Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . R. S. Sehrawat Etc. Judgement Dated : ... on 30 January, 2017
CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE03 (P. C. ACT) (CBI),
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CC No. 23/13
RC No. 58A/00/DAI/CBI/ACB/ND
u/Sec. 109 IPC & Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) PC Act
CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc.
Central Bureau of Investigation
Versus
(1) Raja Som Sehrawat
S/o Sh. Hanmat Singh Sehrawat
R/o D4/4123, Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi
(2) Smt. Urmil Sehrawat
W/o Sh. Raja Som Sehrawat
R/o D4/4123, Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi
(3) Sh. Hanmat Singh ... (Expired)
S/o Late Sh. Kishan Chand,
R/o Village Nangal Devat, New Delhi
Date of filing of chargesheet : 03.07.2003
Date of conclusion of final arguments : 15.12.2016
Date of announcement of judgment : 27.01.2017
JUDGEMENT :
This case was registered on the basis of a written
CC No. 23/13 Page No. 1 of 166
CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017
complaint of Sh. Om Prakash, Insp., ACB, CBI, New Delhi
alleging therein that during the course of search conducted
in case RCDAI2000A0043 at the residential premises of
Sh. R.S. Sehrawat at D4/4123, DDA Flats, Vasant Kunj, New
Delhi on 25.08.2000, it was revealed that R.S. Sehrawat and
his wife Smt. Urmil Sehrawat, both public servants were in
possession of the assets disproportionate to their known
sources of income. It was further alleged that R.S. Sehrawat,
working as Junior Engineer, MCD, South Zone, New Delhi
and his wife Smt. Urmil Sehrawat working as TGT Teacher in
Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT Delhi are in
possession of following assets : cash amounting to
Rs.13,69,689/ recovered during the searches, bank balances
in various banks amounting to Rs.10,31,756/, one DDA Flat
No. D4/4123, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, amounting to
Rs.25,00,000/, one flat each in the name of Mr. and Mrs.
Sehrawat at B1, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi, amounting to
Rs.20 lakhs, gold and diamond jewellery weighing about 1
Kg. cost in Rs.4 lacs approximately, house hold articles
observed during the search amounting to Rs.6,36,000/,
Santro car amounting to Rs.4.05 lakhs, Maruti 800 and
Maruti Zen worth Rs.5 Lakhs. It has been further alleged that
the accused persons were found to be in possession of assets
CC No. 23/13 Page No. 2 of 166
CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017
worth Rs.88.42 lakhs approximately and the total income
from salary would be Rs.12 lakhs. Thus after deducting the
cost of education of the wards of the accused and the other
non verifiable expenditure, the likely saving of the accused
person would be around Rs. 8 lakhs. Therefore, it was
alleged that the accused persons were in possession of assets
disproportionate to his known sources of income to be the
tune of Rs.80.42 lakhs approximately. Therefore, this case
was registered u/s 109 IPC and Sec. 13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(e) of
P.C. Act 1988.
Investigation has revealed that R.S. Sehrawat is
working as Junior Engineer in Municipal Corporation of
Delhi since 14.03.1987 and his wife also a coaccused started
working as Assistant Teacher in MCD in Delhi since
01.10.1988 in the School of Municipal Corporation of Delhi
at different places and thereafter on promotion as TGT
(Maths) on Govt. of NCT of Delhi w.e.f. 1998 and is presently
working at Govt. Coed School at Nangal Devat, New Delhi
in same capacity. The marriage of R.S. Sehrawat and Smt.
Urmil Sehrawat was solemnised in the year 1989. R.S.
Sehrawat is having two children namely Master Vipul
Sehrawat born in 1989 and Ms. Naina Sehrawat born in
1992. Both children are studying in Delhi Public School,
CC No. 23/13 Page No. 3 of 166
CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017
Vasant Kunj at present.
Accused Hanmat Singh Sehrawat, father of R.S.
Sehrawat had retired on 31.12.1990 as Superintendent from
Indian Air Lines. R.S. Sehrawat has joined his service in 1987
and the assets acquired by him started building up from
199091 till the date of search in case RC43(A)/2000/DLI
i.e. on 25.08.2000.
Therefore, the entire service period of R.S. Sehrawat
has been taken as check period for the purpose of
calculations. The coaccused Smt. Urmil Sehrawat, is in
teaching job. Initially she was working in MCD and
thereafter in Govt. of NCT of Delhi. The details of the income
earned by accused Urmil Sehrawat is being taken only after
her marriage to accused R.S. Sehrawat. The income Tax
Returns of both the accused persons and other member of
the family could not be procured. The Chartered Accountant
of the accused persons informed that after the searches
accused R.S. Sehrawat took away all files pertaining to
Income Tax of his own as well as his family members from
him. Investigation has disclosed that accused H.S. Sehrawat
and accused Urmil Sehrawat were having hand in glove with
in diverting the unsatisfactorily account for money of
accused R.S. Sehrawat.
CC No. 23/13 Page No. 4 of 166
CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017
The details of assets, income and expenditure of
accused R.S. Sehrwat, accused Urmil Sehrawat and accused
H.S. Sehrawat collected during the check period, are as
follows :
(A) ASSETS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE CHECK
PERIOD:
At the time of joining of his services neither R.S. Sehrawat nor Mrs. Nil
Urmil Sehrawat has declared any movable or immovable assets and
no bank account was in operation in the name of R.S. Sehrawat and
Smt. Urmil Sehrawat at the time of their joining service, the assets at
the beginning of the check period is being taken as nil.
(B) ASSETS AT THE END OF CHECK PERIOD :
S. Description of the Asset Value of
No. assets in
rupees
Movable Assets :
1 Cash recovered during the course of house search.
At the time of house search of accused R.S. Sehrawat in
case R.C. 43(A)/2000DLI at D4/4123, Vasant Kunj, New
Delhi on 25.08.2000, cash amounting to Rs.13,69,689/
was recovered, which is being taken as their assets. 13,69,689/
2 Investment in M/s D.K.V. Chit Funds (P) Ltd., New Delhi
in the name of accused R.S. Sehrawat 32,900/
3 House hold articles :
The cost of the house hold articles observed during the
search of the residential premises of the accused at D
4/4123, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi on 25.08.2002 was
amounting to Rs.6,36,000/. Suresh Sehrawat, brother of
CC No. 23/13 Page No. 5 of 166
CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017
the accused lived with the accused at the time of the
searches and some items in the inventory was claimed by
the accused as belonging of Sh. Suresh Sehrawat. After
deducting the cost of those items the total of the
inventory items comes to Rs.4,19,500/. The same has
been taken as their assets. 4,19,500/
4 Account No. 2294 in the name of Smt. Urmil Sehrawat
in PNB, Nangal Devat :
This account was opened in the name of Urmil
Sehrawat and the last balance on 25.08.2000 in this
account was Rs.6,89,246/.
Investigation has further revealed that two
cheques of Rs.2 lacs each were credited in this account on
12.10.1993 and 19.10.1993. These two cheques were
issued by Sh. Ashok Kumar proprietor of M/s Ashok
Trading Company in favour of Smt. Urmil Sehrawat. At
the time of issuing of both the cheques accused R.S.
Sehrawat gave Rs.2 lacs in cash to Sh. Ashok Kumar
on the pretext of trading of Agricultural yield. Later
on, on the request of accused R.S. Sehrawat, Sh. Ashok
Kumar issued the said two cheques in the name of Smt.
Urmil Sehrawat against the cash. In this way R.S.
Sehrawat tried to make his unaccounted money into 6,89,246/
accounted money.
5 Account No. 3555 in the name of Vipul Sehrawat, under
guardianship of accused R.S. Sehrawat maintained in
PNB, Nangal Devat, is having the last balance of
Rs.64,286/ as on 25.08.2000. 64,286/
6 Account No. 3556 in the name of Naina Sehrawat, under
guardianship of accused Urmil Sehrawat maintained in
PNB, Nangal Devat, is having the last balance on
25.08.2000 as 5,646/. 5,646/
7 Account No. 3895 in the name of M/s. R.S. Sehrawat &
Sons (HUF) maintained with PNB Nangal Devat, New
Delhi. The last balance as on the date of check period was
2,47,636/ 2,47,636/
8 Account No. 50354 in the name of Urmil Sehrawat in
SBI Centaur Hotel. The last balance as on 25.08.2000 was
80,708/ 80,708/
9 Account No. PPF900328 in the name of Urmil Sehrawat
CC No. 23/13 Page No. 6 of 166
CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017
in SBI, Centaur hotel. The last balance as on 25.08.2000
was 41,992/ 41,992/
10 Account No. 7095 in the name of R.S. Sehrawat
maintained in SBI Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. The last
balance in the said account was 2,748/ as on 25.08.2000 2,748/
11 Account no. 52310044959 in the name of R.S. Sehrawat
in Standard Chartered Bank. The last balance as on
25.08.2000 in the F.D. Account was 2,588.80 2,588.80
12 Account No. 3456 in the name of Raja Som Kumar in 3,83,685/
State Bank of Patiala, Mahipalpur. The last balance as on
the date of check period was Rs.3,83,685/
13 Account No. 6446 in PNB Vasant Vihar is in the name of
Raja Som Kumar Sehrawat and the last balance as on
25.08.2000 was Rs.11492/. One fixed deposit was also
made in this account and the last balance as on
25.08.2000 in the F.D. account was Rs.3,500/. Therefore,
the last balance in this account was Rs.14,992/. 14,992/
14 Account No. 14678 is maintained in the name of Smt.
Urmil Sehrawat at PNB, Mehrauli and as on 25.08.93 the
last balance in this account was Rs.10,450/. 10,450/
15 Account No. 390 is maintained in the name of R.S.
Sehrawat at Corporation Bank, Vasant Kunj and the last
balance as on 25.08.2000 was Rs.1,35,125/ 1,35,125/
16 Account no. 11261 was in the name of M/s R.S.
Sehrawat and Sons (HUF). The last balance made in this
account as on 25.08.2000 was Rs.25,229/
25,229/
17 Accused R.S. Sehrawat has purchased 30,000 shares in
his name and 30,000 shares of M/s Welcome Coir
Industries Ltd. in the name of M/s R.S. Sehrawat & Sons.
Accused Smt. Urmil Sehrawat has purchased 30,000
shares of M/s Welcome Coir Industries Ltd. All the said
shares were purchased in July 2000 for a total payment
of Rs.3,16,890.00 through M/s MKM Finsee Pvt. Ltd. 3,16,890/
18 Gold observed during the house search :
During the course of search conducted on 25.08.2000
at the residential premises of the accused certain
jewellery items were recovered and seized. As per the
evaluation report of Sh. O. P. Malhotra, Govt. approved
CC No. 23/13 Page No. 7 of 166
CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017
valuer the total weight of the jewellery comes to
1196.500 gms and the total cost of the same is 4,88,710/
amounting to Rs.4,88,710/
19 Investment in UTI :
R.S. Sehrawat and Smt. Urmil Sehrawat have
purchased 1000 units each of UTI under MEP94 scheme
for a total amount of Rs.20,000/ in February 1994. 20,000/
IMMOVABLE ASSETS Amount in
Rs.
20 Flat no.D4/4123, CategoryIII, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi: 10,00,000/
This property was purchased in AugustSeptember
1991 in the name of accused Hanmat Singh Sehrawat,
from one Sh. Kishan Gopal Arora. The amount shown in
the papers is Rs.4,00,000/. For payments 6 pay orders
were prepared. Two pay orders were prepared from
Oriental Bank of Commerce and the remaining 4 pay
orders for a total amount of Rs.3 lacs were prepared from
New Bank of India (now Punjab National Bank), Nangal
Devat, New Delhi. All these pay orders were prepared by
payments of cash. Investigation has revealed that the total
purchase value of the flat was Rs.10,00,000/ and only
Rs.4,00,000/ has been shown in the sale papers and the
remaining amount of Rs.6,00,000/ were handed over to
Sh. K. G. Arora by accused R.S. Sehrawat in cash. In
addition to this H. S. Sehrawat was having his account
bearing number SB 1543 in New Bank of India, Nangal
Devat and was having only Rs.10,000/ at the time of
purchase of this flat when these 4 pay orders were
prepared from the same Bank and also Sh. H.S. Sehrawat
was not having any source of income.
21 Flat No. 141 in Har Sukh Cooperative Group Housing 7,71,766/
Society, Sector 7, Dwarka was purchased in the name of
Sh. R.S. Sehrawat for an amount of Rs.7,71,766/
22 Plot No.41, Sector10, Pappan Kalan, Dwarka, New 7,60,000/
Delhi:
Accused Urmil Sehrawat has purchased the above
mentioned plot from one Sh. Sarjeet Kumar on 11.07.1997
for a sum of Rs.7,60,000/, out of which he has received
Rs.5,10,000/ from the account No. 3555 of her eight year
CC No. 23/13 Page No. 8 of 166
CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017
old son Master Vipul Seharawat.
23 Plot No.42, Sector10, Pappan Kalan, Dwarka, New 8,50,000/
Delhi:
This plot was purchased in the name of accused H. S.
Sherawat, father of R.S. Sehrawat in April, 1999 from Smt.
Aruna Gupta, W/o Shri Surender Gupta for a total
consideration of Rs.8,50,000/. Two cheques were issued
by H. S. Sehrawat from his account no. 1543, PNB, Nangal
Devat amounting to Rs.7,50,000/ dated 15.04.1998 and
Rs.1,00,000 dated 22.04.1998. Before issuing the cheque
of Rs.7,50,000/, the balance amount in the account no.
1543 was Rs.80,000/ approximately. On 12.02.1998,
Rs.1,22,868/ was transferred in the account of H.S.
Sehrawat from the account no. 2294 of Urmil Sehrawat of
PNB, Nangal Dewat. On 19.02.1998, Rs.3,06,880/ was
credited in this account from the account of the accused
R.S. Sehrawat maintained at State Bank of Patiala,
Mahipalpur bearing no. 3456. On 20.02.98, Rs.1,22,609/
was transferred in this account from the account no. 2287
of Sh. Suresh Sehrawat, brother of accused R.S. Sehrawat.
The same amount was earlier credited in the account of
Suresh Sehrawat from the account of accused Urmil
Sehrawat on 17.02.1998. On 20.02.1998, Rs.1,22,878/
was credited in the account of H. S. Sehrawat from the
account no. 3405 of Poonam Sehrawat w/o Sh. Suresh
Sehrawat and the same amount was earlier credited in the
account of Poonam Sehrawat on 20.02.1998 from the
account of accused Urmil Sehrawat (A/c No. 2294).
Therefore, out of Rs.7,50,000/, Rs.6,75,000/
approximately was credited in the account of Sh. H. S.
Sehrawat either from the account of R.S. Sehrawat and
directly or indirectly from the account of Urmil Sehrawat.
Similarly again before the issuance of cheque of
Rs.1,00,000/ in favour of Aruna Gupta, Rs.1,20,000/ was
deposited in cash in the account of Sh.H. S. Sehrawat. Sh.
H.S. Sehrawat was not having any source of income and
therefore the above facts disclose that Smt. Urmil
Sehrawat and H.S. Sehrawat connived with R.S. Sehrawat
in diverting his unsatisfactorily account for money.
24 Agricultural land in village Bijwasan, Mehrauli : 6,94,500/
Agricultural land measuring 14 bigha 2 biswas was
purchased in the name of M/s R. S. Sehrawat & Sons HUF
CC No. 23/13 Page No. 9 of 166
CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017
through its Karta Raja Som Kumar Sehrawat, for a total
amount of Rs.6,94,500/
25 Udyog Vihar Coop. Group Housing Society : 6,75,000/
Sh. Hanma t Singh Sehrawat became a member of Udyog
Vihar Gr. Hous. Society vide membership no. 372 on
06.11.1999 by depositing a cash amounting Rs.200/ for a
flat in the society. He issued cheques for Rs.4,25,000/ on
10.01.2000, Rs.1,25,000/ on 28.03.2000 and
Rs.1,25,000/ on 09.06.2000 in the account of the above
society, from his account 3589 of Central Bank of India,
Nangal Dewat. Investigation revealed that similar account
of cash was deposited in these accounts before issuing of
cheques on each occasion. H. S. Sehrawat could not
satisfactorily explain the source of cash deposited in his
account on each occasion. This membership was
withdrawn by H. S. Sehrawat on 16.01.2001 i.e., after the
check period and all the investment was refunded to him.
26 Cost of renovation against flat no. D4/4123, Basant 1,51,700/
Kunj, New Delhi :
This flat was purchased in the name of H. S. Sehrawat, Sh.
Rakesh Dutt, JE, ACB, CBI, vide his report no.
68/JE(C)/CBI/ACB/ND has evaluated the renovation
made in this house to the tune of Rs.1,64,000/ with a
rebate of 7.5%. Therefore, the total renovation cost comes
to Rs.1,51,700/.
27 Purchase of property No. 1B, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi : 14,50,000/
This property (1st floor and 3rd floor) was purchased in
the name of R. S. Sehrawat and Urmil Sehrawat
respectively from M/s Trident Properties in May 1996 for a
total amount of Rs.14.5 lacs
TOTAL Rs.1,07,04,988.80
(C) INCOME DURING THE CHECK PERIOD :
S. Description of Income Amount in
No. Rupees
1 Income against the sale of Flat No. 1B, Arjun Nagar, NIL
New Delhi.
At the time of house search of accused R.S. Sehrawat
CC No. 23/13 Page No. 10 of 166
CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017
at D4/4123, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi on 25.08.2000, cash
amounting to Rs.13,69,689 was recovered.
In the month of December 2000, accused R. S.
Sehrawat produced two receipts on plain papers showing
receipts of cash amounting to Rs.4 lacs on 18.08.2000 and
Rs.10 lacs on 24.08.2000 by accused Urmil Sehrawat
against the sale of property no. 1B, Arjun Nagar, New
Delhi (3rd Floor) in favour of one Sh. Rajiv Gupta,
Managing Director of M/s RCI Industries Ltd. The
registration of the said sale of property was made on
28.08.2000 for a total sale consideration of Rs.15 lacs.
Smt. Urmil Sehrawat had also filed an petition in the
Hon'ble Court for release of the above said recovered cash.
The said petitioner has been withdrawn by accused R. S.
Sehrawat.
Keeping in view that :
1.During the searches, no documents regarding the sale of the said property including the receipts on the plain papers produced by the accused during the investigation were recovered. As these receipts were on plain papers and not on nonJudicial stamp papers therefore the genuineness of these receipts are suspicious as it can be prepared at any time.
2. As per the statements of the independent witnesses and Insp. Om Prakash, Complainant of the case the cash amount was recovered from the hidden cavities of the table and almirahs and the way the cash was kept gave the indications that it was lying there since long.
3. The two receipts dated 18.08.2000 and 24.08.2000 was produced by accused R.S. Sehrawat after a gap of about three months from the date of registration of case.
4. The total value of purchase of the said flat was shown as 15 lacs out of which 14 lacs were given as advance that too on plain paper which create suspicion. Therefore, the income against the sale is being taken as Nil.
2 Income of Sh. R.S. Sehrawat from salary from 6,81,463.24 24.08.1987 till October 2000. All the salary particulars have been received except for the 10 months for the period from July 1996 to 15 April 1997. The same has CC No. 23/13 Page No. 11 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 been taken on the basis of the average of the drawn salary 3 Income of Smt. Urmil Sehrawat from salary from 5,97,128.05 01.10.1998 till Oct.2000. All the salary particulars have been received except for 2 months. The same has been taken on the basis of the average of the drawn salary. 4 Interest earned towards Account no. 2294 maintained in 58,797/ the name of Urmil Sehrawat in PNB Nangal Devat during the check period 5 Interest earned towards Account no. 3555 in the name of 11,992/ Vipul Sehrawat maintained in PNB Nangal Devat from 22.05.95 to 25.08.2000 6 Interest earned towards Account no. 3556 in the name of 1,554/ Naina Sehrawat maintained in PNB Nangal Devat from 22.05.95 to 25.08.2000 7 Interest earned towards Account no. 3895 in the name of 11,780/ M/s R S Sehrawat and Sons (HUF) maintained in PNB Nangal Devat from 01.06.98 to 25.08.2000 8 Interest earned towards Account no. 50534 in the name 2,265.22 of Urmil Sehrawat maintained in SBI, Centaur Hotel from 23.04.99 to 25.08.2000 9 Interest earned towards Account no. PPF900328 in the 992/ name of Urmil Sehrawat maintained in SBI, Centaur Hotel from 06.08.95 to 25.08.2000 10 Interest earned towards Account no. 7095 in the name of 12,858.29 R.S. Sehrawat maintained in SBI, Vasant Kunj from 27.10.95 to 25.08.2000 11 Interest earned towards Account No 52310044959 in the 10,257.27 name of R.S. Sehrawat during the check period was Rs.122.24 and the interest towards the F.D. Account No. 52330029351 during the check period was Rs.10,135. Therefore, the total earning towards earning comes to Rs.10,257.24 12 Interest earned towards Account no. 3456 in the name of 37,705/ R.S.Sehrawat maintained in S.B.P., Mahipalpur from Oct. 1990 to 25.08.2000 13 Interest earned towards Account no. 6446 in the name of 14,582/ R.S. Sehrawat maintained in PNB, Vasant Vihar till 25.08.2000 CC No. 23/13 Page No. 12 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 14 Interest earned towards Account no. 14678 in the name 16,437/ of Urmil Sehrawat maintained in PNB, Mehrauli till 25.08.2000 15 Interest earned towards Account no. 390 in the name of 22,350/ R.S. Sehrawat maintained in Corporation Bank, Vasant Vihar till 25.08.2000 16 Interest earned towards Account no. 11261 in the name 22,085/ of M/s R.S. Sehrawat and Sons (HUF), maintained in Corporation Bank, Karol Bagh till 25.08.2000 17 Sale of Flat No. 102, Surya Mansion No. 1, Kaushalya NIL Park, Hauz Khas, New Delhi: This property, purchased by Urmil Sehrawat from Smt. Sapna Gupta and Babita Gupta for a total consideration of Rs.3,60,000/ in the year 1993, was sold in favour of Sh. Vijender Solanki, r/o WZ306, Palam Village, New Delhi for a total consideration of Rs.3,60,000/ vide Agreement to sell dated 18.03.1996 18 Sale of Flat No. 9535, Category III, Pkt. 9, Sector C, NIL Vasant Kunj, New Delhi : This property which was purchased by accused R.S. Sehrawat from one Sh. Sunil Kumar on 25.04.96 for Rs.10,00,000.00, was sold in favour of Sh. Manmohan Singh of M/s New Age Hotels (Pvt) Ltd. for a total consideration of Rs.10 lacs in Sept., 96. 19 Sale of Flat No. A1/363, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi63: 70,000/ This flat purchased by accused R. S. Sehrawat in August 1999 in his own name and in the name of his HUF firm for Rs.7,50,000.00 from one Sh. Mukesh Mehta in August, 99. For this purchase one cheque of Rs.3,75,000.00 was issued by accused H. S. Sehrawat. However, similar cash amount was credited in the account of accused H. S. Sehrawat just three days back. This flat was sold by him in favour of Sh. R. C. Maggo and Smt. Veena Maggo vide two separate sale deeds amounting to Rs.4,10,000/ each on 18th October 1999 i.e. for a total consideration of Rs.8,20,000/. R.S. Sehrawat in his Savings Bank Account in Corporation Bank, Vasant Kunj and the cheque of Rs.3,10,000/ out of remaining proceed of Rs.4,10,000/ from the other sale deed was deposited by accused R.S. Sehrawat in his HUF account in PNB, CC No. 23/13 Page No. 13 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 Nangal Devat bearing no. 3895. Though at the time of purchase of this flat, one cheque of Rs.3,75,000/ was issued by H. S. Sehrawat, father of accused but all the sale proceeds were taken by accused only. The difference of the purchase and sale is being taken towards the income. 20 Rent from M/s Onida Finance Ltd. for the period from 2,45,000/ June 98 to Dec., 98 : M/s Onida Finance Ltd. remained in Ist floor of B1, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi on rent from June 1998 to December 1998. Two rent agreements are in the name of R.S. Sehrawat and other in the name of M/s R. S. Sehrawat and sons (HUF) were executed for a rent of Rs.17,500/ p.m. against each rent agreement. Therefore, Rs.35,000/ p.m. were earned by the accused from the above mentioned party for a period of 7 months and in all accused received Rs.2,45,000/ by way of cheques. These cheques were made in favour of R. S. Sehrawat and M/s R. S. Sehrawat & Sons (HUF). This income has not been intimated by the accused to his department. 21 Rent from M/s Haryana Petrochemicals in R/o 102, Surya 2,48,706/ Mansion, No. 1, Kaushalya Park, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. 22 Rent from M/s Sprint Capital Management Ltd.: 4,50,000/ On the scrutiny of the Statement of account of Sh. R.S. Sehrawat of A/c No.390 maintained with Corporation Bank, Vasant Kunj, received that he has received 10 cheques for an amount of Rs.45,000/ each from Centurion Bank, NOIDA. On being enquired M/s Centurion Bank informed that M/s Sprint Capital Management Ltd. having its account no. CA0015442100 001 had issued these cheques in favour of R.S. Sehrawat and this account was debited by such amounts. Sh. D.P. Srivastava, the authorised signatory of the said firm, could not be traced at the two addresses furnished by the bank. No such firm was found functioning on the given address. On confronting, the accused R.S. Sehrawat informed that the said firm was in possession of part of 1B, Arjun Nagar as his tenants and the said money which was credited in his bank account no. 390 in Corporation Bank, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. As per this bank account, the accused received a total consideration of Rs.4,50,000/ as rent from the said company.
