Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . Shiv Charan Chauhan, on 13 October, 2015
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV AGGARWAL SPECIAL JUDGE
CBI03 (PC ACT) DELHI
CC No.07/15 RC : 27(A)/98
PS : CBI/ACB/ND
U/s : 109 IPC and Sec. 13 (2)
r/w. Sec.13(1) (e) of the P.C. Act
CBI Vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan,
Retd. Head Clerk, MCD,
Delhi, R/o C217, Gali No. 8,
Majlis Park, Delhi.
Date of Institution : 24.06.2000
Judgment Reserved : 22.09.2015
Judgment Delivered : 13.10.2015
J U D G M E N T
1. In brief prosecution story is that the present case was registered on 27.4.98 against Shiv Charan, Head Clerk (retd.) MCD under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as Act) on the basis of a source information that he, while posted and functioning as Inspector in MCD during the period 1982 to 1997, had amassed huge assets by corrupt and illegal means and also by abusing his official position, which are as under:-
RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 1 of 200 2
a) office space with the name and style of M/s Angad Communication with an area of 1450 sq. ft. situated at Ansari Road, Daryaganj in the name of his wife and son.
b) One showroom by name and style M/s Anhel Electronics situated at B7, Main Road, Majlis Park, Adarsh Nagar.
c) One plot No.D100, gali no.1, Burari Road, Swaroop Nagar, Delhi measuring 400 sq.yd. approx.
d) One plot no.D101, gali no.1, Burari road, Swaroop Nagar, Delhi measuring 67 sq.yd. approx.
e) One plot no.D78, gali no.1, Burari road, Swaroop Nagar, Delhi measuring 67 sq.yd. approx.
f) One plot no.A175 -Park, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi measuring about 200 sq.yds.
g) One godown no.A6, gali no.8, Kewal Park Extn., Azadpur, Delhi about 190 sq. yards
h) One maruti 1000 car no.DBV32
i) one Tata Mini Truck no.DL1G9493
j) One Maruti 800 car No.DL5CA7269
k) One scooter no.DL8SD1783.
2. During investigations, it was revealed that apart from these properties Shiv Charan was reported to be maintaining RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 2 of 200 3 telephone number(s) 7144907, 7116797, 7139744, 3267886, 3282335, 3288512, 328232 and one mobile phone number 9810004094. At that time Shiv Charan resides at C217, gali no.8, Majlis Park, Delhi which was well furnished with electrical/electronic gadgets. All the above assets were valued at Rs.2.5 crores approx. whereas his income from salary and other source was around Rs.6 Lacs approx.
3. After registration of the case, it was entrusted to Inspr.Virender Thakran, CBI,ACB, New Delhi for investigation(s). During the course of investigations, on 28.4.98 searches at C217, gali no.8, Majlis Park, Delhi, B7, Main Road, Majlis Park, Adarsh Nagar (shop known as M/s Anhal Electronics), A6, gali no.8, Kewal Park Extn., Azadpur, were conducted and various documents relating to assets were recovered. It was further revealed that Shiv Charan had retired in November 1997 and had acquired most of the properties w.e.f 1971 to 1997, so for ascertaining the disproportionate assets to the known source of income, the check period was taken from June 1971 to November 1997. It was further revealed during the investigation(s) that Shiv Charan was appointed as a surveillance worker on 24.01.61 in RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 3 of 200 4 MCD, in March 1962 he was appointed as LDC. On 09.01.80 he was promoted as UDC and on 01.04.92 he was promoted as Head Clerk.
4. It was further revealed during the investigation(s) that Late Sh.Ram Singh was the father of Shiv Charan, who was a small farmer having land approx. 2.0 acres, Late Sh.Ram Singh had three sons namely Shiv Charan, Dushyant and Shambhu Dayal and four daughters namely Smt.Sunehro, Smt.Resham, Smt.Krishna and Mrs.Daya. All the brothers and sisters were married and the sister of accused Smt.Krishna resided at the native place i.e. village Patla, Distt.Sonepat of accused because her husband had expired in the early age. The brother of accused were dependent on agriculture land. Shiv Charan was married to Smt.Rukmini Devi @ Rumali Devi. They had three children namely Sh.Anil Chauhan @ Anil Partap Singh, Sh.Pankaj Chauhan and Miss Mona Chauhan. It was further revealed that Sh.Anil Partap Singh did his education in December 1985 and Sh.Pankaj Chauhan completed his B.Sc. in May 1991. They engaged in business after their respective education. Investigation(s) further revealed they both had independent source of income.
RC NO. 27A/98
CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 4 of 200
5
5. It is further submitted that Sh.Anil Chauhan did business of advertisement through his firm M/s Angad Communication (India) and Sh.Pankaj Chauhan did business in partnership with Sh.Anil Chauhan. Later on in 1995 Sh.Pankaj Chauhan dissolved the said partnership. In 1995 Sh.Pankaj Chauhan started M/s Anhal Electronics with his mother at B7 Majlis Park. Since Sh.Anil Chauhan and Sh.Pankaj Chauhan had their independent source of income and both were married, so the income assets and expenditure of Sh.Anil Chauhan, Sh.Pankaj Chauhan were not calculated/investigated for the purpose of investigation of disproportionate assets of accused. Miss Mona Chauhan was unmarried and so was dependent on Shiv Charan. Prior to 1995 Smt.Rukmini Devi did not have any business. Thus investigation was carried out on the income, assets and expenditure of Shiv Charan, Smt.Rukmini Devi and Miss Mona Chauhan.
6. During investigations, it was revealed that accused started acquiring properties since 1970 and he purchased a plot no.217, Majlis Park in village Barola in the name of his wife Rumali Devi for Rs.4000/. As regards income of accused the pay particulars of accused were collected from MCD w.e.f RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 5 of 200 6 June 1971 to Nov.1997. The pay particulars of some of the period could not be received. For this period of August 1976 to 13.03.77 particulars have been taken (salary of June 1977 X 9) i.e. Rs.5073/. The salary for 1.1.92 to 31.3.92 was taken as Rs.8088/ i.e. @ April 1992 salary. The salary w.e.f. December 1983 to July 1984 was calculated as Rs.9504 i.e. @ August 1984 salary. The salary particulars for 20.11.91 to 31.12.91 have been taken as Rs.3398 only. Thus the total carry home salary of accused comes to Rs.527672/ only w.e.f June 1971 to November 1997.
7. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation(s) the agricultural income of accused was also verified. Though the accused did not show the quantum of agricultural income in any income tax returns or to any authority. However, keeping in view the land holdings of accused and his wife (ancestral and purchased during check period) the agricultural income of accused and of his wife was arrived at Rs.175214/ w.e.f 1971 to November 1997. This income was arrived at after taking into account land holding, crops grown in the area and total returns minus variable cost of the area. The income of accused from salary particulars, RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 6 of 200 7 LIC policy, agricultural income, GPF advance, Bank account interest, RD Account etc. was found to be Rs.90967005. The income of Miss Mona Chauhan from bank account was found to be Rs.5351245 P. The income of Mrs. Rukmini Devi from loan, withdrawal from M/s Anhal Electronics, rent of property No.A6, Kewal Park etc. was found to be Rs.337455/ only. The investigation on the expenditure incurred by Shiv Charan, Smt. Rukmini Devi and Miss Mona Chauhan revealed that an amount of Rs.572194.51 P was spent on property tax, water charges, telephone, electricity, education, insurance policies, repayment of loan, monthly deposits with M/s Anhal Electronics for starting business etc. Since the accused and his family carried lavish life style as evident from observation memo of H.No.C217, Majlis Park. So, the expenditure on nonverifiable expenses has been taken as Rs.174131.76 P (i.e. 1/3 of carry home salary of accused). So the total expenditure come to Rs.746326.27 P. Investigations also revealed that the accused Shiv Charan Chauhan acquired most of the properties in the name of his wife Smt.Roomali Devi @ Rukmini Devi. Some of the assets in the form of bank accounts were acquired by Shiv Charan in the name of Miss RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 7 of 200 8 Mona Chauhan.
8. A land of 29 canal 2 marla vide sale deed dated 18.11.80 was purchased from Sh.Jitender Singh S/o Lakhi Singh R/o Village Jakhukli, in the name of Anil Kumar, Pankaj Kumar and Smt.Roomali Devi, Smt.Dayavati and Sh.Dushyant Kumar. The share of amount of Smt.Rumali Devi, Sh.Anil Kumar and Sh. Pankaj Chauhan has been taken as Rs.27835/ only for the share of land. Likewise a land of about 17 canal was purchased in the name of Smt.Roomali Devi and Sh.Diwan Singh vide sale deed dated 26.02.76 from Sh.Bansi in village Patla. The share of amount of land share of Smt.Roomali Devi has been taken as Rs.28875/ only. Sh.Shiv Charan and his brothers purchased a land of about 15 canal 11 marla from Sh.Ramdhan in village Patla vide sale deed dated 04.04.83. The share of total amount of Rs.45000/ spent on this land comes to Rs.12733/. Investigation revealed that property no.B7, Majlis Park was purchased in 1994 in the name of wife of accused and later on reconstruction was done. The accused carried out construction on C217, Gali no.8, Majlis Park.
RC NO. 27A/98
CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 8 of 200
9
9. It is further submitted that the accused also purchased plot no.6, KL No.429/61/1/2/2 at Azadpur in 1975 in the name of his wife and carried out construction on it. Investigations further revealed that accused also purchased two plots nos. 164 and 165 at Libaspur for Rs.16000/ each in the name of his sons, when they were dependent on him. The accused also acquired assets in the form of bank accounts recurring deposits. The details of the RD accounts are given below S.No RD no. Name FDR/ STDR Period Interest Amount Remarks . (FDR) (in Rs.) deposited
1. 738 Mona Chauhan Mona Chauhan 15.3.90 to 650 6,000 STDR made + Shiv Charan 14.3.92 which renewed from time to time. Original with CBI after search
2. 739 Pankaj Chauhan Pankaj Chauhan 14.3.90 to 650 6,000 STDR made + Shiv Charan 14.3.92 and renewed.
The amount of 14212 is still lying with the bank upto 14.6.99.
3. 740 Shiv Charan Shiv Charan + do 2,600 24,000 An amount of Pankaj Rs.43564/ was credited in a/c no.25474 on 15.5.98 i.e. proceeds of STDR.
RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 9 of 200 10 4. 1,190 Shiv Charan Shiv Charan 8.11.92 to 1192 18000 STDR amount 4.4.94 (Rs.25811) on maturity transferred to A/c 25949 on 26.5.98 5. 1,192 Mona Chauhan Mona Chauhan do 401 6000 An amount of Rs.8068 with bank upto 20.1.98 in a/c No. 01292/19759 6. 1,654 Shiv Charan Shiv Charan 27.2.94 to 996 18000 Rs.20968 with 5.4.95 bank as STDR in CBI possession after search of house of accused. 7. 1,655 Mona Chauhan Mona Chauhan do 664 12000 Rs.13979 with bank upto 20.1.98 in 01292/19677 8. R31 Pankaj + Shiv Pankaj + Shiv 23.12.84 to 4006 12000 Rs.34877 Charan Charan 10.3.90 transferred to account 28132 on 25.5.98 as amount of STDR on maturity and renewal. 9. R32 Mona Chauhan Mona Chauhan do 4006 12000 Rs.34877/ transferred to 25949 on 25.5.98 10. 277 Shiv Charan Shiv Charan 27.12.86 to 3040 18000 Rs.45845 10.3.90 transferred to account no. 25949 on 25.5.98
10. Shiv Charan invested in STDR/FDR the details of which are given below RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 10 of 200 11 S.No Amount STDR/FDR Period Source of amount Assets Remarks .
1. 25000/ Mona+ Shiv Charan 24.8.92 to In cash 25000/ STDR on maturity 25.5.98 becomes to Rs.
38584/ and
transferred to a/c
no.25949 on
25.5.98.
2. 50000/ Mona + Rukmini 8.11.92 to In cash 50000/ STDR on maturity
15.5.98 and renewal
becomes Rs.
77170/ and 15.5.98
transferred to a/c
no.34310
3. 50000/ Shiv Charan + 10.9.89 to By debit/transfer 50000/ Rs.126190
Rukmini 16.5.98 from A/c no. transferred to A/c
25949 on 10.9.89 No.29553 on
16.5.98
4. 10000/ Shiv Charan + 11.8.85 to By cash 10000/ An amount of Rs.
Rukmini 16.5.98 38428/ as maturity
amount transferred
to A/c no.25949 on
26.5.98.
5. 2500/ Pankaj+Shiv 14.3.92 to By clearing from Investment Transferred to
Charan 2.6.98 IOB, Model Town in Peerless 01292/35766 on
scheme of 2.6.98
Rs.1925/
upto 17.2.86
6. 5000/ Mona Chauhan + 14.3.92 to do Investment Transferred to
Shiv Charan 2.6.98 in Peerless 01292/34310 on
scheme of 2.6.98
Rs.3800/
upto 17.2.86
11. Investigations also revealed that assets acquired by Shiv Charan in the form of land, bank balance, investment in recurring deposits, vehicle, household articles etc. were to the RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 11 of 200 12 tune of Rs.951374.14 P. The assets int he name of his daughter (Miss Mona Chauhan) in the form of bank balance RD account etc. were found to be Rs.210350.95 P. The assets in the name of Smt.Roomali Devi in the form of land, cost of construction, gold jewellery etc. were revealed to the tune of Rs.795450/. Thus, the total assets acquired in the name of Shiv Charan, Smt.Roomali And Miss Mona Chauhan were revealed as Rs.1957175.09 P during the check period. Investigation revealed that Shiv Charan or Smt.Roomali Devi did not file any income tax returns in individual capacity.
12. As regards income assets, expenditure prior to check period it was revealed that accused received total salary of Rs. 27357/ approx. which has been calculated on the basis of multiplication by 2 of basic pay scale available in personal file of accused since the accused has got Rs.292/ in pay scale of Rs.143/ for May 1971. The non verifiable expenses come to Rs.9029/ only i.e.1/3 of 27357/. The accused acquired plot No.217, Majlis Park in 1970 for Rs.4000. The accused got GPF advance of Rs.225 in 19. So the likely savings of accused prior to check period is Rs.14234/ approx.
13. During investigation an FDR of Rs.24 Lakh approx. in RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 12 of 200 13 UBI, Azadpur favouring M/s Angad Communication was recovered. Besides this various vehicles such as DBV32, DL6CA2207 in the name of M/s Angad Communications and advertisement item valued at more than 24 lacs were also observed during search of godown. The electronics items were observed in M/s Anhal Electronics premises were of lacs of rupees. Since the income assets, and expenses of Sh.Anil Partap Singh & Sh.Pankaj Chauhan had not been calculated so the above assets have not been taken in computation. During the course of investigation the office space at Ansari Road, Daryaganj plot no.A175, Majlis Park, vehicle DL8SD1783, DL5CA 7269, Tel.No.7144907, 7139744, 3267886, 3282335, 3288512 and 3282322 could not be found in the name of Shiv Charan, Smt. Roomali Devi.
14. Thus, it was revealed that Shiv Charan Chauhan, Smt.Roomali Devi had acquired assets both moveable and immoveable worth Rs.1957175.09P.
15. The total income of Shiv Charan Chauhan and Smt.Roomali Devi during and prior to check period was found to be Rs.1314872.66 P.
16. The expenditure incurred by Shiv Charan, Smt.Roomali RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 13 of 200 14 Devi was revealed as Rs.746326.27P. The details are given in Annexure 'A', 'B' & 'C' attached. Thus the total disproportionate assets = Total assets - (Total incomeTotal expenditure) =Rs.1957175.09 - (Rs.1314872.06 - 746326.27) = Rs.1388629.34
17. Thus, the disproportionate assets were acquired by the accused about which he could not give any satisfactory explanation, same comes to Rs.1388629.34 which is 105% excess of the total income of Shiv Charan and his wife Roomali Devi. Shiv Charan acquired most of the assets in his wife's name in the form of immovable assets and bank account deposits by abusing his official position as public servant and Roomali Devi abetted her husband in acquisition of the above assets.
18. The above facts disclose commission of offences punishable u/S 109 IPC and S13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of PC Act, 1988 by Shiv Charan (Head Clerk), MCD and Smt.Roomali Devi w/o Shiv Charan. Since Shiv Charan had retired on 30.11.97. No sanction for prosecution was required or taken.
RC NO. 27A/98
CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 14 of 200
15
ANNEXURE 'A'
IMMOVEABLE AND MOVEABLE ASSETS ACQUIRED BY SHIV CHARAN CHAUHAN AND MEMBERS OFHIS FAMILY DURING THE CHECK PERIOD JUNE 1971 TO 30.11.97 Assets in the name of Shiv Charan (Rs.)
1. Scooter no.DHN 2189 (purchased in 1984) value as per PF 3000/ intimation
2. Scooter No.DL1SA9895 18498/
3. Scooter no.DAK 4821 purchased in the name of Pankaj Chauhan in 11769/ Jan. 1989
4. Share of amount paid by Shiv Charan for purchase of land at 12733/ village Patla
5. Purchase of plot no.164 at Libaspur 16,000/
6. Purchase of plot no.165 at Libaspur 16,000/
7. Balance in a/c no.CD161 ANZ Grindlays Bank, Karol Bagh initially 1,000/ Chandni Chowk branch
8. Investment in RD Account 2049/63 in UCO Bank, Model Town 18900/
9. Balance in A/c No.12711 in UCO bank, Model Town 174787
10. Investment in RC A/c 2896/36 by Shiv Charan in UCO bank, Model 18000/ Town
11. Investment in PD A/c No.12108 in Syndicate Bank Kashmiri Gate in 9425/ the name of Sanjay Chauhan u/s Sh.Shiv Charan
12. Investment in PD A/c No.C260 VCC 4552 and 5298 Syndicate 28000/ Bank, Kamla Nagar in the name of Pankaj Chauhan
13. Balance in A/c no.25949 in the name of Shiv Charan & Roomali 7,664.84 Devi in SBI, Majlis Park
14. Balance in A/c no.29553 in the name of Shiv Charan & Roomali 98,499.43 Devi in SBI, Majlis Park
15. Investment in RD A/c 739, SBI, Majlis Park 6000/
16. Investment in RD A/c 740, SBI, Majlis Park 24,000
17. Investment in RD A/c 1190, SBI, Majlis Park 18000/ RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 15 of 200 16
18. Investment in RD A/c 1654, SBI, Majlis Park 18,000/
19. Investment in RD A/c R31, SBI, Majlis Park 12000/
20. Investment in RD A/c 277, SBI, Majlis Park 18000/ 21 Investment in STDR dtd.24.8.92 in cash in SBI, Majlis Park 25000/ 22 Investment in STDR dtd.10.9.89 in cash in SBI, Majlis Park 50000/ 23 Investment in STDR dtd.11.8.85 in cash in SBI, Majlis Park 10000/ 24 Investment in M/s Peerless General Finance w.e.f 1981 to 17.2.86 1925/ in Endowment Certificate No.7990949/511 25 Cash in H.No.C217, Majlis Park on the date of search 104000/ 26 Investment for purchase of vehicle no.DL1L 9493 by Shiv Charan 59062/ after taking loan 27 Articles observed as per observation memo in C217, Majlis Park, 344150/ excluding first floor items TOTAL 951,374.14/ ASSETS IN THE NAME OF MONA CHAUHAN
1. Investment in endowment certificate no.7990950/510 3800/
2. Investment in Syndicate Bank, Kashmiri Gate in PD A/c 12,507.5 No.12107
3. Investment in VCC No.4535 and 5299 in the name of 18000/ Mona Chauhan in Syndicate Bank, Kamla Nagar
4. Balance in A/c No.34310 in SBI, Majlis Park 90,043.45
5. Investment in RD A/c 738 in SBI, Majlis Park 6000/
6. Investment in RD A/c 1192 in SBI, Majlis Park 6000/
7. Investment in RD A/c 1655 in SBI, Majlis Park 12000/
8. Investment in RD A/c R32 in SBI, Majlis Park 12000/
9. Investment in cash for STDR dtd.8.11.92 in SBI, Majlis 50000/ Park TOTAL 210,350.95 RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 16 of 200 17 ASSETS IN THE NAME OF RUKMINI DEVI
1. Land purchased from Sh.Jitender r/o vilalge Jakholi, 27835/ Sonepat
2. Land purchased from Sh.Bansi R/o village Patla in 1976 28875/
3. Purchase of property no.B7, Majlis Park on 30.11.94 70200/
4. Cost of construction as per valuation report available in 309000/ property tax file of property no.B7 (1/3 of B6/3) Majlis Park, Delhi
5. Cost of construction of property No.C217, Majlis Park as 265185/ per valuation report done by JE
6. Purchase of plot no.6 KL No.429/61/1/2/2 at Azadpur in 13000/ 1975
7. Cost of construction (valuation report dt.1.1.90 by KL 80,355/ checker) of property No.A6, Kewal Park, Delhi
8. Gold jewellery in locker no.32, SBI, Majlis Park 1000/ TOTAL 795450/ TOTAL OF ALL THE THREE = Rs.1957175.09 ANNEXURE 'B' INCOME OF SHIV CHARAN AND MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY DURING THE CHECK PERIOD
1. From Salary 527672/
2. From a/c no.7364 MCD Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society 4086/
3. From GPF Advance w.e.f 1973 to 1997 2400/
4. From sale of scooter 4500/
5. Agriculture income from land share of Shiv Charan & Roomali Devi 175214/
6. From LIC policy on 4.5.89 and 28.4.94 12500/
7. Interest earned from a/c no.CD 161 in ANZ Grindlays Bank 1,582.37
8. Interest earned from a/c no.10426 in PNB Kamla Nagar 1,293.82 RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 17 of 200 18
9. Interest earned from a/c no.12711 in UCO Bank, Model Town 946.36
10. Interest earned from a/c no.25949 in SBI, Majlis Park 28,719.44
11. Interest earned from a/c no.29553 in SBI, Majlis Park 22,887.43
12. Interest income from RD a/c No.740, 1190, 1654, R31, 277 in SBI, 11834/ Majlis Park
13. Interest income from RD a/c 739 in the name of Pankaj Chauhan 650/
14. Income from RD a/c 2049 and 2896 in UCO Bank, Model Town 45233/
15. Income from Vikas Cash Certificates in the name of Pankaj in 1989 11100/ in Syndicate Bank, Kamla Nagar
16. Loan sanctioned by SBI, Majlis Park for purchase of vehicle 59,062 no.DL1L9493 TOTAL INCOME 909,670.05 INCOME OF MISS MONA CHAUHAN
1. Interest income from a/c no.34310 in SBI, Majlis Park 7,791.45
2. Interest income from RD a/c 738, 1192,1655, R32 in SBI, Majlis 5721/ Park
3. Income in a/c no.34310, SBI, Majlis Park by transfer from Canara 40000/ Bank, Raja Garden TOTAL 53,512.45 INCOME OF SMT. RUMALI DEVI
1. Income from loan from Asstt. Commissioner of Housing, Delhi 14500/ Administration in 1973
2. Income as withdrawal from M/s Anhal Electronics w.e.f 199596 to 104055/ 199798
3. Income from rent of property no.A6, Kewal Park Extn., Delhi 218900/ TOTAL 337455/ TOTAL INCOME OF ALL THE THREE = Rs.1300637.87 RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 18 of 200 19 ANNEXURE 'C' EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY ACCUSED AND MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY DURING THE CHECK PERIOD
1. Money deposited in a/c no.7364 in MCD Cooperative Thrift Society 4086/
2. Expenses on Education of children 11,472.2
3. Expenses on insurance policy no.50199662 29,250
4. Expenses on insurance policy no.24499452 11040/
5. Expenses on insurance policy no.111683863 17115/
6. Expenses on insurance policy no.111940214 12,440
7. Expenses on insurance policy no.111940464 16,076
8. Expenses on insurance policy no.110241566 (3 instalments upto 6034/ May 1991)
9. Expenses on insurance policy no.50199750 (2 instalments upto 6340/ Dec.85)
10. Expenses on cultural programme on 11.12.94 8000/
11. Service charges paid to ANZ Grindlays Bank 1250/
12. Locker charges taken by SBI, Majlis Park 1375/
13. Cash deposit for loan dt.11.10.91 in SBI, Majlis Park 67896/
14. Money paid for repayment of loan of Asstt.Housing Commissioner, 24,298.31 Delhi Administration
15. Money deposited with M/s Anhal Electronics for 199798 by 80000/ Mrs.Romali Devi
16. Money deposited for starting business of M/s Anhal Electronics by 206100/ Mrs. Romali Devi
17. Expenses on Electricity 40504/
18. Property tax paid 4899/
19. Water charges 9805/
20. Telephone bill for Tel no.7116797 in the name of Mrs. Romali Devi 14214/ TOTAL VERIFIABLE EXPENSES 572,194.51 NON VERIFIABLE EXPENSES (33% OF NET SALARY) 174,131.76 TOTAL EXPENSES OF ALL THE THREE 746,326.27 RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 19 of 200 20
19. Upon the completion of investigation(s), a chargesheet was filed in the Court u/S 109 IPC and Sec.13(2) r/w Sec.13(1)
(e) of the Act against accused Shiv Charan and Rukmani Devi @ Roomali Devi, w/o Shiv Charan on 24.06.2000. After supplying requisite documents to the accused and his wife Smt.Rukmani Devi @ Roomali Devi, arguments on the point of charge were heard. Vide order dated 17.12.2004 Smt.Rukmani Devi @ Roomali Devi was discharged, whereas charge under Section 13(1)(e) r/w Sec.13(2) of the PC Act was framed against A1 Shiv Charan Chauhan, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
20. Thereafter, prosecution has examined 81 witnesses in support of its case.
21. PW1 is Shree Pal Jain who has deposed that Sh. Paras Dass Jain was his father who had expired and after seeing the GPA, Will and receipt in respect of one property in the name of Paras Dass Jain Charitable Trust situated at Azad Pur, he stated that against this property a receipt of Rs. 6000/ was issued by his father favouring Smt. Rumali Devi, W/o Sh. Shiv Charan Chauhan r/o C217, Majlis Park, Delhi and the relevant documents which have been proved by him are ExPW1/A1 to RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 20 of 200 21 A5.
