Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

3.2000 (D­49) (Ex. P­51) vs State Of A. P on 15 October, 2016

                              1



    IN THE COURT OF SURINDER KUMAR SHARMA
SPECIAL JUDGE, P.C. ACT (CBI) ­ 09, CENTRAL DISTRICT
                TIS HAZARI : DELHI 


                  CC No.  26/11

                  RC No. DAI­24(A)/2000



CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

              VERSUS

1.    SHRI YASHDEEP SINGH KATARIA 
      SON OF SH. AMIR SINGH 

2.    SMT. SEEMA KATARIA 
      WIFE OF SH. YASHDEEP SINGH KATARIA

      BOTH RESIDENT OF  FLAT NO. 16­B, POCKET ­C, 
      MAYUR VIHAR PHASE­II, DELHI­110091. 


              DATE OF INSTITUTION        :   22.05.2003
              DATE OF ARGUMENTS          :   06.08.2016
              DATE OF JUDGMENT           :   29.09.2016



CC No.26/11                                           1/246
                                     2


JUDGMENT

1. Both the accused persons namely Sh. Yashdeep Singh Kataria and Smt. Seema Kataria were charge­sheeted by the CBI for the offences punishable under Sections 13(2) r/w  13   (1)(e)   of  the  Prevention  of  Corruption  Act,  1988 and Section 109 IPC. Both accused persons were put on trial.

CASE OF THE PROSECUTION  

2. The present case was registered on 09.05.2000 for the offences   punishable   under   Section   13(2)   read   with Section   13(1)(e)   of   the   PC   Act,   1988   and   Section   109 IPC,   against   accused   Seema   Kataria   and   accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria. This FIR was registered on the basis  of   written complaint  submitted by Inspector   H.  S. Karmayal, CBI,  ACB,  New Delhi.  The search pertaining CC No.26/11 2/246 3 to RC No. 23(A) / 2000 was conducted at the residence of accused Ms. Seema and accused Sh. Yashdeep Singh Kataria,   at   House   No.   C­85,   Sector   41,   Noida.     It   was alleged in the complaint that during the said search, huge assets including cash of Rs.16.4 lacs approximately and other   movable   properties   were   recovered.     Immovable properties   of   the   accused   persons   were   also   revealed during the said search.     It was further alleged that both the accused persons were found in possession of assets disproportionate to the extent of Rs.47,96,609.00 to their known sources of income.

3. It   was   further   alleged   that   in   the   year   1994   accused Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria   had   joined   services   as   I.I.S. Officer   in   All   India   Radio,   Ministry   of   Information   & CC No.26/11 3/246 4 Broadcasting.   In   the   year   1996   he   was   married   to accused   Seema.     She   worked   as   Technical   Officer   in Delhi College of Engineering from December 1994 till 22 nd May   1998.   Thereafter,   she   joined   as   Assistant Environmental   Engineer   in   Delhi   Pollution   Control Committee.  It was further alleged that the total income of both   the   accused   persons   was   assessed   as Rs.10,50,000/­   against   the   assets   of   more   than Rs.54,96,609/­,   which   were   mainly   acquired   during   the period 1996­2000.  

4. It   was   alleged   that   for   the   purposes   of   calculation   of Disproportionate Assets, the check period has been taken from   09.12.1996     (the   date   of   marriage   of   both   the accused persons) to 04.05.2000  (the date of search).  It CC No.26/11 4/246 5 was   further   alleged   that   after   their   marriage   on 09.12.1996,   the   assets   of   both   the   accused   persons started   swelling   up.     Before   this,   both   the   accused persons   were   not   having   much   assets.     Therefore,   the said   check   period   was   considered   for   computation   of Disproportionate Assets.  

5. The   following   assets   were   held   by   both   the   accused persons before the check period:­ S. NO. Particulars Amount

01.  Balance   in   A/c   GLSB   47558   in   the Rs.501.00  name of Ms. Seema in Canara Bank, Janpath, New Delhi. 

02.  Balance   in   A/c   975   belonging   to   Sh. Rs.2,344.00  Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria   in   Central Bank   of   India,   Aruna   Asaf   Ali   Marg, Indian   Institute   of   Mass Communication. 

CC No.26/11 5/246 6

03.  Loan   from   Bank   of   America, Rs.2,14,000.00 November   1996   for   purchase   of   car.

Repayment   of   which   made   during check   periods   has   been   taken   as asset of the accused. 

                                              Total Rs.2,16,845.00

6. During the check period, the following income of both the accused persons was calculated which is as under:­ S. NO. Particulars Amount

01.  Income   of   accused   Seema,   while Rs.1,15,135.00 working as Technical Officer in Delhi College   of   Engineering   from December, 96 to May, 1998. 

02.  Income   of   accused   Seema   from Rs.2,58,774.00  DPCC, ISBT, Delhi. 

03.  Medical   reimbursement   made   to Rs.22,415.00 accused Seema till 03.05.2000.

04.  Salary/   Income   of   accused Rs.4,43,145.00 Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria   from December, 1996 to 30.04.2000.  

CC No.26/11 6/246 7

05.  Loan from HDFC for house building. Rs.8,00,000.00

06. Balance   in   SB   account   no.975   in Rs.1,222.00 Central Bank of India in the name of accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria. 

07. Balance in GLSB account no.47558 Rs.4,695.00 in   Canara   Bank   in   the   name   of accused Seema Kataria. 

08. Balance   in   account   no.   43263   in Rs.495.00 PNB,   Kashmere   Gate,   Delhi   in   the name of accused Seema Kataria. 

09. Balance in account no. 44717, Bank Rs.5.00 of   India,   Parliament   Street,   New Delhi   in   the   name   of   accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria. 

10. Balance in SB account no. 40518 in Rs.2,677.00 SBI,   ISBT,   in  the   name   of   accused Seema Kataria. 

                                              Total Rs.16,48,563.00

7. During the check period, the following expenditures were incurred by both the accused persons:­ CC No.26/11 7/246 8

(i)   VERIFIABLE EXPENSES.

S. NO. Particulars Amount

01.  Purchase from Nanz Lobill Stores vide Rs.1,045.80 Bill No. 4542 dated 03.05.2000. 

02.  Furnishing   purchased   from   Jagdish Rs.44,282.00 Stores   vide   CM   Nos.   1832   dated 28.03.2000 and 5961, 14206, 14306, 14005,   14006   and   14007   dated 09.04.2000. 

03.  Contribution   in   fund   maintained   by Rs.2,000.00 Residents   Welfare   Association, Sector­41, Noida. 

04.  Zen Seat cover purchased from Auto Rs.3,200.00 Accessories,   895/C­8,   Dada   Bari, Mehrauli,   New   Delhi   vide   receipt dated 21.02.2000.  

05.  Purchase   of   clothes   from   Petal's Rs.2,680.00  children wear, G­2, Sector­18, Noida, vide   memo   no.   1277   dated 20.01.2000. 

CC No.26/11 8/246 9

06. Purchase of kids wear and new born Rs.2,309.00 baby   accessories   from   New   Kids show room, 6/91, Padam Singh Road, Karol  Bagh,  New  Delhi  vide  CM No. 145891 & 146004 dated 29.11.1997. 

07. Purchase of cycle from Rajesh Cycle Rs.1,200.00 Trading   Company,   G­131,   Sector   9, Noida   vide   bill   no.   859   dated 01.03.2000. 

08. Amount   paid   to   the   Cashier,   Kailash Rs.150.00 Hospital, Sector 27, Noida vide receipt no. 84525 dated 25.03.2000. 

09. Repair   of   Scooter   from   Federal Rs.1,010.00 Motors,  9  Scindia   House,   New  Delhi vide   CM   No.   165949   dated 21.02.2000. 

10. Premium   paid   to   Oriental   Insurance Rs.366.00 Company, 7678, Singh Sabha Road, New   Delhi   by   accused   Seema   for insurance of Vehicle no. DL­2SL­0818 via policy no. 97.61900 vide collection no. 9017 dated 31.03.1997. 

CC No.26/11 9/246 10

11. For the insurance of Vehicle No. DL­ Rs.10,240.00 7C­5999   vide   policy   no.   97/6017, collection   receipt   no.   9019   dated 31.03.1997. 

12. Amount spent for repair / services of Rs.18,439.00 Vehicle no. DL­7C­5999 (Zen) of Sh.

Yashdeep   Singh   R/o   D­1/1404, Vasant   Kunj,   New   Delhi   (from 22.04.1997   to   20.02.1999)   from Competent   Automobiles,   895/C­8, Mehrauli, New Delhi. 

13. Amount paid to Motor Craft India Pvt. Rs.5,000.00 Ltd. F­8, Sector 8, Noida for repair / services   of   Vehicle   no.   DL­7C­5999 (Zen) by Sh. Yashdeep Singh R/o C­ 85, Sector 41, Noida vide receipt no.

5787   Bill   no.271427   dated 01.03.2000. 

14. Purchase   of   Water   purifier   from   Ion Rs.21,500.00 Exchange India Ltd., F­10, Sector 39, Noida. 

CC No.26/11 10/246 11

15.  Amount spent for subscription of Gas Rs.2,459.00 from   Noida   Gas   Agency,   Sector   18, Noida. 

16. Purchase   of   Samsung   AC   from   City Rs.33,600.00 Palace Electronics, Sector 18, Noida, vide   Invoice   No.59089   dated 15.04.2000. 

17. Medical Bills of accused Seema which Rs.22,415.00 she had paid till 03.05.2000. 

18. Amount   paid   as   remaining   partial Rs.2,853.00 payment   for   the   purchase   of   Maruti Car   to   Pasco   Automobiles,   Gurgaon vide   Receipt   no.6565   dated 09.01.1997. 

                                              Total Rs. 1,74,748.80

8.      Regarding   the  insurance policy no. 97 / 6107 of vehicle no. DL­7C­5999 for a sum of Rs. 10,240/­ was deposited vide   receipt   no.9019  dated 31.03.1997,  Sh. S.  K.  Saini has revealed that Sh. Yashdeep Singh Kataria (accused) CC No.26/11 11/246 12 has   deposited   this   amount   but   the   signatures   on   the Proposal Form are not of his signature.   Sh. Yashdeep Singh Kataria had signed as S. K. Saini on this Form and the address of his wife was given in this Form.  

(ii) NON VERIFIABLE EXPENSES.

S.NO. Particulars Amount

01.  Non­verifiable miscellaneous household Rs.1,47,715.00 expenses calculated at the rate of 1/3rd of the total salary of Rs.4,43,145/­ of the accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria                                                Total Rs.1,47,715.00

9.     During the check period, the following total expenditures of         both the accused persons were calculated as under:­ Total Expenditure =Verifiable Expenses + Non Verifiable         Expenses. 

           = Rs.1,74,748.80 + Rs.1,47,715.00             = Rs.3,22,463.80 CC No.26/11 12/246 13

10. It was alleged that the following assets were held by both the accused persons during the check period:­ S. NO. Particulars Amount

01.  Value of the house articles found at C­ Rs.36,000.00 85, Sector 41, Noida on 04.05.2000 as (Rs.75,000­ per   the   Observation   Memo.   (The 30,000­7000­ amount mentioned for the purchase of 2000) AC,   Water   Purifier   and   on   children's   clothes   has   been   calculated   in expenditure   head.   Hence   the   same were   subtracted   from   Observation Memo.   The   benefit   of   Rs.2000   on purchase of furnishings and 1200/­ on cycle is not given to the accused. As per the observation memo, these were purchased before 1996­99 whereas in expenditure head similar terms of high value   have   been   shown   to   be purchased in 2000 AD). 

CC No.26/11 13/246 14

02.  Cash   deposits   in   saving   account   no. Rs.2,50,000.00 522­1­118280   in   Standard   Chartered Bank,   Sansad   Marg,   New   Delhi   by Yashdeep Singh Kataria transferred to account   no.   52232609791   & 52231642497 of Sh. Yashdeep Singh Kataria. 

03.  Balance in account no.43263 in PNB, Rs.1,206.00 Kashmere Gate, Delhi in the name of accused   Seema   Kataria   as   on 03.05.2000.  

04.  Balance   in   A/c   GLSB   47558   in   the Rs.83,487.00  name of Ms. Seema in Canara Bank, Janpath, New Delhi as on 03.05.2000. 

05.  Balance in SBI, ISBT, New Delhi in the following deposits of accused Seema  PPF Account No. 019009000092 Rs.89,463.00 SB Account No. 01190040518 Rs.43,180.97 MOD No. 01292040518001 Rs.10,000.00 CC No.26/11 14/246 15

06. Deposits   in   KDR   No.   970081   in Rs.20,000.00 Canara   Bank,   Overseas   Branch,   KG Marg,   New   Delhi   in   the   name   of accused Seema dated 17.01.1997. 

07. Premium   paid   in   LIC   policy   no. Rs.33,371.90 112200574 by accused Seema. 

08. Repayment of Loan to HUDCO Niwas Rs.37,889.00 by   accused   Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria (file no. 533/1999)

09. Premium   paid   in   LIC   policy   no. Rs.9,985.00 112841820, 25­A, Nizamuddin (West), New   Delhi,   by   accused   Yashdeep Singh Kataria. 

10. Premium   paid   in   LIC   policy   no. Rs.9,475.00 112841815, 25­A, Nizamuddin (West), New   Delhi,   by   accused   Yashdeep Singh Kataria. 

11. Investment in IVP/KVP in HPO­SM.  Rs.35,000.00 

12. Investment   in   IVP/KVP   from   GPO, Rs.1,48,000.00  Delhi. 

CC No.26/11 15/246 16

13. Balance   in   account   no.   44717,   BOI, Rs.22,900.00 Parliament   Street,   New   Delhi   in   the name   of   accused   Yashdeep   Singh Kataria. 

14. Repayment   of   loan   to   Bank   of Rs.2,71,002.00   America, 16, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi   by   accused   Yashdeep   Singh Kataria.(account   no.   141942   for   the purchase of Maruti 800 car) 

15.  Bank   balance   in   account   no.   975, Rs.87,460.00 Central  Bank of India, Indian Institute of  Mass   Communication   in  the   name of accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria. 

16. 3   FDRs   No.367638,   370307,   458900 Rs.3,50,000.00 in   the   name   of   accused   Yashdeep Singh Kataria in ABN Amro Bank, 15, Barakhama Road, New Delhi. 

17. Investments made in IDBI flexi bonds Rs.75,000.00 by   accused   Seema   and   accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria. 

CC No.26/11 16/246 17

18. Payments   made   to   GNOIDA   for Rs.5,67,600.00 purchase   of   a   plot   of   500   sq.   yds.

Under MHS­02 scheme. 

19. Payment made to Sh. S. K. Saini for Rs.3,50,000.00 the   purchase   of   Zen   Car   DL7C­5999 during   the   period   December   1996   to January 1998. 

20.  Premium   paid   on   National   Insurance Rs.8,152.00 Policy No. 6103392 dated 14.11.1996 by accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria. 

21.  Purchase of property C­85/41, Noida.  Rs.25,00,000.00

22.  Cash   recovered   and   seized   on Rs.16,43,950.00 04.05.2000   from   the   Bed   room   of accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria and Seema Kataria at the residence at C­ 85, Sector 41, Noida. 

                                              Total Rs.66,83,121.87 The valuation of   the property bearing no. C­85, Sector 41, Noida of accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria was done. CC No.26/11 17/246 18 As per the report of the Technical Expert, the minimum value of the property is Rs.20,67,821/­ as on 22.01.2000. Sh. Lakhi Chand Sharma has admitted that he sold the said house for Rs.25 lacs to accused   Yashdeep Singh Kataria, who paid Rs.9.60 lacs by way of cheque and the remaining   amount   of   Rs.15.4   lacs   in   cash   was   paid   to him.   It   included   the   transfer   charges   of   Rs.57,560/­, Stamp   fees   of   Rs.1,35,000/­   and   Registration   fees   of Rs.5,050/­. 

11. In   view   of   the   above   facts,   the   calculation   of Disproportionate Assets was made by the CBI as under:­ Assets before check period Rs.2,16,845.00 Income during check period.  Rs.16,48,563.00 Expenditure during check period.  Rs.3,22,463.80 Total Savings Rs.15,42,944.20 CC No.26/11 18/246 19 Disproportionate Assets =Total Assets - Total Savings. 

  =Rs.66,74,968.87 - Rs.15,42,944.20    = Rs.51,32,024.67

12. It   was   alleged   that   during   the   course   of   search,   no document pertaining to the sale of property i.e. House No. C­85,   Sector   41,   Noida   was   recovered.   However, accused persons attempted to create false document to justify the possession of the cash amount of Rs.16.4 lacs. During   the   investigation,   an   Agreement   to   Sell   was produced.   It was mentioned in the said Agreement that Sh. Raghuvir Singh has purchased the said property for a consideration of Rs. 23 lacs.  However, investigation has proved   it   to   be   a   false   document.     Investigation   was conducted with respect to the Notary, who notarized the Agreement  to  Sell and the Stamp papers on which the CC No.26/11 19/246 20 said agreement was signed.   The documents of Stamp Vendor   and   Notary   were   not   properly   maintained   and deliberately   spaces   were   left   blank   where   subsequent insertions could be made.  

13. Investigation   has also  revealed  that  accused  Yashdeep Singh Kataria has also taken house loan of Rs.8 lacs from HUDCO   Niwas   for   the   purchase   of   the   aforementioned house   in   Noida.     As   per   the   agreement   between   the HUDCO   and   accused   Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria,   unless and   until   the   loan   amount   was   fully   repaid,   accused Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria   could   not   have   sold   or mortgaged the said property to anyone. 

14. It was alleged that Sh. Yashdeep Singh Kataria and Ms. CC No.26/11 20/246 21 Seema   Kataria   both   being   public   servants   have   been jointly   and   severally   found   to   be   in   possession   of disproportionate assets worth Rs.51,32,024.67 and found to have committed an offence punishable under Section 13(2)   read   with   Section   13(1)   (e)   of   Prevention   of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 109 of IPC.  Sanctions for prosecution of accused Seema Kataria and accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria were granted by the respective Competent Authorities.  

15. Accused persons were summoned to appear in the Court.

After their appearance, copies were supplied to them in compliance of Section 207 of Cr. P. C. 

16. Vide Order dated 22.11.2005, it was ordered that charge CC No.26/11 21/246 22 under Section 13(1)(e) punishable under Section 13(2) of PC Act, read with Section 120­B of IPC with substantive charge under Section 13(1)(e) punishable under Section 13(2)   of   PC   Act   be   also   framed   against   accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria.   On 15.12.2005 charges were framed   against   accused   Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria   and accused   Seema   Kataria  under   Section  120­B   IPC  read with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (e) of PC Act. Substantive charge under Section 13(2) read with section 13(1)   (e)   of   PC   Act,   1988   was   also   framed   against accused   Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria.     Both   the   accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 

17. To prove the charges against the accused persons,  CBI examined   29   witnesses.  Thereafter,   Statements   of   the CC No.26/11 22/246 23 accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. The accused persons have examined 10 witnesses in their defence.  

EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION

18. PW­1 is Sh. Kartar Chand.  He deposed that in the year 1999­2000,   he   was   working   as   Sales   Manager   in   M/s. Petals Children Wears situated at G­2, Sector­ 18, Noida, U.P. He identified his handwriting and signature on letter dated 19.06.2000 (D­8), which is  Ex. PW­1/A.  He stated that vide Cash Memo No. 1277 dated 20.01.2000, they had   sold   ready­made   garments   worth   Rs.2,680/­   after giving   discount   of   50%.       He   further   deposed   that   the contents of the letter Ex. PW­1/A were approved by his employer.  

CC No.26/11 23/246 24

19. PW­2   is   Sh.   S.   K.   Arora,   Deputy   Secretary.    He deposed that in the year 2003, he was posted as Under Secretary in the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Vigilance   Section.   He   further   deposed   that   accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria is an officer of Indian Information Service.  The President of India is the authority competent to   remove   accused   Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria   from   the services.  A detailed report of the CBI along with copy of FIR,   statements   of   witnesses   and   relevant   record   was received   from   the   CBI,   for   grant   of   Sanction   for prosecution   against   accused   Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria. He   put   the   file   before   his   Director.     The   Sanction   for prosecution of the accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria was granted.     He   further deposed that the Sanction Order CC No.26/11 24/246 25 Ex. PW­2/A was prepared and authenticated by him on the   basis   of   the   orders   passed   by   the   Minister   for prosecution   of   the   accused.     He   deposed   that   he   was competent   to   authenticate   the   Sanction   for   prosecution under the Rules of authentication.  

20. PW­3 is Sh. Sandeep Kataria.   He deposed that from 11.02.1999 to 20.08.2005, he was working as Customer Care   Manager   with   M/s.   Competent   Automobiles Company   Ltd.,   situated   at   A­95/C8,   Near   Jain   Mandir, Dadabadi, Mehrauli.   He deposed that Zen Car No. DL­ 7C 5999 owned by accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria R/o D­1/1404,   Vasant   Kunj   used   to   be   repaired   in   their workshop.   He identified his signature on letter Ex. PW­ 3/A,   which   was   written   to   DSP   Nirbhay   Kumar   of   CBI CC No.26/11 25/246 26 regarding the information of the details of the repair work undertaken in their workshop.  He further deposed that 10 computerized   duplicate   bills   Ex.   PW­3/P1   to   P10   were issued by their workshop to the Investigating Officer. The said bills used to be issued as per the job done in respect of the vehicle.  He further identified the Bill / Cash Memo dated   20.02.2000   Ex.   P­54.     He   also   identified   his signatures   on   Memo   Ex.   PW­3/B   vide   which   he   had handed   over   the history of vehicle  no. DL­7C­5999 Ex. PW­3/C   (running   into   5   sheets)   and   the   copies   of   the above said duplicate bills to the Investigating Officer on 27.06.2000. Same were seized by DSP Nirbhay Kumar. He further deposed that the vehicle history Ex. PW­3/C contains the details of the repair and the service of the vehicle   till   21.02.2000   when   the   vehicle   was   repaired. CC No.26/11 26/246 27 The Engine number and the Chasis number of Maruti Zen are   also   mentioned   in   the   said   history.     PW­3   Sh. Sandeep Kataria further deposed that accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria was member of Vasant Kunj Maruti Owners Club vide Membership Card No. 727, which is Ex. PW­ 3/D.  

21. PW­4 is Sh. Om Parkash Malhotra.   He deposed that in the   year   2000,   he   was   working   as   Senior   Assistant   in Oriental   Insurance   Company   Ltd.,   7678,   Singh   Sabha Road, Delhi­110007.  He had produced Cover Note of two wheeler no. DL­2SL­0818 (Ex. P­53) in the name of Ms. Seema.  He had also produced Cover Note of Maruti Zen bearing   no.   DL­7C­5999,   which   is   Ex.   PW­4/A   in   the name   of   Mr.   S.   K.   Saini   for   the   period   31.03.1997   to CC No.26/11 27/246 28 30.03.1998.     He   identified   the   Receipt   Ex.   PW­4/B   for payment of Rs.10,240/­ and  the  Proposal  Form Ex. PW­ 4/C for obtaining Insurance Policy of Maruti Zen no. DL­ 7C­5999,   which   were   submitted   by   the   Insured.   He identified his signature on Production cum Seizure Memo Ex. PW­4/D vide which the above said documents were taken into possession by DSP Nirbhay Kumar.  

22. PW­5 is Sh. Rajesh Girdhar.    He deposed that he was Proprietor of M/s. Rajesh Cycle Trading Company at G­ 131, Sector­9, Noida.  He identified the bill no.859 dated 01.03.2000 (D­49) (Ex. P­51), which was issued by him towards   the   sale   of   one   cycle   to   Sh.   Yashdeep   Singh Kataria, resident of House No. C­85/41, Noida.  

23. PW­6 is Dr. Neeraj Kumar.   In the year 2000, he was CC No.26/11 28/246 29 Treasurer of the Residents Welfare Association of Sector 41, Noida.   He identified his signature on letter Ex. P­1 (D­7), which was issued by him to CBI on 20.06.2000.  He further   deposed   that   vide   the   said   letter,   he   sent intimation   to   the   CBI   about   the   payments   made   by accused   Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria   towards   membership fee,   development   fee,   maintenance   fee   for   the   period from   November   1999   to   April   2000.     He   identified   his signature   on   the   Receipt   (Ex.   P­49)   (D­70),   which   was issued by the Residents Welfare Association to accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria on 28.04.2000 for Rs.100/­ for the month of April 2000 towards maintenance.  