CC No. 23/13 Page No. 14 of 166CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 23 Rent received from M/s Oasis Software (Pvt.) Ltd. for : 2,91,720/ M/s Oasis Software (Pvt.) Ltd. remained on rent in premises No. 1B, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi (first floor) during the period 16.3.2000 to 25.08.2000 24 Income from M/s D.K. V. Chit Fund (P) Ltd. : 17,805/ 25 Income from sale of flat No. 6133/5, 2nd floor, 11,000/ Category II, Sector D, Pocket 6, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 26 Sale of Gold Jewellery in favour of M/s New Alankar NIL Jewellers and M/s Mudgal Jewellers and M/s Raja Jewellers : During the scrutiny of the bank accounts and seized vouchers, it has been revealed that the accused persons and their dependent children, alongwith his HUF firm, had received Rs.19,47,759/ by way of cheque from M/s Mudgal Jewellers, M/s New Alankar Jewellers and M/s Raja Jewellers against the sale of jewellery. Accused Urmil Sehrawat & accused R.S. Sehrawat were given all opportunity to produce evidence regarding the source of procurement of above mentioned jewellery through their legitimate source of income, but they claimed that the jewellery items worth Rs.19,47,759/ were gifted to them and their family members by their relatives and friends on various occasions. On being specifically asked to furnish the names and particulars of those friends and relatives, the accused R. S. Sehrawat could not provide the same. Moreover, he and the co accused did not intimate about the receipt of gift of jewellary items and sale thereof to their respective departments.
Since there is no documentary as well as oral evidence with the accused person to support their claim for the jewellery as being gifted by relatives and friends, the benefit of this income, which comes to Rs.19,47,759/ is not being given to the accused persons. 27 Sale of Flat No. 6089, B8, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi : 1,00,000/ This flat was sold by the accused to one Smt. Anjali Sehgal for a consideration of Rs.6,00,000/ vide agreement to sale and purchase dt. 13.5.1997. Whereas the name was purchased by accused R.S. Sehrawat for Rs.5 lacs from Sh. Ajit Kr. In Jan, 1997. The difference in purchase and sale is being taken towards in case.
CC No. 23/13 Page No. 15 of 166CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 28 Sale of agricultural land in Village Mehrauli : 10,000/ This agricultural land measuring 1 bigha and 2 biswa in Khasra No. 38 illa No. 13, situated in village Mehrauli was sold in favour of Usha Sharma, through her attorney Sh. D.K. Gupta for an amount of Rs.1,10,000/ vide sale deed No. 7 dated 18.3.97.
Whereas the same land was purchased by accused Urmil Sehrawat from Sh. Pawan Kumar Aggarwal for a total consideration of Rs.One Lacs in May 1994. The difference in purchase and sale value is being taken towards in case.
29 Sale of Plot No. B208, Palam Extension, Sector7, 7,000/ Dwarka, New Delhi : Accused R.S. Sehrawat has sold Plot No. B208, Palam Extension, Sector7, Dwarka to Sh. Jawahar Singh Dhaka in April 1999 vide GPA duly registered in SubRegistrar office of Janak Puri for a consideration of Rs.1,55,000/. While the same was purchased by him for Rs.1,48,000.00 30 Sale of Flat No. A17, JNG House, Tagore Market, Kirti 40,000/ Nagar, New Delhi to Smt. Sapna Gupta and Smt. Babita Gupta in 1994 : It appears that due to inadvertence the reason for this income has been left out in the chargesheet. However, perusal of the investigation shows that on 4th and 10th of August 1993, Sh. Sanjeev Gupta, Director of M/s Aerens Properties Ltd., G56, Green Park, New Delhi sold part of the property number A17, JNG House, Tagore Market, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi vide two separate Sale deed No. 232 dated 4/08/1993 and 97 dt. 10/08/1993 for Rs.1,75,000/ each i.e. a total of Rs.3,50,000/ in favour of M/s R.S.Sehrawat and Sons (HUF) through its Karta R.S. Sehrawat. The stamp duty, total amounting to Rs.28,000/ was paid by M/s Aerens Properties Ltd. The payments was made from the account No.7625 of M/s R.S.Sehrawat & Sons (HUF), Punjab National Bank, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.
As per prosecution, on 15.06.1994, the property no. A17, JNG House, Tagore Market, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi was again purchased A17, JNG House, Tagore Market, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi by Smt. Sapna Gupta and Smt. Babita Gupta from M/s R.S. Sehrawat vide Sale Deed number CC No. 23/13 Page No. 16 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 190 and 191 dt. 14.06.1994 for an amount of Rs.1,95,000/ each. The payments were made in cheques in the name of M/s R.S. Sehrawat and Sons (HUF). This time the total stamp duty amounting to Rs.31,200/ was paid by Raja Som, Karta of M/s R.S. Sehrawat. In addition to this amount Sh. Raja Som also gave two cheques of Rs.33,000/ and Rs.2750/ (total Rs.71,500/) each one to Smt. Sapna and Babita Gupta as the security money received from M/s Fountain Beverages, tenant of the property. At the time of the purchase of the said property by M/s R.S. Sehrawat and sons (HUF) the said security money of M/s Fountain Beverages was within the payments i.e. Rs.1,75,000/ for each portions. These two cheques of Rs.1,95,000/ each were deposited in the account of M/s R.S. Sehrawat & Sons (HUF), Corporation Bank, Karol Bagh, two cheques Rs.33,000/ and 2750/ were issued from the account of M/s R.S.Sehrawat & Sons (HUF), Corporation Bank, Karol Bagh. The details were confirmed by Sh. D.K. Gupta.
Therefore the income of accused R.S. Sehrawat is being computed as two sale deeds of 1,95,000/ = Rs.3,90,000/ Rs.3,50,000/ = 40,000/ 31 Sale of agricultural land in village Bijwason, Mehrauli: 1,20,000/ Sh. R.S. Sehrawat has sold the agricultural land measuring 4 bighas and 16 biswas to Sh. Nand Lal Jothari in Fab. 1995 for the total amount of Rs.5,00,000/ while he had purchased this land in the name of M/s R.S. Sehrawat & Sons in August 1994 from Sh. Vinod Chapra for Rs.3,80,000. Therefore, the difference is being taken towards the income.
TOTAL : 31,13,477.07
(D) EXPENDITURE DURING THE CHECK PERIOD :
Sl. Description of the Expenditure Amount in
No. Rupees
1 Rent of locker maintained in PNB, Vasant Vihar bearing 4,090/
CC No. 23/13 Page No. 17 of 166
CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017
No. 680
2 The transfer duty and composing fees for transfer of 55,255/
ownership for the flat No. D4/4123, Vasant Kunj 3 Stamp duty paid in R/o Flat No. A1/363, Paschim Vihar, 60,000/ New Delhi63 in the name of Sh. R.S. Sehrawat 4 Expenditure made in the name of Vinod Singh : 15,00,000/ Accused R. S. Sehrawat had issued cheque no. 939107 in June 1997 for rs.6,00,000/ and cheque no. 939111 in Nov., 1997 for Rs.4,00,000/ in favour of Vinod Singh. These cheques were deposited and credited in account number 3280, State Bank of Patiala, Bamnoli and 456, State Bank of Mysore, Najafgarh. In addition to this two cheques bearing numbers 43056 and 43057 for an amount of Rs.2,60,000/ and 2,40,000/ were issued by accused R.S. Sehrawat in March 2000 from account no. 390, Corporation Bank, Vasant Kunj, in favour of one Sh. Yash Pal Singh, brother in law of Vinod Singh said two cheques issued in his name were received and the amount was withdrawn by Smt. Lata Lochev, W/o Sh. Vinod Singh.
The transaction were neither intimated by accused R.S. Sehrawat to his department nor he could produce any documentary evidence as to why he had given Rs.15 lacs to Sh. Vinod Singh. Therefore, an amount of Rs.15 lacs is being taken towards the expenditure. 5 Expenditure made in the Kulwanti Hooda and HLF : 19,00,000/ Scrutiny of the Bank accounts of the accused R.S. Sehrawat accused Urmil Sehrawat accused father H.S. Sehrawat revealed that following cheques were issued by them in the name of following persons : Sl. Particulars Issued by In favour of Amount Bank No. of cheque and dates 1 331986 Urmil Kulwanti Hooda 4,50,000/ PNB, Nangal dt.10.7.95 Sehrawat Devat 2 541691 R.S.Sehrawat do 4,50,000/ Corpo. Bank, dt.10.7.95 &Sons (HUF) Karol Bagh 3 274681 dt. R.S.Sehrawat HLF Enteprises 4,00,000/ Corpo. Bank, 2.1.98 Pvt. Ltd. Vasant Kunj 4 9564 dt. H.S.Sehrawat do 2,60,000/ Central Bank, 11.4.2000 Nangal Devat CC No. 23/13 Page No. 18 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 5 9565 dt. do do 2,40,000/ do 11.4.2000 6 9566 dt. H.S.Sehrawat do 4,00,000/ Central Bank, 16.6.2000 Nangal Devat 7 939103 R.S.Sehrawat M/s Rishi 5,00,000/ SBI, Vasant dt.17.4.97 Economics Kunj Agriculture & Dairy Farms Pvt.
Ltd.
8 323929 R.S.Sehrawat Bal Kishan 3,50,000/ State Bank of
dt.10.7.95 Sharma Patiala
9 Cash order Vipul Bal Kishan 3,50,000/ PNB, Nangal
10.7.95 Sehrawat Sharma Devat
The details of the money returned to Sh. R.S. Sehrawat and his family members are as follows : Sl. Particulars of cheque Issued by In favour of Amount No. and dates 1 Account 4661, OBC, Kulwanti R.S. Sehrawat 4,50,000/ SJE, Dt. 1.11.95 Hooda Urmil Sehrawat 4,50,000/ 2 345192, 345193 and HLF Raja Som 50,000/ each 345194 dt. 10.4.97 Enterprises Sehrawat (total Pvt. Ltd. 1,50,000/) 3 357251 dt. 9.7.2001 do H.S.Sehrawat 9,00,000/ 4 Account no. 1520 che. do do 50,000/ 342927 dt. 10.6.97 5 Cheque nos. 34280, do do 50,000/ each 342981, 342982 and (Total Rs.
342983 dt. 24.9.97 2,00,000)
6 dt. 12.3.97 do Raja Som Four cheq. Of
Sehrawat Rs.50,000/0
each total
(200,000)
Sh. H.S. Sehrawat has invested Rs.9 lacs from his Central Bank of India, Nangal Devat account and each time cash amount of Similar denomination was deposited in his account just few days before issuing of these cheques. Since there is a difference of 19 lacs of rupees in the cheques issued by H.S. Sherawat, R.S. Sehrawat, Urmil Sehrawat and Vipul Sehrawat in favour of Smt. Kulwanti Hooda, Sh. Bal Kishan Sharma, M/s HLF Enterprises and M/s Rishi Economics Agriculture and Dairy Farms Pvt. Ltd. and the cheques received back by them therefore the amount of Rs.19 lacs as nonrefunded amount to accused persons, has been taken as expenditure incurred by the accused persons.
CC No. 23/13 Page No. 19 of 166CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 6 Expenditure towards education of children for DPS Vasant 2,07,307/ Kunj and little infants Montessori School 7 Payments made towards the Citi Bank Credit cards in the 69,095/ name of accused R S Sehrawat and payment made by him through cheques in the credit card of Sh. Suresh Sehrawat 9 Payment made to M/s Intellec Powertronix for maintain of 750/ Inverter 10 Payment made to 'Suniye' as Donation 31,000/ 11 Payments towards telephone charges 20,420/ 12 Expenditure towards plot no. 41, Sector 10, Pappan Kala, 99,800/ Dwarka made for converting the plot from household to freehold in the name of Smt. Urmil Sehrawat. 13 Expenditure towards plot no. 42, Dwarka, Sector 10, New 1,07,800/ Delhi for converting for household to freehold in the name of H. S. Sehrawat.
14 Stamp duty and transfer duty towards agricultural land in 55,800/ Village Bijwasan, Mehrauli 15 Donation paid to Dr. D K. Gupta 11,000/ 16 Expenditure towards catering paid to M/s KLS Caters 5,100/ 17 Donation paid to Elders Home Society 1,000/ 18 Payment made to Chartered Accountant M/s Arun 8,000/ Virendra & Co.
19 Brokerage paid to Rajan Siddiqui, Property Dealer 35,000/ 20 Donation paid to Delhi Tourism & Transportation 35,000/ Development Corporation Ltd. 21 House Tax paid in respect of 1B, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi 1,26,287/ 22 Stamp duty and the corporation Tax paid in respect of 1B, 1,16,000/ Arjun Nagar,New Delhi 23 Expenditure towards payment of water charges. 1,674/ 24 Expenditure towards payment to Delhi Vidyut Board 49,890/ charges 25 Expenditure towards payment for stamp duty for purchase 8,560/ of agricultural land in village Mehrauli CC No. 23/13 Page No. 20 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 26 Stamp duty paid in respect of purchase of Flat No. A17, 31,200/ JNG House, Tagore Market, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi 27 Non verifiable kitchen Expenses as 33% of net salary of R 2,27,154.41 S Sehrawat 28 Holy Family Expenses for the birth of the children 12,233/ 29 Stamp duty paid towards purchase of agricultural land in 95,500/ village Bijwason, Mehrauli TOTAL: 48,74,915.41 Assets acquired during the period = Assets at the end of check period (B) - Assets at the beginning of check period (A) =1,07,04,986.80 - 0 =1,07,04,986.80 Likely savings = Income (C) - Expenditure (D) =31,13,477.07 - 48,74,915.41 = - 17,61,438.34 Disproportionate assets of the accused = Assets acquired during the check period - Likely savings = (1,07,04,986.80) - (17,61,438.34) = 1,24,66,425.14 Thus against the income of Rs.31,13,477.04 Smt. Urmil Sehrawat, R.S. Sehrawat, M/s R. S. Sehrawat & Sons (HUF) and H. S. Sehrawat have acquired assets worth Rs.1,07,04,986.80 and have made expenditure worth Rs.48,74,915.41 which is disproportionate to their known CC No. 23/13 Page No. 21 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 sources of income.
Thus, as per the charge sheet, R.S. Sehrawat, Smt. Urmil Sehrawat, H. S. Sehrawat and M/s R. S. Sehrawat & Sons (HUF) were found to be in possession of disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.1,24,66,425.14 against income of Rs.31,13,477.04 from all known sources for which no satisfactory explanation could be given.
CHARGE After hearing the arguments of the parties, charge was framed on 28.04.2009, as under :
(i) Under Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(e) of PC Act 1988 against R. S. Sehrawat and Smt. Urmil Sehrawat.
(ii) Under Section 109 IPC r/w Sec. 13(1)(e)/ 13(2) of PC Act, 1988 against R. S. Sehrawat.
(iii) Under Section 109 IPC r/w Sec. 13(1)(e)/ 13(2) of PC Act, 1988 against Smt. Urmil Sehrawat.
(iv) Under Section 109 IPC r/w Sec. 13(1)(e)/ 13(2) of PC Act, 1988 against M/s R. S. Sehrawat & Sons (HUF) through its Karta R. S. Sehrawat.
The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.
CC No. 23/13 Page No. 22 of 166CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 Accused Hanmat Singh (A3) Hanmat Singh (A3) is the father of R. S. Sehrawat (A
1) and prosecution chargesheeted him under Section 109 IPC. He was also summoned by the court but he expired on 01.10.2008 i.e. before framing of charge and proceedings against him abated vide order dated 02.02.2009.
Prosecution evidence Prosecution examined in all 80 witnesses, as per list below :
S. No. PWs Name of Witnesses
1. PW1 Satish Kanodia S/o Sh. Bajrang Lal Kanodia
2. PW2 M. K. Chaudhary, Under Secretary, Ministry of
Home Affaris, New Delhi
3. PW3 Om Prakash, Inspector, Special Unit, CBI/ND
4. PW4 P. D. Bansal, Executive Member, Suniye Society,
1/4992 Loni Road, Shahdara, Delhi
5. PW5 Ms. Shanta Srivastava, the then VicePrincipal, Nangal Devar Government Coed Secondary School
6. PW6 S. K. Sehgal S/o Sh. M. L. Sehgal, Retired Government Official
7. PW7 Dev Raj S/o Lt. Sh. Pyare Lal
8. PW8 Sarjit Goel S/o Lt. Sh. Jagmohan Goel
9. PW9 R. C. Magu, Retired EE, Delhi Vidyut Board
10. PW10 Rajan Siddiqui S/o H. A. Siddiqui, Property Dealer CC No. 23/13 Page No. 23 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017
11. PW11 Rajender Singh Yadav, Section Officer, BSES Office, Division Saket, New Delhi
12. PW12 Ms. Saroj Joshi W/o Sh. Bhanu Joshi
13. PW13 J. N. Tiwari S/o Sh. P. N. Tiwari
14. PW14 Raj Kumar S/o Sh. Tika Ram
15. PW15 Kapil Bahal S/o Capt. D. R. Bahal
16. PW16 S C Wadhwa S/o D D Wadhwa
17. PW17 Surinder Kumar S/o Lt. Lal Chand Gupta
18. PW18 Ashok Kumar Gupta S/o Lt. Sh. Roop Chand
19. PW19 V. S. Sharma S/o Sh. P. N. Pathak
20. PW20 Sagar Sachdeva S/o Sh. Rakesh Kumar Sachdeva
21. PW21 Rajendra Kumar S/o Lt. Sh. Chandrika Prasad
22. PW22 Girish Chand Sharma S/o Lt. Sh. Budh Ram Sharma, EE, Divison XXX in MCD
23. PW23 Guru Dutt S/o Sh. Har Chand
24. PW24 Balbir Singh, Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Nangal Dewat Branch
25. PW25 R. K. Sharma, Computer Operator, PNB, Vasant Kunj
26. PW26 O. P. Sharma S/o Lt. Sh. M. L. Sharma
27. PW27 Vinod Sawhney, Computer Operator, Personalised Special Branch, State Bank of Patiala, Defence Colony, New Delhi
28. PW28 P. S. Tatwani S/o Sh. C. L. Tatwani, Sr. Manager, UCO Bank, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi
29. PW29 Surinder Kumar, UDC, Trade & Taxes Dept.
30. PW30 Ms. Preeti Arora, DGM, Oriental Bank of Commerce, HO Gurgaon
31. PW31 Gopal Garg S/o Lt. Rameshwar Prasad Aggarwal
32. PW32 Uday Ram Sharma S/o Sh. K. C. Sharma CC No. 23/13 Page No. 24 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017
33. PW33 Ashwani Babbar s/o Lt. O. P. Babbar
34. PW34 M. M. Dhaiya S/o Sh. D. S. Dahiya
35. PW35 Vijay Kumar Kadyan, EE, Technical Laboratory, SDMC, Rajpura Road
36. PW36 P. D. Khuarana D/o Lt. Ishwar Dass
37. PW37 Mukhtiar Khan S/o Sh. Abdul Aziz Khan
38. PW38 Ms. Dhanna Devi W/o Mahavir Singh
39. PW39 Vijay Kumar Dua S/o Lt. Sh. Gurbachan Lal Dua
40. PW40 Rakesh Kumar, LDC in Building Dept., MCD, South Zone, Green Park, ND
41. PW41 Professor D. K. Gupta, Vice Chancellor, KGMU, Lucknow
42. PW42 Ravi Kumar Taneja S/o Sh. Kishan Lal Taneja
43. PW43 S. K. Bassi S/o Sh. R. K. Singh
44. PW44 P. S. Mehra S/o J. S. Mehra
45. PW45 O. P. Malhotra S/o Lt. Sh. Roshan Lal Malhotra
46. PW46 Mahavir Singh S/o Ram Singh
47. PW47 P. V. Sharma, Sr. Manager, Andhra Bank, Zonal Office, Hyderabad
48. PW48 Mrs. S. Rajeshwari, Chief Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Kandalivali Branch, Mumbai
49. PW49 Lok Nath Rai, LMO, Weight & Measurement Dept. ITO, New Delhi
50. PW50 Anil Kumar S/o Sh. Kishan Chand
51. PW51 K. G. Balasubramaniam S/o Sh. K. S. Gopal Krishanan, Manager, Coporation Bank, Karol Bagh
52. PW52 Mahendra Kumar, Branch Manager, SBI, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi
53. PW53 D. N. Malhotra S/o Sh. B. N. Malhotra
54. PW54 G. P. Gupta, Manager, PNB, Nangal Devat Branch, CC No. 23/13 Page No. 25 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 New Delhi
55. PW55 Ashok Bhadauria, Editor in magazine Chauthi Duniya
56. PW56 Dr. J Lobo, Medical Superintendent, Holy Family Hospital, Okhla Road, Delhi
57. PW57 Mrs. Sushila Khattar, Zonal Revenue Officer (Water), DJB, Mehrauli, Delhi
58. PW58 Bimal Dass, Clerk Cum Cashier, Oriental Bank of Commerce
59. PW59 Pankaj Rastogi, Manager (Finance), DTTDC
60. PW60 Shyam Vir Singh S/o Sh. Likhi Ram
61. PW61 Mahesh Kumar S/o Sh. Chander Singh
62. PW62 Jawahar Singh Dhaka S/o Sh. Mota Som Dhaka
63. PW63 Iqbal Singh, Patwari, Bijwasan
64. PW64 Vijendra Solanki S/o Sh. Banwari Lal
65. PW65 Prem Chand Batra, Director in M/s MKM Finsec Pvt. Ltd
66. PW66 Surinder S. Rathi, Head Clerk cum Cashier in SDMC, R. K. Puram
67. PW67 Pawan Kumar Aggarwal S/o Sh. Bhim Sen Aggarwal
68. PW68 Manoj Pandey S/o Madan Mohan Pandey
69. PW69 Satish Aggarwal S/o Lt. Sh. Suraj Bhan Bansal
70. PW70 Ms. Seema Narayen D/o Sh. Chandershekhar Saran
71. PW71 Ranvir Singh S/o Sh. Pyare Lal
72. PW72 Brij Mohan Verma S/o Lt. Sh. Om Prakash Verma
73. PW73 Vinod Chopra S/o Sh. A. R. Chopra
74. PW74 S. P. Singh, Assistant Municipal Secretary, EDMC, Patpar Ganj, Delhi
75. PW75 J. P. Nirmal, Officer, Oriental Bank of Commerce, CC No. 23/13 Page No. 26 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 Rajasthan
76. PW76 Rakesh Dutt, JE, PWD, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh
77. PW77 Virender Chauhan, S/o L. S. Chauhan, Chartered Accountant
78. PW78 Devender Gupta S/o Sh. J. N. Gupta
79. PW79 Anil Kumar Singh, DSP, Bank Security & Fraud Cell, New Delhi 80 PW80 Vivek Dhir, Dy. SP, CBI, Policy Division, New Delhi The evidence of these witnesses will be discussed at later stage.
Statement u/Sec. 313 Cr.PC of R. S. Sehrawat (A1) Most of the items in aforesaid tables have been admitted by him. In respect of the remaining items, he has given explanations. In answer to question no. 212, A1 stated that he belongs to an affluent family. His father worked in Indian Airlines as Superintendent and their family had vast agricultural land in Delhi. He stated that his father received compensation out of land acquisition and as per advice of his father he also used to part time property business to earn legitimate money. He further stated that he had been filing income tax return diligently and was also filing relevant informations to his department. He further CC No. 23/13 Page No. 27 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 stated that his father had his own source of income and he had bought properties. Similarly, his wife belongs to a rich family and her father was also an employee with DESU. She was given Istridhan at the time of marriage and whatever property she made, it was out of her own sources of income of salary, Istridhan and sale of jewellery.
Statement u/Sec. 313 Cr.PC of Ms. Urmil Sehrawat (A2) Most of items in the above mentioned tables have been admitted by her. In response to question no. 212, A2 stated that she was living with her husband and with the family of her brotherinlaw, Suresh Sehrawat. She stated that CBI had conducted the raid at three bedroom flat owned by her fatherinlaw in another case i.e. RC No. 43/2000, with which A2 had no concern. It is stated that CBI has shown exorbitant rates of articles. She also stated that her father and fatherinlaw had their own sources of income. Her father was an employee with DESU and her elder brother was an Engineer with DESU, whereas, her younger brother is also employed. She stated that she was given sufficient Istridhan at the time of her marriage and whatever property she had purchased, it was from her own sources of income.
CC No. 23/13 Page No. 28 of 166CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 Statement u/Sec. 313 Cr.PC of R.S. Sehrawat & Sons (HUF) Since accused R.S. Sehrawat is representing the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), no separate statement under Section 313 Cr.PC of the HUF was recorded.
Defence Evidence Accused persons examined following witnesses in defence :
S.N DWs Name of Witnesses
1. DW1 Sh. Manish Ranjan, Section Officer, CAT, Copernicus
Marg, ND
2. DW2 Sh. Manjeet Singh, Head Clerk, Director of Education, Old
Secretariat, Delhi.
3. DW3 Sh. Manoj Kumar, LDC, EE, Project-II, SDMC
4. DW4 Sh. J. S. Tigga, UDC, Vigilance Department, SDMC
5. DW5 Sh. Sunil Kumar, JJA, Delhi High Court, New Court
6. DW6 Sh. Pawan, JJA, LAC/Cash Branch, THC, Delhi
7. DW7 Sh. Ram Kishan, Kanoongo, DM Office, LAC Branch,
Jam Nagar House, New Delhi.
