Delhi District Court
Cbi vs D.C. Shankhla on 6 February, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE: PC ACT
(CBI)- 04, ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS,
NEW DELHI.
OLDEST & TARGETED CASE
CNR No. DLCT11-000201-2019
CC No. 25/2019
R.C. No. 3(A)/91-ACU (I)
Police Station:CBI/ACU (I)/New Delhi
Under Section: 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (e) of Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
(CBI)
VERSUS
Dharam Chand Sankhla
(D.C Sankhla)
R/o 27, Rajpur Road, Civil Lines
Delhi.
Date of Institution 02-01-1997
Date of Start of 17-12-2019
Arguments
Date of Conclusion of 23-01-2025
Arguments
Date of Judgment 06-02-2025
CC No.25/2019 Page 1/419
INDEX
Sl. Title Pages
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF CASE 6
(i) Result of Investigation 7-10
(ii) Defence Raised during Investigation 10-12
II. CHARGE 12
III. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE (P.E) 12-43
IV. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED (S.A) 43-44
V. DEFENCE EVIDENCE (D.E) 44-47
VI. ARGUMENTS OF CBI ON VALIDITY 47-49
OF PROSECUTION SANCTION
VII. ARGUMENTS OF ACCUSED ON 50-56
VALIDITY OF PROSECUTION
SANCTION
VIII. APPRECIATION /ANALYSIS OF 56-59
ARGUMENTS ON PROSECUTION
SANCTION
59-62
(i) Improper Authentication
(ii) Appropriate Authority to Grant the
62-71
Sanction
(iii) Review of Earlier Rejection of 72-83
Prosecution Sanction
(iv) Availability of Complete Material 83-94
(v) Whether Material Evidence was 94-99
Concealed from Sanctioning Authority
(vi) Factual Infirmities in S.P. Report 99-104
CC No.25/2019 Page 2/419
IX. LEGAL POSITION & FINDINGS ON 104-107
MERITS
X. DISPUTED ENTRIES OF ASSETS,
EXPENDITURE AND INCOME
1. Item No.12 of Assets ( Annexure-III)
107-114
2. Item No. 48 of Assets 114-119
3. Item No.42 of Assets 119-122
122-130
4. Item No.17 of Assets ( Annexure-III) &
Item No.18 of Expenditure (Annexure-II)
130-132
5. Item No.10 Assets
6. Item No. 2 of Income (Annexure-I) &
132-142
Item No.1 & 2 of Expenditure (Annexure-
II)
7. Item No. 46 of Assets ( Annexure-III) 142-150
8. Item No. 12 of Income ( Annexure-I) 150-166
9. Item No.34 of Expenditure (Annexure-II) 166-170
170-185
10. Item No. 11 Assets (Annexure-III) &
Item No.26 of Income (Annexure-I)
11. Item No. 23 of Expenditure (Annexure-
185-197
II)
12. Item No. 6 & 7 of Income (Annexure-I)
197-203
& Item No. 30, Item No.13 & Item No.14 of
Expenditure (Annexure-II)
13. Item No.8 of Income (Annexure-I) &
203-217
Item No. 3 of Expenditure (Annexure-II)
14. Item No. 27 of Income (Annexure-I) & 217-227
CC No.25/2019 Page 3/419
Item No.2 of Assets ( Annexure-III) 227-231
15. Item No.28 of Income (Annexure-I) 231-238
16. Item No. 17 & 34 of Income
238-239
17. Item No.16 of Income
239-240
18. Item No.18 of Income 240-241
19. Item No.19 of Income 241-242
242-243
20. Item No.20 of Income
243
21. Item No. 21 of Income
243
22. Item No. 22 of Income 243-245
23. Item No. 23 of Income 245-247
24. Item No.24 of Income
247-259
25. Additional Claim of Income in the form
of Loans taken during Check Period
259-269
26. Additional Income Claim vis-a-vis the
Loan Taken from Y.P Bansal.
269-274
27. Additional Income Claim Under Misc.
Heads.
274-278
28. Item No.11 of Expenditure (Annexure-
II) & Item No.1 of Assets ( Annexure-III) 278-280
29. Item No.16 & 17 of Expenditure. 280-287
30. Item No.25 of Expenditure 287-289
289-292
31. Item No. 45 of Assets (Annexure-III)
32. Item No.43 of Assets
292-295
33. Item No.27 of Expenditure (Annexure-
II) 295-297
CC No.25/2019 Page 4/419
34. Item No.28 of Expenditure 297-298
35. Item No.37 of Expenditure 298-347
36. Item No. 3,4 & 14 of Assets (Annexure-
III), Item No.4 & 5 of Expenditure
(Annexure-II) & Worth of father of accused
347-355
late M.R Sankhla.
355-368
37. Item No.15 of Expenditure (Annex-II)
38. Item No.16 of Assets ( Annexure-III)
368-380
39. Item No. 33 of Expenditure
XI. ADMITTED ENTRIES IN LIST OF 380-401
INCOME (ANNEXURE-1), LIST OF
EXPENDITURE (ANNEXURE-II) & LIST
OF ASSETS ( ANNEXURE-III)
XII. CONCLUSION VIS-A-VIS ITEMS 401-417
MENTIONED IN THREE LISTS I.E
INCOME, EXPENDITURE &
ASSETS OF ACCUSED IN
TABULATED FORM
XIII CONCLUSION 417-419
JUDGMENT
"Corruption is an enemy of nation and tracking down corrupt public servant, howsoever high he may be, and punishing such person is a necessary mandate under the PC Act, 1988." The said quote of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Subramanian Swamy and Ors. vs. Director, CC No.25/2019 Page 5/419 Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors. (MANU/SC/0417/2014) aptly sums up the mandate under which the present case has to be decided. (I) FACTUAL MATRIX OF CASE
1. This judgment shall decide the case filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), bearing R.C-3 (A)/91-ACU(I) registered against accused Dharam Chand Sankhla under Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 in ACU (I) Branch Delhi.
1.2 The RC/FIR was registered against accused Dharam Chand Sankhla ( hereinafter referred in short "accused D.C Sankhla"),I.A.S, the then Managing Director, Delhi Khadi & Village Industries Board, Delhi Administration, Delhi under Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "PC Act") in ACU (I) Branch Delhi. As per the allegations in the FIR, accused D.C Sankhla while working in various capacities in Delhi and other places had acquired huge assets and pecuniary resources/ properties, movable as well as immovable to the tune of Rs.3.5 crores either in his own name or in the name of his family members which were disproportionate to his known sources of income to which he could not satisfactorily account for.
CC No.25/2019 Page 6/419(i) Result of Investigation
2. The investigation was accordingly taken up and it is further alleged that the investigation in the case revealed that accused D.C Sankhla belonged to Sirsa, Haryana. His father namely late Mani Ram Sankhla was a shoemaker having a small shop with a meager income in Sirsa,Haryana. His father expired leaving behind no other property except a small residential house at Sirsa which is now possessed by his brother namely Laxmi Chand Sankhla who runs a shoe shop in the said ancestral house. The accused D.C Sankhla joined Indian Administrative Service in July 1969 and functioned in different capacities at different places in Delhi, Andaman Nicobar,Pondicherry etc. Further, as per the investigation, accused D.C Sankhla married Shashi Arora on 06.06.1973. He received cash and gold ornaments worth Rs.45,000/-, one refrigerator worth Rs.3000/- and one TV set worth Rs.2000/- as a gift at the time of marriage. Accused D.C Sankhla has two sons namely master Kapil Sankhla and master Saket Sankhla. His wife and his sons are dependent upon him.
2.1 The investigation in the matter revealed that accused D.C Sankhla acquired most of the movable and immovable properties through ill-gotten money after 1980. Accordingly, CBI, for calculation of his disproportionate assets, has taken the check period from CC No.25/2019 Page 7/419 01.01.1980 to 13.08.1991 i.e the day on which his residential premises were searched.
2.2 On 31.12.1979 i.e last day before the start of the check period, the value of total movable and immovable assets in his name or in the name of his wife and children were found to be Rs.50,000/- as per the detail as follows:
Sr. Name of Worth (in
No. Asset Rupees)
1 One Refrigerator Rs.3000/-
2 One T.V Rs.2000/-
Set
3 Cash Rs.45,000/-
Total Rs. 50,000/-
2.3 It is further pleaded that the benefit of said
properties has been given to accused D.C Sankhla at the time of calculation of his disproportionate assets. The investigation revealed that during the check period from 01.01.1980 to 13.08.1991, accused D.C Sankhla had an income of Rs.56,68,528.97 from all known sources of income as mentioned in Annexure-I filed with the chargesheet. The investigation also revealed that the expenses incurred by accused D.C Sankhla during the check period from 01.01.1980 to 13.08.1991 come to the tune of Rs.23,17,015.62/- as detailed in Annexure-II filed with the chargesheet. The total value of the assets acquired during the check period was found to be Rs. 1,15,82,677.13. Thus, during the check period from 01.01.1980 to 13.08.1991, income, expenditure, savings, CC No.25/2019 Page 8/419 assets and disproportionate assets etc. of accused D.C Sankhla are as follows:
S. No Amount /Worth (in
Rupees)
1 Income Rs.56,68,528.97
2 Expenditure Rs.23,17,015.62
3 Likely savings = Income Rs. 33,51,513.35
minus Expenditure
4 Savings before Check Rs. 50,000/-
Period
5 Total Savings Rs. 34,01,513.35
6 Assets Rs. 1,15,82,677.13
7 Disproportionate Assets Rs.1,15,82,677.13
(Assets minus Savings minus 34,01,513.35 = Rs. 81,81,163.78 (as on 13.08.91) 2.4 It is thus concluded by the CBI that during the check period from 01.01.1980 to 13.08.1991, accused D.C Sankhla, as a public servant, was found to be in possession of movable and immovable assets either in his own name or in the name of his wife and children to the tune of Rs.81,81,163.78 which were disproportionate to his known sources of income. Accused D.C Sankhla failed to account for pecuniary resources or property which are disproportionate to his known sources of income. Thus, the said acts of accused D.C Sankhla discloses commission of offences punishable under Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (e) of PC Act against him. The sanction order was obtained from Competent Authority which has been filed with the chargesheet. Hence, prayer is made to summon and try accused D.C Sankhla in the present case.
CC No.25/2019 Page 9/419(ii) Defence Raised during the investigation for claiming Additional Income.
3. Further as per the chargesheet a second case bearing CC No-11/2019, RC No.3(A)/91-ACU(I) was filed while the investigation in the present case was at the concluding stage. The accused D.S Shankla (A-1) submitted a representation dated 14.06.1993 with Director, CBI New Delhi claiming additional income based on various documents. The said documents included the following sale deeds/Agreements to sell :
S.No Nature of Dated Parties
Document
1 Sale 14.06.1989 Shashi Sankhla W/o
Agreement D.C Sankhla & O.S
Chauhan R/o 17-B
Ramprastha Colony
Ghaziabad.
2 Sale 28.12.1989 Shashi Sankhla W/o
Agreement D.C Sankhla & O.S
Chauhan
3 Sale 19.11.1990 D.C Sankhla & O.S
Agreement Chauhan
CC No.25/2019 Page 10/419
4 Sale 20.08.1990 Shashi Sankhla &
Agreement Sh. Yashpal Bansal
S/o Sh. Girdhari Lal
R/o 376 Ram Nagar
(Krishan Nagar)
Delhi.
5 Sale 01.12.1990 Shashi Sankhla &
Agreement Sh. Yashpal Bansal
3.1 The above-said documents were further
investigated by the CBI. The investigation revealed that
accused D.C Sankhla (A-1) entered into criminal conspiracy with Shashi Sankhla, O.S Chauhan (A-3) (since expired), Yashpal Bansal (A-4) (since expired) and Bhagirath Prasad Verma (A-5) (since expired) in order to fabricate evidence for creating false defence of additional income in the case of disproportionate assets which was already under investigation against him. ( The detailed allegations are not discussed herein as the second case already stands disposed off vide judgment dated 21.12.2023.
3.2 The second chargesheet was filed for the aforesaid acts for the offences punishable under Section 120B IPC r/w Section 193 IPC and substantive offence under Section 193 IPC against D.C Sankhla (A-1), Shashi Sankhla, O.S Chauhan (A-3) (since expired), Yashpal Bansal (A-4) (since expired) and Bhagirath Prasad Verma (A-5) (since expired). Further, accused CC No.25/2019 Page 11/419 D.C Sankhla (A-1) was also chargesheeted for the offence u/s 477A IPC.
3.3 The charge-sheet in the said second case was originally filed before the Ld. CMM however in revision petition bearing No. 169/2000 the LD ASJ/ Revision Court vide order dated 08.10.2001 directed to commit the said case (Second Case) to the Special Court where the regular case (DA Case) under the Prevention of Corruption Act was pending. Accordingly the trial of the second case for the offence u/s 193/120 B of IPC was also held along with the present matter . The second case already stands disposed off vide judgment dated 21.12.2023 whereby the accused persons were acquitted.
II. CHARGE
4. The Ld. Predecessor took cognizance of the offence in the present case on 02.05.1997 against sole accused and he was accordingly summoned on the same day (02.05.1997). After supplying the copies and hearing the arguments on charge, charges were framed against the accused on 27.01.1999 for the offences punishable under Section 13 (1) (e) punishable u/S 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
III. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE (P.E)
5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 87 witnesses. Testimony of PW-8, PW-9, PW-10 and PW-45 is not there as observed by Ld. CC No.25/2019 Page 12/419 Predecessor vide order dated 09.09.2010 and 01.04.2008 respectively.
6. PW-1 Prem Kumar Chopra, was the Manager (Admn.) Accounts and Deposit, Main Branch, Connaught Place, Indian Bank in February 1988. He deposed that he knew accused D.C Sankhla (A-1) who was the Chairman of Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation (DSMDC) in 1988. DSMDC was maintaining Over Draft Fixed Deposit Current Account in the said branch. PW-1 proved Telegraphic Remittance Challans Ex.PW-1/A to Ex.PW-1/C .He further claimed that the amount mentioned in the said challans was sent in cash by one messenger of accused D.C Sankhla (A-1).
7. PW-2 K.Rama Subramaniam, Manager, Indian Bank, at Connaught Place Branch of the Bank in the year 1988 and was looking after Telegraphic Transfer of Money. PW-2 further deposed that Telegraphic Transfer Challans Ex.PW-1/A to Ex.PW-1/C are filled in his handwriting. He also stated that he had filled up the said challans on the instructions of his manager namely Prem Kumar Chopra (PW-1).
8. PW-3 Shyam Mohan Gupta deposed that he came in contact with accused D.C Sankhla (A-1) in 1991 as he wanted to purchase agricultural land for the construction of a temple. PW-3 further stated that he CC No.25/2019 Page 13/419 purchased around 6 acres of land situated at village Ranhola, Nangloi, Delhi for a consideration of Rs.29,60,000/-. The sale deed's ( Mark A to Q )qua the said land were executed in his favour (PW-3) as well as his wife's favour. PW-3 further stated that he made payment of Rs.29,60,000/- to accused D.C Sankhla (A-1) by drafts and two cheques.
8.1 In the cross-examination he denied the suggestion that he had given any payment qua the said deal in cash to accused.
9. PW-4 Ashok Nijhawan, Computer Terminal Officer, Central Bank of India proved the photocopy of ledger account of Saving Account No. 9835 in the name of Mr. P.B. Majumdar as Ex.PW-4/A, Ex.PW-4/B1 to Ex.PW4/B11.
10. PW-5 Chandgi Ram deposed that in 1981, accused D.C Sankhla (A-1) had come to his village Ranhola, Nangloi for the purchase of land. PW-5 sold 6 acres of land to accused D.C Sankhla (A-1) situated in the village for Rs.80,000/- and three sale deeds of the transactions were executed and registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Delhi. PW-5 further deposed that thereafter accused D.C Sankhla (A-1) told him to till the land and offered him (PW-5) to keep the produce from one Kila in lieu of his labour. PW-5 further stated that he used to give Rs.25,000/- to 30,000/- per year to the CC No.25/2019 Page 14/419 accused in place of the produce from the remaining land. The said arrangement continued till 1991.
11. PW-5 (inadvertently again referred as PW5 ), Sayta Narain Sharma, Assistant in Services (I) Department of Delhi Administration proved the three personal files of accused D.C Sankhla (A-1) as Ex.PW- 5/A to Ex.PW-5/C. He further proved the file pertaining to property returns of accused D.C Sankhla (A-1) as Ex.PW-5/D.
12. PW-6 Shri Azimuddin was partly examined in chief but before the conclusion of his examination he expired.
13. PW-7 D.K Samantarary (Sanction Witness) deposed that on 18.10.1996, he was working as Director (Vig.) in the Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Govt of India, New Delhi. On the said day, he authenticated order granting sanction for prosecution of accused D.C Sankhla (A-1), an I.A.S, Officer of AGMUT Cadre. PW-7 proved the sanction order as Ex.PW-7/A. PW-7 further deposed that he was authorized to authenticate the sanction order on behalf of Hon'ble President of India ( the Sanctioning Authority ). He was extensively cross-examined on behalf of the accused.
CC No.25/2019 Page 15/41914. PW-11 Trilok Chand Ahuja Commission Agent at Grain Market, Sirsa. He deposed that the agricultural produce from the lands of accused D.C Sankhla (A-1) and his sons used to be sold through his commission agent shop at Sirsa. As per the practice, Form-J used to be issued to the agriculturalist whose produce was sold by commission agency. PW-11 proved the Form-J as Ex.PW-11/1 to Ex.PW-11/21( in name of accused), Ex.PW-11/22 to Ex.PW.11/33 and Ex.PW- 11/34A to Ex.PW-11/34 F in favour of Kapil Sankhla and also Ex.PW-11/35 to Ex.PW-11/47 in favour of Saket Sankhla.
15. PW-12 Smt. Chhaya Chaudhary proved the sale of a plot of land in Ghaziabad, and she sold the same to accused D.C Sankhla (A-1) through a general power of attorney for a consideration of Rs.4 lacs. She received the consideration amount through a cheque. PW-12 proved the power of attorney as Ex.PW-12/A.
16. PW-13 A.S Bisht is the official from Tehri Hydra Development Corporation (THDC) as Senior Manager ( Personnel). PW-13 deposed that their company took on lease Flat No. D-41, Aditi Apartment, Patparganj, Mother Dairy, Delhi from accused D.C Sankhla (A-1) and proved the said lease deed as Ex.PW- 13/A. CC No.25/2019 Page 16/419
17. PW-14 R.K. Sharma proved the school record of Saket Sankhla son of accused D.C Sankhla (A-1) at Govt Model School No.1, Ludlow Castle, Delhi. PW-14 further stated that the total expenditure incurred qua fees of the said student w.e.f 27.04.1991 till 08.10.191 was Rs. 89.20 vide letter Ex.PW-14/A.
18. PW-15 S.L. Dhawan from Delhi Public School, Mathura Road, New Delhi furnished the details about the fees paid by parents of master Kapil Sankhla (admission no. 86378) as Ex.PW-15/A.
19. PW-16 Brother Ittoop from St. Xaviers School, Raj Niwas Marg, Delhi proved record of expenses regarding the son of accused Kapil Shankla as Ex.PW-16/A.
20. PW-17 P.S Gausai official from the Regional office of Ghaziabad,U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd (UPSIDC) proved the record regarding Plot No. A-243, Surajpur Area, Ghaziabad. The copy of the allotment letter as Ex.PW- 17/B and copy of registration form Ex.PW-17/C. The aforesaid plot stands registered/allotted in the name of Shashi Sankhla (wife of accused).
21. PW-18 Raghunath, Accountant, DDA proved the file about Shop No. 5 LSC/SCC in East of Kailash as Ex.PW-18/A. He further deposed that initially CC No.25/2019 Page 17/419 Rattan Lal Sankla submitted the tender application for aforesaid shop and deposited a sum of Rs.1000/- vide original application as Ex.PW-18/B, copy of statement regarding details of the applicant and offered bid money for the shop vide Ex.PW-18/C. As the offer given by R.L Sankla was found to be highest , the shop was alloted to him vide allotment letter No. 10(38) Ex.PW-18/D. In terms of the demand letter, allotee R.L Sankla deposited a sum of Rs. 32099/- vide challan no. 76903, Rs.83000/- vide challan no. 9771 and Rs.16,300/- vide challan no. 110698 as Ex.PW-18/E, Ex.PW-18/F and Ex.PW-18/G. The total amount deposited by the allotee is Rs.1,32,399.99.
21.1 Thereafter, allotee R.L Sankhla filed an application seeking transfer of the shop in favour of his younger brother namely P.C Sankhla. The application for transfer of the shop in favour of P.C Sankhla was allowed by the Director vide order dated 26.11.1981 and the same was communicated to P.C Sankhla. The possession of the shop was handed over to P.C Sankhla through Ex.PW- 18/L. 21.2 PW-18 further deposed that P.C Sankhla filed an application dated 07.07.1987 for the transfer of the said shop in the name of D.C Sankhla. Copy of the said application has been exhibited as Ex.PW-18/O. The approval of the transfer of shop in favour of D.C Sankhla was given vide Ex.PW-18/Q. CC No.25/2019 Page 18/419
22. PW-19 Satya Prakash, Assistant Director, DDA proved the record regarding the allocation of Category-III Flat, bearing No. 9F, East of Kailash to Rattan Lal Sankhla which was changed on request of D.C Sankhla to Flat of Category-II, Alaknanda, New Delhi. He proved the documents as Ex.PW-19/D to Ex.PW- 19/D. 22.1 He further stated that R.L Sankhla sent another request letter seeking permission to sell the said flat in favour of Miss Asha Gupta. He exhibited the said permission as Ex.PW-19/P and documents attached as Ex.PW-19/P-1 to Ex.PW19/P-8. One complaint Ex. PW19/A was received from Ms. Asha Gupta alleging that D.C Sankhla ( accused ) , IAS posted at TMMTC, New Delhi, posed himself to be R.L Sankhla and signed the agreement to sell and other documents.
22.2 PW-19 further deposed that one application for registration of SFS Flat under 4 th Self Financing Scheme was made by Prem Chand Sankhla on 06.03.81. He proved the said application as Ex.PW-19/S, registration fees of Rs.15,000 paid with the said application as Ex.PW-19/S1. He further exhibited allocation letter concerning flat at Vasant Vihar, near JNU to P.C Sankhla as Ex.PW-19/S2. Thereafter, P.C Sankhla sought a change of allocation of flat through letter Ex.PW-19/U. In pursuance of the said letter, DDA CC No.25/2019 Page 19/419 sent letter dated 1.12.1986 for change of allocation vide Ex.PW-19/V . Thereafter, one letter of possession Ex. PW19/X was issued to P.C Sankhla which was received by D.C Sankhla on 20.05.1987.
22.3 PW-19 further deposed PC Sankhla submitted another application Ex. PW19/Z seeking transfer of the flat at Mall Road, Flat No. 95 SFS Cat.II, in favour of his brother D.C Sankhla, IAS. The permission was granted by the DDA vide letter dated 03.06.1988 Ex.PW-19/Z-1. The complete file pertaining to the said property has been proved as Ex.PW-19 /Z-2.
23. PW-20 M.G Aggarwal in the year 1989 purchased the Flat No. 95, Mall Apartments, Mall Road, Delhi. The said flat belonged to D.C Sankhla. A sum of Rs. 2 lacs was negotiated. PW-20 sent a draft No.561 dated 13.02.1989 which was prepared/purchased vide cheque No. 198702 from Bank of India, Saharanpur Branch. He exhibited the application for purchase of draft as Ex.PW-20/A .The cheque given for purchase of draft has been got exhibited as Ex.PW-20/B. PW-20 further stated that during the negotiation, D.C Sankhla informed him that the said flat belonged to him.
24. PW-21 K.S Gahunia deposed that in 1991 he was introduced to one D.C Sankhla (accused herein) who assured him to arrange a loan. Shashi Sankhla gave him (PW-20) a cheque of Rs. 5 lacs Ex.PW -21/A and he CC No.25/2019 Page 20/419 executed one receipt of said cheque as Ex.PW-21/B. PW- 21 identified his signatures as well as signatures of accused D.C Sankhla (A-1) on the said receipt. PW-21 stated that he returned the said money to Shashi Sankhla on October 7, 1994 (after check period) .
25. PW-22 Ravinder Lal deposed that in the year 1990, he purchased 3000 eucalyptus trees from accused D.C Sankhla (A-1) for a sum of Rs.3 lacs. PW-22 further stated that he paid Rs.11,000/- in cash and Rs.2,89,000/- by bank drafts. He proved the relevant record as Ex.PW- 22/A.
26. PW-23 K.K. Sharma President of Jyoti Bagh Co-Operative Group Housing Society, Parwana Road, Pitam Pura, Delhi deposed that on 20.06.1982, Shashi Sankhla wife of D.C Sankhla became a member of the society vide membership no. 77. She was allotted flat no.22, measuring 980 square feet in the society.
26.1 PW-23 further deposed that payment of Rs.1,73,650/- including Rs.211/- share money was made till 13.08.1991. PW-23 stated that he issued three certificates Ex.PW-23/A1 to PW-23/A3. He exhibited the statement of account of Shashi Sankhla as Ex.PW- 23/B. PW-23 further proved the ledgers accounts qua payments made by Shashi Sankhla on as Ex.PW23/E1 to E9. PW-23 also deposed that the allottee paid maintenance cost vide Ex.PW-23/F. CC No.25/2019 Page 21/419
27. PW-24 J.N. Gupta the then President/Secretary of Aditi Group Housing Society, Patparganj, Delhi deposed that Accused D.C Sankhla was also a member of the society who was allotted Flat No. B-41 in the society in March 1988. In pursuance of the allotment, he (accused D.C Sankhla) had paid a sum of Rs.3,89,472/- as on 13.04.1989. PW-24 further deposed that the amount paid by accused D.C Sankhla (A-1) is duly reflected in the books of accounts vide Ex.PW24/A1(OSR).
27.1 PW-24 further deposed that accused D.C Sankhla (A-1) advanced a loan of Rs.1 lakh from Delhi Co-operative Housing Society through society Aditi Group Housing Society. The said loan amount too is duly reflected in the books of accounts.
28. PW-25 Gulab Singh, the Registration Clerk in Tehsil Office, Sirsa, proved the four sale deeds registered on 21.06.1985 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Sirsa in favor of Kapil Sankhla and Saket Sankhla concerning land at Village Moriwala by Kishan Singh, Punjab Singh, Bhagh Singh and Bishan Singh vide Ex.PW-25/1 to Ex.PW-25/4.
29. PW-26 Rakesh Kumar, General Secretary, Priya Charitable Society, proved the donations receipts Ex.PW-26/A1 to A5 paid by accused.
CC No.25/2019 Page 22/41930. PW-27 Brij Pal deposed that in 1987, he was in the business of cement at Yamuna Vihar and proved one cash memo as Ex.PW27/A.
31. PW-28 Jagdish Kumar a resident of village Natar, District Sirsa ( Haryana) deposed that he was the Numberdar in the said Village and Maniram Sankhla ( father of accused ) who expired in 1984, had 10.5 acres of land in the said village.
32. PW-29 Jeet Singh deposed that he used to work in the fields of accused D.C Sankhla (A-1) at village Natar from 1991 to 1993. As per the agreement, PW-29 would keep/take one crop (vegetable) and accused D.C Sankhla (A-1) would take two crops grown in a year. After keeping one crop as seed, the rest would be sold in the mandi at Sirsa. The payment used to be received by accused D.C Sankhla (A-1) through cheque. The total income from all three crops in a year was about 1.5 to 1.75 lacs.
33. PW-30 Raghbir Singh deposed that he knew accused D.C Sankhla (A-1) as he had land in village Ranhola, Nangloi, Delhi. He had purchased the said land from Chandgi Ram S/o Banwari Lal. The lands comprised more than 30-31 bighas.
CC No.25/2019 Page 23/41934. PW-31 Ashok Kumar Kansal, Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Modi Nagar, U.P proved letter Ex.PW-31/A giving the details of payments of a bill of M/s Roll Mill ,Parkash Industrial State, Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad which was given to CBI. PW-31 further exhibited details of bills as Ex.PW-31/B.
35. PW-32 Ramesh Grover, PW-33 Gurmit Singh and PW-34 Sarda Ram are not relevant in the present case being witnesses in the second case.
36. PW-35 V.K. Khandelwal, Retired Bank Officer, Branch Manager with State Bank of Patiala, Chandigarh handed over to the CBI, 47 original vouchers and some other documents pertaining to the account of accused vide Production Memo as Ex.PW-35/A. He further proved the vochers/ cheques in present case as Ex.PW-35/A-1 to Ex. PW 35/A21. (Accused D.C Sankhla offered to admit documents Ex.PW-35/A22 to A-50 in the testimony of PW-35). PW-35 further proved the statement of account Ex.PW-35/A-51.
37. PW-36 Rajinder Sarup Saxena proved receipt of entrance fee of National Sports Club of India as Ex.PW36/A.
38. PW-37 Kanwar Lal deposed that one Chandgi Ram owned 31 Bighas of land in village Ranhola. He took the said land on rent for cultivation CC No.25/2019 Page 24/419 from 1985 or 1986 for which he used to pay rent of Rs.5000/- per annum. Thereafter said Chandgi Ram started cultivating the land himself. He came to know that Chandgi Ram sold the land to one Mr. Sankhla.
39. PW-38 Surender Kumar from the office of Sub-Registrar, Dadri proved the original power of attorney dated 21.01.1989 Mark PX which was registered on 16.03.1989.
40. PW-39 R.C Aggarwal, Financial Controller and Secretary with DTTDC, New Delhi. He forwarded to CBI vide letter Ex.PW-39/A the documents regarding rent compensation paid to accused D.C Sankhla (A-1) by department. He further stated that the rent compensation was paid w.e.f July 1986.
41. PW-40 V.P.Garg, Administrative Officer (A.O), Vigilance Department, DESU, proved details of electric consumption of connection No. DL 4547378 /SX and DL 454737 as Ex.PW-40/A and Ex.PW-40/B.
42. PW-41 J.P Garg is the official from Punjab National Bank from 11.121989 to 30.05.1992. The letter Mark X was signed by Shri HR Dewan who was the Officiating as Senior Manager. Through letter Mark X, the details of debit /credit entries of voucher mentioned in the details were sent to CBI.
CC No.25/2019 Page 25/41943. PW-42 Dharmvir Singh deposed that he was dealing in the Nursery business at Smalkha, Panipat. He had sold plants of his nursery to Sh. Isimmudin for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- who had taken on rent the Orchid of accused D.C Sankhla (A-1). PW-42 proved the bills as Ex.PW-42/A.
44. PW-43 Raman Chawla identified the bill for an amount of Rs. 2426/- in the name of accused D.C Sankhla (A-1) as Ex.PW-43/A.
45. PW-44 Laxman Dass Goyal proprietor of Aggarwal Hardware Store at Railway Road, Smalkha District Panipat proved the bill for a sum of Rs. 7400/- issued in the name of Shashi Sankhla as Ex.PW-44/A (wrongly mentioned as Ex.PW-43/A).
46. PW-46 Jai Bhagwan dealer of the Sanitary items at Panipat proved the bill for an amount of Rs.1127.18 in the name of accused D.C Sankhla (A-1) as Ex.PW-46/A.
47. PW-47 Baljeet Singh proved the petrol bill of Blue Jay Filing Station as Ex.PW-47/A.
48. PW-48 Satish Kumar Jain proved the bill No. 902 dated 25.06.1991 as Ex.PW-48/A issued in favour of Shashi Orchards and Nursery Pati Kalyan qua purchase of 3000 bricks for a total sum of Rs.2250/-.
CC No.25/2019 Page 26/41949. PW-49 K.L Mewal Recovery Officer, DESU, Mehrauli proved the receipt no. 7750 for a sum of Rs.570/- towards the installation of electricity connection in the name of Shashi Sankhla as Ex.PW-49/A.
50. PW-50 Ganga Ram who was electrician in 1989-90 and was also running an electric goods shop. He deposed that he had carried out electrical repair work on behalf of Shashi Sankhla and issued bills Ex.PW-50/1 to Ex.PW-50/5. He received part payment of Rs.2300/-. The said payment was made by accused D.C Sankhla (A-1).
51. PW-51 Bishamber Dayal deposed that in 1991, he was an agriculturist having a farmhouse at Patti Kalyana, Smalkha, District Panipat. His farmhouse was situated in front of the farmhouse of Shashi Sankhla. Being a neighbor, PW-51 got repaired the tube well installed at the farm of house Shashi Sankhla. One Sh. Azimuddin who was the contractor of Orchard Portion belonging to Shashi Sankhla paid him (PW-51) a sum of Rs.15086/- vide slip Ex.PW-51/1.
52. PW-52 Shyam Nijhawan was partly examined-in-chief but, thereafter he never turned up.
53. PW-53 Mohan Lal, Patwari, Halka Ellebad, District Sirsa, Haryana brought the mutation register and deposed that as per record Kashmiri Lal s/o Gahla Ram CC No.25/2019 Page 27/419 sold the relevant land at village Natar, Sirsa to Mani Ram s/o Bhura Ram (father of accused ).The copies of the relevant record are Ex.PW-53/A to PW-53/C .
53.1 PW-53 further stated that at Srl. N. 1258, there is an entry to the effect that after the death of Mani Ram, Shri D.C Sankhla S/o Mani Ram inherited the said agricultural land. He proved the relevant entry as Ex.PW-53/D.
54. PW-54 Manmohan Krishan Mittal clerk at GPO Office, Delhi dealt with the work related to saving bank accounts under NSS. Accused D.C Sankhla (A-1) opened an amount under NSS Scheme with substantial amount of Rs.20,000/- through authorised agent Mr. V.K Chaddha. Accused D.C Sankhla (A-1) deposited a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- in the said account under said scheme upto 1991 which became 1,38,627/- including interest. He relied upon the true copy of ledger Ex.P-48 (D-54).
55. PW-55 Om Prakash Sharma proved the delivery order dated 12.07.1991 ( D-53) for delivery of a Tractor bearing Engine No.EK3C 9B-01838 Chassis No. TD189B-01608 and the same was delivered to M/s Shashi Orchard & Nursery ,Patti Kalyana Panipat Haryana as Ex.PW-55/A. He also identified invoice dated 12.07.1992 of the Tractor Ex.P-47 .
CC No.25/2019 Page 28/41956. PW-56 Vansh Raj Pandey, the official form DSIDC proved D-65 i.e File No. DSIC/Works/Narela /Allotment/ 90/730 pertaining to Shashi Sankhla Ex.PW- 56/A. In 1987, Shashi Sankhla applied for allotment of an industrial plot and deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000/- in cash at the Oriental Bank of Commerce. The name of Shashi Sankhla came in lottery and she was informed through letter dated 13.07.1990 for allotment of Plot No.
730. The provisional premium of plot was Rs. 2,27,500/- and she had to deposit 50% of the premium within one month. Ms. Shashi Sankhla paid Rs.93,750/- on 30.07.1990 through draft dated 23.07.1990. The second installment of the premium of Rs.1,25,125/- was deposited by her dated 21.02.1991 through pay order. 56.1 PW-56 further proved 25 sheets and 31 sheets of the file as Ex.PW-56/A and Ex.PW-56/B respectively.
57. PW-57 Ashok Kumar, Kanunngo, Tehsil Hauz Khas, deposed that he knew accused D.C Sankhla (A-1) as he was Patwari in Safipur Ranhola, Tehsil Mehrauli. Accused D.C Sankhla held agricultural land in the said village. He proved the copy of Aks Shajra as Ex.PW-57/A, copy of Khatoni of village Ranhole, Tehsil Mehrauli as Ex.PW-57/B and Khasra Girdwari known as P-4 as Ex.PW-57/C.
58. PW-58 Ms. Shaila Shanker deposed that her father-in-law K.N Bhose was SDM in Delhi and used to CC No.25/2019 Page 29/419 reside at the first floor of building No. 45 Rajpur Road, Delhi. D.C Sankhla was an IAS of UT Cadre and used to reside at the ground floor of the said building in the year 1976-77. She came in contact with D.C Sankhla as both the families were having good terms. After the death of her father-in-law, they shifted from Rajpur Road to Chitaranjan Park, New Delhi. D.C Sankhla (A-1) regularly visited her and they became close to each other. She further deposed that she got divorced through mutual consent in 1982 but her parents were against her marriage with D.C Sankhla. She then shifted to Madras and at that time D.C Shankla was posted at Pondicherry and they started having intimate relation. D.C Sankhla (A-1) neither divorced his wife nor broke relations with her.
58.1 She started running her Beauty Clinic and for this purpose she needed funds. D.C Sankhla extended her help to the tune of Rs.3,97,000/- on different occasions from 1986 to 1989. She returned a sum of Rs. 64,000/- through a cheque in the name of V.G.P Housing, Madras as per the instruction of D.C Shankhla (A-1) and Rs.41000/- in cash. Thus, she returned a sum of Rs. 1,05,000/-.
58.2 PW-58 further stated that in April 1999, she met D.C Sankhla (A-1) in Delhi in his office where he told her that he had arranged money for her from one of his friends namely O.S Chauhan. On the asking of D.C Sankhla (A-1), she signed three promissory notes of Rs.
CC No.25/2019 Page 30/4191,12,000/-, Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 80,000/- as a friend of Sh. D.C Sankhla was giving her interest-free loan but they mentioned interest @ 12% p.a. She proved the relevant documents as Ex. PW-58/A to Ex.PW58/H, PW- 58/H-1 to Ex.PW-58/H-9.
59. PW-59 Braham Prakash Mann ( not relevant being the witness in the second case ).
60. PW-60 R.L. Shankla is the brother of accused D.C Sankhla. He deposed that their father was in the business of leather making Uddan Pillion of horses and camel. He owned 20 acres of land. He further stated that he lived with his brother D.C Sankhla in Delhi from 1973 to 1981. He joined the Judicial Service in Haryana as Sub-Judge-Cum-Judicial Magistrate in May 1981. During his stay with his brother D.C Sankhla, he served as Law Officer in HUDCO. He exhibited one affidavit dated 10.03.1989 as Ex.PW-60/A and carbon copies of the same bearing his signatures as Ex.PW-60/C and Ex.PW-60/D. PW-60 further proved another affidavit dated 10.03.1989 as Ex.PW-60/E and three carbon copies as Ex.PW-60/F to Ex.PW-60/H. He further proved another affidavit dated 15.06.1988 as Ex.PW- 60/J. He further deposed that these affidavits were seized from the house of D.C Sankhla.
61. PW-61 B.D Sharma, the then Sr. Manager with PNB Branch Civil Lines Branch from 1992 to 1993 CC No.25/2019 Page 31/419 and D.C Sankhla came to his office twice. He proved the letter dated 24.11.1992 Ex.PW-61/A. D.C Sankhla and his family members were maintaining account no. 14009, 28966,21250, 18324,6941, 6952,6914 and 28643. PW- 61 also proved the statement of account of account No. 14009 as Ex.P24, statement of account of account No.21250 Ex.P25, statement of account of account No. S/F.28643 Ex.P26 and statement of account of account No. S/F28966 Ex.P27.
62. PW-62 Sh. S.L Mukhi, Retired Principal Scientific Officer, CFSL ( not relevant in the present matter being the witness in the second matter)
63. PW-63 K.N. Tiwari is the Investigating Officer (I.O) in the present case who deposed that based on source information the present RC was registered and the same was marked to him for investigation. He obtained search warrant from the Competent Court and simultaneous searches were carried out at the residence and other premises of the accused on 13.08.1991. He proved the search list D-108 carried out by B.C Bhatnagar, vide Ex.PW-63/C. The search list prepared by him D-114 is proved vide Ex.PW-92/1.
63.1 During the investigation, he collected various documents from different authorities concerning the accused including the banks. He accordingly proved the said seizure memo/ production memo as Ex.PW-63/A CC No.25/2019 Page 32/419 to Ex.PW-63/Z. He also proved the observation memo concerning the search at the residence of the accused vide Mark PW-63/X-3. The inventory prepared at Shashi Orchid and Nursery is marked PW-63/X-4.
63.2 He further deposed that after concluding the investigation, he found disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs. 81,81,163.76. It was also found that the father of the accused had died on 22.4.1986 leaving behind one small house in Sirsa, Haryana. The assets at the start of the check period were found to be worth Rs.50,000/-. The total income generated during the check period and his wife was found to be Rs.56,66,528/- from different sources. Ms. Shashi Sankhla during the investigation claimed that she had saved Rs.75,000/- from her earnings during the year 1981 to 1984. The value of the assets accumulated by the accused and his family members was found to be of Rs.1,15,82677.13 during the check period. The property i.e Flat No. B-103, Swathya Vihar, Delhi and Shop No.5, at Surajpur, G.K. Delhi, were found to be the accused's Benami Property. The total expenditure during the check period was found to be Rs.2317015.16 as detailed in Annexure-II of the Chargesheet. He had also collected the income tax and insurance of property record vide file Ex.PW-63/A-6.
63.3 During the investigation, the accused submitted his representation dated 14.06.1993 (Ex.P-108 D-29) which after the investigation was found to be CC No.25/2019 Page 33/419 based upon false and fabricated, ante-dated agreements. Since the sanction for prosecution was not received in his tenure, the chargesheet was filed by his successor Dy.S.P M.S Bisht.
64. PW-64 Ravi Dass, Director VGP Housing Pvt Ltd, proved the purchase of two plot of land with their project by accused vide Ex.PW-64/A. 64.1 Further as per D-62 which is purchase order for plot No.32 of VGP Housing Pvt in the name of D.C Sankhla, an initial booking amount of Rs.35,816/- was deposited as down payment and the remaining amount was to be paid in installments. Their company received a sum of Rs 35,816/- and Rs.15,000/- in 1985 as detailed vide Ex.PW-64/B. Accordingly, both the said properties were registered in the name of D.C Sankhla in June 1989 after receiving complete consideration amount.
65. PW-65 C.P. Aggarwal, Sr. Manager, PNB proved the statement of account number 1955 related to O.S. Chauhan from 11.09.86 to 29.09.1991 as PW-65/A (collectively). The said statement (Ex.PW-65/A) was sent to CBI through forwarding letter Ex.PW-65/B.
66. PW-66 Prem Chand Sankhla ( brother of accused ) deposed that D.C Sankhla is his elder brother. He further stated that he did not know as to when the shop situated at Suraj Parbat was purchased. He further CC No.25/2019 Page 34/419 deposed that he had signed the affidavit already Ex.PW- 18/D-1 without reading its contents at the instance of D.C Sankhla. He had not made any payment of Rs.1,33,000/- for the purchase of shop at Suraj Parbat. PW-66 further deposed that he had no knowledge in respect of Will which was made subsequently. He also proved his personal file maintained at his office of Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd as Ex.PW-66/A and Ex.PW-66/B.
67. PW-67 Hari Kishan Gupta Chief Stamps Auditor in the office of Collector of Stamps Delhi ( not relevant in the present matter being witness in the second case ).
68. PW-68 Chanderkesh LDC in the office of Sub-Registrar, Division-II, Kashmere Gate, Delhi proved the sale deed dated 21.5.1987 Ex.PW-68/A through which Shashi Sankhla W/o D.C Sankhla sold land 5 bigha and 6 biswas at Shaffiqpur, Ranhola, Delhi to Master Kapil Sankhla and Saket Sankhla. He also got proved the sale deed dated 21.05.1987 Ex. PW-68/B through which Madan Lal Sankhla @Prem Chand Sankhla S/o Mr. Sankhla had sold land 9 bigha and 12 biswas situated in village Ranhola, Delhi to Master Kapil Sankhla and Saket Sankhla.
68.1 PW-68 further proved the sale deed dated 08.06.1981 as Ex.PW-68/C, through which Chandgi Ram s/o Banwari Lal had sold land 14 bighas and 14 CC No.25/2019 Page 35/419 biswas, situated in village Ranhola, Delhi, to D.C Sankhla for a consideration amount of Rs.40,000/-vide Ex.PW-68/D
69. PW-69 Virender Kumar Sharma LDC in the office of Sub-Registrar, Division-II Asaf Ali Road, Delhi, proved Sale Deed dated 15.12.1986 Ex.P-105 (admitted document) through which Desh Raj Gupta S/o Sh. Prem Chand Gupta and Smt. Aneeta Gupta W/o Sh. Desh Raj Gupta sold land 2 bighas out of Khasra No. 1831, situated in village Malikpur Kuhi @ Rangpuri, Tehsil, Mehruali, New Delhi, to Ms. Shashi Sankhla wife of accused for a consideration amount of Rs. 20,000/-.
70. PW-70 Bishan Singh deposed that he sold the land situated at Moriwala, Sirsa to D.C Sankhla in the year 1985. The price of the land was settled to Rs.10,000/- per killa and the total land sold was about 10 killas. He further deposed that he cultivated the said land for about two years. The crop used to be taken away by Ami Chand and after meeting the requisite expenses of 50% of the sale consideration of the crop was his consideration. His share used to be between Rs.30,000/- to 40,000/- per crop. He proved the sale deeds executed by him and his three brothers for transfer of the said land vide Ex.PW-25/1 to Ex.PW-25/4.
CC No.25/2019 Page 36/41971. PW-71 Sh Bachhan Singh Sabharwal proved the challan No. 68068 pertaining to SBI in the name of R.L. Sankhla for a sum of Rs.1,13,991.97 as Ex.PW19/H.
72. PW-72 Devender Kumar Mishra Joint Director Vigilance, DDA in 1992 and had handed over certain records to CBI vide letter No. F.25(55)92/vigilance 8863 dated 17.07.1992 in the present case. He further deposed that there were three files mentioned in the said letter Ex.PW-72/A (inadvertently mentioned as Ex.PW-63/A).
73. PW-73 I.S Yadav Commercial Officer (North) MTNL ISBT handed over one file of MTNL to CBI vide letter dated 24.04.1992 Ex.PW-73/1. The said file is related to telephone No. 2927751 Ex. 73/2. He also proved application of Ms. Shashi Sankhla as Ex.P-1 for which she deposited Rs.1000/- vide acknowledgment slip. The order for installation dated 17.05.1990 Ex.P-6 was issued and the telephone in the name of Ms. Shashi Sankhla, 5-A, Court Road, Civil Lines, Delhi-110007 was installed.
74. PW-74 Jai Veer Singh, Gypsum dealer and running a firm in the name of M/s Gypsum Stockist at Samalkha, Panipat proved the receipt No.40, Book No.1489 dated 25.07.1990 of Rs.1197/- for sale to D.C Sankhla as Ex.PW-74/1. PW-74 also proved another cash CC No.25/2019 Page 37/419 receipt dated 08.08.1990, for a sum of Rs.2793/- Ex.PW- 74/2 from D.C Sankhla.
75. PW-75 Ram Dev Stamp Auditor in the office of Dy. Commissioner, Delhi Administration. ( Not relevant in the present matter being witness in the second case ).
76. PW-76 Joginder Singh is the Registration Clerk at Sub-Registrar Office, Panipat w.e.f 01.01.1992 to 30.04.1992 proved the four copies of sale deeds Mark X, X-1, X-2 and X-3 respectively.
77. PW-77 Sh. Jatinder Kumar the Chief Executive in M/s Aqua Plast Industries Pvt Ltd proved rent agreement dated 30.05.1991 Ex.P-21 in respect of plot no.112 Prakash Industrial Estate Sahibabad, UP owned by D.C Sankhla. He further deposed that they paid a sum of Rs.80,000/- vide pay order and Rs.10,000/- in cash towards rent.
78. PW-78 Brij Lal deposed that he had supplied bricks to D.C Sankhla and proved the bill dated 03.08.1987 Ex.PW-78/1 and bill dated 03.08.1987 Ex.PW-78/2. He further stated that the payment towards the said two bills was made in cash.
79. PW-79 Anil Kumar Sharma official from Surajpur Industrial Area, Site B, UP proved a letter dated CC No.25/2019 Page 38/419 04.06.1992 Ex.P-80 vide which plot no. D-8 was allotted to Shashi Sankhla on 24.09.90. He further proved copy of allotment letter of Plot No. 43 Ex.P-81.
80. PW-80 J.N. Sharma the Accounts officer in the office of MTNL, ISBT Delhi proved a letter dated 29.04.1992 Ex.P-82 having details of payments made qua telephone connection no. 2927751 in the name of Shashi Sankhla.
81. PW-81 Ishwar Singh the Office Kanungo in Tehsil Mehrauli, Delhi proved Ex.P-104 which is the certified copy of Khasra Khatauni for the year 1980- 81 of Khasra No. 1831 Min., measuring 2 bighas of land at Rangpur Kuhi in the name of Ms. Shashi W/o D.C Shukla.
82. PW-82 Chander Sain Kumar Diwan is Commercial Officer MTNL, Darya Ganj. He proved the files concerning telephone no. 2201649 maintained in the office as Ex.PW-82/1. The said file contains an application dated 01.08.1988 (Ex.P-1) received from Amin Chand. After processing the said file was sent ot Amin Chand giving him the registration number vide letter dated 08.08.1988 (Ex.P-2). He identified the signatures of Kashmira Singh, Commercial Officer on Ex.P-1, P-2 and P-3. He further deposed that the demand note for a sum Rs.8000/- was deposited (Ex.P-4). As the connection was not installed, as per the policy of CC No.25/2019 Page 39/419 MTNL, the annual rent @ 40% of rent was charged to the customer.
83. PW-83 V.N. Nigam Superintendent Service- 1 Department, Delhi Administration, proved the letter dated 17.09.1986 and the personal file of accused D.C Sankhla as Ex.PW-5/A. ( admitted by accused )
84. PW-84 M.S Maun the Sr. Branch Manager, PNB at Chander Nagar from June 1993 to 1996 deposed that accused O.S Chauhan was one of the customer of Chander Nagar, PNB Branch. He verified the signatures of accused O.S Chauhan on agreement to sell Ex.P-100, Ex.P-101 & Ex.P-102.
85. PW-85 R.K. Malhotra was posted as Desk Officer in the Ministry of Home Affairs. He identified the signatures of Sh. V.A Pillai Desk Officer who was his colleague on letter dated 20.09.1991 Ex.PW-85/1 supplying the service record of the accused to CBI .
86. PW-86 Ketan Shah deposed that he had purchased land measuring around 400 square yards from one Govind Lal Behl at Ramprastha Colony, Ghaziabad in December 1987 for a total consideration amount of Rs.1,60,000/-. He further deposed that after 10-15 days of his purchasing the said plot, D.C Sankhla unauthorisedly occupied the said plot by exercising his power and influence. PW-87 further deposed that he filed CC No.25/2019 Page 40/419 a civil suit against D.C Sankhla qua encroachment of plot. Accused offered settlement out of the Court and the matter was settled between them .Accused paid a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- by way of cheque to him (PW-86).
87. PW-87 Manoj Kumar Jain official from Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation Ltd identified the signatures of Sh. R.C Aggarwal on the letter dated 29.1.1993 Ex.PW-39/A vide which certain documents as mentioned in the said letters were handed over to CBI. He proved the letter dated 31.07.1990 alongwith agreement to sell and deed of agreement as Ex.PW-87/1. He further got exhibited letter dated 29.09.1988 sent by D.C Sankhla under his signature to S. Raghunthan, the then Chairman as Ex.PW-87/2. He further proved the details of the rent commencing from July 1986 to December 1991 vide Ex.PW-87/3 .
88. PW-88 Rahul Setia is the purchaser of the land situated in village Moriwala, Sirsa sold by accused D.C Sankhla in favour of Ms. Sunita Sethia and Ors. PW-88 further deposed that he paid Rs.7 lacs as total consideration. He proved the seizure memo as Ex.PW- 88/1 vide which the sale papers Ex. PW88/2 were handed over to CBI .
89. PW-89 Anil Kumar proved death certificate of Ramesh Chander as Ex.PW-89/1.
CC No.25/2019 Page 41/41990. PW-90 M.S Bisht Dy. S.P deposed that that case bearing R.C No. 3 (A)/91 was entrusted to him for remaining investigation as previous I.O Sh. K.N Tiwari, was transferred, though the investigation was complete . After receiving the sanction order from the competent authority, he filed the chargesheet in the present case on 30.12.1996.
91. PW-91 Daljeet Singh Gill, General Manager (Marketing), M/s Sachdeva & Sons during 1984 to 1997 deposed that Roshan Lal Jain was working as Accountant and identified the signatures of Roshan Lal on seizure memo Ex.PW-91/1. He further stated that documents i.e photocopy of the agreement for sale and purchase dated 03.08.89, photocopy of plaint of suit no. 2807/1992 titled "M/s Sachdeva & Sons V. Yashpal Brothers & Others"
and photocopy of order dated 04.08.1992 passed by Hon'ble High Court were handed over by Roshan Lal vide seizure memo Ex.PW-91/1.
92. PW-92 S.H. Pai (Panch witness) deposed that he was posted as Officer at Canara Bank, Circle Office, Hanuman Road, New Delhi in 1991 and he participated in the search conducted by CBI at the house of accused D.C Sankhla. One search list was prepared by the CBI which was signed by him. He got proved the said search list as Ex.PW-92/1. He also proved the files CC No.25/2019 Page 42/419 containing documents as Ex.PW-92/2, Ex.PW-92/3, Ex.PW-92/4 and Ex.PW-92/5 ( collectively).
93. PW-93 Sh. Amin Chand ( brother in law (sister's husband) of accused ) deposed that he purchased house No. B-103, Swathya Vihar, Delhi in his own name for a total sale consideration of Rs.3,51,000/- from one Majumdar. The said witness was declared hostile and was cross-examined by Ld. Public Prosecutor for CBI. He denied the suggestion of the prosecution regarding the said flat being the benami property of the accused herein.
VI. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED (S.A)
94. After the completion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC. The entire incriminating evidence was put to the accused wherein he claimed that he has been falsely implicated in the present case by the investigating officer. The Investigation was biased, unfair and bad in law. The investigating officer was unauthorised to conduct the investigation. He concealed and exaggerated the facts to the Sanctioning Authority as per his suitability. He did not put forth the entire material with Sanctioning authority view to cause prejudice. He did not deliberately collect any material from Income Tax Authorities. He also deliberately did not consider the independent sources of income of his wife and minor son from agricultural income. Their assets have been wrongly clubbed to his account in the present case. The calculations made by CC No.25/2019 Page 43/419 the I.O are against the settled principles of law with a view to fabricate the case against him. He has also deliberately not considered the various loan agreements signed by his and his family members and to justifiably deny the additional claim of additional income, filed a false charge-sheet under Section 193 IPC. The documents submitted by him with representation were also ignored and were not made part of the Chargesheet. He is innocent and does not possess any assets disproportionate to his income.
V. DEFENCE WITNESSES (D.E)
95. D1W1 Davinder Nath Arora is the brother of Shashi Sankhla ( wife of accused ). He deposed that his sister married D.C Sankhla (A-1). However, due to some differences, she came to Port Blair in 1981 alongwith children and stayed there with them till the first quarter of 1985. He further stated that since his father had a set back due to the separation of Shashi Sankhla, it was decided that the family would help her. Thus, one Beauty Parlour was opened in a shop owned by his father where she used to run the parlour and also sell artificial jewellery. Since she was not earning much from the said beauty parlour, it was decided that the orchid owned by his father at Haddo, Port Blair be given to her. Thus, she started earning about 8000/- to 12000/- per year from the said Orchid.CC No.25/2019 Page 44/419
95.1 D1W1 further deposed that when Shashi Sankhla expressed her difficulty in sustaining herself in 1982, it was decided to give her rental income from the flats owned by his father in Phoenix Bay, Port Blair. She, thus, started having income of Rs.9000/- to 10,000/- per year from the said flats. After the death of his father, as already desired by him (father), the Orchid at Haddo measuring 1161 square metres and first floor flat in RCC building at Phoenix Bay was given to Shashi Sankhla as per the family settlement. He proved the copy of the said family settlement is Ex.D1W1/1.
96. D1W12 Sh. Ashim Kumar, Section Officer, Finance, Department (Revenue-I Branch), Delhi Government, produced the file bearing No. F2(36)/87- Finance (G) concerning the refund of stamp duty worth Rs.10,595/- paid by P.C Sankhla. He also proved the copy of refund order as Ex.D1W12/1 and the affidavit of Prem Chand Sankhla Ex. D1W12/2.
97. D1W2 Rakesh Kumar, Office Superintendent, Income Tax Department proved the various income tax documents including records concerning CIT Appeals of the accused as Ex.D1W2/1 and Ex.D1W2/2.
98. D1W3 Brij Mohan Jha, official from MTNL proved the record regarding telephone no. 2201649 in the CC No.25/2019 Page 45/419 name of Amin Chand at 103 Swathya Vihar, Delhi vide Ex.D1W3/1 and Ex.D1W3/2.
99. D1W4 Vikas Chaudhary, Official from Income Tax Department, Circle 8(1) and Circle 54-S. He proved the record about assessee D.C Sankhla and Shashi Sankhla. The various documents concerning the assessment, orders on the assessment and supporting documents submitted by the assessee proved by him are Ex. D1W4/1 to D1W4/20.
100. D1W5 Kishore Kshirsagar Lakshman, SDM/Sub-Registrar South Andaman, proved the Family Settlement Deed concerning Shashi Sankhla as D1W5/1.
101. D1W6 B. Loganathan, Registrar, Port Blair, Andaman, proved the mutation entries concerning Ms. Shashi Sankhla and her family vide Ex. D1W6/1 to D1W6/8.
102. D1W7 Ms Geetu, Sr. Assistant Vigilance Branch, Punjab & Haryana High Court proved the service record concerning R.L Sankhla vide Ex. D1W7/1 to D1W7/11.
103. D1W8 Ms. Anupama Sharma, official from MTNL. Her testimony also concerns the telephone No. 2201649 in the name of Sh. Amin Chand.CC No.25/2019 Page 46/419
104. D1W9 Prem Singh Meena, Assistant Commissioner, Andaman & Nicobar Administration proved the revenue record concerning the land owned by Shri Jagannath (father of Ms. Shashi Sankhla) vide Ex.D1W9/1 to Ex. D1W9/5.
104. D1W10 Anumpam Sahay, Chief Manager, PNB, Chander Nagar, Ghaziabad, U.P concerns the record of account no. 233 in the name of M/s Hari Om Nursery of O.S Chauhan.
105. D1W11 Anil Tiwari, Official from Videocon Industries Ltd. who proved the allotment of debentures in the name of accused and Ms. Shashi Sankhla.
106. D1W13 Ashim Kumar Barua from Finance Department, Delhi government proved the record concerning the refund of stamp duty of Rs. 10595/- paid by P.C Sankhla.
107. The prosecution and defence firstly argued as to the validity of the prosecution sanction. The said aspect is being discussed followed by the discussion on merits.
VI. Arguments of CBI on the Validity of Prosecution Sanction
108. Ld. Senior (Sr.) Public Prosecutor for the CBI argued that the present case was registered against CC No.25/2019 Page 47/419 the accused for being found in possession of Disproportionate Assets (DA). The check period taken by the Investigating Authority is 01.01.1980 to 13.08.1991. The accused joined the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) in U.T Cadre in July 1969. He has served in different capacities at different places i.e Delhi, Andaman Nicobar and Pondicherry etc. The investigation was conducted for the check period from 01.01.1980 to 13.08.1991 and it was found that he earned Rs.56,68,528.97 from all known sources of income as detailed in Annexure-I of the chargesheet. He incurred expenses to the tune of Rs. 23,17,015.62 as per Annexure-II. The investigation further disclosed that he or his family members acquired assets during the said check period to the tune of Rs. 1,15,82,677.13 as per the detailed given in Annexure-III. Therefore, as of the last date of check period i.e 13.08.1991, the disproportionate assets were to the tune of Rs. 81,81,163.78 which he failed to account for satisfactorily.
108.1 Ld SPP for CBI further argued that accused being a Central Government employee, the mandatory prosecution sanction as required under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act was obtained from the Competent Authority and has been proved by D.K Samantarary (PW-7). The cross-examination of the sanctioning authority witness conducted on behalf of the accused does not question his competence in authenticating the sanction order on behalf of the CC No.25/2019 Page 48/419 competent authority i.e. the Hon'ble President of India . Secondly, it is also not questioned on behalf of the accused it being accorded by an authority not competent to remove him from the services.
108.2 It is further argued that the dispute raised on behalf of the accused qua the said prosecution sanction concerns the advice given Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) whereby they had initially only recommended for regular departmental proceedings against him. The said advice was not at all binding upon the Competent Authority i.e. DoPT, Govt. of India and accordingly, DoPT did not accept the said advice. The sanction for prosecution was ultimately accorded with the approval of the Ministerial Incharge i.e the Hon'ble Prime Minister. Even the representation dated 12.04.1994 of accused Ex.PW-7/DA1 was duly considered and has been discussed in the detailed notes file of the department part of Ex.PW-7/DA( Sanction File ).
108.3 Lastly, it is argued by Ld Sr.P.P. that the competent authority only was supposed to take a prima- facie view of the material collected by the CBI which has been done in the matter. The sanction order itself reflects consideration of all material as well as the application of mind by the competent authority. Therefore, as far as the aspect of sanction is concerned, the objections raised by the accused during the trial are frivolous and liable to be rejected.
CC No.25/2019 Page 49/419VII. Arguments on behalf of Accused on Validity of Prosecution Sanction
109. Per contra, Ld counsel for the accused on the said aspect of validity of the sanction raised seven issues which as per him, render the sanction to be improper, invalid and illegal.
110. The first issue raised is as to whether the sanction has been granted by the competent authority competent to grant it or not. It is argued that as per the updated Government of India ( Allocation of Business) Rules 1961, (containing amendments upto the year 2004), the competent authority to grant the sanction was the Ministry of Home Affairs and not DoPT , Govt. Of India which is the case herein. Ld. Predecessor sought response in this regard from CBI who in turn, sought response from DoPT as to their competence to grant the sanction qua the accused. The DoPT has placed reliance upon the gazette notification dated 15.03.1985 as per which they were competent to grant sanction. But the said reliance placed by the prosecution is misleading as well as the concealment of subsequent gazette notification dated 30.09.1986 of Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules 1961 by which the clause 20(b) of the earlier gazette notification dated 15.03.1985 was omitted. After notification dated 30.09.1986, the process of grant of sanction earlier centralized with DoPT was decentralized. In this regard, the reliance is also CC No.25/2019 Page 50/419 placed upon the latest Office Memorandum (O.M) of DoPT dated 01.03.2019. Therefore, the alleged sanction accorded by the DoPT in the present case by placing reliance upon Clause 20(b) of gazette notification dated 15.03.1985 is bad in law as on the date of grant of sanction, the said clause already stood omitted. The sanction was to be accorded by the concerned Ministry i.e Ministry of Home Affairs being the Cadre Controlling Authority of the I.A.S officers of AGMU cadre which the accused was at the relevant time.