24. PW­7 is Sh. Deepak Ganju.    He  deposed that from the year   1995   to   2005   he   worked   as   Manager   in   Jagdish CC No.26/11 29/246 30 Stores, 39, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar­III, New Delhi.   He identified his signature on letter dated 18.06.2000 (D­6), which   is   Ex.   PW­7/A   and   which   was   sent   to   the Investigating Officer.  He further deposed that an amount of   Rs.44,282/­   has   been   received   against   eight   Cash Memos dated 28.03.2000 and 09.04.2000, which are Ex. PW­7/B1 to Ex. PW­7/B8 (D­45).  The said Cash Memos were issued by Jagdish Stores.  He further deposed that Cash Memo for Rs.33849/­ is of 28.03.2000 and the other cash memos are of 09.04.2000 amounting to Rs.4320/­, Rs.2980/­,   Rs.1056/­,  Rs.  637/­,  Rs.200/­,  Rs.200/­  and Rs.1040/­. He further deposed that the goods mentioned in the cash memos were taken by the customer.  

25. PW­8 is Sh. Bhanu Prasad.  He deposed that since the CC No.26/11 30/246 31 year   1980,   he   was   working   as   Accountant   in   Federal Motors   Pvt.   Ltd.,   9,   Scindia   House,   New   Delhi.     He identified   his   handwriting   and   signature   on   letter   dated 20.06.2000 (Ex. P­2).   He further deposed that the letter was issued by him to the Investigating Officer, regarding the   information   of   booking   of   Kinetic   Scooter   by   Ms. Seema, R/o D­2/41, Kaka Nagar, New Delhi and also in respect of Cash Memo dated 21.02.2000 Ex. PW­8/A (D­

51) of Rs.1,010/­ for some repairs.  

26. PW­9 is Sh. Rohit Chawla.  He deposed that during the year 1997 he was working at New Kids Showroom, 6/91, Padam   Singh   Road,   Karol   Bagh,   Delhi   and   he   was looking   after   the   work   of   sales.     He   identified   his handwriting   and   signature   on   letter   dated   20.06.2000, CC No.26/11 31/246 32 which is Ex. PW­9/A (D­9), of New Kids Karol Bagh.  This letter was  sent to Sh. Nirbhaya Kumar, DSP, CBI, Lodhi Complex, New Delhi with reference to his Notice dated 08.06.2000.  He also identified two Cash Memos of New Kids for Rs.1090/­ and Rs. 1219/­, which are Ex. PW­9/B and Ex. PW­9/C respectively. Vide the said Cash Memos, the goods pertaining to the kids were sold to the customer in cash.

27. PW­10 is Sh. Sonu Sareen.  He deposed that in the year 2000,   he   was   working   as   Assistant   Accountant   in   CT Palace Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Sector 18, Noida.   He used to   look   after   the   accounts.   He   proved   the   Invoice no.59089 dated 15.04.2000 (D­55) (Ex. P­52) for a sum of Rs.33,600/­.  This Invoice has been issued by City Palace CC No.26/11 32/246 33 in respect of Samsung AC along with Logistic Stabilizer. The   customer   has   also   signed   the   said   Invoice.     The amount   has   been   paid   by   the   customer   in   cash.     The purchaser   has   collected   the   goods   after   paying   the amount. He further deposed that on 29.06.2000, he was called in CBI office.  He reported to Sh. Nirbhaya Kumar DSP,   CBI.   In   his   presence,   Sh.   Nirbhaya   Kumar   DSP, CBI obtained a specimen handwriting / signature of Sh. Yashdeep Singh Kataria on 5 different sheets S­1 to S­5.

28. PW­11 is Sh. Raj Kumar Sharma.  In the year 2001, he was working as Manager in IDBI Bank. He deposed that on receiving a Notice under 91 Cr. P. C. from CBI in the present   case,   he   had   personally   gone   through   all   the records regarding the investment made by Smt. Seema CC No.26/11 33/246 34 Kataria and Sh. Yashdeep Singh Kataria in IDBI Flexi­6 Series   of   bonds.   He   identified   the   documents   dated 23.06.2001 (Ex. P­21) (D­33) (containing 3 pages), which shows that the investment was made in Flexi­6 Services Bonds.   The   last   two   pages   were   intimation   dated 23.06.2001 received by IDBI Connaught Place from their Registrar   M/s.   Datamatics   Financial   Software   and Services Ltd. He further deposed that Mrs. Seema Kataria has  invested   Rs.50,000/­   in  Flexi­6  bonds  by  Folio   No. AGIB0711407 and ARIB0449803. The said investment is of 10 bonds of Rs.5,000/­each. Similarly, Sh. Yashdeep Singh Kataria invested Rs. 25,000/­ vide Folio No. AIFB 0008461. The said investment is of 5 bonds of Rs. 5,000/­ each. The bonds were issued on 12.04.1999 by the IDBI in the name of the holders.  

CC No.26/11 34/246 35

29. PW­12 is Sh. D. D. Sharma. He deposed that in the year 2000­2001,   he   was   working   as   Assistant   in   Property Section   of   the   Greater   Noida   Industrial   Development Authority.  He identified the letter Ex. P­22 (D­34), which was   written   by   Greater   Noida   Authority   to   DSP   Sh. Nirbhay Kumar of CBI on 26.06.2001 regarding allotment of   Plot   under   MHS   Scheme­02,   which   is   Ex.   PW­12/B (Ex.   P­29).     He   further   identified   the   letter   dated 23.03.2000 issued by the Authority allotting plot of 500 sq. mtrs.   to   Sh.   Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria   under   MHS­02 against application No.00026 dated 23.03.2000 submitted along with demand draft of Rs.2,40,000/­ vide Challan Ex. P­30 and the Receipt Ex. PW­12/A. The receipt Ex. PW­ 12/C is showing the deposit of amount of Rs.2,40,000/­ with   the   Bank   of   Baroda,   Greater   Noida   Authority.   The CC No.26/11 35/246 36 allottee   was   directed  to  deposit  Rs.3,27,600/­   within  45 days from the date of allotment, which was deposited by him   vide   six   demand   drafts   dated   27.03.2000   vide Receipt (Ex. P­31) of the Bank.  He further deposed that for   the   said   allotment   of   residential   plot,   Sh.   Yashdeep Singh   Kataria   deposited   a   total   sum   of   Rs.5,67,000/­ between 23.03.2000 and 27.03.2000. 

30. PW­13 is Sh. Manoj Sharma.  He deposed that he was working as Accountant in Motor Crafts India Pvt. Ltd., F­8, Sector­8, Noida.  He further deposed that he handed over the   documents   pertaining   to   repairing   of   Vehicle   No. DL7C­5999   mentioned   in   the   Production   cum   Seizure Memo   Ex.   PW­13/A   to   Sh.   Nirbhay   Kumar,   DSP,   CBI. He   also   proved   the   signature   of   Sh.   Jagesh   Desai   on CC No.26/11 36/246 37 letter Ex. PW­13/B.  He proved the Receipt of Rs.5,000/­ (D­54), which is Ex. PW­13/C.   

31. PW­14   is   Sh.  Mahinder  Singh  Chauhan.  He deposed that on 24.12.2001, he was working as Junior Assistant in the   office   of   Assistant   General   Manager   (Residential), Noida   Authority   at   Noida.     On   the   instructions   of   his Assistant General Manager, he handed over the file Ex. PW­14/B   pertaining   to   the   Completion   Certificate   with regard   to   property   No.   C­85,   Sector­41,   Noida,   in   the name of Sh. Madan Lal Prabhakar.   The said certificate was   issued   by   Building   Cell,   Noida,   which   was   seized vide Seizure Memo Ex. PW­14/A.   He also received the copy of Seizure Memo from CBI officer.  He also identified the Site Plan Ex. PW­14/B of the said property.   CC No.26/11 37/246 38

32. PW­15 is Sh. G. D. Dahiya Advocate.    He was Notary Public in Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, from 1987 to 2000.  He deposed   that   vide   Seizure   Memo   Ex.   PW­15/A,   Sh. Nirbhay   Kumar   DSP,   CBI   had   taken   over   Register   Ex. PW­15/B maintained by him under the Rules.  He further deposed   that   vide   entry   at   Serial   no.   61   dated 18.03.2000, he had attested / notarized documents of Sh. Yashdeep Singh Kataria and he had taken the signatures of both the parties namely Sh. Yashdeep Singh Kataria and Sh. Raghubir Singh. 

33. PW­16 is Sh. H. S. Karmayal. He is the Complainant. He deposed   that   on   04.05.2000,   he   was   working   as Inspector, CBI, ACB, New Delhi.   He was authorized by Sh. Nirbhay Kumar, the Investigating Officer to conduct CC No.26/11 38/246 39 searches   under   the   provision   of   165   Cr.   P.   C.   at   the residence   of   Smt.   Seema   Kataria   at   C­85,   Sector   41, Noida.  On 04.05.2000, he along with CBI officials namely Inspector A. K. Singh, Inspector Pawan Kumar, Inspector Seema Pahuja, SI Raja Chatterjee and two independent witnesses namely A. S. Rao and Rajinder Kumar reached at   the   house   of   accused   persons.   They   disclosed   their identities   to   Mrs.   Seema   and   also   the   purpose   of   their visit. The first and second floors of the said house were in possession of Ms. Seema Kataria and her husband Sh. Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria.     Sh.   Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria was not present at the spot but he was called at the spot and he joined the said proceedings. During the search, all the   incriminating   documents   were   seized   vide   Search cum   Seizure   Memo   Ex.   PW­25/B.     During   the   search, CC No.26/11 39/246 40 apart   from   other   documents   related   to   the   investment, expenditure   and   income,   a  cash   of   Rs.16,43,950/­   was recovered   from   the   house   of   the   accused   persons.   An amount of Rs.16,40,000/­ out of the said recovered cash of Rs. 16,43,950/­ was seized and remaining amount was returned to Ms. Seema Kataria to meet her day to day expenses.     He proved the Observation Memo  Ex. PW­ 25/A, which was prepared regarding the details of all the household articles found in possession of Sh. Yashdeep Singh Kataria and Smt. Seema Kataria on the day of the search   in   their   house.   The   said   Memo   also   bears   the signature of other members of the search team and of the accused persons.  

34. PW­16 further deposed that the cash which was seized CC No.26/11 40/246 41 during the search was deposited in the Malkhana of CBI. After   the   search   of   the   house   of   the   accused   persons, they   had   returned   to   CBI   office.   Thereafter,   he   had prepared a scrutiny report.  On the basis of which, he had prepared   a   Complaint   Ex.   PW­16/A   and   submitted   the same to SP, CBI for taking further necessary action.  On the basis of his Complaint Ex. PW­16/A, an FIR Ex. PW­ 16/B   was   registered   against   accused   Yashdeep   Singh Kataria   and   accused   Seema   Kataria   for   having   been found   in   possession   of   assets   disproportionate   to   their known   source   of   income.     As   per   the   FIR,   the   further investigation   of   the   case   was   marked   to   Sh.   Nirbhay Kumar, the then Dy. S.P. 

35. PW­17 is Sh. Sri Kant Saini.  He deposed that he was CC No.26/11 41/246 42 working   as   Development  Officer  in   LIC  since  1987.  He had purchased Maruti Zen Car bearing no. DL­7C­5999 and   sold   the   same   to   the   accused   Yashdeep   Singh Kataria   for   Rs.3.5   lacs.   He   further   deposed   that   he received   payment   in   parts   and   after   receiving   the   full payment, he signed Form 29 and Form 30.   He further deposed that on 29.11.2001, he had given his specimen signatures on four sheets S­6 to S­9,which are Ex. PW­ 17/A (Colly.) before Sh. Nirbhay Kumar DSP, CBI.   He also identified the Registration Certificate of Vehicle no. DL­7C­5999, which is Ex. PW­17/B.  The said vehicle was registered in his name on 07.11.1996.   He deposed that he   was   introduced   by   Professor   Ramesh   Chandra   to accused   Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria.     He   further   deposed that   Professor   Ramesh   Chandra   told   that   vehicle   was CC No.26/11 42/246 43 required   by   Sh.   Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria.     Professor Ramesh Chandra also stood Guarantor for Sh. Yashdeep Singh Kataria.  

36. PW­18 is Sh. N. K. Jain. He deposed that he has worked as JE in CBI to provide technical assistance in technical matters and for valuation report in DA cases. He further deposed that on 09.11.2001 and on 21.12.2001, he along with Investigating Officer Nirbhay Kumar DSP visited the property situated at C­85, Sector 41, Noida and inspected the   same   for  the purpose of valuation as requested by CBI   vide   letter   dated   19.10.2001.     The   building   in question   was   three   storeyed   building   made   up   of   load bearing   construction   over   a   plot   of   180   sq.   meter belonging to Sh. Yashdeep Singh Kataria. He identified CC No.26/11 43/246 44 his   signatures   on   his   report  dated  11.02.2002  Ex.   PW­ 18/A   (Colly.)   (running   into   6   pages)   with   enclosure   Ex. PW­18/B   (Colly.)   (running   into   24   pages).   As   per   his report Ex. PW­18/A, the final cost of property as on the date of purchase is Rs.20,67,821/­. 

37. PW­19 is Ms. Chandra Gupta.   In the year 2000, she was working as Manager in Nanz Lobill Store, K­2, Som Dutt   Towers,   Sector­18,   Noida.   She   identified   the Computerized   Bill   Ex.   PW­19/A,   vide   which   a   sum   of Rs.1,045.80 was received in cash from the customer on 03.05.2000   for   selling  consumer   items  such   as   biscuits etc.  

38. PW­20 is Dr. R. Sharma.  He has worked as a Forensic CC No.26/11 44/246 45 Document   Expert   for   the   last   16   years.     He   examined large number of documents pertaining to different cases and has given his expert independent opinion on them. He further deposed that he had received a letter dated 04.01.2002,  which is Ex. PW­20/A from CBI along with Questioned   Documents   and   Standard   Documents.     He examined the documents carefully and thoroughly.   Vide his opinion dated 07.02.2002, which is Ex. PW­20/B, he came to the conclusion that the writings in the enclosed portions stamped and Marked Q1, S1 to S5 and A1 to A13 have been written by the same person.  He filed the detailed reasoning in support of his opinion in one sheet, which is Ex. PW­20/C.

39. PW­21 is Sh. D. S. Sudhakar.    He deposed that in the CC No.26/11 45/246 46 year 2000, he was posted as Chief Manager at HUDCO Niwas,   Lodhi   Road,  New  Delhi.     He  deposed   that  vide letter  Ex. P­12, he had provided the information to CBI regarding the loan taken by Sh. Yashdeep Singh Kataria and   Ms.   Seema   Kataria.       A     sum     of   Rs.8   lacs   was sanctioned as the loan to them, which was released on 11.01.2000   and  the   loan  outstanding  as  on  03.05.2000 was   Rs.7,95,893/­.     He   further   deposed   that   letter   Ex. PW­21/A   (D­89)   was   written   by   him   to   Sh.   Yashdeep Singh   Kataria   and   Ms.   Seema   Kataria   regarding   the release of loan amount of Rs. 8 lacs on 11.01.2000.  

40. PW­21 further deposed that Ex. PW­21/B is the receipt for pre­EMI   interest   and   EMI   Cheques   for   the   period   from February 2000 to January 2003.  He further deposed that CC No.26/11 46/246 47 in   all   there   were   37   cheques   /   post   dated   cheques   of Rs.10,520/­ each, received vide the said receipt, while the current   cheque   of   pre­EMI   interest   was   Rs.6,329/­.   He also identified the Employment Verification Form Ex. PW­ 21/C, as per the requirement, submitted by the borrower Sh.   Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria.   He   further   identified   the copy   of   Cheque   no.121267   dated   11.01.2000   for   Rs.8 lacs, which is Ex. PW­21/D, drawn in the name of seller Sh. Lakhi Chand Sharma and the same was given to the borrower   as   the   loan   amount,   which   was   disbursed   by way of this cheque. 

41. PW­22 is Sh. Ramesh Chander.  He deposed that he is a native of the Village Mundka.  He had a godown bearing no. 97/3 in Mundka village.  He had let out this godown to CC No.26/11 47/246 48 one   M/s.   Fab   Care   Industries.   He   further   deposed   that after   the   receipt   of   the   Notice   from   the   Delhi   Pollution Control   Committee,   he   had   visited   the   office   of   Delhi Pollution Control Committee at Kashmere Gate, where he had met accused Ms. Seema.   He further deposed that Ms. Seema had asked him to help her in selling of her plot   in   Noida.     He   had   introduced   her   to   Sh.   Raghubir Singh.   Sh. Raghubir Singh had paid the money to Ms. Seema for purchasing the said plot.  He further deposed that Agreement to Sell was executed in his presence and he had also signed the same as a witness.  

42. PW­23 is Sh. Raghubir Singh.   He deposed that some of   his   agricultural   land   had   been   acquired   by   the Government for the construction of the Metro Line and he CC No.26/11 48/246 49 received   the   compensation   for   the   same.     He   has   an account in Corporation Bank, Mundka and he deposited the compensation amount in the said account.    He  had handed  over  his  bank pass  book  Ex.  PW­23/A to an officer of CBI. The said bank pass book was seized by CBI vide Seizure Memo Ex. PW­23/B.  He stated that the accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria executed an Agreement to Sell in his favour for selling his house in Noida.   He paid Rs.7 lacs and after about a month, he paid Rs. 16 lacs to accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria.   This witness did not support the case of the prosecution and he was cross   examined   by   the   Ld.   PP   for   CBI.     In   his   cross examination by the Ld. PP for CBI, he denied that he had executed   the   said   Agreement   to   Sell   with   accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria on the request of Sh. Ramesh CC No.26/11 49/246 50 Chandra   in   order   to   help   accused   Yashdeep   Singh Kataria. 

43. PW­24 is Ms. Naini Jayaseelan.   She deposed that in the year 2002, she was posted as Secretary, Environment and   Forest   cum   Chairperson,   Delhi   Pollution   Control Committee, Government of NCT of Delhi.   She deposed that she was the competent authority as Chairperson of the Delhi Pollution Control Committee to take action for removal   of   Ms.   Seema   Kataria   from   her   service.   She further   deposed  that after  examining  the documents on record   as   well   as   after   due   application   of   mind   as competent   authority,   Sanction   Order   dated 05.04.2002,which is Ex. PW­24/A, was issued by her for sanction of prosecution against Ms. Seema Kataria.  CC No.26/11 50/246 51

44. PW­25   is   Sh.  A. S. Rao.  He deposed that in the year 2000,   he   was   posted   in   Northern   Railways,   Baroda House.     He   deposed   that   Observation   Memo   Ex.   PW­ 25/A was prepared while conducting a search operation at   House   No.   C­85,   Sector­41,   Noida,   which   was   the residence of Ms. Seema.  He was called in the morning to report at CBI Headquarter, Lodhi Road and he was taken along   with   some   other   officials   to   the   house   of   Ms. Seema,   where   the search operation was conducted.  At the   time   of   the   search,   Ms.   Seema   was   present   there. After   the   search   operation,   an   Inventory   was   prepared. The   said   inventory   was   signed   by   all   the   officials,   who were present including himself. He further deposed that during   the   search   operation,   the   articles   and   the CC No.26/11 51/246 52 documents   found   in   the   house   of   accused,   were mentioned   in   the   Search   Memo   Ex.   PW­25/B.     Some articles   and   jewellery   were   handed   over   back   to   Ms. Seema on the same day.  He further deposed that a cash of Rs.16,40,000/­ was also recovered and the same was seized.  Out of the said amount, Rs.3,950/­ was returned to accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria.     He identified his signatures   on   documents   Ex.   P­29,     Ex.   PW­12/B,   Ex. PW­21/DX1,   Ex.   PW­21/DX2,   Ex.   PW­21/A   to   Ex.   PW­ 21/D, Ex. PW­25/C and on Diary (D­85) (Ex. P­47), which were   recovered   during   the   search   of   the   house   of   the accused persons. 

45. PW­26 is Sh. Jeevan Ram Gupta.   He deposed that he was   working   as   an   Accounts   Officer   in   DDA   and   was CC No.26/11 52/246 53 directed by the Chief Accounts Officer, DDA to assist CBI for   three   years   in   ACB,   CBI   for   scrutinizing   DDA   files relating to Housing Scam 2000.   In November 2001, he was working as Accounts Officer and was deputed with DSP   Nirbhay   Kumar   of   CBI.   On   29.11.2001,   in   his presence   specimen   Signatures   and   handwriting   of   one Sh.   Shrikant   Saini   were   taken   on   four   sheets.     He identified his signatures and the specimen handwriting / signature of Sh. Saini on Ex. PW­17/A (Colly. running into 4 pages)(D­79).    

  

46. PW­27 is Sh. S. C. Gupta.   He deposed that in the year 2000,   he   was   posted   as   Sub­Registrar   at   Noida.   He further deposed that the document Ex. P­57 (D­88) is a Sale Deed, which has been executed by Sh. Lakhi Chand CC No.26/11 53/246 54 Sharma in favour of Sh. Yashdeep Singh Kataria.   This Sale   Deed   was   registered   on   22.01.2000   at   Sub­ Registrar's Office at Noida.   He further deposed that on the reverse of the first page of the Sale Deed, there is a Seal   of   the   Sub­Registrar's   office.   This   document   was presented   before   him   for   registration   and   he   had registered the same.   The registration fee of Rs.5,020/­ was also paid for the registration of this document.   He identified his signatures on the Sale Deed (D­88) (Ex. P­

57).

47. PW­28 is Sh. Lakhi Chand Sharma. He deposed that he was the owner of the built up property bearing no. C­85, Sector­41,   Noida   and   he   had   sold   the   same   to   Sh. Kataria.  He further deposed that in the year 2000, he had CC No.26/11 54/246 55 executed   a   Transfer   Cum   Sale   Deed   in   favour   of   Sh. Kataria for selling the property.   He further deposed that as per Sale Deed (Ex. P­57), the property was sold by him to Sh. Kataria for a sum of Rs.10,10,000/­ and the Stamp   papers   for   the   execution   of   the   Sale   Deed amounting   to   Rs.1,35,000/­   were   purchased   by   Sh. Kataria,   who     had   also   paid   the   registration   fee   of Rs.5,020/.  He had not sold the property to Sh. Kataria for a sum of Rs. 25 lacs.   This witness did not support the case of the prosecution and he was cross examined by the Ld. PP for CBI.   In his cross examination by the Ld. PP for CBI, he denied that he sold the said property to Sh. Kataria for Rs. 25 lacs. 

48. PW­29 is Sh. Nirbhay Kumar. He is Investigating Officer CC No.26/11 55/246 56 of the case. He deposed that in the year 2000, he was posted as DSP, Anti Corruption Branch, CBI, New Delhi and   he   was   entrusted  with  the   investigation  of  RC  No. 23(A)/2000   against   Sh.   Ramesh   Chandra,   Ms.   Seema Kataria and others. In that case, on his authorization, Sh. Harish   Karmayal   Inspector,   CBI,   ACB,   New   Delhi, conducted search at House No. C­85, Sector 41, Noida i.e.   residential   premises  of  Sh.  Yashdeep  Singh  Katara and Smt. Seema Kataria. The Search cum Seizure Memo Dated 04.05.2000 was prepared, which is Ex. PW­25/B. An Observation Memo Ex. PW­25/A was prepared by Sh. Harish Karmayal.  He further deposed that on the basis of above   Search   cum   Seizure   Memo,   Observation   Memo and   other   documents,   the   Complaint   Ex.   PW­16/A   was filed by Sh. Harish Karmayal against Sh. Yashdeep Singh CC No.26/11 56/246 57 Kataria and Ms. Seema Kataria. The said complaint was addressed to SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi. On the basis of the said complaint, an FIR Ex. PW­16/B was registered and the same was marked to him for investigation. 

49. PW­29   further   deposed   that   after   taking   over   the investigation   of   the   case,   he   perused   the   documents recovered   during   the   search   and   called   the   relevant witnesses   to   prove   the   documents   pertaining   to   the income, expenditure and assets of the accused persons. He also examined the complainant and other witnesses related to the present case. He further deposed that vide Production Cum Seizure Memo dated 02.06.2000, which is Ex. PW­29/A, a Register Ex. PW­29/A1 for the sale of Court   Fee   /Stamp Papers was seized  from   Sh. Suresh CC No.26/11 57/246 58 Chand,   Stamp   Vendor,   Tis   Hazari   Courts,   Delhi.   He further deposed that vide Production cum Seizure Memo dated 02.06.2000, which is Ex. PW­15/A, he had seized Entry  Register  of documents Ex. PW­15/B notarized by Notary G. D. Dahiya at Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. 