22. PW2 is Sh. Ombir Singh from Village Patla, PO Jakholi, District Sonepat, Haryana. He stated that the agricultural land measuring 17 canal was owned by his father in village Patla, District Sonepat. In the year 1976 the said land was sold to Smt. Rumali Devi W/o Sh. Shiv Charan for Rs. 35000/ vide registered sale deed, attested copy of the same is ExPW2/A.
23. PW3 is Sh. Navin Gupta. He has deposed that the name of his brother was Kulbhushan Gupta. They had purchased the property No. B7, Block B from Usha Rani Sharma and the same was sold to Rukmani Devi for Rs. 65000/ and the stamp duty and corporation tax was paid by her. The payment was made by Smt. Rukmani Devi. He was also declared hostile by Ld. Public Prosecutor, who also cross examined him, confronting with his previous statement recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C.
24. PW4 is Sh. Kulbhushan Gupta. He is the witness of the same fact, as has been deposed by PW3, his brother Navin Gupta, he has deposed in a similar manner.
25. PW5 is Sh. Bal Kishan Chauhan, the valuer. He deposed that he was the owner of B.K.Chauhan & Associates. They RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 21 of 200 22 evaluated properties on the asking of owners of the properties. He was registered with MCD as Valuer. He had seen the valuation report in respect of property bearing no. B6/3, Majlis Park, Delhi in the name of Smt. Rukmani Devi. The valuation rd was done pertaining to 1/3 of the said property. The details of construction and material used is reflected in his valuation report ExPW5/A bearing his signatures at point A on all the pages. The valuation given by him regarding construction was Rs. 3,09,000/.
26. PW6 is Sh. Prem Singh witness from Majlis Park Delhi.
He stated that he was the owner of plot No. 217 measuring 111 Sq. Yds., situated in village Bharola. He sold this plot to Smt. Rumali Devi, W/o Sh. Shiv Charan for Rs. 4000/ vide sale deed ExPW6/A bearing his signatures at point A on all the pages and all the registration charges were also incurred by the purchaser. On the day of registration of documents Shiv Charan was not present in the office of Sub Registrar. The payment was made by Sh. Ram Singh. He was declared hostile by Ld. Public Prosecutor of the CBI and he was confronted with his previous statement recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C.
RC NO. 27A/98
CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 22 of 200
23
27. PW7 is Sh. K.L.Checker. He has deposed that he was working as Architect & Government Approved Valuer with the daughter of his colleague, who was running a firm S.Bajaj & Associates. He had made a valuation of two properties vide his valuation reports ExPW7/A and B respectively bearing his signatures at point A. He gave the valuation report as per rates according to CPWD manual and the same was correct.
28. PW8 is Sh. Mohan Lal from Prashant Vihar, Delhi. He has deposed that he had seen the affidavit ExPW8/A and B vide which he sold plots No. 164 and 165 to Sh. Anil Chauhan and Pankaj Chauhan for Rs. 5000/ each. Both the said affidavits bear his signature at point A. The payments of plots were made by the purchasers to him. He was also declared hostile by Ld. Public Prosecutor of the CBI and he was confronted with his previous statement recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C.
29. PW9 is Sh. Jitender Singh witness from village Jakhauli, District Sonepat, Haryana. He deposed that he was owning land at Village Jakhauli. He had seen the certified copy of the sale deed ExPW9/A bearing his signatures at point A vide RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 23 of 200 24 which he had sold the land mentioned therein to Shiv Charan. As far as he remember, the land was sold for Rs. 60,000/ or Rs. 65,000/, but the documents were executed showing the price about Rs. 40,000/ or Rs. 50,000/ which may be mentioned in the documents. He also deposed that the payment was made by Shiv Charan. The expenses of registry were paid by the purchaser.
30. PW10 is Sh. Shambhu Dayal another witness from Village Patla, District Sonepat, Haryana. He has deposed that he was owning 16 acres land in village Patla, District Sonepat. The land was in the name of himself, his brothers Dushyant and Shiv Charan and they all used to cultivate this land and they used to pay the entire income of yield to Shiv Charan, being head of the family. He was also declared hostile by Ld. Public Prosecutor of the CBI and he was confronted with his previous statement recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C.
31. PW11 is Sh. Durga Prasad, UDC(House Tax) MCD, Rajpur Road, Delhi. He has deposed that he was posted in the said office and on 17.09.99 he produced three files pertaining to property No. C217, Majlis Park, B6/6/3(½ B7), Majlis Park and 292/A6, Kewal Park Extension, Azad Pur, Delhi which RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 24 of 200 25 was seized by Sh. Virender Thakran, Insp. CBI vide memo Ex PW11/A bearing his signatures at point A. As per inspection form ExPW11/B which is placed in file ExPW11/C, the details of construction made in the property was given by the then AZI Sh. R.S.Mann, as per this inspection form, the inspecting officer met one Tara who did not reveal the rent paid to them by Smt. Rumali Devi and the Officer has mentioned the area under tenancy at that time. He further deposed after seeing the file pertaining to property no. B6/3(½ B7) which is Ex PW1/D. In this file the valuation report of B.K.Chauhan and Associates had been given as Rs. 3,09,000/. This property was purchased by Smt. Rukmani Devi for Rs. 65000/ and stamp duty and corporation tax to the tune of Rs. 5200/ as well as registration charges vide sale deed ExPW11/E is also the part of file ExPW11/D.
32. He also stated that he had seen the inspection form and as per this form, this property was reconstructed w.e.f 01.04.95 and the inspecting officer has given the details of construction in the form ExPW11/F which is also the part of file ExPW11/D.
33. He also deposed that he had seen the file of property RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 25 of 200 26 No. A6, Kewal Park Extension in the name of Smt. Rumali Devi. The file is ExPW11/G. As per the note sheet dated 14.01.91 in the file Sh. Shiv Charan attended the office for the purpose of assessing house tax. The note sheet is Ex PW11/G1 and the calculation done on 01.12.88 is Ex PW11/G2. As per agreement ExPW11/H plot of 200 Sq. Yds., was agreed to be purchased by Smt. Rumali Devi W/o Sh. Shiv Charan Chauhan @ Rs. 55/ per Sq. Yds., which can be calculated as Rs. 13000/. He had also seen the valuation report of Bajaj & Associates which is ExPW11/H1 placed in the file ExPW11/G. As per the valuation report, the valuer has given the valuation of property as Rs. 80,400/. As per annexure A of the report ExPW11/H, the valuer had bifurcated the costs of construction of different years by mentioning the same in the Annexure A2 Valuation Report of which was given on 01.01.1990.
34. PW12 is Sh. Surender Sharma from Majlis Park, Delhi.
He has stated that previously he was residing at house No. C217, Majlis Park, Delhi. The house No. C217 owned by accused Shiv Charan Chauhan was in opposite side of house No. C253. Accused Shiv Charan had purchased this house RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 26 of 200 27 No. C217, Majlis Park, Delhi prior to 30/35 years from today. Thereafter he constructed the said house after 34 years of the st purchase, thereafter accused constructed 1 floor.
35. PW13 is Sh. Rameshwar Dass witness from village Khatkar District Sonepat, Haryana. He deposed that he retired from the post of Assistant Assessor and Collector MCD on 31.09.05. In the year 1996 he was working as Assistant Zonal Inspector in the area Majlis Park, Delhi. On 03.03.96 he inspected house No. 1/3 of B6/3, Majlis Park, Delhi for the purpose of assessment of house tax. The construction was about to complete and he was told by the owner of the property that construction was going on since 01.04.95. He prepared the inspection report mentioning the details of construction for the purpose of assessment of house tax. The said report is ExPW11/F which is in his handwriting bearing his signatures at point B. He further deposed that on the basis of his report Sh. G.P.Verma the then Assistant Assessor and Collector MCD Civil Zone issued notice to the owner of property regarding assessment of the tax of property No. 1/3 of B 6/3, Majlis Park, Delhi. The said assessment is Ex PW13/A. RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 27 of 200 28
36. PW14 is Sh. Ram Nath Jha from Majlis Park, Delhi. He has deposed that he had purchased house no. C254, Majlis Park in the year 1979. He knew accused Shiv Charan Chauhan who was his neighbour and he resided in house no. C217, Majlis Park. His house and the house of the accused were situated in the same street and he purchased this house in the year 1979, at that time, he saw the house of the accused, there was construction on the ground floor and first floor and one barsati on the top floor. He was also declared hostile by Ld. Public Prosecutor of the CBI and he was confronted with his previous statement recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C.
37. PW15 is Sh. D.C.Sharma, who was working as Assistant Law Officer(Court) in vigilance department of MCD during the year 1999 to 2000. He stated that he had sent service book of accused Shiv Charan Chauhan to CBI vide letter dated 15.03.2000. The service book of Shiv Charan Chauhan is Ex PW15/A.
38. PW16 is Sh. Amar Singh from village Patla, District Sonepat, Haryana. He has deposed that he knew accused RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 28 of 200 29 Shiv Charan and his brothers who are the sons of Late Sh. Ram Singh. Sh. Ram Dhari was the brother of Sh. Ram Singh. Sh. Ram Dhari sold his agricultural land to accused Shiv Charan Chauhan, Dushyant and Shambhu Dayal vide sale deed ExPW9/A for a sum of Rs. 45000/. He stated that he had attested the sale deed as a witness and his signatures are at point A on the last page of the sale deed and on the back of third page at point A. He also deposed that all the three brothers gave their share amount.
39. PW16 was also recalled for reexamination on 11.01.2007.
40. PW17 is Sh. Pratap Singh who has deposed that he was working as Administrative Officer, Karol Bagh Zone, MCD in the year 1999. He had seen letter dated 19.08.99 ExPW17/A which bears his signatures at point A. Vide this letter he informed to Assistant Law Officer(Vigilance) MCD, to forward the same to CBI about pay and other allowances of the accused Shiv Charan Chauhan for the month of July 1976. Accused was receiving salary @ Rs. 581/ per month without deduction in July 1976.
41. PW18 is Sh. Harish Chander Bhatia, Officer on Special RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 29 of 200 30 duty with The Aeronautical Society of India. He deposed that in the year 1999 he was working as Secretary(Administration) of The Aeronautical Society of India. He had seen letter dated 19.11.1999, which bears his signatures at point A which is Ex PW18/A. Vide this letter he informed Inspector CBI that Sh. A.K.Chauhan S/o Sh. S.C.Chauhan was the student of their society and he had paid an amount of Rs. 1600/ as fee to the Society. Details of payment and the period is mentioned in his letter ExPW18/A.
42. PW19 is Sh. R.K.Dahiya. He has deposed that he retired as Administrative Officer Factory Licensing Department, MCD, Kashmeere Gate on 30.11.2000. Accused Shiv Charan Chauhan was posted as Head Clerk in Factory Licensing Department, MCD. Pay particulars of accused Shiv Charan Chauhan for the period 01.04.1992 to 04.12.1994 prepared by Sh. Chander Pal, bill clerk is ExPW19/A. He has also identified his signatures on the said ExPW19/A, which he deposed was correctly prepared. He also deposed that accused Shiv Charan Chauhan received Rs. 96,689/ as salary for the period 01.04.1992 to 04.12.1994 as per record. The salary had been calculated after deduction of GPF and RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 30 of 200 31 GIS.
43. PW20 is Sh. Har Lal. He has deposed that he retired from the post of office Superintendent , CES city zone, MCD on 31.05.2000. He handed over to Inspector CBI the pay particulars of accused Shiv Charan Chauhan working as UDC in City Zone, MCD vide seizure memo ExPW20/A for the period June 1980 to November, 1983 and October 1987 to November 1991. Seizure memo bears his signature at point A. Pay particulars were prepared as per office record by bill clerk Sh. Om Prakash. The pay particulars are ExPW20/B running into 8 pages.
44. PW21 is Sh. Tek Chand. He deposed that he retired from the post of Administrative Officer, Factory Licencing Department, MCD on 31.01.2002. He was posted as commercial officer, Advertisement Department, MCD from November 1999 to October 2000. He had seen the letter dated 08.05.2000 ExPW21/A bearing his signatures at point A. Alongwith this letter he provided pay particulars of Shiv Charan Chauhan for the period 02.08.1984 to September, 1987. Pay particulars running into four sheets are collectively RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 31 of 200 32 ExPW21/B. Pay particulars were prepared as per office record and are correct.
45. PW22 is Sh. P.K.Sharma, Deputy Law Officer(Prosecution), MCD, Kashmiri Gate. He has deposed that in the year 19992000, he was working as Assistant Law Officer(Vigilance) MCD. He has seen letter dated 22.05.2000 bearing his signatures at point A which is ExPW22/A. Vide this letter, he had provided pay particulars of Shiv Charan Chauhan for the period 02.08.1984 to 1987 to Investigating Officer, CBI. The pay particulars were supplied by the concerned department where the accused was serving during the relevant period.
46. He also deposed that another letter bearing his signatures which is ExPW22/B was also sent by him to SP CBI. Vide this letter he sent personal file of accused Shiv Charan Chauhan and his pay particulars for the period mentioned in his letter. Personal file and pay particulars of accused Shiv Charan were supplied to him by the concerned section where he was working.
47. PW23 is Sh. Dushyant, S/o Late Sh. Ram Singh from village Patla, Sonepat, the brother of the accused. He has RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 32 of 200 33 deposed that he was an agriculturist by profession. He had three children and he had two brothers namely Shambhu Dayal and Shiv Charan and four sisters, all of them were married, one of his sister Krishna was widow and she stayed with him. He deposed that he and his two brothers Shamhu Dayal and Shiv Charan together owned five acres of agricultural land in village Patla, District Sonepat, Haryana. Apart from the said land, his parental uncle(Chacha) Sh. Ramdhari also owned 3 acres of agricultural land in village Patla, Sonepat, Haryana. Sh. Ramdhari remained unmarried and during his lifetime he got the said land transferred into the joint names of himself and his two aforesaid brothers and executed a transfer deed in the court. He further deposed that his father died in the year 1976. His two brothers Shiv Charan and Shambhu Dayal were also agriculturists by profession and his brother Shiv Charan was employed in Delhi and he daily used to come from Sonepat, Haryana to Delhi for attending his employment. His brother Shiv Charan also made a house in Delhi and started residing therein for the last 15/16 years. In the aforesaid agricultural land, the various crops were sowed i.e Wheat, Paddy, Sarson, Arhar Daal, Vegetables etc. He and RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 33 of 200 34 his brother Shambhu Dayal used to give share of proceeds of the said agricultural crops to the accused Shiv Charan.
48. PW24 is Dr. Bhagwan Dass. He has deposed that in the year 1999, he was posted as Deputy Health Officer, MCD at City Zone, Minto Road, New Delhi. He used to deal with public health and some administrative work pertaining to the Health Department. He had seen the letter dated 07.09.1999 which was issued by him under his own signatures. This letter is Ex PW24/1 which bears his signatures at point A. Alongwith the said letter ExPW24/1 there are pay particulars of the accused for the period 05.05.1972 to 30.06.1976, running into four sheets bearing his signatures on every pages and the said pay particulars are collectively marked as ExPW24/2. The said pay particulars of the accused are contained in ExPW24/2 had been prepared by the concerned bill clerk Sh. Sunil Kumar on the basis of ECR Register(Earning Cash Register)
49. PW25 is Sh. Chet Ram, Patwari, Village Manoli, Tehsil and District Sonepat, Haryana. He has deposed that he was working as Patwari in the Revenue Department, Haryana Government, Sonepat. He remained posted as Patwari of Village Jakhauli, District Sonepat, Haryana from 23.07.1996 to RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 34 of 200 35 June, 2000. He had handed over the record vide production cum seizure memo dated 16.10.1999 which is ExPW25/1 bearing his signature at point A.
50. He further deposed that he handed over intkal nuber 4056 of Village Jakhauli, Jamabandi khevat No. 176 for the year 199394 of village Jakhuali, Khasra Girdawari(Crop) for the year 1989 to 1994, Mustil no. 126 Killa No. 21, 22 and Mustil No. 128 Killa No. 1, 2 & 3 and Khasra Godawari(Crop) for the year 1995 to 1999, Mustil number 126 Killa No. 21, 22 and Mustil No. 128 Kila No. 1, 2 & 3, vide ExPW25/1.
51. He further deposed that he had seen intkal No. 4056 prepared by him from the official record available in the office and the same is ExPW25/2 bearing his signatures at point A. As per ExPW25/2, the entire land mentioned therein measured 29 Kananls and two Marlas. Out of the said total land, a portion measuring 320/582 part was sold by Sh. Jitender Singh to Sh. Anil Kumar, Sh. Pankaj Kumar and Smt. Rumali Devi wife of Sh. Shiv Charan, son of Ram Singh, the portion measuring 102/582 was sold to Smt Dayawati daughter of Sh. Ram Singh son of Daulat Ram and the portion measuring 160/582 was sold to Sh. Dushyant Kumar, all the RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 35 of 200 36 said purchasers are shown as residents of Village Patla.
52. He further deposed that in respect of the portion of the land sold to Sarv Shri Anil Kumar, Pankaj Kumar, Smt. Rumali Devi, Smt. Dayawati and Sh. Dushyan Kumar as mentioned in ExPW9/A. The said buyers had paid to Sh. Jitender Singh, the seller the sale consideration of Rs. 45,000/ as mentioned in the sale deed.
53. He further deposed that he had seen "Jamabandi" which is already marked as ExC30 for the years 19931994 in respect of Kevat No. 176, Khata No. 263, which was prepared by him bearing his signatures at point A.
54. He further deposed that he had seen Khasra Girdavri which is already marked as ExC31 for the years 1989 to 1994 in respect of crops cultivated during the relevant years. The same was prepared by him bearing his signatures at point A.
55. He further deposed that he had seen another Khasra Girdavri which is already marked as ExC32 for the years 1994 to 1999 in respect of crops cultivated during the relevant years, which was prepared by him and same bearing his RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 36 of 200 37 signatures at point A.
56. He further deposed that both Khasra Girdavris ExC31 and ExC32 mentioned the name(s) of the cultivator(s) as also the crop sowed on the land.
57. He further deposed that he had seen letter dated 29.10.99 issued under the signatures of Sh. V.S.Bathla, Tehsildar Sonepat. He identified the signatures of the said SH. V.S.Bathla at point A on the said letter dated 29.10.99 which is ExPW25/3.
58. PW26 is Sh. R.K.Batra. He has deposed that during the period 1999 he was posted as Asstt. Chief Accountant in MCD at GPF Cell, Kachha Bagh, Delhi, where he was on deputation from Delhi Government and was looking after the GPF cell, pension cell and R.P.Cell. He has stated that he had seen the letter dated 05.11.1999 issued under his signatures with regard to requisite information in respect of Sh. Shiv Charan, retired Head Clerk. The said letter was bearing his signatures at point A which is ExPW26/1. Alongwith the said letter Ex PW26/1 he had furnished details of amounts of PF paid to Shiv Charan by way of withdrawals, advance and final RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 37 of 200 38 payment and annexed the said details on a separate sheet i.e ExPW26/1. The said details contained in the separate sheet are ExPW26/2 and it bears his signatures at point A. According to ExPW26/2, Shiv Charan was paid Rs. 3,03,325/ as final payment on his retirement.
59. PW27 is Sh. V.S.Bathla. He has deposed that in October 1999 he was posted as Tehsildar, Sonipat. He had seen letter dated 20.10.1999 which already stands proved as ExPW25/3 which bears his signatures at point A. Vide ExPW25/3 he had forwarded attested copies of two sale deeds which already stand exhibited as ExPW9/A and ExPW2/A. He identified signatures of Sh. Hari Om Atri, Joint SubRegistrar/Naib Tehsildar, Sonipat at points A on each page thereof on said exhibits.
60. PW28 is Sh. Balwan Singh. He has deposed that he was employed in the Revenue Department, Government of Haryana on the post of Patwari. In the year 1999 he was posted as Patwari at Village Patla, Sonepat. He had seen production cum seizure memo dated 16.10.1999, vide which he had produced five documents and the said production cum seizure memo bears his signatures at point A and the same is RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 38 of 200 39 ExPW28/1. Vide this seizure memo ExPW28/1 five documents which already stand admitted and have been proved as ExC/24(D52), ExC/25(D53), ExC/29(D54), Ex C/27(D55) and ExC/28(D56). The said documents are extracts of the revenue record and the said copies were certified by him as true copies under his handwriting and signatures.
61. PW29 is Sh. Vinod Kumar Kohli. He has deposed that he remained posted in Syndicate Bank, Kashmere Gate w.e.f 1997 to 2000. He had seen one letter dated 05.11.1999(D134). The said letter was prepared by him and it was signed by Sh. A.K.Puri, the then Senior Branch Manager whose signatures he has identified, the said letter is running into 2 pages and the same is ExPW29/1, which he stated was prepared as per bank record.
62. PW30 is Dr. U.K.Pandey. He has deposed that he was earlier employed in Haryana Agricultural University, Hissar and retired from there in August 2008 as professor of livestock Economics, Department of Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Extension. He had seen letter dated 17.06.2000(D62) which was signed by him at point A and it was addressed to Insp.
RC NO. 27A/98
CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 39 of 200
40
Virender Thakran, CBI in connection with investigation of the present case. The said letter is ExPW30/1. In the year 2000, he was the head of Department of Agricultural Economics. Alongwith the letter ExPW30/1 annexure A, B, C and D were enclosed and information in the said annexures was provided by Dr. O.P.Chikara, the then Senior Research Officer, Department of Agricultural Economics of their university, annexures A,B,C & D are part of letter ExPW30/1.
63. PW31 is Dr. O.P.Chikara. He has deposed that he was earlier employed in Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar and in the year 2000 he was working as Senior Research officer in Cost of Cultivation Scheme, Department of Agricultural Economics, Haryana, CCS, Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar. After seeing the annexures A, B, C and D annexed with letter(D62) ExPW30/1 he stated that he identified his signatures on each page of the same and he had prepared the said annexures on the basis of data pertaining to cost of civilization of wheat in rupees per acre for the period 197576 to 199798, cost of cultivation of paddy for the period 197576 to 199798 and cost of cultivation of Arhar for the period 1994 per acre and cost of cultivation of mustard for the period RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 40 of 200 41 199597, collected by the field staff of different zones in Haryana. The said annexures are ExPW30/2 to ExPW30/5.
64. PW32 is Sh. H.L.Arora. He has deposed that he was working as Administrative Officer, City Zone, MCD from June 1999 till January 2000. He after seeing the letter dated 05.08.1999 stated that same bears his signatures at point A and through same letter he had forwarded pay particulars of Shiv Charan UDC for the period 14.05.77 to 23.05.1980 which is ExPW32/1. The pay particulars are in four pages and bears his signatures at point A on the last page in token of counter signing the pay particulars prepared by the bill clerk on the basis of pay record. Pay particulars are ExPW32/2. The pay particulars include basis pay, DA, HRA, Compensatory allowance etc., and deductions in respect of GPF and advances of GPF. Net salary was paid to Shiv Charan, accused for the period 14.05.1977 to 30.05.1980 was Rs. 17,782.60.
65. PW33 is Sh. Ram Dev. He has deposed that during April 1998 he was working as Chief Welfare Inspector, Northern Railways, Baroda House. In April, 1998 once he visited CBI office on the instructions of his seniors. From CBI office, he RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 41 of 200 42 alongwith some CBI officials went to Daryaganj. Thereafter they reached a particular shop, which was lying closed. Nearby shopkeepers informed that the said shop had been lying closed for last 15 to 20 days and they had no information about the occupant of the same. A memo to this effect was prepared and signed by him as well as by the occupants of other shops.
66. PW34 is Sh. J.S.Juneja. He has deposed that in November 1999, he was working as Senior Manager, UCO Bank, Model Town Branch, Delhi. After seeing the letter dated 22.11.1999(D91) he stated that the same bears his signatures at point A, through this letter he had given the name of Account Holder of account No. 2896 as Hemraj S/o Changa Ram and information pertaining to non availability of record for the year 1978, 1983 & 1986 which was given to the IO. The said letter is ExPW34/1.
67. He has also stated that he had seen the letter dated 23.10.1999 through which he had handed over certified photocopy of Account Opening Form of SB A/c No. 12711 of Shiv Charan Chauhan and copy of the statement of account. The said letter is ExPW34/2. Certified copy of the Account RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 42 of 200 43 Opening Form certified as per Bankers Book of Evidence Act for account No. 12711 in the name of Shiv Charan Chauhan is ExPW34/3. Certified copy of statement of account is Ex PW34/4.
68. He has also deposed that he had seen Pass Book of RD A/c No. 2049/63 in the name of Shiv Charan Chauhan and this recurring deposit A/c was opened on 07.11.1978 with a monthly installment of Rs. 300/ and the account was closed on 13.10.1983 and an amount of Rs. 18900/ was deposited by the Account Holder and an interest of Rs. 5283/ was given to the Account Holder. A total amount of Rs. 24,183/ was transferred to the S.B.A/c No. 12711 of the Account Holder Shiv Charan Chauhan which is mentioned at point B on Ex PW34/4. Pass Book(D88) is ExPW34/5.
69. PW35 is Sh. Shakeel. He has deposed that in the year 1988, he was having a scooter bearing No. DHN 2189. It was a second hand scooter which was purchased by him from one Sh. Shiv Charan who was working in MCD, through one of his friends. Against the sale of the scooter, he paid Rs. 4500/ to Shiv Charan. He had seen 3 forms relating to transfer of the above said scooter and these documents bears his signatures RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 43 of 200 44 at point A. The forms are ExPW35/1 to ExPW35/3.
70. PW36 is Sh. Deshraj. He has deposed that he had been residing in the address i.e house No. 512/2, Jheel Kuranja, Delhi since 1980. Half portion of the said property was given on rent in the year 1986 for 4 years to M/s United Auto Mobiles but it was vacated in the year 1996. The said firm was being run by the partners Sharad Jain & Ajay Jain. Mr. Satish Jain and Mr. Unni Krishnan were working as Managers during the said period. He never went to the office of said M/s United Auto Mobiles since a dispute regarding its eviction from the said premises was going on.
