on rent somewhere in the year 1998".

40. In view of the aforesaid deposition of DW16 Pradeep Kumar Jain, it is clearly reflected that Anshu Jain is his wife and was the Holder of various Share Certificates and similarly, said Pradeep Kumar Jain was also having various Share Certificates and his Company M/s Jaina Fincap Services Ltd. was also holding various C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 39 of 101 Share Certificates and said Pradeep Kumar Jain had left the file containing the Share Certificates in the name of his wife Anshu Jain, his Company M/s Jaina Fincap Services and himself at the House of the accused when he had gone to the House of the accused in the year 1998 but it appears that the IO having seized the said Share Certificates from the House of the accused, has shown the same as Shares of Rs.85,000/­ in the name of Anshu Jain by treating the same as belongs to the Son of the accused. But even the accused has clearly stated regarding this aspect as he has deposed in this respect as under:­ "IO had shown amount of Rs.85000/­ concerning the share certificates in the name of Anshu Jain, who is not my son nor my relative but said share certificates belongs to Sh.Pradeep Kumar Jain, his wife Smt.Anshu Jain and his business firm M/s Jaina Finkap Services and said certificates were inadvertently left by said Pradeep Jain in my house one day prior to the raid as he had visited my house for the purpose of taking house on rent".

C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 40 of 101

41. In view of the aforesaid deposition of DW19/accused and deposition of DW16 Pradeep Kumar Jain coupled with the said Share Certificates Ex.PW45/A1 to A120, Ex.DW16/A1 to A10, Ex.PW43/1 to 15, Ex.DW16/11 to 20 and Ex.DW16/21 to 40, I am of the considered view that the said Shares of Rs.85,000/­ do not belong to Son of the accused but to Anshu Jain who is wife of DW16 Pradeep Kumar Jain, said Pradeep Kumar Jain and his Company M/s Jaina Fincap Services Ltd. Therefore, said amount of Rs.85,000/­ on the Head of Shares of son of accused deserves to be deleted.

42. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Investment as made by the accused and his family members on Shares, Debentures, Bonds, Fixed Deposits can be determined as under:­ (1) In the name of Sh.R.C.Jain, Self Rs. 2,60,980.00 (2) Smt.Shashi Bala Jain (Wife) Rs. 3,45,053.00 (3) Miss Preeti Jain (Daughter) Rs. 2,13,453.00 (4) Miss Neeti Jain (Daughter) Rs. 1,45,203.00 Total Investment Rs. 9,64,689.00

43. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the total Valuation of the Assets in the name of the accused R.C.Jain, his wife Shashi Bala C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 41 of 101 Jain and his daughters Preeti Jain and Niti Jain and son Ashish Jain which have been established on record are as under :­

1. Total Valuation of Property No.26, Gagan Rs.1,55,000.00 Vihar Extn. of Shashi Bala Jain as concluded in (Para 23)

2. Deposits made by accused on the Plot in Jal Rs.1,38,418.00 Vihar Co­operative Housing Society as concluded in (Para 24)

3. Total Bank Savings of accused and his Rs.99,158.00 family members as concluded in (Para 27)

4. Value of the House hold items found in Rs.14,700.00 House search of accused as concluded in (Para 30)

5. Total Investment in the name of accused and Rs. 9,64,689.00 his family members on Shares, Debentures, Bonds etc. as concluded in (Para 42) Total Valuation of the aforesaid Assets Rs.13,71,965.00

44. Now let us discuss about the Income aspect. As per the case of the prosecution the details of the Income of the accused has been shown by the prosecution as under:­ (A) Income from Salary of Sh.R.C. Jain, JE (C), DDA, Vikas Minar, New Delhi during the Check Period from Jan. 1981 to March 1998 C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 42 of 101

1. Salary drawn from ED­V (August 1981 to June 1983) Rs.25,855.00

2. Salary drawn from ED­IV (July 1983 to Dec 1983) Rs. 08,354.00

3. Salary drawn from ED­II (Jan.1984 to Oct.1984) Rs.15,176.00

4. Salary drawn from ED­XII (1984 to Nov. 1988) Rs.1,05,205.00

5. Salary drawn from ED­X (Dec.1988 to Sep.1989) Rs.67,370.00 (October 1990 to November 1990) Rs.06,122.00

6. Salary drawn from ED­IX (Dec.1990 to May 1992) Rs.64,935.00 (June 1992 to September 1992) Rs.14,976.00

7. Salary drawn from ED­IV (Oct.1992 to Dec.92) Rs.12,065.00

8. Salary drawn from AO (E) NG (Jan. 93 to Feb.96) Rs.1,96,641.00

9. Salary drawn from PAO (Engg.) (March 96 to March 98) Rs.2,10,385.00 ______________ TOTAL SALARY INCOME Rs. 7,22,084.00 _______________

45. As regards the Income from the Salary of the accused as shown by the prosecution, it is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the accused that the prosecution has not taken into account the Ex­gratia paid by DDA to the accused besides the Salary. It is also added by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the accused has received total amount of Rs.14,431/­ as Exgratia from DDA which should be added in his Salary. It is also added by Ld. Counsel that even the total addition of Salary as per Serial No.1 to 9 comes to Rs.7,27,084/­ but C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 43 of 101 the IO has shown lesser figure of Rs.5,000/­ by showing the total Income as Rs.7,22,084/­. However, it is added by Ld. Addl. PP that the correct Salary Income of the accused has been taken into account by the prosecution.

46. Item no. 1 under the Head of Income from Salary of the accused state:­

1. Salary drawn from ED­V (August 1981 to June 1983) Rs.25,855.00 From the deposition of PW14 Sh.Subhash Chander, the then Executive Engineer, Eastern Division­V coupled with the documents Ex.P14/B1 to B2 containing the Pay particulars of the accused, it is reflected that the accused has drawn Salary of Rs. 25,855/­ during the period August 1981 to June 1983 and therefore, said Item No.1 under the Head of Salary Income of the accused Rakesh Chand Jain is established by the prosecution.

47. Item no. 2 under the Head of Income from Salary of the accused state:­

2. Salary drawn from ED­IV (July 1983 to Dec 1983) Rs. 08,354.00 C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 44 of 101 From the deposition of PW9 Sh.R.S.Chopra, the then Executive Engineer, Eastern Division­IV, DDA coupled with the document Ex.PW9/B containing the Pay particulars of the accused, it is reflected that the accused has drawn Salary of Rs.08,354/­ during the period July 1983 to Dec 1983 and therefore, said Item No.2 under the Head of Salary Income of the accused is established by the prosecution.

48. Item no. 3 under the Head of Income from Salary of the accused state:­

3. Salary drawn from ED­II (Jan.1984 to Oct.1984) Rs.15,176.00 From the deposition of PW1 Sh.D.C.Jain, the then Executive Engineer, Eastern Division­II, DDA coupled with the document Ex.PW1/B containing the Pay particulars of the accused, it is reflected that the accused has drawn Salary of Rs.15,176/­ during the period Jan. 1984 to Oct. 1984 and therefore, said Item No.3 under the Head of Salary Income of the accused is established by the prosecution.

C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 45 of 101

49. Item no. 4 under the Head of Income from Salary of the accused state:­

4. Salary drawn from ED­XII (1984 to Nov. 1988) Rs.1,05,205.00 From the deposition of PW12 Sh.J.S.Rai, the then Executive Engineer, Eastern Division­XII, DDA coupled with the document Ex.PW11/Q2 containing the Pay particulars of the accused, it is reflected that the accused has drawn Salary of Rs.1,05,205/­ during the period Nov. 1984 to Nov. 1988 and therefore, said Item No.4 under the Head of Salary Income of the accused is established by the prosecution.