50. PW­29 further deposed that during the investigation, he had received letters Ex. PW­7/A (D­6),  Ex. PW­1/A (D­8), Ex. PW­9/A  (D­9)  and Ex. P­2 (D­10)  pertaining to few Cash Memos recovered from the residence of Yashdeep Singh Kataria.   He had also received letter Ex. P­1 (D­7) pertaining   to   the   details   of   the   amount   paid   by   Sh. Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria   to   the   Residents   Welfare Association while residing in House No. C­85, Sector 41, Noida.     He   had   also   received   letter   Ex.   P­3   (D­14) CC No.26/11 58/246 59 pertaining   to   the   Service   Book   of   Sh.   Yashdeep   Singh Kataria.   Along with this letter, he had also received two enclosures   along   with   the   Service   Book.     He   also received letter Ex. PW­3/A (D­15) pertaining to the total amount spent by Sh. Yashdeep Singh Kataria on vehicle no. DL­7C­5999(Zen).  

51. PW­29 DSP Sh. Nirbhay Kumar identified his signatures on the documents Ex. P­4 (D­16) to  Ex. P­28 (D­40)  and Ex.   PW­14/A   (D­56),   which   he   had   seized   /   received during   the   course of investigation.    He  further  deposed that   he   had   seized   the   documents   vide   the   Seizure Memos Ex. PW­4/D, Ex. PW­3/B and Ex. PW­13/A (D­11 to D­13) respectively.   On 29.06.2000, he had taken the specimen   handwritings   of   Sh.   Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria, CC No.26/11 59/246 60 which are Ex. PW­10/1 to Ex. PW­10/5, in the presence of independent witness Sh. S. Sareen.   On 29.11.2001, he had also taken the specimen handwritings of Sh. Sri Kant Saini,   which   are   Ex.   PW­17/A   (Colly.)   (D­79),   in   the presence of independent witness. He further deposed that the   documents   along   with   questioned   documents   were sent   to   GEQD,   Simla   for   the   opinion   of   handwriting expert. 

52. PW­29   further   deposed   that   he   had   marked   admitted writing of Sh. Yashdeep Singh Kataria from A­1 to A­13 on various pages of the Personal File of Sh. Yashdeep Singh Kataria (Ex. P­48) (D­81) and the same was sent to the GEQD, Simla for the handwriting opinion along with specimen   writings   and   questioned   writings.     He   had CC No.26/11 60/246 61 received  the  GEQD opinion dated 07.02.2002, which is Ex. PW­20/AB (D­80). He further deposed that based on the   finding   of   the   investigation,   a   report   along   with   the relied upon documents and the statements of witnesses were sent to the competent authorities for obtaining the Sanction   for   prosecution   of   both   the   accused   persons. On   receipt   of   Sanction   for   prosecution   of   both   the accused persons, the charge sheet was filed in the court along with all the relevant documents.    

STATEMENTS UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. OF ACCUSED PERSONS.

53. After   closing   the   Prosecution   Evidence,   all   the incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons for CC No.26/11 61/246 62 their explanation, under Section 313 Cr. P. C.  It has been submitted by the accused persons that they have been falsely implicated in the present case.  They have denied the   allegations   against   them.   They   alleged   that   the investigation   was   not   conducted   fairly.     Accused Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria   alleged   that   his   specimen handwriting   was   not   taken.     Both   the   accused   persons have alleged that the witnesses have deposed under the pressure of CBI.  

54. The accused persons have stated in their statements that Dr.   Sanjeev   Kumar,   who   is   husband   of   the   sister   of accused Seema, was practicing in Bulandshahar till the year 1999.   Dr. Sanjeev Kumar was planning to shift to Delhi for his medical practice in or around Delhi and had CC No.26/11 62/246 63 applied   for   Governments   job   in   Delhi   Government Hospitals.  Dr. Sanjeev Kumar had given them an amount of Rs.5 lacs during the period from September 1999 to November 1999 for jointly purchasing a residential house with two floors or units, in Noida. The said amount of Rs. 5 lacs was deposited in cash by accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria in his account, as per Ex. P­5 (D­17) and Ex. P­20 (D­32) for purchasing a joint house in Noida.  Thereafter, accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria applied for Home Loan of Rs. 8 lacs for purchasing house worth Rs.10,10,000/­. The   loan   was   sanctioned   in   the   name   of   accused Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria   and   his   wife   accused   Seema Kataria   as   co­applicant.   Property   documents   were registered   in   the   name   of   accused   Yashdeep   Singh Kataria   as   the   loan   was  not   advanced     to   Dr.   Sanjeev CC No.26/11 63/246 64 Kumar. The amount of Rs. 5 lacs given by Dr. Sanjeev Kumar, was   not utilized as the property was purchased by taking the loan from HUDCO.  A personal loan of Rs. 5 lacs from family friend Sh. Ram Kishan Kadiyan S/o Sh. Dhan Singh, R/o Village Biholi, Near Samalkha, District Panipat, was also procured by accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria   in   October/November   1999,   before   applying   for the   Home   Loan   from   HUDCO.   This   friendly   loan   was taken   from   Sh. Ram  Kishan  and  the  same  was    to  be utilized in case the Home Loan was not sanctioned or it was   delayed.   The   Home   Loan   was   approved   in December 1999 and was disbursed in January 2000.  The personal loan was partially utilized i.e. only up to Rs. 4 lacs.     The   personal  loan  has   since   been   repaid   to  Sh. Ram Kishan Kadiyan.  

CC No.26/11 64/246 65

55. It has been further stated by the accused persons in their statements that the house bearing No. C­85, Sector 41, Noida, was occupied jointly by them and the family of Dr. Sanjeev Kumar.  They were residing on the first floor and Dr.   Sanjeev   Kumar   was   residing   on   the   ground   floor. However, it was decided to dispose off this house and to purchase separate houses by sharing the profit out of the sale of the said house.  From the sale of the said house to Sh.   Raghubir  Singh, the first advance payment of Rs.7 lacs was received and the same was invested in a plot of 500 sq. mtrs. in Greater Noida.  Out of the said Rs. 7 lacs, an amount of Rs.2,40,000/­ (Ex. P­30) was deposited with Greater Noida Authority on 23.03.2000 and Rs. 3,27,000/­ on   30.03.2000   (Ex.   P­31).   The   remaining   amount   of Rs.1,30,000/­   was   deposited   in   the   bank   by   accused CC No.26/11 65/246 66 Yashdeep Singh Kataria in his account (Ex. P­20 and Ex. P­17) (D­32 and D­29).   Another amount of Rs. 16 lacs was   received   from   Sh.   Raghubir   Singh   on   28.04.2000. The said amount was seized from their house in RC No. 23A/2000   on   04.05.2000.     It   has   been   stated   by   the accused persons that the said money of Rs. 16 lacs is of accused   Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria.   Accused   persons further stated in their statements that accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria executed a Power of Attorney in favour of Smt. Alka w/o Dr. Sanjeev Kumar. This Power of Attorney was in respect of the newly acquired property allotted to accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria in Greater Noida.  As all their  accounts and money were seized by the CBI and they   were   not   in   a   position   to   repay   Rs.   5   lacs   to   Dr. Sanjeev Kumar, which he had given to them.   Accused CC No.26/11 66/246 67 persons further stated in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C.,   that an amount of Rs.1.50 lacs, which was to be paid on account of loan of Maruti Car 800   bearing   No.   HR­26D­7050   was   paid   to   Bank   of America   by   Sh.   Pradeep   Kataria,   the   elder   brother   of accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria on 23.03.1998.  The car loan was taken by accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria with the   support   of  his brother.   The car  was used for  their ailing   father,   who   expired   on   29.01.1998.     It   was   then decided to clear the balance loan by Sh. Pradeep Kataria, the brother of accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria.  Both the accused persons were staying jointly at the residence of the brother of accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria after their marriage   till  January 2000.    On  02.12.1996  (before the check period), the installment of Rs.8,312/­ for car loan CC No.26/11 67/246 68 was repaid by the accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria. 

56. Accused persons have further stated in their statements that   at   the   time   of   their   marriage   on   09.12.1996,   they received   an   amount   of   approximately   2.5   lacs   as Shagun  /  Gifts. The Maruti Zen car bearing DL­7C­5999 was gifted to them by Sh. Hira Lal, the paternal uncle of accused  Seema.   Sh. Hira Lal purchased this car from Sh. S. K. Saini in the first week of November 1996.  They received the cash of about Rs. 30,000/­ in October 1997 as  Godbharai regarding the birth of their son.   Again on, the Godbharai of their second son, they received the cash of Rs.60,000/­ approximately.  

57. They   further   stated   in   their   statements   that   accused CC No.26/11 68/246 69 Seema   had   invested  an  amount   of   Rs.25,000/­   in   SRF Finance Ltd. in June 1995, which matured in July 1997 and the same was deposited vide cheques Ex. P­8.  The said savings were prior to the check period.  The accused Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria   sold   his   motorcycle   to   his younger brother Sh. Mandeep Kataria vide receipt dated 04.09.1999   and   was   transferred   in   the   name   of   Sh. Mandeep   Kataria   on   07.09.2000.     Sh.   Mandeep   had taken a vehicle loan from his Department for purchasing the said motorcycle. 

58. The   accused   persons   have   further   stated   in   their statements   that   accused   Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria received an amount of Rs.1,09,668/­ from his Department on account of reimbursement of medical bills of his father. CC No.26/11 69/246 70 The   medical   expenses   of     illness   of   his   father   were incurred by his father from his own sources.   They have also stated that the accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria has ancestral   land   in   District   Jind,   Haryana.   With   his agricultural income, he has invested a sum of Rs.25,000/­ in Kisan Vikas Patra in March 2000.  

59. Accused persons have stated in their statements that the investments   made   by   accused   Seema   in   the   form   of Indira Vikas Patra  of Rs. 38,000/­ dated 23.10.1997 (Ex. P­40 and Ex. P­43) (D­63 and D­66), Rs.1,10,000/­ dated 08.03.1999   (Ex.   P­41)   (D­64)   and   Rs.   10,000/­   dated 19.03.1999 (Ex. P­42) (D­65) were in fact the investments made   by   Smt.   Maya   Devi,   mother   of   accused   Seema. This was so done for the benefits of Ms. Meenakshi, who CC No.26/11 70/246 71 was   the   youngest   daughter   of   Smt.   Maya   Devi.     Ms. Meenakshi was 100% handicapped.  Ms. Meenakshi was beneficiary / nominee of all the said instruments, which were   kept   with   accused   Seema.     The   accused   Seema was   holding   the   said   instruments   as   custodian   of   her sister's assets.   Accused Seema invested the money of Smt. Maya Devi in FDRs Ex. P­10 (D­22), Ex. P­33 (D­

57).   The said investments were also for the benefits of Ms. Meenakshi.  Accused Seema's diary Ex. P­47 (D­85) also reflects the same.   Both the accused persons have stated that the Sanction to prosecute them is not valid in the eyes of Law.  

EVIDENCE LED BY ACCUSED PERSONS. 

60. In   their   defence   evidence,   accused   persons   have examined 10 witnesses in all.

CC No.26/11 71/246 72

61. DW­1 is Dr. Kamaal Singh. He deposed that in the year 2003   he   had   retired   as   Deputy   Director,   Horticulture, Municipal Corporation of Delhi. He further deposed that Mrs.   Seema   Kataria   is   the   daughter   of   his   friend Professor Dr. Chandra.   Sh. Yashdeep Singh Kataria is the husband of Ms. Seema Kataria.  He had attended the marriage of Ms. Seema Kataria. He further deposed that he had gone with the family of Professor Chandra to the village of Sh. Yashdeep Singh Kataria in District Rohtak, Haryana for attending the  Sagai  of Ms. Seema.   In the Sagai, Professor Chandra had given one Zen car to Sh. Yashdeep Singh Kataria.  He had handed over the papers of the said Zen Car to Sh. Yashdeep Singh Kataria.   He has   also   produced   five   photographs   Mark   D­1   to   D­5 regarding   the  Sagai  ceremony   of   Ms.   Seema.   He   had CC No.26/11 72/246 73 taken the said photographs from Mr. Kataria.  

62. DW­2   is   Sh.   Yashpal   Singh.    He   deposed   that   Mrs. Seema   Kataria   is   his   "Chacheri  Behan"   as   well   as   his "Mosseri  Behan".   Sh.   Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria   is   her husband.     He   further   deposed   that   he   had   agricultural land   in   Village   Bhatta   Parsol,   District   Gautam   Budh Nagar.   He had attended all the functions of marriage of Ms. Seema.  He further deposed that his father out of his own   agricultural   income   had   given   Rs.1,51,000/­   in   the Sagai  and he also gave Rs.1,51,000/­ to Sh. Yashdeep Singh Kataria at the time of  Lagan.   He further deposed that   his   father   has   2   hectares   of   agricultural   land   and father of Seema has also 2 hectares of agricultural land. The   relevant   record   in   this   regard   is   Mark   D­6.     He CC No.26/11 73/246 74 applied Teeka to Sh. Yashdeep Singh Kataria at the time of Sagai and Lagan.  The photographs in this regard are Mark D­7 to D­10. He further deposed that at the time of marriage of Ms. Seema Kataria, his father was alive and he passed away on 26.01.2013. 

63. DW­3 is Sh. Joginder Singh Mann. He was working as Administrative   Officer,   News   Service   Division,   All   India Radio, New Broadcasting House, Parliament Street, New Delhi. He has also brought the summoned Cash Book for the  period  from 28.07.1999 to 31.03.2000. He deposed that the entry relating to the Voucher No. 382 was on the receipt side made on 13.10.1999 at Page No. 48 and its corresponding entry on the payment side is on Page No. 55 dated 20.10.1999.   Photocopies of entries relating to CC No.26/11 74/246 75 Voucher   No.   382   are   Ex.   DW­3/A1   and   Ex.   DW­3/A2 respectively.  He further deposed that the entry relating to the Voucher No. 489 was on the receipt side made on 14.12.1999 at Page No. 89 and its corresponding entry on the payment side is on Page No. 94 dated 20.12.1999. The photocopies of entries relating to Voucher No. 489 were   Ex.   DW­3/B1   and   Ex.   DW­3/B2   respectively.   He further   deposed   that   the   payment   of   Rs.57,852/­   was made with regard to the Voucher No. 382 and payment of Rs. 51,816/­ was made with regard to the Voucher No.

489.     Both   these   vouchers   related   to   medical reimbursement to Sh. Yashdeep Singh Kataria, who was serving as News Editor with News Services Division of All India Radio.

   CC No.26/11 75/246 76

64. DW­4 is Sh. Pradeep Singh Kataria.   He deposed that Sh. Yashdeep Singh Kataria is his younger brother and they belonged to District Jind, Haryana.  They are seven brothers and three sisters.   His father Sh. A. S. Kataria was a  Head  Master in a Government School, who had expired   in   January   1998.     At   the   time   of   death   of   his father, they had about 8 acres of agricultural land in their native   village   in   District   Jind.     He   further   deposed   that before   marriage,   he   and   Sh.   Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria were   staying  together in Vasant Kunj, Delhi. They both got married in December 1996. He further deposed that in November 1996 Sh. Yashdeep Singh Kataria was gifted a Maruti   Zen   car   by   the   bride's   maternal   uncle   and   an amount of Rs.1,51,000/­ was given to him by the brother of   the   girl   at   the   time   of   his   engagement.     He   further CC No.26/11 76/246 77 deposed that Sh. Yashdeep Singh Kataria had booked a Financed Maruti 800 car bearing No. HR­26D­7050 in the month   of   October   1996,   the   possession   of   which   was given   to   him   in   November   1996.     He   requested   Sh. Yashdeep Singh Kataria for the usage of the said Maruti 800 car on his marriage in December.  This witness used to   pay   the   monthly   installments   of   the   Bank   to   Sh. Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria.   He   further   deposed   that   in January 1998 Sh. Yashdeep Singh Kataria requested for the payment of the balance amount of the bank regarding the said Maruti 800 car, since he intended to shift with his brother­in­law and buy a new house for securing loan to buy  the   house.    This   witness  paid   Rs.1,40,000/­  in   the month of April 1998 to the Bank of America.   He further deposed that the said vehicle had remained with him till CC No.26/11 77/246 78 2005, thereafter he had sold it off. He deposed that this vehicle   was   registered   in   the   name   of   Sh.   Yashdeep Singh Kataria.  

65. DW­5 is Sh. Mandeep Singh Kataria.   He deposed that Sh. Yashdeep Singh Kataria is his elder brother and Ms. Seema  Kataria is his sister­in­law.   He further deposed that in the year 1994, he had joined Delhi Police as Sub Inspector   and   Sh.   Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria   had   joined Information and Broadcasting Ministry. They belonged to Village Sindhwi Khera, District Jind, Haryana.  They have 58 canals and 6 marlas of agricultural land.   They also have   1   canal   and   4   marla   in  abadi  area.   He   further deposed that the said land was entered in the name of all the brothers as his father had passed away in the year CC No.26/11 78/246 79 1998. The relevant revenue record in this regard is Ex. DW­5/A.  He was managing this property on behalf of his mother, brothers and sisters, who have executed a Power of   Attorney   Ex.   DW­5/B   in   his   favour,   registered   in   the Tehsil   office.   DW­5   further   deposed   that   in   November 1996, Yashdeep Singh Kataria was engaged and in the December 1996 he was married. He further deposed that in the Ring ceremony, his brother had received lot of gifts from   his   in­laws   family.   On   29.11.1996,   at   the   time   of Tikka  ceremony,   Sh.   Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria   had received   Rs.1,51,000/­.   On   03.11.1996,   at   the   time   of Ring  ceremony,   Sh.   Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria   also received   the   same   amount.     At   the   time   of  Tikka ceremony,   one  Hira Lal, Maternal uncle  of  Seema with one Dr. Kamal had gifted a Maruti Zen to his brother Sh. CC No.26/11 79/246 80 Yashdeep.  The papers of the said car and the key were handed over  to Sh. Yashdeep Singh by Dr. Kamal.   In December   1996,   at   the   time   of   his   marriage,   Sh. Yashdeep Singh Kataria had received lot of gifts.   

66. DW­5 further deposed that in July 1999, he had applied to his Department for advance for purchasing a motorcycle. In   August   1999   Police   Headquarter   had   sanctioned   an amount of Rs. 30,000/­ as advance and he had received the same on 05.08.1999.  After the loan was sanctioned, he   had   submitted   a   request   Ex.   PW­5/C   to   his Department   to   purchase   one   motorcycle   DL­6S­2502 from his brother Sh. Yashdeep Singh Kataria. The said request was allowed. He had accordingly purchased the said motorcycle from his brother. He paid Rs. 35,000/­ in CC No.26/11 80/246 81 cash   to   Sh.   Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria.   He   had   also executed a receipt in the favour of Sh. Yashdeep Singh Kataria.  

67. DW­5   further   deposed   that   he   takes   care   of   the agricultural   land.     They   have   an   income   of   about   Rs.4 lacs every year from the said agricultural land.  He further deposed   that   whatever   income   was   there   from   the agricultural land, it was his responsibility to divide the said income amongst all the brothers.  His sisters do not take any share out of the said income. 

68. DW­6   is   Dr.   Sanjeev   Kumar.    He   deposed   that   he   is married to Ms. Alka, who is sister of Ms. Seema Kataria. He deposed that during the period when he was working CC No.26/11 81/246 82 in   Apollo   Hospital,   his   father­in­law   started   searching   a suitable   match   for  his sister­in­law Seema. He assisted his father­in­law in finding a suitable match for her, that is how   he   got   in   touch   with   Sh.   Kataria.     Thereafter,   the other   relationship   developed   between   them   during   the course of time and they became close to each other.  He further deposed that in the year 1999 he planned to shift to   Delhi   and   he   planned   to   purchase   a   house.     The property in Delhi and NCR was quite costly and was not in his reach. Then, he started looking for a bank loan, but he   was  not  having any account in bank at that time in Delhi. He could not get the desired amount of loan. He discussed   the   problem   with   Ms.   Seema   and   Sh. Yashdeep Singh Kataria.   They decided that they would go   for   a   common   house   having   two   floors.     One   floor CC No.26/11 82/246 83 would be occupied by him and the other floor would be occupied by Sh. Yashdeep Singh Kataria and his family. For this purpose, cash of approximately Rs. 5 lacs in two installments was given to Ms. Seema and Sh. Yashdeep Singh   Kataria   through   his   wife   during   the   period   from September 1999 to November 1999.   They had decided to deposit the said money in the account of Sh. Yashdeep Singh Kataria, so that they can earn some interest as well as for the use of the money in future for purchasing the house.  Ultimately they found a built up house bearing No. C­85 Sector 41, Noida. This was two and half storeyed house. The said house was purchased in the name of Sh. Yashdeep Singh Kataria as he had a bank account.  Sh. Yashdeep Singh Kataria was also in Government job and it was easy for him to get the loan. In the end of January CC No.26/11 83/246 84 2000,  Graih  Pravesh  Pooja  was performed.   In February 2000, they shifted there and occupied the ground floor. Sh. Yashdeep and Ms. Seema occupied the first floor of the said house. 

69. DW­6 further deposed that after some time, they decided to dispose off the said property as there were only two bed rooms on each floor.  The guests from their villages used   to   visit   them   for   their   health   problems   and   other reasons.   Accordingly, they had sold the said house to one   Sh.   Raghubir   Singh   of   Mundka   Village   for   a consideration of Rs.25 lacs.   The said amount was kept with   Sh.   Yashdeep   as   they   were   searching   for   new house.  

CC No.26/11 84/246 85

70. DW­6   further   deposed   that   during   the   raid   by   CBI,   the said amount was recovered from the floor of the house, which was occupied by Sh. Yashdeep Singh. He further deposed that they had stopped looking for new houses for them as the amount was seized by CBI.  On his demand of   Rs.   5   lacs,  Sh.   Yashdeep  Singh  Kataria   executed  a Power of Attorney in favour of his wife in respect of the plot,   which   was   allotted   to   accused   Yashdeep   Singh Kataria in Greater Noida by Greater Noida Authority.  

71. DW­6   further   deposed   that   he   had   also   attended   the engagement  ceremony  of  Sh.   Yashdeep  Singh  Kataria. At   the   time   of  Tilak,   Sh.   Yashpal   Singh,   cousin   of   Ms. Seema had gifted Rs. 1,51,000/­.   A car was also gifted by the maternal uncle of Ms. Seema Kataria as "Bhath" in CC No.26/11 85/246 86 the marriage.   DW­6 further deposed that at the time of Lagan  ceremony,   Sh.   Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria   also received   Rs.1,51,000/­   from   Sh.   Yashpal   Singh   as traditional gift.  Sh. Yashdeep Singh Kataria also received Rs.1,51,000/­ at the time of marriage. 

72. DW­7 is Dr. Ramesh Chandra.   He is the father of the accused   Ms.   Seema   and   father­in­law   of   accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria.   He deposed that he had four daughters and no son.   Out of the four daughters, one daughter   was   physically   handicapped,   100%   deaf   and dumb.     She   had   passed   away   in   the   year   2002.     He further   deposed   that   to   secure   the   future   of   their handicapped   daughter,   he   and   his   wife   had   purchased Vikas  Patras  of Rs.1,48,000/­. They kept the said  Vikas CC No.26/11 86/246 87 Patras  in the possession of Ms. Seema Kataria.   DW­7 further deposed that in February 1996, the marriage of his daughter Ms. Seema was fixed with Sh. Yashdeep Singh Kataria for 09.12.1996.  At the time of Roka, a Ginni and a  gold  ring  were given to Sh. Yashdeep Singh Kataria. Before   the   marriage,   they   had   visited   Sh.   Hira   Lal, maternal uncle of Ms. Seema Kataria for inviting him for Bhath, who had expressed his desire to give a car to the groom Sh. Yashdeep Singh Kataria at the time of Bhath. In   those   days,   the   small   size   vehicles   were   not   easily available and one has to book the vehicle in advance. On efforts, it came to the knowledge of DW­7 that  Sh. S. K. Saini,   who   was  working  in  an  Insurance  Company  had booked   a   car,   but   he   was   not   interested   in   buying   the same.   Accordingly,   he   had   informed   Sh.   Hira   Lal, CC No.26/11 87/246 88 maternal   uncle   of   Ms.   Seema   Kataria,   regarding   the same.  

73. DW­7 further deposed that on 31.10.1996, Sh. Hira Lal had given Rs.1 lac to Sh. S. K. Saini in his presence at his residence i.e. House No.  D­11/41, Kaka Nagar, New Delhi   for   the   purchase   of   the   said   car.     The  remaining amount of Rs.2,50,000/­, he had promised to pay to Sh. S. K. Saini by August / September 1997 and thereafter they had  taken  the  delivery  of the Zen car bearing no. DL­7C­5999 of red colour from Sikand Motors, Connaught Place on 1st or 2nd November 1996.  

74. DW­7  further  deposed that on 03rd  November  1996, he along with his late elder brother Sh. Ravi Karan Singh and CC No.26/11 88/246 89 nephew Sh. Yashpal Singh visited Jind at the residence of   Sh.   Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria   with   the   said   car.     Dr. Kamal had handed over the keys and the Manual of the said car to Sh. Yashdeep Singh Kataria at the time of the ceremony. 

