Delhi District Court
C.B.I. vs . 1. Saranjit Singh on 17 May, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) 01, CBI,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presiding Officer : Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Special Judge (PC Act)
CC No.44/11
Unique Case ID No. 02401R5760312004
C.B.I. Vs. 1. SARANJIT SINGH
S/o Late Sh. Sardool Singh,
R/o 7B, Pocket B, DDA Flats,
Vikaspuri Extension, Delhi.
RC No. : RCDAI2001A0005
u/Ss : 13(2) r/w 13(1) (e) of PC Act, 1988
Appearances:
Sh. DK Singh, Ld. PP for CBI.
Ms. Geeta Babbar, Ld. Counsel for convict Saranjit Singh.
Judgment delivered on : 14.05.2012
Order on Sentence : 17.05.2012
CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 1 of 6
ORDER ON SENTENCE
Present: Sh. DK Singh, Ld. PP for CBI.
Convict Saranjit Singh is present with Ms. Geeta Babbar, Adv.
Sh. Saranjit Singh has been convicted for the offence u/S 13(1)
(e) r/w 13(2) of PC Act, 1988. In the judgment dtd. 14/5/2012, this Court has
conclusively held that accused was found in possession of cash amounting to
Rs.31,68,300/ during the search conducted at his premises on 12/1/01 to
13/1/01. Convict Saranjit Singh failed to satisfactorily account the
possession of this cash and therefore, the same was held to be
disproportionate to the known sources of income.
1.0 Sh. DK Singh, Ld. PP for CBI has prayed for a maximum
sentence. He submits that the accused was found in possession of huge cash
during the search. CBI had conducted the raid on the definite information
that accused was a corrupt officer and this information proved to be correct.
Sh. DK Singh, Ld. PP submits that in the 15th Law Commission of India
under the Chairmanship of Mr. Justice BR Jeevan Reddy in 166 LCR 15th
Law Commission, an observation regarding forfeiture and confiscation of
property has been made. It has been submitted that the cash recovered from
CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 2 of 6
the possession of the accused be confiscated. Ld. PP for CBI has cited the
observation of the Law Commission which reads as under:
"Merely sending the corrupt holders of public office to
jail is no remedy; it is no solution. It does not really hurt them.
Unless their ill gotten assets are forfeited to the State, the
canker of corruption cannot be really tackled."
Ld. PP has also cited the speech made by Her Excellency
President of India, Ms. Pratibha Patil in Conference of Governors on
29/10/2011, which is quoted as under:
"There is also heightened expectations among our
citizens from the Indian polity.
Corruption stalls developments; undermines social
progress; undercuts confidence in the fairness of public
administration; impedes good governance; erodes the rule of
law; distorts competitive conditions; dampens investments; and,
above all, hurts the common man.
If corruption has to be rooted out, the remedy lies in a
multipronged strategy combing preventive and punitive
interventions; including simpler rules, transparent process;
judicious exercise of discretion; prompt delivery systems; better
public awareness, public accountability and discharge of
responsibilities with utmost rectitude."
Ld. PP submits that taking cue from the speech of Her
Excellency, President of India, this court may award maximum punishment
to the convict Saranjit Singh.
CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 3 of 6
2.0 Ms. Geeta Babbar, Ld. Counsel for the convict has prayed for a
lenient view primarily on the ground that accused has two college going
children and he is the sole earning member of the family. He has a daughter
of marriageable age and in case the accused is sent behind the bars, his entire
family shall suffer a severe mental and financial trauma. Ld. Counsel has
submitted that convict has already suffered trial of more than 07 years. He
has been quite regular during the trial. Convict has also serious health
problems. He is suffering from diabetes since the year 1997 and therefore, he
would not be able to bear the hardship of being in prison.
3.0 I have considered the submissions of both the sides and perused
the record carefully.
4.0 The corruption is a bane for the society. It is spreading like
cancer in the society and therefore, multipronged attack is necessary to fight
with this menace. The convict in the present case was found in possession of
huge cash of Rs. 31,68,300/. The defence put up by the convict was simply
dishonest. It was certainly an illgotten money. Corruption can never be
allowed to be a profitable venture. I consider that in such like cases, message
should go to the corrupt people and society at large that indulging in
corruption would only invite further problem and complications. Indulging
in corruption should not only invite imprisonment, it should also attack the
CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 4 of 6
economy of the accused. I consider that mitigating circumstances put up by
the Ld. Counsel do not appeal to this Court.
5.0 Taking into account, the entire facts and circumstances of the
case, convict Saranjit Singh is sentenced to undergo RI for 04 years and
fine of Rs. 7.5 lakhs in default of payment of fine, accused shall undergo
SI for 01 year, u/S 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of PC Act, 1988.
Benefit of Sec. 428 Cr.PC be given to the convict.
6.0 Ld. PP for CBI has prayed for confiscation of the money seized
from the accused during the raid conducted on 12/1/01 and 13/1/01. In
Mirza Iqbal Hussain Vs. State of UP, AIR 1983 SC 60 it was held that in
cases falling u/S 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Act, 1947 (which is analogues
to Section 13(1)(e) of the Present Act), the Special Judge has the jurisdiction
to make an order for confiscation of the wealth that have been unlawfully
acquired or which have been proved to be the disproportionate to his known
sources of income. It may be added that Section 5(6) of the PC Act, 1988
also empowers this Court to exercise all the powers and functions
exercisable by a District Judge under the Criminal Law Amendment
Ordinance, 1944.
7.0
CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 5 of 6
As prayed by the Ld. PP for CBI for the confiscation of the
seized property and relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Mirza Iqbal Hussain Vs. State of UP, AIR 1983 SC 60, the cash in
the sum of Rs. 31,68,300/ recovered from the possession of the convict
stands confiscated to the State.
7.1 A copy of the judgment alongwith order on sentence be given to
the convict free of cost.
8.0 File be consigned to RR.
Announced in Open Court (Dinesh Kumar Sharma)
on 17.05.2012 Spl. Judge (PC Act) : CBI01
Saket Courts : New Delhi.
CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 6 of 6
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT)01, CBI,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presiding Officer : Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Special Judge (PC Act)
CC No.44/11
Unique Case ID No. 02401R5760312004
C.B.I. Vs. 1. SARANJIT SINGH
S/o Late Sh. Sardool Singh,
R/o 7B, Pocket B, DDA Flats,
Vikaspuri Extension, Delhi.
RC No. : RCDAI2001A0005
u/Ss : 13(2) r/w 13(1) (e) of PC Act, 1988
Date of Institution : 30.09.2004
Received by transfer on : 20.10.2011
Arguments Concluded on : 03.05.2012
Date of Decision : 14.05.2012
Appearances:
Sh. DK Singh, Ld. PP for CBI.
Sh. HK Sharma, Ld. Counsel for accused Saranjit Singh.
CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 7 of 6
JUDGMENT
CHARGESHEET 1.0 CBI registered a regular case No. DAI2001A0005 on 12/1/01 against Sh. Saranjit Singh, Sales Tax Officer, Ward No. 84, Bikri Kar Bhawan, New Delhi on the basis of reliable information that accused Saranjit Singh is a corrupt officer and has amassed huge movable and immovable property in his own name / in the name of his family members by way of corrupt and illegal means, and accused is keeping huge cash and amount in bank and lockers and is leading an extravagant lifestyle. The accused was also reportedly maintaining a car. It was indicated to the CBI that the weekly income of the accused in the shape of illegal gratification is not less than Rs.60,000 - Rs.1,00,000/. The accused also reportedly had acquired flat No. 7B, Vikaspuri Extension, New Delhi worth more than Rs. 20 lakhs. A regular case u/S 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of PC Act, 1988 was registered.
During the course of investigation, a search was conducted at the residential premises of the accused at H. No. 7, Pocket B, DDA Flats, Vikaspuri, New Delhi on 12/1/01 to 13/1/01. During the course of search, cash amount of Rs. 31,68,300/ were recovered, besides, huge gold jewellery and other incriminating material. During search, household articles worth Rs. 3,24,210/ were also observed. It is pertinent to mention here that during the search Smt. Harvinder Kaur sister of Smt Parvinder Kaur wife of accused CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 8 of 6 remained present in the house and claimed that she had kept her gold ornaments weighing 145 gms and cash of Rs.21,000/ with her sister for safety reasons. CBI returned Rs.21,000/ and gold ornaments weighing 145 gms to Smt. Harvinder Kaur, finding her request to be genuine.
On 15/1/01, search was also conducted at the office of the accused. During search of locker No. 552 being maintained in the name of accused Saranjit Singh and his wife Parvinder Kaur in Punjab & Sindh Bank,Extn. Counter Santpura, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi, gold ornaments of 616.1 gms were recovered.
Sh. Saranjit Singh is a highly qualified person being Post Graduate in History and Political Science. He joined Government service in Delhi Administration as Panchayat Inspector on 16/2/74 in the pay scale of Rs. 425700 and remained posted in various departments of Delhi Government. Sh. Saranjit Singh took over as Sales Tax Officer for Ward No. 84 on 7/7/98. In the personal life, Sh. Saranjit Singh, was married to Smt. Parvinder Kaur in the year 1983 and had two children namely Rupinder Kaur, daughter and Ishwinder Singh, son. The investigation revealed that accused had acquired most of the assets during the period of his service, either in his own name or in the name of members of his family. The check period was fixed from 16/2/74 to 12/1/01.
During the course of investigation, CBI found that H. No. 7B, Pocket B, Vikaspuri Extension, was acquired by Late Sh. Sardool Singh, father of the accused. Accused also claimed that assets worth Rs. 88,000/ CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 9 of 6 pertain prior to his joining the services. In view of the explanation of the accused, a benefit of Rs. 1,70,350/ was extended to him relating to household articles.
