Rs. 5 vs . on 22 January, 2015

[Cites 17, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Rs. 5 vs . on 22 January, 2015

 IN THE COURT OF MS. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, SPECIAL JUDGE, 
                   CBI05, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI


CC No: 04/13
RC No: RCDAI2003A0043/CBI/ACB/New Delhi.
Unique Case ID No: 02403R0723892006

Title:     State (CBI)
                   Vs.

         1.  Anurag Vardhan S/o Sh. Harsh Vardhan,
            R/o Flat no. 712, Tower V, Silver City Apartment, Sector 93, NOIDA.
                Permanent   Address  :   C/o.   Harsh   Vardhan,   Tapeshar   Colony,  
                Near Ara Garden, Patna14.

U/s: Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act.


                         Date of Institution                : 29.3.2006
                         Date of reserving order  : 17.01.2015 
                         Date of pronouncement              : 22.01.2015
(Appearances)

Sh. Akshay Gautam, Ld. Senior PP for CBI. 

Sh. Pramod Kumar Dubey and Sh. Hemant Shah, Ld. Counsels for accused 
along with accused.
  
JUDGMENT

1. Brief facts of the case are that accused Anurag Vardhan being a public servant while working in different capacities during April, 1996 to 22.5.2003 in Income Tax Department, Delhi during 20.8.2002 to CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 1 of 71 22.5.2003 had acquired movable and immovable assets in his name and in names of his family members to the extent of Rs.14,13,325/ as per details given in the Charge Sheet against known source of his income and income of his family members to the tune of Rs.12,28,021/ with expenditure Rs.8,47,658/. Thus he was in possession of likely saving of Rs.3,80,363/. He was found in possession of disproportionate assets to the extent of Rs. 10,11,825/ i.e. 82.39% against his known source of income for the said period for which he could not satisfactorily account for.

2. Considering the alleged acquisitive activities of accused Anurag Vardhan, the check period has been fixed from April, 1996 to 22.5.2003.

3. Accused is public servant and as such, sanction for his prosecution was obtained from the competent authority. The Charge Sheet was filed in the Court.

4. The accused had appeared in the court and copies of documents, as required by the Section 207 Cr.P.C., were supplied to him to his satisfaction.

CHARGE:

5. The charge against accused Anurag Vardhan under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of Prevention and Corruption Act, 1988 was framed to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:

CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 2 of 71

6. CBI in support of their case have examined 39 witnesses.

7. PW1 Sh. J.C. Anand, Senior Section Supervisor (Retired) stated that on 05.9.2005 he had gone to CBI Officer along with office record. He stated that telephone no. 26167077 was installed in the name of Anurag Vardhan at A1/79 First Floor, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi. He was supposed to place facts before the CBI concerning payment of bills made by Anurag Vardhan for the period of last two years in respect of aforesaid telephone connection. He proved statements of accounts pertaining to aforesaid telephone connections which were prepared by Hemlata Rangarajan, the Accounts Officer Ex.PW1/1, Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/3. He stated that he had handed over these statement of accounts to CBI alongwith the forwarding letter Ex.PW1/4.

He also stated that as per PW1/2 a sum of Rs. 3,196/ was paid on 20.2.2003, a sum of Rs. 860/ was paid on 24.2.2003 and a sum of Rs.1,752/ was paid on 22.01.2003. The aforesaid telephone connection was disconnected for nonpayment and after making the aforesaid payments, it was restored. A sum of Rs. 3,000/ was to be paid for STD connection at the time of installation.

On being cross examined by Sh. Anshuman Sinha, he stated that he cannot say whether a sum of Rs. 3,000/ was paid on this connection for installation of STD facility. CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 3 of 71

8. PW2 Sh. Ashok Kumar, stated that in September, 2003 he was working in a Gas Agency known as Vikram Enterprises, located at plot no. 2, West Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi. He stated that Ex.P14 is the delivery voucher/ subscription voucher issued by Vikram enterprises.

PW2 was not crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for accused despite opportunity being given.

9. PW3 Sh. Anil Sabarwal, stated that in the year 2002, he was running a show room with the name of AD & Company located at shop no. 3, C1/B, Green Park Extension, New Delhi. He proved letter Ex.PW3/1. He stated that it was written in response to the letter sent by CBI. He proved attested copies of receipts Ex.PW3/2 and Ex.PW3/3. These two receipts were issued for a total sum of Rs. 20,800/.

On being crossexamined by Sh. Anshuman Sinha, Ld. Counsel for accused he stated that the they sell electronic items at the said shop. Godown in basement is in the area of 1250 Sq. ft. and shop is in the area of 550 Sq. Ft. on ground floor. In those days he was having four employees with him. He did not remember the name of the customer who had made payment of the two receipts. He stated that he can neither affirm nor deny that payment of these receipts were made by Ms. Rajani Srivastava. In case of making cash payment, they CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 4 of 71 never verify name of the person while issuing a receipt to him.

10. PW4 Sh. Ram Sukhwani, stated that in December, 2002 he was Manager in South Extension departmental store of Bigjos. He proved letter Ex.PW4/1. Through this letter IO was informed that a customer had purchased ear rings for a sum of Rs.4,275/ vide cash memo no. 43565 dated 18.12.2002.

On being cross examined my Sh. Anshuman Sinha, Ld. Counsel for accused he stated that he does not recollect whether Ex.PW4/1 was written in response to a letter sent by CBI. He also could not tell as to who had made payment of Rs.4,275/ on 18.12.2002.

11. PW5 Sh. G. S. Singh, stated that in the year 2002 he was running a firm with the name of M/s. Anand Group. He used to provide maid servants etc. to his customers. He stated that an agreement is executed between their firm on one hand and the customer on the other, when they provide maid servants or driver to them. He proved Letter Ex.PW5/1, copy of the bill Ex.PW5/2, and copy of agreement Ex.PW5/3 entered into between Meena Vardhan and their firm. A sum of Rs.3,000/ was paid by Ms. Meena Vardhan to their firm.

PW5 was not crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for accused despite opportunity given to him.

CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 5 of 71

12. PW6 L. Ekka, Administrative Officer, Officer of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, stated that accused Anurag Vardhan, an IRS was working under Administrative Control of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi. He stated that accused Anurag Vardhan used to draw salary from his section. He proved letter Ex.PW6/1 written by Sh. Anurag Goel, Deputy Secretary, Income Tax to Under Secretary, CBDT, North Block, New Delhi. He proved the salary particulars of accused Anurag Vardhan sent along with Ex.PW6/1 as Ex.PW6/2. He stated that salary from September, 2002 till April, 2003 is reflected in Ex. PW6/2. Ex.PW6/2 was prepared on the basis of pay bill register.

On being cross examined by Sh. Anshuman Sinha, Ld. Counsel for accused he stated that telephone expenses, which were reimbursed to Anurag Vardhan, are not detailed in Ex.PW6/2.

13. PW7 Sh. Tushar Dhar, stated that in the year 2004 he was working as an Officer in the Standard Chartered Bank, ITO, New Delhi. His senior had instructed him to approach CBI office for delivery of certain documents. He proved Memo Ex.PW7/1. He stated that application for a credit card, a part of credit card application form known as ACES and pay certificate tendered by Anurag Vardhan in the bank were attested by him on the basis of the record. He proved attested copies of these documents Ex.PW7/2, Ex.PW7/3 and Ex.PW7/4. He also proved Credit Card statements u/s. 2 of Bankers CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 6 of 71 Book Evidence Act, in respect of card issued to Anurag Vardhan, handed over by him to the IO Ex.PW7/5 to Ex.PW7/71.

On being cross examined by Sh. Anshuman Sinha, he stated that he had left the services of Standard Chartered Bank in the year 2005. Print outs of Ex. PW7/5 to Ex.PW7/71 were sent from Chennai Office of the bank. He denied that no letter of authority was given to him to submit the documents to IO. He verified Ex.PW7/2, Ex.PW7/3 and Ex.PW7/4 from the computer system of the bank. He stated that he was working as an officer in Fraud Control Unit of the Bank. Bank is bound to provide information claimed by CBI. He was not aware whether it was a fraud case or not. In those days it was his part of duty to provide documents to the authorities like CBI etc. It was the duty of the seniors to verify the records of the bank.

14. PW8 Sh. Sanjeev Gupta, stated that he is working in Eureka Forbs since 1988. He stated that the letter Ex.P11 along with its enclosures (two) was written and signed by him. Through this letter, he had intimated CBI that one set of Aqua Guard Water Purifier was repaired on 30.9.2002 and their company had charged Rs.1,270/ for repair and Rs.800/ for annual maintenance.

PW8 was not crossexamined by the Ld. Counsel for accused despite opportunity given to him.

15. PW9 Captain R.R. Bakshi, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd. CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 7 of 71 stated that CBI had sought the postpaid connection number 9810534948. The record was supplied by his colleague Sh. R .K. Singh, who was also a Nodal Officer. He proved statement of accounts Ex.PW9/A and the forwarding letter Ex.PW9/B. PW9 was not crossexamined on behalf of accused despite opportunity given to his counsel.

16. PW10 Sh. V. Dakshanamurti, stated that during September, 2003 he was posted as Branch Manager, LIC of India City Branch Officer, 28, Chennai. He also stated that on 08.9.2003 vide his letter dated Ex.PW10/A, he had sent certain information and proposal form submitted by Anurag Vardhan at the time of taking policy and status report of the policy to the investigating officer of this case. Ex.PW10/A is in his handwriting. He stated that it bears his signatures at point A. He proved the documents sent with this letter as Ex.PW10/B. He stated that the policy holder Sh. Anurag Vardhan was to pay an installment of Rs.16,290/ per annum against the premium of the policy for five installments of Rs.81,450/. He proved the original policy issued to the policy holder Ex.PW10/C. PW10 was not crossexamined on behalf of accused despite opportunity given to his counsel.

17. PW11 Sh. S. Ramakrishnan, Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Jabalpur proved letter dated 04.7.2003 along with salary CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 8 of 71 details and pay particulars of accused Anurag Vardhan Ex.PW11/A. On being cross examined by Sh. Anshuman Sinha, Ld. Counsel for accused he stated that during the period 2003 he was InCharge of Administration. At that time, the officers of level of Deputy Secretary and above were entitled for reimbursement of telephone bills. The officers of the level of Assistant Director, who were posted in the field of Investigation were also entitled to reimbursement of telephone bills as they were doing field related jobs. Apart from the above, certain officers of nonentitled category were also entitled to reimbursement of telephone bills. However, he was not sure if the accused was entitled or not for reimbursement of telephone bills. He stated that only DDO, Central Circle, Chennai would be able to tell about it. If the accused were posted as Assistant Director (Investigation), he would be eligible for reimbursement of telephone bills. The posting profile of the accused could be provided by Under Secretary, ADVIA, CBDT, Delhi. There is a limit to reimbursement of telephone bills but he could not remember that now. He stated that only DDO could tell that. He could not tell if the accused was paid any travelling allowance for his official travel during the relevant period. Only DDO can tell it.