75. DW­7   further   deposed   that   his   nephew   Sh.   Yash   Pal Singh had given Rs.1,51,000/­   to Sh. Yashdeep Singh Kataria   in   the  tikka  ceremony.   He   identified   the photographs D1 to D6, D9 and D10, wherein the handing over of keys of the car by Dr. Kamal Singh and acts of giving the money of Rs.1,51,000/­ and other gifts such as fruits, sweets, clothes etc. had been shown.  

76. DW­7   further   deposed   that   on   29.11.1996,   the  Lagan CC No.26/11 89/246 90 ceremony  took place at the residence of Sh. Yashdeep Singh   Kataria   at   Vasant   Kunj.     He   identified   the photograph D­7 in which his nephew Sh. Yashpal Singh is gifting Rs.1,51,000/­ to Sh. Yashdeep Singh Kataria. He further deposed that marriage took place on 09.12.1996 in   the   Community   Hall,   Kaka   Nagar.     About   200­250 guests had attended the marriage.   They had also given customary gifts in terms of cash of about Rs.50,000/­.  He further deposed that at the time of  phere,  Rs.30,000/­ in cash   were   given   by   the   near   relatives   and   friends   as kanya daan and Tikka to Sh. Yashdeep Singh Kataria and his daughter Ms. Seema Kataria.  He further deposed that at   the   time   of  Vidai  a   gold   chain   and   a   sum   of Rs.1,51,000/­   was   given   to   Sh.Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria as gift.  

CC No.26/11 90/246 91

77. PW­7 further deposed that in November 1997, at the time of birth of his first grandson, Rs. 51,000/­ had been given in chhuchhak ceremony and in November 1998, they had also   given   Rs.31,000/­   on   the   first   birthday   of   his grandson.   

78. PW­7   further   deposed   that   in   April   1999,   their   second grandson was born.  At the time of his birth, Rs.51,000/­ had been given in chhuchhak ceremony.  On 13.04.2000, they  had  also  given Rs.31,000/­ on the first birthday of their second grandson.  

79. DW­7   further   deposed   that   he   had   agricultural   land   in Village   Bhatta  and  adjoining  Village  Mutaina  measuring CC No.26/11 91/246 92 more   than   2   hectares.     The   relevant   document   in   this regard is Mark D­11.  

80. DW­8 is Sh. Ram Kishan.  His father and father of Sh.

Yashdeep   Singh  Kataria  were   cousins.    His   family  had close   relations   with   the   family   of   Sh.   Yashdeep   Singh Kataria. He has attended the marriage of Sh. Yashdeep Singh Kataria and his brother Sh. Pradeep Kataria.   He deposed   that   in   the   marriage   of   Sh.   Yashdeep   Singh Kataria,   a   diesel   car   make   Zen   was   given   to   Sh. Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria   by   his   in   laws   in   the  Sagai function   at   his   residence   in   Jind.     At   that   time, Rs.1,51,000/­    were   also   given  to  Sh.  Yashdeep  Singh Kataria.  Sh. Yashdeep Singh Kataria told him that he had to purchase a house and for the said purchase of house, CC No.26/11 92/246 93 the   co­brother   of   Sh.   Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria   would contribute Rs. 5 lacs.   Sh. Yashdeep Singh Kataria also asked for financial help from this witness, in case he was not able to arrange the loan for purchasing the house.   In October 1999, this witness paid Rs. 5 lacs in cash to Sh. Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria   after   selling   his   paddy   crop. Later on, he came to know that loan had been sanctioned and Sh. Yashdeep told him to take back his money.  This witness told Sh. Yashdeep Singh Kataria that he would take the money later on as Sh. Yashdeep was involved in a case.   Sh. Yashdeep Singh Kataria paid Rs. 2 lacs in the year 2004 and he paid Rs. 3 lacs in the year 2008.  

81. DW­9 is Sh. Bansi Lal.   He is Halqa Patwari of Village Brha Khurd, Tehsil & District Jind, Haryana. He proved CC No.26/11 93/246 94 the  Jamabandi  for   the   years   1994­95   &   1999­2000   of Village Sindhiwi Khera, which are Ex. DW­9/A1 and Ex. DW­9/A2   respectively.   The  relevant entry  pertaining  to Sh. Amir Singh in  Jamabandi  of the year 1994­1995 Ex. DW­9/A1.   The corresponding entry in the  Jamabandi  of the year 1999­2000 Ex. DW­9/A2 shows the names of the heirs of Sh. Amir Singh namely Ms. Phoolwati widow of Sh. Amir Singh, Ms. Shakuntla and Ms. Sheela daughters of   Sh.   Amir   Singh,   Sh.   Hardeep   Singh,   Sh.   Pradeep Singh,   Sh.   Yashdeep   Singh,   Sh.   Jaideep   Singh,   Sh. Jagdeep Singh, Sh. Mandeep Singh and Sh. Sukhdeep Singh all sons of Sh. Amir Singh.   The mutation in this regard is DW­9/A3.     The  Jamabandi  for the year 2004­ 2005   is   Ex.   DW­9/A4.     The  Khasra  Girdawari  for   the period from 03.10.1995 to 02.10.1999 in the name of Sh. CC No.26/11 94/246 95 Hukam Singh and others is Ex. DW­9/B1.     The  Khasra Girdawari for the period from 17.10.2000 to 19.03.2005 in the name of Sh. Dayal Singh and others is Ex. DW­9/B2.  

82. DW­10 is Sh. A. K. Pandey.   He deposed that from the year 1995 to 2005, he was on deputation with CBI, New Delhi.   In the year 2002, he was posted as Inspector in ACB, CBI, New Delhi.  He further deposed that this case was  being   investigated by Deputy S.P.  Nirbhay Kumar. On 21.01.2002, accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria visited the   CBI   office   and   met   the   Investigating   Officer   Sh. Nirbhay Kumar.   He further deposed that he had seized letter dated 21.01.2002 along with photocopies of certain documents   of   Income   Tax   Returns   vide   Seizure   Memo Ex. DW­10/A.   The said letter along with documents Ex. CC No.26/11 95/246 96 DW­10/A1   (Colly.)     were   handed   over   to   him   by   Sh. Yashdeep Singh Kataria. Thereafter, he handed over the said documents along with Seizure Memo to DSP Nirbhay Kumar.      

83. I have heard Sh. A. K. Kushwaha, Learned PP for CBI and Sh. H. K. Sharma, Learned Defence Counsel. I have perused the record and the  case law  relied upon by the parties. 

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF CBI.

84. It   was   submitted   by   the   Ld.   PP   for   CBI   that   both   the accused   persons   had   admitted   the   case   of   the prosecution   with   regard   to   the   assets   found   in   their CC No.26/11 96/246 97 possession.     They   have   also   admitted   their   salaried income.   It was further submitted by the Ld. PP for CBI that both the accused persons have admitted most of the documents,   which   were   collected   by   the   prosecution during the course of investigation and relied upon by the prosecution. 

85. It was further submitted by the Ld. PP that the item nos.

3,   7,   10,   14   to   18   of   Verifiable   Expenditure   are   not disputed   by   both   the   accused   persons.     They   have admitted   the   said   documents   during   the   Admission/ Denial of the Documents before the Court.  

86. It was further submitted by the Ld. PP that the item nos. 2 to 18 of Assets are also not disputed by both the accused CC No.26/11 97/246 98 persons.   They have also admitted the said documents during the Admission/ Denial of the Documents before the Court.

VERIFIABLE EXPENSES

87. It was submitted by the Ld. PP for CBI that item nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11 to 13 of Verifiable Expenses, have been disputed by both the accused persons.  It was submitted by the Ld. PP that the above said items were recovered during   the   search   of   the   house   of   both   the   accused persons. The arguments advanced by the Ld. PP for the CBI   regarding   Verifiable   Expenses   are   discussed   as under:­

88. To   prove   the   item   no.   1   of   Verifiable   Expenses   i.e. Purchase from Nanz Lobill Stores vide Bill No.4542 dated CC No.26/11 98/246 99 03.05.2000,   Prosecution   has   examined   PW­19   Ms. Chandra   Gupta.     She   has   categorically   stated   that   the said computerized bill Ex. PW­19/A was issued by their Store.     Vide   the   said   bill,   a   sum   of   Rs.1,045.80   was received from the customer on 03.05.2000 for selling of consumer items such as biscuits etc.  

89. To   prove   the   item   no.   2   of   Verifiable   Expenses   i.e. Furnishing   purchased   from   Jagdish   Stores   vide   Cash Memos   dated   28.03.2000   and   09.04.2000,   Prosecution has   examined   PW­7   Sh.   Deepak   Ganju.     He   has categorically deposed that a sum of Rs.44,282/­ has been received   against   eight   Cash   Memos   dated   28.03.2000 and   09.04.2000.     He   has   further   deposed   that   Cash Memo dated 28.03.2000 amounting to Rs.33849/­ and  CC No.26/11 99/246 100 other   Seven   Cash   Memos   dated   09.04.2000   amounting   to Rs.4320/­, Rs.2980/­, Rs.1056/­, Rs. 637/­, Rs.200/­, Rs.200/­ and Rs. 1040/­respectively were issued by Jagdish Stores. The said Cash Memos are Ex. PW­7/B1 to Ex. PW­7/B8.  Vide the said Memos, some raw materials were supplied to the customer and the amount shown in the Cash Memos had been received.

90. To   prove   the   item   no.5   of   Verifiable   Expenses   i.e. Purchase   of   clothes   from   Petal's   Children   Wear, Prosecution has examined PW­1 Sh. Kartar Chand. He has categorically deposed that they had sold ready­made garments   worth   Rs.2680/­   after   giving   discount   of   50% vide Cash Memo No.1277 dated 20.01.2000. 

91. To   prove   the   item   no.   6   of   Verifiable   Expenses   i.e. CC No.26/11 100/246 101 Purchase of kids wear and new born baby accessories from New Kids Showroom vide two Cash Memos dated 29.11.1997,   Prosecution has examined PW­9 Sh. Rohit Chawla. He has deposed that the goods mentioned in two Cash   Memos   No.145891   &   146004   dated   29.11.1997 amounting   to   Rs.1090/­   and   Rs.1219/­,   which   are   Ex. PW­9/B   and   Ex.   PW­9/C   respectively   were   sold   to   the Customer.  The amount was received in cash.   

92. To prove the item no. 9 of Verifiable Expenses i.e. Repair of Scooter from Federal Motors vide Cash Memo dated 21.02.2000, Prosecution has examined PW­8 Sh. Bhanu Prasad.   He has categorically deposed that Cash Memo No.165949   dated   21.02.2000   amounting   to   Rs.1,010/­ showing the repair of Kinetic Scooter. Stamp of "paid" and CC No.26/11 101/246 102 initial of the cashier of the firm, who received the amount, has been mentioned on the Cash Memo.  

93. To prove the item no. 11 of Verifiable Expenses i.e. for the insurance of Vehicle No. DL­7C­5999 vide Policy No. 97/6017, collection Receipt No. 9019 dated 31.03.1997, Prosecution   has   examined   PW­4   Sh.   Om   Parkash Malhotra.   He   has   proved   the   receipt   of   payment   of Rs.10,240/­ which is Ex. PW­4/B. 

94. To   prove   the   item   no.   12   of   Verifiable   Expenses   i.e. amount spent on repair / services of Vehicle No. DL­7C­ 5999 (Zen) of Sh. Yashdeep Singh (from 22.04.1997 to 20.02.1999)   from   Competent   Automobiles,   Prosecution has   examined   PW­3   Sh.   Sandeep   Kataria.   He   has categorically   deposed   that   Zen   car   No.   DL­7C­5999 CC No.26/11 102/246 103 owned   by   Sh.   Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria   used   to   be repaired   in   their   workshop.   He   proved   the   10 computerized duplicate bills Ex. PW­3/P1 to P­10, which were issued by their workshop in respect of the repairs. 

95. To   prove   the   item   no.   13   of   Verifiable   Expenses   i.e. amount   paid   to   Motor   Craft   India   Pvt.   Ltd.   for   repair   / service   of   Vehicle   No.   DL­7C­5999   (Zen)   of   Sh. Yashdeep Singh vide Receipt No. 5787 Bill No. 271427 dated 01.02.2000, Prosecution has examined PW­13 Sh. Manoj Sharma. He has categorically deposed that original Receipt No.5787 dated 01.03.2000 Ex. PW­13/C (D­54) has  been   issued by their  firm  for  receiving  the cash of Rs.5,000/­.   

96. It was contended by the Ld. PP that all the above referred CC No.26/11 103/246 104 Cash Memos / Bills were recovered from the house of the accused   persons   during   the   search.     Therefore,   it   is proved that the accused persons have made the payment of the above referred Bills / Cash Memos and they have kept the same in their possession.  

ASSETS

97. It was submitted by the Ld. PP for CBI that of item no. 1, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of Assets, have been disputed by both the accused persons, the said assets have been proved by the prosecution by leading the cogent evidence.  The arguments advanced by the Ld. PP for the CBI regarding Assets are discussed as under:­

98. To prove the item no. 1 of Assets i.e. Value of Household CC No.26/11 104/246 105 articles   found   at   the   premises   of   both   the   accused persons   on   04.05.2000   as   per   the   Observation   Memo, Prosecution   has   examined   PW­16   Sh.   H.   S.   Karmayal and PW­25 Sh. A. S. Rao.     They both have supported the case of the prosecution.

  

99. To prove the item no. 19 of Assets i.e. Payment made to Sh. S. K. Saini for the purchase of Zen Car DL­7C­5999 during   the   period   December   1996   to   January   1998, Prosecution has examined PW­17 Sh. Sri Kant Saini. He has   categorically   deposed   that   he   sold   Maruti   Zen   car bearing no. DL­7C­5999 to the accused for Rs. 3.5 lacs. The   payment   was   received   by   him   in   parts.     He   has further   deposed   that   accused   Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria was   introduced   to   him   by   Professor   Ramesh   Chandra CC No.26/11 105/246 106 saying that vehicle was required by Sh. Y. S.   Kataria. Professor   Ramesh   Chandra   was   guarantor   for   Mr. Kataria.  

100. To   prove   the   item   no.   21   of   Assets   i.e.   Purchase   of property C­85/41, Noida, Prosecution has examined PW­ 18 Sh. N. K. Jain, who has categorically deposed that on 09.11.2001   and   on   21.12.2001,   he   along   with   the Investigating   Officer   Sh.   Nirbhay   Kumar   Deputy   SP visited   the   property   No.   C­85,   Sector   41,   Noida   and inspected the same for valuation.  His report Ex. PW­18/A shows   the   final   cost   of   property   as   on   the   date   of purchase as Rs.20,67,821/­.  

101. To prove the item no. 22 of Assets i.e. Cash recovered CC No.26/11 106/246 107 and   seized   from   the   Bed   room   of   accused   Yashdeep Singh   Kataria   and   Seema   Kataria   (residence   at   C­85, Sector­41, Noida), Prosecution has examined PW­16 Sh. H.   S.   Karmayal   and   PW­25   Sh.   A.   S.   Rao.     Both   the witnesses have proved the recovery of the cash from the house of the accused persons. 

ADDITIONAL INCOME

102. The arguments advanced by Ld. PP regarding additional income of the accused persons are discussed as under:­

103. It   was   submitted   by   the   Ld.   PP   for   the   CBI   that   the defence of the accused persons that they have received gifts   such   as   cash   in   their   marriage   and   on   other occasions   such   as   on   the   birth   of   their   sons   and   their CC No.26/11 107/246 108 birthdays, Zen car received by accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria in his marriage and the other loans etc. from the relatives, cannot be termed as their income for the reason that the accused persons have not intimated the receipt of the   same   to   their   Department   as   required   under   the Explanation   to   Section   13(1)(e)   of   the   Prevention   of Corruption Act, 1988.  

104. It was submitted by the Ld. PP for CBI that in the present case,   prosecution   has   examined   29   witnesses.   All   the witnesses   have   supported   the   case   of   the   prosecution. The prosecution witnesses could not be shaken from their stand during their cross­examinations and hence, there is no reason to disbelieve the statements of the prosecution witnesses.  It was contended that from the statements of CC No.26/11 108/246 109 the witnesses, the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts.   It was submitted that both   the   accused   persons   being   public   servants   have been  jointly and severally found to be in possession of disproportionate assets worth Rs.51,32,024.67.  

105. To support his contentions, the Ld. PP for CBI has relied upon the following judgments:­

1. N. Ramakrishnaiah Vs. State of A. P.,           2009 Crl. L. J. 1767.

2. Kedari Lal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.,               2015 Crl. L. J. 4045. 

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED PERSONS.

106. It   was   submitted   by   the   Ld.   Counsel   for   the   accused persons   that   the   Prosecution   has   to   prove   its   case beyond reasonable doubt, against the accused persons. CC No.26/11 109/246 110 The   Prosecution   did   not   lead   any   cogent   evidence   to substantiate   the   charges   against   the   accused   persons. Whereas, the accused persons have led evidence in their defence   which   demolishes   the   entire   case   of   the Prosecution.   

VERIFIABLE EXPENSES

107. It   was   submitted   by   the   Ld.   Counsel   for   the   accused persons that as per the prosecution case, the prosecution has   calculated   the   Verifiable   Expenses   to   the   tune   of Rs.1,74,748.80 and the prosecution has failed to prove the   said   Verifiable   Expenses,   in   accordance   with   law. The   arguments   advanced   by   the   Ld.   Counsel   for   the accused   persons   regarding   Verifiable   Expenses   are discussed as under:­ CC No.26/11 110/246 111

108. The Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has submitted that   the   prosecution   has   not   proved   that   the   goods mentioned in item no. 1 of Verifiable Expenses have been purchased by the accused persons.  The prosecution has examined PW­19 Ms. Chandra Gupta to prove the same. Neither her testimony nor Bill No. 4542 dated 03.05.2000 (Ex.   PW­19/A)   proved   that   the   said   goods   were purchased   by   the   accused   persons.   PW­19,   during   her cross   examination,   has   deposed   that   the   name   of   the purchaser is not reflected in the bill Ex. PW­19/A.   She further   deposed   that   it   could   not   be   said   who   had purchased the goods mentioned in the Bill Ex. PW­19/A and   who   made   the   payment   of   the   said   bill.     The   Ld. Counsel for the accused persons further submitted that in CC No.26/11 111/246 112 the house, from where the said bill was recovered, the co­ brother of accused Sh. Yashdeep Singh Kataria, namely Dr.   Sanjeev   Kumar   and   his   family   were   also   residing there. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that the said items were purchased by the accused persons.  

109. The   Ld.   Defence   counsel   has   submitted   that   the Prosecution   has   also   failed   to   prove   that   the   goods mentioned in Ex. PW­7/B1 to Ex. PW­7/B8 (D­45) were purchased by the accused persons. To prove item no. 2 of Verifiable Expenses, Prosecution has examined PW­7 Sh.   Deepak   Ganju.   During   his   cross   examination,   he deposed that on the basis of documents Ex. PW­7/B1 to Ex. PW­7/B8, he can not say who had purchased these articles   from   Jagdish   Stores   or   who   had   made   the CC No.26/11 112/246 113 payment   thereof.     The   Ld.   Counsel   for   the   accused persons   has pointed out that the family of co­brother of accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria was also residing in the same   house,   where   the   search   was   conducted. Therefore, it cannot be said the said purchases had been made by the accused persons.  

110. The Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has submitted that   the   prosecution   has   not   examined   any   witness   to prove   item   no.   4   of   Verifiable   Expenses   i.e.   Zen   seat cover   for   Rs.3,200/­   purchased   from   Auto   Accessories, vide   Receipt   dated   21.02.2000.     Prosecution   has   only filed the receipt dated 21.02.2000, in which the name of the   purchaser   was   not   mentioned   nor   any   witness   has been   examined   by   the   prosecution   to   prove   the   said Receipt / Cash Memo.  

CC No.26/11 113/246 114

111. The Ld. Counsel for the accused persons submitted that the Prosecution has also failed to prove that vide Cash Memo   No.1277   dated   20.01.2000,   the   ready­made garments worth Rs.2680/­ have been purchased by the accused   persons.  Prosecution  has  examined  PW­1 Sh. Kartar Chand to prove item no.5 of Verifiable Expenses. The testimony of this witness and the letter Ex. PW­1/A have not proved that the purchases of the said clothes were made by the accused persons.  

112. The Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has submitted that the Prosecution has also failed to prove the purchase of kids wear and new born baby accessories from New Kids Showroom vide two Cash Memos dated 29.11.1997, which is mentioned in item no. 6 of Verifiable Expenses, CC No.26/11 114/246 115 was   made   by   the   accused   persons.     Prosecution   has examined   PW­9   Sh.   Rohit   Chawla   to   prove   the   same. During   cross   examination,   he   deposed   that   he   has   no knowledge that to whom the delivery of the goods was given.   He further deposed that he cannot tell by whom the payment was made.  The Ld. Counsel for the accused persons submitted that from the testimony of this witness, it cannot be assumed that the said purchases were made by any of the accused person. 

113. The Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has submitted that   the   prosecution   has   not   examined   any   witness   to prove   item   no.   8  of   Verifiable   Expenses   i.e.   amount   of Rs.150/­, paid vide Receipt No. 84525 dated 01.03.2000, to   the   Cashier, Kailash  Hospital, Sector  No. 27, Noida. CC No.26/11 115/246 116 Hence, the expenditure mentioned at serial no. 8 of the Verifiable Expenses has not been proved.  

114. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons submitted that the Prosecution   has   also   failed   to   prove   that   the   payment regarding the repair of scooter from Federal Motors has been   made   by   the   accused   Seema   Kataria   vide   Cash Memo   dated   21.02.2000,   amounting   to   Rs.1,010/­   (Ex. PW­8/A), which is mentioned at item no. 9 of Verifiable Expenses.   Prosecution  has  examined  PW­8  Sh.  Bhanu Prasad   to   prove   the   same.   During   cross   examination, PW­8   deposed   that   the   name   of   the   person,   who   had made the payment, is not reflected in Ex. PW­8/A.   Thus the prosecution has failed to prove that this payment was made by accused Seema Kataria. 

CC No.26/11 116/246 117

115. The Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has submitted that the accused persons have not paid the insurance of Vehicle No. DL­7C­5999 (Zen car) as the same was in the name   of  Sh.   S. K. Saini.   To prove the item  no. 11 of Verifiable Expenses, i.e. the payment of Rs.10.240/­ for the insurance of Vehicle No. DL­7C­5999 vide Policy No. 97/6017, collection Receipt No.9019 dated 31.03.1997 of Verifiable   Expenses,   Prosecution   has   examined   PW­4 Sh.   Om   Parkash   Malhotra.   During   cross   examination, PW­4   deposed   that   as   per   Receipt   Ex.   PW­4/B,   the payment was made by Sh. S. K. Saini in cash.   He also deposed that the user of the vehicle cannot obtain any insurance policy and the same has to be obtained by the registered owner. PW­4 further deposed that the user of CC No.26/11 117/246 118 the   vehicle   cannot   submit   a   Proposal   Form.   The   Ld. Counsel has further submitted that from the testimony of PW­4, it is clear that the insurance amount was paid by Sh. S. K. Saini in cash and not by the accused persons.  

116. The Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has submitted that   accused   persons   have   not   spent   an   amount   of Rs.18,439/­ on repairing / service of vehicle No. DL­7C­ 5999   (Zen)   (from   22.04.1997   to   20.02.1999)   from Competent Automobiles.   It was submitted that rather an amount of Rs.2,257/­ was paid vide Ex. P­54 (D­71).  The Ld.   Counsel   for   the   accused   persons   has   further submitted   that   PW­3   Sh.   Sandeep   Kataria   has   been examined   by   the   Prosecution   to   prove   item   no.   12   of Verifiable   Expenses   i.e.   amount   spent   on   repairing   / CC No.26/11 118/246 119 service   of   vehicle   No.   DL­7C­5999   (Zen)   (from 22.04.1997 to 20.02.1999) from Competent Automobiles. During   the   cross   examination,   this   witness   has   clearly stated  that just by looking at   Bills Ex. PW­3/P1 to Ex. PW­3/P10, it would not be possible to say that who had made the payment of these bills.  

117. The Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has submitted that the prosecution has not produced any document to prove   that   the   amount   of   Rs.5,000/­   has   been   paid   by accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria to Motor Craft India Pvt. Ltd. for repair / service of vehicle No. DL­7C­5999 (Zen) vide Receipt No. 5787 Bill No. 271427 dated 01.02.2000 (Ex.   PW­13/C),   which   is   mentioned   as   item   no.   13   of Verifiable   Expenses.   Prosecution   has   examined   PW­13 CC No.26/11 119/246 120 Sh. Manoj Sharma to prove the same. The Ld. Counsel for  the  accused persons has submitted that in the said receipt,   the   name   of   the   person   who   had   made   the payment, has not been mentioned and hence it can not be   said   that   the   payment   of   this   bill   was   made   by   the accused persons.  