71. PW37 is Sh. H.M.Khanna. He has deposed that in the year 1999, he was working as Assistant Manager in PNB, Kamla Nagar, Delhi. After seeing the letter dated 19.11.1999 he stated that the same was under his handwriting and signatures which he has proved as ExPW37/1. Vide this letter, he had handed over true copies of Account Opening Form, Specimen Signature Card & Statement of Account pertaining to A/c No. 10426 maintained at their branch. The true copies of Account Opening Form, Specimen Signature RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 44 of 200 45 Card and Statement of account had been attested by him under his signatures. The statement of Account is ExPW37/2. Account Opening Form is ExPW37/3 and Specimen Signature Card is ExPW37/4. He has also deposed that the name of the Account Holder was Sh. Shiv Charan Anhal, R/o C217, Majlis Park, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi. Statement of Account pertaining to the period 14.07.1987 to 21.07.1991. Last balance amount in the said account was Rs. 7408/ on 21.07.1991 and thereafter the account was closed by the Account holder.
72. PW38 is Sh. Mahesh Kumar Rana. He has deposed that he was working as Professor in the Department of Vegetable Science, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hissar. In June 2000, he was posted as Assistant Professor, Department of Vegetable Crop, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Haryana. He had seen cost of cultivation of raddish crop(D62) Page No. 8 for the year 199596, which he had prepared on the basis of data available in their Department, which bears his signatures, same is ExPW38/1. It was also certified by Dr. J.L.Mangal, Head of Department, whose signature he identified. He has further deposed that as per report Ex PW38/1 in the year 199596, the gross income was Rs.
RC NO. 27A/98
CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 45 of 200
46
15000/ and the expenditure was Rs. 8,145/.The gross income in that year was Rs. 6855/ per acre.
73. PW39 is Sh. Prem Shankar Mehra. He stated that he remained posted as Deputy Manager in State Bank of India, Majlis Park Branch, Delhi during the period August 1999 to March 2001. After seeing the production cum seizure memo(D13) dated 11.12.1999 which was bearing his signatures on page Nos. 1 & 4 and his initials at point A1 on page Nos 2 & 3. The said production cum seizure memo has been proved as ExPW39/1, vide which he had handed over certified copies of Account Opening Forms, Statement of Accounts, FDRs/TDRs etc., to Inspector CBI from the record of the branch. He has proved the certified copy of Statement of Account of various RDs in the name of accused Shiv Charan Chauhan, Mona Chauhan and other documents which are Ex PW39/1 to ExPW39/81(his detailed deposition will be discussed at the time of discussion on the relevant entries).
74. PW40 is Sh. Sushil Kumar. He has deposed that in the year 1998, he had purchased one scooter bearing No. DL1S/A9895 for Rs. 6500/ through one Manoj Kumar, who was working with accused Shiv Charan. He got the registration RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 46 of 200 47 certificate of the said scooter transferred in his name. After seeing the application form dated 22.10.1998 for transfer of ownership of the said scooter he stated that same was bearing his signatures at point A1 to A5 which is ExPW40/1.
75. PW41 is Sh. Satish Chand Sharma. He has deposed that in the year 1999, he was posted as UDC in Govt. Boys Sr. Sec. School No.1,Roop Nagar, Delhi. After seeing the letter dated 12.11.1989 which was bearing his signatures at point A and that of Sh. D.A.Mishra, then Principal of the school at point B. He has stated that the said letter is ExPW41/1. Vide this letter, they had provided information to CBI regarding fees paid by Sh. Pankaj Chauhan son of the accused Shiv Charan Chauhan for class XI and Class XII for the sessions 198687 and 198788. The amount of fee(s) paid to school were Rs. 106.40 and Rs. 194/ respectively.
76. PW42 is Sh. Gulshan Arora. He has deposed that he was working as Computer Programmer in Kulachi Hansraj Model School, Ashok Vihar since 1996. After seeing the letter dated 07.01.2000(D98) he stated that the same was bearing the signatures of Mrs. P.Dutta, Principal of above school, whose signatures he identified, as he stated that he had been RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 47 of 200 48 working under her. The said letter is ExPW42/1. Vide this letter, Principal had provided information to the IO regarding the fee(s) paid by Anil Pratap Singh Chauhan, student of the aforesaid school for the period 197782. The fee(s) paid by the said student for class VII and VIII was Rs. 45/ per month, for Class IX Rs. 55/ per month, for Class X Rs. 65 per month, for Class XI Rs. 70/ per month and for class XII Rs. 90 per month. Letter ExPW42/1 is accompanied by true copies of admission form submitted by student Anil Kumar Chauhan son of Sh. Shiv Charan Chauhan, the accused and his certificate for class XII. Both the said admission form and certificate were certified by him after comparing the same with the originals of the same. The said documents are ExPW42/2 and Ex PW42/3.
77. PW43 is Sh. Vijay Kumar Manchanda. He has deposed that he retired from MTNL, New Delhi on 31.12.2003 from the post of Chief Accounts Officer. In the year 1999 he was working as Accounts Officer in MTNL, New Delhi and Sh. Atma Ram Bansal was the Chief Accounts Officer(North), MTNL, New Delhi. He had worked under him. After seeing the letter dated 16.09.1999 he stated that the same was bearing RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 48 of 200 49 his signatures accompanied by annexures 1 & 2, which are collectively marked as ExPW43/1. Vide this letter information regarding the telephone numbers and their subscribers mentioned therein was provided to CBI. He also deposed after seeing the letter dated 24.11.1999 which was also bearing signatures of Sh. Atma Ram Bansal as stated above, as also that of Sh. B.D.SIngh, DGM(F), MTNL(North), Delhi which letter is ExPW43/2. Vide this letter he gave information regarding the deposit of Security amount by the subscriber against the telephone numbers mentioned therein. The said letter is ExPW43/2 was also accompanied by the details of the billing amount for the billing cycles mentioned therein of telephone No. 7116797 in the name of Mrs. Rukmani r/o C217, Gali No. 8, Majlis Park, Delhi which was also provided to CBI. These details were prepared by the then AAO and it bears his signatures and also the details of billing amount were mentioned in ExPW43/3 which is annexed with Ex PW43/2.
78. PW44 is Sh. Prakash Chand. He has deposed that in the years 1999, he was posted as Zonal Revenue Officer, Civil Lines Zone, Delhi Jal Board, Delhi. After seeing the letter RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 49 of 200 50 dated 11.10.1999(D116), he stated that the same was bearing his signatures, same has been proved as ExPW44/1 vide which he had provided information to CBI in respect of Water Charges paid by Roomali Devi in respect of water connection installed at the house bearing no. C217, Majlis Park, Delhi, besides the details of said water connections for the period 02.02.1989 to 22.06.1999 in respect of property no. 6, Kewal Park, Delhi which was attached with his letter Ex PW44/1 and the same is ExPW44/2. The billing details of water connections in respect of property No. C217 for the period 25.02.1992 to 30.05.1999 was attached with his letter ExPW44/1 and the same is ExPW44/3.
79. PW45 is M/s Bharat Bhushan & Associates(Chartered Accountant Firm). He has deposed that he was the auditor of firm M/s Anhal Electronics, B7, Majlis Park, Adarsh Nagar, New Delhi for the financial years 199596 & 199697. After seeing the production cum seizure memo dated 30.09.1999 which was bearing his signatures, he stated that the said memo was ExPW45/1. Vide said exhibit he had handed over Audit Fees of M/s Anhal Electronics and M/s Angad Communication to Inspector CBI. Photocopy of partnership RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 50 of 200 51 deed of M/s Anhal Electronics was ExPW45/2. Smt. Rukmani Devi W/o accused Shiv Charan Chauhan and Pankaj Chauhan son of accused were partners in the aforesaid firm. His audit report in respect of M/s Anhal Electronics alongwith the balance sheet and other relevant documents are collectively marked as ExPW45/3. He has also deposed regarding the balance sheet pertaining to the said firm.
80. PW46 is Sh. Tilak Raj. He has deposed that he was working as part time accountant in the firm M/s Anhal Electronics, B7, Majlis Park, Delhi. This firm was a partnership firm, having two partners Smt. Rukmani Devi W/o of accused and Sh. Pankaj Chauhan, Son of accused. The said firm was established in the year 1996 vide partnership deed, which is ExPW45/2. Smt. Rukmani Devi was having share of 60% and Sh. Pankaj Chauhan was having share of 40% in the said firm and the said firm used to maintain accounts of the said firm and also used to prepare ledgers and provisional balance sheet. He also proved the documents pertaining to the account of the said firm which are Ex PW46/1 to ExPW46/3.
81. PW47 is Sh. Narender Singh Meena. He has deposed RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 51 of 200 52 that he was working as Dy. Collector, Daman(U.T). In October 1999 he was posted as Assistant Housing Commissioner(Loan) Department of Land & Building, Govt. of Delhi, Ablock, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi. After seeing the letter dated 26.10.1999(D120) which was bearing his signatures at point A which is ExPW47/1. He had provided information to Inspector, CBI in respect of Housing Loan obtained by Smt. Roomali Devi, r/o C217, Majlis Park, Delhi under LIG scheme in the year 1973 from their office. As per their office record, Smt. Roomali Devi had obtained a loan of Rs. 14,500/ vide permanent Loan A/c No. 29/44 L, she had repaid to their department entire loan amount i.e Rs. 14500/ as principal alongwith Rs. 9798.31 as interest.
82. PW48 is Sh. Sujit Jha. He has deposed that he was employed as an officer in Standard Chartered Bank. M/s ANZ Grindlays Bank, which stood merged in Standard Chartered Bank even before he joined the service. He has deposed that Sh. R.K.Kohli had left the services of the bank and his present whereabouts were not known.
83. PW49 is Sh. R.K.Sharma. He has stated that he was working as Assistant Administrative Officer with M/s Peerless RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 52 of 200 53 General Finance & Investment Company at Delhi in the year 2000. After seeing the production cum seizure memo(D48) he stated that same was bearing his signatures which is Ex PW49/1 vide which he had handed over discharge certificate and original ledger sheets pertaining to Pankaj Chauhan and Mona Chauhan, both son and daughter of accused. The said documents are ExPW49/2 and ExPW49/3 respectively. On the premium of Rs. 385/ p.a., maturity amount of Rs. 2500/ was paid by M/s Peerless to Policy Holder. Discharge certificate and ledger sheet pertaining to Mona Chauhan are ExPW49/4 and ExPW49/5 respectively. On the premium of Rs. 760/ p.a, maturity amount of Rs. 5000/ was paid by M/s Peerless to Policy holder.
84. PW50 is Sh. Manoj Kumar. He has deposed that he knew accused Shiv Charan Chauhan as he had worked at the Painting shop of his son Sh. Anil. In August, 1998 he had helped in sale of scooter of the accused to Sh. Sushil for a sum of Rs. 6500/ and with regard to the said transaction writing was executed between the accused and Sh. Sushil Kumar in the month of October, 1998.
85. PW51 is Sh. Pawan Kumar. He has deposed that since RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 53 of 200 54 1977, he had been working in Shivaji College, Ring Road, New Delhi. He proved the letter written by Dr. Satya Prakash Principal of the said college addressed to Inspector CBI wherein he had given details of the fees paid by Mr. Pankaj Chauhan, who took admission in B.Sc course in the said college. The said letter is ExPW51/1.
86. PW52 is Sh. Ishwar Singh Ahlawat. He deposed that in the year 1999 he was working as Assistant Finance Officer, Delhi Vidyut Board, District Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. Vide production cum Seizure memo dated 05.10.1999, he had handed over particulars of payments made by the subscriber/account statements in respect of certain meters at Kewal Park Extension and three meters installed at C217, Majlis Park, Delhi to CBI officer. The said production cum seizure memo is ExPW52/1. The aforesaid electric connections were all in the name of Smt. Rumali Devi. The account statements of the above said electric connections are ExPW52/2 to ExPW52/17 and the same was bearing his signatures on each page. He has also deposed regarding the payments actually made for the period July 1990 to 1999 with respect to each of the above meter.
RC NO. 27A/98
CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 54 of 200
55
87. PW53 is Sh. Sunder Lal. He has deposed, he was working as clerk in branch unit No. 112, LIC, New Delhi. At that time Sh. Yogesh Sharma was the senior branch manager. Sh. Yogesh Sharma had written a letter ExPW53/1 providing the details of policy no. 111940214 and 111940464, both bearing his signatures. Both the said policies commenced on 28.09.1994 and a payment of Rs. 12440/ was received in respect of policy no. 111940214 and Rs. 16076/ was received in respect of policy No. 111940464 upto November 1997. No payment was made by the LIC to the policy holder upto November 1997. A sum of Rs. 4019/ was also deposited by the policy holder at the time of taking policy no. 111940464 in the year 1994. He has also proved computerized certified status reports pertaining to the said policy which are Ex PW53/2 and ExPW53/3. He stated that the policy ExPW53/2 was issued in the name of Ms. Mona Chauhan, daughter of accused Shiv Charan Chauhan. Policy ExPW53/3 was issued in the name of Smt. Rukmani Wife of accused.
88. PW54 is Sh. Samsher Singh. He has deposed that in the year 1998 he was working as Chief Personnel Inspector, Northern Railway, Baroda House, Delhi. On 27.04.1998, he RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 55 of 200 56 was directed by his senior officer to report at ACB, CBI New Delhi in the morning of 28.04.1998, he alongwith Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Assistant Controller of Stores reached CBI office. Thereafter they were taken to Kewal Park Extension, Power Road, Azadpur, Delhi, where they reached premises No. A46 Kewal Park Extension, Power Road, Azadpur, Delhi which was in occupation of Sh. Anil Pratap Singh, proprietor of M/s Angad Communication having its godown at ground floor of the premises. Search was conducted at the aforesaid premises and Sh. Anil Pratap Singh cooperated with the search team and memo was prepared with regard to the search which is ExPW53/1 bearing his signatures.
89. PW55 is Sh. Vijay Kumar S/o Late Sh. Banarsi Dass. He deposed that he remained posted as UDC in the office of Motor Licencing Officer, Head Quarter(MLO), Transport Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi during the period 199899. After seeing the production cum seizure memo dated 12.05.1999 with respect to D76 he stated that the same is Ex PW55/1. Vide said exhibit he produced file of vehicle no. DL1L9493 of Transport Department to Inspector CBI Virender Thakran. The said file is ExPW55/2. As per invoice RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 56 of 200 57 dated 21.10.1991 of M/s Tata motors, which was also available in the said file. The aforesaid vehicle was sold to Sh. Sanjay Chauhan son of Late Sh. Rajbir and Sh. Pankaj Chauhan son of Sh. Charan Chauhan, both residing at 17, Gali No. 8, Majlis Park, Delhi for Rs. 3,09,718.26. The said invoice is ExPW55/3. Insurance cover note is ExPW55/4, the aforesaid vehicle was insured on payment of premium of Rs. 6,725/ for the period 24.10.1991 to 23.10.1992. The aforesaid vehicle was registered bearing registration no. DL 1L 9493 vide noting dated 29.10.1991, which is ExPW55/5 and application for registration of aforesaid vehicle was also available in file D76 which is ExPW55/6.
90. PW56 is Sh. A.P.Bharathan. He has stated that he has been working in M/s Bajaj Auto Ltd., Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. He had seen letter dated 21.06.2000 of M/s Bajaj Auto Ltd.(D83) bearing signatures of their manager(administration), the said letter is ExPW56/1. Vide said letter information was provided to Insp. CBI regarding price of Bajaj Chetak and Bajaj Super Scooters prevalent in the month of January, 1989. At the relevant time price of Bajaj Chetak scooter was Rs. 12,187/ and at the relevant time price of Bajaj Super Scooter RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 57 of 200 58 was Rs. 11,769/.
91. PW57 is Sh. S.K.Mishra. He stated that presently he was posted as Motor Licensing Officer,Mayur Vihar, Phase I. He was posted as Motor Licencing Officer, Head Quarter, Transport Department. After seeing the letter dated 06.09.1999 in file (D1) he stated that the same was bearing his signatures, which is ExPW57/1. Vide letter ExPW57/1 he had handed over two files pertaining to registration of scooters numbers DL1SA9895 and DL1SE8956 to Inspector Virender Thakran of CBI for the purpose of investigation from their record and after seeing the file pertaining to registration of scooter No. DL1SA9895(D81), same is ExPW57/2, he stated that the said scooter was registered . The details of the same is mentioned in ExPW57/1 to ExPW57/6.
92. PW58 is Sh. M.Johnson. He has deposed that he was posted as MLO, Tax unit at Burari Delhi. He has deposed regarding the file pertaining to registration number of the series DL1S pertaining to scooter Nos DL1SA9895 and DL1SE8956 .
93. PW59 is Sh. Ramesh Kumar. He has deposed that he was posted as Sr. Materials Manager, Northern Railways, RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 58 of 200 59 Baroda House, New Delhi. In the year 1998, he was posted as Astt. Controller of Stores, Northern Railways, Baroda House, Delhi. On 28.04.1998, he witnessed the search conducted by CBI Inspector at premises A6, Kewal Park Extension, Power House Road, Azad Pur, Delhi in occupation of Sh. Anil Pratap Singh proprietor of M/s Angad Communications. During the search of the premises, documents pertaining to ownership and registration of four vehicles were seized by CBI. Details thereof were mentioned in Search cum Seizure Memo dated 28.04.1998, which is ExPW53/1 which bears his signatures.
94. PW60 is Sh. G.M.Arora. He has deposed that during the year 2000 he was working as Manager(Admn) in M/s Bajaj Auto Ltd., and he had written letter which is ExPW56/1, vide which he had given the details of prevalent rates of Bajaj Chetak/Super Scooter to the CBI.
95. PW61 is Sh. N.K.Jain. He has deposed that he was working as Jr. Engineer(Civil) with CBI, ACB, Delhi. Vide letter dated 18.11.1999 CBI had requested him to evaluate the property C217, Majlis Park, Adarsh Nagar, New Delhi during the investigation of this case. IO of the case had shown him some documents relating to the said property from which RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 59 of 200 60 period of construction thereof was confirmed. Thereafter on 25.11.1999 he alongwith Insp. V.Thakran visited the said property and inspected the same. He took measurement of ground floor, first floor, second/Barsati floor. During inspection accused Shiv Charan had disclosed that the said property was constructed into two parts. According to him, the entire ground floor and one room on the first floor were constructed in the years 1972/1973 and according to him remaining part of the first floor and second/barsati floor were constructed in the years 1988/1989 and as per his calculations the cost of the said property came to Rs. 2,86,686/. He has also proved his report which is ExPW61/1 alongwith enclosures alongwith other documents which are ExPW61/2 to ExPW61/4.
96. PW62 is Harbala Pavagandhi, Principal of Saraswati Gandharva Mahavidhyalaya, Darya Ganj. He stated that vide letter dated 17.01.2000, the secretary of the school had informed to Insp. CBI, on the requisition, which letter is Ex PW62/1 that Ms. Mona Chauahan student of Textile Designing in their school during the period 199697 had paid Rs. 540/ towards fee to their school. The said letter is ExPW62/1.
97. PW63 is Sh. Pankaj Kumar Saxena from LIC Lucknow.
RC NO. 27A/98
CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 60 of 200
61
He has proved various documents i.e various LIC policies taken by accused and the premium paid with respect to the same vide documents which are ExPW63/1 to ExPW63/2.
98. PW64 is Smt. Champa Gulati. She has deposed that she was working as manager in Jyoti Model Sr. Secondary School, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi and vide letter ExPW64/1 their school had provided information to IO regarding payment of fees pertaining to Mona Chauhan D/o Shiv Charan Chauhan during the period 198586 to 198889. The total fee(s) which was paid during the aforesaid period was Rs. 3120/. The details of payment is mentioned in letter ExPW64/1.
99. PW65 is Sh. Sukhbir Chand. He deposed that during the year 1999, he was posted as Assistant Assessor & Collector in Civil Line Zone(MCD). He deposed that vide letter dated 30.09.1999, he had provided details of payments of property tax/house tax in respect of properties nos. C217, Majlis Park, 292/A6, Kewal Park Extension and B6/3, Majlis Park to Inspector, CBI. Details on separate sheets are attached with her letter. The said details are contained in ExPW65/2. He deposed regarding the payment actually made by the accused pertaining to the said property and also pertaining to house RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 61 of 200 62 tax with regard to the property No. 1/3 of B6/3( ½ of B7), Majlis Park, Delhi. Same is ExPW65/4 and the details regarding house tax of property bearing no. 292/A6 Kewal Park Extension is ExPW65/3.
100. PW66 is Sh. Ranveer Singh. He has deposed that in the year 1999, he was working as Superintendent in Govt. Girls Sr. Secondary School, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi. A letter containing statement of fee(s) received from Ms. Mona Chauhan, D/o Shiv Charan Chauhan bearing the signatures of then Vice Principal is ExPW66/1 which is also accompanied with the letter dated 16.11.1999 signed by then Vice Principal, which is ExPW66/2.
101. PW67 is Sh. V.K.Khanna. He has deposed that he retired from the post of Branch Manager, SBI, Majlis Park, Delhi. After seeing the seizure memo(D2) dated 02.11.1999 which was having his signatures, same has been proved as ExPW67/1. He deposed that vide said document he handed over certified photocopies of ledger sheets of 13 accounts to Insp. CBI. The details of said 13 accounts has been mentioned in ExPW67/1 and he had seen ExPW39/2 to ExPW39/12, which are bearing his signatures.
RC NO. 27A/98
CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 62 of 200
63
102. PW68 is Sh. T.R.Wadhwa. He has deposed that in the year 1988, he was working as Assistant Manager in SBI, Majlis Park branch. He had seen the locker operation memo dated 29.04.1998 which is bearing his signatures, same is Ex PW68/1 and on 29.04.1998, CBI inspector conducted search of locker No. 32 of their bank which was in the name of accused Shiv Charan Chauhan. At the time of search/operation of the said locker no. 32, accused was also present. Sh. V.K.Aggarwal, Dy. Manager of the branch was also present, who applied master key and accused applied his key to open the said locker. From the said locker four gold bangles, one pair silver pajaib, one big Jhanjar(Silver), two sets children bangles, 10 nos. of silver bangles and one paid silver hair clip were found. Period of acquisition of above items, weight and ownership has been mentioned in Ex PW68/1. The aforesaid items were kept back in the said locker which was closed.
103. PW69 is Sh. R.Ramanathan, MLO Department, Delhi.
He deposed after seeing the seizure memo dated 01.09.1999, the same was bearing his signatures which is ExPW69/1, he has submitted that vide memo ExPW69/1 he had handed over RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 63 of 200 64 particulars of vehicle no. DAK 4821 ExPW69/2 to Inspector, CBI. He also stated that as per the said document the scooter bearing above number was registered in the name of Pankaj Kumar Chauhan S/o Shiv Charan Chauhan r/o C217, Majlis Park, Delhi. An amount of Rs. 360/ was paid by Sh. Pankaj Chauhan as one time tax.
104. PW70 is Sh. R.A.Khan. He has deposed that he had retired from the post of Assistant Commissioner, MCD on 31.07.2010. He remained posted as Administrative Officer in Land & Estate Department, MCD during the period 29.07.1999 to 08.05.2001. He stated that he had seen details of pay, running into 2 pages of accused Shiv Charan Chauhan, the then Head Clerk, Land & Estate Department, MCD which bears his signatures at point A on both pages, details of which are collectively marked as ExPW70/1. The said documents were got prepared of the pay of the accused Shiv Charan Chauhan for the period 18.04.1995 to 30.11.1997, bearing his signatures at point B. He also deposed that he had checked the said details of pay mentioned in ExPW70/1.
105. PW71 is Smt. Neeta wife of Raj Kumar. She has deposed that she was posted as Billing Clerk in Malaria RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 64 of 200 65 Eradication Department, MCD. After seeing the letter dated 29.07.1999, she has stated that the same bears her signatures, same is ExPW71/1, vide said documents pay particulars of accused for the period 05.12.1994 to 17.04.1995 were prepared by her and were sent to Assistant Law Officer(Vigilance),MCD.
106. PW72 is Sh. Vinod Kumar Aggarwal. He has deposed that he retired from the post of Dy. Manager, SBI, Clock Tower Branch, Delhi in April 2010. In April 1998, he was posted as Dy. Manager cum Accountant in SBI, Majlis Park, New Delhi. He had seen locker operation memo(D75) which is already exhibited as ExPW68/1. CBI had conducted the search of the said locker in his presence and in presence of Sh. T.R.Wadhwa, Assistant Manager(cash) bearing locker no. 32 maintained in their branch. At the time of search of said locker no. 32, accused was also present, and he opened the lock of the said locker. He applied master key in the said locker. The memo pertaining to the search of said locker is ExPW68/1.
107. PW73 is Sh. Virender Thakran, IO of this case. He has deposed regarding the investigations carried out by him during the course of present case, wherein he has also proved RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 65 of 200 66 various documents.
108. PW74 is Sh. T.K.Ramanan. He has deposed that he had retired from the post of Manager, Syndicate Bank, Kamla Nagar branch on 28.04.2001. In the year 1999, he was working in the said branch as Manager. After seeing the letter dated 10.10.99 he stated that the same bears the signature of then Sr. Branch Manager Sh. S.K.Grover with whom he had worked. The said letter is ExPW74/1 vide which they provided information to the CBI regarding term deposit/fixed deposit made in the said branch in the name of Ms. Mona Chauhan, Sh. Sanjay Chauhan and Sh. Pankaj Chauhan. The details regarding the same are mentioned in ExPW74/2. He has also proved various other documents like pigmy deposits and other FDRs in his remaining deposition running into 7 pages.
109. PW75 is Sh. S.K.Suman. He has deposed that in the year 1999 he was posted as Manager in LIC Branch, Jeevan Prakash, 25 Kasturba Ganhi Marg, New Delhi. He received letter dated 31.08.1999 which bears his signatures at point A, which is ExPW75/1. Vide this letter he had provided information regarding LIC policy no. 24499452 to IO on the basis of record maintained at their office. The said policy was RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 66 of 200 67 issued in the name of Shiv Chaan Anhal on 28.01.1974 on a premium of Rs. 460/ per annum, the policy holder had paid premium upto 28.01.1997 @ Rs. 460/ p.a. The said policy matured on 28.01.1998 and a sum of Rs 22,798/ was paid to said policy holder vide cheque no. 389288 dated 17.02.1998.
110. PW76 is Sh. P.C.Bharti. He has deposed that in the year 1999 he was working as Assistant Administrative Officer with LIC. After seeing the letter dated 04.09.1999 he stated that the said letter is ExPW76/1 and the same was in his handwriting and signatures. The same conveyed in respect of policy favouring Sh. Pankaj Chauhan as per official record of LIC.
111. PW77 is Sh. Pankaj Chauhan, Son of the accused. He has deposed regarding the facts in issue of the present case. He was also declared hostile by the Ld. Public Prosecutor with regard to his previous statement recorded U/s 161 Cr.PC during investigation.
