Delhi District Court
Badal & Anr. Vs. State Of Punjab vs Om Prakash Chautala Page 24 Of 36 on 3 August, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SHRI P.S. TEJI : DISTRICT JUDGE
(EAST) cum ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE, SPECIAL JUDGE
(CBI), KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
AC No.2/2010
FIR No.RC2(A)/2006/ACUVII
Central Bureau of Investigation
Versus
Om Prakash Chautala
O R D E R
By this order, I shall decide the question to frame the charge against accused Om Prakash Chautala.
2 Accused Om Prakash Chautala has been sent to the Court for facing the trial for the commission of offences punishable under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the Act) in case FIR No.RC2(A)/2006/ACUVII. The accused has been chargesheeted for possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. It is pertinent to mention that in the presence FIR, three separate chargesheets have been filed. One is against the present accused Abhay Singh Chautala, AC No.2/2010 CBI Vs. Om Prakash Chautala Page 1 of 36 second one is against accused Om Prakash Chautala and the third one is against Ajay Singh Chautala and others.
3 I have heard Ld. Special PP for CBI as well as Ld. Counsel for the accused on the point of charge. I have carefully gone through their submissions and entire material available on record. 4 The facts, as enumerated in the chargesheet, are that Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition (Crl.) No.93/2003 passed an order dated 25.11.2003 whereby the investigation was entrusted to CBI to inquire into the matter of JBT Teachers Recruitment Scam pertaining to Haryana Government. During the course of investigation of that case, searches were conducted at the house of one Sh. Karan Dalal, MLA of Haryana Assembly and several incriminating documents were recovered about the assets accumulated by Om Prakash Chautala and his family members. The said documents contained a list of 43 alleged movable and immovable properties worth Rs.1467 crores. Thereafter, the investigation against the accused and his family members was entrusted to CBI and the instant FIR was registered.
5 Check in period in the present case has been taken as 24.5.1993 to 31.5.2006 i.e., during the period when accused Om AC No.2/2010 CBI Vs. Om Prakash Chautala Page 2 of 36 Prakash Chautala was MLA. Sh. Tejaram Sihag, great grandfather of accused Om Prakash Chautala migrated from Bikaner and settled a village namely Tejakhera. The property of Sh. Tejaram was inherited by his sons S/Sh. Devaram, Asharam and Hukmaram. Sh. Asharam had two sons, namely, S/Sh. Lekhram and Tarachand. Ch. Devilal was the son of Ch. Lekhram and his property was divided among two sons Ch. Devilal and Sahibram. Accused Om Prakash Chautala is the eldest son of Late Ch. Devilal. Accused Om Prakash Chautala had been the Chief Minister of Haryana during the period 2.12.1989 to 22.5.1990, 12.7.1990 to 17.7.1990, 22.3.1991 to 6.4.1991 and 23.7.1999 to April 2005. Accused Om Prakash Chautala is having two sons, namely, Ajay Singh Chautala and Abhay Singh Chautala. He is having three daughters, namely, Ms. Suchitra, Ms. Sunita and Ms. Anjali.
6 Ch. Devilal Memorial Trust was set up vide Trust Deed dated 6.6.2001. Abhay Singh Chautala is the founder President of the Trust and its bank account is solely operated by him. Trust is having several properties in its name, like Jan Nayak Ch. Devilal Vidyapeeth at Sirsa, Centre for Excellence at Chandigarh and plots at Rohtak, Jind, Narnol, Hisar, Kaithal and Jhajhar. Business firms/ AC No.2/2010 CBI Vs. Om Prakash Chautala Page 3 of 36 companies belonging to the family of the accused are M/s Karan Automobiles in which his two sons are having equal share; M/s Kisan Trading Co. Sirsa and Dabwali in which accused Om Prakash Chautala and his wife are having partners; M/s Tara Automobiles in which son of accused, namely, Abhay Singh Chautala is a partner; M/s Regent Holiday Home Pvt. Ltd., Manali in which his both the sons of the accused are having equal share; M/s Regenet International, Mehrauli, New Delhi in which his son Abhay Singh Chautala is having 75% share; M/s Mecca Power Pvt. Ltd., Sardulgarh, Punjab in which his son Ajay Singh Chautala is a Director; M/s Globe Agencies, Ghaziabad in which his son Ajay Singh Chautala is having 50% share; M/s Regent Auto Links Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad and Ghaziabad in which daughter in law Naina Singh of accused is a Director; M/s Samar Khand Estates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi in which daughter in law Naina Singh of accused is a Director; M/s Sirsa Petro Filling Station, Barnala Road, Sirsa in which Ajay Singh Chautala son of the accused is the proprietor; M/s Dev & Co., Sirsa in which daughter in law Naina Singh of accused is partner of 20% share; M/s Regent Trading, 382 SFS Flats, Mayur Vihar Phase II, New Delhi of which daughter in law Naina Singh of accused is AC No.2/2010 CBI Vs. Om Prakash Chautala Page 4 of 36 proprietor.