118. The Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has submitted that   the   prosecution   has   not   examined   any   witness   to prove the item no. 14 of Verifiable Expenses i.e. purchase of   Water   Purifier   for   a   sum   of   Rs.   21,500/­   from   Ion Exchange India Ltd.   Hence, this expenditure mentioned at   serial   no.   14   of   Verifiable   Expenses   has   not   been proved.  

119. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has submitted that CC No.26/11 120/246 121 item no. 16 of Verifiable Expenses i.e. Samsung AC for Rs.33,600/­   has   not   been   purchased   by   the   accused persons.     The   same   has   been   given   by   the   in­laws   of accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria as a gift in the name of their son Sparsh. Therefore, the name of their son Sparsh has   been   shown   in   the   Cash   Memo   Ex.   P­52.   It   was contended that the prosecution has not led any evidence that the amount of Rs.33,600/­ was spent by the accused persons for purchasing the said AC.  

120. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has submitted that the prosecution has not examined any witness to prove item no. 17 of Verifiable Expenses i.e. Medical Bills of Ms. Seema   for   Rs.   22,415/­.     It   was   contended   that   the prosecution   has   failed   to   prove   that   accused   Seema Kataria has spent an amount of Rs.22,415/­ as medical CC No.26/11 121/246 122 expenses   of   her   treatment,   which   she   had   paid   till 03.05.2000. Hence, this expenditure mentioned at serial no. 17 of Verifiable Expenses has not been proved. 

121. The Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has submitted that   the   prosecution   has   not   examined   any   witness   to prove   the   item   no.   18   of   Verifiable   Expenses   i.e.   an amount of Rs.2,853/­ paid as remaining partial payment for   the   purchase   of   Maruti   car   vide   Receipt   No.   6565 dated   09.01.1997   to   Pasco   Automobiles,   Gurgaon. Prosecution has only relied upon the letter Ex. P­24 (D­

36),   which   is   not   sufficient   to   prove   the   fact   that   the payment   of   above  said  amount  has  been  made by  the accused persons. 

CC No.26/11 122/246 123 NON­VERIFIABLE EXPENSES

122. The Ld. counsel for the accused persons submitted that the   prosecution   has   rightly   taken   the   Non­Verifiable Expenses   to   the   tune   of   Rs.1,47,715/­   i.e.   1/3 rd  of   the salary of accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria.   ASSETS

123. It   was   submitted   by   the   Ld.   Counsel   for   the   accused persons that as per the prosecution case, the prosecution has calculated the Assets of the accused persons to the tune of Rs.66,83,121.87 and the prosecution has failed to prove   the   said   Assets   of   the   accused   persons,   in accordance with law.  The item wise arguments advanced by   the   Ld.   Counsel   for   the   accused   persons   regarding Assets of the accused persons are discussed as under:­ CC No.26/11 123/246 124

124. The Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has submitted regarding the item no. 1 of Assets i.e. value of house hold articles found at the house of the accused persons were assessed   worth   Rs.36,000/­   as   per   the   Observation Memo dated 04.05.2000. It was submitted that the said Observation Memo was prepared in another case, which was being  investigated against Ms. Seema Kataria and her   father,   and   not   in   this   case.     It   has   been   further submitted   by   the   Ld.   Counsel   for   the   accused   persons that the  said Observation Memo cannot be read in this case,   because   the   same   was   prepared   prior   to   the registration of the FIR of the present case.  

125. The   Ld.   Counsel   for   the   accused   persons   further CC No.26/11 124/246 125 submitted   that   on   04.05.2000   the   assessment   of   the house hold articles was made in the presence of accused Ms. Seema. Therefore, whatever she had stated in terms of   the   valuation   of   the   articles   is   not   admissible   in evidence, being the statement given to a police officer by an   accused.     It   can   also   be   considered   as   confession made to the police officer and the same is not admissible.

126. The   Ld.   Counsel   for   the   accused   persons   has   further submitted that to prove the Valuation of the house hold articles, the prosecution has examined PW­25 A. S. Rao. He was an independent witness.   He had accompanied the CBI team at the time of search, which was conducted in   connection   with   some   other   case.     It   was   further submitted that during the examination of this witness in CC No.26/11 125/246 126 the Court, the answers were given by him not from his memory  regarding  what had  transpired  at  the spot,  but only   after   going   through   the   documents   during   his examination in the Court. Therefore, this kind of testimony cannot be relied upon.   The other witness examined by prosecution is PW­16 Sh. H. S. Karmayal, who being the CBI   officer   is  an   interested   witness  and   therefore,  not much   reliance   can   be   placed   upon   his   statement. Hence, the value of the house articles as mentioned at serial no. 1 of the Assets of the accused persons has not been proved.  

127. The Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has submitted that accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria had admitted the item   no.   2   of   the   Assets.     It   was   submitted   that   the CC No.26/11 126/246 127 accused   has   transferred   the   cash   deposits   in   Savings Account   no.522­1­118280   in   Standard   Chartered   Bank, Sansad Marg, New Delhi, to his other accounts bearing no. 52232609791 and 52231642497.  It has been further submitted   by   the   Ld.   Counsel   for   the   accused   persons that this amount has been taken by accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria from DW­8 Sh. Ram Kishan and DW­6 Dr. Sanjeev Kumar. It was contended that the testimonies of these two witnesses clearly prove above mentioned fact.

128. It   has   been   submitted   by   Ld.   counsel   for   the   accused persons regarding the item no. 6 of Assets i.e. Deposit of Rs.20,000/­     in   KDR   No.   970081   in   Canara   Bank, Overseas Branch, KG Marg, New Delhi, was admitted by accused Seema Kataria.     It has been further submitted by   the   Ld.   Counsel  for   the  accused  persons   that  there CC No.26/11 127/246 128 was   additional   income   of   Rs.79,767/­   of   Ms.   Seema Kataria in this account prior to the check period which has been reflected in the Statement of Account D­22(Ex. P­

10).   No   benefit   of   the   same   has   been   given   to   the accused   persons   by   the   Investigating   Officer   on   their Income side. 

129. The Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has submitted regarding the item no. 12 of the Assets i.e. Investment in IVP / KVP of Rs. 1,48,000/­ in GPO, Delhi, that the said IVP/KVP were kept with accused Seema Kataria by her mother Smt.  Maya Devi.   It has been further submitted that the said IVP/KVP were purchased by Smt. Maya Devi out of her income.  It has been further submitted that the said IVP/ KVP were purchased by Smt. Maya Devi for the CC No.26/11 128/246 129 benefits of her youngest daughter Ms. Meenakshi.   Ms. Meenakshi was 100% handicapped.  Ms. Meenakshi was beneficiary / nominee of all the said instruments.  It has been   further   submitted   by   the   Ld.   Counsel   for   the accused persons that the testimony of  DW­7 Dr. Ramesh Chandra clearly prove the above mentioned fact.  

130. The Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has submitted that to prove the item no. 13 of the Assets i.e. balance in the account no. 44717, BOI, Parliament Street, New Delhi of accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria, no witness has been examined by the prosecution.   The document D­29 itself reflects   that   the   statement   of   account   is   starting   from 29.06.2000, which is beyond the check period.  CC No.26/11 129/246 130

131. The Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has submitted regarding item no. 14 of Assets, i.e. Repayment of loan to Bank of America by accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria for purchase   of   Maruti   800   car,   that   out   of   Rs.2,71,002/­, accused   Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria   has   paid   only   12 installments of Rs.8,312/­ each from his salary.  The said fact has been reflected in the Statement of account (D­31) Ex. P­10.   The document (D­31) Ex. P­19 also reflected that the installment only up to 7 th March, 1998 were paid by   the   accused     Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria.   The   Ld. Counsel  for   the  accused  persons has further   submitted that   the   remaining   balance   amount   of   Rs.1,40,000/­   of loan has been paid by his brother Sh. Pradeep Kataria. The   testimony   of   DW­4   Sh.   Pradeep   Kataria   has   also proved the said fact. 

CC No.26/11 130/246 131

132. The Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has submitted that   accused   persons   have   admitted   that   accused Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria   has   paid   Rs.5,67,600/­   to GNOIDA for purchase of a plot of 500 sq. yds. In Greater Noida,   under   MHS­02   Scheme,   which   is   mentioned   at item No. 18 of the Assets.  It was contended that the said plot   can   not   be   taken   in   the   Assets   of   the   accused persons   as   the   accused   Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria   has transferred   this   plot   to   Smt.   Alka   wife   of   Dr.   Sanjeev Kumar and sister of accused Seema Kataria vide Power of   Attorney.     This   transfer   was   made   by   accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria in lieu of the amount of Rs.  5 lacs given to him by Dr. Sanjeev Kumar husband of Smt. Alka.   

CC No.26/11 131/246 132

133. The Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has submitted regarding the item no. 19 of the Assets i.e. the payment of Rs.3,50,000/­   made   to   Sh.   S.   K.   Saini   by   accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria for the purchase of Zen Car DL­ 7C­5999   during   the   period   December   1996   to   January 1998, that the said amount has not been paid by accused Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria.     The   Ld.   Counsel   for   the accused persons has submitted that the said Maruti Zen car bearing DL­7C­5999 was gifted to accused Yashdeep Singh   Kataria   by   Sh.   Hira   Lal,   the   paternal   uncle   of accused Seema Kataria.   Sh. Hira Lal purchased this car from Sh. S. K. Saini in the first week of November 1996. The   testimonies   of   DW­1   Dr.   Kamaal   Singh,   DW­4 Pradeep Singh Kataria, DW­7 Dr. Ramesh Chandra and CC No.26/11 132/246 133 DW­8 Ram Kishan have also proved the said fact.  

134. The Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has submitted regarding   the   item   no.   20   of   Assets   i.e.   Premium   of Rs.8,152/­   paid   on   14.11.1996   to   National   Insurance Company by accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria, does not pertain   to   the   check   period.   This   payment   was   made before   check   period   i.e.   09.12.1996   to   04.05.2000. Hence, the same cannot be included in the Assets of the accused persons.  

135. The Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has submitted regarding   the   item   no.   21   of   Assets   i.e.   purchase   of property bearing No. C­85/41, Noida for Rs. 25 lacs, that they have purchased the said property on 22.01.2000 for CC No.26/11 133/246 134 Rs.10,10,000/­.     But   the   valuation   of   the   said   property was done as Rs.25 lacs by PW­18 Sh. N. K. Jain, as per his   Valuation   Report.     Ld.   Counsel   for   the   accused persons   has   drawn   the   attention   of   the   Court   to   the testimony of PW­28 Sh. Lakhi Chand Sharma, who was the   owner   of   the   built   up   property   bearing   no.   C­85, Sector­41, Noida. The accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria has purchased this property from PW­28 Sh. Lakhi Chand Sharma.  PW­28 has deposed that he had purchased the said plot from one Wing Commander Sh. M. L. Prabhakar in the year 1996 for Rs.3,10,000/­.  

136. PW­28 further deposed that when he purchased the said plot, the same was not built up and lying vacant.  He had built a double storeyed building, which was completed by CC No.26/11 134/246 135 the end of the year 1999.  He further deposed that he had sold   the   said   property   to   Sh.   Kataria   for   a   sum   of Rs.10,10,000/­ as per Sale Deed (Ex. P­57).   He further deposed   that   in   the   year   2000,   he   had   executed   a Transfer Cum Sale Deed (Ex. P­57) (D­88) in favour of Sh. Kataria for the selling the said property.   The Stamp papers   of   Rs.1,35,000/­,   for   the   execution   of   the   Sale Deed, were purchased by Sh. Kataria.  PW­28 has further deposed that accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria had also paid the registration fee of Rs.5,020/­.   The Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has also drawn the attention of the Court to the testimony of PW­27 Sh. S. C. Gupta, who has   categorically   deposed   that   Sale   Deed   Ex.P­57   has been executed by Sh. Lakhi Chand Sharma in favour of Yashdeep Singh Kataria and registered on 22.01.2000 at CC No.26/11 135/246 136 Sub­Registrar's office at Noida.   He further deposed that the   said   document   was   presented   before   him   for registration   and   he   registered   the   same.       It   was contended   that   from   the   statements   of   the   prosecution witnesses   itself,  it  is  proved  that  the  said  property  was purchased by accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria for a sum of Rs.10,10,000/­ and not for Rs.25 lacs as alleged by the prosecution.  

137. It has been submitted by the Ld. counsel for the accused persons regarding the item no. 22 of Assets i.e. Cash of Rs.16,43,950/­ recovered and seized from the bed room of accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria and Seema Kataria (residence at C­85, Sector­41, Noida), that  they  had sold the afore mentioned property i.e. C­85, Sector­41, Noida CC No.26/11 136/246 137 to PW­23 Raghubir Singh for a sum of Rs.25 lacs. They have received a sum of Rs.23 lacs in cash out of Rs. 25 lacs from PW­23 Raghubir Singh as advance money of the   sale   transaction.   Out  of  the  said amount  of  Rs.23 lacs, Rs. 7 lacs were used by accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria for making payment towards the purchase of plot of 500 sq. mtrs., which was allotted to him vide allotment letter dated 23.03.2000 and 27.03.2000 of Rs. 2,40,000/­ and Rs. 3,27,600/­ respectively.  The testimony of PW­12 Sh. D. D. Sharma has also proved the said fact.  The Ld. Counsel  for   the  accused  persons has further   submitted that   the   remaining   amount   of   Rs.16   lacs   out   of   the amount of Rs.23 lacs received from PW­23 Sh. Raghubir Singh   was   lying   in   the   house   of   the   accused   persons, which was recovered during the search of the house of CC No.26/11 137/246 138 the accused persons. 

ADDITIONAL INCOME

138. It   was   submitted   by   the   Ld.   Counsel   for   the   accused persons   that   there   is   some   additional   income   of   the accused persons which has not been considered by the prosecution.     The   arguments   advanced   by   the   Ld. Defence Counsel in this regard are discussed as under:­

139. It was submitted that accused persons have received an amount of Rs. 23 lacs from PW­23 Sh. Raguhbir Singh as a part sale consideration of their house bearing no. House No. C­85, Sector 41, Noida.   The said amount of Rs.23 Lacs has not been taken by the Investigating Officer in the income side of the accused persons. 

CC No.26/11 138/246 139  

140. It   was   submitted   by   the   Ld.   Counsel   for   the   accused persons that accused persons have received an amount of   around   Rs.   2.50   lacs   as  sagun  /  gifts  during   their engagement and marriage ceremony in December 1996. They have also received a sum of Rs. 90,000/­ (approx.) on other occasions such as on the birth of their sons and their birthdays. 

141. It   was   submitted   that   accused   Seema   Kataria   had invested   an   amount   of   Rs.   25,000/­   in   FDR   in   SRF Finance   Ltd.   in   June,   1995   (pre­check   period),   which matured   in   July,   1997   (within   the   check   period),   were deposited in banks vide two cheques of Rs.18,580/­ and Rs.   11612/­   respectively   Ex.   P­8   (D­20)   entry   dated CC No.26/11 139/246 140 02.07.1997.  This   additional   income   has   not   been considered by the Investigating Officer. 

142. It   was   submitted  that  accused  Yashdeep  Singh  Kataria had received the medical reimbursement of Rs.1,09,668/­ of the medical bills of his father, which was deposited in his account and this fact has been proved by  DW­3 Sh. Joginder Singh Mann.     This additional income has also not been considered by the Investigating Officer. 

143. It   was   further   submitted   that   accused   Yashdeep   Singh Kataria   had   also  received  a sum  of  Rs.  25,000/­  every year as additional income from his agricultural land and thus, he had a total income of Rs.1,25,000/­ during the check period from his agricultural land.  The benefit of this additional income from the agricultural land has not been CC No.26/11 140/246 141 given   by   the   Investigating   Officer   to   the   accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria. 

144. It   was   submitted   by   the   Ld.   Counsel   for   the   accused persons that an amount of Rs.1,40,000/­ has also to be taken as additional income of the accused as a sum of Rs.1,40,000/­ paid to the Bank of America regarding the payment of  the car  loan was paid in fact by DW­4 Sh. Pradeep Singh Kataria, the brother of accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria.   The benefit of this additional income has not been given by the Investigating Officer to the accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria. 

145. The accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria has also received Rs.35,000/­ by selling his motorcycle to his brother DW­5 Sh. Mandeep Singh Kataria. The benefit of this additional CC No.26/11 141/246 142 income has not been given by the Investigating Officer to the accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria. 

146. The   accused   Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria   has   received   a sum of Rs.5 lacs from his co­brother DW­6 Dr. Sanjeev Kumar as contribution for purchasing the house bearing no. C­85, Sector 41, Noida.   Thus this amount of Rs.5 lacs   is   also   to   be   taken   in   the   income   of   the   accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria.     The benefit of this additional income has not been given by the Investigating Officer to the accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria. 

147. The   accused   Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria   has   received   a sum of Rs.5 lacs from DW­8 Sh. Ram Kishan as loan for purchasing the house bearing no. C­85, Sector 41, Noida. CC No.26/11 142/246 143 Thus this amount of Rs.5 lacs is also to be taken in the income   of  the  accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria.     The benefit of this additional income has not been given by the Investigating Officer to the accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria. 

148. The  Ld.   Defence counsel  has relied upon  the following Judgments:­

1. D. S. P. Chennai Vs. K. Inbasagaran,  2005 X AD (S. C.) 368.

2. State   Inspector   of   Police   Visakhapatnam   Vs. Surya Sankaram Karri, 2006 VII AD (S. C.) 278.

3. M.   Krishna   Reddy   Vs.   State   Deputy Superintendent   of   Police,   Hyderabad,   (1992)   4 Supreme Court Cases 45. 

4. Suraj   Lamp   and   Industries   Private   Limited   Vs. State   of Haryana & Another, (2012)  1 Supreme Court Cases 656.  

CC No.26/11 143/246 144

149. It   was   contended   by   the   Ld.   Counsel   for   the   accused persons   that   after   taking   the   additional   income   into consideration, then there are no Assets with the accused persons, which are disproportionate to their known source of income.  Hence, the accused persons are entitled to be acquitted. 

CONCLUSION / FINDINGS

150. The   first   point   for   consideration   is   as   to   whether   the proper   sanction   for   prosecution   was   accorded   before initiation of prosecution against the accused as required u/s 19(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which is mandatory and reads as under:­ "19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution­ (1) No   Court   shall   take   cognizance   of   an offence   punishable   under   Sections   7,10,11,13 CC No.26/11 144/246 145 and   15   alleged   to   have   been   committed   by   a public   servant,   except   with   the   previous sanction -

(a) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of the Union and is not  removable from  his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government, of that Government;

(b) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of a State and is not removable   from   his   office   save   by   or   with sanction   of   the   State   Government,   of   that Government;

(c)in   the     case   of   any   other   person,   of   the authority   competent   to   remove   him   from   his office."

151. I  have   gone   through the testimony of   PW­2 Sh. S. K. Arora regarding the Sanction for prosecution of accused Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria   and   PW­24  Ms.   Naini Jayaseelan  regarding   the   Sanction   for   prosecution   of accused Seema Kataria.  

CC No.26/11 145/246 146

152. PW­2  Sh. S. K. Arora, Deputy Secretary deposed that in the year 2003, he was posted as Under Secretary in the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Vigilance Section. He further deposed that accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria is an officer of Indian Information Service.  The President of   India   is   the   authority   competent   to   remove   accused Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria   from   the   services.     A   detailed report of the CBI along with copy of FIR, statements of witnesses and relevant record was received by him from the CBI for grant of Sanction for prosecution of accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria.   He put the file to his Director. The Sanction for prosecution of the accused was granted. He further deposed that the Sanction Order Ex. PW­2/A was prepared and authenticated by him on the basis of CC No.26/11 146/246 147 the   orders   for   prosecution  passed  by  the  Minister.     He deposed   that   he   was   competent   to   authenticate   the sanction   for   prosecution   under   the   Rules   of authentication.  

153. PW­24   Ms.   Naini   Jayaseelan  deposed   that   in   the   year 2002, she was posted that as Secretary, Environment and Forest   and   Chairperson,   Delhi   Pollution   Control Committee, Government of NCT of Delhi.   She deposed that she was the Competent Authority as Chairperson of the   DPCC   to   take   action   for   removal   of   Ms.   Seema Kataria   from   service.   She   further   deposed   that   after examining the documents on record as well as after due application   of   mind   as   Competent   Authority,   Sanction Order   dated   05.04.2002   Ex.   PW­24/A,   for   sanction   of CC No.26/11 147/246 148 prosecution   was   issued   by   her   against   Ms.   Seema Kataria under Section 19(1)(c) of the PC Act, 1988. 

154. I have perused the statements of PW­2 Sh. S. K. Arora and PW­24 Ms. Naini Jayaseelan.   I have also perused the   Sanction   Orders   Ex.   PW­2/A   and   Ex.   PW­24/A respectively.     From   the   statements   of   both   the   said witnesses and the Sanction Orders Ex. PW­2/A and Ex. PW­24/A, I am of the considered view that the Sanctions for the prosecution of the accused persons are valid in the eyes   of   law.     Both   the   said   witnesses   were   cross examined   and   nothing   could   come   out   in   their   cross examination which could shake their credibility.  The case of the accused persons is that the Sanctions to prosecute them are not valid.   However, nothing has been pointed CC No.26/11 148/246 149 out as to how the Sanctions for their prosecution are not valid.   Nothing has been pointed out by the Ld. Defence Counsel   that   any   prejudice   has   been   caused   to   the accused persons in their defence on account of the said Sanctions to prosecute them.  Hence, this plea raised by the   Ld.   Defence   Counsel   is   without   any   merit   and   the same has to be ignored.  

155. Now,   the   Verifiable   Expenses   are   being   taken   up   for discussion.  

VERIFIABLE EXPENSES

156. With regard to the item no. 1 of Verifiable Expenses, the defence of the accused persons is that the name of the purchaser was not mentioned in the bill Ex. PW­19/A. Nor CC No.26/11 149/246 150 PW­19   has  deposed  that  by whom  the payment of  the said Bill Ex. PW­19/A was made.  

157. It   is   the   general  practice that  at  the  time  of  selling  the goods, the name of the purchaser is not mentioned in the Bill nor the name of the person who made the payment is mentioned in the Cash Memo. PW­19 Ms. Chandra Gupta has specifically deposed that Bill Ex. PW­19/A was issued by   their   store   for   selling   the   consumer   items   such   as biscuits etc.  

158. It has been further submitted by the accused persons that the said bill is not related to them as Dr. Sanjeev Kumar, co brother of accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria was also residing in the House No. C­85, Sector­41, Noida, where the accused persons were residing at the time of search.   CC No.26/11 150/246 151

159. It is important to note that the accused persons have not produced any document to show that Dr. Sanjeev Kumar co­brother   of   accused   Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria   had purchased the goods vide Bill Ex. PW­19/A.  Even DW­6 Dr. Sanjeev Kumar has not deposed before the Court that he had purchased the goods vide Ex. PW­19/A. The said Bill  Ex.   PW­19/A  was  recovered  from  the  house  of the accused persons during the search. The accused persons have not explained as to how the said bill came in their possession,   which   was   recovered     from   their   house. Therefore, it is proved that the purchases for Rs. 1,045/­ from   Nanz   Lobill   Stores   vide   Bill   no.   4542   dated 03.05.2000 have been made by the accused persons.    CC No.26/11 151/246 152

160. With   regard   to   the   item   no.   2   of   Verifiable   Expenses, accused persons have taken the defence that the name of the purchaser was not mentioned in the Bills Ex. PW­ 7/B1 to Ex. PW­7/B8. Nor PW­7 Dr. Deepak Ganju has deposed that who had purchased the articles mentioned in   Ex.   PW­7/B1   to   Ex.   PW­7/B8   and   by   whom   the payment of  the said Bills Ex. PW­7/B1 to Ex. PW­7/B8 was made.  

161. Generally at the time of selling the goods and when the payment is received in cash by the seller, the name of the purchaser is not mentioned in the Bill nor the name of the person who made the payment is mentioned in the Cash Memo. PW­7 Sh. Deepak Ganju has specifically deposed that Ex. PW­7/B1 to Ex. PW­7/B8 were issued by Jagdish CC No.26/11 152/246 153 Stores for selling the raw materials.  

162. Regarding these Bills, accused persons have again taken the defence that it cannot be assumed that the goods vide the Bills Ex. PW­7/B1 to Ex. PW­7/B8 were purchased by them,   as   Dr.   Sanjeev   Kumar   co­brother   of   accused Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria   was   also   residing   in   the   said house, where they were residing at the time of search.   