18. PW12 Sh. M.K. Goel, stated that in the year 2004 he was posted in IP Estate Branch, New Delhi. Sh. P.C. Tamta was the Chief Manager of the Branch. He proved statement of account of account no. 01190/052828 in the name of Anurag Vardhan Ex.PW12/A. He also CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 9 of 71 proved certificate u/s. 2A of Banker Books Evidence Act Ex.PW12/B. He stated that as per this statement Rs.666.14/ was credited to the account holder as interest. As on 19.5.2003 closing balance of the account was Rs.83,709.14/. He proved the letter dated 15.4.2004 (D56) signed by Sh. P.C. Tamta, Chief Manager vide which aforesaid statement was forwarded to IO Ex.PW12/C. He also proved the account opening form Ex.PW12/D, letter vide which this account was transfered from Chennai Branch Ex.PW12/E, photocopies of fourteen cheques Ex.PW12/F1 to Ex.PW12/F14, attested copy of PPF account opening form Ex.PW12/G, attested copy of PPF Account statement Ex.PW12/H and the forwarding letter signed by Sh. P.C. Tamta Ex.PW12/J. He stated that the closing balance of the account as on 31.3.2004 was Rs. 1,66,203.91/. As per this statement, an amount of Rs.4,806.51/ was credited to the account holder as interest as on 31.3.2003 and an amount of Rs.12,311.40/ as interest was credited on 31.3.2004.

PW12 was not crossexamined on behalf of accused despite opportunity given to his counsel.

19. PW13 Sh. Paresh Johri, stated that in May, 2004 he was posted as Deputy Commissioner (Vigilance) in the office of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. He proved the letter (D61) dated 12/14.5.2004 addressed to Inspector Alok Kumar, CBI Ex.PW13/A. He also proved statement proforma I to VI duly filled in by Anurag Vardhan CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 10 of 71 Ex.PW13/B collectively. He stated that he had received a letter from CBI that he should get this proforma filled up by Sh. Anurag Vardhan and forward the same to CBI for further investigation. He had sent the proforma to Sh. Anurag Vardhan and the duly filled in proforma (Statement I to VI) was received from him and were forwarded to Inspector Alok Kumar, CBI for necessary action as desired by CBI.

PW13 was not crossexamined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity given to his counsel.

20. PW14 Sh. V.S. Saini, LDC, Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi stated that on 05.7.2005 he had gone to CBI Office. Lie Detection Test of Sh. Arun Kumar Singh was to be conducted. He was present there. Howerver, he had refused to undergo the lie detection test on the ground of mental disturbance. He proved the Memo Ex.PW14/A, written application of Sh. Arun Kumar Singh to undergo lie detection test Ex.PW14/B. He also identified signatures of Sh. Arun Kumar Singh on Ex.PW13/A and Ex.W13/B. On being crossed examined by the accused he stated that when he had reached CBI Officer, Sh. Arun Kumar Singh was already sitting there. Ex.PW14/B was signed in his presence but the application was lying on the table of the IO Alok Kumar when he went there. He left CBI Office while Sh. Arun Kumar Singh remained sitting over there. He never met Sh. Arun Kumar Singh after that day. He stated that he can identify him if he is shown to him. He denied that Sh. Arun Kumar CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 11 of 71 Singh was forced to sign the application Ex.PW14/B.

21. PW15 Sh. V.K. Sharma, stated that in March, 2006, he was working as Under Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi. He also stated that President of India is competent to appoint and remove from service an officer of the rank of Deputy Director in Income Tax Department. Officers from the rank of Under Secretary and above including desk officers are authorized to sign orders issued by the order and in the name of President of India, under Authentication of Instruments and Orders Rules 1958. He proved the letter dated 03.3.2006 Ex.PW15/A and Sanction Order dated 02.3.2006 Ex.PW15/B. He stated that the Finance Minister had approved the sanction for prosecution on the file on behalf of President of India under the Transaction of Business Rules. The case was processed by Director General, Vigilance, who is also Chief Vigilance Officer for Income Tax Department before being put to the Minister. After seeing the approval of the Minister, he had signed the aforesaid letter and the sanction order.

On being cross examined by Sh. Anshuman Sinha, Ld. Counsel for the accused he stated that he was working in Department of Revenue as Under Secretary since 2001. He did not examine the details given in the Sanction Order as he was not supposed to do that. There is no law which required him to go through each and every document. He was not aware if there is any law which prevents him CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 12 of 71 from going through each and every document. The fact that sanction has been granted by him, the Minister on behalf of the President of India is not mentioned in Ex.PW15/B. The explanation of the accused is not mentioned in the Sanction Order. He is not supposed to examine the file again after the competent authority has accorded sanction. The explanation of accused must have been examined by the Minister as it was on the file. He denied that he is deposing falsely regarding the explanation being on the file. He also denied that the explanation of the accused was not considered. He denied that he has not seen the file signed by the Minister. He denied that the Minister had accorded sanction without application of mind.

22. PW16 Sh. Manoj Sahu, stated that in April, 2004 he was posted as Assistant Manager, Indian Bank, Thousand Lights Branch, Chennai, Tamil Nadu. He proved letter dated 20.4.2004 Ex.PW16/A, Attested statement of account of account no. 20103 of accused Anurag Vardhan Ex.PW16/B, Authentication Certificate attached with the statement Ex.PW16/C and certified attested photocopies of front and back of four cheques Ex.PW16/D1 to D8. He stated that an amount of Rs. 13,471/ was withdrawn by the account holder by issuance of aforesaid four cheques in the name of different parties.

Crossexamination on behalf of accused was not conducted despite opportunity given.

23. PW17 Sh. Murlidharan, stated that during the year CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 13 of 71 20032004 he was working as Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Nungambakkam Branch, Chennai. He proved letter dated 27.4.2004 Ex.PW17/A and attested extract of PPF account no. 2634 in the name of Anurag Vardhan Ex.PW17/B. He stated that on 18.9.2001 this PPF account was closed with NIL balance and the account was transferred to Church Gate Branch, Mumbai. Before account being closed, there was balance of Rs.81,393/ in the account. He proved certified copies of statement of accounts of account no. 01190005217 of accused Anurag Vardhan Ex.PW17/C, Authentication Certificate Ex.PW17/D and certified copies of twenty cheques Ex.PW17/E1 to E20. These cheques were issued by the account holder in favour of different parties.

Crossexamination on behalf of accused was not conducted despite opportunity given.

24. PW18 Sh. P. Sakthivel stated that in the year 2004, he was working as Deputy General Manager, BSNL, West Area, Chennai and was looking after commercial and administrative works. He proved letter dated 31.5.2004 Ex.PW18/A. He stated that at that time, the registration fee for OYT telephone was Rs.15,000/. The subscriber was accused Anurag Vardhan and he had paid an amount of Rs. 15,000/ for this on 07.4.1997 and had paid another Rs.15,000/ for the same connection being converted into "Tatkal" scheme. Connection CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 14 of 71 was given to the subscriber, which was disconnected due to non payment on 24.8.2001. Telephone number alloted was 24874472 and the letter was issued by the Commercial Office and the photocopy of the same was proved as Mark A. On being cross examined by Sh. Anshuman Sinha, Ld. Counsel for accused he admitted that the sum of Rs.18,000/ was refundable to the subscriber on the closure of the connection which is reflected by letter Ex.PW18/A at point X to X.

25. PW19 Sh. C. Vallinayagam, stated that in the year 2004 he was working as SubDivisional Engineer (SDE) (Legal) with Chennai Telehone, Chennai under DGM (Commercial and Administration), West. He proved letter dated 07.5.2004 Ex.PW19/A regarding OYT telephone connection to subscriber Sh. Anurag Vardhan. He stated that photocopy Mark A is annexure to his letter.

On being cross examined by Sh. Anshuman Sinha, Ld. Counsel for accused he stated that Rs.18,000/ was refundable to the subscriber on closure of the connection.

26. PW20 Sh. Vinod Venkatesh Vaidya, Chief Manager, State Bank of India has proved letter Ex. PW20/A vide which the statement of account Ex. PW20/B was sent to CBI. He has also proved another letter Ex. PW20/C vide which 9 original cheques Ex. PW20/D1 to Ex. PW20/D9 and 3 original deposit slips Ex. PW20/D10 to Ex. PW20/D12. He has also proved another letter Ex. PW20/E vide which CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 15 of 71 attested copies of 9 cheques and 3 deposit slips Ex. PW20/E1 to Ex. PW20/E12 were submitted to CBI. He has further proved statement of account of PPF Account No. 12214 of accused Anurag Vardhan Ex. PW20/F and also proved the certificate issued by Sh. Pampalia, AGM vide Ex. PW20/F1. He has also proved that SB Account no. 01190029412 in the name of accused was opened with Church Gate Branch on 22.9.2001 and it was maintained till 12.10.2002 after which the said account was transferred to IP Estate Branch, New Delhi with balance of Rs. 1,03,152/ and the amount of interest was credited into this account and the same was Rs. 873.80 on 31.12.2001, Rs. 1363.84 on 01.7.2002 and Rs. 675.99 at the time of transfer of this account on 12.10.2002. He has also stated that in respect of PPF Account no. 12214 in the name of accused, this account was transferred from SBI, Madras to SBI, Church Gate on 28.01.2009 and it was operated in his (PW20) branch till 18.10.2002 and thereafter, the account was transferred to SBI, IP Estate Branch, New Delhi with balance of Rs. 1,31,086/. He has also stated that during the period 28.9.2001 to 18.10.2002 sum of Rs. 7,693/ was credited in this account as interest on 31.3.2002. He has further proved that as per the statement of account Ex. PW20/B, a sum of Rs. 3,053/, Rs. 3,784/, Rs. 2,696/, Rs. 3,103/ and Rs. 2,524/ were paid to MTNL on 10.10.2001, 28.11.2001, 06.02.2002, 19.4.2002 and 08.6.2002 respectively by the accused.

CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 16 of 71 He has further stated that an amount of Rs. 1,830/, Rs. 1,908/, Rs. 1,809/, Rs. 1,683/ and Rs. 1,398/ have been paid into Orange Account No. 00930471 on 10.4.2002, 20.5.2002, 06.6.2002, 16.7.2002 and 12.8.2002 respectively and an amount of Rs. 3,000/ has been paid to concern India Foundation on 09.02.2002, an amount of Rs. 5,260/ has been paid to Standard Chartered Bank on 31.8.2002, an amount of Rs. 14,500/ has been paid to some party through clearing on 02.4.2002 and an amount of Rs. 13,975/ has been paid to Videocon International Ltd. on 11.6.2002.

Crossexamination on behalf of the accused was not conducted despite opportunity given.

27. PW21 Ms. R.M.D. Shanta Kumari stated that during the year 2005, she was working as Administrative Officer and Drawing and Disbursing Officer in the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Income Tax, Chennai. She proved pay particulars from 03.5.1999 to 07.07.2000 of Sh. Anurag Vardhan, IRS working as DC (IT) in Central Circled I (6), Chennai Ex.PW21/A. She stated that the pay details in Ex.PW21/A were provided on the basis of Pay Bill Register in their Office and she has verified the same.