110.1 The second point raised on behalf of the accused concerning the validity of the sanction is lack of authority of D.K Samantarary (PW-7) in authenticating the sanction order on behalf of His Excellency The President of India. The reliance in this regard has been placed upon notification No. 2297 dated 25th October 1958 by arguing that the officers of the rank of Secretary, Additional Secretary, Joint Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Under Secretary or Assistant Secretary are the competent authority to execute the orders in the name of President.
110.2 In the present case in hand, D.K Samantarary (PW-7) was working as Director (General) DoPT and hence, was the incompetent person to authenticate the sanction order on behalf of the President.
111. The next argument advanced on behalf of the accused concerns the validity of the sanction order as CC No.25/2019 Page 51/419 there was a review of the earlier decision. As per the record their was the denial of sanction for prosecution at the first instance by the competent authority. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon notes and letters part of the sanction file Ex.PW-7/DA and PW-7/DB.
111.1 It is argued that as per the record in the present case in hand, the S.P. report was forwarded after the conclusion of the investigation by CBI to Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) ,the Competent Authority. The Ministry of Home Affairs sought the advice of the Central Vigilance Commission which advised only for regular departmental inquiry /proceedings. Accordingly, the MHA vide their letter dated 25.09.1995 (part of Ex.PW-7/DB) concurred with the said advice thereby refusing the sanction at the first instance. But, DoPT exceeded its jurisdiction and by-passed the authority of MHA through its letter dated 29/09/1995. DoPT sought reconsideration of the advice by asking MHA to refer the matter again to CVC for re-consideration of their advice.
111.2 Simultaneously, CBI too in an illegal manner approached CVC for reconsideration of its advice through its letter dated 07.08.1995 part of Ex.PW-7/DXB. The said letter was the illegal exercise of the power. Due to duress/ coercion of CBI, the CVC without having any fresh material reconsidered its initial advice and recommended prosecution sanction vide its second advice dated 15.03.1996. The said reconsidered CC No.25/2019 Page 52/419 advice of CVC was thereafter acted upon by the MHA and DoPT which ultimately led to the issuance of said illegal prosecution sanction Ex. PW7/A. 111.3 To support his arguments of the said review of its earlier decision of refusing prosecution sanction without there being any fresh material and it being illegal, the reliance is placed upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled State of H.P. V. Nishant Sareen, AIR 2011 SC 404 and that of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Ashok Kumar Aswal v. Union of India, WP (C) No.578/2010, Dated 11.01.2013 111.4 It is further argued that even the sanction order is completely silent concerning the earlier refusal to grant the sanction by the MHA , which in turn was based on the advice of CVC. The sanction order is also silent as to whether there was any fresh material available with the competent authority when the matter was reconsidered by it. The Investigating Officer (I.O) who has been examined as PW-63 in the present case too admitted to the fact that when they had sought reconsideration of the matter afresh from CVC, no fresh material was forwarded or available with them. Therefore, the said subsequent prosecution sanction which was firstly denied by the Competent Authority cannot be said to be a valid one.
CC No.25/2019 Page 53/419112. The next issue argued on behalf of the accused on the aspect of invalidity of the sanction is the non-consideration of the complete material by the competent authority. It is reflected from the record that the entire material collected by the prosecution was neither sent nor was available with the competent authority at the time of the grant of sanction. It has been argued by placing reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CBI V. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, (2014)14 SCC 295 that the prosecution has to satisfy the Court that complete material was available with the authority so that it can apply its mind independently and reach to just conclusion.
112.1 It is further argued that D.K Samantarary (PW-7), the witness who authenticated Sanctioning deposed that the documents were examined by them, but the entire sanction file proved in the present case as Ex.PW-7/DA, PW-7/DB and PW-7/DC reflect that apart from S.P report, no other material was forwarded by the CBI to DoPT. The Investigating Officer K.N. Tiwari (PW-63) too in his cross-examination admitted that only S.P report was forwarded and he used to produce the documents as and when required by the Sanctioning Authority. But none of the note-sheet part of Sanction File Ex.PW-7/DA reflects any requisition being made to CBI. Therefore, the material on record as well as testimonies of D.K Samantarary (PW-7) and K.N. Tiwari (PW-63) reflect that apart from the S.P Report, no other CC No.25/2019 Page 54/419 material i.e documents, statements of the witnesses etc. was available with the Sanctioning Authority when it accorded the sanction. Even the representation of the accused dated 14.06.1993 with all its annexures which was the explanation given by the accused concerning his assets too was never forwarded to the Sanctioning Authority. Therefore in the said backdrop, it has to be said that the sanction has been accorded on the mere asking of the prosecuting authority , which further proves the non-application of mind by the competent authority.
112.2 It is further argued that it has come on record that the document D-29 which is the representation dated 14.06.1993 Ex.PW-63/Z alongwith 44 pages was never forwarded to the Sanctioning Authority despite the duty of CBI to forward complete material. The explanation of the accused, thus, was never placed before the Sanctioning Authority.
112.3 It is further argued that the SP report had many false averments qua the evidence collected. The first issue raised concerns the assets at item no. 42 in list of assets i.e debentures of Videocon Company. The value of the said debentures has been shown to be Rs.66,000/-, but the debenture certificates part of D-55 itself reflects that only 200 debentures of the value of Rs.220/- were allotted and therefore, the value comes out to be Rs.44,000/- only. The remaining application money of around Rs. 2,20,000/- was refunded to the accused and CC No.25/2019 Page 55/419 his wife by Videocon, but the said fact was concealed and never put before the competent authority in the S.P Report.
112.4 The question mark has also been raised concerning the assets i.e house no. B-103, Swathya Vihar, Delhi which is claimed to be the benami property of the accused. For the said asset, the S.P Report has the gist of the testimony of the witness namely Ami Chand which is in contradiction to his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Similarly, the reliance has been placed upon the statement of LW-22 Azimuddin recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C which too is in contradiction to the gist provided in the S.P Report ( Ex. PW7/DA) provided to the Competent Authority. Thus, the said S.P Report had numerous material false averments given by the CBI. The said false averments were made despite documents reflecting it otherwise or statement of the witnesses to be otherwise. Due to the said false averments, the Sanctioning Authority was misled and therefore, it has to be held that the sanction given was based on incomplete and false averments.
VIII. Appreciation/Analysis of Arguments on Prosecution Sanction.
113. The accused herein has been forwarded for prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (P.C Act) being found possession of disproportionate assets to the CC No.25/2019 Page 56/419 known sources of his income. It is not in dispute that the check period for the said charge taken by the prosecution agency is 01.01.1980 to 13.08.1991. It is also not in dispute that the accused herein being the I.A.S officer of 1969 batch of AGMUT Cadre functioned in different capacities at different places in Delhi, Andaman Nicobar, Pondicherry, Chandigarh etc. Therefore, the prosecution in terms of the mandatory provision under Section 19 of the P.C. Act, obtained the prosecution sanction accorded by the competent authority against the accused.
113.1 The legal position on the aspect of prosecution sanction has been enunciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in several cases that the prosecution sanction is a solemn sacrosanct act. It affords the protection to Government Servants against whom frivolous or motivated allegations are levelled. It is a kind of shield that protects the public servant who in good faith discharges his/her duty against malicious prosecution, but certainly, the said protection cannot act as a shield for the public servants who misuse their office for their personal gains. The landmark case in this regard is CBI V. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal ( supra) case wherein the said issue of sanction and how it has to be dealt with by competent authority or its importance has been discussed as under:
"15. The prosecution has to satisfy the court that at the time of sending the matter for grant of sanction by the competent authority, adequate material for such grant was made available to CC No.25/2019 Page 57/419 the said authority. This may also be evident from the sanction order, in case it is extremely comprehensive, as all the facts and circumstances of the case may be spelt out in the sanction order. However, in every individual case, the court has to find out whether there has been an application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority concerned on the material placed before it. It is so necessary for the reason that there is an obligation on the sanctioning authority to discharge its duty to give or withhold sanction only after having full knowledge of the material facts of the case. Grant of sanction is not a mere formality. Therefore, the provisions in regard to the sanction must be observed with complete strictness keeping in mind the public interest and the protection available to the accused against whom the sanction is sought.......................
16. In view of the above, the legal propositions can be summarised as under:
(a) The prosecution must send the entire relevant record to the sanctioning authority including the FIR, disclosure statements, statements of witnesses, recovery memos, draft charge sheet and all other relevant material. The record so sent should also contain the material/document, if any, which may tilt the balance in favour of the accused and on the basis of which, the competent authority may refuse sanction.
(b) The authority itself has to do complete and conscious scrutiny of the whole record so produced by the prosecution independently applying its mind and taking into consideration all the relevant facts before grant of sanction while discharging its duty to give or withhold the sanction.
(c) The power to grant sanction is to be exercised strictly keeping in mind the public interest and the protection available to the accused against whom the sanction is sought.CC No.25/2019 Page 58/419
(d) The order of sanction should make it evident that the authority had been aware of all relevant facts/materials and had applied its mind to all the relevant material.
(e) In every individual case, the prosecution has to establish and satisfy the court by leading evidence that the entire relevant facts had been placed before the sanctioning authority and the authority had applied its mind on the same and that the sanction had been granted in accordance with law."
113.2 Therefore, in the said backdrop, the first and foremost issue that needs to be considered is whether the prosecution sanction against the accused is a valid sanction or not. The crucial aspect is as to whether the said sanction has been accorded by the Competent Authority after due application of mind and after consideration of the entire material or not. Before that the issue of competency of the authority and authentication of the same by PW7 needs to be decided first.
(i) Improper Authentication
114. The first issue raised on behalf of the accused vis-a-vis the validity of the prosecution sanction dated 18.10.1996 (Ex.PW-7/A) is the issue of improper authentication. It has been argued on behalf of the accused that prosecution sanction (Ex.PW-7/A ) has been given in the name of the Hon'ble President of India. However, PW-7 was not competent to authenticate the order. In this regard, the reliance has been placed upon rules i.e Authentication (Orders and Other Instruments) CC No.25/2019 Page 59/419 Rules 1958 by arguing that the orders and other instruments made or executed in the name of the Hon'ble President can be executed only by the rank of the officer as specified therein. Sh. D.K Samantarary (PW-7) was admittedly working as Director, Vigilance in DoPT and hence, was not competent to authenticate the sanction order on behalf of and in the name of Hon'ble President of India.
114.1 The prosecution in this regard has simply placed reliance upon the testimony Sanctioning Authority (PW-7) by arguing that no such incompetency issue was ever put to the said witness. The reliance is also placed upon the presumption as to acts done on behalf of the President under Section 79 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 and Article 77 of the Constitution.
114.2 The said issue has to be considered by considering the testimony of PW-7, the Sanctioning Authority, and his version throws light on the said issue. D.K Samantarary (PW-7) in his examination-in-chief on the said aspect deposed that he was authorized to authenticate the sanction order on behalf of the Hon'ble President of India. Thereafter, the cross-examination on the said aspect is most crucial which demolishes the argument now advanced on behalf of the accused. A suggestion has been given on the very same CC No.25/2019 Page 60/419 aspect on behalf of the accused admitted about his authority to authenticate , which is reproduced hereunder:
"It is correct that as per the special order passed by the President, I was authorised to authenticate the order of sanction against accused no. 1 D.C Sankhla."
114.3 Apart from the said admission, even a bald suggestion on behalf of the accused denying the competency of PW-7 to authenticate the order issued in the name of the Hon'ble President is missing.
114.4 Even otherwise, the prosecution sanction file maintained at DoPT, Govt. of India which came on record after being summoned by the accused during cross-examination of PW-7 too throws light on the very same issue. Part-B of the file Ex.PW-7/DB has several letters and documents issued concerning the processing of the prosecution sanction at DoPT issued by D.K Samantarary (PW-7). He in the year 1994 while the prosecution sanction was being processed was posted in DoPT as Deputy Secretary to Govt. of India, though at the time of authenticating the sanction on 18.10.1996, his designation was that of Director (Vigilance) which is only a equivalent rank post of that of Deputy Secretary, which is apparent from the record. Therefore, in the said backdrop, the prosecution sanction authenticated by PW- 7 as Director (Vigilance), DoPT, Government of India, on behalf of Hon'ble President of India fulfills the mandate of Authentication Rules 1958.
CC No.25/2019 Page 61/419114.5 Even otherwise the presumption is attached to the validity of any instrument made on behalf of the Hon'ble President of India under Section 79 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 and Article 77 of the Constitution, which is case herein qua Ex. PW7/A.
(ii) Appropriate Authority to Grant the Sanction
115. The next limb of the arguments on the said aspect of the validity of prosecution sanction as raised by the accused is whether the sanction has been granted by the appropriate authority or not.
115.1 It is the case of the accused that under Notification dated 30.09.1986 which amended the Government of India ( Allocation of Business Rules) 1961, the appropriate authority to grant the sanction was Ministry of Home Affairs and not the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) which has processed the prosecution sanction in the present case. The cadre controlling authority qua the accused being a member of AGMUT cadre at the relevant time was the Ministry of Home Affairs.
115.2 It has further been argued that the prosecution for covering up the said invalidity in obtaining prosecution sanction from DoPT has placed reliance upon clause 20 of the Notification dated CC No.25/2019 Page 62/419 15.03.1985 ( Government of India ( Allocation of Business Rules) 1961) which stood omitted vide subsequent notification of 1986 as referred above. Earlier, the powers to grant prosecution sanction were centralized with DoPT because of the notification dated 15.03.1985. The said power came to be decentralized after notification dated 30.09.1986.The Cadre Controlling Authority of AGMUT cadre officers even at present is Ministry of Home Affairs.
115.3 It is not in dispute that the accused during the check period was a member of All India Administrative Services and was part of AGMUT Cadre. The Cadre Controlling Authority for the said cadre happens to be the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). The prosecution sanction file Ex.PW-7/DA and Ex.PW-7/DB also reflects that CBI initially forwarded their request for prosecution sanction against the accused to MHA only vide their request letter dated 12th/15th Feb.1994.
115.4 But, the DoPT in its wisdom initiated the process of prosecution sanction by seeking the record from CBI through their letter dated 23rd Feb.1994 (Part of Ex.PW-7/DA) .They also simultaneously sought the record from the MHA through a letter dated 28th March 1994 (Part of Ex.PW-7/DB). The contents of the said letter reflect that both the CBI as well as MHA, were apprised in categorical terms that they (DoPT) are the competent authority to accord the sanction for CC No.25/2019 Page 63/419 prosecution of the officer concerned. The relevant extract of the said letter addressed to CBI dated 28rd of March 1994 is reproduced hereunder:
"Please refer to the correspondence resting with the CBI's letter No. 583/3/3(A)/91-ACU.I, dated 12th 15th Feb., 1994, vide which a copy of SP's Report in the criminal case No. RC 3(A)91- ACU.I/CBI, New Delhi against Shri D.C, Sankhla, IAS (UT:69) was forwarded to Govt to prosecute the officer for the offence allegedly committed by him u/s 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (2) of the PC Act, 1988. This Department's endorsement No. 104/27/90-AVD.I dated 23.02.94 also refers.
2. We would be grateful if the SP's Report in the above case is processed further quickly in consultation with the Central Vigilance Commission and the papers of the case forwarded to Deptt. Of Personnel & Training being the authority competent to accord sanction for prosecution of the officer under the P.C Act, after obtaining orders of the Home Minister, on the recommendation of the CBI."
115.5 Both the said letters were responded to by the CBI as well as MHA and no objection to the said categorical contention of DoPT as to their competence to process the prosecution sanction against the accused, was raised.
115.6 Before discussing the issue of legality of the said action of DoPT regarding they being the competent authority, it is also not in dispute that the competent authority for appointment and removal qua the IAS officers is the Hon'ble President of India who acts on the aid and advice of Govt. of India, be it, Department of CC No.25/2019 Page 64/419 Personnel & Training (DoPT) or Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). The role of DoPT or that of MHA was only to process the proposal for prosecution sanction received from the CBI. Ultimately the sanction had to be accorded by the competent authority ie. Hon'ble President.
115.7 The issue as has been raised is as to whether after the amendment in Government of India ( Allocation of Business) Rules 1961 vide notification dated 30.09.1986, the power of processing the order of prosecution sanction was with Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) or not.
115.8 The stress has been laid on behalf of the accused in the notification dated 30.09.1986 regarding the omission of entry no. 20 (b) wherein earlier all the acts of according sanction for prosecution of any officer accused of any offence investigated by Delhi Special Police Establishment was with the DoPT. After the said omission, vide subsequent notification dated 30.09.1986 the work of processing the prosecution sanction was vested with concerned Cadre Controlling Authority. The relevant rule is reproduced hereunder:
"As per Section 3(3) "Where sanction for the prosecution of any person for any offence is required to be accorded:-
a) If he is a Government Servant, by the Department which is the Cadre Controlling CC No.25/2019 Page 65/419 Authority for the service of which he is a member and in any other case, by the Department in which he was working at the time of commission of the alleged offences.
b) If he is a public servant other than a Government Servant appointed by the Central Government, by the Department administratively concerned with the organization in which he was working at the time of commission of the alleged offence, and
(c) In any other case, by the Department which administers the Act under which the alleged offence is committed.
Provided that where, for offences alleged to have been committed, Sanction required under more than one Act, it shall be competent for the Department which administers any of such Acts to accord sanction under all such Acts.
As per Section 3 (4) "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub rule (3), the President may, be general or special order, direct that in any case or class of cases, the sanction shall be by the Department of Personnel and Training."
115.9 No doubt, after the omission of earlier entry no. 20 (b), the process of according prosecution sanction was decentralized among the concerned departments. Therefore, the crucial issue remains whether the MHA or the Department of Personnel and Training was to process the prosecution sanction vis-a-vis the accused .
115.10 The Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules 1961, entry no.41 throws light on the said issue. Clause (c) of the said entry gives authority to CC No.25/2019 Page 66/419 DoPT to deal with all the matters relating to Indian Administrative Services. The Controlling Authority for the officers of All India Services for all the matters even after the omission of entry 20 (b) under the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules 1961 continued to be DoPT.
115.11 The judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled Tulsi Ram Mishra V. State of Punjab, CRM-M-11381/2016 dated 15.09.2023 on the very same issue throws light and discusses the issue of prosecution sanction qua the members of All India Civil Services Officers posted in various States. The Hon'ble High Court examined the Rules governing the officers of Indian Administrative Services and various office memorandums issued by DoPT. The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:
"13. The first issue which falls for determination in the instant case is as to which is the competent authority to accord sanction to prosecute respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 was a member of the Indian Administrative Service and serving in the State Government as Director, Department of Industries and Commerce, at the time of the alleged incident. The appointing authority of an officer of the Indian Administrative Service is the Central Government as provided in Rule 6(1) of the Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 which is reproduced hereunder:-
6. Appointment to the Service:-
(1) All appointments to the Service after the commencement of these rules shall be made by the Central Government and no such appointment shall be made except after CC No.25/2019 Page 67/419 recruitment by one of the methods specified in rule 4.
An officer of the Indian Administrative Service is allocated a State cadre by the Central Government to serve the State Government. Reference may be made to Rule 6 (1) of the Indian Administrative Service which provides that a cadre officer may, with the concurrence of the State Governments concerned and the Central Government, be deputed for service under the Central Government or another State Government. Rule 6 (1) is reproduced hereunder: ...................
The competent authority which can dismiss or remove from service an officer of the Indian Administrative Service is the Central Government as stipulated in Rule 7(2) of the All India Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969, which is reproduced hereunder:-
"The penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement shall not be imposed on a member of the Service except by an order of the Central Government."
14.Article 311 (1) of the Constitution of India states that no person, who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an All India Service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. Article "(1) No person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all-India service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed."
Even in terms of Section 19 (1) of the PC Act, the competent authority to accord sanction for prosecution of a public servant is the authority which is competent to remove him from his CC No.25/2019 Page 68/419 office. The relevant extract of the provision is reproduced hereunder:-
19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution.--
-----------------------------------------------------------
------------------
15. It is apt to notice that the State Government, after having considered the matter, had accorded sanction to prosecute respondent No.2 on 27.04.2010, but the State Government, after granting the sanction, appears to be conscious of the fact that the competent authority to accord sanction was the Central Government and therefore, it had addressed the communication to the Central Government on 06.05.2014 (O&M) (13) issue of grant of sanction which was later withdrawn on 26.03.2018 (Annexure R-5). The trial Court has also relied upon the instructions issued by the Central Government on 27.10.1999 wherein it is stated that the competent authority to accord sanction in respect of the members of the Indian Administrative Service is the Central Government. The relevant paragraphs no.1 and 3 of the instructions dated 27.10.1999 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India to the Chief Secretaries of all State Governments/UT Administrations, is reproduced hereunder :
"1. As you are aware, under Section 19 of the P.C. Act, 1988 (corresponding Section 6 of the P.C. Act, 1947), it is necessary for prosecuting agency to seek previous sanction of the appropriate administrative authority for launching prosecution against a public servant for the alleged P.C. Act offences mentioned in the Investigation Report. In respect of members of the Indian Administrative Service, such sanction is required to be accorded by the Department of Personnel & CC No.25/2019 Page 69/419 Training in the Central Government as in terms of Section 19(1) of the P.C. Act, 1988, the Central Government (Department of Personnel & Training) alone is competent to remove such officers from service.
2. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx It is, thus, manifest that the competent authority to accord sanction to prosecute an officer of the Indian Administrative Service is the Central Government."
115.12 Therefore, after the extensive examination of said Rules, Office Memorandums as well as Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules 1961, the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court made it amply clear that the competent authority to process and approve the prosecution sanction against IAS officers which is case vis-a-viz the accused is DoPT, Govt. of India and not the MHA as contended by Ld. Counsel for the accused. This is the position that continues even today. Thus the omission of Clause 20 (b) vide notification dated 30.09.1986 hardly made any difference for officers of Indian Administrative Services.
115.13 Even the examination of D.K Samantarary (PW-7), the Sanctioning Authentication Officer on the very said issue is relevant. He, in his examination in chief, deposed that the accused at the relevant time was working with AGMUT Cadre which works under the Ministry of Home Affairs. Therefore, the opinion of Ministry of Home Affairs was obtained and then the file CC No.25/2019 Page 70/419 for sanction was sent to Prime Minister's Office being the competent authority.
115.14 The notes which are part of prosecution sanction in file Ex.PW-7/DA too records the said fact that the Hon'ble Prime Minister was the competent authority to accord the prosecution sanction being the Ministerial Incharge of DoPT. The accused during the cross- examination of PW-7 failed to raise any issue of incompetency of DoPT to process and accord the prosecution sanction. Even a bald suggestion denying the competency of DoPT was never put the witness. Thus version and claim of PW7 as to the competency of DoPT have gone unrebutted and unchallengeable against the accused.
115.15 Therefore, in the light of the evidence of PW-7 as well as the interpretation of Government of India ( Allocation of Business) Rules 1961, the argument advanced on behalf of the accused regarding the invalidity of the prosecution sanction being accorded by DoPT is without any basis and stands rejected. The prosecution sanction has been accorded by the appointment and removal authority of the accused i.e the Hon'ble President of India on the advice of the Prime Minster of India ( Ministerial Incharge of DoPT).
CC No.25/2019 Page 71/419(iii) Review of the Earlier Rejection of Prosecution Sanction
116. The next aspect argued on behalf of the accused is the issue of review by the sanctioning authority of the earlier order of refusing the sanction to prosecute the accused u/s Section 19 of the PC Act.
116.1 It has been argued on behalf of the accused that the S.P.'s report seeking prosecution sanction firstly was processed by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the MHA sought advice from CVC in this regard. The CVC through their first advice vide O.M dated 04.01.1995 ( part of Ex. PW7/DB) recommended against grant of prosecution sanction and only recommended major disciplinary proceedings against the accused. But, subsequently, under duress from the CBI and DoPT, the CVC reviewed its earlier decision and through its second advice OM dated 15.03.1996, it recommended for grant of sanction for prosecution. The said second advice led to the issuance of sanction order dated 17th October 1996 Ex.PW-7/A. It, thus, has been argued by placing reliance upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of Himachal Pradesh. V. Nishant Sareen, (2010) 14 SCC 527 and that of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Ashok Kumar Aswal V. UOI, W.P (C) No. 578/2010, Dated 11.01.2013 that the decision of review of grant of sanction by the Competent Authority is not permissible unless fresh material is brought before the CC No.25/2019 Page 72/419 Authority. In the present case, as per the accused no fresh material was available with CVC when it reviewed its decision.
116.2 There is no doubt about the said position of law regarding no review of the earlier denial of the prosecution sanction of the public servant by the competent authority. But the crucial issue to be seen is in what context and background the said position of law has been enunciated by the Hon'ble Constitutional Courts. The said issue is also to be considered keeping in mind the object behind the provision of seeking prosecution sanction against public servant.
116.3 There is no doubt that the only object behind the provision u/s 19 of PC Act is to give an umbrella of protection to honest public servants from malicious prosecution. Thus, keeping the said object in mind, the issue of review of the decision by the competent authority in according or refusing the sanction needs to be considered. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of HP vs Nishant Sareen ( supra) explained the said aspect as under :-
"It is true that the Government in the matter of grant or refusal to grant sanction exercises statutory power and that would not mean that power once exercised cannot be exercised again or at a subsequent stage in the absence of express power of review in no circumstance whatsoever. The power of review, however, is not unbridled or unrestricted. It seems to us sound principle to follow that once the statutory CC No.25/2019 Page 73/419 power under Section 19 of the 1988 Act or Section 197 of the Code has been exercised by the Government or the competent authority, as the case may be, it is not permissible for the sanctioning authority to review or reconsider the matter on the same materials again. It is so because unrestricted power of review may not bring finality to such exercise and on change of the Government or change of the person authorised to exercise power of sanction, the matter concerning sanction may be reopened by such authority for the reasons best known to it and a different order may be passed. The opinion on the same materials, thus, may keep on changing and there may not be any end to such statutory exercise. In our opinion, a change of opinion per se on the same materials cannot be a ground for reviewing or reconsidering the earlier order refusing to grant sanction. However, in a case where fresh materials have been collected by the investigating agency subsequent to the earlier order and placed before the sanctioning authority and on that basis, the matter is reconsidered by the sanctioning authority and in light of the fresh materials an opinion is formed that sanction to prosecute the public servant may be granted, there may not be any impediment to adopt such course."
116.4 Therefore the embargo was placed upon the competent authority upon their unbridled of review by the competent authority. It was felt that a review may be done on the change of Govt. or the change of the authorities concerned. Thus in the said backdrop the issue to be seen is whether in the present case firstly whether there was indeed a review and if so what were the reasons for the same.
116.5 To appreciate the contention advanced concerning the review of the earlier order of denial of CC No.25/2019 Page 74/419 sanction, the entire sequence of events that took place right from inception i.e request letter which was forwarded by the CBI in February 1994 to MHA and DoPT seeking prosecution sanction till prosecution sanction being accorded on 17.10.1996 needs to deciphered. The entire chain of events are part of the prosecution file Ex. PW7/DA and PW7/DB.
116.6 It is apparent from the record that the Competent Authority took more than two years to process the said request. It also reflects the extensive exercise done by them in this regard. The first issue in hand on the said aspect is the prayer made by the CBI to the Competent Authority through its S.P. report (part of Ex.PW-7/DA). The CBI after the conclusion of the investigation made the final recommendations in para- 11 of its report which are as under:
"11.1 Prosecution of Sh. D.C Sankhla u/s 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1999 (Act 49 of 1988) for possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income to the extent of Rs.81.81,163.78 for which he could not satisfactorily account for/explain.
11.2. R.D.A for major penalty is recommended under Rule 3 (1), Rule 16 (3) (a) and 16 (4) of the All India Service ( Conduct) Rules 1968 for not maintaining absolute integrity and devotion to duty, for entering into transactions otherwise than through regular or reputed dealers without the previous sanction of the Govt and for entering into the transactions (receipt/payment of money without the previous sanction of the Govt."CC No.25/2019 Page 75/419
116.7 Thus it is apparent from the said request itself that the prosecution agency sought the prosecution sanction in terms of section 19 of PC Act and simultaneously also sought conduct of regular departmental inquiry for major penalty under All India Conduct Rules 1968 for irregularities against the accused. The said request was processed simultaneously by MHA and DoPT. It has already been held above that the competent authority to process the sanction for the IAS officers was and continues to be the Department of Personnel and Training which happened to be headed by the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India then.
116.8 The CVC being the advisory body played the role of advising the department concerned on prosecution sanction requests received from the CBI. The communications exchanged between the CVC, MHA and DoPT show the said advisory nature of their work. The CVC through its first advice vide O.M No. IV-DLH- 59 dated 04.01.1995 recommended to the Ministry of Home Affairs that regular departmental inquiry for major penalty proceedings against the accused was the better course instead of prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
116.9 To appreciate the said advice of CVC ( OM No. 59 dated 04.01.1995), it needs to be examined in detail. The same is reproduced hereunder:
"1. The Commission has examined the CBI report in RC No.3 (A)/91-ACU (I) where, on the basis of available information, prima facie, CC No.25/2019 Page 76/419 a case of holding disproportionate assets by Shri D.C Shankla, IAS has been made out for the check period 1.1.80 to 13.8.91.
2. It is seen from the CBI's report in the case that the net disproportion works out to Rs.81 lakhs for a check period of 11 years. It is also seen that the CBI have already launched prosecution proceedings against Sh. Sankhla and others under Section 120 (B) read with Section 193, IPC for their alleged connivance in having forged certain sale-deeds etc. covering a transaction of Rs.58 lacs out of the properties etc included in the total disproportion of 81 lacs. The veracity of this charge will, of course, be tested in the Court of Law, in due course. Sh. Sankhla has contested this charge. However, even if he succeeds in establishing his defence in the Court proceedings, the remainder of the disproportion would continue to be substantial (around 40% of income during the check period), warranting appropriate action.
3. The CBI have proposed separate prosecution proceedings against Sh. Sankhla for acquisition of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income and departmental proceedings against him for non-intimation of various transactions. This does not seem to be a practical course of action as it would have, in the first place, to be established in a departmental proceedings that the properties in question had been acquired by him which is the same as having to prove that there is a case of disproportionate assets. On the other hand, if the entire case relating to disproportionate assets and non-intimation of transaction is enquired into through a departmental proceedings, it will be possible to mete out justice in a far quicker time frame and with a higher degree of certainty, as the standard of proof in departmental proceedings, is preponderance of probability."CC No.25/2019 Page 77/419
116.10 It is thus apparent from the contents of the said entire advice of CVC that it never disagreed with the conclusions reached by the CBI after the investigation regarding the case of disproportionate assets against the accused. The reasons for recommending only departmental inquiry for the major penalty by CVC was in their opinion a far quicker mode of delivering justice coupled with a higher degree of certainty. So, the paramount consideration of CVC was to give finality to the proceedings against the accused for allegations of disproportionate assets as well as non-intimation of various transactions in a quicker time frame which admittedly cannot be done in regular criminal trial. It is also, thus, apparent from the said advice that the CVC never exonerated the accused from the allegations of acquisition of assets disproportionate to the known sources of his income and due to this reason, they having denied recommending prosecution sanction. It is also the not the case of they have disagreed as to the conclusions drawn by CBI. There was no positive finding of CVC recommending dropping entire proceedings against the accused. Rather, their intent was otherwise to ensure timely action against the accused. The contents of the said advice of CVC against prosecution sanction itself differentiate the case of the accused from that of the cases relied upon him as referred herein above.
116.11 The next crucial issue to be seen in this context is whether indeed there was a denial of CC No.25/2019 Page 78/419 prosecution sanction by the competent authority in the first place and thereafter review of its decision based on pressure exerted by the CBI or DoPT as has been argued. It has already been discussed that initially CVC whose advice was sought by the Ministry of Home Affairs, through their first O.M dated 04.01.1995 only recommended the institution of regular departmental proceedings for a major penalty against the accused. The said advice was ultimately processed by MHA (by Joint Secretary Rajeev R. Shah) through its communication dated 25.09.1995 communicated to DoPT that they have decided in principle to accept the advice of CVC for initiating major penalty proceedings against the accused (Part of Ex.PW7/DB ). The said recommendation was promptly acted upon by the Competent Authority for according prosecution sanction i.e DoPT. Sh. V. Lakshmi Rattan, the then Joint Secretary, DoPT through its communication dated 29.05.1995 in clear terms disagreed with the advice of CVC.( Part of Ex. PW7/DB). The contents of the said letter make out amply clear that they never agreed to the said advice of CVC . DoPT by placing reliance upon the prescribed procedure in this regard of CVC vide letter no. 60/11/68-C dated 18.12.1968, recommended for the option of re-referring the case to CVC for reconsideration of its advice with the approval of the Secretary of Administrative Ministry i.e the Home Secretary in the present case. However, it is not clear from the record as to what action was taken upon the said advice of DoPT by the MHA. But the said CC No.25/2019 Page 79/419 aspect is not that material as it has already been held that the competent authority in the present case for granting prosecution sanction was Ministerial Incharge of DoPT i.e Hon'ble Prime Minister. The competent authority never accepted the first advice of CVC dated 04.01.1995 communicated to MHA and further communicated to them by MHA. So, once there was no acceptance of the declining grant of prosecution sanction by the competent authority, there is no question for reconsideration or review of its earlier decision as has been argued on behalf of the accused.
The case State of H.P. V. Nishant Sareen (supra), on the said aspect is quite different from the present case. In that case , the competent authority i.e the Principal Secretary, Health, Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, firstly declined the grant of prosecution sanction which was reconsidered subsequently without any fresh material, which is not the case herein.
116.12 In the present case in hand, the competent authority never agreed to the first advice of CVC wherein they had recommended the institution of regular departmental proceedings for major penalty. Similar is the proposition in Ashok Kumar Aswal (supra) case wherein too the competent authority had decided to institute only disciplinary proceedings for minor penalty on the basis of the advice of CVC, which is not the case herein. Therefore, the judgments relied upon by the accused are distinguishable on facts. In the present case, CC No.25/2019 Page 80/419 the competent authority in categorical terms disagreed with the advice of CVC. DoPT was never in doubt as to their action after the receipt of information regarding CVC's opinion and they promptly sought its review by CVC.
116.13 The next aspect addressed on behalf of the accused is the legality of the second advice of CVC dated 15.03.1996 (Part of Ex. PW7/DB) wherein they reconsidered the advice of grant of prosecution sanction was under duress from CBI and DoPT.
116.14 As far as the aspect of interference or duress of DoPT is concerned, none of the document (part of Ex.PW-7/DB) reflects that DoPT ever communicated directly with CVC in the present matter. Only the MHA was communicating with CVC. Therefore, there is no question of any duress or pressure being exerted upon the CVC to reconsider the said advice by DoPT.
116.15 Now, coming to the role played by CBI in this regard. The letter dated 07.08.1995 Ex.PW-7/DXB of Joint Director CBI is the request letter vide which they requested the CVC to reconsider their first advice dated 04.01.1995. Vide said request letter, they explained the outcome of the advice firstly rendered by CVC even though CVC agreed with the conclusion reached by them after investigation against the accused. The said outcome as explained by the CBI in its letter Ex.PW-7/DXB seems CC No.25/2019 Page 81/419 to have prompted CVC to review their advice for grant of prosecution sanction. Even otherwise it is the CVC which is the supervisory authority of CBI and not the other way around . CBI could not by any stretch of the imagination have put any pressure upon their supervisory authority as has been argued on behalf of the accused .
116.16 Even for the sake of arguments, if it is believed that indeed CVC was put under a certain kind of duress, it is hardly relevant as the competent authority in the present case was the Ministerial Incharge of DoPT who had to independently decide without being influenced by the decision of CVC.
The role of CVC is only advisory in nature. The detailed role of CVC vis-a-viz their advice in the processing of sanction by competent authority has been discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Rajmohan vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police (11.10.2022-SC): MANU/SC/1300/ 2022 as under :-
"It is evident from the above referred formulation that the position of law and the legal regime obtained by virtue of the five legislation on the subject of corruption, operates as integrated scheme. The five legislations being the Code of Criminal Procedure, DSPE Act, PC Act, CVC Act, and Lokpal Act, must be read together to enable the authorities to sub- serve the common purpose and objectives underlying these legislations. The Central Vigilance Commission, constituted under the CVC Act is specifically entrusted with the duty and function of providing expert advice on the subject. It may be necessary for the appointing authority to call for and seek the opinion of the CVC before it takes any decision on the request CC No.25/2019 Page 82/419 for sanction for prosecution. The statutory scheme under which the appointing authority could call for, seek and consider the advice of the CVC can neither be termed as acting under dictation nor a factor which could be referred to as an irrelevant consideration. The opinion of the CVC is only advisory. It is nevertheless a valuable input in the decision-making process of the appointing authority. The final decision of the appointing authority must be of its own by application of independent mind. The issue is, therefore, answered by holding that there is no illegality in the action of the appointing authority, the DoPT, if it calls for, refers, and considers the opinion of the Central Vigilance Commission before it takes its final decision on the request for sanction for prosecuting a public servant."
116.17 Thus the settled position of law vis-vis the role of CVC or their advice, is only that of advisory in nature. The Competent Authority has to apply its own independent mind while granting or refusing the prosecution sanction, which is the case herein. There was no question of any duress/coercion as DoPT & CVC had no direct communication. Hence, the argument advanced on behalf of the accused that there was the review of the decision in granting PROSECUTION SANCTION is against the record.
(iv) Availability of Complete Material
117. The next issue raised on behalf of the accused on the aspect of prosecution sanction is it being given without due application of mind as the complete material was never sent or examined by the Sanctioning Authority before according the sanction Ex.PW-7/A. CC No.25/2019 Page 83/419 The sanction was thus, granted merely on the S.P. Report (part of Ex.PW-7/DA). It was done mechanically at the mere asking of CBI. The second limb of the said argument which as per the accused, vitiates the sacrosanct act of according prosecution sanction is according the sanction by simplicitor relying upon the S.P. Report which, had several factual errors and concealment of material.
117.1 The prosecution in the present case has proved the prosecution sanction Ex.PW-7/A by examining the authentication officer namely D.K Samantarary (PW-7), the then Vigilance Director, DoPT, Govt of India.
117.2 It has already been discussed above that the grant of prosecution sanction by the Competent Authority is a sacrosanct act which should reflect application of mind and the basis of same being the consideration of entire relevant material on record. The Sanctioning Authority is rather under the obligation to consider all the relevant material collected by the Investigating Authority and then independently apply its mind while according the sanction or denying it.
The object of granting prosecution sanction is to provide a shield against frivolous and malicious prosecution of public servants who diligently and honestly perform their duty. The said shield cannot be CC No.25/2019 Page 84/419 taken as a defence by the dishonest or corrupt public servant.
117.3 In the said backdrop, the first issue to be considered is as to whether the prosecution sanction Ex.PW-7/A qua the accused who worked in various capacities during the check period being the I.A.S officer of AGMUT Cadre reflect the due application of mind or not or it being given after consideration of entire material. The prosecution sanction Ex.PW-7/A is a detailed order running into 10 pages having details of all the assets, expenditure and income for the check period from 01.01.1980 to 13.08.1991.
117.4 As far as the consideration of the record is concerned, the second last para on page 10 of Ex. PW7/A has a passing reference for the same wherein it has been categorically stated that the Competent Authority has carefully and fully examined material before it concerning the allegations and circumstances before according the sanction. However it is not clear from the sanction order what was the material that was carefully and fully examined by the Competent Authority. Therefore, the Court has to consider the oral testimony of D.K Samantarary (PW-7), Director (Vigilance), DoPT, Investigating Officer K.N. Tiwari (PW-63) as well as the prosecution file maintained with DoPT Ex.PW-7/DA, Ex.PW-7/DB and Ex.PW-7/DC respectively.
CC No.25/2019 Page 85/419117.5 Before analyzing the said oral and documentary evidence, the first issue to be seen is the material sent by the CBI to the Competent Authority while moving the request for prosecution sanction. The prosecution file Ex.PW-7/DA has the request letter dated 23.02.1994 written by C.P. Singh, Deputy Secretary, DOPT, Govt. of India, seeking forwarding of copy of S.P. Report. The contents of the said letter make it apparent that CBI had already moved the request letter dated 10/15-02-1994 to the MHA, Govt. of India for prosecution sanction by treating them as the Competent Authority, which was not so as has been held above. The above-said request letter of DoPT was immediately responded to by CBI vide their letter Ex.PW-7/DA-1 dated 25.02.1994 wherein they forwarded the S.P. Report as desired. Therefore, the Ld. Counsel for the accused by placing reliance upon the said letter argued that the S.P. Report is the only document that was forwarded to the Competent Authority and none of the accompanying material was considered by them. The contents of the said letter though make the argument of the accused somewhat probable.
117.6 The connected crucial issue on the said aspect is the period when the prosecution sanction was sought by the CBI i.e February 1994. Therefore, the practice and the statutory requirement of the CBI manual require to be looked into before appreciating the arguments advanced in this regard by the accused.
CC No.25/2019 Page 86/419117.7 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CBI V. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (supra) case traces the history on the said aspect and how CBI amended their CBI Manual concerning sending of entire material alongwith S.P. Report while seeking prosecution sanction. The relevant paras of the said judgment are reproduced hereunder for the sake of convenience and clarity:
"Be that as it may, in State of T.N. v. M.M. Rajendran MANU/SC/1464/1998 : (1998) 9 SCC 268, this Court dealt with a case under the provisions of Act 1988, wherein the prosecuting agency had submitted a very detailed report before the sanctioning Authority and on consideration of the same, the competent authority had accorded the sanction. This Court found that though the report was a detailed one, however, such report could not be held to be the complete records required to be considered for sanction on application of mind to the relevant material on record and thereby quashed the sanction.
13. In view thereof, the CBI-Appellant herein, immediately issued circular dated 6.5.1999 to give effect to the observations made in the said judgment in M.M. Rajendran (Supra) and directed that all the investigating officers to give strict adherence to the said observations made by this Court. The CBI manual was amended accordingly, adding paragraph 22.16, wherein it was directed that in view of the said judgment in M.M. Rajendran (Supra), it was imperative that alongwith SP's report, the branches must send the copies of all the relied upon relevant material "including the statements of witnesses recorded by the investigating officers Under Section 161 CC No.25/2019 Page 87/419 Code of Criminal Procedure as well as statements Under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure recorded by the Magistrate to the authority competent to grant sanction for prosecution". Further, the investigating officer concerned shall be deputed to the competent authority to produce the relevant material for perusal of the competent authority and this fact be recorded in the case diary of the case concerned. Paragraph 22.16 of the CBI manual reads as under:
On completion of investigation in a case covered in item 22.15.1 and 22.15.2, even the CBI shall send its report to the administrative authority alongwith relevant statements of witnesses recorded during investigation and the documents. The judgment of the Supreme Court in State of T.N. v. M.M. Rajendran reported in MANU/SC/1464/1998 : (1998) 9 SCC 268 and the Circular No. 21/33/98-PD dated 6.5.1999 issued by the Policy Division which also referred to in this regard.
117.8 Thus, it is apparent that only after the judgment in State of Tamil Nadu V M.M. Rajendran, (1998) 9 SCC 268 the circular dated 06.05.1999 was issued by the CBI thereby amending the CBI Manual Para 22.16. The said judgment was delivered on 05.02.1997 wherein the requirement of placing the entire relevant material was explained. It is thus quite apparent that till the amendment of CBI Manual on 06.05.1999, the S.P. Report alongwith the statements of witnesses only used to be forwarded to the Competent Authority.
But, it also clear from para 13 of Ashok Kumar Aggarwal ( supra) of the judgment prior to that and even thereafter Investigating Officer used to be deputed to produce the CC No.25/2019 Page 88/419 relevant material before the Competent Authority as and when required.
Therefore, in the said backdrop, sending of S.P Report only in the present case through DoPT vide letter Ex.PW-7/DA-1 does not appear to be in contradiction to the practice prevalent then. Apart from the S.P Report, the statement of the accused regarding his explanation qua the assets too was forwarded.
117.9 Now, coming to the version of D.K Samantarary (PW-7) on the said aspect, as to whether they considered the material documents or not before according the sanction. PW-7 clarifies the said aspect and deposed that they received the record of investigation alongwith the S.P. Report which was considered before according the sanction. He was cross-examined on the very same aspect by the accused wherein he explained about the said record having S.P Report and statement of the accused. As far as other documents are concerned, he further explained that all the title documents, passbook and vouchers etc were taken into consideration before according the prosecution sanction. He denied the suggestion that no material was available before them while granting the prosecution sanction. Apart from the said bald suggestion, there is no other material response in the cross-examination of PW-7 which put any question mark over his version concerning consideration of entire material i.e title deed, bank documents, representation, CC No.25/2019 Page 89/419 etc. before processing the sanction. On the contrary, there is an admission is there on the part of the accused which is reproduced hereunder:
"It is correct that when the file was placed before me for according sanction, it was complete in all respects includes the representation, which came later."
117.10 So, in the said backdrop, the next issue to be considered is how the said material collected by the Investigating Authority came to be considered by the Competent Authority despite it being not forwarded to them. The cross-examination of I.O K.N. Tiwari (PW-
63) clarifies and throws light over the said issue. PW-63 in his cross-examination explained that upon a telephonic request from the Sanctioning Authority, all the evidence including oral or written was shown to them before they accorded the prosecution sanction. Though he was not able to disclose whether the said fact is mentioned in the Case Diary (CD) or not as required as per the CBI Manual. Even if it is believed for the sake of arguments, indeed the said fact was not recorded in the Case Diary (CD), that by itself will not render the decision of prosecution sanction to be vitiated or his version to be false. The non-following of the CBI Manual or not recording the Case Diary might only be a default on the part of the Investigating Officer making him liable for departmental action. The said default will not have any bearing on the merits of the investigation or the role CC No.25/2019 Page 90/419 played by him during the sanction process. It has already been discussed above this was the practice followed at that time and IO used to produce the record to the sanctioning authority as and when sought. Accordingly, the argument on behalf of the accused that sanction has been accorded without considering the entire material is against the evidence on record.
117.11 Thus the next issue to be seen as to whether there was an application of due mind by Sanctioning Authority before according prosecution sanction Ex.PW- 7/A. The due application of mind and how extensively the whole exercise was conducted, is well reflected from the prosecution sanction file Ex.PW-7/DA maintained by DoPT.
117.12 The notes-sheet starting w.e.f. 21.03.1994 till final note whereby the approval was given by the Competent Authority i.e Hon'ble Prime Minister on 10.10.1996 reflect extensive exercise in processing the prosecution sanction. They considered all the pros and cons of the case and also took care of the defence raised by accused .The said extensive exercise as reflected from the contents of the notes referred to above also discards the arguments on behalf of the accused that the Sanctioning Authority gave prosecution sanction on mere asking of the CBI.
CC No.25/2019 Page 91/419117.13 The said notes reflect how Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) was roped in to give their opinion in consultation with the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), before the same could be put before the Competent Authority. The MHA was roped in as they were the Administrative Ministry for the officers of AGMUT cadre.
117.14 The said note-sheet's also reflects that the accused also moved direct representation dated 14.06.1993 to both Ministry of Home Affairs as well as DoPT giving his explanation concerning disproportionate assets in March 1994. The said representation too was considered extensively by DoPT by seeking comments from Ministry of Home Affairs being the Administrative Ministry. The note dated 12.07.1994 further reflects that MHA considered the said representation by examining the S.P. Report of CBI wherein they examined in detail the said explanation in para 10.2.49 and 10.2.57. After examining the said CBI report, they forwarded the same to CVC for their advice so that the proposal could be examined further. The subsequent note dated 08.12.1994 further reflects that the accused herein also gave a similar representation to the CVC. Ultimately, the advice was rendered by the CVC through O.M dated 04.01.1995 which again reflects the extensive exercise and application of due mind to the material collected and the investigation conducted by the CBI upon the same. The explanation offered by the accused concerning the certain CC No.25/2019 Page 92/419 agreements to sell/sale deeds covering transactions of Rs. 58 lacs was considered. The said opinion is reproduced hereunder to show the extensive exercise and independent application of mind :
"2. It is seen from the CBI's report in the case that the net disproportion works out to Rs.81 lakhs for a check period of 11 years. It is also seen that the CBI have already launched prosecution proceedings against Sh. Sankhla and others under Section 120 (B) read with Section 193, IPC for their alleged connivance in having forged certain sale-deeds etc. covering a transaction of Rs.58 lacs out of the properties etc included in the total disproportion of 81 lacs. The veracity of this charge will, of course, be tested in the Court of Law, in due course. Sh. Sankhla has contested this charge. However, even if he succeeds in establishing his defence in the Court proceedings, the remainder of the disproportion would continue to be substantial (around 40% of income during the check period), warranting appropriate action."
117.15 The said advice reflects that CVC even considered the explanation of the accused to be true despite the CBI having said it to be based upon forged and fabricated documents, even then CVC found the disproportionate assets to be substantial i.e around 40% of the income warranting appropriate action. However there was difference of opinion between CVC's advice and proposed action between MHA and DoPT which was subsequently reconsidered vide second advice dated 15.03.1996.
CC No.25/2019 Page 93/419117.16 Lastly the DOPT (competent authority ) too in their notes ( specifically note dated 15/07/96 and 30/08/1996 part of Ex. PW7/DA ) extensively considered the said defence of the accused claiming the additional income. They even went to the extent of rejecting the loan claims from OS Chauhan or M/S Hari Om Nursery by raising the question mark over the integrity of OS Chauhan who too was IAS Officer and under CBI investigation in another regular case. The discussion qua the said advice of CVC or the action of DOPT in the present context was only to show that there was an extensive exercise done by various authorities involved in the processing of prosecution sanction. It further reflect that the authorities applied their mind independently without being bound by the recommendation of the CVC or the outcome of CBI. Thus there is no question of non- consideration of the entire material as has been argued on behalf of the accused or there being non application of mind by the competent authority.
(v) Whether Material Evidence was Concealed from the Sanctioning Authority
118. The next limb of the argument advanced on behalf of the accused concerns the concealment of material documents from the Competent Authority by the CBI. In this regard, firstly the reference was made to representation dated 12.04.1994 (Ex.PW-7/DXA). The said representation, as per the accused, explains the assets owned by him as well as how the CBI investigation is CC No.25/2019 Page 94/419 biased. Apart from that the representation dated 14.06.1993 D29 relied by CBI was incomplete. The complete representation came on record subsequently during trial vide Ex. PW63/Z, which was never forwarded to the Competent Authority.
118.1 The representation Ex.PW-7/DXA dated 12.04.1994 was addressed by accused to Sh. R.R Shah, Joint Secretary (UTS), MHA, New Delhi. It was copied to Sh. Laxmi Rattan, IAS Joint Secretary, DoPT, CVC and lastly Sh. Gopinath, Director, CVC. The representation was accompanied with annexures which include the intimation of the accused to his department concerning the acquisition of movable and immovable assets. Apart from that, it also had the self-serving certificates issued by O.S Chauhan and Yashpal Bansal with whom the accused or his family members entered into purported five agreement to sell for total consideration amount of around Rs.58 lacs.
This is not the sole representation of the accused. The sanction Ex. PW7/DA and Ex. PW7/DB reflect that the accused made repeated representations to various authorities involved in the matter of sanction. He even went on to write a letter dated 17.06.1996 to the Home Minister, Govt. of India seeking a personal hearing.
118.2 The material issue in this regard is as to whether firstly the Competent Authority was duty-bound to consider the said defence of the accused which was CC No.25/2019 Page 95/419 directly sent to it and secondly, whether it considered it or not.
118.3 As far as the first aspect is concerned, there was no bounden duty upon the Competent Authority to consider the said explanation as it had to apply its independent mind while according the sanction based on the material collected and investigated by the Investigating Authority alongwith its conclusion.
Be that as it may be, the facts that emerge from the record are that the all the authorities involved in the processing of sanction i.e MHA, DoPT and CVC, considered the said representation and analyzed the contentions raised in it threadbare with the materials forwarded to it by the CBI.
118.4 The said letter Ex.PW-7/DXA was addressed to MHA and only copied to DoPT, the DoPT forwarded the same for comments to MHA vide their letter dated 22.04.1994. The said representation was forwarded with the request to examine the same in consultation with CVC and thereafter forward the necessary proposal to them for obtaining necessary orders from the Competent Authority. The reason for forwarding the said representation to MHA was that they were the Administrative Ministry qua the accused having all the records concerning intimation of acquisition of properties. Accordingly, MHA through their letter dated 05.07.1994 of Sh. R.R Shah, Joint Secretary examined CC No.25/2019 Page 96/419 the contents of said representation and made the following observations:
"The undersigned is directed to refer to O.M. No. V-DLH-59 dated 8.4.94 from CVC, on the above subject and to say that Shri D.C Sankhla who is now posted as Commissioner and Secretary (Home) Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, made a representation (copy attached for ready reference) in this behalf. As the contention of Shri Sankhla made in the representation has already been examined in detail by the CBI in paras 10.2.49 and 10.2.57 of their report, this Ministry have no comments to offer. It is requested that the advice of the Commission may kindly be furnished so that the case may be examined further."
118.5 It is, thus, apparent from the contents of the said letter that there was again the independent application of mind upon the issues and defences raised by the accused concerning his assets and the investigation conducted by the CBI on the same. The MHA after examining the S.P. Report from paras 10.2.49 and 10.2.57 found that these issues have already been examined in detail by the CBI. The department had no mechanism to independently investigate the findings upon the said explanations given by CBI. The only mechanism available with them was to examine the documents coupled with the explanation furnished by the accused which was part of S.P Report and the record of intimations of the employee sent to them.
118.6 Therefore, in the said circumstances, it has to be observed that the contention raised on behalf of the CC No.25/2019 Page 97/419 accused that his defence or explanation forwarded to the Competent Authority was never considered appears to be incorrect. Rather, the Sanction File Ex.PW-7/DB reflects that the accused kept on pushing his case with the MHA through his series of letters right from the year 1995 till 1996 .He even sought the opportunity of being heard despite having no right to do so. All the said requests and letters were duly considered and acknowledged by the MHA.
118.7 The incomplete representation dated 14.06.1993 Ex. PW63/Z being filed by CBI on record is also inconsequential as annexures not forwarded were nothing but the self-serving certificates of OS Chauhan and YP Bansal and a few other documents which came to be forwarded at the fag end of investigation. The reference to these documents was also there in the representation, which was thoroughly considered as has been discussed above.
118.8 Lastly, after finding that the department was going to proceed with the examination of case independently, the accused tried to exert pressure from political quarters.
The record Ex.PW-7/DC reflects that the office of the Hon'ble Prime Minister was approached through one Member of Parliament vide letter dated 17.06.1996. The said request too was dealt with by both MHA as well as by Hon'ble Minister of State, DoPT in an independent CC No.25/2019 Page 98/419 manner. The note dated 11.07.1996 explains the reasons for rejecting the explanation and defence of the accused which was raised by placing reliance on five sale agreements to sale for a total amount of Rs.58 lacs. The said explanation was rejected as the CBI during the investigation found these documents to be created one and lodged a separate case for the offence under Section 120-B read with Section 193 IPC.
118.9 The outcome of the said case now after trial has though resulted in the acquittal of the accused but even that acquittal was on account of the failure of the prosecution to prove the documents to be created one. There is no positive findings regarding the transactions entered vide said documents to be genuine. Thus in the end it has to be concluded that the contention advanced on behalf of the accused regarding concealment of the record is not reflected from the record.
(vi) Factual Infirmities in the SP Report (Part of Ex. PW7/DA )
119. Lastly, it has been argued on behalf of the accused that the sanction has been accorded merely based on the S.P. Report which is part of Ex.PW-7/DA. The complete record was never forwarded by CBI to DoPT .
119.1 Ld. Counsel for the accused then pointed out several factual infirmities, wrong facts and concealment of material in the S.P. Report which ultimately tilted the CC No.25/2019 Page 99/419 decision of Competent Authority in according the prosecution sanction. It is argued that had the Competent Authority examined all the material documents based on which the S.P. Report was claimed to be prepared, the decision would have been otherwise.
119.2 Learned Counsel for the accused pointed out the following infirmities in the S.P Report (Ex.PW-7/ DA) :
a) Exaggerated amount of disproportionate assets & false allegations of jewellery worth Rs.50 lacs as admitted by PW-63 in the cross-examination.
b) It is wrongfully claimed that Ms. Shashi Sankhla was not doing any business since 1985
c) The worth of M.R Sankhla being falsely claimed to be a man of no means.
d) The gist of evidence of Ms. Mewa Devi, Shakuntla Devi and Amin Chand to be false.
e) Refund non-allotment of debentures from Videocon International Ltd.
f) Return of money to O.S Chauhan and in the gist referring to his accounts statement but no relied upon with the chargesheet.
119.3 The sole basis of the said argument again rest on the contents of the S.P Report (Ex.PW-7/DA1) dated 31.01.1994 sent to the Govt of India seeking prosecution sanction.
CC No.25/2019 Page 100/419As far as the first two points are concerned, the said allegations were part of the FIR which were reproduced in Para-8 of the S.P. Report. The Para 10.1 onward is the result of investigation carried qua the said allegations in the FIR. Thus, ultimately, disproportionate assets after investigation were found to be Rs.81,81,163.78 and not Rs. 3.5 crores as alleged in the FIR. Rather the reduction of the figure reflects the fairness of the exercise.
119.4 Similarly, as far as the jewelry and other valuables are concerned, the said allegation too did not get substantiated during the investigation. The Para-8 of the S.P. Report cannot be read in isolation as been argued on behalf of the accused as it is only a reproduction of the allegations in the FIR. After investigation no such material was found .
119.5 Now coming to the infirmities pointed out at Point (b) &( c). The said allegations were outcome of the investigation and whether the said investigation was correct or not, was the matter of trial at that stage . The Competent Authority was only supposed to verify the said allegation with the documents collected. They were not supposed to conduct their own independent investigation in the matter as has been argued. It is not the case that the documents concerning the business of Ms. Shashi Sankhla or M.R Sankhla were provided by the accused during the investigation and they having been CC No.25/2019 Page 101/419 not considered . No such record was available with the employer of the accused in the form of intimations/returns under AIS Conduct Rules ,1968.. Rather, it is other way around as the Investigating Authority on their own collected the entire income tax record from the C.A of accused and his family namely M.K. Gandhi. On the basis of the scrutiny of the said record, the above referred conclusion was drawn . The question of the correctness of the said conclusion was not to be independently decided by the competent authority as has been argued .
119.6 Now, coming to the infirmities as referred above at point d and e. No doubt the S.P Report had the said factual errors, but the issue to be considered is whether firstly, whether the said factual errors were deliberate and secondly, consequence of the said errors.
119.7 As far as the incomplete/incorrect statement of Ms. Mewa Devi, Shakuntla Devi and Amin Chand is concerned, the said Mewa Devi and Shakuntla Devi never entered the witness box. Amin Chand has been examined as PW-93 and he has denied the story of the prosecution as listed against his name in the gist Ex. PW7/DA, though he was never confronted with his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Thus, it is apparent that the prosecution continued with their case as given in the gist qua PW-93 Amin Chand till the end.
CC No.25/2019 Page 102/419119.8 As far as the remaining infirmities are concerned, i.e Accounts Statement of O.S Chauhan or the certificates issued by him or Y.P Bansal being left out from the record, these were inconsequential .It is the domain of the investigating authority to choose the documents upon which it wishes to rely for proving their case and accordingly they left out the account statement of OS Chauhan . They both were charge sheeted as accused ( in the second case ) being part of the conspiracy qua claim of additional income of Rs.58 lacs.
119.9 Even for the sake of arguments, it is believed that indeed the Competent Authority was tried to be misled through S.P Report (Ex.PW-7/DA-1) having factual errors, (as is the case qua debentures of Videocon) the fact remains that the Competent Authority did not merely act upon the said sole S.P. Report.
119.10 It has already been observed above as has been deposed by PW-7 D.K. Samantaray that the entire material was considered by them before according the prosecution sanction. I.O/ K.N Tiwari PW-63 too claimed that he used to carry the file to the Competent Authority as and when asked to do so. It has already been observed above that there is nothing on record which probabalises the arguments of the accused that the prosecution sanction was accorded on the basis of incomplete material or the S.P Report alone. Accordingly, the argument of the accused regarding the Competent CC No.25/2019 Page 103/419 Authority was misled through S.P. Report is against the evidence proved on record and is rejected .
120. In light of the above-discussed reasons, it has to be held in the end that the sanction accorded by the Competent Authority Ex. PW-7/A is valid one being accorded by the Competent Authority and with due application of mind after due analysis of entire material .
IX. Legal Position & Findings on Merits.
121. The accused has been charged for the offence u/S 13(1)(e) r/w Section 13(2) of PC Act,1988 and the ingredients of offence u/S.13(1)(e) PC Act, 1988 are as follows :
a. The accused is a public servant. b. The nature and extent of the pecuniary resources of property are found in his possession.
c. His known sources of income i.e. known to the prosecution.
d. Such resources or properties found in possession of the accused were disproportionate to his known sources of income.
121.1 Thus the prosecution is under obligation to prove that accused is in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his know sources of income. Once it is proved by the prosecution on the standard of beyond reasonable doubt, the onus then shifts upon the accused who is expected to explain satisfactorily by way of legal evidence that the assets to be held disproportionate to his known source of income, have CC No.25/2019 Page 104/419 been acquired by him by through legal means of income and duly intimated to the employer under the relevant rules applicable to him in terms of explanation to Section 13 (1) (e) of PC Act.
