Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Virender Singh Etc on 21 September, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAGHUBIR SINGH
SPL. JUDGE (PC ACT) CBI-18
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS : DELHI
CBI Case No. 199/2019
RC No. 26(A)/2000/CBI/ACB/New Delhi
U/s 120-B/419/467/471 IPC &
13(2) r/w 13 (1) (e) of the PC Act.
CBI
Versus
1. Sh. Virendra Singh (IAS),
S/o Sh. Horam Singh,
R/o 201, Rouse Avenue,
New Delhi
(The then Principal Secretary
Training & Technical Education,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
2. Sh.Naveen Kumar,
S/o Sh. Virendra Singh
R/o B-31, Panchsheel Enclave,
New Delhi.
3. Sh. Raksh Pal Singh,
S/o Sh. Harpal Singh,
382, Bhera Enclave,
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi
Date of FIR : 11.05.2000
Date of Institution : 20.05.2005
Reserved for orders : 25.08.2023
Date of Judgment : 21.09.2023
Final Order : All (three)
Convicted.
CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.1/370
-:JUDGMENT:-
A brief summary of the facts
1. The prosecution story starts with the FIR (dated
11.05.2000) No.RC DAI-0026(A)/2000/DLI; against
accused/public servant Sh. Virendra Singh; u/s 13 (2) R/w
Section 13 (1) (e) PC Act 1988. After investigation, the
Investigating Agency i.e CBI filed the Final Report u/s 173 Cr.
P.C against three accused persons. Accused no.1 Sh. Virendra
Singh is the Public Servant, accused No.2 (Naveen Kumar) is the
son of A-1 and accused no.3 (Raksh Pal Singh) happens to be
cousin of the wife of accused no.1. As per this Charge Sheet, the
offences alleged against the accused persons are punishable u/s
13 (2) R/w Sec. 13 (1) (e) and 120-B IPC & 109 IPC R/w Sec.
419/467/471 IPC and the substantive offences thereof. The
accused no.1/Public Servant has been shown in possession of
assets disproportionate to his known sources of income and the
disproportionate assets have been shown to be to the tune of Rs.
CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.2/370
2,62,68,298/- (as deciphered/calculated at pages Nos. 17-18 of
the Charge Sheet under the heading 'summary of income,
expenditure and assets') against the total income of Rs.
133,07,245/- assessing it to be 197.39 % in comparison to the
aggregate income of the family.
2. Accused no.1 Virender Singh (born in May 1945) was
inducted in Indian Civil Services in July 1969. Prior thereto, he
had worked with Bhabha Automic Research Centre, Trombay,
Bombay as Scientific Officer, Scale II, in the pay scale of Rs
400--950/- for the period between September 1964 to June 1969.
He got married in December 1964 with Smt. Geeta Singh and the
couple is having two daughters (Smita Chaudhary and Gleeco
Singh) and one son namely Naveen Kumar; shown arrayed as
Accused No.-2.
3. After completion of his training, the accused no.1
remained posted in various capacities and as per the Charge
Sheet; the assets of accused Virender Singh started swelling up
after his posting as Managing Director, Delhi State Civil Supplies
Corporation in July 1982. The 'Check Period' has been reckoned
CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.3/370
from July 1982 to 12th May 2000 i.e. the date when the (first)
'search' was conducted.
4. Prior to the 'check-period', income of accused no.1 from
salary has been found to be to the tune of Rs. 3.1 Lakhs
approximately and it was considered to be to the tune of Rs. 3.5
lakhs for this period by giving benefit (of Rs. 40,000/-) to
accused no.1.
5. The Charge Sheet further runs thereby showing under
separate headings the 'Income'; 'Expenditure' and 'Assets' of
accused no.1; of his son Naveen Kumar (A-2) and of the wife of
accused no.1. These details are being reproduced hereunder:-
Income of accused No.1 Sh. Virender Singh
S. Source of Income Amount
No.
1. Salary w.e.f 01.07.1982 to 30.04.2000 based 1,191,035.00
on the salary details received from various
Deptts he served.
2. Car loan by Virender Singh from DSCBL on 200,000.00
26.11.1996.
3. Profit of sale of car No. HPA-270 purchased 12,000.00
in 1983 for Rs. 19,000/- and sold in 1985 for
CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.4/370
Rs. 31,000/- with new no. DIC 8272 as per
intimations.
4. Interest on bank A/c No. HV-9 with Delhi 29,262.00
State Co. Operative Bank, Darya Ganj, Delhi
5. Cash Gifts (Shagun) at the reception of 204,120.00
Sh. Naveen Kumar at the time of his
marriage on 24 Nov.1997.
6. LIC maturity of Pol. No. 024561972 123,285.00
7. Pre-check period income 350,000.00
Total 21,09,702.00
Expenditure of Sh. Virendra Singh
S. Name of Expenditure Amount.
No
.
1. Admission fee, college fee etc. paid between 122,000.00 13.07.1999 to 12.05.2000 for his daughters admission in Santosh Medical & Dental College, Ghaziabad
2. Payment of Shiksha Vihar CGHS paid 10,110.00 Rs.110 in cash on 19.07.1982 & Rs. 10,000/- through cheque no. 782623 on 12.09.1999.
3. Payment to Indian Habitat Centre 20,000.00
1. Paid Rs. 15000/- on 24.09.1998 DSCB.
2. Paid Rs.2500/- on 04.01.199 vide Ch.No.559597.
3. Paid Rs. 2500/- on 29.10.99 vide Ch. No. 782625.
4. Payment to NSCI, New Delhi 4,144.00
5. Payment to DPS Mathura Road, New Delhi 81,650.00 in respect of son and daughters Naveen Rs. 7,227/-;
Samita Rs. 8,149/-;
Gleeco Singh Rs.66,274/-.
CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.5/370
6. Regn. Charges of Car No.DL-3CK-0018 2,050.00 Maruti Zen of Virendra Singh
7. Payment of Noida Golf Course Club. 4,125.00
8. Repayment of car loan of Sh. Virendra Singh 251,139.00 vide statement of A/c of Delhi State Co-op Bank.
9. Payment of custom duty on CTV. 7,264.00
10. Repayment of car advance as shown in 54,000.00 statement of A/c of Virendra Singh
11. Reception and Ring Ceremony expenses @ 500,000.00 Rs.500/- per person presuming 1000 persons attended the reception.
12. Loss suffered in sale of car no. 1 DL CA- 3,674.00 4261.
13. Payment of MTNL Bill of Tel. No. 6801178 11,221.00
14. Expenditure on non verifiable items 357,310.00 including food, clothing, entertainment, etc. @ Rs. 3000/- per month (216 months x 3000) from July 82 to May 2000.
15. Payment to CSOI, New Delhi 10,550.00
16. Loss suffered in sale of car no. DL 2CA-101 31,000.00
17. Payment forwards LIC Policy No. 37,677.00 024561972 @ Rs.1076.50 Half yearly.
18. Petrol expenses of vehicle no. DL-CK-0018 53,534.00 for 44612 k.m @ Rs. 1.20 per km.
Total 1,561,448.00
Assets of Sh. Virendra Singh
S. Nature of Transactions Amount.
No
.
1. Balance in A/c HV-9 (New No.1306) of 170,227.00
CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.6/370
Sh. Virendra Singh in Delhi State Co-op Bank D. Ganj).
2. House Hold articles found during the 334,775.00 house search at Rouse Avenue
3. Maruti Zen No.DL-3CK-0018 of Virendra 357,775.00 Singh purchased from M/s Bagga Link Services on 03.12.96.
4. Household articles found during search at 276,775.00 C-8, Ansal Villa Satbari Farm House on 12.05.2000
5. Investment in the name of daughter 50,000.00 Gleeco Singh in debentures of DCM.
6. i). Cost of land at C-8, Ansal Villa Farm 1,044,200.00 House, Satbari purchases in the name of Jasram and sons.
ii). Cost of construction of building 1,194,200.00
iii). Stamp duty 51,560.00
7. Share contributed by Sh. Virendra Singh 28,000.00
for purchase of land in village Gindora in 1982 in the name of Smt. Geeta Singh as per intimation of the officer.
8. Purchase of Scooter No. DG1 SF-8662. 8,000.00
9. Deposits made in Time Deposit A/c 33863 62,100.00 in Post office by Virendra Singh
10. Cost of .32 bore revolver from small Arms 12,240.00 factory.
11. Deposit in A/c no. 13149 of Gleeco Singh, 56,001.00 D/o Virendra Singh under his guardianship in Central Bank of India, Bengali Market, New Delhi Total 3,645,268.00 CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.7/370 Income of Smt. Geeta Singh (Wife of A-1) S. Sources of Income Amount.
No.
1. 40% share from sale of Smita Industries Ind. 336,000.00 Plot in Mohan Co-op Ind. Area
2. Sale of Matiz Car No. UP-16-6596 272,000.00
3. Income from Intt. On DCM Debentures 9,202.00
4. Dividend from United Phosphorus Ltd. 2,500.00
5. Dividend from ICICI 3,340.00
6. Dividend from NOCIL 1,800.00
7. Advance from I.K. Chanana for Lodipur 1,000,000.00 Land.
8. Dividend from Arvind Mills (Smt. Geeta 900.00 Singh)
9. Interest on A/c no. 4812 of Smt. Geeta Singh 40,690.00
10. Interest on A/c no. 13149 of M/s Gleeco 4,806.00 Singh
11. Agricultural income @ Rs. 12000/- per 741291+ annum of Geeta Singh from 1983 to 2000 as 39000 (as per calculated during investigation. IT returns) Totaling Rs.
7,80,291.00
12. Interest on bank A/c no. TG-2. 4,852.00
13. Loan received from M/s Trishul Finance 102,000.00 Company for purchase of Matiz car No. DL-
3S-U-009 purchased in March 2000
Total 2,558,381.00
CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.8/370
Expenditure of Smt. Geeta Singh
S. No. Name of Expenditure Amount.
1. Loss siffered in sale of Matiz car 59,604.00
No. UP-16-6596 by Smt. Geeta
Singh
2. Loss in sale of Zen car of Geeta 5,000.00
Singh 1998
3. Foreign tour of Smt. Geeta Singh 106,000.00
and Ms. Gleeco Singh
4. Regn. Charges of Matiz Car No. 3,965.00
DL-3S-U-0009 of Smt. Geeta
Singh
5. Expenditure on maintenance and 16,000.00
petrol on Matiz car no. UP-16-
6596 by Smt. Geeta Singh
between the period Dec. 1998 to
March 2000 and also on new
Matiz car no. DL3S-U-0009
from 30.03.2000 to 12.05.2000
taken @ Rs. 1000 p.m for about
16 months.
6. Expenses of telephone no. 171,023.00
3236634
7. Study expenses of Ms. Smita 114,398.00
Choudhary
Total 475,990.00
CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.9/370
Assets of Smt. Geeta Singh
S. No. Nature of Transactions Amount.
1. A/c No. 226, Prathama Bank, 20,000.00
Lodipur of Smt. Geeta Singh
2. A/c No. 4812 of Geeta Singh in 614,973.00
Central Bank of India, Bengali
Market, New Delhi
3. A/c No. TG-2 (New No. 2974) of 19.952.00
Smt. Geeta Singh in Delhi State
Co-op. Bank Darya Ganj, New
Delhi
4. Matiz Car No. DL-3S-U-0009 as 272,000.00
per intimation of Sh. Virendra
Singh dt. 03.04.2000, the car was
purchased for Rs. 3,74,072 from
M/s P.S Cars by availing loan
from M/s Trishul Motors.
5. ICICI shares 2,000.00
6. NOCIL shares 21,200.00
7. Arvind Mills shares 14,000.00
8. Matiz car No. UP-16-6596 333,204.00
Model 1998 of Smt. Geeta Singh
9. Investment of Smita Industries 9,000.00
by Smt. Geeta Singh
10. Investment of petrol pump at 191,895.00
Pakada (M/s Charan Filling
Station)
11. 100 Equity shares of United 70,000.00
Phosphorus Ltd.
12. 10 Equity shares of Alembic 10,000.00
Glass Ind. Ltd.
13. 900 shares of Reliance Petroleum 21,600.00
Ltd.
14. Investment made by Smt. Geeta 42,000.00
CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.10/370
Singh for purchase of 5 acre
agricultural land at village
Gindora, Moradabad during Sept.
82.
15. Cash found during search at 132,000.00
Rouse Avenue.
Total 1,773,824.00
Income of (A-2) Sh. Naveen Kumar (Son of A-1) S. No. Sources of Income Amount.
1. Sale of 7 flats in Khirkee extn. 725,000.00
2. Rental income of Kh-34 123,000.00 Andhreia More from Glorious stylings etc. during 95-96
3. Amounts received from Amit 260,000.00 Saini
4. Rent from K-1 Alaknanda shop 123,500.00 (Noida)
5. Salary of Naveen Kumar from 72,000.00 Gleeco Services as per returns on 1999 and 2000
6. Reserve & Surplus of Gleeco 156,444.00 Services
7. Rent of 712-A, Tolstoy House 4,113,042.00 from P&O Nedlloyed including advance from 89 to 98
8. Rent of 712-A, Tolstoy House 1,254,975.00 from Fuller India Ltd. Including advance from 98 to 5/2000
9. Sale of Tata Sierra Car DL- 205,000.00 4CC0012
10. Bank Interest on A/c no. 201.00 52211148853 CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.11/370
11. Agricultural income @ Rs. 180,000.00 10000/- per annum of Naveen Kumar from 1983 to 2000
12. Sale of 6 flats in Khirkee Extn 600,000.00 (approx)
13. Loan from Om Choudhary 300,000.00
14. Loan from RP Singh 361.000.00
15. Loan from Ms. Mary 125,000.00
16. Salary from NV Computers 40,000.00 Total 8,639,162.00 Expenditure of Sh. Naveen Kumar S. No. Name of Expenditure Amount.
1. London Travel of Naveen Kumar 120,534.00 in 1996, Rs. 72634/- and air ticket from Mannie Pan Rs.
47900/-
2. Payment of Star Estate 24,758.00 Management
3. Brokerage of Liaison 43,275.00 Consultancy Services
4. Payment to P&O Nedloyed 1,068,735.00 towards refund of advances
5. Tax deducted at source by fuller 117,160.00 India Ltd. From rent
6. House tax paid to NDMC for 251,403.00 712-A, Tolstoy House
7. Advance paid to Kuldeep Rai 250,000.00 Luthra for property
8. Payment of telephone bills of 19,039.00 6492948
9. Payment to Raj Malhotra 250,000.00 CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.12/370
10. Payments to Harshvardhan from 125,000.00 the A/c of Sh. Horam Singh in PNB, IGNOU.
11. Payment of Helvetia Klinic 40,000.00
12. Repayment of loan of Amit Saini 110,000.00
13. Amount of TDS by P&O 324,742.00 Nedloyd 4/95 to 9/98
14. Payment of service Equipment 175,179.00 Co. for Naveen Car Care Centre
15. Payment to AVL India Ltd. For 110,000.00 Gas Analyser
16. Losses suffered in Spanners 150,000.00 workshop
17. Payment of bill of tel no. 7,990.00 6319738
18. Payments towards cellphone no. 4,810.00 9810101839
19. Payment to Sab ka Ghar CGHS 30,000.00 for Pratibha Ahulwalia
20. Payment towards income tax by 676,066.00 Naveen Kumar
21. Payment of cell phone bills of 35,677.00 9810027403
22. Regn. Charges of Car No. DL- 3,765.00 4CC-0012 Tata Siera of Naveen Kumar
23. Petrol expenses of Qualis DL- 1,937.00 6CG-2611 for 1937 km @ Rs. 1 per km.
24. Petrol Expenses of Escort Fort 29,147.00 for DL-3CJ-7921 for 29147 km @ Rs. 1 per km.
Total 3,969,217.00 CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.13/370 Assets of Sh. Naveen Kumar. S. No. Nature of Transactions Amount 1. CA 3985 of Gleeco Services in 348,558.00 Canara Bank, Daryaganj. 2. Deposit in A/c No. 12954 of 188,248.00 Naveen Kumar in Canara Bank, Daryaganj. 3. 2 TDRs dated 24.04.2000 of 70,000.00 Central Bank of India Sukhdev Vihar of Kumari Vanesa Singh u/g of Ms. Monica and Kumari Vanesa Singh u/g of Sh. Naveen Kumar. 4. 2 TDRs of Rs. 70000 each dated 140,000.00 17.07.2000 of Ms. Monica Kumar & Sh. Naveen Kumar and Sh. Naveen Kumar & Monica Kumar in Central Bank of India, Sukhdev Vihar 5. Cash In Central Bank of India 430,000.00 Sukhdev Vihar, locker No. 380 6. Canara Bank Mutual Fund Corp. 10,000.00 -92 of Sh. Naveen Kumar. 7. Locker no. 51, Bank Of India, 310,156.00 Pakwada of Naveen Kumar (Fixed Deposit) 8. Cost of Contessa Car no. DL3CJ- 447,899.00 3241 of Gleeco Services pvt. Ltd. 9. Tata Sierra Car No. DL-4CC- 356,165.00 0012 of Sh. Naveen Kumar 10. Cash at Residence of Sh. Naveen 49,180.00 Kumar 11. House hold Articles at B-31, 221,770.00 Panchsheel Enclave. CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.14/370 12. Articles at Flat No. 118-B, 19,025.00 Sukhdev Vihar 13. Inventory of articles at Spanners 272,303.00 Workshop excluding the equipment worth rupees 89000/- of ELGI make recorded in inventory 14. Cash in locker no. 1063, 370,000.00 Allahabad bank, Bhera Enclave in the name of Sh. Ranvijay Singh. 15. Investment in JD-2, Khirki Extn. 1,828,400.00 16. Purchase of plot no. JD-3/57, 4,551,300.00 Khirki Extn. 17. Cost of plot at Khasra no. 154, 400,000.00 Village Lado Sarai 18. Cost of Plot Khasra No. 2300/71 9,154,900.00 (R-50) Village Khirki and Construction thereon 19. B-31, Panchsheel Enclave house 2,925,000.00 20. K-1, Alaknanda, Noida Shop 670,558.00 21. Total cost of flat no. 712-A, 689,651.00 Tolstoy House including other charges etc. in the name of Late Ranvijay Singh 22. Cost of Sukhdev Vihar, Flat No. 400,000.00 118-B, Pocket A 23. Deposit in Spanners A/c No. 83,073.00 601009, Allahabad Bank, Bhera Enclave (Cr. Balance). 24. Deposit in Sh. Ranvijay Singh 9,585.00 A/c No.5585, OBC, Vishal Enclave 25. Balance in Sh. Ranvijay Singh 17,145.00 A/c No. 105114 (cr. Balance). CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.15/370 26. Cost of construction of spanner 930,462.00 workshop 27. i) Actual cost of construction of 2,360,000.00 building over plot no. 1667, Narela ii) Cost of plot taken separately 743,750.00 28. Land in village Shivana, 56,250.00 Bandwadi, Distt. Gurgaon. 29. Land in village Baripur 95,000.00 purchased from Sh. Ranvijay Singh in the name of Sh. Naveen Kumar. 30. Cr. balance in SB A/c 3763 of 1,418.00 Sh. Naveen Kumar. Total 28,149,796.00
6. Beneath the 'summary' the Disproportionate Assets as shown calculated in the Charge Sheet are as under:-
"Sh. Virendra Singh + Sh. Naveen Kumar + Smt. Geeta Singh' DA = Assets - Savings = 33,568,888 - 73,00,590 = Rs. 2,62,68,298 % of Disproportion = DA X 100 Total Income of Sh. Virendra Singh, Sh. Naveen Kumar and Smt. Geeta = Rs. 2,62,68,298 x 100 = 197.39% 1,33,07,245 197.39%"
CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.16/370
7. Further, in the Charge Sheet accusation qua A-3; Sh. Raksh Pal Singh are to the effect that he was a Contractor in MCD and is a relative of A-1 & A-2; being cousin of the wife of accused no.1. He actively aided & abetted accused no.1 in acquisition of Benami properties and properties in his name. He was the 'introducer' in respect of account no. 105114 in the name of Ranvijay Singh maintained with Allahabad Bank, Bhera Enclave, New Delhi, on the strength of which, the locker no. 1063 was also obtained. (Said Sh. Ranvijay Singh was also one of the close relatives of the accused persons; being the 'Saala' of A-1 and maternal uncle of A-2. He expired allegedly by suicide as on 19.08.1999 ). Accused no.2 Naveen Kumar; in conspiracy with A-3 Raksh Pal Singh, impersonated and signed as Ranvijay Singh for the purpose of operating bank locker and bank account as above in the name of said Sh. Ranvijay Singh. Documents pertaining to several properties were recovered from the said locker. A-2 Naveen Kumar allegedly operated this locker nine times between 02.09.1999 to 01.05.2000, whereas said Sh. Ranvijay Singh had committed suicide prior thereto as on 19.08.1999. The signatures of the person operating the locker No. 1063 (i.e. the locker in the CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.17/370 name of Ranvijay Singh) after the death of Ranvijay Singh tallied with the signatures appended on the ledger sheet prior to the death of said Sh. Ranvijay Singh and even thereafter. GEQD confirmed that all the signatures on this sheet were in the hand of Sh. Naveen Kumar (who allegedly impersonated himself as such). The key of this locker was also found in possession of A-2 Naveen Kumar. Most of the original documents pertaining to (acquisition of) immovable properties along with cash worth Rs. 3,70,000/- were recovered from this locker during the course of search on 13.05.2000.
8. Accused no.3 Raksh Pal Singh has also been depicted in the Charge Sheet as 'introducer' for opening all the accounts of Sh. Naveen Kumar with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Vishal Enclave and Allahabad Bank etc. A-3 Raksh Pal Singh was also allegedly instrumental in depositing various amounts in the fictitious accounts of Sh. Ranvijay Singh, allegedly operated by accused no.2 Naveen Kumar. A-3 Raksh Pal Singh had even signed the Buyer's Agreement with Ansal Properties by putting his signatures as 'Power of Attorney Holder CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.18/370 of Sh. Ranvijay Singh' whereas allegedly he was not holding any such POA. A-3 as Contractor with MCD, got himself established in Delhi with the blessings of accused no.1 Virender Singh. He had also introduced Sh. Ranvijay Singh in SBI,DDA Building (A/c No. 3399 dated 28.12.1982) during the year 1982 (which was perhaps the first account in the name of Sh. Ranvijay Singh). A-3 was also a partner in M/s Jassa Ram & Sons. During the course of investigation, one of the partners therein namely Sh. Devender Kumar told CBI that he had signed the Partnership Deed dated 27.06.1985 of the afore-said Firm at the behest of accused no.3 Raksh Pal Singh without going through the contents thereof and that he had not invested even a single penny in the said partnership business and was not even aware of any farmhouse i.e. C-8 Ansal Villa, Satbari, New Delhi, in the name of this Partnership Firm. As per the Charge Sheet, this farm house has been considered as the Benami 'asset' of accused no.1 Sh. Virendra Singh as the documents of this property were allegedly recovered from the locker no. 1063, Allahabad Bank i.e. locker in the name of Ranvijay Singh. This locker was allegedly being operated by his son i.e. accused no.2 Sh. Naveen CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.19/370 Kumar, impersonating himself as Ranvijay Singh. The GEQD opinion has affirmed the same; as per the prosecution version. The documents of this property have also been shown recovered from the house search of (accused Naveen Kumar) at B-31 Panchsheet Enclave, New Delhi. Certain other documents of this property including Property Tax Receipt issued by MCD, telephone bills installed at C-8 Ansal Villa; etc. etc., have also been shown recovered from the house search of the official residence (201 Rouse Avenue) of accused no.1 Virendra Singh.
9. Charge Sheet further runs to the effect that the documents pertaining to land measuring 1 bigha 13 biswa at Nangloi Delhi were recovered during the house search of A-2 Naveen Kumar at B-31, Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi. This Sale Deed was executed in favour of A-3 Raksh Pal Singh s/o Sh. Harpal Singh by its previous owner for a total consideration of Rs. 1,75000/-. Further, documents pertaining to another land measuring 1 bigha 14 biswa at Nangloi Delhi were recovered from the locker of Ranvijay Singh (allegedly operated by A-2 Naveen Kumar). This property was acquired by A-3 Raksh Pal Singh from Smt. Bimla CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.20/370 W/o Lala Ram through Sale Deed.
10. Further, blank stamp papers purchased in the name of different persons and a number of other stamp papers without any name and address along with some signed papers in blank, signed by one Sh. Kanak Pal Singh and afore-named Ranvijay Singh were also recovered from the possession of Naveen Kumar which allegedly show that this accused i.e. accused no.2 had obtained their signatures on blank sheets so that the same could be used for creating or releasing interest in any property in the name of Ranvijay Singh. Accused no.2 had also obtained GPA for Flat No. 712-A Tolstoy House, New Delhi in his own name from said Sh. Ranvijay Singh and got it registered with the concerned Sub Registrar Office on 17.02.1998 along with the Will executed by Ranvijay Singh.
11. Further, it is alleged in the Charge Sheet that accused no.2 Sh. Naveen Kumar had actively abetted his father A-1 in commission of offences of acquiring assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. Charge Sheet also contains that as CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.21/370 per GEQD opinion, A-2 Naveen Kumar had also signed as 'Horam Singh' (his grandfather) on documents such as application/indemnity bond for sanction of electricity connection from DESU while applying for such connection at Andheri Moar Property. This property was unauthorized and forming part of land of Gram Sabha of Andheria Moar Village. A Computer Centre in the name of M/s N.V. Computers was being run at the said property. Though allegedly a computer centre was being run therefrom, but the electricity connection had been obtained for domestic purposes and the electricity bills thereof were not in consonance with actual consumption of electricity. It shows that accused no.1 Sh. Virendra Singh had been abusing his official position as Chairman DVB for facilitation of 'theft of electricity' by his son accused no.2 Naveen Kumar at the said premises.
12. Charge Sheet also depicts that A-2 Naveen Kumar got married with Monica Kumar in November 1997. A daughter was born out of the said wedlock on 01.10.1999. Smt. Monica Kumar worked as Ad-hoc Lecturer in Jesus & Merry College for a few months and also worked as Clinical Psychologist in CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.22/370 VIMHANS. Ms. Smita Chaudhary (daughter of A-1) did her BDS course from Dental College Bagalkot, Karnataka and thereafter joined as Sr. Resident in Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi in 1998. Another daughter namely Ms. Gleeco Singh has been shown pursuing her BDS course from Santosh Medical and Dental College Ghaziabad UP since the year 1999.
13. After completion of the investigation and after obtaining the requisite sanction u/s 19 of the PC Act 1988 qua public servant Sh. Virendra Singh, the Charge Sheet was filed (on 20.05.2005) in the due course. The Court took cognizance of the offences vide order dated 29.09.2005.
Order on Charge
14. A detailed order on charge was pronounced as on 13.12.2007 vide which, it was observed & concluded that there was prima facie sufficient material to frame charge against all the accused persons and that:-
'they all be (jointly) charged for the offences punishable u/s 120-B IPC R/w 419/467/471 IPC & S. 13 (2) / S.13 (1) (e) of CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.23/370 the PC Act.
Charge u/s 13 (2) R/w Sec 13 (1) (e) of the PC Act was also ordered to be framed as against the public servant i.e. A-1 (Virender Singh).
Qua A-2 (Naveen Kumar), it was ordered that he be separately charged for the offences -
- punishable u/s 109 IPC R/w Sec. 13 (2) & Sec. 13 (1) (e) of the PC Act 1988 and -
- Punishable Ss. 419/467/471 IPC. The charges were accordingly framed as above against all the three accused persons as on 17.12.2007 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Witnesses:
15. As per the list of witnesses, filed along with the Charge Sheet, 256 witnesses have been cited in support of the prosecution case. Out of these witnesses, as many as 189 witnesses were examined and the rest witnesses were either dropped or had expired or could not be traced. (Two witnesses i.e. PW Sh. Yashpal Suri and Sh. Sumant Mehrish have CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.24/370 inadvertently been given same serial number as '181'). The prosecution witnesses are as under:-
PW1 Sh. D.P. Khatree (Dy. Secretary, DOPT, Govt. of India); called for proving Sanction Order 107/3/2004/AVDI dtd. 17.05.2005 (Ex. PW1/A).
PW-2 Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma (Bank Manager) through whose testimony certain credit/debit/transfer vouchers in respect of SBI A/c No.5585 (in the name of Ran Vijay Singh) for the period July 1991 to May 1998 have been made part of evidence as Mark PW2/A (Request letter by CBI). Ex. PW2/B (Vouchers), Ex. PW2/C & PW2/D (Account opening form and signature card of Ran Vijay Singh), certified copy of bank account statement (Ex. PW2/E).
PW-3 Sh. R.L. Sain (MTNL/BSNL CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.25/370 official) through whom billing record of three telephones (in the name of wife of A-1 and A-1 himself) has been brought on record as Ex. PW3/A. Forwarding letter vide which the details were sent is shown exhibited as Ex.
PW3/B.
PW4- Sh.Dileep Kumar Tandon,
Manager, Bank of Baroda, whose testimony is related to -
- The document D-35 (Seizure Memo Ex. PW4/A) vide which, certain documents were handed over to Sh. P.C. Sharma, Dy. S.P. CBI.
- Document D-49 (Cheque dated
26.11.1998, account opening form dated
13.09.1993 and statement of account of account no. 1583 Ex. PW4/B, PW4/C and Ex. PW4/D).
PW5 Sh. R.K. Mehta (Bank Officer) his testimony of towards proving the factum that certain documents were sent by the then Branch Manager Smt. Kamlesh Sethi to Dy. CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.26/370 S.P. CBI vide letter Ex. PW5/A, containing the details of deposits in A/c no. 4812 (wife of A-
1), and A/c No. 13149 (of Ms. Gleeco Singh, daughter of A-1) along with date wise details of debit/credit entries. The testimony also proves statement of account (A/c No.4812, Ex.PW5/A1) and specimen signature card in the name of Ms. Gleeco Singh as Ex. PW5/A2. PW6 Sh.V.K. Sood is a retired Govt. Official, who as Zonal Inspector MCD (Special Assessment Unit) had inspected the farm house No. C-8, Ansal Villa, Satbari, Mehrauli, Delhi (allegedly Benami Property of A-1) vide Inspection Report forming part of the file/documents Ex. PW6/A. This witness had turned hostile to an extent.
PW7 Sh. Mahesh Chander - this witness in a way is a formal witness whose testimony is confined only to the aspect that property no. E 36, Kamla Nagar, Delhi belongs to his family CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.27/370 and that Ranvijay Singh (since deceased; a relative of the accused persons) had never resided in the said property and that accused no.1 and 2 were not known to him.
PW8 Sh. D.C. Pant is a bank official who at the relevant time was posted in PNB, IGNOU Branch and has been examined regarding certain bank accounts opened with the said branch by accused no.2, grandfather of A- 2/father of A-1 and also to prove the statements of accounts etc. PW9 Sh. Sunil Goyal - the deposition of this witness is on the aspect that a 300 Sq. Yds plot at Village Khirki, Delhi in the name of his wife had been sold to accused no.2 vide GPA Ex. PW9/A (having his signature thereupon as a witness) and Will Ex. PW9/B. PW10 Smt. Babita Goyal - This witness is wife of PW9 above and her deposition is also CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.28/370 on similar lines.
PW11 Sh. Jasram (allegedly a friend/partner of A-1) - this witness has been examined towards proving the extent of marriage expenses of accused no.2, the alleged Benami property of A-1 addressed as C-8, Ansal Villa etc. etc. The witness had turned hostile to an extent.
PW12 Sh. Sushil Kumar Malhotra - this witness was examined to prove the expenses to the tune of Rs. 5,25,000/- borne by accused no.1 towards purchasing Toyota Corsa Car for his daughter Smita Chaudhary.
PW 13 Sh.Gyan Chand (LDC MLO) - this witness had handed over the original registration file of car Tata Siera No. DL4CC - 2210 in the name of accused no.2 vide memo Ex. PW13/A and the requisite documents thereof shown exhibited as Ex. PW13/B. PW14 Sh. Bhim Singh - a private employee CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.29/370 with P.S. Cars Pvt. Ltd., examined in connection with sale of one Matiz car to the wife of accused no.1 for an amount of Rs.3,74,072/- vide invoice Ex. PW14/A and 'seizure memo of invoice'; Ex. PW14/B, prepared by the IO.
PW15 Sh. Deshbandhu Gosain, LDC in MLO office at the relevant time - his deposition pertains to sale of Contessa Car No.DL3CJ- 3241 (vide memo Ex. PW15/A and its complete file Ex. PW15/B) to Gleeco Services Pvt. Ltd., for consideration of Rs. 4,29,519/- and its registration charges.
PW16 Sh. Rajesh Behl - Another official from the office of MLO whose testimony pertains to car No. DEC 6826, seized vide memo Ex. PW16/A whose registered owner was accused no.2 Naveen Kumar.
PW17 Sh. Nepal Singh Sisodia - this witness remained Secretary of Shiksha Vihar Sehkari CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.30/370 Awas Samiti Ltd., Distt. Ghaziabad UP till 2007 and his testimony pertains to the effect that accused no.1 Sh. Virender Singh had been inducted as a Member in that Society and his membership stood terminated in the year 2001 due to non payment of the dues.
PW18 Sh. Pankaj Sharma - Bank Official, Oriental Bank of Commerce during the relevant period, who had handed over certain documents (to the CBI officials) pertaining to current A/c No. 2912 of M/s Nirman Builders.
PW 19 Sh. N.C. Arora - Another bank official; Sukhdev Vihar Branch, Central Bank of India, who had handed over certain documents to the CBI officials pertaining to A/c No. 7047 of Ms. Monica Kumar (wife of accused no.2).
PW20 Sh. Rajender Kumar Bhalla - who had worked as Sr. Accountant in M/s Aptech Ltd., South Extn, New Delhi and handed over CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.31/370 letters addressed to CBI shown exhibited as Ex.
PW20/A & PW20/B and certain other documents/photocopies to the CBI officials shown exhibited in his testimony.
PW21 Sh. S. Prabhakaran (an employee with India Habitat Centre) - was examined to prove that accused no.1 Sh. Virender Singh had become a member in India Habitat Centre in the year 1998 and had deposited Rs. 20,000/- therein.
PW22 Sh. R.S. Saxena (an employee with National Sports Club of India) - to prove the membership and expenses borne by accused no.1.
PW 23 Sh. Fakir Chand (employee of Delhi Public School, Mathura Road) - examined to prove the school fee etc. expenses of accused no.1 for the education of his three children.
PW24 Sh. Amar Kant (an employee of
CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.32/370
Oriental Bank of Commerce) - has been examined to prove that certain documents had been seized by the CBI officials in his presence pertaining to A/c No. 2795 of Sh. R.P. Singh. PW 25 Sh.Amit Saini (a friend and partner of accused no.2 in N.V Computers) - this witness has been examined w.r.t the firm in the name of N.V. Computers being run in partnership as above. His deposition also includes certain other aspects of business activities being carried by accused no.2 and certain seizures made in his presence by the CBI officials.
PW26 Sh.T. Rajan (AGM Sales, Ansal Properties) - this witness had handed over certain documents to the CBI officials during the course of investigation.
PW27 Sh. Nanak Chand Sharma - His deposition is on the aspect that he had taken on rent a shop bearing No. K-1, Alaknanda CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.33/370 Shopping Complex, Sec. 28, Noida UP from accused no.2 Naveen Kumar in July 1998 for a monthly rent of Rs. 4250/- plus advance amount of Rs. 30,000/-. Till the date of his examination as witness on 18.09.2012, he was in possession as such and the rent was being collected through the employee of accused no.2 Naveen Kumar.
PW28 Sh. S. Francis K. Manuel - a formal witness whose testimony is confined only to the extent that he had worked as Assistant Director in Transport Deptt. NCT of Delhi and that there are no specific rules as to whether an Instructor of a Motor Driving Training School cannot be engaged by any other such training school. PW 29 Sh. Ravinder Kumar (UDC MLO Office) - his testimony is regarding handing over certain records to CBI officials pertaining to Maruti Zen Car registered in the name of accused no.1, having purchased it for Rs. CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.34/370 3,57,190.34/-.
PW 30 Sh. Rajan Mehra (Car Dealer) - his testimony is on the aspect of purchase of Matiz Car by the wife of accused no.1 vide invoice Ex. PW30/A and its sale vide invoice Ex. PW30/B while purchase of another such car of superior model by the wife of A-1. The superior model car was purchased for Rs.3,72,000/- approximately.
PW31 Sh. Rohtash Kumar -Testimony of this witness pertains to acquiring of/purchasing 500 sq yds plot of land by accused no.2 Naveen Kumar from one Sh. Jagdish in February 2000. PW32 Ms. Krishna Devi - She happens to be mother of one Sh. Amit Saini (PW25) in collaboration with whom, accused Naveen Kumar had constructed 06 flats on Plot No. JD- 2 (R 50) Khirki Extn., vide Collaboration Agreement dated 01.12.1998 and who had also executed GPA Ex. PW25/K in favour of CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.35/370 Naveen Kumar as on 25.12.1998.
PW33 Sh. Arvind Kumar Jain (Businessman)
- This witness turned hostile on the aspect of having attended the reception party on the occasion of the marriage of accused no.2, hosted by his parents.
PW 34 Sh. Anil Girotra (Businessman) - He has deposed having purchased a Tata Siera Car in February-March 1997 from accused no.2 for Rs. 2,05,000/-.
PW35 Sh. Lalit Kumar (Notary Public) - A witness who had notarized GPA etc. already Ex. PW31/B. PW36 Sh. Jagdish Singh - He had sold a plot of land to accused Naveen Kumar for Rs. 3,50,000/- in cash in the year 2000.
PW37 Sh. D.L. Yadav (Chief Post Master at GPO Delhi at the relevant time)- His deposition is with regard to the time deposit A/c No. 33863 in the name of accused no.1 Sh. CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.36/370 Virender Singh.
PW38 Sh. B.S. Rawat (Manager of Delhi State Cooperative Bank) - Accused no.1 Virendra Kumar was maintaining an account with his bank and had also obtained Car Loan of Rs. 2 lakhs as on 26.11.1996 which paid stood by him to the tune of Rs. 2,53,576/- uptill April 1999.
PW39 Sh. Vineet Jain - His deposition is with regard to sale of Ground Floor of Property No. B-31, Panchsheel Enclave to accused no.2 Naveen Kumar for Rs. 27,00,000/- vide Sale Deed Ex. PW39/A and that he had also attended the Reception Party after the marriage of accused no.2.He has also deposed that the first floor of the said property was also in occupation and possession of accused no.2 though A-2 had not paid any consideration amount for the first floor. This witness was also declared hostile to an extent.
CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.37/370 PW40 Sh. Iqbal Krishan Chanana (A hostile witness) whose deposition pertains to some agricultural land deal with Smt. Geeta Singh (wife of A-1) which deal didn't materialize. PW41 Sh. Vikram Dogra - An official of DCM Financial Services Ltd. whose testimony is with regard to certain Debentures of the said company in the name of Ms. Gleeco Singh (minor) daughter of accused no.1.
PW 42 Sh. Surender Arora - A Real Estate Agent, whose testimony is regarding payment of Rs. 43,275/- as commission for renting the office to M/s Fuller India Ltd., and this payment of commission was received from accused no.2.
