Bangalore District Court
Cbi/Acb/Blr vs A1 A K V Sai Jay Ram on 7 February, 2024
KABC010236782018
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE FOR CBI
CASES
AT BENGALURU (CCH-34)
Dated 7 th February, 2024
-: PRESENT :-
Sri.H.A.Mohan, B.A.L., LL.B.
XXXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge
and Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru
Spl.C.C.No.598/2018
COMPLAINANT : State represented by
Central Bureau of Investigation,
Anti Corruption Branch, Bengaluru
(By Public Prosecutor
Sri.Balaji Francis)
-vs-
RESPONDENTS : 1. A.K.V.Sai Jay Ram
(Accused) (Accused No.1)
S/o Sri.A.Sambasiva Rao
R/o H.No.52 & 53
ABM Sapthagiri Layout
Doddathogur, Electronic City
Phase-I, Bangalore
2. Smt.B.Ramya
(Accused No.2)
2 Spl.C.C.598/2018
W/o A.K.V.Sai Jay Ram
R/o H.No.52 & 53
ABM Sapthagiri Layout
Doddathogur, Electronic City
Phase-I, Bangalore
3. B.N.V.Subba Rao
(Accused No.3)
S/o Late. B.Krishna Rao
R/o Tutavaari Street,
Main Bazar, Eluru,
West Godavari District,
Andhra Pradesh.
(By Sri.R.Ganesh Kumar,
Advocate)
Date of commission of the 05.10.2016
offence/s :
Offences charged : U/S 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of P.C.Act,
1988 and 109 of IPC r/w Section
13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988.
Name of the Complainant : CBI/ACB, Bengaluru
Date of commencement of 30.03.2022
the evidence :
Statement of accused u/S 07.10.2023
313 of Cr.P.C. :
3 Spl.C.C.598/2018
Evidence closed on : 07.11.2023
Final Verdict : Accused No.1 to 3 are acquitted
(H.A.Mohan)
XXXII Addl.C.C. & S.J. and
Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
This case emanates from the charge sheet submitted by CBI/ACB, Bengaluru, pertaining to RC.20(A)/2016, for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 109 of IPC r/w Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, on the basis of source information, a case in RC.20(A)/2016/CBI/ACB/BLR has been registered on 30.09.2016 for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) 4 Spl.C.C.598/2018 r/w Section 13(1)(e) of P.C.Act against Accused No.1 Sri.A.K.V.Sai Jay Ram. After conducting further investigation, it revealed that Accused No.1 Sri.A.K.V.Sai Jay Ram joined Centre for Development of Telematics (C- DOT) as Graduate Engineer Trainee on 01.08.1997 after completing his B.Tech. in Electronics & Communication Engineering in 1997. Accused No.1 has been posted tin C- DOT, Bengaluru from the date of posting i.e. 01.08.1997 till his transfer to C-DOT, New Delhi in May, 2017. He joined C-DOT in the grade of E-1 and was in E-V grade in the capacity of Group Leader at C-DOT, Bengaluru, at the time of registration of the case. He was subsequently transferred in the same capacity to C-DOT office, New Delhi from where he took voluntary retirement and was relieved from service on 18.01.2018.
3. It is further contended that Accused No.1 is the 5 Spl.C.C.598/2018 only son to Sri.Akula Sambasiva Rao and Smt.A.V.Ratnavali. Accused No.1 has also one younger sister. Sri.Akula Sambasiva Rao worked in the BHEL, Hyderabad and retired from service as Senior Manager in the year 1999. Accused No.1 got married with Accused No.2 Smt.B.Ramya on 30.10.2004. She is the daughter of Accused No.3 Sri.Venkata Subba Rao and Smt.B.Jhansi Lakshmi, who are residents of Eluru in West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. Accused No.3 is a Cloth Merchant and runs a wholesale Cloth showroom in Eluru. Accused No.1 declared to his department that Accused No.2 at the time of marriage was a house wife. However, she started filing her income tax returns from the financial year 2012-13 only. Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 have two children viz. Son Master A.Krishna Sai Vrishn, who was born on 04.04.2007 and daughter Baby A.R.Shrika was born on 11.04.2009. Both the children are studying in 6 Spl.C.C.598/2018 Christ Academy, ICSE School, Bengaluru. Both are students and have no independent source of income.
4. It is further contended that search was conducted on 05.10.2016 at Bengaluru, Eluru and Hyderabad, which resulted in recovery of several incriminating documents. Keeping in view the acquisitive activities of Accused No.1, the check period has been taken from 01.04.2011 to 05.10.2016, the date of search. During the aforesaid period, Accused No.1 acquired substantial assets in his name as well as in the names of his wife Accused No.2 and his father-in-law Accused No.3. The said assets are mentioned as under:
ASSETS AT THE BEGINNING OF CHECK PERIOD (IMMOVABLE) Sl. Details of property Amount in No. Rs.
1 H.No.52 & 53, ABM Sapthagiri Layout, 36,48,940/-
Doddathogur
7 Spl.C.C.598/2018
MOVABLE
Sl. Details of property Amount in
No. Rs.
1 Balance in A/c No.1057247661 in 15,480
Central Bank of India, Miller Road
Branch, Bangalore
2 Balance in A/c No.625201507915 in 14,560
ICICI Bank, Electronic City Branch, Bengaluru 3 Balance in A/c No.3006101000946 in 1,00,511 Canara Bank, Electronic City Branch, Bengaluru 4 Balance in SB A/c No.30226000738 in 2,105 the name of Sri.A.K.V.Sai Jay Ram in State Bank of India, Residency Road Branch, Bengaluru 5 Balance in A/c NO.020401503073 in 17,199 ICICI Bank, R.T.Nagar Branch, Bengaluru 6 Hyundai Santro Car (1999 Model) 2,00,000 bearing Registration No.AP 10 M6262 7 TVS Scooty PEP Plus Vehicle bearing 25,000 Reg.No.KA-01/EJ8978 8 Value of Household items as per 2,02,400 Inventory Total 5,77,255 8 Spl.C.C.598/2018
5. Accused No.1 and his family members were having immovable and movable assets (36,48,940 +5,77,255) worth Rs.42,26,195/- in their possessing at the beginning of check period i.e. on 01.04.2011.
ASSETS AT THE END OF CHECK PERIOD
IMMOVABLE
Sl. Details of property Amount in
No. Rs.
1 H.No.52 & 53, ABM Sapthagiri Layout, 36,48,940/-
Doddathogur
2 Site No.67, ABM Sapthagiri Layout, 7,20,000
Doddathogur in the name of
Smt.B.Ramya
3 Site No.9, ABM Sapthagiri Layout, 17,40,000
Doddathogur
4 Site No.96, Vakil Whispering Woods, 42,62,500
Phase-III, Madiwala, Anekal Taluk
5 House at Site No.34, ABM Sapthagiri 97,69,359
Layout including the cost of land in the name of Sri.B.N.V. Subba Rao, father-
in-law of Sri.A.K.V.Sai Jay Ram
Total 2,01,40,799
9 Spl.C.C.598/2018
MOVABLE
Sl. Details of property Amount in
No. Rs.
1 Balance in A/c No.1057247661 in 2,002
Central bank of India, Miller Road
Branch, Bangalore
2 Balance in A/c No.3006101000946 in 11,242
Canara Bank, Electronic City Branch, Bengaluru 3 Balance in SB A/c No.30226000738 in 2,403 the name of Sri.A.K.V.Sai Jay Ram in State Bank of India, Residency Road Branch, Bengaluru 4 Balance in A/c No.020401503073 in 3980 ICICI Bank, R.T.Nagar Branch, Bengaluru 5 Balance in A/c No.8104000270205 in 1,05,341 IDBI Bank, Mission Road Branch, Bangalore 6 Balance in A/c No.3006101004744 in 10,013 the name of Smt.Burlagadda Ramya in Canara Bank, Electronic City Branch, Bengaluru 7 Value of investment in SBI Mutual Fund 6,353 Folio No.5276699 in the name of Sri.A.K.V.Sai Jay Ram 8 TVS Scooty PEP Plus Vehicle bearing 25,000 Reg.No.KA-1-EJ-8978 10 Spl.C.C.598/2018 9 Tata Nano with Regn.No.KA-51-MG- 2,39,921 1031 on 29.11.2014 10 Honda CRV Car bearing Regn.No.KA 5,50,000 19 MK 8009 (Third hand purchase) 11 Bullet Thunderbird 350 CC bearing 1,00,000 Regn.No.KA 02 HG 6980 12 Value of Household items as per 4,16,750 inventory Total 14,73,005/
6. Accused No.1 and his family members were having immovable and movable assets (2,01,40,799+14,73,005) worth Rs.2,16,13,804/- in their possessing at the end of check period i.e. on 05.10.2016.
7. Income of Accused No.1 and his family members during the check period is as follows:
Sl. Details of Income Amount in
No. Rs.
1 Net salary received by Sri.A.K.V.Sai Jay 66,43,827
Ram during the check period
11 Spl.C.C.598/2018
2 Amount received on account of Annual 6,36,303
EL Encashment
3 Reimbursement from C-DOT against 65,739
medical claims
4 Reimbursement from C-DOT against 2,86,537
LTC Claims
5 EPF withdrawal from C-DOT 15,84,000
6 Advance received by Sri.A.K.V.Sai Jay 1,05,000
Ram from C-DOT
7 Income of Smt.B.Ramya, wife of 13,68,410
Accused No.1 during the check period 8 IT Refunds to Smt.B.Ramya 91,800 9 Term Loan (Home Loan) A/c 23,00,000 No.0008675199916524 availed in the joint names of Accused No.1 and 2 from IDBI Bank 10 Top Up loan A/c No.000867510004136 11,38,000 availed in the joint names of Accused No.1 and 2 from IDBI Bank 11 Loan availed from Axis Bank for 34,00,000 purchase of Site No.36 having an extent of 3,875 sq.ft. In Vakil Whispering Woods, Phase-3 12 Loan taken by Sri.A.K.V.Sai Jay Ram 1,00,000 from Sri.B.N.V.Subba Rao 13 Gift received by Accused No.1 from his 88,000 parents 14 Gift received by Accused No.1 from 25,000 Sri.Harish 12 Spl.C.C.598/2018 15 Loan taken by Accused No.1 from 14,000 Sri.Ranjit Verma 16 Amount received by Accused No.1 from 15,00,000 his father 17 Interest accrued in A/c No.1057247661 907 in Central Bank of India, Miller Road Branch, Bengaluru 18 Interest earned in SB A/c 2,332 No.625201507915 in the name of Accused No.1 in ICICI Bank Cantonment Branch, Bengaluru 19 Interest accrued in A/c No.3006101000 20,371 946 in Canara Bank, Electronic City Branch, Bengaluru 20 Interest earned in SB A/c 500 No.30226000738 in the name of Accused No.1 in State Bank of India, Residency Road Branch, Bengaluru 21 Interest earned in A/c 6,336 No.020401503073 in ICICI Bank, R.T.Nagar Branch, Bengaluru 22 Balance in A/c No.8104000270205 in 15,382 IDBI Bank, Mission Road Branch, Bengaluru 23 Interest accrued in A/c 4,328 No.3006101004744 in the name of Accused No2 in Canara Bank, Electronic City Branch, Bengaluru 24 Interest earned in Term Deposit A/c 12,690 No.1320105000004749 in the name of 13 Spl.C.C.598/2018 Accused No.1 in IDBI Bank, Electronics City Branch, Bengaluru 25 Interest earned from Fixed Deposit 12,387 Receipt No.23050 in the name of Accused No.2 in Bajaj Finance Limited 26 Amount received on redemption of SBI 50498 MF SBI Magnum Tax gain Scheme-
Regular Dividend Folio No.5276699 by Accused No.1 27 Amount received as Dividend Payout 13,179 from SBI MF SBI Magnum Tax gain Scheme Regular Dividend Folio No.5276699 by Accused No.1 28 Amount received on redemption of 49,968 HDFC Focussed Large-Cap Fund-
Growth (Folio No.2688186/22) in the name of Accused No.1 29 Amount received on redemption of 43,162 ICICI Prudential Long Term Equity Fund (Folio No.922043/20) in the name of Accused No.1 30 Amount received on redemption of 9,387 ICICI Prudential Flexible Income Fund Growth (Folio No.44697/47) in the name of Accused No.1 31 Amount received on redemption of SBI 92,329 Magnum Midcap-Regular Plan-Growth (Folio No.5114866) in the name of Accused No.1 32 Amount received on redemption of 1,59,622 14 Spl.C.C.598/2018 ICICI Prudential Lifetime Mutual Fund (Folio No.00831904) in the name of Accused No.1 33 Amount received on redemption of 1,30,959 ICICI Prudentila Lifetime Maximiser Mutual Fund (Folio No.00332641) in the name of Accused No.1 34 Amount received on redemption of units 18,334 of DSP Black Rock Mutual Fund (Folio No.2385675/23) in the name of Accused No.1 35 Amount received on redemption of units 14,385 of HDFC Mutual Fund (Folio No.7060510/69) in the name of Accused No.2 36 Amount received on redemption of L & 19,286 T MF (Folio No.1656064/51) by Accused No.2 37 Amount received on sale of shares and 4,459 Dividend received in respect of Shares of M/s MOIL Limited in the name of Accused No.2 38 Amount received on sale of shares and 2,221 Dividend received in respect of Shares of M/s NCC Ltd. in the name of Accused No.2 39 Amount received on sale of shares and 19,402 Dividend received in respect of M/s PGCIL in the name of Accused No.2 40 Amount received on sale of shares and 2,152 15 Spl.C.C.598/2018 Dividend received in respect of Shares of M/s Reliance Power in the name of Accused No.2 41 Savings of DA by Official Foreign Trips 1,86,744 by conversion of Foreign Exchange 42 Rental Income received from H.No.34 6,81,450 during the check period 43 Rental advance received in respect of 1,00,000 Shop in H.No.67 44 Income from investment in Chit Fund 1,19,495 45 Cash back received from Credit Card 9,247 Agencies Total 2,11,48,128
8. Expenditure incurred by Accused No.1 and his family members are as follows:
Sl. Details of Expenditure Amount in No. Rs.
1 Unverifiable domestic expenses 26,95,414 calculated @ 1/3rd of Gross Salary of the Accused No.1 2 Stamps & registration expenses 4,16,653 incurred at the time of registration of immovable properties 3 Amount incurred towards registration of 1,04,960 16 Spl.C.C.598/2018 Gift Deed in respect of H.No.28-139, HIG Colony, Madhava Nagar, Ramachandrapuram, Hyderabad 4 Repayment of Principal amount towards 24,20,000 Axis Bank loan Agreement No.PHR000900805338 5 Amount paid towards repayment of 10,76,057 Principal and Interest Axis Bank Loan Agreement No.PHR000900805338 6 Amount paid towards interest and 19,500 principal towards CITI Bank Home Loan during the check period 7 Total part payment made by Accused 17,23,007 No.1 for pre closing the CITI Bank Home Loan 8 Amount repaid during the check period 15,86,398 in r/o Term Loan (Home Loan) A/c No.0008675100016524 availed in the joint names of Accused No.1 and 2 from IDBI Bank 9 Amount repaid during the check period 1,63,030 in r/o Top Up Loan A/cc No.000867510004136 availed in the joint names of Accused No.1 and 2 from IDBI Bank 10 Interest and Service charges incurred 96,507 on loan availed from Bajaj Finance Ltd. 11 Interest and Service Charges incurred 4,949 on Personal Loan A/c No.30066260001919 in the name of 17 Spl.C.C.598/2018 Accused No.1 from Canara Bank, Electronic city Branch, Bengaluru 12 Amount paid to Christ Academy 5,34,200 towards Tuition Fee, Transportation etc. in respect of Vrishn A.K.S. and A.R.Shrika, children of Accused No.1 13 Misc. expenditure towards purchase of 8,54,599 jewellery furniture, mobiles, vehicle repairs, travelling etc. based on credit card statements of CITI Bank and HDFC Bank in the name of Accused No.1 including payments made to BESCOM and Bengaluru ONE 14 Estimated expenditure on construction 55,82,407 of Site No.67, ABM Sapthagiri Layout, Doddathogur 15 Rent paid towards Locker No.64 in 18,845 Canara Bank, Electronic City Branch, Bengaluru 16 ATM Annual charges in respect of SB 202 A/c No.30226000738 in the name of Accused No.1 in State Bank of India, Residency Road Branch, Bengaluru 17 Loss on account of sale of Hyundai 1,00,000 Santro Car (1999 Model) bearing Regn.No.AP 10 M 6262 18 Premium paid towards standard Fire & 455 Special Perils Policy of M/s Bajaj Alliancz General Insurance Co. Ltd.
issued to Accused No.1 in respect of H.No.52, 53, Sapthagiri Layout 18 Spl.C.C.598/2018 19 Amount paid towards Motor Vehicle 7,467 Insurance Policy No.2015-V4096073- FPV issued in respect of Tata Nano Twist XT Car bearing Regn.No.KA 51 MG 1031 in the name of Accused No.2 20 Premium paid towards motor vehicle 12,491 insurance Policy No.1415552311 000333 in respect of Honda CR-V vehicle bearing Regn.No.KA 19 MK 8009 in the name of Accused No.1 21 Amount paid towards insurance 8,799 premium for Bharti Axa Private Car package Policy No.S9222394 in r/o Tata Nano car purchased in the name of Accused No.2 22 Premium paid towards Life Insurance 65,695 Policy No.002696974 in the name of Accused No.1 from M/s Bajaj Sun Life Insurance 23 Premium paid towards Max Life Online 11,307 Term Plan Policy No.889841664 in the name of Accused No.1 24 Amount paid towards fee of Kidz 10,700 Academy for Music Classes of children 25 Amount paid towards the Bills for the 44,402 Landline No.28523456 for the period from 01.04.2011 till 31.08.2016 26 Amount paid towards Bill of Vodafone 2,335 Mobile NO.9343988886 issued I the name of Akula Venkata Sai Jay Ram 19 Spl.C.C.598/2018 27 Amount incurred towards service 8,747 charges in respect of Bullet Motor Cycle bearing No.KA 02 HG 6980 28 Amount incurred towards AMC Charges 1,900 for Elica Chimney 29 Amount incurred on Hathway 3,090 Broadband 30 Loss on account of redemption of 165 HDFC Mutual Fund by Accused No.2 31 Amount paid to M/s Varshitha Cable 5,980 Network No.53/6, Doddathogur, Celebrity Layout Road, Electronics City, Bengaluru towards payment for Cable TV Connection 32 Amount paid to M/s Harini Shree 15,000 Constructions for preparation of Building Plan etc. in respect of House On Plot No.67, Doddathogur in the name of Accused No.2 33 Amount paid to Doddathogur Gram 15,768 Panchayat for grant of permission for construction of House on Plot No.67 34 Repayment of CPF Refund Loan made 1,58,400 during the check period 35 Amount paid towards purchase of Exide 1,150 Battery from M/s Sangeetha Enterprises by Accused No.1 36 Amount incurred on purchase of Usha 6,000 Dream Stitch Sewing Machine from M/s Sainath Commercial Enterprises 20 Spl.C.C.598/2018 37 Amount paid to Silicon Citizen's House 1,68,000 Building Co-operative Society Ltd., during the check period 38 Expenditure incurred during LTC and 1,71,000 claimed by Accused No.1 39 Expenditure incurred towards payment 2,600 of BMS Tent House 40 Expenditure incurred towards payment 6,334 of insurance premium for Hyundai Santro vehicle bearing Reg.No.AP 10 M6262 41 Amount incurred for purchase of Sony 1,350 XSG 1072 Car Music System Total 1,81,25,863
9. In view of the above, the computation of assets, expenditure and income of Accused No.1 and his family members is as follows:
A. Assets at the beginning of check period 42,26,195 B. Assets at the end of check period 2,16,13,804 B-A. Assets acquired during the check 1,73,87,609 period C. Income during the check period 2,11,48,128 D. Expenditure incurred during the check 1,81,25,863 21 Spl.C.C.598/2018 period C-D. Total assets and expenditure during 3,55,13,472 the check period Disproportionate Assets 1,43,65,344 Percentage of DA over the total income 67.92%
10. Accused No.1 has thus been found in possession of disproportionate assets worth Rs.1,43,65,344/- in his name and in the name of his family members, which he could not satisfactorily account for. Further, investigation revealed that Accused No.2 had actively aided and abetted the accused No.1 by allowing him in acquiring huge immovable and movable properties in her name, even though she did not have means to acquire the same.