7 During investigation, accused had not produced any document about his acquisition of assets, construction of buildings, expenditure and income. The explanation of accused had been obtained wherein he explained only such assets which he had declared in his declarations filed along with nomination papers before the Election Commission.
8 The family of accused was having following assets at
the beginning of the check period
Property Sale Deed amount
(1)Land at Village Shamshabad, Tehsil Rs.1400/
Sirsa, having ownership 9 kanal 6 marla.
(2)Agricultural land at Village Teja Khera, 00
Tehsil Dabwali, having ownership of 198
kanal 15 marla.
(3)Agricultural land at Village Teja Khera, 00
Tehsil Dabwali, having ownership of 107
kanal 19 marla.
(4)Plot No.6, Pocket No.11, BlockD, Sector8, Rs.18,611/
Rohini having land area 92 sq. mtr.
AC No.2/2010 CBI Vs. Om Prakash Chautala Page 5 of 36
(5)Land at EBlock, Asola Farm, New Delhi Rs.2,90,000/
having ownership of 13 Bigha 19 Bishwa
Total Value Rs.3,10,011/
9 Accused was having following immovable assets at
the end of check period :
Property Sale Deed Amount
(1)Flat at B601, Gauri Sadan, 5 Hailey Road, Rs.17,22,961/
New Delhi having area of 107 sq. ft.
(2)Plot No.6P, Sector4, Mansa Devi Complex Rs.5,23,494/
at Panchkula, having area 846 sq. mtr.
(3)Land at village Chautala, Tehsil Dabwali, 00
having ownership of 69 kanal 11 marla
(4)Land at village Lambi, Tehsil Dabwali Rs.70,52,000/
having ownership of 4 kanal
(5)Cattle shed at Village Teja Khera, Tehsil Value taken along
Dabwali, Distt. Sirsa, Khasra No.102/10/1 with Farm House
Building
(6)House at Village Teja Khera, Dabwali Rs.1,99,86,300/
jointly owned with 50% share
(7)Land at Nai Mandi, Dabwali, area 750 yds. 00
AC No.2/2010 CBI Vs. Om Prakash Chautala Page 6 of 36
(8)Land at village Chautala, Dabwali 00
(9)Farm house at EBlock, Asola Farm, Rs.1,35,05,000/
New Delhi
(10)Flat No.P1, The Haryana Jan Pratinidhi Rs.50,00,000/
Cooperative Group Housing Society, Gurgaon (11)Plot No.6, Pocket No.11, BlockD, Sec8, Rs.11,95,600/ Rohini Total Value : Rs.4,89,85,555/ 10 Total movable assets of accused Om Prakash Chautala, his family and trusts are as under : (1)Cash Rs.80,90,618/ (2)Value of household items found during search Rs.35,43,500/ as per inventory of Tejekhera Farm House, Teja Khera, Sirsa (50% share with Abhay Singh) (3)Jewellery items as per declaration filed by Rs.34,30,000/ Om Prakash Chautala during 2005 (4)Other movable assets viz. Values of claims/ Rs.65,33,800/ interests as declared during 2005 as per decla ration filed to Election Commission AC No.2/2010 CBI Vs. Om Prakash Chautala Page 7 of 36 (5)Mercedes Benz car purchased during 2005 Rs.35,00,000/ purchased in the name of Smt. Sneh Lata Total Value : Rs.2,50,97,918/ 11 The details of expenditure during check period of the accused and his wife are as under : Expenditure of Om Prakash Chautala Value (1)Medical expenses paid to Sir Ganga Ram Rs.1,38,307/ Hospital for taking orthopedic treatment.
(2)Interest paid on House Building Advance Rs.33,600/ to Haryana Government.
(3)Payment made to DDA regarding DDA Rs.1,00,866/ Plot No.6, Rohini.
(4)Payment made by Ansals to NDMC on behalf Rs.1,07,039/ of accused regarding flat no.B601, Gauri Sadan.
(5)Payment made to NDMC Rs.10,70,899/ (6)Payment made to M/s UT Ltd. Rs.42,000/ (7)Payment made to BSNL on account of Rs.3,29,249/
telephone installed at Teja Khera Farm House (No.289277) and at Barnala Road, Sirsa (No.221286).
AC No.2/2010 CBI Vs. Om Prakash Chautala Page 8 of 36 (8)Payment made to Dakshin Haryana Bijli Rs.1,13,882/ Vitran Nigam in respect of Chautala Farm House, Village Tejakhera.
(9)Payment made to NDMC in respect of Rs.22,39,871/ B601, Gauri Sadan, New Delhi.
(10)Licence fee recovered from pay bill Rs.4,898/ during January 1993.
(11)Payment made for purchase of airtickets Rs.44,800/ for DEL/MCT/DXB/KWI/DXB/DEL.
(12)Payment made to Dolphin Travels for Rs.1,10,592/ purchase of airtickets of Lufthansa Airlines (Date of issue 11.3.2004) (13)Bank charges paid to SBI Chautala Rs.26,035/ (14)Total taxes paid as per available income Rs.36,28,955/ tax returns.