112. PW78 is Sh. Ashok Thakur. He has stated that he was earlier running a Dance & Musical Group by the name of Barkha & Party having office at Rani Bagh. After seeing the carbon copy of bill dated 05.10.1994, which is ExPW78/A, he stated that the same had been issued by his employee Harish, RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 67 of 200 68 whose signatures he identified and he stated that an amount of Rs. 8000/ was received by the group from the booking party, as mentioned in the said bill. He was reexamined by Ld. Public Prosecutor on certain aspects.
113. PW79 is Sh. R.K.Bhatia, who has stated that at the relevant time he was posted at Northern Railway, Baroda house, New Delhi and he accompanied the CBI team on 28.04.98 regarding the search at the premises of accused, during search some documents, some cash had been found from the said house. A list of documents were prepared by CBI officers in this regard. The value of the household articles found in the premises had also been assessed by the CBI team on its own. At the time of search accused and two other ladies were also present. He had signed the list/documents prepared. The search cum observation memo is already Ex PW73/3, which bears his signatures. He had also seen the house search cum seizure memo which is ExPW73/2 bearing his signatures. He was declared partly hostile by Ld. PP for CBI and was cross examined on certain aspects with regard to his previous statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C.
114. PW80 is Sh. Ajeet Kumar. He has stated that at the RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 68 of 200 69 relevant time he was working at H Block, Cannaught Place, LIC Branch No. 113 as Assistant. He has proved one document already ExPW63/1 & 2 respectively bearing the signatures of Sh. Pankaj Saxena, who was his branch manager at that time.
115. PW81 is Sh. Rishi Gupta the last witness of prosecution.
He has stated that he was the Director in M/s S.R.Foils & Tissues Ltd., earlier it was S.R.Fossils Ltd., wherein he was also Director. Earlier he was operating a Savings Bank A/c No. 8835 in Canara Bank, Rajouri Garden branch. The said account was closed down in the year 1997. After seeing the statement of account of his said account D85 and after seeing the entry dated 11.03.1996 of Rs. 40,000/ in the statement Mark P81/A he stated that advertisement hoardings in respect of S.R.Foils Ltd., had been prepared, put up through Angad Communication and the said payment of Rs. 40,000/ had been made by their company in that regard. The payment was to be made to Angad Communications, but he does not remember in whose name the cheque had been issued.
116. After completion of prosecution evidence statement of the accused U/s 313 Cr.PC was recorded in which the entire RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 69 of 200 70 incriminating evidence against the accused was put to him. Accused gave specific answers to all the questions put to him and in his defence he stated that he had been falsely implicated in this case. No benefit of his earnings during the precheck period had been given to him. There was no allegation against him of having any disproportionate asset till he retired. Inspector Harminder Singh, ACB Branch,CBI who is maternal uncle of his daughterinlaw Sangeeta was instrumental in registration of this false case against him. Sangeeta had strained relations with her husband Anil Chauhan and there was litigation pending between them. As an after effect thereof his Son Anil expired in 2010. He was still facing some of those cases. Anil had done Aeronautical Engineering in 198384 and was getting Rs. 20000/ PM as stipend in addition to free boarding and lodging. Ever since 1985, Anil started business under the name of Angad Communication which was very profitable. He started earning lakhs of rupees and was maintaining expenses of the house. He also chose to lead DE. He has examined four witnesses in support of his defence story.
117. DW1 is Sh. Sanjeet Kumar from Record RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 70 of 200 71 Room(Sessions), Tis Hazari. He has stated that as per the records maintained in the record room(Sessions) Goshwara No. 542 was incorrect in respect of case file No. 1081/01 decided on 26.02.2005 as per which the relevant information cannot be furnished.
118. DW2 is Sh. Sunil Chauhan who has deposed after seeing ExPW78/A that an amount of Rs. 1000/ mentioned in the said receipt was handed over to him by Anil Chauhan S/o Shiv Charan as event mentioned therein could not materialize.
119. DW3 is Sh. Satish Jain, who was employed with Shree Durga Trading Company in Narela Mandi as Head Muneem. He has deposed that there were 45 firms which were associated with Shree Durga Trading Company. The said firms were Goyela Trading Company, Navjyoti Trading Company, Sarvodya Trading Company and Sh. Ram Das Ganga Charan. He also stated that Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Narala(Delhi) is a Government Organization. Form J book was issued from there to each commission agent. Form J depicts the amount of agricultural produce sold on behalf of the Zamindar. He has proved various receipts which are ExDW3/A1 to Ex DW3/A46.
RC NO. 27A/98
CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 71 of 200
72
120. DW4 is Sh. Neeraj who was posted as JJA Record Room(Rohini). He deposed that he had brought the summoned record pertaining to the file bearing Goshwara No. 109D, pertaining to case HMA No. 107/08/01. The file contained the order dated 26.02.2005 passed by the court of Sh. V.K.Maheshwari, then Ld. ADJ. Certified copy of the same had been seen by him on record of the present case, which is ExDW4/1.
121. I have heard Sh.V.K.Ojha, Ld.PP for CBI as well as Ld. counsel for the accused Sh. H.L.Chopra and gone through the record including the detailed written submissions filed by Ld. defence counsel.
122. Ld. defence counsel has relied upon following judgments in support of his case: 2001 Cri.L.J.11 Jastinder Singh Vs State, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 796 Krishnanand Agnihotri Vs State of M.P, 2005 X AD (S.C.) 368 D.S.P. Chennai Vs K.Inbasagaran, 1993 Cri.L.J.308 M.Krishna Reddy Vs State Deputy Supdt. Of Police, Hyderabad, (1981) 3 Supreme Court Cases 199 State of Maharashtra Vs Wasudeo RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 72 of 200 73 Ramchandra Kaidalwar, 2003 Cri.L.J.2956 M.Sreeramulu Vs State of A.P., 1993 JCC 37 Sh.K.Chandra Vs State (Through CBI), 1993 JCC 46 Mr. Vishwanath @ Pappu Vs Union of India & ors. , VII (2000) SLT 43 State of Andhra Pradesh Vs J.Satyanarayana, 1994 Cri.L.J.12 Ananda Bezbaruah Vs Union of India, 2000 (1) Crimes 361 Subhash Vs State of M.P., AIR 2011 Supreme Court 1363 Ashok Tshering Bhutia Vs State of Sikkim.
123. Ld. PP for CBI has also relied upon following judgments in support of his case: 1960 Cri.L.J SC131 C.S.D. Swami V. The State, 1964(1) Cri.L.J SC 310 Sajjan Singh V. State of Punjab and 2009 Cri.L.J 1767 N.Ramkrishnaiah V. State of Andhra Pradesh.
124. Ld. PP for the CBI has argued that the prosecution has been able to make out its case against the accused beyond any sort of doubt, as all the ingredients to make out case u/S 13(1)(e) r/w Sec.13(2) of the PC Act are made out against the accused. He has further argued that the assets of the accused were much more than his known sources of income. The prosecution was forced to club the assets of his RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 73 of 200 74 daughter Mona Chauhan and wife Smt.Rukmani Devi @ Roomali Devi as the same were purchased / made out of the money provided by the accused. The accused has failed to give any satisfactory explanation regarding the disproportionate assets which were found in his possession. Therefore, accused is liable to be convicted.
125. On the other hand Ld. defence counsel has controverted the arguments of Ld. Public Prosecutor and has argued that the prosecution has wrongly clubbed the income / assets / expenditure of the family members of the accused namely Mona Chauhan and Smt.Rukmani Devi @ Roomali Devi. Since the same is illegal as per settled law, the prosecution has to prove the disproportionate assets of the accused to his known sources of income independently and distinctly from the assets / income of the family members of the accused, he has further argued that even as per CBI manual, same cannot be done. He has further argued that the prosecution has wrongly added various items into the asset head as well as into the expenditure head of the accused, which have to be deleted as per the detailed arguments addressed by him as well as per written submissions placed RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 74 of 200 75 on record. The prosecution has also not taken into account the huge agricultural income of the accused, which has been proved as per the testimony of DW3, which in itself is sufficient to explain the case of the accused. He has further argued that even the own witness of the prosecution namely PW77 Pankaj Chauhan has deposed that he and his brother Anil Chauhan were having enormous amount of income as they were even paying TDS of crores of rupees which shows that the accused was not spending much on the household as well as other expenses after they started earning in the year 1985. Therefore, he has argued that the income / likely saving of the accused is much more than the assets of the accused, which will rather be in negative. Therefore, accused deserves acquittal.
126. With regard to the ingredients of Section 13(1)(e) of Act, the same have been enunciated in judgment 2009 CRI.L.J.1767 "N. Ramakrishanaiah Vs. State of A.P. The relevant paras of the said judgment are reproduced as under:
14. Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act') deals with various situations when a public servant can be said to have committed criminal misconduct. Clause (e) of Subsection (1) RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 75 of 200 76 of the Section is applicable 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 of pecuniary resources of property disproportionate to his known source of income. Clause (e) of Subsection (1), of Section 5 of the Old Act was in similar lines. But there have been drastic amendments. Under the new clause, the earlier concept of "known sources of income" has undergone a radical change. As per the explanation appended, the prosecution is relieved of the burden of investigating into "source of income" of an accused to a large extent, as it is stated in the explanation that "known sources of income" mean income received from any lawful sources, the receipt of which has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant. The expression "known source of income" has reference to sources known to the prosecution after thorough investigation of the case. It is not, and cannot be contended that "known sources of income" means sources known to the accused. The prosecution cannot, in the very nature of things be expected to know the affairs of an accused person. Those will be matters "specially within the knowledge" of the accused, within the meaning of Section 106, of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short, the 'Evidence Act').
15. 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 RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 76 of 200 77 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 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.
16. The legislature has advisedly used the expression "satisfactorily account". The emphasis must be on the word "satisfactorily" and the legislature has, thus, deliberately cast a burden on the accused not only to offer a plausible explanation as to how he came by his large wealth, but also to satisfy the Court that his explanation was worthy of acceptance.
127. To substantiate the charge U/s 13(2) r/w Section RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 77 of 200 78 13(1)(e) of Act, the prosecution has to prove the following ingredients:
1. The accused is a public servant.
2. What were his known sources of income i.e known to the prosecution
3. The nature and extent of the pecuniary resources or property which were found in his possession; and
4. Such resources or property found in possession of the accused were disproportionate to his known sources of income.
128. It is admitted case that accused was a public servant, since he was working with Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), which is a public authority. It is also admitted that the prosecution had been initiated after his retirement, therefore no sanction is needed to prosecute him under Section 19 of the Act. It is admitted that the check period is June 1971 to 30.11.1997, regarding the other ingredients, they are being discussed as hereunder in seriatum under various heads as per the chargesheet for convenience.
129. Immovable and movable assets acquired by RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 78 of 200 79 accused Shiv Charan Chauhan and members of his family during the check period(June 1971 to 30.11.1997) Item No. 1: Scooter No. DHN 2189(purchased in 1984) value as per PF intimation is Rs. 3000/
130. Regarding this item prosecution has examined PW35 Mr.Shakeel, who has deposed that in the year 1988, he was having a scooter bearing No. DHN 2189 which was a second hand scooter which was purchased by him from one Sh.Shiv Charan who was working in MCD. Against the said scooter he paid Rs. 4500/ to Shiv Charan. He has also proved transfer form pertaining to the said scooter which are ExPW35/1 to ExPW35/3. Prosecution has taken the value of the said asset/scooter as Rs. 3000/, as per PF intimation Ex PW15/A(D92) given by the accused to his department with respect to this sub head. Accused has proved that the said scooter was purchased by him from one Smt. Sudarshan Kumari on 28.09.1984 and thereafter he sold the same to PW35 in the year 1988 for Rs. 4500/. Since the said asset had been liquidated during the check period itself, which is between June 1971 to 30.11.1997, the said asset did not exist RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 79 of 200 80 at all on the last day of check period i.e on 30.11.1997, therefore it cannot be taken as asset, rather an amount of Rs. 1500/, which accused gained from purchasing & selling the said scooter has to be given benefit to, under the income head of the accused.
Item No. 2:Scooter No. DL1SA9895 for Rs. 18498/
131. This scooter was purchased admittedly by accused for Rs. 18498/ vide D138 on 29.08.91. Prosecution has examined PW40 Sushil Kumar and PW50 Manoj Kumar on this aspect. PW40 Sushil Kumar has deposed that in the year 1998 he had purchased the above scooter for Rs. 6500/, through one Manoj Kumar who was working with accused Shiv Charan. He got the registration certificate of the said scooter transferred in his name and the application form dated 22.10.1998 for transfer of ownership of the said scooter bears his signatures on the said form at points A, A1 to A5 which is ExPW40/1.
132. PW50 Manoj Kumar has stated that he knew accused as he had worked at the Painting shop of his son Anil. In August 1998, he had helped in sale of scooter of the RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 80 of 200 81 accused to Sushil for a sum of Rs. 6500/ and with regard to said transaction writing work was executed between the accused and Sushil Kumar in the month of October 1998.
133. In his cross examination he has stated that the said scooter was purchased by him initially in the year 1995 and he paid Rs. 15000/ to the accused. The said scooter was not got transferred by him in the Transport Department, but he had obtained the relevant documents duly signed by the accused and he submitted that it was correct that he sold the said scooter in the year 1998 to Sushil Kumar for a sum of Rs. 6500/ which he had received.
134. In his further reexamination by Ld. PP for CBI he stated that it was correct that he did not state in his examination in chief regarding purchase of aforesaid scooter for a sum of Rs. 15000/ by him from accused. It was correct that he has stated the said fact for the first time in his cross examination at the instance of accused.
135. Though PW2 has stated in his further examination in chief by Ld. Public Prosecutor that he had deposed so at the instance of accused, but at the same time the perusal of the seizure memo D74 ExPW73/2 proves that RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 81 of 200 82 this scooter was not found in the house of the accused on 28.04.1998 on the day of search, nor any document relating to this scooter was recovered from the house of the accused at that time. Therefore this part of the testimony of PW50 that the accused had sold the scooter to him in the year 1995 for Rs. 1500/, but he had not got the scooter transferred from the Transport department is credible, as also this part of his deposition that he later on sold the scooter in 1998 to Sushil for Rs. 6500/ appears to be correct, as PW40 purchaser has also stated that he purchased the said scooter from PW50. Since the asset was liquidated during the check period and it did not exist on the last day of check period. Therefore the accused actually suffered a loss of Rs. 3498/, as the said scooter was purchased for Rs. 18,498/, but was sold for Rs. 15000/ in the year 1995. Therefore the said amount cannot be added in the asset head, rather the said amount of Rs. 3498/ goes to the expenditure head.
Item No. 3: Scooter No. DAK 4821 purchased in the name of Pankaj Chauhan in January 1989 for Rs. 11,769/
136. In this regard prosecution has examined PW69 RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 82 of 200 83 Mr. R.Ramanathan, MLO, Transport Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. He has deposed that in the year 1999 he was posted as Motor Vehicle Inspector at Transfer Department, Sarai Kale Khan, New Delhi. After seeing the seizure memo(D80) dated 01.09.1999. He stated that same bears his signatures at point A which is ExPW69/1. Vide said memo he had handed over the particulars of vehicle No. DAK 4821 Ex PW69/2 to IO. As per ExPW69/2 Bajaj Scooter bearing No. DAK 4821 was registered in the name of Sh. Pankaj Kumar Chauhan son of Shiv Charan Chauhan. The said document ExPW69/2 reveals that the said scooter was purchased by Pankaj Kumar Chauhan on 11.01.89.
137. The prosecution has also examined PW77 Pankaj Chauhan. He in his cross examination has stated that it was correct that scooter No. DAK4821 was purchased by him in January, 1989 from the income of his brother and himself. He was also declared hostile by Ld PP. In his cross examination by PP for CBI he has stated that it was correct that he had no independent source of income prior to 1990. He further stated that he had started helping his brother Anil in his business since 1985 and since then he was giving him pocket RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 83 of 200 84 money and money for his expenses. In his cross examination as discussed above he has stated that the said scooter was purchased by him from the income of his brother and himself, as he was getting pocket money and money for expenses. It has been held in the judgment Krishnanand Agnihotri vs. State of M.P., AIR 1977 SC 796:(1977 Cri LJ 566): (1977) 1 SCC 816 as under:
17. In that case, it was contended that the amounts lying in fixed deposit in the name of one Shanti Devi was an asset belonging to the appellant and that Shanti Devi was a benamidar of the appellant. The Learned Judge speaking for the Bench has disposed of that contention holding that (para 26 of AIR) :
"It is well settled that the burden of showing that a particular transaction is benami and the appellant owner is not the real owner always rests on the person asserting it to be so and this burden has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidence of a definite character which would either directly prove the fact RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 84 of 200 85 of benami or establish circumstances unerringly and reasonably raising an inference of that fact. The essence of benami is the intention of the parties and not unoften, such intention is shrouded in a thick veil which cannot be easily pierced through. But such difficulties do not relieve the person asserting the transaction to be benami of the serious onus that rests on him, nor justify the acceptance of mere conjectures or surmises as a substitute for proof."
138. In view of the said judgment prosecution has to prove the money for purchase of the said scooter was provided by the accused. Prosecution has not lead any evidence in this regard, rather their own witness PW77 Pankaj Chauhan has stated that the said scooter was purchased by him in January, 1989 from the income of his brother and himself. He had started helping his brother Anil in his business since 1985 and since then he was giving him pocket money RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 85 of 200 86 and money for his expenses. Since the said asset belongs to the son of the accused and the prosecution has failed to prove that money for the purchase of the same was provided by the accused, the said amount of Rs. 11769/ cannot be taken under the asset head of the accused.
Item No. 4: Share of amount paid by Sh. Shiv Charan for purchase of land at Village Patla for 12733/.
139. With regard to this item, prosecution has examined PW16 Sh. Amar Singh, attesting witness to the sale deed dated 04.04.83 which is ExPW9/A. He has deposed that he knew accused Shiv Charan and his brothers, who are sons of Late Sh. Ram Singh. Sh. Ram Dhari was the brother of Sh. Ram Singh. Sh. Ram Dhari sold his agricultural land to accused Shiv Charan Chauhan vide sale deed ExPW9/A for a sum of Rs. 45000/. He had attested the sale deed as a witness and his signature appear at point A on the last page of the sale deed and on the back of third page. All the three brothers gave their share amount. In his cross examination he stated that only once the payment had been made before Sub Registrar. It was correct that Rs. 20,000/ was paid before Sub RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 86 of 200 87 Registrar at the time of registration of sale deed by Sh. Shambhu Dayal. The document ExPW9/A reveals that the total consideration amount which has been mentioned in the said sale deed as Rs. 40,000/ and not Rs. 45000/ as mentioned by PW16. In view of Section 91 & 92 of Indian Evidence Act no oral evidence contradicting the terms of the written agreement can be given, therefore consideration amount as mentioned in the sale deed of Rs. 40000/ has to be only considered on the back page of the said sale deed, there is an endorsement of Sub Registrar wherein it is clearly mentioned that Rs. 20,000/ has been paid by Shambhu Dayal which has been received by the Vendor Ramdhari Singh Therefore it appears that only an amount of Rs. 20,000/ was shared by the remaining two brothers namely Shiv Charan and Dushyant. Therefore an amount of Rs. 10,000/ can only be added in the asset head of the accused, instead of Rs. 12733/. Therefore the asset head of the accused would be reduced by an amount of Rs. 2733/.
Item no. 5 & 6: Purchase of plot No. 164 a Libaspur and Purchase of plot No. 165 at Libaspur for Rs. 16000/ each.
RC NO. 27A/98
CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 87 of 200
88
140. As per prosecution case the sale consideration of Rs. 16000/ each in respect of the said plots at Swaroop Nagar had been given was provided by the accused. PW8 is the witness with regard to the said fact, who has deposed that he had seen affidavits ExPW8/A and B vide which he sold plots No. 164 and 165 to Sh. Anil Chauhan and Pankaj Chauhan for Rs. 5000/ each. The said affidavits reveal that PW8 had sold the said plots to Pankaj Chauhan and Anil Chauhan for consideration of Rs. 5000/ each. Prosecution has not lead any evidence that the said plots were sold for consideration of Rs. 16000/ each, as mentioned in the said head. In any case, it is mentioned in the said affidavits that the consideration amount was Rs. 5000/ each for sale of plots no. 164/165, Swaroop Nagar.
141. Therefore as per said affidavits no oral evidence contradicting the terms of said writing can be lead as per Section 91 & 92 of Evidence Act. Though, it is the case of the prosecution that money for the purchase of the said plots was provided by the accused, as both Anil Chauhan and Pankaj Chauhan were not earning anything. However, PW8 in his cross examination has categorically stated that he received RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 88 of 200 89 payment of Rs. 10000/ either from Anil Chauhan or Pankaj Chauhan and as per judgment of Kishan Lal Agnihotri(SUPRA) prosecution had to prove by leading positive evidence on the record that money for the purchase of above plot was given by the accused and in the absence of the same no presumption can be made by the court in favour of prosecution that money for the same was provided by the accused, rather their own witness PW77 Pankaj Chauhan during his deposition has deposed that since the year 1985 he had started helping his brother Anil in his business and since then he was giving him pocket money and money for expenses. In his further deposition he has stated that neither he nor his brother were financially dependent upon his father and he and his brother were having independent and different source of income from his father.
142. PW77 who is the prosecutions own witness has deposed so and the prosecution has not lead any evidence that the money for the sale of the above plot was provided by the accused and their own witness PW16 states that he received the consideration amount from Anil or Pankaj RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 89 of 200 90 Chauhan, therefore the said plots as mentioned in item no. 5 & 6 for Rs. 16000/ each cannot be added into the asset head of the accused and said amount of Rs. 16000/ each is Rs. 32000/ has to be deleted from the assets. Item no. 7: Balance in the A/c No. CD 161 ANZ Grindlays Bank, Karol Bagh initially Chandni Chowk Branch for Rs. 1000/.
143. This account no. CD 161 ANZ Grindlays Bank was attempted to be proved by the prosecution through PW48 Sujit Jha. He has deposed that he was employed as an officer in Standard Chartered Bank. He was working in the said bank for the last 3½ years. M/s ANZ Grindlays Bank stood merged in Standard Chartered Bank even before he joined the service. After seeing the letter dated 03.12.1999 he has deposed that Sh. R.K.Kohli had left the services of the bank and his present whereabouts were not known and he had seen the letter dated 03.12.1999 of Sh. R.K.Kohli, i.e Mark A, same was not written by him in his presence, he had never seen Mr. Kohli. Therefore prosecution has failed to prove that there was any asset of Rs. 1000/ lying in the said bank account at the time of search, so that it could be added into the asset head of the RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 90 of 200 91 accused. The said amount of Rs. 1000/ has also to be deleted from the asset head of the accused.
Item No. 8: Investment in RD Account 2049/63 in UCO bank, Model Town for Rs. 18900/.
144. In this regard prosecution has examined PW34 R.S.Juneja who had retired as Sr. Manager UCO Bank, Model Town, Delhi. He after seeing the pass book of R.D. A/c No. 2049/63 in the name of Shiv Charan Chauhan has stated that it is the recurring deposit account, which was opened on 07.11.1978 with a monthly installment of Rs. 300/ and the account was closed on 13.10.1983 and an amount of Rs. 18,900/ was deposited by the account holder and interest of Rs. 5283/ was given to the account holder. A total amount of Rs. 24,183/ was transferred to the S.B A/c No. 12711 of the account holder Shiv Charan Chauhan which is mentioned at point B on ExPW34/4. Pass Book is ExPW34/5.
145. The prosecution has sought to include this entire amount of Rs. 18,900/ into the asset head of the accused, but the same cannot be done, as the said asset got liquidated during the check period. Therefore the said asset RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 91 of 200 92 did not exist on the last date of check period. The accused continued putting the money from his pocket into the bank by small installments which added upto Rs. 18900/ and the said amount of Rs. 18900/ alongwith interest was returned back to the accused. Now the said principal amount of Rs. 18900/ was only spent by the accused from his pocket by depositing it into the recurring deposit account and only the income which was received in the process was Rs. 5283/, as Rs. 18900/ belonged to him earlier which accumulated by small deposits was returned back to him. Therefore the entire sum of Rs. 18900/ cannot be added into the asset head, rather an amount of Rs. 5283/ can only be added into the income head of the accused.
Item No. 9: Balance in A/C No. 12711 in UCO Bank, Model Town for Rs. 1747.87
146. The same has not been disputed by Ld. Defence counsel during the course of arguments, even otherwise pass book pertaining to the said account D89 is Ex PW34/4 which has been proved by PW34 Mr. J.S.Juneja, therefore an amount of Rs. 1747.87 has to be added into the RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 92 of 200 93 asset head of the accused.
Item no. 10: Investment in RC A/c 2896/36 by Shiv Charan in UCO Bank, Model Town for Rs. 18000/
147. Regarding this PW34 has deposed after seeing the letter dated 22.11.1999 (D91) that the same bears his signatures at point A and through the said letter he had given the name of the account holder of the said account no. 2896 as Hemraj S/o Changa Ram and an information pertaining to non availability of record for the year 1978, 1983 and 1986. The said letter is ExPW34/1. The records pertaining to the said account No. 2896 with UCO Bank have not been produced by the prosecution and the letter produced by the witness ExPW34/1 shows that the said account pertains to one Hem Raj S/o Changa Ram. Since only the photocopy has been produced without laying the foundation for leading secondary evidence it is not clear from where an amount of Rs. 18000/ has been added into the asset head.
148. PW73 IO Virender Thakran has deposed that during the house search D74 some pay slips were recovered which are placed in D90 regarding the deposits in the said RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 93 of 200 94 recurring account in the name of accused Shiv Charan Chauhan. It appears as per said document that the recurring amount deposit for the period of 36 months @ Rs. 500/ per month was made by accused allegedly as per the statement of PW34 J.S.Juneja in his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. Therefore the amount 36 x 500 = Rs. 18000/ had been arrived at by the IO. However, the said statement of account of said R.D account has not been produced, it is quite possible that the accused may have only deposited Rs. 3000/, for which amount deposit slips were actually seized from his house. Therefore the entire amount of Rs. 18000/ cannot be added into the asset head. Since even if the said RD account was for the period of 36 months starting from the year 1986, even then it would have matured latest by 1989, which is within the check period. Therefore the entire amount which had been deposited by the accused by way of receipts of Rs. 3000/ would have been returned back to him with some interest which interest component has not been shown/produced. Therefore since the asset was liquidated during the check period the same cannot be added, as the asset was not available to the accused on the last date of check period which was 30.11.1997.