11. It is further contended that Accused No.1 had acquired one immovable property viz. House No.34, Sapthagiri Layout, Bengaluru, in the name of his father-in-
22 Spl.C.C.598/2018 law and who had actively aided and abetted Accused No.1 in acquisition of the same. In view of the said material, it is prima-facie clear that the Accused No.1 has committed the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Accused No.2 and 3 have committed the offence punishable under Section 109 of IPC r/w Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Since Accused No.1 was already retired voluntarily from service, sanction is not obtained.
12. After receipt of the charge sheet, cognizance for the above said offences was taken against Accused No.1 to 3 and ordered to issue summons to them. In response to the summons received, Accused No.1 to 3 have appeared along with their Advocate and they have been released on bail.
13. Thereafter with the consent of prosecution and 23 Spl.C.C.598/2018 the accused, charge against Accused No.1 to 3 are framed for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of P.C.Act and 109 of IPC and read over to Accused No.1 to 3 in English language known to them. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, trial for recording the evidence was fixed.
14. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined CW1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11 as PW1 to PW7, CW13, 15, 16, 23, 22, 20, 17, 7, 34, 32, 35, 29, 36, 25, 26, 33, 28, 37, 38 to 40, 42, 45, 48, 47, 53, 46, 56, 55, 49 as PW9 to PW38, CW24, 57, 58, 59, 50, 52, 62, 63, 60, 65, 67, 41, 64, 30, 68, 66, 71, 70, 75, 73, 72, 31, 80, 79, 77, 78, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 87, 84, 89, 88, 95, 96, 91, 93, 98, 99, 104, 107, 102, 106, 103, 105, 108, 54, 100, 101 and 109 as PW40 to PW91 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P334.
15. Thereafter, statement as contemplated under 24 Spl.C.C.598/2018 Section 313 Cr.P.C. have been recorded by putting the incriminating evidence available against each of the Accused No.1 to 3 and recorded their answers as per the version given by them.
16. Thereafter, on behalf of Accused one Advocate Sri.George Joseph, Smt.K.P.Reddy, Sri.M.Yellappa, Sri.Shibasish Majumdar, Sri.Lokesh Reddy and Sri.Ramakrishna have been examined as DW1 to DW6 and got marked Ex.D.27 to D.36. Ex.D.1 to D.26 are marked during the course of prosecution evidence by confronting the same.
17. Heard the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor Sri.Balaji Francis and and the learned counsel for the Accused No.1 to 3 Sri.R.Ganesh Kumar.
25 Spl.C.C.598/2018
18. The points that would arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the Accused No.1 during the check period from 01.04.2011 to 05.10.2016, acquired dispropor-
tionate asset in his name and in the names of Accused No.2 and 3 by illegal means?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that Accused No.1 acquired Site No.34 with construction in the name of Accused No.3 as a Benami property?
3. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that Accused No.2 being the wife of Accused No.1 abated Accused No.1 to acquire disproportionate assets?
26 Spl.C.C.598/2018
4. What order?
19. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 to 3 : In the negative Point No.4 : 'As per final order' for the following:
REASONS
20. POINT Nos.1 TO 3: Since these two points are interconnected to each other, to avoid repetition of facts, they are taken up together for discussion.
21. Before going to other aspect, it is necessary to decide about assets mentioned in Statement A i.e. with regard to assets available at the beginning of check period.
22. During the course of trial accused have not disputed item Nos.1 to 7. But, accused have disputed the value of asset at the beginning of check period, as per the 27 Spl.C.C.598/2018 inventory. According to the accused, value of the assets available was Rs.2,44,600/- and not Rs.2,02,400/-. It is contended that it is a calculation error made by the Investigating Officer.
23. In that regard, it has been pointed out during the course of arguments that proper calculation has not been made by the Investigating Officer.
24. In that regard, the prosecution is relying upon evidence of PW14 and PW91. PW14 is one Yusuf Shariff a witness to inventory search list marked as Ex.P.103 and inventory is marked as Ex.P.104, locker operation memo is marked as Ex.P.329. In para No.18, this witness has admitted that what are all stated in Ex.P.104 were also seized by the Investigating Officer. He noticed that the Investigating Officer was mentioning about the what was the item, which was given by the inmates and he has put 28 Spl.C.C.598/2018 his signature to the register.
25. PW91 in page No.39 stated that he did not take the photograph and videograph of inventory proceedings. He did not take the valuer along with him to the spot. No goldsmith accompanied him and no weighing scale was taken with him. Based upon the information given by the accused, he has mentioned the value at Rs.2,02,400/- in Sl.No.8 pertaining to movable items. According to him, the value of Rs.4,16,750/- as item No.12 is the value of house hold articles at the end of check period. He did not issue notice to local inhabitants as required under Section 104 of Cr.P.C. He admitted that in inventory memo, the total calculated amount is not mentioned. Total 98 items were available and it is mentioned in the inventory. He admitted that total value of the items is not mentioned. For arriving a total value of Rs.4,16,750/- all the 98 items have not been 29 Spl.C.C.598/2018 taken into consideration. He himself made calculation and taken total 63 items for the said purpose. He did not ascertain as to which of the items are purchased by using credit card. He did not make efforts to ascertain the date of purchase of each of the items.
26. It is pointed out by Sri.R.G.K. that as per the CBI manual searches conducted in case of disproportionate asset, articles of tripling value and ROR daily used need not be mentioned individually in the search list nor seized. Since there some procedural lapse on the part of Investigating Officer with regard to conducting inventory proceedings and since he did not take the proper person for weighing and calculating the value and since the difference between the prosecution and the accused is very narrow and there is an error of calculation, the contention of the accused in that regard is to be believed and accepted.
30 Spl.C.C.598/2018 Therefore, in place of Rs.2,02,400/- Rs.2,44,600/- is required to be taken.
27. The another disputed item is with regard to Rs.34,892/-. According to the accused, the said amount was also available at the beginning of the check period.
28. The prosecution is relying upon the evidence of PW11 and PW91 and Ex.P.54. PW11 in his evidence deposed about so many documents. He has produced several documents marked as Ex.P.49 to P.97. In the examination-in-chief itself he stated that Accused No.1 and 2 had invested monthly investment of Rs.1,500/- and the value of the said investment as on 01.04.2011 was Rs.34,892/-.
29. Since it has come in the evidence of prosecution witness himself and it was available in the hands of 31 Spl.C.C.598/2018 accused as on 01.04.2011, the same needs to be taken as an asset. Accordingly, without much discussion, the same is taken as an asset.
30. In view of the above discussion, if the value of asset is taken for consideration, the total value of the asset comes to Rs.5,77,255+36,48,940+42,200+34892= 43,03,287. So, the total asset comes to Rs.43,03,287/- in place of Rs.42,26,195/- at the beginning of check period. Assets acquired during the check period as shown in Statement B
31. The main disputed item to be decided pertaining to this case is with regard to Site No.34, which is shown as item No.5 of Statement B pertaining to immovable property.
32 Spl.C.C.598/2018
32. According to the prosecution, this is a Benami property acquired by Accused No.1 out of his illegal money in the name of Accused No.3, who is his father-in-law. The learned Public Prosecutor Sri.Balaji Francis has vehemently argued that the circumstances under which the site was purchased and building was constructed is to be taken note for the purpose of knowing as to who actually invested money. It is argued that Accused No.3 even though was a cloth merchant for many years, but as per Ex.P.123 and other bank statements, he did not have sufficient money to purchase the site and to construct the building. PW53 is the seller of site as per Ex.P.232. The property was purchased for Rs.14,00,000/- and additional amount was invested for registration purpose. PW53 has clearly deposed that Accused No.1 himself negotiated the sale and he himself has paid the amounts. Dds, even though were purchased in the name of Accused No.3, but 33 Spl.C.C.598/2018 as per the entries made in Ex.P.123, heavy cash amounts were deposited to the account of Accused No.3 before purchasing of DDs. In fact, Accused No.3 had no source of income to purchase the said property and he did not explain as to how and in what manner he collected so much of cash amount and credited the same to his account.
33. It is further argued that as per the evidence of PW61 and Ex.P.120 there were no withdrawals. With regard to sundry debtors, no proper evidence has been adduced on behalf of Accused No.3 to show that such a debt amount was due to him from others while selling the cloths. The evidence of PW3, Ex.P.10 to P.12, evidence of PW18, Ex.P.127, Ex.D.5 and D.6 clearly establish that Accused No.3 had no sufficient source of income to purchase the property and to construct the building. No 34 Spl.C.C.598/2018 explanation has been offered in respect of Rs.9,50,000/-. Even though Accused No.3 contended that he had Overdraft facility from the bank, but that amount has not been utilized for purchasing of the site and to construct the building. The withdrawals and credits to his account would not match the amount invested for construction of the building and important thing is that Accused No.3 did not have sufficient amount to spent so much of amount.
34. It is further argued that as per Ex.P.3 search list, original registered sale deed, even though has been recovered from the house of Accused No.3, but rental receipts were recovered from the house of Accused No.1. Accused No.1 actually has participated at all stages and he himself has negotiated. Therefore, it is clear that Accused No.1 himself has invested money for purchasing of site as well as to construct the building. Further, in the Income Tax 35 Spl.C.C.598/2018 Returns, this amount has not been shown. As per the net balance shown in Income Tax Returns, Accused No.3 was not having that much of amount. If really he had so much of sundry debtors and legal source of income, he would have shown the same in his Income Tax Returns. The manner in which the transactions were taken place while purchasing the property, while constructing the building and making payments by Accused No.1, to the Contractor would clearly demonstrate that Accused No.3 is a namesake owner and he did not actually make the payments. On the other hand, evidence clearly establish that Accused No.1 alone, out of his ill-gotten money has purchased this property in the name of Accused No.3, who is his father-in-law.
35. On the other hand, the learned counsel for Accused No.1 to 3 Sri.R.Ganesh Kumar countered by 36 Spl.C.C.598/2018 arguing that in order to ascertain as to the source of Accused No.3, nature of his business is required to be considered. It is a job oriented business and during that period, it was not at all digitalized. Even now in the market, people are paying the amount in cash and several transactions are being taken place through cash amount only. During that period, there was no mandate for doing the business through digitalized mode. Ex.P.123 itself shows that there has been cash transactions. That apart even before the marriage of Accused No.2, who is the daughter of Accused No.3, there were cash transactions and it is reflected in the Income Tax Returns and account extracts.
36. It is further argued that in order to prove the plea of Benami, heavy burden is on the prosecution to establish that Accused No.3 was not at all having any source of 37 Spl.C.C.598/2018 income and he was not capable to earn any money and he actually did not make payment and the nature of relationship between Accused No.3 and Accused No.1, the circumstances prevailing from the time of purchasing of property and construction of building and whether actually Accused No.1 has made payments to the seller of the property and the Contractor, who has constructed the building, from out of his funds. Here in this case, the Investigating Officer i.e. PW91 has categorically admitted that he did not conduct investigation with regard to many aspects, even though there was no problem for him to conduct the investigation with regard to many aspects. But, intentionally PW91 did not wish to collect important documents and to examine the relevant witnesses and based upon favourable documents, he has submitted the false charge sheet. Lacuna in the investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer will enure to the benefit of 38 Spl.C.C.598/2018 accused as per Section 164 of Indian Evidence Act.
37. Since the very seller came and deposed that DDs were purchased in the name of Accused No.3 and that were credited to his accounts, just because Accused No.1, who was working at Bengaluru, negotiated for sale transactions, it can be presumed that it is a Benami property acquired by Accused No.1 in the name of his father-in-law Accused No.3. When bank statement itself clearly discloses that cash was being credited to his accounts even from the year 2002 onwards, the contention of prosecution that Accused No.3 did not have sufficient source of income, holds no water. There is a clear evidence from the mouth of many witnesses to the effect that the cloth shop of Accused No.3 at Eluru, Andhra Pradesh is a biggest cloth shop available in that place. Intentionally Investigating Officer did not examine the books 39 Spl.C.C.598/2018 of accounts and other related documents. Therefore, adverse inference is required to be drawn against the prosecution.
38. In the light of the said arguments and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Courts, it is important to refer the evidence of PW53, who is very relevant witness. He is seller of the property bearing Site No.34. In his evidence, he deposed that during the year 2011, he came in contact with Accused No.1 Sri.Sai Jay Ram. When he met him at the spot and interested to purchase the site, initially did not decide to sell the suit, but since he got developed health problem, he decided to sell when Accused No.1 visited him and expressed his willingness to purchase the site at Rs.1,000/- per sq.ft. Accused No.1 himself negotiated the price and ultimately he agreed to sell for the same price since there 40 Spl.C.C.598/2018 was an urgency for him. In the beginning, he told him that he would purchase the site for himself, but at the time of registration, he told him that he would get registered the sale deed in the name of Subba Rao and accordingly, sale deed as per Ex.P.232 has been executed and registered on 10.10.2011 in the name of Accused No.3. He stated that Accused No.1 himself paid the amounts through 3 DDs for Rs.4,00,000/- each and one DD for Rs.2,10,000/-. He stated that Accused No.1 himself negotiated the price and participated in sale talks.
39. In the cross-examination, he stated that he does not know that DDs were purchased from Eluru Branch, Andra Pradesh. He has verified the contents of sale deed and then signed. He admitted that in the sale deed, it has been mentioned as to from which Branch DDs were purchased. He admits that entire transaction was taken 41 Spl.C.C.598/2018 place through DDs and no cash payment was made. He denied the suggestion that sale agreement was taken place between himself and Accused No.3, but he stated that such a sale agreement was taken place between himself and Accused No.1. He stated that he did not retain the said sale agreement.
40. He further stated that he has not given statement before the Investigating Officer stating that such a sale agreement was taken place. He admits that after registration of the sale deed, Accused No.1 did not spoke to him and he has not saved the mobile number, through which Accused No.1 used to talk to him. He did not know as to where Accused No.3 was residing. He stated that he has not lost his memory power due to chemotherapy treatment. He has not paid tax towards capital gain since tax law was not strict during that period. He also admitted 42 Spl.C.C.598/2018 Ex.D.9 document, which was confronted to him. He admits that after having understood the contents of Ex.P.232, he had put his signatures.
41. He also admits that during that period, Accused No.1 was residing at Sapthagiri Layout and no other person was residing. He also admits that in respect of the said site, there was a suit in OS.1170/2006 was pending and he was defendant No.54. He admits that in Ex.P.232 he mentioned that no litigation was pending and accordingly he has put the signatures. He admits that he had seen Accused No.3 in the Sub-Registrar Office and spoke to him. He does not remember that Accused No.3 told him that since his son-in-law was residing at Bengaluru and he only helped him to purchase the property at Bengaluru. He denied the suggestion that he knew that DDs were purchased out side. He also admits that during the course 43 Spl.C.C.598/2018 of registration, he had come to know that property was being purchased by Accused No.3 and Accused No.1 was assisting him. He stated to the question that he came to know that Accused No.3 was purchasing the site and since Accused No.1 was a local person and his son-in-law and hence he was only assisting at the time of registration of the sale deed. He also admits that he did not raise any objection for registering the site in the name of Accused No.3. He also admitted that along with the summons received from CBI, he had also received 161 statement through whatsapp. The said admission indicates that before he entered into witness box, he was made known of his previous statement. Therefore, it shows that CBI Officer must have prevailed over him during the course of evidence.
42. Now, I have carefully perused Ex.P.232. It is 44 Spl.C.C.598/2018 original registered sale deed produced by the prosecution and in fact admittedly, it was recovered from the house of Accused No.3 at the time of search and seizure. The Investigating Officer, who has been examined as PW91 has categorically admitted that as per this document and the entries made in Ex.P.123, DDs were purchased from the account of Accused No.3, which is a current account, on 08.10.2011 i.e. two days before the execution of this registered sale deed. He has also categorically admitted that he has not conducted investigation as to how and in what manner the amount was credited to his account. In fact, he admitted that before purchasing DDs, Accused No.3 had availed overdraft facility of Rs.14,00,000/- and he had seized the mortgage deed.
43. If the oral evidence of PW91 is carefully perused from paras 15 to P.33, it is very clear that he was fully 45 Spl.C.C.598/2018 aware about the business being carried out by Accused No.3 in clothes and he was fully aware that several cash transactions were made and credited to the account of Accused No.3. He also admitted that Accused No.3 was an income tax assesee and he has submitted Income Tax Returns. His evidence would clearly show that he has only considered the income shown by Accused No.3 in Income Tax Returns and he has not at all taken into account either the overdraft loan facility availed by Accused No.3 from the bank or profit received by him by doing the cloth business. It is an admitted fact that Sudarshan Cloth Merchant being run by Accused No.3 at Eluru is the biggest cloth shop in that place. When search and seizure operation was conducted in the house of Accused No.3 at Eluru and documents were recovered and when it was within their knowledge that Accused No.3 was running a business shop in the cloth, it was the duty of the Investigating Agency to 46 Spl.C.C.598/2018 verify all the relevant documents particularly VAT documents, Registration under Shops and Establishment Act, payment of tax under VAT and other relevant documents. But, admittedly such an investigation has not at all been conducted. In para No.20, he admitted that Accused No.3 had shown the annual turn over for the year 2011-12 at Rs.2,39,85,167/- as per Ex.P.127. It was within the knowledge of this witness that Accused No.3 was also owning Sumangali Textiles and Lalithadevi Textiles. Even though he has stated that he had prepared the computation of income in respect of said business concerns, but he has not made it as part of charge sheet. That shows that the investigation was not fair. When such documents and materials were available for the Investigating Officer, it was their duty to thoroughly conduct the investigation to know the actual business turn over and profit earned by Accused No.3 from his business. But, for the reasons best known to 47 Spl.C.C.598/2018 PW91, he did not wish to conduct investigation in that regard.
44. Further, PW91 has also admitted that he was fully aware that Accused No.3 was doing chit fund business. He has not examined any member of the chit fund or the neighbouring people to know as to what was the nature of business being carried out by Accused No.3 and how much was the turn over on day today basis. He also failed to conduct investigation to the effect that Accused No.3 was also doing retail cloth business. He failed to examine the Advocate, who drafted the Ex.P.232, even though he was fully aware of the same. He also admitted that as per Ex.P.128 in page No.73, Accused No.3 had shown his income at Rs.2,67,736/- as VAT refund for the assessment year 2013-14. He also admitted that the said amount was shown in his Income Tax Returns. He 48 Spl.C.C.598/2018 deliberately did not take that income to his credit. He also did not conduct investigation as to why Accused No.3 intended to purchase property in Bengaluru. Even though he stated that during the course of enquiry Accused No.3 did not disclose about the fact with regard to purchasing of this property for avoiding capital gain tax, but in fact he has not produced the alleged statement of Accused No.3. He was unable to give proper answer with regard to that aspect. Therefore, his evidence is not credible. He also admitted that he has recorded the statement of son of Accused No.3 one Sri.Ramakrishna.B, who has been examined as DW6. He stated that on 09.12.2017, he has recorded his statement, but he has not made that statement as part of the charge sheet. However, he admitted that as per his statement, more than eight tenants were living in House No.34 over a period of time. He has admitted that he has recorded the statement of only five 49 Spl.C.C.598/2018 tenants and recovered two lease agreements as per Ex.P.48 and P.113, which were taken place between Accused No.3 and tenants.