(15)Membership fee @ Rs.100 p.a. For 3 years Rs.6400/ & Entrance Fees Rs.1000/ paid for Indian Habitat Centre.
(16)Payment made for House Tax to NDMC Rs.2,70,206/ for financial year 200102 & 200405 for flat no.B601, Gauri Sadan, New Delhi.
Total Expenditure Rs.82,67,599/
AC No.2/2010 CBI Vs. Om Prakash Chautala Page 9 of 36
Expenditure of Smt. Sneh Lata Value
(17)Payment made to United India Insurance Rs.1,52,231/
Company for Mercedez Car.
(18)Total taxes paid as per available income Rs.79,415/
tax returns.
(19)Repayment of car loan. Rs.3,60,000/
(20)Salary paid by Smt. Sneh Lata as per Rs.54,000/
ITRs during FY 199900 to 200102.
(21)Payment made to M/s Narulla Travels Rs.3,85,712/
(P) Ltd.
(22)Payment made to different Travel Agents Rs.7,54,333/
for purchase of airtickets of Lufthansa Airlines.
Total Expenditure Rs.17,85,691/ 12 Total income of accused Om Prakash Chautala and
his wife including loans during check period was alleged to be Rs.3,22,43,660/. It is also alleged that the expenditure of accused Om Prakash Chautala and his wife during the check period was Rs.1,00,53,290/. Nonverifiable expenditure (1/3rd of the gross income minus income tax) of the accused and his family has been AC No.2/2010 CBI Vs. Om Prakash Chautala Page 10 of 36 calculated as Rs.90,85,923/. The total expenditure of accused and his family has been alleged to be Rs.1,91,39,213/ (Rs.1,00,53,290 + Rs.90,85,923).
13 It is alleged that assets of accused and his family at the close of check period were worth Rs.7,43,93,484/ and assets at the beginning of check period were worth Rs.3,10,011/. The total expenditure were worth Rs.1,91,39,213/ and income was Rs.3,22,43,660/. The accused was found to be possessing disproportionate assets worth Rs.6,09,79,026/ i.e. 189.11% of his income.
14 The CBI has obtained the sanction for prosecution of accused Om Prakash Chautala which was accorded by Hon'ble Speaker of Haryana Vidhan Sabha as accused was MLA at the time of obtaining sanction.
15 CBI has filed the documents along with the charge sheet. FIR (D1) was registered against the accused Om Prakash Chautala, his sons and others. Investigation against Om Prakash Chautala and others was conducted separately and three separate chargesheets were filed in the Court. Present chargesheet against accused Om Prakash Chautala is the offshoot of one FIR (D1). AC No.2/2010 CBI Vs. Om Prakash Chautala Page 11 of 36 16 Document D2 is the chargesheet against accused Om Prakash Chautala recovered during search. Document D3 is letter dated 13.12.2005 vide which request was made to enquire into the charges by CBI against Om Prakash Chautala. Document D4 is the notification dated 22.2.2006, issued by the Government of India vide which CBI was directed to enquire into the charges against the accused. Document D5 is letter dated 20.7.2005 vide which charge sheet was sent to DGP and State Vigilance Bureau of Haryana for necessary action. Document D6 is search list of the house at village Asola, New Delhi. Document D7 is search list along with inventory of household items of Farm House of accused at Village Tejakhera, Sirsa, Haryana. Document D8 is file of M/s Bhayana Builders Pvt. Ltd. to whom cheques were issued by the accused for construction work at Farm House at Asola, New Delhi. File (D9) is with regard to farm house at Asola taken from MCD. Vide letter dated 30.9.2008 (D10) information regarding house tax paid with regard to property no.B601, Gauri Sadan, Hailey Road, New Delhi in the name of accused was furnished. File (D11) is the file of farm house at village Asola received from Patwari of Asola. Information regarding house tax paid with regard to property no.B601, Gauri Sadan, Hailey Road, AC No.2/2010 CBI Vs. Om Prakash Chautala Page 12 of 36 New Delhi by accused was furnished by NDMC vide letter dated 7.6.2006 (D12). File (D13) is with regard to Plot No.6P, Sector4, Panchkula alloted in the name of accused. File (D14) is with regard to allotment of flat at B601, Gauri Sadan, Hailey Road, New Delhi. File (D15) is the file of DDA with regard to allotment of Plot No.6, BlockD, Pocket11, Sector8, Rohini, Delhi. Vide letter dated 21.11.2008 (D16), cost of air tickets purchased by accused were furnished by Thai Airways. Medical bills of accused were furnished vide letters dated 26.3.2008 and 7.4.2008 (D17 & D18). Copies of mutations of land (D19 & D20) in the name of accused at Village Chautala and at Village New Dabwali were furnished by the Patwaris. Document D21 is the detail of payments received by M/s Ansal Properties from accused with regard to property No.B601, Gauri Sadan, Hailey Road, New Delhi whereas Document D22 is the detail of payments received by HUDA from accused with regard to plot No.6P, Sector4, Panchkula. Vide letter dated 14.9.2007 (D23), Haryana Vidhan Sabha Secretariat furnished the information regarding payments made to accused from 1970 to 2007. Document D24 is the copy of affidavit filed by accused during election of MLA in the year 2004. Vide letter dated 17.7.2006 (D25), period of MLA AC No.2/2010 CBI Vs. Om Prakash Chautala Page 13 of 36 of accused was informed. Document D26 is the drawings of Teja Khera Farm House. Documents D27 