Delhi District Court
Cbi vs R.C. Sabharwal And Ans on 31 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SHAILENDER MALIK, SPECIAL JUDGE (PC
ACT), CBI-21: ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr.
CBI Case No.22/2019 (CNR DLCT-11-000051-2019)
FIR No.RC74(A)/1995/ACB-I/CBI/New Delhi
Central Bureau of Investigation
Versus
(1)R.C. Sabharwal
s/o Sh.S.D. Sabharwal
r/o H-7, Masjid Moth,
New Delhi. ...Accused No.1
(2)Puneet Sabharwal
s/o R.C. Sabharwal
r/o H-7, Masjid Moth,
New Delhi. ...Accused No.2
Date of Institution : 28.08.1999
Date of judgment reserved : 26.05.2025
Date of judgment pronounced : 31.05.2025
JUDGEMENT
1. Accused R.C. Sabharwal is facing prosecution for offence u/s 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2)(d) of PC Act, 1988 as well as his son Puneet Sabharwal is facing prosecution for offence Section 109 IPC r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of PC Act, 1988.
FIR Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2025.05.31 16:20:51 +0530 CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) Page No. 1
2. Precise facts of the present case are that RC in this case was registered on 23.08.1995 against Sh. R.C. Sabharwal (A-1), Additional Chief Architect, NDMC, with the allegations that said accused while posted in various official capacities from Year 1968 onwards, amassed huge assets, which were disproportionate to his known sources of income. It is also alleged in the FIR that A-1 R.C. Sabharwal acquired those assets either in his name or in the name of his family members. Those assets include two flats No.5A and 5 B at White House, Bhagwan Dass Road, New Delhi, residential house consisting of 2 stories at Masjid Moth, New Delhi, double storey house at Plot No. 2/6080, Dev Nagar, New Delhi, a petrol pump on 8888/9 sq. yds at Garh Mukteshwar, 5.5 acres of land at Sultanpur village in the name of his sons namely Puneet Sabharwal and Sumeet Sabharwal, 6 bigha land purchased in village Inder Garhi, Ghaziabad UP etc. It is also alleged in the FIR that R.C. Sabharwal was also in possession of various costly electronic equipments, gadgets and huge bank balances in his name as well as in the name of his family members.
3. After the registration of the FIR, investigation was carried out. During the investigation searches were conducted at various places. In the charge sheet check period has been fixed from 20.08.1968 till date of search i.e. 23.08.1995. It is stated in charge sheet that it came in the investigation that R.C. Sabharwal acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income and in order to acquire assets he conspired with his son Puneet and purchased certain properties in his name as well as in Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) Page No. 2 MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 16:20:58 +0530 the name of his family members, whereas they had no independent source of income and ultimately beneficiary is either R.C. Sabharwal or his sons. Family details of R.C. Sabharwal
4. It came in the investigation that father of R.C. Sabharwal namely Sh.S.D. Sabharwal had five children including R.C. Sabharwal. S.D. Sabharwal was not educated, he was reportedly running a petrol pump at Rawalpindi, before partition. After partition when he came to Delhi in 1947, a refugee quarter no.2/6080, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh was alloted to S.D. Sabharwal, who stated to have expired in 1973. Accused R.C. Sabharwal had born in 1940 and completed his schooling in Delhi, graduated as an Architect from Delhi University in 1967. R.C. Sabharwal was appointed as Architecture Assistant in 1968. R.C. Sabharwal got married to Usha, a medical graduate who joined as Assistant Surgeon in June 1969. They had two sons namely Puneet Sabharwal born in 1970 and Sumeet Sabharwal born in 1973. Eldest sister of R.C. Sabharwal namely Shakuntala was married to Hira Lal Sahni, who was working as Havildar in EME, Indian Army. Another sister namely Smt.Sushma was married to Sh.Suri working as Fitter in private company at Jamshedpur and during the investigation of this case he was working as Deputy Engineer in Hindustan Machine Tools Corporation. Sumeet Sabharwal is in USA whereas another son Puneet Sabharwal is running Hitkari Pottery Shop in the name and style of M/s SPK Enterprises since 1991.
Income of accused R.C. Sabharwal
5. It came in the investigation that accused R.C. Sabharwal had earned total income of Rs.10,00,042/- from his salary, while working in his Digitally signed CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) SHELENDER MALIK by SHELENDER MALIK Date: 2025.05.31 Page No. 3 16:21:04 +0530 capacity as public servant during the check period. The details of which have been given in tabulation form in charge sheet. It is stated that wife of accused R.C. Sabharwal namely Usha Sabharwal has been a Doctor in NDMC since 1969. During the check period the income received by Smt.Usha Sabharwal was found to be Rs.8,72,249.42 (details have been given in tabulation form in the charge sheet). Beside the salary income, it is stated in the charge sheet that accused R.C. Sabharwal also earned income from certain firms, companies such as M/s Morni Enterprises, M/s Morni Merchants, income from Sahib Properties, Paroo Properties, SPK Enterprises and a trust Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust, PUS Properties and rental income from house no.H-7, Masjid Moth, income from insurance, petrol pump at Garh Mukhteshwar etc. As such the total income of accused R.C. Sabharwal has been counted to be Rs.1,23,18,091.59. The details of the income under different heads as given in the charge sheet, is being reproduced herein below in tabulation form:
S.No. Income under various heads Amount (Rs.)
1. Income by salary of R.C. Sabharwal 10,00,042.27
2. Income by salary of Usha Sabharwal 8,87,916.32
3. Income by business of Morni Enterprises 3,08,856.00
4. Income by business of Morni Merchants 24,89,087.00
5. Income by business of Sahib Properties 89,653.00
6. Income by business of Paroo Properties 3,08,197.00
7. Income by business of SPK Enterprises including 13,61,062.00 Puneet Sabharwal
8. Total income by rent of H-7, Masjid Moth accruing to 13,31,448.00 R.C. Sabharwal & Usha Sabharwal
9. Income by Morni Devi Brijlal Trust 42,43,505.00
10. Income of PUS Properties 87,593.00
11. Income of Sumeet Sabharwal Minus 59,440 Digitally signed by SHELENDER CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) Page No. 4 SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 16:21:12 +0530
12. Income by insurance policies of R.C. Sabharwal 8,310.00
13. Income by interest in SB-38295 of Usha Sabharwal 61,357.00 from 31.03.83 to August 95
14. Income by interest in SB-50886 till March 91 (joint A/c) 38,561.00
15. Income in joint A/c at Sr. 13 of Usha (50%) 19,280.00
16. Income by interest earned by R.C. Sabharwal from 79,774.00 31.03.92 to 31.03.95 earned by R.C. Sabharwal
17. Income by PHC Pump at Garhmukteshwar 62,890.00 TOTAL INCOME 1,23,18,091.00 Expenditure
6. It came in the investigation that accused R.C. Sabharwal was living a lavish way of life. Recovery of various articles/documents show that accused spent money on verifiable, non verifiable articles. Upon investigation, CBI calculated the expenditure of Rs.18,23,108/- by accused R.C. Sabharwal and his family members. The details of which can be reproduced herein below :
1. By30% of the carry home salary @ 30% of RCS 3,33,346.00
2. By electricity & water charges (Usha Sabharwal) (from 22,251.00 12.09.91 to 24.07.95)
3. By charges on servant quarter (Usha Sabharwal) 2,296.00
4. By school of the children paid to St.Columbus (RCS) 35,527.00
5. By payment of LIC RCS 37,975.00 Usha 35,950.00 Puneet 7,600.00 Sumeet 4,096.00
6. By payment made to NDMC on account of electricity 21,005.00 Licence fee & water charge (Usha Sabharwal)
7. By payment of House Tax of A-7, Masjid Moth, New 1,06,090.00 Delhi (Usha & RCS)
8. By expenses paid by Pvt. Telephone installed at the 73,806.00 residence Digitally signed CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) Page No. 5 by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 16:21:18 +0530
9. By payment paid to M.S. Service Station for service of 22,955.00 vehicle 5,570.00
10. By payment paid to Oriental Insurance 9,902.00
11. By rent on Locker No.397 at PNB 1,100.00
12. By payments made to Sita Travels for 14.08.83 to 12,498.00 10.08.83
13. By payments made to Cozy Travels on 13.06.94 36,669.00
14. By payment made to CA's 6,750.00
15. By payments made to DDA onn 24.07.92 48,500.00
16. By payments made to NFC temple fund 10.04.93 1,000.00
17. By payments made to NFC club 30,000.00
18. By taxes paid under Govt. head PNB 5,04,633.00
19. By expenses paid by R.C. Sabharwal during August 1,31,850.00 1983, June 1990, 1992 & June 1989
20. By expenses paid by Puneet Sabharwal on foreign travel 80,500.00 in May/June 89 & September 89 to USA, Canada, Singapore etc.
21. By expenses registered at E-14, NDSE 1,82,400.00
22. By expenses registered found at Plot No.7, Arjun Nagar 20,039.00
23. By expenses registered found at Sultanpur 20,800.00
24. By expenses registered found at Panchvati Sarma 28,000.00 TOTAL 18,23,108.00 Assets Movable Assets
7. It is alleged that accused R.C. Sabharwal invested heavy amount for acquiring movable assets, the value of which assessed to be of Rs.4,25,450/-, which can be reproduced herein below :
S.No. Detail of movable assets Amount In the name of (in Rs.)
1. 200 magnums of SBI MF 20,000 R.C. Sabharwal 00179065-00179066 dt. 21.03.89
2. 200 magnum of SBI 580157 dt. 20,000 R.C. Sabharwal 29.03.90 Digitally signed by SHELENDER CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: Page No. 6 2025.05.31 16:21:25 +0530
3. 200 magnum of SBI 580156 dt. 20,000 R.C. Sabharwal 29.03.90
4. 100 magnum of SBI 00179067 10,000 R.C. Sabharwal dt. 31.03.89
5. 100 magnum of SBI 00179068 10,000 R.C. Sabharwal dt. 31.03.89
6. 100 units PNB 58107 10,000 R.C. Sabharwal & Usha Sabharwal
7. 100 units PNB 105739 10,000 R.C. Sabharwal & Usha Sabharwal
8. 100 units PNB 58108 10,000 Usha & RC Sabharwal
9. 100 units PNB 105738 10,000 Usha & RC Sabharwal
10. IDBI bonds 01307967 2,700 Usha Sabharwal & Puneet Sabharwal
11. MEP-93 9340120127 1000 units 10,000 R.C. Sabharwal
12. MEP-93 40120128 100 units 10,000 Usha Sabharwal
13. 04EE 141405 dt. 02.04.90 10,000 R.C. Sabharwal & Usha Sabharwal
14. 04EE 141406 dt. 02.04.90 10,000 R.C. Sabharwal & Usha Sabharwal
15. 04DD 698969 dt. 02.04.91 5,000 R.C. Sabharwal
16. 07EE 441304 dt. 02.04.91 10,000 R.C. Sabharwal
17. 07EE 441305 dt. 02.04.91 10,000 R.C. Sabharwal
18. 07EE 475964 dt. 27.01.92 10,000 R.C. Sabharwal & Usha Sabharwal
19. 07EE 475963 dt. 27.01.92 10,000 R.C. Sabharwal & Usha Sabharwal
20. 04DD 677811 dt. 15.02.92 5,000 R.C. Sabharwal & Usha Sabharwal
21. 09ee 166590 dt. 15.02.93 10,000 R.C. Sabharwal & Usha Sabharwal
22. 09EE 166591 dt. 15.02.93 10,000 R.C. Sabharwal & Usha Sabharwal
23. 09EE 166592 dt. 15.02.93 10,000 R.C. Sabharwal & Usha Sabharwal
24. 09ee 166593 dt. 15.02.93 10,000 R.C. Sabharwal & Usha Sabharwal
25. 04EE 141393 dt. 31.03.90 10,000 R.C. Sabharwal & Usha Digitally signed CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) Page No. 7 by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2025.05.31 16:21:31 +0530 Sabharwal
26. 04EE 141393 dt. 31.03.90 10,000 R.C. Sabharwal & Usha Sabharwal
27. 04DD 650324 dt. 31.03.90 5,000 Usha & R.C. Sabharwal
28. 06CC 836026 dt. 31.03.90 1,000 Usha & R.C. Sabharwal
29. 06CC 836027 dt. 31.03.90 1,000 Usha & R.C. Sabharwal
30. 06CC 836028 dt. 31.03.90 1,000 Usha & R.C. Sabharwal
31. 07EE 441301 to 07EE 441303 dt. 30,000 Usha Sabharwal 02.04.91
32. 07EE 475967 to 07EE 475969 dt. 30,000 Usha Sabharwal & R.C. 27.01.92 Sabharwal
33. 04DD 677880 dt. 15.02.93 5,000 Usha Sabharwal & R.C. Sabharwal
34. 09EE 166586 to 09EE 166589 dt. 40,000 Usha & R.C. Sabharwal 15.02.93
35. GIC 1000 units 00261086512 - 12,000 Puneet Sabharwal & Usha 0026108850 Sabharwal
36. 1000 units 02315 10,000 Puneet & Usha Sabharwal
37. CANPEP 1000 units 269002 10,000 Puneet & Usha Sabharwal
38. SHARES 50 0061694 R 07096 500 R.C. Sabharwal dt. 07.10.81
39. 50 0061695 R 07096 dt. 07.10.81 500 R.C. Sabharwal
40. 42 90035 dt. 24.04.89 4,300 R.C. Sabharwal
41. 45 128522 R 07096 dt. 01.07.87 450 R.C. Sabharwal
42. 100 00009635 dt. 16.09.88 1,000 R.C. Sabharwal
43. 100 00009634 dt. 16.09.88 1,000 Usha Sabharwal TOTAL 4,25,450/-
Bank Balances
8. It is mentioned in the charge sheet that during investigation details regarding different bank accounts belonging to accused and his family members, firms etc. were collected which can be reproduced as herein below :
S.No. Account No. Name of the holder Amount (Rs.) Digitally signed SHELENDER by SHELENDER CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) MALIK MALIK Date: 2025.05.31 Page No. 8 16:21:40 +0530
1. 38295 Usha Sabharwal 83,253
2. 50886 R.C. Sabharwal & Usha 4,42,441
3. 50885 Sumeet & Puneet Sabharwal 98,039
4. 53011 Sushma Suri 7,57,430
5. 55244 Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust 28,30,641 6. 54425 Shakuntla Sahni 193
7. 59445 R.C. Sabharwal (HUF) 2,87,881
8. 5259 Paroo Properties 11,06,600
9. 11557 Sahib Properties 64,427
10. 11111 PUS Properties 3,760
11. Morni Merchants A/c Vijaya Bank 58,319
12. 74351-019 Morni Merchants, Citi Bank 4,65,608
13. SPK Enterprises, ICICI 87,779
14. R.C. Sabharwal, Citi Bank 76,361
15. 5026385-018 Puneet Sabharwal, Citi Bank 21,853
16. FDR R.C. & Usha (PNB) 4,56,691
17. FDR R.C. & Usha (PNB 6,00,000
18. FDR Usha (PNB) 4,56,691 TOTAL Rs.78,37,967 Rs.4,25,450 ___________ Rs.82,63,417 Immovable Assets
9. It is alleged that accused R.C. Sabharwal acquired 24 immovable assets during the check period to the tune of Rs.2,27,94,907/- either in his own name, or in the name of his family members and sisters. Details of the same can be given herein below :
S.No. Nature of the Assets Date of Mode of Acquired in the Amount Acquisition Acquision name of/through 1 Basement & ground 2.3.95 Purchase 50% in the name of Rs. 24.62 Lacs floor of NDSE-1 M/s Sahib properties 2 --do-- --do-- --do-- 50% in the name of --do--Digitally signed
CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) SHELENDER MALIK by SHELENDER MALIK Page No. 9 Date: 2025.05.31 16:21:51 +0530 PUS Properties 3 Flat GF-5 at Ansal 10.11.75 Purchase Smt. Shukantla Bhawan, New Delhi Sahni Sister of R.C. 187 Sqr. Ft. covered Sabharwal area (Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust) 4 Flat No.907 A, Ansal 24.2.73 Purchase Brij Lal Juneja 37,100 Bhawan, New Delhi Father in Law of 350 Sqr. Ft. R.C. Sabharwal (Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust) 5 Flat GF-7A, Tolstoy 3.6.87 Purchase Morni Devi Brij Lal 3,03,780 House, New Delhi 141 Trust through Sqr. Ft. Shakuntla Sahni.
6 Two Flats bearing 6.8.92 --do-- --do-- 14,50,137
No.GF-1 & GF-2 in (Morni Devi Brij
Amba Deep Building, Lal Trust)
Connaught Place, New
Delhi.
7 301, Hans Bhawan, 28.4.75 --do-- Originally booked
Flat measuring 519 by Kailash Berry
Sqr. Ft. family friend and
SK Juneja, Brother-
in-Law. Brother-in-
Law replaced by
Morni Devi
Sabharwal &Kailash
Berry gifted the
property to Morni
Devi Brij Lal Trust
on 28.2.83
(Morni Devi Brij
Lal Trust)
8 2 acres of Land as 24.6.89 --do-- Puneet Sabharwal 1,00,000/-
Aravali Retreat,
Gurgaon (farm land)
9 5 Shops at Sushant 14.8,89 --do-- Morni Devi Brij Lal 1,25,000/-
Road, Gurgaon Trust
10 Payment for flat No. 13.4.88 Booking of Morni Merchants 4,76,000/-
211, First Floor at 2, flats with Sh. Punit Sabharwal
Jain Mandir Road, M/s was a director
New Delhi INTEL
Constructi
on
Digitally signed
by SHELENDER
SHELENDER MALIK
CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) MALIK Date:
2025.05.31
Page No. 10
16:21:58 +0530
11 Space no.-1 measuring 13.4.88 Purchase Morni Merchants 7,25,000/-
259 Sqr. Ft. on ground Punit Sabharwal
floor at WTC (Holiday
Inn) 13.4.88
12 Flat G-11, Arunanchal, 25.6.82 Purchase Morni Devi Brij Lal 2,85,818/-
Barakhamba Road, Trust
measuring 465 Sqr. Ft.
13 Farm House at 09-12-86 Purchase Morni Devi Brij Lal 3,50,000/-
Gadaipur, Mehrauli, Trust
19 bigas & one Biswa
14 Flat No. 1316 at Ansal 09-11-87 Purchase Morni Devi Brij Lal 4,58,068/-
Tower, Nehru Place, Trust through
New Delhi Shakuntla Sahni
15 Flat No. 5-A, White 20-07-88 Purchase Morni Merchant 18,00,000/-
House, Bhagwan Dass through Ranjana
Road Mehta
16 Flat No. 5-B, White 20-07-88 Purchase Morni Merchant 18,00,000/-
House, Bhagwan Dass through Ranjana
Road Mehta
17 Flat No. 513, Hemkunt 24-09-78 Purchase Sushma Suri, Sister 1,13,050/-
Tower, Nehru Place of R.C.Sabharwal,
Sold to Savitri Devi,
Model Town,
Jalandar for Rs.
5,14,8000/-
18 Plot Measuring 180 1975 Purchase R.C.Sabharwal and 3,35,081/-
Sqr. Yd.at plot No. H- purchased in Usha Sabharwal
7, Masjid Moth, along on option
with 2 storey bldg. from DDA in
constructed on it 1975 and
bldg.
constructed
in the
year1980
19 Flat No. 19, Second 19-03-93 Purchase Sumeet Sabharwal 8,51,250/-
floor, Prithvi Raj
Road, New Delhi
20 Flat No. A-3, Neeti 28-05-93 Purchase Puneet Sabharwal 6,50,000/-
Bagh
21 Office space 09-05-98 Purchase Morni Merchants 43,000/-
measuring 175 sq.ft.in through Ranjana
covered area marked Mehta
S-IV, in Vandama
Bldg.
Digitally signed
by SHELENDER
CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) SHELENDER MALIK
MALIK Date:
Page No. 11
2025.05.31
16:22:06 +0530
22 B-247, Ground Floor, 05-06-95 Advanced Puneet Sabharwal 16,80,000/-
New Friends Colony, for
New Delhi purchase
23 A-259, New Friends 12-12-93 Purchase Puneet Sabharwal 83,00,000/-
Colony, New Delhi onward purchase ground
floor for 8.50 Lakhs
and Kohli Brothers
purchased first floor
for 8.50 Lakhs
actual cost 83 Lakhs
24 20 bigas of land at 27-09-85 Purchase Purchased it by 2,60,000/-
Sultan Pur Sumeet & Puneet
Sabharwal
10. Thus on the basis of calculation on above said heads, CBI calculated the value of disproportionate assets in the manner as stated above.
Income : Rs.1,23,18,091/- Expenditure : Rs.18,23,108/- Likely saving : Rs.1,04,94,983/- Total assets : Rs.3,10,58,324/- Disproportionate assets : Rs.2,05,63,341/- %age of disproportionate assets : 166%
11. It is alleged that accused R.C. Sabharwal could not give satisfactory account of acquiring assets disproportionate to his known source of income. It is further alleged that accused R.C. Sabharwal was party of criminal conspiracy with his son Puneet Sabharwal who acquired Rs.79 lakhs by encashment of special bearer bonds and also facilitated in commission of offence as conspirator. It is further alleged that R.C. Sabharwal acquired assets in the name of Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust, M/s Digitally signed CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK Page No. 12 MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 16:22:12 +0530 Morni Merchants as well as other firms in which sole beneficiary was his son Puneet Sabharwal. Thus the charge sheet was filed for offence u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of P.C. Act, 1988 against R.C. Sabharwal as well as for offence u/s 120B IPC r/w 5(2) r/w 5(1)(e) of P.C. Act, 1947. Charge
12. After examining the material on the judicial record, ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 21.02.2006 ordered for framing of charge against the accused R.C. Sabharwal and Puneet Sabharwal holding that accused was having assets of Rs.3,10,58,324/- as against this his and his family members income was found to be Rs.1,23,18,091/-, expenditure Rs.18,23,108/-. As such it was concluded that there was disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.2,05,63,341/-. In pursuance to the such order of charge, vide order dated 28.02.2006 charge for offence u/s 13(1)(e) punishable u/s 13(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988 was framed against accused R.C. Sabharwal as well as for offence u/s 109 IPC r/w 13(1)(e) and section 13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988 charges were framed against accused Puneet Sabharwal. Both the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.
Admitted Documents
13. After framing of charges, accused R.C. Sabharwal on 28.06.2003, admitted certain documents in terms of Section 294 Cr.P.C which are D-21 (Ex.P1), D-30 (Ex.P2), D-70 (Ex.P3) (admitted by accused Puneet Sabharwal also on 23.08.05), D-71 (Ex.P4) (admitted by accused Puneet Sabharwal also on 23.08.05), D-72 (Ex.P5) (admitted by accused Puneet Sabharwal also on 23.08.05), D-74 (Ex.P6), D-83 (Ex.P7), D-84 Digitally signed CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) SHELENDER by SHELENDER MALIK Page No. 13 MALIK Date: 2025.05.31 16:22:17 +0530 (Ex.P8), D-85 (Ex.P9) (admitted by accused Puneet Sabharwal also on 23.08.05), D-86 (Ex.P10), D-87 (Ex.P11), D-88 (Ex.P12), D-89 (Ex.P13), D-90 (Ex.P14) (admitted by accused Puneet Sabharwal also on 23.08.05), D-91 (Ex.P15) (admitted by accused Puneet Sabharwal also on 23.08.05), D-92 (Ex.P16/1 & 16/2), D-93 (Ex.P17), D-94 (Ex.P18), D-95 (Ex.P19/1 to 19/14) (admitted by accused Puneet Sabharwal also on 23.08.05), D-101 (Ex.P20), D-122 (Ex.P21), D-123 (Ex.P22), D-124 (Ex.P23), D-127 (Ex.P24), D-131 (Ex.P25), D-158 (Ex.P26), D-159 (Ex.P 27).
14. Accused Puneet Sabharwal also admitted certain documents u/s 294 Cr.P.C on 28.06.2003 which are D-25 (Ex.P26/1), D-26 (Ex.P27/1), D-60 (Ex.P28), D-62 (Ex.P29), D-74 (Ex.P30), D-94 (Ex.P18), D-97 (Ex.P31), D-126 (Ex.P32). On 15.03.2005, accused R.C. Sabharwal as well as accused Puneet Sabharwal also admitted documents D-95 (Ex.PX1 to PX17); D-86 & D-87 (Ex.PX18 and Ex.P1X19), D-88 (Ex.PX20), D-83(Ex.PX21), D-94(Ex.P18), D-90 (Ex.PX22), D-85 (Ex.PX23).
Prosecution Evidence
15. Prosecution in order to substantiate the charge has examined 48 witnesses, the details of which can be given in tabulation form herein below :
Witness Name of Description of witness No. Witness PW1 R.P. Anand This witness is from Bharat Hotels Ltd., proved letter
Ex.PW1/A related to Morni Merchants Ltd. regarding deposit of balance dues in respect of shop no.P-1, Ground Floor, World Trade Centre, New Delhi and further proved agreement dated 13.04.1988 in respect of sub licensing of Digitally signed CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) Page No. 14 by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 16:22:24 +0530 above mentioned shop.
PW2 Mahender Singh This witness is from DDA who proved file D-17 (Ex.P-3) Chopra pertaining to plot no.H-7, Masjid Moth purchased through auction by accused R.C. Sabharwal.
