Bangalore District Court
State Of Karnataka vs Sri.M.H.Thangal on 25 April, 2023
KABC010055742022
IN THE COURT OF XLVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI
CASES, BENGALURU, (CCH47)
Dated this the 21st day of April, 2023
PRESENT
Smt. E. CHANDRAKALA., B.Sc, LL.M.,
XLVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge
and Special Judge for CBI cases,
C/c XLVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge
and Special Judge for CBI cases,
Bengaluru
SPL.CC.NO.278/2022
COMPLAINANT: State of Karnataka
By Central Bureau of Investigation
Anti Corruption Branch,
Bengaluru.
(By Smt. K.S.Hema, Sr.Public
Prosecutor)
/Vs/
ACCUSED : 1. Sri.M.H.Thangal
S/o Sri. M.Hingba Thangal
Aged 62 years,
Then Deputy Superintending of
Horticulturist, Archaeological
Survey of India, Horticulture,
2 Spl.CC.No.278/2022
Mysore Division.
2. Smt.Machamthui Charenamei
W/o Sri.M.H.Thangal
Aged about 61 years,
A1 and A2 are R/at No.5, Block11,
3rd Cross, Manasi Nagar, Hanchya
Ramanahalli, Mysore.
(By Sri.Nitin Ramesh, Advocate for A1
& A2)
*****
1.Date of Commission of Offence : 01012012 to 14082019
2. Date of Report of Offence : 13082019
3. Appearance of Accused : 07032022
4. Name of the complainant : C.B.I
5. Date of recording of Evidence: : 02062022
6. Date of closing Evidence : 06032023
7. Offences complained of : Under Section 13(2) r/w
Sec.13(1)(b) of PC Act, 1988 &
Sec.12 of PC Act.
8. Opinion of the Judge : Accused Nos.1 & 2 are found guilty
for the charge sheeted offences.
(E.CHANDRAKALA)
XLVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge
and Special Judge for CBI cases,
Bengaluru.
****
3 Spl.CC.No.278/2022
JUDGMENT
The SubInspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation (in short 'CBI'), ACB, Bengaluru, has laid a charge sheet against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 13(2) R/w Sec.13(1)(b) and Section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity 'PC Act').
2. The genesis of the prosecution case is that, on the basis of the source information the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Bengaluru had registered a FIR in No.RC12(A)2019 on 13/08/2019 under Sec.13(2) R/w Sec.13(1)(b) of PC Act, 1988 (As amended in 2018), against accused No.1 who was working as Deputy Superintending of Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of India, ( hereafter referred to as ASI) Horticulture, Mysore Division, alleging that he acquired pecuniary sources and properties to the tune of Rs.1,88,47,448/ during the check period 4 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 from 01/01/2012 to 20/07/2019. During the investigation, check period has been taken as from 01/01/2012 to 14/08/2019.
2 (a). The accused Nos.1 and 2 are husband and wife. The accused No.1 while working in the capacity of Deputy Superintending of Horticulturist, Mysore Division, was heading the ASI during check period having jurisdiction over six States i.e., Karnataka, Goa, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. The accused No.2 was working as Staff Nurse of Manipur Health Services, Government of Manipur located at Tamenlong, Manipur and she voluntarily retired on 02/11/2017. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 are having three children namely, Ms.Maguipuinamei Donguibui Thangal (M.D Thangal) daughter, who completed Master's Degree in Electric Power Engineering during the check period from 2016 to 2018 and joined KTH Royal 5 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 Institute of Technology, Sweden, another daughter Ms.Maguipuinamei Thonphangabui ( M.T Thangal) who has done MBBS from JSS Medical College, Mysore during the period from 201314 to 201920 and son Mr.Maguipuinamei Chundeiba Victor( M.C.Victor) has discontinued his graduation.
2(b). The accused persons and their family members led quite lavish life and they enriched the illicit money and the accused No.1 acquired disproportionate assets other than his salary and salary of his wife and managed to purchase two 4 wheelers, two 2 wheelers in addition to expenditure related to construction, education, expenditure of children. The accused have constructed the 3 storied building in Mysore to the tune of more than Rs.1.00 Crore in a site purchased prior to the check period. The accused have invested the amount in various financial institutions and incurred huge expenditure 6 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 on education of their children. The accused No.1 had drawn the deposits, purchased gold items, and household articles. The accused have made major 3 rd party transfers to their near relatives in Manipur and Nagaland to the tune of Rs.2.29 Crores through casual labourers and staff of ASI. Most of amount were cash deposits by accused Nos.1 and 2 in their Bank accounts and transferred the same to their relatives at Manipur and Nagaland. The search was conducted at the residence of accused persons at Mysore on 14.08.2019, an inventory has been drawn in regard to gold and house hold articles in consultation with the accused No.2. The investigation revealed that the accused persons and their family were having assets at the beginning of the check period i.e., on 01/01/2012 to the extent of Rs.63,13,519/ and assets valued at Rs.2,33,71,639/ at the end of check period. After calculation of income, expenditure, assets owned by 7 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 the accused persons, it found that the accused No.1 has acquired amassed assets to the tune of Rs.3,11,94,005/ which is disproportionate to his known source of income to the extent of 103%. The details of the assets acquired at the beginning of the check period to the end of check period, income and expenditure during the check period and disproportionate assets at the end of check period is morefully mentioned in the charge sheet. It is revealed that accused No.1 while discharging his duty as public servant, as Deputy Superintending of Horticulturist, ASI, Horticulture, Mysore Division, during check period, has enriched himself illicitly and was in possession of amassed assets in his name and in the names of his family members which is disproportionate to his known source of income, for which he could not satisfactorily account for. Whereas, the accused No.2 being the wife of accused No.1 has abetted the accused No.1 to acquire the 8 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 properties illegally in her name and in the name of family members and thereby both accused have committed the offences punishable under Section 13(2) R/w Section 13(1)(b) ( As amended in 2018) and Sec.12 of PC Act, 1988.
3. After receipt of the chargesheet, the court has taken cognizance of the offenses and registered criminal case. In pursuance to summons, the accused have appeared before the court and enlarged on bail. The copy of charge sheet and its enclosures were furnished to the accused in compliance of Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. The accused have filed discharge application and the same was dismissed on merits. The charge was framed, wherein the accused have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, in all has examined 89 9 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 witnesses as PW1 to PW89 and got marked documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.359. The accused were examined under Sec.313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., wherein, have denied the incriminating material appearing against them. The accused have not chosen to lead evidence. The accused have filed written statement along with documents under Sec.313(5) of Cr.P.C. The prosecution has given up the witnesses CWs33, 54, 55, 57, 58, 67, 70, 76, 78, 79, 80, 81, 84, 85, 86, 89, 90, 92, 96, 99, 100, 111 to 120, 121 to 129, 132. The prosecution has got marked the documents Exs.P.199, 200, 201 to 205, 219, 220, 221, 223 to 275, 337 to 345 by consent of Ld. defense counsel. CW110 is reported as dead.
5. Heard the arguments of Smt.K.S.Hema, the Ld. Sr.Public Prosecutor on behalf of prosecution and Sri.Nitin Ramesh, the Ld. Advocate appearing for accused Nos.1 and 2. Both the prosecution and the 10 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 accused have filed written arguments with citations as follows :
Citations filed by the Prosecution :
1. State of Karnataka V/s Selvi J.Jayalalaitha & Ors. (Crl.A.Nos.300303/2017 dt.14.02.2017)
2. C.S.Krishnamurthy V/s State of Karnataka (Crl.A.462/2005 dt.29.03.2005)
3. (2004) 1 S.C.C 691 (State of M.P V/s Awadh Kishore Gupta & Others)
4. State of M.P & Ors. V/s Sri.Ram Singh (SLP.Nos.1295, 1603/1997 dt.01.02.2000)
5. (1999) 6 S.C.C 559 (P.Nallammal and Anr. V/s State Rep. by Inspector of Police)
6. (2011) 4 S.C.C 402 (Ashok Tshering Bhutia V/s State of Sikkim)
7. (1981) 3 S.C.C 199 (State of Maharashtra V/s Wasudeo Ramchandra Kaidalwar)
8. Govindaraju @ Govinda V/s State by Sriramapuram P.S & Anr. (Crl.A.No.984/2007 dt.15.03.2012) 11 Spl.CC.No.278/2022
9. Muthuraman V/s State Rep. By Inspector of Police (Crl.A.(MD) No.196/2011 dt. 17.06.2020)
10. 2003 Cri.L.J 1031 (Boraiah Alias Shekar V/s State of Karnataka)
11. The Government of India (Business Allocation) Rules,1961.
1. 11.
Citations filed by the Accused :
1. Y.Gangi Reddy V/s Karnataka Lokayuktha Police, Mangalore Division (Crl.A.No.825/2020 dt.07.11.2022)
2. AIR 1977 S.C. 796 (Krishnanad V/s The State of Madhya Pradesh)
3. Guna Mahto V/s State of Jharkhand (Crl.A.No.108/2012 dt.16.03.2023)
4. (2004) 2 S.C.C 9 (R.Sai Bharathi V/s J.Jayalalitha & Ors.)
5. 2022 S.C.C OnLine S.C 1150 (State through Deputy Superintendent of Police V/s R.Soundirarasu etc.,)
6. 1996 (II) CTC 700 (K.Ramanatha (died) and others V/s B.K.Nalini Jayanthi) 12 Spl.CC.No.278/2022
7. (1976) 4 S.C.C 233 (Sri.Rabindra Kumar Dey V/s State of Orissa)
8. Umde Bhojram V/s Wadla Gangadhar (CRP No.5972/2002 dt. 23.01.2004 of Hon'ble High Court of A.P)
9. 2023 S.C.C OnLine S.C 218 (Premchand V/s State of Maharashtra)
10. (2006) 7 S.C.C 172 (State Rep. Inspector of Police, Vishakhapatnam V/s Surya Sankaram Karri)
11. ILR 2001 KAR 2843 (H.S.Gotla V/s State)
12. R.Janakiraman V/s State Rep. By Inspector of Police, CBI, SPE, Madras (Crl.A.No.773/2000 dt.04.01.2006)
12. (1997) 7 S.C.C 622 (Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan V/s State of Gujarat)
13. (2014) 14 S.C.C 295 (Central Bureau of Investigation V/s Ashok Kumar Aggarwal)
14. (1955) 1 SCR 965 (Mahesh Prasad V/s State of Uttar Pradesh)
15. 2000 S.C.C OnLine Kar 340 (Sathyanarayana (Deceased) by L.Rs and Anr. V/s State of Inspector of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, Madikeri) 13 Spl.CC.No.278/2022
16. B.Shivashankar V/s The State of Karnataka (W.P.No.43262/2017 (GMRES) dt. 17.02.2022)
17. W.P.No.736/2018 (GMRES) dt.08.02.2023 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Sri.Lakshman Rao Peshve V/s The Karnataka Lokayuktha Police)
18. W.P.No.200356/2021 (SRES) dt. 26.03.2021 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Praveen Kumar Meghekar and Ors. V/s State of Karnataka and Ors.)
19. 1992 S.C.C OnLine MP 214 (Rajendra Prasad V/s State of M.P)
20. (2011) 6 S.C.C 389 (State of Madhya Pradesh V/s Pradeep Kumar Gupta)
21. RLW 1962 307 (DB) (The State V/s Banshilal Luhadia)
22. W.P.(c) No.4089/2013 dt. 08.11.2016 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Gauhati in the case of Hara Kanta Pegu &6 Ors. V/s The Union of India & 6 Ors.
6. Perused the charge sheet, charge, evidence, documents relied by the prosecution, written 14 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 statement along with documents filed by the accused persons, the principles of law held in the referred decisions by both sides.
7. In the light of above material on record, the points that arise for determination of the court are under:
1. Whether the prosecution has obtained valid sanction under Sec.19 of PC Act to prosecute the accused No.1 in the case ?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that accused No.1, M.H.Thangal who was working as Deputy Superintending of Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of India, Horticulture, Mysore Division, Mysore as public servant and during the check period 01.01.2012 to 14.08.2019, had acquired movable and immovable assets in his name and in the name of his family members illegally and intentionally enriched himself illicitly during the said period to an extent of Rs.3,11,94,005/ which is 103% disproportionate to his known source of income for which he could not satisfactorily account for and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec.13(2) R/w Sec.13(1)(b) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that accused No.2 being 15 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 the wife of accused No.1, during the check period 01.01.2012 to 14.08.2019, had abetted the accused No.1 to intentionally enrich himself illicitly during the period of his office and accordingly he had acquired the property by corrupt and illegal means to an extent of Rs.3,11,94,005/ which is more than 103% disproportionate to his known source of income and accused No.2 abetted the commission of offence by accused No.1 under Sec.13(2) r/w Sec.13(1)(b) of Prevention of Corruption Act and thereby committed an offence of abatement punishable under Sec.12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ?
4. What order ?
8. My findings on the above points are as hereunder:
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative
Point No.2 : In the Affirmative
Point No.3 : In the Affirmative
Point No.4 : As per final order for the following:
REASONS
SANCTION
9. POINT NO.1: The prosecution has to prove that they have obtained sanction under Sec.19(1)(a) 16 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 of P.C Act, for prosecuting the accused No.1 for the chargesheeted offense. Admittedly, the accused No.1 was a public servant within the meaning of Sec.2 (c) of the PC Act. In order to prove the valid sanction, the prosecution has examined PW88, then Deputy Director (Admin.) in ASI, Vigilance Section, New Delhi.
10. The Ld. Defence counsel has questioned the sanction order on two counts, i.e., competency of P.W.88 and application of mind in issuance of the sanction order. It has argued that the prosecution has not obtained valid sanction and cognizance taken against the accused is not correct. He has brought to the notice of the Court with regard to the provisions stars from Article 311 of Constitution of India, Rules 2 and 3, ScheduleII of Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961 and Sec.19(1)(a) and (4) of P.C.Act,(As Amended in 2018). 17 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 He has submitted that as per the Rules, the President of India has allocated the business of Government of India to the Ministers, Departments, Secretaries and Officers specified in the Schedule and Departments wherein the Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi is not competent to issue the order.
11. Percontra, the Ld.Sr.P.P would submit that the letter produced by the accused is only formal office order and it was not the appointment letter. The letter signed by the Director of Administration, now the sanction order signed by Deputy Director of Administration. Both appointment letter and sanction order for removal of accused from his service were issued by the order of the President of India as per the Business Allocation of Rules 1961, the President has delegated powers to the Ministry, in turn as per the order of the 18 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 Ministry, the witness has communicated the sanction order and P.W.88 was competent to issue the order.
12. Now, it is apposite to refer the relevant provisions of law before discussing the evidence of P.W.88.
Art.311 of Constitution of India :
Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State : (1) No person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an allIndia service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed.
The Government of India (Business Allocation) Rules,1961.
2: Allocation of Business The business of the Government of India shall be transacted in the Ministries, Departments, Secretariats and Offices specified in the First Schedule to these rules (all of which are hereinafter referred to as "departments").
3. Distribution of Subjects-
(1) The distribution of subjects among the departments shall be as specified in the Second Schedule to these Rules and shall include all attached and subordinate offices or other organisations including Public Sector Undertakings concerned with their subjects and Subrules (2), (3) and (4) of this Rule.19 Spl.CC.No.278/2022
(2) The compiling of the accounts of each Department shall stand allocated to that Department with effect from the date from which the President relieves, by order made under the first proviso to subsection (1) of Section 10 of the Comptroller and Auditor General's (Duties, Powers and Conditions of Service) Act, 1971; the Comptroller and Auditor General from the responsibility for compiling the accounts of that Department.
(3) Where sanction for the prosecution of any person for any offence is required to be accorded
a) If he is a Government servant, by the Department which is the Cadre Controlling authority for the service of which he is a member, and in any other case, by the Department in which he was working at the time of commission of the alleged offence;
MINISTRY OF CULTURE (SANSKRITI MANTRALAYA)
5. Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi; Archaeological Site Museums; Excavation and exploration of historical and archaeological remains.
Section 19 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution.-- (1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under [Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15] alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction,--
20 Spl.CC.No.278/2022
(a) in the case of a person who is employed, or as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed in connection with the affairs of the Union and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government, of that Government;
(b) xxxxxxx
(c) xxxxxxx (2) xxxxxxx (3) xxxxxxx (4) In determining under subsection (3) whether the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, such sanction has occasioned or resulted in a failure of justice the court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at any earlier stage in the proceedings.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section,--
(a) error includes competency of the authority to grant sanction;
(b) a sanction required for prosecution includes reference to any requirement that the prosecution shall be at the instance of a specified authority or with the sanction of a specified person or any requirement of a similar nature.
13. A perusal of the Article, Notification and Rules referred above, The President of India vide Notification dated 14/01/1961, has allocated the Business of Government of India on the Ministers, 21 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 Departments, Secretaries and Officers specified in the First Schedule. As per Clause (3) and Sub Clause (1) of the Rules, the distribution of subjects among the departments shall be as specified in the Second Schedule to the Rules and it shall include all attached and subordinate offices or other organisations including Public Sector Undertakings concerned with their subjects. The SubRule(3) Clause (a) speaks, where sanction for the prosecution of any person for any offence is required to be accorded by the Department which is the cadre controlling authority for the service of which he is a member, and in any other case, by the Department in which he was working at the time of commission of the alleged offence. Sec.19(a) of P.C Act deals with taking cognizance of offence under Sec.13 of P.C Act against a public servant. The sanction is necessary by the concerned authority who is competent to remove from his office. SubSec. 4 of Sec.19, deals 22 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 with the determination in the absence of any error or omission or irregularity in such sanction resulted in a failure of justice. Further, the Explanation to the Sec.4 says that sanction required for prosecution includes reference to any requirement that the prosecution shall be at the instance of a specified authority or with the sanction of a specified person or any requirement of such nature. Therefore, in order to prosecute the present accused No.1 before the Court, previous sanction is necessary from the Central Government, who is employed and competent to removal from his office. The accused can raise the objections with regard to competency of the authority to grant sanction at any earlier stage or during the course of trial.
14. The Ld. Defence counsel has relied upon the following decisions on the point of sanction:
1. (2006) 7 S.C.C 172 (State Inspector of Police, Vishathapatnam V/s Surya Sankaram Karri) 23 Spl.CC.No.278/2022
2. RLW 1962 307 (DB) (The State V/s Banshilal Luhadia)
3. (2011) 6 S.C.C 389 (State of Madhya Pradesh V/s Pradeep Kumar Gupta)
4. W.P.No.2000356/2021 dt.26032021 in the case of Praveen Kumar Meghekar and Ors., V/s State of Karnataka and Ors., by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.
5. 1992 S.C.C OnLine M.P 214 (Rajendra Prasad V/s State of M.P)
6. W.P.No.43262/2017 dt.17/02/2022 (B.Shivashankar V/s The State) passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.
7. W.P.No.736/2018 (GMRES) (Sri Lakshman Rao Peshve V/s The Karnataka Lokayuktha Police, Bengaluru) by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.
8. (1955) 1 SCR 965 (Mahesh Prasad V/s State of Uttar Pradesh)
9. 2000 S.C.C OnLine Kar 340 (J.S.Sathyanarayana (Deceased) by LRs and Another V/s State by Inspector of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, Madikeri.)
10. (2014) 14 S.C.C 295 (Central Bureau of Investigation V/s Ashok Kumar Aggarwal)
11. (1997) 7 S.C.C 622 (Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan V/s State of Gujarat) A careful reading of the decisions referred above, the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh, have 24 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 discussed in detail with regard to the competency of the authority in issuing sanction order and its validity. It has held that authority who is competent to remove a person from service is competent to grant sanction. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.736/2018 in Lakshman Rao Peshve V/s Karnataka Lokayukta Police has discussed in detail with regard to Karnataka Transactions of Business Rules, 1977. It has held that the granting sanction to prosecute GroupA Senior Scale Post i.e., Head of Department to be placed before the Ministerincharge, who in turn has to place the same before the Cabinet and the Cabinet after taking decision shall recommend to the Governor, who in turn will direct the Secretary of the Department to pass an appropriate order. It is further held that a person who is the head of Department, is the Cabinet and upon taking decision, the Cabinet has to recommend to the 25 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 Governor for approval and upon approval by the Governor, the Secretary of the department concerned, pass an appropriate order.
15. As could be seen from Rule 2(i) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal ) Rules,1965, "head of the department" is the authority for appointment and disciplinary actions can be taken. The authority is declared to be the head of the office under the General Financial Rules.
16. The Ld. Sr.P.P has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in C.S. Krishna Murthy v/s State of Karnataka dated 29.03.2005, wherein it has held that :
"the ratio is sanction order should speak for itself and in case the facts do not so appear, it should be proved by leading evidence that all the particulars were placed before sanctioning authority for due application of mind. In case the sanction speaks for itself then the satisfaction of the sanctioning authority is apparent by reading order".26 Spl.CC.No.278/2022
17. In this regard, this Court finds it proper to refer the judgment reported (2013) 8 SCC 119 in the case of State of Maharastra Vs. Mahesh G.Jain. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the adequacy of material placed before the sanctioning authority cannot be gone into by the court as it does not sit in appeal over the sanction order.
18. In Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed vs State of A.P. reported in (1979) 4 SCC 172, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that an order of valid sanction can be proved by producing the original sanction which itself contains the facts constituting the offence and the grounds of satisfaction or by adducing evidence to show that the facts were placed before the sanctioning authority.
19. In another judgment reported in (2012) 3 SCC 64 in the case between Subramanian Swamy 27 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 V/s. Dr.Manmohan Singh case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the grant or refusal of sanction is not a quasijudicial function. What is required to be seen by the competent authority is whether the facts placed by the investigating agency primafacie disclose the commission of an offence by the public servant. If the competent authority is satisfied that the material placed before it is sufficient for prosecution of the public servant, then it is required to grant the sanction. The competent authority cannot undertake a detailed inquiry to decide whether or not the allegations made against the public servant are true.
20. In the light of the aforesaid provisions, and principles of law held in the decisions, the grant of sanction is a weapon to discourage vexatious prosecution and is a safeguard for the innocent, though not a shield for the guilty. The sanctioning 28 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 authority must satisfy that had been aware of all relevant facts and material and had applied its mind to all the relevant material. Now, it is germane to notice whether sanction that is accorded in the case at hand is by the Competent Authority. Here in the case on hand, the sanction order signed by P.W. 88 By the Order of the President. The accused No.1 in his statement filed under Sec.313(5) of Cr.P.C., has stated that he was appointed as Deputy Superintending Horticulturist (GCS Group 'A' Gazetted) on 14/03/1997 and he had received the letter of appointment from the Director(Administration) of ASI. He has reported to duty on 17/04/1997. Since he joined the organization, he was holding the position of Group 'A' Officer till his Superannuation dated 31/12/2020. The accused has also placed Office order dated 14/03/1997.
29 Spl.CC.No.278/2022
21. The Ld. Defense Counsel has submitted that, PW88 was the Deputy Director, Administration and not the Secretary of the Department, hence P.W.88 has no authority even to communicate the approval order of sanction if any, since the cadre controlling authority for Group 'A' officers of ASI is the Secretary of Ministry of Culture. Admittedly, the accused No.1 was the Deputy Superintending Horticulturist of ASI. As per the letter produced by accused, the Director of ASI has issued letter intimating his appointment. Therefore, it has contended that PW88 being the Deputy Director of ASI, who was subordinate to Director was not competent to issue the sanction order. He has relied on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka( Kalburgi Bench) in W.P No.200356/2021 Praveen Kumar Meghakar and Ors. v/s State of Karnataka and Ors.
30 Spl.CC.No.278/2022
22. PW88 in his evidence has deposed that on 05/10/2021, the office received a letter from CBI alongwith the details of the charge sheet papers in R.C.No.12(A)/2019BLR registered against the accused No.1. After going through the copy of FIR, statement of witnesses and relevant documents, had forwarded the file to the Ministry of Culture who was competent authority for removal of accused No.1 from his service. After receipt of order from the Ministry of Culture, he issued sanction order for prosecuting the accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Sec.13(1)(b) R/w Sec.13(2) of P.C Act, at Ex.P.358 as he had amassed assets while discharging his duty as Public servant which is disproportionate to his known source of income for which he failed to account for. He has further deposed that the Ministry of Culture is the authority to issue sanction order in the name of the President of India.
31 Spl.CC.No.278/2022
22. A perusal of Ex.P.358, the sanction order, it would goes to show that accused No.1 was appointed as Deputy Superintending of Horticulturist on 17/04/1997 and was posted to ASI, Horticulture Division Mysore. He was heading the Horticulture Mysore Division of ASI having jurisdiction over six States i.e., Karnataka, Goa, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. The order further depicts that accused retired from service on 31/12/2020. The ASI authority had received the case papers from CBI and placed the same before the Ministry of Culture. The President of India being the competent authority to remove the accused from the services, has delegated powers to the Ministry of Culture, who in turn perused the file and issued order for issuance of sanction order. Therefore, PW 88 had issued the sanction order by the order and in the name of the President.
32 Spl.CC.No.278/2022
23. PW88 was subjected for crossexamination, wherein it has elicited that ASI is an attached office of the Ministry of Culture, and the Ministry of Culture is the cadre controlling authority for Group A Officers of ASI. The Deputy SuperintendingASI comes within the GroupA officer. From this, it is clear that the Ministry of Culture is the authority to issue sanction order. It has elicited that P.W.88 has not referred the order number and date passed by the Ministry in Ex.P.358. The witness has denied the suggestion that the Ministry of Culture had not passed the order for issuance of sanction order. The witness was crossexamined at length with regard to letter correspondence made by the witness to the Ministry of Culture. The evidence of this witness clearly establishes that after receipt of charge sheet papers from CBI, with regard to income, assets and expenditure of the accused during his service i.e., check period from 01/01/2012 to 14/08/2019, 33 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 having found an illicit enrichment of income, which is disproportionate to his known source of income, had perused the same and forwarded to the Ministry of Culture through electronic mode. According to the evidence, any gazetted officer available at the office can sign the appointment letter for the post of Deputy Superintending of Horticulturist. Further, the order discloses that By and In the name of President of India, the Ministry of Culture passed sanction order and sent the file to P.W.8 office for communicating the same. Admittedly, the letter produced by the accused is only formal office order and it is not the appointment letter. The letter signed by the Director of Administration, now the sanction order signed by the Deputy Director of Administration. Both appointment letter and sanction order for removal of accused from his services were issued By and In name of the President. In the case on hand, the prosecution has 34 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 discharged its burden by adducing the evidence by showing that all the facts were placed before the sanctioning authority and after recording the satisfaction it has accorded the sanction. As per ScheduleI of the Government of India Business Allocation Rules, 1961, the Ministers, Departments, Secretaries and Officers have been allocated the business of Government of India. ScheduleII deal with the department, Ministry of Culture having business over several departments including Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi. Mere not mentioning the date of order of Ministry in Ex.P.358, the sanction order cannot be said invalid. A careful reading of the Rule 3(1) of the Rules1961, it states that departments shall be specified in the Second Schedule to these Rules and it shall include all attached and subordinate offices or other organisations including Public Sector Undertakings concerned with their subjects and Subrules (2), (3) 35 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 and (4) of this Rule. Therefore, the Archaeological Survey of India, being attached office to the Department of Ministry of Culture has authority to communicate sanction order. As per Sec.114(c ) of the Evidence Act, the court can draw inference about the official communications made between ASI office, New Delhi and Ministry of culture. Sanction orderEx.P.358 clearly depicts that the concerned authority had considered the statements annexed to the charge sheet papers and after going through the statements and documents, has accorded the permission for prosecuting the accused No.1. Therefore, there is no impediment on the part of the court to consider Ex.P.358 Sanction Order as valid in the eye of law and PW88 was the competent authority to issue sanction order By and In name the of President of India. The prosecution has proved that sanction obtained under Sec.19(1)(a) of P.C Act is valid. The decision rendered under Sec.17A as 36 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 referred above is not applicable to the present case on hand. Thus, Point No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.
24. POINT NOs.2 & 3: These two points are taken together for discussion as it requires common discussion and to avoid repetition of facts and reasoning.
Authorisation under Sec.17 of P.C.Act.
25. The prosecution has produced Exs.P.332, 354 and 359 orders passed by the Superintendent of Police P.W.89 by invoking Section 17 and 18 of the PC Act. The proviso appended to Section 17 of the PC Act provides that an offence referred to in clause (b) of Subsection (1) of Section 13 shall not be investigated without the order of a police officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police. Therefore, there is a statutory requirement regarding authorization by the Superintendent of Police in 37 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 favour of an officer to enable him to carry out the investigation in terms of Section 17 of the PC Act.
26. The Ld. Defense counsel has argued that PWs79 and 80 have not been authorised by the Superintendent of Police, CBI (PW89) who have conducted the investigation at Manipur. Hence, the investigation conducted by PWs79 and 80 is defective one and cannot be relied. He has relied on the decisions of reported in 2006(7) S.C.C 172 in SubInspector of Police Vishakapatnam v/s Suryas Sankaram Karri, ILR 2001 KAR 2843 in the case of H.S Gotla V/s State and 2000(8) S.C.C 590 in the case of Roy V.D V/s State of Kerala.
27. A careful reading of the aforesaid decisions, it has held that the authorisation under Secs.17 and 18 of the P.C Act by the competent authority is mandatory and not merely procedural. Further, the 38 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 trial itself get vitiated if an unauthorised police officer conducts the investigation.
28. PerContra, the Ld.Sr.P.P would contend that there is no prescribed format for issuing authorization letter and the letter contains the details what has to be done by the Investigating Officer (hereinafter referred to as IO). Hence, Ex.P 359 is the authorization letter and it is valid under law. She has relied on two decisions, 1) State of Madhya Pradesh V/s Shri Ram Singh, dated 01/02/2000 and 2011(4) SCC 402 in case of Asok Tshering Bhutia vs State of Sikkim.
29. Before embarking on the question involved herein, it is apposite to refer the provision Sec.17 of the P.C Act, which reads thus :
Section 17: Persons authorised to investigate.-- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no police officer below the rank,--39 Spl.CC.No.278/2022
(a) in the case of the Delhi Special Police Establishment, of an Inspector of Police;
(b) xxxxxxxx
(c) xxxxxxxx Provided that if a police officer not below the rank of an Inspector of Police is authorised by the State Government in this behalf by general or special order, he may also investigate any such offence without the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class, as the case may be, or make arrest therefor without a warrant:
Provided further that an offence referred to in clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 13 shall not be investigated without the order of a police officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police.
As per the provision of law, the Inspector of Police, shall investigate the offence under the P.C Act. As per decision of Surya Sankaram Karri case mentioned above, the authorisation to conduct investigation is require to be passed in writing. It has further held that the courts are obliged to go into the question whether illegal investigation resulted in prejudice to the accused.40 Spl.CC.No.278/2022
30. A careful reading of the decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that investigation without written authorization is unknown to law. The decision of H.S Gotla is not applicable to the present case on hand for the reason that in the said case, the InCharge Superintendent had issued the authorization letter. Hence, it has held the same is invalid. Here in the case, P.W.89 is competent to issue authorization to conduct the investigation.
31. In Bhajan Lal's case, the Hon'ble Supreme court has held that :
" this court had found on facts that the SP had passed the order mechanically and in a very casual manner regardless of the settled principles of law. The provisions of Section 17 of the Act had not been complied with. As earlier noticed the SP while authorising the SHO to investigate had made only endorsement to the effect please register the case and investigate. The SP was shown to be not aware either of allegations or the nature of the offences and the pressure of workload requiring investigation by an Inspector. There is no denial of the fact that in cases against the respondents in theses appeals, even in the absence of the authority of the SP the Investigating Officer was in law authorised to investigate the offence falling under Section 13 of the Act with the exception of one as is described under 41 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 subsection (1)(e) of the Act. After registration of the FIR the Superintendent of Police in the instant appeals is shown to be aware and conscious of the allegations made against the respondents, the FIR registered against them and pending investigations. It has further held that "We are not satisfied with the finding of the High Court that merely because the order of the Superintendent of Police was in typed proforma, that showed the nonapplication of the mind or could be held to have been passed in a mechanical and casual manner. As noticed earlier the order clearly indicates the name of the accused, the number of FIR, nature of the offence and power of Superintendent of Police permitting him to authorise a junior officer to investigate. The time between the registration of the FIR and authorisation in terms of second proviso to section 17 shows further the application of mind and the circumstances which weighed with the Superintendent of Police to direct authorisation to order the investigation. Under these circumstances the appeals are allowed and the judgments of the High Court impugned in these appeals regarding the interpretation of Section 17 and holding the investigation to have not been investigated by an authorised officer being not sustainable in law are hereby set aside with the direction to the Trial Court to proceed with the trial in accordance with the provisions of law.
The issues raised herein above are no more res integra. The matter of investigation by an officer not authorised by law has been considered by this Court time and again and it has consistently been held that a defect or irregularity in investigation however serious, has no direct bearing on the competence or procedure relating to cognizance or trial and, therefore, where the cognizance of the case has in fact been taken and the case has proceeded to termination, the invalidity of the precedent investigation does not vitiate the result, unless a miscarriage of justice has been caused thereby. The defect or irregularity in investigation has no bearing 42 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 on the competence of the court or procedure relating to cognizance or trial. (Vide H.N. Rishbud V/s State of Delhi, Munnalal V/s State of UP, Khandu Sonu Dhobi V/s State of Maharashtra, State of M.P V/s Hooraji, State of M.P V/s Ramesh.C Sharma and State of M.P V/s Virender kumar Tripathi.