After investigation, CBI filed chargesheet u/S 13(2) r/w 13(1)
(e) of PC Act, 1988. The chargesheet revealed that accused had assets worth Rs. 88,000/ prior to the check period. During check period, accused had total income in the sum of Rs. 12,06,769/, and made an expenditure of Rs. 6,21,397/. Accused was found to have acquired assets in the sum of Rs. 41,42,902/. The details of the income, expenditure and assets are reproduced herein below for the purpose of clarification:
INCOME AND RECEIPTS DURING THE CHECK PERIOD:
S. Description of income / receipts Amount as shown
No. in chargesheet
i) Salary for the period 16/2/74 to January 2001 Rs. 9,53,566.48
ii) Scooter advance in October, 1993 Rs. 10,000.00
iii) Income from sale of scooter DBJ4732 Rs. 8,200
iv) Maturity Value of units of UTI under ULIP scheme during the period Rs. 85,218.54
from 1990 to 8/3/99 @ Rs.4,000/ per year.
v) Interest on saving bank account No. 3775 in Bank of India, RK Rs. 31,490.80
Puram in his name and his wife.
vi) Interest on saving bank account No. 01190/10474 in State Bank of Rs. 49,334.00
India, IP Estate in his own name.
vii) Interest on STDR Accoung No. 01292/10474 in State Bank of India, Rs.14,313.62
IP Estate in his own name.
viii) Interest on saving bank account No. 81677 in Andhra Bank Rs.4,996.00
maintained by accused in the name of his daughter.
ix) Interest on saving bank account No. 81709 in Andhra Bank Rs.4,042.00
maintained by accused in the name of his son.
x) Interest on saving bank account No. 11121814 in Bank of Punjab in Rs.25.00
CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 10 of 6
the name of his wife.
xi) Interest on application money of two ICICI Tax Saving Bonds of Rs. Rs.36.00
10,000/ allotted on 3/3/99.
xii) Interest on application money of two ICICI Tax Saving Bonds of Rs. Rs.59.00
10,000/ allotted on 24/3/00.
xiii) Interest on application money of one ICICI Tax Saving Bonds of Rs. Rs.599.00
5,000/ allotted on 19/1/01.
xiv) Dividend received by accused from Unit Trust of India under US64 Rs.9,142.20
Scheme during the period 1996 to 2001.
xv) Dividend received by wife of accused from Unit Trust of India under Rs. 4,586.11
US64 Scheme during the period 1996 to 2001.
xvi) Income received from sale of gold ornaments on 20/1/94 Rs.25,160.00
xv) Salary drawn by accused in June 86 or June 96 Rs.6,000.00
Total 12,06,768.75
say
12,06,769.00
.................
EXPENDITURE DURING THE CHECK PERIOD
S. Description of expenditure Amount as shown in
No. chargesheet
i) Kitchen expenses Rs.4,33,136.00
ii) Educational expenses during the period 1991 to 2001: Rs.1,36,410.00
on his son Rs. 70,811.00
on his daughter Rs. 65,599.00
Rs.1,36,410.00
iii) Purchase of scooter make Bajaj Super on 25/10/85 Rs. 10,791.30
iv) Income tax paid on 31/3/99 Rs.1,060.00
v) Amount invested for purchase of units in UTI under ULIP Scheme Rs.40,000.00
during the period 1990 to 8.3.99
Total Rs. 6,21,397.30
say
Rs. 6,21,397.00
..................
CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 11 of 6
ASSETS ACQUIRED DURING CHECK PERIOD
i) Closing Balance as on 13/1/01 in SB A/c No. 3735 in the Rs. 1,43,893.22
joint name of Parvinder Kaur and accused in Bank of India.
ii) Closing Balance as on 13/1/01 in SB A/c No. 01190/10474 Rs. 2,14,004.10 in the name of accused in State Bank of India.
iii) Special Term Deposit Account No. 01292/10474/00 in the Rs.48,526.62 name of accused in SBI.
iv) Closing balance as on 13/1/01 in SB A/c No. 81677 in Rs. 69,185.00 Andhra Bank in the name of Rupinder Kaur, under the guardianship of Saranjit Singh.
v) Closing balance as on 13/1/01 in SB A/c No. 81709 in Rs. 54,783.00 Andhra Bank in the name of Ishwinder Singh, under guardianship of Saranjit Singh.
vi) Closing balance as on 13/1/01 in SB A/c No. 11121814 in Rs. 2,525.00 Bank of Punjab Ltd., in the name of Parvinder Kaur.
vii) ICICI Tax Saving Bond bearing No. 5015 & 5016 @ Rs. Rs.10,000.00 5,000/ each on 3/3/99 in the name of accused.
viii) ICICI Tax Saving Bond bearing No. 138962 & 138963 @ Rs.10,000.00 Rs.5,000/ each on 24/3/2000 in the name of accused.
ix) ICICI Tax Saving Bond bearing No. 104862 on 19/1/01 in Rs.5,000.00 the name of accused.
x) Investment in UTI under ULIP certificate No. Rs.14,000.00 940411096620 from 1994 to 25/2/2000 in the name of accused.
xi) Investment in UTI under RBUP certificate No. Rs.10,000.00 400960150002337 on 29/1/96 and 15/3/97 @ 5,000/ each in the name of the accused.
xii) Investment in UTI under US64 Scheme against certificate Rs.13,980.00 No. 400960010250471 on 22/8/95 in the name of the accused.
xiii) Investment in UTI under US64 Scheme by Smt. Parvinder Rs. 6,990.00 Kaur w/o Saranjit Singh on 20/8/95.
xiv) Investment in UTI under US64 Scheme on 3/10/96 in the Rs.28,000.00 name of Rupinder Kaur under the guardianship of Smt. Gobind Kaur mother of accused.
xv) Investment in UTI under US64 Scheme on 25/10/94 in the Rs.19,000.00 CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 12 of 6 name of Ishwinder Singh under the guardianship of Sh. Sardool Singh father of accused.
xvi) Gold ornaments worth 74 gms @ Rs. 4050 per tola during Rs.29,970.00 the period Jan., 2001 i.e. Rs.405/ per gram/ xvii) Gold ornaments seized from bank locker No. 552 worth Rs.2,49,885.00 616.1 gms @ Rs. 4050/ per tola during the period January, 2001.
xviii) Cash recovered from residence of Saranjit Singh as on Rs.31,47,300.00 12/13012001.
xix) Value of household articles found at the time of raid Rs.65,860.00
Total Rs.41,42,901.94
say
Rs.41,42,902.00
......................
CALCULATION OF DISPROPORTIONATE ASSETS
A. Income Rs. 12,06,769.00
B. Expenditure Rs. 6,21,397.00
C Likely Savings (AB) Rs. 5,85,372.00
D Assets Rs. 41,42,902.00
E Assets Disproportionate (DC) Rs. 35,57,530.00
% of DA = 295%
F % of disproportion E/A*100 = 295%
Taking into account the income, expenditure, likely savings and assets in the end of the check period, the accused was found in to have been in possession of disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs. 35,57,530/.
The chargesheet was filed on 30/9/04 and the cognizance was taken by my Ld. Predecessor on 7/10/04.
CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 13 of 6 CHARGE 2.0 Being a prima facie case, charge u/S 13(2) r/w 13(1) (e) of PC Act, 1988 was framed, vide detailed order dtd. 29/7/06. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION WITNESSES 3.0 CBI examined 25 witnesses in support of its case.
Bank Accounts:
3.1 PW1 Mr. Maitreyee Ray, Manager, Bank of India, GKII Branch, Delhi proved a letter dtd. 8/5/01 Ex.PW1/A vide which the statement of account of saving bank account No. 3735 in the joint name of Smt. Parvinder Kaur and Sh. Saranjit Singh alongwith the account opening form, were handed over to the CBI. Photocopy of account opening form duly certified under Banker's Book Evidence Act was proved as Ex.PW1/B. The statement of account of saving bank account No. 3735 duly certified under Banker's Book of Evidence Act has been proved as Ex.PW1/C1 to C12. The witness proved that as on 18/12/01, there was a balance of Rs. 1,43,893.22 which included the interest to a sum of Rs.31,490.80 earned during the period January 1988 to 18/12/2000.
3.2 PW4 Sh. RS Chauhan, Service Manager, SBI, Karawal Nagar, Delhi94, proved the letter dtd. 14/5/01 as Ex.PW4/A. Vide this CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 14 of 6 communication, Sh.TR Tamta, Chief Manager, SBI, IP Estate, New Delhi forwarded to the CBI, the specimen signature card in respect of SB A/c No. 01190010474 in the name of Saranjit Singh and statement of SB A/c No. 01292/010474/00 from Sept. 1985 till Jan'01 and the statement of account of FDR/STDR. The specimen signature card bearing signature of Saranjit Singh has been proved as Ex.PW4/B. The statement of account of SB A/c No. 474 in the name of the accused has been proved as Ex.PW4/C. The statement of account is duly certified under Banker's Book Evidence Act.
The witness also duly identified the signature of Sh. TR Tamta and his own signature on the computer generated sheets of the statement of account. The witness proved that as per statement of account Ex.PW4/C there was a balance of Rs. 2,29,694.10p which included an interest of Rs.49,334/. The statement of account of STDR deposit has also been proved as Ex.PW4/D. In the STDR account, the closing balance has been proved as Rs. 48,526.62p including an amount of Rs.14,313.62p as interest earned on deposit. In the cross examination, nothing material could be elicited from the prosecution witness.
3.3 PW14 Sh. MV Subbaraman, was posted as Assistant Manager in RK Puram branch of Andhra Bank. He proved the letter dtd. 24/9/02 as Ex.PW14/A vide which certified copy of account opening form and specimen signature card pertaining to Kiddy Bank account No. 81677 (old number 1677) and 81709 (old number 1709) alongwith statement of account CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 15 of 6 were forwarded to CBI. The account No. 1677 is a a minor account opened by accused Saranjit Singh in the name of Sweety, as account holder guardian and the account No. 1709 was minor account opened by Saranjit Singh being account holder guardian in the name of S.Sweta. The account opening form cum specimen card has been proved as Ex.PW14/B and Ex.PW14/C respectively. The statement of account pertaining to account No. 81677 and 81709 has been proved as Ex.PW14/D and Ex.PW14/E. The witness was not subjected to any cross examination by the accused.
3.4 PW18 Sh. S.D. Satii, the then Dy. Manager, SBI. IP Estates deposed to have handedover the attested photocopy of voucher slip dated 25.02.2000 of Rs. 85,218.54/ of A/C. No. 10474 in the name of Saranjit Singh alongwith letter Ex. PW18/1. The witness was not subjected to any crossexamination.
Sanction:
3.5 PW2 Sh. BP Joshi proved the sanction u/S 19 PC Act for the prosecution of the accused u/S 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of PC Act as Ex.PW2/A. Sh. BP Joshi specifically stated on oath that accused Saranjit Singh was a Sales Tax Officer and Lt. Governor of Delhi was competent to remove him from service, and he (Sh. BP Joshi) was competent to sign the sanction order on behalf of Lt. Governor. The witness also brought the relevant file, whereby a request of CBI for grant of sanction for prosecution of accused CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 16 of 6 was received. Sh. BP Joshi specifically stated that the material was duly placed before the Lt. Governor and Hon'ble Lt. Governor on perusing the documents placed before him accorded the approval. Admittedly, the witness had only conveyed the sanction accorded by Hon'ble Lt. Governor. It is pertinent to note that in the cross examination, the witness stated that file No.F4(19)/2000AVCST/3030 i.e. vigilance file of sales tax department was placed before the Lt. Governor, Delhi for the grant of sanction for prosecution against the accused. Sh. BP Joshi stated that the file brought by him in the Court is an official record maintained in the concerned office of Govt. of NCT.
