Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . Vikram Singh Etc. on 18 December, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJENDER KUMAR SHASTRI:SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) [CBI]14, ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI Case No. CBI231/2019 CNR No. DLCT110009052019 CBI Vs. Vikram Singh Etc. FIR No. RC. 22A/2014ACB/CBI/New Delhi U/s 109 IPC r/w 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (e) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. CBI Vs. 1. Vikram Singh S/o Sh. Harswarup R/o House No. 2, Gali No. 3/23, Nehar Road, Village Gokalpur, Delhi110094. Also at : VPO Samaypur, Distt. Meerut (UP) 2. Ashok Kumar S/o Sh. Bhagwan Das R/o 3/23, Nehar Road, Village Gokulpur, Delhi110094. 3. Wakil @ Wakil Ahmed S/o Sh. Sagir Ahmed R/o VillageGolabar (Aurangshapur), Rohtha Road, Meerut City, Meerut (UP). Also at : Village Pooth Khas District Meerut (UP). CBI Case No. 231/2019 CBI vs. Vikram Singh Etc. Page 1 of 52 4. Jile Singh S/o late Sh. Baljeet Singh R/o H. No. 87, Shivrampuram, Golabar (Aurangshahpur) Rohtha Road, Meerut City, Meerut (UP). 5. Jaswant Singh S/o late Sh. Sumer Dass R/o H. No. C116, Gali No. 3/22. Nehar Road, VillageGokulpur, Delhi110094. Date of institution of the case 01.10.2015 Date on which, case has been 26.09.2019 received in this court Arguments concluded on 09.12.2019 Date of pronouncement of judgment 18.12.2019 JUDGEMENT:
1. A case RC 03 (A) 2012 was registered on 31.01.2012, where Sh. Vikram Singh (accused) was alleged to have caught redhanded, while demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 20,000/, as part payment out of Rs. 50,000/ from one Sh. Inderjeet Singh. According to case of prosecution, during investigation of said case, house of said Vikram Singh i.e. Municipal No. 2, Street No. 3/23, Nehar Road, Village Gokalpur, Delhi, was searched on 31.01.2012 and various documents showing several assets belonging to said accused and a cash of Rs. 32,67,695/ was CBI Case No. 231/2019 CBI vs. Vikram Singh Etc. Page 2 of 52 recovered. Another Preliminary Enquiry i.e. PE 02 (A)/2014 was registered in this regard, which resulted in RC 22(A)/2014, registered on 03.07.2014.
Accused Vikram Singh is stated to be a Public Servant, employed with Municipal Corporation of Delhi, as Beldar. During investigation, IO found that father of Sh. Vikram Singh namely Sh. Harsavarup was working as labourer at Village Samaypur, Mundali as well as at Meerut (U.P). He used to sell Chat and Golgappa at aforesaid places. His mother is a housewife. He has four children. Two of his sons are students, one of whom is pursuing B.A IInd Year, while other in 12 th Class. He (Vikram Singh) joined MCD as Beldar, on Daily Wages on 09.05.1985, and was regularized on 01.04.1990. He remained posted in various unified/ununified MCD offices in Delhi from April, 1990 to January, 2012. From 13.09.2008 to 31.01.2012, he was posted in the Office of Executive Engineer M1, Shahdara South, EDMC, Block5, Geeta Colony, Delhi, and was transferred to the office of Executive Engineer (Project1), Shahdara (South), Krishna Nagar, Delhi w.e.f.01.02.2012. The IO took period from 01.04.1990 to 31.01.2012, when said accused remained posted in said offices, as 'Check Period', for the purpose of calculation of income, assets and expenditure of said accused.
As per CBI, total income of accused Vikram Singh during said period i.e. from 01.04.1990 to 31.01.2012 came to be Rs. 17,80,114/. He incurred expenditure of Rs. 6,64,392/ during same period against total savings of Rs. 11,15,722/. He was found in possession of assets at the end of said check period worth Rs. 42,86,972/, CBI Case No. 231/2019 CBI vs. Vikram Singh Etc. Page 3 of 52 which are disproportionate to his income at rate 178.15 %.
Explaining about the recovery of said cash of Rs. 32,67,695/, accused Vikram Singh took a plea that aforesaid amount was neither recovered from his house nor belonged to him. It was seized from the house of coaccused Ashok Kumar. The latter is brotherinlaw (wife's brother) of accused Vikram Singh. On being interrogated, Sh. Ashok Kumar disclosed that a deal was finalized by him on 19.01.2012 for the sale of his three storied house no. 3/23, Khasra No. 957, Nehar Road, Gokalpur, Delhi, to one Sagir Ahmed, for a sum of Rs. 56,60,000/. An agreement to sell dated 28.01.2012 and General Power of Attorney dated 19.10.2012 were executed between him and Sagir Ahmed.
Mr. Wakil s/o Sh. Sagir Ahmed (accused) joined investigation and disclosed that his father was suffering with paralysis. Mr. Wakil admitted that his father had sold some plots, out of his agricultural land at his Village Aurangshapur (Golabar) Meerut (UP) to purchase aforesaid house from Sh. Ashok Kumar, for a sum of Rs. 56,60,000/. He (Wakil) produced photocopies of three agreements for sale/purchase allegedly executed between Sagir Ahmed and each of Sh. Gopal Singh, Sh. Shakti Singh and Sh. Boby Tyagi.
According to IO, during investigation, none from Sh. Gopal Singh, Sh. Shakti Singh and Sh. Boby Tyagi admitted to have purchased any such plot from Sh. Sagir Ahmed or having paid any amount to the latter. In agreement to Sell, GPA etc., Mr. Sagir Ahmed has been shown to have paid cash of Rs. 36,60,000/ to Sh. Ashok CBI Case No. 231/2019 CBI vs. Vikram Singh Etc. Page 4 of 52 Kumar before the date of search, whereas said GPA is dated 19.10.2012.
Some official of BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. was told to have submitted a "site visit report" on 08.07.2015 in relation to change of electricity connection in the name of Sh. Sagir Ahmed on premises comprising in khasra no. 957/249 Gali No. 3/23, Nehar Road, Gokalpur, Delhi. Electricity connection was in the name of Sh. Rahul Kumar, s/o Sh. Vikram Singh, installed at second floor of H. No. 2 (Khasra No. 957/249, Gali No. 3/23, Nehar Road, Gokalpur, Delhi, while electricity connection at first floor of same house was in the name of another son of said accused namely Sh. Yogesh Kumar. According to IO, he noticed that an application seeking change of electricity connection was signed in the name of Sh. Sagir Ahmed, whereas, agreement to sell and GPA purportedly executed between him (Sagir Ahmed) and accused Ashok Kumar, bear thumb impression of Sh. Sagir Ahmed instead of signatures. Sh. Sagir Ahmed was illiterate, could not read, write or even sign any document. In this way, according to IO, Sh. Sagir Ahmed neither applied for change of electricity connection nor took possession of said house. Documents submitted to BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. on behalf of Sh. Sagir Ahmed were false. Said house was in possession of Sh. Vikram Singh. Electricity connections at first as well as second floor of said house were in the names of his sons namely Sh. Yogesh Kumar and Sh. Rahul Kumar.
Moreover, IO came to know about a GPA dated 21.06.2012 allegedly executed between accused Ashok Kumar and Sh. Yogesh Kumar and his brother Sh.
CBI Case No. 231/2019 CBI vs. Vikram Singh Etc. Page 5 of 52Rahul Kumar. Sh. Ashok Kumar is shown to have sold said house for a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/, while deal of same house was earlier mentioned for consideration of Rs. 56,60,000/ between him (Sh. Ashok Kumar) and Sh. Sagir Ahmed. According to IO, said documents are shown to have been executed between Sh. Ashok Kumar and Sh. Sagir Ahmed, in order to justify ill gotten amount recovered from accused Vikram Singh.
Accused Vikram Singh claimed further that his wife Smt. Samantra Devi, father Sh. Harswarup and sons Sh. Rahul Kumar and Sh. Yogesh Kumar had their own incomes. They filed Income Tax Returns for assessment year 201213. After investigation, IO came to know that said ITRs were filed only to create evidence and that after recovery of said amount of Rs. 32,67,695/ from him.
Accused Zile Singh is shown to have signed agreement to sell as well as GPA, mentioned above, while accused Jaswant Singh is signatory of said GPA, only as a witness. According to IO, no such transaction took place, rather said documents are false documents, prepared under a conspiracy by said accused, to justify illgotten amount which is recovered from the house of accused Vikram Singh. The latter could not justify possession of assets including said amount.
Accused Vikram Singh being a Public Servant, sanction to prosecute the same is stated to have been received by CBI from Competent Authority i.e. Additional Commissioner, East Delhi Municipal Corporation.
CBI Case No. 231/2019 CBI vs. Vikram Singh Etc. Page 6 of 522. IO indicted all accused for offence punishable u/s 109 IPC & u/s 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1) (e) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in brief PC Act) and substantive offence u/s 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1) (e) of PC Act, 1988 against accused Vikram Singh.
3. Accused persons were charged by order of this Court dated 19.09.2016 for offence punishable u/s 109 IPC r/w section 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1) (e) of PC Act, 1988 and substantive offence u/s 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1) (e) of said Act against accused Vikram Singh. All of accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, when charges were read over and explained to them.