32. In this connection, it is apropos to refer the judgment reported in (2011) 4 SCC 402 in the case of Ashok Tshering Bhutia Vs. State of Sikkim, the Hon'ble Supreme court has held that:
" a defect or irregularity in investigation however serious, has no direct bearing on the competence or procedure relating to cognizance or trial. Therefore, where the cognizance of the case has been taken and the matter has proceeded to termination, the invalidity of the investigation does not vitiate the result unless there is miscarriage of justice. The defect or irregularity in investigation has no bearing on the competence of the court or procedure relating to cognizance or trial."
33. In the case on hand, PWs79 and 80 are the Inspectors who were working in CBI at Manipur State. The prosecution has produced the letter Ex.P.359 requesting the Inspectors to conduct part of investigation in the case at Manipur. A perusal of Ex.P.359, which manifests that Superintendent of 43 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 Police, CBI -P.W.89 has authorized the Inspectors to conduct the part of investigation to collect the documents and record the statement of witnesses. P.W.79 had collected service book of accused No.2 marked as Ex.P.273 and also recorded statements of C.Ws.93 to 100 and Sub Registrar. He had conducted inspection at Fairy land and residential premises of accused persons at Exs.P.323 and 324. In the crossexamination, except suggesting that he recorded statements of witnesses forcibly nothing elicited to show that a serious miscarriage of justice has been caused to the accused. The Evidence of P.W.80 would reveal that, he had collected mortgage deed from Mariam Chernamei and recorded her statement. That apart he has not done anything. It is the defense of accused that there was mortgage deed and C.W.81 gave statement before P.W.80. The document collected and statement recorded by P.W.80 only supports the defense and not prejudice 44 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 the accused persons. Therefore, as per the decision relied by the accused themselves, if investigation of P.Ws.79 and 80 considered without authorisation, then also it cannot be said illegal for the reason the same would not prejudice the defense. It is to be noted that mere nonquoting the provision Sec.17 of the PC Act, the order cannot become invalid. The letter clearly depicts about the acts what to be done by the Investigating Officers' at Manipur. Therefore, it cannot be said that the evidence of PWs79 and 80 is defective one.
34. P.Ws.85 and 86 have authorised to conduct the investigation under the Sec.17 of the PC Act as per Exs.P.332 and 347. P.W.87, the Investigation Officer (IO) who filed charge sheet was the Sub Inspector of Police at that time, therefore he had obtained the permission from the Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru to conduct the 45 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 investigation as per Ex.P.354. Therefore, the Court did not find any irregularity in the investigations conducted by P.Ws.85,86,79,80 and 87. In the consequence, the accused cannot be allowed to contend that PWs79 and 80 were not competent to conduct the investigation when the matter reached for decision on merits.
35. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the judgment reported in ILR 2009 KAR 2470 in L.C.Hussain Vs. State of Karnataka held that the police inspectors are authorized to conduct the investigation in respect of the offences prescribed under Section 17 of the PC Act. Therefore, in the case on hand, from the evidence of PWs 79 and 80 and at Ex.P.359 order, the prosecution has proved that the investigation was conducted in compliance to the mandatory requirement as prescribed under Section 17 of the PC Act.
46 Spl.CC.No.278/2022FIR, SEARCH AND SEIZURE
36. PW89 is the Superintendent of Police and Head of Branch, CBI, ACB, Bengaluru. He has registered a FIR No.RC12(A)/2019/CBI/ACB/BLR on 13/08/2019 against the accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Secs.13(2) R/w Sec.13(1)
(b) of P.C Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) on the basis of the source information at Ex.P.331(b). He has authorized PWs85 and 86, the Police Inspectors to conduct the investigation in the case. Therefore, the case set into motion for investigation.
37. After registration of FIR, PW85 has started investigation . On 13/08/2019 she obtained search warrant from the court to conduct the search at the residence and office of accused No.1. Accordingly, on 14/08/2019, P.W.85 secured the witnesses and conducted the search at the residence of accused No.1 as per Ex.P.284, seized six 47 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 documents and prepared inventory regarding the household articles. She has also requested PWs79 and 80 to conduct the search at Manipur under Sec.165 of Cr.P.C. The search was conducted at the residence of accused No.1 at Manipur as per Exs.P.334 and 335.
38. A perusal of Ex.P.331FIR, it would goes to show that accused while working as Deputy Superintending Horticulturist, ASI at Mysore Division, has acquired amassed assets which is disproportionate to his known source of income. The details of the assets, income and expenditure was mentioned in the FIR as per the StatementsA to D and also calculated the disproportionate assets to the extent of Rs.1,88,47,448/ to the extent of 67%. Ex.P.334 reveal about the search conducted at the residence of the accused at Manipur. The inventory was also prepared regarding household articles 48 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 found in the residence. Ex.P.335Search List reveal about the search conducted at the residence of A1 at Imphal. Ex.P.284 is the search list and inventory prepared at the residence of A1 at Mysore. The articles valued as per the information of accused No.2 and her children who were present at that time. The accused have not denied the searches conducted at the residence and office by PWs85, 79 and 80. The only objection raised in regard to valuation made by P.W.85 in respect of household articles found in the residence of accused at Mysore.
39. PW89 was crossexamined by the defence counsel wherein it has suggested that PWs79 and 80 have no authority to conduct the investigation and the authorisation letter issued at Ex.P.359 is not authorisation letter under Secs.17 and 18 of the P.C Act. The witness has denied the said suggestion. That apart, nothing has been elicited to discard the 49 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 testimony of PW89 in regard to the registration of the FIR.
40. PW85 has cross examined, wherein it has suggested that she has no power to authorize PW79 to conduct the search under Sec.165 of Cr.P.C. PW79 had conducted the search under Sec.165 of Cr.P.C as requested by PW89. She had not taken any opinion from PWD authority or any valuer regarding value of the articles found in the house since she believed the rates stated by accused No.2. There is no material to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.85. Therefore, the prosecution has proved the searches conducted at the residence of accused at Mysore as per Ex.P.284, Manipur and Imphal as per Exs.P.331 and 334.
41. Before adverting to the merits of the case to substantiate the charge under Section 13(1)(b) of 50 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 the PC Act, against the accused No.1 the ingredients to be established by the prosecution are;
a) Accused is a public servant.
b) The nature and the extent of pecuniary resources or property were found in his possession or any person on his behalf.
c) What were the known sources of income and
d) That the property/resources found in possession of the accused or in person on his behalf were disproportionate to his known source of income. After proving these requirements by the prosecution the burden for satisfactory accounting for possession of such resources of property shifts to the accused. The question to be decided is whether the prosecution from the documentary and oral evidence placed on record has established the fact that the properties as mentioned in the charge sheet are the assets of the accused persons acquired during the check period. The charge sheet reveal about the details of assets at the beginning and end of the check period, income and expenditure during the 51 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 check period separately in StatementsA to D. It is better to reproduce the statements for discussion.
42. As per the StatementA, the accused were having the assets at the beginning of the check period prior to 01/01/2012. The disputed items, witness who speaks about particular item and relevant exhibits marked are shown in the table:
STATEMENTA Assets at the Beginning of Check Period prior to 01 012012 Sl. Details of Assets Amount PWs Exhibits No. Rs.
1 Site No.5, Block-11, 3rd Cross, 1,74,000/- PW-1 Exs.P.1 to 3
Manasi Nagar, Mysore
admeasuring 2400 SFT,
purchased in 2005 in the name of
Sh.M.H.Thangal (where
construction was done in 2013-
15)
2 5 Acres of Cultivable Land 0 PW-62 Exs.P.289,
situated at Yaikongpai village, 348
Kangpokpi District, Manipur
(inherited from parents)
3 G + 3 Residential building at 46,18,735/- Exs.P.289,
Fairy Land, Opp. ISBT, Imphal, 322, 323,
in extent of 0.10 Acres land in 324, 344
new patta No.28/417 under Dag.
No.332/629, village No.11,
Laipham, Siphai, Manipur
52 Spl.CC.No.278/2022
(Construction was done in 2008-
10). (Dispute)
4 Residential building/Ancestral 0
house at Tagaramphung,
Yaikongpai, Kalapahar Post,
Kangpokpi, Manipur constructed
in 2001-02
5 Immoveable property/ Vacant 0 PW-1 Exs.P.4,5,6
Site No.111, Lingabudi village, (2,40,000/-) Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk (Purchased before Check period and sold during check period.
Full sale value is taken in Statement-C) (Dispute) 6 Ford IKON registration No.KA- 4,92,000/- PW-4 Ex.P.18 09-N-5014 purchased from Cauvery Motors Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vide Tax Invoice No.VSLA401606LS dated 16.03.2005 for Rs.4,92,000/-
(Dispute) 7 Opening Balance as on 58,914/- PW-36 Ex.P.181, 01.01.2012 in Savings Bank 184, 185, Account/Salary Account 204 No.0518101050081 of A1 maintained at Canara Bank, Mysore.
8 Opening Balance as on 3,19,060/- Exs.P.267 & 01.01.2012 in Savings Banks 268 Account/Salary Account (consent) No.65310108232 of A2 maintained at United Bank of India, Tamenlong, Manipur 9 Opening Balance as on 54, 998/- Ex.P.199 01.01.2012 in Savings Bank (consent) Account No.4842500102670001 of A2 maintained at Karnataka Bank Limited, Mysore 10 Opening Balance as on 31.654/- PW-33 Ex.P.165 01.01.2012 in the Bank Account No.625501511967 of A1 at ICICI Bank Main Branch, 53 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 Mysore 11 Opening balance as on 74,885/- PW-26 Exs.P.120 to 01.01.2012 in the Bank account 122 No.00651000067154 of A1 at HDFC Bank, Mysore 12 Value of Household items 2,14,200/- PWs- Exs.P.284, possessed by A1 and his family 62, 85 285 as on beginning of check period (based on the inventory prepared during searches at his residence) 13 Value of Jewellery items 2,75,073/- PWs- Exs.P.284, possessed by A1 and his family 62, 85 285 as on the beginning of check period (based on the inventory prepared during searched at his residence) Total 63,13,519/- (-------------- ------)
43. It is to be noted that the accused have not denied statementA regarding the assets found at the beginning of the check period which were acquired prior to 01/01/2012 except the Sl.Nos.6 and 12, the value of ford IKON vehicle and household items possessed by the accused at the time of search. These two items were also taken as assets at the end of check period in StatementB. Therefore, the value 54 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 of the above two items will be discussed in statement B.
44. The StatementB, reveal about the assets at the end of the check period as on 14/08/2019, which are as follows. The disputed items and value are shown in bold letters :
STATEMENTB Assets at the end of Check Period (As on 14/08/2019) Sl. Details of Assets Amount PWs Exhibits No. Rs.
1 House constructed at Property at 1,06,67,525 PWs-2 Ex.P.7,8, Site No.5, Block-11, 3rd Cross, and 44 206 Manasi Nagar, Mysore purchased in 2005 for Rs.1,74,000/- on which house was constructed during the period from 2013-105 with a total value as per CPWD valuation of Rs.1,04,93,525/-.
Total cost of Land Rs.1,74,000/-
+ Cost of Construction
Rs.1,04,93,525=1,06,67,525/-
(Dispute - Rs.66,74,000/-)
2 5 Acres of Cultivable Land 0 Exs.P.344,
situated at Yaikongpai village, 289, 340
Kangpokpi District, Manipur
(inherited from parents)
3 G + 3 Residential building at 46,18,735/- Ex.P.323,
Fairy Land, Opp. ISBT, Imphal, 324, 322,
in extent of 0.10 Acres land in 344, 289,
55 Spl.CC.No.278/2022
new patta No.28/417 under Dag. 340
No.332/629, village No.11,
Laipham, Siphai, Manipur
(Construction was done in 2008-
10).
4 Residential building/Ancestral - NIL-
house at Tagaramphung,
Yaikongpai, Kalapahar Post,
Kangpokpi, Manipur constructed
in 2001-02 (notional value)
5 Land measuring (I) 0.045 Acre 4,00,000/- PW-75 Exs.P.258,
under patta No.293 Part(old), (As per 316, 317 &
629/1746 (new), covered by evidence of 318.
C.S.Dag No.361/2004 (ii) 0.045 prosecution Acre under patta No.293 Part Rs.
(old), 629/1745 (new), covered 10,00,000/-) by C.S.Dag No.361/2003, village No.11, Laipham Siphai, Teshil-
Heingang, Porompat Sub-
Division, Imphal East, Manipur
(purchased in 2013) in the name
of A2 (Dispute by prosecution)
6 Ford IKON registration No.KA- 4,92,000/- PW-4 Exs.P.17
09-N-5014 purchased from &18
Cauvery Motors Pvt. Ltd.,
Bangalore vide Tax Invoice
No.VSLA401606LS dated
16.03.2005 for Rs.4,92,000/-
(Dispute- Rs.50,000/-)
7 Purchase of four wheeler-JEEP 21,25,608/- PWs-5 Exs.P.19,20
COMPASS bearing Registration and 6 24 and 25
No.KA-09-ME-3704 from URS
KAR Service Centre Pvt. Ltd.,
Car dealer, Mysore on
31.12.2018 alongwith
accessories in the name of A2
8 Purchase of four wheeler 7,11,014/- PWs- Ex.P.21
Volkswagen Polo (HPL) bearing 5,6
Registration No.KA-09-MC-
2403 in 2016 in the name of
Smt.M.Thonphangbui D/o A1
9 Purchased Royal Enfield Classic 1,70,219/- PWs- Exs.P.22, 23
56 Spl.CC.No.278/2022
UCE 500 two wheeler 5,6
reg.No.KA-09-HF-4125 in
October 2015 in the name of
M.C.Victor, son of A1
10 Purchased TVS Scooty PEP+ 43,322/- Ex.P.202
eng-AG3GK2705013 vide (consent)
invoice No.VEH-2576 dated
22.07.2019 in the name of
Maguipuinamie Chundieba
Victor Thangal purchased from
Sona Motors, No.914/1, CH-
18/1, opp. CKC convent, JLB
Road, Lakshmipuram, Mysore
11 Closing balance as on 1,25,822/- PW-36 Exs.P.181,
14.08.2019 in the Bank account 184, 185,
No.051801050081 of A1 at 204
Canara Bank, Mysore
12 Closing balance as on 39,713/- Ex.P.272
14.08.2019 in the Bank account (consent)
No.1219104000006774 of A2
maintained at IDBI Bank, Imphal
Branch
13 Closing balance as on 4,558/- Exs.P.267,
14.08.2019 in the Bank account 268
No.653010108232 of A2 at (consent)
United Bank of India, Manipur
14 Closing balance as on 46,638/- Ex.P.201,
14.08.2019 in the Bank account 201(a) &
No.1080101022464 of A2 at 205
Canara Bank, Mysore (consent)
15 Closing balance as on 15,135/- PW-36 Exs.P.182,
14.08.2019 in the Bank account 183, 186,
No.518101055777 of 203
Ms.Mauipunamei Donguibui D/o
A1 maintained at Canara Bank,
Mysore
16 Closing balance as on 14,566/- PW-33 Ex.P.165
14.08.2019 in the Bank account
No.6255015100967 of A1 at
ICICI Bank Main Branch,
Mysore
57 Spl.CC.No.278/2022
17 Closing balance as on 26,118/- PW-41 Exs.P.196
14.08.2019 in the Bank account
No.625501530066 of
Ms.Mauipunamei Donguibui D/o
A1, ICICI Bank Main Branch,
Mysore
18 Closing balance as on 20,77,684/- PW-41 Ex.P.195,
14.08.2019 in the Bank account
No.142901000654 of M.C.Victor
Thangal, ICICI Bank, Mysore
19 Closing balance as on 11,322/- Exs.P.199,2
14.08.2019 in the Bank account 00
No.4842500102670001 of A2 (consent)
maintained at Karnataka Bank,
Mysore
20 Closing balance as on 26,856/- PW-26 Exs.P.120,
14.08.2019 in the Bank account 121, 122
NO.00651000067154 of A1 at
HDFC Bank, Mysore
21 Closing balance as on 879/- PW-32 Exs.P.157
14.08.2019 in the Bank account and 158
No.37480535241 of
Ms.Maguipuinamei
Thonphangabui at SBI, Mysore
22 Closing balance as on 670/- PW-32 Exs.P.153,
14.08.2019 in the Bank account 154 & 155
No.37668790154 of M.C.Victor
Thangal at SBI, Mysore
23 Value of Household items 14,12,282/- PWs-62 Exs.P.284,
possessed by A1 and his family & 85 285
at the end of check period i.e.,
14.08.2019 (based on the
inventory prepared during
searches at his residence)
(excluding items where bills are
collected)
(Dispute- Rs.7,00,000/-)
24 Value of Jewellery items 2,75,073/- Exs.P.284 &
possessed by A1 and his family 285
at the end of check period i.e.,
14.08.2019 (based on the
inventory prepared during
58 Spl.CC.No.278/2022
searched at his residence)
(excluding items where bills are
collected )
25 Cash amount of Rs.65,900/- 65,900/- PWs-62 Exs.P.284,
found at the time of search & 85 285
Total 2,33,71,639
(Dispute- Rs.1,82,23,832/-) (correct
amount is
Rs.2,39,71,6
52.60)
There is dispute with regard to valuation of the assets bearing Sl.Nos.1,5,6,23 of StatementB. The same were discussed in detail one by one. Sl.No.1. The Valuation of the Building:
45. Admittedly, the accused are having house bearing Site No.5, Block11, Manasinagar, Mysore morefully described in Sl.No.1 of the Statement. It is undisputed that the site was purchased for Rs.1,74,000/ prior to check period. The IO had valued the building at Rs.1.04,93,525/ excluding site value on the basis of the valuation report submitted by P.Ws.2 and 44 at Ex.P.7.59 Spl.CC.No.278/2022
46. The Ld. Defence counsel has argued that the prosecution has wantonly inflated the value of the building at Rs.1,06,67,525/, albeit it values only Rs.66,74,000/ including the cost of land. He has drawn the attention of the Court in regard to Guidelines issued for Evaluation of Immoveable Properties by IncomeTax Department. He has further submitted that PW2 is not competent to value the building and PW44 who has not visited the building had valued the property which is not in accordance with law. The manner and method used by PWs2 and 44 is not correct. Mahazar was not drawn and none of the witnesses were present. As per the report submitted by the accused to the Bank at the time of availing loan, the building valued only at Rs.65,00,000/. Hence, the report submitted by P.Ws.2 and 44 at Ex.P.7 is opposed to law. The CBI cannot confer any jurisdiction upon an incompetent officer in violation of the Wealth Tax Act and Rules 60 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 made thereunder. Under the Act, the rank of Assistant Valuation Officer, jurisdiction is restricted to Rs.40.00 Lakhs of the building value. It has further submitted that as per the CBI Crime Manual, 2020, a Senior Advisor Engineering is expected to conduct the valuation of the building at preliminary level and detailed valuation to be done by CPWD.
The CBI has not produced the rates of CPWD alongwith valuation report and therefore, there is no way to know what is the prevailing rates of the CPWD.
47. Per contra, the Ld.Sr.P.P has repelled that PW2 being the Assistant Engineer had inspected the property and valued as per the guidelines framed on Delhi Plinth Area Rates of 2012 duly enhanced by prevailing Cost Index for Mysore for the period of construction for the year 201315. PW44 being the Executive Engineer by considering the 61 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 calculation made by PW2 and the rates prevailing Cost Index for Mysore, has calculated the cost of the building and submitted the report which is in accordance with law. The guidelines issued by the IncomeTax department is not applicable to the case on hand. The manual produced by the accused is not at all binding on other agencies such as CBI and State Police.
48. In order to prove Ex.P.7the valuation report, the prosecution has examined the Engineers as PWs2 and 44. P.W.2 is the Assistant Engineer, CPWD, Mysore. He has deposed before the court that as per the instructions of the Executive EngineerPW.44, he visited the building on 17/02/2020, and taken the measurements of the site property alongwith building constructed area and calculated the cost of the building. By the time, the accused No.2 was present. The Junior Engineer 62 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 S.Jnanasham assisted him. As per the calculation and valuation report, the cost of the construction of the building was Rs.1,04,93,525/ excluding the cost of the land. He calculated the cost as per the guidelines framed in Delhi Plinth Area Rates of 2012 duly enhanced by prevailing Cost Index for Mysore for the period of construction for the year 201315. He has submitted the valuation report to PW44.
49. PW44 is the Executive Engineer, CPWD has deposed before the Court that as per the request of CBI, he was directed by superior officer to inspect and calculate the cost of the building for construction. Accordingly, he and PW2 were prepared to make inspection of the building, but he was unable to join the team and therefore he could not visit the premises for taking the measurement. He has further deposed that on 17/02/2020, the team had visited the premises and taken necessary 63 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 measurements and furnished the data to him which was collected at the site. On that basis, P.W.44 had calculated the cost in comparison with the documents provided by the CBI authorities and prepared the valuation and submitted the report. The evidence of this witness further would goes to show that CBI had also provided the report of the Government approved valuer cost estimate made by some contractor and drawings provided by Mysore Urban Development Authority.
50. Admittedly, the building was constructed in the year 2013 - 2015 i.e., during the check period. The Assets and Liability statement submitted by the accused No.1 to his department would reveal the cost of building at Rs.65,00,000/. The approved valuer of the Government submitted the report at Ex.P.206 valuing the property at Rs.78,45,750/ excluding site value. In order to test the veracity of 64 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 the report Ex.P.7, PW2 and PW44 were cross examined. PW2 in his crossexamination has admitted that they have not adopted KPWD rates and have adopted CPWD rates. The rates mentioned in both the guidelines are different. According to Ex.P.7, the Plinth Area of the building is 457.335 Sq.Mts. Ex.P.206Report disclose 4300 Sq.ft, which comes nearly to 400 Sq.Mts. He has admitted that Ex.P.8, the covering letter did not indicate the details of Delhi plinth area rates of 2012 and Mysore Cost Index for Construction for the period 201315 and the rate of granite used for flooring. Further admitted the valuation made by the Government approved valuer at Ex.P.206. He further deposed that the value of the items mentioned in page No.7, Column (d) at Ex.P.7 is not actual cost, but it is projection. It has suggested in the cross examination that building is valued only at Rs.78,00,000/ excluding the value of the land. The 65 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 witness has denied the suggestion that intentionally the items Nos.1 to 12, 14, 16 and 17 at Column (c) of the report have not been quantified.
51. PW44 in crossexamination has denied the contention of the accused that building is not valued at Rs.1.00 Crore and report was submitted as per the say of CBI. It has elicited that PW2 visited the premises and got measured the property. A careful comparison of Ex.P.206 report submitted by the Government Valuer and Ex.P.7valuation report submitted by PW2 and PW44, it would goes to show that there is difference in measurement of the constructed area to the extent of 400 Sq.ft. Ex.P.206 submitted by the accused to the Bank at the time of availing loan. As per the said report, the building was valued at Rs.78,45,750/ excluding the land value of Rs.52,80,000/. The report further disclose the valuation made in regard to extra items to the 66 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 tune of Rs.10,00,000/ relating to sump, compound wall, gate, over head tank, pavement, elevation, wardrobes, showcase etc. The CPWDPW.44 has declined to consider the said reportEx.P.206 on the ground that the government valuer had not mentioned the individual valuation of the plinth area on various floors. Only for the purpose of obtaining Bank loan, got realized partial cost of construction of the building.
52. It is the contention of the accused that as per The Guidelines for Valuation of Immoveable Properties, 2009 issued by Income Tax Department PW2 is not competent to issue the report. Further, PWs2 and 44 in their crossexamination have categorically admitted that they have not mentioned the cost of the item Nos.1 to 12, 14, 16 and 17 independently and they have considered in lumpsum. Hence, the evidence of PWs2 and 44 and 67 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 their report Ex.P.7 has not evidentiary value. The value of the building is only Rs.65.00 Lakhs.
53. It is quite important to note that PW2 in his crossexamination has explained why he had not mentioned the details of each item Nos.1 to 12, 14, 16 and 17 Column (c) of the Report. The accused have not produced any bills and vouchers for the expenses incurred for the said items. Therefore, P.W.44 had mentioned the rates in lumpsum.
54. A careful perusal of the Guidelines for Valuation of the Immovable Property, 2009 issued by the Directorate of Income Tax Department, New Delhi, it would goes to show that the said guidelines were issued for the use of Valuation Officers as well as Income Tax authorities in assessing the value of immovable properties as required by its Statute uniformly throughout the country. The object and intention of formulating the above guidelines is to 68 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 maintain the uniformity in assessing the value of immovable properties. A person having a property has to prove its valuation under the provisions of those taxes whenever the property is built, purchased, sold, inherited or gifted. The tax department has to get the valuation of the property concerned as per the guidelines issued therein. The intent of enacting and formulating the guidelines is to prevent under valuation of the land and building for tax evaluation. Further, it is to assist the assessing officers to ensure the proper valuation of the properties for tax realization.
55. Here in the case, either the tax authorities have issued any direction to get the valuation of the building or the case registered under the Wealth Tax Act. Of course, there is no impediment on the part of the authority to value the buildings and properties as per the guidelines issued by the Income Tax 69 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 Department. But, it is not mandate to value the property as per the above guidelines. Therefore, the valuation made by the CPWD department cannot be rejected on the sole ground. Hence, the arguments of Ld. Defence counsel is not acceptable that PW2 was not competent to assess the building.
56. P.W.2 is the Assistant Engineer and he was competent to value the property. However, P.W.2 only got measured the property and had taken note of the materials used for construction. Later, he submitted the report to the Executive Engineer P.W.44. Thereafter, P.W.44 compared the report submitted by Assistant Engineer and Government Valuer with the guidelines framed on Delhi Plinth Area Rate of 2012 duly enhanced by the prevailing cost index for Mysore applicable for the period of construction 20132015 and submitted report at Ex.P.7 valuing the building at Rs.1,04,93,525/. 70 Spl.CC.No.278/2022
57. It is specific contention of the accused that items mentioned in Sl.No.17 valued in lumpsum is not correct. As per Valuation Report of the Government approved Valuer Ex.P.206, the plinth area was not taken to the extent of 400 sq.mts. The measurements mentioned in Ex.P.206 and Ex.P.7 are different. When the area of construction is more certainly, the cost of construction also becomes more. There is no dispute with regard to measurement of the building constructed. The Government valuer had also taken the items as mentioned at Sl.17 in lumpsum to the extent of Rs.10,00,000/. He had also not mentioned the value of each item. Therefore, the accused cannot find fault with the report Ex.P.7 relating to Sl.No.17 items. Further, the materials used for construction are good as mentioned in Ex.P.206. Therefore, as rightly stated by PW44, the Government Valuer had not valued the property in floor wise. He had taken 71 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 the building in its entirety. So, naturally the cost of construction varies between Ex.P.206 and Ex.P.7. Ex.P.7 valuation report clearly disclose the abstract of the cost of each floor, quantity and the cost incurred. The valuation made as per the guidelines issued by Delhi Establishment Plinth area rate of 2012 duly enhanced by the prevailing cost index for Mysore applicable for the period of construction 20132015. If the valuation made by the witness is not as per the guidelines, what prevented the accused to refer the rates as mentioned in the guidelines to the witness during cross. No such effort was made to disbelieve the evidence. The (C) extra items also disclose with regard to granite flooring, solar generator panels which cost Rs.58,000/. The accused No.1 is competent to produce the documents regarding the expenses incurred for (C) extra items. In the absence of any vouchers and bills, PWs2 and 44 have rightly valued the cost of 72 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 extra items to the extent of Rs.19,00,000/. From the report, it appears that PWs2 and 44 have valued extra items scientifically in accordance with the prevailing rates. The photos annexed to Ex.P.206 also reveal the items i.e., the interiors fixed in the building. The contention of the accused that the building valued only at Rs.66,74,000/ is not acceptable, for the reason that even as per admitted document Ex.P.206, the building valued at Rs.88,00,000/. There is difference of only Rs.20.00 Lakhs. At the cost of repetition, the court has no hesitation to reiterate that when the extent of constructed area is more, the cost of construction also more. So, naturally the value of construction will be more.
58. As contended by the Ld. Defence counsel, the IO had not taken assistance of Senior Advisor Engineering to conduct the valuation of building at 73 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 preliminary level and detailed valuation to be done by CPWD, hence the valuation report cannot be accepted. It is to be noted that as per the CBI manual guidelines, whenever any branch/cell of the CBI has a case under investigation relating to valuation of house, in which it is necessary to take the help of Senior Advisor. Here in the case, as per the CBI manual guidelines, the IO had referred the case to CPWD for evaluation of the building. As per the evidence of witnesses, the evaluation was made on the line of the procedure laid down for reference to CVC. Therefore, it is not mandate for the IO to take the assistance of Senior Advisor when the matter was referred to CPWD. In view of the above reasons and discussion, there is no impediment to consider the valuation made by PW44 at Ex.P.7. On the other hand, the accused have not placed any contrary material to disbelieve the report Ex.P.7. Hence, the value of Sl.No.1 property in Statement - 74 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 B is considered as Rs.1,06,67,525/ including land value of Rs.1,74,000/.
Sl. No.5 Land Value :
59. The IO has considered the value of Sl. No.5 property to the extent of Rs.04.00 Lakhs which was purchased by accused No.2 under Ex.P.258. The Ld.Sr.P.P would submit that the IO by mistake had mentioned the amount of Rs.4,00,000/ instead of Rs.10,00,000/. It has argued that accused have paid Rs.10.00 Lakhs towards sale consideration for purchase of 2 lands, but in order to avoid stamp duty, they have shown only Rs.2.00 Lakhs each in the sale deeds.
60. The Ld. Defence counsel has countenanced that evidence of PW75 is not believable one, as it is against the documents which is not permissible under law as per Sec.92 of the Evidence Act. The vendor has deposed the evidence against the 75 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 document after 10 years from the date of registration. There are no documents to substantiate the contention of prosecution. The Ld. Counsel has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in MANU/SC/0001/2006 in the case of R.Janaki Raman V/s State.
61. In this regard, PW75 has examined. He is the seller of two lands situated at village No.11, Laipham Siphai, TeshilHeingang, Imphal. Ex.P.258Sale Deed disclose the consideration as Rs.2.00 Lakhs each. The property was purchased by accused No.2 during the check period. PW75 has deposed that he received Rs.10.00 Lakhs sale consideration from two lands and in order to avoid tax, only a sum of Rs.4.00 Lakhs was mentioned in the deeds. In the cross, it has elicited that he was not present at the time of registration of the sale 76 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 deed and there are no documents to show he received Rs.10.00 Lakhs from accused No.2.
62. As rightly argued by the Ld. Defence counsel, the evidence of PW75 is not acceptable one for the reason that sale deed was executed in the year 2013 and now the witness after 10 years has stated he received Rs.10,00,000/. Now, he cannot contend that he received Rs.10.00 Lakhs and shown Rs.4.00 Lakhs in order to avoid the tax. As per Sec.92 of the Evidence Act, oral evidence is excluded against the contents of document. Moreover, there is no material to believe the contention of vendor. As per the decision of Janaki Raman case, oral evidence can always be led to show that a transaction under a particular document or set of documents is sham or fictitious or nominal, nor intended to be acted upon. There is bar under Sec.92 of the Evidence Act to give evidence against the documentary evidence. 77 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 Therefore, the Court do not find any force in the arguments of Ld.Sr.P.P that the sale consideration of Rs.10.00 Lakhs was paid for purchase of aforesaid two lands. Hence, the amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs is considered as value of Sl. No.5 properties mentioned in the StatementB. Sl.No.6 Value of Ford IKON Vehicle:
63. P.W.87IO has valued the Ford IKON vehicle at Rs.4,92,000/ on the basis of sale certificate. The Ld. Defence counsel has disputed the value of vehicle and contended that IO had not considered the depreciation of the vehicle and the same was purchased prior to check period i.e. in the year 2005. So, the vehicle is valued not more than Rs.50,000/.
64. PerContra, the Ld. Sr.P.P would submit that vehicle still is in possession of the accused and the same was not sold. Hence, depreciation cannot 78 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 be taken. The vehicle was purchased for Rs.4,92,000/. The value made by IO is correct.
65. The prosecution has examined the witness PW.4RTO, Mysore. He had issued registration certificate, application form for registration submitted by accused No.1. According to the evidence of PW4, the vehicle bearing No.KA09N 5014 Ford IKON was purchased by A1 for Rs.4,92,000/ on 16/03/2005. The documents are marked collectively as Ex.P.18. So, the vehicle was purchased prior to check period. Certainly, the value of the vehicle will be depreciated as on date of search dated 14/08/2019. Nearly, 14 years elapsed from the date of purchase. Certainly, the value of the vehicle will not be the same as on the date of search. The IO has committed mistake in not considering the depreciation of the vehicle as on the date of beginning of the check period.
79 Spl.CC.No.278/2022
66. The accused have not produced any documents which shows the depreciation of the vehicle and it values at Rs.50,000/ only. In the absence of documents on both sides, the court inclined to consider the Insurance Policies of the vehicle which shows the depreciation. The Insurance Policies are not denied by the prosecution and the accused. As per the insurance policies of the vehicle Exs.P.59,61 and D75, the vehicle was insured and the insurance company valued the vehicle after considering the depreciation. As per the documents the Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle was Rs.1,96,800/ as on 3.4.2012. The IDV of the vehicle as on 7.6.2019 was Rs.1,02,000/. The value of the vehicle was assessed on depreciation every year. Therefore, as per the IDV of the vehicle as on 07/06/2019 is taken as value which is soon before the search. Therefore, the 80 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 value of Ford IKON vehicle at Sl.No.6 as Rs.1,02,000/.