8. DW8 Sh. Vishal Singh, JJA, Record Room (Civil), Tis Hazari
Courts, Delhi
9. DW9 Sh. Ajay Kumar, UDC, O/o EE, Rajouri Gardner Delhi-27
10. DW10 Sh. Ashish Kalra, Office-in-charge, New Green Fields Public School, Alaknanad, New Delhi
11. DW11 Sh. Santosh B.G., Officer, Karnataka Bank Ltd., Sec-14, Gurgaon CC No. 23/13 Page No. 29 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017
12. DW12 Sh. Nesar Ahmed, Manager, PNB, Nangal Dewat Branch, Rangpuri, New Delhi
13. DW13 Sh. Sanjeev Goswami, Record Attendant, Sub Registrar-V, Mehrauli, New Delhi
14. DW14 Sh. Kaushal Kishore, Assistant Ahlmad in the court of Sh.
Jitender Kumar Mishra, Spl. Judge, KKD Courts, Delhi
15. DW15 Sh. Bimal Rai, Kanungo, SDM Officer, Najafgarh, Delhi
16. DW16 Sh. Hari Prakash Chikkara, DGM, BSES, Rajdhani Power Ltd.
17. DW17 Sh. Manmohan Sharma, Section Officer, Dept of Food & Public Distribution, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi
18. DW18 Sh. Lokesh Rajput, Assistant Officer, Finance, Air India
19. DW19 Sh. Suresh Sehrawat S/o Lt. Sh. Hanmant Singh
20. DW20 Sh. Vikas Pannu, Insepctor, ACBI/ACB/ND
21. DW21 Sh. K. K. Khanna, Partner of M/s Raja Jwellers, A-8, South Extension Part-1, New Delhi
22. DW22 Sh. Raj Kumar Sharma, M/s Mudgal Jwellers, Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi
23. DW23 Sh. Sarvesh Khandelwal, M/s Alankar Jwellers, 2459/10, Beaden Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi
24. DW24 Sh. Sanjeet Kumar, JJA, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
25. DW25 Sh. Brij Mohan, Daftri, Record Room of PNB, Vasant Vihar
26. DW26 Sh. Raj Singh Gehlot, Director, HLF Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
27. DW27 Sh. Vinod Singh S/o Sh. Raghunath Singh
28. DW28 Sh. Vishnu Bhatia, Proprietor of M/s Surbhee Jwellers
29. DW29 Sh. Ashok Bali S/o Sh. R. S. Bali
30. DW30 Sh. Rajeev Gupta, Managing Director of RCI Industries and Technologies Ltd.
31. DW31 Sh. Rajiv Solanki CC No. 23/13 Page No. 30 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 Whether the sanction u/Sec. 19 of PC Act, 1988 to prosecute A1 has been accorded by a competent authority?
Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that A1 is a Junior Engineer and his appointing and removing authority is Commissioner of MCD as per Regulation 7 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Service (Control & Appeal) Regulation 1959 notified under Section 480 of DMC Act vide Notification No.19/17/58 in Delhi Gazette Part IV (Extraordinary) dated 4.4.1959. Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to the testimony of PW19, who has testified that Additional Commissioner is the appointing and removing authority of a Junior Engineer in Municipal Corporation of Delhi. It is argued that in view of aforesaid Regulation 7, the testimony of PW19 Sh. V. S. Sharma is incorrect. While referring to G. S. Matharoo Vs. CBI (Crl. M. C. 2695/2010 of High Court of Delhi decided on 25.1.2012), Ld. Defence Counsel argues that if Commissioner is the appointing and removing authority of Junior Engineer, an Additional Commissioner had no competence to issue a sanction under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and therefore the sanction order Ex.PW19/A is null and void. It is further argued that if there is no valid CC No. 23/13 Page No. 31 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 sanction to prosecute A1, the entire prosecution must collapse.
Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the cross examination of PW19 Sh. V. S. Sharma, the Additional Commissioner. In cross examination, the personal file Ex.P3 (D8) was shown to the witness in which it is mentioned that R. S. Sehrawat worked as Work Assistant in Division VII of MCD, General Wing from 24.9.1984 to 14.8.1988. He also testified that post of Work Assistant was not a regular post and it was on daily basis and the same is not considered part of the service record. Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the file Ex.P3 (D8). Page 64 of this file is an order vide which 81 Work Assistants daily wager Work Assistants were appointed as a purely stop gap arrangement to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) on adhoc basis and the name of A1 is mentioned at serial no.42. I would like to reproduce the relevant portion of the said appointment order as under :
"MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI 'ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT' TOWN HALL : DELHI No. F.2(2)/ECII/ENGG/ESTT/87/91/2122 Dated : 25.8.87 Under the orders of the Dy. Commissioner(E) dated 14.8.87 the following daily wager Work Assistants are CC No. 23/13 Page No. 32 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 appointed as a purely stopgap arrangement to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in the pay scale of Rs.14002300 plus usual allowances on adhoc basis for a period of six months with immediate effect or till such time the posts are filled on regular basis or till further orders whichever is earlier.
S. No. Name Present post Posting as
of Work Astt. J.E.(Civil).
1 2
3
4
1. ...............................................
42. Sh. R.S. Sehrawat E.E.VII E.E.XXIV
18. ...............................................
This adhoc appointment of the above mentioned Daily Wager Work Assistants is on submission of an affidavit by them that they will not claim any right as a result of this purely adhoc appointment against the post of Jr. Engineer(C) for regular appointment unless they are selected in accordance with the provisions of recruitment regulations for the post of Jr. Engineer(C) and is subject to following terms and conditions :
i) This adhoc arrangement will not confer upon them any right whatsoever for claiming regular appointment to this post and any other service benefit.
ii) This interim arrangement can be terminated at any time by the competent authority without assigning any reason and giving any prior notice.
iii) Other conditions of service during the period of adhoc appointment will be governed by rules, regulations and orders as may be in force from time to time.
iv) Release of their salary will be subject to their medical Municipal Hospital, excluding Dispensaries, by their respective Zes'/EEs/SEs'.
They are directed to report for duty to their respective Ses'/EEs'/SEs/ shown against each.
CC No. 23/13 Page No. 33 of 166CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 Asst. Commissioner(Engg.) Copy to : All CONCERNED"
Perusal of this order shows that accused is Daily Wager Work Assistant and has been given the work of JE purely on stop gap arrangement and it is specifically mentioned in the above quoted order that this adhoc arrangement will not confirm upon him any right whatsoever for claiming regular appointment to post of JE. This order was issued by an officer of the rank of Assistant Commissioner under the orders dated 14.8.1987 of the Deputy Commissioner. Therefore, appointing authority of this adhoc JE i.e. A1 is Assistant Commissioner or at the most Deputy Commissioner. He cannot be equated with a regular JE whose appointing authority is Commissioner of MCD. Therefore, the ratio of G. S. Matharoo's case is not applicable to A1. PW19 Sh. V. S. Sharma is Additional Commissioner and is higher in rank than Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner. Therefore, he is fully competent to remove A1 from his ad hoc posting as JE. Consequently, he is also competent to accord sanction under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act to prosecute A1.
Now I take up the question of application of mind by CC No. 23/13 Page No. 34 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 PW19. Ld. Defence Counsel argues that PW19 has admitted in cross examination that contents of para B to B of Ex.PW19/A are based on the information supplied by CBI along with letter of request. Ld. Defence Counsel argues that this is an indicator that PW19 signed at the dotted lines on the draft of sanction order provided by CBI. I am of the opinion that it is not reasonable to draw this conclusion from the aforesaid testimony of PW19. By this evidence, he means to say that the aforesaid contents of para B to B are based on the material/information supplied by CBI along with the letter of request. There is no other source of information to PW19 except the information provided by CBI. It does not mean in any way that he did not apply his own mind. In fact in his examination in chief, PW19 has clearly stated that along with the request letter, certain documents and statements of witnesses were also received and that after receipt of the file, he studied the same and had discussions with the concerned official of Vigilance Department and thereafter sanction order Ex.PW19/A was prepared with assistance of official of the Vigilance Department and then it was issued.
Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to the testimony of PW19 and PW79, who had stated about the non CC No. 23/13 Page No. 35 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 availability of any draft sanction order in the present case. However, the letter of CBI Ex.DW4/1 was proved, which mentions that draft sanction order was supplied by CBI to the sanctioning authority. DW4 J. S. Tigga, UDC, Vigilance Department, South Delhi, Municipal Corporation brought the file concerning sanction of A1. Ld. Defence Counsel argues that para IV of Ex.PW21/A, which is the sanction order of A2 and para IV of sanction order with respect to A1 are same. Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention that the record produced by DW4 shows that this is a letter dated 31.12.2002 addressed to Director Vigilance, MCD by SP CBI in which it is specifically mentioned that "to facilitate the preparation of sanction order by the sanctioning authority a draft sanction order has been prepared and enclosed".
I have carefully perused this letter. Perusal of this letter shows that along with this letter, CBI sent to Director Vigilance the photo copies of the original documents and statements of witnesses for the perusal of the sanctioning authority. This letter also mentions that CBI also send a draft sanction in order to facilitate the sanctioning authority. This is the reason that language is generally similar in sanction orders of A1 and A2. There is no harm if CBI sends a draft CC No. 23/13 Page No. 36 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 sanction orders to the competent authority but it does not mean that the competent authority signs the draft order without application of mind. I would like to refer to a judgement of K. Nachimuthu vs State 1994 CriLJ 2760 in which this practice of sending draft sanction has been upheld. Now the question is as to why PW 19 (sanctioning authority) and PW79 (Investigating Officer) are testifying that draft sanction order was not sent to the sanctioning authority. I am of the opinion that this may be on account of lapse of memory on their part because they testified after a very long time.
In view of the aforesaid discussions, I am of the opinion that testimony of PW19 proves beyond doubt that not only he was competent to issue the sanction under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act to prosecute A1 but also he accorded sanction after application of mind to all the facts of the case presented by CBI in form of statements of witnesses and the documents collected. Sanction under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act in respect of A2.
PW21 Sh. Rajender Kumar, the then Director of Education, Delhi accorded sanction to prosecute A2 vide sanction order dated 10.3.2003 Ex.PW21/A. Ld. Defence CC No. 23/13 Page No. 37 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 Counsel has not challenged the competence of PW21 to accord sanction under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act. However, he has strongly assailed that this sanction order suffers from non application of mind on part of PW21. It is argued that PW21 signed on dotted lines on the draft of sanction order. It is further argued that PW21 had evaded the questions by answering that he did not remember the details of anything in respect of documents, complaint etc. or whether he dictated sanction order or draft of the same was put before him or whether the request letter was received from CBI, was still available in the office record or not. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that PW21 also did not answer as to whether he called the details of Land Compensation received by Hanmat Singh Sehrawat from CBI.
Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that PW79 Sh. A. K. Singh ((the I.O.) was cross examined on the aspect of sanction against A2. He was confronted with Ex.PW21/A and Ex.PW19/A. He admitted that both were verbatim. Further he admitted that he did not receive any communication from the Sanctioning Authority of A2. Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to the testimony of PW79, who during his cross examination dated 17.9.2014 CC No. 23/13 Page No. 38 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 categorically deposed at page 7 that :
"Draft Sanction Order was not sent to the Sanctioning Authority."
Further the said witness again denied the suggestion that the draft sanction order were sent to the sanctioning authority.
Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that in order to disprove the claim of the prosecution, A2 proved the documents Ex.DW2/6 (colly), which is a file summoned from the Vigilance Department of Directorate of Education, Old Secretariat, Delhi. DW2 produced the file bearing number DE.(7)SWB/(1)/NG/Vig./2003. As per this witness the Vigilance Department received the letter from the CBI dated 31.12.2002 with the subject Sanction for prosecution against R. S. Sehrawat, JE, MCD, New Delhi & others from CBI. Certain Annexures were also received with this letter, which were referred as Enclosed as above. The said letter was accompanied with Annexures running into 55 pages, Serial No. 1 to 55. It is submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that a perusal of para 8 of letter dated 31.12.2002, which is a part of Ex.DW2/6 addressed to the Joint Secretary, Vigilance, Directorate of Education by SP CBI, establishes that a Draft CC No. 23/13 Page No. 39 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 Sanction order was enclosed by CBI. The copy of the said Draft Sanction Order is from pages 8C to 17C of the aforesaid exhibit.
Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that a perusal of paragraph 2 of letter dated 31.12.2002 further reveals and establishes the fact that no documents and statement of witnesses were sent for the consideration of the Sanctioning Authority as the same were kept ready for perusal by Sanctioning Authority as and when required. There is no correspondences in the file from PW21 demanding from CBI the sending of original documents and exhibits including statement of witnesses, the reference of which was given by CBI. Therefore, there was no occasion for the sanctioning authority to have applied his mind.
Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that interestingly the letter dated 31.12.2002 was not addressed to the Sanctioning Authority (i.e. PW21) but was addressed to the Joint Secretary, Vigilance. There is no correspondence in the file that there was a further discussion on the sanction between Joint Secretary and Director of Education PW21, whereby the Director Education called upon the Joint Secretary to provide the necessary documents and statements of witnesses and other material collected for CC No. 23/13 Page No. 40 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 prosecuting A2 in the court of law.
Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that therefore the entire sequence of according sanction was a sham exercise sans application of mind.
Ld. Defence Counsel has referred to :
(i) JT 2007 (11) SC 183 (Paras 7 to 13) State of Karnataka Vs. Ameer Jain
(ii) (2011) 1 AD (SC) 222 (Paras 8, 10) State of HP Vs. Nishant Sareen
(iii) (1997) 7 SCC 622 (Para 19) Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan Vs. State of Gujrat
(iv) Ashok Kumar Aggarwal Vs. CBI (Para 57 to 65, 69 to 72).
W.P. (Crl.) 1401 of 2002 decided on 13.01.2016.
It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that CBI has come out with a new plea in its reply to the applications file by both the accused persons by stating for the first time that the sending of the sanction order is not illegal. It is submitted that while drafting the reply, CBI has overlooked the stand of its Investigating Officer PW79, which he took before the court and stated on oath repeatedly that the CBI did not send any draft order to the sanctioning authority. Therefore, there is a material diversion by the CBI in its stand before the Court. Ld. Defence Counsel argues that in the cross CC No. 23/13 Page No. 41 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 examination, PW79 had admitted that no material statements under Section 161 CrPC or relevant documents were sent to the sanctioning authorities.
Ld. Defence Counsel has heavily relied upon Ashok Kumar Aggarwal Vs. CBI & Ors. in W.P. *CRL) 1401/2002 and CRL. REV.P.338/2014 & CRL.M.A. 9095/2014 & CRL. M.A. 10597/2014 vide judgement dated 13.1.2016.
I have carefully perused this judgement and I would like to reproduce para 69 of this judgement as under :
"69. Considering the conspectus of decisions abovereferred the following legal propositions can be called out:
a) Grant of sanction is a sacrosanct act and is intended to provide safeguard to a public servant against frivolous and vexatious litigation.
b) The sanctioning authority after being apprised of all the facts, must be of an opinion that primafacie a case is made out against the public servant.
c) Thus, for a valid sanction the sanctioning authority must be apprised of all the relevant material and relevant facts in relation to the commission of the offence.
d) This application of mind by the sanctioning authority is a sine qua non for a valid sanction.
e) The ratio of the sanction order must speak for itself and should enunciate that the sanctioning authority has gone through the entire record of the investigation. Thus, the sanction order must expressly show that the sanctioning authority has perused the material placed before it, and after considering the circumstances in the case against the public servant, has granted sanction.
f) If the application of mind by the sanctioning authority is not apparent from the sanction order itself then the burden of proving that the entire relevant record was CC No. 23/13 Page No. 42 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 placed before the sanctioning authority rests on the prosecution. The prosecution must establish and satisfy the court by leading evidence that the entire record of investigation was placed before the sanctioning authority."
The perusal of this judgement shows that where the speaking order has been passed by the sanctioning authority, prosecution is not under obligation to lead any further evidence. However, A2 has examined DW2 Sh. Manjeet Singh, the Head Clerk of Directorate of Education, who produced the file concerning the sanction of A2. The purpose of examining this witness is to disprove the prosecution version that the sanctioning authority had perused the entire material collected during investigation. DW2 proved a letter (Ex.DW2/6) written by SP, CBI, dated 31.12.2002, addressed to Joint Secretary, Vigilance, Department of Education, in which it is specifically written in para 2 that a copy of SP's report containing the result of investigation is sent along with necessary annexures mentioned therein and the photocopies of the original documents are enclosed for the perusal of the sanctioning authority and that the set of original documents and exhibits including statements of witnesses have also been kept ready for perusal of CC No. 23/13 Page No. 43 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 sanctioning authority as and when required. In para 8 of this letter, it is mentioned that a draft sanction order is also being sent. On one hand, Ld. Defence counsel is relying upon this letter to prove that draft sanction order was sent by CBI. On the other hand, he is disputing the contents of the letter in which it is mentioned that statements of witnesses and documents are kept ready for perusal of the sanctioning authority. Ld. Defence counsel submits that on the record of the sanctioning file, only list of witnesses and list of documents along with the SP's report are lying on the file.
I am of the opinion that in the letter of SP, CBI, it is stated that the documents and statements of witnesses shall be produced as and when required. When the sanctioning authority is testifying that he had perused the same, it means that the same were produced before him by CBI. Accordingly, I do not find it to be case of nonapplication of mind by the sanctioning authority.
Written Submissions of A1 & A2 The accused persons have filed written submissions in which most of the items have been admitted, as they had done in their statements under Section 313 Cr.PC. Therefore, CC No. 23/13 Page No. 44 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 I do not deem it necessary to discuss the evidence led by prosecution in respect of the admitted items. For sake of convenience of calculation, I would accept the submissions of Ld. Defence counsel, whereever the entry/ item is of the value of Rs.51,000/ or below as valued by the accused. The reason for this is that I intend to focus my attention only to the transactions of big amounts. The relevant evidence on the issues in dispute, however will be discussed henceforth under following charts :
CHART - (A) ASSETS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE CHECK PERIOD:
S. Description Amount Amount No. (In Rs) (In Rs) As Per As Per Charge Actual As Sheet Per Accused As per Charge Sheet As at the time of joining of his services neither Sh. R.S. Sehrawat nor Mrs. Urmil Sehrawat has declared any movable or immovable assets and no bank account was in operation in the name of Sh. R.S. Sehrawat and Smt. Urmil Sehrawat at the time of their joining service, the assets at the beginning of the check period is being taken as NIL.
NIL CC No. 23/13 Page No. 45 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 Version of the Accused 24,116.00 R.S. Sehrawat:
R.S. Sehrawat joined the services in MCD as a Work Assistant w.e.f. 27/09/1984 to 14/08/1987. He drew a salary total amounting to Rs.24,116/ during this period. The fact is proved in view of the testimony of DW9 Mr Ajay Kumar, UDC, Office of Executive Engineer, M1, SDMC. Vide Ex. DW9/1.
Urmil Sehrawat:
Urmil Sehrawat worked as a Maths Teacher in New Green Field Public School, Alaknanda, Delhi before her marriage i.e. September 1986 to September 1988. She drew Rs.23,531/ as salary for this period. It is important to submit that she got married to R.S. Sehrawat in February 1989.
The fact of her drawing the aforesaid salary is proved by DW10, Sh. Ashish Kalra, Office Incharge, New Green Field Public School, Alaknanda. Document relied upon Ex.DW 10/1 and Ex DW 10/2.
NIL 23,531.00
As per CBI: NIL
As per Accused: Rs 47,647.00 My View :
In view of the evidence discussed above, I accept the view of the accused persons.CC No. 23/13 Page No. 46 of 166
CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 CHART - (B) ASSET AT THE END OF CHECK PERIOD:
MOVABLE ASSETS
S. Description Amount Amount Value
N (in Rs) (in Rs) Determi-
As per As per ned by
o. Charge- defence this court
sheet
1. Cash recovered during the course of 13,69,689 NIL 13,69,689/
house search: -
At the time of house search of accused R.S. Sehrawat in case RC 43(A)/2000-DLI at D-4/4123, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi on 25/8/2000, cash amounting to Rs.13,69,689 was recovered, which is being taken as their assets.
Version of the Accused This amount ought to have been included in the income of the Accused Urmil Sehrawat. It is submitted by Ld. Defence counsel that this amount was advance payment received by Urmil Sehrawat against the sale of her flat No.1-B, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi (Third Floor). Therefore, it is argued that it should be counted as income of A-2 and should not be shown in the list of assets.
My view I disagree with the submissions of Ld. Defence counsel. As per the written submissions of the accused, which have been elaborated at Sr. No. 1 of the Chart C (which shall be reproduced later on) prepared by the CC No. 23/13 Page No. 47 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 accused, A-2 had sold third floor of 1B, Arjun Nagar, for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- on 28.08.2000 to M/s RCI Industries Ltd. and had received an advance of Rs.14,00,000/- from Sh. Rajiv Gupta (DW-30), the Managing Director of M/s RCI Industries Ltd.
I have considered the rival submissions. I am of the opinion that the value cannot be put to be nil as per submissions of Ld. Defence counsel. The prosecution is required to calculate the value of all assets in one table and the income in the another table. Thereafter, it is to be seen as to whether the assets exceed the income or not. Therefore, the recovered amount of Rs.13,69,689/- has to be considered as the asset. However, whether this money amounts to income from lawful source will be considered by me in Chart C in later part of this judgement.
2. Investment in M/s D.K.V. Chit Funds 32,900/- 32,900/- 32,900/-
(P) Ltd., New Delhi in the name of accused R.S. Sehrawat.
3. House hold articles: 4,19,500/- 1,73,500/- 1,73,500 As per Charge Sheet The cost of the house hold articles observed during the search of the residential premises of the accused at D-4/4123, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi on 25/8/2000 was amounting to Rs 6,36,000/-. Suresh Sehrawat, brother of the accused lived with the accused at the time of the searches and some CC No. 23/13 Page No. 48 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 items in the inventory were claimed by the accused as belonging of Sh. Suresh Sehrawat. After deducting the cost of those items the total of the inventory items comes to Rs 4,19,500/-. The same has been taken as their assets.
Version of Accused PW-3 Inspector Om Prakash was cross examined on the aspect of valuation on 24/05/2011. He could not throw any light on the value and the method adopted for reaching at the price/ value of the articles recorded in Ex PW 2/A. In the Cross-examination of PW-79 dated 26/10/2015 the following questions were asked at page 3.
"Question: Had you prepare a list of articles subsequent to the pointing out of articles and goods by A-1, R.S. Sehrawat, to the effect that particular items belong to him and remaining belong to his brother, Sh. Suresh Sehrawat?
Answer: NO Question: Were you provided with the bills and vouchers of the articles recorded in Ex.PW2/A (D-4) by the officer, who prepared the list?CC No. 23/13 Page No. 49 of 166
CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 Answer: The officer who handed over the investigation to me, also provided search cum seizure memo along with the documents mentioned therein. If some receipts in respect of these articles were recovered during the course of searches that were also given to me.
I had not visited the property in question to counter-check the list as mentioned in the document Ex.PW 2/A (D-4) to ascertain if it contained the correct description or not because, the searches were made in presence of independent witnesses and the list of articles were prepared in their presence."
DW-19 Sh. Suresh Sehrawat, is the real younger brother of accused R.S. Sehrawat. He alongwith his family was staying in same flat i.e. D-4/4123, Vasant Kunj.
He has deposed @ Page 2 of his evidence in chief dated 16/03/2016 that "After the marriage R.S. Sehrawat and his wife came to reside in the house at Nangal Dewat and later on in the year 1993, they and I with my wife shifted to our father's house to DDA Flat at Vasant Kunj.
CC No. 23/13 Page No. 50 of 166CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 The flat at Vasant Kunj was 3 bed room flat with drawing cum dinning. As I was residing in this property with R.S. Sehrawat therefore, I had my separate articles also. I had one air condition, one TV, one VCR &DVD Player, dressing, bed and my wife and my daily needs cloths etc. Now I have been shown D-4, which is Ex.PW-2/A and I state that the articles/list at page 14 under the head "Bed Room No.2" belongs to me.
I and my brother were sharing the expenses equally while living together at Vasant Kunj.
Therefore, an amount of Rs1,96,000/- deserves to be deducted from Rs 4,19,500/- leaving thereby an amount of Rs 2,23,500/-.
DW-16 Sh. Hari Prakash Chhikara, in his testimony @ Page 3 dated 20/02/2016 had deposed that at the time of Urmil's marriage we gave her all the necessary articles, like household articles, cloths, jewelry, furniture etc. The accused prays that they be given benefit of furniture and other household articles to the tune of Rs 50,000/-, which was the tentative value received at the time of marriage.
As per Accused the value of household articles may be considered to be Rs 1,73,500/- as against the alleged value of Rs [4,19,500 - (Rs 2,23,500-50,000)] Prosecution Version CC No. 23/13 Page No. 51 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor submits that the Investigating Officer prepared an Observation Memo-cum-Inventory Ex.PW2/A when the house no. D- 4/4123, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, of the accused was searched. It is submitted that at the time of search the accused persons were not present. Therefore, both of them were interrogated later on and they informed that certain movable properties in one room belonged to Suresh Sehrawat, the brother of A-1. During investigation, the accused persons were confronted with the valuation of the properties, which they admitted to be correct. It is submitted by Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor that the value of Rs.2,16,500/- the movables of Suresh Sehrawat were deducted from the value of all the movable properties evaluated at Rs.6,36,000/- and thus, the aforesaid amount was arrived at by the Investigating Officer. It is further submitted by Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor that accused examined Sh. Suresh Sehrawat as DW-19, who admitted that the value of his movables was about Rs.1,96,000/-. Therefore, it is argued that the Investigating Officer has taken a more reasonable view of the value of the movable assets of Sh. Suresh Sehrawat.
My View I have considered the submissions. A general view of value of articles has been taken by the prosecution without any documentary evidence. Therefore, CC No. 23/13 Page No. 52 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 I would like to accept the view of the defence.
4. Account No.2294 in the name of Smt. 6,89,246/- 6,89,246/- 6,89,246/-
Urmil Sehrawat in PNB, Nangal Dewat:
Prosecution Version This account was opened in the name of Urmil Sehrawat and the last balance on 25/8/2000 in this account was Rs.6,89,246/-.
Investigation has further revealed that two cheques of Rs. 2 lacs each were credited in this account on 12/10/93 and 19/10/93. These two cheques were issued by Sh. Ashok Kumar Proprietor of M/s Ashok Trading Company in favour of Smt. Urmil Sehrawat. At the time of issuing of both the cheques accused R.S. Sehrawat gave Rs.2 lacs in cash to Sh. Ashok Kumar on the pretext of trading of Agricultural yield. Lateron on the request of accused R.S. Sehrawat, Sh. Ashok Kumar issued the said two cheques in the name of Smt. Urmil Sehrawat against the cash. In this way R.S. Sehrawat tried to make his unaccounted money into accounted money.
Version of the Accused The allegation and its substance could not be proved by the CBI as Ashok Kumar did not appear in the witness box to support the case of CBI and the allegation of conversion of unaccounted money to accounted CC No. 23/13 Page No. 53 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 money could not be established at all by the CBI.