3.6 PW19 Sh. Bharat Bhushan Dhall had deposed only to remove certain anomaly of the dates on the sanction order.
Educational Expenses:
3.7 PW3 Sh. Jaswinder Singh proved the letter of Sh. KS Vohera, Vice Principal, Guru Hari Krishan Public School dtd. 18/7/01 as Ex.PW3/A. Vide this communication, the school authorities had informed that during the session 200001, a total sum of Rs. 12,260/ was received on account of fees and other charges from Ishwinder Singh s/o Saranjit Singh.CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 17 of 6
3.8 PW10 Sh. Anil Singhal Accounts Officer, Appeejay School, Pritampura, proved the communication of Principal of Appeejay School dtd.
2/8/01 as Ex.PW10/A alongwith the enclosure Ex.PW10/A1 to A5. The witness stated that Sh. Ishwinder Singh s/o Sh. Saranjit Singh got admission in the school on 29/7/1999 in Class IX. Ishwinder Singh could not clear the exam conducted in March 2000 and thereafter, he stopped attending the class and his name was struck off from the school record on 1/6/2000. The school leaving certificate dtd. 19/7/00 was issued on 8/8/2000 at the request of accused Saranjit Singh. During the period Ishwinder Singh studied in Appeejay School, a total sum of Rs. 28,295/ was paid by Sh. Ishwinder Singh including the admission fee. The witness was not subjected to any cross examination.
3.9 PW12 Sh. Gurdeep Singh, Office Sudpt. proved the letter dtd. 23/7/01 of Smt. Surinder Kaur, the then Principal of Guru Harkrishan Public School as Ex.PW12/A. Vide this letter, the detail of fee received from Ishwinder Singh and Rupinder Kaur i.e. children of the accused were furnished vide Annexure Ex.PW12/B. The witness stated that Ms. Rupinder Kaur studied from Class I to XI, during the period 199091 to 200001 and paid a sum of Rs. 65,559/ and Master Ishwinder Singh studied from Class I to VIII during the period 199192 to 199899 during which he paid a sum of Rs. 30,256/. The witness was not able to tell that how much fee was deposited in cash and how much fee was paid by cheque. A mere suggestion CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 18 of 6 was given that Ex.PW12/B does not reflect the correct fee paid by the students.
House Search / Locker Search:
3.10 PW5 Sh. Karam Raj Singh is a material witness. He was joined by the CBI as an independent witness. Sh. Karam Raj Singh an employee of MTNL participated in a raid conducted at the residence of accused pursuant to the direction of his superiors. He stated that the residence of the accused was at Vikaspuri. Initially, the wife of the accused was present, however, accused also joined the proceedings at 7:30pm. Sh.
Karam Raj Singh stated that all the rooms were searched separately and cash of Rs. 31 lakhs was recovered during the search. The household articles were valued by the CBI team in consultation with the wife of the accused and the detailed memo was prepared detailing the value of each asset and the year of acquisition. It is pertinent to mention that witness specifically stated that the year of acquisition was written in consultation of the accused and members of his family. The witness duly proved the search cum observation memo as Ex.PW5/A. He stated that the memo was correctly prepared and he signed the memo after reading the same. Sh. Karam Raj Singh identified his signature at point A on all pages at Ex.PW5/A. The witness also proved the search cum seizure memo Ex.PW5/B vide which certain documents and cash recovered during the search was duly seized. In the cross examination, the CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 19 of 6 witness stated that wife of the accused had opened the gate and at that time, children of the accused and one another lady was present. The witness was confronted with certain over writings at point X1 to X13 on Ex.PW5/A, however, Sh. Karam Raj Singh stated that he does not remember if he had noticed the same at the time of putting his signatures. The witness admitted that no neighbour was joined in the search of the house of the accused. However, wife of the accused was asked to call her relatives prior to the arrival of the accused and thereafter, two ladies had come inside the house. The witness denied the suggestion that wife of the accused had told the CBI that she was running a business and cash seized from the house pertain to that business. The witness denied the suggestion that document Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW5/B were prepared and signed by them at the CBI office. It is pertinent to mention here that in the cross examination the recovery of the cash has not been disputed by the accused.
3.11 PW16 Sh. Raghunath Singh, Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank deposed on oath that Saranjit Singh was maintaining locker No. 552. On 13/1/01, the said locker was opened and searched in his presence. The inventory / memo of the articles found in the locker was prepared and the same was proved as Ex.PW16/A. This witness was also not subjected to any cross examination.
3.12 PW15 Sh. Amrish Kumar was dropped by CBI.
CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 20 of 6 Investments:
3.13 PW6 Sh. HL Arora, Assistant, UTI proved the letter dtd.
11/3/02 bearing signature of Sarita Srivastava, Assistant Manager (Legal) as Ex.PW6/A. The witness identified the signature of Smt. Sarita having been worked under her for more than one year. Sh. HL Arora also proved the chart Ex.PW6/B prepared by him regarding various investments made by accused Saranjit Singh and the members of his family in various schemes of UTI. The chart Ex.PW6/B revealed the amount of investments and the period during which such investments had been made. The receipts and the account statements / annual statements /acknowledgment slip pertaining to UTI were proved as Ex.PW6/C1 to C21. In the cross examination, the witness admitted that he does not know the specific contents of Ex.PW6/A and he could not tell how the details reflected at point 1, 2 and 5 to 9 were mentioned. The witness also admitted that investments pertaining to Gobind Kaur, Parvinder Kaur, Sardool Singh does not contain the name of Saranjit Singh and the investment made by Rupinder Kaur were made under the guardianship of Gobind Kaur and the investment made by Ishwinder Singh were under the guardianship of Sh. Sardool Singh. The witness also admitted that in document Ex.PW6/C14 to 17 there is no mention of Saranjit Singh. It is matter of record that there is no details of the cheque issued on record. CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 21 of 6 3.14 PW25 Sanjay Sharma proved the letter Ex. PW25/A vide which the details of the securities held by the accused in the public issue of safety bonds of ICICI Ltd. The information contained in three annexures Ex. PW25/B, PW25/C and PW25/D were also duly proved. The witness also proved the allotment advice dated 24/3/00 of two tax saving bond of Rs. 10,000/ in favour of accused as Ex. PW25/E. Salary income of the accused:
3.15 PW7 Sh. MS Negi, Financial Advisor, Delhi Khadi & Village Industries Board, Delhi proved the letter dtd. 18/10/02 as Ex.PW7/A vide which the salary details of accused Saranjit Singh during his posting as Sales Tax Inspector, Sales Tax office during three spells w.e.f August 78 to July 83, January 89 to August 92, August 98 to January 2001 was enclosed. The chart of the salary for this period has been proved as Ex.PW7/B1 to B5. In the cross examination, a mere suggestion was given that Ex.PW7/B1 to B5 does not contain correct details.
3.16 PW8 Sh. Vijay Singh, Superintendent, Education Deptt., produced the salary detail of the accused from the period 16/2/74 to February, 1976, vide communication Ex.PW8/A. The photocopy of the pay bill register has been proved as Ex.PW8/B1 to B2. The witness stated that the salary record for the period 1/3/76 to December 1976 was not available in the office. During the cross examination to this witness also, merely a CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 22 of 6 suggestion was put that Ex.PW8/B1 and B2 does not contain correct emoluments drawn by the accused.
3.17 PW9 Sh.Dalip Kumar, UDC, Education Department proved the salary particulars of the accused from the period 24/12/86 31/3/96. Vide attested photocopy of the pages of pay register Ex.PW9/A1 to A12. Sh.
Saranjit Singh was Inspector during the period 24/12/86 to 26/12/88 and FSO during the period 11/1/95 to 31/3/96. The witness also proved the communication dtd. 29/9/03 Ex.PW9/B, which indicates that accused Saranjit Singh had not submitted annual property return during the period from 1994 to 1997, as per available record. Interestingly, suggestion was put to the witness that document Ex.PW9/A and Ex.PW9/A1 to A12 were forged at the instance of the CBI and further, a mere suggestion was put that document does not reflect the correct salary particulars of Saranjit Singh. 3.18 PW11 Sh. Maha Singh, Department of Education proved the letter of Sh Satnam Dhamija, STO (Admn) regarding forwarding of service book / personal file of accused Saranjit Singh as EX.PW11/A. The witness proved that the starting cadre of Saranjit Singh was Grade II of Delhi Administration Subordinate Services. Sh. Maha Singh deposed on oath that the officer who are in the substantive rank of Grade I of DASS cadre but are promoted on adhoc basis as STO (Adhoc) and such other similar posts, are made part of adhoc DANICS service. The witness also proved the CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 23 of 6 communication of accused Saranjit Singh dtd. 2/7/02 as Ex.PW11/A1 vide which accused had shown his inability to fill up property statement forms I to VI. The witness also deposed in detail regarding transfer and postings in Sales Tax Department on the basis of service book of the accused. The relevant extract of the service record was also placed on record and proved as Ex.PW11/B1 to B5. The witness deposed that on 13/1/01, accused was drawing the basic salary of Rs.9100/ in the pay scale of Rs. 6500200 10,500/ and the relevant entry in this regard were proved as Ex.PW11/C. 3.19 PW21 Sh. BS Rawat proved the salary details of the accused for the period 15.07.83 to December 1986 and proved the salary details as Ex. PW21/A1. The details were forwarded alongwith the letter Ex. PW21/A. In the crossexamination the witness admitted that salary details Ex. PW21/A1has not been prepared by him and without seeing the original record, he cannot confirm whether the contents of the same are true or not. Interestingly, the witness admitted that the total amount received by the accused is not reflected in Ex. PW21/A1 for the period 15.07.83 to December 1986. The witness denied that the income received by the accused for this period may be much more than the same.
3.20 PW22 Dr. Bhupinder Singh proved the salary drawn statement of the accused for the period 11.03.96 to 06.07.98 and proved the letter signed by him submitted to CBI as Ex. PW22/A. CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 24 of 6 3.21 PW23 Inder Raj Singh proved the salary statement for the period 11.03.96 to 6.07.98 as Ex. PW23/A. CBI Officials:
3.22 PW13 Sh. MS Singhal, Addl. SP, CBI had supervised the search conducted on 12/1/01 at the premises of the accused on the direction of the then SP, CBI. Sh. MS Singhal deposed on oath that during the course of search at the residence of Saranjit Singh, observation memo and search cum seizure memo was prepared with respect to the inventory observed during the search and the incriminating documents / cash seized. He stated that the search was conducted in the presence of Parvinder Kaur wife of the accused and later on accused Saranjit Singh also joined the search process.