Sl.No.23 Value of Household Artciles:
67. P.W.85IO had shown the value of household articles possessed by the accused and their family at the end of check period as RS.14,12,282/. It has contended by the Ld Defense counsel that, the IO had not taken the opinion of the expert or PWD Engineer regarding valuation of the household articles to crosscheck the rates. The IO exaggeratedly valued the articles , but it values only Rs.7.00 Lakhs and not Rs.14.00 Lakhs. The valuation made by the IO at the instance of accused No.2 is hit by Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and without any basis of Government rates. Therefore, the same is inadmissible. Hence, submitted to consider the value at Rs.7,00,000/.
81 Spl.CC.No.278/2022
68. In this regard, P.W.85 was cross examined, but nothing has been elicited to show that she valued the articles exorbitantly. Further, there are no documents to prove that the articles valued not more than Rs.7.00 Lakhs.
69. A perusal of inventory list, it would goes to show the details of the household articles found in the house during search. Most of the articles are all branded one. One can value the things on the basis of brand. Moreover, the accused are the best persons to say the value of the articles which were purchased by them. According to the information of accused No.2, and her children at first instance, the IO had mentioned the value of the articles. The accused have not produced any bills in respect of the said articles. The prosecution has examined mahazar witnessPW.62. He was crossexamined and nothing has been elicited to discredit the 82 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 valuation made in the inventory list. Further, the son and daughter were also present at the time of search as per the contents of mahazar. None of the family member raised any objection at the time of valuation of the articles. The valuation made by IO appears to be reasonable and scientific as per the existing rates as on the date of purchase. The accused have not placed any other contrary material to disbelieve the value mentioned in the list. When the best person informed the rates of the things, then there is no need to cross check or to get inputs from the CPWD. Therefore, there is no impediment on the part of Court to consider the valuation arrived by IO at Ex.P.284. Some of articles mentioned in the Inventory list were excluded where the bills are collected. Therefore, the value of Sl. No.23 Household articles mentioned in Statement 'B' is considered as Rs.14,12,282/.
83 Spl.CC.No.278/2022
70. After analyzing the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the Court has reached to the conclusion that the Sl.No.1Building is valued at Rs.1,06,67,525/, Sl.No.5Properties at Rs.4,00,000/, Sl.No.6Vehicle at Rs.1,02,000/ and Sl.No.23Household articles valued at Rs.14,12,282/. After calculating the admitted and disputed value of the properties and articles mentioned in StatementB, it comes to Rs.2,29,81,639/. Thus, the value of the assets at the end of check period as on 14/08/2019 is Rs.2,29,81,639/.
STATEMENTC
71. As per the StatementC, the accused were having the income during the check period from 01/01/2012 to 14/08/2019, which are as follows :
Sl. Details of Assets Amount PWs Exhibits No. Rs.
1 Net salary income of A1 received 52,98,522/- PW-3 Exs.P.9, 10, 84 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 from ASI during the period 11, 14 01.01.2012 to 13.08.2019 (as per the salary details received from Archaeological Survey of India) (Dispute-Rs.53,15,804/-) 2 GPF payments drawn by A1 22,00,000/- PW-3 Ex.P.12 from ASI during the period 01.01.2012 to 13.08.2019 (Rs.10,00,000/- in July 2013 and Rs.12,00,000/- in June 2018 as per the salary details received from Archaeological Survey of India) 3 Salary of A2 during the check 64,58,063/- PW-72 Ex.P.308 & period (including Retirement Ex.P.309 benefits, GPF, etc.,) (Based on details furnished by her department and her salary- Bank account statement) 4 Sale consideration of Property at 3,50,000/- PW-1 Exs.P.4,5,6 Site No.111, Lingabudi village, (1,10,000/-) Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk, which was purchased before check period on 06/05/2011 and sold during the check period on 22/10/2013 for Rs.3,50,000/-
5 Home Loan of Rs.35,00,000/- 35,00,000/- Exs.P.260, from Canara Bank loan for 268 & 288 property at Site No.5, Block-11, 3rd Cross, Manasi Nagar, Mysore on which house was constructed during the period from 2013-15 6 Income from 5 Acres of 3,75,000/- Exs.P.289 & Cultivable Land, situated at 340 Yaikongpao village, Kangpokpi (Consent) District, Manipur inherited from parents (Dispute-Rs.10,50,000/-) 7 Income from Education loan 21,36,425/- PW-35 Exs.P.169 to from Canara Bank for elder 175 & 260 daughter - M.Dongbui Thangal-
M.S in KTH College, Sweden during 2016-18 (Dispute-
85 Spl.CC.No.278/2022Rs.23,96,252/-) 8 Income from maturity/surrender 29,58,455/- PW-27 Exs.P.123, of insurance policies from Aviva 124 & 125 Life Insurance Company 9 Income from maturity/surrender 15,58,870/- PW-8 Exs.P.30 to of insurance policies from TATA 38 AIG Insurance Company 10 Interest amount credited as on 71,811/- PW-36 Exs.P.179 14.08.2019 in the Bank account (75,473/-) 180, 185 No.051801050081 of A1 at Canara Bank, Mysore 11 Interest amount credited as on 53,967/- Exs.P.267, 14.08.2019 in the Bank account (50,537/-) 268 No.653010108232 of A2 at (Consent) United Bank of India, Manipur 12 Interest amount credited in the 40,224/- PW-33 Exs.P.201, Bank account (36,693/-) 201(a) No.1080101022464 of A2 at Canara Bank, Mysore 13 Interest amount credited in the 74,274/- PW-36 Exs.P.177 to Bank account No.518101055777 (74,284/-) 187 of Ms.Mauipunamei Donguibui Thangal maintained at Canara Bank, Mysore 14 Interest amount credited in the 50,642/- PW-33 Exs.P.159, Bank account No.625501511967 (29,231/-) 160, 161 of A1 at ICICI Bank Main Branch, Mysore from January, 2012 to June 2019 15 Interest amount credited in the 13,476/- PW-33 Exs.P.162, Bank account No,625501530066 (13,182/-) 163 of Ms.Mauipunamei Donguibui Thangal, ICICI Bank Main Branch, Mysore 16 Interest amount credited in the 13,064/- PW-34 Exs.P.166 to Bank account No.142901000654 (29,895/-) 168 of Mr.M.C.Victor Thangal at ICICI Bank 17 Interest amount credited in the 32,439/- Exs.199, Bank account 199(a) 86 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 No.4842500102670001 of A2 (consent) maintained at Karnataka Bank, Mysore 18 Interest amount credited in the 21,071/- PW-26 Exs.P.120, Bank account (17,404/-) 121 & 122 No.00651000067154 of A1 at HDFC Bank, Mysore 19 Interest amount credited in the 278/- PW-32 Exs.P.156, Bank account No.37480535241 157 & 158 of Ms.Maguipuinamei Thonphangabui at SBI, Mysore 20 Interest amount credited in the 645/- PW-32 Exs.P.153, Bank account No.37480535241 (336/-) 154 & 155 of Ms.Maguipuinamei Thonphangabui at SBI, Mysore 21 Foreign credits received in Bank 69,374.90 PW-33 Exs.P.162, account No.625501530066 of 163 Ms.Dongbui Thangal D/o A1 at ICICI Bank 22 Income earned from investing in 4,21,823/- PW-45 Exs.P.207, Canara Robeco Mutual Funds 208 23 An amount of Rs.41.00 Lakhs 41,00,000/- Exs.P.225, only which was credited by 226, 266 & Sh.P.Rocky Rangtaina, husband 265 of Smt.Mariam Charenamei from (consent) the accounts of himself, his wife Smt.Mariam Charenamei, his shopper point, his friend's R.V.Enterprises through banking channel to A1, A2 and his family members 24 Hand loan availed from Sh.Mani 55,000/- PWs-33 Exs.P.179, Charenmei (after deducting the & 36 180, 185, repayment amount) 201, 201(a) 25 Maturity proceeds of ICICI Pru 2,69,942.32 PW-42 Ex.P.197 invest Shield- life policy No.01768310 in the name of Sh.M.Hepuni Thangal received on 29.07.2015 26 Interest credited in the Bank 15,846/- Ex.P.270 (a) account No.1219104000006774 (16,256/-) (consent) 87 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 at IDBI Bank, Imphal branch in the name of A2 Total 3,01,39,212 (As per calculation Rs.2,98,87,4 83.82)
72. The IOP.W.87 had taken the above mentioned income as the income of the accused during check period. Percontra, the accused have disputed some amounts at Sl.No.1,4,6,7, and submitted that IO had not considered the additional income such as mortgage amount, loan amounts, and salary of their daughter in the statement. There is some arithmetical error in calculating the amounts mentioned in the table. As per the documents, the correct amounts are mentioned in bold letters. Each disputed amount is discussed hereafter in detail.
SL. No.1 Salary Income:
73. The prosecution has considered the salary income of accused No.1 during the check period as 88 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 Rs.52,98,522/. The Ld. Defence counsel has submitted that there is arithmetical error in calculation. The accused have produced the salary statement, wherein it has mentioned that the Net salary received by him was Rs.53,15,804/ during the check period.
74. The prosecution has examined the witness PW3 to prove the salary income of the accused No.1 for the period from 01/01/2012 to 13/08/2019. The accused had received Net salary of Rs.52,98,522/ during the check period. In this regard, the prosecution has produced documents Exs.P.9,10,11 and 14. The prosecution has furnished the details of the salary, other allowances, IT deductions and total deductions from the salary of A1 during the check period in AnnexureII. A careful perusal and calculation of the salary and deductions, it would goes to show that accused No.1 89 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 had received total Gross Income of Rs.84,96,652/ including the arrears of DA, TA, Leave Encashment, MACP arrears and other allowances as mentioned in the table. Out of the said amount, the income tax of Rs.7,01,100/ was deducted, Rs.36,765/ was LIC deduction, Rs.20,54,000/ was GPF deduction and other deductions were made to the extent of Rs.4,05,555/. After deduction of all the above amounts to the tune of Rs.31,98,130/, the total Net income earned by accused during the check period comes to Rs.52,98,522/.
75. P.W.87IO had calculated each and every amount received by the accused on the basis of Exs.P.9, 10, 11 and 14. The Court has not found any arithmetical error in the calculation. On the other hand, the accused No.1 has also produced the details of the income. The said statement does not disclose all the deductions made in the salary and 90 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 where the prosecution has committed the mistake in calculating the salary of the income. Therefore, there is no impediment on the part of the Court to consider the Net salary of accused No.1 during the check period at Rs.52,98,522/.
Sl. No.4 Sale Consideration:
76. The IOP.W.87 has considered the sale consideration of Rs.3,50,000/ as income from the properties purchased during the check period. P.W.1 the FDA at Sub Registrar's Office, Mysore has given evidence regarding details of immovable property of accused No.1. A perusal of Ex.P.4the sale deed dated 22.10.2013, it would goes to show that the accused No.1 sold the property in favour of Narashiman for Rs.3,50,000/. The IO had considered the entire value as income. The said property was purchased prior to check period i.e.,31.08.2005 for Rs.2,40,000/ as per Ex.P.456. 91 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 Therefore, the calculation made by the IO is not correct. Hence, it is correct to deduct Rs.2,40,000/ from sale consideration of Rs.3,40,000/, the remaining Rs.1,10,000/ is to be considered as income. Hence, the amount mentioned at Sl.No.4 to the extent of Rs.3,40,000/ is not acceptable. The sum of Rs.1,10,000/ only considered as income. Sl. No.6 Income from Cultivable land:
77. The IO P.W.87 has considered the income of Rs.3,75,000/ from 5 Acres of Cultivable Land, situated at Yaikongpao village, Kangpokpi District, Manipur which was inherited by accused No.1 from his parents. The Ld. Defence counsel would submit that accused has produced the letter which disclose the income of Rs.10,50,000/ to the IO during the course of investigation and PW87 has admits the same in his crossexamination relating to the said letter. But has not done any investigation to the 92 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 effect that who issued the certificate, whether it is correct or not. Therefore, the prosecution cannot discard said document.
78. The accused have produced the letter during investigation issued by the Chairman of Yaikongpao village authority dated 06/09/2019 which is part and parcel of Ex.P.348. The accused have also produced the original letter in their statement filed under Sec.313(5) of Cr.P.C. A perusal of the said letter, it would goes to show that Panchayat authority have issued a certificate stating the accused No.1 had received income from the land to the extent of Rs.10,50,000/ from 20122018 by calculating Rs.1,50,000/ per year. The Ld. Counsel has relied upon the decision reported in 2023 S.C.C OnLine S.C 218 in the case of Premchand V/s State of Maharashtra with regard to 93 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 the evidentiary value attached to the documents produced under Sec.313(5) of Cr.P.C.
79. The Ld. Sr.P.P, would contend that the said letter did not disclose the property number, type of the land and measurement, crops raised therein, yield derived and expenditure incurred. The letter was issued on 06/09/2019. The search was conducted on 14/08/2019. The said document was issued only after registration of the FIR. On the basis of the APRs submitted by accused No.1 to his department marked at Exs.P.289 and 340, the amount of Rs.50,000/ was taken as income per year. These documents were marked by consent. The accused himself had declared the income derived from the land at undisputed point of time.
80. The Hon'ble Supreme court has held in the above referred decision that statements of the accused in curse of examination under Sec.313, 94 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 since not on oath, do not constitute evidence under Sec.3 of the Evidence Act, yet the answers given are relevant for finding the truth and examining the veracity of the prosecution case. As per the decision relied by accused themselves, any statements or documents produced under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C do not constitute evidence within the meaning of Sec.3 of Evidence Act. The party who relied and asserts the fact, has to prove the fact as per Sec.3 of Evidence Act. The burden lies on the party under Sec.101 and 103 of the Evidence Act. As held in the said decision, there is no bar to consider the answers given by the accused in examination in regard to veracity of the prosecution case. The accused No.1 in his examination under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C has denied the income mentioned by the IO relating to Sl.No.6 of the property. Denial by the accused itself is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that he derived income of Rs.10,50,000/ from the said property. In 95 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 the absence of material before the Court and the details of the property in the certificate, it is not probable to accept the contention of the accused in this regard. Therefore, the IO has rightly calculated the income derived from item No.6 of the property to the extent of Rs.3,75,000/ on the basis of the declaration made by the accused himself to his department. Hence, the onus shifts on the accused to prove the letter/certificate produced by him. To believe the letter and consider the income as contended by the accused, it does not disclose the property number, type, measurement of the land, crops raised therein, yield derived and expenditure incurred. Without mentioning any details, the chairman had issued the certificate. Unless, there is mention of type of crop raised, yield derived and expenses incurred, it is not improbable to accept the certificate. Moreover, the accused have not chosen to examine the person who issued the 96 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 certificate to prove the document. Mere production of the document does not dispense with its proof. Moreover, the said document came into existence after registration of case. Hence, there is cloud of suspicion about the amount mentioned therein. The evidence of P.W.74, There is no basis to consider the income of Rs.10,50,000/. Therefore, it is not probable to accept the contention of the accused. The contention of Ld. Counsel is not acceptable that the IO had not enquired though the certificate produced before him, for the reason that the onus lies on the accused to establish their income from the land. It is not for the IO to find out the income from the land. It is for the accused to satisfactorily account for. As per declaration made by accused himself in his APRs submitted to the department, he received income only Rs.3,75,000/ from 5 acres of land during the check period. 97 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 Therefore, the amount of Rs.3,75,000/ is taken as income from the cultivable land.
Sl. No.7 Income from Education Loan:
81. The IO has considered the Education loan of M.D.Thangal, the daughter of accused persons as income to the extent of Rs.21,36,425/. The loan documentsExs.P.175 and 260 were marked by consent of defence counsel. It is argued that the witness of the prosecution P.W.35 himself has deposed, the loan sanctioned was Rs.23,96,252/.
Hence, the amount Rs.21,36,425/ mentioned in the statement is not correct. The total loan amount disbursed was Rs.23,96,252/. The Ld. Counsel has also contended that mere marking of documents as an exhibits with consent do not necessarily mean that the contents of such documents stand proved as per law of evidence. The same position would holds good even if the document are marked with 98 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 consent of the defence under Sec.294 of Cr.P.C. It is for the prosecution to prove the documents by leading necessary evidence.
82. The Ld. Defence counsel has argued that mere marking the documents under Sec.294 itself would not establish the case of the prosecution. The prosecution has to prove the documents in accordance with law. In this regard, has relied upon the decision reported 1996(2) CTC 700 in the case of K.Ramanathan (Died) and Others V/s B.K.Nalini Jayanthi.
83. Per contra, the Ld.Sr.P.P has relied upon the decision reported in 2003(1) ALD Cri 951, 2003 Cri.L.J 1031 (Boraiah @ Shekar V/s State) on 20 December, 2002.
84. A careful reading of the above said decisions, it has held that the consent given by a party or marking a document does not dispense with either 99 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 the proof of the contents of the document or the truth or otherwise of the contents. It has further hled that, the object of Section 294 of Cr.P.C is to accelerate the pace of trial by avoiding the time being wasted in examining the signatory to the document filed by either of the parties to prove his signature and correctness of its documents; if its genuineness is not disputed. This section is intended to dispense with the formal proof of certain documents. It is obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. Further, Subsection (1) of Section 294 of Cr.P.C whose genuineness is not disputed by the accused may be read as substantive evidence under Sub section (3) of Section 294 of Cr.P.C.
85. In this regard, PW35 was examined before 100 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 the Court. He is the Manager, Retail Assets Hub Canara Bank, Mysore. He has deposed before the Court that the accused Nos.1 and 2 availed education loan for their daughter from Canara Bank as per Exs.P.169 to 175 and 260. Admittedly, the education loan was availed from Canara Bank for education of elder daughter M.D.Thangal by the accused persons. As per the request letter dated 18/11/2017, the education loan was remitted to the beneficiary educational institution at Sweden as per Ex.P.175. According to his evidence, the total education loan sanction was Rs.31,50,000/ and sum of Rs.23,96,252/ was disbursed from the Bank to the account of M.D.Thangal during the period 201617. This witness was not crossexamined by defence counsel.
86. On the otherhand, the Ld. Sr.P.P would contend that the loan amount of Rs.23,96,252/ 101 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 was disbursed which includes the margin money of Rs.2,59,827/. The margin amount has to be paid by the borrower. The daughter had paid Rs.2,59,827 from her SB A/c No.518101055777 towards margin money. Hence, the loan amount disbursed by the bank is only Rs.21,36,425/.
87. A careful perusal of the statement of account, loan documents marked at Exs.P.169 to 175 and 260, it would clearly goes to show that A1 had availed education loan from Canara Bank for his elder daughter M.D.Thangal to study at KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden during the year 201618 for an amount of Rs.40.00 Lakhs. As per sanction order, the education expenses were projected as Rs.37,16,106/ out of which sanction limit was Rs.31,50,000/ and Rs.5,66,106/ as margin money to be borne out by the applicant. On 17/08/2016, a loan of Rs.31,50,000/ was 102 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 sanctioned and on the same day Rs.7,28,000/ was disbursed to the account of M.D.Thangal. As per the entries, the total amount disbursed was Rs.21,36,425/, a sum of Rs.2,59,827/ was paid by M.D.Thangal from her SB account No.518101055777 as margin money. The accused No.1 made partial withdrawal of Rs.70,521/ and credited to his ICICI Bank account and remaining amount of Rs.40,00,563/ credited to ICICI Bank on 29/02/2016. The accused have not produced any other document to substantiate their contention that the education loan of Rs.23,96,252/ was disbursed towards education loan. It is to be noted that borrower has to pay the margin money towards the loan, unless the margin money paid by the party, the loan amount will not be disbursed. However, the prosecution has established with documentary evidence that the education loan of Rs.21,36,425/ was disbursed. Hence, it is 103 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 incumbent upon the court to consider the education loan of Rs.21,36,425/ as income in Statement C. Additional Income alleged by the accused persons.
88. a) Mortgage Agreement:
The Ld. Defence counsel would submit that IO had not considered the income of the accused persons which was derived from mortgaging G+3 the residential building situated at village No.11, Liapham Sophai, Manipur. It is specific defense of the accused that, accused No.1 had entered into mortgage agreement with Smt. Mariam Charenamei on 04/08/2015, mortgaging the aforesaid property for Rs.80.00 Lakhs. The mortgagee had capacity to extend a loan of Rs.80.00 Lakhs to accused No.1 under the Mortgage Agreement as per the document collected by the IO at Ex.P.224. The mortgagee owned petrol bunk at Manipur and she had capacity to pay amount of Rs.80.00 Lakhs. Though the 104 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 Mortgage Deed is not registered as required under Sec.17 of the Registration Act, 1908, ( for short 'the Act') the same is admissible in evidence for collateral transaction as per Sec.49 of the Act. The covenants of the deedEx.P.326 disclose that the mortgage is a Usufracturary Mortgage under Sec.58(d) of the Transfer of Property Act and it is only for debt. In the said deed, accused No.1 handed over the possession to Mariam Charenamei for a period of 15 years and permitted to receive benefits and rents arising out of the land and building. Hence, the income of Rs.80.00 Lakhs has to be considered as income in the statement 'C' of the schedule. The Ld. Defence counsel has argued that though the IO has recorded the statement of witnessCW.81 with regard to mortgage agreement Ex.P.326, has not chosen to investigate or cross check the genuineness of Ex.P.326. The prosecution has also not chosen to examine the witness before 105 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 the Court though she has been cited as witness in the charge sheet. So, the prosecution has failed to prove that document is not genuine. The Ld. Defense counsel has relied on the above relevant provisions of law.
89. Per contra, the Ld. Sr.P.P has vehemently repelled that, the document is not registered as required under law, hence the same cannot be looked into for any purpose. The mortgagee had no capacity to pay such huge amount of Rs.80.00 Lakhs. The entire amount was paid in cash. Moreover, accused No.1 had not intimated the same to the department, immediately after the execution of the mortgage deed. He had intimated in the year 2017. Importantly, the stamp paper Ex.P.326 was issued to one Gopal Singh as per the evidence of Treasury Officer, but stamp paper was sold by one Rajesh Singh. The details of the value of the stamp 106 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 paper, name of purchaser and address was not mentioned therein. Therefore, the said document came into light only after registration of FIR against the accused No.1. The document is not proved by the accused as required under law. Hence, the amount cannot be considered as income in the StatementC.
90. The prosecution in order to prove that Mortgage DeedEx.P.326 is not genuine one and concocted only for the purpose of this case, has examined the stamp vendor as PW70 and treasury officer as PW71. These two witnesses were examined through video conference from Imphal District Court. PW70 in his evidence has deposed that he is a licensed stamp vendor doing stamp vending job at Imphal. He used to purchase stamp papers from District Treasury Office, Imphal, Manipur. He was confronted with the documents 107 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 No.587, 588 and 589 Registers through document visualizer. He identified Exs.P.298 and 299. The Registers were maintained by him with regard to selling of stamps to the various customers. The said registers contain the details regarding the sale of stamps to the customers from 04/04/2015. The witness has unable to identify his signature on Ex.P.326. He could not find entries regarding the sale of three stamp papers including Ex.P.326. This witness was crossexamined by defence counsel and elicited that said stamp paper is genuine one. Even in the crossexamination he has unable to identify the seal, signature and date on the backside of the stamp paper. He has admitted that it was his duty to maintain the register and make entries regarding the sale of stamps to customers.
108 Spl.CC.No.278/2022
91. PW71 has deposed that it was his duty to supervise the stamps, indent, issue, preparation of bills etc. The stamps will be issued only by the Treasury Office to the licensed stamp vendors and each stamp paper have its unique number. He identified the production memo, license issued to PW69 and so also to the others. He had produced the extract which disclose about issuance of the stamp papers to the concerned stamp vendors. According to Ex.P.306(d) entry, the stamp paper bearing No.01AA613408 was issued to one Gopal Singh. He has admitted in the crossexamination that the stamp papers which were issued from Treasury Office are all genuine stamp papers. It was the duty of the stamp vendor to maintain the Register for having sold the same to the customers. He has pleaded ignorance that whether the stamp papers issued to one stamp vendor can sell the same to another stamp vendor or not.
109 Spl.CC.No.278/2022
92. Admittedly, Ex.P.326Mortgage Agreement is not registered. As per Sec.17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, the other nontestamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, tile or interest whether vested of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards to or in immoveable property, the documents require compulsory registration.
93. In view of Sub Sec.2 (xi) of the Sec.17, any endorsement on a mortgagedeed acknowledging the payment of the whole or any part of the mortgage money, and any other receipt for payment of money due under a mortgage when the receipt does not purport to extinguish the mortgage need not be compulsorily registrable. Further, the definition of Sec.58(d) of Transfer of Property Act, covenants of the documentEx.P.326 falls within the meaning of 110 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 Usufracturary Mortgage. According to Sec.49 of the Registration Act, the document which compulsorily requires for registration is not registered, the same can be admissible in the evidence for any collateral transaction.
94. In this regard, the Ld. Defence counsel has relied on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh rendered in CRP No.5972/2002 in Umde Bhojram V/s Wadla Gangadhar case and submitted that unregistered Mortgage Deed acknowledging liability without reference to mortgage property is admissible in evidence to prove suit debt. A careful reading of the said decision, it has held that an unregistered mortgage deed may be received as evidence of personal obligation to pay debt for the purpose of granting simple money decree. 111 Spl.CC.No.278/2022
95. It is pertinent to note that as per the decision referred in Umde Bhojram case, a document which contains a personal covenant to pay a debt and which purports to mortgage immoveable property as a security for the debt is, if attested by two witnesses as required by Sec.59 of the Transfer of Property Act, admissible in evidence to prove the personal covenant though the document is not registered. With due respect, this Court has no quarrel with the proposition of law held in the aforesaid decision. Sec.49 of the Registration Act, does not say that an unregistered document which is required to be registered shall not be received in evidence. The aforesaid provision of law and decision are not applicable to the present case on hand for the reason that proceedings pending before the Court is not with regard to the rights of the parties to the deed. Therefore, though the document is not registered, which is required to be registered 112 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 under law can be looked into. Importantly, it is also well settled law that, mere document is exhibited, it does not dispense with its proof. The burden always lies on the person who asserts the existence of the fact.
96. As per Sec.103 of Indian Evidence Act, the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person. So, the contention of the Ld. Defence counsel that the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the document as not genuine is not acceptable one. Furthermore, the onus lies on the accused No.1 to prove Ex.P.326, which is within his knowledge under Secs.103 and 106 of Indian Evidence Act. 113 Spl.CC.No.278/2022
97. With the above principles of law discussed herein above, I incline to peruse the document. Ex.P.326 came into existence on 04/08/2015 between the accused No.1 and Smt. Mariam Charenmaie the close relative of accused persons. The stamp paper disclose the date 25/06/2015. The evidence of PW71 would depicts that Ex.P.306(d) the stamp paper was issued to one Gopal Singh on 25/06/2015. But, the stamp paper discloses the name of one Konjengbam Rajib Singh i.e., PW69. The stamp vendorPW69 has maintained the Registers at Ex.P.298 and Ex.P.299 for having sold the stamp papers to the customers. The entries made in the Registers does not disclose about the sale of stamp paper to either of the parties to the agreement. The doubt remains in the mind of the Court that who purchased stamp paper from whom. Admittedly, the transaction is to the tune of Rs.80.00 Lakhs made through cash.
114 Spl.CC.No.278/2022
98. The prosecution has arrayed Smt. Mariam Charenamei as a witness in the case as CW81. The IO had also recorded her statement wherein she stated about the Mortgage AgreementEx.P.326. As discussed above, the burden and onus lies on the accused persons to prove the execution of the mortgage agreement that it is a genuine transaction. The accused No.1 is not an ordinary person, he was the head of seven States and he made several money transactions through his accounts. When that such being the case, why he had made cash transaction to the tune of Rs.80.00 Lakhs and whether that amount was deposited to the account of accused or not also not forthcoming from the records placed by the prosecution as well as accused before the Court. So, passing of mortgage amount of Rs.80.00 Lakhs to the accused No.1 creates suspicion. If really the transaction had taken place as per Ex.P.326, certainly he could have 115 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 intimated to the department immediately after the transaction. As could be seen from the Annual Assets and Liability statement of the year 2017, submitted by the accused to the department at Ex.P.344(b), clearly goes to show the word "on mortgage" before property column. Importantly, the accused No.1 had not intimated to the department in the year 2015, albeit the agreement came into existence in the year 2015. Moreover, it also appears that the font size and style of the words mentioned in the statement at Ex.P.344(b) is different from the word "on mortgage". The word on mortgage" mentioned in bold letters. More importantly, if really the accused had intimated to the department in the year 2016, certainly he would have mentioned the mortgage amount. But the column 'income' discloses 'Nil'. So, from this, it can be inferred that word 'on mortgage' seems to be 116 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 included at later stage only in order to overcome this case. Moreover, as per the Annual Property Returns (APR), the accused had declared the value of the property as Rs.60.00 Lakhs, but property mortgaged for Rs.80.00 Lakhs. Therefore, it also creates doubt in the mind of the Court that only in the column 'Remarks' it was mentioned 'on mortgage'. If really mortgage had taken place, certainly he would have mentioned details of the mortgage in the APR. Except making insertion 'on mortgage' in bold letters, no further details were mentioned. So, it creates doubt about genuineness of transaction. If really the mortgage agreement is genuine transaction, certainly he would have mentioned the same in APR submitted as on 01/01/2016. At Ex.P.344(b) statement which was submitted on 01/01/2018 discloses the word 'on mortgage' in bold letters in the column 'remarks', but the annual income from the property remains "Nil". Further, the accused have 117 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 not chosen to examine any of the attestor to the document or the mortgagee to prove the transaction.
99. The Ld. Defense Counsel has contended that the mortgagee Smt. Mariam Charenamei, had source of income to lent such huge amount as she was the dealer of Petrol and Diesel per the documents Exs.P.223 and 224 collected by the IO. Per contra, it has argued by the Ld.Sr.P.P that except the transactions between the accused and their family members with the mortgagee, there was no other huge transactions in the account of Smt. Mariam Charenamei and she had no capacity to pay such huge amount.
100. It is to be noted that mere having petrol bunk is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that the Mortgagee had sufficient means to lend such huge amount. Ex.P.223 and 224 does not dispense with the proof that she was capable to the extend the 118 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 loan to the extent of Rs.80.00 Lakhs. A perusal of Bank statements of Smt.Mariam Charenamei Exs.P.226,260,272 and statements submitted for the year 201314, 20142015, falsify the contention that she had capacity to lend such huge amount. As rightly argued by the Ld.Sr.P.P, there are no other high value transactions in the account of Mortgagee except the amounts transferred by accused and their family members and ASI staff. She herself declared the annual income to the extent of Rs.2,54,782/, Rs.2,22,156/ and Rs.3,05,782/. Prior to 2019 2020, she had not filed ITRs. Only after registration of FIR, the ITRs were submitted. Furthermore, the amount of Rs.80,00,000/ was paid in cash but, the repayment was made through online transactions.
101. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that, the accused No.1 had not applied leave on the date of execution of deed. As per Service 119 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 Records Exs.P.15 and 16, he had applied leave during the period 22.12.2014 to 02.01.2015. As per service rules, the casual leave is not considered as leave, hence the same was not forthcoming in the service register. As such, it is not probable to accept the contention of Ld. Sr.P.P that the accused was on duty on the date of execution of Ex.P.326.
102. As per the contents of the deed, the possession was delivered to the mortgagee. But, all the records, submitted by the accused to his department and Jamabandi reveal the name of accused No.1. Moreover the tenants P.Ws.77 and 78 have deposed before the court that they used to pay the rents to Smt.Mariam Charenamei from 2013. They have vacated the premises in the year 2021. This aspect was not denied by the accused. So, from the entire evidence it is clear that Smt.Mariam Cheranemei is only care taker of the building since 120 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 2013 prior to alleged mortgage deed. If the mortgagee came into possession of property after execution of Ex.P.326, how she collected the rents. All these circumstances, i.e., documentary and oral evidence falsify the contention of accused that he mortgaged the property for Rs.80,00,000/ to Smt. Mariam Charenamei as per Ex.P.326.
103. Both the prosecution and defense have relied on the decisions regarding burden of proof. The decision of Guna Mahto rendered in Crl.Appeal No.108/2012, is not applicable to the present case on hand for the reason that the said judgment held on circumstantial evidence. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that in a case revolving around circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
121 Spl.CC.No.278/2022
104. In 1981(3) SCC 199 in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs Wasudeo Ramachandra Kaidalwar, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that :
" Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 101, 102 and 106
- Nature and extent of burden of proof of prosecution and accused in criminal trial Held:
The expression 'burden of proof' has two distinct meanings, (1) the legal burden, i.e., the burden of establishing the guilt, and (2) the evidential burden, i.e., the burden of leading evidence. In a criminal trial, the burden of proving everything essential to establish the charge against the accused lies upon the prosecution, and that burden never shifts. Notwithstanding the general rule that the burden of proof lies exclusively upon the prosecution, in the case of certain offences, the burden of proving a particular fact in issue may be laid by law upon the accused. The burden resting on the accused in such cases is, however, not so onerous as that which lies on the prosecution and is discharged by proof of a balance of probabilities".
105. A careful reading of the decisions, the Hon'ble Apex Court and High Court have held that, according to criminal jurisprudence, the initial burden always rests on the prosecution. The prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. But the same burden does not lies on the accused. When once the prosecution was able to 122 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 prove its case by placing material before the Court, then the onus shifts on the accused as per Secs.101 and 103 of the Indian Evidence Act, to prove the existence of the fact.