50. Item no. 5 under the Head of Income from Salary of the accused state:­

5. Salary drawn from ED­X (Dec.1988 to Sep.1990) Rs.67,370.00 (October 1990 to November 1990) Rs.06,122.00 From the deposition of PW8 Sh.B.S.Yadav, UDC from Eastern Division­X, DDA coupled with the document Ex.PW8/A containing the Pay particulars of the accused, it is reflected that the accused has drawn Salary of Rs.67,370/­ during the period Dec. 1988 to Sept. 1990 and as drawing of Salary of Rs.6,122/­ during the C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 46 of 101 period October 1990 to November 1990 is not even disputed by the accused and therefore, said Item No.5 under the Head of Salary Income of the accused is established by the prosecution.

51. Item no. 6 under the Head of Income from Salary of the accused state:­

6. Salary drawn from ED­IX (Dec.1990 to May 1992) Rs.64,935.00 (June 1992 to September 1992) Rs.14,976.00 From the deposition of PW13 Sh.J.P.Verma, the then Executive Engineer, Eastern Division­IX, DDA coupled with the document Ex.PW11/P containing the Pay particulars of the accused, it is reflected that the accused has drawn Salary of Rs.64,935/­ during the period Dec. 1990 to May 1992 and as drawing of Salary of Rs. 14976/­ during the period June 1992 to September 1992 is not even disputed by the accused and therefore, said Item No.6 under the Head of Salary Income of the accused is established by the prosecution.

52. Item no. 7 under the Head of Income from Salary of the accused state:­

7. Salary drawn from ED­IV (Oct.1992 to Dec.92) Rs.12,065.00 C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 47 of 101 From the deposition of PW9 Sh.R.S.Chopra,the then Executive Engineer, Eastern Division­IV, DDA coupled with the document Ex.PW9/B containing the Pay particulars of the accused, it is reflected that the accused has drawn Salary of Rs.12,065/­ during the period October 1992 to December 1992 and therefore, said Item No.7 under the Head of Salary Income of the accused is established by the prosecution.

53. Item no. 8 under the Head of Income from Salary of the accused state:­

8. Salary drawn from AO (E) NG (Jan. 93 to Feb.96) Rs.1,96,641.00 From the deposition of PW15 Sh.Ramesh Kumar,the then Accounts Officer (E), NG, DDA coupled with the document Ex.PW15/A containing the Pay particulars of the accused, it is reflected that the accused has drawn Salary of Rs.1,96,641/­ during the period January 1993 to February 1996 and therefore, said Item No.8 under the Head of Salary Income of the accused is established by the prosecution.

54. Item no. 9 under the Head of Income from Salary of the C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 48 of 101 accused state:­

9. Salary drawn from PAO (Engg.) (March 96 to March 98) Rs.2,10,385.00 From the deposition of PW10 Inspector P.S.Patwal, Anti Corruption Branch coupled with the documents Ex.PW10/B3 to B5 containing the Pay particulars of the accused, it is reflected that the accused has drawn Salary of Rs.2,10,385/­ during the period March 1996 to March 1998 and therefore, said Item No.9 under the Head of Salary Income of the accused is established by the prosecution.

55. During the course of the argument, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the prosecution has taken the bare Salary Income of the accused and the Ex­gratia as paid by DDA to the accused for total amount of Rs.14,431/­ during the period 1981 to 1995 was not taken into account and therefore, said amount is to be added in the Salary Income of the accused. However, it is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP that the correct amount of Salary Income of the accused has been taken into account by the prosecution.

56. DW6 Sh.Vijay Pal Singh, UDC from Eastern Division­II, DDA, Delhi, has deposed that as per the copy of the Office Record C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 49 of 101 Ex.DW6/A, Rs.749.70 was paid to Sh.R.C.Jain, JE as Ex­gratia in the year 1983­84. Similarly, DW8 Sh.G.D.Verma, Assistant Account Officer, Eastern Division­XII, DDA, Delhi, deposed that as per Office Record, total amount of Rs.4,576.75 has been paid as Ex­gratia to R.C.Jain, the then JE who was posted in DDA during the period 1984 to 1988 and placed on record the summary of the record in this respect as Ex.DW8/B which reflect the year­wise payment of Ex­ gratia to Sh.R.C.Jain as under:­ Year Ex­gratia 1984­85 Rs.749.70 1985­86 Rs.1259.90 1986­87 Rs.1277.15 1987­88 Rs.1290.00 Total Rs.4576.75

57. In view of the aforesaid deposition of DW6 coupled with document Ex.DW6/A and deposition of DW8 coupled with document Ex.DW8/B, it is established that total amount of Rs.749.70 + Rs. 4576.75 = Rs.5326.45 was received as Ex­gratia payment by the accused from DDA during the period 1983­84 to 1987­88. Though Ld. Counsel for the accused has claimed that the accused has received C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 50 of 101 total amount of Rs.14,431/­ as Ex­gratia payment from DDA but since there is no evidence except to the extent of amount of Rs. 5326.45, I am of the considered view that the accused has established regarding the receipt of Ex­gratia for Rs.5326.45 from DDA during the period 1983­84 to 1987­88 and same should be added in the Salary Income of the accused.

58. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the total of the Salary Income of the accused during the period August 1981 to March 1998 as established on Record are as under:­

1. Salary drawn from ED­V (August 1981 to June 1983) Rs.25,855.00

2. Salary drawn from ED­IV (July 1983 to Dec 1983) Rs. 08,354.00

3. Salary drawn from ED­II (Jan.1984 to Oct.1984) Rs.15,176.00

4. Salary drawn from ED­XII (1984 to Nov. 1988) Rs.1,05,205.00

5. Salary drawn from ED­X (Dec.1988 to Sep.1989) Rs.67,370.00 (October 1990 to November 1990) Rs.06,122.00

6. Salary drawn from ED­IX (Dec.1990 to May 1992) Rs.64,935.00 (June 1992 to September 1992) Rs.14,976.00

7. Salary drawn from ED­IV (Oct.1992 to Dec.92) Rs.12,065.00 C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 51 of 101

8. Salary drawn from AO (E) NG (Jan. 93 to Feb.96) Rs.1,96,641.00

9. Salary drawn from PAO (Engg.) (March 96 to March 98) Rs.2,10,385.00

10. Payment of Ex­gratia received by accused (1983 to 1988) Rs.5326.45 ______________ TOTAL SALARY INCOME Rs. 7,32,410.45 _______________

59. During the course of the argument, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the accused from the beginning of the service used to invest his savings from his Salary in various Small Government Saving Schemes like National Saving Certificate, PPF, KVP and also in Shares and Bonds of various Companies and had been earning Income in the form of accruing Interest and Dividends but the same have not been considered by the IO in order to make out a false case of Disproportionate Assets against the accused. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that the accused has earned total Income of Rs.1,22,765/­ during the period 1.4.1978 to 31.3.1993 from such Savings, FDRs, Bonds etc. It is further added by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the accused has earned Interest Income from various Savings, FDRs, Bonds etc. for total amount of Rs. 1,03,543/­ during the period 1.4.1993 to 31.3.1998 and the accused has clearly shown regarding said Income from Interest in his Income C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 52 of 101 Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 1994­1995 relating to the Financial Year 1993­1994 to Assessment Year 1998­1999 relating to Financial Year 1997­98 and the concerned Income Tax Returns of the accused are Ex.DW19/D, Ex.DW19/E, Ex.DW19/F, Ex.DW19/G and Ex.DW19/H. It is also added by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the accused was having PPF Account No.288 at PNB,Preet Vihar and had earned total Interest of Rs.7454/­ during the period 1.4.94 to 31.3.97 and same was also not taken into account by the prosecution.