The version of the Accused is that the amount of Rs.4 lacs, which was received by her was on behalf of entire Sehrawat family i.e. Sh. H.S. Sehrawat, Sh. Suresh Sehrawat, Smt. Poonam Sehrawat & Smt. Ramo Devi as family agricultural income. The said fact was disclosed by her in her income tax return for the A.Y. 1994- 95, which is Ex.PW-77/D-6 (Colly) Part-E, Pages -75-79.
Smt. Urmil Sehrawat has shown the shares of her family members in her income tax return for A.Y. 1994-95, which is Ex.PW-77/D-6 (colly) (Part E Page 75 to 79), showing Rs.92,914/- towards loan from all above family members.
Thereafter, in her ITR of A.Y. 1995- 96, which is Ex.PW-77/D-7 (colly) (Part E page 80-83), after adding interest on loan as Rs13,937/-, thus the total amount of loan comes out to be Rs1,06,851/-. The said fact is disclosed by her in her ITR for A.Y. 1995-96, which is Ex.PW-77/D-7 (colly) (Part E page 80-83). See page 82 of ITR.
Thereafter in her ITR of A.Y. 1997- 98, after adding interest on the loan, the loan comes out to be Rs.1,22,868/- for each member. The said fact is disclosed in her ITR for A.Y. 1997-98, which is Ex.PW-77/D-9 (colly) (Part E page 89-92).
CC No. 23/13 Page No. 54 of 166CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 She has taken this amount as a loan from them. She utilized this amount for purchasing a property bearing Flat No. 102, Surya Mention, Hauz Khas, Delhi amounting to Rs 3,60,000/-. She returned the entire loan amount in February 1998 to all the family members by selling her jewelry. The same finds mentioned in ITR, Statement of Assessment Year 1998- 99, which is Ex.PW-77/D-10 (colly) Part-E, Pages 93-97.
My View Ld. defence counsels have relied upon the income tax return of Smt. Urmil Sehrawat (Ex.PW77/D-6) for the year 1994 - 95, as on 31.03.1994. At page 79 following loan have ben shown by Urmil Sehrawat :
H S Sehrawat 92,914.00
Ramo Devi 92,914.00
Poonam Sehrawat 92,914.00
Suresh Sehrawat 92,914.00
Ld. defence counsel submits that from this loan a flat no. 102, Surya Mension, Kaushalya Park, Hauz Khas, New Delhi was purchased for a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- as shown in this income tax return and that the aforesaid liability alongwith interest was discharged later on.
It is argued by Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor that when Sh. Hanmat Singh had no income, how there could be any agricultural income through CC No. 23/13 Page No. 55 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 Ashok Kumar, properietor of M/s Ashok Trading Company. Ld. Defence Counsel has referred to the testimony of Sh. Suresh Sehrawat (DW19), who stated that although the land of 70 bighas had been acquired by Airport Authority of India long back but it remained in possession of his father till 2007 and that compensation towards acquition of land was paid in isntallments by acquiring authority from 1970 to 2000. However, he does not state anywhere as to what was the agricultural income of Sh. Hanmat Singh from this land. If, Hanmat Singh was having any agricultural income from this land, it was possible for the accused persons to show some evidence of his agricultural income. I may point out that under Section 13(1)(e), the burden is upon accused to give explanation of the income from the unknown source. The two cheques of Rs.2 lacs each from Ashok Kumar in the name of Mrs. Urmil Sehrawat are absulutely not explained by the accused persons. Morevoer, the ITR shows the amount of Rs.92,914/- from 4 family members as loan and not from the income of agricultural yield from Ashok Kumar, the proprietor of M/s Ashok Trading Company. I agree that said Ashok Kumar has not been produced by prosecution. However, it is to be noted that summons for Ashok Kumar (cited at serial no.38 of the list of prosecution witnesses) bears the address of Dehradun. The summons sent at this address returned with the CC No. 23/13 Page No. 56 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 report that he does not reside at the given address. It is an exclusive knowledge of accused persons as to who this person is and how the agriculture yield in Delhi was traded by the person, who is resident of Dehradun. Now, it is upon the accused to prove this 'windfall'. She could have proved as to howmcuh agricultural yield of A-2 or his family members was sold by M/s Ashok Trading Company in 1993 and what was the income. Accused persons have failed to prove it.
5. Account No.3555 in the name of 64,286/- 64,286/- 64,286/-
Vipul Sehrawat, under guardianship of accused R.S. Sehrawat maintained in PNB Nangal Devat, is having the last balance of Rs.64,286/- as on 25/8/2000.
6. Account No.3556 in the name of 5,646/- 5,646/- 5,646/-
Naina Sehrawat u/g of accused Urmil Sehrawat maintained in PNB Nangal Devat, is having the last balance on 25/08/2000 as Rs 5,646/-.
7. Account No.3895 in the name of M/s 2,47,636/- 2,47,636/- 2,47,636/-
R.S. Sehrawat & Sons (HUF), maintained in PNB, Nangal Devat, New Delhi. The last balance as on the date of check period was Rs 2,47,636/-.
8. Account No.50354 in the name of 80,708/- 80,708/- 80,708/-
Urmil Sehrawat, in SBI, Centaur Hotel. The last balance as on 25/08/2000 was Rs.80,708/-.
CC No. 23/13 Page No. 57 of 166CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017
9. Account No.PPF -900328 in the name 41,992/- 41,992/- 41,992/-
of Urmil Sehrawat in SBI, Centaur Hotel. The last balance on 25/08/2000 was Rs.41,992/-.
10 Account No.7095 in the name of R.S. 2,748/- 2,748/- 2,748/- . Sehrawat maintained in SBI, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. The last balance in the said account was Rs 2,748/- as on 25/08/2000.
11 Account No.52310044959 in the 2,588.8 2,588.8 2,588.8 . name of R.S. Sehrawat SCB. The last balance on 25/08/2000 in the F.D. account was Rs.2,588.80.
12 Account No.3456 in the name of Raja 3,83,685/- 3,83,685/- 3,83,685/- . Som Kumar in State Bank of Patiala, Mahipalpur. The last balance as on the date of check period was Rs 3,83,685/-.
13 Account No.6446 in PNB, Vasant 14,992/- 14,992/- 14,992/- . Vihar, in the name of Raja Som Kumar Sehrawat and the last balance as on 25.08.2000 was Rs.11492/-. On fixed deposit was also made in this account and the last balance as on 25/08/2000 in the F.D. Account was Rs.3500/-. Therefore the last balance in this account was Rs.14,992/-.
14 Account No.14678 maintained in the 10,450/- 10,450/- 10,450/- . name of Smt. Urmil Sehrawat at PNB, Mehrauli and as on 25/08/93 the last balance in this account was Rs 10,450/-.
15 Account No.390 is maintained in the 1,35,125/- 1,35,125/- 1,35,125/- . name of R.S. Sehrawat at Corporation Bank, Vasant Kunj and the last CC No. 23/13 Page No. 58 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 balance as on 25/08/2000 was Rs 1,35,125/-.
16 Account No.11261 in the name of M/s 25,229/- 25,229/- 25,229/- . R.S. Sehrawat & Sons (HUF). The last balance made in this account as on 25/08/2000 was Rs 25,299/-.
17 Accused R.S. Sehrawat has purchased 3,16,890/- 3,16,890/- 3,16,890/- . 30,000 shares in his name and 30,000 shares of M/s Welcome Coir Industries Ltd. in the name of M/s R.S. Sehrawat & Sons. Account of Smt. Urmil Sehrawat has purchased 30,000 shares of M/s Welcome Coir Industries Ltd. all the said shares were purchased in July, 2000 for a total payment of Rs 3,16,890/-, through M/s MKM Finsee Pvt. Ltd.
18 Gold observed during the house 4,88,710/- NIL 4,88,710/-
. search:
During the course of search conducted on 25/08/2000 at the residential premises of the accused certain jewellery items were recovered and seized. As per the evaluation report of Sh. O.P. Malhotra, Govt. approved valuer the total weight of the jewellery comes to 1196.500 gms and the total cost of the same is amounting to Rs 4,88,710/-.
Version of Accused As per accused, the Gold amount may not to be added in the assets and the same be treated as "NIL" for following reasons:-
a. DW-16 Sh. Hari Prakash
CC No. 23/13 Page No. 59 of 166
CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017
Chhikara, @ Page 3 dated
20/02/2016 deposed that the family at the time of marriage and other functions have gifted 7-8 gold sets of jewelry to the accused Urmil Sehrawat and old diamond jewellery of the mother as istridhan.
b. CBI has failed to prove that the
aforesaid jewellery was
purchased by R.S.Sehrawat out of his funds.
c. The part of jewelry is Istridhan of accused Urmil Sehrawat.
Please see representation dated 10/09/2001, Ex.PW-80/DI is the Application moved in the Court for release of jewellery. Also copy of the representation is placed at page 119 of Part E of Court record.
d. The existence of jewellery was also declared to the Income Tax Authorities in her Income Tax Returns. Attention is invited to Income Tax Returns of the A.Y. 1990-91, which is Ex.PW-77/D-3, Part-E, Page 58-61.
e. The Accused No. 2 had not only declared the sale of gold to her department but she in her first representation to the CBI promptly disclosed about all the necessary facts. The CBI did not pay any attention on her representations dated CC No. 23/13 Page No. 60 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 10.09.2001 and 4.12.2002. All the documents were placed before CBI. The CBI and more particularly IO (PW-79) had gone through the representations and the course of investigation was also based on the particulars and sources mentioned therein.
It is admitted fact now that the CBI did not act in a fair manner in the present case as it adopted a practice of concealing all material facts from the court.
The aforesaid is evident for the fact that not only CBI withheld the statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC from the Court of vital ersons like jewelers, Mr Raj Singh Gahlot etc but the IO PW-79 had the courage to depose false facts on oath on the receipt of the representation. This is evident from the reading of his deposition on this aspect on various dates more particularly on 16.09.2014 @ Page 4, 6, 17.09.2014 @ page 1, 2, 3.
The whole endeavor of PW-
79 was to mislead and to repeatedly evaded giving correct answer regarding the representations which were sent to registered post at a correct address. The tone and tenor of his answers establishes that he was CC No. 23/13 Page No. 61 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 adamant to give false answers simply to ensure a conviction of the Accused at any cost. The fact is writ large when he failed to even give a straight reply to his own pleadings submitted in the Court exhibited as Ex PW-79/DX.
It is further submitted that as per CBDT Guideline contained in Circular No 1916 dated 11/04/1994 a married lady can possess 500 gms gold, while her unmarried daughter can hold 250 gms, whereas a male can hold 100 gms of gold. Thus the value of Rs 4,88,710/- is not correct.
Prosecution Version It is argued by Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor that the representation dated 10.09.2001 Ex.PW80/D-1 made in the court for release of the jewellery by A-2 is only an after- thought to create a defence. Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor argues that the accused persons had been very cleverly filing income tax returns declaring the sale of jewellery to income tax authorities but it is strange that A-2 did not inform their own departments about the same. Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the admitted document Ex.P-1, which shows that the Vice Principal, Govt. Co-Edu. Sec. School, Nangal Dewat, had informed that A-2 had not submitted any movable or immovable property returns. Though, A-2 had sent an intimation vide a CC No. 23/13 Page No. 62 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 letter dated 29.08.2000 about sale of a property A-1D, Arjun Nagar, Third Floor, for Rs.15 lacs. Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor submits that this intimation was filed after the house search.
My View A very substantial quantity of gold jewellery i.e. 1196.500 gms was found at the residence no. D-4/4123, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, of the accused persons. The accused persons are trying to justify that this jewellery is Istridhan of A-2. DW-16, H ari Prakash Chhikara, the brother of A-2, has testified that at the time of marriage and other functions, they had gifted 7-8 gold sets of jewellery to A2 and old diamond jewellery of mother to A-2. But neither this witness nor the accused persons have stated the weight of each gold set.
I have carefully perused the testimony of Hari Prakash Chhikara, DW-16. It is a known fact that if a family is making gifts of such substantial gold jewellery, it would have been a lavish marriage and as is a norm, the entire function must have been videographed and photographed. Had the accused produced this videography and photography, it would have been a good evidence to show as to what jewellery was given by parents of A-2 in dowry as Istridhan. DW-16 has testified that they hail from a prosperous family of land owners but have not shown any evidence of agricultural income, which could have CC No. 23/13 Page No. 63 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 been easily proved by producing Khasra Girdawari and relevant revenue records in support of how much land the parents of A-2 owned and how much was the agricultural produce from the said land.
Therefore, I am not inclined to accept that such a huge amount of jewellery might have been given. It is true that a Hindu family does give jewellery to a daughter in marriage but it is also a fact that there are dowry less marriage also especially when the bride is a working woman. A-1 & A-2 have not produced any authentic evidence to prove that such large amount of jewellery was given by parents and relatives of A-2 in marriage except testimony of PW16, who is giving a vague and general statement in respect of amount of jewellery gifted to A-2 at the time of her marriage. Bald statement of a witness cannot be accepted unless supported by credible evidence.
The question of sale of gold by accused as declared in ITRs and to the department would be considered at appropriate place. Presently, the issue is as to from where such a huge amount of jewellery was acquired by the accused persons. The ITRs for the year ending 31.3.1991 filed by A-2 shows the value of jewellery at Rs.5,29,768/-. It does not mention the weight of the jewellery. But no such declaration was made by A-2 to the department. She had shown the sale of jewellery amounting to Rs.45,125/- on 17.11.1995 and sale of jewellery CC No. 23/13 Page No. 64 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 on 7.2.1998 amounting to Rs.4,85,301/-. As per the ITRs returns for the year ending on 31.3.2000, she has shown the value of the jewellery at Rs.2,71,752/-.
19 Investment in UTI: 20,000/- 20,000/- 20,000/- . Sh. R.S. Sehrawat and Smt. Urmil Sehrawat have purchased 1000 unit each of UTI under MEP-94 scheme for a total amount of Rs 20,000/- in February, 1994.
IMMOVABLE ASSETS
S. Description Amount Amount Value
No (in Rs) (in Rs) Determi-
. As per As per ned by
Charge- Actual this court
sheet
20 Flat no. D-44123, Category-III, 10,00,000/- NIL NIL
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.
This property was purchased in August-September 1991 in the name of accused Hanmat Singh Sehrawat, from one Sh. Kishan Gopal Arora. The amount shown in the papers is Rs 4,00,000/-. For payments 6 pay orders were prepared. Two pay orders were prepared from Oriental Bank of Commerce and the remaining 4 pay- orders for a total amount of Rs 3 lacs were prepared from New Bank of India (now Punjab National Bank), Nangal Devat, New Delhi. All these pay-orders were prepared by payments of cash. Investigation has revealed that the total purchase value of the flat was Rs 10,00,000/- and CC No. 23/13 Page No. 65 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 only Rs 4,00,000/- has been shown in the sale papers, and the remaining amount of Rs.6,00,000/- were handed over to Sh. K.G. Arora, by accused R.S. Sehrawat in cash. In addition to this Sh. H.S. Sehrawat was having his account bearing number SB 1543 in New Bank of India, Nangal Devat and was having only Rs 10,000/- at the time of the purchase of this flat when these 4 pay orders were prepared from the same bank and also Sh. H.S. Sehrawat was not having any source of income.
Version of Accused The above stated property is not a benami property as alleged and was purchased by Late Sh. H.S. Sehrawat out of his own funds for an amount of Rs 4 lacs duly reflected in his Income Tax Returns and also in Wealth Tax Returns.
The burden to prove the benami transaction was on CBI which it failed to discharge.
The allegation that property was purchased for Rs 10,00,000/- and not for Rs 4,00,000/- has not been proved at all.
Mr. K.G. Arora, who was the seller, was not produced in the court to prove the above stated allegation. To the contrary, CBI produced PW-10 Mr. Rajan Siddiqui on 17/02/2010, who was the property dealer of the said transaction. He did not support CC No. 23/13 Page No. 66 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 the CBI case and was declared a hostile witness as he stated "nothing was paid in cash in my presence". In his cross examination by CBI he again reiterated @ Page 2 that "pay order was given in my presence but no cash was given before me".
The CBI has failed to bring the best evidence on record i.e Mr K.G.Arora.
The allegation of CBI is also falsified by the documentary evidence which is Document No. D-16, which is Agreement to Sell, GPA, Indemnity Bond, Affidavit of Shri Hanmat Singh, Application for mutation by Hanmat Singh, Municipal Receipt in favour of Hanmat Singh, Rectification Tax order by MCD dated 20/06/1994, Letter of Mutation by MCD in favour of Hanmat Singh (@ 196 to 211), Will of K.G.Arora @ 216, Receipt of Rs 4 lacs @ 221.
Moreover, it is submitted that Late Sh. H.S. Sehrawat in his income tax returns for the A.Y. 1992-93, which is Ex.PW-77/D-15 (colly) (Part G Page 26-31) has shown the above-said property.
Late Sh. H.S. Sehrawat has also shown this property in his wealth tax returns, the same find mentioned in wealth tax assessment order for the year A.Y. 2000-01,which Ex.PW- 77/D-12 (colly), Page No.5-9.
Investigating Officer PW-80 Sh. Vivek Dhir was cross examined on CC No. 23/13 Page No. 67 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 this aspect on 31/03/2014, please see page 8, 9, 10 11& 12.
Investigating Officer PW-79, Sh. ANIL Kr. Singh was cross examined on this aspect on 15/07/15.Please see @ Pages 3, 4, 5&6 in this regard. He failed to give any proper explanation.
DW-19 Sh. Suresh Sehrawat S/o Late Sh. H.S. Sehrawat also deposed in his examination-in-chief @ Page 2, recorded on 16/03/2016 that after the marriage R.S.Sehrawat and his wife came to the residence in the house at Nagal Dewat and later on in the year 1993 they and I with my wife shifted to our father's house at DDA Flat at Vasant Kunj.
In the cross-examination on 22/03/16 @ Page 4 that Flat No.D-4/4123, Vasant Kunj, was purchased by Late Sh. H.S. Sehrawat in the year 1991 for a sum of Rs 4 lacs. To the question that Late Sh. H.S. Sehrawat was maintaining only Rs.10,000/- in his account No.1543, in New Bank of India, Nangal Dewat, at the time of purchase, the witness answered that Late Sh. H.S. Sehrawat, worked with Indian Airlines for a period around 30 years and he has saving from his salary he was receiving compensation from our acquired land since 1970, and onwards. He was also having agricultural income, he had also received around Rs 7 to 8 lacs towards it retiral benefits.
He further denied the suggestion that CC No. 23/13 Page No. 68 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 cash to the tune of Rs 6 lacs was paid to Sh. Krishan Gopal Arora, for purchasing the aforesaid flat, which was the ill-gotten money of accused R.S. Sehrawat.
PW-79 has admitted in his cross examination dated 16.09.2014 @ Page 5 to ascertain the salary and financial status of Late H.S.Sehrawat, I did not record the statement of his employers.
That on one hand the IO PW-79 on 16.09.2014 @ Page 3 had claimed that he had recorded the statements of all the Accused persons but could not remember anything when he was confronted on this statement regarding recording of the statements or putting those statements before the sanctioning authority of the Accused persons. On 16.09.2014 @ Page 7 he admitted that neither he taped nor prepared any video of the recording of statement of H.S.Sehrawat. he could not even answer as to how did he call H.S.Sehrawat to record his statement whether over phone or in writing. He could not even remember the date of the notice, address or even the phone number of H.S.Sehrawat. @ Page 8 he even did not remember if he had called all the three accused persons together or separately. Although he kept on repeating that H.S.Sehrawat could not explain any source despite giving all the opportunities but when asked specifically, if he issued any notice CC No. 23/13 Page No. 69 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 under Section 91 CrPC or cross- checked the versions by an independent investigation the answer was in negative. When the IO was confronted with the judgments and decrees of the court, whereby the amounts were released to H.S.Sehrawat arising out of land compensation, the IO falsely answered that these documents never came to his notice. The answers were false as there could not have been any reason for the Accused to have hidden the judicial orders when the same related to release of amount and payments. The intentional evasive and false answers of the IO could be established from the fact that on one hand the sanction order mentions about the availability of 70 bighas of land in Delhi by H.S.Sehrawat but the charge-sheet is absolutely silent about it. Many questions were asked on this crucial aspect from the IO on 16.09.2014 and he was cornered down but he did not relent and kept on giving false answers one after the other. Also please see cross examination dated 07.04.2015 @ Page 1 Thus this property was of Late Shri H.S.Sehrawat. The same may kindly be struck off from the charge-sheet and the entire of amount of Rs 10,00,000/- be deducted.
Prosecution Version Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the statement of account Ex.P-47/C of H.S. CC No. 23/13 Page No. 70 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 Sehrawat in Punjab National Bank, Nangal Dewat (Old name New Bank of India), which shows that in August/ September 1991, the balance was around Rs.10,000/-. Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the receipt dated 20.09.1991 [placed at page no. 221 of entiere admitted file D-16 i.e. Ex.P63 (Colly.)], which mentions 06 bank drafts out of which 04 bank drafts were issued from New Bank of India. It is to be noted here that this receipt was issued by Sh. K. G. Arora, in token of having received an amount of Rs.4 lacs through 06 bank drafts from Sh. Hanmat Singh as full and final consideration for selling the flat no. D-4/4123, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor argues that Sh. Hanmat Singh had already retired and he had no source of income. It is strange that Hanmat Singh directly pays cash amount of Rs.3 lacs in the bank and gets the demand draft issued in the name of K. G. Arora, instead of depositing the money in his bank account and thereafter, getting the pay orders from the bank.
My View I have considered the material on record and have given thoughful consideration to the rival submissions. Although, the transaction is highly suspicious in nature because there was very megre amount in the bank of account of Hanmat Singh and drafts are being prepared by delivering cash in the bank. However, Hanmat Singh has CC No. 23/13 Page No. 71 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 already left for heavenly abode and is not available to offer any explanation. This court could have drawn conclusions if there were some circumstancial evidence to prove that A-1 or A-2 were connected with the aforesaid transaction in any manner. But in absence of any direct or inferential evidence, I am not inclined accept it to the property of A-1 or A-
2. 21 Flat No.141, in Har Sukh Cooperative 7,71,766/- 7,71,766/- 7,71,766/ Group Housing Society, Sector-7, Dwarka was purchased in the name of Sh. R.S. Sehrawat for an amount of Rs 7,71,766/-.
22 Plot No.41, Sector-10, Pappan Kalan, 7,60,000/- 7,60,000/- 7,60,000/-
New Delhi:
Accuse Urmil Sehrawat has purchased the above mentioned plot from one Sh. Sarjeet Kumar on 11/7/97 for a sum of Rs.7,60,000/-, out of which he has received Rs 5,10,000.00 from the account No. 3555 of her eight year old son Master Vipul Sehrawat.
23 Plot No.42, Sector-10, Pappan Kalan, 8,50,000/- NIL 8,50,000/-
New Delhi:
This plot was purchased in the name of accused H.S. Sehrawat father of Sh. R.S. Sehrawat in April 1999 from Smt. Aruna Gupta, W/o Shri Surender Gupta for a total consideration of Rs.8,50,000/-. Two cheques were issued by Sh. H.S. Sehrawat from his account No.1543, PNB, Nangal Devat amounting to Rs.7,50,000/- dated 15/04/1998 and Rs 1,00,000/- dated CC No. 23/13 Page No. 72 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 22/4/1998. Before issuing the cheque of Rs 7,50,000/- the balance amount in the account no.1543 was Rs 80,000/- approximately. On 12/2/98, Rs 1,22,868/- was transferred in the account of H.S. Sehrawat from the account No. 2294 of Urmil Sehrawat of PNB, Nangal Dewat. On 19/2/98 Rs 3,06,880/- was credited in this account from the account of accused R.S. Sehrawat maintained at State Bank of Patiala, Mahipalpur bearing no. 3456. On 20/2/98, Rs 1,22,609/- was transferred in this account from the account No. 2287 of Sh. Suresh Sehrawat, brother of accused R.S. Sehrawat. The same amount was earlier credited in the account of Suresh Sehrawat from the account of accused Urmil Sehrawat on 17/2/1998. On 20/02/1998, Rs.1,22,878/- was credited in the account of H.S. Sehrawat from the account of 3405 of Poonam Sehrawat W/o Sh. Suresh Sehrawat and the same amount was earlier credited in the account of Poonam Sehrawat on 20/02/98 from the account of accused Urmil Sehrawat either from the account of R.S. Sehrawat and directly or indirectly from the account of Urmil Sehrawat. Similarly again before the issuance of cheque of Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of Aruna Gupta, Rs 1,20,000/- was deposited in cash in the account of Sh. H.S. Sehrawat, Sh. H.S. Sehrawat was not having any source of income and therefore the above facts disclose Smt. Urmil Sehrawat and Sh. H.S. Sehrawat connived with Sh. R.S. CC No. 23/13 Page No. 73 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 Sehrawat in diverting his unsatisfactorily account for money.
Version of the Accused The allegations made by CBI falls to the ground by taking into consideration that whatever amount was transferred in account of Late Sh. H.S. Sehrawat was through banking transaction only. Hence the allegations of diverting unsatisfactorily amount does not hold any water.
The seller of this plot was Smt Aruna Gupta. Her husband Shri Surender Kumar Gupta appeared as PW-17. He in his deposition dated 01/09/2011 had categorically deposed that his wife has sold the property to Shri Hanmat Singh for Rs.8,50,000/- vide Cheques. Nowhere he deposed that the property was sold benami. Even otherwise the entire amount has been satisfactorily explained by the accused in the following manner:
a. Urmil Sehrwat:
On 12/02/1998, Rs 1,22,868/- was transferred in the account of Late Sh. H.S. Sehrawat.