106. At this juncture, the sole question which requires to be considered is whether the burden of proof can be shifted upon to the accused. No doubt, it is the settled principle of law that burden of proof never shifts from prosecution that to accused. At the same time, the prosecution need not prove each and every aspect and the fact which is within the special knowledge of accused is required to be explained by him as per Ex.P.106 of Indian Evidence Act. It is the settled principle of law that as per Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, the facts which are within the special knowledge of accused is required to be explained by him.
123 Spl.CC.No.278/2022
107. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in (2000) 8 SCC 382 ( State of W.B. Vs. Mir Mohammad Omar) wherein it was held as:
"31. The pristine rule that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused should not be taken as a fossilised doctrine as though it admits no process of intelligent reasoning. The doctrine of presumption is not alien to the above rule, nor would it impair the temper of the rule. On the other hand, if the traditional rule relating to burden of proof of the prosecution is allowed to be wrapped in pedantic coverage, the offenders in serious offences would be the major beneficiaries and the society would be the casualty. In this case, when the prosecution succeeded in establishing the aforenarrated circumstances, the court has to presume the existence of certain facts. Presumption is a course recognised by the law for the court to rely on in conditions such as this. Presumption of fact is an inference as to the existence of one fact from the existence of some other facts, unless the truth of such inference is disproved. Presumption of fact is a rule in law of evidence that a fact otherwise doubtful may be inferred from certain other proved facts. When inferring the existence of a fact from other set of proved facts, the court exercises a process of reasoning and reaches a logical conclusion as the most probable position".124 Spl.CC.No.278/2022
The above principle has gained legislative recognition in India when Section 114 is incorporated in the Evidence Act. It empowers the court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened. In that process, the court shall have regard to the common course of natural events, human conduct etc. in relation to the facts of the case. When the said principle is appreciated with the case on hand, definitely the burden casts on the accused to explain circumstances. In this regard, the court for limited purposes has looked into the statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C since it is time and again held that the stage of recording the statement under section 313 of Cr PC is not bald entity and infact an opportunity is given to the accused to explain the incriminating circumstances available against him. As discussed above, the burden of proof though will not be shifted upon from the Prosecution, but at times, when initial 125 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 burden is discharged as held the in the aforesaid dictum, the same will be transferred onto the accused person to explain the circumstances which was within his special knowledge. It is made clear at this juncture that the court is not relying upon the said statement for the purpose of drawing any inference against the accused persons, but only to ascertain whether any explanation have been given by the accused probablise their defense or not.
108. As could be seen from the evidence as discussed above, the prosecution was able to prove that the transaction is doubtful and not genuine. Thus, the onus shifts on the accused persons. Moreover, the burden also lies on the accused to prove the factum of Mortgage as they pleaded and asserted. No prudent man who paid Rs.80,00,000/ kept silent without getting registration of the document under which he/she claims right or 126 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 interest in future. Mere the agreement was reduced on genuine stamp paper, it cannot be said that the transaction is genuine under the above discussed circumstances. There is no explanation by the accused why he had not intimated the department immediately after entered into the transaction. There is no evidence on record, to show whether the mortgage amount was paid or not. All the above factors creates doubt about the transaction and without any hesitation it can be said that it was only sham document. The accused failed to prove mortgage deed and transaction as required under law. Therefore, it is not probable to accept the contention of the accused that he had received Rs.80.00 Lakhs under the mortgage agreement from Smt. Mariam Charenamei and the same cannot be considered as income of accused persons in StatementC. 127 Spl.CC.No.278/2022
109. The Ld. Defence counsel has submitted that the IO had not considered the loan agreements Exs.P.348, 312 and 296 regarding additional income of the accused persons. Though the accused No.1 had produced the loan agreements before the IO along with his reply, had not conducted any investigation regarding the genuineness of the transactions. The agreements were all executed on the genuine stamp papers and the same were purchased from the licensed stamp vendors. The burden lies on the prosecution to prove that agreements are not genuine. With due diligence, accused have entered into the agreements and there is no need to intimate the department under Amended P.C Act, 2018.
110. Per contra, the Ld. Sr.P.P has repelled that original of Ex.P.348 is not produced. The transactions held under the agreements were all 128 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 through cash only. Further, the agreements executed on the stamp papers which were not issued to the stamp vendors and stamp papers were purchased by other persons not by parties to the agreements. Moreover, before issuing the stamp papers to the stamp vendors by the treasury, documents came into existence. That itself would goes to show that agreements were concocted by the accused only for the purpose of this case. The burden lies on the accused to prove the agreements on preponderance of probabilities. The accused failed to examine any of the witnesses to the agreements. Hence, the same cannot be looked into.
b) Loan Agreement dated 201/11/2013:
111. The loan agreement dated 20/11/2013 executed between Lois Panmei the brotherinlaw of accused No.1 and accused No.2. The said document is part and parcel of Ex.P.348. The accused No.1 129 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 had submitted the reply to the IO with regard to allegations made against him. The agreement dated 20/11/2013 shown as Annexure12. The same is a photostat copy. The stamp paper is bearing No.01AA143458. The prosecution in order to disprove the defence of the accused, has examined the stamp vendor PWs70 and the stamp supervisor in Treasury Office, Imphal as P.W.71. P.W.71 has deposed that the stamp papers bearing Nos.143201 to 145200 were sold to General Secretary, AMBA on 14/11/2017 as per the relevant entry marked at Ex.P.306(a)Register extract. According to the defence, it was not duty of the parties to the agreement to make enquiry to whom the stamp paper was issued. Only after verifying that stamp vendor is a licensed stamp vendor, have purchased the paper. It is quite interesting to state that as per Ex.P.306(a), the stamp paper bearing No.01AA143458 was issued by the Treasury Office, 130 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 Imphal only on 14/11/2017 to the General Secretary, AMBA. When that such being the case, how can the stamp vendor sell the paper prior to the issuance by the Treasury Office. If really the original is in existence, what prevented the accused to produce before the Court. Lois Panmei is none other than the brotherinlaw of A1. That means the document executed between A2 and her brother with regard to borrowing of Rs.10.00 Lakhs. When the document itself speaks that same was concocted, what more required for prosecution to prove its contention. The stamp paper does not disclose the name of the party who purchased the stamp paper. On the backside of the stamp paper there was seal of L.Iomgha Singh. It also does not disclose the date when stamp paper issued to the party. The amount was paid in cash. The accused has not examined the person who paid the amount. Only for the reason that the stamp paper was purchased from licenced 131 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 stamp vendor, it cannot be infer that the entire transaction is genuine one under the mitigating circumstances. There is a proverb that man may lie but not the documents. When the prosecution has placed material before the Court to show that document was concocted for the purpose of this case, the onus lies on the accused persons to prove the genuineness of transaction as per Secs.101 and 103 of Evidence Act. The accused have failed to prove that A2 had availed loan of Rs.10.00 Lakhs from Lois Panmei under the agreement on 20/11/2013. Of course, there is no need to declare the transaction in the APR as per Amended PC Act, 2018, but to show the promptness of the public servant, he should have mention the family debts in the APRs. More importantly, receipt of amount is by cash but return is through account. How, for it is believable. All these circumstances and evidence clearly destroys the defense of accused persons that 132 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 accused No.2 had availed loan of Rs.10,00,000/ from her brother Lois Panmie. The accused have failed to prove the loan agreement on preponderance of probabilities. Therefore, the income of Rs.10.00 Lakhs is not taken into consideration as Income of accused persons in Statement C.
c) Loan agreement dated 14/03/2015:
112. The loan agreement dated 14/03/2015 marked at Ex.P.312 executed between the Gopal Gonmei and accused No.2 with regard to cash transaction of Rs.20.00 Lakhs is concerned, the prosecution has examined P.W.71 and 73. The stamp paper is bearing No.243136. According to the evidence of PW71, the stamp paper was issued to one Pradeep Singh on 10/03/2015 as per the entries made in Ex.P.306(e). PW.73Pradeep Singh has deposed before the Court that he had maintained the RegisterEx.P.311 regarding the sale of stamp paper.133 Spl.CC.No.278/2022
The said register maintained from 06/12/2014 to 13/05/2016. When the stamp paper bearing No.243136Ex.P.312 was shown to the witness during the course of evidence, has unable to identify his signature on it, but deposed that the paper may be issued by him as per the entry in the register and the said paper was sold to one Anjali and he had not sold the same to accused No.1 or to CW54Gopal Gonmei. In the crossexamination, except formal suggestions, nothing elicited to disbelieve the testimony of witness. The witness has specifically deposed that the Register depicts the date, number and name to whom the paper was sold. He has admitted that stamp paper does not disclose the name of the purchaser. Here in the case, there is no dispute that stamp paper No.243136 was issued by Treasury Office, Imphal to PW73 on 10/03/2015. The only question for determination is whether the said stamp paper was purchased by either of the 134 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 parties or not. As per the entry in the Register Ex.P.311, the stamp paper was purchased by one Anjali. If really the transaction had taken place between CW.54Gopal Gonmei and accused No.2, what prevented the accused to examine the Gopal Gonmei. It has contended by the defence that prosecution has not examined the material witness to the case of the prosecution. As discussed supra, the prosecution has prima facie placed the material before the Court that that transaction is not genuine and the document came into existence only after registration of this case. The onus shifts on the accused persons. Even otherwise, the burden lies on the accused to prove the fact asserted by them. If really paper was purchased by any of the parties, certainly, it would disclose the name in the Register and so also on the stamp paper. The said transaction was made through cash only. There is no explanation how Anjali connected to the parties. 135 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 It is brought to the notice of the court that a criminal case registered against Gopal Gonmei by Manipur Police as per Ex.P.355 and 356. The documents reveal that Dimpur police have registered a case against Gopal Gonmei for the offenses under Secs.468,466,472,474 IPC alleging creation of fake registration certificate. This document collected and produced to show the involvement of Gopal Gonmei in criminal activities and there are chances of creating loan agreement Ex.P.312 for the purpose of this case. All the above circumstances, creates doubt about genuineness of the transaction. Further, the accused have failed to prove the loan agreement by examining the witnesses in the case. Therefore, the amount of Rs.20,00,000/ cannot be considered as additional income of the accused persons in Statement C.
d) The Promissory Note dated 08/07/2014: 136 Spl.CC.No.278/2022
113. The other loan agreement is promissory note Ex.P.296. The prosecution has examined P.W.69 the stamp vendor. His evidence reveal that he used to purchase the stamp papers from Treasury Office, Imphal. He had maintained the RegisterEx.P.295 regarding the sale of papers to the customers. The entries were made in the Register from 18/10/2011 to 27/12/2013. He identifies the stamp paper of Ex.P.296 and deposed that he sold the paper but, he could not name the person who purchased the paper. In the cross examination it has elicited that the customer need not to enquire about the stamp paper whether the paper is genuine or not. Qua, nothing extracted from the mouth of P.W.69. It is not the case of prosecution that the stamp paper is forged or concocted. It is their contention that the transaction itself concocted.137 Spl.CC.No.278/2022
114. The accused No.1 and his brotherCW55 John Thangal have entered into loan agreement on the stamp paper bearing No.2AA671681 for Rs.25,00,000/. Under the said agreement, the accused No.1 had borrowed loan of Rs.25.00 Lakhs from his brother. According to the evidence of PW 71, the stamp paper bearing No.2AA671681 was issued to one Brijith Singh on 27/08/2015 as per the entry in the RegisterEx.P.306(c). The said paper was sold to Brijith Singh whose name was found on the backside of the stamp paper. Moreover, the stamp paper was issued only in the year 2015, but the document came into existence on 08/07/2014 that is prior to issuance of stamp paper by the Treasury. So, it creates doubt with regard to the genuineness of the transaction. Moreover, the amount of Rs.25.00 Lakhs paid only through cash.
The accused have not examined the lender or the witnesses to prove the transaction. It is highly 138 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 improbable to accept the contention of the accused that prior to the issuance of the stamp paper from the treasury, the parties have entered into the transaction. Without any hesitation, it can be said that the document came into existence only for the purpose of this case. The stamp paper does not disclose the name of the party who purchased the paper. More importantly, the document came into existence prior to its issuance by the Treasury Office. The certified copy of Register extract Ex.P.306(c) has evidentiary value under Sec.79 of the Evidence Act, as the same is maintained in the public office. There is no explanation by the accused, how the promissory note came into existence prior to issuance. The burden is on the accused to prove the deed as required under law. But, they failed to prove the same.
139 Spl.CC.No.278/2022
115. It is quite interesting to mention here that under the document the accused No.1 had received Rs.5,00,000/ from his brother as gift. The accused had not declared the gift amount in his APR for the year 201415 and even thereafter. Even he did not intimated to the department about borrowing the aforesaid amounts. It has established that Ex.P.296 promissory note is created only for the purpose of this case. Therefore, the amount of Rs.25,00,000/ cannot be taken into consideration as income of the accused in Statement C.
116. The Ld. Defense Counsel has argued that the IO had not followed the Best Evidence Rule. The prosecution has not examined the material witnesses before the court and therefore, an adverse inference could be drawn against the prosecution. In this regard, has relied on the decisions reported in 2006 (7) SCC 172 in the case of State Inspector of Police, 140 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 Vishakapatnam V/s Surya Sankaram Karri and 1976(4) SCC 233 in the case of Rabindra Kumar Dey V/s State of Orissa.
117. On the otherhand, the prosecution has relied upon the decision reported in 2004(1) SCC 691 in the case of State of M.P V/s Awadh Kishore Gupta and Others.
118. A perusal of the aforesaid decisions referred on both the sides, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in Surya Sankaram case that when the IO failed to produce the documentary evidence before the Court which were collected during investigation, the Court can draw adverse inference against the prosecution. In the said case, the IO had collected the documents and recorded the statements of witnesses, which are material witnesses to the case of prosecution, but failed to produce before the Court and had not offered any explanation. Therefore, the Court raised 141 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 adverse inference for nonproduction of documents in the case. The said decision is not applicable to the present case on hand for the reason that IO had produced all the documents which were collected during the investigation. CWs54, 55, 80, 81, 84, 85, 86 and 89 were not examined before the Court for the reason that they are all the close relatives of accused and there is no use to examine them. The statements itself would goes to show that they supported the defense. Hence, there is a reason for not examining the said witnesses. But there is no reason why the accused have not examined the witnesses who lent huge amounts under the agreements. If the witnesses were examined by the accused, certainly it would have through light in the matter of agreements.
119. In case of Rabindra Kumar Dey referred supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when the material witness was not examined by the 142 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 prosecution to unfold the prosecution narrative, an adverse inference could be drawn against the prosecution. In the said case, the witness was not examined by the prosecution who was material witness. Therefore, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the Court is entitled to draw an adverse inference to prosecution for not examining the material witness. Here in the case, the prosecution has examined all material witness. The said witnesses are not material witness to the case of prosecution. But they are material to the defense. The accused are claiming additional income on the basis of mortgage deed, loan agreements and promissory note. So, it is for them to prove the defence on preponderance of probabilities as envisaged under Sec.5 of Evidence Act.
120. In Awadh Kishore Gupta and Others case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "annexures to 143 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 the petitions under 54 cannot be termed as evidence without being tested and proved." Further it has held that "Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - S, 13(1)
(e) - Acquisition of property beyond known sources of income by a public servant - Burden of proof - Expression "known sources of income" used in S.13(1)(e) - Meaning of - Held, does not mean sources known to the accused, but sources known to the prosecution - Burden is on the accused not only to offer a plausible explanation as to how he came by his large wealth, but also to satisfy the court that his explanation was worthy of acceptance - Evidence Act, 1877, Ss. 106 and 101 -
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, S.5(1)(e) - Words and phrases "known sources of income"
In view of the above decision, the burden is on the accused not only to offer explanation as to how he acquired the income, but also satisfy the Court that his explanation was worthy of acceptance. The principal of law has held in regard to known source of income.
121. In the case on hand, though the accused have produced the annexures with their statement 144 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 filed under Sec.313(5) of Cr.P.C and so also before the IO under Ex.P.348, have not chosen to examine any of the witnesses i.e., the financiers, attestors to the documents to prove the transactions mentioned above. Unless the documents are proved before the Court, the same cannot be termed as evidence. In view of the aforesaid reasoning and discussion, when once the prosecution was able to prove its case by placing material before the Court, the onus shifts on the accused as per Secs.101 and 103 of the Indian Evidence Act. The loan agreementsExs.P.348, 312 and 296 regarding cash transaction of Rs.10.00 Lakhs, Rs.20.00 Lakhs and Rs.25.00 Lakhs and Mortagage Deed Ex.P.326 for Rs.80.00 Lakhs are not proved on preponderance of probabilities. As discussed supra, on two occasions, the documents came into existence prior to the issuance of the stamp papers from Treasury Office as per the entries made in the RegisterEx.P.306. If really the said 145 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 transactions were genuine, certainly there would be entry in the Registers maintained by the stamp vendors, but there is no entry in the Registers and so also the stamp papers were issued to one party, sold by another party. Of course there is no such hard rule that stamp paper issued to one stamp vendor cannot be sold to another stamp vendor. But, the point is, he has to mention the date and name of the purchaser in the Register. Here in the case, there is no such entry in the Register. So, it creates doubt with regard to purchase of paper by either of the parties to the agreements. In all the above four transactions, the date of issuance of the stamp paper to the vendor, the name of the purchaser, date of transaction, nature of the transaction creates doubt and not proved by the defence. Thus, the Court did not find any force in the arguments submitted the Ld. Counsel appearing for accused that the prosecution has not followed the Best Rule 146 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 of Evidence. Therefore, it is not probable to accept the amount of Rs.10.00 Lakhs, Rs.20.00 Lakhs and Rs.25.00 Lakhs and Rs.80,00,000/ as income of the accused persons.
e) Salary Income of M.D Thangal:
122. In regard to salary income of the accused daughter M.D Thangal is concerned, the accused have produced the purported salary certificates along with their statement filed under Sec.313(5) Cr.P.C. The Ld. Defence counsel has argued that the IO has not considered the salary of M.D.Thangal as income of the accused family, when he had considered the expenditure of M.D.Thangal as family expenditure, certainly he could have considered the salary of daughter to the extent of 1/3rd out of Rs.23.00 Lakhs. The Appointment letter of M.D.Thangal which is part and parcel of Ex.P.348, it depsicts that she was appointed and working in Volvo Company at Sweden. On the otherhand, the 147 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 Ld.Sr. P.P would submit that the said documents are not in the language of the Court. There are no Bank statements to show the salary received by M.D Thangal and came to the hands of accused persons. Therefore, the same cannot be considered as income of the accused persons.
123. The agreement of employment dated 06/06/2018 produced by the accused before the IO during the investigation would disclose that the Volvo Company has agreed to appoint M.D.Thangal as Development Engineer for the salary of 32,000SEK per month commencing from 13/08/2018. The said document is photostat copy. The accused have produced colour printouts purported to be the salary certificates of their daughter. The said documents are pertaining to the period 13/8/2018 to 26/9/2019. The accused has also filed the extract of the salary from August, 2018 to September, 2019 i.e., for the period of one year. 148 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 As per extract, the salary drawn by M.D.Thangal was at Rs.23,86,032/ per year after paying tax.
124. As contended by the Ld.Sr.P.P the salary certificates are not in the Court language. The authenticated translated copies are not produced. The abstract is self prepared by the accused No.1. As per the certificate issued by Volvo company, M.D.Thangal's estimated annual income was 384,000SEK per annum. The agreement of employment substantiates the contention of the accused that their daughter is employed in Volvo company. The certificate also disclose the salary of M.D.Thangal. But, the accused have not produced the bank statement to show that they have received the salary of their daughter from Sweden. Further, as contended by the Ld.P.P there must be bank documents to show that the amount was transferred from Sweden to accused account. Further the accused have not chosen to examine their daughter 149 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 and so also the employer to prove the certificates. The copies produced by the accused are not tested and proved to consider the same as evidence. Though the accused daughter employed and received the salary from Volvo company, but there is no document to show that accused have received the salary amount from their daughter. As such, in the absence of any documents before the Court, it is not probable to accept the contention of accused that they received salary of Rs.15,90,688/ after deduction of tax and towards unverifiable household expenditure of their daughter.
125. In view of the principle of law held in Awadh Kishore Gupta and Others case, "the expression known sources of income" has reference to sources known to the prosecution after thorough investigation of the case and not known to the accused. The accused have to prove the income of their daughter which is within their knowledge as 150 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 per Sec.106 of Indian Evidence Act. In the case on hand, the accused have failed to prove the salary income of their daughter on preponderance of probabilities as required under law. Hence, the salary income of Rs.15,90,688/ of M.D.Thangal is not considered as income of the accused family in StatementC.
(f). Income from Fairyland, Imphal House :
126. The Ld. Defence counsel has argued that the prosecution has not considered the rental income of the residential building situated at Fairyland, Imphal. The accused have received the rents from the tenants to the extent of Rs.8,98,000/ from 01.01.2012 to July, 2015 at the rate of Rs.5,000/ and Rs.5,500/. It has further submitted that evidence of prosecutional witnesses PWs77 and 78 itself substantiates the contention of the accused with regard to rental income. Therefore, prays for consideration of rental income to the extent of 151 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 Rs.8,98,000/ as income of the accused in StatementC.
127. Per contra, the Ld. Sr.P.P has repelled that the prosecution had already considered the amount of Rs.41.00 Lakhs as income received from their relative Mariam Charenamei and others as derived from the Fairyland, Imphal.
[
128. PWs77 and 78 are the tenants of the property at Sl.No.3 of the StatementB. PW77 has deposed that he stayed in the 2 nd floor on monthly rent of Rs.5,000/. He paid the rents from the year 2013 till 2021. Annually the rent was increased to the tune of Rs.500/ per month. PW78 has deposed that she stayed in the 3rd floor of the building and she paid rent of Rs.5,000/ per month. Both the witnesses have not seen A1 and A2. They used to pay the rents to Smt.Mariam Charenamei. Both have vacated the premises in the year 2021. So, from this 152 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 it is clear that the accused persons have received the rents from PWs77 and 78 through Smt.Mariam Charenamei. It is to be noted that the evidence of PWs77 and 78 would disclose that Smt.Mariam Charenamei had collected the rents from tenants from 2012 to 2021. On perusal of the StatementD at Sl.No.23, the IO had given the benefit of Rs.41.00 Lakhs to the accused which was received from Smt.Mariam Charenamei and others which includes house rent during the check period. The accused have claimed only Rs.8,98,000/. The accused have not offered any explanation for receipt of Rs.41.00 Lakhs from CW81. Therefore, there is no impediment to consider the contention of the prosecution that the amount of Rs.41.00 Lakhs was considered as rent from the house at Fairyland, Imphal. Hence, an amount of Rs.8,98,000/ cannot be considered as additional income from Fairyland in StatementC. 153 Spl.CC.No.278/2022
129. After analysing the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by both the sides, the Net Salary of Rs.52,98,522/ of the accused No.1 is considered as income, sale consideration of Rs.1,10,000/ relating to the property bearing No.111 situated at Lingabudi village considered as income, Rs.3,75,000/ derived from 5 Acres of cultivable land taken as income and Rs.21,36,425/ considered as income from educational loan. The other heads mentioned in StatementC are not disputed by the accused persons. The additional income urged by the accused are not considered for want of material evidence as required under law. The evidence let in by the accused with regrd to additional income is highly improbable and unbelievable. Further, the documents produced by the accused are surrounded by suspicion regarding its genuineness. On calculation the income of the accused persons during the check period was 154 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 Rs.2,98,87,483/. Therefore, the amount of Rs.2,98,87,483 is considered as income of the accused persons during the check period. STATEMENTD
130. As per the StatementD, the IO had mentioned the expenditure incurred by the accused persons and their family during the check period from 01/01/2012 to 14/08/2019, which is as follows :
Sl. Details of Assets Amount PWs Exhibits No. Rs.
1 Unverifiable household expenses 25,98,517/- PW-3 Ex.P.10, 11, calculated at 1/3rd of 14 Salary(gross salary of Rs.84,96,652/- of A1 minus income-tax of Rs.7,01,100/- paid by him 1/3(84,96,652- 7,01,100)=Rs.25,98,517/-
(Dispute- Rs.25,37,657/-) 2 Repayment of housing loan 26,34,792/- Ex.P.260 & availed from Canara Bank vide Ex.P.288 loan account No.108061900588 (consent) for construction of house at Site No.5, Block-11, 3rd Cross, Manasi Nagar, Mysore 3 Purchase of HSBC Insurance 32,943/- PW-10 Exs.P.45,46 policy for home loan in the name & 47 of A1 on 25.05.2014 155 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 4 Payment of Property tax/house 51,670/- PW-43 Ex.P.198 tax in respect of property/Site No.5, Block-11, 3rd Cross, Manasi Nagar, Mysore during 2013-18 5 Expenditure incurred towards 4,02,018/- Exs.P.19, 20 Road Tax and Registration (consent) charges of JEEP COMPASS car bearing Registration No.K-09- ME-3704 6 Insurance payment to Future 50,162/- Exs.P.337 to Generali India Insurance, Mysore 339 for Police No.NFA01880 for (consent) JEEP COMPASS Car in the name of A2 paid on 14.01.2019 7 Expenditure towards service of 1,323/- PW-6 Ex.P.26 JEEP Compass Car on 27.05.2019, paid to Urs KAR Pvt. Ltd.
8 Expenditure incurred towards 1,10,098/- PW-5 Exs.P.21,39 Road Tax and registration & 40 charges of four wheeler-
Volkswagen Polo (HPL) bearing Registration No.KA-09-MC-
2403 purchased in 2016 9 Vehicle Insurance payment to 33,758/- PW-17 Exs.P.64 to Bajaj Allianz Insurance company 67 Ltd., Mysore for police No.OG-
17-1705-1801-00001483 for the period from 17.05.2016 to 16.05.2017 for Rs.33,758/-
10 Vehicle Insurance payment to 51,649/- PW-7 Exs.P.27,28 TATA AIG Insurance for Policy No.0156974295 Auto Secure-
Private Car Insurance for Volkswagen Polo Car bearing registration NO.KA-09-MC-
2403 in the name of Ms.thonphangbui M. 03 Premium and one penal charges paid during 12.04.2017 to 10.05.2019 156 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 11 Vehicle insurance premiums 15,092/- PW-12 Exs.P.58,59 from National Insurance company Ltd., vide for the period from 13.04.2012 to 18.05.2016 for Ford IKON vehicle having regd.No.KA-09-N.-5014 12 Vehicle Insurance premiums paid 19,833/- PW-13 Exs.P.60 to to IFFCO TOKIO for ford IKON 63 registration No.KA-09-N-5014 from 2016 to 2019 13 Expenditure incurred towards 22,922/- PW-5 Ex.P.23 Road Tax and registration charges of Royal Enfield Classic UCE 500 two wheeler regn.No.KA-09-HF-4125 purchased in October, 2015 14 Expenses towards education in 3,04,182/- PW-50 Exs.P.217, r/o Elder Daugher-M.Dongbui 218 Thangal-B.Tech EEE from Thiagaraja College, Madurai during 2012-16 15 Expenditure towards Education 23,96,252/- PW-35 Exs.P.175, Ms.M.Donguibui Thangal D/o 260 A1 for her MS in KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden from Canara Bank Education loan account and out of own expenses 16 Amounts transferred by A1 from 22,04,777/- PW-33 Exs.P.159 to his ICICI Bank Saving Account 161 No.625501511967 to account No.940213-7286, maintained at Nordea Bank AB, Sweden of Ms.Donguibui Thangal for her personal expenditure from 2016 to 2018 during her education.
17 Master Policy of Canara HSBC 48,379/- PW-10 Exs.P.41,42 Oriental Bank of commerce Life 43,44,48 Insurance Group towards insurance of education loan from Canara Bank in the name of Ms.Maguipuinamei Donguibui 157 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 Thangal 18 Expenses towards Admission 24,62,908/- PW-16 Exs.P.75 to Fee, Tuition Fee, Examination 86 fee and hostel fee in r/o younger daughter Ms.M.Thonphangbui for her MBBS course from JSS Medical College, Mysore since 2013-19 19 Expenses towards education in 34,916/- PW-17 Exs.P.86, 87 r/o son- M.C.Victor Thangal who got admission in B.Tech at Sri.Jaychamarajendra college of Engineering, Mysore for the batch 2014-15 but dropped the same after 1st year 20 Expenditure for deduction from 96,649/- PW-34 Exs.P.166, payment of Admission fees of 167 and 168 M.C.Victor S/o M.H.Thangal at the University of Waiktao, New Zealand on cancellation of admission payment of Rs.20,78,137/- receipt of Rs.19,81,488/- in ICICI Bank account) 21 Expenditure made towards 18,15,450/- PW-27 Exs.P.123 to premium payment for insurance 125 policies purchased from AVIVA Insurance during check period in the name of A1, A2 and his family 22 Expenditure made towards 9,52,250/- PW-8 Exs.P.31 to premium payment for insurance 38 policies purchased from TATA AIA Insurance Company during check period in the name of A1, A2 and his family 23 Expenditure towards premium 5,76,732/- PW-15 Exs.P.68,69 payment for insurance policies 70,71,73,74 purchased from Life Insurance Corporation of India in the name of A1, A2 and his family 24 Expenditure towards premium 1,52,546/- PW-29 Exs.P.130 to 158 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 payment for health insurance 146 policies purchased from ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd., in the name of A1 and his family 25 Expenditure towards premium 99,251/- PW-28 Exs.P.128, payment for insurance policy 129 purchased from HDFC Life insurance Company Ltd., in the name of A1 and his family 26 Loss incurred towards surrender 5,05,200 PW-11 Exs.P.50 to of policy No.50681828 of A1 at 57 Reliance Nippon Life Insurance. The policy was purchased on 12/01/2013, thee premium were paid for Rs.15,26,442 till 2015. Then the policy was surrendered in 2018 for Rs.10,21,242/- after TDS of Rs.10,316/-.
27 Expenditure on purchase of various household items including air conditioners, electronic gadgets, etc., where bills are collected from vendors/available in search documents (as mentioned below)
(a) 7 No. of Split Air Conditioners 3,21,100/- PW-22 Exs.P.102 to purchased vide1-Bill No.01745 106 dated 28.02.2016 for Rs.86,000/-, Bill No.02269 dated 15.03.2017 for Rs.77,200/-, Bill No.01735 dated 25.02.2016 for Rs.86,000/-, Bill NO.02309 dated 25.03.2017 for Rs.71,900/-
in the name of A1 (item No.9,27,33,40,56,61,65 in inventory)
(b) Purchase of one LG-LED 55BT 2,58,000/- PW-21 Exs.P.100, (OLED) TV for Rs.2,25,000/- 101 and one Sony HT BDV-E4- 1000(L) (Home Theatre) for Rs.33,000/- on 11.07.2017 159 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 through Tax Invoice No.SBI-42 of M/s.Shubham The Electronic Shopee, Mysore in the name of A1 (item No.8 of inventory)
(c) One Samsung Refrigerator side 1,02,000/- PW-30 Exs.P.147 to by side Sl.No.OF84ABH800174, 150 Model-RH62K60177P in the name of Ms.Athui.M vide Bill No.Crs/MY/3062 dated 28.10.2017 and V-Guard Stabilizer-VG-100 vide Bill No.crs/MY/3070 purchased from Girias Investment Pvt. Ltd., Opposite KSRTC bus stand, Mysore.
(Item No.18 in inventory)
(d) E Water Harmonizer Home+1 36,700/- PW-19 Exs.P.94,95 and CPVC Fittings in the name of A1 vide Bill No.151685 dated 07.02.2016 purchased from World Connect, 109, Sanmarga, 2nd Floor, Siddaratha Layout, Mysore.
(Item No.71(a) of Inventory)
(e) Purchase of 4 No. of Digi 74,000/- PW-18 Exs.P.89 to 160AH (DT860) + two Trolly 93 Tall Duble (Santro) vide invoice No.1097 dated 01/09.2015 and invoice No.950 dated 20/08/2015
2. Two UPS 2000sw JM dated 20/08/2015+ one Troll Tall Tubular dated 20/08/2015 (Santro) in the name of A1 purchased from V.S.Power Systems, #42, Vishwamanava Double Road, Kuvempunagar, Mysore.
