Delhi District Court
Cc No.532281/16 State vs Laxman Singh 1 on 28 November, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MS. KIRAN BANSAL, SPECIAL JUDGE07
(CENTRAL), (PC ACT CASES OF ACB, GNCTD), DELHI
CC No. 532281/2016
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
VERSUS
1. Laxman Singh
S/o Late Sh. Bhim Singh
R/o H. No.10/9,
Village Kishan Garh,
Mehrauli, Delhi.
FIR No. : 69/01
U/S : 13(1)(e) Prevention of Corruption Act
PS : Anti Corruption Branch
Date of institution : 15.07.2006
Judgment reserved on : 28.11.2018
Judgment delivered on : 28.11.2018
J U D G M E N T
1) The chargesheet has been filed in the present case for the offence under
section 13(1)(e) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2) Brief facts of the case as emerged from the chargesheet are that a
complaint was received in the Anti Corruption Branch against accused
Laxman Singh alleging that Laxman Singh who was posted as Beldar in
MCD, South Zone was living luxuriously and had built up a palatial
house at 9/10, Kishan Garh Village, Vasant Kunj having three storeys.
CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 1
Insp. O.P. Arora made enquiry on the complaint and after conducting
enquiry about the current value of the house and salary of Laxman
Singh, Beldar, it was observed that accused Laxman Singh was having
disproportionate income. He submitted his report for registration of case
as the value of the house in which he was living was more than Rs.42
Lacs as per the valuation report of PWD.
3) In the complaint sent for registration of the case, it was stated that the
accused, who working as Beldar in MCD was living in palatial house
bearing no. 9/10, Kishan Garh, Delhi which is a three and a half storey
house. (Though in the FIR, the house number of accused is given as
9/10, but later on it was revealed that the house number was 10 of Ward
no. 9 and thus, 10/9, Kishangarh, Delhi) The enquiry further revealed
that the accused was working in MCD Department since 1978 and has
worked as daily wager upto 31.03.1983 and thereafter, he was
regularized in the pay scale of Rs.196/ to Rs.232/ w.e.f. 01.04.1983 and
was posted in office of A.E. Engineering till 30.04.1991. After 1991,
accused was posted on sensitive postings throughout i.e. :
(i) 01.05.1991 to 13.07.1992 in the office of Z.E.
(Bldg.), Najafgarh Zone.
(ii) 14.07.1992 to 30.09.1993 posted in office of A.O.
Engg., Town Hall.
(iii) 01.10.1993 to 26.10.1994, Bldg. Deptt., South
Zone, Green Park.
(iv) 27.10.1994 to 13.01.2000, Z.E. (Works), Karol
Bagh Zone.
(v) 14.01.2000 to 04.01.2001, E.E., IX, Defence
Colony.
CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 2
(vi) 04.01.2001 onwards E.E. XXIV, under Flyover,
Seva Nagar.
4) It is further stated that accused Laxman Singh was residing in the house
in question i.e. 9/10, Village Kishan Garh, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi with
his family and the house was registered in the name of his father Sh.
Bhim Singh who had expired in 1989. The house consisted of basement
plus three and a half storey constructed in 1998 and has been assessed as
having construction value of more than Rs.42 Lakh approximately by
PWD authorities. It is further stated that the accused Laxman Singh was
also maintaining a Maruti800 car bearing no. DL3CG2912 purchased
in the name of his wife, in 1995 for an amount of Rs.1.5 Lakhs and
accused was also having a telephone no.6134564. It is further alleged
that two married brother of accused were residing in separate houses and
mother of accused Smt. Risalo Devi was residing with her youngest son
Suresh Kumar and total income of accused Laxman Singh from all
known sources from 1978 to 1998 stands at Rs.3,78,545/ and after
deducting one third of the kitchen expenses, his disposable income
stands at Rs.2,52,395/ whereas his total assets were of Rs.44.40 lakhs.
5) During investigation, the enquiry file was procured by the IO and search
of the house of the accused was conducted on 04.01.2001 after obtaining
search warrant from the court. One electricity bill in the name of
Laxman Singh, copy of telephone bill in the name of Smt. Kamla Mahla
W/o Laxman Singh, telephone no. 6134564 were recovered vide seizure
memo dated 04.01.2001. Inventory memo of the household articles were
also prepared which revealed that household goods worth of
Rs.1,74,300/ were found on the first floor, in the basement an electric
CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 3
motor and waste of iron and wooden material was found, ground floor
and second floor were in the possession of tenants. Accused Laxman
Singh in his defence took the plea that the house belonged to his mother
Risalo Devi who had constructed the same with the amount received
from the sale proceeds of a portion of ancestral land measuring 660
square yards and an amount of Rs.12 Lakh received from the nephews of
Risalo Devi, out of the compensation of their ancestral land of village
Islampur, Gurgaon. Accused further claimed that their family had
acquired income from the sales of various other ancestral properties till
1987 but actual sale proceeds were not known as the documents to that
effect were not available. Accused further clarified that income prior to
1987 was used up for the construction of 20 rooms in a portion of the
ancestral plot adjoining his house and his mother had let out those rooms
to various tenants. Accused also produced the demand letters of house
tax and electricity bills in the name of his father Sh. Bhim Singh to prove
that the plot in which his house is situated is a part of the ancestral
property. He submitted the affidavit of his cousins Badle Ram etc. to
support the fact that some amount of compensation received by the
nephews of Smt. Risalo Devi was given by them to Risalo Devi and also
produced copies of records of revenue department to support his claim.
It is further stated in the chargesheet, that all the papers submitted by
accused in his defence and his plea was considered during investigation.
6) Investigation further revealed that the plot no. 10, Ward no. 9,
Kishangarh, Mehrauli is situated in Khasra no. 2716/1668 (old) which is
now Khasra no.1161/1 (New) of Mehrauli, Delhi and as per revenue
records of 197071 of Mehrauli, Sh. Bhim Singh S/o Sh. Ramji Lal was
in unauthorized possession of land measuring one Bigha two Biswa (i.e.
CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 4
1100 square yards) in the above Khasra, though the entire Khasra was
vested in Gram Sabha on 19.09.1983 as per revenue records. On
scrutiny of the house tax department record, it was revealed that a
dwelling unit belonging to Bhim Singh was in existence as property no.
10 and Ward no. 9, Kishan Garh, Mehrauli in the form of two rooms
with a kitchen and Chappar at ground floor and one room at the first
floor till 1987. In 1987, Risalo Devi had applied for the mutation of the
entire property for house tax in her name after the death of her husband
but the MCD declined to accept her as legal heir of the property and
asked for providing no objection certificate from all other legal heirs. It
is stated that mutation did not take place as site plan and NOC were not
submitted. Risalo Devi was having no proof of title or the ownership of
house in question. It is also mentioned that Sh. Bhim Singh had expired
on 06.03.1983. The accused had also supplied the agreement to sell
dated 24.06.1994 alongwith payment of receipt, according to which land
measuring 660 square yards out of Khasra no.2716/1668 situated in the
revenue estate of village Kishan Garh was transferred to one Sourabh
Gupta for a consideration amount of Rs.1,80,000/ which was received
by Smt. Prashold Devi, Gian Singh, Laxman Singh, Suresh Singh and
Bhan Singh. It was claimed that Risalo Devi was misspelt as Prashold
Dei. Out of total amount, 50% share was of Bhan Singh (brother of
Bhim Singh, father of accused) and remaining 50% was of Risalo Devi,
Gian Singh, Laxman Singh, Suresh Singh and thus, the share of Laxman
Singh was of Rs.22,500/ only. It is further stated that some fresh
construction was done to accommodate the increasing size of family
after 1987 with the funds received from the proceeds of sale and
acquisition of the ancestral lands in Mehrauli and Ghitorni and rooms
CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 5
were constructed in a plot of 450 square yards for living of the
expanding family and some rooms were rented out. It is further stated
that later on the built up rooms were distributed among the three brothers
alongwith the land. Though, Gian Singh and Suresh Singh were still
having those rooms in the portions of the plot of their share but Laxman
Singh dismantled the old construction and reconstructed a new palatial
house in the portion which fell to his share. Affidavit dated 31.10.2002
of Risalo Devi and a joint affidavit of Badle Ram, Balwan Singh,
Balwant Singh and Lekhi Ram dated 12.11.2002 were also filed before
the IO and are available on record. In the affidavit of Smt. Risalo Devi,
she claimed herself to be the owner of 19/9 (sic 10/9), Kishan Garh and
further deposed that Gian Singh and Suresh Singh were living separately
and she confirmed the receipt of Rs.1,80,000/ from Sourabh Gupta on
24.06.1994. She further claimed that she had received Rs.10 Lakh from
her nephews out of the compensation of her ancestral property of village
Islampur as she had transferred her ownership rights in favour of his
nephews and spent that amount on the construction of the house. In the
joint affidavit dated 12.11.2002, Badle Ram and others affirmed that
they had paid Rs.10 Lakh in 1994 and Rs. Two Lakh in 2000 to Risalo
Devi as gift as she had decreed her share of ancestral land in their
favour. It is further stated in the chargesheet that there is contradiction
in the amounts paid as per Risalo Devi on one hand and Badle Ram etc.
on the other hand and the accused could not produce any documentary
evidence to show lawful and credible mode of transfer of the amount as
stated in the affidavit. It is also stated that receipt of the amount during
enquiry was never claimed before other officers and no gift deed is in
existence and no tax return about the receipt of such heavy amount was
CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 6
filed and therefore, the claim of such a receipt is an afterthought which
cannot be relied upon and no benefit can be given to Laxman Singh to
treat it as his lawful income.
7) It is further stated in the chargesheet that the investigation revealed that
Gian Singh and Suresh Singh, brothers of the accused were living
separately and used the income of the rent to meet their family expenses
whereas Laxman Singh had demolished the rooms of his share and had
therefore, no rental income. After reconstruction of the house Laxman
Singh received some rent which was reflected in the income tax returns
of Smt. Kamla Mahla W/o Laxman Singh. It is also stated that the
receipt of the rent of the house by Kamla Mahla further links the de
facto ownership of the house with Laxman Singh. It is further stated
that as the period of dubious transaction relates to 1993 to 1998
therefore, the check period for the case has been confined to the
above period and the documents and evidence pertaining to above
period had been considered. The assets at the start of the check period
are a plot at which the old house existed and new construction was made
and the cost of the plot has not been added towards the assets acquired
by Laxman Singh as the plot was ancestral and only the cost of
reconstruction has been taken towards the value of the asset.
8) It is further stated that Smt. Risalo Devi is an old lady of about 85 years
and is hard of hearing. She has three sons namely Gian Singh, Laxman
Singh and Suresh Singh. The family had an adverse possession of 1100
square yards in total out of which the right of possession of 660 square
yards was transferred by them to Sh. Sourabh Gupta for an amount of
Rs.1,80,000/ in 1994 and Laxman Singh claimed to have received 1/4th
of the 50% share amounting to Rs.22,500/ and the remaining plot of
CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 7
about 450 square yards was distributed among three brothers and a sister
according to mutual understanding of the members of the family. Gian
Singh continued to manage the livings of his family comprising of wife,
two sons and a daughter and with the rent of the rooms of his share after
getting retired from DTC in 1988, Suresh Singh who was unmarried,
unemployed and a chronic drug addict lived separately with her mother
Risalo Devi on the first floor of the separate building of his share
continued spending his rental income in drugs. The accused who was a
Beldar in MCD by misusing of his official position had amassed a huge
amount from the unauthorized constructions in Sainik Farms near
Mehrauli, Delhi and from other postings from 1993 onwards and
demolished the portion of the ancestral building of his share and built up
a new palatial house with a basement and three and a half storey from
1995 to 1998. The value of the construction of the house of Laxman
Singh as calculated by PWD has been found to be Rs.42,24,100/. The
accused had applied for separate connection of electricity in his own
name in November 1996 and had claimed in affidavit dated 07.11.1996
that he is the owner of the house in his possession. The copy of the ration
card enclosed with the affidavit contains the name of Laxman Singh as
the head of family and his wife and four children as members and name
of his mother Risalo Devi did not figure in the ration card. It is stated
that on the basis of voluntary affidavit submitted by accused Laxman
Singh to Delhi Vidhut Board, Electric Connection, Telephone
Connection, family settlement and other evidence on record, he is the de
facto owner in possession of the house and thus, he is fully liable to
explain the known source of income to interalia account for the expenses
incurred on the reconstruction of the house in his portion of the ancestral
CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 8
land. The statement of income and assets of Laxman Singh as per
chargesheet are as follows :
S. No. DATE PARTICULARS VALUE IN Rs.
1. 01.10.1993 Salary of Laxman Singh Rs.23816/.
-
25.10.1994
2. 26.10.1994 Salary of Laxman Singh Rs.1,66,261/.
31.10.1998
3. 01.11.1998 Salary of Laxman Singh Rs.25,227/
- (wrongly stated as income of 31.03.1999 Kamla in the chargesheet)
4. 199697 Income of wife of Kamla Rs.47,500/ (I.T. Return)
5. 199798 Income of wife of Kamla Rs.49,500/ (I.T. Return)
6. 199899 Income of wife of Kamla Rs.49,500/ (I.T. Return)
7. 24.06.1994 Share of the Sale proceeds of Rs.22,500/.
plot sold to Mr. Sourabh Gupta.
Total (A) : Rs.3,84,304/.
9) Expenditure & Assets :
S. No. DATE PARTICULARS VALUE IN Rs.
1. 19941998 Construction cost of House Rs.42,24,100/.
2. 1995 Purchase of Car DL3CG Rs.1,50,000/.
2912
3. 10/933/99 Kitchen Expenses (1/3 of Rs.1,26,590/.
Income)
4. 19931998 GPF Deposits Rs.20,940/.
CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 9
5. Household Goods Rs.1,74,300/.
Total (B) : Rs.46,95,930/.