45. PW1 also admitted that he has examined PW61 one Sri.N.Sridhar for knowing as to who are monitoring the construction and who are all involved to put up construction. But, he has not examined any labour contractor or labourer to ascertain the true facts. Even with regard to ground braking ceremony, conducting house warming ceremony and other related ceremonies conducted at the spot, he has examined only PW61 and not others. He stated that he was not aware that Accused No.3 himself had performed the said religious ceremonies.
46. PW91 also admitted that he was fully aware that Accused No.3 was having business account in Indian Overseas Bank. He was also aware that rents and 50 Spl.C.C.598/2018 advance pertaining to House No.34 were being credited to the account of Sudarshan Textiles. He admitted that Ex.D.23 document when it was confronted to him, stating that it was seized during search operation, but he did not choose to keep that document as relied document. He has failed to give any explanation as to why he did not rely upon the said document when it is relevant to the case. He also did not go to Indian Overseas Bank to ascertain as to why loan was sanctioned in favour of Accused No.3 before purchasing Site No.34. He admitted that as per Ex.D.23 it is shown that an amount of Rs.32,15,880/- was paid by Accused No.3 to the Contractor as on 18.01.2014. But, he stated that he did not consider it as genuine document. For that PW91 has not given any explanation as to for what reason he has formed an opinion that said document was not genuine and why he is not relying upon. When the Contractor i.e. PW61 who admittedly constructed the 51 Spl.C.C.598/2018 building, himself gave a statement stating that even though the amount was being paid by Accused No.1, by cash, but he was fully aware that the amount was belonging to Accused No.3 and admittedly, Accused No.1 is the son-in- law of Accused No.3.
47. PW91 further admitted that he knows about the meaning of sundry debtors and sundry creditors. He also understood the double entry method of book keeping. He admitted that Accused No.3 being a person in business was adopting the method of double entry book keeping. He admits that if the sundry debtors, who owe money to Accused No.3 with regard to business, pays money to Accused No.3, it will be a cash flow income in the hands of Accused No.3 minus expenditure. He admitted that during the search operation, Ex.D.24 document was seized from the house of Accused No.3. He admitted that as per the 52 Spl.C.C.598/2018 said documents, sundry debtors and sundry creditors list were prepared and kept in the house. He admitted that he has not relied upon the said documents and he gives an explanation to the effect that he has only relied upon income tax returns. Therefore, he felt that it was not necessary. He also admitted that in the income tax returns also, list of sundry debtors and sundry creditors are not available. He admitted that only in Ex.D.24 that date is available. He admitted that during the course of his investigation, he did not examine any of the persons shown in the list to ascertain the debt amount that was paid to Accused No.3 or not. He also knew about the profit and loss statement, balance sheet and cash flow statement. He has a basic knowledge about that aspect. He did not take assistance of any chartered accountant to ascertain the true facts with regard to that aspect. Therefore, there is a failure on the part of this PW91 with regard to conducting 53 Spl.C.C.598/2018 fair investigation. It clearly shows that for the reasons best known to him, he has adopted pick and choose method while conducting the investigation, without going in detail about all the documents available in the business concern of Accused No.3 and his house.
48. PW91 further admitted that in order to ascertain the cash flow income of Accused No.3, it is necessary to see all the relevant documents. He admitted that from Ex.P.128 to P.131, he could have computed cash flow income of Accused No.3 during the check period. He admitted that he has not considered the said statements to ascertain the income of Accused No.3 during the check period. He also did not consider the loans borrowed by Accused No.3 and his amounts during the check period for computing his assets. He has also not at all considered the payments made by sundry debtors to Accused No.3, as his 54 Spl.C.C.598/2018 income. He clearly admitted that he did not consider any of the income of Accused No.3 from his business or bank loan as his income, for the purpose of computing of disproportionate asset.
49. PW91 further admitted that he knows about Chapter-6 deduction under Income Tax Act. He admitted that as per Ex.P.127 in page No.30, an amount of Rs.57,38,719/- was shown as sundry debtors amount. He admitted that if the said sundry debtors pays the money to Accused No.3, sundry debtors get reduced and there will be a cash flow income to the creditors. He also admitted that as per Ex.P.131 Page No.157 sundry debtors money comes to Rs.39,88,620/- during the end of check period. He also admitted that when borrowings increases, cash flow will also increases. As per Ex.P.127 Page No.29 and 30, total secured and unsecured loans was Rs.20,15,804/-
55 Spl.C.C.598/2018 at the beginning of check period. Further, at the end of check period, the total secured and unsecured loans were Rs.27,75,415/-. He also admitted that he had prepared the computation chart pertaining to Accused No.3 to know as to what was the income and expenditure for each of the year, but admittedly he has not made that chart as part of final report. He had also prepared the chart with regard to the rental income received from H.No.34, but he has not made the same as part of final report. He had also arrived at conclusion as to total net income of Accused No.3 during the check period, but, he has not made that chart as part of final report. He does not remember as to the exact cash flow credited to the account of Accused No.3 during the check period. He was not able to say that total net income of Accused No.3 was Rs.1,43,91,785/- during the check period. He admits that Accused No.3 has declared H.No.34 as his asset and the income received from that 56 Spl.C.C.598/2018 house was his income, in the Income Tax Returns. He also admits that in the Income Tax Returns for the assessment year 2014-15 and 2015-16, the Accused No.3 had shown increasing value as fixed asset. He also admitted that on no occasions, money was flown from the account of Accused No.3 to the account of Accused No.1. He also clearly admitted that at no point of time, no property was transferred from the name of Accused No.1, to the name of Accused No.3.
50. The above said evidence clearly shows that the investigation conducted by this PW91 is not fair and intentionally, he has failed to include the income and assets of Accused No.3 for the purpose of knowing as to whether he was having sufficient source of income to purchase the Site No.34 and to construct the building in the said property. PW91 was unable to give any explanation as to why he has 57 Spl.C.C.598/2018 adopted such a pick and choose method when clear cut documents were available during the course of investigation. Even as per Income Tax Returns collected by him, he has not properly ascertained the income declared by Accused No.3 by understanding the concept of net income and other things.
51. Further, in para No.41, during the course of cross-examination, PW91 has also admitted that there is no monitory transaction between Accused No.1 and 3 through banking channel and Accused No.3 has reported about construction being made, through Income Tax Returns, every year. He also admitted that a surprise search operation was conducted in the house of commercial premises of Accused No.3 at Eluru. He does not know as to whether books of accounts and other papers were available in the premises or not.
58 Spl.C.C.598/2018
52. Further, in para No.63, he admits that he was aware that Accused No.3 had a HUF and he was a kartha of HUF. He admits that he knew that Accused No.2 has also a share in HUF property and also he did not take any income of HUF pertaining to Accused No.3.
53. In view of the said admissions on the part of PW91, it is clear that as earlier observed, he has not conducted fair and proper investigation to ascertain as to the source of income that was being received by Accused No.3 from his business, HUF and loans borrowed by him. When he was aware that Rs.19,00,000/- overdraft facility was taken by Accused No.3 two days before purchasing the DD for Rs.15,00,000/- and odd and when he was aware that additional Rs.21,00,000/- was also taken during the course of construction of the building, it was the duty of the Investigating Officer to ascertain as to for what purpose the 59 Spl.C.C.598/2018 said loans were borrowed and whether it was utilized or not. But, the say of PW91 stating that, that amount was not utilized and the alleged ill-gotten money of Accused No.1 was used for purchasing of Site No.34 and also used for construction of residential house in the said Flat, cannot be appreciated by the Court of law as it is not a fair investigation.
54. The learned counsel for accused Sri.R.G.K. is relying upon judgment in AIR 1978 SC 1025 ( Smt.Nandini Satpathy v. P.L.Dani and others), 2013 AIR SCW 5740 (Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu), AIR OnLine 2006 SC 622 (Aloke Nath Dutta v. State of West Bengal) . I have gone through the facts involved in the said case and the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. It has been held that accused as a right to be silent in a criminal trial. Hence, it is the duty of the prosecution to 60 Spl.C.C.598/2018 conduct fair and transparent investigation to find out as to the facts with regard to the alleged crime committed by each of the accused persons.
55. Further, decision in AIR 1974 SC 171 (Jaydayal Poddar (deceased) through LRs and another v. MST. Bibi Hazra and others. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed about the onus to prove the Benami transaction. It is well settled that the burden of proving that a particular sale is Benami and the apparent purchaser is not the real owner, always rests on the person asserting it to be so. This burden has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidence of a definite character, which would either directly prove the fact of Benami or establish circumstances unerringly and reasonably raising an inference of that fact. The essence of a Benami is the intention of the party or parties concerned; and not unoften 61 Spl.C.C.598/2018 such intention is shrouded in a thick veil, which cannot be easily pierced through. But, such difficulties did not relieve the person asserting the transaction to be Benami of any part of the serious onus that rests on him: nor justify the acceptance of mere conjectures or surmises, as a substitute of proof.
56. In another decision reported in (2004) 2004 AIR SCW 4948 (Valliamal (D) by LRs v. Subramaniam and others), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the same principle with regard to proving the alleged factum of Benami transaction.
57. The said decisions are applicable to the case in hand. Because first of all as rightly pointed out by Sri.R.G.K., the learned counsel for Accused No.1 to 3, a fair and transparent investigation has not been conducted by PW91, who is the Investigating Officer. As observed above, 62 Spl.C.C.598/2018 even though he was fully aware about the business and HUF income of Accused No.3 for several years, much before the starting of check period and purchasing of this Site No.34 at Doddathogur Village, Bengaluru. But, he failed to conduct fair investigation in that regard by collecting the relevant documents and by evaluating the same with the assistance of any Chartered Accountant or Auditor if, he was not expert in the field. But, for the reasons best known to him, he has failed to undertake that exercise. Very importantly, he has failed to give any explanation as to why he did not choose to examine the said material, but his entire evidence shows that he has only relied upon Income Tax Returns submitted by Accused No.3. But, even as per the said Income Tax Returns marked as Ex.P.126 to P.128, the Accused No.3 had declared his net income and also shown the sundry debtors amounts. He has admitted the amount of sundry debtors 63 Spl.C.C.598/2018 shown by Accused No.3. But without examining any witness in that regard and without ascertaining the income of Accused No.3 from his business and HUF and without visiting the bank to ascertain as to for what purpose overdraft facility were availed by Accused No.3 and whether it was utilized for the purpose for which it was taken, he simply filed a charge sheet stating that Accused No.3 did not have sufficient source of income to acquire the Site No.34 and to construct building thereon. In a case of this nature, when heavy burden is on the prosecution to prove the factum of Benami, it was the duty of PW91 to ascertain as to whether Accused No.3 was either a beggar or street vendor or did not have source of income to acquire this property in his name. But, admittedly Accused No.3 was not a beggar nor a street vendor, but he has been a businessman doing his business in the clothes and it has been elicited that the said cloth shop was the biggest shop 64 Spl.C.C.598/2018 at Eluru. Even as per Ex.P.123 and other bank statements, several cash transactions were taken place much before the starting of check period and also even before he has given his daughter i.e. Accused No.2 in marriage to Accused No.1. Why he did not wish to take the legal source of income available to Accused No.3 and also with regard to availing loan facility, has not been properly explained by PW91. Thus, as rightly pointed out by Sri.R.G.K., the learned counsel for Accused No.3, much discussion is not necessary to decide this issue.
58. Even though the learned Public Prosecutor has argued at length to point out that Accused No.3 was not at all having legal source of income and cash deposits made to his accounts were not valid, but since the same has not been investigated by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law, the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor 65 Spl.C.C.598/2018 cannot be believed and accepted. This type of acts cannot be decided on presumptions and assumptions having conjectures and surmises. These facts are to be decided based upon the materials available, material collected by the Investigating Agency and after seeing the admissibility of the said material.
59. PW91 himself has admitted the loan documents pertaining to Accused No.3 and his source of income. When he was aware that several lakhs of rupees was due to Accused No.3 during the relevant period and it has been shown in the Income Tax Returns that subsequently the debtors liability has been reduced, it was his duty to investigate as to how much debt was recovered by Accused No.3 from the debtors. But, at the cost of repetition, I say that fair investigation is not conducted in that regard. Therefore, as per Section 114 of Indian 66 Spl.C.C.598/2018 Evidence Act, adverse inference is to be drawn against the prosecution to the effect that, for the reasons best known to Investigating Officer, he did not collect the proper documentary evidence with regard to the legal source of income of Accused No.3, his liability, his capacity to earn money etc. Therefore, it is clear that Accused No.3 was not beggar, street vendor or not capable to earn the money. When Accused No.3 has elicited clear cut admissions from the mouth of PW91 and other witnesses with regard to his source of income, availability of funds in his accounts to purchase DDs and to draw amounts on various dates during the course of construction of building, heavy burden lies on the prosecution to prove that actually ill-gotten money of Accused No.1 has been utilized for the purpose of purchasing the site and to construct the building.
60. It is to be noted that there is no presumption 67 Spl.C.C.598/2018 under law that while proving the factum of Benami, the court can draw a presumption that the amount of Accused No.1 was invested for the purpose of purchasing a site and to construct a building. But absolutely, there is no material to prove the said aspect. PW91 clearly admitted that no transactions were taken place between Accused No.1 and Accused No.3 during the said relevant period.
61. With regard to construction of building, prosecution has examined PW61 Sri.Sridhar.N, who admittedly constructed the building. He has explained as to how and in what manner, he came in contact with Accused No.1 and started putting up construction in Site No.34. He stated that he has received sum of Rs.36,41,340/- in cash, that was paid by Accused No.1. He also stated that Rs.9,18,000/- was his labour charges out of the said amount. He also stated that even with regard to 68 Spl.C.C.598/2018 purchasing of material, amounts were paid by cash. He stated that since Accused No.3 was speaking only in Telugu language and since he did not know Telugu language, he used to talk with Accused No.1 for all purposes including receipt of payments. He stated that Accused No.1 used to make all the payments to him and Accused No.1 alone made a request to prepare the drawings and estimates and he stated that he has seen Accused No.3 about 4-5 times, when attended pooja and construction.
62. In the cross-examination, it has been elicited that this witness knew from the beginning that the site was registered in the name of Accused No.3 and he was the owner. He also admitted that Accused No.3 used to attend all the poojas and functions and he was present on those occasions. He has identified the photos and receipts as 69 Spl.C.C.598/2018 per Ex.D.10 and D.11. He also admitted that as per Ex.D.11, 25 receipts were issued by Accused No.3. He was aware that Accused No.1 used to make payments in cash and that was belonging to Accused No.3 and Accused No.3 used to hand over the same to Accused No.1. He also admits his signature in Ex.P.106 and as per the said document, agreement was entered into between him and Accused No.3. He clearly admitted that every week, Sri.Ramakrishna S/o of Accused No.3 used to come and monitor the construction along with him. On many occasions, Sri.Ramakrishna used to take him to bank and used to draw the amount from the account of his father and makes the payment. He admits that as per the terms of the agreement, amounts were being paid by cash. He also admitted about delay in construction of building after completing 50% of the total construction and intervention of one Sri.Lokesh Reddy for completion of remaining 70 Spl.C.C.598/2018 construction.
63. In that regard, Accused No.3 has examined Advocate Sri.George Jospeh as DW1. He is a practicing advocate and he has drafted the registered sale deed marked as Ex.P.232. He stated that Accused No.3 Sri.Subba Rao himself gave the instructions to prepare the sale deed and he himself paid his professional fee of Rs.15,000/- by cash. He also stated that at the time of registration of the document, the daughter and son-in-law of Accused No.3 had come and Accused No.3 himself has paid the sale consideration amount by purchasing DDs from Eluru.
64. In the cross-examination, nothing has been elicited to discredit the testimony of this witness. Therefore, his evidence supports the case of Accused No.3.
71 Spl.C.C.598/2018
65. Accused No.3 has also examined DW5 Sri.Lokesh Reddy, who is Civil and Electrical Contractor at Doddathogur. He stated that he knew that Sri.Subba Rao was the owner of Site No.34 and construction of the building was entrusted to one Sri.Sridhar and Sridhar had completed the construction work for about 90%. Thereafter, Accused No.3 had requested him to complete the remaining work and accordingly, he has carried out electrical and plumbing work and civil works to some extent. He has identified his photo in Ex.D.10. He stated that Accused No.3 himself had contacted him and made a request to complete the remaining work and in that regard Accused No.3 and his son have made payment by cash. He has collected about 5-6 lakhs for the said work during 2014-15.
66. During the course of cross-examination, nothing 72 Spl.C.C.598/2018 worth has been elicited to discredit his oral testimony except eliciting that no receipt was collected from Sri.Ramakrishna and Sri.Subba Rao with regard to 5-6 lakhs. He has specifically denied the suggestion that the work was carried out as per request of Accused No.1 Sri.Sai Jay Ram. Therefore, there is no reason to doubt the veracity of this witness since no suggestion has been made to the effect that he did not carry out any construction work relating to Site No.34.
67. Further, son of Accused No.3 Sri.Ramakrishna has also been examined as DW6 and he has supported the case of his father with regard to purchasing of site and construction of building. Nothing worth has been elicited in his cross-examination to prove that entire amount was paid by Accused No.1 by cash, for construction of building.
68. When the above said evidence both oral and 73 Spl.C.C.598/2018 documentary is available before the Court and when it has been evaluated by the Court properly, there is no iota of doubt in the mind of the court to entertain doubt that Accused No.1 himself has invested his money for purchasing Site No.34 and to construct a building therein and hence it is a Benami property of Accused No.1. When sufficient material has been made available by Accused No.3 by eliciting admissions from the witnesses particularly PW91 and by placing documentary evidence, since there is no law to draw a presumption in favour of the prosecution, the case of the prosecution in that regard cannot be believed and accepted. The learned Public Prosecutor has failed to convince the court as to why the court should not rely upon the documentary evidence placed by Accused No.3 to show his source of income and invested to purchase the property and to construct the building. Therefore, I am of the clear opinion that much more 74 Spl.C.C.598/2018 discussion is not necessary to conclude that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish that this property is a Benami property acquired by Accused No.1 in the name of Accused No.3, who is his father-in-law and therefore, it should be considered as an asset of Accused No.1 during the check period. Therefore, there is no reason to believe and accept the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor in that regard. Hence, I am not inclined to accept the same.
69. The next item of disputed property is item No.14 pertaining to Site No.96 Vakil Whispering Woods, Phase-3, Anekal Taluk.
70. It is to be noted that acquisition of property in the name of Accused No.1 is not in dispute. But, the dispute is with regard to value of the property. According to the prosecution, the consideration amount paid towards that 75 Spl.C.C.598/2018 property is Rs.42,62,500/-. But, according to Accused No.1, as per Ex.P.21 and the evidence of PW23 only Rs.21,32,000/- was paid towards consideration amount. Accused No.1 has availed loan for purchasing this property.
71. The learned Public Prosecutor Sri.Balaji Francis has vehemently argued that as per the evidence of PW23, agreement was taken place between this witness and Accused No.1 before purchasing of this property and as per the terms of agreement, the Accused No.1 had agreed to purchase this property for Rs.42,62,000/-. In fact, this witness has clearly stated that he has received Rs.42,60,000/- through DDs.
72. On the other hand, the learned counsel for accused Sri.R.G.K. has argued that as per the evidence of this witness, there is an inconsistency with regard to actual sale consideration paid. As per the very document i.e. 76 Spl.C.C.598/2018 Ex.P.26 sale consideration amount is shown as Rs.21,32,000/- even though DDs were purchased for Rs.42,00,000/- and odd, but there is no material to show that the same were honoured and actually he has received so much of money.
73. In this regard, the prosecution is relying upon Ex.P.151 and P.152. But, the said documents are not supported by 65B Certificate. Therefore, they cannot be received in evidence in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arjun Pandit Rao Khotkar case. It is a constitution bench judgment and as per the said judgment, it is mandatory to file 65B Certificate for relying upon electronic evidence. But, since no such Certificate is filed, the same cannot be looked into.