(item No.10,11,47,48 in inventory)
(f) Power Module, Heat Pump and 11,300/- PW-31 Exs.P.151, Service, in the name of Thangal 152 address-#5, Block 11, Manasi 160 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 Nagar, Mysore, Mb.9448375522 vice invoice No.017 dated 15.12.2017 job No.470857943 purchased from Sapthagiri Services, #HIG-205, New Kantharaj Urs Road, Shardadevi Nagara circle, Mysore
(g) Tax invoice No.CPRepr/142 46,499/- PW-24 Ex.P.110 dated 04.04.2013 for MD297HN/A iphone 5 16 GB, Black and MTIH5-5111 Alumor Jacket for ipHone 5 in the name of A1 purchased from iPlanet, consolidated premium retailer, SF-07, 2nd floor, Mall of Mysore (I) Certified Tax invoice 92,899/- PW-24 Ex.P.112 No.160901335 dated 08.07.2016 for Macbook Pro Ratina model-
MF839HN/A, sno.SC17RQ3J3FVH3 in the name of Ms.Donguibui r/o #5, 3rd cross, Block 11, Manasinagar, Mysore having mobile No.9003496443 for a total amount of Rs.93,899/- after discount
(j) Certified Tax invoice 8,599/- PW-24 Ex.P.113 No.160901336 dated 08.07.2016 for Ipod Macbook Cleaning Kit and MLA02ZM/A- Apple Magic Mouse 2 serial No.CC254941HSGGRHQAG in the name of Ms.Donguibui r/o #5, 3rd Cross, Block 11, Manasi nagar, Mysore having mobile No.9003496443 for a total amount of Rs.8,599/-
(j) Certified Invoice No.16021064 1,799/- PW-24 Ex.P.116 dated 28.10.2016 for Shock Resistant case for iphone 7 sno.JH31483 in the name of victor having mobile No.9342188236 for a total 161 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 amount of Rs.1,799/-
(lk Certified Invoice No.160201065 1,799/- PW-24 Ex.P.115 dated 28.10.2016 for MN902HN/A Apple iPhone 7, 32 GB gold Serial no.353778081855979 in the name of Victor having mobile No.9342188236 for a total amount of Rs.1,799/-
l) Certified Invoice No.160201063 60,000/- PW-24 Ex.P.114 dated 28/10/2016 for MN902HN/A Apple iPhone 7, 32 GB gold Sno.353778081855979 in the name of Victor having mobile No.9342188236 for a total amount of Rs.60,000/-
(m) Certified Tax Invoice 64,888/- PW-24 Ex.P.111 No.150903571 dated 21.01.2016 for Damage Protection Plan, Blaze Metal iPhone 6 case, Tempered Glass for iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 64 GB Sno.35540107007340 in the name of A1 having mobile No.8197443455 for a total amount of Rs.64,888/-
(n) Invoice No.160202378 dated 52,689/- PW-24 Ex.P.117 26.02.2017 for Apple iPhone 6S 32 GB, SN-359211074232240, Chimera Tampered Glass for iPhone 6 and skech ice slim case in the name of A1 purchased from iPlanet, Consolidated premium Retailer, SF-07, 2nd Floor, Mall of Mysore (Item No.80 of Inventory)
(o) Invoice no.SI/BMH/569 dated 94,100/- PW-23 Ex.P.108 06.06.2018 for iPhone X 64GB Space Grey, BobytBack Case and Bull work iPhone X Tempered Glass in the name of M.H.Thangal purchased from 162 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 Krishanam Enterprises, iDeation Store, G-3, upper Ground Floor, b.M.Habitat Mall, Gokulam Main road, Jayalakshmipuram, Mysore (Item No.81 of inventory)
(p) Invoice No.283 dated 05/03/2012 39,112/- PW-25 Exs.P.118, for Dell Laptop Inspiron 119 15N5050 Core 15, 4GB, Service Tag-94J8KR1 and Logitech wireless mouse in the name of A1 purchased from Computech Services, Shop No.7, 1st floor, Door No.21/2 College Road, K.R.Mohalla, Mysore (item No.66 of inventory)
(q) Tax invoice No.SI/MA/5236 67,000/- PW-28 Exs.P.96,97 dated 04.12.2016 for sale of Google Mobile Model-Pixel Model-Pixel XL 32 GB Black IMEI 359906070488080 in the name of A1 from Ashok Sales, Mysore (item No.84 of inventory)
(r) G965 S9 Plus 256GB Black 69,900/- PW-20 Exs.P.98,99 Samsung Mobile-
355345090138819 vide invoice No.AI/MA/5419 dated 16.10.2018 in the name of M.C.Victor Thangal purchased from Ashok Sales International, 153, D Devraj Urs Road, Mysore (item No.82 of inventory) 28 Jewellery purchased from 10,18,751/- PW-38 Exs.P.192, Tanishq Jewellery during check 193 period 29 Amount paid/transferred to 1,15,85,000 PWs- Exs.P.188, Sri.P.Rocky Rangtaina and his 37, 47, 211, 213, wife Smt.Mariam Charenamei 48, 49, 215, 215(e), (who is sister of A2) Bank 53, 54, 216(b)(c), 163 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 accounts of A1, his family 58, 59, 220, 222, members, his wife and through 60, 63, 242(a), 248, his ASI staff 64, 65, 249, 250(a) (Dispute-Rs.49,70,000/-) 66, 67, 252(b)(c) 81, 82 (d), 268, 266, 277, 237, 238, 272, 256, 342, 343 30 Account transfers made to 89,55,000/- PWs- Exs.P.186, Sri.Gopal Gonmei of Nagaland, a 37, 53, 188, 190, distant relative of A2 from Bank 55, 56, 200, 205, accounts of A1, A2 and family 57, 58, 213,213(a), members through his ASI staff 59, 60, 215(c)(d)(f) (Dispute- Rs.41,75,000/-) 81, 83, (g)(h), 240 84 245(a) 248, 248(f)(g)
(h), 249, 261, 262 277, 280, 312, 328(a)
(b), 329(a) 342, 343, 31 Account transferes made by 14,40,000/- Exs.P.200, Smt.Mary Panmei, a relative of 228,230, A2 from bacnk accounts of A1, 272 his family members (hand loan (consent) repayment) 32 Account transfers made by 2,75,000/- Exs.P.233, Mrs.Phaomei Gaichuilu, a 234 relative of A2 from Bank (consent) accounts of A1 and family members (hand loan repayment) 33 Account transfers made to 2,01,000/- Exs.P.231, Sh.Santosh Ramshang, a relative 232 of A2 from Bank accounts of A1 (consent) and family members (hand loan repayment) 34 Account transfer made to 2,94,970/- PW-36 Exs.P.185, Smt.Lois Panmei herself for her 205 son's fee in Assam Valley School from Bank account 164 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 35 Donation made to Yaikangkpo 1,71,000/- PW-33 Ex.P.165 Baptist church in Manipur by A1 from Bank account 36 Account transfer made to 1,10,000/- Ex.P.205 Mr.M.Rejoyson Thangal, brother (consent) (repayment of hand loan) 37 Account transfer made to 1,10,000/- Ex.P.205 Mr.Poukendinbou, relative of A1 (consent) (repayment of hand loan) 38 University admission fee paid to 3,57,555/- PW-41 Ex.P.195 Malardalen University, Sweden for an admission in the name of M.C.Victor Thangal S/o A1 39 Premium payment for ICIVI Pru 60,000/- PW-42 Ex.P.197 invest shield- life policy No.01768310 in the name of Sh.M.Hepuni Thangal 40 Charges paid to M/s.Sona Motors 15,168/- Ex.P.202 towards registration of veicle, (consent) road tax, insurance payment and other service charges in respect of TVS Scooty PEP 41 Investment made by accused in 1,65,000/- PW-45 Exs.P.207, the Canara Robeco Mutual Funds 208 during check period 42 Transaction dated 19/05/2015 of 2,00,000/- PW-58 Ex.P.249(p) Rs.2.00 Lakhs shown as transferred by Sh.Venugopal Reddy to Sh.M.J.Thangal on the directions of A1 (Dispute) 43 Transaction dated 23.03.2016 of 2,50,000/- PW-48 Ex.P.249(q) Rs.2.5 Lakhs shown as transferred by Sh.Venugopal Reddy to Sh.Ajinbou Abonmei on the directions of A1 (Dispute) Total (Dispute-Rs.3,28,19,237/-) 4,42,75,097 165 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 In StatementD the accused have disputed the Sl.Nos.1, 29, 30, 42, and 43 expenditures. The other expenditures mentioned in the Statement are not disputed by the accused. Therefore, it is proper to discuss the disputed items.
Sl.No.1 Unverifiable Household Expenses:
131. The IO has shown unverifiable household expenses of the family of accused persons to the extent of Rs.25,98,517/. Per contra, the Ld. Defence counsel has argued that there is arithmetical error in calculation made by the IO.
The IO had wrongly taken 1/3rd salary towards unverifiable household expenses. He ought to have consider the gross salary of Rs.83,14,071/ instead of Rs.84,96,652/. On calculation the unverifiable house expenses comes to Rs.25,37,657/. There is difference of Rs.51,000/ and odd. The Ld. Counsel 166 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 has relied on the decision of Sajjan Singh V/s State of Punjab reported in 1964(4) SCR 630.
132. Per contra, the Ld. Sr.P.P would contend that as per the evidence of PWs3, 7, 26, 32, 33, 34, 37 and 45 and Exs.P.10, 11, 14, 153 to 163, 166 to 168, 176 to 180, 199(a), 201(a), 207, 267 and 268. The accused family spent sum of Rs.89,58,995/ towards purchase of cloth, shoes, sandals, food and travel. Therefore, out of gross salary of Rs.84,96,652/, the 1/3rd of income was deducted towards unverifiable household expenses to the extent of Rs.25,98,517/ and given more benefit to the accused.
133. A careful scrutiny of evidence of aforesaid witnesses and documents referred above, the accused and their family had spent sum of Rs.89,58,995/ on various aspects. The bills are not disputed by the accused. Some of the amount was 167 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 taken by the IO in expenditure column for which the bills were generated. For other items the bills were not produced by the accused, therefore IO had considered 1/3rd of the gross salary which comes to Rs.25,98,517/.
134. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sajjan Singh case V/s State of Punjab AIR 1964 Sc 464 has held that while calculating the domestic expenditure 1/3rd income of the accused is to be taken into consideration.
135. It is to be noted that, if IO would have considered the expenses of Rs.89,59,951/, certainly it goes on higher side than the amount mentioned in the statement. There is an error in the calculation of gross and net salary taken by the accused. Thus, there is mistake crept in. If 1/3 rd of the gross salary is taken towards unverifiable household expenses, it comes to Rs.25,98,517/. The IO had not committed 168 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 any error in calculating the unverifiable household expenses. Per contra, the accused have not produced any material before the Court to show that the IO had committed mistake in calculating the expenses. Hence, the amount of Rs.25,98,517/ is taken towards unverifiable household expenses. Sl.No 29, 30,42 and 43 Money Transactions:
136. The prosecution has specifically alleged that the accused and their family members have made number of third party transactions through MTS staff to accumulate the disproportionate assets beyond known source of income to the extent of Rs.1,15,85,000/, Rs.89,55,000/,Rs.2,00,000/ and Rs.2,50,000/ as shown in Sl.Nos.29, 30,42 and 43 in Expenditure StatementD.
137. Percontra, the Ld. Defense Counsel has contended that accused No.1 had only arranged the loans to the poor needy staff and he is no way 169 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 connected with any of the transactions made between MTS staff and financiers/relatives. After trial, the prosecution has been able to prove amount of Rs.49,70,000/, transferred from the accused and ASI staff to C.W.s 80 and 81 Rocky and Mariam Chernamei in respect of Sl.No.29 and relating to Sl. No.30, a sum of Rs.41,75,000/ transferred from the accused and their family and ASI staff to CW.54 Gopal Gonmei. Some of the witnesses neither supported the case of prosecution nor the defense. Most of the witnesses have admitted the case of defense. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the amounts mentioned in Sl.Nos.29 and 30 beyond reasonable doubt.
138. In this regard, the prosecution has examined the witnesses PWs37, 51 to 61, 63 to 68, 81 to 84. The details of the transactions made through the accounts of above witnesses in favour of 170 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 Gopal Gonmei, Mariam Charenamei, John Thangal, P.Rocky Rangtaina, who are relatives of accused Nos.1 and 2 are reproduced in Table as follows :
Table which depicts the transactions between the accused, their family, MTS staff, and relatives of accused:
Sl. P.Ws Date Amount To whom the amount is Exhibits No. Rs. transferred to 1 17-11-2017 2.00 Lakhs Mariam Charenamei PW-37 19-04-2018 3.50 Lakhs Kawichamthiu Chernamei Ex.P.188 05-07-2018 2.50 Lakhs Gopal Gonmei 20-10-2018 2.00 Lakhs 2 PW-37 17-10-2018 3.00 Lakhs Gopal Gonmei Ex.P.190 31-10-2018 2.00 Lakhs 3 PW-51 2.00 Lakhs Gopal Gonmei Ex.P.276 3.00 Lakhs Mariam Charenamei Ex.P.277 4 PW-52 04-04-2018 1.00 Lakhs Gopal Gonmei 5 PW-53 4.50 Lakhs Ex.P.249 6 PW-54 17-11-2017 2.00 Lakhs Mariam Charenamei Ex.P.220 3.00 Lakhs Gopal Gonmei Ex.P.279 7 PW-55 03-04-2018 1.00 Lakhs Co-brother Ahmed Pasha Ex.P.213(b) 04-04-2018 1.00 Lakhs who was working at ASI, Ex.P.213(c) Srirangapatna 8 PW-56 23-02-2018 1.00 Lakh Gopal Ex.P.248(c) 09-03-2018 1.00 Lakh Ex.P.248(e) 09-03-2018 1.50 Lakhs 9 PW-57 23-02-2018 1.00 Lakh Gopal Ex.P.248(h) 09-03-2018 50,000/- Ex.P.248(j) 10 PW-58 19-05-2015 2.00 Lakhs John Thangal Ex.P.249(p) 23-03-2016 2.50 Lakhs Ajinbou Ex.P.249(q) 16-06-2017 1.00 Lakh Gopal Gonmei Ex.P.249(r) 1.00 Lakh Gopal Gonmie Ex.P.282(a) 1.50 Lakhs Nanjinpibou Ex.P.282(b) 171 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 11 PW-59 03-04-2018 1.00 Lakh Gopal Gonmei Ex.P.211(b) 05-04-2018 1.00 Lakh Ex.P.211(c) 12 PW-60 08-05-2017 2.00 Lakhs Charenamie Ex.P.215(b) 20-10-2018 2.00 Lakhs Gopal Gonmei Ex.P.215(c) 25-10-2017 2.00 Lakhs Gopal Gonmei Ex.P.215(d) 09-12-2018 3.40 Lakhs Namjinpibou Ex.P.215(e) 06-07-2018 1.50 Lakhs Gopal Gonmei Ex.P.215(f) 20-10-2018 2.00 Lakhs Gopal Gonmei Ex.P.215(g) 31-10-2018 1.00 Lakhs Gopal Gonmei Ex.P.215(h) 13 PW-61 06-07-2018 2.00 Lakhs Gopal Gonmei Ex.P.216(b) 31-08-2018 3.00 Lakhs Mariam Ex.P.216(c) 14 PW-63 2015 3.50 Lakhs Mariam Charenamei Ex.P.292(a) 15 PW-64 01-08-2017 2.00 Lakhs Mariam Charenamei Ex.P.222(a) 16 PW-65 01-08-2017 1.75 Lakhs Mariam Charenamei Ex.P.250(b) 17 PW-66 29-06-2018 1.00 Lakhs Mariam Charenamei Ex.P.236(a) 08-09-2017 2.00 Lakhs Ex.P.236(b) 3.50 Lakhs 18 PW-67 30-03-2016 4.50 Lakhs Mariam Charenamei Ex.P.252(a) Ex.P.252(b) 19 PW-68 06/03/2012 70,000/-, Self drawn cheques Ex.P.183(b) 17/03/2012 30,000/-, 09/04/2012 60,000/-, to 28/08/2012 33,000/-, 07/09/2012 40,000/-, Ex.P.183(r) 16/10/2012 20,000/-, 15/01/2013 70,000/-, 24/01/2013 1,50,000/-, 14/02/2013 1,00,000/-, 29/05/2013 50,000/-, 27/07/2013 1,00,000/-, 31/07/2013 4,00,000/-, 08/08/2013 3,00,000/-, 16/09/2013 50,000/-, 17/10/2013 40,000/-, 21/10/2013 50,000/-
20 PW-81 21-07-2017 4.00 Lakhs Gopal Gonmei Ex.P.240(a) 16-04-2016 3.00 Lakhs Mariam Charenamei 21-01-2009 2.00 Lakhs Gopal Gonmei 172 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 21 PW-82 14-02-2018 4.00 Lakhs Kawichamthui Ex.P.242(a) Charenamei 22 PW-83 28-02-2018 1.00 Lakh Gopal Gonmei Ex.P.328(a)
139. The above witnesses in their evidence have deposed with regard to the transactions made in their respective accounts and transfer of amounts to the accounts of Gopal Gonmei, Mariam Charenamei, Nimjinpou, Mani Cherenmai, and Lois Panmei the relatives of accused Nos. 1 and 2. Some of the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and some of them have not supported both. The evidence of the witnesses are discussed in detail one by one.
140. PW37 is the Gardener who was working in ASI at Bijapura. She has deposed before the Court that her father Ningappa Jambagi was also employee of ASI department. She has admitted her account number at Ex.P.188. She had transferred an amount of Rs.2.00 Lakhs to the account of 173 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 Mariam Charenamei on 17/11/2017, Rs.3,50,000/ on 19/04/2018 to the A/c of Kawichamthui, a sum of Rs.2,50,000/ on 05/07/2018 and Rs.2,00,000/ on 20/10/2018 to the account of Gopal Gonmei.
According to her evidence, her father had borrowed the amount from the relatives of accused No.1 to meet the marriage expenses of his family members and also for construction of house. The account numbers furnished by accused No.1, when he had been to Bijapur. She also admitted the transactions made in her father's account at Ex.P.190. Her father had transferred Rs.3.00 Lakhs on 17/10/2018, Rs.2,00,000/ on 31/10/2018 to the account of Gopal Gonmei. This witness has denied the statement given by her before the CBI at Ex.P.191. Therefore, this witness has crossexamined by the prosecution. During the course of cross examination, has deposed that she do not know who are Mariam Charenamei, Kawichamthui and Gopal 174 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 Gonmei. She had only transferred the aforesaid amounts which was borrowed by her father. At para No.5 of her crossexamination, has stated that said amount was borrowed from accused No.1 at the time of marriage of her younger sister and brother and for construction of house . But she unable to state the date, month and year of borrowing the amount. She had not informed the borrowing of the aforesaid amount to the department. For the court question , she answred last marriage in the famly was in the year 2014. Her father attained superannuation in the year 2016 and he was drawing pension of Rs.17,000/ per month. Though witness has relatives at Bijapura and she is member of Co operative Society of ASI, had not availed the loans from relatives and from the concerned society to meet the expenses as stated by her. She never went to Manipur or Nagaland to approach the relatives of accused persons. Importantly, she admitted in her 175 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 crossexamination made by the defense counsel that accused No.1 used to visit the office at Bijapura frequently and many of the staff borrowed amount from accused No.1. They have deposited the amounts to the accounts as per the request of accused No.1. She had not personally requested the accused No.1 for loan at any point of time. She further admitted that she never met accused No.1 to obtain details of the Bank account. From this evidence, it is clear that witness and her father both worked under accused No.1 at ASI, Bijapura. When the witness and her father never met the beneficiaries of the transactions i.e., Gopal Gonmei Kawichamthui and Mariam Charenamie, how far it is believable that they borrowed the loan from the aforesaid persons. The evidence would goes to show that witness and her father had borrowed loan from accused No.1. But it is not the case of the accused that he lent the amount to the witness and 176 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 her father. This evidence was not denied by the accused in the crossexamination. Further, for the court question, the witness answered the last marriage celebrated in the family was in the year 2014. When such being the case, it is not probable to accept the evidence of this witness that she borrowed the amount and transferred the same to the above witness only to meet family marriage expenses and for construction of the house in the year 2018. There is no documents for hand loans and whether the loan availed on interest or not. Further there is no evidence to show what was the amount borrowed from Gopal Gonmei, Mariam Charenamei and Kawichamthui Charenamei. All these circumstances creates suspicion that the accused No.1 made arrangement for loans. When the witness and her father have not borrowed the amount from the finaciers mentioned above, why they got trasnfered the amounts to them. On the 177 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 otherhand, it clearly goes to show that accused No.1 himself gave the amount to the witness and her father to deposit and for transfer the same to the accounts of Mariam Charenamei, Gopal Gonmei and Kawichamthui. Though the witness turned hostile, but her evidence cannot be ignored.
141. PW51 has deposed in his evidence that his brother Nagesh was working as Mechanic at ASI. As per the instructions of his brother, he had deposited and transferred the amount of Rs.3.00 Lakhs and Rs.2.00 Lakhs to the accounts of Mariam Charenamei and Gopal Gonmei as per the transactions mentioned at Exs.P.277(a) and (b). He has further deposed that he had not borrowed any amount from Gopal Gonmei or Mariam Charenamie. This witness identified his statement of account as per Exs.P.276 and 277. In the crossexamination, has stated that he had not mentioned the amount 178 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 which was transacted by him in the IncomeTax returns. This witness has denied the suggestion of defence counsel that his brother had availed the loan from Mariam Charenamei and Gopal Gonmei and same was repaid through his account. Except this, nothing has been elicited from the evidence of PW
51. This witness has supported the case of prosecution that an amount of Rs.5.00 Lakhs was deposited and transferred to the account of Mariam Charenamei and Gopal Gonmei as per the request of his brother Nagesh, the same was given by accused No.1. Therefore, the evidence of this witness clearly establishes that the above amounts were transferred at the instance of accused No.1.
142. PW52 has deposed in his evidence that his mother Gowramma was working as Head Clerk in ASI, Mysore. He was introduced to accused No.1 in the year 2000. He had transferred amount of 179 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 Rs.1.00 Lakh to the account of Gopal Gonmei on 04/04/2018 as per the request of accused No.1 who provided Bank account details. He has further deposed that he had not availed any loan from Gopal Gonmei and had not seen the said person. He had no financial transaction with Gopal Gonmei. He identified the accused before the Court. In his cross examination, has denied that his mother had borrowed Rs.1.00 Lakh from Gopal Gonmei for which accused No.1 stood as surety. If that is the case, why the accused has not produced any document before the Court. It is not the defence of the accused that he stood as surety for loan transaction between Gowramma and Gopal Gonmei. The evidence of this witness supports the case of the prosecution that amount of Rs.1.00 Lakh was deposited and transferred through the account of PW52 to the account of Gopal Gonmei on 04/04/2018 at the instance of accused No.1. 180 Spl.CC.No.278/2022
143. The evidence of PW53 would reveal that the witness and his father Ahmed Pasha were working as Gardeners in ASI, Srirangapatna. In the year 201718, PW53 transferred Rs.4,50,000/ and Rs.1,00,000/ to the account of some unknown person at the request of his father at Exs.P.249(b) and 249(k). His father had given the account number and amount for deposit and transfer. He has pleaded ignorance with regard to the transfer of Rs.4.00 Lakhs. He has deposed that his father had borrowed an amount of Rs.4.00 Lakhs and Rs.1.00 Lakh. On perusal of the said documents, it reveal the transactions dated 19/07/2017 for having transferred Rs.50,000/, on 28/07/2017 an amount of Rs.50,000/, Rs.1,50,000/ on 22/02/2018, Rs.1.00 Lakh on 28/02/2018, Rs.50,000/ on 09/03/2018 and Rs.50,000/ on 13/09/2018. Ex.P.249(k) reveal about the transfer of Rs.1,50,000/ on 01/03/2018 and Rs.1,50,000/ on 181 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 09/03/2018 from the account of Ahmed Pasha. This witness has not supported the case of the prosecution. Hence, treated as hostile and cross examined. He denied the statement given before the Investigation Officer at Ex.P.278. In the cross examination, has stated that he was drawing a salary of Rs.30,000/ to Rs.35,000/ in the year 2017. His father had borrowed amount from accused No.1 for constructing the house. He has specifically deposed that his father constructed separate houses for all children in the year 2013
14. His father retired in the year 2016. His father had given signed blank cheques to the accused No.1 to avail loan, but he pleaded ignorance about how many cheques were given. He had transferred the amount of Rs.4,50,000/ which was given by his father, but he had not intimated the same to the his department and in IncomeTax returns.. He admitted that he used to avail loan from accused 182 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 No.1 and many of the employees of the department were also availing loans from accused No.1. His father paid interest at the rate of 2% to 3%p.a to accused No.1 towards loan amount. He do not know who are Gopal Gonmei, Mariam Charenamei and Namjinpibou. He denied the contention of the prosecution that he got transferred the amount to the above named persons as per the request of accused No.1 and accused No.1 had given the amount for deposit and transfer. This witness was crossexamined by defence counsel wherein it has stated that his father had issued cheque as security to the relative of accused No.1. He was aware of the loan borrowed by his father from the relatives of accused No.1. For the Court question, he answered that his father had borrowed Rs.15 to Rs.16 Lakhs amount in the year 201516. His father was doing moneylending business from the amount borrowed from the relatives of accused No.1 and he used to 183 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 lend the same to his relatives. The entire evidence of PW53 would goes to show that witness and his father both were employees of ASI, Srirangapatna and the accused No.1 was his superior officer. Further, Ahmed Pasha had constructed the separate houses for all his children in the year 201415 itself. When such being the case, where is the question of borrowing Rs.15 to Rs.16 Lakhs in the year 201516 for construction of house and transfer of amount in the year 201718. If really the witness and his father have borrowed the loan from the relatives of accused No.1, certainly there could be some documents, but there are no such documents produced by accused before the Court. Moreover, the witness has specifically stated that he had transferred the amounts as mentioned in the account statement at Ex.P.249(b) and his father had transferred the amount as per Ex.P.249(k) at the instructions of accused No.1. Further, it is very important to note 184 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 that when the witness do not know about the persons from whom they borrowed the amount and to whose account they had transferred the amount, it is not probable to believe the evidence of the witness that he borrowed the amount and towards discharge of the loan. It is clear that the accused gave amounts to transfer to the accounts of his relatives.
144. PW54 was working as Horticulture Assistant at Hyderabad and transferred to Bijapura. In his evidence has deposed that in the year 2017, he had transferred Rs.2.00 Lakhs to the account of Mariam Charenamei as per entry Ex.P.220(a) on the request of accused No.1. The accused No.1 had given the amount and account details of Mariam Charenamei to the witness for transfer. His father Kuppan.V had also transferred an amount of Rs.3.00 Lakhs to the account of Gopal Gonmei as per entry 185 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 Ex.P.280(a) at the instructions of accused No.1. He and his father both have not seen Gopal Gonmei and Mariam Charenamei and they do not know them. He identified account extracts marked at Exs.P.200 and 280. This witness was cross examined wherein it has elicited that transfer of amount on behalf of some other person is wrong and accused No.1 would arrange the loans for needy persons from his relatives. It has further suggested that he borrowed amount from accused No.1 for short period i.e., 2 to 3 months and later he repaid it. He has admitted the accused No.1 had borrowed the amount from his relatives and he financed the same. It has suggested that the witness father had borrowed the amount of Rs.3.00 Lakhs which was arranged by accused No.1 from his relatives and the same was repaid to the vendor. It is quite important to note that whatever answers elicited from the mouth of the witness favourable to the accused are 186 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 all made by suggestions. The witness suomoto has not given the answers. It is not the case of accused that he borrowed the amount from his relatives and financed the same. There are no documents to show in what manner and which mode he borrowed the amount from his relatives. At one stretch the accused has contended that he only arranged the loans and another stretch he himself borrowed the amount and financed to the needy. It is difficult to believe the version of accused. The witness specifically stated that he got transferred the amount at the instance of accused No.1. If the witness had borrowed the amount certainly he would have stated the details of lenders. Therefore, it crystal clear that accused No.1 gave amounts of Rs.2.00 Lakhs and Rs.3.00 Lakhs to the witness and his father for transfer the same to Mariam Charenamei and Gopal Gonmei through their accounts.
187 Spl.CC.No.278/2022
145. PW55 is the Cobrother of Ahmed Pasha who was employee of ASI, Srirangapatna. The evidence of this witness depicts about the transaction of Rs.1.00 Lakh each on 03/04/2018 and 04/04/2018 as per entries Exs.P.213(b) and 213(c). This witness had transferred the amount on two occasions which was given by his Cobrother Ahmed Pasha. He do not know the persons to whom he sent the amount nor he had borrowed the amount from them. In the crossexamination, has denied the suggestion that he signed the statement prepared by CBI. He pleaded ignorance with regard to the transaction between his relative Ahmed Pasha and Gopal Gonmei. In the crossexamination, nothing has been elicited to discredit his testimony. So, from the evidence of this witness, it is clear that Rs.2.00 Lakhs was transferred to Gopal Gonmei from the account of the witness as per the say of Ahmed Pasha who was the employee of ASI. It is to 188 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 be noted that when the witness no way connected to the accused and financiers, why he had transferred the amount to Gopal Gonmei. So, it can be inferred from the circumstances that accused No.1 gave the amount to Ahmed Basha and ask to transfer from his relatives.
146. The evidence of PW56 reveal that while he was working as gardener at ASI in Srirangapatna, in the year 2018, in total he had transferred Rs.3,50,000/ from the period 01/03/2018 to 09/03/2018. On three occasions he had transferred Rs.3,50,000/ as per the entries Exs.P.248(c) to 248(e). He do not know who is Gopal Gonmei nor he borrowed any amount from him. Even, he do not know who is accused No.1. During the cross examination by the defense counsel, has admitted that he had borrowed loan of Rs.3,50,000/ from PW.58Venugopala Reddy in the year 2018. He 189 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 pleaded ignorance how Venugopala Reddy arranged the loans. He has denied the statement given by him before the CBI. Hence, he was crossexamined by Ld. Sr.P.P. In the crossexamination, has admitted the statement given before the CBI. He had not given any cheque or executed any document to Venugopala Reddy towards cheque and he had not requested the amount from Venugopala Reddy. He paid interest at the rate of 1%p.a. The interest amount was not transferred to the account of Gopal Gonmei. The chief evidence of this witness supports the case of the prosecution and crossexamination supports the case of the defence. In the cross examination, only suggestions were made which contains the answers. So, the witness admits all the suggestions. However, the crossexamination made by prosecution establishes that he had not requested Venugopala Reddy to lend the amount and he transferred the amount of Rs.3,50,000/ to one 190 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 Gopal Gonmei as per the request of Venugopala Reddy. From this, it is proved that the amount was transferred only at the instance of Venugopal Reddy. So, it is correct to peruse the evidence of Venugopal reddy on whose instructions he gave the amount.
147. PW57 is the labourer in ASI, Srirangapatna. This witness had transferred the amount of Rs.50,000/ on 09/03/2018 and Rs.1.00 Lakh to the account of Gopal Gonmei as per entries Ex.P.248(h) and (j). This witness deposed that CW 40 Venugopala Reddy had given the amount to the witness for transferring the same to the account of Gopal Gonmei He do not know who is Gopal Gonmei to whom he had transferred the amount nor he had any transaction with him. He only acted as per the say of the VenuGopal Reddy. In his cross examination, has stated that whenever he was in financial difficulty, used to borrow the money from 191 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 Venugopala Reddy to the extent of Rs.5,000/ to Rs.10,000/. He has further depsoed that Venugopal Reddy used to help the gardeners who are in need of amount. He denied the suggestion of the defence counsel that Venugopala Reddy used to borrow the amount from the relatives of accused No.1 who in turn paid to the needy employees. He has further stated that in the year 2017, he borrowed Rs.1,50,000/ from Venugopala Reddy for short period of 3 months and returned the same. It was suggestion made to witness and not deposed independently. When the witness used to avail only Rs.5,000/ and Rs.10,000/, how far it is believable that he borrowed the amount of Rs.1,50,000/. It creates doubt about the suggestion made by the defense counsel. The evidence of this witness has also made clear that he got transferred the amount of Rs.1.00 Lakhs and Rs.50,000/ to the account of Gopal Gonmei as per the instructions of Venugopala 192 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 Reddy though he had not borrowed any amount. So, Venugopal Reddy is the proper person to say why he had paid the amount to the witness.
148. PW58 is the material witness to the case of the prosecution and so also defense. He is Venugopala Reddy who was working as Foreman at ASISrirangapatna. He has Bank account at Canara Bank, Srirangapatna. The evidence of this witness disclose that he had transferred Rs.2.00 Lakhs to the account of John Thangal, the brother of accused No.1 in the year 2015, Rs.2,50,000/ to the account of Ajinbou, Rs.1.00 Lakh in favour of Gopal Gonmei as per the entries Ex.P.249(q) and (r). He has specifically deposed that "said amount was given to him by A1 M.H.Thangal and he had also given me the account number". With respect to the transactions made to the account of Ajinbou, the witness had collected the amount from A1 Thangal 193 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 and transferred to the account numbers given by him. Likewise, accused No.1 provided Rs.1.00 Lakh on 16/06/2017 for transfer to the account of Gopal Gonmei. The above evidence manifests that accused No.1 had given the amount to the witness for transfer of same to the accounts of Gopal Gonmei and Ajinbou. Further, Vishwanath Reddy also got transferred the amount of Rs.1,50,000/ to the account of Gopal Gonmei and Rs.1,50,000/ to the account of Namjinpibou as per relevant entries Ex.P.282(a) and 282(b). The said amount was also given by A1 alongwith account numbers. He had collected the amount from A1 and handedover the same to his cousin Vishwanath Reddy for transfer. This witness has specifically deposed that he had no business transactions with John Thangal, Ajinbou and Gopal Gonmei and Namjinpibou . He received the amount from accused No.1 and given to PW.56 Govindaraju, PW.57Manjunath.V. This witness 194 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 requested PWs56 and 57 to transfer the amount to the accounts of aforesaid persons as per the instructions of accused No.1. The evidence of this witness is in consonance with the evidence of P.W.56 and 57. Thus, it is clear that P.W.58 had not borrowed any amount from the aforesaid financiers. In the crossexamination, it has suggested that accused No.1 used to help gardeners and other employees financially and used to make arrangement for loans to the persons. It is further suggested that John Thangal is brother and Ajinbou is the cousin of A1. It has suggested that the witness used to lend money without any business motto. He had borrowed Rs.1.00 Lakh from accused through Gopal Gonmei on 16/06/2017 and got repaired his house in the year 201718 and returned the said amount within one month. The witness in the chief examination has fully supported the case of prosecution and during cross 195 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 examination has admitted the suggestions of defense. Therefore, the Court posed a question, that why he had returned the amount through Vishwanath Reddy? The witness answered as he was not having money at that point of time, hence he requested Vishwanath Reddy to transfer the amount. PW56 repaid the amount through account transfer which he had borrowed. He denied the contention of the accused that he was directly dealing with the Gopal Gonmei and accused has no nexus with any account transfers. He has further stated that he had not borrowed any amount from John Thangal. The amount of Rs.2.00 Lakhs was lended by accused. He denied the statement Ex.P.283 given before IO. This witness had several transactions in his account, but he had not informed the same to his department. Importantly, the lenders Gopal Gonmei never sent any amount through account. The chief evidence clearly depcits that, accused No.1 had 196 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 given the amounts for transfer to the accounts of Gopal Gonmie, John Thangal and Ajinbou. This witness also given the amount to the witnesses PWs 56 and 57 for transfer to the accounts of aforesaid financiers. The entire evidence is scrutinized carefully, it establishes that accused had given the amount to the witness Venu Gopal Reddy to transfer the same to financiers who are his relatives. The witness PWs56 and 57 have clearly deposed that PW58 had given the amount to them for transfer. Accordingly, they got transferred the amount to the account of Gopal Gonmei. Therefore, there is no impediment to consider the evidence of P.W.58 that he and Vishwanath Reddy got transferred the amounts at the instructions of accused No.1.