PW3 Arvind Mohan This witness in his deposition recorded on 27.01.2025 Deshraj proved valuation report dated 10.11.1983 prepared for wealth tax purposes, in respect of Flat no.5, Ansal Bhawan, 16 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Flat no.513, Hemkunt Tower, Nehru Place, land part of khasra no.680, Village Devli, Tehsil Mehrauli and reports are Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW3/B and Ex.PW3/C respectively.
PW4 Azad Singh This witness is Inspector from CBI who was part of the team conducted search at C-44, Nizamuddin, when R.K. Chadha, DSP was given authorization u/s 165 Cr.PC by the IO. Search cum seizure memo is Ex.PW4/A. Witness referred to different files as recovered during search proceedings.
PW5 Rajiv Kumar This witness is DSP of CBI, he along with other members of Chadha team and independent witnesses conducted the search at C-
44, Nizamuddin.
PW6 Mukesh Kumar This witness is from Bharat Petroleum Limited and proved Jain D-21 (Ex.PW6/A) seizure memo of documents relating to renewal letter, rental payment made to R.C. Sabharwal w.e.f. 01.04.1985 in respect of lease of land at Garh Mukteshwar in favour of BPCL, originally executed by S.D. Sabharwal.
PW7 D.M. Sharma This witness is Inspector of CBI who was part of the CBI team conducted search on 24.08.1995 at Flat No.1, Palika Sadan, NDMC. The search cum seizure memo is Ex.PW7/A, observation memo is Ex.PW7/B, D-4 memo regarding jewelry found in that flat is Ex.PW7/C, D-7 is regarding sealing of shop A-9, Connaught Circus is Ex.PW7/D, D-8 is search cum seizure memo at above said shop.
PW8 Daulat Ram This witness is regarding search memo dated 17.10.1996 (D-113) Mark PW8/X. PW9 Rajesh Kumar This witness is Inspector of CBI who testified regarding preparing in his hand writing seizure memo dated 26.08.1995 (D-14) Ex.PW9/A. Digitally signed CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) Page No. 15 by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 16:22:29 +0530 PW10 Kabir Sondhi This witness is agent of NSC and proved issuing of NSC no.6506, 6514, 11839, 11842, 15471, 15472 which are Ex.PW8/B (colly.).
PW11 Smt.Sudha Jain This witness proved sale deeds dated 27.09.1985 Ex.PW11/A and Ex.PW11/B respectively in respect of agriculture land measuring 2 bigha 4 biswa of khasra no.596 in favour of minor sons of R.C. Sabharwal. PW12 Smt.Meeta Roy This witness is from M/s Paul & Paul Builders and proved documents relating to sale of Flat No.001, Ground Floor, A- 3 Neeti Bagh in favour of Puneet Sabharwal by documents Ex.PW12/A & Ex.PW12/B. PW13 Lalit Sharma This witness is also from Paul & Paul Builders and proved D-97 (Ex.PW12/A) i.e. copy of agreement to sell.
PW14 Sohan Lal This witness is Account Officer of NDMC and proved salary statements of Smt.Usha Sabharwal Ex.PW14/A, pay allowance, salary of R.C. Sabharwal for period from 1985- 86 to 1994-95 Ex.PW14/B. PW15 A.K. Pathak This witness is from NDMC, who did not support the prosecution case relating to seeing files D-37, D-38, D-50, D-57 and D-63.
PW16 Satya Pal This witness is from DDA and proved file D-71 relating to plot no.7, Masjid Moth in favour of R.C. Sabharwal. This witness also turned hostile.
PW17 Ram Avtar This witness is from house tax department of MCD and Verma referred to D-160, copy of inspection book in respect of property no.6081 Ex.PW17/A. PW18 Simon Coelho This witness is Principal from St. Columbas School, proving letter with annexures Ex.P-26, regarding proof of school fee in respect of two sons of accused R.C. Sabharwal. PW19 Mahavir This witness is from LIC, proved letter Ex.PW19/A (D-115) Parshad Jain giving information relating to policy no.110356481 Ex.PW19/B. PW20 J.C. Sharma He was the independent witness from FCI, who participated in search proceedings at C-44, Nizamuddin East on 24.08.1995 and proved search cum seizure memo already Ex.PW4/A & Ex.PW4/B as well as referred to files recovered which are D-28, D-29, D-31, D-32 to D-38, D-40 to D-49, D-51 to D-59, D-61, D-62, D-80, D-98 to D-101, Digitally signed by SHELENDER CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
Page No. 162025.05.31 16:22:35 +0530 D-119 and D-60 which are Ex.PW20/A to Ex.PW20/Z-4 respectively.
PW21 Smt.Krishna This witness turned hostile and did not support the
Rawal prosecution case.
PW22 Shraddhanand He is the independent witness from FCI and was part of the
team of CBI conducted search at Flat No.1, Palika Sadan, NDMC and referred to search cum seizure memo already Ex.PW7/A, observation memo Ex.PW7/B, memo relating to jewelry found (D-4) Ex.PW7/C and further referred to D-5 and D-6 Ex.PW22/A and Ex.PW22/B, D-30, D-72, D-83 to D-84 and D-85 to D-95 Ex.PW22/C to Ex.PW22/H respectively.
PW23 Sunil Gupta Relevant documents could not be proved from the evidence of this witness.
PW24 Ramesh Relevant documents could not be proved from the evidence
Chander of this witness.
PW25 S.R. Malik This witness is from State Bank of India and at relevant time
was at Nizamuddin Branch and proved account opening form of account no.C&I-14, in the name of Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust Ex.PW25/A, account opening form of account no.11052 in the name of Morni Merchants Ex.PW25/B, statement of account is Ex.PW25/C, letter dated 28.11.1997 along with the annexures is Ex.PW25/D. PW26 Aditya Kumar This witness has been working as Appraiser/Valuer to assess Goel metal etc. and stated to have assessed jewelry, taken out on 30.12.1997 from the locker in the presence of CBI officials and prepared valuation memo dated 30.12.1997 (D-159) Ex.PW26/A. PW27 Ali Mustafa This witness has also been working as Appraiser and had accompanied PW26 on 30.12.1997 when jewelry was taken out from the locker of PNB in the presence of CBI officials and evaluated the jewelry etc. and prepared the report Ex.PW26/A. PW28 Uday Kumar This witness is independent witness from FCI, who remained part of CBI team on 24.08.1995 when that team conducted search at Nizamuddin, the premises of Mr.Mehta and seizure memo is Ex.PW4/A. This witness also remained present when search was conducted at Flat No.5A & 5B, Bhagwan Dass Road on the same day and search Digitally signed by CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Page No. 17 Date:
2025.05.31 16:22:42 +0530 memo (D-16) Ex.PW28/A, Ex.PW28/B were prepared. PW29 Dinesh Pandey He is also independent witness from FCI, who also accompanied CBI officials to NDMC office on 24.08.1995 when search was conducted and seizure memo Ex.PW29/A (D-9) was prepared.
PW30 Rajesh Katyal This witness is from M/s Ansal Properties and referred to document Ex.PW4/J (D-49) including allotment letter dated 28.04.1975 of office space no.301, Hans Bhawan in the name of Kailash Beri and Mrs.Morni Devi Sabharwal (again exhibited as Ex.PW30/1), transfer letter of the above said office space when it was transferred in the name of M/s Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust is Ex.PW30/2. This witness further stated regarding allotment letter of space no.1316, Nehru Place alloted to M/s Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust and is Ex.PW30/3, final call letter dated 21.05.1993 Ex.PW30/4, allotment letter in respect of property Aravali Retreat Village, District Gurgaon alloted to Puneet s/o Ramesh Chander (02 acre property) which is Ex.PW30/5, flat buyer agreement dated 24.02.1973 Ex.PW30/6 in respect of property no.907, Ansal Bhawan alloted to Brij Lal Juneja, which subsequently stood transferred to M/s Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust on 12.06.1986, flat buyer agreements dated 06.08.1992 for property GF-1 & GF-2 Ambadeep, Kasturba Gandhi Marg respectively purchased in the name of Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust Ex.PW30/7 and Ex.PW30/8, allotment letter dated 30.06.1987 for Flat no.GF-7A, 15 Tolstoy Marg alloted to Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust is Ex.PW30/9, seizure memo dated 20.09.1995 is Ex.PW30/10.
PW31 Vijay Goyal This witness is from State Bank of India and at relevant time was working as Manager in Nizamuddin West branch and provided to CBI certified copy of account opening form of C&I-14 in the name of Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust already Ex.PW25/A, certified copy of account statement of that account is Ex.PW25/C, certified copy of account opening form of current account no.C&I-11052 is Ex.PW25/B, statement of account is Ex.PW25/C, certified copy of account opening form and statement of account in the name of P.S. Enterprises as well as PUS Properties are Ex.PW31/1 Ex.PW31/2 respectively. Witness further gave details of different documents as well as cheques regarding transactions of Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust.
Digitally signed by SHELENDERCBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: Page No. 18 2025.05.31 16:22:48 +0530 PW32 S.K. Bhasin This witness is from NDMC who provided the extract of salary disbursement register in respect of salary of accused R.C. Sabharwal from 1968-69 to 1985-86, which is Ex.PW32/A (D-18) as well as salary details of Dr.Usha Sabharwal from year 1979-80 to 1984-85 (D-19) Ex.PW32/C. PW33 Ved Prakash This witness has proved 12 different registered sale deeds executed in favour of accused Puneet Sabharwal in respect of E-14, South Extension Part-II. Five sale deeds dated 02.03.1995 in respect of part of property no.E-14, South Extn. Part II executed in favour of Sahib Properties are Ex.PW33/A to Ex.PW33/E (D-42), another sale deed dated 02.03.1995 in respect of part of same property in favour of Puneet Sabharwal is Ex.PW33/F, six sale deeds dated 02.03.1995 in respect of part of the above mentioned property in favour of M/s PUS Properties are Ex.PW33/G to Ex.PW33/L. Witness further testified regarding purchasing of property no.E-14, South Extn., Part-II from HUF through karta Kamal Kumar Gulati by sale deeds dated 06.04.1990 collectively Ex.PW33/M. Witness also proved the MOU (D-41) between PUS Properties and Sahib Properties as Ex.PW33/N. This witness also proved the sale deed dated 09.12.1986 executed by his brother Trilok Chand in respect of land in khasra no.142 (1-9), khasra no.143 (2-6), Village Gadaipur in favour of Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust vide sale deed Ex.PW33/P, in respect of khasra no.140 (1-17 min), khasra no.141 (1-18) sale deed is Ex.PW33/Q, in respect of khasra no.216 (3-17), sale deed is Ex.PW33/R, in respect of khasra no.141 (0-8 min), khasra no.142 (0-3.7) sale deed is Ex.PW33/S, in respect of khasra no.140 (3-15 min), sale deed is Ex.PW33/T, in respect of khasra no.143 (2-10 min), khasra no.214 (1-5) sale deed is Ex.PW33/U, in respect of khasra no.214 (3-11 min), khasra no.216 (0-7) sale deed is Ex.PW33/V. PW34 T. Upadhyay This witness had been AGM of RBI and testified regarding scheme floated by Ministry of Finance i.e. Special Bearer Bonds Scheme 1991, for ensuring that black money may be used in mainstream.
PW35 Vikramjit Singh This witness is MD of Phelps & Company Pvt. Ltd., who proved lease deed dated 07.06.1988 between his company Digitally signed by CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Page No. 19 Date:
2025.05.31 16:22:55 +0530 and M/s SPK Enterprises for taking some portion of premises on lease. Lease deed is Ex.PW35/A. Document giving details of different receipts of rent is Mark PW35/PX.
PW36 Sushil Salhotra This witness is from M/s Jain Sons, and testified regarding taking of loan of Rs.20-25 lakhs by firm Jain Sons in 1994 from Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust as well as taking of another loan in 1995 of Rs.29 lakhs.
PW37 Trilok This witness has testified regarding sale of land in village Chaudhary Gadaipur, Mehrauli which is already Ex.PW33/P to Ex.PW33/V. This witness further testified regarding sale deed dated 27.09.1985 between D.R. Gupta and Master Puneet Sabharwal and Sumeet Sabharwal in respect of land in village Sultanpur, sale deed is Ex.PW37/B. Another sale deed between Premwati and Master Puneet Sabharwal and Sumeet Sabharwal is Ex.PW37/C & Ex.PW37/D, another sale deed dated 27.09.1985 and A.P. Sehgal and Master Puneet Sabharwal and Sumeet Sabharwal are Ex.PW37/E & Ex.PW37/F, another sale deed dated 26.12.1986 and Sube Ram and Master Puneet Sabharwal and Sumeet Sabharwal is Ex.PW37/G. PW38 Anil Mehta This witness is Chartered Accountant and testified that he joined the investigation of the CBI. Also testified regarding search conducted at his office by the CBI team and seized different files pertaining to Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust, Swati Leasing & Finance Company, PUS Properties Pvt. Ltd., Morni Enterprises. Witness in his detailed evidence inter alia also stated regarding contents of different files recovered from his office and also testified regarding giving statement u/s 164 Cr.PC before ld. MM which is Ex.PW38/H. PW39 Sanjay Kumar This witness is Administrative Officer of LIC and produced official record of policy no.074823797 and 074823783 (D-
116) which are Ex.PW39/A & Ex.PW39/B. PW40 Nikhil Kumar This witness is from Valuation office of Income Tax Singh Department and proved the official record of valuation of property no.E-14, NDSE, Part-II, New Delhi (assessee Sahib Properties and PUS Properties), G-72, Connaught Place (assessee Morni Merachants), D-1108 and A-259, New Friends Colony (assessee Puneet Sabharwal). Those Digitally signed by SHELENDER CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: Page No. 20 2025.05.31 16:23:00 +0530 valuation reports are collectively Ex.PW40/A. PW41 S.K. Peshin This witness is the Investigating Officer who conducted the investigation since the registration of the FIR till he was transferred from the branch. This witness testified regarding the steps taken during his investigation including conducting of search on 24.08.1995 and 25.08.1995 on different places as well as seizing different articles, files, documents during the entire investigation and recording the statement of different witnesses.
PW42 Atif Shaikh This witness is from Citi Bank and proved documents pertaining to account no.0073451019 in the name of M/s Morni Merchants Limited which was closed in February 2023 and is Ex.PW42/A. PW43 G.L. Chataria This witness was from HMT Machine Tools Limited and testified that when official of CBI visited his office he provided the relevant information and documents pertaining to Mr.I.M. Suri who joined HMT on the post of Fitter in December 1968. This witness proved D-79 i.e. personal record office file of I.M. Suri which is Ex.PW43/A and testified that I.M. Suri did not declare/ inform regarding purchase of any immovable property in the name of his wife in Delhi.
PW44 Kamal Khurana This witness is from office of Registrar of Companies and produced official record of companies registered i.e. M/s Morni Merchants Limited, PUS Properties Pvt. Ltd. & Sahib Properties Pvt. Ltd. certificate of incorporation and annual returns of these companies are collectively Ex.PW44/A. PW45 Chetan Kumar This witness is the IO of the case who filed the charge sheet Ex.PW45/A. PW46 S.Mahesh Pai This witness is from Axis Bank and brought statement of account of account no.5026385018 in the name of Puneet Sabharwal, opened in year 1988, however the statement of account from April 2000 till date is proved as Ex.PW46/A. PW47 Anil Sharma This witness is from PNB and proved a statement of account in the name of Sumeet Sabharwal which is Ex.PW47/B. PW48 Smt.Ranjana This witness is wife of Anil Mehta, Chartered Accountant Mehta and testified that she do not remember anything regarding company/firm by name Sahib Properties, Swati Finance Private Limited, PUS Properties. Witness however Digitally signed by SHELENDER CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
Page No. 212025.05.31 16:23:06 +0530 identified her signatures on relevant files when put to her. Since witness did not support the prosecution case, was cross-examined by ld. PP for the CBI.
Statement of Accused (A-1 R.C. Sabharwal)
16. Upon completion of prosecution evidence, all the incriminating evidence as come on judicial record, was put to the accused R.C. Sabharwal, when his statement in terms of 313 Cr.P.C was recorded.
In that statement accused denied the evidence. In respect of evidence regarding plot No. H-7, Masjid Moth, Residential scheme of DDA, accused stated that said plot was purchased jointly by him and his wife Smt. Usha Sabharwal, regarding which intimation was given to his department which is on personal file Ex.PW41/RCS-4. Accused while responding to the evidence of PW16 stated that his wife had taken loan of Rs.50,000/- as well as house building advance of Rs.69,300/-, house rent advance of Rs.50,000/- from NDMC where she was employed, for raising the construction over said plot.
17. In respect of evidence of PW6 regarding rental income, accused responded by stating that his father received rental income till he was alive, till 07.09.1972. After his demise, his mother Morni Devi received rental amount. Later his mother by letter dt. 18.03.1985 requested the company to pay future rent to him (R.C. Sabharwal) and since 01.04.1985 till end of check period, he received rental income of Rs.62,890/-. In respect of evidence of PW36, accused stated that partner of M/s Jain Sons, namely, B.P. Jain was known to him and rest of the Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 Page No. 22 16:23:12 +0530 contents are matter of record. It is stated that the second loan of Rs.29 lakhs as deposed by PW36, was taken after the end of check period.
18. In respect of evidence of PW37, regarding executing of sale deeds Ex.PW37/A to Ex.PW37/G, in favour of master Puneet and Suneet Sabharwal, accused R.C. Sabharwal stated that it is matter of record and he had informed about those transactions to his department vide Ex.PW41/RCS-4 .
19. Accused, while denying the evidence, has taken the plea that he has been falsely implicated in this by PW41 (IO), who fabricated the statement of witnesses, documents such as memo. PW45 did not conduct the investigation and filed the charge-sheet without applying the mind. It is stated that he is innocent. It is stated that CBI had not followed the guidelines Ex.PW45/D1 while conducting investigation of DA case.
Accused R.C. Sabharwal states that his father had been man of resources and earned substantial income in his life-time from various sources such as petrol pump, rental income, investment in chit fund, bank accounts in PNB and SBI. Accused says that his mother had various jewelry articles, which she had declared for taxation purpose. However, CBI did not make any effort to investigate about the income, assets of his parents as well as of his father in law namely Sh. Brij Lal Juneja.
20. Accused R.C. Sabharwal further states that Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust was incorporated by Smt. Morni Devi and Brij Lal Juneja, whose income and assets have not been taken into consideration by CBI. The affairs of said trust was being looked after by Trustees Smt. Sushma Suri and Smt. Shakuntla Sahni, who were not even examined by CBI.
Digitally signed byCBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Page No. 23 Date:
2025.05.31 16:23:19 +0530 Transaction of said trust could have been explained only by Sushma Suri and Shakuntla Sahni. It is stated that there is no evidence to suggest that he had any involvement in functioning, affairs of the trust, accused R.C. Sabharwal states that he had no association or concern with assets and income of that trust. That trust had independent legal source of income such as rental income, agricultural income and gifts. It is stated that CBI had not taken into consideration assets of Smt. Sushma Suri and Smt. Shakuntala Sahni. IO Chetan Kumar has stated in his evidence in this regard. It is stated that evidence of the record show that various income of different persons and entities, was very much in the knowledge of the IOs, still they deliberately suppressed their income.
21. Accused R.C. Sabharwal states that he has declared his income, assets in his name as well as in the name of his dependent sons to his department vide personal file Ex.PW41/RCS-4. Similarly, his wife Dr. Usha Sabharwal had also intimated about her income, assets to her department and such details are mentioned in her personal file. It is stated that CBI had not seized and perused personal files during the investigation and returned it back to the department to suppress the details of various income earned by him and his family members.
22. It is stated by the accused that record would show that investigation was conducted by officers of CBI without valid authorization and thus investigation is illegal. Moreover, IO S.K. Peshin fabricated statement of witnesses, documents only to implicate him in false case of disproportionate assets. Accused states that there is no evidence to suggest that he had purchased any property in the name of his sons Puneet Digitally signed by SHELENDER CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
Page No. 242025.05.31 16:23:27 +0530 Sabharwal and Suneet Sabharwal, upon their attaining of majority or in the name of any other entity. Table of assets, Expenses and income as mentioned in the charge-sheet are incorrect.
23. Accused opted not to lead any evidence in defence. However, placed on record his written statement in terms of Section 313 (5) of Cr.P.C.
Statement of Accused (A-2 Puneert Sabharwal)
24. In his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC accused Puneet Sabharwal denied the evidence. In respect of evidence regarding firm namely Morni Merchants, accused stated that though he was additional director in said firm however he was never its shareholder nor he received any remuneration from the said concern. Regarding plot No.H-7, Masjid Moth, accused stated that he was born on 03.09.1970 and he came to know about said plot from his parents when he attained majority. Regarding ownership of petrol pump, accused stated that his grandfather owned a plot of land on which a petrol pump was installed and such transactions happened before the birth of accused and after attaining majority, he was not at all associated with affairs of said land or the petrol pump. Regarding agriculture land measuring 2 bigh 4 biswa comprising khasra no.596, accused stated that transaction in respect of said land was entered into by is parents when he was minor. Accused stated that Smt.Sahni Devi and Sh.Brij Lal Juneja happened to be his maternal grandparents.
25. So far as deposition of PW33, accused stated that property referred to in his deposition was purchased through duly registered sale deeds by M/s Sahib Properties and M/s PUS Properties and payments were Digitally signed CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) SHELENDER by SHELENDER MALIK Page No. 25 MALIK Date: 2025.05.31 16:23:33 +0530 made through proper instruments. Accused further stated that he was not associated with M/s SPK Enterprises in 1988, however he later joined the said concern as a partner. Accused stated that he was one of the directors of M/s PUS Properties. He further stated that he must have signed the agreement Ex.PW20/F while he was Additional Director in Morni Merchants Ltd. on the instructions of its directors. So far as formation of Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust, accused stated that he came to know about the formation of said Trust after he grew up. So far as documents produced by PW39 regarding LIC policy, accused stated that record produced by PW39 and shown to him, is inadmissible in evidence.
26. Accused Puneet Sabharwal stated that FIR has been registered manipulatively. His father was working in NDMC and his father had an unblemished service record and due to said reason witnesses relevant to his service career have not been examined and cited as witnesses by CBI. Regarding purchase of property at E-14, NDSE (South Ex. New Delhi), accused stated that PUS Properties Pvt. Ltd. had purchased the said property in accordance with law and his father had no association or role in the purchase of said property. Accused stated that his uncle (Shakuntala Sahni's husband) worked in EME Corps, a department of Indian Army from 1942 to 1966 and that his another uncle (Sushma Suri's husband) had reached the post of Deputy Engineer in HMT.
27. Accused Puneet Sabharwal states that present case is a false case. He stated that another son of his father and his relatives like his wife and sisters have not been arraigned as accused or even cited as witnesses which substantiates unfairness and maliciousness of investigation.
Digitally signedCBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) SHELENDER by SHELENDER MALIK Page No. 26 MALIK Date: 2025.05.31 16:23:44 +0530 Accused stated that he is innocent. He was born on 03.09.1970. After completion of his studies, he was engaged in business activities and each of those concerns were duly registered with various authorities. His parents used to file tax returns. Accused states that at the behest of CBI reassessment of income tax for all relevant years of his father, him and his brother were undertaken, however claim of CBI was negated by authorities concerned. It is further stated that it was incumbent upon investigating officials to forward not only the personal file of his father but also of his mother as well because her assets have also been included in the charge sheet. Accused Puneet Sabharwal also opted not to lead any evidence in his defence.
Submissions
28. I have heard Sh.Amjad Ali, ld. PP for the CBI. I have also gone through the written submissions filed by ld. PP for the CBI. I have heard Sh.Bhavook Chauhan, ld. Counsel for A-1 R.C. Sabharwal as well as Sh.Riyaz A. Bhat, ld. Counsel for A-2 Puneet Sabharwal. I have also gone through written submissions filed on behalf of both the accused.
29. Section 13 deals with various situations when a public servant can be said to have committed "criminal misconduct". Clause (e) of sub- section (1) of the Section 13 is pressed into service against the accused when the public servant or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession, for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income. Section 13(1)(e) of the Act 1988 including explanation thereto reads as under :-
Digitally signedCBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) SHELENDER by MALIK SHELENDER MALIK Page No. 27 Date: 2025.05.31 16:23:53 +0530 "Criminal misconduct by a public servant.
(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,-
--
(e) if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, "known sources of income" means income received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant."
30. Thus on reading of Section 13(1)(e) of P.C. Act, 1988, makes it clear that this offence is not based on any particular incidence or transaction, rather makes it an offence when a public servant amasses assets which are beyond his lawful and known resources and failed to give satisfactory account of possession of such assets, implying thereby that he collected those assets on the basis of illegal money/gratification. The ingredients of the Section therefore are :
(i) that the accused is a public servant;
(ii) accused found in possession of assets, pecuniary resources, either in his own name or in the name of his family members;
(iii) such assets/pecuniary resources were disproportionate to his known sources of income;Digitally signed by SHELENDER
SHELENDER MALIK CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 Page No. 28 16:24:00 +0530
(iv) accused failed to give satisfactory account regarding his assets, pecuniary resources, which are disproportionate to his known source of income.
31. The explanation to Section 13(1)(e) defines the expression "known sources of income" and states that this expression means the income received from any lawful source and also requires that the receipt should have been intimated by the public servant in accordance with any provisions of law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant. The explanation to Section 13(1)(e) of the Act 1988 consists of two parts. The first part states that the known sources of income means the income received from any lawful source and the second part states that such receipt should have been intimated by the public servant in accordance with the provisions of law, rules and orders for the time being applicable to a public servant.