163. It is to be noted that accused persons have not produced any document to show that Dr. Sanjeev Kumar co­brother of accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria had purchased the goods vide Bills Ex. PW­7/B1 to Ex. PW­7/B8.  Even Dr. Sanjeev Kumar, while deposing before the Court as DW­ 6, has not deposed that he had purchased the goods vide CC No.26/11 153/246 154 Bills Ex. PW­7/B1 to Ex. PW­7/B8.  During the search of the house of the accused persons, Bills Ex. PW­7/B1 to Ex.   PW­7/B8   were   recovered   from   the   house   of   the accused persons. Even the accused persons have failed to   explain   as   to   how   the   said   Bills   came   into   their possession and were recovered from their house during the   search.     Hence,   it   is   proved   that   the   payment   of Rs.44,282/­   against   Bills   Ex.   PW­7/B1   to   Ex.   PW­7/B8 has been made by the accused persons.  

164. With regard to the Item no. 3 of the Verifiable Expenses i.e. contribution of Rs. 2,000/­ towards Maintenance Fund of   RWA,   Sector­41,   Noida,   the   accused   persons   have admitted having made this payment.  They have admitted the   document   D­7   during   the   admission/denial   of   the CC No.26/11 154/246 155 documents before the Court.   This document pertains to the   said   payment  of Rs.2,000/­.    Thus, the  payment  of Rs.2,000/­ to the RWA stands proved.    

165. With regard to item no. 4 of Verifiable Expenses, it has been submitted by the accused persons that they have not purchased the Zen seat cover from Auto Accessories vide Receipt dated 21.02.2000.  

166. The prosecution has not examined any witness to prove the   said   Receipt   or   that   this   expenditure   has   been incurred by the accused persons. Thus, the prosecution has  failed   to   prove  that  the  Zen  seat  cover  have  been purchased   by   the   accused   persons   from   Auto Accessories vide Receipt dated 21.02.2000.   Hence, the CC No.26/11 155/246 156 amount   of   Rs.   3,200/­   i.e.   item   no.   4   of   the   Verifiable Expenses has to be deleted. 

167. With   regard   to   the   item   no.   5   of   Verifiable   Expenses, accused   persons   have   submitted   that   they   have   not purchased   the   clothes   from   Petal's   Children   Wear   vide Memo No. 1277 dated 20.01.2000. They have taken the defence   that   vide   Letter   Ex.   PW­1/A   which   was addressed to Sh. Nirbhay Kumar, it can not be assumed that   they   have   purchased   the   clothes   vide   Memo   No. 1277   dated   20.01.2000.  It   was   also   submitted   that   nor PW­1 Sh. Kartar Singh has deposed that the said clothes were   purchased   by   the   accused   persons.       They   have also taken the defence that Dr. Sanjeev Kumar the co­ brother   of   accused   Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria   was   also CC No.26/11 156/246 157 residing in the said house at the time of search.  Hence, it can not be assumed that the said clothes were purchased by them.  

168. It   has   to   be   noted   that   accused   persons   have   not produced  any document or witness to prove that DW­6 Dr.   Sanjeev   Kumar   co­brother   of   accused   Yashdeep Singh Kataria had purchased the goods vide Receipt No. 1277 dated 20.01.2000. Even Dr. Sanjeev Kumar, while deposing before the Court as DW­6, has not deposed that he had purchased the clothes from M/s. Petal's Children Wear   vide   Receipt   No.   1277   dated   20.01.2000.  During the search of the house of the accused persons, Receipt No. 1277 dated 20.01.2000 for a sum of Rs.2,680/­ was recovered from the house of the accused persons. The CC No.26/11 157/246 158 said receipt is Ex. PW­25/D29.   But the accused persons have failed to explain that as to how the said Receipt was found  in  their house at the time of search. Hence, it is proved that an amount of Rs. 2,680/­ has been paid by the   accused   persons   for   purchasing   the   clothes   from Petal's   Children   Wear   vide   Receipt   No.   1277   dated 20.01.2000. 

169. With   regard   to   the   item   no.   6   of   Verifiable   Expenses, accused   persons   have   submitted   that   they   have   not purchased the kids wear and new born baby accessories for a sum of Rs.2,309/­ vide Ex. PW­9/B and Ex. PW­9/C. They   have   taken   the   defence   that   the   name   of   the purchaser has not been mentioned in the said two Bills Ex. PW­9/B and Ex. PW­9/C.  It was contended that nor CC No.26/11 158/246 159 PW­9 Sh. Rohit Chawla has deposed that by whom the payment   of   the   said   Bills   Ex.   PW­9/B   and   Ex.   PW­9/C was made.  

170. It   is   the   general  practice that  at  the  time  of  selling  the goods, the name of the purchaser is not mentioned in the Bill.     Even   the   name   of   the   person   who   makes   the payment is not mentioned in the Cash Memo.  PW­9 Sh. Rohit Chawla has deposed that the goods mentioned in the Cash Memos Ex. PW­9/B and Ex. PW­9/C were sold to   the   customer   for   Rs.1,090/­   and   Rs.   1,219/­ respectively. The Cash Memos bear the rubber stamp of their   shop   and   goods   have   been   delivered   to   the customer.  

CC No.26/11 159/246 160

171. Accused persons have submitted that Dr. Sanjeev Kumar the co­brother of accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria was also residing in the said house at the time of search and therefore,   it   cannot   be   said   that   the   accused   persons have purchased the goods vide receipts Ex. PW­9/B and Ex. PW­9/C or that they have made the payment of the said Bills. 

172. It   has   to   be   noted   that   accused   persons   have   not produced   any   document   or   witness   to   prove   that   Dr. Sanjeev   Kumar   co­brother   of   accused   Yashdeep   Singh Kataria had purchased the goods vide Bills Ex. PW­9/B and   Ex.   PW­9/C.     DW­6   Dr.   Sanjeev   Kumar,   while deposing before this Court, has not deposed that he had purchased the kids wear and new born baby accessories CC No.26/11 160/246 161 vide Bills Ex. PW­9/B and Ex. PW­9/C.  During the search of  the  house  of the accused persons, Bills Ex. PW­9/B and Ex. PW­9/C were recovered from the house of the accused   persons.   The   accused   persons   have   not explained   that   as  to  how  these  two  bills  were  found  in their possession. Therefore, it is proved that the purchase of kids wear and new born baby accessories from New Kids Showroom vide Ex. PW­9/B and Ex. PW­9/C have been made by the accused persons and they have made the payment for the said Bills.   

173. With   regard   to   item   no.   7   of   Verifiable   Expenses   i.e Purchase   of   Cycle   for   a   sum   of   Rs.   1,200/­   vide   Bill No.859   dated   01.03.2000   from   Rajesh   Cycle   Trading Company, G­131, Sector No. 9, Noida, accused persons CC No.26/11 161/246 162 have admitted the same.  They have also admitted the Bill Ex. P­51(D­49) before the Court during the admission / denial of the documents.   The said Bill D­49 pertains to the purchase of the cycle.  The purchase of the cycle vide bill   no.   859   dated   01.03.2000   Ex.   P­51(D­49)   has   also been proved by PW­5 Sh. Rajesh Girdhar.  

174. With regard to item no. 8 of Verifiable Expenses, it has been submitted by the accused persons that they have not paid Rs. 150/­ to the Cashier, Kailash Hospital vide Receipt No. 84525 dated 01.03.2000.  They have further submitted that the said receipt was not related to them.  

175. The prosecution has not examined any witness to prove the said receipt.  Therefore, it is clear that the prosecution CC No.26/11 162/246 163 has failed to prove that a sum of Rs.150/­ has been paid by the accused persons to the Cashier, Kailash Hospital vide  Receipt   No. 84525 dated 01.03.2000.   Hence, the amount  of  Rs.150/­  is to be deleted from the Verifiable Expenses of the accused persons.  

176. With   regard   to   the   item   no.   9   of   Verifiable   Expenses, accused   Seema   Kataria  has   deposed  that  she   has  not made payment of Rs.1,010/­ vide Receipt Ex. PW­8/A for repair   of   Scooter   from   Federal   Motors   vide   CM   No. 165949 dated 21.02.2000. Accused Seema Kataria has taken the defence that the name of the person, who made the payment, is not reflected in the said Receipt Ex. PW­ 8/A.   Therefore, it can not be said that she had paid the payment of Rs.1,010/­ for repair of scooter.   CC No.26/11 163/246 164

177. I have gone through the Receipt Ex. PW­8/A.  Perusal of the   same,   it   reveals that the  Scooter   No.  DL­2SL­0818 has been repaired by Federal Motors and an amount of Rs.1,010/­   has   been   paid   on   account   of   the   scooter repair.     PW­4 Om Parkash Malhotra has produced the Cover   Note   Ex. P­53 in respect of the Scooter  bearing No. DL­2SL­0818, which is in the name of Ms. Seema. Even   otherwise,   it   is   admitted   by   the   accused   persons that the said scooter belongs to accused Seema Kataria. As   accused   Seema   Kataria   is   the   owner   of   the   said scooter, so she must have paid the charges for the repair of her scooter.   She has not led any evidence that this payment   was  not  made  by  her  or   that it was made by someone   else.   Therefore,   it   is   proved   that   the   said CC No.26/11 164/246 165 payment   of   Rs.1,010/­   has   been   made   by   accused Seema Kataria vide Receipt Ex. PW­8/A.  

178. With   regard   to   item   no.   10   of   Verifiable   Expenses   i.e Premium of Rs.366/­ paid by accused Seema Kataria to Oriental Insurance Company for insurance of Scooter No. DL­2SL­0818 vide policy No.97.61900 vide collection No. 9017 dated 31.03.1997, accused persons have admitted having made this payment.  They have also admitted the document D­52 before the Court during the admission / denial   of   the   documents.     The   said   document   D­52   is regarding   the   payment   of   Rs.366/­   to   the   Insurance Company.   Hence, it is proved that the accused persons has spent Rs.366/­ on account of insurance of the scooter of accused Seema Kataria.  

CC No.26/11 165/246 166

179. With   regard   to   item   No.   11   of   Verifiable   Expenses, accused   persons   have   taken   the   defence   that   the   said Vehicle No. DL­7C­5999 is in the name of Sh. S. K. Saini, therefore, they have not paid Rs. 10,240/­ vide Receipt No. 9010 dated 31.03.1997 Ex. PW­4/B for the insurance of   car   bearing   registration   No.   DL­7C­5999.   It   was contended   that   PW­4   Sh.   Om   Parkash   Malhotra   has deposed   during   his   cross   examination   that   as   per   Ex. PW­4/B the payment was made by Sh. S.K. Saini in cash.

180. I have gone through the Receipt Ex. PW­4/B.  Perusal of the Receipt reveals that the name of accused Seema has been mentioned on the Receipt Ex. PW­4/B.  It is also an admitted fact that accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria is the user of the said vehicle and the said vehicle is stated to CC No.26/11 166/246 167 has been gifted to the accused persons by the maternal uncle of accused Seema Kataria. Sh. S. K. Saini is not the user of the vehicle nor he is the owner of the vehicle. Therefore,   he   is   not   supposed   to   pay   the   premium   for insurance   of   the   said   vehicle.   The   accused   Yashdeep Singh   Kataria   is   user   of   the   vehicle   and   it   was   in   his possession.     The Receipt   Ex. PW­4/B was found from their   possession at the time of search.   They have not explained   as   to   how   the   said   Receipt   came   in   their possession especially under the circumstances when they did not make the payment of the premium amount of the insurance.   Hence,   it   is   proved   that   the   amount   of Rs.10,240/­ vide Receipt No. 9019 dated 31.03.1997 Ex. PW­4/B for the insurance of Vehicle No. DL­7C­5999 has been made by the accused persons.  

CC No.26/11 167/246 168

181. With   regard   to   item   No.   12   of   Verifiable   Expenses, accused persons have again taken the defence that they have not spent Rs.18,439/­ for the repair / service of car bearing registration No. DL­7C­5999 (Zen) vide Bills Ex. PW­3/P1 to Ex. PW­3/P10 as the said Zen car is in the name of Sh. S. K. Saini. 

182. I  have  gone  through the Bills Ex. PW­3/P1 to Ex. PW­ 3/P10,   which   were   issued   by   Competent   Automobiles. The  said   Bills  are in  the name of Sh. Yashdeep Singh Kataria.     It   is   also   an   admitted   fact   that   accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria is the user of the said car and therefore, he is supposed to pay the bills of the repair of the said car.    Hence, it is clear that the expenditure of CC No.26/11 168/246 169 Rs.18,439/­   has   been   made   by   the   accused   Yashdeep Singh Kataria for the repair / service of the vehicle vide Bills Ex. PW­3/P1 to Ex. PW­3/P10.  Accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria had already admitted these Bills Ex. PW­ 3/P1 to Ex. PW­3/P10 during the admission / denial of the documents before the Court. From this, it is proved that amount   of   Rs.18,439/­   has   been   made   by   accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria for the repair / service of Vehicle No. DL­7C­5999 (Zen). 

183. With   regard   to   item   No.   13   of   Verifiable   Expenses, accused   persons   have   stated   that   they   have   not   paid Rs.5,000/­ vide Receipt No. 5787, which is Ex. PW­13/C, to  Motor  Craft  India Pvt. Ltd. for repair  / service of car bearing   registration   No.   DL­7C­5999   (Zen).       It   was CC No.26/11 169/246 170 contended   that   in   the   said   Receipt   Ex.   PW­13/C,   the name of the person, who had made the payment, is not reflected. 

184. It   is   an   admitted   fact   that   accused   Yashdeep   Singh Kataria is the user of the said car. The accused persons have not led any evidence that the amount of Rs.5,000/­ for repair of this car was not paid by them or that it was paid by someone else.  Accused persons have also failed to explain the recovery of said receipt from their house at the time of search.   Hence, it is proved that Rs.5,000/­ has been given by accused persons to Motor Craft India Pvt. Ltd. for repair / service of Vehicle No. DL­7C­5999 (Zen).

CC No.26/11 170/246 171

185. With regard to item no. 14 of Verifiable Expenses, it has been submitted by the accused persons that they have not purchased the Water Purifier from Ion Exchange India Ltd.   It   was   contended   that   the   prosecution   has   not examined any witness to prove this fact.   

186. I have gone through the document / bill (D­75). Perusal of the said document / bill, it reveals that the said Bill is in the name of accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria.  Even the accused   Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria   had   already   admitted this document/ Bill Ex. P­55 during the admission / denial of the documents before the Court and the said bill was recovered   from   their   possession   at   the   time   of   search. Hence,   it   is   proved   that   the   Water   Purifier   from   Ion Exchange   India   Pvt.   Ltd.   has   been   purchased   by   the CC No.26/11 171/246 172 accused persons for Rs.21,500/­. 

187. With   regard   to   item   no.   15   of   Verifiable   Expenses   i.e amount of Rs.2,459/­ spent for subscription of Gas from Noida   Gas   Agency,   accused   persons   have   admitted having made this payment.   They have also admitted the document (D­35) as Ex. P­23 during the admission/ denial of   the   documents   before   the   Court.   Document   D­35   is regarding   this   payment.     Hence,   it   is   proved   that   the amount   of   Rs.2,459/­   has   been   spent   by   the   accused persons for subscription of Gas.  

188. With regard to the item no. 16 of Verifiable Expenses, the accused persons have taken the defence that they have not purchased the Samsung AC for Rs.33,600/­ from City CC No.26/11 172/246 173 Palace   Electronics   vide   Invoice   No.   59089   dated 15.04.2000.   It   was   submitted   that   even   PW­10   has specifically   deposed   that   the   name   of   Yashdeep   and Seema is not mentioned on the invoice Ex. P­52.    It was contended that the said receipt is in the name of their son Sparsh and the said AC was gifted to them by the parents of accused Seema Kataria.  

189. I have gone through the Ex. P­52.  During the admission / denial of documents before the Court, the said document has   been   admitted   by   the   accused   persons.     Accused persons have failed to produce any document or witness to prove that the said Samsung AC was gifted by the in­ laws of accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria. Therefore, it is proved that the said Samsung AC has been purchased by CC No.26/11 173/246 174 accused   persons   from   City   Palace   Electronics   vide Invoice No. 59089 dated 15.04.2000.   

190. With regard to the item no. 17 of Verifiable Expenses, it has been submitted by the accused persons that the no witness has been examined by the prosecution to prove that  the  sum  of Rs.22,415/­ has been paid by accused Seema Kataria for medical treatment.

191. I have gone through the document D­40.  Perusal of the same, it reveals that a sum of Rs.22,415/­ has been paid by   accused   Seema   Kataria   for   medical   treatment   till 03.05.2000.   Even   the   accused   Seema   Kataria   has admitted   this   document   as   Ex.   P­28   during   the admission / denial of documents before the Court. Hence, it is proved that Rs.22,415/­ has been paid by accused CC No.26/11 174/246 175 Seema   Kataria   till   03.05.2000   for   medical   expenses. However, it is mentioned that this amount of Rs.22,415/­ has been reimbursed to accused Seema Kataria by her Department   and   accordingly,   this   amount   has   been calculated   in   the   income   of   accused   persons   by   the prosecution.   Therefore, this amount has to be taken as expenses incurred by accused Seema Kataria.    

192. In the regard to the item no. 18 of Verifiable Expenses, the defence has been taken by the accused persons that they   have   not   paid   Rs.   2,853/­   as   remaining   partial payment   for   the   purchase   of   Maruti   car   to   Pasco Automobiles,   Gurgaon   vide   Receipt   No.   6565   dated 09.01.1997. It was submitted that the prosecution has not examined any witness to prove the same.  

CC No.26/11 175/246 176

193. I have gone through the document D­36.  Perusal of the same shows that the said document has been admitted by   the   accused   persons   as   Ex.   P­24   at   the   time   of admission / denial of documents before the Court.   The accused persons have led any evidence to show that this payment was not made by them or that this payment was made by someone else.  In view of the same, it is proved that Rs.2,853/­ has been paid by the accused persons as remaining partial payment for the purchase of Maruti Car to   Pasco   Automobiles,   Gurgaon  vide   Receipt  No.  6565 dated 09.01.1997, which is Ex. P­24. 

194. From   the   above   discussions,   it   is   clear   that   the Prosecution   has   failed   to   prove   the   the   expenses CC No.26/11 176/246 177 mentioned in item no. 4 of Verifiable Expenses i.e. Zen seat   cover   for   sum   of   Rs.3,200/­   were   incurred   by   the accused persons. Hence, the same is deducted from the Verifiable Expenses.  

195. Prosecution   has   also   failed   to   prove   the   expenses mentioned   in   item   no.   8   of   Verifiable   Expenses   i.e. payment of Rs. 150/­ to the Cashier, Kailash Hospital vide Receipt No. 84525 dated 01.03.2000.  Hence the same is also deducted from the Verifiable Expenses.    

196. From the above discussion, it is held that the prosecution has   successfully   proved   the   expenses   incurred   by accused persons as mentioned at item nos. 1 to 3, 5 to 7, 9 to 18 of Verifiable Expenses.

CC No.26/11 177/246 178

197. Hence,   the   total   expenses   of   Verifiable   Expenses   are proved to the tune of Rs.1,71,398.80. 

NON VERIFIABLE EXPENSES

198. The   case   of   the   prosecution   is   that   the   accused Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria   had   drawn   a   total   salary   of Rs.4,43,145/­ during the check period.   The prosecution has  taken   the   1/3rd  of   the   salary   of   accused   Yashdeep Singh Kataria as kitchen expenses, maintenance of family etc.,  which comes out to be Rs.1,47,715/­.  The accused persons have submitted that this has been rightly done by the prosecution.   To me, it also appears that 1/3 rd  of the salary   of   accused   Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria   i.e.   of Rs.1,47,715/­   has   been   rightly   taken   as   Non­Verifiable CC No.26/11 178/246 179 Expenses.  

TOTAL EXPENDITURE

199. In view of the above discussion, the total expenditure of the accused persons is calculated as under:­      Total Expenditure = Rs.1,71,398.80 + Rs.1,47,715.00      = Rs.3,19,113.80. 

ASSETS 

200. Now, the Assets of the accused persons are being taken up for discussion.  

201. Regarding the item no. 1 of Assets, it has been submitted by   the   accused   persons   that   as   per   the   Observation Memo dated 04.05.2000, the value of house hold articles found   at   the   house   of   the   accused   persons   were assessed worth Rs. 36,000/­.  Their case is that the said CC No.26/11 179/246 180 Observation   Memo   was   not   related   to   present   case   as this   was   prepared   in   another   case   which   was   against accused   Seema   Kataria   and   her   father.     The   accused persons   have   taken   the   defence   that   the   relevant documents have been shown by the prosecution to PW­ 16 Sh. H. S. Karmayal and PW­25 Sh. A. S. Rao at every stage of their examination before the Court. The answers were given by these two witnesses not from their memory but only after going through the documents. 

202. I have gone through the Observation Memo Ex. PW­25/A and   the   testimonies   of   PW­16   and   PW­25.     Both   the witnesses   have   supported   the   case   of   the   prosecution. In   the   Observation   Memo,   various   items   were   not assessed by the Investigating Officer.   It was mentioned CC No.26/11 180/246 181 by   the   Investigating   Officer   that   the   said   articles   were given by the friends or relatives of the accused persons. The Investigating Officer has rightly assessed the value of house   hold   articles   to   the   tune   of   Rs.36,000/­,   which appears to me on lower side.   The accused persons have not   led   any   evidence  that  the  house  hold  articles  have been over valued. 

203. The   perusal   of   the   Observation   Memo   Ex.   PW­25/A shows   that   there   are   74   items   mentioned   in   the   said Observation   Memo.     The   perusal   of   the   same   further shows that the Investigating Officer himself had come to the   conclusion   that   the   various   items   including   gold, jewellery, had been gifted to the accused persons by their friends   and   relatives   or   by   the   in­laws   of   the   accused CC No.26/11 181/246 182 Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria.     No   evidence   has   been collected by the Investigating Officer to ascertain the fact of having received the gifts by the accused persons as mentioned in the Observation Memo. I do not understand on what basis, it has been concluded by PW­16 Sh. H. S. Karmayal and PW­25 Sh. A. S. Rao that the most of the items mentioned in the Observation Memo were received by the accused persons as gifts.  Investigating Officer of the case did not collect any evidence in this regard and he   also   ignored   the  law  i.e.  the  Explanation   to   Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.  

204. The   value   of   the   house   hold   articles   mentioned   in   the Observation   Memo   had   already   been   done   by   the Investigating Officer on lower side.   Hence, the value of CC No.26/11 182/246 183 house hold articles is taken as Rs.36,000/­. 

205. Regarding   the   item   no.   2   of   Assets,   accused   persons have admitted the same, but it has been submitted by the accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria that  the said cash has been  taken  by him from  DW­6 Dr. Sanjeev Kumar  and DW­8 Sh. Ram Kishan. 

206. I have gone through the testimonies of DW­6 Dr. Sanjeev Kumar and DW­8 Sh. Ram Kishan.   DW­6 Dr. Sanjeev Kumar   has   specifically   deposed   that   he   does   not   have any   documentary   proof   of   handing   over   Rs.   5   lacs   to accused Y.S. Kataria.   He further deposed that he also does  not   have   any  documentary  proof  to  show  that  he was in possession of Rs. 5 lacs at that time. PW­8 Sh. CC No.26/11 183/246 184 Ram Kishan has also specifically deposed that he had not taken anything in writing from accused Y.S. Kataria at the time of giving of Rs. 5 lacs to him.  The accused persons have failed to produce any document to prove that they have taken the said amount from DW­6 and DW­8.  From the oral submissions, it can not be assumed that the said amount has been given by DW­6 and DW­8.     However, the defence taken by the accused persons shall be dealt in the Head of their Additional Income.   As the accused Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria   had   admitted   this   amount   of Rs.2,50,000/­ in his account so, it is taken in the Assets of the accused persons.  

207. Regarding   the   Item   No.   3   of   Assets   i.e.   Balance   of Rs.1,206/­ in the account no. 43263 in PNB, Kashmere CC No.26/11 184/246 185 Gate, Delhi, of accused Seema Kataria as on 03.05.2000, accused Seema Kataria has admitted the same. She has admitted the said document (D­19) as Ex. P­7 during the admission   /   denial   of   documents   before   the   Court. Hence,   an   amount   of   Rs.1,206/­   stands   proved   in   the Assets of the accused persons.  