60. From the perusal of the record, it is clearly reflected that though the prosecution has shown the Savings of the accused, his wife Shashi Bala Jain, his daughters namely Preeti Jain and Neeti Jain and his son Ashish Jain on various Bank Accounts for total amount of Rs.1,52,725/­ and Investment made by the accused and his said family members on various Shares, Debentures, Bonds, Fixed Deposits etc. for total amount of Rs.10,97,689/­ but surprisingly, no amount of Income in the form of Interest as earned from the said Savings, Bonds, Fixed Deposits etc. or Income earned from Shares, Debentures had been taken into account by the prosecution while calculating the Income of the accused and his family members. C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 53 of 101

61. The accused who has got himself examined as DW19 has also deposed regarding his earning from Savings on NSC, KVP, FDRs, PPF, Shares etc.as under:­ "I used to invest from my savings on NSC, KVP,FDR, PPF, Shares etc.from the beginning of my service life and I got Rs.

2,26,308/­ Interest on FDRs and NSC and Rs.

15276/­ Interest on PPF and Rs.24502/­ as Dividend from Shares which have not been shown by the IO."

.....................................................................

"I have also filed Income Tax Return for the Assessment years 1994­95, 1995­96, 1996­97, 1997­98, 1998­99 and the copy of the same are Ex.DW19/D, Ex.DW19/E, Ex.DW19/F, Ex.DW19/G & Ex.DW19/H. The copy of the intimation sent by the Income Tax Department for the Assessment Year 1997­98 and 1998­99 are Ex.DW19/I & Ex.DW19/J. C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 54 of 101 The Interest Certificates dated 14.4.2004 for Rs.1500/­, Rs.1713/­, Rs.1967/­ in my favour and for Rs.1500/­, Rs.1713/­, Rs.1967/­ in favour of my daughter Preeti Jain and for Rs.1500/­, Rs.1713/­ and Rs.1967/­ in favour of my daughter Niti Jain, have been issued by Daurala Organic Ltd. are Ex.DW19/K1 to K9 (colly.).

The Interest Certificate for Rs.1701.03, Rs. 2046.14 and Rs.104.83 and Rs.2166/­ as issued in favour of me by Escorts Finance Ltd. are Ex.DW19/L1 to L4. The Interest Certificate for Rs.1701.03, Rs.2046.14 and Rs.104.83 and Rs.2166/­ as issued in favour of my wife Shashi Bala Jain by Escorts Finance Ltd. are Ex.DW19/L5 to L8. The Interest Certificate for Rs.401.55, Rs.683.90 and Rs.1248.10 and Rs.2167/­ as issued in favour of my daughter Preeti Jain by Escorts Finance Ltd. are Ex.DW19/L9 to L12. The C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 55 of 101 Interest Certificate for Rs.401.55, Rs.683.90 and Rs.1248.10 and Rs.2167/­ as issued in favour of my daughter Niti Jain by Escorts Finance Ltd. are Ex.DW19/L13 to L16."

62. The aforesaid deposition of DW19 accused being coupled with the copies of Income Tax Returns as filed by the accused for the Assessment Year 1994­1995 (Ex.DW19/D), Assessment Year 1995­1996 (Ex.DW19/E), Assessment Year 1996­1997 (Ex.DW19/F), Assessment Year 1997­1998 (Ex.DW19/G) and Assessment Year 1998­1999 (Ex.DW19/H), establish the amount of Interest from Savings, FDRs and Dividends etc. as earned by the accused as under:­ Amount of Interest Period of Assessment Exhibit of the Earned Year of Income Tax concerned Income Tax Returns Returns Rs.4,694.00 AY 1994­1995 Ex.DW19/D Rs.9,568.00 AY 1995­1996 Ex.DW19/E Rs.3,430.00 AY 1996­1997 Ex.DW19/F Rs.41,721.00 AY 1997­1998 Ex.DW19/G Rs.44,130.00 AY 1998­1999 Ex.DW19/H C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 56 of 101 Rs.1,03,543.00 Total amount of Interest earned from Savings, FDRs, Dividends etc.

63. During the course of the argument, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that Smt.Shashi Bala Jain, wife of the accused was having independent sources of Income as she was earning even before her marriage by rendering tuitions and working as a Postal Agent and she also rendered tuitions even after her marriage for certain period and earned Income from the same and had invested her earnings in various Saving Schemes and also earned Interest from the same. Ld. Counsel for the accused further submitted that the wife of the accused was maintaining a Register regarding her said earnings and same has been duly proved by the wife of the accused during her deposition as DW1 but her said earnings had not been taken into account by the IO. However, it is added by Ld. Addl. PP that the accused has failed to prove regarding the said aspect of separate Income of his wife Shashi Bala Jain.

64. From the perusal of the record, it is reflected that Smt.Shashi Bala Jain who is the wife the accused has been examined as DW1 and she has deposed regarding her earning from tuitions and working as Postal Agent in this respect as under:­ C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 57 of 101 "Before marriage in the year 1977, after completing B.A, I had been rendering tuitions and I had earned Rs.2000 to Rs.

2500/­ in the year 1977­78 and thereafter Rs. 3500/­ in the year 1978­79 and thereafter Rs. 4000/­ in the year 1979­80. In the year 1980, I worked as agent in post office and had been earning from the said earning. Up to my marriage in the year 1982, I was having total earning amount of Rs.24,300/­ in total which I had deposited in the form of Kisan Vikas Patra in my name. The copy of the letter dt.

27.10.80 whereby I was appointed as authorized agent in post office is mark 'DA'. I am submitting the register as maintained by me showing my income from tuitions as well as from working as postal agent and said register is w.e.f year 1977­78 to 1985­86 and said register is Ex.DW1/B".

C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 58 of 101

65. DW19 Rakesh Chand Jain, accused in his deposition has also found to have deposed in this respect as under:­ "I was married to Smt.Shashi Bala Jain on 16.6.82 at Sarsawa, District Saharanpur.

Before marriage, my wife has been taking tuitions and acting as a Postal Agent. My wife continued the tuitions after marriage."

66. In view of the aforesaid deposition of DW1 Smt.Shashi Bala Jain, wife of the accused and DW19 accused coupled with Register Ex.DW1/B, the Income of the wife of the accused by rendering tuitions and working as a Postal Agent during the period Jan. 1981 to August 1985 are found as under:­ Period Income from tuitions Income from Commission as Postal Agent Year 1980­81 Rs.2,080.00 (Jan. 1981 to April Rs.1800.00 1981) Year 1981­82 Rs.5,280.00 Rs.2220.00 C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 59 of 101 Year 1982­83 Rs.8,200.00 Rs.1500.00 (August 1982 to March 1983) (April 1982 to June 1982) Year 1983­84 Rs.12,400.00 ­­­ Year 1984­85 Rs.13,200.00 ­­­ Year 1985­86 Rs.5,900.00 ­­­ (April 1985 to August 1985) Total Rs.47,060.00 Rs.5,520.00 Then the total Income as earned by wife of accused by rendering tuitions and working as a Postal Agent comes to Rs.47,060.00 + Rs.5,520.00 = Rs.52,580.00 during period Jan 1981 to Aug 1985.

67. During the course of the arguments, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that Smt.Shashi Bala Jain, the wife of the accused had worked as Receptionist with M/s Topact Apparels Pvt. Ltd. situated at Chandni Chowk, Delhi from 1.9.85 to 30.6.92 and earned total Salary of Rs.1,72,800/­ but as the same has not been taken into account, same should be included as Income of Smt.Shashi Bala Jain.

68. From the perusal of the record, it is reflected that DW19 Rakesh Chand Jain/accused has deposed in this respect that his wife C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 60 of 101 joined service as Receptionist cum Clerk with M/s Topact Apparels Pvt. Ltd., Chandni Chowk, Delhi on 1.9.1985 and remained in service till 30.6.1992 and she got Salary from the said Firm. Furthermore, DW1 Smt.Shashi Bala Jain, wife of the accused has also deposed in this respect as under:­ "I worked as a receptionist in M/s Topact Apparel Pvt. Ltd. situated at Chandni chowk at Jogiwada Bhairon wali gali w.e.f 1.9.85 to 30.6.1992 and earned Rs.1,72,800/­ as a salary. Appointment letter is Ex.DW1/C, experience/salary certificate Ex.DW1/D1 to Ex.DW1/D9. From my said earnings I had invested in my name and in the name of my children namely Preeti Jain (daughter) and Neeti Jain (daughter) for meeting the expenses of education and for marriage of my daughters".