32. Referring to the first part of the expression "known sources of income" in N. Ramakrishnaiah v. State of A.P., 2009 CRI. L. J. 1767 (SC), Apex Court has observed as under:
"The emphasis of the phrase "known sources of income" in Section 13(1)(e) (old Section 5(1)(e)) is clearly on the word "income". It would be primary to observe that qua the public servant, the income would be what is attached to his office or post, commonly known as remuneration or salary. The term "income" by itself, is classic and has a wide connotation. Whatever comes in or is received is income. But, however, wide the import and connotation of the term "income", it is incapable of being understood as meaning receipt CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) Page No. 29 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 16:24:06 +0530 having no nexus to one's labour, or expertise, or property, or investment, and being further a source which may or may not yield a regular revenue. These essential characteristics are vital in understanding the term "Income". Therefore, it can be said that, though "income" in receipt in the hand of its recipient, every receipt would not partake into the character of income. For the public servant, whatever return he gets of his service, will be the primary item of his income. Other income which can conceivably be income qua the public servant will be in the regular receipt from (a) his property, or (b) his investment. A receipt from windfall, or gains of graft crime or immoral secretions by persons prima facie would not be receipt for the "known source of income" of a public servant."
33. Then we can come to the second part of the explanation, defining the expression "such receipt should have been intimated by the public Servant" i.e. intimation by the public servant in accordance with any provisions of law, rules or orders applicable to a public servant. Certain important legal proposition which can be laid down with regard to offence u/s 13(1)(e) of Act of 1988 are :
(A) Initial onus for proving the ingredients of offence u/s 13(1)(e) of P.C. Act would be on prosecution;
(B) Only upon proof beyond doubt regarding ingredients of offence or in other words proof of foundational facts, establishing assets/ pecuniary resources belong to accused, do not correspond or match with the known legal resources/income of accused. Onus would shift to accused (public servant), to give account of possession of such assets/ pecuniary resources;Digitally signed
CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) by
SHELENDER
Page No. 30
SHELENDER MALIK
MALIK Date:
2025.05.31
16:24:12 +0530
(C) Mere acquisition of property, does not constitute the offence
rather failure of the accused to give 'satisfactory account' of possession of such assets, would render him guilty of offence; (D) While assessing the income of the accused, it includes his drawn salary in his official capacity or other lawful earning is to be included. Income which is not explained or declared to the department/Tax authorities or any income earned by way of illegal activities, obviously would not include; (E) Similarly while assessing assets, it must be proved by positive, specific and admissible evidence that assets 'belong' to accused or his family members. Expression 'belong' or ownership of the assets to be of accused is an essential ingredient, to be proved beyond doubt and cannot be left only on assumption or presumption;
(F) In cases of DA generally issue of "benami property" crops in as prosecution more often than not, allege certain properties to be actually owned by accused, though are in the name of someone else (may be relative or others) (benamidar). On aspect of 'benami property' law 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. In criminal case it is on the prosecution, which alleges it to be a "benami property". Such burden has to be discharged by adducing legal evidence of a definite character which would either Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 Page No. 31 16:24:17 +0530 directly prove the fact of "benami" or establish circumstances unerringly and reasonably raising an inference of that fact; (G) No doubt there can hardly be a situation of proving it by direct evidence that a property is 'benami' and real owner is the accused.
When prosecution alleges that such property was purchased from illegal money of the accused, practically no direct evidence can be adduced to prove transfer of money from a public servant in purchase of 'benami property'. However it can also not be left on assumptions or presumption. Such that aspect can be proved by certain circumstances such as (i) benamidar having no resources to purchase that property; (ii) relation of ostensible owner/benamidar with public servant; (iii) circumstances when and how the property has been purchased; (iv) the person in whose real control, administration or possession of that property is etc.
35. Being guided by above discussed legal proposition, let us now examine the facts, evidence of each of the item/transaction under different heads, in the light of submissions made at bar.
Statement-A
36. Statement-A refers to the assets (movable or immovable), which a public servant possess prior to the check period. In the present case in charge sheet there is no reference of Statement-A at all. It cannot be assumed that A-1 R.C. Sabharwal was not having any property, bank balance etc. prior to the check period which is 20.08.1968 (when A-1 R.C. Sabharwal became Architecture Assistant) to 23.08.1995 (the day FIR in Digitally signed CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK Page No. 32 MALIK Date: 2025.05.31 16:24:25 +0530 this case was registered). IO ought to have carried out investigation regarding Statement-A or should have given some explanation in this regard in the charge sheet, more particularly when the wife of A-1 Smt.Usha Sabharwal was also a public servant and earning gainfully.
37. Be that as it may, fact remains there are no details available regarding Statement-A. Statement-B (Income during the check period)
38. Let us examine each of the item of income of the accused R.C. Sabharwal.
(i) Salary income
39. As per prosecution A-1 R.C. Sabharwal earned total salary income of Rs.10,00,042.27 during the entire check period. In this regard evidence of PW14 Sohan Lal and PW32 S.K. Bhasin has been led. PW14 testified the details of pay allowance of R.C. Sabharwal from period of 1985-86 to 1994-95 are Ex.PW14/B (page 2 to 5 of D-18). PW32 S.K. Bhasin has also referred to D-18 (page no.70 to 71) salary details of A-1 R.C. Sabharwal which is Ex.PW32/B.
40. It is argued by Sh.Bhavook Chauhan, ld. counsel for A-1 that though PW14 has referred to D-18 Ex.PW14/B for a particular period, however on calculation of documents from page 2 to 8 of D-18, it would be evident that the total salary income of accused R.C. Sabharwal comes out to be Rs.13,23,986.17. It is submitted that in fact the amount of Rs.71,433/- on account of interest on NSC has also been added in his calculation.
Digitally signed by SHELENDERSHELENDER MALIK CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 Page No. 33 16:24:34 +0530
41. Having considered the submissions and evidence of PW14, although PW14 has testified only regarding period of 1985 to 1995, however PW32 S.K. Bhasin gave details of entire salary income of check period. D-18 gives detail of salary income of A-1 for entire check period. Upon going through document D-18 which is details of salary of accused R.C. Sabharwal, one can make out that from year 1968-69 to 1995-96, his total net salary comes out to be Rs.12,52,553.17. Ld. Counsel for A-1 has further added another sum of Rs.71,433/- towards the NSC interest. This amount however cannot be added into the income as it was already added in the gross income of the accused, from which PPF, tax etc. was deducted and net income was calculated. Thus this court finds that Rs.12,52,553.17 is the amount of salary income of A-1 R.C. Sabharwal.
42. It is admitted case that A-1 R.C. Sabharwal married to Smt.Usha who joined as Assistant Surgeon in NDMC. Therefore the salary income of wife of A-1 would also be calculated. In this regard PW14 has testified regarding details of salary of Dr.Usha Sabharwal, CMO NDMC which is Ex.PW14/A (D-19). As per prosecution case the salary of Smt.Usha Sabharwal is Rs.8,87,916.32.
43. However it is submitted by ld. Counsel for A-1 that even by perusal of D-19 Ex.PW14/A, the net salary income of wife of A-1 comes out to be Rs.9,65,600.53.
44. Perusal of D-19 in the light of evidence of PW14 and PW32, would show that in D-19 there is details of salary only for period of 1984- 85 to 1994-95 the total of which comes out to be Rs.5,99,567.16. If we add the salary income of wife of A-1 for period from June 1969 to 1983-84 Digitally signed CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK Page No. 34 MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 16:24:39 +0530 as mentioned in the charge sheet, the total income of wife of A-1 comes out to be Rs.9,65,600.53, which is added in the income of the accused.
(ii) Income from business entities
45. In the charge sheet CBI has alleged that beside salary income of A-1 and of his wife, accused R.C. Sabharwal and his son Puneet Sabharwal were also earning from different entities such as Morni Merchants (Rs.24,89,087/-), M/s Morni Enterprises (Rs.3,08,856/-), Sahib Properties (Rs.89,653/-), Paroo Properties (Rs.3,08,197/-), SPK Enterprises (Rs.13,61,062/-), Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust (Rs.42,43,505/-) and PUS Properties (Rs.87,593/-).
46. However at the time of final arguments ld. PP for the CBI made altogether different submission and submitted that income benefits alleged to have accrued to different firms or companies or trust as given by IO is in fact an opinion of the IO, seems to be on the basis of income tax returns. Ld. PP submits that such benefit of income should not be given in favour of accused in respect of income declared by above mentioned different firms, company or trust.
47. Ld. Counsel for A-1 in rebuttal submitted that prosecution has now set up altogether a new case at the fag end of the trial, which is different than the contents mentioned in the charge against the accused.
However at the same time counsel for the accused no.1 while giving its calculation of income has also not included the income arising to above mentioned firms, company and trust.
48. Having considered the submissions and taking note of the above mentioned situation, the very edifice of the prosecution case as one Digitally signed by SHELENDER CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
Page No. 352025.05.31 16:24:45 +0530 can make out from the charge sheet or even from the submission made by ld. PP for CBI is that the entities such as Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust, Morni Enterprises, Paroo Properties etc. were nothing except business entities created to use ill gotten money earned by A-1. It is probably on that premise IO while calculating the income of the accused in the charge sheet, showed the income accrued to those firms, companies or trust on the basis of ITRs referred to in the evidence of PW38 Anil Mehta. However both prosecution as well as counsel for A-1 in his written submissions have stated that income from these entities may not be added into the income of the accused.
49. This court can easily come to the conclusion that since Prosecution as well as defence is not admitting income of above mentioned business entities, trust etc. to be added in the income of the accused, therefore such income may not be added in the Statement-B. However this aspect is not to be decided only on the basis of submissions made at bar. Rather the larger issue involved in the matter as alleged by the prosecution is required to be decided at this stage itself i.e. whether prosecution has been able to prove on judicial record that above mentioned entities, in any manner belong to A-1 public servant R.C. Sabharwal or not.
50. This aspect needs to be decided at the outset because as per the prosecution case not only income but there are certain assets in the name of these entities, which have been alleged or attributed to accused persons. Though this court would examine the issue of ownership of assets, while deciding Statement-C (Assets accumulated to accused during check period). As such question of the real ownership/control of above CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) Page No. 36 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 16:24:51 +0530 mentioned entities rather goes to the root of the matter and to be decided first.
Morni Enterprises
51. As per prosecution case Morni Enterprises a partnership firm was created, at the instance of A-1 R.C. Sabharwal, on the advice of Chartered Accountant Anil Mehta. Although these facts have not been enumerated in the charge sheet, however it came in the statement u/s 161 Cr.PC of witness Anil Mehta (PW38) who in his statement has stated that he told R.C. Sabharwal to start with opening of Morni Enterprises, in which sisters of R.C. Sabharwal namely Sushma Suri and Shakuntala Sahni were shown partner.
52. However to substantiate this fact, when Chartered Accountant Anil Mehta (PW38) was examined he did not support the prosecution case. In his examination in chief he simply referred to file D-32 relating to Morni Enterprises (Ex.PW20/C), and witness identifies the file to be containing documents of tax papers, income tax returns and challans etc. of Morni Enterprises. Since witness did not state anything as per his statement given u/s 161 Cr.PC, he was cross-examined by ld. PP for the CBI. In cross-examination by ld. PP for the CBI recorded on 08.01.2025, PW38 though stated that Morni Enterprises was formed with professional assistance from his office. On a specific question put to him that investments made by Smt.Sushma Suri and Shakuntala Sahni as partner in the said firm, the money was actually of R.C. Sabharwal, said suggestion was denied by PW38 rather PW38 stated voluntarily that amount shown invested came through banking channel from the saving account of Digitally signed CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) by SHELENDER Page No. 37 SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 16:24:57 +0530 partners namely Shakuntala Sahni and Sushma Suri. As such PW38 who is the only witness, to prove the prosecution case, has not supported this aspect.
53. Ld. PP for the CBI has heavily relied upon the statement u/s 164 Cr.PC of witness Anil Mehta recorded during the investigation, which is Ex.PW38/H. First of all it be noted that statement of any witness recorded u/s 164 Cr.PC, is in itself not a substantive evidence. Moreover perusal of statement of witness Anil Mehta u/s 164 Cr.PC Ex.PW38/H, would show at page no.10 witness stated that another firm Morni Enterprises was made in 1983 and its partner Smt.Sushma Suri and Shakuntala Sahni and those partners contributed their respective assets in that firm, share of capital in Paroo Properties. Thus from the evidence of PW38 or even from his statement u/s 164 Cr.PC nothing has come on the record to show that above mentioned firm M/s Morni Enterprises was created at the instance of accused R.C. Sabharwal. No evidence has come at all on the record, to show that any money was contributed or any illegal money was given by R.C. Sabharwal in formation of above mentioned firm.
Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust
54. Again in respect of above mentioned trust, the prosecution case is that such trust was floated at the instance of R.C. Sabharwal, on the advice of Chartered Accountant Anil Mehta. As per the prosecution case and statement of Anil Mehta, name of the trust was on the basis of mother and father in law of accused R.C. Sabharwal namely Morni Devi and Brij Lal Juneja respectively. Sisters of accused R.C. Sabharwal namely CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) SHELENDER by Digitally signed SHELENDER Page No. 38 MALIK MALIK Date: 2025.05.31 16:25:03 +0530 Mrs.Sushma Suri and Shakuntala Sahni were made trustees. Such trust was created for the benefit of children of R.C. Sabharwal namely Puneel Sabharwal and Sumeet Sabharwal. As per the trust deed Rs.20,000/- were invested in cash (Rs.10,000/- each by Smt.Morni Devi and Sh.Brij Lal Junena). Trust was created to earn by way of interest as well as profits from investment. The purpose of the trust was social work. The trust was registered on 25.05.1982. Brij Lal Juneja gifted property no.907, Kasturba Gandhi Marg (Ansal Bhawan) to the trust. Similarly Morni Devi gifted flat no.301, Hans Bhawan, New Delhi. Out of which property no.907, Kasturba Gandhi Marg was rented to M/s Ansal Properties and Industries Private Limited and property no.301, Hans Bhawan was rented to Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi and trust was being run on the basis of rental earning.
55. In respect of the above mentioned trust also, PW38 Anil Mehta when appeared in the witness box, did not state that said trust had any connection with the funds or money of accused R.C. Sabharwal except the fact that it was created in the name of mother and father in law respectively of accused R.C. Sabharwal and that the trustees in that trust were sisters of A-1. If we examine the evidence of PW38 in this regard, PW38 testified that 'Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust' has been his client since 1983-84 since the inception of that Trust and he gave professional advise regarding incorporation of said Trust as well as also took care of taxation aspects of said Trust. PW38 identified the file D-44 (Ex.PW4/C) relating to income tax returns of the said Trust and identified that income tax returns of that trust were being signed by Shakuntala Devi being trustee.
Digitally signed CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) Page No. 39 by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2025.05.31 16:25:09 +0530
Witness also identifies other documents of the same file which he identifies to be relating to taxation matters such as challan, payment of income tax etc. and are separately exhibited as Ex.PW38/B. PW38 also identifies another file D-58 (Ex.PW20/P) containing documents of property no.38, Nehru Place in the name of said trust.
56. In the entire examination in chief PW38 nowhere stated that said trust was created by R.C. Sabharwal or with the help of alleged illegal money of R.C. Sabharwal. In the examination in chief of PW38 different files pertaining to Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust, have been referred to including D-44 (Ex.PW38/B), containing documents of taxation in respect of above said trust, prepared by the firm of PW38, D-45 (Ex.PW4/D) which is also related to income tax matters of that trust for assessment year 1992-93, D-46 (Ex.PW4/E) file containing income tax documents of that trust for assessment year 1990-91, D-49 (Ex.PW4/J) documents relating to that trust containing valuation report of flat no.301, Hans Bhawan, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi, D-50 (Ex.PW20/O) documents of that trust containing receipts of payment in respect of flat of Tolstoy Marg, D-51 (Ex.PW20/P) which also relates to same trust containing different documents including MOU, allotment letters in respect of property GF-14, Kasturba Gandhi Marg as well as files D-52 to D-59. Perusal of these files, would show that creation of trust, transfer of money, transfer and purchase of properties by that trust, is on the basis of money transferred by banking channels. Documents containing these files do not show in any manner that there was any cash or money transferred from accused R.C. Sabharwal.
Digitally
CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) Page No. 40
signed by
SHELENDER
SHELENDER MALIK
MALIK Date:
2025.05.31
16:25:15
+0530
57. PW38 has also stated in his examination in chief dated 21.12.2024 that Brij Lal Juneja had contacted him for formation of Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust. Since this witness has not supported prosecution allegations. He was declared 'hostile witness'. PW38 when cross- examined by ld. PP for the CBI, though admitted that Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust was formed for the benefit of accused Puneet Sabharwal and his brother Sumeet Sabharwal. PW38 however denied portion of his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC recorded by IO to the effect that such trust was created on his advice at the instance of R.C. Sabharwal. PW38 in cross-examination further denied that R.C. Sabharwal met him or told him that he has lot of earning and want to evolve any system to cover that money. PW38 further denied specifically that R.C. Sabharwal was actively looking after entire paper work regarding the trust. Upon putting up the documents Ex.PW38/B, Ex.PW38/C, Ex.PW4/C, witness denied that after getting these documents signed from Shakuntala Sahni, R.C. Sabharwal handed over those documents to him. PW38 in his cross-examination by defence recorded on 09.01.2025 has specifically testified that R.C. Sabharwal had nothing to do with the corpus/investment of the trust or its earning, assets or day to day activities. Nothing came in the entire evidence of PW38 to prove any connection of R.C. Sabharwal with the said trust.
58. It is argued by ld. PP for the CBI that Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust has earned/acquired movable/immovable properties but trustees and beneficiaries of the trust have not adduced any evidence or source from which finance was obtained. It is submitted that witness Anil Mehta in his statement u/s 164 Cr.PC has stated that such trust was incorporated on the Digitally signed CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK Page No. 41 MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 16:25:21 +0530 instructions of R.C. Sabharwal and for the benefit of children of R.C. Sabharwal.
59. Ld. Counsels for both the accused on the other hand argued that when it is the case of the prosecution that Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust was created by accused R.C. Sabharwal from ill gotten money, initial onus for proving those facts was on prosecution. It is submitted that prosecution has not led any evidence to prove that fact. It is argued that PW38 has not supported the prosecution case on this aspect. It is submitted that IO S.K. Peshin (PW41) is only an investigating officer, who in his evidence has alleged in this regard but even in the evidence of PW41 nothing came to substantiate the prosecution case or to establish that any illegal money was used in creation of above mentioned trust or in collecting of assets.
60. If we examine evidence of I.O. PW41 S.K. Peshin, even in evidence of PW41 nothing substantive came except referring to different files which he seized during the investigation. PW41 is otherwise an investigating officer, who had no personal knowledge of the facts of the case. PW41 was supposed to collect evidence. Mere making allegations in evidence, is not proof of same. He may have alleged that Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust was created from the money of R.C. Sabharwal, however nothing came in the investigation of PW41 to establish that fact. As noted above only relevant witness examined in this regard is PW38, whose evidence has already been discussed above, which do not establish in any manner that said Trust was created from the illegal money of R.C. Sabharwal. PW41 in his evidence recorded on 09.04.2025 also admits that he had not examined any person who had paid rent to Morni Devi Brij Lal Digitally signed CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) Page No. 42 by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 16:25:26 +0530 Trust as is reflected from documents D-44 Ex.PW4/C (page no.2341), D- 50 Ex.PW20/O (page no.3675), D-51 Ex.PW20/P (page no.3739) and D-58 Ex.PW20/T (page no.4148). PW41 admitted that he had not conducted any investigation regarding assets, income, bank lockers, statement of account of Sh.S.D. Sabharwal (father of A-1), Smt.Morni Devi and Brij Lal Juneja (Father in law of A-1).
61. In the opinion of this court, this issue assume great importance. When the core of allegation is that "Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust" was created latently with illegal money of A-1. Non-conducting of investigation into the assets, income of propounders of trust namely Smt.Morni Devi and Sh.Brij Lal Juneja, certainly create doubt as to the allegations of prosecution. Had the investigation been carried out on the financial strength of propounders of Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust, truth regarding allegations of prosecution would have certainly surfaced.
62. One of basic argument made on behalf of prosecution is that the trustees of the said trust namely Smt.Sushma Suri and Shakuntala Sahni had no much financial resources to be trustee in that trust or even in other business entities. Such fact is also rather against the record. There are different files seized by the CBI during investigation from PW38 Anil Mehta including D-99, D-119 which are income tax return files of Smt.Sushma Suri and Shakuntala Sahni. Perusal of these files clearly show that there were sufficient income flow to Smt.Sushma Suri and Shakuntala Sahni independently. PW38 in his cross-examination by ld. PP for the CBI stated that he cannot recollect exact business or work of Smt.Sushma Suri as it is 30 years old matter, however he states that he had CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) SHELENDER Digitally signed by SHELENDER MALIK Page No. 43 MALIK Date: 2025.05.31 16:25:33 +0530 been filing the income tax returns on her behalf of the basis of financial documents furnished to him.
Non-examination of Shakuntala Sahni & Sushma Suri
63. It has come in the evidence that Smt.Sushma Suri and Shakuntala Sahni have been trustees in this trust as well as involved in Morni Enterprises, Paroo Properties Pvt. Ltd. etc. It is also in the allegations that Smt.Sushma Suri and Shakuntala Sahni had no much financial resources and the entire money was actually invested by R.C. Sabharwal. In the light of such allegations, obvious question would arise that why Shakuntala Sahni or Sushma Suri were not made accused in the present case or were not examined during the investigation at all. Non- examination of such material witnesses by the prosecution rather create doubt as to the very allegations made by the prosecution. PW41 in his evidence recorded on 29.03.2025 stated that he had not recorded the statement u/s 161 Cr.PC of Smt.Shakuntala Sahni and Sushma Suri. He voluntarily stated that he joined them in the investigation and made enquiries from them. On a specific court question put to PW41 to explain the reason for not recording the statement of those two, when it is the case of the prosecution that their name were used in the documents for namesake. To answer this question PW41 stated "During the course of their oral examination, they could not give feasible explanation about acquisition of properties, investments. In case of Smt. Sakuntala Sahni, while I was orally examining her, she left for Gurudwara without answering the questions. I had not served any notice to Smt. Sakuntala Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 16:25:39 +0530 Page No. 44 Sahni and Smt. Sushma Suri for joining the investigation, particularly when according to me, they were not cooperating in the investigation."
64. Such response of IO PW41 regarding non-examination of above mentioned two witnesses speak volumes about the callous and indifferent attitude adopted by PW41 during his investigation of the present case. When the very edifice of the prosecution case, in respect of different entities, trust etc. is that name of Shakuntala Sahni and Sushma Suri was only being used whereas those entities were created and assets were purchased in the name of those entities from the money of R.C. Sabharwal. Such allegations were very serious and therefore in such circumstance non-examination of those material witnesses certainly created adverse view against the prosecution allegations. IO in a very casual manner has stated that those two were not cooperating in the investigation and he still did not serve any notice to them during the investigation. If the allegations were so serious, taking it on the face of it, these two namely Shakuntala Sahni or Sushma Suri ought to have been made accused in the present case or atleast ought to have been joined in the investigation as witnesses. But IO had neither made them as an accused nor a witness for reasons best known to him.
65. Coming now to the financial capacities of Sushma Suri and Shakuntala Sahni, this court has already noted that about their financial capacity, they themselves could have explained about it, had they been joined int eh investigation. However PW41 in his cross-examination admitted that during investigation he became aware that Sushma Suri had sold jewelry worth Rs.43,851/- in June 1981. PW41 says that he tried to Digitally signed by CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK Page No. 45 MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 16:25:45 +0530 verify that fact and it came in the cross-examination dated 29.03.2025 that he even recorded statement of one Ashwani Kumar from Mehrasons Jewelers. PW41 in his evidence dated 09.04.20254 further admitted in cross-examination that he came to know that Smt.Shakuntala Sahni sold her jewelery of Rs.36,315/- in March 1981.
66. It further came in the cross-examination that husband of Sushma Suri namely I.M. Suri retired as Deputy Engineer from HMT and there was one property in the name of I.M. Suri at Ghaziabad, land in his name in Dorai and in Ajmer Rajasthan. Husband of Sushma Suri was examined as LW61. Similarly PW41 further admits in his cross- examination dated 09.04.20245 that he became aware during his investigation that Smt.Sushma Suri received Rs.1,12,642/- from Manipur State Lottery. PW41 says that he had even orally examined the seller of lottery ticket however did not serve any notice u/s 160 Cr.PC.
67. PW41 admits in his evidence dated 09.04.2025 that it came to his knowledge in investigation that husband of Smt.Shakuntala Sahni started automobile business in Karol Bagh, after his retirement of job. Witness however denied having knowledge that later her husband passed away in 1979 and that Shakuntala Sahni sold the shop of Karol Bagh, after demise of her husband in 1979 itself for Rs.2,00,000/-. PW41 however admits that he is aware that Smt.Shakuntala Sahni was getting family pension on account of death of her husband. PW41 was specifically put question whether he tried to ascertain the truth and to examine assets, income of Shakuntala Sahni's husband. PW41 admits that he did not Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 Page No. 46 16:25:51 +0530 collect bank statements or documents of assets of Shakuntala Sahni's husband.