On being cross examined by Sh. Anshuman Sinha, Ld. Counsel for the accused she stated that Ex.PW21/A contains the details of pay and allowance and details of reimbursement of telephone bill are not included nor any other reimbursement is included in the CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 17 of 71 same. He admitted that the telephone reimbursement was allowed to officers.

28. PW22 Sh. Vivekanand Jaiswal, stated that on 22.5.2003 he was summoned in CBI Office to report Inspector N.K. Jain and accordingly, he had reported him. He has further stated that he was one of the team members which was formed and had proceeded towards Safdarjung and had reached at residence of accused. He has proved the proceedings which had taken place at the house of the accused. He has proved the observation memo Ex. PW22/A, search cum seizure memo prepared in RC 31/2003 Ex. PW22/B, one more search cum seizure memo of vehicle prepared in RC No. 31/2003 vide Ex. PW22/C prepared in his presence. He has also proved the recovery of Rs. 3,05,500/ from residence of accused and has also proved the recovery of Rs. 4 lakhs which were recovered in a poly bag which were prepared by him and Sh. Ram Kumar who was another Independent Witness.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused he denied that he was deposing falsely.

29. PW23 Sh. R. Gurumurthy, stated that in February, 2005 he was posted as ITO (OSD) in the Office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. He proved letter dated 21.2.2005 written to Sh. Alok Kumar, Inspector, CBI, ACB, New Delhi Ex.PW23/A. He stated that through this letter he had forwarded the salary details of Anurag CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 18 of 71 Vardhan from various officers, where he had worked. He proved these salary details as Ex.PW21/B1 to B5.

On being cross examined by Sh. Anshuman Sinha, Ld. Counsel for accused he stated that he does not know if the accused was entitled to reimbursement of his telephone bills. In pay particulars the reimbursement of telephone bill is not shown.

30. PW24 Ms. John Balan, stated that in February, 2005 she was posted in the office of Commissioner of Income Tax, Tamil Nadu01, Chennai as Administrative Officer. She identified her signatures on letter dated 21.02.2005 written to Income Tax Officer (OSD), Chief Commissioner Officer, Income Tax01, Chennai Ex.PW23/B5. She stated that she had forwarded the salary particulars of Sh. Anurag Vardhan for the period of April and May 1996 to ITO (OSD), which are already Ex.PW23/B5.

On being cross examined by Sh. Anshuman Sinha, Ld. Counsel for accused she stated that she does not know whether the accused was entitled to reimbursement of his telephone bills or not. She also stated that she does not know whether the reimbursement of telephone bills is reflected in the salary details, as the accused never worked with her.

31. PW25 Sh. A. Vijay Kumar, stated that in the year 20012002, he was working as Income Tax Officer (Head Quarters), Commissioner of Income Tax01, Chennai. He proved the pay CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 19 of 71 particulars of accused Anurag Vardhan for the period from 07.7.2000 to 31.7.2001. He stated that this extract was prepared by his office on his instructions.

On being cross examined by Sh. Anshuman Sinha, Ld. Counsel for accused he stated that he had verified the contents of this document personally. He stated that he does not know if the accused was entitled to reimbursement of telephone bills. The reimbursement of the telephone bills is not reflected in Ex.PW25/A.

32. PW26 Sh. C.K. Srivastava, stated that in the year 2003, he was posted as Inspector in Circle 2 (2) in Drum Shape Building, ITO, New Delhi. A search was carried out by the CBI in their office and at that time he was present there. He identified his signatures on Search cumseizure list dated 22.5.2003. He stated that some files were seized and some were left in the office itself after making an observation about them in the memo. The files observed pertained to income tax returns of assessees. Sh. Tapan Kumar Dutta, his colleague, was also present at the time of search. He stated that the noting at point X is in his own handwriting and bears his signatures also. He proved the same as Ex.PW26/A. Crossexamination on behalf of accused was not conducted despite opportunity given.

33. PW27 Sh. T.K. Dutta, stated that in the year 2003, he was posted as Senior Tax Assistant in Circle 2 (2)m in Office of CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 20 of 71 Additional Director of Income Tax, Drum Shape Building, I.P. Estate. A search was carried out by CBI in his office and at that time he was present there. He identified his signatures on Search cum Seizure list dated 22.5.2003. He stated that some files were seized and some were left in the Office itself after making an observation about them in the memo. The files observed pertained to income tax returns of assessees. He stated that Sh. C.K. Srivastava, his colleague, was also present at the time of search.

Crossexamination on behalf of accused was not conducted despite opportunity given.

34. PW28 Sh. P.A. Naik, stated that in 2004 he was working as Head of Security of M/s. Hutchinson Max Telecom "Orange" and was also working as Chief Nodal Officer of the company. He proved letter dated 15.4.2004 addressed to CBI Ex.PW28/A. He stated that through this letter he had forwarded details of payment made by subscriber of mobile phone no. 9820453832 in the name of accused. He stated that the details of payment were generated by him from the computer system Ex.PW28/B. Crossexamination on behalf of accused was not conducted despite opportunity given.

35. PW29 Sh. J. Ramesh stated that he is running a travel agency in the name and style of M/s. Big Top Travels at Park Town, CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 21 of 71 Chennai. They used to issue rail ticket and air tickets. He also stated that against issuance of tickets they accept payments through cash, credit cards and cheques. The payment was to be made in the name of M/s. Big Top Travels. These cheques were being deposited by him in his bank account bearing no. OD628 maintained with Bank of India, Sowkarpet Branch, Chennai. He stated that the cheques Ex.PW16/D1 and Ex.PW16/D3 (their back side Ex.PW16/D2 and Ex.PW16/D4) were issued against booking of rail/air tickets by Anurag Vardhan for booking tickets for his family members/ friends. These cheques were deposited in his above mentioned account.

He also stated that cheques Ex. PW17/E1, Ex.PW17/D2 and Ex.PW17/E3 were also issued against booking of rail/air tickets by Anurag Vardhan for booking tickets for his family members/ friends. These cheques were deposited in his above mentioned account.

On being cross examined by Sh. Anshuman Sinha, Ld. Counsel for accused he stated that he is running the travel agency since 1984. He stated that cheques were collected by their staff from their clients. He further stated that if the account number is not mentioned on the back side of cheque the bank would not accept the said cheque for clearance. The endorsement was in the handwriting of his staff member because his account number was not known to any outsider. The amount paid through cheques must be against booking of rail tickets or air tickets as they were dealing with these two types of CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 22 of 71 booking. He stated that if any ticket is cancelled through them, they refund the money immediately by cash.

36. PW30 Sh. Krishna Ram stated that he was working as Administrative Officer in Life Insurance Corporation of India, BranchI, Patna. He proved computer generated statement of account in respect of policy no. 510827271 in the name of Anurag Vardhan Ex.PW30/A. He stated that it was purchased on 28.3.1994. The sum assured was Rs.50,000/ and premium was Rs.2,579/ per annum. He also stated that Ex.PW30/A is a computer generated statement and needs no signature. The policy continued till March, 2000 as last premium was paid on 15.4.1999. Mode of payment of premium was on yearly basis. It was a Money Back Policy and on 31.8.2000 an amount of Rs.7,500/ was paid to the policy holder through cheque no. 41809 as survival benefit. He also proved the original policy bond issued from Patna Branch I, LIC ex.PW30/B. He further stated that the original policy bond bears the seal under signatures of the branch manager regarding payment of survival benefit of Rs.7,500/ as mentioned above.

On being cross examined by Sh. H.K. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the accused he stated that he has no personal knowledge of the case and has deposed on the basis of documents Ex.PW30/A and Ex.PW30/B. He admitted that Ex.PW30/A nowhere reflect the name of Mrs. Meena Vardhan. In the policy bond Ex.PW30/B name of CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 23 of 71 Mrs. Meena Vardhan has been shown as nominee of Mr. Anurag Vardhan. He also admitted that the document Ex.PW30/A does not reflect whether the premium was paid through cash or cheque between 1994 and 1999. He admitted that Ex.PW30/A was generated on 01.8.2011. He denied that Ex.PW30/A is a fabricated document. He denied that the amount of Rs.7,500/ is not the survival benefit. He also denied that Rs.7,500/ was given as surrender value of the policy. He admitted that the date of payment of premium is not reflected in document Ex.PW30/A.

37. PW31 Sh. Anwar Alam, has proved letter Ex.PW31/A identifying the signatures of Sh. Nathan appearing on the said letter. He has also proved the details of payment towards telephone bill Ex.PW31/B1 and B2. He has also proved the attested copy of work order for installing the telephone no. 28495566 in the name of undersigned vide Ex.PW31/C. He has also stated that as per work order Ex.PW31/C subscriber no. was alloted as 2080100062. He has also proved application for installation of the abovesaid telephone vide Ex.PW31/D. On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused he admitted that Ex.PW31/B1 and B2 are computer generated statements. He denied that these statements do not reflect any refunds or adjustments made for excess payments made by subscriber. CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 24 of 71

38. PW32 Sh. Ram Kumar, stated that while working in Department of Social Welfare in May, 2003 he had attended CBI Office and had witnessed the raid proceedings conducted by CBI at the house of accused. He has proved Recovery Memo Ex.CW1/C, Search cum Seizure Memo Ex.PW22/B, Observation Memo Ex.PW22/A, Search Cum Seizure Memo Ex.PW22/C, Rough Site Plan Ex.CW1/D, Receipt Ex.P5, Document Ex.P6 and P7, Receipt of Bharati Cellular Ltd. Ex.PW32/A, acknowledgment slip for registration cum demand note Ex.PW32/B, bill of MTNL Ex.PW32/C, pledge form Ex.PW32/D, Invoice cum Receipt Ex.P12, Estimate of Renuka Motors Ex.PW32/E, Delivery voucher of Vikram Enterprises Ex.P14, Subscription Voucher of Bharat Petroleum Ex.P16, Document of LIC Ex.PW30/B. On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused he stated that since he is not official valuer, he could not have evaluated the value of the articles mentioned in the Inventory Memo Ex.PW22/A. He also stated that he could not say anything about the depreciation of the value mentioned in the articles Ex.PW22/A had been taken note of or not. He stated that he did not know the market value of the articles mentioned in Ex.PW22/A.

