Bangalore District Court
Central Bureau Of Investigation vs Sri.B.M.Anand on 30 January, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE XLVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR
C.B.I. CASES (CCH-48), BENGALURU.
Dated this the 30th day of January 2016
Present: SRI.ASWATHA NARAYANA, B.Sc., LL.M.,
XLVII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge
& Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru.
SPECIAL CRIMINAL CASE No.130/2007
COMPLAINANT: Central Bureau of Investigation,
Represented by the Inspector of Police,
Anti Corruption Branch, Ganganagara,
Bengaluru.
(By Smt.K.S.Hema, Public Prosecutor.)
-Vs-
ACCUSED-1: Sri.B.M.Anand,
S/o.Late Sri.B.S.Mahadevarao,
Aged about 62 years,
R/o. Flat No.207,
'Bombay House',
No.55, Kanakapura Road,
Basavangudi,
Bengaluru-560 004.
Also at J-13, First Floor,
South Extension, Part-1,
NDSE-1, New Delhi-110 049.
(By Sri.S.Mahesh, Advocate.)
ACCUSED-2: Smt.Laxmi Anand,
W/o.Sri.B.M.Anand,
Aged about 52 years,
R/o. Flat No.207,
'Bombay House',
No.55, Kanakapura Road,
2 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
Basavangudi,
Bengaluru-560 004.
Also at J-13, First Floor,
South Extension, Part-1,
NDSE-1, New Delhi-110 049.
(By Sri.S.Mahesh, Advocate.)
1. Nature of Offence: Offence punishable under
Sections 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(e)
of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 &
Section 109 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860.
2. Date of Commission of In between 01.01.1996 and
Offence: 06.04.2005.
3. Date of First Information
Report: 05.04.2005.
4. Date of Arrest of the
Accused: Not Arrested.
5. Date of Commencement of
Evidence: 27.01.2011.
6. Date of Closure of Evidence: 09.07.2012.
7. Date of Pronouncement of
Judgment: 30.01.2016.
8. Result of the Case : Accused-1 is Convicted.
Accused-2 is Acquitted.
(ASWATHA NARAYANA)
XLVII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge
& Special Judge for CBI Cases,
Bengaluru.
-o0o-
3 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
JUDGMENT
The Complainant has filed Charge Sheet alleging that, while the Accused-1 was functioning as Public Servant in the capacity of Joint Director (Accounts and Inspection) in the Office of the Regional Director, Department of Company Affairs, Mumbai, from 1985 to 1998 and that later as Joint Director (Inspections) in the Office of the Regional Director, Department of Company Affairs, Chennai, till 1999 and that subsequently as Registrar of Companies, Bengaluru, possessed Assets worth Rs.99,18,534.71, which is disproportionate to his known sources of income to an extent of 105.08%, during the Check Period from 01.01.1996 to 06.04.2005, without any satisfactory account and that thereby, he has committed an offence of Criminal Misconduct punishable under Sections 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998 (for short, 'the Act'). It is further alleged that the Accused-2, who is the wife of Accused-1, abetted the Accused-1 to commit the offence of Criminal Misconduct by holding the properties on behalf of the Accused-1 in her name knowing fully well that she had no source of income and that she acquired Shares and other Assets in her name, made transactions in her bank accounts, created false evidence to make believe that she had income and that thereby, she has committed an offence punishable under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC') r/w. Section 13(2) r/w. Section 13(1)(e) of the Act.
4 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
2. After appearance of the Accused-1 and 2 before this Court, Copies of Charge Sheet and other documents relied upon by the Complainant were furnished to them. After hearing both the sides before framing Charge, on 16/12/2010, the then Presiding Officer of this Court framed Charge against the Accused-1 for an offence punishable under Sections 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(e) of the Act and against the Accused-2 for an offence punishable under Section 109 of the IPC r/w. Sections 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(e) of the Act. When the same was read over and explained to the Accused-1 and 2, they pleaded not guilty to the same and claimed to be tried.
3. During trial, the Complainant got examined 91 Witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.91 and got marked 357 Documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.357 on his behalf. With that evidence, the Complainant closed his side. On examination of the Accused-1 and 2 under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.'), the Accused-1 and 2 did not admit the incriminating evidence appearing against them. They also filed their Written Statement.
4. After hearing both the sides, this Court found that it is not a case for Acquittal under Section 232 of the Cr.P.C., and hence, the case was posted for Defence Evidence. During Defence Evidence, the Accused-1 and 2 got examined themselves as D.W.4 and D.W.8 respectively and they also got examined other 6 Witnesses as D.W.1 to 5 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] D.W.3, D.W.5 to D.W.7 on their behalf. They got marked 15 Documents as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.15 on their behalf. With that evidence, they closed their side.
5. Heard arguments of both the sides. Perused the records including Written Arguments filed on behalf of both the parties.
6. On considering the rival contentions of both the parties, the Points that arise for determination in this case are as follows:-
1. Whether there is valid Sanction as required under Section 19 of the Act for prosecuting the Accused-1 for an offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w. Section 13(1)(e) of the Act?
2. Whether prosecution of the Accused-2 is illegal without Sanction under Section 19 of the Act?
3. Whether the Accused-1, while working as a Public Servant during the Check Period from 01.01.1996 to 06.04.2005, possessed Disproportionate Assets to the tune of Rs.99,18,534.71 to his known sources of income in his name and in the name of his family members as alleged?
4. Whether the Accused-1 is guilty of an offence of Criminal Misconduct punishable under Section 13(2) r/w. Section 13(1)(e) of the Act as alleged?
6 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
5. Whether the Accused-2 has abetted the Accused-1 to commit the offence of Criminal Misconduct as alleged?
6. Whether the Accused-2 is guilty of an offence punishable under Section 109 of the IPC and r/w. Section 13(2) r/w.
Section 13(1)(e) of the Act as alleged?
7. What Order?
7. Findings of this Court on the above Points are as follows:-
Point-1: Affirmative;
Point-2: Negative;
Point-3: Affirmative, holding that the Accused-1 possessed Disproportionate Assets worth Rs.65,84,403.79;
Point-4: Affirmative;
Point-5: Negative;
Point-6: Negative;
Point-7: See final portion of this Judgment.
REASONS UNDISPUTED FACTS
8. The Accused-1 joined Indian Company Law Service (Grade-IV) in the year 1993. He worked as Joint Director (Accounts and Inspection) in the Office of 7 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Regional Director, Department of Company Affairs, Mumbai, from 1994 to 1998. Later, he worked as Joint Director (Inspections) in the Office of Regional Director, Department of Company Affairs, Chennai till 1999. He was transferred as Registrar of Companies, Bengaluru on 22.04.1999 and he worked in that Post till 04.07.2005.
9. The Accused-1 was an employee of the Central Government under Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India. As such, he was a Public Servant, within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act.
10. The Accused-2 is the wife of the Accused-1. She joined Canara Bank as Clerk-cum-Cashier in September 1990 and took Voluntary Retirement on 17.03.2001, while she was working as Clerk at Canara Bank, Cancard Division, Head Office, Bengaluru.
11. D.W.2-Sri.Abhishek Anand and D.W.3- Sri.Arvind Anand are the twin sons of the Accused-1 and the Accused-2. They are born in the month of August 1982. D.W.1-Sri.H.M.Lakshminarayana is the father of the Accused-2. D.W.5-Smt.Ramamani is the mother of the Accused-1. D.W.6-Sri.R.Srinivas Rao is the mother's sister's son of the Accused-1. D.W.7-Sri.Sripad is the younger brother of the Accused-1.
12. Sri.Biju George Joseph, the then Superintendent of Police, ACB, CBI, Bengaluru, registered 8 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] this case on 05.04.2005 in RC No.8(A)/2005 and submitted FIR as per Ex.P.310 to the Court. He entrusted investigation of this case to P.W.91-Sri.M.V.S.S.Shastry. Ex.P.349 is the Order passed in this regard.
13. P.W.91 investigated the case, recorded the Statements of Witnesses, collected Documents including Sanction Order as per Ex.P.306 and filed Charge Sheet.
14. All the above facts are not under dispute.
POINT-1
15. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 has contended that as there is no valid Sanction of the Competent Authority as required under Section 19 of the Act to prosecute the Accused-1, prosecution of the Accused-1 is illegal and that on this ground alone, the Accused-1 is entitled for acquittal. In support of his Arguments, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 has relied upon the following citations:-
1. M.Siddalingayya -Vs- State through Lokayukta Police, Bengaluru [2014 Kar.L.J.346];
2. Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed -Vs- State of Andhra Pradesh [(1979) 4 Supreme Court Cases 172 = AIR 1979 SUPREME COURT 677] ;
9 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
3. Central Bureau of Investigation
-Vs- Ashok Kumar Aggarwal [(2014)14 Supreme Court Cases 295];
4. Anil Kumar and Others -Vs-
M.K.Aiyappa and Another [2013(6) Kar.L.J. 1 (SC)];
5. Babappa -Vs- State By Lokayukta Police, Gulburga [2010(2) Kar.L.J. 1].
6. Judgment in Crl.Appeal No.933 C/W 835/2010 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru on 01.03.2012 & confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave Petitions(Crl.) No.8630-8631/2012 on 03.11.2015.
16. Sum and substance of the principles laid down in the decisions of the above citations are as follows:-
Grant of proper sanction by a Competent Authority is a sine qua non for taking cognizance of the offence punishable under the Act against a Public Servant and it is desirable that the question as regards Sanction be determined at an earlier stage. When Sanction itself is a nullity, all further action taken pursuant to the Sanction would also be bad in law.
It is incumbent on the Prosecution to prove that a valid Sanction has been granted by the Sanctioning Authority after it was satisfied that a case for Sanction has been made out constituting the offence. This should be done in two ways: either (1) by producing the original Sanction, which itself contains the 10 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] facts constituting the offence and the grounds of satisfaction, or (2) by adducing evidence aliunde to show that the facts were placed before the Sanctioning Authority and the satisfaction arrived at by it. Any case instituted without a proper Sanction must fail because this being a manifest difficulty in the Prosecution, the entire proceedings are rendered void abinitio.
The Prosecution has to satisfy the Court that at the time of sending the matter for grant of sanction by the Competent Authority, adequate material for such grant was made available to the said Authority. This may also be evident from the Sanction Order, in case it is extremely comprehensive, as all the facts and circumstances of the case may be spelt out in the Sanction Order. However, in every individual case, the Court has to find out whether there has been an application of mind on the part of Sanctioning Authority concerned on the material placed before it. It is so necessary for the reason that there is an obligation on the Sanctioning Authority to discharge its duty to give or withhold Sanction only after having full knowledge of the material facts of the case. Grant of Sanction is not a mere formality. Therefore, the provisions in regard to the Sanction must be observed with complete strictness keeping in mind the public interest and the protection available to the Accused against whom the Sanction is sought.
Requirement of previous Sanction of Competent Authority under Section 19(1) of the Act necessary for Prosecution is condition precedent even at pre-cognizance stage of ordering for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., in a private Complaint filed against Public Servant. Order passed by Magistrate directing the Police to investigate and report, without previous Sanction, is without jurisdiction.
Evidence gathered by the Investigating Officer along with his Final Report was not placed before the Sanctioning Authority, who passed Order of Sanction on the request made by Lokayuktha and Final Investigation Report 11 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] was prepared only after obtaining Sanction. Hence, Sanction to prosecute given by Authority without due application of mind is invalid.
17. The Accused-1 had approached the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Misc. Petition No.7705/2013 seeking the relief of dropping of the Proceedings of this case against him on the ground that there is delay in obtaining Sanction. By an Order dated 03.02.2015, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka dismissed that Petition by giving liberty to both the parties to raise that contention during arguments on merits before this Court. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 has produced the Copy of that Order.
18. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the evidence of P.W.88-Smt.Savitha Prabhakar and contents of Ex.P.306 show that there is a valid Sanction in terms of Section 19 of the Act to prosecute the Accused-1, the Competent Authority has issued Sanction in accordance with Section 19 of the Act by applying its mind on all the materials placed before it and that the said Sanction is a valid Sanction. In support of her Arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor has relied upon the following citations:-
1. C.S.Krishnamurthy -Vs- State of Karnataka [Judgment of Supreme Court of India, dated 29.03.2005 passed in Appeal (CRL.) 462/2005];
12 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
2. State through Inspector of Police, Andhra Pradesh -Vs-
K.Narasimhachary [Judgment of Supreme Court of India passed on 07.10.2005 in Appeal (CRL.) 82/2004].
19. Sum and substance of the principles laid down in the decisions of the above citations are as follows:-
Ratio is Sanction Order should speak for itself and in case, the facts do not so appear, it should be proved by leading evidence that all the particulars were placed before the Sanctioning Authority for due application of mind. In case, the Sanction speaks for itself, then the satisfaction of the Sanctioning Authority is apparent by reading the Order;
Sanction Order issued by the State in discharge of its statutory functions in terms of Section 19 of the Act and authenticated in the manner specified in the Rules of Executive Business, is a Public Document within the meaning of Section 74 of the Indians Evidence Act, 1872;
A public document can be proved in terms of Sections 76 to 78 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Thus, an Order of Valid Sanction can be proved by the Sanctioning Authority in 2 ways: either (1) by producing the original Sanction Order, which itself contains the facts constituting the offence and the grounds of satisfaction; or (2) by adducing evidence aliunde to show that the facts were placed before the Sanctioning Authority and the satisfaction arrived at by it.
13 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
20. Keeping in view the above principles of law and the submissions made by both the parties, this Point is dealt with.
21. As per Section 19 of the Act, without previous Sanction of the Competent Authority, the Court shall not take cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 13 of the Act. As observed above, it is not in dispute that the Accused-1 was a Public Servant working in the Central Government under Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India, from 1994 to 2005. As per Section 19(a) of the Act, in the case of an employee of the Central Government, who is not removable from his Office except with the Sanction of the Central Government, previous Sanction of the Central Government is necessary for prosecuting that employee for an offence punishable under Section 13 of the Act. According to the Complainant, the President of India is the Competent Authority to remove the Accused-1 from service and as such, the President of India is the Competent Authority to accord Sanction to prosecute the Accused-1. In his Cross-examination, the Accused-1, who gave his evidence as D.W.4, has admitted the said fact. As such, it is clear that the Sanctioning Authority to accord Sanction to prosecute the Accused-1 is the President of India.
22. As per Article 77(1) of the Constitution of India, all executive actions of the Government of India shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the President. As 14 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] per Article 77(2) of the Constitution of India, Orders and other Instruments made and executed in the name of the President shall be authenticated in such a manner as may be specified in the Rules to be made by the President and validity of an Order or Instrument, which is so authenticated, shall not be called in question on the ground that it is not an Order or Instrument made or executed by the President. By virtue of powers conferred under Article 77(2) of the Constitution of India, the President has made Rules known as "Authentication (Orders and Other Instruments) Rules, 2002". As per Rule 2(1) of the said Rules, Orders and the Instruments made and executed in the name of the President of India shall be authenticated by the signature of the Secretary, Special Secretary, Additional Secretary, Joint Secretary, 'Deputy Secretary', Under Secretary or Assistant Secretary to the Government of India.
23. P.W.88-Smt.Savitha Prabhakar is the Retired Director, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India. She has deposed that her Department received requisition from the CBI to issue Sanction Order to prosecute the Accused-1 and that after thorough examination of the documents sent along with the requisition, the said File was put up before the CVO to the Minister and that after approval of the Prosecution Order, the said File was returned to her and that she signed the Sanction Order on behalf of the President of India as she was the authorized person. She has identified Ex.P.306 as 15 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] the said Sanction Order. Contents of Ex.P.306 show that after fully and carefully examining the Copies of FIR, Statements of Witnesses and Documents collected during the investigation, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India, has passed Sanction Order in the name of the President of India to prosecute the Accused-1 for an offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w. Section 13(1)(e) of the Act and that the said Order has been authenticated by P.W.88, who was the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India at that time. The said Order further shows that the Sanctioning Authority has applied its mind on all the materials placed before it and that, with a well reasoned Speaking Order, has formed an Opinion that it is a fit case to prosecute the Accused-1 for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w. Section 13(1)(e) of the Act. As such, contents of Ex.P.306 corroborate the evidence of P.W.88, which fully supports the contention of the Complainant that the Competent Authority has issued a valid Sanction Order to prosecute the Accused-1 in accordance with law.
24. In the Cross-examination, P.W.88 has deposed that her colleague has prepared the Sanction Order along with her and that she cannot name her colleague, her Section Officers and Under Secretaries, who have gone through the documents to prepare the Sanction Order. She has further deposed that she does not remember as to who was the Corporate Minister at that time and that after Minister gave the approval, she has signed the Sanction 16 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Order. She has deposed that based on the CBI Format Order and Information, Sanction Order is prepared. She has denied that she has issued Sanction Order without looking into the documents in order to help the CBI. She has also denied that because of inter-department rivalry, she issued Sanction Order in order to harass the Accused-1.
25. The said Sanction Order was issued in the year 2007. P.W.88 retired from the service in the year 2010. She gave evidence before this Court in the year 2011. As such, due to lapse of time and age factor of P.W.88, she might not have remembered minute particulars of the process of issuing the Sanction Order. However, nothing has been elicited in the Cross-examination of P.W.88 on behalf of the Accused-1 to show that materials placed before the Sanctioning Authority were not considered by the Sanctioning Authority, Sanctioning Authority did not apply its mind on the said materials placed before it and that Sanction Order is illegal. There is no material on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 to show that there was inter-department rivalry and that due to such rivalry, P.W.88 signed on the Sanction Order illegally.
26. According to the Accused-1 and 2, Income and Savings of the Accused-2 were not considered by the Sanctioning Authority while passing the Sanction Order. On perusal of Ex.P.306, it is clear that the Sanctioning Authority has considered and applied its mind regarding the Assets, Income, Savings and Expenditure of the 17 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Accused-2 also. As such, it is not fit to accept the bare contention of the Accused-1 and 2 that Income and Savings of the Accused-2 were not considered by the Sanctioning Authority.
27. According to the Accused-1 and 2, as P.W.88 was the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India and the Accused-1 was working in the rank of Joint Secretary and as the rank of the Deputy Secretary was junior to the rank of Joint Secretary, P.W.88 was not authorized to accord Sanction. The Accused-1 and 2 have not placed any material to show that P.W.88 was not authorised to authenticate the Sanction Order. As observed above, Sanctioning Order has been passed by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs of the Government of India in the name of the President of India and as per Rule 2(1) of the Authentication (Orders and Other Instruments) Rules, 2002, the Deputy Secretary is also one of the competent persons to authenticate the Order made and executed in the name of the President of India. As such, it is not fit to accept the bare contention of the Accused-1 and 2 that P.W.88 had no authority to authenticate the Sanction Order.
28. It is the argument of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 that Sanctioning Authority did not issue any Notice to the Accused-1 and 2 before issuing Sanction Order and that as such, the said Sanction Order is illegal. The Investigating 18 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Agency has to place all the relevant materials before the Competent Authority and the Competent Authority has to apply its mind on those materials and if that Authority is satisfied that a case for prosecution against the Accused has been made out constituting the offence alleged against him, then that Authority may issue Sanction Order to prosecute the Accused. There is no provision for issuing any Notice to the Accused by the Competent Authority at the stage of considering the issue of Sanction Order. P.W.91 has examined the Accused-1 and 2 and recorded their Statements apart from examining other persons. He has also collected several documents from the Accused-1 and 2. Ex.P.255 to Ex.P.258 are the documents containing Explanatory Statements of the Accused-1 collected during the Investigation. Ex.P.306 shows that the Sanctioning Authority has considered all the Statements and Documents collected during the Investigation. As such, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2, in the absence of any supporting material or provision of law, that for non-issuing Notice by the Sanctioning Authority to the Accused-1, Sanction Order is illegal.
29. It is also the argument of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 that FIR is registered in this case in the year 2005, Sanction Order was obtained at a belated stage on 28.06.2007 and that even though Sanction is must for conducting investigation, the Investigating Officer has conducted investigation 19 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] without such Sanction and that hence, whole prosecution of the Accused-1 is illegal. He has relied upon the decision in the case of 'Anil Kumar & Others -Vs- M.K.Aiyappa & Another', referred to above. As per Section 19(1) of the Act, the Court shall not take cognizance of an offence against a Public Servant without previous Sanction from the Competent Authority. As such, question of considering the Sanction comes into picture only at the time of taking cognizance by the Court. Cognizance will be taken only after filing of Charge Sheet. Hence, the stage for production of Sanction Order is only at the time of taking cognizance by the Court. As Charge Sheet is filed in this case on 18.07.2007 and as the Complainant has obtained Sanction on 28.06.2007, it cannot be said that there is delay in obtaining Sanction Order.
30. Section 19 of the Act or any other provision of the Act does not mandate obtaining of prior Sanction even for investigation by the Investigating Officer. On the other hand, opening words of Section 19-'Previous Sanction necessary for Prosecution' specifically show that the said Sanction is for prosecution of the Accused. Before issuing the Sanction Order, the Sanctioning Authority shall consider all the relevant materials and evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation. This fact itself shows that Sanction is not necessary for investigation. Anil Kumar's case, referred to by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2, relates to a Private Complaint filed against a Public 20 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Servant. In that case, the Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Cases passed an Order under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., on a Private Complaint directing the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha, to investigate and report about the offences alleged against the Public Servant. In that case, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka quashed the said Order passed by the Special Judge on the ground that the Private Complaint was not accompanied by a Sanction Order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India upheld that Order by holding that Previous Sanction of Competent Authority is necessary in case of Private Complaints even at pre-cognizance stage. As the case on hand is not a case based on Private Complaint and as investigation is not ordered in this case under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., and as facts and circumstances of the case on hand are entirely different from those of the case relied upon by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2, the principles laid down in the said decision are of no assistance to him as they are not applicable to the case on hand. In the case of Birla Tyres -Vs- Union of India, reported in 1998 Cr.L.J. 4401 (Orissa), it is held that no Sanction under Section 19 of the Act is necessary for investigation by holding that Section 19 of the Act bars the Court from taking cognizance without Sanction and that it has nothing to do with the investigation. As such, it is clear that Previous Sanction is not necessary for investigation.
21 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Hence, the argument of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 is fit to be rejected.
31. On considering all the above facts, contentions and position of Law, coupled with contents of Ex.P.306, it is clear that the Competent Authority has issued Sanction Order in accordance with Law, by considering all the relevant materials and applying its mind on those materials, to prosecute the Accused-1 for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w. Section 13(1)(e) of the Act. For all these reasons, Point-1 is answered in the Affirmative.
POINT-2
32. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 has contended that as the Accused-2 was also an employee of Canara Bank during the Check Period, Sanction under Section 19(1) of the Act is necessary to prosecute her and that as the Complainant has not obtained such Sanction, prosecution of the Accused-2 is illegal and that on this ground alone, the Accused-2 is entitled for acquittal. But, he did not show any provision of law or citation to substantiate the said contention. As per Section 19 of the Act, Previous Sanction is necessary to prosecute a Public Servant and the Court shall not take cognizance of an offence under the Provisions of the Act against the Public Servant without such Previous Sanction. Section 19 of the Act does not say that Previous Sanction is necessary to prosecute an Ex-Public Servant. In the 22 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] case of S.A.Venkataraman -Vs- State, reported in AIR 1958 SC 107, it is held by the Supreme Court that, where the Accused had ceased to be a Public Servant at the time the Court took cognizance of the offences alleged to have been committed by him as Public Servant, Previous Sanction by a Competent Authority is not necessary to prosecute such Ex-Public Servant. The said law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has been endorsed in the subsequent decisions also in the cases of K.Balakrishna Pillai -Vs- State [1995 Cr.L.J.963 (Ker)], C.R.Bansi -Vs- State of Maharashtra [AIR 1971 SC 786], K.S.Dharmadathan -Vs- Central Government [AIR 1979 SC 1495], Kalicharan Mahapathra -Vs- State of Orissa [AIR 1988 SC 2595], State of Kerala -Vs- V.Padmanabhan Nayar [AIR 1999 SC 2405] and Abhay Singh Chowthala -Vs- CBI [2011 (3) Crimes 93 (SC)]. Hence, it is clear that if the Accused ceases to be a Public Servant at the time of taking cognizance of the offence by the Court, obtaining of prior Sanction under Section 19 of the Act is not necessary.
33. In the case on hand, the Accused-2 was working as Clerk at Canara Bank from September 1990 and she took Voluntary Retirement on 17.03.2001. Though she was a Public Servant during the Check Period, as she retired on 17.03.2001 itself, she ceased to be a Public Servant as on the date of filing Charge Sheet by the Complainant and taking cognizance by this Court. Hence, 23 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] as per the decisions referred to above, prior Sanction under Section 19 of the Act is not necessary to prosecute the Accused-2. For all these reasons, it cannot be said that prosecution of the Accused-2 is illegal as contended by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 and hence, this Point is answered in the negative.
POINT-3
34. According to the Complainant, when the Assets held by the Accused-1 and the Accused-2 were computed during the period from 01.01.1996 to 06.04.2005 (for short, 'the Check Period'), it revealed that the Accused-1 held Assets disproportionate to an extent of 105.08% to his known sources of income as detailed under:-
Sl. Description Amount
No.
(In Rs.)
1. Assets at the beginning of the
Check Period (Statement-A): 9,98,742.10
2. Assets at the end of the Check
Period(Statement-B) : 1,55,07,246.63
3. Receipts and Income during
the Check Period 94,38,697.61
(Statement-C) :
4. Expenditure during the Check
Period(Statement-D) : 48,48,727.79
5. Likely Savings during the
Check Period(C-D) : 45,89,969.82
24 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
6. Extent to which assets and
expenditure are
disproportionate to likely 99,18,534.71
savings{E=[(B-A)+D]-C}:
7. Percentage of disproportionate assets over total of income 105.08% (E/C X 100) :
On the other hand, the Accused-1 and 2 denied the said contention of the Complainant by contending that investigation was not done properly, computation made by the Investigating Officer is illegal and erroneous, income earned independently by the Accused-2 and her children was not considered by the Investigating Officer separately and that by amalgamating the Income and Assets of all the family members of the Accused-1 and 2 illegally, the Complainant has filed false Charge Sheet against the Accused-1 and 2.
35. In support of her arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor has relied upon the following citations:-
1. State of Bihar -Vs- Lalu Prasad and Others [Judgment dated 20.03.2008 of Patna High Court];
2. Sajjan Singh -Vs- State of Punjab [AIR 1964 Supreme Court 464].
36. Sum and substance of the principles laid down in the decisions of the above citations are as follows:-
25 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Conclusion of the Trial Court regarding income wholly based upon the findings of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal without any corroboration by legal evidence is not acceptable;
Taking the most liberal view, it is possible for any reasonable man to say that assets to the extent of Rs.1,20,000/- is anything but disproportionate to a net income of Rs.1,03,000/-, out of which at least Rs.36,000/- must have been spent in living expenses.
37. In support of his Arguments, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 has relied upon the following citations:-
1. State of Maharashtra -Vs-
Wasudeo Ramachandran Kaidalwar [(1981) 3 Supreme Court Cases 199];
2. D.S.P., Chennai -Vs-
K.Inbasagaran [(2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases 420];
3. Krishnanand Agnihotri -Vs- The State of Madhya Pradesh [(1977) 1 Supreme Court Cases 816];
4. Subbash Kharate -Vs- State of Madhya Pradesh [2000 CRI.L.J. 1178];
5. Jastinder Singh -Vs- State [(2001) CRI.L.J. 11];
6. Ananda Bezbaruah -Vs- Union of India [1994 CRI.L.J. 12];
7. Pape Gowda -Vs- State [1972 CRI.L.J 120 (V 78 C 32)];
26 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
8. N.P.Lotlikar -Vs- C.B.I. and Another [1993 CRI.L.J. 2051].
38. Sum and substance of the principles laid down in the decisions of the above citations are as follows:-
To substantiate the Charge under Section 5(2) r/w. Section 5(1)(e) of the Act of 1947, the Prosecution must prove that: (1) the Accused is a Public Servant; (2) the nature and extent of the pecuniary resources or property, which were found in his possession; (3) what were his known sources of income, i.e., known to the Prosecution; and (4) such resources or property found in possession of the Accused were disproportionate to his known sources of income. Once these 4 ingredients are established, the offence of Criminal Misconduct under Section 5(1)(e) of the Act of 1947 is complete, unless the Accused is able to account for such resources or property. The burden then shifts to the Accused to satisfactorily account for his possession of Disproportionate Assets. The extent and nature of burden of proof resting upon the Accused-Public Servant is that the Accused is not bound to prove his innocence beyond all reasonable doubts. All that he need to do is to bring out a preponderance of probability;
On proof by the Accused satisfactorily that the Assets recovered belonged to his wife, which she amassed from the business run by her separately, in the absence of any evidence that the said Assets belonged to the Accused, it cannot be held that the Accused is guilty under Section 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(e) of the Act;
The burden of showing that a particular transaction is benami and the Accused is not the real owner always rests on the person asserting it to be so and this burden has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidence of a definite character, which would either directly prove the fact of benami or establish circumstance unerringly and reasonably raising an inference of that fact;
27 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Amount of Income Tax paid by the wife of the Accused, amount of jewellery owned by a wife and gifted to her in marriage and also amount of arrears of Dearness Allowance received by the Accused and FDR was also added to Disproportionate Income. Conviction recorded on the above basis is improper.
What could be considered disproportionate has not been indicated and the Court is entitled to take a liberal view of the excess of Assets over the receipts of the known source of income. In such cases, it is not correct to apply exact mathematics and on that basis to hold that the Accused is in excess of a few thousand rupees. An over all picture of the situation has to be taken and it has to be decided whether the Assets are disproportionate to the known sources of income.
A fare investigation is expected from the Prosecution. Investigation to be carried out not only from the stand of the Prosecution, but also the defence, particularly in view of the fact that the onus of proof may shift to the Accused at a later stage;
An adverse inference has to be drawn on failure to produce document by a public functionary, who is under a statutory obligation to produce the same before the Court of law.
39. As per Section 13(1)(e) of the Act, a Public Servant is said to be guilty of the offence of Criminal Misconduct, if he or any person on his behalf, at any time during the period of his office, found possessed pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income, for which he cannot satisfactorily account. As per Explanation to that Section, 'known sources of income' means income received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in 28 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] accordance with the provisions of any Law, Rules or Orders for the time being applicable to the Public Servant.
40. Keeping in view the above principles laid down in the decisions relied upon by both the parties and also the ingredients of Section 13(1)(e) of the Act, this Point is dealt with.
A. SEARCH, INVENTORY & SEIZURE
41. P.W.91 has deposed that in pursuance of an Order passed by the Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, Bengaluru, as per Ex.P.349, he took up the investigation of this case, obtained Search Warrants from the Court, he entrusted one Search Warrant to Sri.Hari Omprakash, the then Inspector of CBI, ACB, Bengaluru, on 06.04.2005 for conducting search on the office premises of the Accused-1 and that on 07.04.2005, he received back the executed Search Warrant along with seized documents and Search List from Sri.Hari Omprakash.
42. P.W.89-Sri.Prashanth P.Rai, the then Assistant Manager, working in the Head Office of Vijaya Bank, Bengaluru, is a witness to Search Proceedings conducted in the office of the Accused-1 by Sri.Hari Om Prakash. He has deposed that CBI Officer searched the office of the Accused-1, seized some documents under Search List- Ex.P.307 in his presence and in the presence of one more Panch Witness. Contents of Ex.P.307 fully corroborate the 29 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] evidence of P.W.89, which supports the evidence of P.W.91 about Search and Seizure in the office of the Accused-1.
43. P.W.91 has further deposed that he along with the team of Officers conducted search at the residence of the Accused-1 and 2, seized several incriminating documents, found Indian Currency Notes of Rs.1,75,060/- and that by returning Rs.25,060/- from the said amount to the Accused-1 and 2, he seized Cash of Rs.1,50,000/-, as shown in the Search List-Ex.P.286. He has further deposed that, during Search Proceedings, Inventory of Household Articles and Gold Ornaments were taken and that the details of acquisition and value of those articles were entered as per the declarations made by the Accused-1 and 2 and that Ex.P.287 is the Search Proceedings in this regard. It is also his evidence that Lockers at Canara Bank, 9th Block, Jayanagara and Punjab National Bank, Malleshwaram were inspected in the presence of the Accused-1 and 2 and that the Proceedings were drawn in this regard. He has further stated that on 08.04.2005, he submitted an Application before the Special Court returning the executed Search Warrants and that, for permission to retain documents and currency for further investigation and that the Court granted permission for the same. In his Cross-examination, P.W.91 has stated that after taking Retention Permission from the Court, he has deposited the Cash in the Malkana of CBI.
30 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
44. In the Cross-examination, P.W.91 has stated that C.W.79-Sri.Saifuddin Rizwani was one of the Attesting Witness to the Search List. Said Sri.Saifuddin Rizwani has given his evidence as P.W.65. P.W.65 was working as Assistant Manager, State Bank of Mysore, Channarayapatna, during that period. He has deposed that, on 06.04.2005, he was called by the CBI Officer to conduct raid on the House of the Accused-1 in the early morning hours and that at the time of raid, the Accused-1 and 2 and their two children were present in the House. In his evidence, P.W.65 fully supports the evidence of P.W.91 regarding Search in the House of the Accused-1 and 2, Seizure and Inventory and also preparation of Search List as per Ex.P.286 and Search Proceedings as per Ex.P.287.
45. Application dated 05.04.2005 filed by P.W.91 and Order passed by this Court on 05.04.2005 on that Application support the evidence of P.W.91 about issue of Search Warrants by this Court. Application filed on 08.04.2005 by P.W.91, Order passed by this Court on that Application, Endorsements on the Search Warrants and their Enclosures fully support the evidence of P.W.91 about search of office premises of the Accused-1 and residential premises of the Accused-1 and 2, Seizure of documents including Cash of Rs.1,50,000/- during the said search and also taking permission from the Court to retain the said property with the Complainant for the purpose of further investigation. Contents of Ex.P.286 and Ex.P.287 also fully 31 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] corroborate the evidence of P.W.65 and P.W.91 regarding the said Search, Seizure and Inventory.
46. While Cross-examining P.W.65, P.W.89 and P.W.91, the Accused-1 and2 have contended that no such Search, Inventory and Seizure were made and that all the documents were created in the office of the Complainant. But, P.W.65, P.W.89 and P.W.91 have denied the said contention of the Accused-1 and 2 categorically. In their Examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., also, the Accused-1 and 2 denied the evidence of P.W.65 as false. In respect of evidence of P.W.89, the Accused-1 has stated in his Examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., that the said evidence is false. In respect of the evidence of P.W.91, about conducting raid at the residence of the Accused-1 and 2 and seizure of documents, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended in their Examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., that the said evidence is false. But, so far as evidence regarding seizure of Cash of Rs.1,50,000/-, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that they do not know about the same. So far as the evidence of P.W.91 regarding declaration made by the Accused-1 and 2 about the details of acquisition and value of Household Articles and Gold Ornaments is concerned, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said evidence is false. However, in his Cross-examination, D.W.4 i.e., the Accused-1 has admitted that for having received the Copy of Search List, he has signed on it and that the Search was conducted by the CBI on his residential premises when he was in his 32 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] House and that the Bank officials were present there as Witnesses during search operation. Contents of Ex.P.286 and Ex.P.287 show that the Accused-1 received Copy of Search List. This fact and admission of D.W.4 about Search of his residential premises in his presence and in the presence of Bank Officials as Witnesses support the evidence of P.W.65 and P.W.91. Contents of Ex.P.307 also show that the Accused-1 received Copy of the said document. P.W.65, P.W.89 and P.W.91 have stood well in the test of Cross-examination and there is no reason to disbelieve their evidence, which is well supported by the contents of Ex.P.286, Ex.P.287 and Ex.P.307 along with other documents referred to above. The Accused-1 and 2 have not placed any evidence to rebut the said evidence available on behalf of the Complainant. They have also not made any protest endorsements on the Search Lists.
47. From the above facts, circumstances and the evidence available on record, it is clear that P.W.91 conducted Search of the residential premises of the Accused-1 and 2 in their presence and in the presence of P.W.65, seized several documents and Cash of Rs.1,50,000/- as shown in Ex.P.286 and that he took Inventory of Household Articles and Gold Ornaments as per Ex.P.287 and that the details of acquisition and value of those articles were entered as per the declarations made by the Accused-1 and 2 during Inventory and Search. It is also clear from the above facts, circumstances and the evidence available on record that on the directions 33 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] of P.W.91, CBI Inspector-Sri.Hari Omprakash conducted Search in the office premises of the Accused-1 in the presence of P.W.89 and another Panch Witness and that he prepared Search List as per Ex.P.307 and that he seized documents as mentioned in that Search List.
B. ASSETS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE CHECK PERIOD(STATEMENT-A)
48. According to the Complainant, Assets found in the possession of the Accused-1 and 2 at the beginning of the Check Period are as follows:
Sl. Year of Value of
Description of Asset
No. Acquisition the Assets
(in Rs.)
1. Karnataka Housing Board
House at No.30, I Stage,
Agrahara Dasarahalli, 1978 1,35,770.00
Bengaluru:
2. Household Articles: 1990 to 1996 99,641.00
3. Gold Ornaments: 1985 to 1996 82,000.00
4. Bank Balance in Savings Before Check 4,59,789.30
Bank Accounts: Period.
5. Bank Balance in Public Before Check 15,767.00
Provident Fund Accounts: Period.
6. Balance in Post Office Before Check 404.80
Savings Accounts: Period.
7. Bank Balance in Fixed Before Check 51,816.00
Deposit Accounts: Period.
8. 2850 Shares in different Before Check 74,050.00
Companies/Banks: Period.
9. IDBI Bonds-2: Before Check 5,400.00
Period.
10. 800 Units of Canbonus-
Canbank Mutural Funds:
a) Accused-1:400 Units: Before Check 4,000.00
Period.
b) Accused-2:400 Units: Before Check 4,000.00
Period.
34 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
11. Investments in UTI:
a) Unit-64 Before Check 36,104.00
2280 Units/Bonds: Period.
b) MEP-1993 Before Check 20,000.00
2000 Units and 800 Period.
Bonus Units:
c) Master Growth, 1993 Before Check 10,000.00
1000 Units: Period.
TOTAL : 9,98,742.10
B.1: House No.30, Karnataka Housing Board
49. According to the Complainant, the Accused-1 purchased a House bearing No.30, situated at I Stage, Agrahara Dasarahalli, Bengaluru, in the year 1978 on Lease-cum-Sale basis from Karnataka Housing Board for Rs.1,35,770/-. During the search of the House of the Accused-1 and 2 as per Ex.P.286, P.W.91 has seized Ex.P.311, which contains Copy of Letter dated 23.02.1979 written by the Accused-1 to the Karnataka Housing Board, Intimation of Allotment dated 16.01.1979 and Copy of Affidavit and also Ex.P.312, which is a Sale Deed dated 14.09.1998 executed by the Karnataka Housing Board in favour of the Accused-1. P.W.20-Sri.Shivaramaiah, the then Sub-Registrar, 5th Block, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru, has produced Ex.P.132, which is the Certified Copy of Ex.P.312, before the CBI Officers. As per these documents, Karnataka Housing Board allotted a House bearing No.30, situated at I Stage, Agrahara Dasarahalli, Bengaluru, to the Accused-1 for a consideration of Rs.81,214/- in the year 1978-79. Those documents further show that, the 35 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Accused-1 has paid Rs.1,500/- towards Registration Charges, Initial Deposit of Rs.19,250/- and that he had to pay balance amount of Rs.60,464/- with interest in 20 annual installments of Rs.6,390.02 commencing from the year 1979. As such, worth of that property at the beginning of the Check Period was Rs.1,500/- + Rs.19,250/- + Rs.6,390.02 x 18(annual installments as on the date of commencement of the Check Period only)=Rs.1,35,770/-. The Accused-1 and 2 have not disputed the said fact. On the other hand, at Sl.No.1 of Page-2 of Calculation Sheet attached to their Written Arguments (for short, ' the CSWA'), the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that the said House property was worth Rs.1,35,770/- at the beginning of the Check Period. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 possessed the House bearing No.30 worth Rs.1,35,770/- at the beginning of the Check Period.
B.2: Household Articles
50. According to the Complainant, as per the Search and Inventory, the details of the Household Articles possessed by the Accused-1 and 2 in their house are as follows:
Value of Sl. Year of Mode of the Name of Article Acquisition Acquisition No. Assets (in Rs.)
1. Wooden Sofa Set 1994 Purchased 15,000
- 3 Piece:
2. Show Lamp: 1995 Purchased 150
3. Show Lamp: 1995 -do- 1,000 4. Mulma Ware 1995 -do- 500 36 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Dining Set/Glass Tumblers:
5. Old Wooden Diwan 1995 -do- 1,500 in Balcony:
6. 2 Iron Chairs/Easy 1994 -do- 1,600 Chairs:
7. Maharaja Dish 1994 -do- 11,000 Washer:
8. Steel Plate Stand: 1995 -do 500
9. Prestige Cooker: 1995 -do- 1,250 (average cost of 1 cooker taken)
10. Steel Plates, 1990-1995 -do- 1,875 Tumblers, Jugs, (average cost Spoons, Steel for 6 years taken) Dongas, Oil Containers, Filters, Katoris, Frying Pans, Bowls, Milk Cooker etc.:
11. 4 Gas Cylinders: 1985-1994 -do- 2,600
12. Vegetable Stand 1995 -do- 1,500
13. 1 Double Cot- 1995 -do- 17,000 Bombay Teak:
14. Godrej Almirah: 1994 -do- 8,000
15. Wall Hanging Dolls: 1994 -do- 150
16. Brass Lamp Set: 1995 Gift at Bombay. -
17. Brass Lamp Set: 1995 Purchased 600
18. Brass Bowl, Brass 1995 Gift. -
Stand Set:
19. Magazine Stand: 1994 Purchased 100
20. Konica Camera: 1995 -do- 1,000
21. Yashima Camera: 1994 -do- 1,000
22. TEFAL Iron Box- 1990 -do- 700 ordinary:
23. Casio Electric Key 1995 -do- 1,000 Board:
24. Crown Colour TV- 1994 -do- 12,000 21":
25. Suit Cases various 1990-1995 -do- 3,200 types: (average cost of 2 suitcases taken)
26. Time Piece-Jayco: 1995 -do- 300
27. Godrej Almirah: 1995 -do- 4,000 37 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
28. Wrist Watches of 1990-1995 -do- 3,200 various (average cost Companies: of 4 Watches taken)
29. Suits-7 pairs: 1985-1988 Purchased 7,000 at Delhi.
30. Clothes of A-2: 1995 Purchased 1,666 (average cost for one year taken)
31. 4 Plastic Flower 1990-1995 Purchased 250 Pots: (average cost of 4 Pots taken) Total: 99,641
51. The evidence of P.W.1 and contents of Ex.P.286 and Ex.P.287 support the said contention of the Complainant about the Household Articles. The Accused-1 and 2 have not disputed the said contention. On the other hand, at Sl.No.2 of Page-2 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted the said contention of the Complainant by contending that among those Household Articles worth Rs.99,641/-, Articles worth Rs.35,600/- belonged to the Accused-1 and remaining Articles worth Rs.64,041/- belonged to the Accused-2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Household Articles worth Rs.99,641/- at the beginning of the Check Period.
B.3: Gold Ornaments
52. According to the Complainant, as per the Search and Inventory, the details of the Gold Ornaments possessed by the Accused-1 and 2 at the beginning of the Check Period are as follows:
38 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Value of Sl. Year of Mode of the Article No. Name of Article Acquisitio Acquisition (in Rs.) n
1. 1 Pair Bangle 1994 Purchased 14,000 (Kadaga):
2. 1 Pair Bangle 1991 -do- 4,000 (Kadaga) Hollow:
3. Chain with Pearls: 1991 -do- 2,000
4. Necklace-3 Rows: 1985 -do- 8,000
5. Necklace with Green 1991 -do- 5,000 Stones/pavale:
6. Plain Necklace: 1994 -do- 5,000
7. 1 Pair Plain Bangle: 1991 -do- 6,500
8. Single Kada Plain: 1994 -do- 3,000
9. Chain with full Gold 1991 -do- 8,000 Beeds:
10. 4 Plain Gold Bangles: 1985 Gift from Parents to A- -
2 at the time of her marriage.
11. 8 Pair of Ear Studs: 1985 Gift during marriage. -
12. 1 Pair Ear Studs with 1985 Gift during Hangings: marriage. -
13. 4 Pair of Ear Rings: 1985 Gift during marriage. -
14. 5 Gold Rings: 1985 Gift during marriage. -
15. 5 Pendants: 1985 Gift during marriage. -
16. Chain with Pendants 1995 Purchased. 10,000 & 2 White Stones:
17. 3 Gold Rings: 1990-1995 Purchased. 4,000 (Average cost taken for 4 Nos.)
18. 5 Pair of Ear Studs: 1986-1995 Purchased. 12,500 (Average cost taken for 5 pairs) Total: 82,000 39 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
53. The evidence of P.W.91 and contents of Ex.P.286 and Ex.P.287 support the said contention of the Complainant about the Gold Ornaments. The Accused-1 and 2 have not disputed the said contention. On the other hand, at Sl.No.3 of Pages-2, 71 to 79 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted the said contention of the Complainant by contending that the Accused-2 possessed Gold Ornaments worth Rs.4,62,961/-, including the said Gold Ornaments worth Rs.82,000/- claimed by the Complainant, at the commencement of the Check Period. However, nothing is placed by the Accused-1 and 2 to show that the said Gold Ornaments exclusively belonged to the Accused-2. As the Accused-1 and 2 are living together and in the absence of any specific evidence on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 to show that the said Gold Ornaments exclusively belonged to the Accused-2, it has to be presumed and held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Gold Ornaments worth Rs.82,000/- at the commencement of the Check Period.
54. In their Written Arguments i.e., at Pages-2, 71 to 79 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that it has to be presumed that the old Gold and Silver Articles sold during the Check Period by the Accused-1 and 2 were existing as on 01.01.1996 and that as such, value of those old Gold and Silver Articles i.e., Rs.3,80,961/- has to be taken as existing at the time of commencement of the Check Period. In support of their contention, the Accused-1 and 2 have relied upon Ex.P.336 and Ex.P.340-Purchase 40 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Bills and also the Written Arguments filed on behalf of the Complainant.
55. Ex.P.336 shows that on 26.08.2003, the Accused-2 sold old Silver Utensils weighing 6.100 Kgs., and old Gold Ornaments weighing 172.500 Gms., to Nirali Jewelers for Rs.1,15,330/-. That document also shows that on 28.08.2003, the Accused-2 sold old Silver Utensils weighing 4.850 Kgs., and old Gold Ornaments weighing 110 Gms., to Nirali Jewelers for Rs.79,925/-. That document further shows that on 01.09.2003, the Accused- 2 sold old Gold Ornaments weighing 213 Gms., to Nirali Jewelers for Rs.93,720/-. Thus, as per Ex.P.336, the Accused-2 sold old Gold Ornaments and Silver Articles worth Rs.2,88,975/- in the month of August and September 2003 i.e., during the Check Period. By producing Ex.P.336, the Complainant has admitted the said sale transaction made by the Accused-2. In the Charge Sheet, the Complainant has considered the said sale amount of Rs.2,88,975/- as Income of the Accused-1 and 2 during the Check Period. Even in her Written Arguments, at Sl.No.14 of Page-17, the learned Public Prosecutor has admitted the said transaction.
56. Ex.P.340 shows that on 20.08.2003, the Accused-2 sold Gold and old Jewelry weighing 32.5 (19.94 + 7.97 + 4.59) Gms., for Rs.16,275/- to M/s.C.Krishnaiah Chetty & Sons. That document also shows that on 31.07.2004, the Accused-2 sold old Gold Jewelry weighing 41 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] 31.43 (19.90 + 1.10 + 10.43) Gms., for Rs.16,287/- to M/s.C.Krishnaiah Chetty & Sons. That document further shows that on 09.10.2004, the Accused-2 sold old Silver Jewelry weighing 1,618 (994 + 624) Gms., for Rs.13,227/- to M/s.C.Krishnaiah Chetty & Sons. As such, as per Ex.P.340, in the year 2003 and 2004 i.e., during the Check Period, the Accused-2 has sold old Gold Ornaments and Silver Articles worth Rs.45,789/-. But, the Complainant has not taken the said transaction into consideration. However, there is no explanation from the Complainant in this regard.
57. According to the arguments advanced on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2, the said old Gold and Silver Articles were with the Accused-2 even prior to commencement of the Check Period. But, there is no supporting evidence in this regard on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2. Though the Accused-1 and 2 have given their evidence, they have not whispered anything about the said contention in that evidence. Ex.P.255 is the Reply filed in Form No.III by the Accused-1 to the Show Cause Notice issued by the Complainant. The said Reply relates to the Movable Properties possessed by the Accused-1 and his dependants at the commencement of the Check Period. In that Reply also, the Accused-1 has not whispered anything about the said contention regarding existence of those old Gold and Silver Articles prior to the Check Period. Apart from giving answers in their Examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the Accused-1 and 2 have filed 42 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] their Written Statement after closure of arguments on merits. Even in that Statement, the Accused-1 and 2 have not whispered anything about the existence of old Gold and Silver Articles, mentioned in Ex.P.336 and Ex.P.340, prior to the Check Period.
58. Furthermore, the Accused-1 and 2 have not stated as to when actually and how they acquired those Gold and Silver Articles mentioned in Ex.P.336 and Ex.P.340. As the Accused-1 was a Central Government Public Servant i.e., Group 'A' Officer, the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (for short, 'the Rules') are applicable to him. As per Rule-18(1) of those Rules, on his first appointment, he has to declare all his Movable and Immovable Properties to the Government. As per Rule-18(3) of the Rules, he has to intimate the Government about all the transactions entered in his name or in the name of his family members relating to Movable Property worth more than Rs.20,000/-. Apart from that, he has to file Annual Statement regarding his Assets and Liabilities every year. If at all the Accused-1 and 2 possessed the old Gold and Silver Articles, as mentioned in Ex.P.336 and Ex.P.340, prior to the Check Period or as on the date of the commencement of the Check Period, the Accused-1 would have intimated about the same to the Government as per the Rules. But, he has not produced any such evidence. In the absence of such evidence and in the absence of details as to when and how those 43 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] properties were acquired, it is not possible to accept the bare arguments of the Accused-1 and 2 that those properties were in existence even prior to the Check Period. Hence, it is clear that preponderance of probabilities is not at all in favour of the Accused-1 and 2 to believe that they possessed those Gold and Silver Articles, mentioned in Ex.P.336 and Ex.P.340, prior to and as on the date of commencement of theCheck Period. On the other hand, from the facts, circumstances and the evidence available on record, as observed above, it has to be inferred that those Gold and Silver Articles were acquired by the Accused-1 and 2 during the Check Period only.
59. For all the above reasons, claim of the Accused-1 and 2 that the Accused-2 possessed Gold Ornaments worth Rs.4,62,961/- at the commencement of the Check Period as made in their Written Arguments is rejected and it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Gold Ornaments worth Rs.82,000/- only at the beginning of the Check Period.
B.4: Bank Balance In Savings Bank Accounts
60. According to the Complainant, the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Bank Balance of Rs.4,59,789.30 at the commencement of the Check Period in their names and in 44 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] the names of their children and the details of the same are as follows:
Balance Standing
Sl. Account Number &
as on In the
No. Name of the Bank
01.1.1996 Name of
(in Rs.)
1. A/c. No. 01190020603, 16,736.13 Accused-1.
State Bank of India,
Cauvery Bhavan Branch,
Bengaluru:
2. A/c. No.30117, Balance as Accused-2.
Canara Bank, on 6.11.96:
Ghatkopar(W),
Mumbai: 25,992.00
3. A/c. No.30118, 33,002.57 Accused-1.
Canara Bank,
Ghatkopar(W), Mumbai:
4. A/c.No.5691, 7,211.00 Accused-1 &
Punjab National Bank, 2.
Malleshwaram, Bengaluru:
5. A/c.No.17867, 49,895.75 Accused-1.
Punjab National Bank,
Hudson Circle, Bengaluru:
6. A/c.No.60645, 72,016.70 Accused-2.
Canara Bank,
Malleshwaram, Bengaluru:
7. A/c.No.19255, 26,375.96 Accused-1.
Canara Bank, Ashoka
Road, Tumkur:
8. A/c.No.11322, 8,966.00 Son of the
Canara Bank, Magadi Accused-1 &
Road, Bengaluru: 2.
9. A/c.No.04002010042067, 27,761.19 Accused-1.
Syndicate Bank,
Gandhinagar, Bengaluru:
10. A/c. No.9291, 21,903.04 Accused-1.
The Karnataka Co-op.Apex
45 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
Bank Ltd.,
Basaveshwaranagar,
Bengaluru.
11. A/c.No.45610018583, Not available. Accused-1.
The Standard Chartered
Bank, M.G.Road,
Bengaluru.
Balance as on 30.11.96: 22,687.79
12. A/c.No.8269, Accused-2.
Bank of India, 34,009.98
Basaveshwarnagar,
Bengaluru.
13. A/c. No.5584872006, Accused-1.
Citi Bank, Bengaluru. 1,53,000.00
14. A/c.No.445269, 8,910.98 Accused-1.
Central Bank of India,
Marine Lines, Mumbai.
Total: 4,59,789.30
B.4.1: Account No.01190020603
61. According to the Complainant, the Accused-1 possessed Bank Balance of Rs.16,736.13 in his S.B. Account No.01190020603, maintained at State Bank of India, Cauvery Bhavan Branch, Bengaluru. P.W.79- Sri.R.S.Annappa was working as Deputy Manager of that Bank from June 2006 to December 2006. He has deposed that, as per the Requisition of the CBI, he furnished Ex.P.75-Account Statement pertaining to the Account No.01190020603 belonging to the Accused-1 and that as per that Statement, balance in that Account as on 01.01.1996 was Rs.16,736.13. He has identified Ex.P.76 46 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] as Pass Book pertaining to that Account. Contents of Ex.P.75 and Ex.P.76 corroborate the evidence of P.W.79, which fully supports the contention of the Complainant. At Sl.No.4(1) of Page-2 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted the said claim of the Complainant. As such, it is clear that the Accused-1 possessed Bank Balance of Rs.16,736.13 in his S.B.Account No.01190020603 as on 01.01.1996. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 possessed Bank Balance of Rs.16,736.13 in his Account at the commencement of the Check Period.
B.4.2: Account No.30117
62. According to the Complainant, the Accused-2 has opened Account in No.30117 at Canara Bank, Ghatkopar (West Branch), Mumbai and as on 06.11.1996, the balance in that Account was Rs.25,992/-, however, there was no balance in that Account as on 01.01.1996. In support of his contention, the Complainant has relied upon the evidence of P.W.70 and Ex.P.293-Account Statement. P.W.70-Sri.N.V.Sripathi Bhat, the then Chief Manager of Canara Bank, has deposed that Ex.P.293 is the Statement of Account pertaining to the S.B.Account No.30117 in respect of the Accused-2. He has deposed about the balance as on 01.01.1998 and as on 01.04.2001. But, he has not stated about the balance in that Account as on 01.01.1996. Ex.P.293 shows transactions from 06.11.1996 onwards. In this document also, balance as on 01.01.1996 is not available. As such, as per the said evidence 47 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] available on record, there was no balance in that S.B. Account as on 01.01.1996.
63. But, at Sl.No.4(2) of Pages-2 and 80 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that as the Bank Balance in that Account as on 06.11.1996 was Rs.32,889/- and in the absence of Statement prior to 06.11.1996, it has to be treated that Bank Balance as on 01.01.1996 was also Rs.32,889/-. The Accused-1 and 2 have not stated as to when actually said the Account was opened. As the said Account stands in the name of the Accused-2, the Accused-1 and 2 must possess Pass Book pertaining to that Account. If at all there was any balance in that Account as on 01.01.1996, the Accused-1 and 2 would have produced the Pass Book to substantiate their claim. But, they have not produced the same. Though the Accused-1 and 2 have given their evidence apart from giving answers in their Examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., and also filed Written Statement, they have not whispered anything about the balance in that Account as on 01.01.1996. Under these circumstances, it is not possible to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and 2 that there was balance of Rs.32,889/- in that Account as on 01.01.1996.
64. From the above facts, circumstances and in the absence of specific evidence on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2, it has to be inferred that there was no balance in the Account of the Accused-2 as on 01.01.1996. Hence, 48 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] it is held that there was no balance in the Account No.30117 of the Accused-2 maintained at Canara Bank, Ghatkopar (West Branch), Mumbai, at the commencement of the Check Period.
B.4.3: Account No.30118
65. According to the Complainant, in the Account No.30118 of the Accused-1 maintained at Canara Bank, Ghatkopar (West Branch), Mumbai, there was balance of Rs.33,002.57 as on 01.01.1996. P.W.70 has identified Ex.P.291 as the Pass Book and Ex.P.292 as the Account Statement pertaining to that Account. On calculation on the basis of entries in Ex.P.291, it is found that the balance in that Account as on 01.01.1996 was Rs.33,002.57. As such, entries in Ex.P.291 fully support the contention of the Complainant.
66. But, at Sl.No.4(3) of Page-2 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the claim of the Complainant is Rs.38,002.57 as on 01.01.1996 and that their claim is Rs.38,003/- as on that date. The Accused-1 and 2 have not placed any material to substantiate their contention. Claim of the Complainant is not Rs.38,002.57, but, it is Rs.33,002.57, which is well supported by entries in Ex.P.291. It appears that there is typographical mistake in the claim made by the Accused-1 and 2. As such and in the absence of any supporting evidence, it is not possible to accept the contention of the Accused-1 and 2 that the balance in the Account of the Accused-1 was Rs.38,002.57 49 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] as on 01.01.1996. For all the above reasons, it is held that the Accused-1 possessed balance of Rs.33,002.57 in his S.B.Account No.30118 maintained at Canara Bank, Ghatkopar (West Branch), Mumbai, at the commencement of the Check Period.
B.4.4: Account No.5691
67. According to the Complainant, there was balance of Rs.7,211/- as on 01.01.1996 in the Account No.56916 (shown as '5691' by both the parties) maintained at Punjab National Bank, Malleshwaram Branch, Bengaluru, in the names of the Accused-1 and 2. P.W.3- Sri.S.K.Shanmugham was working as Manager of the Punjab National Bank, Malleshwaram Branch, Bengaluru in the year 2005. He has deposed that he furnished Statement of Accounts pertaining to the Accused-1 and 2 to the CBI Officers and that Ex.P.22 is the Seizure Memo and Ex.P.23(a) is the Letter written by him in this regard. He has deposed that Ex.P.28 is the Account Statement of the Account opened in the names of the Accused-1 and 2 at Hassan Branch in No.6363 and that the said Account was transferred to Malleshwaram Branch on 23.10.2002. Ex.P.24 and Ex.P.29-Statements of Accounts show that, after transfer from Hassan Branch to Malleshwaram Branch, the Account number of that Account was changed to 56916. Contents of Ex.P.24, Ex.P.28 and Ex.P.29 show that as on 01.01.1996, there was balance of Rs.7,211/- in 50 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] the said Account of the Accused-1 and 2. The Accused-1 and 2 have not disputed the said claim of the Complainant about the balance as on 01.01.1996. On the other hand, at Sl.No.4(6) of Page-3 of the CSWA, they have admitted the said claim of the Complainant. However, they have stated that the said balance was standing in the name of the Accused-2 only as per Ex.P.24. But, contents of Ex.P.24, Ex.P.28 and Ex.P.29 show that the said Account stands in the names of the Accused-1 and 2 jointly. For all the above reasons, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed balance of Rs.7,211/- in their S.B.Account No.56916 at the commencement of the Check Period.
B.4.5: Account No.17867
68. According to the Complainant, as on 01.01.1996, the Accused-1 possessed Rs.49,895.75 in his Account No.17867, maintained at Punjab National Bank, Hudson Circle, Bengaluru. In support of his contention, the Complainant has relied upon the evidence of P.W.4, Ex.P.37 and Ex.P.38. P.W.4-Sri.V.Lakshminarayana, the then Senior Manager of the Punjab National Bank, Hudson Circle, Bengaluru, has deposed that in response to the Notice issued by the CBI, he has produced Statement of Account through a Letter-Ex.P.37. He has identified Ex.P.38 as the Statement of Account relating to S.B.Account No.17867 of the Accused-1. Contents of Ex.P.38 show that as on 01.01.1996, there was balance of Rs.49,895.75 in the said Account of the Accused-1. As 51 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] such, contents of this document fortify the contention of the Complainant. The Accused-1 and 2 have not disputed the said claim of the Complainant. On the other hand at Sl.No.4(7) of Page-3 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted the said claim of the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 possessed Bank Balance of Rs.49,895.75 in his S.B.Account No.17867 maintained at Punjab National Bank, Hudson Circle Branch, Bengaluru, at the commencement of the Check Period.
B.4.6: Account No.60645
69. According to the Complainant, the Accused-2 possessed Bank Balance of Rs.72,016.70 as on 01.01.1996 in Account No.60645 maintained at Canara Bank, Malleshwaram Branch, Bengaluru. P.W.7-Sri.M.G. Gangaramaiah, the then Officer of the Canara Bank, Malleshwaram Branch, Bengaluru, has produced the Account Extract as per Ex.P.77 pertaining to the Account No.60645 standing in the name of the Accused-2. Ex.P.78 is the Pass Book pertaining to that Account. Contents of these documents show that there was balance of Rs.72,016.70 in that Account as on 01.01.1996. The Accused-1 and 2 have also admitted the said fact at Sl.No.4(11) of Page-3 of the CSWA. Hence, it is held that the Accused-2 possessed Rs.72,016.70 in the Account No.60645 maintained at Canara Bank, 52 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Malleshwaram Branch, Bengaluru, at the commencement of the Check Period.
B.4.7: Account No.19255
70. According to the Complainant, as on 01.01.1996, the Accused-1 possessed Bank Balance of Rs.26,375.96 in his S.B. Account No.19255, maintained at Canara Bank, Ashoka Road Branch, Tumkuru. P.W.8-Sri.N.H.Kuberappa, the then Officer of the Canara Bank, Ashoka Road Branch, Tumkuru, has produced the Statement of Account as per Ex.P.79 pertaining to the S.B.Account No.19255 of the Accused-1. Contents of this document show that as on 01.01.1996, the Accused-1 possessed balance of Rs.26,375.96 in that Account. At Sl.No.4(12) of Page-3 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have also admitted the said claim of the Complainant. Hence, it is held that at the commencement of the Check Period, the Accused-1 possessed Bank Balance of Rs.26,375.96 in his S.B.Account No.19255 maintained at Canara Bank, Ashoka Road Branch, Tumkuru.
B.4.8: Account No.11322
71. According to the Complainant, there was Bank Balance of Rs.8,966/- as on 01.01.1996 in the S.B.Account No.11322 standing in the name of Mr.Abhishek Anand, who is the son of the Accused-1 and 2, maintained at Canara Bank, Magadi Road Branch, Bengaluru. P.W.25- Smt.Gayathri Srinivasachar, the then Officer of Canara 53 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Bank, Magadi Road Branch, Bengaluru, has deposed that she furnished the Statement of Account of S.B.Account No.11322 of Sri Abhishek Anand as per Ex.P.142 and the Account Opening Form pertaining to that Account as per Ex.P.143 to the CBI Officers. She has deposed that the said Account was opened in the name of Sri.Abhishek Anand, who was minor represented by the Accused-2 as his guardian. P.W.71-Sri.H.Keshavamurthy, the then Supervisor of Canara Bank, Magadi Road Branch has deposed that as on 01.01.1996, there was balance of Rs.8,966/- in that Account as per Ex.P.144. Contents of Ex.P.142, Ex.P.143 and Ex.P.144 corroborate the evidence of P.W.25 and P.W.71. Those documents also show that Mr.Abhishek Anand was a minor, when the said Account was opened and that the Accused-2 has opened that Account as a guardian of her son and that there was balance of Rs.8,966/- in that Account as on 01.01.1996. In their Cross-examination, P.W.25 and P.W.71 have stated that the said Account was the Personal Account of Mr.Abhishek Anand. At Sl.No.4(13) of Page-3 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that there was balance of Rs.8,966/- in the said Account of Mr.Abhishek Anand as on 01.01.1996. Even D.W.2-Mr.A.B.Abhishek Anand has deposed that the said Account belongs to him. He has not disputed the balance in that Account as on 01.01.1996. Hence, it is clear that there was Bank Balance of Rs.8,966/- in the said Account standing in the name of Mr.Abhishek Anand. For all these reasons, it is 54 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] held that at the commencement of the Check Period, there was balance of Rs.8,966/- in the Account No.11322 standing in the name of Mr.Abhishek Anand, who is the son of the Accused-1 and 2, maintained at Canara Bank, Magadi Road Branch, Bengaluru.
B.4.9: Account No.04002010042067
72. According to the Complainant, as on 01.01.1996, the Accused-1 possessed Bank Balance of Rs.27,761.19 in his S.B.Account No.04002010042067 maintained at Syndicate Bank, Gandhinagar Branch, Bengaluru. P.W.10-M.Mruthyanjaya Patil, the then Manager of that Bank has deposed that he furnished Account Extract as per Ex.P.87 pertaining to the S.B.Account No.04002010042067 of the Accused-1 along with a Covering Letter-Ex.P.88 to the CBI Officers. He has identified Ex.P.89 as the Pass Book pertaining to that Account. He has deposed that as on 01.01.1996, there was balance of Rs.27,761.19 in that Account. Contents of Ex.P.87 to Ex.P.89 fortify the evidence of P.W.10. The Accused-1 and 2 have not disputed the said claim of the Complainant. On the other hand, at Sl.No.4(14) of Page-4 of the CSWA, the Accused- 1 and 2 have admitted the said claim of the Complainant. Hence, it is held that at the commencement of the Check Period, the Accused-1 possessed Rs.27,761.19 in his S.B.Account No.04002010042067, maintained at Syndicate Bank, Gandhinagara Branch, Bengaluru.
55 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] B.4.10: Account No.9291
73. According to the Complainant, as on 01.01.1996, the Accused-1 possessed Rs.21,903.04 in his S.B.Account No.9291, maintained at the Karantaka Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd., Basaveshwaranagara Branch, Bengaluru. P.W.12-Sri.N.R.Patil was working as Deputy General Manager of that Bank. He has deposed that he produced the Statement of Accounts of the Accused-1 & 2 and their children to the CBI Officers. He has identified Ex.P.95 as the Statement of Account pertaining to the S.B.Account No.9291 of the Accused-1 and Ex.P.96 and Ex.P.97 as the Pass Books pertaining to that Account. Contents of Ex.P.95 to Ex.P.97 show that as on 01.01.1996, there was balance of Rs.21,903.04 in the said Account of the Accused-1. The Accused-1 and 2 have admitted the said claim of the Complainant at Sl.No.4(18) of Page-4 of the CSWA. Hence, it is held that at the commencement of the Check Period, the Accused-1 possessed Bank Balance of Rs.21,903.04 in his S.B.Account No.9291 maintained at the Karantaka Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd., Basaveshwaranagara Branch, Bengaluru.
B.4.11: Account No.45610018583
74. Though the Complainant has contended that there was balance of Rs.22,687.79 in the Account No.45610018583 of the Accused-1 maintained at Standard Chartered Bank, M.G.Road, Bengaluru, he has not given the balance in that Account as on 01.01.1996. The 56 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Accused-1 and 2 have also not stated anything about balance in that Account as on 01.01.1996. Hence, it is held that, at the commencement of the Check Period, there was no balance in the Account No.45610018583 of the Accused-1 maintained at Standard Chartered Bank, M.G.Road, Bengaluru.
B.4.12: Account No.8269
75. According to the Complainant, there was Bank Balance of Rs.34,009.98 as on 01.01.1996 in the Account No.8269 maintained at Bank of India, Basaveshwaranagara Branch, Bengaluru in the name of the Accused-2. P.W.18-Sri.B.S.Dharmappa, the Officer of the Bank of India has deposed that as requested by the CBI, he furnished Statement of Accounts pertaining to the Account No.8269 of the Accused-2. He has identified Ex.P.121 as the Statement of S.B.Account No.8269 of the Accused-2 and Ex.P.122 as the S.B.Account Opening Form pertained to that Account. Contents of Ex.P.121 show that as on 01.01.1996, there was balance of Rs.34,009.98 in that Account. As such, contents of this document support the contention of the Complainant. The Accused-1 and 2 have also admitted the said claim of the Complainant at Sl.No.4(26) of Page-4 of the CSWA. Hence, it is held that the Accused-2 possessed Rs.34,009.98 in her S.B. Account No.8269 maintained at Bank of India, Basaveshwaranagara Branch, Bengaluru, at the commencement of the Check Period.
57 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] B.4.13: Account No.5584872006
76. According to the Complainant, as on 01.01.1996, the Accused-1 possessed Rs.1,53,000/- in his S.B. Account No.5584872006, maintained at Citi Bank, Bengaluru. P.W.91 has seized and produced Ex.P.331-Statement of Account pertaining to that Account. Contents of that Statement show that the Accused-1 possessed Rs.1,53,000/- in that Account as on 01.01.1996. The Accused-1 and 2 have also admitted the said claim of the Complainant at Sl.No.4(30) of Page-5 of the CSWA. Hence, it is held that at the commencement of the Check Period, the Accused-1 possessed Bank Balance of Rs.1,53,000 in his S.B. Account No.5584872006 maintained at Citi Bank, Bengaluru.