68. Another aspect of this issue is that as per prosecution, since Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust was created for the benefit of A-2 Puneet Sabharwal and his brother Sumeet Sabharwal, both sons of A-1 R.C. Sabharwal, therefore it has been argued by ld. PP for the CBI that it shows that such trust was nothing but a sham legal entity created for concealing the ill gotten money of R.C. Sabharwal. Taking such submissions on the face of it, mere fact that two children of A-1 R.C. Sabharwal were the beneficiaries under the trust, ipso facto does not establish anything as alleged. Allegations cannot be proved by mere assumptions or presumptions particularly when admittedly it came in the evidence of PW38 and PW41 that such trust was created by none else than the grand mother of these children namely Morni Devi as well as maternal grand father of these children. Therefore when the trust was created by someone related to the children of R.C. Sabharwal, for their benefit. In the absence of anything incriminating to show that formation of trust was with ulterior motive, this court cannot draw any conclusion only on the basis of assumptions. There must be some evidence to show that creation and working of Trust was sham and by illegal money or that transaction of that Trust in purchase of properties or earning of rental income etc. was not through banking channel or not subject to scrutiny of Income Tax Authorities, which for the reasons as noted above is lacking. Therefore this court can safely conclude that prosecution could not prove any Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 Page No. 47 16:25:58 +0530 financial connection of Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust with A-1 R.C. Sabharwal.
Paroo Properties Pvt. Ltd.
69. In the company by name Paroo Properties Pvt. Ltd., Smt.Shakuntala Sahni and Smt.Sushma Suri were the directors and witness Anil Mehta was given power of attorney to appear, represent the Paroo Properties. As per prosecution case this company was incorporated in March 1988 and in March 1989 two flats of Morni Enterprises i.e. Flat No.513, Nehru Place and Flat No.907, Ansal Bhawan were transferred. Subsequent to the transfer the rental income arising from those flats stood credited in the account of Paroo Properties Pvt. Ltd. Income earned by Paroo Properties Pvt. Ltd as reflected from the ITR files of that company, has been added in the Statement-B i.e. income of the accused persons.
70. In the same manner and the reasons already noted above, once this court has already concluded that there is nothing on the judicial record to establish that partnership firm Morni Enterprises or Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust had any financial connection with A-1. Similarly regarding Paroo Properties Pvt. Ltd. also this court finds no reason to have different view. If we examine the evidence again, the relevant witness is same PW38 Anil Mehta who in his deposition regarding Paroo Properties Pvt. Ltd testified in his evidence dated 18.12.2024 that D-28 (Ex.PW20/A) is file relating to income tax returns of Paroo Properties Pvt. Ltd. and he handed over that file to CBI. PW38 in his deposition dated 21.12.2024 further referred to file D-43 (Ex.PW20/L) relating to income tax documents of Paroo Properties Pvt. Ltd. PW38 says that he was entrusted with work of Digitally signed CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) SHELENDER by SHELENDER MALIK Page No. 48 MALIK Date: 2025.05.31 16:26:04 +0530 formation of Paroo Properties Pvt. Ltd. by Smt.Shakuntala Sahni and Smt.Sushma Suri.
71. Except referring to the above said two files, nothing came in the examination in chief of PW38 to show that Paroo Properties Pvt. Ltd had any financial connection with A-1 R.C. Sabharwal. In cross- examination by ld. PP for the CBI PW38 specifically denied that entire investment made in Paroo Properties Pvt. Ltd. was in fact ill gotten/income of R.C. Sabharwal. Upon seeing the document at page no.2224 of file D- 43, witness identifies his signatures at point A and signatures of Smt.Shakuntala at point B. Witness voluntarily states that he was given power of attorney of Paroo Properties Pvt. Ltd. to appear before Registrar of Company regarding incorporation of that company.
72. PW41 Investigating Officer S.K. Peshin also referred to document D-28 (Ex.PW20/A) and D-29 (Ex.PW20/B) which are income tax returns file of M/s Paroo Properties pvt. Ltd. (1993-1994, 1994-1995, 31 sheets) as well as D-100 file related to Sushma Suri (Paroo Properties) containing certain documents of Flat No. 513, Nehru Place at plot no. 98 purchased from M/s. Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. as well as document D-132 which is statement of account of account number CA-9259 of M/s. Paroo Properties Pvt. Ltd. in PNB, Parliament Street Branch. PW41 has testified that it revealed in the investigation that after closure of M/s Morni Enterprises, above-said company M/s Paroo Properties Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated. Directors of the same were Ms. Shakuntala Sahni and Ms. Sushma Suri and two sons Puneet and Sumeet were made beneficiaries. This company was floated at the instance of R.C. Sabharwal.
Digitally signed CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK Page No. 49 MALIK Date: 2025.05.31 16:26:11 +0530
73. However PW41 when cross-examined could not refer to any document to show that sons of R.C. Sabharwal in any manner were beneficiary in Paroo Properties Pvt. Ltd. PW41 was specifically shown document D-43 (Ex.PW20/L) and he was asked to refer any document showing the beneficiaries under the said company. PW41 responded that as per the document, Smt. Sukantla Saini and Smt. Sushma Suri were the directors. However could not refer that actual beneficiaries were two sons of A-1 R.C. Sabharwal. PW41 further says that he cannot say without seeing all the documents if there was actually any beneficiary of the company M/s Paroo Properties Pvt. Ltd.
74. No doubt creation of Firm, thereafter a Trust and then this company, involving sisters of A-1, do raise some doubts. But this court cannot decide only on conjectures or assumptions etc. There must be some direct or circumstantial evidence to indicate that series of creation of these entities were to put an ostensible veil to cover up illegal money of A-1. However there is no evidence to prove those allegations. Thus there is nothing on the record to show any connection of A-1 R.C. Sabharwal or even A-2 Puneet Sabharwal with company by name Paroo Properties Pvt. Ltd. Income of that company therefore cannot be included in Statement-B. Sahib Properties Pvt. Ltd.
75. As per prosecution case this was another company incorporated at the instance of A-1 R.C. Sabharwal in February1989. Anil Mehta (PW38) who was Chartered Accountant, was made director in the said company along with A-2 Puneet Sabharwal. It is also the case of prosecution that subsequently Mr.Mehta resigned as director from the said Digitally signed by CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) Page No. 50 SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 16:26:17 +0530 company in January 1995 and thereafter Puneet Sabharwal was full time director of said company. It is also in the allegations that said company was actually not doing any business, however in the documents income was shown. It is also alleged that said company earned profits from investments by purchasing 1/6th portion of Basement and ground floor of E-14, New Delhi South Extension Part-II.
76. Now to examine whether above mentioned allegations have been proved, one need to go back to the evidence of PW38 Anil Mehta. PW38 in his deposition dated 18.12.2024 has referred to D-22 (Ex.PW4/G), file relating to income tax documents of Sahib Properties Private Limited. PW38 says that file contains incorporation certificate, memorandum of association of that company. Witness says that Puneet Sabharwal and he was promoter of that company. There is nothing in the evidence of PW38 except the referring of relevant file D-22 pertaining to Sahib Properties Pvt. Ltd. There can hardly be any dispute regarding the fact that the promoter/director of said company were PW38 Anil Mehta and A-2 Puneet Sabharwal.
77. In cross-examination dated 08.01.2025 by ld. PP for the CBI, PW38 denies the suggestion that Sahib Properties Private Limited was incorporated at the instance of accused R.C. Sabharwal. However PW38 goes on to say that it may be possible that accused Puneet Sabharwal was made Director in Sahib Properties Private Limited at the instance of R.C. Sabharwal but witness voluntarily states that Puneet Sabharwal was made director in Sahib Properties Pvt. Ltd. as well as his company Morni Merchants Limited to gain the experience as at that time he was only a Digitally signed CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) SHELENDER MALIK by SHELENDER MALIK Page No. 51 Date: 2025.05.31 16:26:23 +0530 student. PW38 further admits that he came in contact with Puneet Sabharwal as he was son of R.C. Sabharwal and that accused Puneet Sabharwal was made director/ promoter in Sahib Properties Private Limited as well as in his company Morni Merchants Limited on the asking of accused R.C. Sabharwal and that PW38 was promoter in Sahib Properties Private Limited.
78. Taking such evidence on the face of it, it does not establish any connection of A-1 with Sahib Properties Pvt. Ltd. One can make out from the evidence of PW38 that Anil Mehta in his capacity as Chartered Accountant was closely associated with A-1 R.C. Sabharwal as he was looking after his taxation issues as well as other relates issues of Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust and other firms and companies. In that process Anil Mehta might have made A-2 Puneet Sabharwal as director in Sahib Properties Pvt. Ltd. Therefore that fact by itself does not make any financial connection of that company with A-1 R.C. Sabharwal. Since this court is assessing the lawful known sources of income of A-1 being public servant. Therefore the financial gains, business activities of A-2 Puneet Sahbarwal who is son of A-1 and is a private person, cannot be included in Statement-B which essentially pertains to A-1 R.C. Sabharwal. Thus it is concluded that income of Sahib Properties Pvt. Ltd. cannot be added in the Statement-B i.e. income of A-1 R.C. Sabharwal.
PUS Properties Pvt. Ltd.
79. As per prosecution another company allegedly created at the instance of A-1 R.C. Sabharwal is PUS Properties. The director of the company was Puneet Sabharwal (A-2) as well as Ranjana Mehta w/o Anil Digitally signed by SHELENDER CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
Page No. 522025.05.31 16:26:29 +0530 Mehta (PW38), Chartered Accountant. As per prosecution case on the instructions of R.C. Sabharwal, Ranjana Mehta was made director in the said company. Subsequently both Ranjana Mehta and Puneet Sabharwal resigned as a director of that company in January 1995 and were replaced by Sumeet Sabharwal, Sushma Suri and Shakuntala Sahni. It is also in the allegations that this company did not do any business, for which it was established since the date of its incorporation. However company in financial documents showed earning by way of interest by way of loan given by Puneet Sabharwal. Later in 1995 this company purchased half portion of of E-14, New Delhi South Extension Part-II, consisting of basement, ground floor.
80. PW38 Anil Mehta in his examination in chief referred to file D-31 (Ex.PW4/H) relating to income tax return, challan etc. papers of PUS Properties Pvt. Ltd. PW38 states that PUS Properties Pvt. Ltd was client of his firm for the purpose of work of CA. PW38 says that his wife Smt.Ranjana Mehta was director along with accused Puneet Sabharwal. In cross-examination by ld. PP for the CBI PW38 states that M/s PUS Properties was indulged in property purchase business. Witness denied the suggestion that M/s PUS Properties did not do any business for the purpose for which it was established. Witness denied having stated in his statement to IO that the company earned income by way of interest from the loan given by Puneet Sabharwal of amount of Rs.5 lakhs which was invested in UTI under US-64 scheme. Witness further denied that the money invested for purchasing of properties of PUS Properties were in fact illegal money of R.C. Sabharwal. PW38 when was cross-examined by Digitally signed CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) SHELENDER by SHELENDER MALIK Page No. 53 MALIK Date: 2025.05.31 16:26:35 +0530 defence, in his deposition dated 09.01.2025 admitted that accused Puneet Sabharwal had made his contribution in Sahib Properties, PUS Properties etc. by banking channel.
81. PW48 Ranjana Mehta has testified upon seeing file D-31 (Ex.PW4/H) identifies her signature on the document at point A along with the stamp of director, PUS Properties. PW48 has stated that in fact her husband asked her to sign those documents and accordingly she signed those documents. She states that she do not know anything except this. Witness however does not deny that she has been director in PUS Properties. In cross-examination by ld. PP for the CBI PW48 Ranjana Mehta admits that she is not aware whether any business, if so what business was being run by PUS Properties. PW48 further expressed her ignorance regarding ledger, bank accounts, or other documents pertaining to PUS Properties. Witness however denies that PUS Properties was not doing any business, however clarifies that the documents of D-31 as shown to her were from the office of her husband who was working as a Chartered Accountant.
82. Having examined the evidence of PW38 and PW48, it is though established on record that A-2 Puneet Sabharwal and PW48 Ranjana Mehta were directors in PUS Properties Pvt. Ltd. PW38 in his cross-examination specifically stated that all the transactions of that company were through banking channel and the said company was indulged in business in investment in properties. No doubt PW48 Ranjana Mehta expressed her ignorance regarding certain documents, however that fact does not establish any allegations. As such it is not proved on the CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) Page No. 54 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2025.05.31 16:26:41 +0530 record that PUS Properties was created at the instance of A-1 R.C. Sabharwal. There is no evidence showing any financial transaction between A-1 and PUS Properties. If at all the son of A-1 namely Puneet Sabharwal (A-2) was director, his transactions, amount of loan of Rs.5 lakhs given, all were through banking channel. It is also not the case of prosecution that the financial transactions of A-2 in PUS Properties Pvt. Ltd were in any manner through any financial help of A-1. All the transactions were through banking channel. Moreover it is reflected the documents of D-31 (Ex.PW4/H) that Puneet Sabharwal and Ranjana Mehta remained directors in that company only till January 1995. Subsequently Sumeet Sabharwal and Shakuntala Sahni, Sushma Suri became the directors. However IO has not examined any of those three, for reasons best known to him. This court has already observed that certain persons involved in entire series of creation of different entities such as CA PW38 Anil Mehta, sisters of A-1 Shakuntala Sahni, Sushma Suri were closely involved, ought to have joined in investigation. As per evidence of their involvement, they ought to have been made accused or witnesses. But I.O. himself dented prosecution case. As such there is nothing on the record to establish that there was any financial connection of A-1 with that company. Therefore the income if any earned by PUS Properties Pvt. Ltd., cannot be added into Statement-B i.e. income of A-1.
Morni Merchants Limited
83. As per prosecution case the company by name Morni Merchants Limited was purchased from M.K. Aggarwal, Chartered Accountant. This company was instituted in 1985 and commenced Digitally signed CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK Page No. 55 MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 16:26:46 +0530 business in January 1986. At the time of its incorporation M.K. Aggarwal, V.K. Goel, Anil Goel and S.C. Aggarwal were the directors. Later three directors resigned in 1986 and were replaced by R. Rajgopalan, D.B. Kalia and Pawan Kumar Sharma. All of them namely had resigned in March 1988 and were replaced by Ranjana Mehta, Neeru Grover and Anil Mehta. Further Neeru Grover had resigned and was replaced by Puneet Sabharwal somewhere in year 1993. As per prosecution case this company was also not doing any business and name of the company was as per the name of mother of R.C. Sabharwal. As per prosecution case company earned income by way of rentals from flat no.G-72, which was let out to State Bank of Bikanere & Jaipur.
84. PW38 in his examination in chief identified file D-33 Ex.PW20DC relating to Morni Merchants Pvt. Ltd. Witness identifies documents contained in that file to be tax documents of that company. Witness identifies signatures of Smt.Sushma Suri and Shakuntala Sahni on some of the documents of that company. PW38 further identified file D-34 (Ex.PW20/E) also containing tax papers pertaining to same company. PW38 testifies that company was incorporated by somebody else, later he along with his spouse, his partner and his spouse in CA firm had purchased it. Subsequently A-2 Puneet Sabharwal had joined as director for period of about one year. Upon putting a court question regarding business activity of that company. PW38 replies that business activities have been mentioned in memorandum of object however business activities were under undertaken immediately after his CA firm took over it.
Digitally signed by SHELENDERSHELENDER MALIK CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 Page No. 56 16:26:58 +0530
85. Witness further identifies file D-35 (Ex.PW20/F), D-36 (Ex.PW20/G) pertaining to Morni Merchants Pvt. Ltd. Witness identifies documents contained in those files for purchasing and sanction of Flat No.5A, Bhagwan Dass Road and also identifies original buyer agreement regarding purchase of that property, bearing signatures of his wife Ranjana Mehta. PW38 also identifies file D-38 (Ex.PW20/I) which also contained documents regarding purchase of Flat No.5B, Bhagwan Dass Road and the original buyer agreement regarding purchase of that property bear signature of his wife Ranjana Mehta. PW38 further refers to file D-39, D- 40 which also pertain to same company.
86. In cross-examination by ld. PP for the CBI recorded on 08.01.2025, PW38 admits that Puneet Sabharwal was made director in Morni Merchants Limited and Sahib Properties Pvt. Ltd., to gain experience as at that time he was only a student. PW38 however denies that Puneet Sabharwal was made director in Morni Merchants Limited on the asking of R.C. Sabharwal. PW38 admits that Morni Merchants Limited incorporated somewhere in 1980s and subsequently its substantial shares were purchased by his wife Ranjana Mehta, Neeru Grover and him (PW38). PW38 further admits that Morni Merchants was not doing any business during year 1987. However in cross-examination by defence recorded on 09.01.2025, PW38 states that Puneet Sabharwal was made additional director in Morni Merchants Limited, without drawing any salary or benefits and that he was not shareholder in the company. PW38 further admits that R.C. Sabharwal had nothing to do with the share-
Digitally signed by SHELENDERSHELENDER MALIK CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 Page No. 57 16:27:04 +0530 holding of M/s Morni Merchants and/or its earnings and assets and/or its day to day activities.
87. PW48 Ranjana Mehta though was examined, however in her entire deposition including the cross-examination by ld. PP for the CBI, there is no reference regarding the relevant files as referred in the evidence of PW38 pertaining to Morni Merchants Limited.
88. Having examined the evidence as this court has already concluded in respect of other business entities, trust etc. that from mere reference of certain files, seized during the investigation, nothing substantive has been established regarding the allegations made in the charge sheet, statement of witnesses. In other words, the evidence of PW38 does not establish in any manner that this company i.e. Morni Merchants Limited, which was earlier purchased by PW38 Anil Mehta and his partner in CA firm along with their spouses, subsequently A-2 Puneet Sabharwal became director in that company. PW38 in his cross-
examination has stated that Puneet Sabharwal was made director only for a period of about one year and he was otherwise not shareholder in the company. PW48 Ranjana Mehta who has been also director in this company and rather certain documents regarding purchase of properties bear her signatures which were identified by PW38. However surprisingly when PW48 was cross-examined by ld. PP for the CBI, nothing was asked from that witness pertaining to this company i.e. Morni Merchants Limited.
89. When it has come on the record even by way of statement of Anil Mehta as well as in his deposition that somewhere in 1985-86 this Digitally signed CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) Page No. 58 by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 16:27:10 +0530 company was incorporated by M.K. Aggarwal and others being directors and later somewhere in 1988 it was taken over by PW38 Anil Mehta along with his partner in CA firm and their spouses and later somewhere in 1993 Puneet Sabharwal became director. In such facts, it was all the more necessary for IO to examine previous director M.K. Aggarwal etc. and Neeru Grover who was also one of the director in the company. But in the same manner as IO has failed to give any explanation regarding non- examination of Ms.Shakuntala Sahni and Ms.Sushma Suri, there is no explanation regarding non-examination of Ms.Neeru Grover. Thus in the same manner as this court has concluded in respect of other entities, in respect of Morni Merchants Limited also, it can be held that there is no evidence on the record establishing that A-1 had any financial connection in purchase, running of Morni Merchants Limited etc. As such the income of that company cannot be included in Statement-B. SPK Enterprises
90. Regarding the above mentioned firm, it is the case of the prosecution that said partnership firm was instituted in June 1988 with partners namely Puneet Sabharwal with 90% of share and Manoj Mehra with 10% holding. Subsequently in February 1990 that partnership firm was dissolved and converted into a sole proprietor firm. Thereafter there is a reference of earning made by that firm which is included in Statement-B i.e. income of accused.
91. Before we proceed to examine the evidence, even on the face of it it is nowhere alleged in the charge sheet or in statement of witnesses that said firm had any financial connection with A-1 R.C. Sabharwal or Digitally signed by CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Page No. 59 Date:
2025.05.31 16:27:15 +0530 that this firm was created with any money provided by A-1. If we examine the evidence of PW38, he in his deposition identifies file D-62 (Ex.PW20/W) pertaining to SPK Enterprises kept in his office containing sale tax return documents. In cross-examination by defence recorded on 09.01.2025, PW38 admits that accused Puneet Sabharwal was dealing in the trade of the products manufactured by Hitkari Potteries under the name S.P.K. Enterprises. Witness further states that the income tax returns of that firm were being filed by his firm while as the Sales Tax Return was being filed by some other professional.
92. Perusal of the file D-62 (Ex.PW20/W) and the evidence on the record would show that SPK Enterprises was a firm in which A-2 Puneet Sabharwal was independently partner and subsequently became proprietor of the same. It is under the name of this firm, A-2 has been carrying on his business of products of Hitkari Potteries. Thus nothing has come on record to conclude that income of that firm is to be added in Statement-B i.e. income of A-1 R.C. Sabharwal.
93. Before proceeding further this court would note at this stage that there are certain other entities like Swati Leasing & Finance Company M/s Punchip Associates Pvt. Ltd., income of which have not been included in Statement-B. Obviously for that reason, court need not to examine about those firms, at this stage. This court in earlier paras of this judgment has noted that not only lapses in the investigation. Leave alone the issue of non-examination of certain most material witnesses in the matter. I.O. could not collect any lawful evidence to substantiate the allegations.
Digitally signed by SHELENDERSHELENDER MALIK CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 Page No. 6016:27:21 +0530 Rental income of H-7, Masjid Moth accruing to R.C. Sabharwal & Usha Sabharwal
94. In charge sheet at serial no.8 of the table a sum of Rs.13,31,448/- has been shown as an income of rent arising from property i.e. H-7, Masjid Moth to A-1 and his wife.
95. As per defence the correct rental income from that property is Rs.16,14,600/-. It is argued that such figure can be drawn on the basis of information already given to the department of A-1/NDMC and the personal file is Ex.PW41/RCS-4.
96. No evidence has been led as to on which basis prosecution has calculated the rental income of said property to be Rs.13,31,448/-. Although in the evidence of PW41, there is a reference of file D-72 (Ex.PW22/E and Ex.P-5), which is a file pertaining to above mentioned property no. H-7, Masjid Moth, New Delhi.
97. It has come in the evidence of PW41 that during the investigation he had taken service/personal file of the accused, which however was subsequently returned by the IO for no plausible reason. In his cross-examination recorded on 29.03.2025, PW41 when specifically asked regarding who seized personal file of A-1, witness stated that he never seized the personal file of A-1, however from the noting as shown to him, it reflected that vigilance department of NDMC has requisitioned it. PW41 admits that said file must have been produced during trial of this case as per the order of this court. PW41 admits that he did not make any attempt to examine personal file regarding the declaration of assets, Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 Page No. 6116:27:27 +0530 income etc. to A-1 or his family members as communicated to his department i.e. NDMC.
98. PW41 further says in his evidence that he cannot affirm or deny if A-1 had made communication to his department regarding purchase of property no.H-7, Masjid Moth as well as regarding rental income earned from that property as well as property at Dev Nagar. In his deposition recorded on 17.04.2025 PW41 admits that the service book of A-1, lying on the judicial record to be the correct which he had earlier seized vide D-20 and is Ex.PW41/RCS-3 and personal file of accused no.1 is Ex.PW41/RCS-4.
99. Ld. Counsel for the accused while relying upon judgment of Telangana High Court in Nela Kurthi Krishan Reddy vs. State of AP MANU/TL/2069/2023, Y. Gangi Reddy vs. Karnataka Lokayukta Police MANU/KA/5324/2022, submitted that in view of the mandate of Section 13(1)(e) r/w Explanation, it was incumbent upon investigating officer to assess the assets, income etc. of the public servant in the light of assets, receipts etc. communicated by the public servant to his department as per the law/rules applicable. Ld. Counsel submits that IO with mala fide intentions did not keep the personal file of the accused no.1 because such personal file would have made everything clear regarding the assets purchased and income earned etc. by A-1 and communicated to department. Ld. counsel further submits that this court can take judicial notice of the contents of the service/personal file of A-1, to verify the correctness of the allegations and the assessment made by the prosecution.
Digitally signed by SHELENDERCBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
Page No. 622025.05.31 16:27:33 +0530
100. Keeping in view the ratio laid down in the above said judgments, wherein it has been laid down authoritatively that properties declared/intimated to department by public servant shall be considered during the DA trial. In Y. Gangi Reddy's case (supra) situation was more or less similar wherein IO did not file the service book along with the charge sheet, therefore Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has noted in para 39 and 40 of the judgment, that when IO has been duly confronted with statement of assets and liabilities of the accused, communicated to the department, during his cross-examination. Certain amount of agriculture income if not shown, no fault can be attributed to the accused and entries made in the documents can be read in evidence.
101. In the light of the ratio as laid down above, this court is of the view that to reach into correct assessment of the income, assets etc. of the accused, declaration/intimation given by A-1 R.C. Sabharwal to his department can be well taken into consideration when his personal file has already been proved on the record during the cross-examination of PW41. In the evidence of PW41 as referred to above, witness has admitted the contents of the file, further admitted that he had seized the file but later it was returned to vigilance branch of NDMC. It is matter of record that by the orders of ld. Predecessor of this court, that file was requisitioned. As such in view of the legal position as discussed above, the rental income in respect of property no.H-7, Masjid Moth can be well assessed. On the basis of declarations as well as on the basis of lease deeds lying in the file D-72, this court finds that the total amount of rental income comes out to be Rs.16,14,600/- instead of Rs.13,31,448/- as stated in charge sheet.