The Hon'ble Court is request to kindly consider the explanation given by accused Urmil Sehrawat under Sl. No.4, Asset at the end of check period. The amount of Rs.1,22,868/- was taken by Urmil Sehrawat (A-2) as a loan from her father-in-law to purchase a property bearing No. Flat CC No. 23/13 Page No. 74 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 No.102, Surya Mention, Hauz Khas, Delhi. This amount was returned by her on 12/02/1998, when Late Sh. H.S. Sehrawat wanted to purchase Plot No.42, Sector-10, Dwarka. The accused Urmil Sehrawat has duly declared the amount of return of loan to the Income tax authorities and likewise Mr. Hanmat Singh Sehrawat declared the receipt of loan from Urmil Sehrawat in his Income Tax returns.
The above-said amount was generated by accused Urmil Sehrawat by sale of her jewelry on 07/02/1998, vide Bill No.0316, of M/s Mudgil Jewelers Karol Bagh.
The statement of DW-22 Sh. Raj Kumar Sharma, owner of Mudgil Jewelers, Karol Bagh, Delhi establishes the fact of payment and the issuance of the bill which is Ex.DW-22/A at page 317. The amount was paid through cheque which is Ex.DW-22/B, dated07/02/98 at page 318.
The declaration of sale of jewelry by Mrs. Urmil Sehrawat to her department was also given vide her communication dated 19/02/98, at Page 316 of Defence Document, which is a part of Ex.DW-2/5 (colly) duly proved by DW-2/Mr. Manjit Singh, Head Clerk, Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
b. R.S. Sehrawat:
CC No. 23/13 Page No. 75 of 166
CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017
Rs 3,06,880/- on 19/02/1998, was refunded in cheque through proper banking channel by R.S. Sehrawat to Late Sh. H.S. Sehrawat.
The above-said amount is the loan returned by accused R.S. Sehrawat, to Late Sh. H.S. Sehrawat. The amount of loan taken from time to time from Late Sh. H.S. Sehrawat was by way of cheques and not cash. Accused R.S. Sehrawat has declared to his department the loan which he took from Late Sh. H.S. Sehrawat. Please see Ex.DW-3/8 (Colly) at page -38 of Defence Document. The same has been proved by DW-3/Sh. Manoj Kumar, LDC, EE Project, SDMC. The series is explained below:-
Please see D-75/Page-800 is a statement of Bank Account of Late Sh. H.S. Sehrawat, Please see entry dated04/11/1992, of Rs.84,000/- to accused R.S. Sehrawat (A-1).
Please see D-38/Page-488 is a statement of account of accused R.S. Sehrawat. Please see entry dated 04/11/92, accused R.S. Sehrawat received Rs 84,000/-. The above-said amount was reflected in the account of accused R.S. Sehrawat.
Further a loan of Rs 2,40,000/- was again taken by accused R.S. Sehrawat form Late Sh. H.S. Sehrawat on 23/12/1992, Please see D-75/Page- 800, is a statement of Late Sh. H.S. CC No. 23/13 Page No. 76 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 Sehrawat, showing entry on 23/12/1992, of Rs 2,40,000/- given to accused R.S. Sehrawat.
Please see D-38/Page-488, is a statement of account of accused R.S. Sehrawat and see entry dated 23/12/92, amounting to Rs.2,40,000/- which is the amount received.
Now the total amount loan till 23/12/1992, taken by accused R.S. Sehrawat from Late Sh. H.S. Sehrawat, comes out to be Rs.84,000/- (+) Rs 2,40,000/- hence making total amount to Rs.3,24,000/-.
Please see the ITR for the A.Y. 1993- 94, of Late Sh. H.S. Sehrawat. An amount of Rs 3,24,000/- is shown against loan to accused R.S. Sehrawat in his ITR of A.Y. 1993-94 at Page- 34, which is PW-77/D-16 (Colly) Part-G/Page-32-35.
Please see the ITR for A.Y. 1993-94, of accused R.S. Sehrawat wherein Rs 3,24,000/- is shown as loan taken from Late Sh. H.S. Sehrawat. The same is Ex.PW-77/D-35 (Colly) Page-12-15.
Please see D-38/Page-488, is the account of accused R.S. Sehrawat which shows on 29/07/1993, an amount of Rs.50,000/- was transferred to the bank account of Late Sh. H.S. Sehrawat.
Please see D-75/Page-800, which is account of Late Sh. H.S. Sehrawat on CC No. 23/13 Page No. 77 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 29/07/1993 an amount of Rs 50,000/- was received from bank account of accused R.S. Sehrawat.
From the above, it is evident that R.S. Sehrawat returned an amount of Rs 50,000/- to Late Sh. H.S. Sehrawat on 29/07/1993 by cheque.
Hence, the loan amount of Rs 3,24,000/- (-) Rs.50,000/-= 2,74,000/- is the balance loan amount outstanding till 29/07/1993.
The said amount of Rs 2,74,000/- was shown in the ITR of Late Sh. H.S. Sehrawat for the A.Y. 1994-95 at page-39, which is Ex.PW-77/D-17 (colly) Page-36-40.
Also please see R.S. Sehrawat has shown Rs 2,74,000/- as loan in the ITR for the A.Y. 1994-95, which is Ex.PW-77/D-36 (Colly) Page -16-19.
Now, an interest of Rs 32,880/- was accumulated on Rs.2,74,000/-, thus making the loan amount of Rs 3,06,880/- as outstanding loan of accused R.S. Sehrawat to Late Sh. H.S. Sehrawat.
The said amount was shown /reflected in the ITR of Late Sh. H.S. Sehrawat of A.Y.1995-96, which is at page -43, Ex.Pw-77/D-18 (Colly) Part G of Court record from Page-41-45. The said loan amount was shown /reflected in the ITR of accused R.S. Sehrawat of the A.Y. 1995-96, Ex.PW-77/D-37 (Colly)/Page-20-24.
CC No. 23/13 Page No. 78 of 166CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 The above-said amount of Rs 3,06,000/- was paid by R.S. Sehrawat to Late Sh. H.S. Sehrawat, on 19/02/1998 for purchase of property at Plot No.42, Sector-10, Dwarka, the same has been reflected in their respective ITR as explained below:-
Please see page-491 of D-38, which is the account of accused R.S. Sehrawat and see entry dated 19/02/1998 for Rs 3,06,000/, which is transferred to Late Sh. H.S. Sehrawat.
Now please see page 800 of D-75, which is an account of Late Sh. H.S. Sehrawat and see entry dated19/02/1998 amounting Rs3,06,000/- which is transferred by accused R.S. Sehrawat. The said amount was generated by accused R.S. Sehrawat by sale of his old jewelry.
Accused R.S. Sehrawat intimated to his department regarding his possessing the jewelry vide intimation No. 410/AE-II, dated 09/04/1990 at Page 66, of defence document, which is the part of Ex.DW-3/8 (Colly).
Similarly, R.S. Sehrawat has also declared the above said jewelry in his initial ITR for A.Y. 1992-93, which is Ex.PW77/D-33 (Colly) (Page 02 to
07).
The fact of sale of jewelry was proved by DW-22 Sh. Raj Kumar CC No. 23/13 Page No. 79 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 Sharma, owner of Mudgil Jewelers, Karol Bagh, Delhi. He proved the bill whichis Ex.DW-22/A. He also proved the amount whichwas paid to R.S Sehrawat through cheque which is Ex.DW-22/B, dated 07/02/1998.
Similarly, accused R.S. Sehrawat also intimated his departmentabout sale of jewelry amounting to Rs 5,94,000/- vide intimation No.ZEB/CZ/98/6790 dated 03/08/1998, which is placed at Page 21 of defence document.
Please see Ex.DW-3/8(Colly) at Page- 21, the above-said has been proved by DW-3, Sh. Manoj Kumar.
Thus, it is prayed that the accused be given advantage of Rs 8,50,000/-, and the same be deducted from the immovable assets being a property of Late Shri H.S.Sehrawat.
My View Perusal of submissions of Ld. Defence Counsel would show that substantial amount for purchase of this property have been sent by A-1 & A-2 through cheques to Sh. Hanmat Singh Sehrawat either directly or by rooting it thruogh Suresh Sehrawat and Poonam Sehrawat. This money was generated by A-1 & A-2 mainly through sale of their jewellery, which they also intimated to their department and proved by examining DW22 Raj Kumar Sharma, the owner of Mudgil Jewellers, Karol Bagh. Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor has argued that DW22 is unworthy of credence CC No. 23/13 Page No. 80 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 and submits that he has even been convicted by predecessor of this court in a case under Section 120- B/420/467/471 IPC. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that this witness does not produce his own records of cash book and book of accounts i.e. ledger that he has already closed his business long back. Though, there is some substance in the arguments Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor, however, in view of the fact that he made the payment through a cheque, I would not like to dispute the question of sale of jewellery. However, accused persons will have to answer as to howmuch jewellery was in their possession and what was the source of acquiring the said jewellery during the check period. I have already rejected the plea of the accused perons that such a huge amount of jewellery was received by them at the time of their marriage.
Now, it is to be seen as to why Hanmat Singh Sehrawat had extended loan to A-1 & A-2 by cheques from time to time. On 4.11.1992, Hanmat Singh Sehrawat sent a sum of Rs.84,000/- to R. S. Sehrawat, then an amount of Rs.2,40,000/- was given by Hanmat Singh Sehrawat (A-3) to R. S. Sehrawat on 23.12.1992. Of course, these loans have been shown in ITRs by A-1 & A-3. Thereafter on 29.7.1993, Rs.50,000/- was returned to A-3 by cheque and balance loan amount outstanding towards A-3 was Rs.2,74,000/- till 9.7.1993. This amount along with interest comes out CC No. 23/13 Page No. 81 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 to be Rs.3,06,000/- as per accused, which was paid by him to Hanmat Singh Sehrawat for the purchase of this property and that this amount was generated by him by sale of jewellery. As discussed earlier, the sale of jewellery is not disputed by me but the question is the source of acquiring the jewellery, which is not proved by the accused.
Keeping in view that substantial amount of Rs.1,22,868/- + Rs.3,06,880/- + Rs.1,22,609/- + Rs.1,22,878/- (Total Rs.6,75,235/-) out of Rs.8,50,000/- are coming through A-1 & A-2, who have stated that this was repayment of loan but has not stated as to why they had taken loan from time to time from A- 3, proves that this is benami property of A-1 & A-2. Therefore, from these circumstances, which show that major part of the money for the purchase of this plot is coming from A-1 & A-2, it can be inferred that an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- in cash deposited in the bank account of Hanmat Singh Sehrawat was effected by none other person than A-1 & A-2.
24 Agricultural land in village Bijwasan, 6,94,500/- 6,94,500/- 6,94,500/-
Mehrauli:
Agricultural land measuring 14 bigha 2 biswas was purchased in the name of M/s R.S. Sehrawat & Sons, HUF through its Karta Raja Som Kumar Sehrawat, for a total amount of Rs6,94,500/-.CC No. 23/13 Page No. 82 of 166
CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 25 Udyog Vihar Co-op. Group Housing 6,75,000/- NIL NIL Society:
Sh. Hanumant Singh Sehrawat became a member of Udyog Vihar Gr. Hous. Society vide membership no.372 on 6/11/1999 by depositing a cash amounting to Rs 200/- for a flat in the society. He issued cheques for Rs.4,25,000/- on 10/1/2000, Rs. 1,25,000/- on 28/03/2000, and Rs.1,25,000/- on 9/6/2000 in the account of the above society, from his account 3589 of Central Bank of India, Nangal Dewat. Investigation revealed that similar amount of cash was deposited in these accounts before issuing of cheques on each occasion. Sh. H.S. Sehrawat could not satisfactorily explain the source of cash deposited in his account on each occasion. This membership was withdrawn by H.S. Sehrawat on 16/01/2001 i.e. after the check period and all the investment was refunded to him.
Version of the Accused The allegations are false and without any basis. The CBI is alleging the benami transaction on surmises & conjectures. No witness has deposed that the money issued to the Udyog Vihar co-op. Group Housing Society was in fact paid by accused R.S. Sehrawat and not by Late Sh. H.S. Sehrawat.
The allegation that Late Sh. H.S. Sehrawat could not satisfactorily explainthe source of cash deposits in CC No. 23/13 Page No. 83 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 his account on each occasion was again a lie. IO Sh. ANIL Kr. Singh was cross examined on his statement relating to investigation of Shri H.S.Sehrawat on 16/09/2014 @ Page 7-8 and 05.10.15, @ Page 3 to 5. No satisfactory answer worth any acceptance could be given by him to establish and prove that the CBI had investigated or recorded any statement of Late Shri H.S.Sehrawat.
DW-19 Sh. Suresh Sehrawat appeared in the witness box and he very categorically deposed on 16/03/2016 @ Page 3that "my father was never called for any investigation by CBI, to the best of my information. Neither I nor my wife Smt Poonam Sehrawat was called by CBI to join the investigation". The aforesaid deposition of DW-19 was never challenged in the cross- examination.
The Accused submit that Late Shri H.S.Sehrawat has disclosed about the aforesaid transaction in his ITR relating to A.Y. 2000-2001 EX PW- 77/ D-23 (Colly) Part-G @ Pages 65-
68.
DW-19 also had put some light on this issue. He proved one M.O.U. dated 12/11/1999, executed between Late Sh. H.S. Sehrawat & late Sh. Karan Singh, which is now Ex.DW- 19/1, which is placed at Page 870 to 874 of defence document. The Bank Statement of Late Shri Karan Singh Ex DW 11/1 from Karnataka Bank CC No. 23/13 Page No. 84 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 Limited, Sector 14 Branch, Gurgaon. The same shows sufficient cash in hand.
Both of them entered a joint venture agreement for sale and purchase of properties. The first investment was to be made in a residential flat with Udyog Vihar Co-operative Group Housing Society @ Page 871.
Deceased Shri H.S.Sehrawat has also disclosed and declared about the investment in Udyog Vihar, as a Joint Venture in his wealth tax Return. An assessment order was passed by the concerned wealth tax officer. Please see Ex.PW-77/D-12, Part-G, Page 5- 9, and Ex.PW-77/D-13/Part-G, Page 10-14.
Thus the amount of Rs 6,75,000/- may kindly be deleted from the charge-sheet which is standing against A-1.
Prosecution Version Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to Ex.PW19/1 i.e. Joint venture Agreement dated 12.11.1999 executed between H.S. Sehrawat and Karan Singh. In this agreement both the partners have agreed to invest in immovable properties and sale and purchase of the immovable properties. The Recital No. 4 infers that both the parties will share the investments equally. Accordingly, it is argued that at the most Karan Singh could have made payment of 50% of the amount CC No. 23/13 Page No. 85 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 which comes to Rs.3,37,500/-. Ld. Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the statement of account no. 3589 maintained at Central Bank, Nangal Dewat, in the name of Hanmat Singh Sehrawat, Ex.PW24/A, which shows that on 10.01.2000, a cash of Rs.4,25,000/- was deposited and on 12.01.2000 a cheque was issued in the same amount to Udyog Vihar Co- operative Group Housing Society. Similarly, on 28.03.2000, an amount in the sum of Rs.1,25,000/- was deposited in this account and on 20.03.2000, a cheque of Rs.1,25,000/- was issued in the name of Udyog Vihar CGHS. On 02.05.2000, an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- was deposited in cash and on 26.06.2000 a cheque in the sum of Rs.1,26,000/- was issued in the name of Udyog Vihar Group Housing Society. Thus, the entire amount has been deposited in cash from time to time in this bank account of H. S. Sehrawat and cheques were issued by him very soon thereafter to Udyog Vihar Group Housing Society. Thus, it proves that the entire payment was made by Hanmat Singh and not by Karan Singh. Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the statement of bank account no. 1645, maintained in Karnataka Bank Ltd. of Karan Singh (Ex.DW11/1). Ld. Defence counsel has proved this account to show that there was a credit of Rs.53 lacs on 29.10.1999 and a sum of Rs.13,25,000/- was withdrawn by him on 02.11.1999 and a sum of Rs.37,34,260/- was also CC No. 23/13 Page No. 86 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 withdrawn by him on that very day i.e. on 02.11.1999. Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor submits that the agreement Ex.DW19/1 was executed on 12.11.1999, whereas, on 05.11.1999 only an amount of Rs.1,00,840/- was lying in it and on 14.11.1999, an amount of Rs.840/- was lying in it. It is argued by Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor that if Karan Singh deposited an amount of Rs.4,25,000/- in the account of Hanmat Singh Sehrawat on 10.01.2000, this amount could not have been deposited by Karan Singh, because he had a very small amount around that time in his bank account. Even thereafter, a very small amount was lying in the bank account and therefore, it is proved that the amount was not deposited by Karan Singh. It is argued by Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor that this amount was deposited by R. S. Sehrawat in the bank account of his father Hanmat Singh, who was not having any source of income at that time.
My view I am convinced that this is a highly dubious transaction but since Hanmat Singh is not before this court to offer any explanation and there is no direct or circumstancial evidence to connect the aforesaid payments to A-1 and A- 2, I would like to give benefit of doubt to accused persons on this count.
26 Cost of renovation against Flat no.D- 1,51,700/- NIL NIL CC No. 23/13 Page No. 87 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 4/4123, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.
This flat was purchased in the name of H.S. Sehrawat, Sh. Rakesh Dutt, JE, ACB, CBI, vide his report No.68/JE(C)/ CBI/ACB/ND has evaluated the renovation made in this house to the tune of Rs 1,64,000/- with a rebate of 7.5%. Therefore, the total renovation cost comes to Rs 1,51,700/-.
Version of the Accused The report of PW-76 Mr. Rakesh Dutt /Valuation Officer is a self serving one. He never visited the property and therefore the report submitted by him was a false report.
He did not remember that if a photographer accompanied him or not. He presumed on the basis of the documents shown to him by IO that the flat was allotted in a raw condition. He did not prepare the site plan while preparing his report. But as per him he recorded the measurements of the flat. However no calculation sheet was prepared by him to show that he infact calculated the cost of the alleged renovation. His statement in the court was also contrary to the document, letter/ order of the SP dated 19/08/2002 D-73 at page 744 relied by CBI. As per PW- 76 N.K.Jain co-ordinated with him for the valuation as he was the IO, whereas PW-79 ANIL Kumar Singh, IO named Shri N.K.Jain as the than JE, who verified the valuation.
CC No. 23/13 Page No. 88 of 166CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 PW-76 could not answer the time of his visit for inspection and evaluation of cost of renovation of the property. It is surprising that an Engineer has prepared a report for valuating a cost of renovation of a property without any calculation sheet to support the figure he arrived. He was thoroughly cross examined and he could not stand cross examination at all. He could not answer to any material questions and therefore, his report deserves to be rejected being biased one in favour of CBI as he was their own man. He did not produce any photographs or any such reliable material in support of his report or even to prima-facie established that he visited the property for valuation and that renovation work was indeed being carried out in the property.
This version is equally false and falls to the ground in view of the statement of DW-19 Suresh Sehrawat on 16/03/2016 @ Page 3 that he and his family were living in the property along with the family of R.S.Sehrawat post 1993 and that the renovation of the flat was undertaken by Late H.S.Sehrawat during the summer of 2002. No cross examination on this vital aspect was conducted by CBI.
The inspection by PW-76, was carried out in the year 2002, i.e. after the check period thus, the said report is even otherwise not admissible.
CC No. 23/13 Page No. 89 of 166CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 Further Cross examination of PW-79 i.e. IO, Sh. Anil Kr. Singh disproves the version of CBI and the letter of SP, D-73 at page 744, as he answered @ Page 6 in cross examination dated 15/07/2015 that "I did not send any person from CBI office to see property in question from inside at any point of time during investigation".
However later on he made a voluntary statement regarding the valuer but again as he was deposing falsely he named the valuer as N.K.Jain. When he was confronted with the documents, he again changed his stand and named the valuer as Rakesh Dutt. At Page 8 of the cross examination he was cross examined relating to the information and the report of Rakesh Dutt JE, but, he could not answer any question relating to the version of the preparation of the valuation report by Sh Rakesh Dutt so as to be an inspiring one. Please see cross examination conducted on 15/07/2015 at page 7-8.
Prosecution Version It is argued by Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor that since this house belongs to H. S. Sehrawat and that since it was a benami house of R. S. Sehrawat, only he will incur renovation charges.
My View Since the house belongs to Hanmat Singh Sehrawat and there is no CC No. 23/13 Page No. 90 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 evidence to show that the renovation was done by A-1, it is difficult to draw inference that this cost should be atributed to A-1 or A-2.
27 Purchase of property No.1-B, Arjan 14,50,000/- 14,50,000/- 14,50,000/-
Nagar, New Delhi:
This property (1st Floor and 3rd floor) was purchased in the name of R.S. Sehrawat and Urmil Sehrawat respectively from M/s Trident Properties in May 1996 for a total amount of Rs.14.5 lac.
Movable plus immovable assets as per CBI: Rs 1,07,04,986.80 As per accused: Rs 36,76,266.00 As determined by this court : Rs.86,32,286.00 To make it a round figure and taking a view favourable to the accused persons, I take the value of the total assets at Rs.85,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty Five lacs) CHART - C INCOME DURING THE CHECK PERIOD as per CBI:
S.N Description of Income Amt. as Amount As Value o. per per Actual Determi-
Charge- (in Rs.) ned by this
sheet court
(In Rs.)
1 Income against the sale of Flat Nil 14,00,000/- Nil
No.1-B, Arjun Nagar, New
Delhi.
Prosecution Version
At the time of house search of CC No. 23/13 Page No. 91 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 accused R.S. Sehrawat at D-
4/4123, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, New Delhi on 25/8/2000, cash amounting to Rs 13,69,689/- was recovered. This fact is not denied by the accused persons.
In the month of December 2000, accused R.S. Sehrawat produced two receipts on plain papers showing receipts of cash amounting to Rs. 4 lacs on 18/8/2000 and Rs 10 lacs on 24/8/2000 by accused Urmil Sehrawat against the sale of property No. 1-B, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi (3rd floor) in favour of one Sh. Rajiv Gupta, Managing Director of M/ RCI Industries Ltd. The registration of the said sale of property was made on 28/8/2000 for a total sale consideration of Rs 15 lacs.
Smt. Urmil Sehrawat had also filed an petition in the Hon'ble Court for release of the above said recovered cash. The said petition has been withdrawn by accused R.S. Sehrawat.
Keeping in view that :-
1. During the searches, no documents regarding the sale of the said property including the receipts on the plain papers produced by the accused during the investigation were recovered.
As these receipts were on plain papers and not on non-judicial CC No. 23/13 Page No. 92 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 stamp papers therefore the genuineness of these receipts are suspicious as it can be prepared at any time.
2. As per the statements of the independent witnesses and Inspr. Om Prakash, Complainant of the case the cash amount was recovered from the hidden cavities of the tables and almirahs and the way the cash was kept gave the indications that it was lying there since long.
3. The two receipts dated 18/8/2000 and 24/8/2000 was produced by accused R.S. Sehrawat after a gap of about three months from the date of registration of case.
4. The total value of purchase of the said flat was shown as 15lacs out of which 14 lacs were given as advance that too on plain paper which create suspicion.
Therefore, the income against the sale is being taken as NIL.
Version of Accused:
The prosecution has tried to make out a false case to deprive the accused No. 2 the benefit of sale of property No.1B, Arjun Nagar.
Pw 79 the IO of the case was cross-examined on this factual CC No. 23/13 Page No. 93 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 aspect. Although in the charge sheet the CBI has suppressed the fact that in order to ascertain the correctness of the aforesaid transactions it had investigated the MD of the Company (DW30) which had purchased the property from Accused No. 2 but in his Cross- Examination PW79 admitted investigating DW 30 Sh. Rajeev Gupta and further deposing that the transactions were genuine.
I. In the cross-
examination dated 07/04/2015 at Pg 4 the witness had admitted that " during the course of investigation of this present case, I recorded the statement of Sh.
Rajeev Gupta Managing Director of RCI industries.
II. "I did not make the MD or any other responsible officer of RCI Industries as a co-
accused in this present case".
III. The witness 15/07/2015 at Page 2 admitted that "when I investigated that matter for the transactions of A2 i.e. Ms. Urmil Sehrawat from the RCI Industries, then they disclosed me CC No. 23/13 Page No. 94 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 that the transactions were genuine, but, during the investigation I did not find any genuineness."
IV. During the course of investigation I did not investigate regarding the genuineness of the receipts whether these were anti timed or anti dated or not.
V. The witness further admitted on 15/07/2015 that he did not make any investigation in regard to the receipt and the seal affixed from form 34A to check the genuineness thereof.
VI. On 15/07/2015 @ Page 2 the witness answered on being asked "I did not receive any complaint from the Income Tax office with effect from 24/08/2000 till the date of filing of the charge sheet regarding genuineness of the receipt and seal affixed on form No. 34A."
VII. He further admitted that "I did not call any officer from the RCI CC No. 23/13 Page No. 95 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 Industries for confirmation of the documents already Ex PW80/DJ i.e. form no.
34A"
DW-30 Mr. Rajeev Gupta appeared as a defense witness. He deposed the following facts on 24/08/2016:-
A payment of Rs 4 lacs in cash was made to accused Urmil Sehrawat on 18/08/2000 and a receipt was issued by Mrs. Urmil Sehrawat to the company which is now Ex.DW-30/1.
Another amount of Rs 10 lacs in cash was paid on 24/08/2000 and a receipt was issued by accused Urmil Sehrawat to the company which is now Ex.DW-30/2.
He deposed " the original of these receipts were submitted to the CBI.
He also admitted Ex.DW-13/1, which is the sale deed of the property, placed at page 780 of the defence documents.
The witness further deposed that he was summoned by CBI by issuing notices u/s 161 Cr.P.C. on various occasions. The original summons of various dated are Exhibited as under:-
Summons dated 4/7/2000 Ex.
DW-30/3.CC No. 23/13 Page No. 96 of 166
CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 Summons dated 31/10/2001 Ex. DW-30/5.
Summons dated 19/9/2002 Ex. DW-30/6.
Summons dated 26/9/2002 Ex. DW-30/7.
Summons dated 27/9/2002 Ex. DW-30/8.
The CBI had recorded his statement wherein he submitted that he had handed over the originals of above two cash receipts, original cash books, journals & ledgers of the RCI Industries Ltd. vide production cum seizure memo to the CBI.