Excess of Expenditure Over Income (B) - (A) : Rs. 42,11,626/
10) It is stated that the assets and expenditure of accused Laxman Singh are much more than the income/credit by Rs.43,11,626/ for which no explanation is available with him and thus, his assets are disproportionate to the known sources of income of Laxman Singh. After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed on 15.07.2006 and thereafter, cognizance of offence was taken against accused Laxman Singh for the offence under section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act vide order dated 31.08.2006. Accused was summoned for 06.10.2006 and charge for the offence under section 13(1)
(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been framed, vide order dated 02.06.2007, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
11) Inadvertently, at the time of cognizance, cognizance of the offence under section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act against accused Laxman Singh has been taken, though the chargesheet was filed for the offence under section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act. At the time of cognizance, it was mentioned that the cognizance of the offence under section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act was taken. No prejudice however, has been caused to the accused as he was supplied the copy of the chargesheet which clearly reveals that the case against him is of disproportionate assets and thus, the offence is under section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act and not under section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Moreover, elaborate crossexamination on behalf of the accused shows that the accused is well aware about the CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 10 case against him. Thus, mere mentioning of section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in the order dated 31.08.2006 would not affect the merits of the case. Moreover, the defense counsel has not even raised this issue during arguments.
12) After framing of charge for the offence under section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution examined 37 witnesses in order to prove its case. PW1 Ravi Malik, Deputy Manager, BSES deposed that on 26.03.2004 when he was posted as Graduate Engineer Trainee, he had handed over three duplicate bills, two test reports through covering letter Ex.PW1/A. The electricity bills are Ex.PW1/B1 to Ex.PW1/B3 and photocopy of test report dated 14.09.1970 is Ex.PW1/C and the test report dated 19.12.1996 is Ex.PW1/D. During his crossexamination, he admitted that Ex.PW1/B2 was in the name of Bhim Singh and Ex.PW1/B3 was in the name of Sanjay and details of consumer as reflected in three bills are as per record of BSES. He further admitted that the address of the consumer on Ex.PW1/B1 is 10/9, Kishan Garh. He further stated that any occupant can have an electric connection who is having indemnity bond, ownership proof and no objection certificate of the owner. He further stated that from Ex.PW1/B1 to Ex.PW1/B3 and Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D, it cannot be ascertained as to who is the owner of the premises where electricity connection is sought.
13) PW2 Ashok Kumar Singhal, J.E., CPWD deposed that in the year 2001, he was posted as J.E. in the office of Superintendent Engineer (P&A) II, PWD and was part of a team comprising of himself, JE Anil Kant and had prepared valuation report in respect of property no. 9/10, Kishan Garh Village. He further stated that he had gone to the spot and CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 11 had inspected the property and had prepared valuation report Ex.PW2/A comprising of 13 pages. He further stated that first three pages of Ex.PW2/A are property valuation form and page 4 to 13 are cost report. (The cost report was also later on separately exhibited as Ex.PW12/B. Thus, Ex.PW12/B is a part of Ex.PW2/A). During his crossexamination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused, PW2 deposed that the correction reflected at point X in Ex.PW2/A regarding property number was made at their office. During further crossexamination, he denied the suggestion that Risalo Devi W/o Late Bhim Singh had informed them that the property was constructed by her in the year 1994. He further stated that at the time of inspection they were told that mother of accused Laxman Singh i.e. Risalo Devi was also amongst the ladies present in the house. He had also seen an elderly lady. He further stated that there is no rule in CPWD to his knowledge that two JEs only go to the site for the purpose of evaluating the construction cost of any existing construction. He further deposed that A.E. Sh. S.K. Jain had accompanied them and he has also signed the report. PW2 did not remember the date when they had inspected the property. He further stated that Laxman Singh had told them about the date of construction of the property though this fact that Laxman Singh had told them about the date of construction, is not mentioned in the report. He admitted that page3 of Ex.PW2/A, except the year of construction and the signatures, rest is photocopy. He further stated that he had not visited the suit property after October 2001. He denied the suggestion that plinth criteria for valuation is approximate manner of valuation and stated that as far as valuation is concerned only the plinth area criteria is taken into consideration. He denied the suggestion that the actual cost of CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 12 construction arrived at on the basis of formula is given by CPWD. He further denied the suggestion that as per the CPWD Manual detailed estimate method is also the criteria for arriving at cost of construction. He further denied the suggestion that report Ex.PW2/A contained incorrect facts. He further stated that being a Civil Engineer, he was competent to evaluate the property.
14) PW3 S.K. Kansal who was posted as Business Manager, BSES deposed that in February 2002, he was posted as Assistant Engineer Power Supply and had handed over the photocopy of the documents related to K. No. MH7111408527G313DL of Laxman Singh to the IO and the documents supplied by him are Ex.PW3/A1 to Ex.PW3/A11. During the crossexamination, he stated that as per record, the electricity connection was for ground floor and the affidavit filed by the consumer were as per the requirement for obtaining connection.
15) PW4 HC Geeta who was posted as constable in ACB on 04.01.2002 deposed that she was the member of the raiding team and she accompanied Insp. S.S. Sandhu to H. No.10, Ward no.9 of accused Laxman Singh. She further deposed that the house was searched in the presence of panch witness Vijender Singh. She further deposed that out of three storeys, one storey was given on rent and accused was residing at first floor with his family. She further deposed that during the search, electricity bill and one telephone bill was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/A. The electricity bill and telephone bill are Ex.PW4/A1 and Ex.PW4/A2 respectively. She further deposed that the IO had prepared the inventory of the household articles found in the house of the accused vide inventory memo Ex.PW4/B. During crossexamination on behalf of accused, she stated that inventory memo Ex.PW4/A was prepared in CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 13 her present. She denied the suggestion that inventory memo was prepared at Anti Corruption Branch and not at the house of accused. She further stated that Laxman Singh and his wife had stated that the house belonged to his mother and it is thereafter only that Risalo Devi was called. She further stated that Risalo Devi was an old lady when she saw her.
16) PW5 Anil Kumar, J.E. CPWD stated that in September 2001, he was posted as J.E. in the office of S.E.(P&A), MSO Building, ITO and he was the member of a team who had prepared the valuation report Ex.PW2/A. He further stated that the house was in the name of Risalo Devi and the property number was 10/9, Kishan Garh, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. He further stated that Laxman Singh alongwith his family was the occupant of the said house and his entire family was residing in that house. During his crossexamination, he stated that they made the valuation of the property on the basis of plinth area as per CPWD rates. He further deposed that he does not know if as per the CPWD manual there are three methods of calculating the actual construction cost i.e. actual cost method, detailed estimate method and plinth area rate method. It is denied that plinth area rate method, calculates approximate cost only or that reflects an estimated cost. He further denied that plinth area rate method is used only to arrive as a tentative cost of construction of a building which is yet to be constructed.
17) PW6 Vijender Singh deposed that on 04.01.2002 while posted as LDC in Kirby Place Employment Exchange, he was on duty in Anti Corruption Branch as panch witness and had accompanied raiding team led by Insp. S.S. Sandhu to a house situated in Kishan Garh area. He further deposed that Insp. S.S. Sandhu was having search warrant and CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 14 search of the house having three and half storeys was conducted. He further deposed that one floor was on rent and on first floor, accused alongwith his mother and family was residing. He further deposed that during the search one electricity bill Ex.PW4/A1 and one telephone bill Ex.PW4/A2 were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/A. He further deposed that IO had prepared the inventory Ex.PW4/B of the household articles. During crossexamination, he deposed that one elderly lady i.e. mother of the accused was also present when they visited the house. He further deposed that he had not written any document on that day. He denied the suggestion that he signed the papers at the house of accused at the behest of the IO.
18) PW7 Insp. O.P. Arora deposed that in the year 2001 he was posted in ACB and in February 2001, a miscellaneous complaint no. 15/2001 Ex.PW7/A was marked to him for enquiry during which house of accused Laxman Singh was got evaluated vide report Ex.PW2/A. He further deposed that he made enquiries about the income of the accused during the service period and concluded that accused was in possession of assets of more than Rs.42 Lakhs disproportionate to his known source of income. He further deposed that he had submitted his report Ex.PW7/B and prepared rukka Ex.PW7/C and got the case registered vide FIR no.69/01. During crossexamination, he denied that he did not conduct any enquiry. He further denied that he was not having the power to conduct inquiry at the relevant time. He further denied that Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW7/B itself reflect that no inquiry was conducted. He further deposed that he does not know how much land, the father of accused Laxman Singh was owning in village Kishan Garh. He further deposed that he did not check the revenue record to find out whether any CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 15 land was owned by the father of accused in that village. He deposed that he does not remember what document he saw in respect of ownership of the house. He further deposed that he verified that accused Laxman Singh was the original habitant of this village and his ancestors have lived in this village. He further deposed that on 22.08.2001, he was doing the enquiry and statement of Risalo Devi Ex.PW7/D1 was recorded by him. He admitted that in the statement Risalo Devi had detailed about acquisition of land in the year 1972 and about the other properties, however, he had not made any inquiry in respect of those properties as Risao Devi had not given any document to him. He admitted that on 09.04.2001, he recorded statement Ex.PW7/D2 of Laxman Singh. He further admitted that accused told him that his mother knows about the expenditure incurred on the construction of the house as the same was constructed by her. He further deposed that he had enquired from the mother of the accused who was about 70 years old but she did not give any detail of the money spent by her on the construction of the house. He further deposed that he had not seen any revenue record of Tehsil Mehrauli in respect of village Kishan Garh/Rangpuri because accused has not supplied him any document regarding the property. He denied that he conducted perfunctory investigation and rukka Ex.PW2/C contains false facts.
19) PW8 Jeet Singh, UDC, MTNL had brought the record in respect of telephone no.26134564 installed in the name of Kamla Mahla, 10/9, Kishan Garh and as per record the said telephone connection was installed on 11.04.1996 and was disconnected on 18.03.2004. He further deposed that he has seen bill Ex.PW4/A for the period of January Februay 2001. This witness was not crossexamined by accused.
CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 1620) PW9 Insp. Laxmi Devi deposed that on 12.06.2006 while she was posted as Inspector in ACB, further investigation of this case was handed over to her. She further deposed that investigation in this case was almost complete, however, handwriting expert report was awaited. She further deposed that on the directions of the senior officers, she had prepared the chargesheet and had filed the same in the court because this case was of 2001. During the crossexamination, she denied the suggestion that she has not properly investigated the matter or that she has filed the chargesheet without application of mind.
21) PW10 N.S. Negi, Assistant Manager (Finance) deposed that on 26.02.2002 while he was posted as S.O., Accounts at BSES Office Adchini, on the request of ACB Ex.PW3/A, he had prepared billing account in respect of Laxman Singh for meter no. 9628457 and gave the same to the IO. Statement of account dated 26.02.2002 is Ex.PW3/A1. During his crossexamination, he deposed that he does not know on which floor meter in question was installed. He admitted that on Ex.PW3/A the number of floor is not mentioned. He further deposed that he had provided the details of electricity connection number as mentioned in Ex.PW1/B1.
22) PW11 S.N. Sinha deposed that in the year 2004 while he was posted as Junior Accountant Officer (JAO) in Transport Authority, Sheikh Sarai, at the request Ex.PW11/A of IO, he provided the details Ex.PW11/B of vehicle no. DL3CG2912 which was registered in the name of Smt. Kamla Devi W/o Laxman Singh. He further deposed that he had supplied the copy of election card available on record, to the IO which is Ex.PW11/C. During his crossexamination, he denied that his deposition is false as per the documents seen by him on the of CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 17 deposition.
23) PW12 A.P. Jugran deposed that in October 2001, he was posted as Executive Engineer (P) III, PWD in MSO Building and led one team comprising of Sh. S.K. Jain, A.E., Sh. Anil Kant, J.E. and Sh. Ashok Kumar Singhal, J.E. for the evaluation of H. No.10/9, Kishan Garh, Vasant Kunj, Delhi occupied by Laxman Singh. He further deposed that after evaluation of property, a joint report Ex.PW2/A was prepared which was sent to ACB through letter Ex.PW12/A. The cost report part II is Ex.PW12/B. During his crossexamination, he deposed that year of construction was mentioned by him in his report after seeing the map. He further deposed that the record was received from ACB and same was sent back to ACB. He further deposed that he does not remember whether there was any map in the record received from ACB. He further deposed that he did not carry out any test to find out about the age of the property. He admitted that he has stated in his letter Ex.PW12/A that he had sent 13 papers to ACB which are already exhibited on the court file. He further admitted that there is no map in those 13 papers. He further deposed that he has not made the cutting at point A on Ex.PW2/A. He further deposed that he did not visit the spot and he had not seen the building. He further deposed that the team had not told him that there were two lanes i.e. lane no. 9 and lane no. 10 in that village.
24) PW13 Surinder Kumar Gupta deposed that in the year 1994, he was running his business of shares in the name and style of M/s Gupta Enterprises. He further deposed that his nephew Saurav Gupta had purchased a plot of around 600 yards from the accused present in the court for a sum of Rs.1,80,000/. He further deposed that the plot was purchased at a higher price but in the documents price was shown as CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 18 Rs.1,80,000/ and some payment was made by cheque and some payment was made in cash. He further deposed that the land which was sold by the accused to his nephew was an ancestral land which came to the share of the accused. He further deposed that the sale deed was executed in his presence. The copy of receipt is MarkAX and the copy of agreement to sell is MarkAY and the copy of Khatoni is Ex.PW13/A. In his crossexamination, he admitted that transaction took place between the seller and his nephew. He further deposed that he had signed as a witness only after the preparation of documents.
25) PW14 Surrender Kumar Vidyarthi, UDC, EEM3, South Zone, MCD had brought the original record of salary statement of accused Laxman Singh, Beldar from 01.01.2001 to 30.11.2001. The copy of record running into four pages is Ex.PW14/A. He deposed that service book of concerned official was transferred to EEM3, West Zone from EEM3, South Zone. During his crossexamination, he deposed that he is not aware of the case personally but he was deposing on the basis of record. He further deposed that he had not appended his signature on Ex.PW14/A. He further deposed that he had never worked with the accused. He further deposed that he has been authorized as he was the concerned clerk as required under the summons. He further deposed that he has not been authorized by any written authority but he has been deputed by Sh. Naurang Singh to depose. He denied that the record brought by him was not correct.