B.4.14: Account No.445269
77. According to the Complainant, the Accused-1 possessed Rs.8,910/- in his S.B.Account No.445269 maintained at Central Bank of India, Marine Lines, Mumbai. P.W.75-Sri.R.K.Giridhar, the then Manager of that Bank has deposed about production of Account Statement as per Ex.P.299 pertaining to the S.B.Account No.445269 standing in the name of the Accused-1. Contents of that document show that as on 01.01.1996 the Accused-1 possessed Rs.8,910.98 in that Account. The Accused-1 and 2 have admitted the said claim of the Complainant at Sl.No.4(31) of Page-5 of the CSWA. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 possessed 58 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Rs.8,910.98 in his S.B.Account No.445269 maintained at Central Bank of India, Marine Lines, Mumbai, at the commencement of the Check Period.
B.4.15: Conclusion
78. From the above discussion and findings arrived at, it is clear that there was balance of Rs.4,59,789.30 in the Savings Bank Accounts standing in the name of the Accused-1 and 2 and their son at the commencement of the Check Period. Accordingly, it is held that there was balance of Rs.4,59,789.30 in the Savings Bank Accounts standing in the name of the Accused-1 and 2 and their son-Mr.Abhishek Anand, at the commencement of the Check Period.
B.5: Public Provident Fund Accounts
79. According to the Complainant, the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Rs.15,767/- as on 01.01.1996 in their Public Provident Fund Accounts and the details are as under:-
Balance Sl. Account Number & Standing as on No. Name of the Bank In the 01.1.1996 Name of (in Rs.)
1. A/c.No.10170084673, State Bank of India, 10,767 Accused-1.
Basaveshwarnagar, Bengaluru:
2. A/c.No.01P00900036, State Bank of India, 5,000 Accused-2.
Basaveshwarnagar, Bengaluru:
Total: 15,767 59 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] B.5.1: PPF Account No.10170084673
80. P.W.76-Sri.K.N.Ramaiah, the then Manager of State Bank of India, Basaveshwarnagar Branch, Bengaluru, has deposed that as per the Requisition of CBI, he furnished Copies of Statements of Public Provident Fund Accounts of the Accused-1 and 2 as per Ex.P.300 and Ex.P.301. Ex.P.301 pertains to the Public Provident Fund Account of the Accused-1. Ex.P.7 is the Pass Book pertaining to that Account. Entries in these documents show that the Accused-1 possessed balance of Rs.10,767/-
as on 01.01.1996 in his Public Provident Fund Account. As such, contents of these documents support the contention of the Complainant. At Sl.No.5 of Page-6 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted the said contention of the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 possessed balance of Rs.10,767/- in his Public Provident Fund Account No.10170084673 maintained at State Bank of India, Basaveshwarnagar Branch, Bengaluru, at the commencement of the Check Period.
B.5.2: PPF Account No.01P00900036
81. P.W.81-Smt.Sheela Bentan, the then Assistant Manager of State Bank of India, Magadi Road Branch, Bengaluru, has deposed that as per the Requisition of CBI, she furnished the Account Statement as per Ex.P.162 pertaining to the Public Provident Fund Account of the 60 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Accused-2. She has identified Ex.P.7(A) (wrongly marked as Ex.P.7) as the Pass Book pertaining to that Account. She has deposed that as on 01.01.1996, there was balance of Rs.5,000/- in that Account. Contents of Ex.P.7(A) and Ex.P.162 corroborate the evidence of P.W.81, which supports the contention of the Complainant. At Sl.No.5 of Page-6 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have also admitted the said claim of the Complainant. Hence, it is clear that the Accused-2 possessed Rs.5,000/- in her Public Provident Fund Account No.01P00900036, at the commencement of the Check Period.
82. It is contended by the Accused-1 and 2 at Sl.No.5 of Page-6 of the CSWA, that the Accused-2 had balance of Rs.12,000/- in her Public Provident Fund Account No.736 of State Bank of India, Basaveshwarnagara Branch, Bengaluru, at the commencement of the Check Period. In support of their contention, they have relied upon the evidence of P.W.76 and Ex.P.300. Though P.W.76 has deposed that the balance as on 26.02.1996 in the Public Provident Fund Account of the Accused-2 was Rs.12,000/-, he has not stated that the said balance was as on 01.01.1996. Ex.P.300 shows that the said Public Provident Fund Account was opened on 26.02.1996 by the Accused-2 by depositing Rs.12,000/- on that date. This document also does not show that there was balance of Rs.12,000/- in that account as on 01.01.1996. As this Account was 61 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] opened only on 26.02.1996 by depositing Rs.12,000/-, question of availability of balance of Rs.12,000/- as on 01.01.1996 does not arise. There is no other evidence on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 in support of their claim. Hence, the said claim of the Accused-1 and 2 is untenable and liable to be rejected.
83. From the above facts, circumstances and evidence available on record, it is clear that the Accused-2 possessed Rs.5,000/- only in her Public Provident Fund Account at the commencement of the Check Period.
B.5.3: Conclusion
84. Thus, from the above findings, it is clear that at the time of the commencement of the Check Period, the Accused-1 and 2 possessed balance of Rs.15,767/- in all in their Public Provident Fund Accounts. Accordingly, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Rs.15,767/- in their Public Provident Fund Accounts at the commencement of the Check Period.
B.6: Balance in Post Office Savings Account No.2792446
85. According to the Complainant, the Accused-1 possessed Rs.404.80/- as on 01.01.1996 in his Post Office Savings Account No.2792446. P.W.13-Sri.J.Krishnamurthy, the then Sub-Postmaster of Kempegowda Road Post Office, Bengaluru, has deposed that he furnished Statement of 62 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Account as per Ex.P.99 pertaining to Post Office Savings Account of the Accused-1 along with a Covering Letter- Ex.P.101. He has identified Ex.P.100 as the duplicate Pass Book in respect of that Account. Entries in Ex.P.99 show that as on 01.01.1996, there was balance of Rs.404.80 in the Post Office Savings Account of the Accused-1. At Sl.No.6 of Page-7 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have also admitted the said claim of the Complainant. Hence, it is clear that the Accused-1 possessed Rs.404.80 in his Post Office Savings Account No.2792446, at the commencement of the Check Period.
B.7: Balance In Fixed Deposit Accounts
86. According to the Complainant, there was balance of Rs.51,816/- in Fixed Deposit Accounts in the names of the Accused-1 and 2 and their family members at the commencement of the Check Period and the details are as under:
Balance Sl. FD A/c. No. & as on Name of the Bank Name of the A/c.
No. 01.1.1996
Holder (in Rs.)
1. Karnataka Co- DJJ-528, 529, 30,000
operative Apex Bank 1299, 1327, 1328,
Ltd., Basaveshwara 1329, 1405 &
Nagara, Bengaluru: 1406.
Accused-1 & his
family members.
2. Bank of India, 849245100002439 18,816
Basaveshwaranagara
Branch, Bengaluru: Accused-1 & 2.
63 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
3. Punjab National 55-78043/34. 1,500
Bank, Malleshwaram, 1,500
Bengaluru: Accused-1 & 2.
Total: 51,816
B.7.1: Karnataka Co-operative
Apex Bank Limited
87. According to the Complainant, there was deposit amount of Rs.15,000/- in the name of the Accused-1 and another deposit amount of Rs.15,000/- in the names of his sons-Mr.Abhishek Anand and Mr.Aravind Anand at Karnataka Co-operative Apex Bank Limited, Basaveshwaranagara Branch, Bengaluru at the commencement of the Check Period. P.W.12-Sri.N.R.Patil, the Chief General Manager of that Apex Bank has produced Ex.P.98, which is a Statement of Deposit in the names of the Accused-1 and 2 and their family members. Ex.P.98 shows that the Accused-1 has kept Rs.15,000/- in Fixed Deposit on 29.08.1995 and that there was another deposit of Rs.15,000/- in the names of Mr.Abhishek Anand and Mr.Aravind Anand, which was kept on 12.09.1995. As such, contents of Ex.P.98 support the version of the Complainant. The Accused-1 and 2 have not disputed about the said Fixed Deposits.
88. However, at Sl.No.7(a) of Pages-7 and 82 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said deposits belonged to the Accused-2. In his deposition, at 64 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Page-11, the Accused-1 has stated that those Fixed Deposits related to his wife and children, which were made from their sources of income. However, it is not the evidence of the Accused-2. Though Mr.Abhishek Anand has given his evidence as D.W.2, he has not whispered anything about the said deposit. But, Mr.Aravind Anand has deposed as D.W.3 and he has stated that he got 2 deposits in Apex Bank, invested in the names of himself and his brother out of their savings and earnings and that in the year 1995, his father deposited Rs.15,000/-. It is not the evidence of D.W.3 that the said amount belongs to the Accused-2 as contended in Written Arguments. As such, there are material discrepancies in between the evidence of D.W.2, D.W.3, D.W.4 and D.W.8 in respect of the said deposits. No supporting evidence is placed to show that actually the said deposits were made by the Accused-2 in the names of the Accused-1 and his children.
As such, it is not fit to accept the bare arguments of the Accused-1 and 2 that the said deposits were belonged to the Accused-2. However, it is clear from the available material on record that the said deposit of Rs.30,000/- stands in the names of the Accused-1 and his children. Hence, it is held that there was Fixed Deposit of Rs.15,000/- in the name of the Accused-1 and another Fixed Deposit of Rs.15,000/- in the names of Mr.Abhishek Anand and Mr.Aravind Anand i.e., in all Rs.30,000/- at Karnataka Co-operative Apex Bank 65 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Ltd., Basaveshwaranagara Branch, Bengaluru, at the commencement of the Check Period.
B.7.2: Bank of India
89. According to the Complainant, there was Rs.18,816/- in the Fixed Deposit No.849245100002439 at Bank of India, Basaveshwaranagara Branch, Bengaluru in the names of the Accused-1 and 2 at the commencement of the Check Period. P.W.18-Sri.V.S.Dharmappa, the then Manager of Bank of India has produced Ex.P.123, which is the Statement of Account in respect of Fixed Depsoit No. 849245100002439 and Ex.P.124, which is the Account Opening Form in respect of that Fixed Deposit. Contents of these documents show that the Accused-1 and 2 had opened the said Fixed Deposit Account in their names jointly and that there was balance of Rs.18,816/- as on 20.03.1995 in that Account. The Accused-1 and 2 have not disputed the claim of the Complainant. On the other hand, at Sl.No.7(a) of Page-7 of the CSWA, they have also contended that there was deposit of Rs.18,816/- in the said Fixed Deposit at the commencement of the Check Period. But, Ex.P.123 also shows that interest of Rs.953/- was credited on 22.03.1995 and another Rs.1,000/- was credited on 27.09.1995 as interest to that Account. As such, balance in that Fixed Deposit Account as on 01.01.1996 was Rs.20,769/-. Hence, it is held that there was balance of Rs.20,769/- in the Fixed Deposit Account No.849245100002439 of Bank of 66 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] India, Basaveshwaranagara Branch, Bengaluru, at the commencement of the Check Period in the names of the Accused-1 and 2.
B.7.3: Account No.55-78043/34
90. According to the Complainant, the Accused-1 and 2 had balance of Rs.1,500/- each i.e., in all Rs.3,000/- as Locker Deposits at Punjab National Bank, Malleshwaram Branch, Bengaluru, at the commencement of the Check Period. P.W.3-Sri.S.K.Shanmugam, the then Manager of that Bank has deposed the said fact. Contents of Ex.P.32 & Ex.P.33-Locker Statements also corroborate the evidence of P.W.3, which fortify the contention of the Complainant. The Accused-1 and 2 have not disputed the said claim of the Complainant. On the other hand, at Sl.No.7(a) of Page-7 of the CSWA, they have admitted the said claim of the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 had balance of Rs.1,500/- each i.e., in all Rs.3,000/- as Locker Deposits at Punjab National Bank, Malleshwaram Branch, Bengaluru, at the commencement of the Check Period.
B.7.4: A/c.No.45630009962 & A/c.No.45630009954
91. The Accused-1 and 2 have contended at Sl.No.7(b) of Pages-7 and 86 of the CSWA that the Fixed Deposit Account No.45630009962 and Fixed Deposit Account No.45630009954 were opened in the year 1988- 67 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] 89 for Rs.10,000/- each at ANZ Grindlays Bank, Kanpur Branch by the Accused-1 and that the said Bank was merged with the Standard Chartered Bank with effect from 30.04.1999 and that the balance in those Fixed Deposits as on 01.01.1996 was Rs.19,000/- each and that as such, it has to be considered that the Accused-1 possessed Rs.19,000/- each in those 2 Fixed Deposits i.e., Rs.38,000/- at the commencement of the Check Period. In support of their contention, they have relied upon the evidence of P.W.15-Sri.V.Shankar Rao, Officer of the Standard Chartered Bank and also Ex.P.113 and Ex.P.114. It is not in dispute that the Accused-1 has Fixed Deposit Accounts in No.45630009962 and in No.45630009954 at Standard Chartered Bank, Bengaluru. P.W.15- Sri.V.Shankar Rao, Officer of the Standard Chartered Bank has produced Ex.P.113 and Ex.P.114-Statements of Accounts of those Fixed Deposits along with the Covering Letter. In his Cross-examination, P.W.15 has admitted that those Fixed Deposits were earlier opened at ANZ Grindlays Bank and that the said Bank was merged with the Standard Chartered Bank. In the Covering Letter attached to Ex.P.113 and Ex.P.114, P.W.15 has stated that those 2 deposits were opened prior to 1998. However, he has not stated that the said Fixed Deposits were made prior to 01.01.1996. There is nothing in the evidence of P.W.15 and Ex.P.113 & Ex.P.114 to show that those Fixed Deposits were in existence prior to the commencement of the Check Period or as on the date of the commencement of the 68 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Check Period. As such, the evidence of P.W.15 and Ex.P.113 & Ex.P.114 is of no assistance to the Accused-1 and 2 to substantiate their contention.
92. In his evidence, D.W.4 i.e., the Accused-1 has stated that Ex.P.112 to Ex.P.114 relate to the Savings Bank Account opened during 1980s at Kanpura, source for that Account was from his savings and that from the balance of those Account, 2 Fixed Deposits were created and that they have been renewed periodically. As per this evidence of D.W.4, the said Fixed Deposits were made in the year 1980. This Statement is contrary to and inconsistent with the contention taken by the Accused-1 and 2 in their Written Arguments that the said Fixed Deposits were made in the year 1988-89. No document is produced to show that the said Fixed Deposits were made prior to 01.01.1996. Ex.P.257 is the Statement in Form-5 given by the Accused-1 as a Reply to the Show Cause Notice issued by the Complainant. The said Statement pertains to financial investments and Cash possessed by the Accused-1 and his family members as on 31.03.2005. In that Statement, the Accused-1 has not whispered anything about the said Fixed Deposits kept in the year 1988-89 as contended by him. Under all these circumstances and in the absence of supporting documentary evidence, it is not possible to accept the bare arguments of the Accused-1 and 2 that the Accused-1 possessed Rs.38,000/- in Fixed Deposits at the 69 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] commencement of the Check Period. Hence, the said claim of the Accused-1 and 2 is rejected.
B.7.5: KD/01/009055, 011931, 013285, 013286 & 01326
93. As per the contention of the Accused-1 and 2 at Sl.No.7(c) of Pages-8 and 87 of the CSWA, the Accused-2 had made deposits in Account No.KD/01/009055, 011931, 013285, 013286 & 01326 at Canara Bank, 4th 'T' Block Branch, Jayanagara, Bengaluru, in the year 1981 and they were periodically renewed and there was balance of Rs.1,70,000/- in the said Fixed Deposits as on 01.01.1996, which has been left out by the Complainant. In support of their contention, the Accused-1 and 2 have relied upon the evidence of P.W.19, Ex.P.126 to Ex.P.130. P.W.19- Sri.M.R.Nagaraja, the then Officer of Canara Bank has produced Fixed Deposit Receipts as per Ex.P.126 to Ex.P.130. In his Cross-examination, P.W.19 has admitted that the said Fixed Deposit Accounts were opened in the year 1981 and that they were periodically renewed. Ex.P.126 to Ex.P.130 show that there are deposits in the joint names of the Accused-1 and 2 and that the balance in those deposits are as follows:
Sl. Amount
Account No. Balance as on
No. (in Rs.)
1. KD/13285 30.10.2004 65,718
2. KD/13286 22.10.2004 57,957
3. KD/13326 04.12.2004 24,347
4. KD/09055 12.05.2005 48,346
5. KA/011931 26.01.2004 65,734
70 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
However, those documents do not show the balance in those deposits as on 01.01.1996. In their evidence, though the Accused-1 and 2 have referred to about the said deposits, they have not stated as to what was the actual balance in those deposits as on 01.01.1996. They have also not produced any documents to show the actual balance in those deposits as on 01.01.1996. But, by taking total of those deposits as Rs.2,62,102/-, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the actual balance as on 01.01.1996 was Rs.1,70,000/-. It is not shown as to at which rate of interest, the Accused-1 and 2 have arrived at the said figure. As per Ex.P.126 to Ex.P.130, the rate of interest varies from Rs.6.5% p.a., to 9% p.a., compounded quarterly. In the absence of any evidence about the actual rate of interest prevailing from 1996- 2005, it is just and proper to take average of Rs.6.5% to 9% p.a., which is equal to Rs.7.75% p.a. On calculation at this average rate of interest of Rs.7.5% p.a., compounded quarterly, Rs.1,70,000/- becomes more than Rs.3,52,000/- from 01.01.1996 to 06.04.2005. Hence, it is not fit to accept the arguments on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 that the balance in those deposits as on 01.01.1996 was Rs.1,70,000/-. However, if balance is taken as Rs.1,31,000/- as on 01.01.1996 and on calculation by applying the interest at the rate of Rs.7.75% p.a., compounded quarterly, it becomes Rs.2,64,000/- as on 06.04.2005. As sucb, in the absence of any other 71 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] acceptable evidence on behalf of both the sides, it is just and proper to presume that there was balance of Rs.1,31,000/- as on 01.01.1996 in those Fixed Deposits in the names of the Accused-1 and 2. Hence, it is held that there was balance of Rs.1,31,000/- at the commencement of the Check Period in the Fixed Deposits in the names of the Accused-1 and 2 at Canara Bank, 4th 'T' Block Branch, Jayanagara, Bengaluru.
B.7.6: Conclusion
94. From the above findings, it is clear that there was balance of Rs.1,84,769 in Fixed Deposits in the names of the Accused-1 and 2 and their children. Accordingly, it is held that, at the commencement of the Check Period, there was balance of Rs.1,84,769/- in the Fixed Deposits standing in the names of the Accused-1 and 2 and their sons-Mr.Abhishek Anand and Mr.Aravind Anand.
B.8: Shares Held By The Accused-1 & 2
95. According to the Complainant, at the beginning of the Check Period, the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Shares worth Rs.74,050/- and the details of the same are as follows:
72 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] No. Amount Sl.
Name of Name of the of Certificate Invested No. the Share Company Shares No. & Date (in Rs.) Holder Held.
1. Eimco Elecon(India) Accused-1 & 150 3505 6,500 Ltd., Vallabh 2. 15.02.1993 Vidyanagar, Gujarat.
2. MTZ(India) Ltd., Accused-1 & 100 90044 1,000 Raigad, Maharashtra 2. 30.05.1994
3. Chinar Exports Ltd., Accused-1 & 100 075529 1,000 KG Marg, New Delhi. 2. 25.05.1994
4. SRF Nippondenso Ltd., Accused-2. 100 22772 1,000 Bahadurshah Zafar 11.03.1986 Marg, New Delhi.
5. Usha Rectifier Accused-2. 100 A41778/779 1,000 Corporation(India) 20.05.1986 Ltd., 5 Parliament Street, New Delhi.
6. BPL Engineering Ltd., Accused-1 & 100 44938 7,500 Bommanahalli, 2. 22.11.1994 Bengaluru.
7. HB Leasing & Finance Accused-1 & 150 088538/157 1,500 Company Ltd., 2. 514/157515 Rajendra Place, New Delhi. 11.09.1993 8. Universal Cans & Accused-1 & 50 1016513 500 Containers Ltd., Annie 2.
Besant Road, Worli, 09.05.1994
Bombay.
9. Tamilnadu Petro Accused-1. 100 Allotment 1,800
Products Ltd., Notice/Letter
Nungambakkam High from Co.
Road, Madras.
10. United Breweries Ltd., Accused-1 & 200 165988/989 6,000
Vittal Mallya Road, 2.
Bengaluru. 07.02.1994
(During demerger of the
Co., in 2002, 80 Shares
were allotted in United
Breweries Ltd., and 120
Shares were allotted in
United Breweries (Holdings)
Ltd.,
11. Kirloskar Ferrous Accused-1 & 300 00129336/ 3,000
Industries Ltd., 2. 00175666/
Khadki, Pune. 667
30.03.1994
12. Dhunseri Tea & Accused-1 & 100 0009927 8,000
Industries Ltd., 2.
Hemanta Basu Sarani, 12.02.1993
Calcutta.
73 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
13. Dupont Sports Wear Accused-1 100 00024926 1,000
Ltd., Bicholim, Goa. 17.02.1993
14. IIT Capital Services Accused-1 150 0065281/ 2,000
Ltd., Bombay 17280
Samachar Marg,
Bombay. 07.02.1994
(New Name: Nu-Tech
Corp. Services Ltd.)
15. Television and Accused-1 & 100 00004917 1,000
Components Ltd., 2.
Sector 16, 30.01.1993
Gandhinagar.
16. Mc Dowell & Co. Ltd., Accused-1 & 200 192642/643 11,000
Second Line Beach, 2.
Madras. 25.01.1993
(New Share Certificates
0540692/693 issued
against this in 2001)
17. Hindustan Agro Accused-1. 100 00032905 1,000
Chemicals Ltd.,
Debari, Udaipur, 17.02.1993
Rajasthan.
18. Can Fin Homes Ltd., Accused-1 & 200 23424/425 2,000
Race Course Road, 2.
Bengaluru. 28.03.1989
19. Can Fin Homes Ltd., Accused-2 250 037817/ 3,750
Race Course Road, 18/19
Bengaluru. 01.04.1992
20. Industrial Finance Accused-1 & 100 00379063 3,500
Corporation of India 2.
ltd., BOB Building, 07.02.1994
Sansad Marg,
New Delhi.
21. SBI Equity Shares. Accused-1 & 100 128263/ 10,000
2. 128305
257761901-
850 &
257763901-
950.
December,
1993.
Total: 2,850 74,050
74 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
B.8.1: Shares of Eimco Elecon (India) Ltd.
96. To substantiate his contention that the Accused- 1 and 2 possessed 150 Shares worth Rs.6,500/- belonging to Eimco Elecon(India) Ltd., the Complainant has relied upon the evidence of P.W.91 and Ex.P.314. P.W.91 has seized Ex.P.314-Share Certificate from the Accused-1 and 2 and produced it before this Court. This document does not show that the Accused-1 and 2 jointly possessed 150 Shares worth Rs.6,500/- as contended by the Complainant. But, it shows that the Accused-1 and 2 have jointly purchased 100 Shares worth Rs.10/- each from Eimco Elecon (India) Ltd., on 08.02.1993. There is nothing on behalf of the Complainant to show that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Shares worth Rs.6,500/-. On the other hand, at Sl.No.8(1) of Page-8 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the Accused-1 alone possessed Shares worth Rs.6,500/- of that Company at the commencement of the Check Period. But, they have also not produced any evidence to substantiate the said contention and to rebut the contents of Ex.P.314. There is no reason at all to disbelieve the contents of Ex.P.314. Hence, it is clear that the Accused-1 and 2 jointly possessed 100 Shares worth Rs.1,000/- in all belonging to Eimco Elecon (India) Ltd., as on 01.01.1996. Accordingly, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 jointly possessed 100 Shares worth Rs.1,000/- in all belonging to Eimco Elecon (India) Ltd., at the commencement of the Check Period.
75 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] B.8.2: Shares of MTZ (India) Ltd.
97. In support of his contention, the Complainant has relied upon the evidence of P.W.91, who has seized and produced Ex.P.315-Share Certificate. This document shows that the Accused-1 and 2 have jointly purchased 100 Shares worth Rs.1,000/- in all belonging to MTZ (India) Ltd., as on 01.01.1996. At Sl.No.8(2) of Page-8 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said Shares worth Rs.1,000/- belonged to the Accused-1 only. But, there is no supporting evidence in this regard and to rebut the contents of Ex.P.315. There is no reason to disbelieve the contents of Ex.P.315. In the absence of any evidence contrary to the Accused-1 and 2 and keeping in view the contents of Ex.P.315, it is clear that the Accused-1 and 2 jointly possessed Shares worth Rs.1,000/- belonging to MTZ (India) Ltd., as on 01.01.1996. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 jointly possessed 100 Shares worth Rs.1,000/- in all belonging to MTZ (India) Ltd., at the commencement of the Check Period.
B.8.3: Shares of Chinar Exports Ltd.
98. The Complainant has relied upon the evidence of P.W.91, who has seized and produced Ex.P.316-Share Certificate, to substantiate his contention. This document shows that the Accused-1 and 2 have jointly purchased 100 Shares worth Rs.1,000/- in all belonging to Chinar Exports Ltd., as on 01.01.1996. The Accused-1 and 2 76 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] have not disputed the said claim of the Complainant. They have not given any explanation in their Written Arguments in this regard. There is no reason to disbelieve the contents of Ex.P.316. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 jointly possessed 100 Shares worth Rs.1,000/- in all belonging to Chinar Exports Ltd., at the commencement of the Check Period.
B.8.4: Shares of SRF Nippondenso Ltd.
99. P.W.91 has seized Ex.P.313-Allotment Advice & Share Certificate from the Accused-1 and 2 and produced the same in this case. Contents of this document support the contention of the Complainant that the Accused-2 possessed 100 Shares worth Rs.1,000/- in all, belonging to SRF Nippondenso Ltd., at the commencement of the Check Period. At Sl.No.8(4) of Pages-9 and 88 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted the said claim of the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-2 possessed 100 Shares worth Rs.1,000/- in all belonging to SRF Nippondenso Ltd., at the commencement of the Check Period.
B.8.5: Shares Of Usha Rectifier Corporation (India) Ltd.
100. P.W.91 has seized Ex.P.317 & Ex.P.317(a)- Share Certificates from the Accused-1 and 2 and produced the same in this case. Contents of these documents support the contention of the Complainant that the Accused-2 possessed 100 Shares worth Rs.1,000/- in all, 77 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] belonging to Usha Rectifier Corporation (India) Ltd., at the commencement of the Check Period. At Sl.No.8(5) of Pages-9 and 88 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted the said claim of the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-2 possessed 100 Shares worth Rs.1,000/- in all belonging to Usha Rectifier Corporation (India) Ltd., at the commencement of the Check Period.
B.8.6: Shares of BPL Engineering Ltd.
101. The Complainant has relied upon the evidence of P.W.36 and Ex.P.200-Share Certificate to substantiate his contention. P.W.36-Sri.K.Natarajan, the then Manager of Karvy Computer Shares Private Limited has deposed that 100 Shares of Rs.10/- each i.e., in all worth Rs.1,000/-, has been issued by the Company under Share Certificate-Ex.P.200 in the names of the Accused-1 and 2. Ex.P.200 fortifies the evidence of P.W.36. But, the evidence of P.W.36 and Ex.P.200 do not show that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Shares worth Rs.7,500/- as contended by the Complainant. Though the Accused-1 and 2 have contended at Sl.No.8(6) of Page-9 of the CSWA that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Shares worth Rs.7,500/- of BPL Engineering Company Ltd., they have not produced any supporting evidence in this regard. There is nothing on behalf of the Complainant as well as the Accused-1 and 2 to rebut the evidence of P.W.36 and Ex.P.200. On considering the said evidence and in the 78 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] absence of any evidence to the contrary on behalf of both the parties, it has to be inferred that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Shares worth Rs.1,000/- only at the commencement of the Check Period. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 jointly possessed 100 Shares worth Rs.1,000/- in all belonging to BPL Engineering Ltd., at the commencement of the Check Period.
B.8.7: Shares of HB Leasing & Finance Company Ltd.
102. P.W.91 has seized Ex.P.318-Share Certificate from the Accused-1 and 2. Contents of the said document show that the Accused-1 and 2 jointly possessed 150 Shares worth Rs.1,500/- in all belonging to HB Leasing and Finance Company Ltd., at the commencement of the Check Period. Though the Accused-1 and 2 have not disputed the value of those Shares, at Sl.No.8(7) of Page-9 of the CSWA, they have contended that the Accused-1 alone possessed those Shares. But, they have not produced any supporting evidence to substantiate the said contention and to rebut the contents of Ex.P.318. In the absence of such evidence and keeping in view Ex.P.318, it is clear that the Accused-1 and 2 jointly possessed 150 Shares worth Rs.1,500/- in all as on 01.01.1996. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 jointly possessed 150 Shares worth Rs.1,500/- in all belonging to HB Leasing and Finance Company Ltd., at the commencement of the Check Period.
79 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] B.8.8: Shares of Universal Cans & Containers Ltd.
103. P.W.91 has seized Ex.P.319-Share Certificate from the Accused-1 and 2. Contents of the said document show that the Accused-1 and 2 jointly possessed 50 Shares worth Rs.500/- in all belonging to Universal Cans and Containers Limited at the commencement of the Check Period. Though the Accused-1 and 2 have not disputed the value of those Shares, at Sl.No.8(8) of Page-9 of the CSWA, they have contended that the Accused-1 alone possessed those Shares. But, they have not produced any supporting evidence to substantiate the said contention and to rebut the contents of Ex.P.319. In the absence of such evidence and keeping in view Ex.P.319, it is clear that the Accused-1 and 2 jointly possessed 50 Shares worth Rs.500/- in all as on 01.01.1996. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 jointly possessed 50 Shares worth Rs.500/- in all belonging to Universal Cans and Containers Ltd., at the commencement of the Check Period.
B.8.9: Shares Of Tamilnadu Petro Products Limited
104. According to the Complainant, the Accused-1 possessed 100 Shares worth Rs.1,800/- in all belonging to Tamilnadu Petro Products Limited at the commencement of the Check Period. At Sl.No.8(9) of Pages-10 and 89 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 an 2 have admitted the said claim of 80 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 possessed 100 Shares worth Rs.1,800/- in all belonging to Tamilnadu Petro Products Ltd., at the commencement of the Check Period.
B.8.10: Shares of United Breweries Ltd.
105. The Complainant has relied upon the evidence of P.W.91 and Ex.P.320-Share Certificates to substantiate his contention. P.W.91 has seized Ex.P.320 from the Accused-1 and 2 and produced the same in this case. Contents of Ex.P.320 show that the Accused-1 and 2 jointly possessed 200 Shares worth Rs.10/- each i.e., in all Rs.2,000/- belonging to the United Breweries Limited at the commencement of the Check Period. The said evidence does not show that the value of those Shares was Rs.6,000/- as contended by the Complainant as well as the Accused-1 and 2. Though it is contended by the Accused- 1 and 2 at Sl.No.8(10) of Page-10 of the CSWA that the said Shares were exclusively belonged to the Accused-1, they have not produced any evidence to substantiate the same and to rebut Ex.P.320. Considering the contents of Ex.P.320 and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary on behalf of both the parties, it has to be inferred that the Accused-1 and 2 jointly possessed Shares worth Rs.2,000/- only at the commencement of the Check Period. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 jointly possessed 200 Shares worth Rs.2,000/- in all 81 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] belonging to United Breweries Limited at the commencement of the Check Period.
B.8.11: Shares of Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd.
106. P.W.31-Miss.Aditi Vishwanath Chirmule, the Company Secretary of Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Limited has deposed about production of Share Certificates- Ex.P.175 to Ex.P.178, Letter-Ex.P.179 and Dividend Counterfoils-Ex.P.180 & Ex.P.181 to CBI. It is her evidence that the Accused-1 and 2 jointly possessed Shares shown in Ex.P.175 to Ex.P.178. In her Cross-examination, P.W.31 has admitted that the Accused-1 has made an Application in the year 1992 to Shivaji Works Limited and that after merger of Shivaji Works Limited into Kirloskar Oil Engines Limited, 2 Equity Shares were allotted to the Accused-1 jointly with the Accused-2. Contents of Ex.P.179 show that the investment made by the Accused-1 and 2 jointly to purchase the Shares was Rs.3,750/-. As such, from the evidence of P.W.31 and Ex.P.175 to 179, it is clear that the Accused-1 and 2 jointly possessed Shares worth Rs.3,750/- at the commencement of the Check Period. Though it is contended by the Complainant that the said Shares were worth Rs.3,000/-, contents of Ex.P.179 negative the same. At Sl.No.8(11) of Page-10 of the CSWA, though the Accused-1 and 2 have also contended that the said Shares were worth Rs.3,000/- and that the Accused-1 alone possessed the same, the evidence of P.W.31 and contents of Ex.P.175 to Ex.P.179 negative the 82 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] same. On considering the evidence of P.W.31 and contents of Ex.P.175 to P.179 and in the absence of anything contrary on behalf of both the parties, it has to be inferred that the Accused-1 and 2 jointly possessed Shares worth Rs.3,750/- as on 01.01.1996. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 jointly possessed Shares worth Rs.3,750/- belonging to Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Limited at the commencement of the Check Period.
B.8.12: Shares of Dhunseri Tea & Industries Ltd.
107. In support of his contention, the Complainant has relied upon the evidence of P.W.91 and Ex.P.322- Share Certificate. P.W.91 has seized Ex.P.322 from the Accused-1 and 2 and produced the same in this case. Ex.P.322 shows that the Accused-1 and 2 have jointly purchased 100 Shares worth Rs.10/- each i.e. Rs.1,000/- in all belonging to Dhunseri Tea & Industries Ltd., in the year 1993. It does not show that the said Shares were purchased for Rs.8,000/- as contended by the Complainant. At Sl.No.8(12) of Page-10 of the CSWA, though the Accused-1 and 2 have also contended that the said Shares were worth Rs.8,000/- and that those Shares exclusively belonged to the Accused-1 only, no supporting evidence is placed in this regard and to rebut the contents of Ex.P.322. There is no reason to disbelieve the contents of Ex.P.322. On considering Ex.P.322 and in the absence of any evidence contrary on behalf of both the parties, it has to be inferred that the Accused-1 and 2 jointly 83 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] possessed 100 Shares worth Rs.1,000/- in all as on 01.01.1996. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 jointly possessed 100 Shares worth Rs.1,000/- in all belonging to Dhunseri Tea and Industries Ltd., at the commencement of the Check Period.
B.8.13: Shares of Dupont Sports Wear Ltd.
108. P.W.91 has seized Ex.P.321-Share Certificate from the Accused-1 and 2. Contents of Ex.P.321 show that the Accused-1 possessed 100 Shares worth Rs.1,000/- in all belonging to Dupont Sports Wear Limited at the commencement of the Check Period. At Sl.No.8(13) of Page-10 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have also admitted the said claim of the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 possessed 100 Shares worth Rs.1,000/- in all belonging to Dupont Sports Wear Ltd., at the commencement of the Check Period.
B.8.14: Shares of IIT Capital Services Ltd.
109. P.W.35-Sri.H.J.Yathisha was the Local Representative at MCS Limited, Registrars and Shares Transfer Agents, Mumbai. He has deposed that the Accused-1 purchased Shares of IIT Capital Services Limited as per Ex.P.197-Share Certificate at the commencement of the Check Period. Ex.P.197 is a Debenture-cum-Share Certificate of IIT Capital Services Ltd. As per this document, the Accused-1 purchased 10 Debentures worth Rs.200/- each and 50 Shares worth 84 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Rs.10/- each. As such, the investment made by the Accused-1 as per Ex.P.197 is Rs.2,500/-. The Complainant has contended that the value of the Shares and Debentures purchased under Ex.P.197 is Rs.2,000/-. At Sl.No.8(14) of Page-10 of the CSWA, though the Accused- 1 and 2 have also contended that the value of those Shares and Debentures was Rs.2,000/-, contents of Ex.P.197 negative the same. On considering the contents of Ex.P.197 and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary on behalf of both the parties, it has to be inferred that the Accused-1 possessed Shares & Debentures worth Rs.2,500/- as on 01.01.1996. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 possessed Shares and Debentures worth Rs.2,500/- belonging to IIT Capital Services Limited at the commencement of the Check Period.
B.8.15: Shares of Televison & Components Ltd.
110. P.W.91 has seized Ex.P.324-Share Certificate from the Accused-1 and 2. Contents of the said document show that the Accused-1 and 2 jointly possessed 100 Shares worth Rs.1,000/- in all belonging to Televison & Components Ltd., at the commencement of the Check Period. Though the Accused-1 and 2 have not disputed the value of those Shares, at Sl.No.8(15) of Page-10 of the CSWA, they have contended that the said Shares exclusively belonged to the Accused-1. But, no supporting evidence is placed in this regard and to rebut the contents of Ex.P.324. There is no reason to disbelieve the contents 85 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] of Ex.P.324. On considering Ex.P.324 and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary on behalf of the Accused-1 & 2, it has to be inferred that the Accused-1 and 2 jointly possessed those Shares as on 01.01.1996. Hence, it is held that at the commencement of the Check Period, the Accused-1 and 2 jointly possessed 100 Shares worth Rs.1,000/- in all belonging to Television and Components Limited.
B.8.16: Shares of McDowell & Co., Ltd.
111. P.W.33-Sri.V.S.Venkataraman, the then Company Secretary and Executive Vice President of United Spirits Limited (Formally called as McDowell Company Limited), has deposed about production of Share Certificates-Ex.P.187 to Ex.P.190 along with a Letter- Ex.P.191 to the CBI Officers. He has deposed about purchase of 200 Shares by the Accused-1 and 2 from McDowell & Company Limited in the year 1993, merger of that Company with the United Spirits Limited and change of that Company into McDowell Company Limited in the year 2001. He has deposed that 200 Shares of the Accused-1 and 2 were worth Rs.11,000/- as on 1993. Contents of Ex.P.187 to Ex.P.191 fortify the evidence of P.W.33. Though the Accused-1 and 2 have not disputed the value of those Shares, at Sl.No.8(16) of Page-11 of the CSWA, they have contended that said Shares were exclusively belonged to the Accused-1. But, contents of Ex.P.187 to Ex.P.191 show that all those Shares stand jointly in the names of the Accused-1 and 2. There is no 86 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] reason to disbelieve the said documents. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 jointly possessed 200 Shares worth Rs.11,000/- in all belonging to McDowell & Company Limited at the commencement of the Check Period.
B.8.17: Shares of Hindustan Agro Chemicals Ltd.
112. P.W.91 has seized Ex.P.325-Share Certificate from the Accused-1 and 2. Contents of Ex.P.325 show that the Accused-1 possessed 100 Shares worth Rs.1,000/- in all belonging to the Hindustan Agro Chemicals Ltd., at the commencement of the Check Period. At Sl.No.8(17) of Page-11 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted the said fact. Hence, it is held that at the commencement of the Check Period, the Accused-1 and 2 jointly possessed 100 Shares worth Rs.1,000/- in all belonging to Television and Components Limited.
B.8.18: Shares of CanFin Homes Ltd.
113. According to the Complainant, the Accused-1 and 2 jointly possessed 200 Shares worth Rs.2,000/- belonging to CanFin Homes Ltd., as per Share Certificate No.23424 & 23425 at the commencement of the Check Period. P.W.30-Sri.Sathya Prakash, the then AGM and Company Secretary of CanFin Homes Limited, has deposed about production of Share Certificates-Ex.P.163 & Ex.P.164, relating to 200 Shares worth Rs.2,000/-
87 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] standing in the joint names of the Accused-1 and 2 as per the request of CBI. Contents of Ex.P.163 and Ex.P.164 show that the Accused-1 and 2 jointly possessed 200 Shares worth Rs.2,000/- in all at the commencement of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. At Sl. No.8(18) and Pages-11 and 90 of the of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted about possession of said Shares in their joint names. Though a bare contention is taken by the Accused-1 and 2 in their evidence that those Shares exclusively belonged to the Accused-2, no supporting material is placed to rebut the contents of Ex.P.163 and Ex.P.164. In the absence of such rebuttal evidence and keeping in view the contents of Ex.P.163 and Ex.P.164, it has to be inferred that the Accused-1 and 2 jointly possessed 200 Shares worth Rs.2,000/- in all at the commencement of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 jointly possessed 200 Shares worth Rs.2,000/- in all belonging to CanFin Homes Ltd., at the commencement of the Check Period.
B.8.19: Shares of CanFin Homes Ltd.
114. According to the Complainant, the Accused-2 possessed 250 Shares worth Rs.3,750/- belonging to Canfin Homes Ltd., at the commencement of the Check Period. Contents of Ex.P.165 to Ex.P.167 produced by P.W.30 and the evidence of P.W.30 show that the Accused- 2 possessed 250 Shares worth Rs.3,750/- in all belonging 88 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] to CanFin Homes Ltd., at the commencement of the Check Period. At Sl. No.8(19) and Pages-11 and 90 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have also admitted the said contention of the Complainant. Hence, it is held that at the commencement of the Check Period, the Accused-2 possessed 250 Shares worth Rs.3,750/- in all belonging to CanFin Homes Ltd.
B.8.20: Shares of Industrial Finance Corporation of India Ltd.
115. The evidence of P.W.35 and contents of Ex.P.198-Share Certificate show that the Accused-1 and 2 jointly possessed 100 Shares worth Rs.3,500/- in all belonging to IFCI Ltd., at the commencement of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. But, contents of Ex.P.210-Letter dated 13.10.2005 issued by MCS Limited and produced by P.W.30 show that the said Shares were allotted to the Accused-1 and that they are standing in the name of the Accused-1 as contended by the Accused-1 and 2 in their Written Arguments (CSWA) at Sl.No.8(20) and Page-11. Hence, it is held that at the commencement of the Check Period, the Accused-1 possessed 100 Shares worth Rs.3,500/- in all belonging to IFCI Ltd.
B.8.21: SBI Equity Shares
116. The Complainant has contended that the Accused-1 and 2 jointly possessed 100 Shares worth Rs.10,000/- belonging to SBI Equity Shares at the 89 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] commencement of the Check Period. But, he has not produced any supporting evidence in this regard. The Accused-1 and 2 have also not admitted the said fact. As such and in the absence of any evidence on behalf of the Complainant, it is not fit to accept his bare contention. Hence, the claim of the Complainant that the Accused-1 and 2 jointly possessed 100 SBI Equity Shares worth Rs.10,000/-at the commencement of the Check Period is rejected.
B.8.22: Shares of Carol Info Services Ltd./Wockhardt Ltd.
117. According to the Accused-1 and 2, as contended in Sl.No.8(22) and Pages-12 & 91 of the CSWA, 100 Shares of Wockhardt Ltd., were allotted to them jointly for a consideration of Rs.19,500/-, again 100 Shares were allotted as Bonus Shares in the year 1994 and that in the year 2004, those Shares have been transferred to the name of the Accused-2 as the original investment was made by the Accused-2 only and that as such, it has to be held that the Accused-2 possessed Shares worth Rs.19,500/- at the commencement of the Check Period. In his evidence, D.W.4 i.e., the Accused-1 has deposed the said fact. P.W.32-Sri.Vijay R.Kethan, Company Secretary and Vice President of Wockhardt Company Ltd., has also deposed that 100 Shares of his Company were allotted to the Accused-1 and 2 jointly for a consideration of Rs.19,500/- as per Share Certificate-Ex.P.182 and that again 100 Shares were allotted to them as Bonus Shares in 90 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] the year 1994 as per Share Certificate-Ex.P.183. He has further deposed about merger of the Company in the year 2000 with Wockhardt Pharmaceuticals Ltd., splitting of face value of the Shares in the year 2004 as per Share Certificate-Ex.P.184, allotment of 200 Bonus Shares as per Share Certificate-Ex.P.185, Change of Company to Carol Info Services Ltd., in the year 2004, payment of Dividend and also writing of Letter as per Ex.P.186 to the CBI. As per the said evidence of P.W.32, Ex.P.182 and Ex.P.183, the Accused-1 and 2 jointly possessed 200 Shares worth Rs.19,500/- of Wockhardt Company Ltd., which became Carol Info Services Limited subsequently. Ex.P.186 shows transfer of all those Shares to the name of the Accused-2 in the year 2004. However, there is nothing in the evidence of P.W.32 and Ex.P.182 to Ex.P.186 to show that investment of Rs.19,500/- was exclusively made by the Accused-2. There is no supporting evidence also to the evidence of the Accused-1. In the absence of such evidence, it is not possible to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and 2 that the investment was made by the Accused-2 only and that as such, those Shares were exclusively belonged to the Accused-2 only. On the other hand, on considering the evidence of P.W.32 and Ex.P.182 & Ex.P.183, it has to be held that the Accused-1 and 2 jointly possessed 200 Shares worth Rs.19,500/- at the commencement of the Check Period. The Complainant has left out the said Assets held by the Accused-1 and 2 jointly. There is no explanation from him in this regard.
91 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 jointly possessed 200 Shares worth Rs.19,500/- in all belonging to Carol Info Services Ltd., at the commencement of the Check Period.
B.8.23: Shares of Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd.
118. At Sl.No.8(23) and Page-12 of the of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended with reference to the evidence of P.W.31 that 2 Equity Shares of Shivaji Works Ltd., were allotted in the year 1992 in the joint names of the Accused-1 and 2, investment of Rs.3,750/- was made by the Accused-2 in respect of those Shares, later Shivaji Works Ltd., was merged with Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd., which was merged with Kirloskar Industries and that as such, it has to be considered that the Accused-2 possessed Shares worth Rs.3,750/- at the commencement of the Check Period. This contention has been dealt already under the head-'B.8.11' and held that the Accused-1 and 2 jointly possessed Shares worth Rs.3,750/- belonging to Kirloskar Industries Ltd. As such, it is not permissible to take the said claim once again as contended by the Accused-1 and 2. Hence, the claim of the Accused-1 and 2 is rejected.
B.8.24: Conclusion
119. From the above findings, it is clear that at the beginning of the Check Period, the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Shares worth Rs.61,800/- and the details of the same are as follows:
92 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] No. Head Name of Amount Name of the of No. the Invested Company Shares Share (in Rs.) Held.
Holder B.8.1 Eimco Elecon(India) Ltd., Accused-1 100 1,000 Vallabh Vidyanagar, & 2.
Gujarat.
B.8.2 MTZ(India) Ltd., Raigad, Accused-1 100 1,000
Maharashtra & 2.
B.8.3 Chinar Exports Ltd., Accused-1 100 1,000
KG Marg, New Delhi. & 2.
B.8.4 SRF Nippondenso Ltd., Accused- 100 1,000
Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, 2.
New Delhi.
B.8.5 Usha Rectifier Accused- 100 1,000
Corporation(India) Ltd., 5 2.
Parliament Street, New
Delhi.
B.8.6 BPL Engineering Ltd., Accused-1 100 1,000
Bommanahalli, Bengaluru. & 2.
B.8.7 HB Leasing & Finance Accused-1 150 1,500
Company Ltd., Rajendra & 2.
Place,
New Delhi.
B.8.8 Universal Cans & Accused-1 50 500
Containers Ltd., Annie & 2.
Besant Road, Worli,
Bombay.
B.8.9 Tamilnadu Petro Products Accused- 100 1,800
Ltd., Nungambakkam High 1.
Road, Madras.
B.8.10 United Breweries Ltd., Vittal Accused-1 200 2,000
Mallya Road, Bengaluru. & 2.
(During demerger of the Co., in
2002, 80 Shares were allotted in
United Breweries Ltd., and 120
Shares were allotted in United
Breweries (Holdings) Ltd.,
B.8.11 Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Accused-1 - 3,750
Ltd., Khadki, Pune. & 2.
B.8.12 Dhunseri Tea & Industries Accused-1 100 1,000
Ltd., Hemanta Basu Sarani, & 2.
Calcutta.
B.8.13 Dupont Sports Wear Ltd., Accused-1 100 1,000
Bicholim, Goa.
B.8.14 IIT Capital Services Ltd., Accused-1 Shares-50 2,500
Bombay Samachar Marg, Debentures-
10
Bombay.
(New Name: Nu-Tech Corp.
93 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
Services Ltd.)
B.8.15 Television and Components Accused-1 100 1,000
Ltd., Sector 16, & 2.
Gandhinagar.
B.8.16 Mc Dowell & Co. Ltd., Accused-1 200 11,000
Second Line Beach, & 2.
Madras.
(New Share Certificates
0540692/693 issued against
this in 2001)
B.8.17 Hindustan Agro Chemicals Accused- 100 1,000
Ltd., Debari, Udaipur, 1.
Rajasthan.
B.8.18 Can Fin Homes Ltd., Accused-1 200 2,000
Race Course Road, & 2.
Bengaluru.
B.8.19 Can Fin Homes Ltd., Accused-2 250 3,750
Race Course Road,
Bengaluru.
B.8.20 Industrial Finance Accused-1 100 3,500
Corporation of India ltd., & 2.
BOB Building, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi.
B.8.22 Carol Info Services Accused-1 200 19,500
Ltd./Wockhardt Ltd. & 2.
Total: 61,800
120. Accordingly, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Shares worth Rs.61,800/-, at the commencement of the Check Period.
B.9: Balance in 2 IDBI Bonds
121. According to the Complainant, the Accused-1 possessed 2 IDBI Bonds worth Rs.5,400/- in all in the names of his children-Mr.Abhishek Anand and Mr.Aravind Anand. P.W.28-Smt.Y.Sandhya Bai, the then AGM of IDBI Bank has deposed about investment of Rs.2,700/- each by the Accused-1 in the names of his minor sons-Mr.Abhishek Anand and Mr.Aravind Anand in the year 1992 as per 94 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Bonds-Ex.P.154 and Ex.P.155. Contents of Ex.P.154 and Ex.P.155 fortify the evidence of P.W.28, which supports the contention of the Complainant. At Sl.No.9 and Page- 12 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have also admitted the said claim of the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 possessed IDBI Bonds worth Rs.5,400/- in all in the names of his minor children at the commencement of the Check Period.
B.10: Balance In 800 Units Of Can Bonus-Can Bank Mutual Fund
122. According to the Complainant, the Accused-1 possessed 400 Units worth Rs.4,000/- in all under Can Bonus Scheme and similarly the Accused-2 possessed 400 Units worth Rs.4,000/- in all under Can Bonus Scheme before the commencement of the Check Period. P.W.54- Sri.S.Jayashankar, the then Assistant Vice President of Can Bank Computers Services Limited, Bengaluru, has deposed that the Accused-1 and 2 have made investment for 400 Units (Rs.10/- per each Unit) under 1991 Can Bonus Scheme and that he has furnished the details in this regard as per Ex.P.274. Contents of Ex.P.274 fortify the evidence of P.W.54, which supports the contention of the Complainant. The Accused-1 and 2 have contended at Sl.No.10, Pages-13 & 92 of the CSWA that the said investment was made by the Accused-2 alone. In her evidence, D.W.8 i.e., the Accused-2 except denying that the invested amount in respect of the investment relating 95 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] to Ex.P.273 belongs to the Accused-1, she has not stated anything in support of her contention. Though, in the Cross-Examination, P.W.54 has stated that when Can Bonus Scheme was introduced, Canara Bank persuaded the employees to purchase the Units and in that process, the Accused-2 purchased the Units, it is not the evidence of P.W.54 that all the 800 Units were purchased by the Accused-2 alone. On the other hand, contents of Ex.P.274 and the answers given by P.W.54 in his Examination-in- chief evidence clearly show that the Accused-1 and 2 purchased 400 Units each. As such, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and 2 that the entire investment was made by the Accused-2 alone. On considering the evidence of P.W.54 and Ex.P.274 and in the absence of any acceptable evidence to the contrary on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2, it is clear that the Accused- 1 and 2 possessed 400 Units each under Can Bonus Scheme. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 possessed 400 Units worth Rs.4,000/- and that the Accused-2 possessed 400 Units worth Rs.4,000/-, under Can Bonus Scheme at the commencement of the Check Period.
B.11: Investment In UTI
123. The evidence of P.W.50-Smt.Urmila Anand, Branch Manager of UTI Technologies Services Limited and contents of Bonds-Ex.P.262 to Ex.P.266 and Letters- Ex.P.267 to Ex.P.269 produced by her show that the 96 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Accused-1 possessed 2280 Units worth Rs.36,104/- under Unit-64 Scheme, 2000 Units + 800 Bonus Units worth Rs.20,000/- under MEP 1993 Scheme and that 1000 Units worth Rs.10,000/- under Master Growth-1993 Scheme at the commencement of the Check Period. At Sl.No.11 and Page-13 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted the said claim of the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 possessed 2280 Units worth Rs.36,104/- under Unit-64 Scheme, 2800 Units worth Rs.20,000/- under MEP 1993 Scheme and 1000 Units worth Rs.10,000/- under Master Growth 1993 Scheme at the commencement of the Check Period.
B.12: Payments Made To Balausery Benefit Chit Funds (BBC)
124. At Sl.No.12 and Pages-13 and 93 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that as a customer of BBC since 1970, the Accused-1 has paid Rs.7,401/- through Cheques from his S.B.Account No.17867 of Punjab National Bank, Hudson Circle Branch and that as such, it has to be considered that the Accused-1 possessed Rs.7,401/- at the commencement of the Check Period, which has been left out by the Complainant. In support of their contention, they have relied upon the evidence of P.W.4 and Ex.P.38. P.W.4-Sri.V.Lakshminarayan, the then Senior Manager of Punjab National Bank, Hudson Circle Branch, Bengaluru has produced Ex.P.38, which is the Statement of Account No.17867 belonging to the Accused-
97 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
1. Contents of this document show that the Accused-1 has made payments to BBC through Cheques as under:
Sl. Amount
Date
No. (In Rs.)
1. 01.09.1995 1,840
2. 10.10.1995 1,810
3. 31.10.1995 1,834
4. 30.11.1995 1,917
Total: 7,401
As such, contents of Ex.P.38 fortify the contention of the Accused-1 and 2. The Complainant has not taken the said amount into consideration. There is no explanation from him in this regard. Hence, it has to be held that the Accused-1 possessed Rs.7,401/- by making payments to the BBC at the commencement of the Check Period. Accordingly, it is held that the Accused-1 possessed Rs.7,401/- by making payments to BBC at the commencement of the Check Period.
B.13: Balance In Multi Deposit Account With Citi Bank
125. At Sl.No.13 and Pages-13 and 94 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs.75,000/-+Rs.75,000/-) was transferred on 31.12.1995 to Multi Deposit Accounts from the S.B.Account of the Accused-1 maintained at Citi Bank. In support of their contention, they have relied upon Ex.P.331-Statement of S.B.Account of the Accused-1 98 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] produced by P.W.91. Contents of this document show that there was balance of Rs.1,50,000/- as on 29.07.1995 in the S.B.Account of the Accused-1 and that on 31.07.1995, Rs.75,000/- each was transferred to Multi Deposit Accounts of the Accused-1 and that the said deposits were continued even subsequent to 1996. As such, contents of Ex.P.331 support the contention of the Accused-1 and 2. The Complainant has not considered the said deposit amounts. There is no explanation from him in this regard. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 possessed Rs.1,50,000/- in his Multi Deposit Account with the Citi Bank at the commencement of the Check Period.
B.14: Flat No.E-501, Raheja Park, Magadi Road, Bengaluru
126. The Accused-1 and 2 have contended at Sl.No.14 and Pages-13 and 95 of the CSWA, that the Accused-2 purchased Flat No.E-501, Raheja Park, Magadi Road, Bengaluru on 03.11.1995 for a consideration of Rs.7,25,000/-, she spent Rs.55,250/- for Stamp Duty and Registration expenses and that as such, she possessed Flat worth Rs.7,80,250/- at the commencement of the Check Period and that the said Flat was subsequently sold on 29.11.2003. P.W.20-Sri.Shivaramaiah, the then Sub- Registrar has deposed about production of Ex.P.133- Certified Copy of Sale Deed to the CBI Officers. Contents of Ex.P.133 show that the Accused-2 purchased a Flat bearing No.E-501, Raheja Park, Magadi Road, Bengaluru on 03.11.1995 and that she has spent Rs.7,80,250/- for 99 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] that purpose. As such, contents of Ex.P.133 fortify the contention of the Accused-1 and 2. The evidence of P.W.40-Si.Govinda Iyengar and contents of Ex.P.221 show that the Accused-2 sold that Flat on 29.11.2003 to P.W.40 and his wife. Thus, it is clear that the Accused-2 possessed Flat worth Rs.7,80,250/- at the commencement of the Check Period. The Complainant has not taken this Asset into consideration. There is no explanation from him in this regard. Hence, it is held that the Accused-2 possessed Flat No.E-501, Raheja Park, Magadi Road, Bengaluru, worth Rs.7,80,250/- at the commencement of the Check Period.
B.15: Balance Of Savings Relating To The Period Prior To The Check Period
127. At Sl.No.15 and Pages-14 and 96 to 103 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that they had Savings from their salary, since 1967-68 relating to the Accused-1 and since 1971-72 relating to the Accused-2, received Gifts on the occasion of birthdays, marriages, marriage anniversaries etc., they received rental income and that if the said amounts were invested, they were getting returns at the rate of 8% p.a., and that by this way, they possessed Rs.22,50,030/- as on the date of the Check Period and that as such, it has to be held that they possessed Assets worth Rs.22,50,030/- at the commencement of the Check Period. Except stating so in their Written Arguments, they have not produced any supporting evidence in this regard. It is not even stated 100 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] by them as to where actually they had kept the said investment. It is not their contention that they had actually possessed so much of amount by way of investment as on the date of the Check Period. If they had such a huge amount, the Accused-1 would have declared the same to the Government in his Annual Statements of Assets and Liabilities. But, no such evidence is placed by the Accused-1 and 2. Though the Accused-1 and 2 have given their evidence, they have not whispered anything about the said Assets worth Rs.22,50,030/- as on 01.01.1996. Under these circumstances and in the absence of supporting evidence, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and 2. Hence, the claim of the Accused-1 and 2 that they possessed Balance of Savings worth Rs.22,50,030/- at the commencement of the Check Period is rejected.
B.16: FINAL CALCULATION OF STATEMENT-A
128. In view of the above findings, Final Calculation of Assets held by the Accused-1 and 2 at the commencement of the Check Period is as under:
Head Year of Value of
No. Description of Asset
Acquisition the Assets
(in Rs.)
B.1 Karnataka Housing Board
House at No.30, I Stage, 1,35,770.00
Agrahara Dasarahalli, 1978
Bengaluru:
B.2 Household Articles: 1990 to 1996 99,641.00
101 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
B.3 Gold Ornaments: 1985 to 1996 82,000.00
B.4 Bank Balances in Savings Before Check 4,59,789.30
Bank Accounts: Period.
B.5 Bank Balances in Public Before Check 15,767.00
Provident Fund Accounts: Period.
B.6 Balances in Post Office Before Check 404.80
Savings Accounts: Period.
B.7 Bank Balances in Fixed Before Check 1,84,769.00
Deposit Accounts: Period.
B.8 2850 Shares in different Before Check 61,800.00
Companies/Banks: Period.
B.9 IDBI Bonds-2: Before Check 5,400.00
Period.
B.10 800 Units of Canbonus-
Canbank Mutural Funds:
4,000.00
a) Accused-1:400 Units: Before Check
Period. 4,000.00
b) Accused-2:400 Units: Before Check
Period.
B.11 Investments in UTI:
a) Unit-64 Before Check 36,104.00
2280 Units/Bonds: Period.
b) MEP-1993 Before Check 20,000.00
2000 Units and 800 Period.
Bonus Units:
c) Master Growth, 1993 Before Check 10,000.00
1000 Units: Period.
B.12 Payments made to Before Check
Balausery Benefit Chit Period. 7,401.00
Funds:
B.13 Balance in Multi Deposit Before Check Account with City Bank: Period. 1,50,000.00 B.14 Flat No.E-501, Raheza Before Check 7,80,250.00 Park, Magadi Road, Period.
Bengaluru.
TOTAL : 20,57,096.10
102 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
Thus, it is clear that at the commencement of the Check Period, the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Assets worth Rs.20,57,096.10. Hence, it is held that the Assets possessed by the Accused-1 and 2 at the commencement of the Check Period is Rs.20,57,096.10.
C. ASSETS AT THE END OF THE CHECK PERIOD (STATEMENT-B)
129. According to the Complainant, Assets found in the possession of the Accused-1 and 2 at the end of the Check Period are as follows:
Sl. Year/Date of Value of
Description of Assets
No. Acquisition the Assets
(in Rs.)
1. Karnataka Housing
Board House at No.30, 14.09.1998 1,61,155.00
I Stage, Agrahara
Dasarahalli, Bengaluru:
2. Apartment at 305,
Building No.4, Shanthi 23.07.2001 7,24,040.00
Park Apartments, 9th
Block, Jayanagar,
Bengaluru:
3. Apartment at 207,
Bombay House, No.55, 08.09.2003 23,14,925.00
Kanakapura Road,
Basavanagudi,
Bengaluru:
4. Household Articles: Before and
during the 10,11,540.00
Check Period.
5. Gold Ornaments: Before and
during the 3,85,600.00
103 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
Check Period.
6. Bank Balances in Before and
various Savings Bank during the 23,43,121.89
Accounts: Check Period.
7. Public Provident Fund Before and
Accounts: during the 12,95,932.74
Check Period.
8. Post Office Savings: Before and
during the 7,54,727.00
Check Period.
9. Fixed Deposits in Before and
different Banks: during the 53,87,353.00
Check Period.
10. Credit Balance in Over Before and
Draft Account: during the 4,140.00
Check Period.
11. Ten Shares in the
During the
Rajajinagara Co- 1,000.00
Check Period.
operative Bank Ltd.,
Bengaluru:
12. Indian Currency seized
during House search on 90,000.00
06.04.2005:
13. 14,975 Shares in Before and
different Companies: during the 6,93,992.00
Check Period.
14. Bonds held in:
a) IDBI-16: Before and 76,000.00
during the
Check Period.
b) HUDCO-10: Before and 10,000.00
during the
Check Period.
c) ICICI-14: 70,000.00
During the
Check Period.
104 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
15. NSCs: During the 1,000.00
Check Period.
16. Balance in Chit Fund
No.KS/10-1,maintained During the 66,250.00
with Baluserry Chit Check Period.
Fund Pvt. Ltd. Co.,
Bengaluru:
17. Units of Canequity
Diversified Scheme-
Canbank Mutual
Funds:
a)Accused-1-400 Units: Before Check 4,000.00
Period.
b)Accused-2-400 Units: Before Check 4,000.00
Period.
18. Investments in UTI:
a) Unit-64: 4600 Before the 66,390.00
Units/Bonds: Check Period.
b) MEP 1993 Before the 20,000.00
2000 units and 800 Check Period.
Bonus units:
c) Master Growth Before the 10,000.00
1993-1000 units: Check Period.
19. Deposit with BSNL.,
Bengaluru made by:
a) Accused-1 while Before Check 10,080.00
applying for telephone Period.
connection-26636451:
b) Accused-2 while During the 2,000.00
applying for telephone Check Period.
connection 26608912:
TOTAL: 1,55,07,246.63
105 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
C.1: House No.30,
Karnataka Housing Board
130. As observed above, the Accused-1 possessed House No.30 allotted by Karnataka Housing Board in the year 1978, which was worth Rs.1,35,770/- at the commencement of the Check Period. According to the Complainant, the Accused-1 paid another 2 Annual Installments, Stamp Duty and Registration Fee, in all Rs.25,385/- during the Check Period towards the said property and as such, the said property was worth Rs.1,61,155/- at the end of the Check Period. Ex.P.312 is the registered Sale Deed dated 14.11.1998. Ex.P.132 is the Certified Copy of the said Sale Deed. Contents of these documents support the contention of the Complainant. The Accused-1 and 2 have not disputed the said claim of the Complainant. On the other hand, at Sl.No.1 and Page-15 of the CSWA, they have admitted the said claim of the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 possessed House No.30, allotted by the Karnataka Housing Board, worth Rs.1,61,155/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.2: Apartment No.305, Shanthi Park Apartments
131. According to the Complainant, the Accused-2 possessed a Flat bearing No.305, worth Rs.7,24,040/- at the end of the Check Period. P.W.21-Sri.K.R.Renuka Prasad, the then Head Quarters Sub-Registrar, Jayanagara, 106 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Bengaluru, has produced Ex.P.134-Certified Copy of Sale Deed dated 23.07.2001. Contents of Ex.P.134 support the contention of the Complainant that the Accused-2 possessed an Apartment bearing No.305 worth Rs.7,24,040/- by purchasing the same. The Accused-1 and 2 have not disputed the said claim of the Complainant. On the other hand, at Sl.No.2 and Page-15 of the CSWA and in the evidence of D.W.8 i.e., the Accused-2, they have admitted the said claim of the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-2 possessed Apartment No.305, Building No.4, Shanthi Park, 9th Block, Jayanagara, Bengaluru, worth Rs.7,24,040/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.3: Apartment No.207
132. According to the Complainant, the Accused-2 possessed an Apartment bearing No.207 at Basavanagudi, Bengaluru, worth Rs.23,14,925/- at the end of the Check Period. P.W.24-Sri.Ombalaiah, the then Sub-Registrar, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru, has produced Ex.P.141-Certified Copy of Sale Deed dated 08.09.2003. Contents of Ex.P.141 support the contention of the Complainant that the Accused-2 possessed an Apartment bearing No.207 at Basavanagudi, Bengaluru, worth Rs.23,14,925/- by purchasing the same. The Accused-1 and 2 have not disputed the said claim of the Complainant. On the other hand, at Sl.No.3 and Page-15 of the CSWA and in the evidence of D.W.8 i.e., the Accused-2, they have admitted 107 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] the said claim of the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-2 possessed Apartment No.207, Bombay House, No.55, Kanakapura Road, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru, worth Rs.23,14,925/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4: Household Articles
133. The Complainant has contended that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Household Articles worth Rs.10,11,540/- at the end of the Check Period and that the details of the same are as under:
Value of Sl. Year of Mode of the Assets Name of Article Acquisition Acquisition No. (in Rs.)
1. Sofa Set - 3 Piece 2004 Purchased 50,000 (Black colour):
2. Teapoy Glass & 2003 -do- 2,500 Wood:
3. Embroidery Carpet 2000 -do- 28,000 8' x6':
4. Telephone Stand: 1999 Purchased with BPL TV. -
5. Stand for Vase: 2004 Sofa Set -
Compliment 6. 3 Earthen Pot Set: 2003 Purchased 300
7. 3 Wooden Sofa 1994 Purchased 15,000 Set:
8. TV Show Case 2004 Included in -
Wooden: the fixtures
of the Flat.
9. Glass Showcase: 2004 -do- -
10. DVD-BPL: 2003 -do- 2,000
11. Time Piece: 2000 Gift -
12. Ganapathy Idols-3 Gift during
Anjaneya Idol-1 & 1999-2005 seminars, -
Shiva Idol-1: transfers.
13. 6 Small Hanging -do- -do- -
Watches:
108 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
14. Show Lamp: 1995 Purchased. 150
15. 3 Hanging Show 2004 -do- 1,500
Light Sets:
16. Wooden Shoe -do- Included in
Rack: the Fixtures -
of the Flat.
17. -do- 1995 Purchased. 1,000
18. 3 Wall Hangings: 1995-2004 2 600
Compliments
&1
purchased.
19. Pooja Stand- 2003 Purchased. 10,000
Yellow Teak:
20. Del Computer Set: 2001 -do- 80,000
21. Compuer Table: 2001 -do- 3,000
22. Computer Modem: 2001 -do- 5,000
23. Dining Table Set-4 1998 -do- 7,000
Chairs:
24. Wooden Books 2000 -do- 2,000
Rack:
25. Sony Tape 2000 -do- 8,990
Recorder:
26. 2 Glass Show 2003 Included in
Cases: the fixtures -
of the Flat.
27. Mulma Ware 1995 Purchased. 500
Dining Set/Glass
Tumblers:
28. Old Wooden Diwan 1995 -do- 1,500
in Balcony:
29. Iron Chair/Easy 1994 -do- 1,600
Chairs-2 Nos.:
30. IFB Washing 2003 -do- 21,000
Machine:
31. 3 Aluminum Cloth 2000 -do- 2,000
Drying Stands:
32. Aluminum Ladder: 2000 -do- 1,000
33. Maharaja Dish 1994 -do- 11,000
Washer:
34. Body Fitness 2000 -do- 9,000
Walker:
35. Carom Board: 1998 -do- 1,000
36. Wall Hanging 2003 -do- 200
Cloth:
37. 1 Pair Steel 2000 -do- 700
Dumbles:
109 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
38. 2 Shuttle Rackets 1998 -do- 200
39. 1 Cukoo Wall 2002 -do- 3,000
Clock-Ajantha:
40. Fibre Chimney: 2004 -do- 13,000
41. LG Micro Wave: 1998 -do- 10,000
42. Prestige Stove: 2003 -do- 2,000
43. National Mixie: 1998 -do- 2,500
44. Steel Plate Stand: 1995 -do- 500
45. Bajaj Bread 2002 -do- 600
Toaster:
46. BPL Fridge-600 1999 -do- 18,000
Ltrs.