Digitally signed CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK Page No. 63 MALIK Date: 2025.05.31 16:27:39 +0530 Insurance policy of R.C. Sabharwal
102. Prosecution has stated the income of Rs.8,310/- under the above said head which is not even disputed by the defence. In view of D- 116 and D-148, sum of Rs.8,310/- is included in Statement-B. Interest income to Usha Sabharwal (SB 38295)
103. Under the above said head, prosecution has stated the interest income of Rs.61,357/- which is not even disputed by the defence. In view of D-127, sum of Rs.61,357/- is included in Statement-B. Interest income to R.C. Sabharwal
104. Under the above said head, prosecution stated the interest income of Rs.79,774/- which is not even disputed by the defence. In view of D-127 and D-131, sum of Rs.79,774/- is included in Statement-B. Income from PHC Pump at Garhmukteshwar
105. It has come in the evidence on the judicial record that there is a BPC petrol pump on the land at Garhmukteshwar. It came in the evidence of PW6 Mukesh Kumar Jain that in respect of same land which was originally owned by father of A-1 S.D. Sabharwal, lease was executed by father of A-1 as is reflected from document Ex.PW6/B. After the demise of S.D. Sabharwal, said company had been paying rental to his widow Smt.Morni Devi. It is only w.e.f. 01.04.1985 vide renewal letter Ex.PW6/B, rental payment was started in favour of R.C. Sabharwal.
106. Prosecution has stated the rental income of Rs.62,890/- There is no dispute regarding the amount of such rental income, even from the defence. In view of D-21, sum of Rs.62,890/- is included in Statement-B. Interest income from SB-50886 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 Page No. 6416:27:45 +0530
107. Under the above said head, prosecution stated the interest income of Rs.38,561/-. Prosecution in this regard has relied upon D-127 which is the account opening form as well as statement of account of above said account number. This document is not disputed and is Ex.P-24.
108. On meaningful reading of statement of account, it can be reflected that interest income comes out to be Rs.79,682.99 (as per Annexure H filed along with the written arguments of defence). As such income under the above said head of Rs.79,682.99 is added in Statement- B. Income in joint account of Usha Sabharwal
109. Under the above said head, in the charge sheet, income of interest of joint account of Usha Sabharwal has been added as Rs.19,220/-. There is no dispute with regard to such income even from the defence. As such this income of Rs.19,220/- is added in Statement-B. Additional Income as submitted on behalf of defence Rental income from Dev Nagar property
110. In the written submissions filed on behalf of A-1, ld. Counsel for the accused has submitted that CBI has not taken into consideration rental income which A-1 has been deriving from property i.e. Plot no.53, Block 2B, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, Delhi, which was alloted to father of A- 1 after partition in 1947. It is submitted that said property when devolved upon A-1 upon the demise of his father, intimation in this regard was given to the office of NDMC as well as subsequent intimation/declaration given regarding deriving of rental income from that property. It is submitted by Digitally signed CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) Page No. 65 by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 16:27:51 +0530 the counsel for the accused that IO ought to have taken into consideration the particulars which were already part of personal file of A-1. Counsel has given the calculation of rental income from that property to the tune of Rs.1,03,200/-.
111. Ld. PP for the CBI has opposed the same on the ground that there is no evidence led in this regard.
112. Having considered the submissions, this court has already noted earlier that in the light of judgment in Nela Kurthi Krishan Reddy's case (supra) and Y. Gangi Reddy's case (supra), this court can take into consideration the details entered int the service book/personal file of the public servant, while calculating the amount of DA. More particularly when in the facts of the present case the personal file was duly shown to the IO (PW41) who had admitted contents of the same and exhibited as Ex.PW41/RCS-4. If we take into consideration relevant pages of personal file showing intimation given to the department by A-1 regarding mutation of that property in his name and thereafter intimation from time to time the annual rental income arising from that property from 1979-80 to 1991-92.
It be noted that the documents lying in the official record of NDMC i.e. personal file of A-1 pertain to period from 1979 to 1991, these documents have been derived from official record and therefore there is a presumption of correctness of the documents. The file has already been exhibited in the evidence of PW41. Thus on the basis of information as provided, the total rental income for entire check period comes out to be Rs.1,03,200/- which is liable to be added to Statement-B. Total Income Digitally CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) signed by SHELENDER Page No. 66 SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 16:27:57 +0530 Statement-B (Income) S.No. Description of Income Value/Amount
1. Salary income of A-1 R.C. Sabharwal Rs.12,52,553.17
2. Salary income of Smt.Usha Sabharwal (wife of A-1) Rs.9,65,600.53
3. Rental income of H-7, Masjid Moth accruing to R.C. Rs.16,14,600/-
Sabharwal & Usha Sabharwal
4. Insurance policy of R.C. Sabharwal Rs.8,310/-
5. Interest income to Usha Sabharwal (SB 38295) Rs.61,357/-
6. Interest income to R.C. Sabharwal Rs.79,774/-
7. Income from PHC Pump at Garhmukteshwar Rs.62,890/-
8. Interest income from SB-50886 Rs.79,682.99
9. Income in joint account of Usha Sabharwal Rs.19,220/-
10. Rental income from Dev Nagar property Rs.1,03,200/-
Total Income Rs.42,47,187.69 Statement-C (Assets acquired during the check period) Movable Assets (not disputed)
113. This court has already reproduced the movable assets as mentioned in the charge sheet, in a tabulation form. There are 43 items of movable assets in that list. In view of admitting of documents u/s 294 Cr.PC, movable assets along with the value as mentioned at serial no.2 (Rs.20,000), s.no.3 (Rs.20,000), s.no.4 (Rs.10,000), s.no.6 (Rs.10,000), s.no.7 (Rs.10,000), s.no.8 (Rs.10,000), s.no.9 (Rs.10,000), s.no.10 (Rs.2700), s.no.11 (Rs.10,000), s.no.12 (Rs.10,000), s.no.13 (Rs.10,000), s.no.14 (Rs.10,000), s.no.15 (Rs.5,000), s.no.16 (Rs.10,000), s.no.17 Digitally signed CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) Page No. 67 by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 16:28:03 +0530 (Rs.10,000), s.no.18 (Rs.10,000), s.no.19 (Rs.10,000), s.no.20 (Rs.5,000), s.no.21 (Rs.10,000), s.no.22 (Rs.10,000), s.no.23 (Rs.10,000), s.no.24 (Rs.10,000), s.no.38 (Rs.500), s.no.39 (Rs.500), s.no.40 (Rs.4300), s.no.41 (Rs.400), s.no.42 (Rs.1,000), s.no.43 (Rs.1,000). Accordingly their total valuation of Rs.2,30,400/- would be taken into consideration. Other Movable Assets
114. It is submitted on behalf of A-1 that certain movable assets as shown at serial no.1 (200 Magnum SBI Mutual Funds of value of Rs.20,000), serial no.5 (100 magnum of SBI 00179068 dt. 31.03.89 of Rs.10,000), serial no.31 (07EE 441301 to 07EE 441303 dt. 02.04.91 of Rs.30,000) and serial no.36 (1000 units 02315 of Rs.10,000) of the Table have not been proved as no evidence has been led in this regard.
115. There is no rebuttal submissions in this regard by the prosecution.
116. Since assets at above mentioned serial numbers have not been proved at all by the prosecution whereas same were not admitted also by the defence. Therefore in the absence of any evidence, valuation of movable assets at above mentioned serial numbers cannot be taken into consideration.
NSC/Mutual Funds (at serial no.25 to 30 and 32 to 34 of Table of movable assets)
117. At serial no.25 to 30 and 32 to 34 there is reference of different mutual funds unit of total valuation of Rs.1,03,000/-. Regarding which evidence of PW8 Daulat Ram and of PW10 Kabir Sondhi has been led by the prosecution. PW8 who was posted in Post Office of Lodhi Road Digitally signed CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK Page No. 68 MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 16:28:09 +0530 deposed regarding seizing of mutual fund units vide seizure memo dated 17.10.1996 (D-117). Application form seized are collectively exhibited as Ex.PW8/B. PW10 Kabir Sondhi who was working as Agent in National Saving Certificate (NSC) has also referred to seizure memo dated 22.10.1996 (D-112 page no.4 to 11) and also referred to copy of receipts of NSC purchased which are Ex.PW10/A and further referred to NSCs bearing registration no.6506 of total value of Rs.28,000/- (Ex.PW8/B) in the name of Usha Sabharwal and R.C. Sabharwal. This witness referred to NSC No.6514 of Rs.25,000/-, NSC No.11839 of Rs.25,000/-, NSC No.11842 of Rs.30,000/- as well as NSC No.15471 of Rs.45,000/-.
118. There is no dispute with regard to purchase of those NSCs in the joint name of A-1 and his wife Usha Sabharwal as nothing came in the cross-examination of PW8 and PW10. Some of these documents are already admitted u/s 294 Cr.PC and taken into consideration earlier. As such in the light of evidence and the documents referred to above, the total valuation of above said NSCs of Rs.1,03,000/- are taken into consideration and added in Statement-C. NSC/Mutual Funds (at serial no.35 & 37 of Table of movable assets)
119. In respect of these two NSC/mutual funds, an objection has been taken in the written submission filed on behalf of A-1 that these mutual fund units have not been proved as per law as evidence of PW20 and PW41 were not competent to prove those documents.
120. Having examined the evidence in the light of submissions, though there is a reference of D-98 (Ex.PW20/Z) in written submissions filed on behalf of A-1. However that document pertain to a file related to Digitally signed CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) SHELENDER MALIK by SHELENDER MALIK Page No. 69 Date: 2025.05.31 16:28:15 +0530 A-2 Puneet Sabharwal (wealth tax). As such in view of the evidence of PW8 and PW10 as discussed above, the value of mutual funds/NSCs at serial no.35 and 37 of Rs.22,000/- would also be taken into consideration. Other movable assets (as raised by ld. Prosecutor for CBI)
121. Ld. PP for the CBI submitted that during the search at Flat No.1, Palika Sadan on 24.08.1995, a search memo D-2 (Ex.PW7/A) was prepared and observation memo D-3 (Ex.PW7/B) was prepared showing recovery of certain documents such as mutual funds, NSCs, furniture, car, TV, wrist watches etc. According to ld. PP for the CBI the value of those articles is Rs.13,600/- and cost of material found in that house of accused was of Rs.8,83,806/- are required to be added in Statement-C. Similarly ld. PP for the CBI submits that D-4 is the search memo dated 24.08.1995 Ex.PW7/C. During the search in the above said flat of Palika Sadan, 25 jewelry articles were recovered of total 996 grams of gold were recovered which were seized. It is submitted that value of the gold as found there, is required to be added in the movable assets of A-1 and since during year 1995 the market value of gold of 10 gram was Rs.4,680/-. Therefore according to ld. PP for CBI approximate value of jewelry articles recovered vide D-4 should be Rs.4,68,000/- which is also required to be added in Statement-C.
122. Ld. PP for the CBI in the similar manner further submits that on 24.08.1995 itself a search was conducted in the locker no.397 of PNB, Parliament Street. As per the evidence of PW22 and PW41, 15 jewelry articles were recovered from that locker. It is submitted that those articles though were handed over to Smt.Usha Sabharwal, however PW26 Aditya Digitally signed CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK Page No. 70 MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 16:28:23 +0530 Kumar Goel and PW27 Ali Mustafa had proved the value of those jewelry articles. Therefore value of those articles of Rs.3,45,625/- is to be added in Statement-C. In similar manner ld. PP for CBI also referred to in his written submissions that search cum seizure memo dated 25.08.1995 (D-8) at A-9, Connaught Circus, New Delhi, proved from the evidence of PW7 and PW41 would show that certain documents, articles including Rs.30,000/- were recovered, the total value of which is Rs.30 lakhs plus Rs.30,000/- cash are to be added in Statement-C.
123. Ld. PP for CBI further referred to D-11 observation memo dated 24.08.1995 regarding search proceedings at H-7, Masjid Moth and added Rs.24,900/- and also referred to D-12 and D-13 regarding search proceedings at C-44, Nizamuddin (under occupation of PW38 Anil Mehta) where from some cash was also recovered and total value of Rs.1,66,758/- has been sought to be added in Statement-C.
124. Sh.Bhavook Chauhan, ld. Counsel for A-1 and Sh.Riyaz A. Bhat, ld. Counsel for A-2 submitted that in the entire charge sheet valuation of articles as mentioned in documents D-2, D-4, D-5, D-8, D-11, D-12 and D-13 have not been added in list of assets. It is submitted that it is not even case of prosecution that articles so found under those memos, were assets acquired during check period, therefore same were not added in his assets, mentioned in charge sheet. It is submitted that ld. PP is setting up a new case which is not even referred to in charge Order or charge framed. Reliance has been placed on judgment of Apex Court in Devi Lal vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1971 SC 1444. It is submitted that memos were otherwise ante dated and created documents. Alleged Digitally signed CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Page No. 71 Date: 2025.05.31 16:28:31 +0530 witnesses to those memos were stock witnesses and on reading of evidence of PW7 D.M. Sharma, PW22 Shradhanand, it would be very much reflected that the sequence of events as stated is not proved rather it is proved that those memos were prepared at another place and time.
125. It is submitted that valuation of jewelry in the locker as sought to be established by evidence of PW26 and PW27 and valuation report Ex.PW26/A cannot be taken into consideration in the absence of specific details. It is submitted that even otherwise the memos as relied upon, cannot be considered to be a substantive evidence or document, more particularly when various articles referred to in those memos have not been made case property, nor any investigation has been conducted about the existence, date of acquisition and actual valuation of the same. It is submitted that contents of memos are otherwise hit by Section 162 of Cr.PC and Section 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act. Reliance has been placed on judgment in case of Rajesh & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan (Crl. Appl. No.793-794/2022 decided on 21.09.2023) and of Apex Court in Kanu Ambu Vish vs. State of Maharashtra (1971) 1 SCC 503.
126. Having considered the submissions and going through the evidence, documents. As per prosecution case CBI conducted searches on 24.08.1995 and 25.08.1995 at different places and prepared various memos including D-2 to D-12. Let us examine each of the documents, recoveries, in the light of submissions made by ld. PP for the CBI.
127. First among them is D-2 (Ex.PW7/A) which is search cum seizure memo dated 24.08.1995 at Flat No.1, Palika Sadan, NDMC (residence of A-1). This memo was prepared at the presence of two Digitally signed by CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
Page No. 722025.05.31 16:28:38 +0530 independent witnesses namely Shradhanand (PW22) and Hardwari Singh, beside other members of the CBI team and IO S.K. Peshin. Perusal of D-2 would show that it contains the list of 42 articles including loose papers, fix deposit documents, bank statements, file containing statement of account, documents relating to allotment of certain properties, passports, address diary, air tickets, cheque books, pass books, bank card etc., which were seized at the above said address.
128. D-3 is an observation memo prepared at the time of search of above said Flat No.1, Palika Sadan, in the presence of independent witness Shradhanand and Hardwari Singh. Perusal of D-3 (Ex.PW7/B) would show that certain articles were found lying in that house and the cost of those articles have been mentioned as disclosed by A-1 R.C. Sabharwal and his family members. List of articles include Sony colour TV, one Bush radio, showcase, sofa set, wooden five polish four chairs, refrigerator, air conditioner, table lamp, book stand, centre table with glass top, carpets, curtains, electric toaster, utensils, cutlery, audio video cassettes, audio video player, three cars, gold jewelry and silver coins (returned to Smt.Usha Sabharwal and family members) and cash of Rs.13,600/-, wrist watches, etc. The ld. PP for the CBI has sought the value of articles under Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW7/B to be of Rs.13,600/- and Rs.8,83,806/- respectively.
129. Having examined the evidence, perusal of D-2 Ex.PW7/A only show that certain documents, loose sheets, bank papers etc. were recovered. It is not understandable as to how or on which basis any value of Rs.13,600/- has been added by ld. PP in his written submissions. No CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) Digitally signed by SHELENDER Page No. 73 SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 16:28:44 +0530 doubt in D-2 Ex.PW7/A there is a reference regarding certain FDRs etc., however details of those FDRs along with the valuation, date of acquisition etc. has not been proved on the record. Therefore in the absence of any material proved on the record, valuation as made in the written submissions of CBI do not have any legal basis. Now proceeding ahead to D-3 (Ex.PW7/B) i.e. an "Observation memo". First of all the question for consideration would be why the IO had prepared the "Observation memo"
instead of any search/ seizure memo. As is reflected from perusal of D-3 Ex.PW7/B it is though mentioned that details running into nine pages of different movable articles, valuable articles as found in the house of A-1, were enumerated therein. The year of acquisition and valuation has been mentioned on the information as furnished by A-1 and his family members. Such observation memo apparently is not in accordance with any law. After the registration of FIR against A-1, if any document or any statement is being recorded at the instance of A-1 or his family members, it would certainly be hit by Section 162 of Cr.PC. Ld. Counsel for t he accused has also objected about these memos being hit by Section 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act. Any statement given by the accused while in custody or in the presence of the police, cannot be relevant. Same cannot be taken into consideration as admissible evidence. Therefore valuation, details as given in memo Ex.PW7/B do not have any legal basis.
130. Another reason why these memos (D-2 and D-3) cannot be taken into consideration at this stage, is that CBI while filing the charge sheet and giving details of assets of the accused (movable as well as immovable), in charge sheet has not referred to the details of articles as Digitally signed CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK Page No. 74 MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 16:28:50 +0530 mentioned in D-3 or D-2, for reasons best known to it. On the basis of details of assets, expenditure etc. as calculated in the charge sheet, charge has been framed against accused. Obviously in the absence of any reference regarding the articles as enumerated in D-2 and D-3 in the charge sheet, their details do not find included in charge framed against the accused. It is for the first time in the written submissions filed by ld. PP for CBI the valuation has been furnished which this court has already noted is without any legal basis. It is in this context ld. Counsel for the accused submits that prosecution is trying to set up a new case at fag end of the trial, which is altogether different than what has been alleged in the charge sheet and even in the body of the charge framed against the accused.
131. I find substance in the submissions made by ld. Counsels for A-1 and A-2 as there was nothing to restrain prosecution, while alleging the valuation of assets in charge sheet to include the list of articles as mentioned in D-2 and D-3. There is no explanation from ld. PP for the CBI in this regard except to submit that these documents were relied upon and have been proved. No doubt these memos are relied upon documents. But it was for I.O. of CBI to investigate about each of those articles and those movable assets were acquired during period. On collecting evidence regarding those, same could have been mentioned in list as mentioned in charge sheet. One cannot deny that these documents have been proved in the course of evidence but at this stage when this court has to evaluate each and every article, for the purpose of calculating the valuation of assets, there must be some admissible evidence, proving the particular article and Digitally signed by SHELENDER CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
Page No. 752025.05.31 16:28:56 +0530 its valuation. Admittedly no investigation has been conducted by IO S.K. Peshin regarding each of the articles as referred to in these memos. D-3 contains a list of articles running into nine pages, in the absence of any supporting document regarding each of the article mentioned therein, about its acquisition, value, there is no evidence for this court to take those articles into consideration while assessing the value of movable assets of the accused to be added in Statement-C.
132. In this context, it would be appropriate to refer upon the judgment of three Judge Bench of Apex Court as relied by Sh.Riyaz A. Bhat, ld. Counsel for A-2 in Vasant Rao Guhe vs. State of MP (Crl. Appeal No.1279/2017 decided on 09.08.2017), wherein it was observed in para 17 that accusation on which charge u/s 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act was framed, the figure calculated by the trial court had undergone a metamorphosis. It was observed that it assume immense significance that when no fresh charge has been framed on the allegations, for which accused have been convicted, trial court cannot resort to inferences or speculation. It was held in para 18 to 21 that inflexible burden is on prosecution to unfailingly prove ingredients constituting the offence, beyond doubt. If foundational facts are not proved, court cannot resort to any conjectures or surmises or assumptions to convict the accused.
133. In the present case also when this court cannot take any assumptions or presumptions, the calculation has to be based from admissible evidence, therefore mere reference of articles in D-2 and D-3, which is otherwise inadmissible, cannot be considered.
Digitally signed by SHELENDER CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) Page No. 76 SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2025.05.31 16:29:02 +0530
134. Proceeding ahead ld. PP for CBI has referred to search memo D-4 dated 24.08.1995 Ex.PW7/C which contains list of 25 jewelry articles including golden bangle, rings, mangalsutra, chains, gold coins, etc. Perusal of D-4 would show that weight of different jewelry articles has been mentioned and subsequently these jewelry articles were returned to Smt.Usha Sabharwal after approximate weight was done. As per the written submissions of ld. PP the weight of those articles was 996 grams, the value of which has been assessed by ld. PP to be Rs.4,68,000/- on the basis of market value of gold in year 1995 to be Rs.4,680/- per 10 grams.
135. First of all the memo D-4 (Ex.PW7/C), for the reasons as noted above, would be inadmissible u/s 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act. In this regard ld. Counsel for A-1 has rightly relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in Rajesh & ors. vs. State of MP (2023) 15 SCC 521, Kanu Ambu Vish vs. State of Maharashtra (1971) 1 SCC 503. In Rajesh and others vs. State of MP (supra), it has been laid down in para 36 of the judgment that the purpose of preparing panchnama is to have a guard/ check against possible tricks/unfair dealing on the part of officers entrusted with execution of search and to ensure that anything incriminating which is said to have been found during the search, was actually found and not planted by the officer of search party. As such the panchnama (search memo) can be used as corroborative evidence when respective witnesses of the search appear in the court to give evidence. It is stated that panchnama is inadmissible in the court of law if it is recorded by the IO in any manner violative to Section 162 of Cr.PC. In Kanu Ambu Vish's case (supra) it was held by the Apex Court that panchnama is not a substantive evidence CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) Page No. 77 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 16:29:08 +0530 and can only be used for the purpose of contradicting the witness in terms of Section 145 of Evidence Act.
136. In the present case also mere giving reference of jewelry articles in D-4 along with the weight, is not sufficient for proof of recovery of those articles, particularly when no investigation was carried out with regard to the acquisition of those jewelry articles. Here it is important to note that jewelry articles are such articles which are more or less available in every house. In such situation in a case of recovery of jewelry articles from public servant's house, it is necessary for investigating agency to investigate about the exact source of acquisition. Because such articles are gifted in marriages, occasions, etc. and certain of these articles are actually purchased. Therefore mere recovery of jewelry articles, in itself cannot be attributed to the public servant unless a thorough investigation is carried out regarding the acquisition of these articles as well as value of the same. In the present case ld. PP, without any legal basis had taken the market gold value of 1995 and assessed the entire gold articles on the basis of that valuation, without even taking into consideration that some of those articles might have been acquired by the family of the accused even prior to the check period. Moreover ld. PP has also not given any basis on reaching such value without ascertaining purity of gold of those articles. As noted above when the value of the assets are to be included, there must be some legal evidence to make the basis of the same. It cannot be left on the assumptions. Thus for the reasons stated above articles mentioned in D-4 cannot be taken into consideration.
Digitally
signed by
CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) Page No. 78
SHELENDER
SHELENDER MALIK
MALIK Date:
2025.05.31
16:29:15
+0530
137. Ld. PP for the CBI in the same manner has also relied upon D- 5 (Ex.PW22/A) which is original locker operation memo dated 24.08.1995 as per which upon operation of locker no.397, PNB, Parliament Street certain gold jewelry articles (15 articles) were recovered. It is matter of record that subsequently during the investigation the locker was again operated on 30.12.1997 in the presence of two valuers Aditya Kumar (PW26) and Ali Mustafa (PW27), in whose presence jewelry articles were again taken out from the locker and these witnesses upon evaluation of jewelry articles prepared valuation report dated 30.12.1997 D-159 (Ex.PW26/A). It is on the basis of such valuation report ld. PP submitted that value of Rs.3,45,625/- should be added in the Statement-C.
138. This court has already noted that there has been no investigation in respect of jewelry articles either recovered from the residence of A-1 or recovered from locker no.397 as to about its acquisition etc. Now coming to the issue that the jewelry articles recovered from the locker were subsequently assessed on 30.12.1997 and valuation report is Ex.PW26/A. Such valuation report cannot be taken into consideration for following reasons :
(a) Both the witnesses/valuers have stated that the valuation and valuation memo was prepared at the spot. Both PW26 Aditya Kumar and PW27 have stated that valuation was done on the basis of stones, studs and clarity and weight of metal but at the same time PW6 admits that he cannot tell the name of the stone Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) MALIK Date: Page No. 79 2025.05.31 16:29:26 +0530 and studs are not mentioned in Valuation memo Ex.PW26/A.
(b) PW27 Ali Mustafa in his cross-examination states that market rate of metal, gem stone was taken for valuation as on 30.12.1997 but report does not disclose different rates of different quantity of purity of gold, silver, stone etc. nor any document in this regard was annexed with the report.
(c) PW41 in his deposition recorded on 29.03.20245, when his attention was drawn to D-5 Ex.PW22/A as well as D-159 Ex.PW26/A, admits that articles mentioned at serial no.19, 20 and 21 of D-159 do not find mention in D-5, when locker was operated on 24.08.1995. This shows that there has been different articles found from the locker on 24.08.1995 and 30.12.1997.
(d) In this context it is important that PW41 in his cross-
examination has also recorded that he retained the key of locker after locker operation proceedings of 24.08.1995 and he opened the locker on 30.12.1997 for locker operation proceedings Ex.PW26/X. Importantly no witness from the bank has been made witness to the memo Ex.PW22/A.
(e) For the same reasons as mentioned with regard to D-4 that no investigation has been conducted regarding the Digitally signed CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) SHELENDER by SHELENDER MALIK Page No. 80 MALIK Date: 2025.05.31 16:29:57 +0530 exact date of acquisition of those articles. Memo D-5 in itself is not substantive evidence unless the articles allegedly recovered from that locker were seized or there is investigation in respect of each of the articles. In the absence of same valuation of the same cannot be left to the assumptions.
(f) Valuation memo Ex.PW26/A, could have been taken into consideration, had those jewelry articles been produced in court, as case property, to examine the veracity of details mentioned therein.