26) PW15 Yaad Ram, Superintendent, Land & Estate Department, Town Hall had brought the record of enquiry conducted against Laxman Singh. The copy of enquiry report is Ex.PW15/A and the covering letter is Ex.PW15/B. During his crossexamination, he deposed that CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 19 Ex.PW15/B does not bear his signatures. He denied that he had not conducted any enquiry on the complaint of Laxman Singh. He further deposed that he had never met Laxman Singh, Beldar and he had no personal knowledge about the facts of this case. He denied that contents of Ex.PW15/A are false and wrong or that it has been prepared to suit officials of ACB.
27) PW16 Pawanjeet deposed that he was Assistant Zonal Inspector in Ward No.5556, Najafgarh Zone within the jurisdiction of which Kishangarh was falling and he had joined as Assistant Zonal Inspector on 02.01.2004. He further deposed that on the request of IO he alongwith Kulwant Singh had gone to property no.10/9, Kishangarh for inspection and had joined the investigation with the IO. He further stated that on the site, there was no old building however, Navyug Apartment were situated there. He further stated that the size of the room or the size of shade (chapper) as mentioned in the file was not existing there. He further stated that the property no. 10/9, Kishangarh was in four parts and first part was consisting of 600 square yards and second part of the house was of Laxman Singh which was measuring about 130140 yards (square yards) bearing the name plate of Risalo Devi. In the third part, there was house of Suresh Singh who alongwith his mother Risalo Devi was residing at the first floor and 5 to 6 tenants were also in that house. In the fourth part there was old house of brother of Gian Singh. He further stated that he personally visited the property in question for making assessment after making querries from the neighbourhood as well as the inmates of the property and he assisted on the basis of inspection of property.
28) As PW16 has not fully supported the case of the prosecution, he CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 20 was crossexamined by the Ld. Addl. PP for State. During his cross examination on behalf of Ld. Addl. PP, he stated that his statement was recorded by the police and that after inspection and enquiry he had learned that the accused and his brothers had partitioned the property and that the accused and his brothers were in the possession of their respective shares and residing therein. He further admitted that the palatial house of accused was enjoyed by him only and his brothers had no concern whatsoever. He further admitted that the accused got constructed the house personally. He also stated that the house no. 10/9, Kishangarh was assessed for house tax amounting to Rs.2,412/. He further stated that being a building in suburban village, the said property was excluded from the purview of house tax department. He further stated that though he cannot admit or deny that he came to know that the house was constructed between 1994 to 1998 but the name plate was displayed which showed 1994.
29) He was also crossexamined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused and during his crossexamination on behalf of accused, he stated that in the year 2004, self assessment scheme of houses had came into operation and due to selfassessment scheme, AZI were not required to inspect the properties. Though he could not state as to when he had visited the house no. 10/9, Kishangarh but stated that he had surveyed the house on the asking of the CBI. (It appears that the witness confused ACB with CBI) He further stated that the plot no. 10/9, Kishangarh is a large piece of land and there are house built on that plot and all are identified by house no. 10/9, Kishangarh, Delhi. Though, he could not say as to when the plot no. 10/9, Kishan Garh was partitioned and amongst whom and why but he stated that the property was partitioned. He further stated CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 21 that since four properties were built on this land, therefore, he could say that the plot had been partitioned and the property was occupied by Gian Prakash, Laxman Singh, Surender Kumar at Navyug Apartment.
30) PW17 Gurudutt deposed that on 14.12.2001 while he was posted as Assistant Commissioner Engineering, at the request of IO, he had forwarded the salary statement Ex.PW17/B of accused w.e.f. 01.04.1983 to 30.09.1993, vide forwarding letter Ex.PW17/A. He further deposed that statement of salary record Ex.PW17/B is true and correct and they maintain salary record as per rules. He further deposed that he had seen statement of salary and arrears drawn by accused w.e.f. 01.04.1983 to 30.04.1991 and 25.09.1992 to 30.09.1993 Ex.PW17/B which was handed over to IO through letter Ex.PW17/A. During his cross examination, he denied that Ex.PW17/B does not contain the correct details of salary particulars drawn by Laxman Singh. He admitted that statement Ex.PW17/B was not in his handwriting. He denied that Ex.PW17/B was made as per the desires of ACB officials or that Ex.PW17/B is a false document. He denied that that he was not competent to execute Ex.PW17/A. He admitted that Ex.PW17/A only bears his signature and rest of the contents were not drawn and filled in by him. He denied that Ex.PW17/A is a false document.
31) PW18 Rohit Jain deposed that his father Sh. O.P. Jain was Notary Public at Chamber no.4, Patiala House Courts who had expired on 30.11.2003 due to illness. He further deposed that he has seen photocopy of affidavit Ex.PW3/A6, Ex.PW3/A7 and indemnity bond Ex.PW3/A5 dated 07.11.1996 of accused Laxman Singh bearing signatures and stamp of his father as notary. PW18 had identified the signatures and stamp of his father on the aforesaid documents. He CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 22 further deposed that he could not produce record of attestation because same had been destroyed and same was not available. He further deposed that he does not know any Prem Kumari.
32) PW18 was crossexamined by Ld. Addl. PP for State and during his crossexamination by Ld. Addl. PP he deposed that police had met him in this case and had also recorded his statement. He denied that Prem Kumari, Stamp Vendor, Patiala House Court was well known to his family and, since stamp vendors and notary public used to work with the cooperation of each other so he was familiar with the signature and entries. He denied the suggestion that he was deliberately suppressing some material facts as he has been won over by the accused or that deposing falsely on confronted portion. PW18 was not crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
33) PW19 Rajender Prashad Kohli deposed that in the year 2001, he was posted as Executive Engineer (1) , Karol Bagh Zone, MCD and on 12.12.2001, he had furnished the statement of salary Ex.PW19/A of Laxman Singh, Beldar from 26.10.1994 to 13.01.2000 to ACB. He further deposed that as per report, salary of Laxman Singh for the period from 27.10.1994 to 31.10.1998 was Rs.1,66,261/ and he received Rs.25,227/ as salary from 01.11.1998 to 31.03.1999 and bonus plus arrears for that period. During crossexamination, he admitted that Ex.PW19/A does not reflect that the same was prepared after comparing the same from original ECR as there is no endorsement to this effect on Ex.PW19/A. He further deposed that the original record pertaining to entries of salary mentioned in Ex.PW19/A is lying at Karol Bagh Zone M(1) Division. He further deposed that Ex.PW19/A has not been prepared by him and was prepared by his clerical staff whose name he CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 23 does not remember. He further deposed that Ex.PW19/A does not reflect as to by whom the same was prepared. He denied that the contents of Ex.PW19/A were wrong and incorrect or that if the original record available at Karol Bagh, M(1) Division is produced, it would reflect that income of Laxman Singh was much more than what is reflected in Ex.PW19/A. He denied that he had produced wrong salary record of Laxman Singh at the instance of ACB.
34) PW20 Kulwant Singh deposed that he has been posted as Assistant Zonal Inspector from 1998 to 2002 in A&C Department, Najafgarh Zone within the jurisdiction where Kishan Garh was also falling. He further deposed that in the year 2006 at the request of IO, he alongwith Sh. Pawanjeet, the then Assistant Zonal Inspector had gone at property no. 10/9, Kishan Garh for inspection. He further deposed that the relevant file alongwith house tax file of the said property was with Sh. Pawanjeet and at the site there was one built up building.
35) PW20 has been crossexamined by Ld. Addl. PP for State and during crossexamination, PW20 has admitted that during enquiry and site inspection they came to know that there was no building about which the house tax file was with Sh. Pawanjeet. PW20 further admitted that during site inspection they also came to know that the size of the rooms which were mentioned in the old file, the rooms of the said size or chappar as mentioned in the file were not existing there. He further admitted that the property no. 10/9 was situated in four parts. He could not say if the first part was in the name of Navyug Apartments, the second part was the Palatial House of Laxman Singh bearing the name plate of Risalo Devi. He does not know if the third part was the house of one Suresh where he was residing with his CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 24 mother Risalo Devi on the first floor. He does not know if the old house of Gian Singh where his family was residing, was forming part of the aforesaid property. He does not know if the electric meters were installed separately or jointly in the aforesaid property. He denied that he had joined hands with the accused and due to that reason he has suppressed the aforestated facts. He was also crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for accused. During his crossexamination, he deposed that he does not remember the date on which they had gone to visit the property no. 10/9, Kishan Garh, Delhi. He further deposed that he did not meet any of the occupant of the building. He further deposed that he did not see any title papers of the property in question and nor he see the partition deed, if any, of the said property. He further deposed that he did not meet Risalo Devi. It is admitted that after 2004, self assessment scheme was launched by the MCD. He further deposed that he does not know about the portion, whether the same was tenanted or not. He further deposed that he does not know how many houses existed on the plot no. 10/9, Kishan Garh, Delhi. He further deposed that he did not try to inquire from any of the occupants of 10/9, Kishan Garh as to who had constructed the house. He further deposed that he does not know if father of Laxman Singh was alive on the date of their visit or not. He further deposed that he had not stated in the examination in chief that anybody told him that Laman Singh was residing in a palatial house forming part of 10/9, Kishan Garh, New Delhi. He further deposed that he did not make any rough site plan or rough notes with respect to the inquiry conducted by him. He denied that he did not visit the site for conducting any inquiry with respect to the property no.10/9, Kishan Garh. He also denied that he never accompanied Pawanjeet Singh to CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 25 inspect the above property either in 2006 or at any point prior or after that.
36) PW21 Dharamvir Pawar deposed that on 14.12.2001, he had handed over the details Ex.PW21/A of pay drawn by Laxman Singh, the then Baildar in DivisionIX, MCD, Delhi for the period of 01.02.2000 to 31.12.2000 and the same was seized by the IO. He was crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for the accused. During his crossexamination, he deposed that he made the statement Ex.PW21/A on the basis of Establishment Check Register and the original Establishment Check Register was available with clerk. He further deposed that the original Establishment Check Register was neither on the court record nor has been brought in the court. However, he volunteered that he has not brought the register as he retired long back. He denied the suggestion that the contents of Ex.PW21/A were incomplete. He admitted that Ex.PW21/A does not reflect about any arrears, honorariums, bonus received by the accused during the aforesaid period. He further deposed that Ex.PW21/A has been prepared by a bill clerk whose name he does not know. He further deposed that Ex.PW21/A does not bear any endorsement to the effect that the same has been prepared after comparing the same from the original Establishment Check Register. He denied that the Ex.PW21/A was not prepared after comparing from the original.
37) PW22 B.P. Singh is a government approved Valuer, Structural Designer, Architect and Surveyor. He deposed that in January 2002, accused Laxman Singh had come to him for valuation of property no.10/9, Kishan Garh Village, Khasra no.2716/1668, New Delhi and he verified the facts and information furnished to him by the owner of the CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 26 property and he also inspected the site. He further deposed that he assessed the cost of construction of the aforesaid property as on 199495, taking all the factors into consideration as Rs.12,74,172/. The detailed report is Ex.PW2/A. This witness has not been crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for the accused and thus, his testimony has remained unrebutted.
38) PW23 Dinesh Sharma deposed that on 12.01.2004, he was posted as Patwari in village Mehrauli and one letter from ACB addressed to Tehsildar, Tehsil Mehrauli was marked to him for enquiry and necessary action. He further deposed that he had handed over copy of Khatoni Pamaish Ex.PW23/A. He further deposed that the copy of Khasra Girdawari village Mehrauli of the period 197071 is self explanatory and is placed on record. During the crossexamination on behalf of accused, PW23 deposed that he was not working with Revenue Department in the year 197071. He further deposed that Ex.PW23/A contains details which are available in a register maintained at Tehsil Mehrauli as per which the Khasra to which this document pertain is 2716/1668 (old) and the new Khasra no.1161/1. He further deposed that the total landmass, identifiable by this Khasra number as per document is measuring 18 Bighas and 1 Biswas, equivalent to 18100 sq. yards. He denied that Ex.PW23/A is not the correct copy of the measurement of the landmass identifiable as Khasra no.1161/1 (new) or 2716/1668 (old).
39) PW24 S.S. Sandhu deposed that on 27.12.2001, he was posted as Inspector in ACB and had received the Rukka Ex.PW7/C and copy of FIR Ex.PW24/A for investigation. He had collected the documents i.e. approval of Addl. CP for registration of case Ex.PW7/B, copy of CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 27 miscellaneous complaint Ex.PW7/A, statement of Smt. Risalo Devi Ex.PW7/D1, statement of Laxman Singh Ex.PW7/D2, details of salary of Laxman Singh Ex.PW24/B, copy of application Ex.PW24/C to the Executive Engineer, Najafgarh Zone and salary statement Ex.PW24/A, valuation report of cost of construction by accused Laxman Singh Ex.PW12/B, enquiry in complaint Ex.PW17/A, statement of salary drawn by accused Laxman Singh Ex.PW17/B, enquiries into complaint Ex.PW24/A1, drawn statement of salary of accused Laxman Singh Ex.PW19/A, details of pay drawn by accused Laxman Singh Ex.PW21/A with forwarding letter Ex.PW24/A2 and detail of salary of accused Laxman Singh Ex.PW24/A3 from SI S.N. Pandey, S.O. Branch, ACB on 28.12.2001. Thereafter on 03.01.2002, he had obtained search warrants and had conducted search of the house of the accused on 04.01.2002 alongwith panch witness Vijender and lady Ct. Geeta. He further deposed that Risalo Devi, mother of the accused was also called at the spot and he had prepared inventory memo of the house search Ex.PW4/A. During the house search, he had seized electricity bill Ex.PW4/A1 in the name of accused Laxman Singh and one telephone bill Ex.PW4/A2 in the name of Smt. Kamla Mahala, wife of the accused, and the same were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/A. He further deposed that during the investigation, he had written a letter Ex.PW3/A to A.E., DVB Office, Adhchini, New Delhi and sought details of meter no.9628457 in the name of accused Laxman Singh and also collected photocopies of documents Ex.PW3/A1 to Ex.PW3/A11. He also obtained biodata Ex.PW24/E of accused Laxman Singh from the Executive Engineer, Division24, MCD. PW24 had interrogated accused Laxman Singh. He further deposed that mother of the accused CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 28 handed over him affidavit Ex.PW24/F in her name, affidavit Ex.PW24/G in the name of Badle Ram, Balwan Singh, Balwant Singh and Lekhiram, copy of death certificate of Bhim Singh Ex.PW24/H, house tax bill in the name of Bhim Singh, Ex.PW24/J, copy of decree in suit for declaration Ex.PW24/K, copy of judgment Ex.PW24/L, copy of receipt Ex.PW24/M, copy of agreement to sell Ex.PW24/N, valuation report Ex.PW22/A. He has further deposed that accused had handed over him statement Ex.PW24/O and the bank account statement of Balwant Singh Ex.PW24/P, statement Ex.PW24/Q, Ex.PW24/R, Ex.PW24/S and Ex.PW24/T of bank account of Balwant Singh, cousin brother of accused Laxman Singh, statement Ex.PW24/U and Ex.PW24/V of bank account of Lekhi Ram, cousin brother of accused, statement Ex.PW24/W and Ex.PW24/X of bank account of Badle Ram. He also recorded statements of other witnesses and thereafter, the investigation was handed over to Insp. R.S. Chahal.