4. In order to bring home its case, prosecution examined 30 witnesses in total.
5. In his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C, accused Vikram Singh did not dispute the fact that he was employed with Municipal Corporation of Delhi and also about his gross salary being Rs. 18,61,244/ as deposed by Sh. S.P. Singh (PW29) and again the fact that he has four children, all of whom were students, pursued their studies from Ganga Public School during check period. Sh. Yogesh and Sh. Rahul further studied in Vishva Bharti Public School, Ganga Vihar. The amounts of fee, as claimed by CBI, towards education expenses of said children are also admitted to be correct. Further, said accused admitted having purchased certain articles, as deposed by Sh. S.P. Singh (PW29). According to him, amount of Rs. 32,67,695/, as alleged to have been recovered from his house was not belonging to him, rather same was of CBI Case No. 231/2019 CBI vs. Vikram Singh Etc. Page 7 of 52 coaccused Ashok Kumar. Similarly, the house from which said cash was recovered, was owned by accused Ashok Kumar. Accused Vikram Singh admitted further that he was involved in a case of bribery, as described above, but claimed that he has been acquitted in that case.
Accused Ashok Kumar claimed that amount, as mentioned above, belonged to him, which was received by him from Sh. Sagir Ahmed, as sale consideration of his property. Accused Vakil admitted that certain documents i.e. GPA executed between Sh. Ashok Kumar and Sagir Ahmed dated 19.10.2012 (Ex. PW25/B), Will dated 19.10.2012 (Ex. PW29/G), Payment Receipt (Ex. PW29/H), Possession Letter (Ex. PW29/J), affidavit of Sh. Ashok Kumar (Ex. PW29/K), photocopy of IDs of Sh. Ashok Kumar, Sh. Sagir Ahmed and Sh. Jaswant Singh (Ex. PW29/L [Colly.]) and agreements to sell Ex. PW29/M, Ex. PW29/N and Ex. PW29/O, were seized by CBI, on being produced by him. Accused Zile Singh admitted to have become a witness for execution of documents, as deposed by Sh. S.P. Singh (PW29). All accused claimed themselves to be innocent and falsely implicated in this case.
6. Accused Vikram Singh examined his son Sh. Yogesh Kumar as D1W1 and accused Ashok Kumar examined Sh. Sanjay Issar as D2W1.
7. I have heard ld. Sr. Public Prosecutor for CBI, Ld. Counsels Sh. Sanjay Gupta & Sh. Sanjeev Bhardwaj, appearing for accused and gone through the evidence on record.
CBI Case No. 231/2019 CBI vs. Vikram Singh Etc. Page 8 of 528. Sh. Harizh Chander Bhatt (PW1) was an Assistant Accounts Officer, EE (MI), West Zone, Rajouri Garden, SDMC, Delhi and deposed to have furnished wage details of accused Vikram Singh from 08.05.1985 to 14.04.1990 to CBI, through letter dated 14.11.2014 i.e. Ex. PW1/A. Copy of muster roll in relation to said accused for the same period i.e. 08.05.1985 to 14.04.1990 is Ex. PW1/B. According to him, said accused earned Rs. 32,714/, during aforementioned period, as wages.
9. Sh. Ramesh Prasad Gupta (PW15) was an Executive Engineer (Vigilance), NDMC, Delhi. According to him, he remained posted as Assistant Engineer (Vigilance), EDMC, Udyog Sadan, Patparganj, Delhi, in September2014. He forwarded salary details of Sh. Vikram Singh, Beldar, after collecting same from various departments, through letter dated 01.09.2014 i.e. Ex. PW15/A, addressed to Inspector S.P. Singh, CBI. Salary details and details of pay arrears of Sh. Vikram Singh, w.e.f. 01.04.1990 to 30.06.1996 (D22B); w.e.f. July1996 to July2005 (D 22C), w.e.f. August2005 to June2008 (D22D, w.e.f. 01.07.2008 to 12.09.2008 (D 22E) and w.e.f. 13.09.2008 to 31.01.2012 are Ex. PW15/C [Colly.] (10 pages).
If document D22B (Ex. PW15/C) (Colly.) is taken as true, arrears of pay of Sh. Vikram Singh from 01.04.1990 to 30.06.1996 was Rs. 1,14,093/. As per D 22C (Ex. P3), amount earned by said accused from July1996 to 07.08.2005 comes to Rs. 5,15,580/. Same is shown to have received a net amount of Rs. 5,61,528/, if Bonus, DA, Vth CPC and Arrears amounting Rs. 21,536/, Rs. 5592/, Rs. 15,689/ CBI Case No. 231/2019 CBI vs. Vikram Singh Etc. Page 9 of 52 and Rs. 3131/ are added in it. According to D22D (Ex. P2), Executive Engineer (Building), Shahdara (South) Zone is shown to have sent a letter to Executive Engineer (Project)I, Shahdara (South) Zone, EDMC dated 20.08.2014, mentioning headwise salary details of Sh. Vikram Singh, Beldar w.e.f. 08.08.2005 to 30.06.2008. According to which, net salary of said accused during August2005 to June2008, was Rs. 2,68,332/. Apart from same, said accused is shown to have received a total of Rs. 4903/ as DA Arrear, Bonus of Rs. 7401/, making a total net amount of salary+bonus + arrear of Rs. 2,80,636/. Document D22E (Ex. PW18/A), if true, shows pay details of Sh. Vikram Singh, Beldrar from 01.07.2008 to 12.09.2008 as Rs. 9985/ + Rs. 9985/ + Rs. 5510/ = Rs. 25,480/. After deduction of GPF etc., net amount payable remained to Rs. 8975/ + Rs. 8975 + Rs. 4500/ = Rs. 22,450/. D 22F (Ex. P1) shows drawn salary details of Sh. Vikram Singh from October2008 till January, 2010 as Rs. 2,15,984/, after including Rs. 8375/, which was from 13.09.2008 to 30.09.2008, total amount received from 13.09.2008 till January2012 including arrears and bonus comes to Rs. 6,34,801/.
10. Sh. Ajay Gautam, Executive Engineer (Building), SDMC, Jal Vihar, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, was examined as PW17. He verified document D22B, as mentioned above, which shows salary, bonus/arrear details of accused Vikram Singh from 01.11.1990 to 30.06.1996 and 01.01.1991 to 31.07.2005. Computer printout of same is Ex. PW15/C. CBI Case No. 231/2019 CBI vs. Vikram Singh Etc. Page 10 of 52
11. Sh. Durgesh Kumar Gupta (PW18) was an Assistant Engineer (Maintenance DivisionII), EDMC, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi. He verified salary and bonus details of accused Vikram Singh for the period 01.07.2008 to 12.09.2008. Computer printout of same is Ex. PW18/A.
12. According to Sh. Manoj Sharma (PW2), in August2014, he was posted as Sr. Manager in Siyana, Bulandshahar branch of U.P Gramin Bank Ltd. After a letter was received from CBI, he handed over certified copy of statement of saving account no. 91090100043089 in the name of Sh. Vikram Singh s/o Sh. Harswaroop Singh for the period 07.02.2010 to 11.08.2014, certified copy of account opening form alongwith a certificate u/s 2A of The Banker's Book of Evidence Act. Aforesaid account was opened by Sh. Vikram Singh with their bank on 19.02.1996. As per statement of account, a sum of Rs. 15,253/ was credited in that account as interest for the period 01.09.2009 to 31.08.2011 and a balance of Rs. 2,16,409/ was shown as on 31.01.2012.
13. Sh. Roshan Lal Sehgal (PW3) told that in May2012, he was working as Deputy Manager, Chandni Chowk Branch of State Bank of India. On the directions of Chief Manager of their bank, he handed over certified copies of account statement from 01.07.2007 to 31.01.2012 pertaining to saving bank account no. 10820128560 in the name of Sh. Vikram Singh and FD A/c no. 30171690754 also in the name of Sh. Vikram Singh for period 08.05.2007 to 08.05.2011 through a forwarding letter Ex. PW3/A. As per record, said saving bank account was opened on 13.10.2003 and bank CBI Case No. 231/2019 CBI vs. Vikram Singh Etc. Page 11 of 52 credited an interest of Rs. 10,272/ for the period w.e.f. 01.07.2007 to 31.01.2012. There was a balance of Rs. 52,234/as on 31.01.2012. Said FDR (Ex. PW3/B) was in the name of Sh. Vikram Singh of Rs. 55,000/. An interest of Rs. 25,070/ was accrued upto 08.05.2011. Said FD was renewed on 08.05.2011 and amount at its maturity was Rs. 80,070/. The balance on said FD as on 31.01.2012 will be Rs. 80,070/, apart from interest.
14. Sh. Rajesh Gupta, SWO, Central Bank of India, was examined as PW4. According to him, Sh. V.P. Limba, Chief Manager of their bank forwarded a letter to CBI on 20.08.2014 i.e. Ex. PW4/A. Alongwith said letter, there were documents i.e. account opening form of Vikram Singh, specimen signature card, voter ID Card and ration card submitted to their bank. A certificate u/s 2A of The Banker's Book of Evidence Act, 1891 was also annexed with those documents. This witness verified that according to said documents, there was a fixed deposit receipt in the name of Sh. Vikram Singh and an interest of Rs. 8,909/ was credited in his account from 24.05.2007 to 31.01.2012. An amount of Rs. 49,132/ towards interest was accrued in said saving bank account of Sh. Vikram Singh for the period 19.08.2006 to 31.01.2012.
15. Sh. Nishant Sharma (PW5) was Assistant Manager in Corporation Bank, Preet Vihar Branch, Delhi, in year 2012. According to him, through letter dated 20.08.2014, Chief Manager of their branch sent some information/documents to the IO, which were account opening form in the name of Sh. Vikram Singh and bank CBI Case No. 231/2019 CBI vs. Vikram Singh Etc. Page 12 of 52 statement of said Sh. Vikram Singh for the period 11.11.2015 to 31.01.2012 related to saving bank account no. 01/044481 Ex. PW5/B (Colly.). According to bank statement, an interest of Rs. 1536/ accrued in that account from 11.11.2015 to 31.01.2012 and there was a balance of Rs. 61,264/ in that account, as on 31.01.2012.