47. Pappad Maker- 2001 -do- 200
Fryer:
48. 2 Prestige 1995/1998 -do- 2,500
Cookers:
49. Steel Plates, 1990 -do 5,000
Tumblers, Jugs, to
Spoons, Steel 2005
Dongas, Oil
Containers, Filters,
Katoris, Frying
Pans, Bowls, Milk
Cooker etc.:
50. 4 Gas Cylinders: 1985-1994 -do- 2,600
51. UPS System-Vijay 1998 -do- 16,500
52. Vegetable Stand 1995 -do- 1,500
53. Aqua Guard - 2003 -do- 5,000
Eureka Forbes:
54. 1 Double Cot- 1995 -do- 17,000
Bombay Teak:
55. Godrej Almirah: 1994 -do- 8,000
56. Kurlon Mattress- 2000 -do- 3,000
Double:
57. Wall Clock-1 & 1999 Gift -
Time Piece-1
58. Plastic Wall Clock 2000 Gift to -
Set: Abhishek
59. Wall Hanging 1994 Purchased 150
Dolls:
60. Philips Two in one 1998 Purchased 2,000
Record Player:
61. Mars Time Piece: 2004 Gift from -
Office Staff
110 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
62. Brass Lamp Set: 1995 Gift at -
Bombay
63. Recharge Lantern: 1998 -do- -
64. Renold Guitar- 2003 Purchased 1,500
Wooden:
65. Tabla Small: 2004 -do- 100
66. Brass Lamp Set: 1995 -do- 600
67. Brass Bowl & 1995 Gift -
Stand Set:
68. Sony Battery 2003 Purchased 600
Charger:
69. Jalco-Power 2004 -do- 200
Converter:
70. Brass Flower 2001 Gift from -
Vases: relations
71. Dressing Mirror: 2003 Purchased 3,000
72. Kenstar Room 2003 -do- 3,000
Cooler:
73. Magazine Stand: 1994 -do- 100
74. 4 Calendar 1999 Gift from -
Calculators: friend
75. Watches: 1997-2004 Gift by -
HMT-2 different
Titan-3 & Companies
Other Brands-4 to the
Accused-1
76. 4 Big Silver Plates 2003 Purchased 30,000
-3 ½ Kgs.:
77. 14 Silver 1985-2003 Gift from In- -
Tumblers: laws
78. 4 Silver Kumkum 2002 Purchased 3,000
Containers:
79. Various Silver 1985-2004 Gift from In- -
Items like Lamps, laws,
Bowls weighing friends,
approx. 2 Kgs.: relatives.
80. Panasonic Small 2000 Purchased 1,500
Tape Recorder:
81. Konica Camera: 1995 -do- 1,000
82. Yashica Camera: 1994 -do- 1,000
83. Iron Box-TEFAL 2000 -do- 3,000
AVANTIS-100:
84. TEFAL Iron box- 1990 -do- 700
ordinary:
85. 2 Wrist Watches- 2003 -do- 4,500
111 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
Titan:
86. 5 Wrist Watches: 2003-2004 Gift to son -
Sri.Aravind
By IBM.
87. 3 Pen Sets-Beide, 2000-2004 Gift to son -
Parker, P.Cardin: Sri.Aravind
by Surana
College.
88. Digital Diary- 2000 Purchased 500
Sharp:
89. Casio Electric Key 1995 -do- 1,000
Board:
90. Double Cot in Bed 2001 -do- 8,000
Room:
91. Crown TV-21" 1994 -do- 12,000
colour:
92. Videocon Fridge- 2000 -do- 12,000
165 Ltrs.:
93. Telephone Stand: 2001 -do- 500
94. 5 Suitcases 1990-2003 -do- 8,000
Various Types:
95. Mattress-Double 2001 -do- 5,000
Cot:
96. Wall Hanging- 2003 -do- 500
cotton-Lion
Design:
97. Time Piece-Jayco: 1995 -do- 300
98. Wooden Wall 2004 Gift to -
Hanging: Abhishek
99. Jayco Wall Clock: 2000 Purchased 500
100. 3 Brief Cases: 1998-2004 Gift from -
Anand
during
transfer.
101. 2 Double Blankets: 2000 Purchased 1,700
102. College Text Books 1998-2001 -do- 12,000
of Sri.Anand:
103. Sony TV-21" 2000 -do- 20,000
Colour:
104. Jayco Time Piece: 2000 -do- 300
105. Brass Jug: 2001 -do- 100
106. Godrej Almirah: 1995 -do- 4,000
107. 4 Time Pieces- 1998-2002 Gift to -
Quartz, Mars: Sri.Anand
during
seminars,
112 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
giving
lectures.
108. Omron BP 2003 Gift by -
Monitor: relative.
109. BPL Sangeet Tape 1999 Purchased 1,000
Recorder:
110. Aiwa FM: 2002 -do- 500
111. Double Cot + Side 2001 -do- 10,000
Box:
112. 10 Wrist Watches 1990-2004 -do- 8,000
of various
Companies:
113. Silver Items-4 2002-2005 Old Silver 2,000
Plates, Pooja items
Items, Kumkum exchanged-
Containers etc.: paid making
charges.
114. Suits-7 Pairs: 1985-1988 Purchased at 7,000
Delhi
115. 7 Brief Cases: 1990-2004 Issued by -
Dept-
retained.
116. Dressing Mirror- 2002 Purchased 2,000
Wooden & Glass:
117. Peacock Wall 1998 -do- 50
Hanging Cloth:
118. Sonam Wall Clock: 2001 New Year -
Gift
119. Clothes of the A-2: 1995-2000 Purchased 10,000
120. 8 Plastic Flower 1990-2000 -do- 500
Pots:
121. Window/Door 2003 -do- 25,000
Screens of all
Rooms:
122. Telephone 2004 BSNL -
Instruments kept
in Hall-2:
123. Telephone 1998 Gift by -
Instruments kept Sri.Gopinatha
in Hall-Cordless n
(Panasonic):
124. Telephone
Instruments kept
at Dining Hall:
a)Ovpet- a)1998 Purchased. 700
b)Tabby- b)2002 New Year -
113 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
Gift.
125. Telephone 2003 Purchased 300
Instruments kept
at Ground Floor
Bed Room-Ovpet:
126. Telephone 2003 -do- 1,000
Instruments kept
at 1st Floor Bed
Room 1-
Panasonic:
127. Telephone
Instruments kept
at 1st Floor Bed
Room 2-
a) Beetel: a)2003 a)BSNL -
b) Comsys: b)2003 b)Purchased 500
128. Cell Phone- 2004 Purchased 11,000
Nokia 6600:
129. Nokia-7250: 2004 -do- 6,000
130. Nokia-6610: 2003 -do- 6,000
131. Maruti Zen-1997 1997(Dec) -do- 3,70,000
Model, Regn.
No.KA-05-P-1396:
132. Hero Honda CBZ 2000 -do- 30,000
2000 Model. Regn.
No.KA-05-EG-903:
Total: 10,11,540
C.4.1: Sofa Set-3 Piece
134. According to the Complainant, the Accused-1 and 2 possessed a Sofa Set purchased in the year 2004 worth Rs.50,000/- at the end of the Check Period. Contents of Ex.P.286 support the said contention of the Complainant. In Ex.P.255, the Accused-1 has contended that the said Sofa Set was purchased in the year 2004 for Rs.15,000/- by the personal savings of his son-Mr.Aravind Anand. At Sl.No.1 and Page-104 of the CSWA, the Accused-
114 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] 1 and 2 have contended that the said Sofa belongs to their son-Mr.Aravind Anand. But, they have not mentioned the value of that Sofa. However, they have not produced any supporting material in this regard. Though Mr.Aravind Anand gave his evidence as D.W.3, he has not stated that he purchased the said Sofa for Rs.15,000/- out of his personal savings. In the absence of such evidence and as Ex.P.286 has been prepared as per the declaration given by the Accused-1 and 2 during Search and Inventory, it has to be held that the said Sofa set belongs to the Accused-1 and 2 and that it was worth Rs.50,000/-. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed a Sofa Set worth Rs.50,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.2: Teapoy Glass & Wood
135. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed a Teapoy Glass & Wood worth Rs.2,500/- at the end of the Check Period. By stating that the said Articles were locally made, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended at Sl.No.2 and Page-104 of the CSWA that the said Articles were worth Rs.500/- only. But, no supporting evidence is placed by them in this regard and to rebut the contents of Ex.P.286. In the absence of such evidence and in view of the contents of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and 2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed a Teapoy Glass & Wood worth Rs.2,500/- at the end of the Check Period.
115 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] C.4.3: Embroidery Carpet
136. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Embroidery Carpet worth Rs.28,000/- at the end of the Check Period. By stating that the said Articles were locally made, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended at Sl.No.3 and Page-104 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said Articles were worth Rs.2,800/- only. But, no supporting evidence is placed by them in this regard and to rebut the contents of Ex.P.286. In the absence of such evidence and in view of the contents of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and 2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Embroidery Carpet worth Rs.28,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.4: Telephone Stand
137. The Accused-1 and 2 have not disputed that they possessed Telephone Stand purchased with BPL T.V., at the end of the Check Period. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Telephone Stand purchased with BPL T.V., at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.5.: Stand For Vase
138. The Accused-1 and 2 have not disputed that they possessed Stand for Vase, which is a compliment of Sofa Set, at the end of the Check Period. Hence, it is held 116 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Stand for Vase, at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.6: Earthen Pot Set-3 Pieces
139. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Earthen Pot Sets worth Rs.300/- at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.6 and Page-104 of the CSWA, though the Accused-1 and 2 have not disputed the said claim of the Complainant, they have contended that it belongs to the Accused-2. However, there is nothing to show on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 that the said Articles exclusively belong to the Accused-2. Under these circumstances and keeping in view the contents of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and 2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Earthen Pot Sets worth Rs.300/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.7:Wooden Sofa Set-3 Pieces
140. At Sl.No.7 and Page-104 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that they possessed Wooden Sofa Set worth Rs.15,000/- at the end of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Wooden Sofa Set worth Rs.15,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
117 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] C.4.8: Wooden T.V. Show Case
141. At Sl.No.8 and Page-104 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have not disputed the contention of the Complainant that they possessed T.V. Show Case, which was included in the fixtures of the Flat, at the end of the Check Period. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed T.V. Show Case at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.9: Glass Show Case
142. At Sl.No.9 and Page-104 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have not disputed the contention of the Complainant that they possessed Glass Show Case, which was included in the fixtures of the Flat, at the end of the Check Period. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Glass Show Case at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.10: DVD-BPL
143. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed BPL DVD worth Rs.2,000/- at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.10 and Page-104 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that it was a Gift to them. Details of the said Gift are not given. No supporting evidence is placed in this regard. On the other hand, in Ex.P.255-Reply given by the Accused-1, he has contended that his wife purchased the same for Rs.2,000/- out of her personal savings. However, no material is placed to show 118 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] that the Accused-2 purchased the said DVD out of her personal savings. Contention of the Accused-1 and 2 in Ex.P.255 runs contrary to their Written Arguments. Hence, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and 2 that it was the Gift to them. Any how, it is admitted by the Accused-1 in Ex.P.255 that the said DVD was purchased for Rs.2,000/- in the year 2003, which materially supports the contents of Ex.P.286. On considering all these facts, circumstances and the evidence and in the absence of any other evidence to the contrary on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2, it has to be inferred that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed BPL DVD worth Rs.2,000/- at the end of the Check Period. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed BPL DVD worth Rs.2,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.11: Time Piece
144. At Sl.No.11 and Page-104 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted the contention of the Complainant that they possessed Time Piece, which was a Gift to them, at the end of the Check Period. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Time Piece at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.12: Ganapathy Idols-3, Anjaneya Idol-1 & Shiva Idol-1
145. At Sl.No.12 and Page-104 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have not disputed that they possessed 5 Idols, which were Gifts to them during Seminars and 119 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] transfers, at the end of the Check Period. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed 3 Ganapathy Idols, 1 Anjaneya Idol & 1 Shiva Idol at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.13: Small Hanging Watches
146. At Sl.No.13 and Page-104 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have not disputed that they possessed small Hanging Watches, which were Gifts to them during Seminars and transfers, at the end of the Check Period. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed small Hanging Watches at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.14: Show Lamp
147. At Sl.No.14 and Page-104 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that they possessed Show Lamp worth Rs.150/- at the end of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Show Lamp worth Rs.150/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.15: 3 Hanging Show Light Sets
148. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed 3 Hanging Show Light Sets worth Rs.1,500/- at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.15 and Page-104 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said Article was worth Rs.500/- only.
120 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] But, no supporting material is placed by them in this regard. In the absence of such evidence and in view of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and 2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed 3 Hanging Show Light Sets worth Rs.1,500/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.16: Wooden Shoe Rack
149. At Sl.No.16 and Page-104 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have not disputed the claim of the Complainant that they possessed Wooden Shoe Rack, which was included in the fixtures of the Flat at the end of the Check Period. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Wooden Shoe Rack at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.17: Wooden Shoe Rack
150. At Sl.No.17 and Page-104 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that they possessed Wooden Shoe Rack worth Rs.1,000/- at the end of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Wooden Shoe Rack worth Rs.1,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.18: 3 Wall Hangings
151. At Sl.No.18 and Page-104 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have not disputed the claim of the 121 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Complainant that at the end of the Check Period, the Accused-1 and 2 possessed 3 Wall Hangings and that among those 2 were acquired by them through compliments and 1 was purchased for Rs.600/-. Hence, it is held that, at the end of the Check Period, the Accused-1 and 2 possessed 1 Wall Hanging worth Rs.600/- purchased by them and 2 Wall Hangings acquired by them through compliments.
C.4.19: Yellow Teak Pooja Stand
152. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed a Teak Pooja Stand worth Rs.10,000/- at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.19 and Page-104 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said Article was local make and that it was worth Rs.5,000/- only and that it exclusively belongs to the Accused-2. But, no supporting evidence is placed by them in this regard. In the absence of such evidence and in view of the contents of Ex.P.286 and also as the said Article is of Yellow Teak Wood, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and 2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Teak Pooja Stand worth Rs.10,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.20: DEL Computer
153. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed a DEL Computer worth Rs.80,000/- at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.20 and Page-104 of the 122 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said Computer exclusively belongs to the Accused-2. But, no supporting evidence is placed by them in this regard. In the absence of such evidence and in view of the contents of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and 2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed DEL Computer worth Rs.80,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.21: Computer Table
154. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed a Computer Table worth Rs.3,000/- at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.21 and Page-104 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said Table was local make and that it was worth Rs.2,000/- and that it exclusively belongs to the Accused-2. But, no supporting evidence is placed by them in this regard. In the absence of such supporting evidence and in view of the contents of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and 2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Computer Table worth Rs.3,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.22: Computer Modem
155. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed a Computer Modem worth Rs.5,000/- at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.22 and Page-104 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the 123 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] value of the said Computer Modem is included in the value of the Computer. But, no supporting evidence is placed by them in this regard. In the absence of such evidence and in view of the contents of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and 2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Computer Modem worth Rs.5,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.23: Dining Table Set-4 Chairs
156. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Dining Table Set worth Rs.7,000/- at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.23 and Page-104 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said Article is of local wood and that it was worth Rs.3,000/- only. However, no supporting material is placed by them in this regard. In the absence of such evidence and in view of the contents of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and 2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Dining Table Set worth Rs.7,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.24: Wooden Books Rack
157. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed a Wooden Books Rack worth Rs.2,000/- at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.24 and Page-105 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said Rack is made of local wood and that its cost is 124 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Rs.1,000/- only. But, no supporting evidence is placed by them in this regard and to rebut the contents of Ex.P.286. In the absence of such evidence and in view of the contents of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and 2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed a Wooden Books Rack worth Rs.2,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.25: Sony Tape Recorder
158. According to the Complainant, the Accused-1 and 2 possessed a Sony Tape Recorder worth Rs.8,990/- at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.25 and Page-105 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have not disputed that the said Tape Recorder was purchased for Rs.8,990/- in the year 2000. But, they have contended that the said item belongs to their son-Mr.Aravind Anand. But, no supporting evidence is placed by them in this regard. Though Mr.Aravind Anand gave his evidence as D.W.3, he has not whispered anything about purchase of that Tape Recorder by him as argued by the Accused-1 & 2. In the absence of such evidence and in view of the contents of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and 2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed a Sony Tape Recorder worth Rs.8,990/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.26: Glass Show Cases-2
159. At Sl.No.26 and Page-105 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have not disputed that the Accused-1 & 2 125 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] possessed 2 Glass Show Cases, which are included in the fixtures of the Flat, at the end of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed 2 Glass Show Cases at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.27: Mulma Ware Dining Set/Glass Tumblers
160. At Sl.No.27 and Page-105 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that they possessed Mulma Ware Dining Set/Glass Tumblers worth Rs.500/- at the end of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Mulma Ware Dining Set/Glass Tumblers worth Rs.500/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.28: Old Wooden Diwan In Balcony
161. At Sl.No.28 and Page-105 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that they possessed Old Wooden Diwan worth Rs.1,500/- kept at Balcony at the end of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Old Wooden Diwan worth Rs.1,500/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.29: Iron Chairs/Easy Chairs-2
162. At Sl.No.29 and Page-105 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that they possessed Iron 126 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Chairs/Easy Chairs-2 worth Rs.1,600/- at the end of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Iron Chairs/Easy Chairs worth Rs.1,600/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.30: IFB Washing Machine
163. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed IFB Washing Machine worth Rs.21,000/- at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.30 and Page-105 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said Washing Machine was purchased by the Accused-2 for Rs.15,000/- by exchanging old Washing Machine. But, no supporting evidence is placed by them in this regard and to rebut the contents of Ex.P.286. On the other hand, in Ex.P.255, the Accused-1 has stated that the said Washing Machine was purchased for Rs.21,000/- in the name of the Accused-2. As such and in the absence of any supporting evidence on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 and in view of the contents of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and 2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed IFB Washing Machine worth Rs.21,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.31: 3 Aluminium Cloth Drying Stands
164. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed 3 Aluminum Cloth Drying Stands worth Rs.2,000/- at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.31 and 127 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Page-105 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said Stands are of local made and that they are worth Rs.2,000/- only and that they are purchased by the Accused-2 alone. But, no supporting evidence is placed by them in this regard and to rebut the contents of Ex.P.286. On the other hand, in Ex.P.255, the Accused-1 has stated that the said Stands were purchased for Rs.1,500/- in the name of the Accused-2. This statement of the Accused-1 about the value of the Aluminum Stands runs contrary to the arguments of the Accused-1 and 2. As such and in the absence of any supporting evidence on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 and in view of the contents of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and 2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed 3 Aluminium Stands worth Rs.2,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.32: Aluminum Ladder
165. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Aluminium Ladder worth Rs.1,000/- at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.32 and Page-105 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said Ladder was purchased by the Accused-2 alone. But, no supporting evidence is placed by them in this regard and to rebut the contents of Ex.P.286. As such and in the absence of any supporting evidence on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 and in view of the contents of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and 2. Hence, 128 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] it is held that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Aluminium Ladder worth Rs.1,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.33: Maharaja Dish Washer
166. At Sl.No.33 and Page-105 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that they possessed Maharaja Dish Washer worth Rs.11,000/- at the end of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Maharaja Dish Washer worth Rs.11,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.34: Body Fitness Walker
167. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Body Fitness Walker worth Rs.9,000/- at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.34 and Page-105 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said Body Fitness Walker was purchased for Rs.3,000/- in exchange for old item by the Accused-1. But, no supporting evidence is placed by them in this regard and to rebut the contents of Ex.P.286. As such and in the absence of any supporting evidence on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 and in view of the contents of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and 2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Body Fitness Walker worth Rs.9,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
129 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] C.4.35: Carom Board
168. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Carom Board worth Rs.1,000/- at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.35 and Page-105 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said item was purchased for Rs.500/- by the Accused-1 in the year 1998. But, no supporting evidence is placed by them in this regard and to rebut the contents of Ex.P.286. On the other hand, in Ex.P.255, the Accused-1 has stated that the said Carom Board was given as Gift to their son-Mr.Aravind Anand by his friends in the year 1994. This Statement is contrary to and inconsistent with the Written Arguments. Even otherwise, there is no evidence about the said Gift also. As such and in the absence of any supporting evidence on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 and in view of the contents of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and 2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Carom Board worth Rs.1,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.36: Wall Hanging Cloth
169. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Wall Hanging Cloth worth Rs.200/- at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.36 and Page-105 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said item was purchased for Rs.100/- by the Accused-2. But, no supporting evidence is placed by them in this regard and to rebut the contents of Ex.P.286. In Ex.P.255, the Accused-1 130 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] has stated that said item was given as Gift to the Accused- 2 by her friends. This Statement is contrary to and inconsistent with the Written Arguments of the Accused-1 and 2. Even otherwise, there is no supporting evidence about the alleged Gift. As such and in the absence of any supporting evidence on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 and in view of the contents of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and 2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Wall Hanging Cloth worth Rs.200/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.37: Steel Dumbles
170. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed a pair of Steel Dumbles worth Rs.700/- at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.37 and Page-105 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said item was purchased by the Accused-1 for Rs.200/-. But, no supporting evidence is placed by them in this regard and to rebut the contents of Ex.P.286. In Ex.P.255, the Accused-1 has stated that said item was purchased by his son- Mr.Aravind Anand for Rs.200/-. This Statement is contrary to and inconsistent with the Written Arguments of the Accused-1 and 2. Even otherwise, there is no supporting evidence about the alleged purchase by Mr.Aravind Anand. As such and in the absence of any supporting evidence on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 and in view of the contents of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and 2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 131 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] & 2 possessed pair of Steel Dumbles worth Rs.700/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.38: 2 Shuttle Rackets
171. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed 2 Shuttle Rackets worth Rs.200/- at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.38 and Page-105 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said item was purchased for Rs.150/- by the Accused-1. But, no supporting evidence is placed by them in this regard and to rebut the contents of Ex.P.286. In Ex.P.255, the Accused-1 has stated that said item was purchased by his son- Mr.Aravind Anand for Rs.200/-. This Statement is contrary to and inconsistent with the Written Arguments of the Accused-1 and 2. Even otherwise, there is no supporting evidence about the alleged purchase by Mr.Aravind Anand. As such and in the absence of any supporting evidence on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 and in view of the contents of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and 2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed 2 Shuttle Rackets worth Rs.200/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.39: Cuckoo Wall Clock
172. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Cuckoo Wall Clock worth Rs.3,000/- at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.39 and Page-105 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said 132 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] item was purchased by the Accused-1 for Rs.500/-. But, no supporting evidence is placed by them in this regard and to rebut the contents of Ex.P.286. As such and in the absence of any supporting evidence on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 and in view of the contents of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and 2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Cuckoo Wall Clock worth Rs.3,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.40: Fiber Chimney
173. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Fiber Chimney worth Rs.13,000/- at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.40 and Page-105 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said item is included in the Flat itself. But, no supporting evidence is placed by them in this regard and to rebut the contents of Ex.P.286. As such and in the absence of any supporting evidence on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 and in view of the contents of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and 2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Fiber Chimney worth Rs.13,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.41: LG Microwave Oven
174. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed LG Microwave Oven worth Rs.10,000/- at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.41 and Page-105 of the 133 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said item was purchased by the Accused-1 for Rs.5,000/-. But, no supporting evidence is placed by them in this regard and to rebut the contents of Ex.P.286. In Ex.P.255, the Accused-1 has stated that said item was purchased by the Accused-2. This Statement is contrary to and inconsistent with the Written Arguments of the Accused-1 and 2. Even otherwise, there is no supporting evidence about the alleged purchase by the Accused-2. As such and in the absence of any supporting evidence on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 and in view of the contents of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and
2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed LG Microwave Oven worth Rs.10,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.42: Prestige Stove
175. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Prestige Stove worth Rs.2,000/- at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.42 and Page-105 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said item was purchased for Rs.1,000/- in exchange for old item by the Accused-2. But, no supporting evidence is placed by them in this regard and to rebut the contents of Ex.P.286. In Ex.P.255, the Accused-1 has stated that the said item was purchased by the Accused-2 for Rs.2,000/-. This Statement is contrary to and inconsistent with the Written Arguments of the Accused-1 and 2. Even otherwise, there is no supporting evidence about the alleged purchase by 134 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] the Accused-2. However, the value given in Ex.P.255 by the Accused-1 supports the contention of the Complainant. As such and in the absence of any supporting evidence on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 and in view of the contents of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and 2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Prestige Stove worth Rs.2,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.43: National Mixer
176. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed National Mixer worth Rs.2,500/- at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.43 and Page-105 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said item was purchased for Rs.2,000/- by the Accused-2. But, no supporting evidence is placed by them in this regard and to rebut the contents of Ex.P.286. As such and in the absence of any supporting evidence on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 and in view of the contents of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and 2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed National Mixer worth Rs.2,500/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.44: Steel Plate Stand
177. At Sl.No.44 and Page-105 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that they possessed Steel Plate Stand worth Rs.500/- at the end of the Check Period 135 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] as contended by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Steel Plate Stand worth Rs.500/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.45: Bajaj Bread Toaster
178. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Bajaj Bread Toaster worth Rs.600/- at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.45 and Page-105 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said item was purchased by the Accused-2 for Rs.600/-. But, no supporting evidence is placed by them to show the said purchase by the Accused-2. As such and in the absence of any supporting evidence on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 and in view of the contents of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and 2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Bajaj Bread Toaster worth Rs.600/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.46: BPL Fridge
179. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed BPL Fridge worth Rs.18,000/- at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.46 and Page-105 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said item was purchased for Rs.8,000/- in exchange for old item by the Accused-2. But, no supporting evidence is placed by them in this regard and to rebut the contents of Ex.P.286. In Ex.P.255, the Accused-1 has stated that the said item was purchased by the Accused-2 for Rs.8,000/- and that the 136 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] said item was a seconds quality. This Statement is contrary to and inconsistent with the Written Arguments of the Accused-1 and 2. Even otherwise, there is no supporting evidence about the alleged purchase by the Accused-2. As such and in the absence of any supporting evidence on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 and in view of the contents of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and 2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed BPL Fridge worth Rs.18,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.47: Papad Maker Frier
180. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Papad maker Frier worth Rs.200/- at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.47 and Page-105 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said item was purchased by the Accused-2 for Rs.200/-. But, no supporting evidence is placed by them to show the said purchase by the Accused-2. As such and in the absence of any supporting evidence on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 and in view of the contents of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and 2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Papad Maker Frier worth Rs.200/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.48: Prestige Cookers-2
181. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed 2 Prestige Cookers worth Rs.2,500/- at the 137 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.48 and Page-105 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said items were purchased for Rs.2,400/- by the Accused-2. But, no supporting evidence is placed by them in this regard and to rebut the contents of Ex.P.286. In Ex.P.255, the Accused-1 has stated that the said items were purchased by the Accused-2 for Rs.1,200/-. This Statement is contrary to and inconsistent with the Written Arguments of the Accused-1 and 2. Even otherwise, there is no supporting evidence about the alleged purchase by the Accused-2. In fact, in the Written Arguments at Sl.No.48, Page-105, Column-11, it is contended by the Accused-1 and 2 that each item was purchased for Rs.1,250/-. As per that value given by the Accused-1 and 2, cost of 2 Cookers will not be less than Rs.2,500/-. This fact supports the contention of the Complainant. As such and in the absence of any supporting evidence on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 and in view of the contents of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and 2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed 2 Prestige Cookers worth Rs.2,500/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.49: Steel Plates, Tumblers, Jugs, Spoons, Steel Dongas, Oil Containers, Filters, Katories, Frying Pans, Bowls, Milk Cookers etc.
182. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Steel Plates, Tumblers, Jugs, Spoons, Steel 138 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Dongas, Oil Containers, Filters, Katories, Frying Pans, Bowls, Milk Cookers etc., worth Rs.5,000/- at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.49 and Page-105 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said items were purchased for Rs.3,075/- by the Accused-2. But, no supporting evidence is placed by them in this regard and to rebut the contents of Ex.P.286. In Ex.P.255, the Accused-1 has stated that the said items were purchased by the Accused-2 for Rs.1,200/-. This Statement is contrary to and inconsistent with the Written Arguments of the Accused-1 and 2. Even otherwise, there is no supporting evidence about the alleged purchase by the Accused-2. As such and in the absence of any supporting evidence on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 and in view of the contents of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and 2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Steel Plates, Tumblers, Jugs, Sppons, Steel Dongas, Oil Containers, Filters, Katories, Frying Pans, Bowls, Milk Cookers etc., worth Rs.5,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.50: 4 Gas Cylinders
183. At Sl.No.50 and Page-105 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that they possessed Gas Cylinders worth Rs.2,600/- at the end of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Gas Cylinders worth Rs.2,600/- at the end of the Check Period.
139 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] C.4.51: UPS System
184. At Sl.No.51 and Page-105 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that they possessed UPS System worth Rs.16,500/- at the end of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed UPS System worth Rs.16,500/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.52: Vegetables Stand
185. At Sl.No.52 and Page-105 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that they possessed Vegetables Stand worth Rs.1,500/- at the end of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. However, they have contended that the Accused-2 purchased the same. But, no supporting evidence is placed in this regard. In the absence of such evidence, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and 2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Vegetables Stand worth Rs.1,500/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.53: Aquaguard
186. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Aquaguard worth Rs.5,000/- at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.53 and Page-105 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said item was purchased by the Accused-2 for Rs.2,500/- in exchange for old item. But, no supporting evidence is placed by them to show the said purchase by the Accused-2. As such and in 140 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] the absence of any supporting evidence on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 and in view of the contents of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and
2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Acquaguard worth Rs.5,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.54: Bombay Teak Double Cot
187. At Sl.No.54 and Page-105 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that they possessed Bombay Teak Double Cot worth Rs.17,000/- at the end of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. However, they have contended that the Accused-2 purchased the same. But, no supporting evidence is placed in this regard. In the absence of such evidence, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and 2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Bombay Teak Double Cot worth Rs.17,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.55: Godrej Almirah
188. At Sl.No.55 and Page-106 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that they possessed Godrej Almirah worth Rs.8,000/- at the end of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Godrej Almirah worth Rs.8,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
141 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] C.4.56: Kurlon Mattress
189. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Kurlon Mattress worth Rs.3,000/- at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.56 and Page-106 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said item was purchased by the Accused-1 for Rs.2,000/-. But, no supporting evidence is placed by them to show the said purchase by the Accused-1. As such and in the absence of any supporting evidence on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 and in view of the contents of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and 2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Kurlon Mattress worth Rs.3,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.57 & 58: Wall Clock, Time Piece & Plastic Wall Clock Set
190. At Sl.No.57 & 58 and Page-106 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that they possessed Wall Clock, Time Piece & Plastic Wall Clock Set, received by them and Mr.Abhishek as Gift, at the end of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 and Mr.Abhishek possessed Wall Clock, Time Piece & Plastic Wall Clock set at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.59: Wall Hanging Dolls
191. At Sl.No.59 and Page-106 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that they possessed Wall 142 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Hanging Dolls worth Rs.150/- at the end of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Wall Hanging Dolls worth Rs.150/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.60: Philips 2-in-one Record Player
192. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Philips 2-in-one Record Player worth Rs.2,000/- at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.60 and Page-106 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said item was purchased for Rs.1,200/-. But, no supporting evidence is placed by them in this regard and to rebut the contents of Ex.P.286. As such and in the absence of any supporting evidence on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 and in view of the contents of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and
2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Philips 2-in-one Record Player worth Rs.2,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.61, 62 & 63: Mars Time Piece, Brass Lamp Set & Recharge Lantern
193. At Sl.No.61, 62 & 63 and Page-106 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that they possessed Mars Time Piece, Brass Lamp Set and Lantern, received by them as Gift, at the end of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Mars Time Piece, Brass 143 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Lamp Set & Recharge Lantern at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.64: Renold Guitar Wooden
194. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Renold Guitar worth Rs.1,500/- at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.64 and Page-106 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said item was a second hand purchase for Rs.750/-. But, no supporting evidence is placed by them in this regard and to rebut the contents of Ex.P.286. In Ex.P.255, the Accused-1 has stated that the said item was purchased locally for Rs.1,500/-. This Statement is contrary to and inconsistent with the Written Arguments of the Accused-1 and 2, but, it supports the contention of the Complainant. As such and in the absence of any supporting evidence on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 and in view of the contents of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and
2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Renold Guitar worth Rs.1,500/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.65: Small Tabla
195. At Sl.No.65 and Page-106 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that they possessed small Tabla worth Rs.100/- at the end of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the 144 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Accused-1 and 2 possessed small Tabla worth Rs.100/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.66: Brass Lamp Set
196. At Sl.No.66 and Page-106 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that they possessed Brass Lamp Set worth Rs.600/- at the end of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Brass Lamp Set worth Rs.600/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.67: Brass Bowl & Brass Stand Set
197. At Sl.No.67 and Page-106 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that they possessed Brass Bowl & Stand Set, received by them as Gift, at the end of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Brass Bowl & Stand Set at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.68: Sony Battery Charger
198. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Sony Battery Charger worth Rs.600/- at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.68 and Page-106 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said item was purchased for Rs.400/- by the Accused-1. But, no supporting evidence is placed by them in this regard and to rebut the contents of Ex.P.286. In Ex.P.255, the Accused-1 has stated that the said item was purchased by 145 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Mr.Abhishek Anand for Rs.500/-. This Statement is contrary to and inconsistent with the Written Arguments of the Accused-1 and 2. Even otherwise, there is no supporting evidence about the alleged purchase by Mr.Abhishek Anand. As such and in the absence of any supporting evidence on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 and in view of the contents of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and 2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Sony Battery Charger worth Rs.600/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.69: Jalco Power Converter
199. At Sl.No.69 and Page-106 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that they possessed Jalco Power Converter worth Rs.200/- at the end of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Jalco Power Converter worth Rs.200/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.70: Brass Flower Vases
200. At Sl.No.70 and Page-106 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that they possessed Brass Flower Vases, received by them as Gift, at the end of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Brass Flower Vases at the end of the Check Period.
146 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] C.4.71: Dressing Mirror
201. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Dressing Mirror worth Rs.3,000/- at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.71 and Page-106 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said item was purchased for Rs.1,000/-. But, no supporting evidence is placed by them in this regard and to rebut the contents of Ex.P.286. As such and in the absence of any supporting evidence on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 and in view of the contents of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and 2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Dressing Mirror worth Rs.3,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.72: Kenstar Room Cooler
202. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Kenstar Room Cooler worth Rs.3,000/- at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.72 and Page-106 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said item was purchased for Rs.1,000/-. But, no supporting evidence is placed by them in this regard and to rebut the contents of Ex.P.286. As such and in the absence of any supporting evidence on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 and in view of the contents of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and 2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Kenstar Room 147 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Cooler worth Rs.3,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.73: Magazine Stand
203. At Sl.No.73 and Page-106 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that they possessed Magazine Stand worth Rs.100/- at the end of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Magazine Stand worth Rs.100/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.74: Calendar Calculators-4
204. At Sl.No.74 and Page-106 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that they possessed 4 Calendar Calculators, received by them as Gift, at the end of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed 4 Calendar Calculators at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.75: HMT Watches-2, Titan Watches-3 & Other Brand Watches-4
205. At Sl.No.75 and Page-106 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that they possessed 9 Watches, received by the Accused-1 as Gift, at the end of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed 9 Watches at the end of the Check Period.
148 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] C.4.76: 4 Big Silver Plates
206. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed 4 Big Silver Plates weighing 3 ½ K.Gs., worth Rs.30,000/- at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.76 and Page-106 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said item was purchased for Rs.3,500/- by exchanging with old Silver Articles presented during marriage. But, no supporting evidence is placed by them in this regard and to rebut the contents of Ex.P.286. As such and in the absence of any supporting evidence on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 and in view of the contents of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and 2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed 4 Silver Plates weighing 3 ½ K.Gs., worth Rs.30,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.77: Silver Tumblers-14
207. At Sl.No.77 and Page-106 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that they possessed 14 Silver Tumblers, received by them as Gift from their in- laws, at the end of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed 14 Silver Tumblers at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.78: 4 Silver Kumkum Containers
208. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed 4 Silver Kumkum Containers worth Rs.3,000/-
149 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.78 and Page-106 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said item was purchased for Rs.1,200/- by the Accused-2. But, no supporting evidence is placed by them in this regard and to rebut the contents of Ex.P.286. As such and in the absence of any supporting evidence on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 and in view of the contents of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and
2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed 4 Silver Kumkum Containers worth Rs.3,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.79: Various Silver Items Like Lamps, Bowls etc.
209. At Sl.No.79 and Page-106 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that they possessed various Silver Items Like Lamps, Bowls weighing about 2 K.Gs., received by them as Gift from their in-laws, friends and relatives at the end of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused- 1 and 2 possessed various Silver Items like Lamps, Bowls at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.80: Panasonic Small Tape Recorder
210. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Panasonic Small Tape Recorder worth Rs.1,500/- at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.80 and Page-106 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said item was purchased for Rs.1,000/-
150 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] by the Accused-1. But, no supporting evidence is placed by them in this regard and to rebut the contents of Ex.P.286. In Ex.P.255, the Accused-1 has stated that the said item was purchased by Mr.Aravind Anand for Rs.1,000/-. This Statement is contrary to and inconsistent with the Written Arguments of the Accused-1 and 2. Even otherwise, there is no supporting evidence about the alleged purchase by Mr.Aravind Anand. As such and in the absence of any supporting evidence on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 and in view of the contents of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and 2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Panasonic Tape Recorder worth Rs.1,500/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.81: Konica Camera
211. At Sl.No.81 and Page-106 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that they possessed Konica Camera worth Rs.1,000/- at the end of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Konica Camera worth Rs.1,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.82: Yashika Camera
212. At Sl.No.82 and Page-106 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that they possessed Yashika Camera worth Rs.1,000/- at the end of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. Hence, it is held 151 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Yashika Camera worth Rs.1,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.83: Iron Box-Tefal Avanties
213. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Iron Box worth Rs.3,000/- at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.83 and Page-106 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said item was purchased for Rs.1,200/-. But, no supporting evidence is placed by them in this regard and to rebut the contents of Ex.P.286. As such and in the absence of any supporting evidence on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 and in view of the contents of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and 2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Iron Box-Tefal Avanties worth Rs.3,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.84: Ordinary Iron Box
214. At Sl.No.84 and Page-106 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that they possessed ordinary Iron Box worth Rs.700/- at the end of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed ordinary Iron Box worth Rs.700/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.85: Titan Wrist Watches-2
215. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed 2 Titan Wrist Watches worth Rs.4,500/- at the 152 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.85 and Page-106 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said Watches were purchased for Rs.2,000/-. But, no supporting evidence is placed by them in this regard and to rebut the contents of Ex.P.286. As such and in the absence of any supporting evidence on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 and in view of the contents of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and 2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed 2 Titan Wrist Watches worth Rs.4,500/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.86: Wrist Watches-5
216. At Sl.No.86 and Page-106 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that their son-Mr.Aravind Anand possessed 5 Wrist Watches, which were received by him as Gift from IBM, at the end of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that Mr.Aravind Anand possessed 5 Wrist Watches at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.87: Pen Sets-3
217. At Sl.No.87 and Page-107 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that their son-Mr.Aravind Anand possessed 3 Pen sets, which were received by him as Gift from Surana College, at the end of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that Mr.Aravind Anand possessed 3 Pen Sets at the end of the Check Period.
153 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] C.4.88: Sharp Digital Diary
218. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Sharp Digital Diary worth Rs.500/- at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.88 and Page-107 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said item was a Gift. However, they have not disputed the value of that item. But, it is not stated by them as to who gifted that item. However, no supporting evidence is placed by them to show the said Gift and to rebut the contents of Ex.P.286. In Ex.P.255, the Accused-1 has stated that the said item was a Gift to their son-Mr.Aravind Anand from his friends and that price of that Article was not known. This Statement is contrary to and inconsistent with the Written Arguments of the Accused-1 and 2. Even otherwise, there is no supporting evidence about the alleged Gift to Mr.Aravind Anand. As such and in the absence of any supporting evidence on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 and in view of the contents of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and
2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Sharp Digital Diary worth Rs.500/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.89: Casio Electric Key Board
219. At Sl.No.89 and Page-107 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that they possessed Casio Electric Key Board worth Rs.1,000/- at the end of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. Hence, it 154 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Casio Electric Key Board worth Rs.1,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.90: Double Cot
220. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Double Cot worth Rs.8,000/- at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.90 and Page-107 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said item was purchased for Rs.3,000/- by the Accused-1. But, no supporting evidence is placed by them in this regard and to rebut the contents of Ex.P.286. In Ex.P.255, the Accused-1 has stated that the said item was purchased by the Accused-2. This Statement is contrary to and inconsistent with the Written Arguments of the Accused-1 and 2. Even otherwise, there is no supporting evidence about the alleged purchase by the Accused-2. As such and in the absence of any supporting evidence on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 and in view of the contents of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and
2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Double Cot worth Rs.8,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.91: Crown TV
221. At Sl.No.91 and Page-107 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that they possessed Crown TV worth Rs.12,000/- at the end of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the 155 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Accused-1 and 2 possessed Crown TV worth Rs.12,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.92: Videocon Fridge
222. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Videocon Fridge worth Rs.12,000/- at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.92 and Page-107 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said item was purchased for Rs.6,000/- by the Accused-2 in exchange of old item. But, no supporting evidence is placed by them in this regard and to rebut the contents of Ex.P.286. In Ex.P.255, the Accused-1 has stated that the said item was purchased by the Accused-2 for Rs.3,500/- in exchange of old item. This Statement is contrary to and inconsistent with the Written Arguments of the Accused-1 and 2. Even otherwise, there is no supporting evidence about the alleged purchase by the Accused-2. As such and in the absence of any supporting evidence on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 and in view of the contents of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and
2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Videocon Fridge worth Rs.12,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.93: Telephone Stand
223. At Sl.No.93 and Page-107 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that they possessed Telephone Stand worth Rs.500/- at the end of the Check 156 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Period as contended by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Telephone Stand worth Rs.500/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.94: 5 Suit Cases
224. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed 5 Suit Cases worth Rs.8,000/- at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.94 and Page-107 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said item was purchased for Rs.5,000/- by the Accused-1. But, no supporting evidence is placed by them in this regard and to rebut the contents of Ex.P.286. As such and in the absence of any supporting evidence on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 and in view of the contents of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and 2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed 5 Suit Cases worth Rs.8,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.95: Double Cot Mattress
225. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Double Cot Mattress worth Rs.5,000/- at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.95 and Page-107 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said item was purchased for Rs.1,500/- by the Accused-1. But, no supporting evidence is placed by them in this regard and to rebut the contents of Ex.P.286. In Ex.P.255, the Accused-1 has stated that the said item was purchased by 157 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] the Accused-2. This Statement is contrary to and inconsistent with the Written Arguments of the Accused-1 and 2. Even otherwise, there is no supporting evidence about the alleged purchase by the Accused-2. As such and in the absence of any supporting evidence on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 and in view of the contents of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and
2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Double Cot Mattress worth Rs.5000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.96: Wall Hanging Cotton Lion Design
226. At Sl.No.96 and Page-107 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that they possessed Wall Hanging worth Rs.500/- at the end of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Wall Hanging Cotton Lion Design worth Rs.500/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.97: Time Piece-Jayco
227. At Sl.No.97 and Page-107 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that they possessed Time Piece worth Rs.300/- at the end of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Time Piece-Jayco worth Rs.300/- at the end of the Check Period.
158 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] C.4.98: Wooden Wall Hanging
228. At Sl.No.98 and Page-107 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that their son-Mr.Abhishek Anand possessed Wooden Wall Hanging, received by him as Gift, at the end of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that Mr.Abhishek Anand possessed Wooden Wall Hanging at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.99: Jayco Wall Clock
229. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Jayco Wall Clock worth Rs.500/- at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.99 and Page-107 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said item was purchased for Rs.200/- by the Accused-1. But, no supporting evidence is placed by them in this regard and to rebut the contents of Ex.P.286. As such and in the absence of any supporting evidence on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 and in view of the contents of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and 2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Jayco Wall Clock worth Rs.500/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.100: Brief Cases-3
230. At Sl.No.100 and Page-107 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that they possessed 3 Brief Cases, received by the Accused-1 as Gift during transfer, at 159 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] the end of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed 3 Brief Cases the end of the Check Period.
C.4.101: Double Blankets-2
231. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed 2 Double Blankets worth Rs.1,700/- at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.101 and Page-107 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said item was purchased for Rs.700/- by the Accused-1. But, no supporting evidence is placed by them in this regard and to rebut the contents of Ex.P.286. In Ex.P.255, the Accused-1 has stated that the said item was purchased by the Accused-2. This Statement is contrary to and inconsistent with the Written Arguments of the Accused-1 and 2. Even otherwise, there is no supporting evidence about the alleged purchase by the Accused-2. As such and in the absence of any supporting evidence on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 and in view of the contents of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and
2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed 2 Double Blankets worth Rs.1,700/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.102: College Text Books of Mr.Aravind
232. At Sl.No.102 and Page-107 of the CSWA, the 160 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that the Accused-1 purchased College Text Books worth Rs.12,000/- for Mr.Aravind Anand at the end of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 purchased and possessed College Text Books of Mr.Aravind Anand worth Rs.12,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.103: Sony T.V.
233. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Sony T.V., worth Rs.20,000/- at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.103 and Page-107 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said item belongs to their son-Mr.Aravind Anand. But, no supporting evidence is placed by them in this regard and to rebut the contents of Ex.P.286. In Ex.P.255, the Accused-1 has stated that the said item was purchased by the Accused-2 for Rs.13,000/-. This Statement is contrary to and inconsistent with the Written Arguments of the Accused-1 and 2. Even otherwise, there is no supporting evidence about the alleged purchase by the Accused-2. As such and in the absence of any supporting evidence on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 and in view of the contents of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and
2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Sony T.V., worth Rs.20,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
161 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] C.4.104: Jayco Time Piece
234. At Sl.No.104 and Page-107 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that the Accused-1 possessed Jayco Time Piece worth Rs.300/- at the end of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 possessed Jayco Time Piece worth Rs.300/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.105: Brass Jug
235. At Sl.No.105 and Page-107 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that they possessed Brass Jug worth Rs.100/- at the end of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Brass Jug worth Rs.100/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.106: Godrej Almirah
236. At Sl.No.106 and Page-107 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that they possessed Godrej Almirah worth Rs.4,000/- at the end of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Godrej Almirah worth Rs.4,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.107: 4 Time Pieces-Quartz, Marz
237. At Sl.No.107 and Page-107 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that they possessed 4 Time Pieces, received by the Accused-1 as Gift during Seminars, 162 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] at the end of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed 4 Time Pieces at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.108: Omron B.P. Monitor
238. At Sl.No.108 and Page-107 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that they possessed Omron B.P.Monitor, received by them as Gift from their relatives, at the end of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Omron B.P. Monitor at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.109: BPL Sangeeth Tape Recorder
239. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Tape Recorder worth Rs.1,000/- at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.109 and Page-107 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said item was purchased for Rs.500/- by the Accused-1. But, no supporting evidence is placed by them in this regard and to rebut the contents of Ex.P.286. In Ex.P.255, the Accused-1 has stated that the said item was purchased by his son- Mr.Aravind Anand. This Statement is contrary to and inconsistent with the Written Arguments of the Accused-1 and 2. Even otherwise, there is no supporting evidence about the alleged purchase by Mr.Aravind Anand. As such and in the absence of any supporting evidence on behalf of 163 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] the Accused-1 and 2 and in view of the contents of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and 2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed BPL Sangeeth Tape Recorder worth Rs.1,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.110: Aiwa FM
240. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Aiwa FM worth Rs.500/- at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.110 and Page-107 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said item was a Gift to the Accused-1. But, no supporting evidence is placed by them in this regard and to rebut the contents of Ex.P.286. In Ex.P.255, the Accused-1 has stated that the said item was a Gift to his son-Mr.Abhishek Anand by his friend. This Statement is contrary to and inconsistent with the Written Arguments of the Accused-1 and 2. Even otherwise, there is no supporting evidence about the alleged Gift to Mr.Abhishek Anand. As such and in the absence of any supporting evidence on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 and in view of the contents of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and
2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Aiwa FM worth Rs.500/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.111: Double Cot With Side Box
241. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Double Cot with Side Box worth Rs.10,000/- at 164 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.111 and Page-107 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said item was purchased for Rs.2,000/- by the Accused-1. But, no supporting evidence is placed by them in this regard and to rebut the contents of Ex.P.286. In Ex.P.255, the Accused-1 has stated that the said item was purchased by the Accused-2. This Statement is contrary to and inconsistent with the Written Arguments of the Accused-1 and 2. Even otherwise, there is no supporting evidence about the alleged purchase by the Accused-2. As such and in the absence of any supporting evidence on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 and in view of the contents of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and
2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Double Cot with Side Box worth Rs.10,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.112: Wrist Watches-10
242. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Wrist Watches of various Companies worth Rs.8,000/- at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.112 and Page-107 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that worth of the said item was Rs.3,400/- and that it was a Gift to the Accused-1. But, no supporting evidence is placed by them in this regard and to rebut the contents of Ex.P.286. In Ex.P.255, the Accused-1 has stated that the said item was gifted to the Accused-1 and 2 by the office staff on the occasion of transfers and that 165 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] value of that item is not known. This Statement is contrary to and inconsistent with the Written Arguments of the Accused-1 and 2. Even otherwise, there is no supporting evidence about the alleged Gift to the Accused-1 and 2. As such and in the absence of any supporting evidence on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 and in view of the contents of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and 2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed 10 Wrist Watches worth Rs.8,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.113: Silver Items
243. At Sl.No.113 and Page-107 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that they possessed Silver Items i.e., 4 Plates, Pooja Items, Kumkum containers etc., having acquired the same by exchange of old Silver Items by paying making charges of Rs.2,000/- only at the end of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Silver Items by spending making charges of Rs.2,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.114: Suits-7 Pairs
244. At Sl.No.114 and Page-107 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that the Accused-1 possessed 7 Pair of Suits worth Rs.7,000/- at the end of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. Hence, 166 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] it is held that the Accused-1 possessed 7 Pair of Suits worth Rs.7,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.115: Brief Cases-7
245. At Sl.No.115 and Page-107 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that the Accused-1 possessed 7 Brief Cases issued by his office at the end of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 possessed 7 Brief Cases at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.116: Dressing Mirror
246. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Dressing Mirror worth Rs.2,000/- at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.116 and Page-107 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said item was purchased for Rs.1,200/- by the Accused-1. But, no supporting evidence is placed by them in this regard and to rebut the contents of Ex.P.286. In Ex.P.255, the Accused-1 has stated that the said item was purchased by the Accused-2. This Statement is contrary to and inconsistent with the Written Arguments of the Accused-1 and 2. Even otherwise, there is no supporting evidence about the alleged purchase by the Accused-2. As such and in the absence of any supporting evidence on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 and in view of the contents of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and
2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed 167 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Dressing Mirror worth Rs.2,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.117: Peacock Wall Hanging Cloth
247. At Sl.No.117 and Page-107 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that they possessed Peacock Wall Hanging Cloth worth Rs.50/- at the end of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Peacock Wall Hanging Cloth worth Rs.50/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.118: Sonam Wall Clock
248. At Sl.No.118 and Page-107 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that they possessed Wall Clock, received by them as New Year Gift, at the end of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Sonam Wall Clock at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.119: Clothes of the Accused-2
249. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-2 possessed Clothes worth Rs.10,000/- at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.119 and Page-108 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said Clothes were purchased for Rs.5,000/- by the Accused-2. But, no supporting evidence is placed by them in this regard and to rebut the contents of Ex.P.286. As such and in the absence 168 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] of any supporting evidence on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 and in view of the contents of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and 2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-2 possessed Clothes worth Rs.10,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.120: Plastic Flower Pots-8
250. At Sl.No.120 and Page-108 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that they possessed Plastic Flower Pots worth Rs.500/- at the end of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Plastic Flower Pots worth Rs.500/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.121: Window/Door Screens of All Rooms
251. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Window/Door Screens in all the Rooms worth Rs.25,000/- at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.121 and Page-108 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said item was got stitched locally for Rs.2,500/- by the Accused-2. But, no supporting evidence is placed by them in this regard and to rebut the contents of Ex.P.286. As such and in the absence of any supporting evidence on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 and in view of the contents of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and 2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Window/Door Screens worth Rs.25,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
169 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] C.4.122: Telephone Instruments-2 Kept In Hall
252. At Sl.No.122 and Page-108 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that they possessed Telephone Instruments, which were supplied by BSNL and kept in Hall, at the end of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused- 1 and 2 possessed 2 Telephone Instruments supplied by BSNL at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.123: Panasonic Cordless Telephone Instrument
253. At Sl.No.123 and Page-108 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that they possessed Cordless Telephone Instrument, received by them as Gift from Sri.Gopinathan, at the end of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Panasonic Cordless Telephone Instrument at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.124: OVPET & TABBY Telephone Instruments
254. At Sl.No.124 and Page-108 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that they possessed Ovpet Telephone Instrument purchased by them for Rs.700/- and Tabby Telephone Instrument received by them as New Year Gift, at the end of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Ovpet Telephone Instrument worth Rs.700/- at the end of the Check Period.
170 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] C.4.125: OVPET Telephone Instrument Kept At Ground Floor Bed Room
255. At Sl.No.125 and Page-108 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that they possessed Ovpet Telephone Instrument worth Rs.300/- at the end of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Ovpet Telephone Instrument worth Rs.300/- kept at Ground Floor Bed Room at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.126: Panasonic Telephone Instrument Kept At First Floor Bed Room
256. At Sl.No.126 and Page-108 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that they possessed Panasonic Telephone Instrument worth Rs.1,000/- at the end of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Panasonic Telephone Instrument worth Rs.1,000/- kept at First Floor Bed Room at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.127: Beetal & Comsys Telephone Instruments Kept At Bed Room-2
257. At Sl.No.127 and Page-108 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that they possessed Beetal Telephone Instrument supplied by BSNL and Comsys Telephone Instrument purchased by them for Rs.500/- at 171 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] the end of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Comsys Telephone Instrument worth Rs.500/- kept at Ground Floor Bed Room at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.128: Cell Phone Nokia-6600
258. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Nokia Cell Phone worth Rs.11,000/- at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.128 and Page-108 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said item was purchased for Rs.2,000/- by the Accused-1 and that for Rs.6,000/- by the Accused-2. But, no supporting evidence is placed by them in this regard and to rebut the contents of Ex.P.286. In Ex.P.255, the Accused-1 has stated that 3 Cell Phones including the said item were second hand purchase made by the Accused-1 and 2 and Mr.Abhishek Anand for Rs.6,000/-. This Statement is contrary to and inconsistent with the Written Arguments of the Accused-1 and 2. Even otherwise, there is no supporting evidence about the alleged purchase by the Accused-1 and 2 and Mr.Abhishek Anand. As such and in the absence of any supporting evidence on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 and in view of the contents of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and
2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Nokia Cell Phone-6600 worth Rs.11,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
172 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] C.4.129: Cell Phone Nokia-7250
259. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Nokia Cell Phone worth Rs.6,000/- at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.129 and Page-108 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said item was purchased for Rs.2,000/- by the Accused-1. But, no supporting evidence is placed by them in this regard and to rebut the contents of Ex.P.286. As observed above, in Ex.P.255, the Accused-1 has stated that 3 Cell Phones including the said item were second hand purchase made by the Accused-1 and 2 and Mr.Abhishek Anand for Rs.6,000/-. This Statement is also contrary to and inconsistent with the Written Arguments of the Accused-1 and 2. Even otherwise, there is no supporting evidence about the alleged purchase by the Accused-1 and 2 and Mr.Abhishek Anand. As such and in the absence of any supporting evidence on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 and in view of the contents of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and 2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Nokia Cell Phone-7250 worth Rs.6,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.130: Cell Phone Nokia-6610
260. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Nokia Cell Phone worth Rs.6,000/- at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.130 and Page-108 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said 173 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] item was purchased for Rs.2,000/- by the Accused-1. But, no supporting evidence is placed by them in this regard and to rebut the contents of Ex.P.286. As observed above, in Ex.P.255, the Accused-1 has stated that 3 Cell Phones including the said item were second hand purchase made by the Accused-1 and 2 and Mr.Abhishek Anand for Rs.6,000/-. This Statement is also contrary to and inconsistent with the Written Arguments of the Accused-1 and 2. Even otherwise, there is no supporting evidence about the alleged purchase by the Accused-1 and 2 and Mr.Abhishek Anand. As such and in the absence of any supporting evidence on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 and in view of the contents of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and 2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 & 2 possessed Nokia Cell Phone-6610 worth Rs.6,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.131: Maruti Zen Car No.KA-05-P-1396
261. At Sl.No.131 and Page-108 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted that they possessed Maruti Zen Car worth Rs.3,70,000/- at the end of the Check Period as contended by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Maruti Zen Car worth Rs.3,70,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.132: Hero Honda Motor Cycle [
262. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 possessed Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing Registration 174 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] No.KA-05-EG-903 worth Rs.30,000/- at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.132 and Page-108 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said item belongs to their son-Mr.Abhishek Anand, which was purchased by him out of his personal savings. But, no supporting evidence is placed by them in this regard and to rebut the contents of Ex.P.286. In Ex.P.255, the Accused-1 has stated that Mr.Abhishek Anand purchased that vehicle for Rs.30,000/- by paying Rs.16,500/- out of Gift received by him from his relatives and by exchange of old Scooter for Rs.13,500/-. This Statement is contrary to and inconsistent with the Written Arguments of the Accused-1 and 2. Even otherwise, there is no supporting evidence about the alleged purchase by Mr.Abhishek Anand. Though Mr.Abhishek Anand has given his evidence as D.W.2, he has not whispered anything about purchase of that Motor Cycle by him. As such and in the absence of any supporting evidence on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 and in view of the contents of Ex.P.286, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the Accused-1 and 2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 possessed Hero Honda Bike worth Rs.30,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.4.133: Conclusion
263. In view of the above findings, value of the Household Articles, excluding Gift Items, possessed by the Accused-1 and his family members at the end of the Check Period is as follows:
175 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Value of Head Name of Article Year of Mode of the Assets No. Acquisition Acquisition (in Rs.) C.4.1 Sofa Set - 3 Piece 2004 Purchased 50,000 (Black colour):
C.4.2 Teapoy Glass & 2003 -do- 2,500 Wood:
C.4.3 Embroidery Carpet 2000 -do- 28,000 8' x6':C.4.6 3 Earthen Pot Set: 2003 Purchased 300
C.4.7 3 Wooden Sofa 1994 Purchased 15,000 Set:
C.4.10 DVD-BPL: 2003 Included in 2,000 the fixtures of the Flat.C.4.14 Show Lamp: 1995 Purchased. 150
C.4.15 3 Hanging Show 2004 -do- 1,500 Light Sets:
C.4.17 -do- 1995 Purchased. 1,000
C.4.18 3 Wall Hangings: 1995-2004 2 Compliments 600
& 1 purchased.
C.4.19 Pooja Stand- 2003 Purchased. 10,000
Yellow Teak:
C.4.20 Del Computer Set: 2001 -do- 80,000
C.4.21 Compuer Table: 2001 -do- 3,000
C.4.22 Computer Modem: 2001 -do- 5,000
C.4.23 Dining Table Set-4 1998 -do- 7,000
Chairs:
C.4.24 Wooden Books 2000 -do- 2,000
Rack:
C.4.25 Sony Tape 2000 -do- 8,990
Recorder:
C.4.27 Mulma Ware 1995 Purchased. 500
Dining Set/Glass
Tumblers:
C.4.28 Old Wooden Diwan 1995 -do- 1,500
in Balcony:
C.4.29 Iron Chair/Easy 1994 -do- 1,600
Chairs-2 Nos.:
C.4.30 IFB Washing 2003 -do- 21,000
Machine:
C.4.31 3 Aluminum Cloth 2000 -do- 2,000
Drying Stands:
C.4.32 Aluminum Ladder: 2000 -do- 1,000
C.4.33 Maharaja Dish 1994 -do- 11,000
176 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
Washer:
C.4.34 Body Fitness 2000 -do- 9,000
Walker:
C.4.35 Carom Board: 1998 -do- 1,000
C.4.36 Wall Hanging 2003 -do- 200
Cloth:
C.4.37 1 Pair Steel 2000 -do- 700
Dumbles:
C.4.38 2 Shuttle Rackets 1998 -do- 200
C.4.39 1 Cukoo Wall 2002 -do- 3,000
Clock-Ajantha:
C.4.40 Fibre Chimney: 2004 -do- 13,000
C.4.41 LG Micro Wave: 1998 -do- 10,000
C.4.42 Prestige Stove: 2003 -do- 2,000
C.4.43 National Mixie: 1998 -do- 2,500
C.4.44 Steel Plate Stand: 1995 -do- 500
C.4.45 Bajaj Bread 2002 -do- 600
Toaster:
C.4.46 BPL Fridge-600 1999 -do- 18,000
Ltrs.
C.4.47 Pappad Maker- 2001 -do- 200
Fryer:
C.4.48 2 Prestige 1995/1998 -do- 2,500
Cookers:
C.4.49 Steel Plates, 1990 -do 5,000
Tumblers, Jugs, to
Spoons, Steel 2005
Dongas, Oil
Containers, Filters,
Katoris, Frying
Pans, Bowls, Milk
Cooker etc.:
C.4.50 4 Gas Cylinders: 1985-1994 -do- 2,600
C.4.51 UPS System-Vijay 1998 -do- 16,500
C.4.52 Vegetable Stand 1995 -do- 1,500
C.4.53 Aqua Guard - 2003 -do- 5,000
Eureka Forbes:
C.4.54 1 Double Cot- 1995 -do- 17,000
Bombay Teak:
C.4.55 Godrej Almirah: 1994 -do- 8,000
C.4.56 Kurlon Mattress- 2000 -do- 3,000
Double:
C.4.59 Wall Hanging 1994 Purchased 150
Dolls:
177 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
C.4.60 Philips Two in one 1998 Purchased 2,000
Record Player:
C.4.64 Renold Guitar- 2003 Purchased 1,500
Wooden:
C.4.65 Tabla Small: 2004 -do- 100
C.4.66 Brass Lamp Set: 1995 -do- 600
C.4.68 Sony Battery 2003 Purchased 600
Charger:
C.4.69 Jalco-Power 2004 -do- 200
Converter:
C.4.71 Dressing Mirror: 2003 Purchased 3,000
C.4.72 Kenstar Room 2003 -do- 3,000
Cooler:
C.4.73 Magazine Stand: 1994 -do- 100
C.4.76 4 Big Silver Plates 2003 Purchased 30,000
-3 ½ Kgs.:
C.4.78 4 Silver Kumkum 2002 Purchased 3,000
Containers:
C.4.80 Panasonic Small 2000 Purchased 1,500
Tape Recorder:
C.4.81 Konica Camera: 1995 -do- 1,000
C.4.82 Yashica Camera: 1994 -do- 1,000
C.4.83 Iron Box-TEFAL 2000 -do- 3,000
AVANTIS-100:
C.4.84 TEFAL Iron box- 1990 -do- 700
ordinary:
C.4.85 2 Wrist Watches- 2003 -do- 4,500
Titan:
C.4.88 Digital Diary- 2000 Purchased 500
Sharp:
C.4.89 Casio Electric Key 1995 -do- 1,000
Board:
C.4.90 Double Cot in Bed 2001 -do- 8,000
Room:
C.4.91 Crown TV-21" 1994 -do- 12,000
colour:
C.4.92 Videocon Fridge- 2000 -do- 12,000
165 Ltrs.:
C.4.93 Telephone Stand: 2001 -do- 500
C.4.94 5 Suitcases 1990-2003 -do- 8,000
Various Types:
C.4.95 Mattress-Double 2001 -do- 5,000
Cot:
C.4.96 Wall Hanging- 2003 -do- 500
cotton-Lion
178 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
Design:
C.4.97 Time Piece-Jayco: 1995 -do- 300
C.4.99 Jayco Wall Clock: 2000 Purchased 500
C.4.101 2 Double Blankets: 2000 Purchased 1,700
C.4.102 College Text Books 1998-2001 -do- 12,000
of Sri.Anand:
C.4.103 Sony TV-21" 2000 -do- 20,000
Colour:
C.4.104 Jayco Time Piece: 2000 -do- 300
C.4.105 Brass Jug: 2001 -do- 100
C.4.106 Godrej Almirah: 1995 -do- 4,000
C.4.109 BPL Sangeet Tape 1999 Purchased 1,000
Recorder:
C.4.110 Aiwa FM: 2002 -do- 500
C.4.111 Double Cot + Side 2001 -do- 10,000
Box:
C.4.112 10 Wrist Watches 1990-2004 -do- 8,000
of various
Companies:
C.4.113 Silver Items-4 2002-2005 Old Silver 2,000
Plates, Pooja items
Items, Kumkum exchanged-
Containers etc.: paid making
charges.
C.4.114 Suits-7 Pairs: 1985-1988 Purchased at 7,000
Delhi
C.4.116 Dressing Mirror- 2002 Purchased 2,000
Wooden & Glass:
C.4.117 Peacock Wall 1998 -do- 50
Hanging Cloth:
C.4.119 Clothes of the A-2: 1995-2000 Purchased 10,000
C.4.120 8 Plastic Flower 1990-2000 -do- 500
Pots:
C.4.121 Window/Door 2003 -do- 25,000
Screens of all
Rooms:
C.4.124 Telephone
Instruments kept
at Dining Hall:
a)Ovpet- a)1998 Purchased. 700
C.4.125 Telephone 2003 Purchased 300
Instruments kept
at Ground Floor
Bed Room-Ovpet:
179 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
C.4.126 Telephone 2003 -do- 1,000
Instruments kept
at 1st Floor Bed
Room 1-
Panasonic:
C.4.127 Telephone
Instruments kept
at 1st Floor Bed
Room
a) Comsys: 2003 Purchased 500
C.4.128 Cell Phone- 2004 Purchased 11,000
Nokia 6600:
C.4.129 Nokia-7250: 2004 -do- 6,000
C.4.130 Nokia-6610: 2003 -do- 6,000
C.4.131 Maruti Zen-1997 1997(Dec) -do- 3,70,000
Model, Regn.
No.KA-05-P-1396:
C.4.132 Hero Honda CBZ 2000 -do- 30,000
2000 Model. Regn.
No.KA-05-EG-903:
Total: 10,11,540
Thus, it is held that the Accused-1 and his family members possessed Household Articles worth Rs.10,11,540/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.5: Gold Ornaments
264. According to the Complainant, the Accused-1 and 2 and their children possessed Gold Ornaments/Articles worth Rs.3,85,600/- at the end of the Check Period and the details of the same are as follows:
Value of Sl. Year of Mode of the Article Name of Article Acquisition Acquisition No. (in Rs.)
1. 1 Pair Bangle 1994 Purchased 14,000 (Kadaga):
2. 1 Pair Bangle (Kadaga) 1991 -do- 4,000 Hollow:
180 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
3. Bangle Sets - 8 Nos.: 1998 -do- 30,000
4. Chains (Pavale Sara)-1 2003 -do- 30,000 and Pearls Chain-1
5. Chain with Pearls: 1991 -do- 2,000
6. Necklace-3 rows: 1985 -do- 8,000
7. Necklace with green 1991 -do- 5,000 stones/pavale:
8. Necklace with Red 2000 -do- 2,000 Stones:
9. Plain Necklace: 1994 -do- 5,000
10. Chain with black Beeds: 2002 -do- 20,000
11. 1 Pair Plain Bangle: 1991 -do- 6,500
12. Bracelets:2 2000 -do- 17,000 (of both sons):
13. Chain with Black Beeds 2003 -do- 13,000 Pendant:
14. Chain with Gold Beeds 1999 -do- 4,000 Big:
15. Bracelet of the 2001 -do- 5,000 Accused-2:
16. Chain with Green Beeds 2001 -do- 13,000 (Pavala):
17. Bangles with Red 2001 -do- 20,000 Beeds-2:
18. Bangles Plain-4: 2002 -do- 20,000
19. Single Kada Plain: 1994 -do- 3,000
20. Single Kada Plain with 2002 -do- 5,000 white Stone:
21. Chain with full Gold 1991 -do- 8,000 Beeds:
22. Chain with Lakshmi 1998 -do- 7,000 Pendant:
23. Single Kade-Red 2000 -do- 10,000 Stones:
24. Necklace with American 2000 -do- 7,000 Diamond:
25. 4 Plain Gold Bangles: 1985 Gift from Parents to -
A-2 at the time of her marriage.
26. 2 Bangles designed 2000 Gift by her -
Red/Green Stones: Mother.
27. Kade double-3 Red 1999 Gift by -
Stones: Mother-in-
181 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
law.