40) PW24 was crossexamined on behalf of accused and during his crossexamination, he denied the suggestion that he had not conducted any investigation or that the documents prepared by him are false. He also denied the suggestion that none of the documents were prepared at the place or on the date or in presence of the witnesses as detailed in the documents. He has further stated that for the purposes of valuation of the property of the accused, he had collected the record from SO Branch and from SI S.N. Pandey and has recorded statement of Ashok Singhal, A.E., PWD. He further deposed that no valuation report was collected by him according to which the valuation was done after 27.12.2001 i.e. after the investigation was marked to PW24. He has admitted that Ex.PW12/A, Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW2/A were prepared prior to the CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 29 registration of FIR and the approval for the registration of FIR was made by him on 06.11.2001. He has admitted that as per Ex.PW2/A, the owner is Smt. Risalo Devi but the occupant is accused Laxman Singh. He has further admitted that in the document Ex.PW2/A at point X1, the place/identification number/ward number is mentioned as 9/10/9, Kishan Garh, Village Vasant Kunj. He further deposed that first digit 9 (nine) seems to be subsequent addition which is in different ink. In his further crossexamination, he admitted that land of the house in question was inherited property. He further stated that he had recorded statement of Ashok Singhal, J.E., PWED Ex.PW24/DA. He has denied the suggestion that no investigation was conducted by him or that he had not given correct credit to the accused and his family members. He has denied the suggestion that during investigation source of income other than salary were brought to his notice which were not credited. He denied the suggestion that the property of Risalo Devi was included in the name of accused to create a false disproportion in the income and the assets of the accused. He has denied the suggestion that the details of the salary of the accused/applicant has been wrongly shown in the chargesheet.
41) PW25 Amrender Chaubey did not support the case of the prosecution and deposed that he does not know anything about the case. During his crossexamination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, he denied the suggestion that he was residing as tenant with his brother Vishal in the house of Gian Singh bearing no. 10/9, Kishan Garh. He denied that his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the police.
42) PW26 Minesh Parikh deposed that he had prepared the sketches Ex.PW26/A, Ex.PW26/B and Ex.PW26/C of house identified as 10/9, CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 30 Kishan Garh. He further stated that the sketches are not based on actual measurements and are visuary maps prepared by him. He further deposed that on the spot the plot identified as 10/9, Kishan Garh has four visible parts. He further deposed that Eastern Portion is Navyug Apartments and on its immediate west is his newly built house. As he has not fully supported the case of the prosecution, he was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State and during crossexamination by Ld. Addl. PP, he denied that the accused was well known to him or that on his request he has visited his house. He further denied that the accused Laxman Singh was living in a newly constructed house on the immediate west of the said house. During his crossexamination on behalf of accused, he has only stated that he did not make any statement before the police.
43) As far as sketches prepared by him Ex.PW26/A, Ex.PW26/B and Ex.PW26/C of the house no. 10/9, Kishan Garh is concerned, no crossexamination has been conducted on this aspect on behalf of the accused and his testimony to this effect that he had prepared the sketches Ex.PW26/A, Ex.PW26/B and Ex.PW26/C of the house no. 10/9, Kishan Garh has remained unrebutted. His testimony that the plot identified as 10/9, Kishan Garh has four visible portions and on its eastern portion is Navyug Apartment and on its immediate west is newly constructed house, also remained unrebutted on behalf of the accused.
44) PW27 M.M. Kutti, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development had granted sanction Ex.PW27/A under section (19)(1)(c) of POC Act, 1988 to prosecute the accused Laxman Singh. During his crossexamination on behalf of accused, he denied the suggestion that CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 31 the sanction order reflects nonapplication of mind or that he had not seen any document before signing the sanction order Ex.PW27/A. He also denied the suggestion that the manner in which Ex.PW27/A is drawn reflects mechanical signing of the document.
45) PW28 Ct. Jalwant Singh has deposed that on 19.04.2004 when he was posted as constable in ACB, he had gone to Kishan Garh in search of witnesses where he made search of Pyare and Khazan Singh whose names were mentioned in indemnity bond dated 07.11.1996 given by Laxman Singh to DVB and on search it was found that said two persons were not residing at the given addressed. He further deposed that in village Kishan Garh, Pyare S/o Bhani Lal, R/o 92/9, Kishan Garh aged about 90 years met him who was having address at plot no. 76/9, Kishan Garh and his mental status was weak and his wife also told that he was illiterate and he did not know writing and signing. He further deposed that Pyare was residing in village Kishan Garh and there were three persons in Kishan Garh by the name of Khazan Singh. However, none of them was residing at the address given in the indemnity bond. None of the three Khazan Singh who were found residing at Kishan Garh had signed the indemnity bond of Laxman Singh and therefore, the indemnity bond prepared by Laxman Singh was fake in order to obtain electricity connection in his name at his house 10/9, Kishan Garh. During his crossexamination, he had stated that Khazan Singh referred above was mentally not fit and he might have expired. However, during his crossexamination he further deposed that as per Ex.PW28/DA, the age of three Khazan Singh were 50 years, 5055 years, 40 years.
46) Perusal of the chief examination shows that age of Pyare S/o Bhani Lal was 90 years and PW 28 had deposed that he was mentally CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 32 weak and illiterate. In his chief, he nowhere stated that any of the three Khazan Singh that he had met was aged 90 years. He further denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely about having met any person in village Kishan Garh or that the description of address given by him are false. He denied the suggestion that his statement ex.PW28/DA is false.
47) PW29 Anand Kumar @ Anandi has also not supported the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile. During his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State also he has denied the suggestion that he was doing the work of construction as contractor or that he had given any statement Ex.PW29/A to the police. He denied the suggestion that major portion of new houses at plot no. 10/9, Kishan Garh were constructed by him at the rate of Rs.27/ per square feet. He also denied the suggestion that he had got Rs. One Lakh or Rs.1.25 Lakh as labour charges.
48) PW30 ACP Hem Chand has stated that in the month of February 2005, investigation of this case was entrusted to him and prior to him, Insp. R.S. Chahal was the IO. He further deposed that he obtained sanction under section 19 of POC Act Ex.PW27/A from the competent authority which was received through covering letter Ex.PW30/A. During his crossexamination, he denied the suggestion that valuable piece of evidence, reflecting the income of the accused was withheld by him. He denied the suggestion that it was in his knowledge that the sanction is incorrect and is based on false case.
49) PW31 SI Om Prakash was the duty officer who had recorded the FIR Ex.PW24/A.
50) PW32 Ms. Sudha Nagpal deposed that she was posted as Assistant Assessor and Collector of House Tax Department, MCD since CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 33 19992010. She further deposed that on 30.01.2004, she produced file of house no. 10, Ward No.9, Kishan Garh on the requisition letter Ex.PW32/A of the IO for inspection and had provided photocopies of documents Ex.PW32/B, Ex.PW32/B1, Ex.PW32/B3, Ex.PW32/B4(colly.), Ex.PW32/B5, Ex.PW32/B6, Ex.PW32/B7, Ex.PW32/B8, Ex.PW32/B9, Ex.PW32/B10, Ex.PW32/B11, Ex.PW32/B12, Ex.PW32/B13, Ex.PW32/B14, Ex.PW32/B15, Ex.PW32/B16, Ex.PW32/B17, Ex.PW32/B18 and Ex.PW32/B19 which were seized by the IO through seizure memo Ex.PW32/C. She further deposed that according to the papers in the assessment file, Bheem Singh and Bhan Singh, both sons of Sh. Ramjilal had applied for assessment of house tax of their house on 01.04.1963 and rateable value of Rs.160/ was assessed. She further deposed that later on additions were noticed and rateable value reached upto Rs,2,300/ in 1987. She further deposed that in 1987, Smt. Rishalo Devi had applied for mutation of the house tax in her name on the plea that her husband had died on 06.03.1983 but she did not produce any proof of her being the next owner and she was directed to submit NOC of all legal heirs of Bheem Singh and Bhan Singh but she did not turn up and the house tax was pending. She further deposed that Demand Notice Bill no.27841 dated 09.08.1995 and no.247554 dated 14.07.2003 were issued from her office. She further deposed that on 24.03.2004, she had given detailed report Ex.PW32/D to the IO. She further deposed that the reply to the written requisition Ex.PW32/E of IO about verification of house tax receipt Ex.PW32/F amounting to RS.2,412/ and her report in this regard is selfexplanatory. She further deposed that the receipt was issued to Ishwar Singh against his property no. RZ33, B/5, Kishan Garh, New CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 34 Delhi and not in the name of accused Laxman Singh for his property no. 10/9, Kishan Garh, New Delhi. She further deposed that name of accused Laxman Singh and the property no. 10/9, Kishan Garh have been forged on receipt no. 144011 dated 27.02.1996 issued to Ishwar Singh. Copy of relevant page of demand and collection register in respect of property no. RZ33, B/5, Kishan Garh in the name of Ishwar Singh is Ex.PW32/G (colly.). Copy of G8 Book containing receipt no. 144011 dated 27.02.1996 is Ex.PW32/F. Copy of file of Ishwar Singh, RZ33, B/5, Kishan Garh containing inspection form and proposal notice are Ex.PW32/H and Ex.PW32/J respectively. This witness has not been crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
51) PW33 Parvinder Tomar, Patwari of village Rangpuri, Tehsil Basant Vihar had brought the summoned record i.e. Khata Khatauni no. 69/63 of Jamabandi of 19801981 of Bhim Singh etc. and photocopy of same is Ex.PW33/A (colly.). This witness has also not been cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
52) PW34 S.K. Jain, Assistant Engineer, CPWD deposed that in the month of October 2001, he was posted as A.E.(P) in the office of S.E. (P&A)II, PWD (NCT Delhi) ZoneII and had prepared the evaluation report no. 23(343)/SE(P&A)II/EE(P)/III/423 dated 08.10.2001 jointly after inspection alongwith the team of Sh. A.K. Singhal, J.E., Sh. Anil Kant, J.E. and Sh. A.P. Jugran, E.E.(P) of property no. 10/9, Kishangarh, Vasant Kunj, Delhi in the occupancy of accused Laxman Singh vide property valuation form Ex.PW2/A and cost report partII Ex.PW12/B and the same were sent to ACB through letter Ex.PW12/A. This witness has also not been crossexamined on behalf of accused. Thus, the valuation report Ex.PW2/A (including cost report Ex.PW12/B) has been CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 35 proved by this witness also apart from PW2, PW5 and PW12.
53) PW35 Ms. Deepa Verma, Dy. Director, FSL Rohini deposed that documents of this case were marked to her for examination by the Director and she had examined the questioned documents and standard document and gave her detailed report Ex.PW34/A which is true and correct. She was also not crossexamined on behalf of accused.
54) PW36 Devak Ram, Assistant Director (Documents), FSL Rohini deposed that letter MarkA was sent to his department which was marked to him for issuance of duplicate FSL report in connection with case FIR No.69/01. He further deposed that he collected the photocopy of report from the record which was prepared by Smt. Deepa Verma and same was attested by PW36. The report is Ex.PW35/A. The photocopy of indemnity bond is Ex.PW36/A, photocopy of affidavit of Laxman Singh is Ex.PW36/B, photocopy of affidavit dated 07.09.1996 is Ex.PW36C, photocopy of ration card is Ex.PW36D (colly.), photocopy of specimen writing of Laxman Singh running into two pages is Ex.PW36/E, photocopy of application signed by Laxman Singh is Ex.PW36/F. He further deposed that he had provided the photocopy of FSL report alongwith the photocopy of documents to the police. This witness was also not crossexamined on behalf of accused.
55) PW37 Retired ACP R.S. Chahal deposed that on 22.10.2003 while he was posted in ACB as Inspector, further investigation of this case was marked to him and during investigation, he had prepared site plan Ex.PW37/A. He further deposed that during investigation he issued notice Ex.PW37/B to Tehsildar to produce the documents related to the house property in question. The documents sent by Tehsildar are Ex.PW13/A. He further deposed that during investigation a house tax CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 36 receipt was sent to Assessor House Tax, MCD vide notice Ex.PW32/E and the document and reply sent by House Tax Assessor were taken on record vide Ex.PW32/D, Ex.PW32/G and Ex.PW32/F. File of house tax relating to the house in question was taken into possession through seizure memo Ex.PW32/C. Statement of accused was also recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. during investigation and accused handed over 11 documents in his defence which were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW37/C and documents are Ex.PW37/D1 to D11 (D 11 is already exhibited as Ex.PW26/A). He further deposed that he had prepared the seizure memo of seven documents which were handed over by the accused vide memo Ex.PW37/D and the documents are already Ex.PW24/F, Ex.PW24/G, Ex.PW24/H, Ex.PW24/J, Ex.PW24/M, Ex.PW22/A and Ex.PW24/O. He further deposed that he had sent a letter to the MLO, Sheikh Sarai to confirm the ownership of the car and also sent the documents about the proof of ownership which are already Ex.PW11/B, Ex.PW11/C and notice to MLO is Ex.PW11/A. He further deposed that he also collected verification of the telephone installed at the house in question in the name of Kamla Mahala, wife of accused and the said record is Ex.PW37/E. He further deposed that he had sent a letter Ex.PW37/F to DVB and reply was sent by DVB to this letter alongwith the documents Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/B1, Ex.PW1/B2, Ex.PW1/B3, Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D. He further deposed that during investigation, he had taken specimen handwriting of accused on two sheets which is Ex.PW36/E and the same was sent to FSL alongwith admitted writing Ex.PW36/F and questioned documents Ex.PW36/A, Ex.PW36/B, Ex.PW36/C, Ex.PW36/D for comparison. He also collected the copy of notesheets ordering the registration of case under CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 37 section 13(1)(e) of POC Act by the competent authority. The note of true extract is Ex.PW37/G alongwith the copy of notesheet. He further deposed that during investigation, he had recorded the statements of witnesses and thereafter, he was transferred to PHQ and file was handed over to MHC(R).