121.2 The next legal issue is the scope of the term "known sources of income" as well as the " for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account" which has been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu -vs- R. Soundirarasu 2023(6) SCC 768, as under :-
"41. While the expression "known sources of income" refers to the sources known to the prosecution, the expression "for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account" refers to the onus or burden on the accused to satisfactorily explain and account for the assets found to be possessed by the public servant. This burden is on the accused as the said facts are within his special knowledge. Section 106 of the Evidence Act applies. The Explanation to Section 13(1)(e) is a procedural section which seeks to define the expression "known sources of income" as sources known to the prosecution and not to the accused. The Explanation applies and relates to the mode and manner of investigation to be conducted by the prosecution, it does away with the requirement and necessity of the prosecution to have an open, wide and roving investigation and enquire into the alleged sources of income which the accused may have. It curtails the need and necessity of the prosecution to go into the alleged sources of income which a public servant may or possibly have but are not legal or have not been declared. The undeclared alleged sources are by their very nature are expected to be known to the accused only and are within his special knowledge. The effect of the Explanation is to clarify and reinforce the existing position and understanding of the expression"known sources of income"i.e. the CC No.25/2019 Page 105/419 expression refers to sources known to the prosecution and not sources known to the accused. The second part of the Explanation does away with the need and requirement for the prosecution to conduct an open ended or roving enquiry or investigation to find out all alleged/claimed known sources of income of an accused who is investigated under the PC Act, 1988. The prosecution can rely upon the information furnished by the accused to the authorities under law, rules and orders for the time being applicable to a public servant .No further investigation is required by the prosecution to find out the known sources of income of the accused public servant. As noticed above, the first part of the Explanation refers to income received from legal/lawful sources. This first part of the expression states the obvious as is clear from the judgment of this Court in N.Ramakrishnaiah [N. Ramakrishnaiah v. State of A.P., (2008) 17 SCC 83 : (2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 454".
121.3 In light to the said settled proposition of law concerning the prosecution of a public servant charged for the offence under Section 13 (1) (e) of PC Act 1988, the disputed entries in the list of Income (Annexure-1), List of Expenditure ( Annexure-II) and lastly, the list of Assets (Annexure-III) of the chargesheet are being discussed herein alongwith the arguments advanced vis- a-vis the said disputed entries.
121.4 It is the case of the prosecution that the total assets i.e movable and immovable found to be owned or possessed by the accused, his wife and minor children as on 31.12.1979 was valued at Rs. 50,000/-. It is the last day prior to the start of the check period i.e 01.01.1980 till 13.08.1991. The basis of reaching the conclusion qua CC No.25/2019 Page 106/419 the value of the assets as on 31.12.1979 is primarily based upon the service record Ex.PW-5/B (D-6). There is not much dispute qua the value of the assets at the start of the check period except few items like sale of revolver prior to the check period, refund of loan by one Lakhpat Rai advanced prior to the check period etc. The accused claims that these have been deliberately left out by the CBI, which shall be discussed in the later part the judgment while discussing the claims of additional income.
121.5 The assets of wife and minor children of accused have been clubbed by the prosecution to find out the disproportionate asset. The basis of the said case of the prosecution is that they had no independent source of income and the accused was the sole earning member of the family. The accused has raised dispute qua the independent income of his wife. The said issue is discussed in the later part of judgment while discussing Item No.12 of Income (Annexure-I).
X. DISPUTED ENTRIES OF ASSETS, EXPENDITURE AND INCOME
1. Item No.12 of Assets ( Annexure-III)
122. The prosecution has alleged that the land measuring 5 bighas and 4 biswas was purchased at Basai Darapur, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi, in the name of CC No.25/2019 Page 107/419 Shashi Sankhla (wife of accused herein) on 12.11.1990. The value of the said asset is claimed to be Rs.10 lacs.
122.1 Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that this entry against the assets column is liable to be deleted as firstly the transaction itself has not been proved by the prosecution. The documents of transfer of the said property were seized vide D-135 Ex.PW-63/U from transferor Mulakh Raj Malhotra. The said Mulakh Raj Malhotra has not been examined and therefore, the said documents of transfer of ownership have remained unproved.
122.2 It is further argued that the accounts statement D-30 of the accused ( Ex.P-24 ) reflects that Rs.10 lacs was withdrawn around the same period of November 1990 and within short span Rs. 9.5 lacs came to be deposited back in the said account itself. It all reflects that the said deal never materialised and even litigation took place between the parties qua the said deal itself. But none of the said facts were never investigated by the Investigating Officer (I.O).
122.3 The documents concerning acquisition of the said property by Ms. Shashi Sankhla wife of the accused herein were seized from the erstwhile owner Mulakh Raj Malhotra vide seizure memo Ex.PW-63/U ( D-135). The said documents of transfer are part list of relied upon documents as D-70. But none of the said document of CC No.25/2019 Page 108/419 the transfer purportedly executed by prosecution witness Mulakh Raj Malhotra in favour of Ms. Shashi Sankhla have been proved as the presence of said Mulakh Raj Malhotra could not be got secured by the prosecution. Even during the admission, denial of the documents, the accused preferred not admit the said document by claiming that it does not concern him despite the admission now made by referring to his account statement Ex. P24 which as per him has debit and credit entry. So it is apparent from the admission that the accused used his own funds to purchase the property in the name of his wife.
So, in the said backdrop, the sole issue to be seen as to whether in absence of proof of said purported documents of acquisition of the said property, this entry of assets is to be deleted or not.
122.4 The said issue needs to be looked into by referring to the other admitted documents of the accused. One such crucial document is intimation under AIS Conduct Rules, 1968 dated 5th of June 1990 Ex.P-103 (D-
11) of the accused herein. The accused as mandatorily required under the AIS Conduct Rules 1968 ,addressed the said intimation letter to Shri Prakash Chander, Director (UTS) MHA, New Delhi. The contents of the said letter raises a question mark over the claim of the accused that the said deal never materialised. As per enclosure-1 of the said letter, the entry no.5 concerns the assets in question. The said entry has been referred in the CC No.25/2019 Page 109/419 said enclosure as "5. Understanding to purchase land at Basai Dara Pur ...... Rs.10 lacs".
122.5 Further, as per the contents of the intimation letter, the accused intimated that the details about the transaction mentioned in the enclosure-1 including the understanding qua the purchase of Asset at entry No.12 was to be submitted later on after the placement of the accused as he was awaiting posting at the given time. There is no other intimation after the said intimation letter Ex.P-103 by the accused either to MHA or any other department where he was subsequently posted intimating either the conclusion of the deal of purchase of land at Basai Darapur or deal having not been materialized as has been argued in the Court. Admittedly the accused remained posted as MD, Delhi Khadi and Village Industries Board, Delhi Administration, Delhi w.e.f January 1991 till 19.08.1991 and thereafter was posted out to Mizoram . The mandatory obligation was there on the accused under the AIS (Conduct) Rules 1968 to have carried forward his request of furnishing the details after getting the posting about the transaction in question which he has failed to do so for the reason best known to him.
122.6 The other admitted document Ex. P102 too puts a question mark over the said claim of the accused that the said deal never materialised and he received back the purported amount from Mulakh Raj Malhotra. One CC No.25/2019 Page 110/419 such admitted document is Ex.P-102 (D-9) i.e Agreement to Sell dated 19.11.1990 executed between D.C Sankhla (accused herein) and one O.S Chauhan, proprietor of M/s Hari Om Nursery, Ghaziabad. The accused herein despite having no claim over the said property being purchased in the name of his wife Ms. Shashi Sankhla, agreed to sell the said property for consideration amount of Rs.25 lacs. Out of the said amount, as per the agreement a sum of Rs.22,77,500/- was already received at the time of execution of the said agreement/document. Again, no explanation has been offered on behalf of the accused firstly as to why he executed the said agreement to sell by claiming to be the actual owner of the said agricultural land situated at Basai Dara Pur, Delhi having Khasra No.1962 and 1965 having purchased from Mulakh Raj Malhotra. Secondly, if indeed, the earlier deal between Mulakh Raj Malhotra and Ms. Shashi Sankhla was not materialized, what happened to the consideration amount of Rs.22,77,500/- already received by D.C Sankhla (accused herein) from O.S Chauhan qua the very same land. All these facts were within the special knowledge of the accused and onus was upon him under Section 106 of Evidence Act. It settled proposition of law as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu -vs- R. Soundirarasu (supra) that prosecution is not required to conduct open or roving inquiry while conducting the investigation a case u/s 13(1) (e) of the PC Act. They had the information as per the service record regarding acquisition only and not the subsequent developments.
CC No.25/2019 Page 111/419122.7 Another issue which raises a question mark is as to how within few months of acquisition of the said property at consideration amount of Rs.10 lacs, it was agreed to be sold at consideration amount of Rs.25 lacs for which again no explanation has been furnished .The best witness to explain about the said material discrepancy was proposed purchaser namely O.S. Chauhan ( co-accused in second case ) who never stepped into the witness box. He is one such common character who is involved in multiple loan/property transactions with accused or his family, despite the fact he too was member of Indian Administrative Services at the relevant time .
122.8 Another document which again puts a question mark over the claim of the accused that the said deal never came to be materialized and the consideration amount being returned, is his own representation Ex.PW- 63/Z (collectively) (D-29) dated 14.06.1993. The said representation was addressed by the accused herein to the Director, CBI explaining his assets including the asset under discussion herein. He also forwarded three agreement to sell executed with O.S Chauhan including the agreement to sell referred above Ex.P-102 (D-29). Admittedly, the said representation came to be addressed by the accused herein to the Director, CBI at very fag end of the investigation of the case and after around three years of the purported execution of the documents of the CC No.25/2019 Page 112/419 said property in favour of Ms. Shashi Sankhla from Mulakh Raj Malhotra.
If indeed, the said deal did not materialise and the consideration amount came back in the account of accused on 01.12.1990 through cash as reflected in account statement Ex.P-24(D-30), then what prompted the accused herein to rely upon the further agreement to sell qua the same property itself with O.S Chauhan and that too after about 3 years of the initial failed deal. It is also not explained as to why such a huge cash amount was received by the accused despite the prohibition under the Service Rules and provisions of Income Tax Act.
122.9 Even the defence documents mark D1W4/3 relied upon by the accused, the order of CIT in Appeal No. 168/94-95 dated 23.09.1994 put a question mark over his claim . Even in the said appeal the accused herein again relied upon said purported agricultural land situated at Basai Dara Pur, Delhi, sold to O.S Chauhan for consideration amount of Rs.25 lacs. The order is again silent with respect to any subsequent development right from the year 1990 till the passing of order in September 1994 regarding cancellation of the deal by Mulakh Raj Malhotra or the seller having returned the consideration amount of Ms. Shashi Sankhla. Thus, the said admitted documents i.e Ex.PW-63/Z (D-29, P-102), D1W4/3 and D-29, all consistently prove the factum of acquisition of the said land/asset for an amount of Rs.10 lacs by Ms. Shashi Sankhla from Mulakh Raj Malhotra in November CC No.25/2019 Page 113/419 1990 and he having further entered into agreement to sell for the same with OS Chauhan. The said asset, therefore, has to be read against the accused herein.
2. Item No.48 of Assets (Annexure-III)
123. The Item No. 48 of the Assets (Annexure- III) concerns a flat bearing No. 115-A, Pocket-JG-1, Vikas Puri, Delhi, having been purchased from erstwhile owner namely Ved Pal Singh in December 1983 in the name of Ms. Shashi Sankhla (wife of accused herein). The value of the assets is claimed to be Rs. 51830/-. The prosecution in order to prove the ownership of the said asset has placed reliance upon the documents of ownership Ex.PW-92/5(colly.) (D-60). The said documents are also admitted by the accused as Ex.P-51.
123.1 It is the ownership file which was recovered during the house search of accused conducted on 13.08.1991 and seized vide search list Ex.PW-92/1.
123.2 Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that as far as ownership of the asset is concerned, there is no dispute. As per the ownership documents, the same was purchased by Ms. Shashi Sankhla (wife of accused herein) in December 1983. He further argued that it is the admitted case of the prosecution that during the period 1982 to 1984, she remained separate from the accused herein due to matrimonial dispute/difference. During the said period of stay, she remained at her CC No.25/2019 Page 114/419 parental home at Port Blair, Andaman Nicobar Island. Therefore, the said asset cannot be said to have been acquired by using the income of the accused herein.
123.3 Ld. Counsel further argued that the value of the asset given by the CBI i.e Rs. 51830/- is also not corroborated by any document proved on record. The receipts (part of file Ex.PW-92/5) of the consideration amount executed by erstwhile owner Ved Pal Singh are only for an amount of Rs.40,000/-. The withdrawal of said amount is also reflected in the accounts statement of Ms. Shashi Sankhla.
123.4 The first aspect to be considered herein is the ownership of the said asset which is a DDA Flat . It was allotted to one Ved Pal Singh on hire-purchase basis. As requested by the allottee, the terms of the hire-purchase as well as the payment towards the cost of the flat etc were stipulated in the allotment letter dated 23.12.1983 (Part of Ex. PW92/5 colly.) It is also apparent from the said allotment letter that the allottee Ved Pal Singh had no right to further sell the said property till he became the full owner after payment of the entire hire-amount. Be that as it may be, it is the case of both the parties herein, he indeed sold the said flat in December 1983 itself when it was allotted to him by DDA.
123.5 The first disputed aspect in this regard is the consideration amount for the said sale transaction. The CC No.25/2019 Page 115/419 file (Ex.PW-92/5 colly. D-60) has all the documents concerning allotment as well as other transfer papers i.e Will, GPA, Receipt etc. The said file has two receipts of Rs.25,000/- each (at page no. 3 & 4 respectively) executed by Ved Pal Singh and witnessed by one Ashok Jain. Both the said receipts are un-dated. Another receipt is for Rs.15,000/- dated 06.01.1984 which is again executed by Ved Pal Singh and witnessed by Ashok Jain. The second witness to the said receipt is Advocate B.K.Vashist. The backside of the said receipt carries the endorsement regarding payment of Rs.15,000/- and it being paid in advance. Apart from the said three receipts, there is another receipt of Rs.25,000/- (Page no.79) purportedly executed by Ved Pal Singh. Again, this is an undated receipt and not witnessed by anyone.
123.6 In the said backdrop, the only inference which can be drawn from the said four receipts is that certainly the amount of consideration for the sale of the said flat is much more than Rs.40,000/- .The best witness for proving the said fact was the seller Ved Pal Singh, but his presence could not be got secured by the prosecution.
123.7 The next issue which arises for consideration before this Court is on what basis prosecution has come up with value of the said flat to be Rs.51830/-. Their appears to be no document or justification in this regard.
CC No.25/2019 Page 116/419The only other document which throws light over the probable consideration amount is the letter of allotment of DDA dated 23.12.1983. As per the contents of the said letter, the total cost of the flat which was allotted on hire-purchase basis was stated to be Rs.41,400/-, out of which initial deposit of Rs.10,200/- was to be deposited by the allottee apart from other charges. Thereafter, he was supposed to pay Rs.395.20 as monthly installment for a period of 10 years. Thus, by calculating the said amount, the total cost of the said flat after payment of entire amount including the installments comes to Rs.57,986/-. Therefore, it cannot be believed that the value of the asset to be Rs.40,000/- as has been argued on behalf of the accused. The value of the flat has to be taken as Rs.57,986/-, however, no record of payment by wife of accused with DDA against hire charges has been seized, thus the value is taken to be Rs.51,830/-.
123.8 The next limb of argument advanced on behalf of the accused is that during the given period i.e December 1983-1984, purchaser Ms. Shashi Sankhla was residing separately from her husband (accused herein) and therefore, the said asset cannot be considered herein against the accused.
123.9 No doubt, it is also the admitted case of the prosecution that Ms. Shashi Sankhla resided separately from her husband from the year 1982 to somewhere CC No.25/2019 Page 117/419 around 1984. The issue which is to be considered herein is as to whether the said mere separation which was not a legal separation discharged the accused from his liability of maintaining his spouse. Second aspect connected to the said issue is the income of Ms. Shashi Sankhla during the check period.
123.10 The claim of accused that his wife was running a separate business in artificial jewellery and real estate and having independent sources of income is not supported by any document on record and detailed discussion is there in the discussion of Item No.12 of the income of Ms.Shashi Shankhla. The only evidence available and proved on record are the ITRs of Ms. Shashi Sankhla for the assessment year 1987-1988, 1988- 1989 and lastly 1990-1991 (part of D101). The defence witness namely Vikas Chauhdary (D1W4) from Income Tax Department too failed to provide any such record for the period prior thereto and simply identified the record of ITR shown to him by the accused herein for the assessment year 1984-1985, 1985-1986, 1986-1987 as D1W4/20. Therefore, in the said backdrop, it has to be observed that there were no verifiable independent sources of income earned by Ms. Shashi Sankhla (wife of accused herein) from the business of jewellery etc during the relevant period. Rather as per the defence witness D1W1 Devindernath Arora ( brother of Ms. Shashi Shankla ) claim she was finding it difficult to maintain herself during the period she and the children were CC No.25/2019 Page 118/419 residing separately at Port Blair and due to the same she was allowed certain additional rental income . If this was the situation as per the accused's own case, then how she was able to spare out more than Rs. 50,000 for purchasing the flat in question. Therefore, the argument of accused that Ms. Shashi used her own means to purchase the flat is liable to be rejected .
123.11 Therefore, the value of the said as assessed by the prosecution to be of Rs. 51830/-, asset has to be taken as asset against the accused herein even though the actual value as per DDA allotment rate was much more .
3. Item No.42 of the Assets (Annexure-III)
124. The prosecution has listed the item 42 of the assets to be the debentures of Videocon International Ltd, Aurangabad, Maharashtra in the name of accused herein as well as his wife namely Ms. Shashi Sankhla. The value as on date of allotment (19.04.1991) is stated to be Rs.66,000/-.
124.1 The prosecution in order to prove the value of the said asset and ownership thereof has placed reliance upon the debenture certificate Ex.P-49. These documents were admitted by the accused during admission-denial of the prosecution documents. However, Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that as far as value of the debentures is concerned , the investigation is faulty as well as biased.
CC No.25/2019 Page 119/419124.2 It is argued that as per the S.P Report Ex.PW-7/DA, it is alleged by the Investigating Officer (I.O) that the accused and his wife applied for allotment of 1000 debentures each of Videocon International Ltd . To prove the said expenditure and allotment had named one Atender Singh, official from Videocon International Ltd, as Atender Singh (LW-56). But, the said witness was given up by the prosecution deliberately during the trial and therefore, the value of the assets as claimed to be Rs.66,000/- is not proved. Rather the account statements reflect their was refund of money by Videocon and only 200 debentures at the face value of Rs.220 were allotted .
124.3 The first issue in this regard is the ownership / allotment of debentures in the name of accused and his wife Ms. Shashi Sankhla which stands proved through admitted documents i.e debenture certificate Ex.P-49 (D-55). The face value of the each debenture was Rs.220/- and a total of 200 debenture only were allotted both accused and his wife. It is also reflected from the contents of the said certificates itself that there was no amount due to be paid towards the said allotted debentures. Thus, the value of the assets as per the admitted documents i.e 200 debentures at the face value of Rs.220/- each comes to Rs. 44,000/-. It is not clear as to how the prosecution has listed the value of the said asset to be Rs.66,000/-.
CC No.25/2019 Page 120/419124.4 As per the SPR (Ex.PW-7/DA), the gist of evidence against Atinder Singh (PW-56), Accountant from Videocon International Ltd, it is alleged that 1000 debentures each were applied, but only 200 debentures were allotted. It is further mentioned that the witness was not able to clarify whether the remaining amount for the applied debentures was refunded to the accused and his wife or not. He claimed that the documents must be available at the Head Office. It is apparent from the charge-sheet as well as SPR (Ex.PW-7/DA) that none of official from the Head Office was examined in this regard and the value of the asset has been arbitrarily taken as Rs.66,000/- instead of face value of allotted certificate Ex.P-49 to be Rs.44,000/-.
124.5 The Statement of Account Ex.P-24 (D-30) of the accused too in a way corroborates the plea of the accused regarding refund of amount towards un-allotted debentures by Videocon International Ltd. There are certain clearing entries from the said period April to July 1991 wherein deposits have been made in his account through clearance. Similar is the case with respect to the Account Statement of Ms. Shashi Sankhla.
124.6 K.N. Tiwari, Investigating Officer (I.O) (PW-63) too admitted in the cross-examination regarding the typographical error with respect to the value of the asset mentioned against allotment of Videocon International Ltd. Debentures. He admitted to the fact CC No.25/2019 Page 121/419 that the accused had spent total of Rs.2,40,000/-, but allotment was only for 200 debentures at face value of Rs.220/- each totaling Rs.44,000/-. He further admitted to the fact that the accused had intimated him vide his statement recorded during investigation that the refund of Rs.99,000/- received by him as well as his wife was from Videocon International Ltd, but admittedly no such investigation was got done by him as is reflected from his further cross-examination.
124.7 The clearance vouchers Part of Ex.P-95 (D- 5A) has certain such vouchers of deposits of the given period which again put a question over the said claim. The Investigating Authority in SPR (Ex.PW-7/DA) claims non-refund of the amount for allotment of debentures. The onus was upon the prosecution to investigate the said fact non-refund of the application amount if so, or if refund was done, then the amount thereof. But no such investigation seems to have been conducted and therefore, at this stage the value of the asset at Serial No.42 has to be taken as Rs.44,000/- and the said entry stands partially proved.
4. Item No.17 of the Assets i.e Flat No. B-103, Swasthya Vihar, Delhi and Item No.18 of Expenditure Towards Booking and Keeping Telephone in Safe Custody At Above-said Flat.
125. The prosecution has listed the Item no.17 of the Assets as the Benami Property of the accused being purchased in the name of Ms. Shakuntla Devi ( real sister CC No.25/2019 Page 122/419 of accused) in the year 1989. The value of the said Benami Asset is stated to be Rs.6 lacs.
125.1 Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI argued that as per the statement of seller under Section 161 Cr.P.C, it is the accused only who entered into deal for purchase of the flat and paid the entire payment. The account statement of Dr. P.V. Mamjumdar (PW-63/A-4, D-68) reflects the payments being received from the accounts of accused herein.
Similar are the allegations with respect to the expenditure incurred in getting the telephone connection installed at the said purchased flat.
125.2 Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused, first of all, argued that no evidence has come on record during the trial regarding the said property being Benami Property of the accused herein. The seller Dr. P.V Manjumdar has not been examined by the prosecution.
125.3 Further, it has been argued that as far as value of the said asset is concerned, no document has been proved on record by the prosecution which shows the value of the deal to be Rs. 6 lacs. The documents proved on record as Ex.PW-93/1 and Ex.PW-93/2 shows that the cost of the flat as Rs.3,51,000/- only and his brother-in-law Amin Chand had even taken sanction from his own department for purchasing the same flat.
CC No.25/2019 Page 123/419125.4 The prosecution has listed ownership of Flat No. B-103, Swathya Vihar, Delhi purchased in the year 1989 as Benami property of the accused herein. It is alleged that the said property was purchased under the Benami name of Ms. Shakuntla Devi (sister of accused herein). The value of the asset has been taken to be as Rs.6 lacs. Another connected entry to the said asset is Item-18 of Expenditure towards telephone connection has been pegged at Rs.13760/-.
125.5 It is the case of the prosecution that the said flat was purchased through ill-gotten wealth by the accused herein under Benami name of his sister Ms. Shakuntla Devi. As per the SPR (Ex.PW-7/DA) it is alleged that the accused herein purchased the said flat in the year 1989-90 from Dr. P.V Majumdar resident of Chitra Vihar, New Delhi, in the Benami name of his sister. The deal was settled in the year 1987 for an amount of Rs.6 lacs through property dealer namely Ashok Kumar Gupta. Part consideration amount was paid through 7-8 cheques and remaining in cash by the accused herein. The GPA and Agreement to Sell were executed in favour of Ms. Shakuntla Devi.
125.6 It is further alleged by CBI that accused had paid Rs.90,000/-through cheque dated 31.07.1987, Rs.10,000/- through cheque dated 31.07.1987, Rs.15,000/- through cheque dated 18.09.1987, Rs.19,000/-and Rs.11,000/- respectively from account no.
CC No.25/2019 Page 124/4198283 and 8284 maintained in the name of Saket Sankhla and Kapil Sankhla ( both minor sons of accused herein) respectively at New Bank of India, Sirsa, Haryana. His wife also paid Rs.60,000/- through cheque (vide Accounts Statement Ex.P-25, D-31) 125.7 However, it is alleged that in the intimation to the department (Part of Ex. PW5/B ( D-6) , the accused herein claimed that he has given Rs. 1,05,000/- as loan to his brother-in-law ( husband of Shankuntla Devi ) by issuing cheque in the name of Seller of above flat namely P.V Majumdar. He further through his intimation letter dated 09.03.1989 claimed that he had paid Rs.1,36,768/- to his brother-in-law namely Amin Chand out of the cash left by his deceased father in terms of the Family Settlement.
125.8 The transfer documents concerning the transfer of the said property on 06.04.1998 vide agreement to sell by owner Dr. P.V Manjumdar are part of D-3(1). The said transfer documents have remained un-proved as neither the said vendor Dr. P.V Manjumdar could be got examined nor the same were put to the purchaser i.e Shri Amin Chand S/o Nathu Ram (PW-
93).
The said Amin Chand has been examined as PW-93. He is the brother-in-law (sister's husband) of the accused herein who did not support the case of the prosecution. He claimed that he had purchased the said CC No.25/2019 Page 125/419 house in his own name for total sale consideration of Rs.3,51,000/-. Further none of the witnesses to the said unproved agreement to Sell were either examined during the investigation nor were named as prosecution witnesses. The said flat was allotted to Dr. P.V Majumdar being member of Ministry of Health Co- operative Housing Building Society Ltd. No witness from the said society has been examined. One R.C Katiyal from above-said society who had provided documents during investigation was not even named as the witness by the prosecution for the reasons best known to them.
Therefore, in the absence of the version of any of the said material witnesses qua the agreement to sell etc., the said transfer documents have remained unproved.
125.9 The CBI also collected the service record of the said Amin Chand (PW-93) having the intimation regarding purchase of the said flat to his department i.e Executive Engineer (E.E), Haryana State Electricity Board, Sirsa and the sanction accorded thereof. Amin Chand (PW-93) vide his request letter dated 19.04.1989 Ex.PW-93/ D-2 sought sanction from his employer under the Employees Conduct Rules 1984 for purchase of the said flat by claiming the approximate cost to be Rs.3,51,000/-. He further elaborated about the proposed expenditure and resources from where it shall be met.
He claimed (i) Rs.1,36,768/- is bequeathed by his father-in-law (late M.R Sankhla) to his wife Smt. Shakuntla Devi, (ii) Rs.19,000/- Loan from Mr. Saket S/o CC No.25/2019 Page 126/419 D.C Sankhla, (iii) Rs.11,000/- Loan from Mr. Kapil S/o D.C Sankhla and (iv) Rs.1,05,000/- Loan from D.C Sankhla S/o Mani Ram.
125.10 The sanction upon the said request was accorded by the employer on 17.07.1989 vide Ex.PW-93/D-1. PW-93 in his examination-in-chief too corroborated the contents of the said intimation letter and sanction accorded to him. He further claimed that he purchased the said flat after raising loans from various source as mentioned in Ex.PW-93/D-2 and has repaid the loan in the year 1992 after sale of the said flat.
125.11 Therefore, in the light of the evidence as discussed above, no assumption can be drawn regarding the purchase of said flat by accused under Benami name of his sister. Rather the documents proved on record i.e Ex.PW-93/D-2 reflect it to be a transaction entered by Amin Chand ( PW-93) by availing substantial loan from accused herein and his family members.
125.12 As far as the aspect of bequeathing of Rs.1,36,768/- is concerned, the said aspect has been discussed in detail while dealing with the issue of Will of father of accused i.e Mani Ram Sankhla. The said amount was transferred from the account of the accused herein.
CC No.25/2019 Page 127/419It is the claim of the accused that in pursuance of said Will of his father, he had transferred the said amount to his sister through his brother-in-law. The Will (Ex.PW- 60/DX-2) of late M.R Sankhla and Family Settlement (Mark D-60/DY), which is also in the nature of Will only, have remained unproved on account of non-fulfillment of mandatory requirement under Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, in the light of the above- said reasons the contentions of the accused as well as PW-93 that sum of Rs.1,36,768/- being bequeathed in favour of Ms. Shakuntla Devi is liable to be discarded. Further, the aspect of the worth of late M.R Sankhla, whether he had such capacity and the accounts operated by him is discussed in detail in the later part of the judgment whereby the claim of the accused regarding his worth has been rejected. The accounts of late M.R Sankhla were rather used by the accused for money laundering as discussed in Para nos.190 to 195. Accordingly, the said amount of Rs.1,36,768/- which came from the account of the accused to the account of PW-93 for purchase of above-noted flat has to be taken as expenditure incurred during the check period.
As far as the remaining amount of loans advanced by accused and his sons which are admitted are also to be taken as expenditure incurred during the check period.
125.13 The expenditure to the tune of Rs.1,05,000/- Rs.19,000 and Rs.11,000/- (Rs.1,35,000/-) is expenditure incurred during the check period and admittedly it is the CC No.25/2019 Page 128/419 case of the accused as deposed by Amin Chand (PW-93) that the said loans were returned by him in the year 1992 i.e after the check period. Thus the said expenditure too is to be added against the accused
126. The connected issue is the expenditure towards installation of Telephone Item No.18 of the expenditure wherein it is alleged that the accused herein being the Benami owner spent Rs.13,760/- towards booking and keeping the said telephone in safe custody at the said flat. The relevant documents in this regard are part of D-8 (1) as Ex.P-1 to P-4. These are the requests for installation of the telephone connection and subsequent sanction of thereof by MTNL. All the requests as well as payments in the documents have been made by the applicant i.e Amin Chand (PW-93) as per the record.
Chander Sain Kumar Diwan (PW-82), official from MTNL who proved the said record also remained silent with respect to the payment aspect. So, in the said backdrop, the version of Amin Chand (PW-93) who is alleged to be Benamidar of the said property becomes most crucial. PW-93 discarded the case of the prosecution that the said expenditure for booking for telephone connection was made by accused herein. He denied the suggestion put to him by Ld. Public Prosecutor in this regard. Thus, in the said backdrop, no assumption can be drawn that the accused herein incurred the said expenditure when no evidence has come on record either CC No.25/2019 Page 129/419 regarding the purchase of the said property originally by the accused as Benami property or he being its actual user. Therefore, entry against Item No.18 of the expenditure towards booking and keeping the telephone in safe custody at Flat No. B-103, Swasthya Vihar, Delhi, is not proved. However the expenditure of the loan has to be added against the accused .
5. Item No.10 of the Assets (Annexure-III)
127. The prosecution has listed the asset i.e ownership of plot no. A-33, Chander Nagar, Ghaziabad purchased in the name of the minor son of the accused namely Saket Sankhla for value of Rs.4,25,000.021. The prosecution to prove the ownership of said plot has relied upon the admitted documents part of D-75.
127.1 Ld. Counsel for the accused challenged the said claim of the prosecution on the limited aspect by arguing that the value of property is only Rs. 3.25 lacs, not 4.25 lacs as claimed. The reliance in this regard is placed upon the accounts statement D-33.
127.2 The General Power of Attorney dated 11.05.1989 alongwith one undated receipt was seized alongwith the previous chain during the office search of the accused on 13.08.1981. The search list Ex.PW-63/C (D-108) has been proved on record which lists the said document at serial no.35.
CC No.25/2019 Page 130/419As far as the said GPA is concerned, the said document was admitted by the accused during admission- denial carried on 01.04.2002, though it appears that due to a clerical mistake in the list of admitted documents (Ex.PX-2), the said document is not been given any exhibit number. However, the said GPA (Part of D-75) bears the noting of admission by the accused with his signatures and date. Therefore, in light of the said fact, the said admitted document has to be read against the accused. Even otherwise, there is no dispute on behalf of the accused concerning execution of the said document. The only dispute is the value of the said property.
127.3 In this regard, intimation/ property return file Ex.PW-5/B (D-6) also reflects about the intimation of the said transaction by the accused herein under AIS Conduct Rules through his letter dated 07.08.1989. Under the expenditure column for his minor son Saket Sankhla, the accused herein reported to the employer that he had taken a loan of Rs. 3.25 lacs from M/s Hari Om Nursery and has entered into an agreement to purchase one plot through power of attorney of Sh. O. S Chauhan.
127.4 The said intimation is also accompanied by a stipulated Form seeking prior intimation as prescribed under Rule 16 (3) of AIS Conduct Rule 1968. As per the contents of said form, the purchase price of the said plot is stated to be Rs.3.25 lacs and in the name of the seller CC No.25/2019 Page 131/419 with whom the said transaction is to be made as O.S Chauhan resident of Ramprastha, Ghaziabad.
127.5 Thus, as per the said admitted document of the prosecution itself , the value as informed by the accused to his department for acquisition is Rs.3.25 lacs only. The basis of the claim of the prosecution qua value of the property is one undated receipt (Part of D-75) purportedly signed by O.S Chauhan. The said receipt was never admitted by the accused during the admission- denial of the documents. The said receipt has remained unproved on account of the non-examination of O.S Chauhan ( named as co-accused/conspirator in the second case ).
127.6 Therefore, in the light of said evidence proved on record, the only inference which can be drawn is that the value of the property as was intimated by the accused to his department was Rs.3.25 lacs and not Rs.4.25 lacs as claimed by the prosecution. The said entry of the ownership of the asset and its value is accordingly partly proved.
6. Item No.2 of the Income ( Annexure-I) & Item No.1 & 2 of Expenditure (Annexure- II )
128. All the said entries are interrelated to each other. The expenditure Item No.1 (annexure-II) of Rs.80,000/- is concerning the purchase of the land measuring 29 bighas and 12 biswa located at village CC No.25/2019 Page 132/419 Ranhola, Nangloi, Delhi in the year 1981. Item No.2 of the expenditure concerns the expenses incurred on registering the sale deed.
128.1 Similarly, the Item No.2 of income (annexure-I) of Rs.20,60,000/- is vis-a-vis the sale of the very said land in June 1991. The prosecution to prove the said connected entries has examined the previous owner namely Chandgi Ram (PW-5) from whom the land was purchased by the accused herein or his family members on 08.06.1981.
128.2 The prosecution has also examined the purchaser of the said land namely Shyam Mohan Gupta (PW-3). He purchased the said entire chunk of land from accused from accused or his family members either in his own name or in the name of his wife namely Veena Gupta.
128.3 To prove the factum of sale of the said land and income thereof, the prosecution has relied upon 17 sale deeds Ex.P-7 (D-9) to P-19 (D-10 to D-21). All the said sale deeds were admitted by the accused during the admission-denial stage and the only dispute raised by the accused is the factum of the total receipt of consideration amount.
128.4 It has been argued on behalf of the accused that total sum of Rs.29,60,000/- is the consideration CC No.25/2019 Page 133/419 amount as is reflected in the said sale deeds, which has to be treated as his income. The entire amount was received during the check period, but the prosecution has arbitrarily taken the income to be Rs.20,60,000/- only. Apart from that around 5 lakhs were received for the sale of one well, sheesham trees and one tube well room. Reliance is placed in this regard upon the version of Shyam Mohan Gupta (PW-3). Reliance is also placed upon one receipt issued by Beena Gupta (part of Ex. PW63/Z).
128.5 Per contra, Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI argued that consideration as reflected in sale deeds Ex.P-7 to P- 19 is not disputed, but as per the details of the cheque/ banker's cheque only the amount of Rs.20,60,000/- was received during the check period which has been taken as income. The entire consideration was never received and hence the amount of Rs. 29 lacs cannot be considered.
128.6 Before taking up the said factual dispute, the first connected issue is the amount of expenditure incurred in the purchase of the very said same land by the accused ( Item no. 1 and 2 of Expenditure). The said purchase is not disputed by the accused nor the expenditure incurred in this regard.
128.7 PW 5 Chandgi Ram, the previous owner who sold the said land in the year 1981, deposed that the said chunk of land measuring 6 acres was sold to the accused CC No.25/2019 Page 134/419 for a consideration amount of Rs.80,000/-. The said part of his version is not disputed, though a part of said land was purchased in the name of the brother (PW-66 P.C Sankhla) who subsequently gifted the same to the minor sons of the accused. Therefore, given the unrebutted version of PW-5 regarding the sale 6 acres of land to the accused, the entry no.1 qua expenditure stands proved.
128.8 As far as Item No.2 of expenditure of Rs.10,000/- incurred towards the payment stamp duty and corporation tax for the said land, these are also not disputed. PW-8 the official from Sub-Registrar Office has proved on record the said expenditure incurred qua the four sale deeds executed qua the said land as Ex.PW- 8/A to PW-8/D. The first set of sale deeds were executed by the seller Chandgi Ram (PW-5) in favour of accused or his family members in the year 1981 and a second set of sale deeds was executed by the accused, his wife and brother transferring the said land in favour of the minor sons of the accused herein. The total expenses towards the execution of said two sale deeds come to Rs.10,000/- as reflected from the contents of sale deeds itself. Therefore, the entry no.2 qua expenditure also stands proved.
Now, coming to disputed aspect regarding the consideration received by the accused or his family members in lieu of execution of sale deeds vide Ex.P-7 to Ex.P-19.
CC No.25/2019 Page 135/419129. The sole material witness examined by the prosecution in this regard is Shyam Mohan Gupta (PW-3) who deposed that he had purchased the said land.He paid Rs.29,60,000/- through drafts and two cheques. In the cross-examination, he denied the suggestion on behalf of the accused that he paid Rs.2 lacs in cash and six agreements to sell were executed before execution of the sale deed when the said payment was made. Rather, he gave a categorical reply to the said suggestion by claiming that no payment in cash was received by him.
129.1 So, in the said backdrop, documents concerning the terms of the agreement in terms of Section 91 and 92 of Indian Evidence Act becomes the most crucial, on the said disputed aspect of total consideration. It is also proved by PW-3 that the entire payment was received either through cheques or drafts.
129.2 The sale deed Ex.P-7 to P-19 are divided in two parts. The first set of sale deeds Ex.P-7 (5 in number) has no accompanying record concerning the mode of payment of consideration amount as stipulated therein. The second set of sale deeds Ex.P-8 to P-19 (12 in number) have the accompanying copies of the banker's cheque. The amount as paid through banker's cheque is the same as reflected in the said 12 sale deeds.
CC No.25/2019 Page 136/419129.3 Thus, as far as the second set of 12 sale deeds is concerned, there is no dispute from either side as the sale deed as well as the accompanying copy of banker's cheque admitted by the accused during the admission-denial of the documents. The total consideration amount against the said 12 sale deeds comes to Rs.20,60,000/-.
129.4 Now, coming to the second set of 5 sale deeds Ex.P-7 and the issue to be seen is as to whether any payment was received against it by the seller or not. As far as the mode of payment is concerned, Shyam Mohan Gupta (PW-3) who also acted as authorized representative of Ms. Veena Gupta, Vendee (wife of PW-3) in categorical terms, denied making any payment in cash. If indeed, any payment was received by the accused or his family members through cash or the mode , the onus to prove the said fact was upon the accused under Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act and he was under the obligation to prove the same. But, no such evidence for proving payment through cash by the Vendee has come on record.
129.5 Another crucial fact that requires consideration qua the said 5 sale deeds is the fact that sale deeds for transfer of the said land were executed by Vendor on 07.06.1991. As per the contents of the said sale deed, it is claimed that the entire consideration amount shall be paid by the Vendee to the Vendor at the CC No.25/2019 Page 137/419 time of registration of the said sale deed before the Sub- Registrar-II, Delhi. Therefore, in terms of the said contract, the date of registration becomes the most crucial one. It is the said date when the consideration amount was to be paid by the Vendee to the Vendor.
The said sale deeds on the backside of first page has the details regarding registration. Though the stamp of registration particulars is not legible, but the hand- written details regarding payment of consideration amount as disclosed by the parties is clearly legible.
129.6 Out of the said 5 sale deeds, first sale deed dated 07.06.1991 (also referred as Mark A) has the detail regarding payment as noted by Sub-Registrar . As per the details the consideration amount of Rs.1,40,000/- was paid by Shyam Mohan Gupta (PW-3) on behalf of Vendee vide cheque No. 064600 dated 20.08.1991. This is the same date when the said entry has been recorded regarding registration of the document before the Sub- Registrar-II, Delhi. Thus, as per the contents, it is apparent that the said payment of Rs.1,40,000/- came to be received by the Vendor i.e Ms. Shashi Sankhla being the natural guardian of Vendor Kapil and Saket Sankhla on 20.08.1991 i.e after check period.
129.7 The next sale deed out of the said set of 05 sale deeds Ex.P-7 is sale deed dated 07.06.1991 (Mark B) executed by Ms.Shashi Sankhla being the natural guardian of Vendor Kapil and Saket Sankhla. Again the CC No.25/2019 Page 138/419 backside page of the sale deed has the details under the signatures of Sub-Registrar regarding payment of consideration amount of Rs. 1,60,000/-. As per the noting, Rs.1,00,000/- was already paid as advance and remaining Rs.60,000/- was paid vide cheque no. 064599 dated 16.08.1991. Thus, as far as the payment of Rs.60,000/- through cheque is concerned, the same was paid beyond the check period and accordingly cannot be considered. As far as the advance payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- is concerned, the same having been received within the check period is liable to be included in the component of income.
129.8 The third sale deed out of the said 05 sale deed is dated 05.06.1991 and executed by the accused herein ( Mark C). The total consideration amount is Rs.2 lacs. It is again mentioned that the entire consideration amount shall be paid by the Vendee to the Vendor at the time of registration of the said sale deed before the Sub- Registrar-II, Delhi. The said sale deed has too the noting of the Sub-Registrar regarding payment of consideration amount. As per the said noting , payment of Rs.2 lacs has been paid by the Vendee through cheque No. 064597 dated 19.08.1991. Thus, the said payment received by cheque dated 19.08.1991 is also not liable to be considered having been received beyond the check period.
CC No.25/2019 Page 139/419129.9 The fourth sale deed dated is dated 07.06.1991 executed by the accused herein (Mark-D). The total consideration amount is Rs.2 lacs. As per the said noting made at the time of registration of the sale deed before the Sub-Registrar, payment of Rs.2 lacs has been paid by the Vendee through cheque No. 064596 dated 19.08.1991. Thus, the said payment received by cheque dated 19.08.1991 is also not liable to be considered having been received beyond the check period.
129.10 The last sale deed out of the said set of 05 sale deeds is dated 07.06.1991 purportedly executed by the accused herein ( Mark E). The consideration amount for the said sale deed is Rs.2 lacs. The said sale deed was registered on 16.08.1991 and as per the noting of Sub- Registrar, Rs.1,00,000/- was already paid as advance and balance was paid vide Cheque No. 064598. As far as the balance payment of Rs.1,00,000/- paid through cheque is concerned, admittedly the said payment was made on 16.08.1991 thus, being beyond the stipulated check period. The payment of Rs.1,00,000/- already received as advance is liable to be included within component of income being received within the cheque period.
129.11 The connected agreement to sell qua the said sale deeds are Ex.P-6 (Part of D-8 ). These agreement to sell were executed on 08.04.1991 in favour of Shyam Mohan Gupta (PW-3) concerning sale of very same land.
CC No.25/2019 Page 140/419All the said agreement to sell are also admitted documents. Out of the said 06 agreements to sell, only 03 agreement to sell have the details concerning the rate agreed between them and secondly the advance payment. As far as the aspect of advance payment is concerned, three cheque bearing No.815833 of Rs.1,00,000/-, cheque no. 099100 Rs.25,000/-and lastly cheque no.273405 of Rs.1,00,000/- were given by the purchaser .
129.12 As far as the remaining agreements (part of D-8) Ex.P-6 are concerned, the clauses concerning agreement qua rates settlement as well as qua the advance being received have been left blank. Thus, the only conclusion which can be drawn from the contents of the said 06 agreements, the advance was only offered vis-a- vis three agreements to sell executed between Saket Sankhla and Shyam Mohan Gupta (PW-3), Kapil Sankhla and Shyam Mohan Gupta (PW-3) and lastly D.C Sankhla and Shyam Mohan Gupta (PW-3).
129.13 It is also reflected from the said admitted documents that the remaining three agreements to sell Part of D-6 (Ex.P-6) were also between the above- referred parties. Meaning thereby out of two agreements each executed by the first party, the rate and advance was given in one agreement. These agreements also rebut the claim of any cash payment by the purchaser and corroborate the version of PW-3.
CC No.25/2019 Page 141/419129.14 The similar contentions qua the payments of advance have also been made by the accused herein before the Income Tax Authorities as reflected from CIT Appeals (XXX, New Delhi) order dated 23.05.2012 Ex.D1W2/1. Out of the said advance, the advance offered vide cheque no.099100 of Rs.25,000/- got dishonoured. Thus, in total the advance received by the accused was only Rs.2 lacs. In conclusion it is held that the said entry Item No.2 of the Income is proved with additional income of Rs.2 lacs being ignored by the Investigating Authority (besides Rs.20,60,000/-as discussed herein-above). The said additional income has to be added herein . The contention of the accused that he had received the entire consideration amount of Rs.29,60,000/- during the check period is held to be not proved.
7. Item No.46 of the Assets( Annexure III)
130. The prosecution has listed Item No.46 of the Assets as cash amount of Rs.2,55,000/- kept in a maroon colour brief-case recovered during the house search of the accused herein. The said issue is also connected to the sale of land at Ranhola, Delhi.
130.1 It is the case of the prosecution that consequent to the registration of the FIR, the house search was conducted on 13.08.1991 at the residence of accused. Various articles were recovered as listed in CC No.25/2019 Page 142/419 house-search memo Ex.PW-92/1 (D-114) including the recovery of Rs.2,55,000/- in cash kept in one maroon colour briefcase.
The said house search has been proved by IO K.N. Tiwari (PW-63) and Panch witness to the said search namely S.H. Pai (PW-92).
130.2 As far as the recovery of said amount in the briefcase is concerned, there is no dispute raised on behalf of the accused. The only dispute raised on behalf of the accused is the explanation offered for the said cash recovered and it being ignored by CBI.
130.3 It is argued that they had explained the sources of the said amount to the Investigating Officer (PW-63) as well as provided the relevant documents (Part of D-29) Ex.PW-63/Z alongwith the representation dated 14.06.1993 addressed to the Director, CBI.
130.4 It is argued that as per the contention in the said representation, he explained that the cash amount recovered on 13.08.1981 was against the cash receipt dated 22.07.1991 of Rs. Rs.2,40,000/- issued Ms. Beena Gupta who had purchased their agricultural land at Village Ranhola, Nangloi, Delhi. The said cash amount was paid by the Gupta's qua boundary wall, tubewell, room, trees, fencing etc present over the agricultural land in addition to the amount of Rs. 29,60,000/-.
CC No.25/2019 Page 143/419130.5 It is further argued on behalf of the accused that Beena Gupta was never joined nor examined during the investigation as was admitted by I.O K.N. Tiwari (PW-63). Lastly, it is pleaded that the said explanation has also been accepted by CIT Appeals (XXX, New Delhi) vide order dated 23.05.2012 Ex.D1W2/1.
130.6 Per contra, the prosecution claims the said explanation to be ill-gotten wealth in the from of cash is false plea and acceptance of the claim by Income Tax authorities has no relevance herein.
130.7 It is, thus, apparent from the contentions advanced behalf of the parties that as far as the aspect of recovery of cash amount seized vide search-list Ex.PW- 92/1 is concerned, there is no dispute. Rather, there is categorical admission on the part of the accused regarding recovery of said cash amount of Rs.2,55,000/- kept in a maroon colour briefcase of his house during the search on 13.08.1991.
130.8 The only factual dispute raised on behalf of the accused is the explanation offered by the accused vis- a-vis the said amount. It is the case of the accused that Rs.2,40,000/- was paid in cash by Ms. Beena Gupta in lieu of purchase towards boundary wall, tube-well, tree, room and fencing etc. present over the land sold by them at Ranhola, Nangloi, Delhi.
CC No.25/2019 Page 144/419130.9 The sale of the said land measuring 29 bigha 12 biswas at village Ranhola, Nangloi, Delhi, is proved as discussed above. That the said land was sold vide sale deeds Ex.P-7 to P-19. Thus in the said backdrop, the first material aspect to be seen is as to whether the said alleged appurtenances were part of the land sold vide sale deeds Ex.P-7 to P-19 or sold separately as claimed by the accused.
130.10 The contents of the admitted document i.e sale deed have the categorical averments concerning sale of appurtenances attached to the said land while executing the sale deed and throw light over the said issue. Clause (1) of one such said sale deed which is common in all the deeds is reproduced hereunder:
"1. That in consideration of the said amount, the Vendor do hereby sell, convey, transfer and assign the aforesaid land with all her rights, titles, interests, options, easements, appurtenances and privileges etc thereto to the Vendee and the Vendee will hold, use, enjoy, sell and transfer the said land in any manner without any hindrance, claims or titles of the others."
130.11 Thus, from the contents of the said sale deed itself, it is apparent that the appurtenances which included the boundary wall, tube well, room, trees etc were sold alongwith land over which the said appurtenances stood. It is also a matter of common knowledge that the said appurtenances are sold alongwith CC No.25/2019 Page 145/419 immovable property and in case the value attached to the said appurtenances is substantial, then generally a special mention is made therein in the sale deed itself.
131. The second connected aspect to the said factual dispute as raised by the accused is that no investigation was conducted qua the documents i.e receipt dated 22.07.1991 Part of Ex.P-63/Z qua the said recovered cash amount. IO K.N. Tiwari(PW-63) in the cross-examination admitted to the fact that he had not recorded any statement of Ms. Beena Gupta, though he claimed that he had examined Ms.Beena Gupta during the investigation. Even if, this claim of the Investigating Officer concerning examination of Beena Gupta is discarded, the question to be seen is as to whether the said omission puts any question mark vis-a-vis the said entry or not.
131.1 The transaction of sale of land over which the said appurtenances stood were admittedly sold vide sale deed Ex.P-7 to P-19. All the said sale deeds were executed on 07.06.1991. Out of the said sale deeds, some of the sale deeds are in favour of said Veena Gupta wife of Shyam Mohan Gupta (PW-3) and remaining in his name. Pertinently, it is reflected from the registration record of the said sale deed that even at the time of registration of said sale deeds, the said Shyam Mohan Gupta (PW-3) only appeared on her behalf before the Sub-Registrar for the registration of the sale deeds.
CC No.25/2019 Page 146/419131.2 Prior the execution of the said sale deeds, agreement to sell vis-a-vis the said sale of entire land were executed vide Ex.P-6. All the said agreements to sell are in favour of Shyam Mohan Gupta (PW-3). Thus, the said admitted documents reflect that the entire transaction for the sale of the land was negotiated and entered by Shyam Mohan Gupta (PW-3) with the accused herein. It is Shyam Mohan Gupta (PW-3) only who delivered the entire payment on his behalf as well as on behalf of his wife Beena Gupta. Thus, there was not purpose in examining Beena Gupta when she was not in the picture at all during the entire deal.
131.3 The accused in his explanation offered to the Investigating Officer recorded vide statement part of Ex.PW-7/DB (Sanction File) explained the said cash amount by stating that he had received Rs.2.55 lacs in cash from Shyam Mohan Gupta (PW-3) and the said amount was paid on 12.08.1991. The said amount was to be adjusted at the time of registration. The contents of the said explanation of the accused is apparently in contradiction to his own subsequent representation dated 14.06.1993(Ex.PW-63/Z).
131.4 Thus, in the said backdrop, the version of Shyam Mohan Gupta (PW-3) becomes the most crucial one. He only one who negotiated the entire deal regarding the purchase of said land situated at Village Ranhola, CC No.25/2019 Page 147/419 Nangloi, Delhi from the accused or his family. It has already been discussed above that PW-3 in categorical terms deposed that the entire payment was made through bank draft or cheque. No amount was paid in cash. He further stated that there was no tube well in the land and only one well was there. He further denied the suggestion that there was any fencing or tube-well room. He further denied the suggestion that Rs.2,40,000/- in cash was paid by his wife on 22.07.1991 in lieu of fencing, tube-well, room, Shesham tree etc. Thus, the version of Shyam Mohan Gupta (PW-3) who negotiated and executed all the documents concerning the purchase of land completely discards the defence of the accused regarding the payment of cash of Rs.2,40,000/-.
131.5 The onus was upon the accused to explain about the said cash received by him as claimed in lieu of appurtenances on the land disposed of by him during the check period. To discharge the said onus the accused has also placed reliance upon the CIT Appeal Order dated 23.05.2012 (Ex.D1W2/1). It is the case of the accused that the receipt qua the said cash amount finds mention in the said appellate order and has been accepted by the Income Tax Authorities.
131.6 The first aspect is the value attached to the decisions regarding the income of the assessee during income tax proceedings vis-a-vis the separate criminal proceedings involving disproportionate assets. The legal CC No.25/2019 Page 148/419 position on the same is quite well settled. It has been observed in State of Karnataka vs J.Jayalalita 2017 (6) SCC 263 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that not much value can be attached to the decision of the Income Tax Authorities vis-a-vis the legality of the income, as the Income Tax Authorities are only concerned with revenue. They have no role in deciding the legality or means used for acquiring the same.
131.7 The order dated 23.05.2012 (Ex.D1W2/1) relied upon by the accused too reflects that no inquiry was conducted while accepting the plea of the assessee (accused herein) qua the said cash amount of Rs.2,40,000/-. Neither the ITR record Ms. Beena Gupta nor Shyam Mohan Gupta (PW-3) was examined nor their version was taken before reaching to the said conclusion. Therefore, the finding of the CIT Appeals on the said aspect has no value in the present case.
131.8 It has already been observed above that the explanation offered by the accused qua the said cash amount at two different stages is inherently contradictory to each other. The first explanation was offered consequent to the registration of the present case when his statement (Part of Ex.PW-7/DB) was recorded. The said statement/explanation has come on record upon the request moved by accused alongwith the sanction file.
CC No.25/2019 Page 149/419131.9 The second explanation was offered while moving the representation dated 14.06.1993 (Ex.PW- 63/Z). Both the said explanations are inherently contradictory to each other. Therefore, it has to be observed that the explanation offered qua the recovery cash amount of Rs 2.55 lacs at the house of accused is nothing but an afterthought. Accordingly, the entry qua Item No.46 stands proved against the accused and the claim of receipt of the said amount in place of sale of tubewell, boundary wall etc. is rejected.
8. Item No.12 of Income (Annexure-I) i.e Savings of Ms. Shashi Shankla.
132. The item 12 of Income concerns the savings of Ms. Shashi Sankhla made from 1981 to 1984 to be Rs.75,000/-. So, the income allowed to the wife of the accused for the check period stands at Rs.75,000/- as per the case of the prosecution. As far as the income component from bank interest and agricultural income received by her is concerned, those entries have been separately stipulated and are discussed separately. The said income component under Entry No. 12 as per prosecution is her Income/Savings alone. It is also surprising the she was not named as an abettor despite the claim of the prosecution that the number of Benami assets were purchased in her name by the accused.
132.1 Ld. Sr.PP for CBI argued that they have proved the said entry qua income through the version of CC No.25/2019 Page 150/419 K.N. Tiwari (PW-63), the Investigating Officer and Ex.P- 28 statement of account in the name of Ms. Shashi Bala ( previously known as Shashi Bala).
132.2 Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused vehemently argued that due to malafide intent on the part of the Investigating Agency, the legitimate income earned by his wife had been deliberately left out. The ITR records were seized in the present case from their C.A M.K. Gandhi and relied upon as (D-101). But it is apparent from the cross-examination of K.N. Tiwari (PW-63) that no investigation was conducted qua the said ITRs nor any such record was sought from the Income Tax Department. His wife was never called during the investigation to check the veracity of her claim regarding income from the business of artificial jewellery, property business etc. 132.3 Ld. Counsel for accused has further placed reliance upon the testimonies of Devender Nath Arora (D1W1) (brother of Ms. Shashi Sankhla), Vikas Chaudhary (D1W4 ), official from Income Tax Department, Kishore Krishri Sagar Laxman (D1W5), Sub-Registrar in the office Additional District Magistrate, South Andaman and lastly B. Lokanathan (D1W6), the then Patwari in the office of Tehsildar, Port Blair, South Andaman, to prove her worth .
CC No.25/2019 Page 151/419132.4 It is argued that testimony of D1W1, as well as the documents produced by remaining defence witnesses, proves on record that Ms. Shashi Sankhla was having business income from various sources i.e business of artificial jewellery, running a beauty parlour, income from Orchid, agricultural income and rental income. The said properties were also inherited by her in the year 1985 after the death of her father Jagannath Arora. But, the I.O. deliberately deprived the lawful income earned by his wife and did not consider any of such evidence. The income component of Rs.75,000/- taken by him is arbitrarily and not supported by any evidence on record.
132.5 It is not in dispute that the accused being the public servant and member of All India Services was governed during the check period by All India Service (Conduct ) Rules 1968. The said conduct rules puts an obligation upon the public servants as to the way they will conduct themselves as well as report about the activities of members of their family.
132.6 Rule 13 of AIS Conduct Rules 1968 specifically prohibits any member of service not to engage directly/indirectly in any trade or business except with the previous sanction of the Government.
Rule 13 (3) of AIS Conduct Rules 1968 is relevant also herein while considering the aspect of business CC No.25/2019 Page 152/419 income of the wife of the accused herein. The same is reproduced herein for the sake of convenience:
"(3) Every member of the service shall, if any member so his family is engaged in a trade or business, or owns or manages an insurance agency or commission agency, report that fact to the Government."
132.7 Thus, it is apparent from the mandate of the said Rule, that the accused being a member of the said service and being governed by the said Conduct Rules, was under mandatory obligation to report to the Govt./employer about the engagement of any trade or business, etc. by his wife in the present case.
132.8 The accused though claims that his wife was running the business of artificial jewellery or beauty parlour since 1981, but never reported the said fact to the Government as mandated under Rule 13 (3) of AIS Rules 1968 till the year 1986.
132.9 The first such sort intimation though not having complete particulars was sent in this regard by the accused is the intimation dated 11.12.1986 (Part of D-6 Ex.PW-5/B) .It was addressed to Shri S.P Prabhakar, Joint Secretary (Services), Delhi Administration, Delhi. So, in December 1986, the accused for the first time reported to the Government about his wife being a separate income tax assessee and doing her own business CC No.25/2019 Page 153/419 as well as performing odd jobs being qualified beautician. He further reported that she has recently started dealing in the real estate business. So, the said sketchy piece of intimation was for the first time reported by the accused to the Government in terms requirement under Rule 13 (3) of AIS Conduct Rules 1968.
132.10 The next issue to be considered is whether the said sketchy piece of information satisfied the mandate of the Rule 13 (3) or not. In this regard, Office Memorandum (OM) of the Government of India issued vide letter No. 11017/15/79 AIS (111) dated 30 th July 1979 is relevant.It puts an obligation that member of the service whenever reporting about the engagement of trade or business by his family member shall furnish elementary details like nature and name under which the business is being done, its location, amount invested, source of investment, whether with or without partner etc. Admittedly, none of the aforesaid details were furnished by the accused while reporting for the first time about the sources of business income of his wife to the Government vide letter dated 11.12.1986.
132.11 In the said backdrop, the version of the prosecution that she was not doing any business either in artificial jewellery or being a beautician appears to be probable. They had no record in this regard except the self-serving statement of the accused or his wife .
CC No.25/2019 Page 154/419The connected legal aspect in this regard is the term 'known sources of income' and its interpretation in Section 13 (1) (e) of PC Act 1988. The said expression 'known sources of income' has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a series of judgments. The latest judgment is that of State of Tamil Nadu V. R. Sunderi Rasu 2023 (6) SCC 768. It has been clearly stipulated that prosecution is not supposed to conduct open or roving enquiry while conducting investigation in cases under section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act . They are supposed to investigate the income as disclosed to the employer by the public servant. Paragraph-41 of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder for the sake of convenience:
41. ................. The explanation to Section 13(1)(e) is a procedural Section which seeks to define the expression "known sources of income"
as sources known to the prosecution and not to the accused. The explanation applies and relates to the mode and manner of investigation to be conducted by the prosecution, it does away with the requirement and necessity of the prosecution to have an open, wide and rowing investigation and enquire into the alleged sources of income which the accused may have. It curtails the need and necessity of the prosecution to go into the alleged sources of income which a public servant may or possibly have but are not legal or have not been declared. The undeclared alleged sources are by their very nature are expected to be known to the accused only and are within his special knowledge. The effect of the explanation is to clarify and reinforce the existing position and understanding of the expression "known sources of income" i.e. the expression refers to sources known to the prosecution and not sources known to the accused. The second part of the explanation does away with the need and CC No.25/2019 Page 155/419 requirement for the prosecution to conduct an open ended or rowing enquiry or investigation to find out all alleged/claimed known sources of income of an accused who is investigated under the PC Act, 1988. The prosecution can rely upon the information furnished by the accused to the authorities under law, rules and orders for the time being applicable to a public servant.........."
132.12 Thus, it is apparent that the said expression 'known sources of income' refers to the sources known to the prosecution and not sources of income known to the accused. The connected issue is that in case Public Servant wants to take benefit of such income, it should be legal one and should have been reported to the department in accordance with the provision of law or rules as may be applicable to him.
132.13 Another issue related to the said aspect is that the explanation under Section 13 (1) (e) of PC Act also rules out the requirement of open, wide and roving investigation. CBI was not supposed to conduct the roving investigation by calling Ms. Shashi Shankla as has been argued on behalf of the accused and inquire into the alleged sources of income which were neither reported nor explained as required under the conduct rules applicable to the accused.
133. In the said backdrop, as it has to be concluded that the accused herein for the first time, reported about his wife's separate business engagement CC No.25/2019 Page 156/419 in December 1986 and the said reporting was sketchy and lacked necessary details. In the said backdrop it was not necessary for the CBI to conduct a roving inquiry concerning said business income earned either through business of artificial jewellery or done through performing odd jobs being a qualified beautician or orchard income .