The production cum seizure memo was exhibited asEx.DW- 30/9. No effective cross-
examination of this defense witness was conducted by the Ld. Prosecutor and as a matter of fact his entire version had gone un-rebutted.
PW-80/Sh. Vivek Dhir/IO Mr. Vivek Dhir, IO was also cross examined on the above- stated transaction on 23/07/2014, (Pl. see page 5&6) He could not answer any material questionsand gave vague replies that he did not remember whether he conducted an enquiry regarding issuance of Form-34A. He further stated that he did not remember that he issued any CC No. 23/13 Page No. 97 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 notice to M/s RCI Industries or not.
It is submitted that accused persons have proved that CBI conducted investigation in relation to the above-stated transaction but when the CBI found that the transaction was a genuine one and no case could be made out against the accused persons it withheld the statement as well as documents which were produced vide Production Cum Seizure Memo by Mr. Rajeev Gupta (DW30).
The CBI had also recorded the statement of DW30 u/s 161 Cr.P.C. The said statement was produced on record after this Hon'ble Court directed the CBI to supply copy of it to the accused persons vide its order dated 23/04/2016.
It is prayed that an adverse inference be taken against the prosecution.
Thus the accused be given a benefit of Rs 14 lacs and the same may added in the income.
It may be pertinent to mention here that accused Urmil Sehrawat purchased the said property on May, 1996 for an amount of Rs 7,00,000/- and also considered by the prosecution at CC No. 23/13 Page No. 98 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 Sl. No.27, under the head immovable property. She also intimated her department when she purchased the said property vide intimation dated 22/05/1996 which is now Ex.DW-2/5 (colly) at page 297 of defence document.
My View It is to be considered as to whether the entire transaction is a collusive and concocted transaction with a view to create a defence for the accused. I have carefully gone through the testimony of DW-30 Rajeev Gupta and have perused the receipts Ex.DW30/1 and Ex.DW30/2 and the sale-deed. The first thing which strikes the mind of this court is that out of the total consideration of Rs.15 lacs, DW-30 delivered an amount of Rs.14 lacs in cash to A-2 leaving only an amount of Rs.One lac to be paid at the time of registration of sale-deed. The nature of this transaction is dubious and does not satisfy the judicial conscious of this court. It is not a normal course of business deals and property transactions. It is not the case of the accused persons that major portion of the sale amount was received consequent to giving physical possession of the property to DW-30.CC No. 23/13 Page No. 99 of 166
CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 I have perused the photocopy of receipt Ex.DW30/1, which shows that it was executed on 18.08.2000, vide which Urmil Sehrawat states that she had received amount of Rs.4 lacs out of total sale consideration of Rs.15 lacs against the sale of her entire third floor of 1-B, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi and the balance will be paid on or before 01.09.2000.The cash receipt Ex.DW30/2
bears the date 24.08.2000 vide which a payment of Rs.10 lacs in cash has been received by Urmil Sehrawat. There is one Form No. 34A i.e. application for certification under 230A (1) of the Income Tax, dated 18.08.2000, through which A-2 had applied for no objection certificate from the Assessing Officer, Income Tax, giving details of aforesaid property. This application form bears the stamp of the office of Income Tax Officer with the date 24.08.2000 i.e. just one day prior to the house search dated 25.08.2000. This certificate is placed at page no. 965 to 967 of file B-9 of the judicial record, but it was not proved by the defence. This document was filed in the defence documents but concerned authorities from Income Tax was not brought to prove the same. I may point out that the accused persons in their CC No. 23/13 Page No. 100 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 statement under Section 313 Cr.PC, while answering question no. 6 had stated that they had entered into this agreement after prior permission of the Income Tax authorities. However, no such permission from the income tax authorities has been shown by the accused persons.
Therefore, the genuineness of the stamp of Income Tax authorities on the aforesaid Form 34A is not proved. It is true that in this Form 34A the description of property, name of transferee and consideration amount of Rs.15 lacs has been mentioned. Had the defence proved this document by calling the concerned official from Income Tax Department, it would have proved the defence case. Although, it was filed by the defence in his defence documents but deliberately did not prove the same probably because due to saner legal advice, the accused persons became wiser and saved themselves from legal consequences. Suffice it to say that this was another attempt to create false evidence in support of the existence of a sale agreement. Interestingly, in defence arguments also this document has not been referred to. Still I could not ignore this document which has been filed by the defence in the court. I may point out that although DW-30 has stated that the permission for CC No. 23/13 Page No. 101 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 sale of property was applied to Income Tax Authority by Smt. Urmila Sehrawat and that the sale deed was executed on 28.08.2000 after permission from the Income Tax Authority.
However, he also did not referred to this document during his evidence nor produced any document to show the relevant certificate from Income Tax authorities. Thus, I am convinced that the receipts Ex.DW30/1 and Ex.DW30/2 and sale deed Ex.DW13/1 are sham documents, prepared subsequent to the house search dated 25.08.2000 with a view to create false explanation to justify the presence of Rs.13,69,689/-.
I may point out that sale of immovable property is always preceded by a written agreement to sell. DW-30 as well as the accused persons are educated persons and record shows that they are adept in frequent sale and purchase of immovable properties.
Hence, all these documents are sham documents created to justify the recovery of Rs.13,69,689/-. The accused persons, therefore, have not been able to give a satisfactory explanation as to from what known source of income this amount had been received by them.
CC No. 23/13 Page No. 102 of 166CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 2 Income of Sh. R.S. Sehrawat 6,81,463.24 6,81,463.24 6,81,463/-
from salary from 24/08/1987 till October 2000. All the salary particulars have been received execpet for the 10 months for the period from July 1996 to 15 April 1997. The same has been taken on the basis of the average of the drawn salary.
3 Income of Smt. Urmil Sehrawat 5,97,128.05 5,97,128.05 5,97,128/-
from salary 1/10/1988 till October 2000. All the salary particulars have been received except for 2 months. The same has been taken on the basis of the average of the drawn salary.
4 Interest earned towards account 58,797/- 58,797/- 58,797/-
No.2294, maintained in the name of Urmil Sehrawat in PNB, Nangal Dewat during the check period.
5 Interest earned towards Account 11,992/- 11,992/- 11,992/-
No.3555. in the name of Vipul Sehrawat maintained in PNB, Nangal Dewat from 22/5/1995 to 25/8/2000.
6 Interest earned towards Account 1,554/- 1,554/- 1,554/-
No.3556, in the name of Naina Sehrawat maintained in PNB, Nangal Dewat from 22/5/1995 to 25/8/2000.
7 Interest earned towards Account 11,780/- 11,780/- 11,780/-
No.3895, in the name of M/s R.S. Sehrawat and Sons (HUF), maintained in PNB Nangal CC No. 23/13 Page No. 103 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 Dewat from 1/6/1998 to 25/8/2000.
8 Interest earned towards Account 2,265.22 2,265.22 2,265/-
No.50354, In the name of Urmil Sehrawat maintained in SBI, Centaur Hotel from 23/4/1999 to 25/8/2000.
9 Interest earned towards Account 992/- 992/- 992/-
No.PPF-900328, in the name of Urmil Sehrawat maintained in SBI Centaur Hotel from 6/8/1999 to 25/8/2000.
10 Interest earned towards Account 12,858.29 12,858.29 12,858/-
No.7095, in the name of R.S. Sehrawat maintained in SBI, Vasant Kunj from 27/10/1995 to 25/8/2000.
11 Interest earned towards Account 10,257.24 10,257.24 10,257/-
No.52310044959 in the name of R.S. Sehrawat during the check period was Rs122.24 and the interest towards the F.D. Account No.52330029351 during the check period was Rs10,257.24.
12 Interest earned towards Account 37,705/- 37,705/- 37,705/-
No.3456, in the name of R.S. Sehrawat maintained in SBP, Mahipalpur from October 1990 to 25/8/2000.
13 Interest earned towards Account 14,582/- 14,582/- 14,582/-
No.6446 in the name of R.S. Sehrawat maintained in PNB, Vasant Kunj till 25/8/2000.
CC No. 23/13 Page No. 104 of 166CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 14 Interest earned towards Account 16,437/- 16,437/- 16,437/-
No.14678 in the name of Urmil Sehrawat maintained in PNB, Mehrauli till 25/8/2000.
15 Interest earned towards Account 22,350/- 22,350/- 22,350/-
No.390 in the name of R.S. Sehrawat maintained in Corporation Bank Vasant Kunj till 25/8/2000.
16 Interest earned towards Account 22,085/- 22,085/- 22,085/-
No.11261 in the name of M/s R.S. Sehrawat and Sons (HUF), maintained in Corporation Bank, Karol Bagh till 25/8/2000.
17 Sale of Flat No.102, Surya NIL NIL NILMansion No.1, Kaushalya Park, Hauz Khas, New Delhi:-
This property, purchased by Urmil Sehrawat from Smt. Sapna Gupta and Babita Gupta for a total consideration of Rs3,60,000/- in the year 1993, was sold in favour of Sh.
Vijender Solanki, r/o WZ306, Palam Village, New Delhi for a total consideration of Rs 3,60,000/- vide Agreement to sell dated 18/3/1996.18 Sale of Flat No.9535, Category NIL NIL NIL
III, Pkt. 9, Sector C, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi:-
This property which was purchased by accused R.s.
Sehrawat from one Sh. SuNIL
Kumar on 25/41996 for
CC No. 23/13 Page No. 105 of 166
CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017
Rs10,00,000/- was sold in favour of Sh. Manmohan Singh of M/s New Age Hotels (Pvt.) Ltd. for a total consideration of Rs 10 lacs in September, 1996.
19 Sale of Flat No.A-1/363, 70,000 70,000 70,000 Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-63:-
This flat purchased by accused R.S. Sehrawat in August 1999 in his own name of his HUF firm for Rs 7,00,000/- from one Sh. Mukesh Mehta in August, 99. For this purchase one cheque of Rs 3,75,000/- was issued by accused H.S. Sehrawat.
However, similar cash amount was credited in the account of accused H.S. Sehrawat just three days back. This flat was sold by him in favour of Sh. R.C. Maggo and Smt. Veena Maggo vide two separate sale deeds amounting to Rs 4,10,000/- each on 18th October, 1999 i.e. for a total consideration of Rs 8,20,000/-. Instruments of Rs4,10,000/- was deposited by accused R.S. Sehrawat in his Savings Bank account in Corporation Bank, Vasant Kunj and the cheque of Rs 3,10,000/- out of remaining proceed of Rs 4,10,000/- from the other sale deed was deposited by accused R.S. Sehrawat in his HUF account in PNB, Nangal Dewat bearing No.3895. Though at the time of purchase of this flat, one cheque of Rs 3,75,000/- was issued by H.S. Sehrawat, CC No. 23/13 Page No. 106 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 father of accused but all the sale proceeds were taken by accused only. The difference of the purchase and sale is being taken towards the income.
Version of the accused The accused persons are not challenging the amount of Rs70,000/- which has been considered towards the income but is aggrieved by the false allegations levied by the prosecution on them The correct facts are as follows:-
i. Late Sh. H.S. Sehrawat was having cash in hand with him which he reflected in his Income Tax in the A.Y. 1999- 2000, (Kindly See Ex.PW-77/D-22 (colly) (Part G, Page 60-64).
ii. Late Sh. H.S. Sehrawat gave a loan of Rs.3,75,000/- to M/s R.S. Sehrawat and Sons (HUF) on 10/08/1999 (Kindly see the ITR for A.Y. 2000-2001, which is Ex.PW-77/D-23 (colly) (Part G, Page 65-68).
iii. The said loan was also shown by M/s R.S. Sehrawat &Sons (HUF) in their Income Tax Deptt.CC No. 23/13 Page No. 107 of 166
CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 in the ITR for the A.Y. 2000-2001 (Kindly see Ex.PW-77/D-31(colly) (Part G, Page 140-146).
The income tax returns were filed in a regular manner much before the raid and the registration of the case. The entire transactions were brought to the notice of the concerned Government agency and therefore the allegations are patently false and erroneous.
My view
I accept the amount of
Rs.70,000/- as income.
20 Rent from M/s Onida Finance 2,45,000/- 2,45,000/- 2,45,000/-
Ltd.
M/s Onida Finance Ltd.
st
remained in 1 Floor of B-1,
Arjun Nagar, New Delhi on rent from June 1998 to December 1998. Two rent agreements are in the name of R.S. Sehrawat and other in the name of M/s R.S. Sehrawat and Sons (HUF) were executed for a rent of Rs 17,500/- p.m. against each rent agreement. Therefore, Rs 35,000/- p.m. were earned by the accused from the above mentioned party for a period of 7 months and in all accused received Rs2,45,000/-by way of cheques. These cheques were made in favour of R.S. Sehrawat and M/s R.S. Sehrawat & Son (HUF). This income has CC No. 23/13 Page No. 108 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 not been intimated by the accused to his department.
21 Rent from M/s Haryana 2,48,706/- 2,48,706/- 2,48,706/-
Petrochemicals in R/o 102, Surya Mansion No.1, Kaushalya Park, Hauz Khas, New Delhi.
22 Rent from M/s Sprint Capital 4,50,000/- 4,50,000/- 4,50,000/-
Management Ltd.:-
On the scrutiny of the Statement of account of Sh. R.S. Sehrawat of A/c No.390, maintained with Corporation Bank, Vasant Kunj, revealed that he has received 10 cheques for a amount of Rs 45,000/- each from Centurion Bank, NOIDA. On being enquired M/s Centurion Bank informed that M/s Sprint Capital Management Ltd. having its account No.CA-0015-442100- 001 had issued these cheques in favour of R.S. Sehrawat and this account was debited by such amounts. Sh. D.P. Srivastava, the authorized signatory of the said firm, could not be traced at the two addresses furnished by the bank. No such ifrm was found functioning on the given addresses. On confirming, the accused R.S. Sehrawat informed that the said firm was in possession of part of 1-B, Arjun Nagar as his tenants and the said money which was credited in his bank account No. 390 in Corporation Bank, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. as per this bank CC No. 23/13 Page No. 109 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 account, the accused received a total consideration of Rs 4,50,000/- as rent from the said company.
23 Rent received from M/s Oasis 2,91,720/- 2,91,720/- 2,91,720/-
Software (Pvt.) Ltd. for:-
M/s Oasis Software (Pvt.) Ltd. remained on rent in premises NO. 1-B, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi (first floor) during the period 16/3/2000 to 25/08/2000.
24 Income from M/s D.K. V. Chit 17,805/- 17,805/- 17,805/-
Fund (P) ltd.
25 Income from sale of flat 11,000/- 11,000/- 11,000/-
No.6133/5, 2nd Floor, Category II, Secotr D, Pocket 6, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.
26. Sale of gold jewellery in favour NIL Total 2,50,000/- of M/s New Alankar Jewelers amount of 20,07,953/-
and M/s Mudgal Jewelers and (bifurca-
M/s Raja Jewelers:- tions
below)
During the scrutiny of the bank accounts and seized vouchers, it has been revealed that the accused persons and their dependent children, alongwith his HUF firm, had received Rs 19,47,759/- by way of cheque from M/s Mudgil Jewelers, M/s New Alankar Jewelers and M/s Raja Jewelers against the sale of jewelery.
Accused Urmil Sehrawat &
CC No. 23/13 Page No. 110 of 166
CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017
accused R.S. Sehrawat were
given all opportunity to produce evidence regarding the source of procurement of above mentioned jewelery through their legitimate source of income, but they claimed that the jewelery items worth Rs 19,47,759/- were gifted to them and their family members by their relatives and friends on various occasions. On being specifically asked to furnish the names and particulars of those friends and relatives, the accused R.S. Sehrawat could not provide the same. Moreover, he and the co-accused did not intimate about the receipt of gifts of jewelery items and sale thereof to their respective departments.
Since there is no documentary as well as oral evidence with the accused person to support their claim for the jewelry as being gifted by relatives and friends, the benefit of this income, which comes to Rs 19,47,759/-, is not being given to the accused persons.
Version of the Accused Persons The allegations of the CBI that the income accrued on the sale of jewellery could not be given be extended to the accused is based on surmises and conjectures.
The CBI is also not correct in CC No. 23/13 Page No. 111 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 alleging that no intimation of the sale of jewelery was made to the concerned departments by the accused persons is also not borne out from the record of the case. Intimation to the respective departments:
(1) It is stated that the acquisition of above-
said jewelry by
accused, R.S
Sehrawat has been
declared in his
department vide
intimation dated
09/04/1990 which is
Ex.DW-3/8, placed at
page 66 of defence
document.
(2) It is stated that sale of
above-said jewelry
was intimated by
accused R.S.
Sehrawat in his 45,125/-
department vide
intimation No.
ZEB/CZ/98/ 6790
dated 03/08/1998
placed on page 21-25
of the documents
which is a part of
Ex.DW-3/8 (Colly)
and the same is
confirmed by DW-3,
Sh. Manoj Kumar.
(3) Accused Urmil
Sehrawat had
informed her
CC No. 23/13 Page No. 112 of 166
CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017
department about the
sale of the jewelery
vide letter intimation
dated 19/02/1998 at
Pg 316-318 of the
defence documents
which is a part of
Ex.DW-2/5 (Colly)
and the same is
confirmed by DW-
2/Sh. Manjeet Singh.
Intimation given to the Income Tax Authorities:
It is submitted that the above- said jewelry is shown in the Income Tax Return of accused R.S. Sehrawat in his ITR for the A.Y. 1991-92, which is Ex.PW- 77/D-33, (colly), placed at page 02 to 07.
It is also submitted that the sale of above-said jewelry is shown in the income tax return of R.S. Sehrawat for the A.Y. 1998-99, which is Ex.PW-77/D-40 (colly), page-35 to 40.
It is submitted that the above- said jewelry is shown in the Income Tax Return of accused Urmil Sehrawat in her ITR for the A.Y. 1991-92, which is Ex.PW-77/D-3, (colly), Part E placed at page 58-61.
4,85,301/-
It is also submitted that the sale of above-said jewelry is shown in the income tax return of Urmil CC No. 23/13 Page No. 113 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 Sehrawat for the A.Y. 1998-99, which is Ex.PW-77/D-10 (colly), Part E page-93 to 97.
It is submitted that the above- said jewelry is shown in the Income Tax Return of M/s R.S. Sehrawat & Sons (HUF) in the ITR for the A.Y. 1993-94 which is Ex.PW-77/D-25 (colly), Part G of Court Record placed at page 95 to 102.
It is also submitted that the sale of above-said jewelry is shown in the income tax return of M/s R.S. NIL Sehrawat & Sons (HUF) in the ITR for the A.Y. 1998-99 which is Ex.PW-77/D-30 (colly), Part G of Court Record placed at page 125 to 132.
Jewellery sold by accused
Urmil Sehrawat
On 17/11/1992, the jewelry
amounting to Rs 45,125/- was sold to M/s Surbee Jewelers vide Bill No.0024 dated 18/11/1992, (Ex.DW-28/3) placed at Page no.860 of Defence Documents.
A cheque No.938993 dated 19/11/92, drawn on PNB, Karol Bagh amounting to Rs 45,125/- was issued by the jeweler which is Ex.DW-28/4 and is placed at Page -861 of the Defence Document which is proved by DW-28, Sh. Vishu Bhatia. The CC No. 23/13 Page No. 114 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 cheque was duly credited in the account of Urmil Sehrawat on 24/11/1992, which is reflected in the account No.2294, maintained at PNB, Nangal Devat forming part of D-75, at back-side of page
796. DW 28 appeared in the witness box and confirmed that his late father had issued the cheques and the original bill of sale of jewelery. He identified the signatures of his father. In the cross-examination the Ld. Prosecutor gave this witness a suggestion that the cheques and bills were issued by his father after the registration of the case on the asking of the accused persons.
The aforesaid suggestion falls to the ground as the same is contrary to the documents filed by the CBI itself notably document no. D-75 at backside of page 796 wherein the amount of 45,125 was duly credited in the account of Urmil Sehrawat on 24/11/1992, whereas, the present case was registered in the year 2000.
On 7/02/1998, the jewelry amounting to Rs 4,85,301/- was sold to M/s Mudgal Jewelers, Karol Bagh, vide Bill No.0316 dated 07/02/1998, (Ex.DW-
22/A), placed at Page no.852 of Defence Documents.
CC No. 23/13 Page No. 115 of 166CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 25,075/-
The money was received vide cheque No.844205, dated 11/02/98, drawn on State Bank of India, Karol Bagh amounting to Rs 4,85,301/- which is Ex.DW- 22/A and is placed Page -853 of Defence Documents which is proved by DW-22, Sh. Raj Kumar Sharma.
The above-said money was duly credited in the account of Urmil Sehrawat on 12/02/1998, which is reflected in the account No.2294, maintained at PNB, Nangal Devat forming the part of D-72, backside of page 735, which is part of CBI documents.
DW-22 Raj Kumar Sharma had appeared in the witness box and had proved the transaction. He had proved the original purchase vouchers and the copy of the cheques issued to Urmil Sehrawat. He also deposed that he had supplied all the documents to the CBI which 6,78,277/- were asked by it. He was given a suggestion by the Ld. Prosecutor that the amount mentioned in the Cheques were never debited, looses all its significance as the cheques which were so issued by PW22 were honored and the amount was duly credited in the account of Mrs Urmil Sehrawat much prior to the registration of the case.
CC No. 23/13 Page No. 116 of 166CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 The above-said jewelry is part of Istridhan of accused Urmil Sehrawat which she got from her parents, brothers, sisters, relatives, friends and in-laws from time to time. The same fact has been stated by her in her representation dated 10/09/2001, which is part of Exhibit PW80/DI placed on page 117 of part E of court record.
DW-16, is Sh. Hari Prakash Chhikara, who is the brother of accused Urmil Sehrawat. He deposed that at the time of marriage of accused Urmil Sehrawat and accused R.S. Sehrawat around 7 to 8 gold sets of jewelry and old diamond jewelry of her mother was given as Istridhan. Further at the time of birth of all three children of Urmil Sehrawat, he gave cloths 41,819/- and jewelry to her.
Ld. Defence Counsel argues that it is a well known fact and a judicial Notice of the same may be taken by the Hon'ble Court that in India daughters at the time of their marriage are gifted jewelery and other such articles by the parents and relatives and friends.
Jewelry sold by accused R.S. Sehrawat:
CC No. 23/13 Page No. 117 of 166CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 On 18/11/92, the jewelry amounting to Rs 25,075/- has been sold to M/s Surbee Jewelers vide Bill No.0024 dated 18/11/1992, which is now Ex.DW-28/2, placed at Page no.858of Defence Documents.
A cheque No.938993 dated 38,092/- 19/11/1992, drawn on PNB, Karol Bagh for amounting to Rs 25,075/- was issued which is Ex.DW-28/1and is placed Page 859 of Defence Document which is confirmed by DW-28 Sh.
Vishu Bhatia.
The above-said money was duly credited in the account of R.S. Sehrawat on 20/11/1992 which is reflected in the account No.3456, maintained at State Bank of Patiala, Mahipal Pur, forming the part of D-38, Page 488.
On 06/02/1998, the jewelry amounting to Rs 6,78,277/- has been sold to M/s Mudgal Jewelers vide Bill No.0315 dated 06/02/1998, which is now Ex.DW-22/E placed at Page no.856 of Defence Documents.
A cheque No.844204 dated 48,500/- 10/02/1998, drawn on SBI, Karol Bagh for amounting to Rs 6,78,277/- was issued which is Ex.DW-22/F and is placed Page 857 of DefencDocument which is confirmed by DW-22Sh.Raj Kumar Sharma.
CC No. 23/13 Page No. 118 of 166CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 The above-said money was duly credited in the account of R.S. Sehrawat on 11/02/1998 which is reflected in the account No.3456 maintained at State Bank of Patiala, Mahipalpur, Delhi forming the part of D-38, Page
491. Jewellery sold by Vipul Sehrawat & Naina Sehrawat:
Vipul & Naina Sehrawat are children of accused persons. It has come in the evidence of DW- 16 that gold was gifted to the children at the time of their birth. Please See evidence recorded on 20.02.2016 @ Page 3.
On 31/05/1995, the jewelry amounting to Rs 41,819/- has 51,000/-
been sold to M/s New Alankar Jewelers vide Bill No.24 dated 31/05/1995, which is now Ex.DW-23/1, placed at Page no.862 of Defence Documents.
A cheque No.267687 dated 31/05/1995, drawn on Bank of Rajasthan Ltd., Karol Bagh for amounting to Rs 41,819/- was issued which is Ex.DW-23/2, and is placed Page 863, of Defence Document which is confirmed by DW-23, Sh.Sarvesh Khandalwal.
The above-said money was duly credited in the account of Vipul Sehrawat on 06/06/1995 which is CC No. 23/13 Page No. 119 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 reflected in the account No.3555, maintained at PNB, Nangal Devat forming the part of D-72, Page 741.
On 31/05/1995, the jewelry amounting to Rs 38,092/- has been sold to M/s New Alankar Jewelers vide Bill No.25 dated 31/05/1995, which is now Ex.DW-23/3 placed at Page no.864 of Defence Document.
A cheque No.267688 dated 31/05/1995, drawn on the Bank of Rajasthan, Karol Bagh for 5,94,764/- amounting to Rs 38,092/- was issued which is Ex.DW-23/4 and is placed Page 865 of Defence Document which is confirmed by DW-23 Sh.Sarvesh Khandelwal.
The above-said money was duly credited in the account of Naina Sehrawat on 06/06/1995, which is reflected in the account No. 3556, maintained at PNB, Nangal Devat forming the part of D-72, Page 742.
Jewellery sold by M/s R.S. Sehrawat & Sons (HUF) On 13/07/1993, the jewelry amounting to Rs 48,500/- was sold to M/s Raja Jewelers, A-8, Ring Road, South Extension Part-I, vide Bill No.15 dated 13/071993, which is now Ex.DW-21/A, placed at Page no.866, of Defence Documents.