69. From the perusal of the aforesaid deposition of DW19 accused and DW1 Smt.Shashi Bala Jain coupled with her Salary C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 61 of 101 Certificate Ex.DW1/D1 to D9, it is reflected that said Shashi Bala Jain had got the Salary by working as Receptionist cum Clerk with M/s Topact Apparels Pvt. Ltd. w.e.f. 1.9.1985 to 30.6.1992 and had drawn the total Salary of Rs.1,72,800/­ and the details of the same as found reflected from Salary Certificate Ex.DW1/D1 to D9 are as under:­ Salary Per Month Period Total Salary Rs.1,800.00 p.m. 1.9.85 to 31.3.86 Rs.12,600.00 Rs.1,8.00.00 p.m. 1.4.86 to 31.3.87 Rs.21,600.00 Rs.1,900.00 p.m. 1.4.87 to 31.3.88 Rs.22,800.00 Rs.2,000.00 p.m. 1.4.88 to 31.3.89 Rs.24,000.00 Rs.2,100.00 p.m. 1.4.89 to 31.3.90 Rs.25,200.00 Rs.2,300.00 p.m. 1.4.90 to 31.3.91 Rs.27,600.00 Rs.2,500.00 p.m. 1.4.91 to 31.3.92 Rs.30,000.00 Rs.3,000.00 p.m. 1.4.92 to 30.6.92 Rs.9,000.00 Total Salary 1.9.85 to 30.6.92 Rs.1,72,800.00

70. Therefore, I am of the considered view that said amount of Rs.1,72,800/­ which has been received by Smt.Shashi Bala Jain, wife of the accused by working as Receptionist cum Clerk with M/s Topact Apparels Pvt. Ltd. during the period 1.9.85 to 30.6.92 deserves to be added in the Income of Smt.Shashi Bala Jain. C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 62 of 101

71. During the course of the argument, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that Smt.Shashi Bala Jain was having independent source of Income and had invested money on various Saving Schemes like KVP, FDRs, Bonds, Saving Bank Accounts etc. and had earned Income from Interest, Dividends for amount of Rs. 1,35,936/­ but no such Income has been shown by the prosecution.

72. No doubt, from the perusal of the record, it is reflected that Smt.Shashi Bala Jain was having independent source of Income on various Heads and had invested her money on various Saving Schemes, Bonds etc. and was earning Income from the same but the said earning of Smt.Shashi Bala Jain has not been shown by the prosecution despite the fact that the prosecution had shown the amount of investment of Rs.3,61,053/­ by Smt.Shashi Bala Jain on purchase of Shares, Debentures, Bonds, Fixed Deposits etc. DW1 Shashi Bala Jain has deposed in this respect as under:­ "I earned total amount of Rs.1,35,936/­ interest from my savings and I reinvested in the scheme as and when I got. My children C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 63 of 101 also got interest from their savings and the same were also re­invested. I have been paying income­tax and filing return in the year 1984­85, 1985­86, 1986­87. The challan receipts are collectively Ex.DW1/DF(1 to 6 colly.) which bears the signatures of Shashi Jain at point A on each page. Income tax return for the year 1996­97 and 1997­98 are Ex.DW1/DG and Ex.DW1/DH respectively."

73. From the perusal of the Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 1997­1998 Ex.DW1/DH (which is relating to Financial Year 1996­1997) as filed by Smt.Shashi Bala Jain, it is reflected that she had shown amount of Rs.43,230/­ as Income from FDR Interest, Saving Bank Interest and Dividends. Similarly, from the perusal of the Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 1998­1999 Ex.DW1/DG (which is relating to Financial Year 1997­1998) as filed by Smt.Shashi Bala Jain, it is reflected that she had shown amount of Rs.45,155/­ as Income from FDR Interest, Saving Bank Interest and Dividends. But Income Tax Returns of Shashi Bala Jain for any other Years are not available on record. C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 64 of 101 Therefore, I am of the considered view that total Income from FDRs, Bank Savings and Dividends as earned by Smt.Shashi Bala Jain which could be established on record amounted to Rs.43,230/­ + Rs. 45,155/­ = Rs.88,385/­ and therefore, said amount deserves to be added as Income of Shashi Bala Jain from FDRs, Bank Savings and Dividends.

74. During the course of the argument, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that Smt.Shashi Bala Jain, wife of the accused who was having independent source of Income had purchased Property bearing No.26, Gagan Vihar Extn. for Rs.30,000/­ in the month of May 1984 from one Subhash vide General Power of Attorney, Money Receipt dated 23.5.1984, copy of which has been seized by the IO. It is further submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that one Room, Latrine, Bathroom and Boundary Wall was already existing in the said Property and thereafter Smt. Shashi Bala Jain out of her own funds got constructed 3 Rooms, on the said Property by investing Rs.80,000/­ on the same and had given on rent back portion of her said Property to Sh.S.K.Jain @ Rs.2000/­ p.m.w.e.f.1.4.95 to 31.3.98 and had received total rent of Rs.72,000/­ and Rent Agreement is Ex.DW3/A and therefore, said rent amount of Rs.72,000/­ be included in the Income of Smt.Shashi Bala Jain. C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 65 of 101

75. DW1 Smt.Shashi Bala Jain is found to have deposed in this respect as under:­ "In the year 1984, I encashed my Kisan Vikas Patra and obtained Rs.48,000/­ in total from village Sarsava Post office, District Saharanpur, UP. From that amount I purchased one house bearing no. 26, Gagan Vihar Extn. comprising of one room, laterine, bathroom, and was having boundary having gate on the same measuring 200 sq. yds. for Rs.30,000/­ in the month of May 1984 from one Subhash. After about two months of purchase of said house, we shifted from our tenanted house to said house. In the year 1985, I got constructed 3 rooms on the said house and invested Rs.80,000/­ on the same". Said DW1 Shashi Bala Jain has further deposed that on C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 66 of 101 1.4.95 she had rented out the back portion of her property to Sh.S.K.Jain at rent of Rs.2000/­ and she had received total amount of Rs.72,000/­ towards rent for 3 years. She has also deposed that said Rent Agreement is Mark "DD" which bears her signature at point A and counter foil of Rent Receipts are marked as DE (colly.) which bear her signatures at point A.

76. Similarly, DW19 Rakesh Chand Jain, accused is also found to have deposed in this respect as under:­ "My wife purchased a house constituting one room and boundary wall at 26, Gagan Vihar Extension from her own independent savings for Rs.30,000/­ paid vide Bank Draft prepared from her own Saving Account of Syndicate Bank, I.P.Estate, New Delhi in the month of May, 1984. Later on, she constructed additional 3 rooms with latrine and bathroom spending Rs.80,000/­ during the period May 1984 to July 1986. The house was already constructed in a plot of C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 67 of 101 200 sq.yds. My wife rented the back portion of her house to Sh.S.K.Jain (her brother) @ Rs.2000/­ p.m.from 01.04.1995 to 31.03.1998 and got Rs.72000/­ as rental Income".

77. The aforesaid deposition of DW1 Shashi Bala Jain and DW19 Rakesh Chand Jain/accused are also found corroborated from the deposition of DW3 S.K.Jain who was tenant in the said Property of DW1 Shashi Bala Jain as said DW3 S.K.Jain has deposed as under:­ "I had resided as a tenant alone in the house of Smt.Shashi Bala Jain w.e.f. 1.4.1995 to 31.3.1998 and for the whole period I had paid Rs.2000/­ p.m. excluding water and electricity charges to the owner of the said house. A Rent Deed was executed between me and the owner of the said house which is Mark DD and now exhibited as Ex.DW3/A bearing my signatures at point B on both the pages. The C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 68 of 101 landlady has been issuing Rent Receipt to me. The counter receipts of the rent receipts issued by the landlady to me are already marked as Mark DE (colly.) and now exhibited as Ex.DW3/B (colly.), all bearing my signatures at point B".