16. Sh. Kailash Chand (PW6) told that he was working as LDC in DMC Karamchari Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society, Kashmere Gate, Delhi. This witness verified a letter dated 25.08.2014 (D9) issued by President of said society. According to their record, a sum of Rs. 26,900/ was deposited by Sh. Vikram Singh in his account bearing no. 6745 in that society between 25.02.2003 to 21.12.2012 and an interest of Rs. 14,658/ was paid to Sh. Vikram Singh during said period.
17. Sh. G.K. Dua (PW7) was a Deputy Manager with Punjab National Bank, Chandni Chowk Branch, Delhi. According to this witness, in December2014, when he was posted as Officer in Daryaganj Branch of said bank, he handed over some documents including account opening form in the name of Sh. Vikram Singh and statement of account w.e.f. 15.07.1999 till date i.e. 02.12.2014, to CBI, through letter Ex. PW7/A. As per statement of account, their bank paid a sum of Rs. 23,166/ in said account as interest for the period 15.07.1999 to 31.01.2012 and there was a balance of Rs. 32,170/ in that account, as on 31.01.2012. Said account was opened on 25.04.1989.
18. Sh. Subhash Chand Verma (PW8) told that he was engaged in jewellery business having a shop at Gokulpur, Delhi. After being shown cash receipts D10, CBI Case No. 231/2019 CBI vs. Vikram Singh Etc. Page 13 of 52 D11 & D12, this witness verified that same were belonging to his firm. Through these receipts, Gold and Silver ornaments were sold to Sh. Vikram Singh. Receipt (D10) (Ex. PW8/A is about sale of gold articles of Rs. 25,556/ to Sh. Vikram Singh on 29.03.1993. Receipt (D11) (Ex. PW8/B) is about sale of gold articles of Rs. 24,483/ to Sh. Vikram Singh on 21.05.2010 and through receipt (D12) (Ex. PW8/C), two pairs of silver pajeb were sold to Sh. Vikram Singh on 05.03.2010, for a total value of Rs. 2266/, after adjustment of some old silver.
19. Sh. Vijender Singh Chawla (PW13) deposed that he was running a business of bicycles. After seeing bills D16 & D17, this witness verified that same were pertaining to his shop, regarding sale of two bicycles (one bicycle each) to one Sh. Vikram Singh. The bicycles were sold for Rs. 1435/ and Rs. 1545/ each to said buyer.
20. Sh. Gaurav Bhargav (PW14) was Manager with Digitek Computers Pvt. Ltd. Yamuna Vihar, Delhi. According to him, bill D18 was issued from their company, during his posting there. It was related to sale of one Nokia mobile phone of Rs. 6200/. It is not clear as whom said mobile phone was sold.
21. Sh. Rochak Arora (PW16) was owner of Electronic Craft at B4, Kanti Nagar Extension, Krishna Nagar, Delhi. He verified bills no. R5560 dated 24.11.2007 (D19), no. R6726 dated 28.03.2008 (D20) and no. R310 dated 22.04.2009 (D21). According to him, through these bills, he sold one Washing Machine make LG to Smt. Sumitra Devi for Rs. 8,000/, one TV make LG to Sh.
CBI Case No. 231/2019 CBI vs. Vikram Singh Etc. Page 14 of 52Rahul Kumar for Rs. 14,500/ and one Refrigerator make LG to Smt. Sumitra Devi for Rs. 16,300/. Payment was made in cash.
22. Smt. Sonia, who is examined as PW19 deposed that she served as Principal with Ganga Public School, Ganga Vihar, Delhi110094. This witness verified details of fee paid on behalf of students namely Sh. Deepanshu, Sh. Sachin, Sh. Yogesh Kumar and Sh. Rahul, all sons of Sh. Vikram Singh. Said details is Ex. PW19/A. According to which, a sum of Rs. 6420/ was paid for student Deepanshu between 2001 to 2005, a sum of Rs. 8076/ was paid for student Sachin between 2000 to 2005, a sum of Rs. 6057.60/ was paid for student Yogesh between 1997 to 2002 and a sum of Rs. 4536/ was paid for student Rahul between 1995 to 2000.
23. As per Sh. Vipin Kumar Sharma (PW20), he worked as Head Master with Vishwa Bharti Public School, C4, Ganga Vihar, Delhi110094. On the requisition of IO, he handed over details of fee paid on behalf of students namely Sh. Yogesh Kumar and Sh. Rahul, both sons of Sh. Vikram Singh. Details of which are Ex. PW20/A (D24). If same are taken as true, a sum of Rs. 11,400/ was paid for student Yogesh between 2002 to 2005 and a sum of Rs. 9480/ was paid for student Rahul between 2000 to 2003.
24. Sh. Pawan Kumar Sharma (PW21), told the Court that in August2015, he was posted as Additional Commissioner, East Municipal Corporation of Deli. On receipt of request from CBI, he granted sanction to prosecute Sh. Vikram Singh, employed with MCD. According to this witness, he went through documents like CBI Case No. 231/2019 CBI vs. Vikram Singh Etc. Page 15 of 52 copy of FIR, Bank Statement, Statements of witnesses etc., before granting sanction and he was competent authority to grant sanction to prosecute said accused. Copy of said sanction order passed by him is Ex. PW21/A, signed by him at point B.
25. Sh. Sachin Sisodia (PW26) was a Senior Manager with BSES, Krishna Nagar, Delhi. According to this witness, in pursuance to directions given by CBI through a notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C, he submitted some documents in four sets. First set was regarding change of name of consumer from Smt. Usha Devi to Sh. Sagir Ahmed. The other set was for change of electric connection from Sh. Yogesh Kumar to Sh. Rahul Kumar. Third set was regarding new connection on same premises, but on different floors. Fourth set was pertaining to site visit report by the officials of BSES. Said documents included a site inspection report, alongwith annexures. Same are Ex. PW26/E (Colly.).
26. Sh. Anil Sharma (PW27) was a Sr. Scientific OfficerII (Documents), HOD (Documents), CFSL, MHA, New Delhi, was an Handwriting Expert and verified his report dated 13.04.2016. Said report is Ex. PW27/B. IO sought report from said expert about agreement to sell dated 28.01.2012 allegedly executed between Sh. Ashok Kumar and Sh. Sagir Ahmed, agreement to sell dated 23.04.2012 between Sh. Ashok Kumar and Sh. Sagir Ahmed and General Power of Attorney dated 19.10.2012 executed between Sh. Ashok Kumar and Sh. Sagir Ahmed.
27. As per Sh. Victor James (PW28) in November2014, he was deputed to East Delhi Municipal Corporation as Director (Vigilance). On being requisitioned by CBI Case No. 231/2019 CBI vs. Vikram Singh Etc. Page 16 of 52 CBI, he sent pay particulars in relation to Sh. Vikram Singh, who was working as Beldar in the office of Executive Engineer (ProjectI), Shahdara, South Zone, EDMC. Same were pertaining to period w.e.f. 1992 to 31.01.2012 about movable and immovable properties possessed by said Sh. Vikram Singh. Same also contained personal biodata of Sh. Vikram Singh. On being asked by the Court, this witness disclosed that according to record, Sh. Vikram Singh was in possession of House at Gali No. 3/23, Naher Road, Village Gokal Pur, Delhi, as mentioned in statement no. 1 and one more house in statement no. 2. The complete particulars of latter house were not mentioned in statement. Statement no. 3 was pertaining to movable properties in the name of Sh. Vikram Singh, which found mentioned, asornaments and jewellery weighing 300 grams of silver having approximate value of Rs. 26,000/, motorcycle no. DL 13SC 4760 with approximate value of Rs. 55,000/, one car make Wagon R having value about Rs. 3,52,570/, other Scorpio Car with approximate value of Rs. 1,50,000/, some fans and other domestic articles. In statement no. 4, one motorcycle and Scorpior Car are mentioned, to have already been disposed off.
28. Inspector Anil Bisht (PW24) deposed in Court that on 31.01.2012 he was posted as Inspector, ACB, Delhi. On being called by Inspector S.P. Khullar, he joined the raiding party on that day. The raiding party included one independent witness Sh. Shashi Kant, one police constable of CBI Sh. Bahadur Singh. They went to Gokul Pur in an official vehicle. They reached at house at 7.15 pm. It was house of Sh. Vikram Singh, Beldar of MCD. The doors of house were opened by wife of CBI Case No. 231/2019 CBI vs. Vikram Singh Etc. Page 17 of 52 Sh. Vikram Singh. The raiding party introduced itself and explained the purpose of their visit. She was asked to call some male member of the family, to remain present at the house. One Sh. Chander Pal Singh, a tenant of her and residing at first floor of said house, came there. He was also explained the purpose of visit by the raiding party. As they were ready for search, Sh. Yogesh s/o Sh. Vikram Singh also reached there. He (PW24) showed authorization letter in favour of raiding party u/s 165 Cr.P.C to Sh. Yogesh. The latter signed it. They came to know that first floor minus one room on first floor was rented out. At second floor, same tenants were residing. They searched ground floor of that house and one room at first floor. During search, several documents including bank passbook, purchase vouchers, electricity bills etc. were seized. Cash about thirty lakhs and thirty two thousand was seized from a room of Sh. Vikram, Beldrar. Another amount of Rs. 2.70 lakhs was also seized from room of his son Sh. Rahul. Out of seized amount, a sum of Rs. 21,000/ was returned to family members of Sh. Vikram Singh, for day to day expenses. A searchcumseizure memo was prepared at that house by him, as directed by Inspector S.K. Khullar. Same is Ex. PW22/A (D3). An inventory of articles was also prepared at said house. Same is Ex. PW22/B. Both of these documents bear his signatures at points B. Wife of said Sh. Vikram Singh could not explain presence of said cash or price of domestic articles, found lying in said house.