CC No. 23/13 Page No. 120 of 166CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 A cheque No.085951 dated 13/07/1993, drawn on OBC, Karol Bagh for amounting to Rs 48,500/-was issued which is Ex.DW-22/B and is placed Page 867 of Defence Documents which is confirmed by DW-21, Sh.K.K. Khanna.
The above-said money was duly credited in the account of M/s R.S. Sehrawat & Sons (HUF) on 21/07/1993 which is reflected in the account No.11261 maintained at Corporation Bank, Karol Bagh, New Delhi forming the part of D-56, Page 656.
On 14/07/1993, the jewelry amounting to Rs 51,000/- was sold to M/s Raja Jewelers, A-8, Ring Road, South Extension Part-I, vide Bill No.16 dated 14/07/1993, which is now Ex.DW-21/C placed at Page no.868 of Defence Document.
A cheque No.085952 dated 14/07/1993, drawn on OBC, Karol Bagh for amounting to Rs 51,000/-was issued which is Ex.DW-21/D and is placed Page 869 of Defence Document which is confirmed by DW-21 Sh.K.K.Khanna.
The testimony of DW21 reveals that he not only stood by the entire transaction but also deposed that all the certified CC No. 23/13 Page No. 121 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 copies of cash book, ledger etc were handed over to the CBI.
The above-said money was duly credited in the account of M/s R.S. Sehrawat & Sons (HUF) on 21/07/1993 which is reflected in the account No.11261, maintained at Corporation Bank, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, forming the part of D-56, Page 659.
On 07.03.1998 the jewelry amounting to Rs 5,94,764/- was sold to M/s Mudgal Jewelers, Karol Bagh, vide Bill No.0329 dated 07/03/1998 which is now Ex.Dw-22/C placed at Page no.854 of Defence Documents.
A cheque No.844225 dated 12/03/1998 drawn on SBI, Karol Bagh for amounting to Rs 5,94,764/- was issued which is Ex.DW-22/D and is placed Page 855 of Defence Document which is confirmed by DW-22 Sh. Raj Kumar Sharma.
The above-said money was duly credited in the account of M/s R.S. Sehrawat & Sons (HUF) on 08/03/98 which is reflected in the account No.11261 maintained at Corporation Bank, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, forming the part of D-56, Page 659.
Prosecution Version Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor argues that the maximum CC No. 23/13 Page No. 122 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 jewellery has been shown to M/s Mudgal Jewellers, whose proprietor Raj Kumar Sharma was examined by defence as DW-22. In cross-examination he admitted that he was convicted in a case by Ld. Predecessor of this very court under Sections 120B/420/467/471 IPC. The criminal precedents of witness are such that he has been involved in the offence of cheating and forgery. To believe such a witness would be hazardous. It is strange that jewellery of amount of Rs.17,58,342/- was sold to this witness by A-1 and A-2. It is argued that this witness must not be relied upon.
My view The property return dated 09.03.1990, Ex.DW3/8 (page
129) of A-1 shows the declaration of jewellery worth Rs.3,10,000/- from inheritence and marriage. It does not make clear as to whether it includes the jewellery of his wife. However, A-2 has not furnished the property returns to her department showing the acquisition of jewellery on account of her marriage. In such a situation, a reasonable view can be taken that the jewellery worth Rs.3,10,000/- shown by A-1 received by inheritence and marriage, in his property returns dated 09.03.1990 include the CC No. 23/13 Page No. 123 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 istridhan/ jewellery of his wife.
In the property return filed by A1 for the year ending on 31.03.2000, he has shown no jewellery in his property return. It means he had sold all his jewellery.
I have already discussed that for sake of convenience in calculation of items, where-ever the value has been assigned by defence to an amount of Rs.51,000/- or below, I would accept the same irrespective of the objections of Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor. Therefore, I calculate the value of sale of jewellery of smaller amounts i.e. Rs.51,000/- or below irrespective of the objections of the prosecution. Accordingly, I accept the income from the sale of jewellery for an amount of Rs.45,125/- + 25,075/- + 41,819/- + 38,092/- + 48,500/- + 51,000/- = 2,49,611/-. I take to be a round off figure of Rs.2,50,000/- as income of the accused.
Here, I may point out that the jewellery of Rs.6,78,277/-, Rs.5,94,764/- and Rs.4,85,301/-, all have been shown to have been sold to M/s Mudgal Jewellers in the year 1998. This is the area where I would like to focus my attention. This is completely disproportionate to the jewellery CC No. 23/13 Page No. 124 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 declared by A-1 in his property return. I have already discussed that the accused persons have been unab le to satisfactorily explain as to from which source this huge jewellery accrued to them. In such a situation, these amounts cannot be accepted as lawful income.
27 Sale of Flat No.6089, B-8, 1,00,000/- 1,00,000/- 1,00,000/-
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.
This flat was sold by the accused to one Smt. Anjali Sehgal for a consideration of Rs 6,00,000/- vide agreement to sale and purchase dated 13/05/1997.
Whereas the same was purchased by accused R.S. Sehrawat for Rs.5 lacs from Sh. Ajit Kr. in January 1997. The difference in purchase and sale is being taken towards in case.
28 Sale of Agricultural land in 10,000/- 10,000/- 10,000/-
Village Mehrauli This agricultural land measuring 1 bigha and 2 biswa in Khasra No.38 illa No. 13, situated in village Mehrauli was sold in favour of Usha Sharma, through her attorney Sh. D.K. Gupta for an amount of Rs 1,10,000/- vide sale deed No. 7 dated 18/03/1997.
Whereas the same land was purchased by accused Urmil Sehrawat from sh. Pawan Kumar CC No. 23/13 Page No. 125 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 Aggarwal for a total consideration of Rs One lac in May 1994. The difference in purchased and sale value is being taken towards in case.
29 Sale of Plot No.B-208, Palam 7,000/- 7,000/- 7,000/-
Extension, Sector-7, Dwarka, New Delhi:
Accused R.S. Sehrawat has sold Plot No. B-208, Palam Extension, Sector-7, Dwarka to Sh. Jawahar Singh Dhaka in April 1999 vide GPA duly registered in Sub- Registrar Office of Janak Puri for a consideration of Rs 1,55,000/- While the same was purchased by him for Rs 1,48,000.00.
30 Profit from sale of Flat No.A-17, 40,000/- 40,000/- 40,000/-
JNG House, Tagore Market, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi to Smt. Sapna Gupta and Smt. Babita Gupta in 1994.
31 Sale of Agricultural land in 1,20,000/- 1,20,000/- 1,20,000/-
Village Bijwasan Mehrauli:-
Sh. R.S. Sehrawat has sold the agricultural land measuring 4 bighas and 16 biswas to Sh.
Nand Lal Kothari in February, 1995 for the total amount of Rs 5,00,000/- while he had purchased this land in the name of M/s R.S. Sehrawat & Sons in August 1994 from Sh. Vinod Chapra for Rs3,80,000/-.
Therefore, the difference is being taken towards the income.CC No. 23/13 Page No. 126 of 166
CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 As per CBI: Rs.31,13,477.00 As per accused: Rs.65,21,429.00 As dertermined by this court : Rs.33,63,476.00 The income determined prior to the check period : Rs.47,647 Total income :34,11,123/- To make it round fingure and to take a more liberal view, I take the total income as : Rs.35,00,000-
E. EXPENDITURE DURING THE CHECK PERIOD
S. Particulars of Expenditure Amount as Amount Value
No per As per Determi-
. Charge- actual ned by this
sheet (in Rs.) court
(in Rs.)
1 Rent of locker maintained in PNB, 4,090/- 4,090/- 4,090/-
Vasant Vihar bearing No.680.
2 The transfer duty and composing fees 55,255/- NIL Nil for transfer of owner ship for the flat No. D-4/4123, Vasant Kunj.
Version of the Accused As already explained under the heading immovable assets at serial no. 20, page 5 of the charge-sheet, the flat at Vasant Kunj was the self acquired property of the deceased Hanmat Singh Sehrawat. The CBI has failed to prove the allegation of Benami. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 55,255/- ought to have been deducted and deleted from the charge-sheet against the name of the present accused.
My View I agree with the submissions of Ld. Defence counsel.
3 Stamp duty paid in R/o Flat No. A- 60,000/- 60,000/- 60,000/-
CC No. 23/13 Page No. 127 of 166CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 1/363, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-63 in the name of Sh. R.S. Sehrawat.
4 Expenditure made in the name of 15,00,000 NIL 15,00,000/-
Vinod Singh:-
Accused R.S. Sehrawat had issued cheque No. 939107 in June 1997 for Rs 6,00,000/- and cheque No. 939111 in Nov. 1997 for Rs 4,00,000/- in favour of Vinod Singh. These cheques were deposited and credited in account number 3280, State Bank of Patiala, Bamnoli and 456, State Bank of Maysore, Najafgarh.
In addition to these two cheques bearing numbers 43056 and 43057 for an amount of Rs 2,60,000/- and 2,40,000/- were issued by accused R.S. Sehrawat in March 2000 from account No.390, Corporation Bank, Vasant Kunj, in favour of one Sh. Yash Pal Singh, Brother in Law of Vinod Singh said two cheques issued in his name were received and the amount was withdrawn by Smt. Lata Lochev, W/o Sh. Vinod Singh.
The transaction were neither intimated by accused R.S. Sehrawat to his department nor he could produce any documentary evidence as to why he had given Rs 15 lacs to Sh. Vinod Singh. Therefore an amount of Rs 15 lacs is being taken towards the expenditure.
Version of the Accused
The accused proved the said
CC No. 23/13 Page No. 128 of 166
CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017
transaction in the following manner:-
DW-27, Mr. Vinod Singh, appeared in the witness box pursuant to the summons seved upon him and his deposition leads to the following conclusion:-
There was a property transaction in between Sh. Vinod Singh, Yashpal Singh and accused R.S. Sehrawat in respect of property bearing No.B-1, 1st Floor, Arjun Nagar, for a total consideration of Rs 22 lacs.
A receipt cum Agreement dated 26/11/1996 was executed between them, which has been exhibited as DW-24/3. The perusal of Ex.PW- 24/3, shows that accused R.S. Sehrawat received an amount of Rs 21 lacs out of Rs 22 lacs from Sh.
Vinod Singh. The same fact has been confirmed by DW-24 Sh. Sarjeet Kumar, JJA, Record Room, Tis Hazari Court (Session).
DW-27, Mr. Vinod Singh, has further deposed that the said deal could not materialize as R.S. Sehrawat demanded more money for the transaction. After much discussion, DW-27, Sh. Vinod Singh asked accused R.S. Sehrawat to refund his money. Accused, R.S. Sehrawat, thus issued a cheque No.939107, in June, 1997 for an amount of Rs.6 lacs and cheque No.939111, in November, 1999 for an amount of Rs.4 lacs in favour of Sh. Vinod Singh. Therefore, the Accused, R.S. Seherawat had CC No. 23/13 Page No. 129 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 returned a total amount of Rs. 10 Lacs to DW-27 till November, 1999. In addition to the aforesaid cheques, accused R.S. Sehrawat further issued two more cheques bearing No.43056 & 43057 amounting to Rs 2,60,000/- & Rs2,40,000/- respectively in March, 2000.
The submission of the Accused is that these transactions were well before the search conducted by the CBI which was in 25th August, 2000 and registration of the FIR.
Hence, refunding of the amount of Rs 15 lacs to Sh. Vinod Singh and Sh. Yashpal Singh was a fact which was completed prior to any action initiated by the CBI and thus cannot be suspected or termed as a camouflage to save the criminal charge. In orde to recover the balance amount of Rs 6 lacs both Vinod Singh and Yashpal Singh filed a Recovery Suit No.1667/2000, before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, for the recovery of an amount of Rs 9,50,000/-. The copy of the suit is exhibited as DW-24/1 and the fact of filing of the suit is proved by DW-24, Sh. Sarjeet Kumar.
Then later on, the case was transferred to Tis Hazari Court and was renumbered as 155/03.
The above suit was decreed and a judgment was passed by Sh. Gurdeep Kumar, ADJ (as he then was) on 12/11/2003 in favour of Sh. Vinod CC No. 23/13 Page No. 130 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 Singh and Yashpal Singh, which is Ex.DW-24/4. The Judgment and Decree have been exhibited as DW- 24/4.
Before the decree-holders could execute the decree, the parties entered into a settlement.
Thereafter, an application under order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, was filed which is Ex.DW-27/5. The Affidavit in support of the Application is Ex.DW-27/6.
The Hon'ble Court accepted the compromise application and recorded the payment of Rs 6 lacs as full and final settlement, which was paid vide cheque No.392609, dated 10/06/04, drawn on Andhra Bank, Dwarka. The order dated 11/06/04, is Ex.DW-27/7. This amount of Rs. 6 lacs which was refunded by the Accused No. 1 was a liability on him and needs to be deducted from his assets during the final calculations. The loans and liabilities can never be an asset.
Further, Sh. Vinod Singh deposed that he was summoned by CBI u/s 160 Cr.P.C. on 21/10/2002, the notice u/s 160 CrPC served upon him has been exhibited as is Ex.DW-27/1, the notice dated 25/04/2001 which is Ex.DW-27/2 and the notice dated 16/04/2001, which is Ex.DW-27/3 and the notice dated 27/03/2001, which is Ex.DW-27/4.
During enquiry by the CBI Sh. Vinod Singh gave the entire details of the CC No. 23/13 Page No. 131 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 transaction.
The Ld. Prosecutor, while conducting cross-examination, did not challenge the refund of the amount by Accused No.1 but gave the following suggestion:-
" It is incorrect to suggest that the cheque for an amount of Rs 6 lacs, R. 4 lacs, Rs 2.60 lacs and Rs 2.40 lacs were issued to me by R.S Sehrawat to discharge his some other legal liabilities and were not paid towards cancellation of any property deal"
Thus the amount of Rs 15 lacs is to be excluded from expenditure and a benefit of Rs 6 lacs is to be given to the accused while deducting his assets. This is because of the fact that accused received Rs 20 lacs during check period and returned only Rs 15 lacs during check period.
The allegation o the CBI in the Charge-sheet that this transaction was never intimated by the Accused R.S. Sehrawat to his department is not correct as the accused R.S. Sehrawat intimated his department regarding these transactions. Kindly see Ex.DW-3/8 (colly) at Page 14 of defence document.
This transaction was also declared in the Income Tax Deapartment by accused R.S. Sehrawat. Kindly See ITR of A.Y. 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999- CC No. 23/13 Page No. 132 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 00, which are Ex. PW-77/D-39, PW- 77/D-40 & PW-77/D-41 (colly) and PW-77/D-42, running from pages 30 to 52.
IO, Mr. ANIL Kumar singh, in his cross examination dated 26/10/15, at page-1, has admitted that he had examined Mr. Vinod Singh. Hence, it is incorrect on the part of the prosecution to allege that neither any intimation by accused R.S. Sehrawat was given to his department nor he could produce any documentary evidence.
My View I disagree with the submissions of Ld. Defence counsel that the suit was filed in the year 2000 prior to the raid. Perusal of the copy of plaint of civil suit (Ex.DW24/1), which was filed by Vinod Singh (DW-27) in High Court of Delhi, shows that it was filed on 30.10.2002 i.e. after the search. As per Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor, this civil suit was collusive in nature and was filed with a view to create a defence for the trial. Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the fact that it was an exparte decree passed by Ld. ADJ on 12.11.2003. Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor has pointed out that the plaint of suit of recovery for Rs.9,50,000/- is Ex.DW24/1 and it was filed in the year 2002. The judgement dated 12.11.2003 Ex.DW24/4 shows that Vinod Singh and Yashpal Singh are the plaintiffs and accused R. S. Sehrawat was CC No. 23/13 Page No. 133 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 defendant. Ld. Defence counsel has pointed out that in para 2 of the judgment it is specifically mentioned that defendant was served with the summons on 09.01.2003 and defendant had appeared in person on 21.08.2003. Thereafter, he did not file the written statement within the requisite period, which led to decretal of the suit under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC.
Thereafter, an execution was filed by the decree-holders and on 11.06.2004, an application Ex.DW27/5 was moved by both the parties under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC, in which a settlement was filed mentioning that JD (i.e. A-1) has paid a sum of Rs.6 lacs through cheque to DH and matter was settled accordingly.
Ld.Senior Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to receipt cum- agreement filed by accused which is Ex.DW24/3, which shows that a total amount of Rs.21 lacs in installments was received by A-1 in cash as a token money for sale of his property bearing no. 1-B, First Floor, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi. Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor submits that accused did not give any intimation to his department about this receipt of amount. Moreover, even after search, Vinod Singh did not give these receipts to the Investigating Officer. Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor submits that in his cross-examination PW-24 admits that he was called by CC No. 23/13 Page No. 134 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 Investigating Officer for 27.03.2001, 16.04.2001, 25.04.2001 and 21.10.2002. It is argued by Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor that he did not produce these receipts to Investigating Officer, though the same were very much available with him till September 2002, when he filed the suit for recovery.
I have carefully gone through the hand written receipt on a plain paper which is Ex.DW24/3. It shows that A-1 was receiving Rs.5 lacs in cash on 16.12.1996, Rs.4 lacs in cash on 06.02.1997, Rs.2.5 lacs in cash on 09.03.1997, Rs.3.5 lacs on 16.03.1997 and Rs.1,00,000/- in cach on 08.05.1997. Such huge amounts in cash are being accepted by R.S. Sehrawat in cash on a receipt of plain paper in the year 1996 and 1997 and DW-27 files a recovery suit in the year 2002 i.e. beyond limitation period of three years, itself is a fraud being played upon the judicial institution and I fully agree that these documents are created and suit was filed solely with a view to create false defence in the present case. It is a highly suspicious situation that A-1 is receiving the money in cash but is refunding the money by cheques. Hence, the prosecution has rightly taken the aforesaid amount as expenditure.
5 Expenditure made in the name of 19,00,000/- NIL Nil Kulwanti Hooda and HLF:-
Scrutiny of the Bank Accounts of the CC No. 23/13 Page No. 135 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 Accused R.S. Sehrawat, Accused Urmil Sehrawat, Accused father H.S. Sehrawat revealed that following cheques were issued by them in the name of the following persons:-
S Particulars Issued by In Amount Bank . of cheque favour N and dates of o 1 331986 Urmil Kulw- 4,50,000 PNB, Dated Sehr- anti Nangal 10/7/1995 awat Hooda Devat 2 541691 R.S. -do- 4,50,000 Corpo.
Dated Sehr- Bank,
10/7/1995 awat Karol
& Sons Bagh
(HUF)
3 274681 R.S. HLF 4,50,000 Corpn.
Dated Sehr- Enter- Bank,
2/1/1998 awat prises Vasant
Pvt. Kunj
Ltd.
4 9564 H.S. -do- 2,60,000 Central
Dated Sehr- Bank,
11/4/2000 awat Nangal
Devat
5 9565 -do- -do- 2,40,000 -do-
Dated
11/4/2000
6 9566 H.S. -do- 4,00,000 Central
Dated Sehr- Bank
16/6/2000 awat Nangal
Devat
7 939103 R.S. M/s 5,00,000 SBI,
Dated Sehr- Rishi Vasant
17/4/1997 awat Econ- Kunj
omics
Agricult
ure &
Dairy
Fams
Pvt.
Ltd.
8 323929 R.S. Bal 3,50,000 State
Dated Sehrawat Kishan Bank of
10/7/1995 Sharma Patiala
9 Cash Vipul Bal 3,50,000 PNB,
order Sehrawat Kishan Nangal
10/7/1995 Sharma Dewat
The details of the money, returned to Sh. R.S. Sehrawat and his family members are as follows:-
S Particulars Issued by In favour of Amount l. of cheque N and dates o 1 Account Kulwanti R.S. 4,50,000/-
4661, Hooda Sehrawat 4,50,000/-
OBC, SJE, Urmil
dated Sehrawat
1/11/1995.
2 345192, HLF Raja Som 50,000/-
345193 Enterprises Sehrawat each (total
and Pvt. Ltd. 1,50,000/-
CC No. 23/13 Page No. 136 of 166
CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017
345194 )
dated
10/4/1997
3 357251 -do- H.S. 9,00,000/-
dated Sehrawat
9/7/2001
4 Account -do- -do- 50,000/-
No.1520
che.
342927
dated
10/6/1997
5 Cheque -do- -do- 50,000/-
Nos. each (total
342980, Rs.2,00,0
342981, 00)
342982
and
342983
dated
24/9/1997
6 Dated -do- Raja Four cheq
12/3/1997 Sehrawat of
Rs50,000
each total
(2,00,000)
Sh. H.S. Sehrawat has invested Rs 9 lacs from his Central Bank of India, Nangal Devat account and each time cash amount of similar denomination was deposited in his account just few days before issuing of these cheques. Since there is a difference of 19 lacs of rupees in the cheques issued by H.S. Sehrawat, R.S. Sehrawat, Urmil Sehrawat and Vipul Sehrawat in favour of Smt. Kulwanti Hooda, Sh. Bal Kishan Sharma, M/s HLF Enterprises and M/s Rishi Economics Agriculture and Dairy. Farms Pvt. Ltd. and the cheques received back by them therefore the amount of Rs 19 lacs as non-refunded amount to accused persons has been taken as expenditure incurred by the accused persons.
Version of the Accused:
The prosecution has falsely alleged CC No. 23/13 Page No. 137 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 that accused persons made an expenditure of Rs 19 lacs by making payment to Kulwanti Huda and HLF Enterprises etc. The accused persons have explained the said entries by producing DW-26, Sh. Raj Singh Gehlot. He deposed to the following effect:-
i. CBI called him at the time of investigation.
ii. He was served 10 notices on different dates to appear before IO. The same were Ex.DW-26/1 to DW-26/10.
iii. He gave his statement and
submitted his documents to
CBI. These documents
explained the entire financial transaction with the accused persons. The said information was also supplied to CBI through registered post, which is Ex.DW-26/11 and the receipt of the same is Ex.DW-26/12.
iv. The said witness has forwarded the documents to the I.O. vide his letter dated 18/11/2002, containing Annexures A to E which were exhibited as Ex.DW-26/13.
The said Exhibits contain the following:-
Annexure-A The first exhibit contains the details CC No. 23/13 Page No. 138 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 of the payment made by A-2, Urmil Sehrawat and A-1 R.S. Sehrawat to Smt. Kulwanti Huda. The accused persons gave her Rs 9 lacs as earnest money on 10/07/1995, vide their respective cheque against 1st floor of property at E-22, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. The said agreement could not be materialized and the said amount of Rs 9 lacs was returned by Smt. Kulwanti Huda on 1/11/1995, vide two different cheques of Rs 4.50 lacs in each in the name of respective accused persons.
Annexure-B The 2nd exhibit contains the details of transaction between HLF Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Accused A-1, R.S. Sehrawat. HLF Enterprises gave Rs 4 lacs as earnest money vide 8 different cheques between 8/1/1997 to 10/4/1997. The said transaction was in respect of a flat situated at Dwarka owned by accused R.S. Sehrawat. The said transaction failed and consequently accused R.S. Sehrawat returned money of Rs 4 lacs to HLF Enterprises vide cheque No.274681, dated 1/1/1998.
Annexure-C The 3rd exhibit contains the details of transaction between late Sh. Hanmat Singh & H.L.F. Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.. Late Sh. Hanmat Singh gave Rs 9 lacs as an advance against booking of Flat No.I-109, in Ambiance Island, Gurgaon, vide 3 different cheques CC No. 23/13 Page No. 139 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 between 11/04/2000 to 18/06/2000.
The said transaction failed and could not be materialized and consequently HLF Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. refunded money of Rs. 9 lacs to Late Sh. H.S. Sehrawat vide cheque no.357251 dated 09/07/2001, drawn on OBC, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi.
Annexure-D The 4th exhibit contains details of transaction between accused R.S. Sehrawat and Rishi Economics Agriculture & Dairy Farms Pvt. Ltd. Accused R.S. Sehrawat gave Rs 5 lacs as an earnest money against purchase of Shop No.51, situated at New Sabzi Mandi, Okhla, New Delhi owned by Rishi Economics Agriculture & Dairy Farms Pvt. Ltd. The said transaction could not be materialized and failed consequently Rishi Economics Agriculture & Dairy Farms Pvt. Ltd. returned Rs 5 lacs on 21/06/2000 to accused R.S. Sehrawat.
R.S. Sehrawat duly informed and declared this transaction in his Income Tax Return of AY 1998-1999, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 which is exhibited as Ex.PW 77/D-40 (colly), Ex.PW 77/D-41 (colly) and Ex.PW 77/D-42 (colly) running from pages 35 to 52.
Annexure-E This exhibit contains the details of transaction between accused R.S. CC No. 23/13 Page No. 140 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 Sehrawat and Bal Kishan Sharma for sale of basement of E-22, Hauz Khas, New Delhi.
Accused R.S. Sehrawat paid Rs 7 lacs to Bal Kishan Sharma vide two cheques dated 9/7/1995 & 10/71995 for Rs 3.50 lacs each. The said amount was further transferred by Bal Kishan Sharma to one Capital & Finance Co. a firm controlled by Sh. Raj Singh Gehlot, DW-26. The said transaction could not materialize and DW-26, on behalf of Bal Kishan gave back Rs 7 lacs in cash to accused R.S. Sehrawat on 08/04/1996.
Thus, from the above it is manifest that there was no expenditure of Rs 19 lacs. A total transaction of Rs 34 lacs took place between accused persons and Kulwanti Huda and others. The entire transaction has been explained above and all the money has been returned back and no expenditure whatsoever was done by the accused persons.
It is very important to submit here that the CBI had called for all these documents during investigation from DW-26 Mr Raj Singh Gahlot but did not disclose to the court about the same. The necessary corollary to this is that the CBI investigated the matter in the line of what was reflected in the documents and failed to prove anything incriminating against the contents of the documents.
Other evidence to support the CC No. 23/13 Page No. 141 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 contention of the Accused is to the following effect:-
i. Wealth Tax Return of Late
H.S. Sehrawat
Please see Wealth Tax Assessment order for A.Y. 2000-01, which is Ex.PW-77/D-12 (Part G, page 5 to 9 of court record).