PW43 Sh. J.P. Kumawat (Bank Manager, Central Bank of India) - This witness has been examined in respect of Demand Loan Account of Mrs. Geeta Singh, wife of accused no.1 CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.38/370 (against FDR 27/561) dated 16.01.2002. PW 44 Sh. Mohd. Ismail Khan (Deputy Secretary, Noida Golf Course Society) - This is a formal witness whose testimony is confined to document D-100 exhibited as PW44/A which is letter dated 25.01.2002, issued by the witness to accused no.1.
PW45 Sh. Vijay Prakash Garg (Employee in Ansal Properties & Industries) - His testimony is w.r.t. D-205; statement in respect of Flat No. 712-A, Tolstoy House in the name of Mr. Ranvijay Singh.
PW46 Chaudhary Om Prakash (a Property Dealer and a known of accused no.1) - This witness was declared hostile and was cross examined in detail on behalf of the prosecution regarding certain aspects of payment of Rs. 10 lakhs as Bayana by the intending purchaser Sh. I.K. Channa of the seller of the Agricultural Land approximately 10 acres, situated at CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.39/370 Lodhipur, Near Moradabad UP i.e. Mrs. Geeta, wife of accused no.1 through and the presence of the Broker i.e. this witness. His testimony is also w.r.t the aspects of attending marriage and reception function of accused no.2 as well as a plot of land at Khriki Extn., etc. PW47 Sh. M.L. Vijay - (a formal witness) (Director Panchayat in Delhi during the period 1990-1991 and as subordinate to accused no.1, the then Development Commissioner) - His testimony is w.r.t document Ex. PW47/A which is extension of lease period of Gaon Sabha Land of Village Jonpur in favour of M/s G.S. Ahluwalia.
PW48 Sh. Trilok Chand Chauhan (Bank Official, Canara Bank, Daryaganj Branch at the relevant time) - The testimony of this witness is on the aspect of his being a witness to the handing over of certain documents from the bank branch to the CBI officials which have CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.40/370 been exhibited as PW48/A to PW48/C. PW49 Sh. O.N. Sharma - This is also a bank official (of SBI, DDA Building Branch, Vikas Minar, Delhi). His testimony is regarding seizure of certain documents from the bank and their seizure memos prepared by the CBI officials. These documents are Saving Bank Account Opening Form of A/c No. 3399 (Ranvijay Singh), the Specimen Signature Card, Certified copy of the Ledger Account etc. PW 50 Sh. Laxman Das Rupani - A hostile witness.
PW51 Sh. S.P. Sharma - He had purchased property No. R-50, (Flat No. 302) Khirki Extn. from accused no.2 for a consideration of Rs. 1,25,000/- vide documents collectively Mark P51/1( Ex. PW51/DA).
PW52 Sh. Hiranand Khilwani - His testimony is akin to PW51 and pertains to the property transaction (Flat No.301) with accused CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.41/370 no.2.
PW53 Sh. Prem Raj Dahiya - His deposition pertains to having purchased Flat No.101 Khirki Extn. from accused no.2 for a consideration of Rs. 4.50 lakhs.
PW54 Sh. Barun Kumar Das - He had purchased Flat No. 401 Khirki Extn. from accused Naveen Kumar worth Rs. 1 lakh in the year 1998/99.
PW55 Sh. Arun Sharma (Bank Manager;
Panchsheel Park Branch of Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. at the relevant time)- This witness had witnessed handing over certain documents and seizure proceedings conducted by the CBI officials. The documents exhibited in his testimony are the seizure memo dated 11.09.2001, certain documents in respect of saving bank A/c no. 5151 (new number 51519) of one Sh. Ajay Singh, account opening form etc. CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.42/370 PW56 Sh. Subhash Sethi - The deposition of this witness is regarding Bank A/c No. 2026 of accused no.3 Raksh Pal Singh, opened in August 1980 and also w.r.t Bank a/c no. 3399 in the name of Ranvijay Singh (since deceased). PW57 Sh. Rohit Chopra - He is a witness who being known to the family of accused no. 1 and 2 had attended the reception party after the marriage of accused no.2. He turned hostile on the aspect of the tentatively total number of guests who had attended the said function. PW58 Sh. Ajay Goyal - A known of accused no.2, having had dealings with him as A-2 used to purchase building material from him. It was he who had acted as introducer for one Sh. Ajay Singh while opening the saving bank account with Bank of Rajasthan and the account opening form already Ex. PW55/B was admittedly having his signature as 'introducer'. PW59 Sh. G.K. Saneja (Manager DSIDC) - CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.43/370 His testimony pertains to seizure memo Ex. PW59/A and the file of allotment of plot No. 1667 DSIDC Narela collectively exhibited as Ex. PW59/B. PW60 Sh. Virender Singh Rana (Formal witness) -Testimony of this witness is entire irrelevant and it has not at all been made clear as to in what context and for what purpose he has been examined as such.
PW 61 Sh. Rakesh Kumar Garg (Real Estate Business) - Acquainted with A-2 since the year 1995 and having had purchased a Flat in the name of his wife from accused no.2 for consideration worth Rs. 1 lakh in 1996/97. PW62 Sh. Lalit Kumar Gulati (Property Dealer) - The witness turned hostile. PW63 Sh. Rishi Pal Singh - His deposition pertains to his being acquainted with Ran Vijay Singh (a relative of accused persons) and that CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.44/370 he died allegedly in mid 2000. He was also a witness to some dealings/agreement between said Sh. Ran Vijay Singh and Sh. Naveen Kumar (A-2) whereby and in terms of which, the flat of Ansal Properties came to the share of accused Naveen.
PW64 Sh. Mansoor Ali (MCD official) - A witness to certain seizure proceedings of the file regarding Assessment of Farm House No. C-8 Ansal Villa.
PW65 Sh. Pramod Adlakha (Architect Engineer/Valuer) Vide his testimony, he has brought on record the Valuation Report dated 08.07.1987 Ex. PW65/A in respect of semi basement/ground floor construction at Village Satbari Mehrauli, New Delhi in agricultural property falling in Khasra No.645 min and 820 min.
PW66 Sh. Thomson Sohan Masih (Property Dealer; formal witness) - This witness has CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.45/370 denied having witnessed the execution of GPA and Will in respect of Flat No. 118-B, First Floor, Pkt A, Sukhdev Vihar, New Delhi. PW67 Sh. Arun Jain - The deposition of this witness is confined to the aspect that one Sh. Vikram Singh, accused no.3 and wife of accused no.1 had been partners along with this witness and his wife in a partnership firm named as M/s Smita Industries. The afore- named persons parted their ways in April 1993 and they were paid total sum of Rs. 8,40,000/- (Rs.2.52 lakhs each to A-3 and Vikram Sing and Rs.3.36 lakhs to Smt. Geeta Singh wife of A-1).
PW68 Sh. Mahesh Kumar - This witness had purchased Flat No.201, First Floor, R-Block, Khirki Extn New Delhi from M/s Gleeco Services Pvt. Ltd., through accused no.2 Naveen Kumar for Rs. 1 lakh vide documents CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.46/370 Ex. PW68/A (colly).
PW69 Sh. Ajay Kumar Garg (An employee of DESU; DVB;BSES, Rajdhani Power Ltd.) - This witness was examined in respect of electricity connection of Property No. A 34, Andheria Moar, Delhi where M/s Aptech Computer Centre was being run. The witness turned hostile.
PW70 Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma (BSES official) - This witness was also declared hostile though he identified accused Naveen Kumar deposing that he had once visited his office and also that accused no.1 Sh. Virender Singh was the then Chairman of DVB.
PW71 Dr. C.B. Dabas (Medical Officer Hindu Rao Hospital) - He happens to be brother-in- law (saala) of accused no.1 Sh. Virender Singh. This witness was declared hostile though he admitted having attended the marriage and reception functions of accused CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.47/370 no.2 at a farm house.
PW 72 Sh. Pawan Malhotra (Manager PNB Vigilance Deptt. at the relevant time) - This witness had joined the CBI raiding team as an independent witness along with another independent witness from Syndicate Bank. Certain articles were seized and certain memos were prepared in his presence which have been shown exhibited as Ex. PW72/A and PW72/B. PW73 Ms. Manjeet Chaudhary (Bank official, Bhera Enclave Branch, Allahabad Bank) - Certain documents were seized and certain memos were prepared to that effect in her presence by the CBI Raiding Team from the bank. The same have been exhibited as Ex. PW73/A to Ex. PW73/Q. PW 74 Sh. Raj Karan (LDC Income Tax office in May 2000) - The witness had accompanied the CBI Raiding Team to Satbari (Mehrauli) Farm House as an independent CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.48/370 witness. The proceedings conducted there have been brought on record by way of Ex. PW74/A to PW74/C. PW75 Sh. Sunil Wadhwa (Proprietor of Sarvodaya Furnishers and also the brother-in- law (saala) of accused Naveen Kumar. His deposition runs to the effect that in the year 2000, accused Naveen Kumar had purchased some furniture articles from him for his Concern N.V. Computers. The marriage of his sister Ms. Monica took place with accused Naveen Kumar in the year 1997.
PW76 Sh. Kartar Singh (Daftari/Class IV employee of Bank of India, Pakbara Branch, Moradabad UP in May 2000)- This witness had handed over certain documents (as detailed in D-15 and as exhibited as Ex. PW76/A) to the Bank Manager of said bank who had handed over the same to the CBI Raiding Team. CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.49/370 PW77 Sh. Damodar D.Batra (Property Dealer) - From this witness certain documents had been seized pertaining to Sale Purchase of Property No. C-8, Ansal Villa Satbari, New Delhi, shown exhibited as Ex. PW77/A and Ex. PW77/B. PW78 Sh. Bawa Kapoor (Manager Sales in Ansal Properties in the year 2000) - His testimony is also w.r.t the Sale Purchase of Property No. C-8 as above.
PW79 Sh. Bharat Singh Kataria (PNB Official posted at IGNOU branch in the year 2000) - Through this witness certain seized documents from the bank and the memos thereof, so prepared in his presence, have been brought on record vide Ex. PW79/A. PW80 Sh. Narender Kumar Bapna (Manager Central Bank of India, Sukhdev Vihar, New Delhi in the year 2000) - His testimony is w.r.t the documents pertaining to locker No. 380 (of CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.50/370 Mrs. Monica Kumar). The relevant proceedings/documents have been got exhibited/marked as Ex. PW80/A, PW80/B and Mark P-80/1.
PW81 Sh. Naresh Kumar Saini (DDA Employee)- He had witnessed certain search and seizure proceedings conducted by CBI which have been brought on record as Ex. PW81/A and Ex. PW81/B. PW82 Sh. Tulsidas Talreja (Bank Official Allahabad Bank, Behra Branch) - This witness has deposed w.r.t the operation of locker no. 1063 by accused no.2 Naveen Kumar, nephew of Sh. Ranvijay Singh. The cash amount worth Rs. 3.70 lakhs and certain documents had been seized from the said locker vide document Ex. PW82/A. PW83 Mohd. Rashid Farooqui (JE (Civil) in DDA at the relevant) - He had witnessed the CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.51/370 house search of the premises of accused Naveen Kumar at B-31, Panchsheel Enclave. The documents brought on record through his testimony are Ex. PW83/A and PW83/B. PW84 Sh. Navratan Lal (UDC Sales Tax Deptt. at the relevant time) - He had witnessed the search (as an independent witness) at Flat No. 118-B, Pkt. A, Sukhdev Vihar, New Delhi wherefrom MTNL Telephone bill Ex. PW84/A was seized/recovered. Certain other articles of approximate value of Rs.19,000/- were also shown recovered therefrom.
PW85 Sh. Satish Chand Jain (Sr. Manager OBC Bank, Tagore Garden, New Delhi) - Document Ex. PW85/A (production-cum- seizure memo dated 16.05.2000) of handing over of certain documents to CBI officials from the bank and document Ex. PW85/B (letter dated 22.05.2000 of Sh. V.D. Chatwal Chief CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.52/370 Manager, Vishal Enclave Branch, OBC having been signed by said Sh. Chatwal and identified by this witness) have been brought on record. PW86 Sh. Anil Kumar Chikara (Motor Vehicle Inspector, Transport Deptt.) - This witness had handed over certain documents to the CBI officials vide seizure memo dated 23.06.2000, shown exhibited as Ex. PW86/A. PW87 Sh. Manoj Kumar Jain (Bank Official)
- His testimony is regarding locker no. 51 and handing over certain documents to CBI officials brought on record vide exhibits Ex. PW87/A and Ex. PW87/B. PW88 Sh. Shiv Charan Gupta (Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda, Parliament Street) - The witness in his official capacity had written letter dated 13.07.2001, addressed to Dy. SP, CBI along with photocopies of 02 demand drafts of Rs.6 lakhs each, paid to Allahabad CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.53/370 Bank, Bhera Enclave through clearing on 07.09.1998 and that these drafts had been issued in favour of one Sh. Vikram Singh by the Kabadi Market Branch, Kanpur UP of the same Bank. The same have been brought on record vide Ex. PW88/A (colly.).
PW89 Sh. Prateechi Aggarwal - Her testimony is on the aspect of deposit of fee worth Rs. 11500/- (for part time MBA) during the year 1989-1992 of accused Naveen Kumar. PW90 Sh. Sunil Kumar Sharma (Bank official) - Apparently he is a formal witness whose testimony is confined on the aspect of statement of account (running into 02 pages) in respect of bank account no. 8245 of New Super Motors in Wazirpur, Delhi in branch of Canara Bank.
PW91 Sh. Om Prakash Sarkar (Sr. Manager Bhera Enclave Branch, Allahabad Bank during the relevant period) - Deposition of this CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.54/370 witness is on the aspect of handing over the copy of the cheque no. 069673, dated 03.12.1998, drawn in favour of P&O Nedlloyed (India) Pvt. Ltd., worth Rs. 10,68,200/-, issued from A/c No. 323 Bhera Enclave, Allahabad Bank Branch; and also w.r.t memo prepared regarding seizure of original Locker Operation Sheet of locker no. 1063 in the name of Ranvijay Singh. The documents brought on record through his testimony have been shown exhibited as PW91/A to PW91/D. PW92 Sh. Parmanand Goyal (Chief Manager, OBC Tagore Garden Branch) - His testimony is confined to the aspect of having provided two letters i.e. letter dated 06.11.2001 and 27.11.2001 to the CBI official. These letters decipher certain details of various furniture articles purchased and the loan obtained by M/s NV Computers. The same have been shown exhibited as Ex. PW92/A and PW92/B CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.55/370 respectively.
PW93 Ms. Tripta Bagla (Sr. Manager OBC, Vishal Enclave Branch) - This witness had provided certain information/documents to the CBI officials vide her letter dated 31.05.2001 in respect of current account no. 2795 of M/s R.P. Singh A/c TPT. Along with the same she had also provided certain other documents shown exhibited as Ex. PW93/A to PW93/D. PW94 Sh. Sriniwas Vanaki - This witness hails from the Dental College, Bagalkot Karnataka, wherefrom Ms. Smita Chaudhary, daughter of A-1 did her BDS Course. He has brought on record the fee etc., paid for that purpose.
PW95 Sh. O.P. Bhambri (Executive Secretary/Gen. Manager in CSOI, K.G. Marg, Delhi during the relevant period) - This witness had provided certain documents regarding details of fees, security deposits and CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.56/370 subscriptions having been paid by accused no.1 during the period 1997 to 2000. The same are collectively exhibited as Ex. PW95/A. PW96 Sh V.D. Chatwal (Chief Manager OBC, Vishal Enclave Branch) - Testimony of this witness pertains to handing over debit and credit vouchers of Saving Bank A/c No. 5585 (Ranvijay Singh), Statement of this Bank Account and statement of Current A/c No. 1592 along with Account Opening Forms of these two accounts etc., the same have been shown exhibited as Ex. PW96/A to PW96/F. The witness was not cross examined despite opportunity.
PW97 Sh. Ramesh Kumar Nanda (An employee of M/s Minnie Pan (India) Pvt. Ltd., during the relevant time) - Through this witness, the Air fare (of Airline ticket) worth Rs. 54890/- has been brought on record in the CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.57/370 name of passenger Mr. Naveen Kumar.
Witness was not cross examined.
PW98 Ms. Achla Singh (Jt. Secretary (Services) Govt. of NCT of Delhi during the relevant period) - This witness had handed over certain files detailed in document D-43 to CBI SP as per requisition. The said letter is shown exhibited as Ex. PW98/A. The files/documents have been shown exhibited as PW98/B & PW98/C (Colly.). The service book of accused Virender Singh has also been brought on record as PW98/D (Colly.). The documents containing details of pay and allowances of accused no.1 Virender Singh have been brought on record vide collectively exhibited documents as Ex. PW98/E. His salary statements (except for the period from 12.06.1986 to 27.02.1987) have been collectively shown exhibited as Ex. PW98/F. The witness was not cross examined.
CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.58/370
PW99 Sh. Rajesh Kumar Singh (Nodal
Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd.) - Through this witness, Call Details Records of mobile phone nos. 9810016748 (in the name of Sh. Raksh P. Singh) (w.e.f 01.01.1999 to 12.05.2000), No.9810059066 (M/s Transport Deptt.), no. 9810101839 (in the name of one Sh. Ravi Kapoor) , no. 9810027403 have been brought on record. His testimony also includes that Rs.53760/- had been paid by the subscriber namely Naveen Kumar in respect of his mobile phone no. 9810027403 for the period from 15.02.1996 to 15.01.2002. The documents got exhibited during his testimony runs from PW99/A to PW99/K. PW100 Sh. Ramesh Kumar (MTNL Official)
- His testimony pertains to the documents in respect of installation of STD Booth in the name of one Sh. Harshwardhan Singh (son of Sh. Charan Singh) in respect of which accused CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.59/370 Naveen Kumar had given a notarized No Objection Certificate. A bunch of documents in that regard had been handed over by this official to the CBI and the same have been got exhibited as PW100/A (Colly.), PW100/B and PW100/C. PW101 Sh. Ashok Kumar Bansal (Sr. Manager, Canara Bank, Ashok Vihar Wazirpur Branch during the relevant period) - His testimony is on the aspect of cheque no.762526 in the sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- in favour of Mrs. Geeta (wife of A-1) and the said cheque amount was debited from the account of New Super Motor as per the statement of account previously exhibited as Ex. PW90/DA. PW102 Sh. Baljeet Singh (Sr. Manager OBC, Sarvpriya Vihar, Branch, New Delhi) - His testimony is on the aspect of document D-36 containing Statement of Account no.3848 in the name of one Sh. Vinit Jain and its Account CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.60/370 Opening Form and specimen signature card which have been collectively exhibited as Ex. PW102/A PW103 Mrs. Usha Gupta (Director for Surbhi Builders Pvt. Ltd) - Her testimony is regarding document No. D-75 and D-76 which are the letter signed by her in the capacity of being Director. She pleaded ignorance about the contents thereof and having signed these letter at the behest of her husband as she was otherwise a housewife. Her letters have been exhibited as Ex. PW103/A & PW103/B. She has also deposed regarding cheque (previously exhibited as Ex. PW4/B) in the sum of Rs. 15 lakhs in favour of Ranvijay Singh and that she had issued and signed the same as Director of Surbhi Builders Pvt. Ltd.
PW104 Sh. Gian Gupta - This witness happens to be the husband of PW103 (Mrs. CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.61/370 Usha Gupta) and he was also one of the Directors in Surbhi Builders Pvt. Ltd during the relevant period. He has deposed that the cheque worth Rs. 15 lakhs had been received from Mr. Ranvijay Singh as advance towards the sale of some property of his afore-named Company. (Apparently there is some ambiguity in the depositions of PW103 and PW104 in respect of as to who had issued the cheque and in whose favour).
PW105 Sh. Roop Narayan (Assistant Secretary, Portblair during the period 2000 to 2002) - His statement is w.r.t. Salary Statement and Pay & Allowance drawn by accused no.1 for the period from September 1987 to August 1989, shown exhibited as Ex. PW105/A (colly.) and 105/B (colly.).
PW106 Sh. J.P. Govil (Director Administration in Slum & JJ Deptt. MCD, Delhi) - His deposition is also regarding CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.62/370 Salary Statement of Accused no.1 for the period from 07.12.1992 to 03.06.1993, shown exhibited as Ex. PW106/A (colly.) PW107 Sh. C.P. Tripathi - His testimony is also regarding Salary Statement of A-1 for the period from 06.04.1997 to 30.04.1987 (Ex. PW107/A).
PW108 Sh. R.K. Batra - His testimony is also regarding Salary Statement of A-1 for the period from 03.09.1985 to 08.04.1986 & 02.06.1986 to 10.06.1986 (Ex. PW108/A). PW109 Sh. Trilochan Joshi (Sr. Scientific Assistant, FSL & later on GEQD Shimla and Chandigarh ) - This witness had examined 'questioned writings and signatures' with the specimen writings/signatures and admitted writings/signatures and thereafter had sent the same to another officer namely Sh M.L. Sharma, Deputy GEQD who had also examined CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.63/370 the same. As per deposition of this witness, both these experts had reached to the same conclusion/opinion and accordingly prepared joint report dated 24.12.2001 Ex. PW109/A signed by both of them.
PW110 Sh. Vijay Kumar Beniwal (Deputy Development Commissioner during the relevant period) - His testimony is w.r.t the copies of the pay bill register/ledger in respect of pay of accused no.1 for the period from 01.10.1990 to 06.12.1992. The exhibits forming part of his testimony are Ex. PW110/A and PW110/B. PW111 Sh. Pradeep Sharma (Official of Delhi State Cooperative Bank Ltd.) - This witness is apparently an unnecessary witness as his testimony is w.r.t one document (D-187) i.e. a letter dated 03.07.2001 regarding which he deposed that he was unaware as to whose signatures were appended on this document as CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.64/370 he was not posted at Daryaganj Branch at the relevant point of time.
PW112 Sh. Krishan Lal Sharma (An official in DSIDC Delhi) - His deposition is about the salary statement of A-1 from January 1990 to September 1990.
PW113 Sh. Ajay Chagti - His deposition is about the salary statement of A-1 from 27.05.1996 to February 1998.
PW114 Sh. Rajesh Kumar Mishra - - His deposition is about the salary statement of A-1 from 01.01.1994 to 26.05.1996.
PW115 Sh. Pawan Kumar (Inspector CBI ACB, New Delhi during the relevant period) - This CBI official was included in the Raiding Team which had gone to the paternal home of A-1, situated in Distt. Moradabad UP where a house had been searched. He had appended his signature on the Search Memo dated 12.05.2000 Ex. PW115/A. He pleaded CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.65/370 ignorance about the outcome of the said search due to the lapse of time. The Observation Memo Ex. PW115/B had also been prepared during the said search and was signed by this witness as well.
PW 116 Sh. Gopal Shankar Chaturvedi (Jt. Director, Transport, Operations & Vigilance, NCT of Delhi) - This witness had provided the requisite details of Pay & Allowances and deductions made in respect of accused Sh.
Virendra Singh for the period from 01.05.1990 to 30.04.2000.
PW 117 Sh. Shuja-Ullah Khan - Through this witness the statement of GPF account of Sh. Virendra Singh (A-1) and statement of long term advances availed by him have been brought on record as Ex. PW117/A and PW117/B respectively. This witness had worked as Pay & Accounts Officer during the relevant period.
CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.66/370 PW118 Sh. Sanjeev Singhal (Manager Finance, Santosh Dental College Ghaziabad UP) - This witness had provided the copy of Student Ledger maintained in the said college and certificate in his own hand thereby showing that a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- had been received towards fees etc. in respect of Ms. Gleeco Singh, daughter of accused no.1 who was a student of BDS. The requisite document is brought on record as Ex. PW118/A. PW 119 Sh. Bansi Dhar (Sub Registrar, Moradabad UP) - Through this witness, certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 13.08.1991 executed by Sh. Ranvijay Singh in favour of accused no.2 Naveen Kumar for consideration of Rs. 95000 has been made part of the record as Ex. PW119/A. A stamp duty worth Rs. 14015/- had been paid by the purchaser i.e. accused no.2 Naveen Kumar. CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.67/370 PW120 Sh. Nirbhay Kumar (Dy. SP ACB, CBI Delhi) - This witness in his official capacity and on the instructions of IO Dy. SP Sh.P.C. Sharma and SP Sh. R.S. Dwivedi had seized certain documents from various persons and handed over the same to the IO. PW121 Sh. Virender Thakran (Inspector CBI) - This witness had seized certain documents vide production-cum-seizure memo dated 12.05.2000 from Fuller India Ltd., and had handed over the same to the IO of the present case. The Memo dated 12.05.2000 is shown exhibited as Ex. PW121/A. PW122 Sh. V. Krishnananda Prabhu (Sr. Manager, Canara Bank, Daryaganj Branch) - Testimony of this witness is on various aspects pertaining to current account GDCA 3985 in the name of M/s Gleeco Services Pvt. Ltd., saving bank a/c 12954 in the name of Naveen Kumar.
CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.68/370
PW123 Sh. Rakesh Bhatnagar (Gen.
Manager, DSCSCL) - This witness had forwarded the copies of the pay bills of accused no. 1 from the period 26.04.1982 to 14.10.1982 along with the DDO certificate to the Jt. Secretary (Services) Govt. of NCT of Delhi vide letter (along with its Annexures) Ex. PW123/A (Colly.).
PW124 Sh. Praveen Chaturvedi (AGM, Karvy Consultants Ltd.) - This witness had provided certain copies of the Transfer Deeds to the CBI official regarding 900 shares of Reliance Petroleum Ltd. (worth Rs. 21600/-) in the name of Ms. Geeta Singh. The same have been brought on record vide Ex.
PW124/A.
PW125 Sh. Harish Singh Karmyal
(Inspector CBI ACB at the relevant time ) - This witness had conducted search u/s 165 Cr. P.C on 12.05.2000 at B-32, Green Enclave, CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.69/370 New Delhi; residence of accused Naveen and had prepared search-cum-seizure memos/observation memos.
PW126 Ms. Shahnaz Khan (Inspector CBI ACB ) - She had conducted search of two lockers bearing no. 829 & 380, Central Bank of India, Sukhdev Vihar, New Delhi and had prepared search-cum-seizure memo (Ex. PW80/A) and details of the locker operation memo (Ex. PW80/B).
PW127 Sh. Azad Singh (Official on Deputation from Delhi Police to CBI) - He was part of the searching team u/s 165 Cr. P.C at premises bearing Khasra no. 34, Andheria Moar, Mehrauli, Delhi wherefrom certain incriminating documents have been shown seized vide search-cum-seizure memo (Ex. PW25/B). Certain other documents shown exhibited as PW25/C to PW25/H were also CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.70/370 seized therefrom as per his testimony. PW128 Sh. Surender Malik (Inspector CBI ACB ) - This official had conducted search at premises of M/s Spanner's Maruti Workshop, Rohtak Road, Nangloi, Delhi as on 12.05.2000 and the documents seized therefrom have been shown exhibited vide the seizure memo Ex. PW81/A. The Observation Memo so prepared there is shown exhibited as Ex. PW81/B. PW129 Sh. Vivek Dhir (Inspector CBI ACB )
- This witness was part of the searching team at premises no. 382, Bhera Enclave, New Delhi on 12.05.2000 and the premises was occupied by one Sh. R.P. Sharma. The documentation so prepared there have been shown as Ex. 129/A and certain other documents previously shown exhibited vide Ex. PW73/A, PW73/B and PW85/A. PW130 Sh. Umesh Kumar Goswami (Inspector CBI ACB ) - This witness had CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.71/370 seized a file from Sh. A.K. Chikara M.V Inspector, Transport Deptt. Delhi vide seizure memo Ex. PW86/A. PW131 Sh. Anil Kumar Singh (Inspector CBI ACB ) - This witness had seized certain documents vide Ex. PW79/A as were handed over to him by Sh. B.S. Kataria, officer PNB IGNOU, New Delhi. He had also witnessed a search conducted there at Nangloi, Old Rohtak Road as on 12.05.2000.
PW132 Sh. S.Q. Ali (Inspector CBI, ACU-1)
- He was a member of the search team who had searched the premises at Nangloi Delhi as on 12.05.2000.
PW133 Sh. Rakesh Gahlaut (A resident of Nangloi, Delhi ) - In his presence, the search was conducted by the CBI at the tenanted premises (part of 583 Bhooton Wali Gali, Nangloi Delhi- 41) of one Sh. Ompal Singh CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.72/370 who was tenant of this witness. Initially, this premises was sealed on 12.05.2000 as the tenant was not available and later on i.e. on 23.05.2000, it was desealed and searched in his presence and certain documents were taken into possession vide Ex. PW132/B. PW134 Sh.Ram Sharan Dwivedi (SP ACB CBI ) - This witness had registered the present RC Ex. PW134/A as on 11.05.2000 and had entrusted the investigation thereof to Dy. SP Sh. P.C. Sharma.
PW135 Sh.Mohan Singh Bora (Assistant Accounts Officer/Officiating DDO, Food & Supply Deptt.) - This witness had provided pay details of accused no.1 w.e.f 12.05.1986 to 01.06.1986.
PW136 Sh.Kamlesh Kumar (Director in M/s Kalinga Estate Pvt. Ltd & M/s Kalinga Holding Pvt. Ltd, Patna Bihar) - Testimony of this witness is in connection with Property No. B 31 CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.73/370 Panchsheel Enclave, Delhi, measuring more than 250 sq meters; purchased by accused no.2 Naveen Kumar.
PW137 Sh.Kapil Saini (Property Dealer) - Deposition of this witness is regarding some property agreement between one Smt. Krishna Devi and accused no.2 Naveen Kumar in respect of construction at Plot No. JD-2, Khirki Extn, Malviya Nagar, Delhi. He had stood a witness to the said agreement. He was also a witness in respect of the GPA dated 25.12.1998 executed by his cousins through afore-named Krishna Devi in favour of M/s Gleeco Services through its Director Sh. Naveen Kumar. PW138 Sh.Lalit Saini - His testimony is akin to PW137.
PW139 Sh.Parshottam Lal (DSP in AC-II CBI)- He had supervised the search at Farm CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.74/370 House of accused Virender Singh at Satbari, Mehrauli as on 12.05.2000. Search-cum-seziure memo and Observation Memo Ex. PW74/A and PW74/B respectively were so prepared. PW140 Sh. Dilip Kumar Barik (DSP ACB CBI ) - He was member of the Raiding Team who had searched at the residence of accused Naveen Kumar on 12.05.2000 at his Panchsheel Enclave Residence. During the house search, the locker keys were found. This witness had also visited Central Bank of India where one locker was found in the name of Ms. Monica and the other one was either in the name of Ms. Monica or accused Naveen Kumar. Certain cash amount and jewellary articles had been recovered therefrom. Next day, another locker in Allahabad Bank, Bhera Enclave in the name of Ranvijay Singh (relative of accused) was searched and the proceedings thereof were also CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.75/370 reduced into writing.
PW141 Sh.Chandra Kiran Sharma (Inspector CBI ACB) - This witness had collected certain documents from Bank of Baroda, Kabari Market, Shastri Nagar, Kanpur as on 11.08.2001 at the instructions of IO Sh. P.C. Sharma.
PW142 Sh.Prithvi Pal Singh Chauhan (Businessman dealing in jewellary) - This witness was declared hostile. He had denied his statement having been recorded by the CBI as on 21.11.2001 in connection with the raid and search at Farm House C 8 Ansal Villa, Satbari Mehrauli, New Delhi.
PW143 Sh.Ram Singh Chauhan (Dy.
Director Rural Development ) - Through this witness, pay bills of accused no.1 for the period March 78 to May 78 have been brought on record as Ex. PW143/A (colly).
PW144 Sh.Virender Singh - This witness has CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.76/370 been examined in connection with some Partnership Deed Ex. PW11/C dated 27.06.1985. He denied his signatures thereupon and apparently he is a formal witness.
PW145 Sh.Gagan Behera - This witness as per prosecution version, was the employee/care taker of accused no.2 at Farm House C-8, Ansal Villa. However, he turned hostile and deposed that he was a gardner employed by Sh. Jassa Ram at the given Farm House.
PW146 Sh. Devender Kumar (Govt.
Contractor; Proprietor of Construction
Company) - Deposition of this witness is on the aspect that he had signed some Partnership Deed somewhere in the year 1984-85 purportedly to become a partner in M/s Jassa Ram & Sons though without knowing anything else and without doing any further activity as partner therein. The CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.77/370 Partnership Deed is already Ex. PW11/C. PW147 Sh. Bijay Kumar Pradhan (Inspector CBI/ACB) - He was member of the Raiding Team which had searched the premises C-8 Kansal Villa and had also conducted search of one locker on 15.05.2000 in Bank of India Pakwada, Delhi. He had also seized the Sale Purchase file of C-8 Ansal Villa as on 24.05.2000 as had been handed over to him by one Mr. Batra. The seizure memo thereof is already Ex. PW77/A. PW148 Sh.Nand Lal (Director Training, UTCS ) - Through this witness Salary Statement of accused no.1 for the period 15.02.1985 to 30.04.1985 has been brought on record as PW148/A. PW149 Sh. Agyakar Singh (Sales Manager, Galaxy Toyota) - The testimony of this witness is regarding the delivery note dated 22.02.2000 in respect of the car delivered to MRI Scan Pvt. CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.78/370 Ltd., but the prosecution hasn't brought it out as to how and in what way the accused persons are/were having any connection with MRI Scan Pvt. Ltd.
PW150 Sh.Kanti Mangalji Thacker (Company Secretary in United Phosphorus Ltd.) - This witness had provided information to the IO relating to investment in shares by accused no.1 and his family members vide document Ex. PW150/A. PW151 Sh.M.I. Hussain (Principal DPS Mathura Road, New Delhi ) - He had provided information about the fees paid by accused no.1 in respect of his children studying in the said school (including accused Naveen) for the period from May 1980 to April 1984, May 1988 to April 1990 and April 1988 till May 1988.
PW152 Sh.Ramesh Chandra Bhatt (Asst. CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.79/370 Finance Officer, DVB at the relevant time) - This witness has been examined in respect of document D-80 i.e. seizure memo dated 04.09.2001 which shows the handing over of some original file in the name of consumer Horam Singh (father of A-1 and grandfather of A-2) to the IO.
PW153 Mrs. Monica Kumar (Wife of accused no.2 ) - Though she happens to be the wife of accused no.2 Naveen Kumar, having married with him as on 24.11.1997, yet she has been examined as a prosecution witness on certain aspects of family details, her income, her bank accounts etc. etc., PW154 Dr. P. Sahunja (Gynecologist Surgeon ) - Through this witness a receipt of Rs. 40,000/- for hospitalization of wife of the accused no.2 has been brought on record as Ex. PW154/A. PW155 Sh. Vivekanand Sharma (Govt.
CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.80/370 Servant in Deptt. Of Company Affairs ) - He had handed over certain documents to the IO which have been brought on record collectively as Ex. PW155/A. PW156 Sh. Anil Kumar Aggarwal (Officer Allahabad Bank, Bhera Enclave, Delhi) - This witness had handed over the locker operation receipt in respect of locker no.1063 ( Ranvijay Singh) showing the details/dates on which said locker was operated during the period 03.09.1998 to 01.05.2000.
PW157 Sh. Suresh Kumar (UDC Yamuna Sports Complex) - He has been cited as an independent official witness. He was made Member of the Raiding Team, who visited the M/s Spencers Maruti Workshop/ Motor Driving School run by Sh. Om Pal as on 12.05.2000.
PW158 Sh.Ajay Kumar (Insp./DSP CBI/ACB) - The role of this official is confined CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.81/370 to the filing of the Charge Sheet in the Court and he had performed no investigation at all. PW159 Sh.Ravinder Singh Jaggi (Dy. SP, CBI/ACB) - He had been handed over investigation of the case on 06.06.2002 and he carried out part investigation uptil 30.06.2003. His role is confined to the aspect that he had assisted the Valuation Officer Sh. Y.P. Suri, Ex.En. Valuation Cell, Income Tax. Deptt. New Delhi in valuation of Property No.C-1667, DSIDC, Narela, R-50, Khirki Extn, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, JD-2 Khirki Extn, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, J-3/57, Khirki Extn, New Delhi and Property bearing No. C-8, Ansal Villa, Satbari Farm, Chhatarpur, New Delhi.
PW160 Sh.Yogender Kumar Taneja (Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Kanpur, UP) - His deposition is w.r.t saving bank A/c No. 2066 in the name of Mr. Laxman Das Rupani and CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.82/370 saving bank A/c no. 2689 of Sh. H.D. Rupani. He had provided the requisite record pertaining thereto to the CBI official and the documents made part of the record vide his testimony have been shown exhibited as Ex. PW160/A to PW160/D. PW161 Sh. Pravesh Mehta (Owner Milk Dairy Farm at Samaypur Badli, Delhi) - His deposition contains that property No. 23/A, Kohlapur Road, Kamla Nagar, Delhi-110007 belongs to his family and that none of the accused persons or their families ever resided therein.
PW162 Sh. Suresh Kumar Srivastava (Sub Registrar -VII, New Delhi District, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi at the relevant period)
- He has deposed that the GPA dated 17.02.1988 (Ex. PW162/A) and the Will of the same date (Ex. PW162/B) bearing registration Nos. 1223 & 1038 respectively were so CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.83/370 executed by Sh. Ran Vijay Singh in favour of accused No. 2 Sh. Naveen Kumar and that the executant Ran Vijay Singh had signed thereupon in his presence.
PW163 Sh. Rakesh Kumar Gupta (Sr. Manager, Allahabad Bank, Bhera Enclave at the relevant period) - Deposition of this witness runs to the effect that a term deposit account bearing No. 105114 had been opened by Sh. Ran Vijay Singh in his bank and for that purpose accused No. 3 Sh. R. P. Singh had stood 'introducer'. Further, a saving bank account No. 105342 in the name of Vikram Singh had also been opened in his bank and for him also Sh. R. P. Singh had stood 'introducer'. Ex. PW163/A pertaining to the later account is the application (dated 04.09.1998) cum signature card thereof. Some pay-in-slip is also exhibited as Ex. PW163/D showing an initial CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.84/370 deposit of Rs. 5000/- in cash for opening the account. Another pay-in-slip (Ex. PW163/C; in respect of bank account of Vikram Singh) showing deposit of bank draft of Rs. 6 lacs is also part of his testimony. Certain such other documents have also been shown exhibited as Ex. PW163/D onwards.
PW164 Sh. Deepak Kumar Pama (Officer, Allahabad Bank, Bhera Enclave at the relevant period) - In his presence the locker No. 1063 (in presence of accused No. 2) was searched by the CBI team. The documents in that regard have collectively shown exhibited as Ex. PW164/A. PW165 Sh. Alok Kumar (Inspector, CBI, ACB, New Delhi at the relevant period) - He was member of the raiding team there at house No. 201, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi in the name of A1. A cash amount of Rs. 1,32,000/- had also been recovered therefrom and the amount CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.85/370 except to the extend of Rs. 5000/- was seized. A key of locker No. 343 Central Bank of India, Bangali Market was found in the house search and certain other inventory were also prepared in respect of the rest articles.