29. Sh. Shashi Kant stated to be an independent witness was examined as PW22. This witness verified to have joined raiding party, which searched a house at CBI Case No. 231/2019 CBI vs. Vikram Singh Etc. Page 18 of 52 Gokulpur. This witness did not recall municipal number of that house. According to him, the house situated at Ground Floor was searched in his presence, though the house was constructed upto 23 floors. Some money (cash) was recovered from an almirah lying in the room of person trapped and some another money (cash) was recovered from an almirah lying in the room occupied by son of that person. Entire amount became about Rs. 2 to Rs. 2.5 lakhs. An amount of Rs. 30 lakhs was also recovered from an iron almirah, which was kept inside a wooden almirah. The money was in a bag, covered with newspapers. Apart from same, 34 vehicles were also found in said house. Their registration certificates were checked. Some documents were also seized from that house. A panchnama of search proceedings was prepared by CBI officers, which was signed by him. This witness identified his signatures on searchcumseizure memo (Ex. PW22/A) at point A. List of household articles seized from that house was prepared and same is Ex. PW22/B. This witness also told about some amount of money having returned the person trapped while rest of the amount was seized by CBI. This witness explained that name of person trapped was Sh. Vikram Singh, which was told to him by CBI.
30. Inspector Shitanshu Sharma (PW30) also deposed to have joined the search of house belonging to Sh. Vikram Singh, after being authorized by IO u/s 165 Cr.P.C. According to him, on the basis documents seized in that search, a DA case was registered and was investigated by Inspector S.P. Singh. He handed over documents seized in trap case, to IO of this case (Inspector S.P. Singh). Seizure CBI Case No. 231/2019 CBI vs. Vikram Singh Etc. Page 19 of 52 memo in this regard is Ex. PW29/B (D3), signed by him at point B.
31. Other witnesses were not so material except Inspector S.P. Singh, who was IO of the case and is examined as PW29. It is deposed on oath by this witness that in July2014, he was posted as Inspector in ACB, CBI, New Delhi. FIR of this case was assigned to him for investigation. During investigation, he collected salary record of accused Vikram Singh from his department, bank record of him as well as his family members, details of expenditure incurred by said accused and of fees of his children etc. Documents seized from trap case i.e. RC 03/12 were scrutinized. He determined the check period for ascertaining disproportionate assets i.e. 01.04.1990 to 31.03.2012. A bunch of passbooks of different banks had been seized. He examined the same, went to banks concerned and recorded statements of banks officials. He scrutinized the cash memos related to purchase of jewellery and other household articles like T.V, Washing Machine etc. and examined the jewellers and other shopkeepers concerned. During investigation, he contacted Principal of Ganga Public School and got information about tuition fee paid by accused Vikram Singh about his children. He also scrutinized the documents related to transaction of properties between Sagir Ahmed and other persons mentioned in those documents. The documents were sent for opinion of Handwriting Expert alongwith specimen signatures of persons concerned. After investigation, he found assets in the possession of Vikram Singh to be of Rs. 31,71,250/ against income of Rs. 17,80,114/, which comes to 178.15 % more than his known income.
CBI Case No. 231/2019 CBI vs. Vikram Singh Etc. Page 20 of 5232. It is contended by Sh. Sanjay Gupta, Advocate on behalf of all accused persons that CBI failed to prove its case against any of accused. Accused Zile Singh and Jaswant Singh are indicted simply because they witnessed documents i.e. Ex.PW25/B and Ex.PW25/C. Even otherwise, there is no incriminating material against any of them, to be implicated in this case. Accused Wakil Ahmad is son of Mr. Sagir Ahmad and implicated for offence punishable U/s 109 IPC only on the ground that he produced aforesaid documents Ex.PW25/B and Ex.PW25/C to the IO. Same has not signed any of said documents, even as a witness.
Ld. Counsel reminded that according to CBI, documents executed between accused Ashok Kumar and Sagir Ahmad were fake papers. It is not the plea of CBI that stamp papers purchased for execution of said documents were antedated or invalid in any manner. Agreement to sell which is in the form of extension of time is dated 23.04.2012, moreover, GPA was executed on 19.10.2012. In this way, both of these documents had already been executed when preliminary enquiry in this case started or FIR was registered. CBI failed to prove that said documents i.e. Ex. PW25/B & Ex. PW25/C were fake documents. Even otherwise, it is admitted by IO Inspt. S.P. Singh (PW29) that Mr. Sagir Ahmad never denied his thumb impression on any of said documents.
There is no allegation either against accused Zile Singh or Jaswant Singh having received any monetary gain in becoming a witness during execution of aforesaid documents.
CBI Case No. 231/2019 CBI vs. Vikram Singh Etc. Page 21 of 52As per Ld. Counsel entire case of CBI is based upon recovery of Rs.32,67,659/. during search of house situated in Gali No. 3/23, Nehar Road, P.S & Village Gokalpur, Delhi. Search Memoes in this regard are Ex.PW22/A & Ex. PW22/B. CBI tried to prove that said house was owned and possessed by accused Vikaram Singh but same failed miserably to prove said fact. Even municipal number of premises is not mentioned on documents i.e. Ex. PW25/B & Ex. PW25/C. It was admitted by IO PW29 in his cross examination that he did not try to ascertain municipal number of premises searched by him, on 31.01.2012. IO rather admitted that it was revealed to him that said house is owned by Sh. Ashok Kumar. No site plan of the house was prepared which was searched while to prepare a site plan of house was mandatory, according to legal practice.
According to Rule 14.16 of CBI Crime Manual, I.O. was obliged to videograph the search so conducted but no such videography was done in the present case by IO. Further, Rule 13.2 of said manual provides for sending report to Special Judge but no such report was sent to Special Judge in this case. Further, as per Ld. Defence Counsel, provisions of Section 165 (5) of Cr.P.C were not followed, at the time of search of the house allegedly belonging to his client, which was a mandatory provision, in the absence of compliance of which, investigation cannot be stated to be fair.
It is again the plea of Ld. Counsel that preliminary enquiry was conducted before registration of FIR in this case but neither report of said preliminary CBI Case No. 231/2019 CBI vs. Vikram Singh Etc. Page 22 of 52 enquiry has been proved on file nor officer who conducted said preliminary enquiry was examined during evidence of this case. All this raises presumption that no preliminary enquiry was conducted. Electricity connection in Ist and IInd floors of the house allegedly belonging to accused Vikram Singh from where, incriminating cash was recovered, is in the name of Sh. Rahul Kumar and Sh. Yogesh Kumar, both are sons of accused Vikram Singh. According to Ld. Counsel though some documents are exhibited by CBI in this regard but same are not proved as per law. According to him simply exhibiting a documents does not mean that same was proved as per law.
As per Ld. Defence Counsel, sanction allegedly granted to prosecute accused Vikram Singh was not proper. Addl. Commissioner from whom CBI got sanction order, was not a competent authority to remove accused Sh. Vikram Singh, who was a beldar at that time, from his job. Ld. Counsel referred documents i.e. Ex. PW21/DA in this regard. Even otherwise, IO did not send documents collected by him during investigation of this case, to the Sanctioning Authority, hence, sanction granted to prosecute his client was not valid.
Accused examined Sh. Yogesh Kumar S/o Sh. Vikram as D1W1. The latter (Sh. Yogesh Kumar) deposed that on 31.01.2012 i.e. day of search, accused Ashok Kumar and his family members were away to Bulandshehar. His (Yogesh Kumar's) mother Smt. Samantra Devi and his sister had already gone there, to Bulandshehar. It's worth mentioning that according to CBI, Smt. Samantra Devi was CBI Case No. 231/2019 CBI vs. Vikram Singh Etc. Page 23 of 52 present at the time when the search was conducted by CBI. Similarly, one Sh. Chander Pal is shown to be witness of search. According to Sh. Yogesh D1W1, he (Sh. Chander Pal) was present at the time of search. Neither Smt. Samantra Devi nor Sh. Chander Pal have been made witness on search memo by the CBI.
Sh. Sanjay Issar D2W1 deposed on oath that Sh. Ashok Kumar in his income tax return showed capital gain. There was no restriction for cash transaction of more than Rs. 20,000/ in year 20122013. Ld. Counsel reminded that witness examined by accused are equally reliable as witnesses produced by prosecution/CBI.
Ld. Defence Counsel found fault in the investigation of this case. IO did not produce any letter/certificate authorizing other officer like Inspector Anil Bisht (PW24) to investigate the case or to collect any evidence from bank, in view of Section 17 & 18 of The PC Act. Same did not follow the provisions of CBI Crime Mannual. IO recorded statement of wife and sons of accused Sh. Vikram Singh but same are not produced before the court but withheld by the IO. Similarly, IO did not verify from Income Tax Authority, about the income as disclosed by accused Sh. Ashok Kumar, during relevant time.
CBI relied upon some documents seized from the banks of accused Sh. Vikram Singh. According to Ld. Counsel, documents produced by Sh. Manoj Sharma (PW2) did not mention about interest from 19.02.1996 to 31.08.2009. IO did not bother to ascertain the interest, accrued during said period. Similarly, Sh. Roshan Lal Sehgal (PW3) produced some documents but same are not verified by Certificate CBI Case No. 231/2019 CBI vs. Vikram Singh Etc. Page 24 of 52 U/s 65 (B) of The Indian Evidence Act. Sh. Rajesh Gupta (PW4) tried to prove some documents but he was not a competent person, to prove same, as even according to him, said documents were not prepared by him. During his cross examination said witness (PW4) admitted that none of documents i.e. Ex. PW4/B to PW4/C was verified and checked by him. Similarly, Sh. Nishant Sharma (PW5) was also not competent to prove documents, which he tried to prove, as he was neither the author nor maker of said documents. Documents produced by Sh. G.K. Dua (PW7) were not attested as per The Banker's Book of Evidence Act. Same were not supported by certificate U/s 65 (B) of The Indian Evidence Act.