39. PW33 Inspector Amreek Raj, stated that after taking over the investigation of case bearing RC no. DAI20030031, he had conducted the search of the house of accused vide Search cum CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 25 of 71 Seizure memo Ex.PW22/B. During search the cash amount of Rs. 3,05,500/ was recovered alongwith other documents as mentioned in seizure memo and he has also proved Observation Memo Ex.PW22/A vide which the articles present at the house of accused and their approximate value was mentioned against each item after consultation with the accused and his family members. He further proved that on 22.5.2003, pursuant to a Search Cum Seizure Memo Ex.PW22/C, certain articles mentioned in the said memo were seized. He further stated that during investigation of case bearing RC no. 31/2003, he had made a complaint to SP, ACB, CBI, New Delhi on 26.7.2003 vide complaint Ex.PW33/A, the instant case was registered against the accused and Sh. Alok Kumar, the then Inspector, CBI was authorized to investigate the instant case by the then SP, CBI vide FIR Ex.PW39/A. He further proved Handing Over Memo Ex.PW33/B vide which he had handed over the documents mentioned in the Memo to Inspector Alok Kumar. He further proved another Handing Over Memo Ex.PW33/C vide which the documents mentioned in the said Memo were handed over by Inspector Amreek Raj to Sh. Alok Kumar, Inspector.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused he stated that he had not recorded separate statements of accused and his wife. He had also not noted down in the Observation Memo the year of the acquisition, nature of acquisition and the value of property CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 26 of 71 individually told by the family members. He admitted that he had not conducted investigation regarding depreciation in the value of each article. He stated that he did not remember whether he had verified the documents Ex.PW33/DA1. He however, stated that the documents received from Office of accused pertaining to his income had been verified. He also could not remember whether he had verified the entries relating to transfer of money dated 09.8.1996, 12.8.1996, 31.8.1996, 14.10.1996 and 30.12.1996. He stated that he did not remember whether he had verified the transfer of arrears or DA in the account of accused on 27.8.1996 or transfer of Rs.2,000/ credited to account of accused as Central Pay Commission Arrears on 28.4.1998. He admitted that he had not visited Patna for the purpose of investigation of the case.

40. PW34 Mohd. Kalam, has stated that he was working as Manager/ Supervisor in M/s. Renuka Motors in the year 2003. He proved the letters containing the details of estimate no. 1126 dated 12.3.2003 and details of estimates number 1133 dated 15.3.2003 vide letters Ex.PW34/A and B identifying the signatures of Sh. Vikram Kumar Handa, Owner of M/s. Renuka Motors. He stated that as per document Ex.PW34/A sum of Rs. 3,838/ was charged from the accused in respect of electrical services of vehicle no. UP21G1818 Ex.PW34/C. As per another estimate Ex.PW34/D a sum of Rs.2,200/ CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 27 of 71 was charged from the accused in respect of AC Gas Servicing of vehicle no. JH05B4738. He has also proved the original of estimates number 1126 and 1133 which are Ex.PW34/E (Collectively) On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused he admitted that it is not mentioned anywhere in Ex.PW32/E and Ex.PW34/E that the estimate amount had been received by Renuka Motors. He also admitted that Ex.PW32/E and Ex.PW34/E are the estimates relating to service/ repair of the car.

41. PW35 Sh. Naveen Kumar Jain, stated that while being posted in May, 2003, in CBI he was entrusted one preliminary enquiry bearing no. 8/2003 by the then SP for enquiry on 22.5.2003 and during that enquiry search proceedings were conducted and Rs. 4 Lakhs were recovered from one Perumal Samy @ Babu to whom accused had handed over the same as a bribe amount in token of transfer of accused from Delhi to Mumbai vide Recovery Memo Ex.CW1/C (D12).

He further proved that on the written request for registration of regular case vide Ex.CW1/A, case RC Ex.CW1/E was registered and the same was entrusted for investigation to Inspector Amreek Raj to whom he had handed over the Recovery Memo and thereafter he had also assisted Inspector Amreek Raj in conducting investigation.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused he stated CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 28 of 71 that statements of Perumal Samy, Padmanabhan, wife and servant of accused were not recorded. He admitted that they had not made inquiries from servant of accused as to whether Perumal Samy and Padmanabhan had come to house of accused Anurag Vardhan or not and whether Anurag Vardhan had given money to Perumal Samy.

42. PW36 Sh. Jayant Kashmiri stated that while he was posted as Inspector in CBI, ACB, on 22.5.2003 he had witnessed the proceedings conducted in P.E. no. 8A/2003 as a team member headed by Inspector N.K. Jain. He proved the recovery of the amount of Rs. 4 Lakhs from Perumal Samy @ Babu. He also proved recovery memo Ex.CW1/C and Rough Site Plan Ex.CW1/D. On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused he denied that Recovery Memo was not prepared in his presence. He denied that he was not witness to search conducted at the house of accused.

43. PW37 Sh. Bala Subrahmanayam stated that while being posted as Inspector in CBI, ACB, on 22.5.2003 he had witnessed the proceedings conducted in P.E. no. 8A/2003 as a team member headed by Inspector N.K. Jain. He proved the recovery of the amount of Rs. 4 Lakhs from Perumal Samy @ Babu. He also proved recovery memo Ex.CW1/C, Rough Site Plan Ex.CW1/D. He stated that searches were conducted at the residence of accused in another case bearing RC no. 31/2003 and has proved the Search List/ Search Cum Seizure Memo CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 29 of 71 Ex.PW22/B. He has also proved the Observation Memo Ex.PW22/A and another Search Memo Ex.PW22/C. On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused he stated that statement of accused or his wife or the servants were not recorded on 22.5.2003. He admitted that the denomination of currency notes of Rs.3,05,000/ is not mentioned in the Memo. He denied that no person in the name of Babu was apprehended. He also denied that disclosure statement of Babu was not recorded in his presence.

44. PW38 Umesh Vashisht stated that while being posted and working as Inspector, CBI, on 22.5.2003 he had conducted search at the office of accused at Drum Shaped Building along with Sh. Ajay Kumar, the then Inspector on the strength of authorization given by Inspector N.K. Jain. He further stated that during that search the documents were seized vide Search cum Seizure Memo Ex.PW26/A. On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused he admitted that he was not one of the team members of the search team who had conducted the search at the house of accused Anurag Vardhan on 22.5.2003.

45. PW39 DSP Alok Kumar (IO), during the course of investigation had recorded the statements of various witnesses u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. and had collected the documents. He stated that Check period was taken for the purpose of investigation from 01.4.1996 to 22.5.2003 CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 30 of 71 and accused was found to be having assets before check period to the tune of Rs.21,137/, total Assets at the end of check period Rs. 14,13,325/, total Assets during check period Rs.13,93,188/, Total Expenditure on the part of accused during check period Rs.8,47,658/, total income of accused during check period Rs.12,28,021/, and hence likely savings of the accused have been calculated as Income minus Expenditure which comes to Rs. 3,80,363/ and thus the disproportionate assets have been calculated to the tune of Rs. 10,11,825/ which becomes 82.39 in percentage.

He further proved the documents i.e. Handing Over Memos Ex.PW33/B (D3), Ex.PW33/C (D4), Search cum Seizure Memo prepared in RC no. 31/2003 (D5), Ex. PW22/B, Observation Memo Ex. PW22/A (D6) prepared in case Rs. no. 31/2003, Search cum Seizure Memo Ex.PW22/C (D7), Recovery Memo Ex.CW1/C (D12) prepared in PE no. 8/2003, Site Plan Ex.CW1/D, photocopy of bill of "Bigjos" Ex.PW39/B (D48) and the documents i.e. Two receipts dated 15.9.2002 and two challans of the same date (D50) collectively Ex.PW39/C which were seized during the search conducted at your house.

He further proved the documents i.e. Seizure Memo Ex.PW7/1 (D26), letter of Deputy General Manager, BSNL Ex.PW18/B (D21), letter Ex.PW19/A, Letter Ex.PW39/D (D20), Letter Ex.PW28/A (D23) vide which the documents Ex.PW39/E1 to Ex .PW39/E5 were CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 31 of 71 provided to him (PW39 DSP Alok Kumar). He has further proved that letter Ex.PW31/A of AGM vide which the information in respect of telephone no. 28495566 of accused was provided to him in the form of document Ex.PW31/B1, B2, Ex.PW31/C and Ex.PW31/D (D24).

He further proved letter Ex.PW9/B of Bharati Cellular Ltd. vide which the information/ details in respect of mobile no. 9810534948 were provided and the same is exhibited as Ex.PW9/A (D25). He has also proved that the letter of accounts officer Ex.PW1/4 vide which particulars regarding telephone number 26167077 were provided and the same are Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/3. He has further proved the letter Ex.PW5/1 of M/s. Anand Group (D42) vide which the documents Ex.PW5/2 and Ex.PW5/3 were provided. He has also proved the letter of LIC, Patna vide which the documents/ information in respect of Policy no. 510827271 was provided vide letter along with documents collectively Ex.PW39/F (D43).

He further proved letter of LIC Chennai Ex.PW10/A (D45) vide which the documents Ex.PW10/B including status report of policy number 712752948 were provided. He has also proved a letter Ex.PW4/1 of Manager of Bigjos vide which the information regarding cash memo No. G43565 dated 18.12.2009 was furnished. He has also proved letter Ex.PW3/1of AD & Company vide which the documents Ex.PW3/2 and Ex.PW3/3 were provided in respect of the purchase of Sony DVD and Akai HD Speaker System.

CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 32 of 71 He further proved documents Ex.PW32/A (D26) Ex.PW32/B (D28), Ex.PW32/C (D29), Ex. PW32/D (D32), Ex.PW34/E (D37), Ex. PW32/E (D37) which were seized during the search of house of accused. He has further proved letter Ex.PW23/A vide which the documents Ex.PW23/B1 to Ex.PW23/B5 (D57), Ex.PW21/A and Ex.PW25/A were provided to him. He has also proved another letter of Additional Commissioner, Income Tax, Chennai Ex.PW11/A vide which salary details of the accused were provided. He has also proved another letter of Income Tax Officer, Mumabi (D59) vide which information/ salary details were also provided to him and the said documents are Ex. PW39/G. He further proved letter of Deputy Commissioner, Income Tax, Ex.PW13/A vide which the statement proforma (I to VI) duly filled by the accused were provided to him vide Ex.PW13/B. He has also proved Memo Ex.PW14/A, Letter Ex.PW14/B of Arun Kumar Singh regarding lie detecting test. He has further stated that he had recorded the statement of Sh. Manoj Kumar, the then Sub Inspector in connection with the recording of statements of Sh. Vijay Kumar Shrivastava and Sh. Harsh Vardhan which were recorded by Inspector Praveen Kumar. He has also stated that the statements of Sh V.K. Shrivastava and Sh. Harsh Vardhan were handed over to him by Inspector Amreek Raj and the said statements are exhibited as Ex.PW39/H and Ex.PW39/J. He has further proved the letter alongwith CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 33 of 71 the specimen signatures, account opening form collectively Ex.PW39/K. He further proved the statement of account Ex.PW33/DA2, letter Ex.PW16/A vide which statement of accounts Ex.PW16/B, Certificate u/s. 2A of Bankers Books Evidence Act Ex.PW16/C and the documents i.e. Various cheques Ex.PW16/D1 to Ex.PW16/D8 were provided to him. He has also proved letter of State Bank of India Ex.PW39/L (D44) vide which the statement of account Ex.PW17/B, Certificate Ex.PW17/D, Statement Ex.PW17/C4, Cheques Ex.PW17/E1 to Ex.PW17/E20, and letter Ex.PW17/A were provided to him.