28. Single Kade-Palm 1999 -do- -
Hollow:
29. 8 Pair of Ear Studs: 1985 Gift during
marriage. -
30. 1 Pair Ear Studs with 1985 Gift during
Hangings: marriage. -
31. 4 Pairs Ear Rings: 1985 Gift during
marriage. -
32. 5 Gold Rings: 1985 Gift during
marriage. -
33. 5 Pendants: 1985 Gift during
marriage. -
34. Chain with Pendants & 1995 Purchased. 10,000
2 white Stones:
35. American Diamond 2000 Purchased. 1,500
Pendant:
36. Artificial Stone 2003 Purchased. 1,500
Pendant:
37. Red Stone Pendant: 2002 -do- 1,500
38. Gold Rings-9: 1990-2004 -do- 9,000
39. Ear Studs-8 Pairs: 1986-2000 -do- 20,000
40. Ear Studs-3 Pairs: 2002-2005 -do- 8,000
41. Pendant Big-Half Moon 2003 -do- 5,500
Shaped with Black
Beeds:
42. Pendant with Red 2000 -do- 1,000
Pavale & White Pearls:
43. Chain with 'V' shaped 2001 -do- 25,000
Pendant with Red
Stones & Pearls:
44. 2 Plain Gold Chains- 1998 -do- 6,000
(14 gms. Approx.)
45. Chain worn by 2003 -do- 6,500
Sri.Abhishek:
46. Chain worn by 2005 -do- 20,100
Sri.Abhishek:
47. Chain worn by 2001 -do- 9,000
Sri.Arvind:
48. Two chains with Black 1995-2002 -do- 2,500
Beeds worn by the
Accused-2:
Total: 3,85,600
182 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
265. Contents of Ex.P.286 show that the Accused-1 and 2 and their family members possessed Gold Ornaments/Articles worth Rs.3,85,600/- at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.5 and Pages-15, 71 to 79 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the Accused-1 did not possess any Gold Ornaments/Articles, the Accused-2 possessed Gold Ornaments/Articles worth Rs.2,83,399/-, Mr.Aravind Anand possessed Gold Ornaments/Articles worth Rs.9,000/- and Mr.Abhishek Anand possessed Gold Ornaments/Articles worth Rs.26,600/- and that total Gold Ornaments/Articles possessed by the Accused-2 and her children at the end of the Check Period are worth Rs.3,18,999/- only and not Rs.3,85,600/- as contended by the Complainant. To arrive the said figure, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended to exclude Gold Ornaments possessed by their children to an extent of Rs.35,600/- from the total figure of Rs.3,85,600/-. They have also contended that including the old Gold Ornaments/Silver Articles, which were sold during 2003- 2004, they possessed Gold and Silver Articles worth Rs.4,62,961/- as on 01.01.1996, purchased Gold worth Rs.2,01,399/- from 2002 to 2004 and that as such, the total of these 2 items comes to Rs.6,64,360/-. They have claimed to deduct Rs.3,80,961/- towards cost of the Gold sold during the Check Period and as such, according to them, the Gold Ornaments possessed by them at the end of the Check Period are worth Rs.2,83,399/- only.
183 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
266. Though the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that Gold Ornaments worn by their children to an extent of Rs.35,600/- belong to their children only, they have not produced any evidence to substantiate the same. Though Mr.Abhishek Anand and Mr.Aravind Anand have given their evidence as D.W.2 and D.W.3, they have not whispered anything about their exclusive ownership over the said Gold Ornaments. In the absence of such evidence, it is not possible to hold that the said Gold Ornaments exclusively belong to Mr.Abhishek Anand and Mr.Aravind Anand and as such, the said items cannot be excluded as contended by the Accused-1 and 2.
267. As observed above, while dealing under the Head-'B.3: Gold Ornaments', this court has held that Gold and Silver Articles, sold during 2003-2004 as per Ex.P.336 and Ex.P.340, were not in existence at the commencement of the Check Period and that those Articles were acquired during the Check Period only. As those Gold and Silver Articles were sold well prior to 06.04.2005, those items were not in existence at the end of the Check Period. Hence, question of considering existence of said items at the beginning of the Check Period and at the end of the Check Period does not arise.
268. As those items as well as the items worth Rs.2,01,399/-, as shown in Pages-78 & 79 of the CSWA, were purchased during the Check Period, payment made towards the said purchase have to be considered in the 184 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Expenditure Column i.e., under Statement 'D'. Hence, all old Silver and Gold items mentioned in Ex.P.336 and Ex.P.340 and Income derived from the said Sale Proceeds have to be considered in the Receipts Column i.e., under Statement 'C'. The said Income and Expenditure Items cannot be included under Statement 'B' as Statement 'B' pertains to Assets held at the end of the Check Period only. Hence, claim of the Accused-1 and 2 that Gold and Silver Articles possessed at the end of the Check Period are worth Rs.2,83,399/- only is untenable and liable to be rejected. There is nothing on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 to rebut the contents of Ex.P.286. In fact, the Accused-1 and 2 have also based their claim on the value given by the Complainant as Rs.3,85,600/-. Furthermore, there is nothing on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 to show that all the Silver and Gold Articles exclusively belong to the Accused-2 as contended. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 and their children jointly possessed Gold Ornaments worth Rs.3,85,600/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.6: Bank Balance In Various Savings Bank Accounts
269. According to the Complainant, there was Bank Balance of Rs.23,43,121.89 in the Savings Bank Account standing in the names of the Accused-1 and 2 and their children at the end of the Check Period and the details of the same are as follows:
185 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Balance Standing Sl. Account Number & as on In the No. Name of the Bank 06.04.2005 Name of (in Rs.)
1. A/c. No. 01190020603, 50,204.31 Accused-1.
State Bank of India, Cauvery Bhavan Branch, Bengaluru:
2. A/c. No.30117, 14,139.60 Accused-2.
Canara Bank, Ghatkopar(W), Mumbai:
3. A/c. No.30118, 79,613.82 Accused-1.
Canara Bank, Ghatkopar(W), Mumbai:
4. A/c. No.01190/010639, 2,40,199.40 Accused-1.
State Bank of India, PBB, Jayanagara, Bengaluru:
5. A/c. No.01190/010638, 61,078.53 Accused-2.
State Bank of India, PBB, Jayanagara, Bengaluru:
6. A/c.No.5691, 3,110.00 Accused-1 & Punjab National Bank, 2.
Malleshwaram, Bengaluru:
7. A/c.No.17867, 3,26,846.93 Accused-1.
Punjab National Bank, Hudson Circle, Bengaluru:
8. A/c. No.2414, 17,428.40 Accused-2.
Canara Bank, 9th Block, Jayanagara, Bengaluru:
9. A/c. No.2538, 25,238.00 Accused-1.
Canara Bank, 9th Block, Jayanagara, Bengaluru:
10. A/c. No.2537, 36,433.00 Accused-1.
Canara Bank, 9th Block, Jayanagara, Bengaluru:
11. A/c.No.60645, 28,043.70 Accused-2.
Canara Bank, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru:
186 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
12. A/c.No.19255, 85,384.96 Accused-1.
Canara Bank, Ashoka Road, Tumkur:
13. A/c.No.11322, 36,634.00 Son of the Canara Bank, Magadi Accused-1 Road, Bengaluru: and 2.
14. A/c.No.04002010042067, 1,79,471.39 Accused-1.
Syndicate Bank, Gandhinagar, Bengaluru:
15. A/c. No.5643, 7,566.45 Accused-1 Dena Bank, Jayanagara, and 2.
Bengaluru:
16. A/c. No.5658, 6,105.00 Accused-1.
Sri.Charan Souharda Co-
Operative Bank Ltd., Basavanagudi, Bengaluru:
17. A/c. No.5659, 6,123.00 Accused-2.
Sri.Charan Souharda Co-
Operative Bank Ltd.,
Basavanagudi, Bengaluru:
18. A/c. No.9291, 64,838.04 Accused-1.
The Karnataka Co-
operative Apex
Bank Ltd.,
Basaveshwaranagara,
Bengaluru:
19. A/c. No.37399, 73,329.04 Accused-1
The Rajajinagar Co-op. and 2.
Bank Ltd., Rajajinagara,
Bengaluru:
20. A/c. No.3517, 279.00 Accused-1.
The Rajajinagara Co-op.
Bank Ltd.,
Basaveshwaranagara,
Bengaluru:
21. A/c.No.45610018583, 72,314.57 Accused-1.
The Standard Chartered
Bank, M.G.Road,
Bengaluru:
187 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
22. A/c.No.1503018690, 10,825.00 Accused-2.
The Oriental Bank of
Commerce, Jayanagara,
Bengaluru:
23. A/c.No.ACSB 000916217, 5,123.33 Accused-2.
Canara Bank, BCO
Extension Counter,
Trinity Circle, Bengaluru:
24. A/c.No.005301518943, 35,152.00 Accused-1.
ICICI Bank Ltd.,
Jayanagara, Bengaluru:
25. A/c.No.005301518944, 40,156.00 Accused-2.
ICICI Bank Ltd.,
Jayanagara, Bengaluru:
26. A/c.No.8269, 87,695.81 Accused-2.
Bank of India,
Basaveshwarnagar,
Bengaluru:
27. A/c.No.00181231815001, 1,23,493.47 Accused-1
Centurion Bank, and 2.
Jayanagara, Bengaluru:
28. A/c.No.0018233870001, 36,628.99 Son of the
Centurion Bank, Accused-1
Jayanagara, Bengaluru: and 2.
29. A/c. No.0018233871001, 1,19,561.54 Son of the
Centurion Bank, Accused-1
Jayanagara, Bengaluru: and 2.
30. A/c. No.5584872006, 3,01,617.31 Accused-1.
Citi Bank, Bengaluru.
31. A/c.No.445269, 2,54,941.47 Accused-1.
Central Bank of India,
Marine Lines, Mumbai.
Total: 23,43,121.89
270. The evidence of P.W.26, P.W.3, P.W.4. P.W.5. P.W.6, P.W.7, P.W.8, P.W.9, P.W.10, P.W.11, P.W.12, 188 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] P.W.15, P.W.16, P.W.17, P.W.22, P.W.25, P.W.26, P.W.27 and P.W.70 and contents of Ex.P.10, Ex.P.10(a), Ex.P.18, Ex.P.19, Ex.P.20, Ex.P.21, Ex.P.24, Ex.P.38, Ex.P.57, Ex.P.58, Ex.P.59, Ex.P.67, Ex.P.75, Ex.P.76, Ex.P.77, Ex.P.79, Ex.P.82, Ex.P.83, Ex.P.84, Ex.P.87, Ex.P.88, Ex.P.89, Ex.P.90, Ex.P.91, Ex.P.92, Ex.P.93, Ex.P.94, Ex.P.95, Ex.P.96, Ex.P.97, Ex.P.112, Ex.P.115, Ex.P.117, Ex.P.135, Ex.P.136, Ex.P.137, Ex.P.142, Ex.P.143, Ex.P.143(a), Ex.P.144, Ex.P.145, Ex.P.146, Ex.P.151, Ex.P.152, Ex.P.153, Ex.P.234, Ex.P.291, Ex.P.292, Ex.P.293 and Ex.P.303 support the claim of the Complainant, except in respect of items at Sl.No.26 and Sl.No.31. At Sl.No.6, Pages-16 to 33 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted the said claim of the Complainant except in respect of the items mentioned in Sl.Nos.26 and 31. As per the said evidence placed by the Complainant and the admission of the Accused-1 and 2, balance in S.B.Accounts standing in the names of the Accused-1 and 2 and their children, except in respect of items mentioned in Sl.No.26 and 31, was Rs.20,00,484.61 at the end of the Check Period. As such, now the dispute is in respect of the items mentioned in Sl.Nos.26 and 31 only.
C.6.1: SB Account No.8269
271. According to the Complainant, there was a balance of Rs.87,695.81 in the SB Account No.8269 standing in the name of the Accused-2 maintained at Bank 189 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] of India, Basaveshwaranagar Branch, Bengaluru, at the end of the Check Period. P.W.18-Sri.V.S.Dharmappa, the then Officer of the Bank of India, has deposed that balance in the said Account of the Accused-2 as on 06.04.2005 was Rs.87,695.81. Ex.P.121 is the Certified Copy of Statement of Account and Ex.P.122 is the Certified Copy of Specimen Signature Card pertaining to that Account of the Accused-
2. Ex.P.121 shows that balance in that Account as on 02.04.2005 was Rs.87,695.81. There was no credit or debit in respect of that Account subsequent to 02.04.2005 till 14.05.2005. As such, as per Ex.P.121, it has to be inferred that balance in that Account as on 06.04.2005 was Rs.87,695.81. This evidence fortifies the contention of the Complainant.
272. But, at Sl.No.26 and Page-30 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that balance in that Account as on 06.04.2005 was Rs.87,295/-. But, no supporting evidence is placed in this regard and to rebut the entries of Ex.P.121. In the absence of such evidence and in view of the entries in Ex.P.121, it is not fit to accept the bare contention of the Accused-1 and 2 that there was balance of Rs.87,295/- in that Account as on 06.04.2005. Hence, it is held that there was balance of Rs.87,695.81 in the SB Account No.8269 of the Accused-2 maintained at Bank of India, Basaveshwaranagara Branch, Bengaluru, at the end of the Check Period.
190 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] C.6.2: SB Account No.445269
273. According to the Complainant, there was a balance of Rs.2,54,941.47 in the SB Account No.445269 of the Accused-1 maintained at Central Bank of India, Marine Lines, Mumbai, at the end of the Check Period. P.W.75- Sri.R.K.Giridhar, the then Manager of Central Bank of India, Marine Lines, Mumbai, has produced Ex.P.299- Statement of Account pertaining to Account No.445269 of the Accused-1. He has deposed that as on 01.01.1998, balance in that Account was Rs.1,12,081.36. He has not produced Statement of Account as on 06.04.2005. He has also not stated about the balance in that Account as on 06.04.2005. At Sl.No.31 and Page-33 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have also contended that as per the evidence of P.W.75, balance in that Account was Rs.1,12,081/- as on 01.01.1998. However, they have also not stated the actual balance in that Account as on 06.04.2005. In the absence of any evidence on behalf of the Complainant about the balance as on 06.04.2005, it is not fit to accept his bare contention that there was balance of Rs.2,54,941.47 in the SB Account No.445269 of the Accused-1. However, as per Ex.P.299, balance as on 05.06.1998 was Rs.1,51,216.36. There is nothing on behalf of the Complainant and the Accused-1 and 2 to show that there was subsequent credit or debit to that Account. As such and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary on behalf of the Complainant and the Accused-1 and 2, it is just and proper to infer that the 191 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] balance in the said Account at the end of the Check Period was Rs.1,51,216.36. Hence, it is held that balance in the SB Account No.445269 of the Accused-1 at Central Bank of India, Marine Lines, Mumbai was Rs.1,51,216.36 at the end of the Check Period.
C.6.3: Conclusion
274. From the above findings, it is clear that balance in the Savings Bank Accounts of the Accused-1 and 2 and their family members at the end of the Check Period was Rs.22,39,396.78 (Rs.20,00,484.61 + Rs.87,695.81 + Rs.1,51,216.36). Hence, it is held that there was balance of Rs.22,39,396.78 at the end of the Check Period in the S.B.Accounts standing in the names of the Accused-1 and 2 and their sons.
C.7: Public Provident Fund Accounts
275. According to the Complainant, there was balance of Rs.12,95,932.74 in the Public Provident Fund Accounts standing in the names of the Accused-1 and 2 and their son-Mr.Abhishek Anand at the end of the Check Period and the details of the same are as under:-
Balance Sl. PPF Account Number Standing as on No. & In the 06.4.2005 Name of the Bank Name of (in Rs.)
1. A/c.No.10170084673, 2,15,990.22 Accused-1.
State Bank of India, Basaveshwarnagar, Bengaluru:
192 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
2. A/c.No.736, 5,29,408.08 Accused-2.
State Bank of India, Basaveshwarnagar, Bengaluru:
3. A/c.No.01P00900036, 5,20,401.44 Accused-2.
State Bank of India, Magadi Road, Bengaluru:
4. A/c.No.01P00901669, 30,133.00 Accused-2.
State Bank of India, Basaveshwarnagar, Bengaluru:
Total: 12,95,932.74
276. The evidence of P.W.1-Sri.B.N.Bharath and P.W.29-Sri.B.S.Krishnamurthy, the then Branch Managers of State Bank of India, Basaweshwaranagara and Magadi Road Branches respectively, Bengaluru, and also the contents of Ex.P.2, Ex.P.2(a), Ex.P.3, Ex.P.4, Ex.P.5, Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.162 show that there was balance of Rs.12,95,932.74 in all in the Public Provident Fund Accounts standing in the names of the Accused-1 and 2 and their son-Mr.Abhishek Anand as on 06.04.2005. At Sl.No.7 and Pages-34 to 36 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have also admitted the said fact. Hence, it is held that there was balance of Rs.12,95,932.74 in the Public Provident Fund Accounts standing in the names of the Accused-1 and 2 and their son- Mr.Abhishek Anand at the end of the Check Period.
193 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] C.8: Balance In Post Office Savings Accounts
277. According to the Complainant, there was balance of Rs.7,54,727/- in all in the Post Office Savings Accounts, MIS Accounts and RD Account standing in the names of the Accused-1 and 2 at the end of the Check Period and the details of the same are as under:
Balance Sl. Scheme/ Account Standing as on No. Number & Name of the In the 06.4.2005 Bank Name of (in Rs.)
1. PO Savings A/c.No.2792446, 61,106 Accused-1.
K.G.Road, Bengaluru:
2. PO Savings A/c.No.426859, 500 Accused-1 Koramangala 6th Block, and 2.
Bengaluru:
3. PO Savings A/c.No.2601189, 51,121 Accused-1 PMK Road, Bengaluru: and 2.
4. MIS A/c.No.21197, 3,00,000 Accused-1 Koramangala 6th Block, and 2. Bengaluru:
5. MIS A/c.No.25356, 3,00,000 Accused-1 PMK Road, Bengaluru: and 2.
6. RD A/c.No.41100459, 42,000 Accused-1 Koramangala 6th Block, and 2.
Bengaluru:
Total: 7,54,727 The evidence of P.W.13-Sri.J.Krishnamurthy, P.W.14-
Sri.S.V.Balasubramanya and P.W.82-Smt.Nalini, the then Officers of the Post Office, and also the contents of Ex.P.99-Statement of Account, Ex.P.100-Pass Book, 194 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Ex.P.101-Letter, Ex.P.102-Ledger Extract, Ex.P.103-Ledger Extract, Ex.P.104-Statement of Accounts, Ex.P.105- Statement of Accounts and Ex.P.106-Statement of Accounts fortify the contention of the Complainant. At Sl.No.8 and Pages-37 to 41 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have also admitted the said claim of the Complainant. Hence, it is held that there was balance of Rs.7,54,727/- in all in the Post Office Savings Accounts, MIS Accounts and RD Account in the names of the Accused-1 and 2 at the end of the Check Period.
C.9: Balance In Fixed Deposits
278. According to the Complainant, there was balance of Rs.53,87,353/- in all in the Fixed Deposits in the names of the Accused-1 and 2 and their family members at the end of the Check Period and the details of the same are as under:
Balance Sl. FD A/c. No. & as on Name of the Bank Name of the A/c.
No. 06.04.2005
Holder (in Rs.)
1. Punjab National Bank, 53-720016. 2,50,000.00
Malleshwaram,
Bengaluru: Accused-1 & 2.
2. Punjab National Bank, MBD 3151, 3152, 14,00,544.00
Hudson Circle, FDQ 4153, 4203,
Bengaluru: 4272 & 4333.
Accused-1 & 2.
3. Canara Bank, 9th Block, FD 4191 & 4192, 6,86,729.00
195 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
Jayanagara, KD 3967, 6591,
Bengaluru: 4513 & 4514
Accused-1 & 2,
Mr.Abhishek Anand
& Mr.Aravind Anand.
4. Canara Bank, Ashoka KD 8197.
Roa, Tumkuru: Accused-1. 40,000.00
5. Karnataka Co-operative DJJ-528, 529, Apex Bank Ltd., 1299, 1327, 1328, 5,01,987.00 Basaveshwara Nagara, 1329, 1405 & Bengaluru: 1406.
Accused-1 & his family members.
6. Rajajinagara Co- 13364.
operative Bank Ltd., 45,000.00
Basaveshwara Nagara, Accused-1 & 2.
Bengaluru:
7. Standard Chartered 45630009962.
Bank, M.G.Road, 29,366,33
Bengaluru: Accused-1.
8. Standard Chartered 45630009954.
Bank, M.G.Road, 29,801.57
Bengaluru: Accused-1.
9. The Oriental Bank of 150353- 14,99,000.00
Commerce, 6482/6520/7738/1
Jayanagara, 0187/10217/1111
Bengaluru: 2/11887/12623.
Accused-2.
10. Bank of India, 849245100002439
Basavesgwaranagara 52,216.00
Branch, Bengaluru: Accused-1 & 2.
11. Canara Bank, 4th 'T' KD/01/009055,01
Block, Jayanagara, 1931,013285, 2,62,102.00
Bengaluru: 013286 & 013326.
Accused-1 and 2
(4 deposits) and
one deposit in the
196 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
names of Accused-
1 & all his family
members.
12. Punjab National Bank, 31-2868228/237.
Malleshwaram, Accused-1 and 2. 47,145.00 Bengaluru:
47,145.00
13. Punjab National Bank, 55-78043/34.
Malleshwaram, 1,500.00
Bengaluru: Accused-1 & 2.
1,500.00
14. State Bank of India, 01292010638.
PBB, Jayanagara, 2,00,000.00
Bengaluru: Accused-2.
15. State Bank of India, 01292010641. 1,32,534.00
PBB, Jayanagara, Accused-2 &
Bengaluru: Mr.Abhishek
Anand.
16. State Bank of India, 01292010642. 1,32,534.00
PBB, Jayanagara, Accused-2 &
Bengaluru: Mr.Aravind Anand.
17. State Bank of India, 10170125022.
Basaveshwaranagara, Accused-1. 87,417.00 Bengaluru:
Total: 53,87,353.00 The evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.8, P.W.12, P.W.15, P.W.16, P.W.18, P.W.19 and P.W.26 and contents of Ex.P.2, Ex.P.6, Ex.P.10 to Ex.P.15, Ex.P.22, Ex.P.23, Ex.P.26, Ex.P.27, Ex.P.30 to Ex.P.37, Ex.P.39 to Ex.P.45, Ex.P.48 to Ex.P.54, Ex.P.61 to Ex.P.66, Ex.P.70 to Ex.P.74, Ex.P.81, Ex.P.98, Ex.P.112, Ex.P.113, Ex.P.114, Ex.P.116, Ex.P.123, Ex.P.124, Ex.P.126 to Ex.P.130, Ex.P.147 and Ex.P.330 fortify the contention of the 197 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Complainant in respect of claims relating to items in Sl.No.1 to 13, 15 to 17 to the tune of Rs.51,87,353/-. The Accused-1 and 2 have also admitted the said claim of the Complainant at Sl.No.9 and Pages-41 to 44 of the CSWA.
But, they have disputed the claim of the Complainant in respect of item relating to Sl.No.14. As such, now, the dispute is only in respect of item in Sl.No.14.
C.9.1: F.D.No.01292010638
279. According to the Complainant, there was balance of Rs.2,00,000/- at the end of the Check Period in the Fixed Deposit Account No.01292010638 kept at State Bank of India, Personnel Banking Branch, Jayanagara, Bengaluru, in the name of the Accused-2. But, according to the Accused-2, there was balance of Rs.2,14,133/- in the said Fixed Deposit at the end of the Check Period. P.W.2- Smt.H.Vasanthi, the then Branch Manager of that Bank has deposed that as on 06.04.2005, there was balance of Rs.2,14,133.35 including the Interest in the said Deposit Account of the Accused-2. Ex.P.11-Statement of Accounts pertaining to that Deposit shows entries upto 16.07.2004 only and as per those entries, the balance in that Fixed Deposit was Rs.1,32,534/-. In the said amount, Interest as on 06.04.2005 is not covered. However, the evidence of P.W.2 clearly shows that balance in that Deposit was Rs.2,14,133.35 including Interest as on 06.04.2005. This evidence supports the claim of the Accused-1 and 2 and negatives the contention of the Complainant. Hence, it is 198 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] held that there was balance of Rs.2,14,133.35 in all in the Fixed Deposit in the name of the Accused-2 in Fixed Deposit No. 01292010638 kept at State Bank of India, Personnel Banking Branch, Jayanagara, Bengaluru, at the end of the Check Period.
C.9.2: Conclusion
280. In view of the above finding, it is clear that balance in Fixed Deposits in the names of the Accused-1 and 2 and their family members at the end of the Check Period was Rs.54,01,486.35 (Rs.51,87,353/- + Rs.2,14,133.35). Hence, it is held that balance in the Fixed Deposits standing in the names of the Accused- 1 and 2 and their family members at the end of the Check Period was Rs.54,01,486.35.
C.10: Credit Balance In Over Draft Account
281. According to the Complainant, there was Credit Balance of Rs.4,140/- at the end of the Check Period in the Over Draft Account No.1070 standing in the joint names of the Accused-1 and 2 maintained at Canara Bank, 4th T Block Branch, Jayanagara, Bengaluru. P.W.19- Sri.M.R.Nagaraja, the then Officer of Canara Bank has deposed about production of Ex.P.125-Statement of Over Draft Account No.1070 before the CBI Officers. He has stated that the said Account stands in the joint names of the Accused-2 and the Accused-1. But, Ex.P.125 shows that the said Account stands in the name of the Accused-2 199 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] only and that there was credit balance of Rs.4,140/- in that Account. At Sl.No.10 and Pages-44 and 124 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have also admitted that the said Account stands in the name of the Accused-2 only and that there was credit balance of Rs.4,140/- in that Account at the end of the Check Period. There is nothing to show on behalf of the Complainant that the said Account stands in the name of the Accused-1 also. Hence, it is held that the Accused-2 had Credit Balance of Rs.4,140/- at the end of the Check Period in her Over Draft Account No.1070 maintained at Canara Bank, 4th T Block Branch, Jayanagara, Bengaluru.
C.11: Balance In 10 Shares Of Rajajinagara Co-operative Bank Ltd., Bengaluru
282. According to the Complainant, there was balance of Rs.1,000/- at the end of the Check Period in 10 Shares held by the Accused-1 at Rajajinagara Co-operative Bank Ltd., Bengaluru. The evidence of P.W.26- Sri.M.Jayaram, the then General Manager of the said Bank and contents of Ex.P.149-Share Ledger Extract support the said claim of the Complainant. At Sl.No.11 and Page-44 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have also admitted the said claim of the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 had Balance of Rs.1,000/- in 10 Shares held by the Accused-1 at Rajajinagara Co-operative Bank Limited, at the end of the Check Period.
200 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] C.12: Indian Currency Seized During House Search On 06.04.2005
283. In the Charge Sheet, the Complainant has contended that Indian Currency of Rs.90,000/- was seized from the House of the Accused-1 and 2 on 06.04.2005 and as such, the Accused-1 possessed Indian Currency of Rs.90,000/- at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.12 and Page-44 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have also stated that the said seizure amount is Rs.90,000/-. But, in her Additional Written Arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor has contended that seized currency was Rs.1,75,000/- and that as such, it has to be held that the Accused-1 possessed Indian Currency of Rs.1,75,000/- at the end of the Check Period. In support of her argument, the learned Public Prosecutor has relied upon the evidence of P.W.65 and contents of Ex.P.286. As observed above under the Head-'A.Search, Inventory and Seizure', by relying upon the evidence of P.W.65, P.W.89 and P.W.91 and also the contents of Ex.P.286 and Ex.P.287, this Court has held that during Search and Invetory on 06.04.2005, P.W.91 found Indian Currency Notes of Rs.1,75,060/- in the House of the Accused-1 and that by returning Rs.25,060/- out of that amount to the Accused-1, he seized remaining amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and that he took permission from this Court on 08.04.2005 to retain the said Cash and other documents for the purpose of investigation. As such, the seized Indian Currency is Rs.1,50,000/- and not Rs.90,000/- as stated in the Charge Sheet and 201 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Rs.1,75,000/- as stated in the Additional Written Arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor. The Accused-1 and 2 have not placed any evidence to rebut the said evidence and to substantiate their contention that the seized Indian Currency is Rs.90,000/- only. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 possessed Indian Currency of Rs.1,50,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.13: Shares Held By The Accused-1 & 2
284. According to the Complainant, at the end of the Check Period, the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Shares worth Rs.2,56,900/- in Physical Form and Shares worth Rs.4,37,092/- in Demat Form and as such, they possessed Assets worth Rs.6,93,992/- by way of Shares at the end of the Check Period and the details of the same are as follows:
Shares Held In Physical Form No. Amount Sl.
Name of
Name of the of Certificate Invested
No. the Share
Company Shares No. & Date (in Rs.)
Holder
Held.
1. Wockhardt Limited, Accused-2. 600 105085 Nil.
Bandra East, Mumbai. 08.05.2004
2. Eimco Elecon(India) Accused-1 & 150 3505 6,500
Ltd., Vallabh 2. 15.02.1993
Vidyanagar, Gujarat.
3. MTZ(India) Ltd., Accused-1 & 100 90044 1,000
Raigad, Maharashtra 2. 30.05.1994
4. Chinar Exports Ltd., Accused-1 & 100 075529 1,000 KG Marg, New Delhi. 2. 25.05.1994
5. SRF Nippondenso Ltd., Accused-2. 100 22772 1,000 Bahadurshah Zafar 11.03.1986 Marg, New Delhi.
6. Usha Rectifier Accused-2. 100 A41778/779 1,000 Corporation(India) 20.05.1986 Ltd., 5 Parliament 202 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Street, New Delhi.
7. BPL Engineering Ltd., Accused-1 & 100 44938 7,500 Bommanahalli, 2. 22.11.1994 Bengaluru.
8. HB Leasing & Finance Accused-1 & 150 088538/157 1,500 Company Ltd., 2. 514/157515 Rajendra Place, New Delhi. 22.09.1993 9. Universal Cans & Accused-1 & 50 1016513 500 Containers Ltd., Annie 2.
Besant Road, Worli, 09.05.1994
Bombay.
10. Tamilnadu Petro Accused-1. 100 Allotment 1,800
Products Ltd., Notice/Letter
Nungambakkam High from Co.
Road, Madras.
11. United Breweries Ltd., Accused-1 & 200 165988/989 6,000
Vittal Mallya Road, 2.
Bengaluru. 07.02.1994
(During demerger of the
Co., in 2002, 80 Shares
were allotted in United
Breweries Ltd., and 120
Shares were allotted in
United Breweries (Holdings)
Ltd.,
12. United Breweries Ltd., Accused-1 & - 0002304/05 -
Vittal Mallya Road, 2.
Bengaluru. 22.08.2002
13. United Breweries Ltd., Accused-1 & - 0002275/76 -
Vittal Mallya Road, 2.
Bengaluru. 22.08.2002
14. Kirloskar Ferrous Accused-1 & 300 00129336/ 3,000
Industries Ltd., 2. 00175666/
Khadki, Pune. 667
30.03.1994
15. Dhunseri Tea & Accused-1 & 100 0009927 8,000
Industries Ltd., 2.
Hemanta Basu Sarani, 12.02.1993
Calcutta.
16. Dupont Sports Wear Accused-1 100 00024926 1,000
Ltd., Bicholim, Goa. 17.02.1993
17. IIT Capital Services Accused-1 150 0065281 2,000
Ltd., Bombay
Samachar Marg, 07.02.1994
Bombay.
(New Name: Nu-Tech
Corp. Services Ltd.)
18. Television and Accused-1 & 100 00004917 1,000
203 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
Components Ltd., 2.
Sector 16, 30.01.1993
Gandhinagar.
19. Mc Dowell & Co. Ltd., Accused-1 & 200 192642/643 11,000
Second Line Beach, 2.
Madras. 25.01.1993
(New Share Certificates
0540692/693 issued
against this in 2001)
20. Hindustan Agro Accused-1. 100 00032905 1,000
Chemicals Ltd.,
Debari, Udaipur, 17.02.1993
Rajasthan.
21. Can Fin Homes Ltd., Accused-1 & 200 23424/425 2,000
Race Course Road, 2.
Bengaluru. 28.03.1989
22. Can Fin Homes Ltd., Accused-2. 250 037817/ 3,750
Race Course Road, 18/19
Bengaluru. 01.04.1992
23. Carol Info Services Accused-1 200 00025817/ 19,500
Ltd., Bhandup(W), and 2. 00061939
Mumbai. 10.03.2000
(Bonus Shares-100.)
24. Cerebra Integrated Accused-2. 1000 1705 to 50,000
Technologies Limited, 1714
Rajajinagara, 04.08.2000
Bengaluru:
25. Opto Circuits (India) Accused-2. 1320 250/33360/ 39,600
Ltd., Hosur Road, 30050
Bengaluru: 24.03.2004
26. Opto Circuits (India) Accused-2. 396 37555 Nil.
Limited, Hosur Road, 12.11.2004
Bengaluru:
27. Kirloskar Oil Engines Accused-1 2 254720 3,750
Ltd.,Khadki, Pune: and 2. 25.03.2000 (50 Shares allotted for Rs.3,750/- in 1992, in Erstwhile SWL.
Merged & allotted 2 Equity Shares KOEL.)
28. Canara Bank, Accused-2, 2000 69441/442 70,000 J.C.Road, Bengaluru: Mr.Abhishek 14.12.2002 Transferred to the Anand and Accused-2 on Mr.Aravind 09.04.2004. Anand (Transferred to Accused-2 on 9.4.2004)
29. Industrial Finance Accused-1 & 100 00379063 3,500 Corporation of India 2.
204 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
ltd., BOB Building, 07.02.1994
Sansad Marg,
New Delhi.
30. SBI Equity Shares. Accused-1 & 100 128263/ 10,000
2. 128305
257761901-
850 &
257763901-
950.
December,
1993.
Total: 8368 2,56,900
Shares Held In DEMAT Form
No.
Name of Mode of of Amount
Sl. Name of the
the Share Acquis- Share Invested
No. Company
Holder ition s (in Rs.)
Held
1. Tata Consultancy Accused-1. Initial 17 14,450
Services: Public
Officer
(IPO)
2. Dena Bank: Accused-1. IPO 200 5,400
3. Jet Airways India Ltd: Accused-1. IPO 14 15,750
4. Punjab National Bank: Accused-1 IPO 62 24,180
5. UCO Bank: Accused-2. IPO 200 2,400
6. Indian Overseas Bank: Accused-2. IPO 600 14,400
7. Vijaya Bank: Accused-2. IPO 200 4,800
8. PetroNet LNG Ltd.: Accused-2 IPO 700 10,500
9. PTC India: Accused-2 IPO 100 1,600
10. ONGC Accused-2 IPO 70 49,875
11. Bank of Maharashtra: Accused-2 IPO 200 4,600
12. ICICI Bank Ltd.: Accused-2 IPO 150 42,000
13. Tata Consultancy Accused-2 IPO 17 14,450
Servies Ltd.:
14. Karnataka Bank Ltd.: Accused-2 Secondary 1000 85,054
market
through
Hexagon
Capital
Markets
Ltd. Rights 2201 44,020
Issued.
15. Dena Bank: Accused-2. IPO 200 5,400
205 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
16. Jet Airways India Ltd.: Accused-2. IPO 14 15,750
17. Punjab National Bank: Accused-2 IPO 62 24,180
18. Lakshmi Vilas Bank: Accused-2. Not 600 58,283
reflected
in Demat
A/c.
Total: 6607 4,37,092
Contents of Ex.P.163 to Ex.P.167, Ex.P.175 to Ex.P.178, Ex.P.182, Ex.P.183, Ex.P.187 to Ex.P.191, Ex.P.193, Ex.P.195, Ex.P.196, Ex.P.197, Ex.P.198, Ex.P.200, Ex.P.201, Ex.P.202, Ex.P.204, Ex.P.313 to Ex.P.315, Ex.P.317, Ex.P.319, Ex.P.320, Ex.P.321, Ex.P.322, Ex.P.324, Ex.P.325 and Ex.P.357 show that the Accused-1 and 2 held Shares worth Rs.1,95,900/- in all in Physical Form as claimed in items in Sl.No.1 to 3, 5 to 23, 25 to 29 at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.13 and Pages-45 to 48 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have also admitted the said claim of the Complainant. So also, contents of Ex.P.38, Ex.P.55, Ex.P.203, Ex.P.204, Ex.P.208, Ex.P.209, Ex.P.212, Ex.P.271, Ex.P.272, Ex.P.273 and Ex.P.334 show that the Accused-1 and 2 held Shares worth Rs.4,32,492/- in all in Demat Form as claimed in items in Sl.No.1 to 10, 12 to 18 at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.13 and Pages-48 to 50 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have also admitted the said claim of the Complainant. But, the Accused-1 and 2 have disputed the claim of the Complainant in respect of items in Sl.No.4, 24 and 30 relating to Shares in Physical Form and item in Sl.No.11 relating to Shares in Demat Form. As such, the dispute now is in respect of those 4 items only.
206 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] C.13.1: Shares of Chinar Exports Limited
285. According to the Complainant, the Accused-1 and 2 possessed 100 Shares of Chinar Exports Limited worth Rs.1,000/- in Physical Form at the end of the Check Period. As observed above, while dealing the Head-'B.8.3:
Shares of Chinar Exports Limited', contents of Ex.P.316 show that the Accused-1 and 2 jointly possessed 100 Shares worth Rs.1,000/- belonging to Chinar Exports Limited at the beginning of the Check Period. There is nothing to show that the Accused-1 and 2 did not possess those Shares at the end of the Check Period. There is no explanation from the Accused-1 and 2 in this regard. In the absence of such an explanation, it has to be inferred that the Accused-1 and 2 held those Shares even at the end of the Check Period also. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 jointly possessed 100 Shares worth Rs.1,000/- belonging to Chinar Exports Ltd., at the end of the Check Period.
C.13.2: Shares of Cerebra Integrated Technologies Limited
286. According to the Complainant, the Accused-2 possessed 1000 Shares of Cerebra Integrated Technologies Limited worth Rs.50,000/- in Physical Form at the end of the Check Period. P.W.36-Sri.K.Natarajan, Manager of Carvy Computer Share Private Limited, has deposed that the Accused-2 purchased 1000 Shares of Cerebra Integrated Technologies Limited worth Rs.10,000/- on 207 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] 04.08.2000 from open market as per Share Certificates- Ex.P.201. Contents of Ex.P.201 also show that the Accused-2 purchased 1000 Shares of Cerebra Integrated Technologies Limited worth Rs.10,000/- on 04.08.2000 from open market. The evidence of P.W.36 and Ex.P.201 do not show that the Accused-2 invested Rs.50,000/- as contended by the Complainant. There is no other evidence on behalf of the Complainant to substantiate his claim. The Accused-1 and 2 have contended at Sl.No.13 (24) and Pages-47 and 127 that those Shares were worth Rs.10,000/- at the end of the Check Period. The evidence of P.W.36 and Ex.P.201 support the said claim of the Accused-1 and 2. Under these circumstances, it is not fit to accept the bare claim of the Complainant that those Shares were worth Rs.50,000/- at the time of purchase or at the end of the Check Period. Hence, it is held that the Accused-2 possessed 1000 Shares worth Rs.10,000/- in Physical Form belonging to Cerebra Integrated Technologies Ltd., at the end of the Check Period.
C.13.3: SBI Equity Shares
287. According to the Complainant, the Accused-1 and 2 jointly possessed 100 Shares of SBI Equity worth Rs.10,000/- in Physical Form at the end of the Check Period having purchased the same in the year 1993. As observed above, while dealing the Head-'B.8.21: SBI Equity Shares', this Court has rejected the claim of the Complainant about purchase of those Shares at the 208 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] commencement of the Check Period on the ground that the Complainant has not produced any evidence to substantiate his claim. He has also not produced any evidence to show that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed those Shares at the end of the Check Period. In the absence of such evidence, it is not fit to accept his bare contention. Hence, the claim of the Complainant that the Accused-1 and 2 jointly possessed 100 SBI Equity Shares worth Rs.10,000/- at the end of the Check Period is rejected.
C.13.4: Shares of Bank of Maharashtra
288. According to the Complainant, the Accused-2 possessed 200 Shares of Bank of Maharashtra worth Rs.4,600/- in Demat Form at the end of the Check Period. P.W.35-Sri.H.J.Yathisha has deposed that 200 Shares of Bank of Maharashtra of value of Rs.2,600/- were allotted to the Accused-2 as per Letter-Ex.P.211. Contents of Ex.P.211 show that the Accused-2 applied for 2000 Shares of Bank of Maharashtra for face value of Rs.10/- and Premium of Rs.13/- per each Share by paying Rs.46,000/- on 04.03.2004 and that she was allotted 200 Shares and that balance amount of Rs.41,400/- was refunded to her. As per the said Letter, the Accused-2 has purchased 200 Shares worth Rs.4,600/- in all i.e., Rs.23/-(Rs.10/- + Rs.13/-) per Share. As such, contents of this Letter fortify the contention of the Complainant. Though at Sl.No.13(11) of Pages-49 and 136 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 209 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] have admitted about purchase of those 200 Shares by the Accused-2, they have contended that those Shares were worth Rs.2,600/- only at that time. But, they have not produced any supporting evidence in this regard and to rebut the contents of Ex.P.211. Though P.W.35 has deposed that value of those Shares was Rs.2,600/-, he has not stated that the Accused-2 purchased those Shares by paying Rs.2,600/- only. On the other hand, contents of Ex.P.211 clearly show that those Shares were purchased for Rs.4,600/-. For all these reasons, it is held that the Accused-2 possessed 200 Shares worth Rs.4,600/- in all belonging to Bank of Maharashtra at the end of the Check Period.
C.13.5: Conclusion
289. In view of the above findings, it is clear that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Shares worth Rs.2,06,900/- (Rs.1,95,900/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.10,000/-) in Physical Form and Shares worth Rs.4,37,092/- (Rs.4,32,492/- + Rs.4,600/-) in Demat Form and as such, they possessed Assets worth Rs.6,43,992/- in all by way of Shares at the end of the Check Period. Accordingly, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Shares worth Rs.6,43,992/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.14: Balance in Bonds
290. According to the Complainant, the Accused-1 possessed Rs.1,66,000/- in various Bonds in his name and 210 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] in the names of his family members at the end of the Check Period and the details of the same are as under:
1. IDBI Bonds ... Rs. 86,000/-
2. HUDCO Bonds ... Rs. 10,000/-
3. ICICI Bonds ... Rs. 70,000/-
____________ Total: Rs.1,66,000/-
____________ C.14.1: IDBI Bonds
291. P.W.28-Smt.Y.Sandhya Bai, the then Manager of IDBI Bank, Bengaluru, has deposed that an amount of Rs.2,700/- each was invested in Deep Discount Bonds in the names of Mr.Abhishek Anand and Mr.Aravind Anand under the guardianship of the Accused-1 in the month of February 1992 as per Bonds-Ex.P.154 and Ex.P.155. She has further deposed that an amount of Rs.5,300/- each was invested in 2 Deep Discount Bonds in the name of the Accused-2 as per Bonds-Ex.P.156 and Ex.P.157. She has also deposed that an amount of Rs.10,000/- was invested in IDBI Infrastructure Bond in the name of the Accused-1 as per Bond-Ex.P.158. She has further deposed that an amount of Rs.20,000/- was invested in IDBI Infrastructure Bond in the name of the Accused-1 as per Bond-Ex.P.159. She has also deposed that an amount of Rs.40,000/- was invested in IDBI Infrastructure Tax Saving Bond in the name of the Accused-1 as per Bond-Ex.P.160 and that the total amount relating to Ex.P.154 to Ex.P.160 amounts to Rs.86,000/-. Contents of Ex.P.154 to Ex.P.160 fully 211 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] corroborate the evidence of P.W.28. The Accused-1 and 2 have admitted the said evidence in their Examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., 1973. At Sl.No.14(i) and Page-50 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have also admitted the said claim of the Complainant. As such, it is clear that the Accused-1 possessed Bonds worth Rs.86,000/- in his name and in the names of his family members. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 possessed Rs.86,000/- by way of IDBI Bonds in his name and in the names of his family members at the end of the Check Period.
C.14.2: HUDCO Bonds
292. P.W.46-Sri.M.Nagaraj was working as Assistant Chief Finance, Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited (HUDCO) and he has produced Ex.P.233-Bond Certificate before the CBI Officers. His evidence and contents of Ex.P.233 show that the Accused- 1 possessed 10 HUDCO Bonds worth Rs.1,000/- each i.e., totally Rs.10,000/- at the end of the Check Period. In his Examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the Accused-1 has admitted the said fact. Even at Sl.No.14(ii) and Page-50 of the CSWA also, the Accused-1 and 2 have also admitted the said claim of the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 possessed Rs.10,000/- in HUDCO Bonds at the end of the Check Period.
C.14.3: ICICI Bonds
293. P.W.69-Sri.B.M.V.Sudheer, the then Branch Manager of ICICI Bank, R.T.Nagara Branch, Bengaluru has 212 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] deposed that the Accused-1 has purchased Bonds worth Rs.70,000/-. At Sl.No.14(iii) and Page-50 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have also admitted the said claim of the Complainant that the Accused-1 possessed Rs.70,000/- by way of ICICI Bonds at the end of the Check Period. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 possessed Rs.70,000/- worth ICICI Bonds at the end of the Check Period.
C.14.4: Conclusion
294. In view of the above findings, it is clear that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed various Bonds worth Rs.1,66,000/- at the end of the Check Period. Accordingly, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Bonds worth Rs.1,66,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.15: Balance In NSCs
295. The evidence of P.W.87-Sri.R.Subramanya, the then Sub-Postmaster of Basaveshwaranagara, 2nd Stage Post Office, Bengaluru and contents of Copies of National Saving Certificates-Ex.P.305 and Ex.P.305(a) show that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed National Saving Certificates worth Rs.500/- each i.e., in all Rs.1,000/- at the end of the Check Period. The Accused-1 and 2 have admitted the said fact in their Examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. At Sl.No.15 and Page-51 of the CSWA also, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted the said claim of 213 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed National Saving Certificates worth Rs.500/- each i.e., in all Rs.1,000/- at the end of the Check Period.
C.16: Balance In Chit Fund Account
296. P.W.23-Sri.G.Sukumar, Accountant at Baluserry Chit Fund Private Limited Company, has produced Statement of Accounts as per Ex.P.138 to Ex.P.140 relating to the Chits held by the Accused-1. Contents of these documents show that there was balance of Rs.66,250/- in the name of the Accused-1 in respect of those Chits. The Accused-1 has admitted the said fact in his Examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. At Sl.No.16 and Page-51 of the CSWA also, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted the said claim of the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 possessed balance of Rs.66,250/- in his Chit Fund Account at the end of the Check Period.
C.17: Balance in Units of Canequity Diversified Scheme
297. As held under the Head-'B.10: Balance in 800 Units of Can Bonus-Can Bank Mutual Fund', the Accused-1 and 2 possessed 400 Units each worth Rs.8,000/- in all, under Canequity Diversified Scheme at the beginning of the Check Period. According to the Complainant, the Accused-1 and 2 possessed the said 214 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Units even at the end of the Check Period. The evidence of P.W.54 and contents of Ex.P.273 and Ex.P.274 fortify the said claim of the Complainant. At Sl.No.17 and Page- 51 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted the said claim of the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed 400 Units each worth Rs.8,000/- in all, under Canequity Diversified Scheme at the end of the Check Period.
C.18: Investment In UTI
298. The evidence of P.W.50-Smt.Urmila Anand, the then Branch Manager of UTI Technologies Services Limited, and contents of Ex.P.267-Letter dated 17.10.2005 issued by UTI Technologies Services Limited show that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed 4600 Units under US-64 Scheme worth Rs.66,390/- in all at the end of the Check Period. P.W.50 has also stated that the Accused-1 and 2 have invested Rs.20,000/- in all in 2000 Units under MEP 1993 Scheme and that the Accused-1 has invested Rs.10,000/- in 1000 units under Master Growth-1993 Scheme. Contents of Ex.P.269 fortify the said evidence of P.W.50. These investments are made by the Accused-1 and 2 before the commencement of the Check Period and the said Assets were with the Accused-1 and 2 at the commencement of the Check Period as held by this Court while dealing under the Head-'B.11: Investment In UTI'. According to the Complainant, the Accused-1 and 2 possessed all these Assets at the end of the Check Period 215 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] also. At Sl.No.18 and Pages-52 and 53 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted the said claim of the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 possessed Rs.66,390/-, Rs.20,000/- and Rs.10,000/-, in all Rs.96,390/- as investments in UTI at the end of the Check Period.
C.19: Deposit with BSNL, Bengaluru
299. According to the Complainant, the Accused-1 possessed Rs.10,080/- and the Accused-2 possessed Rs.2,000/- as deposit made with BSNL, Bengaluru, while taking Telephone connection. P.W.60-Sri.T.G.Bhat, the then Chief Accounts Officer of BSNL, Bengaluru, has deposed that the Accused-1 took landline Phone connection bearing No.26608998 by paying Initial Deposit of Rs.15,000/- and that the Accused-2 took landline Telephone connection bearing No.26608912 by paying Rs.3,000/- as Initial Deposit. This witness has produced documents containing Applications, Receipts, Registration Cards, Bills etc., as per Ex.P.280. Pages-11 and 12 of these documents consist of Telephone Registration Card and Receipt. These documents show that on 20.07.1998, the Accused-1 paid Rs.15,000/- to BSNL as Initial Deposit for obtaining Telephone connection. As such, contents of these documents fortify the evidence of P.W.60 so far as the claim against the Accused-1 is concerned. At Sl.No.19 and Page-53 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have also contended that the deposit made by the Accused-1 was 216 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Rs.10,080/-. But, the Complainant as well as the Accused- 1 and 2 have not placed any evidence to rebut the evidence of P.W.60, which is well fortified by Ex.P.280. In the absence of such rebuttal evidence and keeping in view the evidence of P.W.60 and contents of Ex.P.280, it has to be held that the deposit made by the Accused-1 was Rs.15,000/- and not Rs.10,080/- as claimed by the Complainant and the Accused-1 and 2.
300. Pages-2 and 4 of Ex.P.280 consist of Application Form and Telephone Registration Card relating to the Accused-2. These documents show that the Accused-2 paid Rs.2,000/- as Initial Deposit on 10.11.2003 to BSNL for obtaining Telephone connection. These documents do not show that the Accused-2 paid Rs.3,000/- as stated by P.W.60. No other document is available to show that the Accused-2 paid Rs.3,000/- as Initial Deposit as stated by P.W.60. In the absence of such documentary evidence, it is not possible to accept the bare statement of P.W.60 that the Accused-2 paid Rs.3,000/- as Initial Deposit to BSNL. At Sl.No.19 and Page-53 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have also admitted that Initial Deposit was made by the Accused-2 was Rs.2,000/- only. Hence, it is clear that the Initial Deposit made by the Accused-2 was Rs.2,000/- only.
301. According to the Complainant, the said deposits made by the Accused-1 and 2 were in existence at the end of the Check Period also. The Accused-1 and 2 have not 217 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] disputed the said fact. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 possessed Rs.15,000/- and the Accused-2 possessed Rs.2,000/- as Deposits with BSNL at the end of the Check Period.
C.20: FINAL CALCULATION OF STATEMENT-B
302. In view of the above findings, Final Calculation of Assets held by the Accused-1 and 2 at the end of the Check Period is as under:
Value of Head Year/Date of Description of Assets the Assets No. Acquisition (in Rs.) C.1 Karnataka Housing Board House at No.30, I Stage, 14.09.1998 1,61,155.00 Agrahara Dasarahalli, Bengaluru:
C.2 Apartment at 305,
Building No.4, Shanthi 23.07.2001 7,24,040.00
Park Apartments, 9th
Block, Jayanagar,
Bengaluru:
C.3 Apartment at 207,
Bombay House, No.55, 08.09.2003 23,14,925.00
Kanakapura Road,
Basavanagudi,
Bengaluru:
C.4 Household Articles: Before and
during the 10,11,540.00
Check Period.
C.5 Gold Ornaments: Before and
during the 3,85,600.00
Check Period.
C.6 Bank Balances in various Before and
Savings Bank Accounts: during the 22,39,396.78
Check Period.
218 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
C.7 Public Provident Fund Before and
Accounts: during the 12,95,932.74
Check Period.
C.8 Post Office Savings: Before and
during the 7,54,727.00
Check Period.
C.9 Fixed Deposits in Before and
different Banks: during the 54,01,486.35
Check Period.
C.10 Credit Balance in Over Before and
Draft Account: during the 4,140.00
Check Period.
C.11 Ten Shares in the
During the
Rajajinagara Co- 1,000.00
Check Period.
operative Bank Ltd.,
Bengaluru:
C.12 Indian Currency seized
during House search on 1,50,000.00
06.04.2005:
C.13 14,975 Shares in Before and
different Companies: during the 6,43,992.00
Check Period.
C.14 Bonds held in:
a) IDBI-16: Before and 86,000.00
during the
Check Period.
b) HUDCO-10: Before and 10,000.00
during the
Check Period.
70,000.00
c) ICICI-14: During the
---------------
Check Period.
1,66,000.00
---------------
C.15 NSCs: During the 1,000.00
Check Period.
C.16 Balance in Chit Fund
No.KS/10-1,maintained During the 66,250.00
with Baluserry Chit Fund Check Period.
Pvt. Ltd. Co., Bengaluru:
C.17 Units of Canequity
Diversified Scheme-
219 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
Canbank Mutual
Funds:
a)Accused-1-400 Units: Before Check 4,000.00
Period.
b)Accused-2-400 Units: Before Check 4,000.00
Period.
C.18 Investments in UTI:
a) Unit-64: 4600 Before the
Units/Bonds: Check Period. 66,390.00
b) MEP 1993 Before the
2000 units and 800 Check Period. 20,000.00
Bonus units:
c) Master Growth 1993- Before the
1000 units: Check Period. 10,000.00
C.19 Deposit with BSNL.,
Bengaluru made by:
a) Accused-1 while Before Check
15,000.00
applying for Telephone Period.
connection-26636451:
b) Accused-2 while During the
applying for Telephone Check Period. 2,000.00
connection 26608912:
TOTAL: 1,54,42,574.87
Thus, it is clear that at the end of the Check Period, Assets possessed in the names of the Accused-1 and 2 and their children was worth Rs.1,54,42,574.87. Hence, it is held that the value of the Assets possessed in the names of the Accused-1 and 2 and their sons at the end of the Check Period is Rs.1,54,42,574.87.
220 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] D. INCOME DURING THE CHECK PERIOD AS ON 01.01.1996 TO 06.04.2005 (STATEMENT-C)
303. According to the Complainant, Income of the Accused-1 and 2 during the Check Period was Rs.94,38,697.61 and the details of the same are as follows:
Sl. Income
Details of Income (in Rs.)
No.
1. Salary Received by the Accused-1: 18,32,009.00
2. Salary Received by the Accused-2: 5,80,277.95
3. Disposal of Apartment along with 12,85,000.00
amenities at E-501, Raheja Park,
Magadi Main Road, Dasarahalli,
Bengaluru, on 29.11.2003:
4. Two Housing Loans taken from State 1) 8,00,000.00
Bank of India, PBB, Jayanagara,
Bengaluru: 2) 5,00,000.00
5. Over Draft Loans taken from Punjab National Bank, Malleswaram, 5,73,488.00 Bengaluru and from Canara Bank, IXth Block, Jayanagara, Bengaluru:
6. Income on Fixed Deposits/PPF Accounts by way of interest:
i) PNB Bank, Malleswaram, Bengaluru- 3 Deposits: 36,024.00
ii)PNB, Hudson Circle, Bengaluru-5 Deposits: 1,99,683.00
iii) Canara Bank, Ashoka Road, Tumkur-1 Deposit: 9,900.00
iv) Canara Bank, IX Block, Jayanagara, Bengaluru: 1,72,207.00
v) Canara Bank, BCO Extension Counter, Trinity Circle, 221 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Bengaluru-4 Deposits: 63,161.00
vi) Oriental Bank of Commerce, Jayanagara,Bengaluru-8 Deposits: 1,25,320.00
vii) PPF Accounts-4: 4,66,165.74
7. Closure of Chit Fund Accounts in the Baluserry Chit Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru:
i) KS/3-2: 13,752.50
ii)KM/8-23: 10,846.00
8. Rental Income of:
i)House property at Basaveshwara
Nagara, Bengaluru of A-1: 3,72,000.00
ii)House property at Raheja Park,
Magadi Road, Bengaluru of A-2: 1,36,000.00
iii) House property at Jayanagara, Bengaluru of A-2: 2,28,000.00
9. Repurchase of Canbonus Units of Canbank Mutual Funds:
i) Accused-1: 120 Units: 1,955.04
ii) Accused-2: 120 Units: 1,955.04
10. Dividends/Interest earned on
Bonds/Sares in the names of the
Accused-1 and 2:
a) ICICI Bonds: 2,707.00
b) UCO Bank: 200.00
c) ICICI Shares: 1,125.00
d) Vijaya Bank: 1,000.00
e) IOB: 2,040.00
222 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
f) Infosys(Profit on 209.00
Purchase/sale):
g) Wockhardt Ltd.: 9,000.00
7,260.00
h) Opto Circuits Ltd.:
61.00
i) KOEL:
j) Canfin Homes:
Shares: 9,016.00
Debentures: 562.50
k) McDowell & Co.Ltd.: 2,900.00
l) Canara Bank: 22,000.00
m) BOM: 320.00
n) HUDCO: 8,250.00
o) BPL Engg. Co.Ltd.: 400.00
{{
p) IDBI Ltd.: 15,094,30
q) SBI: 4,325.00
r) M/s.Cerebra Integrated
Technologies Ltd.: 3,000.00
s) TCS Ltd.: 102.00
t) Tamilnadu Petro Products Ltd.: 1,930.00
u) IFCI: 950.00
v) MTZ (India) Ltd.: 100.00
w) Birla Century Finance Co. Ltd.: 100.00
x) 20th Century Mutual Fund: 240.00
y) Dhanuseri Tea & Industries 670.00
Limited.:
z) United Breweries: 800.00
223 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
11. Final Settlements paid by Canara Bank to the Accused-2 at the time of taking VRS:
a) PF Settlement: 2,67,100.64
b) Gratuity: 1,55,922.09
c) Leave Encashment: 31,846.51
d) Ex-Gratia: 5,19,213.92
12. UTI-Bonds/Units/ULIP in the
names of the Accused-1 and the
Accused-2:
a) Dividend/Interest on
Unit-64 - 513 Units/Bonds: 22,563.17
b) Redemption of MEP, 1991-2000
Units: 13,075.00
c) Dividend/Interest on MEP,
1993-2000 Units: 10,698.10
d) Dividend/Interest on Master
Growth, 1993 - 1000 Units: 13,000.00
e) Maturity of ULIP: 95,397.11
13. Interest Free Advance received on House Property at Basaveshwarnagar, Bengaluru: 1,00,000.00
14. Sale of old Jewelry: 2,88,975.00
15. Sitting Fees Paid by Stock Exchanges to the Accused-1:
a) Bengaluru Stock Exchange: 1,45,250.00
b) Mangalore Stock Exchange: 8,550.00
16. Car Loan taken from Kotak Mahindra Primus Ltd., Bengaluru: 2,50,000.00 224 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
17. Educational Loan availed from The Rajajinagara Co-operative Bank Ltd., Basaveshwaranagar, Bengaluru: 15,000.00 Total: 94,38,697.61 D.1: Salary Received By The Accused-1
304. According to the Complainant, the Accused-1 received salary of Rs.18,32,009/- during the Check Period. P.W.48-Sri.B.A.M.P.Rathnasami, the then Deputy Registrar of Companies at Bengaluru, has deposed about furnishing of salary particulars of the Accused-1 as per Ex.P.238. As per his evidence and contents of Ex.P.238, Net Salary received by the Accused-1 during the Check Period was Rs.18,32,009/-. The Accused-1 and 2 have not disputed the said Salary Income of the Accused-1. In fact at Sl.No.1 and Pages-54 and 146 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted the said claim of the Complainant. But, they have contended that as the Complainant has estimated 1/3rd of Gross Salary of the Accused-1 as Household Expenditure, it is necessary to consider the Gross Salary of Rs.27,67,084/- of the Accused-1 as the Salary Income of the Accused-1 during the Check Period. Gross Salary includes deductions towards Income Tax, Professional Tax, GPF contribution, Life Insurance Premium etc., which will not be available for spending by the Accused-1 during the Check Period. As the said deduction amount have not been considered under the Head-
225 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] 'Expenditure during the Check Period' and as the Net Salary received by the Accused-1 will only be available for expenditure purpose, it is not necessary to consider the Gross Salary of the Accused-1 under the present Head. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 received Net Salary of Rs.18,32,009/- during the Check Period.
D.2: Salary Received By The Accused-2
305. According to the Complainant, during the Check Period, the Accused-2 received Net Salary of Rs.5,80,277.95. P.W.39-Sri.Annu Naik, the then Manager, Canara Bank, Head Office, Bengaluru, has produced details of Salary particulars of the Accused-2 as per Ex.P.215. At Sl.No.2and Pages-54, 147 to 152 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the Net Salary received by the Accused-2 during the Check Period was Rs.5,80,167/-. While calculating, the Accused-1 and 2 have not considered fractions of Rupee, whereas the Complainant has considered the said fractions also. As such, there is difference of Rs.110.95 between the calculations made by the Complainant and the Accused-1 and 2. Hence, it is clear that the Net Salary received by the Accused-2 during the Check Period was Rs.5,80,277.95.
306. The Accused-1 and 2 have contended that it is necessary to consider the Gross Salary of the Accused-2 as Income during the Check Period on the ground that while 226 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] computing the Household expenses, the Complainant has estimated it as 1/3rd of the Gross Salary of the Accused-1. As observed above, the entire Gross Salary will not be available for spending during the Check Period and on the other hand, only the Net Salary will be available for expenditure during the Check Period. Hence, it is not necessary to consider the entire Gross Salary of the Accused-2 as her Income during the Check Period.
307. According to the Accused-1 and 2, Rs.36,000/- has been shown as deduction towards Festival Advance and Rs.16,222/- has been shown as deduction towards repayment of small loan and as such, said amount of Rs.52,222/- (Rs.36,000/- + Rs.16,222/-) has to be taken as Income of the Accused-2 during the Check Period. It is true that Ex.P.215 shows deduction of Rs.52,222/- in all from the Gross Salary of the Accused-2 during the Check Period. The said advances have been taken by the Accused-2 for specific purpose. If the said amount of Rs.52,222/- is taken as Income, it is necessary to show the expenditure of the said amount for the specific purpose. The Complainant has not considered expenditure of the said amount towards specific purpose. The Accused- 1 and 2 have also not given details of expenditure of the said amount of Rs.52,222/-. As such, question of taking the said amount as Income as well as deducting the same under the Head-'Expenditure' is not necessary.
227 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
308. For all the above reasons, it is held that the Accused-2 received Net Salary of Rs.5,80,277.95 during the Check Period.
D.3: Disposal Of Apartment
309. According to the Complainant, by disposal of Apartment bearing No.E-501, Raheja Park, Magadi Road, Dasarahalli, Bengaluru, along with amenities on 29.11.2003, the Accused-2 got an Income of Rs.12,85,000/- during the Check Period. P.W.40- Sri.Govinda Iyengar purchased the said Apartment from the Accused-2 under Sale Deed-Ex.P.221 and Agreement- Ex.P.222. Contents of all those documents and evidence of P.W.40 support the contention of the Complainant. In the evidence of the Accused-2 as well as at Sl.No.3 and Page- 54 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have also admitted the said claim of the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-2 got income of Rs.12,85,000/- by sale of Apartment during the Check Period.
D.4: 2 Houing Loans Taken From State Bank Of India, PBB, Jayanagar, Bengaluru
310. P.W.2-Smt.H.Vasanthi, the then Branch Manager, SBI Personnel Banking Branch, Bengaluru, has deposed that the Accused-2 took Housing Loan of Rs.5,00,000/- on 21.07.2001 and another Housing Loan of Rs.8,00,000/- on 07.09.2003 from State Bank of India. Ex.P.16 and Ex.P.17 are the Housing Loan documents in 228 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] this regard. Contents of all these documents corroborate the evidence of P.W.2, which support the claim of the Complainant. In the evidence of the Accused-2 as well as at Sl.No.4 and Page-54 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have also admitted the said claim of the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-2 borrowed Rs.13,00,000/- in all (Rs.8,00,000/- + Rs.5,00,000/-) as Housing Loan from State Bank of India during the Check Period.
D.5: Over Draft Loans Taken From Punjab National Bank, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru & Canara Bank, 9th Block, Jayanagara, Bengaluru
311. According to the Complainant, the Accused-2 received Rs.5,73,488/- from 2 Over Draft Loans taken from Punjab National Bank, Malleshwaram Branch, Bengaluru and Canara Bank, 9th Block, Jayanagara Branch, Bengaluru, during the Check Period. But, the evidence of P.W.3-Sri.S.K.Shanmugam, the then Manager of Punjab National Bank, Malleshwaram Branch, Bengaluru and P.W.5-Sri.B.Nagaraj, the then Senior Manager, Canara Bank, Jayanagar 9th Block, Bengaluru, as well as the contents of Ex.P.25 and Ex.P.60 show that the Accused-2 had taken 2 Over Draft Loans one each from Punjab National Bank and Canara Bank and that there was balance of Rs.1,89,429/- and Rs.3,81,385/- i.e., in all Rs.5,70,814/- only in those Accounts at the end of the Check Period. At Sl.No.5 and Page-54 of the CSWA, the 229 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Accused-1 and 2 have admitted about the said balance of Rs.5,70,814/-. Hence, it is held that the Accused-2 received Rs.5,70,814/- from Over Draft Loans during the Check Period.
D.6: Income By Way Of Interest From Fixed Deposit/PPF Accounts D.6.1: 3 Deposits Of Punjab National Bank, Malleshwaram Branch, Bengaluru
312. According to the Complainant, from 3 Deposit Accounts of the Accused-1 and 2 kept at Punjab National Bank, Malleshwaram Branch, Bengaluru, they received Interest of Rs.36,024/- during the Check Period. P.W.3 has identified Ex.P.26, Ex.P.30 and Ex.P.31 as the Statements of Accounts in respect of those Fixed Deposit Accounts. He has also identified Ex.P.35 and Ex.P.36 as the Fixed Deposit Receipts relating to Ex.P.30 and Ex.P.31. He has deposed that Interest pertaining to Fixed Deposit relating to Ex.P.26 has been adjusted to the Over Draft Account relating to Ex.P.25. Ex.P.25, Ex.P.30 and Ex.P.31 do not show that the Accused-1 and 2 received Interest of Rs.36,024/- from those 3 Deposits. As per those documents, Interest received by them is as under:
Ex.P.25 .... Rs. 18,657.00
Ex.P.30 .... Rs. 14,220.00
Ex.P.31 .... Rs. 14,220.00
------------------
Total: Rs. 47,097.00
------------------
230 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
In the Additional Written Arguments filed by the learned Public Prosecutor, at Sl.No.6(i) and Page-14, it is stated that the Interest received from those 3 Deposit Accounts is Rs.47,097/-. The Accused-1 and 2 have not placed any evidence to rebut the said evidence. They have not disputed the said evidence in their Written Arguments also. Hence, it is held that during the Check Period, the Accused-1 and 2 have received Interest of Rs.47,097/- from 3 Fixed Deposit Accounts maintained at Punjab National Bank, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru.
D.6.2: 5 Deposits Of Punjab National Bank, Hudson Circle Branch, Bengaluru
313. P.W.4-Sri.V.Lakshminarayan has deposed about 5 Fixed Deposits kept in the name of the Accused-1 and 2 at Punjab National Bank, Hudson Circle Branch, Bengaluru. He has identified Ex.P.48 to Ex.P.54 as the Fixed Deposit Receipts pertaining to those Fixed Deposits. He has further identified Ex.P.39 to Ex.P.45 as the Statements of Accounts pertaining to those Fixed Deposits. According to the Complainant, from those 5 Fixed Deposits, the Accused-1 and 2 have received Interest of Rs.1,99,683/- during the Check Period. The learned Public Prosecutor has contended in her Written Arguments that Interest received by the Accused-1 and 2 from those Deposits during the Check Period is Rs.1,88,588.50. However, the details of the said figures claimed by the Complainant as well as the 231 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] learned Public Prosecutor are not given. But, as per Ex.P.39 to Ex.P.45, Interest received by the Accused-1 and 2 during the Check Period is as under:
Ex.P.39 .... Nil.
Ex.P.40 .... Nil.
Ex.P.41 .... Rs. 59,018.50
Ex.P.42 .... Rs. 22,252.50
Ex.P.43 .... Rs. 17,436.00
Ex.P.44 .... Rs. 90,744.00
Ex.P.45 .... Rs. 15,190.00
--------------------
Total: Rs.2,04,641.00
--------------------
The Accused-1 and 2 have not placed any evidence to rebut the said evidence. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 have received Interest of Rs.2,04,641/- from 5 Fixed Deposit Accounts maintained at Punjab National Bank, Hudson Circle, Bengaluru, during the Check Period.
D.6.3: Canara Bank, Ashoka Road Branch, Tumkuru
314. P.W.8-Sri.N.H.Kuberappa, the then Officer of Canara Bank, Ashoka Road Branch, Tumkuru, has deposed that Ex.P.80 is the Statement of Account relating to Fixed Deposit Account bearing No.915 of the Accused-1 and that the said Fixed Deposit was matured on 22.12.2004 and that Rs.9,900/- has been credited to the Savings Bank 232 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Account of the Accused-1. In the Cross-Examination, this witness has stated that the said amount of Rs.9,900/- is the Interest received from the said Fixed Deposit Account. Contents of Ex.P.80 also show that the Accused-1 received Interest of Rs.9,900/- from that Fixed Deposit during the Check Period. In their Examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted the said evidence of P.W.8. Hence, it is held that the Accused- 1 has received Interest of Rs.9,900/- during the Check Period from his Fixed Deposit Account kept at Canara Bank, Ashoka Road Branch, Tumkuru.