Ld. Counsel pointed out certain discrepancies and contradictions in the depositions of witnesses like PW Sh. Shashi Kant (PW22) deposed that person who was trapped and his family members were present at the time of search of his house and that only ground floor of said house was searched. Said witness further disclosed that some amount was returned to the person, who was trapped. While even as per case of CBI, some amount was returned to son of accused Vikram Singh and not to latter to enable said accused to meet out necessary expenses. It is not plea of CBI even that accused Vikram Singh was present at the time of said search. Moreover, according to PW22, there was no electricity in the area at the time of search. Ld. Counsel submits that if said fact was true, how, search could have been conducted. Contrarily Inspt. Anil Bisht (PW24) did not mention about electricity failure. According to him, search was confined to ground floor and one room at first floor of CBI Case No. 231/2019 CBI vs. Vikram Singh Etc. Page 25 of 52 building of said house. In opinion of Ld. Counsel, all these are material contradictions.
Finally, Ld. Counsel contended that documents relied upon by CBI i.e. regarding purchase of bicycle and jewelery items etc. were fake and same are not proved, to be genuine.
Ld. Counsel relied upon precedents from following cases :
i) 2019 (4) JCC 3423 Delhi titled as S K Bhatia Vs. CBI.
ii) 2013 (3) RCR (Cr.) 355 SC, titled as Rohtash Kumar Vs. State.
iii) 2010 (2) Civil Court Cases 315 SC, titled as LIC Vs. Ram Pal Singh.
iv) AIR 2008 SC 108, titled as State Vs. Ameer Jaan.
v) 2006 (3) Crimes 316 SC, titled as State Vs. Surya Sankaram Kurri
vi) 2000 SCC (Cr) 687, titled as Ram Krishan Prajapat Vs. State. Vii) 2004 (3) RCR (Cr.P 774 SC, titled as Anil Sharma Vs. State. Viii) 1998 (3) CCC 208 Delhi, titled as Lalman Vs. State.
ix) 2012 (1) LRC 81 SC titled as Kailash Gaur Vs. State.
x) 1998 SCC (Cr) 307, titled as Vineet Narain Vs. UOI & Ors.
xi) 2017 (4) CLJ 695 Delhi titled as Surinder Vs. Phonix Ltd.
xii) AIR 2006 SC 552, titled as DSP Chennai Vs. K Inbasagaran.
33. On the other hand, according to Ld. Sr. PP for CBI, discrepancies as pointed out by Ld. Defence Counsel are very minor and unavoidable. it is well proved from deposition of Inspector Anil Bisht (PW24) and Sh. Shashi Kant (PW CBI Case No. 231/2019 CBI vs. Vikram Singh Etc. Page 26 of 52
22) that cash total amounting to Rs.30,32,000/ plus Rs.2,35,695/ and apart from said cash, several passbooks, Fixed Deposits pertaining to bank belonging to said accused (Sh. Vikram Singh), some cash memos about purchase of some household articles, were recovered, from house of accused Vikram Singh. Moreover, registration of car DL 13SJ5118 is found in the name of his son Sh.Yogesh Kumar, RC of another vehicle bearing No. DL 8CNB 7146 is in the name of another son Sh. Rahul, RC of one Scorpio Turbo Vehicle bearing No. DL4CE 7896 in the name of Sh. Yogesh Kumar. One RC of vehicle bearing No. DL13SC 4760 in the name of same Sh. Rahul Kumar were also recovered but neither IO assessed the value of said vehicles nor CBI has included cost of those vehicles in assessment of value of assets belonging to accused Vikram Singh. According to him, recovery of articles mentioned in Search cum Seizure memo dated Ex.PW22/A has been well proved and it was for the accused to explain as how he acquired said properties or from whom said cash came in his possession. Accused did not give any explanation except saying that cash mentioned above, was not belonging to him rather it is plea of said accused that the house from where said cash as well as other articles/documents were seized, belong to accused Sh. Ashok Kumar. Accused Vikram Singh failed to prove that said house was owned or even possessed by accused Sh. Ashok Kumar or articles including cash recovered from said house were belonging to said Ashok Kumar. Ld. Sr. PP for CBI, relied upon following precedents:
1) State of UP Vs. Jhinkoo Nai, 2001, Cri.L.J. 3965 CBI Case No. 231/2019 CBI vs. Vikram Singh Etc. Page 27 of 52
2) Sate of Maharashtra Vs. Wasudeo Ramachandra Kaidalwar AIR 1981 SC 1186.
34. True, it is not proved on file that accused Vikram Singh was owner of H. No. 2, Gali No. 3/23, Nehar Road, Village Gokalpur, Delhi. At the same time, it is also not established that accused Ashok Kumar owned that house. It is not case of CBI even that accused Vikram Singh purchased said house or the house was including in his assets, which are claimed to be disproportionate to his known income. However, an agreement to sell dated 28.01.2012 and General Power of Attorney dated 19.10.2012, are claimed to have been executed between Sh. Ashok Kumar and Sagir Ahmed. Neither agreement to sell nor General Power of Attorney create any title in property. Similarly, accused Wakil @ Wakil Ahmed is stated to have told to the IO during investigation that his father sold some agricultural land at his Village Aurangshapur (Golabar) Meerut (UP) to purchase aforesaid house from Sh. Ashok Kumar. Photocopies of agreements to sell entered between Sagir Ahmed and Sh. Gopal Singh, another between said Sagir Ahmed and Sh. Shakti Singh and third between Sh. Sagir Ahmed and Sh. Boby Tyagi were seized by the IO. Sh. Boby Tyagi (PW10) admitted to have entered into an agreement to purchase a plot from Sh. Sagir Ahmed, but disclosed that after knowing that there was some dispute, over the land in question, he did not finalize the transaction. Sh. Shakti Singh (PW11) also admitted to have entered into an 'understanding agreement' with Sh. Sagir Ahmed regarding purchase of some property but subject to sanction of loan. As no loan was sanctioned by the bank, he did not purchase that property. Sh. Gopal Singh Pundir CBI Case No. 231/2019 CBI vs. Vikram Singh Etc. Page 28 of 52 (PW12) told to be engaged in property business (part time). This witness told about a mutual understanding between Sh. Shakti Singh and Sh. Sagir Ahmed about sale of property by the latter i.e. Sh. Sagir Ahmed. The transaction could not be completed as no loan was approved by the bank.
35. Sh. Yogesh Kumar (D1W1) son of accused Vikram Singh is also stated to have witnessed the search of said house. This witness disclosed to have reached said house i.e. house situated in Gali No. 3/23, Naher Road, Village Gokal Pur, Delhi, but according to him, same belonged to his maternal uncle Ashok Kumar (accused). As discussed above, it is not proved that said house was owned or was possessed by accused Ashok Kumar.
36. Sh. Shashi Kant (PW22), a member of raiding party stated in his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accused that when they were going to house belonging to accused Vikram Singh, they inquired about that house and local residents gave them directions. On the way, one local resident told about son of said accused, who was going on the road. One tenant of Vikram Singh joined the proceedings. His signatures were obtained on some papers by CBI team. It is pointed out that said tenant Sh. Chander Pal Singh though witnessed the search as well as seizure from that house, but denied to sign seizure memo.
37. Sh. Shashi Kant (PW22) mentioned about recovery of some documents apart from cash, as mentioned above. Inspector Shitanshu Sharma (PW30) also deposed to have scrutinized those documents and after scrutiny of said documents, he CBI Case No. 231/2019 CBI vs. Vikram Singh Etc. Page 29 of 52 registered a case against accused Vikram Singh, for having disproportionate assets.
Ruminating depositions of above discussed witnesses alongwith statements given by Inspector Anil Bisht (PW24) as discussed earlier, it is proved on record that cash and articles recovered from house in gali no. 3/23, Nehar Road, Village Gokulpur belonged to accused Vikram Singh.
38. However, ownership of house under search was not in issue, according to Sh. Victor James (PW28), accused Vikram Singh had disclosed himself as owner/in possession of two immovable properties including a House in Gali No. 3/23, Naher Road, Village Gokal Pur, Delhi, as mentioned in statement no. 1. Said accused disclosed about his movable properties i.e. some articles and jewellery weighing 300 grams of silver having approximate value of Rs. 26,000/, one motorcycle no. DL 13SC 4760 with approximate value of Rs. 55,000/, one car make Wagon R having value about Rs. 3,52,570/, other Scorpio Car with approximate value of Rs. 1,50,000/ and some fans, but all these are not counted by the CBI, as assets of accused Vikram Singh, being disproportionate to his income. CBI through this case, has blamed accused Vikram Singh having disproportionate assets i.e. cash Rs. 32,67,695/ and fixed deposits in the bank, jewellery, some domestic articles like Washing Machine, T.V and Refrigerator.
39. I am in consonance with Ld. Defence Counsel contending that CBI should have videographed the search, allegedly conducted in the house of accused Vikram Singh. Para 14.16 of The Central Bureau of Investigation (Crime) Manual CBI Case No. 231/2019 CBI vs. Vikram Singh Etc. Page 30 of 52 2005 provides that "as far as possible, the crime scene, steps during the course of investigation such pretrap and posttrap proceedings, search proceedings should be photographed as well as videographed. In case, the photographs are taken by conventional method, the negatives must be preserved. In the event of digital still photography and photography, the images may be downloaded/transferred in the presence of witnesses, to a 'write only' compact disk (CD) or 'write only' digital video disk (DVD) for preservation.......... In all important cases of disproportionate assets/recoveries, search proceedings should also be videographed, so that the Court may appreciate the evidence collected by CBI, about the luxurious lifestyle of the accused or the circumstances under which a particular recovery was made. A memorandum be prepared to his effect by the IO, on the spot in the presence of witnesses."