to D29 are with regard to lands owned by accused and his family members at village Lambi and Teja Khera. Document D30 is the details of electricity bills of Chautala Farm House, Village Tejakhera. Documents D31 and D32 are the copies of documents of ownership of properties made available by the accused along with covering letter. Income Tax Returns of accused and his wife are D33 to D35. Valuation reports with regard to construction of E5 Asola Farms at Mehrauli New Delhi, Flat No.601B Gauri Sadan at Hailey Road New Delhi, Plot No.P6 Sector4 at Panchkula, Farm House at Village Lambi Dabwali, Plot No.6 Pocket11 BlockD at Sector8 Rohini and Tejakhera Farm House at Village Dabwali Sirsa are D36 to D41 respectively. Vide letter dated 10.11.2006 (D42), accused Om Prakash Chautala furnished the declaration filed by him before the Election Officer in 2005. Partnership deed of Kishan Trading Co. wherein accused is one of the partner is D43. Original file of Plot No.6P, Sector4, Panchkula is D44. File (D45) is containing copies of income tax, forms, savings, certificates, FDRs of accused. Document D46 is the list of immovable properties in the name of accused and his family AC No.2/2010 CBI Vs. Om Prakash Chautala Page 14 of 36 members. Vide letter dated 8.10.2008 (D47), FRRO informed the passports and departures made by accused and his family members. Vide letter dated 16.4.2009 (D48), DC of Sirsa furnished the certified copy of declaration filed by accused along with nomination papers in 2005. Vide letter date 29.7.2008, Sh. Ashwini Khurana furnished copy of sale deed (D49 & D51) of land sold to accused at Village Asola, New Delhi. Document D50 are the drawings of house of accused Tejakhera, Sirsa. Vide letter dated 10.10.2008 (D52), NDMC informed the expenditure incurred by accused at Flat No.B 601, Gauri Sadan, Hailey Road, New Delhi. Document D53 is search list of the office of Sh. S.L. Goyal, Anaaz Mandi, Sirsa. Vide letters dated 11.5.2007 and 21.6.2007 (D54 & D55)), details of payment made by accused and his family members was furnished with regard to flats at Haryana Janpratinidhi CGHS Ltd., Sector28, Gurgaon. Document D56 is the search list of Kothi No.100, Lodhi Estate, New Delhi. Document D57 is the details of payments made by accused and his family members for the use of phones. Vide letter dated 8.8.2008 (D58) accused furnished the details of income, expenditure and assets. Document D59 is Receipt Memo dated 12.7.2006. Document D60 is search list of Akant Farm House, AC No.2/2010 CBI Vs. Om Prakash Chautala Page 15 of 36 Village Lambi, Sirsa of accused along with inventory of household items. Document D61 is the scrutiny report of bank accounts of accused and his family members. Documents D62 to D65 are the bank statements of accused and his family members of different banks. Details of FDRs of accused and his family members are D66. Details of bank accounts/bank statements of accused and his family members are D67 to D74. Documents D75 to D78 are the documents vide which details of payments made by accused and his family members towards purchase of air tickets were furnished. 17 During investigation into the matter, CBI recorded statements of witnesses. Witness Ram Niwas has stated that the notification was issued by the Government of Haryana for conducting CBI inquiry into the matter. Witness Sh. Karan Singh Dalal, the then MLA, Palwal identified the memo of chargesheet against accused Om Parkash Chautala and his family members. Witness Balwant Rai, Patwari of Village Chautala, Sirsa has given the details of land acquired by accused and his family members in the said village. Witness Madan Lal, Patwari of Village Tejakhera, Dabwali, Sirsa has given the details of land acquired by accused and his family members in the said village. Witness Vinod Kumar, official of Income Tax AC No.2/2010 CBI Vs. Om Prakash Chautala Page 16 of 36 Department has stated that Income Tax Returns of accused, his family members and of Chautala Group were given to CBI. Witness Smt. Inoshi Sharma has stated that the Income Tax Returns of accused and of Chautala Group were handed over to CBI. Witness Rahul Bishnoi, working as Chartered Accountant for the family of accused, has stated that he furnished the copies of Income Tax Returns, Bank Statements, Balance sheets, list of donors etc. of the Trust and Society to the CBI. He also furnished the documents of accused and his family members to the CBI. Witness Subhash Chander, Patwari of Village Lambi, Dabwali furnished the documents of land owned by accused and his family members at said village. Witness Raman Narula has stated that his travel agency had issued air tickets to the accused and his family members. Witnesses Gulshan Kumar Wadhwa and Sukhbir Kamboj have furnished the details of payments made by accused and his family members towards consumption of electricity in their various properties situated in Sirsa. Witness Dhan Singh Sharma has stated that he supplied wooden material to the accused and Trust run by accused/his family. Witness Miss Preeti Anand Chaudhary, Director of M/s TF Architects has stated that her firm prepared the building plan of the properties of accused.
