Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Title : State (Cbi) vs . on 23 April, 2014

    IN THE COURT OF MS. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, SPECIAL JUDGE, 
                      CBI­05, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CC No: 51/12
RC No: 11(A)/2008/CBI/ACB/ND
Unique Case ID No: 02403R0384512009

Title : State (CBI)

               Vs.

          Samir Kumar Ghosh S/o Late Sh. Barindraa Kumar Ghosh R/o B­605,  
          Royal  Towers, Sector­61, Noida, Uttar Pradesh.  

U/s:    Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of   
           Corruption Act, 1988.  

                           Date of Institution                      :         25.11.2009
                           Date of Reserving Order  :                         15.3.2014
                           Date of Pronouncement                    :         24.3.2014
(Appearances)

Sh. Akshay Gautam, Ld. Senior PP for CBI.
Sh. Yogesh Verma, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for accused Samir Kumar Ghosh.
IO Inspector S.K. Sinha.

J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

     1.

Brief facts of the case are that accused Samir Kumar Ghosh who was working as Senior Manager in MSTC Ltd., was trapped while accepting illegal gratification of Rs. 2 lakhs on 24.01.2007, and consequent thereto, raid was conducted by CBI at his residential premises and the present RC was registered on the complaint dated 14.3.2008 by CBI, New Delhi.

2. It is alleged that total income of the accused and his family comes CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 1 of 93 to Rs. 60.50 lakhs approximately during the check period between December 1983 to 24.01.2007, while the total expenditure comes to Rs. 25.75 lakhs leaving the likely savings Rs. 34.75 lakhs approximately. However, the accused has been found in possession of assets amounting to Rs. 60.50 lakhs which are disproportionate to the tune of Rs. 26,95,258.58/­ which has not been satisfactorily accounted for by him.

3. It is the case of CBI that the accused had joined M/s. Balmer and Lawrie Company Ltd. at Calcutta in 1980 as Management Trainee and had left the firm in 1982 after serving for 1­1/2 years, during which he was getting Rs. 1,000/­ per month as salary. The gross income prior to check period was Rs. 18,000/­ only. As per the statement­B, the assets at the end of check period have been found in the nature of 35 FDRs in different banks, 4 deposits in KVPs, amount in PPF, investments in UTI, Infrastructure Bonds, NSS Account, Investments in UTI, Shares, Flat no. B­605, Royal Tower, Sector­61, Noida purchased for Rs. 24,42,427/­, two cars make Maruti­800 and other Maruti­Alto besides ornaments and thus totaling Rs. 59,05,826.70/­.

4. With regard to the income during the check period, CBI has calculated the Net Salary Income, Incentives, Ex­gratia payments, Flat Maintenance Allowance, Leave Encashment, Rent for Self Leased Accommodation, Children Education Allowance, Salary and other Allowances paid to Ms. Runa Ghosh, Interest from various FDRs, PPF CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 2 of 93 Account Dividends besides Redemption amount paid by UTI and also loan taken from KPF which comes to Rs. 64,97,095.78/­.

5. CBI has calculated the amount spent by the accused alongwith his wife Smt. Runa Ghosh towards the FDRs, school fees of their son, installment towards the home loan, car loan, expenditure made towards purchase of bonds, shares and unverifiable kitchen expenses towards the 1/3rd of gross salary minus expenditure which comes to Rs. 35,04,527.66/­.

6. It is thus that the CBI has arrived at the figure of disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs. 26,95,258.58/­ to known sources of income of the accused and his wife.

7. In the light of the said position, it was found that there were likely savings of Rs. 31,92,568.12 as against which the accused was having assets disproportionate to his known sources of income to the extent of Rs. 26,95,258.58 i.e. about 39%. It is alleged that accused was not able to give any satisfactory explanation regarding the acquisition of such assets and accordingly, on completion of the investigation, the present charge sheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C was filed against the accused.

8. Accused had appeared in the Court and copies of documents, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., were supplied to him, to his satisfaction.

CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 3 of 93 CHARGE

9. The accused has been charged for committing an offence under Section 13(1)(e) r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

10. CBI in support of their case have examined 50 witnesses.

11. PW­1 Sh. Alok Kumar Payal, Senior Manager, HDFC Bank proved D­2 in respect of information regarding various deposits in the name of accused Samir Kumar Ghosh and Smt. Runa Ghosh. He stated that the details of investments in the name of Smt. Runa Ghosh and accused Samir Kumar Ghosh are contained in Ex. PW1/B. On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Samir Kumar Ghosh he stated that the amount mentioned in portion encircled in red in Ex. PW1/B are the initial deposits made by the investors. He stated that he cannot admit or deny as to whether the initial deposit of Rs. 65,000/­ on 29.01.2001 was bifurcated into two deposits of Rs. 30,000/­ and Rs. 35,000/­ each. He admitted that a cheque of Rs. 65,900/­ was issued against entry mentioned at serial no. 2 as part maturity amount at point X. He stated that he cannot admit or deny that on part payment of maturity amount of Rs. 65,926/­ at point Y, whether the amount was re­invested after being bifurcated into Rs. 30,000/­ and Rs. 58,000/­. He stated that deposit receipts Ex. C­1 to Ex. C­11 have matured. CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 4 of 93

12. PW­2 Sh. S.K. Tripathi, CMD, MSTC proved sanction order dated 22.10.2009 Ex. PW2/A. On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Samir Kumar Ghosh, he stated that he had accorded sanction after carefully going through the documents placed before him by the Vigilance Department of MSTCE. He admitted that alongwith the request of CBI, the file also contained a draft sanction order, however, he denied that the sanction was typed by the Vigilance Department and the same was put up before him and he had put his signatures on the same in mechanical manner, without application of mind.

13. PW­3 Sh. M.J. Kausar, Senior Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd. proved document D­6 which is the account opening form in the name of accused Samir Kumar Ghosh and Smt. Runa Ghosh Ex. PW3/B. He also proved document D­6/B and D­6/C and stated that these forms were for investment in FD for Rs. 52,000/­ respectively on 11.6.2002. He stated that for investment in two FDs, the amount had been transferred from account no. 0031000237313 and in both the case, the nominee was Sh. Anirban Ghosh, the son of applicants. He also proved FDR in the name of Smt. Runa Ghosh for Rs. 59620.96/­ and in the name of accused Samir Kumar Ghosh for Rs. 52,000/­ and another FD in the name of accused Samir Kumar Ghosh for Rs. 56,298.82/­ Ex. PW3/G to Ex. PW3/I. He also proved two more FDs in the name of accused Samir Kumar Ghosh in the sum of Rs. 62,817.38/­ Ex. PW3/J and another in the same account Ex. CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 5 of 93 PW3/K in the name of Smt. Runa Ghosh.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Samir Kumar Ghosh he stated that as per statements of account Ex. PW3/F, Rs. 52,000/­ each were deposited initially towards fixed deposit. He admitted that the deposit was made consequent to transfer of such amount from the saving bank account of accused Samir Kumar Ghosh.

14. PW­4 Sh. Yudishter Sharma, Assistant Director, Postal Service, Delhi proved the PPF account opening form in the name of accused Samir Kumar Ghosh dated 14.3.1998 with initial deposit of Rs. 2,000/­ Ex. PW4/A. He also proved the copy of ledger PPF of the said account for the period 14.3.1998 to 31.3.2008 Ex. PW4/B. On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Samir Kumar Ghosh he stated that the total investment for the year was Rs. 72,000/­ and the balance was the interest as per the statement Ex. PW4/B.

15. PW­5 Sh. Anand Singh Rathi stated that he had provided information to the Investigating Officer with regard to the NSS Account No. in the name of accused Samir Kumar Ghosh. He stated that as per the ledger, the account was opened on 24/29.3.1990 with initial deposit of Rs. 14,000/­ and according to the statement the said amount of deposit has been shown in the financial year 2007­08 as to Rs. 59,118/­. He stated that in the said statement, the initial deposit as well as the interest amount has been bifurcated and also shows withdrawal of Rs. 25,540/­ on 27.6.1994. CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 6 of 93 He proved the ledger as Ex. PW5/B. On being cross examined by Ld. counsel for accused Samir Kumar Ghosh he stated that after withdrawal of Rs. 25,540/­ on 27.6.1994, there was balance of Rs. 15,719/­ in the account on which interest had accrued from time to time and it brought it to about Rs. 59,118/­ in the year 2007­08.

16. PW­6 Sh. Raj Kumar Chaudhary stated that on 25.7.2009 he was working as Special Assistant in Indian Overseas Bank, Tolstoy Marg. He proved the account opening form in the name of accused Samir Kumar Ghosh Ex. PW6/A, specimen signature card of accused Samir Kumar Ghosh and Smt. Runa Ghosh Ex. PW6/B and Ex. PW6/C. Account statements of FDR in the name of accused Samir Kumar Ghosh and Smt. Runa Ghosh Ex. PW6/D. He proved the account statement of accused Samir Kumar Ghosh no. 10662 in the joint name of accused Samir Kumar Ghosh and Smt. Runa Ghosh from 01.01.2005 to 24.01.2007 running into 9 sheets as Ex. PW6/E which shows last balance in the account as Rs. 22,167.79/­. He stated that the face value of the FDR bearing no. 510601246, 47 and 48 were purchased for an amount of Rs. 48,537/­ each. The maturity value of the same has been mentioned in each FDR of Ex. PW6/D. The details of further FDRs are also mentioned in the statement Ex. PW6/D which were purchased for the amounts mentioned at point D, E, F and G. He stated that original face value of FD no. 510601246, 47 and 48 is Rs. 40,000/­ each which were originally CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 7 of 93 purchased as FDR no. 510300320, 321 and 322, interest subsequently renewed with over due interest is mentioned in Ex. PW6/D. On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Samir Kumar Ghosh he stated that the FDR mentioned at points D and E on Ex. PW6/D were initially deposited for a sum of Rs. 35,000/­ each. He further stated that the said FDR mentioned at points D and D on Ex. PW6/D were further renewed after accruing interest mentioned at points F and G and the maturity value of said two FDRs was Rs. 50,004/­ each. Likewise, three FDRs bearing no. 510300320, 321 and 322 were initially deposited for sum of Rs. 40,000/­ each and after accruing interest on the said FDRs, the same were renewed for sum of Rs. 56,425/­.

17. PW­7 Sh. Sanjeev Gupta stated that during the year 2008 he was working as Consultant of Royal Sehkari Awas Samiti Ltd. He stated that as per letter of Sh. Vinay Kumar who is Secretary of the Samiti, accused Samir Kumar Ghosh had invested an amount of Rs. 24,42,317/­ for allotment of flat no. B­605 and Parking B­28 having membership number

165. The letter in this regard was proved as Ex. PW7/A. He also proved letter Ex. A­4 issued by Sh. Vinay Kumar vide which Rs. 20,000/­ were deposited towards Security Maintenance and Rs. 10,000/­ towards Maintenance of Society. He stated that the number of the receipts are mentioned in Ex. A­4. He stated that as per this letter, Rs. 3,000/­ were due towards maintenance as on 31.3.2007.

CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 8 of 93

18. PW­8 Sh. Mohan Verma stated that he is working with Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company. He stated that as per letter Mark PW8/A, accused Samir Kumar Ghosh and Smt. Runa Ghosh had invested Rs. 50,000/­ each for purchase of CDRs on 28.7.2003 which had matured on 27.7.2005 and 28.7.2005 respectively and sum of Rs. 58,005/­ each.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Samir Kumar Ghosh he stated that he had no personal knowledge of Mark PW8/A. The same was received in his office and he handed over the same to the offcials of CBI.

19. PW­9 Sh. B.K. Parsad, Assistant Manager, IDBI Bank stated that he can identify signatures of Smt. G.K. Kohli, DGM as he had seen her writing and signing during the ordinary course of business of bank. He stated that letter Ex. PW9/A was issued by Smt. G.K. Kohli. He stated that vide this letter interest amount of Rs.1293/­ and Rs.1293/­ have been mentioned at point B which were paid to the accused in respect of FDR no. 31/1/14701 dated 27.03.2004. He stated that the amount invested vide this FDR was Rs.14,300/­ but the amount remained unpaid up to 27.03.2007 and the investor had not surrendered the FDR for payment till date. He stated that this information was provided to CBI vide letter Ex.PW9/B. Vide this letter Ex.PW9/B it is made clear that interest accrued on the FDR was not paid to the investor and remained with the bank unpaid. He stated that he has brought the original form from the bank in CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 9 of 93 respect of this FDR. The photocopy of the application form were provided by him under his signature and stamp to CBI which was Ex.PW9/C­1, C­2 and C­3 respectively.

He proved investment made by accused Samir Kumar Ghosh for two flexi bonds Rs. 5,000/­ for each bond and total investment was Rs. 10,000/­ from the date of allotment i.e. 27.03.1999 and date of maturity 27.03.2002. He stated that out of the total matured amount of Rs.14,300/­, an amount of Rs.300/­ was paid to the investor and he re­invested Rs. 14,000/­ as fixed deposit. The details of these flexi bonds are mentioned in Ex.PW9/D which was issued under his stamp and signature at point A. The application form of these flexi bond is Ex.PW9/D1 bears his stamps and signature at point A. He stated that he has seen the details of five flexi bonds issued in the name of accused Runa Ghosh, wife of accused Samir Kumar Ghosh in the joint name of both was Ex.PW9/K. He purchased five flexi bonds for an amount of Rs.25,000/­ on 25.04.2003 and the same were matured on 25.10.2008. The attested photocopy of the application was Ex.PW9/K­1 bears his stamp and signature at point A. On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Samir Kumar Ghosh he admitted that all the bonds were redeemed / matured after the interest.

20. PW­9 Sh. S.N. Jha was inadvertently examined as PW­9.

However, he was to be examined as PW­10 as PW Sh. B.K. Parsad had CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 10 of 93 already been examined as PW­9. He stated that he was working in Karvy Computer Share Pvt. Ltd. since 1997.

He stated that he has seen the details of investments provided by him under his signatures through two sheets made by accused Sameer Kumar Ghosh and Smt. Runa Ghosh on different date.

After going through the documents, he stated that investor accused Sameer Kumar Ghosh vide folio no. 55716572382 had invested Rs. 60,000/­ on different occasions and had received bonus as well as maturity amount. He stated that the document containing details of investment was Ex.PW9/A. He stated that in the second page of detail of investment, the investor has made several investments which as per calculation comes to Rs.1,36,000/­. He stated that he has also invested in UTI Index Fund as mentioned in Column no. 5 Ex.PW9/B to the tune of Rs.25,520/­ on 11.4.2007 and had redeemed the same on 14.7.2007. The detail of dividend and bonus received against the investments were also mentioned in the relevant column of this letter. He stated that the letter Ex.PW9/B bears the initials of Sh. K. Manmadha Rao at point A alongwith the seal of the Company.