RC NO. 27A/98
CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 94 of 200
95
Item No. 11: Investment in PD A/c No. 12108 in Syndicate Bank Kashmiri Gate in the name of Sanjay Chauhan S/o Shiv Charan Chauhan for Rs. 9425/
149. Regarding item no. 11 prosecution has examined PW29 Vinod Kumar Kohli who deposed that he had been posted in the Syndicate Bank, Kashmiri Gate w.e.f 1997 to 2000. He had seen the letter dated 05.11.1999(D134). The said letter was signed by Sh. A.K.Puri, then Sr. Manager whose signatures he has identified. The said letter is Ex PW29/1, which was prepared as per the bank record.
150. Perusal of the said letter dated 05.11.1999 reveals that the said account was opened in the name of one Sanjay Chauhan under the guardianship of accused Shiv Charan Chauhan during the period 21.07.88 and during the currency of the said pigmy account, the depositor deposited Rs. 9425/ and Rs. 4000/ was converted into fixed deposit on 01.01.1990 and another Rs. 4000/ deposited was converted into fixed deposit on 07.10.1991. It is stated that the said account had been closed on 07.07.99 and 27.10.99 and the balance amount of Rs. 2425/ alongwith interest was RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 95 of 200 96 transferred in the name of Sanjay Chauhan and had matured on 21.12.99. PW29 in his cross examination has stated that it was correct that same was the pigmy deposit scheme, same was launched mainly for catering those persons who had even small saving like 25 paise to invest. He also deposed that it was correct that the said customers did not come to the bank and the said deposits could be accepted only by the agents and not by the bank directly. Therefore only the agent can tell who had given the money to him for depositing in the said account.
151. He has further deposed that it was correct that in respect of said pigmy deposit scheme the account opening form and the specimen signature form also used to be brought by the agent to the customers. From the testimony of the said witness, it appears that the said account used to cater people having very small savings who could only save 25 paise per day and the amount of the said deposits could only be accepted only by the agents who used to collect money from the customers. It has been argued by Ld. Defence counsel that money in the said account was deposited by the mother of Sanjay Chauhan who was the sister of the accused, as she RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 96 of 200 97 was residing in the village and the account was opened at Delhi, as a guardian. He has further argued that even otherwise in view of judgment of Krishnanand Agnihotri the prosecution had to prove that the money deposited in the said account was provided by the accused.
152. I find sufficient merit in the said arguments of Ld. Defence counsel. In view of the judgment of Krishnanand Agnihotri(SUPRA) it is the duty of the prosecution to prove that the money in the said account was provided by the accused. It may be for the said account was opened under the guardianship of the accused, but it cannot be presumed that the money in the said account was provided by the accused. It was for the prosecution to establish, who that person was, who provided the money for the same, as prosecution should have examined the agent who used to collect the money for depositing in the said pigmy account, he would have been the best person who could have told the source of money, which was deposited into the said account. In any case, as per letter ExPW29/1 the said amount on maturity was transferred in the name of Sanjay Chauhan and not in the name of the accused.
RC NO. 27A/98
CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 97 of 200
98
Therefore this amount of Rs. 9425/ cannot be added into the asset head of the accused.
Item No. 12: Investment in PD A/c No. C 260 VCC 4552 and 5298 Syndicate, Kamla Nagar in the name of Pankaj Chauhan for Rs. 28000/
153. In this regard prosecution has examined PW74 Sh. T.K.Ramanan who retired from the post of Manager, Syndicate Bank, Kamla Nagar, Delhi. He deposed after seeing the letter dated 10.10.99(D84) that same bears the signatures of Sh. S.K.Grover, who was the Sr. Branch Manager and the said letter is ExPW74/1 vide which they had provided the information to the CBI regarding the term deposit/fixed deposit made in the said branch of the bank in the name of Ms. Mona Chauhan, Sanjay Chauhan and Pankaj Chauhan. The details regarding the term deposits of these persons are mentioned in the document ExPW74/2. As per details contained in Ex PW74/2, pigmy deposit was in the name of Pankaj Chauhan. VCC No. 4552/074880 for Rs. 6000/ in the name of Pankaj Chauhan was issued on 19.12.86 for a period of 36 months. The amount of fixed deposit was transferred from pigmy RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 98 of 200 99 deposit account No. 260 in the name of Pankaj Chauhan. He has further deposed that VCC5298/303471 for Rs. 12000/ in the name of Pankaj Chauhan was issued on 11.12.87 for a period of 24 months. The said amount of Fixed Deposit receipt has been transferred from pigmy deposit account no. 260 in the name of Pankaj Chauhan. The aforesaid two fixed deposit receipts bearing nos. VCC4552/074880 and VCC5298/303471 was matured and the maturity proceeds amounting to Rs. 22,690/ were reinvested on 06.01.90 vide fixed deposit receipt number VCC 7095 in the name of Sh. Pankaj Chauhan on 06.01.90 for a period of 24 months. On maturity of VCC7095 maturity amount of Rs. 27,574/ was paid to Pankaj Chauhan vide bank pay order no. 2267/994486 dated 20.03.92.
154. PW73 IO Virender Thakran in his cross examination dated 06.11.12 has stated it is correct that item no. 12 of the assets in the name of Shiv Charan as depicted in the charge sheet mentions investment in C260 VCC 4552 and 5298 in the name of Pankaj Chauhan as Rs. 28000/. However, as per his investigation, the investment in the said account was Rs. 18000/ and the figure Rs. 28000/ appears RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 99 of 200 100 to be a typographical error. In view of the said deposition given by the IO it appears that the said amount invested was Rs. 18000/, which was liquidated during the check period and out of which the depositor received an interest of Rs. 9574/.
155. Rather PW77 Pankaj Chauhan has stated that ever since 1985 he and his brother were maintaining RD account of their sister and themselves and he he had started helping his brother Anil in his business since 1985 and since then he was giving him pocket pocket money and money for his expenses. It is quite possible that the amount in the said pigmy account may have been deposited by said Pankaj Chauhan from his own personal savings. Since the prosecution has failed to prove that the money in the said pigmy deposit account was provided by the accused. The said pigmy deposit amount are saved by kids/household ladies out of pocket money given to them. The witness of the prosecution i.e PW29 Vinod Kumar Kohli has stated that even an amount of 25 paise per day could be deposited in the said pigmy account. Since the said asset was finally transferred in the name of Son of the accused on 20.03.92 by which time had RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 100 of 200 101 become major and it has not been proved by the prosecution that the said money was provided by the accused in view of the judgment of Krishnanand Agnihotri(SUPRA). Therefore the said asset in the name of son of accused cannot be added into the asset of the accused, as it follows as a corollary to the same that since asset was of his son, who was major, same cannot be added in the asset of the accused, nor income received therefrom can go to the accused. Therefore benefit of said income cannot be also given to the accused. Item no. 13: Balance in A/C No. 25949 in the name of Shiv Charan & Roomali Devi in SBI, Majlis Park for Rs. 7,664.84
156. In the testimony of PW39 document Ex PW39/16(D14) pertaining to the account no. 25949 reveals that there was a balance of Rs. 7364.84 as on 21.11.97, which continued till the last date of check period. During the cross examination of PW73 IO, his attention was drawn to the fact that he had wrongly taken the asset under this head as Rs. 7664.84 instead of Rs. 7364.84. He admitted his mistake. Therefore the said asset head is reduced by Rs. 300/. Instead of Rs. 7664.84 the amount should be read as 7364.84.
RC NO. 27A/98
CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 101 of 200
102
Item No. 14:Balance in A/C No. 29553 in the name of Shiv Charan & Roomali Devi in SBI, Majlis Park for Rs. 98,499.43
157. PW39 Prem Shankar Mehra, has proved that balance in the above account was Rs. 98499.43 as per Ex PW39/21(D18) wh ich was a balance on 07.11.1997 and the last date of check period is 30.11.1997. Therefore the said amount continued in the said account in the name of Shiv Charan and Rumali Devi(wife of the accused). Therefore the said amount of Rs. 98499.43 has to be added into the asset head of the accused. There is no dispute about the same. Item no. 15: Investment in RD A/c No. 739, SBI, Majlis Park for Rs. 6000/.
158. The same witness PW39 Prem Shanker Mehra has deposed on the basis of D6 ExPW39/6 that this RD account no. 739, was in the name of Pankaj Chauhan. As per this account Pankaj Chauhan deposited a monthly installment of Rs. 250/ w.e.f 14.03.1990 to 14.03.1992. As discussed above in the previous heading that PW77 Pankaj Chauhan has deposed that ever since 1985 he and his brother were maintaining RD account for themselves and he had started RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 102 of 200 103 helping his brother Anil in his business since 1985 and since then he was giving him pocket pocket money and money for his expenses. Prosecution has failed to prove that the money deposited in the said RD Account No. 739 had been provided by the accused in view of the judgment of Krishnanand Agnihotri(SUPRA). It cannot be said that the asset belongs to the accused. Therefore said amount of Rs. 6000/ cannot be added in the asset head of the accused.
Item No 16: Investment in RD A/c No. 739, SBI, Majlis Park for Rs. 24000/.
159. PW39 Prem Shankar Mehra same witness has proved D7 ExPW39/7 i.e copy of RD A/c No. 740 in the name of Shiv Charan Chauhan. As per this account accused had deposited a sum of Rs. 24000/ w.e.f 14.03.90 to 14.03.92. In his cross examination he has stated that as per record, there was interest income of Rs. 2720/ in respect of RD A/c No. 740. Rs. 120/ was deducted as penalty. Since the said asset was liquidated during the check period i.e it did not remain the asset on the last day of the check period 30.11.1997. Therefore the entire amount of Rs. 24000/ cannot RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 103 of 200 104 be added into the asset head, rather income of Rs. 2600/ generated from the said account has to be given benefit into the income head of the accused.
Item No 17: Investment in RD A/c No. 1190, SBI, Majlis Park for Rs. 18000/.
160. PW39 Prem Shanker Mehra witness from SBI, Majlis Park, Delhi has also stated that after seeing the certified copy of statement of account of RD No. 1190 in the name of Shiv Charan Chauhan which is ExPW39/2(D2), as per the endorsement made on the said statement of account the said account was closed in the year 18.11.1999 and the balance amount was transferred to STDR A/c. No evidence has been lead as to what happened to the fate of this STDR A/c. From the perusal of the said statement of account it appears that accused has deposited Rs. 18000/ during the check period in the said account and benefit of interest of Rs. 1202/ was given to him, since the said asset had been liquidated during the check period. Therefore said amount of Rs. 18000/ cannot be added into the asset head of the accused, rather interest income generated from the said account of Rs. 1202/ has to RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 104 of 200 105 be given benefit in the income head of the accused. Item no. 18: Investment in RD A/c No. 1654, SBI, Majlis Park for Rs. 18000/.
161. PW39 Prem Shanker Mehra who is witness from SBI, Majlis Park, Delhi has again deposed regarding this account bearing no. 1654. He has proved the statement of account pertaining to said account as ExPW39/4 duly certified by him (D4) which was in the name of accused. As per this account it appears that an amount of Rs. 18000/ was deposited by accused between 27.02.1994 to 27.02.1995 and the account was closed on 05.04.95 and the interest and the invested amount totalling Rs. 18996/ was paid to the party on 05.04.95. Since the said asset was liquidated during the check period, it cannot be deemed to be an asset on the last date of check period, rather income of Rs. 996/ was generated from the said account would be available to the accused in the income head.
Item No. 19: Investment in RD A/c No. 31, SBI, Majlis Park for Rs. 12000/.
162. Regarding this PW39 has again proved RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 105 of 200 106 statement of account pertaining to the account no. 31(D30) in respect of RD A/c No. R31 in the name of Pankaj Chauhan and Shiv Charan Chauhan. The said statement of account is ExPW39/45, wherein an amount of Rs. 12000/ was deposited between 23.12.84 to 23.12.89 and total of Rs. 16006/ was paid to the party inclusive of interest component of Rs. 4006/. PW39 has further deposed that copy of STDR No. 509073 in the name of Pankaj Chauhan and Shiv Charan Chauhan in the sum of Rs. 16006/ is ExPW39/46(D31), it was for the period 10.03.1990 to 23.12.1991. The proceeds were reinvested vide STDR No. 738276. Copy of which is Ex PW39/47. The said STDR was for the period 21.02.1993 to 23.12.1994. The proceeds thereof were again reinvested vide TDR No. 270900 certified copy of which is ExPW39/48 which was for the period 30.06.1995 to 23.12.1996 w.e.f 23.12.1994
163. IO of this case PW73 Virender Thakran has stated that it was correct that the account no. R31 was opened on 23.12.84 and matured on 23.12.89, a sum of Rs. 12000/ had been had been deposited in this account and interest accrued was Rs. 4006/, it finds reflection in the statement of account(D30) which is already ExPW39/45. As RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 106 of 200 107 per his investigation the amount of Rs. 16006/ was invested into STDR upto 23.12.1991 with the maturity amount of Rs. 19501.71/. He further deposed that the maturity amount was then reinvested into STDR account ExPW39/47 and 48 and the final maturity amount of Rs. 34877/ was transferred to account no. 28132 on 25.05.98. Ledger folios of the STDRs had not been collected as copies of STDRs certified under Bankers Books of Evidence Act had been collected.
164. As per the testimony of PW77 Pankaj Chauhan, he stated that his date of birth was 16.08.1969. Therefore he became major on 16.08.87. PW77 has stated in his testimony that he had started helping his brother Anil in his business since 1985 and since then he was giving him pocket pocket money and money for his expenses. Therefore an amount of Rs. 8000/ with regard to the RD A/c No. 831 wherein total sum of Rs. 12000/ was deposited between 23.12.84 to 23.12.89 can be attributed to the accused. Since at the time of opening of initial R.D A/c his son Pankaj Chauhan was minor and he became major on 16.08.87 and he had deposed that he has been getting pocket money from his brother Anil to meet his expenses after 1985. Therefore it cannot be said that RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 107 of 200 108 the entire amount between the period 23.12.84 to 23.12.89 rd has been paid by the accused. However, atleast 2/3 of the said amount can be attributed to the accused and therefore deemed to have been invested by the accused, as final amount of Rs. 34877/ was transferred to the account of Pankaj Chauhan on 25.05.98. Since income of the son cannot be added into the asset head of the accused, as the final amount has been received by his son. Therefore Rs. 12000/ cannot be added into the asset head, rather Rs. 8000/ has to be added into the expenditure head.
Item No. 20: Investment in RD A/c No. 277, SBI, Majlis Park for Rs. 18000/.
165. PW39 Prem Shankar Mehra has again proved ExPW39/49(D32) i.e certified copy of statement of account in respect of R.D. A/c No. 277 in the name of Shiv Charan. The said witness also proved copy of STDR No. 509072 in the name of Shiv Charan Chauhan ExPW39/50. The said STDR was for Rs. 21,040/ and was for the period 10.03.1990 to 21.12.1991 w.e.f 21.12.1989. He further deposed that proceeds thereof were reinvested vide STDR No. 738275 for RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 108 of 200 109 the period 21.02.1993 to 21.12.1994 w.e.f 21.12.1991. Copy of the STDR is ExPW39/51. The proceeds thereof were again reinvested vide TDR No. 270899 which is ExPW39/52 of the period 30.06.1995 to 21.12.1996 w.e.f 21.12.1994. Though PW39 deposed that the RD account matured on 11.12.1989, but PW39 did not state that this maturity amount was re invested by the accused in STDR ExPW39/50 i.e the prosecution has failed to prove how much this was reinvested and has failed to locate the resultant asset. It seems that the said R.D A/c matured during the check period and asset was liquidated, hence Rs. 18000/ cannot be added, nor resultant income can be considered under this head. Item No. 21: Investment in STDR dated 24.08.82 in cash in SBI, Majlis Park for Rs. 25000/.
166. PW39 has again deposed that copy of TDR for Rs. 25000/(D35) is ExPW39/58 and bears his signatures. TDR No. 945801 was prepared in the name of Mona Chauhan and Shiv Charan Chauhan for the period 23.08.1992 to 23.08.1993. Copy of the TDR is ExPW39/59 and bears his signatures. He further deposed that proceeds thereof were re RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 109 of 200 110 invested vide STDR No. 434004 for the period 09.11.1993 to 23.08.1993. Copy of the STDR is ExPW39/59. After maturity, the maturity amount of Rs. 34,167/ has been handed over to Mona Chauhan and Shiv Charan Chauhan by way of banker's cheque dated 23.07.1996. Copy of which is ExPW39/60 which also bears his signatures.
167. From the aforesaid deposition it appears that the original sum of Rs. 25000/ was deposited by the accused for purchase of TDR in the name of himself and his major daughter. Her date of birth appears to be 02.07.74 as per record(D28). Since it is a joint investment, only 50% can be presumed to be the income of the accused, as there is no evidence that other 50% amount had also been received by the accused. Since by that time i.e at the time of maturity of TDR his daughter become major. It is presumed to be the income of the accused, as there is no evidence that the remaining 50% amount for the purchase of TDR was also paid by the accused as per judgment of Krishnanand Agnihotri(SUPRA). It was for the prosecution to prove who had paid the said amount, but it cannot be presumed that it RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 110 of 200 111 was the accused who paid the said amount. In any case, PW77 has stated in his deposition that ever since 1985 he and his brother were maintaining RD A/c of their sister and themselves. Therefore it is quite possible that the said amount may have been deposited by the brother of Mona Chauhan. Therefore 50% of the income of Rs. 9617 = Rs. 4809/ belongs to the accused which would go into the income head. Since the asset was liquidated during the check period only the benefit of interest of Rs. 4809/ has to be given to the accused.
Item no. 22 & 23: Investment in STDR dated 10.09.89 in cash in SBI, Majlis Park and Investment in STDR dated 11.08.85 in cash in SBI, Majlis Park for Rs. 50000/ and 10,000/.
168. Regarding this there is no dispute raised by Ld. Defence counsel.
Item No. 24: Investment in M/s Peerless General Finance w.e.f 1981 to 17.02.86 in Endowment certificate No. 7990949/51 for Rs. 1925/
169. PW49 Sh. R.K.Sharma was the witness of M/s Peerless General Finance & Investment Co., who has proved RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 111 of 200 112 the seizure memo(D48) ExPW49/1 regarding handing over discharge certificate and original ledger sheets pertaining to Pankaj Chauhan and Mona Chauhan, both son and daughter of accused. He has further proved that discharge certificate and ledger sheets pertaining to Master Pankaj Chauhan which are ExPW49/2 and ExPW49/3 respectively. He has deposed that on the premium of Rs. 385/ p.a., maturity amount of Rs. 2500/ was paid by M/s Peerless to Policy holder.
170. In his cross examination, he has stated that both the said policies were for the period of 10 years and the yearly premiums were paid for 5 years. Maturity values of the said policies were paid in 1991. Therefore the said document reveals that the yearly installment of Rs. 385/ w.e.f 28.12.1989 was continuously for 5 years i.e Rs. 385 x 5 = 1925 were paid to M/s Peerless General Finance & Investment Co., and the subscriber was discharged on 28.12.1998 and the payment of Rs. 2500/ was paid by cheque dated 28.02.1997. Since though at the time of investment in the said Peerless policy both the sons and daughter of the accused were minor, but the payment of maturity has been received by his Son Pankaj Chauhan.
RC NO. 27A/98
CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 112 of 200
113
Therefore an amount of Rs. 1925/ between the period 1981 to 1986 seems to have been paid by the accused. Therefore the said amount of Rs. 1925/ should be attributed to have been paid by the accused. Therefore the said amount of Rs. 1925/ ought to be added into the expenditure part of the accused, since final maturity sum has been received by his major Son Pankaj Chauhan, neither his assets, nor his income can be clubbed with the income of the accused as per settled law. Item No. 25: Cash in H. No. C217 Majlis Park on the date of search for Rs. 104000
171. In this regard PW79 Virender Thakran in his cross examination dated 30.07.12 has clearly admitted that it is correct that any day beyond the last date of check period cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of calculation of disproportionate assets(DA). He further deposed that nothing acquired after the last date of check period can be taken into consideration for calculating the DA. As per prosecution case check period is w.e.f 01.06.1971 to 30.11.1997. It is the admitted case of the prosecution that the house no. C217 Majlis Park, where search was made was in RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 113 of 200 114 joint possession i.e in the joint possession of the accused, his wife Roomali Devi and accused sons and daughter, as it has come in the testimony of PW77 Pankaj Chauhan that he and rd his wife had a separate room for themselves on 3 floor at C217, Majlis Park, Delhi, whereas his brother Anil and his wife used to reside on the first floor and the accused was also living. He further deposed that his daily need articles and jewellery articles were kept on the ground floor as the joint family was on the ground floor itself. Therefore from the testimony of witness PW77 it appears that house no. C217, Majlis Park was in joint possession of all the family members of the accused. Further PW77 has deposed that out of the cash Rs. 2.4 lacs found in the house, sum of Rs. 1 lakh had been brought by him as sale amount regarding which bills were shown and the said amount was returned back to him. He further stated that he told the CBI officer that the sum of Rs. 50000/ had been withdrawn by him from SB A/c No. 25474 maintained with SBI and belonged to him, but the said amount was not returned to him. He also stated that the balance amount was belonging to him and his brother Anil.
172. In this regard counsel for accused has relied RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 114 of 200 115 upon the judgment titled as D.S.P., Chennai Vs. K.Inbasagaran 2005 X AD (S.C) 368, wherein it was held as under:
15. We have heard both the learned counsel at length. The basic question that emerges in the present case is whether the accused could be saddled with all the unaccounted money at his hand or not. It is the admitted position that both the husband and wife were living together. The wife was running three concerns though those concerns were running in loss. Yet she could manage to earn black money by selling goods without bills and amassed this wealth without disclosing the same to the Incometax authority and when the raid was conducted she disclosed the unaccounted money and accepted herself for being assessed by the Incometax Department. Therefore, in this context, the question arises whether the joint possession of the premises by the husband and wife and the unaccounted money which has been recovered from the house could be said to be in exclusive possession of the accused. There is no two opinion in the matter that the initial burden has to be discharged by the RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 115 of 200 116 prosecution. The prosecution in order to discharge that burden has examined the Investigating Officer, P.W.53 Shri Viswanathan, D.S.P. (Investigation). P.W. 53 Viswanathan has collected all the materials from various places and he has given the details of his investigation. He has also supported the recoveries which have been made by the Incometax Department. He in his statement, has also deposed that some money was deposited at various branches of Punjab National Bank at Bangalore and he has examined all the senior Managers of Punjab National Bank to show that various amounts were deposited in their Banks and the prosecution has also produced them in the witness box to substantiate their allegation as P.Ws. 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 32. He has also examined the persons against whose names those amounts were deposited in the witness box. He has also examined the Income tax Officer as P.W.14, P.W.44 Assistant Director of Incometax (Investigation) and P.W.51 S.Ganapathy Iyer. By this evidence the prosecution has established that the money was recovered at the house of the accused as well as various purchases of immovable properties made RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 116 of 200 117 by the wife of the accused. The prosecution has tried to establish that all the moneys which had been recovered from the house of the accused, various deposits in the Punjab National Bank at various places through the influence of the Regional Manager of Punjab National Bank and the recovery of the gold ornaments as well as the recovery of foreign exchange i.e. dollars belong to accused. Thus, the prosecution has tried to establish that all the moneys belonged to the accused and after taking sanction, prosecution was launched against the accused. There is no two opinion in the matter that the initial burden lies on the prosecution. In the case of C.S.D.Swami Vs. The State reported in AIR 1960 SC 7, this Court has taken the view that in Section 5(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 a complete departure has made from the criminal jurisprudence still initial burden lies on the prosecution and in that context it has been observed as follows " Section 5(3) does not create a new offence but only lays down a rule of evidence, enabling the court to raise a presumption of guilt in certain circumstances RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 117 of 200 118 a rule which is a complete departure from the established principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden always lies on the prosecution to prove all the ingredients of the offence charged, and that the burden never shifts on to the accused to disprove the charge framed against him.
Therefore, the initial burden was on the prosecution to establish whether the accused has acquired the property disproportionate to his known source of income or not. But at the same time it has been held in a case of State of M.P. Vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta and Others reported in (2004) 1 SCC 691 that accused has to account satisfactorily the money received in his hand and satisfy the court that his explanation was worthy of acceptance. In order to substantiate the plea taken by the accused that all the moneys which had been received belonged to his wife and in support thereof he has examined as many as 13 witnesses including himself, his wife and his soninlaw. D.W.12 is the wife of the accused. She has deposed that the entire money belonged to her. She has admitted RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 118 of 200 119 the raid on her house and she has also admitted that she has amassed the wealth by selling cycle rims and leather products without any bill and out of the money amassed by her she had persuaded her husband to deposit the same at various Banks. She has come forward and admitted the recovery of the foreign exchange at her house and she has accounted for the same. She has also admitted the recovery of the gold ornaments at her house and she has explained that she has purchased those gold ornaments. She has also submitted that some real estate was purchased out of self earning as well as the loan from the mother of the soninlaw and some contribution was made by the soninlaw and the soninlaw has also admitted.
Likewise, D.W.8 her soninlaw, Thiru S.Rajasankar also appeared in the witness box and admitted that he has also saved certain foreign exchange when he had gone on various visits abroad. He has also admitted to have carried some money to be deposited in the Bank. The accused has also come forward in the witness box as D.W.13 and has deposed that all the moneys belonged to his wife and when he came to know about the RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 119 of 200 120 unaccounted money at his house, he gave his piece of mind to her. He has admitted that on one or two occasions money was carried by himself to be deposited in the account in Punjab National Bank and some money was also deposited on account of some of the members of the family by P.W.8, S.Rajasankar, soninlaw. Therefore, under these circumstances, the respondent has explained the possession of unaccounted money.