He further proved the documents Ex.PW20/A to Ex.PW20/C, Ex.PW20/D1 to Ex.PW20/D12, Ex.PW20/E, Ex.PW20/E1 to Ex.PW20/E12, Ex.PW20/F, Ex.PW20/F1, Ex.PW12/C, Ex.PW12/A to Ex.PW12/E, Ex.PW12/F1 to Ex.PW12/F14, Ex.PW12/J, Ex.PW12/G3 and Ex.PW12/H. He has also stated that after completion of investigation, sanction order Ex.PW15/B for prosecution of accused was obtained through letter Ex.PW15/A and that filed the charge sheet along with the documents, articles and statements of witnesses against the accused.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused he admitted that he was provided with documents Ex.PW20/A to Ex.PW20/C, Ex.PW20/D1 to Ex.PW20/D12, Ex.PW20/E, Ex.PW20/E1 CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 34 of 71 to Ex.PW20/E12, Ex.PW20/F, Ex.PW20/F1, Ex.PW12/C, Ex.PW12/A to Ex.PW12/E, Ex.PW12/F1 to Ex.PW12/F14, Ex.PW12/J, Ex.PW12/G3 and Ex.PW12/H. He stated that he cannot admit or deny whether he had recorded statements of family members of the accused or of the accused. He admitted having recorded statements of Ms. Mridula Singh U/s. 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW39/DA. He denied that he has deliberately withheld material facts from the court. He admitted that he has recorded statement of Arun Kumar Singh U/s. 161 Cr.P.C. but has not filed the same with the Charge Sheet. He stated that he had no knowledge whether accused was posted as Customs Appraiser from February, 1993 to 1994 in Kolkata. He admitted that he was aware that accused was posted on probation at NADT Nagpur from September, 1994 to March, 1996. He stated that he does not remember whether he had examined the service book of accused or not and therefore could not say as to whether it was mentioned in the service book of accused that he had remained posted as Customs appraiser from February, 1993 to August, 1994. He denied that he has not given benefit of assets correctly and has calculated expenditure incorrectly.

46. Vide statement of CW1 Sh. Sattar Ali i.e. Ahlmad in the court of undersigned, proved Ex.CW1/A, B, C, D, E, originals of which were placed in RC no. 31/03.

47. During the course of trial accused had admitted the CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 35 of 71 documents Ex.P4 and P5 (D18 and 19), Ex.P17 and P18 (D51 and

52), Ex.P9 and P10(D31 and 32), the documents Ex.P20 and P21 (D63 and 64), Ex.PW39/G (D59) vide a separate statement.

48. Prosecution evidence was closed thereafter. Statement of accused was recorded in which accused had expressed his willingness to lead defence evidence. Therefore, the case was listed for defence evidence and two defence witnesses were examined by the accused. DEFENCE EVIDENCE:

49. DW1 Sh. Bijay Kumar Srivastava, stated that accused Anurag Vardhan is his soninlaw married to his daughter Ms. Meena in the year 1992. He also stated that accused is an Officer of the Indian Revenue Service and his daughter is housewife. He further stated that in the year 2003, he was in need of some money for personal and family work and wanted to dispose of a portion of his property which had become irrelevant at that time. He had constructed that portion to work as a lawyer in Patna High Court to which he was enrolled as an advocate. He was appointed as Secretary of Judicial Commissions by Government of Bihar and at that time in the year 2003 was working as Secretary to Justice Dharampal Sinha, Commission of Inquiry.

He also stated that he had a chance to meet a man from Samastipur who wanted to buy that portion of his property and a negotiation was held orally to dispose of that property for Rs. 4 Lakhs. The person concerned had to pay Rs. 3 lakh in cash as an advance CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 36 of 71 and to that extent an agreement was prepared. In the first week of May, 2003 he had planned to go to Delhi to collect that advance. Meanwhile, his daughter had come to Patna and because of some urgent work in the Judicial Commission, he was asked by the Chairman not to leave the headquarter for another 1015 days. His daughter was leaving for New Delhi in the middle of May, so he had decided that she should collect that advance money and handover the agreement to the prospective buyer. He stated that he wanted his daughter to receive the money which she could not have received without Special Power of Attorney which he had executed in her favour. She had taken the original agreement i.e. the Sale Agreement and this special Power of Attorney along with her and had handed it over to the prospective buyer and collected the advance money of Rs. 3 Lakhs, probably on 21.5.2003. The amount of advance was Rs.3 Lakhs and the total amount to be paid was Rs.4 Lakhs. The remaining Rs. 1 Lakh, he had received from the ultimate buyer in the form of two bank drafts, probably from Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. Being satisfied with the amount, he and his wife had executed the sale deed in the Patna office of Registry, sometime in August, 2003. After the execution of the Sale Deed, he had no ownership right of that portion and the buyer is the owner of that portion.

At this stage, attention of the witness was drawn to Ex.P20 which is Agreement to Sell executed between the witness and CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 37 of 71 Sh. Arun Kumar Singh dated 14.5.2003. The witness after going through the same he identified his signatures on the said agreement as well as that of his wife Smt. Rajani Srivastava, his daughter Ms. Meena Vardhan at points A, B and C respectively on each page of the agreement to sell.

Attention of the witness was also drawn to Special Power of Attorney executed by the witness on 14.5.2003 in favour of Ms. Meena Ex.P21. The witness after going through the same he identified his signatures and signatures of his wife Ms. Rajan Srivastava at points A and B respectively on each page of the said documents. He also identified the signatures of his daughter Ms. Meena Vardhan at point C. On being cross examined by Sh. Akshay Gautam, Ld. Senior PP for CBI he stated that he had given his statement on the basis of his memory. He had also refreshed his memory by going through concerned documents. He stated that he cannot say whether he had met Inspector Praveen Kumar from CBI at his residence or CBI Office on 16.6.2003 but he did remember that certain information was sought from him by one Manoj Kumar. Probably his statement was recorded by Manoj Kumar.

Attention of the witness was drawn to Statement Ex.PW39/H (D65). The witness after going through the same stated that he had not given this statement to CBI. He denied having stated CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 38 of 71 portion A to A of Ex.PW39/H (D65). He stated that CBI Officials must have written this portion on their own. He denied that the said contents mentioned at portion A to A u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. are correct. He denied that he was deposing falsely to save his soninlaw.

50. DW 2 Sh. Arun Kumar Singh stated that he is running a business of manufacturing of knitted fabrics since 1994 and knows Sh. Bijay Kumar Srivastava. He had purchased a propery no. G9, First Floor, Ashiyana Nagar, Phase II, Patna from Sh. Bijay Kumar Srivastava on 23.8.2003 for a sum of Rs. 4 Lakhs. Out of the same, he had paid Rs. 3 Lakhs in cash at the time of Agreement to Sell and had paid Rs. 1 Lakh at the time of Registry vide two bank drafts.

He proved the original sale deed pertaining to the above mentioned transaction. The copy of the same was proved as Ex.DW2/A. He identified his signatures at point A and signatures of Sh. Bijay Srivastava at point B (Original seen and returned). He identified signatures of Sh. Bijay Sriviastava as he had seen him signing the Sale Deed in his presence.

He also proved the Agreement to Sell which is already Ex.P20 and he identified his signatures at point D. He also proved the original receipts pertaining to maintenance charges of the Ashiyana Nagar, Phase II, Management Committee. The copies of the same were proved as Ex. DW2/B and Ex.DW2/C (Original seen and returned).

CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 39 of 71 The attention of the witness was drawn to Ex.P21 i.e. Special Power of Attorney executed by Sh. Bijay Kumar Srivastava in favour of his daughter Ms. Meena. The witness after going through the same states that he had paid a sum of Rs. 3 Lakhs to Ms. Meena Vardhan, the daughter of Sh. Bijay Kumar Srivastava at her residence at A1/79, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi. The said amount was paid to her as part consideration amount towards purchase of the above mentioned property from Sh. Bijay Kumar Srivastava. My statement had been recorded by CBI.

On being cross examined by Sh.Akshay Gautam, Ld. Senior PP for CBI. He sated that he did not know Sh. Bijay Kumar Srivastava prior to entering into the above mentioned transaction of property. He admitted that Sh. B.K. Srivastava had not given any written instructions to him to hand over the money to his daughter. He had informed him telephonically that since he was not in a position to himself come to Delhi, therefore, he should handover the amount to his daughter.

He stated that he did not remember the exact date, however, it was in the month of May, 2003. He denied that he was deposing falsely and that he did not hand over the said amount to Ms. Meena Vardhan at her residence as deposed by him.

51. Defence Evidence was closed thereafter.

FINAL ARGUMENTS:

CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 40 of 71

52. Final arguments were heard on behalf of Ld. Senior PP for CBI as well as Ld. Counsel for accused. I have heard arguments and have carefully gone through the case file.

53. Ld. Counsel for the accused has stated that the cash amount of Rs. 4 Lakhs which was imputed to accused Anurag Vardhan as bribe amount being given by him to other coaccuseds in trap case i.e. RC No. DAI2003A0031 did not belong to him and finding to this effect has already been given vide judgment in the above mentioned case in which the accused has been acquitted.

54. He has also stated that Rs. 3 lakhs in cash which were recovered from house of accused and have been imputed to him did not belong to him and in this regard he has also produced evidence. He states that he has examined DW 1and DW2 and has proved that this amount had been received as advance from Sh. Arun Kumar Singh on behalf of Sh. B.K. Srivastava against the sale of property.

55. It is also stated that IO has not considered the salary received by accused as Customs Appraiser between February, 1993 to August, 1994 which comes to about Rs.55,961/ which he has proved by documents Ex.PW33/DA1 and the salary slips have been proved through PW Amreek Raj. He also states that he had also received salary as IRS Trainee during September, 1994 to March, 1996 in the sum of Rs.63,333/ which he has which has proved as Ex.PW21/A and Ex.PW25/A and through evidence of PW39.

CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 41 of 71

56. He has also drawn my attention to the credit entries in his account in the sum of Rs.26,747/ sent through his father which have been proved vide document Ex.PW16/B, Ex.PW33/DA2, Ex.PW39/DL, D53 page no. 5, 7 and 8 and evidence of PW33.

57. He has also drawn my attention to the evidence of PW19 who has proved that accused had received refund on surrender of OYT Telephone Connection at Chennai in the sum of Rs.18,000/.

58. He has also drawn my attention to the statements of PW6 dated 12.9.2008; statement of PW21 dated 1.10.2009 who have proved that the officers posted as Assistant Director (investigation) were entitled for telephone bill reimbursement. It is stated that the accused was not given benefit of Rs.62,531/ towards reimbursement of the telephone bills.

59. He has also drawn my attention to cash returned by family member against purchase of tickets for their travel vide four cheques in the sum of Rs.19,957/ in total and states that PW29 has confirmed that amount for cancelled tickets is always returned in cash.

60. He has also drawn my attention to the discrepancy in the expenditure taken by IO and states that an amount of Rs.25,340/ and another amount of Rs.9,687/ was incurred for purchase of clothes and groceries which have been separately valued as nonverifiable expenses. It is thus justified to give the benefit of Rs.35,027/ incurred on the credit card expense.

CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 42 of 71

61. He has pointed towards discrepancy in expenditure on hiring of Anita Pradhan. He states that IO has taken the expenditure on the same as Rs.8,000/ . However, PW5 Owner of the placement agency has confirmed payment of Rs.3,000/ only.

62. He has also drawn my attention to the expenditure entry of Rs. 6,000/ on car service at Renuka Motors and states that PW34 as stated by Ex.PW34/E that the seized documents are mere estimates and not the bills. He states that PW34 has proved that no amount was actually received by Renuka Motors from the accused.

63. He has also drawn my attention to two credit entries dated 27.8.1996 and 28.4.1998 in his bank statements Ex.PW16/B. The same reflects that the arrears for DA and arrears for pay commission of Rs. 3,800/ and Rs.15,000/ respectively has been inadvertently excluded from the salary statement. Therefore, he is also allowed to benefit of Rs.18,800/

64. Ld. Defence Counsel has also stated that despite the accused explaining his lawful sources of income to the IO, the IO has not considered the same. The IO has not given benefit to the accused despite being shown the documentary proof of lawful sources of income of accused Anurag Vardhan. In this regard, he has drawn my attention to the statement of the IO and various other witnesses and documents as mentioned above.

65. The Ld. Senior PP for CBI has argued to the contrary and CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 43 of 71 states that CBI has proved its case vide documentary and occular evidence and accused be convicted.

Proposition of Law:

Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act provides as under:

(e) If he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionation to his known sources of income.

Explanation: For the purpose of this Section, "known sources of income" means income received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant.

Thus, the following conditions must be satisfied to bring out a case u/s Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act:

(1) The accused is a public Servant;

(2) The nature and extent of the pecuniary resources of property found in his possession;

(3) His known sources of income, i.e. known to the prosecution.

(4) Such resources or properties found in possession of the accused were disproportionate to his known sources of income.

(5) The aforementioned ingredients are established by the CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 44 of 71 prosecution, the burden of proof would shift on the accused to show that the prosecution case is not correct.

It must be kept at the back of mind that the Superior Courts have observed in a catena of decisions that a liberal view must be taken of what proportion of assets in excess of the known sources of income constitutes "disproportionate" for Section 13(1)(e) of the Act. As per Oxford Advance Learner's Dictionary, the meaning of 'disproportionate' is "too large or too small when compared with something else". Thus, in order to hold a person guilty for possession of disproportionate assets, the difference should be too large or unconscionable and not too small or trivial. Further, it must be understood that the prosecution has to stand on its own legs and must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and in doing so the prosecution cannot derive any strength or support from the weakness in the case of the defence. Reference can be placed on the decision in State of Maharashtra Vs. Wasudeo Ramchandra Kaidalwar" AIR 1981 SC 1186. Law Regarding Explanation of accused:

In regard to what is the nature and extent of explanation to be rendered by the accused, the Apex Court in Rabindra Kumar Dey Vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1977 SC 170 inter alia held while dealing with a case of Prevention of Corruption Act that:

"....The Evidence Act does not CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 45 of 71 contemplate that the accused should prove his case with the same strictness and rigour as the prosecution is required to prove a criminal charge. Infact, from the cardinal principles, it is sufficient if the accused is able to prove its case by the standard of preponderance of probabilities as envisaged by Section 5 of Evidence Act as a result of which he succeeds not because he proves his case to the hilt but because probability of the version given by him, there is doubt on the prosecution case and, therefore, the prosecution cannot said to have been established the charge beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, the move of proving by standard of benefit of doubt is not applicable to the accused where is is called upon to prove its case or to prove the exceptions of the Indian Penal Code. It is sufficient to the defence to give a version probable with the prosecution version for that would be sufficient to throw suspicion on the prosecution case and rejection by the Court."

As regards what constitutes "known sources of income," in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta, 2004 CRI. L. J. 598, their lordships of the Supreme Court observed as under:

The expression 'known sources of income' in S. 13 has reference to sources known to the prosecution after thorough investigation of the case. It is not, and cannot be contended that 'known sources of income' means sources known to the accused. The prosecution cannot, in the very nature of things, be expected to know the affairs of an accused person. Those will be matters 'specially within the knowledge' of the CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 46 of 71 accused, within the meaning of S.106. The phrase 'known sources of income' in S.13(1)(e) (old S.5(1)(e)) has clearly the emphasis on the word 'income'. It would be primary to observe that qua the public servant, the income would be what is attached to his office or post, commonly known as remuneration or salary. The term 'income' by itself, is elastic and has a wide connotation. Whatever comes in or is received is income. But, however, wise the import and connotation of the term 'income', it is incapable of being understood as meaning receipt having no nexus to one's labour, or expertise, or property, or investment and having further a source which may or may not yield regular revenue. These essential characteristics are vital in understanding the term 'income'.

Therefore, it can be said that, though 'income' is receipt in the hand of its recipient, every receipt would not partake into the character of income. Qua the public servant, whatever return he gets of his service, will be the primary item of his income. Other incomes which can conceivably are income qua the public servant, will be in the regular receipt from (a) his property, of (b) his investment. A receipt from windfall, or gains of graft, crime, or immortal secretions by persons prima facie would not be receipt from the 'known sources of income' of a public servant. The Legislature has advisedly used the expression 'satisfactorily account'. The emphasis must be on the word 'satisfactorily' and the legislature has, thus, deliberately cast a burden on the accused not only to offer a plausible explanation as to how he came by his CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 47 of 71 large wealth, but also to satisfy the Court that his explanation was worthy of acceptance.

The phrase "known sources of income" in S.13(1)(e) (old S. 5(1)(e)) has clearly the emphasis on the word "income". It would be primary to observe that qua the public servant, the income would be what is attached to his office or post, commonly known as remuneration or salary. The term "income" by itself, is elastic and has a wide connotation. Whatever comes in or is received, is income. But, however, wide the import and connotation of the term 'income', it is incapable of being understood as meaning receipt having no nexus to one's labour, source which may or may not yield a regular revenue.

These essential characteristics are vital in understanding the term "income". Therefore, it can be said, that, though "income" is receipt in the hand of its recipient, every receipt would not partake into the character of income. Qua the public servant, whatever return he gets of his service, will be the primary item of his income. Other incomes which can conceivably are income qua the public servant, will be in the regular receipt from (a) his property of (b) his investments. A receipt from windfall, or gains of graft, crime, or immoral secretions by persons prima facie would not be receipt from the "known sources of income" of a public servant.

The Legislature has advisedly used the expression "satisfactory account". The emphasis must be on the word "satisfactorily" and the CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 48 of 71 Legislature has, thus, deliberately cast a burden on the accused not only to offer a plausible explanation as to how he came by his large wealth, but also to satisfy the Court that his explanation was worthy or acceptance.

66. In the light of these findings, the relevant case law and the benefits given or not given accordingly, let me examine as to whether accused was in possession of Assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.

67. As per the charge sheet, the case of CBI is that accused was found in possession of disproportionate assets based on the following in tabular form : Assets held before the Check Period S. No. Description of Assets Amount/Value

1. Articles held prior to 1996, as per the Rs.13,400/ Inventory prepared on 22.5.2004.

2. Investment in LIC Policy no. 510827271 up to Rs. 7,737/ April 1996

3. Gold jewellary about 150 grams. Gifted (Claimed to be gifted during marriage and various occasions)

4. Silver jewellery about 100 grams Gifted (Claimed to be gifted during marriage and various occasions)

5. TV, VCR (marriage gift) etc. Gifted CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 49 of 71 Total Rs.21,137/ Assets of the accused and his family at the end of the check period i.e. 22.5.2003.

Item no. Description of Assets Amount/value

1. Cash handed over to Sh. R.Prumalsamy @ Rs.4,00,000/ Babu on 22.5.2003

2. Cash recovered during search of house no. Rs.3,05,500/ A1/79, Ist Floor, Safdurjung Enclave, New Delhi on 22.5.2003

3. Inventory of articles available at House Rs.2,82,500/ no.A1/79, Ist Floor, Safdurjung Enclave, New Delhi on 22.5.2003

4. PPF Act. No. 901203 at SBI, I.P. Estate, New Rs.1,53,892/ Delhi

5. Savings A/c. No. 01190052825 at SBI, I.P. Rs.83,709/ Estate, New Delhi

6. 14 (fourteen) ICICI Tax Savings Bonds @ Rs. Rs.70,000/ 5,000/ each

7. Two LIC Policies Rs.96,924/

8. Sony DVD and Akai HT Speaker System Rs.20,800/ Total Rs.14,13,325/ Note :

1. Gold Jewellary of about 315 grams and silver jewellery of approx. 100 grams was observed on 22.5.2003 during search but the value not indicated as claimed to be gifted time to time. About 165 grams of gold, jewellery was claimed as gifted during the check period time to time from various relatives.

CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 50 of 71

2. BPL Frost Free Fridge, Whirlpool washing machine, BPL Sanyo VCR, Sony HI FI music system, Eureka Forbes Vacuum cleaner, Inalsa 4 burner gas stove, Sony Erickson camera cell phone, Almirahs, Sofa set, Tables, Bed, Mattresses and other furniture items, Fiat Paliao Car, Rs. 80,000/ towards security money for house claimed to be gifted by parents/in laws/relatives/friends time to time during check period has not been included in calculating the value of assets.

Income and other receipts during period April, 1996 to 22.5.2003 S. No. Description / nature of Income Amount

1. Pay and allowances including arrears Rs.11,50,608/ etc. Total Salary w.e.f. 01.4.1996 to 22.5.2003

2. Survival Benefit payment received from Rs.47,500/ LIC

3. Income by way of Bank Interest paid on Rs.13,621.34/ accounts

4. Interest paid by various banks in PPF Rs.16,292/ Account Total Income Rs.12,28,021/ Expenditure of the accused and the family during April, 1996 to 22.5.2003.

S. No. Item of Expenditure Amount
Verifiable Expenditure

CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 51 of 71
1. Expenditure towards rent of house A1/79, Rs.74,020/
Ist Floor, Safdurjung Enclave, New Delhi
w.e.f. 01.9.2002 to 22.5.2003
2. Expenditure towards purchase of Air/ Rail Rs.1,02,962/
Travelling tickets at Delhi and Chennai.
3. Telephone/ Mobile connections expenses Rs.92,531/
mad by Anurag Vardhan
4. Payment made towards Standard Rs.73,195/
Chartered Credit card expenses
5. Expenditure on hiring of servant "Anita Rs.8,000/
Pradhan"
6. Expenditure on car service at Renuka Rs.6,000/
Motors, New Delhi
7. Expenditure on Gas Connection Rs.2,830/
8. Expenditure on service and AMC of Rs.2,070/
Eureka Forbes
9. Expenditure on donations and concern Rs.3,000/
India Foundation
10. Expenditure cheques in the Bank Rs.5,673/
accounts SB20103 at Indian Bank,
Thousand lights, Chennai
11. Expenditure on purchase of earrings from Rs.4,275/
Big Jos, Delhi
Non Verifiable Expenditure
rd
1/3 of Gross Salary Rs.4,61,619/
Total Expenditure Rs. 8,47,658/

Computation of Disproportionate Assets

CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 52 of 71
A. Assets acquired before check period Rs.21,137/
B. Assets at the end of the check period Rs.14,13,325/
C. Assets acquired during the check period (BA) Rs.13,92,188/
D. Total Income during the check period Rs.12,28,021/
E. Total Expenditure during the check period Rs.8,47,658/
F. Likely savings during the check period (DE) Rs.3,80,363/

DISPROPORTIONATE ASSETS.