D.6.4: 6 Deposits of Canara Bank, 9th Block, Jayanagara, Bengaluru
315. According to the Complainant, during the Check Period, the Accused-1 and 2 received Interest of Rs.1,72,207/- from 6 Fixed Deposits kept in their names and in the name of their children. He has relied upon the evidence of P.W.5 and Ex.P.61 to Ex.P.66 in this regard. P.W.5 has deposed about 6 Fixed Deposit Accounts standing in the names of the Accused-1 and 2 and their children and he has identified Ex.P.61 to Ex.P.66 as the Statements of Accounts pertaining to those Fixed Deposits. He has deposed that Interest of Rs.29,088/- from 2 Fixed Deposits has been credited to the Over Draft Account No.139. This witness has not stated that Interest of Rs.1,72,207/- has been received from the Fixed Deposits standing in the names of the Accused-1 and 2 and their 233 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] family members as contended by the Complainant. In her Additional Written Arguments, at Sl.N.6(iv) and Page-14, the learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the Interest received by the Accused-1 and 2 and their children during the Check Period is Rs.1,29,167/-. Details of the claim made by the learned Public Prosecutor are not given. As per Ex.P.61 to Ex.P.66, Interest received during the Check Period from the Fixed Deposit Accounts standing in the name of the Accused-1 and 2 and their children is as under:
Ex.P.61 .... Rs. 15,756.00
Ex.P.62 .... Rs. 15,756.00
Ex.P.63 .... Rs. 18,719.00
Ex.P.64 .... Rs. 494.00
Ex.P.65 .... Rs. 5,572.00
Ex.P.66 .... Rs. 5,572.00
------------------
Total: Rs. 61,869.00
------------------
The Accused-1 and 2 have not placed any evidence to rebut the said evidence available on record. Hence, it is held that Interest of Rs.61,869/- was received during the Check Period from 6 Fixed Deposits standing in the names of the Accused-1 & 2 and their children at Canara Bank, 9th Block, Jayanagara Branch, Bengaluru.
234 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] D.6.5: 4 Deposits of Canara Bank, BCO Extension Counter, Trinity Circle, Bengaluru
316. P.W.17-Sri.R.B.Lathe, the then Manager of the Canara Bank, BCO Extension Counter, Trinity Circle, Bengaluru, has identified Ex.P.120 as the Statement of 4 Fixed Deposit Accounts standing in the name of the Accused-2. Contents of Ex.P.120 show that the Accused-2 received Interest of Rs.63,161/- during the Check Period from those Fixed Deposit Accounts. As such, contents of Ex.P.120 fortify the contention of the Complainant. The Accused-1 and 2 have not placed any evidence to rebut the said evidence available on record. Hence, it is held that the Accused-2 received Interest of Rs.63,161/- from 4 Fixed Deposit Accounts kept at Canara Bank, BCO Extension Counter, Trinity Circle, Bengaluru, during the Check Period.
D.6.6: 8 Deposits of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Jayanagar, Bengaluru
317. According to the Complainant, out of 8 Fixed Deposits kept at Oriental Bank of Commerce, Jayanagara, Bengaluru, in the name of the Accused-2, Interest of Rs.1,25,320/- has been received during the Check Period. He has relied upon the evidence of P.W.16 and Ex.P.116- Statements of Accounts of those Fixed Deposits in support of his claim. P.W.16-Sri.S.N.Girish, the then Manager of Oriental Bank of Commerce, has identified Ex.P.116 as the Statements of Accounts relating to 8 Fixed Deposit 235 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Accounts standing in the name of the Accused-2. Contents of Ex.P.116 show that during the Check Period, the Accused-2 received Interest of Rs.1,29,167/- and that an amount of Rs.13,107/- has been deducted as TDS from the said Interest amount. As such, according to Ex.P.116, the Accused-2 received Interest of Rs.1,16,060/- (Rs.1,29,167/- - Rs.13,107/-) from 8 Fixed Deposits during the Check Period. The Accused-1 and 2 have not placed any evidence to rebut the said evidence available on record. Hence, it is held that the Accused-2 received Interest of Rs.1,16,060/- from 8 Fixed Deposits kept at Oriental Bank of Commerce, Jayanagara, Bengaluru, during the Check Period.
D.6.7: 4 PPF Accounts
318. According to the Complainant, from 4 PPF Accounts standing in the names of the Accused-1 & 2 and their son-Mr.Abhishek Anand, Interest of Rs.4,66,165.74 was received during the Check Period. To substantiate the said contention, the Complainant has relied upon the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.29. P.W.1-Sri.B.N.Bharath, the then Branch Manager of SBI, Basaveshwaranagara Branch, Bengaluru, has deposed about production of Statement of Accounts relating to PPF Accounts of the Accused-1 and 2 and their son-Mr.Abhishek Anand before the CBI Officers. He has also identified Ex.P.7 to Ex.P.9 as the Pass Books of those PPF Accounts (Note: There are 4 Pass Books. For 2 Pass Books, inadvertently, same exhibit number is given 236 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] as Ex.P.7. To avoid confusion, exhibit number is given as 'Ex.P.7(a)' to the Pass Book relating to PPF Account No.01P00900036). P.W.1 has not stated about payment of Interest in respect of those Accounts as contended by the Complainant. P.W.29-Sri.B.S.Krishna Murthy, the then Branch Manager of SBI, Magadi Road Branch, Bengaluru, has also deposed about production of Ex.P.162-Statement of PPF Account of the Accused-2 and identified Ex.P.7 as the Pass Book of that Account. He has also not stated anything about payment of Interest to the Accused-1 and 2 and their son as claimed by the Complainant. Contents of Ex.P.7, Ex.P.7(a), Ex.P.8, Ex.P.9 and Ex.P.162 show payment of Interest of Rs.2,69,049/- only. The Complainant has not produced any other evidence to show payment of Interest of Rs.4,66,165.74 in respect of those Accounts to the Accused-1 and 2 and their son. At Sl.No.6(vii) and Pages-55, 152 and 153, the Accused-1 and 2 have stated that they and their son received Interest of Rs.4,66,933/- in all from those PPF Accounts during the Check Period and they have given details about the same. However, the Accused-1 and 2 have also not produced any documents in respect of their claim. The Complainant has not disputed the said claim of the Accused-1 and 2. As the difference between the claim of the Accused-1 and 2 and that of the Complainant is only Rs.767/- and as the Complainant has not disputed the claim of the Accused-1 and 2, it is just and proper to accept the claim of the Accused-1 and 2 that they and their son received Interest 237 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] of Rs.4,66,933/- in all from PPF Accounts during the Check Period. Hence, it is held that during the Check Period, Interest of Rs.4,66,933/- was received from 4 PPF Accounts standing in the names of the Accused-1 & 2 and their son-Mr.Abhishek Anand.
D.6.8: Interest On Various Savings Bank Accounts:
319. The Accused-1 and 2 have contended at Sl.No.6(viii), Pages-54, 55, 155 to 170 that during the Check Period, the Accused-1 received Rs.5,68,021/-, the Accused-2 received Rs.2,63,595/-, their son-Mr.Aravind Anand received Rs.10,987/- and their another son-
Mr.Abhishek Anand received Rs.15,188/- i.e., in all Rs.8,57,791/- by way of Interest from various Savings Bank Accounts. The said claim is determined under the following Heads:
Interest Received From the Accounts Of The Accused-1 D.6.8.1: State Bank of India, Cauvery Bhavan Branch, Bengaluru
320. According to the Accused-1 and 2, from S.B.Account No.01190020603 of the Accused-1 maintained at S.B.I., Cauvery Bhavan Branch, Bengaluru, Interest of Rs.45,706.18 was earned during the Check Period. In support of their contention, the Accused-1 and 2 have relied upon Ex.P.75-Statement of Accounts relating to that S.B. Account produced by P.W.6. Contents of this
238 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] document show that the Accused-1 earned Interest of Rs.45,706.18 from 23.9.1996 to 1.1.2005. As such, this document supports the contention of the Accused-1 and 2. The Complainant has not taken this income into consideration. There is no explanation from the Complainant in this regard. Hence, it is clear that the Accused-1 earned income of Rs.45,706.18 by way of interest from his S.B.Account No. 01190020603 of State Bank of India, Cauvery Bhavan Branch, Bengaluru, during the Check Period.
D.6.8.2: Canara Bank, Ghatkopar(W), Mumbai
321. According to Accused-1 and 2, from S.B.Account No.30118 of the Accused-1 maintained at Canara Bank, Ghatkopar(W), Mumbai, the Accused-1 earned interest of Rs.16,407/- during the Check Period. Contents of Pass Book-Ex.P.291, Statement of Account-Ex.P.292 and Pass Book-Ex.P.344 fortify the said contention of the Accused-1 and 2. The Complainant has left out this income of the Accused-1. There is no explanation from the Complainant in this regard. Hence, it is clear that the Accused-1 earned income of Rs.16,407/- by way of interest during the Check Period.
D.6.8.3: State Bank of India, PBB, Jayanagara, Bengaluru
322. According to the Accused-1 and 2, from S.B.Account No.1190/010639 of the Accused-1 maintained at State Bank of India, P.B.B., Jayanagar, Bengaluru, the 239 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Accused-1 earned interest of Rs.10,199.40 during the Check Period. Contents of Statement of Account-Ex.P.19 fortify the said contention of the Accused-1 and 2. The Complainant has left out this income of the Accused-1. There is no explanation from the Complainant in this regard. Hence, it is clear that the Accused-1 earned income of Rs.10,199.40 by way of interest during the Check Period.
D.6.8.4: Punjab National Bank, Hudson Circle, Bengaluru
323. According to the Accused-1 and 2, from S.B.Account No.17867 of the Accused-1 maintained at Punjab National Bank, Hudson Circle, Bengaluru, the Accused-1 earned interest of Rs.45,023/- during the Check Period. Contents of Statement of Account-Ex.P.38 fortify the said contention of the Accused-1 and 2. The Complainant has left out this income of the Accused-1. There is no explanation from the Complainant in this regard. Hence, it is clear that the Accused-1 earned income of Rs.45,023/- by way of interest during the Check Period.
D.6.8.5: Canara Bank, Ashoka Road, Tumkur
324. According to the Accused-1 and 2, from S.B.Account No.19255 of the Accused-1 maintained at Canara Bank, Ashoka Road, Tumkur. The Accused-1 earned interest of Rs.31,063/- during the Check Period. Contents of Statement of Account-Ex.P.79 fortify the said 240 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] contention of the Accused-1 and 2. The Complainant has left out this income of the Accused-1. There is no explanation from the Complainant in this regard. Hence, it is clear that the Accused-1 earned income of Rs.31,063/- by way of interest during the Check Period.
D.6.8.6: Syndicate Bank, Gandhinagara, Bengaluru
325. According to the Accused-1 and 2, from S.B.Account of the Accused-1 maintained at Syndicate Bank, Gandhinagara, Bengaluru, the Accused-1 earned interest of Rs.48,263.94 during the Check Period. Contents of Statement of Account-Ex.P.87 fortify the said contention of the Accused-1 and 2. The Complainant has left out this income of the Accused-1. There is no explanation from the Complainant in this regard. Hence, it is clear that the Accused-1 earned income of Rs.48,263.94 by way of interest during the Check Period.
D.6.8.7: Sri Charan Souhardha Co-operatuve Bank Ltd., Bengaluru
326. According to the Accused-1 and 2, from S.B.Account No.5658 of the Accused-1 maintained at Sri Charan Souhardha Co-operative Bank Ltd., Bengaluru, the Accused-1 earned interest of Rs.105/- during the Check Period. Contents of Statement of Account-Ex.P.90 fortify the said contention of the Accused-1 and 2. The Complainant has left out this income of the Accused-1. There is no explanation from the Complainant in this 241 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] regard. Hence, it is clear that the Accused-1 earned income of Rs.105/- by way of interest during the Check Period.
D.6.8.8: The Karnataka Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd., Basaveshwaranagara, Bengaluru
327. According to the Accused-1 and 2, from S.B.Account No.9291 of the Accused-1 maintained at the Karnataka Co-op. Apex Bank Ltd., Basaveshwaranagara, Bengaluru, the Accused-1 earned interest of Rs.65,037/- during the Check Period. Contents of Statement of Account-Ex.P.95 fortify the said contention of the Accused- 1 and 2. The Complainant has left out this income of the Accused-1. There is no explanation from the Complainant in this regard. Hence, it is clear that the Accused-1 earned income of Rs.65,037/- by way of interest during the Check Period.
D.6.8.9: Rajajinagara Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd.
Basaveshwaranagara, Bengaluru
328. According to the Accused-1 and 2, from S.B.Account No.3517 of the Accused-1 maintained at The Rajajinagara Co-op. Apex Bank Ltd., Basaveshwaranagara, Bengaluru, the Accused-1 earned interest of Rs.72/- during the Check Period. Contents of Statement of Account- Ex.P.146 fortify the said contention of the Accused-1 and
2. The Complainant has left out this income of the Accused-1. There is no explanation from the Complainant in this regard. Hence, it is clear that the Accused-1 earned 242 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] income of Rs.72/- by way of Interest during the Check Period.
D.6.8.10: Standard Chartered Bank
329. According to the Accused-1 and 2, from S.B.Account No.45610018583 of the Accused-1 maintained at The Standard Chartered Bank, M.G.Road, Bengaluru, the Accused-1 earned interest of Rs.56,855.78 during the Check Period. Contents of Statement of Account-Ex.P.112 fortify the said contention of the Accused-1 and 2. The Complainant has left out this income of the Accused-1. There is no explanation from the Complainant in this regard. Hence, it is clear that the Accused-1 earned income of Rs.56,855.78 by way of Interest during the Check Period.
D.6.8.11: ICICI Bank Limited
330. According to the Accused-1 and 2, from S.B.Account No.005301518943 of the Accused-1 maintained at ICICI Bank Ltd., Jayanagara, Bengaluru, the Accused-1 earned interest of Rs.152/- during the Check Period. Contents of Statement of Account-Ex.P.152 fortify the said contention of the Accused-1 and 2. The Complainant has left out this income of the Accused-1. There is no explanation from the Complainant in this regard. Hence, it is clear that the Accused-1 earned income of Rs.152/- by way of interest during the Check Period.
243 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] D.6.8.12 Citi Bank
331. According to the Accused-1 and 2, from S.B.Account No.5584872006 of the Accused-1 maintained at Citi Bank, Bengaluru, the Accused-1 earned Interest of Rs.1,77,857.14 during the Check Period. Contents of Statement of Account-Ex.P.331 fortify the said contention of the Accused-1 and 2. The Complainant has left out this income of the Accused-1. There is no explanation from the Complainant in this regard. Hence, it is clear that the Accused-1 earned income of Rs.1,77,857.14 by way of Interest during the Check Period.
D.6.8.13: Central Bank of India
332. According to the Accused-1 and 2, from S.B.Account No.445269 of the Accused-1 maintained at Central Bank of India, Marine Lines, Mumbai, the Accused- 1 earned Interest of Rs.71,280/- during the Check Period. Contents of Statements of Accounts-Ex.P.299 and Ex.P.333 fortify the said contention of the Accused-1 and
2. The Complainant has left out this income of the Accused-1. There is no explanation from the Complainant in this regard. Hence, it is clear that the Accused-1 earned income of Rs.71,280/- by way of Interest during the Check Period.
Interest Received From the Accounts Of The Accused-2:
D.6.8.14: Canara Bank, Ghatkopar(W), Mumbai
333. According to the Accused-1 and 2, from S.B.Account No.30117 standing in the name of the 244 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Accused-2 maintained at Canara Bank, Ghatkopar(W), Mumbai, the Accused-2 earned Interest of Rs.39,500/-
during the Check Period. In order to substantiate the said contention, they have relied upon Statement of Account- Ex.P.292 and Pass Book-Ex.P.344. Ex.P.292 does not pertain to Account No.30117 of the Accused-2 and it pertains to Account No.30118 of the Accused-1. However, Ex.P.293 is the Statement of Account pertaining to the said Account No.30117 of the Accused-2. As per Ex.P.293, on 02.02.1998, the Accused-2 received Interest of Rs.663/- only. But, the Accused-1 and 2 have claimed that the Accused-2 received Interest of Rs.1,625/- on that day. There is no other supporting evidence about the said claim of the Accused-1 and 2 for Rs.1,625/-. As such, it has to be held that on 02.02.1998, the Accused-2 received Interest of Rs.663/- only and not Rs.1,625/- as claimed by the Accused-1 and 2. However, contents of Ex.P.293 and Ex.P.344 fortify the contention of the Accused-1 and 2 about receiving of Interest of Rs.37,875/- out of their claim of Rs.39,500/- by the Accused-2 in respect of the said S.B. Account during the Check Period. The said documents show that including Rs.663/- received on 02.02.1998, the Accused-2 received Interest of Rs.38,538/- in all during the Check Period. The Complainant has left out this income of the Accused-2. There is no explanation from the Complainant in this regard. Hence, it is clear that the Accused-2 earned 245 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] income of Rs.38,538/- by way of Interest during the Check Period.
D.6.8.15: SBI, PBB, Jayanagara, Bengaluru
334. According to the Accused-1 and 2, from S.B.Account No.1190/010638 of the Accused-2 maintained at State Bank of India, PBB, Jayanagara, Bengaluru, the Accused-2 earned interest of Rs.3,583/- during the Check Period. Contents of Statement of Account-Ex.P.18 fortify the said contention of the Accused-1 and 2. The Complainant has left out this income of the Accused-2. There is no explanation from the Complainant in this regard. Hence, it is clear that the Accused-2 earned income of Rs.3,583/- by way of interest during the Check Period.
D.6.8.16: Punjab National Bank, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru
335. According to the Accused-1 and 2, from S.B.Account No.56916 of the Accused-2 maintained at Punjab National Bank, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru, the Accused-2 earned interest of Rs.24,509/- during the Check Period. In this regard, they have relied upon the evidence of P.W.3 and contents of Ex.P.24 and Ex.P.26. Though P.W.3 has identified Ex.P.24 as the Statement of Account and Ex.P.27 as the Pass Book pertaining to the said Account No.56916, he has not stated that the Accused-2 earned Interest of Rs.24,509/- from the said Account during the Check Period. Ex.P.26 is the Statement of 246 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Account pertaining to F.D.Account No.1261005300720016 of the Accused-1 and 2 and it does not pertain to the S.B.Account No.56916. As such, the evidence of P.W.3 and Ex.P.26 do not assist the Accused-1 and 2 to substantiate their claim. Ex.P.24 is the Statement of Account pertaining to S.B.Account No.56916, which stands in the name of the Accused-2 and the Accused-1 jointly. Ex.P.27 is the Pass Book pertaining to that S.B.Account. Contents of these documents do not show that the Accused-2 received Interest of Rs.24,509/- as claimed by the Accused-1 and 2. On the other hand, those contents show that the Accused-1 and 2 received Interest as under:
Amount Date (In Rs.) 10.03.2003 942 09.09.2003 397 25.01.2004 36 08.03.2004 18 08.09.2004 54 01.03.2005 51 Total: 1,498 There is no other material or evidence on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 to substantiate their claim. As such, it is not fit to accept the contention of the Accused-1 and 2.
Keeping in view the contents of Ex.P.24 and Ex.P.27 and in the absence of any other evidence to the contrary, it has to be inferred that the Accused-1 and 2 jointly received Rs.1,498/- as Interest from the said S.B.Account. The 247 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Complainant has left out this income of the Accused-1 and 2 also. There is no explanation from the Complainant in this regard. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 earned income of Rs.1,498/- by way of interest during the Check Period.
D.6.8.17: Canara Bank, 9th Block, Jayanagara Bengaluru
336. According to the Accused-1 and 2, from S.B.Account No.2414 of the Accused-2 maintained at Canara Bank, 9th Block, Jayanagara, Bengaluru, the Accused-2 earned interest of Rs.7,548/- during the Check Period. Contents of Statement of Account-Ex.P.57 fortify the said contention of the Accused-1 and 2. The Complainant has left out this income of the Accused-2. There is no explanation from the Complainant in this regard. Hence, it is clear that the Accused-2 earned income of Rs.7,548/- by way of interest during the Check Period.
D.6.8.18: Canara Bank, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru
337. According to the Accused-1 and 2, from S.B.Account No.60645 of the Accused-2 maintained at Canara Bank, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru, the Accused-2 earned interest of Rs.59,127/- during the Check Period. Contents of Statement of Account-Ex.P.77 fortify the said contention of the Accused-1 and 2. The Complainant has left out this income of the Accused-2. There is no explanation from the Complainant in this regard. Hence, it 248 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] is clear that the Accused-2 earned income of Rs.59,127/- by way of Interest during the Check Period.
D.6.8.19: Dena Bank, Jayanagara, Bengaluru
338. According to the Accused-1 and 2, from S.B.Account No.5643 of the Accused-2 maintained at Dena Bank, Jayanagara, Bengaluru, the Accused-2 earned interest of Rs.28,288/- during the Check Period. Contents of Statements of Accounts-Ex.P.83, Ex.P.85 and Ex.P.86 fortify the said contention of the Accused-1 and 2. The Complainant has left out this income of the Accused-2. There is no explanation from the Complainant in this regard. Hence, it is clear that the Accused-2 earned income of Rs.28,288/- by way of Interest during the Check Period.
D.6.8.20: Sri Charan Souharda Co-op. Bank Ltd., Basavanagudi, Bengaluru
339. According to the Accused-1 and 2, from S.B.Account No.5659 of the Accused-2 maintained at Sri Charan Souharda Co-op Bank Ltd., Basavanagudi, Bengaluru, the Accused-2 earned interest of Rs.123/- during the Check Period. Contents of Statement of Account-Ex.P.91 fortify the said contention of the Accused- 1 and 2. The Complainant has left out this income of the Accused-2. There is no explanation from the Complainant in this regard. Hence, it is clear that the Accused-2 earned income of Rs.123/- by way of Interest during the Check Period.
249 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] D.6.8.21: Oriental Bank of Commerce
340. According to the Accused-1 and 2, from S.B.Account No.1503018690 of the Accused-2 maintained at The Oriental Bank of Commerce, Jayanagara, Bengaluru, the Accused-2 earned interest of Rs.433/- during the Check Period. Contents of Statement of Account-Ex.P.115 fortify the said contention of the Accused-1 and 2. The Complainant has left out this income of the Accused-2. There is no explanation from the Complainant in this regard. Hence, it is clear that the Accused-1 earned income of Rs.433/- by way of Interest during the Check Period.
D.6.8.22: Canara Bank, BCO Extension Counter
341. According to the Accused-1 and 2, from S.B.Account No.ACSB 000916217 of the Accused-2 maintained at Canara Bank, BCO Extn., Counter, Trinity Circle, Bengaluru, the Accused-2 earned interest of Rs.4,109/- during the Check Period. Contents of Statement of Account-Ex.P.117 fortify the said contention of the Accused-1 and 2. The Complainant has left out this income of the Accused-2. There is no explanation from the Complainant in this regard. Hence, it is clear that the Accused-2 earned income of Rs.4,109/- by way of Interest during the Check Period.
D.6.8.23: ICICI Bank Limited, Jayangara
342. According to the Accused-1 and 2, from 250 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] S.B.Account No.005301518944 of the Accused-2 maintained at ICICI Bank Ltd., Jayanagara, Bengaluru, the Accused-2 earned interest of Rs.156/- during the Check Period. Contents of Statement of Account-Ex.P.153 fortify the said contention of the Accused-1 and 2. The Complainant has left out this income of the Accused-2. There is no explanation from the Complainant in this regard. Hence, it is clear that the Accused-2 earned income of Rs.156/- by way of Interest during the Check Period.
D.6.8.24: Bank of India
343. According to the Accused-1 and 2, from S.B.Account No.8269 of the Accused-2 maintained at Bank of India, Basaveshwaranagar, Bengaluru, the Accused-2 earned Interest of Rs.40,316/- during the Check Period. Contents of Statement of Account-Ex.P.121 fortify the said contention of the Accused-1 and 2. The Complainant has left out this income of the Accused-2. There is no explanation from the Complainant in this regard. Hence, it is clear that the Accused-2 earned income of Rs.40,316/- by way of Interest during the Check Period.
D.6.8.25: Centurion Bank
344. According to the Accused-1 and 2, from S.B.Account No.00181231815001 of the Accused-2 maintained at Centurion Bank, Jayanagar, Bengaluru, the Accused-2 earned interest of Rs.22,575/- during the Check Period. Contents of Statement of Account-Ex.P.135 fortify 251 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] the said contention of the Accused-1 and 2. The Complainant has left out this income of the Accused-2. There is no explanation from the Complainant in this regard. Hence, it is clear that the Accused-2 earned income of Rs.22,575/- by way of Interest during the Check Period.
D.6.8.26: The Rajajinagara Co-operative Bank Ltd.
345. According to the Accused-1 and 2, from S.B.Account No.37399 of the Accused-2 maintained at The Rajajinagar Co-op Bank Ltd., Rajajinagar, Bengaluru, the Accused-2 earned interest of Rs.33,329/- during the Check Period. Contents of Statement of Account-Ex.P.145 fortify the said contention of the Accused-1 and 2. The Complainant has left out this income of the Accused-2. There is no explanation from the Complainant in this regard. Hence, it is clear that the Accused-2 earned income of Rs.33,329/- by way of Interest during the Check Period.
Interest Received From The Accounts Of Mr.Aravind Anand D.6.8.27: Canara Bank, Jayanagara, Bengaluru
346. According to the Accused-1 and 2, from S.B.Account No.2537 standing in the name of their son- Mr.Aravind A.B., maintained at Canara Bank, 9th Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru, interest of Rs.3,133/- was earned during the Check Period. Contents of Statement of 252 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Account-Ex.P.58 fortify the said contention of the Accused- 1 and 2. The Complainant has left out this income also. There is no explanation from the Complainant in this regard. Hence, it is clear that income of Rs.3,133/- was earned by way of Interest during the Check Period from the SB Account standing in the name of Mr.Aravind Anand.
D.6.8.28: Centurion Bank
347. According to the Accused-1 and 2, from S.B.Account No.0018233871001 standing in the name of Mr.Aravind A.B., maintained at Centurion Bank, Jayanagara, Bengaluru, Interest of Rs.7,853.72 was earned during the Check Period. Contents of Statement of Account-Ex.P.137 fortify the said contention of the Accused-1 and 2. The Complainant has left out this income also. There is no explanation from the Complainant in this regard. Hence, it is clear that income of Rs.7,853.72 was earned by way of interest during the Check Period from the SB Account standing in the name of Mr.Aravind Anand.
Interest Received From the Accounts Of Mr.Abhishek Anand D.6.8.29: Canara Bank, Jayanagara
348. According to the Accused-1 and 2, from S.B.Account No.2538 standing in the name of their son- Mr.Abhishek Anand maintained at Canara Bank, 9th Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru, interest of Rs.2,741/- was earned during the Check Period. Contents of Statement of Account-Ex.P.59 fortify the said contention of the Accused-
253 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] 1 and 2. The Complainant has left out this income also. There is no explanation from the Complainant in this regard. Hence, it is clear that income of Rs.2,741/- was earned by way of interest during the Check Period from the SB Account standing in the name of Mr.Abhishek Anand.
D.6.8.30: Centurion Bank
349. According to the Accused-1 and 2, from S.B.Account No.0018233870001 standing in the name of Mr.Abhishek Anand maintained at Centurion Bank, Jayanagar, Bengaluru, interest of Rs.6,826.69 was earned during the Check Period. Contents of Statement of Account-Ex.P.136 fortify the said contention of the Accused-1 and 2. The Complainant has left out this income also. There is no explanation from the Complainant in this regard. Hence, it is clear that income of Rs.6,826.69 was earned by way of interest during the Check Period from the SB Account standing in the name of Mr.Abhishek Anand.
D.6.8.31: Canara Bank, Magadi Road Branch
350. According to the Accused-1 and 2, from S.B.Account No.11322 standing in the name of Mr.Abhishek Anand maintained at Canara Bank, Magadi Road, Bengaluru, interest of Rs.5,620/- was earned during the Check Period. Contents of Statement of Account- Ex.P.142 fortify the said contention of the Accused-1 and
2. The Complainant has left out this income also. There is no explanation from the Complainant in this regard. Hence, it is clear that income of Rs.5,620/- was earned 254 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] by way of interest during the Check Period from the SB Account standing in the name of Mr.Abhishek Anand.
D.6.8.32: Conclusion
351. In view of the above findings under the Heads- D.6.8.1 to D.6.8.31, it is clear that the Accused-1 & 2 and their sons received Interest of Rs.8,33,818.85 in all from various Savings Bank Accounts.
D.6.9: Interest On Various Fixed Deposit Accounts Credited To Savings Bank Accounts and Over Draft Accounts:
352. The Accused-1 and 2 have contended at Sl.No.6(ix), Pages-55, 171 to 176 that during the Check Period, the Accused-1 received Rs.2,09,584/- and the Accused-2 received Rs.4,35,100/- i.e., in all Rs.6,44,684/- by way of Interest from various Fixed Deposit Accounts credited to Savings Bank Accounts and Over Draft Accounts. The said contention is determined under the following Heads:
Interest Received by the Accused-1 D.6.9.1: Fixed Deposits of Canara Bank, Ashoka Road, Tumkuru:
353. According to the Accused-1 and 2, from K.D.Account No.8197 of the Accused-1 maintained at Canara Bank, Ashoka Road, Tumkur, interest of Rs.9,900/- was earned during the Check Period, which has been credited to S.B.Account No.19255 with Canara Bank, 255 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Ashoka Road, Tumkuru. In support of their contention, the Accused-1 and 2 have relied upon the evidence of P.W.8 and Ex.P.79-Statement of Accounts relating to S.B. Account No.19255. P.W.6 has identified Ex.P.81 as the Statement of Account of K.D.Account No.8197 of the Accused-1. But, he has not stated that the Accused-1 earned Interest of Rs.9,900/- from that Account. Contents of Ex.P.79 though shows credit of Interest of Rs.9,900/- from Fixed Deposit No.915, it does not show credit of Interest from K.D.Account No.8197 as claimed by the Accused-1 and 2. In fact, in the Cross-Examination of P.W.8, the Accused-1 and 2 have themselves elicited that Interest of Rs.9,900/- has been credited from F.D.No.915 to the S.B.Account No.19255. The said Interest has been taken into account already under the Head-'D.6.3'. There is nothing on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 to show that the Accused-1 earned interest of Rs.9,900/- from K.D.Account No.8197 and that the said amount was credited to S.B.Account. However, Ex.P.81-Statement of Account of K.D.Account No.8197 shows that the Accused-1 opened K.D.Account No.8197 on 04.01.2005 only and that he earned Interest of Rs.639/- only during the Check Period. There is no reason to disbelieve the contents of Ex.P.81. In the Cross-Examination of P.W.8, the Accused-1 and 2 have elicited that the deposit made under Ex.P.81 was the renewal of the deposit relating to Ex.P.80. Ex.P.80 pertains to F.D.No.915. Interest of Rs.9,900/- accrued from F.D.No.915 has been taken into account already, as 256 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] observed above. As such, question of taking into account of the said Interest of Rs.9,900/- once again does not arise. However, from Ex.P.81, it is clear that the Accused-1 earned Interest of Rs.639/- only during the Check Period. The Complainant has not taken this income into consideration. There is no explanation from the Complainant in this regard. Hence, it is clear that the Accused-1 earned income of Rs.639/- only by way of Interest from his K.D.Account No.8197 of Canara Bank, Ashoka Road, Tumkuru, during the Check Period.
D.6.9.2: Fixed Deposit Account of Punjab National Bank, Hudson Circle, Bengaluru
354. According to the Accused-1 and 2, from Fixed Deposit Account with Punjab National Bank, Hudson Circle, Bengaluru, the Accused-1 earned Interest of Rs.1,99,683.50, which has been credited to S.B.Account No.17867 of that Bank, during the Check Period and the Complainant has not taken the said income into account. In support of the said claim, the Accused-1 and 2 have relied upon the evidence of P.W.4 and Ex.P.38. P.W.4 has not stated anything about earning of Interest by the Accused-1 as claimed by the Accused-1 and 2. Ex.P.38- Statement of Account relating to S.B.Account No.17867 indicates credit of Interest of Rs.1,99,683.50 from F.D.Accounts during the period from 06.02.2002 to 10.03.2005. But, details of the said F.D.Accounts are not shown in Ex.P.38. Even the Accused-1 and 2 have not given the details of those F.D.Accounts from which Interest 257 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] has been credited to the S.B.Account. As observed above under the Head-'D.6.2', the Complainant has contended that the Accused-1 and 2 have received Interest of Rs.1,99,683/- from 5 Fixed Deposits relating to Fixed Deposit Receipts-Ex.P.48 to Ex.P.54 during the Check Period. Ex.P.39 to Ex.P.45 are the Statements of Accounts pertaining to those Fixed Deposits. By considering the evidence on record, this Court has held that from those 5 Fixed Deposits, the Accused-1 and 2 have earned Interest of Rs.2,04,641/- during the Check Period, which includes the claim of Rs.1,99,683/- made by the Complainant under the Head-'D.6.2' and the claim of the Accused made now under this Head. As the said Interest Income has already taken into account, it is not necessary to take the said Income once again. Hence, present claim of the Accused- 1 and 2 regarding Interest Income of Rs.1,99,683.50 is rejected.
Interest Received By The Accused-2 D.6.9.3: Fixed Deposit Account of Punjab National Bank, Malleshwaram Branch, Bengaluru
355. According to the Accused-1 and 2, from Fixed Deposit Account No.53-720016 maintained at Punjab National Bank, Malleshwaram Branch, Bengaluru, the Accused-2 earned Interest of Rs.26,783/-, which has been credited to O.D.Account and S.B.Account of that Bank, during the Check Period and the Complainant has not taken the said income into account. In support of the said claim, the Accused-1 and 2 have relied upon the evidence 258 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] of P.W.3 and also Ex.P.24 and Ex.P.26. P.W.3 has stated that quarterly Interest of that F.D.Account was credited to O.D.Account relating to Ex.P.26. However, he has not stated that the Accused-2 earned Interest of Rs.26,783/- from the said F.D.Account as contended by the Accused-1 and 2.
356. Ex.P.26 is the Statement of Account relating to F.D.Account No.720016, which shows that there was Deposit of Rs.2,50,000/- in the name of the Accused-2 and 1 jointly. Ex.P.25 is the Statement of Account relating to the Over Draft Account standing in the name of the Accused-2. Ex.P.25 shows credit of Interest of Rs.4,063/- on 08.03.2004, Rs.4,063/- on 07.06.2004, Rs.3,250/- on 07.09.2004, Rs.3,632/- on 07.12.2004 and Rs.3,649/- on 07.03.2005 i.e., in all Rs.18,657/- to the O.D.Account from the Fixed Deposit Account No.720016. While considering the Head-'D.6.1', this Court has taken the said Interest Income into account. As such, it is not necessary to consider the said Income once again under this Head.
357. Ex.P.27 is the Pass Book pertaining to S.B.Account No.56916 standing in the name of the Accused-2 and 1 jointly. Contents of this document support the claim of the Accused-1 and 2 that on 07.03.2003 and 09.06.2003, a sum of Rs.4,063/- each has been credited to that S.B.Account by way of Interest from F.D.Account. The said Interest Income has not been taken into account by the Complainant. There is no explanation 259 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] from him in this regard. As such, it is clear that the Accused-2 and 1 jointly earned Interest of Rs.8,126/- during the Check Period out of Fixed Deposit.
358. For all the above reasons, by rejecting the claim of the Accused-1 and 2 to the tune of Rs.26,783/- towards Interest Income from Fixed Deposit No.720016 during the Check Period, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 jointly earned Interest Income of Rs.8,126/- only from the said Fixed Deposit during the Check Period.
D.6.9.4: 4 Deposits of Canara Bank, Jayanagara, 9th Block, Bengaluru
359. According to the Accused-1 and 2, out of 4 Deposits i.e., F.D.4191 & 4192 and K.D.3967 & 6591 of Canara Bank, 9th Block, Jayanagara, Bengaluru, the Accused-2 earned Interest of Rs.1,67,356/- during the Check Period and the said amount has been credited to O.D.Account as well as S.B.Account, which has not been taken into consideration by the Complainant. In support of their claim, the Accused-1 and 2 have relied upon the evidence of P.W.5 and Ex.P.60. P.W.5 has not stated that the Accused-2 received Interest as claimed. Ex.P.60 is the Statement of Account of O.D.Account No.139 standing in the name of the Accused-2. Contents of this document do not show credit of Interest as claimed by the Accused-1 and 2. On the other hand, those contents show that Interest of Rs.24,240/- in all only has been credited to the O.D.Account No.139 from F.D.Account No.4191 and 4192 260 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] during the period from 04.05.2004 to 04.02.2005. Ex.P.57 is the Statement of Account of S.B.Account No.2414 standing in the name of the Accused-2 at the same Canara Bank. This document does not show credit of Interest from F.D. and K.D. to the S.B.Account as claimed by the Accused-1 and 2. Ex.P.61 to Ex.P.64 are the Statements of Accounts relating to the said F.D.No.4191, F.D.No.4192, K.D.No.3967 and K.D.No.6591. Contents of these documents show, as observed above under the Head- 'D.6.4', that the Accused-2 received Interest of Rs.50,725/- in all during the Check Period, which includes Rs.24,240/- credited to O.D.Account. As the said Interest Income has been taken into consideration already under the Head-'D.6.4', it is not necessary to take the said Income into consideration once again under the present Head. There is nothing on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 to substantiate their claim. Hence, claim of the Accused-1 and 2 regarding Interest Income of Rs.1,67,356/- is rejected.
D.6.9.5: 8 Deposits of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Bengaluru
360. According to the Accused-1 and 2, out of 8 Fixed Deposits i.e., F.D.6482, 6520, 7738, 10187, 10217, 1111, 11887 and 12623 of the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Jayanagara, Bengaluru, the Accused-2 earned Interest of Rs.1,29,167/- during the Check Period and the said amount has been credited to S.B.Account, which has not been taken into consideration by the Complainant. In 261 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] support of their claim, the Accused-1 and 2 have relied upon the evidence of P.W.16 and also Ex.P.115 and Ex.P.116. The said claim has been considered by this Court under the Head: 'D.6.6', by holding that the Accused-2 received Interest of Rs.1,16,060/- from those 8 deposits. As the said claim has been considered already, it is not necessary to consider the same once again. Hence, the claim of the Accused-1 and 2 under this Head is rejected.
D.6.9.6: Fixed Deposits of Canara Bank, BCO Extension Counter, Trinity Circle, Bengaluru
361. According to the Accused-1 and 2, out of Fixed Deposits of Canara Bank, BCO Extension Counter Branch, Trinity Circle, Bengaluru, the Accused-2 earned Interest of Rs.92,897/- during the Check Period and the said amount has been credited to O.D.Account as well as S.B.Account, which has not been taken into consideration by the Complainant. The Accused-1 and 2 have not given the details of F.D.Account, S.B.Account and O.D.Account. However, in support of their claim, the Accused-1 and 2 have relied upon the evidence of P.W.17 and Ex.P.117. P.W.17 has not stated anything about earning of Interest of Rs.92,897/- and crediting the said amount to S.B.Account and also O.D.Account of the Accused-2. But, he has identified Ex.P.117 as the Statement of Account relating to S.B.Account No.ACSB 000916217, Ex.P.118 and Ex.P.119 as the Statements of Accounts relating to O.D.Accounts No.ACGA 000091220 and ACGA 000091221 and Ex.P.120 as the Statement of Account relating to 262 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] F.D.Account No.ACFDEX 990113, 01000022, 03000048 & 03000078 of the Accused-2. Ex.P.117 shows credit of Interest of Rs.47,245/- during the period from 18.07.2001 to 04.08.2003 to S.B.Account No.ACSB 000916217 from F.D.Account No.ACFDEX 01000022, as claimed by the Accused-1 and 2 at Page-175 of CSWA. But, Ex.P.117 to Ex.P.120 do not show credit of Interest of Rs.45,652/- to the O.D.Account as claimed by the Accused-1 and 2. No other material is placed by the Accused-1 and 2 to substantiate their claim. As such, it has to be inferred that the Accused-2 earned Interest of Rs.47,245/- only from her F.D.Account by way of credit to her S.B.Account. The Complainant has not taken into account of this Interest Income of the Accused-2. There is no explanation from him in this regard. Hence, it is held that the Accused-2 earned Interest of Rs.47,245/- only from her F.D.Account No.ACFDEX 01000022 by way of credit to her S.B.Account No.ACSB 000916217 during the Check Period.
D.6.9.7: F.D.Accounts of Karnataka Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd., Basavewshwaranagara, Bengaluru
362. According to the Accused-1 and 2, out of Fixed Deposit Accounts DJJ 528, 529, 1299, 1328, 1329, 1405 and 1406 of Karnataka Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd., Basaveshwaranagara, Bengaluru, the Accused-2 earned Interest of Rs.18,897/- during the Check Period and the said amount has been credited to her S.B.Account No.9291, which has not been taken into consideration by 263 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] the Complainant. In support of their claim, the Accused-1 and 2 have relied upon the evidence of P.W.12 and also Ex.P.95 and Ex.P.98. P.W.12 has not stated anything about earning of Interest of Rs.18,897/- by the Accused-2 from Fixed Deposits and crediting the said amount to S.B.Account of the Accused-2 as claimed by the Accused-1 and 2. Ex.P.95 is the Statement of Account of S.B.Account No.9291 standing in the name of the Accused-1. The said S.B.Account does not stand in the name of the Accused-2. Contents of Ex.P.95 do not show credit of Interest from 7 F.D.Accounts, referred to above, as claimed by the Accused-1 and 2. As such, the evidence of P.W.12 and Ex.P.95 do not assist the Accused-1 and 2 to substantiate their claim. However, Ex.P.98-Extract of details of Fixed Deposit, Interest Paid, Maturity Amount etc., issued by Karnataka State Co-operative Apex Bank Limited shows that Deposit No.DJJ 528 and 529 were in the joint names of the Accused-1 and 2, Deposit No.DJJ 1405 was in the name of Mr.Abhishek Anand, Deposit No.DJJ 1406 was in the name of Mr.Aravind Anand, Deposit No.DJJ 1299 was in the name of the Accused-1, Deposit No.DJJ 1327, 1328 and 1329 were in the joint names of Mr.Abhishek Anand and Mr.Aravind Anand and that from those Deposits, the Accused-1 and 2 earned Interest of Rs.81,686/- and Rs.40,843/-, the Accused-1 earned Interest of Rs.3,720/-, Rs.11,909/- and Rs.11,593/- and that Mr.Abhishek Anand and Mr.Aravind Anand earned Interest of Rs.9,690/-, Rs.9,089, Rs.3,720/-, Rs.11,909/-, Rs.10,565/-, 264 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Rs.17,069/- and Rs.16,038/- during the Check Period. As such, it is clear that the Accused-1 and 2 and their children earned Interest of Rs.2,33,037/- in all from their F.D.Accounts kept at Karnataka Co-operative Apex Bank Limited. The Complainant has not taken into account of this Interest Income of the Accused-1 and 2 and their children. There is no explanation from him in this regard. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 and their children earned Interest of Rs.2,33,037/- in all from their F.D.Accounts kept at Karnataka Co-operative Apex Bank Limited.
D.6.9.8: Conclusion
363. In view of the above findings under the Heads- D.6.9.1 to D.6.9.7, it is clear that the Accused-1 & 2 received Interest of Rs.2,89,047/- in all by way of Interest from various Fixed Deposit Accounts standing in their names and names of their children, which has been credited to Savings Bank Accounts and Over Draft Accounts.
D.6.10: Interest On Fixed Deposits With Various Banks Credited To Fixed Deposits
364. The Accused-1 and 2 have contended at Sl.No.6(x) and Pages-55, 177 to 186 of the CSWA, that during the Check Period, the Accused-1 has received Rs.1,27,129/-, the Accused-2 has received Rs.4,28,465/-, Mr.Aravind Anand has received Rs.41,997/- and 265 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Mr.Abhishek Anand has received Rs.41,997/- i.e., in all Rs.6,39,588/- by way of Interest from various Fixed Deposit Accounts, which has been left out by the Complainant while assessing the Income of the Accused-1 and 2 during the Check Period. The said contention is determined under the following Heads:
Interest Received By The Accused-1 D.6.10.1: F.D.Account No.45630009962 of Standard Chartered Bank, M.G.Road, Bengaluru
365. According to the Accused-1 and 2, out of Fixed Deposit Account No.45630009962 of Standard Chartered Bank, M.G.Road, Bengaluru, the Accused-1 earned Interest of Rs.19,366/- during the Check Period. In support of their claim, the Accused-1 and 2 have relied upon Ex.P.114 produced by P.W.15. Contents of Ex.P.114 fortify the contention of the Accused-1 and 2. The Complainant has not taken into account of this Interest Income of the Accused-1. There is no explanation from him in this regard. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 earned Interest of Rs.19,366/- from his F.D.Account kept at Standard Chartered Bank, M.G.Road, Bengaluru.
D.6.10.2: F.D.Account No.45630009954 of Standard Chartered Bank, M.G.Road, Bengaluru
366. According to the Accused-1 and 2, out of Fixed Deposit Account No.45630009954 of Standard Chartered Bank, M.G.Road, Bengaluru, the Accused-1 earned Interest 266 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] of Rs.19,802/- during the Check Period. In support of their claim, the Accused-1 and 2 have relied upon Ex.P.113 produced by P.W.15. Contents of Ex.P.113 fortify the contention of the Accused-1 and 2. The Complainant has not taken into account of this Interest Income of the Accused-1. There is no explanation from him in this regard. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 earned Interest of Rs.19,802/- from his F.D.Account kept at Standard Chartered Bank, M.G.Road, Bengaluru.
D.6.10.3. F.D.Account of Punjab National Bank, Hudson Circle, Bengaluru
367. According to the Accused-1 and 2, out of Fixed Deposit Account of Punjab National Bank, Hudson Circle, Bengaluru, the Accused-1 earned Interest of Rs.50,544/- during the Check Period. But, details of the Fixed Deposit Account and Interest earned from that Deposit are not furnished by the Accused-1 and 2. However, in support of their claim, the Accused-1 and 2 have relied upon the evidence of P.W.4 and also Ex.P.39 to Ex.P.45. P.W.4 has not stated about the said claim of the Accused-1 and 2. Contents of Ex.P.39 to Ex.P.45 show, as observed under the Head-'D.6.2', that the Accused-1 and 2 received total Interest of Rs.2,04,641/- in all during the Check Period from those Fixed Deposits. The said Interest Income has been taken into consideration already under the Head- 'D.6.2'. The Accused-1 and 2 have not produced any evidence to show that the Accused-1 received Interest of Rs.50,544/- apart from Rs.2,04,641/-. As such, question 267 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] of considering the said Interest income claimed by the Accused-1 and 2 once again does not arise. Hence, the claim of the Accused-1 and 2 under the present Head is rejected.
D.6.10.4: F.D.Account No.10170125022 of State Bank of India, Basaveshwaranagara, Bengaluru
368. According to the Accused-1 and 2, out of Fixed Deposit Account No.10170125022 of State Bank of India, Basaveshwaranagara, Bengaluru, the Accused-1 earned Interest of Rs.37,417/- during the Check Period. In support of their claim, the Accused-1 and 2 have relied upon Ex.P.6-Statement of Account of Term Deposit produced by P.W.1. Contents of this document show that the Accused-1 earned Interest of Rs.37,417/- from that Deposit during the Check Period. The Complainant has not taken into account of this Interest Income of the Accused-
1. There is no explanation from him in this regard. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 earned Interest of Rs.37,417/- from his F.D.Account kept at State Bank of India, Basaveshwara Nagara, Bengaluru.
Interest Received By The Accused-2 D.6.10.5: F.D.Accounts No.2868228 and 2868237 of Punjab National Bank, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru
369. According to the Accused-1 and 2, the Accused- 2 kept Rs.25,000/- each in Fixed Deposit Accounts No.2868228 and 2868237 of Punjab National Bank, 268 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Malleshwaram, Bengaluru, on 22.12.1997 and those Deposits were renewed along with periodical Interest during the Check Period and thus, she earned Interest of Rs.44,290/- during the Check Period from those Deposits. In support of their claim, the Accused-1 and 2 have relied upon the evidence of P.W.3 and Ex.P.30 and Ex.P.31- Statements of Accounts. The evidence of P.W.3 and contents of Ex.P.30 and Ex.P.31 show that those 2 Deposits were renewed twice along with periodical Interest and that the renewal deposit amounts were Rs.35,572/- and Rs.47,145/- in each of those Accounts. As such, it is clear that the Accused-2 earned Interest of Rs.44,290/- in all from those Deposits during the Check Period. The Complainant has not taken into account of this Interest Income of the Accused-2. There is no explanation from him in this regard. Hence, it is held that the Accused-2 earned Interest of Rs.44,290/- from her F.D.Account kept at Punjab Nationa Bank, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru.
D.6.10.6: F.D.Accounts No.4191 & 4192 and K.D.3967 & K.D.6591 Of Canara Bank, 9th Block, Jayanagara, Bengaluru
370. According to the Accused-1 and 2, the Accused- 2 kept Deposit of Rs.75,000/- in K.D.No.3509 on 25.02.2001 at Canara Bank, 9th Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru and she earned Interest of Rs.16,729/- from that Deposit, which was credited at the time of renewal of deposit and the said amount is not credited to S.B.Account and as such, during the Check Period, she earned Interest 269 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] of Rs.16,729/-. In support of their claim, the Accused-1 and 2 have relied upon the evidence of P.W.5 and Ex.P.60 to Ex.P.64-Statements of Accounts. Ex.P.60 to Ex.P.64 do not pertain to K.D.Account No.3509. P.W.5 has deposed that Ex.P.74 is the Statement of Account pertaining to K.D.Account No.3509. Ex.P.74 indicates that it pertains to K.D.Account No.5690 of the Accused-2 opened on 26.02.2004 for Rs.86,930/-. From the evidence of P.W.5, it appears that the said Deposit is renewal of K.D.Account No.3509. As the Deposit amount of K.D.3509 was Rs.75,000/- and as the said Deposit was renewed for Rs.86,930/-, which includes Interest, it has to be inferred that the Accused-2 earned Interest of Rs.11,930/- only and not Rs.16,729/- as claimed by the Accused-1 and 2. There is nothing on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 to show that the Accused-2 earned Interest of Rs.16,729/- from that Deposit. As such, it is clear that the Accused-2 earned Interest of Rs.11,930/- only from the said Deposit during the Check Period. The Complainant has not taken into account of this Interest Income of the Accused-2. There is no explanation from him in this regard. Hence, it is held that the Accused-2 earned Interest of Rs.11,930/- from her F.D.Account No.3509 kept at Canara Bank, 9th Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru.
D.6.10.7: FD Account No.849245100002439 Of Bank Of India, Basaveshwaranagara, Bengaluru:
371. According to the Accused-1 and 2, from the Fixed Deposit kept at Bank of India, Basaveshwaranagara, 270 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Bengaluru, the Accused-2 earned Interest of Rs.33,400/-, which was credited at the time of renewal of deposit, and as such, during the Check Period, she earned Interest of Rs.33,400/-. In support of their claim, the Accused-1 and 2 have relied upon Ex.P.123-Statement of Accounts produced by P.W.18. Ex.P.123 shows that there was balance of Rs.18,816/- as on 20.03.1995 in the F.D.Account of the Accused-2, which was renewed subsequently every year with interest and that the said amount became Rs.52,216/- as on 06.12.2014. Thus, the Accused-2 has earned interest of Rs.33,400/- during the Check Period from the said Deposit. As such, contents of Ex.P.123 fortify the contention of the Accused-1 and 2.
The Complainant has not taken into account of this Interest Income of the Accused-2. There is no explanation from him in this regard. Hence, it is held that the Accused-2 earned Interest of Rs.33,400/- from her F.D.Account No.849245100002439 of Bank of India, Basaveshwaranagara, Bengaluru.
D.6.10.8: FD Nos.KD/01/009055, 0011931, 013285, 013286 and 01326 of Canara Bank, 4th T Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru
372. According to the Accused-1 and 2, out of Fixed Deposit Accounts No.KD/01/009055, 0011931, 013285, 013286 and 01326 of Canara Bank, 4th T Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru, the Accused-2 earned Interest of Rs.92,102/- during the Check Period. In support of their claim, the Accused-1 and 2 have relied upon Ex.P.126 to Ex.P.130 produced by P.W.19. Ex.P.127 to Ex.P.130 are the Copies 271 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] of Fixed Deposit Receipts relating to K.D/01/009055, 0011931, 013285 and 013286 standing in the joint names of the Accused-1 and 2. Ex.P.126 is the Statement of Account relating to Fixed Deposits-KD/01/009055, 0011931, 013285, 013286 and 01326. The evidence of P.W.19 and contents of Ex.P.126 to Ex.P.130 do not show that the Accused-2 earned Interest of Rs.92,102/- as claimed by the Accused-1 and 2. No other material is placed by them to substantiate their contention. However, contents of Ex.P.126 to Ex.P.130 show that the Accused-1 and 2 earned Interest of Rs.13,639/, Rs.4,669/-, Rs.1,610/-, Rs.1,496/- and Rs.484/- i.e., in all Rs.21,898/- only from those Deposits during the Check Period. The Complainant has not taken into account of this Interest income of the Accused-1 and 2. There is no explanation from him in this regard. Hence, it is held that the Accused- 1 and 2 earned Interest of Rs.21,898/- only from their Fixed Deposit Accounts No.KD/01/009055, 0011931, 013285, 013286 and 01326 of Canara Bank, 4th 'T' Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru, during the Check Period.
D.6.10.9: F.D.Accounts Of Karnataka Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd., Basavewshwaranagara, Bengaluru
373. According to the Accused-1 and 2, out of Fixed Deposit Accounts DJJ 528, 529, 1299, 1328, 1329, 1405 and 1406 of Karnataka Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd., Basaveshwaranagara, Bengaluru, the Accused-2 earned Interest of Rs.2,27,831/- during the Check Period and the 272 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] said amount has been credited to her F.D.Accounts from 01.01.1996 to 06.04.2005 at the time of renewal of Deposit, which has not been taken into consideration by the Complainant. In support of their claim, the Accused-1 and 2 have relied upon the evidence of P.W.12 and also and Ex.P.98. P.W.12 has not stated anything about earning of Interest of Rs.2,27,831/- by the Accused-2 from Fixed Deposits as claimed by the Accused-1 and 2. However, Ex.P.98-Extract of Details of Fixed Deposit, Interest Paid, Maturity Amount etc., issued by Karnataka State Co- operative Apex Bank Limited, as observed above under the Head-'D.6.9.7', shows that all those Deposits are not standing in the name of the Accused-2 alone and that on the other hand, they are standing in the name of the Accused-1 and 2 and their children and that they all earned Interest of Rs.2,33,037/- in all from those Deposits kept at Karnataka Co-operative Apex Bank Limited. The Accused-1 and 2 have not placed any other material to show that the Accused-2 alone received Interest of Rs.2,27,831/- separately apart from Interest of Rs.2,33,037/-. As the said Interest Income of Rs.2,33,037/-, which includes Rs.2,27,831/- claimed by the Accused-1 and 2 under the present Head, has been considered and taken into account already under the Head- 'D.6.9.7', it is not necessary to consider the said Income once again under the present Head. Accordingly, the claim of the Accused-1 and 2 under the present Head is rejected.
273 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] D.6.10.10: Term Deposit No.01292/010638 of State Bank of India, PBB, Jayanagar, Bengaluru
374. According to the Accused-1 and 2, out of Term Deposit Account No.01292/010638 of State Bank of India, PBB, Jayanagar, Bengaluru, the Accused-2 earned Interest of Rs.14,113/- during the Check Period. In support of their claim, the Accused-1 and 2 have relied upon the evidence of P.W.2. P.W.2 has deposed about the said contention of the Accused-1 and 2. Contents of Ex.P.11-Statement of Account support the claim of the Accused-1 and 2. The Complainant has not taken into account of this Interest Income of the Accused-2. There is no explanation from him in this regard. Hence, it is held that the Accused-2 earned Interest of Rs.14,113/- from her Term Deposit Account No.01292/010638 of State Bank of India, PBB, Jayanagar, Bengaluru, during the Check Period.
Interest Received By Mr.Aravind Anand D.6.10.11: Term Deposit No.01292/010642 Of State Bank of India, PBB, Jayanagar, Bengaluru
375. According to the Accused-1 and 2, out of Term Deposit Account No.01292/010642 of State Bank of India, PBB, Jayanagar, Bengaluru, standing in the name of Mr.Aravind Anand, Interest of Rs.32,534/- has been received during the Check Period. In support of their claim, the Accused-1 and 2 have relied upon the evidence of P.W.2. P.W.2 has deposed about the said contention of the Accused-1 and 2. Contents of Ex.P.12-Statement of 274 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Account support the claim of the Accused-1 and 2. The Complainant has not taken into account of this Interest Income. There is no explanation from him in this regard. Hence, it is held that during the Check Period, Interest of Rs.32,534/- has been received from Term Deposit Account No.01292/010642 of State Bank of India, PBB, Jayanagar, Bengaluru, standing in the name of Mr.Aravind Anand, during the Check Period.
D.6.10.12: F.D.Accounts Of Karnataka Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd., Basavewshwaranagara, Bengaluru
376. According to the Accused-1 and 2, out of Fixed Deposit Accounts DJJ 528, 529, 1299, 1328, 1329, 1405 and 1406 of Karnataka Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd., Basaveshwaranagara, Bengaluru, Mr.Aravind Anand earned Interest of Rs.9,463/- during the Check Period and the said amount has been credited to his F.D.Account from 10.11.2001 to 06.04.2005 at the time of renewal of Deposit, which has not been taken into consideration by the Complainant. In support of their claim, the Accused-1 and 2 have relied upon the evidence of P.W.12 and also Ex.P.98. P.W.12 has not stated anything about earning of Interest of Rs.9,463/- by Mr.Aravind Anand from Fixed Deposits as claimed by the Accused-1 and 2. However, Ex.P.98-Extract of Details of Fixed Deposit, Interest Paid, Maturity Amount etc., issued by Karnataka State Co- operative Apex Bank Limited, as observed above under the Head-'D.6.9.7', shows that all those Deposits are not 275 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] standing in the name of Mr.Aravind Anand alone and that on the other hand, they are standing in the name of the Accused-1 and 2, Mr.Aravind Anand and Mr.Abhishek Anand and that they all earned Interest of Rs.2,33,037/- in all from those Deposits kept at Karnataka Co-operative Apex Bank Limited during the Check Period. The Accused- 1 and 2 have not placed any other material to show that Mr.Aravind Anand alone received Interest of Rs.9,463/- separately apart from Interest of Rs.2,33,037/-. As the said Interest Income of Rs.2,33,037/-, which includes Rs.9,463/- claimed by the Accused-1 and 2 under the present Head, has been considered and taken into account already under the Head-'D.6.9.7', it is not necessary to consider the said Income once again under the present Head. Accordingly, the claim of the Accused-1 and 2 under the present Head is rejected.
Interest Received By Mr.Abhishek Anand D.6.10.13: Term Deposit No.01292/010641 Of State Bank of India, PBB, Jayanagar, Bengaluru
377. According to the Accused-1 and 2, out of Term Deposit Account No.01292/010641 of State Bank of India, PBB, Jayanagar, Bengaluru, standing in the name of Mr.Abhishek Anand Interest of Rs.32,534/- received during the Check Period. In support of their claim, the Accused-1 and 2 have relied upon the evidence of P.W.2. P.W.2 has deposed about the said contention of the Accused-1 and 2. Contents of Ex.P.13-Statement of Account support the 276 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] claim of the Accused-1 and 2. The Complainant has not taken into account of this Interest Income. There is no explanation from him in this regard. Hence, it is held that Interest of Rs.32,534/- was earned from Term Deposit Account No.01292/010641 of State Bank of India, PBB, Jayanagar, Bengaluru, standing in the name of Mr.Abhishek Anand, during the Check Period.
D.6.10.14: F.D.Accounts Of Karnataka Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd., Basavewshwaranagara, Bengaluru
378. According to the Accused-1 and 2, out of Fixed Deposit Accounts DJJ 528, 529, 1299, 1328, 1329, 1405 and 1406 of Karnataka Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd., Basaveshwaranagara, Bengaluru, Mr.Abhishek Anand earned Interest of Rs.9,463/- during the Check Period and the said amount has been credited to his F.D.Account from 10.11.2001 to 06.04.2005 at the time of renewal of Deposit, which has not been taken into consideration by the Complainant. In support of their claim, the Accused-1 and 2 have relied upon the evidence of P.W.12 and also Ex.P.98. P.W.12 has not stated anything about earning of Interest of Rs.9,463/- by Mr.Abhishek Anand from Fixed Deposits as claimed by the Accused-1 and 2. However, Ex.P.98-Extract of Details of Fixed Deposit, Interest Paid, Maturity Amount etc., issued by Karnataka State Co- operative Apex Bank Limited, as observed above under the Head-'D.6.9.7', shows that all those Deposits are not standing in the name of Mr.Abhishek Anand alone and that 277 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] on the other hand, they are standing in the name of the Accused-1 and 2, Mr.Aravind Anand and Mr.Abhishek Anand and that they all earned Interest of Rs.2,33,037/- in all from those Deposits kept at Karnataka Co-operative Apex Bank Limited during the Check Period. The Accused- 1 and 2 have not placed any other material to show that Mr.Abhishek Anand alone received Interest of Rs.9,463/- separately apart from Interest of Rs.2,33,037/-. As the said Interest Income of Rs.2,33,037/-, which includes Rs.9,463/- claimed by the Accused-1 and 2 under the present Head, has been considered and taken into account already under the Head-'D.6.9.7', it is not necessary to consider the said Income once again under the present Head. Accordingly, the claim of the Accused-1 and 2 under the present Head is rejected.
D.6.10.15: Conclusion
379. In view of the above findings under the Heads- D.6.10.1 to D.6.10.14, it is clear that Interest of Rs.2,67,284/- in all was earned during the Check Period by way of Interest from various Fixed Deposit Accounts standing in the names of the Accused-1 and 2 and their sons, which was credited to Fixed Deposit Accounts.
D.6.11:Interest On Post Office MIS Accounts
380. According to the Accused-1 and 2, from MIS Account No.21197 and MIS Account No.25356, the 278 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Accused-2 earned Interest of Rs.2,375/- each per month from 08.04.2001 to 31.03.2005 i.e., in all Rs.2,28,000/-, which has not been taken into consideration by the Complainant. In support of their claim the Accused-1 and 2 have relied upon the evidence of P.W.14 and Ex.P.103 and Ex.P.106. P.W.14-Sri.S.V.Balasubramanya, the then Public Relation Inspector of Basavanagudi Post Office, Bengaluru, has deposed about earning of Interest of Rs.2,375/- per month by the Accused-2 from 29.03.2001 to 28.05.2005 from 2 MIS Accounts. Contents of Ex.P.103 and Ex.P.106-Statements of Accounts fortify the evidence of P.W.14, which supports the contention of the Accused-1 and 2. The Complainant has not taken into account of this Interest Income of the Accused-2. There is no explanation from him in this regard. Hence, it is held that the Accused-2 earned Interest Income of Rs.2,28,000/- in all from MIS Account No.21197 and MIS Account No.25356 during the Check Period.
D.7: Closure Of Chit Fund Accounts
381. As per Charge Sheet, by closure of Chit Fund Accounts No.KS/3-2 and KM/8-23 in the Balussery Chit Private Limited, Bengaluru, the Accused-1 received Income of Rs.13,752.50 and Rs.10,846/- during the Check Period. At Sl.No.7 and Page-55 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have also admitted the said claim of the Complainant. However, in the Additional Written Arguments filed by the learned Public Prosecutor, at Sl.No.7 and Page-15, it is 279 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] admitted that the Accused-1 received Dividend Income of Rs.23,955/- from Chit Fund Account No.KS/3-2, Rs.15,846/- from Chit Fund Account No.KM/8-23 and Rs.18,750/- from Chit Fund Account No.KS/10-1 during the Check Period. Contents of Ex.P.138 to Ex.P.140- Statements of Accounts in respect of those Chit Fund Accounts produced by P.W.23 fortify the said claim of the Complainant made in the Additional Written Arguments filed by the learned Public Prosecutor. The Accused-1 and 2 have not disputed the said claim made in the Additional Written Arguments. Hence, it is held that by closure of Chit Fund Accounts No.KS/3-2, KM/8-23 and KS/10- 1 in the Baluserry Chit Private Limited, Bengaluru, the Accused-1 earned Dividend Income of Rs.58,551/- during the Check Period.
D.8: Rental Income D.8.1: Rental Income of the Accused-1 From The House Property At Basaveshwara Nagara, Bengaluru
382. According to the Complainant, the Accused-1 received rent of Rs.3,72,000/- from his House No.30, situated at KHB Colony, Basaveshwaranagara, Bengaluru, during the Check Period. In support of his claim, the Complainant has relied upon the evidence of P.W.38 and P.W.55 and also Ex.P.214, Ex.P.214(a) and Ex.P.275.
280 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
383. P.W.38-Sri.A.V.Deshmukh, the then Senior Manager in Karnataka Antibiotics and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., has deposed about payment of rent to the Accused-1 at the rate of Rs.6,500/- per month for the period from 01.01.1999 to 30.06.2001 and at the rate of Rs.8,500/- per month for the period from 01.07.2001 to 28.02.2002. Contents of Lease Agreement-Ex.P.214 and Amended Lease Agreement-Ex.P.214(a) fortify the said evidence of P.W.38, which shows that from 01.01.1999 to 28.02.2002, the Accused-1 received rent of Rs.2,63,000/- from Karnataka Antibiotics and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., in respect of House No.30, situated at KHB Colony, Basaveshwaranagara, Bengaluru.
384. P.W.55-Sri.Rajan Pori, the then Chief Executive Officer of M/s.Bipranil Industries Limited, Bengaluru, has deposed that his Company paid rent of Rs.3,50,000/- to the Accused-1 for the period from 28.06.2002 to 08.04.2005. Contents of Ex.P.275-Lease Agreement and Ex.P.275(a)-Statement of House Rent corroborate the said evidence of P.W.55.
385. The Accused-1 and 2 have not disputed the said evidence of P.W.38 and P.W.55, which is fortified by Ex.P.214, Ex.P.214(a), Ex.P.275 and Ex.P.275(a). As per the said evidence, the Accused-1 received rent of Rs.6,13,000/- in all for the period from 01.01.1999 to 08.04.2005.
281 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
386. But, at Sl.No.8(I) and Pages-55 & 188 to 192 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that rent received by the Accused-1 from the said Property is Rs.7,94,786/- during the Check Period. They have also relied upon the evidence of P.W.38 and P.W.55 as well as Ex.P.214, Ex.P.214(a), Ex.P.275 and Ex.P.275(a) in support of their claim to an extent of Rs.6,13,000/- for the period from 01.01.1999 to 08.04.2005. According to them, for the period from 01.01.1996 to 3.12.1998 and from 01.07.2001 to 27.06.2002, the Accused-1 earned the remaining rent of Rs.1,81,786/- out of Rs.7,94,786/-. In order to substantiate their contention, the Accused-1 and 2 have relied upon Income Tax Returns filed by them. Ex.P.294, Ex.P.295 and Ex.P.296 are the Income Tax Returns pertaining to the Financial Years 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 respectively. As per these documents, the Accused-1 has stated that he received Rs.1,20,000/-, Rs.1,20,000/- and Rs.1,32,000/- as rent in those 3 Financial Years. These 3 documents do not assist the Accused-1 to substantiate his claim of Rs.1,81,786/- for the period from 01.01.1996 to 31.12.1998 and 01.07.2001 to 27.06.2002. They have also relied upon Copies of Income Tax Returns said to have been filed by them for the Assessment Years 1993-94 to 2005-2006, which have been rejected by this Court by an Order dated 07.09.2012 as inadmissible, irrelevant and created to suit their defence at a later stage. As the said documents are rejected already, it is impermissible for the Accused-1 and 282 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] 2 to rely upon those documents now. The Accused-1 and 2 have not given the details of Tenants of that building and rate of rent during the said period. No documents are placed by them to substantiate their claim. Though the Accused-1 and 2 have given their oral evidence, they have not stated in their evidence that the Accused-1 received the said rent of Rs.1,81,786/- during the disputed period. Tenants pertaining to the said disputed period have not come forward to support the claim of the Accused-1. There is nothing on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 to show that there were Tenants in the said building during the disputed period and that they received rent during that period. In the case of State of Bihar -Vs- Lalu Prasad Yadav & Others, referred to above at Paras-36 & 37 of this Judgement, it is held that the claim of Income based on Income Tax Returns alone without any corroboration by legal evidence is not acceptable. In the case on hand also, except relying upon Income Tax Returns, the Accused-1 and 2 have not placed any legal evidence in support of their claim to an extent of Rs.1,81,786/-. Hence, it is not fit to accept the said claim of the Accused-1 and 2.