PW166 Sh. Om Pal Singh ( Jija of accused No. 3 & Proprietor, Prahlad Construction, Shree Jamuna Dham, Mathura, UP) - In the house search of this witness, certain incriminating documents (belonging to accused persons) were recovered as on 23.05.2000 vide Ex. PW132/B. PW167 Sh. Ravindra Kumar (Manager Maintenance, LML Ltd., Kanpur UP) - This witness is brother-in-law (Jija) of accused Virender Singh. He turned hostile and denied having made any statement to the CBI official. PW168 Sh. K. Babu (Inspector, CBI, ACB, New Delhi) - The witness was member of team who conducted house search (in the presence of CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.86/370 Ms. Monica) at 118B, Pocket-A, Sukhdev Vihar, New Delhi. The house on enquiry was found to be belonging to one Smt. Pratibha Ahluwalia. Nothing incriminating was found therein. However, one telephone bill already shown exhibited as Ex. PW84/A was seized. PW169 Sh. Harjinder Singh (Tax Assistant, New Assessee (N.A), Circle 11 (1) at Central Revenue Building, ITO, New Delhi at the relevant period) - This official witness had been joined as an independent witness of the CBI raiding team who conducted search there at Andheria Mor in a computer office. The requisite documents so prepared have been shown exhibited as Ex. PW169/A and certain other already exhibited documents. PW170 Sh. V. M. Mittal (Inspector, CBI, ACB, Delhi) - Member of the raiding team who conducted house search at B-31, Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi.
CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.87/370 PW171 Sh.Ramesh Chand Sharma (SI ACB, Delhi) - This CBI official had assisted the main IO Sh. P.C. Sharma in conducting the investigation of the present case w.e.f 28.05.2001 to 13.02.2002.
PW172 Sh.J.S.Arora (Manager, Central Bank of India, Sukhdev Vihar Bank Branch at the relevant period) - In the presence of this witness along with Ms. Monica Kumar (wife of A-2), lockers no. 380 and 829 had been searched and recoveries had been effected therefrom which included cash worth Rs. 4,30,000/-, TDRs and cheque book in the name of Vikram Singh.
PW173 Sh. Om Prakash (Tax Assistant, Income Tax Office, C.R. Building, New Delhi)
- This is an independent official witness who had joined the house search there at Farm House C-8 Ansal Villa, Satbari, Mehrauli Delhi. In his presence, certain seizures were made CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.88/370 therefrom vide search-cum-seizure memo dated 12.05.2000 (Ex. PW74/A forming part of file D-9, D-147, D-148 etc.).
PW174 Sh. R.S. Bedi (Inspector, CBI, ACB)
-This witness was a team member who had conducted a raid at Horam Singh's house (A-1's father) Baldana, Moradabad UP on 12.05.2000. PW175 Sh.A.K. Srivastava (Jr. Engineer, DDA, INA Vikas Sadan at the relevant period)
- This witness was member of the raiding team who conducted search at H.No. B-31 Panchsheel Enclave on 12.05.2000. This house belongs to accused no.2 Naveen Kumar. PW176 Sh.Nath Ram - His deposition pertains to the Industrial Plot No. 1667, DSIDC Narela, Delhi.
PW177 Ms. Sheena Sandhu Shekhar - She is Chief Accounts Officer, MTNL,Bhikaji Cama Palace,New Delhi and has proved that CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.89/370 telephone no. 6801178 was installed there at Farm House C-8 Ansal Villa and the telephone bills thereof for the period March 1997 to May 2000 were to the tune of Rs. 11,221/-. PW178 Sh.Prabhat Chander Sharma - This official witness happens to be the First IO of the case who had conducted the major part of the investigation.
PW179 Sh.S.C.Tiwari (Superintendent of Police CBI) - This is a formal witness who had simply forwarded the Final Report u/s 173 Cr. P.C. PW180 Sh.Udai Singh - This witness had assessed the value of four properties shown exhibited in his testimony. These four properties include the property i.e. Farm House C-8 Ansal Villa.
PW181 Sh. Yash Pal Suri (Retired Valuation Officer, Income Tax Deptt.) - This witness had CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.90/370 evaluated the property no. 1667, Narela Industrial Area DSIDC vide the Valuation Report Ex. PW181/B as well as assessment of cost of construction vide Ex. PW181/C; etc. PW181 Sh. Sumant Mehrish (inadvertently two witnesses have been given serial no. 181) - The testimony of this witness pertains to the details of the rent of Flat No. 712, Tolstoy Marg paid to its the then owner Sh. Ranvijay for the period w.e.f April 1995 to September 1998. PW182 Sh.Chand Lal (Accounts Officer MTNL) - This witness has deposed about the details of payment in respect of telephone no. 6319738 in the name of accused Naveen Kumar; installed on 25.03.1997, there at H.No.118-B, Pkt A, Sukhdev Vihar, New Delhi. The bill details are for the period w.e.f 01.09.1998 to 01.05.2000 (Rs. 7990/-). PW183 Dr. Veera R. Brave (Principal PMNM CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.91/370 Dental College and Hospital, Bagalkot)- His testimony is to show the expenses incurred on Ms. Smita Chaudhary, daughter of A-1 towards her tuition fee etc expenses for the period w.e.f 1992 to 1997 (total Rs. 1,14,398/-).
PW184 Sh. Sanjay S. Bhatt (Company
Secretary Alembic Glass Industries Ltd.
Baroda) - Witness has deposed about the shares in the name of Smt. Geeta Singh, wife of A-1 (Total face value 10,000/-).
PW185 Sh.Kuldeep Rai Luthra - The testimony of this witness appears to be entirely unconnected with the prosecution version. The witness talks of some alleged encroachment of land by accused Naveen, but in what context it has been brought on record is nowhere disclosed even remotely.
PW186 Sh.Uday Madhusudhan Karnik (Vice President Legal and Company Secretary in NOCIL) - The purpose of testimony of this CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.92/370 witness is to bring on record the equity shares in the name of Smt. Geeta Singh, wife of A-1.
PW187 Sh.K.S. Nemiraja Kanti, the testimony of this witness pertains to the tuition fee etc expenses on accused no.2 Naveen Kumar while studying/pursuing Bachelor of Engineering (under the Management Quota/Chief Minister Quota) for the period uptil 1989 (Total Rs. 91,752/-).
PW188 Sh. Sanjay Sharma is the Legal Manager ICICI Bank examined in connection with the 'shares' of SCICI (which later on was merged with ICICI Bank) in the name of Mrs. Geeta Sigh, wife of accused no.1.
16. PE stood closed vide order dated 17.04.2017 and thereafter Statements of accused persons u/s 313 Cr. P.C were recorded w.e.f 07.02.2018 uptill 05.07.2018 and thereafter the matter was listed for DE as all the three accused persons had opted for leading evidence in defence.
CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.93/370
17. Two witnesses; including the accused no.1 himself; were examined as defence witnesses and the DE stood closed vide order dated 28.11.2018. The DW1 Sh. Yograj Singh is the brother of accused no.3 Rakshpal Singh whose deposition is to the effect that in the year 1997, he had purchased agricultural land at village Baripur Moradabad from accused no.2 Naveen Kumar during the year 1997 for Rs. 2,70,000/- in the joint names of this witness and accused no.3. The accused no.1 as DW2 has also extensively deposed as a witness in defence of the case.
Charge under its various heads (Jointly & Separately) All the three accused persons have been (jointly) Charged for the offence punishable u/s 120-B R/w Ss. 419/467/471 IPC & S. 13 (2)/ S. 13 (1) (e) PC Act.
A-1/Public Servant has (separately) been Charged for the offence punishable u/s 13 (2) R/w Section 13 (1) (e) of the PC Act 1988. A-2 has been (separately) Charged for the offences -
Punishable u/s - 109 IPC R/w S. 13 (1) (e) /S 13 (2) PC Act 1988, Punishable u/s - 419 IPC.
CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.94/370
- 467 IPC.
- 471 IPC.
Appreciation of Evidence & Material on record
18. The material on record is to be appreciated accordingly in the light of the accusation for the afore-referred charges under various heads.
Certain minute details regarding A-2/Family
19. Family details and certain other particulars of Public Servant i.e. accused no.1 Virender Singh are as under :-
Family Tree of A-1 Horam Singh (1982-83 Retired Teacher) (Father of A-1) Brothers
1.Sh. Dev Raj Singh Sisters (Asst. Gr.-1)
2.Sh. Vikram Sing Virendra Singh 1.Smt. Veermati (Since expired) (Farmer) Public Servant 2.Smt. Smt. Devki (A-1) 3.Smt.Bimla
4.Smt. Sarvesh Brothers Smt. Geeta Singh (Wife of A-1) Sisters
1.Sh. Charan Singh
1.Smt. Prabha Devi
2.Sh.Ranvijay Date of Marriage December
2.Smt. Saroj Singh 1964.
CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.95/370 Sh. Naveen Kumar (A-2) Ms. Smita Ms. Gleeco Singh Son of A-1 Chaudhary (Daughter of A-1) (daughter of A-1) Sh. Naveen Kumar (A-2) Born on 20.05.1967 (As per passport) & 22.05.1967 (as per... Schooling from DPS, Delhi.
BE. From Bangalore in 1989.
MBA in 1992.
LLB from D.U in 1996.
Got married in November 1997 with Ms. Monica Kumar and one daughter was born on 01.10.1999.
Ms. Smita Chaudhary Born on 18.06.1973.
Schooling from DPS, Delhi BDS (PMNM Dental College Bagalkot, Karnataka) 1997 Worked as SR. Resident Safdarjang Hospital in 1998 and thereafter joined as Medical Officer Lok Nayak Hospital.
Ms. Gleeco Singh Born on 06.10.1982.
Schooling from DPS Delhi Joined BDS Course in Ghaziabad Santosh Medical and Dental College in the year 1999.
CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.96/370 Details of Transfer/Postings of Public Servant (A-1) S.No. Period Posting Held Organisation
1. July 69-June 71 Under training Mussoorie Distt.
Mirzapur UP
2. July 71-Sept 71 Director Administration (Transport) of Goa, Daman & Diu
3. Oct. 71- May 73 Deputy Collector, Administration Panaji of Goa, Daman & Diu
4. June 73-Oct 75 Worked as OSD, Delhi Dy. Commr. (Slum Development & JJ) and Commr. Authority (Slum & JJ) at different times during this period
5. Nov 75-Oct 76 Addl. District Delhi Magistrate Administration
6. Nov 76- Feb 78 Labour Delhi Commissioner Administration
7. March 78 - Project Director, Delhi May 78 Small Farmers Administration Development Agency (Autonomous Body)
8. June 78-Feb 81 Deputy Municipal Commissioner Corporation of Delhi
9. March 81-Sep 81 Director (Tech Delhi Edn) Administration
10. Oct.81- June 82 Development Andman & Commissioner Nicobar Administration CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.97/370
11. July 82-Jan 83 Managing Delhi Director, Delhi Administration State Civil Supplies Corporation
12. Feb 83-June 83 Dy General Delhi Electricity Manager Supply Undertaking
13. July 83-Feb 86 Deputy Municipal Commissioner Corporation of Delhi
14. March 86-Sep 86 Director (Tech. Delhi Education) Administration
15. Oct 86-March 87 Director Delhi (Education) Administration
16. April 87-July 87 Chief Executive Delhi Officer, Delhi Administration State Cooperative Bank
17. Aug 87-July 88 Development Andman & Commissioner Nicobar Administration
18. Aug 88 - July 89 Chief Secretary Andman & Nicobar Administration
19. Dec 89-Sep 90 Chairman & Delhi Managing Administration Director, Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation
20. Oct. 90 - Dec.92 Development Delhi Commissioner Administration
21. Jan 93 - May 93 Addl. Municipal Commissioner Corporation of CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.98/370 (Slum & JJ) Delhi
22. June 93- Dec 93 Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Delhi
23. Jan 94-Feb 96 Secretary & Govt of National Commissioner of Capital Territory Industries of Delhi.
24. Mar 96-July 97 On study leave
25. Aug 97- to-date Principal Secretary Govt. of (Finance) National Capital Territory of Delhi
20. For the purpose of proving the allegations of 'disproportionate assets', the prosecution is required to prove :
i. That the accused is a public servant ii. The nature and extent of the pecuniary resources or property found in his possession iii. His known sources of income iv. That the assets in his possession are in fact disproportionate to his known sources of income
21. The Charge Sheet/Final Report in such like cases is CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.99/370 supposed to make a precise and concise depiction on the following aspects:-
i. Statement 'A' - Assets in the possession of accused before the 'check period' ii. Statement 'B'- Assets in possession of accused after the check period iii. Statement 'C'- Income of the accused during the'check period' iv. Statement 'D' - Expenditure of the accused during the check period.
22. Thus, the disproportionate assets are in a way to be calculated as [ (B-A) + D] - C. The difference of statement 'A' and statement 'B' reflects the assets acquired by the accused during the 'check period' which is further added to his expenditure which too reflects his assets used to gain something i.e food, water, electricity etc. for daily sustenance and the result is subtracted from his income and the difference (if any) is/are CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.100/370 the 'disproportionate assets' Sanction u/s 19 of the Act of 1988
23. Since the case in hand is a case of disproportionate assets against a Public Servant, the first and foremost requirement is to look into the aspect of requisite sanction qua the Public Servant. The Prosecution has brought it on record by way of testimony of PW1 Sh. D.P. Khatree, Dy. Secretary UPSC New Delhi, who got the Sanction Order exhibited (in his testimony) as Ex. PW1/A. Perusal of the document Ex. PW1/A makes it clear that the requisite sanction was accorded in the name of the President of India and was authenticated by this witness i.e. PW1; he being posted as Under Secretary in the Deptt. of Personnel and Training (DoPT) New Delhi at the relevant time. Undoubtedly, in respect of the Public Servant i.e. accused no.1 Sh. Virendra Singh, the Sanctioning Authority; in terms of the provision u/s 19 of the Act of 1988, is/was the CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.101/370 Central Govt. The order of Sanction is an executive action or an administrative order as has been held in a number of judgments and accordingly it was supposed to be expressed having been taken in the name of President of India as per the provision under Article 77 of the Constitution of India. The requirement as per Article 77 is that -
'all executive actions of the Govt. of India shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the President and shall be authenticated in the requisite manner and that its validity shall not be called in question on the ground that it was not made or executed by the President'.
24. A bare perusal of the Sanction Order Ex. PW1/A as well as the testimony of PW1; makes it clear that the said order was passed in the name of the President of India and was authenticated by PW1 as he was empowered to do so being posted as Under Secretary in the concerned Department. The main objection raised by way of cross examination of this CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.102/370 witness is to the effect that the witness being Under Secretary (DoPT) was not competent to sign the Sanction Order. As has already been made clear here-in-above, the witness had not signed the Sanction Order in his individual official capacity, but had signed the same as having been authenticated for/on behalf of the President of India. His testimony also makes it ample clear that not only the detailed Sanction Order was well inclusive of each and every minute detail constituting allegations of the offences against the public servant; with which he was supposed to be charged, but also that the issue of 'Sanction' was considered uptill the level of the (then) President of India i.e at the highest level of Ministry/Cabinet and also that prior to getting the same authenticated, a lot of corrections were made in the Sanction Order based upon the deliberations at the Ministry level as well as at the level of Addl. Secretary (S&V) DoPT New Delhi.
25. The purpose behind the provision u/s 19 of the Act of 1988 is that there shouldn't be unnecessary harassment of public servants and hence, prior to launch of any sort of prosecution qua any of them, the material placed before the CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.103/370 concerned authority be looked into prior to handing over the rein in the hands of Prosecution Agency. Thus, the (requirement of) application of mind is supposed to be there while considering the question of 'Sanction'.
26. In the given context, not only the very Sanction Order, but also the testimony of PW1 is/are ample reflective of the fact that there was application of mind prior to accord of sanction for the prosecution of the Public Servant i.e. accused no.1. It was also agitated during the cross examination of PW1 that the representations given by the Public Servant/A-1; were not considered by the Sanctioning Authority. However, the defence has failed to persuade (even to the slightest extent) as to how and why it was incumbent upon the concerned Sanctioning Authority to do so. The Sanctioning Authority was not concerned in any way to find out the truth or otherwise of the facts constituting the alleged offences or to conduct any preliminary inquiry, but only to assess to the prima facie extent whether the material placed before it was sufficient to its satisfaction so as to accord the requisite Sanction. Thus, the only CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.104/370 requirement was to assess the material placed before it; to chalk out whether prima facie it was sufficient to make out a case to launch the prosecution on the basis of the allegations. Hon'ble the Apex Court in State Vs. Narasimhachary AIR 2006 SC 628 has gone to the extent of saying that :-
- the Sanction order (in itself) was a 'public document' u/s 74 of the Indian Evidence Act and was admissible in evidence.
27. Thus, even by merely looking into the very contents of the Sanction Order, it draws & depicts a clear picture that not only sufficient details/material had been provided to the concerned authority, but also that the 'Sanction' was accorded by application of mind. Thus, it is found and held that the Sanction Order Ex. PW1/A is/was a 'valid' Sanction Order.
Bank Account No. 105114 & Locker No. 1063 Allahabad Bank, Behra Enclave Branch, Delhi (in the name of Ranvijay Singh allegedly opened & operated by Naveen Kumar; A-2).
28. Next in line comes the aspect of alleged CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.105/370 impersonation in respect of the 'bank account' and 'locker' as above. In the Charge Sheet filed by the CBI, it is alleged that accused no.2 Sh. Naveen Kumar impersonated as 'Ranvijay Singh' in the bank records and on being so introduced (as Ranvijay Singh) by accused no.3 Rakshpal Singh (who was already having a bank account with the said bank) so as to abet the accused no.1 and assist him in hiding the ill gotten money/assets. Allegedly, he impersonated as Ranvijay Singh; in connivance with the 'introducer' Sh. Rakshpal Singh (A-3) while opening bank account no. 105114 and subsequently on the basis of the said bank account, locker no. 1063 was also obtained in the alleged fake name/identity.
29. To prove the same, the Prosecution obtained the admitted signatures (from bank record etc.), specimen signatures & handwritings of accused Naveen Kumar and the specimen signatures/admitted signatures of introducer/A-3; Sh. Rakshpal Singh. The signatures of Ranvijay Singh (since deceased) were also obtained from various records such as Bank, Sub Registrar Office etc., and the same were also sent for opinion to the GEQD CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.106/370 whose report has come on record in the form of Ex. PW109/A.
30. Prior to further dwelling upon the aspect under consideration, it would be appropriate to say a few words about Sh. Ranvijay Singh (since deceased). Said Sh. Ranvijay Singh happened to be the real brother of Mrs. Geeta Singh (wife of accused no.1) and in that sense he was the brother-in-law of accused no.1 Virendra Singh and maternal uncle of accused no.2 Naveen Kumar. As per the Final Report u/s 173 Cr. P.C, said Sh. Ranvijay Singh committed suicide on 19.08.1999. However, a somewhat vague assertion/defence appears at a number of places (on behalf of the accused no. 1 & 2) that said Sh. Ranvijay Singh was alive at least uptill the registration of the present FIR as on 11.05.2000 and died thereafter somewhere in the middle of the year. The defence is being adjudged to be vague in the sense that since the deceased was a very very close relative of both these accused persons and there were specific averments of the date of his committing suicide as on 19.08.1999, it could very well have been established in defence that at least uptill such-n-such date he was alive; if not proving the actual date of his death. CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.107/370 However, the very documents recovered from the possession of accused no. 1 are inclusive of one such document which clearly substantiate the Prosecution version of the death of said Sh. Ranvijay Singh (as on 19.08.1999). A file bearing number 'D- 125' shown exhibited as Ex. PW178/F4 (and also D-246 Ex. PW98/B) does contain a letter dated 20.08.1999 to the effect that the then Principal Secretary Sh. Vierndra Singh i.e. the accused no. 1; had to leave Delhi due to the sudden demise of his brother- in-law on 19.08.1999. Said Sh. Virendra Singh had only two brothers-in-law namely Sh. Ranvijay Singh and Sh. Charan Singh. It is nowhere the case even in remote sense that it was Sh. Charan Singh who had died. Thus, the intimation in writing given to the Chief Secretary, Delhi (which also does bear the diary number etc. thereupon); clearly establishes that said Sh. Ranvijay Singh had died as on 19.08.1999, be it by suicide or otherwise as this aspect is of least concern.
31. The factum of his death is relevant in the sense that account no. 105114 with Allahabad Bank, Behra Enclave Branch, Delhi had allegedly been opened in the name of Sh. Ranvijay CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.108/370 Singh by accused no.2 Naveen Kumar and the locker no. 1063 (in the very bank in the name of Ranvijay Singh) was also obtained and was being operated by accused no.2 Naveen Kumar. He even allegedly continued operating the same (pretending himself to be Ranvijay Singh) uptill 01.05.2000 despite death of Ranvijay Singh as on 19.08.1999.
32. In this regard, certain documents including the original - locker - operation sheet of locker no. 1063, Account Opening Form of account no. 105114 etc. etc. had been sent to the GEQD for its 'opinion' which has come on record in the form of Ex. PW109/A. The relevant portion thereof is being reproduced hereunder:-
GEQD "Opinion -
3. The person who wrote the blue enclosed signatures stamped and marked RA 1 to RA 29 did not write the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked R 1 to R 24; R CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.109/370 24A, R 24B, R 25, R 26, R 26A, R 27 to R 49".
Description of 'RA' & 'R' Documents
33. The afore-marked 'RA' and 'R' documents are as under:
RA 1 to RA 4 - (these) are the 'signatures' of Ranvijay Singh appearing on the Account Opening Form with SBI, DDA Building, New Delhi, dated 28.12.1982.
RA 5 to RA 10 - are the 'signatures' of Ranvijay Singh on certain blank papers/sheets recovered from the residential premises of A-2 Sh.Naveen Kumar, bearing No. B-31 Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi.
RA 11 to RA 18 - are the 'signatures' of Ranvijay Singh appearing on the CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.110/370 registered GPA and registered Will (both dated 17.02.1998) executed by Sh.
Ranvijay Singh in favour of accused no. 2 Naveen Kumar. (Regarding the registration of these documents, the concerned Sub Registrar was examined as PW162 who categorically deposed that both the above persons had appended their signatures on these documents in his presence at the time of registration thereof). Thus, these are the undisputed signatures of Sh. Ranvijay Singh (since deceased).
RA 19 to RA 29 - are the 'signatures' of Ranvijay Singh appearing on the Title Documents/Allotment letter/Agreement dated 24.11.1983 entered into between Ranvijay Singh and the Builder Entity in respect of Commercial Flat No. 612-A / 712-A) Tolstoy House.
(Thus, the signatures of Ranvijay Singh as appearing in the above 'RA' documents pertaining to the year 1982,1983 CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.111/370 & 1998 are the 'admitted signatures').
R 1 to R 22 - are the (purportedly disputed) signatures of Ranvijay Singh appearing on various bank withdrawal slips and cheques in respect of the (disputed) bank account no. 105114; since after the opening of this account as on 19.03.1998.
R-23 - is the Account Opening Form (purportedly) by Ranvinay Singh in respect of bank account no. 105114 Allahabad Bank Behra Enclave, Delhi dated 19.03.1998.
R-24, R -24 A & R 24 B - are his signatures appearing on the original 'Locker Operation Sheet', showing the operation of the locker no. 1063 w.e.f 03.09.1998 to 01.05.2000.
R-25, R -26, R 26A and R- 27 to R 49 - are the signatures in the name of Ranvijay Singh in respect of account no. CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.112/370 5585 Oriental Bank of Commerce, Vishal Enclave, Delhi (account opening form dated 18.07.1991, specimen signature card with the said OBC Bank and the cheques etc., issued/drawn in respect of the said bank account).
[Thus undisputedly (rather admittedly; at least in respect of RA 11 to RA 18 and RA 19 to RA 29) the signatures shown with mark RA 1 to RA 29 are the 'genuine signatures' of said Sh. Ranvijay Singh. However, the GEQD Report Ex. PW109/A clearly shows that the signatures as above were clearly in mismatch with the signatures in the name of Ranvijay Singh as appearing (on 'R' documents) and as shown marked R 1 to R 49 and hence these are the 'questioned/disputed' signatures.]
34. This way, the report Ex. PW109/A makes the things clear CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.113/370 in the sense that the person who had appended signatures on bank documents etc. (i.e on 'RA' documents) as 'Ranvijay Singh' was not the (same) person who had appended signatures as 'Ranvijay Singh' on the documents shown marked as 'R' documents; more particularly the documents R 23, R 24, R 24A, R 24B (account opening form in the name of Ranvijay Singh, A/c No. 105114, dated 19.03.1998 and the 'locker operation sheet' of locker no. 1063 in the name of Ranvijay Singh; with the same bank ). It is also worth mentioning that since Ranvijay Singh had expired as on 19.08.1999 (as proved here-in-above), there was no question of him visiting the bank and operating the locker thereafter i.e. uptill 01.05.2000.
It thus becomes crystal clear that the person named as 'Ranvijay Singh' in respect of 'RA' documents (admitted signatures) and in respect of 'R' documents (disputed signatures); was not one and the same person.
35. Now the question arises; if said Sh. Ranvijay Singh, in respect of 'RA' and 'R' documents; were two different individuals, then who had done the mischief of CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.114/370 pretending to be Ranvijay Singh in respect of 'R' documents?. This question does find a clear answer in the further perusal of GEQD report Ex. PW109/A. The (further) relevant portion thereof is being reproduced hereunder:-
GEQD "Opinion -
4. the enclosed writings and signatures stamped and marked R 1 to R 24, R 24A, R 24B, R25, R26, R 26A, R 27 to R 49, AS 1 to AS 6, AS 8, V 1 to V 4, N 1 to N 33, N 35 to N 105, N 107 to N 155, N 155A, N 156 to N 188, NS 1 to NS 7, S 3 to S 37 have been written by one and the same person".
36. Now it is to be ascertained as to whose signatures/writings are there; shown in the afore-quoted portion of the GEQD report Ex. PW109/A. For this purpose, the minute details of the examined documents are required to be looked into which are as under:-
Documents Marked as AS-1 to AS-8 (GEQD) CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.115/370 AS1 to AS6 (Ex. PW55/B etc.) - these are the signatures/writings appearing on the cheque deposit slips, withdrawal slips etc., w.e.f 09.06.1995 in the bank A/c No. 5151 with Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. Panchsheel Park Delhi in the name of one Sh. Ajay Singh. (The said account is also reflected in the name of said Sh. Ajay Singh).
AS8 - Signature of Ajay Singh as 'introducer' for one Sh. Prem Raj Singh while opening bank account of Sh. Prem Raj Singh as on 11.02.1997.
Documents Marked as V-1 to V-4 (GEQD) V1 to V4 - (Ex. PW163/E-1 to E-4) These are four Term Deposit Receipts of Allahabad Bank, Bhera Enclave, Delhi worth Rs. 3 lakhs each; dated 08.09.1998 in the name of Vikram Singh in respect of Vikram CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.116/370 Singh's bank account no. 105342. Signatures V1 to V4 'as Vikram Singh' were obtained (for GEQD analysis) from these FDRs/TDRs.
Documents Marked as N-1 to N-188 (GEQD) N1 to N33 -
N1 is the signature of A-2 Naveen Kumar as appearing on the original cheque leaf in respect of his bank account no. 700991 (Naveen Car Care), Allahabad Bank, Guru Harikishan Nagar, New Delhi, issued for an amount of Rs. 1,42,180/-.
N2 (Ex. PW73/U) is also the signature of accused no. 2 Naveen Kumar appearing on a letter written by him, addressed to the Manager Allahabad Bank, Bhera Enclave to close his account no. 700991 w.e.f 04.11.1999 and to credit the outstanding balance in his new Current Account in the CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.117/370 name of M/s Spanner's.
(Similarly, the rest documents numbered uptill N33 (except N-30) are also the original pay-in-slips, original cheques, original application signed by Naveen and addressed to the Manager of the said bank etc. etc., which do bear the admitted signatures of Sh.Naveen Kumar/ accused no.2).
N-44, N-47 and N-30 (These are the three cheques worth Rs. 7Lakhs, 8 lakhs and Rs.12 lakhs respectively vide which the payment of consideration amount of property No. B-31 Panchsheel Enclave was made by the purchaser Sh.Naveen Kumar (A-2) to the seller Sh.Vineet Jain. These cheques are drawn on the accounts no. 105114 Allahabad Bank Bhera Enclave and a/c No. 105342 Allahabad Bank Bhera Enclave in the respective names of Sh. CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.118/370 Ranvijay Singh and Sh. Vikram Singh). The marking 'N-30' is in respect of the 'handwriting' in which (certain) particulars on cheque dated 04.06.1999 (worth Rs. 12 lakhs) drawn on Vikram Singh's account No. 105342, were filled in. 'N-44' and 'N-47' show the ' hand writings' in which the particulars on cheques dated 17.12.1998 (Rs. 7 lakhs) and dated 04.06.1999 (Rs. 8 lakhs), drawn on A/c No. 105114 (in the name of Sh. Ranvijay Singh) were filled in whereupon the signatures (given identification marks as R-14 and R-19) as 'Ranvijay Singh'; were also examined by GEQD.
N-35 is the original cheque drawn on A/c No. 105114 in the sum of Rs. 2525/-, dated 22.08.1998, Allahabad Bank, Bhera Enclave, Delhi, signed in the (purported) name of Ranvijay Singh. Similarly, N36 is another such cheque of Rs. CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.119/370 5000/- (also purportedly signed as Ranvijay Singh; allegedly by Naveen Kumar). Further, N37 is another such cheque in the sum of Rs. 1,73,187/- dated 16.11.1998 (back side of which is numbered as N38 beneath some writing/request for issuance of pay order in the name of Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd.) purportedly signed as Ranvijay Singh. Most of the original documents numbered uptill N50 are such other original cheques purportedly signed in the name of Ranvijay Singh. However, one document numbered as N45 is the original term deposit receipt, bearing No. 831566, dated 24.03.1998 in respect of the Bank A/c No. 105114 whereby the account holder in the name of Ranvijay Singh got deposited a sum of Rs. 9,50,000/- as FDR for a period of 90 days.
Further, the original documents
numbered N51 to N86 are (mainly) the
CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.120/370
original bank cheques of Canara Bank A/C no. 3985, Daryaganj, New Delhi in the name of Gleeco Services Pvt. Ltd., which are signed by accused no.2 Naveen Kumar as its Director and thus these are the admitted signatures of A-2 Naveen Kumar.
The original documents given number N87 to N117 are also the original pay-in- slips/withdrawal slips/original cheques in respect of Naveen Kumar's A/c No. 012954 with Canara Bank Daryaganj, New Delhi. Thus, the signatures appearing thereupon in the name of Naveen Kumar are undisputedly the admitted signatures of accused No.2 Naveen Kumar.
N118 to N149 are various original cheques / pay-in-slips/withdrawal slips etc., pertaining to bank a/c No. 3763 Punjab National Bank IGNOU Complex, Maidan Garhi New Delhi in the name of accused CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.121/370 no.2 Naveen Kumar and do bear the admitted/undisputed signatures of accused no.2 Naveen Kumar. This bank account with PNB was opened by him as on 30.08.1995.
N-150 to N-155 are the original documents pertaining to bank a/c in the name of 'M/s Spanners' and 'Naveen Car Care Centre' (both these business entities are/were admittedly being run by accused no.2 Naveen Kumar and admittedly he had furnished these documents i.e. account opening form/signature card etc. in the name as Naveen Kumar at the time of opening of these respective bank accounts with Allahabad Bank Bhera Enclave i.e. A/c No. 601009 & a/c No. 700991 respectively).
N-155A is the original application- cum-specimen signature card in respect of saving bank a/c no. 105342 in the name of CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.122/370 Vikram Sing, s/o Sh. Horam Singh r/o J-
3/57, Khirki Extn., New Delhi -17
wherefrom certain writings (and not
signatures) shown encircled in 'blue' have also been examined by the GEQD (Vikram Singh is the real uncle of accused no.2).
N-156 to N-176 - are the documents inclusive of original Account Opening Form for saving account with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Vishal Enclave, Delhi in the name of Ranvijay Singh s/o Sh Ram Gopal Singh r/o 382 Bhera Enclave, Delhi and specimen signature card, withdrawal slips, deposit slips (all originals in respect of this saving bank account no. 5585, pertaining to the transactions entered into w.e.f 18.07.1991 onwards in the name of the account holder Ranvijay Singh). The 'signatures' and 'writings' from these documents were examined by the GEQD.
CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.123/370 N-177 to N-182 - These documents include the original specimen signature card in respect of bank account no. 3763 of accused no.2 Naveen Kumar, r/o 201 Rouse Avenue, New Delhi -110002, pertaining to the year 1995, the original application form submitted by accused no.2 Naveen Kumar for opening bank account no. 3985 in the name of Gleeco Services Pvt. Ltd. with the Canara Bank and signatures of Naveen Kumar as appearing on the original Certificate of Incorporation / Memorandum and Articles of Association of Gleeco Services Pvt. Ltd. Thus, the signatures so obtained from these documents and analysed by the GEQD are also in a way the admitted signatures of accused Naveen Kumar.
N-183 to N-186 - These are certain original bank slips in respect of bank a/c no. 4812 Central Bank of India, Bengali Market, New CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.124/370 Delhi in the name of Smt. Geeta Singh wife of accused no.1, wherefrom certain 'handwritings' were obtained and sent to GEQD for analysis. One such receipt (dated 29.04.1993) which is given number N-185 and N 186 (both sides of the receipt) shows some writing for the issuance of three FDRs (aggregate) worth Rs. 3,26,000/- in the name of Mrs. Geeta Singh.
N-187 & N-188 - This is some voucher/slip (dated 09.06.1997) filled in by accused no.2 Naveen Kumar (resident of 382 Bhera Enclave) for transfer of Rs. 2,87,000/- in favour of N.O.I.D.A from his bank a/c No. 12954 with Canara Bank. Thus this receipt does bear the admitted signature of accused no.2 Naveen Kumar.
Documents Marked as NS-1 to NS-7 (GEQD) CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.125/370 NS1 to NS7 - This is the handwritten statement running into 07 pages; written by accused Naveen Kumar himself and obtained as on 05.12.2001 during the course of investigation.
Documents Marked as S-3 to S-7 (GEQD) S3 to S37 - These are the specimen writings (both in words and digits) in the hand of accused no.2 Naveen Kumar, obtained as on 19.06.2001 (S3 to S29 obtained by PW 171)) and on 05.12.2001 (S30 to S37 obtained by the first IO P.C. Sharma/PW178) shown exhibited as Ex.
PW171/B (colly.) & 178/X (colly.)
respectively.
Documents Marked as RP-1 to RP-27 (GEQD) RP-1 to RP-6 - These are the original CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.126/370 cheques issued/signed by Sh. Raksh Pal Singh (accused no.3) from his bank a/c no. 2795 Oriental Bank of Commerce, Vishal Enclave, during the period 1994 onwards. Thus, these are in a way admitted signatures of said Sh. Raksh Pal Singh. RP-8 to RP -27- These are also the original cheques issue/signed by accused Raksh Pal Singh in respect of his OBC Bank Account no. 2795 during the period 1996 to 2000.
Thus, these are also the admitted signatures of accused Raksh Pal Singh. Documents Marked as RPQ-1 to RPQ-27 (GEQD) RP-Q1 to RP-Q6- RP-Q-1 to RP-Q4 are -
- the Original Account Opening Form (dated 09.03.1998) in respect of account No. 105114 in the name of Ranvijay Singh CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.127/370 (for whom Rakshpal Singh had stood as 'introducer' and had signed as such),
- Account Opening Form (dated 04.11.1999) for M/s Spanners (a Proprietorship concern of accused Naveen Kumar) in respect of account no.601009 with Allahabad Bank (for whom Rakshpal Singh had stood as 'introducer' and had signed as such).
- Account Opening Form (dated 10.08.1999) of Current Account in the name of Naveen Car Care Centre (a Proprietorship concern of accused Naveen Kumar) in respect of a/c No. 700991 (for whom Rakshpal Singh had stood as 'introducer' and had signed as such).
- Application-cum-Specimen Signature Card (dated 04.09.1998) of one Sh. Vikram Singh s/o Sh. Horam Singh (real brother of CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.128/370 accused no.1 and real uncle of accused no.2) in respect of a/c no. 105342 with Allahabad Bank, Bhera Enclave (for whom Rakshpal Singh had stood as 'introducer' and had signed as such).
(These four documents have been exhibited as Ex. PW73/G, PW73/J, PW73/N and Ex. PW163/A respectively).
RPQ-5 and RPQ-6-
- are the Account Opening Form and Specimen Signature Card (in the name of Ranvijay Singh) in respect of bank a/c no. 5585 (dated 18.07.1991) with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Vishal Enclave. These documents do bear the signatures of accused no.3 Sh. Rakshpal Singh as 'introducer' and the same have been shown exhibited as Ex. PW96/B and Ex. PW96/C respectively.
CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.129/370
RP-Q8 to RP-Q27 - These documents
have been collectively shown exhibited as Ex. PW26/B whereupon the signatures of accused no.3 Rakshpal Singh do appear at various places in the capacity of being Power of Attorney Holder of (the purchaser) Sh. Ranvijay Singh, who had entered into Flat Buyer Agreement with the builder 'Ansal Properties and Industries Ltd'., in respect of Flat No. 712-A Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi.
Observations/Findings in respect as above-
37. As far as the signatures of Rakshpal Singh (either admitted signatures or signatures on the questioned documents) are concerned, there is not even a single suggestion by/on his behalf denying any of the same. In the name of cross examination of almost all the witnesses, there was not even a CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.130/370 suggestion in negation thereof. Thus, it has not at all been disputed by/on behalf of A-3 that he had stood 'introducer' for opening of various bank accounts in the name of accused no.2 Naveen Kumar; as an 'individual', and also in the name of his business entities namely 'M/s Naveen Car Care' and 'M/s Spanners', and in the real/purported name of Sh. Ranvijay Singh (since deceased). It is also not disputed that said Sh. Rakshpal Singh had also entered into a Flat Buyer Agreement with Ansal Properties and Industries as Power of Attorney Holder of said Sh. Ranvijay Singh.
38. The question involved herein is only on the aspect as to whether in respect of bank a/c no. 105114 (and also in respect of the locker no. 1063 with the same bank; in the name of Sh. Ranvijay Singh, he (A-3 R.P. Singh) had 'introduced' Sh. Ranvijay Singh as the account holder or he had (allegedly) introduced A-2 Sh. Naveen Kumar as 'Ranvijay Singh'; the account holder? (The same question is also involved in respect of another bank account no. 5585 of Sh. Ranvijay Singh and also in respect of CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.131/370 A/c No 5151 in the name of one Sh. Ajay Singh).
39. As per the GEQD report Ex. PW109/A, the answer to the above questions; goes to the effect that the person (so) introduced as Ranvijay Singh while opening bank accounts nos. 105114 and 5585; is/was in fact accused no.2 Sh. Naveen Kumar; as the signatures/writings in the purported name of 'Ranvijay Singh'; on the Account Opening Forms, Specimen Signature Cards etc., are clearly matching with the signatures/writings of that of the A-2 Naveen Kumar; as found & observed vide the GEQD report Ex. PW109/A. The findings in respect of account no. 5151 are also to the effect that the signatures (as Ajay Singh) on the Account Opening Form etc., are that of A-2 Naveen Kumar. Even all the signatures on Locker Operation Sheet (Locker No. 1063) have also been opined & established to be in the hand of A-2; including the signatures since after 19.08.1999 (i.e date of death of Sh. Ranvijay Singh).
(The fate of signatures (as Vikram Singh) appended on the back side of the FDRs Ex. PW163/E-1 to Ex. PW163/E-4; drawn on A/c CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.132/370 No. 105143; is also on the lines as above; as these have also been opined to be in the hand of accused no.2 Naveen Kumar). Consequences/Effect of afore-findings; on various properties involved in the present case.