74. It is further argued that as per the admissions made by this witness, it was a distress sale and since there 77 Spl.C.C.598/2018 was a threat of acquisition for Pereparal Ring Road and it was adjacent to SC-ST land. He also admitted that sale consideration was subsequently reduced to some extent, but even though he stated that it was not actually reduced to such an extent, but he was unable to give proper answer as to how much amount he actually had received. Even now, Accused No.1 is receiving notice from that layout owner. Of course, Sri.R.G.K. has fairly admitted that there is no evidence to prove taking back the money.
75. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that in Form No.1 to 6 statement, Accused No.1 has admitted about payment of Rs.42,00,000/- and odd. Therefore, he cannot now go back from his statement.
76. In that regard, the learned counsel Sri.R.G.K. has cited a decision in Nandini Satpati case reported in AIR 1978 SC 1025. In that judgment, in para No.53, Hon'ble 78 Spl.C.C.598/2018 Supreme Court held, which reads as under:
"We hold that Section 161 enables the police to examine the accused during investigation. The prohibitive sweep of Art. 20(3) goes back to the stage of police interrogation-not, as contended, commencing in court only. In our judgment, the provisions of Art. 20(3) and section 1 61 ( 1 ) substantially cover the same area, so far as police in- vestigations are concerned. The ban on self- accusation and the right to silence, while one investigation or trial is- under way, goes beyond that case and protects the accused in regard to other offences pending or imminent, which may deter him from voluntary disclosure of criminatory matter. We are disposed to read 'compelled testimony' as evidence procured not merely by physical threats or violence but by psychic torture, atmospheric pressure, environmental coercion, tiring interrogative prolixity, overbearing and intimidatory methods
79 Spl.C.C.598/2018 and the like-not legal penalty for violation. So, the legal perils following upon refusal to answer, or answer truthfully, cannot be regarded as compulsion within the meaning of Art. 20(3). The prospect of prosecution may lead to legal tension in the exercise of a constitutional right, but then, a stance of silence is running a calculated risk. On the other hand, if there is any mode of pressure, subtle or crude, mental or physical, direct or indirect, but sufficiently substantial, applied by the policeman for obtaining information from an accused strongly suggestive of guilt, it becomes 'compelled testimony', violative of Art. 20(3).
77. Here in this case, the prosecution wants to rely upon the mention made by Accused No.1 in response to the notice issued by the Investigating Officer to furnish the APR statement. Here in this case, accused got marked Ex.D.1 through the prosecution witness. It is C-DOT staff 80 Spl.C.C.598/2018 Hand Book. In the very document itself, it is mentioned, which reads as under:
"This Staff Hand Book is a compendium of all CDOT Policy Circulars and Orders released from time to time and is meant for use as a reference manual by CDOT staff members only. In case of any contradiction between the Staff Hand Book and the Policy Circulars, the Circulars approved by the Board will prevail."
78. As per the said Hand Book, there has been no practice of submitting APR to the department. That has been admitted by the IO i.e. PW91 during the course of his cross-examination.
79. Further, under criminal law, principle of estoppel is not applicable. Further, as rightly pointed out by Sri.R.G.K., the Investigation Officer has issued notice to the C-DOT Company with a direction to get reply of Accused 81 Spl.C.C.598/2018 No.1, within 10 days. Therefore, as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment, when sufficient opportunity was not given to the Accused No.1 to submit his proper explanation after collecting relevant document, it appears there was some sort of threat or co- ercion to get the statement within a specified time. Therefore, it cannot be construed that it was voluntary one. In view of the said judgment, the mention made in Form No.1 to 6 alone cannot be construed as an admission against Accused No.1 and hence the same cannot be fully accepted.
80. Apart from that as rightly pointed out by Sri.R.G.K., PW91 did not record the statement of Smt.Yashaswini Kamraj to ascertain as to how much was actually received as sale consideration amount. He also did not ascertain as to whether there was a oral agreement 82 Spl.C.C.598/2018 between the parties superseding the earlier sale agreement. He also did not ascertain from Vakil Whispering Wood Layout as to whether there was a due from Sri.Sriram Roopanagunta or not. He also did not obtain the document from the said seller to know as to how much capital gain he obtained by selling the said property. Therefore, it is clear that proper and fair investigation has not been conducted to ascertain as to how much sale consideration was actually paid to PW23 while selling the said property by him in favour of Accused No.1. Therefore, even as per the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor, there is no legally acceptable evidence to prove the factum with regard to payment of Rs.42,60,000/- as contended by the Investigating Officer. At the same time, Accused No.1 also failed to place material to show that he only paid Rs.21,32,000/-. But the very sale deed discloses about the said aspect. Having regard to the above said materials on 83 Spl.C.C.598/2018 record, since Ex.P.151 and P.152 are not supported by 65B Certificate, hence cannot be relied upon in view of that Arjun Pandit Rao Khotkar case, the court has to rely upon best evidence available on record.
81. The prosecution has also examined Vatsavai Venkatapathi Raju as PW85. In his evidence, he deposed that he has been called in alias name as Ranjit Kumar also. He knew PW23 Sri.Sriram Rupanagunta. He also admitted that he helped Accused No.1 to purchase this Flat No.96 from the said Sriram Rupanagunta. He admitted that since it was the distress sale, the sale consideration was reduced from Rs.42,00,000/- to Rs.21,32,000/- since there was a notification for land acquisition. He admitted that deduction were happened only after purchasing DDs for Rs.42,00,000/- from Axis Bank. He also admitted that he himself negotiated for reduction of sale consideration and 84 Spl.C.C.598/2018 through him only the sale consideration amount was paid back to Accused No.1. This witness has not been re- examined by the prosecution to falsify his oral testimony. So, this evidence also supports the case of Accused No.1 rather the case of prosecution. Since the Investigating Officer has failed to collect proper documents from the bank to show that DDs for Rs.42,00,000/- and odd were encashed by the seller and since there is a clear cut evidence even from the mouth of PW23 to the effect that sale consideration amount was reduced subsequently, the case of the prosecution that the actual sale consideration was Rs.42,62,500/- cannot be believed and accepted. However, since Accused No.1 also failed to place some legally acceptable material to show that it was reduced to such an extent, the Court can safely take the amount at least to the extent of Rs.30,00,000/-. Having regard to the law on the point and the above said evidence available on 85 Spl.C.C.598/2018 record, since there is no acceptable evidence placed by the prosecution to show that Rs.42,62,500/- was actually paid by Accused No.1 towards sale consideration, the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor cannot be believed and accepted. Therefore, I take Rs.30,00,000/- towards that aspect. To that extent, the arguments of learned counsel Sri.R.G.K. is accepted.
82. The next disputed item is item No.12. According to the prosecution, Rs.7,20,000/- was invested for purchasing the property bearing Site No.67 in the name of Accused No.2. But according to accused only, Rs.5,50,000/- was paid. In that regard, the prosecution is relying upon evidence of PW40 and Ex.P.101. Admittedly the consideration amount in Ex.P.101 is shown as Rs.7,20,000/-, but in the cross-examination, PW40 has made a candid admission that since there was wrong 86 Spl.C.C.598/2018 description shown in the sale deed, an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- through DDs were paid to him and he has also received Rs.50,000/- by cash. He also admitted that since rectification has not taken place, the balance amount has not been paid. He also stated that probably his auditor must have shown consideration amount received by him as Rs.5,50,000/- only. He also stated that since he was not available in India always, rectification deed could not be executed, so far.
83. PW91, who is the Investigating Officer in para No.43 of page No.44 also admitted that there was no difficulty for him to ascertain from PW40 as to the actual sale consideration received by him pertaining to this property. He stated that, that person did not come to give the statement in that regard. But, he did not exercise his power to get him examined in that regard. He admitted that 87 Spl.C.C.598/2018 discrepancy with regard to mentioning of boundary and measurement, he did not conduct investigation as to whether rectification deed was executed or not. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by Sri.R.G.K. the learned counsel for Accused No.1 to 3 as per the evidence of prosecution itself, the amount of Rs.5,50,000/- was paid for purchasing this property, so far and not Rs.7,20,000/- as shown in Sl.No.12. Hence, it is safe to take Rs.5,50,000/- in place of Rs.7,20,000/-.
84. With regard to item No.22, the dispute from the accused is with regard to difference of amount. According to prosecution, value of investment in mutual fund was Rs.6,353/-. But according to defense, it is only Rs.5,113/-. In that regard, the prosecution is relying upon evidence of PW11 and Ex.P.54. During the course of arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor has not disputed the said aspect.
88 Spl.C.C.598/2018 However, I have perused the evidence and the documents. Ex.P.54 i.e. statement of account from 10.01.2005 to 17.03.2017. It is contended that the said investment was made before the starting of check period and during the check period, it was sold partially and the value of the asset is shown as Rs.34,892/- as on 01.04.2011. But, at the end of check period, the value of asset was Rs.5,113/-, that should be considered. Since the defense theory is supported by documentary evidence, the same is required to be accepted without further discussion. Accordingly, the same is accepted.
85. The next disputed item is item No.24 i.e. Tata Nano vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-51 MG 1031 as on 29.11.2014. In that regard, the prosecution is relying up on evidence of PW19 and documents as per Ex.P.137 to P.139. I have perused the evidence of PW19 Sri.Arun 89 Spl.C.C.598/2018 Kumar Barker. He deposed that he was the owner of that car and he sold the same in favour of Accused No.2 as per Ex.P.137 to P.139. In the cross-examination, he admitted that four receipts in Ex.P.138 are after dated 05.10.2016. He admitted that he was not the part of the team when the actual transaction was taken place. He also does not know as to who actually purchased the car and who paid the amount. He also admitted that books of accounts and RTO documents was also not handed over to Investigating Officer. He admitted that cash book and stock verification documents were also not handed over to the Investigation Officer. He also admitted that Investigating Officer did not ask him to produce the said documents and he also did not wish to produce the same. He also does not aware as to whether service tax and other taxes were paid or not.
86. In that regard, I have perused Ex.P.137 to P.139 90 Spl.C.C.598/2018 documents. As per these documents, even though tax invoice was raised on 26.11.2014 in the name of Mrs.B.Ramya, wife of Accused No.1 for Rs.1,89,259/- and debit note and receipt also discloses about the said aspect, but Investigating Officer did not collect subsequent documents to show as to whether the vehicle was handed over in favour of Accused No.2 and it was registered in her name or not. He did not collect documents from PW12.
87. In that regard, the Investigating Officer in Page No.47, para No.46 admitted that there was no difficulty for him to collect any documents from concerned RTO and also from Concord Motors. He also did not collect KYC documents, but only collected some documents from Concord Motors. Further, the above said evidence shows that in order to prove the fact with regard to purchasing of this vehicle and taking delivery of the same by Accused 91 Spl.C.C.598/2018 No.2, the Investigating Officer should have collected best documentary evidence from RTO. But, without any reason, he did not wish to collect the same. When there is no document to prove that vehicle was actually delivered to the name of Accused No.2 and it was registered in her name after paying amount of Rs.2,39,921/-, the contention of the prosecution cannot be believed and accepted. There is no proper investigation to ascertain the said fact. But, as rightly pointed out by Sri.R.G.K., the learned counsel for Accused No.1 to 3, there is no legally acceptable evidence to prove the said aspect. Hence, the decision relied upon by him in Kaliram v. State of Himachalpradesh reported in AIR 973 SC 2773, is applicable. Hence, without much discussion, I hold that the prosecution failed to prove this aspect. Hence, this amount cannot be considered as asset in the hands of Accused No.1 during the check period.
92 Spl.C.C.598/2018
88. The next disputed item is item No.25. This item is pertaining to Honda CRV car bearing Reg.No.KA19 MK 8009 (3rd hand purchase). According to the prosecution, this was purchased for Rs.5,50,000/-, but according to the accused only an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- was paid and not Rs.5,50,000/-. In that regard, prosecution is relying upon the evidence of PW21, Ex.P.91 and P.143 and P.30.
89. I have perused the evidence of PW21, who was the owner of that car during 2013-14 and he sold the same in favour of Accused No.1 for a sum of Rs.5,50,000/-. He stated that as per Ex.P.143, an advance amount of Rs.3,50,000/- was paid and at the time of delivery of the vehicle, balance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid and thereafter the vehicle was transferred to the name of Accused No.1 by RTO.
90. In the cross-examination, he stated that he does 93 Spl.C.C.598/2018 not remember as to whether delivery note was executed in the presence of any witness or not. He does not remember as to whether there is any document to show that the entire balance as per Ex.P.143 has been received or not. He cannot identify the person to whom he sold the vehicle. 91. The learned counsel for Accused No.1 to 3 Sri.R.G.K. has tried to argue that since there is no material to show the payment of Rs.2,00,000/- balance, the same cannot be considered. But, Ex.P.143 is not a disputed document. Admittedly, Accused No.1 had purchased this vehicle from this witness as per this document. Balance amount shown as on 02.07.2014 was Rs.2,00,000/-. Accused No.1 has not disputed about transferring of RC to his name by the RTO. When the witness has stated that at the time of delivering the vehicle, the balance amount was paid to him, then, it is for the Accused No.1 to place a 94 Spl.C.C.598/2018 material to show that how and in what manner he had taken delivery of the vehicle without paying the balance amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. When the agreed amount was Rs.5,50,000/- and admittedly the vehicle was transferred to the name of Accused No.1, it is not possible for the Court to believe and accept the contention of accused to the effect that he did not make the balance payment of Rs.2,00,000/- just because at this point of time, witness does not remember as to in what manner he has received balance amount. But since the vehicle was taken delivery and RC was transferred, the Court can presume that only after payment of entire amount, the vehicle was delivered in favour of Accused No.1. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the arguments of Sri.R.G.K. the learned counsel for Accused No.1 to 3. Hence, as rightly pointed out by learned Public Prosecutor, the prosecution has able to prove this aspect. Hence, the amount shown by the 95 Spl.C.C.598/2018 prosecution is taken and not by the accused.
92. The next disputed item is item No.26. This is a Bullet Thunderbird vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA02 HG 6980.
93. According to the prosecution, this was purchased by Accused No.1. In that regard, the prosecution is relying upon evidence of PW26 and Ex.P.163. PW26 Sri.A.R.Subramanya Udupa has deposed that he sold the said bike to Accused No.1 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- through OLX on 15.08.2013 and amount was paid by cash. Thereafter, Accused No.1 got transferred the RC to his name. But, he got transferred the insurance after lapse of one year. In the cross-examination, he admitted that after selling the vehicle, he did not personally verifiy as to whether the purchaser himself got transferred the RC to his name or not. He himself has written the contents in Ex.P.163. He admitted that the name 96 Spl.C.C.598/2018 'Subramanay Udupa' and word 'accepted' were written by him and for his own purpose he got that letter. The original of that letter was given by him to the Investigating Officer. He did not hand over any documents relating to OLX to the Investigating Officer. The originals of Form No.29 and 30 were also not handed over by him to the Investigating Officer. But, he has identified only xerox copies and not the originals. He has not handed over copies of invoice, insurance, RC and tax paid receipt to the Investigating Officer.
94. He stated that when he had purchased the said vehicle, exact on road price was Rs.1,07,000/-. But, he does not remember the date of purchase. However, it was purchased in the year 2010 and he sold the same after 3½ years of purchase. He did not see the Accused No.1 before and after selling the vehicle. But, he met him only 97 Spl.C.C.598/2018 once i.e. at the time of selling the vehicle. He did not pass any sale receipt and he had received copy of the statement.
95. Further, PW91 in para No.54 has stated that he did not collect RC and other related documents to ascertain as to who is real owner of that vehicle. He obtained Ex.P.163 through e-mail. He did not collect the Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. He admitted that original Form No.29 and 30 and written agreements were not handed over to him. He has taken only the purchase value as cost of the said vehicle and did not ascertain the actual cost of the said vehicle as on that date.
96. As rightly pointed out by Sri.R.G.K. the learned counsel for accused as per the judgment in Arjun Pandit Rao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, AIR 2021 SC (Crliminal) 259, electronic document cannot be accepted 98 Spl.C.C.598/2018 without being supported by 65B Certificate. The Investigating Officer did not give any explanation as to what prevented him to collect the 65B Certificate. Therefore, Ex.P.163 is inadmissible in evidence. That apart when relevant documents from the RTO have not been collected by the Investigating Officer and when PW26 has admitted that he did not hand over the original documents, the contention of the Investigating Officer that this Bullet vehicle was also purchased by Accused No.1 and hence the said property was available with Accused No.1 during the check period, cannot be believed and accepted in any manner. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor in that regard. Hence, this item is to be deducted from the Statement B.
97. The next disputed item is item No.27. Item No.27 is with regard to house hold items available as per 99 Spl.C.C.598/2018 inventory. According to the prosecution, the value of the said property was Rs.4,16,750/-. But, accused contended that there is a calculation error on the part of Investigating Officer and actual value is Rs.3,87,230/-.
98. In that regard, the prosecution is relying upon evidence of PW14 and PW91. PW14 is one Yusuf Shariff a witness to inventory search list marked as Ex.P.103 and inventory is marked as Ex.P.104, locker operation memo is marked as Ex.P.329. In para No.18, this witness has admitted that what are all stated in Ex.P.104 were also seized by the Investigating Officer. He noticed that the Investigating Officer was mentioning about the what was the item, which was given by the inmates and he has put his signature to the register.
99. PW91 in page No.39 stated that he did not take the photograph and videograph of inventory proceedings.
100 Spl.C.C.598/2018 He did not take the valuer along with him to the spot. No goldsmith accompanied him and no weighing scale was taken with him. Based upon the information given by the accused, he has mentioned the value at Rs.2,02,400/- in Sl.No.8 pertaining to movable items. According to him, the value of Rs.4,16,750/- as item No.12 is the value of house hold articles at the end of check period. He did not issue notice to local inhabitants as required under Section 104 of Cr.P.C. He admitted that in inventory memo, the total calculated amount is not mentioned. Total 98 items were available and it is mentioned in the inventory. He admitted that total value of the items is not mentioned. For arriving a total value of Rs.4,16,750/- all the 98 items have not been taken into consideration. He himself made calculation and taken total 63 items for the said purpose. He did not ascertain as to which of the items are purchased by using credit card. He did not make efforts to ascertain the date of 101 Spl.C.C.598/2018 purchase of each of the items.
100. It is pointed out by Sri.R.G.K. that as per the CBI manual searches conducted in case of disproportionate asset, articles of tripling value and ROR daily used need not be mentioned individually in the search list nor seized. Since there some procedural lapse on the part of Investigating Officer with regard to conducting inventory proceedings and since he did not take the proper person for weighing and calculating the value and since the difference between the prosecution and the accused is very narrow and there is an error of calculation, the contention of the accused in that regard is to be believed and accepted. Therefore, in place of Rs.4,16,750/- Rs.3,87,230/- is required to be taken. Accordingly, the said issue is decided.
102 Spl.C.C.598/2018 STATEMENT C - INCOME
101. Pertaining to this Statement C, there are so many admitted items. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for accused has not disputed item Nos.2 to 6, 9 to 12, 14, 16, 20, 22 to 24, 26 to 40, 43 and 44. The other items are in dispute. Therefore, it has become necessary for me to consider disputed items one by one.
102. Item No.1 is with regard to net salary income of Accused No.1 received during the check period. According to the prosecution, net salary received by Accused No.1 during the check period was Rs.66,43,827/-. But, accused No.1 is contending that actual net income is Rs.68,02,035/-.
103. In that regard, the accused is relying upon Ex.P.4, 14, 15, 16, 30 and 330 and evidence of PW4 and 103 Spl.C.C.598/2018 PW91.