387. From the above discussion on the available evidence on record, it is clear that the Accused-1 received Rental Income of Rs.6,13,000/- during the Check Period. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 received Rental Income of Rs.6,13,000/- from his House No.30, situated at KHB Colony, Basaveshwaranagara, Bengaluru, during the Check Period.
283 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] D.8.2: Rental Income of the Accused-2 From The House Property At Raheja Park, Magadi Road, Bengaluru
388. According to the Complainant, the Accused-2 received rent of Rs.1,36,000/- from House situated at Raheja Park, Magadi Road, Bengaluru, during the Check Period. In support of his claim, the Complainant has relied upon the evidence of P.W.40 and also Ex.P.219 and Ex.P.220.
389. P.W.40-Sri.Govind Iyengar was the Tenant of that building from 01.03.2001 to November 2003. Ex.P.219 is the Lease Agreement and Ex.P.220 are the Rent Receipts in respect of that tenancy. He has deposed that total rent paid by him to the Accused-2 was Rs.1,93,750/-. The Accused-1 and 2 have not disputed the said evidence of P.W.40. As per this evidence, the rent received by the Accused-2 in respect of that Property was Rs.1,93,750/- and not Rs.1,36,000/- as claimed by the Complainant in the Charge Sheet.
390. But, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended at Sl.No.8(II) and Pages-56 & 193 to 198 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that rent received by the Accused-2 from the said Property is Rs.4,39,465/- during the Check Period. According to the Accused-1 and 2, Maintenance Charges of Rs.700/- per month paid by P.W.40 has to be included in the Rental Income of the Accused-2. There is nothing to show that the Accused-2 284 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] received the said Maintenance Charges from P.W.40. As the said Property is a Flat, Maintenance Charges have to be paid to the Association of Flat owners towards monthly maintenance and it will not go to the owner personally. Hence, the said Maintenance Charges cannot be taken as part of Rental Income to the Accused-2.
391. According to the Accused-1 and 2, the Accused- 2 received rent of Rs.25,365/- in the year 1997-98, Rs.51,600/- in the year 1998-99, Rs.22,500/- in the year 1999-2000, Rs.60,000/- in the year 2000-2001, Rs.66,000/- in the year 2001-2002 and Rs.64,000/- in the year 2004-2005 apart from Rs.1,93,750/- paid by P.W.40. Details of the Tenants and rate of rent during the said period are not given by the Accused-1 and 2. No documents are placed in support of their claim. Though the Accused-1 and 2 have given their evidence, they have not stated about receipt of rent as claimed under this Head. The Tenants relating to the said period have not come forward to give evidence in support of the claim of the Accused-1 and 2. There is nothing on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 to show that there were Tenants in the said building during the disputed period and that they received rent during that period. The Accused-1 and 2 have based their claim on Income Tax Returns. As observed above, the claim of Income based on Income Tax Returns alone without any corroboration by legal evidence is not acceptable. Hence, it is not fit to accept the said claim of the Accused-1 and 2.
285 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
392. From the above discussion on the available evidence on record, it is clear that the Accused-2 received Rental Income of Rs.1,93,750/- during the Check Period. Hence, it is held that the Accused-2 received Rental Income of Rs.1,93,750/- from House situated at Raheja Park, Magadi Road, Bengaluru, during the Check Period.
D.8.3: Rental Income Of The Accused-2 From The House Property At Jayanagara, Bengaluru
393. According to the Complainant, the Accused-2 received rent of Rs.2,28,000/- from the House situated at Shanthi Park, Jayanagara, Bengaluru, during the Check Period. At Sl.No.8(III) & (IV), Pages-56, 193 to 198 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted the said claim of the Complainant by contending that in the years 2003 to 2005, they received Rs.2,28,000/-. Hence, it is held that the Accused-2 received Rental Income of Rs.2,28,000/- from House situated at Shanthi Park, Jayanagara, Bengaluru, during the Check Period.
D.9: Repurchase Of Canbonus Units Of Canbank Mutual Funds
394. Claim of the Complainant that the Accused-1 and 2 received Income of Rs.1,955.04 each i.e., in all Rs.3,910.08 during the Check Period by way of repurchase of 240 Canbonus Units has been admitted at Sl.No.9 and Page-56 of the CSWA by the Accused-1 and 2. Hence, it 286 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] is held that the Accused-1 and 2 received Income of Rs.3,910.08 in all by repurchase of Canbonus Units during the Check Period.
D.10: Dividend/Interest Earned On Bonds/Shares In The Names Of The Accused-1 & 2
395. At Sl.No.10(c), (d), (e), (h), (i), (j), (k), (p),
(s), (t), (u), (v), (w), (x), (y) and (z) of Pages-56 to 58 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted the claim of the Complainant that the Accused-1 and 2 earned Dividend on the Shares, during the Check Period, as under:
Dividend Name of Shares Received (In Rs.) ICICI Shares: 1,125.00 Vijaya Bank: 1,000.00 IOB: 2,040.00 Opto Circuits Ltd.: 7,260.00 KOEL: 61.00 Canfin Homes:
Shares: 9,016.00
Debentures: 562.50
McDowell & Co.Ltd.: 2,900.00
IDBI Ltd.: 15,094.30
TCS Ltd.: 102.00
Tamilnadu Petro Products 1,930.00
Ltd.:
IFCI: 950.00
MTZ (India) Ltd.: 100.00
287 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
Birla Century Finance Co. 100.00
Ltd.:
20th Century Mutual Fund: 240.00
Dhanuseri Tea & Industries 670.00
Limited.:
United Breweries 800.00
Total: 43,950.80
But, the Accused-1 and 2 have disputed the claim of the Complainant so far as Items mentioned at 10(a), (b), (f),
(g), (l), (m), (n), (o), (q) and (r). The said dispute is determined under the following Heads:
D.10.1: Dividend On ICICI Bonds
396. In the Charge Sheet, the Complainant has contended that the Accused-1 and 2 received Dividend of Rs.2,707/- on ICICI Bonds during the Check Period. But, he did not produce any evidence in this regard. In the Written Arguments filed by the learned Public Prosecutor, she has given up the said claim. At Sl.No.10(a) and Page- 56 of the CSWA also, the Accused-1 and 2 have not claimed any amount under this Head. Hence, claim of the Complainant that the Accused-1 and 2 received Dividend/Interest of Rs.2,707/- is rejected.
D.10.2: Dividend On UCO Bank Shares
397. In the Charge Sheet, the Complainant has contended that the Accused-1 and 2 received Dividend of Rs.200/- on UCO Bank Shares during the Check Period.
288 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] P.W.36 has produced Ex.P.203-Letter with Details of Shares and Dividends. Contents of this document show that the Accused-2 held 200 UCO Bank Shares worth Rs.2,400/- and that she received Dividend of Rs.200/- during the Check Period. As such, contents of this document fortify the contention of the Complainant. But, at Sl.No.10(b) and Page-56 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that Dividend received by the Accused-2 on those Shares is Rs.2,400/-. But, no supporting evidence is placed in this regard and to rebut the contents of Ex.P.203. As per Ex.P.203, said amount of Rs.2,400/- is the Share amount paid by the Accused-2 at the time of allotment of those Shares and not the Dividend or Interest paid to her. There is nothing on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 either to substantiate their contention or to rebut the evidence placed by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 received Dividend of Rs.200/- on UCO Bank Shares during the Check Period.
D.10.3: Profit On Purchase/Sale Of Infosys Shares
398. In the Charge Sheet, the Complainant has contended that the Accused-1 and 2 received Rs.209/- on Purchase/Sale of Infosys Shares during the Check Period. But, he did not produce any evidence in this regard. In the Written Arguments filed by the learned Public Prosecutor, she has given up the said claim. At Sl.No.10(f) and Page-56 of the CSWA also, the Accused-1 and 2 have 289 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] not claimed any amount under this Head. Hence, claim of the Complainant that the Accused-1 and 2 received Rs.209/- is rejected.
D.10.4: Dividend On Shares Of Wockhardt Ltd.
399. In the Charge Sheet, the Complainant has contended that the Accused-1 and 2 received Dividend Rs.9,000/- on Shares of Wockhardt Limited during the Check Period. P.W.32-Sri.Vijay R.Khethan, the then Company Secretary and Associate Vice President of Wockhardt Company Limited has deposed that his Company gave Dividend of Rs.7,100/- to the Accused-1 and 2 on the Shares held by them during the period from 2001 to 2004 and that he has given a Letter as per Ex.P.186 to the CBI in this regard. Contents of Ex.P.186 corroborate the said evidence of P.W.32. At Sl.No.10(g) and Page-56 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 also have admitted that Dividend received was Rs.7,100/- only. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 received Dividend of Rs.7,100/- on the Shares of Wockhardt Limited during the Check Period.
D.10.5: Dividend On Canara Bank Shares
400. In the Charge Sheet, the Complainant has contended that the Accused-1 and 2 received Dividend of Rs.22,000/- on Canara Bank Shares during the Check Period. P.W.36 has produced Ex.P.204-Letter Dated 03.10.2005 from Karvy Private Limited regarding 290 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Investment on Canara Bank Shares by the Accused-2 in her name and in the name of her children and also Ex.P.205-Dividend Warrant Dated 21.02.2005. Contents of these documents show that the Accused-2 received Dividend of Rs.22,000/- from 2002-2003 to 2004-2005 as on 06.04.2005. Dividend of Rs.5,000/- shown in Ex.P.205 has been taken into account in Ex.P.204. As such, contents of these documents fortify the contention of the Complainant. But, at Sl.No.10(l) and Page-57 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that Dividend received by the Accused-2 on those Shares is Rs.28,000/- + Rs.5,000/- i.e., Rs.33,000/- in all. But, no supporting evidence is placed in this regard and to rebut the contents of Ex.P.204 and Ex.P.205. Though the Accused-2 gave her evidence as D.W.8, she has not stated that she received Dividend of Rs.33,000/- as claimed. There is nothing on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 either to substantiate their contention or to rebut the evidence placed by the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-2 received Dividend of Rs.22,000/- on Canara Bank Shares during the Check Period.
D.10.6: Dividend On BOM
401. In the Charge Sheet, the Complainant has contended that the Accused-1 and 2 received Dividend of Rs.320/- on BOM Shares during the Check Period. But, he did not produce any evidence in this regard. In the Written Arguments filed by the learned Public Prosecutor, she has 291 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] given up the said claim. At Sl.No.10(m) and Page-57 of the CSWA also, the Accused-1 and 2 have not claimed any amount under this Head. Hence, claim of the Complainant that the Accused-1 and 2 received Dividend/Interest of Rs.320/- is rejected.
D.10.7: Dividend On HUDCO Shares
402. In the Charge Sheet, the Complainant has contended that the Accused-1 and 2 received Dividend of Rs.8,250/- on HUDCO Shares during the Check Period. But, at Sl.No.10(n) and Page-57 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that Dividend received by the Accused-1 on those Shares is Rs.9,600/-. In the Written Arguments filed by the learned Public Prosecutor, the said fact has been admitted. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 received Dividend of Rs.9,600/- on HUDCO Shares during the Check Period.
D.10.8: Dividend On BPL Engineering Company Limited Shares
403. In the Charge Sheet, the Complainant has contended that the Accused-1 and 2 received Dividend of Rs.400/- on BPL Engineering Company Limited Shares during the Check Period. P.W.36 has produced Ex.P.206- Dividend Warrants Dated 10.11.1999 and 10.11.2000, which show that the Accused-1 and 2 received Dividend of Rs.200/- from BPL Engineering Company Limited during the Check Period. But, there is nothing to show that the 292 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Accused-1 and 2 have received Dividend of Rs.400/-, as contended by the Complainant. At Sl.No.10(o) and Page- 57 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that Dividend received by the Accused-2 on those Shares is Rs.100/-. But, as observed above, Ex.P.206 shows that the Accused-1 and 2 received Dividend of Rs.200/- during the Check Period. There is no reason to disbelieve the contents of Ex.P.206. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 received Dividend of Rs.200/- on BPL Engineering Company Ltd., Shares during the Check Period.
D.10.9: Dividend On State Bank Of India Shares
404. In the Charge Sheet, the Complainant has contended that the Accused-1 and 2 received Dividend of Rs.4,325/- on State Bank of India Shares during the Check Period. But, he did not produce any evidence in this regard. In the Written Arguments filed by the learned Public Prosecutor, she has given up the said claim. At Sl.No.10(q) and Page-57 of the CSWA also, the Accused-1 and 2 have not claimed any amount under this Head. Hence, claim of the Complainant that the Accused-1 and 2 received Dividend/Interest of Rs.4,325/- is rejected.
D.10.10: Dividend On M/s.Cerebra Integrated Technologies Limited Shares
405. In the Charge Sheet, the Complainant has contended that the Accused-1 and 2 received Dividend of 293 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Rs.3,000/- on M/s.Cerebra Integrated Technologies Limited Shares during the Check Period. P.W.36 has produced Ex.P.201-Share Certificates, which show that the Accused-2 purchased 1,000 Shares of Cerebra Integrated Technologies Limited worth Rs.10,000/- in all on 04.08.2000. He has not stated anything about payment of Dividend on those Shares to the Accused-1 and 2. Contents of Ex.P.201 also do not show anything about payment of Dividend. There is nothing to show that the Accused-1 and 2 received any such Dividend as claimed by the Complainant. In the Written Arguments filed by the learned Public Prosecutor and at Sl.No.10(r) and Page-57 of the CSWA of the Accused-1 and 2, it is contended that the Accused-2 received Dividend of Rs.10,000/- from those Shares. They have relied upon the evidence of P.W.36 and Ex.P.201. But, the said evidence do not show anything about payment of Dividend. On the other hand, the said evidence shows that the said value of Rs.10,000/- referred to in the Written Arguments is the value of Shares purchased by the Accused-2. Hence, the claim of both the parites under the present Head is rejected.
D.10.11: Conclusion
406. In view of the above findings, it is clear that the Accused-1 and 2 received Dividend/Interest of Rs.87,375.80 (Rs.43,950.80 + Rs.200/- + Rs.7,100/- + Rs.22,000/- + Rs.9,600/- + Rs.200/- + Rs.4,325/-) from Shares/Bonds during the Check Period.
294 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] D.11: Final Settlements Paid By Canara Bank To The Accused-2 At The Time Of Taking VRS
407. Claim of the Complainant that at the time of taking VRS, Canara Bank paid PF amount of Rs.2,67,100.64, Gratuity of Rs.1,55,922.09, Leave Encashment of Rs.31,846.51 and Ex-Gratia amount of Rs.5,19,213.92 i.e., in all Rs.9,74,083.16 during the Check Period is well supported by the evidence of P.W.39 and contents of Ex.P.216, Ex.P.217 and Ex.P.218. At Sl.No.11 and Page-58 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have also admitted the said claim. Hence, it is held that the Accused-2 received Rs.9,74,083.16 as VRS Benefit from the Canara Bank during the Check Period.
D.12: UTI Bonds/Units/ULIP In The Names Of The Accused-1 & 2
408. Claim of the Complainant that the Accused-1 and 2 received Dividend/Interest of Rs.22,563.17 from Unit-64, Redemtion amount of Rs.13,075/- from MEP- 1991, Dividend/Interest of Rs.10,698.10 from MEP-1993, Dividend/Interest of Rs.13,000/- from MEP-1993 and Maturity amount of Rs.95,397.11 from ULIP during the Check Period is well supported by the evidence of P.W.50 and contents of Ex.P.262 to Ex.P.269. At Sl.No.12 and Pages-58 and 59 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have also admitted the said claim. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 received Dividend/Interest, 295 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Redemtion and Maturity amount of Rs.1,54,733.38 in all during the Check Period.
D.13: Interest Free Advance Received On House Property At Basaveshwaranagar, Bengaluru
409. Claim of the Complainant that the Accused-1 received Interest Free Advance of Rs.1,00,000/- on House Property at Basaveshwaranagar, Bengaluru, during the Check Period is well supported by the evidence of P.W.55 and contents of Ex.P.275. At Sl.No.13 and Page-59 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have also admitted the said claim. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 received Interest Free Advance of Rs.1,00,000/-, during the Check Period.
D.14: Sale Of Old Jewellery
410. Claim of the Complainant that the Accused-2 received Rs.2,88,975/- through sale of Old Jewellery during the Check Period is evident from the evidence of P.W.41 and Ex.P.223 to Ex.P.226. At Page-76 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have also admitted the said fact. According to the Accused-1 and 2, apart from the said amount of Rs.2,88,975/-, the Accused-2 got Rs.16,275/- on 20.08.2003, Rs.16,287/- on 31.07.2004 and Rs.13,227/- on 09.10.2004 i.e., in all Rs.45,789/- through sale of Old Jewellery to M/s.C.Krishnaiah Chetty & Sons. Contents of Ex.P.340-Bills issued by M/s.C.Krishnaiah 296 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Chetty & Sons support the said contention of the Accused-1 and 2. There is no reason to disbelieve Ex.P.340, which is seized and produced by P.W.91-the Investigation Officer. But, the Complainant has not taken the said Income into consideration. There is no explanation from the Complainant in this regard. As such, it is necessary to take the said amount of Rs.45,789/- also as Income during the Check Period. Hence, it is held that the Accused-2 received Income of Rs.3,34,764/- by sale of Old Jewellery, during the Check Period.
D.15: Sitting Fees Paid By Stock Exchanges To The Accused-1
411. Claim of the Complainant that the Accused-1 received Rs.1,53,800/- towards Sitting Fees from Stock Exchanges during the Check Period is evident from the evidence of P.W.42, P.W.43 and Ex.P.227 & Ex.P.228. At Sl.No.15 and Page-59 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have also admitted the said fact. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 received Income of Rs.1,53,800/- towards Sitting Fees from Stock Exchanges, during the Check Period.
D.16: Car Loan Taken from Kotak Mahindra Primus Limited, Bengaluru
412. Claim of the Complainant that the Accused-2 took Car Loan of Rs.2,50,000/- from Kotak Mahindra Primus Limited during the Check Period is evident from Ex.P.354-Letter containing Details of Car Loan seized and 297 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] produced by P.W.91. At Sl.No.16 and Page-59 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have also admitted the said fact. Hence, it is held that the Accused-2 received Car Loan of Rs.2,50,000/- from Kotak Mahindra Primus Limited, during the Check Period.
D.17: Educational Loan Availed From The Rajajinagar Co-operative Bank Ltd., Basaveshwaranagara, Bengaluru
413. So far as the claim of the Complainant that the Accused-1 availed Educational Loan of Rs.15,000/- from Rajajinagara Co-operative Bank Ltd, Basaveshwaranagara, Bengaluru during the Check Period, he has relied upon the evidence of P.W.26 and Ex.P.150. P.W.26-Sri.M.Jayaram, the then General Manager of the said Bank has identified Ex.P.150 as the Statement of Loan Account No.LNED-1260 availed by the Accused-1 and he has stated that the said Loan Account was closed on 12.06.2002. P.W.26 has also stated that outstanding balance in that Account was Rs.10,171/- as on 01.04.2001. Ex.P.150 shows the transactions from 28.12.1999 to 12.06.2002. Though this document does not show clearly that the Loan Amount was Rs.15,000/-, this document shows that Loan Balance was Rs.13,601/- as on 28.12.1999 after payment of Rs.1,570/- on that day by the Accused-1. On considering this transaction and also the undisturbed evidence of P.W.26 and Ex.P.150, it can be inferred that the amount borrowed by the Accused-1 was Rs.15,000/-. The Accused-1 and 2 have not disputed the evidence of P.W.26 and Ex.P.150.
298 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] However, in his evidence, D.W.4 has stated that he did not avail any such Loan. But, he has not placed any acceptable evidence to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.26 and contents of Ex.P.150. As such, it is not safe to accept the bare statement of D.W.4 i.e., the Accused-1 that he did not avail any such Loan. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 availed Educational Loan of Rs.15,000/- from Rajajinagara Co-operative Bank Ltd, Basaveshwaranagara, Bengaluru, during the Check Period.
D.18: Refund Of Income Tax
414. The Accused-1 and 2 have claimed that the Accused-1 received Refund of Income Tax of Rs.8,598/- on 05.09.2004, which has not been taken into consideration by the Complainant. Ex.P.295-Income Tax Returns File produced by P.W.72 contains Advice of Refund of Income Tax of Rs.8,598/- issued by the Income Tax Officer to the Accused-1 on 06.09.2004. As such, this document supports the claim of the Accused-1 and 2. The Complainant has not considered the said receipt of Income of the Accused-1. There is no explanation from him in this regard. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 received Refund of Income Tax of Rs.8,598/-, during the Check Period.
D.19: Withdrawal From Staff Welfare Fund
415. The Accused-1 and 2 have claimed that the Accused-2 has withdrawn Rs.23,000/- on 02.03.1999 and 299 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Rs.6,963/- on 24.03.2001 i.e., in all Rs.23,963/- from Staff Welfare Fund, which has been credited to her S.B.Account No.000916217 with Canara Bank, Trinity Circle, Bengaluru and that the same has not been taken into consideration by the Complainant. Contents of Ex.P.117-Statement of S.B.Account No.000916217 fortify the said claim of the Accused-1 and 2. There is no reason to disbelieve the said claim of the Accused-1 and 2. The Complainant has not considered the said receipt of Income of the Accused-2. There is no explanation from him in this regard. Hence, it is held that the Accused-2 received Rs.23,963/- from Staff Welfare Fund, during the Check Period.
D.20: Withdrawal From PPF Account No.736
416. The Accused-1 and 2 have claimed that the Accused-2 has withdrawn Rs.97,000/- on 26.08.2003 from her PPF Account No.736 and that the same has not been taken into consideration by the Complainant. Contents of Ex.P.8-Pass Book of PPF Account No.736 fortify the said claim of the Accused-1 and 2. There is no reason to disbelieve the said claim of the Accused-1 and 2. The Complainant has not considered the said receipt of Income of the Accused-2. There is no explanation from him in this regard. Hence, it is held that the Accused-2 received Rs.97,000/- from her PPF Account No.736, during the Check Period.
300 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] D.21: Rent Deposit From Sri.K.Madhavan
417. At Sl.No.21 and Page-60 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have claimed that the Accused-2 has received Rent Deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- from Sri.K.Madhavan on 12.12.2003 as per Ex.P.335-Rent Agreement and that the same has not been taken into consideration by the Complainant. Contents of Ex.P.335 show that Sri.K.Madhavan paid Refundable Advance of Rs.1,00,000/- on 12.12.2003 to the Accused-2 in respect of Lease of Shanthi Park Apartment. The said Lease was for a maximum period of 11 months from 15.12.2003 i.e., that Lease expired on 15.12.2004. As per Ex.P.335, the Accused-2 had to refund the said Advance of Rs.1,00,000/- to Sri.K.Madhavan on the termination of Tenancy. There is nothing on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 to show that the said Tenancy continued even after 15.12.2004 and that the Accused-2 possessed the said Advance of Rs.1,00,000/- with her. As such, it has to be inferred that the Accused-2 has refunded the said Advance of Rs.1,00,000/- to Sri.K.Madhavan on or before 15.12.2004, which falls under the Head of Expenditure during the Check Period. The Accused-1 and 2 have not shown the said refund under the Expenditure Head. The Complainant has not shown the said amount in the Income Head and Expenditure Head. As such, it is not necessary to consider the said amount under the present Head. Hence, claim of the Accused-1 and 2 under the present Head is rejected.
301 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] D.22: Cash Gifts Received On The Occasion Of Marriage Anniversary
418. At Sl.No.22 and Page-61 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have claimed that the Accused-1 has received Cash Gifts at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per annum for 9 years i.e., Rs.63,000/- in all on the occasion of marriage anniversary during the Check Period. Details of the said Gifts and the persons, who made such gifts, are not furnished by the Accused-1 and 2. It is also not explained as to what is the basis for stating that Gift of exactly Rs.7,000/- per annum was received by the Accused-1. It is not their contention that they have made any note in this regard. In their evidence given as D.W.4 and D.W.8 also, the Accused-1 and 2 have not stated that the Accused-1 received such Gifts at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per annum during the Check Period. The Accused-1 and 2 want to take shelter under the Rules about exemption of reporting Gifts upto Rs.7,000/-. Though there is such exemption from reporting about such Gifts, there is nothing on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 to show that the Accused-1 actually received Gifts as contended by them. Furthermore, giving of Presentations, Gifts etc., in the functions is not only tradition and custom, but also culture. It is true that it is difficult to expect documentary proof for such Gifts, Presentations etc. However, giving of Presentations, Gifts etc., is not one sided. If any person receives Presentations or Gifts from any other person, normally he will also make Presentations or Gifts to the 302 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] same extent or even more to that person, who makes Gift or Presentation, at the time of giving Gift itself or in the functions relating to that person. Though the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the Accused-1 has received Gifts on several occasions, they have not whispered anything about Presentations and Gifts from their side to others. It is not their contention that they have not made any such Presentations or Gifts during the Check Period. As such, it has to be inferred that if at all the Accused-1 had received any Gifts or Presentations, he has also made such Gifts or Presentations to the persons, who have made Gifts or Presentations to him. Even the Accused-1 and 2 have not whispered anything about the expenditure incurred by them to celebrate those marriage anniversaries. Having regard to all these facts and circumstances and in the absence of reliable material on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 about Gifts and in the absence of any contention about Presentations and Gifts on their behalf to others and also about the expenditure incurred for celebrating the said anniversaries, it is not possible to accept the bare contention of the Accused-1 and 2 that the Accused-1 received Income of Rs.63,000/- as Gift during the Check Period. Hence, the claim of the Accused-1 and 2 that the Accused-1 received Gift of Rs.63,000/- during the Check Period is rejected.
D.23: Cash Gifts Received On The Occasion Of Birthday Celebrations
419. At Sl.No.23 and Page-62 of the CSWA, the 303 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Accused-1 and 2 have claimed that the Accused-1 has received Cash Gifts at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per annum for 9 years i.e., Rs.13,500/- in all on the occasion of birthday celebrations during the Check Period. Details of the said Gifts and the persons, who made such gifts, are not furnished by the Accused-1 and 2. It is also not explained as to what is the basis for stating that Gift of exactly Rs.1,500/- per annum was received by the Accused-1. It is not his contention that he has made any note in this regard. In their evidence given as D.W.4 and D.W.8 also, the Accused-1 and 2 have not stated that the Accused-1 received such Gifts at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per annum during the Check Period. The Accused-1 and 2 want to take shelter under the Rules about exemption of reporting Gifts upto Rs.7,000/-. It is true that there is such exemption from reporting about such Gifts. But, there is nothing on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 to show that the Accused-1 actually received Gifts as contended by them. Furthermore, as observed above, giving of Presentations, Gifts etc., in the functions is not only tradition and custom, but also culture, and giving of Presentations, Gifts etc., is not one sided. Though the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the Accused-1 has received Gifts on several occasions, they have not whispered anything about Presentations and Gifts from their side to others. It is not their contention that they have not made any such Presentations or Gifts during the Check Period. As such, it has to be inferred that if at all the Accused-1 had received 304 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] any Gifts or Presentations, he has also made such Gifts or Presentations to the persons, who have made Gifts or Presentations to him. Even the Accused-1 and 2 have not whispered anything about the expenditure incurred by them to celebrate those birthday functions. Having regard to all these facts and circumstances and in the absence of reliable material on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 about Gifts and in the absence of any contention about Presentations and Gifts on their behalf to others and also about the expenditure incurred for celebrating the said birthday functions, it is not possible to accept the bare contention of the Accused-1 and 2 that the Accused-1 received Income of Rs.13,500/- as Gift during the Check Period. Hence, the claim of the Accused-1 and 2 that the Accused-1 received Gift of Rs.13,500/- during the Check Period is rejected.
D.24: Gifts From Parents & Paternal Uncle
420. At Sl.No.24 and Page-62 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have claimed that the Accused-2 received lumpsum amount of Rs.2,50,000/- as Gift from her parents and Paternal Uncle during the Check Period. In support of this contention, they have relied upon the evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.8.
421. D.W.1 is the father of the Accused-2 and father-in-law of the Accused-1. He has deposed that, he had his elder brother-Sri.H.M.Narasimhamurthy, who died 305 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] on 1990. But, Ex.D.1-Death Certificate shows that Sri.H.M.Narasimhamurthy died on 29.08.1999. As such, Ex.D.1 runs contrary to the evidence of D.W.1, which makes it difficult to accept the evidence of D.W.1.
422. D.W.1 has deposed that his family had 30 acres of Wet Land and that they were growing Paddy, Ragi, Sugar Cane and Potato and that he was earning Rs.60,000/- per month from those Lands. But, no supporing evidence is placed to show the said Income. None of those crops stated by D.W.1 is a monthly yielding crop. As such, the said evidence of D.W.1 that he was earning Rs.60,000/- per month is not fit to be accepted.
423. Though D.W.1 did not produce any documents relating to properties, while giving evidence on 28.02.2012, he produced Ex.D.11-Record of Rights, Ex.D.12-Mutation Register Extract and Ex.D.13-RTC Extract on 25.07.2012 after the learned Public Prosecutor Cross-examined him by questioning seriously about the properties. No doubt Ex.D.11 to Ex.D.13 indicate that the family of D.W.1 possessed some Lands, though not 30 acres of Wet Land as stated by D.W.1. However, these documents do not show growing of crops as stated by D.W.1.
424. In his Cross-examination, D.W.1 has stated that his family was depending upon rainfall for growing crops and that cultivation expenses were equal to the 306 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Income. As the Lands of the family of D.W.1 were dependant on rainfall only and as the cultivation expenses were equal to the Income from those Lands, the evidence of D.W.1 that he was earning Rs.60,000/- per month from those Lands cannot be believed at any stretch of imagination. His answer that he is residing at Mysuru with his senior uncle's daughter as his sons are not taking care of him indicates that he has no Income as stated by him and that as such, he has taken shelter for his livelihood under his senior uncle's daughter. This circumstance also negatives his evidence about his Income.
425. D.W.1 has not stated that he, his wife and his brother gifted Rs.2,50,000/- to the Accused-2 as contended by the Accused-1 and 2. But, he has stated that his elder brother was giving Cash and Ornaments to the Accused-2. He has not given the details of the said Cash and Ornaments given by his elder brother. He has also not stated as to when actually his elder brother gave the said Cash and Ornaments to the Accused-2. The Accused-1 and 2 have not stated about giving of Ornaments by the elder brother of D.W.1. There is no supporting evidence about the said Gift of Cash and Ornaments to the Accused-2 by the elder brother of D.W.1. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to believe the evidence of D.W.1.
426. D.W.1 has stated that his wife also used to give Cash and Ornaments to the Accused-2. But, he has not 307 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] stated the details in this regard. There is no supporting evidence also in this regard. In the absence of such evidence, it is not safe to rely upon the bare Statement of D.W.1.
427. D.W.1 has stated that he was paying Rs.20,000/- per year to the Accused-2 on the occasion of birthday and festivals. But, it is not the evidence of D.W.8. There is no supporting evidence to the evidence of D.W.1. As observed above, his evidence regarding his Income is not acceptable. Under these circumstances and in the absence of his specific evidence that he, his wife and his elder brother gave Rs.2,50,000/- to the Accused-2 as Gift, the evidence of D.W.1 is of no assistance to the Accused-1 and 2 to prove the said Gift of Rs.2,50,000/-.
428. D.W.8 has deposed that her parents and paternal uncle have gifted Rs.2,50,000/-, which was invested in F.D.Account relating to Ex.P.26. It is not stated by her as to when actually the said Gift was made. It is also not stated by her as to what was the contribution of her parents and her paternal uncle in the said Gift. Ex.P.26 indicates that Deposit of Rs.2,50,000/- was made on 25.01.2004 in the name of the Accused-1 and 2. It does not show that the said Deposit was made out of Gifts made by parents and paternal uncle of the Accused-2. It is not the evidence of D.W.1 that such a Gift was made in the month of January 2004. As observed above, according to D.W.1, his elder brother died in the year 1990. But, as 308 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] per Ex.D.1, he died in the year 1999. As such, question of making Gift by the elder brother of D.W.1 in the year 2004 does not arise. D.W.1 has stated that about 10-15 years back, prior to 27.12.2012, he sold his Lands. As per this evidence, D.W.1 has sold his Lands somewhere in the year 1997 or 2002. There is nothing to show that he had retained Sale Proceeds with him till January 2004. As such, it is not possible to accept at any stretch of imagination that D.W.1 paid money to the Accused-2 in the month of January 2004.
429. Rule 13(1) and Rule 13(2) of the Rules read as under:
"13(1): Save as otherwise provided in these rules, no Government Servant shall accept, or permit any member of his family or any other person acting on his behalf to accept any gift.
13(2): On occasions such as weddings, anniversaries, funerals or religious functions, when the making of gift is in conformity with the prevailing religious and social practice, a Government Servant may accept gifts from his near relatives or from his personal friends having no official dealings with him, but shall make 309 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] a report to the Government, if the value of such gift exceeds-
i. Rupees seven thousand in the case of a Government servant holding any Group 'A' post."
As per Rule-13(1) of the Rules, the Government Servant is prohibited from accepting any Gift from any person. As per that Rule, he shall also not permit any member of his family or any other person acting on his behalf to accept Gift. However, as per Rule-13(2) of the Rules, it is permissible for the Government Servant to accept Gifts from near relatives or from his personal friends having no official dealings with him on occasions, such as Weddings, Anniversaries, Funerals or Religious Functions and when making of the Gift is in conformity with the prevailing religious and social practices. But, he shall make a Report to the Government about that Gift, if the value of that Gift exceeds Rs.7,000/- in respect of a Government Servant holding Group 'A' post. As the Accused-1 is a Government servant holding Group 'A' post, this Rule is applicable to him.
430. As per the contention of the Accused-1 and 2, the Accused-2 has received Gift of Rs.2,50,000/- from her parents and her paternal uncle. As the said amount exceeds Rs.7,000/-, it is mandatory on the part of the Accused-1 to report the same to the Government, if at all the Accused-2 had received such amount. But, there is nothing to show that the Accused-1 has reported about the 310 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] said Gift received by the Accused-2, who is his family member.
431. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 has contended that, in view of the Clarification issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs on 28.08.1959, it is not necessary to report the transactions made by the spouse or any other member of the family of the Government Servant out of his or her own funds including Stridhana, Gifts, Inheritance etc., and that as such, Gifts received by the Accused-2 and her children are not reportable. The said Clarification, relied upon by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2, is given in respect of Rule-18 of the Rules, which deals with reporting of acquisition and disposal of movable and immovable properties by the Government Servant and his family members. The said clarification reads as under:
"Transactions entered into by the spouse or any other member of family of a Government servant out of his or her own funds (including stridhan, Gifts, inheritance, etc.), as distinct from the funds of the Government servant himself, in his or her own name and in his or her own right, would not attract the provisions of sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule
18."
As per the said clarification, only 'transactions' entered into by the spouse or any other member of the family of the Government Servant that too out of the funds of Stridhana, Gifts and Inheritance etc., of that spouse are 311 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] not reportable under Rules-18(2) and (3) of the Rules. This Clarification does not exempt them from reporting the Gifts received by the spouse or any other member of the family of the Government Servant as per Rule-13 of the Rules. As such, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the learned Advocate for the Accused-1 and 2 that Gifts made to the Accused-2 and her children are exempted from reporting to the Prescribed Authority.
432. Ex.P.257 is the Statement given by the Accused-1 to the Complainant during Investigation regarding Financial Investments of himself and his family members. In this Statement also, the Accused-1 has not stated about the said Gift to the Accused-2. This Statement runs contrary to the evidence of D.W.8 that the Gift of Rs.2,50,000/- made by her parents and paternal uncle has been invested in F.D. This circumstance also goes against the Accused-1 and 2. There is no other evidence on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 regarding the said Gift.
433. For all the above reasons, it is clear that the probabilities are not at all in favour of the Accused-1 and 2 to believe that the Accused-2 received Gift of Rs.2,50,000/- from her parents and paternal uncle as contended by them. Hence, the claim of the Accused-1 and 2 about Gift of Rs.2,50,000/- to the Accused-2 by her parents and paternal uncle during the Check Period is rejected.
312 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] D.25: Gifts From Parents & Paternal Uncle On The Occasion of Birthday and Festivals
434. At Sl.No.25 and Page-63 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have claimed that the Accused-2 received Rs.2,00,000/- as Gift from her parents and Paternal Uncle on the occasion of birthday and festivals during the Check Period. In support of this contention, they have relied upon the evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.8.
435. D.W.1 has not stated that he, his wife and his brother gifted Rs.2,00,000/- to the Accused-2 on the occasion of birthday and festivals as contended by the Accused-1 and 2. Though he has stated that his elder brother was giving Cash and Ornaments to the Accused-2, he has not stated that he was giving the said Cash on the occasion of birthday and festivals. He has not given the details of the said Cash and Ornaments given by his elder brother. He has also not stated as to when actually his elder brother gave the said Cash and Ornaments to the Accused-2. There is no supporting evidence about the said Gift of Cash and Ornaments to the Accused-2 by the elder brother of D.W.1. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to believe the evidence of D.W.1.
436. Though D.W.1 has stated that his wife was also used to give Cash and Ornaments to the Accused-2, he has not stated that the said Cash was given on the occasion of birthday and festivals as contended by the 313 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Accused-1 and 2. There is no supporting evidence also about giving of Cash by the mother of the Accused-2 to the Accused-2. In the absence of such evidence, it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of D.W.1.
437. No doubt, D.W.1 has stated that he was paying Rs.20,000/- per year to the Accused-2 on the occasion of birthday and festivals. But, it is not the evidence of D.W.8. There is no supporting evidence to the evidence of D.W.1. As observed above, his evidence regarding his Income is not acceptable. Under these circumstances and in the absence of his specific evidence that he, his wife and his elder brother gave Rs.2,00,000/- to the Accused-2 as Gift, the evidence of D.W.1 is of no assistance to the Accused-1 and 2 to prove the said Gift of Rs.2,00,000/-.
438. D.W.8 has not stated that her parents and paternal uncle have gifted Rs.2,00,000/- to her on the occasion of birthday and festivals. As per the contention of the Accused-1 and 2 and the evidence of D.W.1, the Accused-2 has received Gift of Rs.20,000/- per annum from D.W.1 apart from Cash and Gold Ornaments from her mother and her paternal uncle. As the said amount exceeds Rs.7,000/-, it is mandatory on the part of the Accused-1 to report the same to the Government, if at all the Accused-2 had received such amount. But, there is nothing to show that the Accused-1 has reported about the said Gift received by the Accused-2, who is his family member. Even in Ex.P.257, the Accused-1 has not stated 314 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] about the said Gift to the Accused-2. These circumstances also go against the Accused-1 and 2. There is no other evidence on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 regarding the said Gift.
439. For all the above reasons, it is clear that the probabilities are not in favour of the Accused-1 and 2 to believe that the Accused-2 received Gift of Rs.2,00,000/- from her parents and paternal uncle as contended by them. Hence, the claim of the Accused-1 and 2 about Gift of Rs.2,00,000/- to the Accused-2 by her parents and paternal uncle during the Check Period is rejected.
D.26: Income From Tuition & Counselling
440. At Sl.No.26 and Page-63 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have claimed that the Accused-2 received Income of Rs.50,000/- from Tuition and Counselling during the Check Period. But, details of the said Income are not given by them. However, in support of their contention, they have relied upon the evidence of D.W.8. In her evidence, except stating that F.D. of Rs.50,000/- relating to Ex.P.71 was from the earning of Tuition and Counselling, D.W.8 has not stated any other details in this regard. She has not stated as to when, where and to whom she was giving Tuition and making Counselling. Ex.P.71 does not in any way assist the Accused-1 and 2 to show that the F.D. amount relating to that document was out of Tuition and Counselling Income of the Accused-2.
315 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] In Ex.P.257 also, the Accused-1 has not stated about the Fixed Deposit made out of the Tuition and Counselling Income of the Accused-2. There is no other evidence on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2. For all these reasons, it is clear that the probabilities are not at all in favour of the Accused-1 and 2 to believe that the Accused-2 earned any Income from Tuition and Counselling as contended by them. Hence, the claim of the Accused-1 and 2 about earning Income of Rs.50,000/- by the Accused-2 through Tuition and Counselling during the Check Period is rejected.
D.27: Income From Tuition Fees
441. At Sl.No.27 and Page-63 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have claimed that their son-Mr.Aravind Anand received Income of Rs.10,000/- per annum i.e., in all Rs.80,000/- from Tuition during the period from 1996 to 2003. In support of their contention, they have relied upon the evidence of D.W.3-Mr.Aravind Anand. In his evidence, D.W.3 has stated that he was born in the month of August 1982 and that he has done BBM Course in the year 2003. Ex.D.9-Copy of Degree Certificate shows that D.W.3 obtained 2nd Class Bachelor Degree in Business Management in the month of April 2003. He has further deposed that prior to finishing his 10th Standard, he started earning by giving Tuition to the middle school students in English and Mathematics Subjects till 2003 and that he was earning Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12,000/- per annum 316 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] from that Tuition. If the said contention of the Accused-1 and 2 and the evidence of D.W.3 is considered, it indicates that D.W.3 started to give Tuitions to the students from his 8th Standard itself. D.W.3 was studying in Kendriya Vidyalaya, which taughts syllabus as per CBSE and the said syllabus is altogether different and difficult compared to teaching in other Schools. Kendriya Vidyalaya conducts frequent tests and semester exams apart from other activities. As such, students will not get any time to do any other work including giving Tuitions. As D.W.3 has obtained only a 2nd Class Degree, it appears that he was not so good enough in his educational career. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to accept his evidence that he started to give Tuitions, while he was studying in 8th Standard itself. None among the students, to whom D.W.3 said to have given Tuitions, has come forward to support the version of D.W.3. If at all D.W.3 was earning as contended by him and the Accused-1 and 2, the Accused-1 ought to have reported about the said Income to the Government. But, he has not done so. According to D.W.3, he has invested the said Tuition Income in S.B. and F.D.Accounts. Though the Accused-1 has stated in Ex.P.257 about the said investment, he has not stated that D.W.3 made such investment out of Income received by him through Tuition Fees. This circumstance goes against the contention of the Accused-1 and 2 and the evidence of D.W.3. For all these reasons, it is clear that the probabilities are not at all in favour of the Accused-1 and 2 317 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] to believe that Mr.Aravind Anand earned Income of Rs.80,000/- from Tuition Fees as contended by them. Hence, the claim of the Accused-1 and 2 about earning Income of Rs.80,000/- by their son- Mr.Aravind Anand through Tuition during the Check Period is rejected.
D.28: Earnings From C.A. Firm
442. At Sl.No.28 and Page-63 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that their son-Mr.Aravind Anand earned Rs.1,50,000/- from C.A. Firm during the Check Period. But, they have not given details of the said Income. However, in support of their contention, they have relied upon the evidence of D.W.3. In his evidence, D.W.3 has stated that during final year of his Graduation, he was assisting the Auditing and C.A. Companies and that he was getting some Income and that after completion of Graduation, he joined K.Pani Associates, Chartered Accountants Company and that from Auditing, he has earned about Rs.2,50,000/-. He has produced Ex.D.10 in support of his contention. Ex.D.10 is a Copy certified by Notary said to have been issued by Pani & Associates, wherein it is stated that D.W.3 worked in that Company from April 2003 to May 2004 on a salary of Rs.9,500/- per month. Original of this document is not produced. There is no explanation in this regard. This document does not show that D.W.3 earned Rs.2,50,000/- from Auditing as stated by him or Rs.1,50,000/- as contended by the 318 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Accused-1 and 2. D.W.3 has not stated that he received salary of Rs.9,500/- per month as stated in Ex.D.10. It is not the evidence of D.W.3 that he earned Rs.1,50,000/- from C.A. Firm as contended by the Accused-1 and 2. All these material discrepancies create a serious doubt in the evidence of D.W.3, Ex.D.10 and the contention of the Accused-1 and 2. The best person to speak about Ex.D.10 and the Income if any of D.W.3 is a proper person from Pani & Associates. But, none from the said Firm has come forward to support the version of D.W.3 and the contention of the Accused-1 and 2. In the absence of such evidence from said Firm and in view of the material discrepancies in the evidence of D.W.3, it is not safe to rely upon his evidence. As per Rule-4 of the Rules, if at all D.W.3 had accepted any employment in any Company or Firm, it is mandatory on the part of the Accused-1 to intimate the same to the Prescribed Authority apart from intimating as to whether he has or has had any official dealing with the said Company or Firm. But, he has not done so. This circumstance also goes against the Accused-1 and 2. For all these reasons, it is clear that the probabilities are not at all in favour of the Accused-1 and 2 to believe that Mr.Aravind Anand earned Income of Rs.1,50,000/- from C.A. Firm as contended by them. Hence, the claim of the Accused-1 and 2 about earning Income of Rs.1,50,000/- by their son-Mr.Aravind Anand from C.A. Firm during the Check Period is rejected.
319 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] D.29: Gift From Smt.Ramamani
443. At Sl.No.29 and Page-63 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have claimed that their son-Mr.Aravind Anand received Gift of Rs.1,00,000/- from his grand mother-Smt.Ramamani during the Check Period. D.W.3 has stated that in the year 2001, his paternal grand mother was ailing, she was distributing Gold Articles to her grand children and that as he refused to accept Gold, she gave Rs.1,00,000/- to him and that he has deposited the same at SBI, Jayanagara Branch as per Ex.P.12. Though Ex.P.12 indicates Term Deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- on 11.07.2001 in the name of D.W.3 and the Accused-2, it does not show that the said amount was received by D.W.3 as Gift from Smt.Ramamani. Said Smt.Ramamani has given her evidence as D.W.5 on 23.06.2012. D.W.5 has deposed that about 14 years back, she gave Rs.1,00,000/- each to D.W.2 and D.W.3. This evidence indicates that she gave the said amount in the year 1998. This evidence runs contrary to the evidence of D.W.3, who has stated that the said amount was given in the year 2001. There is nothing to show that D.W.5 was capable of giving Rs.1,00,000/- each to her grand sons and that she possessed that amount either in the year 1998 or in the year 2001. Though the Accused-1 has stated in Ex.P.257 about the investments in the name of D.W.3, he has not stated in that document about the said Gift by Smt.Ramamani to D.W.3 and deposit of the said Gift amount by D.W.3 as stated by D.W.3. As the said Gift 320 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] amount exceeds Rs.7,000/-, it is mandatory on the part of the Accused-1 to report the same to the Government, if at all D.W.3 had received such amount. But, there is nothing to show that the Accused-1 has reported about the said Gift received by D.W.3, who is his family member. All these circumstances go against the Accused-1 and 2. For all these reasons, it is clear that the probabilities are not at all in favour of the Accused-1 and 2 to believe that D.W.3 received Gift of Rs.1,00,000/- from his grand mother as contended by them. Hence, the claim of the Accused-1 and 2 about Gift of Rs.1,00,000/- to D.W.3 by his grand mother during the Check Period is rejected.
D.30: Gift From Sri.H.M.Lakshminarayana
444. At Sl.No.30 and Page-63 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have claimed that their son-Mr.Aravind Anand received Gift of Rs.1,00,000/- from his grand father-Sri.H.M.Lakshminarayana during the Check Period. In support of their contention, they have relied upon the evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.3. D.W.1 has stated that his daughter i.e., the Accused-2 has given birth to twins and that he was also paying Rs.20,000/- to his daughter's sons. The said Statement indicates that D.W.1 has paid Rs.20,000/- to his grand sons. He has not stated as to when actually he paid the said amount. It is not at all his evidence that he gifted Rs.1,00,000/- to D.W.3 as contended by the Accused-1 and 2. D.W.3 has not whispered anything about Gift of Rs.1,00,000/- to him by 321 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] D.W.1. There is nothing to show about the said Gift. As observed above, the evidence of D.W.1 is unacceptable about his Income. As the said Gift amount exceeds Rs.7,000/-, it is mandatory on the part of the Accused-1 to report the same to the Government, if at all D.W.3 had received such amount. But, there is nothing to show that the Accused-1 has reported about the said Gift received by D.W.3, who is his family member. Even he has not whispered about that Gift in Ex.P.257. All these circumstances go against the Accused-1 and 2. For all these reasons, it is clear that the probabilities are not at all in favour of the Accused-1 and 2 to believe that D.W.3 received Gift of Rs.1,00,000/- from his grand father as contended by them. Hence, the claim of the Accused-1 and 2 about Gift of Rs.1,00,000/- to D.W.3 by his grand father during the Check Period is rejected.
D.31: Gift Received from Friends & Relatives
445. At Sl.No.31 and Page-63 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have claimed that their son-Mr.Aravind Anand received Gift of Rs.50,000/- i.e., at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per annum for 10 years, from his friends and relatives on the occasions of birthdays and festivals during the Check Period. In support of their contention, they have relied upon the evidence of D.W.3. Though D.W.3 has stated that he was receiving Gifts from grand parents, uncles and relatives on the occasion of birthday and festivals, he has not stated that he received Gift of 322 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Rs.5,000/- per annum from his friends and relatives as contended by the Accused-1 and 2. D.W.3 has not stated as to how much amount he received on the occasion of birthday and festivals. As observed above, giving of Presentations, Gifts etc., is not one sided. Though the Accused-1 and 2 and D.W.3 have contended about receiving of Gifts on several occasions, they have not whispered anything about Presentations and Gifts from their side to others. It is not their contention that they have not made any such Presentations or Gifts during the Check Period. As such, it has to be inferred that if at all D.W.3 had received any Gifts or Presentations, the Accused-1 and 2 or D.W.3 have also made such Gifts or Presentations to the persons, who have made Gifts or Presentations to him. Even the Accused-1 and 2 have not whispered anything about the expenditure incurred by them to celebrate those birthday and festival functions. Having regard to all these facts and circumstances and in the absence of specific evidence on behalf of the Accused- 1 and 2 and by D.W.3 about Gifts and in the absence of any contention about Presentations and Gifts on their behalf and D.W.3 to others and also about the expenditure incurred for celebrating the said birthday and festival functions, it is not possible to accept the bare contention of the Accused-1 and 2 that D.W.3 received Rs.50,000/- as Gift during the Check Period. Hence, the claim of the Accused-1 and 2 that their son-Mr.Aravind Anand 323 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] received Gift of Rs.50,000/- during the Check Period is rejected.
D.32: Handloan From Sri.Sripad
446. At Sl.No.32 and Page-63 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have claimed that their son-Mr.Aravind Anand took Handloan of Rs.2,00,000/- from Sri.Sripad during the Check Period, which has not been considered by the Complainant. In support of their contention, they have relied upon the evidence of D.W.3 and D.W.7-Sri.Sripad. D.W.3 has stated that he took handloan of Rs.2,00,000/- from his uncle-Sri.Sripad for investing in Koutilya Housing Society. He has not stated as to when actually he took such handloan. D.W.7 is the younger brother of the Accused-1. He has stated that in the year 2005, he gave Rs.2,00,000/- to D.W.3 for purchasing Site. He has further deposed that out of his savings and savings of his wife, he gave that amount and that D.W.3 has repaid that amount. He has not stated as to on which date and on which month in the year 2005, he gave the said amount to D.W.3. He has also not stated as to when actually D.W.3 repaid the said amount. D.W.3 has not stated that he has repaid the said amount to D.W.7 as stated by D.W.7. Ex.P.234 is the Application Form filed by D.W.3 on 24.2.2005 to Koutilya House Building Co-operative Society for allotment of Site. Ex.P.235 is the Receipt for having paid Rs.3,00,000/- along with Application Form. These documents, which are produced by P.W.47-Sri.V.Ramakrishna, do not indicate 324 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] borrowing of any amount by D.W.3 as stated by D.W.3 and D.W.7. There are no documents to show about the said loan taken by D.W.3. There is also nothing to show that D.W.7 possessed Rs.2,00,000/- in the month of January or February 2005. D.W.7 is working as Librarian in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya at Goa, which is a Central Government Institution. He has not produced any document to show about his earnings and savings. He has stated that in his Income Tax Returns, he has not shown lending of Rs.2,00,000/- to D.W.3. As per Rule-16 of the Rules, a Government Servant shall not lend or borrow money, either himself or through any member of his family, except with a previous sanction of the Government. However, a Government Servant may give to or accept a small amount free of interest as a purely temporary loan from a relative. Though the word- 'small amount' is not defined in the Rules, keeping in view the Rule 18 of the Rules, it has to be inferred that the said 'small amount' means amount not exceeding Rs.20,000/-. As Rs.2,00,000/- is far more than Rs.20,000/-, it cannot be said as 'small amount' and as per Rule-16 of the Rules, taking of prior permission from the Government for lending and borrowing such huge amount is necessary. But, it is not even the contention of D.W.7 and the Accused-1 and 2 that such prior permission from the Government for lending and borrowing Rs.2,00,000/- by D.W.7 and son of the Accused-1 and 2 respectively has been taken by D.W.7 and the Accused-1. In fact, D.W.7 and the Accused-1 have 325 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] not even intimated to the Prescribed Authority about the said loan transaction. If at all, D.W.3 had borrowed amount from D.W.7, the Accused-1 and D.W.7 would have intimated the same to the Prescribed Authority. Even the Accused-1 has not stated about the said handloan in his Reply given as per Ex.P.253 to Ex.P.258. As he has not done so, the only inference that could be drawn is that no such transaction took place between D.W.3 and D.W.7 as contended by the Accused-1 and 2. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to rely upon the bare Statements of D.W.3 and D.W.7. For all these reasons, it is clear that the probabilities are not in favour of the Accused-1 and 2 to believe their contention of taking of handloan by D.W.3. Hence, the claim of the Accused-1 and 2 that their son-Mr.Aravind Anand had taken handloan of Rs.2,00,000/- from D.W.7 during the Check Period is rejected.
D.33: Gift Received From Sri.Sripad
447. At Sl.No.33 and Page-63 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have claimed that their son-Mr.Aravind Anand received Gift of Rs.75,000/- i.e., at the rate of Rs.7,500/- per annum for 10 years, from his Paternal uncle-Sri.Sripad during the Check Period. In support of their contention, they have relied upon the evidence of D.W.7-Sri.Sripad. D.W.7 has stated that out of love and affection on the children of the Accused-1 and 2, he used to give Gifts and Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- to them. He 326 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] has not stated as to when he gave the said amount of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- to D.W.3. It is also not his evidence that he gave Rs.7,500/- per month for 10 years to D.W.3 as contended by the Accused-1 and 2. D.W.3 himself has not stated that he received Gift of Rs.7,500/- per annum for 10 years from D.W.7. No supporting documentary evidence is available to show about payment of the said amount by D.W.7 to D.W.3. As the said amount exceeds Rs.7,000/-, it is mandatory on the part of the Accused-1 to report the same to the Government, if at all D.W.3 had received such amount as Gift. But, there is nothing to show that the Accused-1 has reported about the said Gift received by D.W.3, who is his family member. Even in Ex.P.253 to Ex.P.258, the Accused-1 has not stated about the said Gift to D.W.3. All these circumstances also go against the Accused-1 and 2. There is no other evidence on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 regarding the said Gift. As such, it is not possible to accept the bare contention of the Accused-1 and 2 that D.W.3 received Rs.75,000/- as Gift during the Check Period. Hence, the claim of the Accused-1 and 2 that their son-Mr.Aravind Anand received Gift of Rs.75,000/- from Sri.Sripad during the Check Period is rejected.
D.34: Income From Tuition Fees
448. At Sl.No.34 and Page-64 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have claimed that their son-Mr.Abhishek 327 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Anand received Income of Rs.10,000/- per annum i.e., in all Rs.1,00,000/- from Tuition during the period from 1996 to 2005. In support of their contention, they have relied upon the evidence of D.W.2-Mr.Abhishek Anand. In his evidence, D.W.2 has stated that he is holding First Class Bachelor Degree in Hotel Management. Ex.D.6-Course Certificate issued by Christ College, Bengaluru and Ex.D.7- Degree Certificate issued by Bengaluru University show that from 2001 to 2005, D.W.2 studied Bachelor of Hotel Management Degree Course. D.W.2 has further deposed that since his 10th Standard, he was earning by giving Tuitions to the middle school students in English, Social and Science Subjects till 2005 and that he was earning Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12,000/- per annum from the said Tuitions. As admitted by D.W.2 in his Cross-examination, he was studying in Kendriya Vidyalaya, which taughts syllabus as per CBSE and the said syllabus is altogether different and difficult compared to teaching in other Schools. Kendriya Vidyalaya conducts frequent tests and semester exams apart from other activities. As such, students will not get any time to do any other work including giving Tuitions. D.W.2 has stated that distance between his School and the residence was 10 K.Ms. This Statement indicates that he had to travel about 20 K.Ms. per day to go to School. 10th Standard onwards is a crucial stage for every student. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to accept the evidence of D.W.2 that he started to give Tuitions, while he was studying in 10th Standard itself.
328 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] None among the students, to whom D.W.2 said to have given Tuitions, has come forward to support the version of D.W.2. If at all D.W.2 was earning as contended by him and the Accused-1 and 2, the Accused-1 ought to have reported about the said Income to the Government. But, he has not done so. According to D.W.2, he has invested the said Tuition Income in S.B. and F.D.Accounts. Though the Accused-1 has stated in Ex.P.257 about the said investment, he has not stated that D.W.2 made such investment out of Income received by him through Tuition Fees. This circumstance goes against the contention of the Accused-1 and 2 and the evidence of D.W.2. For all these reasons, it is clear that the probabilities are not at all in favour of the Accused-1 and 2 to believe that D.W.2 earned Income of Rs.1,00,000/- from Tuition Fees as contended by them. Hence, the claim of the Accused-1 and 2 about earning Income of Rs.1,00,000/- by their son-Mr.Abhishek Anand through Tuition during the Check Period is rejected.
D.35: Gift From Grand Parents
449. At Sl.No.35 and Page-64 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have claimed that their son-Mr.Abhishek Anand received Gift of Rs.2,00,000/- from his grand parents during the Check Period. In support of their contention, they have relied upon the evidence of D.W.2. In his evidence, D.W.2 has stated that between 1996 and 2005, he received Gift of around Rs.2,00,000/- from his 329 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] grand parents. But, there is no supporting evidence in this regard. Though D.W.1 has stated that his daughter i.e., the Accused-2 has given birth to twins and that he was also paying Rs.20,000/- to his daughter's sons, he has not stated that he and his wife gifted Rs.2,00,000/- to D.W.2 between 1996 and 2005. He has not at all stated about any Gift by his wife to D.W.2. The said Statement of D.W.1 indicates that he has paid Rs.20,000/- to his grand sons. He has not stated as to when actually he paid the said amount. As observed above, the evidence of D.W.1 is unacceptable about his Income. As the said Gift amount exceeds Rs.7,000/-, it is mandatory on the part of the Accused-1 to report the same to the Government, if at all D.W.2 had received such amount. But, there is nothing to show that the Accused-1 has reported about the said Gift received by D.W.2, who is his family member. Even he has not whispered about that Gift in Ex.P.257. All these circumstances go against the Accused-1 and 2. For all these reasons, it is clear that the probabilities are not at all in favour of the Accused-1 and 2 to believe that D.W.2 received Gift of Rs.2,00,000/- from his grand parents as contended by them. Hence, the claim of the Accused-1 and 2 about Gift of Rs.2,00,000/- to D.W.2 by his grand parents during the Check Period is rejected.
D.36: Gift From Smt.Ramamani
450. At Sl.No.36 and Page-64 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have claimed that their son-Mr.Abhishek 330 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Anand received Gift of Rs.1,00,000/- from his grand mother-Smt.Ramamani during the Check Period. D.W.2 has stated that in the year 2001, his paternal grand mother was ailing, she was distributing Gold Articles to her grand children and that as he was not so keen to take Gold Ornaments, she gave Rs.1,00,000/- to him and that he has deposited the same as per Ex.P.13. Though Ex.P.13 indicates Term Deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- on 11.07.2001 in the name of D.W.2 and the Accused-2, it does not show that the said amount was received by D.W.2 as Gift from Smt.Ramamani. As observed above, said Smt.Ramamani has given her evidence as D.W.5 on 23.06.2012 and her evidence indicates that she gave Rs.1,00,000/- each to D.W.2 and D.W.3 in the year 1998. The said evidence runs contrary to the evidence of D.W.2, who has stated that the said amount was given in the year 2001. As observed above, there is nothing to show that D.W.5 was capable of giving Rs.1,00,000/- each to her grand sons and that she possessed that amount either in the year 1998 or in the year 2001. Though the Accused-1 has stated in Ex.P.257 about the investments in the name of D.W.2, he has not stated in that document about the said Gift by D.W.5 to D.W.2 and deposit of the said Gift amount by D.W.2 as stated by him. As the said Gift amount exceeds Rs.7,000/-, it is mandatory on the part of the Accused-1 to report the same to the Government, if at all D.W.2 had received such amount. But, there is nothing to show that the Accused-1 has reported about the said Gift received by D.W.2, who is 331 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] also his family member. All these circumstances go against the Accused-1 and 2, which show that the probabilities are not at all in favour of the Accused-1 and 2 to believe that D.W.2 received Gift of Rs.1,00,000/- from his grand mother as contended by them. Hence, the claim of the Accused-1 and 2 about Gift of Rs.1,00,000/- to D.W.2 by Smt.Ramamani during the Check Period is rejected.
D.37: Stipend Received During BHM Course
451. At Sl.No.37 and Page-64 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that their son- Mr.Abhishek Anand received Stipend of Rs.1,00,000/- while studying BHM Course during the Check Period. But, they have not given the details of the said Income. However, in support of their contention, they have relied upon the evidence of D.W.2. In his evidence, D.W.2 has stated that during his Graduation period, he has received Stipend of Rs.1,00,000/- per year. Ex.D.6 shows that D.W.2 studied BHM Degree Course for 4 years from 2001 to 2005. As per the Statement of D.W.2, as he received Stipend of Rs.1,00,000/- per year during that Course, total Stipend received by him during that Course will be Rs.4,00,000/-. But, it is not the evidence of D.W.2 as well as the contention of the Accused-1 and 2. The Accused-1 and 2 or D.W.2 have not produced any document to show receipt of Stipend as claimed by them. P.W.56-Sri.Cherian Mambra was the Accounts Officer of Christ College, 332 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Bengaluru, where D.W.2 studied BHM Course. He has stated about Fees paid by D.W.2 towards the said course. He is the best person to speak about Stipend, if any, received by D.W.2. But, he has not stated anything about such Stipend said to have been received by D.W.2. In the absence of such evidence by P.W.56 and any document to show receipt of Stipend, it is not safe to rely upon the bare Statement of D.W.2. Though Ex.D.2 to Ex.D.5 and Ex.D.8 show that as a part fulfillment of his BHM Course, D.W.2 had undergone training for one month at Taj Group of Hotels, 3 days at Le Meridien Hotel, 3 months at Taj Residency, 1 month at Leela Palace and that he participated in the workshop on "Passion for Culinary Excellance", those documents do not in any way assist the Accused-1 and 2 to show that D.W.2 earned Stipend or any other monetary benefits during his studies. If at all D.W.2 had received Stipend at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/-, the Accused-1 ought to have reported the same to the Prescribed Authority as per the Rules. But, he has not done so. Though D.W.2 has stated that he has invested the said Stipend amount also in SB Account and F.D.Account, the Accused-1 has not whispered anything about the said Stipend amount in Ex.P.257. This circumstance also goes against the Accused-1 and 2. For all these reasons, it is clear that the probabilities are not at all in favour of the Accused-1 and 2 to believe that Mr.Abhishek Anand received Stipend of Rs.1,00,000/- while studying BHM Course as contended by them.
333 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Hence, the claim of the Accused-1 and 2 about receiving of Stipend of Rs.1,00,000/- by their son- Mr.Abhishek Anand during the Check Period is rejected.
D.38: Income From Petty Business
452. At Sl.No.38 and Page-64 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that their son- Mr.Abhishek Anand received Income of Rs.2,00,000/- by doing Petty Business during the Check Period. But, they have not given the details of the said Business and Income. However, in support of their contention, they have relied upon the evidence of D.W.2. In his evidence, D.W.2 has stated that he was involved in Petty Business connected to Mobile Phones. But, he has not stated anything about any Income, much less Rs.2,00,000/- from that Business. He has not stated as to where he was doing the said business. He has also not produced any document in support of his evidence. Hence, it is difficult to accept the Statement of D.W.2 that he was doing Petty Business. In Ex.P.257 also, the Accused-1 has not whispered anything about the said Petty Business and Income of D.W.2. In the absence of such evidence, it is not possible to accept the bare contention of the Accused-1 and 2 about the Income of D.W.2 from Petty Business. Hence, the claim of the Accused-1 and 2 about receiving of Income of Rs.2,00,000/- from Petty Business by their son-
334 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Mr.Abhishek Anand during the Check Period is rejected.
D.39: Gift From Grand Father-
Sri.H.M.Lakshminarayana
453. At Sl.No.39 and Page-64 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have claimed that their son-Mr.Abhishek Anand received Gift of Rs.1,00,000/- i.e., Rs.10,000/- per annum for 10 years from his grand father- Sri.H.M.Lakshminarayana during the Check Period. In support of their contention, they have relied upon the evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2. In his evidence, D.W.2 has stated that between 1996 and 2005, he received Gift of around Rs.2,00,000/- from his grand parents. But, he has not stated that he received Gift of Rs.10,000/- per annum for 10 years from his grand father-
Sri.H.M.Lakshminarayana. As observed above under the Head-'D.35', the Accused-1 and 2 have claimed that D.W.2 received Rs.2,00,000/- as Gift from his grand parents. It is not the evidence of D.W.2 that apart from said Rs.2,00,000/-, he received Gift of Rs.1,00,000/- as contended by the Accused-1 and 2. There is also no supporting evidence in support of the claim of the Accused-1 and 2. As observed above, though D.W.1- Sri.H.M.Lakshminarayana has stated that he was also paying Rs.20,000/- to his daughter's sons, he has not stated that he gifted Rs.1,00,000/- at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per annum to D.W.2 between 1996 and 2005.
335 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] As observed above, the evidence of D.W.1 is unacceptable about his Income. As the said Gift amount exceeds Rs.7,000/-, it is mandatory on the part of the Accused-1 to report the same to the Government, if at all D.W.2 had received such amount. But, there is nothing to show that the Accused-1 has reported about the said Gift received by D.W.2, who is his family member. Even he has not whispered about that Gift in Ex.P.257. All these circumstances go against the Accused-1 and 2. For all these reasons, it is clear that the probabilities are not at all in favour of the Accused-1 and 2 to believe that D.W.2 received Gift of Rs.1,00,000/- from his grand father as contended by them. Hence, the claim of the Accused-1 and 2 about Gift of Rs.1,00,000/- to D.W.2 by his grand father during the Check Period is rejected.
D.40: Handloan From Sri.Srinivasa Rao
454. At Sl.No.40 and Page-64 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have claimed that their son-Mr.Abhishek Anand took Handloan of Rs.1,50,000/- from his uncle- Sri.Srinivasa Rao during the Check Period, which has not been considered by the Complainant. In support of their contention, they have relied upon the evidence of D.W.2 and D.W.6-Sri.Srinivasa Rao. D.W.2 has stated that he took handloan of Rs.1,50,000/- from his paternal uncle- Sri.Srinivasa Rao for investing on Land at Koutilya Housing Society. He has not stated as to when actually he took such handloan. D.W.6 is the younger brother of the 336 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Accused-1. He has stated that in the month of December 2004 or January 2005, he gave Rs.1,50,000/- to D.W.2 for purchasing Site. He has further deposed that out of his savings and savings of his wife, he gave that amount and that D.W.2 is repaying that amount. D.W.2 has not stated that he is repaying the said amount to D.W.6 as stated by D.W.6. Ex.P.236 is the Application Form filed by D.W.2 on 24.2.2005 to Koutilya House Building Co-operative Society for allotment of Site, but not as investment on Land as stated by D.W.2. Ex.P.237 is the Receipt for having paid Rs.3,00,000/- along with Application Form. These documents, which are produced by P.W.47- Sri.V.Ramakrishna, do not indicate borrowing of any amount by D.W.2 as stated by D.W.2 and D.W.6. There are no documents to show about the said loan taken by D.W.2. There is also nothing to show that D.W.6 possessed Rs.1,50,000/- in the month of December 2004 or January 2005 for paying to D.W.2. D.W.6 is a Central Government Employee working as Office Superviser at IISC, Bengaluru as admitted by him. He has not produced any document to show about his earnings and savings, though he has stated in his Cross-examination that he is an Income Tax Payee. He has stated that in his Income Tax Returns, he has not shown lending of Rs.1,50,000/- to D.W.2. He has also stated that he did not disclose to his Deparment about advancing of said amount to D.W.2. He has stated that as his Institution is an autonomous body, there is no such procedure of intimation about loans. But, nothing is placed 337 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] to show that there is exemption from intimating about loans as contended by him. The Rules i.e., the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 are applicable to Central Government Employees. There is exemption to certain employess of the Central Government from the Rules as provided in the proviso of Rule-1(3) of the Rules. Employees of IISC, Bengaluru, where D.W.6 is working, are not exempted under the said proviso. As such, the said Rules are applicable to D.W.6 also. As per Rule-16 of the Rules, a Government Servant shall not lend or borrow money, either himself or through any member of his family, except with a previous permission of the Government. However, a Government Servant may give to, or accept from a relative or a personal friend, a small amount free of interest as a purely temporary loan. Though the word- 'small amount' is not defined in the Rules, as observed above, keeping in view the Rule 18 of the Rules, it has to be inferred that the said 'small amount' means amount not exceeding Rs.20,000/-. As Rs.1,50,000/- is far more than Rs.20,000/-, it cannot be said as 'small amount' and as per Rule-16 of the Rules, taking of prior permission from the Government for borrowing or lending such huge amount is necessary. As such, D.W.6 ought to have taken permission to lend Rs.1,50,000/- to D.W.2 or atleast he should have intimated to the Prescribed Authority as per Rule-16 of the Rules. But, D.W.6 has not done so. It is not even the contention of the Accused-1 and 2 that the Accused-1 has 338 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] taken prior permission from the Government for borrowing Rs.1,50,000/- by his son. In fact, he has not even intimated to the Prescribed Authority about borrowing of such huge amount. If at all, D.W.2 had borrowed amount from D.W.6, D.W.6 and the Accused-1 would have intimated the same to the Prescribed Authority. Even the Accused-1 has not stated about the said handloan in his Reply given as per Ex.P.253 to Ex.P.258. As he and D.W.6 have not done so, the only inference that could be drawn is that no such transaction took place between D.W.2 and D.W.6 as contended by the Accused-1 and 2. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to rely upon the bare Statements of D.W.2 and D.W.6. For all these reasons, it is clear that the probabilities are not in favour of the Accused-1 and 2 to believe their contention of taking of handloan by D.W.2. Hence, the claim of the Accused-1 and 2 that their son-Mr.Abhishek Anand had taken handloan of Rs.1,50,000/- from D.W.6 during the Check Period is rejected.