208. Regarding the item No.   4 of the Assets i.e. Balance of Rs. 83,487/­ in the A/C GLSB No. 47558 in Canara Bank, Janpath,   New   Delhi,   of   accused   Seema   Kataria   as   on 03.05.2000,  accused Seema Kataria has not taken any defence.   She has admitted the document (D­20) as Ex. P­8 before the Court during the admission / denial of the documents.     Hence,   the   amount   of   Rs.83,487/­   in   the account of Seema Kataria has been proved as her Asset.  CC No.26/11 185/246 186

209. Regarding the Item No. 5 of the Assets i.e. Balance of Rs.89,463/­ in  PPF Account No. 019009000092, Balance of   Rs.43,180.97   in   SB   Account   No.   01190040518   and Balance of Rs.10,000/­ in MOD No. 01292040518001 of accused   Seema   Kataria   as   on   03.05.2000,   accused Seema   has admitted the same.   She had admitted the document   (D­21)   in   this   regard   as   Ex.   P­9   during   the admission / denial of documents before the Court. Hence, Rs.89,463/­ in PPF Account, Rs.43,180.97 in SB Account and   Rs.10,000/­   in   MOD   Account   stand   proved   in   the Assets of the accused persons.  

210. Regarding   the   item   no.   6   of   Assets,   accused   Seema Kataria   has   admitted   the   deposit   of   Rs.   20,000/­   on 17.01.1997.     It   has   been   submitted   by   the   accused CC No.26/11 186/246 187 Seema Kataria that she was having an additional income of Rs.79,767/­ in this account prior to the check period. No   benefit   of   the   same   has   been   given   by   the Investigating Officer on her Income side.

211. I have gone through the account statement D­22 (Ex. P­

10).   Perusal of the D­22 shows that on 17.01.1997 an amount of Rs. 20,000/­ has been deposited in KDR No. 970081   in   Canara   Bank,   Overseas   Branch,   KG   Marg, New   Delhi   in   the   name   of   accused   Seema.   The   said document D­22 has been already admitted as Ex. P­10 by the accused Seema Kataria during the admission/denial of   documents   before   the   Court.     From   the   above,   it   is proved   that   the   amount   of   Rs.20,000/­   has   been deposited in KDR NO. 970081 in Canara Bank, Overseas CC No.26/11 187/246 188 Branch, KG Marg New Delhi of accused Seema Kataria on 17.01.1997.    Perusal of this document further proved that the benefit of Rs.79,767/­ has not been given by the Investigating Officer   on the income side of the accused Seema Kataria.  

212. Regarding   the   Item   No.   7   of   Assets   i.e.   Premium   of Rs.33,371.90   paid   by   accused   Seema   in   LIC   Policy No.11220574,   accused   Seema   has   admitted   the document   (D­37)   in   this   regard   as   Ex.   P­25   during   the admission   /   denial   of   documents   before   the   Court. Perusal   of   the   same   shows   that   an   amount   of   Rs. 33,371.90 has been paid by accused Seema Kataria in her above mentioned LIC Policy.       Hence, it is proved that   an   amount   of   Rs.33,371.90   has   been   paid   by CC No.26/11 188/246 189 accused Seema Kataria for her LIC Policy No.11220574. 

213. Regarding   the   Item   No.   8   of   the   Assets,   accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria has admitted that he has paid a sum   of   Rs.37,889/­   as   Repayment   of   Loan   to   HUDCO Niwas. He has also admitted the document (D­24) in this regard   as   Ex.   P­12   before   the   Court   during   the admission / denial of the documents.  Hence, it is proved that   a   sum   of   Rs.37,889/­   has   been   paid   by   accused Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria   as   Repayment   of   Loan   to HUDCO Niwas.

214. Regarding   the   Item   Nos.   9   and   10   i.e.   Premium   of Rs.9,985/­   and   Rs.9,475/­   paid   by   accused   Yashdeep Singh   Kataria   in   LIC   Policy   Nos.112841820   and CC No.26/11 189/246 190 112841815, the payment of the same has been admitted by   accused   Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria.     During   the admission   /   denial   of   documents,   he   has   admitted   the documents (D­67) as Ex. P­44 and document (D­68) as Ex. P­45 before the Court. The said documents show the payment   of   premium   by   the   accused   Yashdeep   Singh Kataria.       Hence,   the   payment   of   the   said   amounts   is taken in the Assets of the accused persons.  

215. Regarding the Item No. 11 of the Assets i.e. Investment of Rs.35,000/­   in  IVP/KVP  in   HPO­SM,   accused   persons have admitted the said investment made by them.  They have admitted the documents (D­62) in this regard as Ex. P­39 during the admission / denial of documents before the   Court.         The   said   documents   (D­62)   show   the CC No.26/11 190/246 191 investment of Rs.35,000/­ in  IVP/ KVP.   Accordingly, the same is taken in the Assets of the accused persons.  

216. Item no. 12 of Assets has been admitted by the accused persons.     But   the   accused   persons   have   taken   the defence that the said  IVP/ KVP  were not purchased by them.   The   same   were   purchased   by   Smt.   Maya   Devi, mother of accused Seema Kataria, for the benefit of her youngest   daughter   Meenakashi,   who   was   100% handicapped.     They   further   submitted   that   the   said IVP/KVP  were kept with them for safe custody.  

217. It is an admitted fact that the said  IVP/ KVP  from GPO, Delhi have been recovered from the house of the accused persons   at   the   time   of   search.   Accused   persons   have CC No.26/11 191/246 192 produced DW­7 Dr. Ramesh Chandra. DW­7 Dr. Ramesh Chandra, during his examination in chief before the Court, on the one hand, has stated that Smt. Maya Devi, who is doing dairy business in her village, was depositing money with accused Seema Kataria, for the safety and security of her handicapped daughter Meenakshi.   On the other hand, he has deposed that he and his wife had purchased Indira  Vikas  Patras  of about Rs.1,48,000/­ and kept the same with accused Seema Kataria.  DW­7 has submitted that he had shown in the Income Tax Returns that he had purchased   the   said  IVPs.     But   he   has   not   produced Income   Tax  Returns  before  the Court  in  support  of  his contention.       Accused persons  have also  not  produced Smt. Maya Devi before the Court to prove that Smt. Maya Devi has purchased the said IVP/KVP with her income of CC No.26/11 192/246 193 dairy   farming.   The   accused   persons   did   not   lead   any evidence to prove that Smt. Maya Devi was engaged in dairy farming or that she was earning some income from the said dairy farming.   Hence, the defence raised by the accused persons can not be believed.   Accused persons have   also   admitted   the   document   (D­63)   as   Ex.   P­40 before   the   Court   during   the   admission   /   denial   of   the documents.     Therefore,  it is  proved that the  said  IVP  / KVP of Rs.1,48,000/­ are Assets of the accused persons.   

218. Regarding   the   item   no.   13   of   Assets   i.e   balance   in account no. 44717, BOI, Parliament Street, New Delhi in the   name   of   accused   Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria,   the accused persons have taken the defence that no witness has been produced by the Prosecution to prove the same. CC No.26/11 193/246 194 Accused   persons   have   further   submitted   that   the Statement of Account (D­29) is starting from 29.06.2000 which is after the check period.  

219. I   have   gone   through   the   Statement   of   Account   (D­29).

Perusal of the same, it is clear that the said Statement of Account is starting from 01.04.2000, which is within the check period. This statement of Account is admitted by the accused persons as Ex. P­17 during the admission / denial of documents before the Court. From this, it is clear that the balance as per the said Statement of Account (D­

29)   was   Rs.22,900/­   in   the   account   no.   44717,   BOI, Parliament   Street,   New   Delhi,   of   accused   Yashdeep Singh Kataria.    Accordingly, an amount of Rs.22,900/­ is proved as Asset of accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria.   CC No.26/11 194/246 195

220. Regarding   the  item   no.   14  of  Assets,  accused  persons have   submitted   that   out   of   Rs.   2,71,002/­,   accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria had paid the 12 installments of Rs. 8,312/­ each from his salary. The remaining amount of Rs.1,40,000/­ of loan has been paid by his brother DW­ 4 Pradeep Kataria.  

221. I   have   gone   through   the   testimony   of   DW­4   Pradeep Kumar.  DW­4 Pradeep Kumar has deposed that he paid an amount of Rs. 1,40,000/­ in the month of April, 1998 to the   Bank   of   America   as   repayment   of   loan.   DW­4 Pradeep Kumar has specifically deposed during his cross examination that he was serving as Inspector in the year 1996.     Being   the   Government   Official,   it   is   his   duty   to CC No.26/11 195/246 196 inform his Department regarding the said transaction, but he   has   not   informed   his   department.     The   DW­4   Sh. Pradeep Kumar has also not produced any Income Tax Returns   etc.   or   any   other   document   showing   the   said payment   made  by  him   to   the  Bank.      The  case   of   the accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria is that he has sold his vehicle to his brother DW­4 Pradeep Kumar.  Admittedly, the   car   was   in   the   name   of   accused   Yashdeep   Singh Kataria   and   the   said   car   was   never   transferred   in   the name of DW­4 Sh. Pradeep Kumar.  If it is assumed that accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria had sold this car to his brother,   then   being   the   Government   Servant   he   was supposed to give intimation to his department as required under   the   Service   Rules.     But   he   has   not   done   so. Therefore,   it   can   not   be   said   that   an   amount   of CC No.26/11 196/246 197 Rs.1,40,000/­ has been paid by DW­4 Pradeep Kataria to the   Bank.     Therefore,   the   plea   raised   by   the   accused persons cannot be believed and accepted.   Hence, it is proved   that   the   accused   persons   have   paid   the   total amount of Rs. 2,71,002/­ as repayment of loan to Bank of America for the purchase of Maruti 800 car. 

222. Regarding   the   Item   No.   15   of   the   Assets   i.e.   Bank Balance   of   Rs.87,460/­  in the  account  no. 975,  Central Bank   of   India   of   accused   Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria, accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria has admitted the same. He had admitted the document (D­30) as Ex. P­18 before the Court at the time of admission / denial of documents. This document shows the balance of Rs. 87,460/­ in the account   no.   975,   Central   Bank   of   India   of   accused CC No.26/11 197/246 198 Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria   and   accordingly,   the   same   is taken as Asset of accused persons. 

223. Regarding the Item No. 16 of the Assets i.e. 3 FDRs of Rs.3,50,000/­   in  the  name  of   accused   Yashdeep   Singh Kataria   in   ABN   Amro   Bank,   accused   Yashdeep   Singh Kataria   has   admitted   the   same.     He   had   admitted   the document (D­32) as Ex. P­20 before the Court during the admission   /   denial   of   documents.   The   document   D­32 shows   the   3   FDRs   of   Rs.3,50,000/­   in   the   name   of accused   Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria   in     ABN   Amro   Bank. Hence, the amount of Rs. 3,50,000/­ is proved as Assets of accused persons.  

224. Regarding the Item No. 17 of the Assets i.e. Investments CC No.26/11 198/246 199 of   Rs.   75,000/­   made   in   IDBI   Flexi   Bonds   by   accused persons,   they   have   admitted   the   same.   During   the admission / denial of documents, they had admitted the document (D­33) Ex. P­21 before the Court.   PW­11 Sh. Raj   Kumar   Sharma   has   also   proved   this   fact.         The document (D­33) also shows the said investment made by   the   accused   persons.     Accordingly,   an     amount   of Rs.75,000/­ is proved as Assets of the accused persons.  

225. Regarding the Item No. 18 of the Assets i.e. Payments of Rs.5,67,600/­ made to GNOIDA for purchase of a plot of 500   sq.   yds.   under  MHS­02   Scheme,   accused   persons have   admitted   the   same.     They   have   admitted   the document D­41, 42 and 43  as Ex. P­29, Ex. P­30 and Ex. P­31  before   the   Court   during   the   admission   /   denial   of CC No.26/11 199/246 200 documents.   PW­12 Sh. D. D. Sharma has also proved the said fact. 

226. The   accused   persons   have   taken   the   defence   that   the above mentioned plot of 500 sq. mtrs. in Greater Noida can not be taken as their Asset for the reason that the accused   Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria   had   executed   a General Power of Attorney in respect of the said plot in favour of Smt. Alka wife of Dr. Sanjeev Kumar and sister of accused Seema Kataria.  This was so done by accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria as he had taken an amount of Rs. 5 lacs from Dr. Sanjeev Kumar husband of Smt. Alka and   accused   Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria   was   not   in   a position to pay back Rs. 5 lacs to Dr. Sanjeev Kumar, so, he had executed the above mentioned General Power of CC No.26/11 200/246 201 Attorney in favour of Smt. Alka.   The said General Power of Attorney is  Mark DW­6/10.   I have perused the said General   Power   of   Attorney   executed   by   accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria.  The perusal of the same shows that   this General Power of Attorney has been executed by   accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria on 19.06.2003 i.e. after the check period.   If for the sake of arguments, the plea of the accused persons is accepted even then the accused   persons  are  not  entitled  to  any benefit  for  the reason   that   this  General  Power  of  Attorney  is  after   the check period and therefore, during the check period, the said plot was owned by accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria.

227. Perusal   of   the   above   referred   General   of   Power   of Attorney further revealed that accused Yashdeep Singh CC No.26/11 201/246 202 Kataria   has   executed   this   General   Power   of   Attorney stating   therein   that   he   is   unable   to   manage   the   plot   in question and therefore, he had appointed Smt. Alka to do various acts on his behalf.  It is further revealed from the said   General   Power   of   Attorney   that   the   said   General Power of Attorney is Revocable.  The perusal of the said General Power of Attorney reveals that it has not been executed for any monetary consideration or in lieu of any consideration   received   by     accused   Yashdeep   Singh Kataria   prior   to   the  execution  of  this  General   Power   of Attorney.   Nor does it talks about the fact that the said General   Power   of   Attorney   has   been   executed   by accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria in lieu of the payment of Rs.5 lacs received by  accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria from Dr. Sanjeev Kumar husband of Smt. Alka.   CC No.26/11 202/246 203

228. The Ld. counsel for the accused persons has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court of India which is reported "Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Limited Vs. State of Haryana   &   Another   (supra).     In   this   judgment   it   has been held that the immovable property can be transferred only   by   deed   of   conveyance   (sale   deed)   duly   stamped and registered as required by the law. Therefore, keeping in view this law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it cannot be said that accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria has transferred the plot in question to Smt. Alka.  

229. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the plea of the accused   persons   is   without   any   merit   and   the   same cannot be accepted.  Hence, this plot worth Rs.5,67,600/­ CC No.26/11 203/246 204 is proved to be an Asset of the accused persons.   

230. Regarding the item no. 19 of Assets i.e. purchase of Zen car,   accused   persons   have   submitted   that   accused Yashdeep   Singh Kataria had not paid Rs.3,50,000/­  for the   purchase   of   the   said   Zen   car   bearing   No.   DL­7C­ 5999.  They have taken the defence that the said car was gifted   to   them   by   Sh.   Hira   Lal,   the   paternal   uncle   of accused Seema Kataria, who purchased the same in the first   week   of   November   1996   from   Sh.   S.   K.   Saini. Accused   persons   have   examined   DW­1,   DW­4,   DW­7 and DW­8 to prove the fact that the said car was gifted to them by the paternal uncle of accused Seema Kataria.

231. I have gone through the testimonies of DW­1, DW­4, DW­ CC No.26/11 204/246 205 7 and DW­8. All of them have deposed that the said car was   gifted   by   the   in­laws   of   accused   Yashdeep   Singh Kataria at the time of his marriage.

232. On the other hand, PW­17 Sh. S. K. Saini has specifically deposed that he had sold this car to accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria for Rs.3,50,000/­.    He has also stated that the   father­in­law   of   accused   Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria stood Guarantor for the payment of the car and he also received   the   payment   in   parts.     No   motive   has   been alleged on the part of PW­17 Sh. S. K. Saini to depose falsely the above referred facts.   On the other hand, no cogent evidence has been led by the accused persons to show that the car was purchased by Sh. Hira Lal from Sh. S. K. Saini or that Sh. Hira Lal had made the payment of CC No.26/11 205/246 206 Rs.3,50,000/­ to Sh. S. K. Saini.  Moreover, PW­17 Sh. S. K. Saini could not be shaken from his stand in his cross examination.     Hence,   it   is   proved   that   the   accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria has purchased the said Zen car for Rs.3,50,000/­ from Sh. S. K. Saini.    

233. Both the accused persons are Government Servants.   If for   the   sake   of   the   arguments,   it   is   assumed   that   the accused persons have received the said car in gift from Sh.   Hira   Lal.     Then,   it   was   the   duty   of   the   accused persons   to   intimate   their   respective   departments   for having received the said car in gift, as required under the Service   and   Conduct   Rules.     But   the   accused   persons have not done so.   

CC No.26/11 206/246 207

234. In view of the above discussion, the plea of the accused persons cannot be accepted and accordingly,  it is proved that an amount of Rs.3,50,000/­ was spent by accused Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria   for   purchase   of   the   Zen   car. Hence,   the   value of  the  car  is  proved  as  an  Assets of accused persons.  

235. Regarding   the   item   no.   20   of   Assets,   it   has   been submitted by the accused persons that the said payment of   Rs.   8,152/­   on   account   of   Insurance   Policy   No. 6103392 dated 14.11.1996 is not related to them and the same   is   before   the   check   period   i.e.   09.12.1996   to 04.05.2000.  Admittedly, the said payment of Rs. 8,152/­ mentioned at item No. 20 of Assets is made prior to the check   period,   accordingly,   it   cannot   be   taken   in   the CC No.26/11 207/246 208 Assets of the accused persons.  

236. Regarding the item no. 21 of Assets, the accused persons have   taken   the   defence   that   on   22.01.2000   they   have purchased   the   property   bearing   No.   C­85,   Sector   41, Noida   for   Rs.   10,10,000/­   instead   of   Rs.   25   lacs.       To prove this fact, accused persons have drawn the attention of the Court on the testimony of PW­28 Sh. Lakhi Chand Sharma, who was the owner of the said house and PW­ 27 Sh.   S. C. Gupta, by whom the said Sale Deed was registered.  

237. I   have   gone   through   the   testimony   of   PW­28.    He   has specifically deposed that he had sold the said property to Sh. Kataria for a sum of Rs. 10,10,000/­ as per Sale Deed CC No.26/11 208/246 209 and he had executed a Transfer Cum Sale Deed in favour of Sh. Kataria for the selling the said property. PW­28 has further specifically deposed that the Stamp Papers of Rs. 1,35,000/­   for   the   execution   of   the   Sale   Deed   were purchased by accused Kataria. Registration Fees of Rs. 5,020/­ were also given by accused Kataria.  

238. PW­27 is Sh. S. C. Gupta, who has categorically deposed that Sale Deed Ex. P­57 has been executed by Sh. Lakhi Chand Sharma in favour of Yashdeep Singh Kataria and registered   on   22.01.2000   at   Sub­Registrar's   office   at Noida.   He further deposed that the said document was presented   before   him   for   registration   and   he   registered the same.  

CC No.26/11 209/246 210

239. The case of the prosecution is that the said property was purchased by the accused persons for a consideration of Rs.25   lacs.     To   prove   this   fact,   the   prosecution   has examined   PW­18   Sh.   N.   K.   Jain,   who   has   proved   the valuation report of the property.  

240. Admittedly, the property has been purchased from PW­28 Sh.   Lakhi   Chand   Sharma   vide   a   registered   document. The seller of the property Sh. Lakhi Chand Sharma has specifically deposed that he sold the property to accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria for Rs.10,10,000/­. This fact is also   supported   by   the   registered   Sale   Deed   Ex.   P­57, therefore, the oral  testimony of PW­18 Sh. N. K. Jain is of no help for the prosecution case for the reason that seller of   the   property   PW­28   Sh.   Lakhi   Chand   Sharma   also CC No.26/11 210/246 211 stated   that   he   had   sold  the  property  for   Rs.10,10,000/­ and the registered Sale Deed Ex. P­57 also supports the version of PW­28.   

241. From the above discussion, it is proved that the accused persons   have   spent   Rs.   10,10,000/­   as   per   Sale   Deed (Ex. P­57), for purchasing the property bearing no. C­85, Sector   41,   Noida,   Rs.   1,35,000/­   for   purchasing   the Stamp   Papers   for   the   execution   of   Sale   Deed   and Rs.5,020/­   for   registration   fee.     Thus,   the   total   amount spent   by   the   accused   persons   for   purchasing   the   said property is Rs.11,50,020/­ and the same is taken as an Asset of the accused persons.  

242. Item no. 22 of Assets i.e. recovery of Rs. 16,43,950/­ from the bed room of accused persons has been admitted by CC No.26/11 211/246 212 the accused persons.   But they have taken the defence that   they   have   received   Rs.   23   lacs   in   cash   from   Sh. Raghubir Singh as they had sold the property bearing no. C­85,   Sector   41,  Noida  to  him.  Out  of  the  said  Rs.  23 lacs,   the   amount   of   Rs.   7   lacs   was   used   by   them   for making payment towards the purchase of plot no. 500 sq. mtrs.   which   was   alloted   to   accused   Yashdeep   Singh Kataria     vide   allotment   letters   dated   23.03.2000   and 27.03.2000.     

243. I   have   gone   through   the   testimony   of   PW­23   Raghubir Singh,   who   has   specifically   deposed   that   he   had   paid once Rs. 7 lacs and after about a month Rs. 16 lacs to accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria.  He has also admitted that he had a litigation with the accused Yashdeep Singh CC No.26/11 212/246 213 Kataria   in   the   Hon'ble   High   Court   of   Delhi.     He   has produced the Certified Copy of Judgment Ex. PW­23/DX1 and Decree Ex. PW­23/DX2 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, Certified copy of Agreement to Sell and Purchase   dated   17.03.2000   Ex.   PW­23/DX3,   Certified Copy of Seizure Memo dated 31.05.2000 Ex. PW­23/DX4 (reflecting   the   Seizure   of   Agreement   to   Sell   dated 17.03.2000   and   receipt   of   Rs.   23   lacs   executed   by accused   Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria).     PW­23   has   also admitted   that   in   the   compliance   of   the   Judgment   and Decree of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, he had paid a sum   of   Rs.1,45,000/­   to   the   accused   for   which   he   had executed the  Receipt Ex. PW­23/DX5.  

244. It is admitted fact that the amount of Rs. 16,43,950/­ has CC No.26/11 213/246 214 been recovered from the Bed room of accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria and accused Seema Kataria.  The defence of   the   accused   persons   that   they   have   received   Rs.23 lacs from PW­23 Sh. Raghubir Singh shall be discussed in   detail   while   discussing   the   Additional   Income   of   the accused persons.  

245. From  the  above discussion, it is held that   Prosecution has successfully proved that the accused persons were having Assets to the tune of  Rs.53,24,989.87 during the check period. 

ADDITIONAL INCOME

246. Now,   the   Additional   Income   of   the   accused   persons   is CC No.26/11 214/246 215 being discussed as under:­

247. The   case   of   the   accused   persons   is   that   they   have received   an   amount   of   Rs.   23   lacs   from   PW­23   Sh. Raguhbir   Singh   as   a   part   sale   consideration   of   their house   bearing   no.   House   No.   C­85,   Sector   41,   Noida. The said amount of Rs.23 Lacs has not been taken by the Investigating   Officer   in   the   income   side   of   the   accused persons.  The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons did not receive any amount of Rs. 23 Lacs from PW­23 Sh. Raghubir Singh.  

248. The   Prosecution   has   examined   Sh.   Raghubir   Singh   as PW­23.     He   has   stated   that   he   had   entered   into   an Agreement to Sell with accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria for   purchasing   the   house   of   accused   Yashdeep   Singh CC No.26/11 215/246 216 Kataria.   The said house was in Noida.   He has stated that   he   paid   Rs.7   Lacs   to   accused   Yashdeep   Singh Kataria and after about a month, he paid Rs.16 Lacs to accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria. The said Agreement to Sell was executed on 17.03.2000.  The Sale Deed of the house   was   not   executed   by   accused   Yashdeep   Singh Kataria.     PW­23   Sh.   Raghubir   Singh   filed   a   suit   for Specific   Performance   of   the   Agreement   to   Sell   against accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria.  The said suit was filed in the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and this suit was decreed in favour of PW­23 Sh. Raghubir Singh.  

249. PW­23 has produced the documents i.e. Certified Copy of Judgment, which is  Ex. PW­23/DX1 and Decree, which is Ex.   PW­23/DX2   passed   by   the   Hon'ble   High   Court   of CC No.26/11 216/246 217 Delhi, Certified Copy of Agreement to Sell and Purchase dated   17.03.2000,   which   is   Ex.   PW­23/DX3,   Certified Copy  of   Seizure Memo dated 31.05.2000, which  is Ex. PW­23/DX4.   The said Agreement to Sell was executed prior to the search of the house of the accused persons and the said Agreement to Sell was filed in the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on the basis of which the suit of Specific Performance   filed   by   PW­23   Sh.   Raghbubir   Singh   was decreed   by   the   Hon'ble   Delhi   High   Court.     The   said Agreement to Sell was seized by the IO on   31.05.2000 vide a Seizure Memo Ex. PW­23/DX4. 