133.1 The onus, thus, shifted upon the accused who in order to discharge the same and show the legality of the income earned by his wife has placed reliance upon version given by Devender Nath Arora (D1W1) (brother of Ms. Shashi Sankhla), Vikas Chaudhary (D1W4), Kishore Krishri Sagar Laxman (D1W5) and lastly B. Lokanathan (D1W6).
133.2 As far as D1W4, D1W5 and D1W6 are concerned, they are the witness of the record having not much relevance for proving the disputed fact with respect to the regular earnings of Ms. Shashi Sankhla through her business. They only deposed about the ownership of assets by late father of Ms Shashi and inheritance thereof.
133.3 The only material witness in this regard is Devender Nath Arora (D1W1) (brother of Ms. Shashi Sankhla). He claimed that sometime in the year 1981, she returned back to her matrimonial home at Port Blair alongwith her children and stayed their till first quarter of 1985. Their father helped her in opening a beauty parlour CC No.25/2019 Page 157/419 shop where she also used to deal in artificial jewelry. He further claimed that as she was not earning much, his father decided that income from Orchid owned by him located at Haddo, Port Blair be given to her. Accordingly, she started earning Rs. 10,000/- to 12,000/- per year from the said orchid. Again sometime, in the year 1982 when wife of accused expressed her inability to sustain herself, his father decided to give rental income earned from the flat in the building owned at Phoenix Bay, Port Blair. The rental income was around Rs. 9000 to Rs.10,000/- per year. Later on, two properties i.e Orchid at Haddo and first floor flat at Phoenix Bay was given to her after the death of their father in terms of family settlement Ex.D1W1/1.
133.4 So as per D1W1, Ms. Shashi Sankhla earned during her stay at Port Blair from the year 1981 to 1985 from three sources of income i.e her business income from the shop, income from Orchid and lastly rental income from the flat.
133.5 As has already been observed none of the said sources of income or running of business was ever reported to the department in terms of Rule 13 (3) of AIS Conduct Rules 1968. It is admitted case of the accused that he never got judicially separated from his wife during the said period and they were residing separately only due to matrimonial differences. Thus, in the said backdrop the mandatory obligation was their upon the CC No.25/2019 Page 158/419 accused to report about the said engagement in business or earning business income by his wife to the department.
133.6 Be that as it may be, even for the sake of arguments, the said aspect of reporting to the department is ignored, the issue to be seen as to whether the self- serving version of D1W1 inspires confidence or not. The second aspect is as to whether his version is supported by any contemporaneous document or not.
133.7 As far as the first aspect of credibility of the version of self-serving version of D1W1 is concerned, he in his examination claimed that after Ms. Shashi Sankhla left Port Blair in 1985, the income from beauty parlour and artificial jewellery stopped. Further, he claimed that the rental income also stopped immediately as she left in the year 1985. As far as the income from Orchid is concerned, it kept on coming for a period of one and half year after she left Port Blair, but since he was not able to manage it, the said income too stopped. Thus, as per his version only, the said purported three sources of income somehow abruptly stopped in year 1985-1986 after Ms. Shashi Sankhla had left Port Blair to join the company of the accused. The said explanation of D1W1 as to the abrupt end of the income itself puts a question mark over his version of regular earnings during the period when she stayed at Port Blair . Nothing prevented him or Ms. Shashi Sankhla from renting out the said properties after she had left Port Blair in 1985. Rather, two of the said CC No.25/2019 Page 159/419 properties i.e Orchid at Haddo and the Flat at Phoenix Bay, Port Blair were given to her as per the family settlement Ex.D1W1/1.Therfore the version of D1W1 that income from the said properties came to a halt after she left itself puts a question over his version.
133.8 D1W1 further in the cross-examination admitted to the fact that he does not have any document to support the earnings from the business of beauty parlour, rental income, or the income earned through Orchid.
133.9 In the said backdrop, not much credence can be given to version of D1W1 as far as incomes earned by Ms. Shashi Sankhla from the year 1981 to 1985 are concerned .
133.10 Now coming to the documents proved by D1W5 and D1W6. The said property documents or mutation record are in the name of legal heirs of late Jagannath and there is not much dispute. But none of the said documents proves the fact that the properties in question were earning any income at that relevant point in time. None of the relevant mutation records of the said properties has any details about the earnings received from the said property.
133.11 The last limb of argument advanced on the said aspect by the accused is that the CBI had seized the CC No.25/2019 Page 160/419 income tax returns of Ms. Shashi Sankhla from the C.A M.K.Gandhi. The said income tax record are relied upon documents as D-101, but no investigation has been got conducted qua the said records from the Income Tax Authorities as admitted by I.O. K.N Tiwari (PW-63).
133.12 As far as the seizure of income tax record is concerned, there is no dispute. Rather, the accused himself admitted and placed reliance upon the files seized from C.A. M.K. Gandhi, proved on record as Ex. PW- 63/A-6 (D-101) to show the income of Ms. Shashi Sankhla The said record has the income tax returns for the assessment year 1990-1991, 1989-1990, 1988-1989 and last being 1987-1988. Apart from the said four income tax returns, no other returns are available in the said file.
133.13 Even during the defence evidence, no other income tax returns of Ms. Shashi Sankhla have been proved on record on behalf of the accused despite accused having examined two witnesses from income tax department. The onus was upon the accused to prove the income of Ms. Shashi Shankla as discussed above, which he has failed to discharge.
133.14 The two defence witnesses examined are D1W2 and D1W4. The first witness produced the record concerning CIT appeals concerning assessee D.C Sankhla for the assessment year 1992-1993 . The other witness CC No.25/2019 Page 161/419 D1W4 proved the record about the income tax returns of both D.C Sankhla and Ms. Shashi Sankhla. As far as D1W4 is concerned, he proved on record the entire income tax record concerning D.C Sankhla, but sought time on 18.09.2019 for looking into the records concerning income tax return for the assessment year 1984-85 and 1986-87 concerning assessee Ms. Shashi Sankhla.
133.15 Thereafter, he entered into the witness box on 25.09.2019, but again no such original records were produced from their department and he simply identified three assessment year orders for the above-said years of Shashi Bala Sankhla as produced by the accused Ex.D1W4/20 collectively. As far as the said three assessment orders are concerned, no much credence can be attached to the said documents as originals of the same never came on record from the proper custodian i.e Income Tax Department. Rather, D1W4 simplictor identified the said documents without explaining the basis for said identification. He even failed to identify the signatory of the said assessment order and therefore, in the said backdrop, it has to be held that the said assessment order's remain unproved. Therefore, it has to be observed that the only income tax record proved on record qua Ms. Shashi Shankhla is part of D-101 Ex.PW- 63/A-6 which has four income tax returns for the year 1990-1991, 1989-1990, 1988-1989 and 1987-1988.
CC No.25/2019 Page 162/419Further it has to be concluded that these are the only records available with Income Tax Dept. 133.16 Another stark fact that emerges from the said four income tax returns is that only after the accused had reported for the first time about the engagement of business and earning of income by his wife in December 1986, all these income tax returns simultaneously came to be filed. The details of income as reflected in the said four income tax returns of Ms. Shashi Sankhla are as under:
Assessment Year 1990-1991
(i) Income from Property Business- Rs 16,634/-
(ii) Interest on FDRs- Rs.10550/-
(iii) Bank Interest Rs. 2438/-
(iv) Agriculture income- Rs. 96106/-
Assessment Year 1989-1990
(i) Income from Propriety Business- Rs. 22828/-
(ii) Interest on FDRs- Rs.10500/-
(iii) Bank Interest Rs. 150.30
(iv) Agriculture income- Rs.718624/-
Assessment Year 1988-1989
(i) Income from Business or profession- Rs. 10,020/-
(ii) Income from other sources Rs. 10,500/-
(ii) Agriculture income- Rs. 25,000/-
CC No.25/2019 Page 163/419
Assessment Year 1987-1988
(i) Income from Business or profession- - Rs. 19900/-
(ii) Interest Income - Rs. 10,500/-
(ii) Agriculture income- Rs. 23,000/-
133.17 As far as the aspect of interest income or
income from FDR or agriculture income is concerned, the said component of income has been separately stipulated under the separate entry by the prosecution vis-a-vis the accused as well as his wife. The components of the said income will be discussed separately alongwith the said entries of the income as stipulated in Annexure-1.
133.18 At present the business income is relevant herein and the income tax returns reflect the business income for the assessment years 1990-1991, 1989-1990, 1988-1989 and 1987-1988 is Rs. 16,634 + 22,828+10,020+ 19,900 respectively (Total Rs.69,382/-) . So, the total sum of business income comes to Rs.69,382/-only which was earned by Ms. Shashi Sankhla during the check period.
133.19 Now coming to the contention of prosecution regarding giving benefit of Rs.75,000/- for the savings from year 1981 to 1984, there appears to be no document on record to corroborate the said plea. The reliance CC No.25/2019 Page 164/419 placed upon the statement of account Ex.P-25 (D-31) Account No. 21250 of Ms. Shashi Sankhla maintained at PNB, Civil Lines does not show any savings of Rs.75,000/- during the year 1981-1984 as has been arbitrarily claimed by Investigating Authority.
133.20 In this regard, the accused has placed reliance upon another statement of account Mark DB by arguing that the said account no. 12250 was operational since 31.07.1981 which has been deliberately ignored by the Investigating Officer. The first aspect in this regard is the admissibility of the said document as original of the same never came on record and the copy of the same has been proved being filed by the accused with his appeal No. 201/01-02 before CIT Appeals.
133.21 Even if for the same of arguments, the said statement showing various cash entries showing right from the year 1981 till the check period are considered, the same does not help the accused. It has already been observed above that the accused for the first time reported about the engagement of his wife in the business as required under Rule 16 (3) of AIS Conduct Rules 1968 in December 1986 only. Any income earned by his wife before that cannot be considered being not permissible in terms of the explanation of Section 13 (1) (e) of PC Act. In the end, it has to be observed that the leverage of business income under the head of Income of Shashi Sankhla Entry No.12 comes to only Rs.69,382/-, not CC No.25/2019 Page 165/419 Rs.75,000/- as claimed by the prosecution. However, the accused is given the benefit of Rs. 75000/- as claimed by the prosecution and the said entry stands proved.
9. Item No.34 of the Expenditure (Annexure-II).
134. The prosecution has listed the expenses incurred during the check period over the income tax and insurance of the property by accused and his wife to be Rs.39718/-.
Ld. Sr PP for CBI for proving the said entry argued that the said expenses are also admitted as reflected from the admitted record Ex.PW-63/A-6 (D-101).
134.1 Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that the expenditure on income tax too has not been proved as his CA M.K. Gandhi from whom this file (D-101) was seized never entered the witness box.
134.2 The first issue in this regard is the seizure of income tax returns as well as the property insurance file vide D-101 (Ex.PW-63/A-6). The said record was seized from CA M.K. Gandhi of accused vide seizure memo Ex.PW-63/P dated 13.08.1991. IO K.N. Tiwari (PW-63) proved the said seizure memo after identifying the signature of Dy. S.P. Nagender Singh who seized the said documents. As far as the seizure of income tax record including property insurance papers from C.A M.K. Gandhi is concerned, there is no dispute raised on CC No.25/2019 Page 166/419 behalf of the accused and the same stands proved through seizure memo Ex.PW-63/P. 134.3 Now coming to the issue of admissibility of said income tax record as well as the property insurance documents Ex.PW-63/A-6 . A question mark was raised on behalf of the accused during the version of PW-63 who identified the said documents as Ex.PW-63/A-6. Though the accused himself relied upon the said documents while proving the income of his wife.
134.4 So in the said backdrop, when a specific objection was taken by the accused qua the mode of proof of the said income tax record, the onus was upon the prosecution to get same proved either by summoning the concerned C.A M.K. Gandhi or summoning the record from Income Tax Department. The prosecution failed to adopt either of the course. In the said backdrop, the question to be seen is as to whether the said expenditure of payment of income tax which comes within the category of verifiable expenses of the public servant has to be considered or not.
134.5 The first aspect in this regard is the proven fact that both the accused as well as his wife were income tax assessee during the relevant period. As far as the accused is concerned, there is no iota of doubt as the accused himself has placed reliance upon several income tax orders in the defence i.e Ex.D1W2/2, Mark DC which CC No.25/2019 Page 167/419 is the order passed by CIT Appeal Dated 23.09.1994, assessment order Mark DF, CIT Appeal order dated 23.05.2012 Ex.D1W2/1, Assessment Order Ex.D1W4/2 etc. So, the said admitted record produced by the accused himself proves that he was income tax assessee since the start of check period on 01.01.1980.
134.6 As far as the wife of the accused Ms. Shashi Sankhla is concerned, again there is admission on behalf of the accused in his personal record Ex.PW-5/B (D-6). Vide the said letter dated 7.08.1989 the accused reported to his employer that his wife is an income-tax assessee. Even prior to that, the accused had reported to his employer vide letter dated 11.12.1986 (Ex.PW-5/B) that his wife is an income tax assessee and doing her business of artificial jewellery as well as a qualified beautician. It was further reported that she has started dealing in real estate business. So, the said admissions reflect that the accused as well as his wife were filing income tax return during the relevant period being income tax assesses.
134.7 The issue to be seen is whether income tax record Ex.PW-63/A-6 is to be discarded merely on the ground of bald objection as to the mode of prove in the light of above referred proved circumstances. Another issue which raises doubt over the said falsity of the objection is the reliance placed by the accused himself upon the said record to show the income of Ms. Shashi Sankhla as well as to show the value of house-hold CC No.25/2019 Page 168/419 articles. In the said backdrop when accused himself places reliance upon the said income tax record it has to be read in evidence being admitted record.
134.8 Even otherwise, the said income tax returns are also corroborated by the defence documents as referred above wherein the details of said assessment year 1991 etc. have been discussed. Statement of Account of the accused (D-30, Ex.P-24) also has one such entry dated 12.11.1988 for an amount of Rs. 5928/- which is the payment towards income tax.
134.9 The house insurance expenditure is also corroborated form the statement of account (Ex. P-24) . there is deduction of Rs.13,00/. from the account in favour of Oriental Insurance Ltd during the relevant period. The said deduction is also after the purchase of the property at Dalhousie. Thus, the said admitted documents also prove the genuineness of the income tax record Ex.PW-63/A-6. Further when there is no challenge as to the seizure of the same from CA M.K Gandhi and the said C.A having continued to represent the accused in the Income Tax Department as reflected from the order sheets Ex.D1W4/6, there is no reason to discard the recovered record from his office.
134.10 The said file, Ex.PW-63/A-6, apart from having the record concerning the payment of income tax by the accused and his wife, also has the record CC No.25/2019 Page 169/419 concerning property insurance, i.e., Retreat Villa, Dalhousie and Jaswant Villa, Dalhousie, from 28.02.1991 to 26.07.1992.
134.11 The said file also contains the acknowledgment of the income tax department as well as the payment of tax during the relevant check period. Thus the said proved record shows continuous payment of income tax by accused and his wife during the check period. The house insurance policies too reflect the expenditure to the tune of Rs.13,00/-. Accordingly, Item no. 34 qua expenses on income tax and insurance of the property by the accused and his wife to be Rs.39718/ stands proved vide record Ex. PW63/A6.
10. Item No.11 of the Assets (Annexure-III) and Item No.26 of the Income (Annexure-I)
135. Item No.11 of the Assets pertains to Shashi Nursery established on 27 acres of land situated at village Patti Kalyana, District Panipat, Haryana . The said land was purchased in the name of the accused herein namely D.C Sankhla, his wife, and sons on 24.08.1989 and 25.08.1989. The value of the said asset given vide entry no.11 of the assets list Annexure-III is Rs. 15,50,000/-.
135.1 The connected entry to the said piece of agricultural land is Item No.26 of the Income List Annexure-1. It is claimed by the prosecution that income CC No.25/2019 Page 170/419 from the said nursery at Patti Kalyana, District Panipat, Haryana during the year 1990-1991 was Rs.1,50,000/-
135.2 Ld. Sr. PP for CBI in support of their case concerning Item No.11 of the Assets argued that as far as the purchase of said piece of 27 acres of land by the accused in his name or the name of his wife and minor sons is concerned, there is no dispute. The only dispute raised on behalf of the accused is the value given vis-a- vis the acquisition of the said asset. The accused claims that they had incurred in total amount of Rs.9.5 lacs for the purchase of the land which is a false plea.
135.3 It is argued by CBI that during house search of the accused on 13.08.1991, the property documents concerning the said property were seized (Part of D-100). The agreement to sell reflect total payment of Rs. 9.5 lacs paid through banking channels. They had also examined the vendor Sushil Kumar Jain from whom the said piece of land was purchased. He in his statement admitted to the fact that he had received a total of Rs.15,50,000/-, out of which Rs.6 lacs was paid in cash. The said Sushil Kumar Jain was named by them as a prosecution witness, but he could not be got examined as he was murdered in the year 1996. The said murder case was registered by the CBI itself on the direction of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana vide RC No. 7(S)/96-SIU-5 dated 29.10.1996. Dharam Chand Sankhla (accused herein) was named in the said case as prime CC No.25/2019 Page 171/419 conspirator of the murder of their witness Sushil Kumar Jain and has since been convicted by Ld. Trial Court vide its judgment dated 04.6.2004 which has been upheld by Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The appeal is still pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the value given by them qua the said asset is the correct one.
135.4 Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that the documents i.e agreement to sell (D-100 Ex.PW-92/2 ( collectively) reflects only payment of Rs.9.5 lacs. The said amount is also reflected in the accounts statement of the accused, his wife and his minor sons vide D-30, D-37, D-34 and D-35. As no sale deed was executed, the remaining consideration amount never came to be paid by the accused or his family members. Therefore, the value of the asset qua Item No.11 has to be taken to be Rs.9.5 lacs.
135.5 The ownership of the said asset and the mode of its acquisition is not in dispute. The agreement to sell dated 25.08.1989 was executed by vendor Sushil Kumar Jain in favour of Kapil Sankhla and Saket Sankhla (minor sons of the accused herein) selling 24 Kanal & 10 Marla, 73 Kanal and 12 Marla of land for total consideration amount of Rs. 8 lacs. Out of the said consideration amount, an amount of Rs.1 lakh was paid at the time of execution of the said agreement as reflected in the agreement to Ex.PW-92/2 ( collectively).
CC No.25/2019 Page 172/419135.6 The second agreement to sell dated 24.08.1989 is executed by said Sushil Kumar Jain in favour of accused D.C Sankhla and his wife thereby selling his piece of land measuring 9 Kanal & 8 Marla, 106 Kanal & 14 Marla. The total consideration amount was Rs.12 lacs, out of which Rs.8.5 was paid through three cheques as mentioned in the said agreement itself. Thus, in total 27 acres of land was purchased and his family members vide said two agreements to sell and the total amount paid as reflected in the admitted document is Rs.9.5 lacs only.
135.7 The claim of the prosecution that the accused had paid Rs.15,50,000/- for the said purchase of the land to Sushil Kumar Jain was primarily based upon the oral version given by said Sushil Kumar Jain during investigation. He was named prosecution witness. But unfortunately, even before filing the chargesheet in the present case, Sushil Kumar Jain expired having been murdered and the accused herein was named as main conspirator.
135.8 Be that as it may be, the fact remains that there is no evidence on record except two agreements to sell Ex.PW-92/2 ( collectively) which only reflects payment for acquisition of said piece of land to be Rs.9.5 lacs and not 15.50 lacs as claimed by the prosecution. In these circumstances, the Entry No.11 of Assets is held to CC No.25/2019 Page 173/419 be partly proved and the value of the said asset is taken to be Rs.9.5 lacs.
136. Now, coming to the connected entry concerning the said piece of land i.e Entry No.26 of the Income ( Annexure-I), wherein it is claimed by the prosecution that the said land generated income of Rs. 1,50,000/- during the year 1990-1991 only.
136.1 Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI argued that they had named Azimuddin (PW-6 ) in this regard . He was the contractor engaged by the accused for tiling the said land and maintaining the orchid. But his testimony could not be got completed as he expired in the year 2010. Ld. prosecutor further argued that IO K.N. Tiwari (PW-63) has also deposed about the income generated by the said land and the said version is not rebutted.
136.2 It is further argued that as far as the version given by Bishamber Dayal ( PW-51) in this regard is concerned, he remained silent concerning income in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. However, while deposing in the Court in the cross-examination, he came up with the plea that said Azimuddin (PW-6 ) used to pay Rs. 4.60 lacs per annum being the contractor of the orchard to Ms. Shashi Sankhla. Thus not much credence can be attached to his new version.
CC No.25/2019 Page 174/419136.3 Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that the claim of the prosecution that the said piece of land generated income only to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- is arbitrary and as per the whims of the Investigating Officer. The best witness in this regard was Azimuddin (PW-6), but his examination-in-chief was deferred in the year 1999 and thereafter he was never summoned for a long 10 years. Ultimately, he was summoned in the year 2010 and he was reported to have expired. The reliance is placed by him on the statement of Bishamber Dayal (PW-51) who was their neighbor. His land too was situated in the vicinity of the land purchased by the accused and his family at Patti Kalyana, District Panipat, Haryana. Reliance is also placed upon the representation dated 12.04.1994 ( Ex.PW-7/DX-A).
136.4 Further, reliance is placed upon various receipts of income given their contractor Azimuddin (PW6) which were seized by the prosecution vide seizure memo (D-123 and placed on record vide D-85 Ex.P-67). None of the said receipts were ever investigated by the Investigating Agency during the investigation. They simplictor placed on record without verifying their authenticity and clarifying as to the income generated from the said land.
136.5 The prosecution to prove the factum of income generated from the agricultural land purchased by the accused and his family in August 1989 primarily CC No.25/2019 Page 175/419 relied upon the version of contractor engaged by them Azimuddin (PW-6). He was partly examined-in-chief on 28.05.1999 and his further cross-examination was deferred at the request of prosecution as his original statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C was not there on record. It is not clear from the record as to why the said witness not summoned thereafter till the report of his death came on record in the year 2010. In the said backdrop, the only evidence for proving the said entry of income, is the version of I.O K.N. Tiwari (PW-63), Bishamber Dayal ( PW-51) and the documentary evidence i.e Ex.P-67 (D-85), the ITR returns of accused and his wife as well as his properties returns submitted with the department in terms of AIS Conduct Rules 1968.
136.6 As far as the oral testimony of IO K.N. Tiwari (PW-63) on the said aspect is concerned, he in his examination in chief claimed that the accused had earned Rs.1,50,000/- in the year 1990-1991 from the nursery business at Patti Kalyana. He further deposed that he had examined Azimuddin (PW-6) regarding the said transaction. The bills/Kachi Parchi regarding sale of produce by Azimuddin (PW-6) are in the file D-85 (Ex.P-67). As far as the cross-examination on the said aspect is concerned, his version was never put in dock except to the extent of non-verification of agricultural income of Ms. Shashi Sankhla as reflected in her income tax record.
CC No.25/2019 Page 176/419136.7 Second witness material on the said aspect is Bishamber Dayal ( PW-51). He deposed that he too was an agriculturist having his farmhouse at Patti Kalyana, District Panipat, Haryana which was situated just in front of the farmhouse of Ms. Shashi Sankhla. In his examination-in-chief, he deposed about the contractor Azimuddin (PW-6) having approached him for repair of tube-well installed in the farmhouse of Ms. Shashi Sankhla and expenses being paid by Azimuddin (PW-6 ) vide Ex.PW-51/1. He remained silent in the chief on the aspect of income generated by the said Orchard or the farmhouse owned by the accused or his family members.
He was cross-examined by the defense and his entire cross-examination revolves around the factum of income generated.
136.8 The issue in hand is as to whether the version given by him for the first time in the court regarding the generation of income inspires confidence or not and secondly, whether it is supported by any documentary evidence or not.
136.9 PW-51 claimed that his farmhouse had six acres of orchard and the same contractor namely Azimuddin used to pay him Rs.2,20,000/- per annum. As far as the farmhouse of Ms. Shashi Sankhla is concerned, he claimed that it was of 30 acres, out of which orchard portion was 12-13 acres. He further claimed that Azimuddin used to pay Ms. Shashi Sankhla Rs.4,60,000/-
CC No.25/2019 Page 177/419per annum for the orchard portion. As far as the remaining land is concerned, Ms. Shashi Sankhla used to do farming and he used to sell the crops in the grain market. As far as the said aspect of the sale of agricultural produce by him in the grain market is concerned, no evidence has come on record like Form J issued by the Commission Agent who purchases the grain at the market. Hence, the said version of PW-51 is liable to be rejected.
136.10 Now coming to his version regarding orchard income, he claims that the total land in the farmhouse Ms. Shashi Sankhla was 30 acres. The said version is in contradiction to the admitted documents of both the parties Ex.PW-92/2 (collectively). The total land purchased by them is 27 acres and not 30 acres. Second part of his claim is that the orchard portion out of the said 30 acres was in 12-13 acres. The said version is also not supported by the contents of the agreement to sell Ex.PW-92/2 (colly). None of the said two agreements to sell has any averment concerning the existence of full grown orchard over the said agricultural land. The land sold is merely described as agricultural land.
136.11 Another document proved concerning the said piece of land is an invoice concerning the sale of fruit plants vide Ex.PW-42/A (D-18). The PW-42 Devender was running a nursery business at Samalhka, near Patti Kalyana. He had sold the plants from his CC No.25/2019 Page 178/419 nursery to Izzimmudin who had taken the orchard on rent from D.C Sankhla. So, as per his version and the invoice Ex.PW-42/A, he sold around 1400 plants of mango, 500 plants of Aaddu ( Peach ) and 2000 plants of Popular on 22.02.1991. No evidence has come on record that the accused or his family was running a nursery over the said piece of land and thus the only assumption which can be drawn through said invoice Ex.PW-42/A is said plant's sold by PW-42 were for plantation in the orchard.
136.12 Similarly, another witness Jai Veer Singh (PW-74), the Gypsum Stockist at Samalakha is relevant herein who proved the sale of gypsum to D.C Sankhla of Village Patti Kalyana, District Panipat, Haryana vide invoices Ex.PW74/1 and Ex.PW-74/2 dated 25.07.1990 and 08.08.1990 respectively. Both invoices reflect that a huge amount of gypsum was sold which is generally used during the initial sowing of fruit plants or other crops. The said evidence too points towards the orchard being set up. It rebuts the claim of the accused about the availability of full-fledged orchard running at the time of the sale of said land in August 1989.
136.13 The next connected issue in this regard is as to whether the prosecution was under the obligation to conduct further investigation with respect to the said sources of income generated vide agricultural land at Patti Kalyana, District Panipat, Haryana or not. The legal position on the aspect is quite clear as has been discussed CC No.25/2019 Page 179/419 earlier while relying upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu V. R. Sunderi Rasu(supra) case wherein it has been held that expression 'known sources of income' refers to the sources known to the prosecution and not sources of income known to the accused. The prosecution is only supposed to investigate the known sources of income as known to them and not sources of income within the special knowledge of the accused.
136.14 Thus, the crucial issue to be seen as to whether firstly, the accused intimated about the purchase of said land to his department as mandatorily required under Section 16 of AIS Conduct Rules 1968 or not and secondly, whether he reported about the yearly receipts of the income generated through the said land. The only intimation concerning the acquisition of the said land is the letter dated 07.08.1989 (Part D-6 Ex.PW-5/B vide which it was informed by the accused that he alongwith his wife and his sons have entered into agreement to purchase of agricultural land of Sushil Kumar Jain. The sources of funds were explained. The accompanying form under Section 16 (3) of AIS Conduct Rules 1968 too was submitted wherein interestingly, in column 7(D), the accused claimed that he is owner of one half i.e 14 acres of the land proposed to be purchased at village Patti Kalyana, District Panipat, Haryana. So, meaning thereby, he was supposed to furnish his yearly receipts under AIS CC No.25/2019 Page 180/419 Conduct Rules qua the receiving from his 14 acres of land.
His family members income generated through their portion of land was like business income as they were not tiling the land and getting it through their contractor Azimuddin, was required to be reported under Rule 13 AIS Conduct Rules 1968. But surprisingly, no such income was reported, rather the intimation dated 07.08.1989 is the only communication submitted by the accused with his employer.
136.15 The accused during the arguments placed reliance upon one letter dated 09.06.1990 (Part of Ex.PW-7/DXA) by arguing that as no posting was given to him from the year 1990, he was unable to furnish the returns under AIS Rules. The said representation Ex.PW- 7/DX-A is the letter written by the accused in the form of representation while his matter was under investigation informing about the unjust investigation being carried out by the CBI against him. The annexures to the said representation include the letter in question dated 09.06.1990 addressed to Shri Prakash Chander, Director, UTS, MHA, New Delhi by the accused where the subject of the matter is the intimation under AIS ( Conduct Rules).
136.16 It has already come on record in the cross- examination of PW-63 (I.O) that he never examined said Prakash Chander. Be that as it may be, it is presumed that CC No.25/2019 Page 181/419 the said letter was indeed sent by the accused to his employer. Thus, the issue to be seen is as to whether the said letter helps him concerning income generated qua the land purchased by him at Patti Kalyana, District Panipat, Haryana.
136.17 The intimation is silent concerning the said transaction at Patti Kalyana. The Enclosure-I of the said letter has the entry concerning payment made to S.K. Jain. The accused further in the letter claimed that the details of all the transactions will be submitted after his placement.
136.18 Admittedly, the accused remained without any placement/posting till December 1990 and hence, as per him, had no occasion to furnish his annual property returns or intimation under Conduct Rules. The said argument on the face of it, is frivolous and nothing prevented him from submitting his returns to the Cadre Controlling Authority i.e Ministry of Home Affairs as he was still on the rolls and drawing salary from Govt. of India.
136.19 Even otherwise, the record itself reflects that accused was ultimately given posting in January 1991 as M.D of Delhi Khadi and Village Industries Board, Delhi Administration, Delhi and he remained in the said office till 19.08.1991 from where he proceeded to his next posting at Mizoram. Thereafter too, he remained posted CC No.25/2019 Page 182/419 at various places. No explanation is furnished as to what prevented the accused from furnishing the intimation qua agricultural income generated from 14 acres owned by him at Patti Kalyana or his family members from January till August 1991 when he was posted in Delhi and thereafter in Mizoram.
136.20 In the said backdrop, when there was no material available with the prosecution about the known sources of income, they had to believe the version of Azimuddin (PW-6 ). The said sources of income being not known to the prosecution, and the onus shifted upon the accused being the matter within his special knowledge under Section 106 of Evidence Act. He was supposed to explain about the legal income generated through said 27 acres of land by him and his family members. No such evidence has come on record from the side of the accused except the ITRs and receipts Ex.P-67.
136.21 As far as Ms. Shashi Sankhla is concerned, her only ITRs (D-101) which do not corroborate the huge claim of income through the land at Patti Kalyana. The details are as under:
Assessment Year 1990-1991 Agriculture income- Rs. 96106/-
CC No.25/2019 Page 183/419
Assessment Year 1989-1990
Agriculture income- Rs.718624/-
Assessment Year 1988-1989
Agriculture income- Rs. 25,000/-
Assessment Year 1987-1988
(i) Agriculture income- Rs. 23,000/-
Assessment Year 1990-1991
Agriculture income- Rs. 26,600/-
Assessment Year 1991-1992
Agriculture income- Rs.25,000/-
136.22 The claim of the accused that said land was
generating income to the tune of Rs. 4.50 per year is not corroborated from his ITRs. It has also be kept in mind that during the said relevant period i.e 1990-1991 and 1991-1992, the accused D.C Sankhla also owned land situated at Natar, Sirsa and Ranohla,Delhi while Ms. Shashi Sankhla owned the land at Rang Puri and Ranhola.
136.23 Now coming to the receipts Ex.P67 submitted by the accused vide seizure memo Ex. P76. It is the claim of the accused that no investigation was conducted qua the said receipts.CC No.25/2019 Page 184/419
136.24 The authenticity of the said receipts and manner in which came on record during investigation itself puts a question mark on the same. The accused suo-
motu through his letter dated 3.03.1993 Ex. P76 submitted the receipts to the Investigating Officer. Thus, the said receipts came on record at the instance of the accused after about two years of the registration of the present case.
136.25 The second issue is how the accused came in possession of the said slips. It is admitted case of the accused had engaged the contractor Azimmudin (PW-
6) over the said land and the proper custodian of the said receipts was contractor Azimuddin only. But he never produced the said receipts before the CBI during the investigation, despite he being examined on 28.05.1999 Thus not much value can be attached to the said receipts Ex.P67.
136.26 In the said backdrop, the version of the accused regarding income as stipulated by the prosecution to be only Rs. 1,50,000/- to be inadequate is not corroborated either by the intimation of the accused under AIS Conduct Rules 1968 or his income tax returns. The said income as deposed by PW-63 to be taken as true and correct.
11. Item No. 23 of the Expenditure ( Annexure-II) CC No.25/2019 Page 185/419
137. It is alleged by the prosecution that the said expenditure of Rs.2,92,000/- was incurred during the year 1988 to 1989 by the accused in advancing the loan to Ms. Shaila Shanker (PW-58).
137.1 Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI argued that the said entry of expenditure stands proved through oral testimonies of bank officials namely Prem Kumar Chopra (PW-1), Chief Manager, Indian Bank and K. Rama Subramaniam (PW-2), Manager, Indian Bank. Apart from them, the beneficiary Ms.Shaila Shanker(PW-58) too has supported their case and admitted that she was extended financial help by accused D.C Sankhla during the said relevant time. Further, the reliance is also placed upon Promissory Notes (Ex.PW-58/H-7, Ex.PW-58/H-8 and Ex.PW-58/H-9 respectively) executed by PW-58. Reliance is also placed upon the Telegraphic Transfer Advice proved by PW-1 and PW-2 as Ex.PW-1/A, PW- 1/B and PW-1/C respectively. However it is admitted that the said documents only prove the loan advanced to be Rs.2,62,000/- instead of Rs.2,92,000/- as claimed in the chargesheet .
137.2 It is further argued that as far as the defence raised by the accused the said loans were advanced by O.S Chauhan based on letter dated 09.05.193 Ex. PW58/DX-1 is concerned, it is a false and fabricated letter written by the accused himself.
CC No.25/2019 Page 186/419137.3 Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that Ms. Shaila Shanker (PW-58) is a vindictive witness due to the relations between her and accused having turned sour after 1990. Further, reliance is placed upon the letter Ex.PW-58/DX-1 written by Ms. Shaila Shanker to O.S Chauhan wherein she admitted about advance of loan by O.S Chauhan only. Further, it is argued that Promissory Notes(Ex.PW-58/H-7,Ex.PW- 58/H-8 and Ex.PW-58/H-9) too are in the name of O.S Chauhan which have been concealed by the prosecution. Reliance is also placed upon the certificate of O.S Chauhan dated 9.05.1993 (Part of D-29 Ex.PW-63/Z) for which no investigation was conducted. Thus, it is argued that the said expenditure is liable to be deleted.
137.4 The said entry of expenditure is primarily based upon oral version of Ms. Shaila Shanker (PW-58) who had an intimate relationship with the accused while they were neighbours during the year 1976 onwards at Rajpur Road, Delhi.
She deposed that at that point of time, she was married and was residing with her in-laws in Delhi as her father-in-law was SDM at that point of time. The accused used to reside in the same building at the ground floor and both the families had good relations. In 1978, they vacated the said official house, but even thereafter, the accused used to regularly visit her at their residence at Chitranjan Park, Delhi as they had become very close. Due to the closeness of their relations, she even got CC No.25/2019 Page 187/419 divorced from her husband in the year 1982. Thereafter, they continued to have close relations when the accused was posted at Pondicherry and she was residing at Madras. But thereafter, relations got broken and she started running a business of beauty clinic for which the accused extended her help for less than Rs.3,97,000/-on different occasions from the year 1986 to 1989.
137.5 She further claimed that she treated the said help as loan and assured the accused that she will return the same as and when she had sufficient funds. She even paid Rs.64,000/-on behalf of the accused through cheques with V.G.P Housing (P) Ltd as instructed by the accused. Rs.41,000/- was paid in cash. During the relevant time in April 1999 (wrongly mentioned as 1999 instead of 1989), she met the accused at his office in Delhi when he introduced her to his friend O.S Chauhan and claimed that the amount given to her was borrowed from his friend O.S Chauhan . Accordingly she was asked to sign three Promissory Notes Ex.PW-58/H-7,Ex.PW-58/H-8 and Ex.PW-58/H-9 for an amount of Rs. 1,12,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs. 50,000/-(though deposed as Rs. 80000) respectively.
137.6 Ms. Shaila Shanker (PW-58) was extensively cross-examined concerning her version regarding advance of loan and was confronted with one letter Ex.PW-58/DX1 produced by the accused. It was written by witness to O.S Chauhan on 07.11.1989.
CC No.25/2019 Page 188/419137.7 The primary defence of the accused vis-a-vis her oral version is that the loan was extended by O.S Chauhan and not by the accused which is also reflected from the letter Ex.PW-58/DX-1.
The crux of the said issue is explained by PW-58. She deposed as to the way she was introduced with O.S Chauhan and the version given by the accused qua the loan advanced by claiming that it is O.S Chauhan who had extended the interest-free loan.
137.8 As far as the said part of the version of PW- 58 is concerned, her version has gone unrebutted and unchallenged against the accused. There is no denial on behalf of the accused concerning the said version and the way O.S Chauhan was introduced to her. It is thus apparent that OS Chauhan had no direct contact with PW58 nor he ever advance any amount directly to her.
137.9 In the said backdrop, the issue to be seen is whether letter Ex.PW-58/DX-1 dated 07.11.1989 proves the accused`s defence regarding loan being advanced by O.S Chauhan and not by him. The best witness to prove the said fact in defence of the accused was O.S Chauhan and he was named as prosecution witness (LW-71). But before he could be examined, he expired on 29.07.2015. Thus the issue of said letter has to be seen in conjunction with other evidence.
CC No.25/2019 Page 189/419137.10 The prosecution to prove and corroborate the oral version Ms. Shaila Shanker (PW-58) has also placed reliance upon the bank witnesses i.e Prem Kumar Chopra (PW-1), Chief Manager, Indian Bank and his colleague K. Rama Subramaniam (PW-2). PW-1 apart from proving the three Telegraphic Transfer Remittance Challan Ex.PW-1/A, B and C respectively, further deposed about the said transactions pointing out towards role played by accused D.C Sankhla who was the then Chairman, Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation (DSMDC). DSMDC was maintaining overdraft fixed deposit current account in their branch and therefore, the Chairman D.C Sankhla was known to PW-1.
137.11 PW-1 deposed that the money transferred through Telegraphic Transfer Remittance Challan of Rs. 1,30,000/- Rs.25,000/- and Rs.25,000/- respectively vide Ex.PW-1/A, B and C were done based on the message received telephonically by him. The amount was sent in cash by D.C Sankhla who further requested him to send the money by the quickest means. The three challans were even filled by officials of the bank themselves based on the details given by D.C Sankhla . The name of the applicant was written as Shakuntla Devi W/o Amir Chand (Ex.PW-1/A),O.S Chauhan (Ex.PW-1/B) and Champa Devi w/o Mohan Lal (Ex.PW-1/C). The backside of the said Telegraphic Transfer Remittance Challan`s have the noting/ reference 'D.C Sankhla, MD, DSMDC'.
CC No.25/2019 Page 190/419As far as rear noting is concerned, PW-1 in the cross-examination denied that the same was written under pressure from CBI. No reason is given on behalf of accused as to why the said bank officials acted under pressure of CBI by forging their record .
137.12 The version of PW1 regarding reference and directions being given on the telephone by D.C Sankhla has gone unrebutted and unchallenged in the cross examination. The only defence put forward is that the money was that of IAS Officer O.S Chauhan and accused herein merely used his connection to ensure the remittance by asking PW-1 in this regard. The said defence on the face of the contents of Ex.PW-1/A to C is liable to be rejected. Only PW-1/B has the name of O.S Chauhan as the applicant. As far as PW-1/A and C are concerned, the name of the applicant is stated to be Shakuntla Devi W/o Amir Chand and Champa Devi w/o Mohan Lal. The said two applicants are the real sister of the accused herein. No explanation is furnished on behalf of the accused either in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C or during the arguments as to the reason why Champa and Shakuntla Devi transferred the amount as reflected in challans to Ms Shaila Shanker. Admittedly, both had no connection at all with Ms. Shaila Shanker (PW-58). They were housewives's having no independent income. No explanation is offered as to why they used Indian Bank Connaught Place branch to transfer their money when none of them was a resident of CC No.25/2019 Page 191/419 Delhi. It is the accused who had a connection with the said Bank and the only conclusion which can be drawn is that he only provided the funds for transfer through the bank to PW-58.
137.13 Further Ms. Shaila Shanker (PW-58) deposed that it was D.C Sankhla who had advanced the loan and she even paid Rs.64,000/- at the instance of D.C Sankhla as part return by depositing the said amount with V.G.P Housing Pvt Ltd. The said part of her version is also not rebutted and rather it is corroborated by cheque Ex.PW-58/C (D-81). It has also come on record that the accused owned two plot of land at VGP Housing, Madras and in lieu of consideration payment, the said amount was paid by PW-58 at the instance of the accused.
137.14 The explanation in this regard offered by the accused is that certainly he had asked her to pay the said amount, but it was to be deducted out of the loan extended by O.S Chauhan and he, in turn, paid Rs.64,000/- to O.S Chauhan. As far as the said fact of payment to OS Chauhan is concerned,it was in the special knowledge of the accused and the onus was upon the accused to discharge the same by proving the said transfer of money either through bank documents or through oral version. No evidence in this regard has come forth from the side of the accused as to the mode and way he returned the said amount of Rs.64,000/- to Mr. O.S. Chauhan. Rather the evidence which has come on record CC No.25/2019 Page 192/419 is that accused as well as his family members availed loans themselves from O.S Chauhan which will be discussed later on being a separate issue. Thus, the explanation offered by the accused concerning the payment of Rs.64,000/- paid by Ms. Shaila Shanker (PW-
58) is liable to be rejected.
138. Now coming to the Promissory Notes (Ex.PW-58/H-7,Ex.PW-58/H-8 and Ex.PW-58/H-9) , it is the case of the accused that first of all, the said promissory notes have been concealed by the prosecution. The said averment is also against the record as the said promissory notes are part of Relied Upon Documents being part D-87 and have been proved on record as Ex.PW-58/H-7 to H-9.
138.1 The second aspect in this regard is that the said promissory notes are executed in favour of O.S Chauhan for an amount of Rs.1,12,000/-, Rs.50,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/-. It has already come on record in the testimony of Ms Shaila Shanker (PW-58) that the said notes were executed by her on asking of the accused on his plea that the loan had been advanced on the asking of O.S Chauhan by him. But the crucial issue which raises doubt over the said claim of the accused that the loans were extended by O.S Chauhan is the custody of said promissory notes.
CC No.25/2019 Page 193/419138.2 The same were recovered during the office search of the accused vide D-108 (Ex.PW-63/C). The said search was carried out on 13.08.1991 at the office chamber of the accused at DKVIB, Mezzanine Floor, ISBT, Delhi wherein apart from other documents, the said three promissory notes were also recovered despite it being executed way back in 1989. If indeed, the real lender of the amount was O.S Chauhan, the proper custodian of said promissory notes should have been him only and not the accused.
138.3 The second part of the said promissory notes is a pre-printed receipt which is blank though having signatures of O.S Chauhan,also puts a finger of suspicion over the claim of the accused that the loans were extended by O.S Chauhan and not by him. No explanation is offered by the accused as to the custody of the said promissory notes and secondly why the receipts were executed in blank and in advance by OS Chauhan . Therefore, in the light of recovery of said incriminating evidence of recovery of Promissory Notes (Ex.PW-58/H- 7,Ex.PW-58/H-8 and Ex.PW-58/H-9) from the custody of the accused which is unexplained too points out towards the version of Ms. Shaila Shanker (PW-58) regarding loans being advanced by accused himself to be a correct version.
138.4 Lastly, the testimony of Ms. Shaila Shanker (PW-58) has also been tried to be put into the dock by CC No.25/2019 Page 194/419 arguing that she is a vindictive witness and tutored by the prosecution.
138.5 As far as, the aspect of PW-58 being a vindictive witness due to the breakdown of relationship between them, no evidence has come on record either in the cross-examination of PW-58 or in the defence evidence. Even if for the sake of arguments, it is believed that due to relations having turned sour between them and due to the same she turned vindictive. The issue to be seen is whether she took any steps by instituting any criminal or other legal proceedings against the accused, the answer lies in negative. Rather, she admitted to the fact that she still owes a substantial amount extended to her by the accused. Thus, she cannot be termed a vindictive witness.
138.6 Now coming to the next limb of the argument on behalf of the accused that the accused in his representation dated 14.06.1993 (Ex.PW-63/Z colly) also furnished an enclosure i.e one certificate dated 09.05.1983 of O.S Chauhan wherein he categorically stated that he had extended loans to the tune of Rs.1,12,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.80,000/- at rate of 12% per annum to Ms. Shaila Shanker for which three Promissory Notes dated 26.04.1989 (Ex.PW-58/H- 7,Ex.PW-58/H-8 and Ex.PW-58/H-9) were executed by her in his favour.
CC No.25/2019 Page 195/419138.7 Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that IO K.N. Tiwari (PW-63) admitted in his cross-examination that he never confronted O.S Chauhan with the said certificate to find out whether it was genuine or not. Thus, the investigation is faulty and malafide.
138.8 The explanation which has been given by IO K.N. Tiwari (PW-63) qua the said certificate and non examination of OS Chauhan is that it was only a self- serving certificate given by one accused to the other accused. The said version of the Investigating Officer appears to be in the context of filing of the second case under Section 193 IPC against the accused after receipt of his representation 14.06.1993 (Ex.PW-63/Z colly). In the said charge sheet, O.S Chauhan was also named as one of the conspirators. Therefore, in the said backdrop, the said explanation of the Investigating Officer appears to be correct .
138.9 No doubt, the Investigating Officer was under the bounden duty to confront O.S Chauhan concerning the authenticity of certificate dated 09.05.1993 as well as the previous statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C wherein he remained completely silent on the said aspect. But the said defect in the investigation has no bearing on the merits as the falsity of the said self-serving certificate dated 09.05.1993 is reflected from the contents of the same when compared with Promissory Notes (Ex.PW-58/H-7,Ex.PW-58/H-8 CC No.25/2019 Page 196/419 and Ex.PW-58/H-9). As per the said self-serving certificate, one promissory note was for Rs. 80,000/- which is rebutted by promissory note Ex.PW-58/H-8 which is of Rs.50,000/-. The custody of said promissory notes was with accused D.C Sankhla right from the purported date of his execution ie. in April 1989 till its recovery in August 1991. Even the place of recovery i.e his office at DKVIB, Mezzanine Floor, ISBT, Delhi also puts a question mark over the claim of said O.S Chauhan in the said self-serving certificate.
138.10 Accordingly, it has to be held that the said entry no.23 of expenditure stands proved but only to the extent of Rs.2,62,000/- as reflected in promissory notes.
12. Item No.6 & 7 of Income (Annexure-I), Item No.30 of Expenditure & Item No.13 & 14 the Expenditure (Annexure-II)
139. Item No.6 & 7 of Income (Annexure-1) concerns sale of Plot No. C-73,Ramprastha, Ghaziabad. The connected entries are Item No.30 of Expenditure on purchase of the said plot and Item No.13 & 14 the Expenditure (Annexure-2) qua raising of construction over the said plot.
139.1 Ld. Sr.PP for the CBI argued that all said entries i.e Item No.6 & 7 of the Income stands proved through the admitted documents i.e personal file (D-6, Ex.PW-5/B) of the accused maintained with the CC No.25/2019 Page 197/419 employer. The accused himself in the intimations to the department intimated about the sale of the said plot .It was purchased before the check period in the name of Ms. Shashi Sankhla and then sold to Jodh Singh Chawla for Rs.60,000/ on 11.11.1983. Later on, the said flat was re-purchased from one Ketan Shah (examined as PW-86) and again resold to O.S Chauhan on 24.04.1989 for a sum of Rs. 1,90,000/- which are the income entries at Serial No.6 & 7 of Annexure-I. 139.2 Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused did not dispute the said transactions. His only dispute is concerning the expenditure of Entries No.13 and 14. It has been argued that the said expenditure entries have not been proved as the concerned contractor who raised the construction never entered into the witness box.
139.3 The first aspect for proving the Entry No.6 & 7 of the Income (Annexure-1) is the sale of the said plot of land which was admittedly purchased before the check period in the year 1974 in the name of wife of accused Ms. Shashi Sankhla. The accused admitted in his intimation to the department vide letter dated 30.03.1988 (D-6, Ex.PW-5/B) that the said property bearing no. C- 73, Ramprastha, Ghaziabad in the name of his wife is his Benami property as intimated by him to Income Tax Department vide intimation letter of 01.08.1981. The copy of the said letter was annexed with the intimation CC No.25/2019 Page 198/419 referred above wherein there is categorical admission regarding the said property being his Benami property.
139.4 The said plot was sold to Jodh Singh Chawla on 11.11.1983 and proceeds were deposited in Account No. 21250 of Ms Shashi Sankhla maintained at PNB, Civil Lines, Delhi. The statement of account is D-31 (Ex.P-25). Though the said entries are not reflected in the said statement of account the issue is not in dispute.
139.5 The said Jodh Singh Chawla subsequently sold it to some other vendor and was lastly purchased by Ketan Shah (PW-86) .He deposed that he purchased the said plot land measuring 400 square yards in December 1987 for sale consideration of Rs.1,60,000/-. He deposed that the accused unauthorisedly occupied the plot using his power and influence due to which he filed a civil suit. The said suit was settled as the accused paid Rs.1,60,000/- by way of cheque as sale consideration. His version is not disputed on behalf of the accused. Rather, his intimation to Joint Secretary (Services), Delhi Administration dated 11.07.1988 (D-6 Ex.PW-5/B) records the admission about having paid Rs.1,60,000/- to Ketan Shah (PW-86) and Ms. Chandrika Shah for getting the registration of the plot at Ghaziabad, in his favour. Alongwith that, Form-1 as prescribed under Rule 16 (3) of AIS Conduct Rules 1968 was also furnished by the accused as per which he paid the said consideration amount from his savings and Rs.70,000/- from the loan CC No.25/2019 Page 199/419 taken from his mother-in-law. Thus, the said version of PW-86 and the intimation dated 11.07.1988 (D-6 Ex.PW- 5/B) prove the Entry No.30 of expenditure to the tune of Rs. 1,60,000/- for purchasing the plot of land No. C-73, Ramprastha, Ghaziabad in the year 1988. The said plot was lastly sold to OS Chauhan on 24.04.1989 for sum of Rs 1,90,000/ .
139.6 The said plot of land was sold to O.S Chauhan for Rs.1,90,000/- as listed vide Entry No.7 in Income List (Annexure-I). The said entry is also not disputed as the accused himself in his intimation dated 09.03.1989 (D-5, Ex.PW-5/B) informed about the sale of the said plot for a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- out of which he having already received the amount of Rs.1,88,000/- through cheque dated 21.07.1989. Though it was informed that the deal is being finalized and intimation would be given as and when the same is finalized. Finally, Form-1 under Rule 16 (3) of AIS Conduct Rules 1968 was furnished on 07.08.1989 informing about the disposal of the said land to O.S Chauhan against consideration of Rs.1,90,000/-. The entry qua credit of the said income is also reflected in the statement of account (Ex.P-24) of the accused which too proves the said entry of income.
140. The connected expenditure entries are Entry No.13 & 14 of Annexure-II wherein the expenditure of Rs.19,900/- and 7000/- respectively has been stated to be CC No.25/2019 Page 200/419 incurred over raising construction over the said piece of plot in August 1987. The said expenditure is disputed on behalf of the accused.
140.1 The prosecution, to prove the said expenditure has placed reliance upon the version of Brij Lal (PW-78) who is the supplier of building material. He proved two invoices concerning the supply of building material Ex.PW-78/1 and Ex.PW-78/2. Both the said invoices dated 03.08.1987 are in the name of the accused and the place where the material was supplied is 73 C, Ramprastha, Ghaziabad i.e. the property in question.
As per the details of invoice Ex.PW-78/1, 24000 bricks were supplied from 28.07.1987 to 02.08.1987. Similarly, vide invoice Ex.PW-78/2 sand and other building construction material was supplied from 24.07.1987 to 02.08.1987. The said two invoices also have the receipt of PW-78 regarding payment being received in cash.
140.2 Ld. Counsel for the accused raised a question mark over the payment qua the said invoices by claiming that in the cross-examination PW-78 admitted that the payment was received from the contractor.
The fact remains that the contents of the document reflect it being in the name of the accused herein and the material being supplied at the property owned by him. If indeed, the contractor had given the payment as per the accused, the onus was upon him to explain the terms of CC No.25/2019 Page 201/419 his engagement with the contractor or the name of the contractor being the fact within his special knowledge. No explanation is furnished in this regard.
Rather, in his intimation dated 30.03.1988 (D-6 Ex.PW-5/B) to his employer, he informed about having spent approximately Rs.18,000/-on the construction of two rooms and boundary walls over the plot of 400 square yards at Ghaziabad. In the said backdrop, the contents of the invoice Ex.PW-78/1 and Ex.PW-78/2 has to be read against him being the expenditure incurred over the raising of construction at the plot in question at Ghaziabad.
140.3 The second invoice proved by the prosecution in this regard is Ex.PW-27/A which is the bill issued by the cement supplier namely Brij Pal (PW-27). He too supplied the material at 73, Ramprastha, Ghaziabad and again in the name of accused herein. Accordingly, the sum of Rs. 3400/-, Rs.4500 and Rs.12,000/- (Total 19,900/-) qua entry no.13 of expenditure (Annexure-2) stand proved.
141. Now, coming to Entry No. 14 of expenditure (Annexure-2) which as per the prosecution primarily concerns the expenses incurred over raising of the said rooms and payment to the contractor. In this regard, the reliance is placed upon receipt D-83 (Ex.PW-63/A-5) given by contractor. The presence of said contractor could not be secured.
CC No.25/2019 Page 202/419But, the fact remains that all the said documents i.e invoices (Ex.PW-78/1 & Ex.PW-78/2), invoice (Ex.PW- 7/A) and lastly receipt (Ex.PW-63/A-5) which all were recovered from the custody of accused during the search of his office chamber at DKVIB, Mezzanine Floor, ISBT on 13.08.1991 vide search list Ex.PW-63/C prove the raising of construction. The seizure of the said document from the personal possession of the accused during search of his office is not challenged in the cross-examination IO K.N. Tiwari (PW-63).
141.2 It has already been observed that the accused himself in the intimation to his department admitted about raising of two rooms and a boundary wall over the said plot at Ghaziabad and having incurred Rs.18,000/- approximately. It has already been proved that the cost of construction material supplied for raising of the construction at the said site is more than Rs.19,000/- itself. Meaning thereby, apart from the said Rs.19,000/- certain amount was certainly spent towards the labour cost and therefore, the said expenditure of Rs. 7000/- proved vide receipt Ex.PW-63/A-5 recovered from the possession of the accused must be read against him.
13. Item No.8 of the Income (Annexure-I) & Item No.3 of Expenditure ( Annexure-II)
142. The prosecution has listed Item 8 as income which accused or his family earned during the relevant period CC No.25/2019 Page 203/419 from 1986 to 1991 earned Rs.6,43,397.50 vide the sale of agricultural produce qua the land situated at village Natar and Moriwala, District, Sirsa, Haryana.
142.1 The connected entry qua the said piece of land is Entry No.3 of Expenditure (Annexure-II) wherein it is alleged that during the same period only, the expenses incurred over the said agricultural land are Rs.3,21,698.75.
142.2 Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI argued that it is not disputed on behalf of the accused that the land owned by his father at village Natar, District Sirsa was bequeathed in his favour and he is the owner of the same as per the land record after the death of his father in the year 1986. As far as the land in the name of his sons namely Kapil and Saket Sankhla at village Moriwala, Sirsa is concerned, though the accused has claimed that the land was purchased by his late father in the name of his grandsons, but the income generated from the said land has also to be counted in the kitty of accused income as both the sons at the relevant point of time were minor. All their assets and income have been included by them.
142.3 Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that as far as the ownership of land at village Moriwala, Sirsa is concerned, it is a separate issue. He however disputed the factum of earnings from the sale of agricultural produce derived from both the said chunk of CC No.25/2019 Page 204/419 land at Sirsa, Haryana. The dispute is also raised over the figure of expenditure. As far as expenditure is concerned, it has been argued that no amount was spent towards the expenditure as the land was tiled on Batayee Basis(contract basis). As far as the income aspect is concerned, it is argued that as per the versions given by Trilok Chand Ahuja (PW-11), Jeet Singh (PW-29), Bishan Singh (PW-70) and Sh. Amin Chand (PW-93), the income from the said 5 ½ years comes to Rs.18 lacs, not 6,43,397.50 as claimed by the prosecution.
142.4 The issue of ownership of land situated at village Moriwala, Sirsa is a separate issue and will be discussed along with the issues connected to the assets in Will of father of the accused late M.R Sankhla.
142.5 The Item No.8 of the Income and Item No.3 of the Expenses concern only for two chunks of land situated at Village Natar, District Sirsa and Village Moriwala, Sirsa. Both the chunks of land were about 10 acres each and the relevant period when the income was generated is the year 1986 to 1991. This is the time when the piece of land at village Moriwala was purchased and the piece of land at village Natar came to be mutated in the name of the accused herein.
So, as far as the period of income or expenditure vis-à-vis the said two chunk of land is concerned, there is no dispute.
CC No.25/2019 Page 205/419142.6 The prosecution in order to prove the factum of income has primarily placed reliance upon the version of Trilok Chand Ahuja (PW-11), the Commission Agent at Grain Market, Sirsa through whose Commission Agency the agricultural produce used to be sold by the accused and his sons.
PW-11 proved the relevant J-Forms which are mandatorily required to be issued by the Commission Agents in terms of the requirement of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee established by States. The J- Forms issued in the name of the accused herein are Ex.PW-11/1 to Ex.PW-21 and it concerns agricultural produce i.e. grain etc. sold in the market through the Commission Agency.
142.7 Similarly, Ex. PW-11/22 to 33 are J-Forms in the name of Kapil Sankhla and PW-11/34 to Ex.PW- 11/47 are the J-Forms in the name of Saket Sankhla. Lastly, J-Forms Ex.PW-11/35 to Ex.PW-11/47 are issued by their Commission Agency in favour of Saket Sankhla concerning the grains sold at Sirsa.
142.8 Apart from that PW-11 also maintained the, bahi-khata of the agriculture produce of the year 1990-91 and 1991-1992 ( part of D-7(i) ) Ex.P-87 being admitted by the accused.
142.9 As far as the admissibility of said J-Forms (Ex.PW-11/1 to Ex.PW-11/47) is concerned, there is no CC No.25/2019 Page 206/419 dispute in the cross-examination and the cross- examination of PW-11 only revolves around factum of per acre income generated from the year 1986 to 1991. PW-11 in the cross-examination claimed that then, the average agricultural income was around Rs.12,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per annum.
142.10 San the said J-Forms, no other documentary evidence has come on record regarding the sale of agricultural produce generated from the above-referred two parcels of agricultural land at Sirsa. The total consideration received through the sale of the agricultural produce by the above-referred J-Forms (Ex.PW-11/1 to Ex.PW-11/47) comes to approximately Rs.6 lacs.
142.11 However, the claim of the accused is that the income generated was around Rs.18 lacs and in this regard, he has placed reliance upon the version of Jeet Singh (PW-29) who tiled the land of accused D.C Sankhla at village Natar, District Sirsa during the relevant period.
PW-29 in his examination-in-chief claimed that as per the terms of the engagement with accused D.C Sankhla used to take two crops and he used to take third crop which was that of vegetables. He further admitted to the fact that the entire crop used to be sold in the Mandi at Sirsa and payment used to be received by the accused. He further in the cross-examination introduced a new fact by claiming that crops that used to be sold by CC No.25/2019 Page 207/419 him in the shop used to fetch around Rs.90,000/- or more by way of cheque. The rest amount would come in the form of cash. The said version in the cross is apparently in contradiction to his version in chief where he had claimed that the total income from the three crops used to come between approximately Rs.1.50 lacs to 1.75 lacs per year. He further in the cross-examination elaborated on his claim that he used to pay the expenses towards water, electricity, fertilizer etc. from half income from the third crop and the balance being his income.
142.12 So, as per his version, he was growing three crops in a year, out of which two used to be grain crops and the third one being vegetable crop. Out of the said third vegetable crop, he used to meet the expenses by spending half of the sale proceeds of the said crop and the remaining half of the sale proceeds of the vegetable crop was his profit. The said version of PW-29 on the face of it appears to be improbable and unbelievable.
It is already reflected in the admitted J-Forms (Ex.PW-11/1 to Ex.PW-11/47) issued by the Commission Agency of PW-11, Sirsa that no vegetable crop was sold through their Commission Agency. As per the J-Forms (Ex.PW-11/1 to Ex.PW-11/47), the crops that used to be sold were either wheat, rice or cotton.
142.13 The claim of Jeet Singh (PW-29) that three crops used to fetch around Rs.1.5 lacs to 1.75 lacs a year is also in no manner corroborated by admitted documents CC No.25/2019 Page 208/419 i.e J-Forms (Ex.PW-11/1 to Ex.PW-11/47).In the said backdrop not much credence can be attached to the version of PW29.
142.14 Apart from PW-29, the accused has also placed reliance upon the version of Bishan Singh (PW-
70) who tiled the land at village Moriwala, Sirsa. PW-70 claimed that he sold the said land to the accused and the price of the land was Rs.10,000/- per killa (acre). After sale he cultivated the land for about two years on a sharing basis. He used to take 50% of the sale consideration of crops as his income. The said part of his testimony is not challenged or rebutted. His claim of having taken 50% of the sale consideration of the produce towards his labour and expenses portion is rather the case of the prosecution which has gone unrebutted and unchallenged against accused.