AC No.2/2010 CBI Vs. Om Prakash Chautala Page 17 of 36 18 Witnesses Pratap Singh Chautala and Ranjeet Singh, brothers of accused Om Prakash Chautala have stated that the accused inherited only the properties at Village Tejakhera and Village Chautala and and rest of the properties were acquired by him and his family members of their own. Witness Sh. S.C. Khanna stated that the flat of accused at Hailey Road was taken on rent by their company and rent was paid to him after deducting TDS. Witness T. Rajan has stated that accused Om Prakash Chautala was alloted flat no.B601, Gauri Sadan, 5 Hailey Road, New Delhi and he made payments of Rs.41,02,961/. Witness Vijay Behal has stated that he made building plans of the properties of accused and his family members. Witness Jagdish Prasad has stated that plot no.6, BlockD, Pocket11, Sector 8, Rohini, Delhi was alloted by DDA to accused and submitted documents in this regard to the CBI. Witness Pritpal Singh has stated that plot No.P6, Sector4, Mansa Devi Complex, Panchkula was alloted to accused by HUDA and payments were made by him. Witness Rajender Patni and Rajesh Khuran have stated that the land at Village Asola, Delhi was purchased by Ashwani Khurana from one Rati Ram and then he sold the same to accused Om Prakash Chautala. Witnesses Satbir Singh and Iqbal Singh from MCD stated that the AC No.2/2010 CBI Vs. Om Prakash Chautala Page 18 of 36 Farm House at Village Asola, Delhi belongs to accused Om Prakash Chautala and house tax over the same was collected. Witness Vikash Bhayana has stated that their company made construction over the property of accused at Asola, Delhi. Witness N.K. Das has stated that accused travelled through Thai Airways. Witness S.C. Gupta has stated that accused was admitted in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital on 10.11.2005 and he paid the medical bills. Witness Tej Bhan, Patwari of Shamshabad, Sirsa stated that the land measuring 9 k 6 marla was in the name of accused Om Prakash Chautala. Witness Munish Kumar has stated that declaration with regard to movable/immovable properties by accused Om Prakash Chautala was prepared which was filed along with nomination papers. Witness Banwari Lal has stated that Haryana Vidhan Sabha furnished the MLA period and salary/ payments made to accused Om Prakash Chautala.
19 It has been argued by the ld. Counsel for the accused that investigation in the present case is without jurisdiction as consent of Government of Haryana State was not taken for conducting CBI inquiry against accused Om Prakash Chautala. As regards this contention, it is matter of record that the Governor of Haryana vide notification dated 13.12.2005 (D3), has given consent under Section AC No.2/2010 CBI Vs. Om Prakash Chautala Page 19 of 36 6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 for conducting CBI inquiry against accused Om Prakash Chautala. Along with this notification, letter dated 13.12.2005 (D3) was sent to Govt. of India vide which Govt. of Haryana requested to conduct CBI inquiry into the matter. On the basis of request of State of Haryana, the Govt. of India vide notification dated 22.2.2006 (D4), has given consent under subsection (1) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act for holding CBI inquiry into the matter of disproportionate assets acquired by Om Prakash Chautala and his family members. In this view of the matter, no fault can be found either with the consent given by State of Haryana for CBI inquiry into the matter or with notification dated 22.2.2006 (D4) vide which powers and jurisdiction of Delhi Special Police Establishment were extended to whole State of Haryana for the purpose of holding inquiry against accused. Therefore, it cannot be said that consent of State of Haryana was not obtained before initiation of inquiry or that CBI came into motion without jurisdiction.
20 In the judgment reported as Dr. N. Nagambikadevi Vs. CBI, Bangalore, 2002 Cri.L.J. 1334 (Karnataka High Court), it was held that if consent of the State Government was only for two AC No.2/2010 CBI Vs. Om Prakash Chautala Page 20 of 36 suspects, it did not mean that if future investigation reveals involvement of more persons such consent would be bad or fresh consent would be required for those who came to be involved during the course of investigation. Similar observations were made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case M. Krishna Vs. State of Karnataka (Reported in (1999) 3 SCC 247).
21 In the present case, complaint was made by Shamsher Singh Surjewala against Om Prakash Chautala and his family members. It is matter of record that memo of chargesheet was filed against Om Prakash Chautala only and after conducting inquiry into the matter, his family members came to be involved in acquiring assets disproportionate to their known sources of income. In this complaint, there are specific allegations against the accused. 22 In view of law of land in cases Dr. N. Nagambikadevi Vs. CBI, Bangalore, (supra) and M. Krishna Vs. State of Karnataka (supra) and the above mentioned facts, I am of the considered opinion that no fresh sanction of the State of Haryana was required for CBI inquiry against accused Om Prakash Chautala and his family members.