104. PW4 in his cross-examination admitted that in addition to amount corresponding to pay slip, any amount paid by C-DOT may be reimbursement, advance, arrears will be credited to savings bank account. He also admitted that net salary of Accused No.1 was Rs.66,67,021/- for the period from 01.04.2011 to 31.08.2016. He also admitted that gross salary was Rs.94,70,142/- and total deduction during said period is Rs.28,03,101/-. He also admitted that C-DOT employees are entitled to get house maintenance allowance once in a year. He also admitted that during the period from 2014 and 2016, house maintenance allowance was not paid along with salary and it was paid separately. He also admitted that Rs.16,041/- was paid separately in the year 2014 and Rs.17,595/- was paid in the year 2016. He also admitted that Rs.87,428/- was paid for the month of 104 Spl.C.C.598/2018 September 2016 and it was not included in the net salary. He also admitted about arrears of salary in a sum of Rs.3,705/-, which was paid on 01.03.2012 and the same was not included in the salary slip, similarly sum of Rs.10,225/- was also paid on 05.12.2012.
105. PW91 in para No.55 admitted that Ex.P.14 is basis for him to calculate the total net salary of Accused No.1. He also admitted that he has taken the net salary of Accused No.1 upto 31.08.2016 and that comes to Rs.66,67,021/-. He admitted that as per Ex.P.16, net salary of Rs.87,428/- was paid to Accused No.1 for the month of September 2016. He also admitted that arrears of salary in a sum of Rs.3,705/- and Rs.10,225/-, which were given to Accused No.1 on 01.03.2012 and 05.12.2012 were not given credit to the account of Accused No.1. He was not aware that lease maintenance allowance was also given to 105 Spl.C.C.598/2018 Accused No.1 by C-DOT Company. He did not notice the entries made in page No.4 of Ex.P.4. He admitted that as per the entries made in Ex.P.30, a sum of Rs.16,041/- and Rs.17,595/- were paid to Accused No.1 on 09.04.2013 and 15.04.2015 and they were not made as part of final report. He was aware that foreign tour allowance was given to Accused No.1. He admitted that as per the entries made in Ex.P.14, a total sum of Rs.5,44,114/- was given to Accused No.1 towards foreign travel allowance. He admitted that he did not take that amount as income of Accused No.1. He was aware that credit card was used by Accused No.1 for foreign tour expenses. He has taken credit card expenses, while taking that expenses, he did not include the expenses towards foreign travel by segregating the same. He had prepared segregation chart, but not produced along with charge sheet. He stated that he will produce the same in due course.
106 Spl.C.C.598/2018
106. It is further admitted that he has taken Rs.2,86,537/- in Sl.No.4 of Statement C, towards reimbursement from C-DOT against LTC claims. He has seen materials for that. He also seen material pertaining to Sl.No.6 in Page No.5 of final report. In respect of income shown in Sl.No.7 pertaining to Accused No.2, he has collected documents i.e. income tax documents and statements of account from ICICI Bank. He admitted that he has taken that amount based upon the statement of PW24. But, he did not prepare the actual calculation sheet based upon cash flow to the account of Accused No.2, from her employer. He was aware that there would be statutory deduction from out of the said amount, which has been deducted by the employer. He admitted that accused have given explanation in Ex.P.11 and explained each and every aspects. He admitted that he did not rely upon the said explanation and he only relied upon income tax statement.
107 Spl.C.C.598/2018
107. From the evidence of PW91, the court can very well come to a conclusion that even though clear documents were available and collected by him during the course of investigation, he did not consider several income received by Accused No.1, for the reasons best known to him. Therefore, when he failed to give proper explanation as to why and for what reason, he did not give due credit to the account of Accused No.1 towards his legal source of income, the arguments canvassed by learned counsel for Accused No.1 to 3 is to be believed and accepted. When there is no proper investigation conducted with regard to that aspect and when accused have made available the relevant documents with regard to legal source of income of Accused No.1 during the check period, as rightly contended in the written arguments, the same needs to be considered. When the very documents of prosecution marked as Ex.P.4, P.14 to P.16, P.30 and P.330 disclose 108 Spl.C.C.598/2018 about the legal source of income of Accused No.1, there is no reason to withhold the same by investigating agency. The Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again has held that investigation pertaining to all the cases should be fair and it should not be disadvantage for the accused. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by Sri.R.G.K., needs to be accepted. Since there is sufficient material and since Investigating Officer himself has made admissions, the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor in that regard cannot be accepted. Hence, the Court has taken net salary received by Accused No.1 during the check period as Rs.68,02,035/- in the place of 66,43,827/-.
108. The next disputed item is item No.7 as per charge sheet. This is the income received by Accused No.2 Sri.B.Ramya wife of Accused No.1. According to the prosecution, she had received Rs.13,68,410/- during the 109 Spl.C.C.598/2018 check period. But, in the defense, the Accused No.2 contended that her actually income received was Rs.17,37,000/-.
109. In that regard, the prosecution is relying upon Ex.P.47, P.10, evidence of PW9, PW77 and PW91.
110. The learned Public Prosecutor has argued that as per evidence of DW5 Ramakrishna, he himself and his sister Accused No.2 were not competent and qualified to work in Juno Telecommunication and therefore whatever the income shown towards them is not a legal source of income. The learned Public Prosecutor relied upon the judgment in Kum.Jayalalitha case by contending that just because some amount has been shown in the income tax return, it does not mean that it is legal source of income. The accused has to prove that the said amount was acquired in a legal manner. In this case, the Accused No.2 110 Spl.C.C.598/2018 has failed to show that she was qualified and she was legally appointed by Juno Telecommunication and accordingly received the salary income. It is argued that as per the departmental enquiry proceedings held against other employees, who have turned hostile, it has been proved that Accused No.1 alone was managing the Company and in his name several people were working. Therefore, it is a illegal money acquired by Accused No.1.
111. It is to be noted that as rightly pointed out by Sri.R.G.K. the learned counsel for Accused No.1 to 3 when the Investigating Officer himself has considered the amount of Rs.13,68,410/- after having ascertained the legal source, now the prosecution cannot argue that it was not the legal source of income. In that regard, it is relevant to discuss about the oral evidence available in record. First evidence is the evidence of PW9.
111 Spl.C.C.598/2018
112. PW9 Srikanth.C, who was working as Bank Officer in ICICI Bank. He marked Ex.P.41 to P47. In the cross-examination, he admitted that since Smt.Ramya did not know the Kannada language, she took his assistance. He was working in the bank when her account was opened. He does not know, who got generated the statement of account and he has not issued the Certificate and he had no access to the computer system. Smt.Ramya had prepared covering letter and Certificate and then signed the said document. When Ex.P.10 documents were given to the hands of this witness, he admitted that there are entries for the period from 29.09.2011 to 03.01.2012, 29.08.2012 to 12.09.2012 and 29.12.2012 to 12.06.2013 and 31.12.2014 to 07.04.2015 as per Ex.P.8. He admitted that regardless of the number of days in between the closing and opening balance, it shall be tallied. He admitted that the statement of account as per Ex.P.10 and P.47 are 112 Spl.C.C.598/2018 pertaining to same person and in respect of same account number. He admitted that if the interest is calculated as per entries made in Ex.P.10, the total interest comes to Rs.9,664/-. He also admitted that the amount of Rs.10,450/- shown on 24.01.2013 as per Ex.P.10 is pertaining to refund of income tax. He also admitted that an amount of Rs.41,496/- shown on 18.01.2014 is pertaining to refund of income tax. He also admitted about refund amount is Rs.24,590/- on 02.01.2015, Rs.27,180/- on 22.08.2015, Rs.2,150/- on 08.12.2015 and total fund amount comes to Rs.1,05,860/-. After having identified 37 entries in Ex.P.47 and P.10 witness has clearly admitted that the total amount comes to Rs.17,37,000/-. He also admitted that on 21.05.2012 a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- was credited to the account of Accused No.2, from the account of B.Ramakrishna. He also admitted about crediting the amount of Rs.5,203/- from Reliance Mutual Funds and sum 113 Spl.C.C.598/2018 of Rs.29,965/- credited to her account on 08.02.2013 from Bombay Stock Exchange.
113. This evidence clearly supported the defense of Accused No.2 with regard to total income. The next evidence is evidence of PW77.
114. PW77 is one Sri.Shekar Rao.B, founder of Ashiele Technologies, Bengaluru. In the examination-in- chief itself, it has been elicited by the prosecution that in the year 2011-12, he started his own company in the name and style M/s Juno Tele Solution Pvt. Ltd. along with one Janardhan Balasubramanyam. His company has been providing billing solutions to various telecom and content providers. He has deposed with regard to giving employment to Accused No.2 and Sri.Ramakrishna after giving some test. He stated that Company had satisfied with their performance and they delivered first output and 114 Spl.C.C.598/2018 hence he made payment of Rs.1,89,000/- in the name of Ramakrishna and another payment of Rs.2,70,000/- in the name of Smt.B.Ramya. Thereafter also they hired them to do the work and they continued to make payments in their favour. They also used to make payments in the names of Smt.Ravadevi and Sri.P.Gangireddy.
115. In the cross-examination, he admitted that in their company work was being done through team viewer software. Therefore, he was not required to come physically and work and since remote access was provided, it is possible to do the work. He admitted that no payment was made to Accused No.1 for his interaction with staff. He admitted that as per Ex.P.12, they entered into an agreement with Smt.B.Ramya and Sri.B.Ramakrishna. He admitted that billing products for M/s Juno are nothing to do with C-DOT products and service. He admitted that 115 Spl.C.C.598/2018 Accused No.2 and Ramakrishna used to attend their calls and chats personally and they used to attend them. He admitted that in Ex.P.313, there are total 36 entries with regard to total amount of Rs.14,67,000/- paid to Accused No.2.
116. When this witness has categorically admitted about payment of Rs.14,67,000/- paid to Accused No.2, nothing has been suggested to him to deny and dispute the said contention. Moreover, when the documents themselves speak about said aspect, the prosecution cannot now dispute the same. Whether she was qualified or not, competent or not, the prosecution cannot decide her competency. It is for the Managing Director of the Company to decide her competency and qualification. When they themselves have satisfied with the capacity and competency of Accused No.2 and DW6 Ramakrishna, the 116 Spl.C.C.598/2018 arguments of learned Public Prosecutor that they do not have required qualification, holds no water. When the Company itself had satisfied with their performance and accordingly paid the salaries, it is not fair on the part of prosecution to say that they were not competent and hence it is not legal source of income of Accused No.2. That apart PW91 in para No.56 has admitted that he did not rely upon the explanation offered by Accused No.2. He has not denied the suggestion that Accused No.2 has received Rs.14,67,000/- as per bank statement. He also not denied the suggestion that interest given on refund, if calculated, it comes to Rs.1,05,860/-.
117. When Investigating Officer was not able to defend himself and not denied the suggestion and documents with regard to total amount of Rs.17,57,000/-, it is difficult for the court to believe and accept the arguments 117 Spl.C.C.598/2018 of learned Public Prosecutor. When the documents themselves speak about the same and when the owner of the Company himself came and admitted that he has paid the salaries, the Court is required to accept the same. Therefore, without much discussion, I hold that the arguments of Sri.R.G.K. the learned counsel for Accused No.1 to 3 has got force and hence the same needs to be accepted. Therefore, without much discussion, I hold that amount of Rs.17,37,000/- is required to be taken in the place of Rs.13,68,410/-.
118. The next disputed item is item No.8 as per charge sheet. This amount is relating to refund of Income Tax in favour of Accused No.2. According to prosecution, refund amount was Rs.91,800/-. But, according to accused, it was Rs.1,05,860/-. It is to be noted that while deciding item No.7, this court has already noticed that total 118 Spl.C.C.598/2018 refund amount was Rs.1,05,860/- as per the evidence of PW9. Therefore, much discussion is not necessary to decide this aspect. Hence, without much discussion, I hold that amount of Rs.1,05,860/- should be taken in the place of Rs.91,800/-.
119. The next item is item No.13 as per charge sheet. According to the prosecution gift received by Accused No.1 from his father is Rs.88,000/-. But Accused No.1 claims that he had actually received Rs.3,75,000/-. Accused is relying upon evidence of PW29, his father. But, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel Sri.R.G.K. has fairly considered that as per law, whatever the amount stated by this PW29 during the course of evidence is required to be taken. Here the learned counsel has argued that as per his evidence, Rs.1,00,000/- may be taken instead of Rs.3,75,000/-. Therefore, without much 119 Spl.C.C.598/2018 discussion, as per material available in PW29 evidence, Rs.1,00,000/- is taken in the place of Rs.88,000/-.
120. There are some more disputed amounts in item 15 of charge sheet. The next important difference of amount is shown is item No.15. According to prosecution, loan is Rs.14,000/-, which was taken by Accused No.1 from Sri.Ranjit Verma. But, According to Accused No.1, he actually had received Rs.3,14,000/- in that regard. Evidence of PW85 and PW27 are relevant. PW85 is one Vatsavai Venkatapathi Raju, who is in real estate business and he has deposed that as per Ex.P.165, he had paid hand loan of Rs.3,00,000/- to Accused No.1 on 30.08.2013 through IDBI Bank. He also admitted that same was utilized by Accused No.1 for purchasing Flat No.96. He admitted that the said loan is still outstanding since Accused No.1 did not return the same to him. In addition to 120 Spl.C.C.598/2018 that PW27 in the cross-examination has admitted that as per the entries made in account statement on 30.08.2013, Accused No.1 had received an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from one Sri.Vatsavai Venkatapathi Raju. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by Sri.R.G.K., the Investigating Officer has not considered Rs.3,00,000/- loan received by Accused No.1 during the check period. Therefore, there is error with regard to calculation. Hence, without much discussion, it is to be accepted since not controverted by the prosecution. Accordingly, in place of Rs.14,000/- Rs.3,14,000/- is taken as income.
121. Since other items are very small, the items with regard to item No.42 as per charge sheet is required to be considered. According to prosecution, rental income received from H.No.34 was Rs.6,81,450/-. But, accused are not claiming the said income on the ground that it was 121 Spl.C.C.598/2018 the property of Accused No.3. Therefore, it cannot be included to the account of Accused No.1. While dealing with property bearing Site No.34 in B Statement, this court has already come to a clear conclusion that it is not a Benami property of Accused No.1 and it is absolute property of Accused No.3 and hence, this amount cannot be taken into account for any purpose, relating to Accused No.1. Therefore, without much discussion, I hold that this amount of Rs.6,81,450/- cannot be considered as an income to the account of Accused No.1 during the check period.
122. The next important item is item No.41 as per charge sheet. According to prosecution, savings of disproportionate by official foreign trips by conversion of foreign exchange in respect of Accused No.1 is Rs.1,86,744/-. But, according to Accused No.1, it is 122 Spl.C.C.598/2018 Rs.5,44,114/-. In this regard, the accused is relying upon evidence of PW4. As stated above, PW4 has clearly given evidence with regard to entitlement of various allowances by Accused No.1 from C-DOT Company.
123. Further, PW91 Investigating Officer also in his evidence clearly admitted that he was aware that foreign tour allowances was given to Accused No.1. He also admitted the suggestion that as per the entries made in Ex.P.14, a total sum of Rs.5,44,114/- was given to Accused No.1 towards foreign allowances. He admitted that he did not take that amount as income of Accused No.1. Even though he had prepared segregation chart, but he has not produced along with the charge sheet.
124. As per Ex.P.14, as rightly pointed out by Sri.R.G.K., the Accused No.1 had received the allowances on four dates, which comes to Rs.5,44,114/- since it is the 123 Spl.C.C.598/2018 document of prosecution and since Investigating Officer himself has admitted the same, but not taken into consideration by him towards income of Accused No.1, without giving any reason, the same cannot be appreciated by the Court of law. When there is a documentary evidence to prove that so much amount was received by Accused No.1 during the check period, it was the duty of the Investigating Officer to consider it. But, unfortunately, the same has not been considered. Hence, without much discussion, the Court is required to accept the contention of accused in that regard. Hence, in place of Rs.1,86,744/-, Rs.5,44,114/- is required to be taken.
125. The accused are claiming following amounts as missed out incomes by contending that even though the said incomes were available during the check period, but IO intentionally did not consider the same.
124 Spl.C.C.598/2018
126. The first item of the said missed out income is the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, which was received by selling the Hundai Santro Car. The prosecution has not taken amount of Rs.1,00,000/- paid by PW29 to Accused No.1 by selling Hundai Santro car. Admittedly, this car was available with Accused No.1 before the starting of check period and it was sold by the father of Accused No.1 during the check period and paid the same to Accused No.1. Therefore, the said amount becomes an income to the hands of Accused No.1 during the check period. But, without any reason, Investigating Officer has not considered this income. Therefore, there is an error on the part of Investigating Officer with regard to this income. Hence, without much discussion, I hold that this amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is required to be taken.
127. Since other amounts are not so important, they 125 Spl.C.C.598/2018 are not taken for consideration. However, since there is no serious dispute with regard to item Nos.81, 83 to 88 of written arguments (missed out incomes) and since the said amounts are admittedly supported by documentary evidence placed by the prosecution itself, there is no necessity to discuss much about the said aspects. Hence, the said amounts also required to be taken as income.
128. Further with regard to item No.82 is concerned accused are relying upon Ex.P.288 i.e. account statement of DW6, Ex.P.47 account statement of Accused No.2 in Ex.P.30, account statement of Accused No.1 and evidence of PW9, PW63 and DW6 and the evidence of Investigating Officer PW91.
129. There has been clear admissions from the mouth of PW9, PW63 and PW91 with regard to amounts received on various dates through banking channels. It is 126 Spl.C.C.598/2018 clear that Accused No.1 and 2 have received total amount of Rs.3,46,000/- as loan from DW6. There is no evidence to show that the same was repaid by Accused No.1 and 2 to DW6 during the check period. When the documentary evidence of prosecution establishes the said aspect, there is no reason for not taking the said income to the account of Accused No.1 during the check period. So, if these amounts are taken additional income in a sum of Rs.5,63,662/-. The total income comes to Rs.2,33,40,388/-.
130. After having considered the important items and having calculated the amount available, the total income during the check period comes to Rs.2,33,40,388/- in place of Rs.2,11,48,128/-.
127 Spl.C.C.598/2018 STATEMENT D - EXPENDITURE
131. Now the next item of properties are with regard to expenditure incurred during the check period from 01.04.2011 to 05.10.2016. First item is with regard to unverifiable domestic expenses, calculated at 1/3rd of gross salary. But, according to accused 1/3rd of net salary should have been taken as per the decision in Sajjan Singh case. According to accused, it should be Rs.20,46,783/- and not Rs.26,95,414/-. Of course in Sajjan Singh case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that 1/3rd on net income is required to be taken as unverifiable domestic expenses. Here in this case, while deciding the net income of Accused No.1 himself, the Court has taken the net income at Rs.68,02,015/-. Now, the accused cannot go back from the said contention. So, 1/3rd of that amount comes to Rs.22,67,338/-. But, the Investigating Officer has 128 Spl.C.C.598/2018 taken Rs.26,95,414/- as 1/3rd of accused gross salary. But since law says that 1/3rd should be taken on net salary, it is necessary to take Rs.22,67,338/- as unverifiable domestic expenses, accordingly the same is taken.
132. The prosecution has taken stamp duty expenses at Rs.4,16,653/-. But, accused are seriously disputing the same.
133. It is important to note that the amount of Rs.4,16,653/- is the stamp duty and registration charges pertaining to Site No.34, which is standing in the name of Accused No.3 is also included. The same is shown as item No.2 of D Schedule in charge sheet Since, this court has already come to a conclusion that this property is the property of Accused No.3 and not Benami property of Accused No.1, whatever the stamp duty and registration charges incurred pertaining to this property cannot be 129 Spl.C.C.598/2018 considered.