16. Now, in this background, when the accused has come forward with the plea that all the money which has been recovered from his house and purchase of real estate or the recovery of the gold and other deposits in the Bank, all have been owned by his wife, then in that situation how can all these recoveries of unaccounted money could be laid in his hands. The question is when the accused has provided satisfactorily explanation that all the money belonged to his wife and she has owned it and the Incometax RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 120 of 200 121 Department has assessed in her hand, then in that case, whether he could be charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is true that when there is joint possession between the wife and husband, or father and son and if some of the members of the family are involved in amassing illegal wealth, then unless there is categorical evidence to believe, that this can be read in the hands of the husband or as the case may be, it cannot be fastened on the husband or head of family. It is true that the prosecution in the present case has tried its best to lead the evidence to show that all these moneys belonged to the accused but when the wife has fully owned the entire money and the other wealth earned by her by not showing in the Incometax return and she has accepted the whole RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 121 of 200 122 responsibilities, in that case, it is very difficult to hold the accused guilty of the charge. It is very difficult to segregate that how much of wealth belonged to the husband and how much belonged to the wife. The prosecution has not been able to lead evidence to establish that some of the money could be held in the hands of the accused. In case of joint possession it is very difficult when one of the persons accepted the entire responsibility. The wife of the accused has not been prosecuted and it is only the husband who has been charged being the public servant. In view of the explanation given by the husband and when it has been substantiated by the evidence of the wife, the other witnesses who have been produced on behalf of the accused coupled with the fact that the entire RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 122 of 200 123 money has been treated in the hands of the wife and she has owned it and she has been assessed by the Incometax Department, it will not be proper to hold the accused guilty under the Prevention of Corruption Act as his explanation appears to be plausible and justifiable. The burden is on the accused to offer plausible explanation and in the present case, he has satisfactorily explained that the whole money which has been recovered from his house does not belong to him and it belonged to his wife.
Therefore, he has satisfactorily accounted for the recovery of the unaccounted money. Since the crucial question in this case was of the possession and the premises in question was jointly shared by the wife and the husband and the wife having accepted the entire recovery at her RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 123 of 200 124 hand, it will not be proper to hold husband guilty. Therefore, in these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the High Court appears to be justified and there are no compelling circumstances to reverse the order of acquittal. Hence, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed." the ratio of the said judgment is also applicable to the facts of the present case, wherein it has been held as under:
173. The above judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case.
174. In view of categorical testimony of PW79 and the fact that IO has himself admitted that any day beyond the last date of check period cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of calculation of disproportionate assets(DA).
Therefore cash of Rs. 1.4 lacs on the day of raid i.e 28.04.1998 cannot be clubbed or can be said to be belonging to the accused. In any case, the said house was in joint RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 124 of 200 125 possession i.e in joint possession of family members of the accused consisting of his wife Roomali Devi and accused sons and daughter in law and both his sons were earning handsomely and PW77 had deposed that he had even shown the proof of withdrawal of Rs. 50,000/ from SB A/c, but the IO still did not return the said amount of Rs. 50,000/ to him. Further IO has also deposed, when he was asked did he examine any witness or made any investigation, as to how much money was in possession of the accused on 30.11.1997, he deposed that no separate investigation was made . Since check period ended on 30.11.1997 and the house in question was in joint possession of the joint family of the accused, as also in view of judgment of D.S.P Chennai(Supra) and the raid was conducted beyond the last date of check period on 28.04.1998. Therefore the said amount of Rs. 1,04,000/ cannot be taken as asset of the accused, same has to be omitted from the asset head of the accused.
Item No. 26: Investment for the purchase of vehicle no. DL1L 9493 by Shiv Charan after taking loan for Rs. 59062 RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 125 of 200 126
175. PW77 in his cross examination has stated that Tempo No. DL1L9493 had been jointly purchased by him and Sanjay Chauhan after taking loan from bank. They had taken the help in this regard from his parents, Anil and mother of Sanjay. He further deposed that it was correct that loan had been taken in their names and it is correct that all of them had pledged their FDRs with the bank for taking loan which was given to them. It was correct that bulk of loan was repaid by 03.01.1993 from income of the Tempo. It was correct that they were earning Rs. 1000/ per day from the said tempo. The relevant documents with regard to the said loan transaction have been proved are contained in D8 to D12 and D41 to D45 which are ExPW39/8 to ExPW39/12 and Ex PW73/10(colly). From the aforesaid documents it appears that loan was granted by the bank in the name of the person(s) shown in D8 to D12 and D41 to D45 and the consolidated amount of Rs. 312714/ was paid to M/s Telco against the sale price of above Tempo. Prosecution has taken a sum of Rs. 59062/ being the loan taken by the accused Shiv Charan under the asset head.
176. From the examination of documents as a whole RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 126 of 200 127 it appears that during the check period accused took the loan of Rs. 59062/ from SBI. It also appears to be correct that the said loan was completely squared on 03.01.1993 i.e within the check period, which may been repaid out of the income from the plying of tempo as per deposition of PW77 Pankaj Chauhan, as there is no evidence to the contrary on the record. From the ledger sheets, it appears that accused paid an interest of Rs 8834/ on the above amount of Rs. 59062/. Therefore the above interest amount of Rs. 8834/ only ought to be added into the expenditure head of the accused. Item No. 27: Articles observed as per observation memo in C217, Majlis Park, excluding first floor items for Rs. 344150/.
177. In this regard (D73) ExPW73/30 is search cum observation memo prepared by the IO PW73 Virender Thakran on 28.04.1998, wherein he found various articles in the premises No. C217, Majlis Park, Delhi in the presence of independent witnesses. In the said observation memo he had shown the particulars of articles, their approximate year of acquisition, approximate cost and remarks.
178. In this regard PW77 Pankaj Chauhan has RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 127 of 200 128 deposed that his brother Anil had started business of Angad Communication in the year 1985 and the business was running well and since 1985 Anil was running the household expenses and it was he and himself who used to purchase electronic items for the household. They used to pay telephone bills, electricity and water bills which were also paid by Anil and since 1985 expenses incurred by his father were negligible. He also stated that since 1985 his brother was paying him pocket money of Rs. 3000/ per month. He also deposed that Anil's wife Sangeeta had filed many cases against him and his parents. She had also filed a case, seeking subsistence allowance i.e maintenance. It is correct that she had produced in the court TDS certificates of Anil amounting to about Rs. 1.14 Crore. It was correct that monthly allowance of Rs. 30,000/ had been fixed by the concerned court by taking monthly income of his brother as Rs. 1 lakh. The said judgment has been proved by the accused as Ex DW4/1 passed by then Matrimonial Judge vide order dated 26.02.05, wherein the income of his brother Anil Pratap Singh has been arrived at Rs. 1 lakh per month. From the said document(s) it appears that said son of accused was earning RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 128 of 200 129 handsomely and it is also mentioned in page No.10 of the said order that TDS certificate of more than of Rs. 1 Crore was produced during the course of the said case.
179. Further in page no. 6 of the charge sheet IO has submitted that during investigation an FDR of Rs. 24 lacs approximately in UBI favouring M/s Angad Communication was recovered. Besides this various vehicles in the name of M/s Angad Communications and advertisement items valued at more than Rs. 24 lacs were also observed during search of godown. The electronics items were observed in M/s Anhal Electronics premises were of lacs of rupees. Therefore from the charge sheet it appears that sons of the accused were men of means.
180. Therefore it is apparent that his son may have been spending sufficient amount on the purchase of electronic as well as household articles. Further, PW77 has deposed in his cross examination that he had told CBI officer that all the articles found in the house which had been acquired after 1985 had been so purchased either by his brother Anil or himself. Therefore there is no reason to doubt the testimony of the said witness, as the said witness has been produced by RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 129 of 200 130 the prosecution itself and not by the defence. Therefore considering the testimony of PW77 Pankaj Chauhan that all the articles which were found by the IO vide D73 were in joint possession of all the joint family members, his further deposition that most of the household articles and other items had been purchased by them after the year 1985. Therefore it is quite probable that most of the articles found by the IO may have been purchased by the sons of the accused after 1985, as they had substantial sources of income. Therefore we have to give benefit of doubt to the accused based upon available material ExPW73/3. We cannot add the entire household articles as asset of the accused, though some amount of goods may also have been purchased by the accused even after 1985 upto the last date of check period i.e 30.11.1997.
181. Regarding the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the accused that the cost of articles prior to 1985 can only be taken as Rs. 42250/. The said plea cannot be accepted on the face value. Since the said plea does not taken into account. The items which have been purchased by the accused after 1985 from his income since accused was also residing alongwith his joint family. It does not stand to RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 130 of 200 131 reason that the accused may not have spent even a single penny for the purchase of household articles after the year 1985, whereafter his sons had started earning substantially. The accused being the head of the family must have spent some amount on the purchase of household articles. However, no exact figure can be arrived at, as to the amount which may have been spent by the accused for the purchase of household articles. Only a rough approximate estimate of the same can be done in the facts and circumstances, the said amount can be taken as Rs. 60,000/ based upon the reasonable basis,as the amount which can be attributed or the value of the articles which can be said to be have been purchased by the accused. Therefore Rs. 60,000/ can be added as the asset of accused, under this head.
ASSETS IN THE NAME OF MONA CHAUHAN Item no. 1: Investment in endowment certificate No. 7990950/510 for Rs. 3800/
182. PW49 R.K.Sharma has proved the seizure memo ExPW49/1(D48) with regard to the investment made by the accused in the name of Mona Chauhan, D/o of RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 131 of 200 132 accused. He deposed that vide said seizure memo he had handed over the discharge certificate and original ledger sheets pertaining to Pankaj Chauhan and Mona Chauhan both son and daughter of accused. Discharge certificate and ledger sheet pertaining to Mona Chauhan are ExPW49/4 and Ex PW49/5. On the premium of Rs. 760/ p.a., maturity amount of Rs. 5000/ was paid by M/s Peerless to policy holder. The aforesaid witness in his cross examination stated that both the said policies were for the period of 10 years and the yearly premiums were paid for 5 years. Maturity values of the said policies were paid in 1991. As discussed in item No. 24 with regard to the asset head of accused Shiv Charan Chauhan, on the day of investment in the said policy of M/s Peeless Ms. Mona Chauhan was minor. Though on maturity the payment seems to have been received by Mona Chauhan D/o of accused. The said amount of Rs. 760 x 5 = Rs. 3800/ ought to have been reflected in the expenditure head of the accused Shiv Charan Chauhan. Since final maturity sum has been received by his daughter whose asset/income cannot be clubbed together with the income/asset of the accused as per settled law, unless prosecution proves that the amount for RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 132 of 200 133 generating the said asset were paid/provided by the accused in view of the judgment of Krishnanand Agnihotri(SUPRA). Item No. 2: Investment in Syndicate Bank, Kashmiri Gate in PD A/c No. 12107 for Rs. 12,507.50.
183. In this regard prosecution has proved one letter ExPW29/1 signed by Sh. A.K.Puri through witness PW29 Sh. Vinod Kumar Kohli. The said letter says that Mona Chauhan under the guardianship of Shiv Charan Chauhan had deposited Rs. 12507.50 during the period 21.07.88 to 21.10.93, out of which Rs. 4000/ was converted into Fixed Deposit on 11.01.90 and further Rs. 4000/ was again converted into fixed deposit on 07.10.1991. Further balance amount of Rs. 5437.50 i.e Rs. 4507.50 and interest Rs. 930/ was converted into VCC and since closed on 27.10.99. From the aforesaid document including the testimony of PW29 and documents proved with regard to said item it appears that investment of Rs. 12507.50 was done in the name of minor daughter of the accused, but the same cannot be wholly taken as expenditure of the accused in view of the testimony of PW77 Pankaj Chauhan that ever since 1985 he and his RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 133 of 200 134 brother were maintaining RD A/c of their sister and themselves and money was deposited by them in the account in the name of their sister Mona Chauhan. It has also come in the testimony of PW77 that another son of accused Anil Chauhan was having huge income and out of said huge income they were depositing money in the RD account of their sister Mona Chauhan and in other account in the name of their sister. It is quite probable that out of three parts of the said amount of Rs. 12507.50, 2 parts may have been paid by he brothers Anil rd Chauhan and Pankaj Chauhan and 1/3 can be attributed to the accused. Therefore in these circumstances, benefit of rd doubt can be given to the accused. Therefore 1/3 of 12507.50 = 4169.16 ought to have been paid by the accused. Same be added in the expenditure head of the accused. Item No. 3: Investment in VCC No. 4535 and 5299 in the name of Mona Chauhan in Syndicate Bank, Kamla Nagar for Rs. 18000/
184. With regard to this item IO PW73 has relied upon(D84) ExPW74/1. Prosecution has also examined PW74 Sh. T.K.Ramanan who has proved ExPW74/2 with regard to RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 134 of 200 135 VCC No. 4535 and 5299 in the name of Mona Chauhan which was a pigmy deposit account, which was opened in the name of Mona Chauhan under the guardianship of Shiv Charan Chauhan bearing no. 1443. As discussed with regard to ingredient in item no. 2 in the preceding para. Since such investment of Rs. 18000/ in the said pigmy account was made, when Mona Chauhan was minor. Keeping in consideration the opinion expressed in preceeding para with regard to item no. 2, that PW77 has deposed that after 1985 he and his brother had been maintaining the RD account of their sister Mona Chauhan. They were also depositing money rd in the account of their sister. Therefore, only 1/3 of the said amount Rs. 18000/ can be attributed to the accused, that is to say that money to that extent must have been provided by the accused, as it is quite probable that after 1985 remaining two parts were paid by the brothers of Mona Chauhan, in view of the testimony of PW77 as above as also vide the detailed discussion held in item no. 2. Therefore only Rs. 6000/ out of the amount of Rs. 18000/ can be taken as expenditure of the accused under this head as the final maturity amount must have been obtained by Mona Chauhan, who by that time had RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 135 of 200 136 attained majority, as the said amount continued even after the check period till 03.10.99.
Item No. 4: Balance in A/c No. 34310 in SBI, Majlis Park for Rs. 90,043/.
185. PW39 Prem Shankar Mehra has proved (D16) ExPW39/18 which is the certified copy of statement of account No. 34310 which existed in the name of Mona Chauhan D/o accused(earlier account no. 931, as it was stated that later on computerized number was given to the said account having no. 34310 during the course of the arguments). As per the entry appearing on 02.07.97 the total balance in the said account of Mona Chauhan was Rs. 90043.45 , the next entry was on 09.05.98 which is beyond the check period. From the statement of account it is apparent that the said account was opened on 13.03.94. PW77 has deposed that he and his brother used to pay money to their sister for maintaining the R.D A/cs, and other bank accounts it has also been proved that one of her brother Anil was earning handsomely at that time and Mona Chauhan on the date of opening of the said account had become major.
RC NO. 27A/98
CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 136 of 200
137
186. Further PW81 has stated that vide entry dated 11.03.96 they had paid Rs. 40,000/, which they had to pay to M/s Angad Communications towards advertisement hoardings and after seeing the statement of account their bank account no. 2835 Canara Bank, Rajouri Garden in respect of S.R.Foils he stated that payment of Rs. 40,000/ was made towards Angad Communications. The payment was to be made to Angad Communications but he does not remember in whose name the cheque had been issued.
187. In his cross examination he stated that he had no knowledge as to whom the payment has been made. He cannot say if the cheque of Rs. 40,000/ was issued by him got credited into the account no. 34310, SBI, Majlis Park which was the account of Mona Chauhan.
188. Perusal of statement of account Mark P81/A shows that from the said account of S.R.Foils from the account of Rishi Gupta an amount of Rs. 40000/ had been paid to Mona Chauhan on 11.03.96. This shows that money in the said account was not deposited/got transferred by the accused, rather the said money had been deposited in the said account by or on behalf of her brothers. Therefore RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 137 of 200 138 prosecution has failed to prove that money in the said account was provided by the accused. Therefore in view of the judgment of Krishnanand Agnihotri(SUPRA) the said amount of Rs. 90043.43 cannot be added into the asset head of the accused.
Item No. 5: Investment in RD A/c 738 in SBI, Majlis Park for Rs. 6000/
189. PW73 in his examination in chief dated 12.04.12 has stated that R.D A/c No. 738(D5) ExPW39/5 was opened in the name of Mona Chauhan on 15.03.90 and same was matured on 14.03.92. Certified copy of statement of account of the above accounts proves that total of Rs. 6000/ was deposited in the said account by making payment of Rs. 250/ per month and the interest accrued on the same was Rs. 650/, therefore making a total of Rs. 6650/. It appears that the said amount of Rs. 6650/ was reinvested in TDR and the same matured on 14.03.94(D5) for Rs. 8426/. There is no evidence as to what happened to the said amount, after that, since by that time Mona Chauhan had become major. The said R.D A/c was opened in the name of Mona Chauhan under the RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 138 of 200 139 guardianship of Shiv Charan Chauhan i.e accused. Since the entire original investment was made by the accused in the name of Mona Chauhan, when she was minor, there is no need to track where the money went after maturity, as by that time his minor daughter had become major and the money ought to have been received by her. Though it appears that atleast one part of 3 parts of the said amount may have been contributed by the accused, as remaining amount can be attributed to have been paid by her brothers. In view of the testimony of PW77 that he and his brother used to deposit rd money in the R.D A/c of their sister. Therefore 1/3 of Rs. 6000 = Rs. 2000/ ought to have been contributed by the accused towards the said RD A/c. Therefore Rs. 2000/ has to be added as expenditure of the accused in the expenditure head.
Item No. 6:Investment in RD A/c 1192 in SBI, Majlis Park for Rs. 6000/
190. In this regard PW39 has proved certified copy of statement of R.D A/c 1192(D3) ExPW39/3 from which it appears that the said RD had been opened on 08.10.92 and RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 139 of 200 140 Mona Chauhan had invested Rs. 500/ per month in the said account w.e.f 08.10.92 and the same matured on 08.11.93. Therefore she invested the principal amount of Rs. 6000/, interest accrued thereon was Rs. 401/ and the same was reinvested by way of STDR No. 434475 and the same matured on 10.11.94. Since as per the testimony of PW77 which has not been controverted. He has deposed that since 1985 he and his brother had been depositing in the RD A/c of their sister and the prosecution had to prove by leading positive evidence that money for the RD A/c had been provided by the accused in view of the judgment of Krishnanand Agnihotri(SUPRA). Therefore money from the matured amount must have been received by daughter of the accused in her personal capacity. Therefore it was her own investment and corresponding own income which cannot be added into the asset/income head of the accused.
Item No. 7: Investment in RD A/c No. 1655 in SBI, Majlis Park for Rs. 12000/
191. PW73 IO has proved at Page 5 in his examination in chief dated 12.04.12 that RD No. 1655 in the RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 140 of 200 141 name of Mona Chauhan has been found in SBI, Majlis Park, which is ExPW73/11(D27). The statement of account shows that total sum of Rs. 12000/ had been deposited by Mona Chauhan w.e.f 27.02.1994 and the same matured on 27.02.1995 for Rs. 12664/. Therefore making interest of Rs. 664/ accrued on the said account. As discussed above in previous item no. 6 it has been deposed by PW77 that he and his brother Anil who was earning handsomely were giving money to their sister for depositing the money in her R.D Accounts. Therefore any asset made by her out of the said money being deposited by her brothers cannot be added into the asset head of the accused. Prosecution has failed to prove that the money in the said account has been provided by the accused.
Item No. 8: Investment in RD A/c R32 in SBI, Majlis Park for Rs. 12000/
192. PW73 IO has proved at page 6 of his examination in chief dated 12.04.12 that RD A/c No. R32(D28) ExPW73/122222 was in the name of Mona Chauhan under the guardianship of Shiv Charan Chauhan RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 141 of 200 142 which was opened on 3.12.84 with maturity date 23.12.94 and Rs. 12000/ had been deposited in the said account and the final maturity amount appears to be Rs. 16006/, which was converted into TDR No. 509074(D29) for the period 10.03.1996 to 23.12.1998 ExPW39/43. It was further re invested vide TDR No. 738277 for the period 21.02.93 to 23.12.94 which is ExPW39/43. Proceeds of the same were again reinvested in TDR No. 270901 in the name of Mona Chauhan and Shiv Charan Chauhan from 30.06.95 to 23.12.96, copy of TDR is ExPW39/24.
193. Since the original investment of Rs. 12000/ was made by the accused in the name of his minor daughter who was totally dependent upon him prior to 1985. PW77 has also stated that he had only started receiving money from his brother Anil after the year 1985 and he had no source of income in the year 1984. Therefore entire sum of Rs. 12,000/ is taken as expenditure of the accused under this head. Prosecution is not supposed to track the receipt of the final maturity sum, since it must have been received by Mona Chauhan when she had attended the age of maturity.
RC NO. 27A/98
CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 142 of 200
143
Item No. 9: Investment in cash for STDR dated 08.11.92 in SBI Majlis Park for Rs. 50,000/
194. PW39 Prem Shankar Mehra has proved certified copy of the pay in slip for preparing the FDR of Rs. 50,000/ in the joint name of Roomali Devi @ Rukmani Devi and Mona Chauhan ExPW39/61. He has also proved the corresponding STDR No. 750652 which was for the period 08.11.1992 to 08.11.1993. Final maturity amount of the said STDR was Rs. 56275/. It appears that the proceeds of the said STDR was reinvested vide STDR no. 434005 for the period 09.11.1993 to 08.11.1995 vide STDR ExPW31/62 and the proceeds thereof were finally given to both Roomali Devi and Mona Chauhan by way of bankers cheque dated 23.07.96 Ex PW39/63 for Rs. 68565/. Prosecution has failed to prove that the amount of Rs. 50,000/ by virtue of which STDR was prepared ExPW73/13 was provided by the accused. As per annexure B of the charge sheet it is stated that there was an income of Rs. 337455/ which had accrued in favour of Roomali Devi as her income. Therefore it appears that Smt. Roomal Devi was having income from rent of the property No. RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 143 of 200 144 A6, Kewal Park Extension, Delhi and it has come in the testimony of the prosecution witness PW77 Pankaj Chauhan that ever since 1985 he and his brother were maintaining RD account for themselves and money was deposited by them in the account in the name of their sister Mona Chauhan. Therefore it is quite probable that an amount of Rs. 50,000/ were generated by Roomali Devi from her own sources and share of Mona Chauhan was generated from the resources of their brothers as deposed by PW77. Prosecution has therefore failed to prove that FDR which was prepared ExPW39/61 was prepared out of the funds provided to the accused. Therefore same cannot be added into the asset head of the accused. ASSETS IN THE NAME OF RUKMANI DEVI ITEM NO. 1. Land purchased from Sh.Jitender R/o Village Jakholi, Sonepat Rs. 27835/
195. PW9 Sh.Jitender Singh has deposed that he had sold his land situated at Village Jakholi measuring 29 Kannals 2 Marlas vide sale deed Ex.PW9/A for Rs.45,000/ to Anil Kumar, Pankaj Kumar and Smt.Roomali Devi, w/o Shiv Charan (3 parts equally) 320/582, Smt. Dayawati 102/582 part and Sh.Dushyant 160/582 part in the said land. From the above RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 144 of 200 145 sale deed, it appears that out of the consideration amount of Rs.45,000/, Rs.5000/ has been paid in advance by Shambhoo Dayal. From the said sale deed, it is also apparent that before the sale of the said land, accused Shiv Charan s/o Sh.Ram Singh had taken the said land on lease vide document no.2409 dated 29.09.1980. PW25 is Sh.Chet Ram, who was working as Patwari in the Revenue Department, Haryana Government, Sonepat, who had carried out the mutation entry with regard to the said sale deed in the revenue record of the department vide mutation document Ex.PW25/2.
196. The document Ex.PW9/A also shows that accused had taken the said land previously on lease from Sh.Jitender Singh for a period of 80 years from 29.09.1980 for a consideration of Rs.400/ per year. It has been argued by Ld. defence counsel that the entire sale consideration was paid by Sh.Shambhoo Dayal, which has been mentioned in the said sale deed Ex.PW9/A and no amount of consideration has been paid by Smt. Rukmani Devi @ Roomali Devi. He has further argued that by virtue of Section 91 and 92 of Indian Evidence Act, no oral evidence contrary to the said fact can be allowed.
RC NO. 27A/98
CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 145 of 200
146
197. I have gone through the above contention of Ld. defence counsel. As per registered document dated 18.11.1980 Ex.PW9/A, a total sum of Rs.50620/ was paid as consideration including stamp duty. The uncle/relative Shambhoo Dayal had paid an amount of Rs.40,000/. The advance money of Rs.5000/ has also been paid by him, as per the said document. However, balance of Rs.10,625/ can be attributed to the accused, as there is no evidence as to who had paid the said remaining consideration amount. Besides that another sum of Rs.4250/ had been paid by the accused vide lease deed (Pattanama) Ex.PW9/DA by virtue of which he had taken this piece of land on lease for a period of 80 years, as 10 years advance including stamp duty of Rs.250/.
198. Since, the accused has failed to prove that at that time his wife Smt. Rukmani Devi @ Roomali Devi was having any independent income, therefore this amount of Rs.14875/ spent for the execution of the sale deed Ex.PW9/A and Ex.PW9/DA should have been provided by the accused. Therefore, said amount of Rs.14875/ has to be added in the expenditure head of the accused.
RC NO. 27A/98
CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 146 of 200
147
ITEM NO. 2. Land purchased from Sh.Bansi R/o Village Patla in 1976 Rs. 28875/
199. In this regard, prosecution has examined PW2 Sh.Ombir Singh. He has deposed that agricultural land measuring 17 Kannal was owned by his father in Village Patla, District Sonepat. In the year 1976, the said land was sold to Smt.Roomali Devi, w/o Sh.Shiv Charan for Rs.35,000/ vide registered sale deed Ex.PW2/A. In his cross examination he th has stated that it was correct that the land which was sold, ¾ th share was of Roomali Devi and 1/4 share was of Gopi Chand, Gopi Chand was brother of Ram Singh. He further deposed that payment on behalf of Roomali Devi was made in two installments, one before the SubRegistrar and one before one month. He further deposed that Ram Singh was father of Shiv Charan and both these installments were made by Ram Singh.
200. In view of the categorical deposition of the seller of the land situated at Village Patla, PW2 Sh.Ombir Singh that the entire consideration with regard to the sale consideration in the year 1976 was paid by Ram Singh, father of the accused, which is also mentioned on the back of the said document, no oral evidence contrary to the said fact could be lead, as per RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 147 of 200 148 Section 91 and 92 of Indian Evidence Act. The said document appears to have been executed in the name of Smt. Rukmani Devi @ Roomali Devi in love and affection by her fatherinlaw Ram Singh, therefore consideration of the same was not provided by the accused and same cannot be added as an asset of the accused.