23 It has further been argued by the learned counsel for AC No.2/2010 CBI Vs. Om Prakash Chautala Page 21 of 36 the accused that the CBI has not taken the sanction of the competent authority for lodging prosecution against the accused, therefore, the accused is liable to be discharged. Reliance has been placed on judgment titled D. Venkatasan Vs. The State (Reported in 1997 Cri.L.J. 1287) in which it was held that when no material was placed before the sanctioning authority and it arrived at a conclusion of granting sanction, the sanction was passed in mechanical manner and without application of mind. Next judgment relied upon is in case of State of Karnataka Vs. Ameer Jan (Reported in IV (2007) CCR 188 SC) in which it was held that application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority was imperative. Another judgment referred is titled State Vs. Ravinder Singh (Reported in 57 (1995) DLT 506) in which it was held that for prosecution of accused under P.C. Act, sanction is a prerequisite.
24 On the other hand, Ld. Special PP for CBI has argued that no previous sanction in the present case is required as the accused already ceased to hold the public office during the period when he acquired disproportionate assets.
25 This matter of controversy has already been dealt by me while taking cognizance against the accused. Cognizance against AC No.2/2010 CBI Vs. Om Prakash Chautala Page 22 of 36 the accused was taken on 20.4.2010. Accused has not challenged the order of taking cognizance.
26 It would be pertinent to mention that this Court has taken cognizance against similarly situated accused Ajay Singh Chautala and Abhay Singh Chautala and while dealing with the issue of sanction, this Court observed as under : "It is further submitted by the learned Special PP for the CBI that though no previous sanction for the prosecution of accused was necessary, but as an abundant caution, the required sanction has been obtained from the Speaker of Haryana Assembly. Keeping in view the aforesaid judgments, I am of the considered opinion that though the sanction for the prosecution of the accused was not required in the present case, but still the CBI has obtained the sanction for the prosecution of the accused and has filed the same on the record of the case."
The order of taking cognizance was challenged in Hon'ble High Court by filing Petitions (Crl.M.C. Nos.912/2010 and 915/2010). The Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 8.7.2010 dismissed the petition of the coaccused persons while observing as under : "After the Kerala judgment, Supreme Court delivered another judgment on the same point Prakash Singh AC No.2/2010 CBI Vs. Om Prakash Chautala Page 23 of 36 Badal & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab, 2007 1 SCC 1, and observed that no sanction for prosecution of a person alleged to have committed offences in the capacity of a public servant was necessary when cognizance of such offence is taken after he ceased to hold the office in question."
Both the accused Ajay Singh Chautala and Abhay Singh Chautala preferred criminal appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court while deciding the appeal (Criminal Appeal No.1257/2011 and Criminal Appeal No.1258/2011) has upheld the view taken by Hon'ble High Court and observed that accused abused entirely different office than the one which they were holding on the date on which cognizance was taken and, therefore, there was no necessity of sanction. Relevant portion from the judgment is quoted herebelow : "Thus, we are of the view that the High Court was absolutely right in relying on the decision in Prakash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab (cited supra) to hold that the appellants in both the appeals had abused entirely different office or offices than the one which they were holding on the date on which cognizance was taken and, therefore, there was no necessity of sanction under Section 19 of the Act as held in K. Karunakaran v. State of Kerala (cited supra) and the later decision in Prakash AC No.2/2010 CBI Vs. Om Prakash Chautala Page 24 of 36 Singh Badal v. State of Punjab (cited supra). The appeals are without any merit and are dismissed." 27 The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Curt in Criminal Appeal Nos.1257/2011 & 1258/2011 squarely covers the case in hand. Consequently, it is held that no sanction under Section 19 of the P.C. Act is required in the present case as accused Om Prakash Chautala was not holding the office which was abused by him. He was holding entire a different office on the date when cognizance was taken against him. Therefore, I do not find any force in the contention of the accused that the prosecution is bad for the want of prior sanction.
28 The next contention raised by the accused is that in the present case investigation had not been carried out by order of the Competent Authority. It is submitted that the Investigating Officer was without any authorization. As per Section 17 of the Act, no investigation can be carried out without the order of an officer not below the rank of SP.
29 Ld. PP for the CBI has argued that after lodging of FIR in the present case, SP of CBI accorded permission in favour of Additional SP Jagroop S. Gusinha for investigation of the case and the Superintendent of Police was competent to assign the AC No.2/2010 CBI Vs. Om Prakash Chautala Page 25 of 36 investigation to some other police officer. In support of his arguments, Ld. PP has relied upon an authority in case titled Rajinder Das Gupta Vs. CBI (Reported in 2001 Cri.L.J. 2310 DHC). In the said judgment, it was held that where investigation was assigned to his deputy by the SP after scrutinizing the material before him, that was sufficient compliance of Section 17 of P.C. Act. Similar observations were made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled State by Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. S. Bangarappa (Reported in 2001 Cri.L.J. 111).