Smt. Harvinder Kaur, sister of Smt. Parvinder Kaur was also present during the course of search. Search proceedings commenced at about 6:30pm on 12/1/01and continued till 8:30am on 13/1/01. Sh.MS Singhal specifically stated that during the course of search, cash amount of Rs.31.683 lakhs was observed, out of which an amount of Rs. 21,000/ was returned to Smt. Harvinder Kaur being claimed by her and an amount of Rs. 25,000/ was left for meeting the day to day expenses and the remaining cash was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/B alongwith incriminating documents. The witness stated that the cash amount was seized because accused could not explain for CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 25 of 6 the availability of such huge amount in cash and the details of the articles found / observed during the course of search were mentioned in search cum observation memo Ex.PW5/A and the value of the articles were mentioned on the basis of mutual consultation. The witness duly proved his signature on the observation memo and the seizure memo. He also stated that out of the gold jewellery during the course of search, the jewellery claimed by Smt. Harvinder Kaur was duly returned to her. In the cross examination, Sh. MS Singhal admitted that no valuer was associated at the time of conducting search. The witness admitted during the course of cross examination that observation and seizure memo does not mention that explanation was sought from the accused regarding the cash. Sh. MS Singhal denied the suggestion that independent witnesses in this case were handpicked by the CBI who have been associated in other cases also.
3.23 PW17 Insp. SC Bhalla, IO, deposed on oath that on 12/1/01 he was enstrusted the present case for investigation. Pursuant to which, the searches were conducted at the residence of the accused in the presence of independent witnesses on 12/1/01 which continued till 13/1/01. During the course of search, cash amount of Rs. 31,68,300/ and gold jewellery items worth 219 gms apart from household articles and other documents were found as mentioned in the observation memo prepared at the spot Ex.PW5/A. IO proved the search cum seizure memo ExPW5/B. Sh. SC Bhalla, stated that Smt. Harvinder Kaur, sister of Smt. Parvinder Kaur wife CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 26 of 6 of the accused was present. Smt. Harvinder Kaur claimed that she had kept the gold ornaments and cash of Rs. 21,000/ with Smt. Parvinder Kaur and finding her request to be genuine, the gold ornaments weighing 145 gms and cash of Rs. 21,000/ was duly returned to her. This fact was duly mentioned in the observation memo Ex.PW5/A. The sum of Rs. 25,000/ was also returned to the accused to meet the day to day family expenses. Remaining cash of Rs. 31,22,300/ was seized vide search cum seizure memo Ex.Pw5/B alongwith other articles and documents. IO further stated that on 13/1/01, locker of accused Saranjit Singh maintained in Punjab & Sindh Bank was searched in the presence of independent witnesses. The articles observed in the said locker were mentioned in the locker observation memo Ex.PW16/A. The income, expenditure, savings etc., of Saranjit Singh was collected during the course of investigation for the check period 16/1/74 to 12/1/01. Sh. SC Bhalla specifically stated that Sh. Saranjit Singh was given an opportunity to explain the accumulation of huge cash at his residence. IO stated that after the sanction for prosecution was recorded, the chargesheet for acquiring disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs. 35,57,530/ was filed. In the cross examination, IO denied the suggestion that explanation tendered by the members of the family of accused who were present at the time of search were consciously not recorded.
IO denied the suggestion that he learned at the time of search only that wife of the accused is a business woman. IO admitted that certain documents which was seized during the house search vide Ex. PW5/BD have CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 27 of 6 not been relied upon by the prosecution and these documents were identified as Ex. PW17/DA1 to PW17/DA32. IO also admitted another file Ex. PW17/DB containing documents Ex. PW17/DB1 to DB18 which were seized by the seizure memo Ex. PW5/B, but have not been relied upon by the CBI. Inspr. S.C. Bhalla stated that since he did not find the documents in file Ex. PW17/DB relevant for the purpose of CBI case, therefore they were unrelied documents and he did not conduct any investigation about the same. He denied the suggestion that 39 documents listed in Ex. PW17/DA and 18 documents listed in Ex. PW17/DB reflects the sources of income and assets of the accused.
IO admitted to have called Gurdeep Singh Gujral however he denied the suggestion that Gurdeep Singh Gujral had explained his contribution with respect to the cash recovered from the house of the accused. It is a matter of record that Gurdeep Singh Gujral has not been cited as a prosecution witness. IO admitted that he has not cited Gurdeep Singh Gujral, Mrs. Parvinder Kaur and Sh. Gubachan Singh Akal as witnesses. IO was not able to recall the enquiry made from Parvinder Kaur regarding sale transaction between her and Mrs. Sheela Rani with respect to Flat NO. 71A, PocketE, Tilak Vihar, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi for Rs. 2,47,000/. IO stated that flat of the accused was on the first floor and it was a DDA flat. IO denied the suggestion that he intentionally did not take into account statement made by Mrs. Parvinder Kaur in particular that a business was run by her under the name and style of M/s. Punjabi Fulkari. During CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 28 of 6 cross examination, accused put to the IO that he had given in writing that most of the articles, reflected in observation memo had been purchased by his father before 1995 and about the source of cash amounting to Rs. 31,42,300/ wherein it was pointed out that a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/ belonged to Sh. Gurbachan Singh Akal, Rs. 2 lacs belonged to Sardar Gurdeep singh and 24,97,300/ belonged to his wife in relation to her own business. IO denied the suggestion that all legitimate receipts, available to the accused, as income of his wife, assets of his parents, precheck income was not provided to the accused. IO also denied the suggestion that calculations reflected in the charge sheet are incorrect and the contribution of relatives and other acquisition of the property by the wife of the accused, from her own resources and amongst blood relations, was consciously not shown in the charge sheet.
Income from sale of gold:
3.24 PW20 Sh. Sushil Kumar proved the Gold receipt voucher dated 20.01.94 of M/s. Ram Chand Harbans Lal vide which Smt. Parvinder Kaur sold 4 gold bangles to M/s. Ram Chand Harband Lal against sale consideration of 25,160/. The payment of the same was given to Parvinder Kaur through cheque.CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 29 of 6
Income from sale of scooter:
3.25 PW24 PK Nanda stated that in the year 1989 , he had purchased a scooter from accused Saranjit for Rs. 8,200/ and proved the receipt as Ex. PW24/A. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED 4.0 In his statement u/S 313 Cr.PC, accused admitted the search proceedings however he stated that CBI made forcible entry into his house.
The accused did not dispute the recovery of cash of Rs. 31.68 lacs from his house. The accused also admitted the presence of his wife and Smt. Harvinder Kaur at the time of the search, however, he stated that in making the valuation, the raiding party did not consult them i.e. accused or his wife. The accused stated that out of cash of Rs. 31,68,300/ recovered from his house, Rs. 2 lacs belonged to Sardar Gurdeep Singh, Rs. 4,50,000/ belonged to Sardar Gurbachan Singh Akal, Rs. 2,47,000/ belonged to his wife as sale of flat at Tilak Vihar to Smt. Sheela Rani and Rs. 22,50,300/ also belonged to his wife as sale proceed of her business in the name and style of M/s. Punjabi Fulkari. The accused stated that he explained about all income and cash kept in his house during search. In respect of articles recovered from locker no. 522, the accused stated that articles recovered from the locker, belonged to his mother and his wife and daughter. In respect of UTI Investments in the name of Rupinder Kaur and Ishwinder Singh he stated CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 30 of 6 that the payments were made by him and and his wife from their own bank account. Fee of his children was paid by his mother and his wife. In respect of the sanction for prosecution u/s 19 PC Act, the accused simply stated that the same is defective. In reply to the other questions, the accused either stated to be the same as a matter of record or admitted to be correct.
DEFENCE WITNESSES 5.0 The accused examined 8 defence witnesses including his wife Smt. Parvinder Kaur.
DW1 Smt. Sheela Rani deposed on oath that she had entered into a deal with the accused with respect to Plot No. 71A, E Block, Tilak Vihar, Delhi. She stated that plot was actually purchased by Smt. Parvinder Kaur for a sum of Rs. 2,47,000/ and the payment was made by her only. Smt. Sheela Rani stated that since the possession of the flat could not be delivered, she returned back the money to Parvinder Kaur. Smt. Sheela Rani also stated that she had executed the receipts both the times and proved the same as Ex. DW1/A and DW1/B. The witness also stated that the original of the documents were seized by CBI while her statement was recorded. In the crossexamination, the witness stated that CBI did not give any seizure memo at the time when original of these receipts were seized. She denied the suggestion that no such transaction ever took place. The witness did not have any document regarding the flat. The witness stated that she does not CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 31 of 6 have any document of the flat as the same has been sold by her at a later stage.
DW2 Manjeet Singh is the resident of the same building in which the accused is residing. He stated that in December 1997, Smt. Govind Kaur, mother of the accused called him and asked him to become a witness of the will executed by her. The witness identified his signature at point A on the photocopy of the will Ex. DW2/A. The witness stated that when he signed on the will, it had already been written. Smt. Govind Kaur had signed in his presence at point B. Sh. Manjeet Singh stated that Smt. Govind Kaur had told him that she had given share of around Rs. 2,40,000/ to Smt. Parvinder Kaur out of the business proceed being run by the father of the accused and the other assets including movable or immovable amongst the accused and his brothers and sisters. In the crossexamination, the witness stated that he was never called by the IO during the investigation. He admitted that he has come here to depose as accused had been his neighbour and had a good relations with him.
DW3 Gurdeep Singh Gujral, Former Manager Punjab & Sind Bank is cobrother i.e. husband of his wife's sister deposed on oath that in the month of October, 2000 he had sold a property in Aigarh for Rs. 2,47,000/ and in order to invest the money, he gave it to Saranjit Singh. Out of the money recovered from him during the raid, Rs. 2 lacs belonged to CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 32 of 6 him. In the crossexamination, the witness stated that in the year 2000, he had a bank account in his name and was also an income tax payee. He further stated that he had informed about this transaction to his bank, however he was not able to produce any documents to this effect. The witness also stated that he had shown this transaction in the income tax return.