149. PW59 is the relative of Ahmed Pasha who was working at ASI, Srirangapatna. As per the 197 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 request of Ahmed Pasha, he had transferred Rs.1.00 Lakh each on two occasions through his account to the account of Gopal Gonmei as per the entries at Exs.P.211(b) and 211(c). He has deposed that he had no business relationship with Gopal Gonmei nor had borrowed any loan from him. This witness was crossexamined, but nothing has been elicited to discard his evidence. The evidence of this witness would goes to show that amount of Rs.2.00 Lakhs was transferred on 03/04/2018 and 05/04/2018 as per the say of Ahmed Pasha.
150. PW60 was employee of ASI, Golgumbaz, Bijapura. As could be seen from the evidence of this witness, he got transferred the amount of Rs.2.00 Lakhs to the account of Mariam Charenamie on 08/05/2017 at Ex.P.215(a), Rs.2.00 Lakhs as per Ex.P.215(b), Rs.3.00 Lakhs, Rs.2.00 Lakhs, Rs.1.50 Lakhs to the account of Gopal Gonmei as per 198 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 Exs.P.215(c), (d), (f) respectively, Rs.3,40,000/ to the account of Namjinpibou on 09/02/2018 at Ex.P.215(e), Rs.1.00Lakh on 31/10/2018 at Ex.P.215(h) to the account of Gopal Gonmei. In total, he had transferred Rs.14,90,000/ to the account of Mariam Charenamie, Gopal Gonmei and Namjinpibou. He has specifically deposed in his chief examination that said amounts and account details of the beneficiaries was given by accused No.1. He don't know who are Gopal Gonmei, Mariam Charenamei and Namjinpibou. He had no business transactions with them. Importantly, during the course of crossexamination, has admitted the suggestions of the defence counsel that he had borrowed the amount towards construction of the house in the year 201516 and returned the amount which was borrowed by accused No.1 from others. He has further admitted the beneficiaries to whose accounts he got transferred the amount are all 199 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 relatives of accused. He specifically stated the entire amount of Rs.14,90,000/ was made towards repayment of loan. Since the witness deposed against his chief examination, has been subjected to crossexamination by Ld.Sr.P.P. In the cross examination, has deposed that he availed loan of Rs.15,00,000/ from Union Bank of India to purchase the house. He had purchased the house for Rs.32.00 Lakhs. He had not intimated to the department regarding purchase of the house, and availment of the loan. From this, it is clear that though he had not obtained loan from accused in the year 2016, has deposed false before the Court. He had not furnished any security such as cheque, or promissory note towards loan Rs.14,90,000/. He received GPF amount in the year 2017 to the extent of Rs.6,50,000/. He has admitted that Shashikumar Jadav, employee of ASI had transferred Rs.3.00 Lakhs to his account on 200 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 15/10/2018 and accused No.1 paid the amount of Rs.14,90,000/ to him in the office. Though, he was member of the Employees Cooperative Society at Bijapura, had not approached the society for loan. He had received retirement benefits to the extent of Rs.44 Lakhs. He has repaid the Bank loan in the year 2020 to the extent of Rs.15.00 Lakhs. It is important to state that the accused No.1 had not taken any security from P.W. 60 for lending such huge amount. Further, the witness did not have any business transactions with the beneficiaries to whose account the amount was transferred. Either, the witness seen the financiers or visited Manipur and Nagaland to meet them. It is not the defence of the accused that, he lent the amount to the witness to the extent of Rs.14,90,000/. Therefore, it is improbable to accept the story narrated by the witness that he borrowed the loan from A1 in his crossexamination. At first instance, the witness has 201 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 deposed according to the case of the prosecution. Moreover, either of parties i.e., accused and P.W.60 have intimated about the financial transactions to the department. Hence, the suggestions made by the defense creates doubt about the transactions.
151. PW61 is the Gardener of ASI, Bijapura. He had transferred Rs.2.00 Lakhs and Rs.3.00 Lakhs in the year 2018 to the account of Gopal Gonmei and Mariam Charenamei. His father had given the amount to transfer as per the directions of accused No.1. His father was also working as Gardener in ASI. He had not borrowed any amount from the aforesaid persons. He identified the account extract and relevant entries made at Exs.P.216(a), (b) and (c). This witness in the cross examination has stated that his father had borrowed the amount from the relatives of A1 and towards repayment of the said loan, his father had given the 202 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 amount to him for transfer. Therefore, the witness was crossexamined by Ld.P.P, wherein has deposed that he had not seen the accused No.1 when he received the amount from his relatives to lend the same to his father. He had no financial transaction with PW60 Shivappa Irasangappa Devaramani. The evidence of this witness is made clear that he got transferred the amount of Rs.2.00 Lakhs and Rs.3.00 Lakhs on two occasions to the account of Mariam Charenamei and Gopal Gonmei as per the request of A1.
152. PW63 is the Gardener at ASI, Srirangapatna. He got transferred Rs.3,50,000/ to the account of Mariam Charenamei. This witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and denied the statement given before the IO at Ex.P.292(a). In the crossexamination, has deposed that he borrowed amount from Mariam Charenamei in the 203 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 house of A1 in the month of September/October, 2015. He was unable the state the date and physical appearance of Mariam Charenamei. He had conversation with Mariam Charenamei in Kannada language. He do not know the home town of Mariam Charenamei. He had not intimated to the department with respect to availment of loan. It is to be noted that in the crossexamination by Ld. Defence counsel, the witness has deposed that he availed loan from A1 in the month of August, 2015. Prior to that, he had applied for loan at Kaveri Grameena Bank and since application was rejected, he approached the A1 for loan. Totally, he had repaid the amount of Rs.3,50,000/ with interest for a period of 7 months. He had availed loan from Grameena Bank at the time of registration of the house. He admitted that A1 used to arrange for loan for many employees and he had facilitated many persons financially. If that is the case, what 204 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 prevented A1 to produce the books of accounts for lending the amount to the employees by his relatives. If really witness borrowed the amount from Mariam Charenamei, certainly he would have deposed the physical appearance of Mariam Charenamei and also which language she speaks. The witness had not produced any document regarding purchase of house, loan application rejected by Kaveri Grameena Bank and he availed loan from Kaveri Grameena Bank and repaid to Charenamei. Therefore, it is not probable to believe the story of PW63 which was narrated in the cross examination. On the otherhand, it is clear that he got transferred the amount at the instance of accused No.1.
153. PW64 is the Foreman at ASI, Golkonda Fort, Hyderabad. He had transferred the amount of Rs.2.00 Lakhs to the account of Mariam Charenamei 205 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 in the year 2017. The amount was obtained from A
1. The A1 himself visited the Golkonda and paid the amount in cash for deposit and transfer. He has identified Ex.P.222(a), the entry made in his account regarding transfer of Rs.2,00,000/. In the cross examination has admitted the suggestions that, A1 arranged the amount through his relatives and transferred the amount towards repayment of the loan. Again this witness was crossexamined by Ld.Sr.P.P, wherein has stated that he had not seen Mariam Charenamei at any time and also not witnessed the incident that Mariam Charenamei paying the amount to accused No.1. He had not intimated the availment of loan of Rs.2.00 Lakhs from the relatives of accused No.1 to the department. The Court has observed and noticed that witness was stammering to reply to the questions of Ld.Sr.P.P. He had not produced any documents before the Court to show that his father was ill and 206 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 he required the amount in the year 2016. He had not mentioned the receipt of Rs.2.00 Lakhs in ITRs and also not intimated to his department. He was drawing the salary of Rs.20,000/ per month. As per Ex.P.222, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/ was credited to his account on 08/07/2017 and Rs.1,50,000/ as per the entry dated 03/04/2017 he had made deposit, the statement reflects deposits of Rs.1,50,000/ on 22/05/2017, 08/07/2017, 28/08/2017 and 15/10/2017. When such being the case, the witness was drawing an amount of Rs.20,000/ per month, he had not explained the FDs made in his account on several dates and also how he accumulated Rs.2,00,000/ to refund the same to Mariam Charenamei. Therefore, the story narrated by the defense during cross that accused No.1 had made arrangement for availment of loan from his relatives is not acceptable one. Furthermore, during the chief examination, the witness has specifically answered 207 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 to the questions posed by the prosecution, wherein has deposed that accused No.1 had given the amount for deposit and transfer. If really the witness had borrowed the amount from the relatives of accused No.1, certainly he would have stated the same in his chief examination. In the cross examination no questions were put to the witness by the Ld. Defence counsel. Only suggestions were made which includes answers and the same were admitted by the witness. Therefore, it is not probable to accept the story of the defence that the witness borrowed the amount and returned through account transactions.
154. PW65 has not supported the case of prosecution. Hence, he has been treated hostile. He denied the statement given before the IO as per Ex.P.293. He was working as Foreman at Bekal Fort, Kerala. He got transferred the amount of 208 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 Rs.1,75,000/ to the account of Mariam Charenamei in the year 2017 as per the instructions of accused No.1 and accused No.1 had given the amount for deposit and transfer. He has identified the relevant entry made on 01/08/2017 as per Ex.P.250(b). In the crossexamination, has admitted the suggestions made by the defense counsel that he availed loan from Mariam Charenamei and towards repayment of the amount, he made deposit of Rs.1,75,000/. Therefore, this witness was crossexamined. It is to be noted that in the crossexamination, he is unable to state the address of accused No.1 and he do not who is Mariam Charenamei and he never met Mariam Charenamei at any point of time. He had not intimated about borrowing the loan amount to the department. According to his evidence, he had borrowed the amount to put up fence to his land. If that is the case what prevented him to depose when he got fenced the land. But the witness was unable 209 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 to depose when he had fenced the land. Further, when he did not met Mariam Charenamei and not borrowed any amount from her, how can his evidence is believable that he borrowed amount from Mariam Charenamei and towards the same he made repayment. The chief examination and cross examination clearly establishes that A1 had paid Rs.1,75,000/ to the witness and who in turn deposited and transferred the amount to Mariam Charenamei.
155. PW66 was working as Gardener in ASI, at Lepakshi, Ananthpur. He had transferred Rs.6,50,000/ to Mariam Charenamei on two different dates i.e., 26/09/2018 and 08/09/2017 as per entries Ex.P.236(a) and 236(b). He had transferred the amount given by accused No.1and account details also furnished by him for transferring the said amount. As per the 210 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 instructions of accused, he had transferred the amount. In the crossexamination, it has suggested that on 15/09/2018 and 25/09/2018, he received Rs.1,50,000/ and Rs.2,80,000/ respectively from the account of Shashikumar Jadav, who in turn borrowed the amount from Mariam Charenamei on his behalf and he got transferred the same towards discharge of the said liability. He has denied that said amount was given by Prasath and not by accused No.1. Though the witness was cross examined at length, nothing has been elicited to disbelieve his evidence. The evidence of this witness which manifests that he got transferred the total amount of Rs.6,50,000/ to the account of Mariam Charenamei on two different dates as per the request and instructions of accused No.1.
156. PW67 is the labour at MTS, Bijapura. He had transferred Rs.4,50,000/ on 30/03/2016 to the 211 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 account of Mariam Charenamei as per the instructions of accused No.1. The accused had given the amount and account details for transfer. Accordingly, he got transferred the amount as per entries Exs.P.252(c) and 252(d). He had no money transaction with accused or his relatives. He don't know who is Mariam Charenamei. The accused had given cash at his Mysore office. In the cross examination, it has suggested that he had not declared the transfer of Rs.4,50,000/ in his Annual Returns submitted to the department. The witness had denied that he had borrowed loan from Mariam Charenamei and towards its repayment, he had transferred the same. The evidence of this witness also supports the case of the prosecution and substantiates the amount was transferred at the instance and instructions of accused No.1. 212 Spl.CC.No.278/2022
157. PW68 is important witness to the case of the prosecution. He is MTS Labour at Mysore. According to the evidence of this witness, accused No.1 was his superior officer. He had followed all the instructions of accused No.1. He used to withdraw the amounts and deposit the same as per his instructions. After encashing the cheques, he used to return the amount to accused. He had withdrawn the amounts of Rs.70,000/ on 06/03/2012, Rs.30,000/ on 17/03/2012, Rs.60,000/ on 09/04/2012, Rs.33,000/ on 28/08/2012, Rs.40,000/ on 07/09/2012, Rs.20,000/ on 16/10/2012, Rs.70,000/ on 15/01/2013, Rs.1,50,000/ on 24/01/2013, Rs.1,00,000/ on 14/02/2013, Rs.50,000/ on 29/05/2013, Rs.1,00,000/ on 27/07/2013, Rs.4,00,000/ on 31/07/2013, Rs.3,00,000/ on 08/08/2013, Rs.50,000/ on 16/09/2013, Rs.40,000/ on 17/10/2013, Rs.50,000/ on 21/10/2013 by 213 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 submitting cheques to the Banks at Exs.P.183(b) to 183(r). The crossexamination of the witness would goes to show that it was his duty to move the files from one section to another section and to attend Bank work pertaining to the office. The witness has admitted that cheques mentioned above were drawn as "yourself" for which accused No.1 has affixed his signature on the back side of the cheques. The witness has specifically deposed that whenever he was required to visit the Bank for official work, the accused No.1 used to request him for encashment of his personal cheques. The entire evidence of this witness is crystal clear that accused No.1 had withdrawn the aforesaid amounts by submitting cheques through the witness and all the cheques were self withdrawn. The total amount withdrawn was Rs.15,00,000/. The entire withdrawals were made during the year 201213. The accused has not denied the withdrawal of above amounts. So, it is 214 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 clear that the accused No.1 had withdrawn the amount of Rs.15.00 Lakhs from his account.
158. PW81 is the Mechanic in ASI, Lepakshi. He has deposed that accused No.1 was head of the division for South Region States. His brother Venkatesh is working in National Aerospace Laboratories, Bengaluru as Principal Scientist. As per the entry dated 21/07/2017, a sum of Rs.4.00 Lakhs was transferred to the account of Gopal Gonmei through his account by NEFT. Further, on 16/04/2016 a sum of Rs.3.00 Lakhs was transferred from his brother's account to Mariam Charenamei. On 21/01/2009 a sum of Rs.2.00 Lakhs was transferred to Gopal Gonmei from his brother's account. His father had also got transferred Rs.6,00,000/ to the account of Gopal Gonmei. This witness has denied the case of the prosecution. Hence, he has been treated as hostile. In the cross 215 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 examination by Ld. Sr.P.P, has deposed that he and his family members have borrowed Rs.6,00,000/ on interest at the rate of 2% per month and the said amount was returned in three installments. The said transactions were taken place in the house of accused No.1 and by that time Mariam Charenamei was present. According to his evidence, he borrowed the amount to meet the medical expenses of his parents. The father of PW81 was working in KEB as Mechanic and he was getting pension after his retirement. This witness has denied that Government official has medical reimbursement facility. Both the witness and his brother Venkatesh are Central Government Employees. P.W.81 has denied entitlement of medical reimbursement of their parent. The witness has admitted the statement given before the CBI that as per the instructions of accused No.1, he and his brother and father have transferred the amount to Gopal Gonmei and 216 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 Mariam Charenamei during the year 20162019. Interestingly, the witness has complained against the IO that he threatened him. If that is the case, why he had not complained before the competent authority about the threat made by CBI. First time, before the Court has deposed about the threat made by IO of this case. The witness and his brother being educated having knowledge that if any person threatens, action could be taken against such persons, but they have not taken any action. Moreover, the witness is educated official. He very well know the procedure. As per his instructions, Mariam Charenamei had paid the amount to his father. The said fact was not informed to his department or declared in Income Tax Returns. In the crossexamination by defence counsel, has admitted the suggestions that accused No.1 used to make financial arrangements through the above financiers to the needy staff. He further admitted 217 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 that himself, his brother and father have transferred the amounts towards the loan borrowed from the aforesaid financiers. If we carefully peruse the entire evidence of this witness, it would goes to show that he is not a illiterate ordinary person, he is Mechanic in ASI. Both the witness, his brother are Central Government employees. Inspite of free medical treatment available to the parents, the witness has denied the suggestion to the extent that he is not entitled for medical reimbursement for his parents. If really the IO of this case had threatened the witness to give statement, what prevented him to take action against him by informing to the department or to the CBI authority. First time before the Court he has deposed against the IO. He admitted the statement given before the IO, but has stated that same was given under threat. If really the witness and his family members have borrowed the amount to the extent of Rs.15.00 Lakhs, what 218 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 prevented them to inform the department and to mention in the Income Tax returns. The witness was unable to state when he borrowed the amount from Gopal Gonmei, his brother and father borrowed amount from Mariam Charenamei and Gopal Gonmei. Further the witness failed to disclose the details of the amount borrowed by his brother and father. So from this, it would goes to show that in order to help the accused No.1 has deposed against his statement. Thus, the evidence of the witness clearly goes to show that he and his family members got transferred Rs.15.00 Lakhs in favour of Gopal Gonmei and Mariam Charenamei as per the instructions of accused No.1.
159. PW82 is the Labour in ASI, Bijapura. He had transferred the amount of Rs.4.00 Lakhs to the account of Kawichamthui Charenamei as per the instructions of his father on 14/02/2018 at 219 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 Ex.P.242(a). His father had borrowed the loan from accused No.1. Thus, this witness was treated as hostile. In the crossexamination, has pleaded inability to state the date when his father had borrowed the loan from A1. He was further unable to state the denomination of Rs.4.00 Lakhs which was deposited by him. Initially he got deposited in his account and later transferred to Kawichamthui Charenamei. He pleaded ignorance that A1 had paid the amount to his father or not. He clearly deposed that his father, his sister and himself have no business transaction with Kawichamthui Charenamei. So from the evidence of this witness, it is clear that he deposited the amount to Kawichamthui Charenamei at the instructions of his father though he had no business transactions with her. In the crossexamination by defence counsel, had also denied that A1 had given cash to his father who in turn paid to him to make deposit. He further 220 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 pleaded ignorance that his father had borrowed the loan from Kawichamthui Charenamei. From the evidence of this witness, it is made clear that A1 had given the amount to the father of witness, who in turn paid to the witness and got transferred the same at Ex.P.242(a).
160. PW83 is the neighbour of Ahmed Pasha who was MTS Staff. His evidence disclose that he transferred the amount of Rs.1.00 Lakhs on 28/02/2018 as per the request of Ahmed Pasha. The said Ahmed Pasha gave the amount and account details for transfer the amount to the account of Gopal Gonmei. This witness was not cross examined by defence counsel. So, it is clear that from the account of PW83 a sum of Rs.1.00 Lakh was transferred to the account of Gopal Gonmei as per the say of Ahmed Pasha. Further, the defence has not elicited why the amount was given by Ahmed 221 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 Pasha to the witness who is no way connected to Gopal Gonmei. So, there is no impediment to accept the case of prosecution that Ahmed Pasha gave the amount to witness for deposit and transfer as per the instructions of accused No.1.
161. PW84 is the Gardener at ASI, Srirangapatna. He has not supported the case of prosecution. Hence, he has been treated as hostile. In the cross examination, has stated that he had borrowed Rs.4.00 Lakhs from accused No.1 on interest. The accused No.1 gave the cash of Rs.4.00 Lakhs to him. After one year, he repaid the said loan amount in three installments, totally he had paid Rs.5.00 Lakhs with interest at the rate of 2% per month. He has also borrowed handloan from Ramu and Balachandra to the extent of Rs.2.00 Lakhs each and the same was paid to accused No.1. He had transferred the amount to the account details 222 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 furnished by accused No.1. This witness had not informed to the department regarding availment of loan from accused No.1 and so also accused No.1 had not informed the department with regard to the loan lent to the witness. So from this it creates doubt that whether the witness had borrowed the amount from A1 or not. He identified the account extract of him and his brother at Exs.P.329(a) and 245(a). In the crossexamination by defence counsel, he has deposed that "I do not know that A1 made arrangements to who were in need of money from financiers. It is false to suggest that myself and my brother borrowed loan from Gopal Gonmei through the assistance of A1". So the defence of the accused was denied by the witness that through his brother Chandrakumar had taken loan from Gopal Gonmei through assistance of accused No.1. So from this, it is crystal clear that accused No.1 had given the amount to the witness to deposit and 223 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 transfer to the account of Gopal Gonmei. If really the witness and his brother have borrowed the amounts from accused No.1, certainly he would have admitted the defence of the accused. Therefore, it is not probable to accept the contention of the accused that witness had repaid the loan amount to Gopal Gonmei, the financier.
162. PW76 is the relative of accused persons. She deposed that during the year 201314, she had withdrawn the amounts nearly Rs.15.00 Lakhs from the account of accused No.2 and paid to Mariam Charenamei. She identified the account extract at Ex.P.270. This witness was not crossexamined by the accused counsel. So from this it is clear that there were money transfers from the account of accused No.2 and the same was paid to Mariam Charenamei. It is to be noted as per the loan agreements, the accused No.2 had not borrowed any 224 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 alleged loan from Mariam Charenamei. She borrowed the loans from Lois Panmei and Gopal Gonmei. When the accused No.2 had barrowed the hand loans from Gopal and Lois in the year 201415, how she made huge deposits in her account, in turn the same were withdrawn and paid to Mariam. The aspect also creates doubt about the loan transactions. Therefore, the withdrawal of amounts from the account of accused No.2 and paid to Mariam Charenamei creates doubt with regard to the said transfers. The accused No.2 had not explained the reason for withdrawals and payment to Mariam Charenamei. Therefore, there is no impediment to draw adverse inference against accused persons with regard to huge deposits and withdrawals from their accounts and transfer to the accounts of their relatives.
183. 225 Spl.CC.No.278/2022
163. The Ld. Defence counsel has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1976) S.C.C 233 in the case of Sri.Rabindra Kumar Dey V/s State of Orissa and argued that non examination of the material witnesses is fatal to the case of the prosecution and Court can draw adverse inference against the prosecution when the accused have explained the circumstances on preponderance of probabilities.
164. A careful reading of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that :
"(1) that the onus lies affirmatively on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and it cannot derive any benefit from weakness or falsity of the defence version while proving its case.
(2) that in a criminal trial the accused must be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved to be guilty; and (3) that the onus of the prosecution never shifts."
Also the Evidence Act does not contemplate that the accused should prove his case with the same strictness and rigour as the prosecution is required to prove a criminal charge. In fact, from the cardinal principles referred to above, 226 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 it follow that it is sufficient if the accused is able to prove his case by the standard of preponderance of probabilities as envisaged by Section 5 of the Evidence Act as a result of which he succeeds not because he proves his case to the hilt but because probability of the version given by him throw doubt on the prosecution side."
The Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with various aspects relating to hostility of witness and adverse inference under Sec.114(g) of Indian Evidence Act in the judgment. As per the cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence, the onus lies affirmatively on prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
165. The Ld. Sr.P.P has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Govindaraju @ Govinda V/s State by Srirampuram P.S and another dated 15/03/2012 and argued that though the witness turned hostile, the entire evidence cannot be eschewed and the crossexamination can be looked into.
227 Spl.CC.No.278/2022
166. A careful reading of the aforesaid decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in para No.20 of its judgment that :
"It is also not always necessary that wherever the witness turned hostile, the prosecution case must fail. Firstly, the part of the statement of such hostile witnesses that supports the case of the prosecution can always be taken into consideration. Secondly, where the sole witness is any eyewitness who can give a graphic account of the events which he had witnessed, with some precision cogently and if such a statement is corroborated by other evidence, documentary or otherwise, then such statement in face of the hostile witness can still be a ground for holding the accused guilty of the crime that was committed. The Court has to act with greater caution and accept such evidence with greater degree of care in order to ensure that justice alone is done. The evidence so considered should unequivocally point towards the guilt of the accused."
167. In another decision Muthuraman V/s State of Madras dated 17/06/2020, the Hon'ble High Court has held in para No.18 of the judgment that :
"It is needless to say that as per Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the initial burden to bring home the 228 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 charge of criminal misconduct thereunder would be indisputably on the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt, once the prosecution established the charges levelled against the public servant, it is for the accused to rebut the presumption under Section 20 of the Act and onus is on the public servant to account for and satisfactorily explain the assets, if he fails to satisfactorily account of the same, he would liable to be held guilty of such offence."
168. At this stage, this Court would like to refer the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1964) 7 SCR 361 (Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar V/s State of Gujarat) wherein it has held that :
"A clever witness in his examinationinchief faithfully conforms to what he stated earlier to the police or in the committing court, but in the crossexamination introduces statements in a subtle way contradicting in effect what he stated in the examinationinchief. If his design is obvious, we do not see why the court cannot, during the course of his cross examination, permit the person calling him as a witness to put questions to him which might be put in cross examination by the adverse party. To confine the operation of Section 154 of the Evidence Act to a particular stage in the examination of a witness is to read words in the section which are not there. We cannot also agree with the High Court that if a party calling a witness is permitted to 229 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 put such questions to the witness after he has been crossexamined by the adverse party, the adverse party will not have any opportunity to further crossexamine the witness on the answers elicited by putting such questions. In such an event the court certainly, in exercise of its discretion, will permit the adverse party to crossexamine the witness on the answers elicited by such questions. The court, therefore, can permit a person, who calls a witness, to put questions to him which might be put in the crossexamination at any stage of the examination of the witness, provided it takes care to give an opportunity to the accused to cross examine him on the answers elicited which do not find place in the examinationin chief".
169. In the latest judgment reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1029 (Neeraj Dutta vs State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) Constitution Bench in the judgment dated 15.12.2022 has considered several aspects with regard to admissibility of evidence of hostile witness, with regard to appreciation of circumstantial evidence in prevention of corruption case and other things. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:
230 Spl.CC.No.278/2022
"normally a hearsay witness would be inadmissible, but when it is corroborated by substantive evidence of other witnesses, it would be admissible". It has further held that"evidence that does not establish the fact in issue directly but throws light on the circumstances in which the fact in issue did not occur is circumstantial evidence (also called inferential or presumptive evidence). Circumstantial evidence means facts from which another fact is inferred. Although circumstantial evidence does not go to prove directly the fact in issue, it is equally direct.
Circumstantial evidence has also to be proved by direct evidence of the circumstances".
In para No.46 it has further held that:
"Courts are authorized to draw a particular inference from a particular fact, unless and until the truth of such inference is disproved by other facts. The court can, under Section 4 of the Evidence Act, raise a presumption for purposes of a fact. It is well settled that the presumption is not in itself evidence but only makes a primafacie case for a party for whose benefit it exists".
In para No.67 it has held as follows:
"This Court cautioned that even if a witness is treated as "hostile" and is crossexamined, his evidence cannot be written off altogether but must be considered with due care and circumspection and that part of the testimony which is credit 231 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 worthy must be considered and acted upon. It is for the judge as a matter of prudence to consider the extent of evidence which is creditworthy for the purpose of proof of the case. In other words, the fact that a witness has been declared "hostile" does not result in an automatic rejection of his evidence.
Even, the evidence of a "hostile witness" if it finds corroboration from the facts of the case may be taken into account while judging the guilt of the accused. Thus, there is no legal bar to raise a conviction upon a "hostile witness"
testimony if corroborated by other reliable evidence.
In para No.71 it has held that :
"we hope and trust that the complainants as well as the prosecution makes sincere efforts to ensure that the corrupt public servants are brought to book and convicted so that the administration and governance becomes unpolluted and free from corruption. Corruption is corroding, like cancerous lymph nodes, the vital veins of the body politic, social fabric of efficiency in the public service and demoralising the honest officers. The efficiency in public service would improve only when the public servant devotes his sincere attention and does the duty diligently, truthfully, honestly and devotes himself assiduously to the performance of the duties of his post. The reputation of corruption would gather thick and unchaseable clouds around the conduct of the officer and gain notoriety much faster than the smoke" .232 Spl.CC.No.278/2022
170. In view of the principles of law held in the above decisions, a party will not normally be allowed to crossexamine its own witness to declare the same hostile, unless the Court is satisfied that the statement of the witness exhibits an element of hostility or that he has resiled from a material statement which he made before an earlier authority. Further, mere fact that a witness is declared hostile by the party calling him and allowed to be cross examined does not make him an unreliable witness so as to exclude his evidence from consideration altogether. So, as per the decision relied by the defence counsel itself, if the witness turn hostile, their evidence cannot be discarded or differentiated in toto. The part of the statement of such hostile witnesses that supports the case of the prosecution can always be taken into consideration . The Court has to act with greater caution and accept such evidence with greater degree of care in order to 233 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 ensure that justice alone is done. Further, the Court must however distinguish between the statement made by a witness by way of an unfriendly act and one which lets out the truth without any hostile intention. Hence, burden on the court to scan and weigh the circumstances properly and should not exercise its discretion in a casual or routine manner. The matter will largely depend in the facts and circumstances of each case and on the satisfaction of the Court on the basis of those circumstances.
171. By keeping in mind the above principles of law held in the decisions, if the entire evidence of staff of MTS, ASI, relatives and friends of the staff is scrutinized with care and caution, it clearly establishes that accused No.1 being the superior officer in ASI, had given the amounts and account details to the staff, their family members, and friends to deposit in their respective accounts and 234 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 transfer the amounts to the accounts of his relatives. Though some of the witnesses i.e., P.w37, 53,56,58,61,63,65,81,84, have denied the staments given before the IO, but during the course of cross examination, the Ld.Sr.P.P has succeeded in eliciting the material evidence from the mouth of witnesses. Among the said witnesses most of them have admitted that the accused No.1 gave the amount and account details for transfer to the accounts of his relatives. Only in the cross, they have admitted the suggestion of the defense. In the crossexamination by the Ld.Sr.P.P, the witnesses have failed to state the details of the loans availed by them with regard to the date, amount, interest, name of the financiers etc. As discussed above, the Ld. Defence counsel has not put any question to the witnesses except the suggestions which suggests the answers. Even some of the witnesses have denied the defence of the accused that accused No.1 facilitated the staff to 235 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 avail loans from his relatives. Therefore, there is no hindrance for the court to accept the statements given by the witnesses in their chief examination. The question is when the accused being the GradeA Officer had involved in such transactions. The witnesses are not from one State, they are all from State of Karnataka Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Tamil Nadu. In some of the cases, the witnesses have deposed that the accused No.1 himself lent the amount to them on interest. If that is the case, neither the accused nor the witnesses have intimated about the transactions to the department. Interestingly, all the above transactions were made through accounts while depositing and transfer. But at the time of availing the loans by the aforementioned staff, there were no any such account transfers or any documents obtained towards security of loans. All transactions were made in cash while availing the loans. A doubt also 236 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 arise about the defence of the accused that how the financiers funded the staff, whether they came to the places where the staff were working? Admittedly, none of the staff went to Imphal or Manippur to borrow the amounts. How the accused No.1 made arrangements to the staff for finance through his relatives? What prevented the financiers to pay the amounts through account transfers while lending? All these factors remains doubtful. Importantly, the said relatives of accused No.1 are not residents of Karnataka but all are residents of Manipur State which is far away from Mysore. It is the not the case of the witnesses who turned hostile that financiers came to Mysore and lend the amount to them or else they had been to Manipur to borrow the amount from financiers. Here the entire Rs.1,15,00,000/, and Rs.89,55,000/ got transferred to the accounts of accused relatives by MTS staff and vice a versa, the amounts transferred to the accused and their 237 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 family members. So, it creates doubt that accused No.1 made arrangements to the staff to avail loans from his relatives. Further, the evidence of other witnesses P.W.51,52,55,57,58,59,60,64,66,67,68,83, clearly substantiates the case of the prosecution that accused No.1 himself had given amounts to his staff to deposit in their accounts and transfer to the accounts of his relatives. It further reveals that the amounts of Rs.1,15,85,000/ were transferred to the accounts of Smt.Mariam Charenamei and her husband P.Rocky Rangtiana and Rs.89,55,000/ was received by Gopal Gonmei, who are relatives of accused directly and indirectly from accused No.1, his family members and ASI Staff. Further, Rs.2.00 Lakhs was received by M.John Thangal, the brother of accused No.1 from Venugopal Reddy as per Ex.P.249(p) and also Rs.2,50,000/ was received by Ajinbou Abonmei from Venugopal Reddy as per Ex.P.249(q).