ITEM NO. 3. Purchase of property no.B7, Majlis Park on 30.11.94 Rs. 70200/
201. In this regard, prosecution has examined PW3 Sh.Navin Gupta and PW4 Sh.Kulbhushan Gupta. Both of them are brothers. PW3 and PW4 have both deposed that they had purchased property No.B7, BlockB from Usha Rani Sharma and sold this property to Rukmani Devi for Rs.65000/. The stamp duty and corporation tax were paid by her. The payment was made by Smt.Rukmani Devi. Thereafter, both were declared hostile and both were cross examined by Ld. Sr.PP for CBI, as they were resiling from their previous statements recorded u/S 161 Cr.P.C. In their cross examination, it was stated by both of them " it is correct that when the payment was made, the money was counted by son of Rukmani Devi in her presence and money was handed over RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 148 of 200 149 to them by her son". The copy of said sale deed is Ex.PW11/E, which has been proved by PW11 Sh.Durga Prasad.
202. However, in the present case, prosecution has also examined PW77 Sh. Pankaj Chauhan, son of the accused. He in his cross examination by Ld. PP for CBI has denied the suggestion that property No.B6, Majlis Park was purchased by his father in 1994 in the name of his mother. In fact, it was he who had purchased the same in the name of his mother, as he was running Angad Communications as a Partner in 1994 and was also running Anhal Ad India as its Proprietor.
203. In view of the deposition of PW77, son of accused, who has been examined by the prosecution itself and in view of the assertions made by PW3 and PW4 in their cross examination that the entire consideration amount was counted by the son of Rukmani Devi and was handed over to them by him, and the fact that the name of Pankaj Chauhan appears as an attesting witness on the sale deed Ex.PW11/E, it appears on the preponderance of probabilities that the consideration amount for the purchase of the said house bearing No.B7, Majlis Park, Delhi measuring 50 sq.yds. was RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 149 of 200 150 purchased by the son of accused Pankaj Chauhan, who had also paid the consideration of the same, as he was running business enterprises by the name of Anhal Electronics as Proprietor at that time as well as Angad Communications as Partner, therefore the above property No.B7, Majlis Park, Delhi cannot be added as an asset of the accused, as the prosecution has failed to prove that the money for the purchase of the same had been provided by the accused. ITEM NO. 4. Cost of construction as per valuation report available in property tax file of property no.B7, (1/3 of B6/3), Maljlis Park, Delhi Rs. 309000/
204. There appears to be confusion with regard to the identification of the property. Though the accused and prosecution have proved that the property No.B7(1/3 of B6/3), Majlis Park, Delhi had been purchased by Smt. Rukmani Devi @ Roomali Devi vide sale deed Ex.PW11/E, however the valuation report Ex.PW5/A proved by the valuer Sh. Bal Kishan Chauhan is pertaining to property no.B6/3, Majlis Park, Delhi in the name of Smt.Rukmani Devi, wherein rd the valuation was done with regard to 1/3 of the property. As per the valuation, there are two set of property no. i.e. B6/3 as RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 150 of 200 151 rd also 1/3 of the said property, which was quantified at Rs. 3,09,000/. So, there appears to be some confusion in regard to the actual identification of the property in question. In Page no.1 of examinationinchief of PW73 IO Virender Thakran, he has deposed that property no.B7, Majlis Park had been purchased in the name of Rukmani Devi on 30.11.1994 and the copy of relevant documents were contained in D65. A court observation was made at that time that the valuation rd report Ex.PW5/A relates to property 1/3 of B6/3, Majlis Park, Delhi and not B7, Majlis Park, Delhi. Since, from the aforesaid deposition of PW5 the prosecution has failed to connect the said valuation report Ex.PW5/A that it was done with regard to rd 1/3 portion of property No.B6/3, Majlis Park, Delhi, not with regard to the property actually purchased by Smt. Rukmani Devi @ Roomali Devi i.e. B7, Majlis Park, Delhi. The said valuation report, therefore has no nexus with the property actually purchased by said Smt. Rukmani Devi @ Roomali Devi and it appears that the valuation of some other property had been done by the valuer PW5 instead of the property in question.
205. In any case, as has been discussed in Item no.3, RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 151 of 200 152 that the money for the purchase of the said property had been provided by Pankaj Chauhan, son of the accused, therefore the accused had got nothing to do with the same. Even otherwise, from the deposition of PW3 and PW4 in their cross examination, it is apparent that the said property was built up at the time of sale itself, that is to say that it was not empty plot of land, as PW3 and PW4 in their cross examination has stated that at the time of sale, one hall was on the ground floor, one hall and temporary kitchen on the first and one small room on the second floor. Therefore, since the said property was already built up and the money for the same had been provided by the son of Smt. Rukmani Devi @ Roomali Devi, prosecution has failed to prove that the money for the purchase of the same was provided by the accused. Therefore, the same cannot be treated as the asset of the accused.
ITEM NO. 5. Cost of construction of property no.C217, Majlis Park as per valuation report done by JE Rs.265185/
206. In this regard, prosecution has examined PW6 Prem Singh, who has deposed that he was the owner of plot no.217 measuring 111 sq.yds. situated in village Bharola. He RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 152 of 200 153 had sold this plot to Smt.Roomali Devi, w/o Shiv Charan for Rs.4000/ vide sale deed dated 14.09.1970 Ex.PW6/A (The said property seems to have been purchased prior to the check period which is June 1971 to 30.11.1997). He also deposed that the registration expenses were also incurred by the purchaser and on the day of registration of documents, Sh.Siv Charan was not present in the office of SubRegistrar. Payment was made by Sh.Ram Singh. He was cross examined by Ld. Sr.PP for CBI, as he was found resiling from his previous statement recorded u/S 161 Cr.P.C. However, in his cross examination by Ld. defence counsel, he deposed that it was correct that the negotiation for purchase of plot was done by Sh.Ram Singh through broker. He also deposed that it was correct that all the expenses for construction of the house was made by Ram Singh. Though, it appears that prosecution has not added the sale price of the plot as well as the stamp duty under the asset head of Smt. Rukmani Devi @ Roomali Devi, as the same was purchased by the father of the accused in the name of his daughterinlaw, as per the testimony of PW6. With regard to the valuation report of the said house, it has been testified by PW6 that the expenditure RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 153 of 200 154 in construction of said house was incurred by Sh.Ram Singh, father of Shiv Charan and fatherinlaw of Smt. Rukmani Devi @ Roomali Devi and it appears that from the survey report dated 20.02.1974 (D64) on the day of inspection by the Municipal Authorities, 2 rooms were there on the ground floor and one room and other accommodation was available on the first floor of the house. Therefore, it appears that whatever the construction was there in the said house was made by the father of the accused and accused had not provided any money for the construction of the said house. Therefore, the said amount of Rs.265185/ cannot be added as the asset of the accused.
ITEM NO. 6. Purchase of plot no.KL No.429/61/1/2/2 at at Azadpur in 1975 Rs. 13000/
207. PW1 is Shree Pal Jain. He has deposed that Sh.Paras Dass Jain was his father, who has since expired. He had seen the GPA and the receipt and Will in respect of one property in the name of Paras Dass Jain Charitable Trust situated at Azad Pur. He further deposed that against this property, a receipt of Rs.6000/ was issued by his father favouring Smt. Roomali Devi, w/o Sh.Shiv Charan Chauhan, RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 154 of 200 155 r/o C217, Majlis Park, Delhi. He proved the documents as Ex.PW1/A1 to A5 bearing signatures of his father at point A. In his cross examination, he has stated that it was correct that payment of Rs.6000/ was not made in his presence. It was also correct that as the payment was not made in his presence, he cannot say whether it was made by Shiv Charan or his father.
208. One of the document i.e. receipt Ex.PW1/A1 to A5 reveals that the said receipt has been issued in the name of Smt. Rukmani Devi @ Roomali Devi, which transaction took place on 23.06.1975. The defence has failed to prove that Smt. Rukmani Devi @ Roomali Devi was having any sort of income at that point of time. Therefore, money for the purchase of said plot must have been provided by the accused only. Therefore, Rs.6000/ has to be added in the expenditure head of the accused.
ITEM NO.7. Cost of construction (valuation report dtd.01.01.90 by K.L.Checker) of property No.A6, Kewal Park, Delhi Rs.80355/
209. Though, there is no documentary evidence to establish that Smt. Rukmani Devi @ Roomali Devi had sold RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 155 of 200 156 her jewellery and arranged money from her parents to construct the house No.A6, Kewal Park, Delhi. Prosecution has examined PW7 Sh.K.L.Checker, who has proved the valuation report with regard to the said property as Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW7/B. Nothing has come in the cross examination of said witness that the valuation report was not correct. But at the same time, it is quite probable and taking into account the natural course of events that no lady would preserve the documentary evidence regarding the sale of jewellery and stridhan articles for such a long time. In this regard reference can be made to the provisions of Income tax Act, which also stipulates preservation of documents for a period of 8 years and not after that. Therefore, it is quite probable that she may have spent for some portion of the construction of the house, but at the same time it cannot be said that her husband made no contribution to the construction of the house. Therefore, rd 1/3 of Rs.80,355/ i.e. Rs.27000/ approximately can be taken as having been incurred by accused Shiv Charan on most conservative basis.
ITEM NO. 8. Gold jewellery in locker No.32, SBI, Majlis Park Rs.1000/ RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 156 of 200 157
210. The said amount of Rs.1000/ is admitted by Ld. defence counsel during the course of arguments and in any way, the said jewellery articles for Rs.1000/ has been added as an asset of Rukmani Devi @ Roomali Devi, which has not been denied by Ld. defence counsel.
INCOME OF SHIV CHARAN AND MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY DURING THE CHECK PERIOD INCOME OF SHIV CHARAN Rs.909,670.05
211. The total income of Shiv Charan during the check period has been taken as Rs.909670.05P. Ld. counsel for the accused has not disputed the income calculated by the prosecution with regard to the items from S.No.1 to S.No.16, except item no.5 of the income head. He has disputed that the total income taken by the prosecution including item no.5 is not correct, as he has argued that with regard to item no.5, the total income of the accused which is agriculture income is taken as Rs.175214/. The main crux of Ld. defence counsel is with regard to the agriculture income, with regard to the share of accused Shiv Charan and Roomali Devi taken as Rs. 175214.
RC NO. 27A/98
CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 157 of 200
158
212. In this regard, prosecution has relied upon the testimonies of PW30 Dr.U.K.Pandey and PW31 Dr.O.P.Chikara. PW30 Sh.U.K.Pandey had retired in August 2008 as Professor of Livestock Economics, Department of Veterinary and Animal Husbandary Extension. Similarly, PW31 Dr.O.P.Chikara worked as Sr.Research Officer in Cost of Cultivation Scheme, Department of Agricultural Economics, Haryana, C.C.S. Haryana Agricultural University, Hissar. Both of them have proved the report/letter Ex.PW30/1, vide which they had informed the IO of this case Virender Thakaran regarding the operation cost, total cost and the gross income with regard to the cost of cultivation of Wheat per acre as well as the cost of cultivation of Paddy per acre, as also the cost of cultivation of Arhar (daal), the cost of cultivation of Mustard as well as the cost of cultivation of Radish crop for the various periods starting from 197576 to 198586 till 19971998. Based upon the said report given by PW30 and PW31, who were agriculture experts, the said figure of Rs.175214/ had been arrived at. However, PW31 in his cross examination has admitted that it was correct that the quality of land may give better yield of crops, the variation may not be very large, the RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 158 of 200 159 extent of yield is directly proportional to its management.
213. In order to rebut the same, defence has examined DW3 Sh.Satish Jain from the Narela Mandi, Delhi. The said DW3 Sh.Satish Jain has deposed that he was employed with Shree Durga Trading Company in Narela Mandi as Head Muneem, there are 45 firms which are associated with Shree Durga Trading Company, the names of the said firms are Goyela Trading Company, Navjyoti Trading Company, Sarvodaya Trading Company and Shiv Ram Das Ganga Charan. He has further deposed that the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Narela (Delhi) is a Government Organization. Form 'J' Book is issued from there to each Commission Agent. The Form 'J' depicts the amount of agricultural produce sold on behalf of the Zamindar. In this regard, he has proved various receipts starting from year 1984 till the check period i.e. 02.11.1997, which receipts are Ex.DW3/A1 to Ex.DW3/A46. The said receipts would show that they are numbered, having book number as well as Serial number and the same have been issued on behalf of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Narela, which is a statutory authority under APMC Act of 1976. All the above receipts starting from year 1984 show that the said RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 159 of 200 160 receipts have been issued in the name of accused Shiv Charan. They are having different book number, as well as serial number, though Ld.Public Prosecutor for CBI has argued that the said receipts are forged and fabricated, but there is nothing on record to support the said claim of Ld. Public Prosecutor, as the said receipt seems to have been issued at different point of time, in different ink and handwriting, and the receipts or Form 'J' have been issued by a statutory authority, therefore it is hard to believe that the said receipts may have been fudged later on. In any case, if it was so, what stopped the prosecution from leading evidence in rebuttal to show that said receipts are forged and fabricated, they could have summoned relevant record from the said statutory authority to show that said Form(s) 'J' having particular book number and serial numbers were never issued by the said authority at any point of time. Therefore, the said receipts are forged and fabricated.
214. In his cross examination, DW3 has explained that it was correct that the name of the person who brings the goods for being sold would be recorded in Form 'J' and it is not necessary for the said person to also sign on Form 'J'. It was RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 160 of 200 161 also stated by him that a gate pass is issued by the Market Committee at gate of the Mandi and name of the person who brings the goods is recorded therein and is recorded in Form 'J' on basis thereof. The said gate pass is retained by the agriculturist after the goods are sold. The said witness also stated that accounts used to be maintained in respect of commission received by them as Commission Agents, but said account books would not be available in the office, as they maintain records only for 7 years. The said explanation given by the said witness is plausible as the provisions of Income tax also stipulates preservation of documents for a period of 8 years and not after that. Therefore, prosecution has failed to show that the said receipts are forged and fabricated. The gross amount of said receipts comes to Rs.9,80,331.05P.
215. It is to be seen whether the testimonies of PW30 and PW31 would take precedence over the documentary evidence lead by the accused regarding the agricultural produce received and sold by him to APMC, as per the testimony of DW3. The testimonies of PW30 and PW31 contained in Ex.PW30/1 are only an opinion regarding the agricultural produce based on certain parameters including the RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 161 of 200 162 income calculation based on such parameters. The said opinion would have taken precedence, if there was no other evidence in the shape of actual agricultural yield / produce. Accused has produced the witness from APMC/Commission Agent to whom he had been selling the agricultural produce on commission basis for the last 30 years, the actual receipts of agricultural produce sold by the accused through them to APMC, Narela. Therefore, said documentary evidence in the shape of receipts, some of which are almost 30 years old, would take precedence over the opinion by PW30 / PW31.
216. Regarding the argument of Ld. defence counsel that he could not produce certain receipts prior to that i.e. prior to year 1984, as the receipts were fairly old and were not kept properly by the accused, therefore, agricultural income be extrapolated for back years i.e. prior to 1984, if same is done, income of the accused would come to almost 20 Lakhs.
217. On the other hand, Ld. Public Prosecutor for CBI has controverted the said argument.
218. I am of the considered opinion that no extrapolation would be possible in the present case, since agricultural produce in India is primarily dependent upon monsoon, there RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 162 of 200 163 will be periods when there will be good rainfall for the crops, bumper crops as well as floods. Those periods have also to be taken into account for determining the agricultural produce. Therefore, there cannot be any extrapolation of the agricultural produce, except receipts actually produced for the actual sale of the agricultural produce, which has been produced by DW3 for Rs.980331.05P. Therefore, the total income of the accused under Item no.5 would be Rs. 980331.05P.
INCOME OF MONA CHAUHAN
219. The CBI had quantified the income of Mona Chauhan to be Rs.53,512.45 which includes the interest income from A/c No.34310 in SBI, Majlis Park, interest income from RD A/c 738, 1192, 1655, R32 in SBI, Majlis Park and income in A/c No.34310, SBI, Majlis Park by transfer from Canara Bank, Raja Garden. Ld. defence counsel has argued that there is no dispute with regard to S.No.1 to 3 and admitted the income of Mona Chauhan to be Rs.53,512.45P.
INCOME OF ROOMALI DEVI
220. The CBI had quantified the income of Smt. RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 163 of 200 164 Rukmani Devi @ Roomali Devi to be Rs.3,37,455/ which includes the income from loan from Asstt. Commissioner of Housing, Delhi Administration, income from withdrawal from M/s Anhal Electronics w.e.f 199596 to 199798 and income from rent of property no.A6, Kewal Park Extn., Delhi. Ld. defence counsel has argued that there is no dispute with regard to S.No.1 & 2 of income of Smt. Rukmani Devi @ Roomali Devi i.e. with regard to the income generated from housing loan as well as income as withdrawn from M/s Anhal Electronics. However, Ld. defence counsel seriously disputed the income from rent of property no.A6, Kewal Park Extn. As Rs.218900/. He argued that the said amount was Rs.5 Lacs, which has also been deposed by PW77 Sh. Pankaj Chauhan, who in his cross examination deposed that property No.A6, Kewal Park Extension, Delhi and property No.C217, Majlis Park, Delhi were owned by Smt. Rukmani Devi @ Roomali Devi and she earned rental income of Rs.5 Lacs till 1997. He has also argued that the said godown was under the occupation of M/s Angad Communication of which the other son of the accused Anil Pratap Singh was the Proprietor. This fact was proved by PW54 Sh.Samsher Singh, who was an RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 164 of 200 165 independent witness with regard to the search of premises including the search of A6, Kewal Park Extn., Delhi. PW54 has deposed in his examinationinchief that the said premises was in the occupation of Sh.Anil Pratap Singh, Proprietor of M/s Angad Communication having its godown at ground floor of the premises. He in his cross examination has stated that there were iron angles and channels, the value of which was assessed to be Rs.24/25 Lacs approx., which were furnished by Sh.Anil Pratap Singh. He also stated that certain hoardings were also lying there valued at Rs.1.75 Lacs. Same has also been deposed by another witness of search PW59 Sh.Ramesh Kumar.
221. However, barring the oral averment of PW77, in his cross examination in answer to a suggestion, there is no evidence that Smt. Rukmani Devi @ Roomali Devi had received Rs. 5 Lacs as rent till 1997 from the godown on the ground floor of property no.A6, Kewal Park Extn., Delhi, therefore the accused had failed to establish rental income to be Rs. 5 Lacs from the said godown as well as from other sources, as no evidence or witness has proved either the receipt of the said amount nor any Books of Accounts of M/s RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 165 of 200 166 Angad Communication has been produced. Therefore, the said income of Rs.337455/ has been correctly arrived at by the prosecution as rental income as well as income from other sources. As per settled law, neither the assets of wife or any other family member can be added or clubbed with the income, expenditure or asset of the accused, as the prosecution has to independently and distinctively prove the assets disproportionate to the known sources of income of the accused, that is to say that the income / expenditure of the wife or other family members cannot be clubbed with the income / expenditure or assets of the accused unless or until it is proved by the prosecution that the said assets made by the family members or generated by the family members were out of the funds provided by the accused in view of the judgment of Krishnanand Agnihotri (Supra).
EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY ACCUSED AND MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY DURING THE CHECK PERIOD ITEM NO.1: Money deposited in A/c No.7364 in MCD Cooperative Thrift Society Rs.4086/
222. With regard to this item, prosecution has relied RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 166 of 200 167 upon D94, the passbook of account No.7364 and D119, a certificate obtained from the MCD Employees Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd. in respect of said account no. 7364. By relying upon the said document, no witness was summoned from the said department to prove D94 as well as D119. Bereft of that it appears from D94 which is a passbook of A/c no.7364 of the above Society, an amount of Rs.2000/ was deposited in the said account by the accused between the period 29.12.1990 to 10.03.1994 and as per letter (D119) dated 06.10.1999, he resigned from the said society on 27.10.1997 and Rs.4086/ has been given to him as final payment. It is also stated that this is compulsory deposit @ of Rs.20/ per month. Since the amount of Rs.2000/ deposited by the accused in the said Society came back to him alongwith the increment of Rs.2086/, which appears to be an interest component, therefore the said amount of Rs.2000/ came back which he invested, therefore it cannot be taken as expenditure, rather the amount of Rs.2086/ which accrued to him as per the investment of the said amount is to be taken as income generated and the benefit should be given under the head of income of the accused.
RC NO. 27A/98
CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 167 of 200
168
ITEM NO.2: Expenses on Education of
children Rs.11,472.2
223. The expenses on education of children amounting to Rs.11,472/ is admitted by Ld. defence counsel during the course of arguments, therefore does not need any further discussion.
224. Similarly, ITEM NOs. 3, 4 and 5 have also not been disputed, they also need not any further discussion.
ITEM NOs.6 & 7 ITEM No.6 : Expenses on insurance policy no.
111940214 Rs.12440/
AND
ITEM NO.7: Expenses on insurance policy no.
111940464 Rs.16076/
225. With regard to these items, prosecution has taken the expenditure of the accused with regard to the insurance policy nos.111940214 and 111940464 through a letter (D136) Ex.PW53/1, which has been proved by PW53 Sh. Sunder Lal, witness from LIC. PW53 in his examinationin chief has stated that the policy Ex.PW53/2 was issued in the name of Ms.Mona Chauhan, daughter of accused Shiv Charan RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 168 of 200 169 Chauhan and policy Ex.PW53/3 was issued in the name of Smt. Rukmani, wife of accused Shiv Charan. The letter (D136) Ex.PW53/1 reveals that both the policies commenced on 28.09.1994 and both of them terminated in November 1997 i.e. during the check period. The payment in respect of both the policies must have been received by the holders of the said policy on their final maturity. As discussed during the income head of Smt. Rukmani Devi @ Roomali, she was having income from rent as well as from other sources at the relevant time, therefore she may have made the payment of the said policies from the said income. Regarding Ms.Mona Chauhan, she was major at that time and PW77, the prosecution's own witness, has deposed that ever since 1985, he and his brother were maintaining Ms.Mona Chauhan's account. In any case, prosecution had to prove that the money for the purchase of said LIC policy in the name of Ms.Mona Chauhan had been given by accused Shiv Charan, which has not been proven. Even otherwise, PW77 has categorically stated that he and his brother had been depositing the money in the accounts of her sister. Therefore, the amount of premium paid towards the said LIC policies in RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 169 of 200 170 the name of Smt. Rukmani Devi @ Roomali and Ms.Mona Chauhan cannot be taken as expenditure of the accused. ITEM NO.8: Expenses on insurance policy no. 110241566 (3 installments upto May 1991 Rs.6034/
226. Prosecution has not proved the original record of policy No.110241566 in the name of Sh.Pankaj Chauhan. The relevant document which has been proved is D107. PW73 IO has deposed in respect to the said policy in the name of Pankaj Chauhan that it was found that three installments totalling Rs.6034/ were paid as premium upto May 1991. The relevant document is D107. However, the prosecution's own witness as discussed earlier as PW77 has deposed that since 1985, he had started helping his brother in his business and since then he was given pocket money and money for his expenses by his brother. He has also deposed that it was correct that Anil had started business of Angad Communication and the business was running well since inception and since then, his brother Anil was running the household expenses. Therefore, from the testimony of PW77, it appears that he was getting pocket money from his RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 170 of 200 171 brother, who was having very flourishing business in the name of Angad Communication. It has come elsewhere that he was earning very well and was suffering huge amount of deductions/TDS which shows the status and income of other son of accused Anil Chauhan. Therefore, it is quite probable that the amount for the purchase of LIC policy in question may have been provided by Pankaj Chauhan himself as corollary it follows that accused did not pay the money for the said LIC policy. Therefore, the said amount of Rs.6034/ cannot be taken as expenditure of the accused.
ITEM NO.9: Expenses on insurance policy no. 50199750 (2 installments upto Dec.85) Rs.6340/
227. The prosecution relied upon letter (D106) Ex.PW63/2, which has been proved by PW63, who was working as Branch Manager of the concerned Branch at the relevant time. The said letter is dated 13.09.1999. As per the said letter, an amount of Rs.6340/ had been paid as a premium by Sh.Anil Chauhan son of the accused Shiv Charan Chauhan on 29.03.85 and 29.05.85. This act on the part of the IO rather corroborates the stand of the accused and PW77 Pankaj Chauhan that since 1985 he had been getting RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 171 of 200 172 pocket money from his brother Anil for maintaining himself and since then he was maintaining household expenses and there is no evidence on the record to show that PW77 Pankaj Chauhan or his brother Anil Chauhan were having any sort of income at that time. As per PW77, Anil had also started earning only after 1985 or thereabout. Therefore, it appears on preponderance of probabilities that before the year 1985 Anil was dependent upon accused Shiv Charan Chauhan. Therefore, the said two installments of Rs.6340/ must have been paid by the accused as he was dependent upon the accused. Therefore, the said amount of Rs.6340/ has to be taken as expenditure of accused.
ITEM NO.10: Expenses on cultural programme on 11.12.1994 Rs.8000/
228. Regarding this, prosecution has relied upon one agreement dated 05.10.1994 issued by one Barkha and party (a dance and musical group) for holding cultural programme at the house of accused on 11.12.1994 and the total consideration / agreed amount for holding the said cultural programme was Rs.8000/, out of which Rs.1000/ was paid as advance and Rs.7000/ had to be given just before starting of RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 172 of 200 173 the programme. Prosecution has examined PW78 Sh. Ashok Thakur, who was the Proprietor of the said musical group. After seeing the bill dated 05.10.1994 (D104), the same has been proved by him as Ex.PW78/A, it appears that the total amount raised in the said bill was Rs.8000/ which amount was to be received by the group from the booking party.
229. However, in his cross examination, he admitted that it was correct that as per Ex.PW78/A, only advance amount of Rs.1000/ had been received from one Sh.Sunil Chauhan, who had booked the programme, but he cannot produce any record regarding receipt of the balance amount of Rs.7000/, but he deposed further that as per the procedure they used to receive the balance amount by showing the carbon copy immediately after the programme was done. To rebut the testimony of PW78, the defence has examined DW2 Sunil Chauhan, who has booked the said programme. He has deposed that the advance amount of Rs.1000/ as mentioned in the said receipt Ex.PW78/A , was handed over by him to Anil Chauhan, son of accused, as the said programme did not materialize. However, the testimony of DW2 is not plausible, though there is no evidence on record RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 173 of 200 174 that the said programme which was scheduled on 11.12.1994 was indeed held, as PW78 has failed to produce the receipt for the remaining amount of Rs.7000/ which had to be paid to them at the time of holding or after holding the programme. If the receipt of Rs.1000/ has been issued by PW78 as advance, there is no reason, as to why there would not be any receipt for balance amount of Rs.7000/, which was to be issued after holding the programme.