139. Ld. PP for the CBI further referred to search cum seizure memo dated 25.08.1995 (D-8) when search was conducted at A-9, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. This document is in fact in continuation of D-7 when search was conducted on 24.08.1995 at the same place. However as per D-7 while the search of the premises was in progress, electricity in the shop went off and in the absence of any alternate arrangement proceedings were suspended on that day. It is on next day i.e. on 25.08.1995 search proceedings were conducted and D-8 i.e. search cum seizure memo was prepared. Perusal of D-8 shows that it was observed that window of the shop was broken, commode in the bathroom was found broken. It is stated in the memo D-8 that A-2 Puneet Sabharwal when asked to explain in this regard, he disclose that he with the help of two labours broke open the window so that documents lying in that shop may not fall into the hands of CBI. In the search proceedings cash of Rs.30,000/- as well as certain articles as mentioned in the memo such as Digitally signed CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK Page No. 81 MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 16:30:06 +0530 files, loose papers, cheque book, passport etc. were recovered. It is mentioned in the memo that CFSL photographer was summoned who took photographs of entire shop including the bathroom from which labour stated to have entered.
140. Having considered the evidence on the record, it is not understandable as to how ld. PP has assessed the valuation of articles recovered vide D-8 to be Rs.30,30,000/-. No doubt there is no denial a cash of Rs.30,000/- was recovered as mentioned in the memo but other articles were documents, files etc. Therefore valuation of Rs.30 lakhs cannot be assessed in the manner as stated in written submissions. Moreover memo D-8 (Ex.PW7/E) mentions that photographs of broken window of the shop as well as bathroom commode were taken but same were not placed on record nor proved. None of the articles as mentioned in D-8 have been concerning to A-1 R.C. Sabharwal. Even the recovered cash of Rs.30,000/- cannot be added into Statement-C because recovery of cash from the shop of A-2 cannot be considered to be an asset of A-1. At the time of search on 24th and 25th of August 1995, A-2 Puneet Sabharwal was grown up and independently carrying on his own business. Therefore recovery of cash and other documents etc. cannot be connected with A-1 in the absence of any evidence showing any concern of A-1 with it. Thus the memo D-8 cannot be taken into consideration for adding any value in Statement-C.
141. Ld. PP for CBI then relied upon D-11 i.e. an Observation memo dated 24.08.1995, prepared at the time when search was conducted at premises no.H-7, Masjid Moth, GK-II, New Delhi. Vide D-10 search Digitally signed CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK Page No. 82 MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 16:30:15 +0530 and seizure memo was prepared whereas vide D-11 Observation memo was prepared in the presence of two independent witnesses namely Amar Singh and Dharam Pal, wherein 15 articles have been referred including table fixed with wall, fans, water purifier, exhaust fan, double bed, geyser etc. It is mentioned in the memo (D-11) (Ex.PW41/C) that the details of articles along with year of acquisition and value have been mentioned after mutual consultation with independent witnesses and A-2 Puneet Sabharwal. Ld. PP for CBI submits that the value of articles as mentioned in D-11 i.e. Rs.24,900/- are to be added in Statement-C.
142. Having considered the submissions and going through the evidence of PW41 and D-11. For the reasons as already noted above this document D-11 i.e. Observation memo can be held to be inadmissible being hit by Section 162 Cr.PC as well as on account of provisions of Section 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act. Even otherwise the independent witnesses mentioned therein namely Amar Singh and Dharam Pal both have not been examined. This document has been proved only in the evidence of IO (PW41). Importantly articles found from H-7 Masjid Moth have been mentioned and sought to be proved that same is assets of A-1 R.C. Sabharwal, whereas D-11 does not mention anywhere that said property was in possession of accused persons because as per the prosecution case as well as defence said property was let out and rental income was coming to A-1. In such circumstances in the absence of any investigation to show that articles found from that house were actually belonged to/purchased by A-1, when that property was under the Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 Page No. 83 16:30:26 +0530 possession of tenant, articles mentioned in D-11 cannot be added in Statement-C.
143. Ld. PP for CBI further referred to D-12 which is search and seizure memo dated 24.08.1995 prepared when search was conducted at C- 44, Nizamuddin East which was as per the memo itself under the occupation of Anil Mehta. D-12 mentions list of 43 items mostly files, ledgers and cash books etc., recovered from the office of CA Anil Mehta. Memo D-12 further mentions that during search proceedings a sum of Rs.1,66,758/- was recovered, out of which Rs.6,758/- was given to Anil Mehta to meet his daily household expenses and Rs.1,60,000/- was seized under that memo. D-13 is production cum seizure memo which was prepared on 25.08.1995 wherein also details of different files seized from the office of CA has been mentioned. Ld. PP for CBI submits that under these memos Rs.1,66,758/-, which was recovered from the above said premises are also to be added in Statement-C.
144. This court has already concluded regarding inadmissibility of different memos prepared. Although ld. Counsels for accused have further pointed out various contradictions in the evidence of independent witnesses, officials of CBI whom the authorization u/s 165 Cr.PC was given to show that these memos were fabricated and were not prepared at the time as mentioned in those memos. This court need not to go into those details when it has already been concluded that these memos are per se inadmissible and details of the articles as mentioned in these memos, have not been investigated and not made case property. With regard to D- 12 and D-13 also, it is sufficient to say that C-44, Nizamuddin East is not Digitally signed CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) Page No. 84 by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 16:30:34 +0530 the property of the accused. Admittedly it is property of Anil Mehta (PW38), no doubt search could have been conducted for recovering relevant documents, evidence etc. But it is hard to understand as to how a recovery of sum of Rs.1,66,758/- from the property of PW38 can be attributed to the accused. On this count itself the argument of ld. PP for CBI is liable to be rejected.
SBI Bearer Bonds
145. Ld. PP for CBI in his written submissions has also argued that there were RBI bearer bonds purchased in the name of Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust, shown in D-103 and D-105 and reference regarding which is also in the file D-54 recovered from the office of PW38 Anil Mehta. It is submitted that the value of 30 bearer bonds of Rs.3,00,000/-, another set of 53 bearer bonds of Rs.5,30,000/- and another set of 06 bearer bonds of Rs.60,000/-, 08 bonds of Rs.80,000/- and another set of 06 bonds of Rs.60,000/- are liable to be added in the Statement-C. As such total value of these bonds of Rs.18,30,000/- is to be added.
146. Ld. counsel for the A-1 submits that bearer bonds were purchased by Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust, which has no concern with A-1 and therefor those bonds cannot be held to be assets of A-1. Even otherwise it is argued that it has come in the evidence of PW31 that those bearer bonds scheme which came in 1991, to streamline unaccounted money, were realised/encashed in 1992. It is submitted that trustees of said trust namely Smt.Sushma Suri and Shakuntala Sahni have already explained about those bearer bonds in their statement u/s 131 of I.T. Act.
Digitally signed by SHELENDERSHELENDER MALIK CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 Page No. 85 16:30:42 +0530
147. It is matter of record that from the evidence PW34 T. Upadhyay, it has been proved that in year 1991 Ministry of Finance, to curb the counter effects of black money, floated scheme "Special Bearer Bonds 1991", for bringing the black money into main stream. PW20 J.C. Sharma from FCI in his deposition has stated that during the search proceedings at C-44, Nizamuddin East file D-54 (Ex.PW20/R) was recovered relating to Special Bearer Bonds in the name of above said trust. Those bonds have been proved as Ex.PW25/E, Ex.PW25/F and Ex.PW25/G in the evidence of PW25 S.R. Malik from SBI. In the evidence of PW41 a letter dated 14.01.1998 Ex.PW41/L regarding some of those bonds has also proved.
148. The value of above mentioned Special Bearer Bonds, cannot be added to income to A-1 as this court has already concluded that Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust had no financial connection with A-1. Even otherwise it has come on record from the evidence of PW25 S.R. Malik that those Bearer Bonds were realised in 1992 itself and money was credited into the account of Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust. Therefore in 1995 when this case was registered, there were no Bearer Bonds in existence even in the name of that trust. Moreover Trustees of that Trust namely Shakuntala Sahni and Sushma Suri have explained about purchase and realization of those bonds, to I.T. Authorities when their statement u/s 131 of I.T. Act were recorded. Those statements were in the notice of I.O. PW41 S.K. Peshin, still same were withheld from this court. Therefore the value of those bonds cannot be added at the time of assessing the assets of A-1.
Bank Accounts
Digitally signed
CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) by SHELENDER
SHELENDER MALIK Page No. 86
MALIK Date:
2025.05.31
16:31:07 +0530
149. In charge sheet at page no.10 details of bank accounts and their balance and FDRs have been referred to from serial no.1 to 18. Let us precisely discuss each of those bank accounts/FDRs.
(i) Account no.38295, in the name of Usha Sabharwal, PNB, showing balance of Rs.82,253/- (not disputed and relevant document is D-122, (Ex.P-21).
(ii) Account No.50886 in joint name of R.C. Sabharwal and Usha Sabharwal showing balance of Rs.4,42,441/- (not disputed and relevant document is D-127, (Ex.P-
24).
(iii) Account No.50885 in the name of Sumeet and Puneet Sabharwal, showing balance of Rs.98,039/-. This account is joint name of major sons of A-1 namely Sumeet and Puneet Sabharwal. It is evident from the evidence that A-2 Puneet Sabharwal as well as his brother Sumeet Sabharwal, upon attaining majority had been doing business independently. There is no evidence on the record to show that this account was opened from the money of A-1. In the evidence of PW41 D-124 which is its statement of account in PNB, Parliament Street Branch. Which is admitted by A-1 as Ex.P-23. Beside this there is D-125 a cheque of Rs.15 lakhs issued from that account in favour of PUS Properties. As such the amount in that account cannot be added to the Statement-C. Digitally signed by SHELENDER CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
Page No. 872025.05.31 16:31:22 +0530
(iv) Account No.53011 in the name of Sushma Suri.
Admittedly this account is in the name of Smt.Sushma Suri, sister of A-1. There is no evidence at all led by prosecution to prove that this account in any manner was connected to A-1 or that the money credited in that account was deposited by A-1. This court has already concluded earlier that sister of A-1 Sushma Suri, had her independent resources, means. Therefore this account cannot be added to Statement-C.
(v) Account No.55244 in the name of Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust. This account was in the name of Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust, this court has already concluded that the said trust had no financial connection with A-1. Statement of account of this account, has been referred to in evidence of PW41 as D-130 (Mark-AL8). Thus there is no evidence to prove that such account was in any manner asset of accused and therefore cannot be added to Statement-C.
(vi) Account No.54425 in the name of Shakuntala Sahni.
Admittedly this account is in the name of Smt.Shakuntala Sahni, sister of A-1. There is no evidence at all led by prosecution to prove that this account in any manner was connected to A-1 or that the money credited in that account was deposited by A-1. This court has already concluded earlier that sister of Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) MALIK MALIK Date: Page No. 88 2025.05.31 16:31:31 +0530 A-1 Shakuntala Sahni, had her independent resources, means. Therefore this account cannot be added to Statement-C.
(vii) Account No.59445 in the name of R.C. Sabharwal HUF, PNB showing balance of Rs.2,87,881/-. This account is not disputed. D-131 has been admitted u/s 294 Cr.PC as Ex.P-25. As such the amount shown credited in that account would be added into Statement-C.
(viii) Account No.9259 in the name of Paroo Properties.
Since this court has already concluded for the reasons discussed above that Paroo Properties has no concern with A-1. As such the account of Paroo Properties cannot be added to Statement-C.
(ix) Account No.11557 in the name of Sahib Properties.
Since this court has already concluded for the reasons discussed above that Sahib Properties has no concern with A-1. As such the account of Sahib Properties cannot be added to Statement-C.
(x) Account No.11111 in the name of PUS Properties.
Since this court has already concluded for the reasons discussed above that PUS Properties has no concern with A-1. As such the account of PUS Properties cannot be added to Statement-C. Digitally signed by SHELENDER CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) Page No. 89 SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 16:31:39 +0530
(xi) There is another account in the name of Morni Merchants, Vijaya Bank (Account number details not mentioned). Since this court has already concluded for the reasons discussed above that Morni Merchants has no concern with A-1. As such the account of Morni Merchants cannot be added to Statement-C.
(xii) Account No.74351-019 in the name of Morni Merchants, Citi Bank. Since this court has already concluded for the reasons discussed above that Morni Merchants has no concern with A-1. As such the account of Morni Merchants cannot be added to Statement-C.
(xiii) Account No.59 in the name of SPK Enterprises in ICICI Bank. Since this court has already concluded for the reasons discussed above that SPK Enterprises has no concern with A-1. As such the account of SPK Enterprises cannot be added to Statement-C.
(xiv) Account No.8671 in the name of R.C. Sabharwal in Citi Bank. The amount shown credited in that account is Rs.76,361/-, this amount would be added in Statement-C as this account is in the name of A-1.
(xv) Account No.5026385-018 in the name of Puneet Sabharwal in Citi Bank. Amount shown credited in this account cannot be added to Statement-C as this Digitally signed by SHELENDER CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:Page No. 90
2025.05.31 16:31:46 +0530 court has already concluded that upon attaining majority A-2, has been carrying on business activities. (xvi to xviii) FDRs of Rs.4,56,691/-, Rs.6,00,000/- in the joint name of R.C. Sabharwal and Usha Sabharwal as well as another FDR of Rs.4,56,691/- in the name of Smt.Usha Sabharwal, would be added in the Statement-C as these FDRs are not disputed as Ex.P-9 (D-85).
150. Thus the total amount in the bank balance of different accounts and FDRs, to be added in Statement-C would be Rs.24,02,318/-.
Immovable Properties
151. Let us now examine different immovable properties, as alleged to have been added in Statement-C/charge sheet against the accused. Before proceeding to examine different immovable properties, it is appropriate to note that only those immovable properties can be added to assets column of accused, which is either in the name of A-1 or his wife or purchased in the name of his children during their minority. When prosecution alleges that certain properties were purchased 'benami', in the name of certain entities, the factum of benami transaction needs to be proved by prosecution. No doubt there can hardly be any direct evidence for proof of benami property. However this court has already noted that there must be some circumstantial evidence establishing the same. As it has been held by the Apex Court in State of Karnataka and ors. vs. Selvi J.
Jayalalitha (2017) 6 SCC 263, relied upon by ld. PP for CBI, wherein it has been held that burden of proof that a particular sale is benami and the apparent purchaser is not the real owner, always rest on the person Digitally signed CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) SHELENDER by SHELENDER Page No. 91 MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 16:31:53 +0530 asserting it to be so. Such burden has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidence of definite character which would either directly prove the factum of benami or establish circumstances unerringly raising an inference of that fact. For deciding whether particular sale is benami or not, no absolute formula or acid test, uniformly applicable in all cases can be laid down, yet weighing the probabilities, gathering relevant indicia court is usually guided by circumstances such as (i) sources from which purchase money came; (ii) nature of possession of the property after purchase; (iii) notice if any for giving transaction a benami colour; (iv) position of parties and their relationship between claimant and benamidar;
(v) custody of title deeds after sale; (vi) conduct of the parties concerning dealing with property after sale.
152. Similarly legal proposition has also been laid down in Jaydayal Poddar vs. Bibi Hazra (1974) 1 SCC 3. It has also been laid down by the Apex Court that mere fact that ostensible owner had no source of income, would also not lead to an automatic inference that property in question was purchased from the income of a particular person. (Krishnanand vs. State of MP (1977) 1 SCC 816). Andhra Pradesh High Court has also laid down similar legal proposition in K. Goverdhan vs. State of A.P. 2001 SCC OnLine AP 1540.
153. Keeping above discussed legal proposition in mind, let us examine each of the items of immovable property as mentioned in charge sheet.
(i) & (ii) Basement and GF of E-14, NDSE-I Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 Page No. 92 16:32:01 +0530
154. As per prosecution 50% each of the share of above said property was purchased in the name of M/s Sahib Properties and PUS Properties respectively for Rs.24.62 lakhs from Ved Prakash s/o Chaudhary Daya Ram.
155. Prosecution in this regard has examined PW33 Ved Prakash who stated that he is working as property dealer and knew A-2 Puneet Sabharwal as he had sold to him property E-14, South Extension by 12 different registered sale deeds [(six registered sale deeds were of basement & six registered sale deeds were of upper portion (GF)]. Sale deeds dated 02.03.1995 Ex.PW33/A to Ex.PW33/F (D-42) are in respect of basement in favour of M/s Sahib Properties. Sale deeds dated 02.03.1995 Ex.PW33/G to Ex.PW33/L (D-41) are in respect of ground floor in favour of PUS Properties. Memorandum of understanding between PW33 on one side and PUS Properties/ M/s Sahib Properties on the other side is Ex.PW33/N. Copies of the cheques through which sale consideration was paid are Ex.PW33/O (colly.). File D-41 has also been proved in the evidence of PW20 as Ex.PW20/K.
156. Having examined the evidence of PW20, PW33 and IO PW41, in respect of above mentioned property, first of all it is established from the evidence that the payment of sale consideration for purchase of above said properties were made through cheques. Original of sale deeds are also lying in file D-41, D-42. This court has already concluded in earlier portion of this judgment that Sahib Properties Pvt. Ltd is an independent entity in which A-2 Puneet Sabharwal has been carrying on his business activities, which is not in any manner connected with A-1 R.C. Digitally signed by SHELENDER CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
Page No. 932025.05.31 16:32:08 +0530 Sabharwal. Similar is the conclusion with regard to PUS Properties Pvt. Ltd. There is no evidence at all on the record to show that in respect of purchase of above mentioned two properties any money has been paid or transferred from A-1. There is always a presumption attached with the registered owner of any property of the fact that he had had paid the sale consideration for purchase of the same. This presumption needs to be rebutted by some positive evidence. Mere allegation, cannot take place of proof of a particular fact. When the above mentioned properties have been purchased by way of lawful banking channel, there being nothing on the record, even remotely to suggest that there has been any financial concern or connection of A-1 in purchase of above said properties, such properties cannot be added to the asset column of A-1.
(iii) Flat No.GF-5, Ansal Bhawan, New Delhi
157. As per prosecution case this property was purchased by Smt.Shakuntala Sahni (sister of A-1), from Ansal Properties & Industries on 10.11.1975 for Rs.1,02,850/-.
158. No evidence has been led by the prosecution to prove regarding purchase of above mentioned property in the name of Smt.Shakuntala Sahni, having any financial connection with A-1. This court has already concluded that Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust of which Smt.Shakuntala Sahni was one of the trustee, had no financial connection with A-1. Even otherwise Smt.Shakuntala Sahni has not been examined during the investigation, nor cited as a witness in the present case. There is evidence on the record showing that Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust was earning income from rents, agriculture as well as had also received gifts.
Digitally signed CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK Page No. 94 MALIK Date: 2025.05.31 16:32:15 +0530
Documents D-44 (Ex.PW4./C), D-50 (Ex.PW20/O), D-51 (Ex.PW20/P) and D-58 (Ex.PW20/T) would clearly indicate that the Trust was earning the income and was financially capable to purchase properties. Beside this there is also evidence on record that trustees Smt.Shakuntala Sahni and Sushmi Suri were also having sufficient financial means. Thus for the reasons stated above, above mentioned property cannot be added to the Statement-C for A-1.
(iv) Flat No.907A, Ansal Bhawan
159. Above mentioned property, as per file D-63, was originally alloted to Brij Lal Juneja by flat buyer agreement dated 24.02.1973 for Rs.37,100/-. Subsequently this property stood transferred to M/s Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust on 12.06.1982 by Brij Lal Juneja without any consideration as a gift. This agreement is Ex.PW30/6.
160. Having gone through the documents lying in D-63, first of all it would be evident that in respect of purchase of above mentioned property, agreement was originally entered on 24.02.1973 in the name of Brij Lal Juneja (father in law of A-1), subsequently he transferred the said property to Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust. The entire payment, transfer etc. is through banking channel. There is nothing on the record to show that A-1 had any concern or connection in purchase of above mentioned property. Even otherwise this court has already decided that Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust cannot be in any manner connected with A-1 regarding any financial transaction.
161. In respect of above mentioned property, relevant documents Ex.PW30/6 in file D-63, were put to PW45 Chetan Kumar who upon Digitally signed CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) SHELENDER by SHELENDER MALIK Page No. 95 MALIK Date: 2025.05.31 16:32:22 +0530 seeing the documents admits that property was purchased by Brij Lal Juneja and later transferred to Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust with his consent as gift. PW45 admits that he had not conducted any investigation regarding the assets and income of Mr.Brij Lal Juneja. PW41 IO S.K. Peshin has also testified that he had not conducted any investigation regarding assets, income, bank lockers and statements of account of S.D. Sabharwal (father of A-1), Smt.Morni Devi (mother of A-1) and Sh.Brij Lal Juneja (father in law of A-1). Thus this property cannot be added to Statement-C for A-1.
(v) Flat No.GF-7A, Tolstoy House, New Delhi
162. As per prosecution this property was alloted to M/s Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust by allotment letter dated 03.06.1987. PW30 Rajesh Katyal in his evidence, while referring to D-63 has testified in this regard and stated that above said property measuring 141 Sq. feet was alloted to above said Trust and purchase was done by Mrs.Shakuntala on behalf of trust. Allotment is Ex.PW30/9. PW30 further says that relevant documents relating to different properties including above mentioned property were seized by IO vide seizure memo dated 20.09.1995 Ex.PW30/10.
163. Again as reason has been given above, the above mentioned property has also been originally alloted in 1987 in the name of Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust and the purchase documents were executed on behalf of the trust by Smt.Shakuntala. The entire payments etc. have been made through banking channel. Above mentioned trustee Shakuntala Sahni has not been examined by the IO. As such there is nothing on the record to CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) Digitally signed by SHELENDER Page No. 96 SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 16:32:29 +0530 show that above mentioned property can be added or attributed to A-1 or to be added in Statement-C.
(vi) Two flats no.GF-1 & GF-2, Ambadeep Building
164. Relevant documents in respect of above mentioned property is also D-63. PW30 in his deposition has also proved flat buyer agreement dated 06.08.1992 in respect of above said two flats I;n the name of M/s Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust which are Ex.PW30/7 and Ex.PW30/8 respectively. These agreements were also signed by Mrs.Shakuntala on behalf of trust.
165. For the reasons as noted already above, these properties can also not be added in Statement-C as there is nothing to show that it was purchased in any manner through money transferred by A-1.
(vii) 301, Hans Bhawan
166. As per prosecution above said property was originally booked by Kailash Beri and Mrs.Morni Devi Sabharwal on 28.04.1975. PW30 Rajesh Katyal refers to D-49 (Ex.PW4/J) containing allotment letter in respect of above mentioned property. Allotment letter is exhibited as Ex.PW30/1. PW30 further states that later said property was transferred to Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust by transfer letter dated 28.02.1983 for Rs.85,635/-. That document is Ex.PW30/2. Such transfer was accepted by Smt.Shakuntala on behalf of Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust.
167. PW45 Chetan Kumar in his evidence dated 11.03.2025, when shown documents lying in D-49 pertaining to above mentioned property, admits that above mentioned property was transferred to Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust from Kailash Beri and Morni Devi Sabharwal. From page CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) Page No. 97 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 16:32:35 +0530 no.3636 of D-49, witness identifies that property was originally alloted to Kailash Beri and Morni Devi Sabharwal. Witness states that he had not conducted any investigation regarding assets and income of Kailash Beri. Thus for the similar reasons as already given above, this property cannot be added in Statement-C. More particularly when Mr.Kailash Beri was never joined in the investigation.
(viii) 02 acres of land at Aravali Retreat
168. As per prosecution case above said land is in the name of Puneet Sabharwal having purchased from Ansal Properties for Rs.One Lakh on 24.06.1989. Documents regarding purchase of above said property have been referred in the evidence of PW20 J.C. Sharma who testified that file D-80 relating to above said property was seized from the house of Anil Mehta, Chartered Accountant, file is Ex.PW20/X. PW38 Anil Mehta, in his evidence referred to file D-98 pertaining to A-2 Puneet Sabharwal containing different documents including original allotment letter dated 24.06.1989 of above mentioned property in the name of Puneet Sabharwal. PW30 Rajesh Katyal had also referred to D-64 (page no.4519 to 4525) relating to allotment letter of above mentioned property to Puneet s/o Ramesh Chander @ Rs.2 lakhs per acre. PW30 says that said letter was signed by R.K. Jain of Ansal Properties and allotment letter is Ex.PW30/5. PW41 has also referred to file D-80 (Ex.PW20/X) in his evidence, having seized from the office of CA Anil Mehta.
169. First of all from the evidence of PW20, PW30, PW38 and PW41, documents contained in file D-80, in the opinion of this court are not proved. PW20 is only witness of seizure of file, PW30 also proved the CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) Digitally signed by SHELENDER Page No. 98 SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 16:32:40 +0530 record of Ansal Properties containing original allotment letter signed by Mr.R.K. Jain from Ansal Properties. Said Mr.R.K. Jain has not been examined by prosecution. PW38 is the witness from whose office the file was seized and PW41 is the IO. Letter of allotment Ex.PW30/5 though has been exhibited however in the opinion of this court same has not been proved as per law as the executant of that letter has not been examined. As such there is no evidence at all proving the ownership, possession of that property in the name of A-2. Mere reference of the file containing relevant documents pertaining to above said property is no proof. Be that as it may, even otherwise the above said property was acquired by A-2 in 1989, by then A-2 was major and was earning gainfully. There is nothing on the record even in the evidence of PW20, PW38 and PW41 to show that said property was in any manner purchased from the funds of A-1. Thus, for the reasons as noted above, above mentioned property cannot be added to Statement-C of A-1.