250. The execution of Agreement to Sell has also been proved by PW­15 Sh. G. D. Dahiya Advocate, Notary Public.  The said Agreement to Sell was produced by the CBI in the Hon'ble Delhi High Court after receiving the notice from CC No.26/11 217/246 218 the   Hon'ble   Delhi   High   Court.     The   perusal   of   Seizure Memo   dated   31.05.2000   shows   that   on   31.05.2000, Investigating Officer /DSP Nirbhay Kumar has seized the Original   Agreement   to   Sell   and   Receipt   of   Rs.23   Lacs vide   which   accused   Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria   had acknowledged   having   received     Rs.23   Lacs   from   Sh. Raghubir Singh.   The case of the prosecution is that the said Agreement to Sell  is forged and not genuine.  It is to be noted that the said Agreement to Sell was seized by Investigating   Officer   DSP   Sh.   Nirbhay   Kumar   during investigation.  However, the prosecution did not lead any cogent evidence to prove that the said Agreement to Sell was a bogus or a sham document.  It is also to be noted that the said Agreement to Sell was produced by the CBI in the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the CBI did not raise CC No.26/11 218/246 219 any objection there that the said Agreement to Sell was a false or a sham document or that it was entered into only to help the accused persons in this case.  Further it is to be noted that this Agreement to Sell has been filed by  the CBI in the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and on the basis of which   the   suit  of  PW­23  Sh.  Raghubir   Singh  has  been decreed in his favour.  This fact coupled with the fact that the witness of the   prosecution i.e. PW­23 Sh. Raghubir Singh   has   stated   that   he   had   paid   Rs.   23   lacs   to   the accused   Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria   as   a   part   sale consideration   for   purchasing   the   house   of   accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria.  It is also important to note that the Agreement to Sell has also been notarized by PW­15 Sh. G. D. Dahiya Advocate, Notary Public, who has also proved that the Agreement to Sell was executed between CC No.26/11 219/246 220 the accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria and Sh. Raghubir Singh. Therefore, from all these facts and circumstances, it   is   proved   that   accused   Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria   had received a sum of Rs.23 Lacs from  PW­23 Sh. Raghubir Singh   as   a   part   of   sale   consideration   of   his   house. Hence,   an   amount   of   Rs.23   lacs   is   being   taken   as Additional Income of the accused persons.    

251. The   case   of   the   accused   persons   is   that   they   have received  an  amount of around Rs. 2.50 lacs as  sagun/ gifts  on   their   engagement   and   marriage   ceremony   in December   1996.     They   have   also   received   a   sum   of Rs.90,000/­ (approx.) on other occasions such as on the birth of their sons and their birthdays.  CC No.26/11 220/246 221

252. Now the question is that whether the above said gifts can be   taken   into   the   additional   income   of   the   accused persons or not.  Admittedly, both the accused persons are Government Servants and they have not intimated their respective departments that they had received the above referred gifts in their marriage or other occasions.  

253. The Explanation to Section 13(1)(e) reads as under:­ "Explanation:­   For   the   purpose   of   this section, "known sources of income" means income received from any lawful source and such   receipt   has   been   intimated   in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant." 

254. In   the   present   case,   the   accused   persons   have   not intimated their respective departments for having receipt CC No.26/11 221/246 222 of the gifts, as required under the Explanation to Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.    

255. The   Hon'ble   Supreme   Court   in   a   case   titled   as  "N. Ramakrishnaiah Vs. State of A. P."  reported as  2009 Crl.   L.   J   1767   (Supreme   Court)  in   para  14  of   the judgment has held as under:­ "As   per   the   explanation   appended,   the prosecution   is   relieved   of   the   burden   of investigating   into   "source   of   income"   of   an accused to a large extent, as it is stated in the explanation   that   "known   sources   of   income"

mean income received from any lawful sources, the   receipt   of   which   has   been   intimated   in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or   orders   for   the   time   being   applicable   to   a public servant.   The expression "known source CC No.26/11 222/246 223 of income" has reference to sources known to the   prosecution after  thorough investigation of the case."

256. It was further held  in this case as under:­ "16.   The   legislature   has   advisedly   used   the expression   "satisfactorily   account".   The emphasis  must be  on  the word  "satisfactorily" and the legislature has, thus, deliberately cast a burden   on   the   accused   not   only   to   offer   a plausible explanation as to how he came by his large wealth, but also to satisfy the Court that his explanation was worthy of acceptance." 

257. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kedari Lal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. reported as 2015 Crl. L. J. 4045 (Supreme Court) has held as under:­ "10. The expression "known sources of income" CC No.26/11 223/246 224

in   Section   13(1)   (e)   of   the   Prevention   of Corruption   Act,   has   two   elements,   first   the income must be received from a lawful source and secondly the receipt of such income must have   been   intimated   in   accordance   with   the provisions of law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to the public servant."  

258. Therefore, in view of the Explanation to Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 and the law laid down   by   the   Hon'ble   Supreme   Court   in   the   two   above referred judgments, I am of the considered view that the said  gifts  allegedly received by them cannot be taken in their income as they have not intimated their respective departments for having received the said gifts etc.       

259. The case of the accused persons is that accused Seema Kataria had invested an amount of Rs.25,000/­ in FDR in CC No.26/11 224/246 225 SRF Finance Ltd. in June, 1995 (pre­check period), which matured   in   July,   1997   (within   the   check   period).   The matured amount was deposited in bank by her by way of cheque. 

260. In   this   regard,  the  accused  Seema  Kataria  has not  led any   evidence   nor   she   stepped   in   the   witness   box   to substantiate her plea.   Therefore, her plea that she has received some amount on account of maturity of FDR in SRF   Finance   Ltd.,   can   not   be   believed   and   has   to   be rejected.  

261. The   case   of   the   accused   persons   is   that   accused Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria   had   received   the   medical reimbursement of Rs.1,09,668/­ of the medical bills of his CC No.26/11 225/246 226 father, which was deposited in his account and this fact has been proved by DW­3 Sh. Joginder Singh Mann. To prove his plea, the accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria has also examined DW­4 Sh. Pradeep Singh Kataria and DW­ 5 Sh. Mandeep Singh Kataria.  

262. I have gone through the testimonies of DW­3, DW­4 and DW­5.  The contrary statements have been given by the said   defence   witnesses   as   well   as   accused   Yashdeep Singh   Kataria   in   his   statement   recorded   under   Section 313 Cr. P. C.   DW­4 Pradeep Singh Kataria and DW­5 Mandeep  Singh Kataria, brothers of accused Yashdeep Singh  Kataria  have specifically deposed that during the year 1996­1997, their father fell ill.   The expenditure on the treatment of their father was borne by the family as a CC No.26/11 226/246 227 whole   and   also   from   the   savings   of   their   father.   The accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria stated in his statement recorded   under   Section   313   Cr.   P.   C.   that   medical expenses of the treatment of his father were borne out of the sources of his father   and at the same time he also stated in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C., that he can produce the documents in this regard.  However, the accused did not produce any document in this regard nor he stepped into the witness box to substantiate his plea.     He   has   taken   this   plea   only   in   his   statement recorded   under  Section 313 Cr.  P.  C.,  which is  not an evidence.  This was so held in a case reported as Ranjit Mandal Vs. State, 1997 Crl. L. J. 1586.  

263. DW­3 Sh. Joginder Singh Mann, who has produced the vouchers   of   medical   reimbursement,   has   categorically CC No.26/11 227/246 228 deposed that the same were only a reimbursement of the amount which the officer may have spent on the medical treatment / purchases of medicines etc.   Therefore, from the statement of the defence witness DW­3 Sh. Joginder Singh Mann, it is clear that reimbursement is made for the expenses incurred by the officer.  Admittedly, this amount was   received   by   accused   Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria   on account of reimbursement of medical bills which implies that  accused  Yashdeep Singh Kataria must have spent the   amount   for   which   he   has   received   reimbursement. Hence,   this   amount   can   not   be   taken   in   the   additional income of the accused persons.  

264. The case of the accused persons that accused Yashdeep Singh  Kataria  had also received a sum of Rs. 25,000/­ CC No.26/11 228/246 229 every year as additional income from his agricultural land and thus, he had a total income of Rs.1,25,000/­ during the check period from his agricultural land.

265. Accused   Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria   has   not   proved   on record   that   he   has   intimated   his   department   for   having received income from his agricultural land.  Therefore, the agricultural  income as claimed by the accused persons cannot   be   considered   in   view   of   the   Explanation   to Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments reported as N. Ramakrishnaiah Vs. State of A. P. (supra)  and  Kedari Lal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.(supra).

CC No.26/11 229/246 230

266. The  case of the accused persons is that an amount of Rs.1,40,000/­ has also to be taken as additional income of   the   accused   as   a   sum   of   Rs.1,40,000/­   paid   to   the Bank of America regarding the repayment of the car loan was paid in fact by DW­4 Sh. Pradeep Singh Kataria, the brother of accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria.   The case of the accused persons is that the accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria has sold his car to his brother DW­4 Sh. Pradeep Singh   Kataria.   Admittedly,   he   has   not   intimated   this transaction to his department.   It is also an admitted fact that   the   said   car  was never  transferred in the name of DW­4 Sh. Pradeep Singh Kataria by accused Yashdeep Singh   Kataria.     Hence,   in   view   of   the   Explanation   to Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CC No.26/11 230/246 231 the judgments reported as N. Ramakrishnaiah Vs. State of A. P. (supra)  and  Kedari Lal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.(supra), the plea of the accused persons can not be accepted. 

267. The accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria has also claimed that he had received Rs.35,000/­ by selling his motorcycle to his brother DW­5 Sh. Mandeep Singh Kataria. 

268. Admittedly, the accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria has not intimated his department for having sold his motorcycle and   for   having   received   Rs.35,000/­   by   selling   his motorcycle. The plea of the accused persons can not be accepted in view of the Explanation to Section 13(1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the law laid down   by   the   Hon'ble   Supreme   Court   in   the   judgments CC No.26/11 231/246 232 reported   as  N.   Ramakrishnaiah   Vs.   State   of   A.   P. (supra) and Kedari Lal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.(supra).

269. The   case   of   the   accused   persons   is   that   accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria has received a sum of Rs.5 lacs from   his   co­brother   DW­6   Dr.   Sanjeev   Kumar   as contribution for purchasing the house bearing no. C­85, Sector 41, Noida.  Thus this amount of Rs.5 lacs is also to be taken in the income of the accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria.     The case of the accused persons is that the accused   Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria   has   also   received   a sum of Rs.5 lacs from DW­8 Sh. Ram Kishan as loan for purchasing the house bearing no. C­85, Sector 41, Noida. Thus this amount of Rs.5 lacs is also to be taken in the CC No.26/11 232/246 233 income of the accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria.   

270. The   case   of   the   accused   persons   is   that   the   accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria has taken Rs.5 lacs from DW­6 Dr.   Sanjeev   Kumar   as   contribution   for   purchasing   the house in Noida.  The case of the accused persons is that the said house was purchased jointly by accused persons and DW­6 Dr. Sanjeev Kumar.  It is also their case, after purchasing the house, both the families started residing in the said house.   However, the accommodation was not enough so, they decided to dispose off the said house. On the other hand, the documents on record shows that the   said   house was registered in the name of accused Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria.     The   accused   persons   have jointly applied for loan to HUDCO Niwas.   The loan was disbursed to them by HUDCO Niwas and thereafter, they CC No.26/11 233/246 234 purchased   the   house   in   Noida.     As   the   accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria was the sole owner of the house and the said house was purchased after taking loan from HUDCO   Niwas,   therefore,   there   was   no   question   of contribution   of   Rs.   5   lacs   made   by   DW­6   Dr.   Sanjeev Kumar for purchasing the said house.  DW­6 Dr. Sanjeev Kumar has also failed to produce any record and prove that   he   had   contributed   Rs.5   lacs   for   purchasing   the house in Noida.  

271. It is also the case of the accused persons that they had taken   a   friendly   loan   from   DW­8   Sh.   Ram   Kishan   for purchasing the house in Noida.  As discussed above, the accused persons have purchased the loan by taking loan from   HUDCO   Niwas,   therefore,   there   was   no   logic   in CC No.26/11 234/246 235 taking friendly loan from DW­8 Sh. Ram Kishan.   It has also   been   proved   on   record   that   the   accused   persons were   having   FDRs   etc.   with   them.     So,   under   these circumstances, there is no question of taking loan from some person for purchasing the house.  

272. Admittedly,   accused   Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria   has   not intimated   his   department   regarding   the   receipt   of   Rs.5 Lacs   from   his   co­brother   Dr.   Sanjeev   Kumar   and   Rs.5 Lacs from DW­8 Sh. Ram Kishan. Therefore, in view of the Explanation to Section 13(1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme   Court   in   the   judgments   reported   as  N. Ramakrishnaiah Vs. State of A. P. (supra) and Kedari Lal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.(supra),   the CC No.26/11 235/246 236 plea of the accused persons cannot be accepted.  Hence, the amount of Rs.10 Lacs can not be taken as additional income of the accused persons.  

273. Accused Seema Kataria had also taken the plea that she was having the additional income of Rs.79,767/­ in KDR No. 970081 in Canara Bank, Overseas Branch, KG Marg, New Delhi during the check period.

274. Admittedly,   the   benefit   of   above   said   income     has   not been given to the accused persons by the Investigating Officer.  In Para No. 211 above, it has been held that the said income of Rs.79,767/­   was taken as Income of the accused persons. Accordingly, the benefit of Rs.79,767/­ is given to the accused persons as Additional Income.   CC No.26/11 236/246 237

275. From the above discussion, it is proved that the Additional Income of the accused persons is Rs.23,79,767/­ .  

276. On   the   basis   of  my  above  findings  and  the documents produced   on   record,   the   total   income   of   the   accused persons including their salaries, medical reimbursement, interest on the Bank deposits etc. and Additional Income during the check period is  calculated as under:­ S. NO.  Particulars Amount

01.  Income   of   accused   Seema,   while Rs.1,15,135.00 working as Technical Officer in Delhi College   of   Engineering   from December, 96 to May, 1998. 

02.  Income   of   accused   Seema   from Rs.2,58,774.00  DPCC, ISBT, Delhi. 

CC No.26/11 237/246 238

03.  Medical   reimbursement   made   to Rs.22,415.00 accused Seema till 03.05.2000.

04.  Salary/   Income   of   accused Rs.4,43,145.00 Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria   from December, 1996 to 30.04.2000.  

05.  Loan from HDFC for house building. Rs.8,00,000.00

06. Balance   in   SB   account   no.975   in Rs.1,222.00 Central Bank of India in the name of accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria.  

07. Balance in GLSB account no.47558 Rs.4,695.00 in   Canara   Bank   in   the   name   of accused Seema Kataria. 

08. Balance   in   account   no.   43263   in Rs.495.00 PNB,   Kashmere   Gate,   Delhi   in   the name of accused Seema Kataria. 

09. Balance in account no. 44717, Bank Rs.5.00 of   India,   Parliament   Street,   New Delhi   in   the   name   of   accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria. 

10. Balance in SB account no. 40518 in Rs.2,677.00 SBI,   ISBT,   in  the   name   of   accused Seema Kataria. 

CC No.26/11 238/246 239

11. Sale   of   Property   bearing   No.   C­ Rs.23,00,000.00 85/41, Noida. 

12. Benefit of  Additional Income in  KDR Rs.79,767.00 No.   970081   in   Canara   Bank, Overseas   Branch,   KG   Marg,   New Delhi in the name of accused Seema during the check period. 

                                     Total Income Rs.40,28,330.00

277. In   para   no.   199   above,   it   has   been   held   that   the   total expenses   incurred by   the   accused persons during the check period are Rs.3,19,113.80. 

278. In   para   no.   245   above,   it   has   been   held   that   the   total assets   possessed   by   the   accused   persons   during   the check period were of Rs.53,24,989.87.

279. In view of the above discussion, the total Savings of the CC No.26/11 239/246 240 accused are calculated as under:­ Total Income during check period.  Rs.40,28,330.00 Expenditure during check period. Rs.3,19,113.80   Total Savings Rs.37,09,216.20

280. Thus, the value of the Assets acquired by the accused persons   during   the   check   period   exceeds   their   total savings   of   check   period.     Hence,   the   accused   persons were having Assets during the check period, which were Disproportionate to their known source of income.   The Disproportionate Assets are calculated as under:­  CC No.26/11 240/246 241 Disproportionate Assets= Total Assets - Total Savings.  (Total Assets) Rs. 53,24,989.87   (Total Savings)  Rs.37,09,216.20           Disproportionate Assets  = Rs.53,24,989.87- Rs.37,09,216.20  = Rs.16,15,773.67

281. Thus it is proved that the accused persons were having Disproportionate   Assets   of   Rs.16,15,773.67,   which   is 40.11%   excess   of   their   known   source   of   income.     The judgments  relied upon by the Ld. Defence Counsel are not of any help to the accused persons for the reason that the said judgments were not applicable to the facts of the case in hand.  

282. The first charge against the accused persons is in respect of conspiracy. The charge against the accused persons is CC No.26/11 241/246 242 that   they   both   being   public   servants   had   agreed   to   do illegal act or legal act with illegal means and in pursuance of   the   said   agreement,   they   both   acquired   the   Assets Disproportionate to their known source of income.   

283. In   this   case,   there   is   no   direct   evidence   of   conspiracy.

The   charge   of   conspiracy   rests   entirely   upon   the circumstantial evidence. Neither the prosecution nor the defence counsel has advanced arguments on this aspect.

284. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kehar Singh & Ors. Vs. The State (Delhi Admn.),  which is  reported as  AIR   1988   Supreme   Court   1883,   has   held   that   the conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial evidence and express agreement need not be proved. It was also held CC No.26/11 242/246 243 that neither actual meeting of two persons is necessary nor   it   is   necessary   to   prove   the   actual   words   of communication.  The settled law is that where the factum of conspiracy is sought to be inferred from circumstances, the prosecution has to show that the circumstances give rise   to   a   conclusive   or   irresistible   inference     of   an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence   and   the   prosecution   has   to   prove   the   charge beyond reasonable doubt.   

285. Admittedly,   in   the   present   case,   there   is   no   direct evidence to prove the charge of conspiracy.  The charge of   conspiracy   has   to   be   considered   on   the   basis   of circumstantial evidence.

CC No.26/11 243/246 244

286. It has been held above that accused persons were having Assets Disproportionate to their known source of income. It is admitted fact that the accused persons are husband and wife and they were residing together. Some Assets were   held   jointly   by   them   and   they   both   were   aware regarding   the   Assets   of   each   other.     Therefore,   it   is proved that they both have agreed to do illegal act and in conspiracy   with   each   other   they   had   acquired   Assets during the check period, which were Disproportionate to their known source of income.  

287. In   this   case,   the   accused   Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria   has also being  charged for substantive offence of having in possession   of   Assets   Disproportionate   to   their   known source   of   income,   during   the   check   period,   punishable CC No.26/11 244/246 245 under   Section   13(2)   read   with   Section   13(1)   (e)   of Prevention of Corruption Act.  It has been held above that accused   were   having   Assets   during   the   check   period, which   were   Disproportionate   to   their   known   source   of income.   So,   the   substantive   charge   against   accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act is also proved. 

288. In   view   of   the   above   discussions,   both   the   accused persons   are   held   guilty   for  the   commission   of   offence punishable   under   Section   120­B   IPC   read   with   Section 13(2) of PC Act read with Section 13(1) (e) of PC Act and they are convicted thereunder.  Accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria   is   also   held   guilty   for   the   substantive   offence CC No.26/11 245/246 246 punishable   under   Section   13(2)   of   PC   Act   read   with section 13(1) (e) of PC Act, 1988 and he is also convicted thereunder.

289. Both the accused persons shall be heard separately on the point of Sentence.  

Announced in the open Court today i.e. on 29.09.2016. 

  (SURINDER KUMAR SHARMA)      SPECIAL JUDGE, PC ACT, (CBI)­09          CENTRAL, DELHI.

CC No.26/11 246/246 247   IN THE COURT OF SURINDER KUMAR SHARMA SPECIAL JUDGE, P.C. ACT (CBI) ­ 09, CENTRAL DISTRICT TIS HAZARI : DELHI  CC No.  26/11 R.C. No. 24(A)/2000 Central Bureau of Investigation Versus

1. Yashdeep Singh Kataria      S/o Sh. Amir Singh    

2.Seema Kataria    W/o Sh. Yashdeep Singh Kataria     Both r/o Flat NO. 16­B, Pocket­C Mayur Vihar Phase II, Delhi - 91.

..... Convicts Order on Sentence

1.  I have heard the Ld. PP for the CBI and Sh. H.K. Sharma Ld. Counsel for the Convicts.   I have also perused the file and heard the Convicts on the point of Sentence.

CC No.26/11 247/246 248

2.  It was submitted by the Ld. PP for the CBI that the Convicts do not   deserve   any   leniency.     It   was   submitted   that   the   maximum punishment should be awarded to both the Convicts.  It was submitted that  Convict Seema Kataria is a previous Convict as she has been convicted in a case of  forgery and therefore, she does not deserve any leniency   from   this   Court.       It   was   also   submitted   that   the disproportionate   assets   of   both   the   Convicts   should   also   be confiscated.   To support his contention, Ld. PP has also relied upon the Judgment  reported as  Mirza Iqbal Hussain Vs. State of  Uttar Pradesh AIR 1983 S.C. 60.   He has also contended that a heavy fine should be imposed upon the Convicts.

3. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the convicts submitted that a lenient   view   should   be   taken   against   the   convicts   on   the   point   of Sentence.   It was submitted that the trial has consumed almost 16 years and on account of this the convicts have suffered a lot.  It was submitted that convict Yashdeep Singh Kataria is about 50 years of age and has two children who are studying and an aged mother to take care of.     It was submitted that   convict Yashdeep Singh Kataria is suffering   from   Diabetes,   H.T.,   Hypothyroidism   and   Dyslipideimea CC No.26/11 248/246 249 and is undergoing treatment for the same at hospital.

4. Ld.   Counsel   for   the   convicts   further   submitted   that   convict Seema Kataria is the only female member in her family to look after the daily needs of her children and mother in law.  It was submitted that   convict   Seema   Kataria   is   also   suffering   from   psoriasis.         In support   of   their   medical   conditions,   the     convicts   have   filed photocopies   of   their   respective   medical   prescriptions   given   by   the doctors.     Both the Convicts have also prayed for a lenient view on Sentence.

5. Ld. Defence Counsel for the convicts has also relied upon the judgments reported as (1980) 2 SCC 282, (1985) 3 SCC 658, 1989 Supp (1) SCC 601, 2001 SCC (Cri.) 150, (2009) 2 SCC (Cri.) 286, 2014 XI AD (S.C.) 336, Crl. A. 1264/2015 titled as K.P. Singh Vs. State, in support of his contentions.

6. In view of the facts and circumstances of  the case, both the Convicts are sentenced as under:­

7. Convict Yashdeep Singh Kataria shall undergo RI for two and a CC No.26/11 249/246 250 half   years   with   a   fine   of   Rs.   50,000/­   for   the   offences   punishable under Section 120­B IPC r/w Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(e) of P.C.   Act.   In   default   of   payment   of   fine,   convict   Yashdeep   Singh Kataria   shall   undergo   SI   for   six   months.   Convict   Yashdeep   Singh Kataria shall undergo RI for two and a half years years  with a fine of Rs.   50,000/­   for   the   offence   punishable   under   Section   13(2)   r/w Section   13(1)(e)   of   The   Prevention   of   Corruption   Act,   1988.     In default   of   payment   of   fine,   convict   Yashdeep   Singh   Kataria   shall undergo SI for six months.  Both the sentences of convict Yashdeep Singh Kataria shall run concurrently.

8. Convict   Seema   Kataria   shall   undergo   RI   for   two   and   a   half years with a fine of Rs. 50,000/­  for  the offence punishable under Section 120­B IPC r/w Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(e) of P.C. Act. In default of payment of fine, convict Seema Kataria shall undergo SI for six months.

9. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. be given to both the Convicts.

10. Copy   of   the   Judgment   and   Order   on   Sentence   be   given immediately to the Convicts, free of cost.   Bail­bonds are cancelled. CC No.26/11 250/246 251 The sureties are discharged.

11. File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in the Open Court
on  15.10.2016                                        (Surinder Kumar Sharma)  
                                              Special Judge, P.C. Act (CBI) ­ 09 
                                                Central District, Tis Hazari,Delhi




CC No.26/11                                                              251/246