230. Therefore, it appears that the programme scheduled for 11.12.1994 was never held, bu it has also not been proved that the advance money of Rs.1000 had been returned back to Anil. Since, the advance /earnest money which was paid to the musical party or any other person is never refunded, as the very purpose of taking the advance / earnest money is that in case of cancellation of programme, the person who was scheduled to do the musical programme should not suffer. Therefore, this plea of the accused that the said amount of Rs.1000/ was refunded cannot be believed. Therefore, the said amount of Rs.1000/ has to be taken as expenditure of the accused.
RC NO. 27A/98
CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 174 of 200
175
ITEM NO.11: Service charges paid to ANZ Grindlays Bank Rs.1250/
231. There is no dispute with regard to this item. Therefore, this point need no further elaboration. ITEM NO.12: Locker charges taken by SBI, Majlis Park Rs.1375/
232. There is no dispute with regard to this item. Therefore, this point need no further elaboration. ITEM NO.13: Cash deposit for loan dated 11.10.91 in SBI, Majlis Park Rs.67896/
233. Regarding this item, the same has already been discussed as item no.26 while discussing the asset head of the accused. Therefore, it does not need any reiteration for the seek of brevity. As discussed with regard to discussion of item no.26, only the interest component of Rs.8834/ which the accused paid as interest over the loan taken by his son Pankaj Chauhan and his cousin for running a tempo can be added as his expenditure in the expenditure head. Therefore, it needs no further discussion. This expenditure cannot be added twice. Therefore, it has been added here only corresponding to item no.26 of the asset head of the accused.
RC NO. 27A/98
CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 175 of 200
176
ITEM NO.14: Money paid for repayment of loan of Asstt.Housing Commissioner, Delhi Administration Rs. 24298.31
234. With regard this item, prosecution has examined PW47 Sh. Narender Singh Meena, who was posted as Astt. Housing Commissioner (Loan), Department of Land & Building, Govt. of Delhi, after seeing the letter dated 26.10.1999 (D120) Ex.PW47/1, he stated that the same was issued by him. As per their office record, Smt. Roomali Devi had obtained a loan of Rs.14500/ vide Permanent Loan A/c No.29/44L, which was repaid to the Department i.e. Principal amount of Rs.14500/ alongwith interest of Rs.9798.31.
235. As discussed above, while discussing the income head of Smt.Rukmani Devi @ Roomali Devi, since Roomali Devi purchased the house No.C217, Majlis Part, Delhi out of her own funds/sources, she was also having rental income as well as agricultural income. Therefore, it is quite probable that she had repaid the loan from the income generated by her own resources generated from rental income as well as agricultural income. Therefore, there is no evidence that the money for repaying the said loan alongwith the interest component had RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 176 of 200 177 been provided by the accused, therefore neither her income nor expenditure can be considered as the expenditure of the accused. Therefore, the said amount cannot be considered as expenditure of the accused.
ITEM NO.15 AND 16 ITEM NO.15: Money deposited with M/s Anhal Electronics for 199798 by Mrs. Roomali Devi Rs. 80000/ AND ITEM NO.16: Money deposited for starting business of M/s Anhal Electronics by Mrs. Roomali Devi Rs. 206100
236. In this regard, prosecution has examined PW46 Sh.Tilak Raj, who had worked as Parttime Accountant in the Firm M/s Anhal Electronics, being run at B7, Majlis Park, Delhi. This firm was a partnership firm, having two partners Smt. Rukmani Devi, wife of accused and Sh.Pankaj Chauhan, son of accused. This firm was established in the year 1996 vide Partnership Deed Ex.PW45/2, wherein Smt.Rukmani Devi @ Roomali Devi was having share of 60% and Sh.Pankaj Chauhan was having share of 40% in the said firm. PW46 used to maintain accounts of the said firm.
RC NO. 27A/98
CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 177 of 200
178
237. In his cross examination, he has stated that business of M/s Angad Communications stood closed in view of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court. At the time of closure of the business of M/s Angad Communications, Sh.Anil Chauhan floated the aforesaid firm by the name of Anhal Electronics of which his brother and mother were partners and his deposition was based on accounts of th said firm.
238. In this regard, prosecution has relied upon Ex.PW46/4 (D103) for showing that a sum of Rs.80,000/ was credited into the ledger account of Smt.Rukmani Devi @ Roomali Devi and a sum of Rs.20,000/ was debited from the ledger account of Smt.Rukmani Devi @ Roomali Devi. These two entries as a whole shows that a sum of Rs.60,000/ was credited in the ledger account of Smt.Rukmani Devi @ Roomali Devi. Further, PW46 Sh.Tilak Raj has deposed that during the financial year 199798, as per Books of Account Ex.PW46/4, an amount of Rs.80,000/ was taken by the Firm M/s Anhal Electronics as loan from Smt.Rukmani Devi, which was repaid to her in the same financial year. He further deposed that M/s Anhal Electronics had debited rent account and credited amounts of Rs.12,000/, Rs.12,000/ and Rs.
RC NO. 27A/98
CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 178 of 200
179
8000/ respectively into the Capital Account of Smt.Rukmani Devi as rent for property No.B7, Majlis Park, Delhi.
239. As discussed in the foregoing paras, Smt.Rukmani Devi @ Roomali Devi was having her own sources of income, which was primarily her income from rent and income from agriculture and was also making investments here and there from her regular income. Therefore, it is quite probable that she had invested some money into the business of her son, who returned the same with interest. It has also come in the testimony of PW46 that her son also used to pay her rent for use of her property for business purpose. Therefore, this amount of loan cannot be considered as expenditure of the accused.
240. Further, as per the provisional balance sheet for the year 19971998, an amount of Rs.33960/ was debited and interest was credited in her Capital Account. In fact, PW45 Sh. Bharat Bhushan, who was a Chartered Accountant as well as Auditor of the Accounts of the firm M/s Anhal Electronics, has deposed that accused Shiv Charan had never visited him at any point of time in connection with the aforesaid transactions of the firm. He has deposed the same facts as RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 179 of 200 180 deposed by PW46 Sh.Tilak Raj. He has also deposed that Smt. Rukmani Devi, wife of accused had invested an amount of Rs.206100/ and Sh.Pankaj Chauhan, son of accused has invested Rs.80,000/ as Capital Investment in the firm M/s Anhal Electronics. Therefore, as discussed above, Smt.Rukmani Devi @ Roomali Devi was having her own sources of income and was making her own investments here and there from her regular income and accused Shiv Charan had no concern with the same, as he did not even visit the Chartered Accountant with regard to the transactions at any point of time. Therefore, this amount of loan as well as investment made by her cannot be considered as expenditure of the accused.
ITEM NO.17: Expenses on Electricity Rs.40504/
241. In this regard, PW52 Sh.Ishwar Singh Ahlawat has been examined by the prosecution to prove the expenses with regard to the electricity connections / meters installed in the H.No.6, Kewal Park Extn. and in C217, Majlis Park, Delhi. The statement of account pertaining to the meters installed at the said premises were seized vide memo Ex.PW52/1 from Sh.Ishwar Singh Ahlawat, who was working as Assistant RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 180 of 200 181 Finance Officer vide productioncumseizure memo dated 05.10.1999 (D69). All the electricity connections were in the name of Smt.Roomali Devi and statement of account with regard to the abovesaid electric connections are Ex.PW52/2 to Ex.PW52/17 for the period July 1990 to 1999. In the cross examination, aforesaid witness states that he does not know who made the payment , however in any case, the accused relied upon very own circular of the CBI/prosecution Mark P73/D1 dated 28.11.2001 bearing No.21/40/99PD(Pt.) of the CBI in which as per clause d) of item no.2 " electricity and water charges are not to be computed separately when unverifiable expenditure is computed as detailed above". It appears that the said circular had been issued in order to standardize the procedure for calculating nonverifiable rd expenses. Nonverifiable expenses are taken to be 1/3 of the net salary of the accused. Therefore, the said expenses of rd electricity are included in the said 1/3 component. Therefore, the said amount of Rs.40504/ cannot be taken as separate expenditure of the accused, as it has already been rd covered under 1/3 head of nonverifiable expenses.
RC NO. 27A/98
CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 181 of 200
182
ITEM NO.18: Property tax paid Rs.4899/
242. In this regard, PW65 Sh.Sukhbir Chand was examined by the prosecution, who was posted as Assistant Assessor & Collector in Civil Lone Zone, MCD. He has deposed that vide letter dated 30.09.1999 (D117) Ex.PW65/1, he had provided the details of payments of property tax / house tax in respect of property nos. C217, Majlis Park, rd 292/A6, Kewal Park Extn. and 1/3 of B6/3 (½ of B7), Majlis Park, Delhi, which properties are in the name of Smt.Rukmani Devi @ Roomali Devi.
243. As discussed above that Smt. Rukmani Devi @ Roomali Devi was having her own independent income, which was from rental as well as agricultural income and there is no evidence that said amount had been paid on her behalf by the accused, therefore she may have paid the said amount out of her income. Therefore, said amount of Rs.4899/ cannot be considered as expenditure of the accused.
ITEM NO.19: Water charges Rs.9805/
244. With regard to the water charges, prosecution has examined PW44 Sh. Prakash Chand, witness from Delhi Jal RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 182 of 200 183 Board, who has proved the document D116 Ex.PW44/1, vide which he provided the information to CBI in respect of water charges paid by Mrs. Roomali Devi in respect of water connection No.35521K at 6, Kewal Park, Delhi and water connection no.13760K at C217, Majlis Park, Delhi for the period 02.02.1989 to 22.06.1999 vide document Ex.PW44/1 to Ex.PW44/3. As discussed above with regard to item no.17, as per the own circular of the CBI MarkP73/D1 dated 28.11.2001 bearing No.21/40/99PD(Pt.), water charges are already rd covered under the component of 1/3 nonverifiable expenses, therefore they cannot be computed separately as also by the rd prosecution, as they are already included in the 1/3 non verifiable expenses head.
ITEM NO.20: Telephone bill for Tel.No.7116797 in the name of Mrs.Roomali Devi Rs.14214/
245. In this regard, prosecution has proved the telephone expenses and had examined PW43 Sh.Vijay Kumar Manchanda, witness from MTNL. He has proved the letter dated 16.09.1999 (D108) Ex.PW43/1, vide which information was provided to the CBI / IO with regard to the telephone connections installed at B7, Majlis Park as well as RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 183 of 200 184 C217/8, Majlis Park, Delhi. Out of those four telephones, two were in the name of Anil and one was in the name of Smt.Rukmani Devi @ Roomali Devi and one in the name of Fakir Chand. He has also proved one letter dated 24.11.1999 (D109), as per which the telephone no.7116797, which was in the name of Smt.Rukmani, a security amount of Rs.1200/ was deposited with MTNL. He has also stated that letter Ex.PW43/2 was accompanied with the details of the billing amount for the billing cycles mentioned therein of telephone no.7116797 in the name of Mrs.Rukmani, which is the billing amount as mentioned in Ex.PW43/3 which is annexed with Ex.PW43/2. In this regard, prosecution has examined PW77 Pankaj Chauhan, son of the accused themselves, who has stated in his cross examination that since 1985 Anil was running the household expenses and it was he and myself who used to purchase electronic items for the household. He also deposed in the cross examination that it is correct that telephone bills, electricity and water bills were all being paid by Anil and that it was correct that since 1985, expenses incurred by his father were negligible. In view of the said testimony of PW77 that all the telephones and other expenses were used RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 184 of 200 185 to be paid by his brother Anil and there is no evidence lead by the prosecution that accused Shiv Charan paid the telephone bills in the name of Smt.Rukmani Devi @ Roomali devi, therefore the said amount of Rs.14214/ cannot be considered as expenditure of the accused.
246. The income/expenditure/assets of family members of the accused namely his daughter Mona Chauhan and Wife Rukmani Devi @ Roomali Devi cannot be clubbed with the income of the accused, unless it is proved money for generating those assets was provided by the accused as per the Judgment of Krishnanand Agnihotri(SUPRA). In the present case as discussed in detail in the preceding paras that the assets generated by Mona Chauhan and Rukmani Devi @ Roomali Devi were generated out of their own resources, or through their brother(s)/son(s), except in few cases/items where it has been held to be the expenditure of the accused. Since the logic for the same is, if they have separate income they can generate separate assets from the said resources/income. The approach of clubbing the income/expenditure of all the family members with the RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 185 of 200 186 accused is not legally acceptable, unless it is proved that the money for the same was provided by the accused, the prosecution has to independently and distinctly prove by leading cogent evidence the assets disproportionate to the known sources of income of the accused independently, it has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in review petition(civil) No. 272 of 2007 titled as Akhilesh Yadav Vs. Vishwanath Chaturvedi & Ors. as under in the relevant para(s):
23. While the submissions on behalf of all the review petitioners were centered around the said two propositions, a specific issue was raised by Mr. Mukul Rohtagi as to whether the investigation and/or inquiry could also be extended to the assets of Smt. Dimple Yadav, wife of Sh. Akhilesh Yadav, since she had neither held any post under the Government nor was she involved in the activities of her husband or fatherinlaw, RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 186 of 200 187 Sh. Mulayam Singh Yadav. The acquisition of wealth by her was attributed to her agricultural income and not to any source of income through her husband and her father in law.
32. The review petitions are disposed of with the following direction:
(i) The CBI shall drop the inquiry into the assets of the respondent no. 4, Smt. Dimple Yadav, wife of Sh. Akhilesh Yadav.
247. In view of the above order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein it even did not allow the investigation(s) into the assets of Ms. Dimple Yadav, as she was having separate agricultural income and her acquisition of wealth was not attributed to any source of income through her husband or father in law i.e there was no prima facie evidence that the money for her assets were provided by them. In these circumstances, the assets/income/expenditure of Mona Chauhan as well as those of Rukmani Devi @ Roomali Devi RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 187 of 200 188 cannot be clubbed with that of accused.
248. The discussion with respect to various heads of Asset / Income / Expenditure of the accused crystallizes and is shown in Tabular Form as under: TABLE(A) I. ITEMS DELETED FROM ASSET HEAD OF ACCUSED
a). Item no.1 (Rs.3000)deleted, rather Rs.1500 goes to the income head of accused.
b). Item no.2 (Rs.18498) deleted,rather Rs.3498 goes to the income head of accused.
c). Item no.3(Rs.11769) deleted
d). Item no.4(Rs.12733) reduced by
Rs.2733/ i.e. Rs.
10,000/ taken as
asset of accused.
e). Item no.5(Rs.16000) and Item no.6
(Rs.16000) i.e. totalling Rs.32000 deleted.
f). Item no.7(Rs.1000) deleted
g). Item no.8(Rs.18900) deleted, rather Rs.5283 goes to
the income head of
accused.
h). Item no.9(Rs.1747.87) Admitted
i). Item no.10(Rs.18000) deleted
j). Item no.11(Rs.9425) deleted
RC NO. 27A/98
CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 188 of 200
189
k). Item no.12(Rs.28000) deleted
l). Item no.13(Rs.7664.84) reduced by Rs.300/,
as correct amount is
Rs.7364.84 not Rs.
7664.84.
m). Item no.14(Rs.98499.43) Admitted
n). Item no.15(Rs.6000) deleted
o). Item no.16(Rs.24000)deleted, rather Rs.2600 goes to
the income head of
accused.
p). Item no.17(Rs.18000) deleted, rather Rs.1202 goes to
the income head of
accused.
q). Item no.18(Rs.18000) deleted, rather Rs.996 goes to
the income head of
accused.
r). Item no.19(12000) deleted, rather Rs.8000 goes to
the expenditure head
of accused.
s). Item no.20(Rs.18000) deleted
t). Item no.21(Rs.25000)deleted, rather Rs.4809 goes to
the income head of
accused.
u). Item no.22(Rs.50000) and Item no.23
(Rs.10000) Admitted
v). Item no.24(Rs.1925) deleted, rather Rs.1925 goes to
the expenditure head
of accused.
w). Item no.25(Rs.104000) deleted
RC NO. 27A/98
CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 189 of 200
190
x). Item no.26(Rs.59062) deleted, rather Rs.8834 goes to
the expenditure head
of accused.
y). Item no.27(Rs.344150) deleted from net Rs.284150 be
asset head, only Rs.60000 can be deleted from asset
added in asset head of accused head.
__________________
TOTAL AMOUNT DELETED FROM THIS
ASSET HEAD OF ACCUSED Rs. 7,12,762/ _______
TABLE(B)
II. AMOUNT(s) / APPORTIONED/ DELETED
FROM THE ASSET HEAD OF MONA CHAUHAN
a). Item no.1 (Rs.3800)deleted, rather Rs.3800 goes to
the expenditure head
of accused.
b). Item no.2(Rs.12507.5)deleted, rather Rs.4169.69 goes to
the expenditure head
of accused.
c). Item no.3(Rs.18000/)deleted, rather Rs.6000 goes to
the expenditure head
of accused.
d). Item no.4(Rs.90043.45) deleted cannot be
added into the asset
head of accused
e). Item no.5(Rs.6000)deleted, rather Rs.2000 goes to
the expenditure head
RC NO. 27A/98
CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 190 of 200
191
of accused.
f). Item no.6(Rs.6000) deleted cannot be
added into the asset
head of accused
g). Item no.7(Rs.12000) deleted cannot be
added into the asset
head of accused
h). Item no.8(Rs.12000)deleted, rather Rs.2000 goes to
the expenditure head
of accused.
i). Item no.9(Rs.50000) deleted cannot be
added into the asset
head of accused
TABLE(C)
III. AMOUNT(s) / APPORTIONED/ DELETED FROM THE ASSET HEAD OF RUKMANI DEVI
a). Item no.1(Rs.27835)deleted, rather Rs.14875 goes to the expenditure head of accused.
b). Item no.2(Rs.28875) deleted cannot be added into the asset head of accused
c). Item no.3(Rs.70200) deleted cannot be added into the asset head of accused
d). Item no.4(Rs.309000) deleted cannot be added into the asset RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 191 of 200 192 head of accused
e). Item no.5(Rs.265185) deleted cannot be added into the asset head of accused
f). Item no.6(Rs.13000)deleted, rather Rs.6000 goes to the expenditure head of accused.
g). Item no.7(Rs.80355)deleted, rather Rs.27000 goes to the expenditure head of accused.
h). Item no.8(Rs.1000) not disputed TABLE(D) EXPENDITURE OF ACCUSED AMOUNT(s) / APPORTIONED/ DELETED FROM THE EXPENDITURE HEAD OF ACCUSED
a). Item no.1(Rs.4086)deleted,rather Rs.2086 goes to the income head of accused.
b). Item no.2(Rs.11472.2), Item no.3
(Rs.29,250),Item no.4(Rs.11040),
Item no.5 (Rs.17115) Admitted.
c). Item no.6 (Rs.12440)& Item no.7
(Rs.16076) Deleted
RC NO. 27A/98
CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 192 of 200
193
d). Item no.8(Rs.6034) Deleted
e). Item no.9(Rs.6340) Admitted
f). Item no.10(Rs.8000) Only Rs.1000 to be
deleted from
Expenditure head.
g). Item no.11 (Rs.1250)and Item no.12
(Rs.1375) Admitted.
h). Item no.13(Rs.67896) Only Rs.8834 to be
taken under
Expenditure head &
remaining to be
deleted.
i). Item no.14(Rs.24298.31) Deleted
j). Item no.15(Rs.80000) and Item no.
16(Rs.206100) Deleted
k). Item no.17(Rs.40504) Deleted
l). Item no.18(Rs.4899) Deleted
m). Item no.19(Rs.9805) Deleted
n). Item no.20(Rs.14214) Deleted
__________________
TOTAL AMOUNT DELETED FROM THIS
EXPENDITURE HEAD OF ACCUSED Rs. 4,82,518/ _______
TABLE(E)
TO BE ADDED INTO THE INCOME/EXPENDITURE HEAD OF ACCUSED VIDE DETAILED DISCUSSION WITH RESPECT TO HIS ASSET HEAD RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 193 of 200 194 INCOME EXPENDITURE
a) Rs.1500 as per item no.1 of Item no.19 Rs.8000 of asset head of accused expenditure of accused
b) Rs.3498 as per item no.2 Item no.24 Rs.1925 added to expenditure head.
c) Rs.5283 as per Item no.8 Item no.26 Rs.8834
added into
expenditure head
d) Rs.2600 as per Item no.16
e) Rs.1202 as per Item no.17
f) Rs.996 as per Item no.18
g) Rs.4809 as per Item no.21
______________________________________________________ TOTAL Rs.19888 TOTAL Rs.18759 + Rs.2086 (from item no.1 of expenditure head of accused) ______________________________________________________ TOTALRs.21974/ TOTAL Rs.18759 ______________________________________________________ TABLE(F) TAKEN AS EXPENDITURE OF ACCUSED FROM ASSETS OF MONA CHAUHAN RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 194 of 200 195
a) Item no.1 Rs. 3800/ added as expenditure of accused.
b). Item no.2 Rs. 4169.69 added as expenditure of accused.
c). Item no.3 Rs. 6000/ added as expenditure of accused.
d). Item no.5 Rs. 2000/ added as expenditure of accused.
e). Item no.8 Rs.12000/ added as expenditure of accused.
_____________________ TOTAL Rs.27,969/ _____________________ TABLE(G) Taken as expenditure of accused from assets of Smt. Rukmani Devi @ Roomali Devi
a). Item no.1 Rs.14875/ added as expenditure of accused.
b). Item no.6 Rs. 6000/ added as expenditure of accused.
c). Item no.7 Rs.27000/ added as expenditure of accused.
_____________________ TOTAL Rs.47,875/ (figure rounded off) _____________________ TABLE(H) ADDITIONAL AMOUNT TO BE ADDED INTO THE EXPENDITURE HEAD OF ACCUSED As per Tables E + F + G = Rs.18,759 + Rs.27,969 + Rs.47,875 RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 195 of 200 196 = Rs.94,603/ TOTAL ASSETS OF ACCUSED Total assets of accused = Rs.951374.14 - Rs.712762.00 As per AnnexureA of chargesheet Rs.9,51,374.14 As per Table(A) Rs.7,12,762.00 TOTAL (figure rounded off) Rs.2,38,612/ TOTAL NET VERIFICABLE EXPENDITURE OF ACCUSED TO BE REDUCED FROM THE AMOUNT CALCULATED IN THE CHARGESHEET Total net verifiable expenditure of accused = Table(D) - Table(H) As per Table(D) Rs.4,82,518 As per Table(H) Rs. 94,603 TOTAL Rs.3,87,915/ Total verifiable expenditure = Total verifiable expenses as per AnnexureC of chargesheet Resultant of [Table(D) - Table (H)] As per AnnexureC of chargesheet, total verificable expenses Rs.5,72,194 Resultant of Table(D) - Table (H) Rs.3,87,915 TOTAL VERIFIABLE EXPENDITURE Rs.1,84,279 RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 196 of 200 197 Total Expenditure = Verifiable expenditure + non verifiable expenses (1/3rd of net salary) as per AnnexureC of chargesheet Verifiable expenditure Rs.1,84,279 Non verifiable expenses (1/3rd of net salary) as per AnnexureC of chargesheet Rs.1,74,131 TOTAL EXPENDITURE Rs. 3,58,410/ TOTAL INCOME OF ACCUSED
1).As per chargesheet the income of accused Rs.909670
2).Agricultural Income as per item no.5 Rs.980331 (figure rounded off)
3).Benefit already given by the prosecution with regard to item no.5 as per chargesheet Rs.175214
4).Therefore, the net agricultural income as per item no.5 is Rs.980331 - Rs.175214 = Rs.805117
5).Total income of accused= (1) + (4) + as per income taken from Table(E) =Rs.909670 + Rs.805117+ Rs.21974 =Rs.173676/
249. Therefore, the final balance sheet of the income, RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 197 of 200 198 expenditure and assets of the accused, emerging after final analysis goes as under: FINAL COMPUTATION OF DISPROPORTIONATE ASSETS (In Rs.)
1. Net Assets of the accused after above discussion = 2,38,612
2. Net Income in view of above discussion = 17,36,761
3. Net expenditure of accused = 3,58,410
4. Likely Savings = Income - Expenditure (1736761 358410) = 13,78,351
5. Disproportion = Assets - Likely Savings= 11,39,739 (negative) Therefore, there is no question of disproportionate assets of accused, as his net income from all source is much more than his assets. Rather there is a negative disproportion of Rs.11,39,739/ vizaviz his assets.
250. In view of the above discussions, prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused, what to talk about the reasonable doubt. Rather it appears that accused has RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 198 of 200 199 been wrongly ropped in the present case.
251. Generally evidence in any case or trial is weighed on the basis of probative force accorded to particular item of evidence, or finally to the entire mass of the evidence on the scale(s) of probability from 0 to 1. Zero denoting point of total disbelief, whereas 1 is the point of total certainty, as there is no other way to quantify the different items of evidence for reaching the conclusion. In the present case, the entire prosecution and defence evidence is based on mathematical calculation(s), which are certain based on exact equation(s) and figure(s). Therefore there is no question of quantifying the particular item of evidence or entire mass of prosecution or defence evidence on such scale(s), since mathematical precision/exactitude clearly proves or disproves the case one way or another. The mathematical equation employed to calculate the income vis a viz assets of the accused to find out his disproportionate assets, if any, clearly returns a huge negative() figure of disproportion in favour of accused, which clearly disproves the case of prosecution.
252. Therefore, prosecution has failed to make out a case against accused under Section 13(1)(e) r/w Section 13(2) RC NO. 27A/98 CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 199 of 200 200 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Accused stands acquitted of the said charge(s). The bail bonds of the accused already furnished under Section 437A Cr.P.C shall remain in force for a period of 6 months from today.
File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (Sanjeev Aggarwal)
COURT ON 13.10.2015 Special Judge,
CBI03 (PC Act)
Delhi/13.10.2015
RC NO. 27A/98
CBI vs. Shiv Charan Chauhan 200 of 200