(ix) Five shops, Sushant Road, Gurgaon
170. As per prosecution above said shops were purchased by Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust in August 1989 for Rs.1,25,000/-, from Ansal Properties and payment was made by way of cheque no.527184 dated 15.04.1989. The document to prove the above said properties, relied upon by prosecution is D-59. PW20 J.C. Sharma, independent witness has referred to this file D-59 (Ex.PW20/U) having been seized from the office of Anil Mehta, Chartered Accountant. PW38 Anil Mehta also in his evidence, when file D-59 was put to him has stated that file related to Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust was being kept by him in his office and contains Digitally signed CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
Page No. 992025.05.31 16:32:48 +0530 documents related to properties of Sushant Lok, Haryana. It also contains the original allotment letter at page no.4175 to 4180.
171. Perusal of relevant pages 4175 to 4181 of D-59 (Ex.PW20/U), would show that in that file two allotment letters in respect of property no.GF-61 and GF-62 are lying on that file. Beside this, there are five receipts of Rs.25,000/- in respect of five shops no.BGF-104, BGF-103, BGF-105, GF-61 and GF-62. These receipts were of part payment of earnest amount which was 15% of total cost of each of the shop, alloted in the name of Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust.
172. Having examined the evidence relating to above said properties, PW30 witness from Ansal Properties namely Rajesh Katyal has not referred to D-59 at all in his entire evidence. PW20 is the independent witness regarding seizure of file D-50 and PW38 Anil Mehta is the witness from whose possession the file was seized. Thus from the above said evidence, one can safely conclude that the relevant documents contained in D-59, have not been proved. Even if for the time being documents are taken into consideration, it only mention regarding receipts of part payment towards earnest amount in respect of five shops. There is nothing in the file to show that those shops were ultimately transferred to Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust or not. Taking the evidence and facts on the face of it, since this court has already concluded that above mentioned Trust was not otherwise financially connected with A-1, for that reason as well as the reason as noted above, above mentioned properties cannot be added to Statement-C.
(x) Flat No.211, First Floor, Jain Mandir Road CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) Page No. 100 Digitally signed SHELENDER by SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2025.05.31 16:32:55 +0530
173. As per prosecution above mentioned flat was booked by Morni Merchants through its director Puneet Sabharwal from M/s Intel Constructions on 13.04.1988 for total cost of Rs.4,76,000/-. The payments were made by way of cheque no.316337 dated 14.12.1992 and 316349 dated 18.04.1993 of Rs.2,76,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- respectively.
Prosecution has relied upon documents D-34 and D-35 regarding proof of above mentioned property. As per PW20 J.C. Sharma, files D-34 (Ex.PW20/E) (ROC File) and D-35 (Ex.PW20/F) pertaining to Morni Merchants Limited were seized from the office of Anil Mehta, CA. These files have also been referred to in the evidence of PW38 Anil Mehta, CA.
174. Perusal of file D-35 (Ex.PW20/F) at page no.1291 would show that there is an agreement dated 11.12.1992 between Intel Constructions Limited and M/s Morni Merchants Limited regarding allotment of above mentioned property. First of all this agreement has not been proved by examining any witness who executed the same. Secondly, in the cross-examination of PW41 it came that as on 11.12.1992 no construction had taken place on plot no.2, Jain Mandir Road, New Delhi. Moreover it is not even the case of prosecution that payments regarding purchase of above mentioned property was made by A-1 in any manner. Rather the documents and receipt contained in D-35 show that whatever payments were made, made by cheques of Morni Merchants Limited. This court has already concluded earlier that there is no evidence led by prosecution proving any connection of A-1 with Morni Merchants Limited. Thus the above mentioned property cannot be added in Statement-C.
(xi) Space P-1, Ground Floor, WTC (Holiday Inn) CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) Page No. 101 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 16:33:02 +0530
175. As per prosecution case this property was purchased by Morni Merchants on 13.04.1988 for Rs.7,25,000/- from Bharat Hotels Limited. To prove about the above mentioned property, prosecution has examined PW1 R.P. Anand, from Bharat Hotels Limited who proved a letter dated 05.04.1995 addressed to M/s Morni Merchants Limited Ex.PW1/A requesting the said company to deposit the balance amount in respect of above mentioned property. PW1 further proved agreement dated 13.04.1988 in respect of sub licensing of above said shop from Bharat Hotels Limited to Morni Merchants which is Ex.PW1/C, part payment receipt of Rs.7 lakhs is Ex.PW1/D. Above said documents were seized during the investigation of CBI vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B.
176. Beside PW1, PW20 J.C. Sharma also referred to file D-36 containing documents pertaining to above mentioned property which is Ex.PW20/G. PW38 Anil Mehta also referred to the file D-36 (Ex.PW20/G) containing documents as proved in the evidence of PW1.
177. Having considered the evidence, first of all it be noted that said property was alloted by Bharat Hotels Limited only on sub license basis, that too to Morni Merchants Limited. It came in the evidence of PW1 that part payment was made vide receipt Ex.PW1/D. Thereafter letter dated 05.04.1995 was written Ex.PW1/A to Morni Merchants Limited for making the balance payment. PW1 in his examination in chief itself has stated that possession of said property never handed over because the balance amount has never been paid by the party. As such even the evidence of PW1, PW20 and PW38 is taken on the face of it, first of all ownership of that property has not been proved, to have been transferred to Digitally signed CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK Page No. 102 MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 16:33:08 +0530 Morni Merchants Limited. Moreover the company Morni Merchants Limited has no concern with A-1. Accordingly this property cannot be added to Statement-C.
(xii) G-11, Arunachal, Barakhamba Road
178. As per prosecution case, above mentioned property was purchased by Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust on 25.06.1982 from Kailash Nath and Associates, the payment of Rs.2,85,818/- was made by way of cheque no.742641, 258769 and 928392 of PNB from Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust. To prove the above said property, prosecution has relied upon D-56 and D-
57. PW20 J.C. Sharma upon seeing file D-57 identifies to be file relating to Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust (Arunachal) Ex.PW20/S, having seized from the office of CA Anil Mehta. PW38 has also referred to about the said file containing relevant documents relating to above said property from page no.4028 to 4053, which include article of agreement dated 25.06.1982 between Kailash Nath and Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust through trustee Shakuntala. Perusal of said agreement would show that it was lease hold property, purchased by Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust.
179. This agreement lying on file D-57 has not been proved. Eeven otherwise as noted above Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust had nothing to do with A-1 so far as financial transactions are concerned. Thus for the reasons already noted earlier, this property cannot be added to Statement- C.
(xiii) Farm House at Gadaipur Mehrauli, 19 bigha & 1 biswa
180. As per prosecution case, above mentioned property was purchased by Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust on 09.12.1986 for Rs.3,50,000/-.
Digitally signed by CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK Page No. 103 MALIK Date: 2025.05.31 16:33:39 +0530
To prove the above said property, prosecution has examined PW4 Azad Singh, the then Inspector of CBI as well as PW20 J.C. Sharma were part of CBI team who conducted search at the premises of CA Anil Mehta and during search file D-53 (Ex.PW4/F) pertaining to Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/B. PW38 Anil Mehta has also referred to about the said file containing relevant documents related to the property at Panchvati Agriculture Farm at village Gadaipur purchased by the above said Trust.
181. PW33 Ved Prakash upon seeing file D-53 (Ex.PW4/F) has stated in his evidence that his brother Trilok Chand had seven sale deeds each dated 09.12.1986, sold property to Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust in Village Gadaipur, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi under khasra no.142 (min 1-
9) and khasra no.143 (min 2-6) against sale consideration of Rs.50,000/- vide sale deed Ex.PW33/P; khasra no.140 (min 1-17) and khasra no.141 (min 1-18) against sale consideration of Rs.50,000/- vide sale deed Ex.PW33/Q; khasra no.216 (min 3-17) against sale consideration of Rs.50,000/- vide sale deed Ex.PW33/R; khasra no.141 (min 0-8) and khasra no.142 (min 3-7) against sale consideration of Rs.50,000/- vide sale deed Ex.PW33/S; khasra no.140 (min 3-15) against sale consideration of Rs.50,000/- vide sale deed Ex.PW33/T; khasra no.144 (min 2-10) and khasra no.214 (min 1-5) against sale consideration of Rs.50,000/- vide sale deed Ex.PW33/U; and khasra no.214 (min 3-11) and khasra no.216 (min 0-
7) against sale consideration of Rs.50,000/- vide sale deed Ex.PW33/V. Witness PW33 also stated that he provided all the documents to CBI vide seizure memo Ex.PW33/W. Witness Trilok Chaudhary (PW37) has also Digitally signed CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK Page No. 104 MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 16:33:45 +0530 appeared in the witness box and stated that he sold the above said properties to Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust vide above referred sale deeds Ex.PW33/P to Ex./PW33/V.
182. Above mentioned sale deeds are between PW37 Trilok Chaudhary and Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust. This court in earlier part of the judgment has already held that Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust had no financial connection with A-1. Above mentioned property has been admittedly purchased, by payment of sale consideration through banking channel. There is evidence on record that Trust was earning rental income etc. thus had resources to purchase it. Therefore for the reasons already noted earlier, this property cannot be added to Statement-C.
(xiv) Flat No.1316, Ansal Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi
183. As per prosecution case, above mentioned property has been purchased on 09.11.1987 by Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust for a sum of Rs.4,58,068/- from Ansal Properties. To prove the above mentioned property, PW20 J.C. Sharma stated that file D-58 (Ex.PW20/T) related to Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust (38 Nehru Place) was seized from the office of CA Anil Mehta. PW30 Rajesh Katyal from Ansal Properties in his evidence stated that allotment letter Ex.PW30/3 was issued to Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust on 09.11.1987 for allotment of office spalce no.1316 at 38 Nehru Place, New Delhi which his signed by Sh.Vijay Katyal, the then General Manager of Ansal Properties. PW30 also stated that a final call letter dated 21.05.1993 Ex.PW30/4 was issued demanding payment of outstanding dues. Witness stated that as per said letter a total sum of Rs.4.06,640/- was received to the company, however a sum of Digitally signed CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK Page No. 105 MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 16:33:51 +0530 Rs.1,26,949.60 was outstanding on the buyer. PW38 Anil Mehta has also referred to same file D-58 relating to Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust and stated that said file was kept by his firm for property no.38, Nehru Place and that all those documents including receipts etc. were provided by the trustees, to reconcile the bank account, for the purpose of filing the income tax. IO PW41 S.K. Peshin has also referred to said file in his evidence.
184. The relevant documents in respect of said property lying on file D-58 have not been proved as per law as the author of the allotment letter has not been examined by prosecution. Even otherwise as noted above Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust had nothing to do with A-1 so far as financial transactions are concerned. Thus for the reasons already noted earlier, this property cannot be added to Statement-C.
(xv) & (xvi) Flat No.5-A & 5-B, White House, Bhagwan Dass Road
185. As per case of prosecution above mentioned two flats were purchased by Morni Merchants through Ranjana Mehta on 20.07.1988 for a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- each. To prove the above mentioned properties, PW20 J.C. Sharma stated that files D-37 (Ex.PW20/H) and D-38 (Ex.PW20/I) related to Morni Merchants were seized during search in the premises of CA Anil Mehta. PW38 Anil Mehta in his evidence has referred to file D-37 relating to Morni Merchants Pvt. Ltd. containing documents of purchase and sanction of flat bearing no.5A, at Bhagwan Das Road, Delhi as well as file D-38 relating to flat no.5B of same property. PW38 stated that since there was a requirement of law for taking the prior no objection from Government of India, before buying the property, accordingly they took no objection from the appropriate authority for the Digitally CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) signed by SHELENDER Page No. 106 SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 16:34:00 +0530 purpose of purchasing the same. Witness says that said files contain original buyer agreements of flat no.5A and 5B, White House, Bhagwan Das Road, Delhi bearing signature of Mrs.Ranjana Mehta as director of M/s Morni Merchant Limited at point A on original flat buyer agreements (from page no.1348 to 1353) and (from page no.1384 to 1389). Witness says that those flats were purchased for sale consideration of Rs.16,95,750/- each. Ms.Ranjana Mehta has been examined as PW48, however nothing came in the entire evidence of PW48 regarding above mentioned two flats of White House, Bhagwan Dass Road. PW48 did not support the prosecution case and therefore she was permitted to cross- examine by ld. PP for CBI. However even in the cross-examination nothing came pertaining to above mentioned property.
186. PW41 IO S.K. Peshin has also referred to files D-37 and D-38 with regard to above mentioned properties and stated that search was conducted on those properties under his authorization u/s 165 Cr.P.C by Azad Singh, the then Inspector, CBI vide search memos Ex.PW28/A and Ex.PW28/B. During cross-examination PW41 stated that at the time of going for search, the above said flats were found to be locked. Mr. A.G.L Kaul Inspector CBI visited the Residents Welfare office and checked and prepared a observation/check memo dated 24.08.1995 which is Ex.PW41/D. PW41 also stated in his cross-examination that through letter Ex. PW-41/P and its annexures he came to know that Plot No. 10, Bhagwan Dass Road was owned by Mrs. Kusum Kumari and Shri Ashok Pal Singh and that they were the represented by Shri S D Madan before the Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) MALIK Date:
Page No. 1072025.05.31 16:34:07 +0530 NDMC, however PW41 I did not examine the owners of the plot or their authorized representative.
187. Perusal of file D-37 (Ex.PW20/H) shows that flat no.5A at 10 Bhagwan Dass Road was owned by Morni Merchants Limited vide flat buyer agreement dated 20.07.1988 between Morni Merchants Ltd and Taj World Fame Builders for a sum of Rs.16,95,750/-. Similar is the situation with regard to flat no.5B as per file D-38 (Ex.PW20/I). No one has been examined by prosecution from Taj World Fame Builders, to prove such transfer of ownership. Prosecution cannot get any help from the documents of above mentioned properties for the reasons that IO PW41 has failed to prove the authorization issued by him in favour of another CBI official for search of those flats. Secondly, prosecution has failed to establish any financial connection of A-1 with Morni Merchants Limited as it is apparent that those flats were purchased by Morni Merchants Limited. For the reasons so stated, this court is of the view that above mentioned properties cannot be added in Statement-C. (xvii) Flat No.513, Hemkunt Tower, Nehru Place
188. It is the case of prosecution that above mentioned property was purchased by Sushma Suri (sister of A-1) on 24.09.1978 for a sum of Rs.1,13,050/-. To prove this property, PW20 J.C. Sharma stated that during search at the premises of CA Anil Mehta, file D-100 (Ex.PW20/Z-
1) was seized regarding above said property. PW38 Anil Mehta in his evidence stated that D-100 (Ex.PW20/Z-1) contained property papers of office no.513, Skipper Towers of Sushma Suri as well as ancillary papers which were prepared/received while dealing taxation matters. IO S.K. Digitally signed CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK Page No. 108 MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 16:34:16 +0530 Peshin (PW41) has also referred to documents of above mentioned property in his evidence.
189. Perusal of file D-100 (Ex.PW20/Z-1) contains allotment letter of above mentioned property in favour of Mrs.Sushma Suri as well as payment receipts and agreement to sell the same. It is apparent from these documents that said flat was purchased by Smt.Sushma Suri (sister of A-1) in her individual name and all the transactions regarding purchases were made by her through banking channel. Prosecution has failed to led any evidence to show on record that any payment was made by A-1 or transferred any fund for the purchase of above said property. In the absence of any such evidence, above said property cannot be added in Statement-C. (xviii) Plot No.H-7, Masjid Moth
190. As per prosecution case, above mentioned property was allotted by DDA in joint name of A-1 R.C. Sabharwal and his wife Smt.Usha Sabharwal for a sum of Rs.3,35,081/- in the year 1975. Regarding ownership of said property, witness PW16 Satya Pal has referred to file D-71 pertaining to property Plot No.7, Block-H, Masjid Moth, New Delhi which is Mark PW16/X-1.
191. There is no dispute with regard to this property by the accused. Intimation regarding purchase of above mentioned property is also in Personal File of A-1 Ex.PW41/RCS-4. Therefore value of this property i.e. Rs.3,35,081/- is added in Statement-C. (xix) Flat No.19, Second Floor, Prithvi Raj Road Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 Page No. 109 16:34:24 +0530
192. So far as this property is concerned, it is the case of prosecution that above said property was purchased in the name of Sumeet Sabharwal on 19.03.1993 for a sum of Rs.8,51,250/-. To prove this property IO S.K. Peshin (PW41) in his evidence stated that file D-81 was seized vide seizure memo dated 11.09.1995 Ex.PW41/J. Witness stated that through said seizure memo he had seized file relating to Flat No.15 New/Old 19, Second Floor at 31, Prithviraj Road and also that document D-82 is an agreement between R.K. Handa and M/s Bhatia Sehgal Construction company relating to purchase of above mentioned flat.
193. As per agreement dated 19.03.1993 contained in file D-81, Mr.R.K. Handa informed to builders M/s Bhatia Sehgal Construction Corporation that he had sold the above said flat to Mr.Sumeet s/o Ramesh Chander. Prosecution has failed to lead any evidence to show that funds of A-1 R.C. Sabharwal were used in any manner for purchase of above mentioned property in the name of his son Sumeet or funds were transferred by him. Moreover it is matter of record that on the date of such transaction Sumeet Sabharwal had attained majority. Moreover purchase of said property, has not been proved as per law. As such there is no evidence to prove ownership of this property. In the absence of any such evidence, this property cannot be added in Statement-C. (xx) Flat No.3, Neeti Bagh
194. As per case of prosecution, above mentioned property was purchased in the name of A-2 Puneet Sabharwal for a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- on 28.05.1993. To prove this fact, prosecution has examined PW12 Smt.Meeta Roy who stated that during year 1996 she was working with CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) Page No. 110 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 16:34:32 +0530 M/s Pal & Paul Builders Limited and on seeing copy of agreement to sell D-97 (Ex.PW12/A), PW12 stated that it was executed between M/s Pal & Paul Builders and Sh. S. Puneet s/o S. Ramesh Chandra for property at Ground Floor, Flat No.001, on plot no.A-3, Neeti Bagh, New Delhi which was sold for Rs.6,50,000/- and payment was received vide cheque no.002357 dated 27.05.1993. Witness stated that the possession letter is at page no.3 of D-97. Witness PW13 Lalit Sharma from M/s Pal & Paul Builders stated that document D-97 (Ex.PW12/A) was handed over by him to CBI. IO S.K. Peshin (PW41) has stated that wealth tax assessment file of property Flat No.1, A-3, Ground Floor, Neeti Bagh, New Delhi of MCD. was received to him vide letter dated 30.12.1996 (at page no.5187).
195. As per Agreement to Sell dated 28.05.1993 Ex.PW12/A, M/s Pal & Paul Builders Ltd. sold the above mentioned property to A-2 Puneet Sabharwal for a consideration of Rs.6,50,000/- vide cheque no.002357 dated 27.05.1993. It is apparent from the said document that the payment of sale consideration was made by Puneet Sabharwal through cheque. Prosecution has failed to bring any evidence on record showing financial connection of A-1 with the purchase of above mentioned property. Even otherwise in earlier portion of the judgment, this court has already observed that A-2 Puneet Sabharwal was gainfully engaged in business activities and had attained majority on the date of entering agreement dated 28.05.1993. Thus above mentioned property cannot be added in Statement-C for A-1.
(xxi) Office space measuring 175 sq. feet in Vandana Building Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) MALIK Date: Page No. 111 2025.05.31 16:34:40 +0530
196. As per prosecution case above mentioned property was purchased in the name of Morni Merchants through Ranjana Mehta on 09.05.1998 regarding which part of the sale consideration of Rs.43,000/- was paid by way of cheque no.940962 dated 22.04.1988, from vendor Gee Vee Constructions Limited.
197. However except the assertion/allegation, there is no evidence led to prove regarding purchase of above said property by Morni Merchants through Ranjana Mehta. As noted above Ms.Ranjana Mehta has been examined as PW48. However in her evidence there is no reference regarding purchase of above mentioned property by her being director of Morni Merchants Limited. Although PW38 Anil Mehta in his evidence has stated that he though has referred to agreement to sell between Morni merchants and Dr.Rajender Bali, however he expressed his ignorance about current status of office space at S IV in Vandana Building purchased by Morni Merchants. PW38 has also not given the exact status regarding purchase of the above mentioned property nor any document in this regard has been proved. In the absence of same as well as the for the reasons already noted above, this property cannot be added in Statement-C. (xxii) B-247, Ground Floor, New Friends Colony
198. As per prosecution case above advance payment for purchase of above mentioned property was made on 05.06.1995 by payment of Rs.16,80,000/- by way of cheque no.002398 of Citi Bank by A-2 Puneet Sabharwal in favour of Deepak Rampal. However no evidence at all in this regard has been led. It is the case of prosecution itself that sum of Rs.16,80,000/-, was paid by a cheque drawn on Citi Bank towards the part CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) Page No. 112 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 16:34:46 +0530 payment for purchase. However the part payment in itself does not establish ownership of the property, more particularlly when no evidence has been led nor the vendor of the property Deepak Rampal has been examined. There is no evidence that any payment has been made by way of cash or from A-1 in any manner. Thus above mentioned property cannot be added to Statement-C. (xxiii) A-259, New Friends Colony, New Delhi
199. As per prosecution case ground floor of above mentioned property was purchased somewhere in December 1993 by Puneet Sabharwal for Rs.83 lakhs out of which a sum of Rs.8.5 lakhs was paid to Kohli Brothers.
200. In this regard prosecution has again not led any evidence to prove the above mentioned property in the name of Puneet Sabharwal. Although there is a reference regarding relevant files/documents pertaining to above mentioned property, in the evidence of IO (PW41), when witness upon seeing D-65, D-66 and D-67 he referred to documents pertaining to first, second and Cromel floor of A-259, New Friends Colony. However relevant documents have not been proved nor there is any evidence to show that entire payment of sale consideration has been paid or not and property was actually transferred in the name of A-2 Puneet Sabharwal or not. As such in the absence of any such evidence, above mentioned property cannot be added in Statement-C. (xxiv) 20 bigha land at Sultanpur
201. As per prosecution case above mentioned property was purchased in the name of Sumeet Sabharwal and A-2 Puneet Sabharwal on Digitally signed CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) SHELENDER by SHELENDER MALIK Page No. 113 MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 16:34:56 +0530 27.09.1985 for a sale consideration of Rs.2,60,000/-. To prove this property, PW11 Smt.Sudha Jain deposed that sale deeds dated 27.09.1985 (D-61) (Ex.PW11/A and Ex.PW11/B) regarding agriculture land measuring 2 bigha and 4 biswa in khasra no.596 were executed by her in favour of Master Puneet Sabharwal and Master Sumeet Sabharwal and those properties were sold to them through their mother Usha Sabharwal. PW37 Trilok Chaudhary has also stated that vide sale deeds dated 27.09.1985, vendors Mr.D.G. Gupta, Premwati, A.P. Sehgal and Sube Ram sold the different portions of property in village Sultanpur, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi to Master Puneet Sabharwal and Master Sumeet Sabharwal which are Ex.PW37/A to Ex.PW37/G (D-61).
202. There is no dispute with regard to above mentioned property by the accused. Therefore value of this property i.e. Rs.2,60,000/- is added in Statement-C. Property of Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh
203. This court has already noted above in the judgment that after the partition, when father of A-1 came to Delhi, he was alloted property i.e. Plot No. 2/6080 Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh. After the demise of father of A-1, it devolved upon to A-1 R.C. Sabharwal. Intimation in this regard was given to the Department. A-1 has been earlier earning rental income from that property. That fact is rather asserted by accused himself. Therefore this property is also to be added in Statement-D, however without any addition of value as same was alloted to father of A-1 even prior to check period.
Statement of Witness cannot be taken as Evidence Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) Page No. 114 MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 16:35:01 +0530
204. For establishing that above discussed properties are required to be added in Statement-C, ld. PP for CBI has put much reliance on the statement of PW38 Anil Mehta under Section 161 and 164 Cr.PC to submit that statement of this witness rather proves that properties as mentioned in the charge sheet were benami property. Ld. PP submits that statement of the witness Anil Mehta u/s 161 as well as 164 Cr.PC clearly indicate that those entities were created and properties were purchased only from the funds of A-1 R.C. Sabharwal.
205. Ld. Counsel for A-1 as well as A-2 on the other hand submitted that statement of witness PW38 Anil Mehta u/s 161 and 164 Cr.PC are not substantive evidence and therefor they can be used for limited purpose of confrontation/contradiction. It is submitted that in the present case even contradictions have also not been properly established.
206. Having considered the submissions, first of all it be noted that witness Anil Mehta whose statement u/s 161 and 164 Cr.PC have been relied upon by ld. PP for CBI, has turned hostile as he did not support the prosecution case. No doubt mere fact that witness has been declared hostile, ipso facto cannot be a reason to discard his evidence. However evidence of a witness can be relied upon when something incriminating has been established from that evidence. If we go through entire evidence of PW38 Anil Mehta, he though has referred to different files seized during investigation of this case from his office and has also stated regarding documents contained in those files as well as the fact that he being Chartered Accountant for accused as well as different entities, had been looking after the income tax issues. The incriminating material as Digitally signed CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) Page No. 115 by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 16:35:08 +0530 mentioned in statement u/s 161 Cr.PC as well as u/s 164 Cr.PC of that witness, has not been proved because witness has denied those incriminating portions in his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC when he appeared in the witness box. In such circumstances when even in cross-examination by ld. PP for CBI nothing incriminating has come, statement of the witness be it recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC or u/s 164 Cr.PC cannot be made basis for conviction. It is established proposition of law that statement u/s 161 or 164 Cr.PC are not substantive evidence. Moreover no presumption can be attached with the statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC that the contents of the same are truthful. It is the testimony given in the court upon the strength of an oath, that becomes evidence if something incriminating comes in that evidence. Statement u/s 161 or 164 Cr.PC can be used for limited purpose as per Section 145 and 157 of Indian Evidence Act. (Reference can be given to Ramesh vs. State 1986 CrLJ 1101, State (Delhi Administration) vs. Harish Kumar and ors. 1974 ILR (Del) 198, Naresh Aneja vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2025 (2) SCC 604, Somasundaram vs. State (2020) 7 SCC
722). Therefore mere statements in difference cannot take place of proof or evidence.