56) During crossexamination on behalf of accused, PW37 deposed that he had come to know during investigation that the parents of the accused were old inhabitants of the area Kishan Ganj (sic Kishangarh). He has also admitted that he had seized copy of judgment vide seizure memo Ex.PW37/C which was instituted by Bhim Singh (i.e. father of accused). He has admitted that he had not collected the chain documents relating to the mutation about the sale of land and stated that the documents which were delivered by the accused were seized by him. He has further stated that during investigation he had come to know that there were some tenants in the rooms belonging to Suresh and Gian Singh, both brothers of accused and he had inspected the site. He had checked four houses in this regard and name of Risalo Devi was found installed on the gate of the house in which accused was residing. However, on checking, he found that Risalo Devi was not residing in the house of accused and was residing in the house of Suresh in the adjoining building at first floor. He denied the suggestion that Risalo Devi was residing in the house in which accused was residing. He further stated that he had prepared the site plan Ex.PW37/A and had also prepared the inspection report. He has further stated that the houses of Suresh and Gian Singh were of 150 square yards and house of accused was approximately 140 square yards. He has admitted that there is an overwriting in Ex.PW4/A and has clarified that the said correction is CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 38 with regard to house number which initially appears as 10/9 and after correction it is 9/10, Kishan Ganj (sic Kishangarh). He stated that it was house no. 10 and ward no. 9. He further stated that he had not obtained any cost valuation report from the government valuer as cost valuation report from government valuer was already on the file. He has further stated that whatever documents submitted by the accused were perused and benefits of the same was also given to the accused. He has further admitted that he has seized the affidavit Ex.PW24/F of Risalo Devi but she had not made any such statement before the IO i.e. PW37 as she was not in proper physical condition because of old age at that time. He had denied the suggestion that Badle Ram, Balwan Singh, Balwant Singh and Lekhi Ram, all sons of Sube Singh had given their bank statement to the IO reflecting the money received by them as compensation. He further stated that it was the accused who had submitted the bank statement to the IO which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW37/D. He further stated that he had not conducted any investigation with regard to bank statement and as the statements were computerized, they were presumed to be correct. He has denied the suggestion that Badle Ram, Balwan Singh, Balwant Singh and Lekhi Ram had stated to him that they have given Rs.10 Lakhs to Risalo Devi and out of the said amount, she had raised construction on the said house. He denied the suggestion Risalo Devi had stated to him that besides Rs.10 Lakhs, Rs. 1.80 Lakhs were given to her by Mr. Gupta and she invested the said amount on raising construction of the said house. He has admitted that the age of Risalo Devi was more than 80 years in 2001. He denied he suggestion that the construction made by Risalo Devi has been attributed in the chargesheet to be the assets/expenditure CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 39 of accused to make a false case of disproportion. He has also denied the suggestion that legitimate earning of Risalo Devi in the form of rental and other compensation had been concealed in the present case. He has further stated that there is no bank account statement of Risalo Devi nor any property document of Risalo Devi nor any income tax paper nor any ration card of Risalo Devi showing that she was living with the accused.
57) After completion of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. in which all the incriminating evidence was put to him and the accused stated that the valuation was incorrect. He further stated that he does not know about registration of the FIR but all explanation given by him or his mother and brothers were not taken on record. He further stated that he has not constructed house no. 10/9, Village Kishangarh, Mehrauli, Delhi and the house was got constructed by her mother and she arranged funds by relinquishing her share in her parental property as well as after selling portion of property no. 10/9, Village Kishangarh, Mehrauli, Delhi. He further stated that he does not know about search warrant, however his house which was at first floor of property no. 10/9, Village Kishangarh, Meharuli, Delhi was searched. He has further stated that he does not know about record of DVB and that bank account statement of Balwan Singh, Balwant Singh, Lekhi Ram and Badle Ram were given by them to IO, when they had visited the office of ACB alongwith his mother. He has further stated that his complete statement was not recorded and all documents given by accused had not been filed on record though he had given more than 15 documents and only 7 of them were brought on record. He further admitted that he was living on first floor of property no. 10/9, Kishangarh, Mehrauli, Delhi which was owned by his father CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 40 who had expired and since then her mother was the owner. He further stated that valuation is incorrect and his salary report is not complete. He further stated that it is a false case and his mother inherited huge property at Village Islampur, District Gurgaon, Haryana from which she used to get handsome amount of money being the agricultural land. He further stated that his father Bheem Singh owned multiple houses at Mehrauli in ward no. 2 which were sold to generate funds. He further stated that his father also owned large agricultural land in village Kishangarh, Mehrauli (Revenue Record of Mehrauli) and at village Rangpuri which were also sold later on. He further stated that property no. 10/9, Village Kishangarh, Mehrauli was originally owned by his father and after death of his father, his mother had sold a portion of it. He further stated that the house available on the property no. 10/9, Village Kishangarh, Mehrauli was renovated/constructed by his mother from the funds detailed above acquired by her. He further stated that the renovation of the house into its present form was started in the year 1994 on the existing old construction which was already there.
58) Accused preferred to lead defence evidence and has examined five witnesses. DW1 Parvinder Tomar, Patwari, Village Rangpuri produced the record relating to village Rangpuri. He deposed that Khata no. 69/63 was agricultural land in the name of Bhim Singh, Bhan Singh, both sons of Ramji Lal. He further deposed that the land was acquired by the government in the year 198788, vide Award no. 28/8788 and the total area of land was 33 bhighas and the share of Bhim Singh and Bhan Singh is one fourth thereof. In the year 198485 from the share of Bhim Singh, 1/8th share was mutated in the name of Gian Singh, Laxman Singh, Suresh Singh (all sons of Bhim Singh). DW1 was again CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 41 examined on 21.05.2013 wherein he produced the record relating to Khata no. 181/162 pertaining to Khasra no. 1986/1 & 1988/1 of agricultural land measuring 10 Bhighas and 5 Biswa of village Rangpuri in the name of Bhim Singh, Bhan Singh, both sons of Ramji Lal having 1/4th share in the above mentioned Khata and Surjan Singh, Kanhiya Lal, both sons of Hriday Ram having 1/2 share in the above mentioned Khata and Pratap Singh S/o Hriday Singh having 1/4th share in the said Khata. Photocopy of same is Ex.DW1B. This land was also acquired vide Award no. 28/8788 in the year 198788.
59) DW2 Chhetrapal Singh, Kanoongo proved the certified copy of the record of the year 198081, Mustil no.80/3 Ex.DW2/A. He also proved the certified copy of record Khasra no.2084/1045, 2317/1045, 2066/1045, 2136/1045 of the year 195759 Ex.DW2/B. Similarly, he proved the certified copy of Khasra no. 2310/791, 2312/792 of the year 197072 Ex.DW2/C. He also proved the certified copy of record Mustil no.80/3 of the year 197078 Ex.DW2/D. He further proved the certified copy of Mustil no.62/12/1, 62/19/1 of the year 198081 Ex.DW2/E. During his crossexamination by Ld. Addl. PP he stated that all the documents except Ex.DW2/C are in Urdu language and he does not know Urdu language and therefore, he does not know the contents of the same. He further stated that he does not know in whose name the aforesaid property stand. He further stated that he does not know, if the land relating to the aforesaid documents were acquired or not, and in case the same was acquired, he does not know who has received the compensation.
60) DW3 Shafiuddin is the Translator. He deposed that he had studied Urdu, Arbi and Farshi upto class 8th and when he was shown CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 42 documents DW2/A to DW2/E, he had translated the same in the court.
61) DW4 Rajeev Anand, UDC, House Tax Department has produced the house tax assessment file of property no. RZ10/9, Kishangarh, Najafgarh which is Ex.DW4/A. During crossexamination by Ld. Addl. PP he has stated that the name of assessee is Sourabh Gupta as per the said file and the name of the previous owner is not reflected in the file. He also stated that he cannot say as to how Sourabh Gupta had obtained the aforesaid property. He further stated that as no record was available in the file, therefore, it seems that Sourabh Gupta had not deposited any property tax as in case he would have deposited the property tax, then property tax return would have been available in the file.
62) DW5 Krishan Kumar, Patwari had brought the Jamabandi Register of the year 20052006 containing Khewat no. 381/367 and proved the same as Ex.DW5/A. He also proved mutation with respect to Khewat no.73 and 224 as Ex.DW5/B and Ex.DW5/C. He also proved Roznamcha of Halka Challan pertaining to year 199293 as Ex.DW5/D. During his crossexamination, he deposed that the said document do not disclose that any award was ever granted to the accused or his parents after the acquisition of the property and he further stated that the award was granted to the brothers of Smt. Risalo Devi i.e. mother of the accused and to the children of brothers of Smt. Risalo Devi. He has further stated that as per the document, Risalo Devi had inherited some property from her parents and later on she had relinquished her share in favour of her brothers. He further stated that he cannot say how much amount was granted as award at the time of acquiring land by the government to the brothers of Risalo Devi.
CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 4363) After conclusion of the defense evidence final arguments have been heard on behalf of Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ld. Counsel for accused.
64) Ld. Addl. PP for State argued that the accused has amassed disproportionate assets beyond his known sources of income. He further contended that the total income of the accused from all his known sources including the income of his wife during the check period and the sale proceeds of piece of land by his mother, during the check period from 1993 to 1998, was to the tune of Rs.3,84,304/ whereas his total expenditure and assets during check period was to the tune of Rs.46,95,930/ including the construction cost of house i.e. Rs.42,24,100/. He further contended that accused was found in possession of disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.43,11,626/ for which he could not satisfactorily reply despite opportunity. He has further contended that the accused has taken a flimsy defense regarding income of his mother from her share of amount received from the award on acquisition of land coowned by her and her brothers, which has not been substantiated by him. He further contended that though in the charge framed, check period has been stated as 1978 to 1998 whereas in the chargesheet, it has been categorically made clear that the check period has been confined and was kept 1993 to 1998, since the dubious transactions pertain to period i.e. 1993 to 1998. He prayed that check period may kindly be considered from 1993 to 1998. He further contended that no prejudice is caused to the accused, if check period is considered from 1993 to 1998 instead of 1978 to 1998.
65) Ld. Addl. PP further contended that there is no infirmity in the sanction order and submits that adequacy of the material for grant of CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 44 prosecution sanction is not the subject of scrutiny of the trial court, it is the discretion of the sanctioning authority who after perusing the facts and circumstances of the case, may accord prosecution sanction or refuse the same. In the present case, sanctioning authority has categorically deposed in his testimony that he had accorded sanction after perusing entire facts of the case on finding sufficient material against accused. It is further submitted that the trial court is not the appellate authority of the sanctioning authority and placed reliance upon C.S. Krishnamurthy Vs State of Karnataka, 2005(4) SCC 81.
"When the sanction itself is very expressive, then in that case, the arguments that particular material was not properly placed before the sanctioning authority for according sanction and the sanctioning authority has not applied its mind becomes unsustainable. When sanction order is itself eloquent enough, then in that case only formal evidence has to be produced by the sanctioning authority or by any other evidence that the sanction was accorded by a competent person with due application of mind."
66) Ld. Addl. PP further contended that accused has simply placed affidavit of his mother Risalo Devi and joint affidavit of Badle Ram, Balwan Singh, Balwant Singh and Lekhi Ram claiming that her mother Risalo Devi received a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs as gift from his nephews out of the compensation of her ancestral property of village Islampur and spent that amount on the construction of the house. But accused could not produce any documentary evidence to support his version by lawful and credible mode of transfer of the amount. Neither any gift deed is in existence nor any tax return about the receipt of heavy amount as gift was filed by the accused or his mother. No information as per rules was CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 45 given by accused to his department regarding receipt of gift by his mother. The version of the accused is not reliable and the same is afterthought.
67) It is further contended that income of the accused from lawful sources during the check period and expenditure also have been proved by the prosecution by way of documentary as well as oral evidence and it has also been proved that house construction worth Rs.42.25 Lakhs has been got built by accused. Accused had moved application for electricity connection in the house in question wherein he had filed indemnity bond Ex.PW3/A5 and affidavit Ex.PW3/A6 mentioning himself owner of the house and he had admitted the filing of indemnity bond and affidavit as reflected in the ordersheet dated 28.11.2006. Regarding cost of construction, valuation of the property has been done by PWD department of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
68) It is further contended that there is no violation of section 17 of POC Act and placed reliance upon documents Ex.PW7/A, Ex.PW7/B and Ex.PW37/G vide which DCP concerned had approved that DA case be registered against the accused. These documents are the attested copies of the public document and the same have been proved by PW7 and PW37.