142.15 However, the figure given by PW-70 regarding his share per crop when seen from admitted J- Forms (Ex.PW-11/1 to Ex.PW-11/47), too does not inspire confidence and not much credence can be given to it.
142.16 The last witness relied upon by the accused to support his averment concerning income generated from the sale of agricultural produce to be running around Rs.18 lacs is PW93 Amin Chand. He is the brother-in-law of accused who turned hostile concerning CC No.25/2019 Page 209/419 the averments regarding the benami purchase of property bearing No. B-103 Swasthay Vihar, Delhi and was cross- examined by the prosecution.
In the cross-examination by accused, certain suggestions were put to the witness concerning the agricultural produce generated through the above-referred two chunks of land at Sirsa. He altogether presented a new case.
He claimed that there used to be three crops grown over the said land apart from vegetables. So, as per his version, four crops used to be grown in a year which again is not supported by admitted documents i.e J-Forms (Ex.PW-11/1 to Ex.PW-11/47). He further claimed that 50% of the total produce through the said land used to be sold through agents and 50% in the open market. The said version of PW-93 on the face of it appears preposterous when seen in the context of how the agricultural produce is grown and sold by the farmers in this part of the land.
142.17 Even if for the sake of arguments, it is believed that 50% of the total produce used to be sold in the open market, then onus was upon the accused as the said fact was within his special knowledge. No such record has been proved on record.
142.18 The accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C too claimed that the produce used to be sold through other agents but failed to disclose their names or CC No.25/2019 Page 210/419 particulars. Thus, in the said backdrop, not much credence can be attached to the testimonies of PW-29 and PW-93 being introductions concerning income and speculative.
143. Another aspect in the present case is the legal proposition concerning the term "known sources of income" under Section 13 (1) (e) of P.C Act as explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu V. R. Sunderi Rasu (supra) case. It is apparent that the said expression 'known sources of income' refers to the sources known to the prosecution and not sources of income known to the accused. The prosecution is not supposed to conduct the roving investigation and inquire into the alleged sources of income which are neither reported nor explained as required under the relevant rules applicable to the public servant concerned. In the said backdrop, the prosecution was only supposed to refer to the sources of income which are legal and intimated to the employer by the accused herein.
143.1 The service record part of D-6 (Ex.PW-5/B) of the accused throws light on the said issue of agricultural income.
143.2 The accused for the first time reported about the generation of agricultural income from the land situated at Sirsa on 04.08.1986 through his intimation addressed to Shri S.P. Prabhakar, Joint Secretary CC No.25/2019 Page 211/419 (Services), Delhi Administration, Delhi. He reported that he received income of around 16,779.45/- on 05.05.1986, Rs.11,038.20 on 17.06.1986.
143.3 The second intimation in this regard is dated 11.12.1986 again addressed to Shri S.P. Prabhakar, Joint Secretary (Services), Delhi Administration, Delhi. The accused again reported about the agricultural income of Rs.15951.98 of his son Kapil Sankhla and Rs.15,000/- of Saket Sankhla and his income to be Rs. 21212.06. Apart from that, he reported that he incurred Rs.5000/- as expenses to inputs in land situated at Sirsa.
143.4 The accused again reported about his agricultural income through letter dated 08.05.1987 addressed to Shri S.P. Prabhakar, Joint Secretary (Services), Delhi Administration, Delhi. He reported his agricultural income of Rs.19169.48, his son Kapil Sankhla to be Rs.10210.05 and Saket Sankhla to be Rs. 17011.66 Apart from that, he reported that he incurred Rs.6800/- as expenses to inputs over the land situated at Sirsa.
143.5 The accused again reported about his agricultural income through letter dated 30.03.1988 addressed to Shri S.P. Prabhakar, Joint Secretary (Services), Delhi Administration, Delhi. He reported his agricultural income of Rs.1520.25, 10,746.08 and 27898.52, his son Kapil Sankhla of Rs.12711.06 and CC No.25/2019 Page 212/419 Saket Sankhla of Rs. 20579.18, Rs.22330.64 and Rs.12,600/-. Apart from that, he reported that he incurred Rs.10,500/-as expenses to inputs in land situated at Sirsa and Delhi.
143.6 The accused again reported about his agricultural income through intimation letter dated 11.07.1988 addressed to Joint Secretary (Services), Delhi Administration, Delhi. He reported his agricultural income of Rs.18,578.88 and Rs.62,00/- Apart from that, he reported that he incurred Rs.5300/-as expenses to inputs in land situated at Sirsa and Delhi.
143.7 The accused again reported about his agricultural income through intimation letter dated 09.03.1989 addressed to Joint Secretary (Services), Delhi Administration, Delhi. He reported his agricultural income of Rs.22985.97 and Rs. 7016.28. Apart from that, he reported that he incurred Rs.13,400/- and Rs. 72,20/-as expenses to inputs in land situated at Sirsa and Delhi. He further reported agricultural income from land at Sirsa of his son Kapil Sankhla of Rs. 6579, Rs.2376.78, Rs.30,538.34 and Rs.1256.86. He further reported the income of his son Kapil Sankhla of Rs. 2100 and Rs.1800 through sale of fuel and fodder which was spent as agricultural inputs at Sirsa and Delhi. He also reported agricultural income from land at Sirsa of his son Saket Sankhla of Rs.7662.37 and Rs.6335.30, Rs.14962.42 and Rs.18926.73.
CC No.25/2019 Page 213/419143.8 Lastly, the accused reported about his agricultural income through an intimation letter dated 07.08.1989 addressed to the Secretary (Services), Delhi Administration, Delhi. He reported his agricultural income of Rs.20580.60 He further reported the income of his son Kapil Sankhla of Rs.19,611.15 and Rs.5903.70 and his son Saket Sankhla to be Rs.20,000/- and Rs.7000/-.
143.9 The intimation dated 07.08.1989 is the last complete return filed on behalf of the accused during the check period . Though the accused placed reliance letter dated 05.6.1990 addressed to the Director, UTS MHA, New Delhi (part of Ex.PW-7/DX-A) by arguing that as he was not having regular posting in the year 1990, he was not able to furnish the yearly return or intimate about his financial transactions under AIS Conduct Rules 1968. It has already been observed that from January 1991 till 19.08.1991, remained posted as M.D of Delhi Khadi & Village Industry, Delhi Administration and thereafter proceeded to Mizoram. No such intimation about the agricultural income derived from the sale of agricultural produce at Sirsa was ever filed from the period January till 19.08.1991 when he was holding the position of MD in Delhi Khadi & Village Industry Board, Delhi Administration or subsequently when he proceeded to join his duties with Mizoram Government.
CC No.25/2019 Page 214/419Even otherwise, merely because no regular posting was available with the accused, it did not absolve him from his liability of reporting about his financial transactions under AIS Conduct Rules 1968 to his Cadre Controlling Authority i.e MHA and thus the excuse taken by the accused in this regard is liable to be rejected.
143.10 In the said backdrop, the reported income of the accused and his sons from the said two chunks of land at Sirsa as detailed above comes only to Rs.6,05,712/- in the intimations. In the said backdrop, the claim of the prosecution by placing reliance upon the income generated of Rs.6,43,397.05 without the deduction of expenses through piece of land at Moriwala and Natar, Sirsa, Haryana, based on admitted J-Forms (Ex.PW-11/1 to Ex.PW-11/47) is a justifiable calculation.
143.11 Another interesting fact is the manner and place from where the said J-Forms (Ex.PW-11/1 to Ex.PW-11/47) came to be recovered. The said J-Forms were recovered during the office search of accused situated at DKVIB, Mezzanine Floor, ISBT on 13.08.1991 as mentioned vide search list D-108 (Ex.PW- 63/C). Apart from the said J-Forms, certain handwritten notes (part of D-75) were also recovered during office search of the accused only. The said written notes were also admitted by the accused during admission-denial of the documents which carry details about the income and CC No.25/2019 Page 215/419 expenditure concerning the agricultural land owned by his minor sons at Sirsa and Delhi.
143.12 The said handwritten calculation sheets also corroborate J-Forms (Ex.PW-11/1 to Ex.PW-11/47) as well as the claim of the prosecution concerning expenses in generating agricultural produce. The expenditure incurred in generating the agricultural produce is based on the claim of Bishan Singh (PW-70) that he used to take 50% of the agriculture produce as far as the land situated at village Moriwala is concerned .
As far as the land situated at village Natar, District Sirsa is concerned, Jeet Singh (PW-29) introduced a new fact contrary to his earlier version under Section 161 Cr.P.C by claiming that he used to retain the third crop of vegetable out of which half sale produce used to be his expenses for all the three crops sown and remaining half his profit. It has already been observed that the said claim appears to be improbable as well as rebutted by unchallenged documents i.e J-Forms (Ex.PW- 11/1 to Ex.PW-11/47) and the handwritten income and expenses account part of D-75. The accused even in his intimations to the employer (Part of Ex.PW-5/B) too intimated about various expenses at different period over the very said agricultural land owned by him and his family which also falsify his claim now in the Court that no such expenditure was incurred by him.
CC No.25/2019 Page 216/419In the said backdrop, the expenses incurred concerning the land situated at village Natar, District Sirsa has to taken 50% of the agricultural produce which is a common and general practice prevalent for ages.
143.13 In the said backdrop, both the entries ie. Item 8 of Income and Item 3 of Expenditure are accordingly held to be proved.
14. Item No.27 of Income (Annexure-I) & Item No.2 of Assets ( Annexure-III)
144. The Item No.27 of Income (Annexure-I) concerns the income generated from Shashi Nursery at Rangpuri, Delhi.
144.1 The connected entry to the said income entry is Item No.2 of the Assets (Annexure-III). It is claimed that two bigha of land situated at village Malikpur Kuhi @ Rangpuri, Tehsil, Mehruali, New Delhi were purchased in the name of Ms. Shashi Sankhla .
144.2 Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI argued that as far as the ownership of the aforesaid said 2 bighas of land, the accused admitted the sale deed Ex.P-105 (D-14 (iii)). The said sale deed has also been proved by Virender Kumar Sharma (PW-69) and it is registered in favor of wife of the accused. Further, it has been argued by Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI that as far as Item No.27 of the Income (Annexure-1) is concerned, the basis of said income of Rs.50,000/- is the disclosure made by Ms. Shashi Sankhla CC No.25/2019 Page 217/419 during the investigation as deposed IO K.N. Tiwari (PW-
63).
144.3 It has been further argued that the claim of the accused that much more income was generated from the aforesaid nursery established by his wife during the relevant period is not supported by any document on record.
144.4 Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that as far as ownership of the said land is concerned, there is no dispute, though the land was purchased by his wife from her sources of income. As regards, income generated through the establishment of Shashi Nursery at the said land, reliance is placed upon statement of account D-31 (Ex.P-25). Further, reliance is placed upon the vouchers file (Part of D-128) showing clearance in the account of Ms. Shashi Sankhla from the account of M/s Hariom Nursery, Ghaziabad, owned by O.S Chauhan. It is argued that the total income, as per the account statement, comes to Rs. 1,23,970/- and not Rs.50,000/- as has been arbitrarily claimed by CBI.
144.5 The first issue in hand is the ownership of asset Item No.2 (Annexure-3). As far as the said aspect is concerned, the sale deed (Ex.P-105 D-14 (iii) ) is registered in the name of wife of accused herein on 15.12.1986. She purchased 2 bighas of land out of Khasra No. 1831 Min situated at village Malikpur Kuhi @ Rangpuri, Tehsil, Mehruali, New Delhi. The CC No.25/2019 Page 218/419 consideration for acquiring the said piece of land is Rs.20,000/-. The aspect of ownership and it being acquired during the check period, there is no dispute and is proved through admitted documents.
144.6 It has already been observed earlier that as far as the separate income of Ms. Shashi Sankhla through business is concerned, the first intimation in this regard as mandatorily required under Rule 13 (3) of AIS Conduct Rules 1968 is dated 11.12.1986 ( D-6 Ex.PW-5/B). Even the said intimation was bereft of details regarding the artificial jewelry business, odd jobs being qualified beautician and lastly real estate business. The said intimation in no manner complied with the mandate under Rule 13 (3) of AIS Conduct Rules 1968 as required vide Office Memorandum (OM) of Government of India issued vide letter No. 11017/15/79 AIS (111) dated 30 th July 1979. Thus no evidence has come on record regarding the independent income of Ms Sashi and it being reported as rules to the employer.
Therefore, in the said backdrop, the assets owned by the wife of accused have been included in the present case as part of Annexure-III.
144.7 The revenue record Ex.P-104 too proves the transfer of said 2 bigha of land in the name of wife of the accused herein during the year 1987-1988. Accordingly, the ownership and value of the land stands proved vide the unrebutted documents.
CC No.25/2019 Page 219/419144.8 The dispute has been raised on behalf of the accused concerning the income generated through the ownership of the said 2 bighas of land situated at village Malikpur Kuhi @ Rangpuri, Tehsil, Mehruali, New Delhi. The prosecution claims that at the said 2 bigha of land, a nursery was established and as per the information supplied by wife of the accused, the income generated from the year 1987 till 13.08.1991 i.e the check period was around Rs. 50,000/-.
144.9 Per contra, the accused claims income generated as per the bank record i.e accounts statement (D-31 Ex.P-25) and the account statement of O.S Chauhan (Ex.D1W10/6) reflect the income to be much more than Rs.50,000/-.
144.10 The first aspect concerning the generation of income from the 2 bighas of land is use of the said land and its purpose during the aforesaid period. The sale deed (Ex.P-105) is accompanied by one certificate of registration of Establishment under the Delhi Shop and Establishment Act 1954 in the name of the establishment of M/s Shashi Nursery. As per the said certificate M/s Shashi Nursery was registered at 1831 Min situated at village Malikpur Kuhi @ Rangpuri, Tehsil, Mehruali, New Delhi i.e property in question. Thus, as per the said admitted document, the said land was used for running a nursery.
CC No.25/2019 Page 220/419144.11 The next issue in this regard is the compliance under Rule 13 (3) AIS Conduct Rules 1968 by the member of the family of Government Servant governed by the said conduct rule. If indeed, the said land was put to use for running a nursery business, the mandatory obligation upon the accused being governed by AIS Conduct Rules 1968 was to inform his department mentioning therein the essential details like nature and name of business under which the business is being done, its location, amount invested, source of the invested amount etc as mandated vide O.M dated 30.07.1979.
144.12 No such intimation was ever forwarded by the accused to his employer either at the time of acquisition or thereafter till August 1989 and the reasons for the same appears to be a purported defence that the land was acquired out of independent sources of income of Ms. Shashi Sankhla. Be that as it may be, the material issue herein is the business run over the said 2 bigha of land and the requirement of it being reported to the employer in terms of Rule 13 (3) of AIS Conduct Rules 1968.
144.13 The accused herein for the first time reported about the said land and a registered agricultural nursery being run over it by his wife vide intimation dated 07.08.1989( part of Ex. PW5/B). So, almost after CC No.25/2019 Page 221/419 three years of the acquisition of the land, the nursery business was reported to the employer. Even the said intimation was bereft of necessary details as required O.M dated 30.07.1979.
144.14 Keeping aside the said infirmity in the intimation, the issue to be seen is the generation of income by the said nursery at village Malikpur Kuhi @ Rangpuri, Tehsil, Mehruali, New Delhi. The relevant documents in this regard apart from the accounts details relied by accused, is the electrification record over the said land Ex.P-73 (D-96).
The wife of the accused herein for the first time after acquisition of aforesaid land requested for installation of 2 Horse Power (HP) agricultural connection in June 1989. As per the application form and accompanying affidavit of M/s Shashi Nursery dated 07.2.1989 shows undertaking was given that the proposed electricity connection will be utilized for purposes of agriculture only. The file also has one bill towards the purchase of 2HP Motor which should have been considered as an expenditure but has not been considered nor investigated.
The fact remains that the electricity motor for drawing the water for use of agricultural land was purchased at the end of year 1989.
144.15 The request was also made to install electricity supply lines over the said land. Thus, the CC No.25/2019 Page 222/419 conclusion that can be drawn from the said admitted piece of documents is that before moving of said application, there was no electricity available at the land. If that was the scenario, how come the wife of the accused was able to run or maintain a plant nursery. In such a case the said fact being in a special knowledge of the accused regarding the source of water, the onus was upon him by leading appropriate evidence in this regard. No such evidence has been put forth on behalf of the accused showing the availability of either water or electricity before June 1989 when the application was moved.
144.16 Ultimately, the electricity connection was approved in July 1989 and from then onwards, it can be assumed that the land was put to use either for agricultural purposes or nursery purposes. The Form P- 4 (part of Ex.73) of the year 1988-89 too records no crop being sown over the said land and class of land being described as nursery. Thus, the only conclusion which is to be drawn is that the nursery was established over the said piece of land in the latter part of the year 1989.
144.17 The crucial issue now, therefore, to be seen is the income generated from the said nursery from the later part of year 1989 till 13.08.1991.
The claim of the prosecution is primarily based upon the version of the wife of the accused as deposed by CC No.25/2019 Page 223/419 IO K.N. Tiwari (PW-63). But the accused claims that his wife was having flourishing business of said nursery with other nursery i.e M/s Hariom Nursery, Ghaziabad owned by O.S Chauhan. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the statement of account (Ex.D1W10/6) which shows the transactions between M/s Hariom Nursery, Ghaziabad and Shashi Shankhla.
144.18 The said O.S Chauhan who is the owner of M/s Hariom Nursery, Ghaziabad. He is the common character with whom the entire family of the accused was having financial relationship. Even though the said O.S Chauhan was also a member of Indian Administrative Services and being governed by Rule 13 of AIS Conduct Rules, he was running the business of nursery with impunity. It is not clear whether he was permitted to run such nursery business or not in terms of Rule 13 (1) of AIS Conduct Rules 1968 as the said fact has remained un-investigated. Though the sanction file Ex. PW7/DA has the noting's of DoPT that he too was charge-sheeted by CBI for criminal misconduct.
144.19 Be that as it may be, the first entry relied upon by the accused in the account statement of M/s Hariom Nursery, Ghaziabad is dated 13.02.1989 for a sum of Rs. 41864/-. It is not though clear either from the statement of M/s Hariom Nursery (Ex.D1W10/6) or statement of account Shashi Sankhla (Ex.P-25) as to under what context the said amount was transferred in the CC No.25/2019 Page 224/419 account of Ms. Shashi Sankhla. It has already been observed that the nursery came to be established as per the electricity record and revenue record somewhere in the end of 1989. The benefit of said entry cannot be given to the accused in the absence of any material being produced by the accused to show that the said transfer was money in lieu of business of nursery set up by his wife with M/s Hariom Nursery.
144.20 The other entry of Rs. 57106/- is of October 1989. It is hard to assume that Ms. Shashi Sankhla was able to establish a full-fledged nursery within 2 or 3 months of getting an electricity connection over the said piece of land. Secondly, it being able to do flourishing business with another nursery i.e M/s Hariom Nursery, Ghaziabad in such a short period.
Again, the judgment of Hon'ble SC in State of Tamil Nadu V. R. Sunderi Rasu (supra) case comes in picture which explains the term "the sources of income"
to be sources of income known to the prosecution u/s 13(1) (e) of PC Act and not sources of income known to the accused. The onus was upon the accused to disclose the said sources of income to the prosecution and prove the same through legally admissible evidence.
144.21 The prosecution is not supposed to conduct the roving investigation and inquire into the alleged sources of income which are neither reported nor explained as required under the relevant rules applicable CC No.25/2019 Page 225/419 to the public servant. As the only intimation given qua nursery business of his wife is dated 07.08.1989 which is bereft of the necessary particulars, the onus shifted upon the accused to prove the said income.
144.22 The relevant income tax record of Ms. Shashi Sankhla ( Part of D101 Ex. PW63/A6) also does not support the averments with respect to said thriving nursery business at village Malikpur Kuhi @ Rangpuri. As per the ITR for the assessment year 1991, her agricultural income is stated to be Rs. 96,106/- and in 1989-90 to be Rs.71,864/- and in 1988-89 to be Rs.25,000/-.
144.23 It has already come on record that during the said relevant assessment years, apart from the ownership 2 bigha of land at Village Rangpuri, wife of the accused also owned large chunk of land at village Patti Kalyana, Village Ranhola, Delhi and Basai Dara Pur, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. Admittedly, the lands owned by her at the aforesaid three locations were larger in size and generated regular agricultural income. Therefore, it has to be assumed that the agricultural income quoted by Ms. Shashi Sankhla in her ITRs (Ex.PW-63/A-6 ) largely came from the above-referred three chunks of land and minuscule part being that of 2 bigha of lands at village Malikpur Kohi @ Ranjpuri, Tehsil, Mehruali, New Delhi.CC No.25/2019 Page 226/419
144.24 So, in the said backdrop the version given by IO K.N. Tiwari (PW-63) in assessing the income to be Rs.50,000/- when seen in context of the period of the said income being from the later part of year 1989 till 13.08.1991 has to be termed as a reasonable figure and accordingly stands proved against the accused. Thus, the Item No. 27 (Annexure-I) and Item No.2 of Assets stands proved.
15. Item No.28 of Income (Annexure-I)
145. The prosecution has listed an income of Rs.50,000/- being earned from the sale of agricultural produce concerning the agricultural land owned by the accused and his family at village Ranhola, Delhi. As far as the purchase and sale of the said land is concerned, the said issue is separately discussed while discussing item no.2 of Income and Item No.1 of expenditure.
Ld. Sr.PP for CBI placed reliance upon the version of I/OPW-63 K.N Tiwari. He also placed reliance upon testimony PW-5 Chandgi Ram and PW-30 Raghuveer Singh to prove the earnings qua the said agricultural land.
145.1 Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that the value of the earnings qua the said agricultural land given by the prosecution is arbitrary. PW-5 Chandgi Ram clarified the said issue as well as further deposed that in the year 1986, he sold Safeda trees for an amount of Rs, 80-90 thousand which was paid to CC No.25/2019 Page 227/419 the accused herein. Thus the income is much more than Rs. 50,000/-.
145.2 The manner in which the accused and his family members purchased the said land measuring 6 acres (around 31 bighas) is not in dispute. PW5 Chandgi Ram deposed that he sold the said land owned by him to the accused in the year 1981. Thereafter, he was engaged by the accused to till the land. He further claimed that he paid Rs.25-30 thousand to the accused per year. However, his version qua the earnings generated through the said piece of land is put into dock by PW.30 Raghuveer Singh and PW-37 Kanwar Lal who both are residents of village Ranhola, Delhi.
146. Before appreciating the version of PW-5, PW -30 and PW-37, the issue to be seen is as to whether the said agricultural income was falls within the term 'known sources of income to the prosecution or not' as defined u/s 13(1)(e) of PC Act or not. The service record ExPW-5/B reflects that the accused in the year 1980 sought prior permission to purchase agricultural land in Delhi by taking loans from his father and brother. The said request was allowed and he was conveyed vide letter dated 12-9-1980 that the details of the deal be submitted after finalization of the sale. This is the only record available that is somewhat connected to the agricultural land in question. The accused thereafter never reported about the conclusion of the deal nor ever CC No.25/2019 Page 228/419 reported the ownership of the said agricultural land. His annual immovable property returns too are silent qua the ownership. He further never reported about his earnings through the said agricultural land to his employer.
146.1 In the said backdrop, it has to be held that the said source of income from the agricultural land at Village Ranhola, Delhi does not fall within the purview of the term 'known source of income to the prosecution'. The onus thus, shifted upon the accused to explain about the said sources of income being within his special knowledge. The accused in this regard thus has placed reliance upon the version of PW-5 Chandgi Ram who claimed that he used to pay Rs.20,000 to 30,000/- per year to the accused in lieu of the produce from one killa of land used by him for farming. In the remaining portion of the land, he had sowed Safeda trees which were sold in the year 1986.
146.2 The said earnings from 1 acre of land as disclosed by him is put into the dock by the purported consideration amount of entire land to be Rs.80,000/-. If indeed, one acre of land was earning more than Rs.20,000/-, then why he sold the said land @ Rs. 13,500/- approximately per acre. Hence , not much credence can be attached to the version given by him qua the earnings from the said land or sale of Safeda trees which is not supported by any document on record.
CC No.25/2019 Page 229/419146.3 Now, coming to the version two other witnesses i.e PW-32 and PW-37 who both are residents of the village Ranhola, Delhi. PW-32 claimed that they could earn Rs.15-16000/- per acre from the said land which again puts the consideration amount of Rs,13,500/- per acre to be doubtful. PW-37 Kanwar Lal deposed that the said land was taken on rent sometime in the year 1985-86 and he used to pay rent of Rs.5000/- per annum for the entire land. He further claimed that on 2-3 bighas of land there was no crop as it was very close to the border and it had deep pits therein. His version on the said two aspects is not challenged by the accused. He was never cross-examined on behalf of the accused and his claim thus gone unchallenged and unrebutted.
146.4 His version of payment of Rs,5000/- as rent for the entire land appears to be believable when seen in the context of the sale price of the said land.
146.5 Per contra, the income tax record of the accused Ex. PW63/A6 too does not support his case of flourishing income from agriculture as is now being claimed.
146.6 The revenue record of the said land proved by PW-57 as Ex.PW-57/A to Ex.PW-57/D also comprise of P-form. The Form P of Rabi and Kharif of the year 1986-1987 reflect that the land in question till that point of time was still in the name of earlier owners and Intkal CC No.25/2019 Page 230/419 of the said land being entered thereafter in the name of accused and his family members. Further, the nature of crop for the Rabi and Kharif season does not reflect sowing of Safada trees. Rather, it reflects only two crops being sowed during the entire agricultural year.
He also deposed that during Kharif season, only one crop Jawar used to be sown and during Rabi season Jawar and vegetables used to be sown. He further claimed that the rate of Batiye during those days was Rs.5000/- per year. Therefore, his version also corroborates the version of PW-37.
147. In the light of the above-said reasons, the claim of the accused that the earnings as listed by the prosecution are inadequate has remained unproved and the accused has failed to discharge the onus placed upon him in this regard. On the contrary, the claim of prosecution regarding the earnings to be Rs.50,000/- from the year 1981 till the disposal of the property in the year 1991 appears to be a reasonable conclusion when seen in light of the version of PW-37 as well as PW-57 and accordingly stands proved.
16. Item No. 17 & 34 of Income (Annexure-1)
147. Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI argued that Item No.17 and 34 are the interest income accrued on various FDR in the name of the accused, his wife or two minor sons during the check period. As far as Item No.17 CC No.25/2019 Page 231/419 interest is concerned, the said FDR interest accrued as reflected in document D-35 (P-29) in the name of Saket Sankhla (minor son of the accused). As far as Item No.34 is concerned, it is admitted that the basis of said interest income of Rs.19838/- is not explained in detail by the Investigating Officer, but the said amount appears to be the total amount accrued for the interest portion on the FDRs.
147.1 Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that income reflected vide Item No.17 & 34 are arbitrary and not corroborated through bank records. The accused, his wife and two minor sons earned separate income on the FDRs during the check period, but the Investigating Officer malafidely clubbed the maturity amount which is inclusive of interest accrued during the check period in the assets column from Item No. 22 to 26 and Item 27 to 39. As far as entry No. 38 is concerned, it is double entry as the FDR for the same is already included vide Item No.27 of Asset list (Annexure-III).
147.2 The prosecution for proving the said two above-referred FDR Interest Income ( Entry no. 17 and 34 ) earned during the check period, has placed reliance upon the statement of account ( from D-30 to 35 Ex.P-24 to P-28). The accused was holding savings account no. 14009 with Punjab National Bank (PNB), Civil Lines and its statement of account is Ex.P-24. Ms. Shashi Sankhla(wife of accused) was holding savings account CC No.25/2019 Page 232/419 no. 21250 with PNB, Civil Lines, Delhi Ex.P-25 . Master Kapil Sankhla ( minor son of the accused) was holding savings account no. 28643 with PNB, Civil Lines (Ex.P-
26) and Saket Sankhla was holding savings account No. 28966 (Ex.P-27). Ms. Shashi Bala (wife of accused) was having an another account No. 9167 at PNB, Ashok Vihar (Ex.P-28).
147.3 As has already been admitted on behalf of the prosecution that the figure given vis-a-vis FDR interest income at Item No.34 of the Income (Annexure- I) is based upon the calculation of IO K.N. Tiwari (PW-
63) and the details of the same are missing. Therefore, in the said backdrop, extensive exercise has to be done in calculating the interest either in the above-said savings or the connected FDR account held by the accused or by his family members during the check period.
147.4 The first dispute raised on behalf of the accused is that three FDRs to the tune of Rs. 19,000, Rs.19,000 and Rs. 7000/-,( total of Rs.45,000/-) were invested during pre-check period in the year 1979. The said FDRs matured in 1983 and 1986 as reflected in Statement of Account (Ex.P-24). The intimation concerning the opening of the said FDRs was also sent to the employer. In this regard, the accused has placed reliance upon Ex.P-64 (Page-29, D-78) which is the intimation dated 09.11.1979 of the accused herein addressed to Deputy Secretary (P.S.), Ministry of Home CC No.25/2019 Page 233/419 Affairs. It was informed that he had earned Rs.19,000/- as Pay & Allowance after he returned from U.K. Further, he and his wife received Rs.4000/- as gift from his in- laws and his father gifted Rs.3000/- to his youngest son. Accordingly, the above amount i.e Rs.19,000/- Car Sale Amount, Rs.19,000/- qua Pay & Allowance and Rs.7000/- as gift have been deposited in the fixed deposits in his as well as his wife's name at PNB, Civil Lines.
147.5 It is argued on behalf of the accused that the total maturity proceeds of Rs.45,000/- have to be taken as his income being the earnings before the check period.
The earnings/savings before the check period as per the chargesheet are stated to be Rs.50,000/- and the details of the same are stipulated in S.P. Report (Ex.PW- 7/DA). Para 10.26 of the SP Report considers the said amount of Rs.45,000/- being part of the assets before the check period. The said amount of Rs. 50,000/- arrived is inclusive of said the amount of Rs.45,000/- as referred in the intimation dated 09.11.1979 (Ex.P-64). So, the only component of interest accrued on the said FDR of Rs.45,000/- has to be taken as the interest income.
147.6 Admittedly, as per the Statement of Account (Ex.P-24), the FDRs accounts for the said amount were opened in the name of the accused and the same matured in the year 1983 and 1986 respectively. The maturity amount is Rs. 19717.50 and Rs.33,600/-respectively.
CC No.25/2019 Page 234/419Thus, the interest income comes to Rs. 8315/- which is to be considered.
147.7 However the argument of the accused that said amount of FDR being not considered is rebutted by the calculation of the CBI while finding out Disproportionate Assets. The sum of Rs.50,000/- which is inclusive of said amount is taken as assets for the period before the start of the check period while arriving at the final figure of DA assets.
147.8 Now coming to the interest earned on the FDRs as listed from Item. No. 27 to 39 of the Assets List (Annexure-III). The details of individual interest earned during the check period on the said FDRs is summarised as under:
(i) The FDR No. 6941 {the said FDR is reflected as Item No.28 of assets (annexure-III) } is in the name of accused D.C Sankhla which is proved on record as Ex.P-
37 (D-43). The detailed statement of account is also filed on record as D-43( Ex.P37). As per the Statement of Account, the total interest earned during the check period vide the said FDR account is Rs.750/-.
(ii) The FDR Account no. 2381 is in the name of accused D.C Sankhla opened at State Bank of Patiala, Chandigarh. Its Statement of Account is proved on record as D-99 (Ex.PW-35/A-51). The FDR account was opened CC No.25/2019 Page 235/419 for an amount of Rs.65,000/- in May 1985. The said account matured in December 1986 with the proceeds of the FDR being 67567.81 and the interest income to be Rs. 2565/- being earned during the check period.
147.9 Ld. Counsel for the accused claimed that the said saving account at SBOP, Chandigarh also earned interest income which has not been considered by CBI.
The record reflects that as per the request of accused Ex.A-48, the request for closure was made by him on 30.11.1986.He further requested the handing over of the proceeds to his brother namely P.C Sankhla. The account was accordingly closed by handing over proceeds of Rs.21,295/- to P.C Sankhla. As far as the said proceeds are concerned, no evidence has come on record of whether the said amount landed in the hands of the accused or not. The fact being within the special knowledge of accused, the onus was upon him to explain the same, which he failed to do so. PW-66 P.C Sankhla remained silent on the same. Therefore, the interest income being part of the said amount proceeds cannot be added here as income of accused .
(iii) The FDR No. 6952 is in the name of accused Kapil Sankhla (minor son of accused). D-42 (Ex.P-36) concern the asset No.27 of Annexure-III. The interest income generated from the said FDR comes to Rs.1896/- during the check period as per the admitted statement of account.
CC No.25/2019 Page 236/419(iv) The account No. 21250 PNB , Civil Lines is in the name of Ms. Shashi Bala and balance is listed vide Item no. 23 of Asset (Annexure III).
147.10 As per accused the FDR proceeds in the name of Ms. Shashi Bala upon maturity, are reflected in the Statement of Account 21250 (D-31 Ex.P-25). The said proceeds of the FDR got credited in the account of Shashi Sankhla on 25.08.1989. However the particulars of the said payment as per Statement of Account is by clearing and not being proceeds of the FDRs. But, the CBI in their own S.P Report (Ex.PW-7/DA Page-110) has claimed that the said amount was proceeds of the FDR No. 1458 dated 01.01.1987. But in absence of the FDR or its accounts statement, the interest earned by the said FDR has to be a guesswork. As per the written arguments & the chart as provided by accused, the interest comes to Rs.6764.50 and the calculation has been done by keeping rate of interest at 12%.
147.11 The FDRs which have been filed on record of the given period do not reflect the rate of interest during the said period from the year 1987 to 1987 to be more than 10%. The rate prevalent at that point of time was around 9% to 10 %. Therefore, the approximate figure of earnings of interest upon the said FDR accrued in the name of Ms. Shashi Shankhla comes to Rs.5000/- only. It has to be taken as income.
CC No.25/2019 Page 237/419(v) The FDR No. 6914 is in the name of accused Saket Sankhla (minor son of accused) which is also reflected at Item No.25 of the Assets. It reflects that the FDR of Rs. 10,199/- was opened on 11.07.1991. The detailed Statement of Account of the said ordinary FDR is Ex.P- 35 and the total interest earning during the check period as reflected in the said statement comes to Rs. 2737.60.
147.12 Thus, the total of income generated from the above-referred FDRs account during the check period comes to Rs.21,263.60. Accordingly, it is held that interest income accrued during the check period through various FDRs account as provided vide entry No.17 & 34 comes to Rs. Rs.21,263.60.
17. Item No.16 of the Income List (Annexure-I)
148. The Item No.16 of the Income List (Annexure-I), concerns the interest income for the savings account no. 28966 with PNB, Civil Lines in the name of Saket Sankhla (minor son of the accused). The interest income is stated to be Rs.3942.10.
148.1 Ld. Sr.PP for CBI in support of the said entry placed reliance upon Statement of Account (Ex.P- 27, D-33). As per the Ld. Sr. P.P.'s own calculation as filed in the written arguments, the actual interest during CC No.25/2019 Page 238/419 the check period is Rs. 4366.60 instead of 3942.10 as claimed in the chargesheet.
148.2 The dispute raised by the accused in his own written synopsis is also the same. Accordingly, as there is no dispute between the parties after the analysis of the statement of account Ex. P27 , the interest income through the said saving accounts is taken to be Rs.4366.60 instead of Rs. 3942.10.
18. Item No. 18 of the Income (Annexure-I)
149. The aforesaid entry concerns the interest income generated vide savings account no. 9167 with PNB, Ashok Vihar, in the name of Ms. Shashi Bala ( wife of accused).
149.1 Ld. Sr.PP for CBI in support of the said entry placed reliance upon Statement of Account (Ex.P- 26, D-34).
149.2 Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused as per the written synopsis argued that the actual interest earned as per the statement of account (P-28) which also includes the FDRs interest to be Rs.25867/-.
150. The Statement of Account (Ex.P-28) is perused which reflects that the said savings account was opened on 22.08.1982 wherein the address of Ms. Shashi CC No.25/2019 Page 239/419 Bala is stated to be JA/19-C, Ashok Vihar. Even though as per the record, she was married to accused at that time and after the marriage resided either with him or with her in-laws house in Andaman Nicobar Islands.
150.1 The said Statement of Account has multiple entries of Rs.875/- from January at monthly intervals which is stated to be FD interest. The total of said F.D.R. interest income comes to Rs. 24,500/-. Apart from the said FDR entries, the Statement of Account has multiple saving bank interest during the relevant check period. The total of the said figure comes to Rs. 3117.75. Thus, the total interest income generated through account no 9167 comes to Rs. 25,867/- and not Rs.9163.15 as claimed by the prosecution. It has to be taken as additional income of accused .
19. Item No.19 of the Income ( Annexure-I).
151. The said entry pertains to the interest earned through saving bank account no. 8283 with New Bank of India, Sirsa in the name of accused. (Due to typographical error the name of accused is mentioned in the chargesheet instead of his son Saket Sankhla who is the real account holder).
The prosecution to prove the said income has placed reliance upon Statement of Account (Ex. P-29, D-
35).
CC No.25/2019 Page 240/419151.1 Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused has again disputed the said income by claiming it to be much more than as claimed by the prosecution.
152. The Statement of Account (P-29, D-35) is perused which reflects that the said account was opened on 16.11.1985 and the first entry was by deposit of cash amount of Rs.5000/-. The said first entry itself raises a figure of suspicion as admittedly, at that point of time, Saket Sankhla being minor was not having any independent source of income. Thus the legality of the said income is itself in dock.
151.2 But at this stage, the only issue to be seen is the interest income generated through the said saving account. The Statement of Account reflects multiple entries of deposits and withdrawals, thereby interest income being generated. The total interest income during the check period comes to Rs.10893/- instead of 9193.58 as claimed by the prosecution.
20. Item No. 20 of the Income ( Annexure-I)
153. The said entry pertains to the interest earned through savings bank account no. 8284 with New Bank of India, Sirsa, in the Kapil Sankhla ( minor son of accused).
CC No.25/2019 Page 241/419153.1 The prosecution in order to prove the said interest income of Rs.8433.15 has placed reliance upon Statement of Account ( Ex. P-30, D-36).
154. The Statement of Account (Ex. P-30,D-36) is perused which reflects that the said account was opened on the same day as stated above i.e 16.11.1985 and the first entry was by deposit of cash amount of Rs.4000/-.The Statement of Account also reflects multiple entries of deposits and withdrawal, thereby interest income being generated. The total interest income during the check period comes to Rs.9433.15/- instead of Rs.8433.15 as claimed by the prosecution.
21. Item No.21 of the Income ( Annexure-I)
155. The said entry concerns the interest earned through savings bank account no. 9318 with New Bank of India, Sirsa, in the Kapil Sankhla ( minor son of accused).
The prosecution in order to prove the said interest income of Rs.3653.40 has placed upon Statement of Account ( Ex. P-31, D-37).
155.1 Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused has again disputed the said income by claiming it to be much more than as claimed by the prosecution.
156. The Statement of Account ( Ex. P-31 D-37) is perused which reflects that the said account was CC No.25/2019 Page 242/419 opened on the same day as stated above i.e 08.11.1988 and till the check period, the interest accrued in the said account comes to be Rs. 7415.42 and not Rs.3653.40 as claimed by the prosecution. The said additional income component is liable to be included in Income List .
22. Item No. 22 of the Income ( Annexure-I)
157. The said entry concerns the interest earned through savings bank account no. 8339 with Punjab National Bank, Dalhousie, HP in the name of accused D.C Sankhla The prosecution to prove the said interest income of Rs. 8566.34 has placed reliance upon Statement of Account ( Ex. P-33, D-38). The said interest income as per the chargesheet is Rs. 8566.34, but the CBI in their written arguments admits that the said account earned interest income comes to Rs. 11,984.02/- which includes the special FDR No. 182 interest component.
157.1 As per the written synopsis filed on behalf of the accused, the interest income as reflected in the Statement of Account ( P-33, D-38) is Rs.11,984.02/-.
157.2 Accordingly, the interest income through the said saving account is taken to be Rs.11,984.02/- and not Rs. 8566.34 as claimed by the prosecution.
23. Item No.23 of the Income (Annexure-I) CC No.25/2019 Page 243/419
158. The said entry concerns the interest earned vide saving bank account no. 7836 New Bank of India, Sirsa in the name of deceased M.R Sankhla (father of accused).
Ld. Sr.PP for the CBI argued that the income generated through the said savings account has to be added in the kitty of the accused in the present case as all the transactions in the account were done by the him only. It was the benami account of the accused herein. Ld. Sr. PP CBI placed reliance upon Statement of Account (Ex.P-33, D-39) in this regard.
158.1 Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that the said amount from the saving bank got bequeathed in his favour as per the Will of his father and as per the court order. Therefore, the assets of his father which came by Will cannot be imposed upon him in the present case.
159. The issue of justification of CBI in adding the assets of Late MR Shankhla as well as the inheritance by virtue of Will of late M.R Sankhla is concerned, the said issue is discussed separately in the latter part of the judgment.
At this stage, the issue in hand is only concerning interest earnings that were generated and lastly came to be possessed by the accused herein.
CC No.25/2019 Page 244/419159.1 The prosecution has placed on record Statement of Account (Ex.P-33, D-38). As per the said statement of account, the said account was opened on 04.02.1985 and the first entry recorded is that of 04.07.1985 of Rs.25,000/- which is deposit by way of cash. Lastly, the said account was closed on 07.05.1987 as per the orders of the Court consequent death of account holder.
159.2 As far as aspects of transactions in the said account or whether the accused was real holder of the said account, the said issue has been discussed separately. The Statement of Account reflects interest income generated through the said saving account to be Rs. 7797/- instead of Rs. 7599 as claimed by the prosecution .
24. Item No. 24 of the Income ( Annexure-I)
160. This item concerns interest income generated through savings bank account No. 10691 with SBI, Sirsa in the name of late M.R Sankhla (father of the accused).
Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI argued that the income generated through the said account has to be added in the account of the accused as the said account was his dummy account. However the prosecution has been unable to point out the statement of account or the documents concerning the said saving bank account of late M.R Sankhla.
CC No.25/2019 Page 245/419160.1 Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that the amount in the said account came in his kitty vide FDR (D-52, Ex.P-46) for a sum of Rs. 4483.55 which is listed as Item No.25 of the Assets ( Annexure-
3). It has been further argued that the income generated through the said account was transferred to him on the basis of Will dated 28.12.1985 and by Court order on the said Will. Therefore, it is argued that the difference amount of the said FDR by deducting Rs. 3013.67 to be only taken as income.
161. The issue concerning assets coming into the kitty of accused by virtue of Will of late Shri M.R Sankhla has been discussed separately in the later part of the judgment and at this stage, the only issue is the income generated through said savings bank account no. 10691.
161.1 Statement of account though is not available on record, the accused though admitted to receiving the said amount in his intimation dated 08.05.1987 (D-6 Ex.PW-5/B) . It was reported that sum of Rs. 3034/- lying in the said savings account has been put by him in FDR in his name. Thus, it is apparent that there is no evidence concerning the generation of income by the said account separately and version given by the accused in his intimation dated 08.7.1987 (D-6 Ex.PW-5/B) coupled with the FDR (D-52 Ex.P-46) only reflects the income to be Rs.1469.88. Thus, the said entry stands partially CC No.25/2019 Page 246/419 proved to the amount of Rs.1469.88 instead of Rs. 3013/- as claimed by the prosecution.
25. Additional Claims of Income in the Form of Loans Taken during the Check Period .
162. It is the defence of the accused that the Investigating Authority out of their ill-will and malafide, unjustifiably rejected his claim of additional income to the tune of Rs.58 lacs being the loans taken from O.S Chauhan and Y.P Bansal during the check period.
162.1 It is argued on behalf of the accused that as per the S.P Report (Ex.PW-7/DA), para 10.25.1, the CBI claims that at the concluding stage of the investigation of the present case, the accused came up with a representation dated 14.06.1993 claiming additional income of Rs.58,47,500/-. The basis of the said claim was five sale agreements executed between accused or his family members on the one side and O.S Chauhan and Y.P Bansal respectively being the second party. These agreements were security documents qua the loans. The CBI just to frame accused in the present case unjustifiably rejected the said agreements and transactions by claiming the agreements to be forged and fabricated.
162.2 It is further argued that a separate case for offence under Section 193 IPC read with Section 120B IPC was instituted against accused herein, his wife, O.S CC No.25/2019 Page 247/419 Chauhan, Y.P Bansal and Bhagirath Prasad Verma. The said case has been tried alongwith the present case and has since been disposed off vide judgment dated 21.12.2023. The reference is also made to Para 69, 70,73,74,75,78,79 to 88 of the judgment wherein the findings have been given rejecting the claim of the CBI that the said agreements were forged and fabricated.
162.3 It is further argued on behalf of the accused that the accused even in his statement dated 09.06.1991 (Part of PW-7/DB) to the Investigating Officer too disclosed about the said loan transactions and the agreements only being security documents. Reference is also made to the representation to CBI dated 22.04.1991 (Part of Ex. PW-63/Z, D-29 (iii) ) much prior to the registration of the present FIR having reference to the said transactions. The malafides of the Investigating Officer also came forth as he deliberately filed his incomplete representation dated 14.06.1993 in the second case under Section 193 IPC.
It is further argued that later on, from the CBI record itself, the complete representation alongwith 44 pages came on record vide Ex. PW63/Z which reflects the truthfulness of his defence regarding loans and it being availed much prior to the lodging of the present FIR. These were also reported to the employer through letter (Ex.P-103, D-11) to Shri Prakash Chander, Director, UTS, MHA.
CC No.25/2019 Page 248/419162.4 It is further argued on behalf of the accused that he and his family members in total availed loan to the tune of Rs. 40,51,500/- from OS Chauhan and Rs. 16,50,000/-from YP Bansal . The said claim of loans has already been accepted by the Income Tax Department by order of CIT Appeal (Ex.D1W4/3). The said order has further been confirmed by ITAT (Ex.D-1). Thus, the denial of an additional claim of income which is also reflected in the Statement of Bank Account of the accused and his family members was unjustifiable and has to be taken as his additional income.
162.5 Per contra, Ld. Sr. PP for CBI argued that as far as reliance placed on judgment dated 21.12.2023 in second case is concerned, the Court itself clarified has that the findings in the said judgment will have no bearing as far as the merits of the present case are concerned. Even otherwise, it is argued that the said judgment is already under appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and findings have not attained finality.
162.6 It is further argued that the claim of the accused that he had availed loan from O.S Chauhan to the tune of Rs. 40,51,500/- on investigation was found to be a false claim. The statement of said O.S Chauhan under Section 161 Cr.PC was recorded wherein he claimed that the accused used to pay him certain amount in cash and thereafter used to obtain the cheques for the said amount.
CC No.25/2019 Page 249/419Thus, it is argued that the said claim of additional income vis-a-vis O.S Chauhan was rightly rejected by the Investigating Officer as the claim was nothing but only money laundering.
162.7 The first issue in hand qua the loans claim is the findings given in the off-shot/second case registered against the accused, his wife, O.S Chauhan, Y.P Chauhan and B.P Verma under Section 193 IPC read with 120B IPC. The said case was tried alongwith the present case and even the evidence has been recorded in common. The judgment dated 21.12.2023 is perused. The first page itself clarifies the scope of the judgment vis-a- vis the present case. The same is reproduced hereunder for the sake of convenience and clarity:
1. This judgment, shall decide the present Chargesheet No. 2/1993 which was filed against Dharam Chand Sankhla (A-1), Shashi Sankhla (A-
2), O.S Chauhan (A-3) (since expired), Yash Pal Bansal (A-4) (since expired) and Bhagirath Prasad Verma (A-5)(since expired) under Section 120B IPC r/w Section 193 IPC and Substantive offence u/S 193 IPC against all accused persons and under Section 477-A against Bhagirath Prasad Verma (since expired). The said chargesheet No. 2/1993 is the outcome of investigation in RC No.3(A)/91. It is clarified to the parties that scope of the lis in the present matter concerns only the purported Ante-timed Agreement to Sell (as detailed in para no.2 )and forged entries in Stamp Vendor Register.The issue concerning the legality of the transactions entered through said agreement to sell or the legality of the purported consideration exchanged is not the issue herein . The said issues will be considered in the connected Main Case (R.C-3(A)/91-ACU (I)).
CC No.25/2019 Page 250/419162.8 Thus, only the authenticity of five agreements to sell as reproduced hereunder were in dispute in the said case:
S.No Nature of Dated Parties
Document
1 Agreement to 14.06.1989 Shashi Sankhla W/o
Sell D.C Sankhla (Seller )&
O.S Chauhan R/o 17-B
Ramprastha Colony
Ghaziabad.
( Purchaser )
2 Agreement 28.12.1989 Shashi Sankhla W/o
to Sell D.C Sankhla (Seller ) &
O.S Chauhan
( Purchaser )
3 Agreement to 19.11.1990 D.C Sankhla (Seller )&
Sell O.S Chauhan
( Purchaser
4 Agreement to 20.08.1990 Shashi Sankhla
Sell (Seller )& Sh.
Yashpal( Purchaser )
Bansal S/o Sh. Girdhari
Lal R/o 376 Ram Nagar
(Krishan Nagar) Delhi.
5 Agreement to 01.12.1990 Shashi Sankhla
Sell (Seller )& Sh. Yashpal
Bansal ( Purchaser )
162.9 The scope of the decision in the said off-shot
case was confined to the limited aspect as to whether the said five agreements to sell were ante-dated and secondly false entries being inserted in the said stamp issuance register for getting the stamp papers issued in back date.
CC No.25/2019 Page 251/419The scope of the judgment is again reiterated in Para-38 of the said judgment as under:
"38. Before discussion on the merits, it is clarified that the findings in the present case only decides the issue of Five Agreement to Sell being created and ante-timed documents. The issue of legality of the transaction or legality of the consideration amount is not the issue herein."
162.10 Thus, it has been clearly observed that the legality of the transaction and legality of the exchange of consideration amount vis-a-vis the said agreements to sell was not issue therein and has to be decided in the present case.
162.11 It is admitted case of the accused himself that the said purported five agreements as referred above were only security documents executed in lieu of taking of loans taken from O.S Chauhan and Y.P Bansal.
162.12 Hence, the contents of the above-referred three agreements to sell concerning O.S Chahuan have to kept aside as it is case of accused since the beginning that these were only security documents. The issue to be seen is whether the loans admitted by the accused have to be taken as legal income or not for purposes of the present case.
162.13 It has already been observed, the term "known sources of income" is only confined only to the CC No.25/2019 Page 252/419 income known to the prosecution, not within the exclusive knowledge of accused. The prosecution is not supposed to conduct the roving investigation and inquire into the alleged sources of income which are neither reported nor explained as required under the relevant rules applicable to the public servant.
163. In the present case, the issue concerning advances of loan from O.S Chauhan has to be seen in context of the definition of the term "known sources of income" under Section 13 (1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
The accused in this regard has placed reliance on his intimation dated 05.06.1990 (Ex.P-103). The said intimation is addressed to Sh. S. Prabhakar, Director, UTS, MHA, New Delhi and the subject is "Intimation under AIS Conduct Rules". The letter is not part of the personal file of the accused (D-6 Ex.PW-5/B) received by the CBI from the accused's employer. But still, the obligation was upon the Investigating Authority to conduct the investigation so as find out its veracity, which was not done.
163.1 The said letter (Ex.P-103) is accompanied with the postal slip. IO K.N. Tiwari (PW-63) in the cross- examination admitted that he never examined said Sh. S. Prabhakar, Director, and without examining said concerned official, the intimation has been rejected. Thus, the said rejection has to be termed as "unjustified".
CC No.25/2019 Page 253/419163.2 The accused vide the said intimation claimed that in continuation of his previous letter/intimation dated 07.08.1989 wherein he reported about taking of loan from M/s Hariom Nursery, Ghaziabad (owned by O.S Chauhan) on mutual understanding of profit sharing, he further has availed loan. He further reported the amount received through loans of Rs.11,70,000/-. Lastly, he stated the following:
"The above amount have been/will be utitlized for mutually beneficial transactions to the loaner and loanees keeping in view the provisions of AIS conduct Rules.
The details of all other transactions will be submitted after my placement. Kindly look into this aspect also."
164. It appears from the said letter that as no posting was available with the accused at that point of time in the year 1990, he addressed it to MHA being his Cadre Controlling Authority.
Another fact that emerges from the said letter is that previously too he had intimated about the loan transaction through a letter dated 07.08.1989 (Part of Ex.PW-5/B,D-6). It is also the intimation under AIS Conduct Rules addressed to Secretary (Services), Delhi Administration. Vide the said intimation, the accused also reported taking of loans by his wife from M/s Hariom Nursery, Ghaziabad ( owned by OS Chauhan ) and his two minor sons.
CC No.25/2019 Page 254/419164.1 Interestingly, the said intimation was promptly scrutinized at the services department, Delhi Administration and clarifications were sought vide letter dated 27.09.1989 (Part of Ex.PW-5/B). The accused was asked to provide copies of the bank account and of his wife and sons apart from other queries about the transactions. In total, 15 queries were put and a response was sought. The query no.4,5 and 6 concern the issue in hand , concerning the loan availed by the accused, his wife and his minor sons from M/s Hariom Nursery, Ghaziabad owned by O.S Chauhan.
164.2 The response to said letter by the accused vide letter dated 06.11.1989 is even more interesting which raises a finger of suspicion over his series of transactions for which clarification was sought. The accused simplicitor placed reliance upon O.M dated 21.02.1974 concerning Rule 16 (3) & (4) of AIS Conduct Rules 1968 and did not provide any information as sought. The said response is apparently against the mandate of AIS Rules 1968 which put a question mark over his claim of said additional income and it being legal one which is one of the foremost requirement u/s 13(1)
(e) of PC Act .
164.3 Another issue which concerns the Court is the intimation dated 05.06.1990 wherein the accused claimed that the said loan amount will be utilized for mutually beneficial transactions to the loanee and loaner.
CC No.25/2019 Page 255/419The said averments on the face of it appear to run contrary to the mandate of Rule 13 of AIS Conduct Rules 1968 applicable to accused and OS Chauhan at that time.
164.4 As far as trail of the said loan is concerned, the transactions were made through bank accounts. The accused has placed reliance upon the Statement of Account of M/s Hariom Nursery, Ghaziabad Ex.D1W10/6 as well as their Statement of Account Ex.P- 24 to P-27. The debit entries from the account of M/s Hariom Nursery, Ghaziabad with PNB Ghaziabad are reflected with the corresponding credit entries in the account of accused Ex.P-27, his wife Ex.P-25 and their minors sons Ex.P-26 and P-27 respectively. Coupled with the said transfer through banking channels and is claimed to be reported to the employer through letters dated 07.08.1989 and 05.06.1990.As far as the first intimation is concerned it is already held above that the response of the accused to the queries put by the employer put a question over the legality of the income shown therein. The mere fact of transfer through the banking channel alone does not render the said income to be legal when seen in the context of the response of the accused vide his letter dated 6.11.1989 ( part of Ex. PW5/B).
164.5 The prosecution in order to investigate the said fact of loan transactions with O.S Chauhan and their CC No.25/2019 Page 256/419 legality when the said fact came on record through Ex. PW5/B and Ex. P-103, examined O.S. Chauhan as LW-71.
164.6 The prosecution claims that he in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C claimed that the accused used to give him a cash amount which in turn used to be transferred in the bank account of accused and his family members. The said contention of O.S Chauhan was also further required to be corroborated by closely scrutinizing his bank statements which were seized during the investigation. It was to be seen whether the cash entries are reflected in his statement of account Ex.D1W10/6 or some other bank account .
It was also required to be investigated whether the said transactions concerned some genuine business or were only laundered money as claimed by the prosecution. Further, no investigation was conducted as to how he was running Nursery Business despite being IAS officer governed by AIS (Conduct ) Rules,1968.
164.7 It is apparent from the cross-examination of IO K.N. Tiwari (PW-63) that no such exercise was conducted. The said O.S Chauhan was not even examined as prosecution witness as he was named as a co- conspirator in the off-shot case and ultimately expired on 29.07.2015.
CC No.25/2019 Page 257/419164.8 Thus, in the said backdrop, the basis of the prosecution in rejecting the said claims of loan transactions was justified only qua the loans intimated vide letter dated 07/08/1989(Ex. PW5/B ). The accused failed to furnish the details as sought by the employer and the employer never accepted the claim of loans.
Merely because the banking channels were used for the said transactions will not cloth the said loan transaction to be legal . It is well known fact at that point in time as the banks were not connected to servers. Multiple accounts used to be operated by fraudsters without getting noticed. Hence the loan transactions intimated vide letter dated 07/08/1989 are liable to be rejected.
164.9 As far as the second part of additional income of loan by accused it has to be taken as a genuine claim of additional income intimated vide letter dated 05/06/1990 Ex. P103 The department never rejected the said intimation under AIS Conduct Rules 1968 as referred above. Though there is a big question mark over the said transaction too but as no investigation was conducted qua it, it has to be taken as legal income herein.
165. Now coming to the claim of the accused that the said loan transactions have been accepted by the income department. The argument is also liable to be rejected in view of the settled position of law by the CC No.25/2019 Page 258/419 Hon'ble SC in State of Karnataka vs J Jayalalitha ( supra) case. The orders Ex. D1W4/3 and Ex. D-1 reflect that they never investigated the factum of the legality of the earnings of O.S. Chauhan in light of his employment status or genuineness of his business being run through M/s Hari Om Nursery. Rather the said fact of his employment status was never brought on record as is reflected from the orders. The income tax authorities confined their findings by appreciating the income tax returns of OS Chauhan and the banking record. The legality of the income was never the issue therein, which is the foremost requirement in the present case.
166. Therefore, the said amount of Rs.11,70,000/- only has to be added to the income list (Annexure-I) being the incoming as a loan during the check period as the department never rejected the intimation of the accused . The remaining part of the loan as alleged to be taken from OS Chauhan by the family members of the accused is rejected being never accepted by the employer and hence cannot be termed as legal income.
26. Additional Income Claim vis-a-vis the Loan from Y.P Bansal.
167. The next component of additional income as per the defence of the accused is loan from Y.P Bansal. The said loan is to the tune of Rs. 16,50,000/-. In this regard, accused has placed reliance upon two agreement to sell dated 20.08.1990 and 01.12.1990 which again CC No.25/2019 Page 259/419 were termed as security documents. The said two agreements to sell were also part of the off-shot case under Section 193 IPC read with 120B and Y.P Bansal was named co-conspirator.
167.1 As far as the said loan income is concerned, it has further been argued that the consideration amount which flowed from Y.P Bansal to Ms. Shashi Sankhla or his minor son Saket Sankhla are documented in Statement of Account. However the said loan transactions could not be reported to the employer as at that point of time the accused was without any posting as reflected intimation letter dated 05.06.1990 (Ex.P-103, D- 11 (iii) ). The reliance is also placed upon IT Dept orders whereby they accepted their claim of loans form OS Chauhan and YP Bansal.
167.2 The first limb of the argument concerning the said claim of additional income qua loan transaction with Y.P Bansal by the accused is by placing reliance on the income tax records and orders Ex.D-1 (ITAT) and Ex.D1W4/3 (CIT Appeals). Admittedly, the said income tax proceedings about the loan transactions came to be filed after lodging of the present FIR. Be it the CIT Appeal or the subsequent appeal before ITAT, all the proceedings came to be instituted after lodging of the FIR i.e after 13.08.1991 CC No.25/2019 Page 260/419 167.3 Even otherwise, the said issue of the relevance of the income tax proceedings as well as findings of the income tax authorities in the case of Disproportionate Assets against the public servant stands settled by the authoritative pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs J.Jayalalita (supra) case and the relevant para is reproduced herein under :
"252. The High Court, on the other hand, readily accepted the income tax returns filed by the assessee and affirmed the claim of A1 of agricultural income of Rs.52,50,000/-. It was of the view that though the income tax returns had been filed belatedly, the same per se could not be a ground to reject the same as a proof of the agricultural income of A1 from grape garden. Thereby, the High Court enhanced the agricultural income of A1 to Rs.52,50,000/- permitting an addition of Rs.46,71,600/-."
253. Apart from the fact that the approach of the High Court on this aspect appears to be summary in nature without reference to the other evidence on record as had been exhaustively discussed and analysed by the Trial Court, in law the income tax returns/orders passed thereon qua the issue are not final and binding on a criminal court, and at best only are relevant and always subject to its independent appraisal on merits.(Emphasis added)
254. It has been urged on behalf of R1/A1 that her claim of income of Rs.52,50,000/- under this head stands proved wholly on the basis of the relevant income tax returns and the orders passed thereon. Oral evidence of DW-64 and the documentary evidence by way of D-61 to D-64 have been relied upon. As observed hereinabove, the High Court had readily accepted this evidence and had thereby enhanced the income of A1 under this head to Rs.52,50,000/- by adding Rs.46,71,600/- to the sum of Rs.5,78,340/-
CC No.25/2019 Page 261/419mentioned by the DVAC. In absence of any independent evidence in support of this claim, having regard to the state of law that income tax returns/orders are not automatically binding on a criminal court, in our view, the effortless acceptance thereof by the High Court is in disregard to this settled legal proposition. Thereby the High Court has accorded unassailable primacy to such income tax returns/orders and have made those final and binding on the criminal court without any appreciation of the probative potential thereof."(Emphasis added)."
167.4 In the said backdrop, not much credence can be given to the orders of Income Tax Authorities accepting the claim of loan transactions . The legality of the income of the assessee or the loaner was never the issue before the Income Tax Authorities as reflected from the orders Ex. D1 (colly ) and Ex. D1W4/3. The order Ex. D1W4/3 is rather silent as to the said loan transaction with YP Bansal and it concerns the property trsanctions with him which as per the admission of the accused were only security deeds only. Thus the issue of loan advanced by YP Bansal was never discussed or decided vide order Ex. D1W4/3. The order of ITAT Ex. D-1 is completely silent as to the loan transaction .
167.5 Now coming to the factual aspect vis-a-vis the said loan of Rs. 16,50,000/- from Y.P Bansal , it is apparent from the admission of the accused himself that the said loan transactions were never reported to the employer and the reasons for the same that he was CC No.25/2019 Page 262/419 awaiting posting. Therefore, in the said backdrop, the first issue to be seen is whether the said justification of the accused is liable to be accepted or not.