Assets Likely Savings = Rs.13,92,188/ minus Rs.3,80,363/
= Rs.10,11,825/

% of D.A. = Disproportionate Assets x 100
Income

= 10,11,825 x 100
12,28,021

% of D.A. = 82.39%

68. During the course of trial many witnesses were examined by prosecution who have proved documents relied upon by the prosecution, many documents have been admitted by the accused during admission and denial of documents and qua certain transactions defence evidence has been lead by the accused to explain his sources of income. Based on these testimonies and documents, let me examine as to whether prosecution has been able to prove that accused was found in possession CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 53 of 71 of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. Bribe amount of Rs. 4 lakhs.

69. The substantial amount which contributes towards disproportionate assets is an amount of Rs.4 Lakhs which was imputed to the accused Anurag Vardhan as bribe amount being given by him to other coaccuseds in trap case i.e. RC No. DAI2003A0031. The said case was finally decided vide judgment dated 25.11.2014. A perusal of the said judgment reveals that it has been held in the said judgment that : 'Since the prosecution has not been able to prove as to whom the bribe amount of Rs. 4 lakhs belongs and none of the accused persons have produced any evidence that the bribe amount belongs to them. Therefore, the said bribe amount of Rs. 4 lakhs be forfeited to the State after the period of appeal is over.' In light of the above, since a finding has already been given that the cash amount of Rs. 4 Lakhs did not belong to him, this amount cannot be imputed to the accused as his asset. It is mentioned in the Charge Sheet that this amount is being imputed to him as it was CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 54 of 71 presumed and alleged that in RC No. DAI2003A0031 during a trap proceeding by CBI, this amount was given as bribe amount to his co accused. Since in the said case the accused has been acquitted and it has been held that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused, the prosecution in this case cannot take this amount as asset of accused Anurag Vardhan.

Amount of Rs. 3 Lakhs found in cash during search of house of accused.

70. As far as an amount of Rs.3 Lakhs found in cash during search of house of accused is concerned, in this regard the accused has examined DW 1and DW2 to prove that this amount had been received as advance from Sh. Arun Kumar Singh on behalf of Sh. B.K. Srivastava against the sale of property.

A perusal of testimony of DW1 Sh. B.K. Srivastava reveals that in the year 2003 he had agreed to sell a portion of his property for Rs. 4 Lakhs. In this transaction the buyer had to pay Rs.3 Lakhs in cash in advance. However, since he was unable to come to Delhi in May, 2003 to collect the advance and his daughter Ms. Meena Vardhan who is wife of the accused who was visiting him in Patna, was leaving for Delhi in the middle of May, he had asked her to collect the advance money on his behalf from the buyer and hand over the agreement to sell to him at Delhi. In this regard he had executed a Special Power of Attorney in her favour for the said purpose. He further stated that the CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 55 of 71 remaining amount of Rs.1 lakh had been received by him from the buyer in the form of two bank drafts. After receipt of the entire amount, he and his wife had executed sale deed in the Patna Office of Registration in August, 2003. He proved the copy of Agreement to Sell Ex.P20 and Special Power of Attorney executed by him in favour of Ms. Meena Ex.P21. The witness was however, cross examined by Ld. Senior PP for CBI, however, he stated that though he had given statement Ex.PW39/H to CBI, portion A to A of the said statement was not stated by him.

DW2 has corroborated the statement of DW1 as he is the purchaser of the property no. G9, Ist Floor First Floor, Ashiyana Nagar, Phase II, Patna from Sh. B.K. Srivastava on 23.8.2003 for a sum of Rs. 4 Lakhs. He has corroborated the statement of DW1 that he had paid Rs.3 Lakhs in cash at the time of agreement to sell and Rs. 1 lakh at the time of registry vide two bank drafts. He proved the original sale deed Ex.PW2/A executed between him and Sh. Bijay Srivastava. He also identified his signatures on agreement to sell P20 and admitted its contents to be true. He has also proved on record that the payment of maintenance charges by him to the above mentioned property. He has corroborated the statement of DW1 that he had made payment of an amount of Rs.3 Lakhs in cash to Ms. Meena w/o. Accuse Anurag Vardhan in Delhi since the Special Power of Attorney Ex.P21 had been executed in her favour by Sh. Bijay Srivastava. He has stated that this CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 56 of 71 amount was part consideration towards purchase of the said property.

In view of these statements, it is clear that the amount of Rs. 3 Lakhs found in cash at the residence of accused Anurag Vardhan during searches conducted at his residence, did not belong to him but was the advance payment received on behalf of his fatherinlaw Sh. B.K. Srivastava through a Special Power of Attorney received by his wife. Therefore, this amount cannot be considered as asset of the accused.

Reimbursement of Telephone bills.

71. As per the charge sheet the total telephone expenses have been taken as Rs.92,531/ towards expenditure. In this regard CBI has examined PW 6, PW19, PW21 and PW28. A perusal of statement of PW19 Sh. C. Vallinayagam shows that he has stated in his statement that a OYT telephone connection had been issued to the subscriber Anurag Vardhan and has further stated that Rs.18,000/ were refundable to the subscriber on closure of the connection. I have gone through Ex.PW19/A vide which information had been sent to CBI regarding the telephone connection and expenses. PW39 has proved the information sent through Ex.PW19/A which is Ex.PW39/D. As per Ex.PW39/D the OYT number Telephone connection issued to Anurag Vardhan at Chennai had permanently been closed on 24.08.2001. Since the witness PW19 has stated in his cross examination that Rs. 18,000/ were refundable to the subscriber on closure of the CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 57 of 71 connection, benefit of Rs.18,000/ has to be given to the accused and be subtracted from the expenditure on total telephone expenses.

Accused has also drawn my attention to the evidence of PW19 who has proved that accused had received refund on surrender of OYT Telephone Connection at Chennai in the sum of Rs.18,000/.

As far as the remaining amount of Rs.62,531/ towards expenditure on telephone expenses is concerned, a perusal of statement of PW6 Sh. L. Ekka shows that he has clearly mentioned in his statement that salary particulars of accused Anurag Vardhan were sent to CBI and further states in his crossexamination that the telephone expenses which were reimbursed to Anurag Vardhan were not mentioned in the statement handed over to CBI.

A perusal of statement of PW21 Ms. M.D. Shanta Kumari shows that she has proved the salary particulars of accused from 03.5.1999 to 05.7.2000 while he was posted in Chennai Ex.PW21/A and has admitted in her cross examination that Ex.PW21/A does not include any amount towards telephone reimbursement. She has also stated that telephone reimbursement was allowed to the officers. Thus it is clear that accused was entitled to reimbursement of telephone expenses and therefore, has to be given benefit of an amount of Rs.62,531/ towards reimbursement of telephone expenses which be deducted from expenditure.

Payment to Servant Anita Pradhan, shown as expenditure by CBI CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 58 of 71

72. CBI has shown payment to Servant Anita Pradhan, as expenditure as Rs.8,000/. However, a perusal of testimony of PW5 Sh. G. S. Singh who has provided the maid servant as he was running firm in the name of M/s. Anand Group has stated on oath that a sum of Rs.3,000/ had been received towards salary of the maid servant Anita Pradhan, therefore, benefit of Rs.5,000/ has to be given to the accused from the expenditure.

Nonconsideration of salary as Customs Appraiser between February, 1993 to August, 1994.

73. I have gone through the statement of PW33 Inspector Amreek Raj. He has admitted in his cross examination that he had obtained some documents from the accused for verification. Upon being shown documents pertaining to salary of accused as Customs Appraiser between February, 1993 to August, 1994, he stated that he did not remember whether he had received these documents or not or that he had deliberately concealed the same. The documents Ex.PW33/DA1 are the documents pertaining to the appointment of accused as Customs Appraiser. During the course of arguments the accused filed on record the originals of Ex.PW33/DA1. A perusal of these documents shows that the accused had received net salary of Rs.4,418/ per month as Customs Appraiser while being posted at Kolkata from February, 1993 to August, 1994 which comes to Rs.

rd 55,961/ after deduction of 1/3 towards nonverifiable expenses. CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 59 of 71 Therefore, I am of the opinion that benefit of Rs.55,961 has to be given to accused towards income.

Salary towards IRS Trainee at Nagpur during September, 1994 to March, 1996.

74. The accused states that he had also received salary as IRS Trainee during September, 1994 to March, 1996 in the sum of Rs. 63,333/ which he has proved vide documents Ex.PW23/B2 to B5 and through evidence of PW39.

I have gone through the statement of PW39 DSP Alok Kumar who has admitted in his cross examination that he was aware that the accused was posted on probation at NADT Nagpur from September, 1994 to March, 1996. He has also admitted that he had called for the salary details from concerned bank from NADT Nagpur. He also admitted in his cross examination that he had not filed those details with the Charge Sheet since he was of opinion that they pertain to the period prior to the check period.

I do not agree with the stand taken by CBI in this regard since it was for the Court to decide whether benefit regarding an amount which was legitimately earned or obtained by an accused has to be given to him or not. It was argued by accused that the original service book as well as the pass books and the documents reflecting salary details of the accused had been seized by the IO which were neither produced before the Court nor copies thereof were supplied to CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 60 of 71 the accused to prove his defense. In such circumstances, it will be justified if on the basis of salary details produced on record pertaining to the period April, 1996 are taken as the salary drawn between the period September, 1994 to March, 1996 by the accused.

A perusal of Ex.PW23/B2, B3, B4 and B5 shows that the net salary drawn by the accused in the Month of April, 1996 is Rs. 6,250/ against the basic pay of Rs.2,275/ with one increment of Rs. 75/. It will be therefore justified to presume that the accused was at least drawing net salary of Rs.5,000/ per month during the period September, 1994 to March, 1996. Therefore, for 19 months the salary rd @ Rs.5,000/ will be Rs.5,000 x 19 = Rs.95,000/. After deducting 1/3 towards nonverifiable expenses it comes to Rs.63,333/. Therefore, I am of the opinion that benefit of Rs.63,333/ towards income of accused be given to him.

Credit entries in the bank accounts.

75. The accused has also drawn my attention to the credit entries in his account in the sum of Rs.26,747/ sent through his father which he has sought to prove vide documents Ex.PW16/B, Ex.PW33/DA2, Ex.PW39/DL, D53 page no. 5, 7 and 8 and evidence of PW33. I am, however, of the opinion that neither any corresponding entry from the account of father of accused has been brought on record nor any other evidence was produced by accused to prove that this amount had been credited in his account from the account of his father. CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 61 of 71 Therefore, I am not inclined to grant this benefit to the accused. Expenditure towards car service at Renuka Motors.