He stated that he had received three letters including Ex.PW9/A and Ex.PW9/B from their different departments which he had supplied to CBI in Delhi and he can tell the description of the documents and the issuing authority after seeing those documents.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Samir Kumar CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 11 of 93 Ghosh he stated that he had joined Karvy Computers Pvt. Ltd. in the year 1997 and his posting was in Delhi but he used to visit Hyderabad Head Office frequently. He stated that he did not work as subordinate to Sh. K. Manmadha Rao in Hyderabad or Delhi. After seeing letter Ex.PW9/A which was addressed to Sh. S. K. Sinha, Inspector of Police, CBI, he admitted that the same was not endorsed to him. He stated that it is also not mentioned that he has to supply documents to CBI. He voluntarily stated that since CBI Office is in Delhi, the documents which were to be handed over to CBI were asked to be supplied from the local Branch in Delhi. He admitted that the direction for handing over the papers to CBI is not mentioned in any document in Judicial File. He voluntarily stated that the same might be in his official file, but he is not sure. He stated that he does not remember the date when he had handed over the letter Ex.PW9/A to CBI. The documents were handed over to CBI after receipt of notice from them. The notice was issued to UTI Hyderabad and not to him personally. He denied that he was not competent to hand over documents to CBI. CBI had not asked for authorization from him. He admitted that he has not seen any certificates mentioned in Ex.PW9/A, Ex.PW9/B, Ex.PW9/C and Ex.PW9/D. He stated that he has no personal knowledge about the investments mentioned in Ex.PW9/A, Ex.PW9/B, Ex.PW9/C and Ex.PW9/D. He stated that as per Ex.PW9/A, the investment of Rs. 60,000/­ was made at different times. The value per unit is minimum Rs.10/­ and it can be increased from time to time.

He admitted that that as per document mentioned at Serial no. 1 CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 12 of 93 i.e. UTI Opportunity Fund, a sum of Rs. 40,000/­ was invested and at the maturity time, 2053 units had accrued and the same were given to the applicant.

He stated that as per Ex.PW9/B (UTI Mid Cap Fund), a dividend of Rs.2,850/­ was given. He admitted that in the said detail Ex.PW9/B, the redemption amount of the said Mid Cap Fund is not mentioned. He cannot say if redemption amount of Rs.6,874/­ was also given to the applicant/accused Sameer Kumar Ghosh by the Company UTI Mutual Funds. He admitted that as per Ex.PW9/B, a dividend of Rs.2,947.37/­ was paid apart from the redemption amount of Rs.10,554.60/­. He admitted that as per Ex.PW9/B as mentioned (UTI Infrastructure Fund) a dividend of Rs.7,990/­ was paid apart from the redemption amount of Rs. 17,112/­. He admitted that the bonus and redemption amount of item no. 7 is in the relevant column and the same are blank. He admitted that the bonus and redemption amount are given in the same scheme. He admitted that the dividend details for the folio no. 22558 was also sent alongwith Ex. PW9/C. He stated that the dividend details of the investment and as per the document sum of Rs. 394/­ were given till 2008.

21. PW­10 Sh. Naresh Kumar Administrative Manager in Vipul Motors Private Ltd. stated that Ex.PW10/A bears the signature of authorized signatory of his company at point A which he can identify. He stated that as per the details given in this letter one Maruti 800 car was sold to Smt. Runa Ghosh, W/o accused Samir Kumar Ghosh for an amount of Rs. CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 13 of 93 2,18,340/­ and the detail of payment receipt are mentioned in this letter. He stated that all the receipts were Ex.PW10/A­1, A­2, A­3 and A­4. The photocopies of receipts were the true abstracts of the record maintained by his office during the ordinary course of business.

He stated that the company had furnished the details of vehicle to the Transport Department and on the basis of that the Transport Department had issued the RC Number by allotting the registration number. He stated that on the basis of delivery challan Ex. PW10/A7, the Transport Department, Uttar Pradesh had allotted the registration number of the vehicle as UP16 M 2081 for the vehicle Maruti 800 MPI in the name of Smt. Runa Ghosh W/o of accused Samir Kumar Ghosh.

22. PW­10 Sh. Sharwan Mangla was also inadvertently examined as PW­10. He stated that he had been working in MAS Services Ltd. since 2002. He stated that as far as he remembered he had given documents to CBI. He stated that Ex. PW10/A running into 2 pages bears his signatures at point A. He stated that vide these documents, the details of investments and the interest/redemption amount release of Sh. Samir Kumar Ghosh is in the relevant column. He stated that the details of investments are mentioned at Point X and interest/redemption amounts are mentioned at X1.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Samir Kumar Ghosh he stated that Ex. PW10/A and B were signed by him in the office of CBI. As per the record ,Ex. PW10/A a sum of Rs. 10,095/­ were given CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 14 of 93 to the investor and as per Ex. PW10/B a sum of Rs. 20,189/­ were given to the investor.

23. PW­11 Sh. Yashpal Sehgal, working in Titan Industries, G­16, Sough Extension Part­I has stated that since 2007 their company deals in Tanishq Jewellery. He proved cash memo issued by their company Ex. PW11/A for an amount of Rs. 2,144/­ for sale of one narrow ring, Ex. PW11/B vide which old gold to the tune of Rs. 1208/­ was purchased from the customer whose name is written in the exchange bill and an amount of Rs. 936/­ was charged against bill Ex. PW11/A, memo Ex. PW11/C vide which stud ear ring were sold to Smt. Runa Ghosh for an amount of Rs. 3,800/­. He stated that all these bills were issued by their company from the cash memos used during the ordinary course of business.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Samir Kumar Ghosh he admitted that in Ex. PW11/C only Smt. Runa Ghosh is written and no address has been given.

24. PW­11 Sh. V.M. Joshi was also inadvertently examined as PW­11.

He stated that he was working as Link InTime since September 2007, stated that his office has provided information regarding investments made by accused Samir Kumar Ghosh with his wife Smt. Runa Ghosh. He stated that as per the detail given in this letter Ex. PW11/A, accused Samir Kumar Ghosh and Smt. Runa Ghosh had invested Rs. 40,000/­ in eight bonds of Rs. 5,000/­ each. He stated that the detail of interest paid was CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 15 of 93 given in the annexure 2 of the letter Ex. PW11/B issued under the signatures of Sh. P.H.A. Krishnan. He stated that the bonds were redeemed on 30.4.2007.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Samir Kumar Ghosh he admitted that the documents Ex. PW11/A and Ex. PW11/B were not prepared by him and the same were received from his Bombay office and he merely handed over the same to CBI. He stated that Ex. PW11/A bearing the redeemed value of the bonds are Rs. 22,340/­ for all the four bonds in the joint name of accused Samir Kumar Ghosh and Smt. Runa Ghosh apart from the interest.

25. PW­12 Sh. Sivakumar R. working in Titan Industries since1989, proved Ex. PW11/A, Ex. PW11/B and Ex. PW11/C which were issued by their company and stated that the amount reflected in these exhibits is correct.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Samir Kumar Ghosh he admitted that on these exhibites only Smt. Runa Ghosh and accused Samir Kumar Ghosh was written and no address is written.

26. PW­13 Sh. Kaushik Parekh working in the firm Tribhuvan Dass Bhimji Zaveri Delhi Pvt. Ltd. at 2, Scindia House, Janpath, Delhi stated that Mr. E. Madhwan has left the company and he was authorized by the company vide authorization Ex. PW13/a to appear and identify the bills issued by their company.

CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 16 of 93 He has also proved bill no. 207 for an amount of Rs. 18,476/­ Ex. PW13/B and bill no. 1267 for an amount of Rs. 15,233/­ Ex. PW13/C. He stated that these bills were issued from the bill book used by the company during the ordinary course of business to the customer. He also identified card Ex. PW13/E, E­1 and E­2 which were issued by the company for the ornaments purchased vide Ex. PW13/C.

27. PW­14 Sh. Devender Singh Yadav stated that fair search was conducted by CBI officials in his presence and search cum seizure Ex.PW14/A was prepared at the spot giving the details of seized items and all the documents were seized vide seizure memo and was signed or initialed by him. The details of share certificates and LIC Policies / premium receipts and inventory of the items observed were mentioned in the annexure to seizure memo. The annexure was Ex.PW14/B and the same also bears his signatures at point A on all the four pages. He stated that an inventory in respect of items of household was also prepared and their year of acquisition and approximate cost was also mentioned in the inventory which was Ex.PW14/C. He stated that at the time of search wife of the accused Smt. Runa Ghosh remained present through out and the raids of items and their period of acquisition were mentioned in the inventory in consultation with Smt. Runa Ghosh with all the search team members.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Samir Kumar Ghosh he stated that his Senior Officer had directed him to visit the Office CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 17 of 93 of CBI. He did not remember whether he had made any entry in the relevant register when he had reached CBI Office. He stated that he does not remember whether the fact regarding personal search of CBI Officials was mentioned in the Search Memo or not. The CBI Officials were preparing the Search Memo room wise. He voluntarily stated that for each room after the search, the memo was prepared simultaneously.

Attention of the witness was drawn to search memo Ex. PW14/A and after going through the same, he admitted that in the Memo Ex.PW14/A the reference of rooms is not given. He admitted that it is nowhere mentioned in the Memo that from where the recovery of these articles were made. He voluntarily stated that it was recovered from the house of the accused. He stated that he does not remember whether any official evaluator had accompanied CBI team. However, the members of the team were evaluating the value of the articles. CBI Officials had seized some of the bills. The said bills were not shown to him in the Court. He again said, he does not remember if the said bills were seized or not. He stated that Mrs. Ghosh had provided the details regarding her sarees and the jewellery including those which she had received as gifts from relatives and friends. He denied that the said recovery was not effect in his presence. He again denied that all the documents were prepared by the Officials of CBI on their own or that his signatures were obtained upon them subsequently. The neighbours of the accused were not called to join the raid proceedings. He admitted that Mrs. Ghosh had informed the CBI Officials that her entire jewellery and other articles had been gifted by her CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 18 of 93 parents and she further informed that her parents continuously support them financially as well. The wife of the accused had informed the raiding team that most of the money belonged to some religious function/ Mandir situated in the society. He stated that two officials of the raiding team had recovered the articles and the same were put on the central table of the house of the accused and all the memos were prepared while sitting on the said table. He stated that the Memo Ex.PW14/A, Ex.PW14/B and Ex.PW14/C were prepared while sitting on the said Central Table of the house.

He denied that nothing incriminating was recovered from the house of the accused. He further denied that all the documents were prepared in the Office of CBI and his signatures were obtained upon them subsequently.

28. PW­15 Smt. Asha Batra, working as office assistant in Dev Samaj Modern School, Nehru Nagar, stated that in the year 2008, Ms. S. Jolly was their Principal under whose signature on the forwarding letter details of salary paid to Ms. Runa Ghosh was sent to CBI. The salary statement was Ex.PW15/A. She stated that the details of salary statement was prepared from the record maintained by the school during the ordinary course of business. She stated that the salary statement was for the month of October 1999 to January, 2007.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Samir Kumar Ghosh she denied that the gross total income of Smt. Runa Ghosh was CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 19 of 93 wrongly calculated.

29. PW­16 Sh. Shashi Kant Tiwary, Deputy Manager, Finance and Accounts, MSTC Ltd., Baroda was working as Assistant Manager on 20.2.2008. He stated that Sh. Ashok Kumar was Regional Manager at that time. He could identify the signatures of Sh. Ashok Kumar on Ex.PW16/A at point A as he had seen him writing and signing during the ordinary course of business. He stated that vide letter Ex.PW16/A, the salary statement of accused S.K. Ghosh was provided to CBI from 26.12.1983 to January, 2007 vide three annexures A, B and C respectively as mentioned in the letter. He stated that the salary statements were prepared from the record maintained and as available in the Office. He stated that another salary statement for the period November, 1991 to March, 1996 was provided to CBI vide letter Ex.PW16/B which bears his signatures at point A. The details of the period November, 1991 to March, 1996 was not available in the salary statements provided vide letter Ex.PW16/A. He stated that the salary statements forwarded through letter Ex.PW16/A is collectively exhibited as Ex.PW16/A­1 and the salary statements provided vide letter Ex.PW16/B is collectively exhibited as Ex.PW16/B­1.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Samir Kumar Ghosh he stated that an amount of Rs.2,54,606/­ is the reimbursed amount regarding the allowances. The stated that the accused was entitled to as per his self certification basis. It is not part of his income. He stated that the amount of Rs.2,31,163/­ was paid as ex­gratia, CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 20 of 93 incentive, flat maintenance, leave encashment and rent for self­lease accommodation. He stated that out of this amount, sum of Rs.46,500/­ is not reflected in the statement. He voluntarily stated that it is reflected in the statement. He stated that he cannot say whether an amount of Rs. 7,713/­ was leave encashment amount for which the accused was entitled to for the period from 1989 to 1991. He stated that a net amount of Rs. 1,04,430/­ was paid as arrears to accused Samir Kumar Ghosh. He has already given the details of benefits in his statement which was Ex.PW16/A­1 and Ex.PW16/B­1. He stated that the amount of Rs.811/­ was ad­hoc payment for the period from August, 1987 to January, 1990. He stated that he cannot say, if the same is on monthly basis or yearly basis. He stated that he does not know as to whether during the period from 1983 to 2007 there were five pay revisions.

30. PW­17 Sh. B.L. Batra, M/s Batra Jewels, 10­A, Central Market, Lajpat Nagar­II, New Delhi proved Ex. PW17/A which was issued from his shop by his employee for an amount of Rs. 1212/­.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Samir Kumar Ghosh he admitted that the name of the customer is not mentioned on the Ex. PW17/A. He stated that he does not remember as to whom the said ornament was sold.

31. PW­18 Sh. Prem Prakash owner of Rama Krishna Jewellers at Central Market, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi stated that estimate bill Ex. CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 21 of 93 PW18/A to Ex. PW18/K were issued from their shop to the customer who had purchased the items mentioned against the amounts mentioned in the exhibits as mentioned above. He stated that he cannot say whether Ex. PW18/F was issued from their shop or not because there is no mention of name of their shop and he cannot identify the writing and signatures on this slip because the employees frequently leave the job from the shop. However, there is no name of any customer on the above said exhibites but, the bill and estimates were issued to the customer who had paid the said amounts.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Samir Kumar Ghosh he stated that he cannot say as to who had purchased these ornaments because there is no mention of any customer name on these bills Ex. PW18/A to Ex. PW18/K.