40. Our own High Court in case S.K Bhatia Vs. CBI (supra) as referred by Ld. Defence Counsel, held that in a trap case, the prosecution ought to have got videography of the trap proceedings done, so that the contradictions in the oral deposition of witnesses do not prove fatal to the prosecution case.
41. What to say of videography, no photographs were taken, during search of premises allegedly belonging to accused Vikram Singh. Even then, as no material contradictions appeared in the deposition of trap witnesses i.e. Sh. Shashi Kant (PW
22) and Inspector Anil Bisht (PW24), like in S.K. Bhatia's case, I do not think it proper to throw away the case of prosecution, simply on the ground that videography CBI Case No. 231/2019 CBI vs. Vikram Singh Etc. Page 31 of 52 was not done, at the time of search or photos of house of accused were not taken. There is no reason to disbelieve the deposition of persons, who claimed to have witnessed the search. Moreover, documents i.e. receipt/cash memo etc. allegedly recovered from said house are not disputed, being related to accused Vikram Singh, by said accused even.
42. There is no quarrel over the findings given by higher courts in precedents relied upon by Ld. Defence Counsel. The Apex Court in Rohtash Kumar's case (supra) mandated that an adverse inference could be drawn, in case when material witnesses were withheld by the prosecution. No such material witness is shown to have been withheld in this case. In LIC of India & Anr. Vs. Ram Pal Singh Bisen's case (supra), the High Court reminded that mere marking of exhibit on a document does not dispense with its proof, which is required to be done in accordance with law.
43. In State of Karnatka Vs. Ameer Jain case (supra), it was held that in case sanction to prosecute was given solely on the basis of report made by I.G Police (IO) and material collected during investigation was not made available to the sanctioning authority, in such a case sanction was illegal.
44. In case in hands, Sanctioning Officer Sh. Pawan Kumar Sharma (PW21) stated on oath that alongwith request received from CBI, he was provided some documents like copy of FIR, bank statements, statements of witnesses etc. and he went through all these documents before granting sanction. In this way, aforesaid authority is of no help to the accused.
CBI Case No. 231/2019 CBI vs. Vikram Singh Etc. Page 32 of 5245. As mentioned above, according to Sh. Sanjay Gupta, Advocate, investigation in this case was vitiated as there is nothing on record to show that Inspector S.P. Singh (PW29), the IO of case had authorized Inspector Anil Bisht (PW24) to search the house allegedly belonging to accused Vikram Singh. Supreme Court of India in case State Inspector of Police Vs. Surya Sankaram Kurri (supra) held that The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is a special statute, which contains special procedure not only in regard to the manner in which complaint is to be filed, but also mode and manner, in which investigation thereunder is required to be carried out. In aforesaid case, respondent (Surya Sankaram Kurri) was posted as Chief Commercial Inspector Railways. He was tried for offence of disproportionate assets to his known sources of income. He was convicted by the trial Court. The High Court set aside said conviction. On an appeal filed against said judgment, it was mandated by the Apex Court that Special Judge was enjoined with duly to draw an inference as Investigating Officer (PW41) did not produce any record to show that he had been so authorized.
46. True, section 17 of P.C Act prescribes that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), no police officer below the rank,
(a) in the case of Delhi Special Police Establishment, of an Inspector of Police;
(b) in the metropolitan areas of Bombay, Calcutta, Madras and CBI Case No. 231/2019 CBI vs. Vikram Singh Etc. Page 33 of 52 Ahmedabad and in any other metropolitan area notified as such under subsection (a) of section 8 of Cr.P.C, of an Assistant Commissioner of Police;
(c) elsewhere, of a Deputy Superintendent of Police or a police officer of equivalent rank, shall investigate any offence punishbale under this Act, without the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class, as the case may be.
47. It's worth mentioning that both of Sh. S.P. Singh (IO) (PW29) and Sh. Anil Bisht (PW24) were inspectors. Even otherwise, according to Ld. Sr. Public Prosecutor, Inspector Anil Bisht simply searched the house belonging to accused Vikram Singh, on being asked by Inspector S.K. Khullar, he did not investigate it further.
48. In Anil Sharma's case (supra), the Apex Court observed that in a criminal trial, equal treatment should be given to evidence of prosecution and defence. There is no quarrel on this proposition. Similarly, none could deny the fact that it is fundamental principle of criminal law that accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved to be guilty as held by Apex Court in Kailash Gour's case (supra).
49. In DSP Chennai Vs. K. Inbasagaran's case (supra), the accused was a public servant. Some unaccounted money was alleged to have been recovered from the house of accused, in a raid by Income Tax Deptt. The house was in joint possession of accused as well as his wife. The accused gave explanation that all CBI Case No. 231/2019 CBI vs. Vikram Singh Etc. Page 34 of 52 money recovered from that house belonged to his wife. The latter admitted ownership of money recovered. All unaccounted money assessed by Income Tax Deptt. in hands of wife of accused. It was held that explanation given by accused is plausible and justifiable. The accused could not be held guilty of corruption charge.
50. It is not plea of accused Vikram Singh that cash or other assets, documents of which were recovered from the house searched by CBI, were belonging to his wife. Even otherwise, there is no evidence on record to verify that wife of accused Smt. Samantra Devi had her own source of income. In such a case, this authority is also of no help to accused.
The other precedents as relied upon by Ld. Defence Counsel are not so relevant for decision of this case.
51. Ld. Sr. PP for CBI, gave written submissions, alongwith calculation of value of assets etc. belonging to accused Vikram Singh, which is reprodduced here as under Assets before check period i.e. 01.04.1990: SI Details Amount Pw Name Exhibit Exhibited amount No. 1 Income before 22,420/ PW1 Harish PW1/A 32,714/ check period from Chand Bhatt & 1/B. Salary of Sh. dated Vikram Singh 16.12.2016 (1/3rd of Gross from 09.05.1985 Salary Net likely to 31.03.1990 saving after Rs.33,629/ () deduction Rs.11,209/ as 32714 household 10904=21809/ CBI Case No. 231/2019 CBI vs. Vikram Singh Etc. Page 35 of 52 expenses @ 1/3rd of Gross Salary Net likely saving after deduction.
Assets at the end of check period i.e. 31.01.2012.
SI Details Amount Pw Name Exhibit Exhibited
No. amount
1 Cash amount of 32,67,695/ PW22 Sh. PW22/A 32,67,695/
Rs.32,67,695 was Shashi Kant, & 22/B,
found during his PW24 Sh. (Search
house search on Anil Bisht, List and
31.01.2012 out of they were inventory
which Rs.32,47,000/ independent (D3)
were seized by CBI & witnesses
Rs.20,695/ returned during search
to his some Mr. in the house
Yogesh Kumar. of Vikram
Singh
2 Balance as on 2,16,409/ PW2 Sh. PW2/A 2,16,409/
31.01.2012 in the Manoj (D4) including
saving bank account Sharma interest of
No.91090100043089, Rs.15253/
maintained with Serva
UP Graming Bank
(under PNB) Siyana,
Bulandshahar (UP)
including interest of
Rs.15,253/ in the
name of Vikram
Singh
3 Balance as on 52,234/ PW3 Sh. PW3/A 52,234/
31.01.2012 in the Roshan Lal (D5) including
saving bank account Sehgal interest of
No. 10820128560 (old Rs.10272/
CBI Case No. 231/2019 CBI vs. Vikram Singh Etc. Page 36 of 52
account No.
01190715642)
maintained with SBI )
SME, Chandni
Chowk, Branch ,
Delhi06 including
interest of Rs.10,272/
in the name of Vikram
Singh
4 Fixed deposit vide 80,070/ PW3 Sh. PW3/B 80,070/
account No. Roshan Lal (D5) including
30171690754 Sehgal interest of
maintained with SBI Rs. 25,070/
(SME) Chandni
Chwok, Branch Delhi
as on 31.01.2012
including interest of
Rs.25,070/ in the
name of Vikram
Singh.
5 Balance as on 3,61,599 PW4 Sh. PW4/A 3,61,599/
31.01.2012 in the Rajesh Gupta C including
saving bank account (D6 interest of
No. 1045598782 Rs. 49,132/
maintained with
Central Bank of India,
Jyoti Nagar Branch,
Delhi including
interest of Rs.49,132/
in the name of Vikram
Singh.
6 Fixed deposit vide 68,909 PW4 Sh. PW4/A 68,909/
account No. Rajesh Gupta C including
3005392999 in (D6) interest of
Central Bank of India, Rs. 8,909/
Jyoti Nagar, Branch,
Delhi as on
CBI Case No. 231/2019 CBI vs. Vikram Singh Etc. Page 37 of 52
31.01.2012 including
interest of Rs.8,909/
in the name of Vikram
Singh
7 Balance as on 61,264/ PW5 PW5/A 61,264/
31.01.2012 in the Sh.Nishant & 5/B, including
saving bank account Sharma 5/C interest of
No. 01/044481, in (D7) Rs. 1536/
Corporation Bank
Preet Vihar, C50,
Vikash Marg Branch,
including interest of
Rs.1536/ in the name
of Vikram Singh
8 Balance as on 32,170/ PW7 Sh. Ex.PW 32,170/
31.01.2012 in the G.K. Dua 7/A, 7/B, including
saving bank account 7/C (D interest of
No. Rs. 23,166/
0117000100416054
maintained with
Punjab National
Branch DMD House,
Ansari Road,
Daryaganj Delhi
including interest of
Rs.23,166/ in the
name of Vikram
Singh.
9 Balance as on 41,558/ PW6 Sh. PW6/A 41,558/
31.01.2012 in the Kailash D9 including
account No.01/044481 Chand Gupta interest of
maintained with MCD Rs. 14,658/
Karamchari, Co
opeartinve Thrift and
Credit Society, Ltd.