40. Due to the force of the findings in respect of the bank accounts as above, it becomes crystal clear that the commercial property No. 1667, Industrial Area, Narela, Delhi, was in fact the Benami property of accused no. 1; acquired in the name of his real brother Vikram Singh (a farmer by profession); whose sale proceeds worth Rs. 12 lakhs (returned back in the bank account no. 105143 in the name of Vikram Singh) were utilized in making payment of the consideration amount of property B- 31, Panchsheel Enclave, purchased in the name of A-2. Initially this amount was converted into 04 FDRs (Ex. PW163/E1 to Ex. PW163/E4) of Rs. 3 lakhs each and later on utlizied for making payment as above. The signatures as 'Vikram Singh' on these FDRs (given GEQD Mark V-1 to V-4) were opined to be in the hand of A-2 Naveen Kumar. Even the cheque book of said Sh. CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.133/370 Vikram Singh (containing 18 signed & unsigned blank cheques) was recovered from the locker No. 829 of A-2 which, in itself shows that this account was being utilized by A-2 for ulterior motives.
41. Even the property i.e. Flat No. 712-A, Tolstoy House; (which was in the name of Ranvijay Singh and whose ownership was transferred in the name of Naveen Kumar w.e.f 28.11.1998; simply by virtue of a letter written to the builder company to the effect that 'henceforth Sh. Naveen Kumar be considered as the lawful owner of this flat'; instead of Sh. Ranvijay Singh); comes under a shadow of doubts. At no point of time and nowhere it has been shown that any sort of consideration towards the transfer of ownership was ever paid by/on behalf of Naveen Kumar to said Sh. Ranvijay Singh or any Gift Deed etc was ever executed. The ownership of this flat was acquired by Naveen Kumar merely on the basis of a letter (dated 27.11.1998) purportedly written by its (earlier) owner Sh. Ranvijay Singh; which methodology is entirely unknown in legal parlance. It would not be out of context that even prior to CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.134/370 the alleged ownership in favour of Naveen Kumar, the payment thereof was being made from the account no. 105114 (in the name of Ranvijay Singh) which bank account, as per the GEQD report Ex. PW109/A, was the account opened & operated by accused no.2 Naveen Kumar impersonating himself as 'Ranvijay Singh'. Documents; given GEQD no. N-37 and N-38 clearly show the factum of payment from account no. 105114 in respect of the flat No. 712-A, Tolstoy House. Thus, this property in fact was either a Benami property of A-1 since the very inception or the ownership thereof was acquired without showing/revealing payment of any sort of consideration therefor. A-2 Naveen Kumar; when did he start earning and acquiring properties ?
42. Accused no.2 Naveen Kumar happens to be the son of public servant/A-1. As per his passport Ex. PW125/L and as per the documents pertaining to his company named as M/s Gleeco Services Pvt. Ltd., he was born in May 1967. He completed his education in the year 1996, when he passed LLB Final year examination from Delhi University. He got married CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.135/370 with Ms. Monica Kumar as on 24.11.1997 and out of the said wedlock a daughter was born on 30.09.1999. He had completed his school education from DPS Delhi and thereafter got admission in BE there in the State of Karnataka on a Management Quota Seat/CM discretionary quota seat; which prima facie is indicative of the fact that he was an average student. Thereafter, for a phase of three years, he did MBA (or equivalent course) from a Ghaziabad college pursuing the course as a part time student. The documents recovered during the course of investigation do reveal that during those days he had been preparing for Civil Services Examination and had also joined coaching for the same with a Coaching Institute in Delhi named as VAID's ICS Shalimar Bagh. Thereafter, he got admission in three year LLB course in Delhi University and completed the same in the year 1996 as a regular student.
43. Thus, as a matter of fact, uptill the year 1996, he was concerned with & indulged into; (pursuing) the carrier studies. However, he had started filing his Income Tax Return at least w.e.f. the year 1988-89 (while pursuing studies in the State CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.136/370 of Karnataka) in which year & as per the recovered record, he showed his total income (for that financial year) to the tune of Rs.39,850/- and paid 'Nil' tax. However, a number of property documents in original, recovered from the locker no. 1063 (locker in the name of Ranvijay Singh which was in fact opened and being operated by accused Naveen Kumar even after the death of Ranvijay Singh as has been proved here-in-above); show that at least since the year 1990, a number of properties were purchased in the name of accused Naveen Kumar; when he was pursuing his studies or soon thereafter. The first such property as per the original documents recovered from this locker is the agricultural land purchased from one Sh. Jorawar Singh, situated in Village Bandhwari, Tehsil and Distt. Gurgaon. As per the testimony of PW164, this Sale Deed in original, (dated 31.07.1990); showing consideration amount Rs. 50,000/- + Rs. 6250/- as stamp duty, was recovered from the locker as above. The next in sequence comes another property i.e land measuring 3.889 hectare, situated in village Baripur, Distt. Moradabad UP, purchased as on 13.08.1991 by way of registered Sale Deed for a total sum of Rs. 1,09,015/- including stamp duty. Similarly, a number of CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.137/370 other properties were also recovered which are as under :-
- a plot of 300 sq yds Khirki Extn purchased as on 14.02.1995 from one Smt. Babita Goyal against consideration of Rs. 1,80,000/- paid in cash by accused no. 2 Naveen Kumar vide receipt Ex. PW10/C.
- Tata Siera Car No. DL4CC-0012, purchased on 16.06.1993 roughly for Rs. 3,60,000/- by Naveen Kumar.
- Contessa Car No. DL3CJ 3241
purchased by Naveen in the name of
Gleeco Services Pvt. Ltd., for a
consideration worth Rs.4,33,209/- (proved vide testimony of PW13 and PW15 respectively),
- (another Vintage Car of 1939 model was also found registered in the name of accused no.2 Naveen Kumar, but its purchase amount remains unproved)
- Mahindra Geep DL2CA 8156 CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.138/370 (model 1990 with insured value of Rs.1,95,531/- as per the Insurance Leaf Cover recovered from the locker search) was also registered in the name of accused no.2 Naveen Kumar.
- Flat No. 712-A Tolstoy House got transferred from Ranvijay Singh in the name of accused Naveen Kumar as on 28.11.1998 by virtue of letter dated 27.11.1998 .
- Shop No.1 Alaknanda Shopping Complex, Sec. 28 Noida UP, purchased as on 10.06.1997.
- Plot measuring 500 sq yds, Khasra No.154 Village Lado Sarai, Hauj Khas purchased by A-2 Naveen Kumar against cash payment.
- H. No. B-31 (Ground Floor) Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi measuring 250.82 Sq. Meters purchased by Naveen CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.139/370 Kumar vide registered Sale Deed dated 14.07.1999 for a total sum of Rs. 29.16 lakhs inclusive of Stamp Duty.
- Industrial Plot No. 1667 Narela in the name of Vikram Singh already proved here-in-above to be the property belonging to accused No.1/his family members.
- Flat No. 118-B, purchased by A-2 Naveen Kumar in the name of M/s Gleeco Services Pvt. Ltd., as on 28.04.1997.
- Property No. J-3/57, Khirki Extn., Khasra No.27, Village Khirki, measuring 274 Sq Yds, purchased in the name of M/s Gleeco Services Pvt. Ltd against cash payment of Rs. 4 lakhs made by accused Naveen as on 03.01.1995 and as proved vide testimony of PW140 and PW82,
- another plot of land measuring 500 sq yds situated in khasra no. 154, Village CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.140/370 Lado Sarai, Delhi purchased from one Sh. Jagdish Singh vide Agreement to Sell, Receipt and Registered Will dated 17.02.2000 wherein the 'amount' has been left 'blank'.
- An FDR dated 12.06.1996 in the
name of Naveen Kumar for a sum of Rs.
3,10,156/- (maturity amount) Rs.
3,42,350/- was also recovered from locker search of locker no. 51 (in the name of Naveen Kumar) Bank of India, Pakhwada Branch, Moradabad UP.
- certificate of Canara Bank Mutual Fund (CANPEP-92) worth Rs.10,000/- purchased on 10.04.1992 in the name of Naveen Kumar were also recovered during the house search conducted at H. No. 382 Bhera Enclave, New Delhi. Etc. etc.
44. Thus, even up till the year 1996 (i.e. the period CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.141/370 during which he had been pursing his studies), a number of (movable and immovable) properties were acquired in the name of A-2 Naveen Kumar. As per the testimony of PW120, the documents (file D-11; collectively shown exhibited as Ex. PW120/A), show that the total income of accused no.2 Naveen Kumar for the year 1995-96 was Rs. 60,025/- as per the Income Tax Return filed by him. It is also worth mentioning that during the said period, he was a regular student of LLB 3 year Course. Moreover, these properties are in no way in consonance with the aggregate/gross income of accused no.1 and his family members; including accused no.2; for the period during which these were purchased/acquired and as reflected here-in-above. For example; as per Pay & Allowances Record in respect of Public Servant/Accused no.1, his gross income for the financial year March 1990 to February 1991 was Rs. 98040/- and after deduction of income tax and GPF, his net income during the said year was Rs.55,286. Similarly for the year 1991 -1992, his net income was to the tune of Rs. 68038/- and for the year 1995-96 it was Rs. 69,968/-. During the period uptill 1996, all the three children of accused no.1 (i.e. accused no.2 Naveen Kumar and CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.142/370 both the daughters of A-1) were pursuing their studies. The Farm House C-8 Ansal Villa ; whether Benami property of accused no.1 ?-
45. This contentious issue is one of the core allegations leveled by way of the Charge Sheet filed by the CBI. This immovable property is situated in Village Satbari, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi. As per the Sale Deed dated 10.08.1992 Ex. PW11/G, it is registered in the name of M/s Jassa Ram & Sons, 26-B LIG Flat, Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi. Hence, prior to proceeding further, it has to be ascertained as to what sort of entity M/s Jassa Ram & Sons is; as no (other) particulars thereof are reflected anywhere in the Sale Deed Ex. PW11/G (as to whether it is some sort of Partnership Firm or something else).
46. In this context, two Partnership Deeds Ex. PW11/C and Ex. PW11/D have also come on record, which on their very CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.143/370 face, do clearly reveal that the contents thereof are verbatim; in each and every particular and in that sense, they are 'one and the same' Deed i.e. Partnership Deed shown executed as on 27.06.1985 (constituting a 'partnership'; from a back date i.e. 01.01.1984 in the name of 'M/s Jassa Ram & Sons' between as many as 08 persons). Sh. Jas Ram s/o Sh. Lachman Das, B-26 Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi is shown as the First Party and rest 07 persons [namely Sh. R.P. Singh (accused no.3 herein); Sh. Devender Kumar; Sh. Vijender Singh; Sh. Ompal Singh; Sh. Ravinder Kumar; Sh. Kartar Singh and Sh. Vikram Singh] as the other partners. The purpose of this partnership has been deciphered therein as 'Building Construction & Sale Purchase of Property' in the name & style as above and that the business of the partnership shall be carried at C-8 Ansal Villa, Satbari, New Delhi. Thus, this document in itself shows that the persons named as partners therein were already having concern with and, were in possession of the Farm House in question even prior to the execution of the Sale Deed Ex. PW11/G. Baring Sh.Jassa Ram, the rest all persons/partners are very close relatives of accused no.1. Vikram Singh happens to be real CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.144/370 brother of A-1 whereas Sh. Ompal has even shown his address as 201, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi, which at that time was the official residence of accused no.1.
47. The Prosecution has alleged that the partnership between the afore 08 persons (in the name of M/s Jassa Ram & Sons) was a fictitious entity; created for/on behalf of accused no.1, to acquire immovable property (i.e. Farm House, C-8 Ansal Villa); as Benami property. However, in defence, it has been contended that the accused no.1 (or his family) was having no concern at all with this immovable property and that it belonged to Sh. Jas Ram (PW11).
48. Prior to moving ahead, it would be appropriate to say a few things about the very nature of the 'entity' shown as 'M/s Jassa Ram & Sons' (purchaser/vendee) as shown in the Sale Deed Ex. PW11/G. A person or an entity executing a transaction of sale purchase of some kind of immovable property; as well as the concerned Sub Registrar; is/are duty bound to ensure that each and every particular is clearly CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.145/370 deciphered in the documentation thereof so as to identify as to who was the 'seller' and who was the 'purchaser' (of the subject matter i.e. an immovable property); at the time of registration of the Sale Deed in respect thereof. In the given context, the same are surreptitiously missing. If it was an HUF, the particulars (in all descriptions) of the family members constituting the HUF must have been reflected in the very Sale Deed at the time of registration thereof and if it was a partnership firm, it was very much required to clearly show the details of each and every partner as the partnership firm is but a collection of individuals; having no separate legal identity as such; either as a natural person or as a juristic person.
49. Further, the testimony of PW11 and the rest material on record; clearly creates a clout about the very nature of the defence so pleaded in this regard, whereas the Prosecution seems having established the connection of accused no.1 / his family with this property; so as to prove it beyond reasonable doubt that the property in question is/was in fact a Benami property of the Public Servant i.e accused no.1. CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.146/370
50. Admittedly, PW11 Sh. Jas Ram is/was a family friend of accused Virendra Singh; having acquaintance with him at least since the year 1982. This witness was declared a hostile witness and during his cross examination by the Ld. PP for the CBI, he duly admitted having executed & appended his signatures on the Partnership Deeds Ex. PW11/C and Ex. PW11/D. His address; as appearing in both these Partnership Deeds; as well as in the Sale Deed Ex. PW11/G, is the very address i.e. B-26 Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi. (However, apparently some mischiefs are there as at one place it is written as 26-B and at other places it is written as B-26. Similarly, at some places the 'entity' has been shown as 'M/s Jassa Ram & Sons' and at some other places; it is shown as 'M/s Jas Ram & Sons' though the 'address particulars' thereof are the same).
51. Further, even if it is assumed for a moment that PW11 Sh. Jas Ram or Jassa Ram was in fact the owner of the Farm House in question, he was at least supposed to be in possession of the original title documents thereof or at least to CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.147/370 give a satisfactory explanation as to how & why he was not in possession of the documents and as to who else & in what capacity/purpose was having the possession of those documents. In the given context, the complete chain of the documents (original documents) of the property in question (i.e. C-8 Ansal Villa) were recovered from the locker no. 1063 in the presence of accused no.2 Naveen Kumar. It has already been proved here-in-above that the said locker in the name of Ranvijay Singh (since deceased) had in fact been obtained (& was being operated) in the name of Ranvijay Singh; by accused no.2 Naveen Kumar, who continued operating the same even after the death of Sh.Ranvijay Singh and at least on 09 occasions; the locker was operated since after the date of death (19.08.1999) of Ranvijay Singh. It clearly shows that the documents in question were intentionally kept in the said locker with some ill motive so as to hide the same from the rest entire world. The documents pertaining to property No. C-8 Ansal Villa are not the only documents which were recovered from the said locker. Number of such documents recovered from said locker goes up to as many as 54 in respect of numerous CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.148/370 immovable (and movable) properties. This locker was searched as on 13.05.2000 and the bank official i.e. PW164 Sh. Deepak Kumar Pama has duly deposed and proved the factum of the recovery of this much bulk of original documents of various properties from the said locker. The very nature of these documents also affirms the fact that the accused no. 1 and 2 intended to hide the very transactions for ulterior motives. These documents also include the ownership documents in favour of Smt. Geeta Singh, wife of accused no.1 Sh. Virendra Singh and various other documents (either purchased in the name of accused no.2 Naveen Kumar himself or other close relatives) and each and every document shows that these properties very well fall within the check-in period i.e between the period reckoned from July 1982 uptill 12.05.2000.
52. Further, admittedly and as proved vide the testimony of PW177 Ms. Sheena Sandhu Shekhar, Chief Accounts Officer, MTNL, a land line telephone bearing No. 6801178 in the name of one Sh. Ranjeet Singh Tanwar was installed there at the said farm house. The original paid bills of CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.149/370 the year 1997-98 (at least 04 in number) were recovered from the official residence i.e. 201 Rouse Avenue; in the very first search conducted on 12.05.2000. Not only the telephone bills, but also some documents pertaining to MCD House Tax Assessment etc. of this Farm House were also recovered from the official residence of accused no.1; in his very presence. Neither the recovery thereof is disputed nor the defence even deemed it fit to explain (at least to a prima facie extent) as to how and what for the same were kept at his official residence; if he was having no concern at all with the said Farm House. The same is the fate of the recovered original documents from locker no. 1063 as no justification at all has been put forward as to what for accused no.2 Naveen had hidden these documents or as to why he was in possession of the ownership-documents of the farm house in question if he was having no concern with the said farm house. Even the locker key no.24166 of locker no. 1063 (in the name of Ranvijay Singh) was recovered from the possession/premises of A-2 Naveen Kumar. Locker key is supposed to be in the exclusive possession of the hirer of locker. Even if it is assumed for a moment that Sh.Ranvijay Singh CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.150/370 (being maternal uncle of accused no.2); had kept the key at the residence of accused no.2, in that eventuality also, it was very much incumbent upon him either to handover the said key to the heirs of Ranvijay Singh or to surrender the same with the Manager of the concerned bank or at least to give a formal intimation thereof to the Bank Manager concerned. Rather, the said locker key was used at least 09 times even after the death of said Sh. Ranvijay Singh. If it was not Naveen Kumar, who else operated the said locker since after 19.08.1999 using the key recovered from the residence/possession of accused no.2, was in the exclusive knowledge of accused no.2 himself. Even the possession letter in respect of this farm house was recovered during the house search of Property No B-31 Panchsheel Enclave (belonging to A-2 Sh. Naveen Kumar) in the search conducted on 12.05.2000 and this document does form part of the file No. D-137 shown exhibited as Ex. PW125/C.
53. Moreover, the recoveries effected from this farm house i.e. C-8 Ansal Villa, do establish a clear connection of accused no.1 and his family with the said farm house; by virtue CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.151/370 of the very recoveries effected therefrom. These recoveries include photographs (family, official function) and a bunch/bundle of documents pertaining to the years 1985 onwards.
The details of the lockers involved in the present case Locker No.343 - The key of this locker was recovered during the very first search i.e. search conducted at the official residence of Public Servant Virendra Singh, 201 Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. This locker was in the name of Smt. Geeta Singh wife of accused no.1 Sh. Virendra Singh and the locker was searched in her presence vide Search-cum- Seizure Memo Ex. PW72/A (file D-2). This locker was maintained with Central Bank of India, Bengali Market Delhi and the search-
cum-seizure memo thereof was duly prepared in respect of the articles/recoveries CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.152/370 effected therefrom. This fact; though does find mention at S.no. 17 of the Search Memo (Ex. PW72/A) and also in the testimony of the main IO (PW178); that a huge recovery (including recovery of jewellary articles) was effected therefrom, yet as a matter of fact, the same is totally relegated/removed even from the contents of the Charge Sheet/Final Report u/s 173 Cr. PC; for the reasons known to the concerned officials of the CBI only.
Locker No.380 (Central Bank of India, Sukhdev Vihar, New Delhi)- This locker was in the name of wife of accused no.2 and was searched vide Memo Ex. PW80/A (forming part of the file D-6). From the search of this locker cash worth Rs. 4.3 lakhs was recovered as on 12.05.2000. Locker No.829 (Central Bank of India, Sukhdev Vihar, New Delhi) - This locker CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.153/370 was found to be in the name of accused no.2 Naveen Kumar and was searched vide Memo Ex. PW80/B (file D-7). Various Term Deposit Receipts were recovered therefrom.
Locker No. 1063 - This locker was being maintained with Allahabad Bank, Bhera Enclave Branch, Delhi in the name of Ranvijay Singh, who expired as on 19.8.1999 and the locker was operated at least 09 times even thereafter. In the afore- findings, it has already been found and held that this locker was obtained & operated by A-2 Naveen Kumar in his impersonated identity as 'Ranvijay Singh' and on being so 'introduced' by accused no.3 Sh.Rakshpal Singh. From the search of this locker, cash worth Rs. 3,70,000/-; along with more than 50 property documents in original; including that of C-8 Ansal Villa, Property no. B 31 CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.154/370 Panchsheel Enclave, Flat No. 118-B Pkt A Sukhdev Vihar, Property No. J-3/57 Khasra No. 27 Village Khirki Delhi etc. etc. were recovered.
Locker No.51 - This locker was being maintained in the name of accused no.2 Naveen Kumar in Bank of India, Pakwada Branch, Moradabad UP. It was searched vide Memo Ex. PW87/A and as per the Seizure Memo Ex. PW87/B, a number of articles including FDR (dated 12.06.1996) in the sum of Rs. 3,10,156/- (maturity amount Rs.3,42,350/-) in the name of Naveen Kumar was recovered as on 15.05.2000. The other main recoveries include the certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 13.08.1991 by Ranvijay Singh in favour of Naveen Kumar in respect of land measuring 3.889 hectare Village Baripur, Moradabad. CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.155/370 Cash deposits in the bank accounts of Mrs. Monica Kumar (wife of A-2 ); since after the date of marriage i.e. 24.11.1997:-
54. Besides the cash amount recovered from lockers and house search and besides certain FDRs in her name individually/jointly with husband/mother etc., the cash deposits made in her accounts since after her marriage, also require some sort of appreciation. She had been maintaining bank account no. 7047, Central Bank of India, Sukhdev Vihar, as joint account with her husband Naveen i.e. accused no.2 opened as on 11.06.1998. Another account in her name is saving bank account no. 70948 in the Bank of Baroda, Extension Counter Vimhans, Delhi.
55. She has two sisters and one brother. Her father, who used to be employed as 'Assistant' in the Central Road CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.156/370 Research Institute; expired somewhere in the year 1991. She had done her P.G in Psychology in the year 1995. Thereafter, she joined as Consultant in Vimhans in the very month she got married with A-2 i.e. in the month of November 1997. As per her testimony as PW153, she was gifted a car (by her brother) in her marriage and a number of gold and diamond jewellary articles by her mother. In the name of source of income, she has shown herself as a working woman. The entries in her bank account statements forming part of D-55 and D-229; make it clear that her salary was hardly to the tune of Rs. 12000/- -
13000/- per month. She had opened the account no. 7047 jointly with her husband Naveen as on 11.06.1998 i.e. less than 07 months after the marriage. Since then, besides Rs. 10,000/- cash deposit as on the day of opening of this account, she deposited various sums in cash worth Rs. 1,80,000/-, 1,50,000/- and Rs. 1,15,000/- within a period of less than one month reckoned from 07.07.1998. These cash deposits/pay in slips have been collectively shown exhibited as Ex. PW153/A. The amounts so deposited in cash by her have been said to be her own savings/earnings allegedly lying with her mother. However, CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.157/370 she has failed even to prima facie explain as to what sort of income source she was having besides the salary income as above since November 1997. Similarly, she deposited another Rs. 2,00,000/- in cash as on 10.06.1999 in her saving bank a/c no. 70948 vide pay in slip forming part of file D -229 (shown marked as Mark P-153/1). Cash worth Rs. 4,30,000/- had also been recovered during the locker search besides the cash amount of Rs. 40,000/- recovered in the house search. The amounts so deposited in cash or so recovered from locker and house search are totally disproportionate and mismatching with her own income as well as the income of her husband i.e. accused no.2 Naveen Kumar; more so in the light of testimony of PW120; deciphering the details of the ITR of accused no.2 Naveen Kumar (file D-11) shown exhibited as Ex. PW120/A. As per these ITRs, the gross income of accused no.2 Naveen Kumar uptill the year 1995-96 had not even touched a figure of Rs. 1 lakh in any of the preceding years.
Relations between accused no.1 and accused no.2 :-
56. Public Servant i.e. accused no.1 is the father of CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.158/370 accused no.2 Naveen Kumar. One of the defence raised is to the effect that the relations between the two were strained since after the inter caste marriage of accused no.2 with Ms. Monica Kumar.
However, this defence doesn't at all sound good in the light of the material on record & the nature of the allegations in respect of which, the accused are facing trial. PW11 Sh. Jas Ram (who is acquainted with and is a family friend of accused no.1 since the year 1982 or so) was put a suggestion in his cross examination on behalf of accused no. 1 and 2 that the relations between the two i.e. accused no. 1 and 2 were strained as his grand-father Sh. Horam Singh had started financially assisting Naveen Kumar. It remains incomprehensible as to how the relation became strain due to this reason more so when accused no. 1 himself had informed to his parent department in his official capacity somewhere in the month of February 1985 that his son Naveen Kumar (already 18 years) had attained majority and that thenceforth he would be financially supported by his grand- parents (paternal and maternal). It is also worth mentioning that the date of birth of accused Naveen Kumar is 20.05.1967 and in February 1985, he had not at all attained the age of majority. CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.159/370 Why accused No.1 was in a hurry to write such a letter to his department; is known to him only. However, it raises a concern in the given context. PW63 Rishi Pal has gone to the extent of saying that accused no.1 had separated his son in the year 1985. In that year, he had hardly completed his schooling and thereafter he was got admitted there in an Engineering College in Karnataka (on a Management Quota Seat) through the efforts of accused no. 1. Otherwise also, this reason is quite contrary to the reason that the relations between the two became strained due to inter caste marriage as the marriage was solemnized in November 1997 and not in the year 1985. Further, the testimonies of PW57, PW71, PW75 also impel the Court to construe and conclude that the defence on the afore-aspect does have no substance at all. Though, as a matter of fact, the marriage was an inter caste marriage, yet, as per the testimony of PW57, even the venue for the 'reception party' of the marriage was arranged with the active indulgence of (at least) the mother of accused no.2. Further, it has also come on record in the testimony of the close relatives that accused no. 1 had also attended the marriage functions of his son. PW153; who happens CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.160/370 to be wife of accused no.2, has deposed that till date she was continuously having strained relations or no relations at all with her mother-in-law and father-in-law though as a matter of fact, since the very inception of the present proceedings, the father- son-duo is being represented continuously through a common Counsel. Further even a number of jewellary articles recovered during her locker search were told by her to be belonging to her mother-in-law. If she was having continuous strained relations with her in-laws, there should have been no occasion for her to keep their belongings in her locker. Moreover, as per PW46 Sh. Om Prakash, he had attended marriage of accused no.2 at 201 Rouse Avenue, New Delhi, and also the reception party. H.No. 201 Rouse Avenue was the official residence allotted to accused no.1. Had he been having strained relations, the marriage function couldn't have been solemnized at his (official) residence. Thus the defence on these lines does have no merits and is entirely unbelievable.
Property No. B-31 Panchsheel Enclave & 712-A, Tolstoy Marg CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.161/370
57. Though the property B-31 Panchsheel Enclave measuring approximately 250 Sq. Mtrs has been shown having been purchased (vide Sale Deed Ex. PW39/A) for Rs. 27 Lakhs in the name of Naveen Kumar(A-2) and the payment thereof was apparently made through 03 cheques, yet a bare perusal of the file bearing No. D-106 makes it clear that all the three cheques were issued from a/c nos. 105342 (Vikram Singh) and 105114 (Ranvijay Singh). Cheque dated 04.06.1999 in the sum of Rs. 12 lakhs is drawn on Vikram Singh's bank a/c no. 105342 and the rest two cheques dated 04.06.1999 (cheque worth Rs.8 lakhs) and cheque dated 17.12.1998 (worth Rs. 7 lakhs) are/were from the bank a/c no. 105114 purportedly bearing signatures of Ranvijay Singh. Thus, as a matter of fact, not only the huge payment in the sum of Rs. 27 Lakhs towards the purchase of immovable property i.e. B-31 Panchsheel Enclave was made from the accounts of Vikram Singh (real uncle of accused no.2 Naveen Kumar) and Ranvijay Singh (real maternal uncle of accused no.2), but also that the signatures appearing on the cheques drawn on a/c no. 105114 have been opined (vide CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.162/370 GEQD report Ex. PW109/A) to be in the hand of accused no.2 Naveen Kumar. The rest payment of Rs. 12 lakhs made vide cheque drawn on Vikram Singh's account was in fact the amount received by way of selling the Benami Property i.e. Property No. 1667, Narela Delhi. Thus, as a matter of fact, an immovable built up property in a posh locality of New Delhi was purchased in the name of accused no.2 Naveen Kumar without paying even a single penny from his own legitimate earnings. Various amounts were routed from these accounts through cheques (either in the name of Naveen Kumar or in the name of business entities such as Naveen Car Care Centre etc.) so as to show the income as legally generated income, whereas apparently the modus operandi clearly indicates that it was the ill gotten money which; through ostensible transactions, was brought to the accounts of Naveen Kumar (A-2).
Flat No. 712-A Tolstoy Marg - The entire documents pertaining to this Flat do form part of file bearing No. D-117 and have been collectively exhibited as Ex. PW26/B. The very first document in this regard is the document dated 24.11.1983, which is an CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.163/370 "APPLICATION FOR ALLOTMENT OF COMMERCIAL FLAT AT PLOT ........DATED 24.11.1983". On the basis of this application, initially it was Flat No. 612-A which was allotted in the name of Sh. Ranvijay Singh vide Allotment Letter dated 24.12.1983 (forming part of Ex. PW26/B). At that time, said Sh. Ranvijay Singh was hardly 18-19 years or so. Later on, vide Memo dated 25.11.1988 (internal page no.44 of file D-117 Ex. PW26/B), another bigger commercial flat i.e. Flat No. 712-A was allotted in his name in lieu of the earlier Flat No. 612-A.
58. Thereafter, a formal Flat Buyer Agreement dated 22.04.1988 was entered into between the builder M/s Ansal Properties and Industries Pvt. Ltd., and the purchaser (through POA Rakshpal Singh/A-3). Subsequently, ownership thereof was transferred in favour of accused no.2 Naveen Kumar by virtue of the 'Endorsement' dated 28.11.1998; on the basis of a letter dated 27.11.1998 by said Sh. Ranvijay Singh to the effect that the owner was thereby assigning all rights and liabilities in respect thereof i.e. Flat No. 712-A in favour of Sh. Naveen Kumar s/o Sh. Virendra Singh. [Prior thereto, a registered GPA (Ex. CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.164/370 PW162/A) dated 17.02.1998 and Will (Ex. PW162/B) dated 17.02.1998, duly registered with the Sub Registrar concerned; had also been executed in favour of A-2 Naveen Kumar]. Thus, as a matter of fact, accused no.2 Naveen Kumar; in a way, acquired the ownership of the flat in question without paying even a single penny or at least without showing payment of any sort of consideration thereof. The property in question is a commercial property which was fetching annual rent around Rs. 5 lakhs prior to being owned by accused no.2 Naveen Kumar and even immediately after acquiring the ownership of the same. Accused no.2 Naveen Kumar had let it out to Fuller India Ltd. by way of a written Lease Agreement @ Rs. 75 per Sq ft per month and thus reckoned, the annual rent thereof and as depicted in the Lease Agreement itself; comes around Rs. 5,20,000/- per annum. A property fetching annual rent of more than 5 lakhs can in no way be less than 20-25 times of its annual rental value and in that sense and if so reckoned, the property was not less than Rs. 1 crore in any eventuality. Accused no.2 Naveen Kumar and his connection with bank account numbers 105114, 5585, 5151, 105342. CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.165/370
59. The first two bank accounts i.e. a/c No. 105114 & 5585 are in the name of Ranvijay Singh, who expired as on 19.08.1999. A/c no. 105114 was opened as on 19.03.1998 vide Account Opening form Ex. PW73/B, bearing signature of account holder Sh. Ranvijay Singh (at point R-23) and signature of introducer A-3 Sh. Rakshpal Singh (at point RPQ-1) (identification marks as given by GEQD). A/c No. 5585 was opened as on 18.07.1991 in the name of Ranvijay Singh vide account opening form Ex. PW96/B. At that time also, accused no.3 Rakshpal Singh had stood introducer for the account holder. The signature (RPQ-5) of the 'introducer' as appearing on account opening form Ex. PW96/B were sent for analysis. The same have been opined to be in the very writing of accused no.3 Rakshpal Singh/the introducer; by way of GEQD report Ex. PW109/A. Moreover, at no point of time during the trial, any such defence was put directly or even indirectly that said Sh. Rakshpal Singh/Accused no.3 had not stood introducer for/in respect of the account holder of account no. 5585. CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.166/370 However, the signatures shown marked as R-25 and handwriting shown marked as N-156 on the account opening form Ex. PW96/B (signatures and handwritings purportedly belonging to the account holder) have been opined to be in the hand of accused no.2 Naveen Kumar (instead of the account holder's name as Sh.Ranvijay Singh).
60. Thus, this Court does have no hesitation to say that not only the introducer Rakshpal Singh had introduced accused no.2 Naveen Kumar as (the account holder) 'Ranvijay Singh' in the year 1991 at the time of opening of the account no. 5585, but also in respect of account no. 105114 as on 19.03.1998. Various amounts were brought into the banking system through deposits in these accounts; opened & operated by accused no.2; under the fake/assumed identity as 'Ranvijay Singh'. Those amounts were either diverted by way of cheques etc. to the bank accounts in the (real) name of accused no.2 Naveen Kumar or were used for making various payments for/on behalf of accused no.2 Naveen Kumar. For example, cheque no. 008079 (Ex. PW93/D) forming part of File No. D-237, drawn on OBC Vishal Enclave a/c No. CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.167/370 5585 was issued in favour of accused Naveen Kumar. Similarly, the Statement of Account (Ex. PW96/E) of the bank account no. 5585, in its various entries shows a number of transfer transactions to the account/credit of Sh. Naveen Kumar. Account No. 5151 (New Account No. 51519)
61. This account was opened as on 21.02.1995 by way of Account Opening Form cum- Specimen Signature Card Ex. PW55/B in the name of one Sh. Ajay Singh. The signatures of said account holder as appearing on Ex. PW55/B and withdrawal slips dated 09.06.1995 and 26.10.1995; along with the 'writings' thereon (given identification mark as AS-1 to AS-6 & AS-8) were also sent for analysis and as per the GEQD report Ex. PW109/A, the same have also been found in the very hand of accused no.2 Naveen Kumar. This impels the Court to construe & conclude that even the account in the name of Ajay Singh (i.e. account no. 5151 Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. Panchsheel Park, Delhi) was also opened and was being operated by accused no.2 Naveen Kumar. The account holder of account no. 5151 (in his impersonated CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.168/370 identity) had also stood 'introducer' for one Sh. Prem Raj Singh at the time of opening of bank account no. 56957 as on 11.02.1997. The signature (of introducer) were given identification marks as 'AS-8' and as per the GEQD report Ex. PW109/A, the same were also found in the hand of accused no.2 Naveen Kumar. It shows that not only the accused no.2 Naveen Kumar assumed the fake identity as Ajay Singh, but also stood 'introducer' (for Sh. Prem Raj Singh a/c No. 56957) in the impersonated identity as Ajay Singh and thus made mockery of the Banking System/Norms.
Account no. 105342
62. This account was opened as on 04.09.1998 in the name of Vikram Singh s/o Sh. Horam Singh vide Account Opening Form-cum-Specimen Signature Card Ex. PW163/A. The timing of opening of this account has relevance in connection with the sale of property no. 1667 Narela Industrial Area, owned by said Sh. Vikram Singh s/o Sh Horam Singh. This industrial plot was initially alloted to one Sh. Ved Prakash, who, as per the testimony of PW62 (Property dealer), sold it to Sh. CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.169/370 Vikram Singh, who in his turn, further sold it to Rupani brothers and the sale proceeds thereof (by way of two bank drafts in the sum of Rs. 6 lakhs each) were brought in this bank account.
63. Accused no.3 Sh. Raksh Pal Singh had stood introducer for the account holder Sh. Vikram Singh. His signatures (as introducer) appearing on Ex. PW163/A (and given identification mark as RPQ-4) have also been opined to be that of accused no.3. Otherwise also, accused no.3 has raised no defence at all in this context. Here the question involved is not as to whether this account was/was not opened by the account holder Sh.Vikram Singh. Rather, the role of accused no.2 clearly connects him with this bank account also; though in an indirect way. The afore-amount of Rs. 12 lakhs brought in this account by way of the two bank drafts as above, was soon after converted into four FDRs of Rs. 3 lakhs each and the signatures appearing on these FDRs in the (purported) name of the account holder Vikram Singh (given GEQD identification mark as 'V-1 to V-4') have also been opined vide report Ex. PW109/A to be in the very CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.170/370 hand of accused no.2 Naveen Kumar (instead of said Sh. Vikram Singh). Later on, accused no.2 Naveen Kumar, while making payment in respect of property No. B-31 Panchsheel Enclave, used this amount (vide cheque No. 129081 dated 04.06.1999) in the name of the seller Sh.Vineet Jain. It is worth mentioning herein that though this account may/may not be in the real name of Vikram Singh, the writings etc. appearing on Ex. PW163/A (given identification number as N-155/A) have been opined to be in the hand of accused no.2 Naveen Kumar vide GEQD report Ex.PW109/A and also that the cheque book (Ex. PW172/A) containing at least 18 cheque leafs (including 10 signed blank cheques) in the name of account holder Vikram Singh, was also recovered from the locker no. 829 (Central Bank of India Sukhdev Vihar) of accused no.2 Naveen Kumar.
64. Thus, this Court does have no hesitation in saying that irrespective of the aspect whether Vikram Singh was/was not the real account holder of this bank account, the same was being controlled & operated by accused no.2 for the extraneous/ ostensible purposes/transactions. CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.171/370 Income Source of Geeta Singh W/o Accused no.1.
65. Vide testimony of PW98 Ms. Achla Singh (Director, Higher Education GNCTD, 5 Shamnath Marg, Delhi, Joint Secretary, Services at the relevant time), various official correspondences of accused no.1 with his parent department have been brought on record in the form of File D-246; shown collectively exhibited as Ex. PW98/B. As per the statement of immovable property for the year 1981 (furnished by A-1 as on 24.04.1982), Smt. Geeta Singh had been gifted 1/3rd share in a Petrol Pump (M/s Charan Filling Station Lodhipur Village, Moradabad UP) by her father somewhere in the year 1981. Thus, she claims income from 1/3 rd share in this petrol pump. Besides the same and as per the Property Return for the year 1982 of A-1 (furnished on 16.02.1983), Smt. Geeta Singh had purchased 5 acres agricultural land in village Gindora UP in Nov. - Dec. 1982 CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.172/370 for Rs. 80,000/- (part amount shown allegedly borrowed from her brother Sh. Ranvijay Singh and partly arranged by herself). Another chunk of agricultural land of 2.32 acre in the same village i.e. Village Gindora is shown having been purchased for Rs. 50,000/- out of the income from petrol pump. This transaction had taken place somewhere in the beginning of the year 1984.
Analysis of 'Income', 'Expenditure' and 'Assets' Income analysis of A-1 Virendra Singh -
66. A bare perusal of case file makes it ample clear that the Public Servant i.e. accused no.1 Virendra Singh was having no other source of income except the income from 'pay & allowances' as per his entitlement. His pre-check period income has been shown to the tune of Rs. 3.1 lakhs and he has also been given benefit of Rs. 40,000/-. Thus reckoned, his pre-check period income becomes Rs. 3.5 lakhs. The 'check' period has been reckoned w.e.f July 1982 uptill the date of first raid i.e. 12.05.2000. During this period, his income from all sources has been found to be to the tune of Rs. 21,09,702/-. It is worth CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.173/370 mentioning that he himself had executed a Relinquishment Deed dated 04.06.1983 thereby relinquishing his claim in respect of the agricultural land etc in favour of his siblings.