32. PW­19 Sh. Shashikant has stated that he was working with M/s Laxmi Art Jewellers with his brother Sh. Dharam Pal at K­94, Lajpat Nagar­II, New Delhi. He proved bill Ex. PW19/A for sale of gold and diamond items mentioned in the bill for an amount of Rs. 12,450/­ which bears his signature at Point A. He stated that he knows accused Samir Kumar Ghosh, present in the court.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Samir Kumar Ghosh he stated that after seeing accused Samir Kumar Ghosh he identifies him and he knows him as he used to come to his shop of and on. He stated that he remembers that he had sold the items mentioned in Ex. CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 22 of 93 PW19/A to the accused present in the court. He denied that he does not know the accused and he is deposing falsely regarding identifying the accused and have falsely deposed regarding Ex. PW19/A.

33. PW­20 Sh. Rajiv Kumar, Manager, IDBI Bank Ltd., stated that on 27.9.2008 he was working as Assistant Manager in IDBI Bank. He proved letter Ex. PW20/A vide which he had furnished the requisite information regarding the housing loan taken by accused Samir Kumar Ghosh from the bank. The loan application Ex. PW20/B was in the joint name of Smt. Runa Ghosh. An amount of Rs. 14 lakhs was sanctioned vide Ex. PW20/C and was disbursed. The disbursement was completed by 26.02.2005. As per the account statement Ex. PW20/D, an amount of Rs. 4,35,013 was paid back by accused Samir Kumar Ghosh between 11.5.2004 to 24.01.2007.

Ld. Counsel for accused did not examine the said witness despite opportunity being given to him.

34. PW­21 Sh. Pawan Soni, Sales Manager, Competent Automobiles Company Limited, 3Cs Complex, Lajpat Nagar­II, Near Police Station, New Delhi­24 has stated that he was working as Sales Manager with Competent Automobiles Company Limited.

He proved the sale of one Alto VX Car for an amount of Rs. 3,69,091.89/­. The bill was proved as Ex.PW21/A. Ld. Counsel for accused Samir Kumar Ghosh did not cross CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 23 of 93 examine the said witness despite opportunity given to him.

35. PW­22 Sh. Vijay Sharma stated that he is working as carpenter.

He proved letter of his company i.e. Sharma Furniture Contractor dated 08.5.2005. He stated that as per the writing on letter head, he had done furnishing wood work at the house of accused present in the Court. He had received a payment of Rs.1,75,000/­ from Mr. Ghosh out of the total final amount of Rs.2,25,000/­ approximately. He proved the letter pad Ex.PW22/A which bears his writing and the details of payments to be received at the backside of Ex.PW22/A where he had mentioned the details of payments received by him in encircled portion A. The house of Mr. Ghosh was situated at Noida, Sector­61 but when attention of the witness was drawn to Ex.PW22/A, he stated that the house of Mr. Ghosh was situated at Noida, Sector­62. The details of payments received were also mentioned on the backside of the Ex.PW22/A at point A. On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Samir Kumar Ghosh he stated that he is not assesse to any Service Tax or Income Tax. He has no office for this work. He used to purchase wodden, kitchen articles and other goods from the market. He has no bill for the purchase of the articles mentioned in the document Ex. PW22/A. He stated that he himself does the work of POP, painting and wooden work with the help of other workers. He stated that the IO had not made any inquiry regarding the work done by him at the house of accused Samir Kumar Ghosh from other co­workers. The IO had not taken him to CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 24 of 93 the house of accused Samir Kumar Ghosh to point out the work done by him. He stated that he cannot produce any bill regarding payment of wages to the workers or regarding purchase of raw material.

Attention of the witness was drawn to Ex. PW22/A and after going through the same he stated that the same was written by him.

He admitted that in the said document Ex. PW22/A, the number of flat is not mentioned anywhere. He admitted that in the said document the number of Sector in mentioned as 62 on point X. He admitted that the name of accused Samir Kumar Ghosh is not mentioned in the said document Ex. PW22/A. He denied that the said document was prepared at the instance of CBI officials. He stated that he does not remember as to how many floors were there in the said society.

36. PW­23 Sh. Dibyendu Sarkar, Manager (Sales), P.C. Chandran Gems Pvt. Ltd., K­1/20, C.R. Park, New Delhi has stated that he has been working in P.C. Chandran Gems Pvt. Ltd. since 2004. He is working in Delhi Office since 2007. He stated that they used to issue bills to the customers for sale of Jewellery items. He proved the bill Ex.PW23/A issued by thier firm in the name of Smt. Runa Ghosh, 91/1, Raipur Road, Kolkata­92 for an amount of Rs.13,155/­ for the sale of gold item as mentioned in the bill. He stated that the bill was issued by Gariahat Branch, Kolkata.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Samir Kumar Ghosh he stated that he had joined M/s. P.C. Chandra Jewellers in the CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 25 of 93 year 2004. He admitted that the address of Delhi Branch is not mentioned in the said bill. He further admitted that the bill Ex.PW23/A was a computerized bill and the same can be taken out from the computer anytime.

37. PW­24 Uttiya Chowdhury, Director, Anjali Jewellers Pvt. Ltd.

stated that he is working since 1992. He stated that they used to issue bills to the customers for the gold items towards the jewelleries sold from their showroom. He proved Ex.PW24/A and Ex.PW24/B issued from their firm in the name of Smt. Runa Ghosh, 91/1, Raipur Road, Kolkata. He stated that both these bills were for amount of Rs.9,400/­ and Rs.1700/­ respectively. The amounts of the said bills were received in cash.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Samir Kumar Ghosh he admitted that that bills Ex.PW24/A and Ex.PW24/B were computer generated bills. The print out of the bills can be taken any time from the computer.

38. PW­25 Sh. K. Suri Babu working as Senior Manager, Operations, M/s Nagajurna Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. Hyderabad during 18.06.2009 proved the letter Ex. PW25/A issued under his signatures. He stated that as per the details given in this letter Smt. Runa Ghosh was having 100 shares + 100 shares of the Company. She had invested Rs. 1,000/­ and 1,600/­ respectively for the acquisition of the said shares. He stated that she was paid dividend of Rs. 2340/­ during the period 1993­94 CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 26 of 93 to 1999­2000 against above 200 Shares.

Ld. Counsel for accused Samir Kumar Ghosh did not examine the said witness despite opportunity being given to him.

39. PW­26 Sh. Vinay Kumar, R/o T­1, 503 J.M. Park Sapphire, Ghaziabad, U.P. proved Ex. PW7/A and stated that the same was issued by Sh. Sanjeev Gupta. He stated that this letter was issued at his instructions by Sh. Sanjeev Gupta as he was working as Hon'ble Secretary of the Royal Sahkari Awaas Samiti Ltd. since 2006 till date.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Samir Kumar Ghosh he stated that he had joined the society in 2006. Any receipts which were issued prior to 2006 are not in his knowledge.

40. PW­27 Sh. Vijaya Kumar Singh, Manager, Indian Overseas bank, Thirumalayampalayam, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu has stated that he was working as Assistant Manager from October, 2007 to July, 2011. He proved the account opening form in the name of accused Samir Kumar Ghosh Ex. PW6/A. The specimen signature card of accused Samir Kumar Ghosh and Runa Ghosh were proved as Ex.PW6/B and Ex.PW6/B, Account Statements of FDR accounts in the name of Samir Kumar Ghosh and Runa Ghosh were proved as Ex.PW6/D. He stated that details of account of deposit which was already exhibited as Ex. PW6/D bears his signature. Sh. Pawan Kumar Garg was his AGM, and he could identify his signatures. He stated that the account statement was a true extract of the CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 27 of 93 record maintained in their bank. The last balance in this account is Rs. 28,167.79/­. He stated that the FDR bearing no. 510601246, 47 and 48 were purchased for an amount of Rs.48,537/­ each. He stated that the maturity value of the same has been mentioned at points A, B and C in each FDR of Ex. PW6/D. He stated that the details of other FDRs is also mentioned in the statement Ex.PW6/D which were purchased for the amounts as mentioned above at points D,E,F and G. He stated that the original face value of the FDR no. 510601246, 47 and 48 is Rs.40,000/­ each which were originally purchased as FDR no. 510300320, 321 and 322, interest subsequently renewed with overdue interest is mentioned in Ex.PW6/D. On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Samir Kumar Ghosh he stated that the FDRs mentioned at point D and E on Ex.PW6/D were initially deposited for a sum of Rs.35,000/­ each. The said FDRs mentioned at points D and E on Ex.PW6/D were further renewed after accruing interest as mentioned at points F and G and the maturity values of the said two FDRs were Rs.50,004/­ each. He stated that likewise, the three FDRs bearing no. 510300320, 321 and 322 were initially deposited for a sum of Rs.40,000/­ each and after accruing interest on the said FDRs, the maturity amount became Rs.56,425/­ each. He stated that the chart Ex.PW6/D was prepared by him and the same bears his signatures at point B. He stated that he had not handed over the Chart Ex.PW6/D to the officials of CBI.

CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 28 of 93

41. PW­28 Sh. Kirti Kantilal Jani was working as Senior Manager, 3i Infotech Ltd. He proved letter dated 13.5.2009 addressed to Mr. S.K. Sinha, Inspector of Police, CBI, New Delhi which bears his signatures. He had furnished information with regard to investment made by accused Samir Kumar Ghosh jointly with Smt. Ruma Ghosh. The said letter was proved as Ex.PW28/A. On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Samir Kumar Ghosh he admitted that a complete statement of accounts is maintained in their bank. He admitted that the mode of payment of purchase of the above said share Ex. PW28/A was not mentioned in the Statement of accounts. He stated that we had taken all the documents relating to investments made by Shipping Credit Corporation of India. He stated that he cannot tell as to whom had made the payment of the share in Ex.PW28/A were received by way of cheque or by cash. He stated that he does not remember as to whether during investigation he was asked to produce the application form for purchase of the shares by CBI. He had brought letter dated 07.5.2009 today sent by Inspector S.K. Sinha, CBI. The said letter was Ex.PW28/DA. He admitted that in the said letter, the IO of the case had asked for the details of mode of payment of the above said shares mentioned in Ex.PW28/A. He stated that in response to the said letter Ex.PW28/DA a reply was sent to the CBI wherein it was mentioned that the details of mode of payment made by the applicant was not available. The detail of payments were not available since they were not sent to Registrar of Shares.

CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 29 of 93

42. PW­29 Sh. Anil Prabhakar Barve Senior Executive, Freedom Registry Limited proved letter dated 30.4.2009 addressed to IO Inspector S.K. Sinha which was signed by authorized signatory of Freedom Registry Limited. He stated that by virtue of this letter, he had furnished the information with regard to investment made by accused Samir Kumar Ghosh and the same was Ex. PW29/A. He has also seen the list of holdings for folio number SS154 in the name of accused of the companies namely Piramal Health Care Limited, Piramal Glass Limited and Piramal Life Science Limited. The details mentioned therein were furnished on the basis of the records maintained in their company in normal course.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused he stated that initially the investment was made by accused Samir Kumar Ghosh with M/s. Sumitra Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals Ltd. and later on the said firm was merged with M/s. Nicolas Piramal India Ltd. He admitted that the face value of NPIL shares was Rs. 10/­ at that time and accused was alloted 15 shares of the value of Rs. 10/­ each in the year 1996 in exchange of the old 300 shares of SPCL and 10 shares of fraction were also alloted to accused Samir Kumar Ghosh. He stated that accused Samir Kumar Ghosh had not made any payment to their company. He stated that he cannot tell the mode of payment of purchase of 300 shares of SPCL made by accused Samir Kumar Ghosh. CBI officials had inquired about the mode of payment of purchase of 300 shares of SPCL. CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 30 of 93

43. PW­30 Sh. Baldev Raj Gogia Administrative Officer, SBI Funds Management Pvt. Ltd. proved letter dated 05.5.2009 containing the details of dividends and statement of accounts addressed to IO signed by Sh. R.M. Kaushik, Vice President (Accounts) Ex. PW30/A. He stated that by virtue of this letter, he had furnished the information with regard to investment made by accused Samir Kumar Ghosh and Sh. Barindra Kumar Ghosh.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused He stated that Ex. PW30/A was not prepared by him and the same was received in his office from Mumbai Branch office. He stated that he had not worked with Mr. R.M. Kaushik and he has not seen him signing. He has identified the signatures of Sh. Kaushik since his name was mentioned beneath the signatures. He stated that generally the payment is made by way of cheque or directly to the accounts of the investor. He admitted that item no. 1 of Ex. PW30/A, the name of the third holder is Barindra Kumar Ghosh jointly with accused Samir Kumar Ghosh.

44. PW­31 Sh. Shyamlendu Shome Senior Associate in TSR Darashaw Ltd. proved letter of information dated 14.5.2009 vide which information regarding investment in shares in the names of accused Samir Kumar Ghosh, Smriti Rekha Ghosh, Runa Ghosh (having accounts no. S1S457859) and also in the joint names of accused Samir Kumar Ghosh, Runa Ghosh and Smriti Rekha Ghosh (having account no. S1S91613) was furnished and the said letter was proved as Ex. PW31/A. CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 31 of 93 On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused he stated that a dividend of Rs. 7,590/­ had accrued in favour of Smriti Rekha Ghosh and accused Samir Kumar Ghosh against folio no. S1S457859. A dividend of Rs. 12,122/­ was also accrued against folio no. S1S91613. He stated that a sum of Rs. 10,200/­ has been redeemed to accused Samir Kumar Ghosh, Smiriti Rekha Ghosh and Runa Ghosh against folio no. S7S0091613 and a sum of Rs. 12,200/­ was also redeemed to accused Samir Kumar Ghosh, Smiriti Rekha Ghosh and Runa Ghosh jointly folio no. S7S0091613.

He stated that a sum of Rs. 10,200/­ was also redeemed to Barindra Kumar Ghosh, Smriti Rekha Ghosh and accused Samir Kumar Ghosh against folio no. S7B0040722 and a sum of Rs. 3,180/­ was also redeemed to accused Samir Kumar Ghosh, Runa Ghosh and Smriti Ghosh against folio no. S6S0090798.

45. PW­32 Sh. Sunil Kumar has stated that he knows Ms. Rajni Bala, Assistant Manager in UTI Technology Service and he can identify her signatures as he has seen her writing and signing during the course of her official duties. He proved certified copy of investor query in respect of Master Equity Plan, 1982 in the name of accused Samir Kumar Ghosh. He stated that accused Samir Kumar Ghosh was alloted 1000 unites of Master Equity Plan on 30.01.1992 at a total cost of Rs. 10,000/­. He stated that Ms. Runa Ghosh was the second applicant and Anirban Ghosh is the nominee. He stated that the said investment was re­deemed on 01.3.2005 CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 32 of 93 and a sum of Rs. 14,500.50/­ was paid to accused Samir Kumar Ghosh. The said investor query was Ex. PW32/A (D­25).