Please see Wealth Tax Assessment order for A.Y. 2001-02, which is Ex.PW-77/D-13 (Part G, page 10 to 14 of court record).
ii. ITR of Late H.S. Sehrawat Please see ITR for the A.Y. 2000-01, which is Ex.PW-77/D-23 (colly) Part G, Page 65 to 68 of court record.
Please see ITR for the A.Y. 2001-02, which is Ex.PW-77/D-24 (colly) Part G, Page 69 to 72 of court record.
iii. ITR of R.S. Sehrawat Please see ITR for the A.Y. 1997-98, which is Ex.PW-77/D-39 (colly) (Page 30 to 34).
Please see ITR for the A.Y. 1998-99, which is Ex.PW-77/D-40 (colly) (Page 35 to 40).
Please see ITR for the A.Y. 1999-00, which is Ex.PW-77/D-41 (colly) (Page 41 to 46).
CC No. 23/13 Page No. 142 of 166CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 Please see ITR for the A.Y. 2000-01, which is Ex.PW-77/D-42 (colly) (Page 47 to 52).
iv. Evidence of PW-79 IO, Sh. ANIL Kr. Singh in his cross examination recorded on 26/10/2015, at page-1 had categorically admitted that he had examined Raj Singh Gehlot of HLF Enterprise during the course of investigation, however, he intentionally ignored to answer all other relevant questions by deposing that he do not recollect.
It is submitted that prosecution initially concealed all the above-said documents from the Hon'ble Court to make out a false case against accused persons.
Prosecution Version The cheque of Rs.5 lacs at Sr. No. 7 is stated to have been returned but Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor submits that there is no evidence that this amount was returned due to failure of transaction.
My View I accept the view of defence as explained by him above.
6 Expenditure towards education of 2,07,307/- 2,07,307/- 2,07,307/-
children for DPS Vasant Kunj and Little Infants Montessori School.
7 Payments made towards the Citi 69,095/- 69,095/- 69,095/-
Bank Credit cards in the name of accused R.S. Sehrawat and payment CC No. 23/13 Page No. 143 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 made by him through cheques in the credit card of Sh. Suresh Sehrawat.
9 Payment made to M/s Intellec 750/- 750/- 750/-
Powertronix for maintain of Inverter 10 Payment made to 'Suniye' as 31,000/- 31,000/- 31,000/-
Donation 11 Payments towards telephone charges 20,420/- 10,210/- 10,210/-
12 Expenditure towards plot No.41, 99,800/- 99,800/- 99,800/-
Sector 10, Pappan Kala, Dwarka made for converting the plot from household to freehold in the name of Smt. Urmil Sehrawat.
13 Expenditure towards plot No.42, 1,07,800/ NIL NIL Dwarka, Sector 10, New Delhi for - converting for household to free hold in the name of Sh. H.S. Sehrawat.
Version of the Accused As already explained under the heading immovable assets at serial no. 23, page 5 of the charge-sheet, the aforesaid plot was the self acquired property of the deceased Hanmat Singh Sehrawat. The CBI has failed to prove the allegation of Benami. Therefore, the amount of Rs 1,07,800/- ought to have been deducted and deleted from the charge-sheet against the name of the present accused.
My view I accept the view of Ld. Defence Counsel. Reasons have already been stated.
CC No. 23/13 Page No. 144 of 166CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 14 Stamp Duty and transfer duty towards 55,800/- 55,800/- 55,800/-
agricultural land in village Bijwasan, Mehrauli.
15 Donation paid to Dr. D.K. Gupta 11,000/- 11,000/- 11,000/-
16 Expenditure towards catering paid to 5100/- 5100/- 5100/-
M/s KLS Caters.
17 Donation paid to Elders Home 1000/- 1000/- 1000/-
Society 18 Payment made to Chartered 8000/- 8000/- 8000/-
Accountant M/s Arun Virendra & Co.
19 Brokerage paid to Rajan Siddiqui, 35,000/- NIL Nil Property Dealer.
Version of the Accused As already explained under the heading immovable assets at serial no. 20, page 5 of the charge-sheet, the flat at Vasant Kunj was the self acquired property of the deceased Hanmat Singh Sehrawat. The CBI has failed to prove the allegation of Benami. Therefore, the amount of brokerage Rs 35,000/- ought to have been deducted and deleted from the charge-sheet against the name of the present accused.
Rajan Siddiqui appeared as PW-10 and was declared a hostile witness. On being cross-examined by the PP he deposed, "I do no remember the brokerage amount received by me. It may be CC No. 23/13 Page No. 145 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 that I received Rs. 10,000/- as brokerage."
This witness did not say that he receive any brokerage of Rs 35,000/- from the Accused R.S. Sehrawat. Even otherwise the Ld. Prosecutor instead of giving his a suggestion of having received Rs 35,000/- gave an incorrect suggestion of Rs 10,000/-. The whole case falls to the ground.
My View I fully agree with the submissions of Ld. Defence Counsel in view of the nature of evidence discussed above.
20 Donation paid to Delhi Tourism & 35,000/- 35,000/- 35,000/-
Transportation Development Corporation Ltd.
21 House Tax paid in respect of 1-B, 1,26,287/- 1,26,287/- 1,26,287/-
Arjun Nagar, New Delhi.
22 Stamp duty and the Corporation Tax 1,16,000/- 1,16,000/- 1,16,000/-
paid in respect of 1-B, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi.
23 Expenditure towards payment of 1,674/- 837/- 837/-
water charges.
Version of the Accused As DW-19, Suresh Sehrawat had deposed that he was contributing 50% of the expenses equally while living in Vasant kunj. Thus, the present deduction.
My view I accept the submissions of Ld. Defence Counsel.
CC No. 23/13 Page No. 146 of 166CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 24 Expenditure towards payment to 49,890/- 24,940/- 24,940/-
Delhi Vidyut Board charges.
Version of the Accused Same as above My view I accept view of Ld. Defence Counsel in view of testimony of DW-19.
25 Expenditure towards payment for 8,560/- 8,560/- 8,560/-
stamp duty for purchase of agricultural land in village Mehrauli 26 Stamp duty paid in respect of Flat 31,200/- 31,200/- 31,200/-
No.A-17, JNG House, Tagore Market, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi.
27 Non verifiable Kitchen Expenses as 2,27,154.41 1,13,577/- 2,27,154/-
33% of net salary of R.S. Sehrawat.
Version of the Accused Same as mentioned in item no.23.
Prosecution Version Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor submits that non-verifiable expenses had been taken as 1/3rd of the carry home salary of A-1 only and it is kitchen expenses of R.S. Sehrawat only and does not include the kitchen expenses of Suresh Sehrawat.
My View I agree with Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor because the prosecution has not taken 1/3rd of A-2 or Suresh Sehrawat (DW-19).
CC No. 23/13 Page No. 147 of 166CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 28 Holy Family Expenses for the birth of 12,233/- 12,233/- 12,233/-
the children.
29 Stamp duty paid towards purchase of 95,500/- 95,500/- 95,500/-
Agricultural Land in Village Bijwasan, Mehrauli.
As per CBI: Rs.48,74,915.00 As per accused: Rs.11,27,286.00 As determined by this court : Rs.27,76,023.00 To make it more favourable to accused and to make it a round figure, I take the expenditure at Rs.27,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Seven lacs).
D. THE INCOME WHICH IS NOT TAKEN BY THE CBI IN CHARGESHEET S. Description of Income Amt. as Amount Value No. per As per Determi-
Charge Actual ned by
sheet (in Rs.) this court
(In Rs.)
1 Rent received from the property: NIL 1,21,000/- 1,21,000/-
The CBI itself relies upon a fact that the ground floor of the property bearing No.A-17, (JNG House), Tagore Garden, Kirti Nagar, was purchased for Rs 3,50,000/- by R.S. Sehrawat and two sale deeds were executed on 4/08/1993 for Rs 1,75,000/- each. The documents are proved by the CBI as Ex.PW-78/A, which forms part of D94 from Page 1379 to 1386.
Since the above-said property was already on rent when it was purchased for a monthly rent of Rs 11,000/- to M/s Fountain Beverages. The same fact is CC No. 23/13 Page No. 148 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 confirmed by the above sale deed at Page No. 1384 of document D-94 @ Page 1379 to 1386. The abovesaid rent was received by way of cheque and the cheques were regularly deposited in A/c No.11261, with Corporation Bank, Karol Bagh, in the account of R.S. Sehrawat & Sons (HUF) which is D-68 from page710
- 719.
The above-said fact has also been established by PW-78, Sh. Devendra Gupta in his statement. Hence, a benefit of Rs 1,21,000/- may kindly be given to the accused. The said rent amount has been declared in ITR for the A.Y. 1994- 95 & 1995-96, which are Ex.PW-77/D- 26 & D-27, (colly) (Part G of Court Record pages 103 to 114).
It is worthwhile to mention here that CBI has included the profit earned on the sale of property at Sl.No.30 under the head income during the check period but has not given any benefit of this monthly income.
My View I accept the same in view of the aforesaid evidence.
2. Agricultural Income NIL 1,55,000/- 1,55,000/-
The prosecution has shown agriculture land in village Bijwasan in the name of M/s R.S. Sehrawat & Sons (HUF), at Sl. No.24, under the head of immovable assets.
But the prosecution has not given the benefit of Rs1,55,000/- to the accused CC No. 23/13 Page No. 149 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 R.S. Sehrawat towards the agricultural income.
The DW-15, Sh. Bimal Ray, the defence witness has proved Khasra Girdwari pertaining to the above-said agricultural land as Ex.DW-15/1 (colly). The said Khasra Girdawari proves that the land was utilized for cultivation and crops were grown on it.
From the perusal of Ex.DW-15/1 (colly), it has been shown year-wise crops being grown on the above-said agricultural land for the period 1994-95 to 2001-02.
Accused R.S. Sehrawat has shown the agriculture income in his respective ITRs and the following amount were shown in the ITR:-
i. A.Y. 1997-98 (upto 31/3/1997) Amt. 35,000/-
Please see Ex.PW-77/D-29 (colly) (Part G of court Record, Page 120 to 124) ii. A.Y. 1998-99 (upto 31/3/1998) Amt. 40,000/-
Please see Ex.PW-77/D-30 (colly) (Part G of court Record, Page 125 to 132 ) iii. A.Y. 1999-2000 (upto 31/3/1999) Amt. 40,000/-
Please see Ex.PW-77/D-31 (colly) (Part G of court Record, Page 133 to 139) iv. A.Y.2000-01 (upto 31/3/2000) Amt. 40,000/-
Please see Ex.PW-77/D-32 (colly) (Part G of court Record, Page 147 to 151) CC No. 23/13 Page No. 150 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 Total Amount Rs 1,55,000/-
It is therefore, prayed that an amount of Rs1,55,000/- be added in the income of accused.
My View I accept the view of defence in view of above evidence.
3. Gift received by accused R.S. NIL 2,50,000/- NIL Sehrawat:
A gift amounting to Rs 2,50,000/- was received by accused R.S. Sehrawat from Sh. Ashok Bali S/o Sh. S.R. Bali r/o X- 146, Regency Park-II, DLF Phase-IV, Gurgaon.
Sh. Ashok Bali, who is DW-29, gifted an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to the accused R.S. Sehrawat vide gift deed dated 19/02/1993, which is Ex.DW-29/1 placed at page 891 of defence document. Mr. Ashok Bali in his deposition had disclosed that accused R.S. Sehrawat and his father had helped him in his settlement at Germany. He deposed that father of accused R.S. Sehrawat helped him in getting job in ITDC. He further deposed that on his request, the father of A-1, being Superintendent in Indian Airlines helped him to find a job in Germany as he had many contacts. He got him job through Sh. Surrender Gupta in Frankfurt in West Germany in the year 1987. The witness deposed that he wanted to make some gift to the father of A-1 but the father said that DW-29 may gift as per his wishes to R.S. Sehrawat.CC No. 23/13 Page No. 151 of 166
CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 In his cross-examination the witness answered that the gift of Rs.2,50,000/- was made in cash and that he mentioned the said amount in his income tax returns. The Ld. Prosecutor did not ask the witness to bring such a record but gave a suggestion to him that as he had not reflected the said amount in his Income Tax Returns that is why he had not brought the same.
To the contrary the witness had answered in the Cross-examination that the Income Tax records were very old and he did not brought the same for that reason.
Accused R.S. Sehrawat had also shown this amount of gift in his ITRs for A.Y. 1993-94 Kindly see Ex.PW-77/D-35 (colly) Page 12 to 15.
Accused R.S. Sehrawat had also declared the said amount to his department vide intimation No.912/B/SZ/93, dated 26/02/93, which is Ex.DW-3/8 (colly) placed page No. 55 & 56.
The amount of Rs 2.50 lacs was deposited by accused R.S. Sehrawat, in his bank account bearing No.6446 maintained at PNB, Vasant Vihar, the statement of that account is D-61, Page
687. My View The version of defence and DW29 is not digestable. It is true that A-1 has shown this item in his ITR and had also informed the department but the manner in which such a huge amount has come to him through a gift deed is clearly CC No. 23/13 Page No. 152 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 reflective of the fact that accused had been creating documents in favour of illgotten money from the very beginning of his service. I reject this item as income from lawful source.
4 Gift received by accused Urmil NIL 3,00,000/- NIL Sehrawat:
DW-31, Sh. Rajiv Solanki gifted an amount of Rs.3 lacs to accused (A-2) Mrs. Urmil Sehrawat at Chennai during 1999 as she was his rakhi sister and the whole family of Urmil Sehrawat was very close to him. He in his evidence had deposed that accused Urmil Sehrawat was a real sister of his Bhabhi and he had very thick relation with his family. The witness had deposed that he was instrumental in getting her marriage arranged with his school friend R.S. Sehrawat.
As per the witness he decided to write a gift deed to maintain the records and the stamp paper for execution of gift deed was purchased in his name from Chennai. The witness proved the gift deed as Ex.DW-31/1. The witness also elaborated on the marriage of accused person and their family and also that he went to the CBI office twice where he met one Mr. Singh who asked him to submit the documents relating to bank amount etc which were duly provided.
This witness was not at all cross- examined on the material aspect of his deposition but mere suggestions were given by the CBI.CC No. 23/13 Page No. 153 of 166
CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 Accused Urmil Sehrawat had also shown this amount of gift in her ITRs for A.Y. 2000-01, which is at Page 104 to 108, Part E of Court Record.
Accused Urmil Sehrawat also declared the said amount to her departmet vide intimation on 20/08/1999 Ex.DW2/5 (Colly) which is placed at Page-892 of defence document.
My View Same as my view in respect of item no.3.
5. Gift received by R.S. Sehrawat NIL 3,00,000/- NIL A gift amounting to Rs.3 lacs was given by one Late Sh. Subhash Sethi R/o 36, Windsor Road, Levenshumle Menchester U.K, who was the family friend. The gift amount was paid by cheque No.36988, issued by Late Sh. Subhash Sethi. This amount was credited in the Account No 7625 PNB, Vasant Vihar and the statement of Accounts is proved by DW- 25 by producing DW 25/1.
The above-said gift was declared in the Income Tax Department by Accused No.1 and has been reflected in the ITR for the A.Y. 1994-95, which is Ex.PW- 77/D-26 (colly) (Part G of Court Record, Page 103 to 108).
The fact of this gift was intimated by R.S. Sehrawat to his deptt., vide intimation No.2540/Bldg/SZ/93, dated 26/07/1993, which is Ex.DW-3/8, placed at Page No. 45 to 49 of defence document.
CC No. 23/13 Page No. 154 of 166CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 My View My view is same as above in respect of item no.3 & 4.
6. Cheque received by Urmil Sehrawat on NIL 5,00,000/- NIL 10/02/1999 cheque bearing No. 332407 in her bank account No. 2294 PNB, Nangal Dewat.
Ld. defence counsel has drawn my attention to page 735 backside of D-72, which is statement of account no. 2294 (Ex.P-47/B) of Urmil Sehrawat in Punjab National Bank, Nangal Dewat, which shows a receipt of Rs.5 lacs on 10.02.1999. Ld. Defence counsel has drawn my attention to statement of account no. 1543 Ex.P47/C, page 801 and 802, which shows that the same amout was debited from his bank account on 10.2.1999 to Smt. Urmil Sehrawat. Ld. Defence Counsel submits that this amount has been shown in ITR by Hanmat Singh as well as by Smt. Urmil Sehrawat.
Prosecution Verion It is argued by Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor that Smt. Urmil Sehrawat did not inform her department. Moreover, she has shown this amount as liability in ITR Ex.PW77/D-11, page 103, which means that it was loan. No explanation has been given as to why this amount was taken by Smt. Urmil Sehrawat from H. S. Sehrawat.
My View I agree with submissions of Ld. Defence Counsel. Accused persons have not been able to state as to why A-2 received loan CC No. 23/13 Page No. 155 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 of such huge amount from Hanmat Singh. Hence I accept the view of prosecution and reject it as income.
7. An amount of Rs.6 lacs available with NIL 6,00,000/- NIL the Accused No.1 which he was required to return to Mr. Vinod Singh.
My View I have already discussed this issue in under the chart of expenditure at item no.4. However, since this money was received after the check period, it cannot be counted as income.
As per CBI: Rs NIL As per accused: Rs 22,26,000.00 As determined by this court : Rs.2,76,000/ Total Income = 35,00,000 + 2,76,000 = 37,76,000 To make it more favourable to the accused, I take it to be Rs.40,00,000/ (Rupees Forty lacs).
Final Calculations :
1. Income = 40,00,000/
2. Assets = 85,00,000/
3. Expenditure=27,00,000/ Disproportionate Assets :
Rs.85,00,000 + 27,00,000 - 40,00,000 = Rs.72,00,000/ (Rupees Seventy Two lacs) CC No. 23/13 Page No. 156 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 After having expressed my view on each item, I would like to add further reasons as to why I have rejected the defence version on the point of the item of big values like jewellery, money transactions, etc. First of all, I will refer to the concept of "known sources of income" as employed in Secton 13(1)(e) and explanation appended to it of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. This concept has been very precisely described by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of M. P. Vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta A.I.R. 2004 S.C. 517:(2004) 1 S.C.C. 691. I reproduce the relevant paragraph as under :
"Section 13 deals with various situations when a public servant can be said to have committed criminal misconduct. Clause (e) of subsection (1) of the Section is pressed into service against the accused. The same 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 pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income. Clause (e) of subsection (1) of Section 13 corresponds to clause (e) of subsection (1) of Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (referred to as 'Old Act'). But there has been drastical 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 CC No. 23/13 Page No. 157 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 explanation that "known sources of income" mean income received from any lawful source, the receipt of which has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules orders for the time being applicable to a public servant. The expression "known sources 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').
The phrase "known sources of income" in Section 13(1)(e) {old sectin 5(1)(e)} has clearly the emphasis on the word "income". It would be primary to observe that qua the public servant, the income would be what is attached to his office or post, commonly known as remuneration or salary. The term "income" by itself, is elastic and has a wide connotation. Whatever comes in or is received, is income. But, however, wide the import and connotation of the term "income", it is incapable of being understood as meaning receipt having no nexus to one's labur, or expertise, or property, or investment, and having further a source which may or may not yield aregular revenue. These essential characteristics are vital in understanding the term "income". Therefore, it can be said that, though "income" is receipt in the hand of its recepient, every receipt would not partake into the character of income. Qua the public servant, whatever return he gets of his service, will be the primary item of his income. Other incomes which can conceivably are income qua the public servant, will be in the regular receipt from (a) his property, or (b) his investment. A receipt from windfall, or gains of graft, crime, or immoral secretions by persons prima facie would not be receipt from the "known sources of income" of a pubnlic servant.CC No. 23/13 Page No. 158 of 166
CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 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."
The abovequoted proposition of law can be disected as under :
1. "Known source of income" should normally be taken as the "remuneration/salary" of the public servant.
2. If there is a "windfall", the burden is upon the public servant to offer explanation to the Investigating Officer/prosecution and thereafter to the court.
3. Such explanation must pass three tests :
(i) The windfalls should be intimated to the department by the public servant.
(ii) There should be plausible explanation as to how he received huge amounts.
(iii) Such explanation must satisfy the court that it is worthy of credence.
Although, the accused persons have examined witnesses and have shown the windfalls in their ITRs and intimated the department but that is not sufficient. It appears to be case where the accused started laundering the unlawful money in a very calculated manner by carefully showing it in the ITRs and by creating the necessary paper work. If a CC No. 23/13 Page No. 159 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 simplistic view is taken, hardly any delinquent public person would be brought to the net, which has been spread by virtue of Section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In the present case the court cannot ignore that all the gifts are being made to the accused persons in very weired way, which are not generally seen in the human relations. Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act permits that court to raise the necessary inference from the facts and circumstances of the case as seen from the angle of normal human conduct. The manner in which huge cash is being accepted and cheque is being issued or viceversa, is a proof that some other activity than which is lawful for a public servant was being carried out by A1 and A2. Although, they have stated that they and A3 had huge agricultural income but no substantial proof is forthcoming, except what I have admitted in ChartC. When they claim loan from father or gifts from relatives, they must explain as to for what they required these huge loans and they must give a plausible explanation to the gifts of huge amounts suddenly given by the accused persons. I have already discussed in this judgement that whatever explanation was given by accused for small amounts, the same has been accepted by me. However, the big amounts are not only to be explained by accused by simply showing CC No. 23/13 Page No. 160 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 ITRs, etc. and calling the witnesses in defence, but they should lead the evidence of such a nature which convinces the court that the said loans, gifts, were genuine transactions. Where there is a 'windfall', the burden is higher upon the public servant to prove the same convincingly. When there are frequent 'windfalls' occuring to the public servants, the court will have no option but to reject such claims lock, stock and barrel. The Income Tax Returns of A3 were brought on record by the accused persons. The Income Tax Return filed on 30.10.1992 of A3, which is Ex.PW77/D 15, shows total annual income of A3 to be Rs.37,920/; the Income Tax Returns for the year 199596 show the annual income to be Rs.76,327/, returns for the assessment year 19992000, Ex.PW77/D22 show the annual income of A3 as Rs.60,000/, the Income Tax Return for the assessment year 20002001 the annual income was Rs.62,060/, which cannot be said to be a huge income at that time commensurate to the loans being extended by him from time to time to A1 and A2. Even if A3 was having very high income, still A1 and A2 are required to explain as to why they required loans from A3 from time to time. They have claimed that A3 and other family members had extended loan to A1 and A2, but what was the income of A3 has not CC No. 23/13 Page No. 161 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 been satisfactorily shown by the accused persons. Huge jewellery as claimed by the accused persons is also not worthy of credence. In these circumstances, I hold that A1 and A2 were having assets disproportionate to the tune of Rs.72,00,000/ (Rupees Seventy Two lacs), as compared to their known sources of income. R. S. Sehrawat (HUF) is nothing but A1 himself. Therefore, A1 is responsible for all the transactions conducted by HUF. Hence, I convict A1 in person as well as Karta of HUF and A2, under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Both of them participated and cooperated with each other in this crime and abetted it. Therefore, I convict both of them under Section 109 of IPC r/w Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Announced in the open court on this 27th day of January, 2017 (Vinod Kumar) Special Judge03 (PC Act)/ CBI/ PHC / ND CC No. 23/13 Page No. 162 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE03 (P. C. ACT) (CBI), PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI CC No. 23/13 RC No. 58A/00/DAI/CBI/ACB/ND u/Sec. 109 IPC & Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) PC Act CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Central Bureau of Investigation Versus (1) Raja Som Sehrawat S/o Sh. Hanmat Singh Sehrawat R/o D4/4123, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi (2) Smt. Urmil Sehrawat W/o Sh. Raja Som Sehrawat R/o D4/4123, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi ...... Convicts ORDER ON SENTENCE 30.01.2017 Present: Sh. Manoj Shukla, Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor for CBI.
Convicts R.S. Sehrawat and Urmil Sehrawat present on bail with Sh. Manish Vashisht, Adv.
Arguments on sentence are heard.
The convicts have filed two affidavits stating CC No. 23/13 Page No. 163 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 circumstances, which are relevant for determination of granting leniency in the sentences.
I have carefully gone through the entire record and I agree with the Ld. Defence counsel that the conduct of the convicts as well as their counsel had been very good during the entire trial. No adjournments were sought and no efforts to delay the trial were ever made by the convicts. It is also true that they are suffering the rigour of trial for last 14 years. In these circumstances, I sentence the convicts as under :
(i) R. S. Sehrawat :
I sentence the convict R. S. Sehrawat to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine in the sum of Rs.5,000/, under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months.
I further sentence the convict R. S. Sehrawat to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine in the sum of Rs.5,000/, under Section 109 IPC r/w Section 13(2) r/w CC No. 23/13 Page No. 164 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months.
(ii) Urmil Sehrawat :
I sentence the convict Urmil Sehrawat to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine in the sum of Rs.1,000/, under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In default of payment of fine, she shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
I further sentence the convict Urmil Sehrawat to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine in the sum of Rs.1,000/, under Section 109 IPC r/w Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In default of payment of fine, she shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
All the sentences shall run concurrently.
Bail bonds and surety bonds are discharged. The CC No. 23/13 Page No. 165 of 166 CBI Vs. R. S. Sehrawat etc. Judgement dated : 27.01.2017 convicts are taken to custody to suffer the jail sentence. Ld. Defence counsel submits that he is moving a bail application under Section 389 Cr.PC for suspension of sentence. The same shall be considered separately.
The disproportionate assets of the convicts are found to the tune of Rs.72 lacs, which are hereby ordered to be confiscated in view of the verdict of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Mirza Iqbal Hussain vs. State of UP, AIR 1983 SC 60. The prosecution may move an application identifying as to which properties of the convicts to the equivalent value should be confiscated. Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor submits that this application will be moved in the second half of the day.
Copy of judgement be supplied free of cost to the convicts.
Announced in the open court on this 30th January, 2017 (Vinod Kumar) Special Judge03 (PC Act)/ CBI/ PHC / ND CC No. 23/13 Page No. 166 of 166