76. Accused has also drawn my attention to the expenditure entry of Rs. 6,000/ on car service at Renuka Motors and states that as per PW34 and Ex.PW34/E the seized documents are mere estimates and not the bills. I have gone through the statement of PW34 who has proved that no amount was actually received by Renuka Motors from the accused. I, thus agree with this contention of the accused and grant him benefit of Rs.6,000/ which be deducted from the head of expenditure.

Arrears for DA and pay commission.

77. The accused has drawn my attention to two credit entries dated 27.8.1996 and 28.4.1998 in his bank statements Ex.PW16/B. He states that these entries reflect that arrears for DA and arrears for pay commission of Rs. 3,800/ and Rs.15,000/ respectively had been received by him which have been inadvertently excluded from the salary statement.

I have gone through Ex.PW33/DA2 which is the Salary Account Statement for the period 30.6.1996 to 31.8.1997 pertaining to the accused. It reflects that a sum of Rs.3,800/ has been credited to salary account of accused on 27.8.1996. However, in the corresponding Salary Statement Ex.PW23/B2, this amount finds no mention.

CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 62 of 71 Similarly, I have gone through Ex.PW33/DA2 which is the Salary Account Statement for the period 01.4.1998 to 31.3.1999 pertaining to the accused. It reflects that a sum of Rs.15,000/ have been credited to salary account of accused on 28.4.1998. However, in the corresponding Salary Statement Ex.PW23/B3, this amount finds no mention.

Therefore, he is also allowed benefit of Rs.18,800/ under the head of Income.

Cash returned by family members against purchase of air tickets.

78. Accused has drawn my attention to cash returned by family members against purchase of tickets for their travel vide four cheques in the sum of Rs.19,957/ in total and states that PW29 has confirmed that amount for cancelled tickets is always returned in cash.

I, however, do not agree with this contention since no evidence has been brought on record to prove the same by the accused.

Double entry pertaining to Credit card expenses.

79. Accused has drawn my attention to the discrepancy in the expenditure taken by IO and states that an amount of Rs.25,340/ and another amount of Rs.9,687/ was incurred for purchase of clothes and groceries which have been separately valued as nonverifiable expenses.

The Ld. Senior PP for CBI, on the other hand, states that it CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 63 of 71 is incorrect to state that IO has not considered the head of expenditure towards credit card entries for purchase of clothes correctly and submits that IO has correctly given the benefit as required under the law.

I have gone through the credit card receipts from 1997 onwards. Having gone through the same, I agree with the contention of the accused. It has been stated by the accused that he had purchased certain items such as groceries and clothes with credit card. He states that such articles which were purchased had been valued separately in the Observation Memo. It is stated that the IO has considered amount for nonverifiable Kitchen and household expenses. It is now stated that the same clothes and groceries which were bought through credit card were found at their residence or which were taken as nonverifiable expenses. Therefore, to again take the bills towards credit card expenses as expenditure for the same articles is unjustified.

I have gone through the Observation Memo as well as documents filed towards the credit card entries of the receipts on record towards such purchase during the relevant period. However, no document has been placed on record for the year 1996 for purchase of clothes. At the same time, as per Observation Memo there is an entry towards purchase of clothes even for the year 1996. Therefore, it would be appropriate to take the amount on the average basis for the CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 64 of 71 year 1996, which would be approximately Rs.4,000/ per annum. It is thus justified to give the benefit of Rs.31,027/ incurred on the credit card expense and this amount be deducted from the expenditure head.

80. Now the fresh table after the benefits given as per discussion made above will be as follows : Assets held before the Check Period S. No. Description of Assets Amount/Value

1. Articles held prior to 1996, as per the Rs.13,400/ Inventory prepared on 22.5.2004.

2. Investment in LIC Policy no. 510827271 up to Rs. 7,737/ April 1996

3. Salary as Customs Appraiser from Rs.55,961/ February, 1993 to August, 1994 (19 Months x 4,418 = Rs. 83,942) 2/3rd of 83,942 = 55,961)

4. Salary at NADT Nagpur as IRS Trainee Rs.63,333/ from September, 1994 to March 1996 (19 months x 5000 95,000) 2/3rd of 95,000 = 63,333 Total Rs.1,40,231/ Assets of the accused and his family at the end of the check period i.e. 22.5.2003.

Item no. Description of Assets Amount/value CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 65 of 71

1. Cash handed over to Sh. R.Prumalsamy @ Nil Babu on 22.5.2003

2. Cash recovered during search of house Rs.5,500/ no. A1/79, Ist Floor, Safdurjung Enclave, New Delhi on 22.5.2003 (Rs.3,05,500/ minus Rs. 3 Lakhs)

3. Inventory of articles available at House Rs.2,82,500/ no.A1/79, Ist Floor, Safdurjung Enclave, New Delhi on 22.5.2003

4. PPF Act. No. 901203 at SBI, I.P. Estate, New Rs.1,53,892/ Delhi

5. Savings A/c. No. 01190052825 at SBI, I.P. Rs.83,709/ Estate, New Delhi

6. 14 (fourteen) ICICI Tax Savings Bonds @ Rs. Rs.70,000/ 5,000/ each

7. Two LIC Policies Rs.96,924/

8. Sony DVD and Akai HT Speaker System Rs.20,800/ Total Rs.7,13,325/ Income and other receipts during period April, 1996 to 22.5.2003 S. No. Description / nature of Income Amount

1. Pay and allowances including arrears Rs.11,69,408/ etc. Total Salary w.e.f. 01.4.1996 to 22.5.2003 (Rs.11,50,608 + 18,800/ = Rs.

11,69,408/)

2. Survival Benefit payment received from Rs.47,500/ LIC CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 66 of 71

3. Income by way of Bank Interest paid on Rs.13,621.34/ accounts

4. Interest paid by various banks in PPF Rs.16,292/ Account

5. Refund Received on surrender of OYT Rs.18,000/ telephone connection at Chennai

6. Reimbursement of Telephone Bill Rs.62,531/ Total Income Rs.13,27,352.34/ Round figure = Rs.

13,27,352/ Expenditure of the accused and the family during April, 1996 to 22.5.2003.

S. No. Item of Expenditure Amount
Verifiable Expenditure
1. Expenditure towards rent of house A1/79, Rs.74,020/
Ist Floor, Safdurjung Enclave, New Delhi
w.e.f. 01.9.2002 to 22.5.2003
2. Expenditure towards purchase of Air/ Rail Rs.1,02,962/
Travelling tickets at Delhi and Chennai.
3. Telephone/ Mobile connections expenses Rs.92,531/
mad by Anurag Vardhan
4. Payment made towards Standard Rs.42,168/
Chartered Credit card expenses
(Rs. 73,195 31,027 = Rs.42,168/)

CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 67 of 71
5. Expenditure on hiring of servant "Anita Rs.3,000/
Pradhan"
(Rs.8,000 - 5,000 = Rs.3,000/)
6. Expenditure on car service at Renuka Nil
Motors, New Delhi
(Rs.6,000 6000 = Nil)
7. Expenditure on Gas Connection Rs.2,830/
8. Expenditure on service and AMC of Rs.2,070/
Eureka Forbes
9. Expenditure on donations and concern Rs.3,000/
India Foundation
10. Expenditure cheques in the Bank Rs.5,673/
accounts SB20103 at Indian Bank,
Thousand lights, Chennai
11. Expenditure cheques in the Bank Account Rs.11,483/
SB 5217, State Bank of India,
Nungambakkam Branch, Chennai
12. Expenditure on purchase of earrings from Rs.4,275/
Big Jos, Delhi
Non Verifiable Expenditure
rd
1/3 of Gross Salary Rs.4,61,619/
Total Expenditure Rs. 8,05,631/

Computation of Disproportionate Assets

A. Assets acquired before check period Rs.1,40,431/
B. Assets at the end of the check period Rs.7,13,325/

CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 68 of 71

C. Assets acquired during the check period (BA) Rs.7,13,325/ minus Rs.1,40,431/ = Rs.

5,72,894/ D. Total Income during the check period Rs.13,27,352/ E. Total Expenditure during the check period Rs.8,05,631/ F. Likely savings during the check period (DE) Rs.13,27,352 minus Rs.8,05,631/ = Rs.

5,21,721/ DISPROPORTIONATE ASSETS.

Assets acquired Likely Savings = Rs.5,72,894/ minus Rs.5,21,721/ = Rs.51,173/ % of D.A. = Disproportionate Assets x 100 Income = 51,173 x 100 13,27,352/ % of D.A. = 3.85% Conclusion

81. In the light of the said discussion and assessment carried out, the likely savings during the check period from April, 1996 to 22.5.2003 comes to Rs.5,21,721/ (Total income minus expenditures) as against which the accused was possessing the assets to the tune of Rs. 5,72,894/. Therefore, the disproportionate assets comes to the tune of CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 69 of 71 Rs. 51,173/ (Assets acquired minus likely savings) i.e. almost 3.85 % of the known sources of income. The accused has successfully rendered a satisfactory account of acquisition of assets as calculated above except the assets almost 3.85% disproportionate to his known sources of income.

82. I have gone through the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court Krishnanand Agnihotri v. State of M.P., AIR 1977 SC 796 : 1977 Cr. LJ 566. As per this judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in case the assets possessed by the appellant are in excess of the surplus income available to him but less than 10% of the total income, it would not be right to hold that the assets found in the possession of the appellant were disproportionate to his known sources of income so as to justify the raising of the presumption under Subsection (3) of Section 5.

83. Since in the present case, the assets of accused are less than 10% of his total income, I hold that he was not found in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income so as to hold him guilty u/s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of P.C. Act.

Therefore, I acquit the accused Anuarg Vardhan of the charges framed against them.

84. Bail bond of accused is cancelled and his surety is discharged. Documents of the surey be returned after cancellation of endorsement, if any, thereon. However, fresh bail bonds be furnished CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 70 of 71 u/s. 437 A Cr.P.C.

Fresh bail bonds have been furnished and accepted till 22.4.2015.

85. Original documents filed on record be returned to the IO so that the same may be handed over to the parties/ quarters from whose possession the same had been recovered, after the period of appeal is over.

86. The amount of Rs.3,00,000/ be returned to the rightful claimant as discussed above.

87. File be consigned to Record Room.

88. Before I part with this case, I want to place on record my appreciation for Sh. Akshay Gautam, Ld. Senior PP for CBI in this case for taking me through voluminous record and each entry and the concerned documents while arguments were being heard. Announced in the open Court on 22nd Day of January, 2015.

(SWARANA KANTA SHARMA) SPECIAL JUDGE (CBI05) NEW DELHI / 22.01.2015 CC No. 04/13 State (CBI) Vs. Anurag Vardhan Page No. 71 of 71

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

Rs. 5 vs . on 22 January, 2015