Kashmere Gate,
Delhi6 including
CBI Case No. 231/2019 CBI vs. Vikram Singh Etc. Page 38 of 52
interest of Rs.14658/
in the name of Vikram
Singh
10 Cost of jewellery 25,556/ PW8 Sh. Ex.PW 25,556/
purchased vide cash Subhash 8/A D
memo no. 829 dated Chand 10)
29.03.1993 from Verma
Ugarsain & Subhash
Chand Jewellers
11 Cost of Jewellery 24,483/ PW8 Sh. Ex.PW 24,483/
purchases vide case Subhash 8/B (D
memo dated Chand 11)
21.05.2010 from Verma
Subhash Chand
Jewellers
12 Cost of jewellery 2,266/ PW8 Sh. Ex.PW 2,266/
purchased vide cash Subhash 8/C (D
memo dated Chand 12)
05.03.2010 Verma
13 Cost of Onida TV 11,900 PW9 Sh. Ex.PW 11,900
purchased on Aman Dhalla 9/A
28.08.1999 from New (D13)
Omi electronics,
1449/, Durgapuri
Chowk, Loni Road,
Delhi
14 Cost of Onida 7,800 PW9 Sh. Ex.PW 7,800
Washing machine Aman Dhalla 9/B
purchased on (D14)
16.12.2001 from new
Omi electronics,
1449/6, Durgapuri
Chowk, Loni Rod,
Delhi
15 Cost of Onida TV 7,700 PW9 Sh. Ex.PW 7,700
purchased on Aman Dhalla 9/C (D
13.03.2005 from New 15)
CBI Case No. 231/2019 CBI vs. Vikram Singh Etc. Page 39 of 52
Omi electronics,
1449/6, Durgapuri
Chwok, Loni Road,
Delhi
16 Cost of cycle 1,435/ PW13 Sh. ExPW 1,435/
purchased on Virender 13/A
28.07.2002 from M/s Singh (D16)
Jiwan Singh & Sons, Chawla
Shop No. 4748, Main
Market, New
Seelampur, PhaseII,
Delhi
17 Cost of cycle 1,545/ PW13 Sh. ExPW 1,545/
purchased on Virender 13/B
28.07.2002 from M/s Singh (D17)
Jiwan Singh & Sons, Chawla
Shop No.4748, Main
Market, New
Seelampur, PhaseII,
Delhi
18 Cost of mobile phone 6,200 PW14 Sh. Ex.PW 6,200/
Nokia 6303 purchased Gaurav 14/A
on 16.12.10 from M/s Bhargawa (D18)
Digitek Computers
Pvt. Ltd., C6/232,
Yamuna Vihar, Delhi
19 Cost of LG Washing 8,000 PW16 Sh. Ex.PW 8,000/
Machine purchased on Rochak 16/A
24.11.2007 from Arora (D19)
Electronic Craft B4,
Kanti Nagar, Extn.,
Delhi51
20 Cost of LG TV 14,500 PW16 Sh. Ex.PW 14,500/
purchased on Rochak 16/B
28.03.2008 from Arora (D20)
Electronic Craft, B4,
Kanti Nagar, Extn.,
CBI Case No. 231/2019 CBI vs. Vikram Singh Etc. Page 40 of 52
Delhi
21 Cost of LG 16,300 PW16 Sh. Ex.PW 16,300/
Refrigerator Rochak 16/C
purchased on Arora (D21)
22.04.2009 from
Electronic Craft B4,
Kanti Nagar, Extn.
Delhi51.
43,09,593/ 43,09,593/
Total
Details of income during check period i.e. 01.04.1990 to 31.01.2012 has revealed as under: SI Details Amount Pw Name Exhibit Exhibited No. amount 1 Income from net 16,32,118/ PW15 Sh. Ex.PW 16,32,118/ salary of Sh. Vikram Ramesh 15/A, Singh. Prasad 15/B, Note: Net salary for Gupta, 15/C period from PW17 Sh. (D22/A 01.04.1990 to Ajay to 31.01.2012 which Gautam, D22/E), were paid to him after PW18 Sh. Ex,PW deduction as provided Brijesh Kr. 18/A by his department. Gupta 2 Interest credited in 15,253/ PW2 Sh. PW2/A Rs.15253/ the saving bank Manoj (D4) account No. Sharma 9109010004389, maintained with Serva UP Gramin Bank (Under PNB) Siyana, Bulandshar UP up to 31.1.2012 in CBI Case No. 231/2019 CBI vs. Vikram Singh Etc. Page 41 of 52 the name of Vikram Singh 3 Interest credited in 10,272/ PW3 Sh. PW3/A Rs.10272/ the saving bank Roshan Lal (D5) account No. Sehgal 10820128560 (old a/c No. 01190715642) maintained with SBI (SME) Chandni Chowk, Branch, Delhi6 up to 31.01.2012 in the name of Shri Vikram Singh 4 Interest added with 25,070/ PW3 Sh. PW3/B Rs. 25,070/ FD of Rs.80,070/ Roshan Lal (D5) (account no. Sehgal 30171690754) maintained with SBI (SME) Chandni Chowk Branch, Delhi6 as on 08.05.2011 in the name of Vikram Singh.
5 Interest credited in 49,132/ PW4 Sh. PW4/A Rs. 49,132/
the saving bank Rajesh C
account no. Gupta (D6
1045598782
maintained with
Central Bank of
India, Jyoti Nagar
Branch, Delhi up to
31.01.2012 in the
name of Vikram
Singh
6 Interest of Rs.8,909/ 8,909/ PW4 Sh. PW4/A Rs. 8,909/
CBI Case No. 231/2019 CBI vs. Vikram Singh Etc. Page 42 of 52
added with FD of Rajesh C
Rs.68,909/ (account Gupta (D6)
No.3005392999) in
the Central Bank of
India, Jyoti Nagar
Branch, Delhi up to
31.01.2012 in the
name of Vikram
Singh.
7 Interest credited in 1536/ PW5 PW5/A Rs. 1536/
the saving bank Sh.Nishant & 5/B,
account No. Sharma 5/C
01/044481, in (D7)
Corporation Bank
Preet Vihar, C50,
Vikash Marg Branch
up to 31.01.2012 in
the name of Vikram
Singh
8 Interest of 23,166/ PW7 Sh. Ex.PW Rs. 23,166/
Rs.23,166/ credited G.K. Dua 7/A, 7/B,
in the saving bank 7/C (D
account No.
0117000100416054
maintained with
Punjab National
Bank, Branch DMD
House, Ansari Road,
Daryaganj Delhi up
to 31.1.2012 in the
name of Vikram
Singh
9 Interest credited in 14,658/ PW6 Sh. PW6/A Rs. 14,658/
the account No. Kailash D9
01/044481 Chand
maintained with Gupta
MCD Karamchari,
CBI Case No. 231/2019 CBI vs. Vikram Singh Etc. Page 43 of 52
Cooperative Thrift &
Credit Society Ltd.
cashmere Gate,
Delhi6 up to
31.01.2012 in the
name of Vikram
Singh
Total 17,80,114/ 17,80,114/
Details of Expenditure during check period : SI Details Amount Pw Name Exhibit Exhibited amount No. 1 Household expenses 6,20,414/ Rs.5,44,040/ as @ 1/3rd of Net per law Salary of Rs.18,61,244/ during the check period from 01.04.1990 to 31.01.2012.
2 Expenditure incurred 4,536/ Ex.PW 4,536/
towards school fees 19/A
PW19
to Ganga Public (Period
Smt.
School in of Mr. 2001 to
Sonia
Rahul Kumar 2005) (D
23)
3 Expenditure incurred 6,057/ Ex.PW 6,057/
towards School fees 19/A
PW19
to Ganga Public (Period
Smt.
School in of Mr. 2001 to
Sonia
Yogesh Kumar 2005) (D
23)
4 Expenditure incurred 8,076/ PW19 Ex.PW 8,076/
towards School fees Smt. 19/A
CBI Case No. 231/2019 CBI vs. Vikram Singh Etc. Page 44 of 52
to Ganga Public (Period
School in of Mr. 2001 to
Sonia
Sachin 2005) (D
23)
5 Expenditure incurred 6,420/ Ex.PW 6,420/
towards School fees 19/A
PW19
to Ganga Public (Period
Smt.
School in of Mr. 2001 to
Sonia
Deepanshu 2005) (D
23)
6 Expenditure incurred 9,480/ Ex.PW 9,480/
towards school feed PW20 20/A
to Vishwa Bharti Sh. Vipin (Period
Public School in of Kumar 2000
Mr. Rahul Kumar Sharma 2003) (D
24)
7 Expenditure incurred 11,400/ Ex.PW 11,400/
towards school fees PW20 20/A
to Vishwa Bharti Sh. Vipin (Period
Public School in of Kumar 2000
Mr. Yogesh Kumar Sharma 2003) (D
24)
Total 6,66,383/ 5,90,009/
Details of income, expenditure and assets of Sh. Vikram Singh, in his name and in the name of his family members, as under: 1 Assets at the beginning of check period (Statement 21,809/
- A) 2 Assets at the end of check period 43,09,593/ (Statement - B) 3 Income during the check period 17,80,114/ (Statement - C) 4 Expenditure during the check period 5,90,009/ CBI Case No. 231/2019 CBI vs. Vikram Singh Etc. Page 45 of 52 (Statement - D) 5 Assets acquired during the check period - (BA) 42,87,784/ 6 Likely Savings (CD) 11,90,105/ 7 Disproportionate Assets (Assets acquired during 30,97,679/ check period - likely saving (BA()CD)
52. PW Sh. Aman Dhal (PW9) told about Bills i.e. Ex. PW9/B & PW9/C having issued in the name of accused Sh. Vikram Singh. Document i.e. Ex. PW9/B is about purchase of ONIDA Washing Machine of Rs. 7,800/ and Ex. PW9/C is stated to be about purchase of ONIDA TV of Rs.7,700/. Similarly, Sh. Rochak Arora (PW
16) told about sale of washing machine in the name of Smt. Sumitra Devi of Rs. 8000/ and LG TV to one Sh. Rahul Kumar of Rs.14,500/. According to Ld. Defence counsel, even as per IO during investigation, he came to know that Sh.Yogesh Kumar and Sh. Rahul Kumar had their own earnings. In this way, it is not proved that afore mentioned articles i.e. ONIDA Washing Machine, ONIDA TV and LG TV purchased for Rs. 7800/, Rs. 7700/ and of Rs. 14,500/ were assets of accused Vikram Singh. I agree with Ld. Defence Counsel in this regard. In case when both of said Sh. Rahul Kumar and Sh. Yogesh Kumar had their own income, aforesaid articles purchased in the names of said Sh. Rahul and Sh. Yogesh Kumar can be presumed to be owned by both of them and are not assets of accused Vikram Singh.