D.41: Gift Received From Sri.Sripad
455. At Sl.No.41 and Page-64 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have claimed that their son-Mr.Abhishek Anand received Gift of Rs.75,000/- i.e., at the rate of Rs.7,500/- per annum for 10 years, from his Paternal uncle-Sri.Sripad during the Check Period. In support of their contention, they have relied upon the evidence of D.W.7-Sri.Sripad. D.W.7 has stated that out of love and 339 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] affection on the children of the Accused-1 and 2, he used to give Gifts and Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- to them. He has not stated as to when he gave the said amount of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- to D.W.2. It is also not his evidence that he gave Rs.7,500/- per month for 10 years to D.W.2 as contended by the Accused-1 and 2. D.W.2 himself has not stated that he received Gift of Rs.10,000/- per annum for 10 years from D.W.7. No supporting documentary evidence is available to show about payment of the said amount by D.W.7 to D.W.2. As the said amount exceeds Rs.7,000/-, it is mandatory on the part of the Accused-1 to report the same to the Government, if at all D.W.2 had received such amount as Gift. But, there is nothing to show that the Accused-1 has reported about the said Gift received by D.W.2, who is his family member. Even in Ex.P.253 to Ex.P.258, the Accused-1 has not stated about the said Gift to D.W.2. All these circumstances also go against the Accused-1 and 2. There is no other evidence on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 regarding the said Gift. As such, it is not possible to accept the bare contention of the Accused-1 and 2 that D.W.2 received Rs.75,000/- as Gift during the Check Period. Hence, the claim of the Accused-1 and 2 that their son-Mr.Abhishek Anand received Gift of Rs.75,000/- from Sri.Sripad during the Check Period is rejected.
340 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] D.42: FINAL CALCULATION OF STATEMENT-C
456. In view of the above findings, Final Calculation of Receipts and Income of the Accused-1 and 2 and their children during the Check Period is as under:
Head Income
Details of Income
No. (in Rs.)
D.1 Salary Received by the Accused-1: 18,32,009.00
D.2 Salary Received by the Accused-2: 5,80,277.95
D.3 Disposal of Apartment along with 12,85,000.00
amenities at E-501, Raheja Park,
Magadi Main Road, Dasarahalli,
Bengaluru, on 29.11.2003:
D.4 Two Housing Loans taken from 1) 8,00,000.00
State Bank of India, PBB,
Jayanagara, Bengaluru: 2) 5,00,000.00
D.5 Over Draft Loans taken from
Punjab National Bank, 5,70,814.00
Malleswaram, Bengaluru and from
Canara Bank, IXth Block,
Jayanagara, Bengaluru:
D.6 Income on Fixed Deposits/PPF
Accounts by way of Interest:
D.6.1: PNB Bank, Malleswaram,
Bengaluru- 3 Deposits: 47,097.00
D.6.2: PNB, Hudson Circle,
Bengaluru-5 Deposits: 2,04,641.00
D.6.3: Canara Bank, Ashoka Road,
Tumkur-1 Deposit: 9,900.00
D.6.4: Canara Bank, IX Block,
Jayanagara, Bengaluru: 61,869.00
341 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
D.6.5: Canara Bank, BCO Extension
Counter, Trinity Circle,
Bengaluru-4 Deposits: 63,161.00
D.6.6: Oriental Bank of Commerce,
Jayanagara,Bengaluru-8 Deposits: 1,16,060.00
D.6.7: PPF Accounts-4: 4,66,933.00
D.6.8: Interest on various Savings Bank
8,33,818.85
Accounts:
D.6.9: Interest on various Fixed Deposit
Accounts credited to Savings Bank
Accounts & Over Draft Accounts: 2,89,047.00
D.6.10: Interest on various Fixed Deposit Accounts credited to Fixed Deposit 2,67,284.00 Accounts:
D.6.11: Interest on Post Office MIS Accounts: 2,28,000.00 D.7 Closure of Chit Fund Accounts in the Baluserry Chit Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru:
i) KS/3-2: ...... Rs. 23,955.00
ii)KM/8-23: ...... Rs. 15,846.00
iii)KS/10-1: ... Rs. 18,750.00
----------------
Rs. 58,551.00 58,551.00
----------------
D.8 Rental Income from:
i)House property at Basaveshwara
Nagara, Bengaluru of A-1: 6,13,000.00
ii)House property at Raheja Park,
Magadi Road, Bengaluru of A-2: 1,93,750.00
iii) House property at Jayanagara, Bengaluru of A-2: 2,28,000.00 342 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] D.9 Repurchase of Canbonus Units of Canbank Mutual Funds:
i) Accused-1: 120 Units: 1,955.04
ii) Accused-2: 120 Units: 1,955.04
D.10 Dividends/Interest earned on Bonds/Sares in the names of the Accused-1 and 2:
UCO Bank: 200.00
ICICI Shares: 1,125.00
Vijaya Bank: 1,000.00
IOB: 2,040.00
Wockhardt Ltd.: 7,100.00
Opto Circuits Ltd.: 7,260.00
KOEL: 61.00
Canfin Homes:
Shares: 9,016.00
Debentures: 562.50
McDowell & Co.Ltd.: 2,900.00
Canara Bank: 22,000.00
HUDCO: 9,600.00
BPL Engg. Co.Ltd.: 200.00
{
IDBI Ltd.: 15,094.30
TCS Ltd.: 102.00
Tamilnadu Petro Products Ltd.: 1,930.00
IFCI: 950.00
343 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
MTZ (India) Ltd.: 100.00
Birla Century Finance Co. Ltd.: 100.00
20th Century Mutual Fund: 240.00
Dhanuseri Tea & Industries 670.00
Limited.:
United Breweries: 800.00
_____________
Total: 83,050.80
D.11 Final Settlements paid by
Canara Bank to the Accused-2
at the time of taking VRS:
a) PF Settlement: 2,67,100.64
b) Gratuity: 1,55,922.09
c) Leave Encashment: 31,846.51
d) Ex-Gratia: 5,19,213.92
_____________
Total: 9,74,083.16
D.12 UTI-Bonds/Units/ULIP in the
names of the Accused-1 and
the Accused-2:
a) Dividend/Interest on
Unit-64 - 513 Units/Bonds: 22,563.17
b) Redemption of MEP, 1991-2000
Units: 13,075.00
c) Dividend/Interest on MEP,
1993-2000 Units: 10,698.10
d) Dividend/Interest on Master
Growth, 1993 - 1000 Units: 13,000.00
e) Maturity of ULIP: 95,397.11
_____________
Total: 1,54,733.38
344 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
D.13 Interest Free Advance received on
House Property at Basaveshwara
Nagara, Bengaluru: 1,00,000.00
D.14 Sale of old Jewelry: 3,34,764.00
D.15 Sitting Fees Paid by Stock
Exchanges to the Accused-1:
a)Bengaluru Stock Exchange: 1,45,250.00
b)Mangalore Stock Exchange: 8,550.00
D.16 Car Loan taken from Kotak
Mahindra Primus Ltd., Bengaluru: 2,50,000.00
D.17 Educational Loan availed from The
Rajajinagara Co-operative Bank
Ltd.,Basaveshwaranagar,
Bengaluru: 15,000.00
D.18 Refund of Income Tax: 8,598.00
D.19 Withdrawal from Staff Welfare 23,963.00
Fund:
D.20 Withdrawal from PPF A/c.No.736: 97,000.00
Grand Total: 1,14,48,115.22
Thus, it is clear that Receipts and Income of the Accused-1 and 2 during the Check Period is Rs.1,14,48,115.22.
Accordingly, it is held that the Receipts and Income of the Accused-1 and 2 during the Check Period is Rs.1,14,48,115.22.
E. EXPENDITURE DURING THE CHECK PERIOD AS ON 01.01.1996 TO 06.04.2005 (STATEMENT-D)
457. According to the Complainant, Expenditure 345 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] incurred by the Accused-1 and 2 and their family members during the Check Period is as follows:
Sl. Value
Details of Expenditure (in Rs.)
No.
1. Household Expenditure @ 1/3 of 9,22,361.33
Gross Income of the Accused-1 and 2
during the Check Period:
2. Repayments towards Housing
Loans:
a)SBI, PBB, Jayanagar, Bengaluru: 3,21,200.00
b)SBI, PBB, Jayanagar, Bengaluru: 1,80,432.00
c) HDFC, Mumbai: 7,27,755.00
3. Educational Expenses on Sons:
a) Sri.Abhishek Anand: 1,02,280.00
b) Sri Arvind Anand: 36,970.00
4. Rent paid towards maintenance of two Bank Lockers:
a) Punjab National Bank, 3,896.00
Malleswaram, Bengaluru:
b) Canara Bank, IX Block, Jayanagar, 2,390.00
Bengaluru:
5. Expenditure on Closing of Educational Loan at the Rajajinagar Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Basaveshwarnagar, 20,821.00 Bengaluru:
6. Expenditure on Advance Payments made towards Sites in Kautilya House Building Society, Bengaluru in the names of Sri.Aravind A.B and Sri.Abhishek Anand: 6,00,000.00
7. Expenditure on Insurance:
a) Towards Insurance of Property at 346 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Shanthi Park Apartments, Jayanagar, Bengaluru: 2,664.00
b) Towards Insurnce of Maruti Car-
KA-05-P-1396 in the name of the Accused-2: 39,102.00
c) Towards Hero Honda Motorcycle of Sri.Abhishek Anand-KA-05-EG-903: 491.00
8. Expenditure towards membership entrance fees availment of facilities, food and beverages at Bengaluru 1,19,198.00 Club, Bengaluru:
9. Expenditure towards the Shares of:
a) Karnataka Bank Ltd.: 35,980.00
b) Punjab National Bank: 1,27,140.00
Dena Bank: 86,400.00
10. Expenditure towards the Payment Bills of Credit Cards in the name of the Accused-1:
a) ICICI Bank Ltd.: 25,219.00
(4477 4735 3611 3009)
b) Citi Bank:
(4568 2290 0415 7021) 6,26,494.48
c) SBI Card: 33,577.58
(4006 6610 3541 1797)
11. Expenditure of the Accused-2 towards AMSP Course at Arena Multimedia, 12,500.00 Jayanagar, Bengaluru:
12. Repayments towards Car Loan made to Kotak Mahindra Primus Ltd., 3,48,025.00 Bengaluru:
13. Expenditue towards Mobile connections of Airtel:
a) The Accused-1 347 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] (Mob.No.9845458267-Pre-paid connection): 4,746.00
b) The Accused-2 (Mob.No.9845449699-Pre-paid connection): 12,883.40
c) Deposit paid by the Accused-2: 1,500.00
14. Expenditure on account of Loss during Sale of Shares: 829.00
15. Expenditure towards maintenance on Apartments:
i) No.207, Bombay House, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru: 25,700.00
ii) No.305, Bldg. 4, Shanthi Park, Jayanagar, Bengaluru: 39,450.00
16. Expenditure towards Payment of Income Tax, outside TDS, by the Accused-1:
i) 2003-04:
8,784.00
ii) 2004-05: 25,000.00 Expenditure towards Payment of Income Tax, outside TDS, by the Accused-2:
i) 2003-04: 968.00
ii) 2004-05: 9,849.00
17. Expenditure towards Payment of BSNL Telephone Bills:
7,056.00
i) The Accused-2:26608912.
ii) The Accused-1:26636451/ 45,347.00 26608998:
18. Expenditure towards payment of Property Taxes:
i) No.207, Bombay House, 348 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Basavanagudi, Bengaluru: 7,758.00
ii) No.E-501, Raheja Park, Magadi Main Road, Bengaluru: 28,470.00
iii) No.30, Basavesharanagar, Dasarhalli, Bengaluru: 44,014.00
19. Expenditure towards Road Tax & Registration of Motorcycle of Sri.Abhishek Anand: 4,300.00
20. Expenditure towards Repair @ 30% of Rental Income:
i) No.30, Basaveshwarnagar, 1,01,050.00 Dasarahalli, Bengaluru:
ii) No.E-501, Raheja Park, Magadi 37,727.00 Main Road, Bengaluru:
iii) No.305, Building 4, Shanthi Park, Jayanagar, Bengaluru: 68,400.00 Total: 48,48,727.79 E.1: Household Expenditure
458. By contending that the Accused-1 received Gross Salary of Rs.27,67,084/- during the Check Period, the Complainant has taken 1/3rd of it i.e., Rs.9,22,361.33 as Household Expenditure of the Accused-1 during the Check Period. The Accused-1 and 2 have disputed the said claim on the ground that the Complainant has considered Gross Salary for the purpose of estimating Expenditure, though he has taken Net Salary for the purpose of Income and that as such, there is no uniformity in the computation adopted by the Complainant. It is also their contention 349 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] that though the Domestic Expenses of the Accused-1 and 2 and their family members were minimum, as right from the beginning they have cultivated the habit of savings, the Complainant has not considered the said fact.
459. Household Expenditure means the expenses which will incur towards food items, fuel, electricity, clothes, medicine, magazines, wages of servants, barber, washer-man, pleasure trips, habits like smoking, drinks, hobbies etc., which are non-verifiable items. This expenditure depends upon size of the family, number of dependants, living standard of the family, living style of the family and status of the family. As such, keeping in view these factors, it is necessary to estimate the Household expenditure.
460. The Accused-1 is a Group-A Officer consisting of his wife and 2 children. He has maintained luxury items like Colour TV, BPL DVD, Sony Tape Recorder, Refrigerator, Microwave Oven, Washing Machine, Acquaguard, Car, Motorcycle, Computer, Camera, Telephone Instruments, Mobile Phones, Cots and other Furniture etc. He has provided education to his children in reputed Institutions like Central School, Christ College etc. The Accused-1 is a member of reputed Bengaluru Club. He is using 3 Credit Cards. Records show that the Accused-1 and his family members have traveled in Flight several times. On considering all these facts, it is clear that the Accused-1 is leading a high profile luxury life.
350 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
461. It is a matter of common knowledge that earlier Indians were of the saving attitude. But, now a days that too after entering into Globalization Era, Indians also have started to spend their money liberally. The Accused-1 and 2 have not placed any material to show their expenditure style. On the other hand, as observed above, the Accused- 1 and 2 are leading a luxurious high profile life. This circumstance negatives the contention of the Accused-1 and 2 that their Domestic Expenses were minimum.
462. The Complainant has considered the Gross Salary of the Accused-1 at Rs.27,67,084/- for estimating Household Expenditure of the Accused-1. The said Gross Salary includes deduction of Income Tax, Professional Tax. Provident Fund Subscription, Life Insurance Premium etc., and that deduction amount will not come to the hands of the Accused-1 for spending. On the other hand, Cash on Hand only i.e., Net Salary received by the Accused-1 will be available to spend towards Domestic Expenses. No basis is shown by the Complainant for considering Gross Salary for estimating Domestic Expenses. As only Cash on hand will be available for spending, the method of considering Gross Salary for the purpose of estimating Domestic Expenses appears to be unreasonable. In the case of Sajjan Singh -Vs- the State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1964 SC 464, relied upon by the learned Public Prosecutor, it is held as follows:
"...But, taking the most liberal view, we do not think it is possible for any 351 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] reasonable man to say that Assets to the extent of Rs.1,20,000/- is anything but disproportionate to a Net Income of Rs.1,03,000/- out of which atleast Rs.36,000/- must have been spent in living expenses."
(Underlined by this Court) On considering the above decision, it is clear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has considered the Net Income of the Accused of that case to estimate Domestic Expenses. Keeping in view the said decision and in the absence of any legal basis for considering Gross Salary instead of Net Salary and the fact that only Cash on hand i.e., Net Salary will be available for spending, it has to be held that consideration of Gross Salary by the Complainant for estimating Domestic Expenses of the Accused-1 is improper and unreasonable. Hence, it is just, proper and reasonable to consider Net Salary of the Accused-1 to estimate his Domestic Expenses during the Check Period.
463. In the Sajjan Singh's Case, referred to above, Net Income of the Accused was Rs.1,03,000/- and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered Rs.36,000/-, which is almost 35% i.e., more than 1/3rd of the Net Income, as Domestic Expenses. On considering the said decision and status, size of the family, living standard and style of living of the Accused-1 and 2, as noticed above, and in the absence of any acceptable evidence to the 352 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] contrary on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2, it is just, proper and reasonable to consider 1/3rd of Net Salary Income of the Accused-1 towards his Domestic Expenses. In the case on hand, as held in the Head-'D.1', Net Salary Income of the Accused-1 during the Check Period is Rs.18,32,009/-. 1/3rd of this amount is Rs.6,10,669.66, which may be rounded to Rs.6,10,670/-. Hence, it is held that Domestic/Household Expenditure of the Accused-1 during the Check Period is Rs.6,10,670/-.
E.2: Repayment Of Housing Loans
464. Claim of the Complainant that the Accused-2 repaid Rs.3,21,200/- and Rs.1,80,432/- towards Housing Loans of SBI, PPB, Jayanagara, Bengaluru, is well supported by the evidence of P.W.2 and also Ex.P.16 & Ex.P.17. At Sl.No.2(a) and 2(b) at Page-65 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have also admitted the said claim of the Complainant.
465. The Complainant has contended that the Accused-2 repaid Rs.7,27,755/- towards her Housing Loan with HDFC, Mumbai, during the Check Period. P.W.37- Sri.B.Manjunath, the then Branch Manager of HDFC, Kasturba Road, Bengaluru, has deposed about production of Statement of Account-Ex.P.207 pertaining to the Housing Loan of Rs.4,00,000/- obtained by the Accused-2. In her evidence, D.W.8 has also admitted that Ex.P.207 is the Statement, which reflects repayment of Loan of 353 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Rs.4,00,000/- from HDFC Bank. Ex.P.207 shows that the Accused-1 and 2 jointly borrowed Rs.4,00,000/- from HDFC, Mumbai Branch in the year 1995. P.W.37 has deposed that the said Loan Account was transferred from Mumbai to Bengaluru in the month of October-November 2000. He has further deposed that Rs.2,13,807/- was paid by the customer towards 31 installments and that full and final settlement of Rs.86,141/- was made on 24.11.2003. As per this evidence of P.W.37, from October-November 2000 onwards, the Accused-1 and 2 have paid Rs.2,13,807/- + Rs.86,141/- = Rs.2,99,948/- towards repayment of said Loan Account. On the basis of this evidence, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended at Sl.No.2(c) and Page-65 of the CSWA, that the repayment made by the Accused-2 during the Check Period towards Loan Account was Rs.2,99,948/- only. It is not stated by D.W.4 and D.W.8 in their evidence that repayment made was Rs.2,99,948/- only during the Check Period. As the Loan amount itself was Rs.4,00,000/-, repayment of that amount with Interest will not be in any way less than Rs.4,00,000/-. In her evidence, as observed above, D.W.8 has admitted Ex.P.207 as the Statement of Account pertaining to that Loan Account. She and the Accused-1 have not disputed the genuineness of entries in that document. As per Ex.P.207, during the Check Period i.e., from 03.01.1996 to 24.11.2003, the Accused-1 and 2 have repaid the following amounts to that Loan Account:
354 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] 94 Installments of Rs.6,897/- each: Rs. 6,48,318/-
On 27.12.2000 Rs. 41,472/-
On 28.12.2000 Rs. 6,910/-
On 24.11.2003 ... 563/-
On 24.11.2003 ... 15/-
On 24.11.2003 ... 612/-
On 24.11.2003 ... 84,951/-
-----------
86,141/- Rs. 86,141/-
-----------
On 30.11.2003 Rs. 103/-
Total: Rs.7,82,944/-
Thus, it is clear that the amount repaid by the Accused-1 and 2 towards Loan Account with HDFC is Rs.7,82,944/- and not Rs.7,27,755/- as claimed by the Complainant and Rs.2,99,948/- as claimed by the Accused-1 and 2. Hence, it is held that repayment towards Housing Loan with HDFC made by the Accused-1 and 2, during the Check Period is Rs.7,82,944/-.
466. For all the above reasons, it is held that Expenditure incurred by the Accused-1 and 2 during the Check Period towards Repayment of Housing Loans is Rs.3,21,200/- + Rs.1,80,432/- + 7,82,944/- = Rs.12,84,576/-.
E.3. Educational Expenses
a) On Mr.Abhishek Anand:
467. According to the Complainant, the Accused-1 has spent Rs.1,02,280/- during the Check Period towards 355 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Educational Expenses of his son-Mr.Abhishek Anand. P.W.56-Sri.Cherian Mambra, the then Accounts Officer of Christ College, Bengaluru, has deposed that Mr.Abhishek, son of the Accused-1 has paid total fee of Rs.1,02,280/- towards Tuition Fee and Examination Fee during 2001 to 2005 as per Ex.P.276. The Accused-1 and 2 have not disputed the said evidence of P.W.56. However, the Accused-1 and 2 have stated at Sl.No.3(a) and Page-65 of the CSWA with reference to the evidence of D.W.4 that the said Fee of Rs.1,02,280/- was paid by Mr.Abhishek Anand. In his evidence, D.W.4 has stated that Ex.P.276 relates to his son-Abhishek Anand, who was paying his Fees towards his education at Christ College. But, he has not stated that his son-Mr.Abhishek Anand paid the said Fee out of his own Income. D.W.2-Mr.Abhishek Anand has not stated that he has paid the said Fee out of his own Income. As observed above, under the Income Head, there is no acceptable evidence to show about the own Income of D.W.2 during the Check Period. Under these circumstances, it is not possible to accept the bare contention of the Accused-1 and 2 that D.W.2 himself has paid the said Fee. For all these reasons, the only inference that could be drawn under the circumstances is that the Accused-1 has met the educational expenses of D.W.2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 has spent Rs.1,02,280/- during the Check Period towards educational expenses of his son-Mr.Abhishek Anand.
356 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
b) On Mr.Aravind Anand:
468. According to the Complainant, the Accused-1 has spent Rs.36,970/- during the Check Period towards educational expenses of his son-Mr.Aravind Anand.
P.W.57-Sri.Karuna Shekara Reddy, the then Accounts Officer of Surana College, Bengaluru, has deposed that Mr.Aravind Anand, son of the Accused-1 was studying BBM Course during 2000-2003 in that College and that total fees for 3 years was Rs.34,775/- towards College Fee and Examination Fee as per Ex.P.277. But, he has not stated that Fee paid was Rs.36,970/- as claimed by the Complainant. The Accused-1 and 2 have not disputed the said evidence of P.W.57. However, the Accused-1 and 2 have stated at Sl.No.3(b) and Page-65 of the CSWA with reference to the evidence of D.W.4 that the said Fee of Rs.34,775/- was paid by Mr.Aravind Anand. In his evidence, D.W.4 has stated that Ex.P.277 relates to his son-Aravind Anand for payment of his Fees to Surana College. But, he has not stated that his son-Mr.Aravind Anand himself paid the said Fee out of his own Income. D.W.3-Mr.Aravind Anand has not stated that he has paid the said Fee out of his own Income. As observed above, under the Income Head, there is no acceptable evidence to show about the own Income of D.W.3 during the Check Period. Under these circumstances, it is not possible to accept the bare contention of the Accused-1 and 2 that D.W.3 himself has paid the said Fee. For all these reasons, the only inference that could be drawn under the 357 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] circumstances is that the Accused-1 has met the educational expenses of D.W.3. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 has spent Rs.34,775/- during the Check Period towards educational expenses of his son-Mr.Aravind Anand.
E.4: Rent Paid Towards Maintenance Of Bank Lockers
a) Punjab National Bank, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru:
469. According to the Complainant, the Accused-1 and 2 have paid Locker Rent of Rs.3,896/- to Punjab National Bank, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru, during the Check Period. In support of his contention, the Complainant has relied upon the evidence of P.W.77-Sri.C.Vishwanath.
P.W.77, the then Officer of the said Bank, has produced Ex.P.302-Locker Rent Statement and stated that as per that Statement, rent paid by the Accused-1 and 2 was Rs.1,835/- from 23.07.1994 to 27.04.2000. By relying upon that evidence, at Sl.No.4(a) and Page-65 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have also contended that the Locker Rent paid was Rs.1,835/- during the Check Period. But, as per that Statement, during the Check Period, the Accused-1 and 2 have paid Locker Rent as follows:
Date Amount
05.07.1996 Rs.156/-
24.07.1996 Rs.144/-
31.07.1997 Rs.300/-
358 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
29.07.1998 Rs.272/-
18.12.1998 Rs. 78/-
28.08.1999 Rs.500/-
27.07.2000 Rs.396/-
Total: Rs.1,846/-
In her Additional Written Arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor also has stated that the Locker Rent paid by the Accused-1 and 2 was Rs.1,846/-. There is no reason to disbelieve the said contention of the learned Public Prosecutor, which is well supported by the contents of Ex.P.302. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 have spent Rs.1,846/- towards Locker Rent of Punjab National Bank, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru, during the Check Period.
b) Canara Bank, 9th Blcok, Jayanagara, Bengaluru:
470. According to the Complainant, the Accused-1 and 2 have paid Locker Rent of Rs.2,390/- to Canara Bank, 9th Block, Jayanagara, Bengaluru, during the Check Period.
In support of his contention, the Complainant has relied upon the evidence of P.W.5 and Ex.P.57(a). P.W.5, the then Senior Manager of the said Bank, has produced Ex.P.57(a)-S.B. Ledger Extract and stated that as per that document, Locker rent of Rs.1,730/- for the period from 24.07.2001 to 06.04.2005 was debited to the S.B.Account of the Accused-1 and 2. By relying upon that evidence, at Sl.No.4(b) and Page-65 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 359 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] have also contended that the Locker Rent paid was Rs.1,730/- during the Check Period. In her Additional Written Arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor has stated that the Locker Rent paid by the Accused-1 and 2 was Rs.1,940/-. But, as per Ex.P.57(a), during the Check Period, the Accused-1 and 2 have paid Locker Rent as follows:
Date Amount
24.07.2001 Rs.1,040/-
11.07.2002 Rs. 450/-
10.07.2003 Rs. 450/-
10.07.2004 Rs. 500/-
Total: Rs.2,440/-
There is no reason to disbelieve the said entries in Ex.P.57(a), which disagree with the contention of the Complainant and Written Arguments of both the parties. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 have spent Rs.2,440/- towards Locker Rent of Canara Bank, 9th Block, Jayanagara, Bengaluru, during the Check Period.
E.5: Expenditure On Closing Of Educational Loan At Rajajinagar Co-operative Bank Ltd., Basaveshwaranagara, Benglauru
471. According to the Complainant, during the Check Period, the Accused-1 has spent Rs.20,821/- for closing 360 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] the Educational Loan taken at Rajajinagara Co-operatrive Bank Ltd, Basaveshwaranagara, Bengaluru. In support of his claim, the Complainant has relied upon the evidence of P.W.26 and Ex.P.150. As observed above under the Head- 'D.17', it is held on the basis of the evidence of P.W.26 and Ex.P.150 that the Accused-1 availed Educational Loan of Rs.15,000/- from Rajajinagara Co-operative Bank Ltd., Basaveshwaranagar, Bengaluru, during the Check Period. Ex.P.150-Statement of Account No.LNED1260 of the Accused-1 show payment of following amounts by the Accused-1 during the Check Period towards Principal and Interest relating to the said Loan:
Date Amount
28.12.1999 Rs.5,000/-
20.11.2000 Rs. 800/-
05.09.2001 Rs.4,000/-
08.10.2001 Rs. 352/-
17.10.2001 Rs.3,082/-
27.03.2002 Rs.5,000/-
12.06.2002 Rs.1,543/-
Total: Rs.19,777/-
There is no reason to disbelieve the said entries available in Ex.P.150. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 has spent Rs.19,777/- during the Check Period for 361 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] closing Education Loan at Rajajinagara Co-operative Bank Ltd, Basaveshwaranagara, Bengaluru.
E.6: Expenditure On Advance Payments Made To Koutilya House Building Society, Bengaluru
472. According to the Complainant, the Accused-1 has spent Rs.6,00,000/- during the Check Period by paying advance amount to Koutilya House Building Co-operative Society, Bengaluru, for purchasing Sites in the names of his sons-Mr.Aravind Anand and Mr.Abhishek Anand. Ex.P.234 to Ex.P.237 show payment of Rs.3,00,000/- each in the name of Mr.Aravind Anand and Mr.Abhishek Anand on 24.02.2005 to Koutilya House Building Co-operative Society, Bengaluru for purchasing Sites. According to the Accused-1 and 2, out of their own funds, their sons paid the said amount. As observed above, there is no acceptable evidence to believe that Mr.Abhishek Anand and Mr.Aravind Anand had their own Income and that they had received any money from their relatives as contended by them. Under these circumstances, the only inference that could be drawn is that the Accused-1 himself has paid that amount. Hence, it is held that during the Check Period, the Accused-1 has spent Rs.6,00,000/- for paying advance amount to Koutilya House Building Co-operative Society, Bengaluru, for purchasing Sites in the names of his sons-Mr.Aravind Anand and Mr.Abhishek Anand.
362 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] E.7: Expenditure On Insurance
a) Towards Insurance of Property at Shanthi Park Apartment, Jayanagara, Bengaluru:
473. According to the Complainant, the Accused-2 has spent Rs.2,664/- towards Insurance of the property at Shanthi Park Apartments, during the Check Period. P.W.2 has deposed the said fact in her evidence. Contents of Ex.P.16 show payment of the said Insurance Charges by the Accused-2 on 03.08.2001. The Accused-1 and 2 have not disputed the said evidence. There is no reason to disbelieve the said evidence, which fully supports the claim of the Complainant. Hence, it is held that during the Check Period, the Accused-2 has spent Rs.2,664/-
towards Insurance of Property at Shanthi Park Apartment.
b) Towards Insurance of Maruti Car-KA-05-P-1396 in the Name Of The Accused-2:
474. According to the Complainant, the Accused-2 has spent Rs.39,102/- towards Insurance Premium of Maruti Car bearing No.KA-05-P-1396, during the Check Period. P.W.59-Sri.M.V.Jayaprakash, the then Administrative Officer of New India Assurance Company, Bengaluru, has deposed that the Accused-2 insured her Car for the period from 03.01.2003 to 02.01.2004, from 03.01.2004 to 02.01.2005 and from 03.01.2005 to 02.01.2006 by paying Premium of Rs.11,573/- in all as per
363 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Ex.P.279-Insurance Certificates. Ex.P.279 shows payment of Premium by the Accused-2 as under:
Date Policy Number Amount
31.12.2004 670400/31/04/03108 Rs.3,855/-
30.12.2003 670401/31/03/02728 Rs.3,778/-
01.01.2003 670401/31/02/03416 Rs.3,940/-
03.01.2001 671400/31/01/00668 Rs.4,508/-
Total: Rs.16,081/-
Thus, Ex.P.279 shows payment of Rs.16,081/- in all by the Accused-2 towards Insurance Premium of her Car for the years 2003 to 2005.
475. P.W.73-Smt.Nalini Rao, the then Manager of Oriental Insurance Company, Bengaluru, has deposed that the Accused-2 has paid Premium of Rs.9,457/- for the period 1998-99 and renewal Premium of Rs.7,268/- for the period 1999-2000 in respect of her vehicle as per Ex.P.297 and Ex.P.297(a). Contents of Ex.P.297 and Ex.P.297(a) fortify the said evidence of P.W.73. Thus, as per the evidence of P.W.73, total Insurance paid by the Accused-2 is Rs.16,725/- for the years 1998 and 1999.
476. As such, as per Ex.P.279, Ex.P.297 and Ex.P.297(a), the total Insurance Premium paid by the Accused-2 in respect of her Car during the Check Period is Rs.32,806/- (Rs.16,081/- + Rs.16,725/-). In her Additional Written Arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor has 364 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] contended that total Premium paid by the Accused-2 was Rs.39,102/-. Based on the evidence of P.W.59 and Ex.P.279, at Sl.No.7(b) and Page-66 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that Insurance Premium paid during the Check Period was only Rs.11,573/-. But, as observed above, as per Ex.P.279, Ex.P.297 and Ex.P.297(a), the total Premium amount paid by the Accused-2 towards her Car Insurance was Rs.32,806/-. There is no reason to disbelieve the said documents. As such, arguments of both the parties are not fit to be accepted. For all these reasons, it is held that during the Check Period, the Accused-2 has spent Rs.32,806/- towards Insurance Premium of Maruti Car bearing No.KA-05-P-1396.
c) Towards Insurance of Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing No.KA-05-EG-903 of Mr.Abhishek Anand
477. Claim of the Complainant that Rs.491/- has been spent during the Check Period towards payment of Insurance Premium of Hero Honda Motorcycle standing in the name of Mr.Abhishek Anand has been admitted by the Accused-1 and 2 at Sl.No.7(c) and Page-66 of the CSWA. Hence, it is held that during the Check Period, Rs.491/- has been spent towards Insurance Premium of Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing No.KA- 05-EG-903.
365 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] E.8: Expenditure At Banglore Club, Bengaluru
478. According to the Complainant, the Accused-1 was a civil member of the Banglore Club, Bengaluru and during the Check Period, he has spent Rs.1,19,198/- towards Membership Fee and availment of facilities, food and beverages from that Club. P.W.44-Sri.Shyamal Kumar Lodh, the then Secretary of Banglore Club, has deposed that the Accused-1 paid Rs.40,000/- towards Membership Entrance Fee of the Club during the period from 2001 to 2005 and that he has spent Rs.79,198/- during that period in the Club and that Ex.P.230 is the Statement of Expenditure in this regard, which was produced by him to the CBI Officers along with Letter-Ex.P.231. Contents of Ex.P.230 corroborate the evidence of P.W.44 that the Accused-1 spent Rs.1,19,198/- in all during the Check Period towards Membership Entrance Fee etc.
479. At Sl.No.8 and Pages-66 and 200 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 has admitted the payment of Membership Fee of Rs.40,000/- in all during the Check Period. But, he has contended that remaining amount of Rs.79,198/- claimed by the Complainant has been spent for purchasing grocery, vegetables and food at the Club and that as the said expenditure relates to Household Expenditure considered in Sl.No.1, it cannot be considered as expenditure once again under the present Head. In support of his contention, the Accused-1 has relied upon the answers given by P.W.44 in his Cross-examination to 366 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] the effect that there is a Grocery Shop and outlet of Foodworld in the Club, most of the members purchase grocery items from the Club and that Ex.P.230 includes the purchase of grocery and vegetables from the said Club. Details of purchase of grocery and vegetables are not furnished by the Accused-1 and P.W.44 and Ex.P.230 also do not show the said details.
480. It is not in dispute that the Club is a Recreation Club, which sells beverages also apart from food. It is also not in dispute that members will not go to that Club only for purchasing grocery and vegetables by paying huge Membership Fee. As such, it cannot be said that entire Rs.79,198/- was spent by the Accused-1 for purchasing grocery and vegetables. In fact, it is not the evidence of P.W.44 also that said amount of Rs.79,198/- was spent by the Accused-1 exclusively for purchasing grocery and vegetables. However, from the said evidence of P.W.44 and contention of the Accused-1, it can be inferred that some amount out of Rs.79,198/- has been spent for purchasing grocery and vegetables. In the absence of specific evidence in this regard, it is just and proper to infer that 50% of Rs.79,198/- was spent towards grocery, food and vegetables and that remaining 50% was spent towards availing other facility of the Club such as recreation, beverages etc. As 1/3rd of Net Salary has been taken already towards Household Expenses under the Head-'E.1', which includes purchase of grocery and vegetables also, it is not necessary to take that 50% of 367 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] amount once again as expenditure under the present Head. As such, it is just, proper and reasonable to infer that the Accused-1 has spent Rs.40,000/- towards Membership Fee and Rs.39,599/- (50% of Rs.79,198/-) towards availing other facility of the Club. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 has spent Rs.79,599/- towards Membership Fee and to avail Club facilities at Bangalore Club, Bengaluru, during the Check Period.
E.9: Expenditure Towards Shares
a) Karnataka Bank Ltd.:
481. According to the Complainant, the Accused-2 has spent Rs.35,980/-, during the Check Period, for purchasing Karnataka Bank Shares. At Sl.No.9(a) and Page-67 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted the said claim. But, in her Additional Written Arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor has contended that spent amount by the Accused-2 was Rs.44,020/- and not Rs.35,980/-. She has relied upon the evidence of P.W.53 and Ex.P.273 in support of her arguments. The Accused-1 and 2 have relied upon the evidence of D.W.8 with reference to Ex.P.273 in support of their contention.
P.W.53-Sri.G.Subramani, the then Senior Manager of Alpha Sysystems Private Ltd., has deposed that the Accused-2 applied for 4000 Shares of Karnataka Bank Limited by paying Rs.80,000/-, 2201 Shares were allotted to her and that Rs.35,980/- was refunded to the Accused-
368 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
2. He has identified Ex.P.273 as the Copy of Share Application. In her evidence also, D.W.8 has stated that she paid Rs.80,000/- to Karnataka Bank towards Share Application and that out of which, Rs.35,980/- was refunded to her by the Karnataka Bank. As such, as per the evidence of P.W.53 and D.W.8, the Karnataka Bank refunded Rs.35,980/- to the Accused-2 out of Rs.80,000/- paid by her. Hence, it is clear that the amount spent by the Accused-2 towards the said Shares is Rs.44,020/- (Rs.80,000/- - Rs.35,980/-). For all these reasons, it is held that the Accused-2 has spent Rs.44,020/- for purchasing Karnataka Bank Shares during the Check Period.
b) Punjab National Bank:
482. Though the Complainant has contended in the Charge Sheet and the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted at Sl.No.9(b) and Page-67 of the CSWA that the Accused-1 and 2 have spent Rs.1,27,140/- in all, during the Check Period, for purchasing Punjab Natinal Bank Shares, in her Additional Written Arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor has fairly admitted that the spent amount by the Accused-1 and 2 was Rs.48,360/- only and not Rs.1,27,140/-. She has relied upon the evidence of P.W.4, who has produced Ex.P.55-Letter issued by the Punjab National Bank, in support of her arguments. Ex.P.55 shows that Rs.87,750/- each was paid by the Accused-1 and 2 on 10.03.2005 for purchasing Punjab National Bank 369 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Shares and that by adjusting Rs.24,180/- each only out of the said amount, the Bank refunded Rs.63,570/- each to the Accused-1 and 2. As such, it is clear that the amount spent by the Accused-1 and 2 towards the said Shares is Rs.48,360/- (Rs.24,180/- x 2). For all these reasons, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 have spent Rs.48,360/- for purchasing Punjab National Bank Shares during the Check Period.
c) Dena Bank:
483. Though the Complainant has claimed that, the Accused-1 and 2 have spent Rs.86,400/-, during the Check Period, for purchasing Dena Bank Shares, he has not produced any evidence in this regard. In fact, in her Additional Written Arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor has fairly given up the said claim. Hence, the claim of the Complainant that the Accused-1 and 2 have spent Rs.86,400/- for purchasing Dena Bank Shares, during the Check Period is rejected.
E.10: Expenditure Towards Payment Of Credit Card Bills
a) ICICI Bank:
484. According to the Complainant, the Accused-1 has spent Rs.25,219/-, during the Check Period, towards payment of Bill of Credit Card No.4477 4735 3611 3009 of the ICICI Bank. But, he has not produced any evidence in this regard. In fact, in her Additional Written Arguments, 370 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] the learned Public Prosecutor has fairly given up the said claim. Hence, the claim of the Complainant that the Accused-1 has spent Rs.25,219/- towards payment of Bill of Credit Card No.4477 4735 3611 3009 of ICICI Bank, during the Check Period is rejected.
b) Citi Bank:
485. According to the Complainant, the Accused-1 has spent Rs.6,26,494.48, during the Check Period, towards payment of Bill of Credit Card No.4568 2290 0415 7021 of the Citi Bank. In her Additional Written Arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the said payment is Rs.4,30,330.57, based on the evidence of P.W.67 and contents of Ex.P.289 and Ex.P.290, which relate to the period from 11.04.2001 to 14.03.2005. P.W.67-Sri.S.Paul Vimal Dev, the then Management Officer of Citi Bank, has deposed that in respect of the Credit Card issued to the Accused-1 and that in respect of additional Credit Card issued to the Accused-
2, payment of Rs.4,30,330.57 has been made by the Accused-1 during the Check Period. Contents of Ex.P.289 and Ex.P.290-Statements of Credit Cards corroborate the said evidence of P.W.67. At Sl.No.10(b) and Pages-67, 201 to 206 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted the said claim.
486. P.W.78-Sri.Musavvir T.M., the then Relationship Manager of Citi Bank, Bengaluru has produced Ex.P.303, 371 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] which is Statement of Account pertaining to the same Credit Card, but relating to the period from February 1992 to February 2001. Based on that Statement, P.W.78 has deposed that the Accused-1 has paid Rs.5,39,449.74 in respect of the transactions made by him during February 1992 to February 2001 for Rs.5,40,482.34. Contents of Ex.P.303 fortify the said evidence of P.W.78. At Page-208 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have admitted the said evidence of P.W.78 by contending that the Prosecution has ignored the said payments made by the Accused-1 as deposed by P.W.78. On calculation, excluding the payments made for the period from February 1992 to December 1995, payments made by the Accused-1 for the period from January 1996 to March 2001 in respect of the Credit Card Bills will be Rs.4,07,683.77.
487. But, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that out of the said amount relating to Ex.P.289, Ex.P.290 and Ex.P.303, Rs.1,60,444/- and Rs.1,75,747/- has been spent for Air Tickets for official tours, the said amounts have been re-imbursed by the Government and that therefore, the said items need not be considered as expenditure. But, there is nothing to show on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 that an amount of Rs.1,60,444/- and Rs.1,75,747/- spent towards Air Tickets were all in respect of the official tours of the Accused-1 and that the said amounts have been re-imbursed to him. Hence, the said contention of the Accused-1 and 2 is not fit to be accepted. However, Ex.P.229 shows re-imbursement of Airfare to the Accused-
372 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] 1 by the Government for attending meetings. Said re- imbursement with reference to the expenditure made through Citi Bank Credit Card i.e., Ex.P.289, Ex.P.290 and Ex.P.303 is as under:
Re-
Ticket Purchase Relevant
Meeting imbursed
Purchased Price Page in
Date Amount
On (In Rs.) Ex.P.229
(In Rs.)
16.12.2000 14.12.2000 9,171 4,580 16
06.07.2002 03.07.2002 5,119 2,660 2
04.11.2003 03.11.2003 6,238 6,219 7
20.09.2003 07.09.2003 6,238 6,220 8
26.07.2003 24.07.2003 6,298 6,220 9
31.05.2003 21.05.2003 31,096 6,220 10
26.02.2003 22.02.2003 5,705 2,770 11
22.03.2003 20.03.2003 5,240 5,540 11
11.01.2003 01.01.2003 2,890 5,530 12
08.10.2002 05.10.2002 5,056 5,119 13
04.05.2002 30.04.2002 5,118 5,110 14
12.01.2002 11.01.2002 5,530 5,530 15
Total: 61,718
Thus, it is just and proper to deduct the said re-imbursed amount of Rs.61,718/- only from the total expenses of the Credit Card.
488. The Accused-1 and 2 have also contended that Rs.88,298/- and Rs.44,048/- have been spent out of the said Bill amount of Credit Card for purchasing Gold Ornaments, which has been already included in Inventory of Gold Ornaments as on 06.04.2005 (Annexure-II of P.W.65 C.W.79) and that hence, once again showing this item as separate expenditure will amount to duplication of figures for inflating the expenditure. Annexure-II, referred 373 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] to by the Accused-1 and 2, is the Annexure of Ex.P.286-
Search List prepared at the time of Inventory. Though Gold Ornaments have been shown in that Inventory as possessed by the Accused-1 and 2 as on 06.04.2005, amount spent for purchasing Gold Ornaments through Credit Card has not been shown in that Inventory as expenditure during the Check Period. In fact, except under the present Head, the Complainant has not claimed the said expenditure under any other Head. As such, considering of the said expenditure under the present Head will not amount to any duplication as contended by the Accused-1 and 2. Hence, it is not fit to accept the said bare argument of the Accused-1 and 2.
489. The Accused-1 and 2 have further contended that Rs.40,116/- and Rs.47,887/- have been spent for Household Articles and Electronic Goods, which has been already included in the value of Household Articles as on 06.04.2005 (Annexure-I of P.W.65 C.W.79) and that therefore, once again showing this item as separate expenditure will amount to duplication of figures for inflating the expenditure. Annexure-I, referred to by the Accused-1 and 2, is the Annexure of Ex.P.286-Search List prepared at the time of Inventory. Though Electronic Items have been shown in that Inventory as possessed by the Accused-1 and 2 as on 06.04.2005, amount spent for purchasing those items through Credit Card has not been shown in that Inventory as expenditure during the Check Period. In fact, except under the present Head, the 374 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Complainant has not claimed the said expenditure under any other Head. As such, considering of the said expenditure under the present Head will not amount to any duplication as contended by the Accused-1 and 2. Hence, it is not fit to accept the said bare argument of the Accused-1 and 2.
490. The Accused-1 and 2 have contended that Rs.1,37,187.79 and Rs.1,51,942.26 have been spent out of the said Bill amount of Credit Card towards Household Expenses, which has been already covered under Sl.No.1- Household Expenditure and that hence, once again showing this item as separate expenditure will amount to duplication of figures for inflating the expenditure. At Page-204, 205 and 211 to 215 of the CSWA, the Accused- 1 and 2 have shown the details of those Household expenses. Those details show that except Rs.705/-, Rs.501/-, Rs.1,000/-, Rs.2,060/-, Rs.1,152/-, Rs.1,640/- and Rs.1,033/- in respect of Ex.P.289 and Ex.P.290 and also Rs.475/-, Rs.2,918/-, Rs.2,190/-, Rs.2,049/-, Rs.1,088/-, Rs.2,715.52, Rs.2,395/-, Rs.2,395/-, Rs.1,515/-, Rs.2,225/-, Rs.1,550/-, Rs.780/- and Rs.2,300/- in respect of Ex.P.303 spent towards Clothes, Rs.2,890/- in respect of Ex.P.289 and Ex.P.290 and Rs.3,054/- and Rs.700/- in respect of Ex.P.303 spent towards Shoes, Rs.1,178/- in respect of Ex.P.289 and Ex.P.290 and also Rs.365.95, Rs.665/-, Rs.685/-, Rs.2,760.35 and Rs.691/- in respect of Ex.P.303 spent towards Food items i.e., in all Rs.45,675.82, rest of the 375 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] amount has been spent for luxury life at Star Hotels, Clubs, Automobile Shops, Electronic Shops etc. The said expenses towards luxurious life cannot be considered as normal Household expenses taken into account under Sl.No.1 i.e., under the Head-'E.1'-Household Expenditure. However, as Rs.45,675.82 has been spent towards Clothes, Shoes, Food items etc., it is just and proper to deduct Rs.45,675.82 only, which falls under Household Expenses, out of Rs.8,37,974.34 in respect of payments made relating to Ex.P.289, Ex.P.290 and Ex.P.303.
491. From the above discussion, it is clear that expenditure incurred by Accused-1 in respect of Bill payments of Credit Card is Rs.7,30,058.52 (Rs.8,37,974.34 - Rs.61,718/- - Rs.45,675.82). However, as the Complainant has claimed that the said expenditure is only Rs.6,26,494.48, it is just and proper to accept the said claim of the Complainant. For all the above reasons, it is held that the expenditure incurred by the Accused-1 in respect of Citi Bank Credit Card during the Check Period is Rs.6,26,494.48.
c) SBI Card:
492. According to the Complainant, the Accused-1 has spent Rs.33,577.58, during the Check Period, towards payment of Bill of Credit Card No.4006 6610 3541 1797 of the State Bank of India. But, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended at Sl. No.10(c), Pages-67, 206 to 208 of the 376 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] CSWA that amount spent towards the said Bill is Rs.33,531.92. Ex.P.353-Statement of Account produced by P.W.91 supports the contention of the Accused-1 and 2.
493. However, the Accused-1 and 2 have also contended that Rs.4,400/- has been spent out of Rs.33,531.92 for purchasing Gold Ornaments, which has been already included in Inventory of Gold Ornaments as on 06.04.2005 (Annexure-II of P.W.65 C.W.79) and that hence, once again showing this item as separate expenditure will amount to duplication of figures for inflating the expenditure. As observed above, Annexure- II, referred to by the Accused-1 and 2, is the Annexure of Ex.P.286-Search List prepared at the time of Inventory. Though Gold Ornaments have been shown in that Inventory as possessed by the Accused-1 and 2 as on 06.04.2005, Rs.4,400/- spent for purchasing those Gold Ornaments through Credit Card has not been shown in that Inventory as expenditure during the Check Period. In fact, except under the present Head, the Complainant has not claimed the said expenditure under any other Head. As such, considering of the said expenditure under the present Head will not amount to any duplication as contended by the Accused-1 and 2. Hence, it is not fit to accept the said bare argument of the Accused-1 and 2.
494. The Accused-1 and 2 have further contended that Rs.22,231.92 has been spent out of Rs.33,531.92 towards Household Expenses, which has been already 377 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] covered under Sl.No.1-Household Expenditure and that hence, once again showing this item as separate expenditure will amount to duplication of figures for inflating the expenditure. At Page-207 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have shown the details of said expenses of Rs.22,231.92. Those details show that except Rs.2,374/- and Rs.437/- spent towards Clothes i.e., in all Rs.2,811/-, rest of the amount out of Rs.22,231.92 has been spent for luxury life at International Hotels, Bars, Service Stations etc. As such, it is just and proper to deduct Rs.2,811/- only, which falls under Household Expenses, out of Rs.22,231.92. As the remaining amount of Rs.19,420.92 has been spent for luxury life, it cannot be said that said amount falls under Household Expenses and as such, the said amount cannot be excluded as contended by the Accused-1 and 2.
495. The Accused-1 and 2 have further contended that Rs.6,900/- has been spent out of Rs.33,531.92 by way of Cash withdrawal from ATM, which is merged with other items of Income/Expenditure/Assets and that hence, it is not required to treat this amount as expenditure. Withdrawal of Cash of Rs.6,900/- from SBI Credit Card is a Receipt by way of Loan to the Accused-1. The said amount is not considered as Receipt or Income or Assets or Loan of the Accused-1 and 2. Hence, it is not necessary to consider repayment of the said amount to SBI as expenditure. As such, it is a fit case to deduct Rs.6,900/- from Rs.33,531.92 under this Head.
378 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
496. From the above discussion, it is clear that the Accused-1 has spent Rs.23,820.92 (Rs.33,531.92 - Rs.2,811/- - Rs.6,900/-). Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 has spent Rs.23,820.92 during the Check Period for payment of Bills of SBI Credit Card.
E.11: Expenditure Towards AMSP Course
497. Claim of the Complainant that the Accused-2 has spent Rs.12,500/- during the Check Period towards AMSP Course at Arena Multimedia, Jayanagara, Bengaluru, is well supported by the deposition of P.W.49- Sri.B.S.Gupta, the Central Manager of that Institute and the contents of Ex.P.259 to Ex.P.261 produced by him. At Sl.No.11 and Page-67 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have also admitted the said claim of the Complainant. Hence, it is held that the Accused-2 has spent Rs.12,500/- during the Check Period towards AMSP Course at Arena Multimedia, Jayanagara, Bengaluru.
E.12: Repayment Of Car Loan
498. According to the Complainant, the Accused-1 and 2 have spent Rs.3,48,025/- during the Check Period towards repayment of Car Loan taken from Kotak Mahindra Primus Limited, Bengaluru. In her Additional Written Arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the said spent amount is Rs.4,27,574/- and not Rs.3,48,025/-. As held under the Head-'D.16', the Accused-2 borrowed Rs.2,50,000/- from Kotak Mahindra 379 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Primus Limited, Bengaluru, for purchasing Car. P.W.91 has seized and produced Ex.P.354-Statement of Payment Details of Car Loan. Contents of this document show that during the Check Period, the Accused-1 and 2 have repaid Rs.4,27,574/- towards that Car Loan. The Accused-1 and 2 have not placed any evidence to rebut the said evidence available on behalf of the Complainant. There is no reason to disbelieve the said evidence. In fact, there is no explanation in this regard from the Accused-1 and 2 in their CSWA. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 have spent Rs.4,27,574/- during the Check Period towards repayment of Car Loan taken from Kotak Mahindra Primus Limited, Bengaluru.
E.13: Expenditure Towards Mobile Connection Of Airtel
499. Claim of the Complainant, that the Accused-1 and 2 have spent Rs.4,746/-, Rs.12,883.40 and Rs.1,500/- i.e., in all Rs.19,129.40 during the Check Period towards Airtel Mobile Connection, has been admitted by the Accused-1 and 2 at Sl.No.13 and Pages-67 and 68 of the CSWA. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 have spent Rs.19,129.40 during the Check Period towards Airtel Mobile Coonection.
E.14: Expenditure On Account Loss During Sale Of Shares
500. Though the Complainant has claimed that, the Accused-1 and 2 have spent Rs.829/- during the Check 380 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Period, by way of suffering loss during Sale of Shares, he has not produced any evidence in this regard. In fact, in her Additional Written Arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor has fairly given up the said claim. Hence, the claim of the Complainant that the Accused-1 and 2 have incurred expenditure of Rs.829/- by way of loss while selling Shares during the Check Period is rejected.
E.15: Expenditure Towards Maintenance Of Apartments
i) No.207, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru:
501. Though the Complainant has claimed that, the Accused-1 and 2 have spent Rs.25,700/- during the Check Period towards maintenance of Apartment No.207, Bombay House, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru, he has not produced any evidence in this regard. In fact, in her Additional Written Arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor has fairly given up the said claim. Hence, the claim of the Complainant that the Accused-1 and 2 have incurred expenditure of Rs.25,700/- towards maintenance of Apartment No.207, Bombay House, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru, during the Check Period is rejected.
ii) No.305, Building No.4, Shanthi Park, Jayanagara, Bengaluru:
502. According to the Complainant, the Accused-1 and 2 have spent Rs.39,450/- during the Check Period
381 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] towards maintenance of Apartment No.305, Shanthi Park, Jayanagar, Bengaluru. It is not in dispute that the said Apartment stands in the name of the Accused-2. P.W.62- Sri.A.Suresh Shetty, the then Honarary Tresurer of Shanthi Park Apartment has deposed that the Accused-1 was staying in the same Apartment and that he has paid Rs.21,800/- as Maintenance Charges for the period from 01.04.2001 to December 2003 and that Rs.17,650/- for the period from June 1998 to March 2001 and that Ex.P.282 and Ex.P.283 are the Receipts in this regard. Contents of those Receipts fortify the evidence of P.W.62. At Sl.No.15(b) and Page-68 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have contended that the said Maintenance Charges are paid by the Tenants in the name of the owner of the Flat i.e., the Accused-2. In support of that contention, they have relied upon the answer given in the Cross- examination by P.W.62 that it is true to say that maintenance amount can be paid by the Tenant and raise the Bill in the name of the Accused-1. But, it is not the evidence of P.W.62 that in respect of the said Flat standing in the name of the Accused-2, the Tenant has paid Maintenance Charges and that Bill has been raised in the name of the Accused-1. As such, the said answer of P.W.62 is of no assistance to the Accused-1 and 2 to substantiate their contention. There is no other evidence on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.62 and contents of Ex.P.282 and Ex.P.283 regarding payment of maintenance amount 382 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] of Rs.39,450/- in all by the Accused-1 during the Check Period. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 have spent Rs.39,450/- during the Check Period towards maintenance of Apartment No.305, Shanthi Park, Jayanagar, Bengaluru.
E.16: Expenditure Towards Payment Of Income Tax Outside TDS
(i) By the Accused-1:
503. Claim of the Complainant that in the year 2003-
2004, the Accused-1 paid Rs.8,784/- and that in the year 2004-2005, he paid Rs.25,000/- as Income Tax outside TDS has been admitted by the Accused-1 and 2 at Sl.No.16(i) and Page-69 of the CSWA. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 has incurred expenditure of Rs.33,784/- (Rs.8,784/- + Rs.25,000/-) during the Check Period towards payment of Income Tax outside TDS.
(ii) By the Accused-2:
504. Claim of the Complainant that in the year 2003-
2004, the Accused-2 paid Rs.968/- as Income Tax outside TDS has been admitted by the Accused-1 and 2 at Sl.No.16(a) and Page-69 of the CSWA.
505. However, though the Complainant has claimed that, the Accused-2 has spent Rs.9,849/- in the year 2004-2005 towards payment of Income Tax outside TDS, 383 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] he has not produced any evidence in this regard. In fact, in her Additional Written Arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor has fairly given up the said claim.
506. Thus, it is clear that the Accused-2 has paid Rs.968/- only during the Check Period towards payment of Income Tax outside TDS. Hence, it is held that the Accused-2 has incurred expenses of Rs.968/- during the Check Period towards payment of Income Tax outside TDS.
E.17: Expenditure Towards Payment Of BSNL Telephone Bills
507. Claim of the Complainant that during the Check Period, the Accused-2 spent Rs.7,056/- and that the Accused-1 spent Rs.45,347/- towards payment of BSNL Telephone Bills has been admitted by the Accused-1 and 2 at Sl.No.17 and Page-69 of the CSWA. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 & 2 have incurred expenditure of Rs.52,403/- (Rs.7,056/- + Rs.45,347/-) during the Check Period towards payment of BSNL Telephone Bills.
E.18. Expenditure Towards Payment Of Property Tax
508. Claim of the Complainant that during the Check Period, the Accused-1 & 2 have spent Rs.7,758/- in respect of Property No.207, Rs.28,470/- in respect of Property No.E-501 and that Rs.44,014/- in respect of Property No.30 towards payment of Property Tax has been admitted 384 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] by the Accused-1 and 2 at Sl.No.18 and Page-69 of the CSWA. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 & 2 have incurred expenditure of Rs.80,242/- (Rs.7,758/- + Rs.28,470/- + Rs.44,014/-) during the Check Period towards payment of Property Tax.
E.19. Expenditure Towards Road Tax & Registration of Motorcycle
509. Claim of the Complainant that during the Check Period Rs.4,300/- has been spent towards Registration and Road Tax of the Motorcycle standing in the name of Mr.Abhishek Anand has been admitted by the Accused-1 and 2 at Sl.No.19 and Page-70 of the CSWA. Hence, it is held that Rs.4,300/- has been spent towards Registration and Road Tax in respect of the Motorcycle of Mr.Abhishek Anand during the Check Period.
E.20. Expenditure Towards Repair Of Buildings
510. Though the Complainant has claimed that, the Accused-1 and 2 have spent Rs.1,01,050/-, Rs.37,727/- and Rs.68,400/- i.e., in all Rs.2,07,177/- during the Check Period towards repair of 3 Buildings at the rate of 30% of Rental Income, he has not produced any evidence to show that the Accused-1 and 2 effected such repairs. In fact, in her Additional Written Arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor has fairly given up the said claim. Hence, the claim of the Complainant that the Accused-1 and 2 385 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] have incurred expenditure of Rs.2,07,177/- towards repair of Buildings, during the Check Period is rejected.
E.21. Expenditure Towards Payment Of Tax & Registration Charges & Purchase Of Car & Motorcycles I. Maruti Zen:
511. The learned Public Prosecutor has contended that during the Check Period, the Accused-1 and 2 have spent Rs.20,050/- towards payment of Life Tax, Registration and Hypothecation Charges in respect of Maruti Zen Car bearing No.KA-05-P-1396. P.W.90-Sri.Syed Shafi Ahamed has deposed the said fact. Ex.P.308 consists of 'B' Register Extract, Challans and various Forms pertaining to the said vehicle. Contents of these documents show payment of Rs.18,900/- + Rs.150/- + Rs.100/- i.e., in all Rs.19,150/- by the Accused-2 during the Check Period. But, those documents and the evidence of P.W.90 do not show about incurring of expenses of Rs.20,050/- by the Accused-1 and 2 as contended by the learned Public Prosecutor. There is no explanation from the Accused-1 and 2 about the said expenses of Rs.19,150/-. Hence, it is held that Rs.19,150/- has been spent by the Accused-1 and 2 towards payment of Tax, HP Registration of Charges in respect of Maruti Zen Car bearing No.KA-05-P-1396, during the Check Period.
386 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] II. Pulsar Bike:
512. The learned Public Prosecutor has contended that during the Check Period, the Accused-1 and 2 have spent Rs.45,691/- towards purchase of Pulsar Bike. In support of her contention, the learned Publice Prosecutor has relied upon the evidence of P.W.90 and Ex.P.308.
Though P.W.90 has deposed that Life Tax of Rs.4,499/- and Registration Charges of Rs.70/- has been paid in respect of Bajaj Pulsar Motorcycle bearing No.KA-05-ET- 6248 standing in the name of Mr.Aravind Abhishek, he has not stated that Rs.45,691/- was spent towards purchase of that vehicle. Even it is not his evidence that the said amount of Rs.4,499/- and Rs.70/- has been spent by the Accused-1 and 2 during the Check Period. Ex.P.308 does not pertain to the said vehicle. On the other hand, as observed above, it pertains to Maruti Zen Car. As such, the evidence of P.W.90 and Ex.P.308 do not assist the learned Publice Prosecutor to substantiate her argument. There is no other evidence on behalf of the Complainant in this regard. Hence, contention of the learned Public Prosecutor that the Accused-1 spent Rs.45,691/- for purchasing Pulsar Bike during the Check Period is rejected.
III. Purchase of Bike:
513. The learned Public Prosecutor has contended that during the Check Period, the Accused-1 and 2 have spent Rs.57,659/- towards purchase of Hero Honda
387 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Motorcycle bearing No.KA-05-EG-903 standing in the name of Mr.Abhishek Anand. In support of her contention, the learned Publice Prosecutor has relied upon the evidence of P.W.90 and Ex.P.309. P.W.90 has deposed that Life Tax of Rs.4,240/- and Registration Charges of Rs.60/- has been paid in respect of Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing No.KA- 05-EG-903. He has identified Ex.P.309 as the File pertaining to Registration of the said vehicle. Ex.P.309 consists of 'B' Register Extract, Challans, various Forms and also Receipt issued by Prakash Motors. Contents of these documents show that Rs.57,659/- was spent on 02.08.2001 for purchasing the said Motorcycle and that Life Tax of Rs.4,240/- and Registration Charges of Rs.60/- was paid on 03.08.2001 in respect of that vehicle. The Accused-1 and 2 have not disputed the said evidence. There is no reason to disbelieve the said evidence of P.W.90 and contents of Ex.P.309. Though D.W.2- Mr.Abhishek Anand has given his evidence, he has not stated that he himself has spent that amount out of his own income. As observed above, there is no acceptable evidence to show that D.W.2 had independent income as contended by him. As on the date of purchase of that Motorcycle, D.W.2 was just 19 years and he was still studying. Under these circumstances, the only inference that could be drawn is that the Accused-1 and 2 have purchased the said Motorcycle in the name of D.W.2. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 have spent Rs.61,959/-( Rs.57,659/- + Rs.60/- + Rs.4,240/-) 388 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] during the Check Period towards purchase of Hero Honda Motorcycle.
E.22. Expenditure Towards Purchase Of Gold & Silver Articles Sold During The Check Period
514. As observed above, it is not in dispute that the Accused-1 and 2 have sold old Gold and Silver Articles in the year 2003 and 2004 for Rs.3,34,764/-. According to the Accused-1 and 2, those old Gold and Silver Articles were with them even prior to the commencement of the Check Period. But, as held under the Head-'B.3', the said Gold and Silver Articles were not with the Accused-1 and 2 prior to the commencement of the Check Period and that on the other hand, those Articles were purchased during the Check Period. As such, it is necessary to consider the amount spent by the Accused-1 and 2 for purchasing those Gold and Silver Articles during the Check Period as their Expenditure during the Check Period. It is not shown as to when exactly the said Gold and Silver Articles were purchased. However, at Pages-76 & 77 of the CSWA, the Accused-1 and 2 have evaluated the value of those Gold and Silver Articles at Rs.3,80,961.44 as on 31.03.1996. In the absence of any other evidence to the contrary on behalf of both the parties, it is just and proper to infer that the Accused-1 and 2 had purchased those Gold and Silver Articles on 31.03.1996 for Rs.3,80,961.44. Hence, it is held that the Accused-1 and 2 have incurred 389 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] expenditure of Rs.3,80,961.44 during the Check Period for purchasing Gold and Silver Articles.
E.23: FINAL CALCULATION OF STATEMENT-D
515. In view of the above findings, Final Calculation of Expenditure incurred by the Accused-1 and 2 and their family members during the Check Period is as under:
Head Value
Details of Expenditure (in Rs.)
No.
E.1. Household Expenditure @ 1/3 of 6,10,670.00
Gross Income of the Accused-1
during the Check Period:
E.2. Repayments towards Housing
Loans:
a)SBI, PBB, Jayanagar, Bengaluru: 3,21,200.00
b)SBI, PBB, Jayanagar, Bengaluru: 1,80,432.00
c) HDFC, Mumbai: 7,82,944.00
E.3. Educational Expenses on Sons:
a) Sri.Abhishek Anand: 1,02,280.00
b) Sri Arvind Anand: 34,775.00 E.4. Rent paid towards maintenance of two Bank Lockers:
a) Punjab National Bank, Malleswaram, Bengaluru: 1,846.00
b) Canara Bank, IX Block, Jayanagara, Bengaluru: 2,440.00 E.5. Expenditure on Closing of Educational Loan at the Rajajinagar Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Basaveshwarnagar, Bengaluru: 19,777.00 390 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] E.6. Expenditure on Advance Payments made towards Sites in Kautilya House Building Society, Bengaluru in the names of Sri.Aravind A.B and Sri.Abhishek Anand: 6,00,000.00 E.7. Expenditure on Insurance:
a) Towards Insurance of Property at Shanthi Park Apartments, Jayanagar, Bengaluru: 2,664.00
b) Towards Insurnce of Maruti Car-
KA-05-P-1396 in the name of the Accused-2: 32,806.00
c) Towards Hero Honda Motorcycle of Sri.Abhishek Anand-KA-05-EG-
903: 491.00 E.8. Expenditure towards membership entrance fees availment of facilities, food and beverages at Bangaluru Club, Bengaluru: 79,599.00 E.9. Expenditure towards the Shares of:
a) Karnataka Bank Ltd.: 44,020.00
b) Punjab National Bank: 48,360.00
E.10. Expenditure towards the
Payment Bills of Credit Cards in
the name of the Accused-1:
a) Citi Bank:
(4568 2290 0415 7021) 6,26,494.48
b) SBI Card:
(4006 6610 3541 1797) 23,820.92
E.11. Expenditure of the Accused-2 towards AMSP Course at Arena Multimedia, Jayanagar, Bengaluru: 12,500.00 E.12. Repayments towards Car Loan made 391 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] to Kotak Mahindra Primus Ltd., Bengaluru: 4,27,574.00 E.13. Expenditue towards Mobile connections of Airtel:
a) The Accused-1 (Mob.No.9845458267-Pre-paid connection): 4,746.00
b) The Accused-2 (Mob.No.9845449699-Pre-paid connection): 12,883.40
c) Deposit paid by the Accused-2: 1,500.00 E.15. Expenditure towards maintenance on Apartment:
No.305, Bldg. 4, Shanthi Park, Jayanagar, Bengaluru: 39,450.00 E.16. Expenditure towards Payment of Income Tax, outside TDS, by the Accused-1:
i) 2003-04:
8,784.00
ii) 2004-05:
25,000.00 Expenditure towards Payment of Income Tax, outside TDS, by the Accused-2:
i) 2003-04: 968.00 E.17. Expenditure towards Payment of BSNL Telephone Bills:
i) The Accused-2:26608912. 7,056.00
ii) The Accused-1:26636451/ 45,347.00 26608998:
E.18. Expenditure towards payment of Property Taxes:
i) No.207, Bombay House, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru: 7,758.00
392 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
ii) No.E-501, Raheja Park, Magadi Main Road, Bengaluru: 28,470.00
iii) No.30, Basaveshwaaranagara, Dasarahalli, Bengaluru: 44,014.00 E.19. Expenditure towards Road Tax & Registration of Motorcycle of Sri.Abhishek Anand: 4,300.00 E.21. Expenditure towards Payment of Tax & Registration Charges & Purchase of Car & Motorcycle:
I) Maruti Zen Car: 19,150.00
III) Hero Honda Motorcycle: 61,959.00
E.22. Expenditure towards Purchase of Gold and Silver Articles: 3,80,961.44 Total: 46,47,040.24 Thus, it is clear that the expenditure incurred by the Accused-1 and 2 and their children during the Check Period is Rs.46,47,040.24. Accordingly, it is held that the Expenditure incurred by the Accused-1 and 2 and their children during the Check Period is Rs.46,47,040.24.