238 Spl.CC.No.278/2022
172. It is to be noted that from the above evidence of the witnesses, it is evident that the MTS Staff, their friends and respective fathers have not seen any of the financiers except PWs81 and 58. In regard to money transactions there were no loan agreements executed in favour of financiers, but the accused have taken loan agreements from the financiers for having received the loans as per Exs.P.348, 312, 296 and Ex.P.326 Mortgage Deed. This aspect creates suspicion with regard to the transactions held between the MTS Staff and relatives of accused No.1 and his family members. The lenders have also not examined in the case to substantiate the defence of the accused that he had only facilitated the ASI staff to avail the loans. Further, the amount which was transferred to accused relatives, in turn the amount was transferred to the accounts of accused and his family members on subsequent dates. It clearly 239 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 manifests the intention of accused Nos.1 and 2 that they have made the above transactions illegally to enrich themselves and in order to escape from clutches of law in future. The accused No.1 is not a ordinary person, he was heading seven states. That such being the case, being public servant leading public life is expected to maintain very high standards of probity and must perform his duties in a spirit of public service rather than by assuming power to indulge in callous cupidity regardless of self imposed discipline.
173. In the case on hand, the accused gave consent to mark the documents Exs.P.199 to 205, 219 to 275, 337 to 345. The said documents are all account extracts of accused No.2, Mariam Charenamei,Prasat, vouchers, cheques, purchased bills. The transactions held in the accounts of accused No.2 maintained with Karnataka Bank, 240 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 Canara Bank and other banks are not disputed by the accused. On 04/10/2018 the accused No.2 had issued cheque in favour of Kawichamthui Charenamei for Rs.28,90,000/ and cheque in favour of Mary Panmei for Rs.4,20,000/ on 16/01/2013. The accused No.2 had not explained the reason towards which aspect the said cheques were issued. This fact also creates suspicion about the said transactions.
174. The Ld. Defence counsel has argued that the IO has not assigned reasons for not accepting the additional income as produced by the accused during the investigation and also not assigned reasons for rejecting the contention of the accused with regard to Sl.Nos.29, 30, 42 and 43 expenditures shown in the StatementD. First time, in his re examination had explained the reasons, which is not permissible under law. There is glaring error in 241 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 the expenditure StatementD of the charge sheet. The IO had shown the expenditure exorbitantly for which there is no explanation. The prosecution has filed the charge sheet on assumptions and surmises.
175. At this juncture, the Court has inclined to refer the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in 1999(8) S.C.C 649 in the case of Rammi Alias Rameshwar V/s State of M.P, wherein it has held that :
"C.Evidence Act, 1872S.138 Reexamination of witness Not confined to clarification of ambiguities arising in crossexamination New matter can be elicited with the permission of the CourtCourt must be liberal in granting such permission Any number of questions can be asked in reexamination."
The Hon'ble Apex Court has discussed in detail about the object of reexamination under Sec.138 of Evidence Act and held that the very purpose of re examination is to explain the matters which have been brought down in the crossexamination. If the 242 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 party who called the witness feels that explanation is required for any matter referred to in cross examination, he has the liberty to put any question in reexamination to get the explanation.
176. In the case on hand, PW87the IO has examined in chief and also subjected for cross examination, he answered all the questions posed by Ld. Defence counsel. After crossexamination, the Ld.Sr.P.P sought for permission to reexamine the witness with reference to crossexamination relating to the explanation not given by the witness in the chief evidence. The witness reexamined with the permission of the court, wherein has clearly stated the reasons for rejection of claim of the accused with regard to computation made in respect of assets, exclusion of additional income and expenditure. It is pertinent to note that though the charge sheet does not specifically disclose the reasons assigned 243 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 by the IO for not considering the income and assets claimed by the accused, however in StatementsA to D has specifically narrated the details for which he has considered and rejected. Therefore, the arguments canvassed by the Ld. Defence counsel is not acceptable.
177. On careful analysis of the oral and documentary evidence placed by both the prosecution and accused persons, the Court has reached to the conclusion that total expenditure incurred during the check period by the accused and their family members on various heads including their household expenditure was at Rs.4,42,75,097/. Therefore, the amount of Rs.4,43,75,097/ is considered as expenditure of the accused and their family during check period.
178. The Ld. Defence counsel has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in 244 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 Crl.A.Nos.1452 1453 of 2022 in case of State through Deputy Superintendent of Police V/s R.SundiraRasu with regard to known source of income as mentioned in the provision 13(1)(b) of the P.C Act, 1988 (unamended).
179. The Ld. Sr.P.P has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2004 (1) S.C.C 691 in case of State of Madhya Pradesh V/s Awadh Kishore Gupta and Others.
180. Now, it is apposite to reproduce the Sec.13(1)(b) of P.C.Act (as amended in 2018) which reads as follows:
Sec.13(1) of P.C Act reads thus :
Sec.13.Criminal misconduct by a public servant: "(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,
(a) xxxxxx
(b) if he intentionally enriches himself illicitly during the period of his office.245 Spl.CC.No.278/2022
Explanation 1.A person shall be presumed to have intentionally enriched himself illicitly if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession of or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account for.
Explanation 2.The expression ''known sources of income'' means income received from any lawful sources.
(2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than [four years] but which may extend to [ten years] and shall also be liable to fine.
181. As argued by the Ld. Defence counsel, the explanation to Sec.13(1)(e) of the P.C Act, 1988 was not there in P.C Act, 1947. The Sec.13(1)(e) of the Explanation forms two parts, the first part states that the known source of income means, the income received from any lawful source and the 2nd part states that such receipt should have been intimated by the public servant in accordance with the 246 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 provisions of law, rules and orders for the time being applicable to a public servant. Now as amended in 2018, the 2nd part of the explanation was not there. Earlier, before amendment, the public servant ought have intimate the department about his sources of income to consider as known sources of income as explained in the provision. Now, after amendment, known sources of income does not include the 2 nd part. Though, the income not intimated to the department can be considered, if it is satisfactorily explained.
182. It is to be noted that the expression given in ExplanationII to the known source of income is the income from any lawful source. The essential character of the income in receipt in the hand of accused is every receipt which is from lawful source. As held in Wasudheo Rama Chandra Kaidalvar known source of income has a legal cononation, 247 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 which in the context must mean the sources known to the prosecution and not the sources relied upon and known to the accused.
183. In the judgment reported in AIR 2005 SC 1406 in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd., V/s Suresh Berry the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, the onus is on the accused to prove that the assets were not disproportionate to the known source of income. The assets were acquired and from what source of income is within the special knowledge of the accused. In the criminal case, the accused has to prove the source of acquisition and he has to satisfactorily account for the same. In the case on hand the accused have failed to prove the sources of their income by the standard of proof by preponderance of probability.
248 Spl.CC.No.278/2022
184. the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1974(4) SCC 154 in Rameshwar Prasad Upadhayaya v/s State of Bihar, has held that :
"Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (2 of 1947)Section 5(3)Burden of proof Accused found in possession of properties and and pecuniary resources disproportionate to the known sources of his incomeburden on the accused to account satisfactorily the acquisition of properties and pecuniary sources held by him."
It has been held that the burden lies on the accused to account satisfactorily the acquisition of properties under pecuniary sources held by him. The expression 'satisfactorily account' emphasized by the legislation is that the burden on the accused not only to offer plausible explanation as to how he came by his large wealth, but also to satisfy the Court that his explanation was worthy of acceptance. The source of income of a particular individual will depend upon his position in life with 249 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 particular reference to his occupation or avocation in life.
185. In the case of a Government servant, the prosecution would naturally infer that his known source of income would be the salary earned by him during his active service. If the prosecution has failed to disclose all the sources of income of an accused person, it is always open to him to prove those other sources of income which have not been taken into account or brought into evidence by the prosecution.
186. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Veeraswamy case has held that:
"Statutory evidence which must be proved by the prosecution, it is for the prosecution to prove that the accused or any person on his behalf has been in possession of pecuniary resource or property disproportionate to his known source of income. When that onus is discharged by the prosecution, it is for the accused to account 250 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 satisfactorily for the disproportionate of the properties possessed by him."
In view of the said decision, while considering the commission of an offence under section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, it is relevant to note that the initial burden to prove that either the accused or any member of his family during the check period has been in possession of the property disproportionate to his known source of income, lies on the prosecution. If the initial burden is not discharged by the prosecution, the onus does not shift to the accused to offer his explanation as to how he could acquire either directly or through some other members of his family possession of the property disproportionate to the known source of income.
187. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the accused No.1 had illegally amassed the wealth in 251 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 his name and in the name of his wife the accused No.2 during the check period. The prosecution has discharged its initial burden of proof by foundational facts and proved that the accused No.1 has acquired pecuniary sources and properties in his name and in the name of his family members.
188. The prosecution has also alleged that accused No.2 abetted the accused No.1 to acquire the pecuniary sources and properties and involved in many of the cash transactions. On the otherhand, the accused have admitted the transactions held in the accounts of accused No.2. She has not offered any explanation with regard to huge value transactions made in her accounts. At this stage, it is apposite to refer Section 12 of the P.C Act and as per the said provision whoever abets any offence punishable under this Act, whether or not that 252 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 offense is committed in consequence of that abetment shall liable for punishment.
189. In the case on hand, the accused No.2 has engaged herself with the accused No.1 and intentionally aided him to acquire the pecuniary sources and properties in her name and thereby she is guilty of the offence of abetment.
190. In this regard, the learned Public Prosecutor has relied on the judgment reported in 1999(6) S.C.C 559 in P.Nallammal and Another V/s State Rep. By Inspector of Police. In the said case in para No.10, it has held that :
" Thus, clause (b) of the subsection encompasses the offences committed in conspiracy with others or by abetment of "any of the offences" punishable under the PC Act. If such conspiracy or abetment of "any of the offences" punishable under the PC Acct can be tried "only" by the Special Judge, it is inconceivable that the bettor or the conspirator cane be delinked from the delinquent public servant for the purpose of trial of the offence. If a nonpublic servant is also a member of the criminal conspiracy for a public servant to commit any offence under the PC Act, or if such non public servant has abetted any of the offences 253 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 which the public servant commits, such non public servant is also liable to be tried along with the public servant before the Court of a Special Judge having jurisdiction in the matter."
191. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.Krishnareddy case at para6, it has held that Section 13 (1)(e) it is not mere acquisition of the property constitutes an offence but it is the failure to satisfactorily account for such possession that makes the possession objectionable as offending the law.
192. The Ld. Defence counsel has argued that the accused are exempted in paying income tax under Sec.10(26) of the Income Tax Act. In this regard, the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Gauhati in W.P.(C) No.4089/13 in the case of Sri.Harakantha Pegu and Others V/s Union of India and others is relied by the accused. The Hon'ble High Court has held that under Sec.10(26) of the IT 254 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 Act, the persons hails from the areas identified by the Government of India, are exempted from paying tax. Admittedly the accused persons hails from the State of Manipur i.e., northeastern area. As per Sec.10(26) of the Income Tax Act, a member of schedule tribe hails from northeastern area is exempted from Income Tax. In this regard, the Court has no other opinion certainly if the accused derived any income from Manipur State, certainly they are exempted from paying tax. The accused No.1 worked as Superintendent in Karnataka for 7 States. The salary income derived by accused is subjected to income tax. In the case on hand, there is no issue of paying tax or any difference in deduction in income tax. Therefore, the said decision will no way enure the benefit of accused.
193. In this case, the prosecution has established its case through oral and documentary evidence 255 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 beyond reasonable doubt that during the check period, the accused were in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income. On the other hand, the accused have not proved the income derived from mortgage, hand loans, salary of their daughter, income from cultivable land in the manner known to law by acceptable evidence except beyond the bare statements of accused. As per the explanation, the accused No.1 has to explain the known source of income by leading cogent evidence otherwise as per explanation the accused person shall be presumed to be guilty of criminal misconduct in discharge of his official duties unless the contrary is proved.
194. The accused have filed two statements i.e., best case and worst case scenario. The Ld. Defence counsel has argued that in the best case of scenario the accused have excess income of Rs.23,38,742/ 256 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 over and above their assets. So, there is no disproportionate assets. In the worst case of scenario the accused have excess asset of Rs.94,085/ which comes only 0.76% and as per decision of Krishnanand Agnihotry's case, there is protection to the public servants whose assets comes below 10%, there can be no conviction. According to the case of the prosecution, the accused possessed amassed assets to the extent of Rs.3,18,05,747/ disproportionate to the known source of income to the extent of 101% as per the evidence placed before the Court. The contention of the accused cannot taken into consideration on both best and worst scenario cases as they failed to prove the sources of additional incomes as discussed above and also failed to prove that they are no way connected to the third party transactions as mentioned in the Sl.Nos.29,30,42 and 43 of StatementD. The Court has discussed the disputed items of all statements in 257 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 detail and come to the conclusion with regard to the assets acquired, income derived and expenditure during the check period which is mentioned below.
195. From the above facts, reasons, and on proper appreciation of the evidence this Court arrived to the conclusion that the assets, expenditure, income and the disproportionate assets of the accused is calculated as under :
Sl.No. Heads Amount
I Assets at the beginning of Rs.61,63, 519/
check period
II Assets at the end of check Rs.2,29,81,652/
period
III Assets acquired during the Rs.1,68,18,133/
check period (III)
IV Expenses incurred during Rs.4,42,75,097/
the check period
V Total assets and expenditure Rs.6,10,93,230/
(III+ IV)
VI Income earned during the Rs.2,98,87,483/
check period
VII Assets disproportionate Rs.3,12,05,747/
(VVI)
Disproportionate assets in percentage Rs.3,12,05,747/ 258 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 _________________X 100 = 104% Rs.2,98,87,483/ Therefore, from the available evidence on record it is clear that the prosecution has proved that the accused No.1 had excess asset of Rs.3,12,05,747/ to the extent of 104%. The prosecution further proved beyond doubt that the accused No.1 and 2 have amassed wealth disproportionate to the known source of income of the accused No.1. The accused No.2 has abetted the accused No.1 to acquire the disproportionate properties.
196. In Krishnanada Agnihotry case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Gurumallappa case held that if the excess surplus assets of the accused is less than 10% and if it is comparatively small do not justify the prosecution. In the case on hand from the proved facts the disproportionate income of the 259 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 accused is exceeding 10%. Hence, I answer Point Nos.2 and 3 in the Affirmative.
197. POINT NO.4 : In view of the above discussion, reasoning and hearing arguments on both the sides, the Court has come to the conclusion that prosecution has succeeded in proving guilt of accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 13(2) R/w Sections 13(1)(b) and 12 of P.C Act beyond reasonable doubt by placing cogent, corroborative and convincing evidence. Hence, I pass the following :
ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 is convicted for the offences punishable under Section 13(2) r/w Sec.13(1)(b) of PC Act, 1988.
Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.2 is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 12 of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.260 Spl.CC.No.278/2022
The earlier bail bond and surety bond executed by accused Nos.1 and 2 and their sureties are hereby stands discharged.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court this the 21st day of April, 2023.) ( E.CHANDRAKALA ) C/c XLVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru.
ORDER ON SENTENCE The judgment is pronounced by finding the offender No.1 is guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 13(2) R/w Sec.13(1)(b) and the offender No.2 is guilty of the offence punishable under Sec.12 of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Heard the learned Sri. B.S Advocate appearing on behalf of the offenders and the learned Sr.Public Prosecutor on the quantum of sentence to be imposed to the offenders. The learned Sr.Public 261 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 Prosecutor has submitted to pass the maximum sentence of imprisonment as prescribed under the Act.
3. The learned counsel has submitted that both the offenders are senior citizens, aged. The offender No.1 is a woman and suffering from ill health. They have no antecedents and any blemish record in the service. There are no materials to indicate the alleged enrichment of accused.
Therefore, prayed to impose minimum punishment prescribed for the offenses.
4. The Ld. Sr.P.P has submitted that offenses against the accused are proved beyond reasonable doubt. The acts committed by the accused though not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, but the same has to be construed seriously since it is economic offense which bleeds economy of the country and the same requires to be considered 262 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 stringently and no lenient view can be taken. Thus, prays for imposing maximum imprisonment as contemplated under law. She has relied on three decisions.
5. Having heard both the sides, the point that requires to be considered is what would be the appropriate sentence that can be imposed upon the accused by considering the mitigating and aggravating factors. The aggravating circumstances are, that the offender No.1 was a Superintending of Horticulturist, ASI, Mysore, heading seven states. The offender while discharging his duties enriched himself in a well planned manner of acquiring pecuniary sources, properties by doing third party transactions through ASI staff and his relatives. The conduct of offender Nos.1 and 2 clearly proved that they have amassed assets to the tune of Rs.3,12,05,747/ disproportionate to known source 263 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 of income. The accused have intentionally manipulated the documents to take advantage of law. The offender No.2 had abetted her husband in committing the offense. The mitigating circumstances are that the offenders are not habitual, have no antecedents and aged one.
6. As held in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2004 SC 2317 in the case of N.Bhargavan Pillai V/s State of Kerala and in 2006 AIR SCW 5267 (The State V/s A.Parthiban), the provisions of The Probation of Offenders Act to the cases covered under The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is not applicable.
7. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, with particular reference to the nature and conduct of the offenders in committing the offence, the quantum of sentence to be imposed has to be determined. The offenders have invited the risk 264 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 to themselves and now they cannot plead for leniency in the sentence to be imposed against them. The Offender No.2 has abetted her husband to commit the offence and thereby she is found guilty of abetment.
8. In this regard, it is necessary to refer few judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court to ascertain the principles to be followed while passing sentence of imprisonment in cases involving the corruption. In AIR 2013 SC 1682 in the case of Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal case, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the gravity of offence under the The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is not to be judged on the quantum of bribe, as corruption is not to be justified in degree.
9. In the judgment reported in 2020 S.C.C OnLine 412 in the case of State of Gujarath V/s Mansukhbhai Kanjibhaibai Shah, the Hon'ble Apex 265 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 Court held corruption is the malignant manifestation of a malady menacing the morality of men. There is common perception that corruption in India has spread to all corners of public life and is currently choking the constitutional aspirations enshrined in the premable.
10. In the judgment reported in (2006) 8 S.C.C 693 (State of M.P V/s Shambhu Dayal Nagar), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while responding to the plea for a lenient view for a charge of corruption expressed its concern against rampant venality by public servant and observed that the public service would improve only when the public servant devotes his sincere attention and does the duty diligently, truthfully, honestly and devotes himself assiduously to the performance of the duties of his post.
11. In the judgment reported in (2000) 8 S.C.C 571 in the case between Madhukar Bahskarro Joshi 266 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 v/s State of Maharashtra at Para No.18, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed :
"When corruption was sought to be eliminated from the polity all possible stringent measures are to be adopted within bounds of law. One such measure is to prove condign punishment. Parliament measured the parameters for such condign punishment and in that process wanted to fix a minimum sentence of imprisonment for giving deterrent impact on other public servants who are prone to corrupt deals. That was precisely the reason why the sentence was fixed as 7 years and directed that even if the said period of imprisonment need not be given, the sentence shall not be less than the minimum prescribed under the Act. Such a legislative insistence is reflection of parliament's resolve to meet corruption cases with a very strong hand and to give signals of deterrence as the most pivotal feature of sentencing of corrupt public servants. All public servants were warned through such a legislative measure that corrupt public servants have to face very serious consequences."
12. In the decision reported in AIR 2015 S.C 2678 in the case of Shanthilal Meena V/s State of NCT Delhi, the Hon'ble Supreme Court exhaustively dealt with penological philosophy behind sentencing and held that the punishment for the offences under the The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 there is 267 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 any scope for reforming the convicted public servant. Unless the Courts awards appropriately deterrent punishment taking note of the nature of the offence and the status of the offender, people lost faith in justice delivery system and very object of the legislation will be defeated. The Court has thus a duty to protect and promote public interest and build up public confidence. Misplaced sympathy or unwarranted leniency will send a wrong signal to the public giving room to suspect the institutional integrity affecting the credibility of its verdict.
13. In the Judgment reported in 1997 (4) SCC14 in the case of Swatnatar Singh Vs State of Haryana the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that corruption is corroding like cancerous lymph nodes, the vital veins of the body politics, social fabric of efficiency in the public service and demorlising the honest officers. The efficiency in public service 268 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 would improve only when the public servant devotes his sincere attention and does the duty diligently, truthfully, honestly and devotes himself assiduously to the performance of the duties of his post.
14. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of B.Subbaiah vs State of Karnataka in Crl. A.No.350/1985, it has observed that :
" Therefore, the gravity of the offense committed by a public servant is directly proportional to the higher position he holds in hierarchy of administration. Any leniency in this behalf and misplaced sympathy would prove disastrous to the entire social life".
Therefore, in view of the above legal position, this Court should bear in mind the expectation of the people to prevent corruption while discharging public duties by providing prompt conviction and stern sentence.
15. The offender No.1 was working as the Superintending of Horticulturist, Archeological 269 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 Survey of India, heading seven States. He was holding higher position in hierarchy of administration. While deciding the quantum of sentence, the aspect to be considered is the manner in which the assets are acquired by the accused.
16. The offence was committed during the check period from 01012012 to 14082019. Therefore, Amended Act, 2018 is applicable to the present case. The offense under Section 13(1)(b) of the The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is punishable under Sec.13(2) of the Act. The punishment prescribed for the offense is imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than four years but which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine. The punishment prescribed for the offense under Sec.12 of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is imprisonment for a term shall not be less than three years which 270 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
17. As per section 16 of the P.C. Act where a sentence of fine is to be imposed under subsection (2) of Section 13 the court shall take into consideration the pecuniary resources or property for which the offender is unable to account satisfactorily. In the case on hand, the offender No.1 has failed to satisfactorily account for assets worth Rs.3,12,05,747/ lakhs.
18. After considering the magnitude of the disproportionate assets acquired by the accused and the gravity of the offense there is no scope for any leniency or sympathy in this case. This Court is the firm opinion that it is not a fit case to pass the minimum sentence of imprisonment and the offender No.1 has not made out any exceptional case 271 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 to impose minimum sentence of imprisonment. By considering the age of offender No.2 and health , this Court finds it proper to impose minimum sentence on her. The offender No.1 has to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.3,50,00,000/.
19. The offender No.2 is not a public servant and she has abetted her husband in acquiring the assets. However, on considering the gender, age, health it is proper to show some leniency while imposing the sentence of imprisonment and fine. Accordingly, the offender No.2 has to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/, would meet the ends of justice. In the result, this Court proceed to pass the following :
ORDER The Offender No.1 by name Sri.M.H.Thangal is hereby sentenced to undergo Rigorous 272 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 Imprisonment for a period of five years and also to pay fine of Rs.3,50,00,000/ (Rupees Three Crore Fifty Lakhs only) for the offense under Section 13(1)(b) R/w Section 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for further period of one year.
The Offender No.2 by name Smt.Machamthui Charenamei is hereby sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/ (Rupees One lakh only) for the offence under Section 12 of The Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 and in default of payment of fine, she shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for further period of two months.
The period of custody already undergone by the accused shall be give set off under section 428 of Cr.P.C.
Out of the fine amount recovered from offender No.1 as stated above, a sum of 273 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 Rs.10,00,000/ shall be made over to State of Karnataka towards the cost of trial.
The sentences of imprisonments shall run concurrently.
Office is directed to furnish free copy of the judgment to the offenders forthwith. (Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on Computer, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court this 25 th the day of April, 2023.) ( E.CHANDRAKALA ) C/c XLVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru.
**** ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION :
274 Spl.CC.No.278/2022
PW1 T.S.Siddalingamani
PW2 M.S.Chandrashekar
PW3 Naresh Chand
PW4 Deepak. L
PW5 Kumar. M
PW6 Chethan K.N
PW7 Gowtham. R
PW8 P.B.Ganapathy
PW9 Vinil Subbaiah
PW10 Taranjit Singh
PW11 Vivek.M
PW12 Vishwanath G.K
PW13 M.Bala Bhaskar
PW14 Chethan Kumar
PW15 Mahabub Basha
PW16 Kempanna
PW17 S.B.Kivade
PW18 Y.G.Vijay Kumar
PW19 Nirmal Chand
PW20 Rahul Chawla
PW21 Ravi Shankar
PW22 Rahman Shariff
PW23 Kiran.B
PW24 Surendra. N
PW25 S.R.Rajkumar
PW26 Manjunath K.L
PW27 Tarun Kaushik
PW28 P.C.Rashmi
PW29 Abhinay B.S
PW30 Prasanna.V
PW31 Bharat Kumar.M
PW32 Sanya Sethi
PW33 Prasanna Kumar.S
PW34 Nandini Ramesh
PW35 Harish
PW36 H.M.Eranna
PW37 Shanta Ningappa Jambagi
PW38 Sasitharan.A
275 Spl.CC.No.278/2022
PW39 Jagadeesh Nayak
PW40 R.Satish Kumar
PW41 Shruthi.R
PW42 Ranjit Aruva
PW43 M.Basavaraju
PW44 Vijay Kumar Swarnkar
PW45 Rekha.R
PW46 H.S.Shivaramu
PW47 Shivaprakash M.S
PW48 Kirana
PW49 Ashok T.G
PW50 M.Siva Kumar
PW51 Venkatesh.S
PW52 Prashanth.V
PW53 Afsar Pasha
PW54 Prasanth.K
PW55 M.Basha
PW56 Govindaraju
PW57 Manjunath.V
PW58 Venugopal Reddy
PW59 Yusuf Ali Khan
PW60 Shivappa Irasangappa Devramani PW61 Shashi Kumar Jadhav PW62 Mahendra Prasad PW63 S.Narasimha PW64 Harinath PW65 G.Vamsidhar Reddy PW66 Narasimha Swamy Julappagari PW67 Gurulingappa Satappa Mavinahalli PW68 Mahadevaiah.M PW69 Konjengbam Rajiba Singh PW70 Sagolsem Rajesh Singh PW71 Huidrom Dhananjoy Singh PW72 Sushil Ningombam PW73 T.Pradip Singh PW74 Lukram Herojit Singh PW75 K.L.Monos Anal PW76 Dinpiliu Charenamei PW77 S.Iscah 276 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 PW78 Shimmiyao Shimrah PW79 Soibam Gokulchandra Singh PW80 Ginlianmang Naulak PW81 Nagesh.S PW82 Mallikarjuna Jambagi PW83 Ravichandra.C PW84 V.Dhananjaya PW85 Dimple Dua PW86 Suman Saini PW87 G.Deviprasad PW88 M.Jena PW89 Thomson Jose LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE :
NIL LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION :
Ex.P.1 Covering letter dt.15/02/2020 Ex.P.2 Certified copy of the Sale Deed dt.31/08/2005 Ex.P.3 Certified copy of the Encumbrance Certificate Ex.P.4 Covering letter dt. 08/01/2021 Ex.P.5 Certified copy of the registered Sale Deed dt.22/10/2013 Ex.P.6 Certified copy of the Encumbrance Certificate Ex.P.7 Valuation report Ex.P.7(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.7(b) Signature of PW44 Ex.P.7(c) Signature of PW44 Ex.P.8 Covering letter dt.19/08/2020 addressed to CBI authorities by PW44 Ex.P.9 Covering letter dt. 17/09/2019 by PW3 Ex.P.9(a) Signature of PW3 Ex.P.10 Attested copy of the salary particulars of A1 Ex.P.11 Attested copy of the DA and TA drawn by A1 Ex.P.12 Attested copy of the withdrawal of GPA by A1 Ex.P.13 Attested copy of the Form No.16 furnished to 277 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 Income Tax authority Ex.P.14 Attested copy of the TA, LTC and Leave encashment for the period from 01/01/2012 to 14/08/2019 Exs.P.15 & Service Register pertaining to accused No.1 16 Ex.P.17 Covering letter dt.02/02/2021 Ex.P.17(a) Signature of PW4 Ex.P.18 Certified copy of the form of application for registration of Motor vehicle of A1 Ex.P.19 Memo dt.17/02/2020 Ex.P.20 Entire documents of vehicle bearing No.KA09 MV 3704 Ex.P.21 Tax paid receipts and registration documents pertaining to the vehicle bearing No.KA09 MC 2403 Ex.P.22 Covering letter dt. 29/06/2020 addressed by RTO to CBI Ex.P.23 Original documents and tax paid receipts pertaining to vehicle bearing No.KA09HF4125 Exs.P.24 Order contract confirmation form and gate pass Ex.P.25 Certified copy of vehicle retail invoice of A2 and Insurance Policy Certificate Ex.P.26 Fiat sale receipts and tax invoice Exs.P.27 Covering letter dt.02/09/2020 addressed to CBI by PW7 Ex.P.27(a) Signature of PW7 Ex.P.28 Insurance copy alongwith certificate U/s.65B Ex.P.29 Covering letter dt. 26/08/2020 Ex.P.29(a) Signature of PW8 Ex.P.30 Three receipts with policy receipt Ex.P.31 Five receipts towards payment of premium from 30/01/2012 to 07/02/2014 Ex.P.32 Three receipts towards payment of premium Ex.P.33 One time premium and payment credit to HDFC account Ex.P.34 Five receipts alongwith the application form regarding policy No.U012899759 278 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 Ex.P.35 Certificate under Sec.65(B) of Indian Evidence Act Ex.P.36 Application form of policy No.U158727840 alongwith entire documents Ex.P.37 Application form of policy No.U158727895 alongwith entire documents Ex.P.38 Covering letter dt.01.09.2021 Ex.P.38(a) Signature of PW8 Ex.P.39 Covering letter dt.29/02/2020 pertaining to details of documents submitted to CBI Ex.P.39(a) Signature of PW9 Ex.P.40 Invoice copy of the Volkswagen Polo Car dt.26/05/2016 Ex.P.41 Covering letter dt. 14/08/2020 to CBI Ex.P.41(a) Signature of PW10 Ex.P.42 Certified copy of the Insurance coverage provided under Education loan of M.D.Thangal Ex.P.43 Certificate of Insurance Ex.P.44 Certified statements of premium paid Ex.P.45 Certified copy of the enrollment from to avail insurance cover for M.H.Thangal Ex.P.46 Certificate of Insurance Ex.P.47 Statement of premium paid for single premium Ex.P.48 Certificate under Sec.65(B) of Indian Evidence Act Ex.P.49 Production memo dt.22/01/2021 Ex.P.50 Certified copy of the Insurance policy Ex.P.51 True copy of the receipt dt. 12/01/2013 of Rs.3,13,949/ Ex.P.52 Copy of the receipt dt. 12.01.2013 of Rs.2.00lakhs Ex.P.53 Copy of the receipt dt. 26.02.2014 of Rs.5,06,247/ Ex.P.54 Copy of the receipt dt. 29.01.2015 of Rs.5,06,247/ Ex.P.55 True copy of the surrender statement indicating the surrender value of police of Rs.10,31,558.30 Ex.P.56 TDS certificate 279 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 Ex.P.57 Certificate U/s.65(B) of Indian Evidence Act Ex.P.58 Production memo dt.02.02.2021 Ex.P.59 Certified copy of the insurance documents pertaining to Ford IKON vehicle No.KA09N 5014 Ex.P.60 Covering letter dt.16/09/2020 to CBI Ex.P.60(a) Signature of PW13 Ex.P.61 Insurance police pertaining to the year 2018 19 alongwith certificate U/s.65(B) of Indian Evidence Act Ex.P.62 Insurance Police alongwith the covering letter Ex.P.62(a) Signature of PW13 Ex.P.63 Certified copy of the insurance policy for the year 201617 and certificate U/s.65(B) of Indian Evidence Act Ex.P.64 Covering letter dt.02/02/2021 to CBI Ex.P.64(a) Signature of PW14 Ex.P.65 Certificate U/s.65(B) of Indian Evidence Act Ex.P.66 Receipt dt. 17/05/2016 for receiving a sum of Rs.33,758/.
Ex.P.67 Pay advice for making payment of Rs.55,693/ Ex.P.68 Production memo dt. 02/02/2021 Ex.P.68(a) Signature of PW15 Ex.P.69 Certified copy of the application of KYC documents in the name of daughter of A1 alongwith certificate U/s.65B of Evidence Act. Ex.P.70 Certified copy of the application of KYC documents in the name of daughter of A1 alongwith certificate U/s.65B of Evidence Act. Ex.P.71 Certified copy of the application of KYC documents in the name of daughter of A1 alongwith certificate U/s.65B of Evidence Act. Ex.P.72 Certified copy of the application of KYC documents in the name of son of A1 alongwith certificate U/s.65B of Evidence Act. Ex.P.73 Certified copy of the application of KYC documents in the name of A2 alongwith certificate U/s.65B of Evidence Act. Ex.P.74 Certified copy of the application of KYC 280 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 documents in the name of A1 alongwith certificate U/s.65B of Evidence Act. Ex.P.75 Covering letter dt.27/05/2020 to CBI Ex.P.76 Attested fee challan No.36263 dt.30/07/2013 Ex.P.77 Attested fee challan No.36263 dt.30/07/2013 Ex.P.78 Attested fee challan No.37443 dt.11/09/2014 Ex.P.79 Attested fee challan No.37971 dt. 11/04/2014 Ex.P.80 Attested fee challan No.38784 dt.22/09/2015 Ex.P.81 Attested fee challan No.40131 dt.29/09/2016 Ex.P.82 Attested fee challan No.41573 dt.28/09/2017 Ex.P.83 Attested fee challan No.43536 dt.06/05/2019 Ex.P.84 Certified copy of the letter as AnnexureII issued towards payment of examination fees with 10 receipts enclosed.