LG Washing Machine of Rs. 8,000/ and LG Refrigerator of Rs. 16,300/ are shown to have been purchased in the name of Smt. Sumitra Devi/ Sumantra Devi i.e. wife of accused. Moreover, Bill Ex. PW9/A is in the name of Sh. Raj Kumar as CBI Case No. 231/2019 CBI vs. Vikram Singh Etc. Page 46 of 52 mentioned above. It is well proved that said articles as well as cash memos were recovered from the house of accused Sh. Vikram Singh. It was for the latter to explain about these articles and said accused failed to prove as how he came into possession of these articles. Moreover, it is not proved that Smt. Sumitra Devi had her own income. She is stated to be house wife, dependent upon accused Vikram Singh. It can be presumed that said articles also belonged to accused Vikram Singh.
53. I do not find any illegality in counting of assets of accused Vikram Singh at the beginning of check period being Rs. 21,809/, his income i.e. Rs. 17,80,114/ during check period, expenditure of Rs. 5,90,0009/ in same period i.e. check period, likely savings of Rs. 11,90,105/ as communicated by Ld. Sr. PP in his written submissions, but keeping in view the fact that aforesaid ONIDA Washing Machine, TV (ONIDA) and TV (Make LG) cannot be attributed to be owned by accused Vikram Singh. Value of assets of accused Vikram Singh, at the end of check period i.e. till 31.01.2012 is found as under SI Details Amount No. 1 Cash amount of Rs.32,67,695 found during 32,67,695/ his house search on 31.01.2012.
2 Balance as on 31.01.2012 in the saving 2,16,409/ including interest of bank account No.91090100043089, Rs.15253/ maintained with Serva UP Graming Bank (under PNB) Siyana, Bulandshahar (UP).
3 Balance as on 31.01.2012 in the saving 52,234/ including interest of bank account No. 10820128560 (old Rs.10272/ CBI Case No. 231/2019 CBI vs. Vikram Singh Etc. Page 47 of 52 account No. 01190715642) maintained with SBI )SME, Chandni Chowk, Branch , Delhi06.
4 Fixed deposit vide account No. 80,070/including interest of Rs.
30171690754 maintained with SBI (SME) 25,070/ Chandni Chwok, Branch Delhi as on 31.01.2012.
5 Balance as on 31.01.2012 in the saving 3,61,599/including interest of Rs.
bank account No. 1045598782 maintained 49,132/ with Central Bank of India, Jyoti Nagar Branch, Delhi.
6 Fixed deposit vide account No. 68,909/including interest of Rs.
3005392999 in Central Bank of India, Jyoti 8,909/ Nagar, Branch, Delhi as on 31.01.2012.
7 Balance as on 31.01.2012 in the saving 61,264/including interest of Rs.
bank account No. 01/044481, in 1536/
Corporation Bank Preet Vihar, C50,
Vikash Marg Branch, including interest of
Rs.1536/ in the name of Vikram Singh.
8 Balance as on 31.01.2012 in the saving 32,170/including interest of Rs.
bank account No. 0117000100416054 23,166/
maintained with Punjab National Branch
DMD House, Ansari Road, Daryaganj
Delhi.
9 Balance as on 31.01.2012 in the account 41,558/including interest of Rs.
No.01/044481 maintained with MCD 14,658/
Karamchari, Coopeartinve Thrift and
Credit Society, Ltd. Kashmere Gate, in the
name of Vikram Singh.
10 Cost of jewellery purchased vide cash 25,556/
memo no. 829 dated 29.03.1993 from
Ugarsain & Subhash Chand Jewellers
11 Cost of Jewellery purchases vide case 24,483/
memo dated 21.05.2010 from Subhash
Chand Jewellers
12 Cost of jewellery purchased vide cash 2,266/
memo dated 05.03.2010
CBI Case No. 231/2019 CBI vs. Vikram Singh Etc. Page 48 of 52
13 Cost of Onida TV purchased on 11,900
28.08.1999 from New Omi electronics,
1449/, Durgapuri Chowk, Loni Road,
Delhi
16 Cost of cycle purchased on 28.07.2002 1,435/
from M/s Jiwan Singh & Sons, Shop No.
4748, Main Market, New Seelampur,
PhaseII, Delhi
17 Cost of cycle purchased on 28.07.2002 1,545/
from M/s Jiwan Singh & Sons, Shop
No.4748, Main Market, New Seelampur,
PhaseII, Delhi
18 Cost of mobile phone Nokia 6303 6,200/
purchased on 16.12.10 from M/s Digitek
Computers Pvt. Ltd., C6/232, Yamuna
Vihar, Delhi
19 Cost of LG Washing Machine purchased 8,000/
on 24.11.2007 from Electronic Craft B4,
Kanti Nagar, Extn., Delhi51
21 Cost of LG Refrigerator purchased on 16,300/
22.04.2009 from Electronic Craft B4,
Kanti Nagar, Extn. Delhi51.
42,79,593/
Total
List of assets disproportionate to known source of income of accused Vikram Singh, in this case, is as under: 1 Assets at the beginning of check period 21,809/ 2 Assets at the end of check period 42,79,593/ 3 Income during the check period 17,80,114/ (Statement - C) 4 Expenditure during the check period 5,90,009/ (Statement - D) CBI Case No. 231/2019 CBI vs. Vikram Singh Etc. Page 49 of 52 5 Assets acquired during the check period - (BA) 42,57,784/ 6 Likely Savings (CD) 11,90,105/ 7 Disproportionate Assets (Assets acquired during 30,67,679/ check period - likely saving (BA()CD) DA%age : DA X 100 = 30,67,679/ X 100 = 172.33 % Income 17,80,114/
54. Section 13 (1) of The Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, defines that a Public Servant is said to have committed offence of criminal misconduct
a)....
b)....
c)....
d)....
e) if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income.
55. In State of Madya Pradesh Vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta's case (supra) while explaining "known sources of income" as cropped up in Section 13 (1) (e) of PC Act, their lordships of Apex Court held that same does not mean sources known to accused. Burden is cast on the accused not only to offer plausible explanation as to acquisition of large wealth, but also to specify the Court that explanation is worthy of acceptance.
CBI Case No. 231/2019 CBI vs. Vikram Singh Etc. Page 50 of 52The legislature has explained that for the purpose of this section "Known source of income" means 'income received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provision of any law, rules or order for the time being applicable to a public servant.'
56. Cash as well as articles of which receipt/cash memo were recovered from the house of accused Vikram Singh can well be presumed to be belonging to him. Said accused in his statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C flatly denied to be in possession of house from where same were recovered, what to say of giving any explanations about receipt of such assets. It is not case of accused (Vikram Singh) even that he intimated his employer about receipts of said assets.
57. It is not in dispute that accused Vikram Singh being employee of MCD, was a public servant. Same i.e. Accused Vikram Singh could not explain the receipt of those assets i.e. cash and articles mentioned above which was criminal misconduct on his part. Sub Section 2 of Section 13 of The PC Act prescribes for punishment for a public servant who commits criminal misconduct. Accused Vikram Singh is thus, convicted for offence of Criminal misconduct, punishable u/s 13 (2) r/w sec. 13 (1) (e) of The Prevention of corruption Act, 1988.
58. All the accused persons i.e. Accused Vikram Singh (A1), Ashok Kumar (A2), Wakil@ Wakil Ahmed (A3), Jile Singh (A4) and Accused Jaswant Singh (A5), were charged for the offence punishable U/s 109 IPC read with section 13 (2) CBI Case No. 231/2019 CBI vs. Vikram Singh Etc. Page 51 of 52 read with Section 13 (1) (e) of The Prevention of Corruption Act. Accused Vikram Singh (A1) was also charged for offence punishable U/s 13 (2) read with section 13(1) (e) of said Act.
No offence is made out against any of accused persons namely Ashok Kumar (A2), Wakil@ Wakil Ahmad (A3), Jile Singh (A4) and Jaswant Singh (A
5). All of them i.e. Ashok Kumar (A2), Wakil @ Wakil Ahmed (A3), Jile Singh (A4) and accused Jaswant Singh (A5) are thus, acquitted. Similarly, no offence except offence punishable U/s 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (e) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, is made out against accused Vikram Singh. He is thus, acquitted for all other offences. Bail Bonds and surety bonds filed by accused, are hereby cancelled.
Announced in Open Court today i.e. 18.12.2019 (Rajender Kumar Shastri) Special Judge (PC Act) [CBI]14 Rouse Avenue Court Complex/New Delhi CBI Case No. 231/2019 CBI vs. Vikram Singh Etc. Page 52 of 52