78. In view of the aforesaid deposition of DW1 Shashi Bala Jain, DW3 Sh.S.K.Jain and DW19 Rakesh Chand Jain/accused coupled with Rent Deed Ex.DW3/A and Counter Rent Receipts Ex.DW3/B (colly.), I am of the considered view that the rental Income of Rs.72,000/­ during the period 1.4.95 to 31.3.98 by Smt.Shashi Bala Jain has been duly established and therefore, the same should be added in the Income of Smt. Shashi Bala Jain.

79. During the course of argument, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that Smt.Shashi Bala Jain was gifted gold jewellery of about 20­22 Tolas from her parent's side and 30­32 Tolas from her parents­in­law side and accused was also gifted customary gold jewellery of about 5­6 Tolas from his parents­in­law at the time of marriage. It is further added by Ld. Counsel for the accused that C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 69 of 101 son and daughters of accused were also gifted about 5 Tolas of gold jewellery each from his father side as well as from in­laws' side on the occasion of their birth and birthday. It is further added by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the family of the accused were having more than 80 Tolas of gold jewellery and Smt.Shashi Bala Jain had sold certain gold jewellery to M/s Pretty Women during the year 1993 to 1996 and had received Rs.3,46,800/­ as per Receipts Ex.DW1/DE1 to DE4 and had invested the said amount on various Saving Schemes i.e. FDRs, NSC, KVP and various Bonds in her name and in the name of her minor daughters and son and therefore, said amount of Rs. 3,46,800/­ deserves to be added in the Income on selling of gold jewellery by Smt.Shashi Bala Jain, wife of the accused.

80. DW19 Rakesh Chand Jain/accused has deposed in this respect as under:­ "In my marriage, my parents, grand parents, uncles and aunties had gifted gold jewellery about 30­32 tolas to my wife Shashi Bala Jain. My in­ laws had gifted gold jewellery about 20­22 tolas to my wife in her marriage. C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 70 of 101 I was also gifted 5­6 tolas of gold jewellery from my in­laws in my marriage. My son and daughters were also gifted 5 tolas gold each from my father side as well as from my in­laws side on the occasions of their birth and first birthday".

....................................................................... ..

"My wife sold her and daughter's old gold jewellery to M/s Pretty Women situated at Karol Bagh and got Rs.3,46,000/­ from the sale of gold jewellery for the period 1993­1996 and invested in her name in different Government Saving Schemes as well as in the name of her daughters Km.Preeti Jain and Km.Niti Jain under her own guardianship".

81. Similarly, DW1 Shashi Bala Jain who is the wife of the accused has deposed in this respect as under:­ C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 71 of 101 "I had received cash of Rs.5000/­ from my relatives on my marriage and had received 60 to 70 tolas gold from my parents and in­ laws. I was given double bed, dressing table, almirah, sofa, utensils, clothes, fans, one mixi, one wrist watch for me and for my husband on my marriage and I stated about the same to inspector Patwal. I had demanded back the FDRs, bonds and Kisan Vikas patra as the same were purchased by me from my funds from Inspector Patwal but he declined on the plea that same is under investigation".

....................................................................

"During the period 1993 to 1996, I had sold my gold jewelry weighing about 80 tolas for total sum of Rs.3,46,800/­. The receipts are Ex.DW1/DE1 to Ex.DW1/DE4 (colly.). I had invested this amount in the different Govt. C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 72 of 101 Savings Scheme in my name and name of my children namely, Preeti Jain and Neeti Jain. I had invested this amount under my guardianship and I also invested the rented amount in the Govt. Scheme in my name as well as of my said children".

82. Similarly, the aforesaid deposition of DW1 Shashi Bala Jain regarding sale of gold jewellery to M/s Pretty Women during the period 1993 to 1996 vide Original Purchase Memo Ex.DW1/DE1 to DE4, also found corroborated from the deposition of DW5 Sh.Raman Mehta, who is a partner of M/s Pretty Women, as he has deposed in this respect as under:­ "I was partner of M/s Pretty Woman which has been dealing in export of gold jewellery since 1993. I started the Unit from my earlier residential address i.e. J­7/143, Rajouri Garden. Later, we purchased our own office premises at 5/69, Padam Singh Road, Karol C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 73 of 101 Bagh, New Delhi. The Unit have been dealing in the export and manufacturing of gold jewellery and also have been dealing in local sale purchase of gold jewellery. I still own the said premises. I have seen the original purchase memo Ex.DW1/DE1 to DE4 which bears my signatures. Mrs. Shashi Bala Jain has sold the jewellery to M/s Pretty Woman vide the said Memos. The cost of the jewellery was paid to seller Mrs. Shashi Bala Jain after reducing the mixture, cost of manufacture, polishing and wastage. Shashi Bala Jain also signed on all those Memos at point A. My signatures are at point X on all those Memos".

83. The aforesaid Purchase Memos Ex.DW1/DE1 to DE4 reflect the amount of gold jewellery as purchased by said M/s Pretty Women from Smt.Shashi Bala Jain as under:­ Purchase Memo No. Purchase Date Purchased Amount C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 74 of 101 082 11.10.1993 Rs.49,356.00 692 01.08.1995 Rs.1,48,988.00 734 16.12.1995 Rs.53,885.00 887 24.07.1996 Rs.94,504.00 Total Amount Rs.3,46,733.00

84. In view of the aforesaid deposition of DW1 Smt.Shashi Bala Jain, wife of the accused, DW19 Rakesh Chand Jain/accused and DW5 Raman Mehta, Partner of M/s Pretty Women, coupled with 4 Purchase Memos of gold jewellery Ex.DW1/DE1 to DE4, I am of the considered view that Smt.Shashi Bala Jain had received total amount of Rs.3,46,733.00 on account of selling gold jewellery to M/s Pretty Women during the period 11.10.93 to 24.07.96 vide said Purchase Memos Ex.DW1/DE1 to DE4.

85. During the course of the argument, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that Sh.Mool Chand Jain, the father of the accused who was a retired Bank Officer from PNB, Meerut and had received several retirement benefits and had gifted total amount of Rs.87,000/­ to Preeti Jain, daughter of the accused, total amount of Rs.62,500/­ to Neeti Jain, daughter of the accused and Rs.10,000/­ to Ashish Kumar Jain, son of the accused during the period June 1993 to C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 75 of 101 July 1996 to purchase FDs in their names and said facts are found supported from the deposition of DW1 Smt.Shashi Bala Jain as well as DW19 Rakesh Chand Jain/accused.

86. DW1 Shashi Bala Jain is found to have deposed in this respect as under:­ "My father­in law Sh. Mool Chand Jain had given Rs.87,000/­ to my daughter Preeti Jain Rs.62,500/­ to another daughter Neeti Jain Rs.10,000/­ to my son, and Rs.10,000/­ to me after his retirement during the period 1993 to 1996. Said amount was paid by him for depositing in FD for onward expenses in marriage of my both daughters".

87. Similarly, DW19 Rakesh Chand Jain/accused has also deposed as under:­ "During the period 1993­1996, my father gave Rs.87000/­ to my elder daughter Preeti Jain for C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 76 of 101 deposit in her name in FDRs etc., Rs.62,500/­ to my second daughter Niti Jain and Rs.10,000/­ to my son Ashish Kumar Jain and Rs.10,000/­ to my wife Shashi Bala Jain for keeping this amount in the FDRs to use the same at the time of marriage of daughters and for their higher education. Said amounts were invested in the FDRs as per the directions of my father under the guardianship of my wife. When my father came to know that the said FDRs were seized by the Police from my house in this case, my father appeared before the DCP, AC Branch and IO and told them regarding these facts and also given in writing".