F. FINAL CALCULATION OF INCOME, EXPENDITURE & ASSETS OF THE ACCUSED-1 & 2
516. From the above findings given on the Statements-A to D under the Heads-'B to E', Final Calculation of Income, Expenditure and Assets of the Accused-1 and 2 is as under:
393 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Sl. Amount No. Description (In Rs.)
1. Assets at the beginning of the 20,57,096.10 Check Period (Statement-A) :
2. Assets at the end of the Check Period (Statement-B) : 1,54,42,574.87
3. Receipts and Income during the Check Period (Statement-C) : 1,14,48,115.22
4. Expenditure during the Check Period (Statement-D): 46,47,040.24
5. Assets Acquired during the Check period (B-A): 1,33,85,478.77 6 Likely Savings during the Check Period (C-D): 68,01,074.98
7. Extent to which Assets and Expenditure are disproportionate to likely savings {E=[(B-A)+D]- 65,84,403.79 C}:
8. Percentage of Disproportionate Assets over the total Income 57.51% (E X100/C) :
From the above calculations based upon the findings given by this Court, it is clear that Disproportionate Assets worth Rs.65,84,403.79 i.e., to an extent of 57.51% were held by the Accused-1 and his family members to their known and lawful sources of income. As observed above, the Accused- 1 and 2 and their children have failed to show their Receipts and Income as contended by them. As observed 394 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] above, the Accused-2 was working as Clerk at Canara Bank and she took Voluntary Retirement on 17.3.2001 itself. Records show that most of her Salary income has been spent towards repayment of Housing Loans. There is nothing to show that after retirement, the Accused-2 had any source of income, other than her retirement benefits, income of Interest, Dividend etc., as held above. Children of the Accused-1 and 2 completed their Bachelor Degree just one year prior to the Checking Period. There is nothing to show that they had any job or source of income during the Check Period. As such, the probabilities are not at all in favour to believe or accept that the Disproportionate Assets, noted above, have been earned out of income of the Accused-2 and her children. On the other hand, the Accused-1 being a Group 'A' Officer of the Central Government had a lucrative job during the Check Period.
He has not given any satisfactory account in respect of the said Assets. Under these circumstances, the only inference that could be drawn is that the Disproportionate Assets, noted above, have been amazed by the Accused-1 taking advantage or by misusing his position as a Public Servant. For all these reasons, Point-3 is answered in the affirmative holding that the Accused-1 possessed Disproportionate Assets worth Rs.65,84,403.79 i.e., to an extent of 57.51% to his known and lawful sources of income.
395 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] POINT-4
517. According to the Complainant, thus, by possessing Disproportionate Assets to the tune of Rs.65,84,403.79 to the known sources of income, without satisfactory account, the Accused-1 has committed Criminal Misconduct within the meaning of Section 13(1)(e) of the Act, which is punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act.
518. But, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 has contended that in the Departmental Enquiry Proceedings in respect of the same Charge of possessing Disproportionate Assets as charged in this case, the Accused-1 has been exonerated and that as such, the Accused-1 cannot be held as guilty for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w. Section 13(1)(e) of the Act. In support of his arguments, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 has relied upon the following citations:
1. P.S.Rajya -Vs- State of Bihar [(1996) 9 Supreme Court Cases 1];
2. State (NCT of Delhi) -Vs- Ajay Kumar Tyagi [(2012) 9 Supreme Court Cases 685];
519. In the case of P.S.Rajya, referred to above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India quashed the Criminal Proceedings against the Accused of that case by observing 396 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] that, the Standard of proof required to establish the guilt in a Criminal Case is far higher than the standard of proof required to establish the guilt in the Departmental Proceedings, the Charge in the Departmental Proceedings and in the Criminal Proceedings is one and the same and that, for if the Charge, which is identical, could not be established in a Departmental Proceedings and in view of the admitted discrepancies in the Reports submitted by the Valuers, one wonders what is there further to proceed against the Accused in Criminal Proceedings.
520. In that case, on considering the fact that the Accused was exonerated from the Charge in the Departmental Proceedings and that the Charge in the Criminal Proceedings was identical to the said Charge in the Departmental Proceedings and that there were admitted discrepancies in the Valuation Reports, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India quashed the Criminal Proceedings at the initial stage itself.
521. Ex.D.13 is the Enquiry Report given in the Departmental Enquiry held against the Accused-1 in the present case. As per that document, there were 5 Charges against the Accused-1 and among those Charges, Charges-I, II and V were not proved, Charge-III was proved and Charge-IV was partly proved. Charge-V was to the effect that during the period from 01.04.2001 to 397 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] 31.03.2005, the Accused-1 was found possessed Disproportionate Assets worth Rs.99,18,534/- to his known legal sources of income. But, the Disciplinary Authority did not accept the said finding given by the Enquiry Officer on the ground that enquiry was not held in accordance with the prescribed procedure and it directed to hold further enquiry. Subsequent enquiry was conducted by Sri.G.C.Rai. He submitted his Report on 26.06.2013 agreeing with the findings given in the first enquiry. Ex.D.15 is the Enquiry Report in this regard.
522. Though the quantum of Disproportionate Assets charged in the present case as well as the Departmental Enquiry is identical, Check Period mentioned in the Departmental Enquiry is not identical with that of in the Criminal Case. In the Departmental Enquiry, only 7 witnesses were examined, 15 documents were considered on behalf of the Prosecution and 14 documents were considered on behalf of the Defense. But, in the present case, number of witnesses relied upon by the Complainant is 91 and number of documents relied upon by the Complainant is 357. Evidence of these 91 witnesses and contents of these 357 documents were not considered in the Departmental Enquiry. In fact, details of the witnesses and documents considered in the Departmental Enquiry are not forthcoming in Ex.D.14 and Ex.D.15. The Charge in this case is not at all based on the finding given in the Departmental Enquiry. Departmental Enquiry relates to 398 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] maintenance of discipline in the service, whereas, a criminal case relates to commission of crime in violation of law. Nature of proceedings and appreciation of evidence in both these cases are altogether different. As such, finding given in the Departmental Enquiry will not be binding on the criminal proceedings.
523. In the case of State (NCT of Delhi) -Vs- Ajay Kumar Tyagi, referred to above and relied upon by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed as follows:
"Exoneration in the Departmental Proceedings ipso facto would not result in the quashing of criminal proceedings. However, if the Prosecution against an Accused is solely based on a finding in a proceeding and that finding is set aside by the superior authority in the hierarchy, the very foundation goes and the Prosecution may be quashed. But, that principle will not apply in the case of the Departmental Proceedings as the criminal trial and the Departmental Proceedings are held by 2 different entities and they are not in the same hierarchy".
399 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] While holding so, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has concurred with the decision in the case of State -Vs- M.Krishna Mohan, reported in (2007) 14 SCC 667, wherein it is held that, the decision in the case of P.S.Rajya was rendered on peculiar facts obtaining therein and that reliance of the High Court on that ruling was totally uncalled for as the factual situation in that case was entirely different than the one prevalent in the present case. All these principles are aptly applicable to the case on hand. As such, the decisions relied upon by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 are of no assistance to him to substantiate his argument and on the other hand, they go against his contention. Hence, it is not fit to accept the argument of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 that the Accused-1 cannot be held guilty in view of his exoneration in the Departmental Proceedings.
524. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 has also argued that the excess amount of Assets held by the Accused-1 are comparatively small considering the service and income of the Accused-1 and that as such, it cannot be held that the Accused-1 is guilty of possessing Disproportionate Assets within the meaning of Sections 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(e) of the Act. In support of his argument, the learned Advocate appearing on bhelf of the Accused-1 and 2 has relied upon the decision in the case of Krishnananda Agnihothri -Vs-
400 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] State of M.P., reported in AIR 1997 Supreme Court 796, wherein it is held that since the excess Assets possessed by the Accused was comparatively small i.e., less than 10% of the total income, it would not be right to hold that the Assets found in the possession of the Accused were disproportionate to his known sources of income. In the above case, as the excess Assets possessed by the Accused was being less than 10% of the total income was comparatively small amount, it is held that the Accused cannot be held guilty for possessing Disproportionate Assets to his known sources of income.
525. But, in the case on hand, the extent of Disproportionate Assets is 57.51% i.e., almost 60% to the known sources of income of the Accused-1. As the said extent of Disproportionate Assets is far more than 10%, it cannot be said that it is a small or paltry amount. Hence, the decision relied upon by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 do not in any way assist him to substantiate his arguments.
526. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2 has contended that if the Assets, Income and Expenditure of the Accused-1 and 2 and their children had been segregated into 4 different Accounts, it will be absolutely clear that there is no Disproportionate Assets in the account of the Accused-1. On the available evidence on record, this Court considered and determined 401 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] the contention of the Accused-1 and 2 and also that of their children about their Assets, Income and Expenditure separately. On such consideration, this Court has liberally accepted the explanation of the Accused-1 and 2, which is supported by acceptable documents and which is probable even in the absence of documents. As observed above, the Accused-1 and 2 and their children could not able to prove their source of income as contended by them other than the one accepted by this Court. In spite of taking liberal view about the explanation offered by the Accused- 1 and 2, the proved facts show that the Disproportionate Assets possessed by the Accused-1 amounts to 57.51% to his known sources of income and that there is no satisfactory account or explanation to this excess Assets possessed by him, which negatives the arguments of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused-1 and 2. These proved facts show beyond all reasonable doubts that the Accused-1 is guilty of Criminal Misconduct within the meaning of Section 13(1)(e) of the Act, which is punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act. For all these reasons, this Point is answered in the affirmative.
POINTS-5 & 6
527. The learned Public Prosecutor has contended that as the Accused-2 being the wife of the Accused-1 has abetted the Accused-1 to commit Criminal Misconduct of acquiring properties disproportionate to his known sources of Income by holding properties in her name on behalf of 402 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] the Accused-1 and that by creating false evidence to make believe that she had income though she had no source of income, the Accused-2 is guilty of an offence punishable under Sections 109 of the IPC r/w. 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(e) of the Act. In support of her argument, the learned Public Prosecutor has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated 09.08.1999 in the case of P.Nallammal -Vs- State Represented By Inspector of Police. In that case, it is held that there is no bar to proceed under Section 109 of the IPC against the persons, who have abetted the commission of offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act.
528. But, there is no evidence on behalf of the Complainant to show as to how and in what manner the Accused-2 created false evidence to make believe that she had income. There is no evidence to show that the Accused-2 instigated the Accused-1 in any manner to amaze Assets illegally disproportionate to his known sources of income. There is also no evidence to show that the Accused-2 engaged with the Accused-1 or any other person in any conspiracy for committing such an offence. There is nothing also on behalf of the Complainant to show that the Accused-2 intentionally aided the Accused-1 either by any act or illegal omission for committing the offence of Criminal Misconduct. It is true that there are some Assets in the name of the Accused-2 also. As observed above, the Accused-2 was Bank employee and she has proved her 403 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] legal income to some extent, though she could not prove her Receipt and Income as contended by the Accused-1 and 2. The Accused-2 is the wife of the Accused-1. It is a matter of common knowledge that a husband keeps his Assets in the name of his wife or children and normally, wife and children will not ask the husband and the husband will also not disclose to his wife and children about the source of those Assets. There is nothing to show on behalf of the Complainant that knowing fully well that the Accused-1 amazed Assets from illegal sources, the Accused-2 permitted or allowed him to keep those Assets in her name or in the name of her children. As such, if the Accused-1 keeps some of his Assets in the name of the Accused-2 without disclosing the source of those Assets, it cannot be inferred, in the absence of any evidence, that the Accused-2 has abetted the Accused-1 to acquire those Assets in her name. Hence, the Accused-2 cannot be held as guilty for the offence of abetment as alleged by the Complainant. For all these reasons, it is clear that the Complainant has failed to prove the alleged guilt of the Accused-2 for the offence punishable under Sections 109 r/w. 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(e) of the Act and accordingly, Points-5 and 6 are answered in the negative.
POINT-7
529. In view of the above findings of this Court on Points-1 to 6, the Accused-2 is entitled for acquittal and 404 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] the Accused-1 is liable for conviction for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(e) of the Act.
530. As observed above, it is found that the Accused-1 possessed Disproportionate Assets worth Rs.65,84,403.79 to his known sources of income. The Complainant has not filed any Petition under Section 3 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944 r/w. Section 5 (6) of the Act before this Court seeking attachment of Assets and Assets of the Accused-1 have not been attached as per the provisions of the said Ordinance of 1944. In the case of A.Radhakrishnamurthy -Vs- State of Andhra Pradesh reported in III (2004) CCR 45 (AP), it is held that Disproportionate Assets not attached under the Ordinance, 1944 can be confiscated by the Court under Section 452 of the Cr.P.C., 1973. As the Accused-1 possessed Disproportionate Assets worth Rs.65,84,403.79 to his known sources of income and as he has not given any satisfactory account in respect of acquiring those Assets lawfully, the said Assets are fit to be confiscated.
531. In the case on hand, the Complainant has seized Rs.1,50,000/- from the House of the Accused-1 during Search and Inventory. P.W.91 has stated that the said amount is deposited at Vijaya Bank, Gangenahalli Branch on 03.05.2005 by taking permission from this Court. Apart from the said seizure of Cash, Savings Bank 405 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Accounts, Public Provident Fund Accounts, Overdraft Accounts, Post Office Savings Bank Accounts, Demat Accounts and Fixed Deposit Accounts standing in the name of the Accused-1 and 2 and their sons have been freezed as mentioned in Annexure-XII of the Charge Sheet. Said Cash and the amount available in the freezed Accounts are more than sufficient to recover the confiscated Disproportionate Assets. As such, it is just and proper to Order to confiscate the said amount of Rs.1,50,000/- seized by the Complainant and kept under Deposit by him and also the amount available in the freezed Accounts, mentioned above, to an extent of Rs.65,84,403.79 in all including seized Cash of Rs.1,50,000/- for realization of confiscated Disproportionate Assets. It is also just and proper to direct the Complainant to take appropriate steps for realization of confiscated Disproportionate Assets from the freezed Accounts, to remit the same to the Court and also to de-freeze those freezed Accounts after realization of entire Disproportionate Assets.
532. In the result, the following Order is passed:
ORDER
1. Under Section 235(1) of the Cr.P.C., 1973, the Accused-2 is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 r/w. Sections 13(2) r/w.
13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and she is set at liberty.
2. Under Section 235(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973, the Accused-1 is convicted for the offence 406 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] punishable under Sections 13(2) r/w.
13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. Sentence will be passed after hearing the Accused-1.
(Dictated to Judgment Writer, transcribed by her, revised, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 30th day of January 2016.) (ASWATHA NARAYANA) XLVII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru.
ORDER ON SENTENCE
533. Heard Counsels of both the sides and also the Accused-1 regarding sentence to be imposed on the Accused-1. Records Perused.
534. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused-1 submitted that the Accused-1 being a senior citizen is the first offender, he has no criminal background, he is suffering from Diabetes and high Blood Pressure, he is having wife, his children left him after filing of this case and that he has already suffered punishment by attending the Court since 2007 and that, as such, lenient view may be taken while imposing sentence on the Accused-1. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as the Accused-1 being an Officer of Joint Secretary level has committed grave economic offence with high disregard to his office and the welfare of the Society, he is 407 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] not entitled to any lenience and that maximum punishment provided in the Section has to be imposed on him.
535. The Accused-1 has committed the offence punishable under Sections 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Accused-1 being a Public Servant has amazed Disproportionate Assets to an extent of about Rs.66 Lakhs i.e., almost 60% to his known sources of income and as such, the said act of the Accused-1 is a serious offence. The Accused-1 was a Group 'A' officer of the Central Government in the cadre of Joint Secretary level. Though he was in such a high position, without any regard to his office and the oath taken by him and also by ignoring the welfare of the Society, he has committed the heinous crime. Corruption by Public Servant is highly dangerous to the Society and it seriously affects the welfare of the nation. The Apex Court has held time and again that it is the duty of the Court to award proper sentence having regard to the manner in which the offence was committed and that age of the Accused and that sufficient time elapsed since occurrence of the incident are of no relevance and that showing undue sympathy would do more harm to criminal justice system undermining the public confidence in the efficacy of the system. If any mercy is shown, a wrong message will go to the Society to the effect that, it is possible to escape from the punishment by committing serious offences also. Such a wrong message will have a serious repercussion on the Society that too in these hard days, where there is severe 408 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] increase of crime rate that too by Public Servants holding high positions. On considering all these facts and circumstances, nature and gravity of the offence that the Accused-1 has committed, it is not a fit case to show mercy on the Accused-1. However, the Accused-1 is attending the Court since more than 8 years. Assets held by him in his name and in the name of his family members in various Bank Accounts, Shares etc., have been freezed since 8 years. By this way, he has suffered some punishment already. Now he is retired from service. Having regard to all these facts, nature and gravity of the offence committed by the Accused-1 and all other facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the ends of justice would be met if the Accused-1 is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.15,00,000/- and in default to pay fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period of six months for the offence punishable under Sections 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In the result, the following Order is passed:
ORDER
1. Under Section 235(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973, The Accused-1 is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.15,00,000/- and in default to pay fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period of six months for the offence punishable under
409 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Sections 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Disproportionate Assets worth Rs.65,84,403.79 held by the Accused-1 in his name and in the names of his family members are confiscated to State. For realisation of the said Disproportionate Assets, Cash of Rs.1,50,000/- seized by the Complainant from the House of the Accused-1 and also the amount available in the freezed Accounts standing in the names of the Accused-1 and 2 and their sons, as mentioned in Annexure-XII of the Charge Sheet, to an extent of Rs.64,34,403.79 (Rs.65,84,403.79 -
Rs.1,50,000/-) in all is ordered to be confiscated. The Complainant shall take appropriate steps for realization of the said confiscated amount, to remit the same to the Court and also to de-freeze the freezed Accounts after realization of the Disproportionate Assets.
(Computerized by the Judgment Writer to my dictation in the open Court on this the 30th day of January 2016.) (ASWATHA NARAYANA) XLVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru.
410 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT WITH THE DATES OF THEIR EXAMINATION:
P.W.1: Sri.B.N.Bharath 27.01.2011.
P.W.2: Smt.H.Vasanthi 28.01.2011.
P.W.3: Sri.S.K. Shanmugam 28.01.2011.
P.W.4: Sri.V. Lakshminarayan 29.01.2011.
P.W.5: Sri.B.Nagaraja 29.01.2011.
P.W.6: Sri.K.C.Krishnamani 28.02.2011.
P.W.7: Sri.M.G.Gangaramaiah 28.02.2011.
P.W.8: Sri.K.H.K.Kuberappa 28.02.2011.
P.W.9: Sri.A.T.Manjunath 01.03.2011.
P.W.10: Sri.Mrithyunjaya Patil 01.03.2011.
P.W.11: Sri.M.V.Venkatesh 01.04.2011.
Sri.N.R.Patil 01.04.2011.
P.W.12:
Sri.J.Krishnamurthy 01.04.2011.
P.W.13:
Sri.S.V.Balasubramanya 01.04.2011.
P.W.14:
Sri.V.Shankar Ram 01.04.2011.
P.W.15:
P.W.16: Sri.S.N.Girish 01.04.2011.
P.W.17: Sri.R.B.Lathe 01.04.2011.
P.W.18: Sri.V.S.Dharmappa 02.04.2011.
411 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
P.W.19: Sri.M.R.Nagaraj 02.04.2011.
P.W.20: Sri.Shivaramaiah 02.04.2011.
P.W.21: Sri.K.R.Renuka Prasad 02.04.2011.
P.W.22: Smt.Julian Jones 02.04.2011.
P.W.23: Sri.G.Sukumar 02.04.2011.
P.W.24: Sri.Ombalaiah 02.04.2011.
P.W.25: Smt.Gayathri Srinivas 08.04.2011.
P.W.26: Sri.M.Jayaram 08.04.2011.
P.W.27: Sri.A.K. Praveen Shankar 08.04.2011.
P.W.28: Smt.Y. Sandhya Bai 28.05.2011.
P.W.29: Sri.B.S.Krishna Murthy 28.05.2011.
P.W.30: Sri.K.S.Sathyaprakash 28.05.2011.
P.W.31: Miss.Aditi Chirmule 28.05.2011.
P.W.32: Sri.Vijay R Kethan 28.05.2011.
P.W.33: Sri.V.S.Venkataraman 28.05.2011.
P.W.34: Sri.T.D.Ramdyan 28.05.2011.
P.W.35: Sri.H.J.Yatish 18.06.2011.
P.W.36: Sri.K.Natarajan 18.06.2011.
P.W.37: Sri.B.Manjunath 18.06.2011.
P.W.38: Sri.A.V.Deshmukh 18.06.2011.
P.W.39: Sri.Annu Naik 18.06.2011.
412 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
P.W.40: Sri.Govinda Iyengar 02.07.2011.
P.W.41: Sri.P.S.Unnikrishnan 02.07.2011.
P.W.42: Sri.H.N.Anantha Padmanabha 02.07.2011.
P.W.43: Sri.A.Lakshminarayana 02.07.2011.
P.W.44: Sri.S.K.Lodh 02.07.2011.
P.W.45: Sri.Praveen Pai 02.07.2011.
P.W.46: Sri.M.Nagaraj 19.07.2011.
P.W.47: Sri.B.Ramakrishna 19.07.2011.
P.W.48: Sri.B.A.M.P. Rathnasami 19.07.2011.
P.W.49: Sri.B.S.Gupta 19.07.2011.
P.W.50: Smt.Urmila Anand 19.07.2011.
P.W.51: Sri.A.N.Satish 16.08.2011.
P.W.52: Sri.B.Venkatachalam 16.08.2011.
P.W.53: Sri.G.Subramani 16.08.2011.
P.W.54: Sri.S.Jayashankar 07.09.2011.
P.W.55: Sri.Rajan Puri 07.09.2011.
P.W.56: Sri.Cherian Mampra 07.09.2011.
P.W.57: Sri.Karunashekara Reddy 07.09.2011.
P.W.58: Sri.Stanley 07.09.2011.
P.W.59: Sri.M.V.Jaiprakash 07.09.2011.
P.W.60: Sri.T.G.Bhat 07.09.2011.
413 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
P.W.61: Sri.Bheemappa 08.09.2011.
P.W.62: Sri.K.Suresh Shetty 08.09.2011.
P.W.63: Sri.V.Muniyappa 08.09.2011.
P.W.64: Sri.Subbaiah 08.09.2011.
P.W.65: Sri.T.M.Saifuddin Rizwani 08.09.2011.
P.W.66: Sri.Sajjan Raj 08.09.2011.
P.W.67: Sri.Paul Vimal Dev 22.09.2011.
P.W.68: Sri.Harish Shenoy 22.09.2011.
P.W.69: Sri.B.N.V.Sudheer 22.09.2011.
P.W.70: Sri.N.V.Sripathi Bhat 23.09.2011.
P.W.71: Sri.H.Keshava Murthy 23.09.2011.
P.W.72: Sri.K.P.Manjunath 23.09.2011.
P.W.73: Smt. Nalini Rao 23.09.2011.
P.W.74: Sri.P.Muniraju 23.09.2011.
P.W.75: Sri.R.K.Giridhar 23.09.2011.
P.W.76: Sri.K.V.Ramesh 23.09.2011.
P.W.77: Sri.C.Vishwanath 23.09.2011.
P.W.78: Sri.T.M.Musavvir 23.09.2011.
P.W.79: Sri.R.S.Annappa 24.09.2011.
P.W.80: Sri.Sanjay Kumar Gupta 24.09.2011.
P.W.81: Smt.Sheela Bentan 24.09.2011.
414 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
P.W.82: Smt.Nalini 24.09.2011.
P.W.83: Sri.N.S.Krishna Murthy 24.09.2011.
P.W.84: Sri.Srinivas 24.09.2011.
P.W.85: Sri.Venkatesh S.Shet 24.09.2011.
P.W.86: Sri.S.Narasimhamurthy 24.09.2011.
P.W.87: Sri.R.Subramanya 24.09.2011.
P.W.88: Smt.Savitha Prabhakar 28.09.2011.
P.W.89: Sri.Prashanth P.Rai 28.09.2011.
P.W.90: Sri.Syed Shafi Ahmed 28.09.2011.
P.W.91: Sri.M.V.S.S.Shastri 29.09.2011.
2. LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P.1 : Certificate Under Section 2A of the Bankers' Books of Evidence Act issued by SBI, Magadi Road Branch, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.2 : Letter dated 04.06.2005 issued by SBI, Basaveshwaranagara Branch, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of P.W.1 in Ex.P.2.
Ex.P.3 : Attested Copy of Statement of Account No.48 (PPF) - New No.01800900048 of the Accused-1 issued by SBI, Basaveshwaranagara Branch, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.4 : Accounts Statement pertaining to Account No.736 of the Accused-2 issued by SBI, Basaveshwaranagara Branch, Bengaluru.
415 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Ex.P.5 : Account Statements of PF Account No.01P00901669-New No.10170099204 of Sri.Abhishek A.B. issued by SBI, Basaveshwaranagara Branch, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.6 : Seizure Memo dated 30.08.2005 with Statement of Term Deposit Account of the Accused-1.
Ex.P.7 : Pass Book pertaining to PPF Account No.48 of the Accused-1.
Ex.P.7-A : Pass Book relating to Account No.01P00900036.
Ex.P.8 : Pass Book pertaining to PPF Account No.736 of the Accused-2.
Ex.P.9 : Pass Book pertaining to PPF Account No.01P00901669 of Sri.A.B.Abhishek.
Ex.P.10 : Seizure Memo dated 07.06.2005.
Ex.P.10(a) : Signature of P.W.2 in Ex.P.10.
Ex.P.11 : Term Deposit Account of the Accused-2.
Ex.P.12 : Special Term Deposit Account No.01292010642 of Sri.Aravind Anand.
Ex.P.13 : Statement of Special Term Deposit of Account No.01292010641 of the Accused-2 and Sri.A.B. Abhishek.
Ex.P.14 : Statement of Special Term Deposit of Account No.0129201064100 of the Accused-2 and Sri.A.B. Abhishek.
Ex.P.15 : Statement of Special Term Deposit bearing Account No. 01292010642 -
New No.10116532678 of the Accused-2 and Sri.Aravind Anand.
416 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
Ex.P.16 : Statement of Housing Term Loan
Account No.01593010638 of the
Accused-2.
Ex.P.17 : Statement of Housing Term Loan
Account No.0159301063800 of the
Accused-2.
Ex.P.18 : Statement of S.B.Account
No.01190010638 of the Accused-2.
Ex.P.19 : Statement of Savings Bank Account
No.01190010639 of the Accused-1 & 2.
Ex.P.20 : Pass Book of S.B Account No.638 of the Accused-2.
Ex.P.21 : Pass Book of S.B Account No.639 of the Accused-1.
Ex.P.22 : Seizure Memo Dated 24/06/2005.
Ex.P.23 : Letter Dated 07.06.2005 of Punjab National Bank, Malleshwaram Branch, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.23(a) : Signature of P.W.3 in Ex.P.23.
Ex.P.24 : Statement of SB Account bearing No.56916 of the Accused-2 and 1 of Punjab National Bank, Malleshwaram Branch, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.25 : Statement of Account bearing No.1261009400023583 of the Accused-2 of Punjab National Bank, Malleshwaram Branch, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.26 : Statement of Term Deposit Account No.1261005300720016 of the Accused-2 and 1.
Ex.P.27 : FD Pass Book pertaining Account No.5691 of the Accused-2 and 1.
417 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Ex.P.28 : Statement of Account bearing No.6363 of the Accused-2 issued by Punjab National Bank, Malleshwaram Branch, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.29 : Over Draft Account pertaining to SB Account No.9423583 (5691) of the Accused-2 & 1 at Punjab National Bank, Malleshwaram Branch, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.30 : Statement of Account of FD pertaining to Account No.1261003102868228 (in deposition FD No.312868228) of the Accused-2 and A-1 issued by Punjab National Bank, Malleshwaram Branch, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.31 : Statement of Account of FD pertaining to Account No.1261003102868237 (in deposition FD No.312868287) of A-1 and A-2.
Ex.P.32 : Statement of Locker Deposit pertaining to Locker No.5578043 of the Accused-1 & 2. (Account No.1261005500078043).
Ex.P.33 : Statement of Locker Deposit pertaining to Locker No.5578043 of the Accused-1 & 2. (Account No.1261005500078034).
Ex.P.34 : Locker Operation Statement of the Accused-1 & 2.
Ex.P.35 : FD Receipt of Punjab National Bank dated 22.12.1997 pertaining to Account No.2025 for Rs.25,000/- of the the Accused-1 & 2.
Ex.P.36 : FD Receipt of Punjab National Bank dated 22.12.1997 pertaining to Account No.2024 for Rs.25,000/- of the the Accused-2 & 1.
Ex.P.37 : Letter dated 07.06.2005 issued by Punjab National Bank, Hudson Circle, Bengaluru.
418 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Ex.P.37(a) : Signature of P.W.4 in Ex.P.37.
Ex.P.38 : Statement of Account of SB Account No.17867 of the Accused-1 at Punjab National Bank, Hudson Circle, Bengaluru. Ex.P.38(a) : Entry dated 15.03.2005 for Rs.87,750/-
in Ex.P.38.
Ex.P.38(b) : Entry dated 15.03.2005 for Rs.87,750/-
in Ex.P.38.
Ex.P.39 : Term Deposit Receipt dated 08.06.2005 of the Accused-2 & 1.
Ex.P.40 : Term Deposit Receipt dated 08.06.2005 of the Accused-1 & 2.
Ex.P.41 : Term Deposit Statement pertaining to FD No.4272 Ex.P.42 : Term Deposit Receipt dated 08.06.2005 of the Accused-1.
Ex.P.43 : Term Deposit Receipt dated 08.06.2005 of the Accused-2 & 1.
Ex.P.44 : Term Deposit Receipt dated 08.06.2005 of the the Accused-2 & 1.
Ex.P.45 : Term Deposit Receipt dated 08.06.2005 of the Accused-1 & 2.
Ex.P.46 : Pass Book of the Accused-1 pertaining to SB Account No.1786.
Ex.P.47 : Pass Book of the Accused-1 pertaining to SB Account No.1786.
Ex.P.48 : FD Receipt of PNB for Rs.3,00,000/-
pertaining to Account No.4153 of the Accused-2 & 1.
Ex.P.49 : FD Receipt of PNB for Rs.70,000/-
pertaining to Account No.4203 of the Accused-1 & 2.
419 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Ex.P.50 : FD Receipt of PNB for Rs.80,000/-
pertaining to Account No.4153 of the Accused-2 & 1.
Ex.P.51 : FD Receipt of PNB for Rs.4,50,000/-
pertaining to Account No.4272 of the Accused-1 & 2.
Ex.P.52 : FD Receipt of PNB for Rs.75,000/-
pertaining to Account No.3152 of the Accused-1 & 2.
Ex.P.53 : FD Receipt of PNB for Rs.75,000/-
pertaining to Account No.3151 of the Accused-2 & 1.
Ex.P.54 : FD Receipt of PNB for Rs.3,00,000/-
pertaining to Account No.4383 of the Accused-1.
Ex.P.55 : Letter dated 01.09.2005 of Punjab National Bank.
Ex.P.56 : Seizure Memo dated 08.06.2005. Ex.P.56(a) : Signature of P.W.5 in Ex.P.56 Ex.P.57 : Statement of Account pertaining to Account No.2414 of the Accused-2 at Canara Bank, Jayanagara 9th Block, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.57(a) : Entries dated 24.07.2001 in Ex.P.57.
Ex.P.58 : Statement of Accounts pertaining to SB Account No.2537 of Sri.Aravind Anand at Canara Bank, Jayanagara 9th Block, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.59 : Statement of Accounts pertaining to SB Account No.2538 of Sri.A.B. Abhishek at Canara Bank, Jayanagara 9th Block, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.60 : Statement of OD Account No.139 dated 07.06.2005 of the Accused-2.
420 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Ex.P.61 : Statement of Term Deposit Account pertaining to Account No.4191 of the Accused-2 & 1 at Canara Bank, Jayanagara 9th Block, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.62 : Statement of Term Deposit Account pertaining to Account No.4192 of the Accused-2 & 1 at Canara Bank, Jayanagara 9th Block, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.63 : Statement of Term Deposit Account pertaining to Account No.3967 of the Accused-2 & 1 at Canara Bank, Jayanagara 9th Block, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.64 : Statement of Term Deposit Account pertaining to Account No.6591 of the Accused-2 at Canara Bank, Jayanagara 9th Block, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.65 : Statement of Term Deposit Account pertaining to Account No.4514 of Mr.Abhishek A.B at Canara Bank, Jayanagara 9th Block, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.66 : Statement of Term Deposit Account pertaining to Account No.4513 of Mr.Aravind Anand at Canara Bank, Jayanagara 9th Block, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.67 : SB Account Bank Pass Book of Canara Bank pertaining to Account No.2414 of the Accused-2 at Canara Bank, th Jayanagara 9 Block, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.68 : SB Account Bank Pass Book of Canara Bank pertaining to Account No.2537 of Sri.Aravind Anand.
Ex.P.69 : SB Account Bank Pass Book of Canara Bank pertaining to Account No.2538 of Sri.Abhishek A.B. Ex.P.70 : Seizure Memo dated 12.07.2005.
Ex.P.70(a) : Signature of P.W.5 in Ex.P.70.
421 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Ex.P.71 : Statement of FD Account bearing No.4413 pertaining to the Accused-2 & 1 at Canara Bank, Jayanagara 9th Block, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.72 : Statement of FD Account bearing No.1909 pertaining to the Accused-2 &1.
Ex.P.73 : Statement of FD Account bearing No.1910 pertaining to the Accused-2 &1. Ex.P.74 : Statement of KD Account bearing No.5690 pertaining to A-2. (in deposition deposed as Account No.3509).
Ex.P.75 : Statement of SB Account No.01190020603 for the period from 23.10.1991 to 30.04.2005 pertaining to the Accused-1 of SBI, CBAB Complex, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.76 : Pass Book bearing SB Account No. 01190020603 of the Accused-1.
Ex.P.77 : Statement of Account of SB Account No.60645 of the Accused-2, of Canara Bank, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.78 : Original Pass Book of SB Account of the Accused-2.
Ex.P.79 : Statement of SB Account No.19255 of the Accused-1 of Canara Bank, Tumkur Main Branch.
Ex.P.80 : Statement of FD Account bearing No.915 of the Accused-1 of Canara Bank, Tumkur Main Branch.
Ex.P.81 : Statement of KD Account bearing No.8197 of the Accused-1 of Canara Bank, Tumkur Main Branch.
Ex.P.82 : Pass Book bearing Account No.19255 of the Accused-1.
Ex.P.83 : Statement of Account pertaining to 422 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Account No.5643 of the Accused-2 & 1 of Dena Bank, Jayanagara Branch, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.84 : Pass Book of SB Account No.5643 pertaining to the Accused-2 & 1.
Ex.P.85 : Account Opening Form dated 08.10.1997 pertaining to SB Account No.81345 of Dena Bank of the Accused-2 & 1.
Ex.P.86 : Statement of Account pertaining to Account No.81345 of the Accused-2 and 1 at Dena Bank.
Ex.P.87 : Statement of Account extract of SB Account No.04002010042067 of the Accused-1 at Syndicate Bank, Gandhinagara Branch, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.88 : Covering Letter Dated 08.06.20015 of Syndicate Bank, Gandhinagara Branch. Ex.P.89 : Pass Book of SB Account No. 04002010042067 of the Accused-1.
Ex.P.90 : Statement of Account bearing SB Account No.5658 of the Accused-1 at Sricharan Souhardha Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Ex.P.91 : Statement of Account bearing SB Account No.5659 of the Accused-2 at Sricharan Souhardha Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Ex.P.92 : Pass Book of SB Account No.5658 of the Accused-1.
Ex.P.93 : Pass Book of SB Account No.5659 of the Accused-2.
Ex.P.94 : Covering Letter dated 09.06.2005 of Sri Charana Souhardha Co-Operative Bank Ltd.
Ex.P.95 : Statement of Account pertaining to SB Account No.9291 of A-1 423 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Ex.P.96 : New Pass Book of SB Account No.9291 of the Accused-1.
Ex.P.97 : Old Pass Book of SB Account No.9291 of the Accused-1.
Ex.P.98 : Statement of DJJ Deposit Account of Apex Bank.
Ex.P.99 : Statement of Savings Banks Account of Post Office SB Account of the Accused-1. Ex.P.100 : Duplicate Pass Book pertaining to SB Account No.2792446 of the Accused-1.
Ex.P.101 : Letter dated 10.06.2005 issued by Sub Post Master, K.G.Road Post Office.
Ex.P.102 : Post Office Savings Bank Ledger Extract pertaining to Account No.426859 of the Accused-2.
Ex.P.103 : Post Office Savings Bank Ledger Extract of Account No.MIS21197 of the Accused-
2. Ex.P.104 : Statement of Post Office RD Account No.41100459 of the Accused-2.
Ex.P.105 : Statement of Post Office SB Account pertaining to Account No.2601189 of the Accused-2.
Ex.P.106 : Statement of Monthly Income Accounts Scheme pertaining to Account No.25356 of the Accused-1 and 2.
Ex.P.107 : Pass Book pertaining to Account No.41100459 of the Accused-2 & 1.
Ex.P.108 : Pass Book pertaining to Account No.426859 of the Accused-2 & 1.
Ex.P.109 : Pass Book pertaining to Account No.21197 of the Accused-2 & 1.
Ex.P.110 : Pass Book pertaining to Account No.2601189 of the Accused-2 & 1.
424 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Ex.P.111 : Pass Book pertaining to Account No.25356 of the Accused-2 & 1.
Ex.P.112 : Letter dated 23.08.2006 issued by Standard Chartered Bank with a Statement of Account No.45610018583 of the Accused-1.
Ex.P.113 : Statement of Account of Standard Chartered Bank pertaining to Account No.45630009954 of the Accused-1.
Ex.P.114 : Statement of Account of Standard Chartered Bank pertaining to Account No.45630009962 of the Accused-1.
Ex.P.115 : Statement of Account of Oriental Bank of Commerce pertaining to Savings Bank Account No.1503018690 of the Accused-
2. Ex.P.116 : 8 FD Receipts Statement pertaining to Account No.JNB26446 of the Accused-2.
Ex.P.117 : Canara Bank Account Statement of the Accused-2.
Ex.P.118 : Statement of Over Draft Account No.ACGA000091220 of Canara Bank of the Accused-2.
Ex.P.119 : Statement of Over Draft Account No.ACGA000091221 of Canara Bank of the Accused-2.
Ex.P.120 : Statement of FD Account of the Accused-
2. Ex.P.121 : Statement of Account pertaining to SB Account No.8269 of the Accused-2 of Bank of India, Basaveshwaranagara Branch, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.122 : Certified Copy of Account Opening Form of SB Account No.8269 of the Accused-2 of Bank of India.
425 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Ex.P.123 : Statement of Account pertaining to DBD Account No.1022 of the Accused-2 of Bank of India.
Ex.P.124 : Certified Copy of Term Deposit Account Opening Form of Account No.102 of the Accused-2 & 1 of Bank of India.
Ex.P.125 : Statement of Account pertaining to OD Account No.1070 of the Accused-2 at Canara Bank, Jayanagara 4th 'T' Block, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.126 : Statement of FD Account pertaining to KD Account No.9055 of the Accused-1 & 2 at Canara Bank, Jayanagara 4th 'T' Block, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.127 : True Copy of FD Receipt of KD Account No.9055 of the Accused-1 & 2 at Canara Bank, Jayanagara 4th 'T' Block, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.128 : True Copy of FD Receipt pertaining to KD Account No.011931 of the Accused-2 & 1 at Canara Bank, Jayanagara 4th 'T' Block, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.129 : True Copy of FD Receipt of KD Account No.013285 of A-2 & A-1.
Ex.P.130 : True Copy of FD Receipt of KD Account No.01013286 of the Accused-2 & 1 at Canara Bank, Jayanagara 4th 'T' Block, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.131 : Certified Copy of Sale Deed dated 29.11.2003 pertaining to the Accused-2. Ex.P.132 : Certified Copy of Registered Document No.3832/98-99 dated 05.09.1999 of the Accused-1.
Ex.P.133 : Certified Copy of Sale Deed dated 03.11.1995 of the Accused-2.
426 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Ex.P.134 : Certified Copy of Sale Deed dated 23.07.2001 of the Accused-2.
Ex.P.135 : Attested Copy of Statement pertaining to SB Account No.008231815001 of the Accused-1 & 2 along with Account Opening Form of Centurian Bank Ltd.
Ex.P.136 : Statement of SB Account No.0018233870001 of Sri.A.B.Abhishek.
Ex.P.137 : Statement of SB Account No.0018233879001 of Sri.Aravind Anand along with Account Opening Form.
Ex.P.138 : Statement of Chit pertaining to Chit No.KS/3-2 of the Accused-1.
Ex.P.139 : Statement of Chit pertaining to Chit No.KN/08-23 of A-1.
Ex.P.140 : Statement of Chit pertaining to Chit No.KS/10-1 of the Accused-1.
Ex.P.141 : Certified Copy of Sale Deed Dated 6.9.2003 of the Accused-2.
Ex.P.142 : Statement of Account of SB Account No.11322 of Sri.Abhishek Anand at Canara Bank, Magadi Road Branch, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.143 : Canara Bank, Magadi Road Branch Account Opening Form of Sri.Abhishek Anand.
Ex.P.144 : Pass Book pertaining to Account No.11322 of Sri.Abhishek Anand.
Ex.P.145 : Statement of SB Account No.37399 of the Accused-2 & 1 at Rajajinagara Co-
operative Bank Ltd.
Ex.P.146 : Statement of SB Account No.3517 of the Accused-1 at Rajajinagara Co-operative Bank Ltd.
427 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Ex.P.147 : Statement of FD Account No.13364 of the Accused-1 at Rajajinagara Co-
operative Bank Ltd.
Ex.P.148 : Statement of FD Account No.CCIP2935 of the Accused-1 at Rajajinagara Co-
operative Bank Ltd.
Ex.P.149 : Share Ledger Extract pertaining to Account No.A0002601 of the Accused-1 at Rajajinagara Co-operative Bank Ltd. Ex.P.150 : Statement of Loan Account No.LNED1260 of the Accused-1 at Rajajinagara Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Ex.P.151 : Pass Book pertaining to Account No.37399 of the Accused-2 & 1.
Ex.P.152 : Statement of SB Account No.005301518943 of the Accused-1 of ICICI Bank.
Ex.P.153 : Statement of SB Account No.005301518944 of the Accused-2 of ICICI bank.
Ex.P.154 : IDBI Deep Discount Bond bearing Folio No.DD00243269 of Sri.Abishek Anand.
Ex.P.155 : IDBI Deep Discount Bond bearing Folio No.DD00243284 of Sri.Aravind.
Ex.P.156 : IDBI Deep Discount Bond bearing Folio No.PDDB3376711 of the Accused-2 & 1.
Ex.P.157 : IDBI Deep Discount Bond bearing Folio No.FDDB0163266 of the Accused-2 & 1.
Ex.P.158 : IDBI Infra Bond bearing Folio No.F1B032787 of the Accused-1 & 2.
Ex.P.159 : IDBI Infra Bond bearing Folio No.13IFB4034954 of the Accused-1 & 2.
Ex.P.160 : IDBI Infra Bond bearing Folio No.ZOIFB2113789 of the Accused-1.
428 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Ex.P.161 : Counter Foil of Folio No.AIFB0154141 of the Accused-1 of IDBI Bank.
Ex.P.162 : Statement of PPF Account No.01P00900036/10141035358 of the Accused-2 of SBI, Magadi Road, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.163 : Share Certificate of Can Fin Homes Limited bearing Folio No.L00430 of the Accused-1 & 2.
Ex.P.164 : Share Certificate of Can Fin Homes Limited bearing Folio No.L00430 of the Accused-2.
Ex.P.165 : Share Certificate of Can Fin Homes Limited bearing Folio No.L00430 of the Accused-2.
Ex.P.166 : Share Certificate of Can Fin Homes Limited bearing Folio No.L00430 of the Accused-2.
Ex.P.167 : Share Certificate of Can Fin Homes Limited bearing Folio No.L00430 of the Accused-2.
Ex.P.168 : Statement of Shares of Can Fin Homes Limited of the Accused-2.
Ex.P.169 : Dividend Paid Warrants Dated 19.9.2001 of Can Fin Homes Limited of the Accused-2.
Ex.P.170 : Dividend Paid Warrants Dated 17.7.2002 of Can Fin Homes Limited of the Accused-2.
Ex.P.171 : Dividend Paid Warrants Dated 31.7.2003 of Can Fin Homes Limited of the Accused-2.
Ex.P.172 : Dividend Paid Warrants Dated 21.7.2004 of Can Fin Homes Limited of the Accused-2.
429 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Ex.P.173 : Dividend Paid Warrants dated 26.8.1999 of Can Fin Homes Limited of the Accused-2.
Ex.P.174 : Dividend Paid Warrants dated 24.5.2000 of Can Fin Homes Limited of the Accused-2.
Ex.P.175 : Share Certificate of KFI Limited bearing Folio No.KFI129335 of the Accused-1 &
2. Ex.P.176 : Share Certificate of KFI Limited bearing Folio No.KFI166932 of the Accused-1 &
2. Ex.P.177 : Share Certificate of KFI Limited bearing Folio No.KFI166932 of the Accused-1 &
2. Ex.P.178 : Share Certificate of KOIE Limited bearing Folio No.K51185 of the Accused-1 & 2.
Ex.P.179 : Statement of Dividend of KOIE Limited.
Ex.P.180 : Counter Foil of Dividend Warrant Dated 22.9.2001 of KOIE Limited of the Accused-1 & 2.
Ex.P.181 : Counter Foil of Dividend Warrant Dated 25.5.2000 of KOIE Limited of the Accused-1 & 2.
Ex.P.182 : Share Certificate of Carol Info Services Limited bearing Folio No.00023764 of the Accused-2 & 1.
Ex.P.183 : Share Certificate of Carol Info Services Limited bearing Folio No.00023764 of the Accused-2 & 1.
Ex.P.184 : Share Certificate of Wockhardt Limited bearing Folio No.00066595 of the Accused-2.
430 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Ex.P.185 : Share Certificate of Wockhardt Limited bearing Folio No.00066595 of the Accused-2.
Ex.P.186 : Letter Dated 14.10.2005 of Wockhardt Limited regarding Dividend.
Ex.P.187 : Share Certificate of Mcdowell and Co.
Limited bearing Folio No.MS082502 of the Accused-1 & 2.
Ex.P.188 : Share Certificate of Mcdowell and Co.
Limited bearing Folio No.MS082501 of the Accused-2 & 1.
Ex.P.189 : Share Certificate of Mcdowell and Co.
Limited bearing Folio No.MS082501 of the Accused-1 & 2.
Ex.P.190 : Share Certificate of Mcdowell and Co.
Limited bearing Folio No.MS082502 of the Accused-1 & 2.
Ex.P.191 : Letter dated 10.10.2005 of Mcdowell & Co. regarding Allotment of Shares.
Ex.P.192 : Share certificate of M/s.Opto Circuits (India) Limited bearing Folio No.OPT000119 of the Accused-1 & 2.
Ex.P.193 : Share certificate of M/s.Opto Circuits (India) Limited bearing Folio No.OPT006025 of the Accused-1.
Ex.P.194 : Share certificate of M/s.Opto Circuits (India) Limited bearing Folio No.OPT000119 of the Accused-1 & 2.
Ex.P.195 : Share certificate of M/s.Opto Circuits (India) Limited bearing Folio No.OPT006069 of the Accused-2.
Ex.P.196 : Letter Dated 11.10.2005 of M/s. Opto Circuits (India) Limited regarding Dividend.
431 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Ex.P.197 : Share Certificate of IIT Capital Services Limited bearing Folio No.ICB51025 of the Accused-1.
Ex.P.198 : Share Certificate of IFCI Limited bearing Folio No.00379063 of the Accused-1 & 2. Ex.P.199 : Dividend Paid Voucher of IFCI Limited Dated 06.10.1999.
Ex.P.200 : Share Certificate of BPL Engineering Limited bearing Folio No.BNL028743 of the Accused-1 & 2.
Ex.P.201 : Share Certificate of Cerebra Integrated Technologies Limited bearing Folio No.CIT000142 of the Accused-2.
Ex.P.202 : Share Certificate of Canara Bank bearing Folio No.CNB069441 of the Accused-2.
Ex.P.203 : Letter dated 14.9.2005 from Karvy Private Limited regarding Investments by the Accused-1 & 2.
Ex.P.204 : Letter dated 03.10.2005 from Karvy Private Limited regarding Investment on Canara Bank Shares by the Accused-1 &
2. Ex.P.205 : Dividend Warrant dated 21.02.2005 of Canara Bank.
Ex.P.206 : Dividend Warrant dated 10.11.1999 of BPL Engineering of the Accused-1.
Ex.P.207 : Statement of Account of Loan of HDFC Limited pertaining to Account No.769514 of the Accused-2 & 1.
Ex.P.208 : Letter dated 03.09.2005 of M/s.MCS Limited regarding Investment by the the Accused-1 & 2.
Ex.P.209 : Letter dated 06.09.2005 of M/s.MCS Limited regarding Investment by the Accused-2.
432 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Ex.P.210 : Letter dated 13.10.2005 of M/s.MCS Limited regarding Investment by the Accused-1 & 2.
Ex.P.211 : Letter dated 19.10.2005 of M/s.MCS Limited regarding Investment by the Accused-2.
Ex.P.212 : Letter dated 21.11.2005 of M/s.MCS Limited regarding Allotment of Shares of the Accused-2.
Ex.P.213 : Letter dated 28.12.2005 of M/s.MCS Limited regarding Allotment of Shares to the Accused-1.
Ex.P.214 : Attested Copy of Lease Agreement dated 23.12.1998 of the Accused-1.
Ex.P.214(a) : Amended Lease Agreement of Ex.P.214.
Ex.P.215 : Details of Salary Particulars of the Accused-2.
Ex.P.216 : Statement of Exgracia and Leave Encashment Details of the Accused-2.
Ex.P.217 : Statement of Gratuity of the Accused-2. Ex.P.218 : Statement of PF of the Accused-2. Ex.P.219 : Lease Agreement dated 01.03.2001 of the Accused-2.
Ex.P.220 : Rent Paid Receipts. Ex.P.221 : True Copy of Sale Deed dated
29.11.2003 executed by the Accused-2. Ex.P.222 : Amenities Agreement dated 21.11.2003 executed by the Accused-2.
Ex.P.223 : Pay Order No.928065 dated 02.09.2003 issued in favour of the Accused-2 for Rs.79,925/-.
Ex.P.223(a) : Application for Pay Order for Rs.79,925/-. .
433 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Ex.P.224 : Pay Order No.928066 Dated 2.9.2003 issued in favour of the Accused-2 for Rs.93,720/-.
Ex.P.224(a) Application for Pay Order for Rs.93,720/-. Ex.P.225 : Pay Order No.928067 dated 02.09.2003 issued in favour of the Accused-2 for Rs.1,15,330/-.
Ex.P.225(a) : Application for Pay Order for Rs.1,15,330/-.
Ex.P.226 : Statement of Account of
Sri.V.Purushotham pertaining to SB
Account No.1729.
Ex.P.227 : Statement of Sitting Fees of Bengaluru
Stock Exchange Limited of the Accused-1. Ex.P.228 : Statement of Sitting Fees of Bengaluru Stock Exchange Limited of the Accused-1. Ex.P.229 : Statement of Sitting Expenses & Journey Expenses of the Accused-1.
Ex.P.230 : Statement of Membership Account pertaining to the Accused-1.
Ex.P.231 : Letter Dated 16.7.2005 regarding Membership Details of A-1.
Ex.P.232 : Cash Memo of M/s.Sony World for purchase of Audio System by A-1.
Ex.P.233 : HUDCO Infrastructure Bond bearing Folio No.IB20970 of A-1 & A-2.
Ex.P.234 : Attested Copy of Application Form of M/s.Kowntilya HBCS of Sri.A.B.Aravind. Ex.P.235 : True Copy of Receipt Dated 24.2.2005 of M/s.Kowntilya HBCS for payment of Advance Amount for allotment of Site.
Ex.P.236 : Attested Copy of Application Form of M/s.Kowntilya HBCS of Sri.A.B.Abhishek. 434 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Ex.P.237 : True Copy of Receipt Dated 24.2.2005 of M/s.Kowntilya HBCS for payment of Advance Amount for allotment of Site.
Ex.P.238 : Letter dated 06.06.2005 regarding Salary Particulars of the Accused-1.
Ex.P.239 : Property Returns of the Accused-1 for the year 1996.
Ex.P.240 : Property Returns of the Accused-1 for the year 1997.
Ex.P.241 : Property Returns of the Accused-1 for the year 1998.
Ex.P.242 : Property Returns of the Accused-1 for the year 1999.
Ex.P.243 : Xerox Copy GPF Statement of the Accused-1 for the year 1994-95.
Ex.P.244 : Xerox Copy GPF Statement of the Accused-1 for the year 1995-96.
Ex.P.245 : Xerox Copy GPF Statement of the Accused-1 for the year 1996-97.
Ex.P.246 : Xerox Copy GPF Statement of the Accused-1 for the year 1998-99.
Ex.P.247 : Xerox Copy GPF Statement of the Accused-1 for the year 1998-99.
Ex.P.248 : Xerox Copy GPF Statement of the Accused-1 for the year 2000-01.
Ex.P.249 : Xerox Copy GPF Statement of the Accused-1 for the year 2001-02.
Ex.P.250 : Xerox Copy GPF Statement of the Accused-1 for the year 2002-03.
Ex.P.251 : Xerox Copy GPF Statement of the Accused-1 for the year 2003-04.
Ex.P.252 : Xerox Copy GPF Statement of the Accused-1 for the year 2004-05.
435 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Ex.P.253 : Statement of Movable and Immovable Properties of the Accused-1 as on 31.03.2005.
Ex.P.254 : Statement of Movable and Immovable Properties of the Accused-1 between 1996 and 2005.
Ex.P.255 : Statement of Movable Properties of the Accused-1 as on 31.03.2005.
Ex.P.256 : Statement of Movable Properties of the Accused-1.
Ex.P.257 : Statement of Financial Investment of the Accused-1.
Ex.P.258 : Statement of Financial Investments and Cash of the Accused-1.
Ex.P.259 : Cash Receipt dated 18.09.2003 of M/s.Arena Multi Media.
Ex.P.260 : Cash Receipt dated 13.08.2003 of M/s.Arena Multi Media.
Ex.P.261 : Cash Receipt dated 19.07.2003 of M/s.Arena Multi Media.
Ex.P.262 : Tax Free US-64 Bonds - face value Rs.12,000/- of the Accused-2 & 1.
Ex.P.263 : Tax Free US-64 Bonds - face value Rs.7,900/- of the Accused-1.
Ex.P.264 : Tax Free US-64 Bonds - face value Rs12,000/- of the Accused-1 & 2.
Ex.P.265 : Tax Free US-64 Bonds - face value Rs.5,300/- of the Accused-1.
Ex.P.266 : Tax Free US-64 Bonds - face value Rs.900/- of the Accused-1.
Ex.P.267 : Letter dated 17.10.2005 of UTI Technologies Services Limited regarding Investments by the Accused-1.
436 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Ex.P.268 : Letter dated 23.09.2005 of UTI Technologies Services Limited regarding Investments by the Accused-1.
Ex.P.269 : Letter dated 07.9.2006 of UTI Technologies Services Limited regarding Notice Under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. to the Accused-1.
Ex.P.270 : Invoice dated 09.12.2002 of M/s.Power Link Systems for purchase of UPS by the Accused-1.
Ex.P.271 : Attested Copy of Registration Form of M/s.Hexogon Capital of the Accused-2. Ex.P.272 : Statement of Transaction of the Accused-2 in M/s.Hexogon Capital.
Ex.P.273 : Attested Copy of Karanataka Bank Share Application of the Accused-2.
Ex.P.274 : Letter dated 18.09.2005 of M/s.Can Bank Computer Services regarding details of Investments by the Accused-1 & 2.
Ex.P.275 : Lease Agreement dated 20.04.2002 executed by the Accused-1.
Ex.P.275(a) : Statement of House Rents paid by the Accused-1 during 2002 to 2005.
Ex.P.276 : Letter Dated 10.9.2005 by M/s.Christ Education Society regarding payment of College Fees.
Ex.P.277 : Attested Copy of Fee Receipt issued by M/s.Surana College dated 20.06.2000. Ex.P.278 : Attested Copy of Airtel Subscriber Enrollment Form of the Accused-2.
Ex.P.279 : Certificate of Insurance of M/s.New India Assurance Company bearing Policy No.670400/31/04/03108 of the Accused-2.
437 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Ex.P.280 : Application Form of BSNL for new telephone connection of the Accused-2. Ex.P.281 : Certificate of Insurance of M/s.New India Assurance Company bearing Policy No.671400/31/01/00668 of the Accused-2.
Ex.P.282 : Monthly Maintenance Charges Receipt of M/s.Shanthi Park Building Association from 01.01.2001.
Ex.P.283 : Monthly Maintenance Charges Receipt of M/s.Shanthi Park Building Association from June-1998 to March-2001.
Ex.P.284 : Statement of Tax Paid by the Accused-1 to BBMP.
Ex.P.284(a) : Statement of Tax Paid by the Accused-2 to BBMP.
Ex.P.284(b) : Statement of Tax Paid by the Accused-1 to BBMP from 1996 to 2001.
Ex.P.285 : House Tax Paid Receipt dated 27.04.2004.
Ex.P.286 : Search List dated 06.04.2005.
Ex.P.287 : Proceedings of the Accused-1 dated 06.04.2005.
Ex.P.288 : 7 Receipts of M/s.Sri Krishna Diamonds and Jewellary issued in the name of the Accused-2.
Ex.P.289 : Duplicate Statement of Citi Bank pertaining to Credit Card bearing No. 4568229004157021 of the Accused-1.
Ex.P.290 : Duplicate Statement of Citi Bank pertaining to Credit Card bearing No. 4550386001791101 of the Accused-2.
Ex.P.291 : SB Account Pass Book bearing No.30118 of the Accused-1.
438 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Ex.P.292 : Statement of Account bearing No.30118 of the Accused-1.
Ex.P.293 : Statement of Account bearing No.30117 of the Accused-2.
Ex.P.294 : IT Return Acknowledgement for the
Assessment Year 2003-04 of the
Accused-1.
Ex.P.295 : IT Return Acknowledgement for the
Assessment Year 2004-05 of the
Accused-1.
Ex.P.296 : IT Return Acknowledgement for the
Assessment Year 2005-06 of the
Accused-1.
Ex.P.297 : Certificate of Insurance of M/s.Oriental
Insurance Company for the year 1999- 2000 of the Accused-2.
Ex.P.297(a) : Certificate of Insurance of M/s.Oriental Insurance Company for the year 1998- 99 of the Accused-2.
Ex.P.298 : Acknowledgement of IT Return for the Assessment Year 2003-04 of the Accused-1.
Ex.P.299 : Ledger Extract of Central Bank pertaining to SB Account No.45269 of the Accused-1.
Ex.P.300 : PPF Account Statement of the Accused-2 for the period from 26.2.96 to 26.3.99 and from 6.10.1999 to 22.3.2006.
Ex.P.301 : PPF Account Statement of the Accused-1 for the period from 23.12.1993 to 31.03.2006.
Ex.P.302 : Statement of Account of Locker No.99 of the Accused-1 & 2.
439 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Ex.P.303 : Citi Bank Credit Card Statement pertaining to Card No.4568229004157005 of the Accused-1.
Ex.P.304 : Property Return Extract for the year 2000 of the Accused-1.
Ex.P.305 : Xerox Copy of National Savings Certificate for Rs.500/- of the Accused-1. Ex.P.305(a) : Xerox Copy of National Savings Certificate for Rs.500/- of the Accused-2.
Ex.P.306 : Copy of Sanction Order issued by
Ministry of Corporate Affairs,
Government of India, New Delhi.
Ex.P.307 : Search List pertaining to the Office of
the Accused-1.
Ex.P.308 : Certified Copy of 'B' Register Extract of
Vehicle bearing No.KA-05-P-1396-LMV Motor Car of the Accused-2.
Ex.P.309 : Certified Copy of 'B' Register Extract of Vehicle bearing No.KA-05-EG-903-Motor Cycle above 75CC upto 300CC of the son of the Accused-1-Sri.Abhishek.
Ex.P.310 : First Information Report dated 05.04.2005.
Ex.P.311 : Letter dated 23.02.1979 to KHB written by the Accused-2.
Ex.P.312 : Original Sale Deed executed by KHB in
favour of the Accused-1 dated
14.11.1998.
Ex.P.313 : Shares Allotment Advice of SRF
Nippondenso Limited.
Ex.P.314 : Share Certificate bearing Folio
No.010992 of M/s.Eimco Elecon of the Accused-1 & 2.
Ex.P.315 : Share Certificate bearing Folio No.38753 of M/s.MTZ India Limited of the Accused-
440 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] 1 & 2.
Ex.P.316 : Share Certificate bearing Folio
No.042956 of M/s.Chinar Exports
Limited of the Accused-1 & 2.
Ex.P.317 : Share Certificate bearing Folio No.19930
of M/s.Usha Rectifier Corporation India Limited of the Accused-2.
Ex.P.317(a) : Share Certificate bearing Folio No.19930 of M/s.Usha Rectifier Corporation India Limited of the Accused-2.
Ex.P.318 : Share Certificate bearing Folio No.734401 of M/s.HB Leasing and Finance Company Limited of the Accused-1 & 2.
Ex.P.319 : Share Certificate bearing Folio No.0017682 of M/s.Universal Cans and Containers Limited of the Accused-1 & 2.
Ex.P.320 : Share Certificate bearing Folio No.US007516 of M/s.United Breweries Limited of the Accused-1 & 2.
Ex.P.321 : Share Certificate bearing Folio No.E02065 of M/s.Dupont Sprotswear Limited of the Accused-1.
Ex.P.322 : Share Certificate bearing Folio No.ADD450 of M/s.Dhunser Tea & Industries Limited of the Accused-1 & 2.
Ex.P.323 : Share Certificate bearing Folio No.ICB01025 of M/s.IIT Capital Services Limited of the Accused-1.
Ex.P.324 : Share Certificate bearing Folio No.80000486 of M/s.Television and Company Limited of the Accused-1 & 2.
441 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
Ex.P.325 : Share Certificate bearing Folio
No.802233 of M/s.Hindustan Agro
Chemicals Limited of the Accused-1.
Ex.P.326 : Duplicate Sale Deed dated 08.09.2003 in favour of the Accused-2.
Ex.P.327 : Share Certificate bearing Folio No.KF007516 of M/s.United Breweries (Holding) Limited of the Accused-1 & 2.
Ex.P.328 : Share Certificate bearing Folio No.CNB069442 of M/s.Canara Bank of the the Accused-1 & 2.
Ex.P.329 : Tax Saving Bon bearing Folio No.04814- 982 of M/s.ICICI Bank Limited of the Accused-1.
Ex.P.330 : Global Trust Bank Account Opening Form of the Accused-2.
Ex.P.331 : Statement of Account of Citi Bank of the Accused-1.
Ex.P.332 : Statement of Account of Punjab National Bank of the Accused-1.
Ex.P.333 : Ledger Extract of Central Bank of the Accused-1.
Ex.P.334 : Letter dated 19.07.2005 from M/s.Stock Holding Corporation of India Limited.
Ex.P.335 : Agreement to Rent in favour of the Accused-2.
Ex.P.336 : Bill dated 26.08.2003 of M/s.Nirali Jewellers in favour of the Accused-2.
Ex.P.337 : Public Issue Refund Order of Punjab National Bank for Rs.63,570/- in favour of the Accused-2.
Ex.P.338 : Refund Order of Karnataka Bank for Rs.35,980/- in favour of the Accused-2.
442 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Ex.P.339 : Bill No.3347 of M/s.Aabushan in favour of Sri.Aravind.
Ex.P.340 : Bill No.157047 of M/s.C.Krishnaiah Chetty & Sons in favour of the Accused-2. Ex.P.341 : Letter dated 05.12.2005 from M/s.C.Krishnaiah Chetty & Sons.
Ex.P.342 : Cash Memo Dated 28.08.2004 of M/s.Titan Industries Limited in favour of the Accused-1.
Ex.P.343 : Purchase Order No.858 Dated 8.10.2003 of M/s.Hopes Hoops in favour of the Accused-1.
Ex.P.344 : Canara Bank SB Account Pass Book of the Accused-2.
Ex.P.345 : Central Bank of India SB Account Pass Book of the Accused-1.
Ex.P.346 : Karnataka State Co-operative Bank Limited Fixed Deposit Receipt bearing No.025191 of Rs.1,14,375/- in favour of the Accused-1 & 2.
Ex.P.347 : Rajajinagar Co-operative Bank Limited
Term Deposit Receipt bearing
No.042479 of Rs.45,000/- in favour of the Accused-1 & 2.
Ex.P.348 : Bank of India Fixed Deposit Receipt bearing No.2826738 of Rs.52,216/- in favour of the Accused-1.
Ex.P.349 : Proceedings of SP, CBI. Ex.P.350 : Letter dated 13.12.2005 from
Datamatrics Financial Software and Services Limited to CBI.
Ex.P.350(a) : Letter dated 08.02.2006 from Datamatrics Financial Software and Services Limited to CBI.
443 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Ex.P.351 : Letter dated 05.09.2005 from Cameo Corporate Services Limited to CBI.
Ex.P.352 : Seizure Memo dated 16.08.2005. Ex.P.353 : Letter dated 25.08.2005 from SBI Card to CBI.
Ex.P.354 : Letter dated 14.09.2005 from Kotak Car Finance to CBI.
Ex.P.355 : Seizure Memo dated 09.12.2005.
Ex.P.356 : Seizure Memo dated 02.02.2006.
Ex.P.357 : Letter dated 24.03.2006 from Cameo Corporate Services Limited to CBI.
3. LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT:-
-NIL-
4. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED WITH DATE OF EXAMINATION:-
D.W.1: Sri.H.M.Lakshmi Narayana 28.02.2012, 19.03.2012 & 25.07.2012.
D.W.2: Sri.Abhishek A.B. 28.02.2012 & 19.03.2012.
D.W.3: Sri.Aravind A.B. 28.02.2012 & 19.03.2012.
D.W.4: Sri.B.M.Anand 13.04.2012, 03.05.2012, 12.06.2012 & 23.06.2012.
D.W.5: Smt.Ramamani 23.06.2012.
D.W.6: Sri.Srinivas Rao R. 23.06.2012.
D.W.7: Sri.Sreepad 23.06.2012.
D.W.8: Smt.Lakshmi Anand 09.07.2012.
444 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]
5. LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED:-
Ex.D.1 : Death Certificate of
Sri.H.M.Narasimha Murthy.
Ex.D.2 : Notarized Copy of Training Certificate
of M/s.Taj Group of Hotels issued to Sri.A.B.Abhishek.
Ex.D.3 : Notarized Copy of Training Certificate by M/s.Le-Meridian issued to Sri.A.B.Abhishek.
Ex.D.4 : Notarized Copy of Training Certificate of M/s.Taj Residency issued to Sri.A.B.Abhishek.
Ex.D.5 : Notarized Copy of Training Certificate of M/s.Leela Palace issued to Sri.A.B.Abhishek.
Ex.D.6 : Notarized Copy of BHM Course Certificate issued from M/s.Christ College in favour of Sri.Abhiskek Anand.
Ex.D.7 : Notarized Copy of Degree Certificate of Bachelor of Hotel Management issued from Bengaluru University in favour of Sri.Abhishek Anand.
Ex.D.8 : Notarized Copy of Chef Competition Certificate in favour Sri.Abhishek Anand issued by M/s.Chirst College.
Ex.D.9 : Notarized Copy of Degree Certificate of Business Management issued by Bengaluru University to Sri.Aravind Anand.
Ex.D.10 : Notarized Copy of Service Certificate issued by M/s.Pani & Associates to Sri.A.B.Aravind.
445 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J] Ex.D.11 : Records of Rights of Bilagunda, Hassan District in 4 Sheets.
Ex.D.12 : Mutation Register Extract of Shindenahalli, Hampapura, HD Kote.
Ex.D.13 : RTC Extract of Survey No.17/1, Shindenahalli, HD Kote.
Ex.D.14 : Enquiry Report dated 25.05.2010.
Ex.D.15 : Enquiry Report dated 26.06.2013.
(ASWATHA NARAYANA) XLVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru.
446 [Spl.C.C.130/2007-J]