207. In the present case important aspect rightly highlighted by ld. Counsels for A-1 and A-2 is that different witnesses including PW3 Arvind Mohan Deshraj, PW11 Smt.Sudha Jain, PW15 A.K. Pathak, PW16 Satya Pal, PW17 Ram Avtar Verma, PW21 Smt.Krishna Rawal, PW37 Trilok Chaudhary, PW38 Anil Mehta and PW48 Ranjana Mehta have not supported the prosecution version and were declared hostile. Ld. PP for CBI has cross-examined these witnesses. Witnesses more particularly Digitally CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) signed by SHELENDER Page No. 116 SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 16:35:13 +0530 PW38 Anil Mehta was confronted with relevant portions of his previous statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC. However mere confrontation from the relevant portions and asking the IO (PW41) as to properly recording of statement u/s 161 Cr.PC of that witness, is not complete process. Law with regard to provision of Section 145 of Indian Evidence Act has been duly explained by Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment Mahabir vs. State of Haryana 2025 SCC OnLine SC 184 wherein it was observed as:-
"Under Section 145 of the Evidence Act when it is intended to contradict the witness by his previous statement reduced into writing, the attention of such witness must be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him, before the writing can be used. While recording the deposition of a witness, it becomes the duty of the trial court to ensure that the part of the police statement with which it is intended to contradict the witness is brought to the notice of the witness in his cross- examination. The attention of witness is drawn to that part and this must reflect in his cross- examination by reproducing it. If the witness admits the part intended to contradict him, it stands proved and there is no need of further proof of contradiction and it will be read while appreciating the evidence. If he denies having made that part of the statement, his attention must be drawn to that statement and must be mentioned in the deposition. By this process the contradiction is merely brought on record, but it is yet to be proved. Thereafter, when the Investigating Officer is examined in the court, his attention should be drawn to the passage marked for the purpose of contradiction, it will then be proved in the deposition of the Investigating Officer who, again, by referring to the police statement will depose about the witness CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) Page No. 117 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 16:35:19 +0530 having made that statement. The process again involves referring to the police statement and culling out that part with which the maker of the statement was intended to be contradicted. If the witness was not confronted with that part of the statement with which the defence wanted to contradict him, then the court cannot suo motu make use of statements to police not proved in compliance with Section 145 of the Evidence Act, that is, by drawing attention to the parts intended for contradiction."
208. In the present case PW38 Anil Mehta has been confronted with anything incriminating came in that statement u/s 164 Cr.PC. As such his statement u/s 164 Cr.PC cannot be used for any purpose. Even if PW38 Anil Mehta was confronted with certain portions of his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC in cross-examination by ld. PP for CBI, but those particular portions of his statement have not been put to the IO to bring on record that same were properly recorded. As such process of confrontation was not complete. As per law those incriminating portions of statements u/s 161 Cr.PC of PW38, which he had denied having stated to I.O., ought to have also been put to PW41, to ask, whether those portions were so stated by witness or not. Mere asking from I.O., if he recorded statement of PW38 Anil Mehta properly, would not serve the requirement of law. Therefore on this count also statement of witness particularly PW38 and of PW41 cannot be taken into consideration for proving any benami transaction.
Total Assets (Statement-C) Digitally signed by SHELENDER CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) Page No. 118 SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 16:35:27 +0530 S.No. Description of Asset Value/Amount Movable Assets Movable assets mentioned at serial no.2, 3, 4, 6, Rs.2,30,400/- 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 NSC/Mutual Funds (at serial no.25 to 30 and 32 Rs.1,03,000/- to 34) NSC/Mutual Funds (at serial no.35 & 37) Rs.22,000/- Bank balance of different accounts and FDRs Rs.24,02,318/-
Immovable Assets
Plot No.H-7, Masjid Moth Rs.3,35,081/-
20 bigha land at Sultanpur Rs.2,60,000/-
Property of Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh Nil
Total Value Rs.33,52,799/-
(Movable + Immovable Assets)
Expenditure
209. Let us examine each of the item of expenditure incurred by accused persons.
(i) 30% of carry home salary of R.C. Sabharwal @ Rs.3,33,346/- There is no dispute with regard to such expenditure. As such ordered to be added in Statement-D.
(ii) Electricity and water charges (Usha Sabharwal) (from 12.09.91 to 24.07.95). No evidence has been led regarding the said expenditure, therefore would not be added in Statement-D. Digitally signed by SHELENDER CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: Page No. 119 2025.05.31 16:35:33 +0530
(iii) Charges on servant quarter (Usha Sabharwal). No evidence has been led regarding the said expenditure, therefore would not be added in Statement-D.
(iv) By school of the children paid to St.Columbus (R.C. Sabharwal) of Rs.35,527/-. Although evidence of PW18 Simon Coelho has been examined. However there is no dispute with regard to such expenditure as relevant document D-158 has been admitted as P-26. As such amount of Rs.35,527/- is added in Statement-D.
(v) As per prosecution case there is an expenditure towards payment of LIC policies in the name of A-1 R.C. Sabharwal of Rs.37,975/-; Usha Sabharwal of Rs.35,950/-;
and Puneet Sabharwal (A-2) of Rs.7600/- and Sumeet Sabharwal of Rs.4096/-. PW19 Mahavir Prasad Jain has been examined who proved LIC policy no.110356831 and 110356481 in the name of Sumeet Sabharwal and Puneet Sabharwal respectively which are Ex.PW19/A and Ex.PW19/B (D-115) respectively.
In respect of policy Ex.PW19/A in the name of Sumeet Sabharwal whose year of birth is March 1973, he attained majority in March 1991. This policy was half yearly payment starting from March 1987. Therefore the expenditure towards the policy under Ex.PW19/A would comes out to be Rs.4,269.60 (Rs.474.40 X 9).
Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 Page No. 120 16:35:39 +0530 In respect of policy Ex.PW19/B in the name of Puneet Sabharwal, the year of birth of Puneet Sabharwal is September 1970, and he attained majority in September 1988. This policy was from March 1987, relevant expenditure under policy can be counted only upto September 1988. As such expenditure uner this policy comes out to be Rs.1900/- (Rs.475 X 4).
Similarly PW39 Sanjay Kumar has been examined who proved policy no.074823797 and 074823783 (D-116) in the name of Usha Sabharwal and R.C. Sabharwal respectively which are Ex.PW39/A and Ex.PW39/B respectively.
Ld. Counsel for the accused submits that expenditure towards policies Ex.PW39/A and Ex.PW39/B cannot be taken into consideration as same has not been properly proved. It is submitted that PW39 in his cross-examination has admitted that he has never been posted at 124 branch of LIC and has never been aware who was the staff officiating in the branch at the relevant time and therefore was not in a position to identify the signatures on those policies. PW39 further admits that he is not aware as to who entered the details of policy Ex.PW39/A and Ex.PW39/B in the computer system. It is submitted that no certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act has been proved in support of computer generated policies.
Digitally signed by SHELENDER CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: Page No. 121 2025.05.31 16:35:47 +0530
Having considered the submissions, no doubt there is no certificate u/s 65 of Evidence Act proved in the evidence of PW39. But it be noted that relevant record of above mentioned policies pertains to period of 1985 to 2005 as maturity date of above said policies was of year 2005. In such circumstance even if these documents were admitted by defence, still have been proved as per law, having been brought from the official record of the LIC. There is a presumption of truthfulness attached with the document. Even otherwise this court is of the view that there was no necessity for certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act as the record was of period prior to the insertion of such provision in the law. This policy has maturity date subsequent to the check period which comes to an end on 23.12.1995. Therefore the expenditure towards the payment of annul premium under the policy would be added for check period i.e. from September 1985 to August 1995 (10 years). As such Rs.35,950/- is added (Rs.3595 X 10 years) for Usha Sabharwal. Similarly in the policy of R.C. Sabharwal Ex.PW39/B, the amount of premium for check period would be 10 ten years towards the expenditure which comes out to be Rs.3747.50 X 10 (Rs.37,475/-).
Thus the total expenditure towards the LIC policies would come out to be Rs.79,594.60.
Digitally signedCBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) by
SHELENDER
Page No. 122
SHELENDER MALIK
MALIK Date:
2025.05.31
16:35:52 +0530
(vi) By payment made to NDMC on account of electricity
Licence fee & water charge (Usha Sabharwal).
Expenditure of Rs.21,005/- has been alleged by the prosecution towards payment made to NDMC on account of electricity fee/water charges but no evidence has been led. Therefore those expenditure would not be added in Statement-D.
(vii) By payment of House Tax of A-7, Masjid Moth, New Delhi (Usha & RCS). No evidence has been led regarding proof of any expenditure towards the payment of house tax of above mentioned property. As such same cannot be added to Statement-D.
(viii) By expenses paid by private Telephone installed at the residence. A sum of Rs.73,806/- has been attributed towards the expenditure under the above said head. PW41 in his evidence referred to document D-106 which is letter dated 15.01.1998 through which he received the bills details of telephone bills of telephone no. 3321688 installed at 1, Palika Sadan, in the name of Ms. Usha Sabharwal which is Ex.PW41/N (colly.).
Though it is argued by defence that this document has not been properly proved. However since this document has been addressed to PW41 IO S.K. Peshin written by Chief Account Officer of MTNL which is original. Therefore the details of payments made towards the Digitally signed by SHELENDER CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 Page No. 123 16:35:58 +0530 telephone bills can certainly be taken into consideration. As such amount of Rs.73,806/- is added in Statement-D.
(ix) By payment paid to M.S. Service Station for service of vehicle. No evidence has been led for proof of above said expenditure of Rs.28,525/- as attributed. In the absence of same, same cannot be added to Statement-D.
(x) By payment paid to Oriental Insurance. Payment made to Oriental Insurance of Rs.9,902/- is not disputed and document D-84 is admitted as Ex.P-8, therefore expenditure of Rs.9,902/- is added to Statement-D.
(xi) By rent on Locker No.397 at PNB. No evidence has been led for proof of above said expenditure of Rs.1100/- as attributed. In the absence of same, same cannot be added to Statement-D.
(xii) By payments made to Sita Travels for 14.08.83 to 10.08.83. No evidence has been led for proof of above said expenditure of Rs.12,498/- as attributed. In the absence of same, same cannot be added to Statement-D.
(xiii) By payments made to Cozy Travels on 13.06.94. Payment under this head is not disputed as document D-123 is admitted as Ex.P-22. As such expenditure of Rs.36,669/-
is added to Statement-D.
(xiv) By payment made to CA's. No evidence has been led for proof of above said expenditure of Rs.6,750/- as attributed.
Digitally signed by SHELENDER CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: Page No. 124 2025.05.31 16:36:05 +0530
In the absence of same, same cannot be added to Statement-D.
(xv) By payments made to DDA on 24.07.92. Payment under this head is not disputed as document D-71 is admitted as Ex.P-4. As such expenditure of Rs.8,500/- is added to Statement-D. (xvi) to (xix) Payments towards serial no.16 to 19, though has been alleged however no evidence has been led for proving those expenditure and therefore same would not be added in Statement-D. (xx) Expenses paid by Puneet Sabharwal on foreign travel in May/June 89 & September 89 to USA, Canada, Singapore etc. Such expenses cannot be added to Statement-D as it was the expenditure made by A-2 Puneet Sabharwal upon attaining of his majority and when he was independently carrying on his business.
(xxi) By expenses registered at E-14, NDSE. Such expenses of Rs.1,82,400/- cannot be added into Statement-D when that property has also not been taken into consideration to be an asset of A-1 and has not been added in Statement-C. (xxii) Expenses registered found at Plot No.7, Arjun Nagar.
Expenditure towards registry expenses of above mentioned property cannot be added to Statement-D when that property does not belong to accused.
Digitally signed by SHELENDERSHELENDER MALIK CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) MALIK Date: Page No. 125 2025.05.31 16:36:12 +0530 (xxiii) Expenses registered found at Sultanpur. Since there is no dispute with regard to said immovable property, which is otherwise proved from the evidence of PW11 Sudha Jain and PW37 Trilok Chaudhary, therefore registry expenses of Rs.20,800/- are liable to be added in Statement-D. (xxiv) Expenses registered found at Panchvati Sarma.
Expenditure towards registry expenses of above mentioned property cannot be added to Statement-D when that property does not belong to accused.
Total Expenditure (Statement-D) S.No. Description of Expenditure Value/Amount
1. 30% of carry home salary of R.C. Sabharwal Rs.3,33,346/-
2. By school of the children paid to St. Columbus Rs.35,527/-
3. Payment of LIC policies in the name of A-1 R.C. Rs.79,594.60 Sabharwal, Usha Sabharwal, A-2 Puneet Sabharwal & Sumeet Sabharwal
4. Expenses paid by private Telephone installed at Rs.73,806/-
the residence
5. Payment paid to Oriental Insurance Rs.9,902/-
6. Payments made to Cozy Travels on 13.06.94 Rs.36,669/-
7. Payments made to DDA on 24.07.92 Rs.8,500/-
8. Expenses of Registry at Sultanpur Rs.20,800/-
Total Expenditure Rs.5,98,144.60 Investigation being not as per law
210. In the foregoing paras of this judgment, at different places this court has noted certain illegalities in the investigation. Ld. Counsels for A-
Digitally signed by SHELENDERSHELENDER MALIK CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 Page No. 126 16:36:18 +0530 1 and A-2 both have submitted that the investigation carried out by IO S.K. Peshin in this case was not only prejudiced, biased towards the accused but also illegal. It is submitted by Sh.Riyaz A. Bhat, ld. counsel for A-2 that investigation of IO S.K. Peshin has been completely illegal because PW41 S.K. Peshin fabricated various memos in respect of alleged proceedings conducted on 24.08.1995 to 25.08.1995. It is argued that statement of certain witnesses, more particularly statement of Anil Mehta and V.K. Lala u/s 161 Cr.PC were manipulated and fabricated, only to implicate the accused persons. It is submitted that IO PW41 when appeared in the witness box has also given false evidence on certain aspects. Above all it is submitted that in the present case charge sheet has been filed by PW45 Chetan Kumar who was not competent to conduct the investigation and to file the charge sheet, in the absence of any authorization issued in his favour by officer of the rank of SP, as required u/s 17 of P.C. Act.
211. Sh.Bhavook Chauhan, ld. Counsel for A-1 submits that although as a matter of fact the entire investigation was conducted by PW41 S.K. Peshin, however he has stated that when he handed over the investigation to PW45 Chetan Kumar, investigation was still incomplete on certain aspects. Whereas PW45 Chetan Kumar has deposed that he has ont conducted any investigation on any aspect, except to file the charge sheet. It is submitted that part investigation attributed to V.S. Thakran, S.R. Singh, R.K. Chadha, Ved Prakash, Ramesh by stating that they were authorized u/s 165 Cr.PC to conduct the search etc., was illegal and inadmissible in the absence of any authorization in writing. Reliance in this regard has been placed on judgment of Apex Court in Inspector of Digitally signed CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK Page No. 127 MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 16:36:24 +0530 Police Vishakhapatna vs. Surya Sankaran Karri 2006 VII AD (SC) 278, Babappa vs. State Lokayukta Police 2009 SCC OnLine Kar. 187.
212. Having considered the submissions, this court while taking up the legal issue first with regard to illegality of investigation for want of authorization in writing in terms of second proviso of Section 17 of P.C. Act, 1988 (before amendment of 2018). The investigation conducted by the CBI in this case was for offence u/s 13(1)(e) of P.C. Act 1988. Section 17 provides persons authorized to investigate offence under P.C. Act. Second proviso to Section 17 of the Act provides that an offence u/s 13(1)
(e), shall not be investigated without the order of police officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police.
213. In the present case PW41 S.K. Peshin, who conducted the investigation was DySP in ACB CBI Delhi, and was not authorized to conduct the investigation in the absence of anything in writing to authorize him to conduct the investigation from an officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police. No doubt at the time of registration of FIR in this case, investigation was marked to S.K. Peshin, however mere marking would not amount to an authorization, more particularly no evidence has been led by the prosecution to prove any office order, for marking the investigation to S.K. Peshin at the time of registration of FIR. Reference in this regard can be given of judgment in H.S. Gotla vs. State 2001 CrLJ 2695, wherein it was held that provisions of Section 17 are mandatory and sanction by an officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police in respect of investigation for offence u/s 13(1)(e) of P.C. Act is pre-requisite.
Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 Page No. 12816:36:32 +0530
214. Ld. counsel for A-2 has also relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in Surya Sankaram Karri's case (supra), in para 13 and 14 of which it has been laid down as :
"Provisions of the 1988 Act, no doubt, like the 1947 Act seek to protect public servant from a vexatious prosecution. Section 17 provides for investigation by a person authorized in this behalf. The said provision contains a non-obstante clause. It makes investigation only by police officer of the ranks specified therein to be imperative in character. The second proviso appended to Section 17 of the Act provides that an offence referred to in clause (e) of sub-Section (1) of Section 13, shall not be investigated without the order of a police officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police. Authorization by a Superintendent of Police in favour of an officer so as to enable him to carry out investigation in terms of section 17 of the Act is a statutory one. The power to grant such sanction has been conferred upon the authorities not below the rank of Superintendent of Police. The proviso uses a negative expression. It also uses the expression "shall". Ex-facie it is mandatory in character. When the authority of a person to carry out investigation is questioned on the ground that he did not fulfil the statutory requirements laid down therefor in terms of the second proviso, the burden, undoubtedly, was on the prosecution to prove the same. It has not been disputed before us that the Investigating Officer, P.W.41, did not produce any record to show that he had been so authorized. Shri K. Biswal, the Investigating Officer, while examining himself as P.W.41, admitted that he had not filed any authorization letter stating :
Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) 2025.05.31 16:36:38 Page No. 129 +0530 "I have received the specific authorisation from S.P., C.B.I., to register a case but I have not filed the said authorisation letter."
No explanation has been offered therefor. Even no attempt was made to bring the said document on record at a later stage."
215. Ld. Counsel for accused has rightly relied upon another judgment of Apex Court in Babappa's case (supra) in which Hon'ble Apex Court in para 46 to 47, noted certain judgments as mentioned therein wherein it was laid down that investigation conducted by an officer lesser than the rank of officer prescribed, may not vitiate the investigation only for that reason, unless it is shown that there is a failure of justice. However Apex Court in para 48 of the said judgment relied upon the observation given in Sankaram Karri's case as reproduced above and held that if there is material showing miscarriage of justice because of non-consideration of material circumstances, in that case if investigation has been conducted an officer which is otherwise not authorized under the law to conduct the investigation, in the absence of any written authorization, it would certainly affect very investigation of the matter.
216. In the present case also it is not only question that PW41 S.K. Peshin when started the investigation in the matter was not authorized in terms of second proviso to Section 17 of the Act 1988, but the manner in which the investigation has been conducted, also establish that IO instead of going strictly in accordance with the protocol/guidelines laid down for conducting the investigation in an offence u/s 13(1)(e), in Circular Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 Page No. 130 16:36:45 +0530 Ex.PW45/D-1, conducted investigation in a most high handed, prejudiced manner for following reasons :
(a) After the registration of the FIR, when search proceedings were conducted on 24.08.1995 and 25.08.1995, PW41 IO S.K. Peshin stated to have given authorization in terms of Section 165 Cr.PC to V.S. Thakran, S.R. Singh, R.K. Chadha, Ramesh. However no such authorization in terms of Section 165 Cr.PC have been placed on judicial record.
(b) IO S.K. Peshin has failed to give any legal, plausible explanation regarding non-examination of Shakuntala Sahni and Sushma Suri. As is reflected from the facts, evidence discussed in above paras of this judgment, when the very edifice of prosecution case against A-1 R.C. Sabharwal was that he with assistance of C.A. Anil Mehta created certain entities to cover up his ill-gotten money including a Trust by name Morni Devi Brij Lal Trust, in which trustees of sisters of A-1 namely Shakuntala Sahni and Sushma Suri. In such circumstance IO was duty bound in the facts of the present case to examine them however he in his evidence, in a most indifferent manner stated that he though made enquiries from them but did not record their statements as they were not cooperating. In such circumstance it was all the more necessary for IO to either made them witness or accused in this case.
Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) MALIK Date: Page No. 131 2025.05.31 16:36:50 +0530
(c) As per prosecution case entire files relating to different entities, allegedly created to cover up the alleged illegal money of A-1, were seized from the office of CA Anil Mehta, who was looking after all the affairs regarding creation of such entities, and looking after their taxation affairs. There is no explanation from IO as to why Anil Mehta was not made an accused in the present case. It assumes importance as that person when appeared as witness (PW38), did not support the prosecution case at all.
(d) There are certain entities, in which witness Ranjana Mehta (wife of PW38 Anil Mehta), was director and those entities had purchased certain properties. There is no explanation from the IO S.K. Peshin as to why he did not record statement of Ranjana Mehta u/s 161 Cr.PC.
(e) When the entire case of prosecution for proving the alleged disproportionate assets, was based on proof of those entities allegedly created to cover up the money of A-1, all those who were connected with those entities such as V.K. Lala, Neeru Grover (wife of partner of PW38 in the CA firm), alleged sellers of different immovable properties the details of which has been noted above etc.
(f) IO S.K. Peshin did not rely upon personal file/service record of A-1 R.C. Sabharwal and withheld the same from the court despite knowing that even as per the mandate of Digitally signed CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) by SHELENDER Page No. 132 SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 16:36:56 +0530 Section 13(1)(e), the amount of disproportionate assets can be assessed only in the light of declaration/communication regarding income, assets etc. of public servant given to his Department.
(g) PW45 Chetan Kumar who filed the charge sheet, has admitted in his evidence that he has not conducted any investigation, said Chetan Kumar filed the charge sheet without any authority in the writing as he was otherwise not competent to investigate this offence, in terms of second proviso to Section 17.
Liability of A-2 Puneet Sabharwal
217. A-2 was charged for offence under Section 109 IPC r/w 13(1)
(e) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act 1988 with basic allegations of having intentionally aided A-1 R.C. Sabharwal, father of A-2 in amassing assets disproportionate to the known sources of A-1 R.C. Sabharwal. The sum and substance of the prosecution allegations were A-2 aided A-1 his father in committing of offence by creating of certain entities, in which the illegal money of A-1 was concealed. This court while dealing with each particular entities, different assets, even assets in the name of A-2 Puneet Sabharwal has already concluded that different firms, companies incorporated in which A-2 Puneet Sabharwal has been involved for his business activities, were created in accordance with law. Nothing has come on the record to show that any funds were provided by A-1 for purchase of any property or starting of any business in the name of A-2.
Digitally signed by SHELENDERSHELENDER MALIK CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) MALIK Date:
2025.05.31 Page No. 13316:37:03 +0530
218. Section 109 of IPC corresponds to Section 49 of BNS. Abetment has been defined in Section 107 IPC corresponding to Section 45 of BNS. This section explains abetment of doing of a thing or crime. Section 45 of Sanhita recognize this principle and makes broad distinction between principles and abettors. Abetment is an offence if the act abetted would itself be an offence punishable under Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita. So as per section 45 of Sanhita (Sec. 107 IPC) an act of abetment may take place in one of three ways : (1) Instigation, (2) Conspiracy, or (3) Intentional aid. When an accused has been charged for offence of haying abetted the commission of the crime, specific allegations ought to be made against him and proved in the course of the trial to bring home the guilt to the accused regarding the manner in which he may have abetted the commission of the crime. Unless it is shown that the commission of the crime was not possible without the specific aid rendered by the person he would not be liable for being convicted for offence having abetted that offence. 'Mens rea' or criminal intention is most essential for establishing abetment. To constitute abatement, the abetter must be shown to have "intentionally" aided to commission of the crime. Mere proof that the crime charged could not have been committed without the interposition of the alleged abettor is not enough compliance with the requirements of Section 107 IPC. In this case there is no evidence at all establishing A-2 to have in any manner instigated, conspired or aided A-1 R.C. Sabharwal in commission of offence u/s 13(1)(e) of P.C. Act.
Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) 2025.05.31 16:37:08 +0530 Page No. 134 Calculation
219. Thus on the basis of discussion made above and assessment made by this Court, on Statement A to Statement D, following calculation comes out for disproportionate assets (if any):
Income (Statement-B) Rs.42,47,187.69 Expenditure Rs.5,98,144.60 (Statement-D) Likely saving (B-D) Rs.36,49,043.09 (Rs.42,47,187.69 minus Rs.5,98,144.60) Total assets acquired Rs.33,52,799/- during check period (Statement-C) Disproportionate assets Nil %age of Nil disproportionate assets
220. In view of the above said reasons as discussed above, both the accused A-1 R.C. Sabharwawl and A-2 Puneet Sabharwal stand discharged for all the offences. They are directed to comply with provision of Section 437A Cr.PC. Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2025.05.31 16:37:17 +0530 Announced in the open Court (Shailender Malik) on May 31st, 2025 Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI-21 RACC/New Delhi CBI vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Anr. (judgment) Page No. 135