DW4 Sh. Mohan Mohadikar is a support witness to the testimony of DW8 Smt. Parvinder Kaur. It may be recalled that Smt. Parvinder Kaur has taken a defence that she had participated in an exhibition in Pune where she had a bumper sale of Rs. 24 lacs in 4 days. Sh. Mohan Mohadikar appeared to prove the participation of Mrs. Parvinder Kaur in the exhibition in Pune from 6 .01.2001 to 10.01.2001. The receipt of the participation fee was proved as Ex. PW4/A. DW5 Sh. Jitender Kumar proved the Assessment Order of sale tax of M/s. Punjabi Fulkari of the year 199798, 199899, 19992000, 200001, 200102 and 200203 as DW5/A to DW5/F,. The assessment order of Central Sale Tax has been proved as DW5/G. After DW5, inadvertently, Sh. Tika Ram has been examined as DW7 in place of DW6. It may be recalled that accused had moved an CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 33 of 6 application for summoning certain documents from CBI. In response to that, Sh. Tika Ram only tendered the carbon copy of statement of Smt. Sheela Rani u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and stated that as per instructions of holding IO, CBI doesnot have any document.
DW8 Smt. Parvinder Kaur is a star defence witness. She stated that she is M.A. (Economics) and B.Ed and also received formal education in music. She was married to accused Saranjit Singh in the year 1983. Immediately after marriage, she started imparting tuitions, and also started doing Gurbani Programms as well imparting tuitions for Gurbani. These jobs generated income for her, which she used to deposit in A/C. No. 3735 in Bank of India, RK Puram and the same continued till 1995. In the year 1995, her father in law Sh. Sardool Singh expired and thereafter the business run by him under the name and style of Punjabi Fulkari was taken over by her. She further stated that when she took over the business, there was a stock of around Rs. 2.5 lacs. In the year 1995, her father Sh. Ranjeet Singh expired and mother Harbhajan Kaur gave her Rs. 2 lacs which were also invested by her in the business. The witness stated that since the income from business started increasing she purchased a Janta flat from Smt. Sheela Rani for a sum of Rs. 2,47,000/ however later on this deal was cancelled and money was returned to her on 30.12.2000. She stated that on 04.01.2001, she had gone to Pune and participated in Trade Fair from 05.01.2001 to 10.01.2001 and returned to Delhi on 12.01.01. She stated that CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 34 of 6 CBI took away entire cash in hand belonging to her firm, including the sale proceeds of trade fair and did not take into account that money belonged to her firm. Smt. Parvinder Kaur stated that she had also told CBI officer that stock of her firm was lying in the garage but they did not take note of it. Smt. Parvinder Kaur stated that she had submitted Income Tax return of her firm form the year 19992003. In the year 2003, Sales Tax Inspector visited her business premises and at that time he found that customers were sitting there. Thereafter she went to Sale Tax Office with CA and then it was concluded that she was liable to pay Sales tax from the year 1996 alongwith penalty. Smt. Parvinder Kaur stated that she duly paid sale tax alongwith the penalty and proved the assessment order as Ex. DW5/A to DW5/G. Smt. Parvinder Kaur identified her signature on the photocopy of the receipt Ex.DW1/B and stated that she returned the papers to Smt. Sheela Rani. The witness stated that she continued to do the business under the name and style of Punjabi Fulkari till 2006 and she had to close this business on account of fear for sealing the premises by MCD. Smt. Parvinder Kaur stated that she had stated all these facts to CBI and her statement was duly recorded. Smt. Parvinder Kaur stated that her statement was also recorded regarding the receipt of gift of Rs. 2 lacs from her mother. The income tax returns from the period 200001, 200102, 200203, 200304 and 200506 have been proved as DW8/A to 8/G and the intimation u/s 43 of Income Tax Act received by her of the assessment year 200102, 200304 and 200405 are Ex. DW8/H, Ex. DW8/I and DW 8/J. At the end, the witness stated that CBI CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 35 of 6 took away the cash in hand of her firm amounting to Rs. 24,97,300/ at the time of raid. She stated that amount was high on account of the fact that she had a brisk sale in Pune exhibition and apart from this , other money was also lying at home. During the crossexamination, the witness stated that she does not have any document left by her father in law nor she could recall to have any document regarding gift of Rs. 2 lacs received from her mother. Smt. Parvinder Kaur stated that she had never lodged any complaint against any CBI officer. During crossexamination the witness produced the bill book of Pune exhibition and proved the same as DW8/DA1 to DA5.
ARGUMENTS 6.0 Sh. DK Singh, Ld. PP for CBI has submitted that prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Ld. PP submits that the accused has miserably failed to satisfactorily account for the property disproportionate to his known sources of income. In order to come out of the purview of Sec. 13(1)(e) PC Act, the defence has to make simple and honest defence, whereas, in the present case, the defence placed by the accused is simply dishonest. Sh. DK Singh, Ld. PP has submitted that accused has given a totally improbable defence which is liable to be rejected. It has further been submitted that the accused has not disputed the recovery of cash. He has tried to explain the cash to be belonging to his wife. His wife DW8 Parvinder Kaur has submitted that around Rs. 25 lakhs was on account CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 36 of 6 of sale of four days of Pune Exhibition. It has further been submitted that on observation memo Ex.PW5/A and seizure memo Ex.PW5/B, the wife of the accused never made a plea that the money recovered was the sale proceeds during the Pune Exhibition. The defence placed by the accused is sham and an after thought. The presence of Smt. Parvinder Kaur at the time of search is an admitted fact and her silence on this aspect indicates falsehood. In support of his contention, Ld.PP has cited P.Nallammal Vs. State, (1999) 6 SCC 559, BC Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 484 and Ashok Tshering Bhutia Vs. State of Sikkim, AIR 2011 SC 1363. 6.1 Sh. HK Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the accused has vehemently argued that the CBI has conducted dishonest and malafide investigation. IO has remained unfair to the accused. The explanation rendered by the accused was not taken into account. The witnesses examined by the IO during the course of investigation were withheld and the material documents were kept at back of the Court. Ld. Defence counsel submitted that prosecution was required to produce all the documents and since the documents have not been produced, the investigation conducted by the IO is unfair and therefore, the case of the prosecution is liable to be rejected. In support of his contention, Ld. Counsel for the accused cited K. Veeraswami Vs. Union of India & Ors., JT1991 (3) SC 198 . In regard to the "satisfactorily account", Ld. Counsel submitted that the accused during the course of investigation CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 37 of 6 had fully explained the possession of the cash recovered during the search. IO during the course of investigation, admitted that he had recorded the statement of Gurbachan Singh. Gurbachan Singh had explained the presence of cash of Rs. 4.5 lakhs at the house of the accused. The fact that Sh. Gurbachan Singh was not cited as a witness and his testimony was also withheld by the CBI indicates their dishonest and ulterior motive. The IO also withheld the material documents and dishonestly did not rely upon the same. The documents Ex.PW17/DA and PW17/DB indicates that the accused was a man of means. His father had a status in life and therefore, the recovery of cash from the house, owned by the father of the accused cannot be foisted upon him. On account of unfair investigation, the case of the prosecution is liable to be rejected and in support of his contention, Ld. Counsel has cited State Inspector of Police, Visakhapatnam Vs. Surya Sankaram Karri, 2006 VII AD (SC)278.
Ld. Counsel has also relied upon Shakuntala Vs. State of Delhi, 139(2007) DLT 178. Sh. HK Sharma, Ld. Counsel has submitted that DW3 Gurdeep Singh had accounted for Rs. 2 lakhs and there is no reason to disbelieve his statement. In respect to the remaining cash recovered during the search, Smt. Parvinder Kaur has made a consistent, cogent and creditworthy statement. Sh. HK Sharma, Ld. Counse has submitted that CBI has filed the chargesheet u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, claiming a sum of Rs. 35,57,530/ as a disproportionate asset. Out of this, around Rs. CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 38 of 6 31.5 lakhs was on account of cash recovered during search. Ld. Counself has submitted that if his client is able to satisfactorily account for that cash, the case of the CBI is liable to be thrown out. It has been submitted that after this aspect is accounted for, the accused becomes entitled for the acquittal on account of the fact that there would be a margin of 10%, and on the basis of judicial jurisprudence, the accused cannot be held liable for disproportionate assets.
Sh. HK Sharma, Ld. Defence counsel has relied upon DSP, Chennai Vs. K. Inbasagaran, 2005 X AD (SC) 368 to say that admittedly the H. No. 7B, Pocket B, Vikaspuri Extn., New Delhi was in joint possession of accused and his wife Parvinder Kaur. Smt. Parvinder Kaur has come ahead and claimed the entire money and therefore, this money cannot be foisted upon the accused. It has been submitted that the accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt.
During the course of argument, Ld. Defence counsel admitted that income tax return and sales tax return were filed after the raid. Sh. HK Sharma, Ld. Counsel has only pressed his case on the point that the cash recovered during the search cannot be foisted upon the accused. Ld. Counsel built his submissions on the premises that cash recovered during the raid did not belong to the accused, and the same had duly been explained. Other aspects of the case were not pressed by the Ld. Defence counsel. CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 39 of 6 7.0 I have heard the submissions of Sh. DK Singh, Ld. PP for CBI and Sh. HK Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the accused and have gone through the record carefully.
PROPOSITION OF LAW 8.0 Section 13 (1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 reads thus :
"A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,
(e) if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income.
Explanation. For the purposes of this section, 'known sources of income' means income received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant." In the case of VK Puri Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2007(6) SCC 91, the conditions essential to bring a case u/S 13(1)(e) of the PC Act were laid down as under:
(1) The accused is a public servant;
(2) The nature and extent of the pecuniary resources of property found in his possession;
(3) His known sources of income, i.e. known to the prosecution. (4) Such resources or properties found in possession of the accused were disproportionate to his known sources of income.
(5) The aforementioned ingredients are established by the prosecution, the burden of proof would shift on the accused to show that the prosecution case is not correct.CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 40 of 6
Once the above ingredients are satisfactorily established, the offence of criminal misconduct u/S.13(1)(e) is complete, unless the accused is able to account for such resources or property. In other words, only after the prosecution has proved the required ingredients, the burden of satisfactorily accounting for the possession of such resources or property shifts to the accused.
Burden of Proof:
8.1 In CSD Swami Vs. The State, AIR 1960 SC 7, the Apex Court inter alia held that Sec. 5(3) of the PC Act, 1947 (corresponding to Sec.