134. Further, in respect of other two properties, the accused are relying upon evidence of PWs12, 13 and 20. They are the officials of Sub-Registrar Office. In their evidence, they clearly admitted that they have not produced any document to show that so much amount was incurred towards stamp and registration charges. They admitted that separate register has been maintained in the office with regard to that amount to show as to who actually paid that amount, but the Investigating Officer did not ask them to produce the registers. Even PW91 also in his evidence, in para No.43 admitted that he did not issue any notice as per Section 161 of Cr.P.C. to get the documents from the Sub- Registrar Office. He did not seize any books of account from the office of Sub-Registrar to ascertain as to who actually paid registration and stamp duty charges. He 130 Spl.C.C.598/2018 admitted that he did not collect documents from competent person or the authority to ascertain as to who actually has paid the registration and stamp duty charges. In view of the said clear cut admissions, in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and since the Investigating Officer has failed to collect documents even though they are available in the office of Sub-Registrar, the objection raised by the accused will have to be considered in accordance with law. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove by collecting relevant documentary evidence that so much was invested towards stamp and registration charges. But, since no acceptable evidence has been collected and placed before the Court, the contention of prosecution in that regard cannot be accepted. Hence, without much discussion, I hold that the contention of accused in that regard is required to be accepted.
131 Spl.C.C.598/2018
135. With regard to item No.3 of D Schedule, as per charge sheet the accused is disputing the amount of Rs.1,04,960/- incurred towards registration of gift deed in respect of House No.28, Hyderabad.
136. The learned counsel for accused Sri.R.G.K. argued that no material has been collected by Investigating Officer to show that this amount was incurred towards registration of Gift Deed. Hence, it cannot be considered. The learned Public Prosecutor has argued that when the document itself is available to show that DD for Rs.1,04,960/- was purchased by Accused No.1 towards execution of Gift Deed, it should be considered as an expenditure. But, as rightly pointed out by Sri.R.G.K. the learned counsel for accused as per evidence of PW27, DD for Rs.1,04,960/- was purchased on 17.08.2015, but it was canceled on 24.08.2015 and accordingly, the amount was 132 Spl.C.C.598/2018 credited to the account of Accused No.1. Nothing has been suggested to this witness that the same was utilized for the purpose for which, it was purchased. Further, PW91 in para No.68 has clearly admitted that he was aware that DD for Rs.1,04,960/- was canceled on 24.08.2015. Therefore, it is very clear that DD was not utilized for the purpose of incurring expenditure towards registration of Gift Deed.
137. The next disputed item is item No.5. According to prosecution, the amount paid towards repayment of principal and interest for Axis Bank is Rs.10,76,057/-. But, according to accused, there is a calculation error on the part of Investigating Officer and it should be Rs.7,25,001/-. In that regard, the prosecution is relying upon Ex.P.27 account statement and the evidence of PW5 and PW91. PW5 in her examination-in-chief itself has deposed that Accused No.1 has repaid total amount of Rs.24,20,000/-
133 Spl.C.C.598/2018 towards principal and Rs.7,25,001/- towards interest. The outstanding loan amount was Rs,6,67,984/-.
138. Further, PW91 in para No.69 has stated that he did not file separate conciliation statement to arrive at a conclusion as to what was the actual payment towards principal and interest that was paid in respect of loan. He admitted that as per Ex.P.193 and statement of PW35 total amount paid by Accused No.1 to City Bank is Rs.17,19,731/- and the loan was taken over by IDBI by clearing the amount to City Bank.
139. From the above evidence, it is clear that the total interest paid was only Rs.7,25,001/- and not Rs.10,76,057/-. No proper evidence has been placed by the prosecution to establish the amount of Rs.10,76,057/-. Since PW91 did not evaluate the same properly, the lapses will enure to the benefit of accused. Hence, it is necessary 134 Spl.C.C.598/2018 to take Rs.7,25,001/- in the place of Rs.10,76,057/-. Accordingly, the same is decided.
140. The next important item is item No.12. According to the prosecution an amount of Rs.5,34,200/- was spent towards tuition fee, transportation etc. for providing education to children of Accused No.1 and 2. But, according to the accused, the same is not proved.
141. In order to prove this aspect, the prosecution is relying upon Ex.P.187, 188 and the evidence of PW33 and PW91. PW33 is one Sri.N.A.Prabakaran, Retired Accounts Manager in Christ Academy. As per his evidence, he has only produced Ex.P.185 to P.188. In the cross-examination, he stated that in their school, there is a person to operate the computer. He admitted that he does not know details as to who took the print out of the said documents and from which computer. He does not personally aware about the 135 Spl.C.C.598/2018 procedure to be followed for issuance of Certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act. He admitted that Ex.P.187 and P.188(a) certificates were given by CBI Officer and he had put his signatures.
142. PW91 is the Investigating Officer. In para No.70 of his evidence, he stated that he cannot say as to whether Certificate under Section 65B annexed to Ex.P.180 has fulfilled the said provision. He cannot say that ingredients of Section 65B pertaining to Ex.P.187 and P.188 are not complied.
143. Now I have perused documents marked as per Ex.P.185 to P.188. Ex.P.185 is production memo. Ex.P.186 is the letter. Ex.P.187 and P.188 are the important documents. Ex.P.187 only discloses that in respect of A.R.Shrika some amounts were collected towards fee through cheque/DD. These are the original documents 136 Spl.C.C.598/2018 bearing seal of the school. Ex.P.188 is ledger account in respect of Vrishn.A.K.S. This document also discloses that from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2017 amounts were collected towards educational fee pertaining to that child.
144. It is to be noted that the main contention taken by the learned counsel for the accused is that, since Certificate under Section 65B are not in accordance with law and PW33 has no knowledge about the procedure with regard to issuance of the said Certificates, these documents cannot be relied upon. But, as rightly pointed out learned Public Prosecutor, when admittedly children of Accused No.1 and 2 have been studying in this school and that fact has not been disputed by them in any manner, if these documents are not genuine, then it is for them to produce relevant documents to prove as to how much fees and expenses, they incurred towards the education of their 137 Spl.C.C.598/2018 children. But, nothing has been suggested in the cross- examination of PW33 to contend that children of Accused No.1 and 2 are not studying in the said institution. The defense is only on technical basis and not with regard to facts. Therefore, since the prosecution has produced the documents obtained from the educational institution and the Certificates as per Ex.P.187 and P.188 are having seal and signature of the institution, they cannot be disputed and genuineness of the said documents cannot be also doubted. Therefore, without much discussion, I hold that the claim made by the prosecution in that regard is to be believed and accepted. Accordingly, the said amount is considered as expenditure towards education.
145. The next disputed item is item No.14 i.e. with regard to expenses incurred for construction of residential building in Site No.67.
138 Spl.C.C.598/2018
146. The prosecution has taken the value at Rs.55,82,407/-. But, according to Accused No.1, he has only incurred Rs.37,67,065/-.
147. With regard to this aspect, lengthy arguments have been addressed, but ultimately after having noticed several lacunas in the evidence of PW38, who is the Engineer working in CPWD and also with regard to documents produced by the accused and the evidence adduced by them, both learned Public Prosecutor and Sri.R.G.K. have considered to adopt plinth area method for the purpose of arriving the value of construction. Because if the evidence of PW38 is carefully perused, it would clearly goes to show that he has not at all followed any of the guidelines and he has in fact, admitted that he did not read any guidelines and he did not collect any documents either from the owner or from the Investigating Officer. If 139 Spl.C.C.598/2018 the evidence of this type of Engineer, who was working as AEE in CPWD is taken note of, which is very clear that he has not respected the rule of law. He does not know the basics of guidelines under which valuation is required to be taken note of. However, the fact even as per Ex.D.32 and D.33 documents plinth area is 5110 sq.ft. and it comes to 51 squares. DW4, who has issued this Certificate has taken the rate at Rs.500/ per sq.ft. towards construction and valued at Rs.25,55,000/-. But, he has also included other expenditure in a sum of Rs.13,73,000/-.
148. But, as rightly pointed out by Sri.R.G.K. the evidence of DW2 and DW5, who have constructed the building, the investment made by Accused No.1 for constructing the building is around Rs.40,00,000/-. The prosecution is relying upon evidence of PW55 S.Manivannan. In fact, he has issued the plan for 140 Spl.C.C.598/2018 Rs.40,00,000/-. Issuance of estimation for Rs.40,00,000/- for construction of the said building by this witness has been admitted by the prosecution itself. But, prosecution is relying upon CPWD code and as per the evidence of PW38, he has taken additional 13% from the value, he has arrived and fixed. On perusal of Ex.P.203 it is very clear that PW38 has valued the construction value at Rs.56,07,434/- and added 13% on it as per CPWD guidelines, which is prevailing in Delhi Metropolitan City and shown the total amount of Rs.65,02,891/-. While filing the charge sheet, the Investigating Officer has given rebate and shown value at Rs.55,82,407/-. Admittedly, the Investigating Officer has not assigned any reason as to on what basis, he has given such rebate.
149. The point for consideration is, the property is situated in village area or small town. Whether CPWD 141 Spl.C.C.598/2018 rates are applicable or State PWD rates are applicable. In that regard, the learned counsel Sri.R.G.K. has cited several judgments. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru has decided the case between Smt.Azid and Income Tax Officer and after having analyzed the facts the Appellate Authority has come to a conclusion that in a small town like Channapatna, the cost of construction is estimated by adopting State PWD rates and not CPWD rates. In other judgments also, the same principles also laid by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras and Hon'ble High Court of Sikkim.
150. Admittedly this property is situated at Doddathogur Village, which was not coming under BBMP at the time when it was constructed. Even now also, it appears it is not coming under BBMP. Village Panchayat has issued the license. Therefore, it is very clear that this 142 Spl.C.C.598/2018 property is not situated within the area of BBMP. Admittedly, PW38 has not at all taken note of said aspects when lengthy cross-examination has been conducted. He blindly assessed the plinth area and applied CPWD rates and added 13% etc. and given the value without collecting any documents either from the owner or from the Investigating Officer, to ascertain as to whether the owner was having bills/vouchers with regard to purchasing of materials, payment of labour charges to labourers, contractor etc. Therefore, the method adopted by PW38, which is accepted by PW91 is totally against to rule of law. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor in that regard.
151. It is a fact not in dispute that State PWD rates are 25% below the CPWD rates. That apart when prosecution witness himself has deposed that estimation 143 Spl.C.C.598/2018 was issued for Rs.40,00,000/- and in that regard, the accused have examined DW2 and DW5, who have actually constructed the building and when they have clearly deposed that an amount around Rs.39,00,000/- to Rs.40,00,000/- was invested for construction of the building, the said evidence is to be believed and accepted. Only on some technical grounds, the evidence of DW2 and DW5 cannot be discarded. It is a practice in local area that a mason will make an entry in small diary and receive the labour charges and even with regard to purchasing of materials, they will only issue slips for having supplied the materials and collection of amount by cash. In India, it is not totally digitalized with regard to purchasing of materials. Therefore, the practice prevailing in local area is required to be relied upon by the court of law.
152. Further, even though the prosecution witness 144 Spl.C.C.598/2018 has stated that estimation was issued for Rs.40,00,000/-, at the same time, Accused No.1 has also not placed full documents to show that only that much of amount was invested for construction of entire building. One Contractor has finished a 50% of the work and collected Rs.20,00,000/- and the remaining work has been completed by DW5. According to him, he has received Rs.9,00,000/- and odd. So, difference between the prosecution and accused is Rs.15,00,000/-. Since the prosecution is relying upon CPWD rates and since State PWD rates are required to be applied to the case in hand and since sufficient material has not been placed by the accused to show that only an amount of Rs.40,00,000/- was spent, I am of the opinion that it is just and proper to add atleast Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.40,00,000/- towards miscellaneous and other incidental charges including house warming ceremony. Therefore, having regard to the facts 145 Spl.C.C.598/2018 and circumstances and the materials available on record, I hold that it is just and proper to take Rs.45,00,000/- towards construction of house and not the amount either shown by the prosecution or the amount shown by the accused. Hence, in place of Rs.55,82,407/- Rs.45,00,000/- is taken as expenditure.
153. The next disputed item shown by the prosecution is item No.17. This amount is pertaining to sale of Hundai Santro Car. Admittedly, this vehicle was available in the hands of Accused No.1 before starting of check period. The learned Public Prosecutor has argued that since the value was Rs.2,00,000/- and since it was sold for Rs.1,00,000/-, the diminution value of Rs.1,00,000/- should be taken as expenditure. This argument is totally unacceptable in the eye of law. Because, it is the income earned by Accused No.1 by selling the vehicle after so 146 Spl.C.C.598/2018 many years and having regard to the diminution value. Therefore, income that has already been shown in statement C should be continued and this amount cannot be taken as expenditure. In any imagination, the depreciation value after selling the vehicle cannot be considered as expenditure. But, the Investigating Officer without application of mind has shown the same as expenditure. Therefore, this theory of Investigating Officer is against to law. Hence, the same cannot be taken as expenditure. Hence, amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is required to be deducted out of total amount.
154. The other items are not so important and only small small amounts are involved, I feel that it is not necessary to discuss about the said items. Hence, I calculated the expenditure as per the above discussion and arrived at conclusion that it is Rs.1,56,42,711/- in the place 147 Spl.C.C.598/2018 of Rs.1,81,25,863/-.
155. In view of the above discussion, now it is necessary to calculated as to whether disproportionate asset available to Accused No.1 or not. Accordingly, the calculation is made.
Calculation of Disproportionate Assets of Accused No.1 Sri.A.K.V.Sai Jay Ram Value of Assets arrived by Actual Total amount the IO in Rs. in Rs.
A. 42,26,195 A. 43,03,287
B. 2,16,13,804 B. 85,68,259
C. 2,11,48,128 C. 2,33,40,388
D. 1,81,25,863 D. 1,56,42,711
Disproportionate Assets Disproportionate Assets
[(B-A)+D]-C [(B-A)+D]-C
Rs.1,43,65,344 Rs. -34,32,705
Percentage Percentage
Rs.1,43,65,344*100/C= Rs. -34,32,705*100/C
67.92% -14.70%
148 Spl.C.C.598/2018
156. As per the above calculation and discussion, now it is very clear that there is disproportionate asset in the hands of Accused No.1 during the check period and in fact it is below 14.70%. Therefore, since there is no disproportionate asset as per the above discussion and since the prosecution has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that Site No.34 is a Benami property of Accused No.1 purchased in the name of Accused No.3 and Accused No.2 has abated Accused No.1 to acquire disproportionate asset, the above points are required to be answered in the negative.
157. The learned Public Prosecutor wants to rely upon Ex.P.333 and 334 i.e. the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer against other employees, who have been examined as PWs69 and 70 by arguing that as per the said reports, Accused No.1 was involved in illegal 149 Spl.C.C.598/2018 activities. Therefore, conduct of Accused No.1 is not fair. It is also submitted that whatever may be the guidelines mentioned in Ex.D.1, but in view of Conduct Rules Accused No.1 was supposed to submit the APR to the department.
158. But, as rightly pointed out by Sri.R.G.K. the learned counsel for Accused No.1 to 3, any observations made in Ex.P.333 and 334 are not applicable to Accused No.1. Because Accused No.1 is not a party to the said proceedings. Moreover, no opportunity was given to Accused No.1 to give his explanation to any adverse remarks, before making such remarks. Therefore, as per Section 33 of Evidence Act, any observation made in the said Enquiry proceedings are not binding on Accused No.1. With regard to submission of APR is concerned, since Ex.D.1 is the guideline for the C-DOT employees and since the department itself did not insist the employees to submit 150 Spl.C.C.598/2018 the APR, CBI cannot contend that there is a lapse on the part of Accused No.1. Therefore, viewed from any angle, these documents cannot be relied upon. That apart where there is no disproportionate asset and prosecution has failed to prove the said facts, these documents become totally irrelevant.
159. In view of my above discussion and observation, the above points are answered in the negative.
160. POINT NO.4: In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., I hereby acquit the Accused No.1 to 3 of the offences punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 109 of IPC r/w Section 151 Spl.C.C.598/2018 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.The bail bond of the Accused No.1 to 3
and that of their sureties shall stands canceled.
(Dictated to the Judgment-writer, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected and then signed by me on this the 7 th day of February, 2024).
(H.A.Mohan) XXXII Addl.C.C. & S.J. and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru.