67. The sources of income of accused no.1 have been shown under 7 headings as detailed in the Charge Sheet. His salary income for the check period w.e.f 01.07.1982 has been shown to be to the tune of Rs. 11,91,035/-. During his tenure, he remained posted in various capacities and his salary income has been proved vide testimony of witnesses including PW98 Ms. Achla Singh, PW105 to PW108, PW110, PW112 to PW114, PW116, PW117, PW123, PW135, PW143, PW148 and the first IO examined as PW178. Neither there are any discrepancies in calculating the income from salary nor any substantive objection has come qua the sub-heading of 'Salaried Income'. Further, he had obtained a car loan worth Rs. 2 lakhs as on 26.11.1996 and this fact has been proved on record vide the testimony of PW38 Sh. B.S. Rawat, Manager, Delhi State Cooperative Bank, who has also deposed that the entire loan amount including interest etc., to the tune of Rs. 2,53,576/- stood cleared by 05.04.1999. CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.174/370 This loan had been obtained for purchase of Zen car by accused no.1. Sub Heading 3 shows an income of Rs. 12000/- earned by accused no.1 by selling his car no. HPA270 (new no. DIC 8272) in the year 1985 for Rs. 31000/- which he had purchased for Rs. 19000/- in the year 1983. The income under the sub heading of interest earned on a/c no. HV9 with Delhi State Cooperative Bank, Daryaganj Delhi to the tune of Rs. 29,262/- has also been proved by/through Bank Manager i.e. PW38. Next in the line comes the cash gifts (shagun) at the reception/marriage of Sh. Naveen Kumar i.e. son of accused no.1 and the same have been shown to be to the tune of Rs. 2,04,120/- . These handwritten sheets were recovered during the house search (201 Rouse Avenue, New Delhi) of accused no.1 as on 12.05.2000. Though, as a matter of fact, the defence has throughout been (to the effect) that the parents of accused no.2 Naveen Kumar were not involved in the marriage functions of their son as he had entered into an inter caste marriage, yet, the facts throughout the file do establish otherwise. Moreover, as the reckoning of the present sub heading 'income' goes in favour of the accused no.1 and hence, is accordingly considered to be part of his income having CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.175/370 been established through the testimony of PW 178 i.e. the main IO. Next in the line comes the income to the tune of Rs. 1,23,285/- as the maturity value of LIC policy No. 024561972. The policy leaf was requisitioned by the CBI vide letter dated 27.11.2002 and the same was furnished accordingly by the concerned agency by generating the printout thereof as on 27.11.2002 (forming part of D-258). This leaf does reveal that the maturity date of the LIC policy was March 2000 for which the subscriber i.e. accused no.1 Virendra Singh used to pay installments of Rs.1076.50 paise. On maturity, the maturity amount to the tune of Rs. 1,23,285/- was paid to accused no.1 vide cheque no. 844397, dated 28.04.2000 as shown credited in the bank account no. HV9 with Delhi State Cooperative Bank Ltd.; proved vide the testimony of Bank Manager PW38. The last sub heading of income pertains to pre check period income to the tune of Rs. 3,50,000/- and there is no substantive defence to add anything else to this amount of pre check period. Thus, the prosecution has duly proved the total income of accused no.1 during the period w.e.f 01.07.1982 uptil 12.05.2000 to be to the tune of Rs. 21,09,702/- i.e. the sum total of the afore-appreciated CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.176/370 07 sub headings under the heading of 'income of A-1'. Expenditure of A-1 -
68. 18 entries of expenditure have been shown in the Charge Sheet qua accused no.1 Virendra Singh. These are to be appreciated in the light of the material on record to adjudge if the prosecution has proved the same or not.
Entry No.1/Serial No.1 shows the expenditure of 1,22,000/- paid to/deposited with Santosh Medical and Dental College, Ghaziabad UP. As per the testimony of PW118 Sh. Sanjeev Singhal, Manager Finance of the said college, it has duly been proved that on 13.07.1999, a sum of Rs. 1,22,000/- (in cash) had been deposited with the said college in connection with the admission of Ms. Gleeco Singh D/O accused no.1 Virendra Singh. The date of payment duly falls within the check in period. No CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.177/370 sort of rebuttal by way of cross examination has come on record to dispute the same. Thus, the same stands proved.
Entry No.2 reflects a sum of Rs. 10,110/- as expenditure incurred by accused no.1 towards payment to Shiksha Vihar, CGHS vide cheque no. 782623 on 12.09.1999. In this regard, PW17 Sh. Nepal Singh Sisodia was examined. Though he has proved that the accused no.1 had made the afore- said payment, yet, the outcome of his testimony goes against the prosecution. To be more precise, in the examination in chief, he has deposed that the membership of A-1 Virendra Singh was terminated in the year 2001, whereas in his examination-in- chief, the date of termination of membership is reflected as 15.04.2000 and that said amount of Rs. 10,000/- was refunded to him. The prosecution didn't re-examine or otherwise make effort to clear the said ambiguity and hence this expenditure sub CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.178/370 heading remains unproved.
Entry No.3 shows expenditure to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- incurred by accused no.1 as payments made to India Habitat Centre. These payments were made by way of 03 cheques in August 1998, January 1999 and October 1999 respectively. The same have duly been established vide testimony of PW21 Sh.S Prabhakaran, General Manager, India Habitat Centre. Nothing substantive was put during the cross examination of the said witness to rebut the same. The expenditure under this sub heading stands duly proved.
Entry no.4 shows expenditure in the petty sum of Rs. 4144/- incurred by accused no.1 in making payment to National Sports Club of India. In this regard, the testimony of PW22 is the relevant material led by prosecution. This witness has duly proved that the accused no.1 had obtained the membership of said club in the year 1983. CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.179/370 The payment has also been proved by the said witness to the extent as above. In addition thereto, the witness has also stated that since April 1994 to October 1999, certain outstandings had not been cleared and hence, his membership was terminated.
Entry no.5 shows expenditure of accused no.1 to the extent of Rs.81,650/- incurred on school fee etc., (DPS Mathura Road) of his 03 children. In connection with this expenditure entry, the objection raised in defence is that the fee etc. paid during the pre check period is also included in the said amount. In this regard, testimony of PW 151 Sh. M.I. Hussain, Principal, DPS Mathura Road is to be looked into. This witness has deposed that he had issued/provided letter dated 11.06.2001 (previously exhibited as Ex. PW23/A) to the CBI containing the information about the fees paid for the 03 children of accused no.1. A fee of Rs. 7227/- had been deposited for CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.180/370 Naveen Kumar s/o Sh. Virendra Singh for the period w.e.f May 1980 to April 1984, fee worth Rs. 8149/- was paid for Ms. Smita Chaudhary, D/O accused no.1 for the period w.e.f May 1988 to April 1990 and fee worth Rs. 66274/- for the third child i.e. Ms. Gleeco Singh for the period w.e.f April 1988 till May 1998 by Sh.Virendra Singh IAS. The 'check in' period as reckoned by the prosecution is from July 1982. Thus, only the very first entry i.e. fee w.r.t Naveen Kumar partly falls outside the check in period as the fees paid for him are/were for the period w.e.f May 1980 to April 1984. Even if the proportionate sum is reduced therefrom, the amount roughly comes to the tune of Rs. 80,000/- as expenditure on school fee of the 03 children incurred by accused no.1 during the check in period. Thus, at least to this extent i.e. barring a sum of Rs 1500/- or 2000/-, this expenditure sub heading stands duly proved.
CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.181/370 Entries No.6 & 7 show the expenditures in the petty amounts of Rs.2050/- and 4125 /- respectively towards registration charges of Maruti Zen car and as payment made to Noida Golf Course Club. Both these entries are undisputed entries. Moreover, neither the registration of the car nor the membership of the Noida Golf Course Club is disputed by accused no.1 in any way. Moreover, testimony of PW44 do very well substantiate the payment made to Noida Golf Course Club as on 04.11.1993. Thus, both these entries of expenditure stand duly established.
Entry no.8 shows expenditure to the tune of Rs. 2,51,139/- incurred by accused no.1 towards repayment of car loan obtained from Delhi State Cooperative Bank. It is an admitted fact that accused no.1 used to maintain a Saving Bank Account No. HV9 with Delhi State Cooperative Bank. Manager of the said bank namely Sh. B.S. CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.182/370 Rawat was examined as PW38. A bare perusal of his testimony makes it clear that accused no.1 had obtained vehicle loan from the said bank and the loan amount along with interest etc (aggregate amount Rs. 2,53,576/-) stood cleared by accused no.1 as on 05.04.1999. Though in the cross examination of the said witness certain technical objections were tried to be raised, yet the outcome thereof clearly goes in favour of the prosecution in proving the expenditure under this sub heading. It is also worth mentioning that even during the cross examination of this witness, the suggestions put to the witness were clearly in consonance with the lines opted by the prosecution. This expenditure entry accordingly stands proved to the extent of Rs. 2,53,576/-.
Entry no.9 shows the payment of custom duty worth Rs. 7264/- paid on the colour TV. This TV set had been gifted to accused no.1 by Sh. Vipin CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.183/370 Khanna, r/o 21 Sylvacourt Putney Hills London, SW15 UK. Accused no.1 had paid the custom duty thereon and the assertions to this effect do clearly form part of intimation of accused no.1 Virendra Singh given to the Deptt. vide letter dated 27.05.1983 (forming part of D-246 shown collectively exhibited as PW98/B). Thus this entry of expenditure also stands proved. Entry no.10 shows expenditure of Rs. 54000/- incurred by accused no.1 towards repayment of 'car advance'. The testimony of PW117 and PW178 are relevant in this regard. As per PW117 Sh. Shuja Ullah Khan (the then Pay & Accounts Officer PAO-VI, Tis Hazari, Delhi), accused no.1 had obtained long term advance worth Rs. 75000/- in August 1990. The same fact has duly been proved vide Ex. PW117/B, showing the 'statement of long term advances in respect of Sh. Virendra Singh IAS'. The recovery thereof commenced w.e.f December CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.184/370 1990 @ Rs. 3000/- per month and besides making repayment at this rate, accused no.1 had also made a lump sum payment of Rs. 54000/- vide cheque no. 531065, dated 01.06.1993, drawn on Delhi State Cooperative Bank Ltd., and the said letter in original dated 03.06.1993 does form part of D-129 shown exhibited as Ex. PW178/F-7. Thus, this entry of expenditure also stands duly proved to the extent of the loan amount.
Entry no.11 - This sub heading shows expenditure of Rs. 5,00,000/- incurred by accused no.1 on the marriage functions including Reception and Ring Ceremony etc., of his son Naveen Kumar/accused no.2. Admittedly, the 'reception' after marriage had taken place at Chopra Farm House on Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Delhi. This farm house belongs to PW57 Sh. Rohit Chopra, who had permitted the use thereof for the reception as per the request of accused CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.185/370 no.2 and his mother Ms. Geeta Singh. Another witness i.e. PW71 Sh. C.B. Dabas (Co- brother/Saadu of A-1) has also deposed on the same lines. Similarly, a number of other witnesses including PW11, PW25 PW39 & PW63 have also deposed on the lines as above, but they differ in the number of guests who had attended the reception function at the afore-said farm house. However, vide the testimony of IO/PW178, the Prosecution has duly proved Ex. PW178/F-1 (forming part of D-122). This is a 'list' reflecting the names of the persons who had paid 'Shagun' (gift) on the occasion of reception of accused no.2. This list in itself justifies that the total numbers (1000 persons; estimated by the Prosecution) who had attended the marriage functions (including ring ceremony, marriage and the reception) is just and reasonable estimation. The expenditure of Rs. 500/- per person in serving food etc., on those occasions; is also not CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.186/370 an exaggerated one . Accordingly, it stands proved to a reasonable extent that an expenditure of Rs. 5,00,000/- was incurred on marriage functions.
Entry no.12 shows the expenditure in the sum of Rs. 3674/- on account of loss suffered by accused no.1 in sale of car no. 1DLCA 4261. As per official correspondence forming part of file D- 246 (shown collectively exhibited as Ex. PW98/B) Sh. Virendra Singh IAS had made payment of Rs. 1,08,674/- to M/s Classic Motors Pvt. Ltd. towards the purchase of this car as is referred in official correspondence bearing diary No. 4235-B/S1 dated 31.08.1990 at page no. 59- N of afore-referred file. Further, at page no. 146- C, in Ex. PW98/B, the intimation letter (dated 24.05.1993) of the sale of said car is there which shows that the car was sold by A-1 for Rs. 1,05,000/- to one Sh. S.P. Astha r/o Vikaspuri, Delhi. Thus, the difference in purchase price and CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.187/370 sale price comes out to be Rs.3674/- and thus the entry of expenditure stands duly proved. Entry no.13 shows the expenditure of Rs. 11221/- towards payment of MTNL bill of land line phone No. 6801178, installed there at C-8, Ansal Villa Satbari Farmhouse, Mehrauli, Delhi. It has already been proved here-in-above that the said farmhouse is/was the Benami property of accused no.1. It has also been duly proved that a number of original paid telephone bills of this telephone in the name of one Sh. Ranjeet Singh Tanwar, had been recovered from the official residence of accused no.1 in the house search conducted on 12.05.2000. Thus, the expenditure incurred on the telephone (bills) is also to be reckoned as the expenditure incurred by accused no.1/Benami owner. The payments thereof have also been proved vide the testimony of PW 177 Smt. Sheena Sandhu Shekhar i.e. an official witness from MTNL vide Ex. PW177/A. CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.188/370 Entry no.14 shows the expenditure to the tune of Rs. 3,57,310/- on account of non verifiable items including food; clothing entertainment etc @ Rs. 100/- per day w.e.f July 1982 to May 2000. As a matter of fact, each and every household has to incur certain expenses on the daily needs and there cannot be any water tight formula for calculating the same. Such expenses @ Rs. 3000/- per month may appear to be on higher side during early 80s. However, when one takes into consideration the entire period reckoned from July 1982 till the registration of FIR in May 2000, the average expense of Rs. 3000/- per month for a family of Class-1 Gazetted Officer can, in no way, be construed to be unreasonable. Otherwise also, nothing contrary thereto was either brought on record or argued in defence. Accordingly, this sub heading of expenditure also stands proved at the rate as above.
CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.189/370 Entry no.15 shows the expenditure of Rs. 10,550/- incurred by A-1 in making payment to Civil Services Officers Institute (CSOI) K.G. Marg, New Delhi. The same has been proved on record vide testimony of PW95 Wing Commander (Retd.) Sh. O.P. Bhambri who, at the relevant time, was working as Executive Secretary and later on as General Manager in CSOI. During his cross examination, not even a suggestion was put that the officer i.e. accused no.1 was not a member of CSOI at the given point of time. Moreover, the witness even duly identified accused no.1 during the course of his examination. The entry thus stands proved. Entry no.16 shows the expenditure on account of loss of rupees 31000/- suffered in sale of car no. DL2CA-101. In fact, this expenditure entry should have been reflected under the heading of Expenditure of Ms.Geeta Singh w/o accused no.1 as the car in question was in the name of CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.190/370 Smt. Geeta Singh and not in the name of accused no.1 Virendra Singh. As per collectively exhibited documents Ex. PW98/B (page no.68-N and 158-C in file No. D-246), wife of accused no.1 had purchased this Maruti 800 Car for Rs. 1,61,000/- in July 1992 or so and the car was sold somewhere in December 1996 to one Sh. Parashar for Rs. 1,30,000/-. Both these intimations were duly given by accused no.1 himself to his parent department under his own signatures and neither he disputed the same nor there was any such occasion/reason to do so. Thus, the loss/expenditure to the tune of Rs. 31000/- stands duly proved.
Entry no.17 - This sub heading shows expenditure of Rs. 37,677/- incurred by A-1 in making payments of installments of LIC policy No. 024561972 which stood matured in March 2000 and the maturity value (Rs. 1,23,285/-) thereof has already been reckoned/added in the CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.191/370 income of A-1 under the 'Income' heading. Moreover, the same also stands duly substantiated vide Ex. PW178/F-4 as proved by the IO examined as PW 178. The entry accordingly stands proved.
Entry no.18 shows the petrol expenses of car no. DL-CK 0018. The meter reading of the car is shown as 44612 km and the rate of petrol expenses has been shown to be Rs. 1.20 per km. The car in question was found to be there at the official residence of accused no.1 at the time of house search on 12.05.2000. The memo to that effect has been brought on record and has been proved as Ex. PW72/B. The car in question is shown in the name of Virendra Singh and the meter reading etc have duly been reflected in the memo Ex. PW72/B, which was signed by the independent witness i.e. PW72 Sh. Pawan Malhotra, other team members as well as by accused no.1 himself. The only defence raised CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.192/370 during the course of arguments was that this car was being driven either by wife of accused no.1 or by his daughter and that they were having their own source of income and the petrol expenses were being borne by them and not by accused no.1. It is worth mentioning that another car i.e Toyota Corsa and other Maruti cars were already there in the respective names of daughter and wife of accused no.1 and it is but a lame excuse to plead such a defence in arguments. The expense @ Rs. 1.20 per km is not only reasonable for a petrol vehicle at the relevant time but has also not been disputed at all. Accordingly, the entry stands duly proved. (Here it would not be out of context to mention that throughout the check-in period, accused no.1 had owned/possessed a number of personal vehicles (cars, scooter etc) including :-
- Car no. HPA 270 (new number DLC 8272) which he had purchased somewhere in the year CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.193/370 1983 for Rs. 19000/- and after maintaining it for 02 years, sold it for 31,000/-. Obviously, expenses on petrol and maintenance thereof might have incurred which have not been reckoned at all.
- Maruti car purchased from Classic Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vide cheque no. 039451 (dated 22.08.1990) and disposed of in May-June 1993. The requisite official intimation thereof by A-1 does form part of Ex. PW98/B at page no. 59 and 76 thereof, forming part of file D-46.
- Maruti 800 purchased in September 1995 from Manufacturer's Quota and the intimation thereof (dated 21.09.1995) does form part of Ex. PW98/B at its page no. 78/N. Thus, obviously, the expenses incurred on petrol etc on the personal vehicles of A-1 was in fact much more than the amount reflected under this serial no.18).
CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.194/370
69. Beside these details of expenditure, it has also been duly established on record that accused no.1 had also incurred expenditure in the sum of Rs. 40,000/-(in the year 1999-2000) in making payment of the car loan of his daughter Ms. Smita Chaudhary and the entry thereof is duly reflected in the Statement of Account No. HV-9 of Delhi State Cooperative Bank.
Assets of A-1
70. As per the details reflected in the Charge Sheet, Assets of accused no.1 Virendra Singh have been deciphered under 11 sub headings/serial numbers. The same are being dealt with hereunder:-
S.No. 1 shows the Asset in the sum of Rs. 1,70,227/- in the name of balance in a/c no.
HV9 (new number 1306) of accused Virendra Singh with Delhi State Cooperative Bank, Daryaganj, Delhi. It is in no way disputed that the said bank CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.195/370 account was being maintained by accused no.1. Moreover, it has duly been proved by PW38 (by way of Statement of Account for the period uptil 11.05.2000) vide Ex.
PW38/H, showing the balance in
consonance with the afore-mentioned
amount. Nothing substantial could be
brought by way of cross examination of this witness except raising technical objections which in the given facts and nature of the case do lend no support to the defence at all. Thus the 'Asset' under serial no.1 stands duly proved.
S.No. 2 shows the value of household articles found during the house search at 201 Rouse Avenue, New Delhi, which was A-1's official residence at the relevant time. The value thereof has been shown/adjudged to the tune of Rs.
3,34,775/- and it was so calculated as per CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.196/370 the inquiries from accused no.1 himself at the time of very first raid i.e. house search conducted on 12.05.2000. Besides the testimony of IO Sh. P.C. Sharma, the depositions of PW72 and PW165 are also relevant in this regard. PW72 Sh. Pawan Malhotra was the Manager in PNB at that time and had been joined as an independent witness for the purpose of house search. He has categorically deposed that the house search was conducted at the official residence of accused no.1 whom he duly identified and the documents so prepared during the house search were also duly signed by him. Further, vide the Observation Memo (D-3) dated 12.05.2000, a list; running into 17 sheets, had been prepared regarding the articles found there at the time of search. The said Observation Memo has been CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.197/370 proved as Ex. PW72/B. The witness has also specifically deposed that the amount mentioned against each of such articles and the rest details thereof, were so reflected as were disclosed by accused Virendra Singh himself at the time of house search at his official residence. The only suggestion put to the witness is that the witness had simply signed the said document on the asking of CBI officials or that the witness was not a witness of search. Such suggestion does render no support so as to add any weight to the defence on the given point. The deposition of PW165 Sh. Alok Kumar, the then Inspector CBI/ACB, is also somewhat on similar lines; as that of PW72. He has deposed that during the said search a sum of Rs. 1,32,000/- was recovered in cash from 201 Rouse Avenue, New Delhi and out of the same, CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.198/370 Rs.1,27,000/- were seized. During the cross examination of this witness, the defence tried to give a new twist that daughter of accused no.1 (i.e. daughter namely Smita Chaudhary) was also present at the time of house search and that she had pointed out certain articles belonging to her only; which were not reflected in the Memo Ex. PW72/B. However, such a lame defence doesn't make out anything for the purpose of defence of accused no.1. The deposition of PW178 IO/ Sh. P.C Sharma also supports the prosecution version on the lines as above. The valuation of the household articles has nowhere been disputed in any way. Even no suggestion was put to any of these witnesses that the valuation was not shown as per the inquiries made from accused no.1. Thus, the 'Asset' under the heading CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.199/370 stands duly proved.
S.No. 3 deals with the Asset of Virendra Singh in the form of Maruti Zen Car, bearing registration No. DL3CK 0018, purchased as on 03.12.1996. The purchase value thereof has been shown Rs.
3,57,190/-. Testimony of PW29 (and the files bearing No. D-48 and D-25) is relevant in this regard. As per PW29 Sh. Ravindra Kumar (an official from the office of concerned MLO), he had handed over seizure memo dated 23.05.2001 (D-
48) to the CBI officials and the said seizure memo had been proved as Ex. PW29/A. This witness had also handover the registration record of the vehicle in question to the CBI proved as Ex.
PW29/B. As per the registration record; as deposed by this witness, the vehicle in question was registered in the name of Sh. CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.200/370 Virendra Singh i.e. accused no.1 who had applied for the registration of the said car in his name having purchased the Maruti Zen car for Rs. 3,57,190.34/-. Besides the same, he had also paid Rs. 2050/- as registration fee etc., In the name of defence, the only suggestion put on behalf of accused was that he had obtained a loan of Rs. 2 lakhs for the purchase of the said car. The suggestion was refuted by the witness by saying that had there been any loan, Form 34 might have been there in the file pertaining to the registration record of the car in question. However, as a matter of fact, the loan of Rs. 2 lakhs had been obtained by accused no.1 from Delhi State Cooperative Bank in November 1996 and it stood cleared (total amount paid to the tune of Rs. 2,53,576/-) uptil April 1999 and as A-1 was having no other source of CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.201/370 income except pay and allowances etc., it can very well be assumed that the same might have been paid out of the salaried income itself and there is no hurdle in reckoning that the 'Asset' so created by way of purchase of car has duly been proved. S.No. 4 shows household articles which were found and observed to be there in the Farm House C-8 Satbari Mehrauli, Delhi at the time of the CBI raid conducted as on 12.05.2000. It has already been proved (here-in-above) that the said farm house is/was the Benami property of accused no.1 Virendra Singh. Vide Observation Memo Ex. PW74/B (forming part of file D-10), a list of various household articles was prepared w.r.t various articles found there at the said farmhouse. These have been shown from serial no.1 to s.no. 103 of the list of household articles (running into 09 CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.202/370 pages). PW74 Sh. Raj Karan (LDC Income Tax Office) was an independent witness who had accompanied the CBI team to the farmhouse and in whose presence; the Observation Memo Ex.
PW74/B was prepared. As per the valuation of the articles from Sr.No.1 to Sr. No.103 of Ex. PW74/B, the total assessed value thereof was to the tune of Rs.
2,76,775/-. A bare perusal of Ex. PW74/B makes it clear that the valuation of each article has been shown in a very reasonable manner. Otherwise also, no substantial defence or objection could be raised contrary thereto. Accordingly, it stands proved that the household articles worth Rs. 2,76,775/- were found there in the Benami property i.e. farmhouse C-8 of accused no.1 as the assets of accused no.1. S.No. 5 shows investment in the name of CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.203/370 Ms. Gleeco Singh D/o accused no.1 in the debentures of DCM in the sum of Rs.
50,000/-; the foils of which were recovered during the house search of one Sh. Om Pal Singh (PW 166). Said Sh. Om Pal Singh is the brother-in-law (jija) of accused no.3 Sh. Rakshpal Singh and in that sense, he is also a distant relative of rest of the accused persons. His residence/house at 583 Bhooton Wali Gali, Nangloi Jaat, Delhi, was searched as on 23.05.2000 and in the said search, vide the Search-cum-Seizure Memo Ex. PW132/B (forming part of file D-27), the debentures of DCM in the name of minor Ms. Gleeco Singh were admittedly recovered. In his cross examination, even no suggestion was put on behalf of accused no.1 disputing/assailing the recovery of debentures in the name of his minor CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.204/370 daughter. The only explanation which the witness himself gave during the examination-in-chief is/was to the effect that one of his neighbours namely Sh. S.S.Tomar had made investment in DCM Bonds in the name of Ms.Gleeco Singh and had given those bonds to him i.e. Om Pal Singh. This sort of explanation is no explanation at all and makes no sense for the purpose of defence of accused no.1. As a matter of fact, the date of birth of Ms. Gleeco Singh is 06.10.1982 and even on the date of house search of Om Pal i.e. on 23.05.2000, she was a 'minor'. Obviously, any investment in her name is to be accounted for by her parents. The issuance of debentures certificate of DCM has also been substantiated by PW41 Sh. Vikram Dogra, Vice President (Operations) in DCM Finance Services Pvt. Ltd., D-7/3, CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.205/370 Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi. Accordingly, this entry stands proved.
S.No. 6 shows Cost of land and construction etc. in respect of farmhouse C-8 Ansal Villa, Satbari (Mehrauli Delhi). This property has already been proved to be Benami property of A-1. As per the Charge Sheet, this Asset has been shown worth Rs. 22,38,400/- (cost of land & construction) and a sum of Rs. 51560/- has been shown having been paid towards stamp duty expenses. As far as stamp duty expenses are concerned, the value of the stamp duty becomes apparently clear from a bare perusal of the Sale Deed Document (Ex. PW11/G) itself. To prove the rest part, the prosecution has mainly relied upon the testimony of PW180 Sh. Udai CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.206/370 Singh, Valuation Officer -II, New Delhi, in the Office of the Chief Engineer (Valuations), Northern Region, Income Tax Deptt, 11th Floor, Rohit House, 3 Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi. He had inspected four properties including this property i.e. Farm house C-8 Ansal Villa (D-269). The Valuation Report in respect of Farm House C-8 Ansal Villa has been proved as Ex. PW180/E (running into 10 pages). The Valuation Report in respect of this farm house along with the Valuation Report of three other properties had been sent to the Superintendent of Police CBI by PW180 vide forwarding letter Ex. PW180/A forming part of file D-269. The witness has specifically deposed in his examination-in- chief that he had physically inspected all the properties including the Farm House C- 8 Ansal Villa. He was cross examined in CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.207/370 detail and even the suggestions to the effect that he had wrongly taken the cost of the area for calculation in respect of the farm house C-8 Ansal Villa Satbari Mehrauli, Delhi were put to him. Such a defence in the form of suggestions as above; is clearly an inconsistent defence; contrary to the main defence (on behalf of accused no.1) that he was having no concern at all with the said farm house. If he was having no concern with the said farm house, what for he was putting inconsistent defence that the cost of area of the farm house was wrongly calculated by the official Valuer i.e PW180.
Now coming to the Valuation Report Ex. PW180/E, it clearly shows that the factual position in respect of the total area of the said farm house (having proper boundary wall constructed), was in much CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.208/370 excess of the total area measuring 6 bigha 13 biswa (1.386 Acres) as per the registered Sale Deed thereof. The total area of the said farm house was found and measured to be 2.52 Acres instead of the area of 1.386 Acres of land. Neither the alleged owner i.e. PW11 Sh. Jassa Ram nor the Benami Owner i.e. accused no.1 /DW2 deemed it fit to clarify the position as to wherefrom and on what account the excess area formed part of the said farm house. Thus, apparently and clearly the area in excess of 1.386 Acres of land within the four walls of the farm house C-8 Ansal Villa is to be construed as the encroached area. Had there been any valid title in respect thereof, either in favour of PW11 or in favour of accused no.1/DW2/Benami owner of 1.386 Acres; at least the copies thereof might have been brought on record CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.209/370 during the course of the trial moreso when the factual position as reflected in the Valuation Report Ex. PW180/E was very much within their knowledge since the very inception of the present proceedings. Further, in the Valuation Report Ex. PW180/E (consisting of 10 pages) the valuation thereof has been shown at its page no.6 onwards. Valuation was carried out as on 11.02.2003, showing the valuation of the cost of land in May 1984 and for the cost of construction as in the year 1986-87 as well as in the year 1989- 90 (as the construction was carried out in two phases). This report (at page no. 6) shows the 'Cost' as declared by the assessee as well as; as estimated by the Valuation Officer. The Valuation Report Ex. PW180/E at its page no.7 makes it crystal clear that the cost of land was CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.210/370 calculated as per the land rate obtained from MCD for the agricultural land prevailing at the relevant time. Similarly, the details of the abstract of cost of construction are reflected at page no. 8 and 9 thereof in the form of Annexure-B, (forming part of the 10 page report Ex. PW180/E). Likewise, the detailed chart of the 'plinth area rate calculation' has also been reflected at its page no.10. The examination-in-chief of this witness conducted as on 26.03.2015 shows that the witness had joined as Jr. Engineer (Civil) in CPWD Delhi and thereafter worked in various capacities such as Asst. Engineer, Executive Engineer and Valuation Officer. The witness thus is an official witness independent from any sort of influence of the Investigating Agency in so far as the report in question i.e. Ex. PW180/E is CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.211/370 concerned. Otherwise also, such a big chunk of land situated in NCT of Delhi could reasonably be assumed having the monetary value of Rs.10/11 lakhs at the relevant time. Thus, the value of land as assessed by the official witness vide report Ex. PW180/E is in no way unbelievable. The same are the observations w.r.t the valuation in respect of the cost of construction (carried out in two phases) on the land of the farm house. Otherwise also, in the entire cross examination of the witness, nothing such has been brought on record so as to lean in favour of the accused for disbelieving the testimony of PW180 in general and his testimony w.r.t report Ex. PW180/E in particular. Thus, the value of the Asset under serial no.6 in respect of the cost of land & construction etc. of C-8 Farm House stands duly CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.212/370 proved.
S.No. 7 - This entry shows that accused no.1 had contributed Rs. 28000/- towards purchase of agricultural land in the name of his wife Geeta Singh in Village Gindora (UP) in November - December 1982.
Vide letter dated 14.09.1982 (forming part of file D-246 ; collectively exhibited as Ex. PW98/B) (internal page no. 25-C), the accused no.1 had given intimation to the Chief Secretary, Delhi Administration that 'he would be contributing Rs. 28000/- towards the purchase of the land' as above.
However, vide another (undated) intimation (perhaps given somewhere in May 1983) addressed to Jt. Secretary, Services, Delhi Administration (internal page no. 42/C of Ex. PW98/B), it was further intimated by accused no.1 that for certain personal reasons, his wife Smt. CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.213/370 Geeta Singh didn't take any financial assistance from him and that she got Rs. 40,000/- from her brother Ranvijay Singh for the purpose of payment of the consideration amount of agricultural land. As a matter of fact, said Sh. Ranvijay Singh (since deceased) was the youngest child of Sh. Ram Gopal. His original election I-card was recovered during the search of locker of Naveen Kumar (A-2) and as per the said election I-card, at the time of purchase of land in question, he was hardly 17-18 years old and might be a school going student, if studying. In the year 1982, amount of Rs. 40,000/- was a very big amount for a child of 17-18 years; that too of a farming background. The intimation so given to the department regarding the financial assistance from the then child/younger brother Sh. Ranvijay CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.214/370 Singh is a clandestine approach to disguise the true facts as to how the purchase amount was arranged. In the given facts and circumstances, the Court is left with no option but to construe that the amount as above i.e. to the extent of Rs. 40,000/- was the (ill gotten) money contributed by the Public Servant (A-1).
S.No. 8 shows the Asset of A-1 in the form of Scooter, bearing registration no. DL 1SF 8662 (wrongly shown as DG 1SF8662) and the prosecution in this regard has relied upon the testimony of PW125 Sh. Harish Singh Karmyal, the then Inspector CBI,ACB Delhi. This official witness was a member of the CBI team who had conducted house search on 12.05.2000 at B-31 Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi, belonging to accused no.2 Naveen Kumar son of accused no.1 CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.215/370 Virendra Singh. The factum of house search by this official witness and the rest team members is an admitted fact as is apparent in the cross examination. During the said house search, a number of registration certificates of various vehicles were recovered therefrom as are mentioned in the handwritten Search-cum-Seizure Memo Ex. PW83/A in its entry at Sr.no.15, page no.4. These registration certificates (03 original and 01 duplicate) do pertain to
- Maruti car registration no. DL6CC 3055 (in the name of Sarvodya Furnishers as owner),
- Bajaj Scooter bearing registration no. DL1SF 8662 in the name of one Sh.
Parveen Bansal.
- Toyota Car registration No. DL6CG 2611 (in the name of MRI Scan Pvt. Ltd.,)
- Daewoo Espero Sedan Car bearing CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.216/370 registration No. DEC 6826 (in the name of Naveen Kumar i.e. accused no.2).
- In the given eventuality the first question arises as to how and why the Scooter in question has been shown under the heading of Assets of accused no.1 Virendra Singh. At the most, it could have been shown in the account of accused no.2 Naveen Kumar as it was from his premises/possession, the duplicate RC in question was recovered and it was he, who is/was supposed to explain as to how and why he came into possession of the same. The burden in this respect in terms of the provision u/s 106 Indian Evidence Act 1872 was solely upon the accused no.2 as this fact was in exclusive knowledge of accused no.2 only. Since the cross examination on behalf of accused no.1 and 2 has been conducted by their common CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.217/370 Counsel, it could very well be read accordingly. However, as far as the question of considering it as an Asset of accused no.1 is concerned, it has, in no way, been proved. However, in this context, some other aspects are also there to be reckoned herewith. Vide testimony of PW98, the file bearing no. D-246 containing a number of official correspondences between accused no.1 and his parent department have been collectively shown exhibited as Ex. PW98/B. This file does contain a number of correspondences by accused no.1 pertaining to Bajaj Chetak Scooter bearing registration no. DEM 5745. These intimation letters do form part of file Ex. PW98/B at its page numbers 49-C onwards. These letters do reveal that in January 1983 (internal page no. 35-C Ex. CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.218/370 PW98/B), accused no.1 had given an intimation to his department that he had sold his Chetak Scooter to Sh. Rakshpal Singh (accused no.3 herein, who happens to be a very close relative of accused no.1 and 2) through a reputed dealer namely Sh. Ranveer Singh of Kotla Mubarakpur, whereas vide another intimation given in December 1983 (internal page no. 49-C), it was (again) apprised to the Department by accused no.1 that he had sold the said Chetak Scooter to one Sh. Rich Pal Singh through a reputed dealer of South Delhi Auto Services, Sukhdev Market, Kotla Mubarakpur, Delhi. The name as Rich Pal Singh appears at least twice in the type written letter dated 09.12.2003 and it cannot be a clerical mistake to the effect that Rich Pal Singh and Raksh Pal Singh might be one and the same person. Even if CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.219/370 it is assumed for a moment that there could have been a possibility of any such mistake, said Sh. Raksh Pal Singh being a very close relative and being in very close association; years prior thereto; at least since the marriage of accused no.1, there was no need and no occasion for selling Scooter to him through any reputed dealer he being a very close relative of accused no.1. Thus, something fishy cannot be ruled out in such correspondences w.r.t. a movable property. It at least reflects otherwise than in good taste on the conduct of a Civil Servant.
S.No. 9 shows the asset creation in the name of accused no.1 in the form of Post Office Account no. 33863 to the tune of Rs. 62100/-. In this regard, the testimony of PW37 Chief Post Master, New Delhi GPO is relevant. This witness has proved CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.220/370 the account statement (Ex. PW37/B) of Time Deposit Account in the name of accused no.1 Virender Singh, R/o 201 Rouse Avenue, New Delhi, which shows the first entry as that of 24th March 1990 and the total amount worth Rs. 1,78,225/- in the said Post Office Saving Account. There is nothing contrary either by way of cross examination or otherwise. The asset accordingly stands proved under this sub heading.
S.No. 10 shows the creation of Asset by A-1 in the form of .32 bore Revolver purchased from Arms Factory for Rs.
12,240/-. In this context, the testimony of PW98 and the file D-246 (Ex. PW98/B) are relevant. As per the collectively exhibited file D-246 (internal page no.128- C), accused no.1 had purchased .32"
Revolver from Kanpur Small Arms
CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.221/370
Factory and had made payment of Rs.
12,240.70/- by way of demand draft No. 487470 for the same. This is the intimation given to the parent department by accused no.1 himself under his signature vide letter dated 25.03.1991 (forming part of Ex. PW98/B). The same falls within the 'check- in' period and thus duly stands proved. It is also worth mentioning that as per the Observation Memo (D-3) exhibited as Ex. PW72/B, a number of other weapons had also been found there (during the search) at the official residence of accused no.1. The same have been reflected at serial no.48, 50 and 51 of the handwritten Observation Memo Ex. PW72/B as purchased during the year 1976-77 and 1987-88. However, the prosecution has not made them part of Asset or Expenditure of any of the accused CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.222/370 including accused no.1 for the reasons known to them only.
S.No. 11 shows the assets of A-1 in the form of bank deposits worth Rs. 56001 in the bank account no. 13149 (Central Bank of India, Bengali Market, New Delhi) of his minor daughter Ms. Gleeco Singh. Admittedly, the said minor daughter of A-1 was having bank account as above.
Moreover, PW5 Sh. R.K. Mehta (the then official of Central Bank of India, Bengali Market) has also proved the factum of bank account in her name as well as her specimen signature card Ex. PW5/A-2, reflecting the account number as such. Further, vide Ex. PW5/A, the details of the bank accounts statements/entries in respect of two accounts i.e. a/c no. 13149 (minor daughter Gleeco Singh) and a/c no. 4812 of Mrs. Geeta Singh (wife of accused no.1) CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.223/370 have been brought on record and in respect of the account of the minor, the balance entry is duly reflected to the tune of Rs. 56001/- as on 07.03.2000. In the entire cross examination, no question has been raised about any of the afore aspects except to the effect that an entry of total interest of Rs. 4806/- is also shown in respect of a/c no. 13149 of the daughter of A-1. However, this meager amount entry doesn't make a difference as there are even withdrawal entries prior to showing the balance of Rs. 56001/- in the said account. Accordingly, this entry stands duly proved.