Ld. Counsel for accused Samir Kumar Ghosh did not examine the said witness despite opportunity given to him.

46. PW­33 Sh. Manish Mittal, Manager (Legal), Shakti Bhog Group has stated that he had worked in ICICI Bank, Rohini, New Delhi as Law officer w.e.f July, 2007 to May, 2009. He had seen certified copy of loan application form in respect of Ms. Runa Ghosh, certified copy of repayment schedule in respect of agreement no. LADEL 00007208517, certified copy of statement of car loan account no. LADEL 00007208517 in the name of Ms. Runa Ghosh for the period from 10.8.2006 to 26.3.2009, and certified copy of prepayment schedule. All the aforesaid documents were certified by him and were Ex. PW33/A to Ex. PW33/D respectively. He stated that Ms. Runa Ghosh had availed car loan of Rs. 1,50,000/­. The loan was disbursed on 10.8.2006. He stated that Ms. Runa Ghosh had repaid a total sum of Rs. 34,783/­ towards monthly installments till 24.01.2007. He stated that the monthly installment was Rs. 4,969/­.

Ld. Counsel for accused Samir Kumar Ghosh did not cross examine the said witness despite opportunity given to him.

47. PW­34 Sh. Keshav Ajmani has stated that he had worked as Deputy Manager in MSTC Ltd., Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi since 2004 to 2011. He stated that he had provided certified personal file of accused CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 33 of 93 Samir Kumar Ghosh to CBI and the same is Ex. PW34/A. He further states that accused Samir Kumar Ghosh had never intimated to the Department about any gift/loan, if any received from his relatives or friends.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Samir Kumar Ghosh he stated that he has no personal knowledge regarding the case. He stated that he had only given information to CBI after going through the contents of the personal file. He stated that he had no knowledge as to whether in case an employee received a gift or loan except from the parent company, the documents regarding the same are kept in personal file or not. He stated that he does not know whether accused Samir Kumar Ghosh had informed the Vigilance Department at Kolkata in the year 2004 and 2005 that he has received Rs. 8.5 lakhs as friendly loan from one of his friends or relatives since he had never been posted in Vigilance Department.

48. PW­35 Sh. S.V. Raju was posted in May, 2009 as Assistant General Manager in M/s Karvy Computershare Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. He had furnished the information to CBI about the investment made by accused Samir Kumar Ghosh in M/s Jindal Vijay Nagar Steel Ltd. vide letter Ex. PW9/D. He stated that one separate sheet was also enclosed with the letter certifying the details of investment made by accused Samir Kumar Ghosh and his family members in M/s Jindal Vijay Nagar Steel Ltd.

He stated that he had provided the information regarding CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 34 of 93 investment made by accused Samir Kumar Ghosh in UCO Bank Shares and the same was Ex. PW35/A. He stated that the letter Ex. PW35/A was issued in response to letter of request dated 07.5.2009 made by accused Samir Kumar Ghosh, Company Secretary on behalf of UCO Bank and the same was Ex. PW35/B. He has also proved copy of application form no. B001038 submitted by accused and the same was Ex. PW35/C. On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Samir Kumar Ghosh he stated that accused had applied for 1000 shares of UCO Bank vide an application dated 03.9.2003, but was alloted shares on 01.10.2003 and he had paid a sum of Rs. 12,000/­ towards application money, however, after allotment of 100 shares, the excess money of Rs. 10,800/­ was refunded to accused Samir Kumar Ghosh. He stated that a dividend of Rs. 180/­ was also paid till the financial year 2007­08.

49. PW­36 Sh. Darshan Singh Rawat working as Assistant Accountant in Cambridge School, Noida, UP since October, 1994 has stated that in the year 2009 Smt. Ratna Dhar was the Principal. He proved the original letter dated 30.01.2009 Ex. PWA/3 (D­30) containing details of school fee of Anirban Ghosh, S/o accused Samir Kumar Ghosh for classes 11th and 12th for the session 2005­06 and 2006­07 alongwith the letter. He stated that the said payment details are Ex. PW36/A. He stated that as per the said payment details, Rs. 47,420/­ were received from Anirban Ghosh during the session from 2005­06 and 2006­07 i.e. period from 19.10.2005 to 20.01.2007. He stated that the payments were CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 35 of 93 made through different cheques drawn on Indian Overseas Bank and HDFC Bank.

He stated that an amount of Rs. 5,000/­ which was the security amount was refunded to Anirban Ghosh vide cheque no. 064595 dated 15.4.2008 drawn on United Bank of India, NOIDA. He proved the letter Ex. PW36/B of Principal Smt. Ratna Dhar addressed to Mr. S.K. Sinha, Inspector, CBI vide which the payment details of school fee of Anirban Ghosh were furnished.

Ld. Counsel for accused Samir Kumar Ghosh did not cross examine the said witness despite opportunity being given to him.

50. PW­37 Sh. Ashok Kumar, working as Accountant in The Frank Anthony Public School during the year 2009 stated that he knows Sh. S. DaCosta who is the Principal of the said school. He can identify his signatures since he has seen him writing and signing during the course of his official duties. He proved letter already Ex. A­2 vide which the details of payment made by accused with respect to his son Anirban Ghosh on account of school fee was furnished to CBI. He stated that the total fee was paid to the tune of Rs. 1,03,035/­ and the same bears the signatures of Sh. S. DaCosta at point A. On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Samir Kumar Ghosh he stated that the payments as mentioned in the letter were reflected as per records available in the School. He stated that some of the payments were made prior to his joining since he had joined the CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 36 of 93 school in the year 2003. He voluntarily stated that normally the school receives the payment through cross cheques or bank drafts. He stated that he does not know the source of receipt of the payment towards the school fee.

51. PW­38 Sh. Anil Arora has stated that he was Assistant, Administrative Officer in LIC Branch­11, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi in February, 2009. He proved statement pertaining to 8 LIC Policies in the name of accused and Ms. Runa Ghosh, prepared by him as per record. He proved status report Ex. PW38/A and Ex. PW38/B, the total sum of Rs. 10,17,895/­ was paid towards premium of above referred 8 LIC policies upto 24.01.2007.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Samir Kumar Ghosh he stated that he had joined the branch in September, 2008. He admitted that the document Ex. PW38/A and Ex. PW38/B do not bear his signatures or writing. He admitted that in the entry mentioned at serial no. 8 of Ex. PW38/A, the consolidated amount of premium paid by the applicant was mentioned. He stated that as per Ex. A/7, the said amount of Rs. 1,13,146/­ was deposited on 04.6.2007. He admitted that the said amount included the amount of Rs. 10,37,895/­. He also admitted that a sum of Rs. 20,000/­ were deposited after 24.01.2007.

52. PW­39 Sh. Jagroop Singh, Inspector, CBI stated that on the direction of Sh. S.K. Sinha, Inspector, CBI who was the IO of this case, he CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 37 of 93 had recorded the statements of Sh. Prem Prakash, Sh. B.L. Batra, Sh. Shashikant and Sh. Ashok Kumar under Section 161 Cr.P.C as per record and as per their version.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Samir Kumar Ghosh he stated that oral direction were given to him by Inspector S.K. Sinha. He stated that there is no evidence on record that oral directions were given to him by Inspector Sinha. There was no need for him to confront the witnesses with the accused since he was only recording their statements as per direction of his superior officials.

53. PW­40 Sh. Ravinder Kumar Goyal Senior Internal Auditor, Central Bank of India, Chandani Chowk verified true copies of account opening form and specimen signatures in respect of SB Account No. 1130307549 (Old No. 2295). The witness stated that the said account was opened on 03.11.1998 with initial amount of Rs. 500/­ and stands in the name of Ms. Runa Ghosh who was working as School Teacher in Dev Samaj Modern School. He stated that the nominee of the said SB Account was husband of Ms. Runa GhoshSamir Kumar Ghosh. The said account opening form and specimen signatures were collectively Ex. PW40/A. He proved the certified copy of statement of said account for the period from 01.01.2006 to 25.01.2007 Ex. PW40/B. He stated that as per the said statement of account, sum of Rs. 1,832/­ was credited in the said account as an interest. The credit balance of Rs. 30,455/­ as on 24.01.2007 was reflected in the said SB Account. The break up of the said CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 38 of 93 interest is Rs. 943/­ on 05.01.2006, Rs. 284/­ on 07.7.2006 and Rs. 605/­ on 31.12.2006. He also proved 20 number of verified true copies of documents pertaining to various term deposits accounts. All documents were verified by him and the same were collectively exhibit as Ex. PW40/C1 to Ex. PW40/C20.

54. PW­41 Sh. C.K. Sharma, Inspector, CBI, Headquarter, New Delhi stated that he was entrusted investigation of the trap case RC No. 05/2007 involving accused Samir Kumar Ghosh. He stated that on 24.01.2007, searches were conducted in the office premises and residence of accused S.K. Ghosh. He stated that incriminating documents were seized during the search. The documents were scrutinized by him and he had also verified the involvement of accused S.K. Ghosh in the offences and accordingly he had lodged a complaint to SP, CBI Sh. Bhupender Kumar.

He stated that the said complaint was lodged by him and it bears his signatures at point A and the said complaint was Ex. PW41/A. Attention of the witness was also drawn to FIR RC No. 11/2008 and after going through the same the witness stated that FIR Ex. PW41/B was lodged on this complaint by Sh. Bhupender Kumar, SP, CBI.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Samir Kumar Ghosh, he stated that on 24.01.2007 the search was not conducted by him. The said documents were not seized by him. He did not remember the date as to when he was asked to scrutinize this document by CBI officials. He voluntarily stated that being Investigating Officer of case RC CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 39 of 93 NO. 05/2007, it was his duty to scrutinize these documents. He stated that he did not investigate the officials who had seized these documents. He had interrogated the officials who had conducted the search. However, he did not examine these officials on the aspect of scrutiny of the document.

He admitted that during investigation he had inquired about the details of the documents, the expenses, income and assets. He voluntarily stated that Accused could not satisfactorily account for his disproportionate assets.

He denied that the accused had produced the documents of immovable property intimated by him to his department. He denied that he did not take these documents on record intentionally to implicate the accused falsely. He denied that accused Samir Kumar Ghosh had produced the bank statement of their joint account to him showing credit of Rs. 3,53,000/­ and Rs. 1,53,000/­ from his father­in­law at Kolkata. He denied that during the course of verification, the accused had produced the copies of NSCs purchased by his mother out of the sale proceeds of ancestral property as his share.

He denied that the accused had informed during investigation that he was having assets of Rs. 1,18,000/­ before joining his service with MSTC. He stated that he does not remember if he had called the personal file of accused Samir Kumar Ghosh from the Vigilance Department of his office.

CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 40 of 93

55. PW­42 Sh. Sanjay Kumar Sinha, DSP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi has stated that a case vide RC No. 11(A)/2008 was registered against accused Samir Kumar Ghosh, Senior Manager, MSTC Limited, New Delhi under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of PC Act on 14.3.2008 on the basis of written complaint already Ex. PW41/A filed by Sh. C.K. Sharma, Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, New Delhi and the said FIR was already Ex. PW41/B. He had collected the relevant documents and had examined the witnesses. After completion of the investigation, a valid sanction for prosecution was obtained in respect of the said accused from the Competent Authority. He stated that the Charge Sheet was filed under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of PC Act, 1988 and was forwarded by Sh. N.M. Singh, the then SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi. He stated that during the course of investigation, he had calculated statement A, B, C and D which reflects the assets at the beginning of the check period (Statement A), assets at the end of the check period (Statement B), income earned during the check period (Statement C) and expenditure incurred during the check period (Statement D). He stated that in the instant case the check period was taken from December, 1983 to 24.01.2007. He stated that residential premises of accused was searched and incriminating documents were recovered and seized on 24.01.2007. He stated that it also revealed that the wife of accused was working as teacher in Dev Samaj Model School, Nehru Nagar, New Delhi who had expired on 05.11.2008. He stated that the income earned by the wife of accused Samir Kumar Ghosh was also taken into account.

CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 41 of 93 He stated that as per clause 12(4) in any other case, an employee of the Company can not accept any gifts without the sanction of the competent authority if the value thereof exceeds Rs. 250/­. As per clause 16(3), every employee of the company has to within one month report to the competent authority every transaction concerning movable property owned or held by him in his own name or in the name of a member of his family, if the value of such property exceeds Rs. 10,000/­ in the case of executive.

He denied that accused had handed over to him the copy of Form 16 for the period 1994­95 and 1995­96 and that he had intentionally concealed the said Form 16 and did not take it into account. He voluntarily stated that Form 16 includes the monthly salary and other payments like arrear etc. He admitted that it was mentioned in the letter already Ex. PW16/A that the salary for the period November, 1991 to March, 1996 were not readily traceable in the departments and as such the same was taken on average basis. He voluntarily stated that the estimation was done by the department itself. He denied that the accused had informed him that the average given by the department is not correct and he intentionally did not take it into account at the time of preparation of charge sheet.

He denied that the accused had informed him during the investigation that the parents of the accused had sold an ancestral property and the share of the accused was invested by him in the business of his brother­in­law and the said amount was converted into an CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 42 of 93 NSC by his mother at Rana Ghat, West Bengal in a joint name thereafter, he received the said amount from his mother in the year 1999, 2000 and 2001 amounting to around Rs. 2,20,000/­. He further denied that he had intentionally did not take into account the said amount to implicate the accused falsely. He stated that he does not remember the details of the posting of accused. He denied that accused had informed him that father of Ms. Runa Ghosh (Wife of accused) used to give gifts and cash to his wife Ms. Runa Ghosh. He denied that the accused had explained, shown and handed over many documents pertaining to him and to his wife Ms. Runa Ghosh to prove the lawful source of his income which he had deliberately not considered as he wanted to implicate the accused falsely in this case. He denied that the accused had informed him that his wife was giving tuitions to the students and has earned a sum of Rs. 2,75,000/­ from 2004­07. He further denied that accused had informed him that most of the jeweleries were given to his wife by her parents and that the details of the same were also provided to him. He further denied that the accused had informed him that during the year 1995, his wife Ms. Runa Ghosh was employed as a teacher in DAV Public School, East of Kailash, New Delhi.