88. Similarly, DW18 Avnish Kumar Jain, who is the brother of the accused has also deposed regarding the giving of Written Statement of his father in the Office of DCP, AC Branch on dated 22.05.2001 as he has deposed in this respect as under:­ C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 77 of 101 "The accused R.C.Jain is my elder brother. He was working in DDA as JE. My father was staying with me at my residence. He expired on 11.06.2012. On 22.05.2001, I along with my father had come to Delhi and went to the Office of Anti Corruption Branch as my brother R.C.Jain was involved in a false case. My father had brought some record relating to Bank and my father had given the written statement Ex.DW18/A to the IO which bears his signatures at point A on all pages. It was received in the Office of DCP, AC Branch and the receipt in token whereof is at point B".

89. In view of the aforesaid deposition of DW1 Shashi Bala Jain, DW19 Rakesh Chand Jain/accused and DW18 Avnish Kumar Jain, brother of the accused coupled with Written Statement of Mool Chand Jain, father of the accused Ex.DW18/A which was given at the Office of DCP, Anti Corruption Branch on dated 22.05.2001 and after diarising vide Diary No.3652 dated 22.05.2001, copy of which is C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 78 of 101 Ex.DW10/A, the factum regarding giving of total amount of Rs. 87,000/­ to Preeti Jain, daughter of the accused, total amount of Rs. 62,500/­ to Neeti Jain, daughter of the accused, and total amount of Rs.10,000/­ to Ashish Kumar Jain, son of the accused (total amounting to Rs.87,000/­ + Rs.62,500/­ + Rs.10,000/­ = Rs. 1,59,500/­) as gift for purchase of FDRs in their name by Sh.Mool Chand Jain, father of the accused during the period June 1993 to July 1996 found established on record.

90. During the course of the argument, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that Sh.Maam Chand Jain who is the father­ in­law of the accused had got purchased SCICI Bonds of Rs.10,000/­ each in the name of his grand daughter Preeti Jain, Neeti Jain and his daughter Smt.Shashi Bala Jain and IO had collected the copy of the Letter Ex.PW6/X17 along with Annexures Mark A1 to A14. DW1 Shashi Bala Jain has deposed in this respect as under:­ "My father Sh. Mam Chand Jain purchased bonds of SCICI for Rs.10,000/­ in the name of my daughter Preeti Jain, Rs.10,000/­ in the name of Neeti Jain and Rs.10,000/­in my name C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 79 of 101 as gifts which were to be given at the time of marriage of my daughters. The applications forms for these bonds were signed by my father Sh. Mam Chand Jain. I can identify his signature as I have seen him while writing and signing and these documents have already been exhibited in the case file as Ex.PW6/X17".

91. Similarly, DW17 Sh.Subhash Chand Jain who is the brother of said Shashi Bala Jain, has also deposed in this respect as under:­ "My father used to give gifts to my sister Shashi Bala Jain on festivals i.e. Holi, Diwali and Teej. I have seen the documents i.e.Mark A­11, A­12 & A­14 which bears signatures of my father Late Sh.Mam Chand at point X on all the three documents. In the year 1997, again said 1996, my father Mam Chand Jain, my mother Ratan Bala Jain and myself had come to the house of the accused and one agent had come to the C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 80 of 101 house, my father had given Rs.29000/­ cash, again said Rs.30,000/­ to that agent in the house and that agent had given us the aforesaid documents on the next day".

92. PW34 Sh.D.Ganesh Ayer, Sr.Manager from ICICI Infotech Ltd., has also deposed in this respect as under:­ "The Letter Ex.PW6/X17 was sent by our Company Secretary to the Deputy Commissioner, Anti Corruption Branch along with Annexures Mark A1 to A14 and same are correct according to record."

In the cross examination by Ld. Counsel, said PW34 has further deposed as under:­ "It is correct that in respect of Mark A11, A12 and A14, the payment was paid by Mam Chand though he applied for bond in the name of Shashi Bala Jain, Preeti Jain and Neeti Jain." C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 81 of 101

93. In view of the aforesaid deposition of DW1 Shashi Bala Jain, DW17 Subhash Chand Jain, brother of Shashi Bala Jain and PW34 Sh.D.Ganesh Iyer Sr. Manager, ICICI Infotech Ltd., it is clearly established that said SCICI Bonds of Rs.10,000/­ each were got purchased in the name of Shashi Bala Jain, Preeti Jain and Neeti Jain by Sh.Mam Chand Jain and therefore, said total amount of Rs. 30,000/­ to be added as gifted Income by Sh.Mam Chand Jain, father in law of accused for purchase of SCICI Bonds in the name of Shashi Bala Jain, Preeti Jain and Neeti Jain.

94. During the course of the argument, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that Shashi Bala Jain and her daughters Preeti Jain and Neeti Jain have been receiving gifts on various festivals/birthday/functions etc. during the Check Period and about Rs.35,000/­ was received by Smt.Shashi Bala Jain, about Rs.20,000/­ was received by Preet Jain and about Rs.15,000/­ was received by Neeti Jain as gifts from the relatives on various occasions.

95. DW1 Smt.Shashi Bala Jain has deposed in this respect as under:­ C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 82 of 101 "I have been getting gifts of cash amount from my parents, brothers, elder sisters and from in­ laws side and other relatives at different occasions of like Diwali, Rakshbandhan, on the birthdays of my children etc. during the period of 1982 to 1998. I had received total Rs.

35,500/­. My daughter also got cash gifts during the said period from maternal and paternal grand parents, uncles and other relatives amounting to Rs.19,500/­ during the period of 1984­1998. Similarly my second daughter Neeti Jain also got got cash gifts during the said period from maternal and paternal grand parents, uncles and other relatives amounting to Rs.14,300/­ during the period of 1986­1998. I had invested this amount in govt. schemes in my name as well as in the name of my daughters.

Again said, I deposited the amount by opening a account in the name of my daughters in the bank under my guardianship".

C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 83 of 101

96. Similarly, DW19 Rakesh Chand Jain/accused has also deposed in this respect as under :­ "My wife and my daughters had also received traditional gift from my parents and parents in laws and other relatives. My wife Shashi Bala Jain had received Rs.35000/­, my daughter Preeti Jain received Rs.19000/­ and my daughter Niti Jain had received Rs.15000/­ as traditional gifts".

97. Considering the aforesaid deposition of DW19 accused as well as his wife DW1 Shashi Bala Jain, I am of the considered view that the stand of the accused is that his wife Smt.Shashi Bala Jain had received Rs.35,000/­ in total, his daughter Preeti Jain had received Rs.19000/­ in total and his daughter Niti Jain had received Rs.15000/­ in total (Thus total gift amount is Rs.35,000/­ + Rs.19,000/­ + Rs. 15,000/­ = Rs.69,000/­) as traditional gifts from their relatives on various occasions during the Check Period could be established.

98. During the course of the argument, it is submitted by Ld. C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 84 of 101 Counsel for the accused that Preeti Jain and Neeti Jain, daughters of the accused were having several Bank Savings, Bonds, FDRs and Shares in their names and have earned Income from the same but no such Income had been shown by the prosecution in this respect despite the fact that the prosecution has shown Investment of Rs. 2,29,453/­ in the name of Ms.Preet Jain and Rs.1,60,203/­ in the name of Neeti Jain, both daughters of the accused on various Shares, Debentures, Bonds, FDRs etc.