13(1)(e) of the PC Act, 1988) is a complete departure as compared to the criminal jurisprudence. It lays down the rule of evidence, enabling the Court to raise a presumption of guilt. However, still the burden is on the prosecution to prove all the ingredients of the offence charged. In State of MP Vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Ors., (2004) 1 SCC 691, it was inter alia held that after the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of the offence charged, the accused has to account satisfactorily the money received in his hand and satisfy the court that his explanation was worthy of acceptance. It was held as under:
"The expression 'known sources of income' in S. 13 has reference to sources known to the prosecution after thorough investigation of the case. It is not, and cannot be contended that 'known sources of income' means sources known to the accused. The prosecution cannot, in the CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 41 of 6 very nature of things, be expected to know the affairs of an accused person. Those will be matters 'specially within the knowledge' of the accused, within the meaning of S. 106. The phrase 'known sources of income' in S. 13(1)(e) (old S. 5(1)(e)) has clearly the emphasis on the word 'income.' It would be primary to observe that qua the public servant, the income would be what is attached to his office or post, commonly known as remuneration or salary. The term 'income' by itself, is elastic and has a wide connotation. Whatever comes in or is received, is income. But, however, wise the import and connotation of the term 'income,' it is incapable of being understood as meaning receipt having no nexus to one's labour, or expertise, or property, or investment and having further a source which may or may not yield a regular revenue. These essential characteristics are vital in understanding the term 'income.' Therefore, it can be said that, though 'income' is receipt in the hand of its recipient, every receipt would not partake into the character of income. Qua the public servant, whatever return he gets of his service, will be the primary item of his income. Other incomes which can conceivably are income qua the public servant, will be in the regular receipt from (a) his property, or (b) his investment. A receipt from windfall, or gains of graft, crime, or immoral secretions by persons prima facie would not be receipt from the 'known sources of income' of a public servant. The Legislature has advisedly used the expression 'satisfactorily account.' The emphasis must be on the word 'satisfactorily' and the legislature has, thus, deliberately cast a burden 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. (Paras 5, 6, 7)
6. The phrase "known sources of income" in S.1 3(1)(e) (old S. 5(1)(e)) has clearly the emphasis on the word "income." It would be primary to observe that qua the public servant, the income would be what is attached to his office or post, commonly known as remuneration or salary. The term "income" by itself, is elastic and has a wide connotation. Whatever comes in or is received, is income. But, however, wide the import and connotation of the term "income," it is incapable of being understood as meaning receipt having no nexus to one's labour, or expertise, or property, or investment and having further a source which may or may not yield a regular revenue. These essential characteristics are vital in understanding the term "income." Therefore, it can be said that, though "income" is receipt in the hand of its recipient, every receipt would not partake into the character of income. Qua the public servant, whatever return he gets of his service, will be the primary item of his CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 42 of 6 income. Other incomes which can conceivably are income qua the public servant, will be in the regular receipt from (a) his property, or (b) his investment. A receipt from windfall, or gains of graft, crime, or immoral secretions by persons prima facie would not be receipt from the "known sources of income" of a public servant.
7. The Legislature has advisedly used the expression "satisfactorily account." The emphasis must be on the word "satisfactorily" and the Legislature has, thus, deliberately cast a burden 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 or acceptance."
8.2 If we analyze section 13 (1) (e), it would be clear that the gist of the offence is not possession of the assets merely nor even the sheer excess of assets and other income, the gist of the offence is that inability of the public servant in not being able to satisfactory account for the excess. The burden of establishing unsatisfactory is squarely on the prosecution. The ingredients of Section 13 of PC Act, 1988 corresponding to Section 5 (i)(e) (old Act) came up for discussion in State of Maharashtra Vs. Wasudeo Ramachandra Kaidalwar 1981(3) SCR 675), In this case it was inter alia held as under : "The terms and expressions appearing in S. 5 (1) (e) of the Act are the same as those used in the old Section 5 (3). Although the two provisions operate in two different fields, the meaning to be assigned to them must be the same. The expression "known sources of incomes" means "sources known, to the prosecution." So also, the same meaning must be given to the words, "for which the public servant is unable to satisfactorily account" occurring in S. 5 (1) (e). The provision contained in S. 5 (1) (e) of the Act is a selfcontained provision. The first part of the Section casts a burden on the prosecution and the second on the accused. When S. 5 (1) (e) uses the words "for which the public servant is unable to satisfactorily CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 43 of 6 account" it is implied that the burden is on such public servant to account for the sources for the acquisition of disproportionate assets. High Court, therefore, was in error in holding that a public servant charged for having disproportionate assets in his possession for which he cannot satisfactorily account, cannot be convicted of an offence under Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (e) of the Act, unless the prosecution disproves all possible sources of income."
72. On the burden of proof under Section 5(1)(e) of the Act, learned Judge said :
" 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 Jaw 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."
73. As to the ingredients of the offence, learned Judge continued :
"The ingredients of the offence of criminal misconduct under S. 5 (2) read with S. 5 (1) (e) are the possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to the known sources of income for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution must prove the following facts before it can bring a case under S. 5 (1) (e); namely, (1) it must establish that the accused is a public servant, (2) the nature, and extent of the pecuniary resources or property which were found in his possession, (3) it must be proved as to what were his known sources of income i. e. known to the prosecution, and (4) it must prove, quite objectively, that such resources or property found in possession of the accused were disproportionate to his known sources of income. Once these four ingredients are established, the offence of criminal misconduct under S. 5 (1) (e) is complete, unless the accused is able to account for such resources or property. The burden then shifts to the accused to satisfactorily account for his possession of disproportionate assets. The extent and nature of burden of proof resting upon the public servant to be found in possession of disproportionate assets under Section 5 (1) (e) cannot be higher than the test laid by the Court in CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 44 of 6 Jhagan's case (AIR 1966 SC 1762) (supra), i. e. to establish his case by a preponderance of probability. That test was laid down by the Court following the dictum of Viscount Sankey, L. C. in Woolmington v. Director of Public Prosecutions."
Explanation of accused: 8.3 In regard to the explanation given by the accused, the Apex Court in Rabindra Kumar Dey Vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1977 SC 170 inter alia held while dealing with a case of Prevention of Corruption Act that:
"......Another question which arises is that what are the standards to be employed in order to judge the truth or falsily of the version given by the defence. Should the accused prove its case with the same amount of rigour and certainity, as the prosecution is required, to prove and criminal charge, or it is sufficient if the accused puts forward a probable or reasonable explanation which is sufficient to throw doubt on the prosecution case?"
".....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. Infact, from the cardinal principles, it is sufficient if the accused is able to prove its case by the standard of preponderance of probabilities as envisaged by Sec. 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 , there is doubt on the prosecution case and therefore, the prosecution cannot said to have been established the charge beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, the move of proving by standard of benefit of doubt is not applicable to the accused where he is called upon to prove its case or to prove the exceptions of the Indian Penal Code. It is sufficient to the defence to give a version probable with the prosecution version for that would be sufficient to throw suspicion on the prosecution case and rejection by the Court. Reference can also be made to Harbhajan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1966 SC 97."CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 45 of 6
9.0 Sh. HK Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the accused has put forth his arguments primarily on the point that the cash recovered from the house of the accused cannot be foisted upon the accused. The plea taken by him was that since Smt. Pravinder Kaur had been running her own business, therefore, it cannot be presumed that the money recovered during the search proceedings belonged to the accused. I consider that since only this aspect has been agitated by the accused, it needs to be answered first. As far as, recovery of cash is concerned, that has not been disputed. The only thing now to be seen is that whether the defence has been able to satisfactorily account the recovery of this money, and the explanation so rendered is worth acceptance.
In K.Veeraswami Vs. Union of India & Ors., JT 1991 (3) S.C. 198 , an observation made in State of Maharashtra Vs. Wasudeo Ramachandra Kaidalwar (1981 (3) SCR 675), was cited with the approval. It was inter alia held in K. Veeraswami case that it is significant to note that there is useful parallel found in Section 5(3) and clause (e) of Section 5(1). Clause (e) creates a statutory offence 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 resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income. When that onus is discharged by the prosecution, it is for the accused to account satisfactorily for the dis proportionality of the properties possessed by him. The Section CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 46 of 6 makes available statutory defence which must be proved by the accused. It is a restricted defence that is accorded to the accused to account for the disproportionality of the assets over the income. But the legal burden of proof placed on the accused is not so onerous as that of the prosecution. However, it is just not throwing some doubt on the prosecution version. The legislature has advisedly used the expression "satisfactorily account". The emphasis must be on the word "satisfactorily". That means the accused has to satisfy the court that his explanation is worthy of acceptance. The burden of proof placed on the accused is an evidential burden though not a persuasive burden. The accused however, could discharge that burden of proof "on the balance of probabilities" either from the evidence of the prosecution and / or evidence from the defence. In K. Veeraswami's case, it was also inter alia held that this procedure may be contrary to the principles of criminal jurisprudence that the burden of proof is always on the prosecution and never shifts to the accused person. However, in view of Section 106 of Evidence Act in matters "specially within the knowledge of the accused", such procedure can be adopted. The prosecution, cannot in the very nature of things, be expected to know the affairs of a public servant and it is for him to explain the property found in his possession.
In Veeraswamy's case (supra), the Apex Court rejected the contention of the defence that the public servant is entitled to an opportunity before the IO to explain the alleged difference between assets and the known source of income. It was inter alia held that IO is only CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 47 of 6 required to collect the material to find out whether the offence alleged appears to have been committed. In the course of the investigation, IO may examine the accused and seek his clarification and if necessary may cross check with him about his known source of income and assets possessed by him. The accused should not be kept in dark and must be taken into confidence if he is willing to cooperate. However, IO is not supposed to call upon the accused after collection of all material to account for the excess of the assets over the known sources of income and then decide whether the account is satisfactory or not. If it be so, it would be elevating the IO to the position of an enquiry officer or a Judge. The Investigation Officer does not hold the inquiry against the conduct of the public servant or determining the disputed issues regarding the dis proportionality between the assets and the income of the accused. IO just collects the material from all sides and prepares a report which he files in the court as charge sheet. The charge sheet u/s 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. is actually an intimation to the court that upon investigation into a cognizable offence the IO has been able to procure sufficient evidence for the court to inquire into the offence. The charge sheet is complete if it is accompanied with all the documents and statement of witnesses as required by Section 175(5).
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE 10.0 Prosecution has primarily based its case on the recovery of huge cash in the sum of Rs. 31,68,300/ from the house of the accused CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 48 of 6 during the search conducted by CBI on 12/1/01. The CBI has duly examined the witnesses so as to prove the recovery of cash, salary income of the accused, bank accounts, investments in UTI and educational expenses of the children of the accused. However, the prosecution has predominantly attempted to prove its case of disproportionate assets on the basis of recovery of cash from the house of the accused during the search. The defence has primarily challenged the case of the prosecution on the ground that the cash recovered from the house of the accused during the search actually belonged to the wife of the accused (DW8) Smt. Parvinder Kaur. The defence has not disputed the recovery of the cash, the accused has made an attempt to explain that the cash is not attributable to the accused.