56. PE was closed. Statement of accused Samir Kumar Ghosh under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded in which he had expressed his willingness to lead defence evidence. Therefore, the case was listed for defence evidence and ten defence witnesses were examined. CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 43 of 93

57. DW­1 Sh. Hemant Singh Negi Business Development Executive in Star Wire (India) Ltd., 35 Link Road, Lajpat Nagar­III, New Delhi proved the certificate dated 29.6.2009 issued in favour of Smt. Runa Ghosh for the promotion lecture of their company and the said certificates were Ex. DW1/A and Ex. DW1/B. On being cross examined by Sh. Akshay Gautam, Ld. Senior PP for CBI he stated that he has no personal knowledge about the contents as mentioned in the certificates Ex. DW1/A and Ex. DW1/B. He does not know as to whether cheques mentioned in the certificates were encashed or not.

58. DW­2 Sh. Hemant Kumar stated that he knew accused Samir Kumar Ghosh since 2006 as he is his neighbourer and is residing in the same wing of their society. He stated that all members of the society had decided to construct a Temple in the society. He stated that for construction of the Temple, they used to collect the donation on Saturday(s) and Sunday(s) from the residents of the society. He stated that he alongwith accused Samir Kumar Ghosh and other members used to collect the money and the said money used to be kept with accused. He stated that in the year January, 2007 he had come to know that a raid of CBI was conducted at the residence of accused Samir Kumar Ghosh. He stated that at that time, a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 2,15,000/­ approximately were lying in cash with accused Samir Kumar Ghosh CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 44 of 93 against the collection of the said Mandir and thereafter, the same was re­ paid by the wife of accused Smt. Runa Ghosh in installments to them. He stated that Smt. Runa Ghosh was working as a teacher in a school and she used to hold home tutions in her flat.

On being cross examined by Sh. Akshay Gautam, Ld. Senior PP for CBI he stated that so far as decision to construct the Mandir in the Soceity is concerned neither any resolution was passed not there is any record to show the construction of the Mandir. He stated that he cannot tell how much amount used to be collected in a week, month or year from the different members of the society. He stated that he used to remain with accused Samir Kumar Ghosh on every Saturday and Sunday to collect the said amount and there is no record to show as to how much money was deposited with accused Samir Kumar Ghosh.

He stated that the wife of accused Samir Kumar Ghosh had finally re­paid the amount which was deposited with accused Samir Kumar Ghosh. He stated that there is no record of receipt of the amount received from wife of accused as on today. The donated amount which used to be collected from the members was kept in a locked box. He voluntarily stated that they used to open the box in the evening and after counting the same the same used to be handed over to accused. He denied that no amount was ever collected from the members of the society for the purpose of alleged construction of Mandir and that no amount was deposited with accused.

CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 45 of 93

59. DW­3 Sh. Arunmoy Ghosh stated that accused Samir Kumar Ghosh is his brother­in­law. He stated that the marriage of his sister was solemnized in the year 1987. He stated that his father and he himself used to give house hold articles like furniture etc. alongwith gold jewellery. They had given weighing 50 tolaas gold approximately. He stated that his father was Senior Management Executive with Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL) and Hindustan Copper Ltd.

He stated that his sister wanted to purchase an apartment/accommodation at Noida, and his father had helped her by gifting her Rs. 5 lakhs by way of two cheques of Rs. 3.5 lakhs and Rs. 1.5 lakhs approximately. He stated that his sister had applied for a flat in New Town, Kolkata for which an amount of Rs. 1,10,000/­ was deposited with the said society out of which his father had contributed an amount of Rs. 70,000/­ for the said deposit. He stated that the said project was not sanctioned hence, the money was returned to his sister and the same was credited to her through an account payee cheque. He stated that his father has a three storey house in Salt Lake City, Kolkata. He had given the second floor to his sister as a gift in the year 1998. He stated that the said arrangement of gift was oral and as of now the said floor is on rent. He stated that since in the year 1998, his father used to collect the rent from the respective tenants and after deducting the tax and other maintenance cost, he used to pass it to his sister Ms. Runa Ghosh sometimes by way of cash and sometimes by way of cheque. He stated that upto 2007 the approximate amount which his sister had received as CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 46 of 93 rent of the aforesaid portion of the second floor was about 7­8 lakhs.

On being cross examined by Sh. Akshay Gautam, Ld. Senio PP for CBI he stated that in the year 1987 his father was posted as Deputy General Manager (Finance) at Kolkata. He stated that at that time they were living jointly including himself, his father, his mother and his sister. He stated that they had their own house at that time.

He stated that he had joined as Territory Sales Manager, Cadila Laboratories Ltd. in the year 1986. He was getting about Rs. 1500/­ per month as salary. He stated that the fact of procuring gold in the year 1977 onwards was disclosed to him by his mother. He stated that he does not know as to when his father had joined the service. He stated that the gold jewelery as stated by him about 8­10 tolaas which was given to his sister at the birth ceremony of his Bhanjaa was got prepared from local jeweller of Kolkata. He stated that his sister had purchased an apartment at Noida in the year 2004 and the purchase value of the flat was Rs. 20 lakhs. He stated that his sister had taken a loan, but he does not know the exact amount or from which bank or financial institution she had taken the loan. He stated that his father had given two cheques of Rs. 3.5 lakhs and 1.5 lakhs approximately on different dates, but in the same month. He stated that he has not brought any document to show the debit of the aforesaid two cheques from the account of his father. He stated that his father owned three storey house in Salt Lake City, Kolkata in the year 1998 and there is no documentary record which shows that the gift of second floor in the said three storeyed house was given to his sister by his father. He CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 47 of 93 stated that the respective rent deeds were executed by his father and the respective tenants regarding the creation of tendency in the said property. He stated that he cannot tell as to whether his father after collecting the rent from the respective tenants of second floor of the aforesaid story either used to pay the same to his sister monthly, half yearly or yearly. He stated that in the year 1998, the rent of the said floor was Rs. 14,000/­ per month. He stated that his father is not income tax accessee.

He denied that the household articles and gold jewellery weighing 50 tolaas at the time of marriage, 8 to 10 tolaas of gold jewelery as stated by him in his examination in chief were never given to his sister. He denied that no contribution of Rs. 3.5 lakhs and Rs. 1.5 lakhs were ever made by his father to help his sister in purchase of apartment at Noida.

60. DW­4 Sh. Neelambar Acharya, Senior Assistant, DAV Public School, East of Kailash, New Delhi has stated that he is working in this school since January, 1983. He stated that he was authorized by his Principal to appear in this Court vide authority letter Ex. DW4/A. He stated that as per their school record, an amount of Rs. 27,355/­ was paid to Smt. Runa Ghosh as her salary since she had worked as teacher in the school. He proved summoned record pertaining to Smt. Runa Ghosh about her salary particulars for the period October, 1996 to May 1997.

On being cross examined by Sh. Akshay Gautam, Ld. Senior PP for CBI he stated that the salary details were prepared by him. He has not brought the corresponding record of the salary details Ex. DW4/B. He CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 48 of 93 denied that the salary details were manipulated.

61. DW­5 Sh. Manish Kumar Sinha, Manager, Indian Overseas Bank proved Ex. DW5/A. He has also proved the copies of statement of account Ex. DW5/B and cheque return memo dated 01.4.2004 of ICICI Bank Ex. DW5/C. On being cross examined by Sh. Akshay Gautam, Ld. Senior PP for CBI he admitted that the statement of account Ex. DW5/B and Ex. DW5/C were not verified under Banking Books Evidence Act.

62. DW­6 Sh. Anil Kumar Ghosh has stated that accused Samir Kumar Ghosh is his brother­in­law (Wife's Brother). He stated that his wife had started business of steel furniture in the year 1974 in the name of M/s Sapna Steel Furniture at Persudhi Main Road, Near Holy Family School, Kamshedpur, Post: Tata Nagar, Jharkand. He stated that his mother in law had sold property bearing no. 156, Rana Ghat, Nadiya District, West Bengal and had given the share of his wife out of the said sale proceeds in the year 1986 and also gave her a sum of Rs. 90,000/­ in cash as share of accused to run the said business. He stated that his wife had started returning the said amount by way of NSC's in the name of accused Samir Kumar Ghosh and in the name of Smt. Smriti Rekha Ghosh (Mother­in­ law). He proved copies of NSC's Mark DW6/A­1 to DW6/A­11 On being cross examined by Sh. Akshay Gautam, Ld. Senior PP for CBI he stated that no family settlement was ever reduced into writing CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 49 of 93 regarding share of his wife out of the sale proceeds of the property as stated by him in his examination in chief. He denied that no share was given to his wife by his mother in law out of the sale proceeds in the year 1986 and also a cash of Rs. 90,000/­. He stated that he had accompanied his wife everytime when the said NSC's were purchased. He stated that he had handed over the NSC's to his mother in law at different times as and when it was purchased. He himself and his wife had not shown the investment on the said NSC's in their income tax return.

He denied that no investment was made on the said NSC's by his wife.

63. Statement of DW­7 Sh. Ashok Kumar cannot be read in evidence as his examination in chief was deferred and he was not summoned again for his testimony.

64. DW­8 Sh. R.K. Chaudhury, General Manager, MSTC Ltd. had brought the certified copy of the property return submitted by accused Samir Kumar Ghosh to MSTC Ltd. which is Ex. DW8/A1 to Ex. DW8/A31 running into 31 pages.

He stated that the receiving of LTE, LLTC, Magazine Allowance and Entertainment Allowance are part of income.

On being cross­examined by Ld. Senior PP for CBI, he stated that the property returns were not submitted in one go by accused Samir Kumar Ghosh. He stated that some of the aforesaid property returns were CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 50 of 93 submitted after two years of the due date. The property returns submitted by accused S.K. Ghosh were not supported with the property title deeds and also loan transactions or documents of liquid assets.

65. DW­9 Sh. Paramjit Singh, posted as Legal Manager, ICICI Bank proved the summoned record i.e. the statement of bank account no. 627801050466 in the name of Sh. Makhan Lal Ghosh and Sh. Rama Ghosh with effect from 01.10.2004 till 26.4.2004 alongwith a letter certifying the debit of one cheque bearing no. 020824 dated 13.4.2004 and another demand draft no. 286882 dated 18.11.2004 amounting to Rs. 1,53,337/­. The copy of the said letter dated 10.8.2013 which was duly certified as per Section 2(A) of Bankers Book Evidence Act read with Section 65­B of Indian Evidence Act was Ex. DW9/1. He stated that the copy of the aforesaid statement of account which was duly certified as per Section 2(A) of Bankers Book Evidence Act read with Section 65­B of Indian Evidence Act was Ex. DW9/2. He stated that both these documents bear his signatures as certifying authority at point X on each page.

On being cross examined by Sh. Akshay Gautam, Ld. Senior PP for CBI he stated that he cannot tell about the account in which the aforesaid amount was credited on perusal of Ex. DW9/1 and Ex. DW9/2. He stated that he had personally verified the records before certifying Ex. DW9/1 and Ex. DW9/2.

CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 51 of 93

66. DW­10 Sh. D.P. Bahuguna, Regional Manager, MSTC Ltd. proved Form 16 of accused from the period of 01.4.1995 to 31.3.1996 Ex. DW10/B. He proved photocopy of form 16 from the period 01.4.1997 to 31.3.1998 Mark X. He proved photocopy of form 16 of accused from the period 01.4.1998 to 31.3.1999 Mark X1, photocopy of form 16 of accused from the year 01.4.1999 to 31.3.2000 Mark X2, form 16 of accused for the period from 01.4.2000 to 31.3.2001 Mark X3, photocopy of form 16 of accused from the period 01.4.2001 to 31.3.2002 Mark X4.

On being cross examined by Sh. Akshay Gautam, Ld. Senior PP for CBI he admitted that Ex. DW10/A, Ex. DW10/B and Ex. DW10/C were not prepared and signed in his presence. He further admitted that Mark X to Mark X4 were not prepared and signed in his presence.

67. Defence Evidence was closed thereafter.

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

69. It is submitted by the Ld. Defence Counsels that the IO had calculated the data about the gross net salary drawn by accused Samir Kumar Ghosh by the Department vide letter dated 02.02.2008 Ex. PW16/A. It is, however, stated that the data from November 1991 to March CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 52 of 93 1996 was provided based on the average calculation as the records for the said period were not traceable. It is stated that CBI has relied upon the said data without verification. It is stated that the Income Tax Return filed by an MSTC for the corresponding financial year shows the gross income of the accused on higher side. It is stated that IO has not taken into accounts arrears paid during financial year 2000­01 amounting to Rs. 104430.82.

70. It is also stated that the accused had also received a total amount of Rs.236136 during the period 2000 to 2007 towards the reimbursement which have not been considered as part of income.

71. It is further stated that IO has not taken into account income available to accused Samir Kumar Ghosh and Runa Ghosh which were available from following sources:

S. No. Income Amount

1. Income as share from the interest accrued on Rs. 2,20,000/­ investment in NSC after the sale of ancestral property in West Bengal.

2. Income of Salary to Ms. Runa Ghosh from Rs. 27,355/­ DAV School During October, 1996 to May, 1997.

3. Income of Runa Ghosh from literary Rs. 1,47,201/­ activities.

4. Financial assistance to Runa Ghosh from Rs. 5,00,000/­ father for purchase of flat CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 53 of 93

5. Income from private tuitions in 2006 1,50,000/­

6. Return of registration money in housing Rs. 70,000/­ society

7. Income from rent in paternal property at Rs. 7,00,000/­ Kolkata.

Total Rs. 18,14,556/­ It is now stated that the actual total income during the check period was much higher than depicted by CBI in the charge­sheet.

72. The Ld. Senior PP for CBI has argued to the contrary and 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 CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 54 of 93 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 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 CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 55 of 93 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 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 CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 56 of 93 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 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 CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 57 of 93 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 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 CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 58 of 93 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 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.

73. In the present case the check period has been taken from December, 1983 to 24.01.2007. The accused has taken plea that Form­16 prepared by the department/ employer reflects higher gross salary and the same has not been taken into account by the prosecution. This plea is not tenable as the gross salary was not being paid to the accused. The department deducts certain amount towards income tax, recovery etc. and net amount was being paid to the accused. The prosecution has rightly taken into account the net salary paid to the accused. For the period from CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 59 of 93 November, 1991 to March, 1996, the department had provided the details of the net salary paid to the accused on the basis of pro rata basis. No bias was caused to the accused. Hence it is proved that the accused was paid net salary of Rs.27,19,957.15/­ only instead of Rs. 39,75,633/­ as claimed by the accused.