30 In the present case also, perusal of FIR (D1) shows that it was lodged by the Superintendent of Police, CBI and the investigation was assigned to Sh. Jagroop S. Gusinha, Dy. SP. Marking of the investigation by the Superintendent of Police to the Deputy SP Jagroop S. Gusinha is itself authorization and the SP was authorized to do so. Therefore, I do not find any fault in the assignment of investigation to Jagroop S. Gusinha, Dy SP by the Superintendent of Police as he was competent and authorized to do so as per second proviso appended to Section 17 of the Act. 31 It has been argued by the Ld. Counsel for the accused that earlier an FIR No.34/1994, PS Dabwali was lodged against the AC No.2/2010 CBI Vs. Om Prakash Chautala Page 26 of 36 accused in which closure report was filed by the investigating agency. It is further argued that in the present chargesheet, CBI has not mentioned anything with regard to earlier FIR and concealed the material facts. It is further submitted that as per Section 300 of Cr.PC, a person who has once been tried by a Court shall not be tried again for the same offence.
32 However, the conviction or acquittal presupposes a trial. The filing of closure report against a person does not amount to a trial affording protection to an accused under Section 300 Cr.P.C. There is no force in the contention of accused as the closure report is not a bar to reinvestigate the offences alleged to have been committed by an accused (Reliance : Mohd. Safi Vs. The State of West Bengal, (1965) 3 SCR 467).
33 It has further been argued by Ld. Counsel for accused that properties of firms and companies and income therefrom is from known sources. It has further been argued that income of firms and companies in the name of accused and his family members was not taken into consideration. In the present case, the CBI has produced sufficient material on the record which shows that accused and his family members were having shares in the firms/companies. It is also AC No.2/2010 CBI Vs. Om Prakash Chautala Page 27 of 36 apparent from the record that partnership in the said firms/companies were retained by the accused and his family members for accumulating wealth. Even otherwise, in case titled State of Maharashtra Vs. Ishwar Peeraji Kalpatri and Others (Reported in (1996) 1 SCC 542) it has been held that accused is not required to be afforded an opportunity of satisfactorily explaining about his assets and resources before registration of the case inasmuch as such opportunity is to be given to him before the court during the course of trial. Therefore, at this stage it would not be appropriate to go into the merits of the contention raised on behalf of the accused. 34 It has further been argued that properties of the accused and his family members have been assessed excessively. It is submitted that the valuation reports are inadmissible in evidence. No details of construction over the properties are given in valuation reports. It is further submitted that construction raised before the check period has been taken into consideration. 35 As per Section 38A of Wealth Tax Act, 1957, valuation officer can inspect any books of account, document or record relevant for the valuation of property. In the present case, valuation reports were prepared by the valuation officers/assessors. AC No.2/2010 CBI Vs. Om Prakash Chautala Page 28 of 36 The accused would have ample opportunity to crossexamine the witnesses who prepared the valuation reports, during the course of trial. So, this is not the stage to comment on this contention of the accused.
36 It has further been argued by Ld. Counsel for the accused that income tax returns of the accused and his family members were not taken into consideration. On the other hand, it has been argued by Ld. Special PP of CBI that the accused accumulated huge wealth, but had not disclosed the same in his income tax returns. I am not agreeable with the arguments advanced by the Ld. defence counsel, as the accused had not disclosed his earnings in his income tax returns accurately or concealed the same from Income Tax Department, as reflected from income tax returns and the details of assets accumulated by him, as demonstrated on the record. The concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars in income tax returns refer to a deliberate act or omission on the part of the assessee (Reliance : Dilip N. Shroff Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai and Another (2007) 6 SCC 329).
37 It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the accused that the nonverifiable expenses have been taken into consideration AC No.2/2010 CBI Vs. Om Prakash Chautala Page 29 of 36 without any basis. I am not agreeable with the contention of Ld. Counsel for the accused. It is not the stage to comment upon the worth of the evidence collected by the prosecution. Accused would be given enough opportunity to crossexamine the prosecution witnesses at the time of trial and lead his own evidence to rebut the case of prosecution.
38 It is further argued by the Ld. Counsel for the accused that this Court is not having territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present chargesheet as the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused were in the State of Haryana and not in the State of Delhi.
39 Perusal of record shows that vide letter dated 13.12.2005 request was made to enquire into the charges by CBI against Om Prakash Chautala. Vide notification dated 22.2.2006, issued by the Government of India CBI was directed to enquire into the charges against the accused. It is also matter of record that accused has not raised this point at the time of taking cognizance. Cognizance against the accused was taken vide order dated 20.4.2010. Accused has not challenged the order taking cognizance of the offences alleged to have been committed by him. It is important to AC No.2/2010 CBI Vs. Om Prakash Chautala Page 30 of 36 note that cognizance against coaccused Ajay Singh Chautala and Abhay Singh Chautala was also taken by this Court and order taking cognizance has been upheld upto Hon'ble Supreme Court. So, there is no force in this contention of the accused that this Court is not having territorial jurisdiction in the present case. 40 The prosecution has produced enough material to show that accused accumulated assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. The details of properties and the wealth recovered during the search of properties of accused, shows prima facie that the accused acquired assets more than his known sources of income. The evidence collected by the CBI during investigation of the case, clearly discloses that the accused acquired disproportionate assets. The accused has failed to give any explanation with regard to same. The accused has not accounted the assets acquired by him. It is a settled law that at the time of framing of charge, the standard of proof is different than at the time of passing the final judgment. At the time of framing of charge, court can frame charge against the accused if there is grave suspicion against him, from the material available on record. In case titled Smaty Machra and another Versus State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (Reported in 2007 Cr.L.J. 4341) it was held that the AC No.2/2010 CBI Vs. Om Prakash Chautala Page 31 of 36 considerations which are relevant at time of framing of charges and those at time of conclusion of trial are entirely different. While grave suspicion would entitle Court to frame charges, grave suspicion alone would not entitle Court to convict a person in respect of said charges. If the Court has strong reasons to suspect that crime was committed by accused, then it would not be in error if it frames charges accordingly.