The defence has taken a plea that out of the cash raided from the house of the accused, Rs. 2,47,0000/ belong to Smt. Parvinder Kaur, wife of the accused after having received by her from Smt. Sheela Rani DW1 on cancellation of a Sale Agreement of plot no. 17/A, E Block, Tilak Vihar, Delhi. In support of this contention, the defence witness produced photocopy of 2 receipts having been executed by her and Parvinder Kaur. In respect of the original of these receipts, the witness stated that the original were seized by the CBI. It is a matter of record that no such seizure memo is on the record. It does not appeal to the reason that if the CBI has seized all the documents vide seizure memo, why the IO would not issue the seizure memo of these two receipts. It is a matter of record that during the defence evidence on being called by the defence, CBI produced the statement u/s 161 CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 49 of 6 Cr.P.C. of DW1 Smt. Sheela Rani. Perusal of this testimony would indicate that the same was recorded on 03.10.2003. It is also a matter of record that Smt. Sheela Rani has not been cited as a witness by the CBI. If we peruse the statement of Smt. Sheela Rani u/s 161 Cr.P.C. she has stated about the sale of her plot to Mrs. Parvinder Kaur for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/ and on cancellation of agreement, she returned the money to Parvinder Kaur on 29.12.2000. It is pertinent to mention here that in her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C., which has been relied upon by the defence, DW1 stated to have handedover the photocopy of the receipt executed by Parvinder Kaur on 29.12.2000. She had also stated that the papers of the allotment of GPA had been retained by Smt. Parvinder Kaur only. She also stated that later she sold the property to one Harbhagwan Das through Harjeet Singh. The witness also stated that original papers of the flat were still with Mrs. Parvinder Kaur. Now if we compare the statement of this witness u/s 161 Cr.P.C. with her statement on oath in the court, the witness per se becomes unreliable for the reason that in her statement before the CBI, she had stated to have handedover only the photocopy of the receipts wherein in the statements made before the court, the witness stated that original of the receipts Ex. DW1/A and DW1/B were taken by the CBI without any seizure memo. Secondly, it is a matter of record that original of DW1/A and DW1/B were never produced before the court and this creates a doubt about the genuineness of the receipts. It is also worth to note that Smt. Sheela Rani in her statement before CBI had stated that original of the documents were CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 50 of 6 retained by Smt. Parvinder Kaur. Had the accused or his wife were clear, they would have come forward with the original documents so as to prove this transaction. I consider that the plea of the accused that Rs. 2,47,000/ were received by his wife Smt. Parvinder Kaur on account of cancellation of sale transaction with Smt. Sheela Rani, is not reliable at all. The explanation acceptable by the court has to be worthy of satisfaction. 10.2 The accused has taken a plea that Smt. Parvinder Kaur had got a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/ from her mother in law Smt. Gobind Kaur and Smt. Gobind Kaur had executed a will. The defence has proposed to prove this fact by way of testimony of DW2. I am afraid that the testimony of DW2 per se is not reliable having suffering from lacuna of unreliablility. The original of the will Ex.DW2/A was not produced before the court. Only the photocopy attested by some officer was produced. It is pertinent to mention here that even the person, who had attested the photocopy of the will, has not been produced in the court. The fact of Rs. 2,40,000/ having been received by the wife of the accused from her motherinlaw has not been even stated by the accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. It is pertinent to mention that in reply to question no.6, the accused has tried to explain the source of money recovered from his house, but there is no mention of the sum of Rs. 2,40,000/. Nor this fact was put to the IO or any other witness during the crossexamination. This witness seems to be an afterthought and therefore is not reliable at all.
CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 51 of 6 10.3 The accused has taken a plea that out of the cash recovered from his house, Rs.2,00,000/ belong to his cobrother DW3 Sh. Gurdeep Singh Gujral. However, the testimony of DW3 Sh. Gurdeep Singh Gujral is per se unreliable and uncreditworthy. The accused was a Senior Sales Tax Officer in Delhi. It would not appeal to the reason that his cobrother, who was also a Senior Officer in the bank, would just send Rs. 2 lacs to the accused with a request to invest the same in properties. The accused was not a property dealer. The explanation rendered by the accused does not seem to be even close to satisfaction. In order to accept the testimony of a witness, it has to be cogent, creditworthy and have a ring of truth. The testimony of a close relative has to be examined with great caution, since there can be a tendency to save the relative from the penal offence. This defence seems to be cooked up only in order to make a plea which on the face of it is not reliable. Reference can be made to Sardul Singh Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2002 SC 3462, wherein it was inter alia held as under:
"There cannot be a prosecution case with a castiron perfection in all respects and it is obligatory for the Courts to analyse, sift and assess the evidence on record, with particular reference to its trustworthiness and truthfulness, by a process of dispassionate judicial scrutiny adopting an objective and reasonable appreciation of the same, without being obsessed by an air of total suspicion of the case of the prosecution. What is to be insisted upon is not implicit proof. It has often been said that evidence of interested witnesses should be scrutinized more carefully to find out whether it has a ring of truth and if found acceptable and seems to inspire confidence, too, in the mind of the Court, the same cannot be discarded totally merely on account of certain variations or infirmities pointed or even additions and embellishments substratum of the evidence and found to CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 52 of 6 be tainted to the core. Courts have a duty to undertake a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all vital features of the case and the entire evidence with reference to the broad and reasonable probabilities of the case also in their attempt to find out proof beyond reasonable doubt."
10.4 Smt. Parvinder Kaur has made a detailed statement on oath that out of cash recovered during the search, around Rs. 25 lacs were of sale proceed. She had also stated that a gift of Rs. 2 lac was received from her mother in law besides this she had received Rs. 2,47,000/ on account of cancellation of sale deed. I consider that per se the statement of Parvinder Kaur is not reliable. It is a golden principle of appreciation of evidence that court has to separate the grain from the chaff. In order to believe the witness, there has to be a ring of truth in the testimony of such witness. It is correct that the testimony of Smt. Parvinder Kaur cannot be rejected outrightly merely because she happens to be the wife of the accused. However, this fact has to be taken into account while evaluating her testimony and the rule of caution would be that a strict test of scrutiny would be applied before relying upon her testimony. Smt. Parvinder Kaur has taken a plea that after the death of her father she had taken over the business under the name and style of M/s. Punjabi Fulkari. She stated that initially she used to carry this business from her residence and used to sell the articles in Gurdwaras, Kirtans and kitty parties and exhibitions. It is pertinent to mention here that there is not even iota of evidence on record to establish, even at the scale of preponderance of probability that business under the name and style of CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 53 of 6 Punjabi Fulkari was being run from the residence of the accused. During the course of search proceedings, there was no clue that some business was being run. It is pertinent to mention here that perusal of the income tax return and sale tax return indicates that there was good amount of sale during the year 199899 to 200203. Even at the cost of brevity, it may be mentioned that in the year 199899, there was sale of around 20 lacs in the year 199900, it rose to Rs. 24 lacs and 200001, it further increased to around 33.5 lacs. Interestingly, in the next year it came down to 15.7 lacs and then to 7.91 lacs. Roughly, therefore in the year 199899, there was sale of around 1.75 lacs per month. Similarly, in the year 199900, there was sale of 2 lacs per month and 200001 there was sale of around 2.75 lacs per month. For such a huge sale, there has to be substantial purchase and cash flow. It was a business of cloth trading and therefore in order to have the sale, Smt. Parvinder Kaur must have been buying the material from somewhere. However, not even an iota of evidence has been produced so as to prove any such purchase. The sale proceeds must have also been deposited in the bank. However, no such record has been produced. It would be too unrealistic to accept that Smt. Parvinder Kaur was keeping the entire sale proceeds in cash and she had been making the purchases of stock in cash only. In order to stock such a huge material, which is cloth, there has to be substantial space. The accused and his wife have taken the plea that they used to run the business from the garage. However, accused and his wife even did not mention the size of garage. It would not appeal to the CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 54 of 6 reason that such a big business would have been run from the garage only without any support staff. Even no bills of electricity or expenses on any other overhead has been placed on the record. Merely because the accused submitted sale tax returns, that too after the conduct of raid, would not be sufficient to believe that Smt. Parvinder Kaur was running such a huge cloth business. It may be repeated that accused himself was a senior sales tax officer and therefore the possibility of managing the things in sales tax office cannot be rejected outrightly. Endorsement on the income tax returns also indicates that these have been filed after the raid. The story of the huge sale of around 25 lacs in the Pune exhibition also does not inspire the confidence of the court. For such a huge sale, Smt. Parvinder Kaur must have taken huge stock to the exhibition. She did not produce any evidence regarding the transportation of the goods. It would not have been possible that she had sold the entire material. Some material must have been brought back however regarding that also, no document has been proved. It is also still a mystery that how and in what manner the goods were transported to and fro from Delhi PuneDelhi. I have perused the receipts produced by the wife of the accused relating to Pune exhibition as per the receipts the total sale on 9.01.2001 was 7,21,500/ , sale on 10.01.2001 was 4,43,000/, sale on 08.01.2001 was 4,62,000/. The total sale on 07.01.2001 was 4,65,200/ and on 06.01.2001, the sale was 15,200/. Smt. Parvinder Kaur has not produced any record like cash book or ledger to support her plea. It is pertinent to mention that receipts do not bear any sales tax number. If we view the CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 55 of 6 testimony of DW8, it does not inspire the confidence of the court. The explanation offered by the accused regarding the cash recovered from his house does not pass the asset test of "satisfactory explanation". The plea to be accepted has to be a plausible and satisfactory plea. 10.5 Ld. Counsel for the accused has heavily relied upon DSP Chennai Vs. K.Inbasagaran, 2005 X AD (SC) 368. Ld. Counsel submits that in this case also a cash of Rs. 30 laksh was recovered from the house of the accused besides, gold biscuits. The accused took the defence that the assets unearthed during the raid were the assets of his wife who was running certain businesses. In this case, it was held that actually the money belonged to the wife of the accused and therefore, cannot be considered as an asset of the accused. However, I consider that Ld. Counsel has done only a selective reading of the case, as per his convenience and the same is not respectfully, applicable to the present set of facts.