Income of Smt. Geeta Singh (Wife of A-1)
71. The Charge Sheet shows the total income of Smt. Geeta Singh to the tune of Rs. 25,58,381/- under 13 heads and the appreication of the same is/are as under:-
CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.224/370 S.No. 1 - Under this serial number, income of Rs. 3,36,000/- has been shown to the credit of Smt. Geeta Singh on account of disposing of an industrial plot of land in Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area, Delhi. As per Ex. PW98/B (file D-246 internal page no. 147/C), the intimation (dated 06.04.1993) by A-1 is there to the effect that she/his wife had relinquished her share for a consideration of Rs. 3.36 lakhs. However, further stipulation in the said intimation to the effect that ' the investment so made in the purchase of said industrial plot; 14-15 years ago, was the investment out of her own earnings' is found false in the light of the immovable property returns for the year 1981 (internal page no.97 of the collectively exhibited documents Ex. PW98/B) wherein accused no.1 had stated that it was he himself who had given Rs. 10,000/- to his wife (by selling his car) for investing in the said CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.225/370 industrial plot. Accordingly, it stands proved that on an initial investment of Rs. 10,000/-, she earned Rs. 3,36,000/- by disposing of this property.
S.No.2 - Here, an income of Rs.
2,72,000/- has been shown to the credit of Smt.Geeta Singh by way of sale of her Matiz car bearing registration no. UP16 6596. As per PW30 Sh. Rajan Mehra (Automobile Dealer), she had purchased a Matiz car in the beginning of December 1998 worth Rs. 3,33,204/-. After using the said car for a few months, she sold it back to the dealer for Rs. 2,72,000/- and purchased another new car which did cost Rs. 1,50,000/- more. This car had been purchased and sold within a few months and it has nowhere been made clear as to how the selling amount has been construed to be her income. However, when entry under CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.226/370 this sub-heading is looked into; in the light of entry at S.No.8; under the heading 'Assets of Smt. Geeta Singh', it becomes clear as to how it has been shown as accrued income of Smt. Geeta Singh. Adjudged accordingly.
S.No. 3 - This sub heading shows income
of Rs. 9202/- from interest on DCM
debentures in the name of minor daughter Gleeco Singh. It has already been proved here-in-above (under the heading 'Assets of A- 1; S.No. 5') that the foils of the debentures in the name of minor daughter Gleeco Singh had been recovered during the house search of PW166 Sh. Om Pal Singh; who happens to be a distant relative of A-1. (The interest income should have been shown that of A-1 instead of the wife of A-1). Vide testimony of PW41 Sh. Vikram Dogra {Vice President (operations) DCM}, it has been established that the total amount of debentures was Rs. 50,000/- and CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.227/370 accrued interest to the tune of Rs. 9202.50/- was paid to the guardian of the minor. As per record, a distant relative (PW166 Sh. Om Pal); has been shown as the guardian of minor Gleeco Singh. However, the facts on record as well as the testimony of PW 166 Om Pal do clearly reveal that it was knowingly so done for disguising the identity of the parents of the minor daughter in general and that of accused no.l/Public Servant in particular. There could have been no occasion for there being a guardian of a minor (either in respect of her 'person' or 'property') when her parents were alive. The defence (to the effect) that the interest income was the income of guardian and not of the parents;
does have no meaning at all. Moreover, it is for the benefit of the accused to add the income under this heading in their gross income. Accordingly, it stands duly proved. CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.228/370 S.No. 4 - Under this sub-heading, dividend income worth Rs. 2500/- has been shown to the credit of Ms. Geeta Singh. The dividend had accrued on the shares of United Phosphorus Ltd. As per PW150 Sh. Kanti Mangalji Thacker, Smt. Geeta Singh had purchased 100 equity shares as on 03.08.1995 for Rs. 70,000/- and she had also been issued 100 bonus shares as on 15.12.1995. The dividend income as above stands duly proved vide the testimony of Sh. Kanti Mangalji Thacker (the then Assistant Company Secretary in United Phosphorus Ltd) vide the strength of document dated 31.05.2001 (D-
227) shown exhibited as Ex. PW150/A. Even during the cross examination, the income to the tune of Rs. 2500/- has categorically been admitted as dividend income. (It is interesting to note that the folios of all the share/debenture certificates in the name of CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.229/370 minor daughter of accused no.1 as well as wife of accused no.1 had not been kept at their own residence, but the same were recovered from the residence of one Sh. Om Pal (PW166) who happens to be their distant relative and it shows at least the intention of concealing such dealings in shares/debentures).
S.No. 5 - Under this serial number, the dividend income of Rs. 3340/- from ICICI Shares in the name of Smt. Geeta Singh has been shown. As per PW188 Sh. Sanjay Sharma, Legal Manager, ICICI Bank, said Smt. Geeta Singh was having 200 shares of SCICI of face value of Rs. 10/- each (SCICI later on merged with ICICI) issued in the year 1994-95. Further, this witness has deposed to the effect that vide letter Ex. PW178/Z-2, certain details in this regard were provided by the concerned bank under the signatures of CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.230/370 bank official Sh. L.N. Rajan. Said Sh. L.N. Rajan had since left the bank. However, this witness has duly identified his signature on the letter Ex. PW178/Z-2. As per the details of Ex. PW178/Z-2, the amount of total dividends paid to Ms. Geeta Singh from the year 1994-95 onwards till the year 2000 was to the tune of Rs. 3340/-. It has nowhere been denied / disputed in the entire cross examination or during arguments that she was having the said shares in her name and hence there was no question or occasion to dispute the income from the dividend thereof. The income under this sub-heading stands proved. S.No. 6 - Under this serial number, income of Smt. Geeta Singh to the tune of Rs. 1800/- has been shown as dividend (income) from NOCIL. In this regard, testimony of PW186 Sh. Uday Madhusudan Karnik (Company Secretary-cum-Vice President, Legal) is CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.231/370 relevant. This witness had handed over the requisite details to the CBI IO vide his letter Ex. PW178/Z-1 (forming part of file D-223), showing that Mrs. Geeta Singh was having 400 equity shares of NOCIL in her name and that she had purchased 200 shares in the year 1995 (from open market) for Rs. 21200/- and equal number of shares were issued to her as bonus shares in the same year i.e. 1995. Further, the testimony of PW186 makes it clear that the total dividend paid to her was Rs. 2400/- uptill 06.11.1998. The income to the extent of Rs. 2400/- thus stands duly proved.
S.No. 7 - Under this serial number, income of Rs. 10 lakhs has been shown in the form of 'advance' received from one Sh. I.K. Channa in respect of (agricultural) land transaction of Mrs.Geeta Singh, situated there at Lodhipur Village. Said Sh. I.K. Channa was examined CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.232/370 (on 25.02.2013) as PW40. He has deposed that about 12/13 years ago, he had given cheque of Rs. 10 lakhs in advance to Smt. Geeta Singh w/o A-1; for purchase of her agricultural land for a total consideration of about Rs. 14-15 lakhs. He has further deposed that the said transaction was orally entered into/agreed and there was no document in writing to that effect. His deposition also includes that the land was still with Smt. Geeta Singh and about 03 months ago (i.e. somewhere in the end of the year 2012) he had received the said amount of Rs. 10 lakhs from Smt. Geeta Singh in installments after paying about 150 visits or so. However, a bare perusal of his testimony; (in the light of the rest material on record) makes it clear that the witness has entirely twisted the facts. To be more precise, in the collectively exhibited file D-246 (Ex. CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.233/370 PW98/B) there are certain correspondences by accused no. 1/Public Servant whereby he had given written intimation (in respect of the afore-said transaction) to his department. Internal page no. 97/N contains one such letter dated 22.10.1999 duly signed by accused no.1 whereby he intimated that his wife Geeta Singh had sold her agricultural land at Village Lodhipur Rajpur, Distt. Moradabad for Rs. 45 Lakhs to one Sh. S. Channa and that Rs. 10 Lakhs had been received by her through cheque. Another such intimation does appear at page no. 100/N (Ex. PW98/B). This intimation is in the form of a letter dated 27.03.2000, under the signature of A-1 and reveals that the transaction of sale of land by his wife Smt. Geeta Singh (to said Sh. S. Channa) didn't materialize and the advance of Rs. 10 lakhs earlier received by Smt. Geeta Singh from said Sh. S. Channa stood refunded CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.234/370 vide two cheques bearing no. 284241 & 284242 dated 27.01.2000. Thus, as a matter of fact, there was no question/occasion at all for the prosecution to show/reckon the said advance amount of Rs. 10 lakhs under the income head of Smt. Geeta Singh, as she had (admittedly) paid it back to the intending purchaser Sh. S. Channa by way of two cheques as above. (It appears that either the Charge Sheet was prepared in a casual way or it was a concerted and clandestine effort to show the income of Smt. Geeta Singh exorbitantly without any basis ). Thus, this amount is to be reduced from the (shown) gross income of Smt. Geeta Singh. S.No. 8 - Under this sub-heading, an amount of Rs. 900/- has been shown as income of Ms. Geeta Singh on account of dividend from Arvind Mills. The same stands duly established vide the testimony of IO/PW178 who has brought on record the CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.235/370 document Ex. PW178/Z/4. This is a letter addressed to Dy. Superintendent of Police by the General Manager of the concerned Company; along with Annexure-1 and Annexure-2. The Annexure -2 contains the details showing the payment of Rs. 450/- to Mrs. Geeta Singh in the year 1995-96, again Rs. 450/- during the year 1996-97 and Rs. 250/-(reflected as unpaid) during the year 1997-98. Thus, the first two entries show the amount of Rs. 900/- (Rs. 450 + 450) as dividend paid to Mrs. Geeta Singh and the same stands duly proved.
S.No. 9 & S.No. 10 - These two sub-headings show the respective 'interest' income to the tune of Rs. 40690/- and 4806/- in the bank account no. 4812 (of Ms. Geeta Singh) and bank account no. 13149 (of Ms. Gleeco Singh; minor daughter of A-1). It is not in dispute that these bank accounts were in the respective CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.236/370 names as above. Further, vide testimony of PW5 (Bank official Sh. R.K. Mehta) it has been brought on record that certain information in respect of the afore-accounts; had been requisitioned by the CBI and in compliance thereof vide letter D-41 (Ex. PW5/A), it was duly provided to the CBI. The witness has duly identified the signatures on letter Ex. Ex. PW5/A as the signature of Smt. Kamlesh Sethi, the then Branch Manager of Central Bank of India, Bengali Market, New Delhi. In the first five pages thereof, the aggregate of accrued interest in respect of saving bank account no. 4812 (of Ms. Geeta Singh) has been shown as Rs.40690/- and in the last two pages, the interest in respect of account no. 13149 (of minor Ms. Gleeco Singh) has been shown to be Rs. 4806/-. Nothing contrary thereto or in excess thereof has been brought on record either by way of CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.237/370 cross examination of this witness or otherwise. Thus, both these entries stand proved as above.
S.No. 11 - This sub-heading shows agricultural income of Smt. Geeta Singh to the tune of Rs.7,81,291/- during the period of 1983 to 2000. As per the material on record, Smt. Geeta Singh was having about 8 acres (7.92 acres) agricultural land, having been purchased by her (allegedly) out of the income generated from 1/3rd share in the petrol pump of her father; situated in her paternal village. She had purchased this land for an amount of Rs. 1.20 lakhs approximately. The income generated out of the agricultural land @ Rs.12000/- per annum or so may appear to be on the higher side during the initial years of purchase thereof, but if the entire period w.e.f 1983 to 2000 is CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.238/370 considered as such, the calculation/estimation made by the prosecution does appear to be reasonable. Moreover, the accused persons have failed to bring any cogent material to establish that the yield/income therefrom was higher than as shown by the Investigating Agency. Accordingly, the agricultural income is considered to be as per the estimation of the Investigating Agency.
S.No. 12 - This sub-heading shows income of Rs. 4852/- as interest accrued in respect of bank a/c no. TG-2 of Ms. Geeta Singh w/o Accused no.1. As per the bank official Sh. B.S. Rawat, Manager Delhi State Cooperative Bank, examined as PW38, this bank account in the name of Ms. Geeta Singh was opened as on 21.11.1996 vide Account Opening Form Ex. PW38/H-1 and it shows the credit balance worth Rs. 19,952/- therein as on 11.05.2000. The bank account no. HV-9 in the name of CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.239/370 accused no.1 Sh. Virendra Singh was also there with the said bank. The Account Statements of both these bank accounts (of husband and wife) have been collectively shown exhibited as Ex. PW38/H. The last four pages thereof pertain to the bank account statement of account no. TG-2 of Ms. Geeta Singh, showing the entries since the very inception. The calculated interest thereof comes to the tune of Rs. 4852/- and the same accordingly stands proved.
S.No. 13 - This sub-heading shows income of Rs. 1,02,000/- of Smt. Geeta Singh generated by way of obtaining loan in the said sum from M/s Trishul Finance Company while purchasing Matiz car No. DL3S-U 0009 in March 2000. The admission thereof is duly reflected in the intimation of accused no.1 dated 03.04.2000 addressed to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi forming part CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.240/370 of collectively exhibited documents i.e. Ex. PW98/B at internal page no. 182/C of file D-
246. Construed accordingly.
Expenditure of Smt. Geeta Singh (wife of A-1) -
72. The expenditure entries of Smt. Geeta Singh are as under:-
S. No.1 - Here expenditure to the tune of Rs. 59,604/- has been shown on account of loss suffered in the sale of Matiz car (UP 16 6596) by Smt. Geeta Singh. Testimony of PW30 is relevant in this context. Witness Sh. Rajan Mehra of Daewoo India Pvt. Ltd has deposed to the effect that the car in question was purchased by her as on 01.12.1998 vide invoice Ex. PW30/A worth Rs. 3,33,204/- and CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.241/370 the said car was sold by her (somewhere in the year 1999 or early 2000) for Rs. 2,72,000/-. The difference thereof comes to the tune of Rs. 61,204/- which is even more than the expenditure shown in the sub-heading under consideration. There is no defence at all in this context. Accordingly, this entry of expenditure stands duly proved.
S. No.2 - Here, an expenditure to the tune of Rs. 5000/- has been shown incurred by Smt. Geeta Singh as difference in purchase price and sale price of the Maruti Zen car in the year 1998. For this purpose, the prosecution has relied upon PW98. As per the collectively exhibited documents (Ex. PW98/B at its internal page no. 162/C and 168/C of file No. D-246), accused no.1 had given intimation in September 1997 to his department that his wife had purchased Maruti Zen car (1993 model) for Rs. 1,25,000/- and further vide another CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.242/370 intimation dated 27.11.1998, it was disclosed that the said Zen car had been sold for Rs. 1,20,000/-. Thus, the loss of Rs. 5000/- is, in a way, an admitted fact and duly stands proved.
S. No.3 - This sub-heading shows expenditure of Rs. 1,06,000/- incurred by Smt. Geeta Singh on the foreign tour/school trip of her daughter Ms. Gleeco Singh in the year 1997 and she herself had also accompanied her daughter on 10 days Europe tour. The admission of accused no.1 in the form of intimation (vide) letter dated 25.06.1997 (addressed to the Principal Secretary, Govt. of Delhi) (internal page no. 166-C of Ex.
PW98/B, forming part of file D-246) is there on record. The crux thereof is that prior to the said intimation, Smt. Geeta Singh and minor daughter Gleeco Singh had already left for 10 days tour of Europe and the expenses thereof were to the tune of Rs. 1,06,000/- which, as per CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.243/370 the intimation, were borne by Smt. Geeta Singh herself. This intimation was duly taken on record by the concerned Deptt vide diary no. 3080/B/S.I dated 27.06.1997, which forms part of Ex. PW98/B at its internal page no. 84/N. Nothing contrary thereto has been brought on record in any form and accordingly, the entry of expenditure under consideration stands duly proved.
S. No.4 - This entry shows an expenditure of Rs. 3965/- on account of registration etc. charges of Matiz car no. DL3S- U 0009 of Smt. Geeta Singh. During the course of arguments, it was duly admitted that this much expenditure was incurred towards registration and road tax etc. of the said vehicle. Otherwise also, certain documents seized from the possession of accused no. 1 and forming part of file D-253, clearly establish the same fact. At page no. 11/C thereof, the original receipt CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.244/370 issued by the Transport Deptt., in the sum of Rs. 3965/- is there in the name of Smt. Geeta Singh pertaining to this vehicle. Even the amount of Road Tax is reflected on the original Registration Certificate of the vehicle in question which is there on record in the said file. The expenditure so incurred having been admitted, stands duly proved.
S. No.5 - This entry shows an expenditure of Rs. 16000/- on account of maintenance and petrol expenses incurred by Smt. Geeta Singh in respect of two Matiz cars purchased and used for a period of about 16 months during the check-in period. For this purpose, the prosecution has relied upon the estimation of IO PW178. It is a matter of common understanding that maintaining a car does have certain financial implications. An expenditure on account of maintenance and petrol expenses @ Rs. 1000/- per month is in no way on a CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.245/370 higher side. Otherwise also, nothing such was either brought on record or even argued to raise any such objection/dispute in this context. It is an admitted fact that in the very beginning of December 1998, said Smt. Geeta Singh had purchased a new Matiz car and after using it for few months, sold it to the same dealer and purchased another Matiz car of higher model. Thus, the expenses so incurred are duly established and are construed as such. S. No.6 - This entry shows an expenditure in the sum of Rs., 1,71,023/- on account of telephone bill payments (of telephone no. 3236634) by Smt. Geeta Singh. To prove the same, prosecution has relied upon the testimony of PW3 Sh. R.L. Saini; an MTNL official. This witness has deposed that telephone no. 3236634 was installed in the name of Smt. Geeta Singh, w/o Sh. Virendra Singh and besides this telephone number, other CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.246/370 two telephones bearing no.32336676 and 3233683 were also installed in the name of accused Virender Singh. The billing details thereof were brought on record vide his testimony and were exhibited as Ex. PW3/A (Colly). The Billing Record Details (for the period 01.04.1996 till 15.01.2002) of telephone no. 3236634 in the name of Smt. Geeta Singh, show total 45 entries as reflected in Ex. PW3/A. The entries for the relevant period i.e. period uptil 12.05.2000 (check in period) are from entry no. 1 to 29 in Ex. PW3/A. The last entry (entry no.29) is dated 09.05.2000. The aggregate amount of the bills of the telephone in the name of Smt. Geeta Singh comes to the tune of Rs. 1,73, 073/-. The only objection raised by way of cross examination of this witness is to the effect that all the three landline telephones installed at the official residence of accused no.1 were in fact CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.247/370 provided by the office/department concerned and the payments thereof were directly being made by the concerned department itself. However, the defence on these lines has not at all been substantiated even to the slightest extent in any way. Accordingly, this entry of expenditure stands duly proved.
S.No. 7 - Under this sub-heading, an expenditure in the sum of Rs. 1,14,398/- has been shown incurred by Smt. Geeta Singh as 'study expenses' of her daughter Ms. Smita Chaudhary while pursuing her studies there in PMNM Dental College and Hospital, Bagalkot, Karnataka. The prosecution got examined PW94 and PW183 to prove the same. The cumulative effect thereof is that she had studied there in the said college during the period 1992 to 1997 and had paid a sum of Rs. 1,14,398/- towards tuition fee, hostel charges and equipment etc. charges as are reflected in CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.248/370 Ex. PW183/A. The entry accordingly stands proved.
Assets of Smt. Geeta Singh (Wife of accused no.1).
73. The entries reflecting Asset Creation by Smt. Geeta Singh are dealt hereunder :-
S. No.1 - Under this sub-heading, Rs. 20,000/- have been shown lying deposited in the bank a/c no. 226 Prathma Bank, Lodhi Pur (Moradabad UP) in the name of Mrs. Geeta Singh. It is not in dispute that she was maintaining the said bank account. During the course of evidence of PW158 Sh. Ajay Kumar (Addl. S.P. CBI) certain photocopies (02 in number) of the said account statement were relied upon in this regard.
However, neither any bank official of the concerned bank was summoned & examined (as a CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.249/370 witness) nor even the record could be authenticated and proved so as to lean in favour of the prosecution for the 'entry' under consideration. Moreover, even the passbook of the said bank account in the name of Smt. Geeta Singh is there in file D-196 which was also not got completed during the course of investigation so as to conclusively construe that this much amount was lying deposited in her said bank account. Accordingly, this entry remains 'unproved'. S. No.2 - This entry shows asset creation in the sum of Rs. 6,14,973/- as the amount lying in the bank account no. 4812 of Smt. Geeta Singh in Central Bank of India, Bengali Market, New Delhi. It is not in dispute that she had been maintaining the said account with Bengali Market Branch since the year 1980 or so. Vide the testimony of PW5, the Statement of Account in respect of a/c no. 4812 (running into 05 pages and forming part of D-113) was brought on record as CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.250/370 Ex. PW5/A-1 along with the Statement of Account no. 13149 of her minor daughter Ms. Gleeco Singh (running into 02 pages). The said Statement of Account at its page no.5 shows the credit balance of Rs.6,27,241.24/- in her account including the accrued interest of Rs.12,268/-. While reckoning the asset creation amount, the IO had deducted the amount of interest therefrom. Thus, the balance thereof comes to the tune of Rs. 6,14,973/-. Nothing contrary thereto has been brought on record in defence either by way of cross examination or otherwise. Thus, the entry under consideration stands duly proved. S. No.3 - Under this sub-heading, the asset creation in the sum of Rs. 19,952/- has been shown on account of the balance amount lying in the saving bank account no. TG2 (New number 2974) of Smt. Geeta Singh with Delhi State Cooperative Bank. For this purpose the prosecution has relied upon the testimony of CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.251/370 PW38 who has brought on record the Statements of Accounts and Account Opening Form etc. by way of documents Ex. PW38/A to PW38/H-1. It is in no way disputed that she had been maintaining the said bank account . The amount is duly reflected in the account statement so brought on record which is simply being objected on the ground that no certificate under Bankers Book Evidence Act has been given in support thereof. As a matter of fact, the very nature of the case; more particularly in the light of admission of having such an account with the afore-named bank, the evidence so led through the concerned Bank Manager is worthy of reliance even without requirement of any such certificate. Such technical objections could have been relevant had it been proceedings of a Civil nature like Recovery Suit etc and not in a case of Disproportionate Asset. If anything was to be disputed even despite admitting the factum of CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.252/370 having bank account with the concerned bank, that was necessarily supposed to be substantiated with some additional material/knowledge within the meaning u/s 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. The official witness i.e. the Manager of the concerned bank is a neutral witness having no interest at all in the outcome of the case and has deposed on the basis of the bank record of his own bank. There are no reasons to disbelieve his testimony and accordingly the entry under consideration stands duly proved.
S. No.4 - Here, the asset creation in the form of Matiz car has been shown to the credit of Smt. Geeta Singh, wife of A-1. Matiz car No. DL3SU 0009 had admittedly been purchased (which has otherwise also been proved in the present appreciation) in the name of Smt. Geeta Singh from M/s P.S. Cars for a sum of Rs. 3,74,072/-. A sum of Rs. 1,02,000/- had been arranged by way of availing loan from M/s Trishul Motors and the CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.253/370 loan amount is reflected as 'income' of Smt. Geeta Singh under 'Income' heading. In that sense, the entire purchase amount is to be reckoned whereas the prosecution has reckoned only the amount of Rs. 2,72,000/- thereby leaving the amount of Rs. 1,02,000/- i.e. loan amount without any justification and reasoning. Accordingly, it is found and held that Smt. Geeta Singh had created an asset in the form of Matiz Car in March 2000 (i.e. within check-in period) worth Rs. 3,74,072/-. Decided accordingly.
S. No. 5, 6 & 7 - The asset creation under these sub-headings; is in the form of shares of ICICI, NOCIL and Arvind Mills. The record pertaining thereto was recovered during the house search of Sh. Om Pal Singh (PW166) a distant relative of accused no.1 and 2 and Jija of accused no.3. Vide document Ex. PW178/Z-1, it has been duly brought on record that Smt. Geeta Singh (resident of 201 Rouse Avenue) was holding 400 Equity CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.254/370 Shares of NOCIL in her own name. Out of these 400 shares, 200 shares were purchased from open market for Rs. 21200/- and the rest 200 shares are/were the 'bonus shares' issued in the year 1995. The testimony of PW178 has further been substantiated by that of PW186 Sh. Uday Madhusudan Karnik, an Office Bearer in NOCIL). In the entire cross examination of both these witnesses, nothing contrary or in favour of the accused persons has been brought on record. The same is the fate of sub-headings 5 and 7 i.e ICICI shares and Arvind Mills shares. Thus the prosecution has duly discharged its burden in this regard vide testimony of PW178 by way of exhibited documents i.e. Ex. PW178/Z-2 (file D-
225) and Ex. PW178/Z-3 & Z-4 (file D-228). The assets under these three sub-headings thus duly stand proved.
S. No.8 - (to be conjointly r/w entry no.2 of 'income' heading of Smt. Geeta Singh) - CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.255/370 Under this entry, the asset creation worth Rs. 3,33,204/- has been shown in the form of Matiz car no. UP 16 6596 (1998 model). It has duly been proved vide testimony of PW30 and the appreciation thereof has already been made at length here-in-above. The entry accordingly stands proved.
S. No.9 - Here an amount of Rs. 9000/- has been shown invested in the name of Smita Industries. This amount had been contributed towards purchase of industrial plot of land in Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area, Delhi, wherein she was having 40 % share. This amount was given to her by her husband as deciphered here-in-above. The details thereof have already been elaborated in this regard at serial no.1 under the heading of 'Income' of Smt. Geeta Singh. No further appreciation on this aspect is required as the same fact is not only an admitted one, but has also been duly proved as above.
CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.256/370 S. No.10 - This sub-heading shows the asset creation (worth Rs.1,91,895/-) by Smt. Geeta Singh, wife of A-1 by way of investment in petrol pump at Pakwada (UP). Though, the prosecution has not led any sort of cogent material as evidence to prove this specific amount having been invested by Smt. Geeta Singh in the said petrol pump, yet as a matter of fact, accused no.1 himself has throughout claimed that his wife was having 1/3 share in the petrol pump of his father- in-law Sh. Ram Gopal. The Charge Sheet also reveals that said Sh. Ram Gopal was having two sons namely Sh. Charan Singh and Sh. Ranvijay Singh and three daughters namely Geeta Singh, Prabha Devi and Saroj. Smt. Geeta Singh was allegedly inducted/shown as a 'partner' in the said petrol pump somewhere in the year 1981. It goes against the very common sense that a father would prefer one of his daughters in giving any such financial benefit moreso when the alleged CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.257/370 beneficiary was on a better economic and social footing in comparison to the rest daughters (as well as sons). Moreover, it has in no way been brought on record as to why she was inducted to 1/3 share whereas at least four other siblings were there besides the father/owner/allottee of the petrol pump. It is also worth mentioning that Sh. C.B. Dabas (Co-brother of A-1 and husband of Smt. Saroj) was examined as PW71, who though admitted that his father in law Sh. Ram Gopal was having the said petrol pump, yet, he didn't utter/depose anything that any of his brothers-in- law or sisters-in-law (including Smt. Geeta Singh) had ever been (formally) inducted as partners therein. It is also worth mentioning that a Petroleum Company who appoints dealers, pays commission to them as per the sale of the petroleum products (petrol, diesel etc.) and that is the only or at least the main source of income for a Dealer. In the present context, the claim of A-1 CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.258/370 that his wife was having an income source in the form of being partner of 1/3 share in the petrol pump of her father, is apparently a created and unbelievable claim. Accordingly, the Court is left with no option but to construe and conclude that the prosecution has failed to prove the asset creation by way of investment in petrol pump to the extent as above.
S. No.11 - This sub heading shows 100 equity shares of United Phosphorus Ltd worth Rs. 70,000/-. In this regard the prosecution has (mainly) relied upon the testimony of PW150 Sh. Kanti Mangalji Thacker (Company Secretary in United Phosphorus Ltd.). This witness has proved that vide Transfer Deed dated 03.08.1995, 100 equity shares of UPL worth Rs. 70,000/- were transferred in the name of Smt. Geeta Singh and the requisite details thereof were provided to the CBI vide document D-227 i.e. letter dated 31.05.2001 (Ex. PW150/A) under signature of CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.259/370 this witness/office bearer. She had also been issued 100 bonus equity shares on 15.12.1995 for those earlier 100 shares. In the one sentence cross examination of this witness (on behalf of accused no.2), the question/suggestion so put; amounts to admission of the shares in question in the name of said Smt. Geeta Singh. Accordingly, the entry stands duly proved.
S. No.12 - This sub-heading pertains to 10 equity shares (worth Rs. 10,000/-) of Alembic Glass Industries Ltd., in the name of Smt. Geeta Singh. The same has duly been proved vide Ex. PW178/Z-7. This document contains information provided by the Company Secretary of the said company and a bare perusal thereof reveals that these shares were transferred in the name of Smt. Geeta Singh as on 11.09.1995 vide Transferor's Folio (Transferor Sh. Vinod Kumar Goyal) No.32312. The entry accordingly stands proved. S. No.13 - Asset creation in the form of 900 CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.260/370 shares (Reliance Petroleum Ltd.) worth Rs. 21600/- has been shown under this sub-heading and the same has been taken care of vide the testimony of PW124 Sh. Praveen Chaturvedi. He has duly proved vide D-226 (letter dated 12.06.2001 Ex. PW124/A), that he had provided the requisite information along with the copies of Transfer Deed of the shares in question to the CBI and in terms thereof, 900 shares of Reliance Petroleum Ltd worth Rs. 21600/- were transferred in the name of Smt. Geeta Singh. In the cross examination, the only suggestion put to the witness was to the effect that 'for aforesaid shares no dividend was paid' and the witness affirmed the same. The cross examination itself is impliedly an admission of there being 900 shares in the name of Smt. Geeta Singh. The entry under consideration thus stands proved.
S. No.14 - Under this sub-heading, asset creation in the form of agricultural land at Village CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.261/370 Gindora Moradabad (UP), in September 1982 has been asserted by the Prosecution. The agricultural land has been shown to be 5 acres (in fact it was 5.6 acres as per file D-246 collectively exhibited as Ex PW98/B). During the course of arguments, it was duly admitted on behalf of accused no.1 that expenditure to the alleged extent i.e. Rs. 42000/- had been incurred (as share contributed) by the wife of accused no.1. The part amount had allegedly been arranged by borrowing the same from Sh. Ranvijay Singh (brother-in-law of accused no.1) which assertion has been found and adjudged to be unbelievable; as per the afore- appreciation in respect of 'Assets of A-1' (S.No.7). The entry under consideration stands duly proved.
S. No.15 - This entry shows recovery of cash amount worth Rs. 1,32,000/- during house search of the official residence of accused no.1. The Search and Seizure Memo so prepared were duly CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.262/370 signed by accused no.1 himself. Moreover, even the recovery of this much amount has not at all been disputed in any sense. Accordingly, the same also stands duly proved.
Income of Naveen Kumar (A-2)
74. The description of income of A-2 is being dealt with as under:-
(S.No.1 & S.No.12) Under these two serial numbers, income of Rs. 13,25,000/- has been shown to the credit of accused no.2 Naveen Kumar earned by him while selling the constructed flats there at R-50, Khirki Extn. Delhi. In this regard, PW51 to PW54, PW61 & PW68 have been examined and it has come on record that they had purchased flats from accused no.2 in various amounts, the aggregate of which comes to the tune of Rs. 6,25,000/-. CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.263/370 As many as 20 flats (16 flats 1 bhk and 4 flats 2 bhk) have been shown constructed thereupon. Though in the calculation it has been shown that as many as 13 flats had been sold by A-2 roughly for Rs. 13,00,000/- in aggregate vide GPAs etc., yet, as a matter of fact, nothing such beyond & in addition to the testimony of afore-referred witnesses has been brought on record either by the prosecution or in defence. However, as this income has been construed by the Investigating Agency/Prosecution, it would be proper to give the benefit thereof to the accused and to construe the income as such; as per the calculation/estimation shown in the Charge Sheet. Accordingly, it is construed that accused no.2 had generated an income of Rs. 13,25,000/-
by way of disposing of the flats
CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.264/370
constructed by him at the afore-address. Accordingly, entries at s.no. 1 & 12 stand proved.
S.No.2 - This entry shows rental income of Rs. 1,23,000/- in respect of property bearing khasra no.34 Andheria Moar from the tenant in the name of 'Glorious Stylings'. As per the material on record, this property is reflected in the name of Horam Singh who happens to be father of A-1 (and grand-father of A-2 Naveen Kumar). As per the details of monthly payment of rent as reflected in Ex. PW178/M, various monthly rent payments have been shown made to said Sh. Horam Singh. Various other payments have been shown in other names such as Mithlesh, Suneela, Atma Prakash etc. However, CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.265/370 none of these entries has shown/reflected the name of accused Naveen Kumar as 'landlord' or 'owner' thereof or having received the payment of monthly rent on behalf of the landlord Sh. Horam Singh. Hence, it remains 'unestablished' that the rental income reflected under this entry belongs to A-2 Naveen Kumar.
Here it is also worth mentioning that as per the GEQD Report Ex.
PW109/A, certain mischiefs were also committed in respect of this property. To be more precise, admitted signatures of said Sh.Horam Singh (HA-1 to HA-7) along with his questioned signatures (HQ- 1 to HQ-7) were opined to be not belonging to 'one and the same' person.
HA-1 to HA-7 are the admitted signatures as appearing on various documents pertaining to bank account no. 3800 (in CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.266/370 the name of Horam Singh s/o Sh.
Gurudutt Singh) with Punjab National Bank IGNOU Branch, Maidan Gadhi, New Delhi and do form part of file D-
109. These documents include his 'Specimen Signature Card' with photograph affixed thereon, 'Account Opening Form' etc. His questioned signatures (HQ-1 to HQ-7) are appearing on the documents furnished with/submitted to DESU for the purpose of obtaining electricity connection at the said premises. These documents do include the duly sworn 'Affidavit' as well as the 'Indemnity Bond'; on Rs.2 and Rs.10 stamp papers respectively (in the name of Sh. Horam Singh). The GEQD Expert vide its report Ex. PW109/A, has categorically opined that the person who had appended his signature on the CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.267/370 admitted documents HA-1 to HA-7, was not the person who had appended the signatures on the questioned documents HQ1 to HQ7. The mischief can be attributed to none else than the accused no.1 and 2 (particularly A-2) who claims to be the immediate beneficiary thereof and who had been using the said premises for running business therefrom in the name of 'M/s N.V. Computers'. The income shown under this entry thus remains 'unestablished' (to be belonging to accused no.2).
S.No.3 - This entry shows income of
Naveen Kumar to the tune of
Rs.2,60,000/- on account of having received it from Sh. Amit Saini. This entry is a vague entry. Even said Sh. Amit Saini, when examined as PW25, didn't utter anything in his entire examination- CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.268/370 in-chief (or during cross examination by Ld. PP). It was only during the cross examination that he answered the suggestion in affirmative in this regard and admitted that he had given this amount as loan to A-2 in the year 1998. He has been a Partner in N.V. Computers with accused no.2 Naveen Kumar. Both of them had applied for bank loan (in the name of N.V. Computers) and the bank loan in the sum of Rs.9.5 lakhs was accordingly sanctioned against the collateral security of A-2's Alaknanda -
Noida Shop. The papers pertaining
thereto do form part of D-158
(collectively exhibited as Ex. PW25/G). This document does reveal that at that time, said Sh. Amit Saini was hardly aged about 21-22 years (date of birth being 17.09.1976). Further, as per the Annexure CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.269/370 to Loan Application Form (Ex. PW25/G), the gross income of accused Naveen Kumar for the year 1997-98 was Rs.
66,370/-. The loan amount had been spent for the purpose of N.V. Computers as is revealed throughout his testimony (as PW25). No other source of income is either shown by way of the information furnished at the time of obtaining loan or otherwise. The amount of Rs. 2,60,000/- was a huge amount in the year 1998. Even the net annual salary of senior IAS of 1969 batch (accused no.1) for that year, was less than Rs. 2 lakhs. It was nearly impossible for a boy aged 21-22 years to spare such a big amount for advancing any friendly loan that too without any sort of documentation to that effect. In such an eventuality, it becomes entirely unbelievable that the income to the afore- CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.270/370 extent had been generated by accused no.2 in the manner reflected as above. The entry accordingly stands defeated. S.No.4 - This entry shows the income of Rs. 1,23,500/- to the credit of accused no.2 Naveen Kumar as 'rent' of shop No. K-1, Alaknanda Shopping Complex, Noida, UP. In this regard, the testimony of PW27 is relevant. Said witness namely Sh. Nanak Chand Sharma has deposed that the shop in question situated in Sec. 28 Noida UP was obtained on rent in July 1998 @ Rs. 4,250/- per month and that he had also paid Rs. 30,000/- as advance to the landlord/accused no.2 Naveen Kumar. The amount of rent and advance till April 2000 comes to be Rs. 1,23,500/- and the entry accordingly stands proved.
S.No.5 & 6 - These two entries do
CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.271/370
reflect the income of Rs. 72000/- and 1,56,444/- respectively as 'Salary' from Gleeco Services as well as 'Reserve and Surplus' of Gleeco Services Pvt. Ltd. As per testimony of PW122 and PW155, Gleeco Services Pvt. Ltd was incorporated on 25.07.1994 (at that time accused no.2 Naveen Kumar had been pursuing his LLB from Delhi University) and its bank account was opened as on 05.08.1994. Though for the namesake, it is (shown as) an 'incorporated company'; having 02 Members/Directors; namely Sh. Naveen Kumar and his maternal uncle Sh.Charan Singh, yet, as a matter of fact, it was being run as if it was a Proprietorship concern of accused no.2 Naveen Kumar. Almost all the transactions by/on behalf of this entity have been entered into as 'cash CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.272/370 transactions' in so far as the same were pertaining to some expenses incurred on its behalf. The Investigating Agency has also apparently treated the same as such. PW155 in his turn, has brought on record the copies of the balance sheet of the said entity in the form of Ex. PW155/A (forming part of file D-241). This document at its page no. 102 and 101;
shows the Director's remuneration as Rs. 72000/- and reserves and surplus to the tune of Rs. 1,56,444/-. No other material has been brought forth in this regard. Since these entries are in favour of accused no.2 and the Investigating Agency/Prosecution has also shown them as such, they are construed having been proved to the extent as above.
S.No.7 - This entry reflects income to the tune of Rs.41,13,042/- to the credit of CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.273/370 accused no.2 Naveen Kumar as rental income of flat No. 712-A, Tolstoy House w.e.f the year 1989 to 1998. As a matter of fact, this flat was owned by Sh.
Ranvijay Singh, who had purchased it somewhere in the year 1983 (initially the Agreement was w.r.t Flat No.612-A, entered into in the year 1983). The ownership of the flat in question stood transferred in the name of accused no.2 (Naveen Kumar, resident of 382 Bhera Enclave, Ring Road, Delhi on 28.11.1998 vide Ex. PW45/A on the basis of a letter (dated 27.11.1998) purportedly written by the then owner Sh. Ranvijay Singh to the effect that 'henceforth Sh. Naveen Kumar be treated as the owner thereof'. The builder company M/s Ansal Properties did the needful. Prior thereto, Naveen Kumar had got executed registered GPA & Will dated CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.274/370 17.02.1998 (Ex. PW162/A and Ex.
PW162/B respectively) in respect of the said flat. Thus, undisputedly, if at all, Naveen Kumare was to be treated as 'owner' (or landlord) of the said flat, it cannot be prior to 28.11.1998 and hence there was no question and no occasion of there being any rental income (of A-2) from the said flat till he allegedly acquired the ownership thereof at the fag end of the year 1998. (If any such income was to be reckoned for the period prior thereto, the property in question i.e. Flat No. 712-A Tolstoy House was bound to be treated as the 'Benami Property' having been acquired/purchased in the name of Ranvijay Singh). Hence, there cannot be any rental income from the said flat to be credited to the account of accused no.2 as rental income for the period prior to 28.11.1998. Accordingly, this entry is found and held CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.275/370 to be a mischief and it would not be an exaggeration of fact to say that the IOs (except the first IO Sh. P.C. Sharma), have shown unexplained leverages towards the accused persons at a number of places. The accused persons in general and the accused no.2 in particular, have also failed to otherwise prove it on record as to how they were having any sort of claim qua the flat in question prior to November 1998. The entry accordingly stands defeated. (Court Observation- Accused no.2 Naveen Kumar has shown more than a dozen addresses of him in respect of various transactions; which in itself shows the ill and clandestine approach on his part).