41 I have gone through the recent pronouncement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled S.K. Lakhina And Ors. Vs. CBI Thru. State (Reported in 2010 VII AD (Delhi) 51) in which it was held that at the time of framing of charge, the Court need not to scrutinize the evidence cited by CBI. Relevant portion from para 6 of the judgment is quoted herebelow: "It is well settled law that at the time of framing of charge, the Court need not scrutinize whether the evidence cited by CBI was credible or not. The charges are to be framed on the basis of material collected."
42 It is now well settled that at the time of framing of charge, only the material produced by the prosecution has to be looked into and the accused would get an opportunity to prove his AC No.2/2010 CBI Vs. Om Prakash Chautala Page 32 of 36 case and to rebut the case of the prosecution during the course of trial. While dealing with similar situation, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Bharat Parikh Vs. CBI & Anr. (Reported in (2008) 10 SCC
109) has held as under : "With regard to the second proposition regarding the High Court's powers to look into materials produced on behalf of or at the instance of the accused for the purpose of invoking its powers under Section 482 of the Code for quashing the charges framed, it has to be kept in mind that after the stage of framing charge evidence has to be led on behalf of the prosecution to prove the charge if an accused pleads not guilty to the charge and/or charges and claims to be tried. It is only in the exceptional circumstances enumerated in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal; 1992 Cri. LJ 527, that a criminal proceeding may be quashed to secure the ends of justice, but such a stage will come only after evidence is led, particularly when the prosecution had produced sufficient material for charges to be framed. As observed in Debendra Nath Padhi's case (supra) at the stage of framing charge roving and fishing inquiry is impermissible and a mini trial cannot be conducted at such stage. At the stage of framing of charge the submissions on behalf of the accused has to be confined to the material produced by the investigating agency. The accused will get an opportunity to prove the documents subsequently produced by the prosecution on the order of the Court, AC No.2/2010 CBI Vs. Om Prakash Chautala Page 33 of 36 but the same cannot be relied upon to reopen the proceedings once charge has been framed or for invocation of the High Court's powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."
43 It is matter of record that when the accused was examined by the CBI during the course of investigation, the accused has failed to give any explanation with regard to assets accumulated by him. The accused has failed to disclose the legal sources from which he acquired such assets. Therefore, I am of the view that the assets acquired by the accused remained unaccounted for. 44 In view of the aforementioned discussion, I am of the considered opinion that prima facie case is made out against the accused Om Prakash Chautala for acquiring assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. It is therefore, ordered that charges under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988 be accordingly framed against the accused.
Announced in the open Court ( P.S. TEJI )
Dated: 3.8.2011 District Judge & ASJ, I/c (East)
Special Judge ( CBI )
Karkardooma Courts : Delhi
AC No.2/2010 CBI Vs. Om Prakash Chautala Page 34 of 36
IN THE COURT OF SHRI P.S. TEJI : DISTRICT JUDGE (EAST) cum ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE, SPECIAL JUDGE (CBI), KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
AC No.2/2010 FIR No.RC2(A)/2006/ACUVII Central Bureau of Investigation Versus Om Prakash Chautala CHARGE I, P.S. TEJI, District Judge (East) cum Special Judge (CBI), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, do hereby charge you accused Om Prakash Chautala as under:
That you accused Om Prakash Chautala, being MLA during the period 24.5.1993 to 31.5.2006 were found in possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of your income and for which you could not satisfactorily account for and thereby you committed an offence under Section 13(1)(e) of P.C. Act, punishable AC No.2/2010 CBI Vs. Om Prakash Chautala Page 35 of 36 under Section 13(2) of P.C. Act and within my cognizance.
And I direct that you be tried by this court for the abovesaid offence.
( P.S. TEJI ) District Judge & ASJ, I/C (East) Special Judge (CBI) Karkardooma Courts : Delhi 3.8.2011 The charge has been read over and explained to the accused who is questioned as under :
Q. Do you accused Om Prakash Chautala plead guilty or claim trial?
Ans. I plead not guilty and claim trial.
RO & AC ( P.S. TEJI )
District Judge & ASJ, I/C (East)
Special Judge (CBI)
Karkardooma Courts : Delhi
3.8.2011
AC No.2/2010 CBI Vs. Om Prakash Chautala Page 36 of 36