Sh. K Inbasagaran was an IAS officer of 1970 batch, Tamil Nadu Cadre. On 13/9/93 and 14/9/93, there was a raid by the income tax authority at the house of the accused. During the raid, the income tax department yielded a huge amount of cash amounting to Rs. 30 lakhs, 7 gold biscuits weighing 819 gms, $1118 and certain documents regarding purchase of immovable properties and FDR in the name of third parties. A parallel criminal proceedings were also initiated and after investigation, chargesheet u/S 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of PC Act was filed against the accused. The defence CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 56 of 6 of the accused was that the assets belonged to his wife as in the year 1988 when he had gone to America for studies alongwith his wife and children, his wife had worked in a pharmaceutical company and also as a Clerk in State Bank of India and earned salaries and was also assessed by the Income Tax Department in America. She had also started a computer concern under the name and style of Tamil Nadu Computer Service by incurring a loan of Rs. 2,00,000/ by Punjab National Bank. Besides this, the wife of accused had flouted three concerns. Two of her concerns were involved in manufacturing of cycle rims and shoe uppers. Being the Director of two companies, she used to be in possession of the funds of the company. The accused explained that out of the cash of Rs. 30 lakhs recovered from his house, a sum of Rs. 29 lakhs was unaccounted money obtained by sale of cycle rims and shoe uppers by the two companies without bill and that money belonged to the companies of the wife. Ld. Special Judge held the accused guilty. However, in the appeal before the Hon'ble High Court, it was held that recovery of a sum of Rs. 29 lakhs at the house of the accused was not in exclusive possession of the accused.
The plea of the accused was that the recovery of the money is not disputed, but the question that whether it was in the possession of accused or not, the Apex Court after taking into account the plea of both the parties framed the question that whether the accused can be saddled with all the unaccounted money at his hand or not. It is pertinent to mention here that in that case, it was an admitted fact that wife of the accused was running CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 57 of 6 three concerns and she also disclosed unaccountability and accepted herself for being assessed by the Income Tax Department.
It is pertinent to mention here that in Inbasagaran case, the wife of the accused owned the entire money and other wealth earned by her and also accepted the whole responsibility. The Apex Court inter alia held that the evidence on record has substantiated that the entire money has been treated in the hands of the wife and she has owned it and assessed by the Income Tax Department, it would not be proper to hold the accused guilty under the PC Act. Ld. Counsel has relied upon the judgment saying that in the present case also, the premises from where the money was recovered was shared by the accused and his wife and therefore, it will not be proper to hold the husband guilty. However, I consider that the judgment of K.Inbasagaran, can be respectfully distinguished on the facts and circumstances of the present case.
In Inbasaragaran's case (supra), it was conclusively proved on record that wife of the accused was running three concerns and she had owned the responsibility of unaccounted money before the Income Tax deptt. and was accordingly assessed for it. It is also pertinent to mention here that in that case, the initial raid was conducted by the income tax department and only after the recovery was effected, the criminal proceedings were launched. However, in the present case, the CBI on the basis of a secret information regarding the corrupt practices and method adopted by the accused, conducted the raid in which the huge amount of money was CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 58 of 6 recovered. The sales tax assessment which have been proved on the record have been filed only after the raid. The Court cannot also loose sight of the fact that accused himself was a senior officer in the department and therefore, it cannot be ruled out that he managed to have the assessment order of the previous year so as to prepare the defence in the present case. It is also important to note that in the assessment orders, the tax paid is almost nominal i.e., Rs. 186/ in the year 199697, Rs. 100/ in the year 199899, Rs.100/ in the year 19992000, Rs.100/ in the year 200001, Rs. 100/ in the year 200102 and 200203. In respect of the assessment under Central Sales Tax, the tax of Rs. 174/ was deposited in the assessment year 200001. It is pertinent to mention here that this was the period during which, the wife of the accused had taken the plea to have the bumper sale in Pune Exhibition. Similarly, if we see the income tax returns, these also seemed to be filed only after the raid, starting from assessment year 200001. For the concerned year where this alleged sale was made, the wife of the accused had shown her income as Rs. 95,625/ as per return Ex.DW8/B, on which the net tax payable was Rs. 3,500/. Even as per the sale tax return, the total sale during this year 200001 was Rs. 33,43,692/. It is difficult to hold that on the sale of Rs. 33 lakhs, the wife of the accused had an income only of Rs. 95,625/. The accused has also not produced any substantive or reliable material on record to prove that wife of the accused was actually running some business. It is also noteworthy that during the raid, no document was found which could indicate that the wife of the accused was CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 59 of 6 running some business which had a turnover of more than Rs. 30 lakhs in the concerned year. In order to take the help of Inbasagaran's case, the accused was liable to bring some cogent and creditworthy material on record to prove that his wife was running some business. I consider that even that much of the evidence is lacking and in absence of any such reliable material on the record, it is difficult to hold that the money belonged to the wife of the accused.
10.6 The accused has further relied upon State of Inspector of Police, Visakhapatnam Vs. Surya Sankaram Karri, 2006 VII AD (SC) 278. In this case, the accused was convicted for the offence u/S 13(2) by the Ld. Special Judge. In this case, the accused was a Chief Commercial Inspector in Railways. The raid was conducted at his house and after investigation, the chargesheet was filed against the accused. Ld. Special Judge held the accused guilty. However, the Hon'ble High Court set aside the finding of the Ld. Special Judge. In the appeal before the Apex Court, the defence took the plea that investigation was carried out in an illegal manner and the sanction was not granted by a competent authority. The Apex Court accepted both the pleas of the defnece. On the point of investigation, the Apex Court inter alia held that the IO did not examine important witnesses nor did he take into account the relevant documentary evidence. The Apex Court also took note of the fact that IO did not note the statement made by the accused's wife and sons. It is pertinent to mention here that the Apex Court specifically stated CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 60 of 6 that only on the basis of illegal investigation, a proceedings may not be quashed unless miscarriage of justice is shown. However, it was inter alia held that miscarriage of justice was caused in that case. The case was also held bad on the point of sanction. This case is also respectfully distinguished on the facts and circumstances of the case. It has been held in the catena of cases that illegal investigation do not per se result in the rejection of the case of the prosecution. Reference can be made to HN Rishbud Vs. State of Delhi, AIR 1955 SC 196.
In Leela Ram Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1999 SC 3717, in reference to lapse in investigation, it was held as under:
"It is now a well settled principle that any irregularity or even an illegality during investigation ought not to be treated as a ground to reject the prosecution case and we need not dilate on the issue excepting referring a decision of this Court [vide State of Rajasthan V. Kishore, AIR 1996 SC 3035]."
Reference can also be made to Kishore Chand V. State of HP, 1990 CrLJ 2290 (SC), State of Rajasthan Vs. Kishore, AIR 1996 SC 3035, Ram Bihari Yadav Vs. State of Bihar & Ors 1998 (4) SCC 517, Amar Singh Vs. Balwinder Singh & Ors. 2003 (2) SCC 518 and Ram Bali Vs State of UP, AIR 2004 SC 2329.
In the present case, there is nothing to suggest that there is any miscarriage of justice or the accused has been prejudiced in any manner. CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 61 of 6 Hence, this case is also respectfully distinguished on the facts and circumstances of the case.
10.7 Ld. Counsel has also relied upon Shakuntala Vs. State of Delhi, 139(2007) DLT 178. In Shakuntala's case, our own Hon'ble High Court held that fair and just investigation is hallmark of any investigation. It was also held that accused can insist upon the Court to consider the evidence collected by the IO, but not made part of chargesheet. There can not be any dispute to the proposition settled by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Shakuntala's case. The fair investigation is a constitutional right of an accused and the Court while appreciating the case has to take into account the entire material collected during the investigation. A document cannot be excluded from the zone of consideration merely because, the same has not been relied upon by the prosecution. However, the question is, what is the evidentry value of such a document and what would be the impact of the document on the case in totality.
10.8 The accused had taken the plea that the cash recovered from his house does not belong to him. It is pertinent to mention here that only a suggestion was put to PW5 Karam Raj Singh that Smt. Parvinder Kaur w/o Sh. Saranjit Singh had disclosed to the CBI regarding the activities of the business, which was denied by PW5. The witness also denied the suggestion that wife of the accused had told the CBI that they had sold some property CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 62 of 6 and the cash seized from part of the sale receipt of the sold property. It is pertinent to mention here that during the cross examination, no suggestion was put to the witness that the cash seized during the search proceedings was the sale proceeds collected during the Pune Exhibition. It is a settled proposition that mere suggestion have no evidentry value. Accused has been generous in putting the suggestion to the witness that the salary particulars have not been shown correctly in the statement, however, at no point of time, he came forward to furnish the correct particulars of income.
Smt. Parvinder Kaur had appeared in the witness box and deposed on oath that the money recovered during the raid from the house belonged to her. I consider that this plea is only with a view to shield the accused and Smt. Parvinder Kaur is only decoyed to protect her husband. 11.0 Prosecution has successfully proved the income of the accused. The accused has not raised any specific objection to the assets acquired by him during the check period. Infact in the present case, both the parties have primarily remained focused on the issue of recovery of the cash.
Prosecution has duly proved the sanction for prosecution Ex.PW2/A on record. The defence has not raised any serious challenge to the sanction. In respect of the salary income of the accused, the same has also been proved by the prosecution by way of cogent and creditworthy evidence. Though the accused put the suggestion that correct figures have not been brought in, but, the accused did not even make an attempt to show CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 63 of 6 or prove his income during the check period. It seems that accused put this defence only for the sake of taking a plea. The investment in UTI, Bank accounts and expenditure on the education on the children have also not faced any serious challenge from the side of the accused. The prosecution has led best possible evidence within their means and possession to prove the ingredients of the offence. The defence taken by the accused seems to be product of whims, fancy and afterthought, which does not seem to have any ring of truth. I have no doubt in my mind that the cash recovered from the house of the accused during the search conducted by the CBI from 12.1.01 to 13.1.01 is attributable to the accused only and is an ill gotten money. It is pertinent to mention here that as per chargesheet, the total disproportionate assets was in the sum of Rs. 35,57,530/ and out of this the cash recovered was Rs.31,68,300/ which has been held to be attributable to the accused only. Therefore, to my mind, the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt against the accused for the offence u/S 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) PC Act, 1988. Hence, accused Saranjit Singh is held guilty for the offence u/S 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the PC Act in RC No. DAI2001 A0005.
Announced in Open Court (Dinesh Kumar Sharma)
on 14.05.2012 Spl. Judge (PC Act) : CBI01
Saket Courts : New Delhi
CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 64 of 6
CBI Vs. Saranjit Singh CC No. 44/11 Page 65 of 6