S.No.8 - This entry shows Rs.
12,54,975/- as rental income of accused no.2 Naveen Kumar by way of letting out CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.276/370 Flat No. 712-A, Tolstoy House. Naveen Kumar had (allegedly) acquired the ownership of the Flat in question vide Ex. PW45/A as on 28.11.1998. As per the testimony of PW42 Sh. Surender Arora, a written Lease Deed was executed and entered into between accused no.2 Naveen Kumar and M/s Fuller India Ltd., New Delhi as on 06.01.1999 in respect of this flat and the same was to be effective from back date i.e. 08.10.1998. The rate of rent as agreed between the parties was Rs. 75/- per sq. ft. The total area of the said flat is 577 Sq. ft. and thus the monthly rent comes to the tune of Rs 43,275/-. The period uptil the very first raid/search comes to be 17 months. The aggregate rent for 17 months becomes Rs. 7,35,675/-. Further, during the cross examination of this witness, he duly CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.277/370 admitted that vide the Lease Deed Agreement Ex. PW42/DA, an advance deposit stipulation for Rs. 5,19,300/- (i.e. equivalent to 12 months rent) was also there in the Lease Deed. Accordingly, giving the benefit thereof to the accused no.2, it is hereby construed that income under this heading credited to him was to the tune of (Rs. 7,35,675 + 5,19,300/- =) Rs.12,54,975/-. This income entry accordingly stands proved.
S.No.9 - This entry shows income of Rs. 2,05,000/- accrued to accused no.2 Naveen Kumar by way of selling his Tata Sierra Car DL4CC- 0012. As per the testimony of PW34, Sh. Anil Girotra, he had purchased this car from accused no.2 Naveen somewhere in February/March 1997 for Rs. 2,05,000/-. The same has also been duly admitted during the cross CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.278/370 examination. Accordingly, the entry stands duly proved.
S.No.10 - This sub-heading shows income of Rs. 201/- accrued as interest on bank account no. 52211148853. However, nothing such has been brought on record either by way of testimony of any of the witnesses or otherwise. Moreover, the amount is a very meager amount and will not make any difference either by way of admitting or discarding it. Accordingly, in the absence of any proof thereof, the same is hereby discarded as such.
S.No.11 - Under this sub-heading, the agricultural income of Rs. 1,80,000/- has been shown to the credit of accused Naveen Kumar @ Rs. 10,000/- per annum w.e.f 1983 to 2000. Here also, the role of the IOs (2nd and 3rd IO) becomes seriously doubtful and questionable. In the year CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.279/370 1983, accused No. 2 Naveen Kumar hadn't even completed his schooling. Hence, it was very much required on the part of the IOs to make it explicitly clear as to how and which agricultural land came to be owned by the then 'minor' Naveen Kumar in the year 1983. Even if, any such land is supposed to be there in his name having been purchased in the year 1983, the IO was not only required to give at least a brief description thereof, but also to make accountable accused no.1 as to wherefrom he purchased the said alleged land in the the year 1983 and only thereafter to show any income from the said land that too under the 'Income' heading of accused no.1.
As per the record of the present case proceedings, agricultural land measuring 3.889 hectares was purchased CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.280/370 in the name of Naveen Kumar from his own maternal uncle Sh. Ranvijay Singh on 13.08.1991, by way of registered Sale Deed for a consideration of Rs. 1,09,015/- (inclusive of stamp duty) and the same could only be brought on fore as the original documents thereof could be recovered from the locker No. 1063 (which was being operated by accused No.2 Naveen Kumar impersonating himself as Ranvijay Singh even after the death of said Sh. Ranvijay Singh).
Further, in the year 1991; accused no.2 was a student of Bachelor of Engineering there at Bangalore and was not supposed to have any such income so as to pay for the afore-shown/purchased land and thus even the consideration amount of Rs. 1,09,015/- might have been paid by none else than his father i.e. accused no.1. CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.281/370 Thus, there was no occasion for showing any such agricultural income in the name of accused no.2; much less since the year 1983 when the accused no. 2 was a school going child, having no source of income. Accordingly, the income under this sub- heading is found and adjudged to be a created ground and remains unproved.
S.No.13, 14 & 15- Under these sub-
headings, Rs. 3,00,000/-,Rs.3,61,000/-
and Rs. 1,25,000/- respectively have been shown as 'income' of accused Naveen Kumar on account of 'loans' obtained from one Sh. Om Chaudhary (examined as PW46), Sh. R.P. Singh (A-3) and one Ms. Mary. As far as the later two entries i.e. S.No. 14 and 15 are concerned, nothing such (even in the remotest possible way); has been brought on record. As far as entry at S.No. 13 is CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.282/370 concerned (i.e. loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- from Sh. Om Chaudhary), the testimony of Sh. Om Chaudhary (PW46) is not at all reliable in this context. Here, it would be appropriate to make a few comments about the role of 2nd and 3rd IOs. It appears that they have tried their level best to favour the accused persons by inserting such like entries as well as by specifically excluding a number of effective recoveries from the locker of Ms. Monica Kumar (wife of A-2) and locker No. 343 of Smt. Geeta Singh (wife of A-1). The fact that there was a locker bearing Locker No. 343 with Central Bank of India, Bengali Market, Delhi, in the name of Smt. Geeta Singh had been revealed in the very first raid conducted at the official residence of A-1 and this locker was in fact duly searched in her CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.283/370 presence and Search & Seizure Memo thereof was also prepared in respect of the recoveries effected from it. The 1st IO clearly reflected in this regard at a number of places including in the Seizure Memo Ex.72/A at serial No.17 thereof and also during the course of his examination-in- chief as PW178. It was mischievously excluded even from the Charge Sheet, though as a matter of fact, its reflection is also clearly there even in the Case Diaries prepared by the first IO Sh. P.C. Sharma (which though do not form part of the Charge Sheet and are not supposed to be part of the Charge Sheet). Even the valuation of the huge jewellary articles (allegedly) recovered from the said locker of Smt. Geeta Singh was got done from a Valuer who was not cited as a witness for the reasons best known to the CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.284/370 Investigating Agency only. Thus, the role of the 2nd and 3rd IO is not above board since the very inception i.e. the time when they were seized off the matter after the transfer of the first IO Sh. P.C. Sharma.
Accordingly, the entries under consideration i.e. entries at S.No. 13,14 & 15 are found and held to be 'unbelievable' for the reasons as above and are not to be reckoned for the purpose of 'income' of accused no.2. These income entries stand defeated.
S.No.16 - Here, an income of Rs.
40,000/- has been shown as 'salary from N.V. Computers'. Admittedly, N.V. Computers was being run as a Partnership Firm there at Khasra No. 34 Andheria Moar, Delhi, with accused no.2 Naveen Kumar as one of the partners and as per the testimony of PW120, the total profit CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.285/370 as per the 'Profit & Loss Account' for the assessment year 1999-2000 was to the tune of Rs. 5011/- only. As per the Partnership Act 1932, the partners do share profit/loss in the proportion decided/agreed by/between them.
Though, as a matter of fact, it has not been clarified in any sense as to wherefrom the income under this heading has been shown having accrued to A-2, yet, construing it in the light of testimony of PW25 Sh. Amit Saini (another partner), it is being reckoned as such in favour of accused no.2. Accordingly, it is considered as proved.
Expenditure of Naveen Kumar (A-2)
75. The following are the descriptions of various expenditures incurred by A-2: -
CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.286/370 S.No.1 - This entry shows an expenditure of Rs. 1,20,534/- incurred by accused no.2 on his London travel in the year 1996. To prove the same, the prosecution has relied upon the testimony of PW97 Sh. Ramesh Kumar Nanda. Vide his testimony, it stands proved that accused Naveen Kumar had got his tickets (to travel London) booked through the Travel Agency/Company in the name of 'Mannie Pan' and he had paid Rs. 47900/- (in cash) as on 20.08.1996 as air tickets expenses/charges. As far as the rest amount is concerned, the Prosecution has not taken care of as to on what account it has been so shown. It remains unclear as to for how many days, he had stayed there in London and who had borne the expenses thereof. Accordingly, the entry under consideration stands proved only to the extent of Rs. 47900/- as expenditure in cash towards purchase of Air Tickets.
CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.287/370 S.No.2 - This sub-heading shows an expenditure of Rs. 24758/- incurred by A-2 in making payment to an entity named as Star Estate Management. The same has duly been proved vide Ex. PW178/G, which reflects the payment thereof in the afore-sum vide two cheques. These payments have been made in respect of Flat No. 712-A Tolstoy House as on 20.09.1995 and 28.11.1999. As a matter of fact, vide Ex. PW45/A, the Flat in question stood transferred in favour of A-2 Naveen Kumar as on 28.11.1998. Hence, the payment made through cheque as on 28.11.1999 in the sum of Rs. 13693/- was undisputably attributable to A-2 Naveen Kuamar. However, as far as entry of payment dated 28.09.1995 in the sum of Rs. 11095/- vide cheque no. 008077 is concerned, though theoretically the flat in question was in the name of Sh. Ranvijay Singh (maternal uncle of A-2) at that time, yet, this CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.288/370 expenditure was in fact incurred by A-2 as it was he who had in fact opened and had been operating two bank accounts i.e. account no. 5585 and account no. 105114 in the fake identity as 'Ranvijay Singh'. Said Sh. Ranvijay Singh was also having another account i.e. a/c no. 3399 with State Bank of India, DDA Building Branch, Vikar Minar, New Delhi. As per testimony of PW49 Sh. O.N. Sharma, Dy. Manager SBI, this account was opened in the name of Ranvijay Singh as on 28.12.1982 and was operated only uptil the year 1991 (the entries reflected thereafter are only 'accrued interest' entries). In that eventuality, obviously, even the payment made in the year 1995 hadn't been made from this account of Ranvijay Singh and the cheque in question pertaining to the payment made in the year 1995 was made from either of the rest two accounts in the name of Ranvijay Singh, which accounts were in fact CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.289/370 the account of accused no.2 in the impersonated identity as Ranvijay Singh. Accordingly, the entry under consideration stands duly proved. S.No.3 - Accused no.2 Naveen Kumar had incurred expenses worth Rs. 43275/- as brokerage to Liaison Consultancy Services. It has duly been established vide testimony of PW42 Sh. Surender Arora that in connection with the Lease Deed dated 06.01.1999 between A-2 and M/s Fuller India Ltd., in respect of Flat No. 712-A Tolstoy House, accused no.2 had paid this much amount as commission vide cheque Ex. PW42/1. No dispute/objection has been raised in defence in this regard. Accordingly, the expenditure entry stands duly proved.
S.No.4 - This entry shows expenditure of Rs. 10,68,735/- incurred by accused no.2 Naveen Kumar in making payment to P&O CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.290/370 Nedlloyed (India) Pvt. Ltd. It stands duly proved vide the testimony of PW73 Mrs. Manjeet Chaudhary (Bank Official) Allahabad Bank, Bhera Enclave Branch, Delhi. A banker's cheque in the afore-sum was got issued in the name of the afore-named Company in terms of Ex. PW73/C i.e. request for issuance of bankers cheque dated 03.12.1998. Though, purportedly the name of the applicant has been shown 'Ranvijay Singh'; who had made such a request to the bank, yet, it has duly been proved in the above-appreciation that the bank account in question in the name of Sh. Ranvijay Singh had not only been opened by accused no.2 Naveen Kumar, but was also being operated by him in the fake/assumed identity of Ranvijay Singh (his maternal uncle). Even the signature (as Ranvijay Singh) appearing on Ex. PW73/C (given GEQD mark as R-12) have been opined (vide GEQD Report Ex. PW109/A) to be in the CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.291/370 hand of accused no.2 Naveen Kumar. The entry of expenditure accordingly stands proved.
S.No.5 - This sub-heading shows expenditure (worth Rs. 1,17,160/-) incurred by accused no .2 on account of tax deduction at source by the Lessee Company i.e. M/s Fuller India Ltd., in respect of the rent payment of Flat No.712-A Tolstoy House. This entry requires to be dealt with in the light of corresponding entry at S.No.8 under the 'Income' heading. Admittedly, the flat in question had been let out by accused no.2 Naveen Kumar vide Lease Deed Ex. PW121/A (file D-12) for a period of 03 years. This deal was finalised through the Mediator Sh. Surender Arora (PW42) who was also paid a commission equivalent to 01 month rent i.e Rs. 43,275/- by accused no.2 vide cheque dated CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.292/370 19.01.1999. The depositions of PW121 and PW125 also do substantiate on these lines. As per Income Tax Act 1961 (Sec. 194), any person (not being an individual or HUF) paying rent to a resident person is liable for tax deduction at source on rent @ 10% if the annual rent exceeds Rs. 2.4 lakhs. In the given context, the annual rent is more than double of the limit of 2.4 lakhs. Admittedly, the income worth Rs. 12,54,975/- as rent payment has already been reflected as the income of accused no.2 under 'Income' heading/Serial no.8. 10% thereof becomes more than 1,25,000/-. Accordingly, the TDS to the tune of Rs. 1,17,160/- being on the lower side than the amount of actual TDS, the entry under consideration is construed having been proved.
S.No.6 - This sub-heading shows
expenditure of Rs.2,51,403/- in making
payment of 'House Tax' in respect of Flat No. CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.293/370 712-A Tolstoy House. In this regard, vide the testimony of IO Sh.P.C. Sharma, the requisite record has been brought on file as Ex. PW178/4. The only relevant entry after acquiring the ownership/possession by A-2 Naveen Kumar (on 28.11.1998) vide Ex. PW45/A; is the entry dated 01.04.1999 in the sum of Rs. 1,92,972/- paid by way of cheque. Accordingly, the expenditure (only) to this extent stands proved.
S.No.7 & 9- These two entries show the expenditure of Rs. 2,50,000/- each (total 5,00,000/-) incurred by A-2 on account of payments made to one Sh. Kuldeep Rai Luthra and Raj Malhotra. The same have been taken care of vide the testimony of PW122 (D-108; S.No.71 & 51 respectively). The witness namely Sh. V. Krishnananda Prabhu is the Sr. Manager of the Canara Bank, Daryaganj, Delhi. As per his examination-in-chief, the original CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.294/370 documents i.e. the original cheques and vouchers etc., (forming part of file D-108) were so collected from the bank record and were delivered to the CBI official vide Ex. PW122/E. Further, vide cheques nos. 514865, 487659 (dated 10.11.1999 & 10.06.1999 respectively), drawn on Canara Bank, Daryaganj Branch, account no.12954 of accused Naveen Kumar, duly signed by accused no.2 Naveen Kumar in the sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- each were so issued in favour of Sh. Kuldeep Rai Luthra and Mrs. Raj Malhotra. It is not in dispute that a/c no. 12954 belongs to accused no.2 Naveen Kumar. It has also nowhere been disputed that accused no.2 had issued the cheques in question in favour of the afore-named persons or that his account was debited in the respective amounts. Accordingly, the expenditure of Rs. 5,00,000/- under sub-heading 7 and 9; stands duly proved. S.No.8 - This entry shows payment in the CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.295/370 sum of Rs.19039/- on account of (payment of) telephone bills of MTNL landline no. 6492948. The same has duly been proved vide Ex. PW178/V (Colly.), showing the payments of various bills of the said telephone number. No objections/defence have been raised by way of the cross examination of the IO/PW178 in this regard. Accordingly, the entry is considered having been duly proved.
S.No.10 - This entry shows expenditure of Rs. 1,25,000/- as payment made to one Sh. Harshwardhan from the PNB IGNOU account of Sh. Horam Singh. Harshwardhan happens to be son of Sh. Charan Singh (maternal uncle of A-2) whereas Sh.Horam Singh is the paternal grand-father of accused no.2. Admittedly, and as per the testimony of PW8 and PW79, said Sh. Horam Singh was having a saving bank account bearing No. 3800 with the said branch of the bank. Apparently, the Investigating CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.296/370 Agency has treated the said account to be the genuine account of said Sh. Horam Singh and his signature appearing on various documents pertaining to (opening of) said bank account, had also been sent as his admitted signatures (GEQD Mark 'HA-1 to HA-7') to the GEQD. Nothing has been brought on record as to how any payment made from the account of the grand-father Sh. Horam Singh was to be construed as expenditure incurred by accused no.2 Naveen Kumar. Accordingly, this entry stands 'defeated' (in favour of accused). S.No.11 - This entry shows expenditure of Rs. 40,000/- incurred by accused no.2 in making payment to Helvetia Clinic. PW154 Dr. (Mrs.) P. Sahunja, the then Gynecologist Surgeon in Helvetia Klinic Pvt. Ltd, has duly proved vide Ex PW154/A, the amount of expenditure under this sub-heading. This witness was not at all cross examined. Entry CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.297/370 stands duly proved.
S.No.12 - This entry shows expenditure of Rs.1,10,000/- incurred by A-2 in making payment of loan to Sh. Amit Saini. The entry under consideration has to be reconciled with the corresponding 'Income' entry at S.No.3 in respect whereof, it has already been found and held that no such loan had been obtained by A- 2 from said Sh. Amit Saini. Accordingly, this expenditure entry (also) stands 'defeated' (in favour of the accused).
S.No.13 - This entry shows expenditure to the tune of Rs. 3,24,742/- incurred by A-2 in respect of TDS by P&O Nedloyd for the period during April 1995 to September 1998. It is an ambiguous entry as it doesn't indicate as to what for the TDS had been deducted.
However, in this regard, prosecution has relied upon testimony of Sh. Sumant Mehrish (wrongly given number as PW181 as two CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.298/370 witnesses have been given the same number as PW181). Through the testimony of this witness, the Lease Deed Ex. PW181/A has been brought on record. This Lease Deed was in respect of Flat No. 712-A entered into between Lessor Sh. Ranvijay Singh (through Power of Attorney) and P&O Nedloyd Pvt. Ltd. Accused no.2 had acquired the ownership thereof in November 1998 vide Ex. PW45/A and hence any expenditure prior thereto; be it on account of TDS or otherwise; in respect of the said Flat, is not to be construed as expenditure incurred by accused no.2 Naveen Kumar. Accordingly, the entry under consideration remains 'unproved'.
S.No.14 - This shows expenditure of Rs. 1,75,179/- incurred by accused no.2 in making payment to 'Service Equipment Company' for/on behalf of his 'Concern' in the name of M/s Naveen Car Care Centre. It is not at all in CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.299/370 dispute that accused no.2 was having a Proprietorship Concern in the name of Naveen Car Care Centre. Certain documents forming part of D-263 (running into 08 pages/sheets) were recovered vide Search-cum-Seizure Memo Ex. PW81/A at the premises bearing No.23/2/2, Rohtak Road, Opposite Surajmal Stadium, Nangloi, Delhi wherefrom another Proprietorship business of accused no.2 in the name of M/s Spanner's, was being run. The said search was conducted as on 13.05.2000 in the presence of accused no.2 Naveen Kumar. Signature of Naveen Kumar does appear on the same and this fact has not been disputed. Independent witness PW157 Sh. Suresh Kumar (UDC Yamuna Sports Complex, Delhi) had also been joined to the said raid/search. Vide the testimony of this witness, it has further been proved that during the said search (at the afore- said premises), 08 sheets, forming part of D CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.300/370
-263 were seized. The same have been shown exhibited as Ex. PW157/D (colly). These are the invoices in the name of Service Equipment Company; issued to Naveen Car Care Centre; raising bills in the sum of Rs. 1,18,390/- (dated 23.09.1999) and another one dated 27.08.1999 in the sum of Rs. 56,789/-. The same have not been disputed in any sense. The aggregate thereof becomes Rs. 1,75,179/- and thus the entry stands duly proved per force Ex. PW157/D. S.No.15 - Under this sub-heading, an expenditure in the sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- has been shown having been incurred by A-2 in making some payment to AVL India Ltd. In this context, prosecution has relied upon PW157, who has deposed that during the course of raid at M/s Spanner's Maruti Workshop, 36 pages/sheets; recovered therefrom (forming part of file D-265) had been CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.301/370 seized in the presence of said Sh. Naveen Kumar. The same have been collectively exhibited as Ex. PW157/B. Perusal of file D- 265 shows a bill dated 21.12.1999 (worth Rs. 1,25,000/-) raised by AVL India Pvt.Ltd. in the name of Spanner's Workshop (Proprietorship Concern of A-2) and the acknowledgment of payment thereof in the sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- made (on behalf of Spanner's Workshop) vide cheque no. 006284, dated 29.12.1999. These are the original documents recovered from the very possession of accused no.2 in his presence vide Seizure Memo Ex. PW81/A and thus there is no scope at all to deviate therefrom. Otherwise also, nothing contrary thereto has been brought on record either by way of cross examination or otherwise. Accordingly, the entry stands proved.
S.No.16 - Here, expenditure of Rs. 1,50,000/- has been shown incurred by accused no.2 CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.302/370 Naveen Kumar on account of 'losses suffered in Spanners Workshop'. It is an admitted fact that the Spanners Workshop was a Proprietorship Concern of accused no.2. The same has duly been taken care of vide the testimony of PW157; who has proved certain minute details forming part of D-264 to D-266 showing the salary payment, day book and the calculations of loss suffered under the appropriate headings. The entry accordingly stands proved. S.No.17 - This entry shows expenditure of Rs. 7990/- by A-2 on account of telephone bill payment of telephone No. 6319738 in his name installed there at Flat No. 118-B, Pkt. A Sukhdev Vihar, Delhi. Admittedly, the flat in question was owned by accused Naveen Kumar (as purchased in April 1997). It is also an admitted fact that this landline phone was installed there. Further, vide testimony of PW182 Sh. Chand Lal (Account Officer CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.303/370 MTNL) the payments (by Naveen Kumar) for the period w.e.f 01.09.1998 till 01.05.2000 to the tune of Rs. 7990/- have duly been established. As on the day of examination i.e. 04.12.2015, the record thereof was produced by Sh. Gajraj Singh; Chief Section Supervisor MTNL, Okhla New Delhi. The only objection was to the effect that certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act was not annexed therewith. This objection is/was not tenable at all as at the time of examination of this (retired) witness, the entire record in original pertaining to the telephone in question was produced in Court through another MTNL official Sh. Gajraj Singh. Accordingly, the entry stands duly proved.
S.No.18 - This entry shows the expenditure of Rs. 4810/- incurred by accused no.2 in respect of mobile phone No. 9810101839. However, as per the testimony of PW99 (Nodal CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.304/370 Officer, Airtel) this mobile phone was in the name of one Sh. Ravi Kapoor and it remains unclear as to how the prosecution has connected this mobile phone with accused no.2 Naveen Kumar so as to reckon the entry of expenditure in the name of accused no.2. Accordingly, this entry remains 'unproved'. S.No.19 - Accused no.2 Naveen Kumar had incurred an expenditure of Rs. 30,000/- towards making payment in the name of 'Sab ka Ghar CGHS'. In this regard, testimony of PW8 Sh. D.C. Pant (Dy. Manager/Officer in PNB, IGNOU Branch, Maidan Garhi New Delhi) is relevant. Through this witness, it has duly been proved that A-2 was having a bank account no. 3763 with the said branch and had made the afore payment vide cheque bearing no. 449676 dated 29.07.1997, forming part of D-109 (collectively exhibited Ex. PW8/E). The corresponding debit entry/cheque honour entry CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.305/370 (dated 31.07.1997) thereof is also reflected in the Statement of Account Ex. PW8/C. (The entries reflected in the Statement of Account of bank account no. 3763 are w.e.f 30.08.1995 till 25.03.2000 which also show that lakhs of rupees were deposited in cash in the said bank account during this period). The entry of expenditure accordingly stands proved.
S.No.20 - The expenditure under this entry is to the tune of Rs. 6,76,066/- incurred on account of income tax and the same has been proved on record through PW120 Sh. Nirbhay Kumar (DSP CBI). The records pertaining to the ITRs filed by accused no.2 were seized vide Production-cum-Seizure Memo Ex. PW120/A. The entire period during which these ITRs were filed, falls well within the 'check' period. Nothing contrary thereto has been brought on record. Accordingly, the entry stands duly proved.
S.No.21 - This entry shows the expenditure CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.306/370 of Rs. 35677/- incurred by A-2 in making payment of the mobile phone (calls) bills of mobile no. 9810027403. In this regard prosecution got examined PW99 Sh. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd., who has duly proved that the subscriber of this mobile number was Sh. Naveen Kumar and that he had paid Rs. 53760/- for the period w.e.f 15.02. 1996 to 15.01.2002. (It shows that even when Naveen Kumar was student of LLB, he was maintaining mobile phone). However, the period relevant for the purpose is uptil 12.01.2000 i.e. within the check-in period. The Statement of Account showing the afore-payments has been brought on record as Ex. PW99/E. The amount of the bill of the relevant period (roughly) comes equivalent to the amount shown by the Investigating Agency in the entry under consideration. Accordingly, the same stands duly proved.
CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.307/370 S.No.22 - Accused No.2 Naveen Kumar had incurred expenditure of Rs. 3765/- towards registration charges of car No. DL4CC 0012 (Tata Sierra). The same stands duly proved vide testimony of PW13 through whom, the registration file pertaining to the said car has been brought on record (Ex. PW13/A) showing the purchase amount thereof as 3,56,165/- (dated 16.06.1993) and the registration charges to the tune of Rs. 3795/-. The entry accordingly stands proved.
S.No.23 - This entry shows an expenditure of Rs.1937/- incurred on petrol while using Toyota Qualis car No. DL6CG -2611 @ Rs. 1 per km. The car in question was found there in the possession of accused no.2 during the course of house search conducted on 12.05.2000 there at B-31 Panchsheel Enclave. This fact has duly been reflected in the handwritten Observation Memo Ex. PW83/B at its page no.8 (S.No. CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.308/370
173). The original RC thereof in the name of MRI Scan Pvt. Ltd, bearing registration date 03.03.2000 was also recovered in the house search of the afore-house of A-2. Thus, it was well within the exclusive knowledge of accused no.2 as to how he got the possession of the car along with its registration certificate etc. in original in his possession. The onus was upon him to show that the car in question didn't belong to him (and was not being used by him) or that he was having no concern with any entity in the name of MRI Scan Pvt. Ltd. However, accused didn't deem it fit to do so. Thus, the Court does have no other option but to construe that the car in question was owned and being used by accused no.2. The meter reading thereof as per Ex. PW83/B is reflected as 1937 km. The petrol expenses @ Rs. 1 per km is not at all an unreasonable one.
Accordingly, the entry stands duly proved. CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.309/370 (Here it is pertinent to mention that the prosecution didn't deem it fit to show the car in question as the movable asset of accused no.2 for the reasons known to them only though not only the car in question, but also the original documents thereof were found from the house of A-2).
S.No.24 - This entry shows expenditure on petrol incurred by A-2 to the tune of Rs. 29147/- in respect of Ford Escort Car, bearing No. DL3CJ 7921. This car was also found in possession of accused no.2 during the house search of B-31 Panchsheel Enclave (owned by A-2) as is reflected in the Observation Memo Ex. PW83/B. As per the testimony of PW166 Sh. Om Pal Singh, he had purchased this car in the year 1999 (by cash payment) and had sold it to accused Naveen Kumar in the year 2000. This witness i.e witness Sh. Om Pal Singh happens to be a relative of all the accused CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.310/370 persons. It was from his house search that a number of share/debenture certificates and other such documents belonging to the accused persons/family members, were recovered. Neither this witness nor the accused persons could satisfactorily account for or explain as to why these documents had been kept 'hidden' at his house. Thus, the witness in question is an untrustworthy witness in so far as he leans in favour of the accused persons. He cannot be believed in his testimony that he himself had purchased it and after a short while, sold the car to accused Naveen. In all eventuality, the car in question, was the Benami property belonging to accused no.2 since the day one. As per the Observation Memo, the meter reading thereof shows that the car had run more than 29000 k.m as on the day of raid. Accordingly, the expenditure entry of Rs.29147/- as petrol expenses is construed having duly been CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.311/370 proved.
Assets of Naveen Kumar (A-2)
76. These are dealt with hereunder :-
S.No.1 - This sub-heading shows asset creation in the sum of Rs. 3,48,558/- in the form of Bank Balance in a/c no. 3985, Canara Bank Daryaganj, Delhi. The Statement of Account in respect of this bank account has been proved on record as Ex. PW122/A. Naveen Kumar had opened this bank account as on 05.08.1994 (when he was pursuing his LLB from Delhi University). Ex. PW122/A does contain entries w.e.f August 1994 till 11.07.2000. Further, as per Seizure Memo Ex. PW122/D, (which contains the minute details of this bank account) coupled with Ex. PW122/A, the Closing CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.312/370 Balance in the said account as on 19.04.2000 was Rs. 3,48,558/-. (The detailed bank account statement Ex. PW122/A also shows a number of entries of huge cash deposits in the said account. One such entry is dated 22.06.1999, when Rs. 2,50,000/- were deposited in cash in said bank account). The entry under consideration accordingly stands proved. S.No.2 - This entry shows Rs. 1,88,248/- as deposit in account no. 12954, Canara Bank Daryaganj, Delhi. As per Account Opening Form Ex. PW122/B, this account was opened as on 18.06.1990 by Sh. Naveen Kumar (accused no.2). The Seizure Memo (D-38) in respect thereof is Ex. PW122/D which in itself reflects that the credit balance of Rs. 1,88,248.50/- was there at the end of April 2000. The same is further substantiated by the Statement of Account Ex. PW122/J (D-195). It is an undisputed fact that accused Naveeen Kumar was maintaining this account. Accordingly, the entry stands proved.
CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.313/370 S.No.3 & 4 - These two sub-headings show the asset creation in the form of 'Term Deposit Receipts' (TDRs/FDRs) in the aggregate sum of Rs. 2,10,000/- in the name of Baby Vanessa Singh (daughter of A-2) and in the joint names of A-2 and his wife. In this regard, the testimony of PW153 (Mrs. Monica Kumar) is relevant. She happens to be wife of accused no.2 Naveen Kumar. As per her deposition, bank a/c no. 7047 with Central Bank of India, Sukhdev Vihar, New Delhi, was opened on 11.06.1998 in the joint name of husband and wife i.e. A-2 and Mrs. Monica Kumar. She has further deposed/admitted that 04 FDRs (Rs.
70,000/- each) were got issued in the name of their daughter Vanessa Singh and their joint names respectively. They have been proved as Ex. PW153/C-1, PW153/C-2, PW153/D-1 and PW153/D-2. The entire record in original pertaining to this bank account; including the CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.314/370 Account Opening Form, FDRs etc. etc., do form part of file D-55 and D-56. All these 04 FDRs pertain to the check-in period and were so got issued from this bank account in which lakhs of rupees were admittedly deposited in cash within very few months of the opening of this joint bank account. Moreover, vide Seizure Memo Ex. PW19/A, minute details thereof have also been brought on record. This Seizure Memo shows that 02 FDRs bearing No. 12000060 & 12000061 were got issued as on 17.04.2000 and rest two FDRs bearing No. 12000073 & 12000074 were issued as on 24.04.2000. Thus, the asset creation in the form of FDRs was to the tune of Rs. 2,80,000/- and not to the tune of Rs. 2,10,000/-. Both the entries under consideration stand duly proved to the extent of Rs. 2,80,000/- as asset creation by A-2 in the form of FDRs.
S.No.5 - This sub-heading shows recovery CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.315/370 of cash worth Rs. 4,30,000/- from locker no. 380 in the name of Ms. Monica Kumar, wife of accused no.2. The recovery of this amount is not at all disputed. Otherwise also, the same has duly been proved on record vide testimony of PW80 Sh. Narender Kumar Bapna, Bank Manager, Sukhdev Vihar, Central Bank of India. The defence has failed to show that this amount was in fact the amount of Ms. Monica Kumar. Said Ms. Monica Kumar started earning only after her marriage and that too in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month or so. Accordingly, the entry stands duly proved.
S.No.6 - This sub-heading shows asset creation (Rs. 10,000/-) in the form of 'Mutual Funds' of Canara Bank (CANPEP-92) of the Equity Link Saving Scheme in the name of Sh. Naveen Kumar. The original certificate/record pertaining thereto was recovered during the house search of 382, Bhera Enclave as on CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.316/370 12.05.2000 conducted vide Search-cum-Seizure Memo Ex. PW129/A. The search was conducted in the presence of occupant Sh. R.P. Singh/A-3. The same have not at all been disputed and thus the entry under consideration stands proved.
S.No.7 - An amount of Rs. 3,10,156/- has been shown in the form of an FDR (Naveen Kumar) recovered from locker no. 51 Bank of India, Pakhwada, UP, which is a locker in the name of accused Naveen Kumar. This has duly been proved vide testimony of PW87 Sh. Manoj Kumar Jain, bank official of the concerned bank. The original FDR is there on record, forming part of file D-163. Neither the locker (in the name of Naveen Kumar) is in dispute, nor the recovery of the FDR is questioned in any way. [It is also worth mentioning that Sale Deed dated 13.08.1991 (certified copy) whereby 3.889 hectares land in Village Baripur, Moradabad UP has been shown purchased by Naveen Kumar from his CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.317/370 maternal uncle Sh. Ranvijay Singh, was also recovered from this locker]. The entry accordingly stands proved.
S.No.8 - This entry shows asset creation (worth Rs. 4,47,899/-) in the form of Contessa car no. DL3CJ -3241 and the same has been proved through PW15 Sh. Deshbandhu Gosain, (UDC MLO, Seikh Sarai). The original papers thereof; including the insurance in the sum of Rs. 14010/- and registration etc. charges of 3690/- along with purchase bill in the sum of Rs.4,29,519/- do form part of file D-259 (Ex. PW15/B). Accordingly, the entry stands duly proved .
S.No.9 - Accused Naveen Kumar had purchased Tata Sierra car no. DL4CC 0012 worth Rs. 3,56,165/- and the same has duly been proved vide testimony of PW13 Sh. Gyan Chand, who proved the registration file thereof CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.318/370 as Ex. PW13/A. Besides the afore-amount, an amount of Rs. 3795/- was also spent thereupon as registration etc. charges; as per the deposition of this witness. The entry accordingly stands proved to the extent of Rs. 3,59,960/-. S.No.10 - Cash recovery of Rs. 49,180/- has been shown effected from the house search of B-31 Panchsheel Enclave. The same has duly been proved vide Ex. PW83/D. Otherwise also, this house was searched in the presence of its owner Sh. Naveen Kumar and the recovery of the afore-amount is not at all disputed. Accordingly, the same stands duly proved. S.No.11 - This sub-heading shows household articles worth Rs. 2,21,770/- found there at B- 31 Panchsheel Enclave. The said house was searched vide Search-cum-Seizure Memo Ex. PW83/A; in the presence of accused no.2 Naveen Kumar. Admittedly, Ex. PW83/A does bear signature of A-2 on every page thereof. CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.319/370 Further, the handwritten Observation Memo (D-
5) Ex. PW83/B shows that the valuation of the articles found there in the said house was as disclosed/told by A-2 Naveen Kumar himself. The list contains 176 articles and the valuation thereof comes to be Rs. 2,70,950/-. The entry accordingly stands proved as it has in no way been shown that the valuation was arbitrary or was on higher side.
S.No.12 - This sub-heading shows the value of the articles found at Flat No. 118-B Sukhdev Vihar (worth Rs. 19025/-), owned by accused no.2 Naveen Kumar. The same have been proved vide Search-cum-Observation Memo dated 12.05.2000, shown exhibited as Ex. PW84/A. S.No.13 - This sub-heading shows asset creation worth Rs. 2,72,303/- by A-2 in the form of various articles there at Spanners Workshop which was being run from the premises bearing CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.320/370 no. 23/2/2, Rohtak Road, Opposite Surajmal Stadium, Nangloi, Delhi. The said premises was raided and searched as on 13.05.2000 in the presence of accused no.2 Naveen Kumar. ( Here it is worth mentioning that the ownership documents of this property were also recovered from the locker search of locker no.1063, obtained & operated by accused no.2 in false identity as 'Ranvijay Singh'). The Search- cum-Seizure Memo in respect of the search dated 13.05.2000 at premises no. 23/2/2, has been proved as Ex. PW80/A (D-18). The detailed Observation Memo Ex. PW81/B (D-
204), running into 12 handwritten pages shows an inventory of as many as 256 articles found there; belonging to A-2 Naveen Kumar. The respective values/approximate cost thereof have also been shown against each of such articles and the aggregate thereof (excluding certain articles which were told not belonging to A-2) comes to the figure of Rs.272303/-. PW 128 and PW157 have also deposed on the similar CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.321/370 lines as they were also included in the Raiding Team. Accordingly, the entry under consideration stands duly proved.
S.No.14 - This entry shows recovery of Rs. 3,70,000/- from locker no. 1063, Allahabad Bank, Bhera Enclave. The recovery of this amount is not in dispute. Further, vide the afore-made detailed appreciation, it has duly been proved that though this locker was in the name of Sh. Ranvijay Singh (maternal uncle of A-2), yet the same had been obtained and was being operated by accused no.2 assuming false identity as Ranvijay Singh. The locker was operated by him at least on 09 occasions even after the death of said Sh. Ranvijay Singh. Accordingly, the entry stands duly proved. S.No.16 - Under this sub-heading, asset creation in the form of 'immovable property' i.e. Plot No. JD-3/57 Khirki Extn., worth Rs. CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.322/370 45,51,300/- has been shown in the name of accused no.2 Naveen Kumar. Admittedly, this plot of land measuring 274 Sq. Yds. was purchased by A-2 in January 1995 (At that time, he was a regular student of LLB 2nd year). Thereafter, it was got constructed (multi storey including basement) by him. The Prosecution has not relied upon its 'declared value' i.e Rs. 4,00,000/- and instead thereof got examined PW180 Sh. Uday Singh, Valuation Officer-II, in the office of Chief Engineer Valuations, Northern Region, Income Tax Deptt., Rohit House, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi. This witness did valuation of 04 properties involved in the present case; including this property. The Valuation Report has been brought on record as Ex. PW180/A which shows the minute description of the properties and the declared & assessed values thereof. The property under consideration is at serial no.2 of Ex. PW180/A CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.323/370 and in support thereof, the detailed Valuation Report with requisite reasoning is there on record as Ex. PW180/C. The valuation of this property has been done; taking into consideration the date of purchase i.e. 03.01.1995 and the applied method i.e. 'land & building' method. This detailed report Ex. PW180/C is supported/supplemented with Annexure-A and Annexure-B; showing the (calculations of) 'cost of land' and 'cost of construction' respectively. The property in question has been shown constructed in its basement, ground floor, first, second and third floor. The cost of land (as per Annexure-A), has been calculated comparing it with another property situated in the nearby area thereof; by applying certain adjustment factors such as :-
'Situation & Location' 'Side Open' 'F.A.R.' 'Size of Plot' CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.324/370 'The Subject Property is situated in an authorized colony'.