152 Spl.C.C.598/2018 ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION PWs CWs Name of the Witness Date of examination PW1 CW1 Smt.Pallavi.K.Shiralli 30.03.2022 PW2 CW2 Smt.Anupama.A 30.03.2022 PW3 CW4 N.Arul Babu 30.03.2022 PW4 CW5 M.Sampath Kumar 30.03.2022 PW5 CW6 C.Uma Maheshwara Rao 30.03.2022 PW6 CW10 Ajay Thomas 31.03.2022 PW7 CW11 Lokesh 31.03.2022 PW8 - Priyanka Singh 31.03.2022 PW9 CW13 Srikanth.C 21.04.2022 PW10 CW15 Bhojraj.J 21.04.2022 PW11 CW16 Shaji Varghese 21.04.2022 PW12 CW23 M.K.Shanthamurthy 22.04.2022 PW13 CW22 A.T.Ranganath 22.04.2022 PW14 CW20 Yusuff Sharif 22.04.2022 PW15 CW17 Arvind Tiwari 26.05.2022 PW16 CW7 Hemanth Kumar 26.05.2022 PW17 CW34 Lalit Saini 27.05.2022 PW18 CW32 Rama Shashthri 27.05.2022 PW19 CW35 Arun Kumar Barker 27.05.2022 PW20 CW29 B.M.Janardhana 27.05.2022 PW21 CW36 Sudharaman 27.05.2022 PW22 CW25 V.K.Rajagopalan 24.06.2022 PW23 CW26 Sriram Rupanagunta 24.06.2022 PW24 CW33 B.L.Vishwamurthy 24.06.2022 PW25 CW28 A.Shashikiran 24.06.2022 PW26 CW37 A.R.Subramanya Udupa 01.07.2022 153 Spl.C.C.598/2018 PW27 CW38 P.Mahendranath 01.07.2022 PW28 CW39 Smt.A.Hema 01.07.2022 PW29 CW40 Akuala Samba Shiva Rao 01.07.2022 PW30 CW42 Arijith Roy 01.07.2022 PW31 CW45 Mithun.C 01.07.2022 PW32 CW48 Kishore Hegde 22.07.2022 PW33 CW47 N.A.Prabakaran 22.07.2022 PW34 CW53 Ravikumar.H.S. 22.07.2022 PW35 CW46 Nandish Prabhakar 28.07.2022 PW36 CW56 Dhanush Kumar.K 28.07.2022 PW37 CW55 Guruprasad.V 28.07.2022 PW38 CW49 Jose Anto 28.07.2022 PW39 - Anoop.P 28.07.2022 PW40 CW24 Praveen. D'Silva 17.08.2022 PW41 CW57 Smt.Shobha Rani 26.08.2022 PW42 CW58 Gangadharappa 26.08.2022 PW43 CW59 Smt.Shashilatha.Y.G. 26.08.2022 PW44 CW50 Arvind.R.S. 26.08.2022 PW45 CW52 Hemachandra Reddy 26.08.2022 PW46 CW62 P.Ravishankar 02.09.2022 PW47 CW63 Smt.Reshma Elgin 02.09.2022 PW48 CW60 Prashanth.N 02.09.2022 PW49 CW65 D.Govinda Reddy 02.09.2022 PW50 CW67 Lakshmana.B.S. 02.09.2022 PW51 CW41 Bino.C 21.09.2022 PW52 CW64 Sathih Kumar 21.09.2022 PW53 CW30 B.R.Srirama Shetty 21.10.2022 PW54 CW68 Chandrashekar.M 18.11.2022 PW55 CW66 T.Manivannan 18.11.2022 PW56 CW71 Smt.Priyanka Gowda 24.11.2022 PW57 CW70 V.Rajan 24.11.2022 PW58 CW75 Smt.Revathi Chandra 24.11.2022 154 Spl.C.C.598/2018 PW59 CW73 K.N.Dinesha 24.11.2022 PW60 CW72 Farooq Ahamed 24.11.2022 PW61 CW31 Sridhar.N 13.12.2022 PW62 CW80 S.Venkateshwara Reddy 05.01.2023 PW63 CW79 C.S.V.Babu 05.01.2023 PW64 CW77 Chandrashekar Shetty 05.01.2023 PW65 CW78 Mohan Gowda 05.01.2023 PW66 CW81 S.Bhaskar Rao 05.01.2023 PW67 CW82 Biswa Ranjan Sahoo 05.01.2023 PW68 CW83 Malladi Harikrishna 05.01.2023 PW69 CW85 P.Ramanjaneya Reddy 01.02.2023 PW70 CW86 Tankala Kiran Kumar 01.02.2023 PW71 CW87 Smt.Suja 01.02.2023 PW72 CW84 N.V.Vishnumurthy 01.02.2023 PW73 CW89 Nagendra.T.K. 01.02.2023 PW74 CW88 Girish.T.C. 01.02.2023 PW75 CW95 Vinay.J 02.02.2023 PW76 CW96 Sri.Amith Kumar Karna 02.02.2023 PW77 CW91 Shekar Rao.B 02.02.2023 PW78 CW93 P.S.Ravikantha 02.02.2023 PW79 CW98 Rahul Kumar Shrivas 23.02.2023 PW80 CW99 U.Phalguna Rav 23.02.2023 PW81 CW104 K.Ramachandre Gowda 03.03.2023 PW82 CW107 Thyagarajan 03.03.2023 PW83 CW102 Harish Kolar 03.03.2023 PW84 CW106 Venkataiah 03.03.2023 PW85 CW103 Vatsavai Venkatapathi 03.03.2023 Raju PW86 CW105 Smt.Namratha K.Murthy 03.03.2023 PW87 CW108 Smt.Roopa.M 23.03.2023 PW88 CW54 Puneet Kumar.B 18.04.2023 PW89 CW100 Shubhankar Das 18.04.2023 155 Spl.C.C.598/2018 PW90 CW101 Shaquib Anwar 18.04.2023 PW91 CW109 A.V.Satya Sai 01.07.2023 LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Exhibit Description Number Ex.P.1 Covering letter dated 29.11.2016 Ex.P.1(a) Signature of PW1 Ex.P.2 Personal file pertaining to Accused No.1 Ex.P.3 Covering letter dated 13.06.2017 Ex.P.3(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.4 True copy of staff hand book Ex.P.5 Signing of non-disclosure of agreement in respect of Accused No.1 Ex.P.6 Covering letter dated 28.10.2016 for handing over documents to CBI by CW3 Ex.P.6(a) Signature of CW3 Ex.P.7 Service details of documents in respect of Accused No.1 Ex.P.8 Annual property details Ex.P.8(a) Signature of Sri.Tanay Krishna(CW3) Ex.P.9 Covering letter dated 02.02.2017 of PW3 Ex.P.9(a) Signature of PW3 Ex.P.10 Volume-I of 1 to 4 statement of Accused No.1 Ex.P.11 Volume-II of 1 to 4 statement of Accused No.1 Ex.P.12 Volume-III of 1 to 4 statement of Accused No.1 Ex.P.12(a) Agreement entered between Ramya and Ramakrishna Ex.P.13 Covering letter dated 29.09.2016 of PW4 Ex.P.13(a) Signature of PW4 Ex.P.14 Document pertaining to payment and other allowances of salary of accused No.1 156 Spl.C.C.598/2018 Ex.P.15 File relating to c/c of pay slips for the period from August 2011 to August 2016 of Accused No.1 along with 65B statement Ex.P.16 Additional pay slip for the month of September 2016 along with covering letter Ex.P.17 Covering letter dated 27.02.2017 of PW5 Ex.P.17(a) Signature of PW5 Ex.P.18 Home loan application form submitted by Accused No.1 Ex.P.19 Original sale agreement dated 03.08.2013 Ex.P.20 Valuation report dated 15.07.2017 issued by M/s Adithya Associates Ex.P.21 Bank statement with regard to Margin Money paid proof Ex.P.22 Documents of home loan availed by Accused No.1 Ex.P.23 Production memo dated 21.02.2017 along with additional documents Ex.P.23(a) Signature of PW5 Ex.P.24 C/c of disbursement DD's Ex.P.25 C/c of PAN of seller Ex.P.26 True copy of registered sale deed dated 07.09.2013 Ex.P.27 Account statement in respect of home loan account of Accused No.1 for the period from 21.02.2000 to 21.02.2017 Ex.P.28 Covering letter dated 12.01.2017 Ex.P.28(a) Signature of PW6 Ex.P.29 Original account opening form in the name of Accused No.1 Ex.P.30 Statement of account pertaining to Accused No.1 for the period from 03.12.2008 to 11.01.2017 along with Certificate u/S 2A of Banker's Books of Account and Section 65B of IEA Ex.P.31 Production memo dated 16.06.2017 for handing over addlitional documents to CBI 157 Spl.C.C.598/2018 Ex.P.31(a) Signature of PW6 Ex.P.32 Account opening form in the name of Accused No.2 along with KYC documents Ex.P.33 Statement of account in the name of Accused No.2 for the period from 13.11.2014 to 14.06.2017 along with Certificate u/S 2A of Banker's Books of Account and Section 65B of IEA Ex.P.34 Loan application in the name of Accused No.1 Ex.P.35 Loan account statement in the name of Accused No.1 for the period from 17.09.2013 to 11.01.2017 along with Certificate u/S 2A of Banker's Books of Account and Section 65B of IEA Ex.P.36 Covering letter dated 10.01.2018 of PW7 Ex.P.36(a) Signature of PW7 Ex.P.37 Covering letter of SBI bank dated 10.01.2018 Ex.P.37(a) Signature of PW7 Ex.P.38 Account opening form along with KYC documents of Accused No.1 Ex.P.39 Statement of account in respect of said account for the period from 17.08.2007 to 01.06.2015 Ex.P.40 Production memo dated 09.02.2017 signed by Miss.Janaki for handing over documents Ex.P.41 Covering letter dated 09.02.2017 of ICICI addressed to CBI Ex.P.42 Account opening form in the name of Accused No.1 along with KYC Documents Ex.P.43 Statement of account in the name of Accused No.1 for the period from 17.10.2011 to 05.11.2011 along with Certificate u/S 2A of Banker's Books of Account and Section 65B of IEA Ex.P.44 Production memo dated 08.02.2017 Ex.P.44(a) Signature of PW9 Ex.P.45 Covering letter of ICICI Bank 158 Spl.C.C.598/2018 Ex.P.45(a) Signature of Deputy Branch Manager Smt.Ramya Ex.P.46 Account opening form in the name of Smt.B.Ramya Ex.P.47 Statement of SB account in respect of Smt.Ramya along with certificate u/S 2A of Banker's Books of Account Ex.P.48 Bunch of documents relating to the sale of TVS Scooty Ex.P.49 Production memo dated 24.03.2017 Ex.P.49(a) Signature of PW11 Ex.P.50 Covering letter dated 22.03.2017 addressed to IO, CBI Ex.P.50(a) Signature of Smt.Rita.S, Manager Ex.P.51 Certificate u/S 65B IEA.
Ex.P.52 KYC documents in the name of Accused No.1 Ex.P.53 Account statement in the name of Accused No.1 pertaining to L& T Mutual Funds Ex.P.54 Account statement in the name of Accused No.1 pertaining to SBI Mutual funds Ex.P.55 Account statement in the name of Accused No.1 pertaining to DSP Black Rock Mutual funds Ex.P.56 Account statement in the name of Accused No.1 pertaining to HDFC Mutual funds Ex.P.57 Account statement in the name of Accused No.1 pertaining to IDFC Mutual funds Ex.P.58 Account statement in the name of Accused No.1 pertaining to L& T Mutual Funds Ex.P.59 Account statement in the name of Accused No.1 pertaining to L& T Mutual Funds Ex.P.60 Covering letter dated 29.05.2017 addressed to IO, CBI Ex.P.60(a) Signature of Smt.Rita.S, Manager Ex.P.61 Certificate u/S 65B IEA Ex.P.62 Account statement in the name of Accused No.1 pertaining to Birla Sunlife Mutual Funds Ex.P.63 Account statement in the name of Accused No.1 159 Spl.C.C.598/2018 pertaining to Birla Sunlife Mutual Funds along with KYC Documents Ex.P.64 Account statement in the name of Accused No.1 pertaining to DSP Black Rock Mutual funds Ex.P.65 Account statement in the name of Accused No.1 pertaining to HDFC Mutual funds Ex.P.66 Account statement in the name of Accused No.1 pertaining to HDFC Mutual funds Ex.P.67 Account statement in the name of Accused No.1 pertaining to HDFC Mutual funds Ex.P.68 Account statement in the name of Accused No.1 pertaining to HSBC Mutual funds Ex.P.69 Account statement in the name of Accused No.1 pertaining to ICICI Prudential Mutual funds Ex.P.70 Account statement in the name of Accused No.1 pertaining to ICICI Prudential Mutual funds Ex.P.71 Account statement in the name of Accused No.1 pertaining to ICICI Prudential Mutual funds Ex.P.72 Account statement in the name of Accused No.1 pertaining to ICICI Prudential Mutual funds Ex.P.73 Account statement in the name of Accused No.1 pertaining to ICICI Prudential Mutual funds Ex.P.74 Account statement in the name of Accused No.1 pertaining to L & T Mutual funds Ex.P.75 Account statement in the name of Accused No.1 pertaining to SBI Mutual funds Ex.P.76 Account statement in the name of Accused No.1 pertaining to SBI Mutual funds Ex.P.77 Account statement in the name of Accused No.1 pertaining to SBI Mutual funds Ex.P.78 Account statement in the name of Accused No.1 pertaining to SBI Mutual funds Ex.P.79 Account statement in the name of Accused No.1 160 Spl.C.C.598/2018 pertaining to SBI Mutual funds Ex.P.80 Account statement in the name of Accused No.1 pertaining to SBI Mutual funds Ex.P.81 Account statement in the name of Accused No.1 pertaining to SBI Mutual funds Ex.P.82 Account statement in the name of Accused No.2 pertaining to TATA Mutual funds Ex.P.83 Account statement in the name of Accused No.2 pertaining to Black Rock Mutual funds Ex.P.84 Account statement in the name of Accused No.2 pertaining to HDFC Mutual funds Ex.P.85 Account statement in the name of Accused No.2 pertaining to IDFC Mutual funds Ex.P.86 Account statement in the name of Accused No.2 pertaining to L & T Mutual funds Ex.P.87 Account statement in the name of Accused No.2 pertaining to SBI Mutual funds Ex.P.88 Account statement in the name of Accused No.2 pertaining to TATA Mutual funds Ex.P.89 Covering letter dated 01.12.2017 for production of documents to CBI Ex.P.89(a) Signature of Reeta, Bank Manager Ex.P.90 Certificate u/S 65B IEA Ex.P.91 Monthly SIP Statement of Accused o.1 pertaining to ICICI Prudential Mutual Fund Ex.P.92 Account statement in the name of Accused No.1 pertaining to HDFC Mutual funds Ex.P.93 Account statement in the name of Accused No.1 pertaining to ICICI Prudential Mutual funds Ex.P.94 Account statement in the name of Accused No.1 pertaining to ICICI Prudential Mutual funds Ex.P.95 Account statement in the name of Accused No.1 pertaining to ICICI Prudential Mutual funds 161 Spl.C.C.598/2018 Ex.P.96 Account statement in the name of Accused No.1 pertaining to ICICI Prudential Mutual funds Ex.P.97 Account statement in the name of Accused No.1 pertaining to ICICI Prudential Mutual funds Ex.P.98 Covering letter dated 05.01.2017 Ex.P.98(a) Signature of PW12 Ex.P.99 Encumbrance Certificate dated 05.01.2017 Ex.P.100 C/c of Registered Sale Deed dated 19.10.2012 Ex.P.101 Original Registered Sale Deed dated 11.07.2011 Ex.P.102 C/c of Registered Sale Deed dated 10.10.2011 Ex.P.103 Search List Ex.P.103(a) Signature of PW14 Ex.P.103(b) Signature of PW91 Ex.P.104 Inventory Memo dated 05.10.2016 Ex.P.104(a) Signature of PW14 Ex.P.104(b) Signature of PW91 Ex.P.105 Receipt Book Ex.P.105(a) Rent Receipt dated 10.02.2015 of PW76 Ex.P.105(b) Rent Receipt dated 13.02.2015 of PW76 Ex.P.105(c) Receipt dated 26.02.2015 in the name of PW89 Ex.P.105(d) Receipt dated 09.12.2014 in the name of PW90 Ex.P.106 Another file containing various documents, which were seized during the time of search Ex.P.106(a) Specification agreement Ex.P.106(b) Signature of PW61 Ex.P.106(c) Signature of Accused No.3 identified by PW61 Ex.P.106(d) Tyre purchase bill dated 15.10.2011 for Rs.7,000/- by Accused No.1 Ex.P.106(e) Another bill for alignment of Santro Car Ex.P.107 Another file containing bills, which were seized during the time of search Ex.P.108 Register Book, which was seized during the time of 162 Spl.C.C.598/2018 search Ex.P.109 to Three Diaries, which were seized during the time of 111 search Ex.P.110(a) Signature of PW61 Ex.P.110(b) Signature of Manjunath Ex.P.100(c) Signature of Krishna Ex.P.112 File containing the FD Receipts etc., which were seized during the time of search Ex.P.113 File containing the receipts etc., which were seized during the time of search Ex.P.114 Production Memo dated 06.06.2017 Ex.P.114(a) Signature of PW15 Ex.P.115 Covering letter dated 02.06.2017 of ICICI Securities for forwarding documents to CBI Ex.P.115(a) Signature of Sri.Rakesh Seth, Asst. Vice President Ex.P.116 Trade documents pertaining to Accused No.2 for the period from 01.01.2006 to 24.05.2017 along with Certificate u/S 65B Ex.P.117 Production Memo dated 27.02.2017 Ex.P.117(a) Signature of PW16 Ex.P.118 Production memo dated 07.12.2017 Ex.P.118(a) Signature of PW17 Ex.P.119 C/c of account opening from in the name of Summangali Textiles Ex.P.120 Statement of accounts in respect of M/s Summangali Textiles and Sudharshan Cloth Merchant along with Section 2A of Bankers Book of Evidence Act Ex.P.121 C/c of account opening form in the name of M/s Sudharshan Cloth Merchants Ex.P.122 C/c of savings bank account opening form in the name of Sri.BNV Subba Rao Ex.P.123 C/c of statement of account pertaining to M/s Sudharshan Cloth Merchants, along with Certificate u/S 163 Spl.C.C.598/2018 2A of Bankers Book of Evidence Act and Section 65(B) of IEA Ex.P.123(a) CDCC account statement of Sudarshana Cloth Merchants Ex.P.124 C/c of statement of account along with Certificate u/S 2A of Bankers Book of Evidence Act and Section 65B of IEA in the name of BNV Subba Rao Ex.P.125 Covering letter dated 03.05.2017 of PW18 for handing over certain documents to CBI Ex.P.125(a) Signature of PW18 Ex.P.126 Income Tax Returns filed by Accused No.3 for the Assessment Year 2010-11 in the capacity of HUF Ex.P.127 Income Tax Returns filed by Accused No.3 for the Assessment Year 2012-13 in the individual capacity Ex.P.128 Income Tax Returns filed by Accused No.3 for the Assessment Year 2012-13 in the capacity of HUF Ex.P.129 Income Tax Returns filed by Accused No.3 for the Assessment Year 2014-15 in the capacity of HUF Ex.P.130 Income Tax Returns filed by Accused No.3 for the Assessment Year 2015-16 in the capacity of HUF Ex.P.131 Income Tax Returns filed by Accused No.3 for the Assessment Year 2016-17 in the capacity of HUF Ex.P.132 Income Tax Returns filed by B.Ramakrishna S/o Accused No.3 for the Assessment Year 2012-13 in the individual capacity Ex.P.133 Income Tax Returns filed by B.Ramakrishna S/o Accused No.3 for the Assessment Year 2013-14 in the individual capacity Ex.P.134 Income Tax Returns filed by B.Ramakrishna S/o Accused No.3 for the Assessment Year 2014-15 in the individual capacity Ex.P.135 Income Tax Returns filed by B.Ramakrishna S/o Accused No.3 for the Assessment Year 2015-16 in the 164 Spl.C.C.598/2018 individual capacity Ex.P.136 Income Tax Returns filed by B.Ramakrishna S/o Accused No.3 for the Assessment Year 2016-17 in the individual capacity Ex.P.137 Production memo dated 09.02.2017 prepared by CBI Officer Ex.P.137(a) Signature of PW19 Ex.P.138 Tax invoice and other related receipts Ex.P.139 Service bills in respect of vehicle along with certificate u/S 65(B) of IEA Ex.P.140 Covering letter dated 11.01.2016 Ex.P.140(a) Signature of PW20 Ex.P.141 EC pertaining to Site No.96 Ex.P.142 C/c of sale deed dated 07.09.2013 Ex.P.143 Delivery note dated 02.07.2014 Ex.P.144 Production Memo Ex.P.144(a) Signature of PW21 Ex.P.145 Copy of statement of account Ex.P.146 Copy of agreement to sell dated 10.10.2012 Ex.P.147 Receipt dated 09.10.2012 Ex.P.147(a) Signature of PW22 Ex.P.148 Covering letter dated 20.06.2017 of one Anil K.Goyal and Associates Ex.P.149 Covering letter dated 29.05.2017 Ex.P.149(a) Signature of PW23 Ex.P.150 E-mail print out Ex.P.150(a) Signature of PW23 Ex.P.151 Self attested copy of the statement of account of wife of PW23 Ex.P.152 Self attested copy of statement of account of PW23 Ex.P.153 Self attested registered sale deed dated 03.06.2006 between Vakil whispering Woods, PW23 and wife of 165 Spl.C.C.598/2018 PW23 Ex.P.154 Covering letter of PW24 dated 25.04.2017 Ex.P.154(a) Signature of PW24 Ex.P.155 IT returns for the year 2012-13 in the name of Accused No.2 Ex.P.156 IT returns for the year 2013-14 in the name of Accused No.2 Ex.P.157 IT returns for the year 2014-15 in the name of Accused No.2 Ex.P.158 IT returns for the year 2015-16 in the name of Accused No.2 Ex.P.159 IT returns for the year 2016-17 in the name of Accused No.2 Ex.P.160 Handing over of E-khatha extract through the production memo of PW25 Ex.P.160(a) Signature of PW25 Ex.P.161 E-khatha extract in respect of property No.2612/96 in the name of Accused No.1 and 2 along with Certificate u/S 65B Ex.P.161(a) Signature of PW25 Ex.P.162 Production Memo of PW26 Ex.P.162(a) Signature of PW26 Ex.P.163 Form of notice of transfer of ownership along with letter dated 15.08.2013 of PW26 and mail communication and Form No.30 Ex.P.164 Covering letter dated 30.11.2017 of PW27 Ex.P.164(a) Signature of authorized person Ex.P.165 Statement of account in the name of Accused No.1 for the period from 07.09.2010 to 10.11.2017 Ex.P.166 Loan account statement in the name of Accused No.1 for the period from 08.07.2015 to 10.11.2017 Ex.P.167 Another loan account statement in the name of Accused No.1 for the period from 08.07.2015 to 10.11.2017 166 Spl.C.C.598/2018 Ex.P.168 SB Account opening form in the name of Accused No.1 Ex.P.169 Housing loan account opening form in the name of Accused No.1 and 2 Ex.P.170 Covering letter dated 20.02.2017 of PW30 of handing over documents to CBI Officer Ex.P.170(a) Signature of PW30 Ex.P.171 Original FD account opening form Ex.P.172 Account statement in the name of Accused No.1 along with Certificate u/S 2 of Banker's Books of Evidence Act. Ex.P.173 Production memo dated 25.04.2017 Ex.P.173(a) Signature of PW30 Ex.P.174 Original cheque dated 17.08.2015 for Rs.1,04,960/-