74. The accused has not informed his Department about any expensive gifts, friendly loan etc. received by him from his friends or relatives which is mandatory for any Government Servant. He has also not sought prior permission of his department mandatory under Law. The accused has not given any explanation nor he could produce on record any defence evidence and, therefore he cannot be given benefit of an amount of Rs. 5,90,000/­.

75. The accused has drawn my attention to testimony of DW­2 who is his brother­in­law to prove that his father­in­law had given gold of about 50 tolas and an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs by way to two cheques to his wife for buying a property. DW­2 has also also stated that his father had also given an amount of Rs. 1,70,000/­ to his sister for buying a flat in Kolkata. Accused states that as per testimony of his brother­in­law, Second floor of a three storey house was also given as gift to his wife which was given on rent and the rent used to be collected by his father­in­ law and was passed on to his wife amounting to Rs. 7­8 lakhs. CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 60 of 93

76. I do not agree with this contention of accused and testimony of this witness is of no help to him since in his cross examination he has admitted that there is no documentary proof that the second floor of a three storey house was given to wife of accused as gift or Rs. 7­8 lakhs were paid to wife of accused towards rent of the said floor. The witness has admitted that there is no documentary proof to show that Rs. 5 lakhs were given as loan by his father to his sister for purchasing a flat in NOIDA and he does not have any document to prove that this amount was debited from the account of his father in favour of his late sister. He also stated that he cannot tell the name of the Jeweller from whom the gold items were bought and given to his sister. I have already stated that as per Mandate of Law, the accused was required to inform his Department about loan or gifts procured from his friends or relatives but he has failed to produce on record any proof that he had informed his Department about the same, therefore, he cannot be given benefit of the amounts mentioned above.

77. Accused Samir Kumar Ghosh did not obtain prior approval from the competent authority with respect to alleged help of Rs. 5 lakhs from his father­in­law namely Sh. Makhan Lal Ghosh in the year 2004. DW­3 Sh. Arunmoy Ghosh in his deposition has stated that his father Sh. Makhan Lal Ghosh had retired from service in the year 1989 and is not an income tax assessee. Hence, I am not inclined to accept the gift income of Rs. 5 lakhs from the father­in­law in absence of any documentary CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 61 of 93 evidence.

78. Moreover, as per Clause 12(4) of conduct, discipline and appeal rules 1980, an employee of MSTC Ltd. could not accept any gifts without the sanction of the competent authority if the value thereof exceeded Rs. 250/­. Sh. Keshav Ajmani, Deputy Manager, MSTC Ltd. proved that accused Samir Kumar Ghosh did not obtain prior approval from the competent authority before receiving gifts or loans from relatives or friends.

79. There is nothing on record to suggest that Smt. Runa Ghosh W/o accused Samir Kumar Ghosh had applied for a flat in New Town, Kolkata for which an amount of Rs. 1,10,000/­ was deposited with the society and out of which Sh. Makhan Lal Ghosh, father­in­law of accused had contributed Rs. 70,000/­ Accused had neither intimated nor had he taken prior approval for applying for purchase of a flat in Kolkata in the name of his wife to his department. Besides, accused did not obtain the prior sanction of the competent authority before accepting gifts. Hence, I am not inclined to accept the income of Rs. 70,000/­ as financial assistance from Sh. Makhan Lal Ghosh.

80. There is nothing on record to suggest that Sh. Makhan Lal Ghosh had gifted the 2nd floor of his house located in Salt Lake, Kolkata to his daughter Smt. Runa Ghosh, w/o accused in the year 1998. No such CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 62 of 93 intimation has been given by accused to his department. Moreover, the rental income generated out of the said 2nd floor was not credited in the bank account of Smt. Runa Ghosh. Hence, I am not inclined to accept the rental income of Rs. 70,000/­.

81. The Carpenter PW­ 22 Sh. Vijay Sharma has also clearly mentioned that a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/­ was given to him by the accused himself for wooden work done in his house which was situated at NOIDA, Sector­61.

82. The jewellers from whom jewelleries were purchased have proved the bills and PW 19 Sh. Shashi Kant has identified the accused to be the same person to whom the jewellery items had been sold and, therefore, it will be considered as assets of accused.

83. The accused has also drawn my attention to statement of DW­6 Sh. Anil Kumar Ghosh who is brother­in­law of his wife who has stated that a sum of Rs. 90,000/­ was given in cash to his wife towards her share by his mother­in­law. His wife had invested the said amount by way of NSCs in the name of accused Samir Kumar Ghosh and Smt. Smriti Rekha Ghosh and therefore, he be given benefit of the same. I do not agree with this contention since in the cross examination of DW­6 he has admitted that there is no written family settlement regarding the investment of Rs. 90,000/­ by his wife alongwith accused. He had also admitted that CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 63 of 93 his wife had not shown investment of said NSCs in the Income Tax Returns, therefore, he cannot be given benefit of these NSCs also.

84. The accused was reimbursed a sum of Rs.2,36,136/­ by his department towards LTE, magazine, entertainment and LTC/LLTC. However, the reimbursement cannot be considered as income because the expenditure takes place on account of buying Newspapers, purchase of magazines etc. or LTC etc. The prosecution has not taken into account the expenditure incurred on account of LTC, purchase of magazines etc. Hence it is fair to consider the reimbursement as income.

85. The prosecution has taken into account income from interest accrued in SB account no. 10662 of accused S.K. Ghosh for the period from 03.01.2005 to 24.01.2007. The accused argued that interest of Rs. 650/­ per year had accrued in the said account for the year 2005 to 2006, hence a sum of Rs. 650/­ per annum may be allowed as interest income for the period from December, 1991 to December, 2004. The accused did not produce the copy of income tax returns for the said period in order to calculate the interest income. Nevertheless, I am inclined to allow interest income of Rs.250/­ per annum for the said period. Thus the interest income for the period from December, 1991 to December, 2004 comes to (Rs.250 x 14) Rs.3,500/­.

Now the total interest income of SB account no. 10662 is taken as (Rs.1355 + Rs.3,500) Rs.4,855/­.

CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 64 of 93

86. The prosecution has taken into account income from interest accrued in SB account no. 1130307549 of Ms. Runa Ghosh for the period from 01.01.2006 to 25.01.2007 which is to the tune of Rs. 1,832/­. The accused argued that interest of Rs. 1,832/­ had accrued in the account in one year i.e. January, 2006 to January, 2007, therefore, a sum of Rs. 1,832/­ per annum may be allowed as interest income for the period from 03.11.1998 to 31.12.2005. The accused did not produce the copy of income tax returns in support of the claim. However, I am inclined to allow interest income of Rs. 500/­ per annum for the period for which neither statement of account nor Income Tax Return is available. In this way, the interest income for the period from 03.11.1998 to 31.12.2005 may be taken as (Rs. 1,832/­ x 7) Rs. 12,824/­.

Now the total interest income of SB Account No. 1130307549 is taken as (Rs. 1,832/­ + Rs. 12,824/­) Rs. 14,656/­.

87. The prosecution has correctly calculated the dividend paid to the accused by UTI. The principle amount which was reinvested and redeemed after the check period cannot be considered as income.

88. The prosecution has correctly calculated income from investment in shares of Tata Steels Ltd. The dividend paid to Barindra Kumar Ghosh and Smriti Rekha Ghosh cannot be considered as income of accused. A sum of Rs. 18,164/­ only was paid to accused as dividend. CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 65 of 93 Other Income

89. The testimony of DW­6 Sh. Anil Kumar Ghosh is not credible.

No documentary evidence is on record to suggest that a sum of Rs. 90,000/­ in cash as share of accused Samir Kumar Ghosh was handed over by the mother of accused to Smt. Sapna Ghosh, W/o Sh. Anil Kumar Ghosh. The accused did not declare this income either to his department or to the income tax department.

As far as salary of Smt. Runa Ghosh is concerned, I am inclined to accept the testimony of Sh. Neelambar Acharya (DW­4) and a sum of Rs. 27,355/­ is accepted as salary income for the period from October, 1996 to May, 1997 for Smt. Runa Ghosh, W/o accused Samir Kumar Ghosh paid by D.A.V. Public School, East of Kailash.

90. The testimony of DW­1 Sh. Hemant Singh Negi is not credible. It is not proved if the cheques which were purportedly given to Ms. Runa Ghosh were encashed. Moreover, the defence did not produce the copy of ITRs filed by Ms. Runa Ghosh in support of receipt of the purported income of Rs. 1,47,201/­ allegedly earned by Ms. Runa Ghosh from literally activities performed for M/s Star Wire (India Ltd.).

91. In the instant case, the check period concludes on 24.01.2007. DW­2 Sh. Hemant Kumar was given the possession of a flat in the Royal Towers on 04.02.2006. He deposed that Smt. Runa Ghosh CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 66 of 93 used to hold home tuitions in her flat. This fact remained uncorroborated in view of the fact that tuition income has not been reflected in the ITRs filed by Ms. Runa Ghosh. Hence, I am not inclined to accept the income of Rs. 1,50,000/­ from private tuitions.

Income from incentives

92. The accused has claimed reimbursement made to him by his department as income. Reimbursements cannot be treated as income because it is being reimbursed on account of having incurred expenditure already. If reimbursement is taken as income, then the corresponding amount will have to be taken as expenditure. Hence, I am not inclined to accept Rs. 2,36,136/­ as income on account of reimbursement made to accused Samir Kumar Ghosh by him employer.

Statement of Assets

93. The accused has disputed the calculation of assets with reference to the following three items.

Ornaments: The prosecution has relied upon the cash memos of different jewellers which were recovered and seized during the search of residential premises of the accused. These cash memos indicate that jewelleries were purchased mainly in Delhi and two cash memos pertain to jewelers of Kolkata. These ornaments had been purchased by accused and his CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 67 of 93 wife. The gifted ornaments or the stri­dhan have not been attributed to the accused.

Cash: During search of residential premises of accused, cash of Rs. 4,08,195/­ was recovered. Out of it, Rs. 4 lakhs were found kept in the locker of steel almirah that was lying in bedroom of Smt. Runa Ghosh and accused Samir Kumar Ghosh. The denomination of the recovered cash are as under:

(a) Rs. 500/­ denomination note x 700 no.= Rs. 3,50,000/­

(b) Rs. 1000/­ denomination note x 7 no. = Rs. 7,000/­

(c) Rs. 500/­ denomination note x 42 no. = Rs. 21,000/­

(d) Rs. 100/­ denomination note x 220 no. = Rs. 22,000/­ Total = Rs. 4,00,000/­

94. The accused also stated that this sum of more than Rs. 4 lakhs which was found in cash lying at his residence was for construction of a Temple in the Society. He has stated that DW­2 has already proved the same. However, a perusal of cross examination of DW­2 clearly shows that he has admitted that there is no documentary record regarding this amount being donation amount towards construction of any Temple in the Society nor there is any resolution of the Society which will indicate the same. There is no documentary evidence on record regarding its repayment as deposed by DW­2, therefore, this amount cannot be considered to be the amount deposited by the Society towards construction of the Temple.

CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 68 of 93

95. Household articles : The search was conducted at the residential premises of the accused on 24.01.2007 whereas the marriage of the accused had taken place in the year 1988. The accused was posted at various places like Kolkata, Bangalore, Delhi etc. It is unlikely that the household articles that were gifted at the time of marriage remained usable in January, 2007. The IO has correctly calculated the household articles to the tune of Rs. 3,69,150/­. It does not include the cost of clothing, marriage gifts, stridhan etc. Articles purchased by accused during the check period have been taken into account correctly.

96. Expenditure incurred towards purchase of FDRs of HDFC

(a) Ms. Runa Ghosh had purchased deposit receipt no. 1499555 for Rs. 42,000/­ on 07.11.2001 from HDFC which got matured on 07.11.2002 and interest accrued i.e. Rs. 3,612/­ was paid to Ms. Runa Ghosh and an amount of Rs. 42,000/­ was again invested w.e.f. 07.11.2002 and deposit receipt no. 1743821 was issued and the same got matured and an amount of Rs. 52,542/­ was paid to Ms. Runa Ghosh on 19.5.2005. The entire maturity amount of Rs. 52,542/­ have been taken as income. Hence, Rs. 42,000/­ has been taken as expenditure. As suggested by by defence it cannot be considered as expenditure, then the entire maturity amount of Rs. 52,542/­ should not be taken as income. It should be Rs. 52,542/­ ­ Rs. 42,000/­ = Rs. 10,542/­. Hence, it is fair to consider the expenditure of Rs. 42,000/­ on account of receipt no. 1743821.

CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 69 of 93

97. Accused Samir Kumar Ghosh had purchased deposit receipt no. 1499562 dated 07.11.2001 for Rs. 58,000/­ which got matured on 07.11.2002. Interest accrued of Rs. 4,988/­ and part principle amount i.e. Rs. 5,000/­ were paid to accused. The remaining principle amount of Rs. 53,000/­ was again invested w.e.f. 07.11.2002 vide deposit receipt no. 1743838. it got matured an amount of Rs. 65,57/­ was paid to accused. The entire maturity amount of Rs. 65,573/­ was paid to accused. The entire maturity amount of Rs. 65,573/­ has been taken as income. Hence, Rs. 58,000/­ has been taken as expenditure.

98. Smt. Runa Ghosh had invested a sum of Rs. 75,000/­ vide deposit receipt no. 1187399 dated 29.01.2001 which was renewed w.e.f. 29.01.2004 for Rs. 35,000/­ vide deposit receipt no. 1924374 and remaining principle amount alongwith interest amounting to Rs. 65,926/­ was paid to Runa Ghosh. She earned an interest of Rs. 25,920/­ on deposit receipt no. 1187399 dated 29.01.2001 for Rs. 75,000/­. Runa Ghosh was paid entire interest amount of Rs. 25,920/­ and part principle amount of Rs. 40,000/­. Rs. 65,926/­ has also been taken as income. Hence, Rs. 75,000/­ has rightly been taken as expenditure.

99. Accused had invested a sum of Rs. 75,000/­ on 29.01.2001 vide deposit receipt no. 1187382, which matured on 29.01.2001 and accused was paid a sum of Rs. 65,926/­ (interest of Rs. 25,926/­ + part CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 70 of 93 principle amount of Rs. 40,000/­) and remaining principle amount of Rs. 35,000/­ was reinvested vide deposit receipt no. 1924367 dated 29.01.2004. The payment of part principle amount of Rs. 40,000/­ has been considered as income of the accused. Hence, this Rs. 40,000/­ + Rs. 35,000/­ has been considered as expenditure which comes to the tune of Rs. 75,000/­. Hence, Rs. 75,000/­ has rightly been taken as expenditure.