The property with which the property in question was compared, shows its value @ Rs. 19040/- per Sq. Yds., whereas the property in question; (taking into consideration, the afore- referred five adjustment factors), has been valued @ Rs.9699/- per Sq. Yds., as on the date of purchase i.e. 03.01.1995. Though, a number of objections have been raised by way of cross examination of this witness, yet, the Court does find no reasons to disbelieve the report of this Expert and Neutral witness, who has duly and elaborately given consideration to each and every minute detail while arriving at the conclusion in respect of the (tentative) cost of land as on the date of purchase. The same is the fate of the 'cost of construction' as calculated in terms of Annexure-B (forming part of Ex.PW180/C). One of the main objections raised by way of the cross examination of this CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.325/370 witness is that the property in question is/was situated in an unauthorized area whereas the property with which, it was compared (for the purpose of calculation of cost of land), is/was situated in an authorized area. However, the objection doesn't sound good as this fact has also been duly taken care of as reflected here- in-above. Moreover, the valuation of the property in question has been adjudged to be almost half of the property with which, it was compared by the Valuation Officer.
Thus, the detailed report Ex. PW180/C, showing the cost of land worth Rs. 26,57,500/- (@Rs. 9699/- per Sq. Yds) and cost of construction worth Rs. 18,93,819/- (aggregate equal to 45,51,319/-) sounds well and reasoned one and can be relied upon as such.
Accordingly, the entry under consideration stands duly proved.
S.No.17 - This sub-heading shows asset CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.326/370 creation by A-2 Naveen Kumar in the form of 'a plot of land measuring 500 sq yds' situated in khasra no. 154, Village Lado Sarai, Tehsil Hauz Khas, New Delhi, having been purchased by him as on 17.02.2000, by way of notarized Agreement to Sell, Receipt, Possession Letter etc. (all dated 17.02.2000) executed by Sh. Jagdish Singh (in favour of Naveen Kumar). The purchase amount thereof has not been reflected in any of these documents as the same has been left blank. However, as the complete chain thereof was recovered from the locker search of locker no. 1063 in the presence of A-2 Naveen as well as PW82 and PW164, it stands duly proved that the previous owner Sh. Jagdish Singh had purchased it for Rs. 2,90,000/- in July 1996 and sold it of to A-2 in February 2000 and it can very well be on right side to believe the 'valuation' thereof @ Rs. 4,00,000/- as on the date of purchase by A-2. Moreover, the same CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.327/370 has also been substantiated vide the testimony of PW31 Sh. Rohtash Kumar. Accordingly, the entry stands duly proved.
S.No.18 - This is another immovable property of accused no.2, having been purchased as on 25.12.1994. This plot of land, measuring 300 Sq. Yds., is situated in Khirki Extn., and bears no. R-50, Khasra No. 2300/71, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. Charge Sheet shows it worth Rs.
91,54,900/- in the value of plot of land along with cost of construction thereon. After purchasing , it was got constructed during the period uptil 1998-99. In order to prove the same, the prosecution has again relied upon PW180 i.e Valuation Officer Sh. Uday Singh. As per Ex. PW180/A, this property is one of the four properties valued by this independent and expert witness. The property under consideration appears at S.No. 1 of Ex. CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.328/370 PW180/A and shows its declared value as Rs.21,60,343/- (1,82,000/- cost of land + 19,78,343/- as cost of structure/construction). The prosecution vide Ex. PW180/B, has duly brought on record the detailed Valuation Report (running into 12 pages). The report shows that for the purpose of calculation of Valuation of Land, the date of purchase i.e. 25.12.1994 was taken into consideration whereas for the purpose of cost of construction, the period uptil the year 1998-99 (as told by A-2 Naveen himself at the time of inspection by the valuer) was taken into consideration. As per the description appearing on page no.5 of Ex. PW180/B, the property in question is a four storeyed structure with basement. It has 20 flats and a basement hall. The value thereof, (for the purpose of cost of land and cost of construction) has been calculated by applying the same formula & same analogy as in respect of CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.329/370 S.No.16 above. The cost of land has been reckoned @ Rs. 10632/- as on the date of purchase and thus, the total cost of land comes to be Rs. 31,89,600/-. The cost of construction is shown as Rs. 59,65,900/-. The reasons are akin to; as in respect of the property under S.No. 16 above. Here it is worth mentioning that the accused has shown having purchased this plot of land measuring 300 sq yds for a sum of less than Rs. 2,00,000/- as on 25.12.1994 (the rate per sq. yards was thus allegedly Rs. 600 or so which could not even be possible in a remote area situated 100 kilometers away from the NCT periphery i.e. beyond the boundaries of NCR even in the year 1994). This Court finds no reasons to disbelieve the calculations and the conclusions arrived at; by PW180 and accordingly the entry stands proved to the extent as shown in the Charge Sheet.
S.No.15 - This sub-heading shows the asset CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.330/370 creation by way of investment (in construction) on Plot No. JD-2 Khirki Extn., by accused no.2 Naveen Kumar. The same has been taken care of mainly through the testimony of PW180/A like S.No. 16 & 18 here-in-above. This property appears at S.No.3 on Ex. PW180/A and its detailed Valuation Report (along with reasoning/explanation) has been proved on record as Ex. PW180/D. The property in question is a plot of land measuring about 100 sq yds on which construction in its basement and 03 floors; was raised by accused no.2 Naveen Kumar; in terms of the Development Agreement dated 01.12.1998 entered into between him and one Sh. Amit Saini (one of the owners of the plot of land). The detailed report Ex PW180/D duly reflects the period for which the valuation of the expenditure incurred on 'construction' was carried. It also shows the minute details of the plinth area, the area CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.331/370 covered on each and every floor and the rate per square meter which was incurred (as expense) in raising the construction during the period 1998 to 2000. The witness is an expert and neutral witness and as appreciated here-in- above in respect of S.No. 16 & 18, there are no reasons to disbelieve his testimony. The total constructed area of all the floors has been undisputedly measured to be 316 Sq. Yds and the applicable rates of expenses incurred in per square meter construction have been duly reflected at page no. 7 of Ex. PW180/D in the form of Annexure-A. These rates as well as the total area have not been assailed at all even to the slightest extent. Accordingly, it stands duly proved that accused no.2 had created this asset by incurring/spending Rs. 18,28,395/- on the construction thereof. The entry thus stands duly proved.
S.No.19 - This is yet another immovable CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.332/370 property in the name of accused no.2 Naveen Kumar, situated in posh area of Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi. The ground floor of the same was purchased by accused no.2 vide Sale Deed dated 14.07.1999. It measures 300 sq yds (250.82 sq. meters). As per PW39 and as per the Sale Deed thereof, the consideration amount was Rs.27,00,000/- and accused no.2 had also paid Rs. 2,16,000/- (in cash) as stamp duty. No sort of objections/defence were raised in this regard. Without going into the aspect of under valuation etc., thereof, it stands duly proved that A-2 had incurred Rs.29,25,000/- in creation of this asset.
S.No.20 - This entry shows asset creation worth Rs.6,70,558/- by A-2 in the form of shop No. K-1, Alaknanda Noida UP. Admittedly, the said shop was purchased and owned by accused no.2 somewhere in June-July 1997. A few months thereafter i.e. in March 1998, a loan in CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.333/370 the sum of Rs. 9,50,000/- was obtained on this shop vide documentation forming part of D-158 (Ex. PW25/G). In these bank documents, the market value of the shop has been shown Rs. 10 lakhs. Otherwise also, no bank grants loan against an immovable property exceeding 75% - 80% of its market value. Thus, the shop is question which was purchased just a few months prior to the date of loan against it, was well around Rs. 10 lakhs. However, as the prosecution has shown it on the lesser side, it is being construed as such in the amount as afore- said i.e. Rs. 6,70,558/-. The entry accordingly stands proved.
S.No.21 - This sub-heading shows another immovable asset in the name of A-2 Naveen Kumar in the form of a commercial property/flat bearing No.712-A, Tolstoy House. The value thereof has been shown as Rs. 6,89,651/-. As a matter of fact, originally the CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.334/370 flat in question was purchased in the name of Sh. Ranvijay Singh (maternal uncle of A-2) as on 24.12.1983 as per D-117 (collectively shown exhibited as Ex. PW26/B) and the cost shown is of the time when it was purchased by its original allottee/owner Sh. Ranvijay Singh. However, later on, in the year 1998 by way of Ex. PW45/A, the ownership of this flat was transferred in the name of accused no.2 Naveen Kumar as on 28.11.1998. It has in no way come on record as to whether accused no.2 had paid any consideration at all for the transfer of the ownership thereof in his favour. Here it is also worth mentioning that prior thereto, he had got executed registered GPA and Will (Ex.162/A & Ex. PW162/B respectively) as on 17.02.1998. However, neither the property in question came to the ownership of A-2 Naveen Kumar by way of Will, nor it was gifted to him. Hence, there was no other way to acquire the ownership CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.335/370 thereof without paying the consideration for the same. In that eventuality, the prosecution was duty bound to arrive at a conclusion/estimation of the tentative value thereof as on the date (28.11.1998) when the ownership was acquired/stood transferred in favour of A-2 Naveen Kumar. If the value as was paid by the original owner/allottee Sh. Ranvijay Singh many years ago was to be construed as the value paid by A-2 for creation of this asset, it was to be construed as the Benami property of accused no.1 (Public Servant) i.e. father of accused no.2. Thus, the valuation shown by the prosecution is in a way, a favour made towards the accused persons for the extraneous reasons known to the prosecuting agency only and the Court is not bound by their biased assumptions. It has already been proved here-in-above that even prior to 28.11.1998, the property was fetching annual rent of approximately Rs. 5 lakhs. CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.336/370 Immediately after acquiring the ownership as on 28.11.1998, accused no.2 had also let it out @ Rs. 75/- per sq. ft. per month and this calculation comes around Rs.5,19,000/- as annual rent. That being the factual position, the Court finds it highly unreasonable to construe the consideration thereof to be Rs. 6,89,651/-. Generally, the annual rental income of an immovable (commercial) property falls somewhere between 2.5 % to 3.5 % of the value of said property. Applying the same analogy (and calculating it at the average rate of 3%), the value of this Commercial Property comes around 1,73,00,000/-. However, taking a further lenient view in favour of the accused, it can very well be construed that the property in question was in no way less than Rs. 1 Crore as on 28.11.1998 i.e. the date of (alleged) transfer of ownership in favour of accused Naveen Kumar. Accordingly, it is found and held that A- CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.337/370 2 created this Immovable Asset worth at least Rs.1 Crore as on 28.11.1998.
S.No.22 - This sub-heading shows the asset creation (worth Rs. 4,00,000/-) in the form of a DDA flat, bearing No. 118-B, first floor, Pkt- A, Sukhdev Vihar, New Delhi. At the time of raid/house search; immediately after the registration of the FIR, the flat in question was found to be in possession of accused no.2 who was found residing therein along with his wife. The documents thereof (Irrevocable GPA, Will, Affidavit, Receipt etc.) were found from the locker search of locker no. 1063 in the presence of A-2. These documents have been collectively shown exhibited as Ex. PW164/A and do form part of file D-162. Nothing substantial or contrary thereto has been brought on record. Accordingly, the entry stands duly proved. However, here it is worth mentioning CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.338/370 that in the afore-documents, the consideration amount has been reflected as Rs.2,00,000/- and not Rs. 4,00,000/-. So it is considered having been proved to the extent of Rs. 2,00,000/-. S.No.23 - Accused no.2 Naveen Kumar had opened the current a/c no. 601009 in the name of his Proprietorship M/s Spanner's as on 04.11.1999. The Prosecution vide the testimony of PW73 Mrs. Manjeet Chaudhary, (Bank official of Allahabad Bank, Bhera Enclave Branch), has duly proved his Specimen Signature Card Ex. PW73/H and the Account Opening Form (in the name of Spanner's) as Ex. PW73/J. Further, vide Ex. PW73/K (file D-110) the statement of account of M/s Spanner's has duly been brought on record to substantiate that it was having credit amount in the sum of Rs. 83073/- in the said account of Naveen Kumar and the asset creation to that extent stands duly proved.
CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.339/370 S.No.24 - Under this sub-heading, a sum of Rs. 9585/- has been shown as the credit balance in saving a/c no. 5585 OBC Vishal Enclave in the name of A-2's maternal uncle Sh. Ranvijay Singh. The said account had been opened in July 1991 vide Account Opening Form dated 18.07.1991 proved as Ex. PW96/B. The specimen signature (as 'Ranvijay Singh') brought on record on the Specimen Signature Card Ex. PW96/C have duly been proved (vide GEQD report Ex. PW109/A) to be in the handwriting of accused no.2 Naveen Kumar. [The 05 page Statement of Account (Ex. PW96/E), shows that this account was used for depositing various amounts in cash and thereafter transferring the same by way of cheques (signed by A-2 Naveen Kumar; in the impersonated identity of Ranvijay Singh) in the bank accounts of Naveen Kumar]. Thus, it stands duly proved (vide the testimony of PW96 in general and vide document Ex. PW96/E in particular) that the afore-amount was lying credited in the CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.340/370 said account.
S.No.25 - This sub-heading shows credit balance of Rs. 17145/- in the bank a/c no. 105114 Allahabad Bank in the name of Sh. Ranvijay Singh (maternal uncle of A-2). It has already been proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was A-2 who had opened and operated this bank account pretending & representing himself to be Ranvijay Singh. Account Statement thereof (from March 1998 to March 2000) has duly been proved vide Ex. PW73/L (D-110, page no. 9 to 11). The entry under consideration stands duly proved.
S.No.26 - This serial number shows that A-2 had spent Rs. 9,30,462/- in raising construction of Spanner's Workshop. However, nothing such has been brought on record by way of testimony of any of the witnesses. Accordingly, this entry remains unproved.
S.No.27 - This entry shows assets worth Rs. CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.341/370 31,03,750/- (Rs.23,60,000/- and Rs. 7,43,750/- as actual cost of construction and the cost of industrial plot no. 1667, Narela, Delhi respectively). The property in question was in the name of Vikram Singh (real brother of accused no.1 and real uncle of accused no.2). It was so purchased somewhere in the year 1993 or so. This property was disposed of/sold to one Sh. Rupani and the sale proceeds thereof were initially converted into FDRs and subsequently were used in the purchase of property No. B-31 Panchsheel Enclave in the name of accused no.2 Naveen Kumar. The payment of the consideration amount of B-31 Panchsheel Enclave had been made by way of three cheques drawn on accounts of afore-named Vikram Singh and Sh. Ranvijay Singh. The cheque book (containing 18 signed and unsigned leafs) of the account of Vikram Singh was recovered from the locker of Naveen CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.342/370 Kumar whereas it has already been proved here- in-above that accused no.2 (pretending himself to be Ranvijay Singh) had been operating two bank accounts and one locker in the name of Ranvijay Singh in his fake/assumed identity. Vikram Singh is a farmer by profession and the property in question was so purchased in his name by the accused persons as is clear from the very fact that the sale proceeds thereof were completely utilized by the accused no.2 in acquiring another immovable property. The Narela Industrial plot/property measures about 350 sq meters. It was got valued by Valuation Officer (PW181 Sh. Yashpal Suri), who furnished his report Ex. PW181/B. The market value of the plot has been shown to be to the tune of Rs. 7,43,750/- as per Ex. PW181/E whereas the cost of construction thereof has been reflected as 23,60,000/- at the time when the construction was carried out. The CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.343/370 findings/observations of this witness are quite reasonable and self-explanatory of each and every minute detail and there are no reasons to disbelieve the same. Accordingly, the entry under consideration is considered having been duly proved.
S.No.28 - This sub-heading shows asset creation (worth Rs. 56,250/-) by A-2 in the form of 'agricultural land' situated in Village Shivana, Bandhwadi, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana, by way of Sale Deed dated 31.07.1990, purchased by A-2 from the owner Sh. Jorawar Singh for a consideration of Rs. 50,000/- on which, Rs. 6250/- were paid as stamp duty. The same has duly been taken care of vide PW82 and PW164 (both Bank Officials of Allahabad Bank Bhera Enclave) in whose presence, locker no. 1063 was searched and original documents of this asset/property were recovered in the name of A-2 Naveen Kumar. The asset creation CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.344/370 under consideration stands duly proved.
S.No.29 - This sub-heading shows 'immovable property' i.e. land in Village Baripur (Distt. Moradabad UP), purchased by accused no.2. In this regard, the Prosecution got examined PW119 Sh. Bansi Dhar, Sub Registrar, Moradabad UP, who duly proved the Sale Deed (Ex. PW119/A) dated 13.08.1991, executed by maternal uncle Sh. Ranvijay Singh in favour of Sh. Naveen Kumar and the consideration amount thereof as Rs. 95000/-. He has also duly proved that the Purchaser Sh. Naveen Kumar incurred Rs.14015/-as stamp duty. By way of this Sale Deed, accused Naveen Kumar had purchased agricultural land measuring 3.889 hectares and had spent a sum of Rs. 1,09,015/-. The same accordingly stands proved to the extent of Rs. 1,09,015/-. S.No.30 - This sub-heading shows credit balance of Rs. 1418/- lying deposited in the CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.345/370 saving bank a/c no.3763, PNB IGNOU in the name of A-2 Naveen Kumar. The same was duly admitted during the course of arguments. Moreover, it has also been substantiated vide the testimony of PW8 Sh. D.C. Pant. The entry accordingly stands proved.
Outcome/Summary of 'Income', 'Expenditure' and 'Assets' etc. (On the basis of afore-appreciation) S.No Name A B C (A-B) D Income Expenditure Likely Assets Savings
1. Virendra 21,09,702 15,51,338 5,58,364 36,45,268 Singh
2. Naveen 31,76,919 32,73,600 -96,681 3,64,17,493 Kumar
3. Geeta 15,58,381 4,75,990 10,82,391 16,64,001 Singh Total 68,45,002 53,00,928 15,44,074 4,17,26,762 (+3,50,000 pre /-
check income ofA-1) =71,95,002/-
Charge of 'Criminal Misconduct' against A-1 :-
77. Public Servant/Accused no.1 has (separately) been CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.346/370 charged for the offence punishable u/s 13 (2) R/w Sec. 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act 1988. The relevant provision thereof is being quoted hereunder :-
" S. 13 Criminal Misconduct by a Public Servant - (1) A Public Servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct, -
(a)........
(b)........
(c)........
(d)........
(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 disproportionate 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 CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.347/370 has been intimated in accordance with the Provisions of any law, Rules or orders for the time being applicable to a Public Servant. (2).................".
78. Public Servant (A-1) has been charged with Disproportionate Assets to the extent of Rs. 2,62,68,298/- against his known sources of income. In the afore-appreciation i.e. in the detailed calculation of 'income', 'expenditure' and 'assets', accused/family members; has/have been found to be in possession of assets worth Rs. 4,17,26,762/- (Rupees Four Crores Seventeen Lakhs Twenty Six Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Two only) against the gross income of the family to the tune of Rs. 71,95,002/- (Rupees Seventy One Lakhs Ninety Five Thousand Two only). Out of the said income of Rs. 71,95,002/-, expenditure to the tune of Rs. 53,00928/- was also incurred. Thus, it becomes clear that against the total income of Rs. 71,95,002/- the total expenses (expenditure + assets) were to the tune of (53,00928 + 4,17,26,762/-) = Rs. 4,70,276,90/- (Rupees Four Crores Seventy Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousand CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.348/370 Six Hundred Ninety only) which is 653.61% in comparison to the total income of the family.
79. Henceforth, the burden lies upon the Public Servant i.e. A-1 to give a satisfactory account as to how & where from this disproportionate income was generated. However, he has failed in doing so either by way of cross examining the Prosecution witnesses or by leading evidence in defence or otherwise. In the name of defence, there are just lame excuses that he was having income in the form of royalty on some book written by him or that he had disposed of a house in Bahari Nagar, Mumbai, allegedly sold after getting selected in the Indian Civil Services. These alleged sources of income are/were in his exclusive knowledge within the meaning u/s 106 Indian Evidence Act 1872 and the onus was upon him to prove it at least to a reasonable extent. However, the same is entirely missing. The expression 'known sources of income' can by no stretch of imagination be construed to include those alleged sources which are/were especially within the knowledge of the public servant/accused. Otherwise also, the accused has failed even to CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.349/370 furnish the requisite details of the alleged property in Bahari Nagar, Mumbai i.e. as to when did he purchase it, from whom it was purchased, how much was the consideration thereof, when the same was sold by him, to whom it was sold and how much was the consideration thereof etc. etc. The same is the fate of the alleged income generated from writing/publishing some book. In case if, it is to be believed that any such book was written/published, the publisher thereof might have made the payment by way of cheque etc. or at least against receipt/acknowledgment. However, nothing such has been brought on record.
80. It is also worth mentioning that besides the Disproportionate Assets as above, there are certain other properties in the name of his wife and son which have not at all been accounted for in any sense. To be more precise, original GPA (registered) dated 23.09.1998 ( along with previous chain of documents) of one property situated in Daryaganj, bearing No. 4863/2, Ward No.XI, Harbans Singh Street 24, Daryaganj, New Delhi- 02, was recovered from locker no. 1063. The said GPA CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.350/370 was executed by one Sh. Gurprasad Singh s/o Sh. Kanwar Singh R/o C-7, New Multan Nagar, Delhi in favour of Smt. Geeta Singh (wife of A-1) stating her to be his niece. No sort of intimation thereof was ever given to the Department by accused no.1 though, he was in the habit of intimating even the petty- amount-transactions to the parent department even if executed by his wife. Similarly, during the cross examination of 2nd and 3rd I.O., it was put in defence that 2.5 acres of land had been gifted to Naveen Kumar (A-2) son of Sh. Virendra Singh (A-1). The land in question is/was situated in Delhi towards Narela side. During the course of arguments and on being inquired, it was apprised that the land in question had been gifted by one Smt. Indira and that she was the sister of accused no.1. However, on being further inquired in the light of the description of the family members as appearing in the Charge Sheet, an excuse was taken as a pretext that said Smt. Indira was not the real sister, but was a distant relative. Both these properties have been acquired apparently without paying a single penny. It has nowhere been clarified as to why the strangers/distant relatives/relatives were keen and eager to handover their immovable properties to the CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.351/370 family members of the A-1 only. Similarly, the property bearing khasra no. 23/2/2 is also another such property; the original documents of which were recovered from the locker search of locker no. 1063 and was also found to be in possession of accused no.2 Naveen Kumar. However, the same has not at all been reckoned as such. The very nature of these (recovered) documents also makes the defence further doubtful w.r.t the disproportionate ratio between the Income and Assets to the detriment of Public Servant/A-1.
81. It thus becomes clear that the Prosecution has duly established that in comparison to the 'income' (including pre- check income) the 'expenditure and assets' were disproportionate; to the extent of 653.61%. Thus, the charge under this heading stands duly proved. Charge u/s 109 IPC (r/w Sec. 13 (1) (e) of the PC Act 1988) qua A-2 Naveen Kumar.
82. A-1 and A-2 is the father-son duo. Besides other Charges, accused no.2 Naveen Kumar has also been charged for CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.352/370 the offence of Abetment punishable u/s 109 IPC as he allegedly abeted his father/delinquent Public Servant; in the commission of the offence of 'Criminal Misconduct' (within the meaning u/s 13 (1) (e) of the PC Act 1988).
Abetment has been defined u/s 107 IPC. The offence of abetment; as per this Section, may have all/any of the following three ingredients:-
- Instigating a person to commit an offence i.e. abetment by instigation or
- Engaging in a conspiracy to commit it i.e. abetment by conspiracy or
- Intentionally aiding a person to commit it i.e. abetment by intentionally aiding.
83. In the case in hand, the facts and material on record are of such a nature that it is rendered inconceivable that A-2 Naveen Kumar had not been intentionally aiding and instigating the delinquent Public Servant i.e. his father A-1 Virendra Singh. A-2 Naveen Kumar continued pursuing his carrier studies at least uptil the year 1996 (i.e. the year when he completed his LLB CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.353/370 from Delhi University). However, even uptil this period, a number of (movable and immovable) properties were purchased in his name which were (and as proved here-in-above) in fact in clear disproportion to the aggregate income of the entire family of A-1/Public Servant. This fact is; in a way, direct evidence to prove the complicity of the abeter in connivance with the principal offender i.e. accused of Criminal Misconduct; within the meaning of Sec. 13 (1) (e) of the PC Act 1988. Acquiring numerous movable and immovable properties (registered in his own name and in the name of his mother) during this chunk of the 'check' period and disproportionate even to the gross income are clinching evidence of intentionally aiding and conspiring with his father/A-1 in the commission of the offence u/s 107/109 IPC.
84. The conspiracy between the duo continued even thereafter which is reflected in hiding the numerous original property documents in the locker no. 1063 (obtained & operated by accused no.2 in a fake identity as 'Ranvijay Singh'). Even the ill gotten money of accused no.1/Public Servant was brought into the system through the fake accounts of accused no.2 ( i.e. saving CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.354/370 bank a/c no. 105114, 5585, 5151) in the impersonated identity of being 'Ranvinjay Singh' and 'Ajay Singh' respectively.
85. Thus, it stands duly proved that accused no.2 had committed the offence of 'abetment' as defined u/s 107 IPC and as punishable u/s 109 thereof r/w Sec. 13 (1) (e) of the PC Act 1988.
Charge U/s 419 IPC qua accused No.2 Naveen Kumar.
86. The second heading of the Charge qua accused no.2 is that he had impersonated as Ranvijay Singh while opening/obtaining and operating bank locker no. 1063; with intention to conceal the ill gotten assets acquired by A-1 (his father) and thereby caused damage/harm to the reputation of the bank concerned i.e. Allahabad Bank.
87. Though, the Charge is only u/s 419 IPC yet, the very language thereof makes it ample clear that it also very well includes the ingredients of the offence of cheating u/s 420 IPC as well. It has duly been proved vide afore-appreciation that CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.355/370 accused no.2 Naveen Kumar had opened and operated two bank accounts (saving bank a/c Nos. 5585, 105114) pretending himself to be 'Ranvijay Singh'; his 'maternal uncle'. He had also obtained another bank account bearing No. 5151 representing & introducing himself as 'Ajay Singh'. A-2 in the fake identity as Ajay Singh had also stood (as) an 'introducer' in respect of a bank account in the name of one Sh. Prem Raj Singh as has been proved vide the GEQD Report Ex. PW109/A; by way of the document referred to as 'AS-8' in the said report. It also stands duly proved that he had also obtained bank locker no. 1063 in the assumed identity as 'Ranvijay Singh' and continued operating the same (at least on 09 occasions) even after the death of said Sh. Ranvijay Singh.
88. Thus, by doing so, he not only committed the offence of cheating by 'personation' as defined u/s 416 IPC and punishable u/s 419 IPC, but also cheated and dishonestly induced the concerned bank to hand him over its property i.e. the locker for being operated by him under fake identify as Ranvijay Singh. The bank was also, in a way, cheated and suffered in its CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.356/370 reputation when it came in the public domain that accused no.2 had been operating saving bank accounts (and locker) with the said bank in the assumed name/identity of one of his close relatives i.e. maternal uncle Ranvijay Singh; on being so introduced by an old account holder (A-3 Rakshpal Singh), who also happens to be a relative of A-2 Naveen Kumar and Sh. Ranvijay Singh. Thus, the ingredients of the offence punishable u/s 420 IPC also stand duly proved as against accused no.2. Charge(s) u/s 467 IPC & 471 IPC qua A-2 Naveen Kumar
89. Accused no. 2 has also been charged (under different headings) for the offences punishable u/s 467 and 471 IPC for forging the signature of Ranvijay Singh in respect of locker no. 1063, Allahabad Bank, Behra Enclave and using the document (i.e. the Locker Operation Sheet) as 'genuine'; knowing it to be a forged one.
90. The offence of forgery has been defined u/s 463 IPC which is being quoted hereunder:-
"S. 463. Whoever makes any false documents or CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.357/370 false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery".
91. The afore-quoted definition of forgery is very wide. It has the following elements:-
i). The making of a false document or part of it.
ii). Such making is with the intention of causing damage or injury (to the public or any person) or to support any claim/title, or to cause any person to part with property, or-
to cause any person to enter into an express/implied contract or to commit fraud.
CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.358/370
92. In the given context, it has already been proved that the accused no.2 had furnished false documents (i.e. Bank Account Opening Forms, Specimen Signatures Cards etc.) while opening the bank accounts No. 105114 & 5585 in the fake/impersonated identity as 'Ranvijay Singh' and account no. 5151 in the impersonated identity as 'Ajay Singh'. It also stands proved here-in-above that he had played mischief w.r.t another account no. 105342 (in the name of his real uncle Vikram Singh) as at least the signatures (as Vikram Singh) appearing on four FDRs of Rs. 3 lakhs each (Ex. PW163/E1 to Ex. PW163/E-4) were found to be in his handwriting. Further, on the basis of account no. 105114, he had also obtained bank locker no. 1063 pretending himself to be Ranvijay Singh. He not only opened/obtained and operated this bank locker, but also continued operating the same even after the demise of said Sh. Ranvijay Singh (his maternal uncle). The Bank Locker Operation Sheet clearly establishes that the locker was operated at least 09 times since after the death of said Sh. Ranvijay Singh. The locker key of the said locker was found & recovered from the possession/premises of accused no.2 Naveen Kumar. Thus, it was CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.359/370 he himself who was (supposed) to explain that if not he, who else operated the said bank locker after the demise of maternal uncle Ranvijay Singh.
93. Further, for the purpose of the offence u/s 467 IPC, the 'forgery' should be in respect of some 'valuable security' etc. The term 'Valuable Security' has been defined u/s 30 IPC. It runs to the effect of denoting 'a document which is, or purports to be, a document whereby any legal right is created, extended, transferred, restricted, extinguished or released or whereby any person acknowledges that he lies under legal liability, or has not a certain legal right'.
94. In the given context, the opening/operating of bank account and obtaining & operating a bank locker on the basis thereof; very well fit within the definition of 'Valuable Security' as u/s 30 IPC. Further, it has also duly been established that accused no.2 used as 'genuine' the document(s) (i.e. the valuable security) when he obtained the bank account (No. 105114) and obtained & operated the bank locker no. 1063 in the CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.360/370 impersonated identity as 'Ranvijay Singh' and continued operating the same even after the date of death of said Sh. Ranvijay Singh. He had even impersonated as 'Ranvijay Singh ' in respect of another account bearing no.5585 and as 'Ajay Singh' in respect of a/c no. 5151 (opened on 21.02.1995). He even went to the extent of introducing one Sh. Prem Raj Singh (a/c No. 56957 dated 11.02.1997) impersonating himself as 'Ajay Singh'. Thus, the ingredients of offence u/s 471 IPC have also very well been established qua accused no.2.
Charge u/s 120-B IPC R/w Sec. 419/467/471 IPC R/w 13 (2), 13(1) (e) qua all the three accused persons.
95. The accused persons have also been (jointly) Charged with; for the offence u/s 120-B IPC [r/w Sec. 419/467/471 IPC R/w 13 (2), 13(1) (e) PC Act 1988 as having allegedly agreed/conspired between themselves for acquiring of 'Disproportionate Asset' and to conceal the same with the assistance & connivance of each other.
'Criminal Conspiracy' has been defined u/s 120-A IPC and has the following ingredients (as an independent offence) :-
CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.361/370
i). An Agreement between two or more persons
ii). The Agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either -
- an illegal act or
- an act which is not illegal in
itself, but it is done by illegal
means.
96. Thus, as per the definition of Criminal Conspiracy, it is the Unlawful Agreement which is the gist/gravamen of (the crime of) conspiracy. Such an agreement need not be an Express Agreement and it may be inherent in and inferred from the circumstances; acts and conduct of the parties thereto. Hon'ble the Apex Court in State of Tamilnadu Vs. Nalini, AIR 1999 SC 2640 has categorically observed and held that 'a conspiracy is hatched in private or in secrecy. It is rarely possible to establish a conspiracy by direct evidence . Usually, both the existence of the conspiracy and its objects must be inferred from the circumstances CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.362/370 and the conduct of the accused'.
97. In the given context, afore-made detailed appreciation has made it crystal clear that the Public Servant/A-1 had started acquiring a number of properties; at least since the year 1990. The act of acquiring (movable/immovable) properties in itself is not an illegal act, but the ways and modalities; the same were acquired and the proceeds out of which the consideration thereof was/were paid, brings the said acts within the clutches of criminal conspiracy as defined u/s 120-A IPC.
Not only such properties were acquired out of the ill gotten money by the Public Servant, but also that he; in connivance with accused no. 2 & 3 (i.e his son and brother-in-law), did his level best to conceal these transactions as well as the property documents; not only from the parent department, but also from the rest of the world. These property documents were recovered from locker no. 1063 (illegally obtained/controlled & operated by his son i.e. accused no.2 impersonating himself as 'Ranvijay Singh'). The said locker had been obtained in the fake identity as CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.363/370 'Ranvijay Singh' on the basis of the strength of bank account no. 105114, obtained by A-2 Naveen Kumar, representing himself to be 'Ranvijay Singh' and so 'identified & introduced' by accused no.3 Rakshpal Singh (in the capacity of being 'introducer') at the time of opening of the said bank account.
98. Thus, this locker was neither intended to be used for keeping (in safe custody) the legitimate belongings nor it was so used. Obviously, the very purpose of having such a locker in a fake and assumed identity; was to hide something which; on the very face of it, was meshing of numerous immovable properties acquired out of the money generated by A-1 by way of 'criminal misconduct' as defined u/s 13 (1) (e) of the Act of 1988. Not only this, even in the year 1991, accused no.3 (holder of bank a/c no. 1592) had stood 'introducer' in opening bank account no. 5585 in the name of Ranvijay Singh and it has duly been established that it was accused no.2 (Naveen Kumar) who had pretended to be 'Ranvijay Singh' in respect of that bank account also. These bank accounts (along with account no. 5151 in the name of Ajay Singh) were also used by accused no. 1 & 2; to CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.364/370 legitimize the ill gotten money of Public Servant/A-1. Even the very nature & bulk recovery of immovable property documents; recovered from locker no.1063, in itself shows & establishes the factum of 'criminal conspiracy'; hatched by/between all these three accused persons. None of these properties; purchased in the name of Naveen Kumar, (purchased since the year 1990), was ever intimated to the Department by the accused no.1 (Virendra Singh). Further, these properties even include a property bearing No. 4863/2, Ward No.11, Harbans Singh Street, 24 Daryaganj, New Delhi-110002, in respect of which, the owner thereof (namely Sh. Gurprasad Singh) had got executed a registered GPA (dated 23.09.1988) in favour of the wife of accused no.1 showing her to be his niece. This property is a three storey building and the earlier chain of documents (consisting of original Sale Deed dated 06.05.1986) was also recovered from the said locker, meaning thereby that the property had in fact been given in the ownership of said Smt. Geeta Singh, without disclosing any sort of payment as consideration and without any sort of intimation to the Department by accused no.1. It was also tried to conceal the documentation thereof by hiding the same in the locker no. 1063 CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.365/370 (Ranvijay Singh). Similarly, the various property documents pertaining to agricultural land measuring 1 bigha 14 biswa, Khasra no. 30/23/2/2, (having construction in one room, boundary wall etc.), situated in Village Nangloi Jaat Delhi, also reflect the connivance and conspiracy between the accused persons. It was at this address that accused no.2 had been running his Business Concern in the name of 'M/s Spanner's'. A number of documents pertaining to this Nangloi Property were also recovered from the very locker i.e. locker no. 1063.
99. Further, it was accused no.3 who was instrumental in the creation of the fictitious firm 'M/s Jassa Ram & Sons' and also in acquiring the immovable property i.e. Farm House, C-8 Ansal Villa in the name of said fictitious firm; which property has been found and held to be the 'Benami' property of accused no.1. In this context, the testimony of PW11 , PW 144, PW146 and PW167 clearly decipher and establish the dubious role of the accused persons in general and that the accused no.3 in particular. PW11 Jassa Ram has though admitted that his signature do appear on the Partnership Deed Ex. PW11/C/Ex. CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.366/370 PW11/D (both these Partnership Deeds are in fact one and the same and are verbatim in their contents), yet he has pleaded ignorance as to who had obtained his signatures on this Deed or as to who were the other partners/signatories thereof. Further, as per the deposition of PW144 Sh. Vijender Singh, he had never ever appended his signature on the said document and that the signature (at point Q-1) thereon were not in his hand. PW146 Sh. Devender Kumar has deposed that he had appended his signature on the said Partnership Deed at the behest of accused no.3 Rakshpal Singh; without even reading the contents thereof. PW167 Sh. Ravinder Kumar (Jija of A-1) has gone to the extent of saying that neither he had appended his signature on the Partnership Deed Ex. PW11/D nor his address as reflected thereon ever belonged to him nor he ever had any concern with the said Partnership Firm. As a matter of fact, except PW11 Sh. Jassa Ram, the rest all (alleged) partners/signatories thereof are the relatives/close relatives of accused no.1 (Virendra Singh). The documents pertaining to the said Partnership Firm were recovered from the very possession of accused no.2 (Naveen Kumar) from his house bearing B-31, Panchsheel Enclave, vide CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.367/370 search-cum-seizure memo (Ex. PW83/A). It is also worth mentioning that the original Sale Deed documents of Farm House No. C-8 Ansal Villa (in the name of M/s Jassa Ram & Sons) were also recovered in the locker search of locker no. 1063. In such an eventuality, it was for the accused persons to explain as to what for the said fictitious firm was created and as to 'how and why' the documents thereof were in their possession; particularly when allegedly they were having no concern with the same. However, they didn't discharge the burden even to the slightest extent. Accordingly, the Charge under this sub-heading also stands duly proved against all the three accused persons.
100. Conclusion
- Afore-findings clearly establish that the 'Assets' and 'Expenses' of Public Servant Sh.Virendra Singh were clearly in mismatch with the 'earnings'. Against the aggregate income (of A-1 and family) worth Rs. 71,95,002/-, the 'expenditure & assets' have been found to be to the tune of Rs. 4,70,27,690/- which is/are 653.61 % in comparison thereof. Thus, the ingredients of the offence of 'Criminal Misconduct' u/s 13 (1) (e) R/w Sec. 13 CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.368/370 (2) of the PC Act 1988; have duly been substantiated.
- It also stands duly proved that his son A-2 (Naveen Kumar) had committed the offence of 'Abetment' u/s 107/109 IPC by actively/intentionally abetting, aiding, instigating and conspiring with him i.e. A-1. A-2 has also been found having committed the offences punishable u/Ss 419/467/471 IPC.
- The afore-made detailed appreciation is also clear enough to conclude that the offence u/s 120-B IPC ( r/w Sec. 419/467/471 IPC; r/w 13 (2) & Sec. 13 (1) (e) of the Act of 1988 ) was committed by all the three accused persons; in connivance with each other.
Accordingly -
- All the three accused persons are thus found and held guilty for the offence punishable u/s 120-B IPC ( r/w Sec. 419/467/471 IPC; r/w 13 (2) & Sec. 13 (1) (e) of the Act of 1988).
- Accused no.1 (Virendra Singh) is found and held guilty for the offence u/s 13 (2) R/w Sec. 13 (1) (e) of the Act of 1988. CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.369/370
- Accused No. 2 (Naveen Kumar) is found and held guilty for the offence punishable u/s 109 IPC (r/w Sec.13 (1) (e) of Act of 1988) and also for the offences punishable u/s 419/467 & 471 IPC as substantive offences.
They all are convicted accordingly. Announced in Open Court on 21st September 2023 (RAGHUBIR SINGH) Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)-18, Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi CBI Case No. 199/2019 CBI Vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. Pg. No.370/370