167.6 Admittedly, as per the case of the accused himself, for the said loan transaction the security documents i.e agreements to sell Ex.P-98 and Ex.P-99 were executed on 20.08.1990 and 1.12.1990 respectively. Subsequently, another agreement dated 24.09.1991 (Ex.P-96) was executed which over-rides the previous two agreements. The total amount received through earlier two referred agreements (Ex.P-98 & Ex.P-99) in August and December 1990 is Rs. 16,50,000/-. As far as third agreement (Ex.P-96) is concerned, admittedly it came into existence after lodging of FIR on 13.08.1991. The consideration amount of Rs.16 lacs as per the accused came in the kitty of his wife and minor son in August 1990 and December 1990. So why same was not intimated in the manner he intimated the earlier loan of Rs. 11 lakh vide Ex. P103 dated 5/06/1990 .
167.7 It is already proved on record that the accused remained without posting from January till December 1990. However from January till 19.08.1991 he remained posted as M.D of Delhi Khadi & Village Industry, Delhi Administration and thereafter the accused was relieved. He then proceeded to join his posting in Mizoram. So, the ground taken by the accused that he CC No.25/2019 Page 263/419 was not able to report about the said loan transaction as required under AIS Conduct Rules 1968 due to want of posting is rebutted by his own posting record.
167.8 Even otherwise, it the case of the accused himself that he reported about the other transactions during the said period itself when he was without any posting through his intimation dated 05.06.1990 (Ex.P-
103) . The loan transactions concerning O.S Chauhan was reported to MHA being his Cadre Controlling Authority. During the said period only i.e August 1990 and December,1990, the alleged loan transaction with Y.P Bansal took place and the obligation was upon the accused being a public servant governed by AIS Conduct Rules 1968 to intimate/report about the said loan transaction his employer which happened to be MHA at that point of time. He was still on the rolls of Govt. of India and was enjoying all the benefits. Therefore the said lame excuse of not reporting the transactions due to want of posting is liable to be rejected.
167.9 Even if, the said claim of the accused is accepted, it is not clear what prevented him from reporting the said transaction soon after joining in January 1991 till August 1991 i.e Delhi Khadi & Village Industry, Delhi Administration. No justification is given on behalf of the accused regarding the said lapse on his part of not reporting the said alleged loan transaction.
CC No.25/2019 Page 264/419167.10 The personal service record of the accused Part of D-6 Ex.PW-5/D on the contrary reflects that even after having joined as MD Delhi Khadi & Village Industry, Delhi Administration and after transfer to Mizoram, the accused herein tried to avoid his legal obligation under AIS Conduct Rules 1968 by claiming non-availability of record due to CBI raid on 13.05.1991.
However, the record also reflect that even after the said raid he continued to negotiate transactions with YP Bansal or PW-3 Shyam Mohan Gupta regarding the land at Ranohla. He continued to seek personal hearing before the MHA and DoPT with whom Sanction request pending to explain his assets, but avoided the filing of returns under AIS Rules.
167.11 The reply dated 16.09.1991 (i.e after the registration of the present FIR) was written by the accused herein to Prakash Chander, IAS, Director CPS, MHA, New Delhi. It was sent in response to the letter dated 12.09.1991 reference no. 14034/3/91-UTS, asking the accused to file his annual property return as well as other intimation under AIS conduct Rules 1968.
But the accused herein vide his reply dated 16.09.1991 took a lame excuse that due to recent CBI raids, all his documents have been seized, he is unable to file the same. He further claimed that he has been requesting CBI to supply legible copies of the document which has not been supplied to him and as and when he will receive the same he will file the intimation and CC No.25/2019 Page 265/419 return. No such request was ever moved by the the accused with CBI or the Court concerned.
167.12 The cross-examination of IO K.N. Tiwari (PW-63) is also silent on the said aspect. Rather the record reflects that the accused was very much active while the investigation was going on . He suo-motu kept on presenting the additional documents to the CBI during the investigation which were rightly taken on record as reflected vide seizure memo D-144 dated 31.12.1991( Ex. P78), dated 06.1.1992 (Ex.P-77) and dated 03.03.1993 (D-123 Ex.P-76). In none of the said requests which were suo-motu moved by the accused, he made any such request for providing any copy of seized documents. Rather, he kept on producing on his own, the additional documents concerning his income etc. The records also reflect that no such hindrance came up before the accused after the 13.08.1991 while concluding the property transaction at Patti Kalyana or Ranhola. Therefore it has to be concluded that the said non-filing of intimation or the property returns was deliberate to avoid further scrutiny of the assets or dubious loan transactions by the employer.
167.13 Ld. Counsel for the accused then argued that this is frequent occurrence/ phenomenon. In this regard, reliance is placed upon Rule 25 of AIS Conduct Rules 1968 and one letter dated 07.07.1992 of DoPT.
CC No.25/2019 Page 266/419167.14 The intent behind the issuance of the of said letter No. 110117/33/92/AIS (III) dated 07.07.1992 is to ensure compliance of the AIS Conduct Rule. However, still liberty is given to the authorities that in case of minor lapses lenient view may be taken.
In the present case in hand, the court is not concerned with the compliance of Rule 13 or 25 of Rules 1968 . It is the explanation under Section 13 (1) (e) of PC Act which imposes the obligation upon the public servant that only those known sources of income can be considered which are intimated to the employer as mandated under the relevant Rules applicable to them. This explanation concerns the court which is not complied herein .Thus, in the said backdrop, the present loan alleged transaction being not intimated to the employer does not satisfy the purview of explanation of Section 13 (1) (e) of PC Act.
167.15 Further, the said source of income being not known sources of income to the prosecution, the onus shifted upon the accused to prove the said additional claim of income within his special knowledge. The accused has failed to discharge the onus placed upon him in this regard .
167.16 The accused in order to discharge the onus claimed that the loan transactions are also reflected in the bank account statement of his wife and his minor son Saket Sankhla.
CC No.25/2019 Page 267/419The account statements Ex.P-25 of PNB, Civil Lines, Delhi of account no. 21250 in the name of Ms. Shashi Sankhla, Statement of Account Ex.P-27 of account no. 28966 in the name of Saket Sankhla and lastly Statement of Account Ex.P-28 in the name of Shashi Bala account no. 9167 are scrutinized and none of the entries reflect the entry qua receipt of consideration amount against the dates as alleged in agreements Ex.P- 98 and Ex.P-99.
167.17 The statement of bank account of Y.P Bansal has also not come on record and the onus was upon the accused being his defence of additional income to prove the trail of loan transaction as alleged by him. But no such evidence has been brought on record on behalf of the accused.
167.18 The accused though placed reliance upon one certificate dated 10.02.1993 of Y.P Bansal, which is part of his representation Ex.PW-63/Z Colly (D-29) whereby he admitted about the said transaction. The said certificate on the face of it is liable to be rejected being a self serving document only and being created after the registration of FIR.
167.19 It has already been observed that none of the banking record concerning the wife of the accused or his minor son reflect the said transaction of Rs. 16,50,000/-. Therefore, not much credence can be given to the self CC No.25/2019 Page 268/419 serving certificate. Even otherwise the best witness for the proving the said fact as alleged by the accused was YP Bansal , but he was never examined as a defense witness for the reasons best known to the accused .
168. Therefore, in view of the above discussed reasons, the plea of the accused thereby claiming additional income of Rs. 16,50,000/- being the loan from Y.P Bansal is liable to be rejected. It is a false claim being raised only after the registration of the present case against the accused, which is usually done in such type of cases against public servants .
27. Additional Income Claim Under Miscellaneous Heads.
169. The accused has also claimed additional income vis-a-vis some other components like GPF advance, Unit Sale with Syndicate Bank, Sale of Revolver, Sale of Scooter, Sale of House-hold goods, return of loan to one Lakhpat Rai by arguing that all the additional income have not been considered by the Investigating Officer.
169.1 It is further argued by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the intimations qua said additional income or withdrawal of GPF Advance finds duly mentioned in the personal record of the accused (D-5, D-6 ,Ex.D1W4/11 & P-64 (D-78). Further, the reliance is placed upon the cross-examination of I.O K. N Tiwari (PW-63) by CC No.25/2019 Page 269/419 arguing that none of the said GPF Advance or the incomings qua sale of various articles or return of loan etc. were considered by him while preparing the calculation sheet .
169.2 Per contra, Ld. Sr.PP for the CBI argued that the said additional income now claimed by the accused is afterthought. As far as the non-consideration of the said claim of additional is concerned, I.O K. N Tiwari (PW-
63) has explained in the cross-examination the grounds for rejection .
169.3 The first component of additional income under the Misc. Head concerns the GPF Advance during the year 1987-1988 and the total sum is Rs. 85,000/-. PW-63 in the cross-examination admitted to the fact that the personal record of the accused (D-5 Ex.PW-5/A) has the approvals dated 25.02.1988 and 04.08.1987 concerning the said GPF advance approval. However, the said amount of Rs. 85,000/- has not been considered by him as the accused was not able to show that any such amount was sanctioned or allowed to be withdrawn by the department. The said explanation furnished by PW- 63 on the face of it, is a fallacious averment.
169.4 The onus was upon the Investigating Authority to check as to whether the said approvals of GPF advance (Part of D-5 Ex.PW-5/A) indeed got credited in the account of the accused or not. Both the CC No.25/2019 Page 270/419 said GPF Advance approved vide order dated 25.02.1988 and 04.08.1987 (Part of Ex.PW-5/A) were sanctioned by the Competent Authority i.e Ministry of Home Affairs and accordingly PAO No.VI, was forwarded with said copy of sanction. The only conclusion that can be drawn from the said admitted service record is that both the said amount got ultimately credited either in the account of the accused or received in cash as per practice then. Hence there was no justification for rejection of the said GPF advances. Accordingly, the said additional income of Rs.85,000/- has to be taken in the List Annexure-1 of Income.
170. The other Misc. Incomings of additional income concerns sale of scooter in the year 1982 and the return of loan by one Lakhpat Rai Jain of Rs.5,000/-. Both the said intimations of incomings are part of Ex.P-64(D-78). The accused through his letter dated 30.08.1982 reported about the said transactions apart from others in terms of AIS Conduct Rules 1968. Apart from that, he also reported through his letter dated 4.08.1983 regarding the receipt of Rs.29,000/- on maturity of units from Syndicate Bank, Delhi.
170.1 The reason for denial of the said incomings as claimed by PW-63 in the cross examination is that no such record regarding the purchase of said articles or advance of loan was available in the personal record seized from Govt. of India.
CC No.25/2019 Page 271/419The personal record having all the intimations right from the year 1973 (Ex.PW-5/B D-6) are perused wherein none of said intimations or first property return reflect the purchase of units from Syndicate Bank which were ultimately claimed to be received on maturity in the year 1983 vide letter dated 4.08.1983.
170.2 Similar is the situation concerning sale of scooter purchased under Foreign Exchange Quota or return of loan from Lakhpat Rai. Both the said intimations form part of the intimation dated 30.08.1982 (Ex.P-64). Firstly, if indeed the scooter was purchased under the prescribed under the Foreign Exchange Quota, the intimation must have been given to the employer as required under AIS Conduct Rules 1968 or sanction under foreign quota being given. No such intimation or permission is available in any of the personal record file (Part of D-6 Ex.PW-5/B and Ex.P-64) and personal file of Chandigarh Administration (Ex.P-1 & P-2).
170.3 The only permission concerning the purchase of vehicle is that of the year 1975, whereby the purchase of Fiat Car on 27.08.1974 was sought . Similarly, there is no permission or intimation qua disbursement of loan of Rs.5,000/- to Lakhpat Rai ,which he claimed to have returned vide intimation dated 30.08.1982 (Ex.P-64).The First Annual Property Return is silent qua any such loan being advanced. The accused also claimed in the intimation dated 30.08.1982 that he CC No.25/2019 Page 272/419 had already intimated this fact to the Government, but no such intimation is there on the record.
170.4 The concerned officials who proved the entire service record of the accused i.e V.N. Nigam (PW-
83) and R.K. Malhotra (PW-85) were never cross- examined on the said aspect of missing intimations if any. Rather, the accused without any objection admitted to the said personal records during the admission & denial process at start of the trial. Thus, it has to be held that complete service record of the accused has been proved by the prosecution. In these circumstances, the said claim of additional income as reflected vide letter dated 30.08.1982 and 04.8.1983 (Part of Ex.P-64) is liable to be rejected being not supported by the necessary intimations qua purchase or advance of loan etc. 170.5 The last set of Misc. Income is the sale of household goods worth Rs.12,000/-and sale of revolver intimated vide intimation dated Ex. D1W4/11 and Ex. D1W4/10. The said intimation letters Ex.D1W4/10 & Ex.D1W4/11 were produced during defense evidence from the office of Income Tax Department by official Vikas Chaudhary (D1W4). The authenticity of the said intimations is highly questionable as none of the said intimations form part of the record maintained by Chandigarh Administration and provided by Ministry of Home Affairs to CBI. The said record maintained by Chandigarh Adm. when the accused was posted over CC No.25/2019 Page 273/419 there, has been proved by PW-85 and no question was raised by the accused regarding intimations Ex. D1W4/10 and D1W4/11 being missing from their record . The Para No. 199.4 to 200 of the judgment gives the details for rejecting the said record .
Thus, the said claim of Misc. Income is liable to be rejected.
28. Item No.11 of the Expenditure ( Annexure-II)&Item No.1 of the Assets (Annexure-III)
171. The item no.11 concerns the expenditure to the tune of Rs. 29,984.60 paid on 07.05.1991 in respect of electricity charges for the Roll Mills, situated at Plot No. 112 Parkash Industrial State, Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad, The connected entry to the said expenditure is Item No.1 of the Assets (Annexure-III) wherein the value of the said asset purchased in the name of master Kapil Sankhla is stated to be Rs.4 lacs. As far as ownership of the said asset is concerned, there is not dispute. The admitted documents i.e GPA Ex.P-23(Ex.PW-12/A dated 11.05.1989) proves the acquisition of the said property. The previous owner Smt. Chhaya Chaudhary (PW-12 ) also proved the said GPA. She deposed that the purchaser of the said plot was D.C Sankhla, and the consideration amount was Rs. 4 lacs. Admittedly, the said acquisition of the immovable property initially in the name of Kapil Sankhla or subsequently execution of GPA Ex.P-23 in the name of the accused herein was never reported to the CC No.25/2019 Page 274/419 employer. No prior permission in this regard was taken as mandated under AIS Conduct Rules 1968.
171.1 Be that as it may be, ownership of the Asset Item No.1 is not disputed and the dispute herein only concerns the Item No.11 of Expenditure. It concerns the electricity charges qua the electricity connection installed at the said premises.
171.2 Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the dues against the previous owner over the said property as proved by Ashok Kumar Kansal (PW-31), Executive Engineer have been wrongly imputed upon him as expenditure. The said property was purchased in by them in the year 1991 and hence, the dues which were paid by the previous owner cannot be taken against him as expenditure.
171.3 Per contra, Ld. Sr.PP for CBI argued that the said property was purchased in the year 1989 not in 1991 as claimed, which is reflected from the admitted document Ex.P-23.
171.4 The concerned witness Ashok Kumar Kansal (PW-31), official from Electricity Distribution Division, Modi Nagar, U.P proved the electricity record qua the said property as Ex.PW-31/A and Ex.PW-31/B. Ex.PW- 31/A dated 14.10.1992 is the letter written to CBI by the concerned official supplying requisite information qua CC No.25/2019 Page 275/419 electricity dues and its payment over the said property during the investigation. The detailed chart of the dues and payment made qua electricity connection over the said property is Ex.PW-31/B. As per the note given in the chart, the bill dated 07.05.1991 was raised concerning previous dues and accordingly, payment of Rs. 44,479/. was made. The said payment is disputed by accused being made by the previous owner.
171.5 The said issue is clarified by PW-31 who deposed that the bill for the period from January 1987 to October 1989 is the total period provided in the said Ex.PW-31/B. The bill was revised in May 1991 for which the payment was received. The electricity connection was also disconnected due to some reasons which was re-connected after taking payment of Rs.30,000/-. In the cross-examination, PW-31 admitted to the fact that the meter was installed in the name of M/s Roll Mills Industries and the payment was made on behalf of the consumer. The connection thus remained in the name of previous consumer M/s Roll Mills Industries despite transfer of the property to the accused, even when revised bill was raised.
171.6 It is thus apparent that as the acquisition of the said property by the accused was done through irregular documents i.e GPA Ex.P-23, therefore, in the official records, be it the electricity department or the allotment authority, GDA, Ghaziabad, continued to be in CC No.25/2019 Page 276/419 the name of allotee M/s Roll Mill Industries. However, it is an admitted case of the accused regarding the acquisition of the said asset and it being acquired through GPA/Mukhtarnama Ex.P-23. The said GPA has been executed on 11.05.1989 and pre-cursor to the said document was agreement to sell concerning the said property executed in favour of Kapil Sankhla (minor son of the accused) vide Ex.PW-12/DA which is also admitted document as Ex.P-58. As per the contents of the said agreement to sell, the seller agreed to transfer the said plot No.112 Parkash Industrial State, Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad for a consideration amount of Rs.4 lacs. One lakh was earnest money, and the remaining amount was to be paid at the time of final transfer and the last date in this regard was 11.05.1991. According to said agreement to sell only, GPA dated 11.05.1989 was executed which was also registered with the office of Sub-Registrar, Ghaziabad. Thus, for all practical purposes, the possession as well as the ownership through the said admitted documents came with the accused in the year 1989 itself.
171.7 Therefore, in the said backdrop, it cannot believed that the previous owner either paid previous dues raised in May 1991 as reflected in Ex.PW-31/B or paid Rs.30,000/- towards electricity reconnection after having sold the property way back in the year 1989.
CC No.25/2019 Page 277/419171.8 The only conclusion that can be drawn from the version of PW-31 is that it is the accused being the owner of the said property after having paid the entire consideration amount of Rs. 4 lacs to the previous owner, paid the said electricity dues in May 1991 while seeking reconnection.Accordingly, Item No.11 of the expenditure as well as Item No.1 of Annexure-III stands proved against the accused.
29. Item No. 16 & 17 of Expenditure (Annexure-II).
172. The said expenditure concerns the booking and installation of telephone connection in the name of Ms. Shashi Sankhla in May 1990 and subsequently payment towards the said installed telephone connection vide Telephone No. 2927751 from 1990 to July 1991.
The prosecution in this regard has placed reliance upon the version of I.S Yadav (PW-73) and documents D-80 and D-150.
172.1 Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that the said expenditure too has been wrongly imputed upon him as the expenses for the same were reimbursed by the Government as reflected from his service record D-5 (Page No.145) Ex. PW-5/A. 172.2 The first issue is the installation and booking of said telephone connection for which expenditure as alleged vide item no. 16 is Rs.8000/-. The prosecution in CC No.25/2019 Page 278/419 this regard has placed reliance upon the admitted document i.e booking file Ex.PW-73/2 (D-80). The telephone connection was applied by Ms. Shashi Sankhla through her application form Ex.P-1 dated 30.03.1990. The purpose of the connection was stated to be non- business. The purpose of the connection was not official use as per the columns of selection in the application form. The expenditure in this regard incurred for booking and installation was Rs.8000/- as reflected from acknowledgment receipt Ex.P-5. Admittedly, the said telephone connection was installed at the official residence i.e 5A Court Road, Civil Lines. Delhi. However, the accused simply placed reliance upon the letter dated 21.03.1990 issued by the Secretary (Services), Delhi Administration whereby he has been allowed to retain his residential telephone upon being transferred from Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation (DSMDC). At that point in time he was awaiting the posting.
172.3 Admittedly, at the time of issuance of the said letter dated 21.03.1990, the telephone connection in the name of Ms. Shashi Sankhla was not in existence. Therefore, there was no question of retaining said telephone connection, which came to be installed at a later point in time.
172.4 The said telephone connection came to be approved by MTNL on 17.05.1990. Even otherwise, CC No.25/2019 Page 279/419 there is nothing in the personal record (Ex.D-5 Ex.PW- 5/B) reflecting any reimbursement towards the said residential telephone connection installed in the name of his wife. Even otherwise, as per the applicable rules of reimbursement governing the government servants, the connection has to be there in the name of the concerned public servant to claim reimbursement, which is not the case herein. Hence, the reliance placed upon letter dated 21.03.1990 is misplaced.
J.N. Sharma (PW-80) vide admitted documents Ex.P-82 proved the expenses incurred towards the payment of the said telephone connection. As per the details payment was made qua the said Telephone No. 2927751 with effect from 01.11.1990 till 01.09.1991 i.e the check period. The total of the said payment comes to be Rs. 13,648/-. However, the prosecution has listed the expenses as Rs. 12,217/-. Accordingly, expenditure of Rs.12,217/- and Rs. 8000/- towards booking of telephone connection in the name of Ms Shashi Sankhla stands proved.
30. Item No.25 of Expenditure (Annexure-II i.e Household Expenditure)
173. This Item concerns the unverifiable household expenditure from 01.01.1980 to 13.08.1991.
The prosecution has claimed that the household expenses incurred during the check period are Rs.1,30,922/-.The connected entry to the said unverifiable house expenditure is Item No. 32 CC No.25/2019 Page 280/419 expenditure on pocket expenses, Item No. 36 expenditure on family clothing, and Item No. 31 expenditure on purchase of books, pencils, pens, exercise books, uniforms etc. 173.1 Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI argued that as far as expenditure qua entry no.25 is concerned, 1/3rd of the total salary drawn by the accused has been taken for calculating the expenditure on household expenses during the check period. The total salary drawn by him, as per the record, provided by the employer is Rs.4,36,742.48. As far as expenditure qua item no.31 expenditure on the purchase of books, pencil, pens, exercise books, uniforms, etc. is concerned, the same is based upon the explanation given by IO K.N. Tiwari (PW-63) in the observation memo Ex.PW-63/X-3 (D-56). Similar is the situation qua expenditure vide Item no.32 expenditure on pocket expenses and Item no.36 expenditure on clothing of the family.
173.2 Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that the separate entries of expenditure i.e Item no.32 expenditure on pocket expenses, Item no.31 expenditure on purchase of books, pencil, pens, exercise books, uniform etc and Item no.36 expenditure on clothing of the family is arbitrary, as 1/3rd of the entire salary income is already deducted towards unverifiable house expenditure. The said unverifiable house expenditure includes clothing, purchase of books, pencil, CC No.25/2019 Page 281/419 pens, exercise books, uniforms, as well as pocket expenses etc. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the circular of CBI dated 29.11.2001 wherein standard procedure for investigation into Disproportionate Cases has been circulated for the guidance of the Investigating Officer.
173.3 The first issue to be seen herein is the principles governing deduction of 1/3rd of the salary towards unverifiable house expenses while calculating the disproportionate assets. The said principle of law was propounded way back in the year 1963 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sajjan Kumar V. State of Punjab (AIR 1964 SC 464) which holds the field till date. The criteria of deducting 1/3rd from the entire salary towards unverifiable house expenses is the norm.
173.4 The next issue to be seen is the components that can be said to be part of the said household expenses or unverifiable house expenditures, incurred by the public servant while running his family during the check period. As per the accused, clothing, pocket expenses, or the expenditure on purchase of books, pencil, pens, exercise books, uniform, etc form part of said unverifiable house expenses.
173.5 On the contrary, the prosecution in this regard, has simply placed reliance upon the wisdom of the Investigating Officer. The basis of the said wisdom is CC No.25/2019 Page 282/419 that the amount as claimed must have been incurred/spent on clothing, pocket expenses, etc. keeping in view the living standard of the accused as observed by them during the investigation as recorded vide observation memo Mark PW-63/X-3.
173.6 The said observation memo was prepared at the time of the search conducted at the residential premises of the accused on 13.08.1991. Apart from seizing the incriminating documents vide search list Ex.PW-92/1 by the search team, the observation memo was also prepared. The items found at the premises of the accused reflect that he owned several luxury items in view of the living standard as was prevalent during the said period.
He owned one Sony T.V purchased in the year 1984. Apart from that he was found in possession one Akai VCR, and two Air Conditioners apart from other expensive items.
173.7 No doubt the said items were luxury at that point in time and in a way points towards the high standard of living of the family of the accused, but still no assumption can be drawn based on the said observation memo Ex.PW-63/X-4. The assumption that he must have spent a particular amount towards pocket expenses, clothing or expenditures on the purchase of books, etc.is misplaced and sheer guesswork.
CC No.25/2019 Page 283/419All the said items are part and parcel of "unverifiable household expenditure" in Item No.25 which is the 1/3rd of the total salary drawn during the check period by the public servant concerned.
173.8 The connected issue raised by the accused towards the said expenditure item no.25 concerning the household expenses is that during the said check period for around three years, his wife alongwith minor sons lived separately at her parental home in Port Blair. Apart from that reliance is also placed upon the intimation by the accused to his department intimating that his real brothers namely R.L Sankhla and Madan Lal @ P.C Sankhla also contributed towards the household expenses.
The intimation in this regard is letter dated 16.03.1981 (D-6 Ex.PW-5/B) wherein the accused reported to Secretary (Services), Delhi Administration that his two bachelor brothers are residing with him and his family for the last 4-5 years. He reported as under :
"1) Shri Rattan Lal who has been staying with me since 1975 has been appointed Junior Law Officer, from March 1980 and has started paying Rs.850/- per month towards expenses.
2) Shri Madan Lal who has been staying with me since 1977, has started his own business and has been paying Rs. 1000/-per month towards expenses from July 1980."CC No.25/2019 Page 284/419
173.9 So, as per his own admission both of them were residing with him right from the start of check period i.e 01.01.1980. As far as Rattan Lal Sankhla is concerned, it is claimed that he was appointed as Jr. Law Officer from March 1980 and started contributing Rs.850/- per month towards house-hold expenses.
The said Rattan Lal Sankhla appeared in the witness box as PW-60. He deposed that he joined the Judicial Services in Haryana in May 1981. So, the conclusion that can be drawn from version of PW-60 and letter dated 16.03.1981 (Part D-6, Ex.PW-5/B) is that he contributed from March 1980 till April 1981 at the most towards household expenses.
173.10 Similarly, Prem Chand Sankhla (PW-66) also appeared in the witness box. As per his version too, he appeared to have joined the services as Sales Officer on adhoc-basis with Delhi State Civil Supply Corporation in 1982 .Though it is not clear whether thereafter he stayed along with his elder brother or not.
173.11 The personal service file of Prem Chand Sankhla is also proved on record as Ex.PW-66/A which reflects that he joined Delhi State Civil Supply Corporation as Sales Officer on 11.12.1982. There is no such record available either in his file or has come on record in the version of PW-66 regarding he being in any business before the said joining. Rather, the service record reflects how by misusing the authority, the CC No.25/2019 Page 285/419 accused herein got allotted him one industrial shed at Chandigarh Industrial and General Development Corporation Ltd in the year 1981. In the application, it was claimed that P.C Sankhla had worked with one Hindustan Metal and Steel Industries, 4778, Aggarwal Market Hauz Khaz, Delhi for three years discharging managerial functions.
Both the said documents i.e the personal file of P.C Sankhla (Ex.PW-66/A) and the letter dated 16.03.1981 (Ex.PW-5/B D-6) are contradictory and reflects the falsity of the claims of the accused regarding the contribution of PC @ Madan Lal Sankhla towards the household expenses. Rather, it has to be held that the accused incurred additional expenditure as PC Shankhla was dependent upon him till the time, he joined service in the year 1982. In the light of the said fact, the argument advanced on behalf of the accused regarding contributions made by his brothers while they stayed with him appears only to be a false plea.
173.12 As far as the second limb of the contention that his wife and two minor children remained separate for a period of around three years due to matrimonial conflict/differences has not been considered is also a fallacious plea. The fact remains that there was no judicial separation between them and it cannot be assumed that the accused simply washed off his hands from his parental or matrimonial liabilities during the said separation. The fact remains that he continued to have CC No.25/2019 Page 286/419 relation with his wife and children during the said period and accordingly the liabilities too comes into picture. Therefore, the claim of the prosecution of taking 1/3rd of the entire salary towards the unverifiable household expenditure is taken to be proved.
173.13 As far as Item no. 31, 32 and 36 of Expenditure are considered, the said entries form part and parcel of the above said unverifiable household expenditure and accordingly, the same are to be deleted from the list of expenses (Annexure-II).
31. Item No.45 of Assets ( Annexure-III)
174. The prosecution has listed the value of the National Saving Certificate (NSC) as declared in the Wealth Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 1991 to be Rs. 74,316/-. Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI argued that the Wealth Tax Returns have been proved on record by IO K.N. Tiwari (PW-63) vide Mark PW-63/PX-1 (D-57). In the said return, the value of the said NSC in the name of the accused as on date filing of the return is Rs.74,316/-.
174.1 Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that they are not disputing the value as reflected in the Wealth Tax Return Mark PW-63/PX-1. Their grievance only concerns interest earned over the said cumulative value. The reliance is placed upon intimation dated 30.03.1988 (Part of D-6 Ex.PW-5/B).
CC No.25/2019 Page 287/419It is argued that as per the said intimation, it was intimated on 30.03.1988 about the encashment of the NSC to the extent of Rs. 42,200 and re-investment in the NSC to be Rs.22000/-. Apart from that Rs.14,000/- was invested on 07.03.1986. The reliance is placed upon Debit Vouchers (part of D-99) in this regard. However no investigation has been done with respect to the actual interest earned upon the cumulative value of the NSC.
175. The first aspect concerns the value of NSC in the name of the accused as on 31.03.1990. The value is reflected in Wealth Tax Return Mark PW-63/PX-1. There is no dispute qua the value being the admitted record of the accused. The accused himself in his return admitted that the value of NSC in his name was Rs.74,316/-.
But the Investigating Officer without conducting any investigation as to the start of the said investment and the interest component of the same, simply took the said value as the asset in Annexure-III.
175.1 The accused reported about the said investment to his employer in his intimation letter dated 30.03.1988 (Part of D-6 Ex.PW-5/B). He reported that he has encashed old NSC to the extent of Rs.42,200/- and reinvested Rs. 22,000/-. Another purchase of NSC to the tune of Rs. 14,000/- was stated to be purchased on 07.03.1986. The intimation in this regard is part of intimation letter dated 04.08.1986 ( Ex.PW-5/B ), the CC No.25/2019 Page 288/419 accused reported about purchase of NSC of Rs. 34,000/- on 24.01.1986 and 21.04.1986. So, in total as per the intimations, total purchase of NSC was Rs.34,000/- in 1986 and Rs. 22,000/- in 1988. Out of the said total purchase of NSC, Rs.42,200/- was encashed in the year 1988. Thus, the total value of Rs.74,316/- as on 31.03.1990 includes a major part of interest component.
175.2 So, the total value of the purchase of NSC as per the proven record is only Rs. 34,000/-. In absence of any record, the value of the asset is taken to be Rs. 34,000/-. Accordingly, said entry No. 45 of Assets ( Annexure-3) is taken to be partly proved to the extent of Rs. 34,000/-.
32. Item No. 43 of the Annexure-III.
176. The Item No.43 concerns the value of the house-hold goods found during his house search conducted on 13.08.1991. The value given of the house- hold goods by the prosecution is Rs.80,000/-.
Ld. Sr. PP for CBI in this regard has placed reliance upon D-56 Mark PW-63/X-3 which is the observation memo. It is argued that the value as given in the memo was disclosed by the accused or his family members in the presence of two witnesses for the assets found during the house search. One of the witnesses to the said search has been examined as S.H. Pai (PW-92).
CC No.25/2019 Page 289/419176.1 Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that no such record concerning the value of the goods found during the house search has been proved on record. The value given by the CBI is arbitrary. At best, the value of the said goods can be Rs. 30,000/- as has been disclosed by the accused in the Wealth Tax Return ( D-57, Mark PW-63/PX-1).
177. The first aspect concerning the said entry of value of household goods as on date of search i.e 13.08.1991 is the issue of admissibility of observation memo Mark PW-63/X-3. No objection was raised as to the mode of proof of said observation memos. It concerns the residential premises of the accused i.e 5A Court Road, Delhi . In the said backdrop, when there is no objection as to the mode of proof of the said observation memo, it has to be read against the accused.
177.1 Now coming to the contents of the said document and how it was drawn by IO K.N. Tiwari (PW-
63). The same was drawn based on information supplied by the accused and his wife. No question mark has been put over the same the said claim of PW63 IO K.N. Tiwari in the entire cross examination on behalf of the accused . Even a bald suggestion denying the contents of the said observation memo Mark PW-63/X-3 is missing .
The information about the household goods including the cost of acquisition, mode of acquisition and CC No.25/2019 Page 290/419 year of acquisition as disclosed by the accused and his wife too has not been specifically rebutted. In the said backdrop, there is no reason on record to discard the said unrebutted documents and version of PW63 on the said aspect.
177.2 The same is the situation concerning the inventory Mark PW-63/X-4 (D-56) which pertains to the search conducted at Shashi Nursery in Patti Kalyana, District Panipat, Haryana. The said inventory list has been prepared by Dy. S.P CBI Balbir Singh. The said document though is not proved as neither the author of the said document has been identified nor the same was put to the panch witness to the said search namely Bishamber Dayal examined as PW-51.
177.3 Thus, the only inventory/observation proved concerns the house search wherein details of each item, its mode of acquisition, year of purchase and its value as disclosed by the accused or his wife has been mentioned.
As far as items listed in the said inventory are concerned, there is no dispute on behalf of accused. Thus in the said backdrop when there is no dispute qua the items, if for the sake of argument, the value as mentioned in observation memo is discarded, even then the value given for all the listed items would certainly be more than Rs.80,000/-.
CC No.25/2019 Page 291/419177.4 The contention of the accused that he had given value of his house-hold goods to be Rs.30,000/- in his Wealth Tax Return is no doubt correct, but the issue is whether the said value given in light of the listed item Inventory List Mark PW-63/X-4 (D-56) appears to be be correct or not . The said value in wealth tax return on the face of it appears to be arbitrary and inadequate and hence, cannot be accepted.
178. Accordingly, it has to be held that when there is no challenge qua the items and value as described in the observation memo , the Item No. 43 of Assets (Annexure -III) for a sum of Rs.80,000/- qua house-hold goods of the accused stands proved.
33. Item No. 27 of the Expenditure ( Annexure-II)
179. The prosecution has listed the expenditure on car (Petrol, Oil, Wear & Tear) from July 1986 to 13.08.1991 to be Rs.20,000/-.
Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI for the said expenditure placed reliance upon the version Baljeet Singh (PW-47) and one invoice proved by him as Ex.PW-47/A. The reliance is also placed upon version of IO K.N. Tiwari (PW-63) who has proved on record the inventory Mark PW-63/X-3 having details about run of the car owned by the accused.
179.1 Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that as far as the ownership of the car is concerned, there is no dispute as the accused had availed CC No.25/2019 Page 292/419 a loan in this regard. But vis-a-vis expense incurred on the petrol, the case of the prosecution is based upon one single invoice Ex.PW-47/A which concerns sale of diesel and not petrol used in the car owned by accused.
180. The issue of ownership of the Maruti Car is not in dispute as the accused herein had availed loan of Rs.70,000/- from his employer and purchased the car in the year 1986. As far as the expenses on petrol and other maintenance costs of the said car from 1986 till 13.08.1991 is concerned, the prosecution has primarily placed reliance upon the invoice of M/s Blue Jay Filing Centre, G.T Road, Samalhka , Panipat dated 28.03.1991.
The reliance is also placed upon the observation memo Mark PW-63/X-3 which has been proved by IO K.N. Tiwari (PW-63). As far as the admissibility of the said document is concerned, there is no question mark, rather the version of PW-63 regarding contents of the said memo including the value of the assets is not even challenged. The version of PW-63 has gone unchallenged qua the contents of observation memo Mark PW-63/X-3 as already observed.
180.1 The contents of the said observation memo Mark PW-63/X-3 records a categorical observation concerning the Maruti Car 800 CC (white colour) bearing registration No.DDV-I. The said car was found in the garage during the house search of the accused. IO K.N. Tiwari (PW-63) further recorded the mileage run as CC No.25/2019 Page 293/419 observed by him during inspection of the car to be 18606 KM as on 31.08.1991. Again the said observation qua run of the said car to the extent of 18606 KM since purchase, there is no dispute raised by the accused, which is primary basis of expenditure.
180.2 In the said backdrop, the context of the solitary invoice Ex.PW-47/A concerning M/s Blue Jay Filing Centre comes into picture. Baljeet Singh (PW-47) proved the said invoice and further deposed that the said invoice was issued by him to the customer who came to the filing station to get petrol. As far as his version regarding the issuance of invoice to the customer on the asking of the customer and it being issued in lieu of sale of petrol is concerned, there is no question mark in the cross-examination and has gone unrebutted against the accused.
180.3 The invoice Ex.PW-47/A has also been questioned by the accused by pointing out that the same is bereft of necessary details i.e vehicle number or name of the customer.
180.4 No doubt, the said invoice Ex.PW-47/A does not have the particulars of the vehicle or customer name, but the record reflects that the said invoice was recovered during the house search of the accused vide seizure list Ex.PW-92/1 (D-114) which was carried out on 13.08.1991. The said search list is not disputed and has CC No.25/2019 Page 294/419 been proved by IO K.N. Tiwari (PW-63) as well as search witness S.H. Pai (PW-92).
180.5 In the said backdrop, the said invoice becomes relevant and connected to the accused. The onus thereafter shifted upon the accused to explain about the possession of the said invoice with him. No explanation is furnished except by arguing that the said invoice concerns sale of diesel. Nothing of this sort is reflected in the invoice. The said fact is also rebutted by the author of the same PW42. The accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C too claimed that it is a matter of record. Hence there is no reason to discard the said invoice and consideration of the same for calculation towards petrol expenses cannot be said to be wrong.
181. Therefore, keeping in view the run of the said car around for 18000 KM coupled with its wear and tear or maintenance cost from the year 1986 till 13.08.1991, the expenditure of Rs.20,000/- has to be taken as reasonable calculation and part of verifiable expenses. Accordingly, Item No. 27 of Expenses for a sum of Rs.20,000/- stands proved.
34. Item No. 28 of the Expenditure ( Annexure-II)
182. The prosecution has listed the expenditure of Rs.10,000/- incurred for the payment made to one CC No.25/2019 Page 295/419 Paramjeet Singh. He is stated to be the broker qua the purchase of Retreat Villa, Dalhousie, Himachal Pardesh by the accused.
Ld. Sr PP for CBI for proving the said entry placed reliance upon admitted document Ex.P-53 (D-63) and claimed that it is the brokerage paid for the purchase of the said bungalow at Dalhousie.
182.1 Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that no evidence has come on record qua the said expenditure as the said Paramjeet Singh never entered into the witness box.
183. As far as the ownership of said Retreat Villa, at Dalhousie is concerned, there is no dispute and the same stands proved through GPA ( admitted document as Ex.P-53) dated 20.02.1990 favouring the wife and the accused. The acquisition of the said property was though never intimated to the employer by the accused and the reasons advanced for the same are that the accused was awaiting posting during the said period.
183.1 The said plea has already been discarded being frivolous one. Even after having been posted w.e.f January till August 1991 as M.D of Delhi Khadi and Village Industries Board, Delhi Administration, no such intimation was sent to the employer.
CC No.25/2019 Page 296/419183.2 Be that as it may be, the issue herein is as to whether the said GPA (Ex.P-53) proves the expenditure of Rs.10,000/- as brokerage to Paramjeet Singh or not, the answer lies in negative. No such endorsement qua payment is available on the admitted document Ex.P-53 Though the said Paramjeet Singh is signatory to the said document as witness. Certainly, expenses must have been paid towards the brokerage for the acquisition of the said property as was reported qua another property i.e Jaswant Cottage, Dalhousie. It was reported by the accused vide intimation letter dated 07.08.1989 ( Part of D-6 Ex. PW5/B) having purchased the said property for value of Rs. 1,40,000/-. The accused further reported that the same was purchased through a reputed property dealer. But, still no assumption can be drawn as to the amount of brokerage charged or paid qua the subsequent transaction against the purchase of Retreat Villa, Dalhousie. According, the said Item no. 28 of the Expenses ( Annexure-II) stands not proved and is liable to be deleted.
35. Item No. 37 of Expenditure ( Annexure-II )
184. The prosecution has listed the said entry qua purchase of gas stove and cylinder and expenditure incurred to be Rs.1101/-
The prosecution in this regard has placed reliance upon the admitted document Ex.P-66 which is the receipt and cash memo qua the said expenditure .
CC No.25/2019 Page 297/419184.1 Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that the said expenses have to be included in the entry no.25 being part of house-hold expenses.
185. The argument advanced on behalf of the defence is liable to be rejected as Item 25 (annexure-II) concerns the unverifiable household expenses incurred during the check period. However, the present expenditure falls within the category of verified expenses. Accordingly, the said component becomes part of verifiable articles expenses. The said purchase stands proved through admitted document P-66 (D-84) recovered during the house search of the accused on 13.08.1991. Accordingly, Item No.37 of Rs.1101/- is held to be proved.
36. Item No.3, 4 and 14 of the Assets (Annexure-III), Item No.4 & 5 of the Expenditure (Annexure-II) & Worth of the father of the accused Late MR Sankhla
186. The assets at item no.3 and 4 concern Plot No. CDH-67 and CDH-86 at VGP Golden Beach at Madras. It is alleged that the asset listed vide Item No.3 was purchased by the accused after making payments from February 1985 to 23rd June 1989. The value of the said asset is stated to be Rs.1,10,000/-. Similarly, plot no. CDH-86 is stated to have been purchased in the name of the accused on 08.03.1985 and the value of the same is stated to be Rs.50,860/-. The 3rd asset connected to the CC No.25/2019 Page 298/419 said two assets is Item No.14 concerning Flat No.B-41, Aditi Apartment, Patparganj, Delhi, purchased during the year 1988 in the name of the accused. The value of the said flat is stated to be Rs. 4,18,948.40.
187. The said three assets have been clubbed together for discussion as the defence vis-a-vis the said three assets of the accused concerns the Will of the father of the accused namely M.R Sankhla. Secondly, it is his defence that the said assets concern the various loans advanced by his father to him or his brothers.
188. Ld. Sr.PP for the CBI argued that as far as the ownership of said assets no.3 & 4 is concerned, the same is not in dispute as has been proved by Ravi Das (PW-64 ), owner of the VGP company, Chennai. He proved the documents concerning ownership qua said two plots vide Ex.PW-64/A and Ex.PW-64/B (part of D-
62). He also proved the sale deed Ex.PW-64/C. 188.1 It is further argued by Ld SPP that as far as an asset at Item No.14 i.e Flat No.B-41, Aditi Apartment, Patparganj, Delhi, is concerned, the ownership of the said flat also stands proved through the version of J.N. Gupta (PW-24) the President of Aditi Group Housing Society, Patparganj, Delhi and V.K. Khandelwal (PW-35). PW- 24 proved the record regarding payment of Rs.3,89,472/- towards cost of construction and cost of the land etc. PW- 35 also proved on record concerning the payment issued CC No.25/2019 Page 299/419 in favour of said society from the account of the accused maintained at State Bank of Patiala (SBOP), Sector-22 Chandigarh.
189. Per contra, it has been argued on behalf of the accused that the allegations in the chargesheet that the accused's father M.R Sankhla was a man of no means is against the record. His worth is reflected in his service record, bank accounts statement of M.R Sankhla as well as his Wealth Tax Returns Mark PW-63/PX-1 (D-57).
189.1 Further the defence of the accused regarding the said assets, is the loan transaction with his father M.R Sankhla. The said loan taken concerns the part payment made by M.R Sankhla towards the consideration of Flat No.B-41, Aditi Apartment, Patparganj, Delhi. A sum of Rs.1,25,000/- was paid through the bank account no. 10691, SBI, Sirsa of late M.R Sankhla, vide cheque dated 12/12/1984 mark DX (part of admitted file Ex. P90). The said cheque got cleared on 17.12.1984. The said amount was the loan advanced by his father and in lieu of that loan, the accused made payments towards two plots of land at VGP Golden Beach at Madras purchased by his father. He also paid a certain amount towards the purchase of agricultural land at village Moriwala, Sirsa in name of grandsons.
189.1 It has been further argued on behalf of the accused that Entry No.4 and 5 of the expenditure list CC No.25/2019 Page 300/419 (Annexure-II) are also connected to the said issue regarding worth of his late father M.R Sankhla. His father had purchased the agricultural land at village Moriwala on 21.06.1985 against payment of consideration amount of Rs.98,000/- as listed vide Item No.4. The stamp duty and registration charges are stated to be Rs. 13,536/- vide Item no. 5 of Expenditure.
189.2 It has been further argued that that the payment qua the purchase of property at village Moriwala (Item no.4 of expenditure) was made by him from his bank account as he had received Rs.44,000/- and Rs.12,000/- from his late father as a loan on 21.06.1985. Therefore, the net effect is that only the excess amount for purchase of the land by his late father in the name of his sons (grandsons of M.R Sankhla) is only Rs. 18056/-
189.3 It has been further argued that the Investigating Officer in the present case collected the various bank vouchers of two bank accounts maintained by his father i.e. account no. 10691 State Bank of India, Sirsa and account No.7836, New Bank of India, Sirsa, but failed to analyze the said transactions reflecting payment of a loan to him and in lieu of that his father having purchased the property in the name of his grandsons. In this regard, reliance is also placed upon the affidavit Ex.PW-60/DX-3 wherein M.R Sankhla categorically stated that he had purchased the agricultural land at village Moriwala for total sum of Rs.90,000/- on CC No.25/2019 Page 301/419 21.06.1985 in the name of his two minor grandsons namely Kapil Sankhla and Saket Sankhla. He further bequeathed the his properties at VGP ,Madras in his favour vide will Ex. PW60/DX1.
189.4 Ld. Sr.PP for the CBI in rebuttal to the said issue qua the purchase of land at village Moriwala argued that firstly the entire payment has been made from account of accused D.C. Sankhla at State Bank of Patiala (SBOI), Sector-22 Chandigarh and secondly, the sale deed does not in any manner reflects that the land was purchased by M.R Sankhla in name of his grandsons.
190. Before discussing the issue concerning ownership of the two plots at VGP Golden Beach at Madras and Flat No.B-41, Aditi Apartment, Patparganj, Delhi as well as connected to expenditure entries No. 4 and 5 (Annexure II )qua purchase of land at village Moriwala, Sirsa the disputed issue of the worth and assets of late M.R Sankhla requires consideration.
190.1 The prosecution has categorically alleged in the chargesheet that late M.R Sankhla was a shoe-maker having a small shop with meager income at Mochhiwali Gali, Sirsa. He expired on 22.04.1986 leaving no property except a small residential house which is now possessed by Laxmi Chand Sankhla, brother of the accused. He now runs a shoe shop therein. All these facts CC No.25/2019 Page 302/419 are not disputed except the claim qua the meager income and assets of MR Sankhla.
190.2 It is admitted fact that late M.R Sankhla had five sons and three daughters. So, as per the prosecution, father of the accused only had small residential house wherein he used to run a shoe-maker shop at Sirsa, Haryana. Thus, in a way, a categorical averment has been made regarding the late M.R Sankhla being a man of limited means or no means. A question mark has also been raised by CBI over the claim of the accused regarding purchase of agricultural land by MR Sankhla on 21.06.1985 in the name of his grandsons at village Moriwala, Sirsa or the loan extended to accused as well as his other brother as well as purchase of two plots VGP Golden Beach at Madras.
190.3 The accused in his statement to the investigating officer, part of Ex.PW-7/DB (Sanction File) as far as worth of his father is concerned, claimed that his father was an agriculturist and was doing money lending business at Sirsa, Haryana. The said statement is not disputed on behalf of the accused as the said record came to be filed consequent to the request moved by the accused in this regard during the cross-examination of D.K Samantarary (PW-7), the Sanctioning Authority. So, as per the accused his father was an agriculturist and was in business of money lending.
CC No.25/2019 Page 303/419The said claim has changed now as no such argument regarding his father being in business of money lending has come on record. Rather, the argument now advanced is that he was having substantial agricultural income as well as income from his leather business at Sirsa.
190.4 Be that as it may be, the first issue to be seen is the record filed by the accused under AIS Conduct Rules 1968 concerning assets or worth of his father. The first document is the first annual property return filed in the year ending 1973 (Part of File Ex.PW-5/D) by the accused. The accused reported that his father owns three houses at Sirsa which were claimed to be the "ancestral property" and the value of the said property was stated to be Rs.50,000/-. Thus, the said first returns puts a question mark over the claim of the prosecution that late M.R Sankhla had only one small house at Sirsa.
However the return is also put into the dock by the purported Will Ex. PW60/DX etc. In the will it is claimed that all properties were self acquired properties of M.R. Sankhla.
190.5 The said first property return (Ex. PW5/D) is though silent with respect to the occupation or sources of his income. The annual income from the said three houses was also claimed to be 'Nil'. So, till December 1973, none of the three houses owned by late M.R Sankhla was generating any income. It was also silent CC No.25/2019 Page 304/419 qua the shoe shop or shoe business owned by MR Sankhla.
190.6 In the said backdrop, the next issue to be seen is the agricultural income which as per the accused, accrued from the land, he owned at village Natar, District Sirsa. Mohan Lal (PW-53) Halka Patwari, Ellebad, District Sirsa proved the revenue record concerning the said land in the name of late M.R Sankhla as Ex.PW-53/A to Ex.PW-53/D. As per the revenue record, the said land was purchased somewhere in July 1974 and ultimately the said land came to be mutated in the name of accused in July 1986 after death of his father. So, as far as the income from agricultural land is concerned, the said income started only from July 1974 till death of M.R Sankhla in April 1986, though no such record has been brought on record on behalf of accused.
190.7 As the said income was never reported to the employer and the said issue concerns the defense of the accused, the onus was upon the accused to show the agricultural income as well as the income generated from the shoe shop situated at the house of M.R Sankhla, at Sirsa. The onus was upon the accused to show his worth as it is his claim that he was a man of means specially in view of the fact that his first property return was silent qua any business income.
CC No.25/2019 Page 305/419191. The next issue to be seen is as to whether the bank records of M.R Sankhla relied upon by the accused prove a flourishing income during the said period from 1974 till 1986 or not.
Late M.R Sankhla had two bank accounts, one at SBI, Sirsa and second at New Bank of India, Sirsa . The Statement of Account of account No. 7836 at New Bank of India, at Sirsa has been proved on record as Ex. P-33 (D-39). Interestingly, the said bank account came to be opened on 04.02.1985 i.e just around one year prior to death of account holder M.R Sankhla. The Statement of Account further reflects that the first entry at opening the account is of 04.02.1985 wherein cash of Rs.25,000/-was deposited.
It is the very same account, the balance of which Rs.1,21,713/- came to be transferred in terms of order of the Court based on Will of M.R Sankhla in favour of accused herein.
191.1 As far as second bank account at SBI Sirsa is concerned, the statement of account is not placed on record by the prosecution nor accused produced the same despite the onus upon him. However, as per the proved record the said account had miniscule balance of Rs.3000/- at the time when M.R Sankhla expired , which too came to be transferred in favour of accused .
The Ledger Folios cheques, deposits slips etc concerning the bank account of M.R Sankhla { part of D-11 (I)}are proved on record as Ex.P-90. The said file CC No.25/2019 Page 306/419 Ex. P90 contains the cheque dated 12.12.1984 concerning payment of Rs.1,25,000/- to Aditi Group Housing Society, Patparganj by M.R Sankhla. Apart from that, another cheque of Rs.12,000/-dated 21.06.1985 is in favour of D.C Sankhla. These are the same amounts upon which the accused placed reliance to show advances made to him in lieu of which he subsequently made payments for purchase of property by his father at village Moriwala and VGP Madras.
191.2 Apart from the said two cheques, there are several deposit slips which too are of the same period i.e years 1983 and 1984. Thus, the bank record too reflects that the transactions took place in the said account at SBI Sirsa during the years 1983-1984, be it deposits or withdrawals or transfer as discussed above. The said account too was active only during the said period only.
191.3 The other vouchers (Part of D-90) concern another bank account at New Bank of India, Sirsa which too are of the same period i.e 1985 and 1986. Thus, both the said bank accounts reflect that banking activities in the accounts of MR Sankhla, be it deposits, or withdrawal or transfer of money took place during the said crucial check period i.e. year 1983 to 1986. Prior to that, there appeared to be no worthwhile banking transactions that could corroborate the plea of the accused regarding his father had flourishing shoe business or regular agricultural income. So the banking record is of not much CC No.25/2019 Page 307/419 help to the accused to show his regular business/ agricultural income since 1969 when the accused joined service.
191.4 The accused has also placed relied upon another set of documents to prove the availability of cash with M.R Sankhla during the relevant period i.e. Ex.PW-93/D-4 to Ex.PW-93/D-5. Reliance is also placed upon one receipt Mark X dated 17.09.1984 in this regard.
191.5 It is argued that late M.R Sankhla purchased one residential property during the same period i.e on 11.06.1985 at Sirsa in the name of his daughters Champa and Mewa ( sisters of accused herein). Similarly, his father sold one shop at Ganganagar, Rajasthan in December 1983 vide agreement to sell Ex.PW-93/D-5 and receipt Mark X. All these documents show availability of cash with MR Sankhla.
191.6 As far as the sale deed ExPW-93/D-4 is concerned, it is only expenditure rather than incomings in the hands of M.R Sankhla. So, it has not much relevance qua the issue of the availability of cash with M.R Sankhla.
191.7 The agreement to sell Ex.PW-93/D-5 concerns one shop bearing No. 5/5, Pandhar Mandi, Ganganagar, Rajasthan. As per the contents of said CC No.25/2019 Page 308/419 agreement, the said shop was purchased in the year 1942- 1943 in a Government auction for a sum of Rs.1100/-. Late M.R Sankhla then agreed to sell the said shop Rs.2,30,000/-.The consideration amount was paid partly on 15.12.1983, 16.08.1984 and remaining on 17.09.1984.
191.8 The first issue in this regard is the veracity of the said documents as well as claim qua ownership of the shop. The first annual property return already referred above of the accused filed with his employer of the year ending on 31.12.1973 (Ex.PW-5/D) is completely silent concerning the ownership of the said shop at Ganganagar, Rajasthan. He only claimed that his father owned three houses at Sirsa.
191.9 Even the contents of the agreement to sell Ex.PW-93/D-5 puts a question mark over its authenticity. As per one of the conditions in the said agreement to sell, the sale deed was to be executed within one year of the execution of the said agreement. But surprisingly, despite payment of entire consideration amount vide last slip dated 17.08.1984 Mark X, no such sale deed came to be registered. The entire remaining payment was made by the buyer on 17.09.1984 and MR Sankhla executed a receipt on a simple page acknowledging the entire payment. No explanation has been furnished on behalf of the accused as to the reason for non-execution of sale deed despite receipt of entire consideration amount.
CC No.25/2019 Page 309/419Admittedly, M.R Sankhla expired in April 1986 and could have easily executed the sale deed as mandated vide agreement to sell Ex.PW-93/D-5 after having received entire payment . But surprisingly, the purchaser never insisted upon the execution of the said legal document which reflect the deal as reflected above to be only a sham deal. The accused also failed to examine the buyer despite he being the best witness for proving the said deal.
191.10 The accounts statement of M.R Sankhla (Ex.P-33) too does not reflect any such payment as shown in Ex. PW93/D-5 or X, be it Rs.80,000/- received till 15.12.1983, Rs.1,00,000/- on 17.09.1984 or Rs.50,000/- on 16.08.1984. Rather, the deposit slips ( Part of Ex.P-90) are of different amounts and certainly do not corroborate the claim of availability of cash with M.R Sankhla consequent to the execution of the agreement to sell Ex.PW-93/D-5.
191.11 The file Ex.P-90 {D11 (i) } also reflects the transfer of funds in the account of M.R Sankhla at New Bank of India, Sirsa on 01.04.1985 vide Cheque No. 171186 of State Bank of Patiala (SBOI), Sector-22 Chandigarh of Rs. 40,000/-. The corresponding entry qua debit for a sum of Rs.40,000/- dated 09.4.1985 is reflected in the account statement Ex. PW35/A51 of the accused herein at State Bank of Patiala (SBOP), Sector- 22 Chandigarh.
CC No.25/2019 Page 310/419The said two entries i.e debit entry in the account of D.C Sankhla at State Bank of Patiala (SBOI), Sector- 22 Chandigarh and connected credit entry in the account of M.R Sankhla (Ex.P-33), at New Bank of India rather proves the case of the prosecution regarding the bank accounts of M.R Sankhla being used by the accused herein for money laundering. The accused has remained completely silent qua the purpose of transfer of above- referred amount of Rs.40,000/- in April 1985 in the account of MR Sankhla.
192. In the said backdrop, it has to be held that the analysis of bank accounts of late M.R Sankhla does not reflect flourishing income or consistent income since year 1969. The said issue becomes relevant when seen in the context of his obligation towards the family. It also needs to be considered to appreciate the argument of the accused that late M.R Sankhla was a man of means, that he had the responsibility of several dependents upon him during the relevant time and he being the sole earning hand for several years .
192.1 It has already come on record as discussed above that in the annual property return of the accused in 1973, it was claimed that his father owned three houses in Sirsa. The said return was silent with respect to ownership of any shop or he having any leather business. As far as the purchase of land in village Natar, District Sirsa is concerned, it has already been observed above CC No.25/2019 Page 311/419 that the same was acquired in 1974 while the accused was already in service.
192.2 It has also come on record vide SP report Ex.PW-7/DA that accused has 7 siblings. The accused in his statement which is not disputed being part of Ex.PW- 7/DB (Sanction file) claimed that his elder brother Laxmi Chand is running his own shoe shop at Sirsa at ancestral house. His other brother C.L Sankhla is in Haryana Civil Services, R.L Sankhla is in Judicial Services and lastly P.C Sankhla being Assistant Manager in Delhi State Civil Supply Corporation. As far as his sisters are concerned, the elder one is handicapped and unmarried. Second sister namely Ms. Shakuntla is married to Amin Chand (examined as PW-93) and Ms. Champa Devi got married after the death of M.R Sankhla. Thus, the said admitted record itself reflects that late M.R Sankhla had seven dependents upon him apart from his wife, out of which three sons joined different government services at different points of time. The accused herein joined the service in the year 1969. R.L Sankhla who has been examined herein as PW-60 joined the Judicial Services somewhere in 1981. As far as brother namely P.C Sankhla is concerned, he joined Delhi State Civil Supply Corporation as a Sales Officer in the year 1982. As far as eldest brother C.L Sankhla is concerned, no evidence has come on record with respect to his joining in Haryana Civil Services. Three sisters namely Ms. Shakuntla, Ms. Champa and Ms. Mewa Devi, all were CC No.25/2019 Page 312/419 not earning anything till the death of late M.R Sankhla. Rather, two sisters namely Ms. Champa and Ms. Mewa Devi were unmarried and handicapped till the death of M.R Sankhla on 22.04.1986. The mother of the accused herein had expired around two years before death of M.R Sankhla. So, during the relevant check period, two handicapped unmarried sisters as well as mother of accused were all totally dependent upon M.R Sankhla.
192.3 As far as brothers namely R.L Sankhla and PC Sankhla are concerned, they too were dependent till their joining of service in 1981 and 1982 respectively. The eldest brother continued to remain in ancestral house and had taken over the shoe shop from his father at Sirsa. The said family conditions thus, clearly reflects that during the relevant period i.e from January 1980 till death of M.R Sankhla on 22.04.1986, he had onerous responsibility of maintaining his children as well as his wife. The only source of income was around 9 acres of agricultural land at village Natar, District Sirsa acquired in the year 1974 and one shoe shop which was situated at the ancestral house itself.
192.4 Now coming the sources of his income. As far as two other houses owned by M.R Sankhla are concerned, no evidence has come on record as to their fate or whether they were generating any income during the above-referred period. The first return of the year ending on 31.12.1974 (Part of Ex.PW-5/D-6) had the CC No.25/2019 Page 313/419 averment that none of the said properties were generating any rental income. One house where the family was residing had one small shoe shop which is now being run by brother of accused Laxmi Chand.
192.5 As far as agricultural income is concerned, the said 9 acres of land at village Natar ,as per the version of Trilok Chand Ahuja (PW-11) who was the commission agent responsible for selling the entire agricultural produce of the land of D.C Sankhla and his sons at Sirsa, in the cross-examination clarified about the income. He claimed that during the years 1986 to 1991, the per acre agricultural income was approximately Rs.12,000/- to 15,000/- per acre. The said figure though is on the higher side keeping in view the per acre sale price of land at Moriwala, Sirsa, but even if taken to be correct, the annual income of the land situated at village Natar, District Sirsa comes to around Rs.1 lakh by excluding input costs.
192.6 As far as income from the shop situated at residential ancestral house of M.R Sankhla is concerned, no evidence has come on record. The claim of the accused is that his father had a flourishing business. If that was the situation in that scenario, the income tax record was the most appropriate evidence to prove his business income. No such record has come on record despite the onus upon the accused.
CC No.25/2019 Page 314/419192.7 PW-60 R.L Sankhla, brother of the accused herein, too in his intimation to his employer vide Ex. D1W7/2 to Ex. D1W7/11 i.e Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, informed that his father is in the leather business and is an income tax assessee. But, no such record concerning income tax returns was provided to the Investigating Authority. No such record has been proved in defence despite the accused proving his own income tax record.
192.8 The onus was upon the accused to prove the said fact of income of his father once it was categorically averred by the prosecution that late M.R Sankhla was a man of no means and he has not provided any record to CBI during the investigation. It is the defence of the accused that he inherited various properties acquired by his father that too during the check period (except the agricultural land village Natar, District Sirsa) and hence was supposed to prove the means of late M.R Sankhla.
192.9 The accused in this regard has placed reliance upon one Statement of Affairs of the assessment year 1987-1988 (Ex.D1W4/12). The said statement itself raises a question mark over the claim of the accused that his father earning substantial business income as well as agricultural income. As per Ex.D1W4/12, agricultural income until his death was only Rs.40,000/- for the assessment year 1987-1988. The said statement is silent with respect to business income.