Ex.P.85 Particulars issued as AnnexureIII of registration fee paid to Karnataka Medical Council Ex.P.86 Particulars issued as AnnexureIV towards hostel fee for the year 201314.
Ex.P.87 Covering letter dt.19/08/2020 addressed to CBI regarding fee details of M.C.Victor. Ex.P.87(a) Signature of PW17 Ex.P.88 Particulars of collection and balance register of fees in respect of M.C.Victor Ex.P.89 Covering letter to CBI by V.S.Power Systems Ex.P.90 Tax Invoice dt.01.09.2015 of V.S.Power Systems Ex.P.91 Tax Invoice dt.20.08.2015 of V.S.Power Systems Ex.P.92 Tax Invoice dt.20.08.2015 of V.S.Power Systems for Rs.11,000/ Ex.P.93 Tax Invoice dt.20.08.2015 of V.S.Power Systems for Rs.26,000/ Ex.P.94 Covering letter dt.13/10/2020 to CBI Ex.P.95 Tax Invoice dt.07/02/2016 of World Connect alongwith day book ledger entires and Certificate U/s.65B of Indian Evidence Act. Ex.P.96 Production memo dt.02/03/2020 Ex.P.96(a) Signature of PW20 281 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 Ex.P.97 Tax Invoice dt.04/12/2016 of Ashok Sales International alongwith Certificate U/s.65(B) of Indian Evidence Act.
Ex.P.98 Covering letter dt.02/09/2020 to CBI Ex.P.99 Tax Invoice dt.16/10/2018 of Ashok Sales International Ex.P.100 Production memo dt. 29/02/2020 Ex.P.100(a) Signature of PW21 Ex.P.101 Tax Invoice dt.11/07/2017 of M/s.Shubham Electronics Shopee Ex.P.102 Covering letter dt.04/08/2020 to CBI Exs.P.103 to 4 Tax Invoices of Comfort Aircon Solutions 106 alongwith Certificate U/s.65(B) of Indian Evidence Act.
Ex.P.107 Production memo dt. 02/02/2021 Ex.P.107(a) Signature of PW23 Ex.P.108 Tax Invoice dt.06/06/2018 of Krishnam Enterprises alongwith Certificate U/s.65(B) of Indian Evidence Act.
Ex.P.109 Production memo dt. 10/09/2020 Ex.P.109(a) Signature of PW24 Ex.P.110 Tax Invoice dt.04/04/2013 for purchase of iPhone by A1.
Ex.P.111 Tax Invoice dt.21/01/2016 in favour of A1 Exs.P.112 & Tax Invoices dt. 08/07/2016 in favour of 113 Ms.Donguibui Exs.P.114 to Tax Invoices dt.28/10/2016 in favour of Victor 116 Ex.P.117 Tax Invoice dt. 26/02/2017 in favour of A1 Ex.P.118 Covering letter dt. 08/09/2020 to CBI Ex.P.118(a) Signature of PW25 Ex.P.119 Tax Invoice dt.05/03/2012 of Computech Services Ex.P.120 Production memo dt. 0703/2020 Ex.P.120(a) Signature of PW26 Ex.P.121 Account opening form of A1 alongwith KYC documents Ex.P.122 Statement of accounts extract of A1 alongwith Certificate U/s.65(B) of Indian Evidence Act and Certificate under 2(A) of Bankers' Book 282 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 Evidence Act.
Ex.P.123 Covering letter dt. 28/01/2021 to CBI Ex.P.123(a) Signature of PW27 Ex.P.124 Certificate copy of insurance polices of A2 Ex.P.125 Certified copy of insurance polices in the name of daughter of A1 and A2.
Ex.P.126 Certified copy of documents of insurance policies in the name of son of A1 and A2. Ex.P.127 Certificate U/s.65(B) of Indian Evidence Act. Ex.P.128 Covering letter addressed to CBI Ex.P.128(a) Signature of PW28 Ex.P.129 Certified copy of insurance policies in the name of A2 alongwith KYC documents, receipts and certificate U/s.65(B) of Indian Evidence Act. Ex.P.130 Covering letter dt.08/02/2021 to CBI Ex.P.130(a) Signature of PW29 Ex.P.131 Certified copy of policy issued on 28/02/2017 in the name of A1 Ex.P.132 Certified copy of policy issued on 06/03/2017 in the name of A1 Exs.P.133 & Certified copies of policy issued on 134 25/04/2019 in the name of A1 Ex.P.135 Certified copy of policy issued on 23/03/2017 in the name of A1 Exs.P.136 to Certified copies of policy issued on 137 08/01/2019 in the name of A1 Ex.P.137 Certified copy of policy issued on 28/02/2017 in the name of A1 Ex.P.138 Certified copy of insurance policy standing the name of son of A1 dated 08/01/2019 Ex.P.139 Certified copy of insurance policy in the name of daughter of A1 dt.10/05/2017 Ex.P.140 Certified copy of insurance policy in the name of daughter of A1 dt.26/04/2019 Ex.P.141 Certified copy of insurance policy in the name of daughter of A1 dt.10/05/2017 Ex.P.142 Certified copy of insurance policy in the name of daughter of A1 dt.26/12/2012 Ex.P.143 Certified copy of insurance policy in the name 283 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 of A1 dt.26/04/2013 Ex.P.144 Certified copy of insurance policy in the name of A1 dt.04.09.2012 Ex.P.145 Certified copy of insurance policy in the name of daughter of A1 dt.04/09/2012 Ex.P.146 Certificate U/s.65(B) of Indian Evidence Act Ex.P.147 Covering letter dt.07.09.2020 to CBI Exs.P.148 & Certified copies of the bills dt.28.02.2017 Ex.P.149 Ex.P.150 Certificate U/s.65(B) of Indian Evidence Act Ex.P.151 Production cum Seizure Memo dt.09/09/2020 Ex.P.151(a) Signature of PW31 Ex.P.152 Tax Invoice dt.15/12/2017 Ex.P.153 Production Memo dt.01/02/2021 Ex.P.153(a) Signature of PW32 Ex.P.154 Certified copy of the account opening form of M.C.Victor S/o A1 alongwith PAN and Aadhar card Ex.P.155 Account statement of M.C.Victor for the period from 01/04/2018 to 11/10/2019 Ex.P.156 Account opening form of daughter of A1 & A2 alongwith PAN and Aadhar card Ex.P.157 Statement of accounts pertaining to daugher of A1 and A2 for the period from 01/01/2018 to 11/10/2019 Ex.P.158 Certificate U/s.2A of Bankers' Book Evidence Act alongwith certificate U/s.65B of Indian Evidence Act.
Ex.P.159 Production cum Seizure Memo dt. 16/01/2021 Ex.P.159(a) Signature of PW33 Ex.P.160 Account opening form of A1 alongwith KYC documents Ex.P.161 Statement of ICICI Bank account of A1 alongwith Certificate U/s.65(B) of Indian Evidence Act.
Ex.P.162 Account opening form of daughter of A1 and A2 alongwith KYC documents.
Ex.P.163 Statement of ICICI Bank account of daughter of A1 and A2 284 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 Ex.P.164 Covering letter dt. 27/07/2021 of ICICI Bank addressed to CBI pertaining to the account details of A1's daughter alongwith description of online transactions Ex.P.164(a) Signature of PW33 Ex.P.165 Covering letter of ICICI Bank addressed to CBI dt.29/07/2021 pertaining to transactions details of A1 Ex.P.166 Production cum Seizure Memo dt. 09/03/2020 Ex.P.166(a) Signature of PW34 Ex.P.167 Account opening form M.C.Victor alongwith KYC documents Ex.P.168 Statement of accounts pertaining to M.C.Victor for the period from 24/05/2018 to 05/03/2020 alongwith Certificate U/s.65(B) of Indian Evidence Act Ex.P.169 Covering letter dt.02/02/2021 addressed to CBI by Canara Bank Ex.P.170 Requisition dt.17/08/2016 alongwith invoice and confirmation of payment of daughter of A1 Ex.P.171 Requisition dt.22/11/2016 by A1 to Canara Bank to remit education loan Ex.P.172 Requisition dt. 29/11/2016 by A1 to Canara Bank to remit education loan Ex.P.173 Requisition dt.15/05/2017 by A1 to Canara Bank to remit the education loan Ex.P.174 Requisition dt.18/11/2017 by A 1to Canara Bank to remit the education loan Ex.P.175 Statement of accounts for the period from 17/08/2016 to 17/02/2020 pertaining to daughter of A1 Ex.P.176 Production Memo dt. 01/02/2021 Ex.P.176(a) Signature of PW36 Ex.P.177 Account opening form of daughter of A1 alongwith KYC documents Ex.P.178 Account extract of daughter of A1 for the period from 22/10/2012 to 17/10/2019 Ex.P.179 Account opening form of A1 alongwith KYC documents 285 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 Ex.P.180 Account extract of A1 for the period from 10/11/2005 to 24/10/2019 Ex.P.181 Production Memo dt.01/02/2021 alongwith payinslips and cheques Ex.P.181(a) Signature of PW36 Ex.P.182 Covering letter dt.22/06/2021 addressed to CBI alongwith vouchers and cheques Ex.P.182(a) Signature of PW36 Ex.P.183 Covering letter dt.28/07/2021 to CBI alongwith cheques and vouchers Ex.P.183(a) Signature of PW36 Ex.P.183(b) Cheque bearing No.748831 dt.06/03/2012 for Rs.70,000/ Ex.P.183(c) Cheque bearing No.748832 dt. 17/03/2012 for Rs.30,000/ Ex.P.183(d) Cheque bearing No.748835 dt.09/04/2012 for Rs.60,000/ Ex.P.183(e) Cheque bearing No.748837 dt.28/08/2012 for Rs.33,000/ Ex.P.183(f) Cheque bearing No.748838 dt. 07/09/2012 for Rs.40,000/ Ex.P.183(g) Cheque bearing No.748839 dt.16/02/2012 for Rs.20,000/ Ex.P.183(h) Cheque bearing No.353978 dt. 15/01/2012 for Rs.70,000/ Ex.P.183(j) Cheque bearing No.353979 dt. 24/01/2013 for Rs.1,50,000/ Ex.P.183(k) Cheque bearing No.355413 dt. 14/02/2013 for Rs.1.00 Lakh Ex.P.183(l) Cheque bearing No.355415 dt. 29/05/2012 for Rs.50,000/ Ex.P.183(m) Cheque bearing No.355416 dt. 27/07/2013 for Rs.1.00 Lakh Ex.P.183(n) Cheque bearing No.355417 dt.31/07/2013 for Rs.4.00 Lakhs Ex.P.183(o) Cheque bearing No.355420 dt.08/08/2013 for Rs.3.00 Lakhs Ex.P.183(p) Cheque bearing No.081181 dt.16/09/2013 for Rs.50,000/ 286 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 Ex.P.183(q) Cheque bearing No.081182 dt.17/10/2013 for Rs.40,000/ Ex.P.183(r) Cheque bearing No.081184 dt.2110/2013 for Rs.50,000/ Ex.P.184 Covering letter dt. 29/07/2021 to CBI by Canara Bank Ex.P.184(a) Signature of PW36 Ex.P.185 Statement of Accounts of A1 for the period from 10/11/2005 to 24/10/2019 Ex.P.186 Statement of accounts of M.D.Thangal for the period from 01/10/2012 to 17/10/2019 Ex.P.187 Certificate U/s.2A of Bankers' Books Evidence Act and U/s.65(B) of Indian Evidence Act Ex.P.188 Statement of account of PW37 alongwith Certificate U/s.65(B) of Indian Evidence Act Ex.P.189 Account opening form of PW37 Ex.P.190 Account extract of PW37's father Ex.P.191 Statement of PW37 recorded U/s.161 of Cr.P.C.
Ex.P.192 Covering letter dt.19/08/2020 to CBI from Tanishq Jewelleries Ex.P.192(a) Signature of PW38 Ex.P.193 Certified copies of 10 original Invoices Ex.P.194 Certified copy of the bill alongwith Certificate U/s.65(B) of Indian Evidence Act Ex.P.195 Account opening form, KYC documents alongwith 4 cheques for the period from 09/10/2018 to 17/06/2019 Ex.P.196 Covering letter dt. 29/07/2021 alongwith statement pertaining to M.D.Thangal Ex.P.197 Certified copy of the policy purchase form, premium paid certificates for the year 200506 to 201415 alongwith covering letter Ex.P.198 Tax extract alongwith copy of the tax paid by A1 under a covering letter Ex.P.199 Original account opening form of A2 alongwith KYC documents Ex.P.199(a) Statement of Account of A2 Ex.P.200 Account opening form alongwith vouchers, 287 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 cheques and RTGS form Ex.P.201 Account opening form alongwith the KYC documents of A2 Ex.P.201(a) Statement of Account pertaining to A2 Ex.P.202 Covering letter issued by Sona TVS Motors dt.08/09/2020 to CBI Ex.P.203 Covering letter dt.28/07/2021 to CBI alongwith Payinslips, cheques pertaining to account of A2 Ex.P.204 Covering letter dt.28/07/2021 to CBI alongwith Voucher, payinslip, RTGS form and cheques pertaining to accused No.2 Ex.P.205 Covering letter dt.28/07/021 to CBI alongwith RTGS form, cheques, application, vouchers pertaining to A2 Ex.P.206 Government approved valuer report dt.17/05/2016 Ex.P.207 Covering letter dt.22/07/2021 to CBI Ex.P.208 Account statement of two portfolios for the period from 01/01/1970 to 03/06/2021 issued by Canara Robeco Mutual Fund of A1 Ex.P.209 Letter issued by CBI authorities requesting information regarding ITRs of A2 Ex.P.209(a) Signature of PW46 on Ex.P.209. Ex.P.210 Covering letter dt.27/08/2020 issued by PW47 to CBI Ex.P.210(a) Signature of PW47 on Ex.P.210 Ex.P.211 Account opening form alongwith KYC documents, statement of account and certificate U/s.65(B) of Indian Evidence Act Ex.P.211(a) Statement of account for the period from 01/01/2012 to 31/12/2019 Ex.P.211(b) Relevant transaction on 03/04/2018 and 05/04/2018 for Rs.1.00 lakh each Ex.P.212 Covering letter issued by Karnataka Bank Ltd., to CBI authorities.
Ex.P.212(a) Signature of PW48 Ex.P.213 Account opening form alongwith KYC documents and certificate U/s.65(B) of Indian 288 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 Evidence Act Ex.P.213(a) Statement of account for the period from 06/10/216 to 31/12/2019 issued by Karnataka Bank Ltd.
Ex.P.213(b) Relevant entry of transferring account on 03/04/2018 Ex.P.214 Covering letter dt.14/07/2020 issued by Canara Bank to CBI authorities Ex.P.214(a) Signature of PW49 on Ex.P.214 Ex.P.215 Account opening form alongwith KYC document and certificate U/s.65(B) of Indian Evidence Act Ex.P.215(a) Statement of account of PW60 Ex.P.215(b) Relevant entry on 08/05/2017 for transferring amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs to the account of Charenamie Ex.P.215(c) Relevant entry on 25/10/2017 for transferring amount of Rs.3.00 lakhs to the account of Gopal Gonmei Ex.P.215(d) Relevant entry on 25/10/2017 for transferring amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs to the account of Gopal Gonmei Ex.P.215(e) Relevant entry on 09/02/2018 for transferring amount of Rs.3,40,000/ to the account of Nanjinpibou Ex.P.215(f) Relevant entry on 06/07/2018 for transferring amount of Rs.1,50,000/ to the account of Gopal Gonmie Ex.P.215(g) Relevant entry on 20/10/2018 for transferring amount of Rs.2.00lakhs to the account of Gopal Gonmie Ex.P.215(h) Relevant entry on 31/10/2018 for transferring amount of Rs.1.00 lakh to the account of Gopal Gonmie Ex.P.216 Account opening form alongwith KYC documents and certificate U/s.65(B) of Indian Evidence Act.
Ex.P.216(a) Statement of account of PW61 Ex.P.216(b) Relevant entry on 06/072018 of Rs.2.00 Lakhs 289 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 to the account of Gopal Gonmie Ex.P.216(c) Relevant entry on 31/08/2018 of Rs.3.00 Lakhs to the account of Mariam Cherenimie Ex.P.217 Covering letter dt.15/07/2021 issued to CBI authorities Ex.P.218 Challan and Receipts details dt.15/07/2021 issued by Thiagarajar College of Engineering for fees paid alongwith certificate issued U/s.65(B) of Indian Evidence Act Ex.P.219 Covering letter dt.03/08/2021 alongwith statement of account, account opening form and KYC documents Ex.P.220 Statement of account for the period from 01/01/2012 to 14/08/2019 and KYC documents Ex.P.220(a) Relevant entry dt.07.11/2017 Ex.P.221 Covering letter dt.05/08/2021 addressed to CBI by Axis Bank Ex.P.222 Statement of account for the period from 01/11/2016 to 31/03/2017 and certificate issued by the Bank pertaining to the account of Nayakanti Harinath Ex.P.222(a) Relevant entry in Ex.P.222 for transfer of Rs.2,00,000/ on 01/08/2017 Ex.P.223 Covering letter dt.18/07/2021 issued by CW 11 Ex.P.224 Details pertaining to total sales, total gross income, dealer commission Ex.P.225 Production memo dt.14/07/2021 issued by Branch Manager, UCO Bank Ex.P.226 Account statement of Rocky and A2 for the period of 20/05/2015 to 14/08/2019 Ex.P.227 Covering letter issued by the Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Imphal Ex.P.228 Certified copy of the account opening form of Mary Panmei alongwith account statement Ex.P.229 Covering letter issued by Chief Manager of Axis Bank Ex.P.230 Certified copy of the account opening form of 290 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 Mary Panmei alongwith account statement Ex.P.231 Covering letter issued by the AGM, State Bank of India, Imphal Ex.P.232 Certified copy of the screen short of account opening form of Santhosh Ram Singh alongwith account statement Ex.P.233 Covering letter issued by the Chief Manager, SBI, Imphal Ex.P.234 Certified copy of the account opening form of Phaomei Gaichuilu alongwith account statement Ex.P.235 Production memo issued by the Sr.Manager, Canara Bank Ex.P.236 Certified copy of the account opening form of J.Narasimha Swamy alongwith statement of account Ex.P.236(a) Statement of account of PW63 Ex.P.236(b) Relevant entry dt. 26/09/2018 for Rs.3,50,000/ Ex.P.237 Covering letter issued by the Manager of IOB, Imphal Ex.P.238 Certified copy of account opening form of Kawichamthiu Chernamei alongwith statement of account Ex.P.239 Production memo issued by the Chief Manager, Canara Bank, Chikkaballapura.
Ex.P.240 Certified copy of the account opening form of Nagesh.S alongwith account of statement Ex.P.240(a) Statement of account of PW81 Ex.P.241 Production memo dt. 04/08/2021 Ex.P.242 Certified copy of Account opening form pertaining to Mallikarjuna Jambagi alongwith deposit slip and KYC documents Ex.P.242(a) Statement of account of PW.82 Ex.P.243 Production memo dt. 09/08/2021 Ex.P.244 Account opening form pertaining to Sultan Khanum alongwith KYC documents.
Ex.P.245 Certified copy of the account opening form pertaining to Dhanajaya.V alongwith KYC 291 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 documents Ex.P.246 Production memo dt.09/08/2021 Ex.P.247 Certified copy of the account opening form of Narasimha.S.M alongwith KYC documents Ex.P.248 Production memo dt. 22/10/2020 Ex.P.248(a) Account opening form Ex.P.248(b) Statement of account Ex.P.248(c) Relevant entry on 23/02/2018 reflecting transfer of Rs.1,00,000/ Ex.P.248(d) Relevant entry on 01/03/2018 reflecting transfer of Rs.1 lakh Ex.P.248(e) Relevant entry on 09/03/2018 reflecting transfer of Rs.1,50,000/ Ex.P.248(f) Account opening form of PW57 Ex.P.248(g) Statement of account Ex.P.248(h) Relevant entry dt. 23.02.2018 and 09.03.2018 & (j) for transfer of Rs.50,000/ and Rs.1.00 Lakh Ex.P.249 Certified copy of account opening form of Venugopala Reddy.M, Afsar Pasha, Ahmed Pasha, Manjunatha, Govindaraju, Ravichandra and Chandrakumar alongwith KYC documents. Ex.P.249(n) Account opening form of PW58 Ex.P.249(o) Statement of account Ex.P.249(p) Relevant entry of account transfer on 19/05/2015 for Rs.2.00 Lakhs Ex.P.249(q) Relevant entry of account transfer on 23.08.2016 for Rs.2.50 Lakhs Ex.P.249(r) Relevant entry of account transfer on 16/06/2017 for Rs.1.00 Lakh to the account of Gopal Gonmei Ex.P.250 Certified copy of the account opening form of Vamshidhara Reddy alongwith KYC documents and statement of account.
Ex.P.250(a) Statement of account of PW65 Ex.P.250(b) Relevant entry for transferring amount to account of Mariam on 01/08/2017 Ex.P.251 Covering letter dt. 16.08.2021 issued by the Chief Manager, SBI Ex.P.252 Certified copy of account opening form of 292 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 Gurulingappa.S and KYC documents Ex.P.252(a) Statement of account of PW63 Ex.P.252(b) Relevant entry dt.08/09/2017 for Rs.1,00,000/ and Rs.2,00,000/ Ex.P.252(c) Statement of account of PW67 Ex.P.253 Covering letter dt. 16/08/2021 issued by Chief Manager, SBI Ex.P.254 Certificate U/s.2A of Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 Ex.P.255 Seizure Memo dt. 14/09/2020 Ex.P.256 Certified copy of the account opening form of Gopal Gonmei alongwith KYC documents Ex.P.257 Covering letter dt. 25/08/2020 issued by Chief Manager, SBI Ex.P.258 Covering letter dt.19/08/2020 issued by the SubRegistrar, Imphal East alongwith certified copy of the sale deed and Encumbrance Certificate.
Ex.P.259 Covering letter dt. 13/01/2020 issued by the Income Tax Officer alongwith the ITRs pertaining to M.H.Thangal Ex.P.260 Production Memo dt.19.02.2020 alongwith documents Ex.P.261 Covering letter dt.17/07/2021 issued by Sr.Manager, YES Bank Ltd., to CBI Ex.P.262 Certified copy of the statement of account of Gopal Gonmei Ex.P.263 Production memo dt. 09.07.2021 alongwith documents Ex.P.264 Certified copy of statement of accounts pertaining to Namjinpibou alongwith KYC documents Ex.P.265 Production Memo dt.09.07.2021 alongwith documents Ex.P.266 Covering letter dt.09/07/2021 to CBI Ex.P.267 Seizure Memo dt. 19.09.2020 alongwith copy of letter issued by Manager, Panjab National Bank Ex.P.268 Certified copy of account opening form of A2 293 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 with KYC documents Ex.P.269 Seizure Memo dt.23.02.2021alongwith KYC documents of A2 Ex.P.270 IDBI Account opening form of A2 alongwith documents Ex.P.270(a) Statement of accounts of A2 Ex.P.271 Production Memo dt.14.07.2021 alongwith Certificate U/s.2A of Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 and Certificate U/s.65B(4)(C) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972 Ex.P.272 IDBI Bank Statement of accounts pertaining to the account of A2 Ex.P.273 Seizure Memo dt. 12.02.2021 alongwith documents Ex.P.273(a) Signature of PW79 Ex.P.274 Service Book pertaining to A2 Ex.P.275 Covering letter dt.24/08/2021 addressed to CBI from Income Tax Department alongwith IT returns of A2 Ex.P.276 Certified copy of account opening form of State Bank of India, Kodihalli Branch, Bengaluru pertaining to one Venkatesh.S alongwith necessary documents Ex.P.277 Statement of accounts for the period from 01/01/2012 to 31/12/2019 pertaining to S.Venkatesh Ex.P.277(a) Relevant transactions on 16/04/2016 to & (b) 21/01/2019 Ex.P.278 Statement of PW51 recorded U/s.161 of Cr.P.C Ex.P.279 Copy of Account opening form pertaining to father of PW54 at Canara Bank, P.R.Patti Branch alongwith KYC documents Ex.P.280 Statement of accounts for the period from 01/01/2013 to 10/07/2020 pertaining to father of PW54 alongwith Certificate U/s.2A of Bankers' Book Evidence Act and Certificate U/s.65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.P.280(a) Relevant entry of Rs.3.00 Lakhs transferred 294 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 from PW54's father account to Gopal Gonmei Ex.P.281 Certified copy of Account opening form of Vishwanatha Reddy Ex.P.282 Axis Bank statement of accounts pertaining to Vishwanath Reddy for the period 01/12/2016 to 10/06/2020 Ex.P.282(a) Relevant entry of Rs.1.00 Lakh transferred to Gopal Gonmei Ex.P.282(b) Relevant entry of Rs.1.5 Lakh transferred to the account of Namjinpibou Ex.P.283 Statement of PW58 recorded U/s.161 of Cr.P.C Ex.P.284 Seizure Mahazar dt. 14.08.2019 Ex.P.284(a) Signature of PW62 Ex.P.284(b) Signature of PW85 Ex.P.285 Inventory dated 14.08.2019 Ex.P.285(a) Signature of PW62 Ex.P.285(b) Signature of PW85 Ex.P.286 Encumbrance Certificate Ex.P.287 Documents pertaining to estimate cost for construction of residential building at Mysore Ex.P.288 Another estimation for construction of cellar, ground and first floors at Mysore Ex.P.289 Document pertaining to annual property returns Ex.P.290 Bills pertaining to purchase of house hold articles and other electrical equipment Ex.P.291 Bunch of documents regarding purchase of gold articles from Tanishq Ex.P.292 Statement of PW63 recorded under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C Ex.P.292(a) Relevant portion of statement in Ex.P.292 Ex.P.293 Statement of PW65 recorded U/s.161 of Cr.P.C Ex.P.294 Production Memo dt. 07/07/2021 Ex.P.294(a) Signature of PW69 on Ex.P.294 Ex.P.295 Register containing details of sale of stamps from 18.10.2011 to 27.12.2013 Ex.P.296 Promissory Note dt. 08.07.2014 executed 295 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 between A1 and his brother John Thangal Ex.P.296(a) Signature of PW69 Ex.P.296(b) Seal and signature of Treasury Officer Ex.P.297 Production Memo dt.07/07/2021 Ex.P.297(a) Signature of PW70 on Ex.P.297 Exs.P.298 & Two registers maintained by PW70 regarding 299 stamps sold by him Ex.P.300 Letter dt. 08.07.2021 addressed to CBI by Treasury Officer, Imphal Ex.P.300(a) Signature of PW72 Ex.P.301 License dt.20.12.2019 issued to Chirom Gopal Singh Ex.P.302 License dt. 29/08/2013 issued to Oinam Ningthoujan(O) Joymati Devi Ex.P.303 License dt. 24.11.2014 issued to T.Pradeep Singh Ex.P.304 License dt. 11.05.2015 issued to A.Birjit Singh Ex.P.305 Letter dt.20.11.1995 addressed to General Secretary, All Manipur Bar Association, Imphal Ex.P.306 Indent of Stamps for NonJudicial Ex.P.306(a) Relevant entry of stamp paper bearing Nos.143201 to 145200 sold to General Secretary, AMBA Ex.P.306(b) Relevant entry of stamp paper bearing Nos.829901 to 831700 sold to N.Joymati Devi Ex.P.306(c) Relevant entry of stamp paper bearing No.671501 to 671800 sold to Brijit Singh Ex.P.306(d) Relevant entry of stamp paper bearing Nos.613301 to 613600 sold to Gopal Singh Ex.P.306(e) Relevant entry of stamp paper bearing Nos.242907 to 243206 sold to T.Pradeep Singh Ex.P.307 Letter dt.13.07.2021 to CBI from Treasury Officer, Imphal Ex.P.307(a) Signature of PW72 Ex.P.308 Attested copy of pension payment order issued by Accountant General, Manipur.
Ex.P.309 Attested copy of details of the pension and other retirement benefits of A2 Ex.P.310 Production Memo dt.09/07/2021 296 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 Ex.P.311 Register maintained by T.Pradeep Singh having details of stamps sold by him Ex.P.311(a) Relevant entry at page No.21 of Ex.P.311 Ex.P.312 Money agreement dt.14.03.2015 executed by A2 in favour of Gopal Gonmei Ex.P.312(a) Signature of PW73 Ex.P.313 Letter dt.14.10.2020 addressed to CBI by Office of Deputy Collector, Imphal Ex.P.313(a) Signature of PW74 Ex.P.314 True copy of Mutation order dated 13/05/2008 Ex.P.315 5 Jamabani at AnnexureB to F in respect of the lands Ex.P.316 Letter dt.16.10.2020 addressed to CBI Exs.P.317 & Two Jamabandis in respect of lands 318 Ex.P.319 Seizure Memo dt.13.02.2021 Ex.P.320 Register regarding rents received Ex.P.321 Letter dt.30.01.2021 addressed to CBI by CPWD regarding valuation of residential building of A1 Ex.P.322 Estimation of building by CPWD, Imphal Ex.P.323 Memorandum of proceedings in respect of inspection of residential premises of A1 at Fairyland Ex.P.323(a) Signature of PW79 Ex.P.324 Memorandum of proceedings in respect of inspection of residential premises of A1 at Yaikongpao Ex.P.324(a) Signature of PW79 Ex.P.325 Covering letter dt.13.09.2019 addressed to Inspector of Police, CBI, Bengaluru from CBI, Imphal Ex.P.325(a) Signature of PW80 Ex.P.326 Mortgage agreement dt.04.08.2015 executed between A1 and Mariam Charenamei Ex.P.327 Statement of PW82 recorded U/s.161 of Cr.P.C Ex.P.328 Certified copy of account opening form of PW 83 alongwith KYC documents Ex.P.328(a) Statement of accounts of PW83 for a period 297 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 from 01/01/2012 to 19/10/2020 Ex.P.329 Certified copy of account opening form of Chandrakumar.V alongwith KYC documents Ex.P.329(a) Statement of accounts of Chandrakumar.V for a period from 01/01/2012 to 19/10/2020 Ex.P.330 Statement of PW84 recorded U/s.161 of Cr.P.C Ex.P.331 FIR Ex.P.331(a) Signature of PW85 Ex.P.332 Order dt.13.08.2019 authorising PW85 as IO U/s.17 of P.C Act Ex.P.332(a) Signature of PW89 Ex.P.333 Authorisation letter dt.13.08.2019 U/s.18 of P.C Act Ex.P.333(a) Signature of PW89 Ex.P.334 Search list relating to residence of A1 at Manipur Ex.P.335 Search list relating to the residence of A1 at Fairyland Ex.P.336 Letter dt.05.09.2009 by Jt.Director,ASI regarding service details of A1 Ex.P.337 Production cum Seizure Memo dt.24.11.2020 Ex.P.338 Letter dt.18.11.2020 addressed to CBI by Future Generali Insurance Company Ex.P.339 Letter dt.25.02.2019 to A2 by Future Generali Insurance Company Ex.P.340 Covering letter dt.22/10/2019 addressed by CBI by ASI Exs.P.340(a) Statement of properties possessed by A1 to 340(f) submitted to his department Ex.P.341 Certificate issued U/s.65B of Indian Evidence Act alongwith photostat copies of the cheques Ex.P.342 Certificate issued U/65(B) of Indian Evidence Act alongwith Certificate U/s.2A of Bankers' Book Evidence Act and account opening form alongwith KYC documents Ex.P.343 Statement of accounts of Nagesh for a period from 01/05/2007 to 15/07/2020 Ex.P.344 Annual property returns submitted by A1 for 298 Spl.CC.No.278/2022 the year 2012 onwards alongwith letter dt.05.12.2016 Exs.P.344(a) Statement regarding immoveable property of
(b) and (c) A1 for the year 2014, 2017 and 2018 Ex.P.345 Covering letter regarding intimations of purchase of moveable assets submitted to department by A1.
Ex.P.346 Order dt.20.09.2019 authorising PW86 as IO U/s.17 of P.C Act.
Ex.P.346(a) Signature of PW89 Ex.P.347 Authorisation dt.20.09.2019 U/s.18 of P.C Act Ex.P.347(a) Signature of PW89 Ex.P.348 Letter dt.24.11.2019 from A1 to CBI alongwith documents Ex.P.349 Production cum Seizure Memo dt.18.03.2020 Ex.P.350 Statement of Accounts of Gopal Gonmei Ex.P.351 Production cum Seizure Memo dt.18.03.2020 Ex.P.351(a) Copy of Sale Deed dt.05.02.2014 Ex.P.352 Order dt.05.03.2021 authorizing PW87 as IO U/s.17 of P.C Act Ex.P.352(a) Signature of PW89 Ex.P.353 Authorisation dt.05.03.2021 U/s.18 of P.C Act. Ex.P.353(a) Signature of PW89 Ex.P.354 Copy of the ordersheet in Crl.Misc.1458/2021 before the CMM, Bengaluru Ex.P.355 Letter dt.16.07.2021 addressed the CBI
regarding collecting certified copies of FIR No.225/2013 of Dimpur East PS against Gopal Gonmei Ex.P.356 Copy of FIR and its connected documents Ex.P.357 Letter dt.07.12.2021 addressed to CBI by ASI regarding sanction to prosecute A1 Ex.P.358 Sanction Order dt.07.12.2021 from ASI Ex.P.358(a) Signature of PW88 Ex.P.359 Attested copy of the request letter dt.16.08.2019 LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE :
299 Spl.CC.No.278/2022
NIL LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS :
NIL (E.CHANDRAKALA) C/c XLVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI cases, Bengaluru.
****