Hence, the contention of the defence that Rs. 2,50,000/­ should be deleted from the head expenditure incurred towards purchase of FDRs of HDFC is not tenable.

Expenditure incurred towards wood work

100. Sh. Vijay Sharma, the prosecution witness has categorically deposed that he had done wood work, painting etc. in the flat no. B­606, Tower­B, Royal Tower, Sector­61, Noida in the year 2005 and accused had made a cash payment of Rs. 1,75,000/­ to him. Hence, the contention of defence that Rs. 1,75,000/­ should be deleted from the head expenditure incurred towards wood work is not tenable.

Expenditure incurred towards acquisition of IDBI Bond.

101. It is proved that accused had invested a sum of Rs. 20,000/­ in IDBI Flexi Bond vide certificate no. 124086597 on 15.3.2002 which got mature on 15.9.2005 and maturity amount of Rs. 27,300/­ was paid to accused. The entire maturity amount of Rs. 27,300/­ has been taken as CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 71 of 93 income of accused. Hence, the principle amount of Rs. 20,000/­ has rightly been taken as expenditure. If the principle amount of Rs. 20,000/­ is debited from the expenditure, then the same amount will also have to be debited from the income of the accused.

Expenditure incurred towards Master Equity Plan - 92

102. It is proved that accused was allotted 1000 units of master equity plan - 92 on 30.01.1992 at a total cost of Rs. 10,000/­ which got redeemed on 01.3.2005 and a sum of Rs. 14,100.50 has been paid to accused. The entire redeemed amount of Rs. 14,100.50 has been taken as income of accused. Hence, the principle amount of Rs. 10,000/­ is debited from the expenditure, then the same amount will also have to be debited from the income of the accused.

Expenditure incurred towards payment of LIC premium

103. PW­38 Sh. Anil Arora has categorically deposed after going through the statement as well as status report Ex. PW38/A and Ex. PW38/B that the total sum of Rs. 10,17,895/­ has been paid towards premium of above referred 8 LIC Policies upto 24.01.2007. Hence, the contention of the defence that a total sum of Rs. 8,94,749/­ only was incurred towards payment of premium of LIC policies is incorrect. Assets at the beginning of the check period CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 72 of 93

104. The check period in the instant case has been taken from December, 1983 (when the accused joined MSTC Ltd.) to 24.01.2007 (when the search was conducted by CBI). The accused was admittedly engaged with M/s Balmer & Lawrie Co. Ltd. at Calcutta for 18 months before joining MSTC Ltd. and was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 1000/­ per month. 1/3rd of gross salary has been taken as unverifiable kitchen expenses during pre­check period which comes to Rs. 6,000/­. Hence, a sum of Rs. 12,000/­ has been taken as assets at the beginning of the check period.

                                               Statement­B
                            (Assets at the end of the check period)


Sl. No.                                   Description                                       Amount (Rs.)

1. 11 number of FDRs with HDFC, Munirka, New Delhi in the name of accused Samir Kumar Ghosh

a) Deposit receipt No. 1948619 dated 26.3.2004 for Rs. 27,169/­ 27,169/­ of HDFC in the name of Ms. Runa Ghosh.

b) Deposit receipt No. 1948626 dated 26.3.2004 for Rs. 27,169/­ 27,169/­ of HDFC in the name of Ms. Runa Ghosh.

c) Deposit receipt No. 1924374 dated 29.01.2004 for Rs. 35,000/­ 35,000/­ of HDFC in the name of Ms. Runa Ghosh.

d) Deposit receipt No. 1948633 dated 26.3.2004 for Rs. 27,169/­ 27,169/­ of HDFC in the name of Ms. Runa Ghosh.

e) Deposit receipt No. 1932881 dated 22.02.2004 for Rs. 35,000/­ 35,000/­ of HDFC in the name of Ms. Runa Ghosh.

f) Deposit receipt No. 1932908 dated 27.02.2004 for Rs. 30,000/­ 30,000/­ of HDFC in the name of Ms. Runa Ghosh.

CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 73 of 93

g) Deposit receipt No. 1948657 dated 26.3.2004 for Rs. 27,169/­ 27,169/­ of HDFC in the name of Sh. Samir Kumar Ghosh.

h) Deposit receipt No. 1924367 dated 29.01.2004 for Rs. 35,000/­ 35,000/­ of HDFC in the name of Sh. Samir Kumar Ghosh.

i) Deposit receipt No. 1948640 dated 26.3.2004 for Rs. 27,169/­ 27,169/­ of HDFC in the name of Sh. Samir Kumar Ghosh.

j) Deposit receipt No. 1932874 dated 27.02.2004 for Rs. 35,000/­ 35,000/­ of HDFC in the name of Sh. Samir Kumar Ghosh.

k) Deposit receipt No. 1932898 dated 27.02.2004 for Rs. 30,000/­ 30,000/­ of HDFC in the name of Sh. Samir Kumar Ghosh.

2. 14 number of Kishan Vikas Patras issued by Amar 1,40,000 Colony Post Office, New Delhi in the name of Ms. Runa Ghosh and Sh. Samir Kumar Ghosh during 12.10.2000 to 01.12.2005.

3. Balance in NSS A/c 701083 of Lodhi Road Post Office, 51,157/­ New Delhi standing in the name of Sh. Samir Kumar Ghosh.

4. Balance in PPF A/c No. 305851 standing in the name 1,13,845/­ of Sh. Samir Kumar Ghosh of Sarojini Nagar, HPC as on 24.01.2007.

5. Balance in SB A/c No. 00031000237313 of HDFC Bank 32,455.91 Ltd., Surya Kiran Building, 19 KG Marg, New Delhi standing in joint names of Sh. Samir Kumar Ghosh and Ms. Runa Ghosh.

6. FDRs with HDFC Bank Ltd., New Delhi CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 74 of 93

a) FDR No. 00034470343709 of HDFC Bank standing in 52,000/­ joint names of Sh. Samir Kumar Ghosh and Ms. Runa Ghosh which was purchased on 12.6.2006.

b) FDR No. 00034470343716 of HDFC Bank standing in 52,000/­ joint names of Ms. Runa Ghosh and Sh. Samir Kumar Ghosh which was purchased on 12.6.2006.

7. Cost of flat No. B­605, Royal Tower, Sector­61, NOIDA 24,42,427/­ (including the admission fees of Rs.10 and share money of Rs.100).

8. Balance in SB A/c No. 10662 in the name of Sh. Samir 28,167.79 Kumar Ghosh being maintained with Indian Overseas Bank, Prakashdeep Building, New Delhi.

9. Investment made in five number FDRs in the name of 1,90,000/­ Sh. Samir Kumar Ghosh being maintained with Indian Overseas Bank, Prakashdeep Building, New Delhi.

10. Balance in SB A/c No. 1130307549 (old A/c No. 2295) 30,455/­ in the name of Ms. Runa Ghosh being maintained with Central Bank of India, PGDAV College, Nehru Nagar, New Delhi.

11. FDRs with Central Bank of India, Nehru Nagar, New 3,53,876/­ Delhi.

12. Investment in UTI. 1,96,000/­

13. Investment made in Canara Bank, Robico Mutual 5,000/­ Fund.

14. Investment made in HUDCO Infrastructure Bond 30,000/­ Series­1.

15. Investment made in Bonds of M/s Krishna Bhagga Jal 40,000/­ Nigam Ltd.

16. Investment made in FDRs of M/s Cholamandalam 1,00,000/­ DBS Finance Ltd.

CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 75 of 93

17. Cost of Maruti 800 CC Car in the name of Ms. Runa 2,18,340/­ Ghosh.

18. Cost of Maruti Alto Car in the name of Sh. Samir 3,69,091/­ Kumar Ghosh.

19. Cost of IDBI Fixed Deposit in the name of Sh. Samir 14,000/­ Kumar Ghosh.

20. Cost of IDBI Flexi Bond in the joint name of Sh. Samir 1,75,000/­ Kumar Ghosh and Ms. Runa Ghosh.

21. Ornaments 1,27,832/­

22. Cash found during house search. 4,08,195/­

23. Household articles found during house search. 3,69,150/­

24. Investment made in share/debentures of various 30,988/­ companies.

                                              TOTAL                                          59,05,826.70


                                               Statement­C
                               (Income earned during check period)


  Sl. No.                                  Description                                      Amount (Rs.)
     1.       Income received from employer: 
     a)       Net  salary  paid  to  Sh.  Samir   Kumar  Ghosh  for  the                      27,19,957.15
              period from December 1983 to December 2006.
     b)       Incentive paid to Sh. Samir Kumar Ghosh during the                                 8,470/­
              period from April 2000 to 24.01.2007.  
     c)       Exgratia paid to Sh. Samir Kumar Ghosh during the                                 46,500/­
              period from April 2000 to 24.01.2007.  
     d)       Flat maintenance allowance paid to Sh. Samir Kumar                                 33,188/­
              Ghosh   during   the   period   from   April   2000   to 
              24.01.2007.  




CC No. 51/12                               State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh                 Page No. 76 of 93
      e)       Leave encashment paid to Sh. Samir Kumar Ghosh                                   69,778.75

during the period from April 2000 to 24.01.2007 and in December 1989 and in December 1991.

f) Rent paid to Sh. Samir Kumar Ghosh for self­leased 80,940/­ accommodation for the period from April 2000 to 24.01.2007.

g) Children Education Allowance paid to Sh. Samir 18,470/­ Kumar Ghosh during the period from April 2000 to 24.01.2007.

2. Salary and other allowances paid to Ms. Runa Ghosh 10,90,890/­ by Dev Samaj Public School, Nehru Nagar, New Delhi during October 1999 to January 2007.

3. Interest accrued to NSS A/c 701083, Lodhi Road Post 47,697/­ Office, New Delhi standing in the name of Sh. Samir Kumar Ghosh during 1990­91 to 2005­06.

4. Interest accrued to PPF A/c No. 305851 of Sarojini 41,845/­ Nagar HPO, New Delhi standing in the name of Sh.

Samir Kumar Ghosh during 09.01.2007 to 24.01.2007.

5. Interest accrued to SB A/c No. 00031000237313 of 3,394.03 HDFC Bank Ltd., Surya Kiran Building, KG Marg, New Delhi standing in joint names of Sh. Samir Kumar Ghosh and Ms. Runa Ghosh during 09.01.2001 to 24.01.2007.

6. Interest accrued to SB A/c No. 10662 of Indian 4,855/­ Overseas bank, Prakashdev Building, New Delhi standing in the name of Sh. Samir Kumar Ghosh.

7. Interest accrued to SB A/c No. 1130307549 (old No. 14,656/­ 2295) in the name of Ms. Runa Ghosh being maintained with Central Bank of India, PGDAV College, Nehru Nagar, New Delhi.

CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 77 of 93

8. Interest accrued to RD A/c No. 720 in joint names of 4512/­ Ms. Runa Ghosh and Sh. Samir Kumar Ghosh was being maintained with Central Bank of India, PGDAV College, Nehru Nagar, New Delhi during the period from 26.5.2001 to 20.6.2002.

9. Interest accrued to FDRs bearing No. 28/51 and 39,788/­ 28/52 for Rs.50,000/­ each in the name of Ms. Runa Ghosh and Sh. Samir Kumar Ghosh and Sh. Samir Kumar Ghosh and Ms. Runa Ghosh on 13.6.2005, CBI, PGDAV, New Delhi and interest accrued to FDRs bearing No. 31/45 and 31/46 both dated 13.6.2005 on 20.01.2007, CBI, PDGAV, New Delhi.

10. Interest accrued to FDRs bearing No. MMDC 29/04 5,876/­ and 29/05 dated 14.6.2003 favouring Ms. Runa Ghosh and Sh. Samir Kumar Ghosh and Sh. Samir Kumar Ghosh and Ms. Runa Ghosh, CBI, PGDAV, New Delhi.

11. Interest accrued to three number FDRs bearing No. 4260/­ 510300320 to 510300322 standing in the name of Sh. Samir Kumar Ghosh.

12. Dividend paid to Sh. Samir Kumar Ghosh by Canera 4375/­ Bank Robico Mutual Fund during check period.

13. Dividend paid by UTI:

a) Dividend paid to Sh. Samir Kumar Ghosh by UTI Mid 2,805.61 Cap Fund during check period.

b) Dividend paid to Sh. Samir Kumar Ghosh by UTI 2,940.37 Transporation and Logistic Sector Fund during check period.

c) Dividend paid to Sh. Samir Kumar Ghosh by UTI 5,105.88 Infrastructure Fund during check period.

d) Dividend paid to Sh. Samir Kumar Ghosh by UTI 1,970.72 Banking Sector Fund during check period.

CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 78 of 93

14. Interest paid to Sh. Samir Kumar Ghosh by HUDCO 40,001/­ Infrastructure Bond Sister's­I during check period.

15. Interest paid to Sh. Samir Kumar Ghosh and Ms. 18,720/­ Runa Ghosh by M/s Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd.

during check period.

16. Redemption amount paid to Sh. Samir Kumar Ghosh 14,100.50 on 01.3.2005 in respect of Master Equity Plan­92 of UTI.

17. Interest / Maturity amount paid by IDBI Bank:

a) Redemption amount paid to Sh. Samir Kumar Ghosh 27,300/­ in respect of IDBI Flexi Bond No. 124086597 in the name of Sh. Samir Kumar Ghosh on 15.9.2005.

b) Interest paid to Sh. Samir Kumar Ghosh and Ms. 2,834/­ Runa Ghosh by IDBI Flexi Bonds.

c) Interest paid to Sh. Samir Kumar Ghosh in respect of 2,586/­ IDBI Flexi Deposit Receipt F 06AR003356 on 27.3.2003 and 27.3.2004 (it has since been matured, paid and renewed).

18. Car loan availed by Late Ms. Runa Ghosh from ICICI 1,50,000/­ Bank on 10.8.2006.

19. Term loan availed by Sh. Samir Kumar Ghosh on 2,00,000/­ 03.10.2000 from Indian Overseas Bank, 7 Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi.

20. Home loan availed by Sh. Samir Kumar Ghosh from 14,00,000/­ IDBI Bank during 13.4.2004 to 26.02.2005.

21. Interest paid by HDFC:

a) Interest accrued and paid to Ms. Runa Ghosh in 56,154/­ respect of deposit receipt No. 1499555 of HDFC on 07.11.2002 and maturity amount paid to Ms. Runa Ghosh in respect of deposit receipt No. 1743821 of HDFC on 19.12.2005.

CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 79 of 93

b) Interest accrued and paid to Sh. Samir Kumar Ghosh 75,561/­ in respect of deposit receipt No. 1499562 of HDFC on 07.11.2002 and payment of part principal amount to Sh. Samir Kumar Ghosh in respect of deposit receipt No. 1499562 on 07.11.2002 and maturity amount paid to Sh. Samir Kumar Ghosh in respect of deposit receipt No. 1743838 on 14.12.2005.

c) Interest accrued and paid to Ms. Runa Ghosh in 7,169/­ respect of deposit receipt No. 1267374 on 26.3.2004.

d) Interest accrued and paid to Ms. Runa Ghosh in 7,169/­ respect of deposit receipt No. 1267439 on 26.3.2004.

e) Payment of part principal amount along with interest 65,926/­ in respect of deposit receipt No. 1187399 dated 29.01.2001. Payment was made to Ms. Runa Ghosh on 04.2.2004.

f) Interest accrued and paid to Ms. Runa Ghosh in 7,169/­ respect of deposit receipt No. 1267240 on 26.3.2004.

g) Interest accrued and paid to Sh. Samir Kumar Ghosh 7,169/­ in respect of deposit receipt No. 1267202 on 26.3.2004.

h) Payment of part principal amount along with interest 65,926/­ in respect of deposit receipt No. 1187382 dated 29.01.2001. Payment was made to Sh. Samir Kumar Ghosh on 04.2.2004.

i) Interest accrued and paid to Sh. Samir Kumar Ghosh 7,169/­ in respect of deposit receipt No. 1267178 on 26.3.2004.

22. Income from Non­Refundable PF Loan sanctioned 2,50,000/­ and disbursed on 19.8.1988 to Sh. Samir Kumar Ghosh by MSTC Ltd.

23. Interest / dividend received from investments made in 56,191.77 shares and debentures of various companies.

CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 80 of 93

24. Salary paid to Ms. Runa Ghosh for the period from 27,355/­ October 1996 to May 1997 by DAV Public School, East of Kailash.

                                               TOTAL                                         67,40,774.78


                                               Statement­D
                           (Expenditure incurred during check period)


 Sl. No.                                   Description                                      Amount (Rs.)

1. Expenditure incurred towards purchase of FDRs of HDFC:

a) Expenditure made by Ms. Runa Ghosh towards 42,000/­ purchase of deposit receipt No. 1499555 dated 07.11.2001 of HDFC which was again renewed vide deposit receipt No. 1743821 dated 07.11.2002. This deposit was matured and paid on 19.12.2005.

b) Expenditure made by Sh. Samir Kumar Ghosh 58,000/­ towards purchase of deposit receipt No. 1499562 dated 07.11.2001 of HDFC apart of it was renewed vide deposit receipt No. 1743838 dated 07.11.2002. This deposit was matured and paid on 19.12.2005.

c) Expenditure made by Ms. Runa Ghosh towards 75,000/­ purchase of deposit receipt No. 1187399 dated 29.01.2001 which was partly renewed for Rs.35,000/­ on 29.01.2004 and remaining principal amount and interest was paid on 04.02.2004.

d) Expenditure made by Sh. Samir Kumar Ghosh 75,000/­ towards purchase of deposit receipt No. 1187382 dated 29.01.2001 which was partly renewed for Rs. 35,000/­ on 29.01.2004 and remaining principal amount and interest was paid on 04.02.2004.

2. Expenditure towards school fee:

CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 81 of 93

a) Expenditure incurred towards school fee of son 1,03,035/­ Anirban Ghosh for classes prep to Class­X during 1994­95 to 2004­05.

b) Expenditure incurred towards school fees of son 47,420/­ Anirban Ghosh for classes XI to XII for session 2005­06 to 2006­07.

3. Expenditure incurred towards installments of Home 4,35,013/­ Loan of IDBI Bank during 11.5.2004 to 24.01.2007.

4. Expenditure incurred towards monthly maintenance 10,500/­ charges in respect of flat during July 2006 to January 2007.

5. Expenditure incurred towards wood work etc. done in 1,75,000/­ flat No. B­605, Royal Tower, Sector­61, NOIDA during September 2005 to November 2005.

6. Monthly installment paid by Ms. Runa Ghosh towards 34,783/­ Car loan to ICICI Bank upto 24.01.2007.

7. Monthly installment paid by Sh. Samir Kumar Ghosh 2,47,868/­ towards Car loan to Indian Overseas Bank.

8. Expenditure incurred towards servicing of Maruti 800 2,135.16 CC AC Car of Ms. Runa Ghosh.

9. Expenditure incurred towards acquisition of IDBI Flexi 20,000/­ Bond No. 124086597 on 15.3.2002 in the name of Sh. Samir Kumar Ghosh (it has since been matured and paid).

10. Expenditure made by Sh. Samir Kumar Ghosh in 10,000/­ Master Equity Plan­92. It has since been redeemed.

11. Expenditure incurred towards payment of LIC 10,17,895/­ Premium.

12. Unverifiable kitchen expenses i.e. 1/3 of gross salary 11,50,878.50

- income tax deduction at source.

                                               TOTAL                                         35,04,527.66




CC No. 51/12                               State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh                 Page No. 82 of 93

Calculation of assets disproportionate to known sources of income:

Statement­A (Assets at the beginning of check period) ­ Rs.12,000/­ Statement­B (Assets at the end of check period) ­ Rs.59,05,826.70 Assets acquired during check period ­ Rs.59,05,826.70 ­ Rs.12,000/­ = Rs.58,93,826.70 Statement­C (Income earned during check period) ­ Rs.67,40,744.78 Statement­D (Expenditure incurred during check period) ­ Rs.35,04,527.66 Likely Savings ­ Income ­ Expenditure Rs.32,36,247.12 Disproportionate Assets ­ Assets ­ Likely Savings Rs.26,57,579.58 39.42% Conclusion

105. In the light of the said discussion and assessment carried out, the likely savings during the check period from December, 1983 to 24.01.2007 comes to Rs. 32,36,247.12 (Total income minus expenditures) as against which the accused was possessing the assets to the tune of Rs. 58,93,826.70. Therefore, the disproportionate assets comes to the tune of Rs. 26,57,579.58 (Assets minus likely savings) i.e. almost 39.42% of the known sources of income. The accused has failed to render a satisfactory account of acquisition of assets disproportionate to his known CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 83 of 93 sources of income. At the cost of repetition, such acquisition were never notified by him to his department as per the Service Rules and I do not find any merit in the case of the defence that his wife had acquired the properties out her own income/earnings.

106. I, therefore, find that prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused had acquired and was holding assets disproportionate to his known sources of income during the check period from December, 1983 to 24.01.2007 to the extent of 39.42%. I, therefore, convict accused Samir Kumar Ghosh under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Announced in the open court on 24th Day of March, 2014.

(SWARANA KANTA SHARMA) SPECIAL JUDGE (CBI­05), NEW DELHI/ 24.3.2014 CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 84 of 93 IN THE COURT OF MS. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, SPECIAL JUDGE, CBI­05, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI CC No: 51/12 RC No: 11(A)/2008/CBI/ACB/ND Unique Case ID No: 02403R0384512009 Title : State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh S/o Late Sh. Barindraa Kumar Ghosh R/o B­605, Royal Towers, Sector­61, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. U/s: Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(Appearances) Sh. Akshay Gautam, Ld. Senior PP for CBI.

Accused Samir Kumar Ghosh has been produced from Judicial Custody (in some other case).

Ld. Counsel for accused Samir Kumar Ghosh.

IO Inspector S.K. Sinha.

ORDER ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE

1. Vide my separate judgment dated 24.3.2014, accused Samir Kumar Ghosh has been convicted.

2. I have heard arguments on the point of sentence and have carefully gone through the case file.

CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 85 of 93

3. Ld. Senior PP for CBI states that there are no mitigating circumstances, which could warrant taking a lenient view in favour of the convict. Ld. Senior PP for CBI has further urged that this is a fit case where the assets, which have been found disproportionate to the known sources of income of accused be also confiscated to the State (CBI). It has further been urged that while imposing the fine, the factors that have already been brought on record may also be taken into consideration in terms of Section 16 of Prevention of Corruption Act.

4. Ld. Counsel for convict Samir Kumar Ghosh on the other hand states that his client is around 58 years of age and his family consists of his two sons and one old mother who is bed ridden. Ld. Counsel for convict further states that a lenient view be taken while sentencing the convict as his wife has also expired.

5. After hearing both the sides, I am of the opinion that while dealing with the question of sentence in an authority reported as State of UP Vs. Sattan @ Satyendra and Others 2009 III AD (SC) 492, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in para 14 as under:

"Proportion between crime and punishment is a goal respected in CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 86 of 93 principle, and in spite of errant notions, it remains a strong influence in the determination of sentences. The practice of punishing all serious crimes with equal severity is now unknown in civilized societies, but such a radical departure from the principle of proportionality has disappeared from the law only in recent times. Even now for a single grave infraction drastic sentences are imposed. Anything less than a penalty of greatest severity for any serious crime is thought then to be a measure of toleration that is unwarranted and unwise. But, in fact, quite apart from those considerations that make punishment unjustifiable when it is out of proportion to the crime, uniformly disproportionate punishment has some very undesirable practical consequences."

CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 87 of 93

6. Similarly, in Surain Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2009­II AD (SC) 589, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in paragraphs 7 and 8 as under:

(7) "Day in and day out the gigantic problem of corruption in the public servants is on the increase.

Large scale corruption retards the nation­building activities and everyone has to suffer on that count. Corruption is corroding like cancerous lymph nodes, the vital veins of the body politics, social fabric of efficiency in the public service and demoralizing the honest officers. The efficiency in public service would improve only when the public servant devotes his sincere attention and does the duty diligently, truthfully, honestly and devotes himself assiduously to the performance of the duties of his post".

(8) "Considering the CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 88 of 93 peculiar facts of the case, we are of the view that the custodial sentences of one year, which is minimum prescribed, would meet the ends of justice".

7. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the submissions made by Ld. Defence Counsel, I am of the opinion that reasons with regard to convict possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income have already been explained in the accompanying judgment dated 24.3.2014 and the same need not be repeated herein for the sake of brevity. Suffice to state that the likely savings during the check period from December, 1983 to 24.01.2007 comes to Rs. 32,36,247.12 (Total income minus expenditures) as against which the accused was possessing the assets to the tune of Rs. 58,93,826.70. Therefore, the disproportionate assets come to the tune of Rs. 26,57,579.58 (Assets minus likely savings) i.e. almost 39.42% of the known sources of income.

8. Ld. Counsel for accused has stated during arguments on sentence that since the case properties have not been produced before the Court under Section 452 Cr.P.C, they cannot be confiscated. Ld. Senior PP for CBI on the other hand has stated that in DA cases there CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 89 of 93 is no necessity that the properties be produced before the Court. Ld. Senior PP for CBI has further stated that judgments cited before me are (i) Criminal Appeal No. 191 of 1977, Title: Reno Paul Altoe Vs. Union of India, (ii) Criminal Misc. (Main) Appeal No. 1372 of 1996, Title:

Sudhir Kumar Dhingra Vs. Unior Of India and (iii) Civil Revision Miscellaneous (Main) Appeal No. 496 of 1985 and Civil Revision Appeal No. 131 of 1985, title: Randhir Singh and Ors. Vs. Director of Revenue Intellegence and V.P. Verma Vs. Mal Singh are different and are relevant to Customs's Act and have no relevance to cases of Disproportionate Assets. Ld. Counsel for accused also states that without prejudice to his rights in case any order regarding confiscation of the property is passed towards amount held to be disproportionate to the known source of income of the accused, the Court may instead of attaching the immovable properties of the accused may give option of depositing cash amount towards the same. Ld. Counsel for accused also states that FDRs which are also on record may be confiscated and encashed without prejudice to his rights.

9. Ld. Senior PP for CBI further states that the same FDRs have been partly got encashed by the accused. Ld. Counsel for accused has stated that only one FDR mentioned at serial no. 1 of Statement 'B' of the Charge sheet has been encashed partially and still an amount of Rs. 1 lakh remains in the said FDR.

CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 90 of 93

10. It has been pointed by Ld. Counsel for the accused as well as Ld. Senior PP for CBI assisted by IO Sh. S.K. Sinha, DSP, CBI, Delhi that the documents pertaining to liquid assets which have been considered by the Court will amount to about Rs. 26 lakhs approximately. It is, therefore, stated that if the said liquid assets are attached, the same will realize the amount of disproportionate assets i.e. Rs. 26,57,579.58. In such circumstances, it is ordered that the liquid assets of the accused mentioned in paragraph no. 104 of the judgment under the head "Statement B" at serial no. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 to 16, 19, 20 and 22 be confiscated to the State.

11. Having further regard to the overall circumstances of the case, I am inclined to take a lenient view and sentence him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of One year under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) along with fine of Rs.1 lakhs, in default of which to further under go simple imprisonment for 6 months

12. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. be given to convict Samir Kumar Ghosh as per law.

13. Bail Bond of convict Samir Kumar Ghosh is hereby cancelled and his surety stands discharged. The documents, if any, of the surety CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 91 of 93 be returned against proper receipt after getting the endorsement, if any, cancelled.

14. Fine of Rs.1 lakhs has not been deposited by convict Samir Kumar Ghosh. He seeks time to deposit the fine amount as he is in JC in some other case. Time is granted to deposit the fine of Rs. 1 lakh till 25.4.2014.

15. At this stage, an application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. Has been moved by Ld. Counsel for convict Samir Kumar Ghosh. Copy has been supplied to Ld. Senior PP for CBI.

16. I have heard arguments on this application. It is stated that applicant/convict Samir Kumar Ghosh would be preferring an appeal against the judgment of this court and it is requested that the execution of order of sentence may be suspended and the convict may be granted bail till filing of appeal.

17. Considering the fact that the accused has been regularly appearing during the trial, the application is allowed and sentence is suspended till 23.6.2014 subject to applicant/convict Samir Kumar Ghosh furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/­ with one surety in the like amount. Bail bonds have been furnished and CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 92 of 93 accepted.

18. Copy of the Judgment and Order on Sentence be given to convict Samir Kumar Ghosh free of cost immediately.

19. It is stated by Ld. Counsel for accused that the accused is serving sentence in another matter and is in Judicial Custody in that case. In such circumstances, under Section 427 Cr.P.C I hereby order that the sentence in Case RC. No. 5/2007/CBI (Trap Case) and the present case will run concurrently in case such a situation arises.

20. File be consigned to Record Room after expiry of time of filing of appeal.

Announced in the open Court on 23.4.2014 (SWARANA KANTA SHARMA) SPECIAL JUDGE (CBI­05) NEW DELHI / 23.4.2014 CC No. 51/12 State (CBI) Vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh Page No. 93 of 93