99. From the perusal of the record including the deposition of DW1 Shashi Bala Jain, wife of the accused as well as DW19 Rakesh Chand Jain/accused, it is clearly reflected that Smt.Shashi Bala Jain out of her own funds and the gifted amount as received by her children from their relatives, had made Investments in the name of her minor daughters Preeti Jain and Neeti Jain in Saving Bank Accounts, FDRs, Bonds, Shares etc. Even the prosecution in the Chargesheet had also shown the Investment of Rs.2,29,453/­ in the name of Ms.Preeti Jain and Rs.1,60,203/­ in the name of Ms.Neeti Jain, both daughters of the accused on various Shares, Debentures, Bonds, Fixed Deposits etc. but surprisingly, no Income from the same has been shown by the prosecution in this respect. C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 85 of 101

100. DW19, the accused regarding the receipt of Interest by his daughter Preeti Jain and Neeti Jain had deposed in this respect as under:­ "My daughter Preeti Jain had received Rs.27000/­ as Interest. My daughter Neeti Jain had received Rs. 19,500/­ as Interest from their savings. I had shown the said Interest amount and gifted amount in my Annual Tax Return".

101. The aforesaid deposition of DW19 accused being coupled with the copies of Income Tax Returns as filed by the accused for the Assessment Year 1994­1995 (Ex.DW19/D), Assessment Year 1995­1996 (Ex.DW19/E), Assessment Year 1996­1997 (Ex.DW19/F), Assessment Year 1997­1998 (Ex.DW19/G) and Assessment Year 1998­1999 (Ex.DW19/H), establish the amount of Interest from Savings, FDRs and Dividends etc. as earned by the his daughter Preeti Jain and Niti Jain are as under:­ Amount of Interest Amount of Interest Period of Assessment Earned by Preet Jain Earned by Niti Jain Year of Income Tax (in Rs.) (in Rs.) Returns 12.00 12.00 AY 1994­1995 C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 86 of 101 4,295.00 3,599.00 AY 1995­1996 4,609.00 3,756.00 AY 1996­1997 6,760.00 6,337.00 AY 1997­1998 11,962.00 4,023.00 AY 1998­1999 Total Rs.27,638.00 Total Rs.17,727.00

102. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the total Income of the accused, his wife Shashi Bala Jain, his daughters Preeti Jain and Niti Jain during the Check Period which could be established on record are as under:­

1. Income of the accused from Salary as Rs.7,32,410.00 concluded in (Para 58)

2. Income from Savings, FDRs, Dividends etc. Rs.1,03,543.00 as earned by accused as concluded in (Para

62)

3. Income from Tuitions, Postal Agent by Rs.0,52,580.00 Shashi Bala Jain (wife of accused) as concluded in (Para 66)

4. Income from Salary by Shashi Bala Jain (wife Rs.1,72,800.00 of accused) as concluded in (Para 70)

5. Income from Savings, FDRs, Dividends etc.as Rs.0,88,385.00 earned by Shashi Bala Jain,wife of accused as concluded in (Para 73) C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 87 of 101

6. Income from Rent as earned by Shashi Bala Rs.0,72,000.00 Jain,wife of accused as concluded in (Para

78)

7. Amount as received from Sale of gold Rs.3,46,733.00 jewellery by Shashi Bala Jain,wife of accused as concluded in (Para 84)

8. Amount as received by Preeti Jain, Niti Jain Rs.1,59,500.00 and Ashish Jain from Sh.Mool Chand Jain, father of the accused as concluded in (Para

89)

9. Amount as gifted by Sh.Mam Chand Jain, Rs.0,30,000.00 father in law of accused for purchase of SCICI Bonds in the name of Shashi Bala Jain, Preeti Jain and Niti Jain as concluded in (Para

93)

10. Amount of gift given by the relatives to Rs.0,69,000.00 Shashi Bala Jain, Preeti Jain and Niti Jain on various occasions as concluded in (Para 97)

11. Income from Savings, FDRs, Dividends as Rs.,0,27,638.00 earned by Preeti Jain as concluded in (Para

101)

12. Income from Savings, FDRs, Dividends as Rs.0,17,727.00 earned by Niti Jain as concluded in (Para 101) Total Income Rs.18,72,316.00

103. During the course of the arguments, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the accused as well as his wife Smt.Shashi Bala Jain were having independent source of Income. As C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 88 of 101 Smt.Shashi Bala Jain was earning separately initially by rendering tuitions and acting as a Postal Agent and thereafter, by working as Receptionist in M/s Topact Apparels Ltd. and had purchased a Property No.26, Gagan Vihar Extn. and got additional construction on the said Property out of her own funds and was also getting rental Income from said Property and she was making Investments from her said funds on Small Savings, Bonds, FDRs, Shares etc.in her name as well as in the name of her daughters Preeti Jain and Niti Jain and son Ashish Jain. It is further added by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the prosecution has failed to establish that any of said Investment made by Smt.Shashi Bala Jain in her name as well as in name of her children were Benami Property of the accused. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that in case the Income as earned by Smt.Shashi Bala Jain, wife of the accused from various sources are excluded from the Assets of the accused then there is no case of Disproportionate Assets made out against the accused. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that even otherwise in case of calculation of Disproportionate Assets, the accused is entitled for benefit of 10% margin of the total Income which has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Ld. Counsel in support of his contention that no case of Disproportionate Assets is made out as against the accused has referred and relied upon C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 89 of 101 following Judgments:­ (1) (1992) 4 Supreme Court Cases 45 "M.Krishna Reddy Vs. State Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hyderabad". (2) AIR 1977 Supreme Court 700 "Krishnand Agnihotri Vs. State of M.P."

(3) (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases 420 "DSP, Chennai Vs. K.Inbasagaran".

(4) (2006) 7 Supreme Court Cases 172 "State Inspector of Police, Vishakhapatnam Vs. Surya Sankaram Karri". (5) AIR 1968 Supreme Court 1292 "Shailender Nath Bose Vs. State of Bihar."

(6) AIR 1988 Supreme Court 88 "State of Maharashtra Vs. P.D.Daruwalla"

104. In the case reported as AIR 1977 Supreme Court 700 "Krishnand Agnihotri Vs. State of M.P., while dealing with the aspect of 'Benami Transaction', it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in middle part of Para 26 as under:­ "It is well settled that the burden of showing that a particular transaction is benami and the C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 90 of 101 appellant owner is not the real owner always rests on the person asserting it to be so and this burden has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidence of a definite character which would either directly prove the fact of benami or establish circumstances unerringly and reasonably raising an interference of that fact. The essence of benami is the intention of the parties and not unoften, such intention is shrouded in a thick veil which cannot be easily pierced through. But such difficulties do not relieve the person asserting the transaction to be benami of the serious onus that rests on him, nor justify the acceptance of mere conjectures or surmises as a substitute for proof."

105. By taking the cue regarding the requirement for establishing a Benami Transaction from the aforesaid Judgment as rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the present case and specifically keeping in mind the deposition of DW1 Smt.Shashi Bala Jain, DW19 Rakesh Chand Jain/accused, DW16 Pradeep Kumar Jain, DW17 Subhash Chand Jain, DW18 Avnish Kumar Jain and various documents as proved on record, I have no hesitation to safely conclude that the prosecution has failed to establish any 'Benami C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 91 of 101 Transaction' of Assets hold by Smt.Shashi Bala Jain, wife of the accused as well as Preeti Jain and Niti Jain, daughters of the accused and Ashish Jain, Son of the accused to be the Assets of the accused.

106. Furthermore by taking the cue from the Judgments as reported as (1992) 4 Supreme Court Cases 45 "M.Krishna Reddy Vs. State Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hyderabad" and AIR 1977 Supreme Court 700 "Krishnand Agnihotri Vs. State of M.P", I am of the considered view that for the calculation of the Disproportionate Assets, the accused should be granted the benefit of 10% margin on the total Income. Since in the present case, the total Income of the accused, his wife and his family members has been determined to be Rs.18,72,316/­ as concluded in Para (102), by granting the benefit of 10% of said Income i.e. Rs.1,87,231/­, the total Income of the accused, his wife and his children comes to Rs. 18,72,316/­ + Rs.1,87,231/­ = Rs.20,59,547/­.

107. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the total Expenditure of accused and his family has been concluded to be Rs.2,87,566/­ as shown in Para (16), the total Valuation of the Assets in the name of the accused and his wife Shashi Bala Jain, his daughters Preeti Jain C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 92 of 101 and Niti Jain and Son Ashish Jain have been concluded to be Rs. 13,71,965/­ as shown in Para (43) and the total Income of the accused, his wife and his daughters and Son has been concluded as Rs.20,59,547/­ as shown in Para (106). For calculation of Disproportionate Assets, the formula is as under:­ Total Expenditure + Total Assets - Total Income = Disproportionate Assets

108. In the present case, Total Expenditure Rs.2,87,566.00 Total Assets Rs.13,71,965.00 Total (Assets + Expenditure) = Rs.16,59,531.00 ____________________________________________________ Total Income is Rs.20,59,547.00

109. In view of aforesaid calculation, it is clearly reflected that since the total Income is Rs.20,59,547.00, which is higher than the Total (Assets + Expenditure) which is Rs.16,59,531.00, and therefore, despite treating the Income, Expenditure, Assets of the accused, his wife Shashi Bala Jain, his daughters Preeti Jain and Niti Jain and son Ashish Jain as one unit by clubbing together also, no case of C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 93 of 101 'Disproportionate Assets' has been made out as against the accused in this case.

110. During the course of the argument, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that in the present case, the accused joined service in DDA in August 1981 and was working as JE (Civil) in DDA and he was appointed by the Vice Chairman, DDA and said fact is also found supported from the Reply dated 25.10.2013 which is Ex.DW19/N (colly.) in response to the RTI Application of the accused as received from DDA. The accused in his deposition as DW19 has also deposed in this respect as under:­ "I was appointed as JE by the Vice Chairman, DDA in the year 1981. The information supplied in Reply dated 25.10.2013 to my RTI Application by DDA (24 pages) is Ex.DW19/N (colly.)."

111. Ld. Counsel for the accused further submitted that in the present case since the Sanction for launching prosecution as against the accused has not been given by the Vice Chairman, DDA but by PW8 Sh.Sunil Sharma, the then Commissioner (Personnel), DDA who has passed the Sanction Order Ex.PW8/A and as said PW8 was C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 94 of 101 subordinate to Vice Chairman, DDA and therefore, he was not competent to accord Sanction for prosecution as against the accused and therefore, the accused deserves to be acquitted on this count itself and Ld. Counsel in support of his said submission referred following Judgments :­

1. AIR 1968 Supreme Court 1292 "Shailender Nath Bose Vs. State of Bihar."

2. 2000 (vii) AD (Delhi) 266 "Rama Tyagi Vs. DDA"

3. 57 (1995) DLT 506 "State Vs. Ravinder Singh"

112. However, it is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP that PW8 Sh.Sunil Sharma, the then Commissioner (Personnel), DDA was competent to pass said Sanction Order against the accused who was posted as JE in DDA and therefore, said Sanction Order Ex.PW8/A is legally valid.

113. From the perusal of the record, it is reflected that in the present case, the Sanction for prosecution against the accused which is Ex.PW8/A has been granted by PW8 Sh.Sunil Sharma, the then Commissioner (Personnel), DDA. In the cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel said PW8 has deposed further as under:­ C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 95 of 101 "I did not examine and ascertain the date of appointment of accused as Junior Engineer. I am not aware that accused was appointed by Vice Chairman, DDA. It is wrong to suggest that due to aforesaid reasons, I was not the competent authority to grant Sanction for prosecution of the accused."

114. DW19 the accused is found to have deposed regarding this aspect as under:­ "I was appointed as JE by the Vice Chairman, DDA in the year 1981. The information supplied in Reply dated 25.10.2013 to my RTI Application by DDA (24 pages) is Ex.DW19/N (colly.)."

115. From the perusal of the aforesaid Reply dated 25.10.2013 Ex.DW19/N (colly.) which was received by the accused in response to RTI Application, it is reflected that the Appointing Authority of C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 96 of 101 this accused is Vice Chairman, DDA. But in the present case, PW8 Sh.Sunil Sharma, the then Commissioner (Personnel), DDA who is subordinate to Vice Chairman, DDA, has accorded the Sanction for launching prosecution against this accused. Hence, I have no hesitation to safely conclude that said Sanction Order Ex.PW8/A suffers from legal infirmities, the same being without jurisdiction and is a nullity and my said view is nourished from the Judgment as rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under:­ (1) (2000) 10 Supreme Court Cases 43 Ram Krishan Prajapati vs. State of U.P. wherein it was observed in Para 8, 9 and 10 as under :­

8. The position is now clear that even though the District Magistrate was also an appointing authority, as the appellant was in fact appointed by the Commissioner, who is admittedly a higher authority than the District Magistrate, the Commissioner is the appointing authority so far as the appellant is concerned.

9. If that be so, the appellant is entitled to contend that the sanction to prosecute him in this case should have been passed by the Commissioner and not by the C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 97 of 101 District Magistrate. The sanction issued by the District Magistrate is not a sanction in the eye of the law as the said authority was incompetent to accord sanction for prosecution under the Act concerning the appellant.

10. It is unnecessary to go into the other merits of the case as we hold that want of sanction would totally exclude the jurisdiction of the Special Judge under the Act of 1947 from taking cognizance of the offence. In the result we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and also the conviction and sentence passed on him.

116. In another case reported as Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 1979 Chandigarh Criminal Cases 113 (SC) in which Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering grant of sanction, held:­ "It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that a valid sanction has been granted by the Sanctioning Authority after it was satisfied that a case for sanction C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 98 of 101 has been made out constituting the offence. This should be done in two ways; either (1) by producing the original sanction which itself contains the facts constituting the offence and the grounds of satisfaction and (2) by adducing evidence alinude to show that the facts placed before the Sanctioning Authority and the satisfaction arrived at by it. It is well settled that any case instituted without a proper sanction must fail because this being a manifest difficulty in the prosecution, the entire proceedings are rendered void ab initio..."

117. The law relating to the Sanction is strict in its requirements that is to say there has to be a valid Sanction for commencement of the trial where the Sanction has been accorded by a person who was not competent to accord the said Sanction, the same has been held not to be valid Sanction or further it matter that a Sanction has been accorded without application of mind, the same has also been held not to be a valid Sanction. Criteria laid down for grant of Sanction has to fall within the four corners of the Sanction and any deviation in this regard would result in initiating the trial without a valid Sanction C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 99 of 101 has been held to be a trial without jurisdiction by the court and it was so held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case reported as S.N.Bose Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1968 SC 1292.

118. The requirement of the existence of Sanction cannot be given by mere interpretation to the effect that once cognizance is taken the absence of Sanction become irrelevant. "If cognizance itself cannot be taken in the absence of sanction and taking cognizance of an offence by whatever means cannot justify the existence or absence of Sanction. Infact as strictly speaking if there does not exist any valid Sanction, it cannot be said that the cognizance of offence, was taken by itself, cannot cure the defect in this regard, hence the prosecution of the appellant was vitiated". It was so held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case reported as K.Narsimhachari Vs. State Inspector of Police ACB Cuddapha District 2003 Crl.L.J. 3315.

119. By taking cue from the aforesaid judgments and keeping in mind the legal requirement relating to the grant of Sanction and applying the same to the present Sanction Order Ex.PW8/A which C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 100 of 101 has not been granted by the competent authority, I have no hesitation to safely conclude that said Sanction Order Ex.PW8/A suffer from serious legal infirmities and is legally invalid.

120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I have no hesitation to safely conclude that as the prosecution has failed to establish the 'Disproportionate Assets' case as per offence U/S 13 (1) (e) r/w Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act against the accused for which he was charged with and therefore, the accused Rakesh Chand Jain stands acquitted of the said charged offence accordingly.

121. Since the accused has been acquitted, his bail bond stands cancelled and his surety stands discharged. Announced in the open court on this 28th day of March, 2014 (B.R. Kedia) Special Judge­07 (PC Act Cases of ACB, GNCTD) Central District, THC,Delhi C.C. No. 34/12 Page No. 101 of 101