CC No.25/2019 Page 315/419192.10 Even otherwise, the said document is of questionable nature having come on record from the office of Investigation Circle 81 and 54-S of the Income Tax, Civil Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi. Thus, it is apparent that the said record was admittedly not filed by late M.R Sankhla, but has been filed by the assessee assessable in the said circle i.e accused herein. It is also not clear from the version of D1W4 as to the purpose of the filing of the said record and when the same came to be filed in their records.
192.11 The cross-examination of the said witness the said document further puts a question mark over the veracity and authenticity of the said document i.e statement of affairs and Wealth Tax Return Ex.D1W4/12. In the cross-examination, D1W4 admitted to the fact that there is no stamp of receipt in the copies available in their record. Therefore in the said backdrop, it cannot be said as to when and under what context the said documents came to be filed on record with income tax authorities. The only conclusion which can be drawn through series of documents proved on record by D1W4 is that the consequent to the registration of the present RC/FIR against the accused, the assessment orders were re- opened and the same were challenged before various income tax authorities as reflected vide order Ex.D1W4/3 dated 23.09.1994 .
CC No.25/2019 Page 316/419The date of institution of the said proceedings is stated 27.04.1994 i.e admittedly after registration of the present case. Against the said backdrop, the said record being filed after around three years of the registration of the case , not much credence can be attached to the said statement of wealth Ex.D1W4/12 as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka V. J.Jayalalita (supra) case. If indeed MR Sankhla was man of means ,he must have been filing his income/wealth returns in the relevant circle at Sirsa , Haryana , but not such record has been proved by the accused .
192.12 In the light of above-discussed reasons, it cannot be presumed that late M.R Sankhla had consistent high income during the relevant years whereby he could have spared his earnings to purchase various properties including the purchase of agricultural land at village Moriwala in the name of sons of accused herein.
193. Another document which puts a question over the said claim and reflects the falsity regarding means of late M.R Sankhla is the property returns of R.L Sankhla (brother of accused herein) who worked with District Judiciary in Haryana.
As per his property returns for the year 1988-1989 Ex. D1W7/8, he claimed that he is owning property at Radour, Naraingarh, District Ambala, measuring 82 Kanals 15 Marlas. He further claimed that the said land was purchased in the name of their mother, but after the CC No.25/2019 Page 317/419 demise of his mother he inherited the said land by virtue of Will dated 15.04.1984. Thus, the said property return again reflects the same modus operandi of using the bank accounts and services of late M.R Sankhla or his wife in acquiring the properties by the children who were public servants.
193.1 His another letter dated 10.03.1988 (Ex.D1W7/5 & Ex.D1W7/6) also raises a question mark over the claims of the accused regarding devolving of properties owned by late M.R Sankhla by virtue of Will (Ex. PW-60/DX1 and DX-2).
R.L Sankhla (brother of the accused herein) while in service had sought permission before purchasing DDA flat at Alakhnanda, New Delhi from DDA during the year 1985. Regarding sources of purchase, he claimed that he has raised loan of Rs.1,13,913.97 from his father. Interestingly, concerning income of his father, he claimed as under :
(iii) My father has 11 acres of agricultural land situated near Sirsa City and from which an amount of annual income of Rs.50,000/- is receiving to my father. Apart from this, my father is running a business of whole-sale shoes merchant and in which, a sum of Rs. One Lakh has been invested.
Both these properties are HUF properties. Regarding both these properties, I have already informed your honour vide this Court letter No. 274 dated 16.05.1985 and 336 dated nil. ( Copies attached). Moreover, my father is an income tax payee. From this above sources, my father deposited the amount with DDA.
CC No.25/2019 Page 318/419(iii) The amount of loan is to be adjusted from my share in the Joint Hindu Family property. I have already submitted that I am member of Joint Hindu Family and as and when it is partitioned, the loan amount shall be adjusted out of my share in in the Joint Hindu Family Property. It is also possible that in future, if some property out of the Joint Hindu Family property, is sold, then the loan amount can be adjusted.
193.2 Thus as per the claim of R.L Sankhla, properties owned by his father be it 11 acres of agricultural land at village Natar, District Sirsa,( which accused claimed to be bequeathed in his favour ) or his earnings from the shop, were HUF property. The conclusion of the said assertion was that all the dependents had an equal share of 1/7th.He further claimed to be co-sharer in the said joint family properties. But, surprisingly, while deposing in the court R.L Sankhla (PW-60) deposed to the contrary which reflects the falsity of their version as well as defence of the accused.
193.3 Thus, it has to be concluded that Late MR Sankhla was man of limited means having onerous responsibility of 7 dependents upon during the relevant time. He ran a small shoe shop from the ancestral house only till the time of his death and never filed any income tax return. Thus it cannot be believed that he had sufficient money either to advance loan to his well-settled son's be it accused or PW-60 RL Sankhla or PW-66 PC Sankhla as they claimed in their respective intimations to CC No.25/2019 Page 319/419 their departments while ignoring the unemployed handicapped daughters or sons.
193.4 Now coming to the defence of the accused that the plots at Madras were purchased by his father and the same came in his kitty on the basis of the Will Ex. PW60/DX1 dated 28.12.1985.
193.5 It is claimed by CBI to be a false plea as the Will of his father was found to be forged and frivolous during the investigation. Further, it has been argued by Ld. Sr.PP for the CBI rather the bank account of late M.R Sankhla was used by the accused for money laundering. There are multiple cash entries in the said account from where the payment was made for the plots at VGP Golden Beach , Madras and Flat No.B-41, Aditi Apartment, Patparganj, Delhi. As far as income tax record or wealth tax record of accused or his father relied upon by the accused is concerned, the same has no value in view of the dictum of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court State of Karnataka V. J.Jayalalita (supra) case.
193.6 Per contra ,the Ld Counsel for the accused argued that as far as the Wills are concerned, the same were never investigated as admitted by IO K.N. Tiwari (PW-63). He simply claimed that the Wills are forged and fabricated. But he failed to give any reason as to why if CC No.25/2019 Page 320/419 indeed the same were forged, the same were not made part of the second chargesheet under Section 193 Cr.PC.
193.7 It is further argued that PW-63 further in cross-examination admitted to the fact that late M.R Sankhla was owner of agricultural land at village Natar, District Sirsa .The said Will of his father was ultimately acted upon which led to the mutation of the land at village Natar, District Sirsa, in his name vide Ex.PW- 53/A to Ex.PW-53/D. The probate proceedings were also initiated and the compromise was effected between the proceedings. Based on which proceeds in the bank account of late M.R Sankhla came to be transferred to his bank account as reflected vide record D-11 (Ex.P-
90).
193.8 The defence of accused qua the two plots at VGP Madras concerns the Will of Late MR Sankhla Ex. PW60/DX1. Apart from that Late MR Sankhla also executed another will dated 25.01.1986 Ex.PW60/DX2. The accused also placed reliance upon one family settlement dated 15.04.1986 Mark P-60/DY executed by MR Sankla. The said family settlement is also nothing but a Will of Late MR Sankhla regarding his left over assets.
193.9 Firstly, coming to the Will's (PW-60/DX-1 and DX-2) relied upon by the accused. The said Will's cannot be read in evidence being not proved as CC No.25/2019 Page 321/419 mandatorily required under Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act.
193.10 It is the mandatory precondition of law that in order prove a will ,one of the attesting witnesses to the Will has to be examined which is not the case herein. None of the attesting witness has been examined qua both the said Wills. Lastly, the Family Settlement Mark PW- 60/DY of late M.R Sankhla dated 15.04.86 too cannot be read in evidence being in the nature of Will having not been witnesses by any attesting witness which is the mandatory requirement under Section 63 of Indian Succession Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meena Pradhan v. Kamla Pradhan (2023 INSC 847) has reiterated the principles required for proving the validity and execution of the will. The relevant portion of the said decision is as follows:
"9. A Will is an instrument of testamentary disposition of property. It is a legally acknowledged mode of bequeathing a testator's property during his lifetime to be acted upon on his/her death and carries with it an element of sanctity. It speaks from the death of the testator. Since the testator/testatrix, at the time of testing the document for its validity, would not be available for deposing as to the circumstances in which the Will came to be executed, stringent requisites for the proof thereof have been statutorily enjoined to Rule out the possibility of any manipulation.
10. Relying on H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma, MANU/SC/0115/1958 : 1959 Supp (1) SCR 426 (3-Judge Bench), Bhagwan CC No.25/2019 Page 322/419 Kaur v. Kartar Kaur, MANU/SC/1671/1994 :
(1994) 5 SCC 135 (3-Judge Bench), Janki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan Namdeo Kadam, MANU/SC/ 1155/2002 : (2003) 2 SCC 91(2-
Judge Bench) Yumnam Ongbi Tampha Ibema Devi v. Yumnam Joykumar Singh, MANU/SC/ 0366/2009 : (2009) 4 SCC 780 (3-Judge Bench) and Shivakumar v. Sharanabasappa, MANU/SC/0395/2020: (2021) 11 SCC 277 (3- Judge Bench), we can deduce/infer the following principles required for proving the validity and execution of the Will:
i. The court has to consider two aspects: firstly, that the Will is executed by the testator, and secondly, that it was the last Will executed by him;
ii. It is not required to be proved with mathematical accuracy, but the test of satisfaction of the prudent mind has to be applied.
iii. A Will is required to fulfil all the formalities required Under Section 63 of the Succession Act, that is to say:
(a) The testator shall sign or affix his mark to the Will or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction and the said signature or affixation shall show that it was intended to give effect to the writing as a Will;
(b) It is mandatory to get it attested by two or more witnesses, though no particular form of attestation is necessary;
(c) Each of the attesting witnesses must have seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the Will or has seen some other person sign the Will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of such signatures;
(d) Each of the attesting witnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the testator, however, CC No.25/2019 Page 323/419 the presence of all witnesses at the same time is not required;
iv. For the purpose of proving the execution of the Will, at least one of the attesting witnesses, who is alive, subject to the process of court, and capable of giving evidence, shall be examined;
......."
In the present case in hand none of the said mandatory requirements have been fulfilled by the accused.
193.11 Though the Will's have not been proved by as per law as discussed herein-above and the issue to be seen is as to whether the properties referred of late M.R Sankhla got bequeathed in the favour of accused in view of intimation to the employer vide Ex. PW5/B( part of D6).
193.12 The accused for the first time referred to the inheritance through his intimation letter dated 04.08.1986 wherein it was claimed as under:
"I have already filed the papers for probate though it was not required as all the beneficiaries have signed as witnesses."
193.13 The copy of the Will, one Authority Letter dated 21.06.1985 and one affidavit dated 21.6.1985 regarding purchase of agricultural land at village Moriwala, Sirsa were annexed with the said intimation.
CC No.25/2019 Page 324/419194. In the second intimation dated 11.12.1986, it was informed that the agricultural land village Natar, District Sirsa already stands mutated in his name in terms of the Will. It was further informed that the plots at Madras, as per the Will of his late father stands mutated in his name. But surprisingly, in the subsequent letter dated 18.03.1987 sent in response to queries raised by the department, it was informed that the issue of Will dated 28.12.1985 is pending in the court of law and hence, no inheritance has taken place.
Lastly, vide letter dated 08.05.1987, it was informed that Will dated 28.12.1985 has been held by the Court of Sub-Judge, Sirsa, to be binding and has, thus, become final. It was further informed that the amount lying in the bank accounts of late M.R Sankhla at SBI, Sirsa and New Bank of India, Sirsa, has been got transferred in his name and put in as FDRs. Subsequent intimation too has reference concerning the properties bequeathed vide purported Wills of late M.R Sankhla.
194.1 So, it is apparent from the said series of letters that the employer was for the first time informed about the purported Will of late M.R Sankhla on 04.08.1986. It was categorically informed that the accused has filed a case for probate though the same was not required. The papers regarding the said claimed probate case which is relied upon by the accused to show the transfer of the assets bequeathed in his favour vide the Wills are part of Ex.P-90 { D-11 (i)}. The said CC No.25/2019 Page 325/419 documents rebuts the averment made in intimatioin dated 04.08.1986.
194.2 The copy of the order dated 06.05.1987 of Shri P.K. Goel, Sub-Judge, First Class, Sirsa is perused which reflects that it was a suit for declaration seeking declaration that the Will dated 28.12.1985 of late M.R Sankhla to be forged and fabricated. It was instituted by plaintiff Laxmi Chand, (real brother of accused herein). The accused herein was named as contesting defendant and other L.Rs were named as proforma defendants. So, the said legal proceedings reflect the falsity of the intimation dated 04.08.1986 to his employer wherein he had claimed that he had filed papers for probate qua Will of late M.R Sankhla which was not the case.
The said suit came to be disposed off on the basis of compromise deed dated 06.05.1987 wherein it was decided that the Will dated 28.12.1985 shall be binding upon the parties and the plaintiff shall have no right, title or interest in the properties mentioned therein. So, in this manner, the accused claims to be the beneficiary of the said Will. However, the fact remains that the Will dated 28.12.1985 (Ex.PW-60/DX-1) or the second Will dated 21.01.1986 (PW-60/DX-3) and Family Settlement Mark PW-60/DY have already been held to be unproved due to non-compliance mandatory condition under Section 63 of Indian Evidence Act. The mere reference of the said Will in the intimations to the department and the acquisition of the properties by the accused herein based on said Will CC No.25/2019 Page 326/419 hardly makes any difference and does not prove the factum of inheritance .
194.3 In the said backdrop, when the purported two Wills (Ex.PW-60/DX) as well as purported Family Settlement Mark PW-60/DY which Will only being not proved as per the aforesaid mandatory provision, the issue to be seen as to whether the defence of accused regarding acquisition of the asset of late M.R Sankhla being inherited by him is proved through other documents including the service record.
194.4 The service record D-6 (Ex.PW-5/B), no doubt, has the intimations of the accused under AIS Conduct Rules 1968 wherein he reported about the said purported Will of his father. He firstly vide letter dated 04.08.1986 intimated about the Will and the copy of the Will was annexed with the said letter. It was claimed as under:
Annexure-1 DETAILS OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES
1. Copy of the Will dated 28.12.1985 made by my father Shri M.R Sankhla who expired on 21.04.1986. The contents of the will are self-
explanatory. I have already filed the papers for probate though it was not required as all the beneficiaries have signed as witnesses.
2. Photocopy of the documents dated 21.06.85 giving details of agricultural land purchased by my father in the name of my two sons.
CC No.25/2019 Page 327/4193. I have paid Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand only) for purchase of a small plot constructed in 80 yards in Mukherjee Nagar in the joint name of my brother Shri P.C Sankhla who has also paid Rs.20,000/- out of his income. The payment was made by draft on 18.06.1986.
4. Photocopy of document dated 21.06.1985 executed by my father authorizing me to collect debts and discharge liabilities of my father.
194.5 The point 1,2 and 4 concerns the issue in hand connected either with the Will of father of the accused or the purported agricultural land purchased by his father in the name of grandsons (sons of accused herein) on 21.06.1985.
194.6 In the said backdrop, the claim of acquisition of properties in view of the Will of MR Sankhla, the first aspect that requires consideration is Item No.4 & 5 of Expenditure ( Annexure-II). The items are connected to the purchase of agricultural land on 21.06.1985 at Village Moriwala, Sirsa.
194.7 The prosecution has claimed that the said agricultural land was purchased by the accused only in the name of his minor sons by using the name of his late father. Per contra, it is the case of the accused herein that his father had purchased the said land in the name of his grandsons .The consideration amount was paid through his bank account maintained at State Bank of Patiala CC No.25/2019 Page 328/419 (SBOI), Sector-22 Chandigarh in lieu of loan taken by accused from his father for making part payment concerning flat at Aditi Group Housing Society, Patparganj New Delhi .Further, there was a transfer of amount of Rs. 44,000/- and Rs. 12,000/- by M.R Sankhla in his account at State Bank of Patiala (SBOI), Sector-22 Chandigarh. The reliance is also placed upon by the accused on the purported affidavit/certificate of late M.R Sankhla dated 21.06.1985 wherein he categorically stated that he has purchased the land situated in village Moriwala, Sirsa, in the name of his two grand-sons.
194.8 The said acquisition of agricultural land at Moriwala in the name of sons of accused has been proved through the version of Bishan Singh (PW-70) one of the four seller's. The sale deeds have also been proved by Gulab Singh (PW-25), official from the office of Sub- Registrar, Sirsa as Ex.PW-25/1 to Ex.PW-25/4. The total consideration qua the purchase of the land as reflected vide above-referred four sale deeds is Rs. 90,000/-. Apart from that the expenditure to the tune of Rs. 13,536/- were incurred towards registration and stamp charges. Both the said expenditures have been imputed upon the accused by prosecution.
The connected entry to the said issue is the Item No.3 of Income (Annexure-I). The said land purchased in the name of minor sons of the accused came to be sold on 23-8-1990 against consideration amount of Rs.7 lacs. The said issue of sale and consideration amount are not in CC No.25/2019 Page 329/419 dispute. The purchaser PW-88 Rahul Setia proved the fact of payment of consideration and sale deed Ex.PW- 88/2. Thus, the said admitted documents and version of PW-88 proves the Item No.3 of Income (Annexure-I).
195. Now, coming to the issue in dispute as to acquisition of the said property in the name of minor sons of the accused and who paid the said purported consideration/ the expenses incurred in the registration of the sale deeds.
The admitted sale deed Ex.PW-25/1 to Ex.PW- 25/4 only reflects that the land was purchased by Kapil and Saket Sankhla son of D.C Sankhla, residents of Sirsa. In the second page at the column of purchaser's signature, is signed by Late Mani Ram Sankhla. He has been described as "MANI RAM SANKHLA DADA KHARDIAR". So, only inference which can be drawn from the said words is that late M.R Sankhla only executed the sale deeds on behalf of minor purchasers. No inference can be drawn that he purchased the said land through his own means as has been argued.
195.1 The sale deeds also reflect that at the time of registration before the Sub-Registrar, Sirsa, M.R Sankhla appeared and handed over cheques to the seller for the consideration amount which were all drawn at State Bank of Patiala (SBOI), Sector-22 Chandigarh where the accused herein was holding the account. The Statement of Account Ex. PW-35/A-51 too reflects the said CC No.25/2019 Page 330/419 payment being debited from the account of the accused. The cheques/ bank drafts concerning the said transactions have also been proved on record as Ex.A-28, Ex.A-29, Ex.A-30 and Ex.A-31 (admitted during the testimony of PW-35 V.K. Khandelwal, official from SBOP, Chandigarh) Thus, as per the said admitted record, the consideration amount for the said sale deeds travelled from the account of the accused herein vide bank drafts dated 21.06.1985 as referred above.
195.2 The accused has placed reliance upon one purported certificate/affidavit dated 21.06.1985 (Ex.PW- 60/DX1) of late M.R Sankhla wherein he categorically averred that he out of his savings has purchased agricultural land at village Moriwala, Sirsa on 21.06.1985 in the name of his two grandsons.
195.3 The contents of the said certificate itself put a question mark over the same. The first issue is what prompted MR Sankhla to execute the said affidavit .It is not as if the employer of the accused demanded such clarification which could have prompted late M.R Sankhla to execute the same in order to clarify it.
195.4 The second issue which puts a question over the authenticity of the said affidavit is the identity of the stamp paper on which the same has been executed on 21.06.1985. The stamp paper was purchased on 18.03.1985. The said stamp paper is part of same series CC No.25/2019 Page 331/419 of stamp papers upon which the Will Ex.PW-60/D-1 and one authority letter Ex.PW-60/DX-4 were executed. Thus, it is apparent that the same set stamp papers were used to execute three different documents at different points of time.
195.5 Another issue which puts a question mark or raises of finger of suspicion over the said affidavit Ex.PW-60/DX-3 is the date of its execution. It is purportedly executed on the same day when the above- referred four sale deeds Ex.PW-25/1 to Ex.PW-25/4 were executed.
If that was the scenario, it has to be assumed that the said purported certificate in the form of an affidavit must have been executed at Sirsa only . In that case, the use of stamp paper purchased way back around three months prior to the execution of said purported certificate, puts a question mark on its authenticity. The only inference that can be drawn from said purported certificate Ex.PW-60/DX-3 is that the same came to be executed later on just to put up the defense of purchase of agricultural land out of the savings of late M.R Sankhla.
195.6 Apart from the said affidavit, the reliance is also placed upon the purported transfer of money in the account of accused at State Bank of Patiala (SBOP), Sector-22 Chandigarh by MR Sankhla. The said transfer is for amount of Rs. 44,000/- and Rs.12,000/-. Pertinently the said transfer has been made on the same day i.e CC No.25/2019 Page 332/419 21.06.1985 when the land was purchased. In case the intent of the purported purchaser late M.R Sankhla as claimed was to purchase the land out of his savings, he should have done it directly using his own his savings in the bank account rather re-routing the amount in the account of his son (accused herein) that too on the same day. The said complex web of transactions wherein on the same day, a certain amount is transferred in the account of accused from his father and on the same day, the consideration of the said agricultural land is transferred in the name of sellers from the account of accused, all the reflect the attempt being made to put a smoke screen over the said complex web of bank transfers. The only object was to avoid the scrutiny of the authorities.
195.7 In the said backdrop, the claim of the accused that his father had purchased the land at village Moriwala, Sirsa in the name of his two sons does not inspire confidence.
195.8 It has already been observed above that late M.R Sankhla had seven dependents, out of whom the accused herein was the most settled one. Despite that instead of creating assets in the name of either his two unmarried daughters or the eldest son who all did not have a regular source of income, it is claimed that he purchased the agricultural land in the name of the sons of the accused herein. The plea of the accused on the face of CC No.25/2019 Page 333/419 it appears to be preposterous and does not satisfy the judicial conscience of the court.
Therefore, the argument advanced on behalf of the accused regarding the deletion of Item no. 4 and 5 of Expenditure is liable to be rejected and both the said items of expenditure have to be read against the accused.
196. Now coming to the issue raised on behalf of the accused concerning the Flat No. B-41, Aditi Apartments, Patparganj, Delhi ( Item 14 of Assets ) and loan availed by the accused to purchase the said flat. The said issue is also connected to Late MR Sankhla and the loan advanced by him.
196.1 The ownership of the said flat in the name of the accused stands proved by witness PW24 JN Gupta, President of Aditi Cooperative Society. PW-24 proved the record regarding payment of Rs.3,89,472/- towards the cost of construction and cost of the land etc. and not Rs. 4,18,948 as claimed by the prosecution. The admitted file Ex. P84 has all the details qua payment etc. The only defence raised qua the said asset is availing of loan by accused from his father to the tune of Rs. 1,25,000/-.
196.2 The inherent falsity of said claim of loan is reflected from the admitted personal record Ex.P-2 (D-4) of the accused maintained with Chandigarh Administration. The accused was posted as M.D CC No.25/2019 Page 334/419 Chandigarh Industrial and General Development Corporation Ltd during the year 1984-85.
The accused herein applied for a grant of House Building Allowance (HBA) for a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- vide his request letter dated 12.10.1984. The said sum was to be utilized towards purchase of above said flat at Aditi Group Housing Society, Patparganj, New Delhi. The tentative cost of the said flat as stated was Rs.2 lacs. Alongwith the said application, the requisite form for HBA was also filled up. The said request was acted upon and further information was sought from the accused. He replied vide his letter dated 10.12.1984 to the Finance Secretary, Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh.
196.3 The said loan was ultimately approved on 31.12.1984 with the terms stipulated in the approval letter. Till the approval on 31.12.1984, no intimation was given to the department regarding he having already paid a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- vide cheque dated 12.12.1984 of his father to the society.
The accused subsequently through his letter dated 10.1.1985 (Part of Ex.P-2) addressed to Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh, intimated that he has already remitted a sum Rs.1,25,000/- vide Cheque No. A751101 dated 12.12.1984 to the Aditi Cooperative Society. Accordingly, the department was requested to directly remit the part loan amount (HBA) to him instead to the Housing Society.
CC No.25/2019 Page 335/419196.4 The contents of said admitted letter of the accused reflect it being conspicuously silent concerning the nature of the payment of Rs.1,25,000/- made by his father to Aditi Group Housing Society, Patparganj, New Delhi. Nowhere it was informed that the said amount was paid on his behalf and it is a kind of small-duration loan as has been now argued.
196.5 The subsequent letters of the accused to Chandigarh Administration seeking the release of the remaining amount of HBA too are again silent concerning the said payment being only a loan. The concerned officials who dealt with the said request letters of the accused in their noting recorded about the illegalities and purported amount being taken from the father without any permission of the competent authority. Therefore, in the end it has to be held that the claim of the accused that the said amount was disbursed to him by his father for payment to be made at Aditi Group Housing Society, Patparganj, New Delhi was a loan is not reflected in any of the contemporaneous documents part of Ex.P-2.
196.6 It is only an afterthought just to explain his financial dealings. Rather, his record reflects that no intimation was ever sent by him to his employer regarding the acquisition or source of funding of said flat CC No.25/2019 Page 336/419 at Aditi Group Housing Society, Patparganj as required under AIS (Conduct ) Rules .
196.7 The annual property return of the year ending on 31.12.1985 is silent concerning the acquisition of said flat. The subsequent annual property return too is silent qua the said acquisition. The accused for the first time, reported about the acquisition of the said flat in his annual property return of the year ending on 31.12.1987 (Part of Ex.PW-5/B, D-6) wherein the value of the said flat was stated to be Rs.3,30,000/- and the sources for purchase was stated to be a loan from Govt. bank /GPF. Thus, in the said property return too there was no whisper concerning the loan being advanced by his late father for the acquisition of the said flat.
196.8 It has already been observed above that no evidence has come on record that the late father of the accused had either a flourishing business or agricultural income which could have prompted him to advance loans to his sons ( accused, RL Sankhla and PC Sankhla ) as is reflected in their service record. Rather, he had the onerous responsibility of 5-6 dependents during the relevant period. His bank record too does not reflect any such flourishing business during the relevant years. The banking activity started only after the year 1983 i.e. just three years prior to his death.
CC No.25/2019 Page 337/419197. In these circumstances, it has to be concluded that the claim of accused that amount of Rs.1,25,000/- transferred to Aditi Group Housing Society, Patparganj, as a loan is a false plea and only the bank account of late M.R Sankhla has been used by the accused making regular deposits therein of the ill-gotten money.
Accordingly, the item no. 14 of Assets (Annexure
-III) stands partially proved with a value of Rs. 3,89,472/-.
198. The connected assets to the said issue of inheritance of properties by the accused under Will are Assets No. 3 and 4 i.e Plot No. CDH-67 and CDH-86 at VGP Golden Beach at Madras. It is alleged that the asset at Item No.3 was purchased by the accused by making payments from February 1985 to 23rd June 1989. The value of the said asset is stated to be Rs.1,10,000/-. Similarly, plot no. CDH-86 is stated to have been purchased in the name of the accused on 08.03.1985 and the value of the same is stated to be Rs.50860/-.
198.1 Ld. Sr.PP for the CBI argued that the ownership of the said two assets stands proved through the version of Ravi Dass ( PW-64) Director VGP Housing Pvt Ltd and Ms. Shaila Shanker (PW-58). The reliance is also placed upon admitted documents Ex. P-52 and Ex.PW-64/A to Ex.PW-64/C ( Part of D-61 & D-62).
CC No.25/2019 Page 338/419198.2 Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that as far as the plot No. 32, Part-6, VGP (CDH-
86) is concerned, the same was purchased by late M.R Sankhla for sale consideration of Rs.50,816/- and stands registered in his name vide Ex.PW-64/DA (Part of D-60). The said asset came to be inherited by him by the Will dated 28.12.1985 (Ex.PW-60/DX-1).
198.3 It is further argued that as far as the second plot at VGP i.e Asset No.3 is concerned, the same was also booked by late M.R Sankhla and he paid Rs.10,000/- and two installments of Rs.1500/-. The remaining amount has been paid by D.C Sankhla (accused herein) in terms of Will dated 28.12.1985 (Ex.PW-60/DX-1). Therefore, the total value of Item No.3 ought to be taken as Rs. 86,800/-. As far as Item No.4 plot is concerned, the same has been bequeathed in his favour and hence, ought to be deleted from the list of assets (Annexure III).
198.4 The ownership of the said two plots land at VGP Golden Beach at Madras, purchased during the year 1985-1989 is not disputed as is apparent from the above referred admissions on behalf of the accused. He even admitted the documents in this regard i.e Ex. P52(D-61) and Ex.P-111(D-62).
198.5 The most crucial testimony concerning the purchase of said two plots and their ownership is that of Ravi Dass ( PW-64) Director VGP Housing Pvt Ltd. He CC No.25/2019 Page 339/419 deposed that they had floated the said residential project in the year 1980 and had advertised the same in the year 1985 through their Delhi Branch.
Both the said assets i.e. CDH-67 and CDH-86 at VGP Golden Beach at Madras were booked in the name of D.C Sankhla in the year 1985 vide purchase slips Ex.PW-64/A and Ex.PW-64/B respectively. PW64 further deposed that both the said properties were registered in the name of D.C Sankhla in June 1989. So, as far as his testimony concerning the booking of said plots and issuance of land purchase receipts Ex.PW-64/A and Ex.PW-64/B is concerned, there is no dispute on behalf of the accused in the cross-examination.
198.6 The first factual dispute concerns Plot No.32 (CDH-86 at VGP Golden Beach at Madras) booked vide receipt Ex.PW-64/B. The said plot was booked on 08.02.1985 vide land purchase agreement Ex.PW-64/B . It was registered on payment of complete consideration amount of Rs.50,856 vide sale deed Ex.PW-64/DA dated 07.03.1985. The purchaser as reflected in the sale deed is M.R Sankhla and hence, comes the defence of the accused regarding he having only inherited the said plot by virtue of Will.
No explanation is furnished that if indeed, M.R Sankhla had booked both the said plots at VGP Golden Beach at Madras, as to why the same were initially booked in the name of D.C Sankhla as reflected vide land purchase agreement Ex.PW-64/A and Ex.PW-64/B. CC No.25/2019 Page 340/419 198.7 Rather, the contents of said land purchase agreements reflect the falsity of the defence of the accused. The said agreement carries the address of the purchaser which is the official address of the accused herein and occupation to be Director of Industries and Deputy Secretary (Home), Chandigarh. The Occupation address is stated to be M.D, Chandigarh Industrial and General Development Corporation Ltd, SCO-1096-97, Sector -22 Chandigarh. All the said particulars belong to the accused herein as he was posted in Chandigarh in 1985.
The column of total value in Ex.PW.64/B (which subsequently got registered in the name of M.R Sankhla) again puts a question mark on the defence of the accused that the purchaser was M.R Sankhla. The total value of said plot of 6000 feet in Ex.PW64/B is mentioned as Rs.50,856/- (VIP and Tourism Promotion). Thus, it is apparent that a special price was offered for the said plot of land and it was on account of the official status of the accused and not that of his father as is now being claimed.
198.8 The entire consideration amount was paid on 07th February and 8th February through the bank account of accused herein at State Bank of Patiala (SBOP), Sector-22 Chandigarh. The explanation given qua the said payment from his bank account is that the said amount was paid by the accused herein for late M.R. CC No.25/2019 Page 341/419 Sankhla as an adjustment for the payment received for his flat at Aditi Group Housing Society, Patparganj, New Delhi. The said explanation of payment for booking of the flat at Aditi Group Housing Society, Patparganj, New Delhi, has already been found to be a false story. Therefore, mere registration of the said plot No. 32 (CDH-86 at VGP Golden Beach at Madras) in the name of late M.R Sankhla only goes on to it to be only a Benami transaction and the beneficiary owner right since the booking was the accused herein.
199. Now, coming to the second plot i.e CDH-67 VGP Golden Beach at Madras, booked vide land purchase agreement Ex.PW64/A dated 15.02.1985 too is registered in the name of the accused herein wherein again all the particulars be it address, occupation, occupation address, telephone numbers, are all connected to the accused herein. No explanation is offered in this regard that, if indeed late M.R Sankhla had purchased said plot of land of his own, why the same was booked in the name of the accused herein at the first instance and secondly why did all the particulars of the accused come to be mentioned in the land agreement Ex. PW64/A. 199.1 As far as the payment concerning the said second plot is concerned, the entire payment is connected to the accused herein as detailed at the backside of the said agreement Ex.PW-64/A. The account statement of late M.R Sankhla at New Bank of India, Sirsa (Ex.P-33 CC No.25/2019 Page 342/419 D-39) too does not reflect any such entry of transfer of money in the account of VGP Madras.
199.2 Even the intimations to the department by the accused ( Part of Ex. PW5/B ) concerning the said two plots registered in February 1985 too reflect the falsity of the claim of the accused regarding said plots being bequeathed by his late father. It has already been held above that the both said properties were got registered by the accused herein vide land purchase agreement Ex.PW-64/A and PW64/B in his name only. The said fact was never reported to the employer.
199.3 The accused in terms of 16 (3) of AIS Conduct Rules 1968 was duty-bound to inform the employer about the said purported purchase and seek prior permission in this regard which he failed to do so. Rather a false intimation was given by him at a later point of time in the year 1987.
He informed in May 1987 regarding the mutation of the said land in his favor at Madras in terms of the Will dated 28.12.1985 ( Ex.PW-60/DX-1). No such mutation was done in the year 1987 as informed vide intimation dated 08.05.1987 (Ex.PW-5/B, D-6) by the accused to his employer. The registration of the said plots of land at Madras was done in June 1989 which shows that the accused even misled his employer concerning the mutation/registration of the said two properties.
CC No.25/2019 Page 343/419199.4 The accused has also placed reliance upon one intimation Ex.D1W4/11 dated 12.03.1985 regarding purchase of said two plots of land at VGP Golden Beach at Madras by his father and he having made certain payments from his account.
199.5 The first issue concerning the said letter is its authenticity. The said letter came on record from the office of Income Tax Department during the testimony of D1W4. He in the cross-examination admitted to the fact that there is no stamp or receiving on the said document and hence, it cannot be said as to when the said document came to be filed on record with Income Tax Authorities.
Admittedly, as is reflected in the record concerning Income Tax Department, certain disputes arose between the accused and the department, after registration of the present case and it being reported by CBI.
It led to re-opening of the assessments and then litigation. All the said litigation came to be instituted after the registration of the present case and thus, it has to be assumed that Ex.D1W4/11 dated 12.03.1985 came to be filed with Income Tax Authorities after registration of the present case.
199.6 Even otherwise, it is a well-established procedure that no such supporting document is filed along with regular Income Tax Returns. Only in case of re-opening of the assessments or dispute raised by the IT CC No.25/2019 Page 344/419 Dept. concerning the income which is the case herein after registration of the present case, warrant filing of proofs. The said annexures came to be filed by the accused after 13.08.1991 before the department to justify various income and assets.
199.7 The authenticity of the said letter is also put into the dock by the complete service record provided by the Chandigarh Administration. The accused was posted there from 1984 till July 1986. No such letter dated 12.03.1985 is part of the said admitted record Ex. P1 and P2 (D-3 and D-4) respectively.
199.8 Interestingly all the communications of the accused concerning official matters or his personal matters like drawing of allowances etc. are all part of the said admitted documents (Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2) except the letter in hand as well as other letter Ex.D1W4/10 dated 14.11.1984. If indeed, the accused despite the accused being aware of the said letters being missing and the complete record having not been provided by the Chandigarh Administration or Ministry of Home Affairs , he should have either not admitted the said record being incomplete or should have cross-examined the concerned witnesses regarding missing record.
199.9 The V.N. Nigam (PW-83) from Delhi Administration and R.K. Malhotra (PW-85) from MHA CC No.25/2019 Page 345/419 (UT Division), Govt. of India, were never cross- examined on the said aspect regarding the non- availability of the above-referred two crucial letters Ex.D1W4/10 & D1W4/11 relied upon in defence. Rather accused admitted regarding the supply of complete records by the concerned authorities to the CBI.
199.10 The contents of the said letters too put a question mark over their authenticity. Both the said letters are addressed to the Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh and the sender is referred to as "D.C Sankhla Managing Director". Neither of the said letters has the complete address of the organization where the accused was deployed as MD.
199.11 The other such letters addressed by the accused during the same period when he was posted as Managing Director of Chandigarh Industrial and General Development Corporation Ltd, are part of Ex. P-1 and P- 2 ( D-3 & D-4). They all are on the official letter-heads and have the proper diary number as well as the letter number. No explanation is furnished as to the non- availability of said diary number or letter number on Ex. D1W4/10 and 11.
The said purported letters are claimed to be office copies, even then the letter numbers should have been there which is the norm of communication in the Govt. Department.
CC No.25/2019 Page 346/419199.12 All letters that are part of D-6 ( Ex.PW-5/B) too have been written on the official letterhead or have the complete particulars of the posting and address details which surprisingly is missing in both these two letters Ex. D1W4/10 and 11 which came on record from the office Income Tax Department. Admittedly the said letters were filed after the registration of the present case. The only conclusion that can be drawn from said surrounding suspicious circumstances is that the said letters were created by the accused just to create the defence concerning intimations of his assets, expenditure, liabilities, etc. Therefore, the said letters are liable to be rejected being forged documents.
200. Accordingly, both assets No.3 and 4( Annexure III) are concluded to be proved against the accused and he being the sole beneficiary since the execution of the land agreements Ex. PW-64/A and Ex. PW-64/B. The defence of the accused vis-vis his father being the owner is rejected.
37. Item No.15 of Expenditure ( Annexure-II)
201. The prosecution has listed the said expenditure to the tune of Rs. 1,13,991.97 being the loan advanced by the accused herein on 12.03.1985 to R.L Sankhla, his real brother, for enabling him to purchase DDA Flat at Alaknanda, New Delhi.
CC No.25/2019 Page 347/419201.1 Ld. Sr.PP for the CBI argued that they have proved the said expenditure through the record seized from DDA which has been proved by Sh. Bachan Singh Sabharwal (PW-71) as Ex.PW-19/H. It has further been argued by CBI that the said R.L Sankhla was in Judicial Service in Haryana and falsely informed his employer i.e Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh regarding the said amount being received as a loan from his father (late M.R Sankhla).
Ld. Sr.PP for CBI further placed reliance upon purported affidavits of R.L Sankhla proved as Ex.PW- 60/A to Ex.PW-60/J recovered from the house search of accused conducted on 13.08.1991. The said affidavit proves that it is the accused who had advanced the loan to R.L Sankhla for the purchase of said flat and not late M.R Sankhla.
202. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that the said loan was transferred to the account of R.L Sankhla by his father as reflected in ITAT order Ex.D-1. Subsequently, he was authorized by Will/Authority Letter Ex.PW-60/DX-4 to recover the said amount from R.L Sankhla. So, accordingly, the said entry of expenditure must be deleted and rather this amount of Rs. 1 lacs has to be taken as additional income.
203. The said R.L Sankhla has been examined as PW-60 wherein he deposed that in May 1981 he judicial service and prior that he was living with his elder brother CC No.25/2019 Page 348/419 i.e the accused herein in Delhi. He thereafter identified his signatures on affidavit Ex.PW-60/A to Ex.PW-60/J. He further admitted to the fact that these affidavits were seized from the house of his brother.
203.1 So, R.L Sankhla conspicuously remained silent concerning the advance of loan either from the accused herein or their father or return of the same, if any, as has been claimed by Ld. counsel for the accused. He was also not cross-examined by the accused on the said aspect of advance of loan.
203.2 The issue in hand is what were circumstances which led to the advance of said loan. PW60 R.L Sankhla was allotted one flat by DDA firstly at East of Kailash in the year 1983 in response to his request/application submitted on 3.03.1981 as proved vide file Ex. PW19/B. 203.3 He also deposited a sum of Rs.15,000/- alongwith the said application on 03.03.1981. But after the said allotment of the flat at East of Kailash, surprisingly the request was made by the accused herein and not allottee R.L Sankhla through his letter Ex.PW- 19/E dated 20.03.1984 addressed to the then Union Home Minister ( Works, Housing and Sports) with a copy to Vice Chairman DDA. The accused at that point in time was working as Managing Director, Chandigarh Industrial and General Development Corporation Ltd.
CC No.25/2019 Page 349/419The letter was issued on the letterhead of the said Corporation. Certain grounds were taken for a change of allotment which are not relevant herein. The relevant issue herein is that instead of an allotee, the accused herein by using his official influence wrote the said letter which was accepted.
Accordingly, the flat at Alaknanda was offered by the DDA vide allocation letter of January 1985.
204. Another surprising feature of the said second allocation letter Ex.PW-19/F is that the same was forwarded to the official address of the accused herein at Sector-22 at Chandigarh. All the remaining communications by DDA concerning the allocation, payment etc. of the said flat have been addressed to the said official address of the accused herein. Even the payment challan Ex.PW-19/H carries the official address of the accused herein. Thus, the onus was upon the accused to explain the receipt of said communication at his address, when R.L Sankhla had already joined the judicial service in Haryana and was no longer residing with the accused herein. Further, no explanation is offered as to why he approached the Union Home Minister with the request for a change of allotment.
204.1 Apart from the said communication, there is another letter dated 30.04.1985, Ex.PW-19/I written by the accused herein again on his official letterhead CC No.25/2019 Page 350/419 wherein he enclosed the original FDR regarding the deposit of the amount of Rs.1,13,991.97 qua said allotment. The said letter is accompanied by State Bank of India Advice which again shows that the amount deposited with DDA came from the term deposit account No. 438530 & 438531 of the accused herein only. Therefore, in the said backdrop, the prosecution has claimed that the said expenditure for the purchase of the flat is, in a way, a loan advanced to the allotee R.L Sankhla.
204.2 But the accused herein claims that the said loan was advanced by his father and the said fact also finds mentioned in Will Ex.PW-60/DX-2. It has already been observed above that none of the Wills has been proved in accordance with law and hence, cannot be read in evidence.
205. Now, coming to the evidence produced in defence concerning the said purported loan to R.L Sankhla. The service record of R.L Sankhla is proved on record as Ex.D1W7/2 to D1W7/11.
Interestingly, the letters seeking permission to purchase the said flat by R.L Sankhla (PW-60) addressed to the Registrar, Punjab & Haryana High Court, puts a question mark over the claim of the accused regarding loan being advanced by his father and further the said loan having been authorised by him to be recovered.
CC No.25/2019 Page 351/419205.1 In the letter Ex.D1W7/4 dated 02.04.1985, R.L Sankhla intimated to the employer that he had paid Rs.15,000/- as earnest money in the year 1980 before he joined Haryana Judiciary. The said fact is admittedly against the record. Apart from that, he further requested that he wish to pay the cost of said flat after taking loan of Rs.66,000/- from the Government of Haryana and the remaining loan of Rs. One lakh or so from his father who maintains an account of HUF property of which he is also a member.
So, as per his first intimation, the proposed loan was to be taken from HUF assets and not the individual property of their father as has now been pleaded in the defence.
205.2 In the second letter dated 28.11.1985 Ex.D1W7/5, he again misled the employer by claiming that the letter of DDA seeking deposit of Rs.1,13,991.97 was received by his brother who instead of forwarding the said letter to him forwarded to his father, who immediately without informing him deposited the said amount of Rs.1,13,991.97 as he informed earlier. The said averment is also against the record as it has already been discussed that the accused herein deposited the said amount with DDA on 14th March 1985 and not his father late M.R Sankhla.
CC No.25/2019 Page 352/419205.3 Interestingly, the contents of the letter dated 10.03.1986 (Ex.D1W7/6) also put a question mark over the defence , which is reproduced hereunder:
(i) The loan of Rs. 1,13,991.97 raised by my father is permanent one.
(ii) It is without interest.
(iii) The amount of loan is to be adjusted from my share in the Joint Hindu Family property. I have already submitted that I am member of Joint Hindu Family and as and when it is partitioned, the loan amount shall be adjusted out of my share in in the Joint Hindu Family Property. It is also possible that in future, if some property out of the Joint Hindu Family property, is sold, then the loan amount can be adjusted.
205.4 It is, thus, apparent from the contents of said admitted letter produced in defence by the accused that the proposed loan was claimed to be a permanent one, without interest and it was to be adjusted from the share of R.L Sankhla, in HUF property. So, in the said backdrop, there was no question of said loan getting bequeathed in favour of the accused herein based on the purported Will as is now being claimed.
205.5 Apart from the falsity of the above-referred defence of the accused, the file Ex.PW-19/A (D-9) further reflects that the said flat was ultimately sold to one Asha Gupta somewhere in the year 1987 for an amount of Rs.2,60,000/-. She even lodged one complaint CC No.25/2019 Page 353/419 dated 12.02.1989 (Ex.PW-19/R) to the Secretary, Ministry of Home reporting about the illegalities of accused herein in executing the agreement to sell, etc. qua the said flat by impersonating himself as R.L Sankhla. It was further alleged that the accused also opened a bank account in the name of his brother at PNB, Civil Lines and encashed the consideration amount of Rs. 2,60,000/-.
205.6 Though it is claimed by the accused that the said complaint came to be withdrawn by Asha Gupta vide Ex.PW-19/D-1 dated 27.03.1989. The said letter is perused which reflects that the same is addressed to Director, Housing, DDA, Vikas Sadan, wherein Asha Gupta stated that she has not filed any complaint regarding the above-referred flat. Admittedly, the complaint Ex.PW-19/R was lodged with the Secretary, Ministry of Home, Govt of India and it was never withdrawn.
Rather, the contents of the said complaint stand fortified through the contents of affidavit Ex.PW-60/A of R.L Sankhla ,which were subsequently recovered during the office search of the accused herein at DKVIB, Mezzanine Floor, ISBT, Delhi vide search list Ex.PW- 63/C. 205.7 There was no purpose behind the execution of said affidavit Ex.PW-60/A found at the office of the accused herein in August 1991 . The only purpose was to CC No.25/2019 Page 354/419 satisfy the complainant Asha Gupta who had lodged the complaint Ex.PW-19/R, as she had the apprehension that purported consideration for the flat purchased by her has been misappropriated by the accused herein.
205.8 The reliance placed upon the order of ITAT (D-1 collectively) is also of no help to the accused as the same concerns the assets in the hands of M.R Sankhla. Even otherwise, it has already been observed above that the proceedings of the income tax authorities are not of much relevance in the case of disproportionate assets against the public servant. The said proceedings came to be instituted in the year 2000 i.e. around 9 years of the institution of the present case and has to be termed as an afterthought. The reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. J. Jayalalitha (supra).
206. Therefore, in aforesaid circumstances, the defence pleaded by the accused regarding the said expenditure of loan attributed to him being a false assertion is liable to be rejected. The said loan being advanced by the accused to RL Sankhla being the deposit of Rs. 1,13,991.97 with DDA against the allotment of flat stands proved.
38. Item No.16 of the Assets (Annexure-III)
207. The prosecution has listed the Shop No.5, Suraj Pur Parbat, Greater Kailash, valued at CC No.25/2019 Page 355/419 Rs.1,32,644.49 to be a Benami asset of the accused herein having purchased in the year 1981-1982. As per the SPR (Ex.PW-7/DA), it is alleged that the brother of the accused namely Rattan Lal Sankhla(PW60) submitted a tender application for purchase of the shop in March 1981. As he was the highest bidder, the said shop no.5 was allotted to him. Subsequently, the payment of Rs.32,099/-was made on 23.09.1981, Rs.83,000/- on 29.09.1981, Rs.16,300/- on 5.10.1981 and lastly of Rs.244.50 on 01.01.1982. Initially the earnest money of Rs.1000/- was deposited alongwith application on 23.05.1981. Subsequently, Rattan Lal Sankhla transferred the said shop to his brother P.C Sankhla on 26.11.1981 and lastly P.C Sankhla requested for transfer of the said shop in the name of the accused herein vide his letter dated 07.07.1986 which came to be transferred in the name of accused herein on 02.09.1987.
207.1 It is further alleged by CBI that as no funds were deposited byItem No.15 the previous owners Rattan Lal Sankhla and P.C Sankhla, thus it is the Benami property of the accused herein.
207.2 Per contra, it is the case of the accused herein that the entire payment has been made through bank challans by Rattan Lal Sankhla through his cheques or from his bank accounts. No investigation has been conducted from Rattan Lal Sankhla in this regard. The version given by P.C Sankhla (PW-66) denying one of CC No.25/2019 Page 356/419 the affidavits Ex.PW-18/D-1 hardly makes any difference. He has denied the said affidavit due to some property dispute going on between him and the accused herein.
207.3 The allotment file qua the said shop has been seized vide D-2 (I). The said file has been admitted by the accused during the admission/denial process and has been exhibited as Ex.P-83. The material documents in the said file have also beenItem No.15 proved by DDA official Raghunath (PW-18).
208. Before appreciating the testimonies of Rattan Lal Sankhla (PW-60 ) and P.C Sankhla (PW-66) regarding the ownership of the said asset, the process of allotment as well as the manner as to how the ownership got transferred in their favor as reflected in file Ex.P-83 needs to be discussed and appreciated.
208.1 The initial application for allotment was moved by Rattan Lal Sankhla( real brother of accused ) vide tender application form Ex.PW-18/B. Apart from him, three other persons also submitted their tenders, but the bid offered by Rattan Lal Sankhla was the highest one. Accordingly the same was accepted and communicated to him by the Deputy Director, DDA on 29.08.1981. Subsequently, the demand for payment was raised vide letter Ex.PW-18/D. The payment was deposited as sought vide bank challans Ex.PW-18/E, F CC No.25/2019 Page 357/419 Item No.15and G respectively. But immediately, after the deposit of the said consideration amount by Rattan Lal Sankhla, he moved the request with DDA for transfer/execution of the lease deed in favour of his real younger brother, a graduate unemployed Scheduled Caste (SC) P.C Sankhla on same terms and conditions vide letter Ex.PW-18/H. The said request was acted upon with certain formalities and documents such as an Indemnity Bond, Income Affidavit Scheduled Caste Certificate etc were sought. The said documents were submitted by P.C Sankhla on 22.01.1982. Accordingly, allotment got transferred in the name of P.C Sankhla on 25.01.1982.
208.2 Lastly, the said P.C Sankhla thereafter moved a request for transfer of the said shop through letter Ex.PW-18/O in July 1987 alongwith requisite documents i.e affidavit, indemnity bond etc. The reason for the proposed transfer was stated to be as per their family settlement. The said request was also accepted by DDA regarding the transfer of the said shop in the name of the accused herein vide transfer letter dated 02.09.1987 Ex.PW-18/Q. Thus, in this manner, the accused herein came to be the owner of the said shop. The conveyance deed dated 03.05.1988 too has been executed in favour of the accused herein.
208.3 As far as the ownership of the shop is concerned there is no dispute and only the limited issue to CC No.25/2019 Page 358/419 be seen herein is as to who paid the consideration amount at various intervals against the allotment of the said shop.
208.4 It is the case of the prosecution that it is a Benami property as the entire money was provided by the accused herein. On the contrary, the accused claims that the property was legally acquired by his brother Rattan Lal Sankhla who made the payments through his bank account. As far as the payment through bank account is concerned, bank challans Ex.PW-18/E, F and G do not in any manner reflect it being a deposit through bank transfer or payment being received through some cheque.
208.5 Therefore, in the said backdrop, it has to be seen as to on what basis the prosecution has concluded that the said payments were made by accused herein under the benami name. The primary ground for the said contention is the version of Prem Chand Sankhla (PW-
66).
He is the younger brother of the accused herein from whom the said shop got transferred in the name of accused herein. On the Item No.15aspect of the purchase of the said shop, he has supported the case of the prosecution by deposing that he had no knowledge when the said shop was purchased. He further claimed that he had not paid any amount as mentioned in his affidavit Ex.PW-18/D-1. He further elaborated on the said aspect by deposing that he has not made any payment of Rs.1,33,000/- as detailed/mentioned in the affidavit. The CC No.25/2019 Page 359/419 said affidavit Ex.PW-18/D-1 dated 16.01.1982 of PW-66 was submitted with DDA at the time when the said shop was transferred in his name from his brother Rattan Lal Sankhla. In the said affidavit, he disclosed the sources through which he proposes to arrange funds for meeting the payments qua the said shop as under:
a) Rs. 23,000/- from Self.
b) Rs.50,000/- from Shri M.R Shankhla
(father)
c) Rs.20,000/- from Shri D.C Shankhla
(brother)
d) Rs.20,000/- from Shri Laxmi Chand Sankhla
(brother)
e) Rs.20,000/- from Shri Rattan Lal Sankhla
(brother)
Total Rs. 1,33,000/-(One lakh thirty three thousand only.) 208.6 The said sources of payment were considered by the DDA as reflected in their note dated 25.01.1982 and accordingly, transfer of the said shop was approved in his name/favour.
208.7 PW-66 further put a question mark over the said affidavit Ex. PW18/D-1 by claiming that he signed the same without reading the contents and the same was placed by the accused herein.He had signed at the instance of his brother only. The version of PW-66 regarding signing the affidavit without going through the contents or it being placed before him by the accused or having signed it at the instance of the accused is not challenged in the cross-examination.
CC No.25/2019 Page 360/419208.8 His version qua the ownership of the said shop and he having not made any payment of Rs.1,33,000/- as detailed in the affidavit, is also not challenged, or rebutted in the entire cross-examination. Even the bald suggestions denying the averments of PW- 66 are missing.
208.9 The only ground on which his version has been put in the dock is his personal vengeance with the accused due to some property dispute. The said argument of the accused is not supported by any material on record. Rather it is the case of the accused that PW66 transferred the shop in question in his name in terms of the family settlement after the death of their father. If indeed there was dispute between them then why did he transfer the shop in his favour . Thus, the version of PW-66 on the above-said aspects has to be read against the accused herein. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that accused operated behind the scenes even while the shop in question was being transferred from Rattan Lal Sankhla to P.C Sankhla and lastly in his own name.
208.10 Apart from the said affidavit Ex.PW-18/D-1, another affidavit Ex.PW-18/D-2 was also submitted at the time of the aforesaid transfer in January 1982. It was signed by five deponents. The said five deponents corroborated the contents of Ex.PW-18/D-1 which is the affidavit of PW-66 P.C Sankhla regarding arrangement CC No.25/2019 Page 361/419 of consideration amount. The signatories to the said affidavit Ex.PW-18/D-2 are M.R Sankhla (father of accused), accused himself, Laxmi Chand Sankhla (brother of accused), Rattan Lal Sankhla (brother of accused) and Prem Chand Sankhla (brother of accused). Para no.2 and 3 of the said affidavit again point towards the falsity of the claim of the accused that the funds were paid by Rattan Lal Sankhla from his bank account. The said paras are reproduced hereunder:
"2. That the above amount has been given by us out of our personal saving lying with us.
3. That we do not have any bank a/c."
208.11 It is the case of the accused that the said asset came to be transferred in his name in terms of the family settlement. The accused herein in his property returns/intimation under AIS Conduct Rules dated 30.03.1988 (Part of D-6 Ex.PW-5/B) informed his employer about the acquisition of the said shop. He claimed that in pursuance of the wishes of his late father, as contained in authorization letter dated 21.06.1985, he has acquired the said shop as well as one Flat No. 95 SFS, Category-II, Mall Road, Delhi.
208.12 As per the accused, he was authorised by his late father Mani Ram Sankhla vide his authority letter (Ex.PW-60/DX-4 dated 21.06.1985) to recover various loans advanced by him from various debtors. As per the said letter, the relevant papers were also handed over vis-
CC No.25/2019 Page 362/419a-vis which the loans were to be recovered by him. Surprisingly, the said relevant papers were neither submitted with the department along with the aforesaid intimation nor proved on record despite the said facts and documents being in the special knowledge of the accused herein in terms of Section 106 of Evidence Act .
The said alleged loan also finds mention in Will of Mani Ram Sankhla dated 25.01.1986 Ex.PW-60/DX-2.
208.13 As far as the Will dated 25.01.1986 Ex.PW- 60/DX2 is concerned, the same cannot be read in evidence having not been proved in terms of Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. None of the attesting witness to the said Will was summoned and therefore, in absence of their testimonies, the said Will cannot be read in evidence. Even otherwise, the said defence of advance of loan by M.R Sankhla or any payment being made by P.C Sankhla for acquiring the said shop stands discarded by PW-66 in totality. Rather the statement of Wealth AY- 1990-91 of accused Mark PW-63/PX1, it is claimed that PC Sankhla and R.L Sankhla advanced him loans. If that was the scenario then why they would transfer the properties in their names to accused.
209. Another aspect regarding the defence of the accused herein is the payments qua purchase of the said shop having been made by Rattan Lal Sankhla from his CC No.25/2019 Page 363/419 own bank accounts is put in the dock by the service record of Rattan Lal Sankhla (PW-60).
209.1 PW-60 joined the Haryana Judiciary as Sub- Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate in May 1981. Thus, the entire payments for allotment of the said shop made vide challans Ex.PW-18/E, F and G were made after joining to service. The Punjab Government Employees Conduct Rules 1968 mandated PW-60 to seek prior permission as well as incorporate the said property in the annual property returns. He also remained silent qua the said payments.
209.2 The onus was upon the accused herein to prove the said fact of intimation to the department about the said payment by Rattan Lal Sankhla if indeed he wanted to prove his claim regarding the payments by his brother. Though the relevant record i.e property statement file from year 1981-2001 was summoned by the accused in his defence. Ms. Geetu (D1W7), Sr Assistant, Vigilance Branch, Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh produced the relevant record. But surprisingly, only property returns for the year 1983- 1984, 1984-1985, 1988-1989 and 1989-1990 have been proved on record as Ex.D1W7/2, Ex.D1W7/3 and Ex.D1W7/8 and Ex.D1W7/9 respectively.
209.3 The property return for the year 1983-1984 has no mention of the said property as admittedly in the CC No.25/2019 Page 364/419 year 1982 the same got transferred from Rattan Lal Sankhla to P.C Sankhla. No property return of the year 1982 or the intimations qua the deposit in the year 1981 has been proved on record despite the onus upon the accused to substantiate his claim regarding payments being made by Rattan Lal Sankhla from his bank account.
209.4 Lastly, the reason for the proposed transfer which was furnished to the DDA by P.C Sankhla in his request letter dated Ex.PW-18/O was stated to be due to the family settlement. It is though silent qua role or it being as per the wishes their father MR Shankhla. The said reason furnished to DDA is admittedly not in consonance with intimations furnished by the accused in his department vide his intimation letter.
209.5 It is also reflected from the record itself that accused herein even furnished a false affidavit for ensuring the transfer of the said shop in his name with DDA vide Ex.PW-18/P-4 dated 15.05.1987. As per para- 5 of the said affidavit, he asserted that neither he nor his wife or dependent children own any residential plot/flat/house in the Union Territory of Delhi. As per the evidence on record which is not disputed by the accused, in the year 1987, the accused owned flat No. B-41, Aditi Apartment, Patparganj in his name, Flat No.1183 Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi in joint name with P.C Sankhla and lastly Flat No.22, Jyoti Bagh Group Housing Society, Pitampura in the name of wife of the accused herein.
CC No.25/2019 Page 365/419Thus, the accused at the time of said transfer in the year 1987 owned two properties in UT of Delhi and one owned by his wife. Thus, he furnished false affidavit with DDA which ultimately led to the transfer of the said shop as per the DDA policy in his favour.
209.6 In these circumstances, it has to be observed that all the incriminating evidence which includes the documentary as well as oral testimony of PW-66 points towards benami ownership of the said property right from initial allotment in the name of Rattan Lal Sankhla and subsequently transfer in the name of P.C Sankhla. Thus, entry qua Item No.16 of the Assets qua Shop No.5, Surajpur Parbat, G.K, Delhi stands proved.
210. The connected entry to Item No.16 is Item No.35 of the expenditure (Annexure-II). It is an expenditure of Rs.10,600/- incurred towards the purchase of stamp duty, etc for the execution of the lease deed concerning the said shop.
211. Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI argued that the said expenditure is admitted as conveyance deed Ex.P-67 (D-
67) is an admitted document. The stamp duty of Rs. 10,600/- was incurred for the execution of the conveyance deed.
211.1 On the contrary, Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that there is the refund of the said stamp duty as CC No.25/2019 Page 366/419 has been proved by Ashim Kumar Burua (D1W12) vide Ex.D1W12/1 and Ex.D1W12/2 respectively.
211.2 As far as the ownership of the said shop in question is concerned, it has already been observed that above that the said shop stands in the name of the accused after the transfer from PC Shankla ( PW66).
212. Now coming to entry no.35 of the expenditure upon execution of conveyance deed Ex.P-57 (D-67) in the name of the accused herein. The admitted document and the noting of the concerned official from DDA reflect the charges incurred on stamp duty as Rs. 10,595/-. So, these are admitted expenses towards stamp duty upon the execution of the conveyance deed.
212.1 The only dispute raised on behalf of the accused is the refund of stamp duty issue by the DDA as proved on record vide refund letter dated 07.04.1988 Ex.D1W12/1. The contents of the said letter itself put a question mark over the claim of the accused. The refund has been paid to Prem Chand Sankhla and not the accused herein.
212.2 The said amount of Rs.10,595/- which subsequently got refunded was paid on 08.06.1985 by P.C Sankhla as reflected by the document of the defence Ex.D1W12/1. No evidence has come on record to show the said refund has gone into the hands of the accused CC No.25/2019 Page 367/419 from PW66. Accordingly, the said Entry No.35 of expenditure stands proved against the accused.
39. Item No.33 of Expenditure ( Annexure-II)
213. The Item No.33 concerns Flat No.95, Mall Road, Delhi.
213.1 Ld. Sr.PP for the CBI argued that the said Flat No.95, Mall Road Delhi was originally allotted in the name of P.C Sankhla (PW-66), real brother of the accused herein in the year 1981-82. However, the same got transferred in the name of the accused by the DDA in the year 1989 as proved through admitted record Ex.P-86 {D-6 (ii) }.
213.2 It is further argued that the entire payment has been made by the accused himself and due to this reason only P.C Sankhla transferred the said flat in the name of the accused herein. It has already also come in the testimony of P.C Sankhla (PW-66) that the accused used to get his signatures obtained on documents and he used to sign the same without reading the contents. His version also put the intimation dated 04/05/1981 (Ex. PW5/B) of accused in dock qua running of the shop at Chunna Mandi, Delhi.
214. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that no evidence proves that the said flat which was allotted to P.C Sankhla (PW-66) was financed by CC No.25/2019 Page 368/419 him. P.C Sankhla (PW-66) remained silent in this regard and was never questioned by CBI on the said aspect of payment of consideration amount. Reliance is also placed upon the service record of P.C Sankhla (D-23 ) as well as service record of accused ( D-6) wherein both of them had informed their employers respectively much before registration of the present case regarding transfer of said flat in accordance with wishes of their late father M. R. Sankhla.
214.1 The accused also placed reliance upon Will Ex PW60/DX2 wherein his late father had bequeathed /stated that in lieu of loan advanced to P.C Sankhla (PW-
66) he will either repay the loan or transfer the said flat and shop at SurajParbat. Accordingly, the expenditure on the said flat cannot be imputed upon the accused.
214.2 The amount of expenditure to the tune of Rs.1,49,084.50 for the purchase of said flat alongwith the garage and it being originally allotted to P.C Sankhla (PW-66) is not disputed.
The allotment file Ex.P-86 of the DDA reflects that originally in response to the application moved by P.C Sankhla (PW-66) during the year 1981, he was allotted flat Category-III at Vasant Vihar, near JNU vide allotment letter dated 10.03.1983. However, P.C. Sankhla (PW-66) moved the request before the DDA seeking a change of allotment from Vasant Vihar to Mall Road, Delhi. The said request was allowed by the DDA in the CC No.25/2019 Page 369/419 year 1987 and accordingly, the Flat No.95, at Mall Road, Category, Delhi was allotted to him in 1987.
214.3 Interestingly the said request for change was moved after the death of M.R Sankhla as reflected from request letter Ex.PW-19/U. The reason for moving the said request was that after the death of his father, he had to keep his two handicapped sisters with him and hence, the flat which can be allotted immediately or is readily available be given which was informed to be category-II Flat at Mall Road, Delhi.
214.4 The final cost of the said flat at Mall Road was Rs.1,44,000/-. Subsequently, the payment of Rs.5000/-(approximately) against the allotment of the scooter garage vide allotment letter dated 08.6.1987. After making the entire payment, P.C Sankhla (PW-66) moved the request in July 1987 requesting to transfer the said flat in favour of his real brother i.e accused herein vide request letter Ex.PW-19/Z. Alongwith the said request letter, requisite documents i.e indemnity bond etc. were also enclosed. One handwritten note of the accused dated 08.07.1987 too was forwarded. The said note was in a way seeking the favor from concerned officials at DDA by the accused in ensuring timely transfer.
214.5 The contents of the said request letter Ex.PW-19/Z or the note of the accused herein addressed to DDA authority were silent as to the reason for the CC No.25/2019 Page 370/419 transfer of the said flat. The said request was ultimately processed by DDA Authorities in the year 1988 and the allotment was made in favour of accused. In this manner, the accused became owner of the said property. There is no dispute to all these admitted facts.
214.6 In the said backdrop, the two material points require consideration. Firstly, the reasons which prompted P.C Sankhla to transfer the said flat in the year 1987 and secondly, who had paid the consideration amount for the said flat. The most crucial witness in this regard was P.C Sankhla (PW-66), but he remained silent with respect to the allotment of the said flat and its subsequent transfer. Interestingly, the prosecution failed to even cross-examine him on the said aspect.
214.7 As far as his cross-examination is concerned, he claimed that he used to sign documents including the property returns under the CCS Rules as were prepared by his brother and he simply signed the same. As it has already been narrated above that P.C Sankhla (PW-66) was earlier allotted the flat in 1983 at Vasant Kunj and even the installments were paid qua the said flat. But suddenly in June 1987, he moved the request Ex.PW- 19/U seeking change of category as well as flat allotment which is readily available. As per the contents of the said request, it was moved after the death of his father and the reason for the change sought was that he had to accommodate two handicapped sisters .
CC No.25/2019 Page 371/419214.8 The contents of the said change of allotment letter Ex.PW-19/U strikes at the very defence pleaded by the accused that P.C Sankhla (PW-66) transferred the said flat at Mall Road as per the will and wishes of his late father. In case, their late father desired that he had to transfer the allotted flat to the accused herein in case of failure to pay loan , then why at the first instance in June 1987, P.C Sankhla (PW-66) moved request seeking readily available flat and change of category of flat.
215. Another factor that puts a question mark over the claim of the accused is the record of all the payments concerning the said flat by P.C Sankhla (PW-
66). The challans Ex.PW-19/ T-1 for a sum of Rs.8817/- , Ex.PW-19/T-3 for Rs.30,000/-, PW-19/T-3 for Rs.18,800/- and Ex.PW-19/T-5 for Rs.35,000/-, all carries the signatures of the accused at column 'Signature of Tenderer'. No explanation is furnished by the accused as to why he signed the challans when allottee was very much available in Delhi.
215.1 The said four challans are of the year 1983 when even accused was not even posted in Delhi. The only assumption that can be drawn is that the accused only was paying the said allotment price with the DDA on behalf of his brother.
CC No.25/2019 Page 372/419215.2 The other challans i.e Ex.PW/19-W1 and Ex.PW-19/Y too has the signatures of some other person at the Column of 'Signature of Tenderer'. As far as the last challan of Rs.5084/- dated 08.06.1987 with respect to the garage is concerned, at that point of time, P.C Sankhla (PW-66) had already requested transfer with DDA. Therefore, the obligation of payment for allotment of said garage was upon the accused only being the transferee.
215.3 So, the record reflects that none of the six challans of payments concerning the allotment of the said flat carries the signature of original allotee P.C Sankhla (PW-66) in the Column 'Signature of Tenderer'. The said challans probablize the theory of the prosecution regarding accused having purchased the said flat in the name of his brother.
215.4 Another fact that emerges from the said DDA allotment file is how blatantly the accused lied while filing his affidavit before the DDA Authorities along with the transfer application claiming that neither he, nor his wife, or dependent children own a residential plot, flat or house in Union Territory of Delhi. It has already come on record that in the year 1987, the accused owned the flat at Aditi Group Housing Society, Patparganj, Delhi, Plot No.1183, at Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi, Flat No.22 Jyoti Bagh, Pitam Pura, Delhi in the name of Ms. Sakshi Sankhla(wife of accused) and Flat CC No.25/2019 Page 373/419 115-A, Vikas Puri, Delhi in the name of his wife. Despite owning four properties in the Union Territory of Delhi at the time of furnishing the said affidavit in 1987, he misled the DDA Authorities.
216. Now, coming to the service record of both P.C Sankhla (PW-66) and the accused herein qua the said transaction and ownership of the said flat.
The authenticity of the said record of P.C Sankhla (PW-66) concerning the above-referred flat as well as other property transactions was put into the dock by PW66 in the cross-examination. He deposed that the accused used to prepare the said return under CCS Rules and he only signed the same. Be that as it may be the issue is whether the service record probabilise the defence of the accused or not.
216.1 The service record of P.C Sankhla (PW-66) is part of D-23 Ex.PW-66/ A and Ex.PW-66/B. PW-66 joined Delhi State Civil Supply Corporation on 11.12.1982 as Sales Officer on an adhoc-basis. His services were regularised in the year 1986 and from then onwards he was governed vide CCS Rules 1968. Accordingly, the reliance is placed upon by the accused on the annual property return (Part of PW-66/B) filed in Feb.1986. The details of immovable property for the year 1983-1984 carry the details concerning DDA Flat at JNU, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi . The sources for said allotment of flat as informed by P.C Sankhla (PW-66) were stated CC No.25/2019 Page 374/419 to be Rs.90,000/- loan from his father Mani Ram Sankhla. Further, as per the letter, it was informed that PW-66 had taken loan of Rs.50,000/-from his father in 1982-1983 and Rs.90,000/- for purchase DDA shop and DDA Flat at JNU Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. It was further informed that he had taken loan of Rs. 60,000/- from his friend Rajender Mittal to discharge partial liabilities of the loan taken from his father. All the loans were stated to be interest-free loan.
216.2 Thus, as per his intimation, he had taken total interest free loan from his father to the tune of Rs.1,40,000/-, out of which Rs.60,000/- stood already paid when the said intimation was sent by P.C Sankhla (PW-66) to his employer.
216.3 As far as the ownership of said flat and transfer of the same to the accused is concerned, a memo was issued to P.C Sankhla (PW-66) on 16.06.1988 by the Department wherein the following questions were raised to him :
3. Whether the flat /shop was acquired with the prior permission of the competent authority and if so, a copy thereof may be furnished for the perusal of the Authorities.
4.When was the DDA Flat at Mall Road and also DDA Shop at Suraj Parbat, East of Kailash acquired and for how much.
5.What were the sources leading to the payment towards the cost of the flat/shop.CC No.25/2019 Page 375/419
6. A copy of the Authority letter form his father authorising him to transfer the flat/shop to his brother may be furnished.
216.4 In response to the said questions, the reply was furnished by P.C Sankhla (PW-66) on 27.06.1988 and it was informed that he had entered into the transaction for which clarification was sought before joining the service. As far as the transfer of the flat in question is concerned, it was informed that as per the desire of his father dated 21.06.1985, they had arrived at an arrangement. As per the arrangement, the property-in-
question was transferred to the accused. The copy of the said desire was also annexed with the said reply.
It is the authority letter authorizing the accused herein to collect loans from various creditors. Apart from that, late M.R Sankhla vide the said authority letter further desired that D.C Sankhla should discharge his liability like the maintenance of two unmarried handicapped daughters and pay his liability towards the creditors. So, in terms of the said clarification letter of P.C Sankhla (PW-66) to his employer, he claimed that had taken loan from his father for the purchase of the flat and accordingly as per the family arrangement he transferred the said flat in the name of his brother D.C Sankhla.
216.6 The first most crucial question which arises for consideration is that the loan of Rs.1,40,000/- was CC No.25/2019 Page 376/419 interest-free loan, out of which Rs.60,000/- already returned as discussed above. Thus, the only outstanding loan against P.C Sankhla (PW-66) for the loan taken from his late father was only Rs.90,000/-. It has already come on record that the value of the said flat was Rs.1,44,000/- and no explanation is furnished as to why despite as per the admitted record, he having the liability to pay only Rs.90,000/-, transferred the flat which was valued much more than the said loan.
216.7 The defence of the accused is that he only used to help his brother in filing the returns. However, the record reflects that the said reply of P.C Sankhla (PW-66) dated 27.06.1988 is prepared on a piece of paper similar to the papers used by the accused for his intimations which are part of D-6 Ex. PW5/B. Going further, even the font of the letter of P.C Sankhla (PW-66) is the same as used by the accused for his returns dated 30.03.1988. Thus, the said two incriminating circumstances put a question mark on the conduct of the accused and the explanation given by him. It rather probabilises the version of P.C Sankhla (PW-66) that accused used to prepare his returns and he only used to sign the same.
216.8 PW-66 response qua the shop at Suraj Parbhat, GK that he signed the documents at the instance of his brother without reading the same and no payment being made qua the said shop, raises an incriminating circumstance against accused. He used the name of his CC No.25/2019 Page 377/419 family to acquire the properties. The letter of accused to the employer dated 4/05/1981 (part of Ex. PW5/B ) qua running of shop at Chuna Mandi too probablizes the version of PW66.It reflects how he was using the name and particulars of his family members for his personal gains.
216.9 It is pertinent to mention herein that in the present case qua the SFS Flat at Mall Road, Delhi too same modus operandi was used by him in getting the allotment done in the name of his brother PW66 PC Sankhla . The accused only was the real owner of the same having paid the entire consideration amount as reflected from the deposit challans.
216.10 Now, coming to the service record Ex. PW5/B of accused herein concerning the said flat in question. The accused informed his employer through his letter dated 30.03.1988 that in deference to the wishes of his late father vide authorization letter dated 21.06.1985 , the Flat No.95 SFS, Category II Mall Road Delhi and shop No.5, Suraj Prabhat, East of Kailash have been acquired by him. So, there was no reference to the Will dated 25.01.1986 (Ex. PW60/DX2) as has been argued now.
216.11 The reference was only to the authority letter dated 21.06.1985 Ex. PW60/DX4 whereby his father had authorized him to collect loans from various debtors. The CC No.25/2019 Page 378/419 said authority letter does not disclose the names of debtors and the amount due towards them. It has already been observed that while discussing the worth of late M.R Sankhla that he had seven dependants during the relevant period and therefore, it is hard to assume that he was able to tender loans to his sons and others from his agricultural income and small shop of shoes at Sirsa. Rather, the account statements of M.R Sankhla reflected that the said account had substantial transactions during the year 1983-1985 only.
217. Another issue which put a question mark over the authenticity of Ex. PW60/DX4 is the date of its execution. It is stated to be executed on 21.06.1985 which is the same date when the Late MR Sankhla allegedly purchased the agricultural land at village Moriwala, Sirsa in the name of his grandsons ( sons of the accused herein). Despite he being present at Sirsa for the execution of sale deeds Ex. PW25/1 to PW25/4, he on the very same day executed two affidavits relied by the accused Ex. PW60/DX3 and Ex.PW60/DX4.
Interestingly the said affidavits were executed on the same set of stamp papers purchased on 18.03.1985 along with other stamp papers upon which the Will Ex. PW60/DX1 has been executed.
The said conduct of executing the two affidavits on previously purchased stamp papers while MR Sankhla was present at the office of Sub Registrar, Sirsa goes on to reflect that these were signed by him while the same CC No.25/2019 Page 379/419 were blank. He signed the same at the instance of the accused to be used by him as per his convenience.
217.1 In the light of the above-said reasons and the fact that late M.R Sankhla had a very meager income as well as the responsibility of seven dependents including two handicapped daughters, he was not in a position to disburse the loans as has been claimed by the accused. Rather, his bank accounts have been used for money laundering as has already been observed above.
218. Considering the above reasons, it has to be concluded that the entry towards expenditure qua the said flat has to be imputed to the accused, being the real owner of the said flat and having made payments through challans as referred to above.
XI. ADMITTED ENTRIES IN LIST OF INCOME (ANNX-I), LIST OF EXPENDITURE (ANNX-II) & LIST OF ASSETS (ANNX-III) The following are the admitted entries concerning Annexure-I of Income which are not disputed and stand proved through admitted documents:
Entry No.1 of income from Salary
219. The said entry concerns income from salary from the year 1980 to 13.08.1991 The document concerning the said item stands proved through Ex. P-5 CC No.25/2019 Page 380/419 (D-7). The net salary earned during the check period is Rs. 4,36,742.48.
Item No.4 qua Car Advance
220. The item no.4 concerns the car advance availed on 01.07.1986 which stands proved by Satya Narain Sharma (PW-5), the official from Delhi Administration. PW-5 proved the admitted documents i.e. Ex.PW-5/A (D-5) and Ex.P-5 (D-7). The value of the loan is Rs.70,000/-.
Item No.5 qua House Building Adavance (HBA)
221. This item pertains to House Building Advance during the year 1985-1986 which stands proved through Ex.P-2 (D-4). The amount of HBA for purchase of flat at Aditi Group Housing Society, Patparganj, Delhi, sanctioned by Chandigarh Administration is Rs.1,87,500/-.
Item No.9 of Income from Rent from Land at Prakash Industrial Area
222. This item pertains to rent received from plot of land situated at 112, Prakash Industrial Area as on 31.05.1991. The said income of Rs.90,000/- was generated through rent which is proved by Jitender Kumar (PW-77) vide Rent Agreement Ex. P-21 (D-24).
CC No.25/2019 Page 381/419Item No.10 of Income from Rent from Flat at Aditi Group Housing Society, Patparganj, Delhi.
223. This income from the rent from aforesaid flat concerns the period w.e.f 07.03.1991 till 13.08.1991. The said income is proved by A.S Bisht ( PW-13). He proved the Lease Deed Ex.PW-13/A(D-9). The total rent receipts are Ex.P-22 (D-25) is for a sum of Rs. 47228.80.
Item No.11 of Income from Sale of SFS Flat No.95, Mall Road Delhi
224. This item concerns income from the sale of aforesaid flat on 13.02.1989. The said sale stands proved by M.G Agarwal (PW-20). He proved the draft for payment of Rs.2 lacs vide Ex.PW-20/A. Item No. 13 of Income from Interest from SB A/C 14009, PNB in the name of Accused .
225. This item of income concerns the interest income generated vide savings account no. 14009 with PNB Civil lines during the check period. The said income is proved vide admitted document Ex. P 24 ( D30 ). As per the statement of account the interest income during the check period is Rs. 40,432.80.
Item No. 14 of Income from Interest from SB A/C 21250, PNB in the name of wife of Accused .
CC No.25/2019 Page 382/419226. This item of income concerns the interest income generated vide savings account no. 21250 with PNB Civil lines during the check period . The said income is proved vide admitted document Ex. P 25 ( D31 ). As per the statement of account the interest income during the check period is Rs. 8035.30.
Item No. 15 of Income from Interest from SB A/C 28643, PNB in the name of Kapil ( minor son of Accused ).
227. This item of income concerns the interest income generated vide savings account no. 28643 with PNB Civil lines during the check period . The said income is proved vide admitted document Ex. P 26 (D-
32) As per the statement of account the interest income during the check period is Rs. 5498.20 instead of Rs. 5391.20 as claimed by CBI.
Item No.25 of Income from disposal of Car in March 1989.
228. This income of Rs. 2400/- pertains to the disposal of Maruti Car which stands proved vide admitted document Ex.P-4 ( D-6)vide intimation letter dated 09.03.1989.
Item No.29 of Income Received from LTC
229. This income of Rs.13,082/- from LTC stands proved through the admitted document Ex.P-5 (D-7). Though the said entry is liable to be deleted as the same CC No.25/2019 Page 383/419 required to be used for the assigned purpose which is expenditure only . The entry is accordingly deleted from the List of Income ( Annexure-I) Item No.30 of Income as Fixed Medical Allowance
230. This income of Rs.1533/- from Fixed Medical Allowance stands proved through admitted document Ex.P-5 (D-7).
Item No.31 of Income from Sale of Safeda Trees (Eucalyptus Tree)
231. This income of Rs. 3 lacs concerns the sale of Safeda Trees (Eucalyptus Tree) from the year 1990 up to Feb.1991 .The said income is proved by Ravinder (PW-22) who deposed that he paid Rs.3 lacs in total against the purchase of Safeda trees (Eucalyptus Tree) during the year 1990 from the wife of accused . He proved also the ledger book as Ex.PW-22/A. Item No.32 of Income from Chit Fund
232. This income of Rs.42,000/- from the Chit Fund stands proved through the admitted passbook Ex.P-62 (D-76).
Item No.33 of Income from Shop at Suraj Parbat Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi.
233. This item of income to the tune of Rs. 1,52,869.40/ concerns the Shop No.5, Suraj Parbat, Greater Kailash-I, from September, October 1986 to CC No.25/2019 Page 384/419 August 1991. The said income has been proved by R.C Aggarwal, the Financial Controller & Secretary, DTTDC, New Delhi, regarding rent compensation paid to D.C Sankhla (accused herein) by the department qua the said shop vide letter Ex.PW-39/A (D-125).
As far as the ownership of the said shop is concerned, the details of the same are already discussed in Issue No.16 of Assets ( Annexure-III).
Item No. 35 of Income from Interest from NSS A/C at GPO , Delhi in the name of Accused and his wife .
234. This item of income concerns the interest income generated vide NSS account no. 1100230 with GPO Delhi during the check period . The said income is proved vide admitted document Ex.P-48(D-54). However the said interest income is liable to be deleted as the asset no. 41 ( Annexure III) concerning the said NSS account, the value taken is only the total investment only i.e Rs. 1,20,000/-. Accordingly the Item no. 35 of Income is deleted .
The following are the admitted entries concerning expenditure during the check period as listed vide Annexure-II of the Chargesheet:
Item No.6 of the Expenditure qua school fees etc of children
235. This item of expenditure of Rs. Rs.17,266/- concerns the school fees of minor sons of the accused CC No.25/2019 Page 385/419 during the check period. The said fees expenditure stands proved by R.K. Sharma (PW-14), Principal of Govt. Model School, Ludloo Castle, Delhi, S.L Dhawan (PW-
15) Principal of DPS Mathura, Delhi Brother Ittop (PW-
16), Principal of St. Xaviers School, Raj Niwas Marg, Delhi. They all proved the school fees paid during the relevant check period for the minor children of accused to be Rs.17,266/-.
Item No.7 of the Expenditure qua LIC of Ms. Shashi Sankhla.
236. This item of expenditure for a sum of Rs. 30128.40 pertains LIC of Ms. Shashi Sankhla (wife of accused herein) stands proved vide admitted document vide Ex.P-59 ( D-71) Item No. 8 of Expenditure qua payment of LIC Premium on the life of D.C Sankhla
237. This item of expenditure for a sum of Rs.36,875/- pertains to payment of premium qua LICs of D.C Sankhla (accused herein) stands proved vide admitted document Ex. P-60 (D-72).
Item No. 9 of Expenditure qua payment of LIC Premium on the life of Kapil Sankhla (minor son of accused)
238. This item of expenditure for a sum of Rs.18,960/- concerns the payment of premium qua LICs in the name of Kapil Sankhla (minor son of the accused) CC No.25/2019 Page 386/419 and stands proved vide admitted document Ex. P-61 (D-
73).
Item No.10 of the Expenditure qua Electricity Charges
239. This expenditure concerns the electricity charges qua the connection installed at the residence of accused i.e House No.5, Court Road, Delhi during November 1986 to 08.07.1991. The electricity charges are proved by V.P. Garg ( PW-40) through documents Ex.PW-40/A and Ex.PW-40/B. 239.1 The amount of expenditure is Rs. 35,654.91. The total amount of bills (part of D-74 Ex.P-79) are of Rs. 26,054/-, but the average of the electricity expenses have been added from the period Jan 1980 to October 1981 and December 1985 to October 1986 due to non- availability of record with DESU (Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking).
239.2 Though the Ld. Counsel for the accused disputed the said separate item by claiming that as per CBI circular governing investigation of disproportionate assets cases, the electricity and water charges are to be included in unverifiable expenses.
239.3 The said administrative circular of CBI cannot be the sole ground for deciding the issue in hand. The administrative circular of CBI is only for purposes of CC No.25/2019 Page 387/419 guidance of investigating officers and cannot bind the Court.
The said expenditure of electricity expenses are proved through verifiable bills and thus cannot by any stretch of the imagination said to be part of unverifiable household expenses as has been argued.
Item No.12 of the Expenditure qua Payment to Priya Charitable Society during the year 1987
240. This item of expenditure for a sum of Rs. 5800/- qua payment made by accused to Priya Charitable Society during the year 1987 stands proved by Rakesh Kumar, General Secretary(PW-26) vide admitted documents Ex.PW-26/A-1 to Ex.PW-26/A-5.
Item No.19 of the Expenditure qua Chit Funds
241. This item of expenditure for a sum of Rs.37175/- concerns the investment in Chit Funds during the year 1988 to 1989 which stands proved through admitted document Ex. P-62 (D-76).
Item No.21 of the Expenditure on Membership of National Sports Club.
242. This item of expenditure for a sum of Rs.6510/- concerns the membership of National Sports Club, New Delhi from the year 1986 to 1991. The expenditure stands proved by Rajinder Sarup Saxena CC No.25/2019 Page 388/419 (PW- 36) vide documents Ex.PW-36/A ( D-77) ( Ex. P63).
Item No.22 of the Expenditure qua Loan to Kushminder Singh
243. This item of expenditure for a sum of Rs. 5 lacs the loan extended to one Kushminder Singh on 19.06.1991. The said item stands proved by Kushminder Singh (PW-21) who proved the documents Ex.PW-21/A and B (D-93). The amount of loan extended to him was Rs.5 lacs.
244. The said item stands proved by the PW-21 and admitted document. However, the service record of the accused reflects that no intimation was ever furnished/given to the employer within the stipulated period as required under AIS conduct Rules 1968, despite the accused occupying the post of MD , Delhi Khadi and Village Industries Board, Delhi Administration, Delhi during the said period.
Item No.26 of the Expenditure on Purchase of Jewellery Articles
245. The said item of expenditure for a sum of Rs. 10,132.40 concerns the purchase of jewellery articles as intimated vide note dated 29.07.1983 to Chief Secretary, Puducherry. The said item stands proved through admitted service record Ex.P-64 (D-78).
CC No.25/2019 Page 389/419Item No.29 of the Expenditure on purchase of Pump Set.
246. The said item of expenditure for a sum of Rs13,400/-concerns the purchase of pump-set for agricultural land at Sirsa as intimated to the Secretary (Services), Delhi Administration vide letter dated 09.03.1989. The said item stands proved through the admitted service record Ex.P-4 ( Part D-6).
The following are the admitted entries concerning Assets as listed in Annexure-III:
Item No. 1 of Assets i.e Plot No.112, Prakash Industrial Estate Ghaziabad, U.P.
247. This item of assets for a sum of Rs. 4 lacs pertains to the purchase of Plot No.112, Prakash Industrial Estate, Ghaziabad purchased on 22.06.1989 in the name of Kapil Sankhla minor son of accused. The item is proved through Ms. Chaya Chaudhary (PW-12) and Surender Kumar (PW-38). PW-12 proved the consideration amount for the sale of the said plot to be Rs.4 lacs vide power of attorney Ex.PW-12/A (D-70) and agreement of sell Ex. P58. However the expense of commission as per the bill of one Anshul Gupta of Rs.
8000 is ignored by prosecution.
Item No.5 of Assets i.e Retreat Bungalow, Dalhousie
248. This item of assets concerns the purchase of Retreat Bungalow, Dalhousie in the name of accused D.C CC No.25/2019 Page 390/419 Sankhla on 20.02.1990. The said purchase stand proved through GPA Ex.P-53 (D-63).
248.1 The Home Insurance policy qua the said bungalow too has been proved vide Ex.PW-63/A-6 (D-
101) wherein value of the entire bungalow has been shown as Rs. 18 lacs which puts a question mark over the consideration amount in the admitted document GPA (Ex.P-53) of Rs. 5 lacs. Though on the face of it, the value reflected in the GPA seems to be highly undervalued in light of the Home Insurance Policy, but due to non-investigation of the said fact, the value in the GPA has to be taken as Rs.5 lacs only.
Item No.6 of Assets i.e Jaswant Cottage, Dalhousie
249. This item of assets concerns the purchase of Jaswant Cottage, Dalhousie in the name of accused Shashi Sankhla ( wife of accused) on 24.07.1989. The said ownership stands proved through admitted GPA Ex.P-54 (D-64) in favour of Ms. Shashi Sankhla.
249.1 The value given in the home insurance policy vide Ex.PW-63/A-6 (D-101) is Rs. 5 lacs. On the contrary the consideration amount in the admitted document GPA (Ex.P-53) is 1,40,000/-only. Though on the face of it, the value as reflected in the GPA seems to be again undervalued in light of the Home Insurance Policy, due to non-investigation of the said fact, the value in the GPA has to be taken as Rs1,40,000/-only.
CC No.25/2019 Page 391/419Item No.7 of Assets i.e Industrial Plot, Ghaziahad
250. This item of assets for a sum of Rs.3,70,800/- concerns the purchase of Industrial Plot No. D-8, measuring 2400 square meters, Suraj Pur Industrial Area, Ghaziabad in the name of Ms. Shashi Sankhla on 03.02.1990. The said ownership stands proved through the admitted document Ex.P-80 (D-148). The ownership is also proved by Anil Kumar Sharma (PW-79), the official from Surajpur Industrial Area, Ghaziabad, U.P. The accused also admitted about the said acquisition in his intimation dated 05.06.1990 (Ex. P-103) Item No.8 of Assets i.e. Plot No. A-243, Surajpur Area, Ghaziabad
251. This item of assets for a sum of Rs.25,200/- concerns the allotment of plot in the name of Ms.Shashi Sankhla on 24.04.1990. The said allotment stands proved by P.S Gosai (PW-17) and Anil Kumar Sharma (PW-
79), the official from Surajpur Industrial Area, Ghaziabad, U.P. The said ownership also stands proved through admitted document Ex.P-81 (D-149).
Item No.9 of Assets i.e Plot No.730, Narela Delhi
252. This item of assets for a sum of Rs.2,38,875/- concerns Plot No. 730, Narela, Delhi, allotted in the name of Shashi Sankhla on 22.02.1993 The said allotment stands proved by Vansh Raj Pandey (PW-56), the official CC No.25/2019 Page 392/419 from DSIDC, Narela.He proved the allotment of the said plot through file Ex.PW-56/A (D-65).
Item No.13 of Assets i.e Flat No. 1183, Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi
253. This item of assets for a sum of Rs.20,000/- concerns Flat No. 1183, Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi, purchased in the year 1980 jointly in the name of P.C Sankhla ( PW66) and D.C Sankhla . The said ownership stands admitted through admitted document Ex.P-56 (D-
66) which is the receipt and GPA. The accused intimated to his employer about the acquisition vide Ex. PW5/B(D-
6).
Item No.15 of Assets i.e Flat No. 22, Jyoti Bagh Group Housing Society, Pitam Pura, Delhi
254. This item of assets for a sum of Rs.1,73,750/- concerns the Flat No. 22, Jyoti Bagh Group Housing Society, Pitam Pura, Delhi, purchased in the name of Ms. Shashi Sankhla . The said ownership of said asset is proved by A.K. Sharma (PW-23) vide admitted document Ex.P-71 (D-94). PW-23 also proved other documents about payment, possession, etc vide Ex.PW-23/A to PW-23/E. Item No.18 of Assets i.e Maruti Car.
255. This item of assets for a sum of Rs.72,492/- is proved by Satya Narain Sharma (PW-5), an official from the Delhi Govt., who proved the intimation Ex.P-3 CC No.25/2019 Page 393/419 (D-5) relating to payment of Rs.70,000/- and cover note of Rs.2492/-against the purchase of the Maruti Car.
Item No.19 of Assets
256. This item concerns the account No. 9318 of D.C Sankhla (accused herein) with New Bank of India, Sirsa with balance as of 13.08.1991 to be Rs.2,56,763.19. As far as the balance in the said account is concerned, the same stands proved vide the admitted document Ex.P-31 (D-37).
Though the accused has claimed that the said amount includes the amount of Rs.1,24,747/- as inherited under the Will of his late father M.R Sankhla and it is also reflected in the statement of Wealth (D-57).
256.1 The said claim of the accused regarding inheritance by the Will has already been discussed in detail and rejected on account of non-proving of the will and worth of Late MR Sankhla.
Item No.20 of Assets
257. This item concerns the account No. 8284 of Saket Sankhla (minor son of the accused) with New Bank of India, Sirsa with a balance as of 13.08.1991 to be Rs. 86591.56. Due to a typographical mistake in the chargesheet, the name of Kapil Sankhla is mentioned. As far as the balance in the said account is concerned, it stands proved vide the admitted document Ex.P-30 (D-
36).
CC No.25/2019 Page 394/419Item No.21 of Assets
258. This item concerns account No. 8283 of Kapil Sankhla (minor son of the accused) with New Bank of India, Sirsa with balance as of 13.08.1991 to be Rs. 29,837.89. As far as the balance in the said account is concerned, the same stands proved vide the admitted document Ex.P-29 (D-35).
Item No.22 of Assets
259. This item concerns the account No.14009 of D.C Sankhla ( accused herein) with PNB, Civil Lines, Delhi with balance as of 12.08.1991 to be Rs.8,21,094.06. As far as the balance in the said account is concerned, the same stands proved through the admitted document Ex.P-24 (D-30).
Though the last two entries are dated 13.09.1991 and 17.09.1992 i.e. beyond the check period. Therefore, the balance after deduction comes to Rs.8,20,927/-, which is value of assest.
Item No.23 of Assets
260. This item concerns account No. 21250 of Ms. Shashi Sankhla ( wife of the accused herein) with PNB, Civil Lines, Delhi with balance as of 12.08.1991 to be Rs.13,05,531.36. As far as the balance in the said account is concerned, the same stands proved vide the admitted document Ex.P-25 (D-31).
CC No.25/2019 Page 395/419Item No.24 of Assets
261. This item concerns account No. 28966 of Saket Sankhla ( minor son of the accused herein) with PNB, Civil Lines, Delhi with balance as of 13.07.1991 to be Rs.1,21,021.60. As far as the balance in the said account is concerned, the same stands proved through the admitted document Ex.P-27 (D-33).
Item No.25 of Assets
262. This item concerns the FDR account No. 6914 of Saket Sankhla ( minor son of accused herein) with PNB, Civil Lines, Delhi with a balance as of 12.07.1991 to be Rs. 10,199/-. As far as the balance in the said account is concerned, the same stands proved vide admitted documents Ex.P-35 (D-41) and Ex.PW- 63/A-1 (D139).
Item No.26 of Assets
263. This item concerns account No. 28643 of Kapil Sankhla ( minor son of accused herein) with PNB, Civil Lines, Delhi with balance as of 12.08.1991 to be Rs. 4630.66. As far as the balance in the said account is concerned, the same stands proved vide admitted document Ex.P-26 (D-32). The balance after subtracting the entries beyond the check period comes to Rs. 4610.66 instead of Rs. 4630.66.
Item No.27 of Assets
264. This item concerns the FDR account No. 176138/6952 of Kapil Sankhla ( minor son of accused CC No.25/2019 Page 396/419 herein) with PNB, Civil Lines, Delhi with a balance as of 11.07.1991 to be Rs. 1,01896/- As far as the balance in the said account is concerned, the same stands proved through admitted document Ex.P-36 (D-42).
Item No.28 of Assets
265. This item concerns the FDR account No. 925791/6941 of D.C Sankhla ( accused herein) with PNB, Civil Lines, Delhi with a balance as of 19.06.1991 to be Rs. 75756/- .The balance in the said account is proved through the admitted document Ex.P-37 (D-43) .
Item No.29 of Assets
266. This item concerns the FDR account No. 831105 of D.C Sankhla ( accused herein) with PNB, Civil Lines, Delhi with a balance as of 16.06.1991 to be Rs. 4,483.55 As far as the balance in the said account is concerned, the same stands proved vide admitted document Ex.P-46 (D-54).
Item No.30 of Assets
267. This item concerns the account No. 8339 of D.C Sankhla ( accused herein) with PNB, Dalhousie with a balance as of 08.08.1991 to be Rs. 3447.22. As far as the balance in the said account is concerned, the same stands proved vide admitted document Ex.P-32 (D-38). Item No.31 of Assets
268. This item concerns the account No. 9167 of Ms. Shashi Sankhla @Shashi Bala ( wife of the accused CC No.25/2019 Page 397/419 herein) with PNB, Ashok Vihar, with the balance as of 06.06.1991 to be Rs. 8798.15. As far as the balance in the said account is concerned, the same stands proved through the admitted document Ex.P-28 (D-34).
Item No.32 of Assets
269. This item concerns the FDR account No. 106619 of Master Saket Sankhla ( minor son of the accused herein) with New Bank of India, with a balance to be Rs. 7,50,000/- as of 22.2.1990. As far as the balance in the said account is concerned, the same stands proved vide the admitted document Ex.P-38 (D-44).
Item No.33 of Assets
270. This item concerns the FDR account No. 206620 of Master Kapil Sankhla ( minor son of accused herein) with New Bank of India, Sirsa, with a balance of Rs. 6,50,000/-. The balance in the said FD account is proved through admitted document Ex.P-39 (D-45).
Item No.34 of Assets
271. This item concerns the FDR account No. 618086 of Ms. Shashi Sankhla ( wife of accused herein) with PNB, Ashok Vihar with a balance as of 7.12.1990 to be Rs. 85500/- . As far as the balance in the said account is concerned, the same stands proved through the admitted document Ex.P-40 (D-46).
CC No.25/2019 Page 398/419Item No.35 of Assets
272. This item concerns the FDR account No. 668981 of Ms. Shashi Sankhla ( wife of accused herein) with PNB, Ashok Vihar with balance to be Rs.40,350/-. The balance in the said account is proved through admitted document Ex.P-41 (D-47).
Item No.36 of Assets
273. This item concerns the FDR account No. 269250 of D.C Sankhla ( accused herein) with PNB, Dalhousie with the balance of Rs.1,00,000/-. As far as the balance in the said account is concerned, the same stands proved through admitted document Ex.P-42 (D-
48).
Item No.37 of Assets
274. This item concerns the FDR account No. 453155 of Ms. Shashi Sankhla @ Shashi Bala ( wife of accused herein) with PNB, Ashok Vihar with a balance as of 11.2.1990 to be Rs.35,000/-. As far as the balance in the said account is concerned, the same stands proved through admitted document Ex.P-43 (D-49).
Item No.38 of Assets
275. This concerns the FDR account No. 925790 of Kapil Sankhla ( minor son of the accused herein) with PNB, Civil Lines. This item is liable to be deleted being already part of Item No. 27 of Assets in the name of Kapil Sankhla.
CC No.25/2019 Page 399/419Item No.39 of Assets
276. This item concerns the FDR account No. 176133 of Saket Sankhla ( minor son of accused herein) with PNB, Civil Lines with balance as of 09.07.1991 to be Rs.52539/-. As far as the balance in the said account is concerned, the same stands proved vide admitted document Ex.P-45 (D-51).
Item No.40 of Assets i.e M-80 D Tiller Tractor
277. This item of assets for a sum of Rs.
1,05,300/- concerns the M-80D Tiller Tractor purchased on 12.07.1991 by accused. The purchase is proved by Om Prakash Shrarma (PW-55) vide invoice Ex.P-47. The said tractor was delivered to Shashi Nursery Orchid, Village Patti Kalyana, Panipat, Haryana, the land owned by the accused and his family.
Item No.41 of Assets i.e NSS
278. This item of assets for a sum of Rs.
1,20,000/-concerns the NSS purchased during the year 1988-89 & 1990-1991 . These purchases are proved by Man Mohan Krishan (PW-54) vide admitted document Ex.P-48 (D-54) , the ledger of NSS account. Item No.44 ie Deposit in SBI Mutual Funds
279. The said asset of deposit in SBI mutual fund was declared in wealth tax assessment return of the year 1991 of the accused .
CC No.25/2019 Page 400/419279.1 The item no.44 of assets for a sum of Rs.20,000/- concerns the deposit in SBI Mutal Funds. The said entry stands proved through the Wealth Tax Assessment Return of the accused Mark PW-63/PX-1 (D-57). The Valuation date is 31.03.1990 wherein the accused disclosed ownership of SBI mutual fund to the tune of Rs.20,000/-. The said return was never put into dock in the entire cross-examination of IO KN Tiwari ( PW-63). No objection was ever taken qua the mode of proof of the said document on behalf of the accused. Accordingly, the wealth tax return Mark PW-63/PX-1 stands proved and the declaration of ownership of SBI mutual funds too stands proved.
Item No.47 of Assets i.e 800 Units of UTI
280. This item of assets for a sum of Rs.8000/- concerns 800 units of UTI in the name of Master Kapil and Saket Sankhla. The said ownership of the said units in the name of the minor sons of the accused stands proved through admitted document Ex.P-50 (D-59). The said units were recovered during the house search of the accused on 13.08.1991.
XII. Thus, in the end , the conclusion vis-a-vis the items mentioned in all the three lists i.e Income, Expenditure and Assets of the accused herein is drawn hereunder in the tabulated form:
ANNEXURE-I INCOME CC No.25/2019 Page 401/419 S. Income Rupees Proved or Value of the No. not Item as proved proved
01. Income from Rs.4,36,742.48 Proved Rs. 4,36,742.48 Salary from 1980 being to 13.8.91. Admitted
02. Income from sale Rs.20,60,000 Proved. Rs.22,60,000 of agricultural land at Ranhola in June-July 1991.
03. Income from sale Rs.7,00,000 Proved Rs.7,00,000 of agricultural land at Moriwala on 23.8.90
04. Car advance on Rs.70,000 Proved Rs.70,000 1.7.86 being Admitted.
05. HBA during Rs. 1,87,500 Proved Rs. 1,87,500 1985-86 being Admitted.
06. Sale of plot C-73, Rs.60,000 Proved. Rs.60,000 Ramprastha on 11.11.1983.
07. Sale of the said Rs.1,90,000 Proved Rs.1,90,000 plot on 24.4.89.
08. Sale of Rs.6,43,397.50 Proved Rs.6,43,397.50 agricultural produce from 1986 to 1991.
09. Income from the Rs. 90,000.00 Proved Rs. 90,000.00 rent of his land at 112, Prakash Indl. Estate Road on 30.5.91.
10. Rent from Aditi Rs. 47,228.80 Proved Rs. 47,228.80 flat from 7.3.91 to 13.8.91.
11. Sale of SFS flat Rs.2,00,000 Proved. Rs.2,00,000 no.95, Mall Road, Delhi on CC No.25/2019 Page 402/419 13.2.89.
12. Savings of Smt. Rs. 75,000 Proved. Rs.75,000 Shashi Sankhla during 1981 to 1984.
13. Interest from SB Rs.40,432.80 Proved Rs.40,432.80 a/c. No.14009 being with PNB from admitted 1.1.80 to 3.7.80 8 8.6.82 to 13.8.91 in the name of Sh.DC Sankhla.
14. Interest from SB Rs. 8,035.30 Proved Rs. 8,035.30 a/c. No.21250 being with PNB from admitted 17.2.88 to 9.8.91 in the name of Smt. Shashi Sankhla.
15. Interest from SB Rs.5,391.20 Proved Rs.5498.20 a/c. No.28643 being with PNB in the Admitted.
name of Kapil Sankhla.
16. Interest from SB Rs.3,942.10 Proved. Rs.4366.60 a/c. No.28966 with PNB in the name of Saket Sankhla.
17. Interest on FDRs. Rs.887.10 Proved The value of the interest is included in Item No.34 of Interest Income
18. Interest from SB Rs. 9,163.15 Proved. Rs.25,867 a/c. No.9167 with PNB, Ashok Vihar in the name of Smt. Shashi Sankhla.
19. Interest from SB Rs.9,193.58 Proved Rs.10,893 a/c. No.8283 with New Bank of India, Sirsa in the name of Sh.Saket Sankhla.
CC No.25/2019 Page 403/41920. Interest from SB Rs.8,433.15 Proved. Rs. 9433.15 a/c.no. 8284 maintained with New Bank of India, Sirsa in the name of Kapil Sankhla.
21. Interest from SB Rs.3,653.40 Proved Rs.7415.42 a/c. No.9318 maintained with New Bank of India Sirsa in the name of Kapil Sankhla.
22. Interest from SB Rs.8,566.34 Proved Rs.11984.02 a/c. No.8339 in PNB, Dalhousie in the name of Sh.D.C Sankhla.
23. Interest from SB Rs.7,599 Proved Rs.7797 A/c. No.7836 with New Bank of India, Sirsa in the name of M.R.Sankhla.
24. Interest from SB Rs.3,013.67 Proved Rs. 1469.88 a/c. No.10691 with SBI, Sirsa in the name of MR Sankhla.
25. Income from Rs. 2,400 Proved Rs. 2,400 disposal of being allotment of admitted Maruti Car in March, 1989.
26. Income from Rs.1,50,000 Proved. Rs.1,50,000 Nursery of Pattikalyana during 90-91.
27. Income from Rs.50,000 Proved Rs.50,000 Shashi Nursery of New Delhi.
28. Income from sale Rs.50,000 Proved Rs. 50,000/-
of agricultural produce of Ranhola.
29. Income received Rs. 13,082 Proved The said from LTC. income is CC No.25/2019 Page 404/419 deleted being used for the assigned purpose.
30. Income as fixed Rs.1,533 Proved Rs.1,533 medical being allowance admitted
31. Income from sale Rs. 3,00,000 Proved. Rs. 3,00,000 of safeda trees during 1990 and upto Feb. 91.
32. Income from Chit Rs. 42,000 Proved. Rs. 42,000 Fund.
33. Income from Rs.1,52,869.40 Proved. Rs.1,52,869.40 Shop no.5, Suraj Prabhat, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi from Sept./Oct.1986 to August, 1991.
34. Income from the Rs. 19,838 Proved. Rs. 21,263.60 interest on FDR ( It is the a/c. of Sh.DC cumulative Sankhla and his interest earned sons and wife.
during the check period)
35. Interest from Rs. 18,627 Proved Deleted being NSS a/c. not part of Asset maintained by No. 41 Sh.DC Sankhla at GPO, Delhi.
Total Rs.56,68,528.97 Rs.
58,63,127.15/-
ANNEXURE- II
EXPENDITURE
S. Expenditure Rupees Proved Value of the Item
No. or Not as proved
proved.
01. Expenditure on Rs. 80,000 Proved. Rs. 80,000
purchase of land
CC No.25/2019 Page 405/419
at Ranhola on
8.6.81.
02. Expenditure of Rs.10,000 Proved. Rs.10,000
Stamp &
Corporation Tax
on purchase of
aforesaid land
and transfer of
part of aforesaid
land to his
family members.
03. Expenses on Rs.3,21,698.75 Proved Rs.3,21,698.75
agricultural
during 1986-
1991.
04. Expenditure on Rs.98,000 Proved Rs.98,000
purchase of land
at Moriwala ол
21.6.85.
05. Expenditure on Rs.13,536 Proved Rs.13,536
stamps duty and
registration
charges of the
said land.
06. Expenditure on Rs.17,266.09 Proved. Rs.17,266.09 fees etc. of his sons.
07. Expenditure on Rs.30,128.40 Proved Rs.30,128.40 LICs on the life being of Smt. Shashi admitted.
Sankhla.
08. Expenditure on Rs. 36,875 Proved Rs. 36,875 LICs on the life being of Shri admitted.
D.C.Sankhla.
09. Expenditure on Rs. 18,960 Proved Rs. 18,960 LICs on the life being of Kapil admitted.
Sankhla.
10. Expenditure on Rs. 35,654.91 Proved. Rs. 35,654.91 Electric Charges for the house 5A,Court Road during Nov.
1986 to 8.7.91.
11. Expenditure on Rs.29,984.60 Proved Rs.29,984.60 Electric charges for Roll Mills on CC No.25/2019 Page 406/419 7.5.91.
12. Expenditure on Rs. 5,800 Proved Rs. 5,800 payments to being Priya Charitable Admitted Society during 1987.
13. Expenditure on Rs.19,900 Proved Rs.19,900 Bricks Badarpur sand and cement on 3.8.87 to 6.8.87.
14. Payment to Rs.7,000 Proved Rs.7,000 Sh.Maikar in August, 87 for construction of two rooms.
15. Loan given by Rs.1,13,991.97 Proved Rs.1,13,991.97 Sh.DC Sankhla to Sh. R.L.Sankhla on 12.3.85.
16. Booking of Rs.8,000 Proved Rs.8,000 telephone in the name of Smt. Shashi Sankhla in March, 1990.
17. Payment of Rs.12,217 Proved Rs.12,217 telephone Deptt.
against Tel.
No.2927751 during 1990 to July'91.
18. Expenditure on Rs. 13,760 Not booking and Proved keeping the -------
telephone in safe custody at 103, Swasthyay Vihar.
19. Payment Rs. 37,175 Proved Rs. 37,175 towards Chit being Fund with their Admitted chit funds from 88 to 89.
20. Expenditure on Rs.2,250 Proved Rs.2,250 bricks on 26.6.91.
21. Expenditure on Rs. 6,510 Proved. Rs. 6,510 CC No.25/2019 Page 407/419 membership of National Sports Club, New Delhi from 86 to May
91.
22. Expenditure on Rs. 5,00,000 Proved. Rs. 5,00,000 loan to Sh.
Khushminder Singh on 19.6.91.
23. Loan to Smt. Rs.2,92,000 Proved Rs.2,62,000 Shiela Shankar during 1988 and 1989.
24. Expenditure on Rs.1,600 Proved Rs.1,600 Registration of being land on 15.12.86 Admitted at Rangpur Kuhi, Delhi.
25. Expenditure on Rs.1,30,922 Proved Rs.1,30,922 house hold expenses from 1.1.1980 to 13.8.91.
26. Expenditure on Rs. 10,132.40 Proved Rs. 10,132.40 purchase of being jewellery as admitted intimated vide note dt. 29.7.83 submitted to the Chief Sec.
Pondicherry.
27. Expenditure on Rs. 20,000 Proved Rs.20,000/-
Car(Petrol Oil and wear and tear) from July 86 to 13.8.91.
28. Expenditure on Rs.10,000 Not meeting proved.
payment to 5. ------
Paramjeet Singh through whom purchase of Re-
treat Villa, Dalhousie was settled.
29. Purchase of Rs. 13,400 Proved Rs. 13,400 CC No.25/2019 Page 408/419 pump set at Sirsa being as intimated to admitted the Secretary Services Delhi Admn, Delhi vide letter dt.9.3.89.
30. Expenditure on Rs.1,60,000 Proved Rs.1,60,000 purchase of plot no. C-73, Ramprasthe Colony, Ghaziabad in 1989.
31. Expenditure on Rs.44,000 Not purchase of Proved.
books, pencils, ------
pens, exercise
books, uniforms
etc.
32. Expenditure on Rs.5,750 Not
pocket expenses Proved.
during the check ------
period.
33. Expenses Rs.1,49,084.50 Proved Rs.1,49,084.50
incurred on
purchase of SFS
Flat No.95 of
Mall Road,
Delhi.
34. Expenses Rs.39,718 Proved Rs.39,718
incurred on the
payment of
Income Tax,
Insurance of
property by
Sh.DC Sankhla
and his wife
Smt. Shashi
Sankhla.
35. Expenditure on Rs.10,600 Proved Rs.10,600/-
stamp duty etc.
for Lease Deed
of Shop No.5 at
Suraj Parbat,
East of Kailash,
New Delhi, as
intimated by
Sh.DC Sankhla
CC No.25/2019 Page 409/419
to the Secy.,
Delhi Admn,
Delhi vide letter
dt.30.3.88.
36. Expenditure on Rs.10,600 Not
clothings of the Proved.
family during ------
the check period.
37 Purchase of Gas Rs.1,101 Proved Rs.1,101
Stove and
Cylinder
Rs.23,17,015.62 Rs.22,03,505.22
TOTAL:
ANNEXURE-III
ASSETS
S. Asset Rupees Proved or Value of the
No. not proved Item as proved
01. Plot No. 112, Rs.4,00,000 Proved. Rs.4,00,000
Prakash
Industrial Estate,
Ghaziabad,
purchased on
22.6.09 In the
name of Master
Kapil Sankhla
02. Two bighas Rs.20,000 Proved Rs.20,000
agricultural land
at Malikpur
Kuhi, purchased
on 15.12.86 in
the name of Smt.
Shashi Sankhla.
03. Plot No. CDH- Rs.1,10,000 Proved Rs.1,10,000
67 at VGPO,
Golden Beach at
madras
purchased in the
name of Sh. D.C.
Sankhla from
Feb.1985 to
23.6.89
CC No.25/2019 Page 410/419
04. Plot No. CDH- Rs.50,860 Proved Rs.50,860
86 at VGP,
Golden Beach at
Madras
purchased in the
name of Sh. D.C.
Sankhla on
8.3.85.
05. Retreat Rs.5,00,000 Proved Rs.5,00,000.00
Bungalow, being
Dalhousie, admitted
purchased by Sh.
D. C. Sankhla on
20.2.90
06. Jaswant Cottage, Rs. 1,40,000 Proved Rs. 1,40,000
Dalhousie, being
purchased by Sh. admitted.
D.C. Sankhla in
the name of Smt.
Shashi Sankhla
on 24.7.89.
07. Industrial Plot Rs.3,70,800 Proved Rs.3,70,800
No. D-8, being
Surajpur admitted.
Industrial Area,
Ghaziabad,
purchased by Sh.
Sankhla in the
name of his wife
Smt. Shashi
Sankhla on
3.2.90.
08. Plot No. A-243 Rs.25,200 Proved. Rs.25,200
in Surajpur
Housing Area
allotted in the
name of Smt.
Shashi Sankhla
on 24.4.90.
09. Plot No. 730 at Rs. 2,38,875.00 Proved. Rs. 2,38,875.00 Narela Delhi purchased in the name of Smt. Shashi Sankhla on 22.2.91.
10. Plot No. A-33, Rs. 4,25,021.00 Proved. Rs. 3,25,000/-
Chandra Nagar, Ghaziabad, purchased on CC No.25/2019 Page 411/419 21.1.89 in the name of Master Saket Sankhla.
11. Shashi Nursery Rs. 15,50,000 Partly Rs.9,50,000/-
on 27 acres of proved.
agricultural land
at Pattikalyana
purchased in the
name of D.C.
Sankila and his
wife and sons on
24,889 and
25.8.89.
12. Land measuring Rs.10,00,000 Proved. Rs.10,00,000
5 bighas and 6
bighas at Basai
Darapur, Rajouri
Garden, New
Delhi purchased
in the name of
Smt. Shashi
Sankhla on
12.11.90.
13. Plot/Flat No. Rs.20,000 Proved Rs.20,000
1183 Mukherjee being
Nagar, Delhi admitted.
purchased in
1980 jointly in
the name of Sh.
D.C. Sankhla
and P.C.
Sankhla.
14. Flat No. B-41, Rs.4,18,948.40 Proved Rs.3,89,000
Aditi Apartments
Patparganj
during 1979 to
1988 in the name
of Sh.
D.C.Sankhla.
15. Flat No. 22 in Rs.1,73,750 Proved Rs.1,73,750
Jyoti Bagh being
Group Housing admitted.
Society,
Pitampura, Delhi
in the name of
Smt. Shashi
Sankhla during
1962 to 1989.
CC No.25/2019 Page 412/419
16. Shop No. 5 at
Suraj Prabat,
Greater Kailash Rs.1,32,644.49 Proved. Rs.1,32,644.49
purchased in
Benami name of
Sh. D.C. Sankhla
during 1981 and
1982.
17. Flat No. B-103, Rs. 6,00,000 Not
Swasthya Vihar, proved.
Delhi purchased However the
in 89 in Benami amount of
name of Smt. Rs.2,71,768
Sakunthala Devi. advanced to
Amin Chand
by the accused
to be added to
the expenditure
list.
18. Maruti Car Rs.72,492 Proved Rs.72,492
being
admitted.
19. SB a/c No. 9318 Rs.2,56,763.19 Proved. Rs.2,56,763.19 in the name of Sh. D.C. Sankhla with New Bank of India, Sirsa with balance as on 13.8.91.
20. SB a/c No. 8284 Rs. 86,591.56 Proved Rs. 86,591.56 in the name of being Kapil Sankhla Name to be admitted.
with New Bank ascertained (D-
of India, Sirsa 36)
with balance as
on 13.8.91.
21. SB a/c No. 8283 Rs. 29,837.89 Proved Rs. 29,837.89
in the name of Name to be being
Sh. Saket ascertained (D- admitted.
Sankhla with 35)
New Bank of
India, Sirsa with
balance as on
13.8.91.
22. SB a/c No. Rs.8,21,094.06 Rs.8,20,927/-
14009 in the
CC No.25/2019 Page 413/419
name of Sh. D.C. Proved
Sankhla
maintained with
PNB, Civil
Lines, Delhi with
balance as on
12.8.91.
23. SB a/c No. Rs 13,05,531.36 Proved Rs
21250 in the being 13,05,531.36
name of Smt. admitted.
Shashi Sankhla
with PNB, Civil
Lines, Delhi with
balance as on
12.8.91.
24. SB a/c No. Rs.1,21,021.60 Proved Rs.1,21,021.60
28966 in the being
name of Saket admitted
Sankhla with
PNB, Civil
Lines, Delhi with
balance as on
13.7.91.
25. FDR a/c No. Rs. 10,199.00 Proved Rs. 10,199.00
6914 in the name being
of Saket with admitted.
PNB, Civil
Lines, Delhi with
balance as on
11.7.91.
26. SB a/c No. Rs. 4,630.66 Proved Rs. 4,610.66
28643 in the being
name of Kapil admitted.
Sankhla with
PNB, Civil
Lines, Delhi with
balance as on
12.8.91.
27. FD a/c No. Rs.1,01,896.00 Proved Rs.1,01,896.00
176138/6952 in being
the name of admitted.
Kapil Sankhla
with PNB, Civil
Lines, Delhi with
balance as on
11.7.91.
28. FD a/c No. Rs. 75,756.00 Proved Rs. 75,756.00
925791/6941 in being
the name of Sh.
CC No.25/2019 Page 414/419
D.C. Sankhla admitted.
with PNB, Civil
Lines, Delhi with
balance as on
19.6.91.
29. FD a/c No. Rs.4,483.55 Proved Rs.4,483.55
831105 in the being
name of Sh. D.C. admitted.
Sankhla with
PNB, Civil
Lines, Delhi with
balance as on
16.6.91.
30. SB a/c No. 8339 Rs. 3,447.22 Proved Rs. 3,447.22
in the name of being
Sh. D.C. Sankhla admitted.
with PNB,
Delhousie with
balance as on
8.8.91.
31. SB a/c No. 9167 Rs. 8,798.15 Proved Rs. 8,798.15
in the name of being
Smt. Shashi admitted.
Sankhla with
PNB, Ashok
Vihar, Delhi
with balance as
on 6.6.91.
32. Fixed deposit Rs. 7,50,000 Proved Rs. 7,50,000
receipt No. being
106619 in the admitted.
name of Saket
Sankhla.
33. FDR No. 206620 Rs. 6,50,000 Proved Rs. 6,50,000
in the name of being
Kapil Sankhla admitted.
purchased from
New Bank of
India, Sirsa.
34. FDR No. 618086 Rs.85,500 Proved Rs.85,500
in the name of being
Sat. Shashi admitted.
Sankhla.
35. FDR No. 668981 Rs.40,350 Proved Rs.40,350
in the name of being
Smt. Shashi admitted.
Sankhla.
36. FDR No. 269250 Rs.1,00,000 Proved Rs.1,00,000
CC No.25/2019 Page 415/419
in the name of being
Sh. D.C. admitted.
Sankhla.
37. FDR No. 453105 Rs. 35,000 Proved Rs. 35,000
in the name of being
Smt. Shashi admitted.
Sankhla.
38. FDR No. 925790 Rs.10,101 Not
in the name of proved
Kapil Sankhla. --
being part
of Item
No.27 of
the Assets.
39. FDR No. 176133 Rs.52,539 Proved Rs.52,539
in the name of being
Saket Sankhla. admitted.
40. M-80D Tiller Rs.1,05,300 Proved Rs.1,05,300
Tractor being
purchased on admitted.
12.7.91.
41. NSS purchased Rs. 1,20,000 Proved Rs. 1,20,000
during 1988, being
1989, 1990 and admitted.
1991.
42. Shares of Rs. 66,000 Partly Rs. 44,000/-
Videocon Proved.
International
Ltd.,
Aurangabad,
Maharashtra,
own name as
well as in the
name of his wife
on 19.4.91.
43. Value of Rs. 80,000 Proved. Rs. 80,000
household goods
found in his
house during his
house on
13.8.91.
44. Deposit in SBI Rs. 20,000 Proved Rs. 20,000
Mutual Funds as being
declared in admitted.
Wealth Tax.
45. NSC as declared Rs. 74,316 Proved Rs. 34,000
in the Wealth
CC No.25/2019 Page 416/419
Tax for the
assessment year
1991.
46. Cash kept in Rs. 2,55,000 Proved. Rs. 2,55,000
Maroon Colour
brief case found
during house
search.
47. 800 Units of UTI Proved
in the name of Rs. 8,000 being Rs. 8,000
Master Kapil and admitted.
Saket Sankhla,
his sons.
48. Purchase of Flat Rs. 51,830 Proved. Rs. 51,830
No. 115-A,
Pocket JG-1,
Vikaspuri from
Sh. Ved Pal
Singh in
Dec.1983.
Total 1,15,82,677.13 Rs.
10180003.67
XIII. CONCLUSION
281. The total income earned by the accused and his wife through all the legal means as per Annexure-I comes to Rs.58,63,127.15 . Apart from the said, the other incomings during the check period which have been left out by the prosecution and proved by the accused are Rs. 11,70,000/- being the loan from OS Chauhan and Rs. 85000/- being the GPF Advance. Thus the total Income during the check period comes to be Rs. 71,18,127.15/-.
282. The total expenditure incurred by the accused during the check period as proved comes to Rs. 22,03,505.22 in terms of the items listed in Annexure-II.
Apart from the said expenditure, the loans advanced to PW-93 Amin Chand for the purchase of Flat CC No.25/2019 Page 417/419 No.B-103, Swasthya Vihar, Delhi too has been proved on record while discussing item no.17 of the Assets which was alleged to be benami property of the accused. The total amount of loan advanced for the purchase of the said flat by the accused and his family is Rs.1,35,000/- ( Rs.105,000/- by the accused, Rs.19,000/- and Rs.11,000/- by his minor sons. Apart from the said loan, Rs.1,36,768/- was also transferred to PW-93 by the accused by claiming it to be a bequeathed amount which too has been rejected and thus, is the expenditure incurred during the check period. The total expenditure thus comes to Rs. 24,75,273.22
283. The total value of the assets as listed vide Annexure-III proved on record is Rs. 10180003.67. Thus, the likely savings by the accused during the check period comes to Rs. 46,42,853.93.
The Disproportionate Assets (DA) as on 13.08.1991, thus, comes to Rs. 54,87,149.74/-( Rs. 10180003.67 - 46,42,853.93- Rs. - 50,000/-( Savings before Check Period) which the accused has failed to satisfactorily account for. The percentage of disproportionate assets is much more than the stipulated 10% for which he could have been given benefit.
284. In the light of the above-said reasons, it is held that the prosecution has successfully been able to prove their case on the standard of beyond reasonable doubt and the accused has failed to discharge the onus placed upon him in terms of Section 13 (1)(e) of CC No.25/2019 Page 418/419 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to satisfactorily account for. The accused accordingly stands convicted.
A copy of the judgment be given to the accused Digitally signed free of cost. by GAGANDEEP GAGANDEEP SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.02.06 19:54:14 +0530 Announced in the open Court on 06.02.2025 (GAGANDEEP SINGH) Special Judge, PC Act, CBI-04 Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi CC No.25/2019 Page 419/419