issued in the name of Accused No.1 Ex.P.175 The application for DD dated 17.08.2015 Ex.P.176 Covering letter dated 16.05.2017 of PW31 of handing over documents to CBI Officer Ex.P.177 FD receipt in the name of Accused No.2 for an amount of Rs.1 lakh Ex.P.178 Another covering letter dated 09.11.2017 for handing over another set of documents Ex.P.178(a) Signature of PW31 Ex.P.179 Loan application along with KYC documents in the name of Accused No.1 Ex.P.180 Statement of account in the name of Accused No.1 along with certificate u/S 65B Ex.P.181 Production memo dated 23.05.2017 Ex.P.181(a) Signature of PW32 Ex.P.182 Covering letter dated 23.05.2017 Ex.P.182(a) Signature of PW32 Ex.P.183 Application submitted by Accused No.1 for credit card along with other documents Ex.P.184 Credit card monthly statement in respect of Accused 167 Spl.C.C.598/2018 No.1 for the period from 02.02.2016 to 02.04.2017 Ex.P.185 Production memo dated 26.04.2017 of PW33 Ex.P.185(a) Signature of PW33 Ex.P.186 Authorization letter dated 26.04.2017 issued by Christ Academy Ex.P.187 Ledger account extract with regard to tuition fee paid by Accused No.1 in the name of his daughter Ex.P.187(a) Signature of PW33 Ex.P.188 Ledger account extract with regard to tuition fee paid by Accused No.1 in the name of his son Ex.P.188(a) Signature of PW33 Ex.P.189 Covering letter of PW35 dated 10.04.2017 Ex.P.189(a) Signature of PW35 Ex.P.190 True copy of account opening form in the name of Accused No.1 Ex.P.191 Statement of account pertaining to Accused No.1 Ex.P.191(a) Signature of PW35 Ex.P.192 Loan account statement pertaining to Accused No.1 for the period from 29.07.2004 to 02.05.2008 Ex.P.193 Loan account statement pertaining to Accused No.1 for the period from 03.05.2008 to 06.05.2011 Ex.P.194 Statement along with Certificate u/S 65B relating to credit card facility availed by Accused No.1 Ex.P.194(a) Signature of PW35 Ex.P.195 Covering letter dated 08.02.2017 of PW36 Ex.P.195(a) Signature of PW36 Ex.P.196 Another one covering letter dated 07.02.2017 of PW36 Ex.P.196(a) Signature of PW36 Ex.P.197 Computer generated proposal form in respect of Max Life Online Term Plan Policy No.889841664 in the name of Accused No.1 Ex.P.198 Two computer generated receipts for having paid the 168 Spl.C.C.598/2018 premium Ex.P.199 Covering letter dated 25.05.2017 of PW37 Ex.P.199(a) Signature of Branch Manager D.Saravana Ex.P.200 Computer generated premium payment receipts in respect of Policy No.002696974 Ex.P.200(a) Signature Ex.P.201 Report along with covering letter dated 07.12.2017 Ex.P.202 Another covering letter of PW38 Ex.P.202(a) Signature of PW38 Ex.P.203 Valuation Report Ex.P.203(a) Signature of PW38 Ex.P.204 Draft prepared by Assistant of PW38 at the time of inspecting the spot Ex.P.204(a) Signature of PW38 Ex.P.204(b) Signature of PW91 Ex.P.205 Authorization letter Ex.P.206 Covering letter dated 08.02.2017 Ex.P.207 Computer generated policy along with 65B Certificate pertaining to accused Ex.P.207(a) Production memo Ex.P.207(b) Signature of PW91 Ex.P.208 Production memo dated 14.02.2017 Ex.P.208(a) Signature of PW41 Ex.P.209 Photocopy of Ledger Extract with regard to fees collected from the parents of the kids Ex.P.210 Production memo prepared by the IO on 07.02.2010 Ex.P.210(a) Signature of PW42 Ex.P.211 Bill payments details in respect of land line Ex.P.211(a) Signature of PW43 Ex.P.212 Production memo dated 21.02.2017 Ex.P.212(a) Signature of PW44 Ex.P.213 Covering letter issued by Private Company of Kerala 169 Spl.C.C.598/2018 Ex.P.213(a) Signature of PW44 Ex.P.214 Copy of policy and receipt in the name of accused No.1 along with 65B Certificate Ex.P.215 Covering letter dated 06.02.2017 of handing over documents to CBI Ex.P.215(a) Signature of PW45 Ex.P.216 Insurance copy in respect of Honda CRV Vehicle bearing No.KA 19 MK 8009 Ex.P.217 Production memo dated 08.02.2017 Ex.P.217(a) Signature of PW46 Ex.P.218 Invoice dated 08.02.2014 issued by Royal Enfield Showroom Ex.P.219 Another invoice for serving the said vehicle on 05.08.2014 for Rs.3,092/-
Ex.P.220 Certificate u/S 65B IEA issued by PW46 Ex.P.220(a) Signature of PW46 Ex.P.221 Production memo dated 20.02.2017 Ex.P.221(a) Signature of PW47 Ex.P.222 Copy of receipt No.8951 dated 29.03.2014 along with job sheet in respect of AMC provided to Accused No.1 Ex.P.223 Covering letter dated 09.02.2017 of PW48 Ex.P.223(a) Signature of PW48 Ex.P.224 Payment details in respect of Mobile No.9343988886 for the period from 25.02.2015 to 24.01.2017 Ex.P.225 Cable connection details provided by PW49 to accused No.2 Ex.P.225(a) Signature of PW49 Ex.P.226 Production memo dated 08.02.2017 of PW50 Ex.P.226(a) Signature of PW50 Ex.P.227 Cash bill dated 09.09.2015 for having sold Exide Battery for Rs.1,150/-
Ex.P.228 Production memo dated 14.07.2017 170 Spl.C.C.598/2018 Ex.P.228(a) Signature of PW51 Ex.P.229 C/c of statement of account in respect of Sri.Akula Sambashiva Rao along with Certificate u/S 65B IEA and 2A of Banker's Books of Accounts Ex.P.230 Covering letter dated 17.02.2017 issued by Shivaram, Admin of M/s Hathway Cable and Dotcom Ltd. Ex.P.230(a) Signature of PW52 Ex.P.231 Copy of customer application form and payment receipt in respect of Broadband Connection provided to Accused No.1 Ex.P.232 Original registered sale deed along with plan Ex.P.233 Production memo dated 19.06.2017 Ex.P.233(a) Signature of PW53 Ex.P.234 Income Tax documents Ex.P.235 Covering letter Ex.P.235(a) Signature of PW54 Ex.P.236 Ledger Extract pertaining to RR No.8SL14308 and 8SEH7708 pertaining to Smt.B.Ramya and Sri.Subbarao for the period from 28.12.2015 to 28.12.2017 Ex.P.237 Production memo dated 25.04.2017 of PW55 Ex.P.237(a) Signature of PW55 Ex.P.238 Cash bill copy dated 29.12.2015 issued in the name of Accused No.1 Ex.P.239 Working plan for construction of Building, Electricity issued in favour of Accused No.1 Ex.P.240 Covering letter dated 12.06.2017 of PW56 Ex.P.240(a) Signature of PW56 Ex.P.241 Account statement pertaining to Accused No.1 for the period from 01.11.2009 to 08.06.2017 Ex.P.242 Account statement pertaining to Accused No.1 in respect of ICICI Mutual Fund (Folio No.444702/32) Ex.P.243 Account statement pertaining to Accused No.1 in 171 Spl.C.C.598/2018 respect of ICICI Mutual Fund (Folio No.444705/23) Ex.P.244 Account statement pertaining to Accused No.1 in respect of ICICI Mutual Fund (Folio No.444703/29) Ex.P.245 Account statement pertaining to Accused No.1 in respect of ICICI Mutual Fund (Folio No.922043/20) Ex.P.246 Account statement pertaining to Accused No.1 in respect of ICICI Mutual Fund (Folio No.456520/80) Ex.P.247 Account statement pertaining to Accused No.1 in respect of ICICI Mutual Fund (Folio No.456721/59) Ex.P.248 Account statement pertaining to Accused No.1 in respect of ICICI Mutual Fund (Folio No.981902/87) Ex.P.249 Applications in respect of above said mutual fund investments Ex.P.250 Production Memo dated 27.10.2017 prepared by IO Ex.P.250(a) Signature of PW57 Ex.P.251 Photocopy of application form Ex.P.252 Covering letter dated 06.02.2017 of PW58 Ex.P.252(a) Signature of PW58 Ex.P.253 Receipt for having paid the policy amount of Rs.1,251/-
in respect of motor vehicle bearing No.KA02 HG6980 for the period 2014-15 Ex.P.254 Policy document pertaining to motor vehicle bearing No.KA 02 HG6980 Ex.P.255 Receipt for having paid the policy amount of Rs.1,373/- Ex.P.256 Policy document pertaining to motor vehicle bearing No.KA 02 HG6980 Ex.P.257 Receipt for having paid the policy amount of Rs.1,494/-
in respect of motor vehicle bearing No.KA02 HG6980 for the period 2012-13 Ex.P.258 Policy document pertaining to motor vehicle bearing No.KA 02 HG6980 Ex.P.259 Receipt for having paid the policy amount of Rs.1,864/-
and Rs.607/- in respect of Honda Activa vehicle bearing 172 Spl.C.C.598/2018 No.KA02 EN7275 for the period 2011-12 Ex.P.260 & Policy document pertaining to Honda Activa vehicle 261 bearing No.KA02 EN7275 Ex.P.262 Receipt for having paid the policy amount of Rs.1,610/-
in respect of Honda Active vehicle bearing No.KA02 EN7275 for the period 2011-12 Ex.P.263 Policy document pertaining to Honda Activa vehicle bearing No.KA02 EN7275 Ex.P.264 65B Certificate issued by PW58 Ex.P.264(a) Signature of PW58 Ex.P.265 Another covering letter dated 27.03.2017 of PW58 for handing over documents Ex.P.265(a) Signature of PW58 Ex.P.266 Receipt for having received Rs.838/- in respect of vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA 01 EJ 8978 TVS Scooty in the name of Bhojaraj Ex.P.267 Policy in respect of vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA 01 EJ 8978 for the year 2011-12 Ex.P.268 Production memo Ex.P.268(a) Signature of Pw59 Ex.P.269 Covering letter dated 23.05.2017 issued by Regional Manager, United India Insurance Co.
Ex.P.269(a) Signature of Subbalakshmi Devi Ex.P.270 Policy document in respect of Hondai Vehicle bearing Reg.No.AP 10M 6262 in the name of Accused No.1 for the period from 2012-13 Ex.P.271 Copy of receipt in respect of said policy Ex.P.272 Policy document in respect of Hondai Vehicle bearing Reg.No.AP 10M 6262 in the name of Accused No.1 for the period from 2011-12 Ex.P.273 Production memo dated 21.02.2017 Ex.P.273(a) Signature of PW60 Ex.P.274 Receipt for having sold speaker by Carshringar for 173 Spl.C.C.598/2018 Rs.1,305/-
Ex.P.275 Production memo dated 09.01.2018 Ex.P.276 Rent Receipt Ex.P.277 Production memo dated 25.04.2017 Ex.P.278 Receipt of Rs.2,620/- dated 02.10.2016 Ex.P.279 Production memo prepared by IO dated 25.10.2017 Ex.P.279(a) Signature of PW61 Ex.P.280 Drawing copy of building Ex.P.281 Copy of quotations Ex.P.281(a) Signature of PW61
Ex.P.281(b) Payments made to Labour Contractor from 06.04.2013 to 22.02.2014 Ex.P.282 Production memo dated 30.08.2017 of PW62 Ex.P.282(a) Signature of PW62 Ex.P.283 Two applications for RTGS remittance along with Certificate u/S 65B IEA and 2A of Banker's Books of Evidence Ex.P.283(a) Signature of PW62 Ex.P.284 Statement of account produced by PW62 Ex.P.285 Production memo dated 25.05.2017 of PW63 Ex.P.285(a) Signature of PW63 Ex.P.286 Authorization letter issued by bank to PW63 to produce documents Ex.P.287 Account opening form in the name of Burlagunta Ramakrishna Ex.P.288 Statement of Account in the name of Sri.Burlagunta Ramakrishna along with Certificate u/S 65B IEA and 2A of banker's books of evidence Ex.P.288(a) Signature in certificate Ex.P.289 Search list dated 05.10.2016 Ex.P.289(a) Signature of PW63 Ex.P.290 Letter dated 08.02.2017 furnished by PW64 174 Spl.C.C.598/2018 Ex.P.290(a) Signature of PW64 Ex.P.291 Proceedings of CBI Officer for having taken documents, which were kept in the locker of Canara Bank, Anekal Ex.P.291(a) Signature of PW65 Ex.P.292 Bunch of xerox receipts issued by ABM Build Tech Pvt.
Ltd. and copies of Banker's Cheque Ex.P.293 Copy of work agreement and plan Ex.P.294 Copy of statement of account in the name of Accused No.1 Ex.P.295 Copy of agreement between ABM Build Tech Pvt. Ltd.
and accused No.1.
Ex.P.296 Copy of building plan of Sapthagiri Layout Ex.P.297 Original permission letter along with approved plan Ex.P.298 Loan documents pertaining to Accused No.1 in respect of IDBI Bank Ex.P.299 Sale Deed dated 05.08.2004 executed between Goutham Reddy and Accused No.1.
Ex.P.300 Sale Deed dated 19.10.2012 executed between accused No.1 and V.K.Rajagopal along with connected documents Ex.P.301 Gift Deed dated 21.08.2015 executed between Samba Shiva Rao and accused No.1 Ex.P.302 One bunch of papers containing receipts issued by ZP, Form No.16, tax paid receipts and connected documents Ex.P.303 Bunch of documents containing measurement sheets, invoice and copy of sale deed Ex.P.304 Acknowledgment issued by IT Department. Ex.P.305 Written statement of PW69 dated 18.11.2017 Ex.P.306 Written statement of PW70 dated 18.11.2017 Ex.P.307 Covering letter dated 20.05.2017 of PW74 for having handed over docments to CBI Officer Ex.P.307(a) Signature of PW74 175 Spl.C.C.598/2018 Ex.P.308 Computerized Credit Invoice and two cash receipts pertaining to Vehicle AP 10M 6262 Ex.P.309 Egon Life letter dated 25.05.2017 Ex.P.310 Production Memo of PW75 prepared by IO Ex.P.310(a) Signature of PW75 Ex.P.311 Letter dated 15.05.2017 of PW75 and original tax invoice Ex.P.311(a) Signature of PW75 Ex.P.312 Invoice Ex.P.313 Bank account statement pertaining to HDFC Bank, J.P.Nagar Branch Ex.P.313(a) Certificate u/S 65B of IEA Ex.P.313(b) Signature of PW86 Ex.P.314 Production Memo dated 06.02.2017 Ex.P.315 Tax invoice/cash bill motorcycle Importing Co. dated 11.04.2015 Ex.P.316 Covering letter dated 25.04.2017 Ex.P.316(a) Signature of PW81 Ex.P.317 IT Returns submitted by Accused No.1 for Assessment Year 2011-12 to 2016-17 Ex.P.318 Covering letter dated 11.01.2018 of PW84 Ex.P.318(a) Signature of PW84 Ex.P.319 Attested copy of account opening form in the name of Smt.Janaki Priya Ex.P.320 Account opening form in the name of Sri.Subba Rao Ex.P.321 Debit and credit voucher in the name of Smt.Janaki Priya Ex.P.322 Covering letter dated 28.04.2017 of PW86 Ex.P.322(a) Signature of PW86 Ex.P.323 FIR Ex.P.323(a) Signature of PW87 Ex.P.324 Order u/S 17 of P.C.Act dated 30.09.2016 issued by 176 Spl.C.C.598/2018 PW87 authorizing A.V.Sathya Sai, Inspector of Police to investigate the case Ex.P.324(a) Signature of PW87 Ex.P.325 & Certified copy of Service Invoices dated 07.02.2014 and 326 20.02.2016 Ex.P.327 C/c of Certificate u/S 65B of IE Act Ex.P.328 Search List dated 05.10.2015 Ex.P.328(a) Signature of PW91 Ex.P.329 Locker operation memo dated 06.10.2016 Ex.P.329(a) Signature of PW91 Ex.P.330 Document papers Ex.P.331 Inventory Memo dated 05.10.2016 Ex.P.331(a) Signature of PW91 Ex.P.332 Sanction order dated 20.12.2018 Ex.P.333 Inquiry authority report by P.Ramanjanaya Reddy Ex.P.334 Inquiry authority report by T.Kiran Kumar LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE DWs Name of the witness Date of examination D.W.1 George Joseph 25.10.2023 D.W.2 Smt.Katavedu Priya Reddy 25.10.2023 D.W.3 M.Yellappa 25.10.2023 D.W.4 Shibasish Majumder 07.11.2023 D.W.5 K.Lokesh Reddy 07.11.2023 D.W.6 B.Ramakrishna 07.11.2023 177 Spl.C.C.598/2018 LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE Exhibit Particulars No. Ex.D.1 Entire hand book consisting of 121 pages Ex.D.2 Agreement of sale dated 03.06.2013 Ex.D.3 Deposit of title deeds dated 23.10.2010 Ex.D.4 Original memorandum of deposit of title deeds dated 24.12.2012 Ex.D.5 Income Tax Returns for the year 2009-10 Ex.D.6 Income Tax Returns for the year 2017-18 Ex.D.7 Certificate Ex.D.8 Guidelines confronted by Sri.R.G.K. Ex.D.9 Document issued by Vishwabharathi Housing Building Co-operative Society Ex.D.10 Four photographs Ex.D.10(a) 65B Certificate Ex.D.11 Copy of photos and certificate and receipts furnished to PP Ex.D.12 Copy of e-mail sent to PW61 Ex.D.12(a) 65B Certificate issued by Accused No.1 Ex.D.13 Another e-mail copy sent by Accused No.1 dated 09.07.2013 Ex.D.14 Another one e-mail sent by PW61 dated 03.11.2012 Ex.D.15 Another e-mail dated 28.01.2014 sent by PW61 to Accused No.1 acknowledging the receipt of payments Ex.D.16 Another e-mail dated 21.11.2012 sent by Accused No.1 to PW61 to stop the construction Ex.D.17 Letter issued by one Sri.Tanay Krishna signed by PW66 Ex.D.18 Rent Agreement dated 04.11.2015 Ex.D.19 Photograph of Building Ex.D.19(a) 65B Certificate 178 Spl.C.C.598/2018 Ex.D.20 Agreement confronted to PW89 Ex.D.21 Mortgage Deed Ex.D.21(a) Mortgage Deed in Telugu Language Ex.D.22 Document regarding income from chit business Ex.D.23 Payments with regard to construction Ex.D.24 Double Entry Book Keeping document Ex.D.25 Letters and CD Ex.D.26 Document No.40 seized during the course of investigation Ex.D.27 Internet copy of Account Statement of DW2 Ex.D.27(a) Signature of DW2 in Certificate Ex.D.28 Signature of DW3 on diary for payment Ex.D.29 Small book maintained by DW3 for having received the labour charges Ex.D.30 Photograph containing photo of stage of construction of building Ex.D.30(a) Certification u/S 65B of Evidence Act Ex.D.31 Original agreement executed between DW3 and Accused No.1 Ex.D.32 Report and e-mail correspondences Ex.D.32(a) 65B Certificate Ex.D.33 E-mail correspondences between DW4 and Sai Jayram Ex.D.34 Another e-mail correspondences taken place between DW4 and Accused No.1 Ex.D.35 Original valuation report in respect of Site No.34 along with photos Ex.D.36 Original agreement dated 06.07.2016 executed between Accused No.2 and Miss.Lalitha Digitally signed (H.A.Mohan) by MOHAN DN: XXXII Addl.C.C. & S.J. and cn=MOHAN,ou= HIGH COURT OF Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru.
KARNATAKA,o=
MOHAN HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA,st=
Karnataka,c=IN
Date: 2024.02.07
11:28:01 IST
179 Spl.C.C.598/2018