69) It is further contended that accused has tried to create a confusion in the mind of Hon'ble court that in the present case the property valuation of the house no. 9/10, Kishangarh had been carried out instead of house no. 10/9, Kishangarh belonging to accused. In this regard, it has been further argued by defence that valuation of his house had not been carried out. This argument of the defence has been controverted by prosecution by submitting that house number has been wrongly CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 46 mentioned in the valuation report and it is merely a typographical error. Inspection of the house number 10/9 belonging to accused has actually been carried out. It is further clear from the inventory memo Ex.PW4/A in which accused himself is one of the witness wherein house number has been mentioned as 9/10 which shows that it was impossible that when physical inspection of the house no. 9/10 was carried out, accused was present there. It is further contended by Ld. Addl. PP that prosecution witnesses have categorically deposed that they had visited the house of the accused Laxman Singh and carried out inspection there.
70) In the present case, during investigation accused had produced valuation report carried out by private valuer i.e. PW22 B.P. Singh. In this regard, it has been submitted by Ld. Addl. PP for State that Sh. B.P. Singh is the private valuer and is interested witness and he had carried out the valuation of the house in question at the instance of accused as per his choice in order to show the cost of construction lesser whereas valuation carried out by government valuer shows the actual cost of the construction based upon physical inspection and detailed valuation report. Private valuer has shown the cost of construction approximately Rs.12,74,171.87/ and the construction year has been shown as 199495. The report of the private valuer has not been relied upon by the prosecution/investigating agency. It has been further submitted that for the sake of arguments, if the valuation report of the private valuer is accepted, then also the assets and the expenditure falls beyond the lawful income of the accused during the check period and prayed for conviction of the accused for the offence of criminal misconduct under section 13(1)(e) POC Act read with Section 13(2) of POC Act, by having acquired property disproportionate to his known sources of income.
CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 47SANCTION :
71) Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the bare reading of the sanction order reflects that the details such as check period, income in the check period, alleged valuation of asset, alleged valuation of expenditure, alleged disproportion in income, details of material allegedly placed before sanctioning authority are missing and thus, sanction is defective and nonest in law. The sanction order is Ex.PW27/A. Ld. Counsel for the accused has relied upon following judgments :
(i) Madan Mohan Singh Vs State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 637.
(ii) Jaswant Singh Vs State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 124.
72) On the issue of sanction, in C.S. Krishnamurthy Vs State of Karnataka, Crl. Appeal no. 462/2005, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"This sanction order was proved by Mr. V. Parthasarthy, Deputy General Manager of Bengalore Telecom as PW40, he was competent authority to accord sanction and he accorded the sanction for prosecution of accused for the alleged offence on 28th February, 1990 as per Ex.P.83. He deposed that S.P., CBI sent a report against the accused and he perused the report and accorded the sanction as per Ex.P.83. He deposed that he was satisfied that there was a case for prosecuting the accused for the alleged offence. He admitted that he received a draft sanction order and a draft sanction order was also examined by vigilance cell and then it was put before him. He also deposed that before according sanction he discussed the matter with the vigilance cell. He also admitted that he was CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 48 not a law man, therefore, he discussed the legal implication with a legally qualified officer in the vigilance cell. He has denied the suggestion that he did not apply his mind in according sanction. It is no doubt true that the sanction is necessary for every prosecution of public servant, this safeguard is against the frivolous prosecution against public servant from harassment. But the sanction should not be taken as a shield to protect corrupt and dishonest public servant......"
".....When the sanction itself is very expressive, then in that case, the argument that particular material was not properly placed before the sanctioning authority for according sanction and sanctioning authority has not applied its mind becomes unsustainable. When sanction order itself is eloquent enough, then in that case only formal evidence has to be produced by the sanctioning authority or by any other evidence that the sanction was accorded by a competent person with due application of mind."
73) As regards application of mind by sanctioning authority in State of Maharashtra through CBI Vs Mahesh Jain, 2013 (8) SCC 119 following principles were culled out : "14.1 It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the valid sanction has been granted by the sanctioning authority after being satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out.
14.2 The sanction order may expressly show that the sanctioning authority has perused the material placed before it and, after consideration of the circumstances, has granted sanction for prosecution.
14.3 The prosecution may prove by adducing CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 49 the evidence that the material was placed before the sanctioning authority and its satisfaction was arrived at upon perusal of the material placed before it.
14.4 Grant of sanction is only an administrative function and the sanctioning authority is required to prime facie reach the satisfaction that relevant facts would constitute the offence.
14.5 The adequacy of material placed before the sanctioning authority cannot be gone into by the court as it does not sit in appeal over the sanction order.
14.6 If the sanctioning authority has perused all the materials placed before it and some of them have not been proved that would not vitiate the order of sanction.
14.7 The order of sanction is a prerequisite as it is intended to provide a safeguard to a public servant against frivolous and vexatious litigants, but simultaneously an order of sanction should not be construed in a pedantic manner and there should not be a hypertechnical approach to test its validity."
74) It was further held that :
"True it is, grant of sanction is a sacrosanct and sacred act and is intended to provide a safeguard to the public servant against vexatious litigation but simultaneously when there is an order of sanction by the competent authority indicating application of mind, the same should not be lightly dealt with. The flimsy technicalities cannot be allowed to become tools in the hands of an accused."
75) Thus, grant of sanction is an administrative function and only CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 50 prima facie satisfaction of the sanctioning authority is needed. The adequacy or inadequacy of material placed before the sanctioning authority cannot be gone into by the court as it does not sit in appeal over the sanction order and when there is an order of sanction by the competent authority indicating application of mind, the same should not be lightly dealt with. Also, flimsy technicalities cannot be allowed to become tools in the hands of accused. In view of the above discussion, it cannot be said that the order of sanction for prosecution of accused is not valid or illegal.
76) Also, in Ashok Kumar Tshering Bhutia Vs State of Sikkim, 2011 (3) LRC 93 (SC) on the point of sanction, it was held as follows:
"......In the absence of anything to show that any defect or irregularity therein caused a failure of justice, the plea is without substance. A failure of justice is relatable to error, omission or irregularity in the sanction. Therefore, a mere error, omission or irregularity in sanction is not considered to be fatal unless it has resulted in a failure of justice or has been occasioned thereby. Section 19 (1) of the PC Act 1988 is a matter of procedure and does not go to the root of the jurisdiction and once the cognizance has been taken by the Court under Cr.P.C., it cannot be said that an invalid police report is the foundation of jurisdiction of the court to take cognizance........"
77) In CBI Vs Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, decided on 31.10.2013 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it has been held that : "(a) The prosecution must send the entire CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 51 relevant record to the Sanctioning Authority including the FIR, disclosure statements, statements of witnesses, recovery memos, draft charge sheet and all other relevant material.
The record so sent should also contain the material/document, if any, which may tilt the balance in favour of the accused and on the basis of which, the competent authority may refuse sanction.
(b) The authority itself has to do complete and conscious scrutiny of the whole record so produced by the prosecution independently applying its mind and taking into consideration all the relevant facts before grant of sanction while discharging its duty to give or withheld the sanction.
(c) The power to grant sanction is to be exercised strictly keeping in mind the public interest and the protection available to the accused against whom the sanction is sought.
(d) The order of sanction should make it evidence that the authority had been aware of all relevant facts/materials and had applied its mind to all the relevant material.
(e) In every individual case, the prosecution has to establish and satisfy the court by leading evidence that the entire relevant facts had been placed before the Sanctioning Authority and the authority had applied its mind on the same and that the sanction had been granted in accordance with law."
78) The grievance of the accused is not that the entire material was not placed before the sanctioning authority but rather that the sanctioning order does not mentions the details of the income, expenditure, assets of the accused or the check period. However, there is no strict format in which the sanction order is to be formulated. The only requirement of law is that the sanction order must reflect due application of mind. On CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 52 perusal of sanction order Ex. PW 27/A, the present court is satisfied that the same reflects due application of mind. Also, the testimony of PW27 reflects due application of mind by PW27. The sanction order clearly states that sanction was granted for having disproportionate assets for the offence under section 13(1(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The argument of the defense counsel that the sanction is invalid is thus, devoid of any merit.
INCOME OF ACCUSED :
79) It is argued that prosecution has not been able to prove the income of the accused with respect to the check period mentioned in the charge i.e. 197898. It is stated that PW14 has proved the salary statement of the accused w.e.f. 01.01.2001 to 30.11.2001 and this salary is beyond check period and therefore, not relevant for the trial. Similarly, PW21 has also proved the salary of the accused from 01.02.2000 to 31.12.2001 as per Ex.PW21/A and thus, Ex.PW21/A also cannot be taken into account to decide the present matter as the salary proved by PW21 is beyond check period.
80) This court is in total agreement with Ld. Counsel for the accused that the salary statement proved by PW14 and PW 21 are beyond check period and therefore, cannot be taken into account for deciding the present case
81) As far as check period i.e. 19781998 is concerned, till 31.03.1983 the accused was working as daily wager. He was regularized only from 01.04.1983. His salary from 01.04.1983 to 31.03.1991 has been proved by PW17 as Ex.PW17/A and his salary from 25.09.1992 to 30.09.1993 CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 53 is also proved as Ex.PW17/A. PW19 proved the salary slip from 26.10.1994 to 13.01.2000 and his salary from 27.10.1994 to 31.10.1998 was Rs.1,66,261/. It is argued that the income of the accused from 01.05.1991 to 13.07.1992 has not been proved, as PW15 Yadram who was the author of the document Ex.D19 has not proved the same. Salary for the period from 01.05.1991 to 13.07.1992 has been proved as Ex.PW15/A. The document Ex.PW15/A is the same as Ex.PW24/A1. Ex.PW24/A1 is in fact the original and its photocopy has been exhibited as Ex.PW15/A. Perusal of testimony of PW15 shows that at the time of examination of PW15, the originals were produced before court and seen and returned. Thus, salary of the accused from 01.05.1991 to 13.07.1992 has been proved through Ex.PW15/A (also Ex.PW24/A1). Also, this period is also covered in the salary statement proved by PW 17 vide Ex.PW17/B. In fact, through Ex.PW17/B the salary of the accused from 01.04.1983 to 30.09.1993 has been proved. The total amount received by the accused from 01.04.1983 to 30.09.1993 has been proved by PW17 and the remaining income of the accused has been proved through Ex.PW19/A.
82) The question now is as to what is to be taken as check period. In the chargesheet, the check period is stated to be from 1993 to 1998 whereas in the charge framed, the check period is from 19781998. As the check period in the chargesheet has been confined to 1993 to 1998, the check period is taken to be 1993 to 1998. As far as mentioning of 1978 to 1998 as check period in the charge is concerned, Section 215 and 464 Cr.P.C. being relevant are reproduced as under :
215 Effect of errors - No error in stating either the offence or the particulars required to be stated in the charge, and no omission to state CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 54 the offence or those particulars, shall be regarded at any stage of the case as material, unless the accused was in fact misled by such error or omission, and it has occasioned a failure of justice.
464. Effect of omission to frame, or absence of, or error in, charge (1) No finding sentence or order by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed invalid merely on the ground that no charge was framed or on the ground of any error, unless, in the opinion of the court of appeal, confirmation or revision, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby.
(2) If the Court........."
Thus, a perusal of the above two provisions clearly establishes that an error in framing of charge must be material and it should have occasioned a failure of justice for it to vitiate a trial. An irregularity is not regarding as fatal unless it results in substantial prejudice to the accused.
83) In Willie (William) Slanely Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1956 SC 116, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under :
"................If he does, if he is tried by a competent court, if he is told and clearly understands the nature of the offence for which he is being tried, if the case against him is fully and fairly explained to him and he is afforded a full and fair opportunity of defending himself, then, provided there is substantial compliance with the outward forms of the law, mere mistakes in procedure, mere inconsequential errors and omissions in the trial are regarding as venal by the Code and the trial is not vitiated unless the accused can show substantial prejudice...................But when all is said and done, what we are concerned to see is whether the accused had a fair trial, whether he knew CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 55 what he was being tried for, whether the main facts sought to be established against him were explained to him fairly and clearly and whether he was given a full and fair chance to defend himself. If all these elements are there and no prejudice is shown the conviction must stand whatever the irregularities whether traceable to the charge or to a want of one. It is immaterial whether the charge was framed properly or not; what matters is whether the error, omission or irregularity occasioned substantial prejudice.............."
84) In the present case, in charge the check period has been stated as 197898 whereas the check period as per the charge sheet is 199398. This is not a fatal irregularity and has not caused any prejudice to the accused as all the particulars regarding the charge against him were clearly stated. The accused understood and was well aware about the allegations against him and thus, there has been no failure of justice due to the wrong statement of check period in the charge. The main allegation against the accused is that the cost of construction of the palatial house built by him was disproportionate to his known sources of income. The accused was well aware of the case and the facts essential to defend during the trial, were clearly spelled in the charges. All the particulars necessary to make the accused understand that he was being tried for the offence of criminal misconduct by having property disproportionate to his known sources of income have been set out in the charge. The accused has extensively cross examined the witnesses on this aspect. The court is satisfied that there has been no prejudice to the accused, due to the wrong mentioning of the check period in the charge. For these reasons, this Court is of opinion that the CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 56 same cannot be considered fatal, as there was a reference to Section 13(1)(e), and the general facts relating to the charges were narrated. There was no failure of justice or prejudice to the accused due to the irregularity in the charge regarding check period and the check period is confined to 1993 to 1998.
85) Ld. counsel for the accused has relied upon Vasant Rao Guhe Vs State of M.P., 2017 IX AD (S.C) 1, in which it was held that in the absence of proof by the prosecution regarding income of the accused, the accused is not liable to give any explanation. It was further held that the prosecution to succeed in a criminal trial has to pitch its case beyond all reasonable doubt and lodge it in the realm of "must be true" category and not rest contended by leaving it in the domain of "may be true".
86) After perusal of the judgment in the Vasant Rao's case, it is revealed that the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case in as much as in Vasant Rao's case, the IO PW6 had admitted that he had not added the agricultural income of the accused during the check period and the pay for various period before handing over the investigation to PW2. PW2 had also admitted during the crossexamination that annual agricultural income of the appellant for the check period would amount to around Rs.27 Lakhs and this agricultural income and some omitted amount if added, then there would not be any disproportion qua the appellant.
87) However, in the present case the IO has fairly added the amount of the income of the wife of the accused as per her income tax return in the income of the accused as per the chargesheet. It is also not the case of the accused that apart from his salary, he was having any other source of income such as agricultural income or rental income which the IO had CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 57 failed to credit while calculating the total income of the accused for the check period. The IO in the chargesheet has also taken into account an amount of Rs.22,500/ received from the sale proceedings of the plot to Sh. Sourabh Gupta. The IO has thus, considered all the known sources of income. Even during crossexamination of the IO, no such suggestion has been given to the IO that accused was having any other specific source of income which the IO has not taken into account despite bringing it to the knowledge by the accused. The total income of the accused thus, for the check period i.e. January 1993 to December 1998 is :
S. DATE PARTICULARS VALUE IN Rs.
No
.
1. Jan. 1993 - Salary of Laxman Singh Rs.16,600/
Sept. 1993
1. 01.10.1993 Salary of Laxman Singh Rs.23,816/.
-
25.10.1994
2. 26.10.1994 Salary of Laxman Singh Rs.1,66,261/.
31.10.1998
3. 01.11.1998 Salary of Laxman Singh Rs.9,373/
- Dec.1998
4. 199697 Income of wife of Kamla Rs.47,500/
(I.T. Return)
5. 199798 Income of wife of Kamla Rs.49,500/
(I.T. Return)
6. 199899 Income of wife of Kamla Rs.49,500/
(I.T. Return)
7. 24.06.1994 Share of the Sale proceeds of Rs.22,500/.
plot sold to Mr. Sourabh
Gupta.
CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 58
Total (A) : Rs.3,85,050/
88) Even as per the chargesheet, the income of the accused from
01.10.1993 to 31.03.1999 is Rs.3,84,304/, which is not at much variance from the above calculation. However, giving benefit to the accused, the income of the accused for the check period is taken on higher side i.e. Rs.3,85,050/.
ASSETS OF ACCUSED :
89) It is stated on behalf of the prosecution that the accused has purchased a car worth Rs.1,50,000/ and to prove this fact PW11 has been examined who only deposed that as per record, a maruti car was registered in the name of Kamla Devi W/o Sh. Laxman Singh. He had also proved the document Ex.PW11/B and Ex.PW11/C. As per Ex.PW11/A, the car was registered in the name of Kamla Devi on 06.08.1999 (letters 99 not clear) and sold to Raj Kumar on 18.07.2002.
The price at which the vehicle was purchased and the price for which the vehicle was sold has not been stated by PW11. It is not clear as to how IO arrived at the figure of Rs.1,50,000/ to be the price of the car. The only thing that has been proved on record through PW11 is that the Maruti Car bearing no. DL3CG2192 was purchased in the name of the wife of the accused.
90) PW37 Insp. R.S. Chahal in his testimony has also stated that he had sent a letter to the MLO, Sheikh Sarai to confirm the ownership of the car and had received the document Ex.PW11/B and Ex.PW11/C from MLO, Sheikh Sarai alongwith the reply on Ex.PW11/A. PW37 CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 59 had also not stated in his chief examination as to how he had arrived at the figure of Rs.1,50,000/ and therefore, the prosecution has not been able to prove that the assets in the form of car in the name of wife of accused is worth Rs.1,50,000/.
91) In the chargesheet, another asset of the accused is stated to be GPF of Rs.20,940/. The GPF for an amount of Rs.20,940/ is for the period from 27.10.1994 to March 1999. However, restricting the same to the check period, the amount of GPF as per Ex.PW19/A would be Rs.19,500/ and thus, the GPF for an amount of Rs.19,500/ has been deposited by the accused during the check period.
92) The other assets of the accused are stated to be household goods worth Rs.1,74,300/. Inventory memo Ex.PW4/A has been prepared at the time of visit of the house of the accused. The same is signed by the accused at pointC and by the IO at pointB, Ct. Geeta at pointA, panch witness at pointD. In fact, in this inventory memo the price of three seater sofa, two seater sofa, wooden chairs, one big wooden central table has not been mentioned as it is stated to have been gifted by brother in law (of the accused). One colour samsung TV worth Rs.20,000/ and one music system worth Rs.15,000/ are mentioned amongst the household articles. Similarly, the value of other articles have been mentioned and the total of the same is Rs.1,74,300/. On the ground floor, one scooter Bajaj Chetak was found. It is also stated that the ground floor is rented to two persons. Second floor is also shown to have been rented and the articles on the ground floor and second floor have not been taken into account to arrive at the value of the household articles found at the residence of the accused. It has also been mentioned CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 60 in the inventory memo, that the photocopy of the memo has been given to Laxman Singh. Nowhere during the crossexamination, the accused has disputed that the photocopy of the inventory was not given to him, though during the statement under section 313 Cr.P.C., accused has stated that he was not permitted to read the same before signing. Even during the crossexamination of PW4, she has been suggested that she has not visited the house of the accused at the time of inspection. PW6 panch witness has also deposed that on 04.01.2002, he was on panch witness duty and had accompanied the team led by S.S. Sandhu and the inventory of the household articles was prepared as Ex.PW4/B. As per the testimony of PW4 and PW6, the inventory memo is Ex.PW4/B. Though at the time of exhibition of document, the same had inadvertently been exhibited as Ex.PW4/A. Even the seizure memo of electricity bill and telephone bill is Ex.PW4/A. It seems that inadvertently at the time of exhibition of document, the inventory memo was exhibited as Ex.PW4/A though the same was Ex.PW4/B as per the testimony of PW4 and PW6.
93) PW24 S.S. Sandhu has also deposed that he had obtained house search warrants of accused on 04.01.2002, he had conducted the search of the house of the accused bearing no. 10/9, Kishangarh village alongwith panch witness and Ct. Geeta in the presence of accused Laxman Singh. He has stated that mother of the accused was also called and that he had prepared the inventory memo of the house search. During the testimony of PW24, inventory memo has been exhibited as Ex.PW4/A and even the seizure memo of the electricity bill and the telephone bill is exhibited as Ex.PW4/A. During the cross examination of PW24 on 24.09.2010, court observation was made CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 61 that inventory memo dated 04.01.2002 which is already Ex.PW4/A be read as Ex.PW4/B as mentioned in the testimony of PW4 and thus, the inventory memo is Ex.PW4/B.
94) During the crossexamination of PW24 also, he has been cross examined on the aspect as to the address mentioned in the inventory memo i.e. 9/10, Kishangarh Village. No crossexamination has been conducted on the aspect that the inventory memo Ex.PW4/B was not correct or that the value of the articles stated in Ex.PW4/B is exaggerated or not the correct value. Even no suggestion has been given that the articles as mentioned in the inventory memo were not found at the residence of the accused during investigation. No suggestion has been given to PW24 that he had in fact carried out inspection of some other house bearing no. 9 and ward no. 10, Kishangarh Village and not of the house of the accused. In view of the clear testimony of PW4, PW6 and PW24 regarding inspection of the house of the accused and preparation of the memo and in the absence of crossexamination on behalf of the accused to suggest that that the articles mentioned in the inventory memo were not found at the residence of the accused or that the price of the articles as mentioned in the inventory memo is not correct price, the price of the articles mentioned in the inventory memo are taken to be correct. In view of this, the inventory memo is thus, duly proved by the prosecution and it is established that the accused possessed household articles/assets worth Rs.1,74,300/.
95) The main assets as stated by the prosecution is the cost of construction of the house built by accused bearing no.10/9, Kishangarh Village. The cost of construction of the house has been proved by the CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 62 valuation report Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW12/B. Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that the report Ex.PW2/A has not been duly proved in as much as there is a cutting on the first page where the house number is stated to be 9/10, Kishangarh Village and on the third page though the signatures and the stamps are original but part of it seems to be photocopy. Ex.PW12/B is the cost report in which the detailed assessment has been given. Ex.PW12/B has been proved by PW12. In fact Ex.PW12/B is part of document Ex.PW2/A as during the testimony of PW2, he had stated that he had gone to the spot and prepared the valuation report Ex.PW2/A running into 13 pages. He had stated that page 4 to 13 are the cost report. Page 4 to 13 were in fact separately exhibited as Ex.PW12/B also during the testimony of PW12. Though PW12 stated that he had not gone to the spot and had not seen the building. PW2 clearly stated that he had gone to the spot and had inspected the property and had prepared the valuation report including the cost report. As far as the cost report is concerned, the detailed report is being prepared giving the exact measurement of each and every room. The cost report clearly states that the assessment was made for the fair market value of the structure without land. In this cost report, it is mentioned that the building comprises of basement as well as ground floor, first floor, second floor and third floor. It has also been mentioned that there was kota stone flooring in the open space and marble stone flooring. Cost of granite counter etc. were also assessed. During the crossexamination of PW2, no questions have been put to PW2 regarding the cost report. The witness has clearly denied the suggestion that the report Ex.PW2/A contained incorrect facts or that this valuation was not correct as per CPWD rules. PW5 has also proved the valuation CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 63 report Ex.PW2/A. He has identified his signatures at point C4 in the cost report. Even PW5 has not been given any suggestion that the cost report was not correct. PW5 has clearly stated that Laxman Singh was the occupant of the house. Merely mentioning of house number as 9/10, Kishangarh Village in the property valuation form instead of 10/9 would not make any difference, in as much the witness has clearly stated that he had inspected the house of the accused and had met the mother of the accused at the house. Ld. Counsel for the accused has vehemently argued that as the house number in various documents is mentioned as 9/10, instead of 10/9, the documents must be held not duly proved or related to the house of accused. The IO in his testimony has explained this fact that earlier the house number was taken as 9/10 but later on it was revealed that the house number was 10 of Ward no. 9. Such kind of frivolous defence by the accused only lead to an inference that the accused has no genuine defence.
96) The witness PW2 and PW5 have made the calculation on the basis of plinth area method. There is no suggestion that in the cost report the measurement or the specifications have been wrongly stated. The detailed cost report gives exact figure as to how the amount of Rs.42,24,089/ rounded as Rs.42,24,100/. In view of the clear testimony of the witnesses, the prosecution has been able to prove that the property no. 10/9, Kishangarh Village was divided into four parts, out of which one part was sold to Sourabh Gupta and out of the remaining three parts, Laxman Singh was in possession of one part and had constructed the said portion from 1994 to 1998. And thus had assessed to Rs.42,24,100/. Even the cost valuation report by B.P. Singh has been proved by him as Ex.PW22/A and this witness B.P. Singh has CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 64 not been crossexamined on behalf of accused. Even if this valuation report which has been furnished by the accused is taken to be correct, then also the accused had assets of Rs.12,74,171.87 paise rounded of to Rs.12,74,172/.
97) Thus, the total assets of the accused for the check period 1993 to
1998 are :
(i) GPF - Rs.19,500/
(ii) Household articles - Rs.1,74,300/.
(iii) Cost of Construction - Rs.42,24,100/.
Total : Rs.44,17,900/.
98) Even if the valuation report of Sh. B.P. Singh, Ex.PW22/A is
taken to be correct valuation of the cost of construction, then the total assets are :
(i) GPF - Rs.19,500/
(ii) Household articles - Rs.1,74,300/.
(iii) Cost of Construction - Rs.12,74,172/.
Total : Rs.14,67,972/.
EXPENSES :
99) The kitchen expenses have been taken to be as 1/3rd of the
income of the accused. The expenses have been shown as being
calculated as 33% of the total Salary of the accused. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that since there is no evidence on record regarding the said House hold expenses of Rs.1,26,590/ therefore, the CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 65 same could not be proved by the prosecution. No doubt, there is no specific evidence regarding the said House hold expenditure of Rs.1,26,590/. No one is supposed to get issued or preserve any bills/vouchers etc. for the House hold expenditure nor the same can be calculated minutely and therefore, only a fair estimation is to be made in this respect on the basis of the Income of the person concerned. In the present case, since as per the case of the prosecution, the accused is found to have received total Salary of Rs.3,85,050/ from his Department during the Check Period therefore, as per the well established practice of calculating the 33% of the Salary Amount as household expenses, this court is of the considered view that an amount of Rs.1,28,350/ can be correctly taken as the household expenditure as per 33% of the Salary of the accused. Even as per the standard procedure of Investigation relating to Disproportionate Assets, which has been accepted by the Central Vigilance Commission, unverifiable expenditure such as on kitchen, household, clothing etc. should be taken at 1/3rd of the gross salary. Keeping the said guidelines in mind also, the present court is of the considered view that the expenditure of Rs.1,28,350/ as per 33% of the Salary of the accused under the Head of the Expenditure can be validly taken as kitchen expenses. The details of the electricity bill from 23.11.1998 to 30.11.2001 is Ex.PW3/A1. However, most of the period in Ex.PW3/A1 is beyond the check period. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that since 33% of the total Salary of the accused has already been calculated as House hold expenditure of the accused, separate expenditure on water, electricity etc. cannot be added further. I found force in the said submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused that Electricity and Water charges are not to be computed separately when CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 66 unverifiable expenditure such as kitchen, household etc. has been computed on the basis of 1/3rd of the gross salary. In the present case, since the House hold expenditure of the accused has been determined as Rs.1,28,350/ by applying the principle of 33% of total Salary of the accused and therefore, the electricity charges cannot be separately included in the Head of Expenditure.
100) In the chargesheet, it is stated that the accused was also having a telephone connection at his residence. The telephone bill was seized at the time of inspection as Ex.PW4/A2. This bill shows that the telephone no. 6134564 was issued in the name of wife of the accused Kamla Mahala. PW8 has also deposed that a telephone connection bearing no. 6134564 was installed in the name of Kamla Mahala at house no. 10/9, Kishangarh Village on 11.04.1996 and was disconnected on 18.04.2004. As the details of the amount of the bills paid during the check period has not been proved on record, the expenses towards telephone connection have not been proved by the prosecution and cannot be taken into account to decide the present case. Ld. Counsel for the accused has submitted that only one bill has been proved on record which is of the month of January and February 2001 which is beyond the check period and as the bill Ex.PW4/A2 is of January and February 2001 and the same is beyond the check period and same cannot be taken into account towards the expenses incurred by the accused and the only fact established from this MTNL bill is that the accused was in possession of the said house and was the defacto owner of the said house. Thus, the total expenses of the accused are Rs.1,28,350/.
DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED :
CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 67101) The defence of the accused is that he had not constructed the house bearing no. 10/9, Kishangarh Village and the house was constructed by her mother by arranging funds after selling the share of house no. 10/9, Kishangarh Village and also by relinquishing her share from the parental property. He has also stated that the affidavits of Balwan Singh, Balwant Singh, Lekhi Ram and Badle Ram were handed over by them and not by him. However, this fact that the affidavits or the bank statements were handed over by the accused to the IO or by Balwan Singh, Balwant Singh, Lekhi Ram and Badle Ram would not make any difference.
102) As far as sale proceeds of the portion of property no. 10/9, Kishangarh Village is concerned, the IO has taken the same into account and had given credit of Rs.22,500/ to the accused in this respect, as this was the amount which fell into the share of the accused. During the statement of accused recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused has stated that all the documents given by him have not been filed on record. In fact the IO has stated that he had seized 11 documents vide seizure memo Ex.PW37/C and 7 documents vide Ex.PW37/D and thus, in total 11 plus 7, total 18 documents which were handed over by the accused or on his behalf to the IO, have been placed on record by the IO.
The accused has also taken the defence that the house in which he lives belongs to his mother. However, even as per the case of the prosecution, the land on which the house was built was ancestral land and only the cost of construction has been attributed to the accused. During the statement of accused recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. in answer to all the questions pertaining to salary record, the accused has only stated that salary record is not complete. However, he has not summoned any CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 68 witness in rebuttal to prove that he has received any additional salary or payment from his department.
103) He has further stated that his mother has inherited huge property in Gurgaon and she used to receive handsome amount of money from agricultural land and his father was also having lot of land in Mehrauli from the sale of which which he generated funds. However, no witness has been examined in defence to exactly prove on record as to how much funds were generated from the house which were sold by the father of the accused in Mehrauli. The accused during his statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. has admitted that renovation of the house on existing old construction was done into its present form in the year 1994. Even PW26 has stated that on the eastern portion of Navyug Apartment, there was a newly built house. PW20 has also deposed that during the site inspection, they came to know that the size of the room which was mentioned in old file of house tax were not existing there, which negates the stand of the accused that they had renovated only the old existing structure. PW16 has also stated that when he had gone to the property no. 10/9 for inspection alongwith the house tax file, then on the site there was no old building. He has further stated that the first part was consisting 600 yards, in the second portion was the house of the accused Laxman Singh. He has also stated that on the site the size of the room and shade (Chappar) as per the house tax file were not existing there. He has also stated that the accused and his brothers were in possession of their respective shares and the palatial house was being enjoyed by the accused only and his brothers had no concern whatsoever. He has also stated that when he had inspected the house there was a name plate of the year 1994. The testimony of PW16 clearly establishes that the house CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 69 of the accused was having total new construction and was not a renovation of the old house.
104) Even the valuation report of B.P. Singh who had assessed the valuation of the property on the request of the accused shows that the year of commencement of construction was 1994 and year of completion of construction was 1995 and that the estimated future life of the construction was 70 to 80 years. Witness B.P. Singh has also been examined by the prosecution as PW22 and his crossexamination on behalf of accused is nil and thus, the valuation report of B.P. Singh is not disputed by the accused. This valuation report clearly mentions that the construction was carried out from 1994 to 1995 and was fresh construction and basement, ground floor, first floor, second floor and third floor were constructed. This also negates the defence of the accused that the house was renovated and not freshly constructed.
105) The other defence of the accused is that his mother had inherited huge property and to prove this fact he has examined defence witnesses. However, DW1 has only deposed that the land in the name of Bhim Singh was acquired but the amount of compensation received has not been disclosed. Moreover, the land was acquired in 1987 to 1988. DW 4 has only proved the house tax assessment in the name of Sourabh Gupta which shows that the part of land of house bearing no. RZ10/9, Kishangarh was in possession of Sourabh Gupta. However, it is also the case of the prosecution that the part of the land was sold by mother and accused to Sourabh Gupta and amount of Rs.22,500/ had fallen to the share of the accused. DW5 has also proved the record of certain ancestral land. However, during his crossexamination he admitted that CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 70 no award was given to the accused or his parents and the award was given to brother of Risalo Devi and to the children of brother of Smt. Risalo Devi. Risalo Devi had relinquished her share in favour of her brothers and thus, she had not received any amount of award.
106) As far as affidavits of Balwan Singh, Balwant Singh, Lekhi Ram and Badle Ram are concerned, none of them had been examined as defence witness and they had not appeared in the court to depose that they had gifted Rs.2,50,000/ to Risalo Devi in the year 1994. They also stated in their joint affidavit that they had given Rs.2 Lakhs to Risalo Devi in the year 2000. Risalo Devi has also stated that she had received Rs.2,50,000/ each from Balwan Singh, Balwant Singh, Lekhi Ram and Badle Ram which she had spent on the construction of house measuring 130 yards. In the affidavit of Smt. Risalo Devi, she had not stated about the renovation of house but stated that house was reconstructed and that her sons Gian Singh and Suresh Singh are living separately. She has not stated that as to when she had received Rs.10 Lakhs from her nephews. In the affidavit of Balwan Singh, Balwant Singh, Lekhi Ram and Badle Ram, they had stated that they had given Rs.2,50,000/ lakhs each to Risalo Devi in the year 1994 and an amount of Rs.2,00,000/ in the year 2000. As far as this amount of Rs.2,00,000/ is concerned, Risalo Devi had not stated that she had received Rs.2,00,000/ in the year 2000, in her affidavit. Ld. Counsel for the accused has failed to point out which of the entry in the bank account statements of Badle Ram, Lekhi Ram, Balwan Singh and Balwant Singh Ex.PW24/A they wish to rely upon. The scrutiny of Ex.PW24/A shows that there was no withdrawal to the tune of Rs.2.50,000/. Moreover, the bank account statements are from the year 1996 onwards and in these bank statements there has never been CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 71 balance of more than Rs.1,00,000/ till 27.07.2000 on which date an amount of Rs.25,67,089.50 paise is deposited. This amount of Rs.25,67,089.50 paise has been received in the account of Balwan Singh also on 27.07.2000 as well as Lekhi Ram and Badle Ram. Prima facie, it appears that this is the amount which they had received as award on acquisition of their ancestral land. All the account statements have been filed from the year 1996 and thus, it is not established from these bank account statements that Rs.2,50,000/ each was handed over by the above said four persons to Smit. Risalo Devi. Even the bank account statement of Badle Ram shows that there was no transaction for more than Rs.40,000/ prior to 27.07.2000. Only in the bank statement of Lekhi Ram, there is a transaction i.e. withdrawal of Rs.1,00,000/ on 13.09.1996. In fact bank account statement of BalwanSingh also reveals that though there are high value transactions but an amount of Rs.2,00,000/ was credited to the account of Parnami Credits. Another amount of Rs.50,000/ was credited to A.K.S. Credits. There is only one withdrawal of Rs.50,000/ on 07.05.1996 by self. All these bank account statements Ex.PW24/O to Ex.PW24/X, nowhere established the defence of the accused that the mother of the accused had received an amount of Rs.10,00,000/ from her nephews.
107) As per the settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the onus was upon accused to explain the possession of assets satisfactorily from his known sources of income, known source(s) of income means known to the prosecution, as it has been held, the explanation of accused for possessing assets must be worthy of acceptance, as per judgments, 2004 Cri.L.J. 598 (SC), 1996 Cri.L.J 1127 (SC) State of Maharashtra Vs Kalptri, AIR 1964 SC 464 Sajjan Singh Vs CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 72 State of Punjab, AIR 2001 SC 2464 CBI Vs K.Penuswami, and 2009 Cri.L.J 1767(SC).
108) Accused also did not give any intimation to his department as required under CCS (Conduct) Rule nor he submitted the Income tax returns with regard to the above said money allegedly received by his mother. The accused has also not examined Badle Ram, Lekhi Ram, Balwan Singh and Balwant Singh in his defence. The nonexamination of such vital defence witnesses goes against the accused to prove that his defence version was false as held in judgments Gajendra Singh Vs State of U.P., 1975 Cri.L.J 1494 (SC) and Ram Kishan Vs State of Punjab, 1995 Cri.L.J 2892(SC).
109) Further, as per Section 106 of Evidence Act, onus was upon the accused to prove his known source(s) of income, as it was in his specific knowledge. Since he has miserably failed to explain the source of possession of assets, therefore he is liable to be convicted under Section13(1)(e) r/w Section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988.
110) Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in M. Krishna Reddy Vs State (1992) 4 Supreme Court Cases 45, has held as follows:
"It is not the mere acquisition of property that constitutes an offence under S. 5(1) (e) but it is the failure of satisfactorily account for such possession that makes the possession objectionable as offending the law. To substantiate a charge under Section 5(1) (e) of the Act, the prosecution must prove the following ingredients, namely (1) the prosecution must establish that the accused is a public servant, (2) the nature and extent of the CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 73 pecuniary resources or property which were found in his possession (3) it must be proved as to what were his known sources of income, i e known to the prosecution and (4) it must prove, quite objectively, that such resources or property found in possession of the accused were disproportionate to his known sources of income. Once the above ingredients are satisfactorily established, the offence of criminal misconduct under Section 5(1) (e) is complete, unless the accused is able to account for such resources or property. In other words, only after the prosecution has proved the required ingredients the burden of satisfactorily accounting for the possession of such resources or property shifts to the accused."
111) Under the new Act of 1988 accused has to explain to the satisfaction of the court with regard to the pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income, while under the old Act of 1947 accused had to give only a plausible explanation in this regard after the prosecution proved its case.
112) Clause (e) of Sec. 13 (1) which corresponds to clause (e) of Sec. 5 (1) has also been drastically amended. Under the new clause, the earlier concept 'known sources of income' has undergone a radical change. As per the explanation given under the new clause the prosecution is relieved of the burden of investigating into 'source of income' of an accused person to a large extent, as it is stated in the explanation that 'known sources of income' means income received from any lawful sources, the receipt of which has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any Law, Rules, or Orders for the time being applicable to a public servant. Definition of the expression "known sources of income"
has been added to remove any ambiguity.CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 74
113) Hon'ble Supreme Court in a latest authority N. Ramakrishnaiah (dead) through LRS Vs. State of A.P. 2009 III AD (S.C.) 239, in this regard has held as follows :
"The emphasis of the phrase "known sources of income" in Section 13 (1) (e) (old Section 5 (1)
(e) is clearly on the word "income". It would be primary to observe that qua the public servant, the income would be what is attached to his office or post, commonly known as remuneration or salary. The term "income" by itself, is classic and has a wide connotation. Whatever comes in or is received is income. But, however, wide the import and connotation of the term "income", it is incapable of being understood as meaning receipt having no nexus to one's labour, or expertise, or property, or investment, and being further a source which may or may not yield a regular revenue. These essential characteristics are vital in understanding the term "income".
Therefore, it can be said that, though "income"
in receipt in the hand of its recipient, every receipt would not partake into the character of income. For the public servant, whatever return he get of his service, will be the primary item of his income."
CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 75114) Other income which can conceivably be income qua the public servant will be in the regular receipt from (a) his property, or (b) his investment. A receipt from windfall, or gains of graft, crime or immoral secretions by persons prima facie would not be receipt for the "known source of income" of a public servant.
115) The Legislature has advisedly used the expression "satisfactorily account". The emphasis must be on the word "satisfactorily", and the Legislature has, thus, deliberately cast a burden on the accused not only to offer a plausible explanation as to how he came by his larger wealth, but also to satisfy the Court that his explanation was worthy of acceptance.
116) The discussion with respect to various heads of Asset / Income / Expenditure of the accused crystallizes and is shown as under :
(i) Income of the accused : Rs.3,85,050/
(ii) Expenditure of accused : Rs.1,28,350/
(iii) Assets of accused : Rs.44,17,900/.
117) Therefore, the final balance sheet of the income, expenditure and assets of the accused, emerging after final analysis goes as under: Disproportionate Assets = (Assets + Expenditure) - Income = (44,17,900+1,28,350) - 3,85,050 = 41,61,200.
Therefore, the disproportionate assets of accused would be around Rs.41,61,000/.
CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 76 DA % = DA x 100
Total Income
= 41,61,200 x 100
3,85,050
= 1080.69% = 1081% (rounded off)
118) Even if the valuation report of Sh. B.P.Singh is taken into
account, then :
Disproportionate Assets = (Assets + Expenditure) - Income = 14,67,972+1,28,350 - 3,85,050 = 12,11,272/ DA% = 12,11,272 x 100 3,85,050 = 314.57% = 315% (rounded off)
119) Generally evidence in any case or trial is weighed on the basis of probative force accorded to particular item of evidence, or finally to the entire mass of the evidence on the scale(s) of probability from 0 to 1. Zero denoting point of total disbelief, whereas 1 is the point of total certainty, as there is no other way to quantify the different items of evidence for reaching the conclusion. In the present case, the entire prosecution and defense evidence is based on mathematical calculation(s), which are certain based on exact equation(s) and figure(s). Therefore, there is no question of quantifying the particular item of evidence or entire mass of prosecution or defense evidence on such scale(s), since mathematical precision/exactitude clearly proves or CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 77 disproves the case one way or another. The mathematical equation employed to calculate the income visaviz assets of the accused to find out his disproportionate assets, if any, clearly returns a huge positive (+) figure of disproportion against the accused, which clearly proves the case of prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt.
120) In view of the above discussions, accused could not satisfactorily account or offer plausible explanation as to how he acquired this wealth, which is disproportionate to his known source(s) of income.
121) Therefore, prosecution has been able to make out case beyond any reasonable doubt against accused Laxman Singh under Section 13(1)(e) r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Accused stands convicted accordingly. Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL Announced in the open court BANSAL Date:
2018.12.01 07:48:49 +0530 on this 28th November of 2018.
(Kiran Bansal) Special Judge07 (PC Act Cases of ACB, GNCTD) Central District, THC, Delhi CC No.532281/16 State Vs Laxman Singh 78